A Companion to Assyria

by Eckart Frahm

  The growing prosperity of Ashur had effects on the architecture of the city. The projects of early rulers to restore and enlarge temples required space in the upper city, and this is reflected in two inscriptions. Ilušuma, reporting on his work on the Ištar temple (RIMA 1: 17, lines 23–9), writes: “Crosswise(?) I laid out a new wall and divided houses for my city.” And his son Erišum I, in connection with the enlargement of the Assur temple, states (RIMA 1: 23, lines 33–44): “With the help of Assur I cleared houses from the Sheep Gate to the People’s Gate,” an action he describes in another inscription as “I reserved terrain for Assur.” It seems that the ruler expropriated houses and their premises because he needed the terrain for extending the area of the Assur temple, while the new wall allowed him to assign (new) house‐plots to the (growing number of) inhabitants (Veenhof 2011: § 1). Although little is known of the Old Assyrian stratum in the lower city, enough was apparently found to allow Miglus (1996: 55) to state that the residential area must have reached the city wall during the Old Assyrian period.

  From Sargon to Erišum II

  Judging from the number and variety of texts the Assyrian trade peaked during the reign of Sargon (ca. 1920–1881 BCE). Barjamovic et al. 2012: ch. 3 document the massive increase of texts starting shortly before eponymy year 80 and ending fairly soon after eponymy year 110. The first joint‐stock partnerships (in Assyrian naruqqum, “money bag”), with a capital of ca. 15 kilograms of gold, contributed by numerous investors and entrusted to an experienced trader for ten to twelve years (Larsen 1999; Dercksen 2004a: 83–9), are from Sargon’s reign. They reveal the growing sophistication of the trade and its expansion, with more capital, more men, and more trading stations, which allowed a wider range of action in Anatolia. Assyrian traders eventually settled down in thirty colonies (kārum) and smaller trading stations (wabartum), spread out over the whole of central Anatolia (see Barjamovic 2011) and another ten along the caravan roads in northern Mesopotamia, ranging from the upper course of the Tigris to Uršu, west of the Euphrates (Veenhof 2008b; see for their correspondence Michel 2001: ch. 1).

  This development had many consequences. It required more treaties with local Anatolian rulers, more personnel, in particular “traveling agents” (tamkārum) who took goods in commission and signed dated debt‐notes for the silver they would have to pay after a fixed term (usually between a few weeks and a year). This credit system demanded new legal instruments to provide sureties, solve problems, and settle accounts. Their presence in a wider area and their excellent transport facilities offered the Assyrians also the opportunity to apply themselves to the inner‐Anatolian trade in copper (see Dercksen 1996) and wool, to make additional profit, also by indirect exchange. This development also affected the administration of the Assyrian colonial system, centered in the “kārum office” in Kaniš. It kept in touch with the Assyrian trading posts (via “messengers of the kārum”; Veenhof 2008c: 224–30), maintained contacts with the Anatolian rulers (if there were problems or treaties had to be renewed; see Michel 2001: ch. 2), and regulated (e.g. by fixing the rate of the default interest) and taxed activities of individual traders. As law‐court the “kārum office” handled conflicts between its members, who could appeal to it to reverse decisions made by other colonies, and it maintained contact with the government of Ashur, of which it was a kind of colonial extension and whose decisions it had to communicate and implement. Finally, it made more Assyrian women follow their husbands to Anatolia, where a colonial family life emerged and Assyrian traders also started to marry Anatolian girls.

  The results are observable in the thousands of records from the heyday of the trade, between ca. 1900 and 1860 BCE, but how it took shape is difficult to say for lack of early texts. We do not know when or why new colonies and trading stations were created or when the trade in copper (linked with the founding of colonies in or near the mining areas in the north) started to flourish. Individual decisions – whether a trader’s family would move to the colonies, where a trader would settle down, and whether his focus would shift from the import trade to the local copper trade – also played a role.

  The favorable conditions are reflected in the turnover of the trade. Unable to give exact figures, because the caravan documents and letters are not dated, we observe that each year a few thousand expensive woolen textiles and tons of tin were imported into Anatolia, from where hundreds of kilos of silver and more modest quantities of gold reached Ashur. Ashur became a rich city, where many people worked and earned wages to meet the requirements of the caravan trade, including women weaving textiles, personnel serving in the caravans, and craftsmen that produced each year the harness for hundreds of caravan donkeys, raised and trained in a paddock outside the city. The temples shared in this prosperity thanks to the many votive gifts and profitable investments in the trade, money or merchandise entrusted to reliable traders (Dercksen 1997). In addition many foreign traders visited the city, because most of the textiles and the tin and lapis lazuli exported to Anatolia were first brought to Ashur. But there is never mention of a kārum Ashur, which might imply that foreign merchants could visit the city and do business there, but were not settled (or allowed to settle) in Ashur. Miglus (1996: 59) observes at the end of the Old Assyrian Period a substantial increase of the city area. Texts support this picture by mentioning how traders in Ashur built expensive new houses, apparently a status symbol for a successful trader, or bought them as investments (Veenhof 2011).

  The political developments of this period are not known, but some private letters of the rulers Ikunum and Sargon (analyzed in Larsen 1976: 132–44) show that they too invested in the trade. That Sargon and his grandson Naram‐Sin chose the same names (including their divine determinatives!) as two famous “emperors” of the Old Akkadian empire (also father and grandson), probably inspired by literary tales about the exploits of these kings, indicates their ambitions. One of these tales is an Old Assyrian text celebrating the memory of the great Sargon. Perhaps, as Dercksen (2005b) suggests, members of the Puzur‐Aššur dynasty considered Sargon and Naram‐Sin their remote ancestors.

  After ca. 1860 BCE, when many of the prominent traders died or returned to Ashur in their old age and their businesses were split up among their sons, we witness a general and fairly rapid decrease in the number of texts from the colony in Kaniš. Archives covering the last decades of the period kārum Kaniš level II, which lasted until ca. 1835 BCE, are very rare. An explanation is not easy to find – we probably have to take into account a combination of social, legal, and commercial factors, as Barjamovic et al. 2012: 64–73 suggests, a study to which the reader is referred for details. One of the reasons was apparently that traders moved to other important colonies in the north and west of Anatolia (such as Burušḫanda and Durḫumit, the center of the copper trade). This explains the discovery in Kaniš of houses with archives in situ, but with few records of the last two decades of the level II period. The end of this period, when Kaniš was destroyed, no doubt due to political rivalry and war in central Anatolia, came in ca. 1835 BCE.

  It has long been assumed that this destruction was followed by an interval of perhaps thirty years before the beginning of kārum Kaniš level Ib (contemporary with level 7 on the city‐mound), when city and colony experienced a revival. New discoveries of texts dating only a few years after the end of level II now show that the interval was only a few years. This agrees with the fact, established by dendrochronological analysis, that the younger so‐called “palace of Waršama” on the city‐mound of Kaniš, which dominated this period, was built around 1832 BCE. Because the new texts are still unpublished and come from only one or two houses, the nature and size of this revival remain unknown.

  Ashur under Šamši‐Adad I and Išme‐Dagan

  Due to a lack of written sources our picture of Ashur after ca. 1835 BCE, during the reigns of Naram‐Sin and Erišum II, is extremely sketchy. These years saw the gradual rise of the Amorite king Samsi‐Addu (Šamši‐Adad in the A
ssyrian King List), who succeeded his father Ila‐kabkabuhu around this time. The seat of his dynasty may have been Ekallatum, ca. 30 km north of Ashur and west of the Tigris, the city he later (re)conquered (see Ziegler 2002: 217–20), but Durand believes it was Akkad (see Charpin 2004a: 148–150). The Mari Chronicle (Birot 1985) reveals that Šamši‐Adad had a powerful rival in Ešnunna under king Ipiq‐Adad II, who ruled until ca. 1818 BCE, and under his successor Naram‐Sin, who may have reigned for ca. ten years. Šamši‐Adad was forced to seek refuge in (or return to?) Babylonia, but in ca. 1811 BCE he came back, conquered Ekallatum, which became his residence, and three years later Ashur, removing Erišum II. He then started to extend his power over the whole Jezira, which culminated in the defeat of Yaḫdun‐Lim of Mari in ca. 1792 BCE. Later he also conquered cities east and north of Ashur (Arrapḫa, Qabra, Urbil, Nurrugum/Nineveh) and along the upper course of the Tigris (Mardaman, Šimanum), so that in the end he ruled most of the region between the Tigris and the Euphrates. In ca. 1785 BCE he appointed his eldest son Išme‐Dagan as vice‐roy of Ekallatum. He ruled a realm called “the Tigris valley” that included Ashur and reached until the Jebel Sinjar in the north. Šamši‐Adad made the city of Šeḫna, in the land of Apum (modern Tell Leilan, in the eastern part of the Khabur Triangle), his power base and renamed it Šubat‐Enlil. This shows the importance he attached to the control of the Jezira, crossed by the Assyrian caravans.

  With Šamši‐Adad I we enter a period of intense political and military activity, of conquests, crises, and changing alliances, with a number of important players, well documented (especially after ca. 1800 BCE) by the palace archives of Mari. In this hectic period Ashur seems to have managed to remain itself and to continue its trade, but the political shifts and wars of course had an impact. Since the focus here is on Ashur, I refer the reader to the overviews of the complicated historical developments of this period in Charpin‐Ziegler 2003 and Charpin 2004a, and for the history of Ekallatum to Ziegler 2002 (see map, Figure 3.2).

  Figure 3.2 Assur and the political world of Northern Mesopotamia during the Šamši‐Adad period

  (drawing by K. R. Veenhof).

  As ruler of Ashur Šamši‐Adad I rebuilt the Assur and the Anu‐Adad temples (RIMA 1, 80–1). The titles he uses are informative (Charpin 1984: 50–3). In the inscription RIMA 1: 48–51 he calls himself “king of the universe, builder of Assur’s temple, pacifier of the land between Tigris and Euphrates,” but on inscribed bricks he adheres to the traditional title “steward (ensí) of Assur,” to which in his seal inscription (RIMA 1, 61, 10) he adds “beloved of Assur.” In other inscriptions this title is preceded by “appointee of the god Enlil,” which refers to the supreme Mesopotamian god as the source of his authority, a claim that also found expression in his reconstruction of the Assur temple, where (according to Miglus 20014) he constructed two sanctuaries under one roof, one for Enlil and one for Assur. Šamši‐Adad respected Ashur, a city “full of gods,” as he states in a letter (Charpin 2004a: 379), and stayed there on occasion to take part in religious ceremonies (Charpin 2004b: 378–80). But he did not make it his residence, probably, as suggested by Ziegler (2002: 213–20), because such a “divine city,” with Assur as its real king and a powerful City Assembly, was unattractive as a royal seat of power.

  Ashur’s trade must have been important for Šamši‐Adad’s empire and it may have profited from his pacification of the Jezira. During his reign we meet for the first time an official called “overseer of the merchants” (ugula dam.gàr) and under his son an “overseer of the merchants of Ashur” (ARMT 26, 342). Was he a royal appointee, to monitor the trade, or had Ashur’s merchants, confronted with a new, “foreign” ruler, designated one of their own as representative and leader (Veenhof 2008a: 140–1)? Ashur on occasion had to supply soldiers to the king, but seems to have preserved an internal autonomy; it is mentioned as a separate political entity alongside the land Ekallatum. But a recently published letter from Kaniš (Günbattı 2014: 87–100) shows that the king decided on foreign politics. The request of the Anatolian king of Ḫarsamna (a rival of Kaniš) to stop the military support of his opponent, the king of Zalpa, was rejected by Šamši‐Adad shortly before he died in 1776 BCE. The representatives of the traders in Ashur, who tried to convince him, were told: “Do not intervene between us great kings!”

  Išme‐Dagan, although boasting “I hold the Elamites and the ruler of Ešnunna with my reins” (ARMT 4, 20), had much less power and went through a series of crises, but proved a resilient survivor. He cared for Ashur and its cults, occasionally stayed in the city, and was active as a builder (RIMA 1: 95); his wife’s name, Lamassi‐Aššur, expresses devotion for the god and city. After Šamši‐Adad’s death the western part of his empire was lost to Zimrilim of Mari, and many rulers in the area of the Jebel Sinjar and Jezira became Zimrilim’s vassals; but some remained allied with Išme‐Dagan, still king of “the Tigris Valley.” The interest of Zimrilim and his allies in Išme‐Dagan’s realm explains the many references to Ekallatum and Ashur in the political correspondence found at Mari (especially in letters published in ARMT 26/2, including diplomatic reports sent from Babylon; cf. Charpin 2004b: 381, note 45). They are the main source of our knowledge of this period.

  In ca. 1772 BCE the army of Ešnunna’s king Ibal‐pi‐El II marched northward, occupied Ashur, Ekallatum, and Qaṭṭara, and installed itself in Šubat‐Enlil, a move that made Išme‐Dagan take refuge in Babylon. Some years later, in ca. 1765 BCE, after Zimrilim and his allies had pushed Ešnunna back, an Elamite army marched north and after conquering Ešnunna and Ekallatum also seized Šubat‐Enlil, “devouring all of Šubartum” (the traditional name for the eastern part of the Jezira), as a letter describes it. Išme‐Dagan was taught a harsh lesson by the king of Elam, and there even was a plan to put his son, Mut‐Aškur (attested as commander of troops of Ekallatum and Ashur in ARMT 26, 411), on the throne. But Išme‐Dagan survived and, probably with the support of Babylon, managed to retake Ekallatum. Eventually the Elamites, attacked from the south by Hammurabi of Babylon and faced by a united front of rulers in the north, led by the king of Mari and joined by Išme‐Dagan, drew back. In the aftermath of this war Išme‐Dagan made a treaty with Ešnunna and managed to strengthen his position by extending his power south of the Jebel Sinjar. But in 1763 BCE, after having lost the support of Ešnunna, he again fled to Babylonia. When a year later the lingering conflict between Ešnunna and Babylon erupted Hammurabi defeated Ešnunna and “annexed the land of the Tigris valley until Šubartum.” The next year he vanquished not only Mari, but also “various cities of Šubartum and Ekallatum.” These conquests must have included the territory lost by his ally Išme‐Dagan (who was still staying in Babylonia; Charpin–Ziegler 2003: 243), and also Ashur. Išme‐Dagan subsequently may have regained the throne of Ekallatum, but we lack all information, since the palace archives of Mari come to an end. Did he actually reign twenty‐five years longer; do the forty years mentioned in the King List include his ten years as viceroy of Ekallatum; or is the round figure of forty anyhow suspect? As for Ashur, Hammurabi’s opaque words in the prologue of his “Codex” (col. iv 53–8), “I guided the people (ammī) properly and returned to Ashur its benevolent protective spirit,” suggest that he respected Ashur and its civic institutions.

  Ashur’s trade seems to have somehow continued in these hectic years. A few letters sent from Ashur to Qaṭṭara (OBTR 33 and 122) mention products from Kaniš. An important trader in Ashur, in his correspondence with the “overseer of the traders in Mari,” claimed that just like his addressee was a “man of name” in Mari, he was one in Ashur and Kaniš (Durand 2001). But there must have been interruptions and problems. A letter (ARMT 26, 315: 80–3; cf. 316: 19’–21’) reports that in 1765 BCE, after the Elamites had installed themselves in Šeḫna, the Assyrian traders there had been forced to leave. Other letters from this time, found at Mari (ARMT 26, 432 and A 285; Charpin‐Durand 1997: 385), talk about an Assyrian carav
an of 300 donkeys that departed from Ekallatum and was allowed to enter Karana (east of the Jebel Sinjar), from where fifty donkeys traveled on to Kaniš. The others, who wished to go west, to Kurda, were retained and could not leave without a written permit of its king. Two others letters (ARMT 26, 433 and 436), dealing with the same incident, reveal that admittance and passage of traders required a formal announcement from Ashur. The correspondence reflects the problems of caravans crossing political boundaries, in this case from Išme‐Dagan’s kingdom of Ekallatum into the territory ruled by vassals of Zimrilim of Mari such as the ruler of Karana, a rival of Kurda. The letters show that, if certain conditions were met, traders and their caravans nevertheless could travel; as another letter from Mari states, “a trader crosses (territories) in war and in peace.”

  A picture of Old Assyrian trade in this period from the Anatolian point of view is provided by a few hundred texts found in kārum Kaniš level Ib, supplemented by a few dozen texts from Assyrian colonies at Ḫattuša and Alişar (ancient Amkuwa, about halfway between Kaniš and Ḫattuša; see Dercksen 2001). They show that the Assyrian colonial system still functioned and even some new colonies appeared, but some others are no longer attested or became less important. The recently published treaties from this period, concluded with the cities of Ḫaḫḫum and Kaniš (Veenhof 2008a: ch. V, and 2008d; their dates are unfortunately unknown), show that the import trade continued and that the Assyrians tried to maintain their position. Some stipulations reveal that their position was weaker and that more protection against high‐handed actions of Anatolian kings and citizens was considered necessary. The archival texts we have suggest that much less tin was imported, new types of textiles appear, and joint‐stock companies are absent. Barjamovic et al. 2012: 73–80 assume that there was more venture trade, based on short‐term partnerships, and that many traders became permanent residents of Anatolian towns and got involved in exchange within Anatolia, not only in copper and wool but also in agricultural products. But there were also traders, called “those traveling the road to Ashur,” who maintained the contact with Ashur and must have taken care of the imports, even though the evidence for them is very limited. The much smaller number of Assyrian texts from Kaniš, whose material culture does not reveal stagnation and impoverishment, suggests that local Anatolian traders had taken over part of the business, but much remains unclear.