BULLETIN ON SUMERIAN AGRICULTURE Volunle VI
Cambridge 1992
General Editors J.N. Postgate Faculty of Oriental Studies University of Cambridge Sidgwick Avenue Cambridge CB3 9DA U.K.
CONTENTS M.A. Powell Department of History Northern Illinois University De Kalb Illinois 601 25 U.S.A.
Preface
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Timber and trees: ancient exploitation in the Middle East: evidence from plant remains G. Willcox Levant trees and tree products N. Liphxhitz
. . . . . . . . . . .
v
1-31
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33116
Ethnographic evidence for wood, boats, bitumen and reeds in Southern Iraq E. Ochsenschlager
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47-78
LC bois dans l'architecture: premier essd pour une estimation des besoins dans le bassin misopotarnien . . . 79-96 J.-Cl. Margueron Dcndrochronological wood from Anatolia and environs P.I. Kuniholrn
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 99-122
'Timber production in Presargonic Lag& M.A. Powell
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
h e r k u n g zu den neusumerischen Texten iiber Schilfirohr W. Sallaberger
'Rohr' und dessen Verwendungsweisen anhand der neusumerischen Texte aus Urnma FI. Waetzoldt Kced in the Old Babylonian texts from Ur M, Van De Mieroop
*
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
155-161
ISSN 0267-0658 Orders may be placed though bookseuers or direct to the Sumerian Agriculture Group, Faculty of Oriental Studies, Sidgwick Avenue, Cambridge CB3 9DA, U.K. OSumerian Agriculture Group 1992. All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means without the prior permission of the publishers. Printed in EngIand by Aris & Phillips Ltd., Warminster, Wiltshire
. . . . . . . . . . 163-170
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
171-176
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
177-192
Wood, reed and rushes: a note on Neo-Babylonian practical texts G. van Driel
Notes on the reeds of Mesopotamia F.N. Hepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . 125-146 147-153
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Trees and timber in the Assyrian texts J.N. Postgate
123-124
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Wood in the Old Babylonian texts from Southern Babylonia M. Van De Mieroop
Lc bois & Mari J.-R. Kupper
97-98
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
193-194
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
195-196
...............................
197-199
A corrective note on Pistaciatrees and resin
F.N. Hepper Some wood identifications from Mesopotamian sites P.R.S. Moorey & J.N. Postgate
Illustrations of trees by F.N. ~ k ~ ~ e r Pinus halepensis @. iv) - Populus, Buxus, Platanus (p. vi) - Quercus spp. (p. 32) - Juniperus, Tamarix @. 154) - Abies, Cupressus, Cedrus @. 162) List of contributors and addresses
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
iii
200
PREFACE
'Jc
lulnl.
h of thc Bulletin on Stmerinn Agriculture contains papers from the meeting of thc
,4gr-:culltart Group held an the sympathetic environment of the Inter~~ationales W~xscnccllallslir:um of !he Univenity of Heidelberg in July 1989. Our thxlks go to Prof. Dr. i l ; ~ ~ r n r Wactzoldt t~r for organizing the meeting, and to the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft and 11ri- Ministry of Ck~ltureV J I ' I ~ C generously ~ defrayed the costs of the meeting.
SIIII~ r; tan
Some of those at Heidelberg were not presenting formal papax, but taking part in the cIi\cussrori, nnd some of bhe papers given were not destined for inclusion in this volume. 1';trlicipmts in h e meeting not represented here in print are: Dr. A. Cavigneaux, Prof. Dr. W. t:rcy, Dr. J.-P. GrCgoire, Dr. B. HruSka, Prof. Dr. J. Renger, Prof. M. Stol, Dr. G. Szab6, and last but not least Prot', Dr. W. van Zeist. Prof. J.-CI. Margueron, though unfortunately prevented from
ntlcnding in person, was able to send his paper.
In July 1990 the Group met in Barcelona to discuss sheep and goats, at the invitation of Prof. G. del Olmo Lete of the Institute Oriental. The papers from that meeting will form the next volurne(s) of the Bulletin, now in preparation. The time and place of the subsequent meeting, which will probably deal with cattle, have yet to be decided. The Editors would like to take this opportunity to stress that they are always ready to consider for publication contributions on agriculture in Mesopotamia which do not derive directly from a meeting of the Group, especially those concerned with the theme of forthcoming volumes.
As in previous volumes, bold type is used for Sumerian, italics for Akkadian words. Bibliographical conventions generally follow the usages of the individual authors, but Harvard system references are used for books and articles, whereas traditional Assyriological abbreviations are preferred for text editions. These can be tracked down in one of the following works: R. Borger, Handbuch der Keilschrifliteratur, W. von Soden, Akkadisches Hanmuiirterbuch, the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary. For Ur 111 texts see the works cited by Waetzoldt on p. 146.
Once again, the format and typography of this volume have benefited from the support of the Literary and Linguistic Computing Centre in Cambridge: our thanks are due equally to Beatrix Bown, John Dawson and Rosemary Rodd for their help and readiness to solve our problems. We are also grateful to Kirstie Shield (Girton College) for her assistance with the type-setting and to Trinity College, Cambridge, for financial support towards this. Pinus halepensis Nicholas Postgate Marvin Powell
January 1992
TIMBER AND TREES: ANCIENT EXPLOITATION IN THE MIDDLE EAST: EVIDENCE FROM PLANT REMAINS G. Willcox (C.rV.R.S., E.RA. 17, JaEs, France)
Populus euphratica
Plataiius orientalis
Introduction The exploitation of trees and shrubs (ligneous species) has been fundamental to man's development and dates back into the Palaeolithic to the invection of fire. This natural resource, which makes up an important part of the vegetation cover in many regions of the world, has, and is being, over-exploited by man. The study of the exploitation of ligneous species through analysis of charcoal remains from archaeological sites has relevance beyond historical reconstruction, because it can throw light on the progressive destruction of forest cover and the resulting effects on the natural environment. The history of vegetation in the Middle East, however, would be very poorly understood were it not for the survival of undisturbed stratified pollen in lake beds. Pollen analysis carried out principally by van Zeist and his team at Groningen has provided evidence revealing the sequence of vegetational changes which have occurred since the last glaciation, when severe steppe conditions existed (van Zeist & Bottema 1982, 1977). Most of the vegetation cover that we see in the Middle East today is degraded, but we may find relict associations in inaccessible and isolated regions where exploitation would be impractical (Davis 1971, Zohary 1973, Guest 1966). They are what remain of the original climax vegetation. The examination of these relict associations has greatly enhanced our knowledge of past vegetation and of past potential timber resources. The cedars of Lebanon, now almost completely destroyed, are an example. Charcoal is omnipresent on archaeological sites and is readily recovered by flotation (Williams 1973, Pearsall 1989). This charcoal (almost pure carbon, which is inert and does not decompose) preserves perfectly its anatomical structure and so may be readily identified when examined under the microscope with the help of reference material and the standard manuals (see Greguss 1955 & 1959, Schweingruber 1978). It is not uncommon on archaeological sites to find charcoal belonging to species which have long since been wiped out. This is particularly true of areas where intense settlement has occurred continuously over a long time span. With four lines of direct evidence, pollen from lakes, relict vegetation assemblages, seeds and charcoal from archaeological sites, one can begin to reconstruct the ancient vegetation and thus the environment of ancient civilisations. Charcoal from archaeological sites is of particular interest to the archaeologist because it gives direct evidence of the use of tree and shrub species in the immediate area of the site, although there is also some evidence for long distance transportation. On the other hand, for the botanist who wishes to reconstruct the vegetation, there is always the risk that ancient man was selective in his exploitation, and this must be taken into account. In this paper I have used scientific names of plants to avoid confusion, but readers who wish to refer to common names may consult the list (see below) where English common names are given. A word of warning: names in English for timber or lumber are not always the same as for
Timber and Trees
the tree and often include several different species. A good example is deal, which wuld br any close-grained Gymnosperm. Ebony is a very dark wood that may come from several different species. Teak and mahogany may also refer to more than one timber species. Rosewoods are named after their fragrance, and are not members of the plant family Rosaceae.
Phytogeographical Regions These regions are made up of distinct associations of plants and have been described by Zohary (1973) and Guest (1966). The following is a summary with reference to some of the major tree species which could have beer. exploited in antiquity for timber. Mediterranean This region concerns the coastal k l t of Turkey and the Levant where a number of imponant timber trees occur, the most important being Cedru.~libani, Quercur s r ~ pFr~.xinus ~~ spp., Pinus spp., Platanus orientalis, Abies cilicica, Cupressus sempervirem. Irano-Turaniun This vast area stretching from Turkey to China (including nonhem Iraq) contains an extremely varied Rora and a large number of woody species. However, in general this region is characterised by low rainfall and extreme temperature variation, which docs not lead to the production of good timber in the modern sense of the term, though one could consider Juniperus spp. Quercus spp. Jugkrss regia, Ulmus spp., Pistaciaz atlantica, Pinus brutio, and Tuxus haccata, as some of the possible sources of timber. These species are f~imndin the Zagros. and in the Taurus together with some Mediterranean species. Two other areas within this phytogeographical region should be considered as potential timber producers because of their special climatic conditions. These are the Euxine region where Fagus orientalis, Abies cilicica, Picea orientalis, Coryllls spp., Castanea sativa and Carpinus orientalis are to be found, and the Caspian region, where such species as Farrotiu persicta, Mnrus nigra, Z e l b v a sp. occur. These areas have been exploited in more recent times, but at presmt there is no evidence of their being exploited in the second or third millennium B.C.
Saltaro-Sindion This forms a belt of sub-tropical desert steppe vegetation m i n g from west Africa, Egypt, Ardbia (including southern Iraq) to northwest India. This region is chamcicrised by high temperatures and extreme aridity. Evaporation greatly exceeds precipitation, which rnakes it a harsh environment for plant growth. The trees mentioned below can form open forest savanna relying on ground water and deep rooting systems. The northern Ximit of these trees would appear to be defined by winter temperatures and most of the endemic trees in this region are frost-sensitive. Common trees in this region are Acacia spp. Phoenix dactylifiera, Zizjphus spina-christi, Prosopis cineraria, Salvadora persica and Tanarix spp. These trees may reach a considerable height under favourable conditions, that is to say 5-10 meters. This region includes the southern part of Iraq, but little of the original vegetation remains.
Sudano-Deccaniun This region forms a belt of tropical vegcrstion running parallel but to the south of the Saharo-Sindian region; unlike the former it has a high diversity of species. The trees which most concern us here are the following. Dalbergin spp.. Bosweifia spp. Ficus spp., Avicennia marina, Acacia spp., Maerua sp., Moringa sp.
r~ortl~crn elevated areas. At high altitudes where temperatures are relatively lower and mr~il;ill I ~ ~ y l ispecics ~ r , such as Betula verrucosa and Pinus brutia are to be found (Guest 1966, 85). whlle 111 111clowlands one finds Phoenix dactylifera, Zizyphus spina-christi and Acacia iraqensis. The . I ~ I I N I I~mits ~ ~ of many species define the present-day natural distributions. However, past climatic c orrirlrons, even if only marginally different, would give rise to a different zonation and different ;~lrirudclimits.
IIIC
~(~c~r.c\t evolution during the holocene in the Near and Middle East Pollen evidence from 1.1he scdi~nentsindicates that during the latter part of the Pleistocene climatic conditions in the Mldtllc East were such that tree species survived only in rtfuge areas and much of the territory w .I, dry sleppe, probably rather like that which occurs on the h~gll! !iilln plateau at present. In gcrlcral, lakes at the beginning of the Holocene in the Middle East appeir to have k e n more cxtcr~siveand to 'have subsequently shrunk or dried up. Thus while the broad vegetational history II:I\ emerged, the climatic reasons for these changes in vegetation are not fully understood. Major refuge areas wherc deciduous forest species could survive the adverse climatic conditions during the late Pleistocene were probably restricted to the coastal areas of the Black Sca, the Mediterranean and the Caspian (van Zeist & Bottema 1982). In addition it is possible 11l;lt thcre were minor refuge areas where particular micro-dimates favoured tree growth. There is wrnc evidence that the vegetation zones migrated southwards but this has still to be confirmed. Some ten to fourteen thousand years ago a climatic change occured which favoured the expansion of tree species in Turkey. Iraq, Syria and Iran (van Zeist & Bottema 1982). Evidence lrom carbonised plant remains from early Neolithic archaeological sites suggest that t ~ species e were more widespread in Syria (see below). Similar changes occured in Africa and north America (Lkrine 1989). In the Middle East this amelioration apparently coincided with the transition from hunlcr gathering to farming communities. The expansion of tree species was gradual and reached a maximum some 6000-4000 B.P. It was not simultaneous in all areas because of two factors, the d~stanceof sites from refuge areas and the differing rates of co!onisation. Thus the expansion of forest species was later at Lake Van than at Lake Ghab (van Zeist & Bottema 1982). From our point of riew we should note that the birth of the city states in Mesopotamia coincides with the maximum forest cover in the region and timber resources would have been more available then than at any time since. After this period of maximum expansion of the forest species there is some evidence of decLinc, hut this is variable from area Lo area and it is not clear whether this was due to climatic factors or to deforestation by man, through over-exploitation. When one examines the vegetation of the Middle East today, there is little doubt that much is highly degraded. But it is not easy to establish when this deterioration began. Indeed it is probable that the degradation of the vegetation occured at different times in different places depending on population pressure. Evidence from charcoal at A ~ v a nin eastern Anatolia and Bosra in southern Syria would seem to indicate that deforestation was a late phenomenon.
Some man-made factors affecting forest deterioration
Forest zonation in Western and Central Asia Within eat.h phytogcognplural i~gi(.r)w r may observe different pliurt formatiorls resulting from differen[ c ~ iif~t1u.11 * : ! i d i , ~ l i t f i i i i ~ ~ri >i ,i i ~ d ixing , B
the mcxt important. 11.1 Iraq for caample, there is a markc,!
'3 7
:
? :
:. hc
7q,?~~-t
ftnC ++:d,;~!,, ar;J :b5
The role of fire m i l e wme forests depend upon fire for germination and healthy gmwth is ft;r ~ x ~ i m in p [ Austr,dia) ~ then. i l no cvidirncr lor i b ~ cin ih; Zvliddle East. On the contrary, one i t as h i n r datriwi.nt$ As man': population inazai.rd so must l l risk ~ of forest flrc. it:! o,ljv
Timber and Ttew
Timber and Trees
In many areas today this risk has been reduced by drastic thinning of the forests so that the self perpetuating forest fire could not develop. One can imagine that in the past the frequency of forest fires would have been greater than at present.
The role of grazers and browsers Man's herds, particularly sheep and goats, prevent forest regeneration because they browse on the young shoots of newly germinated seedlings. While this was also the case for wild ungulates, the fact that man became sedentary put increased pressure on particular areas, lessening the survival of seedlings, Soil erosion Removal of the ground cover by fire or grazing increases soil erosion. Added to this, the felling of trees would also leave the soil more susceptible to erosion.
Types of forest exploitation Dry (dead) wood gathered as fuel Freshly cut wood from a live tree or shrub is difficult to bum because it contains high levels of moisture. The gathering of dead wood is prefened if no
stocks have been made to allow wood to season. This method requires a large catchment area and is therefore best suited to hunterlgatheree and nomadic peoples. It has the great advantage of not destroying the vegetation. Timber for any purpose is best cut during the dormant period before the sap has risen (dry season or winter depending on the region). Rough timber for construction is not necessarily seasoned but when cut green it will undergo considerable shrinkage. Seasoning is essential for cabinet making. Pollizrding This is the cutting of higher branches which are then allowed to regenerate for a period of several years before cutting again This method is not often seen in the Middle East; it is however common in Europe and nonhwest India where Prosopis cineraria and Acacia spp. trees are cut in this way, the leaves being used as fodder while branches are kept for fire wood. Salk spp. may also be cut in this way to obtain young shoots for basket-making. Coppicing Trees are cut at ground level and the stocks are encouraged to mruub usually a feu trees are left as standards to encourage the upward growth of the young saplings. This method is less suitable in semi-arid environments and is only effective for fiawood production from Corylus, Carpinus and Betulus. Uprooting More common than one might expect, especially where tools are elementary and trees are scarce. Uprooting is also carried out when there is clearing for agricultural land. Felling The felling of large trees for timber could be accomplished using polished stone axes and does not require sophisticated tools. The division of large trunks was probably carried out using a splitting technique with wedges. Seasoning of timber With the development of settled village life it is probable that the systematic felling of timber and its subsequent storage and seasoning was adopted. Wood is usable as fuel after one year of drying; when green it smokes excessively and bums poorly. Where high temperatures were required this period may have been extended.
Specialised use of timber Architecture The principal timbers in buildings made from mudbrick are the roof beams which support the flat moves (Aurenche 1981). The span is limited by the dimensions of the timber available and by its strength. For example poplar and oak beams cannot satisfactorily span much more than 5 meters without some kind of other support either from a truss or from a vertical pillar. Populus beams are the most common in areas where this tree is available. They frequently occur preserved in the carbonised state after a conflagration, where burning timbers are covered by earth from the roof structure. In other cases Quercus. Pistacia, and Celtis, have also been identified in this context (see Willcox 1990a, 1991akb; van Zeist 1984). In southern Arabia it is not uncommon to find date palm trunks used as roof beams. At Pella in Jordan during the Byzantine period date was used in roof construction, (Willcox 1983, unpublished report). Furniture Fine-grained woods which are resistant to insect attack are the most suitable and include a large number of species. Boat building Modem boat builders are extremely selective about their timber and rely mainly on imported tropical woods. Coniferous woods for example are not considered good enough. However this may not have been the case in the past. In considering wood from the Gulf, Theophrastes in Hist. IV, VII 7-8 mentions boat-building wood from this area, interpreted by Bretzel (1903), as being wood from the mangrove tree which grew on the coast of Bahrain. This would seem be to be an unlikely timber tree. Could it be possible that he was refering to Acacia?
Trees and shrubs as sources of fuel Wood was undoubtedly the major fuel in the Middle East until the twentieth century, and the vast majority of charcoal recovered from archaeological sites represents wood used as fuel. Most woody species can be used for fuel. Some are preferable because they burn slowly giving out a constant heat. These are the dense woods such as Quercus spp. Others bum quickly giving out an intense heat over a short period of time such as Populus spp., Fraxinus spp. and Acer spp. For domestic use such as cooking and heating, the most readily available wood is used and this probably means the nearest to the habitation, regardless of how it burns or its thorniness. While timber for construction may have been the object of trade over relatively long distances, this was probably not the case for fuel. Small branches are frequently used for fuel whereas large sections are used for timber. This difference is often visible among the charcoal remains. The presence of small twigs would appear to indicate that a species is local and is proposed as a criterion for evidence that the t m g a w in the neighbourhood of the site since it would be impratical to transport anythmg except large-section branches or trunks. Charcoal manufacture has not to my knowledge been identified from the Near East. Large quantities of wood are necessary, and the finished product is easily transported over long distances, being extremely light. Today one sees it used in the urban situation or for smelting where high temperatures are required. Possible alternative combustible materials include the following-:
Timber and Trcca
Timber and Trees
Dungcake fuel The use of dungcake fuel has been described by Miller (1984). In general the use of this material can be seen today in traditional societies from Turkey to Mia. Its utilisation may occur in areas where there is abundant timber. To make dungcake fuel cow dung is mixed with chaff or chopped straw and left to dry, often by sticking the cakes onto a vertical south-facing wall. The use of dung cake has been tentatively identified at Bosra (Willcox in prep) and at Malyan (Miller 1985). Straw Straw is sometimes seen to be used for ephemeral fires. It can be used for starting a fire or even for cooking flat Bedouin bread. Its continual use should theoretically leave a residue of silica phytoliths. Chaff This consists of the glumes, awns, rachis fragments, and chopped straw, left after threshing and winnowing ( H i b a n 1984). As mentioned above it is frequently mixed with mw dung to make dung-cake fuel. As a combustible by itself it tends to smoke excessively. Annuals When nothing else is available the dry stems of wild annuals are sometimes collected in the desert regions of the Middle East and used in domestic heanhs when the fire is required for a short period such as for heating water or mi&. Stems of cultivars such as cotton or sesame may also be used. Reeds Phragmites australis and Arundo dona both rorm stands of dense reeds in moist habitats. They have a multitude of uses, fuel being only one; I have observed the latter collected for firing brick kilns in southern Afghanistan where timber is extremely scanx.
(* possible or potential timber trees)
Long distance transportation of timber High quality timber could have been imported over large distances and there is indeed both archaeobotanical and epigraphid evidence for the importation of timber by the historical period and possible evidence for the prehistoric period (see below). Below is a list of potential timber trees from western Asia, including some species fmm the hdus and northern Oman, but not including shrubs which would have been used for fuel and would have been gathered on a more local scale (see above).
Taxacaceae Taxus baccata
List of trees and shrubs native to Iraq which could have been used for fuel
Mountain forest (Zagros foothills) Quercus iMectoria* Q. libani* Q. aegilops* Acer cinerascens Crataegus azarolus* C . monogyna Pyrus syriaca* Prunus mahaleb P. amygdalus* Cotoneaster numrnularia Amelanchier integrifolia Cornus australis* Rhamnus spp. Paliurus spina-christi Ulmus sp.* Celtis tournefortii Ceris siliquastrurn* Betula verrucosa Pinus halepensis* Juniperus oxycedrus J. polycarpos*
GaUery forest (TigrisEuphrates) Salix spp.* Populus euphratica* Fraxinus syriaca* Platanus orientalis* Juglans regia* Vitex agnus-castus Tamarix aphylla* T. pentandra
Desert steppe Acacia gerrardii* Hakoxylon spp. Zizyphus nurnmularia 2.spina-christi* Prosopis farcta Nitraria retusa Calligonum comosum
Steppe Pistacia utlanrica* P. khinjuk Prunus micmiarpa Y.arabica Ephedra spp.
Cypressaceae Cupressus sempervirens Juniperus oxycedrus J . excelsa
J . druuacea
J . polycarpos
Pinaceae Cedrus libani
Picea orientalis Abies cilicica
Yew. Asia Minor. This is a compact, durable wood, sought after for bows and for cabinet-making. Present-day distribution may be much reduced. Cypress. Eastern Mediterranean. Can grow very tall, specific timber uses not known. Juniper. Western Asia. Possible use as timber. Juniper. Asia Minor and the Levant. This tree can grow to a considerable size, and some authorities suggest it could have been the biblical cedar. Juniper. Asia Minor and north Syria. Has edible fruits. Juniper. Oman, Iraq (rare), southern Afghanistan, Pakistan. Similar to J. excelsa but with a more easterly and southerly distribution.
Cedar of Lebanon. Southern Asia Minor and the Levant. Normally thought of as the main timber tree of Western Asia, though rarely confirmed by identification. Now drastically reduced in terms of its former distribution in Lebanon. Spruce. N.E. Asia Minor. A conifer more usually associated with cooler climates. Produces high-quality timber. Fir. Taurus. Identified from Byblos and Bosra. Suggests that timber was being exploited in Asia Minor at an early date.
Timber and Trees
Azadirachta indiea
Neem. hnjab/Indus. Large tree, used for timber.
Tamaricaceae Tamarix aphylln, T. articulata Tamarisk. Bolh these trees grow in the more southerly part of Western Asia and grow to considerable height. They are frequently cut for timber, though the quality is poor. A vicenniuceae
Avicennia marina
Salvadoraceae Salvudora persica
Palmaceae Phoenix dactylifera
Mangrove. Gulf, Bahrein and Oman. A tree occuring in muddy salt marshes and tidal creeks. Bark used for tanning. Other uses not known. Tooth brush tree. Oman, Baluchistan and southern Iran. Used for the fabrication of tooth brushes. Identified from Mundigak outside its present-day distribution (Casal 1961). Date. Southern Iraq (see Guest 1966). Trunks of date palm are frequently used for roofing beams. Identified from Pella in the Jordan valley.
It is probable that southern Iraq lacked quality timber during the Sumerian period and for this reason timber had to be either cultivated or imported from elsewhere. Timber from the Taurus and Lebanon is the most obvious source but other areas should be considered. For example the Zagros mountains or the Caspian area could have supplied large quantities of high-quality timber. Timber trees available in the Zagros mountain zone have already been listed and there is little doubt that this area was the nearest region possessing timber of reasonable quality Timber from the south, that is to say, southern Arabia, is a possibility. For example the Omani mountains may have been a source of timber. Here Acacia spp., Maerua crassijliu, Prosopis cineraria, Zizyphus spinashristi, Tamarix aphylla, Juniperus polycarpos, Olea sp., and Teucella sp. would be candidates. In southern Oman and the Yemen we move into another vegetational zone with a great variety of small trees and shrubs, the majority of which do not produce good timber; the only species worthy of mention is Euclea schimperi, which has dad; hard red wood much prized for making small objects (Miller & Moms 1988). In Sind, that is the Indus region in the drier desert areas, the same group of trees are available which we find in northern Oman. In the areas further north we meet yet another zone of vegetation leading up into the Himalayan foothills which is beyond the scope of this survey. However, in the northern part of Sind there are several timber species mentioned in the list above. Methods of charcoal analysis Presence of charcoal. Charcoal occurs in archaeological sediments either associated with hearths, conflagrations or in rubbish pits. It results from incomplete combustion where the supply of oxygen has been cut off during burning. The most
common reasons for this are: when a fire is stifled by its own ash, when a fire is intentionally extinguished, or in the case of a burnt building, when burning beams are covered by earth falling from the roof which suffocates the fire. Hearths are by far the most common source of charcoal and are readily sampled. It is here that we find concentrations of charcoal. Frequently charcoal also occurs as dispelsed fragments in floor deposits, fill, destruction and even in mudbrick deposits. When charcoal is found thinly diffused throughout a sediment such as mudbrick there is a possibility of it being residual and it may be of earlier date than the layer in which it occurs. It is therefore of less value. Methods of recovery Flotation is the most suitable method for the recovery of all carbonised remains. Where there is evidence of in situ burning the archaeological unit should be subjected to flotation. It should perhaps be pointed out that sediments in the Middle East react well to simple flotation techniques because of the lack of humic and clay colloids, which in Europe tend to cause the sediment to cling to the carbon thus preventing it from floating. This is not the case in semi-arid areas. Flotation is preferable to hand sampling for the following reasons: 1) seed remains invisible to the naked eye often occur in the same deposits and so should be sampled at the same time. 2) some species of wood tend to break up more easily and with hand sampling excavators tend to introduce a bias by only collecting the larger fragments. 3) flotation separates the sediment from the charcoal with a minimum of mechanical s a s s . The most suitable technique for flotation and one which I have used on many sites in the Middle East is decribed by Williams (1973). Charcoal which does not float is caught in the wet sieve (3mm diameter). After flotation, the charcoal and other carbonised material such as grain should be slowly dried. Rapid drying causes the charcoal to fracture. Identification Identification is carried out using a reflected light microscope with dark field. The charcoal is fractured in the following planes, cross section, tangential section and longitudinal section, in order to expose the diagnostic features. In the Middle East identification is normally made to genus level only; however in Europe specific identifications are possible because of the reduced number of species (Vernet & ThiCbault 1987). While several publications may aid identification there is no substitute for modem reference material. This is collected during field excunions and is then prepared by heating to three to four hundred degrees centigrade and cutting off the oxygen supply by wrapping in aluminium foil leaving a small hole for the volatile gases to escape. After three or four hours one is left with nearly pure charcoal. Quantitative analysis On Near Eastern sites recovery is often only partial and the quantity of charcoal which survives is the result of the fortuitous circumstances of the carbonisation process. Neither the volume, weight, or number of fragments necessarily relate to the quantities burnt in the original fire, or the available timber. Thus to avoid bias, presencelabsence analyses are well adapted to the data when the percentage of archaeological units as a total of all units sampled with a given species is used as a measure of abundance. With this method it is necessary to have a minimum number of samples from each period or site before a quantitative estimate can be made on the availability of timber by comparing one site (or phase) with another. When the minimum number of samples is not available, phases or periods must be grouped together as in the case of Can Hasan (Willcox 1991b) where several phases were treated as a single period. A
Willwx
Timber and Trees
Timber ad lLrr
Willwx
sample is equal to the sum total of charcoal from any one archaeological unit. This may vary from a few small fragments to several litres. To compare different periods or sites there must be a minimum of ten, preferably more, units sampled from each period. In European cave sites where preservation, recovery techniques and excavation offer more complete data, researchers have used volume, number of fragments, and weight in order to make a quantitative assessment (Chabal 1990, Vernet 1990, Heinz 1990). Their results show that these methods are valid for these particular sites and recovery methods. Similar methods were also used at Malyan in Iran with convincing results (Miller 1985).
Charcoal data from selected sites in Western and Central Asia In this section I have attempted to amass as much information as possible on charcoal identification from the Near and Middle East including much of my own unpublished material. In some cases a list of identifications has been given, in other cases the bibliographical reference. Each site is listed by country with a note on location and archaeological context. Presence analysis was used as a measure of frequency from each phase or site. Thus presence within a sample (= archaeological unit), regardless of quantity, is the criterion. Where sample numbers are less than 5, percentages have not been calculated.
+ ++
+++ ++++ *
= = = = =
present in 1-25% of samples present ** in 25-50% of samples " 50-75%" " '* w 75-100 w v presence where the sample size is <5. With small sample size the quantitative estimates become dubious.
In the tables Prunus refers to Prunus and/or Amygdalus
TURKEY
Afvan Central eastern Anatolia 40 kms N.W. of Elazlg. Multi-period, Chalcolithic to Islamic. Samples were taken from four sites within a radius of five kilometers. Excavated by D. French, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara (Willcox 1974). Site location map with shaded area giving approximate distribution of Mediterranean and Irano-Turanian forest associations, excluding Saharo-Sindian species such as Zizyphus spina-christi, Acacia spp, and Prosopis cineraria.
(see next page)
Wiwx
Timber and Trees
Acer Alnus Crataegus Elaeagnus
Chalco
E.B.A.
+
+ + +
+
Ficus Fraxinus
Helmom
Ear Med
Late Med
+ +
Timk
Willwx
The majority of samples came from features which were not identified owing to the small size of the trench. But it must be presumed that most came from hearths and thus represent the remains
of fuel. The more steppic species such as Pistacia and Amygdalus are common, while Quercus is + ++ +
+ +
Juglans Junipems
less well represented. One possible interpretation is that Quercus had only just begun to colonise the area.
C d e r Htiyzlk Central eastern Anatolia 40 kms east of Malatya. Excavated by J. Cauvin, C.N.R.S. Aceramic Neolithic. (Willcox 1991b). Celtis Fraxinus Pistacia
Lycium Paliurus Pinus
.
Quercus Salicaceae
Pistacia Platanus
N=
Prunus
This long sequence from nearly three hundred samples (many of which had to be sub-sampled because of the large quantity of material) illustrates how systematic sampling techniques can reveal a vegetational history. Here there is good evidence of progressive deforestation in the area of the four sites. Exploitation of forest climax species in the early phases gives way to progressively more use of spiny and riverine species in the later phases when cultivated species such as Pinus also appear. Today the area is almost totally devoid of Quercus. Can Hasan Southern Anatolia 20 kms N.E. of Kararnan. Aceramic Neolithic. Excavated by D.French, British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara (Widcox 1991b). hygdalus Celtis
+++
Crataegus Juniperus
Ulmus
+ ++ + ++ + + ++ +
N=
97
Quercus Rosa Salicaceae
+++ 84
Caytinu Eastern Anatolia 75 kilometers northwest of Diyarbekir. Aceramic Neolithic, 8th millennium B.C. (van Zeist 1972). gdalus Fraxinus
Pistacia
+ + + ++
The high levels of Salicaceae from this site may be due to burnt building timbers. However large quantities were also found in hearths, where this wood appears to have been the preferred fuel. The relatively lower levels of Quercus do not necessarily suggest that this tree was less common in the area. The important point is that the environment of the site contained the climax forest association.
Quera Rhamnus Rubus Salicaceae Tamarix Ulmaceae indeterminate
Pinus
nd' h N
+-I
Pistacia Quercus Tamarix
N=
+++ +++ +++ ++++
+++ 23 (% based on three phases)
Here we see confirmation that early farmers in Anatolia settled in areas which were already forested though these forests were open. The three early Neolithic sites, Can Hasan, Cafer H(iyuk, and Caycinu corroborate this. Other finds from Turkey 1st and 2nd millenium sites such as Gordion, Kiiltepe and Acemhuyuk produced large quantities of carbonised timber, now undergoing dendrochronological analysis by P.Kuniholm. The impressive quantities of timber used in the architecture indicate that there was no lack of timber for this period in Anatolia (Kuniholm, pers.comm.). Buxus sempervirens
*
Cedrus sp
*
Juniperus spp P. sylvestris
* *
Pinus nigra
*
Taxus baccata
*
Taxus baccata and Buxus sempervirens may have come from furniture.
Timber and Trees Timber and Trees
This site is situated in the wooded hills of the Jebel Druze. Again we see evidence of deciduous
SYRIA Bosra Southern Syria. Roman to Islamic. J-M. Dentzer, Mission ArchBologique en Syrie du Sud. CNRS (Dentzer 1985, Willcox, in preparation).
Qwrcur, now extinct in the area. The presence of Pinus occurring in the context of a humble dwclling suggests that it was endemic.
Bouqras Islamic
Byzantine
Roman
+
Capparis cf. Cedrus Crataegus
+
Olea Pinus Pistacia
+ ++
Quercus (evergreen) Rhus Salicaceae
++++
+++ ++ +
N=
19
by J. Cauvin. (van Zeist 1984, Willcox unpub.).
+tt
+
Quercus Tamarix
++ + ++++ + +
4-1-
N=
25 (hand samples collected during excavation)
+ + +
Vitis vinifera
Notthern Syria, Euphrates valley. Aceramic Neolithic 9th millennium B.C. Excavated Early Neolithic
Pmnus Pyrus Quercus (deciduous)
see van Zeist 1989.
Sabi Abyad
Mureybet
++ + + +
see van Zeist 1985.
Chenopod cf. Haloxylon Fraxinus cf. syriaca Populus (euphratica)
The presence of Quercus is of interest but the low frequency could represent an exceptional hpon or even wood which drifted down the Euphrates. On the other hand the seed remains (Plstacia and Ficus) unless also imported, suggest a vegetation much richer than that of today. 6
16
Abu Hureyra Deciduous Quercus does not grow in the region today and thus must have become extinct, perhaps through over-exploitation. The presence of Pinus is difficult to interpret since at present it is not possible to establish whether it was part of the natural vegetation which became extinct or whether it represents an introduction. The poor number of samples from the Byzantine levels make a true evaluation difficult. Quercus may have been gathered from the hills some 20 kms to the northeast which to this day are still wooded. One the other hand the presence of scattered Crataegus, Pistacia and Pyrus trees on the plain around Bosra suggest that the area did indeed support more trees in the past. Sia Southern Syria, Jebel al-Arab. Roman. Excavated by F. Villeneuve (Institut Fmsais de 1'ArchBologie du Proche Orient). (Willcox, in preparation) Roman
Vitis vinifera
+ + + + + + ++++ + +
N=
47
Crataegus Olea Pinus Pistacia Pyrus Quercus (deciduous) Quercus (evergreen) Rhamnus
Northern Syria, Euphrates Valley. Epipalaeolithic and Aceramic Neolithic.
@illman et a1.1989). Epipalaeolithic Acer Populus Salk Tamarix
* * *
*
This site produced a large assemblage of plants with extensive sampling and the meticulous work glrrled out by G. Hillman and his team at the Institute of Archaeology (London). Only a pvisiond analysis of the charcoal remains has been carried out, but in light of the finds from Mumybet, further analysis would seem justified. All those timber species so far identified come h e riverine habitat, which in this case would be the Euphrates. Seed remains suggest a Wdcr range of tree and shrub species (see below).
r#ll Seh Hamad
see Frey et al. 1991.
Timber and Trees
Willcox
Pella 1983).
JORDAN Jordan Valley. Multi-period. Excavated by tne University of Sydney, Australia (Willcox Kebaran Natuf
Chalco
Bronze
* *
Amygdalus Celtis
* *
+
Crataegus Ficus Nerium Olea
*
+
Iron
Hell/Rom Byzan
+ +
*
+ ++ +
a
++
*
+
+
+ + ++ +
* * *
Quercus Rhamnus
+++ +
*
As with a number of other sites, both the gallery forest and the climax forest, which today exists only in relict form, were exploited at the same time. This indicates that the climax species were more available in the past, than at present, but lack of continuity does not permit an exact date for the deforestation.
Jawa
200 km N.E. of Amman. Chalcolithic. Excavated by S. Helms (Willcox 1981). Acer
+
Phoenix Phragmites Pinus Pistacia
Umayd Mamluk
Timber nd Tnu
Willcox
Amygdalus Chenopod
+ + +++ + +
Crataegus Pistacia Quercus decid Quercus evergreen N=
*
*
*
Salicaceae Tamarix Thymelea Zizyphus
Quercus is present in the form of both deciduous and evergreen (Q. calliprinus) species, the latter being present only in small quantities. It is possible this this wood was imported from the Jebel Druze, which is 75 kilometers due west and where these species are found today (see under Sia). It would be difficult to imagine these species growing in the vicinity of Jawa without proposing a substantial climatic change. In the absence of further evidence it would appear best to reserve judgement on the origin of these finds. Dharih Southern Jordan, Roman. Excavated by F. l'Arch&logie du Proche Orient). (Willcox unpublished).
The site of Pella, situated on the eastern slopes of the Jordan valley, is even today within reach of timber from higher elevations where there is a mixture of Mediterranean and Irano-Turanian species, while in the valley bottom there are species typical of the Sudano-Sindian vegetation.
Juniperus Olea
The samples from the Kebaran and Natufian levels indicate that full climax vegetation was established at the site or at least within the catchment area at this relatively early date. The Lisan lake, of which the Dead Sea is now the much reduced remainder of this large body of water, may have locally affected the climate. It could have favoured forest species during the last Ice Age when large areas of the Middle East were steppe (see above).
Populus Tamarix N=
The Natufian levels produced only Quercus. During the Bronze Age again we see the forest climax dominants being exploited, but in the latter periods less desirable species were used. Phoenix was used in roof construction during the Byzantine period. The Byzantine and Umayad periods show a dearth of forest species in favour of riverine species. Tell Deir Alla
Villeneuve (Institut Fran~ais de
Pistacia
Samples of charcoal were taken by hand from the area of a sanctuary. Today the species identified do not occur in the area around the site. However these species are common in the hills rising on the east side of the Jordan valley, for example near Petra. Of particular interest were the stones of Celtis found with the charcoal because this site is south of its present habitat.
Raum Fenan
(Wadi Araba) see Baierle et al. 1989.
Jordan valley, 1200-500 BC. (van Zeist 1985).
LEVANT
Fraxinus Olea Platanus Populus Quercus decid Quercus evergreen Tamarix N=
+ + + 48
Jericho Jordan valley, west bank. Aceramic Neolithic and E.B.A.: see C. Western 1971. Extensive analyses of charcoal from a wide range of sites has been carried out in Israel. The reader is referred to Liphschitz (1986 & 1989, and see this volume).
Willcox
Timber and Trees
Willcox
IRAN Abdul Hosein S.E. Iran, Lorestan. Aceramic Neolithic, 7th millennium B.C. Excavated by I. Pullar (Willcox 1990a).
Tamarix
+ + ++++ +++ ++ +
N=
20
Chenopod Crataegus Pistacia b u s Salicaceae
Identifications from this site indicate an open PistacialArnygduIus formation as described by Zohary (1973) It is clear that by the early Neolithic in this region the Quercus-dominated forests had not colonised the area. Pollen evidence (van Zeist 1982) indicates that this occurred at a later date. Similar evidence was forthcoming from Ganj Dareh, a site of similar date occuring in the same general region (see below). Large fragments of charcoal which apparently came from roof beams are Pistacia. Jarmo
Foothills of the Zagros. (Braidwood et al. 1983). Quercus
*
Populus Tarnarix
*
Malyan Bronze Age site in the Zagros mountains 46 kms northwest of Shiraz. Altitude 1100 meters (Miller 1985).
Acer
Amygdalus Capparis Daphne Fraxinus Juniperus Piitacia
+ +
+ +++ +
+
Prosopis Quercus Ulmaceae Vitex
+
+ + +
97
89
Vitis
N=
*
The --- results -
Ganj Dareh
S.E.Iran. Aceramic Neolithic, 7th/8th millennium B.C. (van Zeist et.al. 1984).
Flotation samples
indicate that the immediate surroundings of the site were deforested during the early phase when Populur and Juniperus were the most common species. During the later phase periods the inhabitants of the site went further afield for their fuel into the surrounding hills where they exploited Amygdalus, Quercus, and Pistacia (Miller 1985). Species which may have cnlonised - - -- - the deforested zone such as Prosopis and Capparis were only found in the later period. There is also evidence for the use of dung-cake as fuel during this period. --
IRAQ
Hand samples Celtis Pistacia Salix/Populus N=
Charcoal analyses carried out at Groningen indicate that as for Tepe Abdul Hosein the Quercus forests were not present during the Neolithic. However Celtis is present at Ganj Dareh but absent at Tepe Abdul Hosein both in the charcoal remains and in the seed remains.
Published identifications from Iraq come largely from individual finds of beams, objects or furniture (see Moorey and Postgate, this volume). Below is a summary of the results.
Taxon Bunus Cedrus libani Cupressus Fagus Juglans Morus Pinus Platanus Quercus
Site Nuzi Nuzi Ur Tell Seh Hamad Nimrud Nimrud Brak, Nirnrud,Ur, Tell ed-Der Brak Brak, Nimrud
Timber and Trees
Willcox
Timber and Trees
The table above gives a list of identifications of imported timber from sites in Mesopotamia. Other finds include Populus and Fraxinus which probably grew in the Tigris Euphrates valleys. Date beams have also been recovered from several sites.
CENTRAL ASIA
Kanduhar Southern Afghanistan. Multi-period. British Institute for Afghan Studies. (Report lolthcoming). 600-3OOBC 300-0BC
GULF Failaka Island in the Gulf of Kuwait. Hellenistic and Bronze Age. Excavated by J-F. Salles, C.N.R.S. (Willcox 1990b). Bronze Age
Hellenistic
Chenopod Phoenix Pinus Tamarix Zizyphus
N=
Acacia, Zizyphus and Tarnarix all occur on the island today. Ho~czvertheir status as indigenous components of the natural flora is dubious. The absence of Acacia indicates that it may have been introduced at a later date while Tamarix and Zizyphus were present, at least, since the Bronze Age. Pinus which occurs only in the Hellenistic levels is almost certainly an importation associated with the port. Northern Oman. Bronze Age. K. Frifelt, Danish archaeological mission (Carlsberg Foundation).
Bat
Acacia Prosopis Zizyphus
These results are based on a preliminary analysis only. They reflect the contemporary vegetation occumng in the vicinity of the site. Despite the extreme desed conditions in this tropical latitude these trees are able to survive because of their deep rooting system in areas where there is abundant ground water. Thus trees occur in the plains or wadi bottoms which lie adjacent to large mountain areas which supply the ground water. The hills around Bat are bare but this is not due to deforestation as it is improbable that they could have supported tree species during the last 10,000 years. However at high altitude, above 2000 metres, the climate is less harsh and there is another vegetation belt with Juniperus polycarpos and Ceratonia siliquia.
OAD-600
60&12OO
1200-1738
Celtis Chenopod Ficus Fraxinus Juniperus Lycium Moms Pinus Pistacia Platanus F'Nnus Salicaceae Tamarix Vitex agnus-castus
Over one hundred samples from several different periods were taken from this site. As at Ai Khanoum there is very little available timber in the immediate area today. 80 kms. to the north we located forest remnants which were still being exploited and in some cases the timber was brought by truck to the modem town of Kandahar. At present timber sold for fuel comes only by truck because of the relatively long distances involved. Other alternative resources which are more local, such as reeds, are brought by camel. The three species (Juniperus, PLtacia and Prunus) typical of the supposed climax vegetation of the region are more common in the early levels than in the later ones. This would appear to indicate that these trees became less available. Pinur, which must be an introduced exotic species, was present during all phases. In addition to the charcoal evidence, Celtis was present as seed remains. This find of Celfis is well outside the known natural distribution and is further evidence for a reduction in this species (see below).
Shorarghaf Nonhem Afghanistan, valley of the Oxus. Bronze Age. Excavated by H.-P. Francfort C.N.R.S. (Willcox 1989, 1991).
(see next page)
Willcox
Timber and Trees
250-1600 B.C. Amygdalus Elaeagnus Lycium Pistacia Populus Salk Tamarix N=
Sixty-six flotation samples were recovered and analysed indicating that the inhabitants used wood from the gallery forest which was approximately 2 km from the site. There is also evidence of open forest steppe species such as Pistacia and Amygdalus but they are not common. At the present time in the region the two species are extremely rare, indicating that the forest species were more extensive.
Sarazm Soviet Tajikistan 50 km E. of Samarkand. Bronze Age. Excavated by R. Besenval and H.-P. Francfort, C.N.R.S. (Besenval 1987). 26W2100 B.C. Amygdalus Celtis Elaeagnus Fraxinus Phragrnites Pistacia Salicaceae Tamarix N=
Flotation samples were examined from this site. The results indicate a similar situation to that at Shortughai, where the gallery forest which follows the rivers and is very characteristic of the region supplied the majority of timber identified from the charcoal remains. Ai Khanoum Northern Afghanistan, valley of the Oxus. 2nd century BC. Excavated by P. Bernard, CNRS (Willcox unpub).
Tamarix sp.
++ + + ++++ ++ + + +
N=
33
Celtis sp. Crataegus sp. Elaeagnus sp. Junipe~ssp Pistacia sp. Platanus sp Salicaceae
Thirty-three samples recovered from the treasury were processed to separate the charcoal and
Timber and Trees
Willcox
other plant remains. The presence of charcoal apparently resulted from the residues of fuel from smelting activities which took place immediately after the Hellenistic period in the second century B.C. Today there is very little available fuel in the region with the exception of the riverine gallery forest where Elaeagnus sp. is dominant, associated with Salix sp. and Tamarh sp. These forests, which are extensive, are the only source of timber for fuel today unless one travels 40 to 50 kms to higher altitudes. It is therefore significant that among the samples the most widely represented tree is that of Juniperus sp. and not the riverine species. Thus Juniperus and Pistacia would appear to have had a much more extensive distribution during the second century B.C. than at present.
Mundigak Southern Afghanistan. Bronze Age. Excavated by J. Casal (1961). Analysis R. Porkres, M u s k National d'Histoire Naturelle, Paris. cf. Salvadora persica
Zizyphus vulgaris
Unfortunately this site was not extensively sampled and only two determinations were made, the second from the fruit. Both species are surprising since they do not grow at this altitude in the region today, winter temperatures being too low. However in view of the limited sampling it would be unwise to draw any conclusions since these samples may not be representative and could therefore be misleading. Introduction and cultivation of exotic species At present there is little evidence from charcoal for the cultivation of fruit trees. This results from the difficulty of separating closely related species (an exception is Morus from Nimrud; however the reliability of this identification is in question). From charcoal remains it is difficult to establish whether wood for timber has been cultivated or collected from its natural habitat. There are two possible approaches. 1) Growth ring width in the case where a species was grown under irrigation in an arid environment. 2) Tracing the spread of certain species outside their natural area of distribution. The one taxon whose cultivation probably dates back the furthest is Populus spp. As charcoal this been found on several Neolithic sites. Populus spp are widely cultivated today and are still used for roof beams. They occur commonly on archaeological sites; for example for the Neolithic period it was found at Cafer Htiyiik, Can Hasan, Tepe Abdul Hosein, Ganj Dareh Tepe, Mureybet, and Abu Hureyra. Populus is well suited to irrigated conditions and is traditionally cultivated in association with irrigation and can be easily grown from cuttings. Pinus charcoal has been frequently found outside its natural habitat, however it is difficult to establish whether this represents an introduction or an importation of timber. In many parts of the Middle East Pinus halepensis is cultivated more often as an ornamental than for timber. This species could have been cultivated in southern Iraq under irrigated conditions. Gymnosperms are propagated from seed rather than from cuttings and therefore require more care. Records of identifications of Pinus outside its natural habitat are common, especially for the historical periods, for example Bosra, Apan, Failaka, Pella, ~ a n d a h a rand the Mesopotamian finds.
Willcox
Timber and Trees
Elaeagnus angustifolia occurs naturally as the dominant in the gallery forests of Central Asia. It appears to have been introduced into the Near East, but the exact date of its introduction is difficult to establish.
Correlation with pollen and seed evidence Pollen evidence comes from undisturbed sediments where pollen accumulates under natural conditions. Pollen from archaeological sites is problematic because of the nature of the deposition. The pollen may be residual and there is no constant environment for the steady accumulation of pollen-rich sediments derived from the atmosphere. In contrast charcoal occurs in situ in archaeological deposits so the problem of residuality is eliminated. On the other hand man would have been selective in his gathering of wood and also in his gathering of fruit. It has already been demonstrated that there is a good correlation between pollen obtained from Zeribar and charcoal from Ganj Dareh and Tepe Abdul Hosein (Willcox 1990a). Further west in southern Anatolia the presence of Quercus on aceramic Neolithic sites also correlates with the pollen evidence. In northern Syria the presence of Quercus at Mureybet is surprising and one is tempted to consider the possiblity of importation of timber. On the other hand seed remains from Abu Hureyra of Pktacia, Celtis, Prunus, Pyrus, and Mespilus gerrnanica suggest that during the Epi-Palaeolithic these species extended further east (and south) than we might have expected from the pollen record. Further seed evidence to corroborate this comes from early Neolithic sites in the Damascus basin (van Zeist 1984) where Pistacia, Arnygdalus, Crataegus and Pynrs were identified. Thus in Syria it appears that during the Neolithic, forest species occurred further south and east than at present. Evidence of the use of timber in antiquity from charcoal analysis In the vast majority of cases charcoal from flotation samples represents the remnants of fuel used in domestic or industrial hearths. But, where a building has burned the roof timbers invariably survive. To take just a few examples, there is evidence for Quercus at Mureybet, Populus at Asvan, Pistacia at Tepe Abdul Hosein, Pinus at Bosra and Juniperus at Gorciion being used for roof timbers. In general the species used reflect the species most available. Evidence for other uses is extremely rare because burnt objects rarely retain their identifiable form. Evidence for deforestation andlor vegetation changes ftom charcoal analysis For many sites in the Near and Middle East, the comparison of the species range obtained from charcoal analysis of prehistoric and historic levels with the species available in the immediate environment of the site today (up to 10 kilometres) indicates a drastic reduction in forest cover. However this assumes that ancient man gathered his everyday fuel in the vicinity of the sites and did not travel to obtain his fuel. The use of alternatives to wood for fuel no doubt developed in areas which lacked timber or became deforested; today the use of dungcake fuel is very widespread, and may occur in wooded areas where authorities forbid the cutting of timber, as in Jordan, Syria and Turkey. Perhaps the best evidence for real decline is the replacement of preferred species such as Quercus or Pistacia by smaller spiny shrubs such as Paliurus, Zizyphus, Lyciurn, Crataegus, and the Chenopods. This appeared to be the case at Asvan, Bosra, Pella and Kandahar. However there is a need to examine more multi-period sites where there is a long sequence, including more recent levels. If one excludes the possiblity of long-distance transportation, there is evidence for lower altitude limits for woody plant formations in the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods, from sites
Willcox
Timber and Trees
such as Abu Hureyra, Mureybet, Jawa, Jericho, Kandahar and Tepe Abdul Hosein. A specific example is Celtis which has been identified from the following sites: Ganj Dareh, I'clla, and Kandahar. These sites are well outside the modem distribution of this species, showing (I considerable reduction in its distribution. Quercus, Pinus and Cedrus are trees much in demand for their timber, and these three spccies would appear to have been reduced by over-exploitation, while other species, particularly fruit-bearing trees of the Rosaceae family, were preserved. Today in parts of northern Syria and 'I'urkey we see natural orchards where the only remnants of the original forest are dispersed fruit rrces which may be used as grafting stock. IDossibleevidence of trade and long distance transport of timber Here one must make the distinction between imported products and trees which are introduced for cultivation. One of the ~)roblemsis that it is not always easy to distinguish these two categories. For example finds of I'inus, Morus, and Juglans from Mesopotamia could be either imports or introductions. Here the tcxts may be of some help. On the other hand Cedrus and Buxus represent imported timber. Outside Mesopotamia, Quercus from Neolithic levels at Mureybet may be an import (one cxplanation is driftwood coming down the Euphrates). Pinus from Hellenistic levels at Failaka is assumed to be an import, however its presence at Kandahar is more ambiguous. Clearly more samples need to be analysed before firm conclusions can be made about the origin of these woods. Finds of forest species such as Quercus and Acer in hearths from Jawa in the Black Desert some 100 kilometers from the present day habitat are curious, particularly since many samples represented branches of only a few years growth. One is inclined to reserve judgement until complementary evidence is available. Conclusion Evidence from charcoal analysis complements pollen data in the study of the vegetational history of the Middle East and it adds to our knowledge of the exploitation and use o f woody species. This in turn provides evidence for trade and the development of arboriculture. Recause man-made deposits are involved, some results tend to be ambiguous. Complementary data should in the future resolve certain questions such as whether firewood was local or imported. This problem is particularly true of sites situated away from forested areas but near enough to allow the transport of fuel. There is unequivocal evidence for deforestation in the Near East, which may have led to dcsertification in some regions. The evidence comes from both charcoal and studies of the modem vegetation cover. While over-exploitation is undoubtedly responsible, climatic change may also have played a r61e, though at present it is difficult to distinguish between man's influence and climatic change. Altitude limits of woody formations appear to have been lower than at present during the Neolithic and Bronze Age periods, and more detailed studies could possibly reveal the vegetational sequence which led to deforestation. During the Neolithic in Syria, Iran and Turkey the vegetation cover appears to have been more favorable to man than at present. For the Bronze Age all the evidence points to a richer environment in terms of tree and shrub species when compared with the present-day situation, although the evidence is still scarce. For the later historical periods we continue to see the same forest species being exploited. Examination of more recent Islamic levels at sites such as Asvan,
Willcox
Timber and Trees
Bosra and Kandahar indicate that the destruction of the forests and the local extinction of some species was a relatively late phenomenon.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Frifelt, K. 1985 Oreguss, P. 1955 1959
Aurenche, 0. "Un exemple d'architecture domestique en Syrie au VIII millhaire: la maison XLVII de 1980 Mureybet", in J.CI. Margueron (ed.), Le Moyen Euphrate, zone de contact et d'kchanges (Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 10-12 mars 1977), pp. 35-53. Baierle et al. H.U. Baierle, W. Frey, C. Jagiella & H. Kiirschner, "Die Brennstoffressourcen im Raum 1989 Fenan (Wadi Araba, Jordanien) und die bei der Kupferenverhiittung verwendeten Brennstoffe", Der Anschnitt (Bochum, Selbstverlag des Deutschen Bergbau-Museums), Beiheft 7, 213-222. Bretzel, B. 1903
Botanische Forschungen des Alexunderzuges (Teubner: Leipzig).
Besenval, R. 1987 "Dkouvertes rkentes h Sarazm (R.S.S. du Tadjikistan)", Acadkmie des Inscriptions et Belles-Lettres, avril-juin 1987, 441456. Casal, J-M. 1961 Chabal, L. 1990
Davis, P.H. 1971
Frey et al. 1991
Guest, E. 1966 Heinz, C. 1990
"Further Evidence of the Third Millennium BC Town at Bat in Oman", Journal of Oman Studies, Vol. 7, 89-104.
Identification of L,iving Gymnosperms on the Basis of their Xylotomy (Budapest). Holzanatomie der Europaischen Laubhiilzer und Straucher (Budapest). Flora of Iraq, Vol.1 (Glasgow) "M6thodologie et PaltWxologie du gisement prkhistorique de 1'Abeurador (Hkrault) au passage M6solithiquW6olithique d'aprhs l'analyse des charbons de bois: premiers r&ultats", in T. Hackens, A.V. Munaut & C. Till (eds.), Wood and archaeology I Bois et archt!ologie (Pact, 22; Belgique) 219-229.
Millman, G.C. 19848~5 "Traditional husbandry and processing of archaic cereals in recent times: the operations, products and equipment that might feature in Surnerian texts. Part I: The glumed wheats", Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 1, 114-152 & 'Tart 11: The free threshing cereals", Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 2, 1-31.
Fouilles de Mundigak, Vol. I. (M6moires de la Mlbgation Archhlogique Frangaise en Afghanistan, Tome XVII).
Hillman, G.C., Colledge, S.M. & Harris, D.R. "Plant food economy during the Epipalaeolithic period at Tell Abu Hureyra. Syria: dietary 1989 diversity, seasonality and modes of exploitation", in D.R. Harris & G.C. Hillman (eds.), Foraging and Farming: Evolution of Plant Exploitation (Landon: Unwin & Hyman), 240-268.
'‘L'Btude pal&-kologique de sites pmton~storiques partir des charbons de bois: la question de l'uNr.6 de mesure. Mnombrement de fragments ou pesks?", in T. Hackens, A.V. Munaut & C. Till (eds.), Wood and archaeology I Bois et archt!ologie (Pact, 22; Belgique), 189-205.
Liphschitz, N. "Plant economy and diet in the early Bronze Age in Israel: A summary of present research", 1989 in P. de Miroschedji, L'urbanisation de la Palestine l'age du Bronze ancien (BAR International Series 527/ii), 269-277.
Plant Life of South-West Asia (Edinburgh).
Dentzer, J.-M. (ed.) 1985 Hauran I: Recherches archkologiques sur la Syrie du Sud h l'kpoque hellknistique et romaine (IFAPO Bibliothhue archhlogique et historique, Tome CXXIV). Freitag, H. 1977
Timber md l'rma
Willcox
"The ple~glacial, late glacial and early postglacial vegetations of Zeribar and their present-day counterparts", Palaeohistoria XIX, 87-95.
W. Frey, C. Jagiella & H. Kiirschner, "Holzkohlefunde in DW-Katlimmu/Tall fhmad und ihre Interpretation", in H. Kiihne, A. Mahmoud & W. RUllig (eds.), Berichte der HamadlDiir-Katlimmu (Verlag Reimer Berlin), Band 1. Ausgrabung Tall
Mande~lle,J. "Plants", in Journal of Oman Studies: Special Report: The Scientijic Results of The Oman 1977 Flora Survey 1975, pp 229-267. 1978
Wild flowers of northern Oman (Aylesbury).
Miller, A. & Moms, M. Plants of Dhofar. The southern region of Oman, traditional and economic uses (Edinburgh: 1988 McDougall). Miller, N. 1984 1985
"The interpretation of some carbonised ct:real remains as remnants of dung cake fuel", Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 1, 4547. "Paleoethnobotanical evidence for deforestation in ancient Iran: A case Study of Urban Malyan", Journal of Ethnobiology 5 (I), 1-19.
Timber and Trees
Willcox
Timber and Trees
Willcox
Mouterde, SJ. La Flore du Djebel Druze (Paris). 1957
1991a
"Carbonised Plant Remains from Shortughai Afghanistan", in J. Renfrew (ed.), New Light on Early Farming, Recent Developments in Palaeoethnobotany (Edinburgh University Press).
Pearsall, D. 1989
1991b
"Cafer H6yiik (Turquie): Les charbons de bois nbolithique", Cahiers de I'Euphrare (Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations; Paris) 139-150.
Paleoethnobotany: A hand book of procedures (New Yo*).
Salles, J.-F., & Calvet, Y. Failaka: Fouilles Fran~aises1984-198.5 (Travaux de la Maison de I'Orient, No 12). 1987 Schweingruber, F. Mikroskopische holzanatomie (Zurich). 1978 Thiebault, S. "Palaeoenvironment and ancient vegetation of Baluchistan based on charcoal analysis of 1988 archaeological sites", Proc. Indian. Nut. Sci. Acad., 54 A, No. 3, 501-509. Vernet, J.-L. and Thiebault, S. "An approach to northwestern Mediterranean recent prehistoric vegetation and ecological 1987 implications", Journal of Biogeography 14, 117-127. Vernet, J.-L. "The bearing of phyto-archaeological evidence on discussions of climatic change over recent 1990 millennia", Phil. Trans. Royal Soc. Lond., A, 330, 671-677.
in prep. a "Les macro-restes vbgbtaux et l'konomie vbgbtale de Bosra et Sia, Syrie du Sud: r&ultats pour les @rides romaine, byzantines et islamiques", Hauran 11: Recherches Archologiques sur la Syrie du Sud, I'Epoque Hellknistique et Romaine. in prep. b "Charcoal from Epipaeolithic and Neolithic levels at Mureybet (Syria)". Williams, D. "Flotation at Siraf", Antiquity 47, 188. 1973 van Zeist, W. "Palaeobotanical results of the 1970 season at (hy6nii". Helinium 12, 13-19. 1972 1978
"A postglacial pollen diagram from Lake Van in eastern Anatolia", Review of Palaeobotany and Palynology 26, 249-276.
1980
"Holocene vegetation and climate of northwestern Syria", Palaeohistoria 22, 11-125.
van Zeist, W. & Bottema, S. 1977 "Palynological investigations in Western Iran", Palaeohistoria 19, 19-85.
Villeneuve, F. "L'6conomie male et la vie des campagnes", in J.-M. Dentzer (ed.), Hauran I: Recherches 1985 archkologiques sur la Syrie du Sud h 1'6poque hellknistiqw et romaine (IFAPO Bibliothhue archblogique et historique, Tome CXXIV).
1982
"Vegetational history of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East during the last 20,000 years. in J.L Bintliff, W. van Zeist & H. Woldring (eds.), Palaeoclimates Palaeoenvironments and Hwnan Communities in the Eastern Mediterranean Region in Later Prehistory (B.A.R. International series 133), 277-321.
Western, C. "The ecological interpretation of ancient charcoals from Jericho", Levant, 111, 31. 1971
1985
"Past and present environments in the Jordan Valley", in A. Hadidi (ed.), Studies in the history and archaeology of Jordan I1 (Amman).
Willcox, G.H. "A history of deforestation as indicated by charcoal analysis of four sites in eastern 1974 Anatolia", Anatolian Studies 24, 117-133.
van Zeist, W. & Bakker-Heeres, J.A. "Archaeobotanical studies in the Levant 3. Late Palaeolithic Mureybet", Palaeohistoria 26, 1984a 171-199.
1979
"Preliminary report: Analysis of charcoal from Can Hasan III", Bulletin of the British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara, 1979.
1981
"Appendix F", in S.W. Helms, Jawa, the Lost City of the Black Desert (London).
1983
Unpublished report on archaeobotanical finds from Pella, Jordan.
van Zeist, W., van Smith, R.M., Palfenier, M., Suwijn, M. & Casparie W.A. 1984 "An Archaeobotanical study of Ganj Dareh Tepe", Palaeohistoria 26, 201-224.
1987
"List of trees and shrubs of economic importance in Iraq", Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 3, 101-106.
van Zeist, W. & Waterbolk-van Rooijen, W. 1985 "The Palaeobotany of Tell Bouqras, eastern Syria", Palkorient 11/2, 131-147.
1989
"Etude ArchCobotanique", in Francfort H.-P. (ed.), Fouilles de Shortughai; Tome I1 (Mbmoires de la Mission Archblogique Fran~aiseen Asie Centrale), 175-185.
1989
1990a
"Charcoal remains from Tepe Abdul Hosein", in J. Pullar, Tepe Abdul Hosein: A Neolithic site in Western Iran. Excavations I978 (BAR International Series 563), 223-227.
Zohary, M. 1973
1990b
"The Plant remains from Hellenistic and Bronze Age levels at Failaka, Kuwait: A preliminary report", in F. Salles, Failaka Fouilles Fran~aises19864988, 43-50.
1984b
"Archaeobotanical studies in the Levant 1. Neolithic Sites in the Damascus Basin: Aswad, Ghoreife, Ramad", Palaeohistoria 24,165-256.
"Plant remains from Tell Sabi Abyad", in M.M. Akkermans, Excavations at Sabi Abyad (B.A.R. International Series 468), pp.325-335.
Geobotanicalfoundations of the Middle East, 2 vols (Stuttgart-Amsterdam).
LEVANT TREES AND TREE PRODUCTS Nili Liphschitz (Tel A viv University)
Introduction Two main sources of information contribute to the reconstruction of past vegetation: written documents and botanical remains gathered in archaeological excavations. The historical documents include the Bible, the Mishna and the Talmud, books of classical writers, as well as memoirs of pilgrims and travellers. The botanical evidence is based on pollen grain analysis, seeds and fruits identification, and mainly on analysis of construction timber and wood used for everyday tools, objects and fuel. Careful examination of each source and combination of all data enables us to reconstruct the past landscape.
Quercus rnacrolepsis (=aegilops)
Written Sources
Q. calliprinos
Quercus iMectoria
Information on the trees of the Levant before the dendroarchaeological research started, both in Israel and the Near East, was based on written documents, i.e. the Bible, the Mishna and Talmud, books of Greek and Roman writers such as Theophrastus and Pliny the elder, and memoirs of pilgrims and elders who visited the Holy Land through the ages. Names of plants described in the written sources differ from the modern scientific identification. The names of the plants mentioned in the Hebrew Bible are translated to different genera according to the language. For example, the Hebrew modern name for cypress (Cupressus sempervirens) is "berosh", but the identification of "berosh" is controversial and uncertain. In an English translation of the Bible "berosh" is translated as fir. In a German translation it is referred to as 'Tannenbaum" - fir while in a French translation "berosh" is referred to as cypress. Several botanists suggest the "berosh" is the Abies cilicica while others prefer the Juniperus excelsa. Today the "berosh" is referred to as Cupressus sempervirens (Liphschitz & Biger, 1989a). The same holds true for one of the common trees of today - the pine (Pinus). The Hebrew modern name for pine - "oren" - is mentined only once in the Bible (Isaiah 4414). In an English translation of the Bible (Friedlander, 1881), one can find the mention of pine in Isaiah 60:13 "The glory of Lebanon shall come unto thee, the fir tree, the pine tree and the box together, to beautify the place of my sanctuary". The Hebrew original text there speaks about "tidhar" which is not recognised, yet one authority believes it might be a fir (Anderson, 1979, p.134). There is some dispute among the authorities as to the reference to pine in Nehemiah 8:15 "Go forth unto the mount and fetch olive branches and pine branches and myrtle branches and palm of thick trees". The Hebrew text refers to "etz shemen" which means "oil tree". Some authorities accept "etz shemen" as Eleagnus angustifolia. The same holds true for Isaiah 41:19 where the Hebrew name again is "etz shemen". Some refer to it as pine while others refer to a plane m e (Feldman, 1956; Felix, 1957; Anderson, 1979). According to the Septuagint, the first Greek translation of the Bible, "oren" means "Pitus", i.e. Pinus in Latin. In the Assyrian language there is a tree named "urnu" and the Aramaic translation of the Bible by Yonatan Ben Uziel explains the "oren" in
Liphschitz
Levant Trees and Tree Products
Isaiah as being "urnu". According to Krupnik (in the Talmudic dictionary) the "umu" means "Lorbeerbaum" in German, which is Laurus nobilis, as it is identified with the Talmudic mention (Rosh Hashana section 23, p.1) of Aronim-An which means "Ar" i.e. the Hebrew name for k u r u s nobilis. In his dictionary, which is the first in modem Hebrew, Ben Yehuda suggests that the Biblical "oren" is Quercus i.e. "Eiche" in German (Ben Yehuda, 1950). According to Yona Ebn Jenach "tirza" is Snubar - an Arabic word meaning Pinus. There are many other translations of the word "oren" being other trees mentioned in the Bible and ancient literature. It is therefore impossible to find the exact name for the Biblical tree (Liphschitz et al., 1988-9). Numerous trees mentioned in the Bible are not recognised today, and their botanical identification is not certain. Such trees are "teashur", "gopher", "etz shemen", "tina", "tidhar", "bacha", "sneh", "armon", "almugim", "hovnim", "zeelim", "aviyona", etc. A long list of names of trees mentioned in the Hebrew Bible are not known today. Among them one can find names like "afarsemon", which today refer to the genus Persirnun, which is foreign and did not grow in Israel in the past. Trees mentioned in the Bible lack botanical description. The identification of the Biblical Israeli local trees by translators who lived in Europe, Africa or the United States, with foreign trees which were familiar to them, resulted therefore in numerous errors.
Levant Trssr ad Tree Prodwt,
Liphschitz
time of Justinian in the 7th century AD, and the original constructions still exist today. In St. Catherine's Monastery hundreds of logs used in the construction of roofs, bdconier, walls and passages (figs. 1 4 ) enabled a careful examination of the whole complex (LiphscNtz & Waisel, 1973). Restorations of the roof of the El Aqsa Mosque and replacement of the original mof logs enabled an examination of the original timber of which the original m f was made (Lev-Yadun et al., 1984).
Evidence fkom Plant Remains Pollen Grain Analysis One of the accepted methods for the reconstruction of past vegetation is pollen grain analysis. Usually pollen diagrams are aimed to represent the relationships between the AP (Arboreal Pollen) and NAP Won-Arboreal Pollen). Changes in the relationship between the AP and the NAP in various periods point to changes in the climate i.e. a wetter or cooler climate or a drier and warmer one. However, the quantity of pollen deposited per unit area depends upon a number of factors such as the frequency of the species in the area, its absolute pollen production which varies individually and according to the growth conditions of the specimen, and the dispersal mechanism of the pollen i.e. wind pollination versus insect pollination. Some other sources of errors might be local over-representation proximal to the site, long distance transport mechanism, differential destruction of pollen grains, vertical displacement of pollen after primary deposition, and the most important of all - the inability to distinguish in numerous cases between various species of the same genus, or even between various genera of the same family (Faegri & Iversen, 1975). Results of pollen analysis should therefore be considered very carefully, especially in historic excavations. Usually pollen analysis is conducted in prehistoric excavations or from cores taken from geological strata. However, information gathered from pollen analysis can add to the information gathered from other sources of research.
fig. 1. St. Catherine's monastery in South Sinai: general view. The Basilica (the tiled roof) dates to the 7th century AD, the mosque to the 11-12th century AD and the guest wings to the 17th-18th century AD.
Dendroarchaeology Direct evidence for the existence of trees in the past can therefore be obtained via dendroarchaeology. The dendroarchaeological research is based on the identification of wood remains gathered in archaeological excavatins or sampled in ancient buildings.
i. Sources of information The existence of well-preservea ancient buildings, where wooden logs and beams are used in construction, is very rare in Israel. Such buildings are usually sacred places such as churches and mosques, e.g. St Catherine's monastery in South Sinai, El Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem and the Church of the Nativity at Beith Lehem. They were founded at the
fig. 2. The mosque with the logs in the construction.
35
Liphschitz
Levant Trees and Tree Products
Liphschitz
Concerning archaeological remains, only a few sites were well preserved. Usually, d&# are located in the arid region. Secondly, only in very few cases were they not destmysd by bn following wars. One of the sites preserved is the Roman castle in En Boqeq (Dead Sea Redon) where logs were used especially as part of the guard tower roofs (fig. 5:l-2) (Liphschitz & Waisel, 1973, 1991). Another, well famous, site, partially preserved, is Masada, including the rampart and parts of the northern and western palaces (Liphschitz et al., 1981; Liphschitz & Lev-Yadun, 1989).
fig. 5. The Roman castle in En-Boqeq. 1. One of the guard towers with the original logs in its roof. 2. A burned log of date palm in the yard.
Liphschitz
Levant Trees and Tree Products
fig. 6. Burned wood remains in the excavation at Tel-Sheba dated to the Iron Age: a burned log of olive. Most of the archaeological sites were burned during wars, and most of the botanical remains, either logs or small pieces of wood, are c h m d (fig. 6). Very often small pieces of charcoal are dispersed all over the dig. These samples must be accurately numbered before being sampled (fig. 7).
ii Basic assump2iuns Dendroarchaeology is based on several basic assurn~tions: 1. Timber for everyday use for construction of simple structures and for fuel was taken from the close environment and therefore represents the local natural vegetation. Only rarely was precious wood imported from far distances, i.e. for the construction of sanctuaries, palaces or governmental buildings, as in the case of cedar of Lebanon (Cedrus libano.
Liphschitz
fig. 7. Burned wood remains in the excavations at Tel Sheba dated to the Iron Age: charred small pieces of wood dispersed in the area. Two logs (I and H) are
seen. 2. The basic ecological requirements of plant species in the past are the same as today; therefore changes in the composition of plants in the past indicate macroclimatic change. Climatic changes are especially prominent in transition regions between two climatic zones, and therefore vegetational changes will be obvious there. 3. The disappearance of plants from the area does not necessarily always mean a climatic change;
man's impact on the composition of vegetation, i.e. clearance of forest areas for agriculture and introduction of new cultivated species and varieties, must always be taken into consideration.
Liphschitz
Levant Trees and Tree Products
I
up"-"i.
Levant 7hu d Itw CN#
The dendroarchaeological research provides important data on the distribution of tlrsdl limber supply, as well as indication for various uses of local native versus imported timber d u w antiquity. The proportional amounts of the various tree species found in the excavations repmmnt their availability in the region, as well as the intensiveness of exploitation in the examined site. Preservation of timber depends both on the climatic conditions as well as on the history of the ~ g i o nand the degree of preservation of the site. Very often sites were burned and destroyed during wars and the residue includes only small remnants of carbonised wood. Lack of appropriate techniques for handling charred wood hindered the collection and preservation of wood remains, resulting in the loss of most valuable data. Only in the last 20 years new methods were developed which enable identification of the charred wood up to species level. 111. Methods of analysis Dendroarchaeorogical analysis is based on the identification of the wood remains up to the species level, based on the anatomical three-dimensional structure of the wood (fig. 8:l-4). The exact identification is of special importance in Israel, where in spite of the small area, different species of the same genus represent different climatic conditions. For instance in the genus Quercus, Q. boissieri (Cypress oak) represents the very humid, high elevation species, Q. calliprinos (Kermes oak) is a typical Mediterranean species and Q. ithaburensis (Mt. Tabor oak) occurs in the dry regions of the Mediterranean territory, bordering the semi-arid districts. Concerning the genus Pistacia, P. palaestina (Terebinth) is a typical Mediterranean species occurring together with Q. calliprinos, P. lentiscus (Lentisk) occupies the low elevations of this territory, and P. atlantica (Atlantic pistachio) is an Irano-Touranian species.
Reconstruction of the past: Levant trees and their products during antiquity
fig. 8. Anatomy of burned wood originating from an Iron Age Layer at Tel Sheba: three dimensional structure of Acacia rdiana. 1-2. Cross section. 3. Tangential longitudinal section. 4. Radial longitudinal section.
40
The arboreal landscape In spite of its small area Israel is a meeting-point of three phytogeographical territories: the Mediterranean humid, the Irano-Touranian - semi-arid - and the Saharo-Arabian - arid - thus representing three different climatic regimes. A tropical penetration exists along the Jordan VaLley. The typical vegetation ranges accordingly from humid Mediterranean forest and maquis to a desertian one. The natural Mediterranean maquis and forest vegetation of Israel was until very recently commonly considered to be composed mainly of four components: Pinus halepensis - Aleppo pine, deciduous oak - Quercw ithaburenst, evergreen oak - Quercus calliprinos (Kermes oak) Pistacia palaestina (Terebinth) association, and carob - pistacia association - Ceratonia siliqua Pistacia lentiscus (Lentisk). The Irano-Touranian territory is characterised by Tarnarix aphylla (Tamarisk) and Retama roetam (White broom) and the Saharo-Arabian territory is characterised by the existence of various acacia species: Acacia raddiana, Acacia tortilis and Acacia negevensis in the wadis. The area is sparsely covered by small bushes or completely bare (Zohary, 1959, 1962, 1973). Accumulating data obtained from dendroarchaeological investigations all over Israel, in numerous sites, dating to the last 10000 years, show clearly that timber for everyday use for construction of simple structures was taken from the vicinity of the sites and therefore represents the local natural vegetation. Combined research in palynology, dendroarchaeology and written historical sources showed that the arboreal landscape of the Mediterranean territory of Israel in the past is quite different from that of more recent times. Analysis of wood remains and pollen from archaeological excavations suggest that Pinus halepensis, Quercus ithaburensis and Ceratonia siliqua (carob) did
'
r
Liphschitz
Levant Trees and Tree Products
Liphschitz
Levant Trees and Tree Products
not have a dominant position in the forest and maquis of Mediterranean Israel. Pinus halepensis and Cupressus sempervirens were rare (Liphschitz & Biger, 1989; Liphschitz et al., 1988-9). Ceratonia siliqua was very rare in Israel and its present dispersal probably dates from the last few centuries (Liphschitz, 1987a). The view that Quercus ithaburensis was dominant in the forest which once covered the Central Coastal Plain, as suggested by Eig (1933) and accepted by the geobotanists (Zohary, 1962, 1973) was also found to be erroneous (Liphschitz et al., 1987). Olea europaea (olive), which is a typical Mediterranean element, was part of the landscape, but was cultivated since the Early Bronze Age (Liphschitz et d., 1991), and its share in the arboreal landscape is therefore not the primary native one. The ancient vegetation of the Mediterranean territory was dominated by the Quercus calliprinos - Pistacia palaestina association (Liphschitz & Biger, 1990). On the other hand, the typical vegetation which characterises the semi-arid and the arid areas today did also characterise it in the last 10000 years. The wood remains were mainly made of Tamarix, mostly T. aphylla (tamarisk) and of various species of acacia, mainly Acacia raddiana (acacia), but also of Acacia tortilis and Acacia negevensis. Phoenix dactylifera (date palm) was extensively used in oases, but as in the case of the olive, this species was cultivated since ancient times (Liphschitz, 1989a). Timber trade and imported wood Commercial activities concerning timber trade in ancient times were known from all the Mediterranean region. The northern and humid mountain areas supplied wood for construction and shipbuilding for the southern arid countries like Egypt and South Israel. The local trees which grew in Israel were not suitable for large roofing needs in the prosperous temples and palaces of urban Israel of the Middle Bronze age onwards. Analysis of the timber used in the simple as compared to the monumental constructions provides information on timber trade and the degree of prosperity of the relevant period. The wood of Cedrus libani (cedar of Lebanon) was highly esteemed during antiquity and was used for special construction purposes. Its wood was highly regarded in Egypt by the builders of sarcophagi, coffins and other appurtenances of burial. King Cheop's Royal ship was made predominantly of cedar and the coffin of Queen Merit Amon was made of this timber. Cedar of Lebanon never grew in Israel. Its timber was used in the MB palace in Lachish, in the northern palace at Masada, in the LB temple at Lachish and in the Philistine temple at Tel Qasile, in residential buildings at Herodion and Kipros, in El Aqsa Mosque, and in the Byzantine church at Tel Masos in the Negev (Liphschitz 1987b). Apart from Lebanon cedar Juniperus phoenica (red juniper) was also imported to various monumental sites in ancient Israel. The red juniper is absent from Israel, Lebanon and Syria. It occurs in North Central Sinai and in the Highland of Edom. All the remains, except two pieces, were found in the Hellenistic-Roman periods in three sites only - Masada, En Rachel and Moa (fig. 9:l-3). Most of the wood was collected at Masada where about half of the timber was made of this species (Liphschitz & Lev-Yadun, 1989). The other two trees which can be seen as imported trees are the cypress and the Aleppo pine. These two trees were probably part of the arboreal vegetation of Israel but their occurrence was very rare. It seems that they may represent trees that in some periods were planted in Israel while in other periods they were imported from nearby areas (Liphschitz & Biger, 1991). fig. 9. Remains of Juniperus phoenica wood originating fmm Moa. 1. Cross cut of a log. 2. Worked object. 3. A branch with the bark.
Liphschitz
Levant Trees and Tree Products
Everyday life: Furniture, tools and objects Timber was used for furniture, coffins, statues, tools and objects. Investigation of these wooden objects can shed light on the techniques and preferred types of timber during antiquity. Coffins discovered in Jericho and Ein Gedi were made mainly of Ficus sycomorus (sycamore) (Liphschitz 1986, 1988a). Identification of the woody species which were used for manufacturing certain objects and tools from Masada (Liphschitz & Lev-Yadun, 1989) and from Ein Gedi (Liphschitz, 1988b) show that combs, bowls, wooden boxes and other objects were made of Myrtus comrnunis (myrtle), Nerium oleander (oleander), Juniperus phoenica (juniper), Tarnarix (tamarisk), Acacia raddiana and A. tortilis (acacia) and Ficus sycomorus (sycamore). The selection of specific wood species for manufacturing certain objects seems to reflect an old tradition. Shipbuilding Timber was very important particularly in shipbuilding. Sunk shipwrecks near the coast, very often well preserved, enable reconstruction of the entire ship with the original timber. Botanical remains of submarine excavations include parts of ships and boats, parts of constructions of the harbour and remnants of the cargo. Research on these remains can provide information on suitable water-resistant timber and shed light on the foreign commerce and navigation lines during ancient days. Analyses of sunk shipwrecks along the coasts of Israel reveal that most of the timber was European conifers, but specific parts like nails were made of hardwoods (Liphschitz, 1981, 4, 5, 6). Human impact: deforestation, cultivation and introduction of fruit trees Dendroarchaeological analyses not only provide information on past landscape and environmental ecological conditions but also reflect human impact on the environrnment following deforestation and introduction of cultivated fruit trees and plants. As was previously mentioned, before the increasing population invaded the woodlands of the plains and the slopes of the hills, and later on of the mountains, the Mediterranean region was covered by a climax vegetation of Quercus calliprinos - Pistacia palaestina forests and maquis (Lipschitz & Biger, 1990). Cutting of wood served for timber and fuel supply and also for clearing areas for agriculture. Massive deforestation which was followed by soil erosion resulted in a change in the climax vegetation and replacement of the forests by lower plant communities. Large regions became devastated. At the same time cultivated trees replaced natural forests. This change is well represented by the very high proportions of olive remains, both timber and stones, in the archaeological excavations, from the great number of oil-presses and from olive orchards which still cover today's large Mediterranean districts (Liphschitz, 1987~).The role of the date palm in the economy of ancient times is of special importance due to its occurrence in the desert regions. It was one of the first fruit trees which were taken into cultivation in the Levant, and each part of the tree was exploited for the benefit of man (Liphschitz 1989a). Local cultivated trees as well as foreign tree species like peaches (Liphschitz, 1989b) were introduced rather lately, replacing the native local vegetation of the region.
Liphschitz
BIBLIOGRAPHY Anderlind, L. 1890
"Mittheilungen iiber Starke Baume in Syrien", Zeitschrift des Deutschen Palastina-Vereins 13: 220-227.
Anderson, D. A. 1979
AN the Trees and Woody Plants of the Bible. (Word Books, U.S.A.)
Ben Yehuda, E. 1950
A complete dictionary of ancient and modern Hebrew. (Poplar Edition, La-am, Tel-Aviv), Vol. 1, p. 397.
Faegri, K. & Iversen, J.
Textbook of Pollen Analysis. (Oxford).
1975 Feldman, U. 1956
Plants of the Bible. Plants of the Mishna @vir, Tel-Aviv).
Felix, J. 1957
Plant World of the Bible (Masada Rarnat Gan).
Lev-Yadun, S., Liphschitz. N., & Waisel, Y. 1984
"Dendrochronology of Cedrus libani logs from El Aqsa Mosque roof', Yearbook of the Israel Soc. Antiquity 17, 92-96 (Hebrew with Eng. Sum.)
Liphschitz, N. 1981,4,5,6 Dendroarchaeological investigations in Israel. (Mimeographed reports no. 90, 1 13, 129, 130. Institute of Archaeology, Tel-Aviv University (Hebrew)). 1986
"Overview of the dendrochronology and dendroarchaeology in Israel", Dendrochronologia 4:37-58.
1987a
"Ceratonia siliqua - an ancient element or a newcomer", Israel Jour. Bot. 36, 191-197.
1987b
"Cedrus libani in ancient Israel", in Vilnay II (ed. Schiller), pp. 291-294 (Hebrew).
1987c
"Olives in ancient Israel in view of dendroarchaeological excavations", in eds. Helzer & Eitam Olive oils in antiquity - Israel and neighbouring countries, (Univ. Haifa) pp. 139-145.
1989a
'The Date Palm (Phoenix dactylifera) in Israel during antiquity dendroarchaeological research", Hassadeh 69:2022-2025 (Hebrew).
in view
of
1989b
"The Almond (Amygdalus communis) in Israel during dendroarchaeological research", Hassadeh 70:86437 (Hebrew).
in
of
antiquity
view
Liphschitz, N. & Waisel, Y. 1973
"The effect of human activity on composition of the natural vegetation during historic periods" Proc. 4th Sci. Conf. Israel Ecol. Soc. F, 1-18.
1991
"Dendroarchaeological investigations in Israel: En Boqeq - Dead Sea Region" in En Boqeq (ed. Gichon) (in press).
Liphschitz
Levant Trees and Tree Products
Liphschitz, N., & Lev-Yadun, S. 1989
"The botanical remains from Masada: identification of the plant species and the possible origin of the remnants'' BASOR 274, 27 -32.
Liphschitz, N., & Biger, G.
-
1989
"Cypress 35-45.
1990
"Ancient dominance of Quercus calliprinos (Kermes oak) - Pistacia palaestina (Terebinth) association in the Mediterranean" Israel Jour. Vegetation Sci. 1, 67-70.
1991
Cupressus sempivirens in Eretz Israel during antiquity", Israel. Jour. Bot. 38,
Timber trade in ancient Israel (manuscript).
Liphschitz, N., Lev-Yadun, S., & Waisel, Y. 1981
"Dendroarchaeological investigations in Israel: Masada" IEJ 31, 230-234.
ETHNOGRAPHIC EVIDENCE FOR WOOD, BOATS, BITUMEN AND REEDS IN SOUTHERN IRAQ Ethnoarchaeology at al-Hiba Edward Ochsenschlager (Brooklyn College, City University of New York) A project to determine the possible bearing of modern ethnographic information on some of the archaeological data was undertaken during the 1970-1971 and 1972-1973 seasons of the excavations at Tell al-Hiba in southern Iraq. The information reported in this paper was collected at that time with the support of the Research Foundation of the City University of New York and the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Liphschitz, N., Lev-Yadun, Y., & Gophna, R. 1987
"Dominance of Quercus calliprinos (Kermes oak) in the Central Coastal Plain in Israel during antiquity", IEJ 37,43-50.
Liphschitz, N., Biger, G., & Mendel, Z. 1988-90
"Did Aleppo pine (Pinus halepensis) cover the mountains of Eretz Israel during antiquity", Israel - People and Land 5-6, 141-150 (Hebrew with Eng. Sum.)
Liphschitz, N., Gophna, R., Hartman, M., & Biger, G. 1991
Zohary, M. 1959 1962 1973
"Beginning of olive (Olea europaea) cultivation in the Old World: a reassessment", Jour. Archaeol. Sci. (in press).
Geobotany. (Sifriat Poalirn (Hebrew)). Plant Life of Palestine (Ronald Press, New York). Geobotanical Foundations of the Middle East. (Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart).
Al-Hiba is located on the edge of the permanent marsh which lies below Shatra on the Shatt al Gharraf. The Gharraf is a river that flows south-west from the Tigris at Kut in the direction of Nasiriya. Around the ancient mound are contiguous areas of seasonal and temporary marsh. Melting snows in the mountains to the north causes the Gharraf to overflow its banks, flooding these areas annually. The inundation reaches its height in May and begins to recede in June. By August the temporary marsh is covered with a growth of sedges and grass ready to welcome the Hadij, nomadic Bedouin who arrive with their herds of goats, sheep and camels to take advantage of the pasturage afforded. The waters reach their lowest point in September and October. In November there is usually a slight rise in the water level and, with h e rainy season, beginning in late December or early January, sudden short floods may occur. Many of the Beni Hassan grow winter crops of barley and wheat on small plots of land. Crops are largely dependent on the winter rains, nowadays supplemented by mechanical pumps, for water. During the spring both the Beni Hassan and the Mi'dan sow rice in the seasonal marshland flooded by the annual inundation. Most also have small herds of sheep and goats and flocks of chickens and turkeys, and some keep small herds of cattle. Mi'dan keep herds of water buffalo which depend on the reed shoots, rushes and sedges of the marshes for their fodder. Each of these three peoples occupies an important ecological niche in the area.
WOOD, BOATS AND BITUMEN Very few trees of any size exist in the villages around al-Hiba. Most of them are palm trees or willows. They are usually the property of individual families and if another wishes to make use of one of them, he must purchase it for barter or cash. To buy a whole tree would make the process of small scale woodworking in the village prohibitively expensive. Luckily there are other ways that one can acquire wood. Dead branches from trees are sometimes available and the local wood-worker can re-use old and broken pieces of wood discarded by householders because they can no longer fulfill the use for which they were designed. For instance, the wood salvaged from a broken wooden plow can be used for many purposes. Roof supports and beams are often salvaged in their entirety for use in new structures. For smaller projects such as mallcts, tool handles, grain pounders, loom parts, etc. pollarding is regularly practiced. A branch is harvested
Ochsenschlager
wood, boats. bitumen and reeds
Ochsenschlager
from a tree by carefully breaking or sawing it off so that the tree continues to survive. Other kinds of wood, usually already sawn into more or less standard lengths and widths, are available in market towns such as Shatra, with a greater variety of size and type available in Nasiriyah. These, I am told by merchants in both places, are almost entirely imported and they are very expensive. Today most carpenters and wood craftsmen live and work near their source of supply in the market centers. The majority of wooden articles and tools used by the villagers are bought ready-made in these towns. There is still, however, a certain amount of wood use and manufacture in the villages. Mud Brick Forms Mud bricks are molded in forms made by the brickmaker from hardwood planking bought in the market towns. The forms are usually nailed, but sometimes are put together with screws. All bricks manufactured today are strictly rectangular and their size is dependent on the forms owned by the master brickmaker. As the forms are made of wood and as wood is scarce and comparatively expensive, the size of each master's bricks tend to be exact for a fairly long period of time. With only three brick makers active in the general area, it is possible to distinguish the products of each by minor variations in size. Wooden Gates, Doors and Windows Mud brick structures are most often seen in the old fortified complexes of major sheikhs. These fortifications are usually surrounded by high walls made of pist or more often of mud bricks. They are as wide as 2.5 meters on the bottom and as high as 5 meters. Entrance is gained through a strong, solid wood gate sometimes studded with large, flat-headed nails. In the two cases still extant in the area, the gates are made of imported hardwood planks joined together, perpendicular to the ground, by nailed horizontal planks with a diagonal plank between them. The hinges are mounted on the horizontal planks and attached to heavy wooden posts sunk into the ground on each side of the gateway, capped with a wooden lintel and incorporated into the mud walls. Within one finds the sheikh's dwelling apartments, a large reception room, storage facilities and dwelling structures for guards and servants. Some parts of this complex can be built of either reeds or pist, but the family dwelling apartments and storage facilities are almost inevitably built of mud brick or baked brick and have wooden doors which are often smaller variations of the outer gates. Some rooms at least have modern framed and glazed windows. These gates, doors and windows are inevitably made and installed by carpenters hired from the market towns. Merchants' sara'if and village mud brick or pist houses may have similar doors or doors made of tin nailed to a wooden frame. The mud houses may also have framed openings of wood for windows and sometimes wooden shutters. These are mostly made by unskilled local workmen who tend to use wood from local trees (preferably willow) if it is available. Columns and Roof Supports The reception hall in a sheikh's compound can be either a large and splendid mudhif or an especially grand mud brick building. If the latter, it is usually of such size as to require column-like roof supports made of smoothed palm-trunks down the center of the floor space. Occasionally a larger mud building in a village will require one or two roof supports of the same type and material. Roof Beams
Roofs of both mud brick and pist buildings can be either flat or pitched and the
Wood, boats, binunen and reeds
beams supporting them of either wood or reed depending on the buildings' size. If of wood, the (nmks of native palm trees are generally employed. Sometimes these are squared with adzes before use, but usually they are merely smoothed. Flat roofs are surfaced with layers of loosely laid reeds, saplings and tamped mud, or layers of reed mats and tamped mud. Pitched roofs are covered with reed mats. Mallets Wooden mallets can be used for pounding rice but are most often used for softening reeds for use in making mats, baskets, and occasionally rope. The wooden handle is thrust through a hole drilled in the side of a cut-off section of a larger branch, split, and splayed open with a small wedge of wood. Handles Tool handles are usually made from a branch of the appropriate diameter. In most cases the handle is more or less shaped with an adze. The handle can be attached either by splaying one end, or by embedding the end of the handle and the particular tool in a matrix of bitumen. Grain Pounders and Mortars Among the Mi'dan a ca. 60 cm. hollowed out section of palm tree is used as a grain pounder for husking rice. Two or more women usually participate in the pounding process. Each strikes downward into the hollowed palm section mortar with her wooden or reed pounder in asynchronous rhythm. As her pounder lands, she utters a grunting sound in a different key from that used by her companion or companions. The palm tree section is hollowed out with an adze and chisel. The pounder can be made in several ways. One way is from a smaller section of palm fastened to a wooden (usually willow) handle by drilling a hole of appropriate size through the palm section, pushing the handle through and splaying it with a wedge of wood. A second way is to slightly round the thicker end of a willow branch. A third way is to shape a bitumen head on the end of a length of wood or reed. Mortars are made in similar fashion from smaller sections of palm tree. A piece of tree branch of correct length can be used as a pestle. The branch is cleaned of its bark and sometimes (but not always) rounded at the bottom with an adze. The pestle can also be made by building up a bitumen head on the end of a stick or reed. Milking Pails Pails made from a hollowed out section of palm trunk with an adze and chisel are used most often for milking both water buffalo and cows. The pail is shaped on the outside so that it diminishes in diameter from top to bottom. The conical bottom ends in a knob. Loom Parts The parts of a loom can be made from a wide variety of wood or even from reeds depending on the size of the object to be woven. The looms of the village carpet weavers are made of hard woods, but there is usually someone in every household who can make woven belts, small bags, slings, etc. Looms for these smaller objects tend to be temporary and can be made from whatever wood is available in the village.
Wooden Boats and Bitumen Use of boats is rather unequal among the three groups of peoples living in the vicinity of al-Hiba. The Bedouin, migratory Arabs who spend but a few months in
Ochsenschlager
Wood, boats, bitumen and reeds
the area at the end of the summer, the fall and sometimes early winter, never own boats. They swim their livestock across the canals when moving from place to place or if absolutely necessary rent boats from others. Their favourite transportation, the majestic and sometimes bitterly complaining camel, usually conveys them safely and dryly from canal bank to canal bank or across the shallows of the marshes during the driest season of the year. The average village household, members of the Beni Hassan tribe, may or may not own a boat of some kind. Those who have not, borrow from those who have in case of need. Those who own boats are usually fishermen, proprietors of small village stores or men otherwise engaged in trade. Bitumen covered boats are most frequently found amongst the Mi'dan where every family owns at least one. They use them constantly for transporting fodder for their water buffalo, for fishing, and for transportation. Every morning the men set out in their boats to harvest enough fodder to feed their buffalo that evening. During the spring when high water prevents the buffalo from grazing the marshes, they must redouble their efforts and if short handed are joined by their entire families. In the villages near al-Hiba, two categories of bitumen covered boats are regularly used. The mashuf is a long, narrow boat of graceful line and is made in many sizes. Today all the larger ones are usually called tarada, a name formerly applied only to a very long example of this category with rows of interior studding if it was owned by a sheikh. In the front and back it curves upward from the water line terminating in a long, tapered bow and stern. Decked areas at front and back serve as platforms on which men may stand to pull the boat through shallow water by reaching forward with a long reed or bamboo, fixing it on the marsh or canal bed, pulling the boat toward it, and giving a strong push on the pole as the taraa'a glides by. In deeper water they are paddled with spade shaped boards nailed to lengths of reed or bamboo. If two people are paddling in the same boat they both paddle on the same side. The smallest example of the mashuf category is called a mataur and is of the same general design. It lies much lower in the water, however, and is designed to carry only one man. These boats are used primarily for hunting and fishing in the marshes. They can be poled through the water in a similar fashion to the tarada by their single occupant standing in mid ship. Frequently the punter uses the reed or bamboo shaft of his fish spear for a pole. This allows him to bring the spear into play more quickly. These spears, with ten to twelve foot shafts, have five pronged, barbed, iron heads and are used for spearing fish or retrieving birds which have been wounded by gun shot from the punters gun When stalking birds feeding in the marshes, a hunter usually uses his arms for paddles while lying on his stomach. The belam is wider and has higher sides than the taraa'a. Its bow and stern terminate in fairly heavy, carved pieces of wood, sometimes of a rather fanciful design. These serve a utilitarian function and can be used for binding two boats together, side by side, for towing one boat behind another, or for pulling a boat upstream from the tow-path along canal banks. The belam is usually moved forward in open water by setting the pole in the marsh bed at the bow and moving along the side to the stern. The punter then removes his pole and moves back along the other side to the bow where the process is repeated. Constructing the Frame The center for boat building for the area is located at Chabaish and nearby Huwair where a whole village specializes in making boats. Some craftsmen are very well-known and the boats they build are recognized on sight and highly prized. The price for a new tarada about ten forearms in length is from 14 to 15 dinars. Although boats of any kind are
Ochsenschlager
Wood, boats, bitumen and reeds
seldom made in the al-Hiba area, they are frequently so thoroughly repaired and patched as to be almost entirely rebuilt. These boats are built or repaired with salvaged parts by itinerant craftsmen whose work, it is generally acknowledged, is not up to the standards of those in the famous boat building centers further to the east. For replacement ribs they use acacia or mulberry wood as did most of the craftsmen who originally built these boats. They use any of a number of hardwoods, all of which are imported from abroad for the keel. For the rest of the boat the carpenter tends to use any size or kind of wood or wood fragments available, including the wood salvaged from empty packing cases. The keel of the boat consists of a large plank which will become a part of the outer wood surface in the finished product. To this are attached the bottom sections of the ribs which vary from 4 to 7 cm. in width, are about 3 to 4 cm. thick, and are placed 12 to 14 cm. apart. Such measurements are misleading, however, for I have never seen a boat maker measure anything. They work by eye alone. Planks are fitted on the outside of these ribs to form the bottom of the boat. If boards to stretch the entire length are not available, several pieces can be fitted between ribs. Major holes in the boards or gaps between planks can be repaired with pieces cut to fit with an adze. Even a section of local palm wood is regarded as suitable for this purpose. The nails which are made by blacksmiths out of iron brought from Basra are inevitably driven through the planks and into the ribs. The heads of the nails are slightly blunted and they are sometimes dipped in oil to help keep them from splitting the wood. Longer nails are either cut off by hammering or clenched into the wood of the rib. Side sections of rib are added when the bottom is completed and nailed precariously to the bottom section of the rib. The ground on which the boat is built, upside down, will serve to hold the ribs in place until they are secured by the side planks nailed to them. When these middle-section ribs are completely covered, the top section of ribs is added and covered in similar fashion. Although the outer boards are now nailed to the central part of the boat, they gape open at prow and stern without support of any kind. In the smaller tarada these ends are nailed to shaped prow and stem pieces of wood which project a considerable distance above the side of the boat. In the larger and wider belam, fairly large, but lightweight pieces of wood, shaped at the top to accommodate the ropes by which they are towed upstream in the canals, or behind fishermen setting out nets in the marshes, are used for prow and stern pieces. When wood of appropriate size is not available, they can be manufactured by nailing two or more smaller pieces of wood together. In both kinds of boat, an additional pair of ribs, usually of less sturdy wood than those in the main body, are then added to both the bow and the stern. The bow and stern are then often capped with flattened tin cans. The boat is strengthened on the interior with two or three braces across the width of the boat, nailed to the interior ribs as well as the exterior planking, and a series of narrow boards cut to fit over these braces are then nailed to the interior surfaces of the ribs around the top of the boat. In the past, if the tarada was intended for a sheikh, according to an informant, this wide planking around the top of the ribs was decoratively studded with rows of large, flat-headed, round nails (sometimes of bronze). No boats with such decoration or of the size reported for a sheikh's tarada (ca. 40 feet long) now exist in the area. In the belam the boards which make up the interior part of the gunwale are especially strong to bear the weight of the pullers who move it through the water. The basic framework is finished at this point, in spite of cracks in the surface and unseaworthy joins. Covering the Boat with Bitumen
The same itinerant craftsmen who repair or rebuild boats
Ochsenschlager Ochsenschlager
Wood. boats. bitumen and re&
Wood,boats, bitumen and reeds
also recover them with bitumen. New bitumen, which is said to come from Hit, can be purchased in Chabaish or Basra (about 80 kilos for one dinar), but it is not often needed in large quantities for bitumen can be used again and again and is usually salvaged from an old boat (as are most of the wooden boards) to build a new one. If a boat is leaking from small cracks and the bitumen coating is still in good condition, the cracks can sometimes be sealed by heating them with a length of burning reeds and then rolling the area with a short section of reed. Ordinarily a boat is stripped of its bitumen with a hammer and chisel every year and its hull is repaired. Small pieces of wood are thinned and shaped with an adze, then nailed over the larger holes in the framework or fitted between wider cracks. The old bitumen, with whatever new bitumen is necessary, is heated to liquid consistency and stirred occasionally with a stick Sometimes a trough is made in the mud at the side of the canal. The bitumen is liquified in this trough by a fire fed by reeds in a hole dug below it from the side of the canal bank. Most often a split and unrolled metal drum suspended on parallel mud-brick or mud walls over a fire of dung patties serves as an open-air heating oven. The top of the drum coated with ashes from the fire to keep the bitumen from sticking serves as a carrying tray for the hot liquid. A shovel full of liquid bitumen is distributed over its surface like a large pancake and camed to the repaired boats. One or two workmen spread the bitumen evenly over the surface with sobay, wooden rollers with conical ends. They frequently moisten the rollers with water and pick out lumps of extraneous material or unrnelted bitumen. The exterior of the boat is coated in sections, the bottom first, next one side, then the other. Two or more layers are usually applied until the protective coating is ca. one to three cm. thick. One man quickly spreads wet mud from the canal bank over each section as it is finished, while another throws cans of water over the mud to keep it moist and pliable. The mud, according to informants, fuses to the bitumen and gives the coating extra strength. When the bottom and sides are completed the boat is turned upright and layers of bitumen are spread over the decks, the top of the prow and stem, and the edges of the boat's sides. The final stage is packing the bitumen in the interior rib joins or wherever a large crack in the wood or a poor joint seem to require it. The boat is usually allowed to dry overnight before launching. Recently a Mi'dan family whose water buffalo had developed a taste for bitumen moved to Qaria Harran. The village forced them to locate at some distance from the village on a spit of land from which the buffalo can make their way to the marsh without coming in contact with village boats. If they come upon an unprotected boat they will eat away the bitumen from keel to top and from end to end, often destroying the wood in the process. The most interesting part of bitumen application is the semi-carnival atmosphere that prevails. Smoke from a boat builder's fire serves as a beacon drawing many spectators from the nearby village or villages, among them some who need a small amount of the substance. There are many uses for small quantities of bitumen in the village households. Although each villager could purchase separately small quantities of raw bitumen and liquify it for his own purposes, this is almost never done. The itinerant craftsman, usually with one or more helpers, provides the know-how and whatever additional bitumen is needed beyond that salvaged from the job at hand. The boat owners, who pay for the additional bitumen and the craftmen's labour render assistance to him, and also moderate the distribution of small bits of bitumen for home projects. This is for them an excellent opportunity to cement friendships and their positions in the community. More important, it serves as a public forum for regulating inter and intra-village affairs by calling to account those who have violated traditional modes of behaviour. The approach of people seeking bitumen seems to be self-regulated. No more than one or two request some of the sticky substance at any one time. Only when one villager's project is
completed does another take his place. Those who have acted appropriately in the past are allowed to dip into the hot liquid or have it delivered to them on a slab of tin while spectators and boat owners recall what they have done for others or the community in the past. They have inevitably brought their projects with them and squat out of the way of the boat makers to complete them. Sometimes one of the boat craftsmen will even lend a helping hand. Throughout their stay they keep up a friendly banter, to a certain extent with one another, but more especially with the boat owners or craftsmen. Those who have not behaved appropriately are also allowed to have bitumen for their needs eventually, but the tenor of conversation is much different in such cases. The individual is openly and publicly chided for poor spirit or particular unfriendly and ungenerous acts before his or her request is granted. The banter in these cases usually continues for some time and in a rather sharp vein with the spectators joining quite freely in the discussion. Even close friends or relatives, whose lack of civic spirit the boat owner might be inclined to overlook, do not escape unscathed. Spectators feel entirely free to initiate discussions of someone's behaviour. How effective these exchanges are may best be judged by imagining oneself praised for good behaviour or chastised for bad by the majority of the population among which one lives and works. The importance of this kind of verbal exchange and material sharing in building and maintaining a sense of community should not be underrated. The role of village crafts in promoting community cohesiveness has always been a large one. Individual Projects Mace Among the most interesting objects fabricated here is the mugwar, a mace used for protection when walking abroad, most often against dogs. The end of the wood or reed handle on which the mace head is to be formed is first roughened with a knife or saw and then dipped into the hot bitumen and twirled until some of the substance adhers to it. When this is cool enough to touch, it is formed into a knob, balanced and secured by rubbing between the palms of both hands. The process is repeated until the head has attained the required size and shape. The bottom of the knob, which has spilled over on the stick, is then cut away with a knife to give an even appearance, and the knob is burnished with a wet piece of reed and a wet cloth. Sometimes the knob is decorated with bronze tacks or other insets. The mugwar can also be used on people. Pole Knobs Boat poles are made from large reeds or imported bamboo. Moving any of the boats at speed puts great stress on the pole. Even the most skillful boatman is likely to fracture the more friable reed pole. As a result, the stronger bamboo pole is more often used by those who make a living from their boats. Those who use reeds select them very carefully and always carry two or three replacement poles with them except on the shortest trips. Knobs on the end of the poles are made in the same fashion as the mugwar head. Waterproofing Baskets Both the sabat and gofa can be waterproofed or liquidproofed by coating the interior with bitumen. Stands for Water Jars The kuz is porous and water evaporates from the bottom. If it stands on the ground it tends to create a mud hole. Therefore, a recess is often dug in the ground and the hole lined with bitumen. Water leakage thus tends to be contained. Evaporation from the bottom
Ochsenschlager
Wood. boats, bitumen and reeds
of the kuz helps keep the contents cool. Grinders Corn grinders made of mud disks will grind corn but tend to abrade rather rapidly. When covered with bitumen they last longer and grind better because of their harder surface. Mortars Mortars of various sizes and shapes are sometimes made of bitumen over a sun-dried mud core. The shape varies from round to oblong, usually with fairly low side-walls from 10-15 cm. high. Pestles consist of bitumen knobs built up over one or more reed sticks of appropriate length. Most villagers pride themselves on mortars of wood or metal. Tool Making and Repair
Blades and teeth of various kinds can be attached to their wooden or reed handles by means of a daub of bitumen. In some cases they are originally constructed in this fashion. In other cases they are repaired with bitumen only when other kinds of joins are weakened or broken. REEDS The marshes of southern Iraq provide an ideal environment for reeds (gramineae), rushes Guncaceae), sedges (cyperaceae) and other grasses. It is difficult, I am told, for a botanist to describe or identify the many species of these plants that exist here because of their extraordinary variety and the similarities of their basic structures. During the excavations I became quite interested in the ways reeds and rushes were used by people in the surrounding villages. Reeds are called gasab, rushes are known as bardy and sedge is kaulan. Although the inhabitants clearly know what kind of growth each plant will produce, the difference between the words 'gasab' and 'bardy' in common usage seems to be based largely on function rather than scientific botany. Young reeds can be referred to as bardy when harvested, as can certain sedges. The term gasab is usually confined to the growth of the larger, thicker plants even if in reality they are a variety of rush and sedge. This identification according to function is further born out. The Mi'dan spend most of the day foraging for fodder to feed their water buffalo at night. During the rainy season when the marshes are too deep for the water buffalo to graze, their owners (often the entire family) must provide the animals with sufficient fodder for both day and night. They harvest grasses, sedges and the young shoots of reeds and rushes. All of these are referred to as hashish, a word usually translated as grass. One should note that certain reeds and rushes are eaten by people. The tender young shoots of reed are chewed like sugar cane, to which their taste bears a distant resemblance. Young shoots of certain rushes have a kind of licorice taste, and a hard yellow cake is made from rush pollen in the spring time. The pith from yet another rush (or sedge) is eaten raw and is also cooked in a sweet pudding. Architecture Buildings Made of Arched Reeds Because of their size and architectural splendor, the grand mudhif (pl. madhaif) built by sheikhs as guest houses many years ago still dominate the horizon
Ochsenschlager
Wood, boats, bitumen and reeds
as one approaches a village lucky enough to preserve one. But, at least in modern usage, it is neither size nor beauty of construction alone which differentiates it from other arched reed structures such as the raba (pl. rabat) or the bayt (pl. buyut). The mudhif is used solely as a guest house and for no other purpose. The raba, on the other hand, has an entrance at both ends, a partition (bench or screen) in the middle, and while one end may be used as a guest house, the other end is a dwelling. The bayt is strictly a one room dwelling but may be used to entertain guests when cleared of household paraphanalia and furbished with reed mats and carpets. Both mudhif and raba are sleeping places at night for guests passing through a village. A mudhif is quieter than a raba either day or night for it is usually built somewhat separate from the rest of the village. Construction of an Arched Reed Dwelling We were able to watch and record the building of two madhaif, for excavation use and one small raba in one of the near-by villages. In building these reed structures, the matter of size was an important consideration in terms of labor. For anything over 5 arches, we were informed, we would need the supervision of a specialist from one of the near-by villages. Candidates for the job all had fairly sizable madhaif of their own, and the details of building them had been passed from father to son in their families. The mudhif of Sheikh Mersin, who was chosen to superintend the job, was very large. The interior floor of this mudhif covered an area seven meters wide by twenty-one meters long. The eleven arches were about one meter in diameter at their base and the centers of the arch about fifteen meters above the ground. One hundred and eighteen ribs were tied to the arches as a foundation for the reed mats. According to Mersin, it took 170 men three weeks to erect this structure. Members of the village freely contributed their labor. The Sheikh furnished the material needed, provided food for the workers during the construction and a lavish banquet once the building was finished. Nowadays, with the Sheikh's authority eroded by the central government, there was less incentive for his followers to rebuild the mudhif although the older men still used it daily as a social gathering place. Furthermore, in his financially straightened condition, Mersin could no longer afford the requisite food or material. Few sizable madhaif, we were told, had been built in the area in the last 20 years, and none of these were of the size and splendor of the major madhaif of the past. Sheikh Mersin engaged seven men who would help him build our mudhif and twelve women who- would snip the reeds of their leaves and carry them from the marshes to the building site. It took six days to build a seven arched mudhif from start to finish. The ground plan was laid out with rope and stakes outlining the interior space that would result when the building was finished. All measuring throughout the building process was based on forearm lengths (dhira', pl. adhro'a) and hand spans (shibir, pl. ishbar). Reed sticks were cut to Mersin's measurements and used throughout in the measuring process. One man, carefully supervised, was put to digging the holes for the structure's main supports. The holes, a little over two forearms deep, were dug at an angle slanting towards the interior of the building. Meanwhile the other men were building simple supports, rather similar in concept to sawhorses, on which the major architectural members would be assembled. Each of these supports was made of two small bundles of reeds sunk in the ground about 4 forearms apart with a third bundle tied between them at about chest hight. Reeds for this pair of supports came from the growing pile that the women were bringing on their heads from the edge of the marsh for the building. Men had harvested them the previous day with a sickle shaped saw (mingal, pl.
Ochsenschlager
Wood, boats. bitumen and reeds
managil) and the women had cut off their leaves and plumes. Construction of the large bundles which would be concerted into arches (sabba, pl. s W ) took place on these supports. For the core of these bundles it was necessary to use reeds from the arches of an old mudhif which had lost their resiliency. Using all new, flexible reeds could result in the collapse of the arches. The old reeds were acquired from a ruined mudhif in a neighboring village. Individual reeds for the core were carefully chosen and laid atop the supports. These were surrounded with approximately double the thickness of new reeds and lightly tied with rope. Then came the process of carefully teasing the reeds to elongate the bundle, adding new reeds as required, until a bundle ca. 3 forearms in diameter at the bottom and steadily diminishing to ca. 2 hand spans in diameter at the top and of about 10 forearms in length had been formed. The appearance of these bundles, like all such bundles used in smaller madhaif in the area, is quite different from the bundles used in the large madhaif of the past. In these grand structures longer reeds were brought from deeper in the marshes where reeds grow to 20 or even 25 feet in height and as a result required less teasing to form a bundle of proper size. Furthermore, the outer surface of each reed was peeled and the reeds meticulously sorted according to diameter. Diameters of each reed used in the facing of the bundle were carefully matched and an equal diminution in the diameter of each reed, from bottom to top, was maintained. The peeling was done by the women at the edge of the marsh. Creating the old type bundle would require purchasing and shipping reeds of a proper height and a great deal of extra labor effectively doubling the cost of building the mudhif. The modem bundles have a rather shaggy appearance when compared to the sleek, shiny surface of the bundles of the past. Once the bundle is fully formed it is tightly bound with double rings of cord. Sheikh Mersin showed me the oldest arches in his own mudhif which were bound with rope made of finely split reeds pounded, woven into cords and the cords twisted around each other to make a rope. He estimated that each of these arches required 160 meters of cord biding. These days, however, all madhaif seem to be built with commercial rope bought in the market towns. As each bundle is finished it is placed in the hole dug for it, leaning outward at an angle of about 70 degrees, and thoroughly tamped into place until all the bundles are in their proper positions. Madhaif must have an uneven number of arches. The only response to my inquiries from many people as to why this should be so was that an even number of arches is unlucky. Reeds are now forced through the centre of each bundle on the long sides, about one forearm span from the ground level, until the bundles on each side are joined together by a reed member ca. two hand spans wide and three hand spans high (thalthala, pl. talatil). A tripod or multipod of sufficient height and suitable to bear the weight of two men is made of bundled reeds and set up in the center of the space to be enclosed by the first arch. The foreman on top of this support reaches up with a spade to snare first one side of the arch, then the other. Ropes are attached to the tops of these bundles which are pulled by men on the ground until the bundles come together forming an arch. The foreman and his assistant on the tripod tie the bundles together. This is a job that requires a good eye, for one wants the arch as near perfect as possible. The assistant on the tripod helps the foreman adjust the bend and tension in each pair of supports. Sometimes no amount of adjustment of the tension on the bundles can make the arch symmetrical and in that case more reeds are tied in the appropriate place to correct the imperfection. Rafters or ribs (ihtar, pl. hitir) are made of bundles of reeds teased together to form a roll the length of the building. These ribs are one to two hand spans in thickness and are bound with cord every four inches. These are tied about one forearm apart to the arches across the entire
frame. rhr bmr The framework is covered with reed mats (baria, pl. bmari). In the larger exterior portion of each side, up to the point where the springing of the arch is m a o b v l ~ I,( covered first. In most cases these sidewalls are directly covered with mats sewn to thu rlb, sometimes single length mats and sometimes double length mats whose edges have been m together on the short sides. In other cases a shallow trench is first dug along each side and a lattice work of reeds constructed. The bottom end of each reed is tamped firmly into the soil. the lattice work members tied off at the ribs and the top parts of the reeds cut off. The sidewall is then completed by sewing mats over the lattice work. In the summer the mats can be untied and rolled up to provide ventilation in both cases, but the lattice work keeps out small animals. The mudhifs arched roof is covered next with pairs of two reed mats sewn together along their shorter edges. These double length mats are then sewed to the ribs. In the larger madhaif they may be only long enough to cover one side of the arch and slightly overlap the sidewalls. In more modest structures their length may be sufficient to cover the arch entirely and overlap both sidewalls. In smaller buildings a single or double length mat may reach from ground level to ground level on each side and no additional sidewalls are necessary. Another overlapping pair leaves one or two forearms of the first mats exposed and is sewed both to the ribs and the matting it overlaps. The process is continued to the center of the aech which receives a pair of capping mats. Mats are still plaited in the area, but for the sake of uniformity the large quantity of mats needed for a mudhif is usually bought in one of the market towns. Two additional ribs are now constructed for each exterior side of the structu~.One is placed, at approximately the height where the arches spring. It is sewn to the matting and, where appropriate, through the matting to the arches and ribs on the interior. The second is sewn in the same fashion about two forearms below it. Smaller bundles of a few smng reeds are then put in place vertically by forcing them under the exterior ribs. They are approximately centered on the arch bundles and midway between them. Sometimes this vertical reinforcing is sewn to the structure and sometimes it is not, in order to facilitate their removal. A large mudhif may have a third rib placed longitudinally between the two described above in order to give additional SUPpo* Winds in this area can be very strong. Two methods of further reinforcing the roof are sometimes seen. Additional reed ribs can be tied on the exterior above the springing point of the arch and longitudinally across the mats. Most people prefer not to do this, for it facilitates rot at the points of contact. Ropes are sometimes tied across the roof from the upper rib on one siedwall to the upper rib on the other. Sometimes these are put in place in the late fall and taken off in the spring. Spacing between these ropes is likely to depend on the condition of the roof. The roof of a new mudhif is very leaky during its first year. Only as time, windstorms and rain fill the matting with dust and debris do the mats reach their peak of efficiency. Then, as more time passes, the mats become less effective due to rot and disintegration. The roof can be renewed the first time by turning the mats over and placing a fresh layer of mats on top. The second time it needs renewal, another fresh layer cam be added. More than three layers, however, can prove too heavy for the arches and usually all the mats are removed and replaced by a new single layer roof. The sides are now finished except for the addition of loosely laid rushes (bardy) on top of and beneath the thalthala on each side. This will help to weatherproof the interior.
Ochsenschlager
Wood,boats, bitumen and reeds
Reeds are next selected to flush out the interior sides of the arches in the front and back creating a more or less flat exterior face. These are tied and sewn to the arches, the roofing and the sidewall mats they abut. A horizontal bundle of reeds is fixed across the opening at the height of the future door. Sometimes it is held in place by forcing its individual reeds into the framing reeds on each side, sometimes it is tied in place and sometimes a combination of the two methods is used. Bundled reeds which will frame the doorway are then fixed in the ground in holes dug about one forearm deep, tied to the horizontal bundle and the arch fillers and the tops cut off. Mats are then sewn to this framework (which can be more complex than described here in a larger mudhfi and the place to be occupied by the doorway is cut out. Additional small bundles of reeds, one placed on each side of the exterior and tied to the interior arch whose contours they follow, and one placed on each side of the exterior door frame, are tied in place. Further south extremely large bundles of reeds are placed upright on either side of the doorway and often at the corners of the building itself, but that is not the practice he=. The back can be constructed in the same way but without a doorway unless it is a raba. Doorways, which in private houses are seldom more than eighteen inches wide, can be dosed with mats in inclement weather. Alternatively, a lattice work of reeds can be constructed at one or both ends (as described above) then covered with mats that can be removed for added ventilation in warm weather. When the building is finished its arches are marked with blood from the head of a freshly slaughtered animal. A mudhif whose arches are collapsing is repaired by digging a hole outside and up against the arch bundles, one side at a time. One bundle at a time is pulled into the new hole, its bottom cut off, and the new bottom of the arch pushed back into the old hole and tamped firmly in place. For taller structures this kind of repair can sometimes be done twice. With care and reasonable repairs a mudhif can last twenty-five years or more. Houses built with these methods vary from fairly good sized structures to mere shelters. The average village house is usually a little more than two meters wide, about six meters long and a little less than three meters high. These houses have the additional advantage of being portable. In the spring, if the marsh rises too high, a five arched rma can be taken down, moved to higher ground and re-erected in less than a day. Sarifa, pl. Sara'if A sarifa is built much like a modern pole building, using bundled reeds in place of poles. Bundled reeds are set upright in holes ca. two forearms deep and about four forearms apart along the sides. An especially tall bundle is set in the center of each end and the leftover space divided by additional tall bundles placed from one to two forearms apart. A ridge pole of wood, usually the trunk of a small palm, or of married bundles of reed is tied in place to the central bundles at each end. If the house is a long one the ridge may be supported internally by columns made of bundled reeds. Rafters (usually of reed) are then tied in increasingly lower elevations to the poles on either side of the central one Nnning from one end of the building to the other. These create a framework for a fairly steep roof slope. Ribs of reed are then tied to the sidewalls about one forearm apart. Sidewalls may be covered with lattice work or directly with reed mats. The door for a sarifa is on the long side rather than at the ends. Occasionally one sees a sarifa used only as a private dwelling, but they are most often built as adjuncts to sheikh's madhaif, village stores or purchasing centres. Sheikhs sometimes built a sarifa near their mudhif to house their more important overnight guests. Most guests, of course,
Ochsenschlager
Wood, boats. bitumen and reeds
would sleep in the mudhif, but for the favoured few the sarifa offers the chance of earlier retirement and at least semi-privacy. They also offer excellent ventilation, for when used for guests the sarifa is usually latticed on all four sides. Two sheikhs in the area still maintain them. Local merchants often use a sarifa as both shop and home. Sometimes they partition off one corner, with a separate door, in which they display their meager goods. These are likely to consist of cigarettes, matches, small quantities of sugar, flour, cheap tea and coffee beans, and perhaps a sheet or two of pressed dates or apricots. The door leading to the shop is likely to be of wood or tin and is closed with a large and impressive padlock. The elaborate door and the rather distinctive style of the structure may serve, like the white flag attached to a pole above the ridgepole, as a guide to prospective customers. Bulk buyers of reeds, reed mats and fish often have similar structures at some place where a road comes closest to the edge of the marsh or a canal. Perhaps the reason for their choice of type of structure also is to afford easy visibility and identification. Lean-to and Temporary Buildings Lean-to buildings are constructed by setting bound bundles of reeds as close together as possible in two parallel rows either in a shallow trench in the ground or on top of it. They are set so that they lean inward at about a 70 degree angle and are tied together at their tops. The front and back can be closed in the same fashion with closely placed bundles of reeds, leaving an opening for a door. The roof is usually covered with one or more reed mats. Temporary structures can also be constructed by draping reed mats over a reed pole. Although such structures are small, they provide sufficient shelter for fishermen or hunters abroad at nightfall, people travelling from one place to another, or those whose home has been destroyed by fire. Although fire is one of the most feared calamities in a reed structure, few precautions are taken to avoid it. The most usual cause is either a live cigarette flicked carelessly onto the reed matting with which the floor is covered, or sparks from the open cooking fire or occasionally sparks from a rifle fired carelessly inside in despair at death, in joy at the birth of a son or in celebration of a wedding. Such fires are always a disaster, racing through the tinder-dry house with such speed as to destroy the families' entire possessions and often members of the family as well. Moreover, because houses are usually built so close together, the fire almost inevitably spreads to other houses in the village. Sitra A sitra is a reed structure built adjoining one's house to protect the family's water buffalo during the inclement weather of late winter and early spring. The floor plan of the building is laid out with string. Two parallel trenches are dug to a depth of one and a half to two forearms deep for the sides of the building. The back or front of the owner's house will provide one end of the sitra and the other end is left open as an entrance for the water buffalo. Bundles of reeds are placed in these trenches close together. Ribs are constructed of five to ten reeds in thickness and married to create continuous bands of the desired length. One rib is placed on the inside and another on the outside at about one third the distance of the height of the sidewall bundles and they are tied together through the bundled reeds. The binding on the bottom portions of the sidewall bundles are simultaneously loosened and the sidewall reeds spread out to create a wall of somewhat equal thickness. The trench is filled in and the earth thoroughly tamped into place. The process is repeated with two more ribs at two thirds the height of the sidewall bundles and the
Ochsenschlager
Wood, boats, bitumen and reeds
remainder of their binding is removed. The tops of the two sidewalls are now bent inward, their tops interlacing, over a ridgepole made of married reeds to which they are tied. The hight of the roof is tapered downward and inward towards the entrance the buffalo will use to give them more protection. Holes are dug around the interior of the wall to keep the buffalo at bay and protect the comparatively fragile structure from their lumbering strength. These structures have a particularly shaggy appearance for neither the reed leaves or plumed tops are removed. When the winter is over and the animals no longer need protection, the sitra is often dismantled and used as fuel. The Mi'dan keep water buffalo primarily for milk, dung and hides. Of the t h e , dung is the most important. Separation Between Two Parts of the Reed House House dividers can be made in two different ways. One way is to build a reed mat partition between two sections tied to a reed frame. The reed frame, in turn, is tied to the sides and top of one of the arches. If both rooms are created for living, the partition will have a doorway or opening. Such partitions, however, are most often used without doors for separating the living space from the animals' quarters. Living spaces in a dwelling are most often separated by a wide bench made of tied reed framework and reed bundle top. This structure juts into the room from one of the long walls. A chest made of wood, usually studded with iron or brass and with a domed lid, is placed on the women's side of the bench. Towards the center of the women's side is the place for the cooking fire. Mud bricks or narrow walls of pist support the vessels used for cooking or heating. Coffee pot (aluminium or brass) and tea kettle (aluminium) stand in close proximity, as do a variety of aluminium objects including a large deep tray used for washing-up and mixing and one or two large bowls used for mixing, cooking and sometimes serving. A variety of sizes of conical bowls are also near-by made of aluminium, porcelain, or even plastic. These are used for drinking water and for serving food. They are bought in market towns and bright multicoloured decorations are much sought after. On one side are the sun dried mud objects of everyday use (Ochsenschlager 1974a:16&169). An aluminium or brass water jar or perhaps an old tea kettle stands handy by the door filled with water. This will be taken with them by a member of the family who needs to urinate or defecate for it is necessary to wash oneself thoroughly with water, using the left hand, after either of these functions. Also near the door are the baskets used for collecting dung (see below). Along one side is a shallow well dug in the floor and lined with bitumen (see pp 53-54) in which sits a water jar with drinking water and a jar for salt (Ochsenschlager 1974b:149-154). Near the bench, or perhaps even under it, are baskets (either plaited or coiled) with staples such as wheat, rice or dried fish, and perhaps a sabat with a variety of small packages of tea, coffee and spices (see below). The latter three items might also be kept in the chest along with clothes or the material for making new ones (Ochsenschlager, Weaving), special amulets, jewelry and money. Hanging on the wall will be one or more string or bead amulets (Ochsenschlager, Weaving), and a basket containing a sun dried mud plaque made from mud collected at Kerbala, which is used at prayer. A mortar and pestle of metal, or of reed, mud and bitumen, or of wood is nearby. So too is a mud disk flour grinder with reed handle, pin and socket (Ochsenschlager 1974a:171) or a rice pounder made of wood, and sometimes both. Some of these things are simply piled on the bench when not in use, as are bedclothes, pillows, carpets, money box, paddles and poles for boats, fish nets, agricultural or craft tools, baskets used for special functions (see below) and other family possessions.
Ochsenschlager
Wood boa& M ~ n a md r ndr
The bench is seldom used as a sleeping platform at night except for the sick. Beds for amdl children are often made of small piles of rushes with soft bedclothes on top. Swinging cradle#, hung from an arch, are made for babies out of a bundle of rushes. A simple well is made in a bundle of rushes tied at both ends. The well is lined with clothes, a sheepskin or raw wool. Rattles (khorkhashu, pl. khorkhashat) are often used to amuse the baby. Although brightly coloured plastic ones are available on the market, some fathers still make them for their children. Baby rattles are made of two shot-glass shaped cones of mud the edges of which are first made as even as possible and are then lightly pounded on a flat surface to flatten them slightly and make them connect more easily. Dust is poured liberally into both sections to keep the rattling material from sticking to the sidewalls during the drying process. Potsherd bits or stone fragments are then put in one of the sections and the edges of both sections are moistened and joined, the clay from one section being carefully massaged into that of the other to produce a firm bond. Sometimes the middle of a long strip of clay rolled in the palms of the hands is wrapped around the join, and the ends of the strip pressed together to form the handle. Usually this clay strip is subsequently pinched with the fingers to form both a collar around the sounding chamber and a flat handle. At other times the handle is made of twisted reeds wrapped around the sounding chamber and secured with daubs of mud. The rattle is put in the sun to dry. The men's side is more sparsely furnished. Sometimes it has a permanent hearth and sometimes merely a portable cooking dish or mangala (Ochsenschlager 1974a:16&167). Reed mats cover the mud floor. When guests are present the mats are in turn covered with carpets and pillows, otherwise they are kept on the bench. When water buffalo or other livestock share the quarters, the mats are removed. Oftentimes the owner booby traps both entrances at night to keep out intruders. Walls and Courtyards, Reed Reed fences for livestock are usually built of tall reeds by the Mi'dan for their water buffalo and by the villagers for cattle and sheep. As such a fence is called a sitra, it is not surprising to find that its method of construction is the same as the building of that name. The sole difference is that the reed walls are left upright, perpendicular to the ground, rather than bent inward and joined to form a roof. Holes are dug around the inside of the wall and the outside of the house this fence abuts or encloses to keep the livestock from causing serious damage. Sometimes these walls surround the house, leaving space on all sides, and sometimes the back of the house forms a portion of the wall. The walls are used for fuel at the end of the winter season especially in the tanur where a reed fire is considered the best for baking wheat bread. Courtyards General During the summer, the courtyard contains most of the sun dried mud household goods the family uses regularly. This would include grinders, containers, etc. In addition large cone-shaped storage jars and the family tanur (Ochsenschlager 1974a:168), both made of mud would be conspicuous at all times of the year. In one corner one is certain to see a large stack of dung patties neatly stacked to shed the winter rains and provide dry fuel during the entire year. Large Tanur-Shaped Structures Structures which look like a very large tanur or storage jar and made of pist are used for a variety of purposes. Such truncated conical structures can be
Ochsenschlager
Wood, boats, bitumen and reeds
built over a regular tanur to provide shelter for the baker during the winter rainy season. It is made sufficiently large to provide walk-space around the tanur, and of sufficient height to pennit a woman to stand upright alongside the centrally located oven. Usually one or more windows are cut in the upper part to allow the smoke to dissipate. The roof is made of reeds laid flat across the top and covered with a thick coat of mud. Occasionally one also sees a truncated cone of this size or larger used as a hut, as an addition to a reed house, or as the central core of a lean-to-type reed structure. Slightly smaller structures of this type with a hole of appropriate size cut in the sidewall to furnish access, are commonly used as chicken or turkey coops. Outside Beds During the extreme heat of the summer months, when the villagers tend to spend the evenings outside their houses, they construct sleeping platforms in their courtyards to raise their bedding high enough above the ground to avoid disturbance from hosehold animals and ground-dwelling pests. The free movement of air beneath the bed is said to have a cooling effect. The foundations for these platforms consist of a series of parallel pist walls, about 2 to 2.5 meters long and 30 to 40 cm. thick at the base. These are built about 50 to 60 cm. apart and vary between 40 cm. and one meter in height. Reeds laid across this foundation form the platform proper, and bedclothes atop this make sleeping more comfortable. In the daytime it serves as a sitting and storage platform. During the winter, when the structure is no longer in use, the reed platform is often used for fuel and the foundations fall into disrepair. The following summer repairs are made to the foundations and new reeds are cut in the marshes and laid over them. Although no structures of this kind have been discovered in the excavations at al-Hiba, perhaps the Mesopotamian terracotta models in museums represent similar beds used in antiquity. Large Storage Chests Temporary or seasonal storage containers are often made of reed mats (see below p. 64). The more permanent large storage containers, both with and without stands, are made in many shapes from round to conical to square to oblong. A storage vessel without a stand is called a tiniya @I. tiniayat) and one with a stand is called a sidana @I. sidayin). Sidayin tend to be larger than tiniayat. These are made in many shapes from round to conical to square. Round and conical varieties are most often constructed directly on the ground without stands, but can also be made with solid mud stands or, for better drainage, stands composed of low, parallel mud walls over a framework of reeds set in the ground. They can be built up in conical forms like the tanur, built up in free form shapes to fit a particular corner of the courtyard, or made of poured mud. A mold for the latter is made by binding together reed mats and setting them on edge to create two concentric circles from 10 to 20 cm. apart. The interval between them is filled with 10 cm. of very wet mud which is allowed to dry before the next 10 cm. section is poured. When the container sidewalls reach the height of the frame, the outer matting is sometimes removed but the interior retained as a liner. Rectangular storage chests are made of mud over a framework of bundled reeds and reed mats. Reeds are cut to the appropriate size, and bundles are made of several stalks bound together with a cord. A narrow trench is dug outlining the chest to be constructed, and the reed bundles are set upright in it, at intervals, with the thick end of the bundle from 20 to 30 cm. below the surface. Reed bundles at the corners are always thicker and longer, and are sometimes set at a greater depth. The trench is then filled in, and the earth firmly stamped down by the builders' bare feet. If the chest is to have a stand, mud bench supports from 24 to 40 cm. wide and from 20 to 30 cm. high, are built on the long sides, incorporating the bundled reeds, and a third
Ochsenschlager
Wood, boats. bitumen and reeds
parallel to and at an equal distance between them. When these benches are thoroughly dry (two to three days) reeds are laid transversely across them and over the top of these, one or more reed mats are placed. These reed mats, raised above ground level on the three bench supports, and covered with carefully smoothed mud, will form the bottom of the chest. The two channels between the benches provide drainage in the rainy season and the benches raise the chest above the damp ground. The frame of vertical reed bundles is then covered with clay which is carefully forced into all nooks and crannies between the reeds. Sometimes the bundles are almost contiguous and are bound together with cord, but they may be as much as 30 to 40 cm. apart. Covering the framework can take several days, depending on the size of the chest. The clay walls are raised from the bottom, about 10 to 20 cm. at a time, and each course must be dry before the next one can be applied. When the frame is completely covered, from one to three layers of the mud plaster are applied to the outer surface for protection and to give the chest a more even and finished appearance, and mud knobs are formed over the taller bundles which protrude at the four corners. The place where the chest is to stand within the courtyard is chosen with care from the point of view of access and protection. Chests are usually closed with one or more reed mats plastered with buffalo dung. The size of the chests varies according to the storage needs of the household from about 40 cm. wide by 60 cm. long by 50 cm. high for the smallest to about 150 cm. wide by 100 cm. long by 200 cm. high for the largest These chests are often decorated with the application of plastic decoration modelled from clay or the insertion of broken pieces of stone, shell, pottery, china or glass. Types of decoration are limited to partial plastic bands or knobs, figurative representations and geometric patterns. All bands, figurative representations and barbotine applications are made of clay. The insertion of foreign material in geometric patterns is usually thought to be efficacious in averting the evil eye. These storage vessels are used for the storage of rice, barley, wheat, dried fish, salt, sugar, spices, herbs, etc. The largest often contain the chief product from which the family secures its sustenance, whether this be dried fish, grain, or the fleeces of sheep, until such time as the contents can be profitably marketed. They can also be used for storage of family possessions not needed during the summer, such as heavy blankets, bedding and clothes. One can often judge the relative economic position of a household by the size and number of storage vessels it maintains. Protective Food Covers The mishfaya is a large heavy cover which is used to protect food left over from meals from prowling cats, dogs or other animals. The food is usually placed in a covered china or metal dish which is then placed in a sun dried mud dish (sahan) and covered with the mishfaya. Mishfayat furnish extremely effective protection, for they are too heavy for the strongest cat or dog to move. The sidewalls of a mishfaya are built up of mud in a roughly truncated conical shape on the bare ground. The lowest layer of the sidewall is usually very thick, sometimes as thick as 10 cm. Reed sticks are broken into appropriate sizes for spanning the top opening. These are placed across the top and firmly pressed into the clay below. Lumps of clay are then laid on top of them and carefully spread over the reeds and down the sides of the vessel. The top is flattened with the palms of the hand and the surplus clay is blended into the sidewalls with wet hands and fingers. The handle of the mishfaya is always applied after the rest of the vessel is partially dry. It is made from a large wedge-shaped lump of clay fastened to the rim and body of the cover by pressure and by spreading the clay from the base of the handle across the rim and area of the body it adjoins.
Ochsenschlager
Wood. boats, bitumen and reeds
Watering Troughs for Livestock Close to al-Hiba where livestock is kept with easy access to the marsh or canal, watering troughs are not necessary except for small livestock, and for these a broken piece of baked pottery or a sun dried mud dish are usually used. In some villages to the north-west, however, large oblong watering troughs of pist? over a reed frame are built of local mud dried in the sun. Although the water looks extremely muddy when first put in, the mud soon settles to the bottom leaving the water sufficiently clear to satisfy the thirst of the livestock Mats and Baskets Plaited Mats Practically every adult in the village is capable of plaiting a mat and will do so from time to time, especially when a special size is needed. Several families who possess little land or few animals in the near-by villages, used to supplement their income solely by plaiting mats. They no longer do so to the same extent, for fishing with nets is a much more rewarding occupation. Men harvest the reeds with a sickle shaped knife, cut off the tops and bottoms, and bring them to the edge of the marsh where they split each reed with a short, curved knife. Women then lay ten to twenty reeds flat on the ground and pound them with mallets, heavy wooden sticks or even bitumen covered pestles until they are pliable. Each stem produces three to six connected strands which can be stored and still retain their flexibility. When enough material is collected, both men and women plait the mats. They lay out the requisite number of flattened reed strands next to each other on the ground and plait a weft of the same across them at right angles in a twill pattern of either over two under two or over three under three. The ends of the weft are turned in creating extremely sturdy borders. Mats are plaited in several sizes. The usual commercial size is about 4 by 8 feet, the largest I saw was about 12 by 20 feet. Mats are often sold or bartered to a local merchant whose stock, aside from mats, consist only of the basic household necessities. Traders who regularly ply the waterways in boats buy the finished mats either from the local merchants or directly from the weavers. They in turn sell them to dealers who ship them to market towns throughout Iraq. These mats are used as both floors and roofs in most houses (see also p.49). For receiving guests or on special occasions the mats are covered with carpets and pillows. Used between the ground and a mud brick wall or between layers of mud brick, they are thought to inhibit the passage of salt. They are also used for making storage bins for grain, usually of a temporary or seasonal nature. A small plaited mat or reed tray (see below) serves as the bottom. The sides are formed of reed matting and the top covered with another tray or section of reed mat. The top and sometimes the sides are sealed with buffalo dung plaster. Woven Mats Only one woman in the area still occasionally makes these. In the past she says, she used finely split rushes twisted into cord for the warp. Today she uses leftover nylon cord bought in Shatra by her husband for his fishing nets. The loom consists of'two beams set about six feet apart and tied to stakes driven into the ground. Each cord of the warp was separately tied to each of the two beams under tension. Finely split rushes were used for the weft which was passed alternately over and under the successive warp cords by hand for there was no heddle. Each course was pressed in (rather than beaten in) with a toothed comb similar to the one used by carpet weavers. The product she was working on was an oblong about four by six feet, but
Ochsenschlager
Wood, boats, bitumen and reeds
she showed me other examples of different size and shape, including an oval mat, that she had for sale. These are used over reed mats as a kind of table cloth on which the food is placed and around which the diners sit. Today these mats have been replaced in many households with squares of oil cloth bought in Shatra. The weaver reported that it was increasingly difficult for her to sell her mats. When I visited this family again, two years later, her husband told me he had made his wife give up weaving, and indeed there was no evidence left of the loom she used to use. He took special pains to show me a new piece of oil cloth in bright, luminous colours which they now used for their dining cloth. He told me that there had been talk in the village. People were saying that this family must be extremely impoverished to go on using such old fashioned eating mats when beautifully patterned oil cloth was available for so little in the market towns. Plaited Baskets Plaited baskets are still made by most Mi'dan women and some village women. Women maintain that at least in this area everyday basket making was always a cottage craft practiced by women. Baskets are made from both split rushes and split reeds and the plaiting is done in a strip. Split young reeds or rushes, sometimes still green, are made pliable by pounding and then separated into sections. The basket maker begins a strip of weaving by bifurcating 11 split sections from the top to about 4 or 5 cm. from the bottom. They are then interlaced, their bottoms held in the left hand, and the process of plaiting begins. The weaver bends the outer two split pieces towards the center, passing them in an over two, under two pattern alternately working from right to center and from left to center. As new sections are needed, they are split, added to the old sections at the center and held there with the left hand until they are tightly bound in the course of plaiting. Wider and narmwer strips can be made by the addition or subtraction of two or multiples of two sections at the beginning of the plaiting process. Throughout the plaiting if one is using rush (but not reed) the material must be kept moist, usually by occasionally immersing the part being woven in a large pan of water, and by keeping the sections to be added later covered with water until they are needed. In basket weaving the strip should constantly decrease in width, a process which requires careful control. Quarter sections are added as the weaving progresses rather than half sections, and greater pressure exerted to tighten the plait. Such strips are sometimes tied together with string but baskets made in this fashion are not very sturdy. Usually the strips are bound together in the process of weaving. Unbound edges are strengthened with ribbons made of sections of reed or rush knotted at their ends and rolled in the palms of the hands, over which the outer woven sections are always bent. Outer sections of bound edges are passed around the ribbons in the previously woven strip before they are woven into the pattern. This process creates a more sturdy join which will withstand a great deal of pressure. They are still, however, less sturdy than the rest of the basket as a basket almost always disintegrates first at the juncture of the strips. A rolled edge is produced at the top of the basket by bending the top edge of the last strip outward and downward inserting the outer section through the previously woven strands before that section is woven through the cycle. When the cycle is complete, the section is pulled tight and the edge thoroughly secured in its doubled over position. At the conclusion of the last cycle, the remaining sections are forced through the basket sidewall and tied in a knot.
Ochsenschlager
Wood, boats, bitumen and reeds
Deep baskets are made in many different sizes from those holding abaut one bushel to those holding five or six times as much. Women also make a shallow basket in several sizes and plait large trays which are used for drying threshed grain in the sun. Baskets are used for transporting goods to market, from the house to the field or vice versa, and from large storage containers in the courtyard to the place where the contents will be used. The smallest size baskets are made for carrying a lunch usually composed of a handful of dates and a folded disk of wheat bread. Baskets can be taylor made for specific contents such as the oblong tablets of mud from Nejef used by the faithful in prayer. Wrapped Coil Baskets Usually the coil of these baskets is made from split reeds and the wrapping from split rushes, but they can be made entirely from reed or rush. Crafts women emphasize that proper selection of the wrapping material is of paramount importance to a successful basket. The reeds for the core are usually split and pounded. Several split sections are bundled into a coil of appropriate size which is sometimes loosely tied together in several places to facilitate its use. Coils may be lengthened by marrying additional reed sections into the coil bundles as one begins to run out of coil material. The work always begins at the base with a simple coil or snail which is often slightly raised at its center. Split rush strips are passed around the latest coil and then through the edge of the previous coil and through the previous coil wrapping which is immediately next to it. An awl made of wood or reed facilitates this process. When the end of a strip of wrapping material is reached, it is tied off on the interior of the basket and a new rush section introduced. If the basket is decorated, the design is made with dyed rush splits. Three forms are commonly seen: the tubaq (pl. a t b q ) a flat tray, the quffa (pl. quffat) a deep dish shape and a saba (pl. sabat) a jar shaped basket. The tubq is used for carrying bulky items atop one's head, for drying small quantities of produce and for winnowing chaff from grain. The quffa is used for hauling small quantities of goods to or from storage jars, for carrying heavier material from place to place and, when bitumen coated on the inside, for collecting fresh dung. The saba is used mostly for storage inside the house. Its contents can be of one substance such as maize, or of small quantities of several substances wrapped in individual packages. Sometimes a bitumen coated saba is used for milking water buffalo or cows. Other Objects Made of Reeds Double Reed "Flute" Reed "flutes" are made and used by men. Two reeds of appropriate size for the "flute" body and two slightly smaller for the mouthpieces are carefully selected. The pieces for the body are cut to size and tied together temporarily with string. A fire is made in a mangala and a small portion of bitumen heated in an old tin can. A small amount of oil is added to give the bitumen the right consistency. This bitumen preparation is used to fill the crack between the two adjacent reeds and is extended over both reeds in the area where holes will not be made. This process binds the two reeds permanently together. Holes are now made in the two reeds forming the body with a nail heated over the mangala fire. Mouthpieces are cut from the two smaller reeds which will fit into the openings at one end of the larger reed body. The ends of these mouthpieces are slit and tied open with a thread, usually tom from the center of the makers khajya. The mouthpieces are put in place and the
Ochsenschlager
Wood, boats, bitumen and reeds
"flute" tried for sound. At this point adjustments may need to be made in the size of the holes or the angle of the slit in the mouthpiece. When the maker is satisfied with the sound he ties a piece of string to each mouthpiece to keep them from getting lost. The string is long enough to allow the mouthpieces to be put in place, but also allows them to be pushed into the slightly larger opposite ends for storage. Reed Boats Simple reed boats can still be seen in the marshes or even on the canals, but nowadays as playthings built by children. They are easily made. A bundle of reeds is tightly tied at the top and these top reeds bent upward. The bundle is then fanned out somewhat in the center where two or three strong reeds or a piece of wood are wedged across the width of the boat to hold this spread-out shape. The stern of the boat is also tied. Children use these boats for both fun and fishing. Informants claim that larger and more comely boats were once made entirely of bundled reeds and covered on the outside with a layer of bitumen. These boats, they claim, seldom lasted as long as a year. With increased prosperity, everyone who needs one can affod a wooden boat. It would be a great shame, they said, for a man to be seen punting a reed boat. Reed Pens Reed pens are made from reed sections about 20 cm. long with one end sharpened with a knife. These are regularly employed by the few people in this area who can write, but are also used for drawing sketches or plans in the dust. Gun Blind for Stalking Birds In the deeper parts of the marsh, a man can stalk birds holding a bunch of reeds to screen his body. This of course requires timing and a certain co-ordination to allow him to drop the reeds and raise his gun before the birds escape. More efficient by far, is the simple device of tying two short bundles of reeds together in a V-shape with a wedge at the point of juncture to keep the two sides from coming together. A forked stick above the point of juncture provides a place for him to rest his gun. Stems of rushes and grasses are stuck in the bundled reeds to give the whole a natural appearance. Stationary blinds are built of reeds for the netting of birds. Simple Cords of Twisted Reeds Rope bought in the market towns is nowadays substituted for most uses of twisted reed cord and no one in the area regularly twists reed segments. On the other hand, quite a bit is amateurishly twisted on the spur of the moment to fill a variety of needs. If someone runs out of commercial rope towards the end of a project, he will often finish his project with hand twisted reeds saving time on the trip to market and money on the price of more rope than he needs. Then too, if an urgent need for lashing or binding arises, one can usually make an appropriate piece from raw materials which are plentiful. Lavatories Lavatories are seldom seen, but two do occur in the area in connection with the houses of sheikhs, and those built for the excavation were patterned on them. Holes are dug in the ground and mats wound around them continuing in nautilus fashion to make a passageway. The mats are supported by posts made of bound reeds. A hole cut in the mat makes it possible to see someone else coming down the entrance passageway and so signal them that the facilities are occupied. The excavation holes were very deep and had two planks laid across them to provide a
Ochsenschlager
Wood. boats, bitumen and reeds
place for ones feet. The two which already existed in the area were built on the side of the canal. Their holes were shallow and were designed so that the contents could be flushed into the canal periodically. Temper Crushed reed is often used for temper in sun dried mud pottery (Ochsenschlager 1974a:169), and in mud brick or pist. Both crushed reed and reed pappus is used in baked pottery (Ochsenschlager 1974b:151). Reed sticks are often used for mace handles (Wood, Boats and Bitumen).
Mace
Poles Poles for moving boats through the water are often made of reed (Wood, Boats and Bitumen). Shafts of fishing spears are usually made of reed (Wood, Boats and Bitumen).
Spears
Pestles Pestles are sometimes made by forming bitumen knobs over one or more reed sticks (Wood, Boats and Bitumen). Soap
Ashes from a reed fire are a necessary ingredient in making soap.
Spindles Both shafts and whorls of the small spindles used for twisting thread and the large spindles used for twisting yarn are usually made of reed. Thread or Yarn Covered Boxes Amulets
Wood, boats. bitumen and r&
Ochsenschlager
shocking was the dicovery that repair of these stuctures would be more expensive that building new housing out of cement blocks. Building with reeds, which had previously been the cheapest, was now the most expensive option available. Reasons for this state of affairs were soon obvious. The giant reed beds were much further away, due to the progressive draining of the marshes, markedly increasing the cost of transportation. In addition, no-one in the area now made reed mats, reed baskets, or for that matter most of the reed objects which had once been so important to everyday life. Local reeds were now used mostly for courtyard fencing and pens, for outside sleeping platforms, for roofing material and for fuel. To build a new mudhif or even a saraifa is so expensive that few can afford them. Madhaif have not however entirely disappeared from the landscape for they are still being built occasionally by those who are relatively well-to-do and have become important status symbols. One excavation mudhif, built in 1968 and abandoned in 1974 because of a weak arch, is being allowed to disintigrate naturally over the years. It is our hope that information gained from its progressive deterioration will give us a clearer perception of what traces of such a structure we might expect to find in the archaeological record. Clearly this is a somewhat artificial experiment for in most historical periods there would have been people living in the area to canabalize the remains. This was brought home to us when we told the guards that they might have any of the remains of another decayed mudhif that they wanted. They used fragments of torn reed mats to make floors or windbreaks, ribs for the roofing of mudbrick houses or as posts. Some of the arch bundles were sold to form the centre of new arch bundles and the rest were used for roofing or fencing material. Even the seemingly unusable fragments and debris were piled to one side to be used as a sort of quarry for fuel. In the end, nothing remained but the refilled holes from which the arch bundles had been pulled out and a layer of chaff. Amazingly enough, the buried end of the arch bundles were still in good condition on the inside though the outer layers showed signs of rot.
The cores of these boxes are always made of reed or rush.
Certain kinds of amulets are made on a reed stick frame.
Looms Reed is sometimes substituted for the wooden loom parts on those looms used for making smaller objects. Bandages
I
Strips of rush or young reeds are often used to secure bandages over wounds.
REEDS 1990 - a postscript 20 years on When we returned to begin excavations at Tell al-Hiba in February 1990, we found the madhaif which had served as living and working quarters for the excavation in ruinous condition. This was due to the fact that there had been no-one present during the last twelve years to effect simple and comparatively inexpensive repairs on their roofs of reed mats. Once the mats started to come loose, progressive deterioration if the rest of the exterior mats and the collapse of the arches which were no longer bound together in a cohesive structure was inevitable. Even more
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Ochsenschlager, Edward L. "Ancient and Modern Sun-Dried Mud Objects from Al-Hiba", Archaeology 27, pp. 162-174. 1974a "Modern Potters at Al-Hiba with Some Reflections on the Excavated Early Dynastic Pottery", 1974b Monograph N Archaeological Survey, Institute of Archaeology, University of California, Los Angela, pp. 149-156.
Plate 11.3. Heating the bitumen in an old oil drum which has been cut open, partially flattened, and suspended over the fire supported by mud walls. Note the woman who has asked for and been given bitumen to cover her corn grinder.
Plate II.1. A tarada cleaned of its bitumen and ready for repair.
Plate 11.4. The top and bobom of the oil drum serve as trays for transporting the bitumen from the fire pit to the boat. Note the branch broken from the tree which is used to stir the bitumen.
the more gaping holes in the hull.
Plate II.2. Cutting scraps of wood to make necessary repairs and to fill
b
4
rlate III.4. Woman using bitumen she has asked for to patch holes in her water cans.
Plate IV.2. An arched support segment from an old mudhif being dismantled on reed construction supports. Reeds salvaged from this bundle will be used for the core of new arch bundles.
Plate IV.4. Erecting the arch segments and tamping the earth firmly in place.
Plate IV.l. Women carrying cut reeds from the marshes to the building site. As these particular reeds were to be used for fencing, the leaves and plumes are still intact.
Plate IV.3. Digging holes for the arch bundles. Ground plan of building is marked with rope and stakes. Note footrest cut from palm heart on shovel handle.
Plate 111.2. One man runs mud from the banks of the canal over the newly applied bitumen, while another throws water over the mud-covered surface.
Plate 111.3. Man who has asked for and been given permission to take some bitumen for making a mugwar or mace head.
Plate 111.1. Rolling the bitumen onto the exterior surface of the boat
@
E?
Plate VI.3. A large reed and mud storage container from a village courtyard.
Plate V1.4. A man making a small plaited basket which will be used to carry dates and onions to work for his lunch.
Plate VI.2. An outside bed in a reed fence enclosed courtyara.
Plate V.4. Finished lattice work at the back of a new mudhif.
Plate V.3. Sewing the exterior ribs along the sides of the mudhif.
Plate VI.l. Constructing an unroofed sitra or courtyard with a lean-to dwelling against the back wall.
Plate V.2. Putting a new layer of mats on an old roof which has started to disintegrate.
Plate V.1. Tying the ribs or hitir in place. Note that in some smaller structures the talatil are omitted. Man in background is sewing mats together for the roof.
a'
R.
8
Ochsenschlager
Wood, boats, bitumen and r e d
LE BOIS DANS L9ARCHITECTURE: PREMIER ESSAI POUR UNE ESTIMATION DES BESOINS DANS LE BASSIN MESOPOTAMIEN Jean-CI. Margueron (E.P.H.E. Paris)
Partir de l'architecture pour Ctudier le bois en MCsopotamie peut apparaftre comme une dCmarche Ctrange, peut-&re mCme de peu d'intCSt. Pourtant, mCme si l'on ne peut esp6rer connaftre de faqon exhaustive l'ensemble des problemes touchant cette matiere de premiere nCcessitC en empruntant cette voie, il n'est pas a priori impossible qu'il y ait lh matiere h enquete, tant le bois intervient de faqon essentielle dans l'architecture. Il est vrai aussi que notre vision habituelle des MCsopotamiens comrne des hommes continuellement en quCte de solutions pour combler les insuffisances que pdsentait leur pays en matiere de pierre, de minkraux ou de ... bois est tellement ancrCe dans notre esprit que spontankment nous sommes plus portCs h expliquer les formes architecturales par la raretC de la pierre ou du bois que par une Cvaluation mtthodique des matCriaux mis en oeuvre.' Et si on est all6 trop loin dans cette direction, c'est parce qu'on s'est le plus souvent content6 de parler de l'architecture h partir des restes retrouvCs sans rCflCchir h leur volume primitif et qu'on n'a donc jamais pris la peine, A ma connaissance, d'Ctudier les rkls besoins en bois des constructions mCsopotamiennes. La difficult& bien connue des fouilleurs du Pays des Deux Fleuves et qui explique cette absence de reflexion, reside dans le fait, simple dans sa brutalitC, que l'on ne retrouve pratiquement jamais de restes de h i s dans la terre des tells.' Le sol alluvionnaire conserve en effet une humidit6 qui varie au cours de l'annCe et provoque rapidement aprhs leur enfouissement la decomposition de la plupart des matieres vCgCtales. Deux categories de circonstances seulement pennettent au bois de subsister:
lo - Un univers hennetiquement clos dans lequel l'absence de circulation d'air et donc d'humidite a prCservC le h i s : celui-ci n'est certes plus dans son Ctat originel, mais il est en gCnCral assez bien conservC pour que des analyses permettent d'en determiner l'es@ce, l'age ou d'autres caractCristiques. Cependant les conditions d'une telle conservation sont rarement rCunies et dans l'ensemble seules quelques tombes ont pu parvenir jusqu'h nous parfaitement closes; mais alors il ne s'agit le plus souvent que d'objets en bois, comme les coffrets et bonbonnikres retrouvCs dans les tombes de Mari et non du bois jouant un r61e dans l'architecture. 2" - C'est en general parce qu'un incendie a ravagC un Cdifice que des fragments de bois sont
retrouvCs dans les fouilles; mais alors c'est un Ctat transforme par la combustion qu'on retrouve et non plus la forme primitive. La carbonisation a en effet le pouvoir de conserver le bois, en empkhant son pourrissement. Mais il faut bien voir que la combustion doit necessairement avoir CtC incomplete sinon il ne reste que des cendres de bois, fine poussiere grise inutilisable, et non plus du charbon de bois.
Marguenm
Le h i s dans l'architecture
LE BOIS QUE L'ON RETROWE EN FOUILLE
It ne s'agit pas ici de conduire un inventaire de toutes les observations de fouille concernant les traces de bois, mais simplement de noter la nature des informations que l'on peut recueillir ici ou Il faut constater d'abord que les archCologues n'ont pas toujours compris, meme B une Cpoque dcente, tout l'intkst qu'il y a B noter scrupuleusement l'emplacement, la position, la longueur et le diamktre des bois carbonises retrouvCs dans les dCcombres des edifices incendiCs. Le Grand Palais Royal de Man, incendiC par ~ammurabi; est B cet Cgard bien dvClateur: le fouilleur repi?te a longueur de pages que l'incendie a fait rage, que l'on retrouve partout des restes de poutres incendiks, de bois carbonise, de briques rougies par l'incendie; il montre B l'occasion une photographie avec des restes de ce bois carbonise, ou l'empreinte qui en subsiste, mais ce n el'on ~ trouve quelques n'est pratiquement que dans un croquis concernant la salle du ~ r ~ que informations pdcises sur l'emplacemenit, le diamktre et l'entraxe de quelques fragments de poutres provenant sans doute du plafond, et encore n'y donne-t-il aucune indication sur les . ~ au Temple poutres d'un brasier qu'il a reconnues dans la partie orientale de la meme ~ a l l eQuant C de 1'E-anna d'Uruk, qui a fourni la preuve de l'existence d'une couverture sur ce type de bfttimenty je ne crois pas qu'un plan des poutres carbonistks leuouvCs sur le sol ait kt6 publie B ce jour. Il n'est pas n6cessaire d'allonger cette liste pour dCnoncer le meme constat de carence dans d'autres exemples. Pourtant imagine-t-on l'importance des observations qui ont 6tC ainsi perdues? ll est bien certain que le relev6 de telles traces ne donnerait pas automatiquement le plan de la charpente de la couverture, parce que le bois qui a entikrement brGlC n'est plus observable, pas plus d'ailleurs que celui qui n'a pas CtC atteint par les flammes. Mais comme il n'y a aucun autre moyen d'apprehender les superstructures d'un bfttiment, le carackre forcement incomplet de ces informations ne doit pas conduire B un renoncement, car chaque fois que l'on laisse passer cette source on se prive des moyens de connahre certaines caracteristiques architecturales des parties de l'&ifice a jamais disparues. Cependant les vestiges de bois carbonis6 retrouvCs dans les dCcombres d'une maison incendiCe ne proviennent pas seulement de la charpente; si certains des autres usages sont assez faciles a identifier, d'autres le sont moins. Dans le premier groupe on rangera les systkmes de fermeture: pivot de porte effondd sur le sol comme celui qui a Ctk observ6 en 1965 dans la salle XI1 du palais P-1 de Mari et dont on voit encore deux fractions sur la photographie de la fig.3 du rapport pr61iminaire: restes de la base d'un pivot fiche dans la crapaudine: ou encore pone tomwe cornrne celle du sanctuaire 150 du Grand Palais Royal de Mari, qu'un dCgagement minutieux a permis de connahre en detail.'' Mais le plus souvent on ne retmuve que des fragments de charbon de bois qui, meme en grande quantitC, ne permettent plus d'identifier l'objet originel, celui-ci, fragilise par l'incendie et sous l'effet de l'effondrement gCnCral, s'dtant disloquC: ainsi lambris ou Ctagkres ne s'observent pratiquement jamais dans les dCcombres, alors meme que les fragments de bois brGlC sont particuli6rement nombreux. Il arrive aussi que la combustion du bois a CtC compl6te. mais que l'empreinte du feu a marque un mur ou un sol: cette indication souvent ponctuelle n'est pas toujours d'une grande utilite s'il ne s'agit que d'une poutre qui dans sa chute s'est trouvCe appuyCe contre ce mur et y a laissd sa marque. Cependant il peut s'agir aussi d'un amCnagement qui trouvait normalement sa place contre la paroi et dans ce cas la trace de l'incendie suffit B rendre compte d'une situation
Margueron
Le h i s dans l'architcctum
disparue, peut-&re de grand intCst: une plinthe en bois ou un lambris en se consumant laissc ainsi une trace tout B fait significative. Il arrive encore, mais le fait a Cte trop rarement observe, qu'un objet en bois, abandonnt dans un Cdifice, ait laisst5 simplement son empreinte dans la terre crue. Deux exemples provienncnt encore du palais P-1 de Mari. D'une part, dans les dCcombres en terre de la salle XXIV de ce palais deux troncs, sans doute de palmier, avaient en quelque sorte Ctk moults dans une position sensiblement verticale qui avait CtC celle de leur chute:" ce sont quelques rksidus de fibres retrouvCs B leur base qui ont suggCd l'identification. Un second exemple, d'une nature un peu differente, a CtC fourni par le meme palais P-1: B la base du rnur occidental de l'espace central XXVII une trace que l'on a, B l'dpoque, identifiCe avec l'empreinte de branches (dim. 7 B 10 cm) en partie incrustees dans la ma~onnerie; il n'est plus facile de savoir, au cas oh l'identification serait bonne, si elles ont servi comrne une sorte de renforcement interne de l'enduit, ou simplement a faciliter sa pose ou encore B tout autre usage.12 La seule empreinte d'un morceau de bois peut aussi apparahre dans la ma~onnerie;si le fait n'est que rarement mentiom6 dans les rapports de fouille c'est que la hauteur des murs retrouvCs ne permet gCnCralement pas de l'observer. Le Grand Palais Royal de Mari grftce B son Ctonnante conservation a fourni quelques exemples caract6ristiques:
* alignement de tmus repdsentant comme dans les salles 80 et 82 les poutres servant B supporter le "plancher*' de 1'Ctage,13 * empreintes de chalnage visibles, comme dans le mur septentrional de la salle du tr6ne."
lorsque
l'enduit est tomb&
* alignement de trous non masques par de l'enduit dans le mur septentrional de la pikce 87, marquant l'emplacement de corbeaux destinks B soutenir une galerie en bois reliant le quartier des services aux appartements royaux,15 * vides marquant les points d'ancrage des montants d'un baldaquin.16 * traces laissees par les rondins qui ont servi de linteaux au haut des portes,17 * alignements de petits evidements qui ont pu servir B fixer les points d'accrochage
de lambris ou
de tentures,"
* empreinte d'un escalier,19 * alignements de meme nature provenant d'une sene d'hagkres." Dans la meme catkgorie des empreintes laisskes sur de la terre crue ou cuite par l'incendie, il faut bien entendu ranger le t&s grand nombre de fragments de plafonds/terrasses oii se lit l'emploi des roseaux, des branchages ou des nattes qui couvraient les poutres pour recevoir la terre; B l'occasion les empreintes des poutres elles-memes voisinent avec la matikre qui les recouvrait. On sait aussi que des nids de guepes bfttisseuses ont fourni aux fouilleurs de KhafadjC des indications de meme nature.21Cependant ces fragments ne sont jamais retrouvCs in situ, mais dans les dCcombres. I1 s'agit d'ailleurs toujours de mati6res premi6res vCgCtales et B ce titre il faut les mentionner ici, mais il est bien evident qu'on ne saurait les Ctudier, car elles ne sont pas assimilables au bois d'oeuvre qui fait l'objet de cette Ctude, et si elles ont parfois B se substituer au bois quand celui-ci manque, elles entrent normalement dans la construction avec des usages bien dCfinis, mais differents.
Le h i s dans l'architecture
Margueron
Ces quelques exemples pennettent de faire la liste des usages oh le bois d'oeuvre jouait un file essentiel dans l'architecture:
* toiture des espaces couverts (sous forme de poutres), * support des "planchers" d'Ctage (sous forme de
poutres et peut-Ctre de planches ou de
demi-rondins),
* galeries, * portes (sous forme de pivot et de vantail), * chalnages dans la ma~onnerie, * linteaux des portes et des fenetres, * escaliers, * Ctagkres, * lambris, * baldaquins. Cette liste, quoique certainement incomplete, met dCjh en lumikre la diversit6 des usages du bois dans la construction: elle ne permet cependant pas d'Cvaluer les besoins ni de savoir si la MCsopotamie Ctait h meme d'y rdpondre. Un inventaire des es@ces d'arbres re@des en fouille parce qu'elles Ctaient utilisCes en architecture serait nCcessaire; il a CtC partiellement rdalid par 0. Aurenche pour les Cpoques pn5historiques," et par E. Strommenger pour les Cpoques hi~toriques;~ Th. Busink a de son c6td rCuni un certain nombre d'attestations en s'intCressant plus aux poutres elles-meme, qu'aux es@ces:% il est clair qu'une liste exhaustive comportant la totalit6 des renseignements serait d'une ~ ~ p a r e que mon objectif ici est autre, que j'ai renoncC h 1'Ctablir pour cette grande u t i l i t ~ .C'est rencontre, et aussi parce qu'elle justifierait h elle seule une intervention complkte. NCanrnoins il me faut maintenant rappeler rapidement de quelles variCtCs disposaient les architectes dans des conditions normales et pdciser leurs caractCristiques premikres. 11 faut distinguer deux domaines t&s nettement diffdrents:
*
celui des vallCes du Tigre et de 1'Euphrate lorsque ces deux fleuves coulent dans les plateaux septentrionaux, dans les plaines alluviales et deltaiques,
*
celui des collines et des montagnes qui entourent le bassin fluvial.
Dans le premier, les arbres sont rares et trks peu diversifies: on trouve principalement le palmier surtout h partir de la dgion de Deir-ez-Zor sur l'Euphrate, le tamaris, le peuplier, qui se dCveloppe assez facilement le long des cours d'eau, et h un moindre degd, le saule, le figuier et le mQrier. Dans le second domaine, la diversite est beaucoup plus grande: chCne, hCtre, sycomore, cerisier sauvage, pommier et noyer trouvent place comme feuillus h c6tC des diffkrentes es@ces de pins, du mCl2ze et, dans des montagnes bien prCcises, des &dres. Le contraste entre les deux domaines est clair et il y aura lieu d'y revenir. Mais en attendant on peut dCjh noter que l'inventaire engage par E. Strommenger indique, c o m e on pouvait s'y attendre, que le bois de palmier est utilisC principalement dans le delta, alors que les sites du Nord ou de 1'Ouest usent d'es@ces beaucoup plus diversifiCes.
Margueron
Le h i s dans l'architecture
Pour l'heure, le probleme qui me retient est celui du bois d'oeuvre et de son utilisation dans les regions des plateaux, de la plaine alluviale et du delta, c'est-dire dans les regions qui sont particulikrement mal pourvues en bois servant normalement dans l'architecture. Mais il faut encore Ctablir rapidement les qualitCs principales exigCes des esp&ces utilisCes en architecture. Celles des arbres de la plaine sont assez faciles ii CnurnCrer:
*
Le palmier est considt're sur le plan technique comme un bois impropre h la construction en raison du manque de cohtsisn des fibres qui le constituent; il est cependant possible de remCdier ii cette faiblesse par le proc&dC du frettage qui consiste h cercler le tronc. Si son emploi dans l'architecture est rarement attest6 h 1'Cpoque prChistorique,26 il est assez frkquemnlent signal6 aux IIIe, IIe et Ier millCnairesZ7et encore actuellement, car la pauvretC en bois d'oeuvre conduisait, et conduit toujours, h en tirer parti. Il reste que ses caractCristiques, en particulier sa AexibilitC et le manque de cohCsion de ses fibres, emp5chent de l'utiliser semble-t-il sur des portCes supdrieures h 3 m env.; actuellement il sert parfois de poutre fahikre ou de poteau.
*
Le peuplier qui pousse facilement le long des cours d'eau, rivikres ou canaux, a certainement Ct6 l'esp&ce qui a fourni le plus de bois d'architecture dans la plaine, comme dans l'ensemble du Proche-Orient; ses qualitds techniques le rendent trks utilisable en architecture cornrne poteau ou poutre de couverture. I1 donne des poutres qui peuvent atteindre 6 m de longueur, mais qui se situent norrnalement entre 3 m et 3,5 m avec un diamktre habitue1 de 15 h 25 cm.
*
On ne connaft gukre d'attestations archCologiques des autres bois de la plaine, du moins en quantit6 suffisante pour presenter une signification, mais il est clair que tout bois d'une longueur et d'un diamktre suffisants pour un objectif determine a pu servir. Puisque notre objectif concerne l'architecture de la plaine, il n'y a pas lieu de faire intervenir ici les esfices qui proviennent du pourtour de la MCsopotarnie et y sont utilides: le peuplier, le chCne, les rCsineux, le saule, l'orme, le hCtre et certains arbres fruitiers y trouvent trks naturellement leur place dans l'architecture. En revanche l'attention est plut6t attirke sur la presence de ces esfices dans la plaine qui n'est pas leur lieu d'Clection naturel. Lorsque l'on constate que les poutres du temple C ont CtC tirCes de rksineux? l'origine allogkne parait Cvidente et le problkme est alors clairement pose. LE BOIS QUE L'ON NE RETROUVE GENERALEMENT PAS EN FOUILLE Les quelques indications des paragraphes pdddents mettent en lumi2re combien une enquCte quantitative sur les besoins en bois paraft difficile si l'on en reste h l'analyse des faits recueillis h ce jour en fouille. Mais il me semble possible de proceder h une Cvaluation en partant des ClCments actuellement en notre possession et en conduisant un raisonnement fond4 sur une restitution des parties manquantes. Dans une telle demarche, la part de l'hypoth5se n'est certes pas inexistante, mais elle est moins grande qu'on ne pourrait le croire. 11 ne saurait Ctre question de conduire maintenant une analyse qui serait valable pour toutes les constructions de la MCsopotamie antique, independamment des conditions de temps et de lieu: je voudrais simplement engager aujourd'hui une approche preliminaire en m'appuyant sur deux exemples (le Temple Calcaire et le palais de Sinkashid) pris h plus d'un millCnaire de distance et appartenant h des series differentes (du moins en apparence); le seul point qui les rapproche est leur origine gkographique commune, puisqu'ils appartiennent tous les deux au site d'Uruk. Ce
Margueron
Le bois dans l'architecture
choix n'est pas innocent, il vise en prenant les deux exemples dans le meme milieu geographique h voir si les conclusions tides de l'architecture sont voisines h un millCnaire de distance. Comme il s'agit de quantifier le bois necessaire h la construction, il faut Ctablir au prCalable les bases sur lesquelles une reconstitution est possible. Or il est clair que si des estimations sont possibles, les certitudes ne sont pas toujours absolues; aussi h plusieurs reprises sera-t-il preferable d'Ctudier diverses hypotheses, en restant dans le champ de propositions raisonnables dejh Cnondes ou nouvelles, et d'Ctablir les rCponses h l'int6rieur d'une fourchette de plus grande probabilitk. LE SYSTEME DE BASE L'unitC ClCmentaire de l'architecture mCsopotamienne est le groupement organis6 h partir d'un espace central, carre ou rectangulaire, entoud d'une couronne de pikces. Ce schema de base qui apparaff dks 1'Cpoque d'Obeid, peut former une unit6 d'habitation autonome, mais il se combine aussi h l'occasion avec d'autres unites de mCme nature pour former des ensembles complexes. Mais qu'il soit isold ou en association, ce schema dpond h une organisation structurale qui fait intervenir de f a ~ o nconstante les mCmes principes:
*
l'espace central, pourvu d'une couverture, forme lanterne de f a p n h capter la lumikre nkcessaire h son Cclairage et bien souvent aussi B celle des pieces de la couronne; l'aeration de la maison est assurk par les ouvertures de cette lanterne;
* les poutres de la couverture et des pikces de la couronne (bas-~6thlorsque l'espace central est rectangulaire) sont Ctablies naturellement dans le sens de la largeur; *
lorsque la port6e des espaces h couvrir Ctait tres grande (mais non trop grande) et que les risques de flexion dCpassaient la limite admissible - c'est souvent le cas pour les espaces centraux - il est t&s vraisemblable que les constructeurs utilisaient des aisseliers, c'est-h-dire des pikces de bois qui permettaient de soulager la poutre horizontale en ramenant certaines forces obliquement vers les murs; probablement aussi la base de l'aisselier reposait sur le corbeau que formait I'extdmitC intdrieure de la poutre qui couvrait les bas-c6t6s. On a alors affaire h un Uifice dont chaque partie devient une composante necessaire d'un ensemble parfaitement coherent. La permanence de ce type de plan tout au long de l'histoire de la Mesopotamie ne peut s'expliquer que par le fait que ce schema avait atteint un parfait Cquilibre en dpondant h la fois aux besoins architecturaux et aux possibilites techniques parmi lesquelles celles du h i s jouaient un r61e essentiel. Une coupe transversale pratiquk dans un bfitiment quelconque fait apparahre l'unit6 ClCmentaire de ce dispositif que l'on pourrait appeler "couple" en se rCfCrant de faqon approximative h la terminologie nautique ou adronautique. Il n'y a aucune difficult6 h accrohre la longueur d'un bfitiment: il suffit de rajouter autant de couples que l'on veut. En revanche l'augmentation de la largeur de l'espace central est fonction de la longueur des poutres disponibles tant que l'on n'utilise pas de support intermediaire au lieu des aisseliers. La quantitk des poutres nCcessaires pour un couple est manifestement t&s facile h Ctablir h partir du moment oii les port6es de l'espace central et des bas-c6tCs sont connues. D&s lors pour Cvaluer les besoins de l'ensemble de l'edifice, il suffit de connaftre le nombre de couples dont il Ctait composC, c'est-&-direl'intervalle qui dClimitait deux couples consCcutifs. C'est lh cependant que dside la principale difficult&
Margueron
Le bois dans l'architecture
En effet, pratiquement aucune fouille n'a donne jusqu'h maintenant les renseignements precis qui seraient nCcessaires, pour la simple raison que les superstructures ont toujours disparu; et il est rare que l'on ait pris la peine d'observer minutieusement les debris incendiCs lorsque par chance il en existait! En outre deux parametres qui sont Ctroitement solidaires manquent en tout ou en partie:
*
le premier concerne 1'Cpaisseur de la couche de terre qui forme la terrasse et assure 1'CtanchCitk; on songe en gCnCral h une trentaine ou une quarantaine de cm; mais en dalitC on ne la retrouve generalement pas dans les conditions habituelles et, en cas d'incendie, la totalit6 de la couche n'a pas subi la cuisson. Rien ne prouve donc qu'elle n'a pas CtC plus Cpaisse dans certaines circonstances; et lorsque l'on sait que dans les conditions les plus simples on estime h plus d'une demi-tonne au m2 la masse de terre install& sur une terrasse, on comprend le rapport qui peut exister avec le diamktre des poutres.
* on n'est gukre mieux renseignk sur ce dernier; h Mari les deux poutres retrouvCes sur le sol de la salle du Tr6ne et qui paraissent provenir de la charpente, avaient un diam5tre l'un d'une vingtaine, l'autre d'une trentaine de cm; les trous des poutres qui supportaient le sol de I'Ctage dans les salles 80 et 82 du mCme palais en revanche n'avaient que 10 h 15 cm. Ces differences pourraient s'expliquer par la diversite des fonctions, mais aussi par un espacement plus grand pour les poutres de la couverture de la grande salle qui devaient laisser passer le jour des fenCtres; cependant entre les deux poutres de la salle du Tr6ne l'entraxe relev6 est d'une soixantaine de cm ce qui ne fait qu'un peu plus que pour le sol de 1'Ctage avec des diamktres doubl6s. mais aussi une longueur quatre fois sup6rieure (2,65 m contre 11,60 m). Cependant cet intervalle de 60 cm dans la salle du Tr6ne n'est peut-Ctre pas tres sQr et l'on peut se demander si ces deux poutres, au terme de leur chute ne se seraient pas rapprochCes. Une autre estimation a kt12 proposk par H. Lenzen h la suite de la fouille du sol du Temple c.~'L'incendie n'y avait pas laissC de poutres, mais des traces particulikrement intenses h l'emplacement oii elles s'Ctaient consum&s; aussi le fouilleur a-t-il pens6 possible de deduire des traces re@r&s que 3 m separaient chacune des poutres maftresses. Cependant il ne tient pas compte du fait que les poutres ont pu ne pas tomber h la verticale et il ne nous dit pas non plus combien de ces concentrations de feu il a re@rk~.~'Ces indications me paraissent devoir Ctre prises avec d'autant plus de prudence qu'un intervalle aussi important exigeait certainement une augmentation sensible du diamktre de la poutre en raison de la masse de la terrasse que chacune avait h supporter. On notera cependant que dans la restitution qu'il propose du Temple de Jerusalem Th. p us ink^' envisage un intervalle assez voisin de 2,50 m entre les poutres de la couverture. Mais c'est la h nouveau une estimation qui ne repose que sur des sources archeologiques ou textuelles qui n'ont pas de rapports certains avec le monument considen?. On retiendra encore, pour insister sur la diversite des possibilites, qu'h Khorsabad G. Loud et Ch. Altrnan parlent d'un intervalle de 26 cm entre les poutres de la porte 7.32 Un exemple pdcis a cependant Ctk retrouvC h Man lors de la fouille du palais oriental:33les restes d'un plafond h caissons permettent en effet d'Ctablir que l'intervalle entre les poutres de la salle du Tdne, d'une portee sup6rieure h 7 m cette fois, se situait entre une quarantaine et une cinquantaine de cm. Ce rythme doit-il Ctre considdd comme command6 par le systeme h caissons? Ou bien faut-il y voir l'image d'une pratique normale? L'exemple vaut-il seulement pour Mari? Ou bien peut-il Ctre gQCralisC h l'ensemble de la MCsopotamie alluviale? 11 me parah difficile de repondre maintenant en raison mCme du caracere unique de l'observation de cette te~hnique.~
Margueron
Fig. 1 Le Temple Calcaire
Margueron
Le bois
b
s I'architccturc
Devant cette diversiti5 de possibilitCs, il me parah difficile de trancher. Mais on rclicndra quc lcs indications archhlogiques concernent plut6t des intervalles infdrieurs & 1 m cr quc la probabilitk moyenne se situe sans doute plut6t autour de cette mesure. On retiendra aussi quc logiquement les diamkres des poutres devraient augmenter lorsque les intervalles s'accroisscnl, rnais pour des raisons diverses des diametres imposants ont pu avoir CtC utilisCs avec de fiaiblcs intervalles. ETUDE DU TEMPLE CALCAIRE (Fig. 1 4 ) Le choix de cet Cdifice plut6t que d'un autre de 1'E-anna d'Uruk trouve sa justification dans ses dimensions: c'est en effet avec lui qu'apparaft pour la premiere fois dans notre documentation archCologique un Cdifice & plan tripartite pourvu d'un espace central d'une largeur se situant entre 11 m et 12 m, largeur qui semble n'avoir jamais CtC dCpassk avec des poutres en portCe directe dont les deux extr6mitCs reposaient sur les murs l~ngitudinaux;~'les mCmes dimensions se retrouvent dans les plus grandes salles du Tr6ne des palais de 1'Cpoque amorite, en particulier dans 1'Ancien Palais d'Assur ou dam le Grand Palais Royal de ~ a r i . ~ ~ Il n'est pas possible de proposer ici une Ctude dCtaillCe de l'organisation de l'kdifice, car il s'agit de choix qui ne peuvent dsulter que d'une analyse systkmatique de l'ensemble de la documentation, analyse qui n'a pas encore CtC dalisk; aussi para?-il pdfCrable d'CnumCrer seulement les organisations possibles et d'Ctudier les quantitCs de bois necessaires pour chacune d'elles en prenant en considCration un intervalle minimal et un intervalle maximal entre les poutres (Fig. 2). *Hypothhse 1 la forme la plus simple d'un bdtiment tripartite avec un seul niveau d'occupation tant pour les bas-c6tCs que pour l'espace central; le bois dcessaire concerne donc seulement les besoins de la couverture de l'ensemble form6 par un ESPACE CENTRAL EQUIPE DE SES DEUX BAS-C~TJ?Sselon le systkme props6 ici, c'est-&-dire avec aisseliers. *Hypothbe 2
la forme la plus complexe caract6risk par l'existence d'UN NIVEAU
I N T E R ~ D I A I R ESURoLA TO TALI^ Dl3 L'EDIFICE,
BAS-c~TJ?s
ET ESPACE CENTRAL.37
*Hypothhse 3 une formule moyenne avec UN NIVEAU I N T E R ~ D I A I R E DANS LES B A S - ~ 6 l % ~ MAIS , UN VOLUME SANS DIVISION HORIZONTALE ~ R I E U R EPOUR L'ESPACE CENTRAL.
Fig. 2
Pour chacune de ces hypotheses on Ctablira les besoins de la couverture selon un intervalle de 50 cm entre les poutres (solution maximaliste que suppose la salle du TrGne du Palais Oriental de Mari) et selon un intervalle de 3 m (solution minimaliste que propose H. Lenzen pour le temple C de 1'E-anna d'Uruk). Mais en ce qui concerne les hypotheses 2 et 3 on retiendra pour les "planchers" du niveau intermediaire un intervalle de 50 cm qui correspond aux observations recueillies dans le palais de Mari. Enfin la hauteur de chacun des niveaux est estimCe & 4 m env.: proposition fondCe sur 1'Ctude des escaliers du palais de Mari et qui semble pouvoir Ctre Clargie 2 une grande partie de la documentation, mais il ne faut pas y voir autre chose qu'une approximation. Pour Ctablir la quantite de bois nCcessaire il suffit de partir du couple tel qu'il a CtC dkfini ci-dessus, puisqu'il forme une tranche immuable, et de multiplier la valeur obtenue par le nombre de couples qu'implique l'intervalle choisi.
Margueron
Le h i s dans l'architecture
Margueron
Le bois dans I'archi&turs
Evaluation des besoins pour un couple Fig. 3
Chaque couple fait intervenir: - une poutre de 13 m au minimum pour franchir l'espace central: 11 h 12 m de p o d e et prEs d'l m pour les points d'appui respectifs, cette dernikre longueur peut Ctre suffisante cause de la presence des aisseliers; rien n'emNche cependant d'augmenter la base de l'appui si on dispose de poutres de longueur su#rieure, mais le schCma proposC ne rend pas cet allongement indispensable, car le syst&mepdsente justement l'avantage de permettre l'utilisation de poutres d'une longueur faiblement sufirieure h celle de l'espace h franchir:
Intervalle de 50 cm.
deux aisseliers de 5 h 6 m env. de longueur si on envisage qu'ils foment l'hypotenuse d'un triangle rectangle de 4 et 3 m de cGtC, ce qui suit h 6 m env. la port& entre les aisseliers;
-
- deux poutres pour les bas-cbtes; la longueur de chacune d'elle est representee par la portee entre les murs, soit 4,50 m, augment& de la totalit6 de la largeur des deux murs longitudinaux (2.50 m pour chacun, soit 5 m en tout) et du corbeau que l'on peut estimer h env. 50 cm. ?.,,,5
1.0
15
20
Chaque couple exige donc 45 m38de longueur de bois se dCcomposant en: une poutre de 13 m deux poutres de 10 m deux poutres de 516 m. Les poutres necessaires pour le chevet et les transepts avaient la mCme longueur que celles des bas-cbtks (env. 9 m pour le transept, et 10 m pour le chevet). Ainsi avec 3 longueurs de poutres (13 m env., 10 m et 5 ou 6 m) on pouvait couvrir la totalit6 du Temple Calcaire. Mais on notera que la plus petite longueur, celle destink aux aisseliers, entre ddjh dans une catkgorie importante. Evaluation des besoins pour le bhtiment
Fig. 4
Intervalle de 3 m.
*Hypoth&se 1 avec un intervalle minimal (50 cm) (Fig. 3): l'espace central avec 62 m de long comprenait donc quelque 123 couples de 45 m, soit 5535 m de h i s ; le chevet, avec 24'5 m de longueur, necessitait 49 poutres d'une dizaine de m, soit 490 m. Au total cette solution exigeait pour la seule couverture plus de 6 000 m de poutres (soit 123 poutres de 13 m, 275 poutres de 10 m et 246 poutres de 6 m). *Hypoth&se1 avec un intervalle maximal (3 m) (Fig. 4): 21 couples de 45 m Ctaient necessaires pour couvrir la longueur de l'espace central et 8 poutres de 10 m pour le chevet. Les besoins se dduisaient alors h quelque 1025 m (soit 21 poutres de 13 m, 50 poutres d'une dizaine de m et 42 poutres de 6 m). *Dans l'hypoth5se 2, aux besoins de la couverture viennent s'ajouter ceux d'un niveau intermediaire. Cette fois il est nature1 de n'envisager qu'une seule possibilitk en accord avec les constatations faites dans le Grand Palais Royal de Mari, h savoir des poutres espacees d'une cinquantaine de cm. Les portees des bas-c6tCs ou du chevet ne pdsentent pas de difficult&; en revanche couvrir l'espace central n'est pas aussi aisC si l'on ne fait pas intervenir comme pour la couverture d'ensemble un systkme h aisseliers; mais ici on ne voit pas ce qui permettrait d'assurer les corbeaux. Si dans un premier temps nous laissons en suspens cet aspect de la question pour nous en tenir seulement 3 une approche theorique, il apparait qu'avec des aisseliers il aurait fallu 6000 m de poutres cornme dans l'hypoth2se 1 avec intervalle minimal ou 4800 m sans aisseliers.
Margueron
Le bob dans l'architecture
I
Donc pour construire et la couverture et le premier niveau il aurait fallu entre 10800 et 12000 m 1inCaires de poutres; en revanche dans l'hypothbse 2 avec intervalle maximal, le systbme du niveau intermediaire ne changeant pas, 5825 m (sans aisseliers) ou 7025 m (avec aisseliers) auraient CtC nCcessaires.
in€. 8 385
587 sup. g
*L'hypoth&se 3 offre une situation intermddiaire oh seuls les bas-c6tCs et le chevet auraient Ct6 pourvus d'un niveau intermMiaire: il faut alors ajouter aux besoins pour la couverture 2950 m pour ce niveau, soit dans l'hypothbse minimale 8950 m, et dans 1' hypothbse maximale 3975 m. Ainsi dans 1'Cventail des possibilites examinees les exigences en bois varient pratiquement de 1 8 12; on pourrait en conclure qu'une estimation pdcise est impossible. Mais en dalitC on peut dduire cet Cventail de faqon assez considerable, parce que l'hypothbse d'un niveau intermediaire occupant la totalit6 de 1'Cdifice reste toute thCorique, alors que celle d'un niveau intermediaire limit6 aux bas-c6tCs et au chevet parah assez raisonnable, et aussi parce que l'intervalle de 3 m n'a pour le moment aucune assise archeologique assurk. Les quelques tdmoignages recueillis dans les fouilles parlent plut6t en faveur d'un intervalle assez faible et si on desire ne pas le r6duire 8 une cinquantaine de cm, mais 8 env. 1 m pour laisser se dpandre la lumibre des fenCtres, on obtient dans la 3e hypothbse m e estimation raisonnable de l'ordre de 6000 m 1inCaires de poutres (2985 m pour la couverture et 2950 m pour le niveau intermediaire). Avec le mCme intervalle, mais sans niveau intermediaire, ce chiffre tombe 8 3000 m. Notons que les variations sur la longueur totale font aussi intervenir une do& qui n'a pas kt6 prise en compte, celle du diambtre. Plus l'intervalle des poutres de la couverture sera grand, plus le diambtre devra Ctre important. Mais conme les sources arch~logiquesne semblent pas attester pour le moment de poutres de couverture d'un diambtre suMrieur 8 30 ou 35 cm pour les hautes Cpoques il n'est pas raisonnable d'envisager un intervalle trop grand, la masse de la terrasse du seul espace central repdsentant dans l'hypoth5se la plus base (une demi-tonne au m2) 350 t ! En tout Ctat de cause il est clair que pour couvrir le Temple Calcaire lors de sa construction il a fallu Ctre en possession de plusieurs milliers de mbtres linCaires de poutres (3000 au minimum, 6000 vraisemblablement et put-etre plus) en 3 longueurs: 516 m, 10 m @our la moitiC au moins du total), 13 m ou plus. Or cette Cvaluation ne prend en considCration que les poutres et aucun des autres besoins en bois de 'l'Cdifice. La question qui se pose d&s lors est simple: les ressources locales en bois d'oeuvre permettaient-elles de dpondre 8 cette demande? LE PALAIS DE SINKASHID
Au debut du IIe millhaire le palais de Sinkashid 8 Uruk offre un exemple qui autorise lui aussi une estimation des besoins puce qu'il a CtC construit par un souverain qui eut 8 trouver en un temps minimum les matdriaux nCcessaires 8 la realisation de son oeuvre. De forme tra@zoYdale, avec 1001110 m et 140 m de c6t6, le palais se pdsente avec toutes les caractCristiques d'une belle construction de 1'Cpoque des dynasties montes. L'analyse met en evidence l'existence d'un Ctage sur une t&s grande partie des espaces construits." L'analyse des largeurs des seules pikes suffisamment dClimit&s - et en ne prenant pas en consideration les cours (111, 110, 108, 94), les zones tmp incertaines (angles Sud-Est et Sud-Ouest) et le couloir p6riphCrique - permet de les rCpartir en 4 gmupes (Fig. 5):
Le bois dans l'architecture
* * * *
p o d e infkrieure h 3 m, necessitant des poutres de 4 8 5 m, p o d e de 3 8 5 m, dcessitant des poutres de 5 7 m, p o d e de 5 8 7 m, necessitant des poutres de 7 8 9 m, p o d e de 7 8 10 m, nkcessitant des poutres de 9 8 12 m.
Si l'on envisage pour la couverture un intervalle de 50 cm entre les poutres et en tenant compte des longueurs de tous les espaces couvrir, il faudra:
*
quelque 2600 m lineaires de poutres de 415 m, soit 520 unites,
Margueron
Le bois dans l'architecture
* * *
3840 m 1inCaires de poutres de 517 m, soit 550 h 600 pieces, 2560 m linCaires de poutres de 719 m, soit 300 pieces env., 500 m 1inCaires pour les pieces 114, 85 et 62 (peut-Ctre ddpourvues d'aisseliers), sous forme de poutres de 10 m de longueur (soit 50 pieces) et 2280 m linCaires de poutres de 12 m (190 pibces) augmenttes de 1900 m d'aisseliers de 5 m (380 pieces), soit un total de 4680 m linCaires. Dans cette hypothese il faudrait donc 13860 m 1inCaires de poutres pour couvrir le palais. Si l'intervalle entre les poutres avoisinait le metre, la longueur necessaire s'abaisserait h quelque 7000 m. En ce qui concerne le niveau intermaiaire, c'est l'intervalle de 50 cm qu'il faut conserver, comme nous l'avons vu pour le Temple Calcaire. D'autre part il n'est pas raisonnable d'envisager un Ctage dans les grandes salles 23, 89 et 112; et s'il est pratiquement assud en 28, on ne saurait affirmer qu'il en existait un en 51 ou en 40, mais comme il ne s'agit que de petites superficies et que par ailleurs nous ne pouvons contiaii la totalitd du palais, il n'est peut-etre pas nkcessaire d'en tenir compte maintenant, car on ne risque pas une surestimation. Il est donc possible de reprendre les valeurs retenues pour la couverture, soit 2600 m pour les espaces inferieurs h 3 m, 3840 m pour les portks de 3 h 5 m et et 2560 pour les espaces de 5 h 7 m. Ce qui donne 9000 m. Ainsi il a fallu plus de 22000 m de poutres avec des intervalles de 50 cm pour la couverture et 16000 env. avec des intervalles d'un metre. Il me paraft pdfCrable de retenir cette deuxieme solution, mais on se souviendra que ce chiffre est certainement infCrieur B la rCalitC antique, puisque volontairement je me suis abstenu d'Cvaluer les besoins pour les parties non reconstituables du palais. Sur ces 16000 m linkaires, un quart env. (2600 + 1300 - Ctage et couverture - soit 3900 m) est constituC de poutres de 3 B 5 m qui ont sans doute Ctd fournies par des ressources locales. Tout le reste - plus de 12000 m - est constituC de poutres de 5h' m, 7/9 m, 10 m, 12 m. Et la mCme question que pour le Temple Calcaire peut Ctre post%: le pays sumCrien Ctait-il capable de repondre h cette demande brutale?
A dire vrai, la nature de ma ddmarche ne m'autorise pas h apporter une dponse: c'est aux sp6cialistes de la couverture forestibre et, pour les pc5riodes historiques, aux philologues, qu'il revient plut6t de dpondre avec pdcision, peut-Ctre au cours de cette rencontre. Pour ma part je voudrais simplement, pour conclure cette approche indirecte du probleme du bois en MCsopotamie, approche de type archCologique, attirer l'attention sur quelques aspects parfois sous-estimQ jusqu'h maintenant, peut-Ctre aussi inattendus, mais qui doivent nous conduire B mieux prendre en considCration certaines donnks de la civilisation du Pays des Deux Fleuves.
* Le premier concerne, bien entendu, les Cnormes quantitds de bois
qui Ctaient mises en oeuvre dans la grande architecture mCsopotamienne. Les chiffres qui ont CtC Ctablis ici ne concernent qu'une partie des besoins reels; je n'ai pas cherchd h estimer les besoins en pivots de porte ou pour les van tau^,^ ni pour d'eventuels larnbris ou mCme pour des sols (parce que les donndes sont insuffisantes pour les estimer en MCsopotamie meme, ce qui ne veut pas dire qu'ils n'Ctaient
Margueron
Le bois dam l'architecture
pas en usage: on retrouve cette technique dans le Temple de lCmsalem41 ainsi qu'en Syrie du Nord h Sinjirli par exempleq sous la forme de placage de bois contre les murs).
*
I1 paraft remarquable qu'aussi bien h 1'Cpoque d'Uruk qu'h celle des Dynasties Amorites, la mise en oeuvre d'un bhiment d'une certaine importance ait exigC des quantitCs de bois se chiffrant pas km. On dira peut-Ctre qu'il s'agissait 1h d'op6rations exceptionnelles, qui exigeaient un effort immCdiat, mais qui n'avaient peut-Ctre pas de signification h long terme et qu'il n'y a pas lieu de surestimer les besoins. Il est vrai que l'on ne construisait pas de palais tous les jours et que les maisons normales n'imposaient pas les mCmes demandes, mais tmis remarques permettent peut-Ctre de mieux estimer l'importance du bois dans l'architecture et par consCquent dans la vie quotidienne. - La premiere met en lumikre le fait que, au moment mCme oii Sinkashid construit son palais, B moins de 40 km Nur-Adad h Larsa engage lui aussi une oeuvre de mCme importance; il semble donc que les possibilitks d'approvisionnement du pays sum6rien n'Ctaient pas affectCes par l'existence de deux entreprises de mCme nature aussi proches dans l'espace et qui faisaient sans doute appel aux mCmes sources, puisque c'est 1'Euphrate qui draine les deux cites.
- La seconde provient de la correspondance de ~ i b r i - ~ a g a nje? ne veux pas ici m'immiscer dans le domaine philologique, mais seulement rappeler que le mCme homme a eu B s'occuper frkquemment de questions touchant h l'approvisionnement en bois et qu'il a eu B acheminer en une fois 300 pieces de 5 ou 6 m, alors qu'il ne semble pas que de grands travaux aient CtC en cours; seuls des travaux d'entretien paraissent mentionnCs. On pourrait multiplier ces exemples. - La troisieme pour rappeler que les grandes constructions du Ier millhaire ont, elles aussi, exigC des quantitCs assez phCnomCnales: Nabonide n'a-t-il pas fait venir 5000 troncs de ckdre pour couvrir le temple de Sippar?
* Comme il est normal, on a tendance h valoriser l'information textuelle au detriment du raisonnement archeologique et l'on cddite volontiers les Cpoques historiques de besoins importants en bois parce que les textes en parlent. Mais le Temple Calcaire est la pour montrer que bien avant que les textes ne nous renseignent les Mesopotamiens avaient des besoins trbs importants: d'ailleurs si l'on songe B l'ensemble des edifices retrouvQ h 1'E-anna et au fait que, selon toute vraisemblance, une partie seulement des bstiments qui y ont existd, est parvenue jusqu'h nous, il est raisonnable de penser qu'un approvisionnement rCgulier Ctait certainement rkalid des le IVe millCnaire. En fait depuis l'Cpoque d'Obeid les besoins en bois sont allCs grandissant. J'ai dCjh indiqud que les portCes qui Ctaient restCes stables pendant des millhaires pratiquement sans jamais dCpasser la valeur 3 m, ont connu brutalement un accroissement significatif aux niveaux VIII d'Eridu et XI11 de Gawra, c'est-B-dire au tournant des Ve et IVe mill~naires." lXs lors 1'Cvolution conduisit en moins d'un millCnaire h la prodigieuse realisation du Temple Calcaire avec presque 12 m de portde: dussite technique? Certainement et qui a fait intervenir B un moment de 1'Cvolution la dCcouverte des aisseliers sans lesquels des salles d'une telle largeur Ctaient idalisables, mais aussi une rCussite commerciale qui est le signe de l'avance prise par la MCsopotamie mkridionale sur le reste du Proche-Orient depuis 1'Cpoque d'Obeid. Le problkme de l'approvisionnement en bois de la MCsopotamie meridionale peut certainement Ctre considCrC alors comme rCsolu.
Margueron
Le bois dam l'architecture
I1
Margueron
Le bois dans l'architecture
26
0. AURENCHE, La maison orientale, p. 82.
27
E. STROMMENGER, R1A s.v. Holz.
28
W B XXI, p. 17.
29
W B XXI, p. 17 et UVB XXII, p. 12.
30
Aucun croquis n'accompagne, comme nous l'avons dCjB vu, cette information.
31
Der Tempel von Jerusalem von Salomo bis Herodes, Brill, 1970, fig. 49 et p. 183-186.
32
Khorsabad 11, 1938, p. 23.
33
J. MARGUERON, "Mari, rapport prbliminaire sur la campagne de 1984", M.A.R.I. 5, p.15 et fig. 7, 8 et 9.
34
Le monument en cours de dbgagement au chantier E avait 6t.k pourvu du mCme plafond B caissons (cf. M.A.R.I. 5, p. 27); cependant si, jusqu'h ce jour, Mari est la seule citC it avoir rCvC1C l'usage de cette technique (et c'est pourquoi je parle d'un exemple unique) il est peu vraisemblable qu'elle n'ait pas connu une diffusion beaucoup plus importante.
35
Cette constatation devra peut-Ctre Ctre nuanc6e lorsque 1'Ctude de tous les espaces centraux aura CtC ri%li&.
36
Respectivement 12 m et 11,60 m.
37
I1 n'a pas encore CtC dCmontrC qu'un Ctage avait pu trouver place sur les bitiments B plan tripartite d'Uruk et habituellement cette possibilitb n'est mCme pas Cvoquk. I1 faut se garder cependant de 1'Climiner a priori: d'abord parce que ce mCme type de bhtiment h l'Cpoque d'Obeid en possue de f a ~ o ncertaine (cf. in Prkhistoire de la Mksopotamie, Colloque International du C.N.R.S., Ed. du CNRS, Paris 1986 "Quelques remarques concernant l'architecture monumentale B 1'Cpoque d'obeid", p.349-377, et "Note complCmentaire sur la question de I'Ctage", p. 447-458) et que le maintien d'une organisation architecturale typ4.e plaide en faveur de la permanence de l'utilisation de toutes les possibilies qu'elle offre; d'autre part parce que la presence d'un ou de plusieurs escaliers B l'inerieur des &ifices d'Uruk implique plut6t l'acds h un Ctage qu'B une terrasse.
38
Si on envisage une solution sans aisseliers, il faudrait une poutre centrale de 16 m de longueur, car il lui faudrait reposer sur la totalit6 de la surface portante des murs longitudinaux, et deux poutres de 9,50 m chacune pour les bas-c6tks: soit avec 35 m de longueur une konomie apparente d'une dizaine de m, mais des poutres de 16 m de long sont infiniment plus difficiles B trouver que des poutres de 13 m; de plus le syseme ne presenterait aucune homogCn8tk structurale. Ces deux raisons conduisent h ne pas retenir cette hypothbse.
39
A. PARROT, MAM 11-1 , fig. 361 considCrCs h tort comme trous de chainage; l'analyse conduit h rkinterpdter ces trous comme ceux d'une Ctagkre, cf. J.-Cl. MARGUERON, Recherches sur les palais mksopotamiens de l'dge du bronze, p. 276 et fig. 200.
Je ne peux procMer ici h la dkmonstration de l'existence de cet Ctage, parce que cela nous entrainerait trop loin, et parce que je l'ai dCjB fait ailleurs: J. Margueron, Recherches sur les palais ..., p. 400418 et "Remarques sur l'organisation de l'espace architectural en MCsopotamie" dans L'archt?ologie de l'lraq du &but de l'kpoque nkolithique h 333 av. notre 2re; perspectives et lirnites de l'interprktation anthropologique &s documents, C.N.R.S., 1980, p. 157-169. Il ne semble pas que l'existence de cet Ctage soit admise par tous; aussi me semble-t-il nkessaire de rappeler qu'il ne s'agit en aucune fqon d'une hypothkse que je presenterais, mais be1 et bien d'une rCalit6 parfaitement mise en Cvidence par une sCrie de faits convergents qui ressortissent B la fois de l'analyse architecturale et de situations archCologiques. Bien entendu il s'agit 18 d'une caractCristique gCnCrale (mais qui peut pdsenter des exceptions) de l'architecture monumentale du Proche-Orient et non d'une situation particulikre au palais de Sinkashid.
40
A Mari une telle estimation est assez facile et il en sera fait Ctat dans une autre Ctude.
P. DELOUGAZ, The Temple Oval at Khafajah, OIP LIII 1940, p. 133-136 et fig. 121 h 123.
41
I Rois 6-15: "Puis il bitit les parois inerieures de la Maison en planches de cWre, depuis le sol de la Maison jusqu'aux poutres du phfond - il revCtit de bois I'intCrieur - et il revstit le sol de la maison de planches de cyprbs." (version TOB).
E. STROMMENGER, RIA s.v. Holz, p. 456458.
42
R. NAUMANN, Architektw Kleinasiens, Tiibingen, 1971, p. 117.
Th. BUSINK, Der Tempe1 von Jerusalem von Salomo bis Herodes, Brill, 1970, p. 182-186.
43
J.R. KUPPER, Correspondonce & Kibri-Dagan, gouverneur de Terqa, Paris 1950.
Si une liste de toutes les occurrences existait dans une thkse non publik il serait utile de la mettre B la disposition des chercheurs.
44
"Quelques remarques concernant l'architecture monumentale h l'Cpoque d'obeid", in Prkhistoire & la Mksopotamie, CNRS 1986, en particulier p. 373-374.
NOTES Un seul exemple mettra en lumikre cette tendance naturelle: en &pit de caractbristiques architecturales qui ne pretaient pourtant gukre h discussion, H. Lenzen estimait que l'espace central du plan tripartite en usage h 1'E-anna d'Uruk Ctait normalement B ciel ouvert: au principe habituellement admis B cette Cpoque selon lequel l'architecture m6sopotamienne Ctait organide B partir d'une cour centrale, venait s'ajouter certainement ici le constat de la raretC du bois en pays sumkrien. Ce n'est que lorsque H. Lenzen a retrouv6 des restes de h i s carbonid dans l'espace central du Temple C, qu'il a admis qu'une couverture Ctait possible. I1 n'a cependant pas estimb possible de gCnCraliser h partir de cet exemple. Cf. UVB XXI p.17 et W B XXII p. 12. Un tel inventaire est h faire, mais il dCpasse le cadre de cette rencontre, cf. ci-dessous. A. PARROT, MAM 11-1, 1958, passim, et 1.-C1. MARGUERON, "La rube du palais de Mari" dans M.A.R.I. 6, 1990, p. 423431 qui reprerid avec quelques modifications "Les derniers moments du palais de Mari" Art & Fact 3, 1984, p. 40-44. Cf. MAM 11-1 p. 143, fig. 156.
MAM 11-1, fig. 130. Cf. ci-dessus n.4. A. PARROT, "Les fouilles de Mari, quinzikme carnpagne (printemps 1965)", Syria XLII, 1965, p. 201. A. PARROT, MAM 11-1, fig. 305. A. PARROT, MAM 11-1, fig. 322 et 323. Cette observation n'a pas CtC publik A ce jour. Cette observation n'a pas Ct6 publik h ce jour. A. PARROT, MAM 11-1, p. 146 it 150, fig. 162, 165 et 166. A. PARROT, MAM 11-1, p. 111 sq., fig.115, 116, 117. J.-C1. MARGUERON, "Les appartements royaux situb h l'Ctage du Grand Palais Royal de Mari", dans M.A.R.I. 6, 1990, p. 433451. Document photographique dans A. PARROT, MAM 11-1, pl. LIX-1, et texte p. 297. A. PARROT, MAM 11-1, fig. 108 et 126. Observation faite (mais non publik) sur les montants des portes Est et Ouest reliant la salle XLVI au couloir p6riphCrique de 1'Enceinte Sacr6e du palais P-1/P-2 de Mari.
A. PARROT, MAM 11-1, fig. 115 et 162. Observation identique dans la salle du tr8ne du Palais Oriental de Mari. A. PARROT, MAM 11-1, p. 187-188, fig. 216 et 217.
0. AURENCHE, La maison orientale, 1981, chap. 3, p. 72-91.
Le bois dans l'architecture
Margueron
DENDROCHRONOLOGICAL WOOD FROM ANATOLIA BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS
AND ENVIRONS
MAM A. Parrot et al., Mission Archkologique de Mari (Institut Franpis d'Archblogie de Beyrouth:
Bibliothhue archblogique et historique. Paris).
Peter Ian Kuniholm
MAR1 Mari: Annales de recherches interdisciplinaires @itions Recherche sur les Civilisations. Paris). RIA
(Cornell University)
Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archiiologie (Berlin/New York).
W B Vorlaufrger Bericht iiber die von dem Deutschen Archiiologischen Institut aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka (Deutsches Archiiologisches
Institut. Berlin).
The following is a partial list of samples encountered in the course of dendrochronological investigation, mostly on the northern fringes of Mesopotamia, that have received positive species identification. It does not include samples that were collected as recently as last month and is therefore out of date, but it may serve to give an approximate estbnate of what we have been finding. It also omits wood that was judged unsuitable for dendrochronolagical analysis and was therefore not collected. SITE
NUMBER OF SAMPLES
SPECIES
7th-3rd Millennia B.C. Quercus sp. (mostly) ? conifer, probably Juniperus possibly Cedrus Quercus sp., some conifer Quercus sp. Juniperus sp. conifer mostly Quercus sp. Much poplar and fruit trees not collected. Quercus sp. Cedrus sp. Juniperus, some Cedrus ? Pinus sp. (prob. halepensis) Pinus brutia Pinus brutia Juniperus sp. unknown ring-porous, not oak
Aksaray, Aglkll Hoyuk Bucak, Hoyiicek Can Hasan Demircihiiyiik Kiten (Bulgaria) Konya, Karahoyuk Kuru~ay Malatya, Aslantepe Magat Nigde, Carnardi, Goltepe Nigde, K6gk Hiiyuk Semsiyetepe Tell Bi'a (Syria) Troy I Troy I1 Van, Dilkaya
2nd Millennium B.C. Alaca Hiiyuk Kiiltepe Acernhuyuk
Bayburt, Ciftetag, Buyuktepe
1
Quercus sp. Juniperus sp. both Kiiltepe and Acemhuyiik are still being worked on. Samples include a minimum of 12 Pinus, 12 Juniperus, 9 Cedrus, 1 Buxus, 1 Quercus. Pinus sp.
Dendr~~hronological wood
Bursa, nipmar Corum, Ortakoy Elazig, Tepecik Konya, Karahtiyuk Mqat Nigde, Porsuk Tell Brak (Syria)
? prob. Populus and Salix
conifer conifer Juniperus foetidissima Juniperus sp. Juniperus, Pinus, Cedrus, spp. 1 Pinus sp., 1 Juniperus or Cedrus, 3 Ulmus, 1 diffuse porous hardwood Quercus sp., some Populus and fruit trees
Tille Hiiyiik
1st Millennium B.C. Gordion, Midas Mound Tumulus Outer casing Inner casing
Gordion, City Mound
, Terrace Bldg. 2A Gordion, Tumulus B Gordion, Tumulus P Gordion, Tumulus Z Gordion, nzlarkaya Tumulus Gordion, Mamaderesi Tumulus Adilcevaz Ankara, Biiyiik Tumulus Bastarn (Iran) Bogazktiy, Phrygian well I,
9)
Cavugtepe Dinar, Tatarli Tumulus Elaia, Tumulus Elmah, Bayindir Tumuli Kqehir, Kaman, Kalehoyuk Sardis, Alyattes Tumulus Sardis, Monumental Mudbrick Structure Sardis, "Byzantine Fort" Tille Hiiyuk Tugrulhiiyi& Ur, Ziggurat of Nabonidus Van, AymsIAgam Van, Dilkaya
10(k 10068+
Juniperus spp. Pinus nigra Taxus baccata L., Buxus sempervirens L., Juniperus foetidissima Willd., Juniperus sp., some Pinus, some Cedrus Juniperus sp. Pinus nigra (occasionally P. silvestris) Pinus sp., some Quercus (loom) Cedrus sp. Pinus silvestris Pinus sp. Juniperus sp. conifer conifer (probably Pinus) Pinus nigra Juniperus? Juniperus sp. Taxus baccata Pinus sp. (much poplar not collected) Juniperus sp. Cedrus sp. Tarus baccata Quercus (not all studied) Quercus sp. (almost all) Quercus sp. (prob. Q. ilex) Quercus sp., some Ulrnus sp. Quercus sp. Quercw sp. Abies sp. Cupressus Pinus sp. Pinus sp.
TIMBER PRODUCTION IN PRESARGONIC
LAGAS
Marvin A. Powell
(Northern Illinois University)
Introduction The ancient state of LagaS lay in what is now southeast Iraq, approximately in the latitude between 31°35' and 31°15'. The political capital of this state in the late Early Dynastic period (c. 24th century BC) was Girsu (modern Tellb). Excavations at Girsu were begun in the late 1880s by E. de Sarzec (then French consul at Basra), which resulted in the discovery of some remarkable objects, including the famous statues of Gudea and many tablets. A portion of the tablets (which came mostly from late ED I11 through the Ur I11 periods, c. 2400-2000 BC) were recovered by the official excavators and eventually wound up in the Louvre or in the Istanbul museum, but many thousands were independently dug up by local entrepreneurial exacavators, sold, and thus dispersed via the antiquities market to the four winds. The group of documents with which we are concerned here is rather typical of this situation: some 1600 tablets scattered over twenty or more collections in Europe, Asia, and the United States. These texts are rich sources for the material culture of ancient Mesopotamia, especially agriculture, partly because the writing system has here developed to a point where it is more or less fully intelligible but before it has reached the laconic brevity that makes some later texts so obscure. The importance of this archive was recognized almost immediately, and, in a series of fundamental studies published in the period 1920-1931, Pater Anton Deimel succeeded in ordering the Presargonic texts then known into thematic categories based on content. Among these studies was "Die altsumerische Baumwirtschaft" (= Deirnel 1925), which assembled in analytical transliteration 149 texts which Deimel thought to deal with wood. Although out of date in many respects, it is a carefully done piece of work and remains the obvious departure point for investigating timber production. Thus, for economy in citation, I have identified texts throughout this paper by Deimel's numbers (cited as "no. 1" etc.). I also prepared new transliterations and compared them with Deimel's edition and with the cuneiform copies (where available). Collations, though desirable in many cases, have not been possible. The documentation spans a period of about two decades, probably in the 24th century BC. The documents are written from the viewpoint of a central accounting agency and thus include only those pieces of information considered important to the accounting process. Most of the documents are, by and large, intelligible, but a few verbs and many material objects are rather obscure. Also, such things as local topographical and administrative terms have to be teased and squeezed out of a body of documentation which is insufficient in many cases to supply us with the details we need to know in order to reconstruct exactly what is going on and where it is taking place. Character of the records Of the 149 texts assembled by Deimel as "wood" texts, a few have nothing whatsoever to do timber production or even with wood. With regard to the texts which in the broadest sense pertain to wood, the following analysis will give the reader a general idea of the nature of the source material. Pragmatically we can distinguish four broad categories of records: (1) wood on hand, in storage, etc., but not growing and not just freshly cut: 65 texts, of
Timber production
Powell
which 3 (or even more) may belong to the "tool" category; (2) wood newly cut from the marsh woodlands, from tree plantations ("gardens"), or from the dikes surrounding fields and farms: 40 texts, including 3 additional texts not in Deimel's list (VS 14 44, BIN 8 350, MVN 3 17) and 1 which may belong to the "wood growing" category; (3) trees actually growing, characterized by some form of the expression gig ki mu-a-ba Sid-da, "wood counted where it grows (or: has grown)": 7 texts, one of which is uncertain, and another perhaps belongs to the "cut" category; (4) wooden tools, implements, vehicles, etc.: 40 texts, of which 3 (or more) may belong to the "wood cut" category and 1 which is not in Deirnel's list (VS 14 28). We should also note a peculiarity of the accounting system which has led to much confusion. This concerns the lists of tools, where from straightforward philological analysis of the text it is usually impossible to determine whether the text records a finished product or a piece of wood from which the tool is supposed to be manufactured. The nature of this problem becomes particularly clear from an examination of the "wood cut" texts (giS na de,-ga), which typically (but not universally) begin with larger pieces of "timber" (gig ur guiziru, tslrndnu), among which one finds both "trunks" (giS ur), and "trimmed branches" (pa kud = a r k pakuttu, wrli); then come things like plough parts, waggon parts, parts sf furniture, etc.; and finally the whole account is often wound up by a count of the pieces of firewood (terminology in Salonen 1964, usually categorized into "large" and "small" (giS u gig gibil-la gal-gal 1 tur-tur), and the number of bundles of smaller branches and twigs (pa sa hi-a). But, before passing on to a discussion of this problem and its resolution, let us pause to mention two examples of distinctions drawn between h e various parts of trees by Sumerian literary texts.
I
I1
m
no. of pieces
section of tree
"timber"
specific type of timber
35
gig ~ pa kud gig lir pa kud gig 6r pa kud
gig hr gi3 k gig iu gi3 hr giS hr gis k
gi3 ti1 lu-6b gig ti1 lu-6b zag g6 16 zag g6 16 B gi sig-ga 6 gi sig-ga
IV
Figure 1: The introductory section of a "wood cut" account As one can see, col. I contains the number of pieces of "timber" (giS ur = col. 111), followed by the qualification "trunk" (giS ur) or "trimmed branch" (pa kud) in col. 11, while col. IV classifies the timbers according to their usual or intended use. That giS ti1 lu-ub, zag gu la, and 6 gi sig-ga denote a descending order of size can be inferred from the fact that they always appear in this order when more than one of them occur together (nos. 2, 3, 5, 7, 9, lo, 11, 30, 126), and in several texts (nos. 13, 30, 67, BIN 8 350), the first two are preceded by yet another category: ga giS il-la-ka. J. Bauer (1972 p. 27Of.) has already pointed out that giS ti1 lu-ub and zag gu 18 are probably structures of some type, and we know from lexical evidence that 6 gi sig-ga means roughly "reed house construction" (cf. Akkadian kiWciSu, hugu, and their synonymns listed in AHw and CAD). If We put this together with HSS 3 42 and its (improved) duplicate DP 613, where both a ga and a giS ti1 lu-ub occur, the first larger than the second, it appears likely that these represent "timbers" classified according to their customary use in a descending order of size.
-
Erunerkar and the Lord of Aratta (lines 340-3431382-385. S. Cohen [Diss. 19731 p. 79f.. 257f.) makes the interesting contrast between the "trunk" (ur) of Enmerkar's scepter (gidri), said to he the me of princedom, the "branches" (pa) said to be the shadelprotection of Kulaba, and the ''spreading foliage" (pa mul-mul), said to be the sanctuary of Eanna where Inanna cools off in the shade. In Gilgamesh, Enkidu and the Netherworld (lines 42-44185-871 129-13 1 1140-142, A Shaffer, Sumerian Sources for.. Gilgumesh [Diss. Univ. Pennsylvania. 19631 45ff.), we find the sequence UP, home of the uncharmable serpent, pa, home of the Anzud-Bird, and Sab (probably "midst" = qablu, qabaltu), home of the Lilith-Maiden. After killing the serpent and frightening away the Anzud-Bird and the Lilith-Maiden, Gilgamesh "pulls" the tree and cuts off its branches (gig ur-ba mu-ni-in-bu pa-ba mu-ni-in-dar). Part of it he gives to Inanna for a chair or throne and a bed, and from its iir he makes himself an ellag (corresponding to pukku in the Akkadian version) and from its pa an e-ke,/ke,-malme (mekkd in the Akkadian version). It seems likely that ur in this case means both "trunk" and "roots". Thus, the "pulling" may refer to a practice of digging around the roots and then toppling the tree before cutting. This would make sense for trees that do not regenerate from the stump, because it serves the dual purpose of removing the roots so that other trees can be planted and making the roots available for carpentry or fuel. Returning now to the problem of "intended" vs. "finished" tools, it seems likely from the structure of the texts and from the administrative context, that the various implements mentioned in the "wood cut" texts are not the finished implements but are in fact the pieces of wood from which the tools will eventually be made. The practice of calling the pieces of wood according to their usual or intended use is particularly clear from the sequence of "timbers" that stand at the head of wood cutting texts, e.g., no. 3 (DP 431), the introductory section of which is shown in schematic format in Figure 1.
Tirnbcr production
Powell
Analogously, since the "tools" recorded in wood cutting texts come directly from the "garden" (kiri6), "field" (aSagx = GANA,), or "woods" (tir), it seems likely that these too are not finished tools but pieces of wood from which tools will eventually be made. Unfortunately, we cannot follow up on this, because the wood crafting section of the archive seems to have been largely lost or not yet discovered. However, there is another possible interpretation of these tools that we should perhaps consider, namely, that the wood cutters were themselves carpenters or wood specialists and that the tools were cut in the field more or less in the shape they would ultimately take. Wood cutters are never mentioned specifically, but it is obvious that a high official like Eniggal, the nubanda who is the grammatical subject of most of the cutting verbs, did not actually do the cutting himself. It is also possible that wood craftsmen were involved not only in the actual cutting but that some of these implements may have been "trained to grow in certain shapes. The British Museum has some excellent examples of tools from Egypt which illustrate how craftsmen took advantage of the extra strength offered by the natural union of branch and trunk, especially for making hoe and axe handles.
I
!
Overview of trees attested in the timber records Identification of species still poses intractable problems. The dictionaries have wrestled valiantly with these problems but have been able to resolve them satisfactorily only in a small percentage of cases. The case of the aiiihu tree (below pp. 116-8), which ought to be identifiable but which in fact is not, underscores the limitations of our evidence. In most cases, convincing identifications are simply still beyond our reach and can only be achieved when we have more adequate palaeobotanical evidence. The following list of trees from the Girsu timber records juxtaposes the dimensions of this uncertainty
with Cte clcarl) etRr.,abi reajxay
:i~?jiX)r<'~ilCi!ation
i ~ iT~r~-~:'nan t?nlc-u. 'Th; ljxi r ~ ) p g 3 ,~i:d r zllphabetia:ally for !a.ck of 3 ktlel pl-inclplr - - : ,:la1 -4cptjcJ a k w i ihe c o s r ~ c ~ ~ ofs sou:. con.v,,~~lionaY readings In a numkxr of cases hut -~llli.rrf.rilnad;:Iycar1 offer nii$fu~cg h , l ? ~ r . $+hr,r~: h ~ c ~ w the n , Akkadim equivalents arc gncn, CoUc~,edby their proposed i l t i t j ~ d e ~ ob\ith fi nlcliler~i gtnera ruld apecies, and, where applicable, thc ba\is for t h s idenl~iie;~r,~~is. tjf
.r~rrb.h~li&r -d.
So:i"ri~i
p :,i
0thr.r iarglrages, context, rn0de.n fior I.
reading and iden?j lrcalion noi ese,~bllsncd. binu Tijddyix
a],hJl;a, "athci tree ", 'odss\f esn syl.oilymns in
orhcr Xznguab~,s,iorttexk, modern flora.
$-sub5 -
II?IO& rn fll)l ,i.
OLlrcl lrtes oL ur~ccskaira ~ d ~ n t c Bt ~Y ~i Z C ~&re X allt:stw3 3:rswn for wotd drc Zht: follow~ngtwo.
e q r~rclljhut werc: werc: attuaitll) li:mji
t * u ~ -n d M. K r c k ~ n i k LA , 76 (1086) 194, ~nifP. Si~19JK311~r, ZA 75 (1985) 46.
Another plant !bat is occasionally gmthcred and recorded with trees 1s: ~f~gunli 1s
o w-1
!) ;
s
4i-4
I ?r I
17
ti 1. s'i'il~C .
or i~b~t.mc~ FI BXTY>~:/I'~, k c 3 1 n (ci. B
T : : I E r i , 78.:'2( .,irDb4.~ crr
d? 253) '3rd
Gii,irr
":r lire
(a,~:x,
%,
b : ~a
-t
~nlafr~~u W.L
:4
f-
h u ~{he spwsmess wltk u h c h rhls word
I,,
ine'aing 'sr, i'b
copper (gic ma-nil gab
- 11 i~ .$:ti
fi of h c
: ,I
r7xiJ
at~cstedfi Akkad~ar. \r
'
!
11'
< ~ I I ! 5
$11
J
121
I
wrw
.I ci..il
Eziir.#i~cl~~~,
I J F L L I : ~(.,&-I.)a'l ~
imd\cnj)r, 1s I ~ J ;ihs,! IL
' ' ~I) -199".' ~ 2~ 2?f ~ ), which ~ ~c
111 11
i \ ~ , \$i8 ? t \ (
'kcnptnitl of the people" an thr lQth ytdr nf
13- 1 d 5 b i ~ l dw t h
of p.
IIL 1,
r
-ird the N r ~ h ( ' ~ ~ . o( I~' )l i\ji? l
3 .
; ! I ( ,
)I
1 1 1 1 1 m ) r b 1111
lstcr- Y4%w > p ~ l . u r ~1l , I~C ' o p *
Gll>;li:~e~laI . 4
.,:: X n 2% ;e$pd-cr~clyin
zrh; . I rlti 1 - 1 J i l ~
. : I U ~ And . fro ,ljj
L'
lit
probably icok
z q u a r e c h ~ h~\kXa1CI1.irP'TU,
'
:
.,t 11 mly
re:JIy ticnoti: a
rrres bar6-bar6,identification not established: nos. 16, 103 Perhaps den tical with rnes habbar = tijiil~, hkewise uncertain. mes ba-lu-hb, identification not established: nos. 1, 93. 135, 13 Perhaps ident-rcal with mes ha-lu-ub EIAR-ra-na = duprdnu, likewrw rrncertan.
, it may be present m gk? 65 (Darnel's "'Sd")in no. 78.It does with certainty in the timber ~ x o r d s though
gi3 baac-bar,, Intc,rd!ly, " white/bnght trce/wood7': nos 144, 45, 107 gEparx (wi . lii2 A& I: ,:ob. 92 107, 134
nus
3
(
'
ul
I
1
Generally tl~oughtro be boxwood, Bt~xussp., based primarily on etymology. Thls wood does not occur
pm-11 dpb ~ . o n ~ t ~ q ccric ~pmc c s b#r:,cd on
L,
t
',('
I',
1)111
i
tgkarin (wr. GIS.TUG)= ~skarinrrlt
G+~&&u
T ~ reading L
Ilowt.\,(.~
I,~ different tattc and that wc hnve not l e t fol~ndthe proper Akladdlan wo-dl for S U X I I C Imanu.
remains unce~131~1
pn\bilblgr ssmc spc*\e~of h e tama)lsk. prkiap.i
Th1\,
r o ~ ~ c l ~ i -rkanu ,~
irs n,we lion1 a characrtvishc g o v l d ~,f manu trees in thz a~,a.'1 rl
ildagx {wr. b s ~ ~ S ~ a--Tn ''2 . ~..iM73 ~u~ -- 7 iidakku, 7 adaru
Sinig
,c
1d:ura
jl,i\
by the Pre~argomcfarm n'uncd m.P-nu ma-nu (see I,d3le,.
p~obabblyP ~ ~ Lmoltt~ I J ~p , the .tpple, b a e d on synonyrms
Se-Bu,,,
'IL
% : 3 ; , bi",iP,
t
gi gid, redding mu-d i identif~oationnot estdblishcd. gul-bu, xcsdrng and idcntiBcatio~rnot establlshcd. baseur (wr. MAgrrnii) = ,"za$/luru
generally e'nutight to I x lmplar, but
i* l;ot n;r:.ccr,t,lilvc. Tbt ftollnw5i:. rict. w p p r Z
,r,ip?t
$<> f'
:
plobably Populus euphraica, based on contcxc synoq r75 , m ~ drncx'er~f l c
Dl' 0 4 16'7; CI FWIWII Q l Z A ? 4 1 )
d ~ d manu i il.txi nrrc tmrgn~ficant i:? hi. ,rrisorli~vlture ot P ~ c s a r g o ?C;AZ ~ ~ 11
1111
* 116 asaXz (wr. a='" w;,u.LIS")
k s > ~ g o rG ~ ~~ cF L (?o. I 1?Q 3ad
Tsr 1.;
problematic. In icxt nos. 3 and 13, whith rccord 40 and 124 bundles (w) of b;fRgunLi, ;t secniVJ
likely to be Pro~oprsjarrta, Akkadran aSagu, modern Iraqi Snuk or iGk, which means that Ihc Sumeriar word is presumably to be read kiSigx (though Ihc lexical evldence for this re:i&ng 1s tln11 and
A
b ~ shaky t
occur as material out of wh~chfurniture etc. 1s made (nos. 36, 46, also DP 75 and 490).
Cultivation and harvesting of timber in the Girsu records Most of the tree names, as opposed to technical terms for timber and wooden objects, were already correctly isolated by Deimel (1925:54-60). Among the ten names identified by Deimel as trees are the eight trces that occur most commonly in the Gil-su wood texts. To give some idea of the relative frequency with which these trees occur I have listed them below in descending order of frequency. The number Immcdiately following the name indicates the number of texts in which they are attested; the number in parenthesis includes both the certain attestations and those which I have inferred from context.
in vrew of the possiblIity that ihe Iraq, bUdr:tdian, m d Sumerian word may all be etymol~girally
~denjcal)Howcve-, in other r r x h it can hardly be Prosopis farcta. No. 129 records "Gftwn giG ~ f ~ g u n l i for the upper 1-Sub of a giS dur gar", and in no. 56 we find 58 giS ab ~fRgunricut Tor haharan (meaning unknown to me) and 12 of the same c ~ l tfor giS GAZ (probably a writing for kum, pestle). Kt is pssible that these are copy errors for G ~ R whch , presumably would be idenlcdl wrth Akkdlan ask. "Myrllc", but even this d w s not secm to fit the context.
In addition to the trces noted above, a few others arc attested as being used for wood, but there is no record in the wood cutting texts of their being grown or harvested. g b gid-gid, completely obscure: no. 103 giSimmar = gis'mmaru, date palm, Phoenix dactylijcra: nos. 94, 119 ma-nu, probably a willow: no. 129 Proposed identifications are reviewed by P. Steinkeller (1987:91-93), who suggests Salk acmophylla, a type of willow. Flora oflruq (Townsend et al. 1980:34) notes that its wood is "tough and elastic" and that it is "used for small carpentry and its twigs used for binding". As Steinkeller has shown, ma-nu plays a significant role in the quotas of Ur 1LI foresters. By contrast, ~t is rarely menuoned in the surviving records
1. asal, 2. Sinig 3. u-suh, 4. haShur 5. gul-bu 6. Se-du,, 7. ildagx 8. gi gid
Euphrates poplar tamarisk pine? apple ? ? ? ?
With regard to cultivation, the present corpus of texts seems to imply quite distinct patterns. We can break these down topographically into three groups according to where they were grown: (1) woods and gardens; (2) fields and gardens; (3) only in gardens. To provide the reader with documentation sufficient to check my conclusions, I list these below with the tcxls numbers in Deimel (1925:lff.); numbers with asterisks indicate that the type of tree is not specifically mentioned but has been inferred from a variety of contextual evidence.
Powell
Powell
Timber production
With regard to the actual mechanics of cutting and processing timber, the texts provide only indirect evidence. All modern works on timber emphasize the importance of seasoning. The molecular mechanics of seasoning is rather complex, but basically what happens in the seasoning process is a reduction of the water content of the tree whereby the moisture within the cells gradually moves outward into the surrounding atmosphere. This must be done relatively slowly to prevent splitting, warping, and other types of damage to the timber. An important feature of seasoning is pile stacking, which is done in a way to promote circulation of air.
1. Grown both in woods (tir) and in gardens (kiriJ asal,, Euphrates poplar W O O ~nos. S : 2*, 3, 5, 7*, 9*, lo*, 11, 13*, 30*, 51, 64, 67*, 89*, 126*, 131 gardens: nos. 4, lo*, 12, 17, 18, 38.44.45, 58, 87*, 90, 92, 109, 110*
2. Grown along edges of fields (sagx) and in gardens (kiriJ Sinig, tamarisk fields: nos. 24, 25, 31, 32, 33, 47, 49, 50, 57, 88*, 91, 130 gardens: nos. 92, 102*, 109 3. Grown only in gardens (kiriJ gi gid: nos. 12, 29, 44, 45, 48, 92, 103, 11 1, 144 gul-bu: nos. 6, 17, 18, 22, 28, 44, 45, 48, 58, 90, 92 hagbur, apple: nos. 4, 6, 8, 18, 22, 26, 48, 109, 11 1, 118, 123 ildagx: nos. 4, 6, 16, 18, 34, 44, 45, 92, 123 Se-du,,: nos. 4, 16, 18, 22, 27, 28, 90, 101, 109 u-suh,: nos. 12, 19, 29, 48, 50%77, 90.
t I
,
Whether these patterns would be substantiated by a larger sample remains a moot point, and this needs to be kept in mind, though there is no point in discussing it because the evidence is inadequate for any reliable conclusions. Noteworthy is the overwhelming coincidence of the asal, tree with marsh woodlands, which is to be expected if the identification with Euphrates poplar is correct. Nearly all the texts that record woodland growth refer to a specific toponym known as the "Marsh Woods" (tir ambarb). Only one asal, text (no. 51) refers to a woodland by the name of a field or farm: tir DUNh-re gar-ra-ta, "from the woodland of (the farm) Duregara", also a well-known toponym (see LaPlaca/Powell 1990 Appendix under these names for agricultural context). Most interesting perhaps, as evidence for rational, controlled exploitation of woodland resources, are three documents (nos. 7*, 11, 30*) dated to three different years within a six-year period which record the areas harvested: twice an area of three iku (c. 1.08 ha.) arid once an area of two and a half iku (ca. 0.9 ha.). The pattern of production is also interesting. Most of the large timbers (gig ur) seem to have come from the woodlands (e.g., nos. 3, 5, 7*, 11, etc.) and from the tamarisk groves (e.g., nos. 25, 32, 49, etc.). Wood from gardens seems usually to have been used for specialized purposes, e.g., for a wide variety of agricultural and other implements and tools (some of which are also attested in woodland harvests), for weapons (such as bows), and for ship equipment. The patterns suggest a conscious recognition that native timber could be used for many purposes but that for certain purposes appropriate timber either had to be cultivated or imported (about which we have some rather sparse data in other types of texts). The need for fuel, for the metals industry, for example, seems to have been met largely by woodland resources, in which the asal, tree played a major role. A considerable proportion of the texts recording timber from woodlands also contain some version of an entry with "large and small firewood" (giS u gibil-la gal-galltur-tur, nos. 2*, 3, 4*, 5, 7*, 11, 12, 13*, 17, 30*, 38, 51, 64, 76*, 143*).
Timber production
I t
II
i
I
i I
iI
I I
1
I i
It seems clear that the Sumerians used pile stacking, though we have no information about the techniques. Thus, a number of texts (nos. 9, lo, 13, 25, 31, 33, 49, 61, 72, 73, 75) mention wood being stacked (the verb, when it occurs, is gub) in piles (guru,). O l these texts, no. 49 is fairly informative, listing three different piles of tamarisk wood, apparently sorted into types with the first pile including 8 pieces having lengths from 7.5 to 3 cubits (3.75 to 1.5 m.), the second containing 19 pieces ranging from 7 to 2.5 cubits (3.5-1.25 m.), and the third containing 4 pieces with lengths of 3 and 4 cubits plus 298 pieces (including such things as harrow teeth) without statement of length and 81 bundles of branches. Likewise, no. 25 summarizes a cutting of tamarisk wood which has been stacked in three piles (guru,-bi 3-amJ consisting of what seem to be 2 boles of trees (ellag) that are 5 cubits long, followed by 2957 pieces of smaller timber in descending order of size, concluding with 545 bundles of branches. Means of transport are recorded only rarely: lashing into a raft (ma la) is mentioned once (no. 30), and a few texts (nos. 31, 33, 61, 62, 73) mention transport by boats (ma, ma 1ugud;da). The administrative organization of these woodlands seems to have been very similar to the model reconstructed by P. Steinkeller (1987) for the "Foresters of Umma". Like the men who worked in the riverain and marsh woodlands of Ur 111 Umma, their counterparts in Presargonic Girsu were also called lu tir. I have been able to identify seven of these "foresters" by name: barag-den-lil-le(TSA 7 vii), 4-g"-nun-di (no. 67, VAT 4682), ka,-a (DP 622, 641; VAT 4682), ur-6-mu5 (VS 14 170, 171), ur-hi-li-e-gar-ra (DP 582, 590; VAT 4681, 4682), ur-ni (VAT 4681, 4682). The last two are brothers, and Urni, after being killed (or, at least, dying) in the 4th lugal year of Uruinimgina (DP 138), was succeeded by his own son (utu-gin7-a-ba-Sag,),thus conforming to the paradigm deduced by P. Steinkeller. The paradigm also applies to the status and priviliges of these "foresters", because we find some of them receiving land as "prebenders" (to use Steinkeller's terminology), others as sharecroppers (apin la). One document (DP 138) recording dead soldiers (agax[= G ~ N ]us) who have relatives to replace them and of those who do not indicates that these "foresters" were also expected to perform military service. Other texts show that they were responsible for dike construction and harvesting. Ka'a is assigned 3 reeds of dike work (DP 622 and 641). E-gunundi, Ka'a and Ur-@li-egar are each assigned 3 iku of nig en-na land to harvest in the capacity of "foresters" (lu tir-me) and as ERIN,-r (in VAT 4682), and two of this trio, E-gunundi and Ur-bili-egar, appear in a roster of soldiers (Nik I 3 xii-xiii), ama erin,, and their title lu tir undoubtedly occurred in the broken section of the text. It is also interesting to note that these "foresters" probably all owed certain customary "presents" (an archaic form of taxation), for one text (VS 14 171 V ) records that Ur-Emus brought (a chthonic in 10 bundles (sa) of asal, as a maS da ri-a offering in the festival of dlugal-LJR~x"ZfLY' deity perhaps associated with the winter solstice) as a gift for the spirit of the dead ensi Enentarzi. A systematic search of the documents would no doubt turn up similar patterns for the other men involved with trees. I have been able to identify three individuals who were responsible for
Powell
Timber production
the tamarisk plantations (lu Sinig) and nineteen who were "gardeners" (nu kiri,, once lu kiri,), but it seems rather likely that there were others whose titles are not preserved or were not recorded. I shall not, however, treat this matter here, as it is peripheral to our primary interests, and turn now to the tamarisk plantations. When I speak of tamarisk "plantations", I mean that I believe these trees to have been planted, but not over broad areas of land. Rather they seem to have been planted on the dikes that surrounded various farms ("fields" in the usual Sumerological parlance). Thus, texts which specifically mention the location of tamarisk plantations refer to the e(-g), "dike", of the farm (nos. 24, 47, 130, and additionally with context LaPlaca/Powell 1990 pp. 85, 93f.). It is difficult to say how typical this is, because in ten cases we are dealing with the farm called da ~ f ~ g u nperhaps d, to be read da kiSigx and interpreted as "By the igk", and in one case with ambar, "Marsh Farm", out of a total of about a hundred known names of farms or fields. The Sinig tree does not seem to have produced as heavy a timber as asal,. Thus, giS ur which 1 take to be a general term for heavier timbers (the loan word guSiiru is often used for "roof beams") - of Sinig wood seem to be attested only with 6 gi sig-ga, which, if "reed house construction" is the correct interpretation, would point toward a lighter type of construction. Rather we find such terms as lam sag, ellag, ti, dib, and bar be-da of Sinig wood ranging up to 10 cubits (c. 5 m.) in length (some seem to be distinctly shorter, e.g., dib). I cannot interpret these terms precisely. ti is equated with Akkadian sZlu, "rib, and doubtless means just that. I would suspect that the others are "poles" of some type, but, of course, they could be some type of beam, plank, or board. Sinig is also used for drags or harrows (giS GANA, ur), harrow teeth (zh gig GANA, ur), hoe handles (? gag al gal-gal / tur-tur), parts of doors (nu-kuS ki-ta), and other not always easily identifiable objects. It is worthwhile saying a word or two about the identification of Sinig with tamarisk, because it exemplifies many of the problems we face when we try to use modern data on flora for reconstructing the flora of the ancient past. The Flora of Iraq vowsend et al. 1980:160-169) lists eleven species growing in modern Iraq. The only one of these which fits the Presargonic timber tree is Tumarix aphylla, also known as the athel tree, Arabic 'ail. It is said to flourish as far north as Samarra and to be especially well adapted to saline conditions. Once the roots reach ground water, the tree can survive without irrigation (Guest & Al-Rawi 1%6:77; Townsend et al. 1980:166), though it is said to be known in Iraq now only where planted. If Tumarix aphylla is not the modern equivalent of our Presargonic timber tree, then we are faced with three likely choices: (1) Sinig represents an extinct species of Tamarix; (2) Sinig represents an entirely different tree; (3) the modern data is incomplete and does not give us an accurate picture of the "natural" flora of the third millennium. As far as I can see, there is no way to prove or disprove any of these, but the third alternative is likely to be correct. Of course, Sinig may have included other species of Tamarh; after all, Flora of Iraq (Townsend et al. 1980:162ff.) gives tarjiii as the Iraqi name for five of the species it lists: T.
arceuthoides, "shrubby tree", T. ramosissima "shrub or shrubby tree", T. aralensis "tree often shrubby", T. brachystachys "low tree or shrub, T. aucherana "tall or bushy shrub". But we have to have a timber tree for Sinig, and Tamarix aphylla seems to be the only likely choice. Townsend et al. (1980:166) report a T. aphylla of uncertain age, said to be about "23-24 m. tall". This seems to be the same species of tamarisk described by Gamble (1922346f.) under the name Tamarix articulata Vahl., which is said to grow in "Punjab and Sind, Baluchistan, extending westward to Egypt" and to be "one of the most important trees of the arid regions". Gamble also notes its
I'owell
Timber production
spced of growth, mentioning trees that are supposed to have attained a girth of 2 to 3 fcct (diameter: ca. 20-30 cm.; in Sumerian terms this would be about 3-7 sila) in 12 ycars and onc spccimen that is supposed to have reached 4 feet 10 inches (diameter: ca. 47 cm.) in 15 ycars. 130th authorities (whose sources may ultimately be the same - lector caveat!) note that thc wood is used in India for water wheels, ploughs, ornaments, and for charcoal, with the bark and galls being used for tanning. Moreover, Gamble notes that the tree coppices well, and it seems likely that coppicing was an important part of timber husbandry among the Sumerians. Before leaving the tamarisk, it may be useful to note that it plays a major role in magic, as well as in medicine, and is attested in these capacities already at a very early date. We may mention in favor of a tree of substantial size the incipit of an incantation: "Tamarisk of the canebrake, high tree, which has grown on pure ground" (%hig giS gi giS an ki sikil-le m6-a; see B. Alster, Dwnuzi's Dream p. 92; other references to the tamarisk in Sumerian literature: Lugalbanda 397ff. with commentary by C1. Wilcke, D m Lugalbanda-Epos [I9691 p. 218).
Garden trees seem to have been cultivated in a "mixed" sort of way. It is impossible from the data available to discern much in the way of patterns of planting. However, we can make some inferences about what was being grown together. Remarkable, in view of the importance of the date palm, is that we have virtually no reference to date palm wood and none at all to a date palm being cut for wood. Moreover, in our group of "timber" texts, there are three "gardeners" (nu kiri,), and these three gardeners also produce fruit, as we know from other texts (Deimel 1925:45-52, nos. B 1-13). But again, it is remarkable that dates appear in their quotas only in the last few years of Uruinimgina. Our three gardeners are Eku (6-ku,), Etae (e-ta-ell), and Urki (ur-ki). The garden of Eku is attested with the following trees: asal, gi gid, gul-bu, haShur, ildag*, Sinig, and u-suh,, as well as the rare giparx and, as fruits, apples, grapes, and dates (nos. B 1-6, 8-12). In the garden of Etae we find asa12, gul-bu, hdhur, ildagx, and Se-dulo as timber trees and, as fruit, apples, grapes, figs, and dates (nos. B 1-6, 8-13). And in the garden of Urki, we have asal,, gi gid, gul-bu, hagbur, ildagx, Se-dulo, and u-suh,, as well as the rare giS bar6-bar, and, as fruits, apples, grapes, figs, and dates (nos. B 1-6, 8-13). Thus, as already noted, a mixed pattern of cultivation seems implicit, and certainly these trees must have been planted with an eye toward creating optimum conditions for light, shade, screening, etc., but, with such a limited sample and no data on patterns of planting, it seems vain to speculate about details. Timber products from particular trees Here, too, Deimel (1925:54ff.) has made a pioneering attempt to analyse the evidence, but, given the limited knowledge of Sumerian lexicon and orthography available in the 1920s, it is not surprising to find genuine insights and correct interpretations rubbing shoulders with pure fantasy and misreadings. Thus, here, as with the basic textual material, one must begin anew and work ab ovo. In my treatment of this material, I have arranged it alphabetically according to tree and object. A number of the latter will surely be subject to revision, and in some cases I am quite uncertain about how to read the names of the objects. In some cases it will eventually be necessary to collate the text on the tablet itself. asal, Timber (the four types discussed above p. 101) and firewood (texts cited p. 104) have already been mentioned and often occur in the texts together with bundles of branches, pa sa 18-a (nos. 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 11, 12, 13, 17, 18, 30, 38, 44, 45, 51, 64, 92, 109, 131, and BIN 8 350; including both woodland and garden cuttings). We may note that the larger timbers of asal, come primarily from marsh
Powell
Timber production
woodlands, whereas gardens seem to produce heavy timbers only in limited quantities. As examples of the contrast between "wild" growth in the woodlands (tir) and cultivated growth in gardens (kiri,), we may take text no. 30 (= DP 436. Uruinirngina lugal 2), where we have not only a fully preserved text but also the area of woodland harvested (2.5 iku, c. 0.9 ha.), and text no. 12 (= DP 410, Lugalanda 5), where cuttings from the gardens of all three of our gardeners are recorded, together with name of the month, which is probably the tenth month and probably corresponds roughly to January.
bunks
percent
23 40 90 46
12 20 45 23
trimmed branches
12 32 59 70
percent
7 18.5 34 40.5
type of timber
firewood large small
bundles of branches
g6 giS il-la-ka gig ti1 lu-tib zag gti 16 6 gi sig-ga
Figure 2: A marsh woodland harvest
In the woodland harvest, one notes in particular the large number of "trunks", whereas a typical garden harvest recorded in no. 12 produces from the garden of Eku only 2 giS (probably just pieces of timber) each for "head of plough (sag apin), "wife of plough (dam apin), pole of cart (ma-gid mar), and as "trunks for timbers for reed house construction" (giS.ur
ur 6 gi ~ i ~ ' - ~ plus a ' ) , 6 6% for crosspieces for a rigibilu (hg4 ri-gi4-bi-lu).This garden cutting produces 21 pieces (gig) of firewood (u giS gibil-la) and 42 bundles of branches. The cuttings from the gardens of Etae and Urki are similar and need not be repeated here. Of the timbers listed in Fig. 2, only four garden texts (lo, 12. 87. 92) mention even the smallest of these, namely "timbers for reed house construction", and larger timbers (til lu-ub and zag gu la) occur in only two of these same texts (87, 92). Thus, asal,, though occasionally cultivated in gardens, seems clearly to have been a native tree that flourished naturally in the marsh woodlands. We have already noted the consensus of opinion about the identification of this tree with the Euphrates poplar, and, before turning to the objects made from asal,, let us note a few passages from Sumerian literature which shed light upon its character.
Sumerian literary texts suggest that the asal-tree possessed a widely branching crown providing much shade. For example, the KeS temple is said to be %&karin-da(var. -gin7) men (var. sag) an-da guru,", "asa~-~in,(var. d a ) an-da t81-thl sal(var. zal)-la, "like a tskarin-tree bearing its crown into the heavens, like an asal-tree which has spread out in all directions into the heavens" (in the Keg Hymn 67f.. A. Sj6berg & G. Gragg. TCS 3 171; and cf. nurnun thl-thl in Udrnelambi 34). The same spreading character of the branches seems implied in Inanna and Sukalletuda, where the asal-tree is specifically planted for its broad shade (cf. S.N. Krarner. From the Tablets of Swner [I9561 p. 68-70). Finally, marsh woodlands as the natural habitat of the asal-tree seems clearly implied in Lugalbanda: "that around(?) Uruk there should be marsh (and) that there should be a flood of water, that there should be dry land (and) that asal-trees should grow, that there should be mature(?) reed and young reed" (lines 297-2991363-365. C1. Wilcke. Lugalbanda-Epos [1%9] p. 118f. + 2Mff.
Powell
Timber production
with other literary passages).
The modern descriptions of the poplars in the Flora of lraq (Townsend et al. 1980:26-31) are not exactly in happy accord with what we would expect from the ancient literary descriptions. Among the poplars known in modern Iraq - Populus euphratica Oliv., P . nigra L., P. alba L. - the Black and White poplars. which are medium to large trees up to about 30 rn. tall, are considered into Iraq, being cultivated in the north but said to do poorly in to be natives of Europe ~~.rrriiuced the south. The Euphrates iar, arr the other hand, is widely distributed over Iraq up to 11OO m. altitude whereber there is sdficient water, and is said to be a bush or smdl tree, usually 3-10 m high, sccasional-ly to 15 m md "sometimes with a well-developed trunk". Perhaps even more disturbing, from the standpoint of k i n g able to use modern descriptions of flora to identify ancient names is the observation by Flora ti.& P euphratica does not occur "in Basra and the extreme south, where garab, the common Iraqi name for this tree, is said to be used for willow (Salix). ' n i s is coupled with the solnewhat contradictory observation a few pages later that Iraqi safscif is the common modem name for willow "except in the extreme south of lraq where this name is used for Populus euphratica", noting further that, for willow, Ibn al-Baitar uses garab and also mentions khilcif as another name, which, however, is said to be "hardly ever heard in Iraq" (Townsend et al. 1980 pp. 28, 32). The Assyriologist will of course recognize in khilcif the cognate of hilzpu, which we conventionally translate as willow based on this identification. And perhaps it is significant that HAR-ra = hubullu groups asal and hilzpu together (Powell 1987a pp. 148, 150). However, according to the Flora of Iraq (Townsend et al. 1980:31-38), modern Iraqi safsiif is applied, sometimes with qualifications, to four of the five species of willow that grow in Iraq (Salix acmophylla Boiss., S. babylonica L., S . alba L., S. aegyptiaca L.). Obviously, the same sort of vague and inconsistent nomenclature would have been possible in ancient times also. When one adds to this the fact that modem botanical identifications of species are in a process of more or less constant revision and that the older works on the subject tend to be less reliable, I think it is clear that we are still a long way away from secure identifications of most trees. Perhaps we can take some comfort in the fact that the following list of objects made from asal, (drawn from both garden and woodland harvests) at least does not seem to directly contradict identification of it with Populus euphratica (nos. refer to Deimel 1925). a, see apin apin, plough a apin, "arm" of plough: no. 7, also made of gul-bu and ildag dam apin, "wife" of plough: nos. 4, 7, lo, 11, 17, 30, 38,44, 45, 58, 92, 129, 134 (<spin>) dam apin la, "wife" of ploughman(?): no. 5 geStug apin, "ear" of plough: nos. 5, 7, 30, 42 sag apin, "head" of plough: nos. 7, lo, 12, 13, 30, 92, 129, BIN 8 350 dar-ra, split(? wood): no. 10 (among cart parts) umbin gag, some kind of wheel-peg or wheel-rod: no. 83 (copy: "NI" for gag) Cf. kiSib gag Sag,-ga-ka, "on the inside pole pin(?)" (so J.S. Cooper, Return of Ninurta [I9781 in Angim 60).
eme sig, planks or the like eme sig ma gur,-ra, planks for a deep-draft boat: nos. 13, 92 () erne sig ma lugud;da, planks for a short boat: nos. 92, 107 (copy: KA for erne) For erne sig with boats, see especially 119 (type of wood not specified), where the NAG sig of the copy (DP
Powell
Timber production
483) is probably to be emended to eme.
du,-na(-ka). It seems likely that this is the same part that appears in
Hb IV
389 (MSL 5 187) t ~ ug l l k r , an-la
erin, mar, see mar, also under gul-bu
targul(= MA.MUK)= [namhnamh+u]. Proto-Diri and Diri equate namh-asu with an-ta dur-gul MA MIJK, wllicll
ga-lam, see kun,
suggests that giSSer, in
geitug, see apin and mar
(as already postulated by B. Meissner, BAW 1 [= AS 11 58f.). However, neither AHw's "Zapfc" (followit~g
fi
IV 389 is explanatory, namely, "the Ser which'forms the upper part ol. tllc turyul"
Meissner's line of reasoning) nor CAD'S "punting pole(?)" seems to fit the Sumerian contexts for k r 7 . I!'
giS ur gu-la, large beam: no. 92 ha-zi, axemandle): no. 12, also made of gulbu ka, see mar
targul/durgul refers to a mooring apparatus, such as that shown in Salonen 1939 pl. XXXI.2 and XXX111.2, this would fit the image of the sufferer in the IStar-Dumuzi incantation, who is said to be "like someone 'struck' (i.c.. made fast) with/in a tarkullrS" (Sa kima ina tarkullt? mah-su, W. Farber, Beschworungsritual an Iitar und Dumuzi
ki sag, see mar, also under gul-bu
[I9771 p. 238f.315). It may be that tarkuNli denotes the whole mooring apparatus, which would account for the
kul handle kul gal-gal, large handles: no. 5 kul gisalx (w~."DuGxGIS"),handle of steering oar: no. 92, also made of gi gid and gulbu kul gu-la, large handle: BIN 8 350 kul giS GANA, ur-ra, handle of harrowldrag: no. 42
plural form. If so, we should probably seek the meaning of Ser, in the upper mooring apparatus. The word may
kun, (wr. DUMU.BS= "child of rope"), ladder (= simmiltu):no. 129 (3 tima) ga-lam giS kun,, rungs of ladder: nos. 13, 30, 42, 129 ma gid, see mar, also under gul-bu and Se-du,, mar, some type of cart or waggon erin, mar (perhaps gig erin, mar is better), yoke of cart: nos. 5, 30,42 geitug mar, "ear" of cart: nos. 5, 13, 30, 42, 129 ka (or KA) mar, "mouth(?) of cart: nos. 5, 7, lo, 11, 30, 143 (3 times), BIN 8 350 (<man) ki sag mar, "forehead"(?) of cart: nos. 5, 7, 10, 11, 30, 92, 143 (3 times) ma gid mar, pole of Cart: nos. 4, 7, lo, 12, 17, 30, 38, 42, 129; also made of gulbu and Sedu mud mar, probably part of the pole assembly: nos. 10, 11, 30, 38, 42, 129; also made of k d u usan, mar, whip(hand1e) for cart: nos. 4 (<mar>), 5 (<man), 7, 10, 13; with genitive -ka expressed: nos.
also be identical with Ser, gam-ma, perhaps "arched Ser", that occurs in Enki and the World Order 345, Ser, gam-ma-ni an.Se.Ser, an-na-gin, an Sag4-ge us-sa, "his arch like a rainbow leaning against Middle Heaven" (C.A. Benito [Diss. Pennsylvania, 19691 p. 104 = line 344 in S.N. Kramer, WZJ 9, no. 112 [1959/60] pp. 238
+
+ 38). and it seems particularly likely to be Al-Fouadi [Diss. Pennsylvania, 19691 p. 70 + 123).
250) and in Nungal in the Ekur 18 (A. Sjiiberg, AfO 24 [I9731 28f. the same word as in Enki's Journey to Nippur 30 (A.-H.A.
where the Ser, gam-ma is said to be "a bull/ox raising its horn(s)" (gud si guru:)
and comes in the sequence
sig, (brickwork), temen (foundation), '*sag kul (boltlbar), %i gar (lock). giBhr (roofbeams), dgk (mat work), kr, gam-ma (vault/arch), ka (main door), i-dib (threshold) or variant kun, (stair).
Su-dul, gud, yoke for oxen: nos. lo, 30,42, 129, 143 (twice) talx or dalx (wr. IjU), crosspieces: no. 92 til, reading and meaning uncertain: no. 8 Cf. bublitu, kabbillu, tillatu, tillu, and also Hg on
Yb M 332 (MSL 9 186): gi ma da 18 = qan tillati = giSalli. It
seems likely that the latter denotes the pole of the oar or steering apparatus, in which case the I;Ig gloss would not be "worthless", as per B. Landsberger, BAfO 17 [I9671 40 8L.c. If ti1 is the correct reading, as seems not unlikely given the fact that the sign is indeed T L , then the related Akkadian words as well as the Presargonic
10, 11, 12
contexts suggest a round pole or rod of some type. In the list of gifts sent to the pharaoh by TuZlratta, bubritu is
zhr-da na mar, perhaps holding pins for bed of a cart: nos. 4, 7 (<man), 42
linked with d a d d u , "pole"
The suggested interpretation assumes a connection between zar-da (written SUM-da) and zardi and its synonyms
suggesting, given the structure of Late Bronze chariots, "axle" as the likely meaning of bubutu. The occasional
kanasarru and kalitu.
mention of pairs of these is probably due to the fact that the axle projected from under the body of the vehicle
mud of a har-ha-da vehicle (cf. mud mar above): no. 103 nagax (wr. KUM), perhaps pestle: no. 92, BIN 8 350 nag-ku (reading not entirely certain), probably a container of some kind: nos. 5, 7, lo, 11, 13, 42; also made of haSkur and ildag
nu-kuS ki-ta, "lower nukuSJi2": BIN 8 350 Its upper counterpart (nu-kuS an-na) occurs in no. 147 but without indication of the type of wood. These seem
to be the lower and upper crosspieces of the door, by which the door was attached to the doorpost (discussed CAD nukuSSli; A. Salonen, Turen 69f.;
A.
Sjoberg, AfO 24 [I9731 28f.)
ri-gi4-bi-lu, something on the order of a cabinet: no. 129; also made of gulbu Sag4 si ri-gi4-bi-lu,crosspieces for a rigibilu: nos. 5, 10, 11, 12, 13, 30, 42 Se da gur, probably some part of a boat: nos. 7 (copy: a for da), 13, 30, BIN 8 350 ESer, ma lu-ub-ka: no. 5 Cf. %r, ma lugud,-da (in no. 2) and &Ser7under Se-du,,. %Ser7,later kr,. seems to denote a specific p a of quite diverse objects. As M. Civil has noted (JAOS 88 [I9681 13 discussing Enlil's Chariot 11, Angim 56, and DP 482). it seems to be part of the chariot pole assembly, where it occurs in genitive construction with
-
"ten nindan of wood (c. 60 m.) for chariot poles, ten nindan for bubutu" -
on both sides. If this line of reasoning is correct, it would give us a satisfactory interpretation of ti1 throughout the Girsu wood texts. See also gag ti1 under hdhur.
ti1 apin, part of the plough(?): no. 7 ti1 !i gi-mug, probably part of the steering oar: no. 30 til gi,, uncertain: nos. 5, 7, 11, 13, 30, 42 til giS gi-mug, probably pole of the steering oar: no. 13 ti1 ma gur,-ra, part of a sailing boat: no. 7 usan,, see mar zu, probably "teeth" of some type (cf. also KA under mar): nos. 92, 103
[...I gu-ka, uncertain: no.
13
gi gid The identification of this "tree" remains uncertain. Deimel (1925:60) translated it as "Bambu", but this rest solely upon the literal interpretation of the signs GI G ~ Das "reed" and "long". This was tentatively maintained by Thompson (1949 p. 21). Bamboo can grow in southern Iraq, but the species currently cultivated were apparently introduced in this century (BorIGuest
Powell
Timber production
It is not inconceivable that some large ~ e now d extinct once grew in southern Iraq, but we shall have to await better botanical evidence to decide about that. Meanwhile, though the ambiguity of the Sumerian terms makes it impossible to exclude the identification of gi gid with some type of reed-like plant, on the whole, this identification does not seem to be supported by the fact this this plant produces "trunks" (giS.ur), "trimmed branches" (pa kud), and "bundles of branches" (pa sa la-a). 1968:40-46).
. = dibbu, some kind of board or From "trunks" are produced: "dib" (no. 48: tranliteration only; ~ f dib beam); umbin na, "claw/foot of a bed" (no. 45); ellag giS gi gid giS.ur gu-la, "(two) beams(?) from a gi gid tree with a large trunk" (no. 44); gig-zi na, "wall of a bed" (no. 45); giS.ur didli-bi da KAL-ba, "various trunks for ..." (no. 48); and sag erim,, probably part of a chair or bed (no. 45; cf. m t u , erim, plitu). "Trimmed branches" are classified into "large", pa kud gal-gal (nos. 44, 48), "small", pa kud tur-tur (no. 44), and "firewood", pa kud giS 6 gibil-la (no. 48). "Bundles of branches", pa sa la-a, are also well attested, though not in large quantities (nos. 12, 45, 92, 144). In addition to these uses, gi gid is also attested as being used for the following specific purposes. bu-bu-ra, reading and meaning uncertain: nos. 92, 144; also made of ildag giS gid-da, probably spear shafts: no. 92; also made of gulbu and usuh giS gid-da tur-tur, "little spear shafts": no. 92 giS-zi na(-da), ''wall of bed": nos. 12, 45 (said to
be of the "trunk"), 103, 111 (-da); also made of gulbu and
ildag I retain the reading giS-zi(-da), in preference to iz-zi(-da), in spite ot ttle "loanwords" izi and izzidarli, which seem to be late and are perhaps artificial creations. It seems not improbable that this is the same element present in the name of the chthonic deity Nin-gigzida (perhaps "Lord of the Wall"), who is associated with snakes but not with trees. It is also the type of wall through which Enki speaks to Ziusudra in the Surnerian Flood Story 153f., for which
M. Civil (in W.G. Larnbert1A.R. Millard, Atra-Hasis [I9691 p. 142f.) offers the translation
"side-wall", and which corresponds in the OB version to both igku, "(house)-wall" and kikkiSu "reed-wall". This alternation in the Akkadian version suggests a rather more general sense for giS zi-da, and this seems also to be
cvidernce, the probability of this identification being correct seems rather remote. Thc examplcc Ibr phonetic change from /g/ to /b/ cited by J. Bauer (1972 p. 4231, to whom G. Scl, rclcrs, probably have nothing to do with a phonetic change, and, in any case, a loanword from 4kkadi;ln into Sumerian or vice versa is improbable: the Akkadian original would have to have been cidicr *dull$, i.e. not attested, or dulbzl, plural, which makes no sense, and, if the word had bccn borrowed from Sumerian, ,-;re would expect the Akkadian form to be *dulbic. One is nan~rallyincilrref! to look for a Sumerian equivalent for dulbu, because it seems likcly that this is the Platanus oirentalis, as long assumed on the basis of etymology. Xn discussing P. orientalis, the Flora of Iraq (Tomsend et al. 1980:22-25) notes that the common Iraqi name is now Zinar, and that Ibn al-Baitar mendons two other fonns c.f this na!ne (,rinniir and sunniir) along with dulb. Thus, the identification of P orientalis with Akkad;,8,: ,J:!tihu seems rather probable; however, Flora says that it grows "by mountain streams In :,hady forested valleys" at 6W-1200 m. and, though it is "sometimes cultivated for poles in Lower Iraq", it is "apt to die on reaching maturity". As far as I can determine, no botanist has ever assumed that the plane tree was indigenous to Iraq, but rather was introduced there just as it has been introduced to such distant places as England and the Himalayas. Thus, if the plane grew in southern Iraq in the third millcnnitlm, it would have been a cultivated eree. However, whether it was indeed cultivated is another matter entirely, and the evidence does not seem to favor it. The "Surnerian" equivalent du-lu-bu-urn for dulbu is an obvious loanword from Akkadian. The fact that dulbu is not recorded in any of the lexical lists as a synonym for any of our trees suggests that the plane tree had not yet been introduced into the south at this time. In the meantime we must content ourselves with a descriptions of what can be gleaned from the Presargonic documents about the "gul-bu" tree. It produces "branches", pa (no. 1071, "trimmed branches" (nos. 17, 18). "bundles of branches" (nos. 6, 17, 18, 22, 28, 48), "firewood", u gig gibil-la (no. 18), and "small firewood, u gig gibil-la tur-tur (no. 17). The variety of objects made from it suggests that it was one of the most versatile woods of the Sumerian carpenter.
implicit in the Presargonic text HSS 3 42 and its improved version DP 613, where giS zi occurs as the term for
gisalx (W~."DUGXGIS"), probably steering oar or paddle: no. 92
apin, plough a apin, "arm" of plough: no. 17; also made of asal and ildag dam apin, "wife" of plough, nos. 17, 18, 22, 28, 58, 134 (<spin>); also made of asal and ildag
kul gisalx, "handleH(?) of steering oar: no. 144, also made of asal and gulbu
bu-ba, reading and meaning uncertain: no. 6
"ma dim", probably part of a boat: no. 92 (transliteration only; cf. Salonen 1939191f.)
bar be-da, probably some type of pole: no. 22; also made of haShur and usuh
ma gii, part of a boat: no 92. (2 times; cf. Salonen 1939:94))
gi3 gid-da, probably spear shafts: nos. 6, 103; also made of gigid and usuh
MUSXMUS,reading and meaning uncertain: no. 92 (2 times)
giS na, reading and meaning uncertain: no. 6; cf. perhaps giS gi na made of usuh)
NI-du,, reading and meaning uncertain, in other contexts perhaps a house-like structure: no. 48
g s zi nh, "wall" of bed: no. 17; also made of gigid and ildag
umbin ellag, perhaps "beams" for "feet" or for "wheels": no. 103; ellag is also made from Sinig
ha-zi, axemandle): no. 44, also made of asal
zag 18 f
kul gisalx, "handle"(?) of steering oar: no. 6, 28; also made of asal and gigid
all four walls of a gi4 (ma!# in the preliminary version (HSS 3 42), but in the h a l version (DP 613) the shorter
sides are called by the mensurational term sag.
~ reading , and meaning uncertain: no.
92 (2 times)
gul-bu, reading and meaning uncertain. The proposal of A. Salonen (Agricultura Mesopotarnica 1968:502) to see in this tree the Sumerian version of dulbu has recently been affirmed by G. Selz (1989 p. 518 with lit.). However, as P. Steinkeller has pointed out to me, use of BU as a phonetic sign to write /bu/ is hard to document in third millennium texts, and, when one examines the
ma gid, pole of cart: no. 103; also made of Sedu ma gid har-hada-ka, pole of a harhadak-vehicle: nos. 17, 18, 22; also made of Sedu ma gid mar, pole of cart: nos. 17, 18, 22, 48; also made of asal ma gid nig Su-ka, pole of a ningSuk: nos. 17, 18, 22, 44, 45; also made of Sedu mar, cart or waggon erin, (or giS erin,) mar, yoke of cart: nos. 17, 18; also made of asal
Powell
Timber production
Powell
ki sag mar, "forehead"(?) of cart: no. 48; also made of asai
assumed to be a variety of poplar, though we have no means of substantiating this at present, and we have already noted above (under asal) the opinion of Flora of Iraq that only the Euphrates poplar is native to Iraq. The ildag tree stands at the beginning ~f the second "labor" imposed upon Enmerkar by the Lord of Aratta (Enmerkar 398-411 = S. Cohen [Diss. Pensylvania, 19731 p. 81 131f. + commentary p. 268-270, with blhliography of proposed identifications), namely, to produce a scepter which is not of any kind of wood c.r tree: it should not be of "ildagx (wr. GI~.A.AM), nor of d~im.gig (kanaktu), nor of @eren, nor of %u-fir-me, nor of "ha-Su-hr, nor of %iSkarin, nor of "esi, nor of gJza-ba-lum,nor of dasal lam the wood of chariots (gigir-ra), and not of flkid-da the wood of whips (usan,-na). Perhaps it is significant that, of the eight trees recorded as being grown or harvested in the Presargonic Girsu documents, only ildag and asal occur in this list. In the Presargonic records ildag is attested as producing firewood, u gibil (no. 35) and bundles of branches (nos. 4, 18, 35, 44, 92), as well as being used for the following specific purposes.
ri-gi4-bi-18, a cabinet-like structure(?): nos. 22, 28; also made of asal Sag, si ri-gi4-bi-16, crosspieces for a rigibilu: nos. 18, 22, 28; also made of asat "[ ...I
tu", reading and meaning uncertain: no. 92 (transliteration only)
haShur Identification of this tree with the apple seems fairly certain (Powell 1987b). It produces fruit (Deimel 1925, nos. B 1-6, 8-12) and the kind of wood one expects from the apple. "Trunks" are occasionally mentioned (no. 123), as are "trimmed branches" (nos. 48, 109, 123) and it produces large numbers of "bundles of branches" (nos. 4, 18, 23, 26, 28, 48, 107, 109, 118). suggesting that a lot of apple wood derived from winter pruning. Likewise characteristic is the frequent use of apple wood for various kinds of "pegs", some of which probably had only a vague resemblance to our idea of a peg. Specific uses are as follows. bar be-da, probably some type of rod (reading not entirely certain): no. 22; also made of gu~buand usuh
gag, "pegs" of various kinds eme gag zag, meaning uncertain (see gag KA lh): no. 6 gag ha-Bar-ra-na, meaning and reading uncertain: nos. 4, 6, 22, 26, 28, 111; also made of Sedu gag ha-har-ra-na gal-galltur-tur, "large/small gag haharana): no. 118 giS.ur/pa kud gag ha-bar-ra-na, "trunksltrimmed branches for gag haharana": no. 123 gag KA ki, reading and meaning uncertain: no. 4 (transliteration only; read zu or eme! for KA?) gag mas, meaning uncertain: nos. 109, 111 Cf. gag zag-ga gag m d , without specification of type of wood in nos. 22 and 28
giS.ur/pa kud gag maS: no. 123 gag ti mar, "pegs" for Cart ribs: nos. 4, 6, 26, 28, 118
Timber production
I 1
!
apin, plough a apin, ''arm" of plough: nos. 18, 35, 92 (2 times); also made of asal and gulbu dam apin, "wife" of plough: no. 123; also made of asal and gulbu bu-bu-ra, reading and meaning uncertain: nos. 6, 92; also made of gigid du, nig Su-ka, "dun for a ningbk-vehicle", perhaps part of the pole assembly: 110s. 44, 45; cf. Ser7 du,-na under Sedu
giS RU, reading and meaning uncertain: no. 75; also made of haShur giS ru.ur-ka, reading, order of signs and meaning uncertain: no. 35 g% zi nh, "wall" of a bed: no. 92; also made of gigid and gulbu nag-ku, reading and meaning uncertain, perhaps a container: no. 16; also made of asal and haShur
Cf. also, without specification of type of wood: pa kud giS ti mar, "trimmed branches as wood for waggon ribs"
sag, probably "head" of plough: no. 92 (2 times); cf. sag apin made of asal
(no. 109), and giS ti mar, "wood for waggon ribs" (nos. 22, 111)
ux- (or i-) Sub an-na har-ha-da, "upper uSub of a harhadak-vehicle": nos. 4, 18, 92 (2 times), 103
g%.urlpa kud gag ti mar, "trunks and trimmed branches for waggon ribs": no. 123 gag til, reading and meaning uncertain: no. 6 (cf. ti1 under a d ) gag zag-ga, meaning ~IxxXtain:nos. 4, 6, 26, 111 (of a waggon), Cf. gag zag-ga gag maS, without specilkation of type of wood (nos. 22. 28)
giS.ur gag zag-ga, "trunks" to make gag zag-ga: no. 123 pa kud gag, trimmed branches to make gag: no. 48 Sen gag, meaning uncertain: no. 6 giS RU, reading and meaning uncertain: no. 123; also made of ~ d a g B. Eichler, JAOS 103 (1983) 101f., offers the meaning "javelin" for giS.RU, but on the whole this does not sound like the kind of thing to be made from apple wood, and gi.4 RU may be an abbreviation for something else. See, in particular, under ildag.
nag-ku, reading and meaning uncertain (perhaps a container): nos. 16, 22, 28, 48, 109; also made of asal and ildag
ru-gh-ba-ka or perhaps giS ru-gu-ba-ka, meaning uncertain: nos. 22, 28; cf. gi.4 RU ti mar, "ribs" for a cart or waggon: nos. 22, 111 ildagx This tree, borrowed into Akkadian as ildakku and also equated with adiiru, is usually
(-Sub)
Se-du,, The reading is purely conventional, since we can neither identify the tree with certainty nor is an Akkadian equivalent known. The only thing that can be said in favor of the "literal" interpretation of the signs as "sweet grain (tree)" currently popular among Sumerologists is that Se is not normally used as a phonetic sign in these texts. The Presargonic evidence suggests a small to medium-sized tree, but finding a suitable candidate is far from easy. "Trunks" (no. 109) and bundles of branches (no. 4) are rarely mentioned. It is used for cart/waggon poles and other parts, and it is the only tree used to make bows. It is barely possible that there is some connection between Se-du,, and Se-du-a, equated with supiilu, which is usu4dy thought to be a type of conifer. One naturally thinks of acacia (Acacia nilotica or arabica), which was used in ancient Egypt to make bows (Meiggs 1982:404, citing literature and two examples in the Ashmolean) and which is known as the babul tree in India (Gamble 1922:292-294; TRADA 1979:265f.), where it sometimes reaches a height of 15 to 18 m. and a diameter of 0.75 m. with a clear bole of ca. 7 m. and is used for a wide range of objects (agricultural tools, handles, oars, pounders, anvil blocks, boat parts, railway sleepers, etc.) requiring a durable strong wood. However, W. van Zeist expressed skepticism in Heidelberg about the possibility of acacia growing in Iraq in ancient times, and the Flora of Iraq (l'ownsend/Guest 1974:44-53) regards only one species as being native
Powell
Timber production
(Acacia negevensis as being definitely native); moreover, even though Flora seems to entertain the idea that A. nilotica could also be native to Iraq, both of these species are said to be extremely rare. This leaves us in a bit of a quandry, and I fear we shall simply have to await botanical evidence from methods that give a more representative sample than we have at present. The specific uses attested for Se-du,, ape the following. ban, bows: nos. 22, 27, 28, 132 gag, pegs gag ha-har-ra-na, rI-Ieaning ~ n ~ e r t a i nos. n : 4, 22, 27, 28; also made of haShur 18 zag-ga, meaning uncertain (cf. perhaps gig la = namzaqu, "key"): no. 103 ma gid, pole of cart: nos. 16, 27, 40, 103; also made of asal and gulbu ma gid ha-harda-ka, pole for a harhadak-vehicle: no. 132 (cf. no. 103); also made of gulbu ma gid nig Su-ka, pole for a ningsuk-vehicle: nos. 18 (<-ka>), 132; also made of gulbu mud, probably part of the pole assembly of a cartlwaggon: no 40; also made of a s d sahar-gi,, probably "fender" or the like: nos. 22, 28, 132 (copy: gi)
Powell
Timber production
Slightly disturbing to me at the Heidelberg Meeting was the observation by N. Livshits that the spread of Pinus halepensis in the Levant is a phenomenon of fairly recent times, which makes one wonder whether the natural stands of Pinus brutia in northern Iraq are also of recent date or at least more recent than the third millennium. After all, adequate descriptions of the distribution of flora in Iraq do not go back past the present century, and significant changes in distribution patterns are possible over this long period of time. Unfortunately, the botanical evidence discussed at the Heidelberg meeting was completely ambiguous on this issue. It is curious - and perhaps significant - that in poetic passages enumerating trees, the usuh rarely occurs. However, one passage in particular deserves attention. In "Home of the Fish" the usuh is used as a metaphor for the SE+SU~UR.SUMfish: giri, pad-ra-bi giS u-suh, an-na "his skeleton is a tall usuh tree" (line 82, M. Civil, Iraq 23 [I9611 160). Unfortunately, the identification of the fish is even more obscure than the tree, but what can be meant if not the spine with ribs branching out at regular intervals all along its length? This does not sound like Pinus brutia. Another curious feature of the usuh tree that perhaps deserves notice is the rarity with which bundles of branches are mentioned in the Girsu timber texts (only no. 48). The specific uses attested for usuh are insufficient to establish the identity beyond doubt.
"Fender" is based on assumed identity with saFprgli (CAD: "dust guard"), which occurs among parts of the chariot in Angim 51-62 (J.S. Cooper, Return of Ninurta [I9781 pp. 6245, 110).
Sag, si, probably some type of crosspiece; cf. hgsi for a rigihilu under asal and gulbu Sag, si mar, crosspiece or the like for a cartlwaggon: no. 4 B
Ser7 du,-na, probably part of the pole assembly of a cartlwaggon:
no. 40; cf. ako "kr, under asal and
du,-n under ildag
u-suh, Identification of this tree remains problematic. Until recently it has been supposed to be the fir, primarily on the basis the identification of it with Ahies cilicica by I. Low (Flora der Juden V O ~ . 3 [i924] 349f.). However, the evidence presented by Liiw for this identity is of the most tenuous nature, and the fir does not seem to grow in lowland Iraq even under cultivation. Thus, M. St01 (Trees, Mounfains CUI(I Millstones [I9791 68) has made the reasonable proposal to identify it with a tree that has been cultivated there in modern times and which seems to be native at least to the northern region of Iraq, the Calabrian pine, Pinus brutia, a close relative of Pinus halepensis, the Aleppo pine.
B. Landsberger had apparently come to a similar conclusion, for in his work The Date Palm (BAm 17 [I9671 p. 9 nos. 8 and 19), published shortly before his death, he translated u-suh, as "pine" without further comment. In favor of identification with pine is also the fact that one of the characteristic uses of u-suh, is for ship timbers (Salonen 1939:138-142), and in the ancient Mediterranean the trees most often used for ship timbers were fir, pine, cypress, cedar, and larch (Meiggs 198256f.. 86, 118-120). The last is a European tree that becomes important for ship building only in the Roman period. For cypress and cedar we have other Sumerian and Akkadian names that seem more likely than usuh. Moreover, as Meiggs has noted (1982:57), Theophrastus (Hist. plant. 5.7.1) says warships were made of fir because it was light, whereas merchantmen were made of pine because it did not decay, and this observation has been confirmed archaeologically in a particular instance by the recovery of a merchant ship which sank off the coast of Cyprus in the fourth century BC and which was made almost entirely of pine (Meiggs 1982:14). Thus, Pinus brutia seems a viable candidate, but for the benefit of those more distant from the problem, it is perhaps well to underscore the ambivalent character of the botanical evidence.
am-ra, ship timbers: nos. 115, 117, 119 (dagal "wide"), 135 (sig, "narrow") am-ra ma da, timbers for the side(?) of a ship: 50a am-ra ma gur,-ra, timbers for a magur ship: nos. 48* (usuh inferred from context), 50a (transliteration: "-Su, i.e.,
Sh, for ra)
am-ra ma lu-ub-ka, timbers for a malumbak boat, reading not entirely certain: no. 5Oa am-ra ma 50 sila, reading and meaning uncertain: no. 50a The text records 30 of these timbers out of a total of 120 "large and small" (gig h-suh, tur-mah-ba) cut from the garden of Eku. This text demands careful collation, because, if Deimel's reading is correct, it would be not only the oldest attestation of timbers measured in sila but also would imply remarkably large trees (5 cubits in girth or about 80 cm in diameter) being grown in significant numbers. For this method of stating girth of logs. see Powell, " M A und Gewichte" 5
mB,RLA 7 (1990) p. 491, and note that the "formula" for transforming
sila into cubits and vice-versa is: number of cubits-of-girth-squared times 2 = sila, i.e., x sila = 2(y2 cubits). In the present case, 50 sila = 2y2, thus the girth y would be 5 cubits. The text seems to list the timbers from largest to smallest, of which these are the first, which would favor Deimel's reading. If the reading and my tentative
interpretation are correct, the implications of this text are far-reaching indeed, because trees of this size can only have been grown over a period of several generations, which would imply long-term cultivation and administrative practices and would profoundly affect our conceptions of what a kiri actually looked like, and much else besides. The text is dated to the 4th lugal year of Uruinirngina.
a si-ge,, meaning uncertain: no. 12 (a si-ge, gal-gallus-bi/3-kam-ma us, "large / second / third sized asige"); cf. h-suh, gi gid 8-suh, a si, gal-gal (no. 29)
bar bC-da, some type of rod or pole: no. 29; also made of gulbu and h d h u r u-sub, gal-gal bar bbda ig-@, "large usuh for the post(?) of a doorlgate": no. 116 u-suh, bar be-da 4, "usuh for the barbeda of a house": no. 116 gar,, uncertain: no. 119 gi mug, steering oar, oar, or punting pole: nos. 77, 128 (2 times) gi muS seems to denote both "punting pole" and "steering oar", which is not wholly surprising, since both are used for steering boats. Illustrations of both have been collected by Salonen (1939, pl. XXXVI-XXXVII for the punting pole, pl. XLIII.1 for the steeing oar). The meaning punting pole seems to be implied in "Home of the
Powell
Powell
Timber production
Fish" (lines 77-79, M. Civil, Iraq 23 [I9611 161f., 170f.), where ''"gi-muS gi,, "black gimuS" is used metaphorically for the eel (@-bi). Punting pole must also be the meaning of parisu in the Old Babylonian version of Gilgamesh crossing the Waters of Death (see my comments in ZA 72 [I9821 93f. with literature); however, even though parisu is attested as an Akkadian equivalent of gi mug, the loan word gimu33u does not seem to have this meaning in Akkadian (against CAD girnd3u etc. and with AHw and CAD MI1 p. 68 under ma@u 8e). Moreover. "14 gimuS for a big boat (singular!)" @P 476 = no. 128 cited below) do not sound like punting poles. Also "23 gimuS for a (or is it more than one?) magur boat" (no. 50a below) seem odd if these are punting poles. However, the magur boat had a biconvex shape like the gibbous moon (CAD makurru mng. 3, p. 142) that gave its name to a geometrical figure (shown in photo: RA 54 133 lower left = no. Q). Presumably it was a sailing boat. What are they doing with all these gimuS?
gi mu3 ma gu-la, "gimuS of a large boat": no. 128 gi mug m6 gur,, "gimuS of a magur boat": no. 50a gi muS ma Su-ha, "gimuS of a fishing boat": no. 50a gi-na or giS gi-na, uncertain: no. 12 Cf. perhaps rnukiinu, cloth beam(?) of a loom, and giSgun.2, some kind of weapon.
1
giS gid-da, probably spear shafts: nos. 19, 116; also made of gigid and gulbu ma, boat, ship, see am-ra, gi mug, u ma dB, probably the mooring apparatus of a ship: no. 136 This seems to be part of the tarkullu apparatus (see the discussion of "kr, under asal above), interpreted by Salonen (1939:lll-113) as "mast", which seems doubtful. The Sulgi hymn R (STVC 60 obv. 35) mentions
m4-dh alongside the "upper targul" (""m4-dh-zu u targul sag an-na-ka), and there is a variant thr-dh to targul in the Curse of Agade, which is interpreted by J.S. Cooper (line 74. Curse of Agade [I9831 p. 55) as "mooring pole". It seems likely that the m4du (how ever it is to be read) and the targul formed two parts of Enkidu. and the Netherworld (line 295. A. Shaffer. Swnerian Sources f o r . . . Gilgamesh [Diss. Pennsylvania, 19631 p. 94. 119). 1u '"ma-dh ra 8-ni-in-Su-Su, "a md-du striking someone after he had let it fall" corresponds in the Akkadian version (Gilgamesh XI1 144) to 36 ina th-kuJ-Ju [malzsu(?)]. "someone [struck?] with a tarkullii. u ma,
probably plank of a ship or something similar (reading of u not entirely certain) u ma ma du, u for mooring apparatus(?): no. 119 u ma sig ba meaning uncertain: no. 119 u ma U1-la meaning uncertain: no. 119 u ma us meaning uncertain: no. 119 u ma SrZ.ir~,u for a goat-boat(?): no. 119
Rare trees and the botanical data We conclude our survey of Girsu arboriculture by returning to the problem of the rare trees. "White wood" (giS bar,-bar,) was obviously cultivated, because it is attested in a cutting from the garden of Urki used to make rigibilu (nos. 44, 45), and, in another context, but probably also deriving from some garden, it is used for zi-rl-lum (no. 107). Another rare tree also grown in gardens was the giparx, attested in a cutting from the garden of Eku (no. 92) in the form of "trees" (giS), one "trux-k" (giS.ur) and bundled branches (pa sa 18-a). Bundled branches of this tree are also recorded as being stored in a garden warehouse, ganun kiri, (no. 107), and it appears smeared with bitumen (@parxesirx) in a record of boat equipment (no. 135). To round out the picture, we should note that, in addition to the trees clearly attested in documents as being harvested, Sumerian literature seems to imply the cultivation a number of "exotic" trees. These passages raise the same heuristic problem already noted with respect to the
tamarisk and other trees, namely: does presence or absence from the "natural" flora attested in modern times mean that a particular tree was or was not grown in ancient times? Of course, factors like climate and soil conditions will have excluded certain trees, but, where sufficient desire and resources have been brought to bear on a problem, surprising solutions have often been found. Obviously we do not have the facts to solve this problem nor can we discuss it in detail here, but we can illustrate the dimensions of it. Ornamental trees must have been a feature of the Sumerian (and later Mesopotamian) landscape, because, otherwise, the recurrent theme of trees being destroyed would be inexplicable. This theme is very explicitly treated in first millennium sources, but it is also implicit in works like the Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur which speaks of "Gutium" (a literary figure for enemies in the east) uprooting and cutting down trees, and the plaintive lament that "the holy dwelling of Nanna, a grove (which had a fragrance) like the perfume of an eren tree, its fragrance is destroyed (lines 87f., 425, P. Michalowski, Mesopotamian Civilizations 1, 1989). In the Old Babylonian period, Harnrnurabi is described in the Prologue to his Code as: "the one who clothed with green the gigund of Aja (in Sippar)". CAD (G p. 68-70 S.V. giguni) came to the conclusion that there was no evidence for planting trees on the giguru2 and thought that "green" must refer to hangings or bricks. However, aside from the fact that glazing of bricks has yet to be demonstrated for the Old Babylonian period, the giguna is frequently associated with tir, "woods", Sumerian literature evinces a close association between the giguna and trees. Thus, the story Naram-Sin's "crimes" against Enlil's temple in Nippur (J.S. Cooper. Curse of Aga& [I9831 p. 56f.) tells that Nararn-Sin ''eren sirSu-k-min%a-ba-lum B't~karin,giS gi-gun,-na-bee&GUM ba-an-sur-sur did GUM sur all around to its eren, Surmin, zabalum, and Ukarin trees, its giguna-trees.
I
the mooring apparatus, so inseparably linked that either could be used as pars pro toto. Thus, in Gilgamesh,
Timber production
I
The "trees" are usually identified as cedar, cypress, juniper, and boxwood, though none of these identifications is beyond debate, but here the question which concerns us is: were these trees planted in the temple precinct or was it wood out of which parts of the temple were made? Both interpretations are theoretically possible, because the precise meaning of the verb remains obscure. I am inclined to believe that it means "uprooted", and, if so, that would solve the question of whether there were trees growing on or at least around the giguna, but, unfortunately, I cannot substantiate this. There is also some rather equivocal evidence for importation and acclimatization of foreign trees. For example, in Nanna-Suen's Journey to Nippur (line 337, Ad. Ferrara, Studia Pohl SM 2, 1973, pp. 78, 105, 155), Nanna-Suen asks Enlil to give him the mag gurum(= GAM)tree (= Akkadian darmadu), which apparently grew in the foothills of the mountains (the alluvial hinterland seems less likely), so that he could take it back to Ur with him: an eden-na gig m d gurum sum-ma-da-ab urii& ga-de, Give me the m d gurum tree in the upper eden, so that I can take it to Ur.
This could, of course, be some literary topos, but I think it is more likely that it contains a double allusion to some specific political and arboricultural activity associated with one of the Ur 111 kings. Finally, we should mention the problems posed by the rather frequent tree metaphors in Sumerian hymns to gods and kings, such as this one placed in the placed in the mouth of ISme-Dagan by some educated courtier (W.Ph. Romer, Swnerische Konigshymnen der Isinzeit p. 51):
Powell
Timber production
'"me6 mah 6r gur-ra pa mu1 dagal-la me-en, Greatest of mes trees, thick of trunk and broad of crown, am I.
Of course, one could argue that these are literary figures of speech. But this merely postpones the problem of explaining how they got into the language in the first place. Would such "tropes" have ever attained any vogue at all if the mes had not been a fairly familiar sight? Here, however, the modern evidence is a bit disheartening, to say the least. As I have pointed out (Powell 1987a:149), the most likely candidate seems to be Celtis australis, but the Flora of Iraq (Townsend et al. 1980372f.) gives its distribution in Iraq as the mountain zone (550 m. and higher), and, while noting that the tree does grow up to 25 m. in Europe, it is said to be only 7-9 m. tall in Iraq. Hardly the sort of thing that would have occurred to a poet of the Isin period trying to impress the king! Thus, if the mes tree is indeed to be identified with Celtis australis, we find ourselves in the all too familiar dilemma: (1) it was being grown in southern Iraq in the OB period outside of its "natural" habitat; (2) it must have been cultivated under conditions sufficiently favorable to allow it to reach a size far beyond that of its modern counterparts.
Conclusion My review of the material leaves me rather pessimistic about our ability to identify ancient trees with modem species. Our only real hope for convincing identification of species is better methods of collecting botanical evidence which can give us a reliable picture of what kinds of trees and other plants were actually present in southern Iraq in the third millennium BC. The present evidence is not even minimally adequate for this task. The written evidence on the other hand suggests the existence of a systematic arboriculture of both fruit and timber trees in what must have been rather large gardens. These gardens included the date, fig, grape, and apple, the latter of which was extensively used for wood, probably both from pruning and from cutting out old or non-productive trees, as well as seven other trees regularly harvested for timber and a few others that are rarely mentioned. Tamarisks seem to have been systematically planted on the banks of irrigation ditches and on the dikes surrounding farms, probably to serve as windbreaks and to hold the banks of the canals or dikes, as well as for timber. Riverain woodlands were probably "wild" only in the sense that they were not planted, for those about which we have information were clearly the property of the state or temple, and we may assume that cutting timber was a prerogative that was just as jealously guarded in the Presargonic period as in Hammurabi's time, when unauthorized felling of trees could cost one's life. Like the tamarisk plantations, the riverain woodlands were administered as a part of the temple or state economy, and, although the documentation is insufficient to trace this in detail, it is clear that specific individuals - or, more likely, families who lived in the immediate proximity - were responsible for guarding, tending, harvesting, and supplying certain quotas of these resources. Thus, although there are many blind spots in the documentation, as a whole, the Girsu timber texts give us an illuminating glimpse into a system of arboriculture which involved rational exploitation of woodlands as well as a remarkably diversified "garden" culture.
Timber production
Powell
BIBLIOGRAPHY Bauer, J. Altsumerische Wirtschaftstexte aus Lagarch (Studia Pohl 9; Rome). 1972 Bor, N.L./Guest, E. Grarnineae. Flora of Iraq, vol. 9, edited by C.C. Townsend, E. Guest, & A. Al-Rawi 1968 (Baghdad, Ministry of Agriculture). Deimel, A. "flma-nu und ii", OrSP 5,42-44. 1922 "Die althmerische Baumwirtschaft", OrSP 16, 1-87. 1925a Desch, H.E. Timber. Its structure and properties. (Fifth edition; London). 1973 Gamble, J.S. A manual of Indian timbers. An account of the growth, distribution, and uses of the trees and 1922 shrubs of India and Ceylon with descriptions of their wood-structure (Reprint of second edition with some additions and corrections, London). Guest, E.R. & Al-Rawi, A. Flora of Iraq. Volume one: Introduction to the Flora. An account of the geology, soils, 1966 climate, and ecology of Iraq with gazetteer, glossary and bibliography (Ministry of Agriculture, Republic of Iraq). LaPlaca, PJ. and Powell, M.A. "The agricultural cycle and the calendar at Pre-Sargonic Girsu" Bulletin on Sumerian 1990 Agriculture 5, 75-104. Meiggs, R. Trees and timber in the ancient Mediterranean world (Oxford). 1982 Powell, M.A. '"The tree section of ur (= BAR)-ra = @bullu", Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 3, 145-151. 1987a "Classical sources and the problem of the apricot", Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 3, 1987b 153-156. Salonen, A. Wasserfahzeuge (Studia Orientalia Fennica 8, no. IV). 1939 "Bemerkungen zur sumerisch-akkadischen Brennholz-Terminologie", JEOL 18:331-338. 1964 Selz, G.J. Altsumerische Stuttgart). Venvaltungstexte aus LagaS, Teil I (Freiburger altorientalische Studien 1511; 1989 Steinkeller, P. "The Foresters of Umma" in M.A. Powell (ed.), Labor in the Ancient Near East (AOS 68). 1987 pp. 73-115. Thompson, R.C. A dictionary of Assyrian botany [= DAB] (London). 1949 Townsend et al. Flora of Iraq, Vol. 4, Part 1: Cornaceae to Rubiaceae, Vol. 4 , Part 2: Bignoniaceae to 1980 Resedaceae. Edited by C.C. Townsend & E. Guest, with S.A. Omar et al. (Baghdad: Ministry of Agriculture & Agrarian Reform). TRADA (Timber Research and Development Association) Timbers of the world. [Vol. 11 (LancasterINew York). 1979 Timbers of the world. Vol. 2 (LancasterINew York). 1980
Powell
T i r production
ANMERKUNG ZU DEN NEUSUMERISCHEN TEXTEN
Addendum (November 1991): While it seems clear that identification of the usuhJaJu@u tree with fir cannot be correct, identification with a specific species of pine is also problematic. The following passage from L.H. Bailey (The cultivated conifers in North America [New York, 19331 pp. 41f.), which is directed primarily at growers of conifers, will perhaps help the humanist understand why we have so much difficulty in identifying species: "However much the planter may desire an offhand way of recognizing the different species of pines, wild and planted, he will not find it. Long experience in propagating and planting enables a person to name the species with which he deals by acquaintanceship, but this will not aid him greatly in identifying other kinds. The distinguishing of the kinds in any important growing collection requires the habit of close observation and particularly the presence in the hand of foliage and cones, and then patience to compare with keys and descriptions. It is impossible to make a key without exceptions; and the use of a key presupposes a knowledge of the organs or parts with which it deals. The best keys are naturally the most difficult, for they require a study of covered rather than superficial characters".
UBER SCHILFROHR Walther Sallaberger (Miinchen)
Beim 2. Grazer Morgenladischen Symposium zum Thema "Der orientalische Mensch und seine Umwelt" (2.-5. 3. 1989) (die Vortrage wurden publiziert als Grazer Morgenliindische Studien [= GMS] Band 2, herausgegeben von B. Scholz) hatte ich ein Referat "Zum Schilfrohr als Rohstoff in Babylonien" gehalten und dabei versucht, den Weg des Schilfrohres vom Rohricht bis zum Handwerker v.a. anhand von Ur-111-Urkunden zu verfolgen. Auf die von H. Waetzoldt ausfiihrlich diskutierten Termini fiir Rohrarten und Rohrernte braucht hier nicht mehr eingegangen zu werden. An dieser Stelle kann ergwend auf zwei weitere Gesichtspunkte der Rohrgewinnung kurz hingewiesen werden (ausfiihrlicher mit Belegen in GMS 2 [1989], 311-330).'
1 SchilP6felder" Mal3angaben zu einzelnen Fluren der Provinz Umma bezeugen oft mehrere Kektar groBe Sumpfgebiete mit Rohrkstand (z.B. MVN 4 19, 2 1; TCL 5 5675.vi.3-12: insgesamt 29256 sar = ca. 105 ha). Eine besondere Rolle in der Versorgung der Provinz Umma und seiner Handwerksbetriebe mit Schilfrohr kommt der EngabaDU-Flur zu. Vereinzelt ist zwar Gerste oder Weizen vom EngabaDU bezeugt, meist wird es aber als Quelle von Rohr, seltener Binsen und Grasern genannt. Dal3 es sich somit um ein ausgedehntes Sumpfgebiet handelt, beweist auch seine Eage and drei Kanden oder eine Lieferung von Fischen vom EngabaDU (JCS 28, 215 Nr. 26). Genauere Auskunft iiber seine GriiBe gibt ein Text aus dem 4. Monat im 8. Jahre Arnar-Su'enas ( ~ N 465): S
a
10 (bur) 4 (bur) 2 (e3e3) ;iku, gig-@ izi ku-a, en-gaba-DU, 1 sar ba-zk, 8 sa i-ghl-Am, gu-kilib-bi 3-am, gi-bi 211550 sa, gu-kilib-bi 17630-Am 2
: iku
(= 0,95 km2)R(lhricht, vorn Feuer verzehrt, im EngabaDU-(Feld). Wird 1 sar abgemght, ergibt es 8 Biindel, also eines Ballens. Das Rohr davon (= der Flgche) sind 211550 Biindel, das sind 17630 Ballen.
264
3
Eine inhaltliche Bestatigung des Rohrichtbrandes bietet der Text Owen, JCS 24, 172 Nr. 93.9. aus demselben Jahr AS 8: guru8 udl-82 en-gaba-DU, izi-ku-a te-na 8 Arbeiter fiir einen Tag (im) EngabaDU-(Feld) den 'FeuerfraB7loschen.
$
Zudem gibt T ~ N S465 auch Einblick in die Verwaltung der Schilfrohrbestiinde, deren Ertrag vor der Ernte abgeschatzt wurde. Im vorliegenden Fall wurde aber das zu erwartende Rohr noch vor dem Schnitt durch einen Brand vernichtet.
Zur Rohrernte Fur die bei der Rohrernte verwendeten Werkzeuge gibt es nur wenige Hinweise. Bronzesicheln zu je ca. 170 g, um Futterrohr zu schneiden, nennt NATN 469: 10 d u KUV 31 ma-na-ta, gi-zi z6; Lieferungen von Holz f i r Sichelgriffe (zum Rohrschneiden?) an Agu p. Steinkeller, AOS 68, 106f. Doc. Nr. 31, 40), einen fiihrenden Beamten im rohrverarbeitenden Handwerk vori Umma, weisen in dieselbe Richtung. Literarisch (EmeS und Enten 207f.) und in lexikalischen Listen (PDS B, 123) ist dagegen ein bar-huda-Instrument (Civil, AOS 67, 45: "Machete") zum Schneiden (ebenso z k ! ) von Futterrohr bezeugt. 2
!
1
Sallaberger
Anrnerkung zu den neusumerischen Texten Uber SchiEohr
'ROHR' UND DESSEN VERWENDUNGSWEISEN ANHAND DER
W m n d bei der Rohrernte ein GroBteil der Arbeiter beim schneiden2 eingesetzt ist, sind fir Biindeln und Abtransport deutlich weniger Leute erforderlich; die tagliche Arbeitsleistung (Schnitt und Transport) betragt 2-3 Ballen (gu-kilib) zu je 12-15 Biindeln (sa) Rohr (gi), 1,5-3 Ballen zu je 5-6 sa ~utterrohr,~ 1,5-2 Ballen bzw. 13 sa gi-NE und 10 sa gi-$ID.
NEUSUMERISCHEN TEXTE AUS UMMA Hartmut Waetzoldt
Der Rohstoff Rohr wurde - oft nach Zwischenlagerung in Speichern - zum Transport auf Boote geladen (gi ma-a gh-ra) oder zu FWBen gebunden (ma-U-a k8-ri). Bei der (ifters genannten Gruppe gespeicherter Materialien von 12 bis 20 gigaim, "langen Rohxpfosten", 4-8 gii-dal, "Querholzern" (komen auch fehlen) und etwa 330-7400 (transportierten) Rohrbiindeln, handelt es sich wohl um groBe, am Zielort aufgeloste FNBe (vgl. besonders Gomi, Orient 16, 140.).
(Heidelberg)
1
ijber Rohr und damit zusammenh2ngende Fragen gibt es bisher keine umfangreichere Untersuchung. Jedoch bietet Walther Sallaberger (1989) "Zum Schilfrohr als Rohstoff in Babylonien" einen guten h r b l i c k . Auch J.W. Turner (1981) diskutiert in seiner bedauerlicherweise unpublizierten Dissertation (S. 199 - 227) die wlchtigsten Termini. Soweit wie moglich wird hier auf diese beiden Studien verwiesen und das dort gebotene Belegmaterial nicht wiederholt.' In Mesopotamien spielte das Rohr eine grol3e wirtschaftliche Rolle. Verwendet wurde es besonders als Viehfutter, zum Flechten von Korben und Matten, beim Haus- und Kanalbau und schliefilich als Brennmaterial. Zur Verwendung von Rohr und anderen Grasern in iigypten s. Keimer 1984, 72ff. Die zentrale Bedeutung dieses wichtigen Rohstoffes dokurnentieren nicht nur die Verwaltungstexte, sondern sie wird auch durch zahlreiche Funde bei Ausgrabungen bestatigt. So kamen z. B. Reste von Rohrmatten, -tiiren, -korben und -seilen ans ~ageslicht.~ Das Rohr genoB in Mesopotamien eine derart hohe Wertschatzung, daB es dafiir eine eigene Rohrgottheit gab (dingir-gi, M. Krebernik, ZA 75, 166). Verschiedene Henscher riihmen sich am "Rohr-Heiligtum des Gottes Ningirsu" gebaut zu haben (FAOS 6, 74:6). Diese besondere Wertschatzung des Rohrs spiegelt sich auch in der Literatur wieder, so preist 2.B. UrnanSe das Rohr mit folgenden Worten: "Heiliges Rohr, Rohr aus dem Rohricht des Engur, Rohr, deine Zweige sind (rot)braun. Deine Wurzel (hat) Enki (im) Erdloch(?) vorhanden sein lassen. Deine Zweige sind ... . Dein Bart (ist aus) Lapislazuli. Rohr, (dein) Antlitz reicht (bis) ins Fremdland, Rohr, die EM(-Gotter) (und) die Nunki(-Getter) miigen (dir alles) gut machen!" (FAOS 6, 137). Nach einer Hymne auf Ktinig Sulgi (F) gehorte es unter anderem zu den Aufgaben des KOnigs, dafiir Sorge zu tragen, daB reifes und junges Rohr (in geniigender Menge) gebiindelt wurde. Das Streitgespriich zwischen dem Baum und dem Rohr (Tree and Reed) ist nicht vollstiindig erhalten und blieb wohl deshalb' bisher unbearbeitet. Am Ende der Komposition von rund 250 Zeilen erklm Ktinig h l g i den Baum zum Sieger und nicht das so vielseitig verwendbare ~ o h r . 'In vielen anderen Texten findet man ebenfalls ErwWungen von Rohr oder ~ohrgegenstiinddn.~
NOTES 1
Fiir sein freundliches Angebot m6chte ich M. Powell sehr herzlich danken. [Editor's note: M.A. Powell learned of W. Sallaberger's work on reeds through C1. Wilcke in Miinchen and Herr Sallaberger kindly consented to provide us with a copy of his paper. We thank both of these colleagues most heartily and here publish this brief note by Herr Sallaberger to call our reader's attention to his longer work on the subject.]
2
Es handelt sich um die Termini SIC, (meist bei Fkichen; nur Binsen, Graer und Rohr: gi, gi-zi, gi-NE, Monate i, iv-viii, x-xii), kud (meist bei Personen; Dornstriiucher, Kameldorn und Rohr: gi; Monate i, iv-ix, xiii) und zd (bei Rohrarten gi, gi-NE, gi-$ID, gi-zi; Monate v-vi, viii-x; v.a. Lag&)
3
Zu den Belegen in GMS 2 Anm. 64 ist hinzuzufiigen: F. Pomponio, " A Neo-Sumerian Account about Reeds", Orientalia 58 (1989) 230-232 (3 Ballen zu je 5-6 sa gi-zi), PDT 1 368 (3 gu gi-zi). BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS
AOS 67 F. Rochberg-Halton ( 4 . ) Languages, literature and history: philological and historical studies presented to Erica Reiner (New Haven, 1987). AOS 68 M. A. Powell (ed.) Labor in the ancient Near East (New Haven, 1987). GMS
Grazer Morgenlandische Studien
MVN
Materiali per il Vocabolario Neosumerico
Vorbemerkung
NATN D. I. Owen, Neo-Sumerian archival texts primarily from Nippur (Winona Lake 1982).
~ % N S M. Sigrist, Textes kconomiques nko-sm'riens de I' Universite' de Syracuse (F2u-i~1983).
I I
2
Das Wort gi
Bei den hier zu behandelnden Rohr-Texten ergaben sich relativ rasch zwei unterschiedliche Verwendungsbereiche. In Verwaltungstexten iiber Arbeiten auf Feldern, an Kanalufern und in Gwen bezeichnet gi das normale Schilfrohr (in der Regel woM Phragmites communis bzw. australis "Gemeines Schilfrohr"), in Abrechnungen von Kaufleuten und Listen mit
Waetzoldt
Rohr und dessen Venvendungsweisen
Nahrungsmitteln und Essemxn jedoch eine wohl eBbare Substanz ('Wun'-Roh~-1.Das R o t i wird in Traglasten, Biindeln und Gebinden gelieferl, wiihrend man day 'Wiire'-Rohr in Minen wiegt. Demnach wird gi iri den Umma-Texten als eine Art Oberbegriff herwendet.
3
Bei Rahr verwendete MaReinheiten
sa "Bund, Bindel" Die 1x5 weitem wichtigste Einheit ist sa "Biindel", die in &cn Prcivi~lzenwdxenti dsr Herrschaft der 3. Dynastie von Ur Verwendung fand. 3,1
3.2 gu-kilib(-ba j / gu-nigh(-na) "Gebinde" Den Ausdruck gu-kilib(-ha) benutzte man in ~3mma: wiihrend in den anderen Provinzen cher grr-nigh(-na) iiblich war.6 Je nachdem, s b es sich um frisches oder das vie1 leichtere trockemie Rohr ha~delte,konrlte 1 Gebinde aus nur 5 oder such aus 30 ~ u n c Rohr t ~ kstch~r~ MaBgebl~ch . fiir die GroBe des Gebindes war das Gewicht des Rohres, da 1 Person in der Lagc sein rnuBte, es ubcr eine gr6Bere Strecke zu transportieren. Das 0ffnen dieser Gebinde bezeichnete man ofknsichtlich mit dem Verb P "herausgehen lassen" (MYN 14, -1722 gdma-nugu-kilib-h +-a; rnit Rohr Sigrist, Toronto 390:lff.).
gu - rraglast" Dieses gC ist mit 'Traglast" und nicht rnit "Talent" (Gcwichtseinheit von ca. 30 kg) iiberselz~n.~ Es wird nicht wie das Talent in Mincn. sondern in sa "Burid" (JCS 10, 29. 6:lff.j unterteilt. Gelegentlich findet man auch 112, 113 ode! 5/6 gh.g Diese Makinheit ""Traglast" benutzte man bereits in der prasargonischen =it. In der Ur-III-Zit kommt sie z.B. auch hi Fischen, Zwiebeln und Holzern vor.lo 3.3
Wie sich anhand mehrerer Texte zeigen l a t , ist gu 'Traglast" mit gu-kilib "Gebinde" f's. 3.2) mehr oder weniger austauschbar, z. B. MCS 4, 10 BM 105429: 586 f i U<:.MGIN gurus-e gu-kilib-3-ta h-bi u4-195113-kam
586 Traglasten ... je Arbeiter (und Tag) 3 Gebinde, die betreffende Arbeit(szeit): 195 113 Tage
Wie die Rechnung (195 113 x 3 = 586) zeigt, konnte in der 1. Zeile statt gii ebensogut gu-lrilib stehen." Zu der gleichen SchluBfolgerung kommt man, wenn man berechet, aus wieviel sa I gu-Traglast besteht. Es sind 9, 15 oder bis 20 sa.12 Entsprechende Wem gibt es auch bei gu-kilib. 3.4 Sonstige MaBbezeichnungen In Nippur begegnet man auch gu-la (NRVN 259:1), fir dessen GriiBe es m.W. keine Anhaltspunkte gibt. In den jungeren Texten aus Isin kommt z. B. gu-kilib-st(-@) und aus Ur g i - s a - N i oder ~ ~ ~gi-sa-hi-a vor.13
Wie bereits e r w h t , begegnet in Abrechnungen iiber Nahrungsmittel, Ammatika und Gewiirze in Umma gi, wortlich " ~ o h r " , ' ~ und in LagaS-Texten ~ i m - ~ i ,wortlich " "Rohr-Essenz". Nach dem Kontext, in dem beide Begriffe vorkommmen, und den Preisen, diirften beide gleichzusetzen sein. Neben der Bezeichnung gi findet man in Texten aus Umma und anderen Provinzen noch gi-du,,-ga, wortlich "gutes, 'wulziges' ~ o h r " , ' ~ und gi-babbar "weiBes oder helles ~ o h r " . ' ~
Waetzoldt
Rohr und dcssen Vcrwcndungswciscn
Letzterer Begriff l a t sich allerdings auch als 'tmckenes' Rohr deuten (und ist dann gi-hhd zu lesen), Im Gegensatz zu gi und gi-dulo-ga mu13 es sich dabei urn ein schultf2higcs Produkl handeln, da es wie Getreide rnit Hohlrna13 gemessen wurde. Diese Texte schweigen vollig zur Frage der Herkunft und Verwendung. Es wird jcdoch deutlich, dal3 dieses 'Wurz'-Rohr in der Regel in Abrechnungen der Kaufleute und darnit zusarnmenhagenden Texten vorkommt. Als hochwertiges Rodukt war dieses gi offensichtlich nicht jedermann zugilnglich, sondern nur iiber den Handel erhiililtlich. Man verwendete es nach prasargonischen und neusumerischen Texten bei der Herstellung besonders hochwertiger Salben (s. die Anrnerkungen 24 und 25). Nach "Instructions of Suruppak Z. 63'' wachst gi-dulo-ga in einem Garten und scheint besonders schatzenswert. Kein anderer Text enthat m.W. Hinweise auf Standort oder Kultivierung dieser Pflanze. Auf jeden Fall scheint sie nicht in den Gebieten zu wachsen, in denen man das gewohnliche Rohr oder vergleichbare Pflanzen schnitt, da sie niemals in den dazugehorigen Texten Erwiihnung findet. Da gi und gi-dulo-ga stets in Minen gewogen wurden (meist nur Mengen zwischen 2 und 10 Minen, hijchstens 59 Minen = ca. 27,5 kg), mu13 es sich urn groBere Pflanzenteile (Stengel, Wuneln?) handeln. In Frage kommen, wie unten ausgef3u-t wird, kaum die zuckerhaltigen Wunelstlicke der Rohrkolben (Typha angurtifobia)lg - man wurde d a m ein weit haufigeres ~ Vorkommen und einen geringeren Preis erwarten. Eher konnte es sich um den ~ u r z e l s t o c kvon Kalmus (Acorus calamusj handeln, zu dem Hepper 1987, 72 schreibt: "In those days there was in the spice trade a fragrant, cane-like rhizome that was carried in the dry state by animal caravans from Central Asia. It was used in the holy anointing oil and for special perfumery." Nach altbabylonischen Texten aus Man und Larsa wird gi-dulo-ga zur Herstellung oder Wunung alkoholischer G e t r u e verwendet: ARM 23, 364:lf. 20 ma-na gi-du,,-ga a-nu kd ku-ru-nim Sa a-na siskur-re Sa dDi-ri-tim US-te-re-sli-li "20 Minen 'Wurz-Rohr' fir kurunnu-Bier, das fir das siskur Opfer fiir (die Gottin) Diritum bereitet wird". ARM 21, 106:lff. (=A) aus Man und TCL 10, 16:lOff. (=B) aus Larsa - iiberwiegend rnit Sumemgrammen geschrieben - sind direkt vergleichbar: A: [
B: ] ma-na ba-lu-ku
ma]-na gidu1,-ga [a-n]a di!-zi-ip-tu-uh-hi-im
[
113 ma-na Su-ur-man 113 ma-na Sim-biilug7 113 ma-na Sim-gi-dulo-ga a-nu Udida-imgaga!
Mit Zypressen-Extrakt (nur TCL 10, 16), Extrakt vom ballukku-~aum" und "Wulz-Rohr" wird ~~ DizlSiptuhhu ist auch in nach diesen Texten eine besondere Art ~ m m e r b i e r gewi.int. lexikalischen Texten rnit Udida-imgag&mgaga geglichen."l Die Verwendung von gi-dulo-ga und die anderen Ingredienzen weisen m.E. darauf hin, daB dulo-ga (von gi-dulo-ga) nicht rnit "SUB", sondern eher rnit "wiirzig" (oder W i c h ) zu iibersetzen ist. Diese Bedeutung l a t sich durch Vergleich der prasargonischen mit den neusumerischen Salbrezepten beweisen: Prasargonisch bezeichnete man gewisse Salben rnit i-ir "wohlriechende ~ a l b e " ,w~ a n d man Salben rnit ganz m i c h e n Beirnengungen neusumerisch i-dulo-ganannte.* Zusammen rnit Brot wird "delikates Rohr" (gi-sag) Mythos "Enki und die Weltordnung" 2.46 gegessen.26
-
falls die Deutung zutrifft
-
nach dem
Zusammenfassend la13t sich feststellen, daB gi (und Sim-gi) in den hier diskutierten Texten offensicl~tlich bedeutungsgleich ist rnit (Sim-)gi-dulo-ga. Verwendet wurde diese in Minen
Waetzoldt
Rohr und dessen Verwendungsweisen
gewogene Substanz prasargonisch und neusumerisch zum "Parfiimieren*' von Salben und in der altbabylonischen Zeit zum Wiirzen besonderer Biere (bzw. deren Vorprodukte). Diese Verwendungsweisen kilnnten dafiir sprechen, dal3 gi/gidulo-ga den Wurzelstock von Kalmus bezeichnete, doch lassen sich andere Pflanzen derzeit noch nicht ausschliel3en. Auch die hethitischen Texte zu gi-dulo-ga, die Schuler 1988 eingehend behandelte, gestatten keine sichere Identifikation der Pflanze.
5
Das gewohnliche Rohr (in der Regel wohl "Gemeines Schilfrohr")
In wohl iiber 70% der Fdle wird das Rohr nicht niiher spezifiziert. Die Texte nennen nur Rohrbiindel (sa-gi), Traglasten von Rohr (gu gi) oder Gebinde aus mehreren Rohrbiindeln (gu-kilib, s. Kapitel 3). Das game Jahr iiber wird Rohr gesdmitten, gebiindelt und zu den Verbrauchern oder zu den Speicherplatzen transportiert. Besonders haufig geschieht dies im 1. Monat, in den Monaten VIVII und XI-XII. Dies entspricht etwa den Monaten September bis Oktober und Februar bis April oder ~ a i . ~
Man schnitt bzw. hackte das Rohr nach altbabylonischen Texten mit einer kupfernen Hacke ("'""ha-bu-da) ab. In dem Streitgespfich "Sommer und Winter" 2.208 tragt das Gerat zum Schneiden des Futtemhrs (gi-zi) den Namen bar-hu-da (nur lexikalisch 18-bar-huda "~ohrschneider").~ Die Rohrstengel wurden - wie bereits erwiihnt - gebiindelt und diese Biindel wieder zu groBeren Gebinden zusarnmengeschniirt. So ein Gebinde enthdt in der Regel zwischen 10 und 20 Bund Rohr. Dieses war gerade so schwer, daR ein Mann es noch uber eine gewisse Entfernung transportieren konnte. Geht man von einem Gesamtgewicht von etwa 30 Kilo aus, so hatte ein Rohrbiindel ein Gewicht von 1,5 bis 3 ~ i l o . ~ Haufig wird der Verwendungszweck des Rohrs (gi) angegeben. Als Brennmaterial diente es zum Wasserkochen, Brotbacken, zum Brennen von Kerarnik, zum Schmelzen von Metall und fur ~ackeln.~'In einigen FWen wird Rohr als "regelmaige Lieferung fiir Hunde" bezeichnet; es Gut bezeugt ist auch die Verwendung beim ~ a u s - ~ ~ diente WONzum Kochen des ~undefutters.~' und ~analbau" und schlieBlich beim ~ c h i f f s b a u .Selbstverstbdlich ~ werden besonders haufig Korbe und Matten, aber auch Tiiren herge~tellt.~' In einigen F a e n wird bei der Lieferung ausdriicklich e r w h t , daR das Rohr bestimmt ist Wahrscheinlich wurde das Rohr hierbei ebenfalls als "um Sesam zu pressen" (gi~-i-sur-d&).~~ Brennmaterial verwendet, um die zerstoBenen Sesamkorner zwecks Erhilhung der ~lausbeutezu emamen. Nur sehr selten finden wir Hinweise darauf, daB das Rohr feucht oder alt war. (Sigrist, Rochester, tablet 46 gi-sun; MVN 14, 100:l giduru,). Preise fiir Rohr sind vergleichsweise selten bezeugt. Man bezahlte in Silber oder in Gerste. In Silber umgerechnet erhdt man fiir 1 Sekel zwischen 187 und 599 ~ o h r b u n d e l n . ~ ErwartungsgemaB kann man fiir Gerste, die selbst grol3en jahreszeitlichen Preisschwankungen unterliegt, recht unterschiedliche Mengen Rohr kaufen (je gur Gerste zwischen 187 und 599 sa-gi). Bei Silber sind die Unterschiede demgegenuber deutlich geringer (je Sekel Silber zwischen 300 und 420 sa-gi). Es fdlt auf, daB bei diesen KIufen die Qualitat des Rohrs nicht n a e r spezifiziert wird. Nur ein Text aus der Provinz LagaS (TU 122.iv.13ff.) gibt W i s e fiir
Waetzoldt
Kohr und dcrncn Vcnvcndrrn~nwcinen
'"Spalt'-Rohr" (gi-Sid) und fiir "unsortiertes Rohr" (gi-NE). Danach konntc mim fUr 1 Sckcl Silher 300 Bund gi-Sid, aber 480 Bund gi-NE kaufen. Das 'Spalt'-Rohr war dcmnach vicl t c u r ~ r . ~
6
Die verschiedenen Rohr-"Qualitaten"
Die Bezeichnungen fiir die verschiedenen Rohr-"Qualitaten" richten sich eindeutig nach ticrn Verwendungszweck und nicht nach der tatsachlichen Pflanzensorte. Es ist wahrscheinlich, daU man 2.B. unter "Futterrohr" (gi-zi) alles zusammenfa13te, was von den Pflanzen in den Rdhrichtcn fiir das Vieh freBbar war, etwa Schilfrohr, Rohrkolben (Typha Cramineae), 'Italienisches' Rohr (Arundo donax) und WON seltener Binse (Juncus). DaB - auch heute noch - terminologisch hauptsachlich nach dem Verwendungszweck unterschieden wurde, stellte Ochsenschlager fest (s. seinen Beitrag in diesem Band). gi-zi "Futterrohr, griines Rohr" Dieses Rohr ist bei weitem das wichtigste. Sumerisch heiBt es gi-zi. Dieser Begriff wurde zum Teil falsch als Feuer-Rohr (2.B. Sollberger, TCS 1, S. 138:369) gedeutet. Die richtige ijbersetzung verwendet bereits R. Frankena 1974." Die Bedeutung Futterrohr 1aBt sich auch anhand der neusumerischen Texte erweisen, denn das Rohr wird mehrfach als "Futter fiir (Mast)-Schafe" be~eichnet.~'Dieses Griinfutter erhielten 2.B. Schafe neben Gerste (YOS 4, 320: 22ff.): "5 Schafe zu je 1 "Liter" Gerste, 2 Lammer xu je 112 "Liter" Gerste, die Gerste (betriigt insgesamt) 99 "Liter", das Futterrohr: 5 Traglasten".
6.1
Die Gerste reicht fiir nur 16,5 Tage. Die tagliche Futterration von Rohr wird nicht angegeben. Die 5 Traglasten durften etwa ein Gewicht von 150 Kilo gehabt haben. Daraus 1aBt sich eine tagliche Futtermenge von ca. 1,5 kg Rohr errechnen (1 Lamm als 112 Schaf gerechnet). Offen bleiben muB dabei allerdings die Frage, ob Teile des Rohrs bereits so verholzt waren, daR die Tiere sie nicht fressen konnten (s. 6.2). Das Rohr war sicher frisch und noch mit allen Blittern, denn ein Gebinde bestand meist nur aus 5 Rohrbundeln, selten aus mehr.41 Dies weist auf ein relativ hohes Gewicht hin. Bei normalem Rohr waren es 10-20 Bundel und mehr. Bei weitem nicht alle Texte uber Futterrohr sind auf den Monat datiert. Soweit erkenntlich, fiitterte man die Schafe hauptsichlich von Oktober bis Ende Februar mit Rohr. In deutlich geringerem Umfang erfolgte die Futterung auch in den ubrigen Monaten. Am wenigsten verfiitterte man Rohr von Anfang Mai bis Ende ~ u n i . ~ ~ In den Umma-Texten konnte ich keine Hinweise auf Futterung von Ziegen und Rindern mit Rohr finden, doch halte ich sie fiir sehr wahrscheinlich, da sie in anderen Stadten nachweisbar ist." Man schnitt das Futterrohr auf verschiedenen Feldern, wohl an den Kanalufern und in den Rohrichten, auch wenn dies nicht ausdriicklich e r w h t wird. Einmal stammt das Futterrohr aus einem Palmgarten (Bedale 41 = CST S. 110). Die Arbeiter mul3ten 2-3 Gebinde (gu-kilib) pro Tag abliefern (MVN 14, 230:17; AnOr 1, 85:77ff.; ASJ 7, 114; Or NS 58 (1989) 231; Syracuse 197). Sie trugen das Rohr meist direkt in
Waetzoldt
Rohr und dessen Verwendungsweisen
die stidle," seltener erfolgte der T m p o r t mit dern Schiff (Nik 109). Da Futterrohr bei weitem das wichtigste Rohr war, gab es eine regelrechte Futterrohr-Organisation, die fiir die Sicherung der Versorgung zusthdig war: Dazu gehorten die "Futterrohr-DienstverpAichteten" (&em-gi-zi)" und als deren oberster Vorgesetzter der "Inspektor (zusthdig) fiir das Futterrohr" (nu-bbda-gi-zi). Die Verwaltung lag in den Hiinden des "Schreibers (zustiindig) fiir Futterrob~"(d~b-sar-~i-zi).~~ Gi-zi ist der einzige der in diesem Kapitel behandelten Termini, der auch in literarischen Texten vorkornmt. Danach wachst dieses Rohr in tieferem Wasser, in dern Fische schwimmen. Vogel leben in den damit bestandenen Schilfdickichten. In Coronation of Urnammu Z. 29f. wird das gi-zi Rohr rnit "Honig" gleichgesetzt - Kiihe fressen es.47 Im Streitgesprach Baum und Rohr 2.189 wird gesagt: "Die Rinder entblattern die ' ~ s t e 'des gi-zi Rohrs, des Futters (der Tiere) von Ziege bis ~ s e l " .Das ~ Futterrohr wird in der 2. Ur-Klage 2. 45 nicht gi-zi, sondern gi-luku-ra genannt. Zusarnmenfassend 1aBt sich zu gi-zi sagen, daB es sich dabei um griines Rohr handelt, das als Griinfutter fiir Vieh diente. Es wurde das ganze Jahr uber geschnitten. Je nach Jahreszeit durften mehr oder weniger verholzte Teile, die die Tiere nicht fressen konnten, dabei gewesen sein. Irn Gegensatz zu Civil 1987a, 44 und 1987b, 52 bin ich der ~ b e m u g u n g ,daB gi-zi nicht nur vom gewiihnlichen Schilfrohr (Phragmites australis) stammt, sondern wenigstens Arundo donax und wohl andere 'Graser', die im oder nahe dern Wasser wachsen und dern Vieh bekommlich sind, mit einschlie~t.~~ 6.2 g i - ~ ~ ' .A~b m S e von Futterrohr' . ~ S man nach den wenigen Belegen offenbar diejenigen Mit diesem Begriff g i - ~ ~ bezeichnete Teile des Futterrohrs, die die Tiere nicht fressen konnten. Fur diese Deutung spricht, daB g i - ~ ~ aus . ~ den S Schafstuen stammte und an TtSpfer, an das "Schlachthaus fiir Rinder" oder an . ~diente augenscheinlich als Brennstoff. Es muB sich urn ein die Kiiche geliefert ~ r d e Es Abfallprodukt handeln, denn die Anlieferung erfolgte nie von einem Feld. Soweit die Texte datiert sind, weisen sie M c h e Monate auf, wie sie bei gi-zi besonders haufig vorko~nrnen.~~ 6.3 gi-Sid 'Spaltrohr' Diese ijbersetzung ergibt sich m.E. zwingend aus der Verwendungsweise. Das gi-gid wird nicht als Viehfutter oder Brennmaterial verwendet, sondern ist, wie z.B. UET 3, 1498 Rs.iv.30-v.5 zeigt, das wichtigste Material der Rohrflechter, die daraus Korbe, Matten, Turen, Rohrpfosten usw. herstellen. Besonders Korbe und Matten kann man nicht aus ganzen Rohrstengeln flechten, sondern die Stengel mussen gespalten und geklopft sein, damit sie genugend biegsam werden. Ob dieses gespaltene und flach geklopfte Rohr auch gi-gaz-a (Nik 197:3) bezeichnet werden konnte, muB derzeit wegen Fehlen eindeutiger Belege offen bleiben. Fur obige Deutung spricht auch, daI3 nach Texten aus der Provinz LagaS 1 Arbeiter am Tag nur 10 Rohrbiindel (Il'T I1 3224, 3672) fertigstellen muBte. D.h., er muBte das Rohr abschneiden, entlauben und spalten. Bei Futterrohr betrug die geforderte Leistung an Rohrbiindeln etwa doppelt soviel (Maekawa, Zinbun 18, 101, 6; MVN 13, 161; 1 Gebinde enthielt 9-10 Rohrbiindel und 2-3 Gebinde muBten taglich geliefert werden).
Der Preis des 'Spaltrohrs' war deutlich heher als der des "unsortierten Rohrs" (gi-NE); mit 1 Sekel Silber konnte man nur 300 Bund 'Spaltrohr', aber 480 Bund "unsortiertes Rohr" kaufen 13ff.). Dieses Rohr wurde das game Jahr uber geschnitten und verarbeitet." (TU 122.i~.
Waetzoldt
Rohr und dessen Verwendungsweisen
Das 'Spaltrohr' wurde offensichtlich meist zusammen mit dern 'unsortierten Rohr' (gi-NE) geschnitten." In der Regel erntete man deutlich mehr gi-NE-Rohr als ' ~ ~ a l t r o h rDies ' . ~ spricht dafiir, daI3 man in den ROhrichten Bestiinde mit zurn Spalten geeignetem Rohr schnitt und als gi-€id registrierte, w w n d man Bestiinde mit Rohr unterschiedlicher Qualitat (unterschiedliche Wachstumsphasen) als gi-NE zusammenfaBte (s. unten 6.4). Nach I'lT 2, 3672:lff. (aus Provinz LagaS) konnte 1 Arbeiter an einem Tag vom 'Spaltrohr' 10 Bund, vom gi-NE jedoch 13 Bund schneiden. Das Schneider, des 'Spaltrohrs' war folglich deutlich arbeitsintensiver (rund 23%). Dies diirfte d m liegen, daB die Arbeiter die Rohrstengel von den Blattern befreien und wohl auch noch spdten muJ3ten. Die Bedeutung von Sid in gi-Sid wurde bereits mehrfach diskutiert. H. Sauren, TUU 141 iibersetzt "Rohr ziihlen" = "Rohr bundeln" und Turner 1981, 215ff. "counting reeds". Sallaberger 1989, 315 und B. Lafont, DAS S.28f. bieten keine ijbersetzung, w s m n d van de Mieroop 1987, 139 "a type of processed r e e d als Bedeutung angibt. Die Lesung Sid wird durch die haufige Wendung giiid-da nahegelegt.55 Die ijbersetzung "Spaltrohr" ergab sich aus der Verwendungsweise des gi-Sid und aus folgenden Texten, in denen Sid-da in vergleichbarer Weise "gespaltenes '~tihren'holz''~ und rig;lid-da "gespaltene ~ i e ~ e l " . " vorkommt: 'I-suh;ld-da Schwierigkeiten bereitet allerdings Nik 119 Rs.4 8-Sid-da, (Z. 8 gi-Sid-da), da man Keisig und Griinzeug kaum gespalten haben wird. Sollte Sid bei Pflanzen eine weitere Bedeutung haben und das Entfernen der Blatter und Zweige mit einschlieBen (ausgehend von einer Bedeutung "ab/~erschneiden")?~~ Eine Textgruppe aus der Provinz LagaS bezeichnet dariiber hinaus "Futterrohr" gi-zi als gi-~idda.r)Wurde dabei das griine Rohr von Blattern befreit (WONals Futter verwendet) und die verbleibenden Stengel z.B. fiir das Flechten von Korben und Matten genutzt?60 Die haufigste Verwendung des gespaltenen und breit geklopften Rohrs ist zur Herstellung von Matten und Korben. So verbucht z.B. MVN 14, 229:4ff. die Lieferung folgender Dinge, woraus 50 Zentimeter hohe Korbe fiir Tontafeln zu fertigen waren: 140 Bund "Spaltrohr" 60 Palmrippen 60 Palmwedel 180 Buchsbaum(zweige). Daraus konnten mindestens 30 Korbe hergestellt werden. Bei dieser Lieferung fehlt einzig der Bitumen, mit dern die Korbe wasserdicht gemacht wurden (vgl. TCL 5, 6036.xiv.36ff.). Ganz aus diesem Rohr geflochten wurden die gur-dub-Korbe, die ein Fassungsvemtigen von 30-90 Litern hatten (TCL 5, 6036.xiv.21ff., 27ff.; MVN 13, 754). Sie dienten u.a. zum Transport von Fischen. Fur 1 Korb benotigte man zwischen 213 und 1 112 Bund Rohr. In den meisten Fdlen fehlt in den Korbmacher-Texten ein Hinweis, dal3 es sich um da dies wohl selbstverstiindlich war. Nach einem gespaltenes und geklopftes ~ o h i handelte, derartigen Text (TCL 5, 6036.xiii.36ff.) benotigte man zur Herstellung des gur-Korbes z.B. 1 Bund Rohr 1 Liter Bitumen 113 Palrnrippe und 113 Arbeitstag.
Sie faBten rund 60 Liter und dienten zum Mehl- oder Getreidetransport. Sollte er zum Wasserschopfen verwendet werden, so benotigte man aber nur 112 Bund Rohr, aber ebenfalls 1 Liter Bitumen und zur besseren Versteifung eine game Palrnrippe und 4 Holzzweige (TCL 5, 6036.xv.42ff.).
Waemldt
Rohr und dessen Venvendungsweisen
Waetzoldt
Rohr und dessen Verwendungsweisen
Wie bereits e r w h t , fertigte man aus dem gespaltenen Rohr auch Matten (MVN 5, 252; I?T 5, 6974). Die Texte bieten auch hier keine weiteren Details wie G M e und sonstige Materialien. Andere Texte, die das verwendete Rohr nicht ausdriicklich als gi-8id bezeichnen, e r w h e n jedoch die GdBe, die benutigte Rohrmenge und die Arbeitszeit (TEL 271: 4,5 x 2,5 m). Nach TCL 5, 6036 (xii.25ff., xiii.25ff.) hatten die Rohrmatten eine GrOJ3e zwischen ca. 1 und 34 qm. Je Quadratmeter Matte benOtigte man in der Regel 1 Rohrbiindel. Ein Arbeiter konnte am Tag von einer sehr guten Matte ca. 3 qm (TCL 5, 6036.xii.25ff.), von den gaberen Matten in der Regel ziemlich genau 6 qm herstellen.
geflochtenen oder fest zusammengeschniirten Rohrstrang. Dazwischen war die Rohrmatte gespannt. Das Keilschriftzeichen gilim besteht aus 2 gekreuzten gi ("Rohr") und entspricht akk. kilibbulkilimbu (AHw 476; CAD K 357). Durch dieses sumerische Lehnwort im Akkadischen ist die Lesung gilim (nicht gilJ gesichert. Die wohl beste Deutung davon gibt W.G. Lambert, JSS 12 (1967) 104 "a rope obtained by twining (gili(m)) reeds".69 Gilimtgil wird auch als Verb gebraucht, Castellino 1972, 160:157 schreibt dazu "primary semantic values: egdru entwine, twist; intr. be twisted, confused, concretely (of threads and of objects)".70
Besondere Rohrmatten wurden durch Palmrippen verstiirkt (TCL 5, 6036.xiii.8ff.. 30ff.) und in einem Falle mit Bitumen gedichtet. Fur eine Matte von 6 qm benotigte man 8 Liter Bitumen (TCL 5, 6036.xiii.30ff.). Die Texte lassen auf jeden Fall eine sehr differenzierte Technik bei der Korb- und Mattenherstellung erkennen. Zu den verschiedenen Mattensorten und deren Gr6Be s. . ~ ~s. Klein 1990, 117. Civil 1967, 64ff. und zur Lesung von g i ~ ~ . S=umurul
Von diesen gilim genannten "~ohrpfosten,7~Rohrstriingen, Rohrseilen" gibt es ganz verschiedene Sorten, die auch unterschiedlich lang sind:
Eine weitere Verwendung des gespalter~enRohrs ist bei den Bewkserungsanlagen. So wird es nach einem Text (Nik 111) zur Uferbefestigung, moglicherweise zur Herstellung von Faschinen, benutzt. Einmal schlo0 man damit - falls ich den Text richtig verstehe - das Becken am Kanalende (MVN 13, 158). Ferner wird es an der Wasserableitungsstelle (a+-a) gebraucht (TCL 5, 6036.vii.3 Iff.; s. noch Exkurs 6.3.1). 6.3.1 Exkurs zu dur und gilim
Aus dem 'Spaltrohr' stellte man Seile (dur) her.61 Diese Rohrseile verwendete man z.B. fiir die ~ f e r b e f e s t i ~ u nvon ~ ' Kaniilen (NATN 533:lff.), zum Transport gro0er T o n g e m (BIN 9, 429: 19ff.) und fiir verschiedene Zwecke 5, 9261:2ff., Rs. 2'; vgl. JCS 32, 229). Das Herstellungsverfahren fur diese Seile (dur) wird ebenso wie fiir gilim mit sur bezeichnet. Das Verb sur steht f i r das Zusammendrehen von Pflanzenfaseren bzw. stark geklopftem ~ o h r , 6 ~ und auch fiir das Herstellen von Seilen aus anderen Materialien (z. B. Wolle oder Ziegenhaar) wird sur b e n u t ~ t . ~ ~ Die ""ilim-sur-ra verwendete man eir~erseitszur Uferbefestigung (Faschinen?) von Kaniilen ~ andererseits werden sie an FloDen 'befestigt' und bei anderen Installationen an ~ a n 2 l e nund (mh-lal-a k68-r~-a).~' In YOS 4, 230:3 handelt es sich dabei offenbar urn Material fiir den Bau eines ~ e b a u d e s In . ~ einer Textgruppe (z.B. MVN 14, 510; Um. 1912, 2201, 2781, 3096) werden folgende Tatigkeiten von Arbeitern aufgezwt: gi-ga6-ghgi-a-aka u gilim-sur-ra "Rohr transportiert, Rohr ins Wasser gelegt? und gilim gedreht". In Um. 2781 findet man vor gilim-sur-ra noch gi-dar-da. Sollte damit "Rohr gespalten" gemeint sein?" In diesen Texten werden Arbeiten aufgezmt, die nacheinander durchgefiihrt wurden: Nach dem Transport erfolgte die ~ b s e r u n ~ ? des Rohres (um es biegsamer zu machen?); dem Drehen der gilim ging offenbar das Spalten der Rohrstengel voraus. Da bei den unten behandelten Sorten von gilim das Verb sur m.W. nicht zur Beschreibung der Herstellung verwendet wird, ist die Annahme naheliegend, daS sie auf etwas andere Art erzeugt wurden. In diese Richtung kann man wohl auch Belege aus einer Textgruppe interpretieren, worin in identischem Kontext sa-k'gilim mit "gilim wechselt, weswegen beide Ausdriicke gleichbedeutend sein mussen. Diese gilim waren wohl wie normale Rohrbundel (sa-gi) zusammengebiindelt (daher sa), allerdings wahrscheinlich fester und da~erhafter.~" Aus einer Kombination der gilim und Rohrmatten fertigte man Tiiren (ITT 5, 6891:1+6 5 sa-gi-8id ... ig-gilim-kid-...-3%). Wahrscheinlich bestand der Tur-Rahmen aus einem dicken,
Qualifikation
Lange (Meter)
Bund Rohr Arbeitstage (sa-gi) je gilim je Meter (ie gilii)
-
A.AN.TUR.ES~ an-ta-ghl da-ba-na dagal "breit" gal "gro0" gazi
KIsAL~~
su-tum U-si
0,6 sa 1,5 (16.25 sa) 0,25 0,034 sa (0,83 sa)
-
(0,75 sa) 6? sa (306? sa)
0,25 -
MM 1001; TCL 5, 6036.viii.14f. SACT 2, 183:2; Um.1356:2 MVN 5, 2735.20, 5.4, 10 Um.3527+3593 Rs.5f. MVN 5, 273.ii.19, iii.3,9 UCP 912, 63; TCL 5, 6036.x~. 36ff.; Um.2493:lf. NATN 481:l-3; PDT ~ 4 6 ~ ~ ; UCP 9/2, 63; YOS 4, 256:20, 52; TCL 5, 6036.viii.38, xv.39ff.; Um.2492:3 PDT 546 UET 3, 845:8f. TCL 5, 6049.i.13f.
Neben den genannten Sorten gibt es noch "gilim-~d-mh(Um. 3593+3572 Rs. 4). Wie die obige Zusammenstellung zeigt, mul3 gilim ein Oberbegriff sein, da es notig war. durch Zusatze anzuzeigen, was eigentlich damit bezeichnet werden sollte. Zur Herstellung eines gro0en gilim von 27 Metern L u g e benotigte z.B. 1 Arbeiter 1,5 Tage und 16,25 Rohrbiindel. Je laufendem Meter verbrauchte der Mann folglich nur 0.6 Rohrbiindel (TCL 5, 6036.xv.36ff.). Entsprechend diinn durften diese gilim gewesen sein. Haufiger werden verschiedene Typen von gilim kombiniert, so z.B. MVN 5, 273.iii.9ff. Danach fertigten Rohrflechter fiir einen Schlafraum des Palastes: "7 breite gilim von je 15 Metern L&ge 7 gilim, die von oben (etwas halten?) 140 gilim-gazi 1 g r o k Rohrmatte von 5 x 3 Metern die Arbeitszeit (betrigt insgesamt) 12 age".^^ Sieben stMcere RohrbiindeV-pfosten, sieben von oben herabh&gende7 gilim und 140 dunne gilim-gazi werden hier irgendwie mit dieser Rohrmatte verbunden (zu einem Baldachin ?). Auf jedes der zuerst genannten 14 gilim kommen 10 gilim-gazi.
Waetzoldt
Rohr und dessen Verwendungsweisen
Wieder andere gilim werden nach PDT 546 verwendet: "70 gilim-KISAL von je 30 m Liinge, von je 27 m Liinge, 50 gilim-KISAL 120 gilim-gazi von je 9 m Liinge, 9 Hof-Rohrmatten von je 11 m Liinge und 3,s m Breite 4 HUfe sind es; ca. 648 m2 Hof-Rohrmatten imlam Haus ...".76 Hier wird Material fiir 4 HUfe aufgefiihxt. Was damit geschehen sollte, ist nicht deutlich. Sollten etwa die Hofe mit den gilim-KISAL iiberspannt und dariiber die Matten gelegt werden (etwa als Sonnenschutz?)? Die 9 "Hof-Rohrmatten" haben jeweils eine G r 6 k von ca. 38,5 m2, insgesamt von ca. 346 m2. Hinzu kornmen wohl noch die anderen ~ a t l e n Zu . ~ jeder gilim-KISAL gehorte nach den ZahlenverMtnissen 1 gilim-gazi. Zu gilim-gazi 1U3t sich Genaueres sagen als zu den anderen gilim. Die Liinge betrug normalerweise 9, ausnahmsweise auch 24 Meter. Nach TCL 5, 6036.xv.39ff. reichten zur Fertigung von 4 gilim-gazi von 24 m 3 1/2 Rohrbiindel und 1 Arbeitstag. Demnach reichten fiir 24 m weniger als 1 Bund Rohr (0.83). Die gilim-gazi waren also sehr diinn (1 Meter aus 0,034 Bund Rohr). Wahrscheinlich handelt es sich dabei um Rohrschnure oder -seile, die aus fein aufgespaltenem und geklopftem Rohr gezwirnt und zusammengedreht oder auch geflochten ~ a r e n . ~Da ' diese gilim-gazi ebenfalls zur Herstellung von KUrben verwendet wurden? konnte man auch an Korbmacherei in Riigwulsttechnikso denken. Je nach Dicke des Wulstes kUnnte man aus einem 9 m langen gilim einen Korb von vielleicht 20 oder 30 cm HUhe eneugen. Bei den oben bespmchenen Texten (MVN 5, 273.iii.9ff. und PDT 546) durften die gilim-gazi als Seile zum Verschniiren und Fixieren der anderen gilim gedient haben. Der Zusatz gazi ist schwierig zu erklikn; nahe lage die Vemutung, da6 es sich um Teile der gazi-Pflanze handelt, die zur Herstellung des gilii-gazi neben Rohrfasern benutzt wurden (Korbwaren in Ringwulsttechnik werden haufig aus verschiedenen Materialien gefertigt (vgl. Anm. 80), doch gibt es meines Wissens sonst keine Hinweise, daB die gazi-PAanze irgendwelche flechtbare Materialien liefert." Nach UET 3, 854:8 fertigen die Rohrflechter 4 'igilim-su-tum aus 3 Bund Rohr, die neben 100 Talenten Bitumen 4 Rohrmatten und 1 Holzbalken zum Dichten und zum Eindecken einer dienten. Zisterne? (t!-ha~-bi)~~ Zusammmenfassend lU3t sich zu gilim feststellen, daB es ein Oberbegriff ist, mit dem sowohl Rohrschniirel-seile (gezwirntlgeflochten) als auch lange Rohrstribgebiindel bezeichnet wurden. Man verwendete sie z.B. beim Kanalbau zur Uferbefestigung (Faschinen?), zur Ausstattung von Schiffen Befestigung der Rohrmatten/-hiitten ?),83 beim Hausbau (Rohrpfosten an der Hauswand, Rohrbiindel zur ~acheindeckung?)'~oder auch wie Seile zum Befestigen bzw. Verschniiren verschiedener Dinge. gi-NE '"unsortiertes' Rohr" Die Bedeutung dieser Rohrbezeichnung ist am schwersten zu bestimmen. Mit Sicherheit besteht ein Zusammenhang mit gi-Sid, dem entlaubten und gespaltenen Rohr, und in geringerem Umfang mit gi-zi, dem ~ u t t e r r o h r . ~ 6.4
Das gi-NE wird in Garten, auf Feldern und an Kanallaufen geschnitten (TEL 272; IlT 2, 3366; Nik 189; MVN 13, 613). Der Schnitt erfolgte besonders in den Monaten XI-I, etwa Februar bis April/Mai, doch ist er auch in anderen Monaten nach~uweisen.'~Mtiglicherweise starnmt dieses Rohr aus Zonen, wo das Rohr nur alle paar Jahre beseitigt wurde, so daf3 junge
Waetzoldt
Rohr und dessen Venvendungsweisen
Triebe und ausgewachsene, aber auch abgestorbene Rohrstengel durcheinander standen. Einerseits konnte das gi-NE als Futter fiir Schafe dienen (SA CLXXII:63a; CTMMA 1, 23; vgl. Or 47-9, 212; MVN 14, 534). andererseits brachte man es .in die Schiffswerft, wo es moglicherweise zu Matten geflochten wurde (AUCT 1, 691). Auch konnte man daraus moglicherweise Rohrseile fertigen (dur, DAS 19:lf.). Fur eine Verwendung als Brennstoff spricht, daB es einmal neben Brennholz und Rohrfackeln vorkommt (MVN 2, 369 Rs.3ff.) und von einem Salbenmischer in Empfang genommen wird (BIN 3, 401). Eindeutig als Brennmaterial verwendete man es in Ur (UET 3, 854:Iff.). Wie bereits e r w h t , wird gi-NE in der Regel neben dem gespaltenen Rohr in den Texten genannt. Nach den Verwendungsweisen mu0 man gi-NE rnit "vermischtes" oder "unsortiertes Rohr" iibersetzen, weil es offenbar folgendes enthielt: 1. vie1 griane Teile, die als Futter dienen konnten (vielleicht auch A b f a e vom Entlauben des giiid-Rohrs), 2. Stengel, die sich zum Verweben zu Matten eigneten, und 3. holzige, trockene Stengel, die als Brennmaterial Verwendung fanden. Fur eine recht unterschiedliche Zusammensetzung der Gebinde spricht auch die Tatsache, daB 1 Gebinde mit gi-NE-Rohr zwischen 6 und 15 Rohr-Bundel enthalten konnte. Ein Gebinde griines Futterrohr hatte, wegen des hCSheren Gewichts, nur 5-9 Rohrbiindel. Der Preis lag mit 480 Bund fiir 1 Sekel Silber deutlich niedriger als fiir das 'Spaltrohr' (1 Sekel Silber nur 300 Bund gidid, TU 122.iv.17f.). gi-al-zi-ra "von der Hacke 'zerstiirtes' RON' Das al-zi-ra-Rohr ist die Seltenste der hier behandelten Rohrbezeichnungen. Es wird in Traglasten (gii) gemessen,mund daher kann mit diesem Begriff nicht "Hiicksel" gemeint sein. Wahrscheinlich handelt es sich um Rohr, das beim Hacken der Felder abgeschlagen wurde und so alt und trocken bzw. soweit 'zerstiirt' war, daB es nur noch als Brennmaterial verwendet werden konnte. Es diente z. B. zum Backen von Brot und zum Brennen von ~ongefU3en.~ 6.5
7 Weitere 'Rohr'sorten 7.1 gi-mii-ganE "Rob aus Magan", WON"Bambus"
Das Magan-Rohr kam durch Import nach Mesopotarnien. Magan selbst bezeichnet die Gebiete beidseitig des Persischen Golfes: auf der Arabischen Halbinsel die Gegend von Oman und die gegenuberliegende Persische Kustenregion. Die Bezeichnung rnit Magan weist nicht unbedingt darauf hin, daB dieses Rohr dort auch wuchs, wahrscheinlich war dieser Raum nur
~wischenhandelsstation.~~ Das Magan-Rohr benutzte man z.B. zum Bau von Enki's ~chiff," fiir Betten (PDT 543; 628) und als Schaft eines Speeres (UET 3, 493:8) oder einer AX^'.^^ Die Liinge gibt nur UET 3, 859:lff. mit rund 3 5 6 Metern an. gi-PI.HAR Bei gi-PI.HAR muB derzeit offen bleiben, ob es sich dabei um eine r o h r w c h e Pflanze, um die Bezeichnung eines bestimmten Wachsturnsstadiums des gemeinen Schilfrohrs oder um einen Ausdruck, wie unter 6 besprochen, handelt. Auf jeden Fall wird gi-PI.HAR zusammengebunden (kt%-r8) und zur Befestigung von ~ew&serungseinrichtungen~~ ilhnlich wie 'g;.NkXNg3 verwendet.
7.2
Waeaoldt
Rohr und dessen Verwendungsweisen
7 3 gi-SAHAR Fiir diese Bezeichnung gilt das gleiche, was eingangs zu 7.2 ausgefiihrt wurde. Es wird in Biindeln (sa) und Gebinden (gu-kilib-ba) gemessen und begegnet neben sa-gi und sa-gi-NE. Das Gebinde enthat 7, 10 oder 15 Bund S A H A R - ' R O ~ ~ 'ijber . ~ ~ die Verwendung ist nichts bekannt. Die Texte datieren aus den Monaten XI-I, weswegen der Schnitt dieses ' R o b s ' in diesen Monaten erfolgt sein d~rfte.~' 7.4 sag-gi Dieser Terminus begegnet m.W. nur in Texten, die Turner (1981, 212, 214 und 220) in seiner Dissertation zitiert; er iibersetzt ihn rnit "reed tops". Sag-gi wird zusammengebunden (k8-rh) und transportiert (ga,-gh). Ein Arbeiter muS taglich 4 Gebinde davon abliefern (die Ablieferung in ; ~ "Futtemhr" und beirn "'Spalt'rohr" waren es Gebinden spricht gegen Turner's ~ e u t u n g ) beim nur 2-3 Gebinde (s. 6.1 und 6.3). Sag-gi muS folghch relativ schnell abschneidbar sein. Turner zitiert von den in Anm. 96 genannten Texten weder die beteiligten Personen noch die Daten, doch liegt die Annahrne nahe, daB es sich bei sag-gi um einen Ausdruck handelt, der m i c h wie gi-SAHAR (s. Anm. 94), nur in einer kulzen Zeitspanne und m6glicherweise nur in einem Archiv verwendet wurde. Man kann dariiber spekulieren, ob es sich bei sag-gi urn "Rohrkolben" (Typha angustifolia) handelt, dessen auffaigster Teil der Kolben ("Kopf"?) ist. Mehr Sicherheit k6nnen einzig neue Texte bringen.
Der vorliegende Beitrag b e s c m t e sich auf die Besprechung der wichtigeren Termini, die mit gi zusammengesetzt sind. Dabei wurde deutlich, daB gi 1. wohl urspriinglich und hauptsachlich als Bezeichnung des gemeinen Schilfrohrs (Phragmites australis, eventuell einschlieElich Arundo donax, s. Kapitel 5) diente, 2. das "'Wiirz'rohr" (Kap. 4) meinen konnte und sich 3. zum Oberbegriff, unter dem man verschiedene Griiser zusamrnenfaBte, entwickelt hatte. Dies gilt besonders fiir die in Kapitel 6 behandelten Termini, mit denen Schilfrohr und W i c h e Gaser nach i b n Verwendungsmtiglichkeiten klassifiziert wurden (besonders gi-zi, s. 6.1 und die in Anm. 97 zitierten Texte). .:', ';~.N~GIN und '::.$E Eigentliche Pflanzennamen sind die folgenden: u-nin,, hinni,, A darunter die Bezeichnungen fir Rohrkolben, Halfa-Gras und ~ i n s -. e ~Sie ~ konnten hier nicht diskutiert werden, da sie einer umfangreicheren Untersuchung auf Grundlage swtlicher Texte aus allen Provinzen bediirfen. Einige dieser Pflanzennamen begegnen auch in Personennamen und literarischen Texten, was als Zeichen ihrer Wichtigkeit gedeutet werden mu^.^^ Die verschiedenen Bezeichnungen fiir das Abschneiden, Abschlagen und Ausreikn des Rohres (bu, ku,, sig,, z6) haben bereits Sallaberger 1989, 316ff. und Turner 1981, 199-227 ausfiihrlich behandelt, so daJ3 sich eine erneute Diskussion eriibrigt. Jedoch bediirfen die vielen Dinge, die man im Alten Orient aus Rohr, Binsen und anderen G m e m fertigte, noch einer eingehenden Untersuchung.
I
Waetzoldt
Rohr und dessen Verwendungsweisen
ANMERKUNGEN 1
Eine Beschrilnkung auf wichtige Textbeispiele ist wegen der Fulle des Belegmaterials hier notwendig; Vollstiindigkeit wird nicht angestrebt. Ich bemiihte mi& besonders um Ergiinzungen zu Sallaberger 1989. Den Kollegen M. Sigrist, M. Molina (Texte des Klosters Montserrat mit Sigle MM) und PJ. Watson (Catalogue of Cunejform Tablets in Birmingham City Museum, Vol. 2) danke ich herzlich fiir die ifberlassung unpublizierter Texte (in Kopie und Umschrift), die ich hier verwerten konnte. Die Umma-Texte aus den Archilologischen Museen zu Istanbul (Um. 601 bis 1600) bereiten Fatma Ylldtz und ich derzeit zur Publikation vor, sie sollen als MVN 16 im kommenden Jahr erscheinen. Herr T. Gomi gewlkte mir dankenswerterweise Einblick in seine Umschriften von Um. 1601 bis 3810, deren Publikation er gemeinsarn mit F. Ylldtz vorbereitet. Herr M. Stol stellte mir freundlicherweise seine Zettelsammlungen zu 'Rohr' zur Verfiigung, wodurch ich besonders fiir Kapitel4, aber auch fiir die anderen Kapitel profitierte.
2
Postgate 1980, 105, 107f.; Delougaz 1940, Fig. 24-25 (Korbe); Woolley & Mallowan 1976, 143, fig. 39, pl. 51b (Tr); zur Verwendung von Rohr bei Architektur, besonders Ziqqurrat, s. Postgate 1980, 103ff. und Sallaberger 1989, 321f. Anrn. 1.
3
Vanstiphout 1990, 273f. mit Anm. 23 (Textzusammenstellung, zudtzlich CT 58, 29) bis 30. Herr Vanstiphout stellte mir freundlicherweise seine vorliiufige Umschrift zur Verfiigung, doch fehlte mu leider die Zeit, sie fiir vorliegenden Beitrag auszuwerten.
4
S. z.B. Civil 1987, 44f.; Sjoberg 1973, 111, 116, Z. 74 f.; Cohen 1988 Index S. 757 s.v. gi und verbindungen rnit gi; STT 198 und s. Bearbeitung in Walker 1966, 32ff.
5
Sallaberger 1989, 318 (iibersetzt Ballen); MVN 14, Index S. 150.
6
Z.B. TPTS 127:1, NATN 466, Maekawa, Zinbun 18, 101, 6; E. Sollberger, TCS 1, S. 122:251 Nr. 2f. mit ifbersetzung "packet"; M. Sigrist, TFTS Index S. 35 s. v. gu.
7
Futterrohr (gi-zi): MVN 13, 147, 148, 150-153, 166, bzw. entlaubtes und gespaltenes Rohr (gi-Sid): MVN 14, 54:3.
8
Aus der urspriinglichen Bedeutung Traglast entwickelte sich die Gewichtseinheit "Talent". Imiimlicherweise iibersetzt Sallaberger 1989, 314f. gQ rnit Talent.
9
JCS 10, 29, 624; MVN 11, 87:14; MVN 15, 358:2; DAS 261.
10
Prilsargonisch: G. Selz, WO 20121 (1989190) 40 zu iv'.l'. Ur 111: TPTS 285:2f., 6; 564:lff.; RTC 306.iii.2ff.,IO, iv.l,5ff.
11
hihnlich deutlich MVN 14, 445: If. 1 gu gi gu-kilib-20-sa-ta; MVN 15, 358: If. 34890 sa-gi-zi 12-ta, g)l-kilib-bi 2906 1/2 gu (nach Rechnung 2907! 112; 29075 x 12 = 34890). Vgl. Um. 2833:2f. 10 gh @ma-nu gii-ba 10-sa-ta. MVN 14, 71 und Forde, Nebraska 1 sind weitgehend Duplikate, jedoch Nebraska 1:2 und 2.20) 1 gu und MVN 4, 71:2 (und 2.16) 1 gu-kilib
pa-^^,-"^.^^.^^^.
d
~
.
~
~
.
~
~
~
12
DCS pl. 71 Sch 148:4; MVN 14, 445:1f., 471:l; JCS 10, 29, 6:l-25 (nach Rechnung entspricht 1 gii 8 oder 9 sa).
13
Van Lerberghe 1986, 25:3f. (freundl. Mitteilung M.Sto1).
14
Preise: FIir ein Sekel Silber bekam man in der Regel zwischen 10 und 20 Minen (Lap S. 155; SNAT 356 Rs.3f.; ASJ 11, 201f. 15f., 212.vii.llf.; Watson, BCT I1 121:13f. (noch unpubliziert); Um. 910.iii.l5f., Um. 3187.ii.9f.) und zweimal 30 Minen (AUCT 1, 144:7f., SNAT 50418). Ohne Preisangabe 2.B. MVN 3, 160:4; MVN 9, 2156; MVN 15, 1275; URI. 754 Rs. 6f., Um. 2886 Rs.i.9; in einem Tongem: Boson, Aegyptus 10 (1929) 16:6 (nach dug8e).
15
Preis: fiir ein Sekel Silber 20-30 Minen Sim-gi TU 122.v.13, vii.6; KT 5, 6736:4 22 ma-na gi 10[+10 ma-nal-ta.
!oldt
Rohr und dessen Verwendungsweisen
Preise: Fiir 1 Sekel Silber kann man iiber 17, 30 oder sogar 60 Minen gidu, -ga kaufen, s. W S.155 s.v. gi-dug-ga. Ohne Preisangabe 2.B. UET 3, 944:8f., 1777:8; MVN 5, 3:3. STA 23.iv.9f. i Sekel=55,12 Liter gi-babbar. AuffUig ist, daB gi-babbar und gi-dulo-ga durchschnittlich billiger sind als das normale gi! Alster 1974, 3955 und 88 mit Variante gi-sig-ga. Postgate 1980, 105; Townsend & Guest 1985, 216 (for the specific name see now Hepper, below pp. 1934 [ed.]).
11dt
Rohr und dessen Verwendungsweisen
Rohr Zwinger oder Bune fiir die Hunde fertigte. Meist 6-.... du-d&: MVN 14, 21, 27, 52, 100, 106, 138, 361; Sigrist, Rochester tablet 46; Hirose 365; JCS 28, 210, 8:2f. ka-4-gal-ka du-d&. Z. B. Uferbefestigung (gu-bi k6l-rh): Sigrist, Royal Ontario Museum 39:4; Nik 111: 8-10; MVN 10, 106; MCS 3, 86, 105482 = Gomi, Orient 17, 30; Um. 3110; ka-i7-da... kg-d& SACT 2, 161; sa-du,-ka/...-a: MVN 13, 611. Meist mh- ... d h d k Babyloniaca 8 pl. V Pupil 15; HEU 83; TPTS 194; MVN 15, 207.
Destillation der ole darf man schon aus dem Grund ausschliekn, da dann die Lieferung in der Makinheit sila "Liter" erfolgen miiBte.
S. z. B. Goetze 1948, 165ff.; TCL 5, 6036.iv.9ff. KOrbe, Siebe, Matten, Tiiren (iv.22f., vi20ff., 28ff.) usw.
AHw 100 "ein Baum" (Styrax? DAB 340ff.); CAD B 64 f.; Stol 1971, 169 mit Anm. 16. Durch die Parallelisierung von ARM 21, 106:l mit TCL 10, 16:ll wird die These Stols, da6 das Zeichen MUG (CAD B 64 lex) eine Lesung bulugx haben muB, voll bestatigt.
UDU 75 und vgl. MVN 13, 164; UCP 912, 88.
Zu dida eigentlich eine Trockenmasse, Vorstufe zur Bierbereitung, s. Stol 1971, 169. AHw 173; CAD D 160. Nik 301.vii.3 = G. Selz, FAOS 1511, S. 530; J. Bauer, AWL 119.iv.3. Man verwendete zur Herstellung dieser Salben auch als gi oder gi-NI bezeichnetes "Wiirz"-Rohr, s. FAOS 1511 S. 531 zu 2:2. TCL 5, 6042.i.1 + 2.6 gi , ii. 10 und Z. 10 gi; MVN 4, 61:1, 2.6 gi C6Wiirz")-Rohr. Zu dieser Textstelle s. Benito 1969, 61.
Preis fiir 1 gur Gerste n Bund R o b Nebraska 44, 276f. (1873 sa-gi, am teuersten), AnOr 1, 187 (300 sa-gi), MVN 1, 238:4 (496.5 sa-gi), ibid. Rs. l'f. (599 sa-gi); Lag& Atiqot 4, 8.ii.20ff. (214 sa-gi). Preis fiir 1 Sekel Silber n Bund Rok. SNAT 365 Rs.i.7f. (300 sa-gi), AUCT 1, 540:14f. und Syracuse 284:lf. (360 sa-gi), ibid 91:lff. (422 sa-gi) LaP Text 12:13f. (441 sa-gi). Herkunft unbekannt: YBC 10306 (freundl. Mitteilung M. Sigrist) (420 sa-gi). Nach TCL 5, 6037.iv.8f. konnte man fiir 1 Sekel Silber 480 Bund gi-lid kaufen (soviel kostete nach TU 122.iv.15f. das gi-NE), doch fehlt eine Preisangabe fiir gi-NE in diesem Text. AbB 6, 133:7 und in seinem posthum erschienenen Buch Frankena 1978,43. Z.B. CST S. 111 = Bedale, STU 42:lf.; SNAT 420; Sigrist, Toronto 205; SACT 2, 824; Nik 183, Um. 2929 .wide Sh-gal-udu-niga) und s. Sallaberger 1989, 314f.
I. Monat: Nebraska 10; Nik 182, 193, 197; UDU 62; Or 4749, 284; Syracuse 288; SACT 2, 154, 155, 161; CST 751; CTC 34; MVN 5, 16; TPTS 1%. 11. Monat: Babyloniaca 8 p1.V Pupil 15. 111. Monat: MVN 5, 60,YOS 4, 90. IV. Monat MVN 5, 30; MVN 13, 165; MVN 15,359; SACT 2, 172. V. Monat UDU 60; YOS 4,81; TPTS 198. VI. Monat UDU 69, 75,93; AAS 125; MVN 14, 342; Boson, TCS 367, 368; Hirose 387. VII. Monat: AnOr 1, 37; UDU 70,73; MVN 13, 103, 117; MVN 14, 100, 124, 127; Nebraska 53; SNAT 290; Orient 16, 59, 63. VIII. Monat: CST S.l10 = Bedale 43; UDU 71, 74; MVN 3, 361; MVN 14, 13, 30, 34, 41, 90, 131, 509, 527; Syracuse 284. IX. Monat CST S.l10 = Bedale 44; SACT 2, 143, 144; Syracuse 434; Or 4749,269. X. Monat MVN 13, 149,786; MVN 14,6,48; Nik 176; Or 4749, 306,307; YOS 4, 124. XI. Monat CST S.l10 = Bedale 46; HEU 83; MVN 13, 163; MVN 14,490, Um. 769; Sigrist, Rochester 28 308, tablet 46; Syracuse 287; SACT 2, 169; SA CXLI:151. XII. Monat: a C 34; Or 4749,293, 310; SACT 2, 148, 160, 173; SET 285; UDU 50, 52, 53, 63; Syracuse 175; SNAT 341; Orient 16, 61, 68; 62, 72; 73, 102. XIIa. Monat: BRM 3, 134, UCP 912, 88; UDU 59.
MVN 13, 147, 148, 150-153, 166, CTC 33; Syracuse 1, 43:9, 77; BIN 5, 184; SNAT 492. Selten sind in 1 Gebinde Futtemhr 10 und mehr Biindel: MVN 13, 161; MVN 15, 358 Drehim; Zinbun 18, 101, 6 (nach Rechnung je 9; LagaS); SNAT 520.
28
PSD 2, 123 = Sallaberger 1989, 317 mit Anm.56; van Lerberghe 1982, 280 zu YOS 13, 235:lff. und M.Stol, BSA 4, 174f. zu kasmu und kasdmu.
RTC 426 aus Girsu, Futter fiir lulim (kaum Hirsch); CTMMA 1, 23 und Hiille Futter fiir Kiilber (amar), Reichskalender.
29
Vgl. Georg Gerster, "Leben im Paradies", Neue Ziircher Zeitung vom 25. Juni 1977, S.37 ganz unten. Danach wiegen etwa 250 Biindel 1 Tonne (=je Bund c a 4 kg).
30
Wasserkochen, Brennmaterial, Fackeln: MVN 14, 139, 229:14, 3%, 440, 444; Nik 199 (fiir d"?itul-hga-is); Brotbacken (ninda-du,-a/-d&): MVN 14, 124, 342, 455; Or 4749, 269; BRM 3, 1366; IBK 718, 117. Schmelzen von Metall: MM 618:lff. 40 sa-gi "~"SE.GUR,aka-d&;UET 3, 752.i.19, ii.3', Rs. i.20, 27, 35, Rs. ii.23, 33 (meist neben Holz).
Interessant ist besonders AnOr 1, 85:77ff., wonach die Arbeiter vom Futtemhr tiiglich 3 Gebinde, vom normalen Rohr nur 2 Gebinde abzuliefern hatten; zum Transport s. Sallaberger 1989, 314 mit Anm. 25f. Arbeiter wurden mit dem Rohrtransport meist viele Tage oder sogar mehrere Monate beschiiftigt, s. 2.B. UCP 911, 32 18 und 19 Tage, Syracuse 102 110 Tage.
31
MVN 14, 7, 88; TF'TS 197 (A-dull-ur(-gi7-ra)).Es ist allerrlings auch mOglich, da6 man aus dem
I. Monat: SA XXII: 43; MVN 14, 57. II. Monat: Nik 183, CST 750. 111. Monat: MVN 15, 358. IV. Monat CTC 39; Syracuse 102 (1V.-VII. Monat); MVN 13, 166, Um. 2816. V. Monat Syracuse 169?, 171; TPTS 201; vgl. YOS 4,301 (V.-XII. Monat; Drehim). VI. Monat Boson, TCS 367; CTC 33; TPTS 200. VII. Monat: IBK 718, 12; MVN 1, 95 und vgl. Syracuse 43, 170; SACT 2, 175; BIN 5, 319. VIII. Monat: - . IX. Monat Nik 106, 121 (I..-XI. Monat); CST S. 112 = Bedale 58; MVN 13, 152; SNAT 492. X. Monat CST S. llOff = Bedale 47, 56; CST 634-637; UCP 9/1,32; MVN 13, 147, 150, 151, 153, 757; YOS 4, 80; Sigrist, Toronto 205; ARRIM 4,22, 34; Um. 2397. XI. Monat CST S.l10 = Bedale 45; Syracuse 267; Um. 2397. XII. Monat: YOS 4, 148. XIIa. Monat: SACT 2, 84; CST S.l10 = Bedale 42; Nik 101; MVN 15, 139; Syracuse 77.
Or(SP) 18, 24:6; Nippur: SNAT 2295; Drehim: PDT 510; Lag&: TEL 157, 202,229; MCS 2, 73 H 6291; I l T 2, 745, 896, 914; ITT 5, 6798, 9713; CT 10, 24 I1 llff. unter ugula. Fales 1990, 106f. Ur-'~uen, dub-sar, nu-bhnda-gi-zi...; Na-Sa,, dub-sar-gi-zi BM 20023 (freundl.
Wae:tzoldt
Rohr und dessen Verwendungsweisen
Waetzoldt
Mitteilung von M. Sigrist). Schreiber (zusmdig) fiir Rohr auch TU 94.iii.62; UET 3, 1650:6.
gi-z4 dur-sur vgl. 51566. dur = riksu (AHw 984 "Band, Bindung"), = {urru (AHw 1397) "Band, Knoten" aus Schilf { u ~ u4). S. AHw, CAD S.V. durgallu, durmahu, gelirrigli und vgl. die iibertragene Bedeutung "dur "Nabelschnur" (AfO 24,43 zu 72).
Belege zusarnmengestellt von Klein 1990, 117f. Civil 1987a, 44f. rnit weiteren literarischen Belegen. Civil 1987a, 44: The gi-zi ... is not a botanically specific reed but ... a stage in the growth of the common reed (Phragmites), und 1987b, 52: A particular stage in the growth of the common reed fed to sheep and goats. jihnlich wie arabisch qasab (s. Postgate 1980, 102) schlief3t gi-zi Phragmites australis und wenigstens noch Arundo donax ein. S. auch den Beitrag von Ochsenschlager in diesem Band.
62
Bei der Seilherstellung k t es auch mtiglich, daB Garne oder Fasern zu sogenannten Litzen verzwirnt werden. Danach drillt man 3 oder 4 Litzen zum sogenannten Trossenschlag-Seil. Im letzten Arbeitsgang kann aus 3 oder 4 Trossenschlag-Seilen ein Kabelschlag-Seil gedreht werden. - Nicht v6llig ausgescblosse~~ hl, &B man mit sur auch das Flechten von Seilen bezeichnete. Vgl. Su-sar-sur-ra Um. 2365:2. Zu dur-sur z. B. Um. 3378:4, ITT 3, 5144, 5156 (s. Anrn. 61) vgl. Foxvog 1985, 65f. zu ii.4; '')gilim-sur-ra z. B. ASJ 8, 68.iii.6; BIN 5, 243:llff.; MVN 4, 1l:lff.; Nik 112:2; Sigrist, Rochester 28304 Rs. 3; Sigrist, Toronto 6 3 2 SACT 2, 103:1; SNAT 326:3f., 336 Rs. 9, 438 Rs. 3f.; Syracuse 33:2; TCL 5, 5674.v.26ff., vi.l4f., 6036.vii.3Sff.; TPTS 476:2. 488:2; YOS 4, 230:3; UET 3, 1467 Rs. 3'.
63
ASJ 9, 20:lO und S. 35 (Kommentar zur Stelle) e b h @S.MAH) sur "to twist a rope". Sur = {amii UNT 122, AHw 1382 ({awii), "zusammendrehen" Heimpel 1968, 506; Foxvog 1985, 65f. zu ii.4, ii.21, iii.6; nicht direkt hierher (tug)-sur-ra s. UNT 161ff. - Verbindung iiber Grundbedeutung von sur "eine Drehbewegung machen".
UDU 76 (derselbe Empfiinger auch Syracuse 61), 77; WO 6, 24.i.7-10; Schlachthaus: MVN 13, 7625f.; RIAA 86:208f. = Lirnet, DPOA 1, 108 Rs.iv.3f. Kliche: AnOr 1, 148 = DCS pl. 71, 1485 (neben Rohr). Nur Lieferung aus dem Schafstall: Sigrist, Rochester 567; HEU 70. I. Monat: HEU 70; IX. Monar Syracuse 61; X. Monat: AUCT 3,408; Sigrist, Rochester 567; PDT 257 (Herkunft unsicher); XII. Monar UDU 76, 77. Ohne Monatsangabe: SNAT 330 Rs. 5 (wohl Brennmaterial zum Brotbacken) WO 6, 24.i.7; MVN 3, 371; MVN 13, 762; MVN 14, 16, 132; Limet, DPOA 1, 108 Rs.iv.4; AnOr 1, 147, 148 = DCS p1.71. Lag&: TCTMI 1, 631.i.2, RTC 306.iii.4. Herkunft unbekannr IBK 718, 127:3ff. Nur relativ wenige Texte tragen Monatsnamen, 2.B.: I. Monat: Nik 196; MVN 13, 613; 11. Monat: MVN 13, 754; (IV. Monar MVN 7, 563, Lagas); V. Monat: UCP 912, 83; VI. MonaC MVN 14, 129; VIII. Monat: AAS 129; IX. Monac RA 16, 20.xi.28; X. Monar TPTS 205 (Lag& MVN 5, 252; MVN 7, 328); XI1 Monat: Syracuse 98, MVN 13, 799, SNAT 474; XIIa Monar BIN 5, 182. In demselben Arbeitsgang und von denselben Leuten, s. z.B. aus Lagd I l T 2, 3672:l-7; RTC 310 (= DAS S. 91) 157 gu gi-Sid gi-NE gu-kilib gi-&-a a d i r i 4-gu-za-U-me. Z.B. UCP 911, 99:29ff.; RA 16, 20 XI 28f.; BIN 3, 401; MVN 13, 613; Nik 175; TCL 5, 6049.i.lf. Das Verhatnk liegt zwischen 1:1,5 (gi-Sid: gi-NE) bis 1:5,7. Selten ist gi-Sid in gr(SI3erer Menge vorhanden: UCP 911, 99: (2:l); MVN 5, 4 (1,75:1), vgl. aus Lag& ITT 2, 3672 rnit gi-Sid zu gi-NE von 2,3: 1. Neben anderen T&igkeiten wird diese Arbeit von M2nnern durchgefiihrt ("Rohr gespalten"), Umma: Nik 111:7, 1655; Turner 1981, 216 NBC 4089:9f., 218 NBC 3496:lff.; TPTS 193:3, 4295; SNAT 521:4; Lagd: MVN 11, 87:18; DAS 262, 362, 380:2; ITT 5, 6930:2. In UET 3, 1396:2 haben wir die Schreibung gi-Sid-DU, wohl gi-lid-rh (eigentlich /dra/) zu lesen. [Korrektmusatz: In altbabylonischen, literarischen Texten ktinnte Sid die Bedeutung "to raze" @hchalowski 1989, 74f. zu Z. 40) haben und in Wirtschaftstexten aus Mari kommt es als "(Schafe) scheren" vor (ARM 23, 51f. Komm. zu 59:15-20, vgl. ARM 26 = AEM V1, 399 Anm. 110 11-$ID in Personenlisten, etwas "(Schaf-)Scherer7' ?). Dieser Bedeutungsbereich des Verbs Sid ergibt sich auf Rohr ubertragen: "Blgtter und Zweige entfernen, entlauben"; gi-Sidda dann "Entlaubtes Rohr".] TLB 3, 144.vi.2; Amherst 66 Rs. 1lf. (es sind insgesarnt 11.787 Holzstiicke, und meist ist schon genau festgelegt, fiir welchen Schiffsteil sie Verwendung finden sollten. Daher kommt auch h t z u n g von Sid-da "behauen, zurechtgehauen" in Frage).
MM 359: 96 W3 s[ar] sig,, sig,-Sidda. "Geziihlte Ziegel" gZLbe keinen Sinn, denn die Ziegel sind in sar gemessen. Wohl 'gespaltene' Ziegel = halbe Ziegel. Fiir gi-Sid oder Sid gibt es m.W. keine lexikalische Gleichung. Man vergleiche SID = qar&iu AHw 901f. "Haare usw. ausreikn, Bart auszupfen" (SID? = Sapcinc AHw 1082 "eindriicken").
Rohr w d dessen Verwendungsweisen
I
S. die in Anm. 55 genannten Lagas-Texte, geschrieben in den Monaten I-V (etwa April-September). Die genannten Rohrmengen sind zum Teil sehr hoch: MVN 11, 87:17f. "insgesarnt 19.211 Traglasten gi-Sid-da". Dur-gi-Sid DAS 19:2f.: 20-18-1 dur-gi-Sid, 490 sa-gi-Sid! dur-&; ITT 3, 5144:3f. 82 guru5 u4-1-&,
Sigrist, Rochester 28 304 Rs. 3f. (sa-du ), in Texten, die nur von Arbeiten an Kanaleinrichtungen berichten: BIN 5, 243:ll; Um. 1743, 1d08, 1809; SNAT 438 Rs.3ff.; Um. 2780 Rs.2f. 500 sa-gi gilim-& ba-sur a-i?-a-~a-ra-am-~~uen; Um. 3658 340 sa-gi 'gilim a-2-a-S2 ba-sur. Sallaberger 1989, 318f. rnit Anm. 71ff. Vorher sind Ziegel und nachher Lehm und Bau eines Turmes (an-za-ghr) erwtihnt. Das -da verstehe ich allerdings nicht. Anordnung sa-gi gu-kilib-ba n-sa-ta, n giS-dal, n (sa)-"gilim: JCS 40, 243,6; AOS 32 W 32; Boson, TCS 2; SA CXLI: 151; Nebraska 10. SACT 2. S. 372f.. vgl. auch AHw 321 hannaqu rnit sum. Entsprechungen 'igilim und "dur-18. Falls zwischen gi-lam = hi;+ (AHw 349 t i g u I "Faschine?") und gilim ein Zusammenhang bestehen sollte, kiinnte man eventuell damn denken, in gilim-sur-ra den sum. Begnff fiir "Faschine" zu sehen. Vgl. noch fuqdsu I1 "Rohrhutte emchten" (AHw 331), s. auch CAD H 130f. Vgl. ThJ.H. Krispijn, Akkadica 70 (1990) 3 zu 156 gi,,. m/b eghu, partiku "sich querlegen, sperren (von Wegen)" ist in der Schulliteratur "(zu) schwierig, schwer verstihdlich sein". In CT 38, 1278 wohl Rohrpfosten/-biindel zu iibersetzen. fumma piit bIti GI.GILIM DU-u.f "Wenn die Vorderseite des Hauses aus Rohrpfosten gemacht kt". Vgl. Bau eines mudhif s. Crawford 1972, 12 Abb. 2 und 19 Abb. 3; sowohl die in die Erde eingegrabenen 'Pfosten' wie auch die am Boden liegenden, zusammengebundenen, langen 'Rohrbundel' kiinnten m. E. grim genannt worden sein. Diese Qualifikation begegnet auch bei gilim-gal und gilim-gazi, in einigen Falen steht davor noch KA (2.B. UCP 912, 63; Um. 2493:lf.). sonsr YOS 4, 256: 20, 52. Das Element A.AN ist miiglicherweise mit der Dattel-'Makinheit' (oder ein Korb ?) 8-an (2.B. SET 198:3ff.) in Verbindung zu bringen; s. dazu A. SjOberg, Or NS 35 (1966) 298 zu S.53 2.270, der 6-an-(sur) rnit "Biindel" und 8-an-zu-lum rnit "Biindel von reifen Datteln" iibersetzt. Falls die Deutung 'Bundel' (oder tihnlich) auch fiir die hier diskutierten Wend9gen zutrifft, ktinnte es sich um die Kombination zweier Techniken zur Herstellung dieser speziellen @gilimhandeln. Frau F. Y l d u kollationierte freundlicherweise PDT 546: 70 gilim-KISAL (KWU 804) gid 5 nindan(GAR)-ta 50 gilii-KISAL gid 4 112 nindan-ta 120 gilim-gazi (KWU 815) gid 1 112 nindan-ta 9 kid-kisal gid 1 112 nindan 4 kuS dagal 7 kuS-ta kid-4-kam 18 sar kid-kisal 4-a ba-an-ba-ra.
Waetzoldt
74
Rohr und dessen Verwendungsweisen
Ob damit kisal "Hof" gemeint ist, mu6 offen bleiben. Zwar legt PDT 546 (s. Anm. 73) diese Lesung nahe, doch fehlen bisher andere, eindeutige Belege. MVN 5, 273.iii.9ff. 7 gilim-dagal gid-bi 2 112 nindan-ta, 7 gilim-an-ta-ghl, 140 gilim-gazi, 1 kid-mah gid-bi lJ2 nindan 4 kii3 dagal-bi 112 nindan, gi-bi u4-lZkam, 4-nh-a 4-gi-na-ab-turn 4-gal-Si?. jlihnlich ibid. ii.19-iii.2', 3-8. Fiir die Umschrift s. Anm. 73. Die gilim-KISAL waren jeweils 27 bzw. 30 m lang; wenn man annimmt, daB fiir das Befestigen in oder an der Mauer an beiden Enden je 1 m der k g e wegfiele, k U ~ t e ndie HUfe eine GrUBe von c a 25 X 28 m = 700 mZ haben. Die Matten reichten auf jeden Fall nicht fiir eine gesamte Abdeckung der 4 HUfe. Falls die hier versuchte Deutung zutreffen sollte, kUnnten die Matten nur entlang den Innenrnauern gelegt worden sein; die Hofmitte bliebe unbedeckt. S. Ochsenschlager in vorliegendem Band, S. 56.
Waetzoldt
92
Turner 1981, 221 YBC 15163: 22ff. 60 guru4 u4-29-@,dub-~-*utu-kagi-PI.HAR-da KU-a; ibid. 216 NBC 4089: 9ff. 15 guru5 [email protected] k&-rh u ga6-gP; JCS 24, 172, 94 = MVN 15, 94.i.2f. (Emendationen in der Umschrift S. 54 treffen nicht zu: gi-PI.HAR! k&-rh).
93
Turner 1981, 225f. NBC 738:3ff. a-e-bu6-a Uku-nu-ti-bal-a-ri sa-du,-aka; NBC 2976:lff.
94
AOS 32 E 23 = PIOL 19,64:lff. (3 47/XI); SACT 2, 150:2 (S 47/XII); MVN 13,613:l (AS ID).
95
S. Anm. 94.
96
Turner 1981, 212, 214, 2U): NBC 1491:14 10 guru3 u4-3-@, sag-gi k45-ra-a, u d~b-ls-~utu-~i?, ga,-gh. NBC 5252:14 1200 g6 sag-gi, gu-kilib 1 112-ta i-gi51 gurus-e gu-kdib-4-ta. NBC 3239:l-3 10 gurus u4-1-@, en-gaba-DU-ta, sag-gi ga6-gh. YBC 15099:l-5 65 guru8 u4-1-56, a-Sa-en--DU-a, u-&-a, sag-gi k45, u dub-kbdutu-ka im si-a.
97
Zu diesen Bezeichnungen und den in Frage kommenden Grasern, s. Postgate 1980, 10lff.; Civil OA 21 (1982) 16f., 25 Addenda, JCS 32, 229f.; RA 54, 66:27, 69:101, 71f.:138 und S.72 Anm.1; Civil 1987a, 49f. mit Anm. 19ff. Bei '::.$E und :A :. handelt es sich sicher um verschiedene Pflanzen, & sie in DPOA 1, 108 Rs.iv.5ff. nacheinander vorkommen. Z1.M~IN(n~mun) 'enthat' nach RTC 306.iv.101. gi 'Rohr' (8 gh ::.NkIN, gi-bi 80 a)), ebensozk.A (MVN 4, 722f. 1535' gu-kilib A .:?' gi-zi-x-bi i-zi).
98
Im Namen einer Gottheit d~in-L::.Nf~~~ (BIN 5, 277:16; BCT 11 294:33) und van Personen, z.B. d Z 1 . d ~ I N (MVN 3, 288:5). In literarischen Texten: Vom Gott Ninurta wird z.B. gesagt: "Wenn ur- ch dem Feind niiherst, reiBt du ihn heraus wie diese numun Pflanze, raufst ihn aus wie Binse" du (PSD 2, S. 163, 1.2.3). Zum Mythos "Inanna and the NUMUN-plant" s. Kramer 1980. Von dem Schiiler heiBt es im Streitgespriich zwischen Sommer und Winter, daI3 er fir seinen Schlafplatz die numun-Pflanze nicht ausreil3t" (Alster, Dumuzi's Dream S. 91). Auch im Traum des Gottes Dumuzi spielt diese Manze eine grok Rolle (Alster, ibid. Z. 27ff. und vgl. 2.44). Er emhlt seinen Traum folgendermakn: "die numun-Pflanzen wurden fiir mich herausgezogen, aber die numun-Pflanzen wuchsen weiter, ein einzeln stehendes Rohr wackelte fiir mich mit dem Kopf; von dem doppelten Rohr wurde fiir mich eines entfernt". Soweit dieser Traum. Rohr und die numunPflanze gehUren darin irgendwie zusarnmen.
BIN 10, 166:lf. 50 "gilim-gazi' ma-da-nu-um-@;s. CAD M/1,208 mandanu (a basket). Ochsenschlager in vorliegendem Band S. 66 (wrapped coil baskets): "Usually the coil of these baskets is made from split reeds and the wrapping from split rushes". AHw 455 kash "Serif(-Kohl)", Sinapis nigra; CAD K 248 "a native spice plant, specifically its pungent seeds"; PSD 2, 153 "licorice?"; s. noch M. Stol, JEOL 28 (198344) 32 mit Anm. 66. Vgl. H. Limet, DPOA 1, 108.iii.8 und Kommentar S. 105 zu ii.5; Wilcke 1974, 190 Anm. 51. Zur Deutung als Zisterne vgl. AHw 313 halbi, = halpiu "eine Art Brunnen" und AHw 438 halba,, halbi = (kannu Sa b8rti) "Eimer zum SchUpfen und Trtinken". Um. 1116 Rs. 2 (mh4nsi-ka), Um. 1356: 2f. Rohrmatten mh-alam-ka ba-a-gar; SNAT 516: 10 mgi-u4-[zal?-la?] sur-[ra]. Besonders die Texte aus den Jahren AS 7-8, die von BaumaBnahmen am Gipar von Gad berichten, z. B. YOS 4, 256, NATN 481, 543. Ferner Um. 2493: Iff. viele gilim und Rohrmatten, ganun-4-mah ba-a-dul,. In YOS 4, 256: 18, 50 werden vor den gilim-gazi jeweils sa-gi-ti-um-ma genannt. Bei ti-urn handelt es sich offenbar um besondere Rohrmatten, die meist zum Bau von Flachdiichern benutzt wurden; darauf karn der Lehm zum Dichten des Daches gegen Feuchtigkeit (vgl. besonders SACT 2, 104, NATN 620.iii.2' im-ti-um du,, AUCT 2, 343:6 ti-um bi-ibdu,). Zu tldium AHw 1363. Zu gi-Sid und dem Verhiiltnis zu gi-NE s. oben 6.3 mit Anm. 53-54. Zum Futterrohr (gi-zi) s. 6.1. Gi-zi und gi-NE werden in CTMMA 1, 23:lff. zusammmen als Sh-gal-amar "Futter fiir Jungtiere (von GroBvieh)" bezeichnet. I. Monat: MVN 2, 369 Rs.3; MVN 13, 613; TPTS 206. III. Monar Orient 16, 61, 67, (Drehim AUCT 1, 691). IV. Monat: (Lag& MVN 7, 563). V. Monar MVN 14,78. VI. Monar (Drehim BIN 3, 401). VII. Monar Nik 188. VIII. Monat: MVN 5, 4; MUN 14, 85. X. Monar (LagaS I l T 2, 3366, MVN 7. 328). XI. Monar MM 645; Nik 175; SNAT 279; Um. 2357. XII. Monar SNAT 474; Boson, TCS 370. XIIa Monar Or 47-49, 275. MVN 13, 168; TPTS 198: 3 (neben sa-gi); und s. Anm. 88; vgl. Um. 1080:lf. 5 gu I-al-ur4 al-zi-ra, 4-b8har-@.
Um. 1124 (neben sa-gi und sa-'ma-nu) gir, dug-GAR ba-ab-zi; Um. 1229: If. 2 gu gi-al-zi-ra, ninda ... du,-di?. Heimpel 1988, 195ff., bes. 198 $6. Klein 1990, 92: 6ff. und iibersetzung S. 94. UET 3, 363:l'ff. dur,,-tab-ba = pdtu AHw 846 "Beil, Axt"; P. Steinkeller, OA 20 (1981) 244.
Rohr und dessen Verwendungsweisen
p
LITERATUR Benito, C.A. 1969 "Enki and Ninmah" and "Enki and the World Order", Ph.D.-Diss., University of Philadelphia (Univ. Microfilms 70-16, 124). Castellino, G.R. Two $ulgi Hymns (BC) (= Studi Semitici 42; Roma). 1972 Crawford, V.E. "Excavations in the Swamps of Sumer", Expedition (Philadelphia) 14, No. 2, 12-20. 1972 Civil, M. 1967
"Note Uxicographique sur SUHURKA", RA 61.6348.
1987a
'The Lexicon as a Source of Literary Inspiration", in Language, Literature, and History: Philological and Historical Studies presented to Erica Reiner (= American Oriental Series 67; New Haven), 37-55.
1987b
"Ur 111 Bureaucracy: Quantitative Aspects", in McG. Gibson & R.D. Biggs (eds.), The Organization of Power. Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East (= Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 46; Chicago), 43-53.
Waetzoldt
Cohen, M. 1988
Rohr und dessen Verwendungswe
The Canonical Lamentations of Ancient Mesopotamia (Potomac, Maryland).
Rohr und dessen Verwendungsweisen
Waetzoldt
Townsend, C.C. & Guest, E. (eds.) Flora of Iraq. Vol. VIII: Monocotyledones (Baghdad). 1985
Delougaz, P. The Temple Oval at Khafaah (= Oriental Institute Publications 53; Chicago). 1940
Townsend, C.C. & Guest, E. & Al-Rawi, A. (eds.) N.L. Bor, Flora of Iraq, Vol. IX: Gramineae (Baghdad). 1968
Fales, F.M. 1990
Turner, J.W. Early Mesopotamian Agriculture :A Quantitative Model for Ur III Umma (Ph.D. diss.; Yale 1981 University).
Prima del' Alfabeto (Venezia).
Foxvog, D.A. 1985 "A Summary of Non-Sealed Labor Assignments from Umma", ASJ 8, 59-75. Frankena, R. 1978 Kommentar zu den Altbabylonischen Briefen aus Lagaba und anderen Orten (= Studia 86 Tabulas Cuneiformes a F.M.Th. de Liagre B6hl Collectas Pertinentia (SLB N);Leiden). Goetze, A. 1948
"Umma Texts Concerning Reed Mats", JCS 2, 165-202.
Heimpel, W. Tierbilder in der Sumerischen Literatur (= Studia Pohl 2; Roma). 1968 1988
"Magan", in Reallexikon der Assyriologie 7/34, 195-199.
Hepper, F.N. Planting a Bible Garden (Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, London). 1987 Keimer, L. 1984 Klein, J. 1990
van Lerberghe, K. "Un outil agricole, la habuda", in S. Scheers (ed.), Studia Paulo Naster Oblata: II Orientalia 1982 Antiqua (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 13; Leuven), 279-285. 1986
Old Babylonian Legal and Administrative Texts from Philadelphia (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta, 2 1; Leuven).
van de Mieroop, M. Crafts in the early Isin Period (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 24; Leuven). 1987 Vanstiphout, H.LJ. "The Mesopotamian Debate Poems 1990 (Hiroshima) 12, 271-318.
-
A General Presentation (Part I)", Acta Sumerologica
Walker, C.B.F. Materials for a Reconstruction of the mis pi Ritual (unpubl. B.Phi1. thesis, Oxford). 1966
Die Gartenpflanzen im alten gypt ten, Bd.11 (hrsg. von R. Germer; Deutsches Arch~ologisches Institut, Abteilung Kairo. Mainz).
Wilcke, C. 1974
"Sulgi and Igmedagan: Originality and Dependence in Surnerian Royal Hymnology", in J. Klein & A. Skaist (eds.), Bar-Ilan Studies in Assyriology dedicated to P. Artzi (Rarnat Gan), 65-136.
Woolley, C.L. & Mallowan, M.E.L. The Old Babylonian Period (Ur Excavations, Vol. VII; London~Philadelphia). 1976
Kramer, S.N. "Inanna and the NUMUN-Plant A new Sumerian myth", in G. Rendsburg et al. (eds.) The 1980 Bible World. Essays in Honor of C.H. Gordon (New York), 87-97. Michalowski, P. The Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur (Winona Lake, Indiana). 1989 Postgate, J.N. "Palm-Trees, Reeds and Rushes in Iraq Ancient and Modem", in L'ArcMologie de l'lraq 1980 (Colloques Internationaux du CNRS No 580; Paris) 99-109. Sallaberger, W. "Zum Schilfrohr als Rohstoff in Babylonien", in Der Orientalische Mensch und seine 1989 Beziehungen zur Umwelt: Beitrage zum 2. Grazer Morgenlbndischen Symposion ( 2.-5. M&z 1989) (Gra~),3 11-330. von Schuler, E. 1988 "Das 'gute Rohr"', in F. Imparati (ed.), Studi di Storia e di Filologia Anatolica dedicati a Giovanni Pugliese Carratelli (Firenze), 243-249. Sj(lberg, A. 1973
"Der Vater und sein miBratener Sohn", JCS 25, 105-169.
Stol, M. 1971
"Zur Altmesopotamischen Bierbereitung", BiOr 28, 167-17 1.
144
"Zum K6nigtum in der Ur 111-Zeit", in P. Garelli (ed.), Le Palais et la Royaute'. (19e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale; Paris), 177-232.
Waetzoldt
Rohr und dessen Verwendungsweisen
REED IN THE OLD BABYLONIAN TEXTS FROM UR Zu den iiblichen Abkiinungen s. H. Waetzoldt, Untersuchungen zur Neusumerischen Textilindustrie (= UNT, Roma 1972), XIII-XVII, und R.K. Englund, Organisation der Verwaltung der Ur 111-Fischerei (= Berliner Beitrage zum Vorderen Orient, Bd. 10; Berlin 1990), IX-XII.
Marc Van De Mieroop (Columbia University, New York)
isto to la ires de Mari (Paris 1988ff.).
AEM
Archives
BCT I1
s. Anm. 1, P. J. Watson.
CTMMA I
I. Spar, Cuneiform Texts in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, Vol I (New York 1988).
DCS
D. Charpin & J.-M. Durand, Documents C d i f o r m e s de Strasbourg (= Recherche sur les Grandes Civilisations, Cahier no. 4; Paris 1981).
DPOA 1
H. Limet, Documents du Proche-Orient Ancient - Epigraphie I . Textes Sm'riens de la 111 Dynastie d'Ur (Bruxelles 1974).
Hirose
T. Gomi, Yoka & Kazutaka Hirose, Neo-Sumerian Administrative Texts of the Hzrose Collection (Potomac 1990).
MM
Tafelsignatur des Museums von Montserrat (Barcelona).
PIOL
Publications de 1'Institut Orientaliste de Louvain (Louvain-la-Neuve).
qm
Quadratmeter
Sigrist, Rochester M. Sigrist, Cuneiform Tablets in the City of Rochester, New York (unpubl.) Sigrist, Toronto M. Sigrist, Cuneiform Tablets in the Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto (unpubl.) SNAT
T. Gomi & Susumu Sato, Selected Neo-Sumerian Administrative Texts from the British Museum (Abiko 1990).
TCTMI 1
B. Lafont & F. Y d b , Tablettes Cudiformes & Tello au Musde &Istanbul, I (Ii'T IIII, 617-1038) (Istanbul 1989).
TPTS
M. Sigrist, Tablettes du Princeton Theological Seminary (Occasional Publications of the Samuel Noah Krarner Fund 10; Philadelphia 1990).
Um.
Tafelsignatur der Umma-Texte aus den Archiiologischen Museen zu Istanbul
It can be said without a doubt that the cutting of reed was a very important activity throughout the Old Babylonian period in Mesopotamia, especially in southern Babylonia where the canebrake was very extensive. Reed was used in architecture, various crafts, and canal works. It also served as fuel, and as fodder for various animals. Therefore, a constant supply of this product was needed. A comprehensive study of the production and the utilization of reed in Ancient Mesopotamia remains a distant goal, and this contribution is merely an attempt at elucidating a minor aspect of this task. The excavations of the Old Babylonian city of Ur in the very south of Iraq have yielded a small archive that accounts for the activities of a number of reed cutters. The archive dates to the late 19th century B.C. The texts were found in the remains of a private house, No. 1 Broad Street in the AH site, but, as the tablets disbvered there had been used as fill during one of the rebuildings of the house (Charpin 1986 pp. 482-5), their original archival context remains unknown. The archive has been previously studied by Kilian Butz (1979 pp. 389-397), but I believe it deserves reconsideration, as this earlier treatment contains a number of inaccuracies.
I
Typology of the texts
Nineteen texts constitute the archive. They date from the short period of time from VII/14/Rim-Sfn 15 to X/-/R-m-Sfn 16 (hereafter RS). The texts can be classified into several groups.'
1.
Accounts of reed production on a single day: UET 5: 644 652 653 654 655 657 658 obv
VIII/ V/ V/ VI/ VI/ VII/ VII/
14BS 3OBS 30BS 14BS 15BS 2OBS 20BS
15 16 16 16 16 16 16
The texts all record a number of reed bundles (gi-sa-kilib) and the names of various men who were responsible for their production. In UET 5 654 only one entry is recorded, while the other texts contain six to ten entries. These documents were written after the work was performed, and record thus actual production figures.' In three documents it is explicitly stated that the work assigned for one particular day (6s-ghr u4-x-kam) is recorded. In one of them, the record dates three days later than the day of production (UET 5 644), and in another it is stated that the record was made in the evening of the day in which the work was performed (UET 5 655: u4-15-kam ba-zal "day 15 has passed," cf. CAD N/2 p. 106 S.V. 8). The third text is problematic: it is dated on the 14th day of the sixth month but the work recorded is from day 17 (UET 5 654 [collated]), thus seemingly stating a quota for future work. The text continues, however, to state
Van De Mieroop
Reed in the Old Babylonian Texts
that it involves the work of one lieutenant who went to the Akdadu-canal.The verb clearly indicates that the action took place in the past (illiku), not in the future, therefore the text must refer to a completed activity, probably in the preceding month. The four remaining texts are also puzzling in that there are two texts for both the 30th day of month V and the 20th day of month VII. These texts are not duplicates, however, but record different numbers of reed bundles for the majority of the men recorded and in the totals.3 Butz (1979 p. 392) attempted to explain the discrepancies by stating that one of the texts for each date (UET 5 653 and 657) records the quotas established in the morning, while the other two texts (UET 5 652 and 658) record the actual production accounted for in the evening. This explanation is impossible, however, as all the texts explicitly state that they have been written in the evening. Moreover, UET 5 657 indicates that the reed bundles were received (line 16: mahmtum). The distinction between these texts lies elsewhere. On both days one of the texts recordshe authority of the Satamma (nig-Su a-tams-ne, UET 5 652 and 657), while the other document does not indicate under whose authority it was composed. In Ur other records also were kept in duplicate. The accounts of the temple herds were made up for the Satammii and for the Nanna temple (Gallery 1980 p. lob). One would assume, however, that these records were exact duplicates and thus would provide us with the same figures. But the four reed texts mentioned above show that the accounts could be different for each authority. The reason for this difference cannot be established. It is unlikely that it represents a manipulation of the numbers for the sake of cheating the Satammii out of their fair share, as the numbers recorded in the accounts for the Jatammll are not consistently lower than those in the other records, but can also be higher. The variation in the numbers could indicate that both the Satummll and the other unnamed authority were recipients of a number of bales of reed. Such a conclusion would force us to assume that the counterpart records intended for the Satammii are missing in the rest of the archive. Records of the delivery of reed: UET 5 646 I/ 27/RS 16 660 V ~ 1U 3 1 16 ~ ~ These texts merely state that amounts of reed have been delivered. The first text records that m.~ an enormous amount, 26,230 reed bundles, was delivered in three installments by ~ a b ~ t u The second text indicates that the production of three men was delivered by fishermen from Ur. This establishes a clear relationship between the fishermen and the reed cutters to be discussed later. 2.
Accounts of issues of reed: UET 5 645 I/ 26BS 16 VII/ 20/RS 16 658 rev These texts record that bundles of reed were issued. The first text lists some of the people by whom the reed was used: two cooks and a shipbuilder. The rev. of UET 5 658 indicates that 536 bundles of reed were cut on the edge of a tiritum-canal, i.e. a canal in or near the city (St01 1980 p. 357), and then seems to record one or more issues of that reed. The details of the text remain unclear. 3.
Van De Mieroop
Reed in the Old Babylonian Texts
Account of payments for reed cut: UET 5 477 not dated The text lists various amounts of silver next to the names of reed cutters who seem to have been paid for their work. 4.
Accounts of arrears: UET 5 647 I/ 3O/RS 16 648 II/ [ l/RS 16 649 III/ 7/RS 16 1111 26/RS 16 650 V/ 20/RS 16 65 1 VI/ 3O/RS 16 656 VIII/ 4/RS 16 659 This group of texts lists the amount of arrears of the reed cutters in their production of reed bundle^.^ The first text is unusual as it contains two columns of arrear~.~ The second column repeats the same number, 1192, three times, thereby suggesting that this was not an actual amount of reed bundles. The reasons for this duplication remain unclear, however. The amounts of amars accounted for in these records are clearly cumulative, and cannot apply only to the day that the account was written. This is clear from a comparison between records of production and those of arrears. Lalija, for instance, produced only 920 reed bundles in V/30 (UET 5 652:1), while his arrears in V/20 were 2060 bundles (UET 5 651:l). The figures of the arrears thus cannot be used to estimate the levels of productions, as we do not know over what period of time they were accumulated.
5.
Account of pigs assigned to the reed cutters: X/ -/RS 16 UET 5 677 The last document of this reed archive is highly unusual. The obverse of the tablet is very fragmentary and we cannot determine its content. The reverse deals with numbers of pigs that are assigned to various people. Of the eight men whose name can be read, four are known to be reed cutters. Moreover, the entire operation is said to be the responsibility of Dingir-sigga, a man known to have been the overseer of the reed cutters (see below). The text indicates that reed cutters were also involved with raising pigs. The animals are referred to by the Sumerian term Sat-giS-gi, which can be translated literally as "pig of the reed thicket." These animals were thus most likely related to the wild boars that are common throughout the marshes of southern Iraq, and cause a lot of harm to the people living in the area (Thesiger 1969 esp. pp. 22-32). But it is clear that the pigs designated with this term were domesticated, as they are assigned fodder in one record (Goetze 1948 pp. 89-90 no. 16). Were these boars caught in the marshes and then fattened (as suggested by Salonen 1976 p. 260), or were they descendants from boars originally caught and then bred in captivity for consumption? The available evidence does not allow a conclusive answer to this question.
6.
Van De Mieroop
Reed in the Old Babylonian Texts
I1 The reed The texts are very imprecise about what type of reed was cut. Throughout the archive the general Sumerian term gi "reed" is used, without further specification. The reed was bundled and these bundles are accounted for here. The Sumerian term used is gi-sa-kilib (or -nigh) which seems to be a mere variant of gi-sa. Both terms are equated with the Akkadian kiSSu in the lexical material (see CAD K p. 460b) and refer to a bundle of reed. In the Ur 111 period several bundles of reed were gathered into bales (gu-kilib), but this unit of accounting does not seem to have been used in the Old Babylonian texts from Ur.
Production levels
UET 5 644
652
653
655
657
658 obv
2360
1820
2374
1460
2038
1164
2550
2170
1970
2390
1220
311
-total under overseer
Dingir-sigga
-total under overseer
Lugatum
The numbers are, unfortunately, not very revealing as we do not know the size of one reed bundle. The daily figures can vary greatly, not only among the different men recorded on the same day, but also for the same men on various days. This variation can be explained by the fact that each of these men supervised the work of various sized groups of cutters, an arrangement that will be discussed presently.
Reed in the Old Babylonian Texts
Van De Mieroop
III The reed cutters It is clear from the texts that there was a three-tiered hierarchy among the people involved in the reed cutting industry. Only the two upper levels are documented, however. At the top of the hierarchy in this group of workers were two overseers (ugula), Dingir-sigga and Lugatum. They appear in almost all of the records, not with a specific amount of reed, but as overseers of a specific number of men, and they are always in charge of the same men. Lugatum is known to us from a document in the archive found in No 14 Paternoster Row of the AH site at Ur, where he appears as overseer of the men of Ku'ar (UET 5 430, dated XI/18/RS 4). The archive of No 14 Paternoster Row belonged to a family that had close associations with the fishing industry around Ur, and the document shows Lugatum's connection with the fishermen and with the city of Ku'ar. Ku'ar also appears in UET 5 677 of the reed archive where Dingir-sigga is mentioned as overseer. This indicates that the teams of cutters recorded in this archive were probably active in the area of Ku'ar. Dingir-sigga may also appear in two records of contributions to maritime expeditions (UET 5 554:33 and 643:12, dated XII/30/RS 10 and XII/-/RS lo), but these references may also be to a namesake of his. Underneath Dingir-sigga and Lugatum worked a number of men who bore the Sumerian title nu-banda, "lieutenant, an officer in charge of a number of workmen." The title is only used in two documents (UET 5 645 and 654). but that these men had the same position throughout the archive is obvious from the amounts of reed bundles recorded for each of them. The numbers vary greatly, but they are clearly too high to refer to the work of one man. Take, for instance, UET 5 654 which reads "1360 bundles of reed, the work of day 17 of one nu-banda who went to the Akdadu-canal." In UET 5 652:7 Arbi-mam appears with 1250 bundles. It seems inconceivable that these vast amounts were cut by one man. The lieutenants appear throughout the archive under the same overseer. Under Dingir-sigga worked: Abi-ili, Niir-iliSu, Lalija, Ipiq-Nunu, ISu-Gula, IlSu-rabi, Sfn-iSmeni, Nanna-indu, and Agi3a. Under Lugatum were active hmum-lib~i, Arbi-tiiram, the son of ~h-qarrad: Ningizzida-gmil, Ili-tiiram, Tanbum, Sfn-iribam, and Warad-Nanna. Nabiitum seems to have worked outside this system. Although he appears in the texts on the same level as the other lieutenants, he is not listed under an overseer. These lieutenants seem to have been in charge of various sized groups of reed cutters. The actual cutters remain anonymous, and it is therefore difficult, if not impossible, to establish their number. The only information on that account is provided by the number of reed bundles produced under each lieutenant. That number varies greatly, as stated above, but an example may give us some idea about the size of some of these teams. In UET 5 652:l Lalija's team is said to have produced 920 bundles. In order to estimate approximately how many men would have been required to cut that amount of reed, we have to refer to evidence provided by the Ur I11 texts.' In the Ur I11 texts the quotas of reed cutters were not constant, but the number of bales (gu-kilib) required of them seem to have varied between two and three per day. The bales usually contained between ten and twenty bundles (sa-gi), thus each man harvested between twenty and sixty bundles a day. If the Old Babylonian bundle was of the same size as the Ur I11 one, an assumption that remains impossible to prove, Lalija would have had between 46 and 15; men in his employ. The variation is too large to enable us to say much about the number of reed cutters accounted for in this archive, but the numbers show clearly that the lieutenants mentioned in the document did not perform the actual work of cutting, but supervised groups of workers.
Van De Mieroop
Reed in the Old Babylonian Texts
Reed in the Old Babylonian Texts
Van De Mieroop
NOTES IV The ultimate authority Neither the evidence from the texts nor their archaeological context gives us a clear indication about the institution under whose authority the reed cutting was undertaken. Only two documents mention the authority of the Satammii, a group of men who represented the palace's interests in the local administrations (Gallery 1980). These documents are unusual, however, and moreover they are duplicates of the records intended for the regular authority, which remains unnamed. The unnamed authority is almost certainly the Nanna temple at Ur. That the reed cutters had close connections to the fishermen of Ur, is clear from the fact that one of their overseers, Lugaturn, appears in a transaction of the fishermen (UET 5 430), and from the fact that fishermen from Ur are said to deliver reed bundles under Lugaturn (UET 5 660). The fishing grounds around Ur were owned by the Nanna temple (Butz 197819) and the fishing and reed cutting industries took place in the same area of the extensive marshes between Ur and the Persian Gulf. It is thus very likely that the temple had the ultimate authority over the reed cutters, as well as over the fishermen. This does not indicate, however, that the archive studied here derived from the temple archives. In the time period of these texts, the late 19th century, the Nanna temple administration had abandoned the daily management of its economic affairs. As I hope to be able to show in detail elsewhere, the temple had contracted private businessmen from Ur to deal with its economic concerns. The businessmen maintained daily supervision and kept daily records. Only after a certain period of time was the temple provided with the taxes, probably paid mainly in silver, and with records detailing the development of its economic resources. It is thus very well possible that the archive found in the fill of No 1 Broad Street derived from one of the private houses in the neighbourhood. Butz (1979 p. 389) suggested that the work described in these texts may have been dated to the digging of the I-edina-canal commemorated in R-m-Sih's sixteenth year name. I think this interpretation to be highly unlikely and that we rather have here a fragment of an archive documenting regular activity around Ur. The cleaning of specific canals is mentioned in two of the texts of the archive: UET 654 mentions the Akdadu-canal and UET 5 658 a canal in a location with a name that is unclear to me (line 19 gu mbi-ri-turnki B.Lu.TL).Neither canal can be located. The center of activity of this particular group of reed cutters seems to have been Ku'ar, a town usually located near Eridu (Edzard et al. 1977 pp. 95-96). If this location is c o m t , the main area of activity of these reed cutters has to be looked for in the marshes east of Eridu. V Conclusion The small archive studied here gives us a glimpse of the activity of reed cutters in the area around Ur. The work is undertaken by an unknown number of anonymous cutters, who were supervised by two levels of officials, indicated by the Sumerian terms nu-banda and ugula. The ultimate authority behind this activity seems to have been the Nanna temple of Ur. With the available information we are unable to calculate the amount of reed produced by these men, but it seems that the cutting went on continuously and that large amounts of reed bundles were produced.
1
Note that YOS 5 101 listed by Butz 1979 p. 391 as belonging to this archive has no relationship to it at all.
2
Contra Butz 1979 p. 390, who states that some of them record quotas established in the morning before the work was started, and others record the labor performed.
3
See the schematic representation of these texts by Butz 1979 pp. 392-393.
4
Butz 1979 p. 395 suggests that these deliveries are from three different places of origin, but the expression ki + number has usually a temporal meaning. It is highly unlikely that all these bundles were delivered on the day that the document was written.
5
For a schematic reconstruction of the texts, see Butz 1979 p. 396 with minor corrections. The copy of UET 5 648 shows a total of 17,660 not 17600, in UET 5 649, 620 bundles are due from the son of Sin-qarrad, not Arbi-t-.
6
Butz 1979 p. 391 seems to suggest that the first column records the quotas of production due, and the second column the arrears, but both columns are headed by the statement that they record arrears.
7
Butz 1979 p. 393 reads this name DUMU-d~in-qar-ra-ad, based on a misunderstanding of UET 5 564.iii.6. The latter passage is not to be read dumu 'DUMU-d~in-Se-mi, but genna (TUR.DIS) dumu PN "a child, son of PN." This expression appears very commonly when gifts of children to the temple are recorded, as in UET 5 564.iii.5-7. See also YOS 5 675, 724, 73:6,8, 78:1, 161:l.
8
I am relying on the Ur I11 information kindly provided to me by Hartmut Waetzoldt, for which I am very grateful.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Butz, K. 197819 1979
Charpin, D. 1986
"Fischabgabe und Feldabgabe in Fischen und VUgeln und den Nanna-Tempe1 in altbabylonischer Zeit? Ein Versuch", Archiv fiir Orientforschung 26, 3044. "Ur in altbabylonischer Zeit als Wirtschaftsfaktor", in E. Liphlski, ed. State and Temple Economy in the Ancient Near East I , (Orientalin Lovaniensia Analecta 5, Departement Orientalistiek, Leuven), 257-409.
Le ckrgk d'Ur au siZcle dHammurabi (Genhve-Paris).
Edzard, D.O.et al. Rkpertoire Gkographique des Textes Cuntfiformes I (Wiesbaden). 1977 Gallery, M. 1980 Goetze, A. 1948
"The Office of the btammu in the Old Babylonian Period", Archiv fur Orientforschung 27, 1-36.
"Thirty Tablets from the Reigns of Abi-dub and Ammi-ditilna'', Journal of Cuneiform Studies 2. 73-1 12.
Salonen, A. 1976
Jagd und Jagdtiere im alten Mesopotamien (Helsinki).
Stol, M. 1980
"Kanal(isation) A. Philologisch", Reallexikon der Assyrwlogie Vl5-6, 355-365.
Thesiger, W. 1969 The Marsh Arabs (London).
WOOD IN THE OLD BABYLONIAN TEXTS FROM SOUTHERN BABYLONIA Marc Van De Mieroop (Columbia University, New York)
Juniperus drupacea
Juniperus excelsa
I
Cultivation
When the twentieth century poets of the Isin court recounted the destruction of Sumer and Ur at the end of the Ur I11 Dynasty, they included in their list of disasters the following line: giS mah ur-bi-a mu-un-bal-e giS tir-ra gurus,-i "large trees were being uprooted, the forest growth was ripped out" (Michalowski 1989, pp. 40f., line 87). This statement indicates that the idea of forests in the south of Babylonia was not alien to these poets. However, when we look at the archival evidence for the production of wood in the first centuries of the second millennium B.C., we find only evidence that is fragmentary and limited in its extent. This dearth of information is especially frustrating when we compare it to the availability of sources from the preceding period under the Third Dynasty of Ur. Although it is clear that forestry continued to be practiced in the south after the fall of Ur, it is almost impossible to find archival evidence on the whereabouts, the extent, or on the kinds of trees that were grown in the forests. Due to the fact that there is not one substantial archive that documents the management of the wood resources, we have to paste together the information available from various sources in order to obtain some kind of organized picture about this aspect of agricultural life. The scraps of information do allow us to suggest that in general terms the growing of wood was organized in the same fashion as it was in the third millennium. Trees were grown in three environments: 1 in forests, Sumerian tir, Akkadian qiShun, 2 in orchards, Sumerian kiri,, Akkadian k i r h , 3 around or in fields, Sumerian a&, a-ghr, Akkadian eqlum, ugdrum. Documentation on these three forms of tree cultivation is very unevenly distributed, and it is impossible to determine whether this is due to the fact that one type was more prominent than the others, or due to the nature of the evidence. 1. Forests I have been unable to find a single reference to the term forest in the archival documentation from southern Babylonia. The only sources where the term is found are letters to @mmurabi9s chief administratorsi n the south, &ma~-l$lzir and Sh-idinnam. They show that the king kept a close personal watch over the forests in the Larsa area, a practice that was not unusual considering his highly personalized style of government. To ~am&-@zirsay, thus speaks @mmurabi: "Igmil-Sin has written to me as follows: 'As my lord ordered me, I have inspected the forests which have been entrusted to Aplijiim ,and Sin-m2gir. In these forests trees have be& felled. No one guards them.' Thus he wrote me. After reading this letter [go to ...I the forests. Say promptly [to AplijQm and to3 Sh-rniigir that they have to guard the forests which have been entrusted to them. Furthermore: did the forest-guards fell the trees that were felled? Were they felled by other hands? Look into this matter and send me a report!" (TCL 7 20 = AbB 4 20).
Van De. Mieroop
In the somewhat earlier archive of BalmunamQe from Larsa, we find the same mixture of fruit trees in an orchard: apple and pomegranate trees are mentioned, as well as date palms (YOS 8 5; cf. Van De Mieroop 1987b, pp. 1617). Another wood-producing tree that seems to have been cultivated extensively is the tamarisk ('%hig = binurn). It was also planted in between date palms as can be seen from texts from Nippur (PBS 811 21) and from the Larsa region (YOS 12 177; 258). Not all orchards had mixed plantations. Entire orchards of aJfibu-trees seem to have existed (TSifr 71:2 kiri, fla-sli-bi, and many groves were probably reserved solely for date palm cultivation. The fine for damaging a tree in an orchard was very high. A document from Uruk mentions that a gardener was fined one half mina, i.e. ca. 250 grams, of silver for cutting down an d h u - t r e e in another man's garden. This penalty corresponds to the punishment prescribed for such & offence in the Codes of Lipit-EStar ($10) and of Hammurabi ($59) (Falkenstein 1963, p. 48). There are many orchard-related texts from southern Babylonia and usually they just give the generic term kiri, without making reference to the types of trees that were grown in them. Probably many of them contained a mixture of trees other than date palms, but as long as the variety and the exact number of the trees are not indicated, these texts cannot be used for the study of wood production.
To Sama3-@zir say, thus speaks Lu-Ninurta: "May ~ a m preserve d your health. Sin-maw and AplijOm, the overseers of the forests, came to the palace because of their beams and taxes and gave their report. With regard to the forests the king spoke as follows to them: 'Do not neglect the forests! Guard your forests! Tomorrow at my inspection I will not keep alive the man who is responsible for one embezzled(?) trk which is felled.' Thus he spoke to them and they came to me, and said thus: 'You hear(?) continuously about felling in the forests. A tablet about the forests has not been given to us, therefore based on that tablet we have not made our guards work in the forests.' Thus they said to me and I wrote to you. Now I send them to you. Of all the woods that are available and all the open space in them, do not give them anything in lease. Write them down on a tablet and give it to them. Do not omit any wood or open space so that you give no reason for recourse. These matters have been made very clear to you in the palace. Answer them fast, so that they may get no reason for recourse ..." (OECT 3 33 = AbB 4 111). These letters show that the forests were guarded by AplijOm and SIh-mlgir who were responsible to the palace for taxes and deliveries of beams, i.e. for payments in silver and in kind. SamaS-Qiizir, who was @rnmurabi's deputy with regard to agricultural matters in the Larsa region, was supposed to oversee these men. It is clear that illicit felling of trees took place, and that Harnrnurabi threatened to put the perpetrators to death! The size of these forests cannot be determined from these letters, but one letter from earnmurabi to Sfn-idinnam shows that a substantial amount of wood could be cut in them: To Sin-idinnam say, thus speaks Vmurabi: "kzdubku-trees for axe handles for the woodworkers in Bad-tibira and wherever (else) they are, will be made available to you. 7200 straight' logs of kdabkuwood with a girth of one-third or one-half to one sila and a length of 1 m. (or) 1.5 m. to 2 m. let them cut ~ to for you. When they have loaded 300 logs on a freighter, may they bring them from S A . [xxx] Babylon. Of the kzdabku-trees that will be cut, they will not cut those that have died in the (text: his) forest. Only green wood will be cut. Let them bring these logs here fast, so that the carpenters will not be without work." (LIH I1 72 = AbB 2 56). The tree mentioned in this letter, kusabku, cannot be identified with certainty. It could grow up to at least two meters high, and attain a circumference of at least one sila. The latter measure is not easily transferred into the metric system, but we know that a log with a girth of one cubit . ~ text does not indicate that 7200 trees were felled, but that (ca. 50 cms.) contained two ~ i l aThis such a number of axe handles was cut by the foresters. It is interesting to note that the wood was cut for a specific purpose, suggesting that the foresters selected for felling those trees that were most suitable for the final product. Thus the growing of trees in forests did take place in the south, but we know virtually nothing about it. 2. Orchards The cultivation of a variety of trees in orchards is the best documented aspect of forestry in southern Babylonian texts. The date palm was and is the most prominent tree in southern Iraq, and the production of dates was a very important aspect of the economy (see Cocquerillat 1967 for a detailed study of date cultivation). I will not consider the date palm here, as this tree merits a separate investigation, but only the subsidiary crops of trees which were grown in palm groves. In between date palms one is able to cultivate low-growing trees such as the tamarisk, or larger trees such as apple and pomegranate trees provided that the date palms are grown widely apart (Dowson 1921, pp. 9-12). Among the duties of Samd-Qbir was the supervision of a plantation with various types of trees in a place named Eduru-Sulgi (cf. Birot 1969, p. 48). The orchard was located partly by the Eduru-Sulgi canal (TCL 11 187), and was cared for by several gardeners, such as Sfn-nf and Su-~azi.They cultivated dates (TCL 11 150; 169; 170; 186; 187), apples (bagbur, TCL 11 148), and pomegranates (nu-iir-ma, TCL 11 176). d i h u (u-~uh,)~ trees were grown for their wood; in one text (TCL 11 159) a total of 590 beams was accounted for. They were divided into four groups, of which only two are intelligible to me: 202 are listed under boards (gig mi-ri-za) and Another text (Birot 1969 13) records the cutting of 140 [+35] as young shoots (wa-si-a-n~n).~ twenty-one logs of dibu-wood, up to 3.5 meters long, for various parts of a door.
Wood in Old Babylonian texts
Van De. Mieroop
Wood in Old Babylonian texts
3. Fields Some trees were grown around or in fields and gave their names to those fields. A few references to that practice are found in the texts from southern Babylonia. The poplar tree appears in a variety of "Flurnamen": a-gar se-er-ba-turn in a text of unknown origin (BE 612 9:2), a-gL asal in a Nippur text (BE 612 37:5), and a-Sa asal in a Larsa text (YOS 8 94:4). Myrtle appears in a "Flurnarne" from Ur: a-Sa a-su-urn UET 5 205:2). Unfortunately these names give no information beyond the fact that trees of these types were cultivated in these regions.
I1 Uses of wood The growing of wood is thus a very poorly documented area of southern Babylonian agriculture in the early second millennium. On the other hand, a variety of woods is mentioned as the material from which objects, such as furniture and the like, were made. It has to be pointed out first that the specific type of wood used for an object is usually not indicated. A chair will usually be referred to as a chair, not as a chair of poplar or cedar. The following list of woods is based on a survey of the texts that was far from exhaustive, but hopefully contains the majority of the woods in use in this period. The character of the source material varies greatly in the different archives from the early second millennium. The early Isin material, for instance, is very significant, as it contains records from a workshop dealing with woods and reed. Other archives usually only refer to wood types when a wooden object is sold, inherited or given away.
I
This type of wood is unknown to me. In BIN 9 97:6 forty-two of them are issued to the queen's palace. ga(a-)ab-ba = kdabku, "ein Dornbaum" AHw 516; CAD K 597 gives no translation; cf. Powell 1987, p. 148. 7200 logs of this wood, from one-third to one sila thick and 1 to 2 meters long, are ordered by
Van De Mieroop
Wood in Old Babylonian texts
Hammurabi to be delivered to woodworkers in Bad-tibira (AbB 2 56; cf. above, p. 134). A iootstool of this wood from Mel* is recorded in BIN 10 114:4. The object was very valuable, as the document records the materials used to wrap the gold for its decoration. A date formula from Ishchali mentions a throne of this wood from M e l e a inlaid with gold (OIP 42, p. 149 no. 121). In a list of furniture from Larsa a chair of kdabku-wood appears (Riftin 104:l). dasal = sarbatu, "poplar". A variety of "Flumamen" referring to poplar-trees appears in texts from southern Babylonia (cf. above). The wood was used for beams: the early Isin text BIN 10 88 records various beams from 1.5 to 4 meters long, and BIN 10 188:ll mentions 11 "ur "roof beams" a-sa-am, which may be a phonetic spelling for asal (cf. the Sippar letter AbB 6 52 where 60 sarbatu-trees suitable for roofing are requested). The wood was also used to build beds and chairs (TCL 11 1745, 20, 34, rev. 11; UET 5 791.ii.13), a bench (BIN 10 95:3), and a door (BIN 10 188:l). dup-ra-an = duprdnum, a type of juniper. This wood was used to produce aromatic oil (TCL 10 71: 19). "eren = erZnum, "cedar". The wood was most probably imported: in the Ur texts large quantities are mentioned, 596 kg. valued at 894.1 grams silver, and more than 581.3 kg., valued at 3,555.3 kg. copper (UET 5 665:l-2; 667:l-2). Chain were made of this wood (BIN 9 499:2). Cedar oil was used as an aromatic. In Larsa, for instance, 2 liters were worth 5.3 grams silver (TCL 10 56:13; cf. 82:l). Large deliveries of the resin were also attested in Larsa texts (TCL 10 57:7 5.5 kg.; 72:ll 5 kg.; 81:4 30 kg.; 82:2 35.5 kg. [cf. the copy in Leemans 1960, p. 1531). @esi= d h , "ebony". A text from Larsa records that 2.5 kg. "li-hum is worth 80 grams silver (TLB 1 56:3). Two beams of ebony are found in an inheritan& division from Ur (UET 5 109:15). sagestin = kardnum, "grape(-vine)". Although grape vines are not attested in southern Babylonia, grapes sometimes are. A certain Sama~-@zir,who may have been Hammurabi's representative in Larsa, requested that BelSunu send him 20 liters of good grapes (AbB 9 99), and an offering text from Ur records the issue of various grapes in the temple (UET 5 507.iv.2-5, 9). @gi~immar = giSimmarum, "date palm". The products of the date palm were extensively used in southern Babylonia. They were not considered materials to be used by carpenters, but by reedworkers (cf. Van De Mieroop 1987a, p. 34). Doors were commonly made of palm wood (e.g. UET 5 112129-30; 116:9, from Ur, TSifr 18:4,12; 44:7,23, from Kutalla). An unknown object, clearly related to doors, is mentioned in the early Isin texts: '%sxs~riigisimmar(BIN 9 30:7,9), the length of which could vary from 50 cms. to 3 meters (BIN 10 193:6'-7'). The midrib of the frond of the date palm could be used for doors (UET 5 156:2; TSifr 18:3; 44:38), and the spines for tables (BIN 10 78:7,9). A text from Ur records activities with date palm products in the construction of a boat, but unfortunately many aspects of this text remain unclear (UET 5 468; cf. Landsberger 1967, pp. 21 and 27f.).
Van De Mieroop
Wood in Old Babylonian texts
"ha-lu-"b/ub4 = @luppum, "oak(?)". G e wood was used for furniture, especially for chairs (BIN 9 374:3; 499:3; Riftin 104:7).
"HAL = baluhhu, a tree and its resin, possibly galbanurn, CAD H, pp. 74-5. ~ o & d in 1ists"of resins from Larsa, TCL 10 71:21: 2 kg. '3k.line 22: 2 kg. bi-il ba-lu-bu "resin of the baluhhu-tree"; 81:9: 15 kg. of " ~ A L . ""
-
- -
"ha~hur = hdhiirum, "apple tree wood". The apple tree was grown around Larsa (cf. above). Its wood was used for beds (BIN 10 53:3), tables and chairs (BIN 9 426:25). w
''ildag (A.AM) = adarum, "poplar tree". This common tree was used for furniture: chairs (UET 5 791.ii.10; 792:32 written a-da-ru-um), beds (BIN 10 53:l; TCL 10 116:13; 120:30), and for doors (BIN 7 71:lO written a-dar). The fact that spears were made out of this wood (BIN 10 125) probably indicates that it could attain a sizable length. ''1~1-dar = nurmhz, "pomegranate". In an inheritance division from Ur, a 3 meter long beam of this wood is included (UET 5 109:15). g'lam-gal = buyuttu, "pistachio". 20 liters of pistachio nuts are included in a delivery of various products to the king in Larsa (TCL 19 57:3). galam-tur = Jer'a(z)zum, War'azu, "a type of nut(?)". 20 liters are delivered to the king in Larsa (TCL 10 57:1.2). @li= burij,fum, "juniper". Was used as an aromatic (TCL 10 71:18, rev.48,51; 81:16). ZQiZrum, "white cedar resin*', cf. AHw 1353 S.V.ti(')iillru(m). Attested in texts from Larsa (TCL 10 72:14: 5 kg.; 815: 15 kg.). "ma-nu = e'rum, probably a type of willow. In the early Isin texts a delivery of 4,080 beams is attested (BIN 9 531:2). margirnum, CAD M/1, 279, probably a variant of argiinu, CAD A/2, 2534, resin of a conifer TCL 10 81:2: 15 kg, in a list of aromatics. "mes = mbum. Probably the most commonly found wood-type in the designations of furniture, as it is a general term for various types of wood Powell 1987, p. 149). Very common are chairs [e.g. JAOS 98, p. 252 no. 2:l (early Isin); YOS 8 98:61; Riftin 104:9,18 (Larsa); UET 5 792:31 (Ur)], tables [TCL
Van De Mieroop
NOTES
11 224:30; YOS 12 157:20; Riftin 104:1,3 (Larsa)], and beds [Riftin 104:13,16,21 (Larsa); UET 5 793:lO (Ur)]. It is also attested for a box (YOS 8 98:lO). A bowl of mbu-wood was imported to Ur from Dilrnun (UET 5 292.ii.13).
'%IM = baltu, a thornbush. A list of barley receipts from Ur includes an enigmatic entry of 686 liters % ' M (UET 5 487:21). Another texts lists among imports from D i u n 1 *ba/mu-al-tum LAM.KUR.RA (UET 5 292.ii.12), probably to be read as maltum "a bowl" (cf. CAD M/1, 172b).
"nu-br-ma = n u r m h , "pomegranate". The tree was grown in S. Babylonia (cf. above). Its wood does not seem to have been used, but the fruit was used in leather tanning (Van De Mieroop 1987a, p. 32).
1
For this translation see Heimpel 1987, p. 57 n.125.
2
Powell 1984, pp. 42-46.
3
I refrain from a translation of this term, as the suggested "fir" and "cedar" both seem to be impossible; cf. Van De Mieroop 1987a, p. 154.
4
AI-Iw 1475 translates "young shoot of the date palm", CAD A/2, 355 "a palm leaf of a special nature", and Landsberger 1967, p. 27 "midrib". The text talks explicitly about &@u-trees, however, and not about the date palm. Moreover, the specified term weitum giSimmarum does appear, suggesting that the term does not necessarily refer to a date palm product.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
"a-kal = .fa'akkullum, a type of willow. It was used for the production of chairs (BIN 9 499:1,6; UET 5 795 rev.iii.7), and of household utensils (UET 5 795 rev.iii.2: 1 spoon, iii.3: a bowl).
"Sim-az = asum, "myrtle". This type of shrub grew in the south. An a-Sg a-su-um is mentioned in a field rental from Ur (UET 5 205:2). The resin was used as an aromatic (TCL 10 81:6: 15 kg.; 71.i.30: 2 kg.).
II I
"taskarin = taskarinnum, "boxwood(?)". Used for the legs of a bed (BIN 9 499:7), and possibly for a boat (BIN 10 88:s). @u-Sul~~ = dzihum. The wood was used extensively in the early Isin period for furniture (BIN 10 53:2, bed), and doors (BIN 10 96:4-5; 175:2; 186:ll). As the wood could be up to 6 meters long, it was used for punting poles (BIN 10 95:l; 96:l-3). Deliveries of various sized beams are recorded in Isin (BIN 10 57; 91). A text from the archive of the Sfn-kBSid palace at Uruk records the delivery of 15 beams, 2 sila in girth each (Mauer 1987, p. 156 no. 36). Evidence that the tree was grown in southern Babylonia was presented above. "ZA.BA.AL = supiilum, a type of juniper. This wood is included in a list from Ur of woods and their values (UET 5 665:s: 30 kg., value is broken), and in a list from Larsa recording various resins (TCL 10 72:12: 5 kg.; 81:14).
Birot, M. 1969 Tablettes Lconomiques et administratives d'ipoque babylonienne ancienne (Paris). Cocquerillat, D. "Aper~ussur la phkniciculture en Babylonie A l'dpoque de la Ibre dynastie de Babylone", 1967 Journal of the Social and Economic History of the Orient 10, 161-223. Dowson, V.H.W. Dates and date cultivation of the 'Iraq, Part I: The cultivation of the date palm on the 1921 Shut A1 'Arab (Agricultural Directorate, Ministry of Interior Mesopotamia, Memoir 111; . Baghdad).
"Sinig = binum, "tamarisk". The tree was grown in southern Babylonia (cf. above), and used to make furniture (BIN 9 449:4, chairs; TCL 11 174 rev.12, table; cf. UET 5 119:16, name of object illegible). "Su-br-man = Surminum, "cypress". Large quantities are listed in texts from Ur: 186 kg. worth 148.7 grams silver (UET 5 665:3); and from Larsa: 45 kg. (TCL 10 81: 1) and 5 kg. (TCL 10 72: 13).
Wood in Old Babylonian 10x1s
Van De Mieroop
Wood in Old Babylonian texts
i
Falltenstein, A. 1963 "Zu den Inschriftenfunden der Grabungen in Uruk-Warka 1960-1961", Mitteilungen 2, 1-82.
Baghdader
"Das Untere Meer", Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie 77, 22-91. I
I I
I
1
Landsberger, B. The date palm and its by-products according to the cuneiform sources (Archiv fiir 1967 Orientforschung, Beiheft 17; Graz). Leemans, W.F. Foreign trade in the Old Babylonian period (Studia et Documents VI; Leiden). 1960 Mauer, G. "Ein Tontafelarchiv aus dem Palast des S i - W i d in Uruk", Baghdader Mitteilungen 18, 1987 133-198. Michalowski, P. Lamentation over the destruction of Sumer and Ur (Eisenbrauns, Winona Lake). 1989 Powell, M.A. "Late Babylonian surface mensuration", Archiv fur Orientforschung 31, 32-66. 1984 "The tree section of urS(=HAR)-ra=hubuNu", Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 3, 145-151. 1987 Van De Mieroop, M. 1987a Crafrs in the Early Isin period (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 24; Departement 1987b
"The archive of Balmunam!~e", Archiv fiir Orientforschung 34, 1-29.
LE BOIS A MAR1 J.-R. Kupper (Lisge)
La liste des esp&cesde bois utilisCes B Mari est longue et variCe. La f a ~ o nla plus rationnelle de les Ctudier consiste les passer en revue dans l'ordre alphabdtique, en indiquant toutes les rCfCrences utiles et les donndes concernant leur provenance et leur utilisation.
Adiirum Le bois d r u m est mentionnk dans une liste de pikes de bois d'essences diverses (ARM 23 581:8,9,10), livr6es par des habitants d'une localit6 du district de Sagariitum. Les ft3ts mesurent en majorit6 5 coudCes, les autres 2 coudees, soit respectivement 2,50 m et 1 m. Parmi les premiers, les uns sont dits "minces" (qataniitum); pour les autres, on donne la mesure de 2 qa. En rCalit6, il s'agit 13 d'une mesure de capacite, destink B Cvaluer l'kpaisseur du tronc; c'est ainsi que 2 qa correspondent 3 un diametre de 16 cm.' Le cas du bois addrum ne peut Ctre dissociC de celui du bois ildakkum, car tous deux sont domCs pour les equivalents akkadiens du sumCrogramme GIS.A.AM.D'apds le CAD, s.v. ildakku, ce dernier terme aurait CtC remplacC par addru, qui apparah d b 1'Cpoque palCo-babylonienne. Il s'agirait d'un arbre indigbe en Basse-MCsopotarnie, sans doute une variCtd de peuplier. On notera que si W. von Soden propose une som de peuplier pour ildakku, il sugg2re "citronnier?' pour d r u . Dans ARM 22 329, qui est une liste de terres plant6es d'arbres, on enregistre B huit reprises des GIS.A.AM;dans plusieurs cas, le chiffre qui pr6cise leur nombre est suivi de l'expression SU.PA.US,que je ne sais comment interpdter. De nouveau, il parah bien que ces arbres croissent dans le pays.
Cupressus sempervirens
Abies cilicica Asum Le myrte, Ccrit GIS.A.AZ, GIS.AZ, ou a-sli-(um), a-si-(im), semble &re employ6 exclusivement pour la confection d'huile parfurnk. L'hCsitation est permise seulement dans deux cas. Dans une leme B son fils Yam@-Addu, Samsi-Addu park d'une cargaison de bois de ddre, de cypr&set de n~yrteen provenance de Qatna et qui est entreposCe B Suprum, en arnont de Mari sur l'Euphrate, en attendant d'Ctre acheminee vers Ekalliitum, Ninive et Subat-~nlil(ARM 1 7). A premibe vue, on pourrait penser qu'il s'agit de bois d'ceuvre, mais le ddre et le cyp1-2~sont aussi utilisCs pour parfUmer l'huile, et les trois esp&ces de bois sont pdcisCment qualifiCes d"'aromates" (CIS ri-qi). D'autre part, un document comptable enregistre l'achat B un marchand d'Imar de plusieurs talents de bois tiyiirum, de myrte et de cypds (ARM 23 523). Le fait que le bois est mesur6 au poids et non B l'unitC semble bien prouver qu'il s'agit de nouveau de substances dsineuses; on comparera par exemple ARM 22 261 oh est consign6 l'achat de 26 talents de bois "aromatiques" (GIS.I~Ari-qi), comprenant du types, du cedre, du myrte, du genCvrier supdlum et du ballu~cum.~
Cedrus libani
ASiitum ARM 23 521 enregistre la livraison de 20 fQts de pin (a-Su-hu) pour en faire des perches ou des poteaux (timmu), ARM 23 65 cite 17 fCits, mais sans en dormer l'usage. On demande B MukanniSum, l'intendant du palais, de faire livrer par bateau 80 pieces de bois de pin prises parmi les plus s2ches (ARM 18 24): 40, d'une longueur de 2 cannes, soit 6 m, sont
Kupper
Le bois i Mari
Kupper
destinCes B la fabrication d'Cchelles de siege, 20 autres pour en faire d'autres instruments de siege, et 20 autres encore pour en faire des pa~serelles(?).~
ErZnum Nous venons de voir que Yedun-Lim coupa notamment du ddre dans les "Montagnes de cbdres et de buis" (Syria 32 i.38, ii.14'16). Une porte du palais de Mari est en d d r e provenant de CarkCmish (ARM 13 7:s). Une courte note signale la reception d'une grande piece (la-hu GAL) de bois de c u r e et d'un m n c (kisitirimun) de ddre pour la fabrication du tdne de Dagan he Mari (23 517:l-2). Une lettre de Yasme-Addu rapporte qu'un messager telmunite avait enlev6 un tronc de cedre dans la maison d'un marchand (1 21:7); cependant, le CAD (K p. 423a) traduit ici kisitturn par "cuttings". Dans deux lettres d'un certain Asqudum qui est sans doute un marchand, B Zimri-Lim, il est question de bois de ddre, la premiere fois dans un contexte lacunaire (2611 18:48), Asqudum Ctant alors en route pour Alep, la seconde fois B props de la cargaison de bois dont il a Ct6 question plus haut (s.v. elmnmakkum), embarquk B Imar (2611 22:24). Un texte remontant au &gne de SQmu-Yamam enregistre la sortie d'un demi qa d'huile parfiunCe au ddre et d'une mine de bois de ddre pour le sacrifice gibbum du temple de Nergal (RA 64 [I9701 p. 34 n026).' Le cedre, mesun5 au poids, Ctait sans doute destine B Ctre briilC. Quant B l'huile parfumCe au CUE,elle est Mquemment mentionnk dans les textes de Mari (cf. 7 28:2, 29:3, 79:l; 21 134:s'; MARI 3 [I9841 p. 111-112). Nous avons vu plus haut (s.v. asum) que les bois de cure, de cypks et de myrte apportCs de Qama devaient avoir la mCme destination. Sauf dans des vdantes B l'inscription de YGdun-Lim, dans ARM 21 124 et dans 2611 18, le terme erdnum est toujours rendu par le sumCrogramme GIS.EREN.
BaStum Bdtum est la forme palCo-babylonienne du terme plus ¢ baltu. Cornme l'a signal6 D. Soubeyran dans ARM 23 p. 442, l'idk d'y voir un arbuste epineux, proposh par les dictionnaires, ne peut guere convenir; en effet, B Mari, ce bois sert B fabriquer des meubles: des sieges (ARM 21 298:24; 23 1965, 213:36), un tr6ne de divinie (23 518:2), un lit (23 244:5), un divan (maydlum) valant 10 sicles d'argent (22 322:46; 25 603 rev. 19). Des arbres bdtum croissent aussi dans des vergers (22 329:15,39,49). Brnum Un verger est plant6 de tamaris: GIS.SINIG (ARM 22 329:31). 11 est aussi question de tamaris (GIS.HAbi-nu-k-nu) dans une lettre traitant de la construction d'une glaciere (13 122:s'). Une lettre de Sidqum-Lanasi, un haut dignitaire de CarkCmish en relation d'affaires avec Zimri-Lim, signale B ce dernier qu'il n'y a plus de tamaris (GIS.HA bi-ia-nulni) chez son maitre (2612 5415-19). BuriiSum Un inventaire de biens t&s divers mentionne 2 qa bu-ra-Ju (ARM 23 74:s); comme le bois est mesun5 au poids, il s'agit vraisemblablement de la substance &sineuse extraite du genkvrier.
GiSimmarum Le palmier ne croIY pas naturellement dans la region de Mari. Il est donc normal qu'on en fasse venir de Rapiqurn, en Babylonie, par I'intermCdiaire de marchands (ARM 23 94:l-3). Hus tard, un texte fait Ctat du deplacement de quatre palrniers de la Cour du Palmier; J.M. Durand pense qu'ils auraient semi B dCcorer cette cour du palais (dans Le syst2me palatial en Orient, en Grbce et b Rome, Strasbourg, 1987, p. 56-57).
BuFumtum Une sorte de plateau ou de table (CIS pa-fu-ur SAG) est faite de bois de edbinthe: Sa bu-ti-um-ti (ARM 9 20:32). Daprdnum Le jardin du dieu Adad B Arrapka doit Ctre plane de cet arbre (ARM 1 136:8,13), dans lequel les dictionnaires voient une variCtC de genkvrier. D'autres n5fCrences se rapportent B l'huile parfiun& au daprdnum (1 17:18; 7 25:4), ou sont sans contexte (7 261:3'). Une note enregistre la livraison de six mines et demie de ddp-ra-nu pour fondre (Jub3cul) trois objets nommCs KAK.SAG, dont le sens n'est pas clair (23 514:l). Elammakkum 11 s'agit d'un bois pn5cieux qui n'a pu encore &treidentifie. Lorsque Yedun-Lim lance sa grande expt5dition jusqu'aux rives de le Mtkiiterrank, dans les "Montagnes de ddres et de buis", il y coupe du buis, du cedre, du cypks et de l'elarnmakkum (Syria 32 [I9551 p. 6 ii.17); cette provenance exclut la traduction " h i s de santal", proposCe jadis par R.C. Thompson, A Dictionary of Assyrian Botany, p. 300, le santal &ant un arbre des Indes. A Mari, on utilise ce bois pour fabriquer des meubles: une table pa-Ju-ur SAG (ARM 9 20:31), le plateau d'une table kaniJkarakkum (22 306:7), un tabouret (21 219:43), ou encore des portes qui seront ordes d'etoiles en argent (18 44:4,12). Les roues d'un char sont Cgalement faites en elamrnakkum (21 253:10), mais il s'agit d'un char d'un genre particulier dans la confection duquel interviennent l'or, l'argent et l'albiltre.' Enfin, un mCmorandum cite l'elammakkum sans autre contexte (23 98:s). Un chargement de diverses esfices de bois, comprenant notamment de l'elammakkum, en provenance apparemment du pays d'Alep, attend d'etre embarque B Imar B destination de Mari (2611 22:24).
Le bois B Mari
Gurummarum Il s'agit d'un arbre peu connu, que les textes lexicographiques interprhtent comme &ant le "palmier de montagne". Deux lettres de YasAm-SQmC1,un des hauts fonctionnaires du palais, font allusion B un gurummarum; la premiere, mal conservCe, traite de ses mesures, mais les chiffres ont disparu (ARM 13 45 et 48). Peut-Ctre cet arbre servait-il aussi B orner quelque endroit du palais.6 q
HilZpum Un texte tres mutile parle de deux saules (hi-le-pu) de 4 coudbes, soit 2 m (ARM 9 3783-4). Une liste de pieces de bois provenant d'habitants du district de Sagariltum mentionne des saules (hi-la-pu) B plusieurs reprises (23 581:5-7). Leurs dimensions sont variables: respectivement de 10 coudCes (5 m) de long et d'environ 25 cm de diamktre (5 qa), de 7 coudhs (3'50 m) et d'environ 11 cm de diametre (1 qa), et de 5 coudks (2'50 m); ces derniers sont dits "minces". Des planches (le-i: 581:12-14) mesurent 4 coudhs (2 m) de long; pour l'une d'elles, on donnait la largeur, mais la mesure est perdue. Aucune utilisation n'est indiquk. KamiSSarum Un trdne offert par Samsi-Adu B ItCir-MCr, le dieu patron de Mari, est fait en bois de poirier, ecrit par le sumCrogramme GIS.SENNUR.BABBAR.RA (Voir D. Charpin, MARI 3 [I9841 p. 73: 11 et p. 43).
Kupper
Le bois B Mari
Kupper
Le bois B Mari
K~&untZm Un homme de Qabd, dans la dgion transtigrine, apporte au palais un arc en kiSkanhn: 1 GIS.BAN Sa GIS.KfN, et un tronc: 1 CIS.(ARM 23 232:l--2). Cet arbre, qui n'btait attest6 jusqu'ici que dans des textes plus dcents, n'a pas CtC identifit5
SaSSiimm La liste qui vient d'em mentionnk emgistre dix fQts de Sa-Su-gu, mesurant 6 coudks (3 m); les uns ont 16 cm de diam&tre (2 qa), les autres sont "minces" (ARM 23 581:21-23). D'ap&s W. von Soden, il s'agirait d'un arbre fruitier.
Meluh,h,arn A deux reprises, des textes boquent une table kaniSkarakkum Sa me-lu-hi-im (ARM 23 103:9) ou Sn me-luh-ha (23 213:13). On n'a sans doute pas affaire A un bois sp&ifique, mais " " simplement A un bois provenant du pays de Meld@.
SimeSSali~m Dans deux passages, on a vraisemblablement affaire A de l'huile parfumk (Si-mi-iS-,fa-la-amdans ARM 1 17:18; Si-mi-Sa-lu-li dans ArOr 1711 [I9491 pl. VI:14), mais dans un misibme, il est question de transplanter des arbres Si-mi-iS-Sa-le-e-em dans les vergers de Mari (2611 21:12'-15'). Pour W. von Soden. AHw p. 1237b, cet arbre repdsente une variCtC de buis, mais J.M. Durand traduit, sans explication, par "poirier" (ARM 2611 p. 135).
Musukkannum I1 s'agit d'un bois exotique, t&s apprCciC pour la fabrication des meubles. Le CAD se contente de dire qu'il est import6 de l'Est, W. von Soden se rallie A l'identification proposk par R.C. Thompson: Dalbergia Sissoo. A Mari, on en fait des chaises (ARM 21 219:35; 25 672:2'), un tabouret (28 26:19), un lit (21 253:14), un char (25 676:4), et le manche d'un rasoir (25 728:14'). La graphie usuelle est GIS.MES.MA.GAN.ANNA ou simplement MA.GAN.AN.NA (25 672 et 676); une seule fois, on muve la version akkadienne ma-&s-ma-ka-an-nim (18 26). Nurmdm Du bois de grenadier est utdisC pour fabriquer le tr6ne d'Adad,(ARM 23 518:3). Des fits de grenadier, longs de 3 coudks (1,50 m) et minces, sont mentionnCs dans une liste de pibces de bois provenant d'habitants du district de Sagar5tum (23 581:ll). Des grenadiers figurent aussi parmi les essences croissant dans des vergers (22 329:14,36). La graphie est chaque fois NU.~R.MA. Sa'um Dans un mCmorandum, il est question d'arcs en bois sa-i-im (A.3622:10,15, dans Miscellanea Babylonica, p. 99). Jusqu'A pdsent, ce bois n7Ctait attestd que par les textes lexicographiques: le CAI) (S p. 202a) y voit une sorte de f&ne. Supiilum On considbre gCnCralement qu'il s'agit d'une sorte de gendvrier. I1 est surtout employ6 il Mari pour parfumer de l'huile (par ex. ARM 7 20:1, 41:l; 18 14:4, 27:16; 23 354:6, 474:3,4); cependant, un informateur signale qu'un chargement de 200 planches (le-li) de sli-pa-lim et de 8 fCits (GIS.HAsli-pa-lu), longs de 4 cannes (12 m), est retenu CarkCmish (14 31:15-16). Hors ce texte, on trouve partout un pseudo-sumCrogramme aux multiples variantes: ZA.BA.LUILLJM/LIM/LA, ZA.BA.AL, ZA.BA.AL.~ (cf. MAR1 3 [I9841 p. 112). Farbaturn Le peuplier de 1'Euphrate est un arbre commun en MCsopotamie. Samsi-Addu en a vu de grandes dimensions A Mari; en effet, ils mesuraient 3 ninda, soit 18 m de longueur, sur lo7, sous-entendu qa, c'est-A-dire environ 35.5 cm de diambtre. Le roi ordonne qu'on en abatte 20 ou 30 et qu'on les lui fasse parvenir (ARM 1 98). B@i-Lim, le prCfet du palais, demande qu'on lui apporte tous les peupliers disponibles (6 63:5'), probablement pour faire fabriquer des armes. Un court billet mentionne 6 grands peupliers (23 65:2), et des planches de peuplier, d'au moins 2 coudks de long, figurent Cgalement dans la liste de pibces de bois provenant d'habitants du district de Sagar5tum (23 581:1&20). Le responsable du palais de Mari, Uyur-awassu, Ccrit il Yasm$-Addu que le manque de bois de tiydrum va sans doute l'obliger utiliser du bois de peuplier pour la fabrication de chariots A usage cultuel (2612 285:29'-30').
Surm~num Dans les "Montagnes de ddres et de buis", Y+dun-Lim a coup6 du cyp&s, Ccrit GIS.SU.I~R.M~ ou Su-ur-mi-rm-am (Syria 32 p. 6 ii.16). Dti cypri?s figure dans la cargaison de bois embarquCe A Imar (ARM 2611 22:24; cf. ci-dessus S.V. .e)-l Nous avons vu plus haut (s.v. mum) que le chargement de bois de ddre, de cypri?s et de myrte en provenance de Qatna Ctait destine A la confection d'huile parfurnk (ARM 1 7:4,11). Toutes les autres r6fCrences se rapportent pareillement il des substances aromatiques ou il de l'huile parfurnee au cyp&s (par ex. ARM 7 11:1, 13:1, 14:3, et passim; ARM 21 106:10, 109:1, 110:1, 115:l-3; ARM 22 261:2). TaSkarinnum Le buis est un des bois les plus utilisCs A Mari. Yedun-Lim en a ramen6 des "Montagnes de CURSet de buis" (Syria 32 p. 6 ii.16), et du buis est embarque A Irnar destination de Mari (2611 22:25). Il sert A fabriquer des meubles: differents types de si&ges,des sibges ordinaires (21 21934; 25 672:4'), des sibges A pommeaux (22 306:3), des sibges de nautonie? (21 298:8,23; 22 306:6; 23 213:21,35), des tabourets (22 306:4), des lits (21 253:15; 22 306:2), un grand divan valant 10 sicles d'argent (22 322:45), et aussi des manches (napau)' pour des armes (23 66:1), des parties de char: ta-pa-lu10Sa GIS.GIGIR(13 11:12) et une amartum pour des "cornes" de char (23 516:l). On remuve plusieurs fois des pibces de ce g e m en buis (22 260:3, 310:l; 23 520:2;'26/1 105:18), mais le sens du terme amartum n'apparaft pas encore clairement dans ces divers contextes. D. Soubeyran a propol d'y voir quelque chose comme une "planche" (ARM 23 p. 444-445); on observera cependant que ces planches sont offertes en guise de cadeaux (22 310; 23 520; 2611 105) et que leur prix peut &re ClevC: un sicle d'argent l'unitk (22 260). Un document administratif nous montre par ailleurs que le buis Ctait d'un usage frauent: il enregistre un total de 162 troncs de buis non utilisCs par des responsables des provinces de Mari et de Sagarlitum, qui les avaient sans doute en dCp6t (21 272).11 Tiyiirum On admet le plus souvent que l'arbre tiyiirum, dont le nom est toujours Ccrit ti-ia-rulri, est une variCtC de genevrier, mais W. von Soden y voit avec plus de probabilitk du "cUre blanc" (AHw, p. 1355a)12Un document comptable signale que plusieurs lots de fQts ont CtC dceptionnCs par des travailleurs du bois (ARM 23 519). Plusieurs textes font Ctat de l'achat de mts de tiyiirum, achetCs dans le premier cas A un marchand de CarkCmish (21 214, 215; 25 341). Les prix indiqub sont trbs variables, allant de 4 sicles f d'argent pour 28 fQtr il 3 sicles pour 4. Certains de ces Mts ttaient destines A la fabrication de chars il chevaux: ma-ga-ri Sa ANSE.KUR.RA (21 215). D'autres passages vont dans le meme sens (2612 28526'-28', 541:20). Ailleurs, il est question d'un Clement de vase kunnum en tiyiirum (7 26416-18).13 Quant A
Kupper
Le bois & Mari
l'origine du bois, plusieurs lettres de Sidqum-Lanasi de CarkCmish pointent de nouveau en direction de cette ville; en effet, c'est ce personnage qui procure du bois tiydrum B Zimri-Lm (2611 539:20, 540: 14-16, 541:24--25). Du bois tiydrum est achek?, B un marchand d'Imar (23 523). Une petite caravane d'bes transportant du tiydrum est assaillie sur la route qui mtne d'Elahut, en Haute-MCsopotamie, B Man (2 123). Tigum Du bois de figuier est employ6 conjointement avec du bois bdtum et du bois de grenadier pour la fabrication du tr6ne d'Adad (ARM 23 518). Des sitges ordinaires sont galement faits de ce m h e bois (21 288:1,3). Une liste de pitces de bois livdes par des habitants du district de Sagaratum mentionne plusieurs fats de figuier, deux ont 5 coudCes (2,50 m) de long et environ 19,5 cm de diametre (3 qa); quatre ont deux coudks et demie (1,25 m) de long et environ 11 cm de diamttre (1 qa), et les deux derniers sont qualifies de "petits" (23 581:25-29). Les figuiers devaient &re abondants dans le pays, car ils croissent dans la plupart des vergers CnumCds dans une longue liste (22 329). Urnum
Cet arbre est communCment considtrC c o m e une esfice de d d r e (cf. AHw p. 1431b; CAD S p. 390b S.V. supdlu). 11 en est question dans plusieurs lettres de Yaqqim-Addu, le gouverneur de Sagaratum; celui-ci est dans l'attente de h i s urnu qu'il a commandCs (ARM 14 30: 15-19). On lui rapporte qu'un chargement de bois, comprenant notamment deux fiits d'urnum de 5 cannes (15 m) de long, est retenu B CarkCmish (14 31:15-17). 11 annonce qu'un certain Dariya a convoy6 du bois urnum dans une localit6 du district (14 32:7-10); or ce dernier personnage est originaire de ~arkkmish.'~ Dans un passage lacuneux, on parle de bois d'urnum qui pourraient &re laissCs Imar (2611 18:45-46). Ailleurs, des gens d'Imar parlent d'un fQt d'urnum qui mesure un suppum, 3 cannes et 2 coudks, soit 40 m de long (A. 623, dans MARI 6 [1990], p. 83). D'ap&s une lettre de Zimri-Lim, le roi d'ESnunna aurait maltraitC les messagers du roi Yarfm-Lim d'Alep parce que celui-ci ne lui avait pas livrC les bois d'urnum qu'il lui avait dclamCs (2611 2529-30). Bahdi-Lim, le pdfet du palais de Mari, demande qu'on lui envoie un fOt d'urnum en meme temps que des peupliers (6 635'). Une allusion B des fOts d'wnum figure aussi dans une lettre du gouverneur de Terqa, Kibri-Dagan, mais dans un contexte perdu (13 1295). U M m Le mot, que l'on traduit gCnCralement par Cke," est toujours Ccrit ~ 1 3 . ~ sauf ~1, exceptionnellement i-fi-im dans une lettre (A.670:15 dans MARI 5 [I9871 p. 601). A Mari, ce bois est utilisC pour fabriquer des meubles: un lit (ARM 21 253:13), un plateau kaniSkarakkum (24 288:6'), des tdnes de divinit6 (A.670; MARI 3 [I9841 p. 73:10'), et des manches ( ~ p l i d u ) d'armes d'apparat, en or ou plaquks d'or (21 223:10,13; cf. 13 11:20). Un chef c h m n t i e r envoie au palais deux objets en CWne, peut-&re des cannes ( ~ 1 3 . ~181 42:3). I1 s'agit certainement d'un bois pdcieux, vu son prix. Un texte estime la valeur de 14 mines d'CWne B 20 sicles d'argent (9 254:6-71, soit un sicle d'argent pour 42 sicles d'CMne. Ce prix 4evC est confirm6 par un texte datant de Shu-Yamam, oii l'on dCbourse, dans le &rum, 3 mines et demie d'argent pour l'achat d'un talent et 45 mines d'CMne, au taux d'une demi-mine par sicle d'argent (RA 64 [I9701 p. 28 no 13).16
Comme on vient de le voir, le bois sert surtout B fabriquer des meubles: des sitges et des trSnes,
Kupper
Lo bob h Mui
des tabourets, des tables, des lits, mais aussi, plus rarement, des armes, des p i h s de char, at be8 Cchelles. Dans la construction, le bois intelvient dans la fabrication des poW, et Men da la charpente. Plusieurs textes parlent de poutres (guSiiru) destinks h couvrir ( f u l l u h , wltkrm) des batirnents. Soixante poutres sont demandCes pour couvrir un temple li Kudo (ARM 1 122); elles devront mesurer 21 ou 22 coudCes, soit 1030 m ou 11 m. Deux grandes poum at 110 ku-st-pd-rum sont nkcessaires pour couvrir une salle du palais (23 522); D. Soubeyran a pmpd de voir des "bf~tons",ou plus proprement des "chevrons", dans le terme kusipdtum, nouveau d m ce sens (ARM 23 p. 446). Faute de poutres, Ccrivent deux fonctionnaires B Yasm@-Addu, on n'a pu encore couvrir l'Ctage de la cour du palais de Mari (2612 289). En vue de la constmction d'une glaciere B Sagaratum, le gouverneur de la ville craint de ne pas trouver de poutres d'une longueur suffisante pour couvrir le batiment (14 25). Le gouverneur de Terqa envoie B Mari 50 poutres de 2 cannes, soit 6 m, pour couvrir des murs (3 23). Ailleurs, les dimensions des poutres ne sont pas donnks (3 22, 25), ou bien leur usage n'est pas mentionnk (3 24; 13 128). On remarquera que nulle part17on n'indique de quel bois les poutres sont faites, soit que la nature du bois importait peu, soit que les poutres Ctaient normalement toujours faites du mCme h i s , qu'il Ctait dts lors inutile de pdciser. A c6tC des poutres gdaru et des planches arnardtum, on trouve, outre les kusipdtum, des pieces de bois nommCes pa-as-ri (ARM 3 24:5,15), Su-ba-ru (22 303:4,11,22, 304:2) et zu-ur-ma-ha-[turn] (7 254:2,3'). Les deux premiers termes sont dCjB connus. Pour J.-M. Durand, dans la documentation de Mari, les pasru repdsenteraient les transversales qui supportent la "soupe" d'argile et de paille constituant le toit des batiments, par opposition aux poutres gdaru.la De Su-ba-ru on rapprochera un objet nommC "Su-ub-ba-a-ru que cite une l e a nCo-babylonienne (cf. AHw p. 1256b). Chemin faisant, j'ai signal6 le lieu de provenance du bois, quand il y est fait allusion. A plusieurs reprises, le mi donne l'ordre B Kibri-Dagan, le gouverneur de Terqa, de lui expddier des poutres (ARM 3 22,23,24,25,26; 13 128). Kibri-Dagan en acquiert chez les habitants du pays (3 23) ou en fait chercher B Halabit (3 24), qui correspond B la moderne ~ a l C b i ~ CUn . ' ~ document comptable fait Ctat d'un lot de plus d'un millier de poutres provenant du domaine de Sammhar (24 272); or ce dernier possCdait un domaine Terqa (24 27434). D'autres documents enregistrent la rCception de grandes quantitks de poutres et de Su-ba-ru des districts de Mari, de Terqa et de Sagarahun (22 303 et 304); dans le premier cas, le total atteint 2.500 pieces de bois. Yaqqim-Addu, le gouverneur de Sagaratum, annonce que les gens de son district et ceux du district de Mari sont all& dans la fo&t, apparemment pour y chercher du bois (14 25:9'-11'). Mentionnons encore la liste de pieces de bois d'essences diverses livdes par des habitants du district de Sagaratum (23 581). Toutes ces informations semblent bien Ctablir que le royaume lui-mCme disposait de ressources non m6diocres en bois.
Le bois B Mari
NOTES Je dois cette interpdtation A M. Powell, que je remercie vivement; voir sur cette question ses observations dans AfO 31 (1984) 2~444.Le t r o ~ est ~ : divid th6oriquement en une d i e de tranches de 6 doigts (ubcmitum) de hauteur. La base de la d6finition peut se formuler de la fqon suivante: une tranche mesurant une coud6e (50 cm) de circonfhnce contient 2 qa. Ce bois, que l'on a propod notamment d'identifier au styrax, n'est employ6 Mari que pour ses propriCt6s mmatiques: ARM 21 106:1,12, 1193; A.3622: 12 (dans Miscellanea Babylonica, p. 99). Pour la baduction des termes s-ltum, 211-212.
kammurn et ku-mu-da-ia, voir J.M. Durand, ARM 2611 p.
J.M. Durand pense que les chars de ce type Ctaient soit des ex-voto destinh A Ctre &po& dans les temples, soit des mod6les de grand luxe, comme on en muve dans les tombeaux 6gyptiens (ARMT21 p. 280). Voir la relecture de ce passage dans MARI 2 (1983) 119; sur le s a d i c e gibbum, cf. J.M. Durand, ARMT 21 p. 21. Cf. M. Birot, Syria 41 (1964) 33-34. Pour la lecture 3 NINDA-AM i-nu e-Sa-[ar], cf. J.M. Durand, MARI 5 (1987) 185. Le sihge dit de nautonier doit &re un sihge d'apparat: c'est sur un tel sikge que s'assied le roi selon le rituel du culte d'IStar (RA 35 [I9381 p. 2 ii.10). Sur cette traduction, voir J.M. Durand, MARI 5 (1987) 186. Sur ce terme, cf. J.M. Durand, MARI 2 (1983) 142 note 9. Les mt?mes responsables figurent dans un autre document qui 6num6re des quantit6s consid6rables de pikes de bois (ARM 22 303). Cf. B. Lafont, ARM 26/2 p. 515 note 40. Sur ce passage, cf. J.M. Durand, ARMT 21 p. 362-363. Cf. B. Lafont, ARM 26/2 p. 520. Cf. en dernier lieu K. Van Lerberghe, dans M. Stol, On Trees. Mountains, and Millstones in the Ancient Near East, Leyde, 1979, p. 34-47. Cependant, D. Charpin et J.M. Durand traduisent par "6rable*', sans justifier leur position.
Voir la relecture du passage dans MAR1 2 (1983) 118. Sauf dans 26/2 2899, mais le text. est lacuneux en cet endroit
RA 83 (1989), p. 187. Voir aussi, pour d'autres utilisations du terme, ARM 2611, p. 581 note f). Cf. J.M. Durand, ARM 2611 p. 126. C'est aussi de m b i t que l'on ramhe les poutres &stinks B couvrir 1'6tage du palais (2612 289: 10'-11').
WOOD, REEDS AND RUSHES A note on Neo-Babylonian practical texts G. van Driel (Leiden)
Though there can be little doubt that wood, reeds and rushes' played a vital role in the Neo-Babylonian economy, especially for building purposes, for household utensils and containei-s, and as fuelZor fodder: the information provided by Neo-Babylonian texts is restricted. This is relatively easily explained by the background of the texts. House building is scarcely mentioned in private archives; there are very few contracts. Tenancy contracts describe the obligations of the tenant for the upkeep of the house in standardised terms, which do not contribute much. Inventories of household goods, in general related to nudunnFarrangements, list "expensive" goods, like beds, tables and chairs only, but not furnishings made of "reeds". Sales of land and tenancy contracts concern themselves only with fruit-bearing trees. Wood and reed appear only marginally in the private archives. As to the temple archives, in practice those of Ebabbar in Sippar and Eanna in Uruk, we are perhaps unlucky. There are clear indications that considerable amounts of building material were acquired by the temples, but only a few texts dealing with wood have been published. The supply of wood for agricultural tools (ploughs, shovels) is not well attested either, no doubt because, in contrzst to iron, this was in general the responsibility of the "tenant".
1 Trees and Timber The problems concerning the word for "tree" and "timber" in Neo-Babylonian have been discussed by ~andsberger.' isu is rare, though it occurs with a certain frequency in the expression issi GUN for fruitbearing date palms. It is used in VS 6 66:19 01s of other unspecified trees, in express contrast to date palms. But unspecified trees also occur as OR in Cl?44, 78 (Art, unspecified, yr. 4): 1 [SA]HAR.HI.A GI '*i'~zim-ba-nu4 Sa [x x (x)]:' "earth, reeds and trees constituting the z." GISThe zimbanu, land deposited by a river or canal, is sold together with what grows upon it. OR, gzdiiru has a much more general meaning than "beam", it would seerp. Cf., perhaps, WVDOG IV no. IV:iv.8, damaged. As proposed by Landsberger, the ordinary late word for "tree" and "log*' seems to be husdbu, with all the practical complications this entails for its separation from the similarly indicated woodlike parts of the date palm, the stem of the front, which had to be delivered by tenants to their landlords, mainly, it would seem, as fuel. That hu;~dbucan indicate growing trees is especially clear in YOS 3, 200, quoted by Landsberger Date Palm p. 50 R, a letter from Uruk, complaining about the fact that land planted for 13 years with Tilmun date palms, which have begun to bear fruit, and another tree.' has been divided into lots by a group of Sirkus, who on the day they did so (line 29-30) cut down a thousand hu-sa-bi of 6 to 12 SILA,, i.e., with Landsberger, of between 27 to 38 cm thickness. husiibu here refers to live trees. This disposes of the notion that wood called husdbu is automatically "dry".
van Driel
Wood, Reeds and Rushes
Further confirmation is found in another Uruk text, Stigers JCS 28, no. 7 (16.IX.Cyr.5). A ~ of group of "carpenters" (NAGAR) is sent to a place called '%m S& *GASANS& U N U G ~"Forest Belh of Uruk" in order to cut trees and to carry iiru, translated AHw p.1435L as "Glied, Stiel", to Eanna: 20a-na da-ku S& 0' hu-sa-bu ku-bu-ru-ti 21P GHti-re-e a-na B.AN.NA"a-na za-bi-li. Probably as a caution (the text is dated to 16.IX, while work is to start on the 18th) it is stated that if someone turns up and provides proof that they have sold or given away Gfihu-sa-bu or GIS ku-bu-ru-ti, they will have to pay the thirty-fold restitution due to the gods in such cases. They must also (each?) bring a daily load of "ti-re-e. h@bu stands again for the e s , kubburu probably for the thicker cut-offs or saplings, if ddku also refers to them in a literal manner. ziru refers almost inevitably to the branches. As we will not discuss fruit trees we must restrict ourselves to the few otherwise useful trees in the texts, that means bilepu, "willow" and sarbatu "poplar". The identifications rest on the etymological grounds provided by the dictionaries. That willows were planted on purpose along canals is relatively well attested. &una~-re~-u~ur planted them along his Euphrates canal: and the obligation is occasionally imposed upon the tenant in contracts dealing with the planting of orchards.' The willows are to stand on the bank of the irrigation canal. For sarbatu we do not apparently have this information, but that this tree together with the hilepu was regarded as a valuable asset is made clear by two Uruk textsg from 8.IX.Nbn.yr.9, in which two different persons are cautioned in identical terms about illegal fishing and removal of 6 ....01shi-le-pu GISsar-ba-ti 'GI.MES P "hu-sa-bi "willows, poplars, reeds and wood", from the tamirtus (KILIBxyA) on the Nar-Sam belonging to the temple: if proof of their guilt is forthcoming they will have to pay the usual thirty-fold penalty to the goddess. hqdbu, as "unspecified wood", stands in opposition to "reeds" in these texts. The tenancy contract BE 811, 118 is regrettably damaged. Whether [hi]-le-pu can be restored in line 15 is not completely certain, but it seems that whatever they plant is shared by landlords and tenants: 16ma-laina lib-bi i-Sak-k[a-an a]-&z-a[-fa]-Su-nu;the same is the case with the reeds (qa-ni-e S& ina lib-bi). The broken passage that follows pemaps contains the stipulation that the willows must be planted before a certain date. Texts dealing with timber hardly ever specify the type of tree from which the material derives. BIN I 165 is an exception. According to lines 13-15 someone has received13 PAP 133 0' 14 hi-le-pi 60 Gd~~-ma-a-tu 40 '"ASAL qa-at-ta-nu-tu, "in toto 133 willows, 60 S and 40 small poplars". The number 133 is reached by adding up all the numbers marked against a PN, which are stated to represent willows in the first line only, and t h m (instead of the damaged two remaining) hu-sa-bi, "logs", unspecified, in line 5. The persons mentioned in lines 5 and 7 each supply (additionally in 5) 30 OISSu-ma-a-tti.This is not a new tree, but to all probability the Sumd, plur. Sumtitu of AHw p.1276 L, which leads an infrequent existence among the tools, Neo-Babylonian examples being mentioned in Nbn 433, 8. BIN I 1655 could suggest that Sum9 tentatively translated "handle" on lexical grounds, is in essence a smaller piece of wood than a bqiibu, which could be used as a handle for, for instance, a shovel. In BIN I 165 it is a certain size of hilepu-wood.10Who delivers the sarbdtu, which are said to be small, is not indicated. Among the people who contributed the willows are a striking number of textile workers. There seem to be three words which indicate certain, for us unspecified, sizes of timber, but the type of wood is not given as a rule: gdnru, bqdbu and Sumd. l1
van Driel
i
ir I
Wood, R&B ud Rurhu
gdziru occurs in texts connected with building. Occasionally they are bought in conrldenble numbers. Eanna bought from Eibiannum 360 gdziru for 1 mina of silver, i.e. 6 for 1 J, with delivery in ~i1bat.l~ The length is specified as *S&15.AT a-di UGU Sd lO.AM, ' i 1 ~KO$ ar-ra-ku "between 15 and 10 cubits long", which seems a fairly ample range. VS 6, 218, a text from a small building archive from the reign of Darius I tells us that 220 beams of 20 cubits constituted the work quota of two per~cms.'~ These can hardly be heavy beams. Usually numbers are much lower. BIN I1 123, Uruk Nbn.yr 8, promises the delivery of 26 gdziru of 10 KOS, with the qualification tapalu "of similar girth". The text has been edited by San Nicolb and Petschow, BR 6 no. 79. They read the place of delivery in line 5 as A.SA.MESS& ati-rfn-na-a-a, which, though not known otherwise suggests local production. In Nbk 102 the SamaS temple in Sippar acquires 24 gdiiru, no length specified, for 27 S. A mixed lot of beams was received by Tabija Sin-ili according to VS 6, 279, date lost, composition illogical, arithmetic faulty. The total, whether 56 (line 6) or 57 (line 11). cannot be right, whatever is done with a subtotal in line 4. The gdiiru involved are small (qallzitu), i.e. 7 or 6 cubits, but there are also 20 of 16 and 15 of 12, amongst the longest Neo-Babylonian beams recorded. GIS OR.MES The Egibi text Nbn 66 (22.41b.Nbn.2) introduces another qualification '20 ta-pa-lu KA [email protected] 'Sf 12AM3 ar-ra-ka, "20 similarly sized beams ... each of 12 cubits length". The KA SUHUSclause14is also found in Nbn 441:2 and VS 6, 148:2. This last text from the Babylon Napp@u archive, gives not only more specifications, but also stipulates delivery on the mdannitu at Kar-TaSmetu, thus again suggesting local production: '2 0' OR ta-pa-lu ga-w-su-tu bab-ba-nu-ti-tu 2Se-eb-tu-tu S& 2/3 KOS rap-Su-'u ina lib-bi 1 KA 10 ina 1 KOS ar-ki P llqab-1-114-tiS&5 ina 1 KOS br-ki 1 1 "OR hu-bi-i S& 8 ina i~u-[u'l-ma 1 KOS 'ar-ki PAP 3 G'O~ bab-ba-nu-tu, "2 beams of the same girth, smoothed, of good quality, trimmed, two thirds of a cubit wide, one which...., (should be) 10 cubits long and one (of) medium (quality?) of 5 cubits long, moreover one hewn beam of 8 cubits long, in total 3 beams of good quality". KA iS-du said of the first piece of wood corresponds to the qablu of the shorter second one. Both have to be tapalu, "of similar girth". The first is 32cm broad, which is considerable, especially so as the beam had been hewn and trimmed smooth, as suggested by gqsu and S e b ~No . purpose is indicated. The first two lines of Nbn 441, which represents two copies ("exemplars"), cannot be read with certainty. A number of beams, probably two of an unknown'number of cubits, of similar girtR will have to be KA (not really visible) il-da-a-te. MKT 1, 368.1.2 opposes iSdu to appu when dealing with the diameter of logs. Though the measurement of the iSdu is lost in this passage, there seems little doubt that iSdu indicates the broader "bottom" of the log. biib iSdu could indicate therefore a minimum grade for the bottom end only, or that the diameter of the whole log had to be equal? When used for roofing a similar diameter would be advantageous, but in general this seems expressed by tapalu.'' The 20 odd beams mentioned in the texts quoted above, with a length of minimally 10 cubits, 5 metres, would roof all except the very largest rooms in the Merkes houses in Babylon. When roofing was the purpose of the beams, the texts almost inevitably deal with poplars. The fact that willows were planted almost certainly means that osiers were used. I cannot identify a word for them.
van Driel
Wood, Reeds and Rushes
Nbn 441:6 not only tells us that the beams have to be pi-it-tan-nu, "strong, sound", but also a-ba-lu-turn "dry".16 Whether some "seasoning" is indicated and the delivery in month 8 means something, is uncertain.17 wiibu (and Surnu) are not specified as to size, as far as I can see, but for what is said in YOS 9, 200, quoted above. The dictionaries quote occurrences of hqiibu as indicating wood suitable for specific purposes: ploughs (VS 6, 190:2) ships (UCP 9 p. h, 24:30, cf. perhaps BIN I 143:8), doors (GC I 92, cf. perhaps I1 358 - mix up with the date palm hqiibu possible - ), but always without specification of size. The Uruk text published by McEwan in OrAnt 23 (1984) p. 50, which provides certain people with silver and wool in lieu of silver for the acquisition of mbriftu, "trade goods", for Eanna, lists as such desirables iron, tin, wine and hu-sa-bu (unspecified, imported) wood. The Ur letter UET 4,185 could indicate that musukkannu was still being imported in this period, but the Sippar locality ~it~a-Sa-"'mesma~anna could be a sign of local planting. A Surmbnu "cypress" (I-en "'Sur-man-ni) is presented together with a lamb as eSru in the Sippar text Cyr 247 (line 2). Neo-Babylonian practical texts are singularly reticent about imported wood. Royal inscriptions quoted by the dictionaries under e.g. d @ u , erbnu and Jurmbnu etc., underline the importance of foreign timber for the building of temples and palaces. These materials were not for ordinary use. A slightly wider idea of the timber available can be obtained from the material used for furniture. As M. Roth will publish a full list of Neo-Babylonian household goods in AfO there is no need to duplicate her work by providing a similar list. It seems that while willow is used, poplar is not. musukkannu occurs regularly. In Nbn 171 (28.IX.Nbn.4) Nabti-ahhe-iddina Egibi gives musukkannu-wood and wages to a craftsman (?) for the making of a bed. This type of wood was available for the ordinary citizen. w w
2 Reeds That reed stands were an asset is clear from several of the texts quoted above: CT 44, 78; YOS 6, 122 and 148. One could add TCL 13, 203 (Art. II.yr.2) where lands belonging to a bow fief are shared out for a period of 15 years. An B ap-pa-ru (line 21) on the Sin-canal is assigned to one of the parties.
Another indication of the importance of this material is the frequent occurrence of place names containing the element hqsbtu18 and the 12 hu-q-su, "reed huts or houses", even in the main towns like Babylon and Borsippa. 19 Contracts about the construction of these structures are still amongst the most difficult to understand. Published are the Borsippa texts VS 5, 50 (20.III.Camb.4) and VS 5, 117 (22.VIII.Xer.O). C.B.F.Walker has published BM 136872 of uncertain provenance." Both this text and VS 5, 50 mention a rugbu, "upper room". Reed fences on roofs of ordinary houses (CT22, 24) are also attested: gisallu. The terminology for reeds in the text is not rich: almost always qanz2, GI, with possibly ~ u . is~ Sinnipiturn, "two-thirds reed" as a kind of half-product intended for the a r k ~ ~ Rare takkussu. An attempt to find out whether there is a clear season for harvesting reeds was not successful either: a register of contracts from the Nabu-uSallim archive, BaM 5 p.228,17.IV.12, mentions month XII, for Sippar CT 55, 161:4 does the same. But the Egibi text BRM I 57 (28.VIII.Ner.3): 5 mentions month I11 as date of delivery. An unpublished text gives month I. But YOS 7, 172 (7.VIII.Camb.4) states that reeds belonging to the temple will be harvested belatedly before the 20th of month VIII. This seems a "Holzweg". Yet the period around the end of the
""
Wood, Reedr ud R w h
van Driel
year could be the normal moment for harvesting reed. VS VI 2 (Sippar 1.11.Smilk.2) and Evetu, App. (Sippar 25.III.Sin-Sar-iSkun.2) stipulate delivery in months XI and XI1 respectively. Another approach could be that through the way the reeds are delivend. VS 6, 2:l (1.11.$mSk.2), "early Sippar", mentions 30 GUN S& GIMES N~G.GA %u, "30 loads of reed8 belonging to Sama~".But the normal "bundle" seems to have been the guzullu. Of some intcrwt 10 ! LO is CT 55, 426 (l9.~11~'.~[bn].l2): 4 ERIMMES U4-mu 4 me 20 KI.MIN (=gu-zu-ul-lu) " a-nu muh-hi a-m-nu '?A UGU x x x x ''a-di a-&-nu S& 1-en LO 15 14gu-zu-ul-luf~-Ji:"4(!) men will carry 420 bundles of reeds to the oven, from the ... to the oven every man will carry (each time) 15 bundles". Each man goes seven times, with 15 bundles for a load, it seems. In this passage the reeds no doubt served as fuel. But in guzullus, it seems, it also went to the arkuppu for the making of mats (bud) (Lab 1, 22.II.LbSm.O) or for the repair of a bridge (Nbn 753, 6.I.Nbn. 14) or for torches (same text). In this text 100 bundles cost 1 S. In Uruk prices are much lower, possibly a reflection of the local geographical circumstances. The evidence is not ample, however: GC I 341 (28.IX.Nbn.8) 400 guzullu for 1 & YOS 6, 133 ([x.]VIII.Nbn.lO) 500 for 1 S, GC I 295 (l.IX.Nbn.10) again 400 for 1 S. These prices agree with GC I 237 where 6000 guzullu are valued at 70 mina of wool. YOS 17, 211 (19.[x.]Nbn.16) seems to mention 9 S for 1200 guzuUu, 1 S for just over 175, but the price could be affected by the fact that military use seems intended. A guzullu will have consisted of complete stalks. OECT X 125, a receipt, ostensibly from "KiS" seems to confront us with 55 516 pi-turn S& GI. pitu is the usual NB word for bundles of garlic. Yet another word for a bundle of reeds is found in CT 56, 64:20 it seems. There is not much sense in a no doubt incomplete list of the products of the atkuppu's craft. The various mats and baskets remain no more than words. w
w
Rereading the texts with an increased awareness will no doubt result in changes in these provisional pages.
NOTES
1
Though reeds and rushes figure separately in the title I cannot pretend to be able to separate them in ancient terminology. I use the traditional equation GI = qanli = reed.
2
I refrain from discussing medical and magic application, though certainly for the Babylonians this represented utilitarian use of commodities.
3
The use of "reeds" as fodder for sheep will not be discussed, as "sheep" are reserved for the next meeting.
4
AfO, Beiheft 17 (1967) (= Date Palm) p. 48-53.
5
On zirnbanu cf Zadok BiOr 33, 6. The text is not mentioned in Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 4 (1988) p.143. The sign NAM seems to have the value zim, cf, perhaps, VS 5, 138:l.
6
This other tree, of which I cannot find traces elsewhere, constitutes a problem. YOS 3, 200: IS GIS S...G*@m-nzu-{u NI.[TUK]~-~ 3 "'A LU 6... ni-iz-za-qap; mi-nam-ma A LU S6(?) x [u qaq-gar
van
Dlriel
Wood, Reeds and Rushes
TREES AND TIMBER IN THE ASSYRIAN
161a-pa-niGARIM (KILIB X )+I ru-[i]-[qu](?) ta-nu-Jcl-A.M. 33d iruz lib-bi 'ISA LU.MES Jd d ~ Jcl ILR\TUG]" ~ Uip-te-tu-5. S ~ So: 1)~ A.LU's have been planted with date palms 2) people are asked why they carried them away from a specified area 3) people have opened a "gate" among them, though (?) they belong to Belet of Uruk. Especially lines 5-6 suggest a tree for "A LU. Reading qal!-lu does not solve the problem; after 13 years "small" makes no sense.
YOS 6, 67:13; BE 8, 118:18 cf ROMCT I1 9:14. Cf. possibly also YOS 3, 200:6 in Ebelings reconstruction of the texr as the passage remains incomplete the matter remains equally uncertain. YOS 6, 122 and 148. That things are not completely straightforward is indicated by Nbn 743:32 1 G& a-na '*h a-na has, again, the general meaning "tree, wood" suggested by CT Ju-ma-turn Jcl mar-ri, unless 44, 78:l. Other words could be O ' S ~ twnbu, ~ ; cf. Nbn 78411 and CT 55, 426: produced by an action called h,uppdlh,epd.Also '%I, dltallu cf. especially VS 6, 220 and YOS 6, 146:ll. I. Spar, Studies in Neo-Babylonian economic and legal texts (1972), Univ. Microfilms 1979, no. 6. '220 '%It 20 [?ina 1 &S or-ra-kul ina ESGAR $6 PN, 'u PN,. Cf. CAD I/J iJdu p.237. The nature of the complaints of the author of the letter TCL 9, 121:7-14, cf. 30-32, is not clear to me. The opposite could be (NA, ABL 1066) ralbu. Tablet A in A. L. Oppenheim et al., Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient Mesopotamia (Corning 1970), p. 32, line 10 requires poplar wood cut in month 10 for use in the kiln. This will be a "magical" requirement, not an indication of preference for the cutting of trees in a specific period. R. Zadok Rkpertoire Gkographique des textes Cunkiformes 8 p. 169-177. Babylon: the Egibi texts Camb. 423:l (4 VIII.Camb.yr?), Dar 3798 (24.V.Dar.14) and ZA 3, p. 157 no 16:l (Sama3-eriba 0); in Borsippa Dar 367, 1 (x.IX.Dar.13). Camb. 433 with a location in the TE.E quarter of Babylon makes it clear that these constructions did not occur on the quays only. M. Roth will publish a text indicating the presence of a (6) h,us~uin @rsagkalama. JCS 30 (1978) p. 237-9 Camb. 417. For AHw p. 1307 takkussu is a "Rohrhalm, -stengel". Landsberger, Date Palm, p. 51 L, contrasted takkussu, "freshly cut" with h,usdbu, "dry", but we have seen that there are no compelling reasons to regard 4. as dry. AHw p. 1280 accepts JuppatulJubbatu "Binse", quoting DAB (p.9) as the authority. The only practical late Babylonian occurrence seems Cyr 335:2. elpetu seems extremely rare and "practically" obsolete in NB. "Unpractical": kdtu, urbatu and JiSnu, all equivalents of
w,
OGUG,.
J. N. Postgate
I
TEXTS 8
i
(Cambridge)
These notes cover the written sources for timber exploitation in Assyria, principally d u r n the Neo-Assyrian period (1000-600 BC), but also making use of the scrappy references available for the Middle Assyrian period (140&1000 BC). I believe that the evidence is important for our purposes because from it derive some of the species identifications which are cumnt for the earlier periods as well, as for instance Surmdnu = cypress. This is for two reasons: one is the geographical information as to timber origin contained in the Assyrian royal inscriptions, the other is the etymological connections in later languages which are of course closer to Neo-Assyrian than to Old Babylonian or Sumerian. The sources It is important to define the nature of the written sources rather carefully, because they are written for very specific purposes and cannot be used reliably unless this is kept in mind. This emerges very clearly if one looks at the occurrence of species in different types of text: a large group of trees is found almost exclusively in the royal inscriptions which were compiled to glorify the achievements of the king, and will only refer to timber when it contributes to this theme. In consequence the references to trees in these inscriptions can be easily classified into a small number of typical topoi (see below). In the discussion of individual species it will become clear how this may influence our identifications (e.g. dzihu). (We do not have to disbelieve the statements of the kings, merely to place them in their right context, and indeed there are a few mentions of timber in the royal correspondence, especially under Sargon, which substantiate the claims of the formal inscriptions.) By contrast, certain species (alldnu, Iyliluppu, sarbatu, Sakullu, SaSSugu) never turn up in the royal inscriptions, but are known from administrative or legal texts to have been cultivated or at least exploited. We must not allow the bombast of the kings to blind us to the probability that the great majority of wood used in Assyria comes from this group, and the only real corrective to the impression given by the royal inscriptions would be the assiduous collection and identification of wood samples by the archaeologists. References from Middle Assyrian sources of the same kind have also been examined, but these are so scrappy that they cannot be expected to yield much useful information; comparison with the data in the Nuzi texts, which I have not undertaken, might be more instructive, and the data from Neo-Assyrian royal inscriptions should also be enlarged from Neo-Babylonian texts of the same kind. Identification An attempt has been made to define the reasons underlying both traditional and new identifications. In some cases the translations used by Assyriologists are based on little more than long usage, and need to be tested again. In early years lexicographers placed much reliance on etymological connections: sometimes these are clearly correct, sometimes less so, but in any case the fact that the word is the same does not mean that it refers to the same species. For instance, I have felt obliged to reject the traditional translation of dzihu even though it may well be based on an impeccable etymological equation. When we know that names of fruit-trees as
Postgate
Trees and Timber in the Assyrian Texts
familiar and as different as plum and pear can be transferred from one species to another, a shift from one conifer to another cannot be ruled out. Further, quite apart from the disparity between Linnaean classification and indigenous perceptions of differences and similarities, we know that nomenclature in ancient times could be highly inconsistent. This applies even to Latin and Greek (see Meiggs 1982, 410ff. on cedrus!). This means not that we should discard the etymological tool altogether, but that we should use it with caution: as in other walks of life, it is a bad workman who blames his tools. Another problem with nomenclature is the possibility that a single species may have borne more than one name, either at different times and in different dialects, or in the same time and place. Fortunately the Assyrian sources are rather helpful on this point, because we have several lists of different sorts of tree or timber which virtually rule out the possibility that the terms there used refer to the same species; and the list on the Banquet Stele of Assurnasirpal in particular may reasonably be assumed to be a fairly comprehensive list of the trees familiar to the Assyrians at that time. Otherwise, we can only observe carefully the occurrence or non-occurrence of terms, and hold open the possibility that some of them apply to the same species (cf. liiiru and elammaku below).
The evidence from the royal inscriptions is presented in Chart 1, with some additional analysis in Charts 2 and 3. My discussion is arranged below alphabetically under the Assyrian words, concluding with a short section on species for which an identification has not been proposed. Here just some introductory observations.
Exotic species The vast majority of references to cutting timber by Assyrian kings apply to the ranges bordering the east end of the Mediterranean - Amanus, Lebanon, Mt. Hermon (Sirara), and Anti-Lebanon (Amma(na)na?). The pattern of exploitation and the species emerge from Chart 1. This evidence has been thoroughly discussed by Meiggs 1982, and there is nothing significant that I can add. It is perhaps worth stressing the obvious point that if these species had grown nearer to home, the Assyrians would not have made such a fuss about felling them over in the west: the implication is that at least cypress and cedar were not normally directly accessible to them - and with one exception there are no mentions of them growing nearer to Mesopotamia but this does not of course exclude the possibility of acquiring such timber through trade, and the occasional references to cedar logs as a form of booty or tribute show that they probably did constitute an item of commerce, something which would naturally not be mentioned in the royal inscriptions. Trees grown in plantations There are three sources of evidence for this. Several of the Assyrian kings, going back to Tiglath-pileser I in the 11th century, tell us that they collected plants and trees from the countries they had visited on campaign, and/or established botanical gardens at their capital cities. Secondly, their inscriptions occasionally refer to plantations in countries they are attacking, usually in order to tell us that they have destroyed them. Thirdly, there is some evidence from correspondence and administrative documents of domestic plantations within Assyria. Botanical gardens are mentioned by Tiglath-pileser I, Assurnasirpal 11, Sargon, Semacherib, Assurbanipal. Usually we only hear of the project in fairly general terms, but one precious document is the Banquet Stele of Assurnasirpal which gives a list of some 40 trees planted at
Trees and Timber in the Assyrian Texts
Postgate
I
Kalhu. In the reign of Sargon some of his officials write about the production and transport of various trees for the new capital planned at Khorsabad, including cedar and cypress saplings. We hear nothing of the eventual fate of these prestigious plantations; the nearest we come to it is Sennacherib's claim that textiles were produced from the 'wool-bearing trees', and timber from cypresses, he had planted. This Assyrian tradition is of course a forerunner to the Hanging Gardens of Babylon described by classical authors, but we know nothing in detail of that scheme. In the royal inscriptions the kings occasionally boast of cutting down the plantations in the countries defeated by them, a scene to be found illustrated on some contemporary reliefs. The commonest sufferers were the date-groves of Babylonia (TP 111, Sargon) but we also hear of musukkannu (TP 111) and "all kinds of tree and reeds" (Esarhaddon) in Babylonia (TP 111), of orchards (kird) of Bit-Adini on the Euphrates below Carchemish (Shalrnaneser 111), "innumerable plantations" (sippiite) at Arpad north of Aleppo (TP 111) and of groves (kird) and forests (qstu) in Urarp (Sargon). Unique at present are Esarhaddon's reports that during the abandonment of Babylon "reeds and poplars (sarbiiti)" began to flourish, and that when he had rebuilt the city he encouraged the planting of groves (sippati). Trees are mentioned in the correspondence of Sargon, and these are principally in the region west of Nineveh (Sinjar, and the Habur), and on the middle Euphrates in the region of modern Anah (see Fales 1983). Most of the evidence concerns fruit-trees (cf. Postgate 1987a, 128ff.). There is also correspondence about cutting and shipping timber downstream from the northern provinces in the region of the modern Turkish frontier. A few timber plantations are mentioned in roughly contemporary legal texts and in the census of lands round the western city of Harran. These include sarbutu, SdSugu, @luppu and alldnu, and clearly represent the indigenous arboriculture of the area. There are occasional references to timber in administrative documents (cf. below under mi@), but not usually in a form explicit enough to tell us whether local plantations are involved.
adiiru
"(a poplar?)"
Populus sp.
This, adiiru, is probably the normal Assyrian reading of the logogram (GIS.)A.AM = ILDAG, rather than the alternative ildakku. Both the logographic and the syllabic writings are attested for the material of wooden vessels in the 13th century inventory KAJ 310 (edited as No. 50 in Postgate 1988). The tree is mentioned in ABL 704+ (cf. Fales 1983, 55 No. 9 "cutting(?) adiiru-poles (and) reeds in the river"). For reasons which seem to me acceptable CAD IIJ, 71, identify the earlier name, ildakku(m), as a poplar, I wonder whether, in view of AbB 1, 33:18 k.giS.2 kima &rim arraku u miidis damqu "the sesame is as high as &rum and very good", it would not be preferable to make &rum the Populus euphratica, and sarbatum (q.v.) P. albalnigra. Quercus sp. alliinu Long identified as an oak by comparison with the Hebrew 'albn (LXX: balanos, drus). Which species is another matter: Thompson 1949, 249-50 is completely astray in his identification of "belut" as Q. infectoria (recte: tillutu = vine!), but since only that species yields the galls which are an important item in leather-working, it is at least possible that it was regularly distinguished from the other oaks (esp. Q. aegilops).
Postgate
Trees and Timber in the Assyrian Texts
Given that oaks are the dominant species throughout the hills and mountains enclosing Assyria to the east and north, they are surprisingly rarely mentioned in our texts: this prompts CAD A/i, 355b to comment that "it seems the wood had no emmmic use", but this can hardly be right, since a Neo-Assyrian land sale mentions a plantation of alkinu occupying about 2 hectares (ADD 4445). Nevertheless, it is striking that the wood is never mentioned in the royal inscriptions, and the reason must be that it was so readily accessible geographically, and hence so generally in use throughout society, that it was neither necessary nor prestigious for the kings to acquire or make use of it. This is a useful object lesson in the dangers of transferring data uncritically from one context to another. The 'Kanesh oak' (allcinkanif) is not native to Assyria and is listed as introduced into their gardens by Tiglath-pileser I and Assurnasirpal 11. Given its name it may come from Anatolia, but it would be naive to assume that it must be a Quercus species. See also haluppu.
i I
I 4 Y
t
Postgate
Trees and Timber in the Assyrian Texts
oil", 1982, 410). Chapman describes a juniper-pine-oak forest subtype in northem Iraq (J. ogcedrus). Guest writes "very common on the mountain sides between Dohulc and 'Amadia (alt. 700-1500 M.); also found in other parts of Kurdistan" (1933, 51). It is not clear how to reconcile this with Meiggs 1982, 417 "juniper is the dominant high conifer in the Zagros mountains where the campaign (Sargon's 8th) was fought"; J. excelsa is not listed within Iraq by Chapman and Guest, but it is present just across the Turkish frontier, in Hakkiari (Coode & Cullen, in Davis 1965, 68-9). If we may presume destructive exploitation of the tree. then a solution could indeed be, with Meiggs, that bur3u is always J. excelsa, but this seems rather extreme. Should we rather say that: the b u r s u cut by the Assyrians in the west or used by the Urartians to the north-east was J. excelsa, but the same word was also used for the much commoner J. oxycedrus which was nearer home. If it was not, we probably need a different word for the lower, bushy, tree, and since it produces berries (kirkiranu etc.), which are known to come from burau (cf. Postgate 1987a, 134), this would be difficult. See discussion of daprcinu and also mi@ below.
-
afiitu "pine" Pinus halepensk ? Except for the later Neo-Babylonian references, the royal attestations for this tree in Assyria are uniformly for "tall doors" in temples or palaces. It is never mentioned in campaign accounts, and it is accessible even when Assyrian territory was greatly reduced under Assur-bel-kala and Assur-dan 11. After Assurnasirpal it is not mentioned again, and the presumption must be that better or more prestigious woods had become available for this purpose. All this suggests that d @ u was a tall, straight, tree which grew close to Assyria (either naturally or in plantations). CAD Mli S.V. translated "fir", perhaps following Thompson 1949, who seems to choose fir (Abies cilicica) because the Aramaic 'dJidzd is so identified by Loew, relying on the etymological identity (which seems not implausible) with Arabic JOh, generally translated "fir". As far as I can determine, Abies species are not attested in northern Iraq at all, or east of the Amanus in Turkey. Hence I am much tempted to wonder whether this should not rather be translated "pine". Chapman, p. 33, reports pine (P. halepensis subsp. brutia) growing in the Zawita and Atrush regions, no great distance north of Khorsabad, and these may obviously be remnants of a wider distribution (see Flora of Iraq 2, 98-100). Pines are also grown in Mosul (Guest 1933, 74). Pine beams were identified at Nimrud from Fort Shalmaneser and from the Nabu Temple (Mallowan 1966, 377-8: Pinus halepensis var. brutii). One hrther argument in favour of "pine" rather than "fir" is that the seeds or fruits are an edible commodity (Postgate 1987a, 135). buriifu "a juniper*' Juniperus sp. Now generally identified as a juniper, although previously often rendered as cypress, owing to the Greek rendering of the Hebrew bible. Whether it refers to one Linnaean species of juniper rather than another is a more difficult question It grew and was collected by the Assyrian kings in the Amanus (but not mentioned in the Lebanon). Sargon refers to a bursu-mountain north-east of Assyria and says the timber was used for roof-beams in that area. This prompts CAD B to say "The designation burdfu for the conifers used in Urartu for roof beams may represent a transfer from the real juniper whose wood is not usable for such purposes...". Presumably what is meant by the 'real juniper' is J. oxycedrus, and Meiggs would support this description ("more often found as a bush than a tree. It rarely grows beyond twenty feet but is valued for its berries and
butnu "terebinth" Pktacia atlantica This has recently been discussed at length by St01 1979, 1-24 (see also Postgate 1987a. 1334). Since the tree is the characteristic species of the lowest zone of forest in northern Iraq, e.g. in the Jebel Sinjar, the wood would have been readily accessible to the Assyrians, and it is therefore no suprise that we never find it imported, nor that it is used at all periods between Tiglath-pileser 1 and Esarhaddon. Since it is a small tree, it was probably used for panelling etc.; none of the texts mentions its use for beams or doors. Neither Guest nor Chapman mentions it as a source of timber. dapranu, dupriinu "(a juniper)" Juniperus sp. This has been identified as a juniper via the Syriac cognate. The word occurs in Ugaritic (dprn) and a western origin is supported by the fact that Assurnasirpal records felling it in the Amanus. Like burSu it yielded oil, seed and 'flour*; it cannot however be the same species, as both are mentioned in the Banquet Stele and, later, by Sargon. If the two were very similar, it would explain why burau is not listed among his 'palace-suites' by Assumasirpal, and why dapriinu is omitted by Sennacherib in similar enumerations. It must have been a tall tree in some cases, since it was used for doors and columns; J. drupacea (no etymological connection!) is said to grow up to 20m. in height. Cf. also elammaku and mi@. dulbu "plane" Platanus orientalis Another tree rarely mentioned but probably not uncommon. Sargon mentions it growing in the Zagros to the east of Assyria, and it recurs occasionally in Surnerian and Babylonian texts, as well as in Assumasirpal's garden, of course. The identification with "plane" derived from etymological comparison with Aramaic, but in all respects it fits very well in this context.
Postgate
Trees and Timber in the Assyrian Texts
Postgate
m@ru "(a conifer)" The word is equated in the plant list Uruanna with diihu, and hence may reasonably be considered a conifer, but both are listed in Assurnasirpal's park, so they should be similar, not identical. No products of the mihru are mentioned, but this need not be significant since we only have Assyrian (not Babylonian) attestations. Four hundred mihru are listed along with fruit trees in an administrative list from Nimrud, and poles(?) of this wood are referred to by a correspondent of King Sargon in a context with cedar (cf. Fales 1981). The only remaining criterion is geography. Tukulti-Ninurt. I refers to campaigning in Mehru-land, but does not specify that the logs he brought from there were of this species. Assurnasirpal does the same, and explicitly states that the beams he brought back for roofing the Ishtar Temple at Ninua were melihru-wood. But where was the land of melihru? Assurnasirpal gives no clue. Despite Thompson's comments (1949, 267) the inscriptions clearly place the land in the mountains between the Tigris and Upper Zab, or possibly east of the Upper Zab; we could not rule out the Zawita-Atrush region, making an identification with Pinus possible, but then we would need a different tree for mW@u,q.v. One possibility, suggested by the ancient and modern distributions, is Juniperus excelsa, on which see burau above.
Rather strangely, attested with cedar, box and cypress in the west in the early 2nd millennium (Iahdun-Lim), and then on a single occasion as the timber of a 'palace-suite' under Sennacherib. Otherwise, as a precious wood used for furniture, as already in Ur 111: cf. e.g. Pennsylvania Sumerian Dictionary p. 88 S.V. banSur (ref. courtesy J.V. Kinnier Wilson). Our sources are not sufficient even to hint at an identification, and any discussion would require examination of the occurrences of the word in western languages (Ugaritic, Hebrew: see J.C. Greenfield & M. Mayrhofer, "The 'algummiml'almuggh-problem reexamined", in Hebraische Wortforschung: Festschrift zum 80. Geburtstag von Walter Baumgartner (Suppl. to Vetus Testamentum XVI; Leiden 1967), 83-9). -
ergnu "cedar" Cedrus libani The architectural timber par excellence. Despite the unfounded doubts of Mallowan 1966, 11, 377-8, there seem to be no reasons to doubt the traditional identification of ere'nu with cedar. Yields 'cedar blood' which was used as incense in religious services. ABL 814 provides proof that attempts were made to grow the tree in Assyria.
A species never mentioned in royal inscriptions. That it did however grow in Assyria is suggested by the mention of "150 sarbdtu (and) bilupu" in a plantation of the Harran region ca. 700 BC (Fales 1973, 28 No. 3.i.9, d.) It . must be a tree similar to the sarbatu to have been counted together with it, and this would tend to support Zimmern's association of the word with Aramaic hiZpd, haZpd and Arabic hikzf (1915, 53). I don't know the basis of CAD'S comment that "In the Ur I11 and OB period the term Fuppu, q.v., seems to have been used to denote an oak tree native in the east as against the western species called alliinu" (CAD Ah, 355b).
Trees and Timber in the Assyrian Texts
I
See also d r u .
liaru "(a conifer)" Given in AHw 1353a S.V. ti(')al/m as "Weisszeder (Juniperus oxycedrus)", appmntly following Thompson 1949, 285. Thompson's reason for choosing this species seems to be the unconvincing proposal to connect the word etymologically with "the Arabic 'ur'ur, Juniperus oxycedrus L.", but this identification contradicts all the other indications the texts offer us and can be confidently abandoned. The word, with its various forms, is manifestly foreign (presumably non-Semitic as well). It is used by the Assyrian kings only from Sennacherib, who found it in the Amanus. Reference is made to its fragrance in terms usually reserved for the cypress (furme'nu), though once used of burau. We hardly need another word for juniper, but perhaps J. excelsa should be considered a candidate. Alternatively, we have no candidate for the fir (Abies cilicica) which grows in the Amanus and can give good tall logs up to 30m (Coode & Cullen in Davis 1965, 68-9; cf. also Meiggs 1982, 416 and 422). The word may be no more than a learned or Babylonian equivalent of another Assyrian word, but the 'Sumerian' lexical equivalents do not help to suggest one.
musukkunnu (a valuable hard wood) Dalbergia sissoo The distinguishing feature of this tree is the hardness of its wood, which is expressed in the royal inscriptions as "a lasting wood" (isu dara). In origin the word means 'mes-tree of Makkan'; Makkan is now generally identified with Oman, but it need only mean that it came from this direction, and an origin in the Indus need not be excluded. By the first millennium it is clear that the tree grew in the Near East, as it is planted by both Assurnasirpal and Sennacherib, and Tiglath-pileser I11 found a plantation of it in Babylonia. 'Mulbeny', as it is often translated, seems improbable, since its wood, though good, is not so special, and since the fruit of the musukkannu is never mentioned. The CAD studiously avoids proposing an identification, and is clearly unconvinced by the proposal of Gershevitch (BSOAS 19, 317ff.) to make it Ddbergia sissoo. However, I am less sceptical: there seems no reason at all to doubt the equation of musukkannu with the relevant Old Persian word Oakci-), and the etymological connection with modern Persian forms like fig or jkx seems unimpeachable to an outsider. Moreover, the tree is grown (according to Guest) in Iraq today, and its wood fits the bill excellently.
tarbatu
I
"poplar" Populus sp. The initial grounds for identifying this tree with the Euphrates poplar are etymological (Arabic: gharab). It is never mentioned by the royal inscriptions, but occasional references in everyday documents make it clear that it grew in Assyria (in one case along a wad0 and was deliberately cultivated (see Postgate 1987b, 92). Like Populus euphratica it also grew in Babylonia, and there seems to be no reason to question the accepted identification. The only problem is that we have no agreed word for the ordinary poplar (P. alba and/or nigra) which is the prime source for roofing timber and would certainly have been cultivated in preference to P. euphratica. Are the two species sufficiently similar to have shared a single name? My feeling is that maybe P. euphratica is the old ildakku=adiiru, q.v. above, and sarbatu is P. albalnigra. Cf. haluppu.
Postgate
Trees and Timber in the Assyrian Texts
lakkullu (a willow?) Another indigenous tree which does not feature in the royal inscriptions. The wood is mentioned in everyday texts from the 2nd and 1st millennia in both Assyria and Babylonia as the material of furniture, yokes and wheeled vehicles. Von Soden suggests a species of willow (eine Weidenart). Willows are described by Chapman (p.33) as "the most representative genus" of the river thickets, and Guest comments that Salix alba and ac&phylla are "often planted along canals and channels throughout the country", and that "the young branches ... are used in making baskets" (1933, 86-7). He also notes that "the wood is soft and of little value", which would not agree well with the attested use of Jakkullu in the texts. On the other hand, today in south Iraq willow wood )f& j$?as( is much used for tool handles etc., although acknowledged to be inferior to mulberry. Salfugu Described by AHw as a fruit tree, but I can find no evidence for its fruit. Its wood was used, and one Neo-Assyrian text (ND 5472, unpublished) lists a log 8 cubits (ca. 4m.) long and 1 sdtu thick. There is one reference to a plantation in the Harran region, and a letter speaks of 20 JaSSugu logs for cross-beams (tallu), which should be 10 cubits each in length (ABL 566). This seems to be a northern word. One possibility might be poplar (P. alba), see also sarbatu and baluppu.
Postgate
Trees and Timber in the
Assyrian Texts
prpu'u "tamarisk" Tamarix sp. The identification with tamarisk rests on the undeniable connection with Arabic tarfa'. It is mentioned as the material of small wooden items, e.g. bowls, but it is perhaps a little surprising to find it in architectural use in Assyrian palaces, since one would not think of tamarisk as a timber source in the first instance. Note, however, that this application dies out after Assurnasirpal, and that it is only mentioned in connection with 'palace-suites', not structural parts. Although Tamarix articulata gives substantial timbers, it is apparently an introduction to Iraq and is presumably not relevant. There are several other species of tamarisk in Iraq, and we cannot hope to find an exact Linnaean equivalent for our word. ult2 "'ebony'" This is an imported wood used for luxury items, and the Assyrian texts do not essentially contribute to its identification; suspected on the basis of 2nd millennium evidence (Ulu Burun shipwreck) to be Dalbergia melanoxylon.
Words not dealt with: &u (=myrtle), e'ru (cf. below), irmednu, sindl2 (= or similar to tatidu, cf. Borger 1988, 5-6), Jurathu, supdlu. The Assyrian sources do not contribute materially to the identification of these trees. Species for which no identification is suggested above:
lurm-nu "cypress" Cupressus Now fairly generally identified with cypress. It yielded aromatic products and oil, and the royal inscriptions regularly comment on its sweet smell. As timber it is particularly favoured for doors, though used in other contexts as well. Not apparently taken from Lebanon or Arnanus by the Middle Assyrian kings, but regularly in the 1st millennium. The tree does not occur in the wild in Iraq, "though one or two species are occasionally cultivated in sheltered gardens" (Guest 1933, 27). Surm~nuis once mentioned by Sennacherib as cultivated for its wood in the swamps created by him near Nineveh (OIP 2.1 15), and it was of course planted by Assurnasirpal at Kalhu; one of Sargon's officials writes of "the season for uprooting cedar and cypress shoots" (Fales 1983, 59).
Fraxinus rotundifolia According to Chapman, this species is characteristic of the "riverine sub-type" (of forest) "confined to the banks of rivers and streams and characterised by water loving species such as Salix, Populus, Platanus and Fraxinus" (p.33). Guest (1933) says "along mountain streams in the valleys of Kurdistan" and "One or two spp. of ash are occasionally cultivated in Lower 'Iraq as ornamental trees" (p. 35). The modern Arabic name he reports (LISAN AT-TATR, presumably "bird's tongue") is obviously no help in an etymological sense. [CAD identifies e'ru (=giS.ma.nu) as the ash tree (e.g. M/ii.220b), but I regard this with scepticism; I cannot assess CAD E's 'cornel' for this same tree since no Linnaean species is suggested, but if the genus Cornus was meant, Guest 1933 does not list it, nor does Chapman 1949. See also quotation from Civil, below under Morus.]
taskarinnu "box" Buxus The translation "box" goes back at least as far as Zimmern 1915, 54 (when the word was still being read urkarinnu), who compares Aramaic 'eskera'a "Buchsbaum". The etymological equation fits well with the other evidence and is generally accepted. The wood is regularly listed alongside 'ebony' (&a, q.v.) as the material of fine wood-working in tribute and booty lists, but also used for doors in Assyrian palaces. Box is not listed by Guest or Chapman in Iraq. Tiglath-pileser I found it with cedar on Mt. Lebanon, and mount Ammana (perhaps Anti-Lebanon) is called the mountain of taskarinnu by his namesake Tiglath-pileser 111.
Juglans regia The walnut thrives in the mountainous areas, and its wood is so good that it must have been exploited for this as well as for its nuts. No convincing identification has yet been made, in my opinion: the drawbacks of Campbell Thompson's approach are evident in that he simply does not discuss the species at all. I have mentioned it briefly (Postgate 1987a, 134 with n. 59), but have no serious suggestion for its Akkadian equivalent. Moms alba Although the mulberry was discussed under fruit-trees, it is necessary to mention it here again because in Iraq today it is extensively prized as an excellent wood for the handles of tools etc., and must have been used the same way in antiquity. There are no recognizable ancient cognates of the modem Near Eastern names tlSt and tukki, and no plausible candidates for the fruit in 1st millennium texts. In BSA 3 I rejected (correctly, I am sure) Oppenheim's sarbatu and Campbell Thompson's musukkannu. My own proposal for Sumerian texts, undeniably speculative itself, was the enigmatic ORXA.NA;unfortunately, this sign does not survive into the classic Babylonian lexical tradition and therefore we have no Akkadian equivalent for it. After the
Postgate
erdnu (ctd.)
Trees and Timber in the Assyrian Textr
Tiglath-pileser I Assur-bel-kala Assurnasirpal I1
Shalmaneser I11 Adad-nirari I11 Tiglath-pileser I11
Sargon Semacherib
Esarhaddon
Assurbanipal Logs taken as tribute or booty: Tiglath-pileser I Assurnasirpal I1 Shalmaneser I11
Lebanon temple; palace n.s. palace(-suite) Amanus n.s. n.s. doors Lebanon doors; roof beams n.s. palace(-suite) Amanus beams Lebanon palaces; temples n.s. palace(-suite) Lebanon, Amanus, Ammanana roof beams n.s. doors n.s. palace(-suite) n.s. roof beams Amanus columns Amanus roof beams Amanus, Sirara roof beams Sirara n.s. Amanus columns; doors n.s. columns; doors n.s. palace(-suite) Lebanon, Amanus, Sirara roof beams n.s. columns n.s. palace(-suite) n.s. wall bonding Lebanon, Sirara roof beams Lebanon, Amanus roof beams n.s. doors Carchemish Til-Abni; Kummuh; N. Syria Unqi ('Amq)
ARI 2 847;81;95; etc. ARI 2 8250 ARI 2 8586 ARI 2 8653 ARI 2 8694 ARI 2 8653; 677 Michel Nr. 3 et pass. Iraq 30 142 ARAB I 8804 ARAB I 8804 ARAB I 8804 Lie p. 77 Lie p. 77 Lie p. 72 OIP 2 %; 129; 132 OIP 2 106 OIP 2 107 OIP 2 110 OIP 2 97; 106 OIP 2 129
Surmdnu
I
Iahdun-Lim Assurnasirpal I1
Tiglathpileser I11 Sargon Sennacherib
Esarhaddon
, I
Assurbanipal
I
taskarinnu
Ash. p. 5 Ash. p. 60 Ash. p. 61 Ash. p. 22 Streck p. 88; 170 Streck p. 246 Streck p. 246
ARI 2 885; 95 ARI 2 8583; 587 Iraq 25 5648
Trees and Timber in the Assyrian Texts
Postgate
Iahdun-Lim Tiglath-pileser I Assur-bel-kala Asswnasirpal I1 Tiglath-pileser III Sargon Semacherib Esarhaddon Assurbanipal
The west Amanus n.s. Lebanon n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. Amanus, Sirara Assyria, cultiv. n.s. Lebanon, Sirara n.s. n.s. Sirara, bbnalnu Lebanon, Amanus The west Lebanon n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
n.s. doors palace(-suite) n.s. doors doors palace(-suite) d m palace(-suite) doors roof .beams palace columns
RIME 4 606 ARI 2 8694 ARI 2 $694 8653; 677
roof beams palace(-suite) doors doors(?) roof beams
ARI 2 8677 ARAB I 8804 Lie p. 77 Lie p. 77 OIP 2 %; 106 OIP 2 96; 106, 132 OIP 2 106 OIP 2 115 OIP 2 110 Ash. p. 5 Ash. p. 61 Ash. p. 5 Streck p. 70 Streck p. 246
n.s. palace palace(-suite) palace(-suite) doors doors palace(-suite)
RIME 4 605-6 ARI 2 847; 104 ARI 2 8250 ARI 2 6653; 677 ARI 2 8653; 677 ARAB I 5804 Lie OIPp.2 77 %; 106
palace(-suite) doors
Ash. p. 61 Streck p. 246
As tributemty, manufactured items passim The "taskarinnu-mountain" = Ammana = Anti-Lebanon?
ARAB I 5770; 804
-
lidru
Sennacherib Assurbanipal
Amanus n.s.
doors doors
OIP 2 132 Streck p. 88; 150
mi@
Tukulti-Ninurta I Assurnasirpal I1
mihru-land mihru-land n.s.
beams roof beams palace(-suite)
ARI 1 8691 ARI 2 8586 ARI 2 8677
Assurnasirpal I1
n.s. n.s. Babylonia n.s. n.s. n.s. Assyria, cultiv. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
doors palace(-suite) felled doors doors palace(-suite) palace temple; furniture roof beams! bed doors
ARI 2 8653; 677
musukkannu
Tiglath-pileser 111 Sargon Semacherib Esarhaddon Assurbanipal Logs taken as tribute or booty: Shalmaneser I11 Semacherib
Bit-Amukkani (S. Iraq) SE Babylonia
ARI 2 8653; 677 ARAB I 4792 ARAB I 8804 Lie p. 77 OIP 2 %, 106 OIP 2 115 Ash. p. 22 . Streck p. 148 Streck p. 148 Streck p. 246
Michel Nr. 34 (p.34) vi.8; Iraq 25 56:48 OIP 2 25-6
tarpu' u
Tiglath-pileser I Assur-bel-kala Assurnasirpal I1
n.s. n.s. n.s.
palace? palace(-suite) palace(-suite)
ARI 2 8133; cf. 111 ARI 2 6250 ARI 2 8653
d lz 2
Tiglath-pileser 111 Sargon Semacherib
n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s. n.s.
doors palace(-suite) palace(-suite) columns ! palace(-suite)
ARAB I 8804(?) Lie p. 77 OIP 2 %, 106 OIP 2 110 Ash. p.61
Esarhaddon Wood as tribute or booty Shalmaneser I11 Tiglathpileser I11 Sargon Semacherib Esarhaddon
Bit-Arnukhni (S.Iraq) Unqi ('Amq) The west Chaldaea passim Judah Phoenicia
Iraq 25 56:49 Michel Nr. 33 E; Iraq 25 56:48 ARAB I $772 ARAB I $794 passim OIP 2 34 Ash. pp. 48-9
Postgate
Trees and Timber in the Asryrirn
CHART 2 Date
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Associations of species in the wild
Tiglath-pileser I
Place Lebanon
Trees growing together taskarinnu erdnu
Assurnasirpal I1
Lebanon
Assurnasirpal I1 Shalmaneser I11 Sargon
Amanus Amanus
erdnu erdnu erdnu
Surmdnu SurmZnu burau
Bsr0s
dulbu
Surathu (in a palace)
Borger, R. 1988
dapriinu dapriinu
b u r a u ARI 2 8586
"K6nig Sanheribs Ehegliick", Annual Review of the Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Project 6, 5-1 1. Chapman, G.W. Forests and forestry in Iraq (Baghdad: Ministry of Agriculture, Directorate General of 1949 Forests; printed 1957, unpublished). Davis, P.H. et al. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, Vol. I Mnburgh). 1965 Fales, F.M. 1973 1981 1983
CHART 3
Woods used for 'palace suites'
A frequent theme of royal inscriptions describing new palace buildings (not temples) is the creation d different 'palaces' (i.e. presumably domestic suites within the total complex) of different woods. It ir generally assumed that the kings refer to wooden panelling on the interior walls of the rooms. One may wonder whether some of the woods in the following list would give wide enough pieces to make Lhir practicable, but some support for the concept may pehaps be taken from the ivory panelled walls in the SB Palace at Nimrud. Assur-bel-kala erdnu taskarinnu butnu tarpu'u Assur nasirpal I1 1. erdnu Surmdnu dapriinu taskarinnu musukkannu b#nu 2. erdnu Surmdnu taskarinnu musukkannu butnu @rpu'u Sargon uSi2 tuskarinnu
musukkannu
Sennacherib 1. uSi2 taskarinnu 2. uSi2 taskarinnu Esarhaddon (limestone, ivory,)
erdnu
musukkannu musukkannu
uftl
taskarinnu
Trees and Timber in the Assyrian Texts
Postgate
Surmdnu
erdnu erdnu
dupriinu
Surmdnu Surmdnu
musukkannu
burSu buriiSu
erdnu
Guest, E. 1933
Surmdnu
Die Flora der Juden, I-IV (Wien/Leipzig: Vertiffentlichungen der Alexander Kohut Memorial Foundation, IV, 11, I11 and VI).
Mallowan, M.E.L. Nimrud and its Remains (London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq). 1966
tarpu'u mibru
Meiggs, R. 1982
butnu
butnu elammaku
Notes on plants and plant products with their colloquial names in 'Iraq (Baghdad).
K i ~ i e Wilson, r J.V. "Lugal ud melambi nirgal: new texts and fragments", Zeitschrift ffi Assyriologie 54, 71-89 1961 (esp. 86-89). "Lines 40-52 of the Banquet Stele of Assurnasirpal 11", Iraq 50, 79-82. 1988 Loew, I. 1926-34
burau
Censimenti e catasti di epoca neo-assjra (Rome: Studi economici e tecnologici, 2). "Two Neo-Assyrian notes. a) GIS.SU.A in Neo-Assyrian letters", Revue d'Assyriologie 75, 67-8. "I1 taglio e il trasporto di legname nelle lettere a Sargon 11", in 0. Carmba, M. Liverani & C. Zaccagnini (eds.), Studi orientalistici in ricordo di Franco Pintore (Pavia: Studia Mediterranea 4) 49-92.
sin& OIP 2 106:14
Trees and timber in the ancient Mediterranean world (Oxford: Clarendon Press).
Postgate, J.N. "Notes on fruit in the cuneiform sources", Bulletin on Sumerian Agriculture 3, 115-144. 1987a "Grundeigentum und Nutzung von Land in Assyrien im 1. Jt. v.u.Z." (tr. by E. Teichrnann), 1987b Jahrbuch fur Wirtschaftsgeschichte, Sonderband 1987, 89-1 10 [English version in M. Lebeau & Ph. Talon (eds.), Rejets des Deux Fleuves: Volume de mklanges offerts d Andre' Finer, (Leuven 1989) 141-152 . The archive of Urad- eriia and his family: A Middle Assyrian household in government 1988 service (Rome).
2
Rowton, M. 1967
"The woodlands of ancient Western Asia", Journal of Near Eastern Studies 26, 261-277.
Stol, M. 1979
On trees, mountains, and millstones in the ancient Near East (Leiden: Ex Oriente Lux).
Thompson, R.C. A dictionary of Assyrian botany (London: British Academy). 1949 Zimmern, H. Akkadische Fremdwarter als Beweis f a babylonischen Kultureinjluss (Leipzig). 1915
Postgate
Trees and Timber in the Assyrian Ten&
NOTES ON THE REEDS OF MESOPOTAMIA
ABBREVIATIONS FOR TEXTUAL REFERENCES
F. Nigel Hepper
ARAB
D.D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia (Chicago 1926-7).
ARI 1
A.K. Grayson, Assyrian royal inscriptions. I (Wiesbaden 1972).
ARI 2
A.K. Grayson, Assyrian royal inscriptions, N (Wiesbaden 1976).
Ash.
R. Borger, Die Inschriften Asarhaddons, Konigs von Assyrien (Archiv fiir Orientforschung, Beiheft 9; Graz 1956).
Lie
A.G. Lie, The inscriptions of Sargon II, king of Assyria. Part I: The Annals (Paris 1929).
Michel
E. Michel, "Die Assur-Texte Salmanassars III. (858-824)", a series of articles in Die Welt des Orients Vol. 1 (1947) ff.
OIP 2
D.D. Luckenbill, The Annals of Sennacherib (Oriental Institute Publications, 2; Chicago 1924).
RIMA 1
A.K. Grayson, Assyrian rulers of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to 1115 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Assyrian Periods Vol. 1; Toronto 1987).
Grasses (Gramineae)
RIME 4
D.R. Frayne, Old Babylonian Period (2003-1595 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: Early Periods Vol. 4; Toronto 1990).
Arundo donax L.
Sg. 8
F. Thureau-Dangin, Une relation de la huitidme campagne de Sargon (Textes CunBformw du Louvre 3; Paris 1912). M. Streck, Assurbanipal und die letzten assyrischen Konige bis zum Untergang Niniveh's (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 7; Leipzig 1916).
VAB 4
S.H. Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Konigsinschriften (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 4; Leipzig 1912).
(The Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew)
The following notes were prepared for the information of delegates to the seminar on Sumerian agriculture at Heidelberg in 1989, who might not be familiar with the botanical distinctions and nomenclature of the aquatic grasses and rushes present in the Sumerian region. Such plants could have been used for mats, baskets etc. I also include notes on current botanical literature on reeds of this area.
Giant reed. Ref.: Bor, Flora of Iraq 9, 370 plate 142 (1968) & Flora Iranica
7013.1, 251 (1970). A stout reed with large white plumes, 4-7 m high, which will tolerate drier conditions than the common reed. It is not as abundant in South Iraq as the common reed since it does not form swamps. In southern Europe and North Africa it is cut to make trays, mats and baskets. In ancient Rome, flutes and arrows were made from it, also little boxes from the nodes. It seems to have been introduced into Egypt not before Ptolemaic times. Phragmites australis (Cav.) Trin. ex Steud. Common reed. Ref.: Bor, Flora of Iraq 9, 374 plate 143 (1968) & Flora Iranica 7013.1, 352 (1979).
Usually referred to in literature before c. 1960 as P. communis which had to give way to P. australis on technical nomenclatural grounds. This is the abundant and dominant grass of the alluvial plain of South Iraq where the water table is high. This is the reed of the swamps depicted on ancient Mesopotamian murals and bas-reliefs - it was also used to make skiffs and screens. There are many named varieties which are of doubtful distinction botanically. Saccharum ravennae (L.) Murray, Ravema grass, and S. strictum (Host) Spreng.
Two aquatic grasses 2-3 m high, the first occuning in the lower forest zone steppe region and sub-desert, and the second by hill streams 900-1 100 m. These are two native grasses, allied to the introduced sugar-cane, which could have been used in similar ways to the reeds. Other wet-land grasses include Panicum repens L., Paspalurn dilatatum Poir. and Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv., but these are small species that could not be described as reeds. Sedges (Cyperaceae) Ref.: S.S. Hooper in Flora of Iraq 8, 331406 (1985). The paper sedge (or reed), papyrus (Cyperus papyrus L.), does not occur in South Iraq. The nearest locality is Huleh Swamp in the northern Jordan valley and formerly large beds were in the Nile Delta and parts of the Nile valley. Apart from one doubtfully native patch in the western
Notes on the reeds of Mesopotamia
Hem
Delta it is extinct in Egypt as a wild species, although it still occurs in vast tracts in the Sudd region of Sudan. This plant was, of course, the raw material for papyrus sheets, and extensively used for ropes, baskets, sandals etc. Other Cyperaceae typically inhabit wet places and some undoubtedly were used for mats etc. in ancient times, but they are inconveniently small. Miss Hooper's treatment of Cyperaceae in the Flora of Iraq changes many of the previously accepted names and some generic delimitations, e.g. Scirpus holoschoenus L. is now Scirpoides holoschoenus (L.) Sbjalc.; Scirpus lacustris L. is now Schoenoplectus lacustris (L.) Palla; Scirpus maritimus L. is now Bolboschoenus maritimus (L.) Palla.
Rushes (Juncaceae) Ref.: S. Snogerup in Flora Iranica 7511.4, 1-35 (1971) & Flora of Iraq 3, 310-312 (1985). Juncur maritimus L. has been rcported fmm Iraq but in e m r for J. rigidus Desf., the stiff rush, which is used for basket making, chair seats, etc. Other species are small and not generally used.
Reed-mace, Cat's-tail (Typhaceae) Ref.: C.C. Townsend in Flora of Iraq 8, 21 1-216 (1985). Typha domingensis Pers. formerly known as T. australis Schum & Thonn. or T. angustata Bory & Chaub., the latter names appearing in much of the Middle Eastern literam prior to 1974. The name T. angustifolia quoted by Rechinger in the Flora of Lowland Iraq, 25 (1964) and H. Riedl in Flora Iranica 71/30, 5 (1970) is an error of identification. Common in saline marshes, pools etc, on the alluvial plain.
Availability of the botanical literature The standard modern work is the Flora of Iraq edited by C.C. Townsend and Evan Guest. produced at Kew and published in Baghdad, obtainable fmm the Botany Directorate, Baghdad, Iraq or in Britain from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 3AB (the former agents Robert MacLehose & Co. Ltd. of Renfrew, cited in several volumes, have gone out of business). In English. 1966 onwards. K.H. Rechinger's multi-volume Flora Iranica (Flora des Iranischen Hochlandes und der Umrahmenden Gebirge) covers Iran, Afghanistan, part of West Pakistan, North Iraq, Azerbaidjan and Turkmenistan. Obtainable hom Akademische Druck- u. Verlagsanstalt, A-8010 Graz, Neufeldweg 75, Austria. In Latin with brief English notes. 1963 onwards. K.H. Rechinger's Flora of Lowland Iraq, Verlag von J. Cramer 1964, is partially superseded by Townsend and Guest's Flora. In English. Obtainable from Weidon and Wesley, Codicote, Herts. U.K. M. Zohary, Geoboranical foundntions of the Middle East 2 vols., Gustav Fischer, Stuttgart 1973. In English, provides much information on plants and vegetation. Several recent, well illustrated publications on the plants of Kuwait, Saudi Arabia and Yemen include species present in South Iraq.
A CORRECTIVE NOTE ON PISTACIA TREES AND RESIN F. Nigel Hepper (The Herbarium, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew)
In my previous paper (Hepper 1987) 1 mentioned four species of Pistacia - P. lentiscus, P. khinjuk, P. eurycarpa and P. terebinthus. Since then a paper by M i s and White (1989) has drawn attention to some confusion in the literature as to which species of Pistacia yield resin, so this note summarises their conclusions and it also supplements my previous paper. I now realise that Pistacia atlantica should have been included in my list as a resin producer. However, it seems that P. terebinthus (including P. palaestina) gives an insignificant yield of resin and it would be useful to have field notes as to its productivity. Of the other species P. khinjuk yields Bombay or Indian mastic and P. eurycarpa is also a resin producer - Jeffrey in Flora of Iraq 4 (1). 494-499 (1980). but the distribution for P. khinjuk as including "Cyprus" is incorrect.
P. lentiseus L. - Zohary in Palestine Journ. Bot., J. Series, 5, 199 (1952); Davis, Flora of Turkey 2, 544 (1967); Zohary, Flora Palaestina 2, 299, t. 439 (1972); Meikle, Flora of Cyprus 1, 365 (1977). Mastic is obtained hom var. chia (Desf.) Poir. which grows only on the island of Chios off western Turkey. These plants differ in habit from the low evergreen shrub that is common in maquis, since Browicz (1987) calls them trees and Howes (1949) states that small vertical incisions are made in the bark. Mastic is used for picture varnishes and as a medicine for a variety of ailments. Distribution of the shrub is from Greece to western Pakistan and from the Atlantic Islands to parts of North Africa. P. atlantica Desf. - Zohary in Palestine Journ. Bot., 1. Series, 5, 204 (1952); Davis, Flora of Turkey 2, 545 (1967); Zohary, Florn Palaestina 2, 297, t. 436 (1972); Meikle, Flora of Cyprus 1. 367 (1977). A large deciduous tree with a stout trunk and spreading branches. Usually in arid situations, often as solitary trees. Formerly this was considered to be a variety of the terebinth as P. terebinthus L. var. latifolia DC. (or unofficially as var. atlantica), although it is now known not to be closely related to that species. Unfortunately in the literature (Lucas 1948) it has been referred to simply as "P. terebinthur" without mentioning the variety. This has wrought ambiguity as to the true origin of the resin, such as that found in the Bronze Age shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Kq)off Southern Turkey (Bass 1986). which has now been resolved by Mills & White (1989). There was also confusion with the mastic horn P. lentiscus var. chia owing to the fact that both species grow on Chios and the P. atlantica resin is sometimes called Chios mastic (as well as Cyprus mastic or balm).
Note on Pistar
Hem
BIBLIOGRAPHY Bass, G.F. 1986
"The Bronze Age shipwreck at Ulu Bumn Archaeology 90,269-297.
SOME WOOD IDENTIFICATIONS FROM MESOPOTAMIAN SITES P.R.S. Moorey & J.N. Postgate
m):1984 campaign", American J o u r ~ lq/
Browicz, K. "Pistacia lentiscus var. chia on Chios Island", Plant System. Evol. 155, 189-195. 1987 Hepper, F.N. "Trees and shrubs yielding gums and resins in the Ancient Near East", Bulletin on Sumerian 1987 Agric J t w e 3, 107-1 14. Howes, F.N. 1949 Vegetable gums and resins (Chronica Botanica Co., Waltharn, USA). Lucas, A. Ancient Egyptian materials and industries (3rd. ed. (with Harris); London, Edward Arnold). 1948 Mills, J.S. & White, R. 1989 "The identity of the resins from the late Bronze Age shipwreck at Ulu Burun (Kag)", Archaeometry 3111, 3 7 4 .
(OxfordICambridge)
This list was initially compiled for his own purposes by Moorey, and then updated, with his kind permission and bibliographical help from Elizabeth N. Cooper, for distribution to members of the meeting at Heidelberg in 1989. It is not comprehensive. Moorey comments that "it is not a very extensive list and further searching no doubt will turn up more examples, but I think it gives a reasonable range of information on which woods were used for which purposes. I do not think any of it is very surprising and it coincides very well, where appropriate, with recent practice, as Aurenche makes clear in his review of building materials for prehistoric sites". The list does not include identifications by the Geman excavators at Assur and Babylon based on deductions from contemporary texts. Ash
Brak: sample from Court 2 of Naram-Sin's Palace [Mallowan 1947, 151. (Syrian): Larsa (B.BABBAR)[Neef 1989, 1521.
Box
Nuzi: shaft of an adze from a grave of the Akkadian period (5L4) [Starr 1939, 4941.
Cedar
Nuzi: door in Nuzi I1 palace "coniferous, probably cedar of Lebanon" [Starr 1939, 4941. There are a number of less clearly authoritative botanical identifications, e.g.: Uruk: structural: Late Prehistoric [UVB XXI (1965) 171. Man: column: ED I11 [Parrot 1965:19-20]. Khorsabad: structural [Loud 1936:97 n. 10; 1938:161. Nirnrud: the famous Layard passage [I 853:357].
Cypress
Ur: Neo-Babylonian ziggurrat [Burleigh et al. 1982, 2481.
Elm
Brak: sample from Court 2 of Naram-Sin's Palace [Mallowan 1947:15].
Mulberry
Nimrud: Neo-Assyrian: "at least three" pulley-wheels for well-head in room NN of the North-West Palace [Mallowan 1953, 25 n.2]."A large beam of mulberry wood was found last season in room EC" of the N.W. Palace [Wiseman 1952, 27 n.1 (no indication of the source of identification)].
Oak
Mureybit: domestic, vertical support [Aurenche 1981, 49 n.15 (cf. receptacle of oak, ibid 36)]. Jarmo: "over 50 samples" [Braidwood et al. 1983, 5411. Brak: sample from Court 2 of Naram-Sin's Palace [Mallowan 1947, 151. Nimrud: Well in N.W. Palace "large pieces of oak beams" [Mallowan 1952, 14; 1953, 251.
Palm
Cf. Strabo XVI.I.5 (Eridu: date-stones [J.B. Gillet apud Safar 1981, 3181.) Oueili: Ubaid period, from flotation [Neef 19911. Nippur: roofing [McCown et al. 1967, 36-7, P1. 40Al.
Wood identifications from Mesopotamia
Moorey & Postgate
Nuzi: samples [Starr 1939, 4941. Larsa (Neo-Babylonian Ziggurrat) [Neef 1989, 1511. Abu Qubur: fragments, Achaemenid Residence (4th Cent. B.C.); probably building timber, late Parthian-early Sassanian [van Zeist 19891. (There are many references to the use of this timber for roofing, usually identified by the excavator. Cf.: Uruk: Sinkashid Palace [UVB XVII (1961) 211. Nippur: Kassite "Palace" [Gibson 1978, 671). Pine
Brak: "Late houses, c. 1500 B.C." [Mallowan 1947, 151. Tell ed-Der: "from the rooms of the archives ..." [van Zeist & Vynckier 1984, 130-1331. Nimrud: roof timbers, Neo-Assyrian [Mallowan 1966, 377 fn. 121. Ur: Neo-Babylonian ziggurrat [Burleigh et al. 1982, 2481.
Plane
Brak: sample from Court 2 of Nararn-Sin's Palace [Mallowan 1947, 151.
Poplar
Mureybit: domestic structural elements [Aurenche 1981, 45, fig. 191. Oueili: Ubaid period, from flotation [Neef 19911. Mefesh: Ubaid period, roof beams [Mallowan 1946, 126-81. Abu Salabikh: Early Dynastic I11 [Lawrence 19891 (see under Willow). Brak: roof beams [Mallowan 1947, 151. Tell ed-Der: Old Babylonian, roof beams [van Zeist & Vynckier 1984, 130-1331. Nuzi: "the bulk of the charcoal" [Starr 1939, 4941. Larsa: Hellenistic and Parthian houses [Neef 1989, 1541.
Tamarisk
Arpachiyah: Halaf period [Burleigh et al. 1982, 2481. Oueili: Ubaid period, from flotation [Neef 19911. Abu Salabikh: ED 111, fragments from three domestic rooms, in one case associated with pplar/willow, probably roofing debris (Area A Room 4) Lawrence 19891. Tell ed-Der: Old Babylonian, "from the rooms of the archives" [van Zeist & Vynckier 1984, 130-1331. Larsa: roof beams [Neef 1989, 154-61.
Walnut
Nimrud: Neo-Assyrian, writing board [Wiseman 1955, 3ff. n. 141.
Willow
Mefesh: roof debris [Mallowan 1946, 1281. Abu Salabikh: ED 111, several miscellaneous samples identified as either Salfx (willow) or Populus (poplar) with the comment that "these two genera are not separable on wood anatomical features" [Lawrence 19891.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Aurenche, 0. 1981 La maison orientale (Lyon). Braidwood, R.J. et al. 1983 Prehistoric archaeology along the Zagros flanks (Chicago: OIP 105).
Moorey & Postgate
Wood identifications from Mesopotamia
Burleigh et al. R. Burleigh, K. Matthews & J. Ambers, "British Museum Natural Radiocarbon measurements 1982 XIV", Radiocarbon Uliii, pp. 229-261. Gibson, McG. et al. Excavations at Nippur: Twelfth Season (Chicago: OIC 23). 1978 Lawrence, T. (Identifications of samples from Abu Salabikh - letter of 21/9/89 from T. Lawrence, of the 1989 Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew). Layard, A.H. Nineveh and Babylon. 1853 Loud, G. 1936 1938
Khorsabad. Part I (Chicago: OIP 38). Khorsabad. Part 11 (Chicago: OIP 40).
Mallowan, M.E.L. "Excavations in the Balih Valley, 1938", Iraq 8, 111-159. 1946 "Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar", Iraq 9, 1-266. 1947 "The excavations at Nimrud (Kalhu),1951", Iraq 14, 1-23. 1952 "The excavations at Nimrud (Kalhu), 1952", Iraq 15, 142. 1953 Nimrud and its remains, II. 1966 McCown, D.E. Nippur I (Chicago: OIP 78). 1967 Neef, R. 1989 1991 Parrot, A. 1965
"Plant remains from archaeological sites in lowland Iraq: Hellenistic and Neo-Babylonian Larsa", in J.-L. Huot (ed.), Larsa: Travaux de 1985 (Paris), 151-161. "Plant remains from archaeological sites in lowland Iraq: Tell el 'Oueili", in J.-L. Huot (ed.), 'Oueili: Travaux de 1985 (Paris), 321-329. "Les fouilles de Mari: Quatorzihme campagne", Syria 42, 1-24.
Safar et al. F. Safar, M.A. Mustafa & S. Lloyd, Eridu (Baghdad). 1981 Starr, R.F.S. Nuzi (Cambridge, Mass.). 1939 Wiseman, DJ. "A new stela of Assur-nasir-pal 11", Iraq 14, 24-39. 1952 "Assyrian writing boards", Iraq 17, 3-13. 1955 Zeist, W. van "Some plant remains from Abii Qubiir", in Northern Akkad Research Projects 4, 37. 1989 Zeist, W. van & Vynckier, J. 1984 "Palaeobotanical investigations of Tell ed-Er", in L. de Meyer (ed.), Tell ed-Dcr IV (Leuven), 119-133.
Addresses of contributors G. van Driel
Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten, POB 9515, 2300 RA Leiden, The Netherlands
F.N. Hepper
25A Montague Road, Richmond, Surrey TWlO 6QW, U.K.
P.I. Kuniholm
Dept. of the History of Art and Archaeology, G-35 Goldwin Smith Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y. 14853-3201, U.S.A.
J.-R. Kupper
Rue de S6lys 14C, B-4503 Embourg, Belgium
N. Liphschitz
Institute of Archaeology, Tel Aviv University, P.O. Box 39040, Tel Aviv, Israel
J.-C. Margueron
14, rue de la Corniche, 91120 Palaiseau, France
P.R.S. Moorey
Dept. of Antiquities, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford OX1 2PH, U.K.
E. Ochsenschlager
Dept. of Anthropology, Brooklyn College, Brooklyn, N.Y. 11210, U.S. A.
J.N. Postgate
Trinity College, Cambridge CB2 lTQ, U.K.
M.A. Powell
Dept. of History, Northern Illinois University, De Kalb, Illinois 60115, U.S.A.
W. Sallaberger
Institut f i r Assyriologie, Geschwister-Scholl-Platz 1, 8000 Miinchen 22, Germany
M. Van De haieroop
Dept. of Middle East Languages and Cultures, 605 Kent Hall, Columbia University, New York, N.Y. 10027, U.S.A.
H. Waetzoldt
Seminar f i r Sprachen und Kulturen des Vorderen Orients, Sandgasse 7, 6900 Heidelberg, Germany
G. Willcox
Institut de Rehistoire Orientale, E.R.A. 17, CNRS, Jal&s, 07460 Berrias, France
