such as built drains, or for protecting the bases of walls which were exposed to water.
Bitumen was also used as a protection against water. The roof consisted of a mud
slab laid on a support of wooden beams (of date palm or poplar) which were themselves
overlain with smaller slats and reed matting; the same basic technique is still in use
today in the region. House rental contracts invariably required the tenant to take
care of the two most vulnerable parts of the house, namely the external wall-footings
(which were vulnerable to erosion from splashing rainwater) and the mud roof, which
needed regular resealing in order to maintain its resistance to water.
In plan, the house consisted typically of suites of rooms arranged around a central
courtyard; larger, more complex houses could contain a couple of subsidiary courtyards
in addition to the main one. The principal living room – the largest roofed space in
the house – was usually situated on the south-east side of the courtyard, and was
accessed directly from it. If the house possessed a bathroom (or a toilet), it was usually
integrated into the suite which contained this main room (for further discussion see
below under ‘Sanitation’). A second living room was situated on the opposite side of
the courtyard from the principal living room, and the main entrance to the house
was almost invariably also on the far side of the house, leading via an indirect route
to the courtyard. Staircases have rarely been found, and even then it is not certain
whether they led to the roof rather than to a second storey. Textual sources rarely
mention the existence of upper floors, and most cases actually relate to other kinds
of structures, not to houses. The courtyard was the main (or only) source of light,
and provided some protection from the sun in hot weather; it also facilitated the
circulation of cool air around the house.
The identification of specific activity areas within the house has, to date, focused
on the presence of fixtures (such as ovens, drains etc.) and on any special treatment
of walls and floors (e.g. paving, waterproofing with bitumen). Rooms which lack any
such distinguishing features are of somewhat indeterminable function, presumably
having been used for general living purposes which have left no particular physical
trace (according to the techniques of recovery used in their excavation). The textual
sources give very little away as regards terms for particular types of rooms. However,
the temptation to classify such rooms as multi-functional on analogy with contemporary
dwellings in the area, whose inhabitants traditionally use a minimum of furniture,
and of a type that is easily stowed away, should be resisted as the situation is not so
straightforward. Contemporary dowry texts attest to the use of wooden furniture,
including items such as beds, tables and chairs, which would surely have lent some
specificity of function to the room in which they were placed. The reason why the
terms for room types are so rarely attested probably has more to do with conventions
of record keeping. Simply put, individual bathrooms or bedrooms were unlikely to
be sold on their own and, when they formed part of a larger complex, there was no
reason to refer to them by name. There is a small amount of textual evidence for
storage taking place within certain parts of the house, or for specific activities, such
as baking being carried out in a courtyard, but it is not sufficient to enable a coherent
picture to be drawn up.
The documents provide evidence for other kinds of urban structures of a more
flimsy character, some of them integrated into the house complex, others independent
of it. For example, an annexe could be built up against a house wall, either in the
courtyard or on the outside of the dwelling. The leasing of workshops and storerooms
— Urban form in the first millennium BC—