Offprint From:

Tradition and Innovation in

the Ancient Near East
Proceedings of the 57th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale
at Rome
4–8 July 2011

edited by
Alfonso Archi
in collaboration with Armando Bramanti

Early Byzantine mosaic from the Hama Museum

Winona Lake, Indiana

EisEnbrAuns
2015
 © 2015 by Eisenbrauns Inc.
All rights reserved
Printed in the United States of America

www.eisenbrauns.com

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Rencontre assyriologique internationale (57th : 2011 : Rome, Italy)

Tradition and innovation in the ancient Near East : proceedings of the 57th
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Rome 4–8 July 2011 / edited by
Alfonso Archi in collaboration with Armando Bremanti.
pages cm
Includes bibliographical references.
ISBN 978-1-57506-313-3 (hardback : alk. paper)
1. Middle East Civilization—To 622—Congresses. 2. Middle East—
History—To 622—Congresses. 3. Assyriology—Congresses. I. Archi,
Alfonso. II. Bremanti, Armando. III. Title. IV. Title: Proceedings of the
57th Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale at Rome 4–8 July 2011.
DS56.R46 2011
935—dc23
2014033751

The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American Na-
tional Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materi-
als, ANSI Z39.48–1984. ♾ ™
 Contents

Foreword . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Abbreviations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xi
Program . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvii
Part 1
opEning lEcturEs
Rückwärts schauend in die Zukunft: Utopien des Alten Orients . . . . . . . 3
stEfAn M. MAul
Law and Literature in the Third Millennium b.c. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
clAus WilckE
The Soul in the Stele? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
J. DAviD hAWkins
Part 2
pApErs
Myth and Ritual through Tradition and Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59
DinA kAtz
A Tale of Twin Cities: Archaeology and the Sumerian King List . . . . . . . 75
pEtr chArvát
Where are the Uruk Necropoles? Regional Innovation or Change
in Tradition for Northern Mesopotamia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 81
JEsús gil fuEnsAntA AnD EDuArDo crivElli
Changes Through Time: The Pit F Sequence at Ur Revisited . . . . . . . . . 91
giAcoMo bEnAti
Reading Figurines from Ancient Urkeš (2450 b.c.E.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105
rick hAusEr
Wooden Carvings of Ebla: Some Open Questions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 121
ritA DolcE
The Aesthetic Lexicon of Ebla’s Composite
Art during the Age of the Archives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
MArco rAMAzzotti
DUGURASU = rw-ḥꜢwt . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 155
AlEssAnDro roccAti
More on Pre-Sargonic Umma . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 161
sAlvAtorE f. MonAco

v
vi Contents

Professional Figures and Administrative Roles in the Garden (ĝeškiri6)

Management of Ur III Ĝirsu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 167
AngElA grEco
Tradition and Innovation in Šulgi’s Concept of Divine Kingship . . . . . . . 179
luDěk vAcín
Bemerkungen zur Entwicklung der Beschwörungen des Marduk-Ea-Typs:
Die Rolle Enlils . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 193
MAnuEl cEccArElli
Prophecy in the Mari Texts as an Innovative Development . . . . . . . . . . 205
hErbErt b. huffMon
Mathematical Lists: From Archiving to Innovation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 215
christinE proust
Die lexikalische Serie á=idu . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 225
frAukE WEiErshäusEr
The Rituals of Power: The Akkadian Tradition in Neo-Assyrian Policy . . . . 237
krzysztof ulAnoWski
Innovation and Tradition within the Sphere of Neo-Assyrian Oicialdom . . 251
MElAniE gross
Tradition and Innovation in the Neo-Assyrian Reliefs . . . . . . . . . . . . . 267
nicolAs gillMAnn
Une Armure Expérimentale du Premier Millénaire av. J.-C. . . . . . . . . . 277
fAbricE DE bAckEr
A Group of Seals and Seal Impressions from the Neo-Assyrian Colony
Tell Masaikh-Kar-Assurnasirpal with More Ancient Motifs . . . . . . 289
pAolA poli
Spätbabylonische Urkunden: Original, Kopie, Abschrift . . . . . . . . . . . . 301
JürgEn lorEnz
Traditional Claims of an Illustrious Ancestor in Craftsmanship and
in Wisdom . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 311
DAniEl boDi
New Phraseology and Literary Style in the Babylonian Version
of the Achaemenid Inscriptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 321
pArsA DAnEshMAnD
Aspects of Royal Authority and Local Competence:
A Perspective from Nuzi . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 335
AnnE löhnErt
Continuity and Discontinuity in a Nuzi Scribal Family . . . . . . . . . . . . 345
pAolA nEgri scAfA
Mission at Arrapḫa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 355
DAvE DEuEl
Geopolitical Patterns and Connectivity in the Upper Khabur Valley
in the Middle Bronze Age . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 369
AlEssio pAlMisAno
 Contents vii

Writing Sumerian in the West . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 381

MAurizio viAno
Territorial Administration in Alalaḫ during Level IV . . . . . . . . . . . . . 393
AlvisE MAtEssi
Reciprocity and Commerce in Bronze and Iron Age Anatolia . . . . . . . . . 409
h. crAig MElchErt
Hittite Clitic Doubling as an Innovative Category: Its Origin . . . . . . . . . 417
AnDrEJ v. siDEltsEv
Memory and Tradition of the Hittite Empire in the post-Hittite Period . . . . 427
MAriA ElEnA bAlzA AnD clEliA MorA
Fortiications and Arming as Analytical Elements for a
Social-Policy Evolution in Anatolia in the Early Bronze Age . . . . . 439
toMMAso DE vincEnzi
Amurru in der königlichen Ideologie und Tradition: von Ebla bis Israel . . . 449
pAvEl ČEch
The Assyrian Tree of Life and the Jewish Menorah . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 459
christos g. kArAgiAnnis
The Ponderal Systems of Qatna . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 471
luigi turri
French Excavations in Qasr Shemamok-Kilizu (Iraqi Kurdistan):
The First Mission (2011) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 481
oliviEr rouAult AnD MAriA grAziA MAsEtti-rouAult
The Present in Our Past: The Assyrian Rock Reliefs at Nahr El-Kalb
and the Lessons of Tradition . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 491
Ann shAfEr
Oriental Studies and Fascism in Spain . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 501
Agnès gArciA-vEnturA AnD JorDi viDAl
Part 3
Workshop: froM pArEnts to chilDrEn
From Parents to Children: Ebla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 511
Alfonso Archi
Family Firms in the Ur III Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 517
stEvEn J. gArfinklE
A Chip Of the Old Block: The Transmission of Titles and Oices
within the Family in Old Babylonian Sippar . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 525
MichEl tAnrEt
The Tradition of Professions within Families at Nuzi . . . . . . . . . . . . . 555
JEAnEttE c. finckE
Crafts and Craftsmen at Ugarit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 567
WilfrED vAn solDt
viii Contents

Hereditary Transmission of Specialized Knowledge in Hittite Anatolia:

The Case of the Scribal Families of the Empire Period . . . . . . . . 577
giuliA torri
The Transmission of Oices, Professions, and Crafts within the
Family in the Neo-Assyrian Period . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 587
hEAthEr D. bAkEr
Families, Oicialdom, and Families of Royal Oicials in Chaldean
and Achaemenid Babylonia . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 597
M. JursA
 Offprint from:
Archi ed., Tradition and Innovation in the Ancient Near
East: Proceedings of the 57th Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale at Rome, 4–8 July 2011
© Copyright 2015 Eisenbrauns. All rights reserved.

Territorial Administration in Alalaḫ

during Level IV

Alvise Matessi
pAviA

Introduction
Since they were first catalogued by Wiseman (1953), 1 the two corpora of tablets
unearthed at Alalaḫ/Tell Açana, in the Amuq plain, one deriving from the 17th cen-
tury b.c. (level VII) and the other from the15th century (level IV), have proven to be
among the richest in the 2nd millennium Near East in terms of economic, political,
social and demographic information. The sequence of such remarkable archives in
the same place, in two relatively close periods, offers a rare occasion to observe how
different political formations, in different historical contexts, built their networks
of interaction within approximately the same geographical space. The territorial
organization of Alalaḫ’s domain in the context of level VII has been the subject of
many studies, based on both epigraphic and archaeological evidence, while, for the
period of level IV, this issue has been mainly addressed by focusing on the recent ar-
chaeological data acquired under the purview of the Amuq Valley Regional Project. 2
Starting from a coherent archival group, the present paper proposes a new interpre-
tation of some documentary sources on the territorial organization of the kingdom
of Alalaḫ during the period of level IV, by providing evidence for an administrative
subdivision of the state. These results will then be compared with the situation at-
tested in level VII, viewed through the filter of previous scholarly work.

Author’s note: This paper has been drawn from my MA dissertation “Pratiche di gestione del territorio in
un regno siriano del Tardo Bronzo: Geograia politica del regno di Alalaḫ durante l’egemonia Mittanica”,
submitted at the University of Pavia in September 2009, under the supervision of professor Clelia Mora
and Mauro Giorgieri: I am sincerly grateful with them for their guidance. I owe a special debt of grati-
tute also to Eva von Dassow, who kindly did me the favour to read and comment on a draft of this paper.
Obviously, any mistakes in this work are my own.
1. Wiseman’s catalogue entries are here abbreviated AT, while uncatalogued tablets are marked
according to their museum numbers (ATT etc.). New, more complete, numberings of the Alalaḫ tablets
are now provided by Niedorf (2008: 31–121; 433–446), for levels VI-I, and Zeeb (2001: 27–66; 685–691),
for level VII.
2. First excavations at Alalaḫ/Tell Açana, carried out by Sir Leonard Woolley, straddled World
War II between 1937 and 1949 (Woolley 1955). The Amuq valley was irst surveyed in the 1930′s by
Braidwood (1937), who also started excavations in ive sites (Braidwood–Braidwood 1960). The recent
Amuq Valley Regional Project (AVRP) of the Oriental Institute of Chicago took place between 1995–2005,
and as part of it both extensive surveys and excavations at various sites (among which Alalaḫ) were car-
ried out (see Yener 2005). Professor K.A. Yener and her team are now continuing archaeological work at
Alalaḫ (Yener 2010).

393
394 AlvisE MAtEssi

The Tablets AT 350, 343, and 341

The coherent archival group formed by AT 350, 343 and 341 has been interpre-
ted as evidence that, sometime during the 15th century BC, the kingdom of Alalaḫ
was organized into four administrative “districts”. 3 The tablets record the levying
of sheep and goats in various localities of the kingdom. No element helps us in pro-
viding them with an exact dating, insofar as they bear neither personal names nor
seal impressions. Nonetheless, some characteristics, like their archival context and
similarities with other groups of texts, have led to the conclusion that they were
produced under Niqmepa, son of Idrimi and second king of Alalaḫ. 4
Notwithstanding the difficult reading of the heading, AT 350 is clearly a sum-
mation tablet, recording hundreds of sheep grouped under four captions, respec-
tively referring to Alalaḫ, Mukiš, the šannānū-men and the ḫapirū-men. 5 We can
note that the total of 268 sheep attributed to the šannānū in ll. 8–9 matches the
heading and grand total of AT 341. On the other hand, AT 341 has the same struc-
ture as AT 343, suggesting a relationship with it: lists of livestock attributed to
towns are introduced by headings and closed by grand total sections differing from
one another only in the numbers. In AT 350: 4 the total of 402 sheep recalls AT 343:

3. AT 350 and 341 are edited in full in Wiseman’s catalogue (1953: 96–98; copy of 350 in Pl. XXXV).
The historical and philological interpretation adopted here has been proposed by von Dassow, who de-
scribed the group of tablets in their archival context (2005: 44–45) and published AT 343 (2002: 902–906),
with philological and historical comments. She later included her main conclusions in the larger context
of her work on the social composition of the kingdom of Alalaḫ IV (2008: 216–221). Brief descriptions of
AT 350, 341 and 343, moreover, are provided by Niedorf (2008: 101–102), where they are referred to with
the respective new numbers 44.12, 44.8 and 44.10.
4. See von Dassow 2005: 44–45.
5. According to Wiseman’s copy (1953: Pl. XXXV) the irst two signs of l. 1 are MU and BI, which
the same author (1953: 98) reads ṭup?-pí, interpreting the former as a scribal mistake. Von Dassow (2008:
216, n. 148) emends MU with GAB, thence reading gab!-bi, “sum total”. Niedorf (2008: 102) retains the
value of the irst sign, reading MU.BI (literally: “his/their name”) and translating “Einträge (?)”.
 Territorial Administration in Alalaḫ during Level IV 395

49 and the caption in AT 350: 5, after emending <iš> (uruMuk<iš>ḫe), matches the
fragmentary heading of AT 343. 6 Therefore, in the light of similar considerations,
AT 341, 343 and 350 are considered as belonging to the same “dossier” (hereafter
labelled “SG dossier”, from the initials of “sheep” and “goats”): AT 350 would be the
summation tablet of data recorded in detail in AT 343 and 341. However, in AT 350
there are two more captions and totals, respectively referring to Alalaḫ (l. 3) and the
hapirū (l. 7), whose related data were probably drawn from two tablets similar to AT
341 and 343, now missing: 7 we will return to this point later.

The Alalaḫ IV Districts according to the SG Dossier

As stated, the labels Alalaḫ, Mukiš, šannānu and ḫapiru in the SG dossier likely
reflected a subdivision of the kingdom in “districts”. In fact, it seems hard to other-
wise explain the evidence contained in this archival group: if it can be maintained
that in some capacity, the central administration distributed the work of collecting
livestock, e.g. assigning functionaries to fictional compartments of the kingdom for
the sake of logistical efficiency, the very mention of this subdivision by means of
labels, at the very least suggests a convention which was diffused and consequently
well understood within the administrative apparatus. However, definitively affir-
ming from these bases that the division in districts evidenced in the SG dossier
reflected factual and concrete differences between sectors of the kingdom is more
difficult. Let us first have a closer look at the labels Alalaḫ, Mukiš, šannānu and
ḫapiru as used in the SG dossier. Then, in the next sections we will explore other
sources, searching for more elements which could help us to address this question.
The labels Alalaḫ and Mukiš are geographical terms and, for this reason, they
cause no particular trouble to modern readers, as they are consistent with the com-
mon use of creating districts on the basis of geo-political criteria. The explicit men-
tion of Alalaḫ in an operation involving many other parts of the kingdom is not
strange: in terms of political organization, it sounds natural to distinguish the capi-
tal city from the rest of the realm. Then, also on account of the comparatively small

6. A place name Muki(ḫe) is otherwise unattested at Alalaḫ. On the other hand, besides Mukiš,
only one place ending in -iš is known to me, Paḫiliš, but it never occurs with the Hurrian derivational
suix -ḫe (see Niedorf 1998, p. 534, s.v. Mukiḫe, and 537, s.v. Paḫiliš). For the reading i -din-nu, I follow
Niedorf (2008: 101, n. 386), where AT 343 is referred to as 44.10. For an alternative reading, conveying
the same meaning, see von Dassow (2002: 902): SUM? -nu.
7. See von Dassow 2002: 905–906. Another document, AT 352, is often linked with the SG dossier.
Based on Wiseman’s hand copy (1953: Pl. XXXVI):
ro. (1–4)
2 UDU UGU uruMu-ki-šuki / 1 UDU UGU uruYa-at-ḫa-baki / 3 UDU UGU uruUm-mu / 2 UDU
UGU uruZa-ú-tiki
vo. (5–7)
ŠU.NIGIN 3 me 94 UDUḫi.a / ša LÚ.MEŠ ša-na-an-ni-emeš / 6 me 19 UDU.Ù.ḪI.A KUR
Mu-ki-iš-ḫé.
According to l. 6, at least one of the labels in the SG dossier, šannānū-men, is in use in this tablet,
with some coherence: in fact, the towns of Yatḫapa and Ummu (ll. 2–3) appear right among the šannānū
ones in AT 341. On the inclusion of a town called Mukiš among šannānū-towns, see below. It is uncertain,
instead, whether the Mukiš of l. 7 designated the whole kingdom, as usual when preceded by KUR, or the
same district of the SG dossier tablets AT 350 and 343. In the irst case, the 394 sheep of l. 5, attributed
to the šannānū-men, would be a subtotal, to be included in the grand total of 619, referred to Mukiš as
kingdom. However, if so, one would expect at least another ŠU.NIGIN just preceding the supposed grand
total, or inal expressions like kalîma or gabba, “altogether”: this, in fact, seems to be the normal usage
in the lists of Alalaḫ IV (see, for example, Dietrich–Loretz 1969a, 81). The lack of any similar aggrega-
tive expressions in ll. 5–7 seems to put šannānū and Mukiš on the same level in the economy of the text,
suggesting both were meant to be sectors of the kingdom.
396 AlvisE MAtEssi

number of livestock associated with it, we can tentatively assume that the caption
Alalaḫ in AT 350 referred just to the city itself and its surrounding countryside. On
the other hand, uruMukiš in the SG dossier was a rubric for a number of towns, listed
one-by-one in the extant parts of AT 343. When faced with the name Mukiš as used
in the texts of Alalaḫ IV, we encounter some ambiguity. In fact, especially when
preceded by the determinative KUR/mātu, the toponym Mukiš was used to denote
by metonimy the whole kingdom. Indeed, in the treaty AT 2, Niqmepa employs both
the title LUGAL kurMukiš in the heading and LUGAL uruAlalaḫ on his seal. 8 Since
there was also a town called Mukiš, this place name evidently had at least three
values: the whole kingdom, a district within it and a single town.
The other two terms used in the SG dossier, šannānu and ḫapiru, are more dif-
ficult for the modern reader to understand as labels for administrative districts: in-
deed, they do not convey strictly geo-political meanings, but pertain to the military
and social terminology. The akkadian word (LÚ) šannānu signified “archer”, and
there is a coherent group in the Alalaḫ IV corpus recording recruitment of šannānū
to the army (AT 179 and 145). 9 On the other hand, the term (LÚ) ḫapiru, expressed
with the ideogram SA.GAZ in AT 350 as in other texts, is a well-known social defi-
nition which had been widely used all over the Near East since the beginning of the
Middle Bronze Age. 10 Though a definitive meaning and its variations in different
contexts are still under debate, there is a general agreement in considering the word
ḫapiru as indicating “displaced” person, or even “marauder” in the most negative
sense. In the historical context of Alalaḫ IV, the ḫapirū are first mentioned in the
statue of Idrimi (ll. 27–28) as people who gave shelter to the future founder of the
Alalaḫian dynasty before his attaining of kingship. Later, during the reign of Idri-
mi’s successor Niqmepa, the ḫapirū became both an “institutionalised” social group
and an army corps, listed in another coherent archival group made up of the tablets
AT 180–82, 154 and 161, and parallel to the aforementioned rosters of šannānū.
Von Dassow (2008: Chapter 3), in her discussion on the ḫapirū and šannānū roster
groups and their relations with other documents, including our SG dossier, reason-
ably draws the set of conclusions here summarized:
A. Both ḫapirū and šannānū rosters are administrative steps in a general
levying of an army, on occasion of a particular martial event, otherwise not
explicitly documented in extant sources. 11
B. With a few exceptions, all towns involved in the šannānū rosters are listed
among the šannānū-towns of AT 341 (SG dossier). 12 Thence, the recruit-
ment of the šannānū was geographically limited to the šannānū district.

8. See the edition of the treaty by Dietrich–Loretz (1997).

9. On the meaning “archer” of the peripheral Akkadian šannānu and its etymological relation-
ships with Ugaritic ṯnn and Egyptian snny(.w) there is now general consensus. See Rainey 1998, 446–
447; Hoch 1994, 261–263 and, now, Dietrich–Loretz 2009.
10. For up to date discussions on the ḫapirū at Alalaḫ and in the Ancient Near East, with reference
to previous work, see von Dassow 2008, pp. 105–111 and Durand 2011, who also questions the equation
with the ideogram SA.GAZ.
11. In the historical contextualization of the census lists, von Dassow (2008: 364–365) proposes that
this event might have been a war between Alalaḫ and Tunip.
12. Exceptions are: Šettapaḫe, (a town) Mukiš and Zauti. Šettapaḫe is otherwise only attested in
the šannānū rosters AT 179 (l. 22) and 145 (ll. 8–9). Curiously, according to AT 179 and 352 (see above),
the town Mukiš did not pertain to the namesake district but to the šannānū one (see also von Dassow
2008: 218): it would be tempting to see here some case of homonymy. The town Zauti (AT 179: 29; 197:
 Territorial Administration in Alalaḫ during Level IV 397

C. By analogy, the recruitment of ḫapirū is also likely to have taken place in

the ḫapirū district referred to in AT 350, about which no town list similar to
AT 341 is extant. Such an assumption allows at least the partial restoration
of the town composition of the ḫapirū district.

If von Dassow is right, by adding the information provided by AT 343 to conclusions

(b) and (c), along with some guesswork concerning the district of Alalaḫ in AT 350,
which is not detailed in other extant records, we may represent the geographical
scope of the SG dossier as follows: 13

We can immediately note that the Mukiš, šannānū and (restored) ḫapirū dis-
tricts shared some place names. Assuming that homonyms actually referred to the
same place, the occurance of towns pertaining to more than one district suggests
that geo-political criteria played a major role only in distinguishing Mukiš from
Alalaḫ, whereas different factors influenced the creation of the šannānū and ḫapirū
districts. A key for the interpretation of methods and purposes of the territorial
organization evidenced by the SG dossier rests precisely upon the understanding of
the latter districts: why during the operation recorded in the SG dossier were the
šannānū and ḫapirū districts kept apart from each other and from the territorial
districts Alalaḫ and Mukiš? Was there any peculiarity, some intrinsic characteristic
that caused them to be drawn as districts, or was this separation just a response to
some contingent need of the administration? Many of the towns attributed by von
Dassow to the ḫapirū district also pertain to the šannānū or Mukiš districts. Mo-
reover, the ḫapirū-towns are treated as a separate group only in the ḫapirū rosters.
Towns exclusively pertaining to the ḫapirū district, in fact, appear rather seldom in
other Alalaḫ IV documents other than the ḫapirū rosters, mostly along with clusters

5,31) is involved in administrative operations recorded in AT 162, a list of personnel, and in AT 342, a list
of livestock. It is also mentioned in the fragmentary list ATT 84/12. See Niedorf 1998, 534–535, 540, 548.
13. In the list of Mukiš-towns (AT 343), four place names at least are missing (see ll. 5, 15, 39–40)
and one is poorly preserved (l. 38: uru Pa[-]).
398 AlvisE MAtEssi

of Mukiš- or šannānū-towns. 14 Thus, probably, the ḫapirū-towns were geographi-

cally scattered and intermingled with those of other districts. If one has to single out
some peculiar, intrinsic feature of the ḫapirū district, this probably resides solely in
the social composition of its towns: ḫapirū-towns were merely places where import-
ant “communities” of ḫapirū lived and were levied for military obligations.
The Mukiš and šannānū districts, on the other hand, share only two place na-
mes (Nurmanaše and Šidu/araše), 15 thus suggesting they had fairly different geo-
graphical settings. A kind of geographical separation seems confirmed by a survey
on the rest of the Alalaḫ IV textual corpus, where there is very little involvement of
Mukiš- and šannānū- towns together in the same administrative operations. 16 On
the contrary, in the case of geographical proximity and intermingling, one would
expect an equal intermingling in the documentation. Incidentally, by noting this
fact, a positive answer to the aforementioned question is provided: šannānū and
Mukiš districts likely possessed some intrinsic, specific features, as far as they were
treated as separate units not only in the SG dossier, but, in general, in most of the
written sources from Alalaḫ IV. Yet, such intrinsic features were not related to
geographical position alone, because the term šannānu embdodies a non-geographic
definition: thus, the separation Mukiš-šannānū depended also on other, more subtle
factors, which, fortunately, can be traced in extant documentation, in particular, in
two well-known coherent groups of census lists.

14. See AT 185, involving two ḫapirū-towns, Marmaruki and Šarkuḫe, together with many Mukiš-
towns, or AT 162, involving Marmaruki within a cluster of šannānū-towns. The only other text, except
the rosters, where a ḫapirū-town appears (Marmaruki) is the unpublished tablet AT 163.
15. Niedorf (1998: 537) and Belmonte Marín (2001: 215) suppose the presence of two Nurmanaše,
one GAL, “big” (AT 187: 13; 185: 27) and, perhaps, one TUR, “small” (AT 185: 28: [uruNu-ur-ma-n]a-še
TUR): so it is plausible that AT 341: 8 and 343: 36 referred each to one of these two towns with the same
name. We do not know if Šiduraše (Mukiš-town; AT 343: 6) and Šidaraše (šannānū-town; AT 341: 18)
were actually diferent towns or just variant names for the very same place. A toponym Šidaraše is hapax
in AT 341, while Šid/turaše is attested, beside AT 343, in AT 201 (ll. 14, 16) and 187 (l. 16).
16. Obviously, this statement is valid only considering towns pertaining to a single district. Textual
occurrences of all Alalaḫ VII and IV toponyms have been collected by Niedorf (1998) and, among those of
other Syrian contexts, Belmonte Marín (2001): my textual survey on the occurrences of relevant towns is
based on these repertories. Mere lists of people where relevant towns appear only as attributes of indi-
viduals (e.g., as the place of origin), and therefore do not play a role by themselves as the set of a speciic
operation, have been excluded from counting. Individual texts and coherent archival groups independent
from the SG dossier and dealing with clusters of more than two Mukiš-towns are: the census lists 187,
196, the lists of men 223, 224, the ration list 287, the military roster A 79/3, the group of list of horses
formed by AT 329, 330, and 338+339 (see von Dassow 2008: 305–310), and a coherent group of census
lists (see Dietrich–Loretz 1969a; von Dassow 2008, 135–148: “census A”; see discussion below). Signii-
cantly, in many of these instances, there is only one šannānū-town, Laṣṣi, invariably occurring together
with Mukiš-towns. Apparently, just because of its regularity, such an exception does not constitute a real
break. It rather seems to point to a kind of relationship between Laṣṣi and the district Mukiš we are not
able to grasp. By contrast, texts independent from the SG dossier and dealing with clusters of more than
two šannānū-towns, and without mention of any Mukiš-town, are: AT 162 and 284. As for the documents
related to the recruitment of the šannānū in the army, which are not completely independent from SG
dossier, see the discussion below. A sure instance where Mukiš- and šannānū-towns occur in the very
same administrative operation is the tablet AT 342, a list of livestock and men, involving Uniga (Mukiš-
town) together with Tuḫul and Zauti (šannānū-towns). According to Niedorf (1998: 537) and Belmonte
Marín (2001: 215), both Nurmanaše GAL and TUR are involved in AT 185 (ll. 27–28; see above): if so,
granted a third Nurmanaše did not exist in Alalaḫ’s domain, AT 185 would attest another sure involve-
ment of a single šannānū-town together with a cluster of 6 towns pertaining exclusively to the Mukiš
district.
 Territorial Administration in Alalaḫ during Level IV 399

Mukiš and šannānū Districts

in the Light of the Census Lists
The archives of Alalaḫ IV yielded one of the most valuable corpora of census
lists of the whole Ancient Near East: few are comparable in terms of quantity of
texts, uniformity of structure and degree of detail. Especially after full publishing by
Dietrich and Loretz (1969a; 1970), this corpus received great attention in numerous
studies devoted to social and demographic issues. Among them, the recent work by
von Dassow (2008) is particularly exhaustive and systematic. Here, the examination
of the census lists constitutes part of an extensive investigation of Alalaḫ’s society
during the 15th century. 17 In this work, the author refined the classification of the
census lists, already outlined by Dietrich and Loretz, clearly isolating two main sub-
groups of censuses, respectively labelled A and B (hereafter, group AVD and BVD): the
first one listed adult male individuals, while the latter recorded households accor-
ding to their heads, always adult males. In both groups, each list focused on a single
town, and recorded the totality of the population responding to the aforementioned
criteria and ranking within a selected series of social categories or classes. Moreo-
ver, based on prosopography and generational count, group AVD has been dated late
in the reign of Niqmepa and group BVD earlier in his reign. Finally, another result of
von Dassow’s analysis, which is very important for our purposes here, is that, des-
pite the aforementioned differences in recording methods and chronological context,
groups AVD and BVD contain comparable data about the social composition of the
kingdom of Alalaḫ in the 15th century. Indeed, both series of censuses sort the enu-
merated people into four main classes: ḫupše (pl. ḫupšena; equivalent to the sum of
purre and unuššuḫuli in group BVD), ḫaniaḫḫe (pl. ḫaniaḫḫena), eḫelle (pl. eḫellena)
and mariyanni (pl. mariyannina; called ša narkabti, “(those) of the chariot”, in lists
of group BVD). Although the meaning and composition of these classes are still under
debate, evidence shows the ḫupšena and ḫaniaḫḫena constituted the bulk of the free
rural population. On the other hand, the eḫellena were highly specialized craftsmen
and the mariyannina comprised part of the “nobility”.
What bearing do census lists and the information they provide have on the re-
construction of the territorial organization of the kingdom of Alalaḫ? Von Dassow
proved that censuses of group BVD were designed for the aforementioned recruit-
ment of the šannānū i.e. the “archers”, and, for this very reason, they are limited to
the šannānū district, insofar as they involve only towns listed in AT 341 (SG dos-
sier). Interestingly, on the other hand, texts of group AVD list inhabitants of many
of the Mukiš-towns recorded in AT 343 (SG dossier) and of other localities not assi-
gned to particular districts in extant sources. However, with the exception of Laṣṣi,
šannānū-towns are not involved in censuses of group AVD. This distinct separation
of the two sets of towns in censuses, which, in the case of group AVD, seem to be in-
dependent from the SG dossier, provides support for the interpretation of the Mukiš
and šannānū districts as distinct units even beyond incidental needs of the adminis-
tration. The case of the šannānū-town of Laṣṣi does not constitute a real exception,

17. In particular, the results on the census lists summarized below are drawn from pp. 135–148,
152–171. Among previous studies, Serangeli 1978 is also important: here the main focus is on demogra-
phy, but the author’s conclusions are partially afected by wrongly assuming that census lists recorded
the whole of the male population of censused towns. Other important works on the society of Alalaḫ IV
and on particular aspects of the census lists are Liverani 1975, Gaál 1978 and 1988.
400 AlvisE MAtEssi

because in extant administrative records it is repeatedly involved together with

remarkable clusters of Mukiš-towns: probably, this point reflected a factual halfway
position of Laṣṣi between the districts šannānū and Mukiš.
If we compare the sets of socio-demographic data from groups AVD and BVD res-
pectively, when available for Mukiš and šannānū-towns, we obtain some interesting
results. The following table represents the incidence of classes on the population
sample of each censused town (average %; abbr. Av.) and on the total population
sample (total %; abbr. Tot.): 18

It is immediately evident that the percentages of mariyannina and eḫellena re-

corded in šannānū-towns are much lower than those displayed for the Mukiš-towns.
Yet, the validity of such a comparison could be questioned by a couple of arguments,
namely because the groups of documents from which figures are drawn:
a) Recorded socio-demographic data according to different criteria: in fact,
census lists of group AVD enumerated individuals, while those of group BVD enume-
rated households.

18. Some lists of group BVD record individuals under categories which can not be equated with any
of the four main social classes ḫupše, ḫaniaḫḫe, eḫelle and mariyanni, then the corresponding igures
are excluded from population samples to which incidence calculations refer. Also incomplete data are
excluded from calculations: for example, the population recorded at Uniga and Irgilli, whose igures are
partially lost, have not been considered. According to these criteria, the total sample reported in the last
column is the sum of the following population numbers / town:
group BVD / šannānū-towns
46 / Alawari + 51 / Ariante + 163 / Tuḫul + 43 / Zalaki + 63 / unknown šannānū-town (AT
198) +
49 / unknown šannānū-town (AT 200) = 415
group AVD / Mukiš-towns
75 / Alime + 35 / Intarawe + 57 / Irta + 27 / Kallazu + 34 / Mušunni + 86 / Ṣuḫaruwe = 314.
The group BVD census of Tuḫul (AT 189) shows some discrepancies between the number of indi-
viduals listed and the subtotals and grand totals given by the scribe: I based my calculations on the list.
Moreover, there are two names written on the right edge excluded from calculations here as they are not
assigned to any social class (see Dietrich–Loretz 1970, 93–95 and von Dassow 2008, 155–159 with n. 47).
It is important, inally, to remind that groups AVD and BVD adopt diferent recording criteria. Then, when
comparing their sets of data, this proportion-type must be taken into account:
 Territorial Administration in Alalaḫ during Level IV 401

b) Had different chronological settings, because about a generation elapsed

between them.
In particular, this last argument has been introduced by von Dassow, who exp-
lained the augmenting of mariyannina and eḫellena as an effect of the transforma-
tion in the terminology of social class designations attested between the two groups
of census lists, reflecting a systematization of procedures for classifying and con-
scripting people 19. Nonetheless, the efficacy of both this argument and argument (a)
is weakened by the data concerning the town Laṣṣi (second row in the table). Indeed,
Laṣṣi is a šannānū-town, but, contrary to the other šannānū-towns, its census is
preserved in a list of group AVD (AT 148): thus the data about Laṣṣi are consistent,
in terms of both recording criteria and chronological setting, with those concerning
the Mukiš-towns, censused in the lists of group AVD as well. Laṣṣi’s recorded popu-
lation amounts to 99 individuals, a high figure in census lists, to date exceeded only
by Tuḫul, in group BVD, and Uniga, in group AVD. 20 Yet, compared with their coun-
terparts in the Mukiš-towns, mariyannina and eḫellena are still underrepresented
in Laṣṣi, with proportions similar to those displayed by the other šannānū-towns,
censused in the lists of group BVD. In short, however slender it is, extant evidence
prompts us to believe in the overall comparisons outlined here, according to which
the two groups Mukiš- and šannānū-towns differed from each other in terms of their
social composition: the mariyanni and eḫelle classes were, proportionally, much
more represented in the former than in the latter.
How may we interpret such dissimilarities in the social composition? As already
mentioned, the mariyannina enjoyed a high position in the state hierarchy, often
very close to the royal court, and membership to this class was obtained only by
inheritance or direct intervention of the king’s authority. Most of the eḫellena, on
the other hand, were specialized professionals in service of royal officers or even the
king himself. 21 Hypothetically, the nature of such positions means that members
of these two classes had tight contacts with the royal administration or, as many
known mariyannina, were even part of it. 22 Therefore, the quantitative relevance of
eḫellena or mariyanni in a given place might be used as a kind of “thermometer”,
measuring the degree of integration of that place into the pattern of relationships
and contacts between local communities and the central authority, which I may
call here, in short, “network of centre-periphery interaction”. In such terms, pla-
ces where mariyannina and eḫellena were underrepresented likely enjoyed a lesser
degree of integration into the network of centre-periphery interaction. In conclu-
sion, interpreting the evidence of the SG dossier, combined with the data derived
from the census lists, I would suggest that centres falling within Alalaḫ’s domain
were unevenly integrated into its network of centre-periphery interaction: those

19. See von Dassow 2008, 227 and 318–319, in which she also points out promotions from lower to
upper classes are attested in the time elapsed between groups BVD and AVD.
20. See tablets AT 189 and 153 respectively. The latter is very fragmentary and the town name
is not preserved (Dietrich–Loretz 1969a: 78), but von Dassow (2008: 144–145) restored it on the basis
of many homonymies found with inhabitants of Uniga recorded in AT 220, a list of carpenters, and
Dietrich–Loretz 1969b nr. 4, cadaster of Uniga.
21. See von Dassow’s discussion on the mariyanni and eḫelle classes at Alalaḫ, with further refer-
ence to previous literature (2008: 268–334).
22. For the participation of mariyannina in the royal court and administration, see von Dassow
2008, pp. 283f.
402 AlvisE MAtEssi

pertaining to the Mukiš district were more integrated, whereas those pertaining to
the šannānu district less so.

Mukiš and šannānū Districts

in the Light of Other Textual Sources
The conjectural reconstruction proposed so far is difficult to prove with any cer-
tainty, but cross referencing this data with other textual sources provides ancillary
evidence. A survey on the Alalaḫ IV corpus, addressed to other textual occurrences
of the relevant place names, shows that clusters of more than two towns attributa-
ble to the šannānū district are not much involved in administrative operations other
than the SG dossier, census lists of group BVD and šannānū rosters, which are all
documents somehow linked with each other and parts of a more complex operation
related to the military organization. Apart from that, in fact, one may quote only
AT 162, a list of personnel, and AT 284, a ration list. 23 On the contrary, we find
involvement of substantial clusters of towns attributable to the Mukiš district in
many kinds of administrative operations, recorded in a wide variety of texts, from
ration lists to cadastres, from records of revenues and dispatching of horses to lists
of personnel and, finally, as we have seen, in census lists of group AVD. 24 Moreover,
however isolated it is, a coherent group of texts (AT 300–301) shows the ḫazannu
(“mayor”) of the Mukiš-town Uniga playing a pivotal role in a complex and somehow
hierarchical system of collection and distribution of rations, involving many other
towns, among which is Alalaḫ itself and another Mukiš-town, Irgilli. 25 In sum, both
the number and quality of administrative texts involving clusters of towns attri-
butable to the Mukiš district show them to be closely integrated within the Alalaḫ
network of centre-periphery interaction, to a much higher degree than those of the
šannānū district, whose town clusters are almost exclusively dealt with in docu-
ments related to the military and warfare.
There is also some textual evidence showing that Alalaḫ rulers might happen to
have some difficulties in preserving their political control over towns of the šannānū
district. I am referring to the juridical record AT 14. The tablet is broken in some
parts, but extant passages allow us to fully understand its context. The translation
provided below is drawn from the recent full edition by Niedorf (2008: 245–247):
Obv. 1–4
Before Sauštatar, the king. Niqmepa brought [a process] against Šunaššura
because of the town Alawari 5–9 [and he won in the pr]ocess, (so) the [t]own Ala-
wari [retur]ned [to Niqmepa. . .].[. . . the place . . .]x-awe [. . .].
Rev.
(Seal caption:) Šuttarna, son of Kirta, king of Mittani.

As clearly stated, AT 14 records a lawsuit brought before the Mittanian king

Sauštatar, overlord of Alalaḫ, whose disputants are the king of Alalaḫ, Niqmepa,
and a Šunaššura, generally equated with the namesake king of Kizzuwatna. 26 The
contended issue is the jurisdiction over a town, which, evidently, enjoyed an am-

23. For AT 162, see the edition by von Dassow (2002: 859–865). For AT 284, see Wiseman 1959, 50.
24. For textual references, see above, n. 16.
25. For these texts, see the edition by Wiseman (1959: 54–55).
26. This, in fact, would be the same Šunaššura, king of Kizzuwatna, who signed a well-known
treaty with Tutḫaliya I of Hatti (CTH 41). See Beal 1986; Wilhelm 1988 and Klengel 1999, 106, 112–113.
As was the custom in Alalaḫ IV documents somehow involving the superior authority of Mittani, the
kings of Alalaḫ or other subordinate rulers do not bear royal titles, reserved only for the overlord (see,
for example, AT 3, 13, 110, 111, 112). An exception is constituted by the aforementioned AT 2, the treaty
 Territorial Administration in Alalaḫ during Level IV 403

biguous position, close to the political boundary between the two states. Although
inally attesting his success in asserting his own political control over the contended
town, the lawsuit AT 14, by the fact itself that it was iled, well shows Niqmepa’s
potential weakness in the matter. Now, AT 14 incidentally provides direct support
for our interpretation of the šannānū district as a sector less integrated within the
network of centre-periphery interaction: in fact, the town here disputed by the two
states, and, as such, likely to be moved from a jurisdiction to the other, is Alawari,
which appears right among the šannānū-towns listed in the tablet AT 341 (l. 17).
Beside Alawari, there is another šannānū-town which might well have been
close to the boundaries of the kingdom, at least in a more strictly geographical
sense. However, hints of it seem to come from a document which dates to a century
later than the Alalaḫ IV archives. Indeed, a town Gaduma, likely to be equated with
the šannānū-town Katume, is mentioned in relation to the land of Mukiš in the
Hittite text KUB 19.27,6′–7′ (CTH 50), a section of an agreement between Šuppi-
luliuma I and his son Šarri-Kušuḫ of Karkemiš. 27 The text is poorly preserved, but
its general context accounts for a description of the western borders of the kingdom
of Karkemiš at the beginning of the Hittite imperial period. By the time KUB 19.27
was composed, the land of Mukiš referred to in l. 7′ was a Hittite province, but we
do not know to what extent it respected the former borders of the 15th century king-
dom, conquered by Šuppiluliuma I. 28 In any case, whatever the dimensions of the
Hittite province of Mukiš were, the balance of the geo-political system sponsored by
the Hittites in Syria during the imperial period required the borders of Karkemiš to
be kept well away from Aleppo, where another son of Šuppiluliuma I, Telipinu, was
appointed as king. This means that the shared border between Mukiš and Karkemiš
should be located further north, somewhere around the upper stream of modern
ʿAfrin river, an area rather distant from the core of the Alalaḫ realm during the
15th century. 29

The Territorial Organization of the Alalaḫ

Realm During Level IV: A Final Balance
Stemming from the discussion of sources proposed above, we may summa-
rize with the following model the territorial organization of the kingdom of Alalaḫ
IV. During Niqmepa’s reign, centres falling within Alalaḫ’s domain were unevenly

where, even though the Mittanian overlord seems to be recalled in a fragmentary passage (ll. 72–74),
both Niqmepa and his partner, Ir-Teššub of Tunip, display royal titles.
27. See Klengel 1999, 137 and Klengel 2001, 191; Singer 2001, 635. The town Gaduma is also
mentioned twice in the Hittite fragmentary letter KBo 9.83 (Hagenbuchner 1989 nr. 34), sent to the king
of Hatti by a Tutḫaliya who Niedorf (2002: 522–523) identiies with the namesake governor of Mukiš.
Likely the same governor is the addressee of a letter from the Hittite king (ATT 35) and is depicted in
an orthostat with anatolian hieroglyphic inscription (Woolley 1955: 241, Pl. XLVIII), both artifacts found
in later levels (II-I) of Alalaḫ. For the attestations of Katume/Gatuma, see del Monte–Tischler 1978,
s.v. “Katuma”, and Belmonte Marín 2001, s.v. “Qad(u)mu”.
28. Some modiications occurred, if one accepts the common equations of the towns Zazaḫaruwa
and Bituḫulibe, quoted as Ugaritic cities in the border description of the treaty Muršili II–Niqmepa of
Ugarit (RS 17.62+: ll. 3,7), with Ṣuḫaruwe and Bitḫiluwe, towns pertaining to Alalaḫ’s domain in the
15th century (the former also attested among the Mukiš-towns!). However, such identiications have been
recently questioned by van Soldt (2005: 51, 57, 149–152).
29. In this sense, the identiication of Katume/Gaduma with modern Qāṭima/Qaṭmā, 9 km west of
c
Azaz (Bunnens–Kuschke–Röllig 1990), is more likely than Astour’s (1963: 237, n. 151) with Qādimīyah,
18 km south-east of Aleppo.
404 AlvisE MAtEssi

integrated into its network of centre-periphery interaction: there was the capital,
Alalaḫ, seat of kingship and the royal administration, and a geo-political core, stea-
dily integrated within the network. In a particular moment, as set out in the SG
dossier, at least part of the geo-political core was reorganized and institutionalised
as a territorial district, called Mukiš, which significantly was the very same name
used in other contexts to indicate by metonymy the whole kingdom. Between the
capital and the towns situated within the core, relationships were stable and re-
lied upon a wide range of hierarchical interaction, able to satisfy any economic,
political or military needs of the state. In addition to this political unit of the capi-
tal and core, however, there were localities which, despite being directly ruled by
the state, were less integrated into the network of centre-periphery interaction and
could prove more troublesome in the capital’s exertion of control. The situation of
these localities had direct effects on their social composition, insofar as social classes
signalling tighter interaction with the central authority, eḫelle and mariyanni, were
underrepresented in their population. Moreover, in some cases, lesser integration of
some localities into the Alalaḫ network of centre-periphery interaction might have
prompted neighbouring states to claim jurisdiction over them, forcing Alalaḫ kings
to resort to international lawsuits. Apparently, less integrated towns were mostly
involved in the types of interactions aimed primarily at satisfying military needs of
the state. This implies, again, institutionalisation: some towns, in fact, were exploi-
ted as bases for recruiting troops of “archers”, šannānū in the Akkadian of Alalaḫ,
causing them to be grouped by the administration to form another district, that of
the šannānū. From a politico-geographical point of view, the šannānū district was
to some degree different from the other two, Alalaḫ (capital) and Mukiš (geo-politi-
cal core), and there is some evidence, as we have seen with AT 14 and KUB 19.27,
that some of its towns were situated near the boundaries of the kingdom or, at
least, far away from its centre. Thus, I may conclude that the division in the Mukiš
and šannānū districts generally reflected a territorial model of integrated core and
dispersed periphery. Such a model finds support in the archaeological landscape of
Alalaḫ/Tell Açana environs. Indeed, in the Amuq plain, where Alalaḫ/Tell Açana
itself is located, there is a pattern of generally dense and apparently hierarchical
2nd millennium settlements, the number of which however, does not encompass
all the towns attested in written sources which are supposed to pertain to Alalaḫ’s
domain during the 15th century: the Amuq plain would be the likely location of the
Mukiš district and, obviously, the district of Alalaḫ, but not much more, except pos-
sibly other towns which are not explicitly assigned to one these districts in extant
sources. On the contrary, more dispersed 2nd millennium occupation is found in
more distant localities, like the cAfrin valley, the Orontes delta and the highlands:
assuming that these areas were under Alalaḫ control during the 15th century, it is
there that we might likely place the šannānū-towns. 30 Nonetheless, boundaries bet-
ween the Mukiš and šannānū districts were not clear-cut and a certain interming-
ling subsisted, as suggested by some overlapping displayed by the textual evidence.

30. The Amuq archaeological landscape in all phases is treated in Braidwood 1937 and, recently,
Casana–Wilkinson 2005 and Casana 2007, with further bibliography. For a full discussion limited to the
Amuq valley during the LBA, with references also to written sources from Alalaḫ IV, see Casana 2009,
with further bibliography. Note that some of the latter’s conclusions (pp. 25–26), which are less detailed
concerning documentary evidence and starting from a diferent point of view, are similar to those drawn
here.
 Territorial Administration in Alalaḫ during Level IV 405

Finally, sources discussed in this paper mention a fourth district, where another
army corps, besides that of the šannānū, was recruited: the ḫapirū district. Howe-
ver, the characteristics of this district and its towns, restored indirectly on the basis
of other documents, are not easily detectable due to the fragmentary status of the
related documentation. On the basis of extant sources, a tentative proposal sees the
ḫapirū-towns as geographically scattered and interspersed to a high degree with
those of other districts.

One Region, Two Kingdoms:

The Emergence of a Different “Territoriality”
in Alalaḫ Domain between Levels VII and IV
The interpretation given so far leaves open issues concerning the diachronic
dynamics, normally occurring in the formation, conservation and modification of
geo-political interactions within a state and, possibly, its followers in the same ter-
ritory. To address such issues effectively, it would be interesting to briefly compare
the results hitherto obtained on the state of Alalaḫ during level IV, with the forms of
territorial administration evidenced by the documents relating to a previous phase
of this capital, which also yields considerable archives: that of level VII, correspon-
ding to Yamḫad’s domination during the Old Babylonian period. There are several
works devoted to the territorial organization of Alalaḫ domain during level VII, so,
for further details, reference is made to them. 31 As we have seen, during level IV,
centres falling within Alalaḫ’s domain were unevenly integrated into its network
of centre-periphery interaction, and such unevenness was probably consistent with
the kind of political relationships the subordinate centres and central authority had
with each other. This situation is reflected in extant administrative practices by sub-
divisions in districts, census lists and troop rosters. Although a full evaluation of the
context of level VII is complicated by frequent interventions of the kings of Yamḫad
in Alalaḫ’s internal affairs, extant evidence shows that also in this case there was
a degree of unevenness into the network of centre-periphery interaction, again de-
pending on the kind of relationships subordinate centres and central authority had
with each other. Apparently, however, such relationships were not really political,
as in the case of Alalaḫ IV, rather they were determined by land ownership: in
fact, many of the contracts from Alalaḫ VII record the kings themselves purchasing
entire settlements (ālū) and their surrounding countryside (eperu), while a subs-
tantial group of administrative texts is constituted by rations (Zeeb’s “Getreidelief-
erlisten”), mostly addressed to people working within the properties of the rulers. 32
Thus, it seems apparent that, while in level IV the efforts of the central authority
were mostly aimed at a political control over the population, which was in fact also
the ultimate goal of the census lists, in level VII, on the contrary, rulers were more
interested in an economic control over land. This fact had direct consequences on the

31. See in particular: Magness–Gardiner 1994, Klengel 1979 and Gaál 1982–1984, where written
sources concerning each of the Alalaḫ VII toponyms are examined. For an extensive evaluation of the
texts relating to the economic system of Alalaḫ during level VII, see Zeeb 2001. A full study of the Alalaḫ
VII archives in their archaeological context, with some consideration on the palatial economic system,
is given by Lauinger 2007. All attestations of geographical names in texts of Alalaḫ VII are listed and
indexed in Zeeb 1998.
32. See Zeeb 2001.
406 AlvisE MAtEssi

territoriality of the kingdom, insofar as settlements were purchased by the rulers of

Alalaḫ VII apparently without regard for territorial continuity. This seems to have
been so since the very foundation of Alalaḫ VII kingdom, as suggested by AT 456, a
treaty where the domain assigned by Abban of Yamḫad to Yarim-Lim is defined by
a mere list of towns, besides Alalaḫ itself. 33 Therefore, not by chance, in texts of le-
vel VII a territorial definition meant to denote the whole kingdom of Alalaḫ did not
exist. On the contrary, as we have seen, in Alalaḫ IV such territorial definition was
well represented by mātu Mukiš. In other words, it could be said that, in the 15th
century, during level IV, a stronger “awareness of territoriality” emerged at Alalaḫ,
which did not yet exist in the 17th century, during level VII. Yet, such an “aware-
ness” was still ideological and not completely translated into reality, in that, even
during level IV, the state was far from being a Westphalian territorial unit, with
clear-cut boundaries: as we have seen, in fact, even during the reign of Niqmepa,
the very “king of Alalaḫ and Mukiš”, territorial disputes with other states did not
concern frontiers but individual towns.

33. By contrast, one could compare AT 456 with some functionally similar texts, from a diferent
context: the treaties with Tarḫuntassa of the Hittite Imperial period (KBo 4.10+: van den Hout 1995;
Bronze Tablet: Otten 1988). In these cases, in fact, the territory of Tarḫuntassa, which was to Hatti
nearly as Alalaḫ was to Yamḫad, is explicitly deined irst by linear boundaries (e.g. Bronze Tablet §§
5–8) and only afterwards by individual localities within it (see Bronze Tablet § 9).

References
Astour, M. C.
1963 Place-Names from the Kingdom of Alalaḫ in the North Syrian List of Thutmose III: A
Study in Political Geography of the Amarna Age. JNES 22: 220–241.
Beal, R. H.
1986 The History of Kizzuwatna and the Date of the Šunaššura Treaty. Or NS 55: 424–445.
Belmonte Marín, J. A.
2001 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der Texte aus Syrien im 2. Jt. v. Chr. RGTC 12/2. Wiesba-
den: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Bottéro, J.
1954 Le problème des Habiru à la 4e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale. Cahiers de la
Société Asiatique 12. Paris: Imprimerie nationale.
1980 Entre nomades et sédentaires: Les Ḫabiru. Dialogues d’histoire ancienne 6: 201–213.
Braidwood, R. J.
1937 Mounds in the Plain of Antioch. OIP 48. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Braidwood, R. J., and Braidwood, L. S.
1960 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch Volume 1: The Early Assemblages, Phases A-J. OIP
61. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
Bunnens, G., Kuschke, A., and Röllig, W.
1990 Palästina und Syrien zur Zeit der ägyptisch-hethitischen Vorherrschaft. In TAVO Karten
B III 3. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig Reichert Verlag.
Casana, J.
2007 Structural Transformations in Settlement Systems of the Northern Levant. AJA 111:
195–221.
2009 Alalakh and the Archaeological Landscape of Mukish: The Political Geography and Popu-
lation of a Late Bronze Age Kingdom. BASOR 353: 7–37.
Casana, J., and Wilkinson, T.
2005 Settlement and Lanscapes in the Amuq Region. Pp. 25–45 in Yener 2005.
 Territorial Administration in Alalaḫ during Level IV 407

del Monte, G. F., and Tischler J.

1978 Die Orts- und Gewässernamen der hethitischen Texte. RGTC 6. Wiesbaden: Dr. Ludwig
Reichert Verlag.
Dietrich, M. and Loretz, O.
1969a Die soziale Struktur von Alalaḫ und Ugarit, II. Die sozialen Gruppen ḫupše-namê,
ḫaniaḫḫe-ekû, eḫelle-šūzubu, und marjanne nach Textes aus Alalaḫ. WO 5: 57–93.
1969b Die soziale Struktur von Alalaḫ und Ugarit, V. Die Wiengarten des Gebietes von Alalaḫ
im 15. Jahrhundert. UF 1: 37–64.
1970 Die soziale Struktur von Alalaḫ und Ugarit, IV. Die É=bitu-Listen aus Alalaḫ IV als
Quelle für die Erforshung der gesellschaftlichen Schichtung von Alalaḫ im 15. Jh. v. Chr.
ZA 60: 88–123.
1997 Der Vertrag zwischen Ir-Addu von Tunip und Niqmepa von Mukiš. Pp. 211–242 in Cross-
ing Boundaries and Linking Horizons: Studies in Honor of Michael C. Astour on His 80th
Birthday. Edited by G. D. Young, Chavalas, M. W. and Averback, R.E. Bethesda, MD:
CDL Press.
2009 Ugaritisch ṯnn “(Komposit-)Bogenschütze”, qšt “Kompositbogen”, “Bogen” und qs’t/hz
“Pfeil”. UF 41: 51–64.
Durand, J.-M.
2011 La fondation d’une lignée royale syrienne: La geste d’Idrimi d’Alalah. Pp. 94–150 in Le
jeune héros: Recherches sur la formation et la difusion d’un thème littéraire au Proche-
Orient ancien (OBO 250). Edited by J.-M. Durand, Römer, Th. and Laglois M. Göttingen:
Academic Press Fribourg, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Gaál, E.
1978 pūrum Lands and Houses in Alalaḫ. Oikumene 2: 145–148.
1982–84 State and Private Sectors in Alalaḫ VII. Acta Antiqua Academiae Scientiarum Hun-
garicae 30: 1–44.
1988 The Social Structure of Alalaḫ. Pp. 99–110 in Society and Economy in the Eastern Medi-
terranean (c. 1500–1000 B.C.). OLA 23. Edited by M. Heltzer and E. Lipinski. Leuven:
Peeters.
Greenberg, M.
1955 The Ḫab/piru. American Oriental Series, vol. 39. New Haven: American Oriental Society.
Hagenbuchner, A.
1989 Die Korrespondenz der Hethiter. 2. Teil: Die Briefe mit Transkription, Übersetzung und
Kommentar. THeth. 16. Heidelberg: Carl Winter–Universitätsverlag.
Hoch, J. E.
1994 Semitic Words in Egyptian Texts of the New Kingdom and Third Intermediate Period.
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Klengel, H.
1965–70 Geschichte Syriens im 2. Jahrtausend v.u.Z. 3 vols. Berlin: Akademie Verlag.
1979 Die Palastwirtschaft in Alalaḫ. Pp. 435–457 in State and Temple Economy in the Ancient
Near East. Vol. 2. OLA 6. Edited by E. Lipinski. Leuven: Department Orientalistik.
1999 Geschichte des hethitischen Reiches. HdO 1/34. Leiden/Boston/Köln: Brill.
2001 Nochmals zur Rolle der Herrscher von Ḫalab und Karkamiš in der hethitischen Groß-
reichzeit. Pp. 191–208 in Kulturgeschichten. Altorientalistische Studien für Volkert Haas
zum 65. Geburtstag. Edited by Th. Richter, D. Prechel and Jörg Klinger. Saarbrücken:
Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.
Lauinger, J.
2007 Archival Practices at Old Babylonian/Middle Bronze Age Alalakh (Level VII). 2 vols.
Ph.D. dissertation. University of Chicago.
Liverani, Mario
1975 Communautés de village et palais royal dans la Syrie du IIème millénaire. JESHO 18:
146–164.
Magness-Gardiner, B.
1994 Urban-Rural Relations in Bronze Age Syria: Evidence from Alalaḫ Level VII Palace Ar-
chives. Pp. 37–47 in Archaeological Views from the Country Side. Village Communities
408 AlvisE MAtEssi

in Early Complex Societies. Edited by G. M. Schwartz and S. E. Falconer. Washington/

London: Smithsonian Institution Press.
Niedorf, C.
1998 Die Toponymie der Texte aus Alalaḫ IV. UF 30: 515–568.
2002 Ein hethitisches Briefragment aus Alalaḫ. Pp. 517–526 in Ex Mesopotamia et Syria Lux.
Festschrift für Manfried Dietrich zu seinem 65. Geburtstag. AOAT 281. Edited by O. Lo-
retz, K. A. Metzler and H. Schaudig. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
2008 Die mittelbabylonischen Rechtsurkunden aus Alalaḫ (Schicht IV). AOAT 352. Münster:
Ugarit Verlag.
Otten, H.
1988 Die Bronzetafel aus Boğazköy. Ein Staatsvertrag Tutḫalijas IV. StBoTB 1. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Rainey, A. F.
1998 Egyptian Evidence for Semitic Linguistics. Review of J.E. Hoch 1994. Pp. 431–453 in
Past Links: Studies in the Languages and Cultures of the Ancient Near East. Edited by
S. Izre’el, I. Singer and R. Zadok. Winona Lake, IN. Serangeli, F.
1978 Le liste di censo di Alalaḫ IV. VO 1: 99–131.
Singer, I.
2001 The Treaties between Karkamiš and Hatti. Pp. 635–641 in Akten des IV. Internationalen
Kongresses für Hethitologie Würzburg, 4.-8. Oktober 1999. StBoT 45. Edited by G. Wil-
helm. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
van den Hout, T.
1995 Der Ulmitešub-Vertrag. Eine prosopographische Untersuchung. StBoT 38. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
van Soldt, W. H.
2005 The Topography of the City-State of Ugarit. AOAT 324. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
von Dassow, E. M.
2002 List of People from the Alalaḫ IV Administrative Archives. UF 34: 835–911.
2005 Archives of Alalaḫ IV in Archaeological Context. BASOR 338: 1–69.
2008 State and Society in the Late Bronze Age: Alalaḫ under the Mittani Empire. SCCNH 17.
Bethesda, MD: CDL Press.
Wilhelm, G.
1988 Zur ersten Zeile des Šunaššura-Vertrages. Pp. 359–370 in Documentum Asiae Mino-
ris Antiquae. Festschrift für Heinrich Otten zum 75. Geburtstag. Edited by E. Neu ad
C. Rüster. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Wiseman, D. J.
1953 The Alalakh Tablets. London: The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara.
1959 Ration Lists from Alalakh IV. JCS 13: 50–62.
Woolley, C. L.
1955 Alalakh: An Account on the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937–1949. Reports
of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London. Oxford: Printed at
the University Press for the Society of Antiquaries.
Yener, K. A. ed.
2005 The Amuq Valley Regional Projects, vol. 1: Surveys in the Plain of Antioch and Orontes
Delta, Turkey, 1995–2002. OIP 131. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.
2010 Tell Atchana, Ancient Alalakh, vol. 1: The 2003–2004 Excavation Seasons. Amuq Valley
Regional Projects, Excavations in the Plain of Antioch. Istanbul: Koç University.
Zeeb, F.
1998 Die Ortsnamen und geographischen Bezeichnungen der Texte aus Alalaḫ VII. UF 30:
829–886.
2001 Die Palastwirtschaft in Altsyrien nach den spätaltbabylonischen Getreidelieferlisten aus
Alalaḫ (Schicht VII). AOAT 282. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.