660
does not seem to have accrued to him or the palace. In one instance,
a royal prince actually purchased confiscated land from dNIN.URTA
and the elders (Emar 139). On the other, members of the royal fam-
ily were frequent witnesses to these sales, and one document records
a second transaction in which the king granted (other) land to a
diviner for his services to the state.^13 The powers of the city elders
may therefore have limited those of the king or they may have been
delegated from the king.^14
The elders of Ekalte had the same function, selling confiscated
property owned by the city and the god Ba’laka (e.g., Ekalte 2, 3).
There was also an assembly of “the city, great and small” (uru gal.gal
u tur.tur: Ekalte 1, 2) and a mayor (¢azannu), who appears in the
sources as a witness or an eponym.2.2.3 Weights were standardized “by the stone of the city of Emar”
(e.g., Emar 75).2.3 Hittite Administration
2.3.1 The “overseer of the land” (lú.ugula.kalam.ma) was a peri-
patetic Hittite official responsible for the land of Ashtata. He sat as
a court together with the city elders (ASJ 14:44, Emar 205, 252;
Westenholz 2; possibly TBR 84) and acted as a witness to legal
transactions (e.g., RE 56; Emar 90, 181) and to litigation before the
king of Carchemish (Emar 212).2.3.2 Carchemish was known as the “city of the king,” before whom
Emarites could litigate (AO 5:8; Emar 212, 257), as could foreigners
having disputes with Emarites (Owen 1). The king also confirmed
ownership of land in Emar (RE 54, 55) and witnessed legal trans-
actions, especially testaments (Emar 31, 177, 201, 202; RE 85).2.3.3 “Sons of the king” were high officials of the Carchemish
administration, including but not confined to members of the royal(^13) ASJ 12:7. The grant of a priesthood noted above (Sigrist 6) was by “the king
and the city”.
(^14) In ASJ 14:43, the elders of a town near Emar appear as litigants, possibly on
behalf of a prince of Emar, who is noted as the owner of the disputed field.
WESTBROOK_f16–657-691 8/27/03 12:29 PM Page 660