New light on the hydrology and topography of Southern Babylonia in the third millennium

Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie und Vorderasiastische Archaeologie

Volumn 91, Issue 1, 2001, Pages 22-84

  Steinkeller, Piotr ^a  

^a HARVARD UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 63149124441     PISSN: 00845299     EISSN: 16131150     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1515/zava.2001.91.1.22     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (82)

1. "The Waters of Ur," Iraq 22 (1960) 174-85, with pl. XXVIII
2. Here it should be noted that the thesis of the primacy of the Tigris and the identification of the "eastern Euphrates" as the Iturungal had both been offered by Jacobsen in essentially the same form already three years earlier, in his article "Early Political Development in Mesopotamia," ZA 52 (1957) 96-97: "Of the two major watercourses, the Euphrates and the Tigris, the former is by far the easier one to tap and on it depends, therefore, most of the ancient settlements. Beginning at a point north of the latitude of modern Baghdad a number of major canals were drawn from the Euphrates and carried with the surface contours southeast toward the Tigris, which in this stretch flows parallel with, and not very far to the east of, the Euphrates . Further to the south, approximately at Babylon, the Euphrates divided in antiquity into two major branches which watered the country of Sumer. The easternmost of these, the Iturun-gal, flowed in the southeastern direction well north of Nippur to Adab, then south over Zabalam and Umma to Badtibira, where it veered west and, over Larsa, seems to have rejoined the main, western, branch. The western branch itself, the ancient Euphrates, followed a course somewhat to the north and east of that of the present Hilla branch, passed through Nippur, curved down to Shuruppak, and flowed from there due south over Uruk to Ur and on through extensive marshlands to the Persian Gulf. Besides these two major Euphrates branches there was a third important watercourse, the Sirara, which took off from the Iturungal at Zabalam and, flowing first southeast then south, watered the district of Girsu, Lagash, and Ninâ, continuing southward through marshes to the Gulf. This canal seems at various times to have fed also from the Tigris, most likely through a cut running down from a point somewhere near modern Kut-el-Amara. "
3. Conducted in 1953-1954 by Jacobsen, Vaughn Crawford, and Fuad Safar. See Iraq 22, 175 n. 1
4. See also the quotation cited in n. 1 above and his article "A Survey of the Girsu (Telloh) Region," Sumer 25 (1969) 103-09
5. Iraq 22, 177
6. Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates (Chicago 1981), 6-7, 16-18, 61-63, 134, 158-59
7. These conclusions were anticipated, at least in part, by R. Paepe, "Geological Approach of the Tell ed-De zēr Area, Mesopotamian Plain, Iraq," in: L. De Meyer et al., Tell ed-Dēr I (Louvain 1971), 9-27 (especially, 24-27)
8. In their recent study "Second and First-Millennium BC Rivers in Northern Babylonia," in: H. Gasche/M. Tanret (ed.), Changing Watercourses in Babylonia: Towards a Reconstruction of the Ancient Environment in Lower Mesopotamia. MHEM 5 (Ghent 1998), 1-64
9. See, e. g., H. Sauren, Topographie der Provinz Umma nach den Urkunden der Zeit der III. Dynastie von Ur (Heidelberg 1966)
10. H. J. Nissen in Adams/Nissen, The Uruk Countryside: The Natural Setting of Urban Societies (Chicago 1972) 41-54
11. e millénaire," ASJ 13 (1991) 111 -56
12. idem, "Études [...] III: L'Itur-ungal et le sud sumérien," ASJ 15 (1993) 11-69
13. ZA 80 (1990) 204-13
14. Note also Heimpel's earlier comments in JNES 46 (1987) 316-17
15. At least one scholar took note of it, although without taking any position, for or against it. See D. T. Potts, Mesopotamian Civilization: The Material Foundations (Ithaca 1997) 26, who limits himself to the following statement: "For the most part Jacobsen's reconstruction [of the watercourses] has stood the test of time, although ...W. Heimpel now suggests that the watercourse which flowed past Girsu, Umma, and Adab, was in fact the Tigris. "
16. For the question of Zubi, see G. Conti, RA 82 (1988) 115-16
17. Cole/Gasche, "Rivers in Northern Babylonia," 16-18
18. See the following examples, which concern the hoisting of Tigris water, no doubt for irrigation purposes: 10 guruš ud 15-šè a zi-ga gú Idigna-ka-da gub-ba (Sigrist Princeton 500:1-4)
19. 12 guruš ud 15-šè a zi-ga gú Idigna-ka šu ùr-ra, "leveling the banks of the Tigris" (Sigrist Yale 1699:1-3)
20. 4!] gú íd-Idigna (Istanbul 1794:1-3)
21. 14 gurus engar dumu-ni ud 8-šè a-da gub-ba gú Idigna-ka (MVN 9 202:1-2)
22. 10 guruš engar dumu-ni ud 7-šè a-da gub-ba gú Idigna-ka (Sigrist Princeton 413:1-3)
23. Cf. Frayne's translation "he blocked (water from) the fields" (RIME 2, 285)
24. dEn-ki-ke4 id-Idigna íd-Buranun-na a im-ma-da-an- kéš, "Enki blocked the water in the Tigris and Euphrates" (P. Michalowski, Lamentation over the Destruction of Sumer and Ur. MC 1 [Winona Lake 1989] 40-41)
25. mu íd-Idigna ba-ba-al = Sin-iddinam 2 (Sigrist, Larsa Year Names [Berrien Springs 1990] 24)
26. Frayne, RIME4, 158-60 2, 171-72 11, 175-76 14
27. 7-bi-šè [h]u-mu-un-ba-al (JCS 19 [1965] 2-3 lines 209-211). N. B. this passage (and likewise the entire inscription) has no direct bearing on the question of the "eastern Euphrates" (contra Nissen, Uruk Countryside, 48-49)
28. Cf. Heimpel, JNES 46, 316-17
29. ki a-na se-ri-ka pa-nu-šu ša-ak-nu (J.-R. Kupper, RA 53 [1959] 34-35 AO 10788:4-10). Since only a major waterway could have accommodated such a huge flotilla, the Tigris is necessarily implicated here
30. For this conclusion, see already W. F. Leemans: "[AO 10788] shows that [Maškan-šapir] was on the river ...Apparently it was on the Tigris and a canal must have connected it with the region of Kish" (Foreign Trade in the Old Babylonian Period [Leiden 1960], 166)
31. According to the so-called Maništušu Obelisk, the "field of Bas" (also designated as the "field of Bas in Dūr-Suen") bordered on the Tigris. See Gelb et al., Earliest Land Tenure Systems in the Near East: Ancient Kudurrus. OIP 104 (Chicago 1991), 122-23 ix9-x l, 125 xvi 18-19
32. See R. Zadok, RGTC 8, 70-72
33. Cf. also B. Groneberg, RGTC 3, 39
34. Groneberg, Apparently It Was on the Tigris and A Canal Must Have Connected It with the Region of Kish
35. Kh. Nashef, RGTC 5, 99
36. For the occurrences, see B. Kienast/W. Sommerfeld, Glossar zu den altakkad. Kōnigs-inschr., FAOS 8 (Stuttgart 1994) 115
37. For Šišil, cf. Edzard/G. Farber, RGTC 2, 183
38. See R. D. Biggs, "A Letter from Kassite Nippur," JCS 19 (1965) 95-102
39. As suggested by M. Yoshikawa, ASJ 17(1995) 344-45, Nag-su is very likely to be read Káb-su. However, since this is not entirely certain, we retain the reading Nag-su
40. "Der Feldzug Utuhengals von Uruk gegen Tirigan und das Siedlungsgebiet der Gutāer," RA 61 (1967) 75-79
41. Uruk Countryside, 48 n. 42, 52-53, and 54
42. See, e. g., Edzard/Farber/E. Sollberger, RGTC 1, 125-26 and map 2
43. Edzard/Farber, RGTC 2, 137-38 and map 2
44. This identification was also provisionally accepted by M. A. Powell, "Karkar, Dabrum, and Tall Ǧidr: An Unresolved Geographical Problem," JNES 39 (1980) 49, although with a caveat that "it is by no means certain from the evidence adduced. "
45. Frayne, RIME 4, 468 2002:1-2
46. For a full edition and discussion of this text, see Steinkeller, in: Powell (ed.), Labor in the Ancient Near East. AOS 68 (New Haven 1987) 76-80, 107-10 no. 41
47. See Adams/Nissen, Uruk Countryside, 226: "Northeast mound very slightly elevated. Very limited Early Dynastic I, mainly late Early Dynastic-Akkadian, continuing into Larsa period only at south end. Main mound primarily Ur III-Larsa, but with some late Early Dynastic - Akkadian wares, thin Neo-Babylonian - Parthian debris, and much late kiln slag. Surface debris is also found in intervening area between the two mounds, suggesting that they form parts of what was originally a single large settlement. "
48. 4-sikil-nun-na, which is mentioned in MVN 18 322:1-4 (cited in Appendix A. 5)
49. See G. Farber-Flügge, Der Mythos "Inanna und Enki". StP 10 (Rome 1973) 46 III iii 44
50. 6 gíd-da (ASJ 8, 68-69 i 17-18)
51. SNAT 451:8-12
52. Istanbul 2602:7-11
53. MCS 4, 9 111779:1-5 - the same trip in each case!
54. ki-šè siki ma bala-šè íb-a še-bi0. 2. 1 (YOS 4 266:1-10)
55. ki-ta Ka-íd-da-šè má bala-ak zíd-da (Contenau Umma 49:1-7)
56. See Adams/Nissen, Uruk Countrysíde, 226
57. Adams, Heartland, 161-63 figs. 29-30
58. Muhallaqiya (or Muhalliqiya) was examined by the Central Sumer survey, but no information is available as to its size and periods of occupation. See Jacobsen, Sumer 24 (1969) 106-07, 109 map
59. ki Key Lists of Archaeological Excavations in Iraq 1842-1965 (Coconut Grove 1965) 51 under No. 38, 153 map G. 7. The Apisal = Muhallaqiya ídentification would not be incompatible with the fact that the walking distance between Umma to Apišal was 2 or 3 days
60. See Uruk Countrysíde, p. 36 fig. 17
61. For the evídence bearing on this canal, see Carroué, ASJ 15, 52-59, 62-64
62. See Pettinato, Mesopotamia 5/6 (1971/72) 316-20
63. See Adams, Heartland, 256-57 site no. 639. a
64. ki-ta (Legrain TRU 159:1-5 [Šu-Sin 1/xi]). Incídentally, it was this information about Maškan- šapir's proximity to KAsahar, plus the archaeological evídence adduced by E. C. Stone, that led Steinkeller in 1988 to consíder that Tell Abu Duwari might be the site of Maškan-šapir. At that time, Steinkeller and Stone discussed this ídea with a number of colleagues, who, however, voiced general skepticism. But, even before this ídentification could be suggested in print, it was fully confirmed by the discovery, in January of 1989, of Abu Duwari's inscription of Sin-íddinam, in which Maškan-šapir is named explicitly. For an edition of this inscription, see Steinkeller, "An Inscription of Sin-íddinam and Other Inscribed Materials from Abu Duwari," to appear as Chapter 7 in The Anatomy of a Mesopotamian City: The Survey and Soundings at Mašhkan-shapir, ed. by E. C. Stone and P. Zimansky (in press). 159 Adams, Heartland, 262. Carroué, ASJ 13, 141, suggested as possible candídates for KAsahar sites nos. 944 and 947, but, in my opinion, these two sites are situated too far from Maškan-šapir to be taken into serious consíderation
65. Sauren, Topographie, 9
66. Carroué, ASJ 13, 138, 140 fig. 3
67. Kargeština is named in a number of literary compositions: "Enlil and Ninlil" line 5 (H. Behrens, Enlil und Ninlil. StP SM 8 [Rome 1978] 15)
68. TCL 15 12:104 = Ur-namma C 104; Šulgi D 376
69. KAR 16:35-36. As described by Behrens, op. cit., 66: "Der Kargeštinna in Nippur ist damit der Kai, an dem Gōtter und Konige festmachen bei ihren Reisen nach Nippur. " Mentions of Kargeština in economic sources are exceedingly rare. As far as I know, apart from the Ur III example cited here, the only such reference is found in a Sargonic tablet from Nippur: NAG-SU Kar-geštin-ta, "(to) NAGSU from Kargeš tina" (Westenholz OSP 1 71:12)
70. See, in detail, T. M. Sharlach, "Bala: Economic Exchange Between Center and Provinces in the Ur III State" (unpublished PhD Dissertation, Harvard University 1999)
71. The only such mentions known to me are Orient 16, 64 no. 75:4, and Sigrist Syracuse 129:3 (cited below in n. 174)
72. 4 É-te-na (Istanbul
73. Sigrist Syracuse 47:7-8,48:12-13
74. Forde Nebraska 10:5-6
75. 6-sa-bar-ra actually belonged to the Girsu/Lagaš province; in addition, there is nothing to suggest that it was an administrative center of any significance
76. See Steinkeller, "Money Lending Practices in Ur III Babylonia: The Issue of Economic Motivation," in: M. Hudson/M. Van de Mieroop (ed.), Debt and Economic Renewal in the Ancient Near East. Peabody Museum Bulletin 8 (Cambridge, MA forthcoming)
77. See Steinkeller, "The Administrative and Economic Organization of the Ur III State: The Core and the Periphery," in: McG. Gibson/R. D. Biggs (ed.), The Organization of Power. SAOC 46 (Chicago 1987) 30-37
78. šè-li-im = tùr, šè-li-im gal = gal tùr, šè-lam «x» = TÙR, šè-lam kar = kar tùr (J. Krecher, OA 22 [1983] 182 lines 27, 28, 43, 44)
79. "Looking for Tummal," ASJ 11 (1989) 285-91
80. See Adams, Heartland, 277-78 no. 1237
81. JNES 39, 50-52
82. For Urusagrig, see Wilcke, ZA 62 (1972) 55