598
6.2.1 The specific legal nature of ilkuat Nuzi has been the subject
of intense debate. The basic issues are the content of the ilkuoblig-
ation, who is liable to ilku, and the functional connection between
ilkuand ownership and tenure of real estate (primarily fields). Crucial
to this last point are possible changes in personal liability to ilkufol-
lowing transfer of real-estate ownership. In the light of some seventy
years of scholarly discussion,^116 it can reasonably be argued that ilku
obligations did not consist of regular payments in kind. In contrast
to the state administration in contemporary states (e.g., Ugarit), Nuzi
documents never mention tithes or the like. Rather, it would seem
that persons liable to ilku(the àlik ilki; cf. 4.2 above) were bound to
perform personal services on demand by the central administration.
These included non-specialized military activities (along with the
highly qualified chariot drivers) and various kinds of agricultural work
on the palace estates.6.2.2 We do not know how frequent this corvée duty was or for
how long. Seasonal terms set on an annual basis would apply to
cereal production and stock-raising; military recruitment most often
would depend on occasional (and unforeseen) military contingencies,
rather than on routine training.6.2.3 While ilku obligations were intrinsic to real estate of all kinds,^117
the textual evidence almost exclusively refers to fields, regardless of
their size and location in the Arraphean territory. To all appear-
ances, the entire sector of private landed property was liable to ilku,
independently of the persons who were actually charged with per-
forming corvée duty. In fact, the Nuzi archives do not provide evi-
dence of exemptions of any kind granted to estates, nor do we know
of fields that benefited from such exemptions. On the other hand,
many deeds of transfer do not include the standard clause indicat-
ing the person who will bear the ilkuof the field; there is no ques-
tion, however, of these fields being exempt from fiscal burdens.(^116) Cf. Maidman’s review in A Socio-Economic Analysis..., 98–123; see further
Zaccagnini, “Land Tenure.. .,” esp. 85–91, and “Proprietà fondiaria.. .,” esp.
714–23; Dosch, Zur Struktur.. ., 118–54.
(^117) Cf. Zaccagnini, “Proprietà fondiaria.. .,” 718.
WESTBROOK_f14–564-617 8/27/03 12:28 PM Page 598