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

IRRIGATION AND CULTIVATION IN MESOPOTAMIA PART I

BULLETIN ON SUMERIAN AGRICULTURE Volume IV

Cambridge 1988

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

ISSN 0267-0658

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

11.1-igationinLowlandMesopotarnia. . M.P. Charles

.

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

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

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

.

.

I )ic Bewasserungsanlagen in den altsumerischen KGnigsinschriften von LagaS

.

.

.

4148

.

.

49-60

.

.

61-72

13. HruSka

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

. . . . .

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

73-92 93-103

J.-R. Kupper l rrigation in

Kassite Babylonia W. van Soldt

.

Nco-Babylonian Agriculture . G. van Driel

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

. .

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

104-120

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

121-159

.

.

.

161-172

.

.

. 173-188

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

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

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

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

189-206

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

(h a l s

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

iii

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

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

Addresses of contributors M.P. Charles

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

G. van Driel

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

H. Gasche

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

B. HruSka

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

R.C. Hunt

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

J.-R. Kupper

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

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

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

J.N. Postgate

Trinity College, Cambridge CB2 ITQ, U.K.

M.A. Powell

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

R.F. Smyth

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

W. van Soldt

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

P. Steinkeller

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

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

December 1988

INTRODUCTION

.

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

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

Postgate

Introduction

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

Postgate

Introduction

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

Introduction

Introduction

Postgate

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

BIBLIOGRAPHY

I I

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

1

.

I

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

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

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

,

,

I

<

.

"Le ours-d'~au-Allant-a-~~~~~"', Acta Sumerologica (Hiroshima) 8, 13-57. Die "Zweite Zwkchenzeit" Babyloniens (Wiesbaden), especially 15. Kapitel, "Exkurs iiber die Kanalanlagen der 'Zweiten Zwischenzeit"', pp. 112-1 17. Shaykh and Effendi: changing patterns of authority among the El Shabana of Southern Iraq (Cambridge, Mass.). Salinity and irrigation agriculture in antiquity (Bibliotheca Mesopotarnica 14; UNDENA Publications, Malibu).

"Zum Bew&serungsbodenbau am mittleren Euphrat nach den Texten von Mari", Altorientalische Forschungen 7, 77-87. "Techniques hydrauliques en M6sopotamie ancienne", Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 11, 11-53. "Un nouveau texte d'Ur I11 sur l'irrigation", Revue d'Assyriologie 74, 29-42. "Work concerning irrigation canals in Pre-Sargonic Lagash", Acta Sumerologica (Hiroshima) 6, 33-53. "Geographie", in S.J. Lieberman (ed.), Sumerological studies in honor of Thorkild Jacobsen on his seventieth birthday, June 7 , 1974 (Assyriological Studies 20; Chicago), pp. 9 4 0 . Grundziige einer Geschichte der Friihzeit des Vorderen Orients (Darmstadt; Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft).

"Grundeigenturn und Nutzung von Land Wirtschaftsgeschichte 1987, 89-1 10.

in Assyrien", Jahrbuch fur

"Salt, seed and yields in Sumerian agriculture: a critique of the theory of progressive salinization", Zeitschrift fiir Assyriologie 75, 7-38. "Kanal(isation) A. Philologisch", in Reallexikon der Assyriologie vorderasiatischen Archiiologie V15-6, 355-365.

und

Walters, S.D. 1970 Wright, H.T. 1977

IRRIGATION IN LOWLAND MESOPOTAMIA Water for Larsa: an Old Babylonian archive dealing with irrigation (Yale Near Eastern Researches, 4).

M.P. Charles (Institute of Archaeology, London)

"Recent research on the origin of the state", American Review of Anthropology 6, 379-397 (esp. 383-5).

1. INTRODUCTION There was a considerable amount of activity on the part of soil scientists, agriculturalists and irrigation engineers in Central and Southern Iraq during the 1950's which generated a large body of data on the soils, vegetation, irrigation and, to a lesser extent, the traditional agricultural system of Lowland Mesopotamia. Several of the surveys conducted are relevant to our studies of Surnerian agriculture: Nedeco 1959, Dieleman et al. 1977, Russel 1957, Schilstra 1962, Huntings Technical Services 1958, and Buringh 1960. I have used these sources to try to establish the characteristic local conditions that pertain on the Euphrates flood and delta plains, in particular those features that may have been of significance in the past; in some cases it was necessary to deal with more generalised accounts of arid land agriculture. The article takes the form of an outline of the area's climate and hydrology, notes on irrigation theory, a description of practices observed in Iraq in the earlier part of this century, and an evaluation of those practices in the light of modern theory. This information is then assessed as a basis for interpreting historical and prehistoric events. 2. CLIMATE

Lowland Mesopotamia is in the sub-desertic region of the Near East, the low rainfall and high temperatures mean that irrigation is a necessity for agriculture to take place on a reliable basis. The area we are dealing with is well outside the limits of dry land farming that have been proposed. 2.1 Rainfall The average annual rainfall for the area is in the range of 115-135 mm for the years 1929-1959 (Buringh 1960, 44, and Nedeco 1959, 277) spread over the months of October to May, with less than 10 mm in the first and last months, which is some 50-80 mm below the minimum water requirement for crop growing as stated by Lockwood (1985, 129) of "240 mm annual rainfall with an inter-annual variability of 37 per cent". The reliable rainfall season, i.e. with a monthly figure in excess of 25 mm, as defined by Lockwood (1985, 130), runs from December to April. Dealing only with average monthly figures over a 20 or 30 year period fails to show up the variability of the rainfall through the winter crop growing season which is of crucial importance to agriculture in the area; an examination of the distribution of rainfall in Baghdad for 4 consecutive years is useful when considering the reliability, or otherwise, of the precipitation of Southern Iraq, Table 1 (MacDonald 1958 in Adams 1965, 5). The total rainfall of the years varies from 93-277 mm, in 1956 and '57 there is less than 5 mm per month until January. The 'reliable rainfall season' (>25 mm/monlh) runs from November to March in 1954, from December to April in 1955, and February to May in 1957, in 1956 only March and April have more than 25 mm. Comments on two winters of crop growing in the Dujailah region of Iraq, directly west of Hillah on the Tigris, highlight the contribution that rainfall can make to the crops and at the same time show how variable the distribution can be: "the precipitation still appears to be an important

xii

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

factor for winter growth. During the first winter (1956157) the precipitation contributed as much as 50% to the total C.U. (consumptive use). Owing to the rainfall, the crop could be sown without irrigation during the second season and received its first watering after about a month"; in total the rainfall accounted for 26% of the C.U. (Dieleman 1977, 734). The amount of rain falling in Baghdad and Dujailah during the winter of 1956-57 was 230 and 200 mm respectively; taking crop consumptive use as 450 mmlyear, then rainfall provided approximately 46% in 1954-55, 27% in 1955-56 and 48% in 1956-57. Only in the first year could the first irrigation be delayed significantly, in this case until February, though early sowing would have been possible in both the first two years. Much of the rainfall occurs in the form of violent storms, which are as likely to damage the crops as to benefit them, as well as flooding the lower lying areas of the landscape, rendering roadways impassable, and causing considerable soil erosion. The highest recorded fall in a single day in Baghdad was 56 mrn (16.3.1938), 40% of the yearly total (Buringh 1960, 44). Hailstorms throwing down stones the size of golf balls are not unknown, and one exceptionally violent case was described by Evan Guest (1966, 75) which had produced "a wide expanse of completely barren land where even the perennial bushes had been reduced to blackened stumps", as well as destroying the vegetation of the desert area for several kilometres it also killed many sheep, "and some human beings as well"! "Rainfall during the winter 1956-7, though ill-distributed, was not far below the average in this district" was Guest's comment. 2.1.1 Effective rainfall Having accepted that the rainfall cannot be relied upon to provide all the crops' water on a regular basis, we should consider the potential contribution it can make to crop growing. Effective rainfall is that which falls in large enough quantities over a short periods to soak the soil and be taken up by the crops, rather than evaporating off. A concentrated shower was described as one where 5-25 rnrn fell in 2-3 days, and 70 of the 105 mm "total average precipitation during the winter growing season", came into this category in the Hillah-Diwaniyah region, i.e. c. 67%, though "The relatively heavy showers to a total of 70 mm, which sum roughly equals the amount of one field's irrigation delivery, hardly ever fall combined in one or two successive irrigation intervals. The amount of each shower only equals a relatively small part of the amount of one irrigation delivery. It is for this reason that generally the irrigation supply is continued or delayed after rainfall has occurred, although in theory the irrigation requirement can be reduced by the effective precipitation" (Nedeco 1959, 171). 2.1.2 Rainfall and sowing After the hot dry summer months the soil has been baked hard, dried

to a depth of some 2-3 metres and compacted by animal trampling. The traditional Iraqi plough of the lowlands, which is a lightweight parting plough pulled by one or two small animals, is virtually unusable when the soil is in this condition, and farmers must "wait for cool weather and high humidity and a possible shower of rain" (Russel 1957, 14) to enable ploughing to start, which is frequently not until late November for these conditions. Using a larger team of animals could obviate this delay. The winter crops need to be sown as close to October as possible to ensure a good yield; Guest (1933, 3) records quite considerable yield decreases for linseed crops where sowing has been delayed until December or later. Examination of the rainfall figures for Southern Iraq, Table 1, shows that Baghdad received an average of 3 mm in October from 1937-52 (Guest 1966, 17) compared with approximately 1 mm for Basrah and Diwaniyah in the same period (Buringh 1960, 44; Nedeco 1959, 277). In

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

1956 ploughing could have been delayed until December as there was only a trace of rainfall in November as well @lacDonald 1958, in Adams 1965, 5). On the Upland Plains, fallow land is ploughed in the spring after weed growth has ceased, to make soil working easier in September, but no such practice was seen on the lowlands, as pasture growth continues through March when the ploughing needs to be done. When the pasture is exhausted "the soil is dry and hard and no ploughing gets done. Furthermore the inigation farmer is busy at this time of year with more important other things" (Russel 1957, 14). 2.1.3 Rainfall and germination Though sufficient rain may fall to allow ploughing and sowing

to proceed in October or November it is very unlikely to provide sufficient water to do away with the need for an initial irrigation. For successful germination of the seed and establishment of the seedling the soil around the seed must be: (i) free of excess salts, (ii) pliable enough for root growth and penetration; roots cannot grow into a dry hard soil, (iii) lacking a surface crust which would prevent seedling emergence into the atmosphere, (iv) sufficiently moist to meet the water requirement of the young plant. In order to create these conditions an irrigation of 50-80 m m is usually applied; if it is the first irrigation of the season the amount of water applied is increased to 80-147 mm to leach salts from the upper soil layers (Boumans 1977, 73). The same R?pOR in the discussion of effective precipitation mentions that approx. 70 mm of the 105 mm falling during the winter growing season fell in sufficiently short periods to be of benefit to the crop. It is unlikely that this rainfall could be relied upon in October or November so an initial irrigation would be necessary for an early sowing, though in some years there may be enough rainfall to delay the first irrigation until late December (Boumans 1977, 73). 2.1.4 Rainfall and vegetative growth The monthly rainfall (Table 1) during the period of

vegetative growth is more reliable than that of the autumn months but it is the intensity of the rainfall which determines its usefulness to the crop. Taking the period December-March as the principal months of vegetative development we find that 26, 24, 26, & 27 mm of rainfall fell on average in those months in the period 1956-59. If a l l of this was taken up it would meet roughly 40% of the estimated consumptive use of the plants during this period, exclusive of any leaching function. In comparison with a typical field irrigation delivery of 60-80 mm the amounts are quite small. It should also be borne in mind that given the unreliable and relatively inflexible nature of the irrigation system a farmer is likely to take the full allocation of water even if all of it is not necessary, or may even cause waterlogging of the crop. 2.1.5 Flowering and fruiting Watering of the crops needs to continue until after the fertilization of the flower, ca. 2-4 weeks before the harvest, whereafter the soil can be allowed to dry out while the crop matures "No water is consumed by the plants (cereals) during the last two weeks before the harvest" (Nedeco 1959, 170). In the period just prior to flowering through to pollination it is vital that the plant experiences no water stress as this is a critical stage of water stress sensitivity in many cereals and would dramatically reduce the final yield.

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

The average rainfall for April, Table 1, is very variable and in Baghdad, 1937-52 showed a pronounced drop from March, i.e. 27 to 10 mm, (Buringh 1960, 44). In the years 1954-57 the rainfall figures for April, in Baghdad, are 22, 32, 45 and 73 mm which makes it and March the wettest months, on average, for those years. Conclusions: although the role of rainfall in providing water for crop plants is generally a small one as a result of the highly unreliable nature of its distribution through the winter months, it can still have a considerable impact on the agriculture of the region, witness the dependence of farmers on the autumn rains to make the first ploughing possible. For the remainder of the growing season heavy falls can upset the irrigation cycle (causing waterlogging etc) and even result in the damage of crop plants and prevent harvest, land flooding, and the erosion of the topsoil. On the plus side, the precipitation can still be a beneficial factor for winter growth, potentially providing approximately 2550% of the C.U., though in reality its usefulness will vary each year depending on its monthly distribution and the ability of the irrigation system to incorporate it. 2.2 Temperature 2.2.1 Climate and evaporation Evaporation can reach very high levels in Lowland Mesopotamia as the climate is hot and dry. The movement of water from the soil into the atmosphere occurs in two ways and these each have consequences for agriculture: (i) soil surface evaporation:- the potential evaporation rate (P.E.R) from the soil can be as much as 10-12 mm./day in arid regions, (Withers and Vipond 1974, 79), and these rates are achieved in S.Iraq during July and August. Average evaporation rates for the winter growing season, November-April, were estimated at 45-160 mm per month, a total for the season of 380 mm, from climate figures for Baghdad (Nedeco 1959, 170) compared with actual rates of 92-130 rnrn per month, a total of 639 mm, recorded at Abu Dibbis lake (Buringh 1960, 46) for the same period. Rates are lowest in the months December to February. Rainfall for the winter growing season averages 22 mm (Table 2). Evaporation from the bare soil can dry the topsoil to a depth of 1.5 m over 2 years or so, the rate of evaporation is rapid while the topsoil is moist but decreases as the top layer dries out. (ii) evapotranspiration:- movement of water from the soil through the plant to the atmosphere which accounts for most of the crop water uptake. The amount of water transpired by a plant greatly exceeds the amount it retains. The transport of the water provides a mechanism for the uptake of nutrients but the majority of the loss is a result of the uptake of CO=2 for use in the photosynthetic process which takes place across a moist cell surface and causes the large scale loss of water by evaporation. The rates of evapotranspiration roughly correspond to those of evaporation (Table 2) from a free sheet of water; they can be obtained by multiplying the evaporation rate by a winter or summer coefficient, and greatly exceed the rainfall for the area, e.g. a total of 313 mm for a winter barley crop in 1956-57 (Boumans 1977, 73), compared with rainfall of 93 mm for the same period. The discrepancy is far greater during the summer months, the average consumptive use .being approx. 4 times as much. The rate of water loss from a vegetated surface may even exceed that from open water (FA0 1973, 225) and total amount of water removed from the soil

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

can be considerably greater than from a bare soil surface as the plants have access to deeper lying water supplies, and evapotranspiration may continue long after the top soil has dried out. Under a normal winter annual crop the soil may be dried to a depth of ca. 0.5 metres, while the summer growing deep rooted perennial legumes that infest the fields in S.Iraq can remove the water of the top 2 metres or so (Nedeco 1959, 127). Factors affecting the rate of evaporation: (i) temperature: "increases in temperature will almost always be accompanied by increases in transpiration rates" (Meidner 1979) and it is calculated that the rate of water evaporation will double for every 10 degree centigrade rise in the temperature (Raven 1976, 532). A rise in tcmperature increases the air capacity for holding water thereby lowering its relative humidity which allows further water uptake from the plant/soil surface, Table 6 shows the mean Lcmperatures for S.Iraq. (ii) wind: as water evaporates from the plantlsoil surface into the atmosphere the layer of air next to the plant becomes saturated and when the water vapour levels of the two are equivalent evaporation will stop. Any wind movement which replaces the saturated air with dry accelerates the rate of evaporation (Raven 1976, 532). Winds in Lowland Mesopotamia are strong and often warm causing the exceptionally high evaporation rates seen "on an average the evaporation in summer is 15 mm per day, sometimes even up to 25 mm, when there is much wind, without wind the evaporation from an open surface is about 10 mm" (Buringh 1960, 46). (iii) humidity: (Table 7) the rate of evaporation decreases the greater the humidity of the air in contact with the plant or soil (Raven 1976, 32). In general the humidity of Lowland Mesopotamia is low, less than 15% in the summer. In the winter months the average level in Baghdad reaches c. 50%, less away from the city and open bodies of water. 2.2.2 Temperature and vegetation Each crop species has temperature limits for growth and within these an increase in temperature will accelerate growth and development (Arnon 1972, 41). The "critical poi& (temperature) for plant life in Iraq" is considered to be 10°C, and "where the mean January temperature is not materially above 10°C the development of the winter flora is delayed until spring" (Guest 1966, 20). This may be the case for the natural vegetation but crop plants can grow at lower temperatures e.g. the minimum temperature for wheat growth, is 34°C. In Britain most crop plants "start growing when the average daily temperature is above 6°C" (Lockhart and Wiseman 1983, 12). On the Lowland Plain the mean monthly temperature never drops below 10°C in Diwaniyah or Basrah though it does reach 9°C at Baghdad in January (Guest 1966, 20). Germination and tillering takes place before the cold weather and frosts occur rarely, so growth may continue through the winter albeit at lower rates than in the spring. The optimum conditions for wheat are around 25°C with a maximum of c. 3&32"C, while barley can tolerate ripening temperatures of up to 40°C. High temperatures in conjunction with dry winds can cause damage to wheat ears and temperatures <2S°C may depress grain production. The most sensitive phase of development seems to be during fertilization; after that successful grain maturation occurs at 12-25°C. The average temperatures in S.Iraq don't exceed 25°C until the middle of May by which time the crop has usually been harvested. The other major winter crops of Lower Mesopotamia have similar requirements and have generally completed maturation by the time the temperature rises above 30-35°C.

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

The most common summer crops are well adapted to the extremely hot conditions prevalent, and providing they are well watered can usually grow successfully, though periods of very high temperatures and strong hot winds may cause damage to the crop.

3. HYDROLOGY We are principally concerned here with the natural regime of the Euphrates river as it is believed to have been the major water source for irrigation agriculture during the fourth and third millennia BC, though it has not always been possible to find data for it and in these cases information for the Tigris has been used and labelled as such. The Euphrates receives water from the Central Anatolian Plateau; there are no large tributaries in Iraq at all, its last feeder being the Khabur, in modern Syria, some 400 km NW of Baghdad. The Euphrates derives much of its water from melting snow, and its floods are not as violent and unpredictable as those of the Tigris which are caused by relatively short lived rainstorms (Buringh 1960, 52). The Euphrates also travels for several hundred kilometres through arid unwatered lands which mitigates against the greatest extremes of water level rises. The Euphrates is more tolerant of efforts to extract irrigation water than the Tigris, it is raised above the plain level, has lower levee banks, and its winding course would also be useful as "the starting point of an irrigation canal is a winding bend of the river, since at this site the normal course of water flow into the canal is facilitated" (Buringh 1960, 40). The division of the Euphrates into several small branches on its delta plain makes the exploitation of the river considerably easier and also means that a large area can be irrigated with only relatively small irrigation works. The average monthly discharge rates for the Euphrates (Table 5) show a slow discharge for the period July to December, increasing steadily through to March before reaching peak rates in April, May and June, roughly four times that of the summer and autumn, before declining again. These figures translate themselves into a 5-6 m change in the river level over the year. The annual cycle is repeated fairly consistently, i.e. the pattern of discharge rates varies comparatively little from year to year, but in terms of irrigation use and flood risk there is fair amount of inter-annual variation in the river levels for the flood months: at Shinafiyah, near Hillah, the average monthly levels for May over a five year period, 1928-32, ranged from 10.76-15.66 m (Ionides 1937, 95). The uncertain nature of the winter rainfall of Lowland Mesopotamia, already discussed, makes it essential that irrigation water be available at crucial stages of the agricultural cycle in order to compensate for deficiencies in the precipitation. Yet at the time when the water is most needed for irrigation the river levels are consistently at their lowest. The situation was aptly described by Ionides (1937, 4): "The distribution of river supplies throughout the year does not well fit the needs of agriculture. Winter grown crops require irrigation from November to May, but the first rise in the rivers may be delayed well into December, and the season's crops must then be sown on what is in effect the rivers' meagre summer supply. Once the sowing season is successfully over, however, supplies are usually ample, and in fact increase till the harvest. About this time the river takes the other extreme, and more often than not threatens with inundation the crops it was with difficulty persuaded to germinate. For the summer crops, which need irrigation from April to September, the conditions are reversed; the supply is at first ample, but dwindles steadily as the season progresses. The potential useful water supply is, therefore, far in excess of that which can

Charles

Imgation in lowland Mesopotamia

now be utilised". However, it is certain that the crops were watered on a fairly regular basis by some means which suggests the use of dams or similar techniques for regulating the river level, lifting devices to bring water onto the land, or springlearly summer cultivation for which there is at present no evidence.

3.1 Stages of the river (after Buringh 1960, 143-184). The Euphrates enters the Lower Mesopotamian Plain from the river terraces region near Hit, and moves across its flood plain as far as Shinafiya, near Hillah, when it reaches its delta plain. 3.1.1 Flood plains Above Hit the average land slope is roughly 30 cm/km; once on the flood plain this is reduced to c.10 cm/km and the river follows a meandering, though still single, course. In the spring months the river floods once every 3 or 4 years covering the surrounding countryside for quite a distance, and leaving a thin layer of sediment. During such an event the river may change its course, and there is also river movement as a result of lateral channel cutting (Adams 1981, 8). 3.1.2 Delta plains The slope is reduced to only 3 cm/km, the river slows further and splits into a number of branches producing "what may truly be called a delta though distant from the sea", Chesney (1837) quoted in Ionides (1933, 74), as was the case on the Euphrates just below Diwaniyah, where the river divided into three main branches forming a large area of marsh, which in Chesney's time were a valuable source of rice growing land. The river course also became very winding and narrow in places "so much that our vessel could only be got round the turnings with great difficulty", Lt. Cleveland in Ionides (1937, 174-75). As we shall see later, this division, which cuts the alluvial plain into two, produces distinct soils and has implications for agriculture in the area. 3.2 River borne material The quality of the river water i.e. the amount of sediment and salt it carries, also has an effect on the land and agriculture in the short and the long term.

3.2.1 Sediment "During the winter months when the rain falls on the bare sides and pours in torrents down into the main rivers the waters are heavily loaded with silt, "Though the actual qualities of this silt in helping the fertility of the soil on which it is deposited by the irrigation canals are not known, there is no doubt that they are in fact very beneficial and that copious irrigation with such water assists in some way in preventing, or at least delaying, the spread of salinity". This was how the river-carried sediment was regarded by Ionides in 1937 (p.226), though it was recognized that there were some drawbacks, namely "the presence of silt in such quantities is a continual menace to the canals," (p.226) which required digging out at regular intervals. This favourable view of the value of silt deposition still holds for the Nile in Egypt where the suspended material carried by the flood leaves "a thin layer of fertilising material on the soil surface of the basin" (Arnon 1972, 119); in Lowland Mesopotamia the situation is not so straightforward: "Unlike the farmers of the Nile Valley where the different conditions of flooding and drainage preserved soil fertility indefinitely, a l l Mesopotamian farmers had to contend with steadily declining conditions and decreasing crop yields" (Whitehouse 1977, 37). A full

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

explanation for this difference is given by Buringh who contrasts the type of clay minerals deposited in the two regions before proceeding to say "there is also an important difference in sedimentation, as the Nile has a true delta sedimentation while Mesopotamia has flood and delta sedimentation. Besides that, the suspended soil material in the Tigris (and Euphrates) river during floods is four times more than in the Nile river. Egypt has two flood periods per year, but Mesopotamia one only. The consequence of the complete differences in soil and hydrological conditions in both regions is that knowledge and experience on soils, irrigation and agriculture on the Nile valley cannot be applied to Iraq without careful studies" (Buringh 1960, 116). He further contrasts the nature of sedimentation arising from natural river flooding and that of controlled flooding i.e. irrigation. The description is given in some detail and is summarized below. The Euphrates carries sediment from the uplands of Turkey where it is fast flowing and scouring. The sediment comprises material from the different rocks it and its tributaries pass over, and consists of a range of soil particles from fine sand to clay held in suspension. When the river levels are high e.g. April to June, the high water speed keeps the majority of the material in suspension. When the river water floods its banks it loses velocity and the particles are deposited, the coarse particles first and the fine ones further from the river. This process has the effect of producing raised river banks or levees of relatively coarse textured soils along the river sides with finer textured basin soils in the depressions beyond. The consequence of these differing soil types is discussed in a later section (6.2); suffice it to say here that the levee soils have characteristics which make them more suitable for successful long term agriculture than those of the basin depressions. The sediment carried by irrigation water represents one part of the spectrum in the river water, and is quite different due to the constant rate of flow that exists in the canals. As river water enters a canal, the velocity slows and the coarser soil particles are deposited in the upper part of the canal, thereafter the water flow is fairly constant and the remaining finer particles find their way onto the irrigated land (Buringh 1960, 155). This 'irrigation sediment' "has been deposited over very extensive areas as the result of an artificial process of sedimentation", and "forms the top few metres of the Lower Mesopotamian Plain" (Buringh 1960, 185). The pattern of sedimentation is essentially the same as that of rivers with irrigation levees and basins, but the soils are in general one class h e r and thus more likely to have poor drainage and become salinised etc. The levels of sediment present in the Euphrates are high, averaging 10004000 pprn with peak levels during the flood months April - June. The Tigris has had levels of 25,000 pprn recorded at peak water times. These levels are c. 4-5 times that for the Nile. In the main winter irrigation period the sediment content is comparatively low, up to 500 pprn on average (Table 3). 3.2.2 Salt The salt content of the Euphrates and Tigris is far lower than the quantity of sediment carried generally, being within the range 2-400 pprn in both rivers, a minimum of 10-50 pprn being recorded at periods of peak discharge (Buringh 1960, 50). The salt content of the Euphrates appears to be more variable than the Tigris, and it increases to the south "Near Nasiriyah it was 462 mg/l (=462 ppm) in September 1951" (de Gmyter in Buringh 1960, 50). Monthly records of salt content at Baghdad (Table 4) show minimum salt content of 300 pprn in May and a maximum of 475 pprn in December, which puts the water in the medium salinity range (200-550

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

ppm) (Withers and Vipond 1974, 113). The irrigation water in the Hillah-Diwaniyah area "is supplied by the river Euphrates and contains only a small quantity of salt (about 5 mat)" and is regarded as suitable for irrigation (Nedeco 1959, 4). ''The quality of the irrigation water, as far as the salinity hazard is concerned, is moderate at Hashemiya and A1 Bdair except for short periods in autumn and winter when the quality falls to rather poor. At Diwaniyah the quality was rather poor to poor for most of the time" (Nedeco 1959, 145). The figures given for the local waterways showed the Diwaniyah canal with a maximum salt content of 900 pprn in the autumn-winter period, which is in the high salinity class as defined by Withers and Vipond (1974, 113). These high salt levels could be the result of evaporation from the canal which will have a more noticeable effect in the canal than in the main flow of the river. There may also be some drainage of saline ground water into the canal, where the low volume of water is insufficient to dilute effectively. During peak discharge months the salt concentration is diluted by the extra quantities of water flowing along the river. Salinity levels may also increase along the course of the river by the mechanisms described above but the impact is not likely to be so pronounced in the river though, of course, there will be a cumulative effect when this water is used for irrigation purposes and exposed to further evaporation as it travels along the canals and ditches to the fields. Even at the comparatively low levels of 100 pprn the quantity of salt added to the soil is still quite large when using intensive irrigation e.g. 1 m of water (depth of irrigation) applied to land is equivalent to 1000 kg of salt per ha (Buringh 1960, 85) and even though not all the salt is directly harmful to plants the overall effect is still to make it more difficult for the plant to extract soil water as we shall see in section 7.1. 4. IRRIGATION THEORY 4.1 Introduction It has already been pointed out that the amount of rainfall falling in Lowland Mesopotamia is well below the limit needed for reliable agricultural production, and this is likely to have been the case in Uruk and Early Dynastic times as there is no evidence of a climate change on a scale large enough to have put the lowland alluvial plain in the rain-fed zone. For successful agriculture, based on the available crops, it was essential that they receive water at regular intervals through their life cycle. The natural flood regime is not advantageous to crop growing and does not meet the water requirement of either winter or summer crops. The moisture content of the soil bordering the river and its distributaries is unlikely to provide sufficient water to the shallow-rooted crop plants. These factors combined make it essential that there are artificial means of watering the fields if crop cultivation is to be established permanently, and these must be able to overcome the problems of low river water levels in the periods when water is required most, namely November to April, and June to September. In addition to supplying the crops with water the process of irrigation also moistens the upper soil layers, aiding the roots as they cannot penetrate into dry hard soil, but may cause crust formation as a result of soil structure collapse. If the water percolates through the top soil and into the subsoil it will leach out soluble salts including both harmful ones and those which are plant nutrients, in an intensive agricultural system measures must be taken to replace these nutrients, by the application of plant material and fertilizer, otherwise yield will be reduced.

Charles

Imgation in lowland Mesopotamia

4.1.1 Irrigation theory of the traditional methods of Lowland Mesopotamia Surface or flood

irrigation is the principal form of watering crops practised in Lowland Mesopotamia, and involves water passing over the soil surface, a proportion of which infiltrates into the topsoil where it can be extracted by the plant from its rooting zone. In surface irrigation "the objective is to spread a thin sheet of water over the surface of the land. The water should 'pond' for long enough to refill the storage capacity of the root zone" (Arnon 1972, 217). At the same time there should be "ju9t sufficient deep percolation for the effective leaching of harmful salts" (Withers & Vipond, 36), producing a salt-free rooting zone at least during seed germination and seedling development when salt tolerance is generally at its lowest in crop plants. Sub-surface irrigation occurs in the estuarine region of S. Iraq, and depends on tidal water movement raising the river level, pushing water through a series of water channels and ditches to irrigate the date palm orchards and associated crops. The water soaks sideways from the channels to be utilised by the plants and there is a natural drainage as the tides recede so waterlogging does not become a problem (Naval Intelligence 1944, 440). There are two components to water movement as it floods into a field, the first is the flow across the soil surface, determined by the rate of water discharge, the slope of the irrigation run, the surface roughness and the rate of water loss to the soil. The second component is the flow of water that has infiltrated into the soil; most moves vertically due to gravity but some moves horizontally as a result of capillary action, the amount depending on the permeability of the soil. The infiltrating water forms a 'wetting front' which trails the surface stream down the field or furrow: "at the termination of supply the tail of the (wetting front) flow moves down the field. This process, known as recession, partially counteracts the non-uniformity of infiltration during the advance" (Withers & Vipond 1974, 37). In some irrigation techniques (e.g. wild flooding and border strip) water infiltration is a minor component in comparison with surface flow. In others (basin and occasionally in fumw) the water is allowed to stand and soak into the soil, where the major component is the water infiltrating downwards. 4.2 Factors affecting irrigation decisions Ideally the amount of water applied should be

sufficient to reach the end of the irrigation run with a minimum of run-off water, and to wet the soil to the required depth without excessive loss to the water-table; a number of factors are listed by Withers and Vipond (1974, 36) which are important in assessing the amount of water to be applied in an irrigation. 4.2.1 Hydraulic factors

(i) Discharge rate: the rate of water discharge into the irrigation unit should be adjusted such that the run reaches the end of unit with a minimum of soil erosion and run-off. When the entry of water into the field is achieved by the simple expedient of breaking down earth banks the degree of control that it is possible to exert over the rate of discharge is limited. The rate of water flow will also affect where and how its sediment load is deposited. An increase in the stream discharge rate causes an increase in the stream depth and velocity and, as a secondary effect, the amount of infiltration. (ii) Slope of run: an increase in the slope of a field or channel increases the water's velocity over the soil surface and the likelihood of erosion but decreases the depth of stream and the infiltration rate. An evenly sloping field is essential if the whole area is to be covered equally,

Charles

Inigation in lowland Mesopotamia

high or low spots will be left dry or waterlogged. Land levelling is a time consuming process but was presumably practised at least on a small scale in the past. (iii) Surface roughness: this can be controlled quite precisely by cultivation. Water infiltrates a rough soil surface more rapidly than a smooth one but the stream velocity is decreased and the water stream may not reach the end of the unit. A rougher surface will also increase the stream depth. The size of earth lumps left on the surface of an irrigation unit is also affected by such factors as sowing and there may be a conflict of interest. (iv) Field channel shape: which is influenced by the type of crops to be grown and the soil's textural, structural and salinity characteristics. On more or less level ground (<3% slope) soil erosion can be reduced by using rectangular channels with a flat bottom rather than 'V' shaped ones. Channels which are 'U'shaped have a larger surface area for infiltration than do 'V' shaped ones. 4.2.2 Soil factors Soil surface resistance to infiltration: this is another aspect that can be strongly

influenced by tillage, fertilizers and organic material, the aim being to produce a permeable surface which allows rapid water infiltration. One process that can hinder infiltration is the collapse of the soil when brought into contact with water that occurs when the soil structure is poor. Improvements in the soil's condition can be achieved by suitable techniques and by avoiding overly fine seed beds (Russel 1957, 12). 4.3 Movement of water into the rooting zone Water flowing into an irrigation unit either

infiltrates the soil, evaporates off, or continues through and is lost as run-off to waste ground, ditches etc. (Nedeco 1959, 127). The former is the desired end result of irrigation and in an efficient system would account for the majority of water as this is the only water that becomes available to the crop. Some of the water entering the soil is lost to the crop as it percolates through the rooting zone and into the ground water. Irrigation relies on two types of water movement into the soil to reach the rooting zone, the relative importance of which varies for each method of irrigation. They are: (i) vertical water movement: this is a major component in basin, wild flooding and border strip methods. The surface of the irrigation unit is covered by water, in some cases standing, and infiltration occurs by downward movement, due to gravity, into the upper soil layers. There will be some horizontal water movement which helps to soak the soil but has a minor role in the irrigation process. (ii) horizontal water movement: e.g. in furrow irrigation, where the water moves laterally by capillary forces, from a furrow or ditch filled with water, into the rooting zone. There is inevitably some downward percolation and whether this is used by the plant depends on how the plant is located in the furrow: if it is at the side or top then horizontal movement is of greatest importance, if along the bottom then vertical water movement is of most use. The ratio of horizontal to vertical water movement depends on the soil texture, the proportion of sand:silt:clay, and its structure and produces a characteristic wetting front around the furrow (Withers & Vipond 1974, 38). This same phenomenon is seen with irrigation ditches and canals.

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

After irrigation the soil should be saturated in the upper layers, with all the pores between the soil particles filled, and drainage begins of the so called 'drainage water' from the larger soil pores. When this has gone the soil is at its Field Capacity. This process usually takes place in 1 4 days from the time the water supply is stopped, and can usually be measured after two days (Etherington 1972, 134). Drainage is most rapid on coarse sand soils which have large soil pores. The remaining 'capillary water' is "held by surface tension in the pores between the (soil) particles", and "is the principal source of water to the plant" (Withers & Vipond 1974, 69). The amount of water contained in a soil at Field Capacity is determined by the proportion of small particles present: the greater the number the greater the percentage of the irrigation water that will be retained in the soil. Coarse textured soils e.g. sands and coarse silts, will have a lower soil moisture content, than finer textured silts and clays. The texture of the soil will also affect the ease with which the water can be taken up from soil, since the forces holding water are greater in small pores so water is more difficult to extract from a fine textured soil. Thus "clay soils having a large number of small pores, possess the ability to hold a large amount of water, but moisture extraction by the plant is resisted by greater forces". "Ideal soils are loams which possess good moisture holding properties but release their moisture at low suctions and have good internal drainage and aeration" (Withers and Vipond 1974, 63-64). The suction pressure exerted by a plant increases as its moisture content is lowered by transpiration enabling it to draw up water previously unavailable. The area of the soil exploited for its moisture depends on the rooting depth of the crops which ranges from 0.7-3 m. for the majority of field crops on normal soils. The uptake of water is not consistent through all the rooting zone, as there is a concentration of roots in the upper soil layers; 40% of water extraction is in the first quarter of the root zone, 30% in the second quarter, 20% in the third and 10% in the last quarter (Withers and Vipond 1974, 73). The depth of rooting is often restricted by "Many factors such as cultivation practices, limited top soil depth, and layered soils", which "affect the depth and pattern of root growth", so much so that most water extraction is limited to the upper 20 cm or so, and the irrigation water held in this layer is considered "the most important determination for plant growth" (FA0 1973, 22). The upper soil layers dry first and greater suction pressures are applied by the plant, increasing water uptake from the lower soil layers. "In a layered soil the moisture available per unit depth varies, and the extraction pattern and root development vary" (Withers and Vipond 1974, 73). Understanding of the manner of water extraction by the crop is not a prerequisite to success in traditional agriculture and remains an invisible process, but the farmer does need to know when to water the crop and, especially when water is in short supply, which is the most efficient time to imgate in order to maximise the crop yield. This knowledge comes from long experience of cultivation and forms a part of the locally adapted agricultural practice; it is understood that a well timed irrigation will give more benefit than severally badly timed ones. 4.4 Irrigation and plant characteristics The principal function of the water is in the

photosynthetic process which produces the basic energy units that are used in the plant. The water taken up by the plant will also include nutrients, some carried by the river from various mineral sources along its route, and some from the soil in the immediate vicinity of the plant e.g. nitrogen from nitrogen fixing plants, nutrients from the breakdown of other plant material or fertilizer, minerals from various soil components. "Water is required by plants in small quantities for metabolism and transportation of plant nutrients, and in much larger quantities in the physiological process of transpiration which acts as protection against the injurious effects of high

Chrrles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

temperatures" (Withers and Vipond 1974, 60). Only about 1.8% of water taken up by the plant is retained and 0.2% used in photosynthesis (Sutcliffe 1968, 3). The loss of water by transpiration occurs while the plant is taking up CO, for photosynthesis which requires a moist cell surface; if the plant attempts to reduce water loss then it will also reduce its CO, uptake from the atmosphere. The water requirement of a plant is not constant through its development, at some stages they will have a greater water requirement, and are intolerant of water stress, these moments vary for different crop types. The amount of water available at one point in a plant's development will have a direct bearing on its size, rooting characteristics, rate of growth and ultimately its yield: c.g. a shortage of water during early development may dramatically reduce root growth and consequently the plant's ability to fully utilise soil moisture, reducing yield or even killing the plant. The minimum water requirement of a plant also varies from species to species and between varieties of the same crop. As with temperature, each plant has an optimal level of water content at which it can develop ~uccessfully and give maximum yields. Any failure to meet this requirement has a detrimental cffect on the plant's development, the extent of the response being decided by the relative tolerance of the plant to that degree of water stress at that stage of its life cycle; the greatest impact will be during critical growth periods. The movement of water through the plant and consequently its uptake from the soil is powered by transpiration. The rate of transpiration is a feature of the temperature and relative humidity of the atmosphere immediately around the plant. In the hot arid conditions of Lowland Mesopotamia the evapotranspiration rate is very high. Water requirement and the effect of water stress can be considered at five stages in the life cycle of an annual plant. (i) Germination: a certain minimum seed moisture content has to be reached for germination to occur. (ii) Seedling establishment: the roots need moist/soft soil to grow into and the stem must be able to penetrate the surface. Overall the water requirement is not very great. (iii) Vegetative growth; once the plant is established there is a period of rapid vegetative growth when the water requirement increases rapidly; water stress at this point is likely to have a pcrmanent effect on the plant. If root development is slowed down the volume of soil moisture that can be tapped later on will be diminished; a reduction in the number or size of the leaves decreases the plant's photosynthetic area and thus its potential for 'food' production. (iv) Flowering: (floral initiation - fertilization) the number of flowers and the viability of the pollen depends on the nutrient and water status of the plant. In some species a period of waterstress may be required to initiate the onset in flowering but more usually the plant is very susceptible to water stress at this stage and any shortage of 'water will cause a marked yield decrease. (v) Fruiting: (post fertilization) water is required to fill out the fruit after fertilization but once this has been completed a dry period is often necessary for maturation or ripening off to occur.

Charles

Inigation in lowland Mesopotamia

It is generally "the organ which is growing most rapidly at the time of stress (that) is the one most affected" (Arnon 1972).

4.5 Water stress and the frequency of irrigation In normal irrigation and rain-fed agriculture in semi-arid areas all crops will almost certainly be exposed to some water stress, at some stage of their life cycle: "What generally happens is that the crops suffer periods of stress of varying duration and severity, terminated each time by a renewed supply of moisture. This is true even under irrigation - either because the farmer does not have full control over the timing of his water-supply, or because he does not have the full quantities of water required" (Arnon 1972, 205). These stress periods may occur on very hot days even if water is available, as the rate of water movement is unable to keep up with transpirational loss (Arnon 1972, 185), but do not of necessity damage the plant or have an adverse effect on yield providing that the plant moisture content does not reach permanent wilting point. Under conditions of moderate stress the plant may wilt each day and regain full turgor each night without any detrimental effect and it has been observed that "maximum yields are possible even when the level of soil moisture is not constantly maintained at, or somewhat below, field capacity" (Arnon 1972, 191). Thus in irrigation farming the cycle of soil saturationfdrainage-drying has to be timed to meet the water requirements of the crop as it moves through its development. In an efficient system the water levels would be kept within the limits necessary to give maximum growth and excess water is minimal. It has been calculated that as a 'rule of thumb' soils should be irrigated before 50% of the available water has been depleted (Withers & Vipond 1974, 73) though the actual value may vary considerably for different soil types. In practice this level of moisture depletion can be assessed reasonably well using "the appearance and 'feel' of the soil", a technique based simply on observing whether soil will stick together in a ball when squeezed firmly (in relation to soil type) and other easily observable features. Other indicators of the soil moisture include the condition of the plants themselves e.g. wilting, or the appearance of the leaves (Amon 1972, 228-9), and presumably these signs are known by the farmers. 4.6 The efficiency of water use in the irrigation system Any water that is not used directly by the crop can be considered as waste and in practice the efficiency of irrigation is never loo%, i.e. some water loss is unavoidable and when estimating the quantity of water required to irrigate any unit of land these field and transport losses must be borne in mind. In arid regions of western USA the efficiency is around 30% and is frequently lower in other areas. The water losses incurred can be considered in two categories:

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

(ii) Capillary flow, a result of "the attraction of the fine passage between the particles of the bed material", takes place "in all directions and may cause the water in the adjacent soil to rise considerably above the level of water in the canal" (Nedeco 1959, 174). The rate of movement is much slower than that of percolation. Seepage from a large canal can create a wetting front extending upto 1200 m. from the canal and this is sometimes tapped by wells to provide drinking water as it has a low salt content. Seepage may cause a large increase in the ground water level which in turn can lead to salinisation. Measurements made by Dutch engineers near Diwaniyah during July (?1958) showed a drop in water level of 45-50 mmD4 hours from a dammed off section of canal. Evaporation over that period was 13-18 mmD4 hrs. Overall approx 75% of water lost was believed to be "attributable to seepage". The amounts seeping out of this canal are considered low for the area (no other measurements are given) reflecting the variability in water loss rates over the length of a canal. They further estimate that canal losses can vary from 2 to 30% of the canal discharges (p.175) and that the rates for primary canals (ave 18%) are higher than those for secondary canals and distributaries (6%). In the Punjab a loss of 24% from canals and distributaries is recorded (Arnon 1972, 233). 4.6.2 Application losses These occur within the irrigation unit when the water is applied to the

field, as a result of evaporation and poor irrigation practice. i) evaporation: occurs during irrigation and from any standing water or the upper soil layers. Losses by evaporation are more or less unavoidable and are comparatively small. ii) run off: due to poorly regulated irrigation. In uneven fields some areas turn into small streams or marshes while other areas are left dry. Many of these problems can be avoided by using more intensive methods of water distribution (e.g. basins and furrows) and more careful field preparation. iii) "percolation beyond the rooting zone": when the amount of water applied is in excess of that which can be held in the rooting zone the extra water flows through to the ground water leaching salts as it goes. The depth and frequency of irrigation should be adjusted to ensure that while the rooting zone is brought to field capacity the quantity of water percolating to the ground water is minimal; the rate of infiltration and the moisture holding capacity of each soil varies greatly. The increase in the extent of the rooting zone during the growing season must also be allowed for, extra water being applied to encourage root growth into new soil.

4.6.1 Conveyance losses The principal cause of water loss during transport from the river to the field is seepage from the canals and depends on the permeability "of the material forming the lining of the canal whether it be natural soil or a deposit of silt" (Nedeco 1959, 174). There are two processes involved:

4.6.3 The efficiency of water use in a traditional Iraqi system (1958-59) Work carried out by Nedeco (1958-59) in the Hillah-Diwaniyah region on the irrigation system looked at water loss and found that in addition to seepage from canals and ditches quite large scale losses occurred in the application process within the irrigation unit as a result of inadequacies in the irrigation practice, "these losses are mainly attributable to the following causes:

(i) Percolation, "caused by the action of gravity in forcing the water through the pores of the bed and bank material" (Nedeco 1959, 174) which is predominantly downward, and being more rapid than capillary flow accounts for most of the water loss.

(i) the quantity of water made available is in excess of that required by the rather restricted areas of farmland.

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

(ii) the principle of running the canals on full supply capacity in order to obtain sufficient elevation of the surface to allow irrigation by flow without the introduction of weirs and check structures does not permit adjustment of the supply to the actual water requirement. (iii) if the discharge capacity of a canal or of the upper reach of a canal exceeds the total discharge capacity of its branches and laterals, the surplus overflows the banks. This situation occurs from time to time along the Daghghara canal. Since no escape structures or channels exist as yet, escape water is diverted into low lying areas" (Nedeco 1959, 175-6). These problems are connected with the running of the irrigation system and could be significantly reduced if "check structures" existed to regulate the water flow. Losses from primary canals such as the Hillah, Diwaniyah and Daghghara account for approximately 18% of the total water entering the canal from the river. A further 6% is lost in the secondary canals and distributaries. "It is considered that this rate of canal losses does not justify the application of an artificial lining to the existing irrigation canals" (p.175). Farm losses in the winter average 25% of the water at the farm inlet, more in the summer (40%). "From the results of the investigation regarding irrigation practice and water storage in the subsoil it is estimated that the present irrigation efficiency, being defined as the percentages of the irrigation deliveries at the point of entry of the feeder into the project area which are retained in the root zone for use in crop growth, comes to 33.5% in the winter season and 20 to 25% in the summer season'' @. 17).

5. IRRIGATION PRACTICE 5.1 Description of the irrigation methods The traditional lowland Mesopotamian irrigation systems are of a surface type with some sub-surface irrigation occurring in the estuarine region near Basrah.

Charles

Inigation in lowland Mesopotamia

a uniform sheet of water which is only possible if the strip is even across the width of the strip, and there is a slope of >0.1% away from the irrigation ditch. A small band of level ground at the head of the strip will spread the water laterally before it moves down the slope, otherwise it may run as a "pattern of streams between dry islands" (Withers & Vipond 1974, 42). "In very primitive irrigation agriculture, the strips are very narrow and short - approximately 2 x 10 m. Only very small streams can be used, and the amount of labour involved is enormous" (Arnon 1972, 218); the strips can be longer in modern systems. This method is suitable for close growing crops such as winter and summer cereals, legumes, oil crops and pasture on fairly permeable soils with a slope of between 0.1-3%. One of the methods of irrigation used in Lowland Mesopotamia is described as "controlled flood irrigation", distinguished from uncontrolled irrigation as it is regulated "by the number of openings in the dykes and by the distances of the small dykes and irrigation ditches", it "is practically the same as the overflowing in strips, whereby the irrigation water is supplied at the high side of long, narrow and slightly sloping strips, separated from each other by small dykes" (Nedeco 1959, 272). 5.1.3 Basins The land is divided up into rectangular basins by building low earth levees on pieces

of flat land which are filled to the required depth and the water left to percolate into the soil. The technique is suitable for "highly permeable soils and for soils with a very low infiltration rate" and according to Arnon (1972, 219) has several advantages over other techniques, namely: (i) uniform water distribution on a range of soils by adjusting the amount of water allowed into each basin. (ii) flexibility: the basin size can be adapted to a wide range of crops, soils and cultivation methods. (iii) tolerance of heavy rainfall, which can be treated as an additional irrigation.

5.1.1 Wild flooding The sides of the inigation ditch are broken down at one or more points along its length and the water allowed to flood the adjoining land which is sometimes prepared with smaller irrigation ditches dividing the field into smaller strips (Arnon 1972, 218). Despite the inherent inefficiency of this technique it was until recently carried out, in Lowland Mesopotamia, on unlevelled land for close growing crops such as the cereals, pasture and on fallow land. The uneven nature of the land means that elevated areas of the field will be left dry while depressions have pools of standing water which can be used to show up the points of the field that need levelling up (pers. comm. Boumans at Leiden meeting, 1987). It is not easy to alter the water flow and there will be a high percentage of waste, leading to salinisation by the evaporation of water from standing pools and from the subsequent water-table level rise. This technique can be used on land with a slope of up to 8% and is best on coarse-medium textured soils with a fairly rapid infiltration rate. "Wild flooding requires much manual labour, has a low water application efficiency and gives very uneven distribution", but it is "the only practicable method on unlevelled ground" (Adams 1981, 5). 5.1.2 Border strip irrigation This technique resembles the previous one but low parallel earth banks are constructed running at right angles from the irrigation ditch dividing the field into narrow strips, up to 20 m wide (Withers & Vipond 1974, 41). Water should run down the strip as

(iv) ease of operation, though the initial work may be labour intensive: once the basins are constructed they are easily maintained and a high level of control can be exerted over the water supply into each basin. Basin irrigation is best suited to flat land, slopes of 04.1%, and for maximum efficiency the land within each basin should be levelled as carefully as possible otherwise there will be uneven water distribution. On land with ~ 0 . 1 %it can be used as contour checks or as terraces. In Southern Mesopotamia, the land is generally flat and basin irrigation is used on cereals, fruit trees, cucurbits, various alliaceae etc. (Buringh 1960, 249). The earth walls or dykes are constructed, using spades, after ploughing (Russel 1957, 18) and are considered useful for producing a salt-free germination zone, by flushing the salts into the ground water. Buringh (1960, 249) describes plots of land approximately 15 x 30 metres along each side of the irrigation ditch for winter crops. Although these basins are generally used as individual irrigation units, it is implied by Poyck (1960, 45) that they are a means of regulating water flow over the field, in which they would function almost like border strip inigation. 5.1.4 Furrow irrigation The furmws run down slope from the irrigation ditch, and water is

introduced into the furrows from the ditch by breaching the ditch wall, siphoning, or some form

Charles

Inigation in lowland Mesopotamia

of lifting device, there may be a "tail ditch at the end of the run to collect water for re-use at lower levels" (Withers & Vipond, 40). The length of the irrigation run should be gauged to allow adequate watering with the minimum of run-off, and to do this the soil and hydraulic factors described in section 4.2 have to be considered. "In general long runs are more efficient than short ones but the optimum length of furrow varies from 50 to 300 m." (Arnon 1972, 219). The use of horizontal water movement by capillary action, in addition to vertical, distinguishes furrow irrigation from the other three techniques described where the water is spread over the soil surface and moves predominantly downward into the rooting zone. The relative proportions of water supplied to the plant by these two components of water movement will depend on the plant's position. If the crop is sown along the ridge between the furrows then the furrow will need to be left full of water to allow adequate soaking of the rooting zone by horizontal water movement. Furrows can also be used to compensate for certain soil conditions, e.g. in saline soils sowing is along the side of the furrows, the distance between the furrows is increased and the salts are pushed into the centre of the ridge producing a salt-free rooting zone (Russel 1957, 19). Furrow irrigation can be used on land with up to a 5% slope but gentler gradients are recommended to minimise erosion when "the furrow is not protected by vegetation" (Arnon 1972, 219). It is suitable for a large range of row crops, vegetables, annual fruits and fruit trees etc., the shape, size and distance between the furrows being varied according to the plant species grown. Examples from Southern Iraq include fruit trees, onions, garlic, poppy, fruits such as melons, tomatoes, peppers, cucumbers, squashes and other cucurbits, vegetables and other row crops. Some details of melon growing are given below to illustrate the major principles involved. Melons are spring or early summer sown. On salt-free soil ditches are dug 30 cm deep by 30 cm wide and 240-450 cm apart, using a spade; they are flat bottomed and have more or less vertical sides. The seeds are planted in small holes along the ditch sides, and the ditches are filled to just below the seed and the water level maintained to ensure that the soil around the plant is adequately soaked. The bottom of the ditch soon becomes impervious due to the silt layer deposited on it but the sides remain permeable. The same ditches can be used repeatedly (for several years) providing there is a fallow period between cropping to restore fertility. Under low salinity conditions barley can be grown on the ridges between the ditches though they are usually left bare. On saline soil the depth and width of the ditches may be doubled, increasing the water available for pushing the salts into the centre of the ridge (and the sides are sloping at an angle of < 30"). 5.2 Notes on the irrigation system of S. Iraq, 1956-59 Several studies were conducted of the

irrigation, soils and agriculture of Southern Iraq in the 1950's from which it is possible to piece together a reasonable picture of the irrigation system in transition from traditional to highly mechanised operation. Of principal interest to us here is the work of Dutch engineers in the Hillah-Diwaniyah region, Nedeco 1959, both for ils location and its detailed nature; the main findings of the report are summarised below. The mean annual precipitation for the area over the period 1929-59 was 122 mm. with over 90% of the rain concentrated in the months November to May. The average slope of the area is 12 cm/km from north to south. The major canals and their laterals were located on the original levees, with the higher land being irrigated by diesel pumps or animal powered machines. The pattern of irrigation canals and laterals is far more complex than is necessary as each farm or village has its own supply canal

Charles

Inigation in lowland Mesopotamia

and the alignment is thus not determined entirely according to topographical dictates. "The main fcature of the operation of the system is the full supply on a rotation basis", i.e. when irrigation water is available the "canal and all branches and distributaries are run at full capacity"; in between these periods there is there is only enough water for domestic use. The 'full supply' technique is used to:

(i) maintain sufficient water elevation for gravity irrigation to be carried out. (ii) keep the water flow fast enough to prevent silt deposition in the canals, the majority of the silt being thereby brought into the fields. The system is inflexible with few structures to regulate water flow, which means there is a high level of wastage. Not all the water is used causing considerable run-off at the tail of the canal. As the dates of irrigation are often pre-defined no allowance can be made for a heavy fall of rain which may render one irrigation cycle unnecessary. The level of farm loss is approximately 25% of that delivered at the inlet, while canal conveyance losses account for between 2 and 30% of the original canal discharge. The main problem in applying the water is the lack of control over the rate and quantity of discharge. "In order to make the proper application of water to a given area, the farmer must be able to control the water. Many of the ditches are built above the land surface with earthen banks. When the farmer cuts the bank to turn the water into the basin, the banks wash badly, making it practically impossible to control the water. As a result the water flows uncontrolled from one basin to another or out on the road" (West 1958, 23). The two methods of irrigation observed in the area were: (i) 'controlled flood irrigation' for winter cereals, legumes and oil seeds. The quantity of water applied was controlled by the number of openings made in the canal banks. (ii) furrow irrigation on vegetables, cotton and palm trees (Nedeco 1959, 272). The timing of irrigations varied for each crop. but the first irrigation of the winter crops was usually in November, and was the heaviest of the year as it was used to bring the soil moisture content up to field capacity, i.e. 80-150 mm compared with the normal figures of 60-80 mm. The maintenance of the main canals is carried out before the winter season and takes one or two months; the farm ditches need cleaning twice a year, once "at the beginning of the winter cropping of the barley and the second time in summer when the cultivation of rice has started" (Nedeco 1959, 274), responsibility being divided between those farmers who receive water from any stretch of canal. Thus major canals feeding one village will be looked after communally by the members of the village, while distributaries are cleaned by all the farmers they supply up to the point where their feeder branches off. Most of the sediment is deposited at the entry point of the river water into a major canal or at any subsequent point where there is a marked reduction in the water flow velocity, and there may be communal organization between several villages to deal with the primary canals of the area. Crop water requirements for the major crops are listed on Table 8 based on measurements at the farm inlet.

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

5.3 Water lifting machinery "Many smallholders own a water-lifting-device, their farms being mainly situated on the borders of the rivers and canals". "The common water lifting device used in those parts of the project-area where the irrigation canals are situated below the level of the surrounding fields, is the Persian wheel. Naturally, these devices are mainly used along the big main canals, the Shatt al Hillah, the Shatt al Diwaniyah and the Daghghara canal" (Nedeco 1959, 274). These are powered by animals and lift the water up to 5 metres at a rate of 13-16 lt/second. The Naval Intelligence report mentions two other types of lifting devices for irrigation being used in Southern Iraq: (i) a SHADUF, lifts to 2 m, and consists of a bucket on a counterweighted lever which is pivoted around; (ii) a SAKIA, an animal driven hoist where a bucket is pulled over a pulley. "Land irrigated by lift is reckoned to be more valuable and is now more extensive than land irrigated by flow" (Naval Intelligence 1944, 441), though by this time diesel pumps were used. A further instance of lift irrigation is described by Smith and West (1957) for the date palm orchards of Southern Iraq near Basrah where SHADUFS are used as well as horse or water powered NA'OORS, much smaller than those of N.Iraq. A NAZUHA, a shallow basket suspended on ropes, is used to water land not reached by gravity flow in the marsh areas of Southern Iraq (Salim 1962, 87). 5.4 Winter and summer cultivation So far the discussion has concentrated almost entirely on winter cultivation, yet summer cultivation is an important part of the traditional agricultural system. The antiquity of the system and the date of arrival of a number of the major summer crops are still matters of some controversy. The potential role and a description of the practices of spring and summer are discussed fully in the next volume but the water requirements of the two seasons are described here:

(i) Spring cultivation. The spring growing season extends from late January to mid June, and the average rainfall for the period was 60-80 mm from 1929-59 in the Hillah-Diwaniyah region. The consumptive use through the growing season is calculated at 400-500 mm - not that much in excess of the winter use - ; the rate of evaporation rises to 235 mmlmonth by May (Nedeco 1959, 170) though the river water levels are high from April to June making irrigation easier. No figures are given for the losses that occur on the farm and during conveyance, but are they likely to be closer to those for the winter months and may be estimated at roughly 30% of farm delivery; a figure of 20% of delivery conveyance losses is used in the report for calculations. Leaching requirement is put at 20% of the total irrigation requirement which puts the total water required to be applied to the land at 480-600 mm, giving a total farm delivery of approximately 750 mm. (ii) Summer crops. The summer growing season lasts from June to September and the minimum water requirement is approximately 1200 mm, which means that over 2000 mm must be delivered to the farm as farm losses are reckoned to be 40% of the farm delivery in the summer season. Rainfall in the period is negligible and makes no contribution to the plants.

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

Charles

It is best to leach the soil in the winter season when evaporative losses are smaller. Summer crops have a water requirement four and a half times that for typical winter crops. The overall efficiency of irrigation in the summer seasons is between 20 and 25%. The Euphrates level is near its peak in June and declines rapidly through July, August and September when it is necessary to raise the level using temporary dams made out of vegetation and soil (MacDonald 1959, 13). Summer irrigation is likely to increase soil salinisation rates by raising the ground water level, with the higher rates of evaporation from the soil and any standing water which will cause salt accumulation in the upper soil layers. If the water-table is within 1 or 2 m of the surface there is evaporation from the soil surface causing capillary movement of water from the ground water. 6. SOILS AND IRRIGATION

6.1 Soil characteristics in relation to irrigation 6.1.1 Soil texture and structure The texture and structure of a soil are characteristics of the size and arrangement of the soil particles and influence the physical and chemical condition of the soil, e.g. the water-holding capacity, aeration, permeability and nutrient status. The texture depends principally on the relative proportions of sand, silt and clay particles, while "the structure of a soil is described by the arrangement of the individual particles and aggregates (of particles) with respect of each other (Withers and Vipond, 63). Particles become bound together into aggregates by chemicals, generated by soil micro-organisms, fungal activity, plant roots and decaying organic material. Soil aggregation is important for maintaining good aeration and permeability conditions as well as slowing the collapse of soil structure and producing an even balance between large (air filled) and small pores (water filled) (Arnon 1972, 312). The spaces between the soil particles and aggregates are filled with water or air, the larger spaces or pores drain most rapidly under gravity leaving the 'capillary water' held by surface tension in the smaller pores. The capillary water can be extracted by the plant, leaving only water tightly held around each soil particle which is unavailable to the plant. Anideal soil would have good water-retaining properties and a high percentage of the water would be readily available to the crop. These conditions are found in well structured loams of roughly 30% sand, 45% clay and 25% silt. Good structure can be maintained or produced by suitable cultivation practices such as the incorporation of organic material, the use of deep rooting grasses and legumes, and perhaps most importantly a level of tillage appropriate to the existing soil conditions; these practices are essential if agriculture is to be sustainable on a long term basis and are particularly relevant where irrigation is in use (Arnon 1972, 307-348). The general consensus of soil scientists and agricultural writing on Lowland Mesopotamian soils in the 1950's was that the soil structure was poor with very little particle aggregation, and in a frequently quoted experiment Russel (1957, 12) demonstrated that 97% of a dry cloddy soil taken from a field would pass through a 0.25 mm sieve after 30 minutes of soaking i.e. only 3% remained aggregated. This highlights the effect of excessive soil cultivation and causes considerable problems when irrigating. The natural soils of Lowland Mesopotamia, especially the coarsely textured river levees, had a reasonable structure, produced by the covering of deep

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

rooting grasses and legumes but this declines when they are intensively cultivated. 6.1.2 Soil fertility A soil's fertility may regarded as a measure of the total amount of plant nutrients contained in the soil, or as the overall potential of the soil for producing crops on a sustained basis, in which case the general condition of the soil, its organic matter content and the cycling of nutrients must also be considered. "Under arid conditions the physical, chemical and biological processes of soil formation are slowed down considerably. The plant cover is at best diffuse and of low productivity. As a result, rock minerals break down slowly, profile characteristics are not well developed, and soil organic matter and soil nitrogen are always at a low level" (Arnon 1972, 306). In alluvial soils plant nutrients are released by the breakdown of sediment particles, the rate of release being greatest in hot, wet conditions, while nitrogen is fixed from the atmosphere by certain plants and organisms. To be utilised by the plant the nutrients must be dissolved in the soil water. There is little leaching of nutrients from the top soil by rainfall and the wetting and drying of the soil will allow some improvement of the soil fertility but "the 'fertility cycle' under desert conditions is practically a closed system, with nutrients circulating at a very slow rate", and "nutrients may accumulate in the soil during a cycle of more than usually dry years, permitting a fairly lush growth when rains do finally occur. This may give a mistaken impression of fertility, as evidenced by the poor growth that is usually obtained when there are two or more good rainfall seasons in succession" (Arnon 1972, 306). Organic matter in the soil is derived from plant material and animal excrement deposited on the soil surface; it is broken down by a range of soil flora and fauna. In arid and semi-arid conditions ants and termites carry out the role of moving the material from the surface through the soil profile performed by earthworms in temperate climes, they also "break up the larger and coarse conglomerates mechanically; they digest organic matter and contribute various enzymes to the residues which affect their further decomposition" (Arnon 1972, 306). The residues are attacked by micro-organisms and broken down to humus releasing a number of nutrients essential to plants such as nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium as well as various micro-elements. Humus is an intermediate product in the breakdown of organic material described as "a complex, dark-coloured, structureless material" (Lockhart 1983, 20) or "grossly modified" organic matter (Etherington 1975, 110), and it is further broken down by oxidation to simple inorganic compounds. Humus has sponge-like properties and increases the moisture-holding qualities of light coarse soils so they can hold more water, while heavier clay soils are made less plastic and aggregate formation is aided. In arid areas the rate of organic matter breakdown is very rapid and given the sparse nature of the vegetation the amount of organic matter present in the soil is low compared with that in temperate areas, e.g. desert soils have 0 . 1 4 7 % (4.0%) of organic matter and semi-desert soils 0.25-1.75% ( ~ 2 % (Arnon ) 1972, 452), while in temperate regions heavy soils have 3-=%, light soils 1-1.5%, and fertile ones 3-5% (Lockhart 1983, 20). Arnon (1972, 339) points out that for the maintenance of the soil fertility at a reasonable level a regular supply of organic material was required at a rate commensurate with that of decomposition but that "there is no point in attempting to increase the organic-matter content of the soil, as an objective in itself'. The amount of humus present is more or less constant for any soil type in the prevalent climatic conditions, an increased input of organic matter results in an increased rate of breakdown which may be beneficial in the short term but has little long term

Charles

Inigation in lowland Mesopotamia

impact on the soil's fertility (Lockhart 1983, 20). In general the soils of the Lower Mesopotamian Plain have a low fertility, with an organic matter content of 0.05% or less; any material added to the soil is rapidly oxidised. The levels of nitrogen and phosphorus are low as there is little chemical breakdown of the rock fragments. Buringh states "it is certain that the natural fertility of most soils in Iraq is too low for intensive farming", and that "in arid regions it is impossible to increase the humus content of the soils on a permanent basis. A low humus content is normal under arid conditions. If organic material is added to the soil, it disappears in a very short time due to intensive sunshine, low humidity and high temperature" (1960, 27). "The natural fertility of the soils in the plain is closely related to the mineral composition, the clay minerals and the type of weathering. As the climate is arid, chemical weathering is low and the organic matter content is extremely low, being 0.5% or less; h e C/N ratio is less than 10, usually 4-7. This ratio is very variable because the nitrogen content of soils is also extremely variable. The natural fertility of the soils of the Lowland Mesopotamian Plain is also low. This conclusion is in contradiction to the general opinion, written in many articles and books, in which the plain is prized for its high fertility. Young flood and irrigation deposits, covering almost the whole ancient land surface of the plain have a much lower natural fcnility than the buried soil, which is now some metres below the present land surface" (1960, 116). The fertility of the soils in the fourth and third millennia will have depended on the human practices superimposed on the natural river soils up to that time and could have varied considerably according to the intensity of irrigation or cultivation that had occurred in any one region. These conditions can only be infemd from the current soil types which are believed to nsemble, most closely the original ones. Although humus level can only be increased temporarily there is evidence from Iraq, and other arid regions, that the use of organic manures will improve yiclds in the short term, by increasing the amount of nutrients (Nedeco 1959, Dieleman 1977, and Halstead 1987). The use of manuring is discussed in the next volume. West (1958, 24) suggests that the use of fallow land increases soil fertility and keeps crop yiclds at a moderate level; if higher yields are desired then fertilizer application is essential. The benefits of fallow in accumulating nitrogen from leguminous weeds, micro-organisms "and the mineralisation of organic matter" were also noted by Buringh (1960, 71). The use of crop rotation, including leguminous crops that can be ploughed into the soil while still green or used for pasture, is recommended, as well as more careful management of pasture and crop grazing to ensure an increase in the amount of plant residue returned to the soil, though here are no yield figures given (West 1958, 27). 6.1.3 Soil moisture content and infiltration rate The principles involved in irrigating soils, infiltration and soil moisture content were discussed in section 4.3. The soils of the Lower Mesopotamian Plain have a low infiltration rate due to the high percentage of fine silt and clay particles and low organic matter content. The water holding capacity is high and this makes salt leaching more difficult. Many of the regularly cultivated soils arc prone to crust formation as they usually lack any aggregate structure and collapse when brought into contact with water. The finer the soil the worse these conditions become, so the irrigation soils deposited on the river soils will have even more problems. 6.2 Soil formation on the Lowland Mesopotamian Plain The two distinct sedimentation

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

processes occurring on the Lowland Plain have produced a highly heterogeneous soil; the natural regime of river flooding generates a series of soils as a result of differential sedimentation patterns along the river sides and shifts in the river by lateral cutting or by moving into a new course during flooding. The imgation process causes abrupt horizontal and vertical changes in soil texture due to changes in the irrigation pattern as new imgation canals are dug to replace silted up ones, and different techniques are used for the different crop types. The land is inigated in small units, each of which may receive quite separate treatment over the years; the units are also merged or divided as required accentuating the mosaic nature of the soils. These two distinct types of sediment deposition are mixed together at intervals when the rivers flood the land leaving flood sediment over the irrigated fields; areas of land will also go out of cultivation for various reasons and revert to the natural hydrological regime, later they may be taken back into cultivation. The concept of a homogeneous plain even before irrigation was introduced is a highly simplified one: a series of soil maps for the Hillah-Kifil region of S.Iraq shows the very high degree of local soil variation produced by imgation and natural flooding in terms of texture, drainage and salinity (Buringh 1960, 264-272).

I

~ I I Ilcs I

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

~lropsin the summer months and can be used for growing vegetables which extract the residual . o i l water and the declining ground water. 1,. River basin soils: after over-topping the levees the river water spreads over the land,

, overing several kilometres, until the discharge and spread ceases and the water is left standing the soil surface before infiltrating the soil, is evaporated off, or drains to lower lying land or I ~ c kinto the river and canal. 5-10 cm of sediment can be left by a single flood. Where there was !l,~ndingwater the finest clays will have concentrated. The basins are below the level of the river and the levees and are therefore closer to the r1loundwater. This, combined with the lower permeability of finer soils, makes them more prone 1 1 ) poor drainage and types are in the range silty clay loams to clay (Buringh 1960, 150); their lability for cultivation depends largely on their position relative to the river: closer in, the \r,~tcr-tableis still quite deep (1.5-2.5 m) and the soils are fairly coarse, further away the land I(.vcl slopes down, coming into closer contact with the ground water, and the soils are finer and II.\s suitable for crop growing. Investigations around Hillah showed that the ground water needed I be more than 2 m from the surface at the beginning of the summer to ensure that there was no L .~pillarymovement of the water due to evaporation from the soil bringing salts into the rooting / I ,nc. The basin soils are generally used for the growing of winter cereals, legumes, linseed and a 1,1ngeof vegetables in an alternation of crop and fallow, which affords none of the advantages tlcscribed for the levee orchards. The soil conditions are poorer, there is little homogenization, ~)rrmeabilityis low due to the fine texture of the soils and scarcity of organic matter; there is a ~(xdencyfor waterlogging, salinisation, and surface crust formation. These soils make up the bulk (11 the land currently cultivated as they are more easily reached by gravity fed, or flow, irrigation 1tl;m the levees: feeder canals are taken from the river some distance above the area to be walered, usually from a bend in the river, to give sufficient elevation for water flow. These two groups of alluvial soil grade into one another and the transitional zone between ol~enhas favourable conditions for farming, with reasonable soils, drainage, permeability, slope, \,ilinity, and deep water- table, which can be reached by gravity fed canals. I(

6.3 The major soil groups of the Lowland Mesopotamian Plain 6.3.1 River soils (i) The Flood Plain (of the Euphrates), extends from Rarnadi to just south of Hillah, the river meanders but is still undivided. It is raised above the level of the plain, and is liable to change course when flooding occurs.

a. River levee soils: formed of the heaviest, coarsest sediment which is the first to be deposited as the river floods and consists of relatively coarse-textured soils such as fine sand, coarse loam and silty clay loam (Buringh 1960, 148-151; Nedeco 1959, 60-61). They are elevated above the river and plain so the ground water level is usually low (i.e. far from the soil surface), and drainage conditions are usually good due to the elevation of the levees over the river and the plain and the coarse nature of the soils. The ground water salt content is diluted by seepage of fresh water from the river. The good conditions of these soils makes them suitable for the cultivation of a range of crop types, and they are often used as date palm orchards with under-layers of fruit trees and cereals, legumes, vegetables and annual fruits. The shade of the date palms creates a microclimate of lower temperatures, reduced evaporation and a higher humidity. The rooting systems of the trees bind the soil, improving permeability and structure. There is also a high level of biological activity which ensures "constant homogenization of at least the upper metre of the soil", "owing to the production of carbon dioxide, the soils are porous and water and air can easily penetrate the soil. Such soils belong to the best of the world" (Buringh 1960, 149). The low evaporation, low salt content of the ground water and the good drainage conditions make salinisation unlikely. The levees have to be irrigated by lifting equipment, which today is powered by diesel pumps, and this limits the area that can be cultivated even though the crop's consumptive use is much reduced within the orchard. The river foreland, that is the area between the levee and the river, is used for summer vegetables after flooding in the spring or early summer. The water-table is fairly close to the surface but not close enough to provide water for the roots of the annual crops though it might be utilized by the fruit trees (Buringh 1960, 150). The river banks are uncovered as the water level

(ii) The Delta Plain. Just below Hillah the land slope becomes less steep, and the Euphrates c.nters its delta section, the river starts dividing, and there are also a number of changes which ~lfectthe soils adversely making the land more prone to salinisation, waterlogging and soil tlcterioration. The basic pattern of sedimentation is the same, though the braided nature of the 11vermeals that there are more sources of flooding. The water-table is closer to the soil surface ,~ndthe soils frequently become waterlogged, as there is little natural drainage, and large bodies of standing water are a common sight: the likelihood of soil salinisation, resulting from ground water drawn to the surface by capillary action and evaporated off, leaving salts in the top layers of' the soil, is greatly increased. So though the soils are basically the same as on the flood plain [hey are of a poorer quality overall, and will presumably have a shorter productive l i fe-expectancy. 6.3.2 Irrigation soils "Protracted controlled-irrigation has superimposed a secondary meso-relief on the original features of the Lower Mesopotamian Plain. In accordance with the principles which underlie sedimentation, controlled irrigation caused this meso-relief to consist of levees and basins" (Schilstra 1962, 188).

Charles

Inigation in lowland Mesopotamia

When the water arrives in the irrigation basins all the classes of sediment, including silts and clays, are deposited, preventing the accumulation of clays. This process distinguishes the soils of the lowland plain "from river deposits in other parts of the world", by their low sand content, high silt percentage, and lack of heavy soil textures (Delver 1962, 195). The form of sediment deposition by irrigation shares a number of common features with those of river flooding, namely the formation of levees and basins; the material carried in the irrigation water is, however, generally finer and this has the effect of producing soils with distinct characteristics e.g. sands in the irrigation levees are fine compared with the coarse and medium coarse sands of the river levees. While the heterogeneity of the river soils was maintained by shifts in the river course and the location of the floods along the river, in irrigation soils it arises from the silting up and abandonment of canals and variation in the patterns of irrigation employed on the land; given the localised nature of cultivation this can be quite extreme producing abrupt horizontal and vertical changes in the soil types (Schilstra 1962, 188). A study of the soils in the Hillah-Diwaniyah region of S.Iraq by Dutch engineers distinguished four types of irrigation soils (Nedeco 1959, 50-60): (i) Irrigation canal banks (ARGUBS) consisting of sediment deposited in the irrigation canal and dug out at intervals forming high banks along the canals; the sediments tend to be of the densest particles dropped when the river water slows on entering the canal, the bulk of the material is deposited at the canal intakes, or any point where the water velocity is reduced significantly. The canal banks are not suitable for cultivation due to their "irregularity and elevation" and often "form widespread irregular, uncultivable and practically unremovable obstacles in the field" (Nedeco 1959, 52).

(ii) Irrigation levee soils formed by sediment deposition near the canals during irrigation; they resemble river levees with a relatively coarse texture, and low ground water levels. The soils consist of silt loams to silty clay loams, i.e. one class finer than those of river levees, and have good internal and external drainage, permeability and moderate salinity; they are suitable for date palm orchards with fruit, vegetable and cereal under-storeys. These soils frequently overlie more finely textured soils as new canals are constructed through former irrigation basins, the thickness of the layer depending on the age and size of the canal. Some areas may not be cultivated due to surface irregularity, salinity or the problem of raising water to a sufficient height. (iii) Irrigation levee-basin transitional soils. These are of medium to fine texture and consist of silty clays and clay soils. Elevation is medium to low and they have a fairly regular macro-relief, with slight slopes. The drainage and permeability is moderate to poor, salinisation occurring where the ground water level is high. Although these soils are generally easy to irrigate, date palms do not grow well and cultivation is limited to vegetables and cereal crops. (iv) Irrigation basin soils (GILGAI), low lying, more or less flat land with fine soils usually clays. The internal and external drainage is poor and there are often areas of standing water. These conditions frequently produce saline soils which are unsuitable for cultivation. Gilgai gullies develop from old irrigation furrows where water collects and may become very pronounced as the gullies deepen and the land is rendered unusable. 6.3.3 Sand dunes There are two types of dune, one of true sand which is less frequent, consisting

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

of material blown from sandy river beds, and the other, called clay dunes, comprising a sand-like material of granulated silt and clay blown from the cultivated land, mostly from abandoned land though there will be some contribution from areas still under cultivation. The silty material between silted up canals is also easily eroded out (Nedeco 1959, 62-73). The dunes formed are very similar and it is only after rain that there is any clear distinction, the silt and clay granules breaking down partially. The majority of the dunes are of the latter type and they cover large areas of formerly cultivated land. The dunes move in the direction of the prevailing wind at up to 30 or 40 m. a year. Canals located in dune areas have to be positioned to avoid silting up rapidly (i.e. not at right angles to the prevailing wind). Dust storms occur when wind direction is reversed. They are not suitable for agriculture unless some stabilization is achieved.

7. THE IMPACT OF IRRIGATION ON L.M.P. SOILS

(The life expectancy of an irrigation system) Soils are irrigated to increase the amount of water available to the plants, but there are a number of more or less unavoidable side effects which can become serious problems to the continuance of successful cultivation. Chief among these side effects is the addition of salts and sediment to the top-soivrooting zone which can become detrimental to soil conditions. The application of the water to the soil brings about many changes in its structure, texture and chemical composition of the soil, flushing finer soil particles, plant nutrients and colloids out of the top-soil, as well as raising the ground water level, and washing away the soil it is trying to moisten., One or all of these processes, compounded by unsuitable tillage practices, can cause the productivity of an area to decline or go out of cultivation especially where the local conditions of climate and topography exacerbate the problems. In view of the breakdown in the past of many civilizations that were based on irrigation agriculture, and the numerous cases of rapid soil-deterioration under irrigation in modern times - both in countries with a primitive agriculture and in those with the most advanced technologies, doubts are frequently expressed as to the possibility of maintaining irrigated agriculture permanently" (Amon 1972, 236). Yet irrigation agriculture is seen to have continued on the L.M.P. despite the fact that "Almost all (the) soils are saline, most of them even strongly saline and large areas are out of production" Buringh (1960, 15). The level of cultivation is much lower than it was in the past, but by looking at the cultivation practices that have persisted it is possible to understand some of the processes involved in the deterioration of soil conditions and to distinguish those favorable to the maintenance of permanent irrigation agriculture. "The effectiveness of cultivation by locally directed imgation in Southern Iraq must not be underestimated for this kind of cultivation may well have preceded and continued long after the advent of 'high' civilization with outstanding urban expressions in Mesopotamia" (Fernea 1970, 162). "It is often amazing to see how simple (sic) farmers have reached by long experience a high degree of perfection in the art of irrigation" (FA0 1973, 42). The agricultural techniques employed are adjusted, either as a result of trial and error or from sheer necessity, to meet changes in the soil, and this may require an alteration of the methods of imgation and cultivation, the use of crop rotation and fallow, the introduction of new crops or a

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

change to more tolerant ones. The traditional agriculture of southern Iraq (as witnessed by Russel 1957), contained many examples of practices that have evolved to meet the local conditions and which have changed as those conditions have. "These methods of farming on saline land are of fundamental importance for Iraq. I do not think that any better methods could be developed at the present time" (Buringh 1960, 251). 7.1 Salt and irrigation agriculture "Experience and research have shown unequivocally that the basic causes of the failure of crop production under irrigation are the combined and related effects of excessive salt-accumulation in the root-zone and the development of a high water-table (Arnon 1972, 237). As we saw before (section 3.2.2) the salt content of the Euphrates is considered low, though there may be times and sections of the river or canal where it is considerably higher. Even at the lowest levels the input onto the L.M.P. soils is still appreciable, e.g. 1 m of irrigation water at 100 pprn = 1000 kg saltha. This salt is washed from the top-soil into the sub-soil before eventually accumulating in the ground water; if the water-table is far enough from the soil surface there is no long term effect on the top-soil, as the salts can always be leached out. In arid climates, i.e. where evaporation exceeds precipitation, when the ground water comes within the reach of the evaporative force water is lost to the atmosphere leaving the salts in the upper soil layers. The following points are made concerning the conditions suitable for the development of saline soils (FA0 1973, 67). The critical distance between the water-table iind the soil surface varies according to the salt content of the ground water and the level of evaporation: salt contents greater than 3-5 g/lt will result in salinisation (2-3 g/lt for the more toxic types of salt). At a salt content of I s 1 5 g/lt the ground water has to be 2-2.5 m from the surface, but the distance can be decreased to 1-1.5 m when the salt level is 1-2 g/lt. In L.M.P. where the potential rate of evaporation is 2000mm/year irrigation water salt content = 200-400 pprn = 10,000-60,000(-80,000) pprn ground water salt content critical ground water depth = 354 cm. The conditions are thus predisposed towards soil salinisation. Not all the salts are detrimental to the crops but a fair percentage are chlorides and carbonates, which are toxic (FA0 1973, 274-277). The mechanism of salt accumulation is described by Withers and Vipond (1974, 115). There are two types of saline soils distinguished by the farmers of S.Iraq: (i) SABAKH soils with a high percentage of deliquescent salts, which retain moisture even in the summer months, and are dark brown. They are common in Central and Southern Iraq, particularly where ground water is in contact with surface soil. (ii) SHURA soils (SOLONCHAKS) which includes all soils with a white salt crust or efflorescence. The characteristics of the different SOLONCHAK types are described in detail by Buringh 1960, 88-89. The majority of the soils of S.Iraq are saline to some degree; there is considerable variation over short distances and they are affected by many localised factors. One source is the creation of 'isolated salt areas' when pockets of cultivated land are left fallow while the surrounding land was irrigated and the salts move from the irrigated fields to the fallow land along a hydraulic gradient (Buringh 1960, 250).

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

The yield of sensitive crops is reduced in soils with 2000-3000 ppm, above 6000 pprn only tolerant crops can grow; S.Iraq abounds with soils in this latter category and soil samples with salinity values c64 mmhos (=40-50,000 ppm) are known; soils with above 6000 pprn equal or outnumber those with lower values (Delver 1962, 204). The effects of salt in the soil are manifold, some working directly on the plants, others indirectly. The indirect effects include difficulties for the plant in obtaining certain key nutrients, and soil micro-organisms may also be killed off (Arnon 1972, 253). The major problem facing the plant is the increase in concentration (osmotic potential) of the soil solution, which increases the pressure the plant needs to apply to extract water from the soil; there may be water present in the soil but it is not available to the plant. At high salt concentrations there are direct effects with the plants suffering physical or physiological damage from the salts. The texture of the soil influences the effect of the salt on the uptake of water e.g. 0.1% salinity (=I000 ppm) which "does not influence plant growth in fine textured soils, whereas it is strongly harmful in the coarse textured soils" (Buringh 1960, 103). 7.1.2 Amelioration of soil salinity The quantity and distribution of salts in the upper soil layers varies significantly through the year when the land is irrigated; cultivation methods can be used to temporarily overcome the high salt level enabling crops to grow in soils in which they would not otherwise be able to. At the beginning of the growing season land that was cultivated previously will probably have a raised salt content in the surface layers. When the soil is irrigated these salts are washed downwards and, if there is sufficient water, out of the rooting zone altogether. The water in the soil is taken up by the plants or evaporates off from the surface; in the former case the salts will enter the plant along with the water but in the latter they are left in the top-soil. The depth to which the evaporation occurs depends on the Potential Evaporation Rate and the formation of a dry layer at the surface which prevents further evaporation. The amount of salts left at the time of the next irrigation will be much less than at the start of the growing season providing that the previously accumulated salts were adequately leached and that the ground water was not close enough to the surface to have been involved in the evaporation process. This cycle of salt movement is repeated between each irrigation and can be used to create a salt-free zone around the individual crop plants by altering the position of planting so as to avoid the areas of salt concentration e.g. on the top of the ridges. Russel noted two ways in which irrigation methods had been adapted to produce a salt-free environment for plant growth:

(i) the application, in basin irrigation, of excess water to wash the salts out of the rooting zone, (ii) in furrow irrigation seeds are placed on the sides of the ridge, the furrow is then filled with water to just below the level of the seeds and maintained there until the water has soaked laterally into the ridge, pushing the salts beyond the seed. For some fruits and vegetables salt-free soil is sometimes put around the growing plant to increase the amount of 'clean' soil available to the plant. It was observed by Buringh that the farmers of S. Iraq described a soil as saline only "when nothing can be grown and land is out of production due to the high salt content. Other saline soils even those with salt efflorescence are not called saline if crops can be grown" (1960, 103). He also mentions that a strongly saline soil can be recognised by the salty taste of the soil and

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

that salt crystals will form on the surface of a moderately saline soil which has wetted and dried (1960, 108). The methods discussed, so far, for improving soil conditions for crop growth are all temporary measures for removing salts from around the plants, and have relied on the natural lowering of the ground water level, by evaporation and plant transpiration, which is critical to the short term elimination of salts and to the longer term success of the cultivation of that area. There are no records or evidence to suggest that artificial drainage has ever been used on a significant scale, though the signs of it would be difficult to identify. The role of the ground water in the development of salinisation is discussed in section 7.2.

7.1.5 Soil fertility and salinity In land left fallow for several years there is a build up of the soil nitrogen content, from wild legumes, and of salt. In the Hillah-Diwaniyah region it was observed that there was "a fairly close relationship between soil salinity and nitrate content", and that "the nitrate content is low for ECe classes 1,2+3 (ECe 2-8 mmhos x lo3). It increases slightly with increasing salinity over classes 4+5 (9-32 rnmhos x lo3). With further increase in salinity from classes 6-8 (33-256 mmhos x lo3), a sharp rise in nitrate content is observed" (Nedeco 1959, 114). On soils with roughly the same salinity level crops grown on the soils with a high nitrate level gave greater yields than those on soils with a low nitrate content. The nitrate enables the plants partially to overcome the presence of the salts, though yields are reduced on very saline soils (class >5 ) even where the nitrate content is high (Nedeco 1959, 116). The soils with a high nitrate content are called 'strong' by the farmers when they are brought back into cultivation, while those regularly cropped are 'weak'; however, soil fertility of the former group is rapidly reduced during cropping by leaching and plant uptake. Work on the effects of fertilizers on saline soils in terms of crop yield carried out in the Dujailah region (Dieleman 1977, 58) concluded that nitrogen caused a increase in crop yield over non-fertilized soil at all but the highest salt levels; this is discussed in more detail in the next volume (BSA 5). 7.2 Irrigation and ground water The ground water and its movement through the irrigation cycles in the Hillah-Diwaniyah region (1958-9) was studied by Nedeco and the following points were raised: 7.2.1 Sources of ground water (i) percolation of irrigation water: approximately 30% of the water applied to the land percolates downwards, c.25 cm for every 80 cm of water applied. "As the storage capacity between the field capacity and saturation is about 5% every 5 cm of water which reaches the water-table causes a rise in its level of 1 m" (Nedeco 1959, 124 !). In some cases the amount of water reaching the groundwater is greater than predicted as it moves down through cracks in the soil or where water is ponded on the surface. (ii) seepage from canals and ditches: an average of 20% of the water entering the irrigation system seeps through the bed of the canals which accounts for a large proportion of the water reaching the groundwater.

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

(iii) ovenuatering: a common phenomenon when the water supply is or has been unreliable, takes the form of irrigating during or just after a fall of rain, water running onto fallow land or uncultivated land and canals flooding due to the over supply of water to that section of the irrigation system. This wastage of water is common where water supplies have been improved or the area of land cultivated has diminished due to salinisation etc. but the level of supply is kept constant (see above).

7.2.2 Factors responsible for lowering the ground water (i) direct evaporation of water from the soil surface which can dry the soil to approximately 1.5 m, but is often limited to the top 10-20 cms which dries and forms an insulating layer preventing further water loss from the lower layers (Arnon 1972, 191). (ii) evapo-transpiration by vegetation drying the top 2 m or so of the soil; deep rooting perennials such as Prosopis and Alhagi extend the drying depth to 4 or 5 m. (iii) natural drainage into the non-cultivated land (fallow, abandoned and uncultivable), marshes and back into the rivers etc. "A large part of the Tigris-Euphrates valley lies only a few metres above sea level. The gradient of the land is very low. In much of this valley and in small areas in the northern part of the country, the natural drainage is inadequate" (West 1958, 20). Assuming that the land had been fallow during the previous year, the initial ground water level will be low (4 or 5 metres from the soil surface). In the winter irrigation period the level will rise by 2-3 metres, especially near the irrigation canals. If there is no summer crop the water level declines through the summer months (due to evaporation and transpiration) unless the surrounding land is &gated, contributing to the ground water. Where the land is cultivated in the summer there is a pronounced rise in the water-table level which may reach the soil surface by the end of the season. In a fallow year the drop in water-table is determined by the amount of winter and summer vegetation, seepage from irrigation canals and percolation from other irrigated areas. The salinity of the ground water is diluted by the addition of reasonably clean water but is significantly increased by leaching of the salts from the upper layers after the soil water evaporates off. The life expectancy of land cultivated in an alternating crop-fallow system was estimated by Russel at about 450-500 years, after that "salt accumulation will become dangerous and the farmers will have to abandon the land for a long time, during which the ground water level will fall to a depth of 5 or 7 metres, and from that time it will be possible to wash the salts out of the upper 2-3 metres down to a depth of 5-6 metres and the land will become suitable for a new cycle of farming", quoted in Buringh (1960, 250). Buringh thought that this type of farming was restricted to areas where the ground water was several metres below the land surface normally i.e. the northern section of the Lower Mesopotamian Plain. A more pessimistic view of the time scale for the salinisation was given by Webster in 1921 (in Buringh 1960, 84) who thought that "land in Iraq can become saline in 7 to 25 years as a result of irrigation"; under intensive summer irrigation the time period may be reduced to just 2-3 years (Smith and West 1957, 84).

7.2.3 Leaching and drainage As irrigation water percolates through the upper soil layers it takes with it any soluble salts. Given a sufficient input then the percolating water will reach the ground

Inigation in lowland Mesopotamia

Charles

water, and if this is far enough below the soil surface then the harmful salts will have been effectively removed from the rooting zone for the duration of the growing season. Under these circumstances an over-irrigation is a boon to crop growing. Where the ground water level is high, i.e. close to the surface, these salts will then be returned to the top-soil when water evaporates off from the soil surface causing capillary movement of the ground water to the soil surface. It has been calculated that the ground water depth required to prevent this process occurring is c. 3.50 m. for L.M.P. soils in the summer, less in the winter (Buringh 1960, 84), while Nedeco (1959, 24) estimated the depth to be >3.0 m in the winter and >2 m at the start of the summer (c.w. >1.5 m; Adams 1981, 4). In S.Iraq the soil is dried to several metres by a combination of evaporation and transpiration when the land is left fallow: evapo-transpiration to 2-4(-5)m (Nedeco 1959, 127), and 18 months of fallow dries the top 2-3 m of the soil, and after several years abandonment 5-7 m Buringh (1960, 250). Russel (1957, 14) records that evapo-transpiration dries the soil to 1.2-1.5 m in first summer, and up to 2.1 m by the following autumn. This may provide a sufficient depth for leaching for a few years cultivation, but overall the water-table level rises even in a low intensity system. 7.2.4 Leaching requirement In order to remove harmful salts sufficient water must be applied to

saturate the soil, dissolve the salts and then wash the saline solution to the required depth. Russel observed that approximately 80% of the water applied was needed to saturate the soil, the remaining 20% washing out the salts. Boumans (quoted in Buringh 1960, 259) estimated that 10 cm of water was sufficient to leach salts below 60 cm, and that in field experiments 80 cm of the 160 cm water applied to a soil evaporated and the remaining 81 cm reduced the salt concentration of the top 30 cm from 6.4% to 0.24% (and the top 100 cm from 3.7432%). Buringh (1960, 259) suggests that "it probably takes 2-4 years before all salts are leached to a convenient depth". "The minimum amount of water that should percolate through the root zone toward the sub-soil water-table in order to remove the excess salt from the root zone and to establish and maintain in the long run a favourable salt balance in the root zone, is put at 20% of the total irrigation requirement" (Nedeco 1959, 172). Field results from Dujailah 1956-58 (Boumans 1977, 73), showed that of a total input of water to a barley crop of 633 mm, 37% i.e. 236 rnm drained off, 433 mm of the input was irrigation and 200 mm rainfall. Water in excess of consumptive use was given to the wheat crop, in the following winter, in order to leach the soil. West estimated that 15 cm in excess of crop water requirement, estimated as 85 cm, need be applied for leaching, though more experimentation was recommended to determine the exact amounts. "If water was available, it would be best to make the heavy application in the fall at seeding time. Since there is inadequate water for normal irrigation in the fall it seems desirable to make the regular irrigations just enough more than crop requirements to ultimately apply the extra 15 cm for leaching by the time grain comes into head" (West 1958,22-23). It is desirable to apply the leaching requirement during the colder wetter months as there will be less evaporation from the soil surface and less salt accumulation. It is recommended that the leaching for summer crops should take place before the seed sowing (West 1958, 23), and in S. Iraq this comes at the same time as the high river levels of late spring/early summer. For winter crops leaching prior to sowing or in the first irrigation after sowing coincides with low river 32

Charles

Inigation in lowland Mesopotamia

levels which may prove difficult and instead the leaching requirement is spread through the growing season. 7.2.4 Method of leaching The types of irrigation best suited to leaching are those where the

water stands on the soil surface ensuring even saturation of the soil and percolation through the rooting zone of the leaching water and the salts. The water level in the basins or furrows should be maintained for long enough to allow proper leaching to occur. Flooding and border strip irrigation done efficiently have a low percentage of water reaching the ground water and will not be so useful for leaching purposes. The basin irrigation practices described by Russel (1957, 14) for wheat and barley involved the use of abundant water which "cames the salt deeply downward" though whether this was the intention of the process is not clear; the use of irrigation water to push salts laterally from the sides of the ridges in hrrow irrigation does appear to be intentional. In melon growing the size of the irrigation ditches is adjusted to meet the level of soil salinity present and the ditches are filled to the height of the seed on the side of the ridge and the water level is "maintained there sufficiently long that it soaks laterally well beyond the seed. In the process the salts dissolve in the moving water front and are pushed well beyond the seed" (Russel 1957, 19). The method of leaching suggested by West (1958, 21) is similar to the normal methods of crop irrigation: "Dikes are constructed around a basin. Fifteen to thirty centimetres of water is turned into the basin. The water is permitted to percolate into the soil. The next application is not made until the surface soil has dried out and cracks begin to appear. Then another application of fifteen to thirty centimetres of water is applied"; the process t&es roughly 3-6 months in medium textured and 12-24 (or more) on fine textured soils. 7.3 Silt and irrigation agriculture 73.1 Sediment deposition The fine sediment particles left after the larger denser material has been 'sieved out' at the entry point of the river water into the canal system are distributed over the fields varying with the method of imgation used, e.g. in basin irrigation all the sediment is evenly distributed over the surface from the standing water; in the flooding methods the denser particles accumulate at the beginning of the irrigation run. A large percentage of the sediment carried by the Euphrates ends up in the fields, though some is deposited in the canals, and as has already been mentioned that reaching the fields represents the most potentially damaging of the river's sediment load. 7.3.2 The impact of fine sediment on the soils of the Lowland Mesopotamian Plain. The

addition of fine irrigation sediment particles to the original river soils of the lowland plain affects a number of the soil characteristics, and ultimately the cultivation and productivity of the soil. In S.Iraq the effect is damaging in the long term as it assists the development of saline conditions. The h e sediment settles out on to the soil surface or moves into the deeper soil layers through cracks, at the surface this layer of fine sediment may hinder water infiltration and the emergence of seedlings. When the sediment becomes incorporated in the soil by ploughing, washing downwards and by biological activity, it increases the overall percentage of fine silt and clays in the soil and this can have a quite marked effect, especially on the soils of the basins and levee-basin transitional areas which are already fine textured.

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

The effect of regularly irrigating such fine textured soils is to produce poor structure, with little particle aggregation or organic material. The pores between the soil particles are small, reducing the amount of air available to the plants, the infiltration rate is slow both at the surface and within the soil and they rapidly become waterlogged. Leaching is difficult as the water is held in the small pores and there is only slow drainage, all of which promotes salt accumulation. The poor structure of the soils means they are likely to become compacted easily when tilled and the addition of water causes a collapse of the surface layers producing surface crusts, making the soils more difficult to work and to reclaim. The input of fine sediment on the scale witnessed in Lowland Mesopotamia results in a steady worsening in the land's condition all the time irrigation is being practised; the role of sediment in exacerbating the problems of soil salinisation in Lowland Mesopotamia and subsequent land abandonment and the relocation of towns etc. should be considered. When an area of land is abandoned conditions are improved by a return to the natural flood regime, the drying of the upper soil layers, and the growth of natural vegetation, though the extent of the soil recovery may only be very small. It is not clear whether the part played by sediment in the traditional agricultural system of S.Iraq was realised by the farmers. To reduce the amount of sediment reaching the fields large scale settling tanks would be needed, and soils with a poor texture would have to be exposed to a large scale reclamation programme including draining, leaching and the introduction of various deep-rooting plants to dry the soil, improve the structure and increase the organic matter content. The tillage practices would also have to be more sensitive to the problems of soil compaction and the breaking up of soil aggregates. 7.4 The mechanical action of water on soil When water comes into contact with soil of poor structure and a fine texture such as that common on the plains of Mesopotamia, most of the soil aggregates break down, leaving a soft sticky mass of silt particles. On drying this takes the form of a fine powder. "This same fine powder develops in the field when rains come, and the finer the dry soil is at the start, the quicker it develops. At the surface where the soil gets soggy wet and is pounded by the raindrops, this powder forms a seal, and this seal interferes with seed aeration, germination, seedling emergence, and moisture intake. In the spring when plants begin to grow rapidly this seal obstructs normal root aeration and restricts the oxygen supply which micro-organisms must have to convert nitrogenous materials in the soil over onto available soil nitrates" (Russel 1957, 12). To minimise this process the farmers leave a seed bed with large lumps of soil, up to 10 cm in diameter, which then break down to a reasonably fine bed.

Irrigation water flowing along a dry furrow will inevitably erode some of the surface soil, the amount depending on the speed of water flow, the roughness of the soil surface and the area of soil that is in contact with the water. On more or less level land the degree of erosion is minimal providing the rate of flow is not excessive. Flat bottomed, rectangular furrows have a lower rate of soil loss than "V" shaped ones ( ~ 3 %slope). Erosion can be reduced or controlled by using irrigation methods suitable to the land conditions e.g. short imgation runs, basin irrigation on slopes >1% reducing water application to minimum required (Withers & Vipond 1974, 138). Wind erosion of cultivated land is of greater importance than that by water in Lowland Mesopotamia.

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

Charles

BIBLIOGRAPHY Adams, R. McC. 1965 Land behind Baghdad: a history of settlement on the Diyala plains (Chicago: University of Chicago Press). 1981

Arnon, I. 1972

Boumans, J.H. 1977 Buringh, P. 1960

Delver, P. 1962

Heartland of cities: surveys of ancient settlement and land use on the central jloodplain of the Euphrates (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Crop production in dry regions. Vol. I: Background and principles. Vol. 11: Systematic treatment of the principal crops (London).

"Consumptive use", in Dieleman et al. 1977, 69-74.

Soils and soil conditions in Iraq (Baghdad: Directorate General of Agricultural Research and Projects).

"Properties of saline soils in Iraq", Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 1O/iii , 194-2 10.

Dieleman, P.J. (ed.) 1977 Reclamation of salt affected soils in Iraq: soil hydrological and agricultural studies (ILRI, Pub. No. 11, 3rd. ed.; Wageningen). Etherington, J.R. 1975 Environment and plant ecology (London). FAO/UNESCO 1973 Irrigation, drainage and salinity: an irrigation source book (London: Hutchinson). Fernea, R.A. 1970

Guest, E. 1930

Guest, E. (ed.) 1966

Shaykh and Effendi: changing patterns of authority among the El Shabana of Southern Iraq (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press).

The cultivation and marketing of linseed (Baghdad: Department of Agriculture, Bulletin No. 21).

Flora of Iraq, Vol. I: Introduction (Baghdad: Ministry of Agriculture).

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

Charles

Halstead, P. 1987

'Traditional and ancient rural economy in Mediterranean Europe: plus $a change?",, Journal of Hellenic Studies 107, 77-87.

Hunting Technical Services Diyala and Middle Tigris Projects, Report No. 2: Lower Diyala Development: 1958 Soils, agriculture, irrigation and drainage. Pcrt I: General Report. (Government of Iraq, Development Board, 1st Technical Section). Ionides, M.G. 1937

Macdonald, Sir M., & Partners Diyala and Middle Tigris Reports, Report No. 4: Middle Diyala Development: 1959

Soils, agriculture, irrigation and drainage. Appendix I: Irrigation and drainage (Government of Iraq, Development Board, 1st Technical Section).

"Water uptake and translocation, stomatal movements and transpiration", in D.W. Goodall & R.A. Peny (eds.), Arid landr ecosystems: structure, functioning and management (Cambridge University Press).

Milthorpe, F.L. & Moorby, J. An introduction to crop physiology (Cambridge: 2nd edition). 1979 Naval Intelligence Division Iraq and the Persian Gulf (Geographical Handbook series, B.R. 524; London). 1944

Hilla-Diwaniyah drainage study: jinal report (Baghdadme Hague: Republic of Iraq, Ministry of Agriculture).

Poyck, A.P.G. 1962

Raven et al. 1976

"Farm studies in Iraq: an agronomic study of the agriculture in the Hilla-Diwaniya area in Iraq", Mededeelingen van de L.undbouwhogeschoo1 te Wageningen 62li.

P.H. Raven, R.F. Evert & H. Curtis, Biology of plants (New York: 2nd edition).

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

Tillage practices in Iraq (Baghdad: College of Agriculture, Abu Ghraib mimeographed paper).

Salim, S.M. 1962

Marsh dwellers of the Euphrates Delta (London School of Economics: Monographs on Social Anthropology, No. 23).

"Irrigation as a soil and relief-forming factor in the Lower Mesopotamian Plain",

Netherlands Journal of Agricultural Science 10/iii, 179-193.

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

Lockwood, J.G. World climatic systems (London: Edward Arnold). 1985

NEDECO 1959

Russel, J.C. 1957

Schilstra, J. 1962

Lockhart, J.A.R. & Wiseman, A.J.L. Introduction to crop husbandry (Oxford: 5th edition). 1983

Meidner, H. 1979

Charles

Smith, J.B. & West, B.G. Irrigation and drainage in Southern Iraq (Baghdad: College of Agriculture, Abu 1957 Ghraib). Sutcliffe, J. 1968 West, B.G. 1958

Plants and water (Studies in Biology 14; London, Edward Arnold).

"The soils of Iraq and their management", in Prospects of Iraq Biology, Vol. I (Baghdad).

Whitehouse, R. The Jirst cities (Oxford: Phaidon) 1977 Withers, B. & Vipond, S. 1974 Irrigation: design and practice (London).

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

Charles

Charles

Irrigation in lowland Mesopotamia

Table 1. Rainfall Figures for Baghdad and Diwaniyah (mm) SEPT OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Diwaniyah Baghdad

tr.

0

0.8 15.7 26.1 18.8 17.2 16.2 14.5 11.8 0.2 26 28 10 4 0 3 20 26 X

0.1 0

0.3 0

Table 6. Monthly Temperature Means (degrees centigrade) TOTAL

121.7mm Nedeco 1959 (1929 140 m m Guest 1966(1937-5

1929-59

Baghdad

1953-4 1954-5 1955-6 1956-57 1957 mean

SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN N L AUG Diwaniyah

1 0 0 0 0 0

/

I

11 11

27 13

0 tr. 3 0 6.3 10

1 90 28 5 0 30.8

14 44 70 54 11 15 8 9 26 12 52 59 / / / 22 29 42.5

22 32 45 73

tr.

13 0 29 /

43

0 3 0 tr.

0 0 0 0

0 tr.

(Nedeco 1959)

na. Baghdad

253mm 140mm 230mm

tr.

0

/ / / 10.5 0.8 0 tr.

31.0 25.7 18.4 11.9 10.0 12.2 16.4 22.2 28.0 31.5 32.9 33.3

/

1929-59

Table 7. Monthly Relative Humidity Mean (percentage)

na.

195mm

MacDonaIds 1959 SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG Diwaniyah

Table 2. Rates of Evaporation (mm)

1929-59

Baghdad Abu Dibbis,

SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG

total

220 140 70 45 272 93 177 125

2060 2170

45 103

65 92

110 160 235 300 350 320 165 130 142 249 318 304

medeco 1959) (Buringh 1960)

Tigris Tigris

Table 4. River Salt Content (ppm) SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG

450 460 470 475 450 450 360 300 300 310 350 390 at Baghdad (Dieleman 1977)

Tigris

Table 5. Euphrates Water Levels 1928-32 (in metres) SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG

1927-28 1928-29 1929-30 1930-31 1931-32 1932-33 mean

+

28

36

56

71

71

crop wheat

SEP OCT NOV DEC JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUN JUL AUG

130 130 170 250 250 340 480 1500 1800 1100 320 170 200 200 200 350 500 1100 1750 2500 2100 800 200 200 180 170 220 320 380 650 1400 2300 2100 1200 380 240

1937-52

63

56

47

33

X

23

24%

(Guest 1966)

Table 8. Crop water requirements

Table 3. River Sediment Content (ppm)

Euphrates

Baghdad

at Ramadi (Ionides 1937) nr. Baghdad (Dieleman 1977) nr. Baghdad (Buringh 1960)

barley vegetables sesame millet

no. of irrigations

4-7 4-8 384 34 4-5

sorghum

5-6

dates

2-3 1-2

pasture (after Nedeco 1959. 273).

total water applied (mm)

320-560 320-640 c. 2000 240-320 320400 400-480 200-300 80-160

LE SYSTEME PALEO-FLUVIATILE AU SUD-OUEST DE BAGHDAD H. Gasche (avec la collaboration de N. Pons)

Nous avons déjà exposé ailleurs et à plusieurs reprises1 le problème de la formation des levées naturelles et la nécessité de les cartographier dans le cadre des recherches sur les anciens syst5mes fluviatiles. Rappelons cependant les principales caractéristiques de ce phénomène géomorphologique. Aux environs de Failügah l'Euphrate débouche dans la plaine alluviale mésopotamienne à une altitude de quelque 40 m8tres et à une distance de plus de 500 km du Golfe. Cette faible pente de la plaine2 favorisait les ramifications du fleuve d'une part, les modifications de leurs tracés d'autre part.3 Différents bras fossiles de l'Euphrate peuvent être identifiés grâce à des levées dites naturelles, seuls vestiges matériels du passage d'un ancien cours d'eau. Ces levées se forment progressivement par l'accumulation des sédiments véhiculés par le fleuve qui, à chaque inondation, se déposent de part et d'autre du lit. Ils finissent par constituer des reliefs importants qui atteignent aujourd'hui, dans la région septentrionale de la plaine, une hauteur de 2 à 3 mètres pour une largeur de 2 3 km suivant le niveau où l'on fixe leur limite et celle des bassins qui les séparent (v. fig. 3). Au sommet de ces levées se trouve l'ancien lit du fleuve, dont le cours est identifiable grâce à des méandres fossiles de forme sub-circulaire et de structure striée:4 des sondages géologiques pratiqués dans ces derniers ont révélés essentiellement des sables sur une profondeur de quelque huit mètres.' La cartographie de ces vestiges géomorphologiques dans la région située au sud-ouest de Baghdad a permis de reconstituer la partie septentrionale de l'un des réseaux fluviatiles anciens; on notera au passage que 75% environ des sites archéologiques, toutes périodes confondues, se trouvent sur ces levée^.^ En d'autres termes, ces sites se trouvent au bord oii à proximité d'une ancienne voie d'eau; le choix d'un lieu à urbaniser était donc essentiellement dicté par sa présence. il est plus délicat d'aborder le probl&me chronologique de ces levées. A l'inverse des méandres qui se trouvent dans des terrains non salés, ceux de notre région ne contiennent pas de tourbe, datable par le cl4. Par ailleurs, cette méthode ne nous donnerait probablement que la date de l'un des tracés de cette voie d'eau, son lit et surtout ses méandres pouvant changer, avec le temps, à l'intérieur des limites de la levée. Le seul moyen de dater relativement ces vestiges est donc du type géo-archéologique: rechercher les sites les plus anciens, évaluer chronologiquement le début de leur occupation avec les artefacts récoltés en surface, puis déterminer, à l'aide de sondages géologiques, le niveau altimétrique de leur base qui forme ainsi un repère chronologique. L'expérience a été tentée avec R. Nijs (Faculté de géologie de l'université de Gand) sur les deux sites les plus importants de la région, mais dont la fondation n'a pas eu lieu en même temps: Sippar (Abû Habbah) et Sippar-amni3num (Tell ed-Er). Tous les deux se trouvent au sommet de la levée x.'

Gascha

Le système paieo-fluviatile au sud-ouest de Baghdad

Nous savons que le nom de Sippar s'écrivait avec les mêmes signes cunéiformes que celui de l'Euphrate. Ces idéogrammes, pourtant, se lisaient différemment en accadien; mais l'identité d'écriture montre bien le lien étroit entre la ville et le f l e ~ v e .Ii~ est donc fort probable que le début de l'histoire du site soit en rapport avec le cours d'eau sur les vestiges duquel il se trouve.1° Par déduction, il faut admettre que ce cours d'eau coulait à proximité de ce site au moins depuis l'époque à laquelle on lui donna le nom de "Sippar", sinon depuis l'époque de sa fondation vers le fin du 4ème millénaire avant notre ère." Il ne nous paraît pas illogique de retenir la seconde de ces hypothèses puisque, d'après la Liste Royale sumérienne, Sippar est une des cinq villes antédiluviennes. Nous admettrons ainsi, pour les besoins de cette démonstration, la date arbitraire de 3300 avant notre ère pour la fondation de Sippar. Par ailleurs, Tell ed-Dër se trouve sur la même levée naturelle que Sippar. Les fouilles récentes n'ont pas révélé, pour l'instant, d'installations plus anciennes que celles du 21ème siècle av. J.-C. mises au jour dans le Sondage A". Cependant, près de deux mètres nous séparent encore de la base du site;13 une occupation de l'époque agadéenne pourrait être envisagée si ce n'était l'absence de témoins matériels représentatifs: ni en surface du site, ni dans les fouilles, aucun tesson ne peut être attribué avec certitude au répertoire formel akkadien.14 Par ailleurs, deux mètres de vestiges peuvent représenter un laps de temps relativement court.15 Ainsi, la fondation de Sippar-amnmum à l'époque agadéenne ne peut pas être assurée, malgré quelques hésitations qui ressortent de Gasche (1986, 56). De même, la date de 2300 av. J.-C. avancée ici pour la fondation du site est plus arithmétique que historique, puisqu'elle nous permet simplement de séparer sa fondation de celle de Sippar d'un millénaire, approximation amplement suffisante pour le but que se fixe le présent travail. Ces deux jalons chronologiques dans la formation de la levée X peuvent être complétés par un troisième qui, toutefois, est moins pertinent car il ne se trouve pas sur cette structure, mais sur le flanc de cette dernière (v. fig. 3). Il s'agit du mur construit par Nabuchodonosor II au nord de Sippar dans la première moitié du sixième siècle avant notre ère, plus connu sous le nom de "Mur de Médie" (cf. Black et al., 1987). Si ce témoin est ainsi moins utile pour l'estimation de la durée de formation de la levée, nous allons voir plus loin qu'il pourrait apporter certaines indications quant à l'abandon du bras de l'Euphrate qui coulait en son sommet. Mais revenons à Sippar et à Sippar-ammum situés au sommet de la structure géomorphologique qui nous intéresse ici. L'écart entre les dates de fondation de ces deux villes a été mis en relation avec l'accumulation des sédiments de la levée X de manière à en évaluer la durée de formation. A partir de sondages géologiques, il a pu être établi que la base de Tell ed-Der (Sippar-amnilnum) est au niveau moyen des 29'50 mètres sur mer;16 quant à la base de Sippar, elle a été reconnue au niveau des 28,50 mètres.17 Ainsi, compte tenu de la pente naturelle de la levée entre les deux sites, l'épaisseur des sédiments est de 1,50 mètres plus forte sous Tell ed-Dër (v. fig. 4). Nous avons vu plus haut qu'un millier d'années séparent la fondation des deux villes et nous savons maintenant qu'il y a eu 1,50 m de dépôts fluviatiles pendant cette période. Le but de cette arithmétique sédimentaire n'est pas de démontrer que la levée naturelle se rehaussait de 1,50 m tous les mille ans. Ce rythme dépend de beaucoup de facteurs qu'il ne nous appartient pas de développer ici,'' mais nous avons maintenant la certitude que la durée de formation des levées naturelles reconnues dans la région qui nous concerne est une affaire de millénaires et non de siècles. Nous attendrons cependant d'avoir étendu les recherches géomorphologiques vers le sud

Le système paieo-fluviatile au sud-ouest de Baghdad

Gasche

avant de spéculer sur les noms qu'il faudra bien un jour attribuer A ces bras de l'Euphrate. Le problème laissé en suspens est celui de l'abandon du bras de l'Euphrate au sommet de la levée X. Nous avons vu plus haut que le mur de Nabuchodonosor II nous donne un repère chronologique relativement récent dans les sédiments situés vers la limite entre la levée X et le bassin localisé plus au nord. L'épaisseur des dépôts fluviatiles n'est ici que de l'ordre d'un mètre pour une durée de quelque 2600 ans.19 Par ailleurs, l'accumulation des sédiments au sud du mur, du côté de la levée X, est identique à celle observée au nord, du c6té du bassin. Il en résulte donc qu'au sixième siècle avant notre ère le bras de l'Euphrate qui nous intéresse n'inondait plus; s'il n'en était pas ainsi, le mur aurait joué un r61e de barrage et l'épaisseur des sédiments serait plus forte au sud qu'au nord. Deux possibilités peuvent ainsi être prises en considération: le bras était asséché ou son débit était contrôlé par une technique qu'il est trop t6t de préciser. Pourtant, l'impressionnant réseau d'irrigation artificiel, pst-néo-babylonien dans sa quasi totalité, dont la plupart des canaux prennent naissance dans les méandres fossiles, interdit d'envisager la première hypothèse. L'ancienne voie d'eau existait donc toujours, mais était-elle encore naturelle ou déjà modifiée par l'homme? En guise de conclusion, nous pouvons établir aujourd'hui que la levée X de la fig. 1 suit le tracé de l'un des bras de 1'~uphdte actif entre la fin du 4b" millénaire et une partie, probablement, du premier millénaire vant notre ère. Ji n'est cependant pas possible de préciser pour l'instant si ce bras n'était pas yéjà contr61é par l'homme vers la fin de cette période. En revanche, on peut envisager sérieusement qu'un système d'irrigation artificiel ait été mis en place après le déplacement vers l'ouest du cours du Tigre qui pourrait bien avoir eu lieu durant le dernier quart du quatrième siècle avant notre ère (Black et al. 1987, 21).

1

NOTES

1

Gasche 1985, 1983, et Gasche & De Meyer 1980.

2

Cette pente n'est pas la même dans toute la plaine. Voir A ce sujet Buringh, 1986, en particulier la fig. à la p. 15. Par ailleurs, les phénomènes géomorphologiques décrits ici s'appliquent uniquement la partie septentrionale de la plaine alluviale. Plus au sud, les méthodes d'identification des levées devront être adaptées aux conditions géomorphologiques régionales.

3

Concernant le tracé du Tigre dans cette même région, il faut savoir qu'il se trouve et se trouvait probablement depuis toujours au point le plus bas par rapport à un axe est-ouest. Cette remarque ne vaut évidemment que pour la région qui nous concerne ici et pour les périodes dites historiques.

4

Cf. De Meyer et al. 1984, photographie à la p. 12. Ces méandres fossiles peuvent atteindre un diamètre de 700 à 800 m sur les levées X et Y de la présente fig. 1.

5

Baeteman 1986.

6

Gasche et De Meyer 1980, 11.

Le système paleo-fluviatile au sud-ouest de Baghdad

Gasche

7

Figs. 1 et 2.

8

Sippir pour la ville et Pura(n)turn pour la fleuve.

9

Voir aussi le fragment de carte paléo-babylonien dans Gasche & De Meyer 1980, 6, fig. 3.

10

Voir fig. 3 et 4.

11

Cf. Adams (1972, 192): "Detailed surface inspection indicated that occupation here began no later than the Urak (sic) period..."

12

Cf. TD 4, 59-62.

13

La nappe phréatique interdit pour le moment d'explorer les couches plus profondes.

14

Contra, Adams 1972, 192, sub 057. Baqir & Mustafa (1945, 48) attribuent leur niveau VI11 du chantier 2 à la période akkadienne. Pourtant, la poterie publiée de ce niveau est plus caractéristique du répertoire d'Ur III que de celui d'Agadé.

15

A titre d'exemple, six métres de stratigraphie couvrent une période de quelque 350 ans dans le Sondage A.

16

Soit quelque 4,50 mètres sous le niveau actuel du sommet de la levée.

17

Soit a une profondeur de 6 métres par rapport à la surface actuelle. Les altitudes 34 m (au sud-ouest de Tell ed-Der) et 34,50 m (au nord-est de Sippar) ont éte pris en considCration pour établir les profondeurs indiquées dans les notes 16 et 17, voir fig. 4.

18

Pour Tell ed-Der, nous avons un autre point de comparaison: le Sondage B où la base des installations archéologiques datées des environs de 1850 av. J.-C. a été reconnue au niveau de 30 m (Paepe et al. 1978, plan 1). Les sédiments fluviatiles déposés pendant les quelque 450 ans qui nous séparent ici de la fondation du site n'atteignent, cette fois, qu'une épaisseur de l'ordre d'un demi-métre, soit un peu plus d'un mètre si on convertit cette mesure par rapport à un millénaire.

19

Entre la construction du mur, vers 600 av. J.-C., et aujourd'hui.

Le système paleo-fluviatile au sud-ouest de Baghdad

Gasche

l

Fig. 1

River terrace

Recent river Ievee (after Buringh, 1SW)

Anciont river Iovee

Lake. Haur

Carte de la région entre Baghdad et Babylone montrant les anciennes levées naturelles X et Y. W indique un ancien trac6 probable d'un bras plus septentrional de l'Euphrate, mais cette région n'a pas encore été suffisamment investiguée pour lui restituer un tracé précis.

NB

Séleucie et Khokheh se trouvent évidemment sur la levée du Tigre et non sur celle de

l'Euphrate comme les sigles utilisés semblent l'indiquer.

-9 la nu Ç ' Z ~ = u q 1 :sal~uozuoys a ~ m l s ~Sap p al[aq33

.unrr c = ur 1 : s a p ! a a sa~ueis!p sap anayw

c '89sap

qgold sap s~uaurarnlduxasa1 luanbyp~3x la qxm %xm .b;a x sa?aa~)aleqdn3,l ap sa1!sso3 s e 4 xnap md a9slaaeq mdd!~ap uo!%?~ luequour u o ! l d s o ~ dap a@l?u9%am:, el ap 1 ~ 4 x 3

Z '%!LI

Gasche

Le système paleo-fluviatile au sud-ouest de Baghdad

ORIENTATION BIBLIOGRAPHIQUE ET ABREVIATIONS

ESPACE AGRICOLE ET AMENAGEMENT REGIONAL A MARI AU DEBUT DU IIIe MILLENAIRE

Adams, R. McC. 1972 "Settlements and Irrigation Patterns in Ancient Akkad", Appendix V apud Gibson, McG., The City and Area of Kish, Coconut Grove, 182-208. Baeteman, C., 1980

"Geomorphological Features in the Area of Abü Habbah and Tell ed Der", TD 3, 15-21.

Baqir, T. & Mustafa, M.A. 1945 "Iraq Government Sounding at Dêr", Sumer 1/2, 37-54. Black, J.A. et al. 1987 "Habl q-S@ 1983-1 985: Nebudhadnezzar II's Cross-Country Wall North of Sippar", Northern Akkad Project Reports 1, 3-46. Buringh, P. 1986

"Formation de la plaine fluviatile mésopotamienne", Dossiers, Histoire et Archéologie 103, 14-15.

De Meyer, L. et al. 1984 "Tell ed-Der. La vie en Babylonie il y a 4000 ans", Archéologia 195, 8-25. Gasche, H. 1983

"Remarques concernant le choix et l'emplacement d'une site à urbaniser dans une plaine de type alluvial", La ville dans le Proche-Orient ancien (= Les Cahiers du CEPOA l), 77-79.

1985

"Tell ed-Der et Abü Habbah: deux villes situées à la croisée des chemins nord-sud, est-ouest", Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 4, 579-583.

1986

"Tell ed-Dër, la Sippar des Amnanu", Dossiers, Histoire et Archéologie 103, 56-58.

Gasche, H. & De Meyer, L. 1980 "Ebauches d'une géographie historique de la région de Abü Habbawell ed-Der", TD 3, 1-13. Paepe, R. et al. 1978 "The Surrounding Wall of Tell ed-Dër in Relation to the Regional Fluviatile System", TD 2, 1-35. TD

=

Tell ed-Dër, série éditée à Louvain, 1971-

.

Jean-Cl. Margueron ( Universitk de Strasbourg)

Le but de mon intervention dans ce groupe de recherche est de faire connaître aux membres du Sumerian Agriculture Group les derniers résultats des recherches entreprises depuis une demi-douzaine d'années dans la région de Mari, dans la mesure où elles apportent une documentation nouvelle qui enrichit de façon substantielle nos connaissances sur ce sujet pour les débuts de l'âge du Bronze. Ces recherches ont été conduites dans le cadre de la Mission Archéologique de Mari. Lorsque l'on m'a demandé de prendre la direction de cette mission en 1978, j'ai établi un programme de recherche réparti sur une dizaine d'années. Parmi d'autres objectifs, j'insistais alors sur la nécessité de préciser la relation qui existait entre Mari et l'Euphrate; en second lieu il me semblait indispensable d'engager une étude régionale afin de retrouver, si faire se pouvait, l'environnement antique de la cité et surtout l'aménagement de la vallée; je pensais plus particulièrement à la question des canaux, car la documentation épigraphique, pour riche et intéressante qu'elle soit, ne permet pas de se faire une idée précise de l'organisation du réseau. De plus certaines caractéristiques, assez étonnantes, des ruines actuelles de la cité de Mari conduisaient à désirer une meilleure connaissance de l'ensemble régional. C'est pourquoi j'ai d'abord constitué une équipe de terrain chargée d'étudier géographiquement et archéologiquement l'environnement de Mari. J'ai d'autre part pris des contacts avec une société française, le G.E.R.S.A.R. (Groupement d'Etudes et de Réalisations des Sociétés d'Aménagement Régional), qui travaillait dans la vallée de l'Euphrate à la demande du gouvernement syrien et du G.O.L.D. (General Organisation of Land Development) pour trouver les moyens de lutter contre la salinisation des terres qui constitue un obstacle au développement agricole de la région. M.N. Chawa, directeur du G.O.L.D. et M.R. Stalenq, Chef de Mission du G.E.R.S.A.R. ont donné toute facilité à la Mission de Mari pour consulter les études qu'ils avaient réalisées dans la vallée. Grâce à cette généreuse collaboration l'enquête réalisée par 1'Cquipe de terrain a pu faire de rapides progrès. Cette équipe est composée de B. Geyer géomorphologue originaire de l'Institut de géographie de Strasbourg, formé aux problèmes de la dynamique fluviale, spécialisation qui paraissait indispensable dans le cas présentet de J.-Y. Monchambert à qui l'observation archéologique a été confiée parce qu'après avoir collaboré aux fouilles de Ras Shamra, de Meskéné et de Mari, il avait acquis une expérience de prospection de terrain dans la vallée du Khabur. A plusieurs reprises j'ai participé aux recherches sur le terrain, mais les charges de la direction de la mission et la fouille sur le tell Hariri ne m'ont pas permis une présence permanente. B. Geyer et J.-Y. Monchambert viennent de rendre compte, dans un rapport préliminaire paru au printemps 1987 dans M.A.R.I. 5l, des premières observations qu'ils ont recueillies et des conclusions qu'il est possible d'en tirer. Ici je reprendrai pour l'essentiel les informations qu'ils ont données, en extrayant de leur rapport des passages particulièrement importants et en y ajoutant des éléments des discussions ou des problèmes débattus au sein de cette équipe qui a profité à l'occasion de la présence et de l'expérience de P. Sanlaville, directeur de Recherche au C.N.R.S.; certains de ces problèmes n'apparaissent pas dans le rapport préliminaire, car les

Margueron

Espace agricole et arnenagement régional à Mari

Margueron

Espace agricole et amenagement régional à Mari

solutions ne sont pas encore évidentes, mais j'ai pensé pouvoir en faire état maintenant en raison de la nature de cette rencontre. Ainsi, et quoique j'aie inséré dans cette présentation quelques réflexions personnelles, je ne suis que le porte-parole d'un travail d'équipe dont l'œuvre n'est pas encore totalement achevée.

1. CONFIGURATION DU TERRAIN.

Fig. 1

50

La zone prospectée s'étend de la confluence du Khabur aux falaises de Baghouz au sud de Mari, lorsque l'Euphrate quitte le territoire syrien (Fig. 1); elle s'est un peu étendue à la partie inférieure de la vallée du Khabur, mais elle n'a pas débordé pour le moment, sauf exceptionnellement, sur le plateau. Apparemment cette zone dépasse largement le cadre de ce que l'on appelle l'alvéole de Mari, c'est-à-dire la section du fleuve qui va de la falaise de Doura-Europos à celle de Baghouz; mais dès le début de l'enquête il est apparu que ce qui pouvait ressembler à une unité naturelle de base ne correspondait pas de façon aussi nette à la réalité antique du royaume de Mari, du moins en ce qui concerne le IIIe millénaire. C'est précisément la question des canaux qui est à l'origine de cette découverte. D'une manière générale, à la fin de l'époque d'Uruk et au Bronze Ancien, la situation de la vallée apparaît assez simple. Le fleuve depuis qu'il s'est enfoncé dans le plateau fait de marnes, de calcaire et de gypse, a connu en alternance des phases d'alluvionnement et des phases d'érosion qui ont construit et dé&t des terrasses dont le résultat actuel apparaît assez clairement dans le schéma proposé par B. Geyer (Fig. 2). En bordure des falaises, on trouve d'abord des terrasses pléistocènes qui sont surmontées par les cônes des oueds qui descendent du plateau; leur altitude se situe à 8 ou 10 mètres au-dessus du niveau du fleuve et elles sont constituées d'une terre de surface très lessivée et souvent encroûtée. A un niveau nettement inférieur, dominant le fleuve de 2 m ou un peu plus, la série des terrasses holocènes, formées il y a quelque dix mille ans et dont les terres peuvent être consacrées à l'agriculture, à condition que soit résolu le problème de l'alimentation en eau de ce niveau, qui n'est naturellement atteint que par les eaux de pluie et par celles qui descendent du plateau apr&s les précipitations. Enfin les terrasses de formation récente, ou terrasses historiques, sont étroitement associées au lit majeur où coule l'Euphrate en développant des méandres sans fin du fait de la faiblesse de la pente: à 1681170 m d'altitude, il a encore 800 à 900 km à parcourir (à vol d'oiseau) avant de se jeter dans le golfe Persique. Cette portion du fleuve est aussi caractCrisée par l'arrivée du Khabur, affluent de rive gauche qui vient renforcer la quantité d'eau du fleuve à un moment où, du fait de l'évaporation et des infiltrations en zone désertique, il est en train de perdre le quart de son volume à son entrée en ) . apport n'est pas négligeable en territoire syrien (995 m3/s avant le lac contre 735 m3/s à ~ i t ~Cet soi, car au milieu de la traversée du dCsert, il revigore tout au long de l'année un débit qui s'affaiblit dangereusement. Mais, en outre, cette rencontre, c'est-à-dire l'association "Euphrate+Khabur", est la raison principale de la naissance de Mari et de sa localisation précise, comme nous allons le voir. En rive droite ce ne sont que des wadi à écoulement périodique (lors des grosses pluies d'hiver) qui débouchent sur la vallée, certains venant de loin comme le wadi es-Souab, mais la plupart n'Ctant que de faible longueur. Ces caractéristiques ne semblent pas avoir été très différentes à la fin de l'époque d'Uruk ou au Bronze Ancien; peut-être les conditions climatiques se sont-elles un peu aggravées, surtout en

Margueron

Espace agricole et menagement régional à Mari

Espace agricole et menagement régional à Mari

Margueron

ce qui concerne l'apport des pluies, mais pas dans des proportions telles qu'il ait pu exister alors un contexte ayant permis des cultures sans irrigation. Les restes archéologiques permettent parfois d'évaluer l'importance des remaniements morphologiques qui sont certains, mais qui n'ont pas remis en cause l'organisation d'ensemble, sauf cependant en quelques emplacements où la violence des débordements a profondément modifié la situation d'origine, comme à la confluence du wadi es-Souab.

II. LES GRANDS AMENAGEMENTS NON AGRICOLES. Les recherches ont donc porté sur deux domaines différents mais complémentaires: d'une part les installations humaines, d'autre part les aménagements hydrauliques. Je laisse de c6té ici le premier, pour m'en tenir au second. Ii est vite apparu que tous les canaux repérés n'avaient pas la même fonction; je ne veux mentionner dans ce paragraphe que les caractéristiques principales des ouvrages dont la destination première ne semble pas concerner l'agriculture. 1. Le canal de Mari (point A de la Fig. 1). J'appelle ainsi le canal qui reliait la cité à l'Euphrate. Les observations géomorphologiques de B. Geyer ont rapidement montré que Mari se trouvait sur la terrasse holocène et non au niveau du lit majeur, en conshuence l'Euphrate n'avait pu border le flanc nord de teli Hariri comme on l'avait pensé jusqu'à une date récente. Les recherches sur le terrain et les photographies aériennes ont indiqué l'existence d'un canal qui passe à une distance variant de 200 à 600 m du flanc nord-est du tell actuel; il trouve son origine dans un ancien méandre à 2 ou 3 km au nord (à moins toutefois qu'il ne vienne de plus loin et qu'il ait utilisé cet ancien méandre pour faciliter son entrée dans la terrasse holoche) et en rejoint un autre un peu au sud de la cité (même remarque). La fonction de cet ouvrage était double: d'une part assurer l'approvisionnement en eau douce de la ville, d'autre part permettre une relation constante avec le fleuve pour faciliter l'arrivée des bateaux jusque dans le port de la ville; cette dernière fonction semble confirmée par la largeur du canal qui est d'une trentaine de mktres, gabarit trop important pour une simple amenée d'eau. La construction de ce canal peut être datée de la fondation de la ville au Dynastique Archaïque 1 (date obtenue par un sondage réalise sur le flanc nord du tell -au chantier B - qui devra être confirmée en un ou plusieurs autres points du tell). Ii ne se comprend que si Mari a Cté une ville neuve conçue dès le départ selon un plan circulaire avec un diamètre supérieur à 1800 m.3 Cette opération marque aussi le moment où les habitants ont été capables de se libérer de l'assujettissement que représentait pour eux l'obligation de s'installer sur les rebords de la terrasse holocène pour avoir accés facile à l'eau indispensable à la vie quotidienne. Cette libération implique une aptitude à régler le problème de l'eau à l'aide de grands travaux, et en cela, cette opération nous intéresse ici au premier chef.

Fig. 3. - Schéma geomorphologique de l'alvéole de Mari I I I mineur de l'Euphrate; 2 - o u i d i ; 3 - ancien canal ( ? ) ; 4 - bras mort ou chenal de crue; 5 - plateau ei sa bordure: 6 - ierrasses quaternaires; 7 - arfleurernents localisés des terrasses quaternaires; 8 - basse terrasse supérieure; Y - basse terrasse inférieure et lit majeur; 10 - cônes; I I - glacis; 12 - dépôts de sables éoliens; 13- tells: 14 -sites de surrace; 15 - tells sur lambeaux de terrasses quaternaires. I

2. Le canal KhaburIEuphrate ou nahr Dawrin (point B de Fig. 1). Ce canal est connu depuis longtemps sous le nom de nahr Dawrin et J.-R. Kupper en a tenu

~ . tracé a été bien compte lors de ses recherches concernant Kibri-Dagan, gouverneur de ~ e r q a Son complété par les dernières recherches. Avec ses 1101120 km (calculés au curvimètre sur une carte au 1/200.000e) depuis sa prise sur le Khabur à esJisr jusqu'à son aboutissement dans l'Euphrate, vraisemblablement à la hauteur des falaises de Baghouz, il suit en bordure de la falaise un tracé assez direct, sauf au moment où il contourne le plateau au contact des deux vallées du Khabur et

-

(M.A.R.I.

4,

p.32)

Fig. 2

Margueron

Espace agricole et arnenagement régional à Mari

de l'Euphrate, selon une ligne de pente peu différente d'une courbe de niveau; à l'occasion les constructeurs n'ont pas hésité à entailler profondément le plateau lorsqu'il était nécessaire de protéger le canal du travail de sape d'un méandre: ainsi à Taïyani où il s'enfonce de quelque 15 m dans la masse tabulaire. L'une des caractéristiques remarquables est que tout au long de son parcours il offre une largeur constante de 9 à 11 m: il s'agit donc, selon toute vraisemblance, d'un canal de navigation établi entre le Khabur et l'Euphrate de façon à éviter un parcours beaucoup plus long et dangereux par les méandres. Le gain est de l'ordre d'une quarantaine de km (toujours calculé au curviligne sur la carte au 1/200.000e en suivant le tracé récent du fleuve; il ne s'agit donc que d'une approximation), soit un gain de temps théorique de 3 à 4 jours pour la reinonte, mais sans doute beaucoup plus considérable car dans les méandres la progression était certainement fortement ralentie. Il est clair qu'un canal de ce type ne se conçoit que dans le cas d'un trafic régulier et d'une certaine importance. Je n'insiste pas davantage ici sur ces deux ouvrages, car ils ne concernent pas strictement le sujet de la rencontre. Mais il était nécessaire d'en parler afin de bien montrer d'emblée le haut développement de l'aménagement de la région de Mari. Il fallait surtout marquer avec une certaine vigueur qu'à l'aube de la civilisation urbaine la maîtrise de l'eau n'est pas seulement destinée à l'irrigation, mais qu'elle commande l'ensemble des activités des communautés.

m. LES CANAUX LIES A L'IRRIGATION Deux ouvrages qui semblent avoir eu un rapport avec l'irrigation ont été repérés jusqu'à maintenant.

1. Le canal d'irrigation de rive droite (point C de la Fig. 1). Le troisième canal, lui aussi de grande envergure, a été retrouvé sur la rive droite, au milieu de la terrasse holocène. Voilà ce qu'en dit le rapport préliminaire: "De rares vestiges des aménagements importants qui furent alors construits, nous sont parvenus; ils nous permettent, entre autres, de reconstituer une partie du tracé du canal principal d'irrigation de rive droite de l'alvéole de Mari. La caractCnstique principale de cet ouvrage est que, devant servir à irriguer les terres par simple gravité, il n'était pas creusé dans la terrasse comme les canaux d'amenée d'eau, mais construit en remblai sur celle-ci. La différence de niveau avec le fleuve était de ce fait importante et la pnse d'eau devait se situer assez loin en amont. Nous n'avons malheureusement pas déterminé l'emplacement de cette pnse, les actions érosives combinées de l'Euphrate et de l'important wadi es-Souab qui débouche au nord de l'alvéole ayant très certainement détruit toute la partie amont du canal. Nous avons toutefois pu retrouver, plus à l'aval sur la terrasse holocène ancienne, des vestiges de cet ouvrage important sous la forme d'une dizaine de segments, espacés parfois de plusieurs kilomètres et fortement émoussés par les inondations. Dans son état actuel de préservation, sa longueur totale est de 17 km; sa largeur, digues comprises, avoisine les 100 m. Le chenal d'écoulement est large d'environ 10 m. Les digues qui l'encadrent servaient bien sûr à canaliser l'eau, mais devaient surtout résister à la force érosive des crues. Cette fonction explique leur caractère massif: 2'5 m de haut et 50 m de large pour la digue est de la section de Hasrat, la mieux conservée. Vers l'aval, les traces du canal principal disparaissent totalement à 2'5 km au nord-ouest de Mari; nous sommes là sans doute très proches de l'endroit où il se subdivisait en canaux secondaires. Nous avons cm reconnaître d'autres départs de canaux secondaires: l'un partant vers la droite depuis la section d'el-Kita'a, l'autre vers la gauche depuis la section d'Hasrat. Ceci attesterait très logiquement d'ailleurs une

Margueron

Espace agricole et amenagement régional à Mari

imgation sur les deux côtés du canal, donc de l'ensemble de la rive droite du fleuve." Tel qu'il est connu actuellement ce canal est d'un intérêt certain dans la question de la mise cn valeur agricole de la vallée. Il offre une information de poids avec ses caractéristiques structurales, sa longueur, son emplacement et les indices de départ de canaux secondaires. Mais il pose un problème difficile, évoqué par B. Geyer et J.-Y. Monchambert dans le rapport préliminaire et que je voudrais développer un peu à la suite des discussions conduites sur le terrain, car des choix qui seront faits dépendent certaines conclusions concernant la pratique de l'agriculture dans la région de Mari. C'est la source d'alimentation du canal qui n'apparaît pas aussi nettement qu'on le souhaiterait. Autrement dit d'où vient le canal? On pense tout naturellement à une prise dans l'Euphrate en amont de la section retrouvée. Compte tenu de l'emplacement où l'on a repéré les premiers restes du canal et de la topographie d'ensemble caractérisée par cette poussée vers l'est de la falaise qui bloque au nord le débouché du wadi es-Souab et qui supporte Doura-Europos, on chercherait volontiers cette pnse peu après l'endroit où l'Euphrate (point D de la Fig. 1) longe la falaise avec une action érosive encore très vive, comme en témoigne l'écroulement d'une partie de la citadelle de Doura. La poussée du fleuve contre cette falaise semble rendre difficile le passage d'un canal entre les deux, à moins que dans l'antiquité le cours du fleuve à cet endroit se soit situé un peu plus à l'est. Mais il se trouve que le rebord sud du promontoire est longé par le wadi es-souab, comme nous venons de le voir, dont l'écoulement, quoique épisodique, a complètement perturbé le secteur de sa confluence; on ne peut donc espérer trouver aucune trace des aménagements anciens. Mais la question est de savoir si les anciens auraient installé un canal au travers du débouché d'un wadi qui fonctionnait en certaines occasions. Pour ma part je sais que par deux fois, aux printemps 1967 et 1968 je me suis trouvé dans l'impossibilité absolue de traverser ce passage en raison des débordements du wadi. Et si, actuellement une telle mésaventure n'est plus envisageable, car un véritable pont a été construit, il a suffi, au printemps 1986, que des travaux en vue de l'aménagement du réseau d'irrigation aient conduit à désaccorder le pont et la route pendant une durée limitée, pour que, pendant quelques jours, de nouveau il soit impossible de franchir ce passage à la suite d'une chute de pluie6. Cette zone de confluence est donc particulièrement incertaine et l'on peut légitimement se demander si les anciens avaient mis en place un système faisant intervenir un siphon, seul moyen à mon sens permettant de résoudre durablement le problème. A dire vrai, si cette hypothèse n'est pas à exclure d'emblée, elle me paraît assez peu probable. Mais alors où se tourner pour trouver la solution? C'est ce problème, parmi d'autres, qui a conduit l'équipe de terrain à explorer le wadi es-Souab et à y glaner des observations de grand intérêt dont on retiendra pour notre propos trois faits majeurs. Tout d'abord c'est l'existence à quelque 17 km en amont dans le wadi des ruines d'un barrage de retenue qui ne peut appartenir à l'époque qui2nous intéresse, mais qui est le signe que des aménagements d'envergure ont existé à cet endroit (point E de la Fig. 1). Ont-ils pu exister dès le me millénaire? Sous la forme d'un barrage de terre, comme on les faisait alors, ce qui expliquerait qu'il n'en soit rien resté? Le second fait joue un peu dans le même sens puisqu'il atteste l'ancienneté de l'occupation en cet endroit, comme l'indique le site néolithique repéré par la prospection et qui paraît avoir été occupé au Bronze Ancien. Le troisième fait est fourni par la proximité de l'eau de la nappe phréatique immédiatement sous le fond du wadi; cette proximité de l'eau (env. à -2 m dans les puits en octobre) montre qu'elle est très présente. Mais il ne paraît pas raisonnable de penser qu'elle a été extraite par des systèmes élévatoires pour être utilisée ailleurs. Reste donc l'hypothèse de l'existence d'un lac de barrage à cet emplacement. Mais peut-on admettre qu'un

Margueron

Espace agricole et amenagement régional à Mari

tel ouvrage ait pu servir à alimenter le canal d'irrigation de l'alvéole de Mari? En dépit de l'absence de preuve archéologique pour le B.A. on serait assez tenté de répondre par l'affirmative, d'autant plus que la direction du canal semble assez en harmonie avec la direction du wadi dont il paraît provenir. Mais il faut bien préciser ce qu'une telle option signifie, ainsi que la portée exacte des lacunes de notre documentation dans son état présent. Tout d'abord le lac de retenue qui pourrait avoir été réalisé, présenterait deux caractéristiques très précises: a - Il se formerait à la faveur des pluies d'hiver et de début du printemps; il en résulte un caractère aléatoire du fait de l'irrégularité bien connue des précipitations. Certes c'est là un aspect quasi permanent dont on peut penser qu'il était un risque accepté, même si la survie de la population en dépendait en partie; mais il est assez clair aussi que le branchement du canal d'irrigation directement sur l'Euphrate, alimenté toute l'année malgré un fort étiage de fin d'été, aurait fortement diminué ce risque. b - On souhaiterait pouvoir évaluer, même approximativement, la quantité d'eau susceptible d'être ainsi conservée: avec nos données du moment ce n'est malheureusement pas possible. Or le caractère temporaire d'un tel lac paraît évident et il me semble difficile de penser qu'une retenue d'eau réalisée dans ces conditions ait pu être quantitativement assez importante pour fournir de l'eau toute l'année à la rive droite. D'ailleurs du barrage de piem retrouvé vont dans ce sens.

Ces deux caractéristiques conduisent à une conclusion très précise en ce qui concerne la mise en valeur de l'alvéole de Mari: si le canal d'irrigation a réellement été alimenté par un lac de barrage situé dans le wadi es-Souab, le système n'était manifestement destiné à fonctionner qu'en fin d'hiver et au début du printemps, c'est-à-dire au moment de la pousse et de la maturation du blé: ainsi cet ensemble aurait été alimenté temporairement pour un usage momentané. On voit toute l'importance d'une telle conclusion pour la mise en valeur de la région de Mari. Mais on doit se demander si rien ne vient faire obstacle à une telle conclusion. Une lacune de notre information introduit en effet un drieux élément d'incertitude: si on n'a rien retrouvé du barrage de terre - mais on admettra volontiers qu'il a pu ainsi que d'autres être emporté par les crues lors Des périodes où il n'était pas entretenu -, on n'est pas certain non plus d'avoir retrouvé le canal qui devait conduire les eaux de ce barrage tout au long du wadi jusqu'au grand canal d'irrigation de rive droite. Comment peut-on imaginer le tracé d'un sel canal? Si les constructeurs l'avaient installé à la place du Iit du wadi, il était assuré d'une pente assez segulîère mais les ouvrages risquaient aussi d'être emportés à l'occasion d'une crue trop bmtale et mal retenue par le banage; d'autre part en cas de trop-plein dans le lac, ne risquait-on pas de voir l'eau se diriger ea @rit6 dans ce canal? Cn a certes pu prévoir uli cmal latérd de déviation des eaux excédentaires, mais alors n'aurait-il pas été plus simple de laisser au wadi le rôle d'exutoire des trop-pleins et de construire un canal d h e n k e dans la vallée de l'Euphrate latéralement au tracé de ce dernier et à une altitude lég8rement supérieure, ce qui l'aurait mis normalement à l'abri des cmes? Dans ce cas ne devrait-on pas retrouver quelques traces de ce cmal qui aurait été situé hors de la zone d'intense Crosion? Des recherches sont en cours pour tenter de résoudre cette difficultk. D'autre part la massivité du canal d'irrigation (largeur jusqu'à 108 m, hauteur des digues latdrales jsasqu'à. 2'50 m, largeur du chenal central 15 n à sa base) c'ern@che-5-elle pas d'estimer pî-ssib'9e une liaison avec un canal venant du wadi es-Souab qui ilrirait, lui, disparu'? En rdalité,

Margueron

Espace agricole et amenagement régional à Mari

une tranchée ouverte en février 1987 en travers du canal afin de réaliser une coupe de l'ensemble de l'ouvrage, a permis de constater que dans le chenal central avaient été creusés des fossés de moindre largeur qui conduisaient réellement l'eau; ainsi la hauteur de la lame d'eau ne dépassait pas 50 ou 60 cm sur une largeur de 3 ou 5 m. Il y a donc une disproportion assez étonnante entre l'importance de l'ensemble de l'ouvrage et la petitesse de la partie utile ou, si l'on veut, cntre les dimensions du chenal apparent et la quantité d'eau qui y coulait effectivement. Cette distorsion peut s'expliquer selon B. Geyer par la nécessité de donner au canal les moyens de résister à la fois aux crues venant du wadi es-Souab et aux inondations de la vallée de l'Euphrate. Il semble donc que la massivité de l'ensemble de l'ouvrage ne fasse pas obstacle à une éventuelle liaison avec le wadi es-Souab. 2. Le canal du pied de la falaise ouest (point F de la Fig. 1.).

Le quatrième ouvrage nous retiendra moins longtemps. Il s'agit d'un canal installé au pied de la falaise de rive droite. Il a été repéré assez au nord de l'alvéole mais a sans doute circulé jusqu'à Abu-Kemal. Il a, selon B. Geyer, plusieurs fonctions " ... nous avons repéré en plusieurs endroits un canal "d'évacuation des eaux" creusé sur la rive droite au pied du plateau et de ses glacis, à la limite de la terrasse holocène ancienne. Large de moins de 10 m, il devait courir tout au long de l'alvéole et déboucher près d'Abou-Kémal. Son r61e était multiple. Il évacuait en grande partie les eaux de crue des oueds latéraux, évitant que celles-ci ne viennent "charger" la nappe. Il captait les eaux de ruissellement salées en provenance des pentes du plateau. Il aidait à l'évacuation des eaux de débordement en provenance de l'Euphrate. Il pouvait enfin drainer les eaux mêmes de la nappe, à condition toutefois d'être assez pr~fond."~ A toutes ces fonctions on peut encore ajouter celle de récupérer les eaux qui déboulaient du plateau lors des gros orages pour les empêcher d'aller détruire les cultures naissantes, puisqu'au moment de la pousse du blé de tel phénomênes sont encore possibles et que le risque était grand de voir une récolte anéantie par une seule grosse précipitation. En attendant que les choix aient pu être faits entre toutes ces fonctions dont plusieurs ont pu coexister, soulignons que ce canal apparaît plutôt comme ayant joué un r61e indirect, quoique essentiel, dans l'organisation de l'irrigation. Il montre de façon certaine le haut degré de technicité atteint par les sociétés de l'époque sumérienne dans l'organisation hydraulique de leur pays: on ne se contente pas d'amener de l'eau pour faire pousser les récoltes, on prévoit aussi d'éliminer les eaux dangereuses ou de s'en protéger, voire peut-être, de drainer les terres afin d'éviter une rapide saturation en sel. Rappelons que le développement de l'irrigation depuis une cinquantaine d'années dans la vallée de l'Euphrate s'est fait sans tenir compte de ce problème: aucun réseau de drainage n'a accompagné le réseau d'irrigation; il en est résulté un lessivage des terres particulièrement insuffisant et, en conséquence, une salinisation très rapide de milliers d'ha. C'est alors que des études ont été entreprises par le G.E.R.S.A.R., dont les conclusions ont établi l'impérieuse nécessité de l'installation d'un réseau de drainage et d'une réorganisation du système d'irrigation: opérations nécessaires pour la mise en valeur de la région, mais dramatique pour les restes archéologiques. IV. LA QUESTION DE LA DATE DE CES AMENAGEMENTS.

C'est là, bien entendu, la question la plus difficile: ni inscription, ni tesson ne permettent de fixer le moment de la construction de ces différents canaux. Il ne reste pour cette tâche que les indices archéologiques généraux et l'histoire ou, du moins, ce que nous en connaissons.

Margueron

Espace agricole et amenagement régional ? Mari i

L'histoire de la région de la confluence du Khabur et de l'Euphrate prolongée par l'alvéole de Mari apparaît comme rythmée par trois grands moments: - l'âge du Bronze et plus particulièrement le B.A. et le B.M. dans l'alvéole de Mari et à Terqa, - l'époque classique, avec la cité de Doura-Europos de la fin du Ive siècle avant J.-C. au me

siècle après, qui redonne une position éminente à l'ensemble de la région, ayyoubide marquée d'une renaissance au moins dans la zone de la confluence. Archéologiquement parlant, les traces de l'Uruk final du B.A. et du B.M. foisonnent dans l'alvéole de Mari, dans la zone de la confluence et dans la vallée du Khabur; l'époque classique, elle, est aussi représentée dans les deux zones, par des installations diverses, peut-être en rapport avec l'aménagement hydraulique, et par des cimetières que l'on retrouve dans les deux secteurs. L'époque islamique paraît surtout présente dans la zone de Deir-ez-Zor8. Ainsi rien n'indique qu'il faille rattacher les installations repérées dans l'alvéole de Mari à l'époque islamique; si l'époque classique est mieux représentée comme l'indique le wadi es-Souab (la mise en culture de l'alvéole se justifie par la présence de Doura-Europos sur son promontoire), les sites ne sont pas assez nombreux pour qu'on puisse attribuer à cette époque la construction des grands canaux le long desquels se fixent tout naturellement les villages; il reste possible, et même assez vraisemblable, que certains des canaux aient alors été remis en activité. Reste donc l'âge du Bronze. Est-il possible de penser que l'ensemble de l'aménagement régional observé ait été réalisé aux époques du B.A. et du B.M.? Dans l'affirmative à quel(s) moment(s) précis peut-on placer les travaux les plus importants? Si on envisage un développement progressif de Mari, doit-on penser à des créations échelonnées dans le temps pendant les mille ans de son histoire? Ou bien comme y invitent les textes de l'administration de Iahdun-Lim, de Shamshi-Adad et de Zimri-Lim jugera-t-on préférable d'en créditer la période finale? Un fait, nouvellement acquis mais fondamental, doit nous guider dans cette question. Les dernières recherches ont en effet démontré que Mari était à sa naissance une ville neuve, résultat d'une pensée politique capable d'envisager, puis de mettre en œuvre un grand projet9 et non une ville qui aurait connu un développement progressif à partir d'un stade villageois. Or, quel qu'ait été l'espace réellement occupé lors de la fondation - nous ne pouvons encore le connaître du fait de l'insuffisance des fouilles profondes - il est évident qu'un constructeur n'aurait pas projeté une ville circulaire d'un diamètre proche de 2 km s'il n'avait en vue la création d'une grande ville, la superficie retenue couvrant quelque 250 ha; d'autre part, penser à s'éloigner de la bordure de la terrasse, trop dangereuse, relier la cité nouvelle à l'Euphrate par un canal de plusieurs kilomètres de long et, surtout, large de près de 30 m, enfin édifier une digue de 5'7 km pour protéger la cité des crues les plus importantes, celles qui pouvaient envahir la terrasse holocène, tout cela révèle des moyens qui ne sont pas ceux de villages même développés; seule une civilisation urbaine peut engager une telle opération. Alors se pose la question du substrat qui autorise une telle puissance, car on ne peut peupler une ville de cette envergure d'un coup de baguette; les hommes qui ont construit cette ville et qui l'ont, avec d'autres sans doute, peuplée, sont là. Il faut les nounir et cela implique un développement agricole déjà suffisamment avancé: je me demande, en conséquence, si le canal d'irrigation n'existait pas déjà au moment de la construction de la cité; il ne lui est peut-être pas antérieur, mais il est certainement contemporain, car il marque la possibilité d'alimenter cette grosse agglomération.

- l'époque

Margueron

Espace agricole et amenagement régional a Mari

Maintenant est-il possible d'expliquer les fondements de la puissance que l'on décèle pour cette haute époque? Je pense que pour l'expliquer, il faut prendre conscience que les aptitudes agricoles de la vailée en cet emplacement, sans être négligeables, ne permettent guère de justifier un tel essor qui aurait pu se produire aussi bien ailleurs dans la vailée; le choix de cet emplacement précis ne doit pas être expliqué par le hasard. Si j'ignore les causes de la vitalité de la région de Deir-ez-Zor à l'époque ayyoubide, en revanche je crois que l'on peut affirmer que Doura-Europos n'a pas été secrété par la dgion elle-même, mais par le grand commerce caravanier. A Mari, me semble-t-il, une situation voisine a pu se trouver au point de départ du développement: un trafic commercial qui avait pour axe l'Euphrate et le Khabur et qui reliait la Mésopotamie, et le piémont de la Syrie du Nord. L'origine de ce commerce doit être recherchée au moins à l'époque d'Uruk lorsque l'on constate l'implantation de sites portant le label de cette époque: Habuba Kabira, djebel Amda, Cheikh Hassan, Hassek Hüyuk le long de l'Euphrate ou tell Brak dans la plaine du Khabur. Au début du Bronze Ancien de puissantes cités occupent ces régions, tell Brak ou tell Chuera, qui présentent des caractéristiques proches de celles qui se développent en Mésopotamie. Mari occupe dans le contexte international une position particulière qui lui permet de contrôler à la fois le trafic fluvial avec la Syrie du Nord et celui du Khabur, en outre l'emplacement de la ville nouvelle vers le sud de l'alvéole se justifie surtout si elle a cherché à être proche du débouché du canal qui vient du Khabur". Au fond Mari, vers 3.000 av. J.-C., est le produit d'une situation de puissance et non son point de départ. La cité nouvelle avec ses caractéristiques initiales n'a pu exister que grâce à un ensemble régional déjà équipé ou en passe de l'être.

Dans ces conditions comment la vie agricole du royaume de Mari peut-elle nous apparaître? Le tableau que l'on peut en présenter concerne, si mes conclusions sont admises, le moment de la fondation de la cité, c'est-à-dire le Dyn. Arch. 1. Mais il est très vraisemblable qu'elle a duré tout au long de l'histoire du royaume. Les premières propositions de B. Geyer sur cette question11sont confirmées et complét&s par les dernières observations. Trois domaines peuvent être définis: 1. le plateau et les terrasses pl6istocènes sont trop Clévés pour être irrigués et leurs sols sont mauvais; s'il peut exister exceptionnellement une petite zone cultivée au fond d'une cuvette où l'eau peut se rassembler, c'est normalement le domaine de l'élevage; 2. la terrasse holocène aux sols de bien meilleure qualité peut être cultivée à condition qu'on y

amène de l'eau en quantité suffisante; étant donné l'ampleur des superficies seuls des procédés par gravitation peuvent être mis en œuvre; on a vu qu'en rive droite le problème de l'origine du canal repéré n'était pas résolu, mais chacune des deux solutions envisageables implique une utilisation différente: - si l'alimentation vient du wadi es-Souab, le carial et ses diverticules ne servaient vraisemblablement qu'au moment de la pousse des céréales; après la récolte les chaumes pouvaient être occupés par les troupeaux; - si l'alimentation venait de l'Euphrate, l'irrigation pouvait durer au-delà du printemps; mais alors quelles cultures étaient possibles? Remarquons encore que pour le moment les installations de la terrasse de rive gauche n'ont pas été repérées;

Espace agncole et amenagement regional h Mari

Margueron

DIE BEWÄSSERUNGSANLAGEN IN DEN ALTSUMERISCHEN

3. le long de la terrasse holodne et sur les terrasses historiques, meme si les traces archeologiques n'ont pu etre conservees p u r des raisons compdhensibles, on peut penser que des systemes d'irrigation par Clevation ont permis de developper une agriculture plus diversifiee oii, Zi c6t6 des ct?reales, on trouve des lCgumes, des lCgurnineuses, des salades et des fruits; il serait en effet etonnant que cette Zone relativement peu etendue, mais la plus facile a mettre en culture, n'ait pas etC utilisee. Cette mise en valeur de la region s'accompagne donc d'un dseau de canaux tres developpe qui prouve le haut niveau technologique atteint par cette civilisation. Ces canaux ont des fonctions tr&s sp6cialisCes: alimentation en eau de la cite, irrigation, transport, protection. Ce dseau montre aussi l'importance accordh a l'amenagement de la capitale, le r61e des transports a longue distance, le souci d'une organisation alimentaire a 1'Cchelon dgional. Il est bien evident qu'une telle organisation l'echelle de la dgion Ctait indispensable si la vie urbaine Ctait active; c'est un systeme t&s particulier liC a un fleuve puissant, encore encaissC dans une vallee assez Ctroite; c'est donc un contexte totalement diff6rent de celui de la plaine alluviale et c'est, ii mon Sens, une nouvelle preuve de l'exceptionnel niveau de cette civilisation sumerienne (largo sensu) que sa capacite h s'adapter h des conditions si differentes et de trouver des solutions toujours originales.

Blahoslav HruSka (Praha)

NOTES

B. GEYER et J.-Y. MONCHAMBERT, "Prospection de la moyenne vallee de 1'Euphrate; rapport pdliminaire 1982-1985", M.A.R.I. 5, 1987, p. 293-344. P. SANLAVILLE "XX, M.A.R.I. 4, (1985), p. 24. J. MARGUERON, "Etat pdsent des recherches sur l'urbanisme de Mari", M.A.R.I. 5, p. 483-498. J.-R. KUPPER, ARM 111 et Bi. Or E,5/6, (1952), p. 168-169. Cf. le rapport pdliminaire citC a la note 1, p. 3 10-3 12. Au mois d'octobre 1987, les travaux Ctant toujours en cours au meme endroit, la mute a 6tC une nouvelle fois coupee pour plus d'une semaine h la suite d'un vio lent orage. Cf. le rapport pdliminaire cite

a la note

1, p. 312.

Cf. le rapport pdliminaire cite ii la note 1, p. 3 15-341. Cf. note 3. I

10

Pour une Ctude plus approfondie des consequences historiques entrahees par Ces dCcouvertes se reporter h "L'amenagement de la dgion de Mari: quelques considerations historiques", a paraftre dans les actes du colloque Les techniques et les pratiques hydro-agricoles traditionnelles en domaine irriguk, IFAPO, Damas, juin 1987.

11

Cf. M.A.R.I. 4 et Les dossiers, histoire et archkologie, fev. 1984, no 80.

In ASJ 6 (1984) S. 33-55 hat Tohru Maeda die Aussagen der altsumerischen Wirtschaftstexte über die Bewässerungsarbeiten gesammelt und eingehend untersucht. Den relevanten Informationen in den Königsinschriften hat er dabei nur einen kleinen Raum gewidmet (a.a.O., S. 43-44). Nach der umfassenden Bearbeitung der altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschriften von Horst steiblel und den zum Teil abweichenden Übersetzungen von E. Sollberger, J.R. ~ u ~ und ~ e ? zuletzt von J. ~ o o p e 8 ist in den letzten Jahren eine Reihe von den wichtigen Einzeluntersuchungen entstanden, die sich mit den Kanalbauten und mit dem "Kampf um Wasser" ~ , und in Südmesopotamien befassen4. In der alluvialen Ebene bildeten die Kanäle (a, i 7 = i pa,) Wassergräben (e) eine durch die an den Ufern aufgestellten Stelen markierte Grenze zwischen den Das Wort e = benachbarten Stadtstaaten bzw. zwischen den anliegenden ~ewässenin~sdistrikten~. ikum kann auch "Deich" am Rand der Felder und Fluren bedeuten. Die zahlreichen Belege in den Königsinschriften von LagaS betreffen jedoch kaum die eigentliche Bewässerungstechnologie. Was wir heute mit gewisser Sicherheit annehmen dürfen, ist die Existenz der Flüsse bzw. der großen und kleinen Kanäle (e-tur-mal$ im sogenannten dendritischen System mit den vielen Verbindungsgräben (e, in einigen Wirtschaftstexten wohl auch e-nag-ku, = e-nag-TAR "Deich mit Wasserbecken"). Jede Flur und jedes Feld war ganz, oder teilweise vom einen Deich umgeben. An den größeren Kanälen erwähnen die Texte Zusatzeinrichtungen - Becken, Schleusen und Wehre. Bis auf eine unsichere Stelle (siehe unten die Anm. 25) wissen wir nichts über die Abführung des überschüssigen Wassers. Alle Angaben beziehen sich zum Kern des Siedlungsgebietes, die Bewässerungen in den Randgebieten bleiben im Textmatenal unberücksichtigt. Die Abzweigstellen (ka) kommen nur in Verbindung mit den großen Kanälen vor, wo wir bei den schwankenden Durchflußmengen mit einer Schleuse oder Wehranlage rechnen dürfen. Die Kanalsperren und Stauwehre (giS-k6S-du) sind nur bei den Mündungen (kun) belegt. Die Deiche mit Wasserreservoiren (i,/e-nag-ku,) kommen in den Wirtschaftsurkunden oft in den Felder- und Flurnamen vor, es fehlen aber die Größenangaben. Hier befanden sich Ableitungsstellen mit Wasservorräten (nag-ku,) für direkte Feldbewässerung. Die Wassermenge konnte man regulieren nach dem jeweiligen Wasserstand im Reservoir mit Staudämmen. Die ältesten Anlagen für die Zurückhaltung von Überschwemmungswasser sind in Südrnesopotamien seit Ende des 5. Jt. v.u.Z. nachweisbar. Die künstliche Zufuhr von Wasser auf Felder, Fluren, "Zwiebelfelder" (ki-sum-ma) und Gärten ( ' t i r i ~ ermöglichte eine große Der Bau Steigerung der Nahrungsproduktion bereits in den vorgeschichtlichen ~orfgemeinden~. der Kanäle und der anderen Einrichtungen zur Regelung der Wasserführung ist nicht ohne Kooperation irn breiten Raum möglich und denkbar. Die künstliche Bewässerung in den semi-ariden Gebieten beschleunigte entscheidend die Herausbildung der ersten Stadtstaaten im 4. Jt. v.u.Z. Zunächst waren es einzelne Bewässerungsprovinzen mit den städtischen Zentren, in denen es anscheinend eine sehr variable Landschaft gab, die man lange Zeit kultiviren musste. Siehe dazu die Beschreibung von Uruk im Lugalbanda-Epos, Z. 297-302:

Hdka

Die Bewässenmgsanlagen in den altsumerischen Königsinschriften

Die Bewässenmgsanlagen in den altsumerischen Königsinschriften

unuE-e sug b6-me-am a b6-em-d6-a pir-rim4 b6-me-ilm @asal @-mii-a giS-gi @-me-Am gi-iiS gi-benbur h6-cmu-a> den-Li l ~ ~ a l - e r i d u ~ - ~ a - k e ~

.

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

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

***

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

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

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

Wka

Die Bewässerungsanlagen in den altsumerischen Königsinschriften

"Uferdamrn"?

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

Wka

Die Bewässenmgsanlagen in den altsumerischen Königsinschriften

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

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

Der Herrscher Enannaturn I. hat Felder (insgesamt 36 bur = 228,6 ha) in den BewässerungsdisVil
Die Bewässerungsanlagen in den aitsurnerischen Königsinschriften

Die Bewässerungsanlagen in den aitsurnerischen Königsinschriften

ANMERKUNGEN Die altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschrijiten, Teil 1-11, (FAOS 5/1-2; Wiesbaden 1982). Siehe dazu H.Behrens, H. Steible, Glossar zu den altsumerischen Bau- und Weihinschrifren,.(FAOS 6; Wiesbaden 1983). Die Veröffentlichungen der Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) sind in den meisten Universitätsbibliotheken schwer zu finden. Man wendet sich an die jeweiligen FAO-Vertretungen (meistens in den Hauptstädten), wo auch vollständige Kataloge vorliegen. IRSA = Inscriptions royales sumkriennes et akkadiennes, (Paris 1971). Presargonic Inscriptions, Sumerian and Akkadian Royal Inscriptions, Vol. I., (New Haven, Conn., 1986). F. Carroue, "Le Cours d ' ~ a u - A l l a n t - h - ~ ASJ ~ ~ ~8~(1986) ", S. 13-58.

G. Steiner, "Der Grenzvertrag zwischen LagaS und Umma" ASJ 8 (1968) S. 219-300 mit zahlreichen Literaturhinweisen. Zu den Bewässerungen vgl. weiter A. Salonen, Agricultura mesopotamica (Helsinki 1968) S. 223 ff. und S.T. Kang, Sumerian Economic Texts from the Umma Archive (Urbana 1973) S. 429 ff. mit einer Skizze. Der Grenzverlauf entlang den Kanälen i7-AL und i7-DU,-a mit den Entfernungen wird in Lug. 2, 2.24-31 beschrieben, vgl. dazu RGTC 1 S. 207. Siehe J. Oates & D. Oates, "Early Agriculture in Mesopotamia" in: Sieveking, Longworth, Wilson Ed., Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology (1967) S. 109-136. Ean. 2, Ko1.7:3-5 dnin-gir-su-ra lum-ma-gim-du„ mu-na-U$, vgl. dazu J. Bauer, WdO 7 (1973-1974) S. 10; ders., WdO 6 (1971) S. 149. Vgl. dazu unten Ent. 35, Ko1.3:104:8 und Ukg. 7, Kol.l:6-25. Zu den Staudämmen in Girsu s. M. Stol, RlA 5 (Berlin 1976-1980) S. 358-359 s. V. Kanal(isation). Bei den Maßen gur-2-UL und gur-sag-gil handelt es sich möglicherweise um eine Angabe über den Bitumenverbrauch und nicht über "Volumen" des Stauwehrs; siehe dazu unten die Anm. 29. Die Identifizierung mit dem sog. Hypogäum im Tello ist jedoch nicht sicher, vgl. H.J. Nissen, RlA 5 S. 366-367 (auch zu den bildlichen Darstellungen und zu den Stadt- bzw. Felderplänen). Ean. 1, Urterschrift Rs. 10:23-29; vgl. H. Steible, FAOS 512, S. 61-62. Zum L i ien vgl. RGCT 1, S. 38-39 mit der richtigen Deutung "Steppe zwischen LagaS und Umma". Sicher nicht zu den Bewässerungsanlagen gehört der ebenfalls aus Backsteinen gebaute Brunnen, den Eannatum im "breiten Hof' (des Tempels) für Ningirsu errichten d ließ. Siehe Ean. 22, Ko1.2:ll-3:4 U,-ba nin-gir-su-ra kisal-dagal-la-na pu-sig4-BAHAR(=REC742)-ra mu-na-ni-du.

En I. 29, Ko1.10:611:4 ur-lum-ma ensi-ummab en-an-na-turn-me e-ki-sur-radnin-gir-su-ka-Si? mu-gaz &D-lum-ma-gir-nun-ta-ka a-ba-ni-Si? ba-DU. Zu den Kämpfen am Kanal Lumma-girnunta vgl. weiter Ent. 28, Ko1.3:ll-21 = Ent. 29, Ko1.4:2-12; Ukg. 6, Ko1.4:2&25. Siehe dazu G. Steiner, ASJ 8 (1986) S. 241-242. Belegt sind folgende Teile der Kanalanlagen: gu "Ufer1', ~ ~ U $ - ~ u"Fundament", nfi eigentlich "Bett" (eines Kanals), dazu vgl. H. Sauren, TUU, S. 63. siehe oben die Anm. 10. Zu K ~ D p u - s i g 4 - ~ ~ 742)-ra ~ ~ ~ du;uru-ka ( = ~ ~ ~mu-na-du. En. 1. 33, En. 1. 9, Kol.4:Ko1.5: 1-3 [X X] a [X]-ki-6g-gApu-sig4-BAHAR(LAK 742)-ra mu-na-di-du. Zum Brunnenbau vgl. M. Powell, ZA 62 (1972) S. 191 mit Anm. 61. En. I. 33, Ko1.5:6-11 en-an-na-tum-me d l u g a l - ~ ~ ~ x ~ giS-k6S-du ~ ~ f i - r a [X dnin-hur-sag-g6 [S~~~]-BAHAR&AK 742)-ra mu-ni-du.

X]

Zu d l u g a l - ~ ~ vgl. ~ x J.~ Bauer, ~ ~ f AWL i S. 45045 1. Vgl. H. Sauren, TUU S. 53, 182-183. Siehe zuletzt G. Steiner, ASJ 8 (1986) S. 219-300, bes. S. 233-235. Zum FN gu-eden-na vgl. G. Pettinato, UNL V1 (1967) S. 264, UNL V2 (1967) S. 91. Die Fischer von GANA-gu-eden-na-ka.

Gu'edena

erwähnt der Text

DP

174, Ko1.2:4

Su-ku,-

?ur "geopolitischen" Überlegenheit von Umma siehe schon Th. Jacobsen, "A Survey of the Girsu (Tello) Region", Sumer 25 (1969) S. 103-105, 109 (mit einer Karte); vgl. H. Steible, FAOS 512 S. 47 mit Anrn. 58. Ent. 28-29 (zitiert nach Ent. 28). Ko1.2:l-3 e-bi i,-nun-ta gu-eden-na-Se ib-ta-ni-i?; vgl. G. Steiner, ASJ 8 (1986) S. 229. Th. Jacobsen, Iraq 22 (1960) S. 175-77 sieht im Kanal Inun nur eine Fortsetzung des Iturungal. Vgl. auch den. Surner 25 (1969) S. 104-109.

Nach R.McC. Adams und H.J. Nissen, The Uruk Countryside, (Chicago 1972) S. 45 bildete Iturungal die Hauptwasserstraße im östlich vom Euphrat liegenden Raum zwischen Nippur und Larsa. Zu den geographischen Erwägungen über Wasserlaufsveränderungen im sog. "Euphrat-System" vgl. E. de Vaumas, Iraq 27 (1965) S. 95-99 "L'ecoulement des eaux en MCsopotamie et la provenance des eaux de Tello". Zum6Tigris-System" vgl. H. Sauren, TUU S. 51, 85-88. Der Kanal Inun wurde vom Tigris-(Kanal?) abgeleitet und süd-östlich ins Grenzgebiet zwischen Umma und LagaS geführt. Vgl. auch Ean. 2, Ko1.7:513. Der Herrscher Entemena wird als "Stauwehrbauer des Ningirsu" angesehen; vgl. Ent. 35, Ko1.75-8:5 en-te-me-na giS-k6S-dudu-a-dnin-gir-su-ka-ka. Die Arbeiten sind "datiert" mit dem Satz "Damals war Dudu Tempelverwalter des Ningirsu"; vgl. Ent. 35, Ko1.8:8, Ent. 16, Ko1.3:2, Ent. 34, 2.21.

Die Bewässerungsanlagen in den altsumerischen Königsinschriften

Hdka

Zum "Fassungsvermögen~'s. die Anm. 8, 29. 21

Die Angabe des Gebietes, aus dem die Arbeiter zum Kanal Lumrnagimdu kamen, ist im Text abgebrochen. Vgl. aber Ent. 79, Ko1.3:1045 und Ko1.5:4-8 (Arbeitseinsatz der Bewohner von Uruk, Larsa und Badtibira). Sehr instruktiv ist VS 14, 130 (s. dazu J. Bauer, AWL S. 56-66), Reinigungsarbeiten nach den Erosionsschäden an den Kanälen und am Wasserreservoir des Feldes Ganadatirambar, durchgeführt von den "verpflichteten Arbeitern" (eren-KA-k6l-da). Vgl. noch TSA 23 und DP 622, Ko1.9:34 (Kontrolle der Arbeit von lu-IGI.NIG~N).

22

Siehe P. Steinkeller, JESHO 24 (1983) S. 130-134, 136-139, 143-145.

23

Ukg. 1, Ko1.3:4-11; Ukg. 14, Kol.l:l-8. Vgl. dazu F. Carroue, ASJ 8 (1986) S. 16-18. Weiter auch in Ukg. 4-5 (zitiert nach Ukg. 4), Ko1.2:7-13. Vgl. Ukg. 1, Ko1.3:4-7; Ukg. 14, K01.111-8. Das Verbum 16 hier etwa "anknüpfen", vgl. Ean. 2, Ko1.7:4-5 mit der unklaren Verbalbasis U$. Zum Hör-Gebiet siehe ausführlich H. Waetzoldt, "Zu den Strandverschiebungen am Persischen Golf und den Bezeichnungen der Förs", in: Rupert Carola, Sonderheft Strandverschiebungen (Heidelberg 1981) S. 168-1 69. Bei ab, a-ab, a-ab-ba handelt es sich um Sumpf und Schilfmnen mit dem Fischfang in den Kanälen. Die Verlängerung des Kanals ins FOr könnte mit einer Abwässerung (Drainage) des Bewässerungsdistriktes der Göttin NanSe (e-ki-sur-ra-*nank) zusammenhängen. Mit Sicherheit wissen wir es jedoch nicht. Vgl. dazu unten die Anm. 25.

Wka

Die Bewässerungsanlagen in den altsumerischen Königsinschriften

Ukg. 7, Kol.l:6-2:s. Vgl. J. Bauer, WdO 7 (1973-1974) S. 11. Siehe noch oben die Anm. 8. In Ukg. 7, Ko1.23-4 steht 2 S a r r G ~ ~ENGUR ' 1820 gur-sag-g6l. Falls das Zeichen ENGUR nach dem Vorschlag von F. Carroue (AJS 8 (1986) S. 18 mit Anm. 37) tatsächlich esir zu lesen ist, registrieren die Verbindungen Zahi+gur-sag-gal bzw. Zahl+gur-2-UL den Biturnenverbrauch und Fassungsvermögen (Volumen). In Ukg. 7, Ko1.2:34 hat man also 1820x144 = 262.080 sila Bitumen verbraucht als "Mörtel" für 432.000 Ziegel. Der Verbrauch pro Ziegel beträgt 0,6 sila, was bei einem wasserdichten Stauwehr denkbar ist. Bei Ent. 35, Ko1.4:2-8 ist eine neue Kollation nötig. Der Verbrauch pro 1 Ziegel ist dort 0,4 sila.

29

ANHANG: BEWÄSSERUNGSTECHNOLOGIE 1. Notwendige Einrichtungen für Überschwemmung (leaching; ki-duru,)

a - Fluss (4) b - Zuleiter C

(4, pa5)

- Damm. Deich (e, im-dub-ba "Aufschüttung")

d - Stauschleuse (bei giS-k6S-d~"Staubecken"und nag-ku,?)

- Einlaßschleuse (nicht belegt) f - Auslaßschleuse (nicht belegt) e

g - Verteil- und Entwässerungsgräben (a-muS-du; sonst nicht belegt)

24

Vgl. RGTC 1 S. 13, 131-133.

25

Zu e„ "trockenlegen" s. H. Steible, FAOS 5/2 S. 108-109 mit den weiteren Literaturangaben. Die Deutung ist nicht sicher, vgl. Th. Jacobsen, ZA 52 (1957) S. 124 mit Anm. 72 ("abgeben, abtreten", wie gir-du).

26

Zu den Bewässerungsrinnen a-mul-Sa4 (Schlangenwasser-Kanal) vgl. J. Bauer, WdO 8 (1975-1976) S. 7 mit Anm. 48; vgl. Ukg. 6, Kol.l:26-2:3. (a-mul-du). Das Wort für einen geraden Furchen-Kanal kann ich in den altsumerischen Königsinschriften nicht finden.

27

Zu den Belegen vgl. H. Steible, FAOS 6 (1983) S. 228-229 s.v.m6, m6-gur,, m~-lab5. Zum Gewässernamen p a , - d s a m i n - ~ ~ S 4 . D vgl. ~ RGTC 1, S. 229 und Ukg. 6, K01.5:5-7, Ukg. 8, K01.3:3-6.

28

Zur Verbindung KU6xHAR "Fisch und Gemüsev(?) vgl. B. Foster, Or. NS 51 (1982) S. 305. Die Lesung von HAR.SAGxKU6 ist nicht bekannt, vgl. dazu M. Civil, Bi. Or. 40 (1983) S. 560-566 und S. Pomponio, WdO 13 (1982) S. 96 mit Anm. 2. Zum Fischfang in den kleineren an das Kanalsystem angeknüpften Teichen (auch nag-ku,?) vgl. Nik. 277.

2. Direkte Furchenbewässerung

[Skizze nach dem Großen Brockhaus (Wiesbaden 1953). Bd. 2, S. 811

Die Bewässerungsanlagen in den altsumerischen Königsinschriften

W k a

Die Bewässerungsanlagen in den altsumerischen Königsinschriften

3. Wasserverteilung bei der Furchenbewässerung auf den größeren Flächen a - großer Kanal, Fluß (J, a) b

- Zuleiter, Wassergraben (e, pa,)

C

- Wehr, Stauwehr (giS-k4S-du)

d - StauscIJeuse (nicht belegt, oder doch nag-ku, oder e-zi-du?) e - Einlaßschleuse (nicht belegt)

[Skizze nach dem Großen Brockhaus (Wiesbaden 1953) Bd. 2, S. 811

In den altsumenschen Wirtschaftstexten sind belegt weitere Bewässerungstechnologische "Fachausdrücke" (s. T. Maeda, ASJ 6 [I9841 39-49): e-zi-du "Kanal mit Stauschleuse", etwa "Drainage-Kanal"?

KU-KU wegen der Länge (fast immer aber 100 gi = 300x11) wohl kaum "Staudamm" (so J. Bauer, AWL S. 58). vielmehr "Deich". Vgl. "Aufschlittung" im-dub-ba in den Königsinschriften. h, U-tir bezieht sich zu den Kanalufem. die man als Schutz gegen Wassererosion bepflanzte (Rohr, Bäume). Etwa "befestigtes Ufer" eines Zufuhrkmals?

4. Zickzacklinie der Furchen (a-muS-du "Schlangenwasserkana1")

a C

E d

fi

rJ

C,

U ! :

V:

C,

er(

C

E

C E

0 d 'r( V C,

d

U]

."ht :0 rl .C(

hm

.C(

C,.

F

E

ti 0

.,-I.C(

,-I+'

ld -!U

Schema nach L.J. Booher, Surface Irrigation (FA0 Agricultural Developrnent Paper Nr. 95, Rome 1974), 121.

Die Bewksenmgsanlagen in den altsumerischen K6nigsinschriften

NOTES ON THE IRRIGATION SYSTEM IN THIRD MILLENNIUM SOUTHERN BABYLONIA P. Steinkeller

(Harvard) 1. Introductory remarks This study reviews the Sumerian and Akkadian irrigation terminology, found in Pre-Sargonic, Sargonic, and Ur I11 sources stemming from Southern Babylonia. Terms discussed are exclusively those bearing on the physical aspects of the imgation system, i.e. canals, dams, and related structures. Due to limits of space, our discussion is necessarily selective, being confined in the main to the most common terminology. A fully comprehensive treatment of the subject has yet to be written. 2. Major components of the irrigation system 2.1 Canals The Sumerian canal-terminology is basically limited to the following three words: eg, pa,/pa,, and id. The eg, variously interpreted by scholars as "dike", "levee", "ditch", or even "canal", denotes a broad earthen wall which accommodated a ditch or a small canal running along its top.' What the eg amounted to, therefore, was two parallel ridges or levees, separated by a raised water channel. In support of this interpretation, note that the archaic pictograph of eg (lU\JllJ appears to represent the cross-section of two such ridges. It is notable that eg denotes exclusively the earthen structure and never the associated water channel. This is shown plainly by the fact that, unlike pa,, "ditch, small canal", and id, "large canal", egs were created by "erecting, raising", (dt).) "making" (ak): or "piling up" (~i-(~)):and not by "excavating" (ba-al).' Further, while pa, and id have "depth" (bur, pu, Akk. $uplu),6 egs are invariably described in terms of "height" ( s u ~ u~~ k, k m~1i).7 . The same distinction is made also in Akkadian, where iku, a loanword from eg,8 primarily ~ eg, it is "piled up" (fap~ku)loor "made" describes the wall and not the ditch ( h i r i t ~ ) .Like (bani)." For the position of iku vis-a-vis biritu, especially illuminating is the following OB mathematical problem: UGU hiritim E abni E $2 ina 1 KUS 1 KOS SA.GAL sassum muhhum u SUKUD EN.NAM, "for a ditch I made an iku, one cubit per each cubit is the inclination of the iku - what is the base, the top, and the height of it?" (CT9, PI. 8.i.4144). A good modern analogue of the eg is provided by the Southern Iraqi fariq, a low earthen wall that is often broad enough to have a small canal (umud) running along its top.'' Although such a construction is properly neither "dike" nor "levee", in the following discussion we will, for want of a better word, translate egliku as "dike". The term pa, denotes ditches and smaller canals. The sign itself appears to depict the profile of a ditch ( )( ). A ditch or a small canal running along the top of the eg is graphically ), a combination of E and PA,. represented by the compound sign % ( w w

13

Since pa, (and similarly paJ is clearly a semantic disjunct of pa,, one has to conclude that, unlike Akkadian (see below), Sumerian does not distinguish between the various types of smaller artificial waterways. Larger canals are designated by the term id, meaning primarily "river".

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

Steinkeller

The Akkadian canal-terminology is closely related to the Sumerian one, though it also differs in some important respects. As noted earlier, Akkadian too distinguishes between the double-ridged dike (iku) and the ditch (hiritu), a feature undoubtedly borrowed from Sumerian. However, in contrast to the Sumerian usage, iku can also denote irrigation ditches.', A more significant difference is that Akkadian uses at least three different terms for the canals ranking above the ditch (hiritu) and below the main canaVriver (ndru): atappu, palgu, and pattu.15 Unfortunately, however, the hierarchy of these canals remains somewhat uncertain.16 The above data permit us to draw the following outline of the canal system: 1) from the river or main canal (id, niiru) water flows to 2) first and secondary off-takes (pa,, atappu, palgu, pattu) to 3) ditches (pa,, biritu) raised on dikes (eg, iku) to 4) irrigation furrows (ab-sin, Jer'u, absinnu)." This four-tier model can be productively compared with the canal system that existed in quite recent times in the Daghara region of Southern Iraq: "The bada (first off-take from the jadwal, or main canal) distributes water into naharan (secondary off-takes) and from them the water may flow into umuds (smaller canals). Umuds frequently run through the center of the low earth walls Cfariq) which enclose the small plots of land (lowh) under cultivation. From umuds, mirriyan (still smaller canals) carry water down the length of a lowh. Sharughs, irrigation furrows, cany water from the mirriyan into the lowh, within which the water may be more conveniently controlled." le We can see that the two systems show close affinity: id and ndru are the equivalents of jadwal; pa,, atappu, palgu, and pattu occupy roughly the same position as bada, naharan, and umud; eg and iku correspond to fariq; pa, and hiritu match mirriyan; and ab-sin, Ser'u, and absinnu are the same as sharugh. 2.2 Dams and related irrigation devices In addition to the words for canals, Third Millennium sources use a number of terms describing various irrigation devices. Among these, most conspicuous are kun-zi-da, durun (TuS.TUS), giS-k&rh, U, and nag-kud. It appears rtasonably certain that kun-zi-da, occurring o i y in Ur 111 texts, denotes a type of dam.19 Dams are probably also meant by durunxm and gig-kC~-mrboth found exclusively in Pre-Sargonic material from LagaS. The identifications of u and nag-kud are much more problematic. As suggested below (see p. 81), u may be "bridge". The meaning of nag-kud has been the subject of much speculation, but no completely satisfactory explanation is as yet available. A detailed discussion of this issue is offered immediately below in section 3.

3. The question of nag-kud

The earliest occurrences of nag-kudZ come from the Pre-Sargonic LagaS sources." The term is . ~ after the Ur very common in Ur I11 texts, especially those from Umma and ~ a g a It~disappears I11 period, with the exception of two occurrences in a late bilingual composition, where it is translated by the Akkadian butuqfu, "sluice"? and of a single lexical attestation, where it is listed a-gu-ri ,, , flow of water, current" (Proto-Izi 367). between a &-a,"sluice", and i-zi The fact that, after the kun-zi-da, "dam", the nag-kud is the most often mentioned irrigation device, underscores its importance for the Ur I11 irrigation system. As regards its physical

Steinkeller

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

characteristics, the nag-kud was a raised rectangular basin, built of piled-up earth (sahar) reinforced with such materials as reeds (gi, gi-zi), grass (u), and even logs of wood (fir Structurally, therefore, the nag-kud was but a variety of eg, "dike". The only part of nag-kud that sources specifically identify is a &-a,"sluice, outlet, floodgatew." The standard expression for the building and repairing of nag-kuds is sabar si-ga, "to pile up earth, to fill in with earth'';= once the verb dim, "to make, to build" is used.29The maintenance of these structures also involved dredging and cleaning, described by the verbs ba-al, "to dig, to dredgew," sabar zi-(g)/Su ti, "to remove siltW3land Su-luh ... ak, "to clean".32 The nag-kud was operated by the opening and closing of its sluice. The first operation is described by the verbs kud, "to divide (the flow of water), to divert (by cutting off)"? and bad, "to open"34; the closing of the sluice is expressed by the verb kCS, "to close up, to dam up" (lit. "to tie").35 As shown by the surviving information on the dimensions of nag-kuds (see Fig. I), these structures varied in length from 12 to 72 m., in width from 1 to 12 m., and in height from 1 to 5 m. Their volumes ranged from 0.33 to 240 sar (1 sar = ca. 18 m3). The comparison of the data given in Fig. 1 permits us to make several additional observations: 1) there is a marked absence of any correlation between the length and width of individual nag-kuds, with the ratio ranging from 2:l to as much as 36:l; 2) in most cases the length of a nag-kud greatly exceeds its width;

...

3) while the lengths of nag-kuds vary considerably within each group, their respective widths remain either identical (DP 654; Or. 47-49 51 1) or very close (177' 5, 6864). Previous attempts to determine the function and the place of the nag-kud in the canal system have led to various, often contradictory, explanations. The most widely held view, put forward by A.L. Oppenheim, and adopted by H. Sauren and S.T. Kang, among others, has it that the nag-kud was an "off-channel reservoir". Oppenheim saw in the nag-kud a "long-stretched reservoir leading the stored water of the canals deep into the territory which is to be irrigated and wherefrom the fields are 'drinking' ... when it is opened".36 Sauren too thought that the nag-kud was a reservoir; as he explained: "Die Wasserreservoire" [i.e. nag-kuds] "waren flache, rechteckige Becken. Die Hauptfunktion dieser Becken war, die gleichbleibende geregelte Wasserversorgung der Fluren zu sichern, es war wohl kaum eine Drainierungsanlage. Diese Anlagen befanden sich naturgemass an den Ufern der ~anide"." Following Oppenheim and Sauren, Kang located the nag-kud on the canal's bank, though he believed that its primary function was not to store water but to settle silt; accordingly, he translated nag-kud as "~ettlin~-reservoir".~~ A different solution was suggested by I.J. Gelb, who believed that "nag-kud means not a reservoir or channel but a trough attached to a channel ... a trough for draining water".39 Finally, A. Salonen proposed a theory that combines the "reservoir" and the "trough" explanations: "ein flaches, rechteckiges, trogformiges Wasserbecken mit den dazu gehorigen Wasserleitungstrogen, die aus zwei Seiten bildenden senkrechten und einem Boden bildenden waagerechten bzw. aus zwei schrag gegeneinander gestellten Brettern hergestellt und an beiden Enden offen und geneigt aufgestellt sind, so dass das Wasser aus dem Wasserreservoir gut ablaufen kann, um das Feld zu bewa~sern."~~

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

Steinkeller

Text

Length Width Height inm inm i n m

ITT 5 6864.ii.4-7 iii.13-16 iii.17-20 v.3'-8' v.9'-12' v.13'-16' v.17'-22' vi.4'-7'

36 15 51 15 30 24 12 30

YOS 4 209.iii.9-10 iii.12-13 iii.15-16

12 12 12

VAS 14 130.i.3 ii.4

72 36

Bodleian A57:8 :9 :lo-12 RTC 412.i.5 i. 10 i. 14 ii.3' ii.6' iv.6 MVN 10 231.i.4-7 i.12-13 ii.13-14 iii. 1-2 iii.3-5

48

1 1.5 2 111 1.5 1.75 1.25 1

1 1.25 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.33 1.25

Irrigation System in Southern BabyIonia

In view of this divergence of opinions, a re-examination of the evidence is clearly in order. We shall begin with the question of the position of the nag-kud in the canal system. Here the best information is provided by Texts nos. 1 (Pre-Sargonic, LagaS) and 2 (Ur 111, urnma).*' Text no. 1 is a survey of the inigation project conducted in the field GANA-da-tir-Ambarki.The text describes six sections of what appears to have been a continuous dike:

Volume in sar

(2) (1.56) (8.5) (1.25) (3.75) (3.5) (1.11) (2.08) 10 12 12

12.5 13 120 0.33 4 4 1 1 1.33 (0.46) (5.66) (1.66) (1.4) (1.3)

Steinkeller

- 5 nag-kud

= 2.33

- 3 nag-kud = 17

- 9 nag-kud = 15 - 5 nag-kud = 7

- 5 nag-kud = 6.5

Fig. 1 Dimensions and Volumes of nag-kuds

1st section: 36m long, 6m wide and 1.5m high; 2nd section: 12m long, 6m wide and 3m high - the nag-kud of Damu; 3rd section: 12m long, 6m wide and 3m high - the nag-kud of [ ...I; 4th section: 45m long, 6m wide and 2m high - the nag-kud of Irnnun-idu; 5th section: 300m long - the dike of the dam; 6th section: 276m long - located at U-tir, "Forest Bridge9'(?), and identified as durunx Ki-mah, "dam of Kim@*; this facility was 27m wide at its back and 24m wide at its front; it was provided with a sluice, 18m long and 3m wide, which probably led directly into the field; the purpose of the dam, as explicitly stated in the text, was "to store water and to irrigate the field". It appears that the focal point of the project was the dam (Section 6). The "dike of the dam" (Section 5) probably represented the lower section of the canal leading from the dam. The three nag-kuds (Sections 2, 3 and 4) were situated either on the "dike of the dam" or downstream from it; if the latter was the case, we would have to assume that the sections of the dike connecting the nag-kuds were not surveyed. The project seems to have ended with Section 1, whose exact function is unclear. It is important to note that the three nag-kuds had identical width (6m), and that the same width was also shared by the first section of the dike. This strongly suggests that the nag-kud was an integral part of the canal channel, and not a separate basin, situated next to it. Text no. 2 also is a survey of a dike. The dike was subdivided into the following seven sections: 1st section: 1350m long - (the dike at) the marsh on the bank of the old Lugal-canal; 2nd section: 3600m long - the ... dike of the field; 3rd section: 72m long, 12m wide, and 5m high - 1st nag-kud; 4th section: 36m long, 12m wide, and 3.5m high - 2nd nag-kud; 5th section: 15m long, 9m wide, and 2.5m high - (the dike at) the bank of the Sulgi-canal; 6th section: 1710111 long - the dike of the field Agar-gibil; 7th section: 1680m long - the dike of the field Agar-gula. As in the earlier text, the two nag-kuds (3rd and 4th sections) had identical width (12m). Further, we note that the width of the following (5th) section of the dike was only 9m, and that the three sections became progressively lower (5m, 3.5m and 2.5m in height respectively), suggesting a declining gradient of the dike. This evidence, too, points to the nag-kud as forming part of a dikelcanal. The resulting pattern: a stretch of a dike followed by a nag-kud, followed by more of the dike, followed by another nag-kud, and so on, is discernible in several other sources. For example, RTC 412 (Ur 111, LagaS) records four sections of a dike, totalling 2100m in length, which were interspersed with two nag-kuds (i.3-12). In the same text we also find three sections of a dike, 420m long, provided with two nag-kuds (ii.1'-7'), and three sections of a dike, 1320m long, provided with one nag-kud (iv.2-7).

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

Steinkeller

The question of the function of nag-kuds is illuminated, at least partially, by the earlier-discussed data on their dimensions. In our opinion, it seems highly unlikely that these predominantly elongated and narrow basins could have effectively sewed as storing facilities. As an alternative solution, we propose that the primary function of the nag-kud was to distribute water. This, of course, does not exclude the possibility that water storage may have been the nag-kud's secondary objective. In summary of the preceding discussion, we conclude that the nag-kud was a reinforced section of the canal, provided with one or more sluices, whose function was to direct and to regulate the flow of water from the main channel into smaller off-takes and irrigation ditches. The interpretation of nag-kud as a distributary device finds support in the very meaning of the term: nag "irrigating" or "irrigation (water)" (cf. Akk. Saqli "to irrigate"), and kud, "to divide the flow of water, to divert water". For this sense of kud, note especially the following entries from A IIVS, where kud is equated with batiiqu, "to take away (by cutting off)", pariisu, "to divide", and pet& "to open, to divert", in each case said of irrigation water:

Steinkeller

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

been supervised by similar functionaries, as is suggested by the case of the Umma official 1r-An? who, according to YOS 4, 235:l-3, was responsible for the inspection of all the nag-kuds in the area of Umma (nag-kud da ummaki-ka a-na gS1-la f r - ~ n - cigi klr-khr-dam), and who frequently occurs in texts dealing with the works on nag-kuds, as either a kiSib or a gir official.49 The analogy between the nag-kud and the Syrian and Spanish divisors extends also to the terminology, for, like the Sumerian word, mezzaz, almatzem, and partidor all derive from the roots denoting "separating" or "dividing".50 Although none of the extant sources directly connects the nag-kud with the distribution of irrigation water, there is otherwise suggestive evidence of an elaborate system of water distribution as early as the Sargonic period (see Text no. 3). It seems unlikely that such a highly sophisticated system could have operated without regulatory devices of some sort; thus, if such devices were known in Third Millennium Babylonia, the word for them should be found in ancient texts. In the absence of any other viable candidates, we assume that that word is nag-kud. 4. SOURCES

'ku-u1

TAR

ku-ud

TAR

ku-ru

TAR

= pe-tu-u id

A.MES

= MIN 34 me-e = MIN $4 bu-tuq-turn = ba-ta-qu S& A.MES = pe-tu-u S& A.MES = pa-ra-su Sci A.MES = pe-tu-u id A.MES

Text no. 1 (DP 654) i

1) 2)

(A III/5:29-32) (A III/5:54) (A III/5:58) (A III/5:93)

The literal translation of nag-kud is, accordingly, "that which dividesldiverts irrigation water". It appears that the Akkadian equivalent of nag-kud is butuqtu, which denotes "sluice, water conduit", and also "flood, high water". For this correspondence, see the equation nag-kud = b ~ t u q t u ,the ~ ~ entry a-nag = bu-tug-tum in CT 41, 29:l (Alu Comm.), and the earlier-cited evidence connecting nag with batiiqu and butuqtu. The fact that, as shown by its meaning "flood", the butuqtu had to do with the Jlowing water, further reinforces our conclusion as to the distributary, rather than the storing, purpose of the nag-kud. If the interpretation here offered is correct, the Sumerian nag-kud would be a close analogue of the mediaeval "divisors" or "canal-regulators", known from Syria (rne~zaz)~~ and Valencia in Spain (partidor, almatzem)." Like the Sumerian nag-kud, the divisor was a key element of the canal system: "Because water distribution was based on a principle of proportionality, the divisor - as the medium by which the ratios representing area of irrigated land were translated into real quantities of water - was the key to the entire distributary system. For this reason divisors were very carefully and precisely designed, leveled, measured and built. They had to be constructed solidly enough to withstand any changes in water level on either side of the 'tongue' which might alter the traditionally est~blishedratio. They were built of mortar (argamassa), stone (pedra), or flagstones (loses). Another guarantee of stability was the recording of the measurements of divisors in a legal document"." The paramount importance of these devices is borne out by the fact that, in Valencia, they were placed in the care of special officials, called partidor.46The partidor "had to be present at a specific time of diversion (divisor or turn-out) during the turn and was responsible for diverting the water into the proper charnels at the appointed times".47 The Ur 111 nag-kuds appear to have

3) 4) ii

1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

iii

1) 2)

iv .

RCV.

sukud-bi ku9 3 4 gi dagal-bi 2 gi sukud-bi 1 gi'

'

nag-kud Da-mu-ka-kam nudab, 4 gi dagal-bi 2 gi sukud-bi 1 gi nag-' kudl [...-ka-kam]

3) 4) 5)

Lugal-pa-& e-dab, 63 5 gi dagal-bi 2 gi sukud-bi kuS 4 nag-kud Im-nun-i-du,-ka-kam

1)

50 GAR,DU eg d u r u n ~ ~ ~ S . ~ ~ g ) - n a - a m ,

2) 3)

v

:49 2 gi dagal-bi 2 gi-am,

1) 2) 3) 4)

40 cGAR.DU> ;<8> 2 gi U-tir a dabiba aSag nag-a

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

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

Steinkeller

vi

iii

5) 6)

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

1) 2) 3) 4)

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

1) 2) 3) 4)

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

1) 2) 3) 4) 5)

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

1) 2)

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

3) 4)

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

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

Steinkeller

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

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

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

The work in the field Da-tir-Ambar.

1)

[180]+45 GAR gid

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

2)

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

3) 4) 5)

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

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

Steinkeller

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

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

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

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

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

...

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

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

Steinkeller

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

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

'

'

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

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

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

Irrigation System in Southem Babylonia

Steinkeller

1 ud-a-kam

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

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

22 Su-si a gi,

'

5 Su-si a an-bar,

1 ud-a-kam

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

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

Steinkeller

Su-si a an-bar,

1 ud-a-kam

fl

(space) Su-nigin '4'

khS la 6 Su-si

[a zli-ga 1111 ud

[(x iti) X] mu

Commentary 1) 2) 3) 4)

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

9

I

16) 17) 1

'0

5,

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

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

I

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

Steinkeller

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

Steinkeller

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

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

~

days

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

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

~

~

Steinkeller

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

FOOTNOTES 1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

Steinkeller

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

See below, p. 81.

21

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

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

Kang, SACT 2, p. 432.

29

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

30

Kang, SACI' 2, p. 433.

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

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

Steinkelller

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

Steinkeller

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

31

Ibid., p. 433.

52

Ibid., nos. 22-30.

32

Ibid., p. 433.

53

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

33

Ibid., p. 434.

54

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

34

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

55

35

Ibid., p. 434.

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

36

Eames Collection, p. 113 n.117.

56

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

37

Topographie der Provinz Umma, pp. 54-55.

57

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

38

SACT 2, pp. 429-438.

58

39

AS 16, p. 59.

40

Agricultura Mesopotamica, p. 225.

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

41

See below, pp. 79-85.

59

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

42

See above, n. 25.

60

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

43

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

61

CAD G, 121-122.

44

Glick 1970, 87-93.

45

Ibid., p. 88.

46

Ibid., pp. 3840.

47

Ibid., p. 40.

48

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

49

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

50

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

51

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

Steinkeller

Irrigation System in Southern Babylonia

L'IRRIGATION A MARI

BIBLIOGRAPHICAL ABBREVIATIONS

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

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

(Liège)

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

Glick, Th.F. 1970

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

Ionides, M.G. 1937

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

Sauren, H. 1966

Topographie der Provinz Umrna, 1: Kanale und Bewdsserungsanlagen

(Heidelberg).

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

KUPP~

L'irrigation B Mari

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

Kupper

L'irrigation B Mari

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

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

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

Kupper

Kupper

L'irrigation à Mari

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

L'irrigation à Mari

~

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

L'irrigation à Mari

L'irrigation à Mari

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

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

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

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

22

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

23 Pour la traduction, cf. AHw,

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

Saqû(m) II, 1181a.

24

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

25

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

26

ARMT XXIII, 411-412.

27

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

28

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

29

Studia Mariana, 59, date no. 31.

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

S.V.

L'irrigation B Mari

KUPP~

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

45

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

46

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

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

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

49

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

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

L'irrigation à Mari

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

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

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

Gilgamei, XIe tablette, lignes 101-102.

56

Orient. 17 (1948) 53-54.

IRRIGATION IN KASSITE BABYLONIA W. van Soldt

(Leiden)

,

'?

/

'f

'

0,"

,,Ma ,*/,.,,<,

, , , ,/,,, , .<, ,, , ,, ,,

.-M

,////,,,.

Frc

' . ' # i A,,,, , / e, , ,,. ,

//g

INTRODUCTION r .s in any other period in southern Mesopotamia, irrigation was of vital importance for agriculture in Kassite Babylonia. This can be demonstrated by the ample remains of watercourses as recorded by Adams in his Heartland of Cities, where he says on p.168: "The pattern of Cassite occupation initially appears little different from Old Babylonian times. On closer inspection. however, the dependence of the southern part of the region on lengthy canals from the west-northwest had become much more pronounced". The evidence from archaeological surveys is supported by the textual material from this period. Most of the available texts and, in fact, all references to irrigation practices derive from the city of Nippur. The information is contained in letters sent by officials in charge of the digging, repairing, etc. of irrigation works, to their master, the Sandabakku of Nippur or one of his subordinates. Their distress in case irrigation could not be done properly is vividly expressed in a few letters, for instance, in the letter PBS ID, 50, R:16'f. The writer complains: i-na -e-rn~-~&-at-~amar.utube-li i7 ul ih-ra-a a-na-ad-di ki-i er-ri-iS "In Emiiqilt-Marduk my lord did not dig a canal; I will abandon (it), how can I cultivate?". Or even more expressive in the letter Sa lugal ra-in-ga d be-li a-na si-ba-ta-an-nu-ti BE 17, 24:20f.: u urn-man-nltge-er-"i~lolr id-di-na i-na la me-e na-di zu-un-na i-na M-me-e d mi-la i-na nag-bi ki-i i-di-nu-ni-ku uru" Sa be-lf i-ri-man-ni i-na la me-e na-di a-na ba-la-at a-i-ka-a lul-lik, "And &-Mannu-ger- dad, which the king who loves you and my lord had given to me as a holding(?), is abandoned for lack of water; when only they would have given you rain from the sky and a flood from underground! The town which my lord granted me is abandoned for lack of water; where should I go next year?'' The problems that we encounter in evaluating these letters prevent us from drawing up a clearcut picture of the Middle Babylonian irrigation system. As usual, the writer did not provide more information than necessary and exact information on numbers of workers, amounts of soil to be removed in how much time, the length of canals, sizes of fields, etc., let alone the exact interpretation of the various terms, cannot be obtained. Of the more than 11000 tablets from the Kassite period, less than 1000 have been published so far and it is likely that more about irrigation will be learned from the unpublished texts. In addition to the letters just mentioned, there are a few other texts which have something to contribute to our subject. One of these is a kudurm from the time of MeliSipak, which deals with uncultivated land. Furthermore, two tablets from Nippur are inscribed with maps and appropriate legends and help to reconstruct the system of canals. A complete description of the Middle Babylonian irrigation system is, as set out above, not feasible for the moment. One can only isolate terms which apparently have something to do with irrigation and try to draw up a list of these terms with their approximate meaning, especially in relation to each other. Thus, one can make a list of designations for land that was irrigated, types of canals that carried the water to the land, the reservoirs, dikes, sluices and weirs to regulate the

van Soldt

Irrigation in Kassite Babylonia

van Soldt

water, etc. First, however, we will have to look at the time of year in which irrigation works were carried out and what general terms were in use for irrigation.

Irrigation in Kassite Babylonia

B 27:33, Sa "munli md-qi-tu4 qa-to-at kd nam-ga-ra-ti' su-uk-ku-ur, 'The irrigation of Tabtu has ended, the door of the namkaru's has been shut". B 40:10f., be-li liS-pu-ra-am-ma ta-mi-ir-ta Sa i-na Sh-bi-Su li-ma-al-lu-li liS-qi, "May my lord write that he must irrigate the tamirtu which he should fill from it (i.e., the namkaru)".

1. The time of year in which work on the irrigation system was done. The texts provide us with a minimum of information on this point. From the unpublished letter CBS 4742, we learn that the harvest had begun on XII/3 (although the context is dam, .ged) and that at the time of the writing of the letter the uppultu was being attacked by locusts (4f.). Also, the writer states that u@etu kabrat (33), which probably dates this letter in month I1 or possibly even 111. According to the latter half of this letter, large-scale inspections and repairs of the irrigation system are in progress. P.50 tells us that the writer's master expected him to dig canals during months 111-V, but the writer says he had already finished digging in month 111. According to B 16, the fields had filled up with water between IVl16 and VI11. Thus, we obtain a very rough scheme by which harvest was done in months XII, I and possibly I1 (and 111), or from February till May. Work on the irrigation system was carried out in months I1 and I11 and apparently also in IV and V, that is, from the beginning of April till June, possibly into July. Irrigation took place in months IV and V, maybe into VI, that is, from the end of May into August. This scheme more or less complies with the data obtainable from the Georgica (Jacobsen 1982, 57f. and cf. M. Civil's new edition of the text, Introduction 1.4 and commentary to line 4). 2. The terminology used for irrigation in general. First, there are the verbs mekZru and Saqd, with their respective derivatives, mikru, maSqitu and Siqitu. Apart from the fact that mekzru and mikru almost only occur in letters, while Saqd and Siqitu are frequently attested in kudurms ( d q i t u only occurs in one letter), mekZru and mikru are usually employed when no reference to a specific area is given, whereas Saga always has an object and Siqitu always refers to a specific area. Examples are: B 40:13, be-lf mi-ik-ra 3 e-re-Sa la i-@-at-ti "May my lord not miss the irrigation and the plowing". P.57:12, be-el da-[x] a-na mt-ke-ri ma-am-ma ul i-[nalm-din-nu-an-ni, "'I'he lord of not provide me with anyone for the irrigation".

... does

Mikru could apparently also have the meaning "field to be irrigated", as seems to be the case in the following example: P. 33% mi-ik-ru Sa im-lu-li si-pa la i-Sd-ka-an, "The mikru-field which has filled up must not deposit sipu". The pirs-form is known to have been used for fields of special conditions, as elucidated by St01 (JEOL 25, 52f.). A few examples of Saqd and derivatives: a-na me-re[S-t]i li-ti-ib-ma, "Its namkaru for its S.2.8 I:10 nam-k[a-ar]-Su a-na ~i-~f-ti-Su? imgation for cultivation I improved".

Other expressions for irrigation also occur. Once we find me^ Satli, "to drink water": P 19:18, a.88-Sir am-mi-ni me-e la i-Sa-at-ti, "Why does his field not 'drink water'?". This instance is clearly the counterpart of Saqd. Quite frequently we encounter the verb mala, "to fill up". It is always used for fields. Compare for instance: P 55:6, a.Sa Sa' pa-an zi-bat i,-e[n.lfl] im-ta-la, "The field opposite the end of the N&-Enlil has filled up". 3.

The various types of fields that were irrigated.

The two most important designations are tamirtu and ugdru. First, the term a.ghr/ugdru. In general, the term seems to refer to an area in use for agriculture. The few occurrences of the term outside kudurrus point in this direction. BE 14, 56a:26, Suku 27 erirn.meS Sa 'a-ga-re-e i-pu-Su, "food portions for 27 workers who worked the ugdru's". P 49, R:ll', 3 li-ga-ru-li $[a] "tukul-ti4.kurE[a-nu(?)] me-re-eS Se.giS.l ib-Su-li, "And the ugdru's of Tukulti-Ekur have become available for the cultivation of sesame". Compare the kudurm R.2.8,III: 13, i-na a.ghr-Su ur-qi-ta a-a li-ldd7-Si, "May he not make any green thing grow abundantly in this ugdru", and S.2.6,111:10, a.ghr Sa-nam-ma la mbke-e-ri IZ la Sa-[qbe], "That he may not irrigate another ugdru". In the kudurrus the term is commonly used in combination with a place name to indicate the location of the granted piece of land under cultivation (Se.numun). The certainty of this interpretation, however, is somewhat mitigated by the Nebuchadnezzar kudurru (Hinke 1907), which states in II:25f.: 22'2.5.0 Se.numun a.Sh ki-Sub-ba-a Sa a-nu bu-tuq-ti gar-nu a.ghr uru-Sa-dumu-'SeS-at-tu-li-a ... Sa ta u4-mi pa-na i-ku la Sap-ku ab.sin la sis-zu-za-at-ma a-na me-re$-ti la Su-lu-ku-li-ma ..., "22,2.5.0 (kor of) land, fallow land, which had been exposed to flooding(?), the ugdru of Mu-Sa-Mar-@u-attii'a ... where since ancient days no iku had been piled up, no furrow had been established and which was unfit for cultivation ...". Possibly, the designations k.numun and a.gk were put in automatically and referred to the future use of the land as farm land. The few references where the word occurs in combination with tamirtu will be discussed below. The term tamirtu is much less clear. From many references it is obvious that the tamirtu could be used as farm land and that it was irrigated. Thus, for instance: CBS 4742:5f., e-re-bu ... i-na Sh la-mi-ra-a-ti ka-li-Si-na ta-bi-ik ul i-li up-pu-ul-ta ... i-ta-ka-al, "Locusts have descended upon all the tamirtu's (and) have not gone up (again);

van Soldt

Irrigation in Kassite Babylonia

van Soldt

Thus, the farm land lying in the tamirtu of Alu-Sa-tamakku seems to have been part of the larger a.gk Akkad. A third text (second Isin dynasty) makes this picture even more complicated:

they have devoured the late crop".

B 40:4f., a-di Si-it-ta ta-mi-ra-ti Sa @--pi i-Sa-aq-qu-ri, "Until he irrigates the two tamirtu's of the early sowing".

T 5,45 has in its heading, bar-bu.meS si-bit nibruH TI a.ghr "bhd-dnusku, listed estates are summarized as part of the tamirtu of Diir-Nusku (31f.).

The tamirtu was surrounded by dikes according to three texts:

level with the dike".

C.2.6:lf., [x Se.n]umun ... [flu-mir-ti "dul-lum(?) h [...I uS.an.ta ta-mir-ti "[" en.kur.kur sag.ki. [an.ta] @ %a-ki-bi sag.ki @.ta[...] fa-mir-ti urn-$+a-ne'

d

ta ka-le-e T 5,45:31f., 24 bar-bu.meS en 6x5 ninda.meS ta-mir-ti "bA[d-dnusku] uru-S&-ib-ni-unu' en nam-gar "["? ..., "24 harbu-plots including 30 nindas, the tamirtu of to the namkaru of ...". Diir-Nusku, from the dike of Mu-Sa-~bni-~ruk

9?a-ba-an fa-mir-ti "["

...I ds.sa.du

[gl]

.

Does this mean that ugdru and tamirtu could be the same? Apparently not. Rather, these two terms refer to different entities. As set out above, ugiiru primarily means "farm land" or "land used for agriculture", that is, a term referring to the use made of the land. Tamirtu, on the other hand, seems to have been a well-defined geographical entity, an area surrounded by dikes, in which agriculture and the necessary imgation took place. Thus, ugdru's could very well be found inside a tamirtu while, on the other hand, a tamirtu could also be part of a large area of farm land summarized in a kudurm as a.gk GN. Illustrative for our problem is the map published by Clay in the Transactions of the Department of Archaeology of the University of Pennsylvania @. 104). Here we see two areas of land, on two sides bordered by canals and divided in two by a third canal. The letters give us information about these two areas:

In a few texts there appear to be cattle in the tamirtu as well:

P 49,R:3', gu,meS 3 ldengar.meS Sa ta-mir-ti ..., "Oxen and farmers from the tamirtu ...". S.2.6,111:19, bu-ul lugal 3 gar.kur Sa i-na nam 6--Pnunuz--dkur.gal iS-Sak-ka-nu a-na ta-mi-ir-ti-Su la Su-ru-di-im-ma, "The cattle of the king or the governor who will be appointed over the province Bit-Pere'-Amurm may not be led into the tamirtu". Even wild asses were sometimes spotted:

P 56:6, 10 anSe.edin.na Sa i-nu fa-mir-ti 6-den.lflH me-e i-$a-at-tu-ri, "10 wild asses that drink water in the tamirtu of Bit-Enlil".

B 395, i-na pu-ut a.SA.meS [oo] Sa tukup-ti-4.kuP Sa b[e-li] iS-pu-ra ek-re-di-ir, "Opposite the fields ... of Tukulti-Ekur about which my lord wrote to me, I drew borderlines". It is tempting to regard the lines drawn on the left of the Tukulti-Ekur-canal as the lines mentioned in the text (see fig. 1 on p. 104).

In other texts reed is reported to be dense and has to be removed: P 615, Su-rS-ra i-na e-se-[di?] a-ka-&S-Sa-ad, "I will finish the reed harvest".

P 61:9, bar-bi Sa tukul-ti-4.kuP kar-dnusku 3 an.za.gAP lil-li-ku-nim-ma ta-mi-ir-ta li-Se-zi-bu, "The harbu-plows of Tukulti-Ekur, Kar-Nusku and Dimtu should come to save the tamirtu". The area in which these three towns are depicted on the map seems to be the tamirtu referred to in this text.

B 3:34, ta-mi-ir-ta Sa bA[d-den.lfl].bi.a be-li ki i-mu-ru a-ka-an-na iq-t[a-ba-a um-ma]-a Su-ru da-an, "When my lord inspected the tamirtu of Diir-Enlille he spoke to me as follows: 'The reed is strong"' (see also 7.b).

B 39:9, iS-tu, %tukulh'-ti-4.k~~a-di ri-ga-re-e Sa ta-mi-ir-ti ha-am-ri "From the Tukulti-Ekur-canal to the ugdru's of the tamirtu of Vamru". According to this text ugiiru's were situated in the tamirtu.

whereas the

Moreover, in the kudurm C.2.6 the regular a.ghr indicating the location of the granted land was replaced by tamirtu:

P 48:16, fa-mi-ir-tu4 me-e ma-la-at 2 u4-mi ir-ru-bu-ma mu-ri it-ti ka-le-e in-nu-am-ma-ru, "The tamirtu is full of water; for two days it has been coming in and (now) the water is

Most interesting, however, is the relationship with the already discussed ugciru. In a few texts these two terms are mentioned side by side,

Irrigation in Kassite Babylonia

I

1

In a list of geographical names this tamirtu is listed as a separate entity:

kar-dnusku[g an.za.gkti ta-mi-ir-tu,', followed by @ BE 15, 102:8'f., "fu-kril-ti-[e.ku?] $sumun-daP and Diir-Marduk (old and new), which is also drawn on the map (fig. 1). In text P 49 we find on the reverse:

Another text seems to state the opposite: S.2.6,1:4f., 84,2.4.0 Se.numun ... a.gk "a.ga.d6fi ... i-na li-ib-bi 36,150 Se.numun fa-mi-ir-ti uru-Sa--ta-ma-ak-ku 14,4.3.0. Se.numun a-tar-ti a.Sh ..., "84,2.4.0 (kor of) land ... ugciru of Akkad ..., thereof 36,150 (kor of) land, tamirtu of Mu-Sa-tamakku, 14,4.3.0 (kor of) land, excess of fields ...".

P 49, R:3'f., ... [p]damar.utu-mu-Sal'-lim gu4.meS 3 ldengar.meS Sa ta-mir-ti a-na "tukul-ti4.kuP nu-Sa-karn-ma ik-ta-la, "Marduk-muSallim ..... the oxen and farmers of the tamirtu to Tukulti-Ekur and has held (them) back". Ibid., 9'f., 3 me-re-eS Se.giS.1 "fukul-ti4.kuP

a-di u,.lO.kam il-la-ak 3 ri-ga-ru-ri ua]

van Soldt

Irrigation in Kassite Babylonia

"tukul-ti4.kuP [a-na(?)] me-re-eS Se.giS.l ib-sis-li, "And the cultivation of sesame (in) Tukulti-Ekur will go on till the tenth day and the ugiiru's of Tukulti-Ekur have become available for the cultivation of sesame". Thus, the tamirtu found in the texts was most probably the area to the right of the Tukulti-Ekur-canal or even the whole area depicted. The tamirtu was apparently used for farm land and for herding cattle. In an M.A. thesis written some ten years ago (and distributed at the Leiden meeting), P. Steinkeller interpreted the tamirtu as "the field which is irrigated by natural flooding or the fallow field". He put the two Kassite maps together and interpreted the ambar hamri mentioned on the JNES 21 map @. 104) as the tamirti hamri in B 39. However, although this combination of the two maps is highly attractive, it is not entirely certain, due to the diverging writings of the place names. Moreover, it is possible that the tamirti @amriwas larger than just the ambar hamri and also comprised some. of the fields mentioned on the map. Whether the tamirtu was the field irrigated by natural flooding or the fallow field remains to be proven; naturally, if a tamirtu contained farm land this had to be irrigated some time or other. A last remark on the status of the tamirtu. In a few texts reference is made to a tamirtu in a context where it could be interpreted as an administrative designation: P 73:34f., a-na mu-uh-hi an-ni-ti urufi qf-pa-ku-ma Me-di-i ta-mi-ir-ta qi-pa-ku-ma li-Se-si-i, "Apart from that I have been entrusted with the town ... (and) I have been entrusted with the tamirtu ...". The interpretation of li-Se-di-i and Me-si-i is obscure.

S.2.6,111:42f., la ta-bal a.Sh-Su za-ku-ut uruki-.fu ta-mi-ir-ti-Su 3 mim-mu id-di-nu-fu, "... not to take away his field, the immunity of his town, his tamirtu and everything he gave him".

van Soldt

Irrigation in Kassite Babylonia

a. ndru As is well-known both modem words 'river' and 'canal' are covered by this Akkadian word and its Sumerian counterpart i,, be it, that the meaning 'canal' only pertains to a main canal and not to a secondary branch. The niiru, just like the modem jadwal, was the primary source of water for irrigation and - although this is nowhere explicitly stated - was probably fit for boats. Measurements are rarely mentioned. In CBS 4742:43 it is said that a stretch of 1080m was dug and that the depth varied from 1.5m to 0.5m. Work on the niiru included first of all the digging (herd), for instance: B 46:4, e-zi-ib i, an-ni-[t]u, a-na Sa a.Sh-ka he-ra-tu,, "Except that this canal has been dug to the middle of your field ...". The upkeep of canals is expressed by Sutassuqu: P 50:11, i, b ~ - ~ i S k u P a-di u4.10.kam d-ta-[n]a-as-sa-[alq-ma,"Till the tenth day I will be preparing the Nar-Diir-Adad".

Water can be opened or closed from the niiru for imgation purposes:

P 63:12', ul-tu, i7 ep-tu-ma mi-ik-ra en-gi-r[3 ... 1-li i-[n]a

ta-an-zi-lam Sa i7.didli ki-la-at-te-e in-da-la, "After I had opened the canal and had irrigated ... in the tanzilam of both these canals had filled up". [For tanzilam, see below, 5.b]. B 66:12', me-e Sa "l-tel-[pi] a-na nam-ghr be-x[ ] a-nu pe-re-em-ma, 'To open the water of the EtelpQ-canal into the namkaru of ...".

an.ta 3 ki.ta-tu, ''The upper and lower

The last instance shows that water went from a ndru to a namkaru. In kudurms threats are expressed to those who block canals or steal water:

However, just as with a.ghr, a special official in charge of the tamirtu is not attested (like, for instance, a b&l tamirti). Moreover, in the kudurms the a.ghr's and the one instance of tamirtu (C.2.6) are always followed by the district (nam = pihatu) in which they are situated. Of course, the pihatu had its governor (btl pihati). Thus, there seems to have existed no special official besides the hazannu to administer the tamirtu. In conclusion one could say that ugiiru refers to land used for agricultural purposes, while tamirtu designates a specific area which was surrounded by dikes and canals and in which farming (dependent on irrigation) as well as cattle herding were possible.

S.2.6,111:4, i-na a.meS i, Si-ql-ti-fu nu-Sur-ra-a la Sa-ka-ni i-na i7 ma$-qf-ti-Su a.meS la za-zi-im-ma, "Not to cause any diminution in the water of his irrigation canal, not to take a share from his watering canal".

Compare also T 5,45:49, ta-mir-ti ""bhd-dnusku tamirtu of Diir-Nusku".

The next point to be studied concerns the various types of canals encountered in the Kassite texts. 4.

In kudurru S.2.8,1:4f., a description is given of the necessary installations for the irrigation of a field: a.Sh a-pi-ti Sa e pa, nam-ka-ra 3 ka-la-a la i-Su-li-um, "An uncultivated field which has neither ditch, nor secondary canal nor irrigation canal nor dike". Apparently, in order to make this field arable, at least these four installations were required: iku, palgulatappu, namkaru and Eld. Not mentioned in this series is the word for main canal, niiru, and we will first consider the attestations of this word.

R.2.4,V:7, i,-Su i-se-ek-ki-ru-ma Si-qf-is-SG! ub-ba-lu, "(Who) blocks his canal and takes away his irrigation water". Of course, canals would sometimes dry up. JCS 19:14, i7-bi-ni ab-la-at 3 mu-li i-na Sh-bi-Sa ia-a'-nu, "The Binu-canal has dried up and there is no water in it". Apparently, landowners were entitled to a share of the water: B 40:21f., me-e %dingir- i-pu-d 3 me-e ?na-la-ah me-e zi-it-ti Sa be-lf-ia ... lid-di-nu-ma, "(As to) the water of the Ili-ipuS-canal and the Nal~-canal,let them give my lord's share of the water ...".

Irrigation in Kassite Babylonia

van Soldt

van Soldt

CBS 4742:67, 1 4 hi-?, z-% nam-gar bad-damar.utu the namkaru of Diir-Ml uk are behind schedule".

Parts of a canal are the b&u (k6, CBS 4742:40), the pz2 (ka, P 48:4) and the zibbatu (kun, B 6:4 and possibly P 55:6).

b. namkaru No data can be obtained as far as measurements are concerned. From text B 66 quoted above and the JNES 21 map (see p. 104) it is clear that the namkaru branched off from the main canal. Compare also JCS 19:41, nam-ga-m if-tu i-di-iq-la-at a-na Sa-bi-Sa lu-uh-m-am-ma "giSimmar.meb h i-lu-ti, "I want to dig a numkaru from the Tigris to it (=?), so the date palms will not be too high". The purpose of a namkaru is amply attested in the letters and kudurms: B 27:33, Sa -mu# md-qf-tu4 qa-a-at k6 num-go-ra-ti7 su-uk-ku-ur, "The irrigation of Tabtu has ended, the door of the namkaru's has been shut". S.2.8,1:10f., nam-k[a-ar]-Su a-na ~ i ~ ~ f - t i -a-na 1 . f ~me-re[$-t]i ~ ri-ti-ib-ma, "Its namkaru for its irrigation for cultivation I improved". Ibid., II:3, [nalm-kar Si-qf-ti-Su-nu la se-ke-ri, "Not to block the namkaru for their irrigation".

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

d

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

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

(S.2.6,1:52).

o

Irrigation in Kassite Babylonia

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

the four hiftuis of

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

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

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

The reservoirs attested in the texts.

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

[

van Soldt

Inigation in Kassite Babylonia

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

van

Soldt

Inigation in Kassite Babylonia

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

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

6. Dikes, sluices and weirs

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

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

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

b. Tanzilam and talgab

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

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

...

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

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

...

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

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

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

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

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

van Soldt

Irrigation in Kassite Babylonia

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

van Solclt

Irrigation in Kassite Babylonia

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-

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

b. h_iftu

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

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

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

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

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

Reed

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

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

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

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

van Soldt

Inigation in Kassite Babylonia

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

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

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

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

8.

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

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

van Solclt

Inigation in Kassite Babylonia

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

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

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

Inigation in Kassite Babylonia

van Soldt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NEO-BABYLONIAN AGRICULTURE G. van Driel (Leiden)

I. Introductory Remarks

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

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

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

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

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

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

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

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

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

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

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

11. Rivers, Canals and Land: Irrigation

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

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

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

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

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

In Nippur the ~ % r - ~ a nis,i according to UMBS 211, 158 (20.VII.Dar II.3), a canal which derives water from the right bank of the Sin-canal. As it is mentioned only rarely (BE 9, 73:2 16.XII bis.Art.40 and A 0 17645 = Joannhs T ~ B R no. 25), identification with the Uruk Niidhrri is perhaps a trifle uncertain as UMBS 211, 158 mentions farming of water rights "from the intake to the tail end" (line 3) which suggests a minor canal. Some consolation may yet be derived from A 0 17645, 4 which indicates a southerly course for thela N&-Sarri in the Nippur area. From the evidence conveniently collected by Stolper 1985, p. 38-39, cf. p. 41, it is evident that the Nir-Sin played a major role in the administrative organization of Nippur irrigation. Even though the "Judges of the Sin-canal" seem to be passive, as Stolper states, the "person in charge of the rent of the Sin-canal", possibly a major rent farmer, had wide authority over other canals. If we attach any value to A 0 17658 (Joannhs T ~ B R no. 26), then the NZr-Sin had an East-West or West-East course. In view of the general drainage pattern as shown on De Vaumas's map, a West-East direction would be preferable, thus confirming the NSrSarri as a right bank canal to the South (cf. Zadok 1978, IOS 8, p. 283).

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

through the IHtar Gate to reach their land lying on it. That means that the canal ran in a North-Easterly direction. We do not know whether "Old in this case implies a "New Kuthacanal" North of Babylon or means "former". The apparent existence of a connection between Babylon and Kuta excludes the existence of a major (natural) canal with a general North-South direction between the "Kuta-canals" which connected both Nippur and Sippar with Kuta and Babylon. The Euphrates of Nippur therefore (still) flowed from the Sippar area to Nippur East of and parallel to the combined Kuta-canals. Consequently I am unable to accept Zadok's reconstruction in IOS 8, p. 332. The connection of the Banitum-canal and the Zababa-Gate in Babylon and the occurrence of that canal near Kig seem to confirm that this canal ran Eastward, but we do not know whether it branched from the Euphrates or whether it was connected to one of the canals with a general West-East course South of Babylon. We do not know its relation to the Ki&canal mentioned in some Babylon texts. Gibson 1972, p. 50f. connects the Banitu-canal with an artificial lake created by Nebuchadnezzar I1 in the depression Northeast of Babylon. Combining the Egibi texts (cf. Appendix I) and VS 1, 37, one finds when one leaves the town to the South the Nm-EGu, the WC-Hullim-canal, the Sii(r)ru-canal and still further South, the Piqudu-canal, which branched off to the East from the Euphrates somewhere South of Babylon. Combining Dar 80 with VS 1, 37 suggests a distance of (at least) 8000 meters between Babylon and the rnC-Hulliim-canal. The occurrence of "feudal" holdings on the Piqudu suggests that Zadok's identification of this Piqudu-canal with the garri-Piqudu of the MuraiQ texts is perhaps not unfounded, especially as BE 9, 80 (cf. Stolper 1985, p. 38) suggests an administrative connection between the Siiru and the Barri-Piqudu. The Nippur area was thoroughly "feudalized". The more to the South the West-East canals South of Babylon are situated, the likelier it is that they derived from the Piqudu and not from the Euphrates. The Ham-Piqudu-canal may have been a derivationbranch towards Nippur from a main Piqudu. This is of course no more than speculation. For the moment I would rather not attach too much value to the contents of the Uruk text TCL 13, 150 in which "a person in charge of the rents on the N&-Piqudu" provides labour for work on the Bani-kippi, located by Cocquerillat 1968, Planche 3a) to the Northwest of Uruk. This piece of information is in itself not strong enough to draw a Piqudu between the canal system South of Babylon to that based on the Euphrates Northwest of Uruk.

This would very well explain its central importance, for it would collect all sources of irrigation water coming from the North, notably the (Nippur) Kuta-canal and the Euphrates of Nippur, even though we cannot strictly prove that the Kuta-canal flowed into the Sin-canal near Gadib/matu (Zadok, IOS 8, p. 283) or that the Euphrates of Nippur joined that same canal either via the Enlil-canal or the Namgar-Dur-Enlil-canal or both of them.

From the above the existence of waterways connecting the Sippar area with that of Nippur through Kuta and by way of a channel east of the Kuta canal seems reasonably established for the Neo-Babylonian period. R6llig's map in Zadok 1985 does not show an Euphrates between Sippar and Babylon, whereas Zadok IOS 8, p. 332, following Gibson 1972, fig. 69, retains an Aratu between Sippar and Babylon. Gibson's Map 3 does not differentiate between the northern part of the Kuta canal and the Euphrates between Sippar and Babylon, which split near Gibson's unnamed site 72. This illustrates the problems. The question when the Euphrates took its present course West of Sippar cannot be answered, as was made plain by the discussion in Leyden.

Zadok's over-all picture of the canals near Nippur is somewhat bedevilled by his attempt to connect the Kuta-canal mentioned in texts from Babylon (generally as the "Old Kutha-canal", cf. Zadok 1985, pp. 374-5) with the Kuta-canal mentioned in Sippar and Nippur documents. The "Old Kutha-canal" branched off from the Euphrates North of Babylon: the Egibis had to leave the town

Looking at the map published by H. Gaxhe (MARI4 (1985) p. 581) some s a n g similarities with Map 6 in Gibson 1972 become apparent, with in our period X representing the Euphrates of Nippur and Y the first combined and later separating Kuta and Babylon branches. The Landsat sketch (Adams 1981, fig. 6) shows a direct link between Sippar and Kuta which, however, is

5% b5A

"5 g \\8

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

van Driel

archive reveals some details.

absent on fig. 40 and does not appear either on the later maps in Gibson 1972. There are obvious uncertainties here.

The main arteries which brought water and created possibilities for transport in the area from which we have texts are more or less identifiable. The information we possess is derived mainly from texts dealing with land on these canals and rivers. This stresses the intimate relationship between the main river and canal systems and the potential for cultivation.

Without a special study the texts from Sippar provide little assistance. The fact that the temple in Sippar had possessions in the districts that bordered on its own towards the South does not make the situation easier. Looking at Gasche's map in MAR1 4 @. 581). one wonders what the purpose of a Westbank Pallukatu might have been near Falluja. A left bank canal on the line of the Isa- or Saqlawiah-canal seems much more sensible, but that cannot be reconciled with Arrian who describes his Pallakopas alias Pallakottas as a canal diverting much of the water of the Euphrates to (a) western desert. That is the basis for the reconstruction of this canal West of the higher ground South of Sippar. If this Western ('present') branch was regarded as a 'canal', the main Euphrates still had an Easterly course.

2. Responsibility for the main rivers an ' canals The degree to which the authorities of the time were able to master the main watercourses

cannot be determined with certainty. The rapid succession in which Nabopolassar and later NeoBabylonian kings had to rebuild the embankments of the left bank of the Euphrates in Babylon combined with the fact that the river at an undetermined moment (in the reign of Darius I?) forced itself into a fresh course through the town East of the palace sector indicates the expected helplessness when dealing with the main rivers or major disasters.

The only other fact pf note would seem to be that BRM 1, 64:3 (17.VII.Camb. king of U ~ pi-@-turn ~ ~ ~ i+ ~ -~ ~locates a~ P ) ~the Maiennu-canal in the Sippar Babylon. 1) (A.G& ID- L area, whereas OECI' 10, 178 (VII.Xer.12) and 203 (VIII.Art.27) mention the canal in connection with Ijursagkalamma. The second text also mentioris an ID Ha-di-di which occurs more often in that area. A direct water connection between Sippar and East Kii seems certain, at any rate in the Achaemenid period. In BRM 1, 64, a parcel of 2 kor (ca. 2.5 ha) is situated between the Niir-maienni and U.M related E $ text Camb 44 (probably same date) locates the the I ; I ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ C ~ ~ G A L . Dthe Sippar ~ i l r - ~ a rin r i me same area (the sign in line 6 is slightly damaged!), called (BRM 1, 64:3) A.GAR ID- L U ~ ~ These ~ +canals ~ will ~ ~ belong . to the district South of Sippar. A polygon structure of land under cultivation in this area seems indicated when one tries to map the relative position of the canals in the two texts mentioned.

There is not much sense in trying to combine other geographical names from Sippar into groups. A separate study is needed. The Tigris can be dealt with briefly enough. The Mu&Q texts mention an Old Tigris in the neighbourhood of Larak, which is situated by Zadok near Kut, on the Gharraf. The same archive makes mention of a hatru of Tigris boatmen: UMBS 211, 135. Transport on or from the Tigris is found in the Uruk text TCL 13, 227, 39. Otherwise the river only occurs in connection with the herds of sheep belonging to Eanna which were pastured near Tagrita'in (identified with modem Takrit). Indirectly this river plays a role in connection with the question of the location of Upi, from which place a number of texts originate, written by NabQ-a@&-iddinason of Sula Egibi during a stint of duty in the service of the later king Neriglissar. The Tigris occurs rarely in Sippar texts. Nbn 483, 7:8 (Nbn year 10) registers an ebf2 payment for the area between the (Sippar?) qilr-~arriand the Tigris, the fragmentary letter CI' 57, 207 mentions both the ID-kut-re-e and the TDi-di-ik-lat,but without context. The Tigris area is clearly as much a blank in our knowledge of Neo-Babylonian geography as is the Northwestern and Western Euphrates area. The names of canals or rivers in texts from Dilbat and Ur seem to be entirely "local", as is the little we know, mainly from Uruk, about Bit-Dakuri. The other tribal areas are virtually unknown, even though it may be surmised that much of the feudal society known in the Achaemenid period not only near Nippur but also, if less well attested, South of Babylon was located in what had probably been tribal lands. Those who held chariot fiefs probably belonged to a landed aristocracy about which only the MuraiQ

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

In the letters from Uruk especially there are many signs of the involvement by Eanna in digging and cleaning operations on canals. When and where remains unknown most of the time. The rent farm document TCL 13,182 (13.IV.Dar.2): 26) ID GAL-ti ul-tu NIG.GA E.AN.NA i-be-ru-h, "they will do (all) digging on the main canals at the expense of the treasury of Eanna", implicitly recognizes this obligation while relieving the rent farmer of the task. On the other hand, the rent farmer is made responsible for the breaches and blockages of the NB~-Sarri in TCL 12, 90 (line 19).

'

Though badly preserved, Dar 9 seems to be the best illustration of the way in which major projects were organized by the royal administration, in this case headed by Gubaru, governor of Babylon and Ebir-nari (line rev. 1-2). The document (from Sippar) indicates that three major projects, which need not be directly related, were to be carried out. The first is lost, the second to all probability relates to the Sippar Sumandar-canal (obv. 2' and rev. 5) and the third (with some hesitation!) to the (or a) muiann?tu of the Kuta(?)-canal as an additional task (obv. 11'). The text concentrates of course on the work to be done by the Samai temple, but shows that other sectiqns went.through land held by other temples and strikingly enough by a group of persons called L U ~ A L G.I S ~ ~ ~ K R ."the M Echiefs ~ , of the chariots" who should no doubt be sought among the people obliged to provide a chariot for the royal army and who were part of the landed aristocracy. Presumably these people, like the Samai temple, were responsible for a share in the work. The total length of canal to be dug by the Sam$ temple amounted to 1400 cubits in two canals (obv. 8'), the share in the Surnandar-canal measured 600 x 10 x 2 cubits. A depth of 2 cubits recurs in a list of further work (in rev. 10) where a NG-eGu is mentioned. It is a pity that the text is too damaged for a running translation. The upkeep of the main irrigation system was supervised by the royal administration which shred out the burden among the great institutional and private landholders who in their turn had to make their financial, material and human resources available. The practical problems for the institutions are illustrated by some letters from Uruk and by occasional texts mentioning delivery of bricks, bitumen or ironmongery for specified projects.

This probably does not mean that all main canals (of secondary importance?) were dug or redug by the central government. Neo-Babylonian canal names sometimes contain private names. From later periods we know of course that such private names can be those of the persons who ordered the digging of canals in some official capacity. Gubaru is a notable early example, as is the even earlier Sin-magir discussed in Leyden. We should note, however, the mC-Sullim-

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

canal South of Babylon and the various composita with badi 'atu (probably a type of canal, but occurring only in canal names?) or bitqu and PN listed by Zadok 1985, pp. 347-349, cf. also barru iiil@rri, pp. 351-359 and comparable compound names with niirlniiru. Temples and owners of big estates were certainly capable of digging branch canals of lesser importance on their own, cf. BIN 1, 44:23-4 quoted above.

3. Fieldsystems Allotment schemes practised in the neighbourhood of several towns by kings ruling Babylonia probably reflect a situation which was regarded as more or less ideal according to contemporary standards. VS 1, 37.111.52 mentions an allotment by Eriba-Marduk and otherwise contains information about Marduk-apal-iddina 11's activities South of Babylon. Several texts inform us about the schemes of this last king and of later Assyrian rulers near Uruk. There are some undated similar scraps of information from Sippar.

CT 56, 65, demonstrating for Sippar the use of the 1 kor = 50.000 square cubits system, does not tell us much about the actual siting of the parcels allotted. Most beneficiaries seem to have received three parcels, two of 10 kor and one of 5 kor. The first of the 10 kor parcels measured 5000 x 100 cubits. Line obv. 14' (ina 50-e) and rev. 6' (ina SO[-el) show that the first of these was located in an area of &&us, "Fifties". The second parcel was ina bamri, associated by Zadok (1985, 149) with GARIM &-mar in CT 56, 693 (28.rx.I Cyr.3) and @aam-mar in m 57, 236:7' (4.[x].Nbn.2). It should be noticed that in administrative texts from Sippar geographical entities often lack determinatives (cf: e.g. Zadok 1985, p. 139 GiluHu and p. 310 Til-gubbi). Zadok dissociates (GARIM) @-mar in the Sippar area from one in texts from occurs in the Kassite period in the Nippur area studied Borsippa; a further (GARIM) URU~amri for this bulletin by W. van Soldt (cf. p. **; Nashef 1982, 116), whereas Zadok 1985, 149, registers yet another GARIM @-mar Sii PN in an Uruk text (YOS 6, 40). What is the explanation of the occurrence of (GARIM) + bamru in the neighbourhood of several major Southern cities? The 5 kor parcel in CT 56, 65 is stated to be tqtd, "freshly broken". The long n m w strips of ca. 50 x 2500 metres suggest a system of contiguous lots with a frontage on a canal or river. This is actually found in VS 6, 255 which lists contiguous fields of which only the frontage of 133 cubits and 8 fingers (also indicating use of the 50,000 square cubits system) on the Euphrates is given. Long narrow strips with a frontage on a canal are found again in Marduk-apal-iddina's allotments (to ostensibly the same people qualified as L u ~ ~ - ~on ~the. Harm-Ha-Mardulc~ S ) apal-iddina (AnOr 9,l) and the garri-~~-E.DINGIR/~ x? W C 4848 = JCS 1, p. 352) in the Uruk area. AnOr 9,l mentions frontages of 150 cubits and a lower boundary on the makalld of the Fifties on the uarri-Ha-~abo-Hm-Gir.NBC 4848, 1 mentions a frontage of 70 cubits and a length of 5000 cubits, so a strip of about 35 x 2500 metres. It is extremely unlikely that the rub banie to whom these allotments were made were obliged to settle groups of 50 men on these narrow strips. BIN 1, 159 deals with a scheme from the reign of Kandalanu in which L f i ~ ~ ~ . M E ~ - 5 0 . h 4 E ~ received one (or more) strips with a frontage of 400 cubits according to line 47 on the NiirueHHetu, but in various tamirtus (line 7, 20, cf. 30 and 44). A temple, to all probability Eanna, participated in the scheme. The 1100 cubits assigned to it inevitably remind one of AnOr 9,l line 4, with Mrs Cocquerillat's interpretation "1100 cubits of the temple is 1000 royal cubits". If a lot of this size was called a ibnu we could regard all occurrences of the word h u in combination with the name of a temple or god as evidence for an allotment scheme in which the local temple participated. This cannot be followed up here.

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

The best evidence for Marduk-apal-iddina's reorganization of the countryside south of Babylon in provided by VS 1, 37. The matter cannot be discussed here either, but the text connects the kidinndtu status of the inhabitants of the most important cult centres of Babylonia with land grants. For me there can be little doubt that the individual grants were called "Fifties", and that these Fifties had access to water, as is underlined by TCL 12, 11, dating from the 12th year of SamaS-Hum-ukin, which is in itself also of interest as it attributes "Fifties" both Southwest and Southeast of Babxlon to the same person, thus ~ . ~ grants ~ ~ in suggesting a situation comparable to that in Uruk, where the L U ~ A L - 5received different localities. It is noteworthy that TCL 12, 11 connects the Fifties with a former owner. (The connection between "Fifty" and family is also found in Borsippa). "One Fifty of the Bw-tamirtu, short side 250 cubits, from the bank of the Euphrates to the lower end 1 DANNA (or a "two hours walk), one Fifty on the Ki&canal, short side 250 cubits and one Ten, short side 50 cubits, in toto short side 300 cubits, from the Kig-canal to the makalld of the Babylonians, together two Fifties and one Ten of PN, of the Asu family, PN, the iakin tZmi of Babylon has bought from PN, of the Iranni family for 2 minas of silver". We should not enter here into the discussion about the meaning of this text for the question of the "Fifties", but merely state that near Babylon Fifties were private property with access to water. Without intending to heap up evidence we could look at VS 5, 4 (limes 1520), where a field of 30 kor has a short side of 200 cubits on the Niir-Gubbat and stretches up to the "makalld of the Fifties". As private archives from Babylon suggest the use of a system in which 54,000 square cubits equals 1 kor, this strip of land was over 4 krns long. This illustrates the size of fields South of Babylon before they were carved up by the Sin-ilis and Egibis in the later years of the Chaldean kings. The lower end of the long strips is sometimes determined by a given length, sometimes by a geographical feature (e.g. makalld), but in other cases no limit is given. This indicates a period of fresh reclamation. Does the restricted number of documents from private archives dealing with cereals indicate only a limited success? Though VS 1, 37 suggests a connection between Fifties and kidinndtu status, the Nippur text TuM 2/3, 132 (17.IV.Asbp.36) indicates that a Fifty inu zu-'u-uz-ti LUGAL, "in an allotment by the king", could be subjected to ilku obligations. The word "Fifty" primarily refers to the standard size applied in the given allotment, not to status. In view of the evidence quoted, it seems reasonable to suggest that (re-)allotment schemes immediately preceding the Neo-Babylonian period assigned narrow, but often extremely long strips of land to individuals and institutions. These strips had access to water on their short side.

This access to water, sometimes hidden by the fact that a (royal) road running along a river or canal is given as a boundary, is an almost general feature of (nearly) all arable or orchards sold during the Neo-Babylonian and Early Achaemenid period. Appendix 1 lists as an example the documents from the Egibi and Sin-ili archives, but these are in no way exceptional.

In the early Neo-Babylonian period the field system consisting of long strips with a narrow frontage on the river or canal had become established. Having such a frontage probably implied water rights. It also implies that the field stretches over the lev& into the basin behind it. That means different soil conditions which inevitably influence exploitation and yields. The land closest to river or canal was generally turned into orchards.

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

4. Holdings

What is kmwn about allotment schemes in Sippar, Uruk and Babylon suggests that beneficiaries received land in several different localities in the neighbourhood of their town. The man who sold the Fifties of TCL 12, 11 probably sold fields separated by a distance of several krns. The scatter of the possessions of the Egibis who bought, as "new men", their land is such that direct exploitation by the landlord was out of the question, even if it were socially acceptable. The actual exploitation of the land was in the hands of tenants. (Even if these were unfree, working the land of their owner, they should be regarded as tenants). The owner-occupier is an unknown phenomenon in the archives. Even owners of quite small areas had tenants, while the big institutions of course had large numbers of them. Though much of their personnel in the countryside had iirku status, there is no proof that these people were tied to the land. There is no case, as far as I can see, in whicn people are sold together with land in the Neo-Babylonian period. This contrasts sharply with the situation in Assyria during its period of political dominance. Yet the rent farm contracts lease both land and ploughmen with their equipment. Of some note is CT 44,77 (1.IX.Art -\yhich?-.4) in which the male and female iirkus of Be1 on the Siiru-canal are leased for a year, but not to the person who held the land lease. Is it possible to establish the amount of land which was actually worked by a single tenant? Not only is there an important difference between date orchards on the one hand and arable on the other, but the documentation about individual exploitations is much better for the former. a. Date orchards According to 5R 67, 1 (8.XI.Ner.O), NabQ-me-iddina Egibi bought a field of 24 kor of land1 including two kor of mature date palms and 1.4.1.4 of young trees. This field was divided, according to Dar 80 (1.VI bis.Dar.3), between his younger son who, as we know from other texts, had a right to a one-fourth share of the estate, and three grandsons, brothers, of NabQ-a@$iddina. The uncle received 1.4.2.2 of orchard, which suggests that the total planted with trees measured 7.2.3.2 some 35 years after the land had been bought. The expansion of the orchard at the expense of the arable area of the field seems to be a general feature of the period. Nbn 353 (10.VI.Nbn9) is to all probability a collective imittu document for this field; though damaged, the tablet indicates that the orchard was divided into at least four separate holdings only some 12 years after acquisition. None of these can on average have reached a size of 2 kor. One of the features of the Egibi archive is that in several instances tenants retained their orchards for long periods and that the amounts they had to deliver to the landlords varied considerably: there were clearly important fluctuations in the harvest. The not very successful share of a woman called Andi-Bau in the @llatu orchard at Dilbat has been discussed by Mrs Cocquerillat, WdO 7 (1973-4), p. 97-105. According to VS 5, 105 its size was only 1.1.0.0 and yet for most of the time there were two tenants. None stayed for very long. Even if we know the size of the individual exploitations, that is no clear indication of the number of people employed, this all the more so because there is at least one case in which we happen to know that joint tenants leased land from more than one owner: Camb. 55 and 56 (both 6.VI.Camb.l). Information about the size of date plantations near Sippar can be found in a number of imittu texts containing statements about the sissinnu, the renumeration received by the tenant. This was related not to the number of trees he tended, but to the amount of digging to be

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

performed, which is obviously related to the surface of the orchard. There seem to be two types of texts.

The older type is represented by Moldenke 2, 7 (21.VI.Nbp.8), VS 6, 12 (6.VI bis.Nbp.15) and Nbk 36 (25.[xl.Nbk.3) cf. Nbk 444 and CT 56, 252. The texts derive the amount to be paid as sissinnu from the amount of soil worked: x GUR sis-sin-na-j.6 ib y GUR e-ter, "x kor (of dates) his sissinnu for y kor (of land) is paid". Differences in rate (5:l - ;his being the rate in the so-called Edict of Belshazzar - or less) may be explained in several ways, but the (somewhat rounded off) size of the orchard will be realistic, as identical rates are adapted to suit varying surfaces. In Moldenke 2, 7 the orchards belong to the bit rittis of several persons. That is probably the reason why these orchards are bigger than the ones mentioned in the other texts. What belonged to one bit ritti was probably exploited, perhaps fanned out, as one entity. There is one orchard of 5 kor (line 9), one of 3l/, kor (line ll), several of 3 (lines 10 and 14) and 2'1, (lines 16 and 18), one of 2 (line 5) and two of 1 kor (lines 6 and 8). Similar variations in size are found in Nbk 36, but again there are only one orchard of 5 GUR and two of 4, the others are smaller. In other documents orchards are smaller. What is preserved of VS 6, 12 lists orchards of 1 kor, in Nbk 444 sizes vary between 3 and 1. None of these texts shows a stable relationship between size and yield. The number of (mature) trees will have varied considerably, as will have the application of the tenant. Cf. Appendix 2.

These texts make no difference between the methods used to cultivate the orchard. A few texts from the reign of Cyrus do distinguish between work done with the spade (marru) and the plough: Cyr 124 (29.VI.Cyr.3), Cyr 173 (24.VI.Cyr.4) and Cyr 174 (24.VI.Cyr.4). None of the orchards in these texts reaches 3 kor. So, despite the small number of texts, it would seem that orchards bigger than 3 kor are exceptional in the Sippar area. In Uruk, date imittu documents do not provide evidence about the size of the individual orchards. AnOr 9, 19 (lines 11-32) has often been quoted. There are 5 orchards of 350 x 100 cubits or 0.3.3.0, but of greater interest is that the number of trees is mentioned: respectively 150 mature to 50 young ones, 200:10, 180:30 and 100:102; the fifth garden had 50 mature trees, the number of the young trees is lost. This means 10 trees to a siitu or 300 to a kor, a number confinned by lines 52-54. The two orchards there measure 2.0.3.0 and 1.0.5.0. The scant evidence from Uruk suggests small sizes. Texts like AnOr 9, 2 and 3 only refer to frontages of orchards. Some border the canal for only 50 cubits, but others are twice or thrice as long as the gardens of AnOr 9, 19 lines 11-32. With equal depth they would still not reach a surface of 2 kor.

The majority of date orchards will have been no bigger than 2 kor. Direct access to water is always obvious from the phrasing of the text. b. Arable holdings It is much more difficult to get an impression of the size of arable fields tended by one tenant. The private archives preserve many documents about buying and selling of fields, but hardly anythmg about their exploitation. For the Egibis, for instance, we know that they leased land from other landowners or were joint owners with others, who were their business companions. The actual exploitation of the fields was in the hands of (sub-)tenants. Only the documents from Ebabbar and Eanna are a little more informative, though their interpretation is much hampered by the fact that we do not understand the exact nature of the

van Driel

van Driel

difference between ENGAR (only once in a text from a private archive written ikkaru) and errZSu. The matter has been discussed with due reference to the dictionaries by Kiirnmel 1979, 97-101. One could add here perhaps two observations, one from Uruk and one from Sippar, but the central question whether the ENGARs (in Uruk) with their plough teams could be shifted around or not cannot be answered though BIN 1, 60:21-24 might suggest the possibility.

yields. The number of kor per ploughteam in these texts seems too high. We will have to discuss this in connection with the role of the rent farmers as entrepreneurs.

In the Uruk rent farm text YOS 6, 150 (28.[x].Nbn.11), we find ' 4 ) . . . ~ ~ . l ! R J M U N2. lim ~.~~ (erasure) 81 GUR nak-kan-du pi-i iul-pu 15)[ia a-na] G I S . B ~ - ~at-ru & Luer-re-ie-e ina lib-bi er-re-Sli, "The land from the 2081 kor of arable belonging to the domain which exceeds his (rent) farm errbius will cultivate". From line 3-8, it is clear that the rent farmer will cultivate the land of his farm with ENGARs. The same habit of transferring land not cultivated by ENGARs to errZSus is referred to by the final passage of YOS 3, 84. The Sippar text of importance is Nbk 131 (18.I.Nbk.22). Reverse line 1 originally gave the amount of barley to be paid by the ENGARs, ljne 2 the zittu of the errZSu, whereafter follows M E S (to , be paid) by the errbhs PAP 94 GUR 1 PI IJA.LA Luer-re-ie-eih i t - t i L U ~ ~ ~ ~ l 3 ."share 3-8, these people were assessed separately. One According to obv. who are with the ENGARs". might suppose that the errZius farmed land not included in the ploughteam system to which the ENGARs on the large estates belonged. Sometimes they would seem to be dependents of the ENGARs, sometimes they were independent or rather "direct" tenants. Possibly the main difference was that ENGARs were (in the main?) iirkus, whereas errbius had a much looser relationship to the institutions. Even though the errZiu seems to be the lower ranking person, texts like Nbk 452, Cyr 117,

CT 56,481 and CT 56,487 and especially CT 56,500 which mentions ploughmen who have deserted, suggest that the ENGARs in particular were subject to regimentation. Among the labour force working on the m&annitu at GilGu were ENGARs, but no errZius. But perhaps ENGAR was the "general word" in such texts. The Sippar texts mentioned possibly could belong to the rent farm system, in which ploughteams were made available to the rent farmer by the landlord. ENGAR occurs only rarely in the private archives. The note V S 3, 23 (17.VIII.Nbk.38) . ~ E the S, mentions barley: ')a-di SE.NUMUN 3 [email protected] i6 [GUD]. MEs 3 L U ~ ~ ~ A R "with seed and the food for oxen and ploughmen". The expenditure is incurred between 1.IV (read VII?) and 17.VIII. The Nur-Sin text Nbn 445 (=1109, 1l.VIII.Nbn.10) is, a promise to repay a E~ considerable amount of barley: "...ih a-na SE.NUMUN u SUG.IJ1.A ih L % ~ ~ A R , MSE-nu, "given as seed and for food of the ploughmen". Nbn 576 (14.XII.Nbn. 11) from the same archive, mentioning alrnoq certainly the same debtor, gives: 7)i6 ul-tu "DU, Sh MU 11 K h "a-na SE.NUMUN 3 Luik-ka-ra-a-[te], "given for seed and for the ploughmen" (cf. also Nbn 577). Regrettably enough the exact relations between Iddina-Marduk Nur-Sin and his debtor cannot be determined. No interest for the barley is mentioned. Other texts mention considerable amounts of silver. Nbn 576 and 577 in conjunction with Nbn 445 establish the reading ikkaru for ENGAR in the Neo-Babylonian period. From a group of texts from Sippar which will be treated in connection with the problem of yields and productiveness it is clear that a "tenant", in general an ENGAR, only rarely tilled more than 5 kor of land in a given year. We must not forget, however, that these texts only deal with land in a given locality and it is possible that the same man had more land in a neighbouring field ("Gemarkung") for which no text is available. The question of the amount of land tilled by a ploughteam posed by especially the rent farm contracts from Uruk and a number of M u d 0 documents will be dealt with in the same context of

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

5. Water rights Not much can be added to what AHw and CAD provide. That agriculture without irrigation is impossible in Southern Mesopotamia is a truism so basic that the matter is not treated by the texts. The texts deal with the relations between landlord, institutional or private, and tenant, at several levels. Practical irrigation was a matter for the tenant. That fields are situated on a river or canal implies that they were allowed to take water from this source. We may imagine the development of a situation comparable to that illustrated by Wirth 1962, Abbildung 38: separated from the main river or canal by the (royal) mad, a garden of productive date trees is followed by one of newly planted trees surrounded by the mudbrick or rather pis6 wall we also find in the texts. Furthest from the source of water we find land either planted with cereals or left fallow. The important difference is of course that the water was not pumped from the river. It is hardly credible that every owner of a piece of land of between 400 and 70 cubits wide could dig a private inlet from a main canal or river. For comparison, we may perhaps refer to Buringh's sketch map Sumer 13 (1957) Fig. 90 of a section of the Hilla Canal of the Euphrates which shows 12 intakes in a 15 krn stretch of river, and once even no less than 6 intakes in a single 5 km stretch. That still differs greatly from an intake every 200 metres. But the comparison is not warranted as Hilla is behind the protection given by the Hindiya dam which did not regulate the Euphrates in the Neo-Babylonian period. The situation now differs completely from that in antiquity. We do not know how irrigation water was provided when an allotment scheme was executed, even though these schemes suggest an intimate relation between the land shared out and the canals on which the parcels were situated. Perhaps the obligation - stressed in most contracts - imposed upon the tenants of date orchards - who occupied the highest part of the parcels on the levees - to do their digging in time and to provide enough outlets from their garden for the water indicates a system in which the water for each plot was provided through a tertiary ditch on the landside of the lev&. This tertiary ditch will have derived its water from a (secondary) cut through the top of the lev&. If the gardener did not finish his digging in time the arable lower down on the levee remained without water. If the gardener provides additional irrigation by drawing water (directly from the main canal?), he receives an extra recompensation. It is notable that the digging done by the tenants of orchards was regarded as of vital importance. It is regrettable that VS 5.49 (12-13) cannot be read, cf. below ad makullf2. Payments for water seem to be rare in texts up to the reign of Darius I, though the phenomenon is a special feature of the late M u d 0 archive. The receipt Dar 381 (ldVI.[X]. 14) is an earlier example: "1 MA.NA KU.BABBAR ')Sh mee ih MU 3)14 PN u P N , "one mina of silver for water for year 14 from PN and PN;'. Another payment for water is found in a text published by Pinches, PSBA 7, p. 278 (1.XI.Nbn.O from Sippar) recording a payment to E.B ABBAR: "10 GIN KU.B ABBAR ba-ab-tu 5/6 MA.NA 5 GW KU.BABBAR 2 ) ~ h me-e 4 ?h URU-*UTU, "10 shekels of silver, partial payment of the 55 shekels of silver price of water of &-Sam$. Nbn 245 from Sippar (27.XII bis.Nbn.6) mentions a L U A.MEs ~ ih~ LUGAL, ~ but his tasks are not specified. The statement about A.MES ih LUGAL in the Egibi text Nbk 166 (line 11) is incomplete. It might be surmised that an individual was compelled to sell a slave because he was unable to find the necessary

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

van Driel

water rights payment in full.

of the king that lies on its banks and the water of the reservoir(s) which are in the u.-land of the king" (cf. Stolper 1985,41, cf. p. 42 for the term uzbarra). The combined occurrence of iilibtu and sibittu virtually excludes the interpretation of iilihtu given by Cocquerillat 1968,15: "un dservoir d'eau situ6 a l'extremitt! d'un canal oppod a sa bouche, constituant une &serve d'eau utilisable pendant la saison &chew. A reservoir at the tail end of a canal would not be of much use; the translation "tail (of a canal)" for iilibtu is no doubt right. AHw, pp. 1235-6, suggests: "ein Seitenkanal", but numerous Mu&O occurrences place the iilibtu opposite the b&u, "intake" of a canal.

CBS 5199, 25.[x.] Art 1.34 (Stolper 1985, 231) shows that the Mumitis obtained water rights which belonged to the king at a rate of half a kor of barley for a kor of land, which would mean a rate of half the seed costs. Water was not always expensive. We do not know the background of most of these texts, but in the document published by Pinches the temple was the owner of the water rights, other texts mention the king. It would seem natural that the persons who used the water of a canal, had to pay for the upkeep of that canal. Such duties are mentioned but rarely in the texts. berdtu, 'digging' is often used for work within the confines of the field. Only rarely does it pertain to the longer canals, e.g. in TCL 13, 203 (lq+x).VI.Art II.2), line 29-30: "They will do the digging of the canal together and use the water (of the canal) together". Whether payments to the gugallu, mentioned innumerable times in date imittu texts and in receipts were meant for upkeep or rather for services rendered seems uncertain, but payment for services is the likeliest; the practical tasks of this functionary cannot be established for the Neo-Babylonian period. Only in the case of date orchards does it become clear when the fields were irrigated. A number of tenancy contracts dealing with date orchards from private archives in the Babylon area contain the phrase (VS 5, 48) ')...be-ru-tu mNE ina lab-ki i-be-ri me-e 9)@r-pu-tu iiaq-qu, "he will do the digging of the fifth month for the labku-irrigation, and he will imgate with the early high water". (Nbn 578 (30.XII.Nbn.11) appears to mention the twelfth month for the labku imgation, but the sign, though squeezed, is NE rather than SE). Similar statements are not found in the much rarer tenancy contracts for grainfields, even though there too one would expect that special value was attached to early ploughing of irrigated soil. A rare exception is the Uruk letter YOS 3, 9 addressed by NabQ-@C-Hullim to Ibni-Istar, which suggests that somewhere between 22.XI and 6.XII of an m o w n year order was given to irrigate "the field of all the ploughmen" (I8)... SE.NUMUN 19)ihL U ~ gab-bi~ aO)me-e ~ ii-iq-qi). ~ Regulation of the right to derive water form a major source of water is attested by BE 9,7: 6 ) . . ~ ina . ~si-bit-[ti] ~ ~ ih LUGAL ITI-us-su 7 ) T U4 ~ 12 Kh4 a-di U4 15 K h 4 i-bi-in-na[iim-]ma, "give us 'water from the royal reservoir every month from the 12th to the 15th". Drawing water outside the period mentioned entails an automatic fine. Precise information is exceedingly rare in Neo-Babylonian texts. 6. Hydrological terminology a) Reservoirs BE 9, 7 uses the word sibittu. Both dictionaries (AHw, p. 1097~,CAD S, p. 155) regard sibittu in the hydrological sense as a kind of reservoir. The best support for this idea could 6e YOS 7, 14:8-10, quoted by von Soden. The passage is very damaged but 9 and 10 could possibly mean "one-third (of the canal) with its sibittu x x dig!". The text is very important for the relationship between the different rent farmers of Eanna. All the other occurrences quoted by the dictionaries come from the MurJO archive. Only in BE 10, 43:14 the sibittu is not explicitly called "royal": "...SE.NUMUN.MES ina mi-sa-ri-ii-na it-ti 'hi-bit-tu A.MEs:i-na, "the land within their boundaries with their reservoirs". Of some importance is TuM 213, 147. This lease deals with land on the Ba-di-'a-tum-canal: 3)ul-tu 4 ) K k i i a-di iili-ih-ti-% a-iar A.ES-5i il-la-'a, "from its intake to its i , as far as the water reaches". The land is qualified as: 4 ' . . . ~ ~ . ~ ~ M U NKA . Miul-pu E ~ "uz-bar-ra i h LUGAL ih ina mubhi-ii u A.MEs si-bit-ti 56 ina lib-bi SE.NUMUN.MES uz-bar-ra i 6 LUGAL, "grainland, u.

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

In the well known letter ABL 327 the iandabakku of Nippur reminds the king that his father had promised the inhabitants of Nippur water from the Banitu-canal, saying ')...um-ma iili-ib-ti "Zh i~-DU-tia-na N I B R U ~bi-ra-a', "dig the tail end of the Banitu-canal to Nippur" (cf. 12-13 "let him give us the tail end of the B."). iilibtu could in this way easily become the name of a (separate) canal, cf. BE 9, 48:3 (GU ID-ii-li-ib-ti) and other quotations Zadok 1985, 399, cf. p. 249. Extending the tail of a canal, perhaps combined with an increase in its capacity, will have been a common way of expanding an imgation system.

There are other words which could possibly indicate reservoirs. namglkaru was, if we follow St01 (RlA 4, p. 357) possibly a canal used as a reservoir. The word occurs twice in Egibi texts: Nbn 203:2 (6.X.Nbn.5) and Nbn 578:l (30.XII.Nbn.11). In the first instance in a field ~ h t IG~ID-BARA,.s@; in the second text land is said to be: l)...ih ina name: 2 ) ~ .nam-ga-ri nam-ga-ri. Especially the second quotation makes a meaning "reservoir" unlikely: the land is in the n.

~

.

nakkamtu (nakkandu, nakkantu) (cf. CAD NI1, p. 184.3) is mentioned once in a MiddleBabylonian kudurru as a place where water seems to be collected. Such a meaning is excluded in the Neo-Babylonian period (cf. Cocquerillat 1968, 20-21, note 38). For the later Achaemenid period, cf. Stolper 1985, 89f. AnOr 9, 19 (lines 48-50) mentions a piece of land completely ~ ~ enclosed by a nakkandu. A meaning "reservoir" is clearly excluded. A clear sign of the shifting meaning of words through time. b) Sluices, dams and dikes, intakes

Consequently there is little information on the storage of water. In general the canals will have served as storage basins. This would require sluices and dams: bitqu, kald (ia mi?), kildu, makalld and muiannitu are the most important words to which, perhaps, some which occur only rarely could be added. Dar 267 (13.II.Dar.lOtx) mentions a 2)pa-ri-ik-tum e-li-ni-tum as one of the limits of a field leased, in unclear connection with the Banitum Canal. AHw refers to TuM 2/3, 195 (Borsippa 16.V.Nbk.l) for perku, "ein Flussdamm", a further text regulating the use of water: "ina a-ri-tu ih PN, 2 ' ~PN2 PN, ,)rne-e ib-ba-ak mu-ie '-le-e 4)ina lib-bi per-ku ih ID-la-bi~t ih PN1 ?PN, na-ii 7 ) ~ . h 4 Eul~ i-kil-la-d-ii, "PN, will derive ri i-na-as-sar S ) p ~ -mi-ti-ti water frdm the watercourse of PN, descendant of PN,. He will guard the lock (cf. CAD M/2, p. 264) in the weir of the Nar-labiri. PN, is responsible for the losses of PN,. He will not withhold water from him". perku is also found in (3T 56, 826, a text registering the different yield factors of barley for parcels of land in the hands of several people: 4 ) T mub-hi ~ a-ri-tu EN m&-hi per-ki qab-lu-ii 1 EN 18 ~li-ilr,"from the watercourse to the middle p. 1:18, P N . Both texts suggest a relatively minor construction across a small canal, possibly controlled by one person. One canal could have more than one perku as the text mentions a middle p.

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

van Driel

sikru (dam?) occurs in the Neo-Babylonian text VS 5, 106, from a Borsippa archive: ')...TA ~D-~~&-me-tum 6)a-di UGU GARIM A-ra-ab-nun. This text is of some UGU si-ik-ri ih importance as it is a rare occasion in which a "dam" is mentioned in direct connection with the intake of a canal. But was this sikru placed in front of the intake or across the main canal? As the text mentions the "dam of intake of the Tahetu-canal", a location across the intake seems preferable. The word bitqu occurs in Neo-Babylonian geographic names in combination with PNs (Zadok, 1985, 100-101). In Sippar, ih m@hi bitqa was a known locality, cf. e.g. Nbn 835, 1 (cf. CAD B 277 c). For the AHw @. 132) the word only indicates a breach caused in a dam, CAD B @. 277) is more positive in suggesting a translation 'sluice' (used for directing water). The letter TCL 9, 79 indicates that a bitqu could be cut by a river or a canal: 7)u4-muih ID bit-qa ina URU x-lum 'lib-tu-qa, "on the day the river cut a breach in G N . Also in BE 9.55 from the ~ u r J t larchive, bitqu is clearly an unwanted breach: people are ordered to strengthen the inlets of canals and the earthwork of the Nib-Sin to prevent the occurrence of a bitqu. In TCL 12, 90, the rent farmer is, according to the interpretation of the CAD, responsible for letting in or keeping out water: lg)...pu-ut bi-it-qu u ki-rik-tii ih ID-LUGAL m)a-na ma-la SE.NUMUN ih d ~ ~ ih ~ UAN UNG ~ih ina pa-ni-iii p d ~ . ~ ~ ~ - n na-ii, a - s i "responsibility r for opening and closing the ~ k - S a mas far as the land of Belet of Uruk which is at his disposal is concerned, is borne by P N . kiriktu occurs only once in Neo-Babylonian texts. It is not clear whether the passage in TCL 12, 90 really means more than "he is obliged to prevent mishaps". Nbn 947 (Nabonidus year 15) from Sippar tells us that baked bricks and bitumen (ESIR.UD.A/~U~~U) were bought for work on the bit-qa ih m S M E ~ . a . ~ A N"on . ~ ~the , mwukkannu-b." A bitqu was therefore in the Neo-Babylonian period sometimes a permanent structure. That bitqu could be a permanent feature is also demonstrated by K.R. Nemet-Nejat, 1982, no. 11, where land is situated on the bank of a bitqu (GU bit-qa ih px-[x-x]). Though the remnants of the drawing possibly indicate a canal, the bitqu cannot be located. Use of bundles of reed for a bitqu is mentioned by BRM 1, 96. A ship moves out of a canal through a bitqu in the Sam$-reg-usur inscription (WVDOG 4 Tf.4 I1 36-37). CT 55, 403 (16.II.Nbn.8) provides baskets a m UGU bit-qu ih d ID-dUTU,"for (work on ) the b. of the intake of the N2rama as'". A bitqu could therefore be a stiucture at the beginning of a canal.

I

1

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

nun ih ina iu-pal UIU~i-si-di-ia,"the land of Be1 from the intake of the NSr-Sin to the m. below G N . Dikes along a canal would not indicate a boundary, a dam across a canal would. In the poorly preserved text Dar 9 (17.[x.Dax?.]O) lines 8-11, we find some additional

information about the nature of a muiannh. Though incomplete, the passage should be quoted in full: "...e-lat 2 me [x XI x x "6 KUS SAG.KI 5 KUS [at least 5 or 6 signs lost] "mu-%anni-tum Y ID GU "(?) x [ca. 7 or 8 signs lost] ll)[x (x) mi-ili-hi ih dUTU ih x [remainder lost], "...excepted 200[+ cubits length] 'I6 cubits breadth, 5 cubits [height, or depth...] ''the m. of the Ku[ta (??)-canal] '''is the work assigned to Samai, which ...". m e critical word in line 9 is lost, if one accepts parallelism with lines 4 and 25 (?) (i-iap-pa-al), the result would be that a muiannk is something that is dug out and not heaped up, as a dam would be. According to line 10, the m. belongs to a canal. The volume of the earth to be moved is given as 200 (minimally) x 6 x 5 cubits = 6000 square cubits, 750 m3. Not much for a reservoir. The depth of 5 cubits for the m. is difficult to reconcile with the 2 cubits given for the Sumandar-canal in line 4 and for another canal (possibly the Borsippa-canal?) in line 25. Line 13 could use the verb epitiu, "to construct", instead of herd, "to dig" (in lines 4 and 18), so perhaps the safest course is to retain a meaning "dam". A length of (over?) 200 cubits is, however, difficult to reconcile - even though the m. was not on that specific canal (cf. Nbn 910, 2-3) - with a breadth of 10 cubits assigned (line 4) to a fairly important irrigation canal. TCL 13, 223 (lines 5-7) suggests strongly that several m.s could be found on a canal. If a m. was deeper than the canal to which it belonged, one could perhaps think in terms of a kind of settling basin. makalld has become a "mooring place" in CAD M/1 p. 122 (Anker-, Anlegeplatz in AHw, p. 588). Though VAB 4 156,42 and perhaps TuM 2M, 34,3 suggest a connection with boats and therefore a "mooring place", many more texts describing fields suggest that the makalld somehow marks the lower end of a field, at the place where it is furthermost from the river or canal from which it derives its imgation water. As makalld is derived from kal12, "to retain", the old translation "dike" (Ungnad, Glossar, p. 88) seems logical, but as ships could reach the makalld, a combination of dike and canal could seem even more appropriate. Some means of drainage lower down the levks of rivers and canals would seem to be desirable.

The MurGtl text quoted above (BE 911, 55) mentions: 3)... mi-ih-bu-ku-nu 4)ih ina mu-ihni-nun h I D - ~ s ~"(earth) ~, work on the muiannjtu of the Nib-Sin". BE 9,59 possibly mentions another muiannitu on that canal (or possibly on another canal below the intake of the Niir-Sin?). More muiannitus are found in Sippar, the one at Gilub requiring much work in the reign of Nabonidus. The division of a huge property of which TCL 13, 223 is a fragment, mentions several mdannitus, seemingly as private property. The location of the first in line 5' is not clear to me as I do not understand the crucial sign (ih x ih KkGAL d ~ ~but) ,line 6 indicates that there was a lower and a middle mu-ien-ni-i-turn, presumably on the same canal. TuM 213, 7 (Nippur 25.VI.Art.30) is mother division of property in which a complete muiannh is included: lo)...a-di mub-bi "QD- L U ~ i ~ . ~ a-di ~ . mu-ih-an-ni-tum M E ~ gab-bu-hs, (cf. AHw, p. 272R). In both texts m.s serve to indicate the limits of the shares. TCL 9, 1027-13 deals with the construction of a m. The passage is damaged in the crucial place: "mi-ii-bu ih mu- . ie-ni-ti ')[ih] e-pi-ir or [u] e-pi-ir, "a m. made from earth" or "a m. and an earthwork (as CAD M/2 p. 121 suggests). In the second case, the baked bricks (line 10) and bitumen (lime 13) may have been meant for the m.

That the makalld is found at the bottom end of fields is strongly suggested by Dar 152, 8: SAG.KI.TA TU,, KUR.RA ma-ka-lu-ii ih SO.MES ih ie-pit 5 lim, "lower narrow side to the east the makalld of the Fifties which forms the bottom end of the 5000 (cf. Dar 227, 12!). As makalld of the Fifties, therefore an artificial boundary introduced in the course of the execution of an allotment scheme is found in several texts from Uruk and Babylon (AnOr 9, 1:98 Uruk); Camb. 286:12; VS 5, 4:20; 5R 67 no. 1:12; Dar 80:22; Dar 152:8; cf. Nbn 440:10, and TCL 12, 11:6: makalld ki L u ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ The ~ K makalld I ) . may have been an important feature in agricultural hydrology. VS 5.49 might have helped us in understanding the relation between the main canal and the makalld at the lower end of a parcel of land: 12)...2 pi-i-riti -rnu1 (?) ul-tu 13) GU ID UD.KIB.NUN~a-di UGU ma-kal-le (x) x: pi-i-it-nu is very uncertain and the verb is lost. One might speculate that as line 13 continues ... ina IT1IVI2 pa-6-ka-ni-iii i-iaq-qu, "in the fifth month he moistens his hard lumps of earth", which is clearly a parallel to the labku irrigation of other texts, the preceding passage alluded to the same digging found before the labku imgation in other texts. Preparation for irrigation and eventually drainage seems to be indicated. If the m. could be used by boats, the drainage canal was perhaps not restricted to emptying a closed basin.

BE 9, 59(:2-3) could be used as an argument in support of the suggestion that a muiannitu is a dam across a river: 2 ) . . . S ~'EN . ~3)ul-tu ~ ~ Kb, ~ ~ih I D - d a-di-i ~ ~ mu-ih-ni~

The lower, presumably also narrow, end of a field seems to be indicated by i~pitu(AHw, p. 1214), found in connection with allotments in VS 1, 37.111.51 (ie-pi-it zu-'u-uz-tii ih

138

van Driel

van Driel

~ u - ~ ~ a r d"bottom u k , end of the allotment of Eriba-Marduk") and in the Sippar text VS 6, 30:17 (SE.NUMUN ie-pe-e-ti 50-ii.NId iii %J'RJ.MU, "land at the bottom end of the Fifties of ~ a m J iddina"). Whether ibpitu indicates some special feature cannot be said. Nemet-Nejat 1982, no. 44, combines i~pituwith &rriin iarri, but the situation is not clear, as what is opposite the barriin iarri cannot be determined. If that side is indeed indicated as A.RA and the interpretation alaktu is right, it could be, but need not be, on the river. The royal road could mark the lower end. This is the more likely, as in the drawing the date orchards do not reach the road. They are normally close to the riverlcanal. In the Sippar date imittu text Cyr 176 (7.VII.Cyr.4) 5 posts occur, mentioning SE.GIS.I presumably to be paid by five of the ~ ie-pit-turn, ~ - ~ ~"half a kor of gardeners. The first post is 12)0.2.3.0 SE.GIS.I P d J j ina sesame Bunene-ibni fmm the lower end of his garden". muiannitu and mukallz2 are found together in Nbk 202 (Kuta, 26.V.Nbk.29), belonging to a number of texts with the 82-5-22 acquisition number of the BM relating to members of the Dullupu family. The text deals with digging done for Banunu son of Kiribtu of that family: ')TA UGU mu-iii-ni-tu iji ~ ~ ~ - q a - l u a-di - n u 2)mu-kal-lu-ii iii PBa-nu-nu 'ha/ta (?Ika-nu ina lib-bi (?) A.SA la be-ru-[tu] 4, p d ~ ~ - ~i-be-ri-mu, ~ - i i i "from the m&annitu of TiQalunu to the mukallu of B. Nabu-iqih will dig the ... in the field which have not been dug" (and deliver them to B.). I cannot read the first sign of l i i 3.

'

TuM 2/3 12 and 6 both from Borsippa use kildtu where Babylon texts use makallf2. TuM 2/3 6: (land) 2)... ina 50-e iii E DINGIR-ta-DUI ul-tu UGU ID x-E.GAL a-di ki-la-a-ti iii 50-e.MES, "in the Fifty of the Iluta-ibni family from the GN to the k. of the Fifties". That the Borsippa kildtu - all occumnces come from the same archive - are the same as the Babylon makallt2 can safely be assumed. The word occurs in two Babylon texts, Nbk 251 and Nbn 1102. In the second, the context iq lost ')...KI.TA ki-la-a-ti iii TIN.TIRM, but Nbk 251 is of some interest as the ki-la-a-ti iii iipu-rat-tum are mentioned in line 5, which suggests a "Babylon meaning" of "heavy riverdike".

The word kalf2 occurs only once according to CAD K/1 p. 105 in the old, Middle-Babylonian, sense of " d i e retaining water": TuM 2/3 134 (Borsippa 2.X.Nbp.7). The meaning of the word has generally changed into one indicating a type of land in the Neo-Babylonian period. The use of reed mats, coated with bitumen, for temporary dams is attested by GC 2, 320 (5.IV.
Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

'u-ka-nu, "of the m. of Bit-Amukanni". AU these texts definitely suggest land, in the MuraZQ texts clearly on a canal. Is a musu a special type of intake? The obligation imposed on the tenants of date orchards to provide one or more hitus (CAD AD p. 355, AHw p. 1475) could relate to drainage. The dictionaries do not mention the Egibi )~ text Liv 24 (16.I.Dar.14). the lease of a date orchard: 13)... a-si-turn 1 4sa-pil-turn ul-tu GU

a-di G k ID e-lu-ii '"ina b - b i fie-es-su, "he will construct in it (lit.: cause to go out fmm it) the lower a., from the bank of the c k a l to the upper bank of the canal". For ibpu as the bank of a canal or river, cf. AHw, p. 1215 ("Steilufer von Fluss"). The word seems of female gender. Could we translate therefore "to the bank of the upper canal"? The particular situation is not clear to me, a. could perhaps be a means of deviating water from a (major) canal. Hardly a task for the tenant of an orchard.

b

Though it is attractive to suppose that the tenant of a date orchard, in general the person who occupied land closest to the source of water, was obliged to drain his land, it is equally possible that he was told not to retain the water needed for the cultivation of grain in the area beyond the date plantation. That is perhaps the real reason for the multiple outlets.

c. Watercourses The bed of a river or canal is probably its miilaku: CT 22, 233 (24.IX.Cyr.5) flour for men 9... iii ma-la-ku "$6 ID i-be-ru-ii, "who dug the bed of the riverlcanal". There are more texts from the file of this letter-order: Cyr 187; CT 55, 41; Cyr 207 and 209. Sparse as all this is, even less can be contributed as regards canals: alku, hrittu, atappu, &r@u, &rru. niiru is of course the general word, for which (possibly) no discussion @rru is also a general word, but is needed, both in the natural and the artificial form. (cf. below sub iiritnc) the digging of this "ditchn is the responsibility of the tenant. Possibly the work for the upkeep of the canal from which the irrigation water was taken is meant. In YOS 6, 67 line 12, the smaller irrigation ditches within an orchard are called ID.M&, probably niirijti. The other words frequently occur in, or alone as geographical names, e.g. biltu or biitu and siiru, which makes them unsuitable for use in an attempt to figure out the "hierarchy" of the irrigation canals. Others like talluku occur only once or twice. alku occurs several times in a geographical expression in Sippar, which probably indicates a specific place, often in combination with bitqu. ENGAR.MES ina al-ku' (?) are found in f.Y 56,507, cf. Nbn 398, Cyr 244, Dar 111 and CT 57,36. Otherwise the Egibi text Nbn 964 can be quoted. A parcel of land has a boundary on the "bed of the Mandanu-canal": US.SA.DU al-ka i f ID-*DI.KU,. The word must have acquired a meaning "land along a canal". iirittu occurs in texts from an Ur archive (UET 4, 106, 193 and 205) and in texts from Borsippa. The word occurs in a standard phrase in the Borsippa documents: TuM 2/3, 135: 6)...p~-utbe-ru-tu iii A.SA a-na lab-ku na-k-ii iii mi-sir u a-kul-la-ta ')iii-qu-tu iii A.MEs ... ')be-ru-tu SUR (elsewhere &r-ri) u a-rit-ti na-ii. The tenant is responsible for the digging of Nrrus and iirittus. In this context the iirittu seems the lesser irrigation ditch, for both @rru and hrittu belong here to the parcel held by the tenant. In Ur, the ID a-rit-tum is probably a specific canal (UET 4, 106:2 and 205:28, but cf. 193:18). atappu occurs as a major canal in the Samai-reg-qur inscription WVDOG 4 PI. 3.11.32, but the term has otherwise gone out of use.

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

@su occurs in the allotment text VS 6, 255 from Sippar. From lines 3 and 5 one gets the impression that the @r&u is a canal branching from the Euphrates which forms the boundary from which the allotments along the river start. The word therefore probably indicates a main canal. In Uruk (cf. Zadok, 1985, 349-350) ID-@dsu is probably the name of a specific canal. takkiru used in a sense other than as the name of a canal, possibly occurs in BIN 1, 44:8, if we accept von Soden's entry AHw, p. 1307 L. Neo-Babylonian economic texts do not contribute much to the understanding of canal terminology.

d. tamirtus and ugiirus The vexed question of tamirtu, treated by St01 in his contribution to the Leyden meeting, must be mentioned here in the context of hydrological terminology. Not that many new arguments can be produced. The word is common in geographical names in the Uruk region but occurs less often in the Sippar area. The main interest is perhaps the Babylon countryside. The tamirtus found in that area are near the Euphrates: GARIM Litamu, GARIM B/Maht!, GARIM suppatu or towards the East, near the Baniturn canal. The whole stretch south of the town seems free of tamirtus. VS 1, 37 speaks of ugiirus in this area. This suggests a hydrological rather than an administrative sense, were it not that the Uruk text BIN 1, 159 suggests that several GARIMs were entities in which land was allotted to several different private persons as well as to the temple in each case, the so-called lhus. So "rural district based on a common hydrological feature" could perhaps be considered. The letter BIN 1, 76 tells us: ,,)ki-ir-ki me-e a-nu fa-mir-ti ul i-lu-u, "the backup water does not reach the tamirtu", which suggests that a waterlogged condition was not a general feature of tamirtus. A general interpretation "cleared marshy reedlands" is not supported by this text. Two texts in the Muraitl archive, on the other hand, make clear that fish in tamirtus could be guarded (UMBS 211, 111 and 112). That probably means that a certain permanent minimum level of water had to be provided. Perhaps a real discussion of the problem is not possible without collation of the texts concerned. This is illustrated by YOS 6, 122 and 148, both from 8.1X.Nbn.9, and both dealing with people who are suspected of having taken fish from tamirtus (LAGABxFJA) of Belet of Uruk on the ~iir-Sarriand willows, poplars, reed and other wood from her A.SA.MES GIS.TIR ("tree plantations"?) and marshes (LAGABxA). As the two individual signs are both written in the same way in both texts, we may assume that the difference is intentional. VS 6,66 from the Sin-ili archive contains the sentence ,')rne-e PN, u SEs.MEs-iii a-nu SE.NUMUN 22)ihPN, ul i-kal-lu-ii ul-tu "lhar-ri ih GARIM BU-ni-tat-a-aih PN, A-iii - * 26) 2 A ) ~A~PN, 3 a-nu SE.NUMUNi h PN, z)u SES.MES-iii PN, me-e ul-tu @r-ri-su i-nam-din, "PN, and his brothers will not withhold water from the land of PN, from the irrigation ditch of Tamirtu Banitajja, PN, son of PN, descendant of PN, will give water for the land of PN, and hi8 brothers". Though formulated somewhat clumsily, it seems that PN, dominated an irrigation ditch "of the tamirtu", whereas PN, had rights to another ditch, called elsewhere in the text a fa-lu-ku me-e, which brought water from the Banitum-canal. Even though we could construct 8 situation in which one (relatively) major ditch serves a tamirtu, there could be other source( of irrigation water. A relation between tamirtu and the exploitation of the land in them i8 suggested by the Uruk letter YOS 3,84: "... L U APIN ~ ')ih ~ dul-la ~ la im-mar u' GARIM.MEs-~~ la im-mar, "the head of the ploughteams who does not care for his duty in hi$, tamirtus". There are indications that the temple owned land in the tamirtus together with other people who had a share; tamirtu will stand here for the land owned by the temple in it. 142

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

In the Muraitl text BE 9, 88, two descendants of a certain Dide lease land: 3)inu SE.NUMUN.MES ib Luse-pi-ri.ME~ina ta-mir-turn ih E 'di-de-e, "in the land of the (Aramaic) scribes in the t. of the house of Dide". A tamirtu could be part of the estate of a family. Translation in a narrow sense: "basin"? One could think of an area (partially) enclosed by the lev&s of several branches of rivers and canals, but that is no more than a suggestion. If tamirtus are found to the South of Babylon in the neighbourhood of the Euphrates, and if ugiirus seem to occur more to the East, that does not mean that these words do not occur in combination. VS 5,3 mentioning an A . G GARIM ~ K A - ~ ~ - ~GU E N m~ub-bat combines tamirtu and ugiiru in the area South of Babylon as Unger's location to the North of the town on the westbank c q o t be substantiated. VS 5, 4, however, describes the same locality as A . G ~ ih d~~ GU IDGub-ba-ti, and leaves out the GARIM.

~

VS 5,48:3 and 92:2 combine ugiiru and tamirtu in the Borsippa area. Darius 26,227 and BRM 1,73 do the same for the Litamu area on the Euphrates South of Babylon. An A . G h GARIM Suppa-ti is found in Cyr 160, this will be even hrther South on the Euphrates. In these cases, A . G seems ~ to indicate land within a GARIMItamirtu, the ugiiru would seem to be smaller than the tamirtu.

In the Marduk-apal-iddina I1 kudurru VS 1, 37, we find in IV 4 an A . G h %u-ri, in IV 19 an A . G h ih URU~a-ba-ta, and in IV 45 an A . G U~ R U ~ u n - n iThis - ~ is ~ supplemented ~~. by Nbk 135,2: A . G h 1D-~E~.ME~-iul-lim, which is possibly identical with the A.GAR ih iiU~a-ba-ta. It transpires from the text that these fields are of a considerable size, possibly both East and West of the Euphrates. ~ and Combining this with the Dilbat texts OECT 10, 399 (GARIM Ba-zi-ia A . G Dil-baJ") OECT 10,5 (GARIM nu-si-ba-ti in A . G ~ ID E Da-ku-ru) seems to suggest that ~ . G h - u ~ f i r u here sometimes includes GARIM-tamirtus, though it is possible that A . G h takes the place of NAM/pi@tu, "district, province" in these cases, to indicate the administrative position of the fields concerned. Further speculation on the (relative) meaning of the words tamirtu and ugiiru is probably unprofitable until we have more information about the administrative organization of irrigation. What was the role of the gugallu and when came the canal-based organization of water supply we find in the MuraiQ archive (cf. Stolper, 1985, 38ff.) into being? In earlier texts we do not find that canals are leased "from their intake to their tail end". Was this an innovation of the later Achaemenid period in which leasing became of increased importance, or was this type of exploitation normal in areas with a feudal structure of landholding dominated by the royal administration? There are a number of other words which indicate, it would seem, primarily the geographical position or shape of a piece of land, not its quality or its social status. These words are either rare or else occur in standard phrases (e.g. raqqat ~amaj.in both Uruk and Sippar). Other words like dukkudindu, bumiltu and zirnblmijnu (cf. R. Zadok, BiOr 33 (1976), p. 62) occur only once or twice. One can do no more than refer to the dictionaries. It is remarkable that there seems to be no well-identified word for lev&. CAD A12 p. 189 lists a few instances in which the word appu is translated by "spur of land, causeway, bund", but AHw p. 60 rightly interprets the same passages as referring to artificial constructions, "Strompfeiler, Wellenbrecher". Perhaps VS 6, 66 (9.XII.Nbn.2) from the Sin-ili archive can be

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agricultlll

quoted: '"is-si u a ' ~ ~ ~ I M M A R . M E i h~ ina ku-ma-ri Mr-ri Zniz-zu-zu i h PN iu-nu, "the trees and date palms that stand on the bank (CAD K 532 R) of the ditch are the property of P N . e. Other geographical terms Other names for plots of land are qutiinu, discussed by Mrs Cocquerillat WdO 7 (1973-4), p. 121, note 25, and birh/barh. raqqatu and its (partial?) synonym urallu are found near rivers. ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ / s a n probably t a k k u indicates a (small) triangular-shaped piece of land left out of the main measurement by the surveyor, as is illustrated by Nemet-Nejat, 1982, no. 69. The word occurs in Dar 80, a division of a piece of land between members of the Egibi family. (In that text we also find the word &kuttu (CAD A/1, p. 444 (2)) (an earth structure in fields and houses), AHw, p. 81 ("bei Grundstiicken etwa Trennmauer"): 17) ...US.SA.DU 0.0.2.5 SILA, 6 NlNDA.lJ1.A &-kut-tu SA A.SA and 19 a certain amount of land a-di (= inclusive) &-kut-tu. The surface given, if figured out according to the 54000 = 1 GUR system, is 5280 square cubits or 1320 m2. In Dar 80, the &kuttu which forms part of the (original) field stretches along the southernmost boundary of the field, with a length of 76.5 cubits. The depth of the &kuttu, if regularly shaped, would be (5280:76.5) just over 69 cubits, about 35 metres. This excludes a construction like a wall. Dar 80 is the division of the field bought in 5R 67, 1, though one of the two texts makes a mistake calling "North" "South. One of the short sides of the long strip of land crossed by the N&-eggu is still the "makallll of the Fifties", the other, in 5R 67, 1, is the p&at iarri, the royal domain (in Babylon terminology) which occurs already in VS 1, 37. The meaning of dkuttu is not clarified by the much broken text NemetNejat, 1982, no. 47, but it measures 0.4.3.0 5 NINDA. In Dar 80, the difference in length given for the long sides of the field turns the &kuttu almost inevitably into an imgularly shaped piece of land). 7. Neo-Babylonian irrigation: an unwarranted assessment Since the appearance of Adams's Heartland, the study of Neo-Babylonian agriculture has become a subject of prime importance. Map upon map suggests a steady irresistible growth up to the end of the Sassanid period which seems to begin slightly before Babylonia regained its independence in 626 BC: at the very moment at which texts become available. If the maps are trustworthy, the Neo-Babylonian-Achaemenid period laid the foundations for a period of unprecedented economic expansion in Southern Mesopotamia. Those who try to keep one eye on archaeology and the other on the texts have some reason to feel provoked. The archaeological material, mainly pottery, on which the mapped growth is stated to be based is for the most part unpublished, and the proposed growth fits the picture obtained from the texts almost too well, at least in the period from which texts are preserved. It would seem that the texts contribute to a rudimentary understanding of the geographical lay-out of Babylonia. The archaeological maps, based on the principle that alignments of sites indicate the course of rivers and canals, do not in every respect tally with what is suggested by the Landsat sketch, fig. 6 in Adams 1981. The maps suggest to their author a polygon structure of imgated fields constituting continuous zones of agricultural exploitation. It is to be expected that the Landsat picture will, in general, represent a situation that had come into being in a considerable area of South Mesopotamia, at the end of the period of growth and prosperity somewhere in the Islamic period. Maps 1-3 are an attempt to stimulate the discussion.

The texts, even though they are not primarily concerned with irrigation, stress the intimate relationship between land and water continuously by stating always that fields and orchards are situated on rivers or canals. The allotment schemes of Marduk-apal-iddina I1 in the neighbourhood of several major cities created a field system in which long strips of land stretched from a narrow heading on a major river or canal. The inference is that the owners were entitled to the use of water from these canals. Otherwise the land would have had no

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

value. Whether the beneficiaries had to pay or not for the water is a matter of secondary importance. A payment of half the seed ratio, found as payment made by the Muragtls to the government, cannot be regarded as excessive in normal Babylonian reckoning. The lease of complete canals, from intake to tail, by authorities to entrepreneurs, a fairly common feature of the MuraH9 archive, may, however, have pushed up prices of irrigation water for the small consumer. We do not know whether this type of leasing was a special feature of feudalized areas in the later Achaemenid period. BE 8/1, 85 (Nippur, 12.I.Camb.3) might be an earlier example of the phenomenon. Nor do we know whether the old estates of the temples of Sippar and Uruk about which we have some information, were made to conform to the pattern of the allotments of the late eighth century. The only thing we can say is that the available evidence (from Sippar) suggests that the "tenants" (ENGARs) probably tilled under 10 ha each. What is important is that everywhere, and not only on private land, the strip closest to the rivers and canals was turned into a date plantation. That this should be understood as a sign of growth and not as a result of increased salinity was stressed again by Ir Boumans in an intervention during the Leyden meeting: the levees were always for practical purposes free of salt. Local salty patches in the top soil on the levees cannot be regarded as a hindrance to agriculture. It is, however, notable that up to the early Achaemenid period we find few signs of horticulture in the texts. A greater variety of products, obviously for delivery to a market, is found only in the Muraga texts from the reigns of Artaxerxes I and Darius 11. Appendix I contains some information on land prices. As local circumstances even in the Babylon region seem to differ, generalization from these few texts is difficult. It is noteworthy that the tenancy contracts of the gardeners of the date plantations in particular stress their obligation to complete their digging in such a way that in the fifth month the soil can be moistened. Their recompensation was not related to the number of trees tended but to the surface dug. Perhaps we must interpret this as a sign that the upkeep of ditches was vital for the arable fields inland from the rivers and canals, ploughing could not commence before the soil had been loosened by moisture. Water had to pass through the date palm belt along the canals first. Neo-Babylonian hydrological terminology is little more than a list of words. barrus and iirittus are dug by the tenants of the individual plots. They handle the perkus, "weirs", with their muiellls , "gates". Secondary canals, perhaps Mrisu - atappu seems obsolete - were closed by sikrus. The general word for intake was bdbu, but bitqus were sometimes structures at the beginning of canals. The more important canals were divided into manageable stretches by muiannitus. That seems about as far as we can get, for even secondary canals had as a rule a name of their own. We cannot establish a relationship between the occurrence of a muiannitu on a main canal and an intake of a secondary canal. In a way the fact that even secondary canals have a name of their own helps us to answer part of the challenge referred to in the first lines of this paragraph. For Adams the picture on the map suggests an agricultural landscape consisting of adjacent polygons tied together by canals which permitted a highly organized water transport. Mutually connecting canals can be found in texts from Nippur and Sippar, but in the Babylon area we seem to find the parallel canals of the type referred to by Nissen in his Leyden contribution. These canals primarily served imgation, not drainage. Even though the Nippur area could be polygonized (cf., however, map I), there seems to exist one main artery in the texts: the Sin-canal. That highlights another major feature of Neo-Babylonian agriculture, with which we will have to deal further in the context of cultivation: though the royal administration had an

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

van Driel

unmistakable hand in the upkeep of the main arteries of irrigation, much of the exploitation was leased to private entrepreneurs. Vulnerable though their individual position was, they no doubt played an essential role in the agriculturally based economic growth which is, I suppose, for the moment better visible with the eye directed towards the texts than with the archaeological eye which tries to make sense out of generally unpublished pottery.

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

References

Adams, R.Mc C. Heartland of Cities, surveys of ancient settlement and land use on the central 1981 JIoodplain of the Euphrates (Chicago). Cocquerillat, D. Palmeraies et Cultures de I'Eanna d'Uruk 550-520 (ADF 8; Berlin). 1968 Gibson, Mc G. 1972 The City and Area of Kish (Coconut Grove, Miami). Kiirnrnel, H.M. Familie, Beruf und Amt im Spatbabylonischen Uruk, prosopographische Unter1979 suchungen zu Berufsgruppen des 6. Jahrhunderts v. Chr. in Uruk (Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orientgesellschaft, 20; Berlin). McEwan, G.J.P. 1984 Late Babylonian Texts in the Ashmolean Museum (OECT 10; Oxford). Nashef, Kh. 1982 Die Orts- und Gewiissernamender mittelbabylonischen und mittelassyrischen Zeit R(6pertoire) G(6ographique des) T(extes) C(un6iformes), Bd 5 (Wiesbaden). Nemet-Nejat, K.R. 1982 Late Babylonian Field Plans in the British Museum (Studia Pohl, Series Maior 11; Rome). Oberhuber, K. 1958 Sumerische und Akkedische Keilschriftdenkmiiler des archiiologischen Museums zu Florenz (IBK,S 7; Innsbruck). Stolper, M.W. Entrepreneurs and Empire, the Muraid Archive, the Muraid firm, and Persian Rule 1985 in Babylonia (IstanbuVLeiden). Unger, E. 1931

Babylon, die Heilige Stadt nach der Beschreibung der Babylonier (Berlin-Leipzig).

Wirth, E. 1962

Agrargeographie des Irak (Hamburger Geographische Studien, XIII).

Zadok, R. 1985

Geographical Names according to New- and Late-Babylonian Texts R(6pertoire) G(6ographique des) T(extes) C(un6iformes), Bd 8 (Wiesbaden).

van Driel

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

Map 2

- ---

Modern Euphrates and T i g r l s

-

Anctent Euphrates aild T i g r s

. . . . . . . ..

Zadok's reconstruction of major rivers and canals in the Neo Babylonian Period

Assumed c o u r s e s of calla15

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

Map 3 Proposed course Posslble course

Provisional reconstruction, with the major problems. Tigris. Hardly any information about the course of this river is available, reconstruction on the line of the Gharraf is guesswork. Euphrates of Nippur.

Combined Sippar and Nippur Kutha-canals. Sin-canal. Though based on a convenient West-East lev&, there is no compelling reason to reconstruct the canal in this way, but the Sin-canal must have been the distributor for the Nippur area. The MGennu-canal. The Banitu-canal. The Piqudu-canal. May have joined the Nippur system directly or via a garri-Piqudu and may have continued towards the Northwest of Uruk.

Siiru-canal. May have branched off from the Piqudu-canal and may have continued to the Nippur area.

Euphrates, a and b indicating the problematical alternative courses in the North. If the Pallukkatu is to be sought where the 13b course of the Euphrates is indicated, 13a is the course of that river in this period. What caused the heavy meanders on the map? All these factors, together with the material collected for the Uruk area by Mrs Cocquerillat and a more intensive shifting of the Sippar material should be included in a future reconstruction.

The maps were drawn by Mr Frans Schoonens of the Department of General Archaeology, Arts Faculty, in the Archaeological Centre, University of Leyden.

Southern Mesopotamia Suggested course of major rivers and canals

L a n d

TEXT TEKST

DATE DATUM

DIMENSIONS BREEDTE+LENGTE

Speleers Bab 25 V I I I Ner 0 276

-

i n

t h e

E g i b l

SIZE OPPERVIAK

SITUATION LIGGING

1

A.GAR

GUR

1

a r c h i v e

TYPE OF LAND SOORT LAND

PRICE PER UNIT PRIJS EENHEID

PRICE PRIJS

GARIM(?) GIS .SAR GIS GISIMMARzaq-pu Qa-lu-nu (KLItha province )

(collation needed)

f~ e5-5u mi-ihra-at KA.GAL d ~ L ~~ L. (e-li5 13 SapliS)

62/3 NINDA = ~ G I N

--

VR 67, 1

Bab 8 XI Ner 0

24 GUR 2 GUR 1 GUR.4.1.4 20 GUR.0.4.2

A.SA GISGI~IMblAR. MES GAL.MES G15ta-la-a-ni A . S ~mi-rl-56 u tap-tu-ii

2SILA3= 0.0.1.0 =

1GIN I GIN

9 MA.NA

2MA.NA 47 5 10 MA.NA 4l/3 5

-

21 MA.NA 511/3 5 +202/3 5 Camb 375

Bab 1 V Camb 7

Dar 80

?D eb-5u 1 VI bis Dar 3 a) 988 K ~ S 8 SU.SI 1006 K ~ S 20 SU.SI 1 GUR 0.4.3 76 K D S ~4 SU.SI b)2543 /2646l/2 KbS 3 GUR 3.3.4 78/ 76l/2 K ~ S C) 858/855 K ~ S (0.1.4.5) 65/75 K ~ S 1 GUR 0.2.4 6.1.0.0(?)

Dar 265

Bab 2 I Dar 10

iiv 33

Bab 4 VITI Dar 19

Nbn 132

Bab [XI w b i s Nbn 3

Nbn 437

-

8 NINDA

GO i~

5E.NUMUN

(division)

7 NINDA

(next to a)

GU f~

[

457/450 KbS 22l/2 /21

1

25 VI Nbn 5

Nbn 203

6 X Nbn 5

e5-5~

me-ri-~u SE .NUMUN SE.NUMUN zaq-pi d me-ri-Sd

e-liS u Sap-Li5 SE.NUMUN zaq-pi 56 Ib e5-5u mi-ri-59 u e-lu-d t [ap-tu-dl

(exchange)

rb es-56 e-lu-d SE.NUMUN zaq-pa

(exchange)

[ 1 GAB KA. GAL dza-m6-

+ [ ? I

G I : .

SAR GIFj~[ ISIMMAR

~d fD

0.0.5.2 7 NINDA

A.GAR d d i ~BARS.

1

bit-qa 58? A.SA SE.NUMUN(?) Ile'i-BGl(?) (GIS.SAR zaq-pu?) zaq-pu

SAP ~S.SA.DU KASKAL du LUGAL (e-la-an KAsKALdU LUGAL) 0.0.0:3 3 NINDA 0.1.0.0

211/3 MA-NA

. . ..I

A. &R Ib bit-qa GI~-SARG I S G I ~ I M ~ ~[ R . SB P ~ - l e - l i -MES ~ ~ zaq-pi ~

0.0.4.1 9 NINDA

----

Nbn 193

eS-5u

2 NINDA 7 NINDA

4 GUR

571/2/571/2 K ~ S 2142 /21

-

(exchange)

?

Bab 8 VIbisNbn10

6 XI1 Nbn 4

SE.NUMUN

6 GUR

Triest RechtsLIV 1 VI Cyr 7

Nbn 178

G ~ i~ I eS-5u

0.3.4.0

1

[

2/3 MA.NA + 2 5 33/4 NINDA= 1 GIN 11/2 MA.NA 6 GJN +6l/2 G ~ N

iiS .SA.DU raq-qatum 36 G ~ I f~ UT. KIB NUNKI (Sapla-an KASKALdU)

.

-

ina KA ID B A R A ~ .zaq-pi $Apki mi-i$-rat 16 GAL . d~~ 6s. SA.DU raq-qa-turn 58 LUGAL 6s.SA. DU KASKAL ~~LUGAL 170/162 23/25

50/50 26/27

(?)

~ b $

0.0.2.1 2 NINDA

0.0.0.4 4 NINDA

A.G&R nam-ga-ri zaq.pu d ID BARA,SAPKI 6s.SA .DU ~ s K A L ~ULUGAL 5s.SA.DU ra-aqqa-turn SB GO ID U T . K I B . N ~ ~

Nbn 440

8 VII Nbn 10

1 GUR

GAB &.GAL d~~ [?I 50.MES 56 Se-pit ? [

Nbn 477

22 XI Nbn 10

0.1.5.4

mi-i$-ra-at d. zaq-pu GAL IB KAsKALd?.

Nbn 964

20 IV Nbn 16

0.1.1.3

SS.SA.DU al-ka 56 f~-~DI .KU5

A.SA mi-ri-5" u tap-tu-ti

2aq-p~

33/4 NINDA= 1 G ~ N 2/3MA.~~ 7 G ~ N +1 GIN

1

[

1 SILA

=

3

[

1

1 G ~ N 1 MA.NA lo G ~ N + 1 GIN '/~MA.NA 5 GIIN

Dar 26

8 XI1 Dar 1

1 GUR 3.2.0

le-liSl u Sap-liS zaq-pu 56 KAsKAL~U LUGAL A.G&R GARIfl li- ki-Sub-bu-6 ta-mu GO ID UT. KIB NUNKI 12 SA. .DU bar-ri SZ DUMU P ~ L . KUR-I

o.o.~.o=11

G ~ N 9 MA.NA 1 0 GIN

.

2 GUR

Dar 152

29 XI1 Dar 4

3 GUR 1 GUR

2 GUR

Dar 227

Bab 3 VII Dar 7

2 PI 0.3.2.0

BPt I 73

URUS8 p d ~ ~ - ~ ~ ~ - i f [xjA pd~arduk-SII $2 ina muh-hi '"pi -gu-du 8 VII Dar 8

0.0.2.0

Dar 466

Bab 24 I Dar 18

Cyr 3

[XI

Cyr 160 161

Bab 6 I11 Cyr 4

7 IX Cyr 0

Bab 28 XI1 Camb 6 -

-

0.0.0.3

=

1

GIN

zaq-pi

2 MA.NA 10 MA.NA 221/2 G ~ N 3 MA.NA + ?

me-ri-Su

[

1

zaq-pu

0.0.2.2.

GAB &.GAL

zaq-pi a-di GIBIL.GI~.SAR

1 GUR 1.4.0 1 GUR 0.1.4.0

A.G&R URU~u-up- pi-i Sul-pi pa-turn 3i-ri-e5? E.MUN? ka-lu-6 u gal-bi-bi

(1.4.3.3)

A.G&R GARIM zaq-pi Sup-pa-ti me-ri-Su Gd f [ D ? 1 ka-lu-6 7 Gd fD UT. KIB . NU#' a-di 3apla-nu KASKAL~U

(213 MA-NA 31/3 GIN) 5 MA.NA 8 GIN

1 GUR

ina U R U ~ ~ - u p - me-ri-36 pa-tu

(exchange)

1 GUR 0.5.0

GAB &.GAL d~~ zaq-pi ina d f~GU. DU~.A~' la-bi-ri Gd fD UT.KIB. NUNKI DA KASKAL LUGAL

6 GUR

ina U R U ~ h kar-bi Gff fD eS-Su

d~~

0.0.1.0=14 G?N

9 3 MA.NA 8 G ~ N +1/2 G ~ N

5/6 MA.NA 6 G ~ N (receipt)

-

Dar 102= Bab 12 I Dar 3 Dalley 75

TCL 13, 190

A. G ~ GARIM R lita-rpu $ IDpi-qu-du US.SA.DU Sepit(?) 5 lim

3 0.0.1.0=16 /.?GIN 8 4 3 MA.NA 21/2 G ~ N

6-ga-ri GARIM li-ta-mu is-ti &-GAL d~~ GO/ m S K A L 56 GO IDpi-qu-du

4 GUR 3.4.3

Camb 349

A.G$R uRuli-ta- zaq-pu mu US.SA.DU KAsKAL? LUGAL 3s GO IDpi-qu-du US.SA.DU ma-ka- me-ri-Su lu-u 56 50.MES tap-tu-6 Sb Se-pit 5 lirn(3

Bab 6 I1 Dar 12

~ - ~zaq-pi ~a-di li-mi-ti

1/2 GUN + 2 MA.NA

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

van Driel

APPENDIX I1 A TEXT

!tnln w w 2 -rlm

Z

Z

Z U

w

w

rl

It

rl

4

I1

I1

8 " 5 "

N

? ?

Z

m C

3 N

I

pi

2 :$ N

3 '3

4

RATE

10 k o r

2 kor

5:l

...

15.3(?) .0.0(?)

6.

71.2.0.0

DA~~-ba-ni

5 kor

1 kor

5:l

7.

74.0.0.0

p d ~GUR-GI .

9 kor

2 kor

9:2

8.

31.0.0.0

P

1 kor

5:l

9.

21.0.0.0

P d ~GUR-GI .

5 kor

5:l

and Aba-lumur

d

~

~

-

~

5- [ k ~ o r l~

~

25 k o r

lo.

I

I

p d ~ ~ - ~ ~1~ 5 k~ o r ~ - i 3r k o r

5:l

(1)

11.

[

1

P d ~ 0 - ~ ~ - ~ 0

1 7 ( ? ) .2.3.0

3.2.3.0

5:l

(?)

pdUTU-~AI,~G2-ir

( t e x t: 16.2.3.0) 2.0.0.0

3 kor

2:3

10.0.0.0

2.2.3.0

4:l

? $

29

$2

H N Nn .rl

'79NnG n CIH I &" 3

LAND

? 0

0

.rl

SESSINNU

(H

'H

H

NAME

5.

+

4

3

DATES AMOUNT

Moldenke I1 1 7 U R U - S B - ~ E N - ~ ~ - ~ ~

I

H

14.

.rl Nn .rl

P G NnX

16.

mzrl uZGw 2!

(.

[

.. b i t

ritti)

1

I

5.0.0.0

1.0.0.0

5:l

1

Rimut-d~ula

4.0.0.0

4.0.0.0

1:l

7.0.0.0

?

-]PAP

+J

I V]

k!

m

a"

e

4

': I

4

IV1

a

C? ",

?

4

a G i H I W

W

'H

$ 3 2

Xn

V]

Nna

':: B

A

Ad! w

-4

Nbk 36

?

1

3-

[

4.

[

5.

35.1.4.0

pd~N-TIN-it

[

6.

51.3.2.0

P d ~ I~ -

[

1

I

m rl

B

U rl

p N

N

%z H

d

~

16.

20.0.0.0

Pdu~u-~u

17.

10.0.0.0

18. 19. 20.

6.0.0.0

~

-

~1 2 . 0~. 0 . 0 ~ 4.0.0.0

-

3~. 0 . 0~. 0

4:l

2.0.0.0

2:l

p d ~ ~ - n e - n e - ~ ~ 4 .O. 0.0

2.0.0.0

2:l

11.0.0.0

pd~~-d-$ur p d ~ f~ -

8.0.0.0 NONE

2.0.0.0 1.0.0.0

4:l

10.0.0.0

Pdr.rru-~u-~~~

4.0.0.0

1.0.0.0

4:l

-

H

X

rl N

m

m rl

X

n Z

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

van Driel

van Driel

Neo-Babylonian Agriculture

APPENDIX I1 B Appendix 11 Acontinued TEXT

DATES AMOUNT

SESSINNU

LAND

RATE

3.

4.0.0.0

[1.0.0.01

4:l

4.

8.0.0.0

2.0.0.0

4:l

5.

4.0.0.0

1.0.0.0

4:l

6.

7.0.0.0

7:2

7.

- - -

2.0.0.0 1.0.0.0

8.

4.0.0.0

1.0.0.0

4:l

9.

8.0.0.0

2 .O.O.O

4:l

8.0.0.0

2.0.0.0

4:l

8.0.0.0

2.0.0.0

4:l

Nbk 444

NAME

Size of date orchards:

?

Cyr 124

10. 11.

LOST

LOST

?

?

12.

8.0.0.0

2.0.0.0

4:l

13.

12.0.0.0

3.0.0.0

4:l

14.

12.0.0.0

3.0.0.0

4:l

15.

8.0.0.0

2.0.0.0

4:l

4.0.0.0

1.0.0.0

4:l

2.0.0.0

5:2

3.0.0.0

1:l

2.0.0.0

4:l

1.x.x.x

?

16. 17.

5.0.0.0

18.

3.0.0.0

19.

8.0.0.0

?

CT 56-252

.

2.

0.2.3.0

P L[~

I

I

[

3.

35.0.0.0

p d ~ ~ ~ - ~ ~ 5.0.0.0 ~ ~ ~ 2 - i 1.0.0.0 r

4.

47.1.4.0

P~a-~il

5.

45.4.1.0

P d ~ ~ - ME$-MU ~ ~ $ . (GIS.SAR GAL-6)

6.

84.1.4.0

p

d

~

~

-

5:l

5. [x.x.xl

1.1.0.0

?

1

2.0.2.0

?

6.L

~

~

~

.

~

~

.

~

~

(GO I D - d ~ c ~ ~ qu-ta-nu)

8.[x.x.xl

[

1 I

7.

23. [X.X.XI

P d ~ ~ MES - .MU ~ ~ .~[ .

I

[

8.

40.0.5.0

P d ~ ~ [ ~ I- $ [ ~ ~

I

l.[x.x.xl

29 VI Cyr 3

? ?

?

(Follorus 2nd paragraph listing GIS.SAR bal-la-turn S 6 M U R U B 4 . e URU [ ? I )

Cyr 174

24 VI Cyr 4

EVIDENCE FOR AGRICULTURE AND WATERWORKS IN BABYLONIAN MATHEMATICAL TEXTS M.A. Powell

(Northern Illinois University) Mathematical texts of the Old Babylonian period (c. 200&1600) contain relatively little obvious evidence that pertains directly to agriculture or irrigation. However, some of the information is unique and assists us in filling lacunae in the abundant but laconic documentary record. In the following discussion I have usually given metric equivalents for ancient measures to convey some idea of the sizes involved. These measurements are always to be understood as approximations. Most of the approximations are probably accurate within a margin of k5 percent. The system used to transcribe sexagesimal numbers is: 1,0,0 = 3600; 1,O = 60; 1 = 1; 0;1= 1/60; 0;0,1 = 1/3600, etc. 1. AGRICULTURE The evidence for agriculture contained in mathematical texts is very meager indeed. Geometry and geometrical methods probably played an important role in the development of Babylonian mathematics (elaborately argued by Jens Hgyrup in Babylonien Algebra from the Viewpoint of Geometrical Heuristics (1984) and Algebra and Naive Geometry (1986), working papers, Roskilde University, Denmark). This can hardly be surprising. As with the Latin term area, "threshing floor / garden plot / open space", etc., Babylonian terminology such as "field" for "area" (Surnerian aSag; Akkadian eqlum) also reveals the agrarian origins of plane geometry in field mensuration. However, almost nothing has survived in the existing corpus of mathematical texts that reflects the elaborate system of agricultural accounting attested in Ur I11 texts. The intricate Ur I11 schemes for agricultural work quotas are not attested at all, and even such important parts of the accounting system as seed rates and yields are attested only in extremely truncated fashion (TMB pp. 103ff.; Powell, Archiv. f. Orientforschung 31 (1984) pp. 63-64). Non-mathematical documentary sources do provide sparse evidence that agricultural accounting operations of the Ur I11 type persisted in the Old Babylonian period Powell, Zeitschrqt f Assyriologie 75 (1985) pp. 22-23, 30-32), but whether sparse attestation is a function of disinterest or of the defective nature of the sample remains unclear. 2. WATERWORKS

Common use of three dimensional geometry in calculating volumes and work quotas for canal excavations has resulted in somewhat more evidence for waterworks; however, even though applied mathematics was clearly the "bread and butter" of the Old Babylonian mathematician, the dominant interest of the mathematical texts are geometrical and numerical relationships. Characteristic geometric shapes are called by their common ancient names, whose distinct shapes and characteristic functions would have been easily recognized by the ancient student. They are not so easily recognized by us. The geometric shapes are usually, though not always, deducible from the dimensions given in the mathematical problem texts, but the precise functions of these structures are frequently unclear. Even more difficult to recognize are related concepts. For

Agriculture and waterworks in Babylonian mathematical textr

Powell

instance, only complementary evidence from non-mathematical sourccs tells us that terditu (see $2.2.1) is used in a technical sense for "extra water volume". This section treats phenomena which probably have something to do with waterworks. I use the more general term "waterworks" rather than "irrigation works", because I agree with Miguel Civil that a lot of "irrigation-related" activities recorded in the texts are probably primarily directed toward flood control. There are probably other structures attested in the mathematical texts that also had significance for flood control or irrigation but for which no direct evidence exists (e.g. arammu, a type of embankment, also used to describe a ramp). Three types of waterworks can be identified with some probability: (1) wells, cisterns, or reservoirs; (2) canals; (3) dams or barrages. A reservoir can be identified with certainty only in one text. Canals are better represented (at least half a dozen texts), but such important structures as dams and their parts are attested only in extremely attenuated form. 2.1 Wells, Cisterns, or Reservoirs

The one Text (MCT N) which deals explicitly with irrigation using water from a reservoir or cistern gives only the Sumerian ideogram for this structure, the reading of which can be either pd or t61. The intended Akkadian word is probably burtu, "well / cistern". This water-container is defined as a cube whose edges are all exactly 10 nindan or 1 "rope" in length (60 m.). Thus, each side is equal in area to 1 iku, a basic unit of land mensuratio about 3600 mZin size. This cube is identical in size with UtnapiStim's "Ark" in Tablet XI of th Gilgamesh Epic and must have been a favorite teaching device long before the Old Babylonian period because of the embedded system of metrological relationships: (1) the square of 1 m contains an area of 1 iku; (2) the cube of 1 rope contains 1,0,0 (=3600) layers which are each 1 finger high and 1 iku in area; (3) this cube contains 2' cubes (i.e. 8, the lowest integer c u b above 1) formed on the half-rope; (4) it contains 1,0,0,0,0,0,0 (60~) finger cubes. Such relationships are hardly accidents. The essential part of the text reads: pu 10 ninda imtahar 10 ninda iSpil mi-So azzulma ina m2-Sa ana 1 Su.si Suplim a . P kt masi amkur Cistern: it was 10 nindan (60 m.) on each side, 10 nindan deep. Its water I drained and with its water to a depth of 1 finger (1.666 cm.) how much land did I irrigate? The solution is worked out by first finding the number of fingers of depth in 10 nindan (I 1,0,0 = 3600 fingers) and then multiplying these by 10' nindan (the area of one face of cube), which gives the amount of land irrigated, namely, 1,40 (i.e. 1,4O,O,O = 360,000 sar). Si this corresponds to 3600 iku, the answer will have been intuitively clear from the metrolog1 relationships. The OB reservoir is clearly constructed as a paradigm for calculations involving volumes water and was not intended to reflect the standard size of such water containers. For the study irrigation, the most important aspect of the text is the underlying concept of "iku fingers", whi corresponds roughly to the concept of acre inches or acre feet as a measure of water volume, points to the existence of a system of planning for irrigation in terms of volume of w resources and of areas of land to be irrigated (cf. also $2.2.2).

162

Powell

Agriculture and waterworks in Babylonian mathematical texts

2.1.1. Other types of reservoirs cannot be identified with certainty; however, some excavations subsumed in mathematical texts under the terns ki-14 / kalakku and pu-sag / Sitpu may refer to some type of reservoir or holding basin. ki-14 / kalakku occur in the form of a truncated pyramid and as square or rectangular prisms (MCT F-Ja); pu-sag occur as square and rectangular prisms (TMB $ 2 2 4 ) . A more likely candidate for irrigation works is hiritu, a word which is also equated with tul and with ki-14. Some biritu are clearly ditches and moats (e.g. TMB $48; cf. Powell, Jour. Cuneiform St. 34 (1982) pp. 59-61); however, one of these (TMB $72) cannot be a ditch or a moat, because it is in the form of an inverted truncated pyramid. Its lower base is 42x42 m.; upper base: 60x60 m.; height: 9 m. Its walls narrow at a rate of 1 cubit per 1 cubit of depth (i.e. 0.25 m. on each face per 0.5 m. of depth), producing a more gentle slope than that found in smaller irrigation ditches, which narrow at only half this rate. Nothing in the mathematical texts themselves implies a direct connection of ki-14 / kalakku, pli-sag / fitpu, or biritu with irrigation. However, this laconic style is characteristic of the mathematical texts, and lexical texts do identify these words as synonyms for other words meaning wells, water holes, and the like (see Appendix). 2.2 Canals and Irrigation Ditches Surviving mathematical problems concerning watercourses pertain primarily to digging or cleaning irrigation ditches, occasionally called in Akkadian namkaru, but usually atappu or by its Sumerian equivalent pa, sig, lit. "lesser / subsidiary canal". Dimensions seem to be chosen to illustrate arithmetic paradigms but probably correspond more or less to those of real irrigation ditches. Attested lengths run around 1.8 to 2.16 km. (occasionally longer; cf. 92.2.2), widths 1 to 1.5 m. (occasionally wider; cf. $2.2.2), and depths 0.5 to 2.25 m. For the study of irrigation the interest of these problems lies primarily in defining ditch profiles and in the scale of work quotas. Large watercourses are very rarely mentioned (cf. $2.3).

Two types of irrigation ditches are attested: one with vertical profiles to the sides, one with sloping profiles. Thus, one text (MCT K) begins with a pa, sig that is 1800 m. long, 1 m. wide, and 0.5 m. deep; the work quota and wages per man-day are 6 m3 of earth and 10 litres of barley. The problem asks: what is the area, the volume of earth, the number of men, and the total wages. The text then goes through 23 variations of work on irrigation ditches, shifting in problem 14 to a depth of 1 m., to a correspondingly reduced work quota of 3 m3, to calculation of wages in silver (6 barleycorns per day), and to a sloping profile. The last two fully-stated problems in this text (Mm K 21-22) introduce the concept of "slope" (ukullf2, lit. "what is eaten") and apply it to the paradigmatic, trapezoidal ditch already treated in nos. 14-20. This slope amounts to a narrowing of the ditch on each side by 0.125 m. per each 0.5 m. of depth (a total narrowing on both sides of I D cubit per each cubit of depth). This steep slope probably approximates the norm for small ditches, whereas dikes and larger waterworks have a more gentle slope, narrowing at the rate of 1 cubit per 1 cubit of height. (Cf. Powell, Jour. Cuneiform St. 34 (1982) 61; the statement there about "a standard slope of 45"", following Thureau-Dangin, is incorrect, because the narmwing takes place on both sides, not just one side, of the trapezoidal figure.) The last problem in this text (MCT K 23) is only partly stated, being the catchline for another tablet (represented by MCT L), which reverts to the simpler form of vertical profiles, deepens the ditch to 3 cubits, and introduces the new concepts of Siliitu (throw-out work) and dusu (basket work). Digging down to the 1 cubit level is "throw-out" work to be done at the rate

Agriculture and waterworks in Babylonian mathematical texts

Powell

of 20 gin (6 m3) per day; digging in the 2-3 cubit level is "basket work" to be done at 10 gin (3 m3) per day. The average daily quota for this width and depth of canal is 12 gin (3.6 m3), and problem no. 7 breaks this quota down into 4 gin dug out in 115 of a day and 8 gin dug out in 415 day (lit. "two-thirds plus one-fifth of two-thirds of a day"). MCT L no. 6 (which, being more complex, probably should follow no 7. in the MS) deepens the ditch to 4.5 cubits (2.25 m.) and introduces a third level of work quotas: 7.5 gin (2.25 m3) per day. This is also called "basket work" and applies to the deepest 1.5 cubits. The total amount of work done in a day is 10 gin (3 m3), but the volume of earth excavated decreases in proportion to the depth. These ratios are shown in Table 1. In Tables 1 and 2, the number of hours are merely gross approximations based on the assumption of a twelve-hour workday; only day-fractions occur in the texts. No matter what kind of work is being done, a day's pay is always calculated as: 10 sila (= 1/30 gur 10 liters) of barley = 6 barleycorns of silver (= 1/30 shekel).

-

TABLE 1 fraction of day

hours

work quota in gin

depth in cubits

tYPe of work

volume of earth in gin

1/9 419 419

l h 20m 5h 20m 5h 20m

20 10 7;30

0 -1 1+ - 3 3+ - 4.5

throw-out basket basket

2;13,20 4;26,40 3;20

A similar problem occurs in another text (BM 85196 no. 16; cf. discussion by Neugebauer / Sachs 1945, pp. 88-90) concerning excavation of an irrigation ditch called namkarum. This namkarum is identical in cross section with the pa, sig ditches having vertical sides that are 3 cubits wide by 3 cubits deep. The work quota is again 10 gin per day, and at each level of depth 3 113 gin are extracted; however the time required increases in proportion to the depth. Thesc ratios are shown in Table 2.

Powell

Agriculture and waterworks in Babylonian mathematical texts

Another type of canal work involves expanding existing ditches, referred to as pa, sig libir-ra, "old subsidiary ditch" (MCT L no. 8-46). Two new concepts are introduced: terditu (extra water volume) and tarahha (the surrounding earth which is removed to create extra capacity). The simpler version of this work involves slicing away the sides of the ditch but not the bottom (MCI' L no. 8-12), whereas the more elaborate version expands all faces of the ditch (MCT L no. 13-16). One example will illustrate the procedure (MCI' L 8):

2.2.1.

An old, subsidiary ditch. Length: 5,O nindan (1.8 km.). Width: 1 cubit (0.5 m.). Depth: 1 cubit. Its extra water volume (= terdissa) has cut off its surrounding earth (= tarahhija) by

1/2 cubit. The last two problems in MCT L (no. 17-18) cannot be interpreted with certainty. Both of them concern ditches with vertical sides. No. 17 gives the dimensions of the ditch as 1 cubit deep and 1 cubit wide. It then asks: what is the "waters of ditches" (mi? patiitim) ? The answer given is unintelligible: a nigin nim 4 r a nim. If 4 is intended as the answer, one solution could be that it means 4 gin of volume. If so, then the volume would be calculated per nindan of length. A ditch 1 cubit wide by 1 cubit deep by 1 nindan long would contain 5 gin. 4 gin would be 415 of this volume, i.e., 48/60 or 0;48. As it happens, there is a "coefficient" 48, called in one text mC a-Ha, "waters of field" (MCT Ue 26), in another text igi-gub Sd pa, sig, "coefficient of an atappu ditch" (MDP 34 III:33). If "waters of ditches" and "waters of field" represent the same concept as "coefficient of an atappu ditch", then one could hypothesize that, with a ditch of a specified volume, only 415 of that volume of water would be available for irrigation. Unfortunately, this hypothesis is not confirmed by MCI' L no. 18, which is, in addition to being obscure, also broken. However, the text of MCT L seems not to be entirely in order (noted by Neugebauer/Sachs 1945, p. 88). and another (also broken) problem from Susa seems to imply a solution like that suggested for MCT L no. 17. The Susa problem (MPD 34 XXV) is very interesting, because it seems to concern distribution of water along a pa, sig 1 atappu ditch. It is broken at the beginning, and the meaning of the numbers "5" and "6" remains obscure (perhaps they have something to do with the fact that there are 6 units of 5,O nindan or, alternatively 6,O units of 5 nindan per bEru). However, one quantity, namely the available water volume of the entire ditch, is defined precisely as I Sar 12 $@I, i.e., 1,12,0 (= 4320) sar of water (- 77,760 m3). Even though the other quantities are expressed as usual - in sexagesimal numbers without fixed referent, it is clear that "30", the width of the ditch, means 0;30 (= 0.5) nindan (- 3 m.). The available water volume per man is said to be "1,48". This can hardly mean anything except 1;48 sar (or 108 gin) of water (- 32.4 m3). The depth of the water is then calculated in two steps. (1) 1;48, the volume of available water per man, is multiplied by 1;15, the reciprocal of 0;48 (called "coefficient of an atappu ditch") to get 2;15 (sar = 135 gin), which is the actual volume per man of water in the ditch. (2) The actual volume per man is then multiplied by 2, the reciprocal of 0;30 (= 0.5 nindan) the width, to get 4;30 (= 4.5 cubits 2.25 m.) the depth. This is the same thing as dividing the volume by the width. We would then divide that quotient by the length to get the depth, but this is omitted in the Susa problem because the length of the section is 1 nindan. The number of men (erin2 hi-a) along the ditch is given as "40". This, however, must be 40,O (=2400), and the ditch i t s e i must be ,40,4 nindan (14.4 km.) long. This gives each man a 2.2.2.

-

TABLE 2 fraction of day

hours

work quota in gin

depth in cubits

type of work

volume of earth in gin

116 113 112

2h 4h 6h

20 10 6;40

0 -1 1+ - 2 2+ - 3

throw-out basket basket

3;20 3;20 3;20

-

Agriculture and waterworks in Babylonian m a h a t i c a l texts

Powell

Powell

strip of only 1 nindan (6 m.) wide abutting on the imgation ditch and only 1;48 sar (32.4 m3) of water, enough to cover 1.8 sar (64.8 m2) to a depth of 1 cubit (0.5 m.) or 54 sar (1944 m2) to a depth of 1 finger (Su-si 1.666 crn.) This, of course, fits the expected pattern of furrow irrigation with long narrow parcels of land leading off the irrigation ditch.

-

The interpretation of "40" as 40 men (instead of 2400) is excluded by two factors: (1) each man would be responsible for 1.0 nindan (360 m.) of canal; and (2) the volume of water for each man would be 108 sar (1944 m3), enough to cover 108 Sar (0.3888 ha.) to a depth of 1 cubit (0.5 m.) or 3240 sar (11.664 ha.) to a depth of 1 h g e r (1.666 cm.). It is inconceivable that one man would have been assigned a length of 360 m. of canal. Moreover. 108 sar of water would be enough to cover 1080 Sar (3.888 ha) with 10 fingers (16.666 cm.) of water. This is far too much land for one man and too much water for an irrigation.

This problem therefore suggests that pa, sig 1 atappu is a holding ditch into which water is forced by blocking a larger canal that feeds it. The word atappu, if derived from Sumerian a tab (to block water; cf. kiisiru in Appendix), would describe this type of ditch rather precisely. Water would probably have been distributed to individual plots by means of cuts made in the ditch bank. The mechanism by which each man's portion was measured out remains unclear. 2 3 Dams or Barrages One text (TMB $223228) contains a series of six problems pertaining to the blocking (sekzrum) of a large canal or a branch of the river (id). These problems treat aspects of building such a dam: length, width, depth, clay or brick work, "earth" work, and labor costs. The dam is imagined as a rectangular prism 9 m. (= 18 cubits = 1 1/2 nindan) high by 120 m. (20 nindan) long by 30 m. (5 nindan) wide. The ratios of height : thickness : len@ are 1 : 3.333 : 13.333. The ratio of thickness : length is 1 : 4. These ratios and the ratio 2 : 1 for claybrick work : "earth" work, may have been general rules of thumb for dam construction One expects a reinforced spillway in the middle of the dam, but this may have been unnecessary if the purpose of the dam was to raise the water level to a point where it would feed into a subsidary canal system. One must keep in mind that this dam, like the reservoir (92.1) that was exactly the same size at UtnapiiStWs "Ark", is constructed in such a way that its mathematical 'proof'' is intuitively clear. The problem is solved by standard mathematical procedure, but since 2/3 are claybrick and 1/3 "earth" work, it is obvious that 1 nindan of height represents the 2/3 which are clay/'rick, whereas 1R nindan represents the 1/3 which is "earth". Moreover, the "earth" corresponds exactly to 1 e h / eblu ("rope" of volume and the claybrick work to 2 eSe. Thus, the whole structure is exactly 1 bar of volume (32,400 m3). Geometric-numerical relationship have a higher priority in the mathematical texts than "real-life" dimensions and ratios. This does not mean that the mathematical texts are divorced h n reality, but they must be used in conjunction with other kinds of evidence.

The dam itself is called kdsirum C'blbcker"). It is made of two distinct categories of materials that require two distinct methods of construction. The text refers to these two types of construction only by the terms sabar (earth) and kin (work). It does not even specify where either of these is located in the dam, and it neither gives the work quota nor calculates the labor for the "earth" work This is all assumed as obvious. As we have seen, one-third of the dam is constructed of "earth". This is probably a generic term for "earth work" and, like the somewhat moE specific Ur I11 term 6 sabar, "vegetation

Agriculture and waterworks in Babylonian mathematical texts

(and) earth", probably means dirt reinforced with grass, twigs, branches, fascines, etc. This must be the part of the dam that rose above the water level, though this is nowhere stated. The other two-thirds of the dam, called by the ambiguous term kin (- jipru, "work"), must be the part of the dam below the water level, but of what it was made is not entirely clear, probably of brick laid in a clay mortar or bitumen mortar. The labor for this part of the dam is calculated at 5,20,0 (19,200) man-days using the "coefficient" 3,45. This stands for 3;45 gin ("3.75 shekels" or 1.125 m3) of volume, which is the amount one man is expected to complete in one day. This coefficient usually refers to a type of work called in Sumerian im dii-a (lit. perhaps "stacked clay"), in Akkadian pitiqtu, a type of construction used in clay walls or clay foundations like the clay core of a ziqqurrat. However, the text specifically calls this work quota a "brick pile" (sig, anSe = amaru). The problem spells out in detail the conceptual basis for the 3;45 shekel quota: it is a square prism of bricks 3 cubits on each side and 1 cubit high. The number "3.45" (= 0;3,45 sar = 3;45 gin) appears in Old Babylonian lists of coefficients and other mathematical texts as the work quota for irn db-a l pitiqtu, and the foundation of the ziqqurrat at Babylon is called an im dba. This suggests thaf though not specifically attested in the coefficient lists. laying bricks may have had the same volume quota as clay foundation work. A quota of 3.75 gin would require laying 45 talents (1350 kg.) of brick per day, which is 315 of the weight in bricks that a carrier was expected to transport over a distance of 30 nindan (180 m.) Cf. A. Kilmer, Orientalia 29 (1960) 290, Powell. Zeitschrifr f. Assyriologie 7 2 (1982) 108f.. 119ff. The quota 3;45 g h is also attested in an Ur III text (UET 3 1386; cf. Vaiman 1961, pp. 244ff.).

We may conclude with a problem (Thureau-Dangin 1935 no. 1) dealiig with an appum, "nose", which illustrates the intriguing but elusive character of the evidence:

2.4

An appum: 2 1/2 (nindan) is the length; 2 nindan is the width at its back. 3 cubits is the depth from the face of the water (i.e. above water level); 6 (cubits) is the depth (below water level). What is the earth (= volume of earthwork)?

You add 3 cubits, the depth, and 6; you see 9. Break 9 in half; you see 4;30. Break 2, the width, in half; you see 1. Multiply 4:30 by 1; you see 4;30. Multiply 4:30 by 2;30 (the length); you see 11;15. Take away 213 of 11;15; you see 3;45. That is the earth. The remainder 7;30 is the "reed bundle work". That's the way it's done. This appum, like the dam treated in 52.3, is constructed of two distinct parts in the ratio 2:l. Two-thirds of it is called gi-sa kin, "reed bundle work", and probably represents the lower part, though this is nowhere stated. The remaining 113 is "earthworks" (sakar 5i-a). Its "length" is 15 m. Its width "at its back" (ina kutalliju) is 12 m. Its depth "from the surface of the water" (ina pani mi?) is 1.5 m. Its depth (below the surface) is 3 m. But what was its shape? Opinions about this diverge. Thureau-Dangin (1935, pp. 4f.; 1938, p. 39) thought it was a trilateral pyramid. Neugebauer (1935, MKT 2, pp. 43, 50f.), pointing out that this shape did not seem very practical, proposed to interpret it as a triangular prism and to see in it a bridge pier (Fig. 1, from Neugebauer 1935, p. 50, fig. 52). Both are forced to emend the text. There is clearly something wrong with the text, and, after trying many alternative models, I conclude that Neugebauer's idea of a triangular prism is still the best solution. The specification "3 cubits deep at the surface of the water" - exactly 113 of the total "depth" - surely means that the "earthwork" - exactly 113 of the total volume - is the upper 113 of the structure. Only Neugebauer's triangular prism seems to fit this implication. Moreover, Neugebauer is probably right that the error arises

Powell

Agriculture and waterworks in Babylonian mathematical texts

from the false procedure of taking 112 of both the base and the height and then multiplying them (instead of f bh). Fig.

That appu is a bridge pier, however, seems unlikely. Neugebauer's reconstruction of the structure as being made of brick is based on an erroneous identification of gi-sa with kisf2 (a type of foundation, often made of brick). Thus, as Thureau-Dangin already saw (1935, p. 5), the basic part of the appu in this mathematical problem was made of reeds; besides, the next problem in the text following the appu deals with the volume of a truncated cone (gi-sa), which takes its name from the characteristic shape of a reed bundle. Whether all appus were made of the same materials cannot be determined, because this seems to be the only text that actually describes it. appu, at least in the Old Babylonian period, seems to have some connection with irrigation. This is suggested by the report in a Mari letter (ARM 6 5) of stone falling opposite (mehret: perhaps "from the back side of') "the old appus" (plural) and causing the "thickness" of the water (obviously behind some kind of dam) to diminish by a half-cubit (0.25 m.; reading a-ug). Perhaps one should imagine two structures shaped like Neugebauer's triangular prism (Fig. 1) located immediately at each side of a stone spillway with their "noses" pointed directly into the current and with their "backs" abutting on the dam itself. The fallen stone mentioned in the Mari letter would presumably have washed out of the spillway and fallen downstream in the direction of the current. appus positioned in this manner might have served the purpose of preventing the current from eating away at the sides of the spillway. Whether this hypothesis is functionally practical, I cannot say.

Powell

Agriculture and waterworks in Babylonian mathematical texts

APPENDIX Expressions Related to Waterworks 1 Irrigation in Mathematical Texts This appendix provides an overview of terms in mathematical texts that seem to have some relationship to water or irrigation works. The "synonyms" illustrate the semantic range of the terms. Translations of these are not given, because they are meant to refer the user to the corresponding entries in W. von Soden's Akkadisches Handworterbuch (Harrassowitz: Wiesbaden, 1958-198 1) and in The Assyrian Dictionary (Oriental Institute, University of Chicago: 1956). They include synonyms in the usual sense, as well as Sumerian/Akkadian "equivalents" and more loosely associated words, some of which probably have nothing to do with waterworks per se. a breakwater in the shape of a triangular prism (? $2.4). Sumerian equivalent uncertain (= KA = IgiriR). atappu

irrigation ditch ($2.2). See pa, sig. Probably a Sumerian loan from a-tab (perh. lit. "water holder"); cf. below kiisiru and above $2.2.2.

dusu

basket work, i.e. digging out and carrying out earth from canal excavations below the 1 cubit level ($2.2). Syn.: tupjikku.

gi-sa

reed bundle in the form of a truncated cone ($2.4). Syn.: kiSSu.

haddlu

& d l u m ahdil I dug a ditch (?); cf. MCT 88f. and G.R. Driver, Jour. Semitic St. 2 (1957) 388, comparing Hebrew hedel (translated in the Peshitto by hepra, "ditch") and Syriac hdlii, "ditch"). to dig out the Siliitu (q.v.) or dusu (q.v.) of a canal (MCT L). Syns.: bal [for 3rd mill. ba-all, bar, dun, sur [prob. only "to dig up"].

hiritu

reservoir (? $2.1.1). Syns.: cf. sub tiil, also harru, illu, issf2, na'ilu.

kalakku

reservoir (? $2.1.1). Syns.: buru,, buru, hurru, ki-16; cf. t61.

kiisiru

dam ($2.3). Syns.: temdu (fr. embdu?), a-tab. From kesgru to block a river (Sumerian equivalent not preserved); cf. sekgru.

ki-16

reservoir (? $2.1.1). Syn.: kalakku.

kin

technical term for the claybrick work part of a dam $2.3). Syn.: Sipru(?).

rnakiiru

to irrigate ($2.1). Syns.: a dbldug,, nadf2IJaqf2 $a m&.

m&patiitim waters of ditches ($2.2.2). Cf. pattu. M namkarum irrigation ditchlcanal ($2.2). narnkaru nazdlu

to drain a reservoir (in order to irrigate land); see $2.1. Syn.: hal.

nigin

to block water (? $2.2.2; MCT L no. 7-18); cf. sekgru.

paliiku

to mark off work quotas along the lengths of a canal to be dug out (TMB $88). Syns.: bar, d u b (= paldku f a pilku), si-(g).

Pa, sig

lesserlsubsidiary ditch ($2.2). Syn.: atappu.

pattu

ditchlcanal, see me^patdtim. Syns.: mihru, niiru, pa,.

Agriculture and waterworks in Babylonian mathematical textr

Powell

Agriculture and waterworks in Babylonian mathematical texts

Bibliography of Mathematical Texts Dealing with Waterworks/Irrigation Bruins, E.M. and Rutten, M. Textes mathkmatiques de Sure. Memoires de la Mission Archeologique en Iran 1961 [= MDP] 34. Paris.

pu

cisternfreservoir ($2.1). Syns.: burtu, issti, Sitpu.

PU

well/waterhole(?). Akkadian bziru.

pii-sag

reservoir (? $2.1.1). Syn.: Sitpu.

sekdru

to dam a river ($2.3). Syns. nigin (sekdru Sa milndri), liS (sekdru Sb mi). Antonym: gB1 pen2 Sa mi.

MDP 34 no. 111 (coefficient list) 33: 48 igi-gub Sd pa, sig. MDP 34 no. XXV: uses coefficient 48 to find depth of water (cf. above $2.2.2).

-

to make a cut in the earth, used with taragu in a t q tarahhi (TMB $88). Syns.: bar, dar, sil, zil. (in D stem S m u t u ) to expand a ditchJcanal by shaving off the sides ($2.2.2); MCT L no. 13-16). Syns.: compare nig AK = nd[matu] or perhaps naS[mu[u] (cf. MSL 16 213) with Presargonic use of AK in canal work and perhaps ir Su-ur = Samdp Sa zu'ti, "to strip off sweat", with Ur 111 Su-ur. Silzitu

Powell

throw-out, technical tern for the earth removed down to 1 cubit of depth ($2.2; MCT U 21: coefficient = 20 gin). Sumerian equivalent unknown. the earth dug out from the sides or bottom of a canal or irrigation ditch to create extra water capacity: ndr tarahhi (Sumer 7, p. 139), atap t a r a g i (TMB $88; MCT M). Perhaps related to tardku dun-dun; compare the "semantic circle" bal, bar, bur, dun, hardru, hepdru, berz2, napdlu.

-

terditu

expansion, the additional volume of water gained by stripping off the sides and bottom of a canal to make it larger ($2.2.2); MCT L no. 8-16). See Samqu.

tu1

reservoir, etc. (52.1). Syns. birtu, hiritu, issti, kalakku, mihsu, Sitpu; cf. pu. See Steinkeller, Zeitschriftf. Assyriologie 71 (1981) 19-28 (on tul).

P,

Goetze, A. 1951

"A Mathematical Compendium from Tell Harmal", Sumer 7, pp. 126-155. P. 139 nirr tarahhilSakkanakkiitim, -" pattum

Neugebauer, 0. Mathematische Keilschrifttexte (= MKT), vols. 1-2. Springer: Berlin. 1935 MKT 1, pp. 193ff. (= TMB p. llff.): broken text, origirially containing 30 problems about pu sag MKT 1, pp. 142ff., no. 28 (= TMB pp. 21ff. $72): 1 problem about a hiritum MKT 1, 373ff. (= TMB pp. 124ff.): 6 problems dealing with Sa id sekzrim MKT 1, 508ff. (= TMB pp. 206f.): broken text containing 19+ problems about Pa, sig MKT 2, 43ff. (= Thureau-Dangin 1935; TMB pp. 39ff.): appum, atap tarahhi, "namkarum Neugebauer O./Sachs, A. 1945 Mathematical Cuneiform Texts. American Oriental Series, vol. 29. American Oriental Society: New Haven. MCT pp. 66ff., texts F, G, H, J, Ja: many problems dealing with ki-lA/kalakkum MCT K: 22 problems about pa, sig MCT L: 18 problems about pa, sig and pa, sig libir-ra MCT M: 1 broken problem about atap tarahhim "" MCT N: 1 problem about tullpii Thureau-Dangin, F. "La mesure des volumes d'ap&s une tablette inkdite du British Museum", Revue 1935 d'dssyriologie 32, pp. 1-18. BM 85196 (= MKT 2, 43ff.; TMB pp. 39ff.): 1 problem on appum and at least 2 on irrigation (atap tarahhi and namkarum) Textes mathkmatiques babyloniens. Brill: Leiden. TMB pp. 1lff. (= MKT 1, pp. 193ff.): pu sag TMB pp. 21ff. $72 (= MKT 1, pp. 142ff., no. 28): hiritum TMB pp. 39ff. (= Thureau-Dangin 1935; MKT 2, 43ff.): appum, atap tarahhi, narnkarum TMB pp. 124ff. (= MKT 1, pp. 373ff.): Sa id sekzrim TMB pp. 206f. (= MKT 1, 508ff.): pa, sig w

-

Powell

Vaiman, A.A. 1961

Agriculture and waterworks in Babylonian mathematical texts

OLD BABYLONIAN FIELDS Shumero-vavilonskaia matematika, 111-I tysiacheletiia do n.e. Moscow.

Pp. 232ff. (= Hermitage 15073), nos. 4-5: dealing with id and kun (meaning not entirely clear)

Abbreviations ARM MCT MDP 34 MKT Nik. I1 TMB

UET 3

Archives Royales de Mari. = NeugebaueriSachs 1945. = BruinsIRutten 1961. See Neugebauer. = M.V. Nikol'skii, Dokumenty khoziaistvennoi otchetnosti drevnei Khaldei Part 11. Drevnosti Vostochnyia, vol. 5 (Moscow, 1915). = Thureau-Dangin 1938. = L. Legrain, Ur Excavation Texts III. Business Documents of the Third Dynasty of Ur (1937).

The Akkadian texts distinguish cultivated land from uncultivated land. The word for "uncultivated land" is barbdrum as can be seen in the 104th tablet of the series Summa Alu: "if a man has intercourse ina bar-ba-ti".' The next line says "if a man has intercourse in a field or a garden". Fields and gardens are, of course, cultivated land. Nobody will be surprised that grass as cattle fodder is to be found "where the uncultivated land (is)", Zma ha-~r-b[a-tim].~ "Field", Semitic haql, is eqlum in Akkadian. Its Sumerogram is a.@ but in the Early Old a sign standing for the same a ~ h ( ~The ) . ~more Babylonian texts we occasionally find GAN(A),~ explicit expression "cultivated field", mZreSum, is rarely used in the Old Babylonian texts.' Its Sumerogram GAN(A).Z~ has a literary fla~our.~ A field where work has been done is often indicated by a noun of the type j c l (pirsum), independent or following the word "field". The plurals of these nouns are put in the feminine gender (-dtum, -2tum) because the plural of the word "field" is feminine (eqldtum). Here follows a list of such nouns:7 tirrum "field which has been 'dug' (hardrum)" birsCtum "fields which have been 'cut' (&ar@um)" "field where work has been done in preparation for the seed-plowing" (cf. $@ram ipJum epdSum) mihsum "field which has been 'beaten' (mahdsum)" mikrum "field which has been irrigated (makrum)'~ nisbum "field where [the sesame] has been pulled up (nasdhum)" ripqdtum "fields which have been hoed (rapdqum)" Sikkiitum "fields which have been harrowed (Sakdkum)" There are a number of other designations of fields of the type pirsum which are, however, a problem for various reasons: merritum cf. perhaps mardrum, "to break a field for cultivation" (CAD) mer3cum possibly a short form of mdreSum "cultivated land", contrasted with (b)urpdhrm, possibly a by-form of barbdtum "uncultivated land". Sibitturn see St01 1978, p. 53, middle. miqtum in the field name a.gk miqtim, where miqtum could be a social class: "of the rniqt~m".'~

We will now discuss a number of designations of irrigated fields or swampy land, and a few related expressions, not studied before or even unknown:

Thanks to D. Arnaud's collations we now have the following subscript to a list of fields: a.Sh ha-x[...I ( x looks like K[A]), a.SB ta-wi-ir-t[um] rZ a.SB hi-ir-se-[tum], TCL 11 155:14-16." Two Sippar texts also have (a&) hi-ir-se-tum or (a.SB) hi-ir-se-tim12 and now we can recognize the word bi-ir-si-tu in a school book on legal formulae as a kind of field.13 The discussion of hirsdtu follows the section on the cultivation of date palm gardens; this suggests to us that this fieG may look like a kind of garden.

St01

Old Babylonian fields

St01

Old Babylonian fields

Riftin 21:2, a text from ~ r Sale : of~an empty lot i-na karjmu-um.3' TLB 1 46: 17 a.SA ka-b[s]-mu; AbB 11 116:lO'.

Some agricultural texts have the verb hardsum from which our word derives. The most important text is TCL 1 174, detailing the tasks of labourers, a text according to B. Landsberger dealing with arte en land".'^ Irrigation techniques are central in this text.'' The first two lines offer: "Eight men, ... (apliltum?); &a-ra-[slum; three men: sowing (zdrd)". Landsberger thinks that the sowing (by broadcasting) was preceded by making furrows (Furchen ziehen).16 A second reference is to be found in a letter from Mari where we read the question: "Has their field been ... (hurrus)?"e answer is: "I ...ed (uharris) the field of P N . ' ~This verb har@um D has been taken to mean "to subtract" which is pos~ible.'~ In the Akkadian texts from Ugarit, centuries later and found far from Mesopotamia, we find the gloss ha-ar-$a-ti explaining the Sumerogram A.SA.MES field^".'^ C. Kiihne considered 4. an Ugaritic word written in syllables. He points out that the Semitic root hrs generally "to cut" (einreissen, einschneiden) applies to fields in Jewish Aramaic and later ~ebrew." A new Old Babylonian reference for the verb har@um appears in an addition to a sale of a field: ana atap PN ka &a-ri-is "a 'mouth' has been cut to the ditch of PN".~' Later references also suggest that this verb denotes the "cutting" of ditches or moats rather than furrows. This fits sophisticated irrigation techniques used in watering gardens.

What exactly does the verb kasiimum mean? In general "to cut away" (Sumerian KUD), "to weed", but in particular "to weed reeds by cutting". Whenever the Old Babylonian texts are explicit about this, we see that reeds are weeded.36. The men who do this work (kdsimum) are called "reed-cutters" (1ugi.KUD.d~) in the lexical tradition; they are listed between the men who pick up clods on the field (ldqit kirbanim) and the gatherers of barley (@mimum)." There are many administrative lists with their names.38 We learn from one text (YOS 13 235) that the @a.bu.da was used in this work, a kind of hoe.39 The lexical text mentioned at the beginning of this section has kasmum-field between "broken up" (hepd) and "hoed" (rapqu) field. In an Old Babylonian contract we read: "PN (the tenant) will take one kor of barley (...) because he 'weeded' the field twice (aSSum a.Sh ka-sa-m[a-a]m iS-nu-li), and he will hoe the halfa-grass (12 u el-p6tam i-ra-pi-iq)". Dated Month 111.~The hoeing of the halfa-grass is called rapdqum in Akkadian. Above, we mentioned the ripqdtum fields; this work was done in months X and XI.^' Texts mentioning reed-cutting (kasdmum) are dated to months IV-VI, but this may be coincidence." For a discussion of weeding, see below, p. 181.

agammum

We will discuss here some rarely attested and obscure designations for fields or land:

This word occurs many times in Neo-Assyrian inscriptions, ''referring to the marshland in southern Babylonia" (CAD s.v.). By that time, the word had become obsolete in everyday speech 23 and was a poetic archaism. It goes back to a-ga-am, a-ga-mu-um," a-ga-am, a word used in thc Ur I11 texts from Umma for a marsh." The form a-gam-ma, again in a Sumerian context, is attested in an Old Babylonian inscription of Sin-iddinam of ~ a r s a . ~ ' During the Old Babylonian period we come across this word only in texts from Kish, the Diyala region (East of the Tigris) and ~usa." Is this limited distribution of the word a matter of dialect? Or was this word only used as a toponym? This seems to be so in the Diyala texts;" thc word is never declined in the Kish texts.

bubdm

early OB Sippar; cf. CAD B 300a; not in AHw. A field is situated "in the corner (tubqum) of the b. (Sa bu-bi-e-em)", and another field Another text mentions a field "of the b.", bu-bi-im, or "of the is i-na b[~']-bi-e-em.~~ middle (qablum) b."."

esamum

not in the dictionaries; Larsa and Sippar. Two Larsa texts describe a field as bordering on e. (sag.bi e-sa-mu-urn)." Elsewhere in Similarly, a Sippar text describes a Larsa we find a field situated i-na e-~a-mi-irn.~~ field as bordering on e.47 Larsa and Sippar lie far apart, so Esamum cannot be a toponym.

raqqatum Another word for "swamp" seems to be raqqatum of which W. von Soden remarked that it came into use only after 700 B.c.'~ However, the word is already attested in the Old Babylonian field name a.gar ra-aq-qb-rim, "area of the r." (AbB 4 955). Its Sumerogram might be sal.la, attested in another fieldname, a.ghr sal.la uru Amurrum-bani ki (TLB 1 194:19). This Sumerogram occurs . ' ~ Old Babylonian list of geographical in free context in a.Sh sal.la, on a text from ~ i ~ p a r The names from Nippur offers the place name ~ a - ~ d - t u m ~ ~ . ~ ' kasmum There is a type of field called kasmum, commonly translated "weeded". A fragmentary passage in a lexical text shows its Sumerian equivalent only partly: "[field] worked with [...I".~' A few Old Babylonian texts have this field designation: who has to return the field, on A. 135 (unpublished):32 A large field is given to LJbar-Sama~~~ 15.VII1, "harrowed and broken, with furrows laid out" (Sakkam u Sebram Sa Serham Saknu). Before these operations start, the field is called ka-as-mu-um (no aSB preceding) in line 1.

haghum early OB Sippar; cf. CAD H 28a; not in AHw. In a description of a field we read: "in Sa B a ~ i ,bordering on PN and the h. of the Palace (12 ha-ga-a-nim Sa In later Sippar texts we find 4. as a toponym (~lurname).'~ Ha-g[i-a-n]u (CT 45 52:1,3) and (i-na) &i-ga-nim (see CAD) seem to be by-forms. Studying the texts more closely, one gets the impression that h. was a specific place located in the area (a.ghr) (Sa) Bwi, in the vicinity of Sippar. itiqtum

See below (CT 48 90:3).

margum

early OB Sippar; cf. AHw and CAD S.V. margd. A field is situated "on the other bank, in the ... (naglim), in the larger irrigation area (?) (tawirtum) of PN, in the m. (i-na marN-gi-im)".M CAD compares this word with Arabic mart "meadow" and identifies rnargcini in the much later Assyrian annals of Tukulti-Ninurta I1 (890-884 B.C.) as plural of this margum. In W. Schramm's translation: "Von den Miindungen des Tartar brach er auf, in dem hamate-Gebiet, einem schwierigen Geliinde (ina libbi ha-ma-te A.SA namrqi), zog ich dahin. Irn margani-Gebiet (i-nu A.SA mar-ga-ni) erblickte ich ~liisse".~'

St01

zdkum

Old Babylonian fields

early OB Sippar; not in the dictionaries. A field i-na za-&-ki-im."

iamkiinum Sippar and Tell Harmal; not in AHw. A field i-na $a-am-ka-nim.53 Later texts from Sippar know an area a.ghr $a-am-ka-nim.54 tmUi&um Larsa; AHw: ein Auswuchs auf Pflanzen ??; not our ref. A field fa-3-hu-um (TIM 5 39:1), cf. i-na fa-Si-&i-im,line 5." kisriinum Diyala region; not in the dictionaries. A field is situated i-na Sh ki-i~-ra-ni.'~Elsewhere, in a contract from Dilbat, we read that a field is kussur (a$-Sum a&-um ku-515-ru, VAS 7 32:13), lit. "knotted", and needs extra work with plough and oxen (initum)." telitum

Larsa Fields of land agents (ensi) situated libbi te-li-[tim], summarized as a.SA te-li-tum.58The closest parallel is relit apparim, probably "land reclaimed from (lit. emerged from) the swamp".59 The verb e l h , Surnerian e,,, indicates that the fields emerge from or lie higher than the water.M

ebirtum, nagam, tawirtum Three words, frequently attested in the descriptions of fields in the early Sippar texts, continued to be used throughout the Old Babylonian period and later. These words are ebirtum, naglim, and tawirtum. All three words occur together in the passage L. Waterman, BDHP No. 375-9, of the reign of Immerum: (field) ina ebirtim ina nagim ina tawirtim rabitim $a NN ina margim; compare (field) Sh a.& tawirtim $a dumu.m& (?) a.ghr Nagd bal.ri id Irnina in the much later text CT 2 32:2-4 (Ams 17). Nagdm and tawirturn occur together in the formula ina n a g h ina tawirtim Sa NN, CT 45 93:2 (no date, but time of Immerum or ~urnu-la-el).61Ebirtum and tawirnun occur together in ina ebirtim ina tawirtim Sa NN, BE 611 14:l-2 (Sabium), CT 2 37:l-2 (Sabium); cf. ina ebirtim ina libbu a&.gar.ra Sa NN, CT 8 16a:l-2 (Sin-muballit). N a g h and ebirtum may occur together in CT 8 4a:7 (Sin-muballit), ina nagim ina e-[be-er-tim]; cf. CT 2 32:34, just cited.

...

ebirtum Ebirtum means "the other bank, the other side (of the canal or river)'& and poses no particular problems; see the Dictionaries under ebertu A (CAD) and ebertum I (AHw). An a.ghr bal.ri is known from CT 47 39:l (Hamm. 25) and YOS 2 151:11. This could be a specific Flurname, as R. Hams, Ancient Sippar (1975) p. 373 note 3, suggests. Note bal.ri niirim, L. Waterman, BDHP 51:2 (Hamm. 4).

We know the word nag& fairly well; it is commonly translated as "district" (W. von Soden, AHw p. 712a "Bezirk"). One learns from one glance at p. 375 of Mrs. Harris' Ancient Sippar that from Hammurabi's time on nagdm is prefixed by a.ghr;Q an explanation for this change was offered by me elsewhere? in a study on ugarum. Before that time fields were said to be located ina nagim as in RA 73 (1979) 70 AO. 7802:l (or: i-na na-gu-um, B. Meissner, BAP 37:l; Sm.). I

St01

Old Babylonian fields

have the feeling that before and after the ascension of Hammurabi one particular area in Sippar was meant by (a.gAr) Nagz2m. There was also an a.gAr Na-gu-urn in the land "Larsa" according to TCL 11 156.R.16 (coll. D. Arnaud, RA 70, 89). An a.ghr Nagd is attested in a text from Dilbat-Kish, BIN 7 211: 2 (Am?),cf. C. Wilcke, WdO 8 (1976) p. 275. A text from Nippur mentions a& LALXSAR,PBS 811 8:2,11 (~nlil-bani).' In a much earlier Larsa text we clearly find a3A na-gu-15 as a geographical name (YOS 14 258: 4), because the very similar texts from the same archive have a city name (uru.ki NN) at this juncture.66 tawirtum I would like to concentrate now on the word tawirnun. Tawirtum is one of those words emerging in the early Old Babylonian texts in the descriptions of fields. Unlike some more obscure topographical terms, tawirtum continued to be used in Akkadian during the Old Babylonian period and later. According to its etymology, to be suggested below, pp. 179-80, its original meaning is "clearing", "land cleared of reeds and other growth". The OB references for t. are rather colourless; from the use of tawiriitum, its plural, in the OB mathematical texts one gets the impression that its original, hypothetical, meaning soon changed into the more general "irrigated field, stretch of cultivated land". Above we have shown what the relative place of t. among expressions like ebirtum and n a g h was; below, we will attempt to describe t. in its relation to uJallum "water-meadow" and ugiirum "imgation district" @. 178). There is only one early text from Sippar which may be more informative about a specific meaning of tawirtum at the time of Ammi-sum, an early king of Sippar (?). This text is CT 48 90. The first field to be described in this text is located 2i-na fa-wi-ir-tim 33 i-ti-iq-rim. The itiqtum (this word is new to us) is apparently a type of field distinct from tawirnun. The word itiqtum should be derived from ett?qum "to pass over". This word itiqtum designates, I think, a field exposed to the flood of the river. Now, etZqum, said of water, does not seem to occur, but there is a word rnttequm, attested in Hinke, Selected Babylonian Kudurru Inscriptions (191 1) p. 24 No v.ii.31: which is illuminating for our discussion. This text, dated to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar I (11241103), describes a plot as "uncultivated field (kihbbd), which was exposed (?) to flooding (butuqtu), (in) 'the commons' ( A . G ~ of ) the city GN, on the bank of the Tigris (....), where from ancient times no dike had been piled up (iku la Sapku), no furrow had been laid down (AB.S~Nla Suzzazzat), which had not been fit for planting (ana mtreSti la Siiluku) and which was exposed (?) to the passing of the water (a-na me-re-eq A.MES GAR-nu)". From this context it is clear that mt?teq mt? indicates the free, uncontrolled, passage of water over dry land. This makes me believe that itiqtum in CT 48 90:3 denotes that part of the field mentioned in the first line that was exposed to occasional flooding. In contradistinction to itiqtum, tawirtum in lime 2 must be the other part of the field, which remained free from any uncontrolled flooding. Tawirtum has here (as elsewhere) the meaning ''land which could be imgated by the farmers when they wished to do so", i.e., an area of land under cultivation, encompassing regular fields (eqlum).

St01

tawirtum in Old Babylonian texts K.R. Veenhof has demonstrated that the Akkadian word dallum (Sumerian usal) designates the land on the bank of a canal or river which could be flooded or fall dry, dependent on the water level. The always varying dimensions of such fields are implied by the "throwing of the clodW (kirbdnam nascikum) in juridical transactions. Veenhof defined dallum as "land, originally water-meadow, used as farm-land and for gardens".ss Another kind of field, often found adjacent to a canal or river? is tawirturn. We learn from ; ~ ~t., in its turn, was part of the ugarum one text that an zdallum could be part of a t a ~ i r n u nthe (a.ghr), "irrigation distri~t".~'It has been shown that these irrigation districts were ad.:nistrati units, institutionalised since Hammurabi of Babylon, part of the still larger "land" (ersetum One of the irrigation districts near Sippar had the name a.ghr fa-wi-ra-nun, "irrigation district the tawirtum- field^".'^ Other districts at Sippar had similar names: a.ghr bal.ri (=ebertum), a.g naglim; in Dilbat a.ghr limiturn." tamirtu in post-Old Babylonian texts 1.

In economic texts

According to the Mddle Babylonian texts from Nippur, tamirtum is the irrigation district;" at ihl time ugdrum is part of the tarnirnun, so it seems." a marsh AMB There was a city called Hamri (BE 14 p. 58 Index), a canal i~ -ri, URU Hamri (Finkelstein, JNES 21, 1962, p. 80), and an irrigation district, fa-mi-ir-ti Hamri, 17 399-10. Tamirtu (now mostly written LAGABXKU = GARIN) in the Neo-Babylonian and lator contracts, administrative texts and letters, seems still to be the word for "irrigation district':" Those Late Babylonian texts that refer to fishing in the GARINItamirtu deal with thb fishing-rights in the whole irrigation district; tumirtu in these texts is not the word for "fish pond*' or the like." A Neo-Babylonian village like GiuSu (URU Gi-lu-Su, Darius 198:8) had an AMBAR "marsh" (Nbk. 450:ll)~and a GARIN "irrigation district" (Nabn. 784:4). Syllabic ina fa-mir-tu, Sa (URU) GN is attested in BE 9 88:3; 1026 (LB). A large district like Sumandar could have more than one famirtu: GARIN.MES Su-man-dar, TCL 12 20:2; cf. GARIN Til-8urQi Sumandar "the irrigation district T. in Sumandar area", TCL 12 90:3. YOS 3 84 is an informative letter on the irrigation problems of the GARINs; see Cocquerillat, Palmeraies et Cultures de Z'Eanna d' Uruk (1968) p. 92a and 136. 2.

Old Babylonian fields

Old Babylonian Bsldl

St01

In literary contexts

In literary contexts, tamirtu retained its meaning "irrigated fields" in passages like L.W. King, BBSt No. 8.iv.4 (fa-mi-ra-ti-Su limmilld puqutta "his irrigated fields may be filled with thorns**: MB); nardti sakiki umallu GARIN.MES inaddi "he will fill the canals with mud, abandon th6 fields", H. Hunger and S. Kauhnan, JAOS 95 (1975) p. 371 rev. 7 (prophecy); ana fa-me-ra-a-d idninri ingirri ugdru "(the waters) have prevailed over the fields and watered the ugimr", W.0. Larnbert, BWL p. 178: 31 (fable); Ea b d ~ q b kuppi i u ta-mir-ti, D. Luckenbill, OIP 2 81:28-29 (Senn. Bavian). Sargon I1 speaks of the opening of in-ni fa-mir-ti-Su ku-yp-pi ka-ra-at-tu "th0 springs (?) of its tumirtu, the catchwaters and ..." (Lyon, Keilschrifnexte Sargonr (1883) No. I. 178

Cylinder, p. 6:37). This passage deals with a region in Assyria, so here the translation "irrigation district" has other connotations than in Babylonia. ADD 809 (=Postgate, Neo-Assyrian Royal Grants and Decrees (1969), p. 62ff. No. 32) describes how the original inhabitants and owners of this region were resettled by Sargon 11; this text makes a distinction between ugdru (line 9', Postgate: "irrigated fields") and tamirtu (line 30', Postgate: "meadow-land"). A.GAR (=ug&u) seems to be here "the surroundings of the city (Magganuba)", cf. line 30,80 whereas tamirtu denotes the cultivated fields. Sennacherib's Bavian Inscription informs us that the fa-me-ra-tu of Nineveh had fallen into neglect through lack of water @. Luckenbill, OIP 2 79: 6, cf. Th. Jacobsen, OIP 24 36). Here, again, the irrigated fields near to the city are meant. By comparing some variants in a curse formula in boundary stones (kudurru) we learn that the scribes interchanged tamirtu, eqlu and ugdru. The curse formula in the kudurru published by D. Arnaud in RA 66 (1972), p. 164ff., offers [ta-mlir-ta li-il (LIL)-mu-ma id-ru DAB-si (p. 167: 47). Compare this formula with those in kudurrur publisxhed by R. Borger and C. Wilcke: R. Borger, AfO 23 (1970), p. 15 iii 12-13 A.SA.ME[S]-SUid-ra li-Sa-as-hi-ma, C. Wilcke, 24 65 (1975). p. 56 ii 69 A.GAR-su id-ra-nu li-Ses-@@-ma"(Cf. Wilcke, p. 61f., for some of such passages). In royal inscriptions tamirtu has often the very general meaning "cultivated land around a cityw." It may suffice to mention one out of the numemus examples: fa-mar-ti URU $ u r ~ "the country-side of Susa", A.C. Piepkorn, AS 5 p. 68 Assurbanipal Prism B v 98 = M. Streck, VAB 7/11 p. 26 Prism A.iii.41; variant ta-mir-ti)." W.W. Hallo apud H. weissq' drew our attention to eS-ra-a bu-ri fa-mir-tu Sa Babili in the well-known 'aluzinnu'-text, as restored by CAD E p. 367b: "(an area of) twenty bur around Babylon". Tamirtu occurs frequently in the Eighth Campaign of Sargon: TCL 3 lines 16, 169, 189, 206, 229 (cf. B. Landsberger, JCS 21 (1969), p. 165a), 243, 266, 275. Here, the word refers to fields and plantations high in the Armenian mountains. In other inscriptions of Sargon we find occasionally the variant sEru "plain", etc., for tamirtu (A.G. Lie, Sargon p. 60: 406, etc.; see CAD S p. 143a and C.J. Gadd, Iraq 16 (1954) p. 188f.). We should not dissociate this tamirtu fmm its basic meaning "watered field(s)". The word seems to denote land used for cultivation. Now, every field and garden needs water, it is a secondary question, how the farmers got their water: by gravity-flow irrigation (Southern Iraq), by natural rainfall (in the mountains) or by sophisticated water-works (Uqu). The word tawirtum The word fa-wi-ir-nun is frequently attested in the Old Babylonian Sippar texts." It is also known h ~ Tell ~ a r m a l .The ~ plural ta-wi-ra-nun occurs in four OB contracts and a from ~ i s and mathematical text." In several instances, the word is left undeclined after a preposition: inu, or libbu, fa-wi-ir-nun? We see this not inmquently in other topographical indications: i-m ba-ma-nun (CT 8 28c:2), i-nu li-Sa-lum (VAS 18 20:2), a-ah nam-ka-ru-um (CT 47 7:6), ij-tu a-ta-pu-um (CT 8 49b:5)." - Three times the ancient scribes made a mistake by omitting the sign @ '. r i

St01

Old Babylonian fielb

Various etymologies have been suggested for our word. Some wanted to derive it from the verb farum? others from amiir~m.~' To my mind they are as convincing as the lucus a non lucendo of the Latin grammarians. It is my suggestion to derive tawirtum from the verb nawdrum "to be light, to shine". The noun taw(w)irtum (*tanwirtum) is a tapristum formation of the D stem of this verb. The D stem means "to make shine, to give light". In one letter from the Mari archives it has the specific meaning "to clear9*,as follows: "and I myself will clear the rushes in it (i.e., in the river or canal)" (u anliku Jiiram [i-n]a li-ib-bi-fa fa-na-wa-ar, ARM 3 76: 14-16).~ This situation seems to be pertinent for our tawirtum, too: ground where reeds, rushes or other growth have been removed; a "clearing". In fact, a noun nanuiru meaning "path" or "clearing" in reedland or woodland is attested in later Akkadian." Indo-European languages also have the semantic development from "light" (*leuk-) to "clearing", "open place", as in Lithuanian lal^rkas "open field", old Dutch lo "wood with open places", German Lichtung, and even Latin liicus "grove" in its original meaning. So the etymology suggested here is, after all, more or less a literal lucus a lucendo. The Sumerograms for tawirtum a.&.gar.ra: In the Old Babylonian texts from Sippar we occasionally come across a Sumerogram aSa.gar.ra, clearly denoting a kind of field (a.~)." Three pairs of references in the texts make it clear that this is the Sumerogram for tawirtum at this time: A. - 3 iku aSB h.[s]al i-na a.[S]B.garsa Sa An-na-ta-am-ri-iJ, CT 45 111:1 - 3 iku a& t-sal ina fa-wi-ir-tim Ja ~n-na-$a'-am-ri-iS,CT 45 113:l-2 B. - 1 iku aSB i-na SB a.U.gar.ra Ja An-na-ta-am-ri-is, CT 45 111 rev. 3 - 1 iku a& [$]a SB fa-wi-ir-tim Sa An-n[a-ta-am-r]i-if, CT 45 113:32-33 Cf. a& fa-wi-ir-turn Sa i-na Ta-na-fa-am-ri-is, YOS 14 163:l-2, cf. 5-6 C . - 2 iku aSB a.gBr Su-up-la-nu SB ta-wi-ir-rum, CT 47 60160~:1-2 - "15 ikz2 eqlum libbi a& gar.ra [$]a ugar Su-up-la-nu-um", Riftin 22a:l-2 (translit. only). Both fields are ajacent to the watermeadow (iisal) of the Euphrates and the Road of the Arnorites. Both are owned by a son of Itti-Enlil-qinni and are bought by a daughter of Ikun-pi-Sin. The Sumerogram afB.gar.ra is attested in only one Old Babylonian lexical text, unilingual." The Nippur tradition has a field name aSB den-lil.gar.ra which does not look relevant to us.% The Sumerogram a.SB.gar.ra literally means "field which has been laid out*'. garin: The normal Sumerogram for tawirturn was to become LAGABXKU in the post-Old .'~ Babylonian periods." Its reading g8-ri-im was already given by Old Babylonian ~ r o t o - ~ aLater texts offer qa-rim, ta-rim, ga-rim, da-ag-rim, and give as its Akkadian equivalent t a m i r t ~ . ~ ~ During the Old Babylonian period, garim is exclusively used in mathematical problem texts, Von Soden's collations of one of those texts confirmed the equation garim = tawirtum.loOHe translated "Feldstiicke, Teilflgchen". In a further evaluation of this, Thureau-Dangin showed that id "river" in other mathematical texts also seemed to stand for tawirtum;'" the same applies to LAGAB x ? in YBC 4696.'" How to explain all this? We have seen that a&.gar.ra was the normal Sumerogram in the Old Babylonian period. Now, using this combination of Sumerian signs would be very confusing in mathematical texts: there, a& stands for eqlum in its specific meaning "area", "~urface"'~and gar.ra is there an imperative meaning "posit" (Sukun).lw The mathematicians-scribes looked for

St01

Old Babylonian fields

another sign in order to prevent this kind of confusion. They found this in the large group of signs LAGAB with another sign inscribed (LAGABxZ(eichen) in German lit.).la The Sumerian word for tawirtum was garim or garin; the sign for the last syllable can be read rin or rim.'" We recognize this word garin in the Old Sumerian field name GANA e-ga-rin-na (and variants)'" and in Neo-Sumerian a-g8-ri-in.'" The element eta preceding garin could mean "dike", "plot", or "water". This word has survived in Old Babylonian field names in Susa texts and in a canal name.lo9 Weeding A final remark on weeding may be in order. In present-day Iraq "nothing is done to control the weeds: shok (Prosopis Stephaniana) and agul or camelthorn (Alhagi maurorum) being the principal weed^"."^ "No weeding is carried out. Only the larger bushes of camelthorn and shock are removed"."' "No weeding is done. No fertilizers are applied. Only camel thorn and shawk bushes are cleared off the field and these are in any case regularly gathered by the women for fuel throughout the year".'12 "To become full of weeds", said of a field, is wabd'um in Akkadian; substantive wablitum. A The only Akkadian verb meaning "to weed" field free of weeds is called a.h Bsu in ~umerian."~ is kashum but it applies only to the cutting away of reeds; see above under ka~rnum."~

Old Babylonian fields

Stol

NOTES

Old Babylonian fields

Stol

20

Ugarit-Forschungen 6 (1974) 165f. For Semitic hrs cf. A. van Selms, Zeits. fur Alttest. Wiss. 91 (1979) 172.

CT 39 45:23. This important ref. was not given by the dictionaries. New refs. for barbum are AbB 11 134:9 and Sumer 38 (1982) 124.iv.18 (!) (MB kudurm).

D. Charpin, RA 72 (1978) 140ff. no. 42:25-27. Cf. the name of a small canal pa, Hu-ru-zq (var. -is) - ir.ra, TCL 11 218:12 (var. TCL 10 33:8).

BIN 7 545 (cf. AbB 9 241); with AHw 324f., against CAD IJ 98 (2.). Below, ad merium, we will suggest that hurpiitum is a by-form; refs. in CAD M/2, S.V.merliu.

N. Schneider, Orientalia 47-49 (1930) no. 511:4, after the collation by H. Waetzoldt, Oriens Antiquus 17 (1978) 56.

AbB 8 13:21; AbB 9 235; 203:8; 207:4; 212:20; 214:4; 250:4; 251:4,7; 254:ll; 255:18; 261:18,25; 263:12; UET 5 10:17,25f.; YOS 14 129:2 (GANA PN). Read in Sumer 23 (1967) Plate 17 IM 49537:9 pa-nu-urn, with D.O. Edzard, Habilitationsschrift, p. 19.

This form in Shin T. Kang, SET II no. 1145; K. Oberhuber, IBK 718 (1960) no. 41:7 (thus H. Sauren); BRM 3 117:3.

Discovered independently by M. Civil and M.A. Powell; see JCS 25 (1973) 171f., 178-184.

Inscription 6.ii. 10.

Add now to CAD MI2 24b: Greengus, OBTI 138:2; van Lerberghe 1986, No. 43:6.

JCS 24 (1972) 67 no. 68:13 (=rev. 2); OBTI 31:2 (Diyala region); MDP 23 170:9 (Susa); UCP 1013 (1932) 201ff., nos. 1:2,9,17; 4:4; 6:2; 7:l; YOS 14 106:4 (Kish).

In non-literary texts: Riftin 45:1,5; 69:33; TIM 5 42:14; PBS 8/2 166.iv.19; UET 5 666:7,14,22. For a.Sh zi, cf. K. Butz, OLA 5 (1979) 322. See St01 1978, 52-54, with references and short discussion. Cf. feminine ki.Sub.ba-tim, AbB 4, 1:9.

General discussion by Sauren 1966, 4547 ("Schilflagune").

Declined: pa, a-ga-am-mi-im in JCS 24, house (!) i-na a-ga-am-lmi]-im, OBTI 31:2. AHw 958a, raqqatu 11 "Uferwiese, -streifen". S. Kaufman, AS 19 (1974) 88: a loan from Aramaic? V. Scheil, RT 17 (1895) 33 Si. 427, rev.; see Veenhof 1973, 379.

See the discussion below.

MSL 11 103: 236.

Add to CAD MI2 63b, 2, the ref. Greengus, OBTI 2525; cf. E. von Weiher, Spatbabylonische Texte aus Uruk 3, p. 202 No. 106:20.

MSL 11 (1974) 5 Section 4: 11 (omitted in one of the two MSS.).

Refs.: AJSL 33 218; RFH 1:6; BIN 2 98:2; BRM 3 190:8. Coll. in RA 70 (1976) 89. - Hardly @a-a[m-rum] in line 14.

Probably not the bar-Sam& (J. Renger, Zikir Sumim [I9821 291) whose jbruit fell in the reign of Rim-Sin.

CI'45 20:6, a Case. The Tablet, Meissner BAP 48:6, offers hi-ir-tum. This is a mistake.

D. Charpin, Archives familiales

Furthermore, YOS 13 12:12.

... (1980) 59f.

KUM = kas, (R. Borger, ABZ no. 191).

Thus M. Birot, BiOr 31 (1974) 272a: Ana ittiJu IV.iii.57-60 (MSL 1 63). AHw hiristum; CAD S.V. birsetum. See also M. deJ. Ellis, JCS 29 (1977) 137f.

S.V.

MSL 1 (1937) 165; JNES 8 (1949) 280, note 105, sub 2a "im Gemiisebau verwendet". We cannot accept H. Sauren, RA 79 (1985) 181-186. He considers erZirm.

Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, Date: Warad-Sin 8 (or Sumu-El 23); month IV.

&. a dialect form of

Also in AbB 7 112:15f., gi qandm mali ilium lii kasim. MSL 12 (1969) 163 OB Lu A 180-82. Also in YOS 13 145:8; 403:l (22. IV); ARh4T 22 4:15'; J.-M. Durand, Documents cune'iformes I (1982) P1. 72, no. 425 (15.VI).

MSL 1 183.

K. van Lerberghe 1982, 280.

ARM 5 73:10, etc.

BIN 7 197:llff., with CAD Z 1022 2.a; cf. B. Landsberger, JNES 8 (1949) 280a note 105; AfO Beiheft 17 (1967) 41b; Mauer 1980, 127 and 146 (with coll. by C. Wilcke).

CAD

94b (6. b); AHw 324a., D 1; ARMT XV 204.

PRU 3 95, RS 16. 246:ll and 20.

Stol 1978, 54. Above, notes 38 and 39. Furthermore, YOS 12 391 (27.V), YOS 13 235 (24.IV). In Mari: ARM 9 26:15 (3.IV), ARMT 22 4:15 (1l.n); with D. Charpin, MAR1 4 (1985) 246. YOS 2 130 (14.VIII) is an exceptional text. In letters: TCL 1 54:27 (hamest time ?), AbB 2

Old Babylonian fields

Stol

93: 11 (!) (summer time ?). Waterman, BDHP no. 14:3,4. Time of Immerum.

CT 48 90:4, 6-7. Time of Arnmi-sura. Edzard, ZA 60 (1970) 49 note 57, showed that CT 48 89-90 belong to CT 6 40b. Riftin 19:4 and M. Anbar, RA 69 (1975) 127 no. 9:4. Date: Rim-Sin 47. TCL 10 117 A:10 (= B:6). Date Rim-Sin 58.

CT 47 63:12, sag.bi.2.kam e-sa-mu-um. Date: Samsu-iluna 14. Hardly "Canal (e) of

Stol

Old Babylonian fields

64

St01 1982, p. 351-358, "A cadastral innovation by Harnrnurabi".

65

The Nippur Forerunner of @ XX gives a number of names of fields located in the Nippur area. This field is attested in SLT 21 1.i.12 (a& LAL.SAR) and SLT 214.i.22 LAL.LAGAB),see MSL 11 98:39. M. Powell, Or NS 43 (1974), p. 398ff., studied these ideograms but overlooked the discussion by I.J. Gelb, MAD 2' (1961), p. 213 on No. 278a. YOS 14 241:4; 252:4. Cf. D. Charpin, BiOr 36 (1979) 198b, Archives U. Commonly called "Hinke, Kudurm" (= BE Series D Vol. IV (1907), p. 146). - This ref. and meaning not in W. von Soden, AHw p. 649b.

Sarnurn", because Samium of Larsa probably never reigned in Sippar. BE 611 5:4. Time of Imm&um. Harris 1975, 373. Note a-tap ha-gi-a-nu in CT 4 3 4 ~ and, 6 probably, in BE 611 119.i.37, ii.6.

Veenhof 1973, 364ff., 371f.; cf. St01 1980, 3583; Mauer 1980, 26; Pomponio 1978, 26. Note the new and correct interpretation of 'throwing the clod' now given by M. Malul, Studies in Mesopotamian legal symbolism (AOAT; NeukirchenIVluyn), pp. 406418.

CT 47 60a: 1-2, 6 with Riftin 22a; CT 48 29:l-4; YOS 14 28 Case, 2-3.

Waterman, BDHP no. 37:9. Time of ImrnCrum.

CT 45 113: 1-2, u.sal ina t. Sa PN, cf. lines 17-18: usal ina gu id Irnina ina t. Sa PN.

BiOr 27 (1970) 156, obv. 47f. A.K. Grayson, ARI I1 (1976) 101: "In grasslands I sighted streams".

CT 2 32:l-3; Waterman, BDHP no. 25:l-3 (field ina t. ina ugar Gizanim); CT 2 37:l-3

Waterman, BDHP no. 2 5 5 and CT 4 26b:4 (Sabium).

(ina t. Sa Tenu elitim, where Tenunarn is an ugiirum: lines 7-8; cf. Harris 1975, 378). In tawirtum Sa NN in the pre-Hamrnurabi Sippar texts, NN demonstrably stands for an ugiirum; for example t. Sa Nahaja, CT 2 235-6.

Sippar: Harris 1975, 377. Tell Harmal: diss. Ridha Al-Hashimi (1964) no. 19:2 (IM 63197), 6 IKU A.SA i-na fa-am-ka-nim i-na ta-wi-ir-rim Sa PN.

Stol, 1982.

LIH 80:7 = AbB 2 62:7 (misprint in Hanis 1975).

YOS 13 490:l (Arnrni-ditana). In older texts: a field i-,,a ta-wi-ra-turn, Waterman, BDHP no. 55:l (-rum), CT 47 19:3 (-rim), 66:8 (-tim).

Read in YOS 8 1275 aAh ta-nu-hu-um (coll. M. Stol). JCS 9 (1955) 93 no. 644.

Cf.B. Landsberger, MSL 1 (1937) 242; CAD IJ 150b. JCS 29 (1977) 148f. no. 8:1,29. AbB 4 150:20. Discussion by F.R. Kraus, Konigliche Vediigungen in altbabylonischer Zeit (1984) 341f. note 504. Veenhof 1973, 369f.; W. von Soden, BiOr 36 (1979) 330b ad SLB IV p. 145.

VAS 7 125:3. Cf. a.sh li-wi-tum, CAD L 192 3.a (add to the OB refs. Pinches, PSBA 39 Plate X, no. 23:13-14, TCL 11 170:l (?), UET 5 210:2). Numerous refs. in J. Aro, Studia Orientalia 22 (1957) p. 109. Add I. Bernhardt, AOAT 25 (1976), p. 30:29,45,47; V. Scheil, MDP 2 P1. 21-23 i.9, iii.19 (F.R. Kraus, Symbolae M. David I1 (1968), p. 10f.). The determinative KI is used in ta-mi-ir-rumm GU f~ ~umunda?, BE 15 102:ll-12. This may be an automatism because every line ends in KT in this text. ~ BE 17 39:9, a-di +-ga-re-e Sa ta-mi-ir-ti Ha-am-ri. Cf. Neo-Babylonian A . G GARIN (VAS 5 48:3), ri-ga-ri GARIN (VAS 5 92:2). GARIN = tamirtu.

The scribe, S a t - ~ ~ is a , also attested in CT 8 47b:29 (Imrnerum) and CT 2 33:32 (Sumu-la-el). - Our ref., CT 45 93 rev. 7, has been overlooked by R. Harris, Ancient Sippar, 1975, p. 197.

D. Cocquerillat, Palmemies et Cultures.... (1968), p. 27f., gave the translation "marais", "terre irrigutk".

The ideogram is bal.ri. A text from Adab writes ba.al.ri @. Luckenbill, AJSL 32 (1915-16), p. 288 No. 12:12; see A. Ungnad, AbBPh 146:12=AbB 11, 146:12'). The signs "ti.riWin Simmons, JCS 15 (1961), p. 51 No. 118:1, and H.F. Lutz, UCP 1013 p. 215 No. 7:2, could be mistakes for bal.ri.

So V. Scheil, RA 14 (1917) p. 182f., followed by other scholars up to G. Cardascia, Les Archives des Murdd (1951) p. 171, commenting on PBS 211 Nos. 111-1 12 (LB), cf. YOS 6 122:4 and 148:4 (NB). Fish are caught in a PU (= bartu A mng. 2 "pond", CAD B 338a) according to a Late Babylonian text, BE 10 54.

Exceptions (not in Harris, Ancient Sippar) are: iisal id Irnina u na-gu-um, YOS 13, 452: 7-8 (Sarnsu-ditana) a.SB SB a.SB na-gu-um, A. Goetze, JCS 2 (1948), p. 111 No. 23:8 (Ae). I think that in both cases the a.ghr N a g h is meant.

Old Babylonian fields

Undated; note that the LU.ENGAR &an&-uballit (13,24) occurs in Darius 198 in a similar context (dated to the sixth year of Darius). --For GiluSu, see R. Zadok, JANES 8 (1976) p. 118 with notes 45,46; RGTC 8 (1985) p. 139.

Cf. A . G URU ~ GN in ADD 330:4; 778:9,11,13 (= ABL 574). W.W. Hallo, JCS 23 (1970) p. 59a; but note Hallo apud H. Weiss, JAOS 95 (1975) p. 449 note 62. This and other words for "surroundings of the city" are given in CAD A/1 p. 380-8 1. Contrast I5-ga-ar Su-Si-im in Old Babylonian texts from Susa (MDP 23 320 rev. 7; 321:29; MDP 28 428:7). Most of the refs. in Harris 1975, 378, who considered t. a Flurname. Cf. Mauer 1980, 188. S. Langdon, PSBA 33 (1911) Plate XLII no. XV: 1 (= St. Dalley, Catalogue... Edinburgh, no. 57); TIM 5 27:l. YOS 14 28 Case, 2; diss. Al-Hashimi, no. 19:3 (see note 53); cf. a.€&fa-wi-ir-tim, Sumer 34 (1978) 131 no. 58:16. W. von Soden, ZDMG 39 (1939) 148. BE 611 3:2; PBS 8/2 239:2; Waterman, BDHP no. 25:2; CI' 47 60a:2; YOS 14 163:5. Note the striking accusative in i-nu a-fa-pa-am, TCL 1 63:12.

CI' 8 38b:l; CT 48 89:2; TIM 7 39:2. B. Meissner, ZA 17 (1903) 247, note 3, and A. Ungnad, ZA 38 (1929) 193; NRVU Glossar (1937) 162. E. Ebeling, Glossar zu den neubabyl. Briefen (1953) 247. - Other etymologies: B. Landsberger, MSL 812 90 notes 25, 26 (miriinu compared); Th.Jacobsen, OIP 24 (1935) 33 note 7 (cf. amirtum); see also2W.W. Hallo apud H. Weiss, JAOS 95 (1975) 449 note 62. See already E. Speiser, Or NS 23 (1954) 236 "to clear the reeds"; "lichten" (AHw 770a, D 5). Otherwise CAD N/1 217a, "set fire (?) to the reeds in it". In the letter JCS 24 (1972) 66 no. 67:16, a-pi-Su li-na-wi-ir, appu "face", not apu "reed" is meant. A Middle Babylonian letter tells that the growth of reeds in the tamirtu is heavy (Su-ru da-an), BE 17 3134-35. CAD N/1 209b, namiiru "clearing, path".

CI' 8 16a:2, 6; V. Scheil, Une saison de fouilles d Sippar (1902) no. 77:9; VAS 8 52:5 (= 535).

B. Kienast, Kisurra I (1978) no. 181 Seite B.ii.5. MSL 11 (1974) 5 18b-c does not help.

Old Babylonian fields

BE 6/2 1:2; 28:12,16 (cf. RGTC 3 72) and in the lexical tradition from Nippur. E. Ebeling, Glossar zu den neubabyl. Briefen (1953) 198, lists the refs. under raqqanz. This was a mistake, also made by A. Deimel (SL 513, 3). MSL 14 33:57. MSL 14 180~79;198180;215~255-58. ZDMG 93 (1939) 148: read in TMB no. 206:1,5 (cf. 20) [tla-wi-ra-turn, not [n]a-ra-tum. RA 37 (1940) 4-5 (on TMB nos. 176-88).

0. Neugebauer, MKT III Plate 4 (Neugebauer: id' = "Streifen"). CAD E 250-1; AHw 232a eqlum 2.

TMB 243; AHw 1136a gakiinum 6.a. LAGABxZ is particularly susceptible to new creations; see M. Civil, AS 20 (1976) 131, 1.7.1, c. M.A. Powell, writing on "the Old Babylonian writing reform", studied some LAGABxZ signs in a footnote: Or NS 43 (1974) 403 note 37. A new member of this prolific family has emerged: LAGABxGI, D. Arnaud, RA 66 (1972) 165:9, with p. 167. R.D. Biggs, Studia Orienfalia 46 (1975) 24, read this sign in an Ur I11 text (iii.45). M.E. Cohen, RA 70 (1976) 138:56 ga-ri-im-rmal-a-ni "birth canal" suggests m. Cf. J. Krecher, AOAT 1 (1969) 197 sub qa-rim; Festschrift Lubor Matozd II (1978) 41 sub @rimxI.J. Gelb, MAD 22 (1961) 213 ad no. 280; J. Krecher, Festschrift Lubor Matozd I1 (1978) 34. Some refs. in B.R. Foster, Mesopotamia 9 (1982) 61. Note [GANIAe-ga-APIN in V. Donbaz, B.R. Foster, Sargonic texts from Telloh... (1982) no. 135 rev. 4, cf. 2. Also agarx (SIG,) e-ga-rin-na, BIN 8 195:19. D.I. Owen, NATN 84:2. CAD A/1 145f. (no personal name !) and Th.G. Pinches, PSBA 19 (1897) 135:4, a field Sa id a-ga-ri-in-nu. P. Buringh, Soils and soil conditions in Iraq (1966) 249-50. A.P.G. Poyck, Farm Studies in Iraq (1962) 45. R.A. Fernea, Shuykh and Effendi (1970) 41. S. Langdon, RA 24 (1927) 96 Kish 1927-2:l. Otherwise Mauer 1980, 25: "Feld mit langem Gras, d.h. mit Unkraut bewachsen, und somit ein Brachfeld".

Cf. B. Landsberger, MSL 812 (1962) 146, correcting wrong interpretations of sibara

XX Section 4:

idekke.

Old Babylonian fields

St01

HYDRAULIC MANAGEMENT

REFERENCES

IN SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA IN SUMERIAN TIMES

Harris, R. 1975

Ancient Sippar (Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul).

Mauer, G. 1980

Das Formular der altbabylonischen Bodenpachtvertrage (Dissertation, Munich).

Pompnio, F. 1978 Sauren, H. 1966 Stol, M. 1978

I contratti di affrtto dei campi per la coltivazione di cereali pubblicati in YOS 13 (Supplemento N. 14 agli Annali - Vol. 38 [1978], fasc. 1). Topographie der Provinz Umma nach den Urkunden der Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur, Teil I: Kaniile und Bewiisserungsanlagen (Dissertation, Heidelberg).

"The Old Babylonian texts in the Allard Pierson Museum", Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 25 (1977-78) 50-55. "Kanal(isation) A. Philologisch", in Reallexion der Assyriologie, V/5-6, 355-365.

1982

"A cadastral innovation by Hammurabi", in G. van Driel et al. (eds.), Zikir Sumim: Assyriological studies presented to F.R. Kraus (Leiden), 351-8.

van Lerberghe, K. "A props d'un outil agricole, la tabuda", in J. Quaegebeur (ed.), Studia Paulo 1982 Narfer oblata, N: Orientalia Antigua, pp. 279-85.

Veenhof, K.R. 1973

Robert C. Hunt

(Brandeis University, MA) '

1980

1982

Some Observations

Old Babylonian legal and administrative texts from Philadelphia (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 2 1, Leuven).

"An Old Babylonian deed of purchase of land Syrnbolae ... de Liagre Bohl (Leiden), 359-379.

...", in

M.A. Beek et al. (eds.),

INTRODUCTION The paper I prepared for the 1987 meeting of the Sumerian Agriculture Group was a presentation of concepts and findings useful for the description and analysis of irrigation operation. In the course of preparing for the Leiden Meeting, however, it became clear that the Sumerians must have faced more hydraulic problems than irrigation, and that quite possibly the solutions to the several problems would have been coordinated. This suggested widening the focus for this paper from irrigation to hydraulic management. This paper contains essentially two parts. One part, written after the Meeting, is a set of observations and questions about Sumerian hydraulic management. The other part, including what was originally prepared for the Leiden Meeting, is a set of concepts useful for the description of canal irrigation. The disjuncture between the parts is more than obvious. My impressions of the Sumerian documentation available are of massive amounts of information on construction or rehabilitation of some kinds of water works, and virtually no information on the actual operation of those works. If my impressions reflect reality, the evidence available calls for an analysis of hydraulic management, and that is the subject of the first part of this. paper. At some time evidence may appear on the operations of those works, and particularly the irrigation works. At that point the concepts presented in the second part of the paper can be used for the analysis and translation of the documents, and for historical interpretation. 1. HYDRAULIC PROBLEMS Let me begin with a broad and general picture of the range of hydraulic problems faced by an agrarian society such as ancient Mesopotamia. Intensive human occupation of a large and boisterous river valley is usually quite complex because the water, and water-ways, are used for a variety of purposes. 1.1. Irrigated Agriculture. Water is captured from the natural channels, and delivered to the root zones of plants. Much of that water then evaporates from plant leaves and the soil surface. Irrigation removes liquid water from the surface circulation system. Irrigation is thus a consumptive use of the water. The amount of water in the channels therefore fluctuates, sometimes greatly.

1.2. Transportation. Water transport can be very efficient for large and heavy cargoes, whether loads of grain and bricks, or squads of soldiers. Rivers and canals can be, and often are, modified for transport by boat. Transport demands water levels that are deep enough, which do not fluctuate too much, and have currents within acceptable limits. It is not a consumptive use, and wants a steady state of water in the system.

13.

Drinking water.

The rivers and canals may well be a major source of supply of water

Hunt

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian times

for animals, particularly humans. In this case water quality is of some interest, and the reliability of the supply can be overwhelmingly important. 1.4. Waste removal. If the rivers and canals are used for waste disposal it may well pose severe problems for both agriculture, and direct human use. Many canals are used as laundry sites, and for the bathing of draft animals.

Water for manufacturing purposes will likely be altered 1.5. Water for manufacturing. physically, chemically, or thermally. A textile or fabric industry, such as the dyeing of cloth, or the tanning of leather, is water-intensive, and usually degrades the water. This poses problems for drinking water downsmam. Civilizations alter the landscape in order to encourage or constrain the "natural" flow of the waters. Productive works are those which result in irrigation canals, harbors for boats, etc. These large rivers can also be quite destructive of human occupational features. The rivers carry a large amount of solid matter, and often deposit it in ways inconvenient to man. There are occasional floods and droughts that are quite destructive to humans, animals, plants and capital investment. Protective works are those designed to reduce the damage that can be done, especially by flooding1. The vast majority of the writings about hydraulic management in the Ancient Near East have been concerned solely with irrigation works. It is my suspicion that this concentration on irrigation has resulted in a skewed picture of Sumerian hydraulic management: protective works are likely to have been at least as important, and as well documented in the archives, as the productive works. And they may well have been as important as the productive works in making the environment habitable by a civilization.

Hunt

It seems probable that the grain fields and fallow fields are on the back-slopes, at varying distances from the levee-tops and the occupational sites. There may well be small settlements out in these areas as well. What happens in the outlying marshesbakes is not c l y . Those areas may well provide grazing for livestock during some part of the year, and mgy well grow reeds for many uses as well.

Euro Months ~emp' Max Mean Min

Chart 1: Mesopotamian Natural and Agricultural Cycles JAN FEB MAR APR MAY JUNE JULY AUG SEFT OCT NOV DEC

16 10 5

19 11 6

20 15 8

29 20 12

34 27 19

40 31 21

42 35 24

44 36 24

40 31 21

36 27 18

27 19 11

19 11 6

Agri. Cycle Irrig Irrig Last Harv Harv Thrsh Thrsh Thrsh Prep Prep Sow & & land, land, barl wint wint irrig barl wht barl crop crop &lin & win win Irrig Sow wht wht bar1 bar1 Plow bar1 lin Harv Begn earl wht Cart & & Sow wht bar1 ham cere wht wht bar1 lin

2. SUMERIAN HYDRAULIC MANAGEMENT

2.1 Environment, Agriculture and Settlement of Lower Mesopotamia. There would appear to be several primary environmental zones of lower Mesopotamia, and they are of major importance to the subject of this meeting. These are the river courses themselves, the levees, the back-slopes of the levees, and the depressions between river courses. The slope of the lower valley as a whole is on the order of 10 c m b . Over the course of time the beds of rivers rise with the deposition of large amounts of solid material, and the levees on both sides of the channel also build up. In consequence, the river with its levees may well be the highest natural feature on the plain. The levee-top may be a kilometer or more in width. The backslopes of the levees may extend, gently falling in altitude, for 2 km. or more (from presentation by Gasche at meeting). They apparently gently grade into depressions which may form lakes, or marshes. Human occupation of this landscape is highly structured. The levees are clearly the sites of many major settlements. It is widely assumed that the grain fields are not on the tops of the levees, but down the backslopes, and perhaps a considerable distance away from the levee-tops. However it seems to me that the levee-tops are almost certainly the sites of date palm orchards, and probably also of summer gardens. If people arc living on the tops of the levees, and also gardening then, then it seems likely that draft animals and domesticated pigs are living there as well, at least for part of the year.

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian times

1 Temperature (C)

at Baghdad Airport. Dieleman, 1977:15

MM of rain at Baghdad Airport. Dieleman, 1977:lS 4

Flow rates in cubic meters/second, measured at Samarra Dieleman. 1977:16 (interpolated) Flow rate in cubic meters/second. measured at Hit. Dieleman, 1977:16 (interpolated) Phases of the agricultural cycle as of the 1950's. Adams 196516.

The climatic and hydrological regime of the area is presented in Chart 1. There are several concatenating conditions which are relevant to intensive human occupation of the region. The first is temperature variation. The "summer" is very hot, and very dry. Rainfall occurs in the "winter", when the temperatures are lower. In consequence the summers will place significant heat stress on life forms. The second is the variation in rainfall. What rain falls comes in the "winter", with none in the summer. The third is the river flows. The minimum river flows occur in summer, particularly late summer. With the coming of the rains the rivers start to rise, and reach their peak floods during Apriway. There are a number of agricultural facts that are pertinent. The first is the accepted fact that r past 6,000 years) So. Mesopotamia does not now receive (and probably has not received f ~ the enough useful rain to support dry-farmed grain agriculture. The usually accepted limits for that grain agriculture are the 200mm isohyet, or the 200mrn mean isohyet, both of which are to be found to the North and East of our area.

Hunt

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian times

The second agricultural fact is the grain calendar. Barley and wheat are sown in the "fall", irrigated over the "winter", and harvested in April, May and apparently June. These climatic, hydrological and agricultural facts generate several problems all of which must be solved with hydraulic management if there is to be successful intensive agriculture in Southern Mesopotamia. I have focused on three primary problems. There is a scarcity of water for grain field preparation and germination of seed. Land preparation takes place during the period of lowest water in the river, during or immediately following the hot dry summer. Soil moisture will be at its lowest point. Somehow water must be supplied to at least allow for germination, and most agriculturalists will want an early irrigation to soften the soil for the first plowing. The rivers are at their peak flow during the period of the harvest. This can only mean one of two things: either the flooded rivers never or only very rarely encroach on the cultivated fields, or the inhabitants of the region must devote some time and effort to protective hydraulic works, i.e. flood control. With sufficiently high flood crests at harvest time there are the problems of protecting the fields of ripe grain from flooding, of protecting the piles of harvested grain from the floods, and of a potential conflict over labor. The harvest demands a great deal of labor in short order. It can not be delayed if substantial amounts of the ripe grain are to be saved for human use. At the same time this is the period of flooding. If substantial amounts of labor are also needed to manage the rising flood waters, this is a potential scarcity of labor. Summer water stress may be severe. With temperatures as high as 50 C and low relative humidity there will be water stress on cattle, on humans, and on summer and perennial crops. At the same time, water supply in the rivers is at the annual minimum. Depending on the size of the population of people animals and plants in the region, there is the possibility of a substantial scarcity of water with respect to need in the summer months. In the general literature, and indeed at the conference, almost all attention has been focused upon irrigation of the winter grains, and on the problems of salt and silt2. The environmental facts presented above suggest two other Sumerian concerns, flood protection of the winter grain fields and crops, and an assured summer water supply to the people, large mammals, and perennial crops on the levee-tops. I am not an expert on either the archaeology or the history of Southern Mesopotamia so my remarks and suggestions are not based on firm control of the empirical evidence. But the environmental data point so strongly in the directions I suggest here that I think it would be productive for regional experts to consider, and seek evidence for, Mesopotamian hydraulic management more generally. 2.2 Sumerian Protective Works. That a flood of substantial proportions would threaten the grain fields is highly probable, given that those grain fields are irrigated from canals from the same rivers by means of gravity flow3. If the fields can be reached by water from the rivers for irrigation, those same channels will convey water during a flood. The protection of standing winter grain crops from flooding is very likely to have been a major concern. While these serious floods probably did not occur every year, a frequency of once in 10 years would likely be sufficient to warrant some expenditure of effort. Such floods would pose at least two problems. A standing crop at or near harvest could well be ruined by such a

Hunt

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian times

flood and harvesting is extremely difficult if not impossible if the fields are under water. A second problem is the damage done to the fields, irrigation canals and roads by the solid matter deposited by the flood. For both of these reasons it seems likely that protection would be a rational, and a likely, response. There are several ways in which such protection might take place. First, the fields themselves might be surrounded by a dike which would be sufficiently high to keep out most floods. These dikes would have to be complete by some time in March. Second, relatively low spots in the river banks could be raised by means of dikes. Third, the major canals (or indeed the river courses) could be equipped with escape works, such that flood waters could be harmlessly shunted into unused basins, and thus more valuable land and installations would be spared. Fourth, main gates could have two purposes - to allow irrigation water to enter canals, and to prevent the entry of unwanted flood water. The same considerations would likely apply to levee-top installations. 2.3 Sumerian Productive Works. If the description of the environment presented above is correct, then there are two quite distinct locations for irrigation works, the levee-tops, and the levee-backslopes. These two different locations pose rather different problems, so they will be discussed separately. 2.3.1. Levee Back-slopes. These areas are primarily in grain agriculture, and presumably would be the sites for most of the canal building and operating. It is unclear how long such canals would be, how many gates and branches they would have, and how much land each gate would serve. 2.3.2. Levee Works. If it is true that the majority of the major settlements are found on levee-tops, and that perennial crops and summer gardens are also found there, then the summer weather conditions dictate certain stresses, and suggest some solutions. The major stresses are related to heat and aridity. With high temperatures and low relative humidity, combined with a low water table due to the lowest flow rates of the rivers, heat stress on plants and animals is potentially very serious indeed. The perennial crops and summer gardens must have access to water on a frequent basis (say once every 5 days) or the plants will wilt, and perhaps die. The large mammals, such as humans, pigs and cattle, will need to take in substantial amounts of water on a daily basis (the current estimate for minimum human intake is 3 liters per day; cattle have higher figures). If the sheep and goats are present in the zone during summer, presumably they will also need water, though less than the other animals. How is this water to be supplied? There is some water in the rivers, and perhaps also in the main canals. There will also be groundwater available, at no great depth. The technology for lifting water is quite simple. The shaduf has been widely discussed, but traction animals can also have been used to lift water from wells, as they are now used in India and elsewhere. All it takes is a rope, a pulley, a runway, and a suitable container. But while technologically simple, water is heavy, and lifting it requires a substantial amount of energy. Irrigating the perennial crops and summer gardens from wells is a task which requires an awesome amount of labor. The alternative, and one which strikes me as a highly desirable alternative, is to run a canal along the levee, preferably at the crest. It could be a canal with a small cross-section relative to the grain canals. It would serve the settlements along the levee top,

Hunt Hunt

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian.times

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamia in Surnerian times

imgate trees and gardens, and provide water for animals and humans, all at the same time. There are several problems that would have to be overcome if such canals were to be feasible, however. The first is the distance upstream one has to go for the head-gate. If the slope of the valley generally is lOcmlkm., and if the river level in summer is, say, 4 m. below the top of the levee, then the headgate must be 40 km. upstream. This is not impossible, of course, but it is not desirable. First, the levee-top soils are composed of relatively large particles, and so percolation would be a serious source of water-loss. Second, if the whole of the levee-top is settled, being located at the tail-end of 40 km. of canal is almost a guarantee of water-supply problems. Those upstream on the canal will be difficult to control. Both of these problems can be solved fairly easily, and with then-available technology. The channel of the canal could be lined with clay, or even with bricks, which would inhibit percolation. The distance upstream to the head-gate can be vastly reduced with a temporary barrage in the main channel to raise the head of water (raising the head by 1 m. reduces horizontal distance by 10 km.) Fernea describes how the Shabana in Southern Iraq made a barrage of reed mats and other materials, pulled it across the river to form a barrage just below their off-take, and then removed it when their watering was finished (1970). During the summer, when river flow is slowest, would be the least dangerous and most propitious time to utilize such a device. A permanent barrage would be highly vulnerable during high water. The other problem posed by such a solution would be waterlogging of the levee-tops. The water-table in the levee would be raised, especially during the hot summer months, and salinization would be hard to avoid. Lining the canal would solve this problem. Along such canals, which could be relatively small, there might well be located those features known as nag-kud. On an installation such as a levee-top canal they would make a great deal of sense. Steinkeller's paper (for this conference) has by far the best data so far presented. His table, p. 76, presents a great deal of information, including three spatial dimensions for each of 13 nag-kud. Chart 2 contains the results of my calculations of the area that each of these could irrigate at one time. I assumed that the nag-kud could be completely emptied, that the conveyance efficiency was loo%, and that 5 cm. depth of water was delivered to each field every time irrigation took place. (The first two assumptions above are wildly unrealistic. The nag-kud could not be emptied below the depth of the bottom of the outlet canal. With a depth of over 1.5 m. this is unlikely. Second, conveyance efficiencies are never as high as 100%. In dirt channels it is more likely to be SO%, and sometimes is much less (330s & Nugteren 1982). The 5 cm. depth is a likely figure for one irrigation of grain.) 10 of the 13 cited by Steinkeller would irrigate between 0.06 and 0.43 of a hectare (600 m2 to 4300 m2). The other three would irrigate 1.08 ha, 3 ha, and 8.6 ha. The ten smallest basins are far too small to warrant irrigation for winter grains. I am deeply sceptical that these nag-kud held enough water to make them useful for irrigating grain. These constructions do pose a puzzle. Considerable attention is paid to them in the documents, and presumably only the more important projects receive this kind of documentary attention. Yet they appear too small for grain agriculture. Where were they, and what were they used for? These basins or holding tanks would make most sense on relatively small canals irrigating orchards and small gardens, and they would make even more sense if they were also providing water for domestic purposes and for animals (cf. van Laere 1980, 46-8). If this reasoning is sound, then a levee-top location is one reasonable solution to the puzzle posed by their importance and small size.

Chart 2: Nag-kud capacity and area irrigated

No.

Length Width m. m.

Depth m.

Vol sar

vo12 Area irr. m3 ha.

DP 654 i.3-ii.1 ibid. ii.3-5 ibid. iii.3-iv. 1 Or. 47-49 51 1:8-10 ibid. 11-13 ITT 5 6864.ii.&7 ibid. iii. 13-16 ibid. iii. 17-20 ibid. v.3'4' ibid. v.9'-12' ibid. v.13'-16' ibid. v. 17'-22' ibid. vi.4'-7' 1 Text, 2

Length, Width, Depth, and Vol (sar) are all from Steinkeller's tabulation presented at Leiden (revised 1988).

Volume in cubic meters is the volume of the entire nag-kud, assuming that the floor is horizontal and flat, the sides

are vertical and straight, and that it is filled to the top. None of these assumptions is particularly realistic, but the most likely source of error is the last. Rarely are basins filled to &e top. The outlet spillway is usually lower than the banks. One effect of this is to leave some extra room for surges, which can be caused by floods, cloudbursts, and accidents upstream. If the basin is full, then any water movement, or extra water, will spill over the banks, causing considerable damage to the banks of the basin, and to the surrounding area.

2.4 Coordination of Hydraulic Works.

In the most general sense it is clear that the labor and materials for building and repairing the major protective works, and the major productive works, have to be coordinated. Poor

maintenance of one part of the system will have its effects on other parts of the system. This would seem to present an argument for some sort of centralized oversight and coordination of works. It also seems likely that the majority of the major constructed works would be on or very near to major water courses, and therefore close to the levees. The danger from floods is best dealt with in the river course. (Ivianagement of the entire basin of Tigris or Euphrates, as units, has probably never occumd.) Restraining walls, escape gates, and dikes would make most sense on the main course, or on the upper reaches of the main canals. Transport works such as harbors, tow paths, bridges over canals etc. receive little attention from analysts, and I have no way of knowing whether this reflects the contents of the documents. Transport and imgation could conceivably be linked in construction works, although this needs to be looked at carefully by engineers. The management of the water in the system would also demand some degree of coordination between the two uses, as the uses are somewhat antagonistic. If troops and their supplies are to be moved by canal, for example, then the water supply in the canals has to be sufficient to the task. The timing of military campaigns would then be of interest. If the harvested grain is to be moved by boat, it might occur right after the harvest,

Hunt

Hydraulic management in southem Mesopotamia in Sumerian times

Hunt

not rise by capillary action alone.) Once at the surface the water will evaporate, leaving behind the dissolved materials, many of which are salts. As these salts accumulate in the soil, the water available to the roots becomes salty, and this reduces plant growth. Two major techniques for dealing with this problem are to keep the water table low enough to prevent capillary rising, and to flush the salts out of the soil at some time in the cultivation cycle (usually before planting.) Salinization is not inevitable, as has been shown in the case of the Aswan High Dam (Hunt, 1987a).

when the rivers are in flood, which would guarantee sufficient water in the enviroment to fill the canals and float the boats. In conclusion, the hydrological and agro-climatic facts of Lower Mesopotamia strongly suggest that hydraulic management would have been necessary for the Sumerians. In addition to the often-cited irrigated grain agriculture on the back-slopes, there are severe flood problems in the spring, and water-stress problems on the levee-tops in summer. It appears to this outside observer that there must have been considerable Sumerian effort devoted to all three, and not just to irrigating the grain.

3.1.5. Scarcity. The common view of the dynamics of irrigation systems is that scarcity is the cause of competition, which in turn causes conflict. Reality is neither so simple nor so straightforward. Scarcity of water may be defined as a water supply which causes moisture stress for crops. It is therefore a supply and demand phenomenon. Most people treat the demand as a fixed amount. Nothing could be further from the truth. The demand is generated by those responsible for watering the crops. There is usually a strong relationship between that demand and the aggregate of the needs of the crops in the ground. What then determines the crops in the ground? Crop discipline is the phrase I have coined to cover the process by which decisions are made about what is planted where (Hunt, 1986). Different crops have different demands for water. In an irrigation system the farmer alone is rarely responsible for what is planted and where. There a 9 normally superordinate authorities or rules about what crops can be grown where in any given crop cycle. Scarcity is often partly due to violating the rules of crop discipline, and the subsequent demand for water for "illegal" crops. So the demand is not necessarily a simple function of crop moisture need. It is also a product of social decisions about cropping. To understand scarcity then demands some knowledge of the structure of crop discipline. There are two other sources of scarcity, expansion of cultivated area, and drought. If an irrigation system is not commanding all the land that it might, it is both easy and tempting to extend the tail ends of canals to serve just one more field. If enough of this is done it amounts to a substantial increase in the demand for water. This will reduce the supply of water relative to the demand, and at some point will create scarcity. When nature provides less water than most people are accustomed to, then various degrees of drought-strategies can be brought into play. This places great strains on social organization.

3. CONCEPTS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF IRRIGATION SYSTEMS

In this section I present a brief discussion of the concepts which are useful for describing and analysing canal irrigation. These concepts and findings are a product of the systematic comparative study of a wide variety of 20th century canal irrigation systems (cf. Hunt and Hunt, 1976, Hunt 1979, in press a, and in press b). The appropriateness of these concepts for the Sumerian context is of course not demonstrated. However, the river-canal-plant relationship is the same, and water still runs downhill, not up. Whether concepts which are valid in one context are valid in anothor is a major epistemological problem, but in order to translate from Sumerian or Akkadian some concepts must be used. The set of concepts I am presenting from the 20th century has been refined by systematic comparison, and is the best we have for now. How much they distort Sumerian affairs is yet to be determined. 3.1 Problems Irrigation systems face several universal problems, and must solve them. I will briefly describe the problems, and then proceed to the organizational solutions. 3.1.1. Silt. Rivers which carry substantial amounts of suspended matter pose severe problems for hydraulic works. As the water flow rate slows, the suspended matter settles to the bottom. If that dirt accumulates sufficiently, it will slow and ultimately prevent the free flow of water over it (it will form a dam, in effect.) This dirt must be removed if the water-carrying channel is to stay in working condition. 3.1.2. Flood. Floods will occasionally occur and, when they do, pose problems for all aspects of an irrigation system.' If the system can be protected it is usually cost-effective to try. Failing this, there is much maintenance and reconstruction to be carried out. Dikes and gates may be destroyed by the flood waters, and will have to be reconstructed. Channels and fields may be filled with debris, including tree trunks, dead animals, and boulders. Recovery involves removing all this.

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian times

3.1.3. Waterlogging. If the watertable under the fields rises too high the root zone (for dry-foot crops) is reduced, causing crop productivity to fall, sometimes substantially. There are two solutions to this problem, drainage, and carefully controlling the amount of water allowed on the fields.

3.1.6. Theft of Water. Water theft is extremely common in irrigation systems. Many irrigation systems have a rotational method of managing water at the tail ends, such that one set of branch canals receives water for a few days, and then the canals dry up for the next few days. Under these circumstances, water may be flowing past your fields but it is not your turn to take it. The desire to take water out of turn is nearly irresistible, and constitutes theft (of someone else's water). Irrigating is tedious work, for it is not done quickly, and the distribution of the water in fields has to be actively managed. It may be inconvenient to take water at night, or only during one's turn. Labor for helping with the job may not be readily available at the official time of irrigation. In addition under conditions of scarcity there is a powerful drive to acquire water no matter what the cost in order to save the crops. Such theft does not become a jural issue until it has been discovered, and made into a public issue. This does not happen automatically.

3.1.4. Salinity. If in an arid zone the water-table is allowed to rise too close to the surface, then water may rise to that surface by capillary action. (With the water table lower, the water can

3.1.7. Free-riding. Normally in canal irrigation the entity with water-rights (farmer, community, corporation, temple, etc.) also has responsibilities, such as labor for maintenance,

B

Hunt

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian times

when the rivers are in flood, which would guarantee sufficient water in the enviroment to fill the canals and float the boats. In conclusion, the hydrological and agro-climatic facts of Lower Mesopotamia strongly suggest that hydraulic management would have been necessary for the Sumerians. In addition to the often-cited irrigated grain agriculture on the back-slopes, there are severe flood problems in the spring, and water-stress problems on the levee-tops in summer. It appears to this outside observer that there must have been considerable Sumerian effort devoted to all three, and not just to irrigating the grain. 3. CONCEPTS FOR THE ANALYSIS OF IRRIGATION SYSTEMS In this section I present a brief discussion of the concepts which are useful for describing and analysing canal irrigation. These concepts and findings are a product of the systematic comparative study of a wide variety of 20th century canal irrigation systems (cf. Hunt and Hunt, 1976, Hunt 1979, in press a, and in press b). The appropriateness of these concepts for the Surnerian context is of course not demonstrated. However, the river-canal-plant relationship is the same, and water still runs downhill, not up. Whether concepts which are valid in one context are valid in anothor is a major epistemological problem, but in order to translate from Sumerian or Akkadian some concepts must be used. The set of concepts I am presenting from the 20th century has been refined by systematic comparison, and is the best we have for now. How much they distort Sumerian affairs is yet to be determined. 3.1 Problems Irrigation systems face several universal problems, and must solve them. I will briefly describe the problems, and then proceed to the organizational solutions. 3.1.1. Silt. Rivers which cany substantial amounts of suspended matter pose severe problems for hydraulic works. As the water flow rate slows, the suspended matter settles to the bottom. If that dirt accumulates sufficiently, it will slow and ultimately prevent the free flow of water over it (it will form a dam, in effect.) This dirt must be removed if the water-carrying channel is to stay in working condition. 3.1.2. Flood. Floods will occasionally occur and, when they do, pose problems for all aspects of an irrigation system.' If the system can be protected it-is usually cost-effective to try. Failing this, there is much maintenance and reconstruction to be carried out. Dikes and gates may be destroyed by the flood waters, and will have to be reconstructed. Channels and fields may be filled with debris, including tree trunks, dead animals, and boulders. Recovery involves removing all this.

Hunt

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian times

not rise by capillary action alone.) Once at the surface the water will evaporate, leaving behind the dissolved materials, many of which are salts. As these salts accumulate in the soil, the water available to the roots becomes salty, and this reduces plant growth. Two major techniques for dealing with this problem are to keep the water table low enough to prevent capillary rising, and to flush the salts out of the soil at some time in the cultivation cycle (usually before planting.) Salinization is not inevitable, as has been shown in the case of the Aswan High Dam (Hunt, 1987a). 3.1.5. Scarcity. The common view of the dynamics of irrigation systems is that scarcity is the cause of competition, which in mrn causes conflict. Reality is neither so simple nor so straightforward. Scarcity of water may be defined as a water supply which causes moisture stress for crops. It is therefore a supply and demand phenomenon. Most people treat the demand as a fixed amount. Nothing could be further from the truth. The demand is generated by those responsible for watering the crops. There is usually a strong relationship between that demand and the aggregate of the needs of the crops in the ground. What then determines the crops in the ground? Crop discipline is the phrase I have coined to cover the process by which decisions are made about what is planted where (Hunt, 1986). Different crops have different demands for water. In an irrigation system the farmer alone is rarely responsible for what is planted and where. There are normally superordinate authorities or rules about what crops can be grown where in any given crop cycle. Scarcity is often partly due to violating the rules of crop discipline, and the subsequent demand for water for "illegal" crops. So the demand is not necessarily a simple function of crop moisture need. It is also a product of social decisions about cropping. To understand scarcity then demands some knowledge of the structure of crop discipline. There are two other sources of scarcity, expansion of cultivated area, and drought. If an irrigation system is not commanding all the land that it might, it is both easy and tempting to extend the tail ends of canals to serve just one more field. If enough of this is done it amounts to a substantial increase in the demand for water. This will reduce the supply of water relative to the demand, and at some point will create scarcity. When nature provides less water than most people are accustomed to, then various degrees of drought-strategies can be brought into play. This places great strains on social organization.

3.1.3. Waterlogging. If the watertable under the fields rises too high the root zone (for dry-foot crops) is reduced, causing crop productivity to fall, sometimes substantially. There are two solutions to this problem, drainage, and carefully controlling the amount of water allowed on the fields.

3.1.6. Theft of Water. Water theft is extremely common in irrigation systems. Many irrigation systems have a rotational method of managing water at the tail ends, such that one set of branch canals receives water for a few days, and then the canals dry up for the next few days. Under these circumstances, water may be flowing past your fields but it is not your turn to take it. The desire to take water out of turn is nearly irresistible, and constitutes theft (of someone else's water). Irrigating is tedious work, for it is not done quickly, and the distribution of the water in fields has to be actively managed. It may be inconvenient to take water at night, or only during one's turn. Labor for helping with the job may not be readily available at the official time of irrigation. In addition under conditions of scarcity there is a powerful drive to acquire water no matter what the cost in order to save the crops. Such theft does not become a jural issue until it has been discovered, and made into a public issue. This does not happen automatically.

3.1.4. Salinity. If in an arid zone the water-table is allowed to rise too close to the surface, then water may rise to that surface by capillary action. (With the water table lower, the water can

3.1.7. Free-riding. Normally in canal irrigation the entity with water-rights (farmer, community, corporation, temple, etc.) also has responsibilities, such as labor for maintenance,

Hunt

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian times

Hunt

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian times

+ 3.2.3.2. Water Capture. This is the process by which water is divided between two or more systems on a source. It will happen at the headgate, which is where the system takes water from nature. The engineering demands of the headgate are often considerable, due to the economic importance and hydrological stress put upon it. i

money fees to pay personnel, etc. When each rights-holder takes the opportunity to shirk some fraction of those responsibilities with a high probability of retaining the flow of benefits, there occurs the virtually ubiquitous problem of the free-rider. Many of the delicts mentioned in the Code of Hammurabi deal with trespass. A number of them involve one individual allowing water and animals to invade the fields of another. If this is not automatically followed by a reduction in water received, then the trespasser has shirked responsibility, but not suffered a decline in benefit stream, and thus these can be interpreted as cases of free-riders. The owner does not provide the constraint called for, and causes damage to others. Yet the benefit stream (water) is not interrupted due to this delict. Irrigation systems, with their onerous calls for maintenance, are prime examples of nearly irresistible opportunities for free-riding. 3.1.8. Conflict. There are several arenas for conflict. One is between farmers within a system. Another is between authorities and farmers within a system. Another is between discrete sub-systems within a single overall system. These conflicts almost all involve either theft, or free-riding. All of these are subject to the same single authority, as they are within the same system, and so a unicentric resolution organization obtains. There can also be conflict between systems. In this event there is almost never an irrigation authority superordinate to both. Rather the conflict must move into another arena to be discussed, often the national court system, or the office of the ruler. If there is conflict between polities then a multicentric arena is involved. Such conflict may well involve hostilities, and attempts (at times successful) at conquest.

.

3 3 Inter nal Social Organization of Irrigation Operation4 If the problems which a canal irrigation system generates are to be dealt with, it will normally be done by social organization. 3.2.1. System. The term system is ordinarily used very loosely in the context of irrigation. In order to focus the analysis it is useful to define a system quite narrowly. The definition 1 have proposed is that a system starts where a headgate takes water from nature, and includes all the facilities and fields which subsequently receive that water, until the water either soaks into the ground, or flows back into a natural channel (Hunt, in press b). 3.2.2. System Size. Size is problematic both with respect to definition, and to measurement. Any dimensions that can be found should be reported. It is possible to generate water-flow figures from cross-sectional dimensions of canals, for example (cf. Oates and Oates, 1976). The length of a canal may well tell us something useful about the extent of a system. The most commonly reported size figure is extent of imgated fields, often called Command h a . 3.2.3. Tasks. A41 imgation involves work. Canal irrigation systems manifest or involve the following tasks: 3.2.3.1. Construction. The physical facilities must be constructed in the first place. This is the task which is most likely to be mentioned in nxords, for the process is relatively rapid, requires relatively large numbers of laborers and other resources, and has the most visible and impressive outcome. If any bragging about an irrigation task is going to be recorded, it will likely be about the construction.

3.2.3.3. Allocation. This is the process by which water is divided between users within a system. Physical facilities (gates) are involved, as are roles and social activities. 3.2.3.4. Accounting. All irrigation systems involve rights and duties of some humans, usually including the delivery of water to fields. In all systems larger than 50 ha so far investigated, there is some person or persons who do the accounting, keeping track of who has rights and duties, and who has received or fulfilled them. This need not be done in writing, although it often is. 3.2.3.5. Conflict Resolution. All irrigation systems have the potential for conflict. I define conflict as a disagreement which becomes a public maaer. All irrigation systems which have conflict also have arrangements for managing it. 3.2.3.6. Maintenance. All irrigation systems are subject to entropy, and need repair. Various physical facilities such as barrages, walls, gates and channels may be eroded or silted up, and are brought back to a condition nearer the design. Arrangements to achieve these repairs are always in existence. 3.2.3.7. Drainage. If there is too much water in the system it may have to be drained off. Not every system has this problem, but where it occurs it may be as important as any other task. 3.2.3.8. Ritual. Mot every system has religious ritual as an integral part of the operation of the system. Some do, and the ritual is seen as extremely important.

3.2.4. Roles. The tasks of irrigation systems must be performed by some agency. Role seems the most useful term. All systems must contain the role of farmer. All other roles are optional. 3.2.4.1. Chief Executive 0f~icer.'There will be an officer whose responsibility it is to operate the headgate. Often this role involves other duties, being responsible on occasion for maintenance, accounting, conflict resolution, and perhaps ritual as well. How far down the system this authority reaches is variable. 3.2.4.2. Staff. Above a certain size (somewhere around 100 ha.) the system is too large for one person to operate it, and there are subordinate staff appointed. 3.2.4.3. Workers. Especially for the drudgery of construction and maintenance, a large number of workers will be needed. These may be recruited from among the farmers, or may not be. 3.2.4.4. Farmers. Every irrigation system exists to supply water to agricultural crops (among other things.) These crops grow on farms, and therefore there has to be at least one farmer. Often there are many farmers in each system. 3.2.4.5. Water-Rights Holders. In many systems there are rights to the water, and these rights are held by persons, communities, corporations. or some mixture. Farmers may be rights-holders, or they may not be. It is not yet clear that every system has rights-holders.

3.2.5. Charter of Authority. In the case that there are officials who are responsible for operating the system, those officials derive authority for their job from some source. So far three sources of this authority have been found among systems found in modern nation-states.

Hunt

3.2.5.1.

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamiain Sumerian times

ati ion at Government. In this case the highest office of the polity charters the CEO.

There may well be a Ministry of the national government which operates the system. Rules, sanctions, and remuneration normally derive from the Ministry. The CEO and the higher levels of staff will likely be oriented towards urban rather than rural culture, residence, and career advancement. Irrigation Community. In this case some or all of the farmers form a corporate group, appoint the CEO, establish the rules, sanction the officers, and are responsible for remuneration. It is also often the case that the labor for maintenance is a duty associated with rights to water, in which case the workers are supposed to be the farmers and rights-holders. In these cases the CEO and officers are very likely to be recruited from among the members, and be rural in culture, residence and ambitions.

3.2.5.2.

In these cases (which are very scarce in the ethnographic record) an individual or corporation in effect charters the CEO itself. These systems usually originate in the private investment to build the system, and are subsequently operated by the same individuals.

3.2.5.3. Private.

3.2.5.4. Discussion.

One of the puzzles of Southern Mesopotamian social organization is the apparent total absence of the temples in irrigation management postgate, 1972). The temples (in Ur III and elsewhere) are large vertically integrated institutions, deeply involved in grain agriculture. They have hundreds of employees, vast storehouses, and a complex division of labor (cf. Hunt 1987b). And yet there is no mention of them being involved in any of the tasks that a large irrigation system imposes. Either these tasks simply are not reflected in the sample of temple archive texts analysed so far, or the tasks are being carried out by some organization external to the temple. If the latter is true, then temple lands were totally dependent upon some other institution(s) for their water supply. In times of water scarcity this would surely have been of considerable anxiety to temple leaders. How all this worked is a mystery. "Centralization" of irrigation is a frequently discussed topic. Most discussions have been based on vague andlor ambiguous concepts (cf. Hunt, in press b). Two of the many possible meanings of centralized management are that the system is under the control of a single officer, or that the system is under the control of the center of the polity. These are two quite different concepts, as has been pointed out by Kelly (1983), Hunt (in press a, in press b), and as has been noted by Uphoff (1986). All canal irrigation systems larger than 100 ha so far investigated have a unified form of management, in that a single officer has responsibility for managing the headgate. The interesting question is what agency provides the charter for the authority of that officer. If we use "centralized" to mean that the central polity provides the charter, then the question of the relationship of size and charter is of some interest. My comparative study shows that there is no stable relationship between size of system, and the charter for authority. I have found a farmer-managed irrigation system of 458,000 ha., and I have found a national government chartered irrigation system of 700 ha. There are plenty of examples of each type found in between these two limits7. One conclusion to be drawn from this research is that size alone does not determine the charter of authority for a canal irrigation system (within the range of 700 to 458,000 ha). Any analyst who would infer political organization from only the size of an irrigation system is hereby cautioned. There is another form of management which is fairly widely found throughout the world, and which was observed in Southern Iraq in the 1950s AD. I refer to a system whereby the headgate and the main canal are managed by central government; but at some relatively high structural

Hunt

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian times

juncture management is turned over to groups of farmers, who may be organized as Irrigation Communities. As reported by Fernea (1970), the Iraqi Government managed the Hindiyah Barrage, and the main canal which came from it. The government Engineer was responsible for allocation, maintenance, accounting and conflict resolution for that main canal, and for determining the size of the outlet pipe through the bank of the canal. However, his responsibility stopped at the outside edge of the bank of the main canal. At that point groups of farmers, usually organized as kin groups, took over. They were responsible for allocation, maintenance, accounting, and conflict resolution. A similar phenomenon in India is reported by Wade (1979) where villages took over responsibility for water management from the government at certain structural points. The points I want to stress are twofold. First, a large canal irrigation system (say 10,000 ha or larger) need not have a politically centralized management. Second, even if the headgate is under the control of the polity, it does not follow that that control extends all the way down to the farmer, or the field (although it may). It is difficult, if not impossible, to infer organization of management from a few facts about the size and lay-out of a canal irrigation system. We would be much better served to go looking for direct evidence of roles and tasks, and then to deduce what we can of management organization from such facts. 3.2.6. Water Politics. The dominance of upstream over downstream in irrigation matters is as close to a natural law in human affairs as I know. A folk-saying from the Colorado USA captures it well: "You are better off upstream with a shovel than downstream with a right." If the hydraulic works are important, and there are two systems on the stream, one upstream of the other, and if the upstream party has the technological capacity to interfere with the water supply to the downstream party, the party upstream clearly can and usually does dominate the downstream one. Within a system it takes considerable political power on the part of the tailenders (those downstream) to restrain the activities of those closer to the head. Police powers, or corporate groups, can and do manage this. But there are many forces that work against this restraint, including especially drought. It is worth looking for the arrangements which regulate upstream - downstream behavior in any irrigation system. One indication of successful management of a system is that the CEO's office can handle the conflicts which do occur. As pointed out above conflict between systems within a polity can be violent, and there is never an irrigation authority who is superordinate to both. Rather the conflict must move into another arena to be discussed, often the national court system, or the office of the ruler. In this case one might reasonably expect records to contain evidence of the dispute, and how it is solved. Finally there is conflict over water between two sovereign polities. Managing this kind of conflict is never easy, often involves violence, and the resolution may depend upon conquest, thereby creating a unicentric political context out of the previous multicentric one. A polity is always deeply concerned about the territory where important headgate(s) are located. The headgate is easily interfered with (sabotage is rapid and easy, fixing the damage is neither rapid nor easy). In Southern Mesopotamia we have a landscape that has a very low slope (10cm/km), and only two permanent rivers. The inevitable consequence is that headgates must be some distance upstream, perhaps tens of kilometers, from the fields receiving water. How then are the political boundaries drawn, and where are the major settlements? There must be military control over the headgate, to prevent interference by enemies. Every polity would be concerned with including its headgates within its own boundaries. Every polity that is trying to expand will almost certainly have to consider conquering the headgate of the target polity. The various

Hunt

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian times

Hunt

accounts of conflict between "City-States" in Southern Mesopotamia should be examined from this point of view (Larsa-Isin (Waiters; 1970), Urnrna-Lagash (Cooper, 1983)). 4. CONCLUSIONS

I have drawn attention to several problems that seem to have been neglected in the literature. Some are related to environmental factors: for example the Tigris and Euphrates both reach flood crest during grain harvest. It seems to me inevitable that Sumerian society would have devoted a considerable amount of effort and ingenuity to protective works. Closer scholarly attention to this matter should be productive. Another set of problems stems from the fact that there is severe heat stress on animals and perennial plants during the summer. This heat stress would have had its major impact not on the back-slopes, but on the levee-tops which were densely occupied by humans, large animals, and perennial plants. Hitherto most of the attention to irrigation has been given to the grain lands of the back-slopes. I argue that the levee-top occupation would have been equally likely as a location for substantial hydraulic management. I also argue that a levee-top location makes more sense of the troublesome and mysterious nag-kud than a back-slope location. In section 3 I presented a frame-work of dimensions of canal irrigation systems which might be of use for analysis and translation of Sumerian documents. These include system, size of system, tasks, roles and especially charter of authority. One result of comparative research is to throw doubt on the facile conclusion that "large" systems "must" have "centralized authority". This generalization is not true in an absolute sense. But even more to the point, it is perfectly plausible to have central authority run the headgate and the main canal, and have local groups be totally responsible for smaller sub-systems. A major puzzle is the lack of an irrigation management role for the large and powerful temples. One would expect a large farming operation, which is dependent upon irrigation, to have a strong hand in the management of that irrigation. This is true of latifundia all over the world after the Middle Ages. It is very hard to imagine a society where the temple estate would not have to take an interest in managing the irrigation system. The inter-state context of hydraulic works as competition for scarce resources is potentially of great importance in the interpretation of political history in Sumer. Control over the head-gate of one's own irrigation system is of paramount importance, and may well have been a major political motive. Whether from the point of view of describing and analysing individual irrigation systems, or of understanding the larger context of hydraulic management, it is apparent that further attention to the organization of water-work should considerably enhance our understanding of early Mesopotamia.

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian times

5. NOTES The original suggestion that I attend this conference came from Bob Adams. I am grateful to Brandeis University for financial aid which was instrumental in getting me to Leiden. As an outsider to the Ancient Near East I am always conscious of my ignorance. The SAG participants in Leiden were generous about this. H. Gasche, B. Wailes and R. Zettler have read the manuscript and made corrections and suggestions, for which I thank them. Irene Winter has displayed her usual good humor, generosity and intellectual honesty in her comments on various drafts of this paper. I am deeply appreciative. The errors of omission and commission which remain are my responsiblity. I hope only that they are tolerably low in number. 1

Karl Wittfogel in his Oriental Despotism clearly separates protective and productive works (1957). Protective works include dikes against high water. Productive works include irrigation and transportation systems. It is a very useful distinction. Irrigation systems can be useful even if very small. My impression is that useful small-scale flood protection works are very rare. Usually the scale needed is rather large.

2

Salinization has been a major topic in this field since the publication of Jacobsen and Adams in 1958. The Diyala report has since been published (Jacobsen, 1982). Powell (1985) has raised questions about the quality of the evidence for salinzation. It would appear to be time to reconsider the issue.

3

An article by Harris and Adams in 1957 raised the possibility of siltation due to massive flooding, but I can see no evidence that this interesting point was followed up. van Laere's fine article on irrigation gives floods considerable prominence (1980).

4

I have been conducting a systematic comparative study of the organization of irrigation over the past 15 years. This study originated in a concern with the political dimensions of irrigation, and how it related to the size of the system. The dimensions of irrigation which are presented here derive from that comparative effort. See the following works: Hunt and Hunt 1974, Hunt and Hunt 1976, R. Hunt 1979, 1986, in press a, and in press b. A close perusal of various other works (particularly Uphoff 1986, and Kelly 1983) shows that the results presented here are also being arrived at, independently, by other scholars.

5

Not all irrigation systems have a central authority in the sense of a chief executive officer. Netting (1974) has presented the case of a Swiss mountain irrigation system with no authority structure, and I have since found about a dozen cases from around the world. So far all such systems, which are not unified, are small (< 20 ha), and are very small in number. By far the greatest number of canal irrigation systems are unified, in the sense that there is a chief officer who is responsible for the task of allocation at the headgate, and often for many other tasks and geographic areas besides (cf. Hunt in press b).

6

This is a case where the label for the variable is less than adequate. In my original sample the only level of Government that was relevant here was the national one. Further this fits most of the meanings of centralization. However, an anonymous reader of a manuscript for Human Organization pointed out that in India it is the State, not the Nation, that operates the large irrigation systems. Most Indian states are larger than many other nations, and most of the same meanings of centralization apply. But they are not

Hunt

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian times

national entities. Therefore the value of the variable has to be reconceived. For the moment I am sticking with "national" as the label for the value of the variable. 7

The limit is provisional. If the measures are valid, the limits can only increase. Such limits are simply the outer edge of sizes that I have so far identified. There are hundreds of thousands of canal systems that have not been investigated yet.

Hunt

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian times

6. References Cited

Adams, R.McC. Land Behind Baghdad (Chicago, University of Chicago Press). 1965 Bos, M. G., and J. Nugteren On Irrigation Eflciencies (3rd ed.; Wageningen, ILRI). 1982 Cooper, J. 1983

Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions (Malibu, Undena Publications).

Dieleman, P.J. (ed.) Reclamation of Salt Affected Soils in Iraq (3rd ed.; Wageningen, ILRI). 1977 Fernea, R. 1970

Shaykh and Effendi: changing patterns of authority among the El Shabana of Southern Iraq (Cambridge, Harvard University Press).

Gibson, McG. and Biggs, R.D. (eds.) 1987 The Organization of Power: Aspects of Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near East (Chicago, The Oriental Institute). Harris, S.A. & Adams, R.McC. 1957 "A note on canal and marsh stratigraphy near Zubediyah", Sumer 13, 157-163. Hunt, E. and Hunt, R.C. 1974 "Irrigation, Conflict and Politics: A Mexican Case", in Downing & Gibson (eds.), Irrigation's impact on society (Tucson, University of Arizona Press), pp. 129-157. Hunt, R.C. 1979

The Comparative Method and the Study of Irrigation Social Organization (No. 97, Bulletin Series, Department of Rural Sociology, Cornell University).

1986

"Canal imgation in Egypt: common property management", in Proceedings of the Conference on C o m n Property Resource Management (Washington, D.C.; National Academy Press).

1987a

"Agricultural Ecology: The impact of the Aswan High Dam Reconsidered", Culture and Agriculture, No. 31, pp. 1-6.

1987b

"The role of bureaucracy in the provisioning of cities: A framework for the analysis of the Ancient Near East", in Gibson and Biggs 1987.

in press a

"Appropriate social organization? Water users associations in bureaucratic canal irrigation systems", Human Organization.

in press b

"Size and administrative structure in canal irrigation systems", Journal of Anthropological Research.

Hwt, R.C. & Hunt, E. 1976 "Canal imgation and local social organization", Current Anthropology 17, 389-41 1.

Hunt

Hydraulic management in southern Mesopotamia in Sumerian times

Jacobsen, Thorkild Salinity and Irrigation Agriculture in Antiquity. Diyala Basin Archaeological 1982 Projects: Report on Essential Results I 9 5 7 4 (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 14; Malibu, Undena Publications).

CANALS AND BUNDS, ANCIENT AND MODERN W. Pemberton*, J.N. Postgate & R.F. Smyth*

(Cambridge)

Jacobsen, Th. & and Adams. R.McC. "Salt and silt in ancient Mesopotamian agriculture", Science 128, 1251-1258. 1958 Kelly, William "Concepts in the anthropological study of irrigation", American Anthropologist 1983 85, 880-886. van Laere, R. 1980

"Techniques hydrauliques en MCsopotamie anciennne", Orientalia Lovaniensia Periodica 11, 11-53.

Netting, Robert M. "The system nobody knows: village irrigation in the Swiss Alps", in Downing & 1974 Gibson (eds.), Irrigation's impact on society (University of Arizona Press, Tucson), pp. 67-76. Oates, D. & Oates, J. "Early irrigation agriculture in prehistoric Mesopotamia", in G. de G. Sieveking 1976 et al. (eds.), Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology (London; Duckworth), pp. 109-35. Postgate, J. N. 1972

"The role of the temple in the Mesopotamian secular community", in Ucko, Tringham, and Dimbleby (eds.), Man Settlement and Urbanism.

Powell, Marvin A. "Salt, seed and yields in Sumerian agriculture: A critique of the theory of 1985 progressive salinization", Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie 75, 7-38. Uphoff, Norman Improving international irrigation management with farmer participation: 1986 Getting the process right (Working Paper, Water Management Synthesis Project I1 (Ithaca, Cornell University). Wade, Robert 1979

"The social response to irrigation: an Indian case study", Journal of Development Studies 16, 3-26.

Walters, Stanley D. Waterfor Larsa (New Haven, Yale University Press). 1970 Wittfogel, Karl Oriental Despotism (New Haven, Yale University Press). 1957

With irrigation, as with other topics already discussed by the group, one of the principal difficulties is securing detailed comparative and especially quantitative information about traditional practices in the south Mesopotamian plain today. In the last 30 years irrigation development has been concentrated on storage dams in the upper reaches of the Euphrates, Tigris and Diyala, and on several large scale irrigation and drainage projects. Details of traditional irrigation practices in the alluvial plain are hard to come by. The admirable study of the Hillah and Diwaniyah provinces by Poyck (1962) is concerned with the agronomy, and does not give much detail about the nature or the statistics of the water regime. The only description of this in print is in fact found in Fernea 1970. Information on the Tigris and Diyala in their lower courses was collected by or for Sir. M. MacDonald and Partners (a British firm of consulting engineers now based at Cambridge) in the late 1950's to form part of an Iraq government report, but has remained unpublished. Although the data were not collected with the rather precise requirements of the aspiring historian of ancient agriculture in mind, they do give some information which is a useful balance to the Euphrates and Khuzestan data used by Johnson 1973. An abbreviated digest of the description of a single village watered from the right bank of the Tigris near Kut was presented at Leiden, and will be included in Vol. 5 of the Bulletin. The present article begins with a simplified guide to the components of a traditional irrigation system, compiled by Ron Smyth, an irrigation engineer with several years' experience of irrigation work for MacDonald's in Iraq (Part I). Part I1 is a discussion of the Sumerian/Akkadian tern egliku(m), and Part In includes some scattered notes on particular points about the ancient evidence raised during our discussions.

PART I: IRRIGATION SYSTEMS Introduction The definitions which follow are not intended to be detailed and comprehensive, to the extent of covering all possible aspects of irrigation technology, but rather to act as a simple guide for use by non-experts. To this end some precision has been sacrificed to simplicity. The method of irrigation has been assumed to be of the traditional type by which water is applied to the land by surface gravity flow, and not the more sophisticated technology involving piped and pumped conveyance systems and sprinkler and drip irrigation.

*Consultant, Sir M. MacDonald & Partners.

Canals and Bunds

Pemberton et al.

Pemberton et al.

Canals and Bun&

LEGEND

Diagrammatic Arrangement of Irrigation System Minor Channels

Typical Layout of lrrigation System ( minor channels omitted )

MAIN CANAL BRANCH CANAL DISTRIBUTARY DIVERSION WEIR MAIN CANAL REGULATOR BRANCH CANAL REGULATOR DISTRIBUTARY REGULATOR ROAD RAILWAY

DIVERSION

SCALE

0

50

100

150 200m. I

I

I

FIELD

_ _ - _ _ _ - - _ _ __-_- -_-_ - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - - - - -

,

Fig. 2 The definitions which follow are given according to their descriptive category with their ordinal number in brackets following. A notional range of capacity of each channel category is also given appended to the definition. 2.1 Canal A man-made channel (or adapted natural channel) forming part of the irrigation system

and generally categorised according to its function within the system as defined below: 2.2 Main canal ( P W Y ) A canal to convey water from the source to branch canals (in larger systems) or to distributary canals (in smaller systems). It generally has no outlets to the land. Range: exceeding 2 m3/sec.

Fig. 1

2.4 Distributary (SECONDARY) A canal to convey water from a main canal (in smaller systems)

Definitions I . General Irrigation system: a network of channels and structures and other works connected to an area of cultivable land, by means of which water is conveyed from its source to the land for the purpose of growing crops. 2. Channels The various channels within an irrigation system are categorised, either by description or by ordinal number according to their particular function within the system, and to some extent according to their capacity relative to each other. However channels of the same category in different imgation systems can vary enormously in terms of their absolute capacity depending on the overall size of the system.

,.,

.

I

,

2.3 Branch canal (PRIMARY) A canal to convey water from a main canal to distributary canals. It generally has no outlet to the land. Range: exceeding 0.5-2 m3/sec.

.

.

"

,

:_...,. ,. --"...: i , .

. b e

or from a branch canal (in larger systems) to off-takes serving varying areas of land either directly or through lower-category channels. Range: 0.1-2.0 m3/sec. 2.5 Watercourse (TERTIARY) A canal to convey water from a distributary canal to offtakes

serving varying areas of land either directly or through lower-category channels. Range: 0.02-0.2 m3/sec. 2.6 Farm channel (QUATERNARY) A canal to convey water from a distributary or a watercourse to the land, either directly or through Field Channels.

Range: 0.02-0.1 m3/sec. 2.7 Field channels (QUATERNARY) The lowest category of channel from which water is conducted directly to the land, either through furrows or in a broad surface flow to or through a

RESEARCH ARCHIYFS - DIRECTOR'S LEREPs9V THE ORiEFL'l A l IVSTiTUTE DNIVERS!T:' OF CSl$iGQ

Canals end Bunds

Pemberton et al.

The shape of the various categories of canal is determined by the maximum water flow in each channel. Channels flowing in alluvium and transporting a similar material will tend to form a classic, semi-elliptical shape. These conditions are typical of the flat alluvial plains of Egypt, Mesopotamia and the Indus valley. The following equation gives typical canal dimensions as shown in the chart: D=& ws

+

#

Canals and Bunds

preventing damage by the falling water to the channel downstream. (Often combined with cross regulator).

succession of relatively flat but progressively lower basins. Range: 0.02-0.1 m3/see.

Water surface width [=Wsl

Pemberton et al.

Average depth [=Dl

Q = the dominant discharge in m3/sec.

Typical canal dimensions

2.2 Main canal

3.5 Off-take: A structure to control water taken off a channel and supplied either to the head of a lower-category charmel or direct to the land.

Note: as in the diagrams (Figs. 1 and 2), transverse structures regulating the flow in a channel will often be placed near its departure from the parent stream. They could in theory be incorporated into the bank of the parent stream, but for ease of construction are often placed a short distance along the lesser channel. Water supply If we are to understand the relative importance of irrigation and other hydraulic work within the agricultural schedule, it is clearly necessary to have some idea of how large a canal is needed to supply a given area of land. This is not a simple calculation, but it may be helpful to set down here some of the elements of the equation. W. Pemberton writes: "The quantity of water required to grow crops is a function of the free-water surface evaporation. Fig. 3 shows values for Central Iraq varying between 1.4 and 10.7 mmlday. Fig. 4 shows irrigation requirements for various cropping patterns. TABLE 2

Climatic Data

Month

Jan.

- Monthly teb.

Mean Figures.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aup.

Sepl.

Ocl.

Nov.

D.c.)

Rainfall bnmlmoith) (1931-1968 incl.)

2.3 Branch canal

1.0 m3/sec

4.0

0.6

2.4 Distributary canal

0.5 m3/sec

2.8

0.45

*2.5 Watercourse

0.1 m3/sec

1.5

0.4

A i r T c m p ~ r a t u r e' C (1911.1968 incl.) Rel. llumidily k (:937-1968 incl. )

D . w point temp. OC (1959-1968 Incl. ) Pr..nure mb at M.S. :193O-IYbO incl.)

L.

Vapour Pr.ea (mb.) (1931-1960 ir4cl.)

*2.6 Farm channel

0.05 m3/sec

1.O

0.3

\\'lnd spa=@ !at 10 m above surface) in kmlhrn. Solar Radlatfon (callcm21tay) (1961-1969 incl.)

[*these two smallest channels do not fit the equation given above] 3. 3 Structures 3.1 Diversion works: A structure, temporary or permanent, at the head of the channel system, the purpose of which is to divert water supplies from the source to the system.

Sunehle. Durallon (hrnlday) (1931-1968 lncl.) Evrporation (mmlmonth) Clara "A" p#n :1966-1969 lncl.) (mmlday) cvrporallon from free wale? nurfac. arc. ~esunrn-mmlmonlh) Inrrn~ldav)

3.2 Head regulator: A structure, transverse to the channel at the head of the system, to control water supplied to the system.

3.3 Cross regulator: A structure, transverse to the channel at selected points on the system, to maintain water levels upstream and/or control the water supplied downstream. (Often combined with Canal fall). 3.4 Canal fall: A structure, transverse to the channel, to maintain water levels upstream whilst

t

Wind npced records: 1930-1968 lncl. avblkble for 144-1968 1 " 1945- 1968 lncl. " 1951-LO68 isrl. " "

03.00. 06.00. 12.00 G.M.T. 18.00 G. M. T. 24.00 C. M. 1. 09.00. 15.00. 21.00 G.M.T.

TI,. M.t.orolo~lca1 Stallon has bee. moved o n t.1

J . # I . ,

1970 from Ih. Old Airport to the New Airport.

Fig. 3

I

Pemberton et al.

Canals and Bunds TABLE 14 nav.

Its

Canal Outlet Requirement (mm and L/sec/km 2 ) at Project Maturity per Development Units.

Farmln; Syslem

Jan

F e b Mar

Apr

May Jun

Jul

Aug

Sep

Oct

Nov

Dee

69 58 96 111 41 33 34 66 80 98 6 1 1 1 6 1 7 1 3

21 60 9

49 59 5

43 23 1

39 8

k Ib IC IIa

Ib

Ub

llc

lld

111. 1lIb

Field Cropa Forage Crop# (B) Vegaaabloa (8)

11 7

-

58 19 1

66 46 3

Total (mm) (L/aeclhZ)

38 14

77 32

115 43

308 42

103 38

178 69

208 78

152 57

90 34

113 42

67 26

47 18

Exlallnc Orchard

19

47

115

186

289

366

394

332

237

I48

41

IS

Total (mm) (~lseclkm~)

19 7

47 19

115 43

186 72

289 108

366 141

394 I47

332 124

237 91

148 55

41 16

15 6

Sp.cIall8t Qlrua Orcl.ard (A) Vegelablrm (A) Forage (A)

18 1 3

36 4 10

76 8 25

115 15 27

167 28 35

213 38 45

230 39 49

331 31 50

168 26 34

105 18 29

39 6 14

15 2 6

Total (mm) (~1a8clh~)

22 8

40 17

109 41

157 61

210 86

296 114

318 119

312 116

228 88

152 57

59 23

23 9

ppeclalimt Vq~e Vc~alallcm (A) Forape (I))

4 8

15 20

32 49

62 35

114 36

153 71

155 85

123 104

105 64

74 65

25 24

7 9

Tot41 (mm) (~lacsllun~)

12 4

35 11

81 30

97 37

150 56

224 86

240 90

227 85

169 65

137 51

49 19

16 6

r o r a p 8 (A)

21

61

153

161

210

270

297

300

207

175

86

38

Tocal (mm) (L/*cC/h2)

21 8

61 25

153 57

161 62

210 78

270 104

297 111

300 112

207 80

175 65

86 33

38 14

Fssld Crop. Forage Crops (A) Ve~e1aLl.a (8)

51 5

-

58 15 2

66 38 6

69 40 15

58 53 2

96 68 31

111 74 34

41 75 27

21 52 19

49 44 11

43 22 3

39 10 1

Total (mm) ( ~ n * C / h ~ )

36 13

75 31

110 41

122 7

134 50

195 75

219 82

143 53.

92 35

104 39

61 26

50 19

t

-

D.(ry

ArJbl. 1 I

(1

Fig. 4 A peak value of some 100 litres per sec per sq. km. (=1 l./sec/ha) seems appropriate and this peak value is a measure of canal capacities. Clearly farmers cannot irrigate 1 hectare continually with a flow of 1 litrelsec. hence a rotation system of irrigating fields is used with say 30 fields of 1 hectare irrigated with 30 litreslsec in rotation. Irrigation intervals may vary between 5 and 15 days depending on crop and season, so at a 10-day irrigation interval 3 fields of 1 hectare each would be irrigated in one day". PART 11: eg = "bund"

In his contribution to this volume as in discussions at Leiden, Steinkeller accepts that (contrary to many earlier translations), the Sumerian word eg and the derivative (or cognate) Akkadian ikum do not mean a canal, but a dike or bank. He does still, though, tend to see the eg mentioned in the Sumerian texts as raised dikes along which small canals or channels flowed, comparing them to the 'umuds described as running between banks by Fernea: "what the eg amounted to, therefore, was two parallel ridges or levees, separated by a raised water channel" (p. 73). This is a compromise position between the meanings "dike" and "ditch", which have often been used as though synonymous in Assyriological translations. The confusion is natural, since digging a ditch or canal always creates one or two banks each side, and it is reflected in the ambiguity of the English word "dike" itself, which can refer to a ditch, or excavated watercourse, or to a raised bank, of the type used in prehistoric and mediaeval times to demarcate territory. To

Canals and Bunds

Pemberton et al.

c 1 1I

/

I

avoid this ambiguity, I shall use the word "bund" which English has borrowed from India, not coincidentally outside temperate Europe. The same indecision is epitomised in CAD VJ S.V. iku, where the meanings at the head of the article are given as "1. dike, 2. plot of land surrounded by a dike" (66a), while in the body of the article a distinction is made between the meanings "boundary ditch" and "ditch for irrigation purposes" @. 68b; corresponding to meanings 1.a (dike) "... referring primarily to the ditch" and 1.b "referring primarily to the ridge of piled-up earth". The concept that the bund (eg) was associated with a watercourse was set out by Jacobsen 1982, 62: "branch canals and feeders (pa,) often run along the top of artificial dykes (e) to preserve desirable elevation". This has been accepted by Steinkeller, who sees the eg as an earthen structure with raised banks each side between which is a water channel. From his point of view, therefore, the purpose of the eg is to raise the water supply above the surrounding fields, and he finds a parallel for this in Fernea's description of low earthen banks Cfariq) along the top of which there runs a small canal (umud). Although everyone is agreed that the word means a "ridge of piled-up earth", there remains a significant area of disagreement. It is my contention that such bunds were often made independently of the water-courses, and that unless an association with a canal is explicitly mentioned, we should not assume one. Among a variety of bunds listed in the lexical texts we find, for example: e id.da = (iku) nu-a-ru "canal bund", e a&.ga = (iku) eq-li "field bund", and e 8s.sa.d~ = (iku) i-te-e "boundary bund" (see CAD VJ, 66-7 for these and others). There is therefore no a priori reason to associate the egs we meet in the texts with canals, and my contention is that the banks should be seen usually not as the substructure of a canal bringing water to the land, but as walls to contain and direct the flow of water - quite a different thing. This is broadly in accord with the position of M. Civil, reported to us at the Leiden meeting, and since he will present detailed documentation in his forthcoming edition of the Farmer's Instructions, I make no attempt to duplicate this here. I shall deal briefly with the principal points which seem to favour a meaning "canal-between-banks", and then consider the implications for our reconstruction of the irrigation regime. 1. There is no doubt that eg can mean a bank heaped up alongside a canal. Self-evidently any excavation leaves a pile of earth, and the most efficient way of disposing of it is to leave equal banks each side, which will be raised each time the bottom of the canal is cleared out. Indeed after a while the banks may become so high that it pays the farmers to start an entirely fresh canal. This is not a "canal bank" in the sense of a river bank, gu or kar in the accompanying sketch (Fig. 5), but a bund, heaped up above the ground surface.

sweet water

d

(salty) water table

Fig. 5 Sketch of canal with Sumerian terminology 2. Certainly the archaic sign for eg represents a canal with banks each side. This does not entitle us to decide whether the word means "canal", "canal-between-bunds", or "bund": any seem possible, but to decide the meaning of a word on the basis of its ideogram is a dangerous procedure.

Pemberton et al.

Pemberton et al.

3. The SteinkellerIJacobsen interpretation in fact sees the eg as a single bund, in the top of which a canal is accommodated. Perhaps it could mean that, and it is technically perfectly plausible, but one of our clearest references to an eg comes from the inscription of Rim-Sin which tells of a canal he built with "its two banks like mountains" (e3-a-bi hur-sag-gim, UET 8, 86:40). This implies that each of the two ridges of earth was a single eg; it seems unlikely that the same word was regularly used for the substructure of a canal as well. 4. There are texts which mention eg/ikm in parallelism with padpalgum, usually when referring to the infra-structure of the irrigation system being created or destroyed: e pa, Su.sisB.gB.gB.e.d&:i-ka u palga [ina JuteJiiriJunu] "when they set in order ikum and canal" (after CAD I/J 67a, where other passages are cited). Clearly the bund is here part of the imgation system, but we only need to translate it "canal" if we believe the system consisted exclusively of canals; if the system comprised both canals and bunds, then it is entirely reasonable that both should be mentioned. There is no more reason to think that the two words mean the same thing than with the constant association of (e.g.) hammer and sickle. 5. Ur I11 texts among others refer to the labour of "heaping up" (not "digging") bunds (see Steinkeller, p. 73). The bunds along canals are the unwilling creation of those involved in excavating the bed: this is referred to in the same texts as "digging" (ba-al, etc.). The two must be separate operations, although it is clear that the same would apply to Steinkeller's class of canals which require earth heaped up first. 6. The parallel drawn with the m u d described by Fernea (1970, 122) is reasonable, but there is a difference of scale. The umuds "frequently run through the center of the low earth walls uariq) which enclose the small plots of land (kwh) under cultivation". In fact the lowh is only about 10 ft. (3 m) wide, and even the jadwal, which is two or three stages up the hierarchy (jadwal - bada - naharan - m u d - mirriyan) from the mud, is described as only 5 ft. across (although some jadwal are certainly bigger than this). These are therefore very small-scale installations, unlikely to be mentioned in texts referring to organized labour, and in a different league from the eg/ikum which can be 6m in width.

force of the waves when the basins are filled with water." (Willcocks 1899, 62). On pp. 116-8 Willcocks refers to attempts to reinforce the slopes of the dykes against the action of waves with masonry or by growing grass. Similarly in the Yemen it is reported that "Where brushwood is available, the farmers use it to reinforce canal banks against erosion. Where not available, long grass is cut and used for the same purpose'' (Wadi Mawr Project Report North Yemen, Sir M. MacDonald & Partners, 1985). This is a useful parallel to the reeds used on the bunds in the Mesopotamian texts (see Steinkeller, p. 75; also van Soldt, p. 116), although it is not always clear whether the inside or outside of the banks is meant. Although from a different hydraulic regime, the following description of a contemporary system in the Yemen, given to us by Mr. Pemberton, may be of interest:

I

"Most farmers perceive that irrigation with small quantities of water at frequent intervals is better than large quantities at infrequent intervals. However, where irrigation supplies are intermittent and/or unreliable, farmers take the opportunity when water is available to apply as much as possible to their fields as an insurance against future lack of water. To contain large depths of irrigation water on the fields, high earth bunds are constructed around them. Hence the less reliable the flows the higher are the field bunds. This is demonstrated in the photograph (Fig. 6): the farmer is now imgating from a well and hence irrigates with shallow depths. The field which was previously irrigated by flood irrigation is sumunded by metre-high bunds indicating a few large irrigations per season. The mention of reservoirs in ancient Mesopotamia seems to indicate unreliability in irrigation supplies, or alternatively they may be a convenience for the farmer to avoid night irrigation".

Examples of field bunds and their purpose Since many traditional agricultural regimes are dependent on earthen bunds to retain and control water there is no reason why the south Mesopotamian system should not also have made extensive use of them, and it is worth looking at the nature and purposes of such bunds in more detail. One clue is that the Mesopotamian areal measure of about 60x60m called an iku is generally agreed to derive from the word eg, implying that it was normal to enclose an area of about this size by bunds to contain the water. Although often repeated, this admittedly remains pure speculation and these bunds would have been small installations, maintained by the farmers individually, and hence unlikely to feature in administrative labour texts. In contrast, some bunds were much larger: those listed in An.Or. I, 33 are uniformly 6m in width, and obviously the boundary bunds between Umma and Lagash, mentioned below, will have been of a considerable width and height, as well as many kilometers long. The traditional basin irrigation system of the Nile valley also made use of bunds, quite different in scale from any small banks round individual holdings. These were described as follows:

"The basin dykes have an average width at top of 6 metres, height of 3 112 metres and slope of 1 in 1; a few of the transverse dykes are pitched with stone on their northern slopes, to break the

Canals and Bunds

Fig. 6 Bunds enclosing a field in the Yemen (Montaine plains and Wadi Rima Project, Yemen Arab Republic Land Resources Development Centre, 1979) I

Pemberton et al.

Canals and Bunds

This is a useful corrective to any suspicion that the basin and bank system was only suitable for the regime of the Nile, which is well known to be particularly favourable to the farmer. Perhaps even more than along the Nile we might have expected the Mesopotamians to seek ways of conserving their scanty water for as long as possible, and there is no reason why they should not have developed as complex a system of interconnecting basins as the 19th century Egyptian peasant. Naturally the need to protect standing crops from excessive flood-water in the spring imposes other constraints on any Mesopotamian system, and there must have been differences in detail. It would be premature to speculate further here about the functioning of such a basin system, but it is not difficult to envisage a regime based primarily on a belt of basin cultivation along each side of the major water courses, which only gradually gave way to a more dendritic pattern. Implications If it is accepted that the egs mentioned in our 3rd millennium sources are regularly banks not water courses, it becomes necessary to revise descriptions of various hydraulic projects mentioned in the texts (cf. Behrens & Steible, FAOS 6, 94-6; Maeda, ASJ 6 (1984) 3942). Much of the work recorded in the Ur 111 texts was on construction of field bunds, rather than new canals. When Entemena (Enmetena) says that his father Eanatum had delimited a boundary with the ruler of Urnma (En-akale ensi- Umma(k)da ki e-da-sur) and e-bi id-nun-ta &*den-na-Se ib-ta- ni-&he is talking not about a big new canal but about a bund: "he brought that bund out from the Euphrates to the Gu-edena". It has to be admitted that the precise interpretation of the passages relating to these bunds in the Pre-Sargonic Lagash inscriptions is very difficult, partly because of the use of the verb & in different contexts: e-bi ib-ta-ni4, e-na-ta-ni-&,a e i-mi4 ("he let out the bund-water [a e(g.ak)]'?) and IM ba-ni-8-de). These are rendered by modem scholars in various ways, all of which are really only guesses based on d e individual translators' perceptions of the context, and this is not the place to add another set of guesses to the list. I will only say that there is nothing here which forces us to translate eg as "canal", or prevents us from translating it as "bund". The redefinition of eg would have a major effect on some of the discussions of the topography of the south, especially Lagash (see e.g. Jacobsen 1969; Cooper 1983). In particular note that the subject of the long-running dispute between Lagash and Umma would not have been a canal, but a boundary bund. It has always seemed difficult to me that it should have been a water-course, which would not only have required co-operative maintenance but also have constituted a permanent subject of contention, since neither side could control the other's access to and consumption of water. It is obviously much more convenient to have the lands of two uneasy neighbours separated by a bund. Equally, when Ur-Narnmu reclaimed a swamp in the region of Ur, he did it by constructing not a canal, but a bund: "that bund he heaped up for 4 danna and 260 nindan..." (UET 1, 285:6-18). The general implications are quite as significant. If fields were regularly placed between bunds, it implies that basin irrigation was the norm; some of the banks were at least a metre high, and this throws some light on the nature of the initial autumn flooding of the fields mentioned by the texts. It also reveals that it is not adequate to take the modem agronomic practices of the region as prescriptive: the ancient landscape must have been very different. The energies of the administrators would have gone as much on bud-building and on controlling the basin system as on ditch-digging; and since the bunds have an effect on only a confined area, the degree to which society is dependent on maintaining a 'supra-local' organization is reduced.

...

Pernberton et al.

Canals and Bunds

In this light we should also view the kalas described in the Middle Babylonian period by van Soldt as inherited from earlier times, since the word iku seems to survive in literary contexts only. PART

m: RESERVOIRS AND REGULATORS?

This section covers two points of controversy relating to irrigation on which comment from the engineering side seems worth conveying. Possible purpose of reservoirs Steinkeller has made a strong plea for abandoning the translation of nag-ku, (and accordingly the Kassite natbaktu) as "reservoir", in favour of a "partidor", or distributary device within a canal (see pp. 74ff.). It does not emerge clearly from the texts whether it was a separate construction parallel to a canal, or accommodated within it, but at least one irrigation engineer consulted on this agreed that some kind of construction would be feasible and desirable within the course of a canal to aid the diversion of flows through the off-takes. However, as yet there is no compelling proof for one translation or another, and part of his argument rests, quite rightly, on practical considerations. In view of this, it is perhaps worth considering the practical aspects of the nag-kud if it were in fact a reservoir as suggested by Oppenheim. If he were right, the purpose must have been to store water for the farmer to use when it was not available from a canal. This could be because there was no water in the system, or because it was not high enough for gravity-flow irrigation, or because of social constraints on his use of the water so as to make it available to others. Within the annual regime two specific purposes are imaginable: 1) to conserve a supply of water over the summer months for use in the early autumn when river levels are at their lowest, and 2) to build up supplies in a reservoir at the same time as irrigating the fields during the months of (say) October to January, when constant gravity-flow irrigation was technically possible, but constrained by social conventions. Obviously these two are not mutually exclusive. It seems in fact that 1) could hardly have been practical, because of the high rate of evaporation during the summer months. If we look at the period when the Euphrates is at its lowest, August and September, we would expect a loss from evaporation of about 50 cm, and for July-October inclusive, a loss of nearly lm. This suggests that a reservoir 3.5 m deep (the maximum attested) might indeed conserve a useful amount of water over the summer, but that one of 1 m or less in depth (also attested) would have been no use at all. More generally, to substitute in any serious way for a supply of flowing water to extensive cereal crops a reservoir would have to be enormous. To make sense of the translation "reservoir" we would need to find a rather specific use in which the regular gravity-flow supplies could be supplemented. Two possibilities have been mooted here. One is that at the very beginning of the season in September a dampening of the ground (but no more than this) would very much assist the first ploughing. This still runs into the objection that the volume of water is slight by comparison with the areas being cultivated. An alternative, suggested by W. Pemberton, is that reservoirs could have been used principally for small areas of vegetables etc., which require more frequent inigation than cereals because of their shallow root depth. This would be additional to the use of wells (pu) by the gardeners of South Mesopotamia in antiquity, for which there is evidence not yet gathered or surveyed in detail. However, it is obvious that even for cereal crops it would have done no harm to have a subsidiary supply of water. M.P. Charles draws our

Pemberton et al.

Canals and Bunds

attention to the system of estancas in traditional Spanish imgation practice: these tanks, some of considerable size, would be filled during the day with water surplus to the regular allocation to individual users, and the contents auctioned to those in need of extra supplies. This seems a plausible solution, and could function equally well in a centrally directed system, but whether the advantages could have been so considerable as to justify the labour involved in the construction of a nag-kud is a judgement which we have no means of assessing. S. Kang's hypothesis concerning the nag-kud is that it was a "settling-reservoir". He sees three functions for it: to concentrate the water-borne silt in one place, from which it could later be "dug out and distributed over the fields so that it could be used as a form of fertilization", to store and regulate the flow of water, and to provide a reserve of clear water, "especially during the long, hot dry season" (1973, 436). Since, as we have seen above, the storage capacity of the nag-kuds may only have been of marginal importance, let us consider the possibility that their prime function was to allow silt to settle. In the context of ancient Egypt it is generally believed that the annual deposition of Nile silts is essential to the fertility of the land. To this W. Pemberton responds:

Pemberton et al.

Canals and Bunds

requires essentially a sill or low wall against which the base of the poles can rest, and some kind of upper beam on which the operator can stand, and against or within which the top end of the

"There is a widespread view amongst farmers that silt laden water is preferable to clear water for imgation. In Egypt, for instance, the silt brought by the flood is thought to be most beneficial. From tests on silt laden water, the nitrogen content is however quite low. In Pakistan, farmers remove silt deposits from canal banks and spread them on their fields. There may be some soil-conditioning advantages for heavy land as the deposited material from canals is usually fine sand. It may perhaps be sympathetic magic - dark soil is fertile therefore dark water is preferable". The properties of silt are discussed by M.P. Charles above, and we should note both that there is a significant difference between the deposits from the major rivers and those from the canal network and that fine silt is by no means all beneficial (see pp. 24-6). The settling-reservoir idea therefore seems less than convincing, at least until some parallels can be adduced. The construction of regulators I am a firm believer in Jacobsen's identification of the 'construction enigrnatique' at Tello as a regulator, and do not find the objections raised against it (e.g. Bamlet 1965, 112-5) convincing. The use of bitumen agrees excellently with the proposed re-interpretation of the Entemena text (see HruSka, above, p. 6gW),and a rough calculation suggests that in fact the Tello regulator would have used something in the order of 68,500 bricks, which makes it a smaller cousin of Entemena's regulator which he says used 648,000. I do not wish to argue this point further here, - although it would be admirable if a careful archaeological operation could test the hypothesis at the site - but rather to consider how such a regulator might have functioned technically. The floor and the side walls of the supposed channel were constructed of baked brick and bitumen, but there is no obvious banier at the narrowest point for holding back the water. However, the essence of a regulator has to be not only to hold up the flow, and raise the level behind it, but also when necessary to permit the passage of water without hindrance. It must therefore be a temporary, and thus removable barrier. A possible model for such a regulator is described for us from the Yemen by W. Pemberton (see Figs. 7-8):

"...wooden needles used as control gates in the Abyan Delta in South Yemen. The timber needles are approximately 100 x50 mm in cross-section, and rest on the sill and an upper support". It will be seen that in this way part of the channel could be opened as required. This simple device

Photos: T.R. Bray, 1956. Figs. 7 and 8: Head Regulator over Makazan Canal, Abyan Board, P.D.R.Y.

Pemberton et al.

Canals and Bunds

Pemberton et al.

Canals and Bunds

poles can be fixed. Is it then more than a coincidence that Parrot (who did not believe in the regulator theory of his predecessor) observed an ideal emplacement for such a transverse beam: "c'est ainsi que dans la muraille, au-dessus de la chambre 2 et vis-a-vis de la chambre 3, une cavitC profonde etait visible, oti l'on reconnsulrait volontiers un point pdcis d'attache pour une poutre du toit" (Parrot, Tello 216). If we envisage this and other regulators (they are wooden constructions, fik~-du/ra)after this fashion, then it is easy to imagine the god Erragal sweeping downstream, pulliig up the wooden poles and allowing the flood-waters to flow unhindered through the canals and over their banks: tarkulle ddr-ra-gal inassah, illak *nin-urta mibra dardi "Erragal pulls up the poles, (as) he goes Ninurta lets the lock(s) flow out" (Gilgamesh XI.lO1-2; see Kupper, above, p. 99).

BIBLIOGRAPHY Barrelet, M.-T. 1965

"Une 'Construction Cnigmatique'

Butzer, K.W. 1976

Early hydraulic civilization in Egypt (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).

Cooper, J.S. 1983

Fernea, R. 1970

Jacobsen, T. 1969 Kang, S.T. 1973

Willcocks, W. 1899

a Tello", Iraq 27, 100-1 18.

Reconstructing history from ancient inscriptions: the Lagash- Urnma border conflict (Sources from the ancient 'Near East, 2/i; Malibu, UNDENA publications).

Shaykh and Effendi: patterns of authority among the El Shabana of southern Iraq.

"A survey of the Girsu (Telloh) region", Sumer 25, 103-9.

Sumerian economic texts from the Umma archive (= Sumerian and Akkadian cuneiform texts in the collection of the World Heritage Museum of the University of Illinois, Vol. 11).

Egyptian irrigation (2nd edition; LondonINew York). a

5

I

I

tom. I

Fig. 9 Regulator at Tello (after Parrot, Tello p. 213)