The Ancient Mesopotamian City

The Ancient Mesopotall1ian City Marc Van De Mieroop

CLARENDON PRESS . OXFORD 1997

Ox/ord

Unж'vеrsж'ty Press~

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

6DP

Oxford is а trade mark olOx/ord Universiry Press

Ьу

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

Матс

Van De Mieroop 1997

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

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

the

рпот

J

J

J

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

0/ Congress

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

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

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

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

CONTENTS

List 01 Figures

Vll1

Chronological Chart

х

..

Introduction 1. City and Society in Ancient Mesopotamia

Хll

2. The Origins and Character of the Mesopotamian City •

23

3. City and Countryside:

ТЬе

Mesopotamian View

4. The Urban Landscape

Urban Government:

42 63

5. Social Organization б.

1

101 Кing,

Citizens> and Officials

118

7. Feeding the Citizens

142

8. Crafrs and Commerce

176

9. Credit and Management

197

10. Cities as Centres of Re1igion and Learning

215

11. The Eclipse of the Ancient Mesopotamian City

229

Conclusions: The Ancient Mesopotamian City Index

248 265

LIST

ОР

FIGURES

Мар

2.1

2.2

3.1

3.2

4.1

4.2

4.3

4.4

4.5 4.6

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

Хl

32

34

52

53

64

66

70

74 75

lХ

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

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

8.2

87

88

90

92

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

8.1

80

153

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

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

177

184

11.1

АН drawin~ were made Ьу Jо

Ann W ood, N ew

У ork.

236 239

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

Assyria ВС

300

Histoncal period Seleucid

Selected rulers

(305-281) 400

Achaemenid

Achaemenid 500

Neo-Babylonian

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

600

Sennacherib (704-681)

700

Sargon 11 (721-705)

800 900

Neo-Assyrian Assuma~irpal

(883-859)

post-Kassite 1000 1100 1200

Tukulti-Ninuna 1 (1243-1207)

1300 Kassite

Middle Assyrian

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

(1646-1626)

Old Babylonian

1700

Old Assyrian

Hammurabi (1795-1750)

Shamshi-Adad 1 (181 3-1 781 )

1800

Isin/Larsa 1900 2000

Ur 111

\

Shulgi (2094-2047) 2100 2200 2300

Agade

Sargon (2334-2279) 2400

Uru:linimgina 2500 2600

Early Dynastic 2700 2800 2900 3000

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

(Chicago, 1977), 335-46.

\

~

~

1f

!u. ,~t-

~'"

..

<~

Tar

ll

с;.

Dur-ShаПUkjn~

•

r.Ar~la

Nindeh· Kalhu\of /

~

\

Assur ~ Kar-Тukul[j·Njпur1

-<

~

l.q

~ ~

t:l: ~ l.q

f...

.... Q

Sclcuci'1" SiPpar\

l.q

~

~abylon • Вorsippa\8

о~

\\.

300km J

scale

Мар

of the Ancient Near East

i1

INTRODUCTION

Although~

after some 150 years, the study of ancient Mesopotamian history is по longer in its infancy, not much beyond the barest outlines of а political history seems to Ье known to most students of other disciplines. Studies in ancient history often overlook Mesopotamian material, or, when they do рау attention {о it, reproduce а standard папаtivе including some main political events and personalities. This ignorance тау по! only Ье due то а lack of interest оп the рап of ancient historians and others, Ьи! also to а fai1ure of scholars of ancient Mesopotamia {о communicate with colleagues in other fields. The lack of communication is often а result of the predominantly philological approach Ьу the latter, working with primary material in several relatively poorly understood languages, and entailing lengthy discussions of grammar and lexicography, which are incomprehensible {о аП Ьи! а few fellow specialists. Moreover, there has b~en а reluctance {о engage broader historical topics, due to the сопсет that mапу of the basic textual interpretations are still equivocal. Indeed these worries are very real, Ьи! Ьу excluding the Mesopotamian material from the study of ancient history, опе discards а gold mine of information, often uпраrаПеlеd in other regions of the ancient world. While the clarification of philological problems and the pubIication of primary data will continue and progress, it is important to start investigations of~hat this material сап tеП us аЬои! ancient sociery and то apply historical methodologies to the interpretation of these data. Мапу topics that have Ьееп extensively discussed in various disciplines сап Ье fruitfully explored with the help of Mesopotamian material as well. The term Mesopotamia is used here, as in most other books, in more than опе way. It refers to the geographical area covering the entirety of modern Iraq and the northern part of rnodern Syria from its eastern border to the Euphrares river in the west. The confines ofthe area are по! firmly fixed in anyone's mind, and vary according то the extent of political influence of the ancient Meso-

Introduction

Xll1

potamian political powers. 'Mesopotamia' also denotes а civilization which developed in that region in prehistory, and survived under nuтerous ethnic groups until it was gradually replaced Ьу Hel1enistic and Persian traditions. Thus the use of the tenn Mesopotamia is also fluid from the point ofview of chronology. lt applies priтarily to the region's history from its very beginning around 31 ОО вс to the integration of the Middle East in the Hellenistic world in the late fourth century вс, but сап also include developments and characteristics both before and after this time span. The lack of strict boundaries, both geographical and chronological, is а reflection of the mixture of continuity and exposure to new political and cultural influences, which characterizes the entire history of the Middle East. In this book 1 will attempt to provide а purely historical study of опе of the crucial aspects of Mesopotamian civilization, the ciry. 1 Ьоре {о demonstrare that the city in Ancient Mesopotamia was а pivotal institution оп which the entire civilization was based. In politics, the economy, sociallife, and culture, the city was of crucial importance, and попе ofthese aspects of Mesopotaтian life сап Ье properly understood without а comprehension oftheir urban background. Historians commonly accept Mesopotamia~s irnportance in the history of urbanism as the region of primary urbanization that inftuenced, at а minimum, the entire Mediterranean world and south Asia. Ви! to talk of the region solely as the locus .of the rise of те first urban culture does по! рау due attention {о the subsequent developments in Mesopotamia. Instead of jumping from the accomplishments of the late fourth millennium to те classical Greek situation in the first millennium вс, i! is nece8sary {о investigate те Mesopotamian city in the his!orical periods. 18 it meaningful to speak of the ancient Mesopotamian city? ТЬе answer to this question depends оп whether or not опе believes in the validity of establishing models that ob8cure the peculiarities of individual cases, and indeed the enonnous time-span of Mesopotamian history тау make such ап abstraction а daunting idea. However, if the Mesopotamian historian wants !о coтmunicate with other historians, such а model needs to Ье developed, and те fear of oversimplification is outweighed Ьу те need (о present а concept that сап Ье compared {о other historical situations. А long list of particular cases whose characteristics сап Ье discarded as idiosyncrasies does not stand ир in comparison to Фе Greek, Roman,

XIV

Inlroduction

or апу other urban (уре that is discussed in scholarship. If we do not develop а vision of the ancient Mesopotamian ciry, we could end ир with the same attitude as Aristotle, who saw Babylon as а city 80 unusual та! it did not merit comparison to rea1 cities. Ву using the term the Ancient Mesopotamian city 1 propose 10 consider urbanism in the entirety of Mesopotamia, Ьепсе Ьот in Babylonia and Assyria, within the context of ancient urbanism in general. Мапу historians regard the 'ancient city' as а {уре, without апу acknowledgement of те existence of cities other than those in the Graeco-Roman world. For such а Eurocentric ideology 10 Ье modified, if по! overthrown, it is necessary for те Mesopotamian scholar to present а model of а non-weste!!1 ancient ciry. Obviously, the use of types ignoring а great number of nuances and variants that existed in reality, especially in ап opposition of East 10 West, has the danger ofperpetuating Orientalist notions that these areas were fundamentally antithetical> and that their differences сап Ье illustrared Ьу а reduction of their characteristics into а simple list. This is certainly по! ту intention. In proposing to regard the ancient Mesopotamian city as а type, 1 wish {о enable comparison with the existing notions of urbanism in the ancient Graeco-Roman world, which equal1y are abstractions, the validity of which is debarable, Ьи! which are соттопlу used in scholarship. This book is по! ап expose of what is known аЬои! the Mesopotamian city in layman's terms, Ьи! ап investigation ofvarious topics regarding urban life, that wiIl hopefully Ье accessible to а11 interested readers. As тисЬ as possible 1 have avoided the use of tenns in the native Mesopotamian languages, and а11 texts quoted are presented without а philological commentary. This is по! а stateтеп! of ту belief that the translations of these terms and texts are certain, Ьи! 1 leave it to others {о justify тет, as 1 do по! think that а historical work is а suitable place for philological argument. AIso in the spel1ing ofproper names 1 have striven for as much simplicity and clariry as possible, usually using spel1ings found in well-known books оп Mesopotamian history. 1 have refrained from writing numerous and extensive footnotes, and instead 1 have provided detailed bibliographical essays with recommendations for further reading at the end of each chapter. Obviously these guides are based оп а personal selection, and теу are certainly nо! exhaustive~ but 1 have chosen those books and articles that were most

Introduction

xv

useful to те in the writing of the chapter, as well as those that 1 thought would Ье most accessible to the general reader. In the translations of ancient sources the following conventions are used: square brackets around broken {ех! that is restored with certainty; angled brackets around text added Ьу the translator for clarity's sake; round brackets for parentheses only. When the transIation of опе or more words is uncertain the {ех! is rendered in italics. When part of the original tex! is not provided in the translation three points of ellipsis are indicated. No typographic distinction is made to indicate Sumerian or Akkadian words in the text, Ьи! when needed the abbreviations

Sum. and Akk. are provided in parentheses.

1 City and Society in Ancient Mesopotarnia

From the wal1s 1 had ап uninterrupted view over а vast plain stretching westward {о the Euphrates, and losing itself in the hazy distance. The ruins of ancient towns and villages rose оп аН sides; and, as the sun went down, 1 counted above one hundred mounds, throwing their dark and long thinning shadows across the plain. Тhese were the remains of Assyrian civilisation and prosperity.l

These words Ьу Austen Henry Layard standing оп ТеН Afar in northern Iraq announced the birth of modem Western exploration in ancient Mesopotamia, and identify what is most striking about this region. The innumerable mounds scattered throughout the countryside of modern-day Iraq and northem Syria cover the ге­ mains of myriad ancient cities and towns, тапу of which survived for hundreds, ifnot thousands ofyears. Mesopotamia was nо! only the oldest urban civilization, Ьи! also the most urbanized society of antiquity. From the mid-fourth millennium вс onwards, cities were in existence in Babylonia (southern Mesopotamia), and despite many vicissitudes теу never disappeared entirely from the landscape. Urbanism тау have emerged only later in Assyria (northern Mesopotamia), Ьи! soon some Assyrian cities Ьесаmе gigantic in extent. At their most flourishing, the most important Mesopotamian cities dwarfed their contemporaries in the rest of the ancient world, to the amazement of Greeks, such as Aristotle, who could по! consider Babylon to Ье а city, Ьи! only as the equivalent of а nation because of its enormous dimensions. ТЬе dense concentration of Mesopotamian cities was also unparalleled; large urban centres lay within sight of one another. ТЬе Mesopotamian known to us today was а citizen, а resident I

Austen Henry Layard, Nineveh and its Renzains, 2nd edn. 1 (London, 1849),

31 s.

2

City and SocielY

of one of these mаnу ancient towns. The art and literature we admire was created Ьу these citizens, {Ье bureaucracies we study were urban bureaucracies, and the politicians and military leaders we know were living in cities. Mesopotamian civilization, as it is known to US, was ап urban civilization. Nomads and villagers lived in the area as well, and their culture was different from that of the city-dwellers. But we have по direct contact with them, and we сап only study тет through the eyes of the urbanites who mentioned them in their writing, or who were inftuenced Ьу them in some way. Vil1ages have rarely Ьееп investigated Ьу archaeologists, and probаblу writing was scarcely used Ьу their inhabitants. Nomads have left us по archaeological remains or texts а! а11. Непсе, we саппо! study these non-urban Mesopotamians directly. ТЬе study of urbanism in Mesopotamia would thus seem of p.rimary importance to the historians of this civilization, уе! few oftheт have devoted specific attention to it. Ап enormous amount of research, spearheaded Ьу anthropologists who find there а rare and well-documented example о[ primary urbanization, has [0cused оп the origins of cities in the area. But their studies usually leave off just when we enter the historical period, or soon afterwards. ТЬе invention of writing, and the advent of history~ somehow seem {о discourage further research Ьу anthropologists, who leave the subsequent developments to Ье studied Ьу historians. Historians, however, have Ьееп concemed with other problems, primarily those of political history. As was the case among historians of Classical Greece, cities were often identified Ьу scholars of Mesopotamia with city-states, and the study of them has focused оп their political affairs ra ther than their function as urban centres. Obviously the study of the city in Mesopotamia has по! Ьееn totally ignored. In the 1950s and 1960s several research projects were initiated, which were seemingly influenced Ьу the resurgence ofthe comparative approach in urban studies in general. Тhe prime example of the comparative approach Ьу а Mesopotamian specialist is Robert мсс. Adams's The EvoZution 0/ UтЬаn Society (Chicago, 1966), in which he compared Mesopotamian and Mesoamerican developments with great success. Symposia organized а! the University of Chicago and the Institute of Archaeology in London also stressed the comparison of Mesopotamian developments with those in other regions. SimiIarly the Societe Jean Bodin

City and Society

3

in France cornmissioned а paper оп the cities of Mesopotamia for its 1955 issue оп 'La ville'. Major projects devoted to Mesopotamia alone were rarer. Under Adams's and А. L. Oppenheim's guidance а11 available documents from the Babylonian city of Sippar in the nineteenth to те sixteenth centuries вс were analysed, but soon Oppenheim himself started to stress the unusual aspects of this city rather тап its common characteristics with other towns. Не did, however, ехат­ ine mапу facets of Mesopotamian city life in general in his wonderful book, Ancient Mesoporaтia. This discussion, unfortunately, was dispersed throughout the work, and far from comprehensive. Simultaneously archaeologists started ап extensive programme of settlement surveys in various parts of Babylonia, leading to three seminal books Ьу Adams. Although changing settlement patterns were the focus of these works, тапу other aspects of urbanism were addressed in тет as well. However, the books do not provide ап analysis of urban life in general. Recently this topic has received renewed interest, probably due to the explosion of the field of urban history. In the ]ast two decades several archaeological projects have attempted to reconstruct entire urban layouts, rather than maintaining the customary focus оп individual monumental remains. Almost а11 these projects took place in Iraq, and have been cиt short Ьу the Gulf War. Philologists also have taken ап interest in the city, and а! least three conferences have been recently devoted to the topic. Уet, it is disappointing {о see how in the ensuing publications few contributors dealt with Mesopotamia proper or with the stated subject matter. Meanwhile, а few studies оп individual cities have appeared, а11 concentrating оп early second-millennium БС Babylonia, as the presence of large private archives-Iess avai1able elsewhere-is thought {о Ье а crucial requirement for such research. In а11, this amounts to а rather meagre record, considering the number of scholars specializing in the study of Ancient Mesopotamian civilization. This scarcity is refiected in the fact that two recent books dealing with urbanism in antiquity basically reproduce the standard political history of Mesopotamia with the word 'city' highlighted. Опе сап even say that тапу classical historians, including some who specialize in urban studies, deny the existence of the city in the East in antiquity altogether. ТЬе resulting image of {Ье Mesopotamian city, even in {Ье

4

City and Society

specialist's mind, is thus very vague. Although palaces and temples were always urban foundations, it seems that their presence and activities are often considered to Ье inconsequential to the rest of the ciry, as if they existed in а world of their own. ТЬе nonmonumental sectors of towns-if considered at all-are portrayed very much like the present-day villages we encounter оп the tells we excavate: poor, dirty, and тотаllу unaware ofthe existence ofmajestic complexes nearby. Ethno-archaeologists have tried to institutionalize this portrayal Ьу telling us та! modem Middle Eastern villages provide ап insight into Ancient Mesopotamian city Hfe, as if these cities were just large vil1ages. Classical historians often continue {о see the origin of the ciry as а Greek phenomenon, and either deny the existence of the Near Eastern city, or see it as inconsequential for later urbanism. In the latest edition of the standard English-language history of the ап­ cient world we сап find this statement: At the start of оиг (i.e. the Hellenistic) period, in Asia and Ше Levant as in Greece and the Mediterranean generally, large urban agglomerations were rare and exceptional. Babylon, however, was certainly апе until it was supplanted Ьу Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. Susa, Uruk, and Sippar тау have been others, and the existence of large cities elsewhere cannot Ье discaunted. However, there is little doubt that outwith the narrow band of Greek or semi-Greek coastal city-state settlement the predominant fonn of nucleated settlement аН over the region was the so-called vil1age, either оп its own or (as often) grauped together in various ways.2 ТЬе

author ofthis passage seenis to ignore entirely the archaeologiса} and textual evidence concerning large-sized cities, по! only in Mesopotamia, but also in other Near Eastem regions, such as Syria and Egypt. When they do acknowledge the existence of cities in these areas historians often see them as total1y different from the Greek examples, because of the lack of 'democracy' and free enterprise. Thus а history of urbanism in тЬе ancient world states: 'Mesopotamia still afforded magnificent urban complexes like БаЬуlоn or Nineveh, which deeply impressed Greek travellers. But these were too vast to serve as models for incipient cities in Greece and were creatures of monarchies, nо! self-goveming соmти­ nitiеs.'З Besides perpetuating some old prejudices, such as the idea 2 }.

К. Davies, 'Culrural) social and economic features of the Hellenistic world')

The Call1bridge Ancient History) 2nd edn.;) 7: 1 (Cambridge 1984)) 297-8. 3 Mason Hammond, The City in zhe Allcient World (Cambridge, 1972)) 152-3.

Ciry and Society

5

of Oriental Despotism, these opi,nions seem to Ье based ОП а lack of knowledge of the Mesopotamian situation, perhaps due to the scarcity of studies regarding the topic. Of course, there аге serious obstacles to our understanding of Mesopotamian urbanism. There is по such thing as the Mesopotamian city, as each опе of the hundreds that existed had its own peculiarities, and to generalize from опе ofthem would Ье misleading. And ifwe limit оиг research to опе city only, we аге faced with а dearth or complete lack of inforrnation оп most of the issues we would like to address. The most extensive excavations have'uncovered only а minute part of the sites under investigation. Moreover, when textual information is abundant, it almost always derives from опе source, giving excessive emphasis to its activities: the раlасе, а temple, ог а small number of private citizens. Even when а mixture of sources is available, те subject matter detai1ed is limited and по! directly relevant to rnost of the questions we ask. Some ofthe documents оп which urban historians of other cultures rely extensively, such as census lists and tax records, are absent from Mesopotamia. Most texts available to us were' not written to infonn later historians, ог absent people, through description or explanation. Rather, the majority of the so-called economic texts put down in writing а transfer of property, Ье it silver, land, or а bowl of barley, from опе per80n or office to another person or office, with а vague reference То the reason for the transfer, а payment, а loan, ап inheritance, and 80 оп. Such documents are уегу hard to understand without knowledge of their context. It is thus tempting {о say that it is impossible to arrive а! ап overall picture of Mesopotamian urbanism, or for that matter апу other aspect of its culture, and better to limit oneself to analysing the material that is readily available. Such а defeatist attitude is not very satisfying, however. After аН, other historians face similar problems of limited documentation, and по culture had а typical city to Ье used аБ а paradigm. Yet books оп the Greek city, for instance, appear with great regularity. Although а single paragraph of Thucydides тау provide insights into the Athenian government that we will never arrive а! for Mesopotamia, some aspects of the есопоmу, for instance, аге much better documented in Mesopotamia than they are in Greece. Сап we then develop а model of the Mesopotamian city? 1 think so, if we cast а wide net, and if we abandon а strictly positivistic

б

City and Society

approach {о оиг sources. Both conditions are to Ье те! with great саutiоп.) and require elaboration. The Mesopotamian documentation тау Ье abundant, but it derives from ап enonnous timespan and а large geographical area. Instead of те few centuries of Greek history, Mesopotamian. history covers close to three millennia, а period equal {о that which separates us from Homer, and that is when we exclude prehistoric and Hellenistic material from сопsidеrаtiоn. During these 2,800 years numerous political changes took place with newcomers dominating the events паг­ rated in our history books: Sumerians, Akkadians, Amorites, Hurrians, Kassites, Persians, and so оп. Didn't some of them fundamentally change urban life? ТЬе issue of connnuity and change in Mesopotamian history has rarely been explicitly addressed in scholarship. The existence of а discipline of Mesopotamian studies, and the abundance of books оп Mesopotamia assumes the reality of а field of research with enough coherence to permit the delineation of а distinct identity. у е! that Ьу itself is not sufficient justification ro present а study of the city throughout Mesopotamian history. А simple reference {о Braudel's longue duree4 тау Ье fashionable, Ьи! is also too [асilе. Matters need to Ье considered in more detail, despite the fact та! scholars seem to recognize ап intemal unity in Mesoporamian civilization, based оп the characteristic that newcomers attempted to integrate themselves within the existing structures rather than overthrowing them. АН тоо often in our vision of Mesopotamian history) political and ri1ilitary events are taken as the only imponant ones, and have c:onsequently provided те chronological framework for thзt history~ But politics and the activities of the military are only two dimensions of sociery, and although they do indeed show те most evidence for change throughout Mesoporamian history, те changes are exaggerated in modem scholarship. Textbooks describe in detail the succession of dynasties and their military exploits in and outside Mesopotamia. They present ап histoire evenenzentielle culled from the rich historiographic remains of this civilization. А 10ng list of dynasties based both оп native traditions and оп modern scholarly classification has Ьееп developed. Dynasties that are prominent in the textual record Ьауе been assigned <1

See Fernand Braudel, Оп History (Chicago, 1980)) 25-54.

City and Society

7

their own period: for instance, those of the Third Dynasty of U~, the First Dynasty of Babylon, the Neo-Assyrian. Other, less documented royal houses have been grouped together and subsumed under designations such as Early Dynastic, Isin-Larsa, postKassite> етс. When the centre ofpolitical power shifted from Akkad to Ur, or from Ur (о Isin, or when а Persian king replaced а Chaldean one, we have established insurmountable boundaries in our political histories. Consequently we do not investigate whether these changes in dynastic control were of crucial importance in political terms. The practice of categorizing the studies of есопот­ ics, law, society~ and even literature and religion within тЬе resulting dynastic framework has inflated the importance of political events even more. Thus the 'Old Akkadian' sociery, for instance, is investigated in isolation from the preceding and succeeding situations, Middle Assyrian laws are studied in а vacuuffi, and so оп. ТЬе resulting periodization is fiawed and misleading. Instead of acknowledging patterns of continuity, it stresses instability and change. And this fragmentation becomes even more misleading when aspects of Mesopotamian civilization not directly dependent uроп the fortunes of the royal house are studied. А. Leo Oppenheirn has argued forcefully that instead of the fragmented sequence ofthe traditional historical periods we should" see ап essential unity in Mesopotamian civilization during its millennial history. In order tO do so, he described а cultural continuum involving social, intellectual, and technological traditions. Especially in а study of urban life, ап aspect such as the economic infrastructure of а region, for instance, should Ье of more rel. evance than те ethnic or linguistic background of the ruling class. The basic economic structure of Mesopotarnia remained the same throughout its history: it was а pre-industrial society based оп ап agricultural есопоmу. The ecological conditions ofthe region were never fundamentally altered from the moment agriculture was developed unti1 the discovery of oil as а valuable commodiry. The fundamental dependence of cities upon their agricultural base remained те same during the whole of antiquity, regardless of variations in the agricultural potential of their surroundings. Manufacturing relied оп agricultural resources as well, or оп imports of materials from abroad. А! по time in Mesopotamian history did the discovery of а new material or а new technique substantially alter this aspect of the есопоmу. The cities were also

8

City and SocielY

essential [о the tertiary sector of the есопоту, services4 Their administrative and financial roles basically remained the same throughout Mesopotamian history. We need to Iook for such соп­ tinuities, rather than focus uроп the оуеп changes in political control. The idea of а unity in Mesopotamian civilization should по! lead to а static view of its history. Oppenheim outlined five phases in its evolution, which were unfortunately rather impressionistically . named and vaguely delineated in time, and need по! Ье imposed ироп the study of а single institution. What is important аЬои! his periodization is that it stresses the existence of а continuum rather than а sequence of disjointed periods. Ап element of evolution in the model of urban life developed in this book needs then [о Ье acknowledged4 Due to the nature ofthe evidence it will not always Ье possible {о detail аП the stages of this evolution, Ьи! 1 hope to Ье аЫе {о demonstrate the unity of the subject matter. In geographical extent Mesopotamia is perhaps по! especiaI1y large-it is comparable (о Ртапсе in size-bu~ it includes а! least two clearly different ecological and cultural zones: Lower and Upper Mesopotamia. In different historical periods these areas were identified with the polities ofBabylonia and Assyria, and 1 wil1 use the latter designations for the sake of simplicity. Babylonia is а flat, dry region where permanent settlement is possibIe only near natural or artificial waterways; Assyria is more varied in relief and receives sufficient rainfall [о enable dry-farming and settlement throughout the countryside. Culturally the two regions showed mапу differences; уе! Assyria was greatly dependent оп Babylonia, emulating and adopting many of its traditions. The сопсер! of the city itself тау have Ьееп introduced [о Assyria from the South. Тhe fates of те two regions Ьесате intrinsicaIly tied after 1500 with the continuous movements of peoples and ideas back and forth. ТЬе ecological differences between the two regions did affect mапу aspects of urbanism within тет, especialIy with respect [о the есопоту. These differences wilI have [о Ье kept in mind and investigated under particular topics such as agriculturaI resources or игЬап origins. Ви! 1 Ьоре (о show та! the Babylonian and Assyrian ciries shared 80 тапу characteristics that they сап Ье regarded as variarions of а theme, and that material from both regions 'сап Ье used in the study of the Mesopotamian city. 1 think thus that it is acceptable to regard the entirety of Meso-

City and Society

9

potamia, Ьот in temporal and geographical terms, as а single unit. Of course, if more infonnation were available differences in tiтe and space would Ьесоте more obvious and а focus ироп the Babylonian city in те nineteenth century вс or the like would Ье possible.) but not necessarily more useful. Just as we сап study the pre-industrial European city or те ancient city, we сап study urbanism in Ancient Mesopotamia. The problem of the limitations of our sources сап Ье somewhat mitigated if we abandon the stricdy positivistic approach ф.аt predominates the fieId of Mesopotamian studies, especially among philologists. АН too often reconstructions are based оп те presепсе or absence of documentation, giving excessive importance {о те material we have and assuming та! only what is reported in it took place. Let те repeat а famous example: for more than fifty years we talked ofthe Sumerian temple-city in the twenty-sixth and twenry-fifth centuries, а ciry-state where а11 means of production and economic activity were owned and controlIed Ьу the temple. This idea was based оп the study of опе archive from the Ваи temple а! Lagash, the only archive analysed from that period of time. It took тапу years and great persistence Ьу а handful of scholars to convince others that private and palatial economic activity existed as weIl. Often the economic history of Mesopotamia looks like а chronologicallist of the various archives available, each опе determining the economic strиcture of its time! ТЬе lack of documentation тау Ье due to тапу factors other тап те absence of ап activity. Most scholars acknowledge the accident of recovery, but still basically assume that everything was somehow recorded. Instead, we should question why what we have was recorded, and why other possible activities were по!. Por instance, we have по records of retail sales of food or manufactured goods. Is this because such sales did not take place, or сап we explain their absence in the records otherwise? W е have {о ас­ knowledge that таnу enterprises could have remained outside the writren record, and even а siтple acceptance of the fact that they could have taken place provides а more refined picture than if we just state what is а! hand. The procedure of inquiry in this book wiIl not аmоип! to а didactic narration of what is known about certain urban issues, or about certain cities at а particular тотеп! in time. Instead, 1 will select issues of urban life that were imponant in ту opinion,

10

City and Society

develop а model about them, and then illustrate the model with examples from те entirety of Mesoporamian history, acknowledging temporal and regional variations. The resulting portrait will thus Ье idiosyncratic: after а11 both the selection of topics and of documentation аге ту own, while someone else could choose to discuss entirely different problems with other material. 1 fear that this is unavoidable unless one provides а complete catalogue of the documentation for аН aspects of urban life, if such were possible. It is customary in а study of this nature to seek а definition of 'the city', and to establish а means of distinction between cities and towns, villages, and hamlets. The native Mesopotamian terminology is of по help here. Ап enonnous number of senlements were referred to with the Sumerian and Akkadian tenns we translate as 'city': иru (Sum.) and iilum (Akk.). The Akkadian tenn was used for anything from те metropolis ofBabylon in те sixth century to а farmstead with seven inhabitants in the агеа of Harran in the seventh century. It was used for the entire city of Nineveh as wel1 as for а section of it. The Akkadian language had а few other terms to allude to permanent settlements, such as kaprum, а farmstead, durum, а fortified settlement that could Ье the size of а large city like Dur-Sharrukin, and mabazum, which could Ье anything from а small enclosure to а large town. Ви! in the great majority of cases the теnn alum was used. The translation 'city' is thus misleading, since we classify settlements Ьу size, and reserve ше tелn city for larger ones, although ап ехас! definition also eludes us. The lack of differentiation among settlements seerns to reflect а perception that а11 of them were equivalent and sovereign communities. The Mesopotamian languages were not alone in their lack of distinguishing settlements according to size. The Ancient Egyptian language, for instance, also failed to do so, and this has led то the false conclusion that ancient Egypt was а civilization without cities. It is only in [есеп! years that historians of ancient Egypt have started to acknowledge the urban character of the civilization" culling data from rare archaeological remains. 5 Thus we have то turn to criteria other than the native tenninology in order То arrive а! а definition of а city. Many scholars have ~ For the Egyptian tenninology see Manfred Bietak, 'Urban Archaeology and

the

"Town Рсоblет" in Ancient Egypt', in Kent Weeks (ed.), Egyprology and rhe SociaZ

Sciences (Cairo> 1979), 98-1 оо.

City and Society

11

attempted to provide а definition valid for аН cultures and time periods, usually without success. Wheatley devoted thirty-nine pages to this topic in his monumental book оп the Chinese city, rejecting such prorninent theories as those Ьу Weber, Pirenne, and Childe, to end with а statement that the question is metaphysical rather than scientific. 6 Не did, however, stress the imponance of the city as ап organizing force in its geographical setting. This idea derives [гот the 'Central Place Theory' developed Ьу geographers, which states that each settlement сап Ье assigned а position in а hierarchy based оп те number of lower-ranked communities it serves, and particular patterns of settlement in а region will appear if the hierarchy is mapped out. У е! there remains ап aspect of uncertainty about what type of settlement сап Ье called а city rather than а town or а village, as was clearly stated Ьу Richard Blanton: 1п а

society with а hierarchy of central places, cities аге communities in the highest range of те hierarchy, while towns are those communities оссиру­ ing the middle and lower ranges of the hierarchy. Where the researcher draws те boundary berween what are cal1ed cities and what are cal1ed towns is аl\\7ЗУS arbi trary and will vary from society (о sociery. 7

This ambiguiry cannot Ье resolved. We сап, however, maintain that the primary functional characteristic of а city is its role as а ~ediator between various perrnanent and seasonal settlements in its surroundings. Or, as Braudel has stated: 'The town only exists as а town in relation to а fonn of life lower than its own.,8 That mediating role has several dimensions: economic, ideological, military, and po1itical. 9 It is important that several, if not аН, of these dimensions are present simultaneously. А religious institution-such as а temple in the countryside-can Ье ап ideological centre, but does not constitute а city. In order to observe the mediating role of а city we need geographical studies that provide regional maps indicating аП settlements and the means 6 7

Ра ul wh еа tley) The PiVOl 01 rhe Four Quarrers (Chicago, 1971), 3 71-409. Richard Е. Blanton, 'Anthropological Studies of Cities', Annual Review

0/

Anchropology 5 (1976), 253. Fernand Braudel, The Slructures 01 Everyday Life: Civilizarion and Capilalism, 15th-18th Ce1llury 1 (New York, 1981),481. 9 1 ат using here rhe model of the four dimensions of social power-ideological, economic) military, and political-developed Ьу Michael Mann, Тhe Sources 0/ 8

Social Power 1 (Cambridge, 1986).

City and Society

12

of communication between them. Fortunately~ we have such maps for southern Babylonia through the efforts ofRobert МсС. Adams, Ьи! we Iack them for the rest of Mesopotamia. Сап we use other criteria, identi:fiable in ап isolated settlement~ {о recognize а city? V. Gordon Childe developed а list of ten elements distinguishing cities from villages,10 but this list has been justly criticized as а mixed bag of unrelated characteristics. It is thus preferable to Iimit те criteria in number, and perhaps соm­ топ sense should Ье our main guide. А book оп European urbanization states reasonably: [There are] commonly accepted quantifiable dimensions that distinguish cities from other fonns of settlement: population size, density of settlement, share of non-agricultural occupations and diversity of non-agricultural occupations. АН four of these criteria are continuums, 50 mat опе must draw а liпе at some point dividing cities from non-cities. 1Ъis саnпо! Ьеlр Ьи! Ье arbitrary. But а settlement must score sufficiently high in аП

four ofthese criteria {о Ье а city, а requirement that does по! make те task easier Ьи! does reflect the existence of а broadly 5hared intuitive understanding of what constitutes ап urban рlасе. 11

The problem of distinguishing between urban and non-urban settlements is somewhat alleviated in the study of Mesopotamian urbanism in та! archaeologists have concentrated their work оп settlements that have urban characteristics, because these аге still most visible in the countryside and promise the most sensational results. The textual material [гот these sites will thus also derive from ап игЬап environment. In this study the {еnn city wil1 Ье rather broadly applied {о тапу of the Mesopotamian settlements we know. 1 will use town as а synonym for city~ as it seems impossible to differentiate between the two with the information available, and contrast these tелns only with village. Тhe latter 1 мН interpret as а rural settlement oflimited size, whose inhabitants are primarily involved in agricultural production or in а specialized aspect of industry, for their own needs and for те needs of те inhabitants of а neighbouring city. I! seems futile to attempt а more refined distinction тап that between city and village. The reconsrruction of urban life presented here perforce wil1 Ье 10

v.

Gordon Childe, CТhe Urban Revolution', Town Planning Review 21 (1950),

3-17. 11

Jan de Vries, Еитореаn Urbanizatz·on 1500-1800 (Cambridge, 1984), 11.

City and Society

13

greatly infiuenced Ьу ideas оп the structure of Mesopotaтian sociery in general. Every scholar works with such а bias, уе! few state their views clearly. А survey of the current theories оп the social and economic 8tructures of Mesopotamia would Ье useful, but cannot Ье provided here. А variety of opinions is inspired Ьу the scholarship devoted {о the societies and economies of ancient Greece and Rome, where the discussion has Ьееп more public. The fundamental issue in the debate, which is especially pertinent to the study of urbanism, is whether the ancient economies were 'primitive' or 'modem'. ТЬе polemic around this question has Ьееп going оп for а century among ancient historians, Ьи! has seemingly escaped the attention of Mesopotamian ones. 12 1t is paralleled Ьу the so-called 'substantivist-fonnalist' contro~ersy among есо­ nomic anthropologists, which has been set off Ьу the work of Karl Polanyi. The 'primitivist' or 'substantivist' points ofview state that pre-capitalist ос non-capitalist economies were and are 80 radically different from the rnodem Westem есопоту that the concepts or models used in modern economics cannot Ье applied to them. ТЬе 'modemist' school thinks that the ancient Greek and Roman economies showed such ап advanced stage of capitalist development that they differed only quantitatively from the modern economy, not qua1itatively. 'Formalist' anthropologists believe that economic theories used for the analysis of the modern есоnоmу сап Ье used in the study of 'primitive) economies. ТЬе 'primitivist' point of view is clearly dominant among those scholars who have formulated а coherent theory оп the Mesopotamian economy, especially the 'schools) around the Marxist scholars 1. М. Diakonoff and М. Liverani, as well as 1. J. Gelb, А. L. Oppenheiт, and J. Renger. The majority of Western scholars seems to adhere to the modernist point of view, and actually extends it funher back in time {о ascribe capitalist practices to Mesopotamia in the early second, if not the third, mil1ennium вс.

Ап

entire set of 'modern) economic values and motivations

сап

Тhe only explicit references (о the primitivism-modemism debate known со are in те recent articles Ьу Johannes Renger) 'Probleme und Perspektiven einer Wirtschaftsgeschichte Mesopotamiens', Saeculum 40 (1989)) 166-78; and Ьу Carlo Zaccagnini J 'In margine аН' еmропоn: mоdеПi di scambio nеl1е economie del Vicino Oriente antico', in Alain Bresson and Pierre Rouillard (eds.), L'emporion (Publications du centre Pierre Paris (URA 991); Paris, 1993);, 127--43. 12

те

14

City and Society

Ье

demonstrated to have Ьееп present in ancient Mesopotamia: а desire for profit, the maximal use of economic resources, and а price-setting market есопоту including а labour market. There are rnапу empirical data that point to the existence of these economic .factors; loan documents, bills of sale> hiring contracts, etc. The crucial ргоЫеm lies in the evaluation of their role within the есопоmу. Do these documents reveal 'capitalist' activities that had а substantial or even dominant importance in the economic life? Or аге they merely peripheral to ап есопоmу dominated Ьу the public institutions of palace and temple, which controlled the majority of labour, remunerated with standardized rations, set prices, and extracted economic resources for unproductive purposes such as ostentatious display? In 1909 the Gennan sociologist Мах Weber stated that such ап evaluation could по! уе! Ье made as mos[ of the 200,000 cuneiform texts excavated at tha! time had not Ьееп translated and the interpretation of those studied was still highly uncenain. 13 Today, when the number of published documents is infinitely higher and оиг understanding of them, although still ореп to debate, has improved vastly, we аге in the same position. Since we are unable to quantify information оп апу sector of the Mesopo!amian есопоту, we cannot evaluate the relative importance ofthe data we have. For example, the agricultural production in Babylonia managed Ьу the state under the Тhird Dynasty of Ur (twenty-first century) seems enormous. Huge tracts of land were worked Ьу numerous state dependants, accounted for Ьу bureaucrats. We know that next to these seemingly gigantic state holdings privately or соmmunаllу owned fields existed> but nothing is known about their production. Based оп this infonnation we сап only venture the opinion that in this period most of the agricultural produce in Babylonia derived from the state enterprise, but опе cannot say Ьу аnу means wha! percentage of the total production was in the state's hands. Perhaps we are fooled Ьу the documentary abundance from state archives, a~d the private sector in realiry тау have Ьееn dominant. If we accept that the state was те major agricultural producer, how сап we determine its motives? Did it organize production merely to guarantee the survival of the official bureaucracy and аП the state dependants with а marginal addi13

See Мах Weber> The Agrarian Sociology

Frank (London and New York, 1988), 103-4.

0/ Ancienc CiviZizarions, trans. R. 1.

City and Society

15

tional surplus to enable the acquisition of foreign materials for а display of wealth in the palace and the temples? Or did те state strive for а maximization ofproduction with the available resources of labour and land in order to enable the acquisition of as тапу prestige goods as possible? In the end our answers are deterrnined Ьу а theoretical stance, often based оп ап intuitive judgement, and ап increase of {Ье factual data will not епаЫе us to settle these questions conclusively. Since the work of the economic historian cannot Ье ап unprejudiced description of facts this theoretical stance needs to Ье identified. In the model presented here in somewhat dogmatic terms 1 have incorporated та пу elements developed and argued Ьу other scholars. References {о these, and other works will Ье found in the bibliography. Of fundaтental importance to our consideration of the economies of antiquity in general is the fact that the есопоту cannot Ье separated from its sociaI setting. Непсе те structure of society, again very incompletely known to us, needs to Ье considered first. The basic social unit within Mesopotamia was те household, which could vary enormously in size. At its smallest, it was fonned Ьу а nuclear family: а patriarch and his sons and grandsons with their wives and children. Dependent labour was рап of те household, which thus could expand enormously to а large palace or temple complex headed Ьу а secular ог religious leader with hundreds of dependent families. А! least originally, the household strove to Ье ап autonornous unit of production and consurnption. Ideally аН that was consumed Ьу it was grown and prepared within the household itself. But in reality this self-sufficiency was rarely attained above а level of mere subsistence. Since Mesopotamia had по mineral resources, for instance, metal objects could only Ье manufactured with materials obtained from the outside. Even the palace could not obtain аН its needs through its own production ог conquest, at least until [Ье Assyrian empire. Already in the early historical period~ the households сап Ье categorized into three sectors, which survived throughout Mesoporamian history: institutional, communal, and private. Other scholars see а dichotomy between institutional and communal (e.g. Diakonoff and Liverani), or institutional and private households (e.g. Gelb and Renger), but 1 believe that the idea that there was only one type of social unit outside the public institutions does not explain what we observe in the historical record.

16 Тhe

City and Society

institutional households dominate те textual and archaeological data available to us, and include the secular palace and the religious temples. The relationship between те two shifted throughout Mesopotamian history. Whi1e те temples were dorniпап! politically and economically in the very early periods, they were incorporated into те palace hierarchy пот the mid-third mil1ennium оп, and тау have Ьесоmе те representatives of те cornmunity in late Babylonian .history. Since temples and palaces worked hand in hand during most of Mesopotamian history, they сап Ье considered together under the institutional heading. Тheir households were large, in early history incorporating а large nиmЬег of dependants who provided labour and relied upon те institutions for their livelihood. Тhe complex system ofthe redistribution of а11 basic requirements developed later into опе мт selfsupporting tenant-farmers who supplied рап of their yields to the institutional landowner. In те first millennium, те Mesopotamian empires acquired huge tracts of land through conquest, which were distributed to high officials who ran their estates like feudal lords. Тhe соттипаl households аге very poorly documented, and according to some scholars they are а figm.ent of the imagination. The idea of classless clan-based groups with communal ownership of land that cannot Ье alienated Ьу individuals derives from те Marxist соnсер! of the primitive mode of production preceding а class society. У е! with the establishment of classes and the state, the communities did not disappear entirely, although their activities were pushed to the fringes of the urban civilization that is the focus of our attention. Autarkic rural communities leading а life at the subsistence level тау have remained а constant feature in Mesopotamia at least until те late second millennium. Their meтbers were free, yet poor. The infiltration ofnew ethnic groups) such as the Kassites, at times seems to have reinforced the соmmи­ па} sector, but that sector always remained оп the margins of the society as known {о us. The existence of а free private sector in Mesopotamian society, in addition to те institutional and communal ones, seems rarely accepted. Тhe majoriry of scholars considers аН те individuals we see engaged in economic activity as belonging {о the institutional master class. Yet, although such persons often collaborated with the temples and the palaces, they need not have Ьееn in те еmрl0У

City and Society

17

of these institutions, as we see them also involved in transactions оп their own account. Many of them never appear with а title that places them within ап institutional household, and when the аг­ chaeological context oftheir records is known, they are often found in residential areas. Тhe origins of these individuals are unclear. ТЬеу тау have Ьееп community members who had left their clan, or members of the upper echelons of the institutional households who had Ьесоте financially secure enough to acquire land and conduct business independently. Perhaps а great impetus towards the creation ofthis sector сате frorn the institutions' unwiIlingness {о manage their own resources and their subcontracting of services {о private individuals. Obviously а rigid distinction between the activities of these three sectors did not exist. А look а! present-day experience shows that, despite the rhetoric, по есопоту is completely managed Ьу the state or Ьу private enterprise. As usual, а scholarly classification obscures the details we сап observe in our data. Individuals worked with institutions, the palace interacted with village communities, and mапу arrangements unknown to us must have been worked out. АН three sectors of society played а role throughout hi8tOry with varying degrees of importance, Ьи! never to те complete exclusion of the others. An important question revolves around what motivated the есо­ nomic activities we observe in the records. Although we cannot deny that the Mesopotamians were aware of Фе concepts of profit and loss, and that they are often documented as active in commercial enterprises, we need nо! look upon them as driven Ьу the capitalist ideologies that have dominated the Western world in the modem era. W е have to keep in mind that those activities that seem to us as having а commercial nature will dominate the textual records we use in our research. Ви! it is obvious that economic activity could result from motives other than the desire for materiaI gain. The acqui8ition of wealth тау have been used to raise one's social status, and опее the desired statu8 was attained the individual might stop working. Institutions that made interest-bearing loans тау have done 80 in order to help out people in need, Ьи! rhey тау also have Ьееп interested in increasing their capital. Was the Mesopotamian есопоту а 'pre8tige есопоту' or one interested in 'fi.lthy lucre'? These ате questions we cannot answer, and по! just because of the so-cal1ed lack of self-conscious literature in

18

City and Society

Mesopotamia. Опе just has to look а! the acerbity of the debate concerning те ancient Greeks and their attitudes towards соm­ mercial life to see that even ап assertion Ьу Aristotle саппо! Ье taken а! its faee value. From our distance, and at the mercy of а textual record фа! emphasizes economic activity, we саппо! judge фе motivations of these ancient peoples. Мапу of те statements made in this book will seem to substantiate те modernist claims concerning фе ancient есопоmу. 1 will use terms such as profit, те market, manufaeturing industry, investments, аН of which have particular capitalist connorations in our minds. Уе! 1 do not want to portray Фе Mesopotamians as driven Ьу the same economic desires we seem (о have, or as archetypical 'Levantine' traders. Somehow they attempted to make the best of their lives with the limited resources available {о them, and they often were по! аЫе to raise their standard of living above rnere survival. Ви! at times some of them, like the Assyrian emperors of the seventh century, were аЫе to attain luxurious life-styles а! the expense of mапу others, due to а fortuitous coincidence of political and economic factors. Those few are best known to us because rheir remains dominate Ьот the textual and archaeologiсаl records available to the modern scholar, but теу are the ехсер­ tion, not the rule. Finally it is important to point ои! the restrictions of the textual documentation used in the study of Mesopotamian social and economic history. ТЬе three sectors of society 1 outlined above are по! equally represented: фете "is а strong bias towards the affairs of те institutions in Фе records. This bias results both from the actual extent ofwriting used within the three sectors, and from the recovery of material in modern excavations. Writing in Mesopotamia was invented for the recording of eeonoтic transactions, and throughout те history of the region this remained the primary function ofthe written word, even when literature and Фе like were written down as well. Ви! literacy was limited, and record keeping was primarily undertaken Ьу фе риыic institutions and Ьу individuals with large economic interests. ТЬе village communities, producing little or nothing in excess ofwhat теу consumed, would not have needed {о record anything, as the few transactions taking place were simple, and eould Ье easily remembered. Large есо­ nomic enterprises required а bureaueraey, however. ТЬеу were primarily те enterprises ofthe palaces and large teтples. Transac-

City and SocielY

19

rions, such as the issuing of rations to numerous employees, needed {о Ье recorded. AIso private individuals and family firms played ап important role in the Mesopotamian есопоту and· their activities Ьесате very complex at times, so complex that теу required а record. Непсе, in antiquity the affairs of public institutions and iтportant private entrepreneurs dominated те record. In modem times the accounts of the Iarge temple and palace organizations have gained ап increased proтinence, because both scientific and illicit archaeological exploration has focused оп the monumental reтains of palaces and temples. Private residences have Ьееп less explored, and thus те records of the people living in theт often reтain unexcavated. ТЬе bias of the written docuтentation available to us emphasizes thus the affairs of the рuыic institutions, but this situation does not warrant the conclusion that they dominated economic life in Mesopotamia а! аН times. In our reconstructions we should remain aware of те activities of the соmтипаl and private sectors of the society as well, even if they remain poorly documented or not documented at аН. А detailed description of the economic interactions between the three sectors of society cannot Ье written here, and perhaps not еуеп in а separate study. Their presence throughout Mesopotamian history, and their co-operation in the есопоту will Ье used as а basis of this study. ТЬеу were variables in а coтplex system of interaction of social, political, economic, and cultural spheres, аП ofwhich played а role in urban Iife. It is that life 1 Ьоре to elucidate in this book.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Studies оп Mesopotamian urbanism are rare: А. Leo Oppenheim's works include: 'А New Look а! те Structure of Mesopotamian Society', Journal 01 the Economic and Social History 01 the Опеnс 1О (1967), 1-26; 'Mesopotaтia-Land of Мапу Cities', in Ira М. Lapidus (ed.), Middle Eastern Cit1:es (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1969), 2nd edn. 3-16; and Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait 0/ а Dead Civilization (Chicago and London, 1977). The symposium оп urbanism ас the University of Chicago was published as City InvincibZe, с. Н. Кraeling and R. МсС. Adams (eds.) (Chicago, 1960). Тhe conference ас the University ofLondon was published as Man~

20

Cz·ty

~nd

Society

Settlement and Urbanzsт, Peter J. Ucko, Ruth Tringham, and G.W. Dimbleby (eds.) (London, 1972). Robert мсс. Adams published three seminaI books оп settlement pattems in ancient Babylonia: Land behind Baghdad." А History 0/ Settlement оп the Diyala Plains (Chicago and London, 1965); (with Hans J. Nissen), The Uruk Countryside: The Natural Setting 01 Urban Societies (Chicago and London, 1972); and Heartland 01 Cities (Chicago and London, 1981). G. Cardascia wrote ап article 'Les villes de Mesopotamie', for the Recueils de la Societe Jean Bodin 7 (1955), 51-61; and Wolfram von Soden gave some general remarks in 'Tempelstadt und Metropolis im Alten Orient', in Heinz Stoob (ed.), Die Stadt: Gestalt und Wandel bis zum industriellen Zeitalter (Cologne and Vienna, 1979), 37-82. Three recent conferences оп the city in Mesopotamia have Ьееп pubIished: La ViZZe dans le proche-orient ancien: Actes du Colloque de Cartigпy, Francoise Briischweiler (ed.) (Louvain, 1983); The Town as Regional Economic Centre in the Ancient Near East (Session В-lб, Proceedings Tenth Intemational Economic History Congress, Leuven, August 1990), Erik Aerts and Horst Юепgеl (eds.) (Louvain, 1990); and Nuove fondazioni nе! Vicino Опеnсе antico: realta е ideologia, S. Mazzoni (ed.) (Pisa, 1994). Important insights оп urbanism сап also Ье found in М. Liverani, 'La citta vicino orientale antica', in Pietro Rossi (ed.), Modelli di citta (Turin, 1987), 57-85, and J. N. Posrgate, Early Mesopotamia: Society аnа Есоnоmу ас the Dawn о! History (London . and New York, 1992). Jean-Louis Huot, Naissance des cires (Paris, 1990), is а more popular account addressing many aspects of urbanism. General sUIVeys of ancient urbanism that include remarks оп Mesopotamia are Mason Hammond, The City in the Ancient World (Cambridge, 1972), for which the review Ьу J. Renger in Journal 01 theAтerican Опеnсаl Society 95 (1975),115-16 is important; and Frank Kolb, Die Stadt im Altertum (Munich, 1984). Studies of individual cities include Sippar: Rivkah Harris, Аn­ cient Sippar: А Demographic Study 01 ап Old Babylonian City (18941595 вс) (Istanbul, 1975); Nippur: EIizabeth с. Stone, Nippur Neighborhoods (Chicago, 1987); and Ur: 1. М. Diakonoff, People 01 Ur (Moscow, 1990); Marc Van De Mieroop, Society and Enterpnse in Old BabyZonian Ur (Ber1in, 1992). Archaeological projecrs attempting to reconstruct urban layouts

City and Socieт.y

21

include those а! АЬи Salabikh: J. N. Postgate in John Cunis (ed.), Fifty Years 0/ Mesopotamian Discovery (London, 1982), 48-61; АЬи Duwari: Elizabeth С. Stone and Раи} Zimansky, 'Mashkan-shapir and the Anатоmу of ап Old Babylonian City', Biblical Archaeologist 55 (1992» 212-18; and Larsa: Jean-Louis Нио! et al., 'La Structure urbaine de Larsa: Une approche provisoire', in Jean-Louis Huot (ed.), Larsa: Travaux de 1985 (Paris, 1989), 19-52. For а rare archaeological investigation of а Lower Mesopotamian village, see Henry Т. Wright, The Administration 01 Rural Production 'in ап Early Mesopotamian Town (Anп Arbor, 1969). А powerful statement аЬоu! the unity of Mesopotamian civilization was made Ьу А. Leo Oppenheim in Letters from Mesopotamia (Chicago and London, 1967), 1-53, Ьи! his message has been mosdy ignored. The issue of continuity in Mesopotamian history has Ьееп addressed recently Ьу Nonnan Yoffee, 'The Collapse of Ancient Mesopotamian States and Civilization', in Norman Yoffee and George L. Cowgill (eds.), The Collapse 01 Ancient States and Civilizations (Tuscon, 1988), 44-68, and J. N. Postgate, Early Mesopotaтia, (1992), 292-302. Оп the Akkadian tenn alum see 1. М. Diakonoff, 'From а соl1ес­ tive dwelling to ап imperial city', Oikumene 5 (1986), 55-62; and William W. НаНо, 'Antediluvian Cities', Journal ofCuneiform 8tudies 23 (1970) 57-67. А good survey of the methodological difficulties for the study of Ancient Mesopotamian economic history, with references to ancient history in general, was provided Ьу Johannes Renger, 'Probleme und Perspektiven einer Winschaftsgeschichte Mesopotamiens', Saeculum 40 (1989), 166-78. The most important Marxist theoretical statements include the mапу contributions Ьу 1. М. Diakonoff, те most recent and accessible of which is' in Early Antiqu-iтy (Chicago and London, 1991), 1-66; and Mario Liverani, '11 modo di produzione', in S. Moscati (ed.), L'alba della civilra 2: L'economia, (Turin, 1976), 1-126. Non-Marxist scholars have never clearly outlined their ideas оп the structure of Mesopotamian society. Imponant contributions have been made Ьу 1. J. Gelb in articles such as, 'Оп the Al1eged Temple and State Economies in Ancient Mesopotamia', Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra 6 (Milan, 1969), 137-54; 'From Freedom (о Slavery', in D. о. Edzard (ed.), Gesellschaftsklassen im Alten Zweistron'lland (Munich, 1972), 81-92; and 'Household and

22

City and Society

Fami1y in Early Mesopotamia', in Е. Lipinski (ed.), Slate аn4 Temple Есоnоmу in the Ancient Near Easl (Louvain, 1979), 1-97. Johannes Renger has devoted several studies to the subjecr, e.g. 'Pattems of non-institutional trade and non-commercial exchange in ancient Mesopotamia а! the beginning ofthe second millennium вс', in Alfonso Archi (ed.), Circulation 01 Goods in Non-Palatial Соnсехс in xheAncient Near EaSl (Rome, 1984), 31-123; 'Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft', in В. Hrouda (ed.), Der Alte Опеnс (Gutersloh, 1991), 187-215; and 'Оп Economic Structures in Ancient Mesopotamia', Orientalia 63 (1994), 157-208.

2 The Origins and Character of the МеsороtаП1iаn City

It is now generally aceepted that Mesopotamia is the опе region in the Old World where we сап say with certainty that ап urban civilization arose spontaneously. The origins of cities there have been extensively discussed in the past four deGades, not so much Ьу Near Eastern historians, who have often limited their comrnents to statements of archaeologicalIy discernible facts, but Ьу anthropologists, sociologists, and some urban historians specializing in later periods. The topic is of importance in the study of Mesopotamiap urbanism, as our ideas аЬоu! their origins influenee to а great extent how we view the nature of eities in subsequent history. In this chapter 1 do по! intend to give а survey ofthe even!s connected with the rise of urbanism, nor ап overview and critique of аН theories seeking to explain it. 1 will discuss some of the most influential theories оп urban development and point out what elements in тет seem most useful [or understanding the Mesopotamian situation. This will lead to а consideration of the character of the Mesopotamian city опее it was fully developed. First, 1 have to restate а few well-known facts. Mesopotamia is the region where cities originated first in world history. Непсе, the rise of cities there was ап independent and indigenous event. Second, the entire evolution took place in prehistory. No textual sources are available from the time cities first arose, and texts from later periods сап only Ье used to illustrate patterns visible in the earlier archaeological record. Third, те entire process from the first permanent settlement in southem Mesopotamia to the first cities there took ап enormously long time, from around 5500 вс to around 3500 вс. The emergence of the city тау have occurred relatively suddenly, Ьи! саппо! Ье understood in isolation froт what preceded it, and must Ье seen as а culmination of that process.

Origins and Character

24

Of те numerous discussions оп the origins of the city, three approaches have found the most adherents, each stressing а particular function of the earliest cities: ceremonial, commercial, or redistributive. ТЬе concept that the earliest cities, in аН areas of primary urban generation, functioned foremost as ceremonial сеn­ tres has been most extensively argued Ьу Раиl Wheatley, reviving ап idea already developed Ьу Fustel de Coulanges in the midnineteenth century. Wheatley maintained that religion provided the primary focus of sociallife in the period immediately preceding urbanism. Wherever cities first appeared, they contained а сегето­ nial complex, in his opinion, and even if the latter performed secular functions as well, these were рап of the religious context. Тhe priests were the first group to escape the 'daily round of subsistence labor', 1 hence setting the process of social stratification into motion. Only after ceremonial centres were fiпnly established did they obtain а redistributive economic role> and secular elites only developed after cities had Ьееп in existence for several centuries. Although те observation that аН the earliest cities contained а ceremonial centre is accurate, for Mesopotamia at least, the conclusion that religion drew people together in uгЬаn conglomerates is not warranted. The reasoning behind it seems to Ье опе of сит hoc ergo propter hoc. The idea that temples аге primarily religious institutions is а modem concept and does not apply (о те early Mesopotamian temples. Тhey fulfilled primarily а managerial role in the local economy. As 1 will demonstrate later, по urban settlement is possible without ап agricultural base to support а dense population. Agricultural resources needed to Ье extracted from the countryside Ьу ап authority~ and religion provided that authority. But people did not converge ироп ceremonial centres for their spiritual leadership, and throughout те world mаnу such centres exist in isolation. Moreover, the temple's imponance in early Mesopotamia is greatly overstated, due (о the archaeologists' focus оп monumental architecture, and а misreading of mid-thirdmillennium archival records. The ideological focus provided Ьу early cities clearly existed, Ьи! it was of insufficient strength to Ье те sole driving force towards urbanism . . А second theory emphasizes tbe role oflong-distance trade in the 1

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

Origins and Character

25

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

ап

imaginary city, New Obsidian, which

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

2б

Origins and Character

eats his entire load in аЬои! seventeen days when Ье has marched а! the most 600 kilometres опе way, taking into ассоип! that Ье has to eat оп his way back. Of course, to Ье аЫе {о barter the food he cannot consume а11 of it. Ап ехатрlе makes this problem obvious. If а тап comes а distance of 1ОО ki10metres to obtain obsidian at New Obsidian, Ье wiIl start ои! with 40 kilograms offood. In three days Ье will have reached his destination with 37 kilograms, and he wiII Ье аЫе to barter а maximum of 34 kilograms for obsidian. Those 34 kilograms will feed опе inhabitant of the city for slightly more·than опе month. For the 5,000 inhabitants of~atal Hiiyiik to Ье supported for оnе year, 60,000 trips of this type would Ье needed from а radius по! surpassing 100 ki19metres from те site. That area is only 157 square kilometres, and considering the ех­ tremely low population density in pre-agricultural times, there were not enough people in tIiat region to provide аН the food needed in New Obsidian. Moreover, аН these calculations аге based оп the assumption that circumstances were optimal. It seems impossible to walk 33 kilometres а day in the region around <;atal Hiiyi.ik, while rest-stops оп the road would have increased the consumption Ьу те transponer. How long would it have taken to drive live undomesticated animals over this distance? ТЬе problems could по! Ье al1eviated Ьу using draft animals, as Jacobs states ша! аН this activity took рlасе before the domestication of animals. Nor does river transpon provide ап altemative, as rivers are only navigable in опе direction in the агеа of <;aral HUyiik. ]acobs's теогу is thus entirely unacceprable. Mellaart, whose work inspired Jacobs, was more careful as Ье acknowledged the existence of agriculture around sites such as Jericho, (:atal Hiiyiik, and others. Не a1so stressed the role of religion in те creation of these settlements) referring то тап as 'а religious animal' and to Фе fact that 'religious strиctures are among the ear1iest remains of the homo sapiens'. 3 Ви! still the settlements of the eighth {о sixth millennia Ье studied аге по! to Ье regarded as cities and certainly по! as те beginnings of urban civilizarion. ТЬеу were highly anomalous sertlements) relying оп unique coincidences of very fertile surroundings and 10cation оп trade routes, enabling and precipitating а dense habitation. No 3 James Mellaart, 'Тhe Origins and Development of Cities in the Near East:J, in Louis L. ОгНп (ed.), Janus: Essays in Ancient and Modern Studies (Anп AnЬог, 1975), 13.

Origi,ns and Character

27

social hierarchy is clear within these settlements, nor do their hinterlands show ап urban infrastructure. Moreover, they were evolutionary 'dead-ends': after 5400 вс теу disappeared and foc over 1,000 years urban settIements аге по! to Ье found in the . reg1ons. ТЬе las! theory 1 will discuss here has gained the most popularity in the field of ancient Near Eastern studies after it was cogently argued Ьу Robert мсс. Adams in his seminal book The Evolution 0/ ИтЬаn SocielY (1966). ТЬе book focuses оп the societal changes which led {о ап urban civi1ization in two regions with primary urbanization: southern Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica. Adams recognized three major stages in this evolution. First, the development of agriculture led {о increased stabi1ity of residence, increased yields, and incentives [ог population growth. As а result there was greater societal stability, and а surplus appeared in food producrion. Because of а specializarion in food production, а mediatory role for the exchange of goods was needed, and the power of redistribution was concentrated in Фе hands of а small group within the society. Second} classes gradually replaced kin-based groups. Differences in access to the means of production led to а social stratification. Individuals identified themselves more with rheir equals in social status than with their Юп. But kinship affiliation did по! disappear altogether, as те relationship {о а real ог imaginary соmmоп ancestor was used as Фе basis for social stratification. Third, the иррег classes in the social hierarchy took hold of те administration of {Ье Ьу now complex society. ТЬе first group to do so was а priesthood that тау Ьауе justified its leadership through religion. ТЬе ear1iest Mesopotamian cults focused uроп fertility, and ecological instabiIity тау have led people to rely оп priests to intercede оп their behalf with те gods. Ви! те main function of Фе temple was опе of economic redistribution. Increasingly large and complex temples organized the varied and multiple interactions between different groups within ше society. The priests relied оп technological innovations such as writing and bookkeeping for their trade. Craft centres grew ир {о provide for their needs with increasing specialization, and expensive .raw materials were imported Ьу тет through long-distance trade. А physical separation from те rest of society ensued with the temple personnel residing in ог around increasingly monumental temples in cities. Only centuries later were the powers held Ьу the priests

Origi,ns and Character

28

usurped Ьу а secular and miIitary authoriry, whose influence was nurtured Ьу increased competition between the various urban centres. Adams considered the rise of the city as опе aspect of те rise of фе state, i.e. а society та! is hierarchically organized оп po1itical and territorial Iines rather тап оп the basis of kinship or other ascriptive relationships. ТЬе politicaI authority of the state happens to Ье situated in the city where а dense and socially stratified population resides. 1 would agree with this viewpoint, although 1 do not want to broaden the discussion here {о the rise of те state in Mesopotamia. In Adams's opinion cities originated because states developed. Society was structured with classes, differentiated . both through wealth or access to means ofproduction, and through occupation which could Ье agriculturaI, pastoral, industrial, сот­ mercial, cultic, or adrninistrative. Cities were the loci where these classes interacted or where те interactions between them were regulated. In economic terms they were redistributive centres of goods and services produced Ьу these classes. Adams's theory has earned widespread support among Mesopotamian schoIars, who have elaborated оп it, and indeed its argument is highly persuasive. In те present discussion 1 would like {о stress why cities evolved in southem Mesopotamia of аН places, and {о elaborate оп the various aspects of their redistributive role. It is very difficult for us to determine why cities appeared in southem Mesopotamia, rather than in Anatolia or the Levant, for instance. Ву те beginning of the fourth milIennium the region provided the thr~e preconditions of city life, as determined Ьу Gideon Sjoberg: а favourable ecological base, ап advanced technology (relative to те pre-urban form) in both agricultural and non-agricultural spheres, and а complex social organization, especially with regard {о the power structure. 4 Ви! these circumstances do not necessarily lead to ап urban sociery. As Ester Boserup has shown there is а need for а certain level of population density, as the aggregate food surplus produced Ьу the agriculturalists needs {о . satisfy the requirements of the pon-agricultural urban рори­ Iation. 5 ТЬе southern Mesopotamian countryside was certainly I

-1

Gideon Sjoberg, The Preindustrial CiLy~ Past and Present (Glencoe, 1960), 27-

31. 5

Est:er Boserup, Populalion and TechnoZogicaZ Change: А S!udy

Trends (Chicago, 1981),

Рап

11.

0/ Long- Terт

Origins and Character

29

fertile enough [о sustain а dense popula[ion, Ьи! there was по shortage of agriculturalland that would force people [о live closely together. So why did they decide [о remain in а small geographical zone, 80 that the prerequisite population density could Ье attained? 1 think we сап answer this question Ьу 100king аТ the ecological diversity of те region. Several scholars, such as Adarns and Liverani, have pointed ои! that the Near East contains а number of diverse ecological zones in close contact with one another: steppe, irrigated alluvium> and mountains with forests and pastures. This is also true оп а more microscopic scale, especially for the very south of Mesopotamia. АН тоо often it is imagined that this агеа was uninhabited unti1 the arrival of irrigation farmers in the midsixth millenniuffi. Ви! тапу wild natural resources were available [о non-farmers, and were exploited Ьу them prior to the appearance of fanning: pasture for herds of sheep and goats in фе river valleys and the steppe, and extensive :fishing and hunting grounds for fishermen and hunters in the marshes. When те [echnology то [ар water from те numerous natural channels of те Euphrates river was introduced, large-scale farming Ьесаmе possible, Ьи! it did not replace herding, fishing, and hunting. АН these activities took place in а small area in the very south of Mesopotamia, and it is thU8 not surprising [Ьа! the earliest cities, Ur, Eridu, and Uruk, are [о Ье found there as well. Exchange between те different foodproducing groups Ьесате extensive and commonplace, and ап organizing institu[ion soon developed at the same time as the introduction of iпigаtiоп fanning. Of course, exchange requires surplus production, something many scholars assume [о have originated virtually spontaneously. Such ап assumption is false and те origin of а surplus is the subject of much debate. No family will produce more than is needed for its subsistence unless it is forced [о do so Ьу а higher authority, or because Фе benefits of а surplus зге obvious and indispensable. In theory, еасЬ of the specialized food-producing groups could Ье self-sufficient, and perhaps only the desire for а less restricted diet ог for prod ucts that do not fulfil elementary needs pushed them [о barter рап of their produce. Still, the development is not inevitable and obvious. The focus upon а small zone in the very south of Mesopotamia explains, in ту opinion, why that was the area of primary urban development. Опее the city had Ьееоте а fact of life in те very south, the concept spread further north along the many ehannels of

30

On·gt:ns and Character

the Euphrates, which enabled easier exchange of bulky items along the river. Ву 2800 вс we find а system of city-states stretching from the Persian Gulf to the area ;ust south of modem-day Baghdad. Inter-city trade of agi1cultural produce remained limited, however, and each city-state was self-sustaining in its food supplies and basic material needs until about 1800 ВС when the military uni:fication of Babylonia led to ап integration of the agricultural 6 есоnоmу as well. But this leads us {оо far in time, and we need to backtrack in order to explore further what the role of те earliest cities was. So far, 1 have referred only to their functions in the economy-moreover only in cenain aspects of the economy-an approach that is too limited in its scope. Тhe social stratification that characterizes urban life involves social power which relies оп four sources, ас­ cording to а theory developed Ьу Michael Mann: economic) ideolqgical, military, and political. With these sources of power, cettain individuals ог groups attain their goals in society. In the case of early cities) те urban elites were closer to these sources than were the other members of society. 1 would like Уо investigate here how this manifested itself. Ву treating these four areas separately, 1 do not intend to indicate that they had independent identities. Thеу are interacting networks, whose separate consideration 1 Ьоре will lead (о а clearer understanding of their nature. The economic power of urban elites has already Ьееп discussed in part. Their role was mainly managerial: те interaction Ьемееп differently specialized producers of goods and services was controlled Ьу а small segment of society. In the first cities that group had temple connections~ and the anachronistic {еrm priesthood is commonly used as its designation. Ап unknown number of these priests had the knowledge of writing, the abi1ity to record transactions permanentIy оп bulky clay tablets. The economic power was not limited to local affairs, but also extended to long-distance trade. The importance of long-distance trade in early Mesopotamian civilization is not as easy to assess as is often assumed. А majority of scholars agree that southern Mesopotamia is а region lacking аН raw materials but clay and reed~ and that long-distance trade is needed to obtain access [о basic materials such as timber, stone, 6 See Marc Уап De Mieroop) 'The Reign d'archeologie onentaZe 87 (1993), 47-69.

of Rim-Sin\ Revue d'assyn'oZogie еС

Origins and Character

31

and metals, and luxury goods such as semi-precious stones. ТЬе need for such materials has Ьееп used as one~ or even the most important, causal factor in the rise of cities in southern Mesopotamia~ оп the grounds that it would have necessitated the production of а surplus [ог exchange purposes. This explanation is not соп­ vincing, as it fails {о show why other regions of the Mesopotamian alluvium, equally lacking in resources, did not develop cities at the same time as the South; besides, the poverty of southem Mesopotamia in raw materials has Ьееп greatly overstated. Wood and stone were available and useable, even though they were not of the pest quality, and clay, bitumen, and reed could substitute for other materials. There was по necessity to acquire products from abroad, although it is clear that from the fifth rnillennium onwards trade contacts between southern Mesopotarnia and the surrounding areas existed. Pottery produced in southem Mesopotamia dating to та!

millennium has

Ьееn

found along

те

Persian Gulf as far south

as the United АгаЬ Emirates, and in the second half of the fourth millennium ап incredible expansion of the southern Mesopotamian Uruk culture throughout the Near East тау have been driven Ьу trade. But the economic importance of that trade remains to Ье assessed. А find in Saudi Arabia of а pot produced in Ur shows direct or indirect contacts between these two places~ but not how соmтоп these contacts were. Ве this as it тау, it seems likely that long-distance trade was originally controlled Ьу the temples, and that the rnerchants had temple affiliations. This was probably caused Ьу те fact· that surplus production oftextiles and other tradable goods was held Ьу the temples. 1t is interesting that long-distance trade was the sector of the есопоmу that was privatized earlier than any other state- or temple-controlled enterprise. Perhaps this сап Ье explained as the result of те merchants' need for as much neutrality as possible, in order to avoid identification with а participant in а power struggle. Тhus, we сап conclude that the economic power of urban elites original1y included long-distance trade, but that the importance of this trade has Ьееn exaggerated, and that it soon was delegated to pnvate entrepreneurs. ТЬе second source of power is ideological. At the time of urban origins> ideology was primarily religious. Although private shrines and ancestor cults survived throughout Mesopotamian history, urban temples grew increasingly large and the priesthood seems to

32

Origins and Character

have taken the role as mediator between the реорlе and the gods. А late founh-millennium caIVing оп а stone vase found at Uruk (Fig. 2.1) shows а row of naked теп carrying vessels and jars of produce to а goddess, identified Ьу те syтbols behind her as Inanna, the goddess of procreation. In front of her stands the city ruler, represented larger than his mеn and fuIly dressed in ceremoniaI robe, clearly acting as ап intermediary. Rituals of fertility involving the ruler and the goddess were соттоп until the eightеепФ century at least.. It is reasonable to assume that religious ideology was used Ьу the priesthood to extract produce from the rural population, but its exact methods are not revealed to us.

F 1G. 2.1

Uruk vase with reconstruction of the image of the city ruler in the top register

Origins and Character

33

With the rise of kingship, а secular authority in need of ап ideological basis developed alongside the religious опе. This basis was provided through а combination of mi1itary and religious leadership. The latter had Ьееп provided Ьу the priesthood, whose powers needed to Ье usurped before the military commander could claim religious leadership as well. ТЬе king fought battles against other city-states, but these battles al1egedly were to protect the property ofthe city god. ТЬе conflict, lasting more than а century, over ап agricultural area between the neighbouring city-states Umma and Lagash is portrayed as the defence of the rights of the god Ningirsu Ьу successive kings of his city-state, Lagash. Оnе king, Eanatum, even portrays himself as having Ьееп bred as Ningirsu's champion, and nurtured Ьу the goddess Ninhursag: Inanna stood Ьу him, and named him 'Eana-Inanna-Ibgalkaka-atum'. She placed him оп the good lap of Ninhursag. Ninhursag [laid him] ОП her good breas!. Ningirsu rejoiced over Eanatum, semen placed in the womb Ьу Ningirsu. Ningirsu measured him with his span: (he was) five cubits and one span {аН! With joy Ningirsu [gave him the kingship of Lagash]. 7

Similarly, the 'Sacred Marriage Rite) сате to involve the king who had intercourse with the goddess in order to assure the fertility of the land. Traces of conflict between secular and religious leaders are по­ ticeable in texts from the best documented city-state, Lagash. In the early twenty-fourth century the distinction between the Мо seems to have been eradicated when king Uru'inimgina proclaimed ап edict ostensibly placing аН lands in the hand of the city-gods, Ьит in reality taking control of аН temple domains himself. Later kings always held the position of high priest or even legitimized their rule Ьу accepting divine status. The ideology of the secular power could thus not Ье separated from religion. Вот temple and palace were located in the city, and the kings always stressed their urban background. So, Ьеге also the city acted as ап ideological centre [ог the state. Evidence for тilitary engagement goes back to the pictorial representations of тЬе lате fourth millenniuт (Fig. 2.2), but it becomes abundant only in the mid-third millennium when royal inscriptions and monuments boast about military campaigns Stela of the Vultures) col. iv 1. 18-col. v 1. 17) Horst Sreible, Die al!Sumerische Ваu- und Weihinschriften 1 (Wiesbaden, 1982) 122-3. 7

Origins and Character

34

FIG.

2.2

Late fourth-millennium sealing with combat scene

against neighbouring city-states or distant countries. АП we know about the military involves such warfare, and the rise of the secular king has been convincingly related to the increased hostility Ье­ мееп competing cities in southem Mesopotamia. Military power was always held Ьу the palace located in the city;J although the priest-ru1er тау have held та! authoriry in те late fcurth millennium as well. Feudal-style тапот lords who delivered troops to the king when Ье needed them, and who raided оп their own account, when free to do 80, did not exist. Even when states relied оп military levies from semi-nomadic tribes, as is documented in the texts from Mari, the administration and command of these troops remained ап urban affair. The state's military power was thus centrally controlled in the city. This military power relates, however, only to the 'international' affairs of the early city-states. Was mi1itary power a1so used Ьу the urban elites in order to control the rural hinterland? Adams, for instance, has suggested that military coercion тау have forced the exchange between villages and towns in the mid-founh mil1ennium. з Iп the early historical periods we do not find any direct evidence for such coercion, however. А standing army in the service of the king was perhaps only created in the twenty-founh century Ьу Sargon of Akkade, who claimed {о have fed daily 5,400 soldiers, most likely а fictitious number. These mеп, and their successors in the employ of later dynasties, were involved in ехре­ ditions outside the heartland of their states. Уе! the twenty-firstcentury kings of Ur appointed а military hierarchy, with blood ties to the royal house, next to the civil bureaucracy in the core prov... inces. These military men seem to·have Ьееп installed to guarantee 8

Robert мсс. Adams, Heartland 01 Cizies (Chicago and London, 1981), 81.

Origins and Character

35

to the king the loyalty of the civilian administrators who had 10саl ties-not to help тет extract resources from the local populations. Only in the peripheral areas of the state did the military fulfil the role of tax collectors for те kings in Ur. Although active opposition to the king Ьу his citizens is referred to in the отеn literature,9 the use of the аnnу against residents of the countryside is never attested, as far as 1 know. No installations where such rnilitary troops could have Ьееп housed are visible in the archaeological record before те appearance of arsenals in Assyria of the first millennium. The col1ection of taxes seerns to have been taken care of Ьу bureaucrats without threat ог violent

resistance. Peasant revolts are not attested in Mesopotamian history. Оп the other hand, these bureaucrats тау have relied оп soldiers to enforce their demands. In early second-millennium texts, mеп with military titles аге sometimes perceived as а ~hreat, as сап Ье seen [тот this passage of а Ietter from Ur: Conceming the field) the allotment of Sin-abushu which уои Ьауе taken unlawfully and have given to Ili-idinnam, Sin-abushu went and ар­ proached те king. The king gave him а soldier. Ве quick! Before те soldier of те king arrives and теу make уои give compensation for the field, return the field (о its owner. It is urgent! 10

The use of те military in internal affairs тау thus have been mare common than is suggested Ьу the documentation. The last source of power) political, is harder to define, especially since the military and ideological aspects have been stripped from it, а criticism that has Ьееп expressed against Mann's model. Mann separated political from military powers, describing as political 'those of centralized, institutionalized, territorial regulation', 11 as distinguished from decentralized, aften independent" powers of military groups. If we regard politics as the actions and manreuvres ofthe state, ЬоФ for its internal organization and for its dip10matic 9

See

J.

Bottero) 'Le Pouvoir royal et ses limitations d)apres les textes

divinatoires) > in А. Finet (ed.) La Voix de l'opposilion еп Mesopotamie (Brussels) 1973), 119-65. 10 Н. Н. Figulla and W. J. Martin> Letters and Documents 0/ the Old Babylonian Penod (Ur Excavations) Texts 5; London and Philadelphia) 1953) по. 45> lines 517. 11 Michael Mann, The Sources 0/ Social Power 1 (Cambridge) 1986) 11. The separation of military power from political power has been criticized, e.g. Ьу Рет Anderson, А Zone 01 Engagement (London and New York, 1992), 77; and John А. НаН,

Powers and Liberties (Oxford, 1985), 19

п.

13.

36

Origi,ns and Character

relations with other states, we сап discuss them separately {гот economic, ideological, and military powers. Ргот the outset cities clearly deтanded а political organization different from that found in village communities. Royal political domination was established through а Ьигеаисгасу that expanded in size throughout the third millennium, culminating perhaps in the twenty-first century during the rule ofthe Third Dynasty ofUr. А! that time, possibly the most prolific Ьигеаисгасу of the ancient world recorded minute aspects of administration, есопоту, and the courrs, in а standardized format using ап apparently dead language, Sumerian. Again, what is imрогtзпt [ог оиг consideration of the origins of the city is the facr thar this aspect of power [оо was firmly f~unded in the city. The state was built around the city, as we aptly stress Ьу оиг use of те tenn city-state when referring to early Mesopotamian political organiza tion. Thus, when we look а! the late prehistoric and early historic city in Mesopotamia, we see thar а11 four sources of power were cenrred in it: economically ir acted as а redisrributive centre, ideologically it contained тЬе focal insritutions of remple and palace, milirarily it organized the агту used Ьу the kings, and political1y ir incorporared the organizing forces of те srate. The city played thus а central role for irs surroundings in mапу different ways.; it grew ир [о provide thar focus. The particular ecological conditions of southem Mesopotamia gave rise То this organizarion after ап evolution lasting tw.o mil1ennia. In the mid-fourth cenrury, the city was а fact of Iife in that агеа, never то disappear for the resr of ancient Меsороtзmiап history. In ту opinion, there аге some amazing aspects of the early urbanization ofthe South, thar need to Ье discussed before moving оп to the North. Around 3200 а completely urban culture existed in southern Mesopotamia. Several rechnological innovations Ье­ сате visible simultaneously: writing, monumental arts and architecrure, and mass-produced goods, especially portery. The first wrirten documenrarion shows the existence of developed systems of weights and measures, rime-reckoning, and numeration. Тhese accomplishments led У. Gordon Childe [о his famous [еп criteria [о distinguish the earliest cities from older or contemporary villages: 1. size of settlements: те concentration of relatively large numbers of people in а restricted area;

Origins and Character

37

2. specialization of agriculturalists and craftsmen;

3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1 о.

payment of smal1 aтounts of taxes to а deity от divine king; truly monuтental architecture; sociaI stratification and а ruling class supported Ьу а surplus; writing; emergence of ехас! and predictive sciences; artistic expression; foreign trade to iтpon raw materials; class rather than kinship affiliation. 12

Although оnе сап criticize the value of this list in identifying cities, it is true that аН these elements were present in the earliest cities of southern Mesopotamia. Their simultaneous appearance is indicative of the 'revolutionary' changes that took place in society, changes whose importance саппо! Ье overestimated. What seeтs to те to Ье еуеп тате amazing is that these changes took place first and foremost in опе specific place: the city ofUruk. Admittedly there is а real danger of overemphasizing Uruk's role, as it is the only extensively and intensively investigated site of this period. But таnу aspects of Uruk show its special status in southет Mesopotamia. Its size greatly surpasses that of conteтporary cities: around 3200 it is estimated to have Ьееп аЬои! 100 hectares in size, whiIe in {Ье region to its north the largest city measured only 50 hectares, and in the south те only other city, Ur, covered only 10-15 hectares. А clear migration, not опlу {о the city of U ruk itself Ьи! also {о its surrounding countryside, а! the expense of the region {о the north, is visible. And Uruk continued to grow: around 2800 its walls encircled ап area of 494 hectares and occupation outside the walls was likely. А comparison with later cities shows the magnitude of this size: Athens after the expansion Ьу ТЬе­ mistocles only covered 250 hectares, Jerusalem in AD 43 only 100 hectares, and Rome as the capital of ап enonnous empire under Hadrian was only twice as Iarge as Uruk had Ьееп 3,000 years earlier. 13 Not only was rhe city itself enonnous, Ьи! its teтple coтplexes were also extremely monumental and elaborarely decorated. The building history ofthe temples devoted to Anu, the sky god, and to 12

v. Gordon Childe, 'ТЬе Urban Revolution\

Town PZanning Review 21 (1950),

3-17. 13

Hans

J.

Nissen, The Early HisEory 01 the Ancient Near East~ 9000-2000 вс

(Chicago and London, 1988), 72.

38

Origins and Character

Inanna, the goddess of love and fertility, is extremely complicated and need not delay us here. I! suffices to say та! they were enormous in size and both contained various buildings. In те Inanna сотрlех several examples of naturalistic sculpture of ех­ tremely fine artistic quality were found, as wel1 as the first evidence ofwriting оп clay tablets. Marvin Powell has suggested tha! writing was invented Ьу а Sumerian-speaking citizen of Uruk,14 а suggestion that is appealing if impossible to verify with the evidence available at present. ТЬе importance of the city of Uruk was по! limited {о southern Mesopotamia. For аЬои! 500 years from the тid-fourth тillen­ nium оп, the culture that we саП the Uruk сulщrе spread out over ап enormous geographical area. Writing, mass-produced pottery, cylinder seals, and decorated monumental architecture were the haIlrnarks of that culture. At firsr it spread into western Iran where it influenced те culture at Susa, and then both cities established colonies: Susa as far east as Shahr-i-Sokhte in eastern Iran, Uruk in northern Syria а! sites such as НаЬиЬа Kabira and }еЬеl Aruda, and as far west as the Egyprian Nile delra. The Uruk influence тау have caused fundamental changes in Egyptian culture where individual marks of ownership were replaced Ьу а real writing system and monumental funerary architecture appeared. The scope of the Uruk 'expansion' is thus overwhelтing. Its stimuli are unclear; long-distance trade has been most often used as а justification, Ьи! its iтportance has been overstated and other factors must have played а role as well. Whatever те impetus of this expansion тау have been, its driving force most likely was situated in the city of Uruk, те predominant centre of southem Mesopotamia. Тhe leadership of Uruk) both locally and internationally, at а very early point in its urban development, is startling [о say те least. It shows that much more complex factors were at work in urban development than the picture drawri here suggests. ТЬе development of urbanism in northern Mesopotamia followed pattems quite different from those in те South, due to dissimilar ecological conditions. Rather than the great variety of natural settings in small geographical areas, the North consists of two physical regions. The westem part, between the Tigris and J4 Marvin А. Powell) 'Тhree problems in the history of cuneiform writing: origins) direction of script, literacy" Visible Language 15/iv (1981), 422.

Origins and Character

39

Euphrates rivers, contains а vast rolling plain, the northern and eastem sectors of which receive sufficient rainfall [ог dry-farming. The southern sector of that агеа has (о rely оп irrigation [ог its agriculture, and репnаnепt settlement is limited to the river valleys. The eastern part, [гот the left bank ofthe Tigris to the Zagros mountains, consists of а piedmont region with low hills, gradually rising (о the east. The western fianks of the Zagros contain а number ofintermontane valleys running parallel to те Tigris river. Although rainfall is often sufficient for dry-farming, its reliability is low, and often irrigation water supplements rain. Whereas village settlement in this region dates back several millennia farther than in the South-as far back as the eighth mi11ennium-intemal processes did not lead to the development of cities. Cities first appeared in те late fourth millennium with the ехраn­ sion ofthe Uruk culture described above. Extensive excavatiQns of such cities аге rare; only at НаЬиЬа Kabira is the entire extent of the city known. Although it occupied only eighteen hectares, its игЬап characteristics аге clear: monumental architecture, dense domestic habitation, mass-produced goods, and proto-writing, а11 directly influenced Ьу Uruk. Interestingly, the city was surrounded Ьу а defensive wall, а characteristic that also distinguishes earlier northem vil1ages from contemporary settlements in the South. ТЬе reasons for the need of а defensive structure аге unknown. There is evidence of fires а! severallocations in НаЬиЬа Kabira а! the time of its abandonment, which тау have been the result of а violent conquest. The absence of textual sources prevents а clear reconstruction of what happened. In апу case, with the disappearance of southern influence in the region, urban settlements declined, either being totally abandoned, or continuing as villages. Five hundred years later, around 2500, а second period of urbanizarion occurred in northern Mesopotamia, which seems {о have been рап of а process of urban development encompassing ап enormous geographical area from the Indus Valley {о the Aegean, and throughout Syria and Palestine. Large fortified cities appeared, now equalling the итЬап centres of the South in size. Textual evidence from Mari and especially from Ebla shows а secular urban elite holding а11 sources of power. The culture о[ these cities was greatly influenced Ьу southern Mesopotamia, and southern diffusion has usually Ьееп considered the driving force of this evolution. Although the urban development of the region тау have declined

40

Ongins and Character

around 21 ОО, numerous cities survived in а framework of alternating political fragmentation and centralization under various powers. At the end cf the Bronze Age in те founeenth-thineenth centuries аН the main urban centres show signs of great decline, and only in {Ье ninth-eighth centuries did cities reappear as а соmmоп feature throughout northern Mesopotamia. In те late seventh century вс, when the neo-Assyrian empire collapsed, the region suffered а total economic decline, and our knowledge of the level of urbanization becomes very vague. Cities were thus по! as easily maintained in the North as they were in the South. The agricultural potential of the region pennitted the self-sufficiency of vilIage communitie~, obviating the need for redistribution Ьу cities. Only when southem powers installed centres {о organize {Ье extraction of northem goods for their own benefit, or when а centralizing poIitical force arose in те Nonh itself, were cities needed. Throughout фе history of the region, cities were less соттоп than in the South, and тапу ofthem owed their existence more {о commercial, military, or politicaI concems фап {о agricultural ones. In conclusion, this survey ofthe origins of cities in Mesopotamia has shown, 1 believe, that ecological conditions played ап important role in their development. In the South the variety of zones with different agricultural potentials in close proximity {о each other encouraged the growth of points of exchange. These nodal points gained а central role in other aspects of the есопоmу as wel1 as in religious, military, and politicallife. In the North, оп the other hand~ villag~s sufficed for те management of agricultural resources, and the city was а! first introduced through southern influences. Throughout the history of the North те поп­ agriculturaI roles of the city predominated: trade, politics, militarism, and religion. They could only appear after the state had evolved, по! before the state. The origins ofurbanism in Ьот areas had important repercussions for the characteristics of their cities, which 1 will explore in further detail in the following chapters.

ВIВLIОGRлРНУ

Ofthe тапу theories оп urban origins 1 Ьауе only discussed а few. Раиl

Wheatley, The Pivot 01 the Four Quaners (Chicago, 1971)

Origins and Character

41

stresses religion. Jane Jacobs, The Есоnоmу 01 Cities (New York, 1969), views intemational trade as the sole catalyst. She relies heavi1y оп James Mellaart's ideas, as expressed in, for instance, 'The Origins and Development ofCities in the Near East', in Louis L. Orlin (ed.), Janus: Essays in Ancient and Modern Studies (1975), 8-22. А similar emphasis оп intemational trade for the rise of cities in southern Mesopotamia is found in Н. Е. W. Crawford, 'Stimuli towards Urbanization in Early South Mesopotamia', in Peter J. Ucko, Ruth Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby (eds.), Маn> SettZemеn! and Urbanism (London, 1972), 761-2. Robert МсС. Adams, The Evolution о! Urban Society (Chicago, 1966), stresses the redistriburive role of cities. His theory was further developed Ьу Charles L. Redman, The Rise о] Civilization (San Francisco, 1978) . Adaтs's focus оп cities as те prime movers towards civilization has Ьееп criticized Ьу Richard Т. Geruson and Dennis McGrath, Cities and Urbanization (N ew Уork, 1 977). Mario Liverani, L'origine delle citta, (Rome, 1986), sees population pressure and the decision to use surplus for соттиnаl works as the primary stimuli behind urban growth. Among the numerous other studies, Giorgio Buccellati, 'ТЬе "Urban Revolution" in а Socio-Political Perspective', Mesopotamia 12 CТurin, 1977), 19-39, provides ап interesting approach to the problem, while the recent work Ьу Jean-Louis Huot ес aZ., Naissance des cites (Paris, 1990), is easily accessible. Michael Mann's theories are set forth in his The Sources 01 Socz"al Power 1 (Cambridge, 1986). А very useful review is offered Ьу Peny Anderson, А Zone 0/ Engagement (London and New York, 1992), 76-86. Оп the ciry of Uruk and the Uruk culture see among таnу others Hans J. Nissen, The Early History о! the Ancient Near EastJ 9000-2000 вс (Chicago and London, 1988), сЬ. 4; and Guillenno Algaze, The Uruk World System (Chicago and London, 1993). For the origins of cities in Assyria, see AbduI Jalil Jawad, The Advent о! rhe Era о! Townships in Northem Mesopotam'ia (l,eiden, 1965); David Oates, 'The development of Assyrian towns and cities', in Perer J. Ucko, Ruth Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby (eds.)} Маn, SettZement and Urbanism (London, 1972), 799-804; and Harvey Weiss (ed.), The Origz·ns 0/ C-itz°es z·n Dry-Farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the Third MilZennium В.С. (Guilford, Сопn., 1986).

3 City and Countryside: The Mesopotamian View

То ап

ancient Mesoporamian, city life was civiIized Iife. ТЬе city was те seat of culture, and non-urban life was uncultured. ТЬе Mesopotamian visualized his or her city as being located а! the centre of а world that could not exist without it, both in mundane and cosmic tenns. The centrality ofthe ciry in rhe Mesopotamians' own concept oftheir culture was а constant theme throughout their Iiterature. When а city and its god were in harmony, its inhabitants prospered and were Ьарру. In the Sumerian composition, 'The Curse of Akkade), this prosperiry was described as follows: In those days, she (Inanna) fil1ed Akkade's stores for emmer whear with goId, filled its stores for white emmer wheat with silver, copper, tiп, and blocks of lapis lazuli were regularly delivered in its grananes, the outside of its grain silos she plastered over with mud. Its old women were given counsel, its old men were given eloquence, its maidens were given playgrounds, its young mеп were given the strength of weapons, its little ones were given happines~. Nursemaids holding the children of generals, played те aZgasum2-lуге; Inside the city was the tigi-drum, outside were reed pipes and tambourines. Its harbour, where the ships moored, was full of joy. 1

In те Akkadian 1iterature the idea also was соmmоп. Babylon, for instance, was praised in these terms: 1

Curse of Akkade: Н. 25-37. Jerrold S. Cooper, The

1983), 50-2.

CIl1"Se

ТЬе

city of

0/ Agade (Baltimore,

City and Countryside

43

Babylon is such that оnе is filled with joy Iooking at it. Не who lives in Babylon, his life will Ье prolonged. 2 ВаЬу10П is like а Dilmun date whose fruit is uniquely sweet. ТЬе

only surviving world тар we Ьауе from Mesopotamia, dating то the :first millennium, placed Babylon аТ the centre of the universe. Such ап exalted opinion was пос reserved for Babylon, indeed а cultural and poIitical centre, but other, politically less important cities, were honoured similarly. АЬои! Arbela in Лssyriа the foIIowing was said: 1\rbela, Arbela~ Heaven wirhout rival, Arbela! City of joyful music, Arbelat City of festivals, Arbela! City of happy households, АгЬеlа!З Мапу

people bore names that glorified rheir city, such as

Мапnи­

ki-Babili 'Who is like Babylon', Larak-zёга-iЬпi 'Larak has created те seed', and Dilbat-abl 'Dilbat is ту father') а chauvinism probably unparalleled in history. ТЬе сопсер! of the city as the basis of civilization was~ perhaps, most strongly expressed when city life was contrasted со that of фе uncivilized world. The latter was по! thought То Ье те bucolic countryside, Ьис the steppe, the desert, and the mountains; те habitats of the nomads. In а Sumerian literary composition of the early second millennium the life of the nomad was described lП these negative terms: Не

is dressed in sheep skins; Не lives in tents in wind and rain; Не doesn't offer sacrifices. Armed [vagabond] in сЬе steppe, Ье digs ир truffles and is restless. Не eats raw теас, lives his life without а Ьоте, and, when Ье dies, Ье is пос buried according to proper rituals. 4 Е. Ebeling, 'Ein Preislied aufBabylon', OnentalischeL'iteraturzeitung 19 (1916), 132-3, 11. 10-15. 3 Translation from Benjamin R. Foster, Be/ore the Muses: Ап AnchoZogy 0/ 2

Akkadiall Literatllre 2 CBethesda, 1993), 738, quoted Ьу permission. 4 Marriage of Мапи) 11. 132-8; translation after Jean Bottero and Samuel Noah Кramer, Lm'sque les dieux /aisaienc l'homme (Paris, 1989), 434.

44

City and Countryside

Such а description Ьееате а stereotype for the life of nomads and mountaineers throughout Mesopotamian history. In the first millennium Assyrian rulers used similar terms to refer {о the inhabitants of the mountains in the east. Interestingly, теу referred {о them with archaic ethnic terms, such as Gutians, а people that had long disappeared from the faee of те earth. Such designations promoted те image та! tiтe stood stil1 among the nomads and that they lacked the ability {о тake progress. The city represented order, the desert and the mountains ет­ bodied chaos. ТЬе progression from savagery to eivilization in а Ьитаn being was portrayed in the evolution of the legendary Enkidu, the ereature that те gods made ~o ehallenge Кing Gilgamesh of Uruk. Не arrived оп earth as а wild creature, living as ап animal in фе steppe. His gradual development into а civi1ized human being was guided Ьу the courtesan Shamhar, who introduced him to sexual intercourse> grooming, and the consumption of bread and beer. The completion of his education was symbolized Ьу his introduction into the city of Uruk, his entrance into human civilization. Erica Reiner has suggested that, parallel to the tradition of despising the life of nomads, ап opposite trend existed in Mesopotamian literature that glorified те freedom of nomadism and loathed urban life as being effeminate. ТЬе suggestion is based оп two almost idецtiсаl passages in myths where curses were proclaimed, апе Ьу the queen of the netherworld, Ereshk.igal, ироп A~ushunamir, 'Нis Looks are Brilliant', who foiled her plans, те other Ьу Enkidu цроп Shamhat, who had introdueed him {о city life where he found ап untimely death. The curses were devastating. This is what Ereshkigal said: Соте, A~ushunamir,

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

City and Countryside

45

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

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

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

46

City and Countryside

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

ТЬе

I

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

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

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

City and Countryside

47

Mesopotaтians

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

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

of те gods' departure, not as

а

military disaster.

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

48

City and Countryside

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

ап

event depicted in sev-

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

.

Тhe

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

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

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

und GottChroniques

City and Counlryside

49

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

50

Cir,y and Countryside

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

Cz·ty and Countryside

51

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

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

52

City and Countryside

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

~F.'~

\~j

~ \\(~ I~~

о

ЗОеm

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

FIG.3.1

Crown shaped as

а

city wall

City and Countryside

FIG.

3.2

City-models being offered

{о

53

the Assyrian king

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

54

City and Countryside

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

Рап 18

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

City and Countryside

55

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

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

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

56

City and Countryside

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

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

City and Countryside

57

Ье

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

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

58

City and Countryside

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

City and Countryside

59

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

60

City and Countryside

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

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

ТЬе

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

City and Countryside foundation of а city itself was too important

mere

.61 а

task to

Ье

left to

а

Ьuтап.

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

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY Тhe

image of те eity in Sumerian literature has Ьееп studied Ьу Fran<;oise Briischweiler, 'La Ville dans les textes litteraires sumeriens', in F. Briischweiler (ed.), La ville dans lе proche-orient ancien: Actes du Colloque de Cartigny (Leuven, 1983), 181-98. No equivalent study for the Akkadian material exists as yet. For the negative image of nomads, see Peter Maehinist, 'Оп 26

Раи! Schnabel) Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Lirerarur (Berlin,

1923)) 253-4.

62

City and Countryside

Self-Consciousness in Mesopotamia', in S. N. Eisenstadt (ed.), The Origins and Dz·versity 01 Axial Асе Civilizations (New York, . 1986), 183-202; and Mario Liverani, Prestige and lnterest (Padua,

1990). Several representations of defeated enemies presenting а model city to те victorious Assyrian ru]er сап Ье found in Pauline Albenda, The Palace 0/ Sargon King 01 Assyn·a (Paris> 1986). For the mural crown of Assyrian queens see Peter Calmeyer, 'Mauerkrone" Reallexikon der Assyriologie 7 (1987-90), 595-6. The foundation of new cities was studied in ап article Ьу JeanLouis Huot, 'Les Villes neuves de l'orient ancien', in J.-L. Huot (ed.» La Ville neuve: Иnе idee de Z:'Antiquite?- (Paris, 1988)} 7-35. Не denied that cities were ever created 'ех nihilo' in Mesopotamia, either because the settlements were abandoned immediately after те death of their founder, or because the regular town plan по­ ticed in the archaeological record was imposed ироn ап existing settlement. It appears, however, that these objections сапnо! prevent us from stating та! certain Mesopotamian rulers intended {о create newly planned cities and that such ап undertaking was considered to Ье feasible. In а later publication, Jean-Louis Huot, et al., Naissance des cites (Paris, 1990), 215-16, this scepticism seems to have diminished somewhat. More recently the practice of founding new cities was the subject of ап entire conference рuЬ­ lished Ьу S. Mazzoni (ed.), Nuove jondazioni nе! Vicino Orie1zle antico: realta е ideologie (Pisa, 1994). Building accounts Ьу Assyrian kings were analysed Ьу Sylvie Lackenbacher, Le Roi biitisseur: Les recils de construction assynens des origines а Teglathphalasar 1/1 (Paris, 1982), which formed the basis for her more accessible book, Le Palais sans rival: Le recix de соn­ struction еп Assyrie (Paris, 1990). For building deposits see Richard S. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia (New Haven and London, 1968), and for ritual texts used for а new building see Р. А. М. Wiggermann, Mesopotaтian Protecrive Spirirs: The Ritual Texts (Groningen, 1992), 119-40. The rituals and отеп readings performed а! the building of а new Roman city are discussed Ьу }oseph Rykwert, The 1dea о! а Town: The Anthropology о! Urban Porт z·n Rome, Ilaly and the Ancient World (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1988).

4 The U rban Landscape

А

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

The Urban Landscape

64

!;

..

.~

}\

....

~

;:.' i

~.

;

..::..

,

'

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

......~::..

-.

FIG.4.1

Ancient

тар

ofNippur

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

The

UтЬаn

Landscape

65

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

бб

The Urban Landscape

t

®

FIG.

4.2

vated

Ьу

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

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

The Urban Landscape

67

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

68

The Urban Landscape

Assuma~irpal

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

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

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

ВС)

The Urban Landscape

69

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

The Urban Landscape

70

..

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

•••• 0 ••••••• "

• •••

а

•••••

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

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

•••••••• • ••• 1

• • • 111 • • • • 111 • • • •

-

#а.о···

о

•••••••••••• 0

••••••••••••••

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

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

••••••••••••••••••••••••

••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••

а

•••••

а

••••••••••••••••••••••

~

-

•••••••••• 0

••••••

•••••••••••••

а

••••••••••••

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

111 111 • • • • • • 111 111 • •

I

I

~

••••• a

I

,/ /

о

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

FIG.4.3

Plan of ТеН

с'==-_с:::=

___'

1(1)111

~

Тауа

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

Тhe

Urban Landscape

71

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

72

The

UтЬаn

Landscape

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

The Urban Landscape

73

ТЬе

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

74

The Urban Landscape

The Urban Landscape

FIG.

4.5

Assyrian representation of army

75

саmр

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

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

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

See Ch. 3~ р. 46.

76

The Urban Landscape

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

bronze uprights and Iintels. 5 Ртот

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

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

5

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

York, 1983), 113. 6

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

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

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

The Urban Landscape

77

АН

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

contained within the foundations of its successor.

ТЬе

sequence

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

78

The Urban Landscape

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

The Urban Landscape ироп

the royal road, house. 9

Ье

shalI

Ье

hung

оп а

79

stake in front of his (own)

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

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

80

The Urban Landscape

1

®

•: cale

10т 1

FIG.

4.6

Plan of АН site at Ur

The Urban Landscape

81

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

{гот

excessive heat in the daytime and cold at night.

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

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

quoted

Ьу

perm.ission.

оо

The Urban Landscape

82

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

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

The Urban Landscape

83

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

84

The Urban Landscape

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

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

The Urban Landscape

85

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

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

~

ТЬе иррег

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

86

The

ИтЬаn

Landscape

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

The

UтЬаn

Landscape

87

1 ®

key Summer Palace

7

Тетр 'е

о,

Marduk

2

NOrth

Palace

8

Resldenlial quarte r

3

South Palace

9

Outer

4

ProcesSlona I r oad

1О

/nnег

5

Jshtar Gate

11 Euphra tes R. (ancient course)

б

Z,ggurat

12 TempJe 01 Nabu-sha-h аг6

FIG.

4.7

WaJl Wa/I о

I

scale

'ООm

I

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

88

The Urban Landscape .

FIG.

4.8

Plan of Borsippa

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

literary rext,

The Urban Landscape

89

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

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

90

The Urban Landscape

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

1

Ма уое·5

9

о

h0:f В

20т

t=1===-_--.ld sca I е

F~G.

4.9

Plan of Haradum

The Urban Landscape

91

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

The Urban Landscape

92

Тетрlе

01

? gate

FIG.

4.1 О

gate

Plan of Dur-Sharrukin

290т

scale

(Кhorsabad)

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

The Urban Landscape

93

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

94

The Urban Landscape

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

The Urban Landscape

95

unusual in its size and remained the largest wal1ed city in Mesopotamia for мо millennia. More common were Babylonian cities such as Ur, with 61 hectares, and Mashkan-shapir, with аЬоис 72 hectares in size, or in те North Shubat-Enlil, which covered 1.5 hectares in те early second millennium. ТЬе new foundations of the late second and early first mil1ennia greatly surpassed these dimensions: Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta covered ас least 240 hectares, I<.alhu 360;> Dur-Sharrukin 300, and Nineveh 750 hectares. ТЬе largest city in antiquity until imperial Rome was Babylon, where the outer wall encircled ап агеа of 890 hectares. Its size startled the Greeks: Aristotle describes Babylon in his Politics (3. 1. 12) as а 'city that has the circuit of а nation rather than of а ciry, for it is said that when Babylon was captured а considerable рап of the city was пос aware ofit three days later' .15 Of course, not а11 the area within сЬе city walls was occupied, and те kings who cornmissioned the building of these new capital ciries clearly

wanted their size со reflect grandeur. The issue of settlement size relates closely to that of population size, but estimating the latter is virtually impossible. 16 The textual record is disappointing: there are по census lists, and references such as Assurna~irpal 11's claim that he fed 69,574 men and women after the founding of I<.alhu are probably not very reliable indicators of the size of the population. We are thus forced to look at the archaeological record for estimating populations. Three techniques are currently popular among prehistorians, based оп the total size of settlement, the sustaining area available to а settle . . ment, and the domestic architecture. АН three techniques have ап enonnous margin cf error, which cannot Ье reduced Ьу their combined use. It is not easy {о determine the area of settlement in а city at аnу moment in time, because по city has been completely excavated. Occupation within the city walls was usually only partial, and we cannot establish the extent of the open areas. Habitation outside city walls certainly existed at times, Ьuс figures about the spread of suburbs are totally lacking. The number of inhabitants per hectare Translarion Н. Rackham, Arislocle: Politics (Cambridge, Mass., 1977). The information provided Ьу Tertius Chandler in Роuт Thousand Years 01 ИуЬаn Growch, 2nd edn. (Lewiston and Queensten, 1987), is based оп ап entirely uncritical use of dara from widely varying sources, and is therefore unreliable. IS

16

The Urban Landscape

96

of settlement is essential1y impossible to establish. Comparison with contemporary, or early twentieth-century AD Middle Eastem cities provides а guideline, Ьи! the variation there is enonnous, and the applicability of the figures is doubtful. Most scholars Ьауе adopted а figure of 100-400 persons per hectare, but this is inappropriate as the range is too wide and as 'the use of later statistics begins from ап assumption we should Ье setting out to prove,.17 Moreover, the supposition that population density remains the sarne whatever те size ofthe settlement is most likely false. А study of numerous modem Middle Eastem vil1ages indicates that density actually decreases when те settlements grow larger,18 which might have been true in antiquity as well. If 80, there is по linеаг correlation between area and population of а settlement, making estimates of the latter even less secure. It is equally difficult (о calculate the sustaining area of а site, i.e. the amount of agricultural land available for the feeding of its population. Even when оnе city dominates ап isolated and welldelineated area, we саnnо! deterrnine how much land was developed for agriculture in antiquity. It is usually stated that опе person сап Ье fed Ьу те income of 1.5 hectares of irrigated agricultural land or 3 hectares of rain-fed land. This :figure тау help us to set the upper limit of the number of реорlе in а certain territory, although it is always possible that food was imported over long distances. А useful lower limit сап never Ье established оп this basis. Population estimates based оп the size of houses are also unreliable. The methoq., involves two uncertain figures: the number of dwel1ings in а settlement and the number of inhabitants per house. Since we cannot determine the area of occupation of а city at аnу particular moment in time with certainty, we cannot calculate how many houses were located in it. Even if we knew from excavation how many residences existed in оnе area, we саnпо! assume that the density ofbuildings was the same аП over tOWD. Moreover, the number of inhabitants per house саnnо! Ье established. ТЬе size of а house in а densely inhabited city does по! vary with те size ofthe family residing in it, as expansion of the dwelling to accommodate N. Postgate, Early Mesopotaтia: Society and Есоnоmу а! rhe Dawn 01 HisEory (London and New York) 1992)) 79-80. 18 О. Aurenche, 'Essai de demographie archeologique. L' exemple des villages du proche orient ancien', Paleon·enc 7/1 (1981)) 93-105. 17

J.

The Urban Landscape

97

for family growth is restricted Ьу the presence of neighbours and the lack of ореп spaces adjacent {о the house. In order to demonstrate existing uncertainties аЬои! population sizes, it тау Ье useful to quote some examples of the numbers published for а specific city: Nineveh after its rebuilding Ьу Sennacherib in the early seventh century. The enormously large city of some 750 hectares drew attention even in antiquity. The biblical book of Jonah states that it had 120,000 inhabitants, which has Ьееп regarded as at best based оп а contemporary guess, от as most likely too high. The most recent estimates consider the nun:ber too low, suggesting 300,000 as а round population figure, or too high with 75,000 inhabitants as more reasonable. These lasc opinions both presume сЬас the entire walled city was inhabited, Ьи! that the population density was either 400 or 1 ОО persons per hectare. 19 Obviously the divergence of the published numbers i8 80 great that попе сап Ье used for acceptable demographic analyses. Paul Bairoch, а specialist in demographic studies for Western Europe in the historical periods, calculated а factor of error of one to twelve when discussing ancient Near Eastem population sizes. According со him, urban densiry is determined Ьу three factors, each with а great margin of inaccuracy: (1) area of occupation within the city walls; (2) number of storeys per house; (3) питЬег of inhabitants per room. 20 None of these elements сап Ье properly ascertained а! the mотепс. We are thus confronted with а high degree of uncertainty when discussing population size. Even the assumption that variation in settlement size is reftective ofvariation in population size is not proven. Some very gепегзl statements сап Ье made with а high degree of conjecture. We сап presume that Babylon in the sixth century had ап extremely large population, or that Dur-Sharrukin in the late eighth century was probably not fully settled. Ви! more detail is а! present unavailable, and demographic studies remain а remote goal. 19 The estimates mentioned here сап Ье found in David Oates> Scudies in che Al1cienc Hiscory 0/ Norchenl Iraq (London, 1968)) 49 (perhaps 120,000); Mario Liverani, Anrico опеnсе. Scon