² KAJ 7, 20–6: míasuat-[idiglat] ū, lidānu-[ša] a-la-iu-ú ša Amurru-[naṣir] ū mārē-šu šunu-[ma'] il-ka ša a-la-iu-ú-t[i] ana Amurru-naṣir ū mārē-šu illuku.

³ For her social position see D'yakonov, 224–5, and Oppenheim, , Iraq, XVII, 1, 1955, 73–4Google Scholar.

⁴ This translation could mean either that, as the village-residents, they will perform services to PN₂…, or (and this is perhaps what was intended), that, as the village-residents to PN₂…, they will perform services. However, this second version would demand that ana PN₂ be taken as directly dependent on ilka ša ālāiūti, and not, as Akkadian requires, on the verb.

⁵ D'yakonov (232) recognizes that the simple translation ‘community member’ is too broad to fit the context, and says that the word here ‘is defined by the lines that follow: they are those who perform “the service of community membership”’; he does not, however, make any attempt to justify this restriction in the word's meaning.

⁶ In Edzard, D. O. (ed.), Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient: Adam Falkenstein zum 17. September 1966, Wiesbaden, 1967, 111ffGoogle Scholar.

⁷ See Semitica, XVII, 1967, 14Google Scholar, where however this ilku seems to be equated with payments (redevances, contributions) by the villagers, which is not demonstrable.

⁸ i.e., in return for ilku service; for the question of performance of ilku service on lands which had been sold, see below, § 5.

⁹ Ll. 4–8: ša ḫu-ra^!-di ša ^uruni-iḫ-ri-a ša il-ka iš-tu Šeš.M[Eš (x x)] i-li-ku-ni. The passage has been collated by D. A. Kennedy, who confirms the sign ra in 1. 4; he also indicates that there is in fact no sign after il-ka in 1. 6. Ištu is regular in MAss. for ‘with’ as well as ‘from’ (cf. the interchange with itti in the PN Ištu/Itti-ili-a-šam-šu, Tallqvist, APN, 108b; Iraq, XXX, 2, 1968, 191b)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ The text reads: ¹iš-tu ^itiḫi-bur. Ud.11.KÁm²li^!-[me ^?] ^m.d.IM.EN-gab-be ^3ma-bu-[D]ùg.ga iš-tu ^msi-ki ⁴(X) Níg.ka₉.Meš-šu-nu ⁵ṣa-ab-tu ⁶il-la-ak ^?-šu-nu ⁷i-na šu^!-ki ⁸a-li-ik ‘From the 1lth of Hibur, limmu of Adad-bēl-gabbe, Abu-ṭāb and Sikku have done their accounts; their ilku has been performed (lit. ‘gone’) “in the hand” of Sikku’. The double ll in illak-šunu is hard to explain; the emendation in 1. 7 follows a collation by D. A. Kennedy.

¹¹ Affiliations are not given, and there are no witnesses, both features restricted in general to transactions within the administration.

¹² 16 Anše 5-Bán še pad-at Anše.kur.raša il-ki ša ^mpa-ar-pa-ra-a-e ^mAn-num-Mu.kam dumu^dsin-ni-ia- ma-ḫi-ir (envelope, KAV 207, is identical except for the omission of maḫir).

¹² 5 Anše šei-na ^gišBán sumun pad-at Anše. kur.ra.mešša il-ki ša šu [^mi-q]iš-ia[^mxx-]še ^?-ia[ma]-ḫi-ir.

¹⁴ Iraq, XXX, 2, 1968, plate XLV, 11. 10–14Google Scholar: i-na tu-ar ḫu ^!-ra-di i-dan ù ṭup-pu-šu i-ḫap-pi; the words ina tuār ḫurādi probably mean ‘at the return of the army’, but Akkadian idiom would also permit the rendering ‘at (his) return from the army’. Add to the references for ulmu ‘lance’ (ibid., 159) given by me to Professor Wiseman, another from an unpublished MAss. text kindly drawn to my attention by D. A. Kennedy.

¹⁵ Ll. 12–13: šu.nigin₂ 4 Erín.meš lá.mešša ḫu-ra-da-te ša šu^mìr-^dše-ru-a.

¹⁶ Ll. 6–7: ḫu-ra-du ša Zíd.kaskal.meša-na ^uruši-na-mu ub-lu-ni.

¹⁷ Ll. 10–11: ḫu-ra-du ša Sig₄.Meš^uruši-na-mu il-be-u-ni; the translation given follows the emendation of von Soden (in AHw., 552b) to il-be-<nu>-u-ni. If Sig₄.Meš could be taken to refer to ‘brick-work’, we might consider a derivation from lawû, which would then dispense with the need for emendation, and yield the general sense ‘the ḫurādu which besieged Šinamu’.

¹⁸ Šinamu is known to lie in northern Mesopotamia (see Kupper, J.-R., Les nomades en Mésopotamie, pp. 123, 230, n. 1)Google Scholar.

¹⁹ Niḫria is well known from Old Assyrian and Old Babylonian texts; it is variously located in the Urfa region (Garelli, , Les assyriens en Cappadoce, 94)Google Scholar, or in the neighbourhood of Mardin (see Falkner, M., A f. O, XVIII, 1, 1957, 20–2)Google Scholar. It is therefore hardly likely to have lain in the same administrative district as Tell al-Rimaḥ, and in any case it was itself a local capital (later?), RLA, II, p. 439, stele No. 66. This shows that the ḫurādu organization transcended provincial boundaries.

²⁰ See Finkelstein, , JCS, VII, 4, 1953, 126, 153Google Scholar; 11. 16–20 must have read much as follows: [ ]tu an-ni-tu [(x) ina m]adakti Lugalša ḫurā[di] ša ^?i-na ^?Kurkatmuḫi ta ^?-ad-na-at ^??šu lugali-din.…

²¹ Ungnad, , RLA, II, pp. 438–9Google Scholar, stele No. 67 and No. 57 (dated by Ungnad to Tiglathpileser II for reasons not specified).

²² We should probably include in this category the passage from an annalist ic text referring to Aššur-rēš-iši I, quoted in Weidner, , Die Inschriften Tukulti-Ninurtas I. und seiner Nachfolger (A f. O, Beiheft 12), p. 58, No. 70Google Scholar: ⁹ḫu-ra-su ^mešgišGigir.meš-šu, where ḫurāsu = *ḫurād-šu. Here the word seems to be contrasted with ‘chariotry’, and refers to infantry, although it may not necessarily mean foot-soldiers.

²³ See Postgate, Neo-Assyrian royal grants and decrees (Studia Pohl, Ser. Maior, 1), 10 ff., and references in index, 128. Whether the Shalmaneser I passage KAH, I, 13.i.30 da-ku-ut Erín.meš-ia aš-ku-un belongs here is uncertain, see CAD, III (D), 141a.

²⁴ The best instance of this is Harper, , ABL, 99Google Scholar, rev. 14'–16', a passage which will be treated in the writer's study on Neo-Assyrian taxation.

²⁵ Cuneiform text: Schroeder, , KAV 1, col. vi, 46–88 (p. 10)Google Scholar; edited inter alios by Driver, and Miles, , The Assyrian laws, 412–15 (and discussion, 256–66)Google Scholar; new translation and commentary by Cardascia, , Les his assyriennes, 217–30Google Scholar.

²⁶ This is a regular form for the Assyrian D stem infinitive and permansive of verbs I 'ayin; cf. in NAss. texts up-pu-šat (von Soden, , GAG, Ergänzungsheft (Analecta Orientalia, 47), p. 20**Google Scholar, § 97e); urrubu (erābu), ABL, 427, rev. 3; uttuku (etāku), ABL, 170 rev. 14; uṭṭuru (eṭāru), CAD, IV (E), 405–6 (in legal cases); ul-lu-e (elā'u), Iraq, XVII 2, 1955, p. 127, 1. 35 ; cf. also below, p. 510, n. 50.

²⁷ The use of a dative suffix to give this meaning does no t require documentation, but cf. išaṭṭuruniššu ‘they shall write for him’ in KAJ 177, 17.

²⁸ KAJ 177, 13–15 (šumma ina pāni-šu mamma lā ēriš ū tadnaššu) has a sort of apodotio ū which is also atteste d in Old Assyrian (Hecker, , Grammatik der Kültepe-Texte, § 138a)Google Scholar.

²⁹ This interpretation agrees well with the fact that she is to go with her sons to the house of her brother-in-law, thus joining his family group; she could hardly remove them from their father's authority if he were alive. We must assume, however, that the be-la-sú-nu of 1. 20, whose husband is alive, is different from the be-la-as-sn-[nu] of 1. 4; this is supported by the šanītam of 1. 20, which should introduce a new topic (or we could translate ‘the other ( = šanītam) Bēlassunu’!).

³⁰ I know of no other instance where *parisūni stands for parsūni in MAss., although it is quite acceptable in late NAss. Professor Garelli refers me for this passage to Lewy, J., Das Verbum in den ‘altassyrischen Gesetzen’ (Berliner Beiträge zur Keilschriftforschung, I, 4), p. 37, n. 3, and p. 72, n. 9Google Scholar, but this is in fact the only instance quoted.

³¹ It should be noted that the only reason for supposing that the man was on military service is the phrase ‘an enemy has taken her husband’ (1. 47); this could, however, also refer to a merchant (cf. Code of Hammurapi, § 103), and there are therefore no grounds for assuming a priori that the land in debate in the second part of the law is held by him in return for military service in which he is engaged.

³² Not necessarily in battle; see p. 505, n. 31.

³³ The subject of uppušu iddununešše in 11. 66–7 is probably the judges, who are the subject of the preceding verb, and not the mayor and elders.

³⁴ Such as those adduced by Cardascia (222), by analogy with Babylonia.

³⁵ ‘if there is not enough to eat…’ (ll. 50–1).

³⁶ Except, of course, for the right of the previous owner to buy the land back, but this is specifically provided for by the law.

³⁷ Semitica, XVII, 1967, 5–27, especially 6–14Google Scholar.

³⁸ ibid., 6.

³⁹ Dating: Aššur-nirari II (1426–1420), KAJ 177, with mention of Aššur-rabi; Aššur-bēlnišē-šu (1419–1411), tablets mentioned in KAJ 162 and 172; Erīb-adad (1392–1366), KAJ 183, KAJ 160 (also mentions [Aššur]-uballiṭ as crown prince); A¡šur-uballiṭ I (1365–1330), KAJ 173, KAV 212 (dates after Brinkman, in Oppenheim, , Ancient Mesopotamia, 346)Google Scholar.

⁴⁰ The texts referred to in this section are: KAJ 160; 162; 172; 173 (= KAV 210); 177; 183 (= KAV 93); KAV 212.

⁴¹ ḫa.la É.gal-lim (KAJ 172); ḫa.la É.gal-lim a-di še-ša (KAJ 173); še-um ša ḫa.la é.gal-lim (KAJ 183; see below, p. 510, n. 51).

⁴² op. cit., 10.

⁴³ It should be noted at this stage that no text has both the term zitti ēkalli and the word naiālu. The connexion I make between the two is purely on the grounds of the similarity of the transactions.

⁴⁴ Opinion attributed to Koschaker by Garelli (10); but not expressed in NKRA, for which see below, n. 45. It seems rather to have been an idea discarded by Nougayrol, (PRU, III, p. 29, n. 5)Google Scholar.

⁴⁵ So Koschaker, , NKRA (Neue keilschriftliche Rechtsurkunden aus der El-Amarna Zeit (Abhandlungen der Sächsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Phil.-hist. Kl., XXXIX, 5), Leipzig, 1928), 44Google Scholar (with reference to zitti ēkalli), and Nougayrol, , PRU, III, p. 29Google Scholar, with notes (4) and (5), p. 234 ‘(exploitant) défaillant’.

⁴⁶ This proposal gains support from the difficult NAss. letter (from Assur) KAV 197, 58–60: an-ni-u la ^lúPap-u-ni šu-u na-a-a-lu ^!šu-u i-na é^mPap-u-a-Sue-tar-ba… ‘this man is not our brother, he is a naiālu (and) he has entered the house of Aḫua-eriba…’ (emendation after von Soden, AHw., 717a)Google Scholar.

⁴⁷ Once (a) the father died and (b) the brothers had made the division, the separate brothers had no rights to property which had been divided, even if the line of one brother died out. This is indicated not only by tablet A, § 45, discussed above, but by § 25, where only the undivided brothers of an almattu's husband have any right to property he gave her.

The role of the extended family in Middle Assyrian times has, in my opinion, been exaggerated. Most families probably stayed together during the life of the paterfamilias, but evidence that this state of affairs usually survived his death for any length of time is scanty. It is true that the laws often mention the case of ‘undivided’ brothers (see Cardascia, 71), but this may equally well be taken to show that it was an uncommon situation which required legislation precisely because the solution was not accepted by tradition. I would compare the position in Assyria with that described in Stirling, P., Turkish village, New York, 1966, 131 ff.Google Scholar, where he says ‘The rule is clear. On the death of a household head, his sons are expected within a reasonable period to divide up the property between them and establish separate independent households’.

⁴⁸ op. cit., 216. He states: ‘the existence of extended families almost excluded the possibility of death without an heir. Besides, in two of the cases when the documents mention the “share of the palace” (i.e. in the “house” of Pür-šarri and in that of Šamaš-āmerī) there is not a shadow of doubt that this “share” was situated in the “house” of a man who had either nephews and other relatives, or several sons’. On the other hand

(1) Only sons would inherit (see p. 509, n. 47).

(2) Šamaš-āmerī is too common a name to prove that this Šamaš-āmerī (in KAJ 174) is identical with that in KAJ 1 (see Ebeling, , MAOG, XIII, 1, 1939, 81)Google Scholar; the same applies to the possible identity of Igāiu in KAJ 149, who was a grandfather, and the Igāiu called a naiālu in KAJ 160 (Ebeling, op. cit., 45).

(3) If it be argued (with Fine, HUCA, XXIV, 1952–1953, p. 200Google Scholar, n. 11) that some of Bur-šarru's property was inherited by his nephews or their sons, this is incorrect. The only property known to have belonged to Bur-šarru is mentioned in KAJ 172, where it is a zitti ēkalli; the rest of the property referred to by Fine came from his brother, Kubi-ēreš, who presumably inherited it direct from their father, Bēlia.

(4) As to the name ‘Būr(Pūr)-šar(ru)’ (thus Ebeling, D'yakonov, etc.) the copy in KAJ 172, 2, and 175, 10, makes it quite possible that we should prefer the (known) deity ^dTišpak to a ^dbur, particularly when we compare the sign read bur by Ebeling in KAJ 74, 3. The name should perhaps therefore be read Tišpak-šar.

⁴⁹ As we shall see below, zittu is commonly used to mean ‘inherited property’; the shift of meaning from ‘share’ to ‘inherited share’ to ‘inheritance’ is not difficult; cf. already the use in the late OAss. text quoted in p. 516, n. 78.

⁵⁰ 1–3: A.šà-šu… ù x ú^?-bi^?-šu^? a-šar ù^?-zu-bu-ù-ni ‘his land and his^?… wherever it is deposited’. For uzzub as D permansive of ezābu see above, p. 503, n. 26; the rare D stem will be due to the plural subject (‘Poebel-Pi'el’); for ù used syllabically see KAJ 2, 12 (von Soden, , Analecta Orientalia, 42, p. 51, No. 264)Google Scholar.

⁵¹ This text disposes of the zitti ēkalli together with its corn (see p. 508, n. 41). This must mean that the new recipient is also given the crops actually standing on the land. KAJ 183 mentions the corn of a zitti ēkalli by itself; in this case Iddin-aššur must presumably have been granted the crops (unharvested because of the death intestate of the owner) while the land itself was still undistributed.

⁵² Here Koschaker translates usaḫḫirūni (1. 9) as ‘überlassen hatte’ (NKBA, p. 47, n. 2) and takes it to describe the issue of the land to Kidinnia. Certain restoration of 11. 7–8 seems impossible, and the reason for the re-allotment of the land must therefore also remain uncertain; a simple rendering of saḫḫuru as ‘to return’, ‘to hand back’ might be considered.

⁵³ Ll. 2–4: [1 ṭ]uppu ša Na₄.Kišib₃^m.daššur-bēl-niše-šu ukli(m) [ša ^m.d.]šamaš-magir… [^iú]naiāli.

⁵⁴ viz. KAJ 173, 177, and KAV 212.

⁵⁵ The explanation for this is probably that the original tablet contained an accurate description of the property, which was not necessarily repeated on the new one (e.g. KAJ 173).

⁵⁶ KAV 212, 10–11: ú-za-ak-ka-ma i-laq-qi ‘he shall clear (it) and (then) take (it)’; KAJ 177, 16–17: ú-za-ak-ka-ma ṭup-pa dan-na-ta i-ša-aṭ-ṭu-ru-ni-iš-šu ‘he shall clear (it) and (then) they will write a “valid tablet” for him’.

⁵⁷ See Koschaker, , NKRA, 45–7Google Scholar.

⁵⁸ The texts which form the basis of the ensuing discussion are KAJ 146–55, 164, 174–5, and 179 (in addition to those already discussed in § 3). Note the paucity of the texts.

⁵⁹ Zittu: KAJ 148, 4–5, 30; 149, 4; 151, 8; 153, 5; 155, 5; 164, 7; 174, 8; 175, 16–17; 179, 9; also (?) 24, 14.

Ši'amātu: KAJ 149, 6; 153, 5–6; 155, 5–6; 164, 10; 175, 21 (?); 179, 10 (written ši-matu-šu); this last variant spelling suggests that the usual writing stands for ši'mātu with the aleph creating an audible a-sound before the m.

It should be noted that these two terms are not found on their own; we always have zitti/ši'amāt PN or zittu-šu.

⁶⁰ This is shown by the zitti (ḫa.la) before the name of Urad-šerua; it may be accidental that the term does not also appear before his brother's name.

⁶¹ ši'amāt (1. 10) stands closer to the mention of the land than to that of the tablets, and elsewhere it always refers to land.

⁶² Despite the opinion of Koschaker (NKRA, 40) and D'yakonov (206 ff.), I see no reason to assume the existence of joint family holdings (after the death of the father) as a regular feature. Individuals disposed of land called zittu just as freely as ši'amātu land, which would be impossible if the former were shared with other members of the family (or Eigentumsgemeinschaft) or community, and the latter not. See p. 509, n. 47, and p. 516, n. 75.

⁶³ No evidence is given for this assertion, although support for it might be sought in KAJ 149, where property described as ‘the purchases of his’ (the seller's) ‘grandfather’ includes as the last item ‘a well, his inheritance’ (ḫa.la-šu). Zittu here might refer to the well only, but it could be taken to apply to the whole property, which would then, uniquely, be described both as ši'amātu. and as zittu. If this is indeed so, it would mean that zittu was here understood to mean an ‘inherited purchase’, and not a true ‘inheritance’. The text referred to in p. 516, n. 78, may reflect a similar usage.

⁶⁴ In particular KAJ 164 and 175.

⁶⁵ op. cit., 207–8.

⁶⁶ KAJ 153; 155; KAJ 179, which offers a similar choice, is a gift to a man's son, and not therefore strictly relevant; cf. also KAJ 24, 14–17, which should probably be restored: lu-ú i-na ḫa..[La-šu] ù lu-ú i-na [ši'amāt] ^mDumu. ^d.ídidiglat a-bi-šu.

⁶⁷ eqla uzakka ina ašal šarri imaddad ū ṭuppa dannata ana pān(i) šarri išaṭṭar — KAJ 14; 27; 35; 146–51; 153–5; plural (uzakku'u, imaddudu, isatturu)—KAJ 12; 66; 68; 152; other variants—for eqla KAJ 147, 19, has [eqla] qaqqar āli ū kirâ, KAJ 149, 18, has eqla adra qaqqar āli būra, KAJ 66, 30, has šaprātu-šunu; for ana pāni, KAJ 150, 16, and 151, 19, have a(p)pāni; for ṭuppa KAJ 12, 18, has ṭup-pí; KAJ 27 and 152 omit the second part of the clause (after imaddad).

⁶⁸ adi ṭuppa dannata ana pāni šarri išaṭṭurūni annītu-ma dannat—KAJ 12; 148; 151; 152 (prob. omitting ana pāni šarri); išaṭṭurūni may of course be either singular or plural.

The phrase ana pāni is generally rendered ‘before, in the presence of’, although for this one might rather have expected ina pāni; ana pāni could also mean ‘for’ or ‘on behalf of’.

⁶⁹ As generally recognized; called by Garelli (7) ‘promesses de vente’ (as opposed to ‘actes de vente’), and by Koschaker (NKRA, 27) ‘Kaufvertrag’.

⁷⁰ This is evident from the phrase ‘he has sold for the full price’ (ana šīm gamer iddin), and the ensuing ‘the field is acquired (?) and received’ (eqlu uppu laqi, cf. CAD, I (A), Pt. II, 202b); the occurrence of the second phrase in the consequences of failure to pay a debt on time (e.g., KAJ 12 or 14) is not relevant, since it is there effectively in a conditional apodosis.

⁷¹ zakkû (or zakku'u) ‘to clear (of claims)’ is used constantly in MAss. texts in a variety of contexts. It is unexpected here because the land should already have undergone a process designed to exclude other claims, because of the specific statement in the texts that ‘there is no (further) withdrawal or litigation’ (tuāru ū dabābu laššu), and because the purchase price has already changed hands.

⁷² That these processes were done by the seller is apparent from the texts where land is sold by more than one person, and the relevant verbs are consequently in the plural (see p. 514, n. 67).

⁷³ The simple phrase ana pāni šarri (see above, n. 68) does not tell us what was involved here. Exceptional is KAJ 177 (a royal concession), where the ‘clearing’ is apparently done by the eventual recipient, and in the absence of a seller his ‘valid tablet’ is to be written for him by the authorities (see p. 511, n. 56).

⁷⁴ Garelli's description of the process (7–8) is accurate at most points (as against, e.g. Cardascia, 269ff.; for detailed comment see BSOAS, XXXIV, 2, 1971, 388–9)Google Scholar, but it is incorrect to say that the officials named here prepare the ‘acte de vente’: the only tablets mentioned are those which confirm that the proclamations of the herald have been made, and that any further claims are void. Either (against Koschaker, , NKRA, 34Google Scholar, and Garelli), the land sale texts we have must have been written after this stage, because in them (one part of) the sale has already taken place (see above, n. 70), and a fortiori the ṭuppu dannutu (= ‘acte de vente’) cannot be referred to in the law either, or we must assume that the ‘promesse de vente’ was in fact prepared before the herald's proclamations etc., and that these procedures were treated merely as legal formalities which did not prevent the virtual completion of the sale (from one side) beforehand. In this case the zakku'u of n. 71 could refer simply to those procedures.

⁷⁵ On the subject of the ‘inassaq ilaqqi clauses’ see below, Appendix.

⁷⁶ A conceivable further difference would be a reference in the ‘valid tablet’ to the original holder of the tenure, which we might expect if my suggestion concerning ši'amātu is right.

⁷⁷ Unless BM 123367 (Iraq, XXXII, 2, 1970, plate xxxvi) is oneGoogle Scholar; it is an unusually well-written tablet, and has as witnesses the mayor of Nineveh, the governor (rev. 2': bēl pāḫi[ti]), and the herald (rev. 4'). Limmu probably ^mbu-ut-nu. The tablet is sealed, like NAss. land sale texts, and not enclosed in an envelope as was the late Old Assyrian text referred to in n. 78, below.

⁷⁸ See Gelb, and Sollberger, , JNES, XVI, 3, 1957, 163 ff.Google Scholar; lines (tablet) 35–7 read: ki-ma ṭup-pì dan-na-tì lá-be-er-tí a-ni-tù ṭup-pu da-an-na-at ‘instead of the old “valid tablet” this tablet is valid’. As observed by Gelb (174), ṭuppu dannutu is characteristically Middle, not Old, Assyrian.

⁷⁹ ṭuppu Kalag.gaeqli šuašu(?) ašar tilēni (elā'u) ana PN-ma zakhu'at (11. 22–5). See also KAJ 132 (discussed by Koschaker, NKRA, 33)Google Scholar, where a [ṭupp]u dannutu(m) (1. 2) is being sold, but is (probably) lost; the seller is required to pass it on to the purchasers when found, but if he fails to do so, he shall bear the responsibility for ‘clearing’ the field; otherwise, the implication is obvious, the ‘clearing’ would not be necessary because the ‘valid tablet’ provides the evidence.

⁸⁰ Despite assumptions to the contrary; cf. for example CAD, I (A), Pt. I, 391a, which, referring to § 45 of tablet A of the laws, says: ‘the ālajūtu of the palace are distinguished from the ālik ilki who live in villages which do not belong to the palace’, and also Garelli, 9. See also p. 505, n. 31.

⁸¹ The connexion is best seen in the phrase ilku ištu āli (lā) illuku in texts from Tell Billa, and later in land sales, ilku issu āli-šu lā illak (e.g., TCL, IX, plate XXVII, I. 60); the subject will be treated in my study of Neo-Assyrian taxation.

⁸² See for the Nuzu texts: F. R. Steele, Nuzi real estate transactions (American Oriental Series, XXV).

⁸³ Note that Nuzu also knew the practice of public announcements before a sale (most recently, Shaffer, A., Orientalia, NS, XXXIV, 1, 1965, 32–4)Google Scholar.

⁸⁴ While the exact date of the laws cannot be determined (Cardascia, 22), they clearly belong to a phase when Assur was not the capital of a large empire; the sale documents are mainly (if not all) from the fourteenth century B.c.

⁸⁵ Along with some associated loan and pledge texts, they mainly document the acquisition of land in a few villages by a few families (cf. D'yakonov, pp. 210–11 with nn. 28, 30, and the article by Nissen referred to in p. 498, n. 6).