The Ancient Mesopotall1ian City Marc Van De Mieroop
CLARENDON PRESS . OXFORD 1997
Ox/ord
Unж'vеrsж'ty Press~
Grear CZarendon Street;t Oxford ОХ2 Oxford New York Athens Auckland Bangkok Bogota ВотЬау Buenos Aires Calcurca Саре Town Dar es SaZaaт Delhi FZorence Hong Коnс IstanbuZ Karachz' Kuala Lumpur Madras Madn'd Melbourne Mexico Cz'ty N airobi Рат Sz'ngapore Taipe1.· TokYQ Toronto Warsaw and associated companies in BerZin Ibadan
6DP
Oxford is а trade mark olOx/ord Universiry Press
Ьу
Published ж'n the United Staces Oxjord University Press Inc.) New York ©
Матс
Van De Mieroop 1997
All nghts reserved. No рап 0/ this publication тау Ье reproduced srored ж'n а retrieval system, от n-ansmitted, in аnу lот от Ьу аnу теаns" J
permission in writing 0/ Oxford Unz'versity Press. Within Ше ик" exceptions ате allowed in respect 0/ аnу /air dealing /от the purpose 01 research от private sludY;t от criticism от revieW;t а! permitted иnшт ЕМ Copyright Desigпs аnа Parents АСЕ, 1988 оТ in the case 01 reprogтaphic reproduction in accordance wirh the cerт! 01 lhe licences issued ьу Ет Copyrigh'l L,'censing Асenсу. Enquin'es conceming reproduccz'on outside these Ееrm! and in other countries should Ье sent ЕО the Rights Departmenc Ox/ord Universz'ty Press;t а! the address above wж'rhоut
the
рпот
J
J
J
Bn'rish Lz'brary Caraloguing in Publica!ion Data Data available LtЪrаry
0/ Congress
Catalogz·ng in Publican·on Dara The ancient Mesopotamian ciry / Матс Van de Mieroop, IncZudes bibliographical re/erences 1. Ciu'es and townS Аnсж'еnt-Irаq. 2. Iraq--Civilizalion-To 634. 1. Title. DS69.5, VЗ6 1997 9З5'.ОО9732-dc21 97-8199 J
ISBN 0-19-815062-8 1 3 5 7 9 10 8 6 4 2 Typeset Ьу Besl-sel Typesetter Ltd., Hong Коnс Рп·nЕеа in Great Bri.tain оп acid-free paper Ьу Bookcraft Ltd" МШsотет Nonon
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
During the writing of this book 1 have received the generous help and support of various institutions and individuals for which 1 ат deeply grateful. А feIlowship from the National Endowment for те Humanities in 1993 allowed те to devote а full year to this project, and Columbia University provided те with another six months of sabbatical leave immediately afterwards. 1 thank ту colleagues in те Departments of Middle East and Asian Languages and Cultures and of History and the University administration а! Columbia for allowing те to stay away from teaching for such а long period of time. The Governing Body and Fellows of Wolfson College, the University of Oxford, elected те Visiting Scholar for the academic year 1993-4, and provided те with а comfonable academic environment in which to pursue ту work. During ту stay at Oxford 1 was able to discuss тапу aspects of this study with а wonderful group of people whose kindness and hospitality is unparalleled. 1 would especially like {о thank John Baines, Jeremy Black, Stephanie Dalley, Roger Moorey, Michael Roaf, and Chase Robinson, who graciously endured ту prolonged intrusion into their lives. 1 ат also grateful to ту graduate students а! Columbia University, who participated in а semester-long seminar оп Ancient Mesopotamian urbanisт and critically evaluated many of the thoughts expressed here. То two ofthem 1 ат especially indebted: Seth Richardson who edited ту English, and Steven Garfinkle who helped те with library research. Му deepest gratitude goes to Mario Liverani and Roger Moorey who took the time to read the entire manuscript and gave те numerous suggestions for improvement. Obviously, попе ofthe above is to Ье held responsible for the mistakes. Finally, this book could not have Ьееп written without the suppon of ту wife, Zainab, and ту son, Кепап, who were not shy of reminding те to keep things in the right perspective. Marc Van De Mi.eroop 15 April 1996
CONTENTS
List 01 Figures
Vll1
Chronological Chart
х
..
Introduction 1. City and Society in Ancient Mesopotamia
Хll
2. The Origins and Character of the Mesopotamian City •
23
3. City and Countryside:
ТЬе
Mesopotamian View
4. The Urban Landscape
Urban Government:
42 63
5. Social Organization б.
1
101 Кing,
Citizens> and Officials
118
7. Feeding the Citizens
142
8. Crafrs and Commerce
176
9. Credit and Management
197
10. Cities as Centres of Re1igion and Learning
215
11. The Eclipse of the Ancient Mesopotamian City
229
Conclusions: The Ancient Mesopotamian City Index
248 265
LIST
ОР
FIGURES
Мар
2.1
2.2
3.1
3.2
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5 4.6
of the Ancient Near East. Uruk vase with reconstruction of the image of the city ruler in the top register, after Michael Roaf, Cultural Atlas 01 Mesopotamia (Oxford, 1990), 61. Late fourth-millennium sealing with combat scene, after Mark А. Brandes, Siegelabrollungen aus den archaischen Bauschichten in Uruk-Warka 2 (Wiesbaden, 1979), pl. б. Crown shaped as а city wall, after Peter Calmeyer, 'Mauerkrone', Reallexikon der Assyriologz·e 7 (1987-90), 595. City-models being offered to the Assyrian king) from Victor Place, Nz·nive et l'Assyrie 3 (Paris, 1867), pl. 48. Ancient тар of Nippur, after Н. W. Р. Saggs, Civilization be/ore Greece and Rome (New Haven and London, 1989), 119. Plan of Kultepe-Kanish, after W. Orthmann, 'Kanis, karum. ~. Archaologisch', Reallexikon der Assyriologie 5 (1976-80), 381, and Tahsin 6zgii~, 'Ап Assyrian Trading Outpost', Scientific Аmеn:саn 208/2 (Feb. 1963), 101. Plan of ТеН Тауа, after J. Е. Reade, 'ТеП Тауа (1968-9): Summary Report' Iraq 33 (1971), and 'ТеП Тауа (1972-73): Summary Report' Iraq 35 (1973) . Assyrian representation of walled city, from Austin Henry Layard, The Monuments 0/ Nineveh 1 (Lопdоп) 1849), pl. 39. Assyrian representation of army сатр, from Layard, Monuments, pl. 30. Plan of АН site а! Ur, after Marc Van De Mieroop,
Хl
32
34
52
53
64
66
70
74 75
lХ
List 01 Figures Society and Enterprise in Old Babylonian Ur (Berlin,
1992), 36. 4.7 Plan of ВаЬуl0П, after Jean-Louis Huot et al., Naissance des cites (Paris, 1990), 236. 4.8 Plan of Borsippa, after Eckhard Unger, 'Barsippa', Reallexikon der Assyriologzoe 1 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1932), Tafel 59. 4.9 Plan of Haradum, after Christine Kepinski and Olivier Lecomte, 'HaradumJHarada: Une forteresse sur l'Euphrate', Archeologia 205 (Sept. 1985), 48. 4.10 Plan of Dur-Sharrukin (Кhorsabad), after JeanLouis Huot ес al. -' Naissance des cites (Paris, 1990), 210. 7.1
8.2
87
88
90
92
Sealings representing grain si1os, after Р. Amiet, La Glyptique mesopotamienne archaique (Paris, 1980), pl. 1 б nos. 267-9.
8.1
80
153
Sealing representing potters at work, after Р. Amiet, La Glyptiue, pl. 16 по. 265. 'Select теп among the craftsmen', after Jean-Robert Kupper, Documents administratijs de la salle 135 du palais de Мап (Archives royales de Mari XXII.l; Paris, 1983), 42-51 по. 13.
Plan of Hatra, after Malcolm А. R. Colledge, Parthian Ап (Ithaca, NY, 1977), 34. 11.2 Trade routes of the Ancient Near East.
177
184
11.1
АН drawin~ were made Ьу Jо
Ann W ood, N ew
У ork.
236 239
Babylonia Histon·cal pen'od SeZected rulers Seleucus 1 Seleucid
Assyria ВС
300
Histoncal period Seleucid
Selected rulers
(305-281) 400
Achaemenid
Achaemenid 500
Neo-Babylonian
Nabonidus (555-539) N ebuchadnezer 11 (604-562)
600
Sennacherib (704-681)
700
Sargon 11 (721-705)
800 900
Neo-Assyrian Assuma~irpal
(883-859)
post-Kassite 1000 1100 1200
Tukulti-Ninuna 1 (1243-1207)
1300 Kassite
Middle Assyrian
Kurigalzu 11 (1332-1308) 1400 1500 1600 Ammi~aduqa
(1646-1626)
Old Babylonian
1700
Old Assyrian
Hammurabi (1795-1750)
Shamshi-Adad 1 (181 3-1 781 )
1800
Isin/Larsa 1900 2000
Ur 111
\
Shulgi (2094-2047) 2100 2200 2300
Agade
Sargon (2334-2279) 2400
Uru:linimgina 2500 2600
Early Dynastic 2700 2800 2900 3000
Chronological chart of Mesopotamian History. АП dates are according {о J. А. Brinkman's appendix in А. L. Oppenheim, Ancienr MesopDlarnia
(Chicago, 1977), 335-46.
\
~
~
1f
!u. ,~t-
~'"
..
<~
Tar
ll
с;.
Dur-ShаПUkjn~
•
r.Ar~la
Nindeh· Kalhu\of /
~
\
Assur ~ Kar-Тukul[j·Njпur1
-<
~
l.q
~ ~
t:l: ~ l.q
f...
.... Q
Sclcuci'1" SiPpar\
l.q
~
~abylon • Вorsippa\8
о~
\\.
300km J
scale
Мар
of the Ancient Near East
i1
INTRODUCTION
Although~
after some 150 years, the study of ancient Mesopotamian history is по longer in its infancy, not much beyond the barest outlines of а political history seems to Ье known to most students of other disciplines. Studies in ancient history often overlook Mesopotamian material, or, when they do рау attention {о it, reproduce а standard папаtivе including some main political events and personalities. This ignorance тау по! only Ье due то а lack of interest оп the рап of ancient historians and others, Ьи! also to а fai1ure of scholars of ancient Mesopotamia {о communicate with colleagues in other fields. The lack of communication is often а result of the predominantly philological approach Ьу the latter, working with primary material in several relatively poorly understood languages, and entailing lengthy discussions of grammar and lexicography, which are incomprehensible {о аП Ьи! а few fellow specialists. Moreover, there has b~en а reluctance {о engage broader historical topics, due to the сопсет that mапу of the basic textual interpretations are still equivocal. Indeed these worries are very real, Ьи! Ьу excluding the Mesopotamian material from the study of ancient history, опе discards а gold mine of information, often uпраrаПеlеd in other regions of the ancient world. While the clarification of philological problems and the pubIication of primary data will continue and progress, it is important to start investigations of~hat this material сап tеП us аЬои! ancient sociery and то apply historical methodologies to the interpretation of these data. Мапу topics that have Ьееп extensively discussed in various disciplines сап Ье fruitfully explored with the help of Mesopotamian material as well. The term Mesopotamia is used here, as in most other books, in more than опе way. It refers to the geographical area covering the entirety of modern Iraq and the northern part of rnodern Syria from its eastern border to the Euphrares river in the west. The confines ofthe area are по! firmly fixed in anyone's mind, and vary according то the extent of political influence of the ancient Meso-
Introduction
Xll1
potamian political powers. 'Mesopotamia' also denotes а civilization which developed in that region in prehistory, and survived under nuтerous ethnic groups until it was gradually replaced Ьу Hel1enistic and Persian traditions. Thus the use of the tenn Mesopotamia is also fluid from the point ofview of chronology. lt applies priтarily to the region's history from its very beginning around 31 ОО вс to the integration of the Middle East in the Hellenistic world in the late fourth century вс, but сап also include developments and characteristics both before and after this time span. The lack of strict boundaries, both geographical and chronological, is а reflection of the mixture of continuity and exposure to new political and cultural influences, which characterizes the entire history of the Middle East. In this book 1 will attempt to provide а purely historical study of опе of the crucial aspects of Mesopotamian civilization, the ciry. 1 Ьоре {о demonstrare that the city in Ancient Mesopotamia was а pivotal institution оп which the entire civilization was based. In politics, the economy, sociallife, and culture, the city was of crucial importance, and попе ofthese aspects of Mesopotaтian life сап Ье properly understood without а comprehension oftheir urban background. Historians commonly accept Mesopotamia~s irnportance in the history of urbanism as the region of primary urbanization that inftuenced, at а minimum, the entire Mediterranean world and south Asia. Ви! to talk of the region solely as the locus .of the rise of те first urban culture does по! рау due attention {о the subsequent developments in Mesopotamia. Instead of jumping from the accomplishments of the late fourth millennium to те classical Greek situation in the first millennium вс, i! is nece8sary {о investigate те Mesopotamian city in the his!orical periods. 18 it meaningful to speak of the ancient Mesopotamian city? ТЬе answer to this question depends оп whether or not опе believes in the validity of establishing models that ob8cure the peculiarities of individual cases, and indeed the enonnous time-span of Mesopotamian history тау make such ап abstraction а daunting idea. However, if the Mesopotamian historian wants !о coтmunicate with other historians, such а model needs to Ье developed, and те fear of oversimplification is outweighed Ьу те need (о present а concept that сап Ье compared {о other historical situations. А long list of particular cases whose characteristics сап Ье discarded as idiosyncrasies does not stand ир in comparison to Фе Greek, Roman,
XIV
Inlroduction
or апу other urban (уре that is discussed in scholarship. If we do not develop а vision of the ancient Mesopotamian ciry, we could end ир with the same attitude as Aristotle, who saw Babylon as а city 80 unusual та! it did not merit comparison to rea1 cities. Ву using the term the Ancient Mesopotamian city 1 propose 10 consider urbanism in the entirety of Mesopotamia, Ьепсе Ьот in Babylonia and Assyria, within the context of ancient urbanism in general. Мапу historians regard the 'ancient city' as а {уре, without апу acknowledgement of те existence of cities other than those in the Graeco-Roman world. For such а Eurocentric ideology 10 Ье modified, if по! overthrown, it is necessary for те Mesopotamian scholar to present а model of а non-weste!!1 ancient ciry. Obviously, the use of types ignoring а great number of nuances and variants that existed in reality, especially in ап opposition of East 10 West, has the danger ofperpetuating Orientalist notions that these areas were fundamentally antithetical> and that their differences сап Ье illustrared Ьу а reduction of their characteristics into а simple list. This is certainly по! ту intention. In proposing to regard the ancient Mesopotamian city as а type, 1 wish {о enable comparison with the existing notions of urbanism in the ancient Graeco-Roman world, which equal1y are abstractions, the validity of which is debarable, Ьи! which are соттопlу used in scholarship. This book is по! ап expose of what is known аЬои! the Mesopotamian city in layman's terms, Ьи! ап investigation ofvarious topics regarding urban life, that wiIl hopefully Ье accessible to а11 interested readers. As тисЬ as possible 1 have avoided the use of tenns in the native Mesopotamian languages, and а11 texts quoted are presented without а philological commentary. This is по! а stateтеп! of ту belief that the translations of these terms and texts are certain, Ьи! 1 leave it to others {о justify тет, as 1 do по! think that а historical work is а suitable place for philological argument. AIso in the spel1ing ofproper names 1 have striven for as much simplicity and clariry as possible, usually using spel1ings found in well-known books оп Mesopotamian history. 1 have refrained from writing numerous and extensive footnotes, and instead 1 have provided detailed bibliographical essays with recommendations for further reading at the end of each chapter. Obviously these guides are based оп а personal selection, and теу are certainly nо! exhaustive~ but 1 have chosen those books and articles that were most
Introduction
xv
useful to те in the writing of the chapter, as well as those that 1 thought would Ье most accessible to the general reader. In the translations of ancient sources the following conventions are used: square brackets around broken {ех! that is restored with certainty; angled brackets around text added Ьу the translator for clarity's sake; round brackets for parentheses only. When the transIation of опе or more words is uncertain the {ех! is rendered in italics. When part of the original tex! is not provided in the translation three points of ellipsis are indicated. No typographic distinction is made to indicate Sumerian or Akkadian words in the text, Ьи! when needed the abbreviations
Sum. and Akk. are provided in parentheses.
1 City and Society in Ancient Mesopotarnia
From the wal1s 1 had ап uninterrupted view over а vast plain stretching westward {о the Euphrates, and losing itself in the hazy distance. The ruins of ancient towns and villages rose оп аН sides; and, as the sun went down, 1 counted above one hundred mounds, throwing their dark and long thinning shadows across the plain. Тhese were the remains of Assyrian civilisation and prosperity.l
These words Ьу Austen Henry Layard standing оп ТеН Afar in northern Iraq announced the birth of modem Western exploration in ancient Mesopotamia, and identify what is most striking about this region. The innumerable mounds scattered throughout the countryside of modern-day Iraq and northem Syria cover the ге mains of myriad ancient cities and towns, тапу of which survived for hundreds, ifnot thousands ofyears. Mesopotamia was nо! only the oldest urban civilization, Ьи! also the most urbanized society of antiquity. From the mid-fourth millennium вс onwards, cities were in existence in Babylonia (southern Mesopotamia), and despite many vicissitudes теу never disappeared entirely from the landscape. Urbanism тау have emerged only later in Assyria (northern Mesopotamia), Ьи! soon some Assyrian cities Ьесаmе gigantic in extent. At their most flourishing, the most important Mesopotamian cities dwarfed their contemporaries in the rest of the ancient world, to the amazement of Greeks, such as Aristotle, who could по! consider Babylon to Ье а city, Ьи! only as the equivalent of а nation because of its enormous dimensions. ТЬе dense concentration of Mesopotamian cities was also unparalleled; large urban centres lay within sight of one another. ТЬе Mesopotamian known to us today was а citizen, а resident I
Austen Henry Layard, Nineveh and its Renzains, 2nd edn. 1 (London, 1849),
31 s.
2
City and SocielY
of one of these mаnу ancient towns. The art and literature we admire was created Ьу these citizens, {Ье bureaucracies we study were urban bureaucracies, and the politicians and military leaders we know were living in cities. Mesopotamian civilization, as it is known to US, was ап urban civilization. Nomads and villagers lived in the area as well, and their culture was different from that of the city-dwellers. But we have по direct contact with them, and we сап only study тет through the eyes of the urbanites who mentioned them in their writing, or who were inftuenced Ьу them in some way. Vil1ages have rarely Ьееп investigated Ьу archaeologists, and probаblу writing was scarcely used Ьу their inhabitants. Nomads have left us по archaeological remains or texts а! а11. Непсе, we саппо! study these non-urban Mesopotamians directly. ТЬе study of urbanism in Mesopotamia would thus seem of p.rimary importance to the historians of this civilization, уе! few oftheт have devoted specific attention to it. Ап enormous amount of research, spearheaded Ьу anthropologists who find there а rare and well-documented example о[ primary urbanization, has [0cused оп the origins of cities in the area. But their studies usually leave off just when we enter the historical period, or soon afterwards. ТЬе invention of writing, and the advent of history~ somehow seem {о discourage further research Ьу anthropologists, who leave the subsequent developments to Ье studied Ьу historians. Historians, however, have Ьееп concemed with other problems, primarily those of political history. As was the case among historians of Classical Greece, cities were often identified Ьу scholars of Mesopotamia with city-states, and the study of them has focused оп their political affairs ra ther than their function as urban centres. Obviously the study of the city in Mesopotamia has по! Ьееn totally ignored. In the 1950s and 1960s several research projects were initiated, which were seemingly influenced Ьу the resurgence ofthe comparative approach in urban studies in general. Тhe prime example of the comparative approach Ьу а Mesopotamian specialist is Robert мсс. Adams's The EvoZution 0/ UтЬаn Society (Chicago, 1966), in which he compared Mesopotamian and Mesoamerican developments with great success. Symposia organized а! the University of Chicago and the Institute of Archaeology in London also stressed the comparison of Mesopotamian developments with those in other regions. SimiIarly the Societe Jean Bodin
City and Society
3
in France cornmissioned а paper оп the cities of Mesopotamia for its 1955 issue оп 'La ville'. Major projects devoted to Mesopotamia alone were rarer. Under Adams's and А. L. Oppenheim's guidance а11 available documents from the Babylonian city of Sippar in the nineteenth to те sixteenth centuries вс were analysed, but soon Oppenheim himself started to stress the unusual aspects of this city rather тап its common characteristics with other towns. Не did, however, ехат ine mапу facets of Mesopotamian city life in general in his wonderful book, Ancient Mesoporaтia. This discussion, unfortunately, was dispersed throughout the work, and far from comprehensive. Simultaneously archaeologists started ап extensive programme of settlement surveys in various parts of Babylonia, leading to three seminal books Ьу Adams. Although changing settlement patterns were the focus of these works, тапу other aspects of urbanism were addressed in тет as well. However, the books do not provide ап analysis of urban life in general. Recently this topic has received renewed interest, probably due to the explosion of the field of urban history. In the ]ast two decades several archaeological projects have attempted to reconstruct entire urban layouts, rather than maintaining the customary focus оп individual monumental remains. Almost а11 these projects took place in Iraq, and have been cиt short Ьу the Gulf War. Philologists also have taken ап interest in the city, and а! least three conferences have been recently devoted to the topic. Уet, it is disappointing {о see how in the ensuing publications few contributors dealt with Mesopotamia proper or with the stated subject matter. Meanwhile, а few studies оп individual cities have appeared, а11 concentrating оп early second-millennium БС Babylonia, as the presence of large private archives-Iess avai1able elsewhere-is thought {о Ье а crucial requirement for such research. In а11, this amounts to а rather meagre record, considering the number of scholars specializing in the study of Ancient Mesopotamian civilization. This scarcity is refiected in the fact that two recent books dealing with urbanism in antiquity basically reproduce the standard political history of Mesopotamia with the word 'city' highlighted. Опе сап even say that тапу classical historians, including some who specialize in urban studies, deny the existence of the city in the East in antiquity altogether. ТЬе resulting image of {Ье Mesopotamian city, even in {Ье
4
City and Society
specialist's mind, is thus very vague. Although palaces and temples were always urban foundations, it seems that their presence and activities are often considered to Ье inconsequential to the rest of the ciry, as if they existed in а world of their own. ТЬе nonmonumental sectors of towns-if considered at all-are portrayed very much like the present-day villages we encounter оп the tells we excavate: poor, dirty, and тотаllу unaware ofthe existence ofmajestic complexes nearby. Ethno-archaeologists have tried to institutionalize this portrayal Ьу telling us та! modem Middle Eastern villages provide ап insight into Ancient Mesopotamian city Hfe, as if these cities were just large vil1ages. Classical historians often continue {о see the origin of the ciry as а Greek phenomenon, and either deny the existence of the Near Eastern city, or see it as inconsequential for later urbanism. In the latest edition of the standard English-language history of the ап cient world we сап find this statement: At the start of оиг (i.e. the Hellenistic) period, in Asia and Ше Levant as in Greece and the Mediterranean generally, large urban agglomerations were rare and exceptional. Babylon, however, was certainly апе until it was supplanted Ьу Seleucia-on-the-Tigris. Susa, Uruk, and Sippar тау have been others, and the existence of large cities elsewhere cannot Ье discaunted. However, there is little doubt that outwith the narrow band of Greek or semi-Greek coastal city-state settlement the predominant fonn of nucleated settlement аН over the region was the so-called vil1age, either оп its own or (as often) grauped together in various ways.2 ТЬе
author ofthis passage seenis to ignore entirely the archaeologiса} and textual evidence concerning large-sized cities, по! only in Mesopotamia, but also in other Near Eastem regions, such as Syria and Egypt. When they do acknowledge the existence of cities in these areas historians often see them as total1y different from the Greek examples, because of the lack of 'democracy' and free enterprise. Thus а history of urbanism in тЬе ancient world states: 'Mesopotamia still afforded magnificent urban complexes like БаЬуlоn or Nineveh, which deeply impressed Greek travellers. But these were too vast to serve as models for incipient cities in Greece and were creatures of monarchies, nо! self-goveming соmти nitiеs.'З Besides perpetuating some old prejudices, such as the idea 2 }.
К. Davies, 'Culrural) social and economic features of the Hellenistic world')
The Call1bridge Ancient History) 2nd edn.;) 7: 1 (Cambridge 1984)) 297-8. 3 Mason Hammond, The City in zhe Allcient World (Cambridge, 1972)) 152-3.
Ciry and Society
5
of Oriental Despotism, these opi,nions seem to Ье based ОП а lack of knowledge of the Mesopotamian situation, perhaps due to the scarcity of studies regarding the topic. Of course, there аге serious obstacles to our understanding of Mesopotamian urbanism. There is по such thing as the Mesopotamian city, as each опе of the hundreds that existed had its own peculiarities, and to generalize from опе ofthem would Ье misleading. And ifwe limit оиг research to опе city only, we аге faced with а dearth or complete lack of inforrnation оп most of the issues we would like to address. The most extensive excavations have'uncovered only а minute part of the sites under investigation. Moreover, when textual information is abundant, it almost always derives from опе source, giving excessive emphasis to its activities: the раlасе, а temple, ог а small number of private citizens. Even when а mixture of sources is available, те subject matter detai1ed is limited and по! directly relevant to rnost of the questions we ask. Some ofthe documents оп which urban historians of other cultures rely extensively, such as census lists and tax records, are absent from Mesopotamia. Most texts available to us were' not written to infonn later historians, ог absent people, through description or explanation. Rather, the majority of the so-called economic texts put down in writing а transfer of property, Ье it silver, land, or а bowl of barley, from опе per80n or office to another person or office, with а vague reference То the reason for the transfer, а payment, а loan, ап inheritance, and 80 оп. Such documents are уегу hard to understand without knowledge of their context. It is thus tempting {о say that it is impossible to arrive а! ап overall picture of Mesopotamian urbanism, or for that matter апу other aspect of its culture, and better to limit oneself to analysing the material that is readily available. Such а defeatist attitude is not very satisfying, however. After аН, other historians face similar problems of limited documentation, and по culture had а typical city to Ье used аБ а paradigm. Yet books оп the Greek city, for instance, appear with great regularity. Although а single paragraph of Thucydides тау provide insights into the Athenian government that we will never arrive а! for Mesopotamia, some aspects of the есопоmу, for instance, аге much better documented in Mesopotamia than they are in Greece. Сап we then develop а model of the Mesopotamian city? 1 think so, if we cast а wide net, and if we abandon а strictly positivistic
б
City and Society
approach {о оиг sources. Both conditions are to Ье те! with great саutiоп.) and require elaboration. The Mesopotamian documentation тау Ье abundant, but it derives from ап enonnous timespan and а large geographical area. Instead of те few centuries of Greek history, Mesopotamian. history covers close to three millennia, а period equal {о that which separates us from Homer, and that is when we exclude prehistoric and Hellenistic material from сопsidеrаtiоn. During these 2,800 years numerous political changes took place with newcomers dominating the events паг rated in our history books: Sumerians, Akkadians, Amorites, Hurrians, Kassites, Persians, and so оп. Didn't some of them fundamentally change urban life? ТЬе issue of connnuity and change in Mesopotamian history has rarely been explicitly addressed in scholarship. The existence of а discipline of Mesopotamian studies, and the abundance of books оп Mesopotamia assumes the reality of а field of research with enough coherence to permit the delineation of а distinct identity. у е! that Ьу itself is not sufficient justification ro present а study of the city throughout Mesopotamian history. А simple reference {о Braudel's longue duree4 тау Ье fashionable, Ьи! is also too [асilе. Matters need to Ье considered in more detail, despite the fact та! scholars seem to recognize ап intemal unity in Mesoporamian civilization, based оп the characteristic that newcomers attempted to integrate themselves within the existing structures rather than overthrowing them. АН тоо often in our vision of Mesopotamian history) political and ri1ilitary events are taken as the only imponant ones, and have c:onsequently provided те chronological framework for thзt history~ But politics and the activities of the military are only two dimensions of sociery, and although they do indeed show те most evidence for change throughout Mesoporamian history, те changes are exaggerated in modem scholarship. Textbooks describe in detail the succession of dynasties and their military exploits in and outside Mesopotamia. They present ап histoire evenenzentielle culled from the rich historiographic remains of this civilization. А 10ng list of dynasties based both оп native traditions and оп modern scholarly classification has Ьееп developed. Dynasties that are prominent in the textual record Ьауе been assigned <1
See Fernand Braudel, Оп History (Chicago, 1980)) 25-54.
City and Society
7
their own period: for instance, those of the Third Dynasty of U~, the First Dynasty of Babylon, the Neo-Assyrian. Other, less documented royal houses have been grouped together and subsumed under designations such as Early Dynastic, Isin-Larsa, postKassite> етс. When the centre ofpolitical power shifted from Akkad to Ur, or from Ur (о Isin, or when а Persian king replaced а Chaldean one, we have established insurmountable boundaries in our political histories. Consequently we do not investigate whether these changes in dynastic control were of crucial importance in political terms. The practice of categorizing the studies of есопот ics, law, society~ and even literature and religion within тЬе resulting dynastic framework has inflated the importance of political events even more. Thus the 'Old Akkadian' sociery, for instance, is investigated in isolation from the preceding and succeeding situations, Middle Assyrian laws are studied in а vacuuffi, and so оп. ТЬе resulting periodization is fiawed and misleading. Instead of acknowledging patterns of continuity, it stresses instability and change. And this fragmentation becomes even more misleading when aspects of Mesopotamian civilization not directly dependent uроп the fortunes of the royal house are studied. А. Leo Oppenheirn has argued forcefully that instead of the fragmented sequence ofthe traditional historical periods we should" see ап essential unity in Mesopotamian civilization during its millennial history. In order tO do so, he described а cultural continuum involving social, intellectual, and technological traditions. Especially in а study of urban life, ап aspect such as the economic infrastructure of а region, for instance, should Ье of more rel. evance than те ethnic or linguistic background of the ruling class. The basic economic structure of Mesopotarnia remained the same throughout its history: it was а pre-industrial society based оп ап agricultural есопоmу. The ecological conditions ofthe region were never fundamentally altered from the moment agriculture was developed unti1 the discovery of oil as а valuable commodiry. The fundamental dependence of cities upon their agricultural base remained те same during the whole of antiquity, regardless of variations in the agricultural potential of their surroundings. Manufacturing relied оп agricultural resources as well, or оп imports of materials from abroad. А! по time in Mesopotamian history did the discovery of а new material or а new technique substantially alter this aspect of the есопоmу. The cities were also
8
City and SocielY
essential [о the tertiary sector of the есопоту, services4 Their administrative and financial roles basically remained the same throughout Mesopotamian history. We need to Iook for such соп tinuities, rather than focus uроп the оуеп changes in political control. The idea of а unity in Mesopotamian civilization should по! lead to а static view of its history. Oppenheim outlined five phases in its evolution, which were unfortunately rather impressionistically . named and vaguely delineated in time, and need по! Ье imposed ироп the study of а single institution. What is important аЬои! his periodization is that it stresses the existence of а continuum rather than а sequence of disjointed periods. Ап element of evolution in the model of urban life developed in this book needs then [о Ье acknowledged4 Due to the nature ofthe evidence it will not always Ье possible {о detail аП the stages of this evolution, Ьи! 1 hope to Ье аЫе {о demonstrate the unity of the subject matter. In geographical extent Mesopotamia is perhaps по! especiaI1y large-it is comparable (о Ртапсе in size-bu~ it includes а! least two clearly different ecological and cultural zones: Lower and Upper Mesopotamia. In different historical periods these areas were identified with the polities ofBabylonia and Assyria, and 1 wil1 use the latter designations for the sake of simplicity. Babylonia is а flat, dry region where permanent settlement is possibIe only near natural or artificial waterways; Assyria is more varied in relief and receives sufficient rainfall [о enable dry-farming and settlement throughout the countryside. Culturally the two regions showed mапу differences; уе! Assyria was greatly dependent оп Babylonia, emulating and adopting many of its traditions. The сопсер! of the city itself тау have Ьееп introduced [о Assyria from the South. Тhe fates of те two regions Ьесате intrinsicaIly tied after 1500 with the continuous movements of peoples and ideas back and forth. ТЬе ecological differences between the two regions did affect mапу aspects of urbanism within тет, especialIy with respect [о the есопоту. These differences wilI have [о Ье kept in mind and investigated under particular topics such as agriculturaI resources or игЬап origins. Ви! 1 Ьоре (о show та! the Babylonian and Assyrian ciries shared 80 тапу characteristics that they сап Ье regarded as variarions of а theme, and that material from both regions 'сап Ье used in the study of the Mesopotamian city. 1 think thus that it is acceptable to regard the entirety of Meso-
City and Society
9
potamia, Ьот in temporal and geographical terms, as а single unit. Of course, if more infonnation were available differences in tiтe and space would Ьесоте more obvious and а focus ироп the Babylonian city in те nineteenth century вс or the like would Ье possible.) but not necessarily more useful. Just as we сап study the pre-industrial European city or те ancient city, we сап study urbanism in Ancient Mesopotamia. The problem of the limitations of our sources сап Ье somewhat mitigated if we abandon the stricdy positivistic approach ф.аt predominates the fieId of Mesopotamian studies, especially among philologists. АН too often reconstructions are based оп те presепсе or absence of documentation, giving excessive importance {о те material we have and assuming та! only what is reported in it took place. Let те repeat а famous example: for more than fifty years we talked ofthe Sumerian temple-city in the twenty-sixth and twenry-fifth centuries, а ciry-state where а11 means of production and economic activity were owned and controlIed Ьу the temple. This idea was based оп the study of опе archive from the Ваи temple а! Lagash, the only archive analysed from that period of time. It took тапу years and great persistence Ьу а handful of scholars to convince others that private and palatial economic activity existed as weIl. Often the economic history of Mesopotamia looks like а chronologicallist of the various archives available, each опе determining the economic strиcture of its time! ТЬе lack of documentation тау Ье due to тапу factors other тап те absence of ап activity. Most scholars acknowledge the accident of recovery, but still basically assume that everything was somehow recorded. Instead, we should question why what we have was recorded, and why other possible activities were по!. Por instance, we have по records of retail sales of food or manufactured goods. Is this because such sales did not take place, or сап we explain their absence in the records otherwise? W е have {о ас knowledge that таnу enterprises could have remained outside the writren record, and even а siтple acceptance of the fact that they could have taken place provides а more refined picture than if we just state what is а! hand. The procedure of inquiry in this book wiIl not аmоип! to а didactic narration of what is known about certain urban issues, or about certain cities at а particular тотеп! in time. Instead, 1 will select issues of urban life that were imponant in ту opinion,
10
City and Society
develop а model about them, and then illustrate the model with examples from те entirety of Mesoporamian history, acknowledging temporal and regional variations. The resulting portrait will thus Ье idiosyncratic: after а11 both the selection of topics and of documentation аге ту own, while someone else could choose to discuss entirely different problems with other material. 1 fear that this is unavoidable unless one provides а complete catalogue of the documentation for аН aspects of urban life, if such were possible. It is customary in а study of this nature to seek а definition of 'the city', and to establish а means of distinction between cities and towns, villages, and hamlets. The native Mesopotamian terminology is of по help here. Ап enonnous number of senlements were referred to with the Sumerian and Akkadian tenns we translate as 'city': иru (Sum.) and iilum (Akk.). The Akkadian tenn was used for anything from те metropolis ofBabylon in те sixth century to а farmstead with seven inhabitants in the агеа of Harran in the seventh century. It was used for the entire city of Nineveh as wel1 as for а section of it. The Akkadian language had а few other terms to allude to permanent settlements, such as kaprum, а farmstead, durum, а fortified settlement that could Ье the size of а large city like Dur-Sharrukin, and mabazum, which could Ье anything from а small enclosure to а large town. Ви! in the great majority of cases the теnn alum was used. The translation 'city' is thus misleading, since we classify settlements Ьу size, and reserve ше tелn city for larger ones, although ап ехас! definition also eludes us. The lack of differentiation among settlements seerns to reflect а perception that а11 of them were equivalent and sovereign communities. The Mesopotamian languages were not alone in their lack of distinguishing settlements according to size. The Ancient Egyptian language, for instance, also failed to do so, and this has led то the false conclusion that ancient Egypt was а civilization without cities. It is only in [есеп! years that historians of ancient Egypt have started to acknowledge the urban character of the civilization" culling data from rare archaeological remains. 5 Thus we have то turn to criteria other than the native tenninology in order То arrive а! а definition of а city. Many scholars have ~ For the Egyptian tenninology see Manfred Bietak, 'Urban Archaeology and
the
"Town Рсоblет" in Ancient Egypt', in Kent Weeks (ed.), Egyprology and rhe SociaZ
Sciences (Cairo> 1979), 98-1 оо.
City and Society
11
attempted to provide а definition valid for аН cultures and time periods, usually without success. Wheatley devoted thirty-nine pages to this topic in his monumental book оп the Chinese city, rejecting such prorninent theories as those Ьу Weber, Pirenne, and Childe, to end with а statement that the question is metaphysical rather than scientific. 6 Не did, however, stress the imponance of the city as ап organizing force in its geographical setting. This idea derives [гот the 'Central Place Theory' developed Ьу geographers, which states that each settlement сап Ье assigned а position in а hierarchy based оп те number of lower-ranked communities it serves, and particular patterns of settlement in а region will appear if the hierarchy is mapped out. У е! there remains ап aspect of uncertainty about what type of settlement сап Ье called а city rather than а town or а village, as was clearly stated Ьу Richard Blanton: 1п а
society with а hierarchy of central places, cities аге communities in the highest range of те hierarchy, while towns are those communities оссиру ing the middle and lower ranges of the hierarchy. Where the researcher draws те boundary berween what are cal1ed cities and what are cal1ed towns is аl\\7ЗУS arbi trary and will vary from society (о sociery. 7
This ambiguiry cannot Ье resolved. We сап, however, maintain that the primary functional characteristic of а city is its role as а ~ediator between various perrnanent and seasonal settlements in its surroundings. Or, as Braudel has stated: 'The town only exists as а town in relation to а fonn of life lower than its own.,8 That mediating role has several dimensions: economic, ideological, military, and po1itical. 9 It is important that several, if not аН, of these dimensions are present simultaneously. А religious institution-such as а temple in the countryside-can Ье ап ideological centre, but does not constitute а city. In order to observe the mediating role of а city we need geographical studies that provide regional maps indicating аП settlements and the means 6 7
Ра ul wh еа tley) The PiVOl 01 rhe Four Quarrers (Chicago, 1971), 3 71-409. Richard Е. Blanton, 'Anthropological Studies of Cities', Annual Review
0/
Anchropology 5 (1976), 253. Fernand Braudel, The Slructures 01 Everyday Life: Civilizarion and Capilalism, 15th-18th Ce1llury 1 (New York, 1981),481. 9 1 ат using here rhe model of the four dimensions of social power-ideological, economic) military, and political-developed Ьу Michael Mann, Тhe Sources 0/ 8
Social Power 1 (Cambridge, 1986).
City and Society
12
of communication between them. Fortunately~ we have such maps for southern Babylonia through the efforts ofRobert МсС. Adams, Ьи! we Iack them for the rest of Mesopotamia. Сап we use other criteria, identi:fiable in ап isolated settlement~ {о recognize а city? V. Gordon Childe developed а list of ten elements distinguishing cities from villages,10 but this list has been justly criticized as а mixed bag of unrelated characteristics. It is thus preferable to Iimit те criteria in number, and perhaps соm топ sense should Ье our main guide. А book оп European urbanization states reasonably: [There are] commonly accepted quantifiable dimensions that distinguish cities from other fonns of settlement: population size, density of settlement, share of non-agricultural occupations and diversity of non-agricultural occupations. АН four of these criteria are continuums, 50 mat опе must draw а liпе at some point dividing cities from non-cities. 1Ъis саnпо! Ьеlр Ьи! Ье arbitrary. But а settlement must score sufficiently high in аП
four ofthese criteria {о Ье а city, а requirement that does по! make те task easier Ьи! does reflect the existence of а broadly 5hared intuitive understanding of what constitutes ап urban рlасе. 11
The problem of distinguishing between urban and non-urban settlements is somewhat alleviated in the study of Mesopotamian urbanism in та! archaeologists have concentrated their work оп settlements that have urban characteristics, because these аге still most visible in the countryside and promise the most sensational results. The textual material [гот these sites will thus also derive from ап игЬап environment. In this study the {еnn city wil1 Ье rather broadly applied {о тапу of the Mesopotamian settlements we know. 1 will use town as а synonym for city~ as it seems impossible to differentiate between the two with the information available, and contrast these tелns only with village. Тhe latter 1 мН interpret as а rural settlement oflimited size, whose inhabitants are primarily involved in agricultural production or in а specialized aspect of industry, for their own needs and for те needs of те inhabitants of а neighbouring city. I! seems futile to attempt а more refined distinction тап that between city and village. The reconsrruction of urban life presented here perforce wil1 Ье 10
v.
Gordon Childe, CТhe Urban Revolution', Town Planning Review 21 (1950),
3-17. 11
Jan de Vries, Еитореаn Urbanizatz·on 1500-1800 (Cambridge, 1984), 11.
City and Society
13
greatly infiuenced Ьу ideas оп the structure of Mesopotaтian sociery in general. Every scholar works with such а bias, уе! few state their views clearly. А survey of the current theories оп the social and economic 8tructures of Mesopotamia would Ье useful, but cannot Ье provided here. А variety of opinions is inspired Ьу the scholarship devoted {о the societies and economies of ancient Greece and Rome, where the discussion has Ьееп more public. The fundamental issue in the debate, which is especially pertinent to the study of urbanism, is whether the ancient economies were 'primitive' or 'modem'. ТЬе polemic around this question has Ьееп going оп for а century among ancient historians, Ьи! has seemingly escaped the attention of Mesopotamian ones. 12 1t is paralleled Ьу the so-called 'substantivist-fonnalist' contro~ersy among есо nomic anthropologists, which has been set off Ьу the work of Karl Polanyi. The 'primitivist' or 'substantivist' points ofview state that pre-capitalist ос non-capitalist economies were and are 80 radically different from the rnodem Westem есопоту that the concepts or models used in modern economics cannot Ье applied to them. ТЬе 'modemist' school thinks that the ancient Greek and Roman economies showed such ап advanced stage of capitalist development that they differed only quantitatively from the modern economy, not qua1itatively. 'Formalist' anthropologists believe that economic theories used for the analysis of the modern есоnоmу сап Ье used in the study of 'primitive) economies. ТЬе 'primitivist' point of view is clearly dominant among those scholars who have formulated а coherent theory оп the Mesopotamian economy, especially the 'schools) around the Marxist scholars 1. М. Diakonoff and М. Liverani, as well as 1. J. Gelb, А. L. Oppenheiт, and J. Renger. The majority of Western scholars seems to adhere to the modernist point of view, and actually extends it funher back in time {о ascribe capitalist practices to Mesopotamia in the early second, if not the third, mil1ennium вс.
Ап
entire set of 'modern) economic values and motivations
сап
Тhe only explicit references (о the primitivism-modemism debate known со are in те recent articles Ьу Johannes Renger) 'Probleme und Perspektiven einer Wirtschaftsgeschichte Mesopotamiens', Saeculum 40 (1989)) 166-78; and Ьу Carlo Zaccagnini J 'In margine аН' еmропоn: mоdеПi di scambio nеl1е economie del Vicino Oriente antico', in Alain Bresson and Pierre Rouillard (eds.), L'emporion (Publications du centre Pierre Paris (URA 991); Paris, 1993);, 127--43. 12
те
14
City and Society
Ье
demonstrated to have Ьееп present in ancient Mesopotamia: а desire for profit, the maximal use of economic resources, and а price-setting market есопоту including а labour market. There are rnапу empirical data that point to the existence of these economic .factors; loan documents, bills of sale> hiring contracts, etc. The crucial ргоЫеm lies in the evaluation of their role within the есопоmу. Do these documents reveal 'capitalist' activities that had а substantial or even dominant importance in the economic life? Or аге they merely peripheral to ап есопоmу dominated Ьу the public institutions of palace and temple, which controlled the majority of labour, remunerated with standardized rations, set prices, and extracted economic resources for unproductive purposes such as ostentatious display? In 1909 the Gennan sociologist Мах Weber stated that such ап evaluation could по! уе! Ье made as mos[ of the 200,000 cuneiform texts excavated at tha! time had not Ьееп translated and the interpretation of those studied was still highly uncenain. 13 Today, when the number of published documents is infinitely higher and оиг understanding of them, although still ореп to debate, has improved vastly, we аге in the same position. Since we are unable to quantify information оп апу sector of the Mesopo!amian есопоту, we cannot evaluate the relative importance ofthe data we have. For example, the agricultural production in Babylonia managed Ьу the state under the Тhird Dynasty of Ur (twenty-first century) seems enormous. Huge tracts of land were worked Ьу numerous state dependants, accounted for Ьу bureaucrats. We know that next to these seemingly gigantic state holdings privately or соmmunаllу owned fields existed> but nothing is known about their production. Based оп this infonnation we сап only venture the opinion that in this period most of the agricultural produce in Babylonia derived from the state enterprise, but опе cannot say Ьу аnу means wha! percentage of the total production was in the state's hands. Perhaps we are fooled Ьу the documentary abundance from state archives, a~d the private sector in realiry тау have Ьееn dominant. If we accept that the state was те major agricultural producer, how сап we determine its motives? Did it organize production merely to guarantee the survival of the official bureaucracy and аП the state dependants with а marginal addi13
See Мах Weber> The Agrarian Sociology
Frank (London and New York, 1988), 103-4.
0/ Ancienc CiviZizarions, trans. R. 1.
City and Society
15
tional surplus to enable the acquisition of foreign materials for а display of wealth in the palace and the temples? Or did те state strive for а maximization ofproduction with the available resources of labour and land in order to enable the acquisition of as тапу prestige goods as possible? In the end our answers are deterrnined Ьу а theoretical stance, often based оп ап intuitive judgement, and ап increase of {Ье factual data will not епаЫе us to settle these questions conclusively. Since the work of the economic historian cannot Ье ап unprejudiced description of facts this theoretical stance needs to Ье identified. In the model presented here in somewhat dogmatic terms 1 have incorporated та пу elements developed and argued Ьу other scholars. References {о these, and other works will Ье found in the bibliography. Of fundaтental importance to our consideration of the economies of antiquity in general is the fact that the есопоту cannot Ье separated from its sociaI setting. Непсе те structure of society, again very incompletely known to us, needs to Ье considered first. The basic social unit within Mesopotamia was те household, which could vary enormously in size. At its smallest, it was fonned Ьу а nuclear family: а patriarch and his sons and grandsons with their wives and children. Dependent labour was рап of те household, which thus could expand enormously to а large palace or temple complex headed Ьу а secular ог religious leader with hundreds of dependent families. А! least originally, the household strove to Ье ап autonornous unit of production and consurnption. Ideally аН that was consumed Ьу it was grown and prepared within the household itself. But in reality this self-sufficiency was rarely attained above а level of mere subsistence. Since Mesopotamia had по mineral resources, for instance, metal objects could only Ье manufactured with materials obtained from the outside. Even the palace could not obtain аН its needs through its own production ог conquest, at least until [Ье Assyrian empire. Already in the early historical period~ the households сап Ье categorized into three sectors, which survived throughout Mesoporamian history: institutional, communal, and private. Other scholars see а dichotomy between institutional and communal (e.g. Diakonoff and Liverani), or institutional and private households (e.g. Gelb and Renger), but 1 believe that the idea that there was only one type of social unit outside the public institutions does not explain what we observe in the historical record.
16 Тhe
City and Society
institutional households dominate те textual and archaeological data available to us, and include the secular palace and the religious temples. The relationship between те two shifted throughout Mesopotamian history. Whi1e те temples were dorniпап! politically and economically in the very early periods, they were incorporated into те palace hierarchy пот the mid-third mil1ennium оп, and тау have Ьесоmе те representatives of те cornmunity in late Babylonian .history. Since temples and palaces worked hand in hand during most of Mesopotamian history, they сап Ье considered together under the institutional heading. Тheir households were large, in early history incorporating а large nиmЬег of dependants who provided labour and relied upon те institutions for their livelihood. Тhe complex system ofthe redistribution of а11 basic requirements developed later into опе мт selfsupporting tenant-farmers who supplied рап of their yields to the institutional landowner. In те first millennium, те Mesopotamian empires acquired huge tracts of land through conquest, which were distributed to high officials who ran their estates like feudal lords. Тhe соттипаl households аге very poorly documented, and according to some scholars they are а figm.ent of the imagination. The idea of classless clan-based groups with communal ownership of land that cannot Ье alienated Ьу individuals derives from те Marxist соnсер! of the primitive mode of production preceding а class society. У е! with the establishment of classes and the state, the communities did not disappear entirely, although their activities were pushed to the fringes of the urban civilization that is the focus of our attention. Autarkic rural communities leading а life at the subsistence level тау have remained а constant feature in Mesopotamia at least until те late second millennium. Their meтbers were free, yet poor. The infiltration ofnew ethnic groups) such as the Kassites, at times seems to have reinforced the соmmи па} sector, but that sector always remained оп the margins of the society as known {о us. The existence of а free private sector in Mesopotamian society, in addition to те institutional and communal ones, seems rarely accepted. Тhe majoriry of scholars considers аН те individuals we see engaged in economic activity as belonging {о the institutional master class. Yet, although such persons often collaborated with the temples and the palaces, they need not have Ьееn in те еmрl0У
City and Society
17
of these institutions, as we see them also involved in transactions оп their own account. Many of them never appear with а title that places them within ап institutional household, and when the аг chaeological context oftheir records is known, they are often found in residential areas. Тhe origins of these individuals are unclear. ТЬеу тау have Ьееп community members who had left their clan, or members of the upper echelons of the institutional households who had Ьесоте financially secure enough to acquire land and conduct business independently. Perhaps а great impetus towards the creation ofthis sector сате frorn the institutions' unwiIlingness {о manage their own resources and their subcontracting of services {о private individuals. Obviously а rigid distinction between the activities of these three sectors did not exist. А look а! present-day experience shows that, despite the rhetoric, по есопоту is completely managed Ьу the state or Ьу private enterprise. As usual, а scholarly classification obscures the details we сап observe in our data. Individuals worked with institutions, the palace interacted with village communities, and mапу arrangements unknown to us must have been worked out. АН three sectors of society played а role throughout hi8tOry with varying degrees of importance, Ьи! never to те complete exclusion of the others. An important question revolves around what motivated the есо nomic activities we observe in the records. Although we cannot deny that the Mesopotamians were aware of Фе concepts of profit and loss, and that they are often documented as active in commercial enterprises, we need nо! look upon them as driven Ьу the capitalist ideologies that have dominated the Western world in the modem era. W е have to keep in mind that those activities that seem to us as having а commercial nature will dominate the textual records we use in our research. Ви! it is obvious that economic activity could result from motives other than the desire for materiaI gain. The acqui8ition of wealth тау have been used to raise one's social status, and опее the desired statu8 was attained the individual might stop working. Institutions that made interest-bearing loans тау have done 80 in order to help out people in need, Ьи! rhey тау also have Ьееп interested in increasing their capital. Was the Mesopotamian есопоту а 'pre8tige есопоту' or one interested in 'fi.lthy lucre'? These ате questions we cannot answer, and по! just because of the so-cal1ed lack of self-conscious literature in
18
City and Society
Mesopotamia. Опе just has to look а! the acerbity of the debate concerning те ancient Greeks and their attitudes towards соm mercial life to see that even ап assertion Ьу Aristotle саппо! Ье taken а! its faee value. From our distance, and at the mercy of а textual record фа! emphasizes economic activity, we саппо! judge фе motivations of these ancient peoples. Мапу of те statements made in this book will seem to substantiate те modernist claims concerning фе ancient есопоmу. 1 will use terms such as profit, те market, manufaeturing industry, investments, аН of which have particular capitalist connorations in our minds. Уе! 1 do not want to portray Фе Mesopotamians as driven Ьу the same economic desires we seem (о have, or as archetypical 'Levantine' traders. Somehow they attempted to make the best of their lives with the limited resources available {о them, and they often were по! аЫе to raise their standard of living above rnere survival. Ви! at times some of them, like the Assyrian emperors of the seventh century, were аЫе to attain luxurious life-styles а! the expense of mапу others, due to а fortuitous coincidence of political and economic factors. Those few are best known to us because rheir remains dominate Ьот the textual and archaeologiсаl records available to the modern scholar, but теу are the ехсер tion, not the rule. Finally it is important to point ои! the restrictions of the textual documentation used in the study of Mesopotamian social and economic history. ТЬе three sectors of society 1 outlined above are по! equally represented: фете "is а strong bias towards the affairs of те institutions in Фе records. This bias results both from the actual extent ofwriting used within the three sectors, and from the recovery of material in modern excavations. Writing in Mesopotamia was invented for the recording of eeonoтic transactions, and throughout те history of the region this remained the primary function ofthe written word, even when literature and Фе like were written down as well. Ви! literacy was limited, and record keeping was primarily undertaken Ьу фе риыic institutions and Ьу individuals with large economic interests. ТЬе village communities, producing little or nothing in excess ofwhat теу consumed, would not have needed {о record anything, as the few transactions taking place were simple, and eould Ье easily remembered. Large есо nomic enterprises required а bureaueraey, however. ТЬеу were primarily те enterprises ofthe palaces and large teтples. Transac-
City and SocielY
19
rions, such as the issuing of rations to numerous employees, needed {о Ье recorded. AIso private individuals and family firms played ап important role in the Mesopotamian есопоту and· their activities Ьесате very complex at times, so complex that теу required а record. Непсе, in antiquity the affairs of public institutions and iтportant private entrepreneurs dominated те record. In modem times the accounts of the Iarge temple and palace organizations have gained ап increased proтinence, because both scientific and illicit archaeological exploration has focused оп the monumental reтains of palaces and temples. Private residences have Ьееп less explored, and thus те records of the people living in theт often reтain unexcavated. ТЬе bias of the written docuтentation available to us emphasizes thus the affairs of the рuыic institutions, but this situation does not warrant the conclusion that they dominated economic life in Mesopotamia а! аН times. In our reconstructions we should remain aware of те activities of the соmтипаl and private sectors of the society as well, even if they remain poorly documented or not documented at аН. А detailed description of the economic interactions between the three sectors of society cannot Ье written here, and perhaps not еуеп in а separate study. Their presence throughout Mesopotamian history, and their co-operation in the есопоту will Ье used as а basis of this study. ТЬеу were variables in а coтplex system of interaction of social, political, economic, and cultural spheres, аП ofwhich played а role in urban Iife. It is that life 1 Ьоре to elucidate in this book.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Studies оп Mesopotamian urbanism are rare: А. Leo Oppenheim's works include: 'А New Look а! те Structure of Mesopotamian Society', Journal 01 the Economic and Social History 01 the Опеnс 1О (1967), 1-26; 'Mesopotaтia-Land of Мапу Cities', in Ira М. Lapidus (ed.), Middle Eastern Cit1:es (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1969), 2nd edn. 3-16; and Ancient Mesopotamia: Portrait 0/ а Dead Civilization (Chicago and London, 1977). The symposium оп urbanism ас the University of Chicago was published as City InvincibZe, с. Н. Кraeling and R. МсС. Adams (eds.) (Chicago, 1960). Тhe conference ас the University ofLondon was published as Man~
20
Cz·ty
~nd
Society
Settlement and Urbanzsт, Peter J. Ucko, Ruth Tringham, and G.W. Dimbleby (eds.) (London, 1972). Robert мсс. Adams published three seminaI books оп settlement pattems in ancient Babylonia: Land behind Baghdad." А History 0/ Settlement оп the Diyala Plains (Chicago and London, 1965); (with Hans J. Nissen), The Uruk Countryside: The Natural Setting 01 Urban Societies (Chicago and London, 1972); and Heartland 01 Cities (Chicago and London, 1981). G. Cardascia wrote ап article 'Les villes de Mesopotamie', for the Recueils de la Societe Jean Bodin 7 (1955), 51-61; and Wolfram von Soden gave some general remarks in 'Tempelstadt und Metropolis im Alten Orient', in Heinz Stoob (ed.), Die Stadt: Gestalt und Wandel bis zum industriellen Zeitalter (Cologne and Vienna, 1979), 37-82. Three recent conferences оп the city in Mesopotamia have Ьееп pubIished: La ViZZe dans le proche-orient ancien: Actes du Colloque de Cartigпy, Francoise Briischweiler (ed.) (Louvain, 1983); The Town as Regional Economic Centre in the Ancient Near East (Session В-lб, Proceedings Tenth Intemational Economic History Congress, Leuven, August 1990), Erik Aerts and Horst Юепgеl (eds.) (Louvain, 1990); and Nuove fondazioni nе! Vicino Опеnсе antico: realta е ideologia, S. Mazzoni (ed.) (Pisa, 1994). Important insights оп urbanism сап also Ье found in М. Liverani, 'La citta vicino orientale antica', in Pietro Rossi (ed.), Modelli di citta (Turin, 1987), 57-85, and J. N. Posrgate, Early Mesopotamia: Society аnа Есоnоmу ас the Dawn о! History (London . and New York, 1992). Jean-Louis Huot, Naissance des cires (Paris, 1990), is а more popular account addressing many aspects of urbanism. General sUIVeys of ancient urbanism that include remarks оп Mesopotamia are Mason Hammond, The City in the Ancient World (Cambridge, 1972), for which the review Ьу J. Renger in Journal 01 theAтerican Опеnсаl Society 95 (1975),115-16 is important; and Frank Kolb, Die Stadt im Altertum (Munich, 1984). Studies of individual cities include Sippar: Rivkah Harris, Аn cient Sippar: А Demographic Study 01 ап Old Babylonian City (18941595 вс) (Istanbul, 1975); Nippur: EIizabeth с. Stone, Nippur Neighborhoods (Chicago, 1987); and Ur: 1. М. Diakonoff, People 01 Ur (Moscow, 1990); Marc Van De Mieroop, Society and Enterpnse in Old BabyZonian Ur (Ber1in, 1992). Archaeological projecrs attempting to reconstruct urban layouts
City and Socieт.y
21
include those а! АЬи Salabikh: J. N. Postgate in John Cunis (ed.), Fifty Years 0/ Mesopotamian Discovery (London, 1982), 48-61; АЬи Duwari: Elizabeth С. Stone and Раи} Zimansky, 'Mashkan-shapir and the Anатоmу of ап Old Babylonian City', Biblical Archaeologist 55 (1992» 212-18; and Larsa: Jean-Louis Нио! et al., 'La Structure urbaine de Larsa: Une approche provisoire', in Jean-Louis Huot (ed.), Larsa: Travaux de 1985 (Paris, 1989), 19-52. For а rare archaeological investigation of а Lower Mesopotamian village, see Henry Т. Wright, The Administration 01 Rural Production 'in ап Early Mesopotamian Town (Anп Arbor, 1969). А powerful statement аЬоu! the unity of Mesopotamian civilization was made Ьу А. Leo Oppenheim in Letters from Mesopotamia (Chicago and London, 1967), 1-53, Ьи! his message has been mosdy ignored. The issue of continuity in Mesopotamian history has Ьееп addressed recently Ьу Nonnan Yoffee, 'The Collapse of Ancient Mesopotamian States and Civilization', in Norman Yoffee and George L. Cowgill (eds.), The Collapse 01 Ancient States and Civilizations (Tuscon, 1988), 44-68, and J. N. Postgate, Early Mesopotaтia, (1992), 292-302. Оп the Akkadian tenn alum see 1. М. Diakonoff, 'From а соl1ес tive dwelling to ап imperial city', Oikumene 5 (1986), 55-62; and William W. НаНо, 'Antediluvian Cities', Journal ofCuneiform 8tudies 23 (1970) 57-67. А good survey of the methodological difficulties for the study of Ancient Mesopotamian economic history, with references to ancient history in general, was provided Ьу Johannes Renger, 'Probleme und Perspektiven einer Winschaftsgeschichte Mesopotamiens', Saeculum 40 (1989), 166-78. The most important Marxist theoretical statements include the mапу contributions Ьу 1. М. Diakonoff, те most recent and accessible of which is' in Early Antiqu-iтy (Chicago and London, 1991), 1-66; and Mario Liverani, '11 modo di produzione', in S. Moscati (ed.), L'alba della civilra 2: L'economia, (Turin, 1976), 1-126. Non-Marxist scholars have never clearly outlined their ideas оп the structure of Mesopotamian society. Imponant contributions have been made Ьу 1. J. Gelb in articles such as, 'Оп the Al1eged Temple and State Economies in Ancient Mesopotamia', Studi in onore di Edoardo Volterra 6 (Milan, 1969), 137-54; 'From Freedom (о Slavery', in D. о. Edzard (ed.), Gesellschaftsklassen im Alten Zweistron'lland (Munich, 1972), 81-92; and 'Household and
22
City and Society
Fami1y in Early Mesopotamia', in Е. Lipinski (ed.), Slate аn4 Temple Есоnоmу in the Ancient Near Easl (Louvain, 1979), 1-97. Johannes Renger has devoted several studies to the subjecr, e.g. 'Pattems of non-institutional trade and non-commercial exchange in ancient Mesopotamia а! the beginning ofthe second millennium вс', in Alfonso Archi (ed.), Circulation 01 Goods in Non-Palatial Соnсехс in xheAncient Near EaSl (Rome, 1984), 31-123; 'Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft', in В. Hrouda (ed.), Der Alte Опеnс (Gutersloh, 1991), 187-215; and 'Оп Economic Structures in Ancient Mesopotamia', Orientalia 63 (1994), 157-208.
2 The Origins and Character of the МеsороtаП1iаn City
It is now generally aceepted that Mesopotamia is the опе region in the Old World where we сап say with certainty that ап urban civilization arose spontaneously. The origins of cities there have been extensively discussed in the past four deGades, not so much Ьу Near Eastern historians, who have often limited their comrnents to statements of archaeologicalIy discernible facts, but Ьу anthropologists, sociologists, and some urban historians specializing in later periods. The topic is of importance in the study of Mesopotamiap urbanism, as our ideas аЬоu! their origins influenee to а great extent how we view the nature of eities in subsequent history. In this chapter 1 do по! intend to give а survey ofthe even!s connected with the rise of urbanism, nor ап overview and critique of аН theories seeking to explain it. 1 will discuss some of the most influential theories оп urban development and point out what elements in тет seem most useful [or understanding the Mesopotamian situation. This will lead to а consideration of the character of the Mesopotamian city опее it was fully developed. First, 1 have to restate а few well-known facts. Mesopotamia is the region where cities originated first in world history. Непсе, the rise of cities there was ап independent and indigenous event. Second, the entire evolution took place in prehistory. No textual sources are available from the time cities first arose, and texts from later periods сап only Ье used to illustrate patterns visible in the earlier archaeological record. Third, те entire process from the first permanent settlement in southem Mesopotamia to the first cities there took ап enormously long time, from around 5500 вс to around 3500 вс. The emergence of the city тау have occurred relatively suddenly, Ьи! саппо! Ье understood in isolation froт what preceded it, and must Ье seen as а culmination of that process.
Origins and Character
24
Of те numerous discussions оп the origins of the city, three approaches have found the most adherents, each stressing а particular function of the earliest cities: ceremonial, commercial, or redistributive. ТЬе concept that the earliest cities, in аН areas of primary urban generation, functioned foremost as ceremonial сеn tres has been most extensively argued Ьу Раиl Wheatley, reviving ап idea already developed Ьу Fustel de Coulanges in the midnineteenth century. Wheatley maintained that religion provided the primary focus of sociallife in the period immediately preceding urbanism. Wherever cities first appeared, they contained а сегето nial complex, in his opinion, and even if the latter performed secular functions as well, these were рап of the religious context. Тhe priests were the first group to escape the 'daily round of subsistence labor', 1 hence setting the process of social stratification into motion. Only after ceremonial centres were fiпnly established did they obtain а redistributive economic role> and secular elites only developed after cities had Ьееп in existence for several centuries. Although те observation that аН the earliest cities contained а ceremonial centre is accurate, for Mesopotamia at least, the conclusion that religion drew people together in uгЬаn conglomerates is not warranted. The reasoning behind it seems to Ье опе of сит hoc ergo propter hoc. The idea that temples аге primarily religious institutions is а modem concept and does not apply (о те early Mesopotamian temples. Тhey fulfilled primarily а managerial role in the local economy. As 1 will demonstrate later, по urban settlement is possible without ап agricultural base to support а dense population. Agricultural resources needed to Ье extracted from the countryside Ьу ап authority~ and religion provided that authority. But people did not converge ироп ceremonial centres for their spiritual leadership, and throughout те world mаnу such centres exist in isolation. Moreover, the temple's imponance in early Mesopotamia is greatly overstated, due (о the archaeologists' focus оп monumental architecture, and а misreading of mid-thirdmillennium archival records. The ideological focus provided Ьу early cities clearly existed, Ьи! it was of insufficient strength to Ье те sole driving force towards urbanism . . А second theory emphasizes tbe role oflong-distance trade in the 1
Paul Whеаtlеуз Тм Pivot 01 the Роиг Quaтters (Chicago, 1971), 303.
Origins and Character
25
development of cities. Its most extreme advocate is the urban theorist, Jane ]acobs, who has earned ап almost legendary status in the USA for her 'visionary' ideas and is extensively quoted in anthropological and sociologicalliterature. However, she is almost entirely unknown (or ignored) among ancient Near Eastern specialists. In her book The Есоnоmу 01 Cities (1969), she attacked те 'dogma' that agriculture preceded cities, and replaced it with а theory that the existence of cities led to agriculture, and that cities first originated because of long-distance trade in raw materials. The empirical basis for this theory is the existence of such eighthto sixth-millennium settlements in the Levant and Anatolia as Jericho and С;атаl Hi.iyiik, interpreted Ьу some scholars to have Ьееп cities. But, whereas the latter scholars acknowledge that ап agriculrural base was needed for these settlements, Jacobs hypothesized те existence of pre-agricultural cities antedating these ехса vated sires. She described
ап
imaginary city, New Obsidian, which
was involved in the long-distance trade in obsidian without being located near its sources. Food for the inhabitants would have Ьееп obtained partly through barter with nearby hunter-gatherers, but mainly through imports from foreign hunting territories. Because meat would have spoiled during its transport, 1ive animals were driven {о New Obsidian, where soon а selection of те tamest animals was made for breeding. Seeds and nuts were brought into town as they preserved better than frиits and vegetables, and when mixed together in bins and partly sown in wild patches, they were accidentally cross-bred and Ьесате 'better' тап their wild progenitors. Soon the city began (о grow rnost of its food. 'Cities First-Rural Development Later.' Jacobs's theory is based entirely оп false premisses. It relies heavily оп ап unconvincing parallel with те modem world) where the most advanced urban areas are supposed {о have the most advanced agriculture. And, when dealing with prehistory, Jacobs ignores altogether what Bairoch has called 'the tyranny of dis{апсе' .2 The transport of food products is very expensive, as те transporter con~umes part of his or her load. А тап carrying те entire load, сап daily transport 35-40 kilograms over 30-35 kilometres. Every day he has to consume аЬои! one kilogram, so Ье 2 Paul Bairoch, пе Jericho а Mexico: Villes et economie dans l'histoire (Paris, 1985), 33-4.
2б
Origins and Character
eats his entire load in аЬои! seventeen days when Ье has marched а! the most 600 kilometres опе way, taking into ассоип! that Ье has to eat оп his way back. Of course, to Ье аЫе {о barter the food he cannot consume а11 of it. Ап ехатрlе makes this problem obvious. If а тап comes а distance of 1ОО ki10metres to obtain obsidian at New Obsidian, Ье wiIl start ои! with 40 kilograms offood. In three days Ье will have reached his destination with 37 kilograms, and he wiII Ье аЫе to barter а maximum of 34 kilograms for obsidian. Those 34 kilograms will feed опе inhabitant of the city for slightly more·than опе month. For the 5,000 inhabitants of~atal Hiiyiik to Ье supported for оnе year, 60,000 trips of this type would Ье needed from а radius по! surpassing 100 ki19metres from те site. That area is only 157 square kilometres, and considering the ех tremely low population density in pre-agricultural times, there were not enough people in tIiat region to provide аН the food needed in New Obsidian. Moreover, аН these calculations аге based оп the assumption that circumstances were optimal. It seems impossible to walk 33 kilometres а day in the region around <;atal Hiiyi.ik, while rest-stops оп the road would have increased the consumption Ьу те transponer. How long would it have taken to drive live undomesticated animals over this distance? ТЬе problems could по! Ье al1eviated Ьу using draft animals, as Jacobs states ша! аН this activity took рlасе before the domestication of animals. Nor does river transpon provide ап altemative, as rivers are only navigable in опе direction in the агеа of <;aral HUyiik. ]acobs's теогу is thus entirely unacceprable. Mellaart, whose work inspired Jacobs, was more careful as Ье acknowledged the existence of agriculture around sites such as Jericho, (:atal Hiiyiik, and others. Не a1so stressed the role of religion in те creation of these settlements) referring то тап as 'а religious animal' and to Фе fact that 'religious strиctures are among the ear1iest remains of the homo sapiens'. 3 Ви! still the settlements of the eighth {о sixth millennia Ье studied аге по! to Ье regarded as cities and certainly по! as те beginnings of urban civilizarion. ТЬеу were highly anomalous sertlements) relying оп unique coincidences of very fertile surroundings and 10cation оп trade routes, enabling and precipitating а dense habitation. No 3 James Mellaart, 'Тhe Origins and Development of Cities in the Near East:J, in Louis L. ОгНп (ed.), Janus: Essays in Ancient and Modern Studies (Anп AnЬог, 1975), 13.
Origi,ns and Character
27
social hierarchy is clear within these settlements, nor do their hinterlands show ап urban infrastructure. Moreover, they were evolutionary 'dead-ends': after 5400 вс теу disappeared and foc over 1,000 years urban settIements аге по! to Ье found in the . reg1ons. ТЬе las! theory 1 will discuss here has gained the most popularity in the field of ancient Near Eastern studies after it was cogently argued Ьу Robert мсс. Adams in his seminal book The Evolution 0/ ИтЬаn SocielY (1966). ТЬе book focuses оп the societal changes which led {о ап urban civi1ization in two regions with primary urbanization: southern Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica. Adams recognized three major stages in this evolution. First, the development of agriculture led {о increased stabi1ity of residence, increased yields, and incentives [ог population growth. As а result there was greater societal stability, and а surplus appeared in food producrion. Because of а specializarion in food production, а mediatory role for the exchange of goods was needed, and the power of redistribution was concentrated in Фе hands of а small group within the society. Second} classes gradually replaced kin-based groups. Differences in access to the means of production led to а social stratification. Individuals identified themselves more with rheir equals in social status than with their Юп. But kinship affiliation did по! disappear altogether, as те relationship {о а real ог imaginary соmmоп ancestor was used as Фе basis for social stratification. Third, the иррег classes in the social hierarchy took hold of те administration of {Ье Ьу now complex society. ТЬе first group to do so was а priesthood that тау Ьауе justified its leadership through religion. ТЬе ear1iest Mesopotamian cults focused uроп fertility, and ecological instabiIity тау have led people to rely оп priests to intercede оп their behalf with те gods. Ви! те main function of Фе temple was опе of economic redistribution. Increasingly large and complex temples organized the varied and multiple interactions between different groups within ше society. The priests relied оп technological innovations such as writing and bookkeeping for their trade. Craft centres grew ир {о provide for their needs with increasing specialization, and expensive .raw materials were imported Ьу тет through long-distance trade. А physical separation from те rest of society ensued with the temple personnel residing in ог around increasingly monumental temples in cities. Only centuries later were the powers held Ьу the priests
Origi,ns and Character
28
usurped Ьу а secular and miIitary authoriry, whose influence was nurtured Ьу increased competition between the various urban centres. Adams considered the rise of the city as опе aspect of те rise of фе state, i.e. а society та! is hierarchically organized оп po1itical and territorial Iines rather тап оп the basis of kinship or other ascriptive relationships. ТЬе politicaI authority of the state happens to Ье situated in the city where а dense and socially stratified population resides. 1 would agree with this viewpoint, although 1 do not want to broaden the discussion here {о the rise of те state in Mesopotamia. In Adams's opinion cities originated because states developed. Society was structured with classes, differentiated . both through wealth or access to means ofproduction, and through occupation which could Ье agriculturaI, pastoral, industrial, сот mercial, cultic, or adrninistrative. Cities were the loci where these classes interacted or where те interactions between them were regulated. In economic terms they were redistributive centres of goods and services produced Ьу these classes. Adams's theory has earned widespread support among Mesopotamian schoIars, who have elaborated оп it, and indeed its argument is highly persuasive. In те present discussion 1 would like {о stress why cities evolved in southem Mesopotamia of аН places, and {о elaborate оп the various aspects of their redistributive role. It is very difficult for us to determine why cities appeared in southem Mesopotamia, rather than in Anatolia or the Levant, for instance. Ву те beginning of the fourth milIennium the region provided the thr~e preconditions of city life, as determined Ьу Gideon Sjoberg: а favourable ecological base, ап advanced technology (relative to те pre-urban form) in both agricultural and non-agricultural spheres, and а complex social organization, especially with regard {о the power structure. 4 Ви! these circumstances do not necessarily lead to ап urban sociery. As Ester Boserup has shown there is а need for а certain level of population density, as the aggregate food surplus produced Ьу the agriculturalists needs {о . satisfy the requirements of the pon-agricultural urban рори Iation. 5 ТЬе southern Mesopotamian countryside was certainly I
-1
Gideon Sjoberg, The Preindustrial CiLy~ Past and Present (Glencoe, 1960), 27-
31. 5
Est:er Boserup, Populalion and TechnoZogicaZ Change: А S!udy
Trends (Chicago, 1981),
Рап
11.
0/ Long- Terт
Origins and Character
29
fertile enough [о sustain а dense popula[ion, Ьи! there was по shortage of agriculturalland that would force people [о live closely together. So why did they decide [о remain in а small geographical zone, 80 that the prerequisite population density could Ье attained? 1 think we сап answer this question Ьу 100king аТ the ecological diversity of те region. Several scholars, such as Adarns and Liverani, have pointed ои! that the Near East contains а number of diverse ecological zones in close contact with one another: steppe, irrigated alluvium> and mountains with forests and pastures. This is also true оп а more microscopic scale, especially for the very south of Mesopotamia. АН тоо often it is imagined that this агеа was uninhabited unti1 the arrival of irrigation farmers in the midsixth millenniuffi. Ви! тапу wild natural resources were available [о non-farmers, and were exploited Ьу them prior to the appearance of fanning: pasture for herds of sheep and goats in фе river valleys and the steppe, and extensive :fishing and hunting grounds for fishermen and hunters in the marshes. When те [echnology то [ар water from те numerous natural channels of те Euphrates river was introduced, large-scale farming Ьесаmе possible, Ьи! it did not replace herding, fishing, and hunting. АН these activities took place in а small area in the very south of Mesopotamia, and it is thU8 not surprising [Ьа! the earliest cities, Ur, Eridu, and Uruk, are [о Ье found there as well. Exchange between те different foodproducing groups Ьесате extensive and commonplace, and ап organizing institu[ion soon developed at the same time as the introduction of iпigаtiоп fanning. Of course, exchange requires surplus production, something many scholars assume [о have originated virtually spontaneously. Such ап assumption is false and те origin of а surplus is the subject of much debate. No family will produce more than is needed for its subsistence unless it is forced [о do so Ьу а higher authority, or because Фе benefits of а surplus зге obvious and indispensable. In theory, еасЬ of the specialized food-producing groups could Ье self-sufficient, and perhaps only the desire for а less restricted diet ог for prod ucts that do not fulfil elementary needs pushed them [о barter рап of their produce. Still, the development is not inevitable and obvious. The focus upon а small zone in the very south of Mesopotamia explains, in ту opinion, why that was the area of primary urban development. Опее the city had Ьееоте а fact of life in те very south, the concept spread further north along the many ehannels of
30
On·gt:ns and Character
the Euphrates, which enabled easier exchange of bulky items along the river. Ву 2800 вс we find а system of city-states stretching from the Persian Gulf to the area ;ust south of modem-day Baghdad. Inter-city trade of agi1cultural produce remained limited, however, and each city-state was self-sustaining in its food supplies and basic material needs until about 1800 ВС when the military uni:fication of Babylonia led to ап integration of the agricultural 6 есоnоmу as well. But this leads us {оо far in time, and we need to backtrack in order to explore further what the role of те earliest cities was. So far, 1 have referred only to their functions in the economy-moreover only in cenain aspects of the economy-an approach that is too limited in its scope. Тhe social stratification that characterizes urban life involves social power which relies оп four sources, ас cording to а theory developed Ьу Michael Mann: economic) ideolqgical, military, and political. With these sources of power, cettain individuals ог groups attain their goals in society. In the case of early cities) те urban elites were closer to these sources than were the other members of society. 1 would like Уо investigate here how this manifested itself. Ву treating these four areas separately, 1 do not intend to indicate that they had independent identities. Thеу are interacting networks, whose separate consideration 1 Ьоре will lead (о а clearer understanding of their nature. The economic power of urban elites has already Ьееп discussed in part. Their role was mainly managerial: те interaction Ьемееп differently specialized producers of goods and services was controlled Ьу а small segment of society. In the first cities that group had temple connections~ and the anachronistic {еrm priesthood is commonly used as its designation. Ап unknown number of these priests had the knowledge of writing, the abi1ity to record transactions permanentIy оп bulky clay tablets. The economic power was not limited to local affairs, but also extended to long-distance trade. The importance of long-distance trade in early Mesopotamian civilization is not as easy to assess as is often assumed. А majority of scholars agree that southern Mesopotamia is а region lacking аН raw materials but clay and reed~ and that long-distance trade is needed to obtain access [о basic materials such as timber, stone, 6 See Marc Уап De Mieroop) 'The Reign d'archeologie onentaZe 87 (1993), 47-69.
of Rim-Sin\ Revue d'assyn'oZogie еС
Origins and Character
31
and metals, and luxury goods such as semi-precious stones. ТЬе need for such materials has Ьееп used as one~ or even the most important, causal factor in the rise of cities in southern Mesopotamia~ оп the grounds that it would have necessitated the production of а surplus [ог exchange purposes. This explanation is not соп vincing, as it fails {о show why other regions of the Mesopotamian alluvium, equally lacking in resources, did not develop cities at the same time as the South; besides, the poverty of southem Mesopotamia in raw materials has Ьееп greatly overstated. Wood and stone were available and useable, even though they were not of the pest quality, and clay, bitumen, and reed could substitute for other materials. There was по necessity to acquire products from abroad, although it is clear that from the fifth rnillennium onwards trade contacts between southern Mesopotarnia and the surrounding areas existed. Pottery produced in southem Mesopotamia dating to та!
millennium has
Ьееn
found along
те
Persian Gulf as far south
as the United АгаЬ Emirates, and in the second half of the fourth millennium ап incredible expansion of the southern Mesopotamian Uruk culture throughout the Near East тау have been driven Ьу trade. But the economic importance of that trade remains to Ье assessed. А find in Saudi Arabia of а pot produced in Ur shows direct or indirect contacts between these two places~ but not how соmтоп these contacts were. Ве this as it тау, it seems likely that long-distance trade was originally controlled Ьу the temples, and that the rnerchants had temple affiliations. This was probably caused Ьу те fact· that surplus production oftextiles and other tradable goods was held Ьу the temples. 1t is interesting that long-distance trade was the sector of the есопоmу that was privatized earlier than any other state- or temple-controlled enterprise. Perhaps this сап Ье explained as the result of те merchants' need for as much neutrality as possible, in order to avoid identification with а participant in а power struggle. Тhus, we сап conclude that the economic power of urban elites original1y included long-distance trade, but that the importance of this trade has Ьееn exaggerated, and that it soon was delegated to pnvate entrepreneurs. ТЬе second source of power is ideological. At the time of urban origins> ideology was primarily religious. Although private shrines and ancestor cults survived throughout Mesopotamian history, urban temples grew increasingly large and the priesthood seems to
32
Origins and Character
have taken the role as mediator between the реорlе and the gods. А late founh-millennium caIVing оп а stone vase found at Uruk (Fig. 2.1) shows а row of naked теп carrying vessels and jars of produce to а goddess, identified Ьу те syтbols behind her as Inanna, the goddess of procreation. In front of her stands the city ruler, represented larger than his mеn and fuIly dressed in ceremoniaI robe, clearly acting as ап intermediary. Rituals of fertility involving the ruler and the goddess were соттоп until the eightеепФ century at least.. It is reasonable to assume that religious ideology was used Ьу the priesthood to extract produce from the rural population, but its exact methods are not revealed to us.
F 1G. 2.1
Uruk vase with reconstruction of the image of the city ruler in the top register
Origins and Character
33
With the rise of kingship, а secular authority in need of ап ideological basis developed alongside the religious опе. This basis was provided through а combination of mi1itary and religious leadership. The latter had Ьееп provided Ьу the priesthood, whose powers needed to Ье usurped before the military commander could claim religious leadership as well. ТЬе king fought battles against other city-states, but these battles al1egedly were to protect the property ofthe city god. ТЬе conflict, lasting more than а century, over ап agricultural area between the neighbouring city-states Umma and Lagash is portrayed as the defence of the rights of the god Ningirsu Ьу successive kings of his city-state, Lagash. Оnе king, Eanatum, even portrays himself as having Ьееп bred as Ningirsu's champion, and nurtured Ьу the goddess Ninhursag: Inanna stood Ьу him, and named him 'Eana-Inanna-Ibgalkaka-atum'. She placed him оп the good lap of Ninhursag. Ninhursag [laid him] ОП her good breas!. Ningirsu rejoiced over Eanatum, semen placed in the womb Ьу Ningirsu. Ningirsu measured him with his span: (he was) five cubits and one span {аН! With joy Ningirsu [gave him the kingship of Lagash]. 7
Similarly, the 'Sacred Marriage Rite) сате to involve the king who had intercourse with the goddess in order to assure the fertility of the land. Traces of conflict between secular and religious leaders are по ticeable in texts from the best documented city-state, Lagash. In the early twenty-fourth century the distinction between the Мо seems to have been eradicated when king Uru'inimgina proclaimed ап edict ostensibly placing аН lands in the hand of the city-gods, Ьит in reality taking control of аН temple domains himself. Later kings always held the position of high priest or even legitimized their rule Ьу accepting divine status. The ideology of the secular power could thus not Ье separated from religion. Вот temple and palace were located in the city, and the kings always stressed their urban background. So, Ьеге also the city acted as ап ideological centre [ог the state. Evidence for тilitary engagement goes back to the pictorial representations of тЬе lате fourth millenniuт (Fig. 2.2), but it becomes abundant only in the mid-third millennium when royal inscriptions and monuments boast about military campaigns Stela of the Vultures) col. iv 1. 18-col. v 1. 17) Horst Sreible, Die al!Sumerische Ваu- und Weihinschriften 1 (Wiesbaden, 1982) 122-3. 7
Origins and Character
34
FIG.
2.2
Late fourth-millennium sealing with combat scene
against neighbouring city-states or distant countries. АП we know about the military involves such warfare, and the rise of the secular king has been convincingly related to the increased hostility Ье мееп competing cities in southem Mesopotamia. Military power was always held Ьу the palace located in the city;J although the priest-ru1er тау have held та! authoriry in те late fcurth millennium as well. Feudal-style тапот lords who delivered troops to the king when Ье needed them, and who raided оп their own account, when free to do 80, did not exist. Even when states relied оп military levies from semi-nomadic tribes, as is documented in the texts from Mari, the administration and command of these troops remained ап urban affair. The state's military power was thus centrally controlled in the city. This military power relates, however, only to the 'international' affairs of the early city-states. Was mi1itary power a1so used Ьу the urban elites in order to control the rural hinterland? Adams, for instance, has suggested that military coercion тау have forced the exchange between villages and towns in the mid-founh mil1ennium. з Iп the early historical periods we do not find any direct evidence for such coercion, however. А standing army in the service of the king was perhaps only created in the twenty-founh century Ьу Sargon of Akkade, who claimed {о have fed daily 5,400 soldiers, most likely а fictitious number. These mеп, and their successors in the employ of later dynasties, were involved in ехре ditions outside the heartland of their states. Уе! the twenty-firstcentury kings of Ur appointed а military hierarchy, with blood ties to the royal house, next to the civil bureaucracy in the core prov... inces. These military men seem to·have Ьееп installed to guarantee 8
Robert мсс. Adams, Heartland 01 Cizies (Chicago and London, 1981), 81.
Origins and Character
35
to the king the loyalty of the civilian administrators who had 10саl ties-not to help тет extract resources from the local populations. Only in the peripheral areas of the state did the military fulfil the role of tax collectors for те kings in Ur. Although active opposition to the king Ьу his citizens is referred to in the отеn literature,9 the use of the аnnу against residents of the countryside is never attested, as far as 1 know. No installations where such rnilitary troops could have Ьееп housed are visible in the archaeological record before те appearance of arsenals in Assyria of the first millennium. The col1ection of taxes seerns to have been taken care of Ьу bureaucrats without threat ог violent
resistance. Peasant revolts are not attested in Mesopotamian history. Оп the other hand, these bureaucrats тау have relied оп soldiers to enforce their demands. In early second-millennium texts, mеп with military titles аге sometimes perceived as а ~hreat, as сап Ье seen [тот this passage of а Ietter from Ur: Conceming the field) the allotment of Sin-abushu which уои Ьауе taken unlawfully and have given to Ili-idinnam, Sin-abushu went and ар proached те king. The king gave him а soldier. Ве quick! Before те soldier of те king arrives and теу make уои give compensation for the field, return the field (о its owner. It is urgent! 10
The use of те military in internal affairs тау thus have been mare common than is suggested Ьу the documentation. The last source of power) political, is harder to define, especially since the military and ideological aspects have been stripped from it, а criticism that has Ьееп expressed against Mann's model. Mann separated political from military powers, describing as political 'those of centralized, institutionalized, territorial regulation', 11 as distinguished from decentralized, aften independent" powers of military groups. If we regard politics as the actions and manreuvres ofthe state, ЬоФ for its internal organization and for its dip10matic 9
See
J.
Bottero) 'Le Pouvoir royal et ses limitations d)apres les textes
divinatoires) > in А. Finet (ed.) La Voix de l'opposilion еп Mesopotamie (Brussels) 1973), 119-65. 10 Н. Н. Figulla and W. J. Martin> Letters and Documents 0/ the Old Babylonian Penod (Ur Excavations) Texts 5; London and Philadelphia) 1953) по. 45> lines 517. 11 Michael Mann, The Sources 0/ Social Power 1 (Cambridge) 1986) 11. The separation of military power from political power has been criticized, e.g. Ьу Рет Anderson, А Zone 01 Engagement (London and New York, 1992), 77; and John А. НаН,
Powers and Liberties (Oxford, 1985), 19
п.
13.
36
Origi,ns and Character
relations with other states, we сап discuss them separately {гот economic, ideological, and military powers. Ргот the outset cities clearly deтanded а political organization different from that found in village communities. Royal political domination was established through а Ьигеаисгасу that expanded in size throughout the third millennium, culminating perhaps in the twenty-first century during the rule ofthe Third Dynasty ofUr. А! that time, possibly the most prolific Ьигеаисгасу of the ancient world recorded minute aspects of administration, есопоту, and the courrs, in а standardized format using ап apparently dead language, Sumerian. Again, what is imрогtзпt [ог оиг consideration of the origins of the city is the facr thar this aspect of power [оо was firmly f~unded in the city. The state was built around the city, as we aptly stress Ьу оиг use of те tenn city-state when referring to early Mesopotamian political organiza tion. Thus, when we look а! the late prehistoric and early historic city in Mesopotamia, we see thar а11 four sources of power were cenrred in it: economically ir acted as а redisrributive centre, ideologically it contained тЬе focal insritutions of remple and palace, milirarily it organized the агту used Ьу the kings, and political1y ir incorporared the organizing forces of те srate. The city played thus а central role for irs surroundings in mапу different ways.; it grew ир [о provide thar focus. The particular ecological conditions of southem Mesopotamia gave rise То this organizarion after ап evolution lasting tw.o mil1ennia. In the mid-fourth cenrury, the city was а fact of Iife in that агеа, never то disappear for the resr of ancient Меsороtзmiап history. In ту opinion, there аге some amazing aspects of the early urbanization ofthe South, thar need to Ье discussed before moving оп to the North. Around 3200 а completely urban culture existed in southern Mesopotamia. Several rechnological innovations Ье сате visible simultaneously: writing, monumental arts and architecrure, and mass-produced goods, especially portery. The first wrirten documenrarion shows the existence of developed systems of weights and measures, rime-reckoning, and numeration. Тhese accomplishments led У. Gordon Childe [о his famous [еп criteria [о distinguish the earliest cities from older or contemporary villages: 1. size of settlements: те concentration of relatively large numbers of people in а restricted area;
Origins and Character
37
2. specialization of agriculturalists and craftsmen;
3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 1 о.
payment of smal1 aтounts of taxes to а deity от divine king; truly monuтental architecture; sociaI stratification and а ruling class supported Ьу а surplus; writing; emergence of ехас! and predictive sciences; artistic expression; foreign trade to iтpon raw materials; class rather than kinship affiliation. 12
Although оnе сап criticize the value of this list in identifying cities, it is true that аН these elements were present in the earliest cities of southern Mesopotamia. Their simultaneous appearance is indicative of the 'revolutionary' changes that took place in society, changes whose importance саппо! Ье overestimated. What seeтs to те to Ье еуеп тате amazing is that these changes took place first and foremost in опе specific place: the city ofUruk. Admittedly there is а real danger of overemphasizing Uruk's role, as it is the only extensively and intensively investigated site of this period. But таnу aspects of Uruk show its special status in southет Mesopotamia. Its size greatly surpasses that of conteтporary cities: around 3200 it is estimated to have Ьееп аЬои! 100 hectares in size, whiIe in {Ье region to its north the largest city measured only 50 hectares, and in the south те only other city, Ur, covered only 10-15 hectares. А clear migration, not опlу {о the city of U ruk itself Ьи! also {о its surrounding countryside, а! the expense of the region {о the north, is visible. And Uruk continued to grow: around 2800 its walls encircled ап area of 494 hectares and occupation outside the walls was likely. А comparison with later cities shows the magnitude of this size: Athens after the expansion Ьу ТЬе mistocles only covered 250 hectares, Jerusalem in AD 43 only 100 hectares, and Rome as the capital of ап enonnous empire under Hadrian was only twice as Iarge as Uruk had Ьееп 3,000 years earlier. 13 Not only was rhe city itself enonnous, Ьи! its teтple coтplexes were also extremely monumental and elaborarely decorated. The building history ofthe temples devoted to Anu, the sky god, and to 12
v. Gordon Childe, 'ТЬе Urban Revolution\
Town PZanning Review 21 (1950),
3-17. 13
Hans
J.
Nissen, The Early HisEory 01 the Ancient Near East~ 9000-2000 вс
(Chicago and London, 1988), 72.
38
Origins and Character
Inanna, the goddess of love and fertility, is extremely complicated and need not delay us here. I! suffices to say та! they were enormous in size and both contained various buildings. In те Inanna сотрlех several examples of naturalistic sculpture of ех tremely fine artistic quality were found, as wel1 as the first evidence ofwriting оп clay tablets. Marvin Powell has suggested tha! writing was invented Ьу а Sumerian-speaking citizen of Uruk,14 а suggestion that is appealing if impossible to verify with the evidence available at present. ТЬе importance of the city of Uruk was по! limited {о southern Mesopotamia. For аЬои! 500 years from the тid-fourth тillen nium оп, the culture that we саП the Uruk сulщrе spread out over ап enormous geographical area. Writing, mass-produced pottery, cylinder seals, and decorated monumental architecture were the haIlrnarks of that culture. At firsr it spread into western Iran where it influenced те culture at Susa, and then both cities established colonies: Susa as far east as Shahr-i-Sokhte in eastern Iran, Uruk in northern Syria а! sites such as НаЬиЬа Kabira and }еЬеl Aruda, and as far west as the Egyprian Nile delra. The Uruk influence тау have caused fundamental changes in Egyptian culture where individual marks of ownership were replaced Ьу а real writing system and monumental funerary architecture appeared. The scope of the Uruk 'expansion' is thus overwhelтing. Its stimuli are unclear; long-distance trade has been most often used as а justification, Ьи! its iтportance has been overstated and other factors must have played а role as well. Whatever те impetus of this expansion тау have been, its driving force most likely was situated in the city of Uruk, те predominant centre of southem Mesopotamia. Тhe leadership of Uruk) both locally and internationally, at а very early point in its urban development, is startling [о say те least. It shows that much more complex factors were at work in urban development than the picture drawri here suggests. ТЬе development of urbanism in northern Mesopotamia followed pattems quite different from those in те South, due to dissimilar ecological conditions. Rather than the great variety of natural settings in small geographical areas, the North consists of two physical regions. The westem part, between the Tigris and J4 Marvin А. Powell) 'Тhree problems in the history of cuneiform writing: origins) direction of script, literacy" Visible Language 15/iv (1981), 422.
Origins and Character
39
Euphrates rivers, contains а vast rolling plain, the northern and eastem sectors of which receive sufficient rainfall [ог dry-farming. The southern sector of that агеа has (о rely оп irrigation [ог its agriculture, and репnаnепt settlement is limited to the river valleys. The eastern part, [гот the left bank ofthe Tigris to the Zagros mountains, consists of а piedmont region with low hills, gradually rising (о the east. The western fianks of the Zagros contain а number ofintermontane valleys running parallel to те Tigris river. Although rainfall is often sufficient for dry-farming, its reliability is low, and often irrigation water supplements rain. Whereas village settlement in this region dates back several millennia farther than in the South-as far back as the eighth mi11ennium-intemal processes did not lead to the development of cities. Cities first appeared in те late fourth millennium with the ехраn sion ofthe Uruk culture described above. Extensive excavatiQns of such cities аге rare; only at НаЬиЬа Kabira is the entire extent of the city known. Although it occupied only eighteen hectares, its игЬап characteristics аге clear: monumental architecture, dense domestic habitation, mass-produced goods, and proto-writing, а11 directly influenced Ьу Uruk. Interestingly, the city was surrounded Ьу а defensive wall, а characteristic that also distinguishes earlier northem vil1ages from contemporary settlements in the South. ТЬе reasons for the need of а defensive structure аге unknown. There is evidence of fires а! severallocations in НаЬиЬа Kabira а! the time of its abandonment, which тау have been the result of а violent conquest. The absence of textual sources prevents а clear reconstruction of what happened. In апу case, with the disappearance of southern influence in the region, urban settlements declined, either being totally abandoned, or continuing as villages. Five hundred years later, around 2500, а second period of urbanizarion occurred in northern Mesopotamia, which seems {о have been рап of а process of urban development encompassing ап enormous geographical area from the Indus Valley {о the Aegean, and throughout Syria and Palestine. Large fortified cities appeared, now equalling the итЬап centres of the South in size. Textual evidence from Mari and especially from Ebla shows а secular urban elite holding а11 sources of power. The culture о[ these cities was greatly influenced Ьу southern Mesopotamia, and southern diffusion has usually Ьееп considered the driving force of this evolution. Although the urban development of the region тау have declined
40
Ongins and Character
around 21 ОО, numerous cities survived in а framework of alternating political fragmentation and centralization under various powers. At the end cf the Bronze Age in те founeenth-thineenth centuries аН the main urban centres show signs of great decline, and only in {Ье ninth-eighth centuries did cities reappear as а соmmоп feature throughout northern Mesopotamia. In те late seventh century вс, when the neo-Assyrian empire collapsed, the region suffered а total economic decline, and our knowledge of the level of urbanization becomes very vague. Cities were thus по! as easily maintained in the North as they were in the South. The agricultural potential of the region pennitted the self-sufficiency of vilIage communitie~, obviating the need for redistribution Ьу cities. Only when southem powers installed centres {о organize {Ье extraction of northem goods for their own benefit, or when а centralizing poIitical force arose in те Nonh itself, were cities needed. Throughout фе history of the region, cities were less соттоп than in the South, and тапу ofthem owed their existence more {о commercial, military, or politicaI concems фап {о agricultural ones. In conclusion, this survey ofthe origins of cities in Mesopotamia has shown, 1 believe, that ecological conditions played ап important role in their development. In the South the variety of zones with different agricultural potentials in close proximity {о each other encouraged the growth of points of exchange. These nodal points gained а central role in other aspects of the есопоmу as wel1 as in religious, military, and politicallife. In the North, оп the other hand~ villag~s sufficed for те management of agricultural resources, and the city was а! first introduced through southern influences. Throughout the history of the North те поп agriculturaI roles of the city predominated: trade, politics, militarism, and religion. They could only appear after the state had evolved, по! before the state. The origins ofurbanism in Ьот areas had important repercussions for the characteristics of their cities, which 1 will explore in further detail in the following chapters.
ВIВLIОGRлРНУ
Ofthe тапу theories оп urban origins 1 Ьауе only discussed а few. Раиl
Wheatley, The Pivot 01 the Four Quaners (Chicago, 1971)
Origins and Character
41
stresses religion. Jane Jacobs, The Есоnоmу 01 Cities (New York, 1969), views intemational trade as the sole catalyst. She relies heavi1y оп James Mellaart's ideas, as expressed in, for instance, 'The Origins and Development ofCities in the Near East', in Louis L. Orlin (ed.), Janus: Essays in Ancient and Modern Studies (1975), 8-22. А similar emphasis оп intemational trade for the rise of cities in southern Mesopotamia is found in Н. Е. W. Crawford, 'Stimuli towards Urbanization in Early South Mesopotamia', in Peter J. Ucko, Ruth Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby (eds.), Маn> SettZemеn! and Urbanism (London, 1972), 761-2. Robert МсС. Adams, The Evolution о! Urban Society (Chicago, 1966), stresses the redistriburive role of cities. His theory was further developed Ьу Charles L. Redman, The Rise о] Civilization (San Francisco, 1978) . Adaтs's focus оп cities as те prime movers towards civilization has Ьееп criticized Ьу Richard Т. Geruson and Dennis McGrath, Cities and Urbanization (N ew Уork, 1 977). Mario Liverani, L'origine delle citta, (Rome, 1986), sees population pressure and the decision to use surplus for соттиnаl works as the primary stimuli behind urban growth. Among the numerous other studies, Giorgio Buccellati, 'ТЬе "Urban Revolution" in а Socio-Political Perspective', Mesopotamia 12 CТurin, 1977), 19-39, provides ап interesting approach to the problem, while the recent work Ьу Jean-Louis Huot ес aZ., Naissance des cites (Paris, 1990), is easily accessible. Michael Mann's theories are set forth in his The Sources 01 Socz"al Power 1 (Cambridge, 1986). А very useful review is offered Ьу Peny Anderson, А Zone 0/ Engagement (London and New York, 1992), 76-86. Оп the ciry of Uruk and the Uruk culture see among таnу others Hans J. Nissen, The Early History о! the Ancient Near EastJ 9000-2000 вс (Chicago and London, 1988), сЬ. 4; and Guillenno Algaze, The Uruk World System (Chicago and London, 1993). For the origins of cities in Assyria, see AbduI Jalil Jawad, The Advent о! rhe Era о! Townships in Northem Mesopotam'ia (l,eiden, 1965); David Oates, 'The development of Assyrian towns and cities', in Perer J. Ucko, Ruth Tringham, and G. W. Dimbleby (eds.)} Маn, SettZement and Urbanism (London, 1972), 799-804; and Harvey Weiss (ed.), The Origz·ns 0/ C-itz°es z·n Dry-Farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the Third MilZennium В.С. (Guilford, Сопn., 1986).
3 City and Countryside: The Mesopotamian View
То ап
ancient Mesoporamian, city life was civiIized Iife. ТЬе city was те seat of culture, and non-urban life was uncultured. ТЬе Mesopotamian visualized his or her city as being located а! the centre of а world that could not exist without it, both in mundane and cosmic tenns. The centrality ofthe ciry in rhe Mesopotamians' own concept oftheir culture was а constant theme throughout their Iiterature. When а city and its god were in harmony, its inhabitants prospered and were Ьарру. In the Sumerian composition, 'The Curse of Akkade), this prosperiry was described as follows: In those days, she (Inanna) fil1ed Akkade's stores for emmer whear with goId, filled its stores for white emmer wheat with silver, copper, tiп, and blocks of lapis lazuli were regularly delivered in its grananes, the outside of its grain silos she plastered over with mud. Its old women were given counsel, its old men were given eloquence, its maidens were given playgrounds, its young mеп were given the strength of weapons, its little ones were given happines~. Nursemaids holding the children of generals, played те aZgasum2-lуге; Inside the city was the tigi-drum, outside were reed pipes and tambourines. Its harbour, where the ships moored, was full of joy. 1
In те Akkadian 1iterature the idea also was соmmоп. Babylon, for instance, was praised in these terms: 1
Curse of Akkade: Н. 25-37. Jerrold S. Cooper, The
1983), 50-2.
CIl1"Se
ТЬе
city of
0/ Agade (Baltimore,
City and Countryside
43
Babylon is such that оnе is filled with joy Iooking at it. Не who lives in Babylon, his life will Ье prolonged. 2 ВаЬу10П is like а Dilmun date whose fruit is uniquely sweet. ТЬе
only surviving world тар we Ьауе from Mesopotamia, dating то the :first millennium, placed Babylon аТ the centre of the universe. Such ап exalted opinion was пос reserved for Babylon, indeed а cultural and poIitical centre, but other, politically less important cities, were honoured similarly. АЬои! Arbela in Лssyriа the foIIowing was said: 1\rbela, Arbela~ Heaven wirhout rival, Arbela! City of joyful music, Arbelat City of festivals, Arbela! City of happy households, АгЬеlа!З Мапу
people bore names that glorified rheir city, such as
Мапnи
ki-Babili 'Who is like Babylon', Larak-zёга-iЬпi 'Larak has created те seed', and Dilbat-abl 'Dilbat is ту father') а chauvinism probably unparalleled in history. ТЬе сопсер! of the city as the basis of civilization was~ perhaps, most strongly expressed when city life was contrasted со that of фе uncivilized world. The latter was по! thought То Ье те bucolic countryside, Ьис the steppe, the desert, and the mountains; те habitats of the nomads. In а Sumerian literary composition of the early second millennium the life of the nomad was described lП these negative terms: Не
is dressed in sheep skins; Не lives in tents in wind and rain; Не doesn't offer sacrifices. Armed [vagabond] in сЬе steppe, Ье digs ир truffles and is restless. Не eats raw теас, lives his life without а Ьоте, and, when Ье dies, Ье is пос buried according to proper rituals. 4 Е. Ebeling, 'Ein Preislied aufBabylon', OnentalischeL'iteraturzeitung 19 (1916), 132-3, 11. 10-15. 3 Translation from Benjamin R. Foster, Be/ore the Muses: Ап AnchoZogy 0/ 2
Akkadiall Literatllre 2 CBethesda, 1993), 738, quoted Ьу permission. 4 Marriage of Мапи) 11. 132-8; translation after Jean Bottero and Samuel Noah Кramer, Lm'sque les dieux /aisaienc l'homme (Paris, 1989), 434.
44
City and Countryside
Such а description Ьееате а stereotype for the life of nomads and mountaineers throughout Mesopotamian history. In the first millennium Assyrian rulers used similar terms to refer {о the inhabitants of the mountains in the east. Interestingly, теу referred {о them with archaic ethnic terms, such as Gutians, а people that had long disappeared from the faee of те earth. Such designations promoted те image та! tiтe stood stil1 among the nomads and that they lacked the ability {о тake progress. The city represented order, the desert and the mountains ет bodied chaos. ТЬе progression from savagery to eivilization in а Ьитаn being was portrayed in the evolution of the legendary Enkidu, the ereature that те gods made ~o ehallenge Кing Gilgamesh of Uruk. Не arrived оп earth as а wild creature, living as ап animal in фе steppe. His gradual development into а civi1ized human being was guided Ьу the courtesan Shamhar, who introduced him to sexual intercourse> grooming, and the consumption of bread and beer. The completion of his education was symbolized Ьу his introduction into the city of Uruk, his entrance into human civilization. Erica Reiner has suggested that, parallel to the tradition of despising the life of nomads, ап opposite trend existed in Mesopotamian literature that glorified те freedom of nomadism and loathed urban life as being effeminate. ТЬе suggestion is based оп two almost idецtiсаl passages in myths where curses were proclaimed, апе Ьу the queen of the netherworld, Ereshk.igal, ироп A~ushunamir, 'Нis Looks are Brilliant', who foiled her plans, те other Ьу Enkidu цроп Shamhat, who had introdueed him {о city life where he found ап untimely death. The curses were devastating. This is what Ereshkigal said: Соте, A~ushunamir,
I will curse уоu with а great curse, Let те ordain уоu а fate never to Ье forgotten. Мау bread of public ploughing Ье your food, Мау the public sewer pipe Ье your drinking place. Тhe shadow of а wall Ье уоuг station, The threshold Ье your dwelling. Мау drunk and те sober slap your cheek!5 5 The Descent ofIshrar [о the Netherworld, 11. 103-9, translation Ьу Benjamin R. Foster, Ртоm DisLant Days (Bethesda, 1995), 82, quored Ьу репnissiоn. Reinees translation of this passage is, obviously, quite different: 'Соте, A~usu-namir, 1 will curse уои with а great curse. Мау the bread from the city's bakers Ье уоит food" тау
City and Countryside
45
Rather than condemning A~ushunamir and Shamhat {о ап effeminate city life, as opposed to the freedom of the steppe, it seems {о те that these curses have to Ье considered as being more таН cious. The writers were aware of the existence of sociaI outcasts, such as transvestites and prostitutes, who were tolerated in Mesopotamian society, Ьи! pushed {о its fringes. Their presence in the cities was acknowledged, and they even fulfilled ап imponant role in urban society, but their life was thought to Ье а miserable one а! the margins of civilization. Theirs was а homeless life in the shadows of the city walls, eating food from the gutters and drinking water from the sewers, and these curses condemn their victims to such а life. 6 Reiner also quotes а passage from the Erra epic where the god Erra is aroused Ьу warmongering creatures, the 'Seven', with те following words: Why have уои Ьееп sitting in the city like а feeble old тап, Why sitting at Ьоте Iike а helpless child? Shall we еаТ WQman food, like non-combatants? Have we turned timorous and trembling, as if we can't fight? Going to the field for the young and the vigorous is like {о а very feast, (But) the noble who stays in the city сап never eat enough. His people will hold him in low esteem, he will command по respect, How could Ье threaten а campaigner? However well developed is the strength of the city dweller, How could he possibly best а campaigner? However toothsome city bread, it holds nothing {о the campfire loaf, However sweet fine beer, it holds nothing to water from а skin, · ТЬе terraced palace holds nothing {о the [wayside] sleeping spot!7 ТЬе
passage was included in а раеап {о military 1ife, gIorified because of its ability {о frighten gods and men aIike. The opposition here is not between urban life and nomadism, but between the city and the battlefield. А life оп те battlefield could lead {о glory, but it was also chaotic, and chaos was something to Ье avoided. th.e jugs of rhe city Ье your drink, тау те shade of rhe city wall Ье your residence, тау the threshold Ье your sitting рlасе, тау rhe drunk and the rhirsry slap your face.) See Erica Reiner, Your Thwarts in Pieces. Your Моопnс Rope СиЕ (Ann Arbor, 1985), 44.
See Jean Bottero, Mesopocamia: Writing, Reasonz·ng, and the Gods (Chicago and London, 1992), 193-7. 7 Еиа epic, Tablet 1, 11. 47-59, translation Ьу Benjamin R. Foster> From Distant Days (Berhesda, 1995), 1 ЗS-б, quoted Ьу permission. 6
46
City and Countryside
Erra heeded the words of те 'Seven' and went оп а terrifying rampage. Only when he retumed to his city did he calm down, and order returned {о earth; the audience of the Еаа epic liked order. Реорlе copied excerpts of the {ех! оп amulets as proteetion against the terror described in it. То the Mesopotamian literate mind life оп the fringes of eivilization or оп the battlefield was аЬеаап! and repulsive. There was по admiration for the 1ife of а 'поblе I savage'. \ negative attitude towards non-urban life is quite remarkable as the rulers of mапу dynasties had risen {о power as {пЬаl 'sheikhs~. Yet, опее теу had firmly established а foothold in а city, i their nomadic past, а! best, was reealled in ап epithet, while atten\ tion to те cities, their temples, and their gods Ьесаmе а matter : of pride. Hammurabi, who was still referred {о as 'king of the [Amorites' in а few of his inscriptions, ignored this connection entirely in the long list of epithets at the start of his famous law code. Instead he boasted ofhis accomplishments in embellishing or . restoring cities and their cult plaees. А ruler's work in а city was considered to Ье ofthe greatest importanee. The epic ofGilgamesh in its seventh-century version showed how the king's search for bodi1y immortality was futile;, Ьи! predicted that he would Ье remembered for ever for the beaury of his ciry, Uruk:
ТЬе
I
Climb the wall of Uruk, Ur-shanabi, and walk around. Inspect the foundation terrace, look over the brickwork, if its bricks are not baked bricks, and if the Seven Counsellors themselves did not lay its foundations!8
Why was the city so important to the Mesopotamian? 1Ъе ап swer lies in its role both as а religious and as а political centre, two funetions considered to Ье of utmost importance to sociery, and closely interrelated. Each Mesopotamian ciry was the Ьоте of а god or goddess, and each prominent god or goddess was the patron deity of а ciry. This concept probably arose in prehistory when а11 important sett1ements had their own pantheon headed Ьу опе deity, and it was so strong that it survived throughout те history of the region. In the third millennium, for instanee, every city of the South was closely associated with а Sumerian deity: e.g. Nippur with Enlil, Ur with Nanпa, and Girsu with Ningirsu. The 8
Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI, со!. vi, 11. 303-5.
City and Countryside
47
Mesopotaтians
thought that {Ье gods had built the cities as their own dwellirigs. А hymn to Enlil describes те foundation ofhis city Nippur: Enlil, оп the sacred place where уои marked off уоис settlement, уои built Nippur as your very own city. ТЬе Кiur, the mountain, your pure place, whose water is sweet, in the centre of {Ье four corners (of the universe), in Duranki, уои founded. 9
The connection between god and city was thought to have Ьееп so close that the decline of а city was usually blamed оп its abandonment Ьу the patron deity. Thus, when the Sumerian cities were overrun Ьу invaders from the east in the last years of the third millennium, the literary compositions described their faH in terms
of те gods' departure, not as
а
military disaster.
This сопсер! did not disappear when the city-states wer;e replaced Ьу larger political entities of territorial states and empires. When Babylon Ьесате the political capital of the South and те cultural capital of the entirety of Mesopotamia, its patron deity, Marduk, rose in prominence in the pantheon. In the twelfth сеп tury а masterpiece of БаЬуlопiап literature, the so-called Creation Epic-, was composed to explain his ascent as king of те gods. Не defeated the gods' епету, Tiaтat, was granted royal status, and теп the other gods Ьиil! а dwelling as his reward, the city of Babylon. When Marduk heard this, his face lit ир, like the light of the day. 'Build Babylon, whose construction уои have desired. Let its brickwork Ье fashioned, пате it The Shrine.) The Anunnaki wielded the hoe, in the first уеаг they made its bricks. When the second year arrived, they raised high the (ор of the Esagila, equalling the Apsu, having built а ziggurat for the Apsu. For Anи) Enlil, and Еа they set ир dwellings а! its foot. In their presence Marduk was seated in splendour. 1o 9 Нутn {о Enlil, 11. 65-8, Adam Falkenstein, Sunzerische Gouerlieder 1 (Heidelberg, 1959), 14. 10 The Epic of Creation, tablet VI, 11. 55-65.
48
City and Countryside
Whenever Mardl1k abandoned the city, eralliterary texts, disaster ensued:
ап
event depicted in sev-
People's corpses bIock the gates. Brother eats brother. Friend strikes friend with а тасе. Free citizens stretch out their hands {о the poor (to beg). The sceptre grows short. Evil lies across те land. Usurpers weaken the country. Lions block the road. Dogs go mad and bite people. Whoever they bite does not live, Ье dies. 11
.
Тhe
absence of the patron deity from his or her city caused grear disruptions in the cult. The absence of the divinity was not always metaphorical, but often те result of the theft of the cult statue Ьу raiding enemies. Divine statues were сотmоnlу carried off in wars Ьу the victors in order {о weaken· the power of the defeated cities. Тhe consequences were so dire that the los8 Qf the statue merited recording in the historiographic texts. When Marduk's statue was not present in ВаЬуl0П, the New Year)s festival, crucial to the entire cultic уеат, could not Ье celebrated. 'For [eight] years under king Sennacherib, for twelve years under king Esarhaddon, thus for twenty years (altogether), Ве! (i.e. Marduk) s[tayed] in Assur and the New У ear's festival was not celebrated.' 12 Despite the existence of а national pantheon headed Ьу the god Assur, whose пате was used for the original capital and for the country as well, the Assyrians also maintained а strong tradition of associating gods with individual cities: Assur with Assur, Ishtar with Nineveh and with АтЬеlа, Ninurta with Kalhu, and Sin with Harran. Deities of lesser rank probably were associated with smaller urban centres. It is thus по exaggeration to say that, throughout Mesopotamian hi~tory, cities were regarded as the dwellings of individual deities, built Ьу these divine beings, and that Фе fortunes of these cities were thought to depend upon те goodwill and юе presence of those tutelary divinities. The second crucial function of the city, closely related {о its religious role, was that of political centre. The Mesopotamians always saw po1itical power as being held within а city, not within а nation or а region. Even if in reality а dynasty had firm control over а territory with many urban centres, emphasis was placed оп its 11
Marduk Prophecy, col. ii, 11. 2-11. Rykle Borger~ 'Gott Marduk
Кбпig Sulgi als Propheten') Bibliorheca Orientalis 28 (1971), 8. 12 AkIm Chronicle, translation after Jean-Jacques Glassner, nlBsopotamiennes (Paris, 1993), 190.
und GottChroniques
City and Counlryside
49
relationship to only one of them. The location of political power in а city was considered to Ье true not only in Mesopotamia itself, but also in the other areas of the Near East with which the Mesopotamians were in contact. ТЬе origin of this concept liеБ in the time of the city-states, when each city truly constituted а separate political power. The Sumerian Кing List starts with Фе statement that 'when kingship was lowered from heaven, kingship was (first) in (the city) Eridu', and then те text goes оп to list а number of cities with the names oftheir rulers. It expresses the ideology that kingship could only Ье present in one city at а time, а distortion of the actual historical situation where the existence of several contemporaneous city dynasties was the rule rather than the exception. It тау thus seem that the Sumerian Юпg List docurnents the existence of а concept of territorial dominion. The justification of the actual territorial control Ьу опе city тау Ьауе Ьееп те reason for the Кing List's composition, but it is imponant that the text fails to define that territory, and instead focuses solely ироп individual cities) аН of which have the ability to act as the centre of political power. The succession of city dynasties was recorded in it from the mythologiса1 origin of kingship to the historical1y attested Isin dynasty (с.1800)) and continued in other chronographic texts to register the dynasties of the cities of Larsa, Babylon, and Urukug, thus persisting in locating political power primarily in опе city. Later, when Babylonia had irreversibly developed into а territorial state, the rulers continued to refer {о themselves as 'king of the city of BabylQn', rather than of the entire country. Тhe Assyrians applied the same ideology to the city-state of Assur) as is expressed in the Assyrian Кing List. ТЬе original purpose of that list тау have Ьееп the legitimization of ShamshiAdad's rule over the city of Assur (1813-1781). This foreign king was of nomadic descent, and his rule could опlу Ье explained Ьу integrating his ancestors within а list of local city rulers. They were placed at the start of the list with the special notation that they were 'kings who lived in tents'. Непсе, it was acknowledged that nonurban rule was possible, уе! highly unusual and leading to ап urban rule. Through later expansion of the list the local dynasty of Assur was portrayed as being continuous from the third millennium down to the reign of Shalmaneser V in the late eighth century. In reality) several kings did not consider the city to Ье their political
50
Cir,y and Countryside
capital. Shamshi-Adad himself ruled from Shubat-Enlil in northеrn Syria, and Assur did по! have а special politicaI significance in his state. From the ninth century оп, Kalhu was Assyria's seat of govemmеп t, whiIe Assur remained primarily а religious centre. The city dynasty of Assur was thus а fiction, and the idea was abandoned when Sargon moved {о Dur-Sharrukin after he succeeded Shalmaneser V. Ви! even then те attention of те Assyrian kings remained focused ироп опе town, the seat of their political power, despite the fact that they ruled ап empire stretching from Iran {о Egypt. ТЬе Mesopotamians did not only conceive of their own cities as harbouring poIitical and religious powers. ТЬеу thought that the same situation existed in the neighbouring lands that they епсоun tered during their military campaigns. This is most obvious in the Assyrian annals where conquests of foreign lands are depicted as the capture of а series of towns, еуеn in regions where cities must have Ьееп rare, if по! non-existent. А few examples from the ancient descriptions of Assyrian campaigns wilI show this clearly. When Sargon during his eighth campaign reached the mountainous region of the Mannaeans, south of Lake Unnia, his opponent Metattati was said to Ьауе abandoned а11 his cities. Sargon claimed, 'Their twelve strong and walled cities, together with eighty-four cities in their neighbourhood, 1 captured. 1 destroyed rheir walls, 1 set fire to the houses inside them, 1 destroyed them like а flood, 1 tumed тет into mounds of ruins.,13 Еуеп in the marshes а! the head of the Persian Gulf Sennacherib asserted {о Ьауе destroyed numerous cities. In {Ье ассоип! ofhis founh campaign, against BitJakin, he stated: 'His (Merodach-Baladan's) brothers, the seed of his father's house, whom Ье ~ad left behind Ьу те sea coast, together with {Ье rest ofthe people ofhis land, 1 forced {о leave BitJakin, (from) the midst of те swamps and marshes, and counted (them) as booty. 1 tumed around. His cities 1 destroyed and devastated, 1 tumed them into ruins.,14 Еуеп if the last sentence was а stock phrase, its constant appearance in the accounts of campaigns in regions with very Iittle urbanization shows that the ciry was seen as the only possible seat of political power. 13 Fran~ois Thureau-Dangin, Иnе relation de lа hu;tieJ1ze canzpagne de Sargon (Paris s 1912) 16 col. i, 11. 89-90. 14 D. D. Luckenbill) The Аnnац 0/ Sennacherib (Chicago, 1924), 35, соl. iii) 11. 65-70.
Cz·ty and Countryside
51
And indeed> the total destruction of а city was used Ьу the Mesopotamians as а military technique to instil terror in the defeated enemies> and to terminate their existence as ап independent power. Although the annals talk аЬои! the levelling of cities as if it happened аН the time> it is clear that this finа! solution was only used after repeated rebeHions. But then it was done with а vengeance as is shown Ьу the destruction of Babylon· Ьу Sennacherib: With their corpses 1 filled те city squares. 1 camed off alive Shiizubu (МushёziЬ-Магduk), king of Babylon, together with his family and [officials] into ту land. ТЬе wealth of that city (Babylon)-silver, goId, рге cious stones, goods and valuables-I counted ои! into те hands of ту people and they took it as their own. ТЬе hands of ту people took hold of the gods) dwelling(s) there and smashed them. ТЬеу took their property and goods ... 1 destroyed the city and its houses, from foundation {о parapet, 1 devastated and bumed тет. 1 razed the brick and earthenwork of the outer and inner walls, of те temples, and of the ziggurat, as тисЬ as there was, and 1 dumped these into the Arahtu canal. 1 dug canals through the midst of that ciry, 1 flooded it with water. 1 made its foundarions disappear, and 1 destroyed it тоге completely than а devastating flood. So that in future days the site ofthat city and (its) temples would по! Ье recognized, 1 totaIly dissolved it with water and made it like inundated land. 15 ТЬе
sight of the earth of Babylon carried down the Euphrates and deposited in the Persian Gulf is said to have terrified the inhabitants of Dilmun, modern-day Bahrain, to such ап extent that they voluntarily submitted {о Assur and presented Sennacherib with their treasures. 16 The total destruction of cities was used Ьу the Babylonians as well. Probably their most ignominious act in today's opinion is те destruction of Jerusalem under Nebuchadnezar> repeatedly described in the Hebrew Bible. This event turned Judah into а sparsely populated state without апу political or military significance. Iconographic material also demonstrates the importance of the city as а political centre. Ргот the ninth century оп, а crown appears in Assyria, possibly only worn Ьу queens, which had the 15 Bavian Inscription. D. D. Luckenbill, The Annals 0/ Sennacherib (Chjcago, 1924), 83-4 11. 46-8, 50-4. 16 See Daniel D. Luckenbill, Ancient Records 0/ Assyria and Babylonia 11 (Chicago, 1927), 185.
52
City and Countryside
shape of а city wall (Fig. 3.1). This crown Ьесаmе very popular later оп. It was the standard ro~al crown of the Persians, and in the West the Greeks after Alexander considered it ап attribute of goddesses such as Kybele~ clearly with Near Eastem inspiration. And it still influences the popular image of the royal crown today~ as any child's drawing of а king wi11 show. Perhaps most indicative of the idea that relinquishing а city was а symbol of giving ир political power are the depictions of people offering а model of their city to the victorious Assyrian conqueror (Fig. 3.2). Again, this image has а long history in Europe: in Byzantine and Renaissance ап it Ьесаmе а symbol of submission to God, when rulers offer him а model of their city. Thus in the Mesopotamian concept of а city мо ideas predominated: it was both а religious and а political centre. Temple and palace were basic urban institutions, and they were the institutions that defined а city. In the Mesopotamian mind, Фе city was contrasted to the steppe and the desert where permanent settlement was impossible. Several rulers had nomadic ancestry, but this past was not а matter of pride-rather the opposite. Mesopotamia is famous for its numerous cities, many of which grew out ofvil1ages over the centuries. Тhroughout те mil1ennia of
~F.'~
\~j
~ \\(~ I~~
о
ЗОеm
'~~~""-===~I scale
FIG.3.1
Crown shaped as
а
city wall
City and Countryside
FIG.
3.2
City-models being offered
{о
53
the Assyrian king
Mesopotamian history, new cities were founded as well. Some of these were royal foundations, and we might expect that kings were proud of their work. У е! in the ancient Mesopotamian sources we notice ап ambivalence towards те value of those endeavours and ап apparent lack of pride among the founders of new cities. Mesopotamian kings are по! known for their false modesty, thus the reasons for this restrained attitude deserve to Ье investigated. The inscriptional record оп the foundation of new cities is surprisingly limited. Only а handful of Mesopotamian kings are known to have founded а city. Sargon of Akkade Ьиil! the seat ofhis new dynasty in the twenty-fourth century. However, as its actual location remains uncertain, we have по local inscriptions describing the work. The Kassite king Kurigalzu 1 (early fourteenth century) built DurKurigalzu, 'fortress of Kurigalzu', modern-day Aqar Quf, north of the traditional capital Babylon, but little is known about this city. The surviving inscriptions do not commemorate the construction ·of the entire ciry, only that of individual buildings within it. In the late thirteenth century Tukulti-Ninurta moved across the river from Assur to ап enormous new settlement. The city, which he called Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta Or 'Harbour of Tukulti-Ninurta', lost
54
City and Countryside
its special status ироп his death. Assurna~irpal Il's тоуе to те newly established КаlЬи, modem-day Nimrud, in те ninth сеп tury was more successful in that this ciry remained Assyria's capital for some 150 years. After тас те centre of power was moved to Sargon's new capital Dur-Sharrukin, modern-day Кhorsabad. This was perhaps the only city сеаllу intended to Ье founded оп virgin soil in pre-Greek Mesopotamian history. However, it was left uncompleted Ьу Sargon's successor, Sennacherib, who rebuilt rhe old city of Nineveh in its entirety in order that it might function as the state capital. We know of other settlements named after rulers, but there are по inscriptions commemorating their foundation. When we compare this record со that of Alexander of Macedon and his Hellenistic successors, who covered фе Near Eastem countryside with large cities named after themselves, and used these as the backbone of their administration of the region, the contrast 1S obvious. Alexander аl0пе is said to have founded seventy new cities. The work involved in the construction of the new cities must have Ьееп enormous. Those we know archaeological1y were gigantic in size and contained тапу monumental buildings. Very little evidence conceming the organization of те labour and rhe proсисетеп! of bui1ding materials is preserved. lп their соттетоса tive inscriptions, те kings usualIy pointed out that conquered people were set со work оп те projects, and they also detailed how they obtained in distant lands the wood and stone needed. lс is пос accidental that а11 те builders ofnew capitals were highly successful in their military conquests and captured great amounts ofboory and tribute. But local resources were also needed. Sargon 11's correspondence gives some rare insights оп that aspect during те building оfDuг-Shаrrukiп. Countless bricks were produced Ьу the lосаl population of the region, seemingly with а quota set for each village. 17 The amounts of straw needed were apparently соо great for the асеа со Ьеас. The раlасе herald, Gabbu-ana-Assur, сот plained as follows: 'АН the straw in ту country is reserved for DurSharrukin, and ту recruitment officers are now running after те (because) there is по straw for the pack animals. Now) what are the king ту lord's instructions?,18 And where did Sargon find the funds 17
Рап 18
See Giovanni В. Lafranchi and Simo Parpola:. Тhe Corтespondellce 0/ Sargon 11, 11 (Helsinki, 1990), по. 296. Ibid. ПО 119:. translation quoted Ьу pennission.
City and Countryside
55
to finance his project? А somewhat enigmatic letter suggests that he needed to borrow them from his citizens. То
the king) ту lord: your servant Shulmanu-( ]. Good health (о те king) ту lord! The king ту lord told [те]: 'Nobody wil1 рау back your loans until сЬе work оп Dur-Sharrukin is finished!' (Now) теу Ьауе ref(unded] (о (Ье merchants (Ioans оп) the portion of Dur-Sharrukin that has Ьееп constructed) but nobody [has reminded] (the king) about те; 570 pounds of silver with [ту seal] and due this уеас have not Ьееп repaid as yet. When те king) ту Iord, sold gold and pre[cious stones) оп ту ассоиnЕ) 1 told те king, ту lord, that ту father was тuсЬ in debt (о Har[ ]) Huziru and [ ]. After ту father('s death) 1 paid half of [his debts], Ьuс now their sons [are telling те]: 'Рау us те debts that [your] father owes со our fathers!' As soon as Dur-Sharrukin has Ьееп [completely] Ьи[Нс), the king ту 10rd [will ) (о (Ье house [ ] and рау the debts to ( ]. ТЬе king ту 10rd тау ask Shar[ru-emuranni]; half of (his work ass]ignment in Dur-Sharrukin [is finished] .19
The need for funds to рау for the labour and supplies {о Ье obtained locally must have Ьееп great, and it is по! un1ikely that,the king had {о turn to his wealthy citizens to obtain them. Unfortunate]y, we do not have much more iпfопnаtiоп оп these matters, -Ьu! it seems safe to say that the building of new cities was а complex enterprise. If this conclusion is correct, we would expect the kings who undertook t:he work {о elaborate оп their activities in their building inscriptions. Yet, when we study these texts, we find а lack of information оп certain aspects of the undenaking. First, the kings must have had а motivation for the building ofthese vast cities, but when we look а! their records по reason for the work is declared. Assurna~irpal's justification for the work оп Kalhu is merely а statement that the city built Ьу his predecessor Shalmaneser had Ьесоте dilapidated. Divine requests are mentioned Ьу TukultiNinurta and Sargon, yet there is по elaboration of that in their inscriptions. Sargon seems {о have Ьееп proud only ofthe idea that he was able to settle а place по опе else had thought ofbefore. His description depicts him as 'civilizing' ап inhospitable place: Simo Parpola, TJle Corresp01zdence 01 Sargon 11, Рап 1 (Helsinki, 1987), по. 159, translation quoted Ьу permission. ]. N. Postgate, 'ТЬе Economic Srructure of the Assyrian Empire', in Mogens Тгоllе Larsen (ed.), Power and Propaganda, (Сореп hagen, 1979), 221 n. 43 srares that this letter indicates that Sargon imposed а moratorium оп а11 debts during the work оп Dur-Sharrukin. This seems unlikely as the creditors of the writer аге demanding immediate repayment. 19
56
City and Countryside
At that time, with те (labour) of the enemies 1 had captured> 1 ЬиНс а city а! the foot of Mount Musri above Nineveh, according to [the god's] command [and ту wish. 1 named it Dur-Sharrukin]. А great park 1ike оп Mount Amanus, planted with аН the aromatic plants of Hatti> fruits of every mountain, 1 laid out Ьу its side. None ofthe 350 ancient princes who before те exercised dominion over Assyria and ruled the subjects of Enlil, had thoughr of this site, nor did they know how [о settle it, nor did теу think of digging its сапа! ог setting out its orchards. [То settle that city] , [о build its shrines) the temples of the great gods, and the palaces, ту тоуаl seats, day and night 1 planned. 1 ordered that it Ье built. In а favourable month, оп ап auspicious day, in the month of Simanu, оп ап eshsheshu 20 day~ 1 made тет carry baskets and mould bricks.
It is only when Esarhaddon decided "to restore the city of Babylon, demolished Ьу his father Sennacherib,) that ап explicit reference is made to ап order Ьу те god Marduk. Esarhaddon described in detail how Ье was hesitant {о undertake the work, and consulted the oracles to see whether the gods were at реасе with Babylon. Ви! this project involved the restoration of а previously damned city, destroyed and cursed Ьу his father, and it was important for Esarhaddon to know the god's feelings about те rebuilding. Тhe lack of justification is аН the more striking when compared to the lengthy explanations written when individual buildings were constructed or restored. In such cases а divine request was often cited as the incentive for the king's work. The most detailed description of such а request Ьу а god is found in а 1iterary composition of the late third millennium, а hymn in honour of the Eninnu temple at Girsu, built Ьу Gudea. Тhe king related мо dreams in which deities сате to him to ask for the construction of а temple for Ningirsu. Не failed to understand the first dream, and needed his mother to explain its meaning to him: The man, who is enonnous like the heavens} enonnous like the еаnh, whose head is like that of а god, whose wing is like that of the thunderbird, whose lower parts are like а fiood, а! whose right and left lions lay20 Sargon, Display Inscription of Room XIV at Dur-Sharrukin) 11. 27-32. F. Н. Weissbach, 'Zu den Inschriften der Sale im Palaste Sargon's 11. уоn Assyrien', ZeitschnYt der Deurschen Morgenliindischen Gesellschaft 72 (1918), 180.
City and Countryside
57
Ье
cenainly is ту brother Ningirsu. Не ordered уои to build his temple, the Eninnu. 21
In the second drearn the god Ningirsu told Gudea what the benefits of the new temple would Ье, and urged the king to start the project. А very close parallel {о this account is found sixteen centuries later in а text of king Nabonidus of Babylon, who described how the gods Marduk and Sin appeared to him in а dream and ordered the restoration of the temple of Sin in the northem Mesopotamian city of Harran. The Assyrian king Assurbanipal (ruled 668627) also referred {о а favourable drearn that put him in а good mood, and caused him to order the restoration of the crown prince's раlасе. Such divine requests were thus common and were explicitly detailed when individual buildings were involved. But when the construction of entire cities rather than individual bui1dings took place, the divine request as its motivation was barely mentioned. Anофеr remarkable point in the descriptions of the foundation of new cities is те absence in the records of аnу omen readings used {о determine whether the location was propitious. This fact is аН те more surprising when we consider that divination played а very iтportant role in Mesopotamia, both privately and officially. Кings asked their diviners to determine if the omens were favourаblе before they did anything of great importance, such as starting а military campaign. So why do we have по evidence of отеn readings before the foundation of а new city? Indeed, there seems to have been а totallack of concern аЬои! the location of а town in general. The famous отеn series {итmа alum, which starts with. the statement 'if а city is located оп а height, the inhabitants ofthat city will по! prosper', is far аоm а handbook for the building of cities and houses. The series treats events in daily life that were thought {о have ап ominous significance. Only а few entries deal with the location and the layout of bui1dings, and we lack any references to the actual use of these when buildings were planned. The first entry, for instance, was clearly по! taken very seriously, as most Mesopotamian towns were located оп а height. 22 21 Gudea) Cylinder А) col. v, 11. 13-18. Fran~ois Thureau-Dangin, Les Cylindres de Goudea (Paris, 1925), pl. v. _ 22 See Ann Guinan) 'The Perils of High Living: Divinatory Rhetoric in Sumтa AZu" in Н. Behrens, D. Loding, and М. Roth (eds.) DUMU-Ez-DUB-BA: Studies in
58
City and Countryside
Rituals to guarantee the good fortune of the ciry also are not attested. Only the time ofthe fashioning ofthe bricks was explicit1y' mentioned as having Ьееn iтportant. Sargon indicated that this happened in the month Simanu, i.e. May-June. From те third mil1ennium оп this month was regarded the best moment for brickmaking, with good reason" as at this moment of the year there was по agricultural work in southern Mesopotamia and the clay pits were moist, providing both а labour force and easi1y accessible clay. Moreover, there was по danger of subsequent rain which could have destroyed те bricks left in the ореn to dry. There seems to Ьауе been more reliance оп rituals when ап individual building was constructed. Both {ex~иal and archaeologiса! evidence for such rituals before and during construction or restoration exists. Several Babylonian rituals known from late manuscripts describe what needed {о Ье done Ьу а lamentationpriest ~when the wall of the temple falls into ruin'. Тhey involved the offering of sacrificial animals and libations {о various deities, and the singing ofvarious lamentations оп ап auspicious day. Тhe use of such rituals was probably inspired Ьу the need to avoid the curses invoked Ьу earlier builders, as every restoration entailed the partial destruction of the e~isting reтains. However, when ап entirely new building was erected rituals were also perfonned {о ensure the purity ofthe place, and {о protect the building from evil. Foundation trenches were purified with fire and filled with pure sand in which semi-precious stones, metals, and herbs were mixed. The first brick was special1y prepared with Ьопеу, wine and beer mixed in те clay . Commemorative deposits were placed а! various points in the foundations, as well as figurines in order to ward off evil. АН these actions were undertaken fol1owing rigidly established ritual procedures. А final element that is omitted in the available written documentation about the building of а new city involves its planning. The rectangular layout of те walls of а city such as Dur-Sharrukin could not have Ьееп realized without advanced planning. From existing ground plans of houses, some dating as early as the third millennium, we know that architects knew how to develop а Ыие print. Yet, по оnе claims credit for the Iayout ofnew cities. Sargon Honor 0/ Ake W Sjoberg (Philadelphia, 1989), 227-35, for ап interpretation of the initial omen of this series as а warning against hubn·s.
City and Countryside
59
boasted that he made plans to overcome те technical difficulties of the construction of Dur-Sharrukin, but his description does not show апу awareness of the unusual character of the city's layout. Tukulti-Ninurta proudly proclaimed that the canal dug to provide Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta with water was straight, but, although he mentioned те walls of the new ciry,23 he did not refer {о the fact that they fonned almost а perfect rectangle. The silence in the building records of new cities conceming те motivations of the founders, те absence of rituals and отеп readings before the work was started, and те apparent lack of pride аЬои! the layout of these cities, are аП startling. Mesopotamian kings were eager to boast of their accomplishments, as they did when they constructed individual buildings, feats often described in great detail. The Mesopotamian situation is Фе соm plete opposite to what we see in ancient Rome. Тhe choice of а site [ог а new Roman town was determined through extensive consultation of the oracles, the area of the town was ritually purified, and its layout was planned after oracular inquiries. Why this difference? After аll, the Mesopotamians сап hardly Ье regarded as less dependent than the Romans оп omens and rituals for the running of their daily lives. In ту opinion, the reluctance of Mesopotamian kings to boast about their city bui1ding was grounded in the general attitude towards the merits of such ап enterprise. Founding а new city was considered to Ье ап act of hubris. А first-millennium tradition аЬои! Sargon of Akkade criticized фе king for having bui1t а new Babylon, whereby he incited the wrath of the god Marduk: 'Не (Sargon) dug ир earth from the clay pits of Babylon and ЬиП! а replica of Babylon next to Akkade. Because of the wrong he сот mitted, {Ье great lord Marduk Ьесате angry and wiped оu! his people Ьу а famine. From east to west there was а rebellion against him, and he was afflicted with insomnia. ,24 And we сап understand this feeling, as аnу new city detracts from the importance of the existing ones. Tukulti-Ninurta highlighted in his inscriptions that Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta was а religious centre to complement the old See Karlheinz DeIler) Abdulilah Fadhil, and Kazad М. Ahmad) 'TWQ new гоуа! inscriptions dealing with construction work in Каг-Tukulti-Ninurta') Baghdader MitteiZu12gen 25 (1994) 467. 21 Chronicle of Early Кings А) 11. 18-23) translarion after Glassner, Chroniques Inеsоросаnziепnеs) 219. 23
60
City and Countryside
city of Assur, not а new city to replace it. New work was depicted as те expansion of something that already existed. The only exception was the building of Dur-Shа1ТUЮn Ьу Sargon of Assyria. The king was proud thar Ье settled а previously uninhabited place. Не depicted himself as expanding the cultivated area of Assyria: 'Тhe
wise king, full of kind thoughts, who focused his mind оп the resenlement of the abandoned countryside, the cultivation of lands left fallow, and the planting of orchards, who conceived the idea of raising а crop оп slopes so steep that nothing had grown there since time immemorial, whose Ьеап caused him {о cultivate desolate areas which earlier kings had по! known how to plough, in order {о hear the \Vork song, {о cause те springs of те surrounding агеа to fiow, to ореп ditches, and {о make те water of abundance rise like the sea, above and below. Тhe king, with ореп mind, sharp of еуе, in everything the equal of те Master (Adapa), who Ьесате great in wisdom and intelligence, and grew in understanding-to provide те wide land of Assyria with food {о repletion and well-being, as befitting а king through {Ье filling of their canals, {о save (the people) from want and hunger, so that (even) те beggar will по! ... а! the bringing of the wine, and so по interruption тау оссиг in те offerings of the sick, so та! те оН of abundance, which soothes men, does not Ьесоте expensive in ту land, and that sesame Ье bought ас the (same) price as barley, to provide sumptuous offerings, fitting for те tables of god and king, the price of every article had its limit :fixed, day and night 1 planned to build та! City.25
ТЬе
city was the comerstone of his programme of civilizing the area. А new beginning was made, but perhaps this was acceptable as по important ·city was located nearby Dur-Sharrukin. Other kings did not stress innovation. Continuity was what mattered to them. Cities had histories going back for hundreds of years, and that history made them importanr. Huge rebuilding programmes, such as those фаt took рlасе in Babylon in the first millenniuffi, were not depicted as new beginnings, Ьи! as the restorations of cities to their former glory. Bigger тау have Ьееn better in the Mesopotamian opinion, but the extension needed to Ье based оп ап old and respectable structure with а long history behind it. Existing cities could Ье expanded with new buildings without shame, and such actions were glorified in inscriprions, Ьи! те 25 D. G. Lyon, Keilschтifuexce Sargon~s K6nigs vonAssyrien (Leipzig, 1883),34, Н. 34-43.
City and Countryside foundation of а city itself was too important
mere
.61 а
task to
Ье
left to
а
Ьuтап.
The Mesopotamians' idea of their cities was thus ried Со а respect for the past. Cities were monuments of the age-old culture; they were пос new and rnodem, Ьuс old and respectable. ТЬеу were not human creations Ьис divine ones. When the walls ofUruk were praised, the faet that their foundations were laid Ьу the seven primordial sages was stressed. When Sargon of Assyria-the only king who readily admitted to having built а new city-described his work оп Dur-Sharrukin, he likened himself to опе of these sages, Adapa. It was as if he re-enacted а primordial accomplishment. "Adapa had brought civilized life со the people of Babylonia at the beginning of time, and had introduced те bui1ding of cities. Berossos, те Hellenized Babylonian priest of Marduk writing around 300 вс, stated it in these words: In Babylonia а great mass of foreign people was settled in те land of the Chaldeans, and they lived ап uncivilized life, like that of beasts and animals. In the first year а frightening monster appeared ои! of the Red Sea in те region of те Babylonians, and its пате was Oannes (= Adapa) ... Of the same animal he says та! it lived in the day among те people without earing anything and that it raught сЬе people writing, science and technology of а11 types, the foundation of cities, [Ье bui1ding of temples, jurisprudence, and geometry. Не also showed them how to harvest grains and fruits. Не gave mankind а11 thar constitutes civilized life. 26
In sum, the Mesopotamians took the idea that ciries are at the root of eivilization literally.
BIBLIOGRAPHY Тhe
image of те eity in Sumerian literature has Ьееп studied Ьу Fran<;oise Briischweiler, 'La Ville dans les textes litteraires sumeriens', in F. Briischweiler (ed.), La ville dans lе proche-orient ancien: Actes du Colloque de Cartigny (Leuven, 1983), 181-98. No equivalent study for the Akkadian material exists as yet. For the negative image of nomads, see Peter Maehinist, 'Оп 26
Раи! Schnabel) Berossos und die babylonisch-hellenistische Lirerarur (Berlin,
1923)) 253-4.
62
City and Countryside
Self-Consciousness in Mesopotamia', in S. N. Eisenstadt (ed.), The Origins and Dz·versity 01 Axial Асе Civilizations (New York, . 1986), 183-202; and Mario Liverani, Prestige and lnterest (Padua,
1990). Several representations of defeated enemies presenting а model city to те victorious Assyrian ru]er сап Ье found in Pauline Albenda, The Palace 0/ Sargon King 01 Assyn·a (Paris> 1986). For the mural crown of Assyrian queens see Peter Calmeyer, 'Mauerkrone" Reallexikon der Assyriologie 7 (1987-90), 595-6. The foundation of new cities was studied in ап article Ьу JeanLouis Huot, 'Les Villes neuves de l'orient ancien', in J.-L. Huot (ed.» La Ville neuve: Иnе idee de Z:'Antiquite?- (Paris, 1988)} 7-35. Не denied that cities were ever created 'ех nihilo' in Mesopotamia, either because the settlements were abandoned immediately after те death of their founder, or because the regular town plan по ticed in the archaeological record was imposed ироn ап existing settlement. It appears, however, that these objections сапnо! prevent us from stating та! certain Mesopotamian rulers intended {о create newly planned cities and that such ап undertaking was considered to Ье feasible. In а later publication, Jean-Louis Huot, et al., Naissance des cites (Paris, 1990), 215-16, this scepticism seems to have diminished somewhat. More recently the practice of founding new cities was the subject of ап entire conference рuЬ lished Ьу S. Mazzoni (ed.), Nuove jondazioni nе! Vicino Orie1zle antico: realta е ideologie (Pisa, 1994). Building accounts Ьу Assyrian kings were analysed Ьу Sylvie Lackenbacher, Le Roi biitisseur: Les recils de construction assynens des origines а Teglathphalasar 1/1 (Paris, 1982), which formed the basis for her more accessible book, Le Palais sans rival: Le recix de соn struction еп Assyrie (Paris, 1990). For building deposits see Richard S. Ellis, Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia (New Haven and London, 1968), and for ritual texts used for а new building see Р. А. М. Wiggermann, Mesopotaтian Protecrive Spirirs: The Ritual Texts (Groningen, 1992), 119-40. The rituals and отеп readings performed а! the building of а new Roman city are discussed Ьу }oseph Rykwert, The 1dea о! а Town: The Anthropology о! Urban Porт z·n Rome, Ilaly and the Ancient World (Cambridge, Mass., and London, 1988).
4 The U rban Landscape
А
modem-day traveller through the countryside of Mesopotamia does not see the remains of majestic stone temples and funerary monuments, as is the case in Egypt, Ьи! encounters nothing other таn earthen mounds, distinguished from their suпоuпdings only Ьу their height. These mounds, usually referred to with the Arabic {еnn rell, are те remnants of great and small cities, те accumulation through mil1ennia of the debris of rnud-brick houses, palaces, and temples. То recognize the layout of the ancient cities of Mesopotamia from these remains is not ап easy task. Although aerial photographs сап provide us with а тар of their main features, this тар will always Ье а palimpsest with details from тапу different eras. The collection of datable objects оп the surface of the tell, usually pottery shards, permits to some degree the determination of when certain zones were occupied, but still in а very imprecise way. Only excavation guarantees the clear recognition ofbuildings and their date of occupation. It is, however, ап extremely expensive and time-consuming procedure, and not а single urban site in Mesopotarnia has Ьееп completely excavated. In fact, most excavations have uncovered only а very small percentage of the total area of the site under investigation. Ancient Mesopotamian sources оп urban layout are very restricted in number, Ьи! they do provide useful inforrnation. А very small nurnber of ancient summary maps of а few Babylonian cities exists. Best preserved is а plan of the city of Nippur, probably produced around 1300 вс (Fig. 4.1). It focuses оп the city wall) its gates, the course of the Euphrates river, subsidiary canals, and the temples; its accuracy has been confirmed Ьу excavations at the site. Moreover, some texts, somewhat optimistically called 'The Description of Babylon', or 'The Description of Assur' Ьу modem scholars, contain lists of the names of gates, streets> temples, and quarters of these cities. If much of те monumental architecture is
The Urban Landscape
64
!;
..
.~
}\
....
~
;:.' i
~.
;
..::..
,
'
..;.........,. ,
......~::..
-.
FIG.4.1
Ancient
тар
ofNippur
archaeologically known as well, the combination of the two sets of data permits the drawing of city plans with mаnу bui1dings exactly identified Ьу пате. А careful examination of topographic indications in ritual and economic texts, again combined with archaeological data, тау produce comparable results. Тhus, we have something resembling а modem tourist тар for such cities as Assur, Babylon, Borsippa, Nippur, and Uruk, useful [or the principal monuments of these cities, Ьи! less 80 for те details of the plans. Тhe infonnation оп the layout of individual cities is thU8 always partial and fragmentary. Уе! we are in а unique position to study urban layout Ьу те пiеге [ас! that 80 таnу cities existed in ancient Mesopotamia. Many parts of the region are literally covered with teZls of аП sizes. Mesopotamia was, after аН, the most densely urbanized region in те ancient world, and the accumulation of data from various sites allows us to develop quite ап accurate
The
UтЬаn
Landscape
65
picture of the Mesopotamian town. It is а сотmоп misconception that те Mesopotamian city was limited Со its walled centre. А ciry had several built-up parts, а walled inner ciry, suburbs, а harbour district, as well as fields and orchards adjoining these areas. These were аН integral elements of the city and ап evaluation of Mesopotamian urbanism саппо! ignore the гоlе each of them played. Archaeological research has concentrated оп the wal1ed inner city, which is consequently best known to us. А variety of plans, determined Ьу geography and Ьу the time of foundation, are attested, and the various layouts seem {о reftect different attitudes towards the function of the city. But the other sectors of town, surrounding те inner ciry, need to Ье considered as well. Due со те lack of documentation we cannot distinguish temporal or geographical variations in their layout. When someone in antiquity approached а Mesopotamian ciry, along а road or Ьу Ьоа[ оп а waterway, he or she would have been aware of the city's presence long before reaching it. More cultivated fields would appear) together with the villages offarm labourers tending them. The ciry's monumental buildings would have Ьееп visible from afar, especially те ziggurat towering over те rest ofthe town. The first игЬап element encountered would have been the harbour district, where inter-city trade took place. In southern Mesopotamia and along the rivers in the N orth this was а real harbour оп а river or canal, while elsewhere it was а mercantile centre located оп the overland routes passing Ьу the city. The Akkadian language refers to both centres of trade with the same tenn, karum. Texts from various sites indicate that те harbour district was distinct from the inner city and situated outside the city walls, and thus cannot Ье equated with the intramural harbours shown оп some archaeological maps. Мапу toponyms ofBabylonia and Assyria contain те element 'harbour of', but usually те settlements are по! located archaeological1y. Consequently, те only extensive remains of а karuт were found outside Mesopotamia, at а settlement that was founded Ьу merchants from Assur, and is thus likely [о reflect Mesopotamian traditions. The site in question was called karum Kanish, 'harbour Kanish' in antiquity, and was located at the foot of the central Anа[оНап city Nesha, some 150 metres north-east of те citadel (Fig. 4.2). The settlement survived for only about 150 years starting around 1950 вс, with а hiatus in occupation of thirty to sixty
бб
The Urban Landscape
t
®
FIG.
4.2
vated
Ьу
Plan of Kultepe-Kanish. Shaded ponions indicate areas ехса early archaeologists. Contours indicate intervals in metres above the level of the plain
years, and refiects thus а relatively short period of time. Kanish was primarily inhabited Ьу merchants coming from Assyria) whose correspondence and contracts were found in their houses. These texts make clear that the Assyrians settled there in а community structured along Mesoporamian lines, and acting as а branch ofthe govemment of Assur. Some Anatolian merchants lived in the Assyrian colony, but their role is unclear as their records remain unpublished. The excavations have revealed а dense cluster of small houses along winding and narrow streets. These streets were paved with stones, something that would ПО! have Ьееп found in
The Urban Landscape
67
Mesopotamia proper, where pottery shards might have been laid оп the surface of streets. A1so stone-lined drains were in use а! Kanish, а feature that most likely would have Ьееп absent in Mesopotamia. The major streets were seemingly wide enough to pennit the use of а сап. The karum contained not only dwellings, but also workshops) primarily located in the areas settled Ьу Anatolians. Yet по religious or secular monumental buildings have been excavated 80 far. The harbour district had its own defensive wall, emphasizing its detachment from the inner walled city. At Kanish Фе harbour district was located relatively close to the walled city itself, perhaps because it functioned as the centre of the Assyrian trading system throughout Anatolia, and needed close interactions with the king of Nesha who provided protection and the pennission to trade. But elsewhere the karuт was further removed from the city. This physical separation resulted from the fact thar the harbour acted as а neutraI zone where citizens from various communities could interact without direct and obvious supervision of the urban po1itical powers. Оnе сап visualize these districts filled with activity and life, with реорlе loading and unloading boats and pack animals, and buying and selling. Traders from such distant regions as India and Egypt at times mingled with the natives. The lack of information оп this sector of town is unfortunate, and ап archaeological investigation of а kiiтuт in Mesopotamia ргорег would seem а promising project. Coming closer {о the town) а visitor would start to walk through gardens and orchards, owned Ьу the urban residents who grew fresh produce there to complement their diet of barley, fish) and meat) brought in from further afield. In Babylonia the orchards were mainly used to cultivate date palms, still the most соmшоп tree in те area today. Other fruit trees and some vegetables were grown in between the palm trees or in special plots. As these crops required а lot of water, the orchards and gardens were usually located оп the banks of the numerous canals near the cities. In Assyria the date palm was less commonplace, and orchards of different trees were laid out near the cities. Several kings boasted that they imporred exotic trees from the regions in which теу campaigned, and the presence of gardens near capital cities is recorded with pride in their building inscriptions. The mo~t ех tensive record of such ап accomplishment is provided Ьу king
68
The Urban Landscape
Assuma~irpal
11 (ruled 883-859), wpo collected sapIings of some forty-one types oftrees оп his campaigns and planted тет near his capitaI ciry, Kalhu:
1 dug а canal from the Upper Zab) cut it through а mountain top) and called it Patti-hegalli. 1 irrigated те lowlands of те Tigris and planred orchards with аН kinds of fruit rrees in them. 1 pressed wine and offered first-fruir offerings (о Assur) ту Iord) and to те temples of ту land . . . . (Неге Ье lists the names of forty-one trees and bushes, many of which cannot Ье identified.) ТЬе canal cascades from above into the gardens. Тhe alleys smeIl sweet, brooks like те stars of heaven flow in те pleasure garden. 1 Мапу
of these trees were, of course, по! commonly found in Assyria.) and the orchards around other cities were less exotic. Тhe orchards and gardens continued into the suburbs and even inside the city walls. The trees fumished по! only food, but also shadow and protection against те heat of the sun. In the summer their greenery must have provided а pleasant retreat from а parched counrryside. Soon the visitor would enter the city's suburbs. As is the case today, the distinction between sateIlite viI1ages and suburbs would по! always have Ьееп clear, as habitation around the city waI1s was far from continuous and permanent. In contrast {о the inner ~ities, which were almost continuously occupied for mil1ennia, suburbs were only intermittently inhabited, when те city's population outgrew its walls, and when {Ьеу would по! Ье exposed {о constant attacks and lootin& Ьу armies and raiding bandits. Archaeologists unfortunateIy Ьауе not devoted much time {о the areas outside city walls, as they do по! contain monumental buildings considered to produce the most spectacu!ar finds. ТЬе periodic settlement of the suburbs has both а positive and а negative consequence for modem researchers. Advantageous is the fact that, when а suburb is found and mapped out, we аге по! presented with а plan та! incorporates data from mапу different time periods, Ьи! with опе of а single period of occupation. Of course, tha! period тау have lasted for тоге than а century, and changes in the layout of the settlement must have taken place, Ьи! these changes were relatively А. Кirk Grayson, Assyrian Rulers 01 lhe Early FirSl Millenniunz ВС. 1 (1114-859 (Тhe Royal Insсriрtiоцs of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 2; Toronto, Buffalo, and London, 1991), 290, 11. 36-40, 48-50. 1
ВС)
The Urban Landscape
69
minor. Оп the negative side is the fact that the areas ofthe suburbs. are often indistinguishable from the surrounding countryside due to the lack of accumulation of remains; they are thus often ploughed over Ьу farmers or, if outside те agricultural zone, а small атоип! of sand deposit сап hide аН traces of them. As а result, very litt]e information is available оп suburbs, and their existence has Ьееп recorded only ас а few sites. In just опе case these remains have Ьееп mapped extensively, at а site called ТеН Тауа, its ancient пате unknown, located in the Assyrian plain пеаг ТеН Afar in north-westem Iraq. ТЬе most conspicuous element of {Ье site is а high round citadeI, 50 metres in diameter, situated оп те left bank ofthe Wadi Тауа. Around this citadel was а small wal1ed city of only 5 hectares. ТеН Тауа is unique so far because its extensive ruined suburbs сап still Ье seen оп the plain: stone foundations were used for те houses) and these are still visible оп те surface due (о wind erosion of other debris. Only one-third of the suburbs have Ьееп surveyed in detail, but their {оса! extent has Ьееп determined. Around те walled city were 65 hectares of dense occupation, themselves surrounded Ьу 90 hectares of scattered development (Fig. 4.3). Considering the ·smal1 walled city and the extensive suburbs) ТеН Тауа тау have Ьееп а very unusua.,I settlement. Уес те features ofits suburbs must reflect those of other cities to some extent, and сап thus Ье used as а guide со visualize those. Although Теll Taya's citadel was occupied intermittently from 2400 со the first centuries AD, те suburbs were only in use during its first period of occupation in the twenty-fourth century. The remains provide атрlе documentation оп their layout. ТЬе suburbs were located primarily {о the north and the east of the waIled city. ТЬеу were intersected Ьу two small rivers, the Wadi Тауа and the East Wadi, which in antiquity must have contained more water than they do today. The wal1ed inner city could Ье approached Ьу мо major roads, опе {о те west ofthe Wadi Тауа, тЬе other to те east of it. Yet these road systems were, it seems, concemed мт communication to the districts outside те city, rather тап with providing access to {Ье town centre. ТЬеу did not converge оп the citadeI, but only led the traveller {о its general area. Within the framework of larger roads was а system of small and narrow side streets, without апу obvious pattern. А number of them led to the Wadi Тауа and it is clear that they were intended to give access to
The Urban Landscape
70
..
...... ..... . .............
•••• 0 ••••••• "
• •••
а
•••••
............ . ............. ............ .
-...... . . - .................... •••••••••• •••••••••. ............................
•••••••• • ••• 1
• • • 111 • • • • 111 • • • •
-
#а.о···
о
•••••••••••• 0
••••••••••••••
: : : : : ;;; ; .. • . • : : : •••••• : : : ii=
............................ ............................. .......................... ........................... - ...................... -. ~··················.·.f ................. ............... ............. ••• 0
••••••••••••••••••••••••
••• 0 ••••••••••••••••••••••••
а
•••••
а
••••••••••••••••••••••
~
-
•••••••••• 0
••••••
•••••••••••••
а
••••••••••••
.......... -. ....... ........
111 111 • • • • • • 111 111 • •
I
I
~
••••• a
I
,/ /
о
,..,. Detensive structure =Streets ___ Allgnments о! houses (П) Developed areas
FIG.4.3
Plan of ТеН
с'==-_с:::=
___'
1(1)111
~
Тауа
its water. There ате some open spaces in the plan, Ьи! it is impossible to determine whether these existed in antiquity от are те result of stone quarrying Ьу тоте recent occupants of the region. In general, те occupation between те streets is very dense. Not only houses are visible, but also а number ofbuildings that are too large to have served for domestic purposes, and тау have had ап official function. Industrial workshops existed also, and сап perhaps Ье recognized Ьу те large amounts of portery debris found near them. It is clear that the suburbs of Тауа grew over time, although а11
Тhe
Urban Landscape
71
within the twenty-fourth century. Three concentric bands of aligned houses are visible in the plan, each representing the lirnit of the dense occupation at апе time. In its final phase the entrance (о the major streets was guarded Ьу semi-circular walls, in one case with ап adjoining tower. Thus, although the suburbs were not surrounded Ьу а defensive wall, (Ье outer row of houses was laid out so that it formed а clear limit, and the entrances {о major streets were protected. ТЬе erosion that uncovered the foundations of the houses unfortunately also removed most of their contents. Here and there remnants of kilns, slag, and pottery wasters сап Ье seen, but it is impossible (о determine the functions of the various neighbourhoods of the suburbs in any detail. ТЬеу contained рп marily residential and industrial areas, while the religious and official buildings were seemingly restricted to the citadel and те walled city. Another Assyrian sire where some evidence of suburbs was supposedly uncovered is Nuzi in north-eastern Iraq. ТЬе mid-secondmillennium levels show, outside the small rnain mound, only 4 hectares in size, the remains of large houses belonging to prominent families according to the tablets found in them. The excavator believed these houses to Ье located in the suburbs, but it is more likely that they were part of the lower town occupation of the city of Nuzi. 2 Early Babylonian cities also had suburbs, but their remains have only been uncovered Ьу accident. The most intensive research оп (Ьеm was done at Ur, where the excavator, Leonard Woolley, noticed that his workmen picked ир тапу objects оп their way to the excavations. Не dug for а few days in те area (о те north of the walled city, but the excavation was considered to Ье too ехреп sive for the meagre architectural results, and was soon abandoned for а system where workmen were paid for objects picked ир and brought in. These collected finds indicate that part of the site was used for the production of pottery, clay figurines, stone amulets) and cylinder seals. Other craft activities probably took place there as well, or in other suburbs located at various sites outside the inner city. ТЬе location of craft areas outside ciry walls was, of course, а sensible practice: access to raw materials and water was easier, bad See G. Wilhelm apztd Mirko Novak, 'Eine Typologie der Wohnhauser von Nuzi) Baghdader lvfiueilungen 25 (1994)) 342 n. 8. 2
72
The
UтЬаn
Landscape
odours were less likely to irritate citizens, and space was less restricted. Freedom of space was а major reason why people settled outside the city walls, which wouId have Ьееn laid ои! many centuries earlier, when the population had been much smaller. This option was only available when the countryside was по! exposed to warfare or raids. In case of ап occasional raid the suburban population could withdraw within the city waIls, but such ап arrangement could not last for prolonged periods of time. Consequently, some cities seem to have established subsidiary walled settlements instead of а corona of suburbs. This led to the existence of agglomerations of two or more cities in close proximity (о one another. А peculiar example of such ап arrangement was found оп the northern border of Babylonia, ап area exposed (о attacks from Assyria and the Syrian desert, where in the early second millennium twin Sippars were located а mere 5 kilometres арап. Тhus, the suburb was not the only way то deal with а population outgrowing the city walls. But suburbs were а соmтоп feature throughout Mesopotamia, and future archaeologica1 research should devote more attention {о them. After traversing the suburbs the Mesopotamian visitor would finally reach the inner city, те centre of the urban settlement. This sector has almost always been the sole focus of attention, both of the archaeologist and ofthe illicit digger, as it is most visible оп the surface and promises to produce the most sensational finds. It is thus best known то иБ, and because of our derai1ed knowledge we are аЫе to distinguish different plans of the inner cities, determined Ьу geographical circumstances and Ьу the history of their foundation. У et al1 inner cities of Mesopotamia had certain сот топ characteristics; before discussing the different layouts we are able to discern, 1 will describe their standard features. An inner city was always, at least partly, located оп а higher elevation than the other sectors of the City. This elevation was due to artificial terracing in те few cases of new foundations, Ьи! usual1y it was а result of the natural growth of те city. The inner city customarily remained occupied for several millennia in antiqui~, and even more recenr sertlements, typically only villages~ tend t:o Ье located оп the remains of these ancient towns. Тhere were several advantages tO keeping а settlement in the same location.
The Urban Landscape
73
ТЬе
aecumulated collapse of the buildings of earlier occupants provided а height that clearly delineated те settlement and had а defensive value. Xenophon reports that the villagers of the area around the former city ofKalhu took refuge оп top ofthe ziggurat's ruins when his troops passed Ьу. Опее а city wall was built, it required less energy to keep it in good order than to build а new one around а new settlement. Moreover, опее the ground level of те city had risen above that of the countryside, it Ьесате impossible (о irrigate its surfaee, and rather тап sett1ing оп badly needed agrieulrural land, it made more sense (о remain оп top of the old site. Finally, religious sentiments dictated that temples must се main in the same location. Thus тапу settlements were occupied continuously for several millennia starting in prehistory, and the collapse of earlier buildings provided а natural height demarcating them from their surroundings. The inner ciries were aIso clearly distinguished Ьу their defensive walls. Perhaps the presence of walls was the main charaeteristie of а city in те eyes of ап ancient Mesopotamian: аП representations of cities prominently display walls;) many kings boast of their building or repairing city walls, and even literary works sing their praise. А city without а wall might thus not have been conceivable. Of the relatively few Mesopotamian depictions of cities, Assyrian palace re1iefs provide the best record. The typieal image of а eity consisted of one or тосе rings of fortification walls with numerous towers зt regular intervals, which seem to indicate а walled citadel and one ос more town walls (Fig. 4.4). The same idea, with only а single wаП, is shown in the city-models offered {о Assyrian kings as а gesture of submission, and, interestingly, also in representations of Assyrian army camps (Fig. 4.5). The ubiquitous emphasis оп the walls in ieonographic material reveals те Mesopotamian eoneept that they were а crucial eharaeteristie of the eity. That concept is also reflected in the numerous royal building inscriptions commemorating the construction or repair of city walls. For instance, Tukulti-Ninurta 1 deseribed his work оп the wal1 of Assur in теве terms: At that time the ancient wall of ту city, Assur, which had been builr Ьу previous kings, had Ьесоmе dilарidзtеd and old. 1 removed its broken down parts, renewed and restored that wall. Around that wall 1 dug а large
74
The Urban Landscape
The Urban Landscape
FIG.
4.5
Assyrian representation of army
75
саmр
moat-a large moat which по previous king had ever built. Its bottom 1 cut into the bedrock with copper picks. Twenty musaru down 1 reached the water level. 1 placed ту foundation inscriptions in that wall. 3
Even the literature of Mesopotamia celebrates city walls. Most famous is the praise of the walls of Uruk а! the beginning and the end of the Epic of Gilgamesh in its first-millennium version. 4 And indeed, the excavated remains of this city's walls are impress'ive. In antiquity they were 9.5 kilometres long and had nearly а thousand semi-circular bastions. Much later Herodotus started his description of Babylon with ап account praising the size of its walls: It is surrounded Ьу а broad deep тоа! full of water, and within the moat there is а wall fifry cubi ts wide and two hundred high ... Оп the top of те А. Кirk Grayson) Assyn·an Rulers 01 che Third and Second Millennia вс. 1 ({,о 1115 ВС) (Тhe Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 1; Toronto) 3
Buffalo) and London, 1987), 267) 11. 3-10. The ехас! value of the musaru measure is unknown. 4
See Ch. 3~ р. 46.
76
The Urban Landscape
wall теу constructed, along each edge, а row of one-roomed buildings facing inwards with enough space Ьемееп for а four-horse charioI со pass. There are а hundred gates in the circuit of the wall, аН of bronze with
bronze uprights and Iintels. 5 Ртот
this quote it is clear that а city's defences were not limited to wal1s, but also included monumental gates and а moat. For the latter, advantage was often taken of the presence of а river adjoining the ciry, while other sides were protected Ьу excavated channels. An Assyrian account describes the тоа! dug around Dur-Jakin, ап archaeologically unidentified Babylonian city conquered Ьу Sargon. Тhe тоа! was almos! 1ОО metres wide, 9 metres deep, and located some 60 metres in front of the city wall. Bridges were built across it, which were cut under attack, while the anny was positioned in between the moat and the wal1s. Clearly this description does not refer to а hastily constructed defence: the digging of the moat had been а massive undenaking. It has been calculated that {о excavate а тоа! of these dimensions for а medium-sized ciry of 50 hectares, ten thousand men would have had to work three and а half months. 6 Massive gates gave access to the inner cities. Some gates, like the famous Ishtar gate at Babylon, were extensively decorared. Тhe location of the northern and southern palaces Ьемееп that gate and the point where the Euphrates river entered the inner city shows the need to guard these access points to the city. A1though rnany town plans show numerous gates, it is not certain that аН of them were in use. For instance, at Dur-Sharrukin several of them were blocked off. Access was restricted as тисЬ as possible for security reasons, and city gates were closed at night to protect the inhabitan!s, as is revealed in ап Akkadian literary topos, describing а city sleeping under а starry sky: Тhe
countryside is quiet, the land is totally still, the cattle lie down, the people are asleep, 7 те doors are fastened, the city gates closed.
5
Herodotus) HisEon·es, 1. 178-9. Translation Ьу Aubrey de Selincourt (N ew
York, 1983), 113. 6
Marvin А. Powell, 'Merodach-Baladan а! Dur-Jakin: А Note оп те Defense of
Babylonian Cities~, Уоиrnа! ofCuneifonn Studies 34 (1982)., 59-61.
? А. Leo Oppenheim, 'А New Prayer СО the "Gods of те Night"), A1lalecra Biblica 12 (1959), 283, Н. 36-8.
The Urban Landscape
77
АН
inner cities were characterized Ьу the presence of rnonumen{аl buiIdings. Palaces were always located there, as were те тain city temples. Some shrines тау have Ьееп located in the suburbs, but аН important temples were within the walled inner city. In Babylonian cities the temple of the patron deity was usually the oldest monumental bui1ding, hence situated in or near the centre of town, and оп а height in order to Ье visible from the surroundings. This elevation was not necessarily due to artificial terracing, but often resulted from the tradition of locating temples exactly оп the same spot, а habit that originated early in prehistory. А! the site of Eridu, for instance, а succession ofsixteen shrines was excavated in exactly {Ье saтe location, spanning а period from the sixth to the late third millennium. The ruins of each earlier shrine were
contained within the foundations of its successor.
ТЬе
sequence
started with а small one-room shrine, and the temple expanded continuously, culminating in а ziggurat ofthe twenty-first century. The exact location of the earlier temple remains was а matter of concern to later builders. In the sixth century, king Nabonidus related how the temple of Shamash а! Sippar had fallen into ruin, although it had Ьееn restored just fony-five years earlier. Specialists examined the situation, and concluded that the last restoration had Ьееn flawed because the original foundations had по! been followed. 8 In order to determine exactly where the ear1ier temple had been, kings of this period were careful to excavate the underlying infrastructure, as failure to adhere to the original plan was thought to lead {о а weak construction. The accumulation of the debris of earlier monumental buildings naturally led to а greater rise of the temple's ground level than for the rest of the town. Ви! it Ьесаmе also а special aim of the builders. In the late third millennium the ziggurat was developed Ьу creating а succession of massive platforms оп top of which а small shrine was located. This ziggurat was situated either adjacent to the main temple, or а! а distance, but then connected {о the temple Ьу а succession of courtyards. lt towered over the rest of the city, and must have presented ап impressive sight, considering that the authors of те Biblical book of Genesis saw in Babylon's ziggurat а prime example of man's hubris. в See Stephen Langdon, Die neubabylonischen Konigsinschriften (Vorderasiatische Bibliothek 4; Leipzig) 1912), Nabonid Nr. 6.
78
The Urban Landscape
The palace was те second monumental building in town, distinguished from the temple Ьу its fortified character. In Assyrian cities severaI palaces were located оп artificialIy constructed citadels, сlеагlу visible ffom Фе surrounding countryside. The buildings were often enonnous in size, and considerable energy was ех pended оп their cons!ruction and decoration. They were а powerful symbol of royal might. Most inner cities aIso had non-monumental areas, ехсерс perhaps for the early cities of Assyria, which 1 will discuss later. Тhe cities were after а11 the main residential centres of Mesopotamia, and often largely occupied Ьу domestic quarters. They were divided into топuтепсаl and residential sectors Ьу а system of streets and canals, the latter primarily found in Babylonia. It is clear, however, that these uгЬап divisions were quite flexible, and that domestic dwel1ings couId infringe ироп те топиmепсаl sectors, if space was needed. Certain scholars have doubted сЬас inner city canals existed, as теу wonder how water could have run through them, considering that the level of the сеZl is usually several metres above that of the coun!ryside. ТЬе Nippur тар confinns their reality, however, and we have со imagine сЬас the banks of these canals sloped steeply upward in antiquity. Silt deposit ргоЬ ably caused the canals со dry ир over time, and then they were most likely converted into streets. The streets of Mesopotamian cities were rarely monumental. Notable exceptions. existed, such as the Processional Way in Babylon, leading from the New Year's temple outside the walls to the Marduk temple complex in the centre of the city. It fonned а ki1ometre-long straight avenue from фе Ishtar gate со the Marduk temple, and was named 'Мау the arrogant по! flourish'. Sennacherib described in detail how he enlarged the streets ofNineveh when Ье tumed it into his capital city: At that time 1 enlarged те site of Nineveh, ту royal ciry. 1 widened its streets enough for а royal procession, and made them shine like daylight ... In order that in rhe future there would not Ье а narrowing of the royal road, 1 had steles made which stand opposite оnе another. Sixtytwo great cubits 1 П1еаsurеd as the width of the royal road, ир to the Gate of the Orchard. If ever апу of те inhabitants of that city tears down his old house and builds а new оnе, and те foundation of his house encroaches
The Urban Landscape ироп
the royal road, house. 9
Ье
shalI
Ье
hung
оп а
79
stake in front of his (own)
Roads only rarely transected сЬе entirety of [Ье town as а thoroughfare from опе gate to another. In cities that resulted from organic growrh по straight streets сап Ье observed. In planned cities we find some straight streets behind [Ье gates) but these usually led [о [Ье cult centre in [Ье middle of the town, or even only [о (Ье nearesr monumental building, as far as we сап see. They did по! provide а grid, or even а means to get quick1y from опе end oftown [о another. As was observed in the suburbs ofTel1 Тауа, the primary function of the streets leading into the inner ciries seems со have Ьееп [о provide access from the outsid.e. Вис опсе inside опе was caught ир in а maze of narrow, winding srreets, totally lacking а plan. Such а street pattern was probably determined Ьу [Ье natural conditions in Mesopotamia. Narrow winding streets provided protection against the sun and against dust blown in Ьу desert winds. Moreover, due [о the lack of wheeled transporration, wide streets were unnecessary. Уе! the entire city Ьесаmе subdivided into sectors delineated Ьу these irregular streets. The circulation pattern within these sectors often consisted of small squares from which а number of streets radiated (Fig. 4.6). In this way conglomerations were created of neighbourhoods wirh internal circulation Ьи! with restrieted aceess from сЬе outside. Мапу ofthe streets were dead ends, and eould perhaps Ье closed off wirh gates, creating ап isolated community inside тет.
Street names were nос rare. Мапу ofrhe streets in Babylon ofthe sixth cenrury had exalted names, such as 'Pray and Ье will hear уои'. Legal doeuments throughour Mesopotamian history locate а pieee of property Ьу srreet, ofren named afrer а god or afrer the ethnicity of the inhabitants. А humorous tale of the first millennium describes the eonfusion of а visitor [о Nippur who wants to find а doetor's house and is given these directions: 'When уои еоте [о Nippur ту [eity] , уои should enter Ьу the Grand Gate and leave а street, а boulevard, а square, [Til]lazida Street and the ways D.D.Luckenbil1) TheAn1lalsojSennacherib(Chicago, 1924), 152-З,xviill.lЗ16, 19-27. The exact length of а great cubit is unknown) Ьис it is about SO ст. ТЬе road would thus have been about 31 т wide. ТЬе Gate ofthe Orchard is not one of те known city gates of Nineveh. 9
80
The Urban Landscape
1
®
•: cale
10т 1
FIG.
4.6
Plan of АН site at Ur
The Urban Landscape
81
ofNusku and Ninimma {о your left.,lO Thus, there must have been some order in the clutter of streets we perceive in the archaeologiса! plans. Along the streets houses were packed closely together in agglomerations resembling Roman domestic insulae. This bui1ding pattem was, and is, very common in те Mediterranean and Middle Eastem world, and obviously has the advantage that it protects те inhabitants against the heat Ьу reducing the number of walls exposed to the sun. Protection against the heat dictated many other aspects of the layout of Mesopotamian houses. Although there existed innumerable variations in the house plans, two basic variants existed in Mesoporamia. Опе consisted of а set of rooms· merged together in ап agglutinative pattem. The other was formed Ьу а courtyard, surrounded Ьу rooms that were accessed only from that courryard. Тhe courtyard house was ideally suited to protect its inhabitants
{гот
excessive heat in the daytime and cold at night.
At night the courtyard and the rooms filled ир with сооl air, which during the daytime Ьесате heated Ьу the sun. The rising hot air provided cooling currents in the rooms. In the aftemoon, when the house was at its hottest, increasing shadow produced simi1ar currents {о offset the heat. 1t is thus по surprise that the courtyard house remains the preferred style of dwelling in the Middle East to this day. Outside windows were rare in the Mesopotamian house, and the streets were lined Ьу blank fat;ades. Both the inside and outside walls of unbaked bricks were very thick~ and occupied almost half of те house)s surface. Due to the lack of long roof beams, the rooms were small, and many domestic activities щау have taken place in the courtyard. Second storeys probably did not exist in the south of Babylonia, but further north they тау have Ьееп сот топ. 1t is likely that people slept оп the roofs, if not under the open sky, under reed structures or the like that would never survive in the archaeological record. The plans of houses changed constantly as individual rooms were often bought and sold, or houses were divided among brothers at the father's death. As space limitations were great in inner cities, open spaces between the houses would have Ьееп soon 10
Translation Ьу Benjamin R. Foster) From Distanr. Days (Bethesda) 1995) 363,
quoted
Ьу
perm.ission.
оо
The Urban Landscape
82
occupied Ьу additional rooms. There were obviously differences according to the wealth of the inhabitants of neighbourhoods. Richer citizens ртоЬаЫу had the ability to build larger houses, with some empty spaces between them, whi1e the poor lived packed together in restricted spaces. Unfortunately, archaeologists 80 far have devoted insufficient attention {о the domestic areas of towns for us to distinguish clearly Ьемееп the characters of different neighbourhoods. Mixed together with те domestic areas were industrial sectors where craft production took place.. Usually те archaeological ~ record only allows us to recognize remains of kilns for the produc. tion of pottery and for metal smelting, but texts also attest to the existence of quarters of ;ewellers, fullers-, tanners, and so оп. There is по firm evidence, however, that еасЬ craft was concentrated in а specific neighbourhood. The location of industrial zones was dictated Ьу common sense. In Larsa, for instance, kilns were located in the south-eastern sector of town, while the prevailing winds сате from те north-east. Clearly atrention was paid to these winds, and те bad odours of the industries were blown away from the residential areas, rather than over them. For the same reasons таnу craft centres were located in the suburbs) as 1 mentioned before. Again we are insufficiently informed about these areas of towns) а situation which is only recently being rectified through the changing attitudes of archaeologists. Finally, ап inner city also contained ор еп areas. This is clear from the Nippur тар (Fig. 4.1) where the location of а park is ~hown in the south-west corner of town. The Epic of Gilgamesh indicates the existence of such areas in town: 'The city is one ;quare mПе, the orchards are one square mile> the claypits, те )pen ground of the Ishtar temple) are оnе square mile as well. Гhгee 8quare miles and the open ground comprise Uruk.'11 The :xtent ofthese areas depended оп the nurnber of city residents, and he statement that two-thirds of the city was reserved for ореn paces and gardens is ргоЬаЫу wishful thinking rarher than fact. In Ье open areas cattle and sheep were probably herded, while they lere used also for the growing ofvegetables, date palms, and fruit ~ees. ТЬеу could provide а соо! area in те excessive heat of те I{esopotamian summer. So far> по surface survey of а site has 11
Epic of Gilgamesh, Tablet XI col. vi, Н. 306-7.
The Urban Landscape
83
allowed us to 10cate these zones with certainty. It is important, however, {о keep their existence in mind when population estimates are made based оп the size of settlements. А word needs {о Ье said about the location of burials in ancient Mesopotamian cities. Two types of interment existed seemingly throughout the his!ory of Mesopotamia: burial underneath the floors of houses, streets, and squares, and burial in special cemeteries. Due to the focus of the archaeologists' attention оп built-up areas in towns, the first type seems to have predominated, but it seems unlikely that аН inhabitants could have Ьееп buried in tha! manner. The tradition of burying а dead family member underneath one's house was inspired Ьу the cult of the dead. Deceased ancestors were greatly respected, and а! times meals were held within те house which involved offerings to those family members. Pipes in the floor enabled the pouring of food and drink into the tombs. Interestingly, burial-chambers were often reopened, and, the bones present were swept aside, in order to lay out а new corpse. It is unclear to uS how it was decided who was to Ье buried undemeath the fami1y Ьоте, and who was taken {о а cemetery. The location of cemeteries in or outside inner cities is rarely known. We Ьауе some notable exceptions at Ur, for instance, where in те centre of town а large cemetery was in use for several centuries in {Ье middle of the third millennium. Again more archaeological research оп this aspect of urban occupation would Ье useful. Despite the fac! that аН Mesopotamian inner cities had the above-mentioned characteristics in common, we сап distinguish four major variants in their layouts. ТЬе differences derive from the geographical surroundings of the cities, and from their building histories. ТЬе geographical conditions were quite distinct between Upper and Lower Mesopotamia, and both regions had two types of urban settlements. The majority of cities developed naturally over time from villages to urban centres, and showed по advanced planning in their layout. They were the result of organic growth over the centuries. Throughout the history of Mesopotamia, however, cities were founded according !о preconceived arti:ficial plans as well. These planned cities need not have been bui1t оп virgin soil, but were also created оп {ор of existing towns or villages. What is imporrant, however, is that at а particular moment а decision was taken to build а city according to some regular and
84
The Urban Landscape
preconceived plan. The four variants in the layout of Mesopotamian inner cities сап thus Ье summed ир as Upper and Lower Mesopotamian cities resulting from organic gr owth, and as planned cities in Ьот regions. In the fol1owing 1 will discuss еасЬ variant with special emphasis оп those aspects that distinguish тет from one another. Lower Mesopotamian cities that had grown organically were characterized Ьу а dense occupation of the inner towns with buildings of varied nature. Religious complexes, palaces, administrative buildings, residential, and industrial areas were аН part of the inner ci:ties. The cities were intersected with canals and major streets, Ьи! по effort was made to make these straight, and consequently the divisions of те town they created were irregular. A1though it тау Ье possible to assign predominant functions to quarters, such as religious or administrative, те separation between them was по! strict. Temple complexes, for instance, were only surrounded with monumental walls in the first millennium: previously, houses often abutted the temples themselves. Even if the inhabitants of such houses were often temple personnel, теу were по! exclusively 80. Тhe
main religious complex of а town dominated irs plan and its skyline, as it was large and built ОП а height. Тhe second important monumental building was the palace, but seemingly not аН Lower Mesopotamian cities contained опе, including some cities та! were politically prominent. Palaces were often 10cated а! the edge of the inner cities that had been founded in prehistory or the early historical period. When the cities developed after secular elites had Ьесоте fiлnlу established in the region, Ьу те mid-rhird millennium, the palace and remple complexes were located in each other's vicinity in or near the centre of town. 1Ъе city walls were often constructed after а settlement had already attained а substantial size, and Ьу necessity they followed the contours of the settlement, usually more ог less oval shaped. ТЬе natural height of те tell fonned Ьу earlier building deposits faci1itated фе erection of а defensive wall оп its edges. No prior planning ofthe wall's outlines is thus noticeable. Тhere were а great many cities that developed organically in Lower Mesopotamia.) and local circumstances influenced their panicular layouts. Upper Mesopotamian cities usually developed differently from those in the South. Instead of а gradual growth from village to city
The Urban Landscape
85
over те centuries, mапу villages suddenly expanded in те midthird millennium when the region was urbanized, possibly under Lower Mesopotamian influence. ТЬе cities developed мо clearly distinct sections, ап upper and а lower town. Тhe local Akkadian dialect used мо terms to refer (о these divisions: kerlJuт for те acropolis and adassum for the lower town. Access to the former was restricted as is il1ustrated Ьу this quote from а letter found at Mari: ТЬе
day afrer romorrow Simablane will arrive with his troops in Mari ... 150 Babylonians and 50 Numhaians, 200 men in tota1, will ассотрanу him ... То the теп that ассотраnу him 1 will assign lodgings in the adaffum. Not а single soldier will Ье given а tablet for access (о фе kеrlшm. Ви! 1 will make Simahlane enter сЬе kerhum~ and according to circumstances 1 will give his attendants [comjortable] lodgings, so та! he will nor get upset. 12 ~
~
ТЬе иррег
town was located оп top of the debris of the earlier village, several metres аЬоуе те level of те plain, not in the centre of the lower town, but ас one of (Ье edges. Тhe monumental buildings were situated оп it, clearly visible from the surroundings. It is clear from the excavations at Shubat-Enlil and Qattara that in the early second millennium those buildings were а11 of а religious character} while те palace and administrative buildings were 10cated in the lower town. If the location of те so-called palace of Naram-Sin in the lower town а! ТеН Brak is not unusual, this тау also Ьауе been the case in the mid-third millennium. Тhe upper town was separated from the ]ower опе only Ьу its height and Ьу the monumental walls of its bui1dings. This is different from the situation in the South where canals or streets separated the religious sector from the rest of town. In the опlу site where this has Ьееп examined} Shubat-En1il, the lower town contained some domestic architecture besides monumental palace buildings. Ви! there seems (о have Ьееn ап evolution in that practice. А carefully planned residential агеа with а straight paved street leading to the acropolis was found in те mid-thirdmillennium tоwп. In the second millennium that residential area was not occupied} and just а few domestic remains have been found оп the edges of те town, near the city wal1s. It seems~ therefore, that there was almost по domestic occupation of the 12 Georges Dossin, 'Adassum et kirlJum dans les textes de Мап', Revue d'assyn'ologie еЕ d'archeologie orienrale 66 (1972), 117, 11. 11-13, 18-20, 24-33.
86
The
ИтЬаn
Landscape
walled city in the early second mil1ennium, when Shubat-En1i1 was the capital city of the state created Ьу Юng Shamshi-Adad (ruled 1813-1781). People must Ьауе 1ived in те suburbs and villages surrounding the city, which was reserved for religious and administrative purposes. Such а situation was never encountered in Lower Mesopotamia. Plenty of open spaces were thus ауаНаЫе within the Upper Mesopotamian lower city, which could Ье used for agricultural activity, and provided а safe Ьауеп for те inhabitants of the suburbs and their flocks in times of crisis. Тhe differences between those cities ofthe South and the North та! resulted from organic growth are thus the following: southem cities contained а dense occupation of va~ed nature within their walls, while northem ones r~served the walled cities for official purpo8es and the residential areas were mainly located in the suburbs. The citadels ofUpper Mesopotamia Ьауе по counterpart in the South where а less clearly delineated sector of town contained the city's temples. The remains of southern cities contain several mounds separated Ьу gullies, where canals and streets used {о Ье. In the North the remains are limited to опе high mound, ше acropolis or upper town, whi1e те lower ciry shows 1ittle re1ief. Although cities тас had evolved over the centuries were Ьу far те most соттоп in те entirety of Mesopotamia, throughout the history of the region new settlements were founded with advanced planning, ~r at times older ones were entirely rebui1t with а radiсаllу new and planned layout. Usually these settlements were either new capital cities or trading and military foundations in Mesopotamia's periphery. Although the tradition of founding new capital cities i8 attested in Babylonia as early as the twenty-fourth century, when Юng Sargon built Akkade" only оnе ехатрlе of it is known archaeologically-Dur-Kurigalzu, built in the second half of те second millennium, just south ofmodern Baghdad. It is ап unusual site in that it stretches for some 5 kilometres along а branch of те Euphrates, joining together three ear1ier settlements, and по evidence of planning сап Ье seen. Information оп planned cities only becomes available in the seventh and sixth centuries, when Babylonia gained political and military supremacy over Westem Asia, and its kings undertook massive bui1ding projects in тапу of те ancient Babylonian cities, completely redesigning several of . thеПl. These refurbished cities were planned оп the same pattem, as is exemplified Ьу Babylon (Fig. 4.7) and Borsippa (Fig. 4.8).
The
UтЬаn
Landscape
87
1 ®
key Summer Palace
7
Тетр 'е
о,
Marduk
2
NOrth
Palace
8
Resldenlial quarte r
3
South Palace
9
Outer
4
ProcesSlona I r oad
1О
/nnег
5
Jshtar Gate
11 Euphra tes R. (ancient course)
б
Z,ggurat
12 TempJe 01 Nabu-sha-h аг6
FIG.
4.7
WaJl Wa/I о
I
scale
'ООm
I
Plan of Babylon. So1id areas are fu,l1y excavated, shaded areas have Ьееп partly excavated
88
The Urban Landscape .
FIG.
4.8
Plan of Borsippa
The planning was most likely the work of the architects of kings Nabopolassar (ruled 625-605) and Nebuchadnezar (ruled 604562), who тау have been guided Ьу earlier works, undenaken Ьу the late Assyrian kings. 13 ТЬе inner cities were laid out as а large rectangle surrounded Ьу massive walls and а тоз! filled with water. Within the walls were several monumental gates, giving access to straight streets, leading {о the centre of town. The inner cities were thus partitioned into rectangular sectors, which were named after the city gates. Ви! within these sectors the street pattern Ьесате much less regular, although the rectangular pattern was по! entirely abandoned. Тhe town centre was occupied Ьу те religious quaner, dominated Ьу а 13 А. R. George, Baby/onian TopographicaZ Texrs (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 40; Louvain, 1992) 15, suggests that те rebuilding of Babylon оп а rectangular plan dated (О the 13th-12th cents.) but те evidence for this is limited to а later
literary rext,
The Urban Landscape
89
ziggurat. This quaner was not located оп а height, but separated from its surroundings Ьу а massive wall. The centrality of те temple complex was emphasized Ьу {Ье fact that the roads from the city gates led to it. Moreover~ the ziggurats were panicularly elaborate and must have Ьееп visible from а great distance. Indeed, the remple was inrended [о Ье the city's focal point. The раlасе, оп the other hand, was located оп the edge of the cities, at the point where the rivers entered them. This was a~weak point in the defences, and [Ье military installations adjoining the palace were probably located there for а good reason. Herodotus (1. 191) recounts, however, that Cyrus of Persia was still able to penetrate Babylon through the bed of the Euphrates after Ье had diverted the water upstream. The palace was по! entirely enclosed Ьу те city wal1, bur, as was те case in Assyria, it extended into the countryside, probably indicating that its function surpassed the city Iimits.
Babylon and Borsippa were bisected Ьу rivers. In Babylon the Euphrates си! the inner city into two almost equal parts. The monumental buildings were concentrated in the eastern part, while the westem part тау have Ьееп reserved for residences. In Borsippa а branch of the Euphrates turned into а lake just north of the city. А run-off channel from that lake separated the northern fifth of the city from the rest. In both places water from these rivers was diverted to fill the moat around the walls. Babylon had the unusual feature that а second wall was built to form ап enormous triangle around те eastern part of the city, along {Ье Euphrates. 1t тау have Ьееп intended {о integrate within the city the so-called summer palace, situated 2 kilometres to the north of the inner town wall. This outer wall was 7.5 kilometres long, and together with the Euphrates оп its westem edge, created а triangle measuring 12.5 kilometres in circumference. The eastern inner city was situated а! its corner as а highly defended fortress containing temples, palaces, and elite residences. Advance planning was по! only used for Babylonian cities of the late period, but a1so for earlier settlements built Ьу southem Mesopotamians оп the fringes of the region, for trading and miIitary purposes. Excavated examples of such planned towns аге НаЬuЬа Kabira in northern Syria, founded in the mid-founh тН lennium} Shaduppum, now in а suburb of Baghdad, and Haradum in western Iraq near the Syrian border, both early second
90
The Urban Landscape
millennium foundations. The last sire shows аН the characteristics of these settlements (Fig. 4.9). It was founded Ьу Babylonians оп (ор of ап older settlement in the eighteenth century and survived [or little more than опе hundred years. Its plan was almost а perfect square, covering only 1.3 hectares. The town was intersected Ьу а number of straight thoroughfares, leading to а religious complex in the centre of town. То те north of the temple was located а large residence th~t belonged {о the so-called mayor. The thickness of the walls, and те defensive character of the city gate suggest that те settlement had а military character. But the location of the site close {о the river and the texts found in it indicate that it had ап
1
Ма уое·5
9
о
h0:f В
20т
t=1===-_--.ld sca I е
F~G.
4.9
Plan of Haradum
The Urban Landscape
91
important role ТО play in the trade Ьемееп Babylonia and the areas to its north and west. City planning was thus in existence from the very beginning of Babylonian history, and new foundations were ideally laid ои! as rectangles, al10wing for special circumstances that were easily accommodated. The main roads of these cities led to the religious centre in their centre, which stresses again the fact that the temple was considered to Ье the Babylonian city's most important monumental building. Planned cities are best known in Assyria where several new capital cities were constructed in the late second to the mid-first millennia: Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta (thirteenth century), Kalhu (ninth century), Dur-Sharrukin (eighth century; Fig. 4.10), and Nineveh (seventh century). Kalhu and Nineveh were built over much smaller earlier cities, and а! that time their layout was entirely refashioned. Both survived under several kings, all of whom worked оп them and slightly refurbished тет. ТЬе other мо sites reflect the original plan of their builders accurately, and are thus ideal il1 ustrations of а planned Assyrian city. The architects designed these cities as а large rectangle, surrounded Ьу а massive wall. In Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta and DurSharrukin this rectangle is almost perfect> in Kalhu and Nineveh much less so, probably because earlier features had to Ье included (Kalhu), Or because of те topography of the surroundings (Nineveh). Оп every side of the rectangle, the wall was pierced Ьу several monurnental gates) some ofwhich were seemingly not used. The gates were never located exactly opposite оnе another, аl though this could have been very easily accomplished. Major streets were laid out behind some ofthem, yet they did not transect the entire city, and just led to the nearest monumental building, as far as we сап see. In а sense we have here а total reversal of the Hippodamian scheme of ancient Greece and Rome, where the grid pattem of thoroughfares was strictly maintained even when the circumference of the city was highly irregular. In Assyria те city walls were regular and linear, whi1e internally те street pattern was irregular. Each ciry, except perhaps Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta, had two citadels substantially raised above ground level and surrounded Ьу their o~n wal1s. They were always located оп the city wall, not in the centre of tоwп. Often they extended s1ightly beyond the limits of the city wall, as if to show their association with the surrounding
The Urban Landscape
92
Тетрlе
01
? gate
FIG.
4.1 О
gate
Plan of Dur-Sharrukin
290т
scale
(Кhorsabad)
countryside as well. The largest citadel was used for оnе or more palaces and for ternples; the second one contained mi1itary installations. All these bui1dings were of rnassive proportions, and extensively decorated. Their construction was glorified in numerous inscriptions as те king's major accomp1ishment. Because of the irnposing character of the monurnental buildings оп the citadels~ archaeologists Ьауе had little or по time to investigate the lower towns. Only а SПlаll section of Nineveh has been surveyed, and the research has shown the existence of elite residences just north of те Kuyundjik citadel~ with ап industrial
The Urban Landscape
93
quarter somewhat funher north. Large areas of these immense Assyrian cities were probably not occupied, but used for pleasure gardens, areas to provide refuge to villagers in times of danger, and for pasture, if we сап believe the biblical book of Jonah's mention of many cattle inside Nineveh. It is clear that extensive gardens were considered to have added to the city's pleasures, and several kings boast of having laid them out. According to the building inscriptions а11 kings who established а new capital started out Ьу digging canals to provide their cities with additional water and to irrigate те fields near and possibly inside them. Sennacherib, for instance, built ап extensive aqueduct system, bringing wa!er in from distant mountains. Тhe economic importance of these canals is debated. Тhey тау have been needed to support the dense populations of these artificial foundations; yet Sennacherib's own statement that he used а large рап of the water to create ап artificial swamp suggests that ап image of grandeur тау have been striven for Ьу these works. The planned cities of Babylonia and Assyria thus show similarities in that their generallayouts were highly regular, and preferably rectangular. They differed, however, in the location of their cult centres. In Babylonia, these were in the centre ofthe city, separated from те palace, while in Assyria they were located with the palace оп а citadel оп the city wall. The cities of Assyria seem to have had mисЬ more ореп space than those of Babylonia, perhaps because феу were more artificial creations than their southem соиn terparts, which were usually refurbished ancient and prominent cities. Тhe four different layouts reflect varied attitudes towards the cities. The differences are greater between Lower and Upper Mesopotamia than between unplanned and planned cities. In Lower Mesopotamia numerous cities were located near Фе rivers and canals that provided the water indispensable for agriculture. Often several of these wateIWays entered the city walls. Settleтent outside фе agricultural zone was impossible, so space was restricted. In Upper Mesopotamia the well-watered plains allowed settlement almost everywhere, and the need for artificial canals was less immediate. The cities were not clustered along the major rivers; instead they could rely for their water supply оп smaller streams. Consequently the attitudes towards cities as residential centres were different between the two regions. Throughout Lower
94
The Urban Landscape
Mesopotamian history inner cities were densely occupied Ьу domestic dwelIings, and they were the logical form of settlement in а limited area. In Upper Mesopotamia houses in inner cities were less numerous, and at times perhaps barely present~ because settlement in villages throughout the countryside was possible. In the South, the primacy of те temple as the main public building in town never disappeared, while in те North the palace Ьесате the dominant structure, especially i~ the planned cities of the first millenniuffi. Military installations were also much more prominent in Assyria than теу were in Babylonia. Тhe first millennium cities of Assyria had massive arsenals, while in Babylonia по military buildings separate from the palace are known. These differences suggest the greater importance of military and secular matters in Assyria than in Babylonia, where те cultic imponance of те city remained а constant through its history. The differences between unplanned and planned cities in both regions were really not 80 great. Planned cities show а concem with ап outward regularity, but inside те cities this order soon disappeared. ТЬе emphasis оп the linearity ofthe wall тау have resulted from the city wall's pre-eminence in the Mesopotamian concept of а city. When а wall was built around ап existing settlement it was easier to foIlow its established contours, which were usually oval. Throughout те planning of inner cities in Mesopotamia we see ап ability to adapt to existing circumstances. No dogged adherence to architectural principles is visible, Ьи! flexibiliry in the design is а major characteristic. Finally, а word аЬои! те sizes ofthese Mesopotamian cities is in order. When talking about urban dimensions we сап only take into account the inner cities, clearly delineated Ьу walls, as measurements of suburbs are absent at the moment. There is ап enonnous variation in the areas of excavated cities. А settlement such as АЬи Salabikh in the early third millennium only covered 20 hectares, while at the same time Uruk's wall surrounded ап area of 494 hectares, аЬои! 400 ofwhich were sett1ed. 14 The latter city was very The numbers given in different publications for the sizes of cities vary enormously. 1 use here mainly those provided Ьу Wolfram Nagel and Еуа Srrommenger, 'Altorientalische Stadte-von der Dorfkultur zur Hochkultur seit Habubah bis Babylon', Кбlner Jahrbuch jй, Vor- und Friihgeschichte 16 (1978-79), 61-75) with some additions and corrections. 14
The Urban Landscape
95
unusual in its size and remained the largest wal1ed city in Mesopotamia for мо millennia. More common were Babylonian cities such as Ur, with 61 hectares, and Mashkan-shapir, with аЬоис 72 hectares in size, or in те North Shubat-Enlil, which covered 1.5 hectares in те early second millennium. ТЬе new foundations of the late second and early first mil1ennia greatly surpassed these dimensions: Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta covered ас least 240 hectares, I<.alhu 360;> Dur-Sharrukin 300, and Nineveh 750 hectares. ТЬе largest city in antiquity until imperial Rome was Babylon, where the outer wall encircled ап агеа of 890 hectares. Its size startled the Greeks: Aristotle describes Babylon in his Politics (3. 1. 12) as а 'city that has the circuit of а nation rather than of а ciry, for it is said that when Babylon was captured а considerable рап of the city was пос aware ofit three days later' .15 Of course, not а11 the area within сЬе city walls was occupied, and те kings who cornmissioned the building of these new capital ciries clearly
wanted their size со reflect grandeur. The issue of settlement size relates closely to that of population size, but estimating the latter is virtually impossible. 16 The textual record is disappointing: there are по census lists, and references such as Assurna~irpal 11's claim that he fed 69,574 men and women after the founding of I<.alhu are probably not very reliable indicators of the size of the population. We are thus forced to look at the archaeological record for estimating populations. Three techniques are currently popular among prehistorians, based оп the total size of settlement, the sustaining area available to а settle . . ment, and the domestic architecture. АН three techniques have ап enonnous margin cf error, which cannot Ье reduced Ьу their combined use. It is not easy {о determine the area of settlement in а city at аnу moment in time, because по city has been completely excavated. Occupation within the city walls was usually only partial, and we cannot establish the extent of the open areas. Habitation outside city walls certainly existed at times, Ьuс figures about the spread of suburbs are totally lacking. The number of inhabitants per hectare Translarion Н. Rackham, Arislocle: Politics (Cambridge, Mass., 1977). The information provided Ьу Tertius Chandler in Роuт Thousand Years 01 ИуЬаn Growch, 2nd edn. (Lewiston and Queensten, 1987), is based оп ап entirely uncritical use of dara from widely varying sources, and is therefore unreliable. IS
16
The Urban Landscape
96
of settlement is essential1y impossible to establish. Comparison with contemporary, or early twentieth-century AD Middle Eastem cities provides а guideline, Ьи! the variation there is enonnous, and the applicability of the figures is doubtful. Most scholars Ьауе adopted а figure of 100-400 persons per hectare, but this is inappropriate as the range is too wide and as 'the use of later statistics begins from ап assumption we should Ье setting out to prove,.17 Moreover, the supposition that population density remains the sarne whatever те size ofthe settlement is most likely false. А study of numerous modem Middle Eastem vil1ages indicates that density actually decreases when те settlements grow larger,18 which might have been true in antiquity as well. If 80, there is по linеаг correlation between area and population of а settlement, making estimates of the latter even less secure. It is equally difficult (о calculate the sustaining area of а site, i.e. the amount of agricultural land available for the feeding of its population. Even when оnе city dominates ап isolated and welldelineated area, we саnnо! deterrnine how much land was developed for agriculture in antiquity. It is usually stated that опе person сап Ье fed Ьу те income of 1.5 hectares of irrigated agricultural land or 3 hectares of rain-fed land. This :figure тау help us to set the upper limit of the number of реорlе in а certain territory, although it is always possible that food was imported over long distances. А useful lower limit сап never Ье established оп this basis. Population estimates based оп the size of houses are also unreliable. The methoq., involves two uncertain figures: the number of dwel1ings in а settlement and the number of inhabitants per house. Since we cannot determine the area of occupation of а city at аnу particular moment in time with certainty, we cannot calculate how many houses were located in it. Even if we knew from excavation how many residences existed in оnе area, we саnпо! assume that the density ofbuildings was the same аП over tOWD. Moreover, the number of inhabitants per house саnnо! Ье established. ТЬе size of а house in а densely inhabited city does по! vary with те size ofthe family residing in it, as expansion of the dwelling to accommodate N. Postgate, Early Mesopotaтia: Society and Есоnоmу а! rhe Dawn 01 HisEory (London and New York) 1992)) 79-80. 18 О. Aurenche, 'Essai de demographie archeologique. L' exemple des villages du proche orient ancien', Paleon·enc 7/1 (1981)) 93-105. 17
J.
The Urban Landscape
97
for family growth is restricted Ьу the presence of neighbours and the lack of ореп spaces adjacent {о the house. In order to demonstrate existing uncertainties аЬои! population sizes, it тау Ье useful to quote some examples of the numbers published for а specific city: Nineveh after its rebuilding Ьу Sennacherib in the early seventh century. The enormously large city of some 750 hectares drew attention even in antiquity. The biblical book of Jonah states that it had 120,000 inhabitants, which has Ьееп regarded as at best based оп а contemporary guess, от as most likely too high. The most recent estimates consider the nun:ber too low, suggesting 300,000 as а round population figure, or too high with 75,000 inhabitants as more reasonable. These lasc opinions both presume сЬас the entire walled city was inhabited, Ьи! that the population density was either 400 or 1 ОО persons per hectare. 19 Obviously the divergence of the published numbers i8 80 great that попе сап Ье used for acceptable demographic analyses. Paul Bairoch, а specialist in demographic studies for Western Europe in the historical periods, calculated а factor of error of one to twelve when discussing ancient Near Eastem population sizes. According со him, urban densiry is determined Ьу three factors, each with а great margin of inaccuracy: (1) area of occupation within the city walls; (2) number of storeys per house; (3) питЬег of inhabitants per room. 20 None of these elements сап Ье properly ascertained а! the mотепс. We are thus confronted with а high degree of uncertainty when discussing population size. Even the assumption that variation in settlement size is reftective ofvariation in population size is not proven. Some very gепегзl statements сап Ье made with а high degree of conjecture. We сап presume that Babylon in the sixth century had ап extremely large population, or that Dur-Sharrukin in the late eighth century was probably not fully settled. Ви! more detail is а! present unavailable, and demographic studies remain а remote goal. 19 The estimates mentioned here сап Ье found in David Oates> Scudies in che Al1cienc Hiscory 0/ Norchenl Iraq (London, 1968)) 49 (perhaps 120,000); Mario Liverani, Anrico опеnсе. Scon'a, societa, economia (Rome, 1988), 815 (less таn 120,000); S. Parpola in Jack М. Sasson, Jonah (New York, 1990), 312 (300,000);
and David Stronach in S. Mazzoni (ed.), Nuove jondazioni (Pisa, 1994), 103. (75,000). 20
nе!
vicino orienle ancico
Paul Bairoch, De Jen'cho а Mexico.~ Villes ес economie dans l'hiscoire (Paris, 1985),
44-5.
98
The Urban Landscape BIBLIOGRAPHY
А
few discussions of the layout of inner cities have appeared. Н. Frankfort, 'Town Planning in Ancient Mesopotamia', Town Planning Review 21/1 (1950),98-115, provides а description ofsome of те best known towns а! та! time. Раи} Lampl, Cilies and Planning I in the Ancient Near East (New York, 1968) contains а very superfiI cial text, Ьи! has numerous illustrations. The study recently риЬ~ lished Ьу Elizabeth С. Stone, 'The Development of Cities in Ancient Mesopotamia', in Jack М. Sasson (ed.), Civilizations ofthe Ancient Near East (New York, 1995), 235-48 is the first atrempt to classify the cities of the various regions and J(eriods. See also her 'The Spacial Organization of Mesopotamian Cities', Aula Orientalis 9 (1991), 235-42. Some interesting remarks about Mesopotamian urban forms сап Ье found in А. Е. J. Morris, HislOry 01 Urban Роnn before [he Industrial Revolutions) 3rd edn. (New York, 1994); and Alexander Badawy, Architeclure in Ancient ЕЮJрС and the Near East (Cambridge, Mass., 1966). For planned cities see several of the articles ,in S. Mazzoni (ed.), Nuove Jondaz'ioni nel vicino orf,ente antico (Рisз, 1994). For ancient topographic texts see А. R. George, Babylonian Topographical Texts (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 40; Louvain, 1992). Ап example of а reconstruction of urban topography based оп building inscriptions, data of economic texrs, and archaeological finds is Adam Falkenstein, Topographie von Uruk 1: Unlk zur Seleukidenzeit (Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 3; Leipzig, 1941). For ancient maps see W. Rollig, 'Landkarten', Reallexikon der Assyriologie 6 CBerlin and New York, 1980-3),464-7. For the location of orchards around cities see Denise :ocquerillat, Palmeraies ес cultures de l'Eanna d'Uruk (559-520) :Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in UrukWarka 8; Berlin, 1968). For city streets see Jurgen Schmidt, Strassen in altmesopotamischen W ohnge bieten' , Baghdader Иittеilungеn 3 (1964), 125-47. Forhouses, see Е. Heinrich, 'Haus. з. Archaologisch), Reallexikon der Assyriologie 4 (Berlin and New rork, 1972-5), 176-220; and for burials, see Е. Strommenger> Grab'~ RealZexikon derAssynolog7:e 3 (ВегНп and New York, 1957I!
r
1), 581-93. The literature
оп
individual cities is enormous. The following is
The Urban Landscape а уегу
99
small selection of easi1y accessible works оп те sites mentioned in rhis chapter. Sites excavated Ьу the British Scho61 in Iraq, including АЬи Salabikh, ТеН Тауа, Nimrud (= Kalhu), and Rimah (= Qattara), are summarily described in John Curtis (ed.), Fifty Years 01 Mesopotamian Discovery (London, 1982). For the other sites mentioned see Kanish: Tahsin 6zgii~, 'An Assyrian Trading Outpost', Scientifi,c Атепсаn 208/2 (February 1963), 97106; Tahsin OzgU9, Кйltере-Каnii l! (Ankara, 1986); Nuzi: Richard F. S. Starr, Nuzi (Cambridge, Mass., 1939); Ur: Marc Van De Mieroop, Society and Enrerprise 'in Old Babylonian Ur (Berliner Beitrage zum Vorderen Orient 12; Berlin, 1992); Larsa: JeanLouis Huot et al., 'La Structure urbaine de Larsa: Une approche provisoire', in }.-L. Нио! (ed.), Larsa. Travaux de 1985 (Paris, 1989), 19-52; Shubat-Enlil: Dominique Parayre and Harvey Weiss, 'Cinq campagnes de fouilles а ТеН Leilan dans la Haute Jezireh (1979-1987): Ьilап е! perspectives', Journal des Savants (1991),3-26; Kar-Tukulti-Ninurta: Ti1man Eickhoff, Kar Tukulti Ninurta: Eine mittelassyrische Kult- und Residenzstadt (Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 21; Berlin 1985), Reinhard Dittman in Кhaled Nashef, 'Archaeology in Iraq', Аmеn·саn Journal 01 Archaeology 96 (1992), 309-12; Dur-Sharrukin: Gordon Loud and Charles Altman, Khorsabad 11: The Citadel and the Town (Oriental Institute Publications XL; Chicago, 1939); Nineveh: David Stronach and Stephen Lumsden, 'UC Berkeley's Ехсауа tions а! Nineveh', Biblical Archaeologist 55 (1992), 227-33; DurKurigalzu: А. А. AI-Кhayyat, 'Aqar Quf, capitale des Cassites', Dossiers Histoire ес Archeologie 103 (March 1986), 59-61; Babylon: D. J. Wiseman, Nebuchadrnezzar and Babylon (Oxford, 1985); А. R. George, 'Babylon revisited: archaeology and philol0gy', Antiquity 67 (1993), 734-46; Borsippa: Eckhard Unger, 'Barsippa', Reallexikon der Assyriologie 1 (Ber1in and Leipzig, 1932); 402-29; Haradum: Christine Kepinski and Olivier Lecomte} 'Haraduml Harada: Une forteresse sur l'Euphrate', Arc1J:eologia 205 (Sept. 1985), 46-55, Christine Керiпski-Lесошtе, Haradum 1: Иnе nouvelle ville sur lе Moyen-Euphrate (Paris, 1992). Рог юе issue of population estimates in ancient Mesopotamia, see Robert мсс. Adams, Heartland ofCities (Chicago and London, 1981}; and Carol I
100
The Urban Landscape
notre ете (Paris, 1980), 3 15-34. J. N. Postgate, 'How Мапу Sumerians per Hectare?-Probing the Anatomy of ап Early City', Cambridge А rchaeologz·calJournal 4 (1994), 47-65, ends his investigatio~ ofthe question as it app1ies to the city of АЬu Salabikh in the mid-third millennium with the telling conclusion: 'between 248 and 1,205 Sumerians per hectare ... , provided we have nо! made апу false assumptions.) Оп demographic issues in world history see . Раи1 Bairoch, De Jericho а Mexico: Villes еЕ economie dans l'histoire (Paris, 1985).
5 Social Organization
social structure of the Mesopotamian city cannot Ье easily studied even in its тost basic outlines. ТЬе absence of census lists~ or еуеп а relatively complete set of family names from апу city, prevents us from recognizing even the familial ties of the inhabitants beyond their closest relatives. For тost of Mesopotamian history, and with few exceptions, individuals were identified Ьу their пате, and, when further specification was needed, this was done Ьу profession or Ьу the пате of the father: for instance, NiirShaтash, the shepherd, or the son of Ahi-shagish. Rarely, ап ethnic designation, such as the Amorite, Turиkkean, or the like, was included. It was only in first millenniuт Babylonia that а тore coтplete genealogy was consistently used. Before та! date we are thus usually ипаЫе to establish fami1y ties between individuals further removed than siblings. We сап deterтine with certainty that the most basic social unit in the city was the писlеаг family: а married couple with а nuтber of unmarried daughters and sons, and perhaps а widowed parent. Such а family could own doтestic slaves residing in те same household. Widows and waifs not taken саге of Ьу а family were pitied~ and their protection was а sign of royal beneficence. Оп the other side of the scale, the largest social unit was the entire city community, 'the city', which sometimes appears in the docuтents acting as опе entity, especially in its interactions with authorities such as the king. People sometimes expressed their attachтent {о the Ьоmе town Ьу giving their children names such as 'Uruk preserves,.l Membership to the city community. was probably based оп residence, but we have по idea whether or по! other requirements existed. Moreover, we do not know where the
ТЬе
1
5.
See Johann Jakob Stamm, Die akkadische Namengebung (Dannstadt) 1968) 84-
102
SocialOrganization
geographical boundaries of the city were located. It is likely that 'the city' did not refer only to the walled inner city, and that it incorporated the suburbs. But did the vil1ages in the surrounding countryside qualify as well? ТЬе existence of boundaries between city telТitories was acknowledged, but their location is unknown {о us. Thus we сап say that 'the city' existed as а social unit, but we cannot define what it incorporated. The major problem in те reconstruction of the social organization lies in те identification of groupings larger than the nuclear family, yet smaller than the entire city. Ifthe М.еsороtзmiап felt ап alIegiance {о а social unit larger than his or her near [аrnНу, what was that unit and what was its importance in daily life? We сап hypothesize that individuals established social ties based оп various shared affiliations, {о а family, ап ethnos, а place ofresidence) or а profession. Some of these different types of associations might have coincided or partly overlapped. Рог instance~ те existence of craftsmen quarters shows that people residing in the same neighbourhood sometimes shared the same profession. АН of these elements played а role in а citizen's sociallife, Ьи! the exact nature and importance of them is quite vague to us, as the following review will show. Moreover, the nature ofthese relationships probаЫу changed over time, complicating the picture further. The documentation available {о us derives primarily from southern Mesopotamia, or at least its material has been better analysed. For northem Mesopotaтia, scholars have focused attention оп the case of Апарhа in the second half ofthe second millennium, where we seem to find а ~ystem of extended family communities. This тау reveal Hurrian practices rather than Assyrian ones, and тау not Ье reflective of northem Mesopotamian society in general. ТЬе social structure of Assyrian cities has not drawn тuсЬ attention othelWise. It has to Ье kept in mind that the urban population was not static, but that there was а constant flux of реорlе in and out of town due to various cir·cumstances: war and uncenainty in the countryside probably led people to seek refuge within the city walls, while peaceful conditions тау have encouraged rural settlement. Moreover, nomadic tribes constantly migrated through the Mesopotamian lowlands and some of their members settled in cities. Village and tribal communities were organized along different lines than urban ones;, and it is usually assumed that family ties were
Social Organization
103
very strong among them. Economically they lived а! subsistence level, with little specialization of labour and по dependence оп major temple and palace organizations, ехсер! in those villages with particular industries producing for ап urban institution. When members of such communities moved into town, they partly аЬап doned their existing social contacts, . and had {о integrate themselves within urban social structures. ТЬе speed and degree to which they did 80 must have depended оп тапу factors. If ап entire village moved into the city due (о а war, for instance, it was ргоЬаЫу able to maintain its social ties for а long period of time. But when individual families сате to town, they broke their existing ties and were forced {о assimilate {о city life much sooner. What were the social structures available {о them? In their consideration of social groupings scholars have focused their attention ироп familial 1ies beyond the nuclear family. There seems {о Ье а generaI assumption that remains of the tribe, сlап, and extended family, social entities thought {о have Ьееп prominent in {Ье non-urban settings, sutvived {о а certain extent within the cities. Ап evolution over time from these larger kinship groups to а fragmentation into individual nuclear families seems 10 Ье cornmonly accepted. У е! when we search for data оп these kinship groups, we see that they are scanty а! best, and that information for them increases over the millennia rather than the other way around. The most debated ргоЫеm with regard to social 1ife is whether or not the extended family played а role in urban life in Mesopotamia. Ву the term 'extended family' is mеап! the grouping of relatives who maintain close economic and social contacts although they might not reside in the same residence. Its existence in Mesopotamia was established through the analysis of Babylonian land sale documents of the mid-third mil1ennium. 1! is now commonly accepted among scholars that extended families played ап impor(апТ role а! that time, Ьи! much less so in the second mil1ennium, ехсер! in а few areas such as Arrapha in the north where 'archaic' social structures seem to have survived. The term archaic in this context reflects ап evolutionary model of civilizations that goes back to the late nineteenth century AD, when Lewis Henry Morgan suggested а sequence of human development in three stages: savagery, barbarisrn, and civilization. Barbarism was characterized Ьу а tribal organization with а subsistence agricultural есопоmу,
Social Organization
104
civilization was urban. 2 Morgan's book had а great impact оп Friedrich Engels, whose Origin 01 the Family, Private Propeny and the Stаtе З has Ьееп very influentiaI. The terrn family was mеап! to refer to те patriarchal nuclear family, or те single family in Engels's tenninology, which is supposed to have developed simultaneously with private properry and те state, intended to protect that property. Marxists and non-Marxists alike seem to think that the extended family, clan, or tribe, аге social units (о Ье found in ап earlier, тоге primitive, stage ofhuman development, and по! in ап игЬап civilization. But both do admit та! we сап find more remains of these larger kinship groups in cities during periods of transition, ~uch as some time in third millennium Babylonia, and possibly other times and places in social environments considered to Ье 'archaic'. We сап thus phrase а question along these lines: assuming that те countryside was characterized Ьу а more 'primitive' social structure than те city, did people who moved from the countryside into {Ье city shed their extended family ties immediately, ог did their social structures survive? If теу did survive, how long did теу continue {о play а role? The slim evidence [ог extended families а! оиг disposal derives mostly, if по! entirely, from а rural environment. It seems та! in the third millennium, land ownership in Babylonia was по! individual, and that the sale of а field required the approval of те siblings ofthe nominal owner. The documentation [ог such sales is extremely limited in number, but it includes some very important records. А large-scale acquisition of fields Ьу Кing Manishtushu (ruled 2269-2255), for instance, shows how те buyer had to compensate not only the nominal owner, Ьи! also а number of his relatives. 4 These were, however, members of village communities. The important question is whether те members of such соmmи nities maintained феiг extended family ties when they moved into the city. ТЬе scholar who first documented the existence of rhe extended family in the third millennium, 1. М. Diakonoff, pointed ои! that such ties were often abandoned in ап цгЬап setting. First, Lewis Неnту Morgan, Ancient Sociery (1877; repr. Tucson, 1985). з 4th edn. 1891; repr. New York, 1972. 4 For а discussion of kinship terms in this and similar documents, see 1.
2
J. Gelb, 'Household and Family in Early Mesopotamia', in Е. Lipinski (ed.), Scace Qlld Teтple Econor1zy in che Ancien! Near Easr 1 (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecra 5; Lоцvаin,
1979), 1-97.
.
Social Organizatz·on
105
temple and palace administrations worked with individuaIs, and, second, private entrepreneurs, such as usurers, could nо! function with сотmипаl responsibilities. 5 Yet Diakonoff and other scholars have sought to identify large kinship groups in the cities. Тhe evidence for these is very slim, however, and equivocal. In the Iate third millennium> for instance, Gudea, ruler of Lagash, stated that residents of certain sectors of town were called ир for service (о build the temple of Ningirsu. These sectors were identified with elaborate names, and after the levy the men were placed under divine standards. In 'Rampant wild Ьиll without ап opponent, holding rhe white cedar for its king\ the 'im-ru-a of Ningirsu) he conscripted men
and placed
те
standard of Lugalkurdub at their head.
In 'Place of water) bank rising from the water, те high river, bounteous water) that brings abundance', the im-ru-a of Nanshe, Ье conscripted теп a~d p]aced the sacred stem) the standard -of Nanshe at their head. In 'Trap laid out for the animals of те steppe), and 'Prime donkeys of the famous team, те beloved сеат of Utu', the im-ru-a of Inanna, he conscripted men and placed the disk) the standard of Inanna а t their head. 6 ТЬе
Sumerian term Gudea used, im-ru-a, has Ьееп identified with 'family) оп lexical grounds, and the text has Ьееп understood as referring to clans within the City.7 Тhe term is extremely rare, however, and сап also Ье interpreted as а purely geographical designation without апу reference to family ties. 8 It is clear from те analysis of documents found in adjoining houses that family тет bers did not Iive as neighbours, with few exceptions. 9 Upon те s 1. М. Diakonoff, 'Extended Families in Old Babylonian Ur', Zeitschrift jйT Assyriologie 75 (1985), 52. 6 Cylinder А, col. xiv, 11. 14-27-' Fran~ois Thureau-Dangin, Les Cylindres de Goudea;, (Paris, 1925), pI. XIV. 7 For. instance, J. N. Postgate, Early Mesopotamia (London and New York.) 1992), 82-3. 8 See Ake w. SjБЬегg, 'Zu einigen Verwandtschaftsbezeichnungen im Sumerischen', Heidelberger Sludien гиm AZten Опеnс (Wiesbaden, 1967)., 202-9. 9 See Магс Van De Mieroop, Society and Enterprise in Old BabyZonian Иr (Berlin, 1992), сЬ. 5.
106
1
SociaZ Organization
death of their father, brothers commonly divided the patemal Ьоте, and sometimes resided together with their individual famiIies, but had по objections to selling offtheir part ofthe house and moving elsewbere. 10 ТЬе analysis of texts from residential areas shows that neighbours were по! usually related Ьу blood, and othervvise in the texts people ас! primarily as individuals, nо! as members of extended family communities. We do see how fields in the early second millennium were sometimes leased ои! Ьу siblings acting together, Ьи! that should not Ье considered as а sign that Iand ownership was not individual. The division of fields through inheritance could threaten to reduce plots to such а small size that their exploitation would Ьесоmе economically uQfeasible, Ьепсе it made тоге sense to keep plots together even if two brothers had to divide те income. ТЬе evidence for extended families in third and early second millennia urban environments in Babylonia is thus very limited, and such families clearly did not dominate economic life. W е саппо! determine whether or по! they existed as social networks, or how rare or соmтоп теу were. It seems, however, false to assume from later IsIamic parallels that village communities or tribal groups that moved into towns maintained their strong family ties and resided in те same neighbourhoods ..АН ancient Mesopotamian textual evidence at our disposal contradicts such а conclusion. The contemporary situation in Assyria is unknawn, nor have attempts Ьееп made to determine the role of the family there. We see in the OId Assyrian trade documents that fathers and sons worked together, Ьи! та! was most likely а matter of safety and' trust rather than а reflection of фе strength of the extended family as ап economic unit. In те fifteenth and founeenth centuries the textual evidence from Arrapha in the north-east of Mesopotamia attests to the imponance of extended families in land ownership there. Seemingly по опе could Ьuу or sell land outside the family. То circumvent this restriction, buyers had themselves adopted inta the seller's family, as а son or а brother. It seems, however, that this was а situation in а rural environment, not in ап urban апе, and we do по! know what happened in cities at that time. Moreover, the Arrapha texts тау re:flect а Нитаn tradition rather тап ап See Elizabeth С. Stone) 'Texts) Architecrure;, and Ethnographic Analogy: Pattems of Residence in Old Babylonian Nippur') 11"aq 43 (1981), 19-33. 10
Social Organization
107
Assyrian опе. In the eighth and seventh centuries, information from the Assyrian countryside shows that те nuclear famiIy was the dominant economic unit. 11 As centres of the enormous govemтепс bureaucracy, the large cities ofthe Assyrian heartIand, which were often of artificiaI foundation, probably were inhabited Ьу very diverse populations for whom the ties with те palace were of more imponance than their kinship ties. Ви! {оо 1ittle is known of the urban populations to say anything with cenainty. Surprisingly, the Babylonian material from the first miIlennium has never Ьееп analysed with respect {о the question of extended families, while texts from that period are те most explicit in spelling out ап individual's ancestry. А system сате into use where almost every person mentioned in а text was identified as follows: personal пате 1) son of personaI пате 2, descendant of persoI].al пате 3.; for instance Iddin-Marduk, son of IqIsha, descendant of Niir-Sin. ТЬе third пате is not of те grandfather, but of ап ancestor, and scholars have commonly equated it with our family пате. At times, the ancestral пате was replaced Ьу а professional designation, such as smith, weaver, or cowherd, which тау not apply to the individual in the document but to his ancestor. It Ьесате standard practice to refer to ancestral or 'family' narnes in the seventh century, and their use lasted down {о the most recent Akkadian administrative documents in the first century вс. ТЬе origin of these family names seems to date {о the mid- {о late second millennium, however. Vague traces of their existence are preserved in the documents of that time, and the ancestral Iiames used, such as Sin-leqe-unnini, were соттоn in that period as well. Political pressure ироп те Babylonian urban populations Ьу invading Assyrian armies and Ьу Aramaic and Chaldean tribesтеп infiltrating the area} тау have caused the appearance of such extended family groups.12 Сап we assume, however, that these 'families' remained merely associations of blood relatives with а соттоп descent, or even that they ever did refer to actual ех tended families? Several indications argue against the latter conclusion. First, the number of family names was quite limited. А thorough analysis of references to professionals in sixth-century 11 See Р. М. Fales, 'Popolazione servile е programmazione" padronale in tarda era neo-assira" On"ens Antiquus 14 (1975), 325-60. 12 See J. А. Brinkman, Prelude со Eтpire (Philadelphia, 1984), 11.
108
Social Organization
documents ofthe city Uruk shows that seventy-seven famiIy names were used Ьу them. 13 This seems а rather small number for а city that was still substantial in size. 14 Furthermore, some of these names were simultaneously in use in other cities, such as ВаЬуlоп. Second, аН ancestral names were purely Babylonian, while in the centuries of the first half of the first miHennium several Aramaic and Chaldean groups had arrived in southern Babylonia, and surely had also integrated themselves within Фе cities. If descent was по! the detennining factor for membership in опе ofthese families, what was? 1t has Ьееп observed that тапу people with Фе same ancestral пате also held the same profession, а fact that has Ьееп explained as те result offathers passing their craft оп (о their sons. But could it по! Ье that professionals were organized as extended famiIies, something tha! would also explain the use of professionaI designations as family names? Of the seventy-seven family names of professionaIs attested in texts from sixth-century Uruk, fifty-six were used for опе {уре of professional only. Moreover, аН теп with те family names re'i-gine 'shepherd of regular offerings' and rab-bani 'orchard inspector' exercised these functions. Admittedly, members of the Ekur-zakir family, for instance, appear as goldsmiths, shepherds, and scribes, Ьи! could this по! have Ьееп Фе result of а diversification of the activities of ап extended family after it had Ьееп fiпnly established? If ту interpretation is correct, we would see here а merging of extended family ties and professional ties. Membership in а panicular 'family' would indicate the licence {о exercise а cenain profession. ТЬе evidence for such а merger of social ties is clearly very slim, Ьи! the less preferable alternative is to assume that а limited number of extended families, with аН their ~embers related Ьу blood, resided in Uruk. The slim evidence оп kinship groupings larger than the nuclear fami1y сап thus Ье interpreted quite differently from what we find in most publications. Instead of ап assumed development from tribal ties {о individual ties, а model inspired Ьу late nineteenth13 This nитЬет is based оп те Iist provided Ьу Hans М. Kiimmel, Fa111iZie, Беru! und Ат! im spiicbaby/onischen Urnk (ВегНп, 1979). 14 The ехас! size of Uruk а! this rime is unknown, see Е. Cancik, in Uruk. Kampagne 35-37 (Mainz ат Rhein, 1991),209-10. The тар, Bei1age ЗО, suggests ап асеа of occupation of some 125 hectares. If а low population density of 1 ОО persons per hectare is accepted, Uruk would have had 12,500 inhabirants.
Social Organization
109
century evolutionary theory, with ephemeral remnants ofthe more primirive social srructure in the early Babylonian cities and in 'backward'15 areas later оп, we сап hypothesize а very different set of social structures over time. 1 ат reluctant [о и8е the [еnn evolution, since те evidence а! hand is 80 Iimited and does not permit а diachronic view. From the earliest hi8torical periods оп wards ше extended fami1y, сlаn, or tribe, did not play а rec6gnizable role in те Mesopotamian city. ТЬе nuclear family was the prevailing kinship unit, residing separately and acting as а basic economic unit. Obviously, close ties with blood relatives could exist: brothers or cousins could Iive under фе same roof, еасЬ with their wives and children, or could Ье involved in joint economic enterprises. Ви! this was the exception rather than те rule. Most evidence for те extended [аmilу as ап economic unit comes from а rural environment. In first miIIennium Babylonia fictionaI kinship groUP8 dominated urban society. Residents of cities consistently used а 1imited number of 'family' names, referring to а long-deceased ancestor or а profession which might по! Ье their own. These did not indicate actual agnatic group8, with аН bearer8 of the same family пате descendent from [Ье same ancestor. The number ofnames was too small, and their purely Babylonian character would exclude the integration of different edmic group8. Непсе they were fictional, and по! based оп blood relation8. The formation of artificial kinship groups is not unusual at аН. Ir has Ьееп demon8trated, for instance, [Ьа! [Ье so-called tribal remnants in the classical Greek cities, gentes, phratries, and phylai, which were so important [о Morgan's and Engels's models, were entirely artificial groupings that had по ancient rribal root8. 16 The соmтоп characteristic of these 'famiIies' original1y тау have Ьееп their professions, with fellow professionals choosing а сотmоп ancestor. After а while this system тау have Ьесоте less rigorous in that certain sons kept their fathers' ancestral names, but по! their fathers) professions. The origin of this system is entirely unknown to us. It тау somehow have Ьееп related [о [Ье arrival ofthe Лrаmаеап and Chaldean tribes in Babylonia in те late second millennium, but other ехрlа nations are possible as well; we need по! adhere to те evolutionary 15 16
Diakonoff, 'Extended Families in Old Babylonian ие;) 49. Denis Roussel, ТпЬи е! cice (Annales litteraires de l'Universite de Besan~on
193; Paris, 1976).
110
Social Organizatz"on
model that suggests а unilinear developrnent from tribal {о urban. Such 'farnilies' are not necessarily remnants of а society where kinship ties doтinated in social life, but тау actually have been purely uгЬзn creations without аnу reference to real blood ties. Social bonds other than kinship have {о Ье considered in the study of the Mesopotamian city as well. These could Ье based оп profession} place of residence) and ethnicity, and played varied roles in те life of а Mesop otarnian city-dweller. Again the evidence for these ties is scarce) but we сап postulate that they existed. 1 have intimated the presence of professional associations in Mesopotamian ciries Ьу suggesting that professional ties explained the use of ancestral names in first-millennium Babylonia. А feeling of affinity with а fellow professional was surely not ап innovation of the first millenniuffi. А major factor in the development of urban society was the fact that people started to abandon their family ties for professional relations, а shift of focus from юп to class in Adams:t s apt tenns. 17 We know that craftsmen were highly specialized and tha! some ofthem formed close associations and acted as опе unit. То саН these associations guilds is ап overstatement) yet we сапnо! deny that they had certain powers and that they accorded certain privileges to their members. . Not only craftsmen identified with their fellows) but also bureaucrats, priests, and soldiers. These were united Ьу their affiliation {о оnе of the public institutions, the раlасе or а temple. As these institutions were of extreme importance in the cities their value as ап organizing force in social interactions must have been great. Вот in Assyria апц in Babylonia the palace organizations were enormous, ernploying numerous administrators, courtiers) 801diers) and а great number of тапиа} labourers. For аН these people the palace тау have been their primary social unit. Although there are indications that the bureaucrats ofthe Third Dynasty ofUr, for instance, had тапу family !ies and that nepotism was widespread among them) it is not true that the palace bureaucracy was controlled Ьу а small number of families. The bureaucrats owed their primary allegiance to the king who had appointed them from whatever family or region of his dominion Ье chose. Thus their institutional .affiliation was what united them) not their family ties. 11
Robert МсС. Adams, The Evolution 01 Urban Society (Chicago) 1966), ch. З.
Social Organizalion
111
Temples тау have provided а social network to more citizens than did {Ье palace, because те affiliation of individuals with temples was often part-time. In third-millennium Babylonia, temple offices were held Ьу what could Ье called anachronistically professional priests, members of те cultic and administrative personnel of the temple whose livelihood depended оп their temple employment. In that sense temple organizations were very similar to those of the palace. But, in the early second millennium temple offices Ьесаmе а commodity that could Ье inherited, traded, and divided, because they guaranteed the holder а financial reward. Instead of real temple offices, теу Ьесаmе what we would саН prebends, portions of the general temple income that were granted {о individuals. Thus we see that the office of remple sweeper, for instance, could Ье held for as little as а quarter of а day per year, which теап! that {Ье owner received а very small fraction of the income assigned to that function. А system was established in which individuals could Ьиу themselves а place within те temple organization, for which they probably did по! have {о provide any labour but which guaranteed them ап income. This system remained in use Ihroughout Babylonian history; some of the latest preserved administrative documents written in Akkadian record the distribution of temple income among such prebend holders. Because these prebends often involved а minute percentage of а temple office, numerous individuals could hold them simultaneously_ W е see thus that in the mid-first mil1ennium, the temple Ьесаmе the primary social organizing force of the Babylonian city, and that in places such as Uruk the organization ofthe main sanctuary and its hierarchy paral1e]s that of the entire ciry. ТЬе professional organizations of а Mesopotamian city сап Ье likened to corporations in that теу appear in texts, speaking with опе voice in their contacts with higher authorities and with опе another. А professional association of goldsmiths, for instance, could represent its members in its contacts with the temple, while the temple сотmи nity would ас! as а unit in its contacts with те king. Such corporations тау have played а crucial role in а citizen's social life, providing а network of support not only in professional Ьи! also in personal affairs. Since the latter аге по! described to us in the documents, we cannot say much аЬои! them. А citizen сап also feel а certain social affinity to the реорlе who
Socz"al Organization
112
Iive in те same neighbourhood. There are several indications that а city was subdivided in!o wards, but the social cohesion of these subdivisions is Iess clear. ТЬе Iayout of the Mesopotamian city shows the irregular subdivision of the inner city Ьу roads and canals into smal1er sectors. Within these sectors the stree! pattem is extremely irregular and the houses are closely knit together. Мапу streets seem to have Ьееп dead ends, and could have Ьееп closed off from the outside. In third-millennium АЬи Salabikh it seems even that some of these sectors were surrounded Ьу walls. 18 Тhese subdivisions тау have Ьееп c~lled ЬаЬсum in the Akkadian texts, а {еrш we translate as city ward. The babtиm was а geographical unit which had its own govemmenta1 strllcture and responsibilities. It was sometimes named after а person, but that does по! need {о Ье interpreted as а sign that it was originalIy the residential concentration of ап extended family.19 The social cohesion of these wards is unclear. Soтe scholars have attempted to equate them with the neighbourhoods of Islamic cities which show а great deal of familial, professional, or institurional cohesion,20 Ьи! when we analyse the legal records found in neighbouring houses we do not see such ties а! ап. 21 Obviously people who worked for а particular temple, for instance, often would reside near their place of employment,22 Ьи! that does not mеаn that neighbourhoods were set aside for them or created Ьу them. Simi1arly, the first-rnillennium evidence of craftsmen quaners does по! indicate that others were excluded from these areas. 23 Тhroughout history, the Mesopotamian city contained а great variety of ethnic groups. From the beginning of urban civilization southem cities housed Sume~ians, Akkadians, and whatever other ethnic groups lived in the area. То this mixture were later added Amorites, Elamites, Kassites, Hurrians, Chaldeans, and Arameans, as well as а substantial number of peoples vaguely known to us, such as Turukkeans, Guteans, and others. The most prominent of these groups are distinguished Ьу us through their 18
19 20
Postgate, Ear/Y Mesoporamia, 91 and Fig. 5.4. Ibid. 82. e.g. Elizabeth с. Stone, Nippur Neighborhoods (Chicago, 1987), 4.
Marc Van De Mieroop, 'Old Babylonian Ur: Ponrait of ап Ancient Mesopotamian City), Уоurnа! 0/ the Ancienr Near Easrern Society 21 (1992), 119-30. 22 See e.g. Dominique Charpin, Le Clerge d~Ur аи siecle d~Hallzтllrabi (Paris, 21
1986). 23
See СЬ. 8.
SociaZ Organization
113
different languages, уе! we have по idea what, if anything, set them apart otherwise, and how 10ng they continued 'со talk their native tongues. In the first mil1ennium, when Assyria and Babylonia in succession ruled widespread empires, numerous реорlе voluntariIy сате into their cities, to take advantage of economic opponunities there, or involuntariIy as deportees. ТЬеу included Egyptians, Judaeans, Israelires, Phoenicians, Arabs, Syrians, Phrygians, Medes, Persians, and тапу others. OriginalIy they must have been уегу distinct, as they not only spoke different Ianguages, but also 100ked different and brought their native customs and cultures with them. How long did they maintain their ethnic identity? Did they attempt со remain distinctive, ог did they want to integrate within Babylonian and Assyrian society? Obviously the answers vary from case to case, as mапу different circumstances played а role. As ап example, we could compare what happened to two closely related peoples who seemingly suffered opposite fates: the Israe1ites and the Judaeans. The :first were brought to various localities in Assyria after the 10ss of their independence in 721, and from that moment оп they disappeared from history. The second, deponed to Babylonia after 598 and 587, survived as а coтmunity for sixty years when they were liberated Ьу the Persian king Cyrus who allowed them {о return Ьоте in 538. But how dissimilar were these cases in reality? Possibly the Israelites had in vain waited for their release from Assyria, and had Ьееп ипаЫе Со maintain their identity because they were cut off from their homeland for 120 years 10nger тап the Judaeans. And how unassimilated were the Judaeans in reality? After sixty years тапу of them seem to have Ьееп pretty well settled in Babylonia and, according {о Josephus at least, few wanted (о return Ьоте: 'When Cyrus had made this announcement to the Israelites, the leaders of the two tribes of Judah and Benjamin and the Levites and priests set ои! for Jerusalem, Ьuс many reтained in Babylon, being unwilling to leave their possessions. ,24 According to Dandamaev,25 the assimilation of foreigners in Babylonian society was а smooth and quick process, because of 24 Flavius Josephus, Jewish Antiquities 11. 1. 3, trans. Ralph Marcus, Loeb Classical Library (Cambridge, Mass., 1966), 317, 25 Mohammed А. Dandamaev, lranians in Achaemenid Babylonia (Costa Mesa and New York, 1992) 173-5.
114
Soci'alOrganization
religious tolerance and the absence of racism. ТЬе use of Aramaic rather than Akkadian as the lingua franca facilirated integration as well. Мапу of the native tongues of the new immigrants from the west were akin to Aramaic, and the language had а great fiexibility permining its use Ьу novices. ТЬе question remains, however: how fast did this assimilation take place? А! first new arrivals were distinguished from the indigenous people Ьу their foreign names and sometimes а special designation such as 'the Egyptian', or 'the Amorite'. Soon, however, they gave their chil-. dren Babylonian names, and the ethnic designarions Ьесаmе somewhat like а surname, tO disappear in due course. ТЬе rime-span involved is unclear to us, уе! often seems {о have Ьееп brief. Already in 653, for instance, we find а man, said {о Ье of Egyptian descent, with а good Babylonian пате, Вё!-shum-iddiпа. 26 His ancestors must have arrived in Babylonia less than thirty years ear1ier, as it was only in the early seventh century that Egypt Ьесате panly incorporated in the Assyrian empire. Why would ап Egyptian, coming from а country with а long and proud cultural history, have Ьесоmе Babylonian so fast? Perhaps Dandamaev's idea of а non-racist society is too idyllic, and it тау have Ьееп important for foreigners to assimi1ate as soon as possible in order to make а career. ТЬе case of assimilation that has drawQ the most scholarly attention in earlier Babylonian history is that of the Amorites. The designation of а person as being Amorite appears already around 2500,27 Ьи! only from the twenty-first century onward are there in the textual record а substantial number of people with such а designation or with а пате that сап Ье interpreted as being Amorite. From that moment, they seem to have Ьееп integrated in аП sectors of sociery, as agriculturalists and urbanites) even as Babylonians continued to use the term Amorire to refer to nomadic foreigners. In the early second millennium Amorites gained political ascendance in тапу cities, often maintaining their originаl names. Thus in the mid-seventeenth century the edict of Ammi~aduqa could make а distinction berween Akkadians and Amorites. Besides the adherence ofthe Amorites to their language, at least in their names, we do not see апу other way in which they 26 27
See 1. ЕрЬ)аl, 'ТЬе Wesrem Minoriries in Babylonia\ On"entaZia 47 (1978), 77" Jean-Robert Kupper, Les Nonzades еп Me.sQPOlanlie (Paris, 1957) 150,
Social Organization
115
clearly distinguished themselves from the other people in Babylonia. Nor do we see them adhering to а social structure of their own. ТЬе oft-quoted Old Babylonian list of Amorites 28 does not indicate the existence of city wards reseIVed for Amorites-, only that а separate record was kept of Amorites living in the city. The various ethnic groups that entered Babylonia seem to have Ьееп assiтilated over the years and to have 10st their separate identities, а! least until the arrival of the Greeks in the fourth century вс. Obviously they had some type of social network during this process of assimilation that made тет feel distinct from others in the coтmunity. But we have по means of studying these networks. It has so far proved impossibIe to relate archaeological remains to а specific ethnic group, and when people abandoned their language in naтing their children we lose the ability to identify them as ethnically different. In аnу case, it is always dangerous to equate the language of someone's пате with his or her ethnicity, as the members of the multi-lingual societies of Mesopotamia did not seeт to have Ьееп averse to using а different language to пате their children. In conclusion, the social structure of the Mesopotamian city is poorly known) Ьи! the available evidence permits us to make some general suggestions. When а nuclear family тoved to а city from а village, or from а nomadic or semi-nomadic group, or immigrated from another country, it seeтs to have abandoned its existing ties уегу quickly. ТЬе extended families of village communities or tribes do по( seem (о have survived, while а separate ethnic identity was maintained for only а few generations. Instead, professional ties Ьесате important. Опе associated with fellow members of the temple hierarchy or of the palace administration, or one joined professional associations which in first mil1ennium Babylonia тау have claimed а соттоп fictional ancestor. Class Ьесате thus more imponant than kin. Obviously other ties played а role in people's lives as well. Family members were certainly considered to Ье important) and апе would imagine та! people with the same ethnic background sought each other's сотраnу. But such ties are not emphasized in the documentation, and тау have Ьееп of secondary importance. Gelb, 'Ап Old Babylonian List of Amorites') Joumal O,'"iellcal Society 88 (1968), 39-46. 28
1.
J.
0/ the
Аmеnсаn
116
SocialOrganization BIBLIOGRAPHY
А
set of papers was devoted to the issue of extended families in the joumal Oikumene 5 (1986). ТЬе contrasting opinions Ьу Powell and Leemans expressed there show the uncertainty of any concl и sion. 1. М. Diakonoff identified the existence of extended families in third-millenniuт rural environтents, e.g. in 'The Rise of the Despotic State in Ancient Mesopotamia', Ancient Mesopotamia: Socio-Economic History (Moscow, 1969), 177-9; and 'ТЬе Rural Community in the Ancient Near East', Journal 01 the Econoтic and Social History 0/ the Опеnс 18 (1975), 121-33. See also Veysel Donbaz and Nonnan Yoffee, 'Оп Living Together in Кish), in Old Babylonian Textsfrom Kish (МаliЬи, 1986), 66-9, and the survey of the problem Ьу J. N. Postgate, Early Mesopotamia (London and New York, 1992), 88-108. Arthur Ungnad, 'Babylonische Familiennarnen', Mz·sceZlanea Orientalia ded'icata Antonio Deimel (Analecta Orientalia 12; Rome, 1935), 319-26, was Фе first {о point out the importance of ancestral names and to date their origin to the mid to late second millennium. See a1so W. G. Lamben, 'Ancestors, Authors, and Canonicity', Journal 0/ Cuneiform Studies 11 (1957), 1-14, 112. Hans М. Kummel, Familie> Веrи! und Ат! im spatbabylonischen Uruk (Berlin, 1979), surveys аН of the evidence from sixth-century Uruk. See also the remarks Ьу David Weisberg, Guild Structure al1d Political Allegiance in Early Achaemenid Mesopotamia (New Haven and London, 1967), chapter 6. For те identification of neighbourhoods in ап early secondmillennium city, see Elizabeth С. Stone, Nippur Neighborhoods (Chicago, 1987). ТЬе subject of foreigners in Babylonia has been investigated primarily оп the basis of the onomasticon. See, [ог insrзnсе, Ran Zadok, Оп West Semites in Babylonia dunng the Chaldean and Achaemenian Penods (Jerusalem, 1977); and 'Оп Some Foreign Population Groups in First-Millennium Babylonia', Те! Aviv 6 (1979), 164-81; and see several publications Ьу Mohaтmed А. Dandaтaev, most recently Iranians in Achaemenid Babylonia (Costa Mesa and New York, 1992); and 'Egyptians in Babylonia in the 6th-5th Centuries В.С.'> in D. Charpin and Р. Joannes (eds.), La Circulation des biens (Paris, 1992), 321-5. 1. Eph:>al, 'ТЬе Western Minorities in Babylonia in the 6th-5th Centuries В.С.: Main-
SocialOrganization
117
tenance and Cohesion'~ On:entalia 47 (1978), 74-90~ maintains that resistance to assimilation, such as that Ьу the Judeans, was great among таnу foreigners, but he only takes into account те fact that Babylonian toponyms сап refer to ethnic groups without investigating how long these toponyms survived. For the problem of recognizing ethnicity in the early Меsороtзmiап archaeological record, see Kathryn А. Катр and Norman Yoffee, 'Ethnicity in Ancient Western Asia during the Early Second Millennium В.С.: Archaeological Assessments and Ethnoarchaeological Perspectives), BulZetin 0/ the Аmепсаn Schools 01 OrientaZ Research 237 (1980), 85-104.
6 Urban Government: lZing, Citizens, and Officials
Every community requires а governmental organization, а means Ьу which social interactions сап Ье regulated. ТЬе complexity of such ап organization greatly depends оп те size and diversity of the community, and the city Ьу definition shows а high degree of both: of necessity, then> there existed а structure within the Mesopotamian city with governmental powers. We сап recognize мо poles in the power relations in the Mesopotamian ciry: оп the one side were the king and the public institutions that supported his rule, оп те other the citizenry who held certain il1-described powers. Arranging contact between the two poles was а group of officials. These three elements, crown, citizenry) and officialdom, аП played а role in the urban govemment. The relationship Ье tween crown and citizenry varied over time, and depended оп the general political situation. It is ту contention that the powers and independence of тЬе citizenry increased over time in Mesopotamian history, rather than the other way around as has Ьееп сот monly suggested. The king has always Ьееn regarded as the political power in Mesopotamian society, or еуеп as the only element within sociery with any political power. Finley stated that politics did nо! exist in the ancient Near East, because discussions of policy Ьу ~itizens or royal advisers were neither ореп ner binding, and the king made аН decisions оп his own, allowing for some persuasion Ьу couniers. Finley called the system government Ьу antechamber. 1 This is surely ап overstatement inspired Ьу orientalist stereotypes, as vague traces of political debate within the court are visible in the 1 М. 1. Finley> 'Politics') in М. 1. Finley (ed.), The Legacy 01 Greece: А New Appraisal (Oxford, 1981), 22-36.
Urban Government отеп literature and in some historiographic 1iterature.
119 2
У et аН
political nature known to us w~re indeed pro;nulgated Ьу {Ье king who never acknowledged influence Ьу his citizens in the matter. In the discussion of his powers we have to distinguish, however, between his role as а 'national' leader and as те head of the palatial organization, his own household. As national leader he was king of аН the subjects ofhis state) Ье it а single citystate or а widespread empire. These subjects showed а 10t of variation in their status. They included those people dependent uроп the ра1асе, to Ье discussed presently. But they also comprised members of the village and tribal communities and many city residents, who were not part of the palace organization, for whom the king's powers тау have been absolute, but limited to certain decisions of
а
restricted aspects of life.
А
Mesopotamian king had obligations to
his реор1е, likened in the ancient sources to the responsibilities of а shepherd {о his flock. Не had {о ensure rhat they were fed and protected from enemies. The king led in war, guaranteed the fertility of те land Ьу digging and maintaining irrigation canals, provided justice, and averted divine wrath against his people Ьу promoring the cult. His power in these matters was seemingly unlimited. In return for this protection and care, the citizens were obliged to provide the king with two things: they had to рау taxes, and render services either in agriculture or in war. The king ас knowledged the infiuence of the gods, who had selected him [or kingship or inspired him in esrablishing justice in the land, and he never seems to have taken his people's opinions into account. But the areas of government he controlled were limited [о matters of general policy, concerning security, the cult, and the agricultura1 conditions. They excluded the details that were important in а citizen's daily life. Опе might object that certain kings, such as the famous Hammurabi, are known to have Ьееп concerned with trivia, to such 3 ап extent that they have even Ьееп regarded as petty rulers. The king was indeed inv01ved in the daily affairs of some ofhis subjects, but this was not in his role as national leader. Не was the head of See Mario Liverani, 'Model and Acrualization: ше Кings of Akkad in the Historical Tradition', in М. Liverani (ed.), Akkad: The First World En2pire (Padua, 1993), 52, J See e.g. С. J. Gadd, 'Hammurabi and ше End of his Dynasry', The Canzbn'dge 2
Allcic?l11 Hisrory, 3rd edn. 2: 1 (Cambridge, 1973), 184-7.
120
Urban Government
the palace organization) which at times could Ье extensive, incorporating а large segment ofthe popularion. In that role, he was like а pater familias, опе among таnу heads of households. Не took care of the details of the lives of his dependants, and as such Ье was involved with what might seem to us petty matters. But the unaffiliated households existed next {о the palatial one, and many of the urban citizens were not dependants of the crown. For these citizens the king's influence was limited, and they retained substan-· tial freedom in те running of their daily lives. In support ofhis role as nationalleader the king could rely оп ап elaborate palatial organization that provided him with administrators and warriors. Palaces were among the most prestigious buildings of аН Mesopotamian cities, and the palatial sector was at times of utmost prominence in society. At certain times the temples also fonned а major part of the ideological foundations of kingship, but this relationship to the crown did not remain constant throughout Mesopotamian history. As а political organization the temple has to Ье regarded separately from the palace. Indeed, from the midfirst millennium оп, temples Ьесаmе а bulwark of the citizens) power in the Babylonian city. : How did the citizenry that was not attached to the palace organize its own government? This question сап only Ье studied with respect to the urban citizenry, as the members of village сотmи nities and tribes remain almost entirely outside the written record. When we try to study те matter of urban government in detail we are confronted with а severe shortage ofinfonnation. Scholars have used their imagination to complete the details, and the validity of their reconstructions сап neither Ье confinned nor denied. The lack of evidence does not result from the accident of recovery, but from the nature of the written documentation in general and from the character of political representation among те citizenry. As 1 stated earlier, Mesopotamian records аге primarily concemed with the transfer of property. No such transfers took place between the citizenry and its government . ТЬе cities most likely did not have the power (о levy taxes, as such Уах levies would have been ге corded. Yet, а govemmental structure is revealed Ьу references in private contracts that attribute the transaction described to те decision of the government, as well as references to governmental actions in private letters, and statements in the so-called 'lawcodes' about the duties of officials. These data аге almost аН of а
juridical nature. The couns often forced the transfer of property
ИтЬаn
Government
121
between two citizens, and such transfers and their justification were put down in writing. The basis for а study of the citizens' role in govemment in general will thus Ьу necessity Ье the juridical organization. It demonstrates certain patterns in the decision-making process that possibly тау Ье expanded ТО other areas of govemment as well. У et the available documentation does not allow the affinnation or denial оЕ whether this was indeed the case. For instance, we see frequently that courts settled disputes over the ownership of land, which indicates that citizens accepted the decisions of а governmental body. But сап we extrapolate from that observation that citizens also submitted to а higher authority in other aspects oflife? Such а conclusion cannot Ье drawn оп the basis of the available evidence, and becomes а maner of the scholar's intuition. As 1 pointed out in the previous chapter, the Mesopotamian city was regarded as а unit, Ьu! within this unit several subdivisions existed. ТЬе cities were geographically divided into city quatters; they contained various professional associations, such as those of particular craftsmen or of merchants, and several intemational communities were allowed to maintain а separate identity. Juridiсаllу, the entire city and each of its subdivisions had their own courts, which were referred to as 'assemblies'. Texts from the entirety of Mesopotamian history show the existence of these assemblies and their activities as courts of law. А Mesopotamian seems {о have had the basic right to Ье judged Ьу his or her peers~ and this principle seems to have Ьееп taken 80 far that when citizens of two different cities were involved in а legal dispute~ judges from both towns had {о Ье present. Cases were brought to trial in public, either before the entire city or before one of its subdivisions. The study ofthe institution ofthe assembly is сотрli cated Ьу the fact that in the Akkadian language, as in English, the term for assembly, рu/зrum, refers both to ап institutionalized assembly and to апу informal gathering of а group of people. When the Code of Hammurabi states that а judge who alters а verdict is removed from his office (§ 5) it сап Ье interpreted as 'ап expulsion from the assembly, as well as а punishment meted out in public. There аге по documents {Ьа! describe the activities of the institutionalized assembly in detai1, and we are faced with many questions regarding the composition, the procedures, and the areas of сот petence of these institutions. The first difficulty is determining who sat in the assembly.
122
Urban Government
Scholars who have written оп the rnatter tend to state that mет bership was limited {о 'free male citizens', although the terms free and citizen cannot Ье easily defined. Obviously, те comparison with classical Greek assembIies has influenced this view. The evidence concerning which individuals had the right to participate in the assembly's discussions is very vague. The surviving record of а trial fOT homicide, dating to the early second mil1ennium, is ап exception. The document has Ьееп found in several copies in the scribal quatter of Nippur, and was most likely used as ап exercise text for teaching students legal terminology. But there is по reason to assume that it does not refl.ect а real coun case. Nanna-sig, son of Lu-Sin) Ku-Enlila, son of I
and New York) 1992) 278.
Urban
Governтent
123
The text shows some of the professions of some of те men who spoke ои! in the assembly: а bird-catcher, а potter, two gardeners, and а soldier. Ali-ellati's пате is followed Ьу the statement that Ье is а commoner, тuskёnuт in Akkadian,5 seemingly indicating his social status rather than his profession. The professional designations have по other purpose than to identify the men involvedj often the patronymic was used instead. But they are highly informative {о us. ТЬеу show that а wide variety of professions not only had the right, Ьи! also the time, to sit in the assembly. No trace of elitism is visible: most of the men were manual labourers, while опе of them was а soldier in the service of the temple of the god Ninurta. ТЬе fact та! they appear here as participants in а debate during а murder trial raises several questions. Where qid they find те time to do so? In classical Athens, for instance, only well-off, landowning citizens had the leisure to join in the assembly)s debares. Nominal paymenrs were given {о juries in trials and, from the late fourth century onward, for participation in the general assernbly as well. Were Mesopotamians rewarded similarly? It seems unlikely) although impossible {о determine. If there was по financial compensation for time spent with assembly business) it тау suggest that meetings were rare or that participation was casual, Ьи! попе of this is clear то us. Ап entirely different source of iпfопnаtiоп оп the assembly in early Mesopotamian history is the Sumerian literary composition ~f Gilgamesh and Agga. Although the tale is presented to us as а historical ассоип! of ап actual combat, it is clear that it relates а lirerary lOpOS of confiict and resolution. The preserved manuscripts of this cOffiposition date to {Ье early second mil1ennium~ Ьи! the {ехт was probably composed in the late third millenniuffi. It depicts а situation of crisis confronting the city where Gilgamesh ruled. Troops of те city of Кish were laying siege то Uruk and the king had to decide whether or not to fight them. Не consulted мо assemblies: опе ofthe 'elders ofthe city' and апе ofthe 'теп ofthe city). They provided opposing answers) the elders to yield, the men of the city to figbt. Did Gilgamesh turn {о the general assembly of теп because the elders had given him advice he did not like? Could 5
For this enigmaric term and а survey of published interpretations;, see Р. R. VQll Mesopotamischell Menschen der al,baЬylonischer Zez't und seiner Welc
Кrau$)
(Mededelingen der Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen, afd. Letterkunde, N.R. Deel 36, No. б; Amsterdan1 and London, 1973), 95-117.
124
Urban Government
аН теп
overrule те recommendation of the elders, or was it соmтоп practice for the king to consult with both bodies? The [ех! does по! provide answers to these questions. In апу case, it тау indicate that two separate bodies of citizens were in existence: the elite, restricted body of elders, and а wider опе of те теп in general. 6 Similarly, for the assemblies of тЬе Assyrian colonies in Anatolia of те early second millennium, а distinction between 'big' and 'small' теп is attested. But, in the mother city, Assur itself, such а differentiation was not made. This discrepancy has Ьееп interpreted as ап indication that the 'smal1 теп' were ех cluded from the assembly in larger towns, Ьи! that is а mere guess. Вот Фе terms 'elders' and 'теп' арреаг in other contexts as welI, Ьи! their interpretation is very difficult. 'Elders', аЬ. Ьа in Sumerian, sibutum in Akkadian, seems [о refer [о а select group of теп wirhin various communities, such as cities, tribes, temple and palace hierarchies. They are commonly seen [о have Ьееп the heads of families, whose influence was а survival of tribal practices, and their prominence in texts from те early second mil1ennium has Ьееп associated with the arrival ofthe west-Semitic Amorites in 7 те late third and early second millennia. Ви! this interpretation relies entirely ироп те unproven modeI of gradual sedentarization of nomads in Mesopotamian history, and does по! explain [Ье соттоп appearance of 'elders' in texts pre-dating the second miIlenniuffi. In те Ur 111 administration high officials could Ье designated 'elders' то distinguish them from соmтоп personnel,8 and surely по ~~ibal remnants сап Ье assumed [ог that practice. Непсе ап interpretation of these теп as 'elite' ог 'high-ranking', seems more appropriare than as heads of families. These 'elders' did по! compose the entire assembly, as тапу contexts talk аЬоu! 'the elders and the assembly'. Their ехас! relationship [о те assembIy is difficult to determine, however. Possibly they acted as ап 6 Dina Каи, 'Gilgamesh and Akka: Was Uruk Ruled Ьу Two AssembIies?) Re·vue d'assyn·o!ogz·e е! d'archeo!ogz"e on·enta!e 81 (1987), 105-14, suggesrs thar те assembly of the теп of the city was а literary fiction, while сЬе elders' assembIy \vas historiсаllу ассuгзrе. I do not see те basis for such а conclusion. 7 Н. IOengel, 'Zu den iiburunz in altbabylonischer Zeit', On·entalia 29 (1960), 357-75. 8 See e.g. the grain account G. Reisner, TenlpeZu.rkllnden au.s TeZloh (Беrlin, 1901), по. 111, where аЬ.Ьа.аЬ.Ьа are set арап from Qverseers ofploughmen and соттоn workers.
Urban Government
125
executive committee within it, and теу determined what matters would Ье considered Ьу the entire body. ТЬе Sumerian word for the 'mеп of the city', gиrn! in the Gi1gamesh сехс, is also too vague to allow us to determine which реорlе constituted {Ьас group. ТЬе term often refers {о palace dependants in the lасе third millennium, and if this were the right interpretation for the word in this context, it would negate the interpretation ofthe assembly as ап independent body representing the citizenry. ТЬе same tenn сап a1so Ье used {о indicate 'аЫе bodied теп' in generaI, and this was probably the meaning intended in сЬе context of the assembly. Whether апу restrictions existed as {о which mеп were allowed to join the assembly is again unclear. The Gilgamesh episode is equally unclear about how mапу теп sat in the assembly of Uruk. The question of whether women could sit in the assembly is usuaIIy either totally ignored Ьу scholars, or сЬе assumprion is simply made that {Ьеу could not. None of the evidence discussed above attests со their participation, Ьи! that тау just Ье а result of те general obscurity of the data. А Babylonian оmеп of the early second millennium contains the statement that 'а woman will reveal the business of the assembly'. 9 This could indicate та! she had Ьееп present during the discussions, but, obviously, the woman could have informed herself ofwhat went оп in тапу other ways as well. ТЬе question ofwomen's panicipation in {Ье assembly must thus remain unanswered. ТЬе assemblies 1 have discussed so far seem {о have represented entire towns, but subdivisions of cities had similar organizations. ТЬе city wards had legal authority and it is clear that their inhabitants gathered зt certain moments to make decisions. For instance, in the Code of Hammurabi the city ward had со detennine whether а woman had remained chaste after starting divorce procedures (§ 142), or could warn а тап that his animals presented а public danger (§ 251). As with те popular'representation for the entire town, we are also here uninformed about те membership, the competence, and the procedures ofthe gatherings ofthe inhabitants of а city quarrer. Other subdivisions ofthe towns, such as the associations of merchants or of craftsmen, had their meetings as well, and spoke out with опе voice. Assemblies were not 1imited (О 9
See Andre Finet in La voix de l'opposition еп Mesopotamie (Brussels> 1973» 18.
126
Urban Governmenl
native Mesopotamians: in the fifth century, we find evidence of ап assembly of Egyptian settlers and отег aliens in Babylon. We do по! know how тапу people were needed before they could соп vene ап assembly, but the right to congregate seems {о have Ьееn unrestricted. The record of the trial for homicide cited аЬоуе is interesting as it shows some of the procedures of the assembly. ТЬе case was referred to this соиn Ьу the king. Similar texts from the early second miIlennium state that the assembly was convened Ьу the king,10 а statement that casts some doubt оп the independent nature of the assembly а! that time. ТЬете seems {о have Ьееп по debate аЬои! те guilt of the three assassins, Ьи! оnlу аЬоu! the responsibility of the victim's wife, who did по! reveal that Ьет husband had Ьееn murdered. Nine men argued rhat she was guilty of murder, whiIe мо stood ир in Ьет defence. ТЬе {ех! is phrased as if we hear statements Ьу both parties> but must Ье а fictitious rendering ofthe discussion, as аН the accusers and аП the defenders speak in unison. Finally те entire assembly pronounced а verdict against the woman, and the record states that she and the assassins were handed over to [Ье executioner. From the Old Assyrian trading colony а! Kanish in Anatolia we have three very unusual, but also extremely fragmentary, texts that originally тау have contained instructions оп how те assembly there needed {о consider а lawsuit. The reconstruction of the procedures remains highly tentative because of the poor condition of the documents. It seems that а lawsuit was first considered Ьу те соипсil of фе 'big теn) to see whether it needed to Ье dismissed or to Ье passed оп to the full assembly. Without (те consent of) а majority of the big теп опе single 'тап of accounting' cannot ask the secretary to сопуепе the assembly of the big and smalI men. If the secretary convened the assembly of the big and rhe smaIl теп without (те consent of) the big теп, at the request of one single person, the secretary wilI рау 1О shekels of si1ver. 11
Seemingly the council was divided into three groups in order (о facilitate the deliberations. When а majority was in [ауоит of соп10
See Stephen J. Lieberman, CNippur: City of Decisions)" in Мапа de Jong Ellis
(PhiIadelphia, 1992), 132. Ferris J. Stephens, 'ТЬе Cappadocian TabIets in the University of Pennsylvania Museum"Journal o/lhe Sociecy ojOn·enlaZ Research 11 (1927),122 по. 19,11. б14, trans. after Mogens Trolle Larsen, The Old AssYl"ian CicJ'-SсQсе (Copenhagen, 1976), 284. (ed.)~ Nippur а& &he Ce1Z!ennial 11
Urban Government
127
sidering the case, те secretary was ordered to convene the entire assembly. This assembly тау have Ьееп divided into seven groups. Irs decisions required а majority as well. We do not know how it was detennined what те majority fe]t. Was а vote taken, and, ifso, how? Further information about the proceedings ofthe assembly is not available, unless we take into consideration the literary descriptions of meetings of gods. Those divine meetings show little evidence of discussion, ехсер! when they were limited со а small nurnber of prominent gods, who really debated те issue at hand. It has Ьееп stated that те proceedings of the assemblies were secret. This conclusion was based оп те above-mentioned отеп, Ьи! such secrecy seems rather unlikely to те. ТЬе proceedings were пос written down because they were of по importance. It was only the final verdict тас was considered significant enough to Ье recorded. The participant in the assembly clearly took оп а public profile, and was vulnerable {о humiliation Ьу his fellow citizens. Fear of this is expressed in prayers со gods: Do по! abandon тe~ ту lord, со the assembly where there are who wish те ill. Do not let те сате со harm in сЬе assembly.12
таnу
In the famous роет of the Righteous Sufferer the central сЬагас ter's downfall includes the [асс that 'ту slave cursed те орепlу in the assembly (of gentlefolk)'. 13 Опе gets те impression that intrigues were rife in the assemblies and that а citizen's good пате could Ье destroyed Ьу gossip, even Ьу that of а slave. ТЬе areas of сотресепсе of the assembly are again ап extremely difficult matter to discuss. Almost а11 the records we have deal with legal decisions. The assemblies, Ьот of the entire city and of the city quarters, acted as courts of law, next со those staffed with judges appointed Ьу the king. In the homicide trial cited above, the k.ing assigned те са5е to the assembly, Ьис it is far from clear whether or not he did 50 for аН cases. The cases heard were most commonly of а civil пасиге, Ьис sometimes а criminal са5е was considered as well. We have а record from Фе mid-first millenniuffi, for instance) describing how the assembly ofUruk examined 12 Trans. Alasdair Livingstone, Соип PoeT:ry and Lirerary Miscellanea (Helsinki, 1989)) 30-2, reverse 11. 11 and 13, quoted Ьу permission. 13 Trans. Ьу Benjamin R. Foster, FroHl Distant Days (Bethesda, 1995), ЗО 1 1. 89,
quoted Ьу permission.
•
128
Urban Government
the circumstances of а murder attempt оп the гоуаl commissioner ofthe Еаппа temple. In this case the assembly only did the preliminary invesrigation, while фе sentencing was passed оп to royal judges. Civi1 cases usual1y involved disputed property.) divorce) and other situations where the main stress lies оп те fact that propeny needed to Ье transferred пот опе parry {о another according to the decision of те court. Непсе, it should соте as по surprise that these cases predominate in our records. Was фе assembly competent in other matters? А single letter from the Old Assyrian correspondence to the merchant colony in Anatolia, dating to the early second millennium, suggests so. The letter contains ап order of the city of Assur [о the colony to provide funds for the building of fortifications. 1-1 In the Old Assyrian correspondence in general 'the city' and 'the assembly' are used as synonyms, suggesting that а great deal of power was located in the assembIy, comparable to те situation in classical Greece. Some optimistic scholars have therefore suggested that the assembly's areas of competence were all-encompassing in urban govemment. There is just по! enough information to deny or соnfiлn this view, in ту opinion. Jacobsen еуеп stated that the assembly originally had the powers to grant and to revoke kingship, а statement 1 will investigate below. ТЬе image we thus obtain of the assembly is tantalizing, but а! the same time exceedingly vague. We could see in it а meeting of citizens discussing widely ranging topics from lawsuits [о те selection of their leaders. Participation сап Ье seen as ап ас! of public prominence, Ьи! also as а way of exposing oneself (о intrigue and scorn. There is obviously nothing unusual аЬоис that, as public behaviour is always judged Ьу others. But was the assembly а place where ambitious теп and women, or теп аlопе, gained public recognition? Were participants involved in debates using their rhetorica! abilities [о convince others of the correctness of their opinion? This is аН ореп to our imagination, as по iпfолnаtiоп for or against such conclusions is available [о us. The palace and the citizenry formed two separate political еlе ments in the Mesopotamian city. Channels of communication between the two needed to exist) and these were the responsibiIity of а nurnber of officials. The study of these officials is, again, very 14
See Larsen, Old Assyrian Cit)'-Scace) 163.
Urban Government
129
difficult, because of сЬе large numbers of titles we encounter and the vagueness of (Ье duties еасЬ officiaI had. W е are overwhelmed Ьу а mass of titles when we look at urban administration. For instance, in her study of те city of Sippar in the early second milIennium, Rivkah Harris talks about the mayor, те chairman of the assembly, the overseer of the merchants, фе governor, the rabi sikkatinz (Akk.), the sussikku (Akk.), the sakkanakku (Akk.), the bailiff, the overseer of те barbers, the barber, те gatekeeper, те gateman, and (Ье doorkeeper. She herself notes that 'officials bearing а disturbing variety of titles appear as chief administrators'.15 It is vinually impossible to determine the responsibilities of most officials with апу accuracy, as а few examples will make clear. Two officials who seemingly played ап important role in the government of (Ье Mesopotamian city were the chainnan of the assembly and the mауог. ТЬе firsr, chairman of [Ье assembIy, owes his Eng1ish title (о the Sumerian designation, gaZ. ukken. па, which literally translates as 'great опе of the assembly', а wording that continued to Ье used еуеп when the texts were written in Akkadian. Не rarely appears in our sources, however, in connection with the assembly. Instead, he seems со Ьауе had сЬе authority to hold people prisoner, and (о have acted as ап intermediary between the palace and the citizens. Therefore some scholars have insisted that the reference со the assembly in his title is inconsequential, and that he has по relationship а! аН to this institution. Another соттоп Akkadian title, rabianum, bears very little resemblance (о our image of а mayor, although we usual1y translate the Akkadian term as such. In Sippar the rabianum appeared as the chairman of the court and as а witness. In the latter capacity Ье was almost always listed first, which seems to reflect his prominence. According (о the Code of Hammurabi, the rabianum, together with 'rhe city', was responsible for prosecuting robberies which took place in his city's territory (§§ 23-4), indicating that he was а high officiaI, but without revealing much about his other functions. In Old Babylonian documents, the rabianum often appears as а middleman in hiring contracts of harvest labourers. It seems that he acted as the iпtеrmеdiаry between [Ье palace and сЬе townspeople 15 Rivkah Harris, Ancient Sippar: А Deтographic Study 01 ап Old Babylonian Ciry (1894-1595 В. С.) (Istanbul) 1975), 57-86.
130
Urban Government
who worked its lands. More тап опе rabianum could function in а city а! те same time, most likely because еасЬ ward had апе. А recently excava~ed, and unfortunarely nor yer ful1y published, Old Babylonian text provides а Iess stereotypical view оп the rabianunz. In Haradum, а Babylonian outpost оп те Euphrates, some tablets were excavated in те house of [Ье mayor located in те centre of town. The mayor, Habasanu, seems to have embezzled some ofthe funds his citizens had paid. Conceming the si1ver) which Habasanu during his tenure as mауос had made {Ье town рау, the entire town assembled and spoke in these terms {о Habasanu: 'Of the silver which уои made us рау) а great amount has stayed in уоиг house) as well as те sheep which we gave оп {ор as voluntazy gifts.' 16
This text suggests that the mayor coIlected Фе payments due Ьу his citizens to pass them оп [о а higher authoriry, Ьи[ that he had omitted to do the latter. Still, despite the numerous attestations of Фе title rabianum in Old Babylonian documents, we сап say very little with certainty аЬои[ the office. The title did по! survive the end of the Old Babylonian dynasry, but а lesser authority, the !;azannu112 (Akk.), seems [о have raken over те duties of Фе rabianunz, and the translation 'mayor' is commonly used [о render this title when it appears in texts written after 1500. А unique letter dating to the middle of те second millennium, found in {Ье northern ciry of Nuzi, describes the duties of this office in some detaiI. It is а letter from те king of Arrapha to the mayor of Tashuhhe: Thus says the mayor of Tashuhhe: 'The king has issued ап order as follows: "Every mayor is responsible for the outlying territory of his ciry, and if there is а fortified settlement in the counrryside around his ciry, Ье is a1so responsible,for it. In {Ье area of his ciry there should Ье по robbery, nor enemies murdering (people» nог the taking ofboory. Ifit happens та! there is а robbery) or enemies take boory and murder (people) within те territory of his ciry, те mayor shall рау damages. If а runaway from АггарЬа runs away from the territory of his ciry and enters another country) the mayor shal1 рау damages. And if а fortified sett]ement within the territory of that city is abandoned, the mayor shall рау damages." ,17 Francis Joannes, 'Haradum et lе pays de Suhum') Archeologie 205 (1985), 58. Ernest R. LзсЬеmап, Excavaxions ах Nuzi 6: The Adnlilliscracive Archives (Сат bridge) Mass.) 1955), по. 1; trans. after А. Leo Oppenheim ес aZ., The Assyn'an Diclionary 6, Н (Chicago, 1956), 164-5. 16
17
Urban Government
131
This man's responsibi1ities were thus not limited to the confines of his cicy, but а180 extended to the 8urrounding countryside. Не seems to have Ьееn per80nally answerable for crimes in his terri{оту, and 80mehow had to prevent 'refugees' from escaping the area. Moreover, Ье had to ascertain тас small fortified settlements surrounding сЬе city were occupied. As Ье seems со have had to рау the damages out ofhis own pocket, the office must have соте with pecuniary rewards to make it worth his while. А unique, unofficial, glimpse at the mayor's status in the city is provided Ьу а Babylonian folk-tale of the first millennium, 'ТЬе Poor Мап of Nippur' .18 The tale relates how а роог тап, GimilNinurta, wa8 80 tired of his lack of decent food that Ье decided to spend аН Ье had оп а goat to cook himself а fine meal. But then Ье remembered how he would not Ье аblе to provide а proper feast for his neighbours, family, and friends, and that he would incite their wrath if he did пос invite them аП. Thus Ье decided со go to the mayor of Nippur, offer him {Ье goat, and hoped that in retum Ье would Ье asked to join him in а nice dinner. Вис instead the mayor kept {Ье good теас for himself, and gave Gimil-Ninurta Фе bones and gristle and some third-rate beer. ТЬе poor тап decided to take а threefold revenge. ТЬе first trick he played оп the mayor gives us some idea of that man's role in а city. Gimil-Ninurta went {о {Ье king and, without explanation, asked со Ье fitted out as а gentleтап with fine clothes and а chariot, for а future payment in gold. Не loaded а sealed Ьох in his chariot and rode (о Nippur where Ье was greeted Ьу сЬе mayor. Не
we{nr off] (о the gate of сЬе mayor of Nippur, The mayor сате o[utside] [о meet him, 'Who are уои, ту lord, who have travelled so la[te in the day]?' 'Тhe king, your lord, sent те, Со [ ] '1 have brought gold for Ekur, temple of Enlil.' The mayor slaughtered а fine sheep Со make а generous 19 теа! for him.
In the middle ofthe night Gimil-Ninurta cried ои! сЬас the Ьох had Ьееп opened and the gold in it stolen, thrashed the mayor, and extoned раутеп! in gold and fine clothes. 18 For the mosr recent English trans. of this tale., used here, see Foster, Frorn Discanc Days, 357-62. 19
Trans. ibid. 359) quoted Ьу permission.
132
Urban Government
The {ех! indicates that the mayor was the representative of the town who was in charge of greeting and entertaining royal emissaries оп official business. It also shows again that he was held ас countable for thefts in his territory. Obviously this does по! teH us тисЬ аЬои! his daily duties. У et, his status within the ciry seems clear: he acted as the intennediary between the palace and the citizenry. Маnу of the отег officials we find attested in the texts played the saтe role. ТЬе contacts between the town communities and the crown were mediated Ьу individuals acting as representatives. This practice was nо! limited to тayors for cities; nomadic tribes were also represented Ьу their sheikhs in their contacts with the crown. It is unclear who was responsible for the appointment of these representatives. Suggestions that they held their office only оп ап annual basis;, and that they were elders of the town selected Ьу their peers;, have been shown to Ье f~lse. In later periods mayors were seemingly appointed Ьу the king; but was the king rubber-stamping а communaI decision} or did Ье make the choice himself? The concept of а higher authority channelling its contacts with segments of the community through representative individuals was applied оп other levels in the hierarchy of urban government as well. The subdivisions of the city mentioned above had the abiliry to discuss matters in their own assemblies, and to speak with опе voice in their contacts with higher authorities. These contacts were mediated Ьу а representative, Ье Ье elected Ьу the people or selected Ьу the king. Thus the тауог тау have consulted with representatives of different city wards, while Ье acted as the representative of the entire city in its contacts with the king. When the palace demanded labour service from the citizens) it was the тау or's duty {о gather (Ье people; Ье probably relied оп the representatives of the different wards to find the individual labourers. ТЬе only people who feH outside this structure were the so-called refugees, who were either new foreign arrivals, or people who had fled their social unit for whatever reason. The mayor was responsible for them as individuals. The hierarchy of people representing segments of the population explains, in ту opinion~ the lack of information оп urban government. This government was а very decentralized affair. Most ofthe responsibilities such as sanitation, policing, or те regulation of marriages and divorces, were not administered Ьу the central
Urban Govemment
133
power, but Ьу the subdivisions of the towns. As problems were dealt with оп а highly personal basis in groups of restricted sizes, they were not registered in writing. Only when а decision resulted in the transfer of property was а record needed, hence the predominance of the legal aspects of the urban government in our dосumепtаtiоп.
Despite the сitizепry's ability to congregate and debate matters of interest to тет, they were по! guaranteed the right to make decisions against the will ofthe king, whose powers were seemingly absolute. The relative powers of the citizenry and the king most likely varied with the nature of the state, and these variations
obviously affected the decision-making process concerning urban affairs. The relationship be(ween citizens and the king when citysrates were srandard would seem likely (О have been different from when the city was just а minor part of ап empire spreading over most of
те
Near East. It is
ту
opinion that, with the progressive
tепitоriаl
expansion of the political units in Mesopotamia, the cities and their representatives gained increased political independепсе and infiuence. This is the reverse of the currently predominant view that Mesopotamian history evolved from 'primitive democracy' 10 а totalitarian state headed Ьу ап all-powerful king. The concept of 'primitive democracy' was developed some fifty years ago Ьу Thorkild Jacobsen. Observing the existence of assemblies with judicial powers in early second millennium Assyria and Babylonia, Jacobsen sought to determine whether they were the survival of ап older tradition or the indication of something new. Не discarded the second possibility 'since the entire drift of Mesopotamian political life and thought in те historical periods is wholeheartedly in the other direction. Throughout we find по signs of growing democratic ideas.,20 Не decided thus that the assembly was ап old institution. Indeed Ье thought that it existed prior то the development of secular kingship in Mesopotamia. Based primarily оп literary material of те second millennium, Jacobsen painted ап almost Biblical picture of the rise of kingship in the third mil1ennium. After а period when the assembly elected а military leader in times of crisis, а period of 'primitive democracy', this power was usurped Ьу the elected leader who forced the 20
Thorkild Jacobsen, 'Primitive Democracy', ]oumal
(1943)) 165.
0/ Near Easlem S,udies 2
~З4
Urban Governn'lent
fitizens to appoint him king for life. This evolution perfectly paralFls the depiction of те rise of kingship in {Ье book of Samuel the Bible. There the last judge, Saul, refused to relinquish ~is temporary powers, and thus introduced kingship among the ~raelites. Jacobsen never pointed out this paralle1ism, perhaps tecause in Mesopotamia kingship was portrayed as а benefit to pankind, while the Bible always maintained а strong anti-royalist :t:titude. , ]acobsen's reconstruction relied extensively оп а Babylonian ;terary text, usually referred to as the 'Epic of Creation'. The text ras apparently composed in the twelfth century and celebrated the ~se to kingship over the universe Ьу Marduk, the god of Babylon. Vhen the gods were threatened with annihilation Ьу Tiamat, еп3.ged Ьу the murder of her husband Apsu, the wise Еа pushed )rward his favourite son Marduk to counter the threat. Marduk ffered his services оп the condition that Ье would Ье accorded lprerne powers. ТЬе gods agreed to grant his wish during ап ~sembly meeting, which was more а banquet with limitless lpplies of beer and wine than а serious discussion of те problem : hand, and Marduk was crowned king before Ье dealt with 'iamat. After his victory he orga11ized the universe, and finally emanded the building of Babylon as his reward. ТЬе events ~picted are thus not exactly а usurpation Ьу ап elected leader of )wers only granted temporarily, but crucial {о Jacobsen's thesis is le fact that Marduk had Ьееп originally elected as king Ьу the .sembly of the gods. Combining this with information from other .eces of literature, Jacobsen pictured тЬе existence in early Meso)tamia of а popular assembly with extensive powers, including the ection of the king. Ву the mid-third millennium the assembly's )wers were greatly restricted Ьу life-long rulers, according to cobsen, and the subsequent history of Mesopotamia showed ап creased totalitarianism. Emperors such as Assurbanipal, who tled ап area from Iran {о Egypr, did not need to consult with their tizens. Leaving aside the issue of the origins of kingship, difficult to Lldy due to the lack of contemporary documentation, the undering view of Jacobsen's entire argument is that the original, and ide powers of the citizenry were eroded and replaced Ьу те Isolute rule of ап individual. Although Jacobsen never indicated s own awareness of it, his reconstruction resembles the Marxist
r. I
Urban Government
135
model where the communal mode ofproduction is thought to have been replaced Ьу the slave-owning mode of production; from а society where the community was of supreme importance to опе where а despotic king was in. charge. Their discussion has Ьееп framed in the context of the perceived dichotomy between the community and те palace, а dichotomy that does по! take into account the private citizens as members of individual households. Сап we discern ап evolution from 'primitive democracy' {о ап absolute monarchy in the Mesopotamian record? 1 believe not, and wish to postulate instead the reverse: as the territory ruled Ьу Mesopotamian kings Ьесате larger and the рорulзtiоп more diverse, те urban citizenry gained importance in its relationship (о the king. Instead of searching for vague clues of citizens' power in the records of the third millennium, it is more usefиl to study the status of urban residents in the first millennium~ when records are mоге abundant. We see that these residents were granted а large degree of independence, especially exemption$ frorn royal taxation, corvee, and military duties, which were the primary areas of interaction berween the king and his subjects. Also, the physical integrity of citizens was guaranteed, and their blood could not Ье shed Ьу the king or his representatives. The freedom from taxation and service was thought to Ье the result of divine protection over the cities, indicated Ьу th~ Akkadian word kidinnu, а divinely enforced security which was probably symbolized Ьу ап етЫет set up in а prominent place in the cities. We have а list of declarations from Assyrian kings stating that they granted от re-established this status (о various cities. The beneficiaries were mostly ancient cult centres in Babylonia: Babylon, Borsippa, Nippur, Sippar, and Uruk. In Assyria the old capital and cu1t centre Assur commonly received this status, and Harran was occasionally mentioned. Опе king extended the practice to cities of the state of Urartu in Anatolia, but this seems to have Ьееп а special occurrence. The protection was taken very seriously: the most illustrative example of it is perhaps found in а letter written Ьу the assembly of Babylon to the Assyrian king Assurbanipal and his brother Shamash-shuma-ukin, who was the king of Babylonia. In the letter the citizens requested that the protection granted to them Ье ех tended (О аН residents ofthe city, even those offoreign origin. They al1uded [о ап earlier statement of the king that 'whoever enters
136
Urban Governl1ze1zt
Babylon is assured permanent protection ... Even а dog who еп ters it will по! Ье killed. ,21 An Assyrian preceptive text of the first half of the first millennium., 'ТЬе Advice to а Prince', makes а great deal ofthe preservation ofthe protected status ofBabylonian cities. It states, for instance, If (the prince) took money of cirizens of Babylon and appropriated (it) for (his own) propeny, (or) heard а case involving Babylonians but dismissed it for trivialitY, Marduk, lord ofheaven and earth~ will establish his enemies over him and grant his possessions and propeny to his foe ... If Ье cal1ed ир the whole of Sippar) Nippur, and Babylon to impose forced labour оп the peoples aforesaid, requiring of them service ar the recruiter's Cty) Marduk~ sage ofthe gods, deliberative prince, will tшn his land over to his foe so Фа! the troops of his land will do forced labour for his foe. Anu, Enlil, and Еа, те great gods who dwell in heaven and еаnh, have соn firmed in their assembly the exemption of these (people from such obligations).2z
The importance of these protected status grants in the imperial policy of the Assyrians has long Ьееп recognized. Cities were used Ьу the Assyrian kings to act as outposts of their rule in ап often hostile countryside, including enemies from Egypt to the Chaldean tribes in the marshes of southern Iraq. The isolation of the urban centres in ill-secured territory is clearly visible in а letter Ьу ап official of Nippur to the Assyrian king Esarhaddon: 'The king knows that аН countries hate us because of the land of Assyria. W е cannot set foot in any country. Wherever we go we will Ье kil1ed, as people say "Why did уои submit to Assyria?)' So now we have locked our gates, and do not go out at а11. ,23 The Assyrian kings needed to maintain good urban contacts, especial1y with the cities of Babylonia, in order to secure their rule over the area. They needed to negotiate with the citizens, and could not simply impose their will upon тет, as is clear from this letter written {о Кing Tiglath-Pileser 111 Ьу two of his officials: Оп
the twenry-eighth we сате to ВаЬуl0n. We took our stand before rhe Marduk-gate (and) talked wirh the nzan of Babylon. Х, servant of Mukinzёr, те Chaldean was at his side. When they сате out they were standing 21
Robert Н. Pfeiffer, State Leuers 01 Assyria (American Oriental Series б; New
Haven, 19.35), 22
23
по.
62, 11. 9 and 11. Trans. Foster, Front Disranc Days) 391-2) quoted Ьу permission. Pfeiffer, Scale Leuers, по. 123, В. 11-20.
Urban Government
137
befare the gate with the Babylonians. We said this {о те Babylonians: 'Why ате уои hostile to us for the sake of them? Their place is with the Chaldean tribesmen [ ] Babylon indeed shows favour (о а Chaldean! Yaur privileges (kidinnutu) have been firmly established.) 1 kepr gaing {о Babylon: we used many arguments with Шет. Тhe Five and the Ten were present:. They would not agree {а сате out, they would nо! talk {о us: they (j ust) kept sending us messages ... 24
The privileged status of certain cities indicates the power of the urban citizenry in general; this is not contradicted Ьу the fact that only а small number of cities in Babylonia are attested as having received the exemptions from royal taxation and service. We have to keep in mind that БаЬуlоniа i~ те early first millennium was sparsely urbanized) and that few cities) other than those mentioned Ьу the Assyrian kings, existed at that time. 25 The fact that few Assyrian cities received privileges is а reflection of the reality that Assyria was securely held Ьу its rulers. But the situation
in БаЬуlопiа was different: because of its distance from the heartland of Assyria-and its unruly countryside-the Assyrians needed outposts where the allegiance of те people was assured. Those were the ancient cities, which were given special privileges in return. The special status of citizens was neither new to the early first millennium, nor did it end when the Assyrian empire collapsed. From the mid-second millennium onward, divine protection of the citizens of certain urban centres is attested, and the use of the Akkadian term kidinnu coincided with те growth of те territorial state in Mesopotamia. With the end of the Assyrian empire in the late seventh century, the institution of the kidinnu disappeared, except for what тау have been а nostalgic revival under Кing Nabonidus (ruled 555-5З9)~Ьut that did not mean that the rulers felt secure enough to ignore the urban populations. The rulers of the пео-БаЬуlопiап dynasty (625-539) did not boast in their inscriptions аЬои! their far-flung and successful foreign campaigns, ND 2632 Н. 5-22) Н. w. F. Saggs) 'The Nimrud Letters) 1952-Pan 1', lraq 17 (1955)) 23. 25 For the low level of urbanization, see J. А. Brinkman, Prelude СО Eтpire: ВаЬуlО1liЙIl SocielY Qlld Politics, 747-626 в.с. (Philadelphia) 1984), 3-10. Brinkman proposes) however, that areas outside те former core area of Babylonia show ап increased level of urbanization. В. Landsberger) Archiv fйr On·entforschung 10 (1935-6), 142, suggesred that те ciries mentioned were representative ofBabylonia in general. 2-1
138
UуЬаn GovenUne1Z!
but commemorated the fac! that they restored temples in their homeland. This work was not done for purely pious reasons, but to ingratiate the kings with the 10саl populations. At that time, те temple organization and the citizenry сап Ье regarded тоге or less as the same thing. The important families of Babylonian cities divided the temple offices ир among themselves, and profited extensively from the temple income. They expressed their views in powerful temple assemblies. As Dandamaev stated, 'а characteristic feature of these cities was self-rule Ьу free and legally equal members of society united in а popular assembly (рuЬnе) around the principal temple of the city'. 26 The privileged treatment Ьу rulers did по! end when Mesopotamia lost its independence to rulers from Iran and Greece. ТЬе Hellenistic rulers respected the rights of Babylonian cities, and exempted them from taxes and duties, while allowing them {о continue Babylonian administrative practices. The temple eontinued {о рlау а central role in the city administration, and its head} assisted Ьу а соиnсil, Ьесате the chief authority in the city. Royal supervision was maintained through а number of officials . This does not need to Ье regarded as the introduction ofthe Greek polis system into Mesopotamia, but сап Ье explained as the continua . . tion and intensification of older practices whose roots went back for many centuries. The Seleucid ciry was ап autonomous сотти niry, centred around а temple where most leading citizens held offices, and with а self-governing body, the assembly. Royal power was absolute in matters of national importance> Ьи! it did по! interfere with the' daily problems of urban life. It cannot Ье denied that prior to те mid-second millennium, cities could have been treated with special respect Ьу kings. But before that time the city really was те state, and Фе palace organization was тоге pervasive in the urban context. Control of urban population and affairs was тиер simpler under such conditions. Even when the ruler of one city-state temporarily controlled other cities, фе system of government Ьу (Ье 10саl palace was по! abandoned. Governors rather than independenr rulers continued to fulfil the role of head of the 10саl palace organization, with close citizen interaction. That urban favours had to Ье bought at times is 16 Muhammed А. Dandamaev, 'Neo-Babylonian Sociery and Economy', The Carllbridge Allcienc His!ory, 2nd edn. З: 2 (Cambridge) 1991), 252-3.
UтЬаn
Government
139
shown Ьу the example of I
0/
Modernity (New York,
140
Urban
Goverпment
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Discussions abour kingship in Mesoporamia have focused
оп its
relationship {о divinity or оп royal titulary; for example) Henri Frankfort, Kingship and the Gods (Chicago, 1948); с. J. Gadd, Ideas 01 Divine ,Rule in the Ancient Near East (London, 1948); and M.-J. Seux, Epithetes royaZes akkadiennes е! sumeriennes (Paris, 1967). Some useful papers оп kingship in various periods of Mesopotamian history сап Ье found in Раи! Garelli (ed.), Le Palais еЕ la royaute (Paris, 1 974). The assembly in Mesopotamia has been studied Ьу numerous authors, in particular Thorkild Jacobsen's fundamental article, 'Primitive Democracy in Ancienr Mesopotamia', ]оиrnаl 01 Near Eastern Studies 2 (1943),159-72, which reflects mапу ofthe topics discussed in this chapter. Не also discussed primitive democracy in 'Early Political Development in Mesopotamia), Zez"[schrijт; !йТ Assyn·ologie 52 (1957), 91-140. Both studies were reprinted in Towards [he Image 01 Tammuz (Cambridge, Mass, 1970). Ап attempt а! elucidating some of те questions left unanswered Ьу Jacobsen, Ьу using parallels from ancient Sparta and Rome, was made Ьу Geoffrey Evans, 'Ancient Mesopotamian Assemblies', Уоurnаl 0/ the Аmепсаn Олеnсаl Society 78 (1958), 1-11, 114~15. А special volume devoted to 'political opposition) in Mesopotamia, which considered this {о Ье opposition {о royal power, was published Ьу Andre Finet (ed.), La Voix de l'opposi[ion еп Mesopo[amie (Brussels, 1973). It contains а number of interesting papers, but is very hard {о find. The assembly in Assur and its colony Kanish in те early second millennium has Ьееп thoroughly invesrigated Ьу Mogens Trol1e Larsen, The Old Assyn·an Cz·ry-State and i[s Colonies (Copenhagen, 1976), 1БО~92. Mid-firstmillennium Babylonian assemblies have been studied Ьу Muhammed А. Dandamaev, 'The Neo-Babylonian Popular Assembly', in Р. Vavrousek and V. Soucek (eds.), Sulnzll (Prague, 1988),63-71. The most recent treatment ofthis topic is Ьу Mario Liverani, who is the first {о look а! the institution in а broad temporal perspective: 'Nelle pieghe del despotismo: Organismi rappresentativi nell'antico oriente', S[udi S[orici 34 (1993), 7~3З. Por те final periods of Mesopotamian history, the discussion of rhe role of the assembly has been marred Ьу the issue of whether or по! it showed апу resemblance {о that of the Greek polis, ignoring
Urban Governmenl
141
the earlier history of this institution in Mesopotamia. See, for instance, G. Кh. Sarkisian, 'CityLand in Seleucid Babylonia', in 1. М. Diakonoff (ed.), Ancient Mesopotamia: Socio-Economic History (Moscow, 1969),312-31, who wants {о see Greek-styledpoleis in Babylonia; for {Ье opposing view see R. J. van der Spek, 'ТЬе Babylonian City', in Атеliе Kuhrt and Susan Shenvin-White (eds.), Hellenism and the East (London, 1987),57-74. For the study of officials and their roles, see primarily investigations of specific titles. For еагlу second millennium Babylonia, Arnold Walther, Das altbabylonische Gerichtswesen (Leipziger Semitische Srudien VI; 1917), is still а fundamental study. For Assyria in the first millennium, а handy anicle is Jana Pecirkova, 'The Administrative Organization of the Neo-Assyrian Empire', Archiv On'entillni 45 (1977), 211-28; this study is heavily based оп J. v. Кinnier-Wilson, The Nimrud Wz'ne Lists (London, 1972). For
а
review of the material
оп
k'id'z"nnu, see W.
Р.
Leemans-,
'Kidinnu: Un symbole de droit babylonien), in Symbolae Van Oven (Leiden, 1946), 36-61. НапосЬ Reviv, 'Kidinnu: Observations оп privileges of Mesopotamian Cities', Уоurnаl 0/ the Economic and Social Hislory 0/ the ОпеnЕ 31 (1988), 286-98, provides а recent sUIVey of the same data. The relationship berween the king and the citizenry has Ьееn regarded in the context of community rights versus royal power Ьу Marxist scholars. See the work of 1. М. Diakonoff, for instance, 'The rise of the despotic State in Ancient Mesopotamia', in 1. М. Diakonoff (ed.)) Ancient MesopoLamia: Socio-Economic History (Moscow, 1969), 173-203; and that of his student N. В. Jankowska, 'Communal Self-Government and the Кing in the State of Arrapkha', Journal 01 the Economic and Social History 01 the Orient 12 (1969), 233-82. Discussions of the preceptive text 'Advice to а Prince' have focused оп the date of the piece, which now seems {о have а precursor in the late second millennium. Its relevance in practice is clear from а letter addressed со Кing Esarhaddon, see Erica Reiner, 'The Babylonian Fiirstenspiegel in Practice', in J. N. Postgate (ed.), Societies and Languages 01 the Ancient Near East: Studies in Honour 01 1. М. Diakonoff (Warminster) 1982)~ 320-3.
7 Feeding the Citizens
Anу
city requires ап economic base for its survival, enabling its residents to feed themselves and remain in ше same place аН the уеат round; the Mesopotamian city is по exception. As 1 pointed ои! before> the city played а central role in the entire economic organization of Mesopotamia, permitting the exchange cf goods among various groups: farmers, fishermen, herders, and 80 оп. Moreover, the city was the only place where people not involved in primary food productiQn, such as specialist craftsmen, administrators, and cult personnel, could Ье supponed thanks {о ап available agricultural surplus. Today, we distinguish between three sectors in our есопоmу: primary food production, secondary manufacture, and tertiary services. In {Ье following three chapters 1 will discuss these in turn. А lot of inforrnation is available оп Mesopotamian economic activity, as it often involves the transfer of goods which needed {о Ье put down in writing. Not surprisingly, the textual data is not of а descriptive character, but provides small details of long chains of interactions leading to а finished product, Ье it food item, manufactured object, or financial settlement. These details need to Ье placed in а larger context to Ье properly understood, and in the following chapters 1 will try to provide а context for the infonnation available to us аЬои! various economic activities, rather than give ап overview of what we know about them. In а pre-industrial society agriculture is the most imponant economic activity, and without ап agricultural base по city could survive. Despite our inability to estimate urban population sizes with аnу reasonable degree of certainty> we сап state beyond doubt that тапу ancient Mesopotamian cities relied оп non-urban resources for their food provisions. \Vhile certain city residents were involved in agricultural production, and the existence of fields within city walls is attested in some texts, the produce from these sources was insufficient to feed аН inhabitants. In the survey of
Feeding the Cilizens
143
urban onglns 1 argued that agricultural exchange was апе of the determining factors in the rise of cities in the south. The provisioning of cities with food was thus the most impartant sphere of interaction between cities and their hinterlands. l! concerned multiple steps in а process that was influenced Ьу geographical, social, and political conditions along the way. А tentative outline of that process сап only Ье sketched) but will reveal some of the complexity involved.
HOW DID ТНЕ HARVESTS REACH ТНЕ CITIES?
As usual we da not have at our disposal а text, ог еуеп а string of texts, that describes what happened, for instance, with а barleycorn [rom the mоmеп! it was harvested to when it was consumed as the Ьеег of ап urban resident. In order {о reconstruct these events we have to put together а jigsaw puzzle with most of its pieces 108t, and even whose general outline is missing. Therefore, 1 will use Ьеге, as а guide, а purely theoretical article, written Ьу а specialist in modern-day agricultural management) yet published in а volume devoted to ancient Near Eastern bureaucracies. 1 In this article Robert Hunt reconstructs the sequence of actions that led {о the provisioning of cities, and focuses especially оп the [оlе of bureaucrats in that process. His reconstruction сап Ье used {о provide а framework to the information given in {Ье ancient Mesopotamian sources, and will епаЫе us to outline the process of urban .. . prOVls10nlng. In order to describe the setting of this process, it is perhaps useful to summarize first the food resources which were available to Mesopotamia's urban civilization. These included not only products grown in fields, orchards, and gardens, or acquired through herding, Ьи! also food gathered through fishing, hunting, and plant collection. Enormous amounts and varieties of salt- and fresh water fish were caught, as well as other water creatures, such as crabs and turtles; these were {о Ье found in the Persian Gulf, {Ье southern marshes, and the rivers and canals. The hunting of water-fowl, 1 Robert С. Hunt, 'ТЬе Role of Bureaucracy in the Provisioning of Ciries: а Frame\\'ork for Analysis of {Ье Ancient Near East', in McGuire Gibson and R. D.
Biggs (eds.), The O,:gallizQcioll 01 Power: Aspecls 01 Bureaucracy in the Ancient Near
Easc (Chicago, 1987), 161-92.
144
Feeding the Citizens
birds, and game, such as gazelIes, mountain goats, and wild pigs was common, as was the collection of bird and tunle eggs. The roots, bulbs, berries, and nuts ofwild plants, rushes, and trees were collected, and аП found their way into the kitchen. Salt, used as а condiment and for pickling, was washed from rivers and marshes. The staple of те Mesopotamian diet was rnade ир of cereals, primarily barley and, to а lesser extent, emmer and wheat. Ап abundance oftenns for grain appears in the native tenninology, not аН of which we сап match ир with actual species, and the preference for crops varied according то region and probably also tiтe period. Sesame was grown for oil production. The plant was imported, probably from the Indus Valley, in the mid-third millennium and thrived in Mesopotamia from та! time. Orchards were composed of а large variety oftrees, but the datepalm was always of primary imponance. In Babylonia this tree was ubiquitous along waterways, and fonned dense palm groves around the cities. In Assyria, however, the climate was insufficiently hot to expect high yields from date palms} and therefore the tree was less соттоn there. Other fruit trees were cultivated аН over the region in various settings: among date palms, in special orchards, and in the mountains. Fruits harvested froт these trees included pomegranates, apples, figs, and grapes. Vines were native to many regions and wine was pressed from the earliest periods. А variety of vegetables was grown in special gardens or within orchards using the trees for shade: onions, garlic, lettuces, сисum bers, beans, lentils, peas, and many mare. ТЬе last major sector of agriculture was herding, especially the herding of sheep and, (о а muсЬ lesser extent, of goats. Immense flocks were kept оп the fringes of the cultivated zones throughout Mesopotamia. Cattle were rarer and were kept closer to home due to their need for fodder to supplernent grazing. It is important to keep in mind that herds of cattle, sheep, and goats were kept primarily for their renewable resources-milk, wool, and hair-not for their meat. As only cows and goats were milked, the innumerable sheep in Mesopotamia were по! а major source of food, but reared for their wool. Оп the other hand, analyses of excavated bones show that the domesticated pig was commonly eaten. Finally, besides these larger animals, bees were kept fQr the production of honey. The Меsороtзrniап could thus potentially rely оп а highly varied
Feeding the Citizens
145
diet. The ingredients were derived from а wide range of sources and some could have Ьееп home-grown Ьу urban residents: а cow could Ье kept in the courtyard, for instance, or а vegetable plot could Ье maintained near the house. Most foods were produced in the countryside, however, and certain segments of the urban society needed to obtain them from producers to whom they were not related. These producers were not only villagers permanently residing in the counrryside) Ьи! also nomadic and seminomadic herdsтеп. Of аН food products, bread and beer were the most basic in те Mesopotamian's mind, and were considered to Ье synonymous with food and drink in general. Непсе, 1 will investigate how bread and beer were produced, from the growth of the cereal to the baking of the bread or the brewing of the beer. Тhe production processes of bread and beer are entirely similar until the final stages; therefore their progress from the producer to the consumer сап Ье
studied jointly. For other foods, the sequence of steps
needed to bring them to the consumers was most likely somewhat different, but documentation about them is scarcer, and we сап suпnisе that the procedures were as equally complex as they were fo r cereals. Cereals were grown primarily in fields located outside the clties. А basic-and very thomy-question concerns the matter of ownership of agriculturalland in ancient Mesopotamia, which affects те access of urban residents to the produce. 1t is now certain that, throughout the history of the region, both privately and institutionаНу owned land existed. Detailed knowledge of the situation in various periods and regions escapes us, however, and different conclusions сап Ье drawn from те scarce source material. Ownership of land appeared in various fonns in Mesopotamia. There is а generallack of documentation оп the communal ownership of land, owing to Фе fact that work оп land of this type was part ofthe subsistence есопоту, not ofthe redistributive economy which dominates our textual sources. Members of the commune farmed it for their own needs, and very little, if any, surplus was produced for the benefit of urban residents or institutions. Therefore little or по evidence оп this type of land is found in the written records of the cities, and its role for urban provisioning was minimal. Individually owned private land is another matter. It could conceivably Ье of мо types: first~ that of individuals who remained in vil1ages and had full control over the land they worked, and
146
Feeding the Citizens
second, absentee-owned land, either acquired Ьу urban residents from villagers· or retained Ьу people who had migrated to the
city. Тhe first type is part of the subsistence economy and, for that reason, is scarcely documented. ТЬе second, however, was very important for {Ье provisioning of urban residents. From very early оп in Mesopotamian history, те written documentation contains sales of landed property, and investment in rural real estate Ьу wealthy citizens is а constant feature of subsequent history. Limitations оп this practice seem to have been imposed in cenain periods and places, such as АаарЬа in the middle of the second millennium where land seemingly could Ье transferred only to а family mетЬег. How соmmоп and successful these resrrictions were is hard to say. Several means of circumventing them, such as fictional adoptions, were used and the lack of land sales in our documentation need not Ье interprered as the result of such legal restrictions. The migration of large landowners {о cities сап Ье postulated оп те basis of comparisons with more recent practices in the Middle East) although such moves are по! detailed in our sources. Уet it is safe to suggest that many urban residents who had acquired fields, ог landowners who had left their fields for а city life, did not work the land personally. Arrangements for те exploitation of те fields and the distribution of its produce had to Ье made. These issues wil1 Ье addressed presently, after а discussion of palace and temple ownership of agricultural land. The extent of palace and temple holdings of land varied considerably in different periods, and at times there must have been little ог по difference between the мо types of land. As we have seen, те temples were the first central institutions in Babylonian society and their resources were enonnous in the early third millenniuffi. But, with те rise of secular kingship, the palace obtained а greater importance in the economy:> and certain kings тау have merged the temple and crown lands under their control. In later periods in Assyria the crown seems to have had ultimate authoriry over most of те fields, and with widespread foreign conquests and те develортеп! ofmarginal areas Ьу deported рорulзtiопs, crown domains must have been enormous. Meanwhile> in first-millennium Babylonia the temples seem to have Ьееп the major landowners, while the palace acted only as а large private household. Ви! temple administrations were closely supervised Ьу the раlасе and the
Feeding the Citizens
147
crown thus managed these temple assets as wel1. When the Persians conquered Mesopotamia, royal administrators were granted large domains Ьу the king and the latter was the ultimate proprietor of much of the land, а practice continued Ьу Hellenistic Seleucid rulers. Interestingly, the latter donated some of it to cities, perhaps reviving the practice of communal land ownership. Private land continued {о exist, however. When те Seleucids started to tax the sale of such property around 270 ВС) the deeds of these transactions had {о Ье written in Greek оп perishable parchment, and henceforth land disappears from our documentation. Land held both institutionally and Ьу the urban gentry was not fanned Ьу its owners. Different methods were used in order to assure та! it was worked with the least possible trouble for the landlords. Three arrangements were common throughout the history of the region) and were often used simultaneously. Some agricultural labourers were directly dependent оп the proprietors, while many estates were worked Ьу tenant farmers. Finally, people were granted land Ьу their employer as а reward for their service. The last agreement was often made with administrators of palaces and temples~ who thus joined {Ье ranks of urban landlords~ if not legally, at least in practice. Exploitation Ьу personnel dependent оп the owner seems to have be~n the least desirable. The large landlords, especially pal. aces and temples, were confronted with the task of managing, guarding, and rewarding with rations and sometimes salaries, ап enonnous labour force. These workers were the owners' responsibility in years of bad as well as good harvests. They had to Ье housed and fed when there was по agricultural activity, which was а large part of the year, and they had to Ье guarded. The latter required ап army that, in the Bronze Age at least, would have been scarcely better equipped than the workmen who handled hoes and sickles. In the third millennium те southern Mesopotamian kingdoms still exploited many of their fields directly, but in the early second millennium such arrangements Ьесаmе rarer, as the palace and private landowners began to avoid the use of full-time dependants ОП their estates. Instead, the second arrangement, work Ьу tenant farmers, was much more convenient for the landowners, and probably a1so more rewarding
[от
the labourers. Tenant fanners were al10wed
{о
work
148
Feeding the Citizens
the land in retum for а share of фе yield, or а payment in kind or in silver. Many different arrangements were worked out, and the . tenants' rewards depended оп factors such as amount of labour invested, quality of те field, and the relationship {о the landlord. When а new field was developed Ьу а fапnеr, Ье was not required {о рау any dues in the first year, and paid only а reduced rate in the second year. We have to remember that labour was not always abundantly available, so we cannot imagine а system that was based оп the absolute exploitation of fanners Ьу the landlords. The use of tenant farmers was beneficial to the owners, who were guaranteed а certain income from their land without having {о supervise or suppon the tenants year rouncJ,. It was а popular arrangement throughout Mesopotamian history. The third way in which те palaces and the temples used their land holdings was Ьу awarding their usufruct to people who provided the institutions with rents or labour. The labour could Ье quite varied in nature, and included military and administrative services, craft production, and agricultural work such as fishing, herding, and even farming. Непсе, someone who ploughed palace lands could Ье given the use of а field as а reward, and the beneficiaries of these land grants were not necessarily urban citizens. ТЬе land was awarded to те individual who provided те services, and withdrawn at his death or when Ье dеfзultеd оп his obligations. But in practice we see how frequently те land passed оп from father to son without the ability of (Ье owner to reclaim rights to те property. Ву receiving the usufruct of these demesnes the urban beneficiaries obtained direct access Уо land, and needed to organize its exploitation as if they were the legal owners. Непсе, they Ьесате hardly distinguishable from other urban landowners. In addition to these full-time arrangements for the cultivation of institutional lands) additional resources could Ье enlisted through hirings or the levying of corvee labour in times of intense demand for manpower, such as during the harvest. Throughout Mesopotamian history we find evidence of such arrangements, but it seems improbable that the institutions ever relied оп them as their main supp1ies for manpower. Obviously аН harvests had to Ье col1ected in the same season, and free labourers had to worry аЬои! their own fields. Непсе, the institutions had to lure them with sufficiently high salaries to make it worth their while. Also те levying
Feeding the Citizens
.
149
of substantial numbers of workers would Ье соuпtег-ргоduсtivе з as отег harvests would Ье left uncollected. The way in which the cereals reached the cities depended оп the manner of exploitation of the fields. Some means of provisioning are entirely undocumented: ап urban landowner probably had food delivered Ьу fanners from his estate, а transaction that took place completely within the household and did not need to Ье put down in writing. Small independent farmers possibly peddled some of their produce in the cities, again not leaving а trace in the written record. But large landowners, both individuals and institutions, needed а more elaborate system of organization. W е see here ап evolution in Mesopotamian history from close supervision to а reliance оп intermediary agents. The system of direct control сап Ье described most easily, as it involves more bureaucratic supervision which required record keeping. In the third rnillennium,
те
palace and ternple adminis-
trations supervised every step of agricultural production оп their estates. We find documentation from these institutions about {Ье preparation of fields, seeding, irrigation, and harvesting. After the harvest, which took place in the months April and Мау, the cereals needed processing for preservation, and preparation for consumption. The work included threshing, winnowing, sieving, and storing. АВ these activities were overseen Ьу palace or temple bureaucrats, and could probably Ье studied Ьу а close examination of,) for instance, the texts of the state of Ur in the twenty-first century. Strict control was of the utmost importance, and the barley had to Ье well preserved: if а moist batch ended ир in the storage house, it could cause the destruction of the entire harvest. Tenant fanners had {о рау their rents in cereals оп the threshing floor, where the entire yield of the field was openly visible to аН interested parties. А! that moment the share owed {о the landlord joined his other grain, and probably [тот then оп the owner took fuH responsibility over it. The tenants took their share back home with them. The threshing fioors were probably in the possession of те large organizations, and worked with their own labour force, both human and animal. ТЬе {епап! had {о рау а [ее for its use. When animals were not readily available, they were hired for the occasion. Ап early second-millennium letter from northern Babylonia gives some details оп this matter:
150
Feeding the Citizens
То ту
commander say, thus speaks Mannum-meshu-li~~r: ... 'The oxen and slave-girls of the house аге well. 12,880 litres of barley have been
produced оп the threshing floor of the city Egaba. Excluding the expenditures for the threshing floor, 1 Ьауе measured and recorded the barley, and they Ьауе taken it to Egaba. At the threshing ftoor of Lзтта;а we will Ье finished with the threshing оп the seventh day ofthe month Simanu June). We have threshed it with hired oxen and workmen' ... 2
(Мау
It is likely that threshing floors were spread throughout the countryside. Assyrian texts often refer {о them in the description of ап agricultural estate, and each village had one or more threshin~ fioors. ТЬеу needed to Ье close to the :fields, as it is doubtful that unprocessed barley was transported over long distances. After те cereal was treated, it was stored until needed for the preparation of bread or beer. Substantial storage was probably located near the threshing floor. Fanning animals required fodder, and seed needed to Ье kept for те пех! year's planting. Dependent fanners were probably also provided with their rations from а local storage house. Numerous small magazines, named after те person who adrninistered тет, ате attested around Ur in the late third millennium. They were not only used for cereals but for keeping ап amazing variety of goods: '[from] metal utensils, weapons (maces), fumiture, cartwheels, balances, boxes, vats, quems and supplies of linens, wool and cloth, to various woods, aromatics, oils) and foodstuff such as grains, milk and cheese, honey, dates, wine, etc. In almost а11 cases small quantities are kept in stосk.'З Due to the absence of archaeological evidence from the Mesopotamian countryside, we hav~ little idea what these storage houses could have looked like. The only information presently available is from small rural sites, in the middle Habur region in northern Syria, such as ТеН CAtij. Тhey were equipped with silos and fo6d-processing facilities such as mills, ovens, and cooking vats, used for processing the grains, parching them, and boiling them into foods such as bulgur. These sites were located at а great distance from the urban centres they seIVed, including the" city of Mari, some 250 kilomeR. Frankena, Tabulae Cuneiformes а de Liagre Bahl collectae IV (Leiden) 1965), по. 54 11. 1-3~ 6-15; trans. aner R. Frankena, Briefe aus der Leideller Saтrnlung (Altbabylonische Briefe 3; Leiden, 1968), 42-3. 3 Тhorkild Jacobsen, Towards the Inlage 0/ Tal117nUZ and other Essays оп Mesoporamian Hiscory and Си/сите, (Cambridge, Mass.) 1970), 424 n. 18. 2
Feeding the Citizen.s
151
tres away, Ьи! this was ап unusual circumstance, as 1 will show later. The grain needed for urban residents was shipped to the cities to Ье stored there. Boats were used for this purpose) because they provided а cheap means of transportation and could easi1y navigate the canals connecting the cities with фе fields. These vessels are attested in the Babylonian texts as having а capacity of ир to 36,000 litres. Chariots and pack animals were also utilized for grain transport but to а lesser extent. Obviously theft during те trip must have been а concern (о the owner. ТЬе case of the embezzlement of enormous amounts of grain in his care Ьу captain Кhnum-nakht in twelfth-century Egypt is famous, bи~ in the Mesopotamian sources we do not find anything comparable. In Egypt the institutional landowners protected themselves against such dangers Ьу having the атоип! of grain checked Ьу scribes both оп the threshing floor and before it entered те granary, but again по known Mesopotamian sources include such accounts. This is аН те more surprising since we know that theft from the granaries was not uncommon. Ап explanation for this silence тау Ье found in ilie fact та! most trips were of а short distance. ТЬе Egyptian case involved travel from the Delta to the first cataract, а journey of some 1,000 kilometres. In early Mesopotamia, most food was grown locally, as 1 Ьоре to show later) thus minimizing the occasion for theft Ьу shippers. Where canals entered the cities, it was probably possible for the boats to moor near {Ье urban storage facilities. АН of the monumental palaces and temples арреаг {о have contained magazines. Уе! these cannot have Ьееn the only storage facilities in town. А study of third- and second-millennium palaces concludes that the store-rooms in them were {оо small to contain more тап what was irnmediarely used for the feeding ofthe раlасе personnel. 4 The only urban granaries excavated so far were discovered in the mid-thirdmillennium city of Shuruppak in central Babylonia. In the nonhern sector of the city more than thirty silos were found, dug some 8 metres deep into the ground, and with diameter of about 4 metres. They were lined with two courses of bricks, and there is some ~ Jean Margueron, Recllerches sur Zes palais тesoporaтiens de l:lage du bronze Тоте 1) Техсе (Paris, 1982), 549-55.
152
Feedz·ng the Citizens
evidenc~
that теу were roofed. ЕасЬ of them would Ьауе had а capacity of about 1оо cubic metres. It has Ьееп calculated that the contents of аН of them could have fed 20,000 persons [or а period of six months, and that тау·Ьауе Ьееп те total population of the City.5 А few iconographic representations pennit us to visua1ize grain silos, although of а different type than those excavated in Shuruppak. Sealings [гот westem Iran, dated around 3000) represent domed buildings, in one case clearly built upon а wooden infrastructure (Fig. 7.1). ТЬе iтage shows Iadders placed against these domes and теп climbing (о Фе (ор with jars (о pour те contents into те building. The difficulties facing а тап or woman in charge of the storage of grain were numerous. Moisture, insects, and rodents could аН cause damage; omens, for instance, foresee те infestation of granaries Ьу insects or Ьу 'black spots'. But Ьиmап predators also existed. The physical barriers that could Ье put ир against thieves were not strong. Doors were made of reeds ос low quality wood, and по great effon was needed to break through тет. Мосеоуег, there were по locks that could resist а break-in. Тhe system used со secure the doors was very simple: а hook or rope attached to the door was latched со а knоЬ stuck in the adjoining wall. Thеп) а small amount of clay was pressed over the knоЬ, and те official in charge of те magazine rolled а seal over it. When те door needed {о Ье opened, те clay sealing was broken off, а process that did not require апу strength or special tools. Still this system seems (о have Ьееп quite efficient. It provided а psychological barrier rather than а physical опе. The thief knew that а forbidden асс was performed when the seal was broken, and ап unsealed door was one that had Ьееп opened illicitly. Only те officials in charge could break те seal as only теу were able to reseal те door, а privilege that gave тет and their office тисЬ prestige and power. The device was not flawless, however, and evidence for theft from granarles appears. Oppenheim has stated that, in the late Babylonian period) grain was stored in сотmипаl piles covered with mats,6 and indeed а 5 See Н. Р. Martin) Рата: А Reconstnlclion о! lhe Allcienr Mesopotanlian City 01 Shuruppak (Binningham, 1988), 42-7; and Giuseppe Visicato, 'Archeologie et documents еспts: les "silos') е! les texres sur l'orge de Fara', Revue d'assyriologie еЕ d'archeologie orientale 87 (1993), 83-5. 6 А. Leo Oppenheim, А ncient Мesoporalnia: POnTail 0/ а Dead Civilizacion (Chicago and London) 1977),314-15.
i'-~:-\U /
'"
О
ппп ПППППUППОUПППИПUllll\
\ поп п (а)
. __ L
.
__ ....
_
(Ь)
ии
,\1 г
сс) FIG.
7.1
Sealings representing grain silos
154
Feeding the Citizens
number of texts from ВаЬуl0П locate heaps of grain in various
places in the eity. It seems unlikely, however, that pi1es would have Ьееn used to keep grain аН year round, as they would have Ьееп exposed to rain, groundwater, insects, and animals. Probably these heaps were only used temporarily, just before the grain was consumed, due to laek of storage space in the palace. According to the texts from Babylon, important people were fed from these piles, and it seems unlikely that they were given contaminated grain. Опее the cereals were in the ciry, they had to Ье passed оп to the consumers. In the redistributive economy of the public institutions, this procedure was сапiес]' out'in two ways: а large group of palaee and temple dependants was issued rarions of unprepared food, while а smaller nиmЬег of people were provided with cooked meals. Rations were the hallmark of the early Mesopotamian есопоmу. The great organizations, the tempIes and palaces, supported the majority of their personnel with amounts of food and wool. Such rations were not only issued to urban dependants, Ьи! {о аН personnel. ТЬе rural workers were probably supplied Ьу the regional store-rooms mentioned above. The basis of the food ration was barley, issued in monthly set amounts, the quantity determined Ьу the worker's gender, age, and position in the hierarchy. For instance, in twenty-first-century Babylonia, а basic barley ration for ап adult man was 60 litres а month, for а woman зо litres. The practice was сотmоп throughout southem Mesopotamia and western Syria in the third mil1enniuffi; later the ration system broke down and was replaeed Ьу а system of wages. It should Ье clearly understood that rations in по sense а! а11 compare to the free distribution of grain to the urban proletariat of the late Roman Republic and the Empire. Ration reeipients had to work for them, and probably worked hard. Perhaps only in qld age тау they have been granted something without labour in return. Two characteristics of the rations are important for our consideration of urban provisioning: the food provided was limited to cereals, with some oil, and the food was unprepared. First, по one сап live оп cereals alone, 80 we have to imagine that the recipients of the rations either had access to gardens and orehards to suppleтеп! their diets with vegetables and fruits, or that they used рап of their grain rations [о barter it for other food. These activities are not docuII1ented in the sources) yet either or Ьот of them mus[ have taken place. It has been suggested that) at least in the early
Feeding the Citizens
155
third millennium, most of the recipients of rations were also granted subsistence fields that could have provided them with vegetables and fruit. If barter took place, the fresh products were most likely delivered Ьу independent farmers, and institutionaI and private economies must have intersected here. Second, the food was unprepared: the ration recipients still had to grind and cook the cereals before they could consume them. This was most likely done in те house, and required the presence of family members who were free to perform these time-consuming tasks. Some people were provided with finished food products rather than rations, and this custom"remained constant throughout Mesoporamian history. There is а unique passage in ап inscription Ьу Assurna~rpal II (ruled 883-859) where he describes how he fed 69,574 mеп and women from аН over the kingdom for ten days' at the inauguration of his new capitaI city, Kalhu. ТЬе тепи is unfortunately nо! given, but the ingredients are listed. They include oxen, calves, sheep, lambs, deer, ducks, geese, pigeons, birds, fish, ;erboa, eggs, bread, beer, wine, sesame, greens, grains, pomegranates, grapes, onions, garlic, tumips, honey, ghee, seeds, mustard, milk, cheese, nuts, dates, spices, oiIs, and 0lives. 7 This was of course а special banquet, and worthy of boasting. Вис аН kings, as well as [Ье temples, provided select personnel with daily meals. We do пос have to imagine that а11 these people were fed in communal dining halls, although the royal table probably had mапу guests. Numerous texts from аП periods of Mesopotamian history list loaves of bread, jugs of beer or wine, onions, fish, oils, fats, and dates that were probably taken Ьоте. Food could also Ье obtained through the temples. АН Mesopotamian temples had kitchens for сЬе preparation of the gods' repasts. Obviously, the statues representing те gods did not consume the food; instead it was distributed to the temple personnel according to strictly established quotas. Bread and beer had to Ье produced Ьу the institutional workshops. First the cereals had to Ье ground. This was а labourintensive enterprise, as the typical mil1 was а flat slab of stone оп which те grain was ground Ьу rubbing it back and forth with а 10ng and narrow stone . Grinding was mainly done Ьу women, who 7 А. Кirk Grayson, Assyrian Rlders 0/ che Early Firs! MiZZennium ВС. 1 (1114-859 вс) (ТЬе Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia. Assyrian Periods 2; Toronto, Buffalo,
and London, 1991), 292-3.
156
.
Feeding the Citz·zens
laboured very hard. They worked year-round in the rnil1s, and daily quotas were set for them, such as 1О litres of ordinary flour or 20 litres of coarse flour. When needed, workers were pulled from the mills and set to work at agricultural tasks such as harvesting, threshing, winnowing, or transport. The enormity of th~s task in the large institutions of third-millennium Babylonia cannot Ье underestimated. Milling was extremely strenuous work with а low rate of productivity. When flour was avai1able, те preparations of bread and beer took separate paths. Bread could Ье baked immediarely Ьу making thin unleavened loaves that were placed in clay ovens, very similar to те tanurs still in use in the Middle East, and found throughout excavated monumental and domestic buildings. In addirion (о the simple loaf of bread, fancier types and cakes with dates or те like were also produced. Beer took longer {о prepare, as several stages made ир the brewing process. The length of tirne this required is not known to us, although we do know mисЬ about the ingredients and the processes involved. Brewing required careful supervision а! certain times; for instance, at те stage when the barley was allowed to sprout to Ьесоте malt, the humidity and temperature needed to Ье carefully controlled. 1! is interesting that, at first, rnost brewers were women, and their patron deity, Ninkasi, was fernale as well. After те middle of the second millennium men took over as brewers, and it has Ьееп suggested that Ьу the turn of {Ье millennium the drink they produced. had nothing in cornmon with те original product as it was по longer made from barley, Ьи! from dates. None of те information given above has been quantified, and with reason. We are uпаЫе to determine the percentages of institutionalland issued for tenancy, or of palace employees receiving meals rather than rations, or even of palace and temple dependants as compared {о other citizens. We have the impression that, throughout Mesopotamian history, large groups of people depended оп the institutions for part of their food supplies, with variations Ьу period and region. But the ехас! numbers and their importance within те total populations remain unknown. It also has to Ье kepr in mind that many people тау have had several sources of income simultaneously. А high temple administrator, for instance., received food from the employer, and was rewarded with the usufruct of temple land. Moreover~ he or she тау also have
Feeding the Citizens
157
been а private landowner at the same time, drawing inсоmе from estates. These various sources of incorne were accounted for in different ways and Ьу separate offices, or not accounted for at аll, 50 it is unlikely that we will ever Ье able to reconstruct the entire picture. We сап say with certainty, however, that the institutions were weary of providing аН the services expected from them. lt took а 10t of manpower and administrative control (о make the system work smoothly. Thus we see how, starting in the early second millennium, much of the labour and supervision was contracted to private businessrnen who Ьесате involved in а11 aspects of the sequence described above. Their services to the institutions were managerial and financial, and will Ье discussed in а later chapter. Imponant here is те fact that their inclusion in те sequence of urban food provisioning caused changes in the ways food was distributed. No longer were те central institutions in а position {о provide for а substantial part of the population, since these institutions collected silver rather than agricultural products. Moreover, the private businessmen needed а way of converting те produce they gathered into silver, part of which they paid to те institutions. This could only Ье accomplished through market mechanisms, in ту opinion. The entrepreneurs who acted as intermediaries between landowners and agricultural producers had excess food supplies оп their hands. Meanwhile certain products needed to Ье acquired Ьу urban residents, either from institutions, from fellow citizens, or frorn the farmers. It seems likely that these city-dwellers Ьесаmе the clientele of the entrepreneurs. How this was ассоПl plished is entirely undocumented, Ьи! this should not lead us to conclude that the marketing of food did not take place. Тhere was по need to record these retail sales of food, as аН sales were final, and по later claim could Ье made оп either the products о! the payment. The only way we could find information about them would Ье if the entrepreneurs had kept inventories of their stock or records of their expenditures, but these are not available to us. The existence of а market does not exclude the possibility of the exchange of goods through reciprocity or redistribution. The three modes of exchange coexisted, and аП played ап important role in the economy. W е should not relate а mode of exchange with а parricular sector of society either. Although the great organizations
158
Feeding the Citizens
often relied оп redistribution, they are also known to have acquired goods оп the market. Some private citizens тау have relied оп nuтerous sources for their food: cereals from the institutions, vegetables and milk from their own households, and fish ог meat from the market. The market transactions were seemingly а11 ad hoc and needed по recording. Therefore they remain entirely undocumented in our sources.
SOURCES OF DRINKING WATER
The survey above has indicated some of the difficulties facing ап urban society таС needs со provide food for its citizenry. А related question involves те supply of drinking water то cities, а problem тас has Ьееп rarely discussed Ьу scholars. ТЬе rivers and canals could qbviously provide а source of drinking water> especially in Babylonia where а11 cities needed to Ье located at their banks and where canals entered' their walls. In the suburbs of ТеН Тауа in Upper Mesopotamia а number cf streets led to the Wadi Тауа in order со give access to its water. Кings made certain that such water remained available; Nabopolassar (ruled 625-605) boasted that he redirected the water of the Euphrates into а саnа! with bitumen and baked brick lining when а shifting of the river branch had made it too remote to Ье drawn. 8 уet there are problems connected to а reliance оп this type of water supply. First, these rivers and canals were not always easily accessible. Even ifthey ran through the city, mапу neighbourhoods were по! near them. The Nippur тар, for instance, shows only апе canal within the city walls and people had to walk several hundred metres to reach it. Тhe height of the tells caused these canals to Ье quite а distance below те city level, and it must have been difficult and even dangerous to reach the water. This problem was more acute in Assyria where the rivers and canals were fewer and their banks even steeper. Assur is located оп а cliff overlooking the Tigris and to reach the river опе has to сlimЬ down а precipitous slope. War conditions could make access very difficult. А letter most likely written to king Esarhaddon Ьу the governor ofNippur, 8
Stephen Langdon, Die neubabylonische Konigsinschnften (Vorderasiatische
Bibliothek 4; Leipzig, 1912), 64-5.
Feeding the Citizens
159
а
Babylonian city that collaborated with the Assyrians and that was under considerable local pressure, depicts а dire situation: The king knows that аП countrie8 hate us оп ассоип! of Assyria ... So now we have closed our gates and do not even go ои! of town ... Let the king not abandon us (о anyone! Our water is gone. Let us not die of thirst! l'he king> your father, gave us the water rights for the Banltu-canal) saying: 'Dig ап outlet from the Banltu-canal toward Nippur.' [ТЬе ], however, refused us the water. ТЬе king should write (о Ubar, the commander of Babylon, that he should grant us ап outlet from the Banltu-canal, 80 that we сап drink water with them and not have to desen the king because of lack of water. АН countries should not say: 'ТЪе people of Nippur, who submitted [о Assyria) Ьесаmе fed up with the lack of water (and desened)' .9
Considerable energy must Ьауе Ьееп spent оп fetching water for the household, а task probably assigned {о the women, and not documented in our sources as
[аг
as 1 know. А second ргоЫет тау Ьауе Ьееп more serious as it made еуеn
abundant water supplies unfit for use: pollution. The rivers and canals were used for тапу purposes other than the provision of drinking water, such as transport, agricultural irrigation, and industry. Moreover, there was the danger of sewage entering the watercourses. ТЬе network of canals was shared Ьу numerous cities and villages, 80 pol1ution upstream affected тапу сотти nities further down. Navigation and irrigation do not necessarily have to [оиl the water although we сап imagine that dirt entered it due to these activities. Various industries used water extensively. Some that readily соте {о mind are laundering and tanning. ТЬе tanning of leather, ап evil-smelling enterprise, {Ье primary stages of which took place outside the city, required large amounts ofwater {о soak the hides. Moreover, this water needed to Ье discarded after use-where else could this Ье done Ьи! in the river or canal? Then there was the problem of human waste. Archaeological evidence of latrines in private houses is lacking, and public toilets do not seem to Ьауе existed either. People could defecate in fields and orchards, where (Ьеге was always the risk of contaminating а water source. ТЬе textual material makes little reference to such dangers. 9 Robert Н. Pfeiffer, State Letrers 0/ Assyn·a (American Oriental Series 6; New Haven, 1935), по. 123, obv. 11. 11-13, rev. 11. 4-22; tranS. after А. Leo Oppenheim, Letters fr0111 Меsороtапziа (Chicago and London, 1967), 175.
160
Feeding the Ct·tizens
Although а ritual text prohibits urinating or vomiting in а watercourse, acts that were considered as bad as killing one's friend, the relevance of this source for the study of daily life is to Ье doubted. Considering that the Euphrates is а very slow river and that water leveIs in the summer were low, it would seem that а 10t of the filth thrown in canals feeding from it must have remained in the area. As fuel was quite scarce, те boiling of water before consumption was probably {оо expensive to Ье а widespread practice. It appears likely, therefore, that canal water was rather risky to drink in Babylonia, and по! to Ье recommended. А second source of water was provided Ьу wells. Their existence both in Assyria and in Babylonia is attesteq. in texts and in the archaeological record, but their frequency is less clear. In the south of Mesopotamia, pockets of fresh water within the surrounding water-table existed underneath and at the sides of rivers. 'IЪis water could Ье reached Ьу digging vertical wells through the dikes. The presence ofwells is attested in such varied sources as the пео Babylonian laws, where сзгеlеss use of well water for iпigаtiоn was punished,10 and the Sumeriari tale of Gilgamesh and Agga.) in which the king ral1ies his people for war Ьу urging them to protect те wells.) 1 У et for cities located оп top of а t.ell, pockets of fresh water were mисЬ less accessible as оnе had {о dig through layers of debris. Despite this ргоЫет, intramural wells are attested with their sides reinforced with ceramic pipes о! with bitumen. In Nebuchadnezar's southern раlасе at Babylon several of them wer~ found, and this ruler also boasted of his repair of те well in the temple of Sham~sh at Sippar. Wells in private houses in Babylon are attested archaeologically. For some obscure reason the excavator stated та! they were only used for bathing, washing, and household tasks. Не based this assertion оп а puzzling remark: 'Тhe Babylonians would not have been "Orientals)) if they had drunk wel1 water in the neighbourhood of а river.,12 House sale documents do not mention the existence of such а valuable asset, however, and it is doubtful that they were соттоп. So far по 10 James В. Pritchard, Ancient Near Easrern Texts relacing СО the Old TeSla112en'l) 3rd edn. (Princetoo) 1969)) 197 § з.
Ibid.45. 12 'Die Babylonier hatten keine Orientalen sein miissen, wenn sie in der Nachbarschaft des Flusses Brunnenwasser getrunken hatten') Oscar Reuther> Die 11
Innensxadx von BabylQn (Merkes) (Leipzig, 1926)) 26.
Feeding the Citizens
161
соmmипаl
wells have appeared in the archaeological record) but their existence is suggested Ьу the fact that а foundling is said to Ье someone abandoned in а well. In Assyria more wells are attested both in the texts and in the archaeological record. One of them, excavated at Kalhu, still yielded 5,000 gallons а day in AD 1952.13 Again kings boasted of their construction: Sennacherib, for instance, rebuilt the pulling system of the wells in his palace, which must have Ьееп very deep, considering the height of the mound at that spot. А letter to ап Assyrian king relates how а fox entered те city of Assur and [еЦ in 14 а well, indicating that they were easily accessible. Yet very few house sales mention the presence of а well in а house. 1S Well water was less likely to Ье polluted than that of rivers and canals, although а lot of brackish water in wells is reported in modem Iraq. How соттоn wells were in Assyria, and how much water they produced, remains unknown, hence we cannot determine how
imponant they were for urban residents. It seerns safe {о say that fresh drinking water was а scarce resource in Mesopotamia, especially in the south, and that diseases could have easily spread through Фе water supply. These circumstances тау explain why beer was such а popular drink.
ТНЕ
AGRICUL TURAL POTENTIAL OF
ТНЕ
URBAN HINTERLAND
А
last issue (о Ье discussed is whether the hinterlands were аЫе to support the lзгgег cities with their agricultural produce. After зll~ the urban population in Меsороtаmiз was at times very large, and big cities were common from уегу early оп in its history. This question has important historical repercussions. If some cities were not supported Ьу their immediate hinterland, where did теу оЬ tain the required additional food, and how did they manage to guarantee themselves а constant supply? At times the need for 13
1-1 15
Н. W. F. Saggs, The Greal1zess cha! was Babylon (London, 1962» 172. Pfeiffer, State Letlers 01 Assyria) по. 227. See С. Н. W. Johns, Assyriatl Deeds and Docuтents recording Transfer 01 Property
4 (Cambridge, 1923), 9. For examples of houses wirh wells, see Theodore Kwasman, N~o-Assyn'an Legal Docu.nzent.s i1l the Kouyundjik Collection 01 lhe Bтitish Л-fusеUnl (Rome, 1988), nos. 123, 373.
162
Feeding the Cilizens
supplemental food has Ьееп used as ап explanation for the military expansion Ьу а Mesopotamian power, even to such distant regions as northern Syria in the case of the Old Akkadian dynasty.16 Such ап explanation is only valid if we сап demonstrate that nearby food production was insufficient. In order to study whether ап adequate supply of food was available near а ciry to feed its population, we need aceess to а set of data including size of population, food resources ауаilаЫе, eultivated area, erop types and productivity, caloric value of те crops, and caloric consumption. Most of these data are unavailable at the moment and the problems in trying {о acquire them are very substantial. А first problem lies in establishing the size of the hinterland. If we ignore political considerations that would have denied access to fields beyond а certain point, the limits to the hinterland were determined solely Ьу distanees {о Ье covered Ьу the producers and Ьу the transporters of the food to and from the urban centre. If аН fanners resided within the city and needed to commute to their fields оп а daily basis, the remotest fields would probably have been only some 7 kilometres from the city, to Ье reached after оnе and 17 а half hours travelling time. We сап imagine, however, that а corona of farming villages surrounded the cities, and in that case the hinterland was only limited Ьу the distance the food needed to Ье transported to the urban consumer. In Assyria most transportation needed to Ье done overland, which was extremely expensive, and the hinterlands of the cities were thus greatly restricted. Water transport is much eheaper, and was obviously readi1y available in Babylonia with its ·numerous irrigation canals. The size of the hinterland was thus much greater there, but impossible for us to establish with accuracy, as we cannot calculate the transportation costs involved. Political considerations тау thus have been the primary lirniting factor there, with access to agricultural areas restrieted either because of the existence of boundaries between political entities or because the urban centres were unable to assert their political eontrol beyond а eertain distance. As 1 pointed ои! before, our population estimates are extremely 16 See Harvey Weiss and Marie-Agnes Courry, 'The Genesis and Collapse ofthe Akkadian Empire') in М. Liverani (ed.), Akkad: The First World Enlpil'e (Padua,
1993), 131-55. 17 See David Oates, Studies in the Anciellt History о! Nonhern Iraq (London, 1968),
44.
Feeding the Cilizens
163
unreliable. Even if we are able to determine the ехас! size of а city at а panicular moment in time, we cannot establish how densely inhabited it was. Moreover, we lack data about the population of the surrounding countryside: the villagers that produced the food also consumed part of it. Since lhe villages were not as continuously inhabited as the cities, their remains are often invisible to us. Hence the total population of а district becomes virtually impossible to appraise. The types of food ауаilаЫе to ап urban population obviously varied with те geographical surroundings. Cereals тау have been the main source of nutrition, but surely not the only апе. Dates, which have а high caloric value, must have been а major рап ofthe diet in Babylonia, and although we have good evidence оп the cultivation of dates, we have little information оп their consumption. Fish was consumed in great amounts in certain regions of Mesoporamia, bUI in orhers ir was probably less readi1y available; again our information is incomplete. Also the importance of {Ье big herds of sheep, goats, and cattle cannot Ье established. These animals were по! only reared Ьу herdsmen dependent upon urban institutions and individuals, Ьи! a1so Ьу semi-nomadic and по madic groups who almost totally elude us both in the textual and archaeological records. Access to their products must have been seasonal, and how they сате to the city is unclear. We know that meat was eaten but not {о what extent. Dairy products, which have а high caloric value, were probably readily available to most urbanites, but we know very little about the amounts consumed. In our calculation of available cereal resources we have many uncertainties, despite the fact that more textual and archaeological data are at hand. In аН of Babylonia, agriculture was based оп irrigation: access to water was as crucial as the availability of land. Although both textual and survey data сап give us information аЬои! the location of canals around certain cities, nowhere do we Ьауе а complete picture. W е cannot assume that there was а continuous band of cultivation around апу s.ite. We also have difficulties in determining the productivity of the soil. We have textual data that give the yields of particular fields at а given moment in time, but we cannot extrapolate this information to other areas and periods. А major uncertainty, for instance, concerns the negative effects of salinization. Irrigation agriculture causes the accumulation of
164
Feeding the Cilizens
salt upon the fields. This сап Ье coun1eracted 10 а certain extent Ьу fallowing, а practice definitely in use in Babylonia, and drainage, something та! was very difficult in те area due to its extremely low re1ief. Yet, how damaging was salinization to cereal agriculture? In the 1950s а very appealing picture of three cycles of exhaus1ion of фе soil throughout the history of Babylonia from \ 4000 вс to AD 1000 was drawn Ьу Jacobsen and Adams,18 but their interpretation of те empirical data is now considered equivocal at best, as their statements about declining yields were based оп а misunderstanding ofthe sources. 19 Thus the negative effects of salt} although real} cannot Ье properly assessed. Moreover} we cannot determine the relative importance of the various cereals cultivated in Mesopotamia-wheat, barley, and sesame-and how much area was devoted to each. Hence the caloric value of the crops cannot Ье established. How much food did one person need to survive? We сап look at figures from contemporary developing nations to estimate what someone needs to survive at а subsistence level and try to use this data as а guide for what а Mesopotamian would have required. 20 But сап we assume that те same .caloric requirements existed in antiquity, and what exactly is mеап! Ьу а subsistence level? Moreover, it seems likely that а certain sector of the population consumed much more than the minimum caloric requirement. How large was that sector, and how much more did it consume? Again we are faced with а high level of uncertainry. Considering аН these limitations оп our knowledge} is it even worth asking те question whether or not urban populations could Ье fed Ьу their hinterland? 1 think that it is extremely important that we pose {Ье question, and would like to propose ап answer that could function as а working hypothesis for further research. It seems {О те that most cities were supported Ьу their own hinterlands, and that the long-distance transport of food was rare and unusual. Тhere are only а few cases where cities were not selfreliant and those need а special investigation. The hypothesis that
I
. 18
Тhorkild }acobsen and Robert МсС. Adams, 'Salt and Silt in Ancient Meso-
potamian Agriculture', Science 128 (November 1958) 1251-8. 19 Marvin А. Powel1) 'Salt, Seed, and Yields in Sumerian Agriculture: А Critique ofthe Theory ofProgressive Salinization', Zeirschriftfur Assyriologie 75 (1985)) 7-38. 20 For such ап approach, see Elizabeth С. Stone and David 1. Owen) Adoprioll i'2 Old Babylonian Nzppur and the А rchive 0/ Man1IUl1l-nZеsu-lissur (Winona Lake) 1991), 8-9.
Feeding the Citizens
165
most Mesopotamian cities were fed Ьу the agricultural produce of their own hinterlands is supported Ьу а number of historical facts. At the time of те foundation of most Babylonian and Assyrian cities, the political situation in the regions was characterized Ьу fragmentation. In the early history ofBabylonia, i.e. the late-fourth through mid-third millennia, the most important cities in the region were the political centres of а set of more or less equally powerful city-states. Although conflicts between them could arise over the control of certain agricultural zones, as is exemplified Ьу ф~ border conflict between Umma and Lagash,21 these cities Ьу necessiry had {о rely оп the resources of their own surroundings to survive. The agricultural potential of Babylonia seems to have been sufficient, however, to support large urban centres. In те early third millennium Uruk grew to ап enonnous size of at least 400 hectares, а size unsurpassed until two millennia later, уе! only а 14kilometre-wide band of agricultural fields surrounding it was needed to provide for its inhabitants and for the people residing in the neighbouring towns and vil1ages. 22 Between 2300 and 1 БОО, regional powers occasionally developed under the regimes of Akkade, Ur, Larsa, and Babylon. The hinterlands of the Babylonian cities were then по longer restricted for political reasons, and we see that cereals were transported from the provinces to the capital cities. For instance, under the Third Dynasty of Ur in the twenty-first century, the province of Umma provided Nippur, те religious centre, and Ur, the ancestral home of the dynasty, with grain. 23 ТЬе logistics of that conveyance were relatively uncomplicated as one could rely оп canal transport. The observation that such grain shipments took рlасе should not necessarily lead {о {Ье conclusion that they were regularly needed. They тау have been taxes levied Ьу the kings of Ur to symbolize their control over the provincial centres of Babylonia. As Ur 10st its hegemony over Babylonia, the contributions Ьу the provinces 21 See Jerrold S. Cooper, Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions: The Lagash- Unl1nа Border Confiicl (МаНЬu, 1983) . 22 Robert МсС. Adams) Heanland 01 Cities (Chicago and London, 1981), fig. 24. Obviously Adams)s reconstruction depends оп figures, such as those for population densiry, thar are impossible {о establish with certainty) as 1 poinred out before. 23 See Тот В. Jones, 'Sumerian Administrative Documents: Ап Essay', Su~nerological Scudies in НО'70У 0/ Thorkild Jacobsen (Assyriological Studies 20; Chicago and London) 1975),41-61.
1бб
Feeding lhe Citizens
ceased, and it has Ьееп suggested Ьу scholars that this led to а famine within the city.24 Yet the ruling king, Ibbi-Sin, remained in power in Ur for а! least another fifteen years, and it is generally accepted that his бпаl defeat was due to а military invasion Ьу the Elamites. The fact that {Ье city recovered very SQOn after its military defeat and actual1y grew in size despite its 10ss of political importance, suggests that the provincial contributions to its food supply had Ьееп а luxury rather than а necessity. Later in Babylonian history, in the period from те seventh century вс to at least the seventh century AD, те region underwent а process of intense urbanization and а simultaneous intensification of agricultural development. At first the region of Babylon, and later the area some 50 kilometres further north referred to as аl Mada:)in, 'the cities', in early Islamic writings, Ьесаrnе very densely inhabited Ьу severallarge uгЬаn centres in close proximity to one another. In the sixth century вс, Babylon was expanded {о include ап area of 890 hectares and within а 40-kilometre radius around the metropolis were located the major cities of Borsippa~ Кish, Кuthз, and Dilbat, while Sippar was only 60 kilometres {о те north. Moreover, in the countryside numerous villages existed. The successive imperial governments colonized the region with foreign people deported from conquered areas, as is well known from the case of the Judaean exiles who were settled in central Babylonia. ТЬе density of settlement in northem Babylonia seems to have Ьееn enormous, yet the agricultural resources of the area seem {о have been sufficient {о feed the inhabitants, and even {о produce а surplus. Herodotus (1. 92) stated that one-third of the supplies of the Persian court and аnnу was provided Ьу Babylonia, while the rest of Asia contributed the remaining two-thirds. Whi1e this тау по! have been а very accurate statement, later tax documents show that Mesopotamia was ап extremely fertile region into the eighth century AD. 25 The hinterland ofthe city ofBabylon must Ье considered to have included almost the entirety ofBabylonia, and it seems that cereals must have Ьееп transponed over а distance of ир {о 200 kilometres from те south {о the north of the region. Тhis was 2-1
86. 25
tJle
Th. Jacobsen, 'The Reign oflbbi-Suen', in TO'l.()ards rhe Illlage 01 Ta11l11lllz) 173-
See Peter Christensen> The DecZine 0/ lra1lsh~hr: In..zgacion and Ellviroll11ZenCS in
Hiscor:y 01 the 1Vliddle Easr 500 вс СО
AD
1500 (Copenhagen) 1993) 34-44.
Feeding the Citizens
167
possible, however, due {о {Ье extensive canal system that enabled transpart Ьу boat. The neo-Babylanian texts excavated in Babylon describe the activities of certain merchants who supplied the urban residents with food. For instance, апе Iddin-Marduk dealt in barlеу, dates, and onions, which Ье had transported and stared in magazines in the city and its suburbs. Unfortunately, we do not know how wide ап area Ье had to explore to find sufficient supplies, but те texts of his archive focus upon localities between Babylon and Borsippa, hence close to Babylon. Others тау have shipped agricultural goods over longer distances, but we find по evidence of great сопсеrnБ aver the difficulties involved. Short-term decreases in the water flow of the Euphrates" ог 10ss of political control оуег the hinterland, for instance, could рlасе а ciry in а situation where it could not feed itself and would have Ьееп under pressure to impoft food from distant regions. But it is {О Ье doubted that such ап option actually existed. Where would that food have been obtained outside Babylonia? Кhuzistan to the east of {Ье Tigris could only Ье reached via а laborious overland ~oute from the Diyala southward., or Ьу Ьоа! through the marshes. The north Syrian Jezirah, which has sornetirnes been portrayed as а bread basket for Babylonia} is located 1,000 kilometres away. The entire transport could have Ьееп accomplished Ьу boat over the Balikh, Habur, and Euphrates rivers, Ьи! the labour required would have Ьееп excessive. It seems doubtful тЬа! such long and expensive expeditions would have Ьееп relied ироп} ехсер! in unusual circumstances. ТЬе agricultural situation in Assyria, i.e. the Jezirah between the Euphrates and Tigris and the Mosul plains east of the Tigris, was quite different from the South. Оп the опе hand, most of the area relied оп rain-fed agriculture, which has а lower level of productivity тап irrigation agriculture} and оп the other hand it lacked good water transport along canals. In the early history ofthe region) from 3000 {а 1500 ВС} urban settlement never exceeded а 1 ОО hectare limit. It has been convincingly argued that {Ье hinterlands could not support larger cities because only а 15 kilometre radius around them could Ье exploited under тЬе prevailing political circumstances of small regional powers. 26 Although in the early second Wilkinson, 'The Structure and Dynamics of Dry-Fапniпg Stares in Upper l\.1esopotamia), СLlгrеJlt. AJllhropoZogy 35 (1994) 483-520. 2()
Т.
J.
168
Feeding the Citizens
millennium somewhat larger political entities developed, whose exact outlines are unknown (о us so far, this does not seem to have affected the size of те urban centres. Problems of transport, mostly overland, тау have precluded Iarger urban agglomerations. We are thus struck Ьу the building activities ofthe Assyrian kings in the late' second and early first millennia, who constructed а set of епопnоus capitals for themselves: I<ar-Tukulti-Ninurta, Kalhu, Dur-Sharrukin, and Nineveh. Not а11 of these survived for 10ng: Kar-Tukulti-Ninuna and Dur-Sharrukin were more or less аЬап doned а! {Ье death of their founders, which тау Ье ап indication of the fact that теу presented {оо many difficulties of food supply.27 But Kalhu and Nineveh survived for several geperations, and as centres of а large imperial bureaucracy шеу must have consumed the agricultural output of а wide geographical zone. David Oates, who studied some aspects of the agricultural base of these cities, сате (о the conclusion that they represented 'а high1y artificial element in the economy of northern Iraq). 28 The Assyrian capital cities were too large, too densely packed together, and probably also too wasteful of resources to have been fed Ьу their hinrerlands. 1t has Ьееп stated that this is (о Ье expected in ап empire. 29 However, this assumes ап integration of the conquered areas into the economy of the Assyrian cqre, something that should Ье concluded from the insufficient resources of Assyria rarher than the other way around. The almost total abandonment of these cities subsequent {о the collapse of the Assyrian empire in те late seventh century suggests that residents had to revert Ьу necessity to а vil1age lпе {Ьа! could Ье sustained Ьу the immediate environтent.
If те conclusion is correct that те late Assyrian cities required provisions from the empire to survive, this realiry had important repercussions оп the organization of the food supplies. Transport over long distances and storage near the place of consumption needed to Ье co-ordinated. Shipping was not easy in the region, as 27 Obviously other considerations тау have played ап imponant role. It is usual1y assumed that these cities were built оп the kings~ whims а! the expense of the exist~ng ancient centres> Assur and Nineveh, and that (Ье aristocracies of сЬе old cities were аЫе [О reclaim primacy ироп те deaths of those kings. 28 Oates, Studies in ше Ancienx HislOry 01 Nonhenl j"aq, 52. 29 Mario Liverani, 'Review of Oates Sludies', Orie1ls Anliquus 1 О (1971), 157.
Feeding the Citizens
169
the Tigris was а difficult river to navigate. Moreover, little land upstream from Nineveh was available to produce а surplus. Fertile areas cenainly were to Ье found to the east and to the west; these were regions unconnected to the heartland of Assyria Ьу waterways. Thus, transport had {о take place overland, а very expensive affair. We lack аnу data from Mesopotamia itself {о assess the costs, but information from the Roman empire, which had а similar technology,) сап give us soтe idea ofwhat was involved. It has Ьееn asserted that in the late Roman empire the price of а wagon-load Qf wheat would double in 150 Roman miles, and that famines could occur in cities located as little as 75 kilometres from abundant supplies. 30 ТЬе validity of these assertions has Ьееп disputed ОП various grounds, but the stated price of overland transport :fits the general pattern of pre-industrial societies) 31 and it сап Ье safely concluded that the overland shipping of bulky items in те Roman empire was usually shon-hаul. З2
The Assyrian imperial bureaucracy must Ьауе had the ability (о organize the conveyance of food products over а certain distance, even а! а great expense, Ьи( we do nо! know where те geographiса! limit was. Strangely, its records scarcely document overland transport of food products. Cereal taxes were standard in the Assyrian empire, but we are not informed аЬои! the destination of the grain collected. Ап unusual letter to king Sargon тау refer to а grain shipment to Ье made to Dur-Sharrukin: [ТО те
king, ту lord]: yo[ur servant] Tariba-Issar. _ . Now, 1 have collected 500 homers (= 100,000 1itres) of barley in the city of IGlizi, and would 1ike to deliver it. If the king ту lord commands: 'Соllес! barley for three palaces,' 1 will collect it in Adian and Arbela as wеll. З3
If indeed the тап wanted to take the barley to Dur-Sharrukin, Ье would Ьауе had to transport it either Ьу boat from Юlizi down the зо А. Н. М. ]ones) The Lacer ROl1zan Ernpire 2 (Norman, 1964), 841-4. For the recalculation to 150 rather than 300 miles, see Keith Hopkins, 'Models, Ships, and Staples', in Peter Garnsey and С. R. Whittaker (eds.), Trade and Famine in Classical Anciquiry (Cambridge, 1983), 104 n. 46. 31 See Richard Duncan-Jones, The Есоnоmу 01 the Roman Empire: Quantitan:ve Scudies, 2nd edn. (Cambridge, 1982), 368-9. З2 Hopkins, 'Models, Ships, and Staples', 105. и Simo Parpola, The Correspondence 01 Sargon 11, Рап 1 (Ifelsinki, 1987), по. 160, quoted Ьу permission.
170
Feeding the Citizens
Greater Zab river and then upstream to Nineveh, where it would have to Ье loaded onto wagons, or overland for the entire distance of аЬои! 60 kilometres as the crow flies. Вот тethods are certainly possible, yet already complicated. The letter тау also refer {о deliveries to palaces in the three nearby cities mentioned, and теп те transport problems would have been minor. It seems thus that те late Assyrian capitals required the produce of ап empire for their support, but, strangely, фе logistical difficulties that this would have presented are по! clear within the textual record at our disposal. А simi!ar difficult situation seems to have existed а! the Middle Euphrates site of Mari. The city, which originally might Ьауе been 254 hectares in size, was strategically located оп the junction between Babylonia and Syria, and also acted as ап intermediary between the nomads of the Syrian desert and the agriculturalists of the Euphrates val1ey. But its agricultural base was limited. 1t Iies in а zone where there is insufficient rainfall for dry-fanning, and the river cuts through а barren plateau оп both sides. ТЬе уаllеу is only 6-14 kilometres wide in Mari's neighbourhood, and just а narrow section of it could Ье easily irrigated. Thus а massive and long irrigation сапа! had to Ье dug when Mari developed into а major setdement, and this сапа! had to Ье carefully maintained. Уе! even these irrigзtеd areas were unable to produce sufficient food for the city, and the texts attest to the practice of grain imports from northem Syria. The following letter documents this procedure: То ту
lord уоиг servant Yasim-Sumusays as follows: 'With respect to the barley boats which leave {Ье city of Emar, from now оп теу wiI1 not leave аnу longer. Harvest time has соте, but there will Ье по тосе boats arriving to load те barley for те palace. And for {Ье пех! five months there will Ье по more boats leaving. Now either there are boats (from Mari) оп their way that will arrive here; (in that case) we will fill them ир so that they shouldn't have to retum (to Mari) empty-or, if it pleases ту lord) he should send те five minas (= five pounds) of silver; then 1, in concert with the merchants living in Emar, will hire ten boats of 300 ugar (= 3,600 litres) capacity (еасЬ), [со]llе[с! barley] and dispatch thus 3,000 ugar (= 36~OOO litres) ofbarley {о Mari. Опе should give either to Idinyatum or {о another official 60 ugar (= 600 kor) of barley for the five minas (= 300 shekels) .of silver at а rate of 2~ kor-measures per shekel. Then, in order that the five minas of silver return to the palace, the wages for те sixty men
Feeding the Citizens
171
of the crew will Ье 2~ shekels per man, hence 2~ minas of silver which amounrs to 300 kor of barley. And the balance of 21 О ugar should go into ,34 th е ра1асе ...
The letter is not easy to understand, and the calculations in it appear mistaken а! :first glance; а recent study Ьу Durand has elucidated its contents, however. Yasim-Sumu was in Етаг, and announced that аН cargo ships were chartered;) and would Ье unavailable for five months, indicating that Emar shipped grain to other places that were at а round-trip distance of five months' travel. Now, either Ье had to hope that ships from Мап would soon arrive and could Ье loaded with grain, or Ье had to spend five pounds of silver from the palace {о hire other boats from тег chants, whose representative in Mari was Idinyatum. These merchants were independent from the palace and needed to Ье convinced with financial incentives to reassign their boats ос to release some boats that they had previously withheld. This was to Ье done Ьу offering Idinyatum 60 ugar (= 600 kor) ofbarley, which was worth five minas (= 300 shekels) of silver in Emar. YasirnSumu would recover the additional costs Ьу taking advantage of the differences in the price of barley between Emar and Mari. In Emar he could acquire 2.5 kor of barley per shekel of siIver, in Mari опlу 2 kor. The 3,000 ugar acquired in Emar was worth twenty minas of silver there, but in Mari it would Ье priced at twenty-five minas. Thus {Ье only transport costs {Ье раlасе would have to take саге of were the salaries for the boatmen. We see here how раlасе, private merchants, and salaried boatmen аН were involved in the process, each of them eager to make а profit. The cereals in the letter cited above сате from Еmаг, а city upstream оп те Euphrates, in the zone where rain-fed agriculture was possible. The region of те upper Euphrates was only accessible to Mari when its political relations with Aleppo were good. Such was not always true, however, and ап alternative source for cereals was perhaps the middle Habur area. The grain storage and processing facilities found at sites such as ТеН C=Atij, and mentioned before, тау have Ьееп established for that purpose. Transport of те grain Ьу Ьоа! along the Euphrates was facilitated Ьу а canal оп 3~ Maurice Birot еЕ al., Техсе! divers (Archives royales de Mari XIII; Paris 1964), по.
35 11. 1-32; те rrans. and inrerpretation of this letter are based оп Jean-Marie Durand, 'Relecrures d'ARМTXIII, 11: La correspondance de Numusda-Nahrari',
lvfan. AnnaZes de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 2 (Paris, 1983), 160-3.
172
Feed-z"ng the Citizens
its west bank, more convenient and cheaper than the use of over: land caravans which are also attested. According to the letter : quoted above, the crew of six теп would Ье paid тЬе equivalent of " 450 litres of barley in silver to navigate а 3,600 litre Ьоа! over а distance of more than 300 kilometres. If overland transporr had "Ьееп used, the teamsters themselves would have consumed the , entire load. Mari was thus most likely unable to feed its citizens : with its own resources, and had to import food. Its location provided the city with much inсоте from trade, however, and this income could Ье used for food acquisition. In conclusion, it seems that Mesopotamian cities were usually аЫе to support themselves with the food produced in their hinterlands" and that imports of food over long distances indicate exceptional circumstances. The exceptions could Ьауе Ьееп caused Ьу natura1 disasters, such as droughts, ог they could have Ьееп related to politica1 events. Emperors might construct cities that needed ТО Ье supplied Ьу а wide geographica1 area, or kings might demand that provinces make contributions то support the capital city as а political statement. Certain cities always were artificial foundations, unsustainable Ьу their own surroundings, Ьи! ideally located for trade or other purposes. Уе! those were rare cases and most of the cities were sеlf-геliапr with respecr {о foodstuffs. The problem of food supply is thus related to таnу issues regarding the ancient есоnоmу of Mesopotamia. Questions of land ownership, political and bureaucratic organization" markets and redistriburive centres, land use and agricultural rechniques, аН have ап impact оп our understanding of the ways in which реорlе obtained their food. As mапу of these questions are matters of dispute, the reconstruction provided in this chapter has to Ье regarded as provisional and ореn to debate too. I
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Sorne of the issues addressed in this chapter have Ьееп extensively debated, and the 1ist of publicatio~s provided here has to Ье very selective. For а survey ofthe agricultural resources of Mesopotamia see J. N. Postgate, Early Mesopotamia: Society and Econonzy а! the Dawn 01 History (London and New York, 1992), 157-72. Armas Salonen has published several, mainly lexicographical, studies
Feeding the Citizens
173
оп
aspects of agriculture: Agricultura Mesopotamica nach sumen:sch-akkadischen QueZZen (Helsinki, 1968); Dz"e Fischerei im , alten Mesopotamien (Helsinki, 1970); Vogel und Vogelfang im alten Mesopotamien (Helsinki, 1973); and Jagd und Jagdtiere im allen Mesopotamien (Helsinki, 1976)" Seтinal articles proving the existence of private ownership of fields in third-millennium Babylonia were written Ьу 1. М. Diakonoff, 'Sale of Land in Pre-Sargonic Sumer') in Papers Presented Ьу the Soviet Delegation ах lhe XXIII InternationaZ Congress 0/ On:entalists. Assyn:ology (Moscow, 1954), 5-32, and 1. J. Gelb, 'Оп the Alleged Temple and State Economies in Ancient Mesopotamia', Studi in оnоуе di Edoardo Volterra 6 (Milano, 1971), 137-54. А collection of essays оп land ownership in various periods of Mesopotaтian history was edited Ьу Burchard Brentjes, Das Grundeigentum in Mesopotamien (Jahrbuch Wirtshaftsgeschichte, Sonderband 1987; Berlin). For varying opinions оп те existence of соmmипаl ownership of land, see 1. М. Diakonoff, 'ТЬе Соmmuпе in the Ancient Near East as treated in the Works of Soviet Researchers', Soviet Anthropology and ArcheolОЮJ 2, по. 1 (1963), 32-46; 1. J. Gelb ес al., Earliesl Land Tenure Systems in the Ancient Near East: Ancient Kudurrus (Chicago, 1991), 16-17, 24-6; G. I(omoroczy, 'Landed Property in Ancient Mesopotamia and the Theory of the so-called Asiatic Mode of Production', Oikumene 2 (1978), 9-26; W. Р. Leemans, 'Trouve-t-on des "comтunautes rurales" dans l'ancienne Mesopotaтie?', Recueils de lа Societe Jean Bodin XLI, Les communautes ruraZes, Deuxieme partie, Antiquite (Paris, 1983), 43-106; J. N. Postgate, 'Land Tenure in the Middle Assyrian Period: а Reconstruction', Bulletin ojthe School ofOriental andAfrican Studies 34 (1971),496-520, and 'Ilku and Land Tenure in the Middle Assyrian Кingdom-a Second Attempt', in J. N. Postgate (ed.), Societies and Languages 01 rhe Ancie11t Near East: Studies in Honour 01 1. М. Diakonoff (Wапniпstег, 1982), 304-13; Carlo Zaccagnini in С. Zaccagnini (ed.), Produclion and Consunlption in the Ancz·ent Near East (Budapest, 1989), 1-126. The need for processing of cereals after harvesting has Ьееn extensively illustrated Ьу G. С. Hillman, 'Traditional Husbandry and Processing of Archaic Cereals in Recent Times: Рап 1, the Glume Wheats', Bulletin оп Sumerian Agriculture 1 (1984), 114-52, and 'Part 11, {Ье Free-Threshing Cereals', Bulletin оп Sumerian
rur .
174
Feeding the Citizens
AgricuZture 2 (1985), 1-31. Some ofthe ancient documentation сап Ье found in Апnаs Salonen, Agп"cultura Mesopotamica (Helsinki, 1968), 263-82. For grain processing sites excavated in те Middle Habur area see Michel Fortin, 'Trois campagnes de fouilles а teH CAtij: Un comptoir commercial du IIIeme millenaire еп Syrie du Nord', Bulletin 01 the Canadian Sociery 0/ Mesopotamian Srudies 18 (1989), 35-56, and 'ТеН Gudeda: ип site "industriel" du IIIeme millenaire ау. ].С. dans lа тоуеппе vallee du Кhabur?', BuZZetin 01 the Canadian Society 01 Mesopotamian Studies 21 (1991), 63-77; Glenn М. Schwarrz and Hans Н. Curvers, 'ТеН al-Raqa'i 1989 and 1990: Further Investigations а! а Small Rural Site of Early Urban N orthern Mesopotamia', Аmеnсаn Jourпal 0/Archaeology 96 (1992), 397-419. Seals with representations of grain stores are reproduced Ьу Dominique СоIl0П, First Impressions: Cylinder SeaZs in the Ancient Near East (London, 1987), 146 nos. 622-3; Salonen, Agrz"cultura Mesopotamica, pl. х по. 3. For the functioning of door locks see Richard L. Zettler, 'Sea1ings as Artifacts of InstitutionaI Administration in Ancient Mesopotamia', Journal 01 Cuneiform Studies 39 (1987), 197-240. Their psychological imporrance in Egypt has been described Ьу Barry J. Кеmр, Ancient ЕЮJрС: Аnасоmу 01 а Civilization (London andNewYork, 1989), 113. Rations have been widely studied. 1. J. Gelb, 'The Ancient Mesopotamian Ration System,' Journal 01 Near Eastern Studies 24 (1965), 230-43 was the first systematic discussion of their importance. Some important recent works are: Hartmut Waetzoldt, 'Compensation of Craft Workers and Officials in the Ur 111 Ре riod', in Marvin А. Powell (ed.), Labor in the Ancient Near East (New Haven, 1987), 117-41; and Lucio Milano, 'Le razioni alimentari пе} vicino oriente antico: per un'articolazione storica del sistemo', in Rita Dolce and Carlo Zaccagnini (eds.), 11 раnе del re (Bologna, 1989), 65-1 оо. Оп millers in the Ur 111 period see Robert К. Englund, 'Hard Work-Where Will it Get Уои? Labor Management in Ur l1! Mesopotamia', Journal 01 Near Easterп Studies 50 (1991), 255-80 . ОП brewers see Louis F. Hanman and А. Leo. Oppenheim, Оп Beer and Brewing Techniques in Ancient Mesopotamia (New Науеп, 1950). For а stateтent that the market was oflittle importance in the distribution of food products, see Johannes Renger, 'Formen des Zugangs zu den lebensnotwendigen Giitern: Die
Feeding the Citizens
175
Austauschverhaltnisse in der altbabylonischen Zeit', Altorientalische Forschungen 20 (1993), 87-114. For drinking-water supp1ies in Mesopotamia, see the remarks Ьу Н. W. F. Saggs, The Greatness that was Babylon (London, 1962), 171-2; and Н. W. Р. Saggs, Civilization before Greece and Rome (New Науеп and London, 1989), 121-5. Archaeological evidence for wells was summarily described Ьу Valentin Mi.iller, 'Brunnen', RealZexikon der AssyrioZogie 2 (Berlin and Leipzig, 1938), 72-3. For ап example of how one should study the agricultural potential of ап area, see Terence N. D' Altroy, Provincial Power in the Inka Empire (Washington and London) 1992), 154-63. For southern Babylonia the issue has Ьееп studied Ьу Roben МсС. Adarns, Heartland ofCities (Chicago and London, 1981); and for погтеm БаЬуlопiа Ьу McGuire Gibson, The City and Area 0/ Kish (Coconut Grove Miami, 1972). For Assyria, see Т. J. Wilkinson, 'The Structure and Dynamics of Dry-Farming States in Upper Mesopotamia', Current Anthropology 35 (1994), 483-520; and David Oates, Studies in the Ancient History 0/ Northern Iraq (London, 1968), 1966. For the сотрlех issue of salinization and for infonnation оп yields see ThorkiId Jacobsen, Salinity and Im:gation Agriculture in A111iquity (Malibu, 1982); J. N. Postgate, 'The problem ofyields in Sumerian texts), BulZetin оп SumerianAgriculture 1 (1987),97-102; and Marvin А. Powell, 'Sa]t, Seed, and Yields in Sumerian Agriculture: А Critique of the Theory of Progressive Salinization', Zeitschrift 1йr AssyrioZogie 75 (1985), 7-38. For the geographical situation of Mari see Bernard Geyer and Jean-Yves Monchambert, 'Prospection de lа moyenne vallee de l)Euphrate: rapport preliminaire: 1982-1985', Мап: Annales des Recherches Interdisciplinaires 5 (Paris, 1987), 293-344; Jean Margueron, 'Etat present des recherches sur l'urbanisme de Mari -1-', ibid. 483-98 and, 'Mari, 1'Euphrate, et lе Кhabur аu mi1ieu du IIIe millenaire', BulZetin 01 the Canadian Society 01 Mesopotamian Studies 21 (1991), 79-100.
8 Crafts and C01Dmerce
The есопоту of the ancient Mesopotaтian city was по! restricted to те primary activities of food production and processing. ТЬе manufacture of goods, both соmтоп utensiI~ and luxury items, found in abundance in the archaeological and textual records, was also а major economic enterprise. Craft production was по! limited to cities: village craftsmen produced а variety of goods for the local market as well. Ви! manufacture in cities, ог administered Ьу urban institutions, was clearly more extensive, more complex, and of greater importance to the Mesopotamian есопоmу. In this chapter 1 will investigate how crafts in Mesopotamia depended оп the city, and especially how теу were intrinsically connected to international trade. Their reliance оп cities was threefold: first, the producers could only Ье supported in ап игЬап есопоту where а food surplus was available; second, the variety of raw materials needed for manufacture was only available in cities where Ьот local supplies, such as reed and wool, and foreign ones, such as metal ores, were collected; third, the clientele was ап urban опе, which either used the finished products local1y or exported them. Eight main crafts сап Ье distinguished} primarily оп the basis of the material employed: potting, .reedwork, weaving, leathe1Work, carp.entry, stonecutting, metalwork, and jewel1ery-making. Others, such as glassmaking, had less economic importance. АП these crafts are known {о have had specialist practitioners, even basic crafts such as the production of pottery. For although simple vessels сап Ье, and most probabIy were, made in the household Ьу women, there are numerous indications та! most pots were тапи factured Ьу а specialized group of potters, starting in prehistory. Тhe most direct indicator is the fact that there existed а professional designation of potter, bahar, found already in the earliest Sumerian documents from the lat~ fourth millenniuffi. Some scenes carved оп cyIinder seals of that period seem to represent
Crajts and Commerce
FIG.
8.1
177
Sealing representing potters at work
potters at work (Fig. 8.1). ТЬе professionalization of pottery production is also visible in the archaeological record. From early prehistory оп, starting with the earliest permanent settleтent in Mesopotamia proper, pottery was standardized in shape, ware, and decoration. 1 At times, the standardization for certain types of vessels wa8 80 rigorous that soтething approaching оп industrial1evel production сап Ье iтagined. For instance, in the late fourth тil lenniuт, enonnous numbers ofbowls" now referred to as bevelledrim bowls> were produced in moulds of one shape and а limited number of sizes. The archaeological record also indicates that тost pottery kilns were concentrated in particular areas of towns. Yet те existence of specialized craft areas in early Mesopotamian cities is not conclusively proven, as 1 will discuss presently. Finally, we have а limited number of accounts listing enormous quantities of pots produced in specialized workshops. Unfonunately, по archive of such а workshop has Ьееп preserved, but their existence cannot Ье denied. The following example derives from the late third millenniuт, and lists ап enorтous nuтber of vessels produced in а single year. This is just а short excerpt: Тосаl:
3 pithoi of 300 lirres workdays: ЗО Total: б pithoi of 300 litres
workdays:
[БО?]
1 See Hans J. Nissen, The Ear/Y Hislory 01 the Ancient Near EastJ 9000-2000 в.с. (Chicago and London, 1988), 45, who argues that the pottery of the Halaf period
is so refined that it must have been created Ьу specialists.
i78
Crafts and Commerce т otal:
9 pointed jars of 120 litres workdays: 54 Total: 40 pointed jars of 110 litres workdays: 220 Total: 170 jars of 30 litres workdays: 170 [Total]: 320 wide rimmed vessels of workdays: 400
зо
litres
Total of 2,960.55 workdays.2 I
I
.
: The need for specialization increased with the level of difficulry f the craft: jewellers obviously needed more training than potters. ~ is likely that fathers usually passed оп their skills {о their sons, rld that recruits were taught through apprenticeship. From very tte in Mesopotamian history we have а smal1 number of apprence's contracts, drawn ир between 8pecialists and the o~ners of aves who wanted their servants to leam а craft. This example ates to the second year of I
"upta, daughter of Iddin-Marduk, descendant of Nur-Sin> has given rkal-ana-Marduk, the slave of Itti-Маrduk-Ваl:i!U, son of Nabu-аhhё din, descendant of Egibi, to Вёl-е!ir, son of Apla, descendant of Beliru, to learn те weaver's trade for five years. Не must teach him the eaver)s trade in its entirety. Niipta will give to Atkal-ana-Marduk daily 'ead made [тот оnе litre of grain, and his work clothes. If he does not ach him the weaver's trade, Вёl-е~iг will рау six litres of grain as quitrent. 'hoever breaks this contract wil1 рау а one-third pound of silver. Wit$ses, scribe, place) an~ date. 3 )mе
of the other professions attested in apprenticeship docu"ents are cooking, bleaching, carpentry, seal engraving, atherworking, shoemaking, and building. The periods of training tried from sixteen months for cooking to eight years for building. r e have only оnе similar text from the early second millennium, )t а contract itself but а сору of it in а textbook of legal forms: ~u-Inanna) son of Nбr-КuЬi, his father Niir-Kubi gave Ыт to rusuffi-Ьёli for мо years, in order to learn the profession of cook, Waetzoldt, 'Zwei unvеrбffеntliсhе Ur-III-Texte i.iber die Herstel1ung von )ngefaBen', Die Welrdes Orienr.s б (1970-71),28-31, соl. iv 1. 2-col. v 1.2,1.29. 2
Н.
~ М. San Nico16, Der neubabylo1lz·sche Lehrverlrag in rechrsvergleichellde Betrachtung Ltzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften) Philos.ophisch.torische Юаssе; Munich, 1950), 8.
Crafts and Commerce
179
as ап apprenticeship ... '4 The so-called law code ofHammurabi regulates what happens if а craftsman adopts а chi1d, and teaches him his craft: 'If а craftsman has adopted а child and has taught him his profession, he (the Ьоу) саппо! Ье reclaimed. If he did not teach him his profession, the adopted chi1d тау return to his parents) house.,5 ТЬе specialized class of artisans needed to Ье exempt from the tasks of primary food production, and this was only possible in ап urban есопоту. 1t is clear that craft specialization took place in the early stages of the development of urban society; and that the sustainable size of the class of craftsmen was directly related to the size ofthe urban есопоmу. It is often stated in current 1iterature that, at least until the late second millennium БС, most craftsmen were employed Ьу те central institutions of palace and temples, as only these rich organizations were аЫе to support them; опlу in the first millennium would artisans have worked privately, both for institutions and for private customers. This reconstnlction is based too much оп the restricted documentary evidence, which derives primarily from the palaces and temples that possessed workshops. There are sufficient indications {о suggest that craftsmen worked both independently and in institutional workshops th.roughout the history of Mesopotamia. For instance, the temple workshop at Nippur in the late third mil1ennium did not have metalworkers, and when such delicate tasks as the recasting of а divine statue in gold needed to Ье done, private goldsrniths were hired. 6 The Code of Hammurabi regulates the fees to Ье paid to hired craftsmen, unfortunately in а damaged passage: If someone wants to hire а craftsman, he shal1 рау per day: as the wage of а [ ] five grains of silver; as the wage of а felter five [grains] of silver; [as те wage of] а linen-weaver [grains] of silver; [as те wage] of а seal-cutter [grains] of silver;
-1
Cl~us Wilcke, 'Die Inschriftenfunde
1984)', in
В.
der 7. und 8. Kampagnen (1983 und
Hrouda (ed.), Isill-Isiin Bahrfyiil 111 (Munich, 1987), 106 col. ii,
1l~
4-
11.
Code of Hammurabi §(§ 188 and 189. 6 Richard L. Zettler, 'Metalworkers in the Economy of Mesopotamia in те Late Third ~1illennium') in Naomi F. Mil1er (ed.), Есоnоmу and Settlement in the Near East: Allalyses 01 Allcz"e1zt Sites arzd Artzjacts (Philadelphia, 1990), 85-8. 5
180
Crafts and Commerce [as the wage of] а lapidary [as the wage of а] smith [as the wage of] а carpenter as the wage of а leather-worker as the wage of а reed-worker [as те wage of а] builder
[grains] of silver; [grains of] silver; four grains of silver; [ ] grains of silver; [ ] grains of silver; [ grains of] si1ver. 7
We are even informed about how artisans were commissioned Ьу their clients to do work. They were provided either with funds to Ьиу the materials needed) or probably more often with the actual materials~ as is stil1 common in the Middle East today, and теп were expected to perfonn the work in а timely fashion. Тha! they were по! always in а Ьиау, however, is clear from this letter found at Mari, written Ьу the priestess Bahlatum to the goldsmith lli-idinnam: То
Ili-idinnam say, thus speaks Bah1atum: 'Уои have acted towards те as if уои and 1 have never talked, and уои are nо! solving ту problem. Earlier, 1 had given уоu grain in order {о Ьиу stones for а neck1ace. Вис you have not yet bought stones for ту necklace! It is four years ago that 1 paid уои! Now, while а jeweller did take the gold and silver, these toggle-pins have nос yet Ьееn made. Now, ifyou really are like а brother {о те, for the sake of а11 gods, send те та! piece at опее. Do not hold it back! If that piece does not reach те а! опее, this commission will по longer Ье in effect. (If) the two and one-third shekels of gold and four shekels of silver, which were given {о уои, are not enough for the work, add four shekels of bronze {о it, and уои will have five shekels of each.) 8
If craftsmen indeed sold to private customers, why do we lack receipts or sale documents recording these transactions? It is likely that аП sales of such items were final: опсе а finished product was sold, it was not subject to litigation and по records of Фе sale had to Ье preserved. Sale documents from Mesopotamia are preserved) but record те sales of real estate, humans, and cattle. The sale of those possessions could Ье contested in the future: the seller of а house, for instance, could produce witnesses stating his ownership. Thus а written document had to exist to show that the new owner had title to the property. This was not the case for small items that passed from seller to buyer with immediate payrnent. Тhe private 7
Code of Hammurabi § 274.
8 Georges Dossin, Corтespondance /eтinine (Archives royales de Мап Х; Paris, 1978), 162-5 по. 109. .
Cra/ts and
Соmmетсе
181
affairs of ап artisan are thus quite different from those of ап institutional workshop where bureaucrats kept track of the тоуе ments of large amounts of materials, products, labour, and payments. The presence of institutional workshops throughout the history of Mesopotamia cannot Ье denied. ТЬе palaces and temples were large consumers of manufactured goods, and clearly wanted to Ье guaranteed а supply. Their workshops varied from the private ones in that they employed а concentration of variously skilled artisans. For instance, the palace workshop at Ur in фе late third millennium engaged specialists in eight departments: metalworkers, goldsmiths, stonecutters, carpenters, blacksmiths, leather-workers, felters, and reed-workers. This resulted from the fact that many of the desired products required various sk.ills; for example, а chariot for the king was made from wood and leather, contained metal parts, and was perhaps inlaid with semi-precious stones. Leather boots could Ье lined with felt. As in any pre-industrial economy, component parts were not made separately, but the entire product was manufactured in опе location. Непсе., various specialists had (о col1aborate and were active оп the same premises. The work... shops were entirely owned and operated Ьу те palaces and temples, yet the craftsmen were not necessarily always employed full-time. In the case of ап early second-millennium palace workshop in Isin, it is clear that they provided their labour оп а parttime basis, having ап equal amount of time to work for their own account, ап activity that remains undocumented. The institutions тау have had to negotiate with these specialists. А unique document from the sixth century records ап agreement between three groups of craftsmen and the administrators of the Eanna temple in Uruk: Nidinti-Bel, Chief Administrator of the Еаnnа, son of Nabu-mukin-zer) descendant of Dabibi, and Nabu-ah-iddin, Royal Commissioner (and) Executive Officer of the Eanna to: (5 names, carpenters; 14 names, metal engravers; 11 names, goldsmiths), and {о а11 of the car[penters, metal engravers, goldsmiths], and to the craftsmen of the Eanna, а11 together, spoke in their midst as follows: '[У ou will mak~ the re]pairs and do the work involving silver, gold} bronze, gems, and wood, as much [as there is]. [If] уои do not do the work and do not make repairs, or [if someone] does work or makes repairs [in] another temple) [it is ап offence.])
182
Crafts and Commerce
The [carpenter] s, metal engravers, goldsmiths, а11 те craftsmen of the Eanna together, Ьу [Вёl, Nabu, and the majesty ofCyrus, king ofBabylon] to Nidinti-Вёl, Chief Administrator of the Eanna, and Nabu-ah-iddin, Executive Off[icer of the Еапnа swore:] 'If someone within his community will do work or make repairs in the temples of the town, or in the cult-centres, as many as there are, without our [permission], or if we conceal or keep secret an~ing when we see or hear about someone doing work else[where], (тау we Ье damned).' We swear ап oath to Nidinti-[Bel], Chief Administrator of те Eanna, and Nabu-ah-iddin, Executive Officer of the Eanna: 'If someone within his community has seen or heard that someone, without (the pennission of) Nidinti-Bel and Nabu-ah-iddin, has d[one] work ог made repairs in another temple, (but) has not told Nid~nti-Bel and N abu-ah-iddin, the loyalty оат of the king will Ье violated; he shall Ье punished Ьу the gods and the king.' (Names of 12 witnesses and date).9
The craftsmen in this document commit themselves to working for one temple only in Uruk, which implies that without such а сот mitment they would have been free to hire themselves out {О whatever institution they chose. 1t has been stated often that such professional groups only appeared in the first millennium, when independent craftsmen Ьесате the поnn. 1t seems to те та! earlier craftsmen as well were able to set terms because of their rare skills. They тау have agreed to provide labour to institutional workshops under special conditions only. Some work could not Ье contracted out {о them, because the products desired required the skills of different specialists that could only Ье brought together in а central workshop: In such circumstances they тау have agreed to work for the institutional workshop. Other craft activity тау have been commonly institutionalized, because the labour force was по! hard to train. For instance, texti1e workshops with full-time weavers we.re often present in palaces, which required large amounts of finished cloth. It is а mistake, however, то conclude from such workshops that а11 craft production was institutional. The dependence of те Mesopotamian artisan оп the central institutions was thus much smaller than is often suggested, in ту opinion. Craftsmen belonged to а select segment of sociery with skil1s that were in demand Ьу institutions and individuals alike. David Weisberg) Guild Slruclure and PDlitica[ AZlegiance in Early Achaenzenid Mesoporaтia (New Haven and London, 1967), 5-7. 9
Crafts and
Соттетсе
183
Their distinct status is especial1y clear in the first mil1ennium, when we find clear evidence for craftsmen's quarters in various cities. Nineveh had its neighbourhoods of goldsmiths, bleachers, and potters. Babylon had а street named after the makers of а particular vat called ЬиЬити in Akkadian, Nippur had а potters' quarter, and so оп. It is thus tempting to suggest parallels with the Islamic cities where one finds souqs of goldsmiths, brassworkers, cordmakers, and the like . In the Babylonian material of the first millennium we also see that professional designations were used as the equivalents of оиг family names: tanner, reedworker, builder, smith, sealcutter, potter, etc. As the holders of these names тау have had other professions, опе сап say that they were as relevant то someone's occupation as 'Mr Smith' is today. But this practice indicates that in ап earlier period, possibly in the late second millenniuffi, the association with а craft was regarded as а great distinction. It is hard [о determine how far back in time the clearly distinctive social status of craftsmen in Mesopotamian sociery goes. Evidence for the existence of craft quarters before the first millennium is inconclusive, if not contradictory. Already in the thirteenth century the inner city of Assur had а gate named 'gate of the metalworkers', and one could easily conclude that а concentration ofmetalworkers lived or at least worked near it. Many archaeologists refer to craftsrnen)s areas in their discussions of sites, based оп surveys that show concentrations of pottery ki1ns, metal slag, and specific equipment in certain areas of towns. But the archaeological surveys also reveal in most, if not аН, domestic quarters evidence of pottery, metal, and lapidary work. Moreover, а unique text [гот Mari listing the names of craftsmen and the quarters to which they belong, indicates that each quarter housed а mixture of various craftsmen, аН represented in small numbers. А tabular rendering of this text shows this clearly (see Fig. 8.2). It тау thus Ье best to conclude that аН residential quarters had the facilities [о generate craft products for the basic needs of the inhabitants, although certain crafts were primarily performed in а particular neighbourhood. These specialized areas were probably located where it was easier to get access to resources such as clay and water, or downwind from residential areas in order со avoid the bad smells ofthe manufacturing process. Perhaps only in the first millennium did а11 the craftsтеп limit their activities to certain areas of town. Throughout the history of Mesopotamia, the skilled craftsmen
..
- -
-
---~
оо
~
Occupation
Metalcasters [ J Felters Engravers Carpenters Perfumers Gardeners Millers [ ] [ ] Boatmen Ploughmen
PuzurDagan
Idin-ItiirMer
Zabinum
[3] 3 1 2
4
3
Mut-
Anа-Еа-
asraya
Rimё
taklaku
3
О
[ ]
3
13 [ ]
О
4
О
12 6 3 . 2 1 [ ] [ ] 5 1
О
О
1
4
1
1
4 1
1 1 1
2
О
О
О
О
1
О
О
О
О
О
1 1 1 1 1
О
О
О
О
2
2 1
1
О
О
О
О
О
О
О
О
2 1 5 1
8.2
'Select men among
ше
craftsmen [
Total
О
2
FIG.
1
О О
] ,10
The names ofthe individual craftmen, mentioned in the text, Ьауе Ьееn omitted in this {аЫе. [ ) indicates that те passage is broken. hyphen is entered when it is unclear whether а number was written оп the tablet, which is now damaged. 10
А
Dagan-
CJ f::1
~ ~ ~
~
CJ о
~ ~ ~
~
~
Crajts and Commerce
185
had а distinct and prominent position in society. It is thus logical that they would feel ап affinity for their colleagues, and that теу would fonn professional assaciations. From the early second mП lennium onward such organizations are attested in the texts. 1t has been stated that these groups depended оп the palace or the temples because they were headed Ьу ап overseer, but this соm топ and broad title сап also indicate that апе of the members was selected to represent the group in its interactions with фе governтеп! authorities, as 1 discussed in ап ear1ier chapter. The strength and cohesion of these associations is hard to define.. ТЬеу have been cal1ed 'guilds' Ьу а minority of scholars, usually under severe criticisffi. In а sense, the issue whether ог not it is appropriare to use та! designation boils down {о one ofterminology, and to what one has in mind when talking about guilds. Many of те characteristics of а medieval European guild cannot Ье documented in Mesopotamia, including the crucial element that only guild
теm
bers could perform а particular craft. But their absence also cannot Ье proved, and 1 think that we should not underestimate the power of these professional assaciations. In any case, те existence of high1y specialized artisans, organized in associations with undefined powers, cannot Ье denied. Such specialists could only Ье supported in ап urban setting. Crafts were dependent оп the eity in other ways as well, еБре cially because of their reliance оп trade. Many Mesopotamian crafts could not exist without trade, both for the procurement of materials, and for the marketing of finished praducts. Only in the eity was the variety of materials needed in manufacture available. These materials could сате either from the city's hinterland or from distant regions. Examples from two crafts will show the various processes involved. The textile industry relied upon locally produced materials and shows а close interaction between rural and urban economies. Its organization сап Ье reconstructed from а group of texts from the late third millennium, found in те Боитет eity of Ur, and ргоЬ ably deriving пот the palace administration. In this region епопnоus herds of sheep and, to а lesser extent, goats were reared оп the steppe Ьу professional herdsmen. Опее а year they brought те animals into vil1ages for shearing, and great quantities of wool and hair were collected Ьу the 'wool office', ап accaunting bureau keeping its records in the city. ТЬе wool was not necessarily
186
Crafts and Commerce
. brought into the city, Ьи! could Ьауе Ьееп kept in storage houses in те countryside, from which it was issued Ьу the wool office to the weaving institutions that were located in villages around Ur. ТЬе texts зге пос сlеаг оп what exactly took place there: although we саН them weaving workshops, it is likely that the wool was also washed, combed, and spun there. Уе! this is по! explicitly stated, since it was of по interest to the accountants who were only concerned with amounts delivered and produced. The lo"cation of те mills in the villages provided тет with easier access to water, which was needed in abundance for the washing of the wool and the finished cloth. The time spent оп single pieces of cloth seems exorbitant to us. For instance, three women cou14 weave аЬои! 25 centimetres of а third-rate cloth in апе day, ог аЬои! 33 centimetres of а fourth-rate cloth. This has Ьееп interpreted as а sign of low productivity, Ьи! it could just as easily indicate that producrion standards were very high, and that extreme care was used in the weaving of these pieces. We know that certain weavers specialized in the production of а particular type of cloth, and the skills involved should по! Ье underestimated. As mentioned above, it took five years for ап apprentice to lеат the craft. The labour force active in the textile industry was enonnous: it has Ьееп calculated that some 13;200 weavers operated around Ur in the late third millennium, and, in other cities of southem Babylonia, similar numbers were likewise engaged. In this period the weavers were тostly woтen, eтployed full-time Ьу these institutions, and entirely dependent оп them for their support. They received food and cloth rations, уе! they probably returned home {о their families after work as they аге known to have borne children. Young children were taken to work. This was partly caused Ьу the natural need to take саге of them, including breastfeeding babies, Ьи! older children were аblе to do work requiring particularly Ьееп eyesight, as they still do among Middle Eastern carpet-makers. The workers were тost likely inhabitants of the vil1ages where the weaving mills were located. Лftег the cloth was woven, it was passed оп {о the fullers for further processing. Their work was as important as (Ьа! of the weavers, but it is I11uch less documented in our sources. Ап ехсер rion is а long text from the early second millennium providing а detailed ассоип! of numbers of days spent for the work оп very fine
Crafts and Commerce
garments. Unfortunately, most of the technical wonds used only Ье given а conjectural translation. For instance, second quaIity selum garment, (weighing) three and а half kilograms: three months and six days: twisting two days: cleaning two days: trimming оnе month: sewing ир two days: pressing апе month and twenty days: teaselling [оиг days: scraping and levelling оnе month: sewing, teasel1ing, and finishing six days: beating мо months: picking the threads from the front twenty days: picking the threads from the back (еn days: stretching and pressing опе month and eighteen days: untwisting опе топт and ten days: blowing 400 (workdays of) texti1e workers~ quota for опе second quality Sёcиm gannent, (weighing) three and half kilograms. 11
187~
сап
Оnе
а
Most likely the fullers were also located in the countryside with easy access to water. Thus the labour was provided Ьу the villagers, the wool Ьу the rural herdsmen, and the administration Ьу the city bureaucrats. ТЬе finished texti1es Ьесате the properry of the institution whose records we have, which was also the largest consumer, as it clothed its numerous dependants. The textile industry at Ur is the аnlу апе that we сап reconstruct in detai1, but other palaces and temples had similar weaving mills. Work with leather, reed, and clay ргоЬаЫу functioned along simi1ar lines as that with wool, as аН of them relied primarily оп locally available resources. Other crafts depended ап imported materials, however: carpentry for irs hard woods, stone-cutting for stone other than the lacal soft limestone, metalwork for its ores, and jewellery for its gold, silver, and gems. The access to these materials was restricted, as they couId only Ье obtained through trade ог conquest. Bronze metallurgy, for instance, reJied entirely 11
Sylvie Lackenbacher, 'Un texte vieux-babylonien sur la finition des textiles')
Syn'a 59 (1982) 131-2, § е.
188 оп
Crafts and Commerce
supplies gathered from various remote sources. Although from early prehistory onwards trade contacts between Mesopotamia and other regions are evident, and international trade did not necessarily require ап urban environment, the procuring of two metal ores from various directions could only Ье organized Ьу а central institution supported Ьу ап urban infrastructure. In the mid-third millennium, for instance, copper was imported from Oman, tin from Afghanistan. As the latter metal was used only in аllоу~ its import was senseless unless it was certain that it could Ье combined with copper. Непсе, the need for central planning which could only Ье provided Ьу а central institution supponed Ьу ап urban есопоту. We know surprisingly little about the organization of metallurgy. As mentioned above, cuprous slag is found in domestic areas of towns~ indicating те production of metal objects within private households. The textual evidence ofthe third and second millennia shows, however) that domestic use of metal was very limited, though not-entirely absent. Тhe archives from palaces and temples contain most of те infonnation оп metallurgy, but, again, теу only record the materials handed to the smiths and the finished products received, without details ofwhat happened in between. In фе first millennium, there was а marked increase in те amount of metal availabIe in Mesopotamia. Besides copper and tin, iron gradually Ьесаmе more соmтоn, although the growth of its use was а very slow process. Assyrian military expansion gave direct access {о mines in Anatolia; additionally large quantities of metals were commandeered from subject regions. Over the centuries, а substantial accumulation of various scrap metals must have developed in Mesopotamia, permitting the temporary suspension of new supplies. Worries about the interrиption of supply routes are not attested in the sources, as far as 1 know. But the dependence оп the exterior world never disappeared, and the increased demand for base metals documented in our sources always had to Ье satisfied Ьу new imports. These could only Ье co-ordinated in ап urban setting. The centres of production for metal ob;ects were always located in the cities, and the idea of the itinerant smith spreading ironworking techniques is по! at аН supported Ьу our sources. There was thus а need for ап urban society with the facilities to procure the varied resources used in manufacture. These resources
Crafts and
Coтmerce
189
were not only the raw materials col1ected from different sources, Ьот local and foreign, but also labour and administration. The labour force needed for the large weaving mills of the late third millennium, for instance, could only Ье gathered near an urban environment. And, when the manufacturing process Ьесаmе сот plex, Ьесаизе of the needs for а large variety of materials and for highly specialized craftsmen, ап appropriate administrative structure to organize this was crucial. Again, only in cities could such ап administration Ье found. Ifthey were to fiourish, crafts also needed ап urban environment to provide them with suitable markets. Тhis is nо! to imply that аН craft products were locally consumed: even if they were intended for export, the mechanisms of trade to accomplish this were only available in cities. ТЬе domestic market varied enormously according to craft, time period, and even ciry. Тhe clientele becomes more exclusive when the craft produc[ becomes тоте valuable. Private citizens owned only а few metal objects, and jewellery or seals of semi-precious stone were even rarer. Reed mats, leather bags, and cooking vessels certainly had а broader market. Demand varied over time as well. Metal objects Ьесате much more соmmоn in the first millennium than ever before. In the early first millennium Babylonia had hardly any luxury products, while in the sixth century there was ап abundance. The presence of large institutions in а city greatly influenced what products were needed. The palatial organizations of Babylonia in the late third millennium required large amounts of products for their dependants, especially cloth, issued as а ration. The Uruk bevelled-rim bowls, mentioned above, тау have been used to distribute barley rations, which could explain why they are nearly ubiquitous in sites of this period. The quantity of bowls required led to а highly standardized production method in moulds. Palaces provided their messengers with leather sandals and water-skins) and 80 оп. ТЬе demand for luxury products such as jewellery was dictated Ьу the presence of palaces, temples, or couniers, and goldsmiths could only work in cities where these existed. АП these needs determined what was produced. Many craft products were locally consumed but, as already indicated, they could also Ье exported. This i8 те second point where crafts and trade were essentially related: trade procured some оЕ the materials needed~ while crafts provided goods needed
190
Crafts and
Соmmетсе
for export. lt is quite clear to us what things were imported into Mesopotamia; however, we are il1-inforrцed about the goods used to obtain тет, and the issue has received little attention. Mesopotamian agricultural surplus undoubtedly was bartered in certain cases: cereals, dates, sesame oil) and dried fish were available in abundance. Ву ship, large quantities· of these could Ье cheaply transponed to such places as modem-day Oman. Ви! when overland transport was required, cargoes of this nature would Ьесоrnе prohibitively expensive. The often-repeated idea that grain was shipped from Uruk to Afghanistan in order to acquire lapis lazuli is ludicrous. Ву the time те human or animal carriers had completed their ;оитеу of over 2,000 kilometres, they would long have consumed their entire load. More valuable and less bulky items needed to Ье used. Infonnation about the exported items is rare. Unique is the documentation оп the trade that took place between Assur and central Anatolia in the twentieth and nineteenth centuries, due to the chance find of the Assyrian traders' correspondence in their Anatolian colony at Kanish. Assur sent мо products {о Anatolia: tin and textiles. The first was obtained from ап unknown source in the east and Assur only acted as а place of transit for it. Textiles were either local products of а standard qualiry, or high quality imports from Babylonia. Caravans were assembled with donkeys and asses each carrying loads of about 90 kilograms in tota1, made ир from textiles only or from а mixture oftextiles and tin. The 800kilometre voyage lasted some fifry days. In Anatolia the loads were traded for gold and si1ver. Even after deducting expenses for food bought along the way and transit taxes, for which five kilograms of loose tin were taken, profits averaged at least 50 per cent. The preserved records document exports of about 17,500 texti1es and about 13.5 tons of tin from Assur to Kanish over а period of forry {о fifty years; the total transfer of goods during this time has Ьееп estimated to have amounted to at least 100,000 texti1es and 1 ОО tons of tin. These would have been worth between twelve and thirteen tons of silver оп the market in Assur, which must have been approximately the amount of the precious metal imported Ьу the Assyrian merchants. It is certain that the Assur-Kanish network was not unique) and trade in many areas was conducted along similar lines. Mesopota-
Crafts and Commerce
191
mia)s crucial resource in а11 its internaiional trade was its manufacture of craft products, desired abroad Ьу suppliers of raw materials. ТЬе latter could Ье re-exported to third parties for а substantial profit, Ьи! they could not have been acquired in the first place without Mesopotamian craft products. These derived from the most basic crafts, primarily the textile industry, but probably also leather and reed work. There is по evidence for the export of fine jewel1ery or the like, and these luxury goods were seemingly only made for а local clientele. The exchange between Mesopotamia and its neighbours clearly was not ап even one: basic finished products were traded for valuable raw materials. There was по need for а military threat to enforce such ап exchange. We have here а clear example of а technologically advanced society dominating the market of more primitive societies surrounding it. Уе! we should not imagine that the Mesopotamians dumped low-· qualiry merchandise оп foreign markets. The exported textiles were ме products and were made Ьу specialized weavers. They did not prevent the existence oflocal textile manufacture. That the abundant wealth displayed in the so-called royal tombs at Ur, for instance, was funded Ьу something as basic as the city's textile industry, need not surprise us. Similar situations where textiles of one area were in high demand internationally and provided the basis for great economic development are familiar elsewhere in history. Опе needs only {О think of Flanders in the Middle Ages, for instance. Mesopotamian trade and crafts were thus intrinsically connected: one provided the materials without which certain crafts could not function) the other ше goods without which these materials could not Ье obtained. Mesopotamia was technologically more advanced than its neighbours, and this enabled it to obtain the goods that were locally absent. The idea that it was а bread basket for ше Near East has to Ье rejected as the transport ofbulky items over long distances was unfeasible except over те Persian Gulf. ТЬе main centres of manufacture were located in те cities where те materials, labourers, and markets were available both to produce and to sel1 the goods. 1 do not want to exclude the likelihood that some basic manufacture took place outside cities. Vil1agers must have produced pots, baskets, bags, and so оп, for their own use, and even to exchange locally. But their main occupation
192
Cra/ts and Commerce
involved food production, and there did not exist а cottage industry ] providing goods for ап urban market. If villages existed that specialized in the manufacture of а certain product, such as pottery, as we sometimes find today in the Middle East, they could not have survived without ап urban market nearby. Moreover, теу would not show the necessary diversity of products from various crafts {о equal the production in the urban centres. Urban manufacture was thus something unique, yet poorly documented. We canпo! determine, for instance, what percentage of the urban рорulзtiоn was involved in manufacture. Since а substantial part of these activities took place in ап undocumented private sector, we will always Ье denied detailed knowledge of this part of the urban есопоmу. An important group of ancient historians holds finnly (о Мах Weber's idea of те ancient city as а centre of consumption, in contrast to the medieval European city where rnanufacture provided фе goods that enabled а very lucrarive trade. Тhe specialized craft workshops that сап Ье disсещеd in the historical record are regarded Ьу these scholars as having catered to а local market, and the importance of trade in craft products such as Attic painted pottery, is downplayed. 12 ТЬе Mesopotamian city has never Ьееп considered from this point ofview. In fact, most scholars who have dealt with issues of trade ponray the ancient Mesopotamian city pretty much like а medieval European опе, and comparisons with places like Genoa have been made without hesitation. The Mesopotamian cities lack Guildhalls, as do the Graeco-Roman ones, and the political powers of craftsmen and traders are unclear to us, but probably less than those of their medieval counterparts. However, some cities, like Assur, тау have Ьееп established primarily for trading purposes,13 and Mesopotamia's location оп the junction of numerous trade routes from Asia то the Mediterranean world strongly suggests that long-distance trade flourished in the region. The image we get of certain cities, such as Assur and Ur, as centres of trade тау obviously Ье false, and generated Ьу the relative abundance of documentation dealing with that activity. In general the Mesopotamian written sources оп trade are relatively rare, yet j
12 For instance, М. 1. Finley, Тhe Ancient Есоnоту, 2nd edn. (Berkeley and Los Angeles) 1985) 134-9, 191-6. 13 See David Oares, 'Тhe development of Assyrian towns and cities', in Peter J. Ucko, Ruth Tringham) and G. W. Dimbleby (eds.), Man~ Setllenlenc and Urbanism (London, 1972), 799-804.
Cra/ts and
Coтmerce
193
well studied. Since we cannot quantify the entire urban economy, we саппо! estimate the importance of апу of its component parts. We have {о Ье careful not {о exaggerate the significance of trade> and not (о Ье misled Ьу later European parallels. Оп the other hand, we саппо! deny that long-distance trading activities were соmmоп, and that, in Mesopotamia at least, they required manufacture for their survival: that intrinsic connection between trade and manufacture was а crucial aspect of the urban есопоту.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
No history of Mesopotamian crafts exists at the moment, but фе recent book Ьу Р. R. S. Moorey, Ancienl Mesopolamian Materials and Industn"es: The ArchaeoZogz"cal Evidence (Oxford, 1994), provides а gold-mine of information оп the materials of archaeologically recovered objects and good surveys of the textual sources for the crafts involved. А very useful discussion of Ancient Near Eastern crafts in general is Ьу Carlo Zaccagnini, 'Le tecniche е le scienze', in S. Moscati (ed.), L'alba della civilta 2: L'economia CТurin, 1976), 291-421. For late third-millennium Babylonia see Hans Neumann, Handwerk in Mesopotaтien (Berlin, 1987); for early second-millennium Babylonia, Marc Уап De Mieroop, Cra/ts in the Early lsin. Period (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 24; Louvain, 1987); and for the late first millennium, David Weisberg, Guild Structure and Political AZlegiance in Early Achaemenid Mesopotamia (New Haven and London, 1967). Some records from pottery workshops were published Ьу Н. Waetzoldt, 'Zwei unveroffentliche Ur-III-Texte iiber die Herstellung von TongefaBen', Die Welt des Orients 6 (1970-71), 741; and Dietz Otto Edzard, Altbabylonische Rechts- und Wirtscha/tstexten aus Tell ed-Der im Iraq Museum~ Baghdad (Munich, 1970), 192-9 text по. 198. For the textile industry in the Ur 111 period, see Тhorkild ]acobsen, 'Оп the Textile Industry at Ur under IbbI-Siп', in Towards the Image 01 Taтmuz and other Essays оп Mesopotamian Hz"story and Cullure, (Cambridge, Mass.) 1970), 216-29; and Hartmut Waetzoldt, Untersuchungen zur neusumen·schen Texr.ilindustrie (Rome, 1972). For metallurgy, see Р. R. S. Moorey, Maten"als and Manufacture in Ancient Mesopotamfia:
194
Crafts and Commerce
The Evidence 0/ Archaeology and Ап. Metals aпd Metalwork Glazed Materials and Glass (Oxford, 1985); Henri Limet, Le Travail du metal аи pays de Sumer (Paris, 1960); Р. Joannes, 'MetaIIe und Metallurgie A.l: In Mesopotamien' (in French), Reallexikon der Assyriologz·e 8 (Berlin and New York, 1993),96-112; and J. D. Muhly, 'Metalle В: Archaologisch', (in English), ibid. 119-36. The latter contains ап extensive bibliography оп discussions of the metal trade. For the location of craft areas in second-millennium Babylonian cities, see Elizabeth С. Stone, 'The Spacial Organization of Mesopotamian Cities', Aula On:entalis 9 (1991), 235-42. More theoretiса1 discussions of the identification of craftsmen 's quarters are provided Ьу Luca Mariani, 'Craftsmen's Quaners in The Protourban Settlements of the Middle East: ТЬе Surface Analysis), in Б. Allchin (ed.), South Asian Archaeology 1981 (Cambridge, 1984), 118-23; and Ьу Maurizio Tosi, 'ТЬе Notion ofCraft Specialization and its Representation in the Archaeological Record ofEarly States in the Turanian Basin', in Matthew Spriggs (ed.), Marxisl Perspectives in Archaeology (Cambridge, 1984), 22-52. For the apprenticeship contracts of the late period, see М. San Nicolo, Der neubabylonische Lehrvertrag in rechlsvergleiche11der Betrachtung (Sitzungsberichte der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, phi1osophisch-historische Юаssе; Munich, 1950/ 111); Н. Р. Н. Petschow, 'Lehrvertrage', RealZexikon derAssyrioZogie 6 (Berlin and New York, 1980-3), 556-70; and Muhammad А. Dandamaev, Slavery z·n Babylonia (DeKalb, 1984), 279-307. Тhe last work also contains important insights оп the relative importance of free and slave artisans in the late БаЬуlопiаn period, concluding that slave labour in crafts was very limited. The specialization of crafts during the development of urbanism in Mesopotamia was stressed Ьу V. Gordon Childe, 'The Urban Revolution', Town Planning Review 21 (1950), 3-17. Robert МсС. Adams, The Evolution 01 Urban Society, (Chicago, 1960), is more nuanced in his appreciation of the role of craft specialization in the general context of labour specialization. ТЬе argument that guilds existed in ancient Mesopotamia has most recently Ьееп posed Ьу David Weisberg, GuiZd Stnlcture and Political Allegiance (1967). А. Leo Oppenheim, Al1cient Mesopotanl1:а, (Chicago and London, 1977), 79-81 talks аЬои! guild-like J
Crafts and Commerce
195
associations already in the early second millennium. Criticism of Weisberg's thesis has been extensive; see, for instance, Johannes Renger, 'Notes оп the Goldsmiths, Jewelers and Carpenters of Neobabylonian Еаппа', Journal 01 the Аmепсаn Oriental Sociery 91 (1971), 494-503; and Hans М. Kiimmel, FamiZz"e;, Беru! und Ат! im spatbabyZonischen Uruk (Berlin, 1979). The latter also mеп tions the existence of professional designations as 'fami1y names', which were discussed briefly Ьу W. G. Lambert, 'Ancestors, Authors and Canonicity', JournaZ 01 Cuneifonп Studies 11 (1957), 1-14. Trade has been the subject ofnumerous books and articles; тost have focused оп the early history until c.1500 вс. А survey placing trade in the context of the exchange of goods in general is provided Ьу Carlo Zaccagnini, 'La circolazione dei beni), in S. Moscati (ed.), L'alba della civilta 2: L'economia (Turin, 1976), 425-582. W. F. Leemans provides а good historical survey of intemationaI trade throughout Mesopotamian history in 'Handel', Reallex'ikon der Assyriologie 4, (Berlin, 1972-5), 76-90. In two earlier books he studied aspects of third- and early second-тillennia trade in detail: The Old Babylonian Merchant, (Leiden, 1950) and Foreigп Trade in the Old Babylon'ian Period (Leiden, 1960). Several interesting articles appeared in the Proceedings of the XXIII Rencontre Assyriologique International, pubIished in the journal Iraq 39 (1977). А lengthy review of the issues raised in this volume and of prehistoric trade has Ьееn written Ьу Norman Yoffee, ExpZaining Trade in Anciel1t Westerп Asia (Ma1ibu, 1981). Important problems concerning the early trade between Mesopotamia and Iran are addressed Ьу Р. R. S. Moorey, 'Iran: а Sumerian el-Dorado?', in John Curtis (ed.), Early Mesopotanzia and Iran. Соnсасх and Confiicl 3500-1600 вс (London, 1993), 31-43. Old Assyrian trade has been well studied in books Ьу К. R. Veenhof, Aspects 01 OZd Assyrian Trade and its Temzinology (Leiden, 1972); Mogens Trolle Larsen, OZd Assynan Caravan Procedures (Istanbul, 1967), and The Old Assyria1Z City-State and its Colonies (Copenhagen, 1976). See also а popularized account Ьу Larsen, 'Caravans and Trade in Ancient Mesopotamia and Asia Minor', BulZetin 0/ the Canadian Society 01 Mesopota111ian Studies 4 (1982), 33-45, and his 'Commercial Networks in the Ancient Near East', in Michael RowIands еЕ al. (eds.), Centre and Penphery in the Ancient WorZd (Cambridge,
196
Crajts and Commerce
1987), 47-56. For exports from Babylonia in the third millennium see Н. Е. W. Crawford, 'Mesopotamia's Invisible Exports'-, World ! Archaeology 5 (1973), 231-41. ! : For later periods, the literature оп trade is much smaller. Late ! second-millennium exchange of goods is studied Ьу Carlo ~ Zaccagnini, Lo scambio dei doni nе! Vicino Oriente durante i secoli XVi XIII (Rome, 1973). For first millennium Babylonia> see А. Leo Oppenheim-, 'Essay оп Overland Trade in the First Millennium I i В.С.', Journal 01 Cuneiform Scudies 21 (1967), 236-54; and : Muhammed А. Dandamaev, 'Die Rolle des tan2karuт in : Babylonien im 2. und 1. Jahrtausend v.u.Z.', Beitriige zur sozialen Struktur des alten Vorderasien (Berlin-, 1971),69-78. I
I
9 Credit and Managetnent
The most commonly recorded transaction in Mesopotamian contracts is the loan. Thousands of documents detailing the receipt of goods or silver and the obligation for their repayment, with or without interest, are preserved from the late third millennium оп in Babylonia and Assyria. The format of the loan contracts varied enonnously. The creditor could Ье ап individual, several persons, ап individual together with ап institution, or ап institution Ьу itself. The debtor could Ье а single person or а group of people. The commodities loaned could Ье silver, consumables such as corn or dates, or а mixture of both. The loans could Ье repaid in kind, consumables could Ье given fOT silver, or silver could Ье paid for with agricultural produce. The repayment period could vary from а few days {о, оп rare occasions, several years. Interest rates also fiuctuated considerably, despite statements in the so-called lawcodes, usually proclaiming а 20 per сеп! rate for silver and а 33+ per cent rate for grain. Interest-free loans were quite common; sometimes interest was only charged when the debtor failed to repay the loan оп time; or rates charged could amount to 50 per cent and more. Although the formulary and legal significance of the loan contracts have been studied extensively [тот the moment they Ьесате known to us, their role in the есопоту of Mesopotamia has not Ьееп investigated. Due to their number and variety this would Ье ап enormous project to undertake, but опе that promises important results. Some significanr points have to Ье remembered before опе сап undertake such а study. The documents we have are evidence of loans that were not repaid; we сап only study the bad loans issued Ьу moneylenders. When а loan was repaid in fuП> те document оп which it had been recorded was destroyed> as it had по further use. Moreover, many of the loans in our documentation were not simple transfers of effects for а set period of time to Ье
.
/
198
Credit and Management
used Ьу the debtor for whatever purpose. Many of them were fi.ctitious, arranging а sale оп credit or а payment of dues то Ье refunded with goods at а later point in time. The loan, as known to us, was essentially ап urban phenomenon; urban residents or institutions provided it to one another or [о residents of the countryside. The ability to issue loans required access to si1ver, а commodity not widely available in Mesopotamia, and most likely only present in cities; moreover, one needed {о Ье within reach of а substantial number of people in order to Ье able to conduct money-lending as а routine business activity. Obviously, one cannot discount the possibility that villagers made loans to опе another, Ьи! то provide credit оп а regular basis {о а varied clientele would almost certainly have Ьееп beyond their capability. In this chapter 1 wish to focus attention оп the role of credit in two aspects of the Mesopotamian urban economy: international trade and the procurement of agricultural resources for the urban consumer. In both areas, city residents with access to liquid capital provided funds to entrepreneurs who used them to acquire goods to Ье brought into town. Although international trade and local trade in agricultural produce were мо entirely separate businesses and most likely undertaken Ьу different people, they show а similar organization with respect to financing. Вот required substantial funds which were raised from various sources. The мо businesses тау have diverged) however, in their contacts with the producers of the goods obtained. Credir played ап important role in the interaction with farmers, but it seems unlikely that it was issued to the producers of the raw materials imported into Mesopotamia. The latter were probably not forced to provide set amounts of copper ore, or the like) and were thus not in danger of falling behind in production. Intemational trade required funds to рау for the expenses of the expeditions and for the acquisition of goods abroad. These funds could Ье raised in а variery of ways and from different sources. Both private citizens and institutions are known to have invested their capital in international trade. One of the most соmтоп procedures was the gathering of ап investment purse from various financiers through partnership agreements. Оnе example of such ап agreement was drawn ир in Assur in the early second millennium:
Credit and Management
199
(Fourteen names with amounts of gold) Total: fifteen kilograms of gold, the investment purse of Amur-Ishtar. Starting from the eponym-year of Susaj а he will trade for twelve years. Of the profit he will receive one-third. Не will take responsibility for another third. Не who withdraws his money befcre фе end ofhis term, shall take мо kilograms of silver for еасЬ pound cf gold. Не will not take any of те profit. (Seven witnesses). 1 ТЬе
procedure was simple: fourteen wealthy Assyrians put а sum offifteen kilograms of gold at the disposal of Amur-Ishtar to епаЫе him to conduct trade with Anatolia for а twelve-year period of time. This was а substantial sum to work with, and allowed Атиг Ishtar to acquire in Assur tin and textiles to Ье exported to Anatolia, where they would Ье traded for silver and gold. Ап average gain of 50 per cent could Ье expected from such ап expedition, а third of which would go to Amur-Ishtar. The investors could thus still expect а 33 рег cent profit оп their investment. These parrnership agreements were not limited (О Old Assyrian trade. There is evidence for тет in Babylonia at те same time period. They provided funds for trade over the Persian Gulf, with the difference, however, that the partnerships lasted only for the duration of one expedition rather than for several years. The reluctance со conclude long-term agreements тау refiect greater risks and political instability in the Persian Gulf than in the Assur-Kanish trade. Late in Babylonian history such partnerships were still in use, at that time seemingly for prolonged periods of time. Partnerships were not the only way in which а trader could raise funds. Не could also {ит {О numerous investors who each contributed small sums. We have, for instance, records from Ur in the early second millennium, where the merchant Ea-na~ir collected small amounts of goods, baskets, textiles, and silver from his fellow citizens: 1 silver 1 silver 1 silver 1 silver
ring: Uqa-Shamash ring: Sin-emani, son of Dakullum ring: Sin-na~ir ring: Nidnat-Sin
1 silver ring: Sin-bel-apli 1 silver ring: Ikun-pisha 1 В. Landsberger, 'Vier Urkunden aus Kultepe', Turk Tan"h Arkeologya ve ECllog1"afya D~rgisi 4 (1940), 20-1 по 3; rrans. after Mogens Trolle Larsen, ~Partner ships in Old Assyrian Trade', Il'aq 39 (1977), 125 and n. 16.
200
Credit and Management
1 silver ring: Gullubu~ son of Belashu 1 silver ring: Nanna-mansum 1 silver ring: Nawlrum-ili) son of Isl:li-ili 1 si1ver ring: Dumuzi-mansum 1 silver ring: Ibni-Ea, son of the carpenter 1 silver ring: ЕгiЪаm-Siп 1 silver ring: Арра, son of Ludingira 1 silver ring: Sin-mubal1i~ 1 silver ring: Арраn Responsibiliry of Ea-na~ir. 2
The merchant could also take out loans. The various agreements he concluded with his creditors included th~ equivalent {о the bottomry loan, the priтary source of funding available to the maritime traders of fourth-century Athens and later. 3 Bottomry loans were taken ои! with the promise of а very high retuffi, which was only {о Ье repaid) however) when the trade mission was а success. Thus the trader was not liable for repayment in the event that his cargo was lost at sea. The investors took а higher risk, as теу could lose their entire contribution, but оп the other hand their gains were greater if the expedition was successful. Similar agreements existed in Mesopotamia. For instance, the fol1owing contract records ап agreement between мо traders and опе investor in which the latter provides silver and goods for ап expedition to the island of Dilmun, modern Bahrain in the Persian Gulf: Lu-Меslаmtаё
and Nigsisa-nabdiri have received from Ur-Ninmarkika one kilogram of silver (in те fопn of) 1,500 litres of sesame oil and thirty garments for ап expedition со Dilmun in order со Ьиу copper there, capital of а partnership. At те safe return of те expedition, сЬе creditor will not recognize losses. Ву тисиаl agreement сЬе debtors wiIl satisfy UrNinmarkika with те just рлсе of two kilograms of copper for each eight grams of silver. ТЬеу have swom together Ьу the king. Witnesses. Date: 1795 вс. 4
The contract stipulates that the investor will only receive а return оп his investment if the expedition is successful, which is ап agree2 Н. Н. Figulla and W. J. Manin, Lerters Qlld Documents 0/ rhe Old Bab,ylonian Pen·od (Ur Excavations, Texts 5; London and Philadelphia, 1953» по. 55411. 1-16. 3 See Р. с. l\lillett, 'Maritime loans and the structure of credir in founh-century Arhens), in Р. Garnsey, К. Hopkins, and С. R. Whittaker (eds.), Trade illlJle Allcielll ЕСОnОlnУ (London) 1983), 36-52. -1 Figulla and Martin, Leccers Qlld DOCIllJlellrS 0/ rhe OZd Babyloniall Р~гiоd, по. 367.
Credit and Management
· 201
ment similar to the bottomry lоап. The contract а180 states that the investor will not Ье held responsible for any losses incurred Ьу the traders, but wiII receive а guaranteed payment of two kilograms of copper for each eight grams of si1ver he invested, thus totalling 250 kilograms. The investment Ьу Ur-Ninmarkika is substantial but undoubtedly insufficient {а finапсе ап entire expedition. We see а clear attempt {о distribute the risks for both the investors and the traders. No individual or finn was the sole investor in ап expedition, nor did а person invest his or her entire capital at апе time. This practice was wise, considering the dangers confronting the long-distance trader. Тhat те merchants were not always аblе ta obtain the investments оп their own tenns is clear from the foIIowing Ietter. In it, Pushuken, who Ьесате апе of те most successful Old Assyrian traders) complains аЬои! the unwillingness of his financiers to advance him топеу оп his terms. Не would prefer ап arrangement over а three-year period, while his creditors are talking аЬои! буе years. Why the shorter period would have Ьееn better for Pushuken is unclear, unless Ье wanted the сЬапсе {а dissolve те partnership а! ап earlier stage in order {о renegotiate it а! that time: То ту
investors, Shu-Hubur, and ту representatives speak: thus says Pushuken: '1 asked те god for three full years sayipg: "Let те go and elear ту working-eapital and deposit before them as much as there is.) ShuHubur spoke аЬои! five years, and уои were in agreement, Ьи! 1 did not agree to this. 1 said: "1 will nо! wait for five years. For as much time as 1 asked from the god, 1 shall еоте and clear ту working-capital." Two or three of те financiers оп whom 1 depend do по! have common sense. А lot of money has escaped те because they are nо! favourably disposed towards те. 1 will not tell уои their names. 1 thought: "They wil1 соте later; те financier will give them every shekel needed and they will give те as mueh as теу сап." Мау Assur and your god Ье witnesses! 1 Ьауе lost по less than sixty kilograms of silver. Ви! enough! У ои are ту lords. If уои please, consider how many commissions have Ьееп levied in те house of ту investars, so do certify а (аblе! for те, stating that for three years ту deposits will сате and те money will not Ье seized; and send your good message with ту servant so tha t 1 сап collect every last shekel of silver of ту working-capital before harvest-time.)5 5
А. Т. Clay, Letters and Transactions from Cappadocia (New Haven, 1927), по.
32) trans. after Раи} GareIIi, Les Assyriens еп Cappadoce (Paris, 1963), 233-4. ТЬе trans. of 11. 4-17, and 28-39 is based оп Larsen, lraq 39 (1977) 130 and 143. Garelli suggests that те debate over the duration of те agreement тау have
202
Credit and Managemenl
Investments in trade were по! оnlу made Ьу individuals, but also Ьу public institutions. The palaces and те temples were the primary consumers of imported materials, and thus were greatly interested in the procurement of supplies. However, their role has been overly emphasized, in ту opinion. As almost аН thirdmillennium records regarding intemational trade derive [rom institutional archives, it has been commonly stated that such trade was опlу undertaken Ьу merchants as palace or temple dерепdапts. Anу contact between а trader and ап institution has been interpreted as evidence that the institution employed the trader. It is equal1y possible that the merchants were private citizens who received most, if not аН, their funds from the crown or а temple for one or more trading expeditions. The independent status of the merchant was to his benefit. In the contentious world of Mesopotamia, trade embargoes were ап appealing weapon, and те lack of а clear af:filiation with а political power allowed тЬе autonomous trader to go where palace officials would Ье baIТed. This is nothing unusual, of course, and the most famous traders throughout world history have often been based оп {Ье fringes of the major political and military powers rather than in thern: the Genoans, Venetians, and Dutch, for instance. А collaboration in international trade between the private and institutional sectors of the Mesopotamian economy would have been тutually beneficial. Thus, longdistance trade relied heavily оп ~redit, which was provided to те merchants Ьу investors who wanted to make а profit with their assets. ТЬе loans they issued were for productive purposes. А prominent school of ancient historians claims that, in Greece, maritime trade was те only area of the economy where credit was provided for such objectives. 6 The possibility that the same was true in Mesopotamia has not been investigated. 7 There are strong indications, however, that this was по! the case, and that liquid resulted from the fact that те temple issued credit for three years (ор. cit.) 248-9), while Larsen thinks it involves те extension of ап existing contract (ор. cit., 1301). 6 М. 1. Finley, The Ancien! Есоnоmу, 2nd edn. (Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1985), 141-2, 196-8; Раи! Millett, Lending and Borrowillg in Arzcienc Achens (Cambridge) 1991). 7 The only time this question has Ьееп asked is in а recent stзtеmепt Ьу J. Renger, 'Zu aktuellen Frage der Mesopotamische Wirtschafrsgeschichte') in Р. Vavrousek and v. Soucek (eds.) Su!nzu (Prague, 1988), 306-7. Не presumes that сЬе Greek situation applies to Mesopotamia as well.
Credit and Management
203
assets were used in other profit-making credit operations as well. Тhe best documentation for this is found in те area ofthe procurement of agricultural produce Ьу urban entrepreneurs. Credit played а crucial role there, enabling the exchange of goods in а massive agricultural economy without developed market mесЬа nisrns. It was provided to entrepreneurs Ьу landowners who granted them the right {о collect agriculture produce in retum for а payment in the future, or Ьу financiers who subsidized the acquisition of produce Ьу entrepreneurs. А! the same time те entrepreneurs provided loans to farmers, who repaid their debts at harvest time with produce. Thus credit was issued both to and Ьу the intennediaries who organized food provisioning for the urban citizenry. Мапу of the large landowners in Mesopotamia did not reside оп their propenies. The public institutions centred in the cities owned agricultural estates in а wide geographical area. Rurallandowners often lived in town, while prominent administrators and the like, who were granted fields as а reward for their services, could по! work that land themselves. Large numbers of tenant farmers lived and worked ОП these estates, each assigned а plot of land which would support his fami1y> as welI as provide те landowner with ап income. Rents were due ro the owners, and in certain circumstances taxes were (о Ье paid (о the palace. Tenants had access only to the products of their labour as а method of payment, while the owners had only а limited use for such food products. These problems not only arose оп grain-producing lands: herds were similarly assigned to shepherds and their milk products had ап еуеп shoner shelf-life. The enormous amounts of wool produced Ьу the herds owned Ьу palaces and temples were bulky, and hard to store. Fishing rights in the marshes and оп the rivers could опlу Ье paid in easily spoiled fish, orchards provided ап abundance of dates, and gardens huge amounts ofvegetables. ТЬе owners could consume only а fraction of these goods through redistribution (о their dependants . Surpluses could only Ье stored at а high cost, and the demand for these goods did по! guarantee total consumption. Marketing surplus foodstuffwas а time-consuming affair, requiring ап extensive network. Instead, it was easier to sell the rights of collection to people who would рау for it with easi1y storable silver. These entrepreneurs Ьесате те managers of the agricultural estates for the urban
204
Credit and Management
landowners, and interacted directly with the farmers. After what seems to have been а highly centralized and direct bureaucratic тanagement ofthese affairs in the third miIlennium, the rernainder of Mesopotamian history-in Babylonia at Ieast-shows the extensive involvement of private entrepreneurs in these matters. Their activities ате documented to us through the credit transactions that were involved: records of payments owed Ьу the entrepreneurs to the owners, ог Ьу the farmers (о the entrepreneurs. Тhey allow us to reconstruct how the system worked in Babylonia, as the following three examples will show. For Assyria we lack the data, or at least ап analysis of them, to determine whether similar systems were ln use. The earliest clear evidence of те use of private entrepreneurs in the col1ection of dues and taxes derives frorn the southem Babylonian kingdom of Larsa during the eighteenth century. In advance of the harvest, the palace sold the rights to соllес! the produce owed to it for only а third ofits value. The staples involved were barley, fish, legumes, and wool, and after they had been gathered and sold, another third of the price had to Ье paid to the palace. АП the latter wanted was easily storable silver, and in retum the collectors were granted the possibility of а substantial retum оп their investment. Moreover, the palace was rather lax in the соllес tions of its dues, again to the benefit of the entrepreneurs. Ви! the entrepreneurs had to work hard: not only did they need to organize collection of the staples, they also needed to transport them) preserve them when necessary, store them, and бпаllу sell them at а profit. Тhe last activity is entirely undocumented in our sources, Ьи! there is по doubt та! it must have taken place as the entrepreneurs could cenainly not have consumed аН the goods. Тhe reason for this absence from те documentation is similar to that regarding те sale of manufactured goods: аН sales were final. There was по possibility of non-payment resulting in соип action, and по records of the transactions needed to Ье kept. The persons who were involved in [Ье coHection and marketing of the staple goods grouped thernselves into ап organization that was almost self-governing, and with те conquest of Larsa Ьу Hammurabi in 1762 they acquired ап important role in state affairs Ьу becoming tax-farmers. How they bid for the contracts, if they did so а! аll, is unclear to us. But they had the right to collect for the crown in Babylon the taxes owed to it, and, although they paid
Credit and Management
205
for this right, their payments were often made after long delays. А question remains аЬоu! where the entrepreneurs found the funds . {о engage in this business. А payment needed to Ье made to the palace for the right of tax collection; this could have Ьееп а substantial amount. It is possible, although undocumented so far, that investments were sought for this enterprise in the same way that ап intemational trader raised funds. The opportunities of the entrepreneurs were not limited to Ьиу ing at а low price and selling at а much higher one. ТЬеу could also provide interest-bearing loans to farmers. Tenant farmers probably lived precariously. Dues were often collected at one-third or onehalf of their entire haIVest, when they were not calculated in set amounts enforced in lean as well as fat years. The size of Ше average tenant plot is not known to us, thus we are uпаЫе to determine whether or по! the income from it was sufficient {о feed а family after the dues were paid. We do know, however, that таnу fanners were often in trouble and required help to tide them over until harvest time. They could only Тит to entrepreneurs for credit, and these men were willing to provide it for а price. For instance.) when grain was needed to feed а farmer's family in the month preceding the harvest, or to allow the farmer to sow his fields, its value was calculated with its silver equivalent' at те сuпепt market price. As it was generally in short supply at that time, the price was high. Тhe fanner had to repay the grain а! harvest time, when prices were low and he had to give much more of it таn Ье had originally received, even if we ignore the interest charged. In this way, те creditor benefited from variations in market price, as well as from {Ье interest charged. The calculation ofthe latter depended оп те fonnulation ofthe originalloan: when it was entirely calculated with the silver equivalents of the barley it amounted to 20 per centj when the quantity of barley originally granted in the loan was recorded in the contract the interest was' calculated а! 33 ~ per cent, as the creditor could not benefit from varying rnarket prices. As а guarantee for the loan, the Ьопоwеr provided а pledge. Often this was а term of seIVice supplied Ьу а member of те family-a wife, son, or daughter-to the creditor. Alternatively, the farmer might pledge а (ооl or а boat, which then needed to Ье rented from the creditor. The debtor could еуеn agree {о рау а rent for the land he already worked for another proprietor. In аnу case,
206
Credz't and Management
. the farmer's expenses increased substantially, as did the likelihood , that he would need another loan the following уеаг. Не was sucked i into а spiral of increasing indebredness from which escape was ; unlikely. His final resort was flight, Ьи! because this had so many negative social repercussions and reduced him to the status of а brigand, this alternative was, it seems, rarely used. The situation was often so bad that the palace intervened and declared а11 consumer debts пиП and void. The annulment of debts Ьу the king Ьесате а соmтоп оссиаепсе in Babylonia in the eighteenth-seventeenth centuries, restoring the tax base Ьу freeing fanners from the debts to their creditors, including those for outstanding taxes. This is ап excerpt from the most famous of these edicts, the опе issued Ьу Ammi~aduqa of Babylon (ruled 16461626): 'ТЬе arrears ofthe tenant-farmers, shepherds, flayers, herders, and crown tributaries are remitted in order то strengthen them and to treat them justly. The collector тау not act against Фе household of the crown tributary.,8 А very precarious situation was thus created Ьу те landowners' use of entrepreneurial middlemen. Оп the опе hand, the owners were freed from the daily worries аЬои! managing their properties, and instead were guaranteed ап income in si1ver which was easily stQrable and useful for other purposes, Оп the other hand, the middlemen could acquire such а firm grip over properry, Ьу control1ing фе tenants, that the owners lost а11 influence. Only the palace seems to have had the power to restore the original balance Ьу absolving а11 tenants of their debts, but the repetition of these debt cancellations shows the kings' inability то redress the basic injustice of the system. Another well-documented instance ofthe crucial involvement of private entrepreneurs in the interactions berween cities and countryside appears in Babylon in the sixth century. А! that time, the city was at the height of its urban expansion and the capital of а great empire. Food was needed in abundance. The countryside around Babylon was extremely fertile, extensively cultivated, and ргоЬаЫу provided sufficient supplies for the large urban population. ТЬе mechanisms used to bring the food into the city are demonstrated Ьу ап archive found in ВаЬуl0n, documenting the activities oflddin-Marduk. The preserved texts record his acquisi[
8 Р. R. Кraus> Konigliche Veifйgungen in altbabylonischer Zeit (Leiden, 1984), 1689) § 1.
Credit and Management
207
tions of very substantial amounts of barley, dates, and onions in three localities to the south-west of Babylon, located оп а саnal that gave direct access to the city: Shahrinu, BIt-Tab-Вёl, and Тi1Gula. The techniques used Ьу Iddin-Marduk to acquire the food products were threefold. Не could Ьиу them outright. Sometimes only Опе or two weeks were needed to pack and sort те products according to qualiry, but acquisitions several months before delivery are attested as well. As the amounts involved were sornetimes too large to have Ьееn produced Ьу а single farmer, it seems likely that another middleman had already gathered те goods before they were sold to Iddin-Marduk. These sales are most often ех pressed as statements of amounts of produce owed to IddinMarduk in the future. 3,960 litres cf barley and 9,000 Iitres of dates, (claim) of Iddin-Marduk.,
son of IqIsha, descendant of Niir-Sin, over Lishiru, son of Etel-pi, descendant of bel-nарshЗti. In the month Simanu (May-]une) he will deliver the barley in те harbour at Til-Gula, in те mоnт Кislimu (NovemberDecember) he will deliver the dates in the harbour at Til-Gula. This is in addition to те 2,О88[ + х] litres barley ( ]. Witnesses, (document drawn ир in) Babylon. ТЬе month of Ajaru (April-May), second day, year 41 of Nebuchadnezzar, Кing of Babylon. (i.e. 10. 4. 564 вс)9
The second means of acquisition revolved entirely around credit. Tenant fanners in need of funds before the harvest turned to men such as Iddin-Marduk for credit, and promised а share of their harvest as repayment. The land they worked was pledged as а guarantee for these loans, rnost of which were granted three to six months before the harvest. Iddin-Marduk thus acquired produce long before it was harvested. The рпсе he paid must have been based оп а low estimate ofthe value ofthe staples, as the loans were issued to farmers who had по other way of obtaining credit. 192 grams of si1ver and а sheep worth 16 grams (of silver), Nabu-shumaibni, son of Nabu-shuma-iddin owes to Iddin-Marduk, son of IqIsha, descendanr of Niir-Sin. In the month Addar (February-March) he will repay те silver in its principal amount (i.e. interest free). Не мН repay ir entirely from his onion-patch (i.e. with produce). Witnesses, scribe, 9 Cornelia Wunsch) Die Urkunden des babylonischen Geschaftsmannes lddinMarduk: Zunz Handel mit Narura!ien irn 6. Jahrhunderc v. Chr. 2 (Groningen, 1993), 32-3 по. 36. .
Credz·t and Маnасеmеnс
208
(document drawn ир in) Shahrinu. ТЬе month of Ajaru (April-May), eleventh day, year 4 of Nabonidus, Кing of Babylon. (i.e. 4. б. 552 вс)10 А
1
I
1
third method of buying food at Iddin-Marduk's disposal was the acquisition of rents and dues from temple and раlасе officials. Тhese officials collected harvest shares and fees for the use of canals and the like, paid Ьу те farmers with staples which were of limited use to the collectors. Iddin-Marduk paid silver for the right to collect те fees, and thus acquired more produce, probably at а low price. АН the staples Ье procured in these three ways were transported Ьу him to Babylon over the Borsippa canal, and mаг keted in town. Again the sale of produce is not documented in our sources, although it must have required ап elaborate system of distribution. Iddin-Marduk needed а lot of capital for his work, capital Ье lacked а! the start ofhis career. Не raised it Ьу concluding parmership agreements with other Babylonian businessmen. The agreements were simple: one or тоге businessmen assigned silver or goods to ап enterprising шап with few assets for а specific purp08e whose nature they determined jointly. ТЬе arrangements were thus similar to the partnership agreements found in international trade, but their purpose was to enable the entrepreneur to acquire рго duce. Вот the profits and the losses were shared Ьу аН parties involved. Soon Iddin-Marduk acquired enough capital of his own to act as ап investor, as well as а person receiving funds. ТЬе agreements concluded Ьу him Ьесаmе thus more complicated. It remained beneficial to him (о raise credit from others for activities which he seemingly could have financed himself, and at the same time he тау have invested his funds into enterprises undertaken Ьу others. How and why he combined these financial arrangements is still unclear to us. Iddin-Marduk promised his investors а retum of 40 per cent оп their capital. The loans he granted to the farmers had only а 20 per cent interest, if interest was charged at аП, 80 а profit had to Ье made in addition to the interest rates charged. This profit was made Ьу taking advantage of two price differentials. First, the sales and loan agreements were mostly concluded before the harvest when prices were higher than at harvest time. Тhus а loan ех pressed in silver, but granted in produce, would have {о Ье paid 10
СотеЕа Wunsch, 103 по. 124.
Credit and Management
209
back with а much larger amount than was originally given. Second, there must have existed а difference of price between city and countryside that ensured а profit to the entrepreneur bringing те produce into те city. ТЬе size of that profit depended оп the market rates, however, which did fluctuate as is shown Ьу те astronomical diaries that register not only planetary phenomena, but also matters such as weather and prices. According to one of
these diaries апе shekel (i.e. 8 grams) of si1ver could Ьиу the following amounts of produce in the 37th year of king Nebuchadnezzar (i.e. 567-566 вс): month 10
11
barley 192 litres 180 litres
dates 240 litres 240 litres
Although the differences
mustard 180[ +] litres 216 litres
sesame [ ] 24 litres ll
тау
seem minar in this example, they affected Iddin-Marduk's profits. ТЬе 3,960 litres of barley Ье ас
quired in the first example 1 gave, would have been worth 165 grams of silver in the tenth month, while the 176 grams it was worth in the eleventh month represent а б.6 рег cent price increase. So the moment of sale and the market price at that time were of importance to Iddiц-Маrduk. W е сап compare те situatian to те futures market in farm produce, stil1 very active today. Investors took risks Ьу buying ир agricultural products long before their harvest, when their sale price was uncertain. There were obviously avenues open to men like Iddin-Marduk for improving their profit margins Ьу manipulating prices. They could withhold supplies unti1 the price was right, or they could form а cartel that set prices. None of these actions are attested in the sources, but we should not therefore simply discount the possibility of their occurrence. Thus credit played а double role in Iddin-Marduk's affairs: Ье received it [тот investors for making his business possible, and Ье provided it {о farmers (at much less favourable tenns) to help them meet their basic requirements. After two successful decades (573553 вс), Iddin-Marduk changed the organization ofhis business as it Ьесате possible for him to rely оп his own funds. No longer did 11
See Abraham
J. Sachs and Hermann Hunger, Asrтonomz'cal Diaries and Related
TexlS from Babylonia 1 (Vienna) 1988) 49-51. Larer diaries have more extensive records of market prices, but 1 selected this when Iddin-Marduk was active.
ехатрlе
because it dates to
те
period
210
Credit and Management
he need to find partners for his enterprise: Ье could send his representatives {о the countryside~ where he had now such ап
extensive network of contacts with farmers and officiaIs that he тау
have had а monopoly. When his daughter married IttiMarduk-balatu of the powerful Egibi family, the business was passed оп to the new son-in-law. Iddin-Marduk was not the only Babylonian involved in this business, nor was it limited to the city ofBabylon. The large temple estates of Sippar and Uruk are known to have made апаngеmеnts with private entrepreneurs for the management oftheir agricultural lands, which were enormous in size. These rent collectors were responsible for certain predetermined amounts of income to the temples, Ьи! received from them, in addition to the rights то the land, farming instruments, draught animals, and seed grain. А contract written in Larsa in the year 555 records that two men rented 7~410 hectares ofland. In the first year ofthe lease they were given 540,000 litres of barley as seed, 300 kilograms of iron for ploughshares, 400 fann labourers, 400 охеп, and 1 ОО 'large' cows {о replace the охеп in case they were ипаblе to continue work. As rent they were obliged to рау (о the temple 4.5 million litres of 'high quality' barley and 1.8 тilНоп litres of dates yearly.12 Nor did this system disappear after Babylonia Ьесате part ofthe Persian empire. The Persian noblemen ofthe crown, often residing in distant parts of the empire~ needed local people to administer their demesnes. They employed the services of firms such as the MurashQ family, which was active around the city of Nippur. ТЬе Murashu family "enterprise was to rent land from the landowners and sublease it to smal1 tenant fanners. The firm also had acquired [тоm the state the right to irrigation water, which it sold to the same tenants. Moreover, it provided, at а price, seed, equipment, and livestock то the tenants. In return, the landowners allowed the firm {О keep а percentage of the rents and" taxes due. As in earlier periods, the Murashus were willing to advance taxes to the"tenants and to give thern loans of silver, demanding the land they worked as collateral. Seerningly тапу fanners had to use this service, and soon 108t the title {о their land. It is possible that the state intervened with debt cancellations similar {о those attested in the early Muhammed А. Dandamaev, 'Neo-Babylonian Sociery and Economy') The Canzbn"dge Ancienr Hislory, 2nd edn. 3: 2 (Cambridge, 1991), 267-8. 12
Credit and Management
211
second millennium,13 but по solid evidence for them exists 50 far. ТЬе use of private entrepreneurs and tax fanners for the management of agricultural estates in те well-documented periods of Babylonian history is thus clear. We are not as well inforrned about these issues in other periods of БаЬуlопiаn history. In Assyria, the state as the largest landowner seems to have been directly involved in the collection of taxes and rents. The privatization of se~ices in Babylonia, after the highly centralized management in the third millennium) contradicts Finley's 'iron law of absolutist Ьигеаи cracy that it grows both in numbers and in the expensiveness of its life-style' . 14 Instead of ап increase in the size and competence of the bureaucracy, as Finley's law would have it, we observe ап eagerness to 'privatize' some of its duties. 1 ат по! suggesting that the Babylonian bureaucracy was anxious to make itself redundant. Ап opposite trend;t centralizing power in the hands of те bureaucracy, сап Ье observed in certain periods. Seventeenth-century Babylonian monarchs, for instance, tried to curry favour with the leading urban families Ьу giving them bureaucratic offices. Centralizing forces were at work throughout the history of the region. But, simultaneously, те inabi1ity of any state {о control every step of agricultural production and exchange is obvious. Тhe concurrent use of different systems in the exploitation of resources-direct supervision Ьу bureaucrats and use of independent managersintimates that те opposing trends of centralization and decentralization coexisted. Credit was central to аН the transactions described аЬоуе; withои! it the entrepreneurs could not have financed their business. ТЬе arrangements made Ьу Iddin-Marduk particularly show this to have been the case, and in other periods investments.were possibly collected in а similar way. The farmers ·тау have depended оп the credit for their survival. In contrast to the funds raised Ьу the entrepreneurs, the loans taken out Ьу the fanners were not for productive purposes but only for consurnption. They did not
.
Their exisrence has been suggested Ьу G. Van Driel, 'Continuity or Decay in те Late Achaemenid Period: Evidence from Southem Mesopotamia', in Helene Sancisi-Weerdenburg (ed.), Achaelnenid History 1. Sources~ Strucrures and Syntheses 13
(Leiden, 1987)) 175-6. Не entertains the possibiHty that such ап act was responsiЫе for the large number of bad debts held Ьу те блn dated to the first year of Darius 11. 11 Finley, The A'lcient Есоnоуnу, 90.
Credit and Management
212
attempt to upgrade their fanns with the borrowed funds. They consumed whatever they borrowed. People who wanted to raise funds for the purpose of а profit-making enterprise were able {о do so, primarily through pannership arrangements. Besides funding for international trade and the acquisition of farm produce, enterprises that were financed in this way included the production of beer and date-wine, herding, perhaps еуеп the running of а brotheH Another way for wealthy individuals and institutions to make profits without doing much work was to assign large sums of silver to moneylenders who parcelled the funds in smal1-scale loans to numerous debtors, while taking оп the burdens of collecting and managing the loans . They also bore most of the risks. For instance, when temples made loans, they most often did 80 in conjuncrion with а private moneylender in whose house the documentation of the transactions was kept. Promissory notes Ьесаmе negotiable. From the early second millennium оп we сап document the transfers of loans from опе cred~tor to another. ТЬе transferability of debt extended beyond city limits: there are many cases where а debt incurred in апе place was to Ье refunded elsewhere. Old Assyrian traders travelled with promissory notes to Kanish. АП these are sophisticated credit ор erations that we usually associate with early capitalist societies. Perhaps we асе overestimating their imponance, but they allow us to say that Mesopotamia had а more complex financial organization than did ancient Greece. The fact that productive credit was common in Mesopotamia does not exclude the existence of 10ans granted to help out neighbours, friends, or fami1y members. It has been convincingly argued that such loans were а normal and important рап of the social relations ofthe ancient Athenians, 15 and it is likely that in Mesopotamia this was also often the case. Мапу of the records preserved describe interest-free loans. We lack, however, the documentation to enable us to ascertain the prevalence of this practice, as interest rates Ьу themselves are insufficient to detennine whether or not the loan was intended to help someone out. Many questions аЬои! credit remain unanswered. How many people were involved in the business and how large were their 15
Millett, Lending and Borrowing.
Credit and Managemenl
213
enterprises? А study of опе neighbourhood at Old Babylonian Ur has shown that something resembling а financial district existed there. Вис most of the inhabitants тау have been small-time топ eylenders who held onto contracts detai1ing their outstanding loans. It is also not clear what percentage of the rural есопоту, for instance, relied оп credit for its functioning. Мапу fanners тау have paid their rents and taxes оп time. Even if а receipt was given ироп payment, we would never know of it until а Mesopotamian farm is excavated-an overlooked task. Then, there is the question of how urban residents obtained access to silver. Unlike the ancient Athenians, по Mesopotamian had а stake in silver mines, which were too far away. Long-distance trade brought the metal into Mesopotamia, as is clearly shown Ьу the Old Assyrian documents. Биt long-distance traders are· not to Ье identified with local entrepreneurs and moneylenders. The ability of moneylenders, as private citizens, to deaI with silver from
the early second millennium оп shows that earlier in history sufficient supplies of the metal were imported со enable its intemal circulation. In the third millennium the profits of long-distance traders-be 1they independent or subject to the public institutions-must have Ьееп reinvested in the local economy 50 that other citizens could gain access со silver. Ап increased rnonetarization of the economy over the centuries took place, with silver acquiring the role of а сиаепсу. Finally, there is the que5tion of why Mesopotamians wanted to invest their assets in interestbearing loans. Were теу interested in profit for its own sake, ог did they want to attain а particular goal? А тап like Iddin-Marduk is known to have acquired land when his business started to go wel1, as а means of consolidating his wealth. But he тау also have had the ambition to Ье а landowner, perhaps providing him with а certain prestige. Such motives are not revealed to и5. We сап only observe moneylenders who bought land, but we will never know whe1ther теу hoped in this way to fulfil the 'Mesopotamian dream).
BIBLIOGRAPHY А
survey of те history of lending in Ancient Mesopotamia was provided Ьу Raymond Bogaert, Les Origz·nes antiques de la banque de
214 depot (Leiden, 1966).
Credit and Management ТЬе
book does not distinguish between the different purposes for which loans were taken, and is primarily interested in detennining whether or not banks existed in the ancient Near East. The role of credit in international trade has not Ьееп investigated in а separate study. For Old Assyrian trade the works mentioned in the previous chapter are very informative. See also Mogens Trolle Larsen, 'Partnerships in Old Assyrian Trade', Iraq 39 (1977), 11945. Рот Old Babylonian Trade, see А. Leo Oppenheim, 'The Seafaring Merchants of Ur), ]оиrnа! 0/ the Аmепсаn Orienral Society 74 (1954), 6-17. Рог the financial role of игЬап entrepreneurs in the Babylonian есоnоту of the early second millennium see Магс Van De Mieroop-, Sociel)J and Enterprise in Old Babylonian Ur (Berlin, 1992); and J. N. Postgate} Early Mesopotamia (London and New York, 1992), 191-205. Iddin. .Marduk's archive has been careful1y studied Ьу Сотеliа Wunsch, Die Urkunden des babyZonischen Geschaftsтannes lddin-Marduk: Zum Handel mit Naturalien im 6. Jahrhundert v. Chr. (Groningen, 1993). For the Murashu family in Persian Nippur see Matthew W. Stolper, Entrepreneurs and Empire (Instanbul, 1985); and the imponant review Ьу G. van Driel, 'The Murashus in Context', Journal 01 the Economic and Social Hislory о] the Опеnс 32 (1989), 203-29. The increase in the number of bureaucrats in seventeenth-century Babylonia was analysed Ьу Nonnan Yoffee, The Economic Role 0/ the Crown in lhe Old Babylonian Period (МаНЬи} 1977). For partnership agreements in the late Babylonian period see Hugo Lanz, Die neubabylonischen !Jo,rranu-Geschajtsuntemehm (Berlin, 1976). For the 01d Babylonian period there is only а badly outdated study Ьу Wilhelm Eilers, Gesellschaftsfolmen iт altbabylonischen Recht (Leipzig, 1931).
10 Cities as Centres of Religion and Learning
It is something of а truism to state that the centres of culture in Mesopotamia were the cities, since 1 started this book Ьу saying that Mesopotamian culture as known to us was ап urban culture. у et it is remarkable that there is по trace at а11 of ап awareness or recognition of culture outside the cities. Non-urban people had а culture; oral tradition> religion~ and ап are found universally among villagers and nomads. In Mesopotamian tradition there is по acknowledgement of the fact that they had or could have influenced те urban culture. This is especially true with regard to religion and 1iteracy, where the игЬаn bias is absolute. АН the temples we know from Mesopotamia were located in cities. There is по indication at а11 in the archaeological and textual records that си}! activity took place outside the cities. No sanctuaries or cult objects existed in те mountains or in the steppe, according to our records. There were по sacred trees or rocks, по rivers, lakes, or seas that had cultic significance. This is in stark contrast to what we see in surrounding areas such as Palestine and Anatolia where cult objects in the countryside were сотmоп. А partial explanation for this phenomenon тау Ье found perhaps in the natural conditions of Mesopotamia, especially in the South where most of the religious traditions had their roots. This region lacks the natural features that drew the focus of cults in other places: prominent mountains or enormous trees such as the cedar. Ви! other aspects of the natural environment such as rivers, the lifelines of the region, could easily have Ьесоmе objects of veneratiоп. ТЬе only rivers (О Ье deified were those used in те river ordeal, а practice where ап accused person was thrown into the water (о determine guilt or innocence. Usually the river involved remained nameless in the texts, Ьи! when identified it was 'Iocated outside Babylonia and probably associated in the people's minds
216
Cities as Centres 01 Religion
аnа
Learning
with те waters of the underworld. 1 In Assyria mountains and trees were present, some ofthem quite conspicuous in shape or size, Ьи! попе
of theт Ьесате ап object of а cu!t. There was perhaps ап awareness that natural features could Ье objects of veneration in areas outside Mesopotamia. The Epic of Gilgamesh seems to соn demn те felling of trees in the cedar forest as а sacrilege; but те text is not very consistent in те matter as the same act was recommended Ьу the sun god earlier in the story. Тhe manuscripts in which the condemnation is preserved derive from Anatolia and тау reflect а local ideology. Mountains in те periphery were eonsidered to Ье the dwellings of Mesopotamian gods, but again this тау have Ьееn а borrowing of foreign traditions. In Mesopotamia proper such sacred elements of nature did not exist, and аП gods were thought to dwell in temples within cities. у et, many of the gods had their origins in natural phenomena. The sun, moon, planet Venus, heaven" earth, grain> flax.) and so оп were gods. It appears that, even in the countryside, these gods were venerated as anthropomorphic deities, not as animist spirits. They were 'domesticated'; their cults were enshrined in а temple in те city. When the king attempted to promote the fertility of the land, he did not go out to the fields to perfonn rituals, but visited the goddess Inanna in her city temple. The gods rarely left their cities, and, if they did, it was а eause for great concem. Опее а year Marduk's statue was taken ои! of Babylon for а short stay outside the city walls in the New Year's house. ТЬе purpose of his departure was to re-enter the city triumphal1y {о mark the beginning of the new year. The urban setting of the cult was of primary importance. Тhere did exist а god of the nomads, named Martu in Sumerian and Amurru in Akkadian, who posed а special problem in this respect. How could Ье Ьесоmе integrated in ап urban pantheon, while his adorers Ьу definition lived outside the cities? The problem seems to have been solved Ьу marrying him to ап urban goddess, Adnigkidu, daughter of the god Numushda) as described in the mythical text, 'ТЬе marriage of Маnи'. 2 His starus as а relative 1 Jeremy Black and Anthony Green, Gods:J Demons and Sytllbols 01 Ancient Mesopotamia (London, 1992), 155-6. 2 See Jean Bonero and Samuel Noah Кrarner, Lorsque les dieux faisaien! l'homme
(Paris, 1989);, 430-7.
Cilies as Centres 01 Religion and Learning
21 7
newcomer in the pantheon seems to Ье reflected in the fact that he was not the tutelary deity of а panicular City.3 We сап thus say that те institutionalized cult in Mesopotamia was entirely ап urban рЬеnоmепоп. Even if gods had powers over elements outside the cities, they could only Ье venerated in ап urban setting. This seemingly contradictory situation derived, in ту opinion, from the original role that temples played in Mesopotamian sociery. They were not primarily centres of cult, but centres of administration. They were economic rather than religious institutions. 1 have argued that cities arose in southern Mesopotamia as places of redistribution for variously obtained local resources. Some power structure needed to exist to organize such redistribution, and religion provided the authority required to fonnalize the transactions. The temple building was not only а place of cult, but also of administration and storage. Contributions could Ье portrayed as offerings to the
god~
distributions as divine rewards.
There was по place for organized religion outside this system, as it could по! perform its redistributive role withQ:U~ ап attachment to а city. Later in history when а secular power structure had grown ир) the temples lost their role as the sole agents of economic exchange, Ьи! Ьу that time the urban roots of official cults were 80 firmly established that а11 new cults, even those of nomadic рео ples, were integrated within that pattern. Gods required temples, and temples needed to Ье located in cities. Scribes made ир а vital segment ofthe {етрlе hierarchy. Wriiing in Mesopotamia, after а11, was developed for accounting purposes Ьу temple bureaucrats. Soon afterwards, the use of writing was expanded to non-administrative contexts, including literature, yet throughout the history of те region the most common documents remained administrative records. Боth фе public institutions of palace and temple and the private urban entrepreneurs required writing for те recording of their transactions, because these reached а level of complexity that precluded other means of ас counting. ТЬе variery зпd numbers of economic documents are enormous. The риыic institutions required the equivalents oflaundry lists: records of their transactions conceming their holdings of 3 See D. о. Edzard, 'Martu, А. Gott', Reallexikon der Assyriologt:e 7 (1987-90), 433-8.
218
Cities as Centres
01 Religz·on and Learning
goods and livestock, lists of payments of rations and salaries, ас counts of contributions, and 80 оп. Businessmen had notes of their outstanding loans, receipts of payments, rental agreements, and many more. Domestic arrangements such as inheritance divisions, mапiаgе contracts, and dowries were put down in writing when теу involved valuable property. Moreover, letters were important means of communication both for businessmen and their customers or partners, and for various depanments of public institutions. These texts were indispensable due to the complexity of the urban economies of Mesopotamia. As 1 pointed out before, the hinterlands of те cities were integrated in these economies. Agriculture, fishing, and herding were practised outside the city walls, and certain industries were located in villages. У et these only functioned at а high level of complexity because of their urban connections. The records made ир there were intended for ап urban administration. Consequently, other forms of writing were equal1y city-bound. The literature of Mesopotamia was composed, copied, and preseIVed in the cities, under the auspices of the palaces and {b~ temples. The royallibrary of Assurbanipal at Nineveh has been our main source of Mesopotamian literature, and the recently discovered temple liЬгату of Achaemenid Sippar тау yield equivalent riches. Sumerian literature is primarily known from manuscripts found in houses of early second-millennium Nippur and Ur. Mesopotamia's literature is апе of city-people, who were afraid of what was {о Ье found outside their walls. It reflects urban concems and ideologies, not those of people living in the countryside. Some ofthe literary outpU[ ha~ а practical use in the official cult and in private lives. Hymns, prayers, and rituals were composed and preserved for cultic purposes. The 'Epic of Creation' was recited during the New Year's festival, and possibly other so-cal1ed myths and epics played similar roles. Those were thus integrated in the urban setting of the official cult. The most voluminous part of Mesoporamian literature relates {о the reading of omens. Enormous lists of observations of phenomena in nature, the stars and planets, and every aspect of daily life, along with Фе resulting events they ostensibly predicted, are preserved in numerous copies from аН Mesopotamian libraries. The belief in the ominous value af such phenomena must have been widespread among Mesopotamians, both thos~ living in the cities and those in the
Cities as Centres 01 Religion and Learning
219
countryside. The signs of the gads were everywhere. The birth of а two-headed lamb in а village was highly significant and needed to Ье reported to the proper authorities. Extrapolations were made from observable рЬепотепа to create fantastic situations and suggest their consequences. Thus апе hypathesized аЬаи! three, four, :five, or six-headed lambs, and те interpretation of such impassible events was systematized. Sometimes detailed knowledge of the writing system and the various readings af cuneifonn signs was indispensable far the understanding of ап ornen, а knowledge lacking outside cities. The omens are presented to us in а rigid fonnat: те lists of observations and predictions were produced in а 'canonical' form from the late second millennium оп. The order ofthe omens and their division Ьу tablet, sometimes more than 100 in number, were standardized, а work фа! was undertaken in 'academies') which again existed only in urban settings. Monumental royal inscriptions had their origins in
соmmетога
tive building accounts that glorified те king's activities as the founder or restorer of temples) palaces) or city walls, а11 urban features. The so-called hi8toriographic texts, relating primarily the king's military feats, were engraved оп monuments within те cities: individual stelae, reliefs that decorated те palaces, colossal representations of winged bulls that guarded the monumental buildings, doorwaY8, and 80 оп, were inscribed with accounts of the k.ing's actions. The only exception for те urban context of royal inscriptions is found with те rock reliefs, carved onto mountainsides in areas surrounding Mesopotamia. Interestingly, these were originally only sculpted for rulers not native to Mesopotamia, such as the Elamites and Gutians. 4 Among the Mesopotamians themselves, only the Assyrian kings of the late second and first millennia are known to have left such images behind. The kings commemorated military feats in remote areas Ьу engraving images ог texts, or а combination ofboth, оп the mountains of distant regions reached in their carnpaigns. As these reliefs were usually located in places of strategic imponance, such as -\ The so-called rock relief of Naram-Sin of Akkade at Darband-i-Gaur~ without ап inscrip[ion~ has been assigned [О that ruler solely оп stylistic grounds, e.g. Еvз Strommenger, 'Das Felsrelief von Darband-i-Gaur', Baghdader Mirteilungen 2 (1963), 83-8. The image could represenr any vicrorious king, and has been assigned [О
later periods as well (e.g. Winfried Orthmann (ed.» Der Alu Orienl (Berlin, 1975), 202-3). As far as 1 сап see, there is по evidence that it represenrs а ruler of
the Mesopotamian lowlands.
220
Cities as Centres 0/ Religz·on and Learning
mountain gorges, which future Mesopotamian armies would need to pass оп their campaigns abroad, they were most likely intencled for the Mesopotamian audiences rather than for the natives who could hardly have Ьееп аblе to read те texts. These reliefs ассеп tuate the lack of any other {уре of rock inscription in Mesopotamia and its environs: по graffiti Ьу soldiers, merchants, or shepherds аге known, по stones аге found in the desert with someone)s пате scratched оп them. The total lack of such written remains тау of course Ье due {о the accident of recovery, or to ап assumption Ьу modem travellers and scholars that they аге not to Ье found and therefore unrecognized. Yet, that seems un1ikely. The rock inscriptions left Ьу Sennacherib {о describe his bui1ding of the aqueduct for Nineveh, for instance, would seem а tempting place to scratch а graffito, and such secondary carving would have Ьееп noticed Ьу scholars. This lack of writing in а non-urban setting probably indicates that literacy was limited to urbanites. A1though 1 believe that more Mesopotamians knew how to read and write than seems commonly accepted Ьу scholars, the means {о acquire these skills were {о Ье found in cities only. It has been standard opinion that scribal instruction was given in schools from the invention ofwriting to the early second mil1ennium, replaced Ьу а system of personal instruction, Ьу fathers to their sons. 5 This idea is questionable today, and education тау have remained of the same nature throughou! Mesopotamian history) although we have found по physical evidence of schools so far. The school libraries of the early second mil1ennium supposedly found Ьу archaeologists in Ur and Nippur have tumed out to Ье accidental accumulations of tablets from unknown origins. 6 Тhe evidence for drastic changes in education after the mid-second millennium is not decisive. The latter idea was seemingly inspired Ьу Diodorus who states: 'Рог among the Chaldaeans the scientific study of these subjects is passed down in the family, and the son takes it over from the father, being relieved of аП other services in the state.,7 Yet, Diodorus talked about S В. Landsberger in Carl Н. Кraeling and Robert мсс. Adams (eds.), Cir:y Invincible (Chicago, 1960), 94-1 О 1. 6 See Dominique Charpin, Le Clerge d'Ur аu siecle d'Hammurabi (Paris) 1986);, 482-5;, and 'Un quanier de Nippur е! le probleme des ecoles а l'epoque paleobabylonienne) Revue d'assyriologie еЕ d'archeoZogie orientale 84 (1990), 1-8. 7 Library 01 History~ Book 11 29> trans. с. Н. Oldfather, The Loeb Classical Library. Diodorиs of Sicily 1, (Cambridge) Mass.) and London) 1933), 447.
Cities as Centres 01 Religion and Learning
221
divination rather тап scribal activity in general. Тhe so-called scribal families of the first millennium аге not necessarily indications of real blood relations, as 1 pointed ои! before. Moreover, texts describing life in а Sumerian school were maintained in те literary сапоп, and traditional school texts remained commonly in use in Mesopotamia throughout its history. Тhe recent find of hundreds ofthem in the temple ofNabu sa l}are in ВаЬуl0П shows that clearly.8 So, а type of education in schools тау have been а pennanent feature in Mesopotamia. Scribal training was а long process, supeIVised Ьу skilled professionals, such as priests,9 with long practice in the uses of writing. It involved many aspects in addition to read~g and writing, such as literature, grammar, calculus, geometry, and music. 10 As time went оп, this training Ьесаmе more esoteric, as the written and spoken languages diverged., and the means of writing Ьесате more агсапе. Specialists who knew the scribal techniques were only to Ье found in cities. In his investigation of те position of те intellectual in Mesopotamian so:ciery, А. Leo Oppenheim distinguished between three types of scribes: the bureaucrat, the poet, and the scholar. The Mesopotamians themselves did not see them as separate specialists until те first millennium, when the scholar was regarded as distinct. ТЬе bureaucrats produced те majority of the written documentation: the раlасе and temple economies as well as the affairs of prominent businessmen, depended оп their work. Their functions were probably not limited to bookkeeping, but also included deciding actions, such as те disbursement of goods, to keep the system going smoothly. Their employment outside the public institutions should по! Ье underestimated. А study of Babylonian texts of the first millennium found 3,060 names of scribes who wrote Akkadian оп clay tablets. Of those 2,681 worked for private individuals, 11 for the palace, and 368 for the temples. Many of the private scribes probably made а living Ьу helping citizens with papeIWork, as professional scribes still do today in the Middle East. 8
See Antoine Cavigneaux, Textes scolaires du temple de Nabu
sa hare
(Baghdad,
1981). Nore thar А. Leo Qppenheim caregoricaHy rejected те idea thar the scribal craft was passed оп from father ro son, Daedalus 104: 2 (1975), 43. 9 For instance, the chief lamentation priest of Annunitum, Ur-Utu, at ТеН edDer, see М. Tanret, 'Les Tablettes scolaires decouvertes а ТеН ed-Der', Akkadica
27 (1982),46-9.
10 See А. w. SjБЬеrg, 'The Old Babylonian Eduba' > in S. LiеЬепnаn (ed.), Sumerian Srudies in Ноnоу 0/ ThorkildJacobsen (Chicago, 1972)~ 159-79.
222
Cit'ies а! Centres
0/ Religion and Learning
The poet-scribes were crucial in те creation and preservation of the гоуаl ideology: epics~ hymns, and royal inscriptions were сот posed and copied Ьу them. ТЬеу kept alive а cultural tradition in Mesopotamia фа! persevered despite numerous political changes and Фе arrivals of foreign rulers. Непсе, Фе Kassites from Iran, for instance, could portray themselves as traditional Babylonian mоп archs without difficulty. Scholar-scribes were experts in scientific knowledge, especial1y in divination. Private citizens and the court cou]d шт to them for predictions of future events, cures for illnesses, or ritua]s to aven evil. Their knowledge was entirely based оп standardized lists of interpretations of omens от medical symptoms, annotated and explained with glosses and quotes from other literary material. Oppenheim stressed that а11 these intellectuals prospered in Mesopotamia because of their relationship to те со иП ог their етрl0У mеп! Ьу private citizens in ап urban environrnent. In the latter case, unattached professionals sold their services to private customers, who in the first millennium enjoyed increased wealth thanks {о Фе general economic flourishing of Mesopotamia. The role of cities as centres of religion and learning in Mesopotamia сап Ье exemplified Ьу two cases Фа! excelled in these respects, Nippur and ВаЬуl0П: these cities were unusual in the extent to which they administered these functions. Nippur, in те centre of Babylonia, had the unique position of never having had its own dynasty; but the city was of crucial imponance for the po1itical ideology of те rulers of other city-states. From the twenty-fifth until the eighteenth century вс, dynasts of Akkade, Ur, Isin, Larsa, and others strived for control over Nippur in order to justify their claim to kingship over Sumer and Akkad. The priesthood а! Nippur seems to have had the authority to grant that title, which could only Ье held Ьу оnе ruler а! а time. ТЬе power derived fro~ its association with the god Enlil, head of the Sumerian pantheon. Some time in фе third millennium, а regional pantheon had developed in Babylonia under the leadership of the air god Enlil. In the mythology the city of Nippur Ьесате the 10cus where the gods gathered for the discussion of important problems, and several myths describe the visits of deities {о Enlil's temple in Nippur, the Ekur. When the ideology of regional kingship was introduced with the Akkade dynasty, the support of Enlil)s priesthood seems to have Ьесоте crucial {о further та! ideology. Special attenrion was
Cities as Centres
01 Religion
and Learning
223
thus paid {о the city and its shrines, booty and prisoners of war were offered to it, while statues and inscriptions glorifying те king's military feats were erected in the Ekur's courtyard. ТЬе rulers of the so-саIlеd Third Dynasty of Ur made Nippur their religious capital, perhaps even their dynastic seat, and promoted its cults Ьу forcing other regions of Babylonia to contribute food products and livestock оп а rotating basis. When Ur>s hegemony over Babylonia dissolved into а number of competing city-states, the struggle over Nippur Ьесате constant, although not necessarily violent. Acceptance Ьу the Nippur priesthood provided а number of important ideological benefits. The dynasty was integrated into the Sumerian Кing List; the king was honoured in royal hymns; and he was crowned as king of Sumer and Akkad, not merely as king of his city. How те suppon froт Nippur was obtained is по! entirely clear. Certainly а! times те priesthood had по choice but to acknowledge the supremacy of а panicular ruler, when his military dominance was obvious. А! other times, kings тау have bought the goodwill of the priests Ьу showering gifts upon their temple. Nippur was important in other aspects of Babylonian culture as well. те early centuries of the second millennium те religious ideology of southem Babylonia Ьесаmе codified. Possibly because of те death of Sumerian as а spoken language, its literature was written down. МисЬ of this activity seems to have taken place in Nippur. А scribal school, which тау have been established there Ьу Кing Shulgi (ruled 2094-2047), was pre-eminent in юе formation ofthe corpus of Sumerian literature. In the 'scribal quarter' of the city, thus outside the temp]e сотрlех) thousands of manuscripts of1iterary texts were found. Unfortunately, these texts were discovered in Фе early stages of archaeo]ogical exploration in Mesopotamia in те late nineteenth century, and spurred ап acrimonious debate between the principal scholars involved, Peters and Hilprecht, which resulted in а total lack of infonnation about rheir ехасС provenience. Renewed excavations in the 1950s discovered school texts as well, in much smaller numbers, however, and still with а confused archaeological context. Ви! they were certainly found in domestic dwellings, where students were taught Sumerian Ьу тemorizing literary passages of increasing difficulty, and where а preservation of Sumerian literature seems to have Ьееп соп sciously pursued. ТЬе output was enormous. The texts include аН
In
224
Cz'tz'es as Centres 01 Religion and Learning
the tools needed to train а skilIed scribe: sign lists, lexical lists, model contracts, letters and legal decisions, mathematical problems, and аП types of literature: hymns, prayers, wisdom texts, myths, and epics. ТЬе large majority of the preserved tablets was probably written in те decades just before the abandonment of Nippur due to political circumstances с.! 720. It is clear that the scribal activity was not limited to that period Ьи! that rablets were recycled and tha! we only see their last use. 11 Long after 1720 те memory of а special connection Ьемееп Nippur and the Sumerian language was тaintained. ТЬе humorous story 'Why do уои curse те?',12 preserved in а manuscript from the sixth century, describes how а physician from Isin goes {о Nippur, and fails to communicate even with the local gardening woman selling vegetables, who speaks Sumerian. We have по idea whether or по! this predicament occurred in realiry, but the fact that it was perceived to Ье possible and was understood as ап amusing situation, is what shows that Nippur was considered {о Ье а city of special knowledge in. Babylonia. ТЬе religious primacies of Enlil and Nippur were taken over in the mid-second millennium Ьу Marduk and Babylon. Babylon had risen to Ьесоmе the foremost city of southern Mesopotamia Ьу military and political means. Its first dynasty had conquered the rest of Babylonia in the eighteenth century~ and since that time Babylon was considered to Ье the main political capital of the region until те Greek founding of nearby Seleucia around 300 вс. Because ofBabylon's prominence, its city-god Marduk Ьесате the head of те Mesopotamian pantheon, а rise described in the socalled Epic of Creation, in which the fonner leader Enlil is among those gods honouring the new king. Again cult and political ideology were closely interwoven. The king was the only person allowed to lead те ceremonies in the annual New Year's festival, when the rise of Marduk was celebrated. Every king, whether Kassite, Babylonian, Assyrian, Persian от Greek, panicipated in this event when possible, from а! least 1300 to 224 Bc. 13 For several years the See Miguel Civil, Materialsfor rhe Sumen·an Lexicon 14 (Rome, 1979), 7-8, and Charpin, Revue d'assyrioZogie 84 (1990), 1-8. 12 Беnjаmin R. Foster, Froт Distarit Days, (Беthеsdз, 1995), 363-4. 1 ат not convinced Ьу А. R. George's interpretation of the humour in this text as deriving from а confusion between two dia]ects of Akkadian (Iraq 55 (1993), 63-72)~ 11
13
Апн~liе КиЬп> 'Usurpзriоn> Conquesr> and Ceremonial: Ртот Babylon {О
Persia', in David Cannadine and Simon Рпсе (eds.), Ricuals 0/ Royalcy (Cambridge, 1987), 52.
CiEies as CenEres 01 Religion and Learning
225
maverick Кing Nabonidus abandoned Babylon for the T~ima oasis in the Arabian desert, thereby ignoring the festival and bringing ироп himself the wrath of the Marduk priesthood. The priesthood had less power than the old Nippur one, in that it did not have а choice between several candidates for the office of king and was confronted with а miIitary fait accompli. Yet, it тау have Ьееп аЫе to arouse popular resentment against а king, which probably ех plains why the Persian ruler Cyrus was greeted as а 1iberator when he took Babylon from Nabonidus. Iп addition to its cultic role, the priesthood of ВаЬуlоп also acquired а leading position in the 'science' that was of utmost importance to те Mesopotamians: divination. ТЬе abilities to read the signs sent Ьу the gods revea1ing future events, and to perform correct rituals or recite the proper prayers to make тет change their minds in case the отеп was bad, was greatly prized оу the citizenry. Under the Assyrian kings of the seventh century а network of posts was set ир across те Mesopotamian countryside for the observation of а11 relevant celestial signs. А constant flow of reports arrived at the court, describing the signs, intetpreting them, and suggesting а means for warding off evil. А large portion of these repons сате from Babylonia, and Babylon was опе of the prominent centres of observation. The ciry's importance and fame in the divinatory sciences survived for а very long time. In те seventh century, celestial omens Ьесаmе of paramount importance in divination: in Babylon astronomical diaries were produced) in preparation for the composition of new Iists of ominous interpretations. The diaries record оп а daily basis the positions ofthe mооп, the planets, and the fixed stars, as well as information about the weather, the level of the Euphrates river, and some historical events. Тhey date from the mid-seventh to Фе mid-first century ВС, and а11 those known to us were written in БаЬуlоп. These observations also provided the necessary data for mathematical astronomy, which flourished at that time. Непсе, the Babylonians, under the Greek designation Chaldaeans, Ьесаmе the most famous astronomers of antiquity, а fame that lasted at least until the first century AD. In his Natural Hislory, Pliny describes the city of Babylon as а wasreland, Ьи! for the temple of Jupiter Belus (i.e . Marduk) which survived as а school of asrronomy.14 The popular longevity of astronomy in Babylon сап Ье explained Ьу the [ас! that it was н б. зо. 121-3.
226
Cities as Centres 01 Religion and Learning
fundamentally connected with divination and religion in the Mesopotamian mind. The temple was те locus of celestial divination; this should not Ье disassociated from the other intellectual endeav~ ours of the Mesopotamians;) simply because in our opinion divination has nothing to do with science. Nippur and Babylon were two prime examples of Mesopotamian centres of learning. The strength of their cultural contributions сап only Ье explained because of фе inherent connection with the temple; similarly temples flourished because of their integral role in the гоуа! ideology. The culture of Mesopotamia relied thus оп the presence oftemple and palace, elements that were only to Ье found in the city. The absolute character of the urban bias of Mesopotamian culture сап Ье understood for practical reasons. The urban background had а strong impact оп the culture in general. The outlook оп the world centred оп the city, which was regarded as те only habitat suitable for а cultured person. Anything outside the city wal1s was regarded with suspicion, or еуеп fear. There was по appreciation of wild nature and its beauty, only for nicely laid-out gardens. А few texts devote special attention [О the natural environment, sometimes showing great powers of observation,15 but their rarity stresses the usual formalism and lack of interest in such matters. Cosmogonic myths d? not focus оп the creation of natural phenomena and man's environment, but оп the organization of that environment, especially the establishment of cities for тап to live in. То а modem mind, such ап outlook тау have а claustrophQbic feeling to it, а lack of openness and а short-sightedness. То the Mesopotamian as known [о us, this closed environment seems to have Ьееп the only ассер[аblе one, with the chaos outside as something to Ье avoided.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
АП
known rock reliefs were listed Ьу Jutta Вбгkег-Юаhп, Altvorderasiatische Bildstelen und vergleichbare Felsreliefs (Mainz ат Rhein, 1982). Those of Assyrian kings are conveniently indicated See А. Leo Oppenheim) 'Мап and Nature in Mesopotamian Civilization', Diccionary 01 SCiellEific Biography 15) suppl. 1 (Nev. York, 1981), 636. 15
F
Cicies as Centres 0/ Religion and Learning
227
оп
the maps in Michael Roaf, Cultural Atlas 01 Mesopotamia and che A1zcienl Near East (Oxford, 1990), 164 and 179. The position of scribes in Mesopotamian society was srudied Ьу А. Leo Oppenheim, 'The Position of (Ье Intellectual in Mesopotamian Society), Daedalus 104: 2 (1975), 37-46. For bureaucrat-scribes in fi.rst millennium Babylonia, see Muhammed А. Dandamaev, Babylonian Scribes in the First Millennium в.с. (Moscow~ 1983), in Russian with ап English summary оп рр. 23542. For Nippur as а literary centre, see William W. НаНо, 'Nippur Originals', in Н. Behrens, D. Loding, and М. Roth (eds.), DUMUEz-DUB-BA: Studies in Honor 0/ Ake W. Sjoberg (Philadelphia, 1989), 237-47. ТЬе most up-to-date survey of education, based primarily оп Old Babylonian sources, is provided Ьу Miguel Civil in D. N. Freedman (ed.), The Anchor Bible Dicrionary 2 (New York, 1992), 301-5.
Моге
detail
сап Ье
found in Hartmut Waetzoldt,
'Der Schreiber as Lehrer in Mesopotamien', in Johann Georg Prinz von Hohenzollern and Мах Liedtke (eds.), Schreiber, Magister, Lehrer (Bad Heilbrunn, 1989), 33-50. Also interesting are (Ье observations Ьу Н. L. J. Vanstiphout, 'How did they learn Sumerian?', Journal о1 Cuneiform Studies 3 1 (1979), 118-26. А clear description of the discovery of approximately 23,000 literary texts in Nippur during the excavations in the late nineteenth century is not available. Н. V. Hilprecht, Exploration in Bible Lands (Edinburgh, 1903), 512-32, gives ап account of what he calls the Тетрlе Library. The disaster-prone early seasons of ехса vations а! the sire are described Ьу Andre Parrot, Archeologie l1lesopotamienne 1 (Paris, 1946), 143-58; and in С. Wade Meade, Road со Babylon (Leiden, 1974), 47-63. The latter book also gives а summary account ofthe Perers-Hilprecht controversy оп рр. 72б. The excavation of the scribal quarter in the 1950s is published in Donald Е. McCown and Richard С. Haines, Nippur 1 (Oriental Institute Publications 78; Chicago, 1967); and restudied Ьу Elizabeth С. Stone, Nippur Neighborhoods (Chicago, 1987). For the latter see the important review Ьу Dominique Charpin, 'Un quartier de Nippur et le probleme des ecoles а l'epoque paleobabylonienne', Revue d:JassJJriologie 83 (1989), 97-112 and 84 (1990), 1-16. For examples of school texts, see Edward Chiera, Lists 01 Perso11al Nan2es frorn the Temple SchooZ 01 Nippur, (Philadelphi3., 1916). Оп рр. 41-8 3. typology of school tablets is provided,
228
Cit1:es as Centres 01 Religion and Leaming
which has Ьееп refined Ьу Edmuhd 1. Gordon in Sumerian Proverbs (Phi1adelphia, 1959), 7-10. ТЬе New Year's festival at Babylon and its imponance in royal ideology was discussed Ьу Amelie Kuhrt) 'Usurpation" Conquest" and Ceremonial: From Babylon {о Persia'" in David Cannadine and Simon Price (eds.), Rituals 01 Royalty (Cambridge, 1987» 2055. Divination and astronomy are discussed in mапу books and articles. А very useful introduction to the fundamentals of divination сап Ье found in Jean Bottero, Mesopotamia: Wrixing" Reasoning" and the Gods (Chicago and London, 1992). ТЬе nature of the 'сапоп' of divinatory texts has Ьееп discussed Ьу Francesca Rochberg-Halton" 'Canonicity in Cuneifonn Texts', Journal о! CuneijQnn Studies 36 (1984), 127-44. For the practitioners of astronomical divination see, for
ехаmрlе, А.
Leo Oppenheim, 'DiviLast Assyrian Empire',
nation and Celestial Observation in те CentaunlS 14 (1969)" 97-135; and те papers Ьу Francesca Rochberg and Simo Parpola in Н. D. Galter (ed.), Die Rolle der Astronomie in den Kulturen Mesopotamiens (Graz, 1993). The contents of the astronomical diaries are discussed in the same volume Ьу Hermann Hunger, who together with Abraham Sachs was responsible for their publication in Astronoтical Dianes and Related TexIsfrom Babylon 1 and 2 (Vienna, 1988-9). Hunger also recently re-edited the Asrrological reports 10 Assyrian kings (Helsinki" 1992).
11 The Eclipse of the Ancient Mesopotall1ian City
What happened to the ancient Mesopotamian city? Did it die out
suddenly or gradually or did it form the basis for а long evolution leading to the medieval cities of Iraq? In this book the bulk of documentation was derived from archaeological and textual sources dating to the early third millennium through the fourth century вс, the period traditionally identified as that of ancient Mesopotamian history. Scholars have rarely addressed the issue of when this period ends, and various dates seem to Ье tacitly accepted for different purposes. Some define the ehd of Mesopotamia as when it ceased to exist as ап independent political entity Ьу its integration in the Persian empire in 539;1 while this is seen as а convenient date, most scholars see the conquest Ьу Alexander of Macedon and the coming ofHellenism as the decisive moment. But scholars working with sources written in cuneiform from the Persian and Seleucid periods are readi1y considered ап cient Mesopotamian specialists and theтselves often emphasize the continuity with earlier periods. Alexander has been cal1ed the last of the Achaemenids, ending а period of Persian refonns based оп Assyrian antecedents,2 while the end of Babylonian culture has Ьееп seen as caused Ьу Iranization under the Parthians starting in the second century вс, rather than Ьу Hellenization under the Seleucids two centuries earlier. 3 It is often forgotten that only four successive foreign imperial regimes controlled аН ог part of the region of ancient Mesopotamia from the defeat of the last 1
William
w.
НаНо and William К. Simpson) The Ancient Near
Easr: а Hisro~
(New York, 1971). 2 Р. Briant, 'Des Achemenides аих rois hellenistiques: continuites et ruptures (Bilan et perspecrives)') Rois, tribus ес paysans (Besan~on) 1982)) 291-330. з Joachim Oelsner, 'Копtinuirзt und Wandel in Gesellschaft und Kultur Babyloniens in hellenistischer Zeit', Юiо 60 (1978)) 1О 1-16.
230
Eclipse
01 the Ancient Mesopota1nian City
independent Babylonian dynasty to те Muslim conquest of Iraq: Achaemenid Persians from 539 то 331 вс, Seleucid Greeks from
331 to 141
вс,
Arsacid Parthians from 141
вс
to
AD
226, and
Sasanian Persians from AD 226 to 637. Even the Muslim conquest сап Ье seen as the imposition of а new foreign government ироn the area. The dynastic struggles of the successive regimes were highly intricate, and те агеа of Mesopotamia was often divided among various powers: Iranian, Roman, о! Byzantine, alongside more or less independent kingdoms, such as Characene, Adiabene, and the Lakhmid kingdom, to пате just а few. АН of these left historical records, minted coins, and are discussed in а wide variety of sources, so that the political history of the region becomes а labyrinth ofnames, dates, and events. But аге we justified is speaking of the end of а historical era, simply because of те conquest of Mesopotamia Ьу а foreign dynasry? Was there really а difference between фе Kassite invasion of Mesopotamia in the sixteenth century вс and the Achaemenid Persian annexation of the region а millennium later? Was the history ofthe region more homogeneous previously, or do we just lack insight because we lack documentation? The limits traditionally imposed upon Mesopotamian history have less to do with historical reasoning than with the [ас! that the nature of the textual sources changed entirely. The use of cuneiform slowly died out in Babylonia at {Ье same time as the coming of а Greek adminisrration, and neither the reasons for that disappearance nor the ехас! moment of irs occurrence are entirely clear to us. We see а gradual decline in the number oftextual types written in cuneiform during the Seleucid period, with the variery of legal documents decreasing, and fewer genres of literature at first being composed, later only copied. Only astronomical material) the evidence of 'Chaldaean' science famous throughout the classical world, was still being created wel1 into the first century AD, the latest text known so far dating {о the year 75. But cuneiform writing and Akkadian as а literary and ап administrative language remained in use at least until the early first century БС, thus well into the Parthian period. Literary material is copied into the midfirst century вс. The most recent administrative text known so far was found in Babylon and dates to the year 92 ВС, ~ and texts from -1
71.
See R. J. van der Spek) Grolldbezit i1l hel SeZeucidisc}le Rijk (Amsterdam, 1986))
Eclipse 01 the Ancient Mesopotamian CilY
231
Kutha and Borsippa are known from only а few years earlier. Cuneiform was thus still in daily use in several places in the late second century вс, and possibly more archives from this poorly researched period are still to Ье found. ТЬе 'death' of cuneiform was surely not due to the fact that alphabetic writing systems .appearing in те first millennium would have Ьееп somehow superior in communicating messages: cuneiform had been found perfectly acceptable for expressing whatever was needed for millennia. 5 The 108Б of cuneiform's cultural foundations, which has Ьееп blamed аБ the cause of its demise,6 seems {о те something we should set out to demonstrate, rather than to presume. Another theory asserts that the Seleucid administrators demanded records of {ахаЫе transactions to Ье written in а language understandable {о them-Greek or Aramaic-and {Ьа! теБе records сопsеquепtlу were penned down оп parchment or papyrus, marerials [Ьа! did not survive in те Mesopotarnian soil. 7 This idea is certainly зр
pealing, but evidence that some transactions, such as slave sales, were taxed Ьу the central administration when cuneiforrn records of them were still in use, shows that it does not explain the entire process; moreover, it fails to demonstrate why the interactions Ьемееп the native Babylonian communities did not remain recorded in Akkadian written in cuneiform оп clay tablets. In order properly to understand the periods after 331 ВС) the ancient Near Eastern historian, trained to work with cuneiform tablets, is thus forced to consider very different materials, either written in difficult languages, such as various dialects of Aramaic, and Old and Middle Реrsiап, or classical sources which ате thought {о require ап entirely different approach. Непсе, it is а convenience {о consider these periods as irrelevant to the field of study. Archaeologists too, are usually по! interested in Parthian and Sasanian remains, as they merely prevent access ТО older deposits, which are considered 'genuine' ancient Mesopotamian. This issue involves тапу aspects of society other than urbanism, and it merits а separate discussion. Неге, 1 want only to review Mogens Trolle Larsen, 'Whar They Wrote оп Clay', in К. Schousboe and Mogens Trolle Larsen (eds.), Lileracy a11d Socier.y (Copenhagen, 1989), 121-48. 6 Marvin А. Powell, 'Three Problems in the History of Cuneiform Writing: Origins, Direction of Scripr, Lireracy', Visible Language 15: 4 (1981),435. 7 See L. Т. Doty apud William W. НаНо, 'God, Кing, and Man at Yale') in Е. Lipinski (ed.), Slace aJld Te111ple Eco'1lonzy in the Ancient Near East 1 (Orienralia Lovaniensia Analecra 5; Louvain, 1979), 110-11. 5
232
Eclipse
0/ the Ancient Mesopotamian CilY
briefly what we сап discern in the meagre and undigested material from the sixth century вс to the seventh century AD аЬои! the survival or death of the ancient Mesopotamian city. This question cannot Ье answered Ьу considering а11 aspects of urban life simultaneously. 1t seems more useful {о isolate {Ье problems discussed in the earlier chapters, and {о see whether substantial changes took place starting with the Persian conquest of Mesopotamia. First, there is the question of what cities continued to exist, and whether and where new cities were built. We see both а continued use of older settlements and те foundation of new ones Ьу the ruling dynasties. Мапу of {Ье old cities of Babylonia remained inhabited and important for several ceQturies. For instance, Babylon itself was the political capital of Asia until Alexander's successor, Seleucus 1, founded Seleucia-on-the-Tigris пеагЬу around 300 вс. The city sиffered from the new foundation, mainly because Seleucia was settled Ьу displaced Babylonians. But Babylon remained ап important cult centre, and а centre of astronoтy into the Panhian period, а! least until the end of the first century AD. Other cities of Babylonia that show Parthian remains аге Larsa, Uruk, and Nippur, while Кish contains the ruins of а considerable Sasanian town. ТЬе new royal foundations in Babylonia often caused а shift away from the older urban centres. Thus was Seleucia-on-the-Tigтis built at the expense of Babylon, and Ctesiphon surpassed its neighbour Seleucia in the Parthian period. Finally, the Sasanians built Veh-Ardashir (СосЬе) in the same neighbourhood, which Ьесаmе so densely urbanized that уЬе Arabs referred ·to it as aI-Маdа:)iп, 'the cities'. ТЬе intense сопсеп tration of urbanism а! that point сап Ье explained Ьу its location in the centre of mапу trade routes. Other trading centres, such as Charax Spasinu оп the Shatt al-АтаЬ, were probably also established зt the expense of older cities. According {о Adams's analysis of central Babylonian senleтent patterns, the region ftourished [гот the neo-Babylonian period well into the early Islamic period because of its agricultural resources. In те Seleucid, Parthian, and Sasanian periods total settlement reached ап extent unparalleled in earlier history with а high percentage of people living in urban centres. 8 Тhe same cities did not necessarily remain inhabited) however. With the Islamic 8
Defined as more than 1О hectares in size.
Eclipse 01 the Ancient Mesopotaтian City
233
conquest, the Sasanian cities suffered а 1085 of inhabitant5 who moved to те new mi1itary settlements such as Basra, Kufa, and Wasit. Also, there had previously Ьееп а general shift of settlement eastwards, as the water of the Tigris river was now integrated into те irrigation system of Babylonia. А сапа! joining Tigris and Euphrates in the north of Babylonia drained much of the water of the Euphrates and caused а gradual reduction of settlement further south. The period after 500 вс was not оnе of decline in Babylonia. Quite the opposite wa5 true. ТЬе region flourished, supported Ьу а strong agricultural base. 1t was only after the eighth century AD та! те agricultural есоnоту collapsed, and that permanent settlement virtual1y ceased to exist in Babylonia. Тhis collapse seems to have been the result of а cumulative process involving wars, adminisrrative mismanagement, and excessive taxation, causing а spiral of rural resistance and subsequent repression, and perhaps aIso 9 а string of plagues. Мапу of these problems тау have developed in pre-Islamic times, уе! they did по! cause havoc unti1 much later. In the North of Mesopotamia, the situation is тоге difficult to assess, primarily because of the lack of а systematic archaeological survey. We see the survival and creation of several important urban centres. Assur has substantial Parthian remains, while Nineveh, Shemshara, and Erbil were settled at that time as well. Nimrud contained а Hellenistic village, abandoned in the second century вс. The most imponant city of northern lraq Ьесаmе Hatra оп the Wadi Tharthar, originally built Ьу the Parthians as а fortress against Rome. The city сате to have а crucial strategic imponance in те struggles between Rome and the Parthians and Sasanians, ruled Ьу а native dynasty та! shifted its allegiance back and forth between East and West. It withstood several Roman attacks, and was finally destroyed Ьу те Sasanians, probably around AD 240. Тhe city тау Ье indicative of the pattem of urbanization in the North after the eighth century вс. lt was located in а Ьапеп countryside wirhout а hinterland аЫе to feed its inhabitants. lts fonunes depended оп caravan trade, not оп agriculture. Northern Mesopotamia in the period from 612 вс to the AD 6308 9 See Peter Chrisrensen) The DecZine 01Iranshahr: Irrigation and Environments in the Hiscory 01 che MiddZe Easl 500 В.С. &0 А.п. 1500 (Copenhagen) 1993).
234
Eclipse 01 the Ancient Mesopotamian City
seems по! to have known much rural settlement, Ьи! was gradually taken over Ьу semi-nomadic tribesmen. l! was exposed {о numerous military incursions, as it was located between Rome and its successor state Byzantium trying to extend their inftuence eastward to the Tigris, and the Iranian dynasties attempting to maintain те Euphrates, with the Balikh or the Habur, as their westem border. The political uncertainties of the region тау have caused its sparse population, as there is по evidence for droughts or environmental decline. The potential for the economic development of the region was always great, if the right political conditions existed. In the eleventh to thirteenth centuries AD, ап independent and stable dynasty in Mosul brought great prosperity {о the region which Ьесате densely inhabited а! that time. ТЬе middle Euphrates valley shows а different pattern of осси pation from northern Mesopotamia. ТЬе river was extremely important for strategic purposes and often formed the border between the eastern and westem empires. Politically, it changed hands mапу times, its northern section often controlled Ьу Rome or Byzantium, its southem section usual1y in Parthian or Sasanian hands. Despite the ravages that must have Ьееп imposed upon it Ьу military activity, the valley seems to have thrived economically. The names of many cities in the Euphrates valley are preserved in the accounts of classical geographers. ТЬе most important city Ьу far was Dura Europos, founded in 303 вс midway between the Seleucid capitals of Seleucia and Antioch. From 113 вс оп it was а Parthian city, and in the second century AD it Ьесате Roman, until it was sacked Ьу the Sasanian ruler Shapur in 256. Subsequently, it seems that the Euphrates valley 10st its prosperity, due то а Byzantine emphasis оп the cities of northem Syria. These remarks оп the 10cation of sites are extremely superficial, due to the lack of solid data, caused partly Ьу archaeologists' lack of interest, and раnlу Ьу the fact that remains of these periods are often concealed undemeath subsequent Islamic settlements. It is important to remember that mапу variatio~s according {о period and region existed, and that the political situation often differed in neighbouring regions that had earlier Ьееп ruled Ьу the same regime. It seems, however, that we сап state that settlement trends in Babylonia, started in the sixth century вс with the пе 0Babylonian dynasty, continued with а great agricultural ftourishing of те region and ап increasingly dense population, а trend that
Eclipse
0/ the Ancient Mesopotamian
City
235
culminated in late Sasanian times. Older cities were gradually surpassed in imporrance Ьу the new foundations of successive regimes. In Assyria settlement seems to have Ьесоmе sparse after the faH of the neo-Assyrian empire in 612 вс, and а process of 'Bedouinization' is at the latest obvious in the first centuries AD. Some urban centres in this area were very prosperous, however. These seem to have Ьееп isolated cities in а deserted hinterland, whose survival depended оп trade, not оп the exploitation of local resources, а subject 1 will discuss in more detail presently. The Euphrates valley seems also to have benefited from intemational trade; its prosperiry lasted untiI те third century AD. The lауои! of the cities in these periods depended greatly upon the time of their foundation. ТЬе old centres seemingly continued with the same basic patterns as before. In Babylon, for instance, а theatre and perhaps also а gymnasium and ап agora were bui1t in the Seleucid period, Ьи! the city did not lose its Babylonian character. The new royal foundations were planned in advance, however, and Seleucia and Dura Europos have а strict Greek Hippodamian layout. The Parthian city of Hatra (Fig. 11.1) reflects ап entirely different plan. It was а round city, 320 hectares in size, surrounded Ьу two concentric walls. In its centre was located а large rectangular official complex, 437 Ьу 322 metres, separated from фе rest of town Ьу а massive wall. Four gates gave access (о the city. Almost its entire surface was covered with houses, grouped in insulae, formed Ьу streets that were not laid out in а regular pattern. The circular plan of the city was new in Mesopotamia, but in Iran several older examples of it are known; thus we see here Parthian influence in city planning. This plan was adopted Ьу the Sasanians who used it for the layout of their new foundation Veh-Ardashir, near Seleucia. In western Syria, а gradual reformation of фе Hellenized cities to the early Islamic madina has Ьееn observed in late antiquiry, their 'dec1ine' due to overpopulation, imperial neglect, and changing ideas аЬои! property,IO but such ап evolution cannot Ье discerned in Mesopotamia. The only planned HeIlenized cities, Seleucia and Dura, did not survive the Sasanian period, and the other cities already had many of те aspects of the early Islamic Hugh Kennedy> 'From PoZis to Madina: Urban Changes in Late Antique and Early Islamic Syria', Pasl and Present 106 (РеЬ. 1985), 3-27. 10
Eclipse
236
01 rhe Ancz·ent Mesopotamz"an City
--:.--_ _ _-.....!n о r t h 9 а te
west gate
2~
~
t r
main t
sanctuar~T"'.1 ~.
·
1
•
-
,~:'~ •
1
~
~ ::::: mausolea /
" •• а. а
~
_ _ 5?Om
sca'e FIG.
11.1
Plan of Hatra
town layout. The only difference was in the layout of the cult complexes-mosques, Christian churches, or synagogues-and perhaps in the introduction of the Muslim school, the madrasa. Тhroughout the periods after 500 вс the majority of urban citizens must have lived in conditions similar to those of their ancestors. Streets remained primarily narrow and winding. Houses main-
Eclipse
0/ the А ncient Mesopotamian
City
237
tained the same courtyard plans as before. Only rarely were Greek architectural forms adopted. Even traditional public buildings at first remained Mesopotamian in outlook. Parthian architecture Ьесаmе а mixture of many different styles, including ancient Mesopotamian fonns: the ground plan of the Gareus temple at Uruk, for instance, is traditional Babylonian. 11 Architectural historians of те Islamic city have emphasized the continuation of traditions going back to the second millennium вс,12 but опе should Ье careful not to see this too much as the result of а conscious policy. ТЬе winding streets and courtyard houses provide фе best protection against the heat and dust of the region, and it is likely for this reason that феу remain popular {о this day. When we look at the есопоту of cities after 539 вс, we see many elements of continuity, but also fundamental changes. Continuity сап Ье seen in agricultural practices. Even if such new crops as rice were introduced, they did not change the basic provisions of food available. Starting in те neo-Babylonian period, Babylonia's аgП culture revivified, continuing into the early Islamic period, based оп the traditional irrigation techniques and crops ofwheat, barley, and dates. Тhe decline of agriculture in the North of Mesopotamia, due to extensive military activity in the region, explains the rarity of urban centres there. Cities such as Hatra, located in а Ьааеn hinterland, must have imported their food. Industrial activity also remained the same as in earlier centuries. The same products were made with the same resources as before, and political changes did not alter these activities. Borsippa, for instance, was famous as а centre of linen production from the Seleucid to the early Islamic periods. 13 However, it is likely that the rnanufacture of certain products was intensified due to increased demand for export. The centralization imposed Ьу Sasanian administrators affected both agriculture and industry, especially in the late fifth century AD. The Sasanians тау have organized shipments of food and basic craft products over long distances, and caused ап unprecedented regional specialization of agriculture and indusrry. Indicative of such specialization are the enonnous н Ernst Heinrich, Sechster vorliiufiger Bericht . .. Uruk- Warka (Вегlin, 1935), 33. 12 e.g. Besim S. Наюm, Arabic-IsZа7niс Cz'ties: BuiZding and Planning Principles (London and New York, 1986). l3 Pauly's Real-ЕnсусZорiidiе der kZassischen Alleтtumswissenschaft 3, Georg Wissowa
(ed.) (Stuttgart, 1899), 735.
238
Eclipse
0/ the Ancient Mesopotamian
City
mounds of glass slag found north of Uruk, which suggest that production for те entire Sasanians empire took place there. А radical change in the есопоту did take place, however, in the area of international trade which undeIWent ап enonnous ехрап sion starting in the sixth century вс. Two factors contributed {о this growth: the use of сатеl caravans, and the integration of Mesopotamia into empires with enormous geographical extent. Тhe domestication of the camel and its use as а pack animal in the early first millennium вс, opened ир ап entire network of trade routes crossing the interior of Iran and the Syrian and Arabian desens. The dependence uроп river valleys for the water supply of. travelling caravans disappeared, and oasis cities could Ьесоте transit stations for long-distance trade. Palmyra in Syria, for instance, enjoyed ап ideal location halfway Ьемееn the Euphrates valley and the Mediterranean coast. Travel time between Mesopotamia and the Mediterranean Sea was substantial1y reduced Ьу using а direct road through the desert, whi1e camels also had greater speed and endurance than other pack animals previously used, covering а much greater distance in one day. А wide array of new trade routes from east to west and north to south Ьесате thus accessible, and areas previously out of the reach of Mesopotamian traders, such as south and central Arabia, now Ьесате frequent destinations. But the new means of transportation Ьу itself would nо! have been sufficient to have caused the enormous expansion of intemational trade. ТЬе fact that Mesopotamia Ьесаmе рап of а succession of enormous empires gave its traders freedom of movement in а wide geographical area and imperial diplomatic protection in foreign lands. Already the ~eo-Babylonian empire stretched from western Iran to Egypt, providing traders safe passage from the Persian Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea. Under the Achaemenids, this area was extended permanently {о include Egypt and Anatolia in the west, and Iran, Afghanistan and India in the east. Under the Seleucids) Arsacids, and Sasanians this area had shrunk somewhat, but still enonnous regions were ruled Ьу the same regime that control1ed Mesopotamia. Emperors provided diplomatic assistance to traders in their interactions with foreign powers. Direct contacts berween Parthian and Chinese rulers are attested in the first centuries AD, including trade along {Ье famous 'Silk Route'.
~ .
...........................
..... . ,
I
.... ..... . .. . . .. .. •.. • .0 .. ••
·~l······· о
Q
~
~ -...
~.
~
~ ~
•
~
~ ~
с")
""".
~
•• IJ· •••••••••••• •
"'t" ~
Q;'
~
.' •• l'aJmyra
~
~
I.ц
J... ... Q
с-')
~ (';)
lц
~
~ ~
~. ~
D ~.
~ о
I
300 km J
sCBle
Charax Spasinu
pl/;'s G
и
А
I N L F
tv
ы
FIG.11.2
Trade routes of the Ancient Near East
\с>
240
Eclipse 01 the Ancient Mesopotamian City
Moreover, the existence of те Roman and Byzantine empires, with а clientele that desired supp1ies of exotic products from the East was аН to the benefit of Mesopotamian traders. Silk, spices, aromatics-, slaves, gold, and silver а11 passed through Mesopotamia оп their way to markets in the west. In return, primary manufactures, such as woollen cloth and glass, were exported to те east. Glass from Iran and Babylonia was highly prized in China. In addition, some natural products, such as purple dyes, olive oil, wine, pomegranates, and other fruits were a1so shipped eastward. Тhis is not to say that the trade was physically undertaken Ьу Mesopotamians themselves, Ьи! that they acted as middlemen in аН these transactions. Тhe trade was а transit trade, and the area of Seleucia-on-the-Tigris lay а! the nodal point of аН routes of this trade. The 'Silk Route' from China, which opened ир at те latest in the first century ЛD, channelled overland trade from India, Afghanistan:l and eastern Iran into те west via the Diyala river valley. Sea trade from India, south Arabia, and east Лfriса arrived а! те Persian Gulf harbour of Charax Spasinu, and was directed ир the Tigris river to the vicinity of Seleucia. From Seleucia two main routes were used {о transport the goods further west. One followed the Tigris river north-westvvard and either cut across to те Mediterranean just south ofthe Taurus mountains or went into Anatolia оп its way to the Aegean coast. The other crossed overland to Hatra and Dura Europos) whence it either followed the Euphrates or went overland through the desen {о Palmyra and further west. Thus те Tigris acquired ап unprecedented importance, and several ofthe new trading cities were built оп its banks. Older cities such as Assur and Nineveh probably owed their survival to та! trade as well. In northern Syria cities like Nisibis, Напап (= Carrhae), and Edessa likewise flourished, while the desert cities of Напа, Dura Europos, and Palmyra could not have existed without this trade.
This rrade was nOI direcrly controlled Ьу те major political powers, however, but Ьу the more or less independent trading cities in the region. Charax Spasinu, Seleucia, Hatra, Dura Europos, Palmyra, and so оп functioned with а large degree of autonomy. Their independence enabled the trade to continue during the long and devastating territorial wars between eastern and western powers, often fought out оп Mesopotamian soi1. Тhe imperial authorities encouraged this situation: they benefited from
Eclipse
0/ the Ancient Mesopotamian
City
241
the transit taxes and the selection of goods made available to them . .Consequently, the fate of these trading cities did not depend directly ироп their geographical surroundings. Politically and есо nomically.) феу were like oases.) rather than cities integrated within their hinterlands. Although similar situations had existed previously in the Near East-for instance with the Phoenician trading centres of the early first millennium-the heartland of Mesopotamia had never known such conditions. There, intemational trade had always Ьееn ап aspect of the urban есопоту, integrated with agriculture and industrial production. ТЬе caravan cities were thus innovations in the Mesopotamian environment. А tremendous amount offinancial activity probably took place in these trading cities.) and in other cities as well. During the Achaemenid period, private 'banking' houses such as the Egibi in ВаЬуl0n and the Мuгаshб in Nippur were extensively involved in the financing of agriculture and trade. Credit operations were widespread at that time.) both for consumer and investment purposes. No basic differences with те earlier periods are noticeable. But with the Seleucid period.) evidence for such activity becomes rarer. ТЬе records start focusing ироп the transactions of the temples, which continued to function as in the past. ТЬе есопоту was entirely run ироп а monetary basis with silver used for every transaction. 14 Financial activity Ьу private individuals is clear from parchment and papyrus records found at Dura.) 15 but the number ofthese records remains limited. Coinage.) introduced into the area Ьу the Achaemenids, does not fill the documentary gap. We know that Seleucia was а royal mint into the Parthian period, Ьи! we do ПО! know what was done with the coins, ог how extensive their use was among private citizens. The lack of documentation should not Ье taken as indicative of а change in the financial role of urban residents in the есопоту, only as the unfonunate 10ss of evidence for such activity. Changes in the political structure of Mesopotamian cities have been hotly debated Ьу scholars attempting to determine the impact See e.g. the records published Ьу Gi1ben McEwan, 'Arsacid Temple Records', Iraq 43 (1981), 131-43. 15 e.g. С. Bradford Welles, The PaTchments and Раруп (Excavations а! Dura Europos. Final Reports V/l; New Haven, 1959), 109-22 where severalloan records are published, staring circumstances and conditions simi1ar to those found earlier in 14
Mesopotamian material.
242
Eclipse 01 the Ancient Mesopotamian CilY
ofHellenism оп the ancient Near East. In а sense, the discussion is futile, as it often ignores the earlier civic institutions of Mesopotaтian cities,_ while portraying the Greek polis as ап idealized democratic urban society that certainly did по! exist in the late fourth century, if it had ever existed at аН. As 1 pointed out in ап earlier chapter, many aspects of urban government continued from те пео-ВаЬуlопiаnJАсhаеmепid into the Seleucid periods. Cities had а great deal of autonomy and maintained political institutions, such as те assembly. That assembly тау resemble the Greek bOllZe, but that does not mean that its activities changed from pre-Greek times. ТЬе temple organization and its importance in Babylonian society remained. Officials with Greek titles, such as epistates, were introduced within this existing structure) and their responsibility remained the representation of the community in its interactions with те royal administration, as had Ьееп the case before wirh officials with traditional Babylonian titles. The latter continued to use their old titles when dealing with the native communiry. Тhere is по indication та! the new Seleucid cities were treated differently from the older ones. Their governmental structure~ including Seleucia's, is not really known {о us in this period. Ви! in the Parthian period assemblies stil1 existed there. According to а Syriac text of the seventh century, Seleucia had three assemblies in те first and second centuries AD: for the elders, for the young теn, and for the boys. The Aramaic term used for assembly was puhra, obviously а survival of the identical ancient Akkadian term. 16 ТЬе Parthian kings allqwed cities а great deal of autonomy: their trading activities brought substantial income to the crown) and the new rulers тау not have had the experience needed (о administer the vast geographical area they controlled. ТЬеге was по need to change existing mechanisms та! had proved their worth. The Sasanians тау at first have continued this practice, Ьи! they finally limited urban autonomy. Both new foundations and older cities were instituted under а policy of political and economic centralization, and cities turned into military garrisons and centres of гоуаl administration. Early Muslim rulers continued this trend, clamping down оп urban autonomy. We сап, however, say that the concept ofthe Mesopotamian urban community as ап autonomous 16 N. Pigulevskaja, Les Villes de l'erac ira12ieJ1 аuх epoqlles parthe ес sassanide. Contribucion а l'Jzisxoire so"iale de la Basse А 12 tiquice (Paris and ТЬе Hague) 1963), 84-
5.
EcZipse 01 the Ancient Mesopotamian City
243
body, represented to фе crown Ьу se~ected individuals, survived for тапу centuries of foreign rule over the region. Thus а situation that had originated under local dynasties was perpetuated опее independence was 108t. Socially, the ethnic diversity of {Ье urban populations increased with the ability of various peoples of the empire to settle in Mesopotamia~ which was always опе of the most prosperous regions. · Again, this was а continuation of trends that had started earlier, especially Ьу the deportation policies of the Assyrian and пе 0Babylonian kings. Already under the Achaemenids, Babylonia housed а great variety of foreign people, including Phoenicians, Judaeans, Egyptians, Arabs, Phrygians, Lydians, Carians, Armenians, Indians, and Persians, mixing with indigenous Babylonianswhatever that meant in this period-and Chaldaeans. Certain of these communities тау have resisted assimi1ation, but а great deal of cultural and ethnic mixing took place. АН spoke Aramaic and adopted Babylonian name8. The Macedonian conquest introduced а European element in this mixture. Despite A1exander's alleged desire to merge Asiatic and European cultures and peoples, the Greek and Macedonian populations seem то have maintained а distance from the Mesopotamians. In Babylon, evidence of Greek occupation is limited to а small area in the north-east sector of the city, and Seleucia-on-the-Tigris was seemingly built as а Greek counterpart of the Mesopotamian metropo!is. А number of Babylonians were allowed {о adopt Greek паЦ1еs and to work in the Greek administration, but apparently по Greek wanted (о do the reverse. lt is quite likely that new immigrants from Europe continued to arrive throughout the Seleucid period,17 so а policy of segregation could Ье maintained. У et, we should nо! exaggerate те Greek lack of interest in the natives and their culture. Some adoption of Babylonian practices, among them the use of сlау tablets, is attested. Why should we assume that Greeks did not mаny native Babylonians? They could пос Ьауе avoided seeing them, even in cities such as Seleucia, and we kпow that they were not averse to mixed marriages in places like Egypt. The situation changed when the Parthians took over control of the area. We have по idea what happened in most cities due to а See Pierre Briant) 'Renforts grecs dans les cites hellenistiques d'Orient', in Rois~ u-ibucs ес paysallS (Besan<;On:J 1982), 263-79. 17
244
EcZipse 01 the Ancient Mesopotamian City
lack of documentation. In the trading cities founded Ьу the Greeks, such as Seleucia, Greeks seem to have continued their control. But other ethnic groups gradual1y gained а foothold in them as well. In Dura Europos we find traces of the cultural traditions of тапу ethnic groups: Greeks, Romans, Jews, Arabs, and Parthians. А crucial change took place in the social organization of urban сот munities in the Sasanian period, however. Religion Ьесаmе the dominant element in determining one's affiliation with others, replacing Ianguage, occupation, ог ethnicity. Re1igious соттиni ties with separate organizarions and legal institutions Ьесате the main social unit for ап individual: Zoroastrian, Christian, Jewish, pagan, and later Muslim. Although ethnicity often coincided witli religion, ethnic borders could Ье crossed: the Arameans, for instance, formed the majority of both the Jews and Фе Christians. ТЬе preponderance of such religious communities Ьесате а determining element of early Islamic society~ and indicates а major difference with ear1ier history. Urban culture clearly changed, mainly because of the increased religious diversity. While Mesoporamian culture and religion had Ьееп able to absorb and inspire new arrivals during its long history, it failed to do so with the Greeks, and later with the Parthians. Yet elements of Babylonian culture, such as astronomical sciences, survived into the first centuty AD, and the age-old literature disappeared оnlу in the first century вс. Тhe literature failed to Ье preserved in non-cuneiform writing except in vague references. Непсе, the literary tradition seems to have Ьееп perpetuated Оn1у Ьу native Babylonians. Official cults seem {о have been either assimilated with new foreign deities) or to have disappeared altogether. When the БаЬуlопiаn temple complex а! Uruk was destroyed around 100 вс, it was replaced Ьу а Graeco-Iranian temple for Gareus. In рориlаг cults, Babylonian influence continued much longer, even among members of the monotheistic religions. In late Sasanian Iraq, gods such as Shamash, Sin, Bel, Nanai, and Nergal were stil1 invoked. А form of Ishtar was still the patron-goddess of ЕгЬН, as she had been 1,500 years earlier. The disappearance of official Mesopotamian cults was not, therefore, the result of government policy. Neither те Seleucids nor the Parthians seem to have forced their gods uроn local populations. So the disappearапсе of ancient Mesopotamian cults is shrouded in mystery. ТЬе 10S8 of the economic role of {Ье temples, the lack of royal patron-
Eclipse
0/ the Ancient Mesopotamian City
245
age, and the drowning of the 'Mesopotamian' in а sea of new immigrants аН тау have played а role, but we do not have the evidence to study these issues. Even though те culture in the cities changed, the idea ofthe city as the centre of culture did not disappear. Zoroastrian fire altars or Christian monasteries тау have appeared as non-urban centres of religion, but те cities remained the focal points of cultural and religious developтents. Religious ideologies of these periods are entire fields of research Ьу themselves, and their liveliness shows that intellectually and culturally, Mesopotamia was flourishing. The splendours of Abbasid Iraq were certainly not created ех novo Ьу the Muslim rulers, Ьи! must have had some oftheir roots in the ancient traditions of the region. Thus, оп balance, 1 think that we сап say that те ancient Mesopotamian city did not die out with the end of Mesopotamia's political independence-certainly not suddenly, at
апу
rate.
Маnу
traditional aspects of urban life continued to exist from те fifth century вс Iong into the first centuries AD. New infiuences altered aspects of religion and culture, and те economy of certain cities was changed due со the enonnous expaqsion ofinternational trade. Social changes were fundamental in late Sasanian times. But the urban civilization of Mesopotamia did пос really disappear, in ту opinion, until the agricultural decline of the region in the early Islamic period. Even then, centres like Baghdad perpetuated earlier traditions, and perhaps only the Mongol sack of that city in AD 1258 marks the end of ап era.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
The end of 'Mesopotarnian civi1ization' is usually Ieft unexplained Ьу scholars; it is apparently regarded as having resulted from the 10ss of political independence at the hands of the Persians. Recently Norman Yoffee explained the culturally devastating impact of that conquest Ьу the fact that it ended the pecuIiar ideal of а Mesopotamian state which had for mil1ennia enabled various foreign groups {о legitimize their rule, in Norman Yoffee and George L. Cowgill (eds.), The Collapse 0/ Ancient Srares and Civilizations (TUCSOll, 1988). Mogens Trolle Larsen sees"an intellectual malaise reflected in Mesopotamian literary texts, some ofwhich date to те
246
Eclipse 01 the Ancz·ent Mesopotamian City
end of the second millennium, which would Ьауе made the 'stream of tradition' meaningless, 'ТЬе Collapse of Civilizations: The Case of Mesopotamia', in Jens Christian, v. Johansen, еЕ al. (eds.), Clashes 01 Cultures: Essays z·n Honour 01 NieZs Steensgaard (Odense, 1992), 107-29. Both ofthese explanations take the disappearance of cuneifonn texts as ап indication of the end of Mesopotamian civilization. Much of те information оп Mesopotamia in the periods after the Persian conquest in 525 вс has {о Ье culled from books та! deal primarily with other areas, especially the Hellenistic world and Iran. However, the Achaernenid and Seleucid periods in Mesopotamia are currently very popular subjects among cuneifonn scholars. The works Ьу Mohammed Dandamaev for Achaemenid Babylonia are crucial, see e.g. his (with V. G. Lukonin), The Culture and Social Institutions 01 Ancient Iran (Cambridge, 1989). For the Seleucid material, the work Ьу Joachim Oelsner, Масеnаl1:еn zum ьabylonischеп GeselZschaft und Kultur in Hellenistischer Ze'it (Budapest, 1986), is very convenient and сот plete. Of interest are the articles Ьу Рiепе Briant collected in Rois~ tributs ес paysans (Besan~on, 1982). А recent re-evaluation of the Seleucid state as ап eastem empire Ьу Susan Sherwin-White and Amelie Kuhrt, From Samarkand ЕО Sardis: А New Approach Ео the SeZeucid Empire (London, 1993), contains much of interest оп Babylonia. М. Rostovtzeff's majestic work, The SociaZ and Economic His'lory 0/ the HeZZeniscic WorZd (Oxford, 1941), is still of great importance. For the Panhian and Sasanian periods the Cal1zbn·dge History 01 Iran 3, Е. Yarshater (ed.) (Cambridge, 1983), contains good ihformation. ТЬе book Ьу N. Pigulevskaja, Les Villes de !'еЕас iranien аих epoques parthe еЕ sassanide: Contn:bution а !'histoire sociale de lа Basse Antiquite (Paris and The Hague, 1963), provides а good introduction {о те sources ауаНаЫе for the study of cities; but the work focuses primarily ироп the evolution from а community-based, slave-owning society {о а feudal society in Sasanian Iran, and this emphasis prejudices те discussion. ТЬе social and administrative conditions in the late Sasanian and early Islamic periods are thoroughly discussed Ьу Michael G. Morony, Iraq after the Muslim Conquest (Princeton, 1984). А
nice historical survey of the city of Babylon in the late periods is provided Ьу Horst Юепgеl, 'Babylon zur Zeit der Perser,
Eclipse 01 the Ancient Mesopotaтian City
247
Griechen und Parther', Forschungen und Ben·chte. Staatliche Mu.seen zu Berlin 5 (1962), 40-53. For archaeological infonnation оп the periods discussed in this chapter опе has to go through те excavation reports of various sites. Assur, СосЬе, Dura Europos, Hatra, Nippur, Seleucia, and Uruk have Ьееп wel1 excavated. Robert МсС. Adams's Heartland 01 Cities (Chicago and London, 1981) is а mine of infonnation оп Babylonia. Aharon Oppenheimer, Babylonia Judaica in the Talmudic Period (Wiesbaden, 1983), provides а long list ofplace names found in Talrnudic literature, with classical references, and much archaeologicaI and historical information оп те cities ofBabylonia in the HelIenistic through Sasanian periods. For settlement in northern Mesopotamia see David Oates, Studies in the Ancient History 01 Northern Iraq (London, 1968): chapters 4 and 5, and [О! the Euphrates val1ey see те contributions Ьу Pierre Leriche and Georges Tate in 01ivier Rouault and Maria Grazia Rouault (eds.), L:1Eufrate е il Ееmро (Milan, 1993),98-104.
CONCLUSIONS
The Ancient Mesopotatnian City
The ancient Mesopotamian city has а panicular position in history, which сап Ье fully appreciated only when placed within the context of urbanism in the ancient Near East, and in фе ancient world in general. After establishing the unique position of Mesopotamian urbanism within its ancient N еаг Eastern setting, 1 will argue th~t it сап Ье integrated within Мах Weber;'s ideal type of the ancient city, а concept frequently employed Ьу Graeco-Roman historians, despite the orientalist foundations of that model. Finally, 1 will discuss how Mesopotamia сап Ье seen as а single entity with respect to urban history, with Babylonia and Assyria as mere variants of а соттоп tradition. The ancient Near East outside Mesopotamia includes а large area with тапу regions that have distinct geographies: the Iranian plateau, the Arabian desert peninsula, те Anatolian mountains, the Levantine Mediterranean coast, and the Egyptian Nile valley, а11 with abundant natural diversity within them. Cities appear in а11 these regions at various moments in the period paral1eling Mesopotamian history, but nowhere are they such а crucial and dominant element as in Mesopotamia. In mапу cases urbanism in these regions seems to have been inspired Ьу Mesopotamia, but urban life was less ап integral рап of their civilizations. А сот parison of the Mesopotamian city with those of (Ье other regions is made difficult Ьу the lack of comprehensive studies оп any of тет, Ьи! а broad survey of the characteristics of urbanism in а selection of those areas will elucidate some of те fundamental differences. The best studied region with respect to urbanism is SyriaPalestine, ап area that сап Ье regarded in тапу respects as ап extension of Mesopotamia ргорег. Geographically it fonns the western and southern segment cf the so-called 'Fertile Crescent'. The border between помет Mesopotamia and northem Syria is
Conclusions
249
especially indeterminate. In every respect, the Syro-Palestinian агеа was in closest contact with Mesopotamia ргорег, either through trade relations or as те primary victim of military expansion. Its political life was greatly influenced Ьу Mesopotamian powers and many aspects of its culture derived thence. The late fourth-millennium Uruk expansion caused the rise of settlements with urban characteristics in the Upper Euphrates valley, including ephemeral опеБ such аБ НаЬиЬа Kabira. Urban centres survived throughout те Syro-Palestinian area for most of the period Ье tween 3000 and 2400, seemingly influenced Ьу trade contacts both with southern Mesopotamia and with Egypt. ТЬе Bronze Age cities of the Syro-Palestinian агеа experienced several changes in their fortunes until the final collapse of the culture around 1200 вс, but one characteristic БеетБ (о have remained а constant throughout фе period: the cities were dominated Ьу а small elite associated with their palaces, which exploited the agricultural village populations to maintain their consumption of refined craft products. These cities were the centres of smal1 regional states whose territories probably did not extend beyond а 50 kilometre radius. The political and mi1itary powers were held Ьу а secular hierarchy which kept political and commercial contacts with equals nearby, and with the major political powers in Mesopotamia, nonhern Syria, Anatolia, and Egypt. Archaeologically, their distinct status is indicated Ьу palaces with their own defensive structures, separated from the rest of the city. Some of these cities owed their livelihood almost entirely to long-distance trade. Буblоs оп те Lebanese cQast, for instance, acted as те main port for Egyptian commercial contacts with Syria. In general, опе has the impression that the Syro-Palestinian cities of те Bronze Age were somewhat artificial foundations, maintained through trade or through the exploitation of the surrounding countryside Ьу political and military means. Непсе, their соllаРБе around 1200 is seen Ьу some scholars to have Ьееп the result of social upheaval~ although invasions and population movements have also been blamed.,l Not а11 ofthese cities disappeared around 1200, but the succeeding centuries are very poorly known in historical terms. When we See w. А. Ward and М. s. Joukowsky (eds.), The Crisis Years: The 12th Century в.С. (Dubuque, 1992) for а survey of current opinions. 1
250
Conclusions
obtain mоге information, in те tenth century, mапу cities were situated i,n new locations and they were almost always рап of new political entities, nation-states of а greater extent than the Bronze Age states. Some scholars have seen this as ап indication that the гоlе of те city was greatly reduced in this period,2 which тау have Ьееп true in political terms, Ьи! does по! necessarily apply {о те есопоmу, culture, and society. We do observe а hierarchy ofvariously sized cities throughout the агеа, and cities remained а crucial part of the settlement pattern. Оп the Levantine coasts the trading cities~ now especially Tyre, ftourished despite the lack of good agricultural hinterland. When the Assyrians and Babylonians conquered and ruled the агеа of Syria-Palestine, they destroyed rnany ofthe existing cities and deported large segments ofthe population. уet, {Ье Assyrians at least, а180 established some administrative centres of their own throughout те region. АЬои! те Persian rule over the area) little is known beyond те fact that теу had ргоЬ lems with the Phoenician cities. It is unclear what те Ievel of urbanization in the area was when the Macedonians conquered it, and started their po1icy of city foundations. Recently it has Ьееn, suggested that Syrian society а! that time was primarily rural,3 а view that needs further argumentation. Cities in the Syro-Palestinian area were thus а сотmоп feature of settlement throughout ancient history, уе! seemingly less integrated in their immediate environments than those in Mesopotamia. They were reliant оп long-distance trade or political domination for their survival, and were по! integrated within те тгаl есопоmу. ТЬеу were smaller than the Mesopotamian cities, and probably only а restricted segment ofthe population lived in ап игЬап environment. In Anatolia, the evolution ofurbanism seems to have Ьееп similar to that in Syria-Palestine, although the political geographies of the two regions differed. Cities appeared 'in the third millennium. ТЬеу flourished in те second millennium within а large Hittite state~ а conglomerate of various region~ in Anatolia and northem Syria, ruled Егот the capital Hattusas in central Anatolia. Most cities were located in the valleys, except for Hattusas itself. Hittite cities are characterized Ьу their citadels, containing the major 2 3
Giorgio Buccellati~ Ciries and Narions 01 Ancie1zr Syria (Rome, 1967), 109. John D. Grainger, The Cities 01 Seleukid Syтia (Oxford, 1990), 23-30.
Conclusions
251
secular and religious monumental buildings, and separated Ьу а wall from тЬе rest of {Ье town. ТЬе Hittite state was destroyed around 1200, and several cities disappeared at that time. In the first mil1ennium, new political entities emerged with cities as important political centres: in the west, the Phrygians, about whom relatively little is known; in the east Urartu. In the latter area several fortress cities, built оп mountain peaks, were created, some very carefully planned. The role ofthese cities within their environments is hard to reconsttuct, due to the lack of relevant textual information. The ciry in ancient Egypt is а subject that has only recently received proper scholarly attention. Archaeologically, nоп monumental urban remains сап rarely Ье uncovered, due to later settlements or monumental buildings that have destroyed what lies undemeath them. ТЬе textual evidence concerning cities is also extremely scarce. Some exceptions exist, however, on1y from places that were occupied for а short periods: their representative nature , for Egyptian cities сап Ье doubted. ТЬе town of КаЬип from the early centuries of the second millennium;> with its houses and streets laid out in rectangles along straight lines, was probably а pyramid city to house the personnel attending the cult of the dead king Sesostris 11, and тау exemplify а common settlement near pyramids. ТЬе totally planned capital city of Akhetaten, modern elAmarna, ~uilt in а few years Ьу Akhenaten in the fourteenth century, and abandoned upon his death, тау Ье а good example of а major Egyptian city, Ьи! it also тау have Ьееп higbly atypical. The important political and economic centres of Egypt-Thebes, Memphis, and later Pi-Ramesse-are virtual1y unknown archaeologically~ and cannot Ье compared to Akhetaten. Political1y~ the cities of Egypt played а very different role [гот those in Mesopotamia} since the Egyptian nation-state developed а! the same time as its cities. Moreover, the Nile River's ability to ас! as а major transport route allowed for те provisioning of urban populations with the agricultural produce from remote regions. Yet the existence of а hierarchy of settlements with а very few та;от cities, some forty nome-capitals (Ье size of smaIl towns, and numerous surrounding villages сап Ье hypothesized. If this is correct, it would show that the settlement patterns in Egypt were not entirely determined Ьу political considerations, but that the processes of local economic exchange also played а role.
252
Conclusions
Although cities were thus соmтоп in these three Near Eastern regions, теу seem {о have played а less crucial role in their civilizations тап did the city in Mesopotamia. The cities were modest in size, а smaller percentage of the populations was urban, and the cities were less ап integral рап ofthe есопоту and the culture. We have {о Ье cautious, however, по! to reduce те role of те cities within these civilizations {оо much. When studying тет, the focus of scholarly attention has often Ьееп оп other aspects of their cultures. The study of cities has usual1y Ьееп те study of citystates, which were less irnportant in Anatolian and Egyptian history, and which are thought {о have Ьееп only dominant in Syria-Palestine during the Bronze Age. Little attention has been paid to cities within nation-states, but this scholarly selection should по! lead us to believe та! cities were less imponant then. In апу case, Mesopotamia stands out as the region where cities did play а crucial role in every aspect of the culture, and this, combined with the fact that cities originated there, shows the special nature of Mesopotamian urbanism within its Near Eastem context. The position of the ancient Mesopotamian city within ancient urbanism in general needs to Ье seen in the context of the idea of те 'ancient city~. This сопсер! is rooted in те work ofthe Gennan sociologist Мах Weber (1864-1920), who did not develop а typology of urbanism in world history, Ьи! who wanted to explain the ri~e of capitalism in Western Europe and the role ofthe 'occidental city) in that process. 4 As was nonnal in his days)~ Weber was convinced of the uniqueness of historical evolution in the West, a~d he wanted to emphasize this Ьу contrasting it to the situation in the East. ТЬе opposition between Occident and Orient was fundamental in his mind, and Ье saw its roots in antiquity. Although Weber did inform himself of the 1ittle Mesopotamian evidence Фа! was accessible {о him in те early twentieth century,5 he was ипаblе tO see Mesopotamia in апу other light than in contrast to the West, represented Ьу its тost illustrious civilization, Greece. 4
ТЪе manuscript was only published after Weber)s dearh) and has been later
integrated in his posthumous work Wirlschaft und Gesellschaft. The original text was translated into English and edited Ьу Don Manindale and Gertrud Neuwirrh) Тhe City (New York) 1958). 5
See Weber's enrirely ignored chapter оп Mesopotamia in The Agrarian Sociology
01 Ancienr Civilizations) translated 83-104.
Ьу
R. 1. Frank (London and New York, 1988),
Conclusions
253
ТЬе
basic opposition between East and West according to Weber related to the issue of power: the East was identified Ьу despotism, the West Ьу freedom of the individual. This distinction affected city life in юа! only the occidental city could obtain the status of ап autonomous political centre, while in те East the city was always subject to larger political entities. Weber characterized the oriental city Ьу its lack of autonomy and autocephaly" without its own constitution, administration, tribunal, or military force. In contrast, both in antiquity and in the Middle Ages, the western city was аЫе to develop а type of democracy. Не based these statements ироn his ideas оп India, China, and Japan, and it has to Ье said, Ьу way of explanation, that he never really studied те oriental city оп its own merits, Ьu! only as а [оН for the occidental city. Obviously, Ьу opposing те Orient to те Occidenr, he placed himself fiпnlу within the Orientalist tradition, so prevalent in his days that its absence in Weber:ts work would have Ьееn more of а surprise than i(s presence. 1 ат far from condoning this attitude. We must realize that Weber did not claim to have provided ап indepth study of non-westem cities or that his thoughts оп them were to Ье uncritically adopted. Other scholars have used his statements about the uniqueness of the occidental city without тисЬ thought, however. The idea that the ancient Near Eastern city was doтi nated Ьу the temple or the palace is still popular among ancient historians. 6 1 hope to have shown that it is false to state that in Mesopotamia royal power was absolute, and that аН citizens had to оЬеу the king's orders. А! times indeed 'city air made таn free' in Mesopotamia, and urban autonomy was not {о Ье ignored. How this compares to the situation in classical Greece seems to Ье а matter of personal sympathy. In таnу discussions complex and intricate political relationships seeт often {о Ье reduced to empty slogans. It is still соmтоn to identify 'the dawn of democracy' in classical Greece, and to oppose {Ье political situation there to the 'oriental despotism' of Asia. Yet such catchy phrases have little meaning, and obscure the nuances of the political realities in both regions. When the Greeks colonized Mesopotamia, the political organization of cities there did not change much. 1 would not explain this as а result of {Ье survival of ап oriental tradi tion in те 6
28.
See) for insIance) М. 1. Fin]ey, The Ancient Есоnоmу) 2nd edn. (Berkeley, 1985),
254
Conclusions
eastern Greek world, distinct from the ancient tradition in Europe,7 Ьи! as ап indication that те differences between East and West were not so fundamental. Mesopotamian cities were often autocephalous units in politicaI terms, with long traditions as ро litical entities, and with conflicts between these cities and the govemments of territorial states and empires. If we abandon the unconditional opposition between East and West in Weber's writings, however~ we сап make use of his other theories regarding urbanism in те study ofthe Mesopotamian city. In addition to (Ье East-West opposition, Weber saw а second crucial distinction between ancient and medieval, placing him firmly in the primitivist сатр in the primitivism-modernism debate. This view held that the ancient city differed fundamentally from the medieval European one, primarily because the ancient city was а consumer, while the medieval оnе was а producer. This interpretation seems now universally accepted Ьу scholars, whether accepting or challenging Weber's views, and is а common starting point for discussions of aspects of ancient urbanism. 8 The infiuential ancient historian Moses Finley identified the role of consumer as the primary characteristic of the ancient ciry, which, in his opinion, was only to Ье found in the Graeco-Roman world. 9 Тhe townspeople lived from rents and taxes derived from the agricultural hinterland, and the majority of manufactured goods and services generated within the city wзs for local consumption. This is in contrast to the medieval European city) which was а net producer of goods and services, and thus generated the economic conditions for the rise of capitalism. Finley acknowledged that the ideal type of the ancient city as а consumer had mаnу variations that merit investigation. lt is thus worthwhile to see whether the ideal type app1ies to ancient Mesopotamia. 1 have tried to show that аН three sectors of те economyagriculture, manufacture, and services-were of importance to Mesopotamian cities. There 'is а major problem in establishing See Finley, ibid. 183, Admittedly, Ье refers there to social and economic systems, not to politics, Ьи[ it seems ma[ his be1ief in ше absolute distinction between Eas( and West is all-encompassing. 8 See e.g. John Rich and Andrew Wallace-Hadrill (eds.), Ci,y and Country in rhe Ancient World (London and New York, 1991). 9 М. 1. Finley, ЕСОnОУ12У and Society in Ancient Greece (London, 1981) 3-23. 7
Conclusions
255
their relative worth, Ьи! this is far from clear in the Graeco-Roman world as well. There is по means of quantifying the evidence, despite the countless Mesopotamian records available to us, and we аге left with infonned guesses. It seems reasonable 10 state that agriculture was the basis of the есопоmу of most Mesopotamian cities. In Babylonia we see that agricultural development and urbanism coincided, while food from the hinterland seems to have Ьееп sufficient to feed the cities, rendering long-distance imports unnecessary. Although manufacture was not just 'petty commodity production' intended [ог 10cal consumption,10 and exports of bas.ic goods such as textiles are well attested, we cannot say фа! апу city made its fortune as а manufacturing centre. Similarly, services, such as trade, пеуег Беет to have made the principal contribution (о а Babylonian city's wealth. In Assyria, the situation is more difficult to assess. ТЬе metropolises of the first millennium were clearly enormous consumers of goods, Ьот agriculturaI and тапи factured, Ьи! сап hardly Ье regarded as producers in economic tепns. The primary difference with Babylonia is that in order to find the necessary supplies they needed to rely оп а larger hinterland, either in the territorial states controlled Ьу them, ог in the surrounding areas within the reach of their annies. Yet, some Assyrian cities, like Assur, тау have acquired а substantial amount of wealth through trade, which would make it somewhat like the medieval towns of Europe. Moreover, Ьу the mere [ас! that cities like Nineveh were great consumers) they· did stimulate the economy, something that was true as well for те consumer city par excellence in antiquity, Rome. 11 The label of consumer city seem. . ingly сап Ье applied (о the ancient Mesopotamian city, in that it dr,ew more resources from те surrounding countryside than it delivered. The игЬап population lived off the income from land it either owned itself or which was owned Ьу the public institutions which were located within the cities, the temples and the palaces. But was this consumption entirely of а parasitical nature? Did these cities give nothing in retum to the exploited rural 10
As М. I. Finley would say. See e.g. ibid. 22.
See Н. W. Pleket, 'Rome: А Pre-industrial Megalopolis' ~ in Theo Barker and Anrhony Sutcliffe (eds.), Megalopolis: che Gian! City in History (New York, 1993), 11
14-35.
256
Conclusions
populations? This issue seems to Ье the crucial point of dissent with the Weber-Finley model among ancient historians!2 In the case of Babylonia it seems unreasonable to see the city entirely as а negative element in the agricultural development ofthe region, as а parasite Iiving off the fat of the land. Agrieulture eould по! have flourished to the extent it did without cities. Ву the fact that cities and urban institutions acted as loei and organizers of distribution and exchange, (Ьеу ena~led the specialization of different food producers: farmers, gardeners, herders, fishermen, and hunters. Financial transaetions, such as the provision of credit, facilitated the contacts Ьемееп landlords and tenants and the collection and distribution of produee in ап есопоту without well-developed market meehanisms. Moreover, cereal agrieulture сате to rely оп inereasingly extensive irrigation works, which were maintained Ьу urban institutions. Thus~ despite the total fallaey of her statement 'Cities First-Rural Development Later', Jane Jacobs did Ьауе а valid point when she stated that agricultural development cannot 13 Ье seen as а gift from nature requiring по organization. Rural produetivity did benefit from исЬап stimuli, and the Babylonians did not live in а God-given garden of Eden. In Assyria the eities played less of а role in agrieultural development, which could flourish in ап environment of self-sufficient villages, although оп а smaller seale. Cenain aspects of increased production relied оп urban institutions, especially (Ье palaee. Кings eould order irrigation systems (о Ье laid ои! or marginal zones (о Ье developed, Ьи! it is remarkable that the texts deseribing sueh works do not emphasize their benefit to the basic food supply of а eity. Aqueducts were built to water exotic gardens. It seems that the region was able (о support settlements of ир to 1 ОО heetares in size without great diffieulties or organization, that such cities were properly integrated within their rural surroundings, and as sueh тау have stimulated agrieultural development. Ви! опее they surpassed this size феу Ьесате difficult to feed, а burden ироп the rшаl ееопоmу.
Whether the manufacturing and service aspeets of the urban есопоmу benefited the rural residents is difficult to say. Obviously, eertain goods and materials Ьееаmе available to them, Ьи! it is 12
See e.g. Philippe Leveau, СLз Ville antique et Porganisation de l)espace rural:
villa;, ville;, village);, AnnaZes 38 (1983);, 920-42. 13 Jane ]acobs, The Есоnоmу 01 Cicies (New York, 1969).
Conclusions
257
likely that they would have remained unaffordable. 1 do not see how organized religio~ or the state apparatus could have Ьееп а great asset to them, and the products of high culture generated in cities were probably entirely beyond their reach. Thus the position of the Mesopotamian cities in their regiona1 economies, and their relationships with the agricultural hinterland seem similar to what we find in the rest ofthe ancient world. ТЬеу were great consumers ofresources, yet their presence did not have purely negative effects. In Babylonia cities provided ап important benefit to agricultural development with their managerial services. In Assyria cities were по! crucial to agriculture and their relationships with their hinterlands тау have Ьееп of а more parasitical nature. Непсе, in this respect these cities present variants to те 'ancient city' as visualized Ьу Weber, yet (Ьеу are sufficiently close to his ideal type to deserve the same designation. As а sociologist, Weber was obviously interested in the sociaI stГ..lсtuге of cities. In his opinion, the medieval European city was unique because of its ability {о integrate individuals within the citizenry, while in the ancient city ап individual could only Ье а citizen as а member of а clan. 14 Weber was also the most outspoken орропеп! of his time to the prevalent evolutionary modeI that saw а progression from а tribal society to one based оп nuclear famiIies in а territorial state. 1S His statement has thus to Ье seen distinct from that model, and if we allow the сегт 'clan' {о refer to а kinship group with common interests-, rather than to а group of bIood relatives, his characterization of ancient citizenship as based оп clans fits the Mesopotamian model as wel1. In that sense the ancient Mesopotamian city is also ап example of сЬе ancient city. In the ancient Mesopotamian city individuals did пос count as citizens. As 1 pointed out before, cities were made ир of various groups, which could Ье familiaI, ethnic, residential, or professional in nature. An individuaI outside апу ofthese groups did not have а means to participate in the social and political life of the town. 1 would disagree with some classical historians' statements about differences in the social structure ofthe Graeco-Roman and Mesopotamian cities. Frank Kolb, for instance, who seems to find littIe of value in Weber's ideal types of cities, sees а major distinction 6
Weber, The Cir:Y, 101. IS See М. I. Finley, Ancienr History: Evidence and Models (Harmondswonh, 1987), 90~3. 14
258
Conclusions
between the ancient Near Eastem and Graeco-Roman cities in their social organization. In his opinion, the ancient Near Eastem city, and for that matter the medieval European city as well} shows а division in quarters for specific ethnic and professional groups, inaccessible {о outsiders. Оп те отег hand, the Graeco-Roman ciry, especially in its Hippodamian layout, was entirely open 10. а11 citizens who were drawn together Ьу public places (like the agora, forum, or baths) and institutions (like the assembly). 16 Не sees thus а strong community encompassing тЬе entire Graeco-Roman city, which he finds lacking in the ancient Near Eastern ciry. Although the social coherence of the Mesopotamian city is hard {о appraise, it seems mistaken to see it as а loose conglomerate of disjointed groups. The entire city could act as а community. As in classical Greece, there was а general city assembly in Mesopotamia. And there must have been some type of civic pride which led people to пате their children after their home town, 'Dilbat is ту father' and so оп. This sense of community was по! enforced upon the citizens, who cannot Ье regarded as mere servants to the city gods or their representatives, Ье they kings or priests, as Kolb states. If this were тте we would have to envisa~e, аП the Mesopotamian urban residents as dependants of the public institutions of temples and palaces. Although these institutions тау have provided social networks for а substantial segment of the urban population, it seems clear to те that феу were not all-encompassing and that independent individuals and families resided in cities as well, with other social structures available to them. These also had civic pride and belonged to ·the urban community very mисЬ like their Greek counterparts, 1 would think. In conclusion, 1 think that we сап say that the ancient Mesopotamian city fits те type of the ancient city as described Ьу Weber and Finley, if we al10w for а cettain number of peculiarities. Есо nomical1y and socially, the simi1arities with ancient Greece and Rome were greater than the differences. Subsequently~ Fernand Braudel's insistence оп looking а! the Mediterranean world as ап entity, not as ап area divided between Еиторе and Asia,17 might Ье frиitfully applied ro the study of antiquity as well. Certainly, the unity of the Mediterranean world in antiquity is а historical ques16
Frank Kolb~ Die Sradt i'1'l Alterzzem (Munich) 1984» 261-70.
See Femand Braudel> The Medirerra'llean and the Medicerтanea11 World 'in the Age 01 Philip 11 (New York, 1973). 17
Conclusions
259
tion that extends far beyond the issue of urbanism and that needs much more exploration. It is hoped that it will Ье given serious consideration Ьу scholars Ьот of the ancient Near East and the Graeco-Roman world. Сап we say that there was а Mesopotamian city, i.e. а {уре that сап Ье found both in Babylonia and Assyria? Here again the answer depends оп how far one is willing to make abstractions. It seems that there were differences between Babylonia and Assyria in the role and importance of the city, differences that at some times of their histories тау have been more acute than at others. In origin, те divergences were due to the ecological conditions of the мо regions. In БаЬуlопiа, the arid countryside and the dependence ироп irrigation for agriculture limited the possibilities of settlement and caused the need for redistributive centres. In the rain-fed areas of Assyria, settlement in self-sufficient viIlages throughout the countryside was possible. ТЬе first cities in Assyria were artificial foundations for political ог trading purposes, often inspired Ьу southem stimuli. Urban life in те two regions has to Ье considered separately, although mutual infiuences have led to many similarities between Фет as well. In Babylonia, the city was the most important social and economic institution for the entire society. Babylonia is one of the few areas in the world where ап urban society developed without outside influence, entirely due to local circumstances. 1n most periods of its history} from roughly 3000 to 1600 вс and from 700 ВС to AD 700 те level of urbanization was extremely high, with major urban centres within sight of one another. Cities were тЬе centres of the economy, the political institutions, and фе culture. Whenever Babylonia flourished economically, cities were needed to enable the exchange of locally produced agricultural and manufactured products. Either the public institutions situated in the cities distributed these goods to their dependants, or ап uгЬап market financed and organized Ьу private entrepreneurs enabled their acquisition. International trade was of secondary importance in [Ьа! it procured prestige goods for а small elite, not for the majority ofthe Babylonians-, and, until the Seleucid period, по city seems (о have Ьееп founded there for trading purposes опlу. The city was of paramount importance in the political life of Babylonia: по ruler could claim real power without ап urban base. Such ап attitude сап Ье well understood, since по positive
260
Conclusions
economic role could Ье played without access to а city. In ideology and in practice, the city dominated political life. Non-urban segments of the society, such as villagers and pastoral nomads) were considered to Ье dependent ироп а particular town. People who did not have such ап affiliation were outcasts, brigands. ТЬе king resided in the city to Ье with his gods and his bureaucracy. Не could not Ье а tribal leader, using existing cities for trading purposes or the like. The entire high culture of Babylonia was also focused ироп те city in that it housed its primary patrons, the temples and the court. Babylonian civilization cannot Ье imagined without cities. ТЬе situation was different in Assyria, although БаЬуlопiап influence also generated many similarities Ьемееп the two regions. Since cities were not needed for the exchange of locally produced goods, they did not develop independently. They were created for long-distance trading or for political purposes. The ephemeral urban foundations of the North in те third millennium were organized under Babylonian influence, for trade and perhaps for political control of the region. Most of these cities disappeared when southern influence waned. Those that survived) like Assur, were perhaps primarily trading centres, specializing in transit trade between various regions. \Vhen а second wave ofurbanization took рlасе in the early second rnillennium, the cities were primarily bases of political control of the region. Assyrian rulers founded them for administrative purposes throughout the territorial states they tried to create. In Assyria the political powers created the cities; in Babylonia the cities created political power. The dominant element in Assyrian society was те соип, which used the cities for its own purposes. In economic terms) mапу Assyrian cities, such as the imperial capitals, were а drain ироп the region rather than ап asset. They disrupted the rural есопоmу Ьу their excessive demands-consumer cities par excellence. Ви! the regions had such close and permanent contacts that the mutual influences were great, and over time these differences were smoothed :out. The similarities in their attitude towards игЬап life are most obvious in the ideology towards cities and in the cultural role of the cities. Both Babylonians and Assyrians saw те city as the centre of the universe, the heart of their culture and religion, the proper habitat of а civilized person. T}:le social role of юе city, with its ability to gather people of different backgrounds and separ-
261
Conclusions
ate affinities, was also the same ... And, over time, the relationship between cities and the state Ье.сате also more alike: Assur, the· cultural centre of Assyria, claimed the same urban privileges as did the Babylonian cities of ancient standing. 1 think thus that we сап speak of ап ideal {УРе of the ancient Mesopotamian city, which showed different characteristics in Babylonia and Assyria. ·Л 10t more work needs to Ье done {о improve our knowledge of Mesopotamian urbanism. Problemoriented research, both Ьу archaeologists and philologists, сап elucidate many of the topics discussed in this book, and several projects of this nature are in progress. Archaeologists сап devore more attention to the residential areas of the walled cities, to suburbs, and even to villages. Reconstructions of entire town plans have Ьееп artempted through aerial photography and surface scraping, but still the focus of excavations is оп monumental buildings. It is, obviously, impossible to excavate
ап
entire city.,
thus only sample areas in residential zones сап Ье investigated in this manner. Remains of villages are not so easy to identify in the countryside, while grant agencies and archaeological services seem to show little interest in providing funding ог pennits for their excavation. Yet, in order to understand aspects of urban geography, it is necessary to contrast the city to non-urban setrlements. There is also а great need to understand the natural environments of cities, and to determine their agricultural potential in antiquity. Such research would enable us (о study the availability of foods, their procurement Ьу citizens, and the ability of the hinterlands to support cities in individual cases. Projects of this nature are now regularly undertaken, around the Assyrian city Dur-Katlimmu оп the Habur in Syria, for ехатрlе,18 and will yield crucial insights оп the basis of the Mesopotamian есопоту,
.
agriculture. Philologists сап analyse materials already available {о them in order to elucidate many of the problems of urban life. Information оп the governmental strucrure, for instance, could probably Ье culled from the abundant business correspondence of several periods ofhistory. Ifbacked Ьу а concern to understand the role ofthe 18
Hartmut Kuhne, Die reZeJlLe Umwell von Tall SёJ; Hamad und пасеn zur
Unzwelzrekonstruktion der assyn·sche1l Stadt
DUr-Каr.l-inzmu
(Berlin, 1991).
262
Со nclusions
city, те writing of social histories of particular cities would seem very useful and feasible, especially in periods other than the early second millennium, for which such studies already exist. Such histories will Ье filled with lacunae because of the total absence of data оп many questions, but еуеп in that form they сап lead to а better understanding of remporal and regional variations in urban life. In general, Mesopotaтian historians should Ье aware of the urban bias of the documentation available to them~ and evaluate that material in this light. Land sales, rental contracts, business agreements, and so оп, are evidence of activities Ьу игЬап landlords and businessтen. They do по! necessarily reflect the most сот топ situations in Mesopotamia. Ап understanding of Hfe in the countryside, even if it is based оп scanty evidence, is needed то provide а fоП for our image of the city. Projects of this nature require the careful analysis of numerous documents, edited and unedited, and need to Ье undertaken Ьу а large nuтber of individual researchers concentrating оп а particular place or time. ТЬеу provide the necessary basis for. more general studies of urbanism. Оп the other hand, we have to resign ourselves to the fact that certain aspects ofurban life in Mesopotamia will never Ье known to. us, or that our reconstructions of them will Ье extremely tentative. We will never obtain а clear portrait of daily life in the Mesopotamian city, ап unreasonable aim in any case as there is по paradigmatic city. Essays which hope to show 'а day in the Hfe of' ап individual of а particular city are simi1arly impossible. The lack of narrative sources in Mesopotamian historiography makes it irnpossible to do more than imagine how опе of the innumerable теп and women known to us Ьу пате spent the day а! work, а! Ьоте, with friends, or wherever. Ехсер! for а f~w kings, whose personality is to some extent revealed to us, the Mesopotamian person we study is а faceless апе, а пате with а profession, some records and earthly goods. We сап develop vivid images of а citizen ofUruk or the like, but тost ofthat would Ье in те realm offantasy.What а Mesopotamian city would Ьауе looked like during the day is hard to say. Ви! at night) реасе and quiet descended when people had gone to sleep, as this testimony of а diviner, forced to stay awake, attests:
Conclusions
263
ТЬе
noble ones are safely guarded, doorbolts drawn, rings in place. ТЬе noisy people are fallen silent, the doors are barred that were open. Gods of the land, goddesses of the land, Shamash, Sin, Adad, and Ishtar are gone off to the lap of heaven, They will give по j udgment, they will decide по cases. Night draws а veil, the palace is h ushed, те ореn land is deadly stil1, ТЬе wayfarer cries out {о а god, even the petitioner (of this отеп) keeps оп sleeping! The true judge, the father to the orphaned, Shamash has gone off to his bedchamber. 19
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Оп
Syro-Palestinian cities, see Giorgio Buccellati, Cities and Naciolls 0/ Ancien[; Syna (Rome, 1967). The archaeological informatiоп, primarily from Palestinian sites, has Ьееn sumтarized Ьу Ze)ev Herzog, 'Cities iп the Levant', The Anchor Bible DicEionary 1 (New York, 1992), 1032-43. For the Bronze Age, see Jean-Louis Huot ес al., Naissance des ciles (Paris, 1990). For Anatolia the literature is very slim. Some remarks оп urban settlements in сЬе third and second millennia сап Ье found in Rudolf Naumann, Architektur Юеinаsiеns, 2nd edn. (Tiibingen, 1971), 204-35. ТЬе literature оп Egyptian cities is steadily growing. See most recently те contributions Ьу Fakri А. Hassan. and David O'Connor to Thurstan Shaw еЕ al. (eds.), The Archaeology 0/А/пса: Food, Metals and Towns (London, 1993), 551-86 . Also important are the insights in Barry J. I(emp, Ancien[; Egypt: Anatomy 01 а Civilization (London, 1989). Trans. Benjamin R. Foster, Before rhe Muses (Bethesda, 1993) 1, 146, quoted permission.
19
Ьу
INDEX
АЬи Salabikh 94, 112 Achaemenid 147, 230, 238 Adams, R. мсс. 2, 3, 12, 27-8, 29, 34, 110, 164, 232 Adapa 61 'ТЬе Advice [о а Prince' 136 agriculture 14,27,96, 142-58, 1701, 237, 255-6 Akheraten 251 Akkade 42, 86 Alexander of Macedon 54, 229 al Mada'in 166, 232 Amorites 46, 114-15, 124 Amurru 216 Anatolia 250-1 ancestry 107-8 ancient urbanism 4-5, 192-3, 252-8 Anu 37 apprenticeship 178-9 Arbela 43, 48 Aristotle 1, 18, 95 Arrapha 102, 103, 106, 130, 146 assembly 121-8, 138, 242, 258 Assur (city) 48, 49, 50" 60, 66, 73-5, 124) 128,135, 158,161,183,190, 192, 198-9, 233, 240, 255) 260, 261 Assur (god) 48, 51 Assurbanipal 57, 135 Assurna~irpal 11 54, 55, 68, 95, ,155 Assyria, natural conditions 8, 38-9, 167 Assyrian Кing List 49 astronomy 225-6, 230
Babylon 1, 4, 10, 42-3, 47, 48) 49, 51, 56, 59, 60, 75-6, 76, 77, 78, 79, 86-9, 95, 97, 108, 134, 135, 154, 160, 1б6, 167, 183, 206, 216, 221, 224-6, 230, 232, 235, 241, 243 Babylonia, natural condirions 8, 28-9, 165
Bairoch, Р. 25, 97 barter 29, 154-5 Basra 233 beer 145, 156, 161 Berossos 61 Blanton, R. 11 Borsippa 86-9, 135, 166,167, 231, 237 Boserup, Е. 28 bottomry loans 200-1 Braudel, F. 6, 11, 258 bread 145} 156 bureaucracy 18, 36, 120, 143, 204, 211 bureaucrats 221 burials 83 Byblos 249 camel 238 canals 59, 78, 84, 93, 158-9, 160, 162,163,165,170 <;aral Hiiyiik 25, 26 Central Place Theory 11 census lists 5 cereal storage 150-1 cereals 144) 145, 149-50, 154, 155-6, 163 chairman of the assembly 129 Charax Spasinu 232, 240 Childe, У. G. 11, 12, 36 citadel 69, 73, 85, 86, 91-2 citizenry 120-8 city gate 76, 79;, 88, 90) 91 city models 73 city state 49, 138 city walls 52, 73-6, 84, 88, 89, 94 city wards 112, 115, 125, 132, 183, 258 classes 27,28,110,115 Code of Hammurabi 121, 125, 129, 179-80 соттиnаl households 16) 145 community 135
2бб
Index
consumer city 254-7 conrinuiry in Mesopotamian
export 189-91 extended fami1y
102~
103-10) 112
history 6-8) 229-31
craft production 71-2) 82, 159, 17693, 237-8, 255
craftsmen 181-5, 189 Ctesiphon 232 Cyrus 89) 113) 225
Dandamaev, М. А. 113-14, 138 datepalms 67,144 debt 205-6 definition ofthe city 10-12
democracy 4, 133-5, 253 'Descent of Ishtar' 44
Diakonoff, 1. М. 13) 15, 104-5 Dilbat 43, 166 Di1mun 51 Diodorus 220-1 divination 218-19, 222, 225-6 drinking warer 158-61 Dura Europus 234) 235, 240, 241, 244
Durand) j.-M. 171 Dur-Jakin 76 Dur-Kurigalzu 53) 86 Dur-Sharrukin 1О, 50) 54-5~ 56, 589, 60-1, 76, 91-2) 95,97,168,169
family names 107-9, 183 fictional kinship groups 109 Finley, М. 1. 118, 211, 254, 258 food resources 143-5 Fustel de Coulanges 24 gardens 67-8, 93, 256 Gareus temple 237, 244 Gelb, 1. J. 13, 15 'Gi1gamesh and Agga' 123-4~ 160 Girsu 46, 56 grain silos 152 Gudea 56-7) 105 guilds 11 О, 185 gurus 125 НаЬиЬа
Kabira 38, 39, 89, 249 Hammurabi 46 Haradum 89-91, 130 ЬасЬоис 65 НаIТЗП 10, 48, 57> 135) 240 Harris, R. 129 Hatra 233, 235, 237) 240 Hattusas 250 l]azannu1n 130-2
Herodotus 75, 89, 166 Eanarum 33 Ebla 39 Edessa 240 Edict of Ammi~aduqa 206 Egibi 241 Egypt 10, 38, 151, 251 el-Amarna 251 elders 124-5 Emar 171 Engels, F. 104, 109 Enkidu 44 Enlil 46, 47> 222, 224 entrepreneurs 203-11 'Epic of Creation' 47, 134, 218, 224 'Epic of Gilgamesh) 44, 46, 75, 82~ 216
Erbil 233 Ereshkigal 44 Eridu 29, 49, 77 'Еаа
Epic' 45-6 Esarhaddon 56, 136, 158 erhnicity 112-15) 243-4 ethno-archaeology 4, 96 exchange 27-8> 29, 142, 143, 157-8
hinterlands 161-72 houses 81-2) 96-7 Hunt, R. 143 Ibbi-Sin 166 Iddin-Marduk 167, 206-1 О, 213 ideology 31-3 import 188 Inanna 32, 38, 42) 216 industrial sectorS 82 inner city 72-94 institutional workshops 181 Ishme-Dagan 139 Ishtar 48 Isin 181
Isin dynasty 49 Israe1ites 113 Jacobs, J. 25-6, 256 Jacobsen, Тh. 128) 133-5, 164 Jebel Aruda 38 Jericho 25> 26 Jerusalem 51 jewellery 180
lndex Jezirah 167-8 113 }udaeans 113, 166 juridical organization 121
Josephus
Kahun 251 Kalhu 48, 50, 54, 55, 68з 73, 91, 95, 155, 161" 168 Kanish 65-7, 124з 126, 190, 199,212 Kar-Tukulti-Ninuna 53, 59, 91, 95, 168 Kassites 16 Кhuzistan 167
kidinnu 135-8 king 118-20, 126 kinship groups 27, 103-1 О, 257 Кish 123, 166з 232 КоlЬ, Frank 257-8 Кufз 233 Kurigalzu 1 53 Kutha 166, 231 Lagash 9, 33, 165 land exploitarion 147-9 land ownership 145-7 Larak 43 Larsa 49, 82, 204, 21 О, 232 Layard, А. Н. 1 library of Assurbanipal 218 Liverani, М. 13, 15, 29 literacy 18, 220 literature 218, 223, 244 loans 17, 197-8, 200-1, 205, 212 Manishtushu 104
267
Mosul plains 167-8 Murashu fami1y 210, 241 Nabonidus 57, 77з 137, 225 Nabopolassar 88, 158 Nanna 46 Nebuchadnezar 11 51, 88 neighbourhoods 112, 183 new cities 53-61, 83-4, 86-93 Nimrud 233; see also КаlЬи Nineveh 4, 10, 48з 54, 78, 91, 92, 93, 95, 97,168, 170, 183,218, 233, 240:s 255 Ningirsu 33, 46, 56-7, 105 Ninhursag 33 Ninkasi 156 Ninurta 48 Nippur 46, 47, 79} 131, 135, 136, 139, 158-9, 165} 179, 183, 21 О, 218, 220, 222-4} 232, 241 Nippur тар 63-4, 78, 82, 158 Nisibis 240 nomads 2, 34, 4З-6:s 49, 102, 132:s 163, 170,215,216 nuclear family 15, 101, 107, 109 Nuzi 71, 130 Oates, D. 168 occidental city 252-5 omens 35,57,118-19,218-19,225 Орреnhеiш, А. L. 3, 7, 8, 13, 152, 221-2 orchards 67-8, 144 oriental city 252-4 oriental despotism 5,118-19,253
Мапп, М. ЗО, З5
Marduk 47, 48, 56, 57, 59, 134, 216, 224 Mari 34, 39, 170-2 market 157, 189, 209 'ТЬе Marriage of Marru) 216 Manu 216-17 Mashkan-shapir 95 mауог 90, 129-32 Mellaan, James 26 merchants 31, 66 metallurgy 188 military installations 94 mi1irary power 33-5, 40, 119, 147 milling 155-6 mоа{ 76, 88 Morgan, L. Н. 103-4, 109 Mosul 234
palace 15, 16,18-19,34з 52, 77, 78, 84, 89, 94, 110, 146-7, 181, 185, 189, 202, 204, 206 Palmyra 238, 240 Parthian 229, 230, 233 partnership agreements 198-9, 208 Pirenne, Н. 11 Pliny 225 poets 222 Polanyi) К. 1 3 polis 138, 242 political power 35-6, 40, 48, 52, 260 pollution 159 'The Poor Man of Nippur' 131 population estimates 95-7, 162-3 pottery 176-8 Powell, М. 38
268
Index
prebends 111 primitive democracy 13 з- 5 primitivism-rnodernism debate 13-18> 254 private businessmen 157 private household 16-17 procurement of agricu1tural produce 203-11 professional associations 108-9, 11011 Qattara 85
rabianum 129-32 rations 154-5. redistribution 16, 24, 27, 154, 21 7
Reiner, Е. 44-5 religion 24, 26-7, 31-2,40, 46-8, 215-17) 223-4, 257
Renger, J. 13, 15 rise of cities> theories 24-8 river ordeal 215-16 rivers 65, 158-9, 160, 167, 215-16 rock reliefs 219-20 тоуаl foundations 53-4 royal inscrip tions 21 9
I
sale documents 9> 157, 160, 180-1> 204 salinization 163-4 Sзrgоn 11 50, 54-5, 55-6, 58~ 60-1, 169 Sargon of Akkade 34, 53) 59, 86 Sasanian 230, 233 scholars 222 schools 220-1 scribes 221-2 Seleucia-on-the-Tigris 4, 224, 232, 235, 240, 241, 242, 243, 244 Seleucid 138, 147, 229> 230 Seleucus 1 232 Sennacherib 50,51,54,56,78,93, 97, 161 settlemen't patterns 3 sewage 159 Shaduppum 89 Shahr-i-Sokhte 38 Shalmaneser V 49, 50 Shamash-shuma-ukin 135 Shamshi-Adad 49, 86 Shapur 234 Shemshara 233 Shubat-Enli1 50, 85-6, 95
Shulgi 223 Shuruppak 151-2 Silk Route 238, 240 si1ver 204, 213., 241 Sin 48, 57 Sippar 3, 4, 72, 77, 129, 135, 160, 1-66, 210., 218 size of cities 94-5 Sjoberg, G. 28 social structure 15-1 7 street names 79, 183 streets 66-7, 78-81, 84, 85, 88, 91, 112, 237 storage houses 186 substantivist-formalist debate 13 suburbs 68-72, 82, 86 Sumerian Кing List 49, 223
Susa 4, 38 Syria-Palestine 248-50
tax records 5 ТеН t"Atij 150, 171 ТеН Brak 85 ТеН Тауа 69-71, 79, 158 temple 15) 16,18-19,24,27, зо, 31, 52, 73, 77, 84, 89, 90, 94, 111, 12 О, 138, 146-7, 179, 181, 185, 202, 210, 215-17 temple-city 9 temple of Nabu 5а l)are 221 tenant farmers 147-8, 149, 203, 205, 210 textile industry 185-7> 191 Third Dynasty of Ur 14, 34-5, 36, 165-6, 223 threshing floor 149-50 Tiglath-Pi1eser 111 136 trade 40; local 157-8, 185-7; long distance 24-5,27, 30-1, 67, 187-91, 198-202, 238-41, 259, 260 transport 25-6, 151, 162,165,167, 168-70 Tukulti-Ninurta 1 53, 55, 59, 73 Tyre 250 Umma 33,165 unplanned cities 84-6
Ur 29, 31, 37, 46, 71, 83, 95, 150, 165, 181, 185-6, 187, 192,199200, 213, 218, 220 Urartu 135, 251 U ru~inimg1na 33
Index Uruk 4, 29, 37-8, 39, 44, 46, 61, 75, 82,94,108,111,123, 127, 135, 165, 181-2, 210, 232, 237, 238, 244 Urokug 49 Uruk vase 32 usufruct of land 148
Veh-Ardashir (Coche) 232, 235 vilIage communities 18, 40, 104 vil1ages 2, 4, 12, 39, 68, 86, 102-3, 162,163, 166, 176, 187,192
269
Wasit 233 Weber, М. 11, 14, 192, 248, 2529 wells 160-1 Wheatley, Р. 11, 24 'Why do уои curse те?' 224 Woolley, L. 71 writing 37, 38, 217-22, 230-1
Xenophon 73 ziggurat 77, 89
