A Companion to Assyria

by Eckart Frahm

  After Išme‐Dagan

  Ashur’s trade in the following years is documented by a number of texts found in Sippar. Some document the activities of an Assyrian trader settled there and the regular contacts that existed between Sippar and Ashur, while others show that Babylonian traders visited Ashur (Veenhof 1991). Important is the (heavily damaged) treaty concluded in ca. 1745 BCE with Till‐Abnû, the king of Šeḫna, the capital of the land of Apum (Eidem 1991). As far as preserved it mentions caravan traffic, a transit tax per donkey, payments of copper, and perhaps a compensation for losses. The Assyrian partners are the city of Ashur, Assyrians “going up and down” (in caravans), and resident Assyrian traders, designated as the “kārum of Šeḫna.” Archival texts from this city (Eidem 2008: 329–31) confirm the existence of a commercial establishment called “the house of the servant of Ashur,” possibly the office of the resident Assyrian official. The function of the earlier “kārum Apum” (Veenhof 2008a: 155, 2) is now taken over by nearby Šeḫna = Šubat‐Enlil, perhaps because it had been made a regional center by Šamši‐Adad. Caravan routes apparently could change due to political developments (see Guichard 2008).

  In the 18th century BCE the Anatolian political scene also changed. Due to warfare and conquests a network of mostly small, often rivaling Anatolian city‐states was gradually replaced by a few dominant territorial states, which in due course would give way to the Old Hittite state (see Miller 2001 and Barjamovic et al. 2012: 49–52). This must have affected the Assyrian trading network, although the trade continued under the aegis of new treaties, which stipulated that the Assyrians should be allowed to travel also in times of hostilities. After ca. 1750 BCE Kaniš came twice under the power of new rulers, first when Pitḫana of Kuššara conquered the city, perhaps around ca. 1750 BCE, and a generation later, after Pitḫana had been succeeded by his son Anitta, when a further unknown, “Zuzu, the great ruler of Alaḫzina,” took the city (see Veenhof 2008a: 143–6). But the archival texts from Kaniš do not reveal the impact of these changes.

  Sources from Šeḫna show that after ca. 1750 BCE Babylonian influence in the north weakened, while that of the North‐Syrian kingdom of Yamḫad, centered on Ḫalab (Aleppo), grew and made itself felt by military force and diplomatic action in the Jezira. The letters now also document the appearance of large bands of “robbers” (ḫabbātum), apparently laid off soldiers and mercenaries who roamed and raided the countryside. A unique letter from Kaniš, addressed by a local community of Assyrian traders to “the gods and the City (Ashur)” (Dercksen‐Donbaz 2001), complains that “the roads have become full of hardship due to the ḫabbātum who control the mountains” and cause trouble for the caravans. In 1728 BCE a raid of the Babylonian king Samsu‐iluna resulted in the destruction of Šeḫna, which meant the end of its archives and of information on the latest phase of the Assyrian trade.

  The Political Institutions of Ashur

  The ruler

  In their inscriptions Ilušuma and Erišum I present themselves as self‐confident rulers whose activities shaped the life and politics of the city. Practice documents from Kaniš, however, leave no doubt that the main administrative body in Ashur was “the City,”5 that is the City Assembly. In the oldest inscription (RIMA 1, 14) Šalim‐aḫum already states that he built the temple of the god Assur “for his own well‐being and that of his city.” It was the City Assembly that rendered verdicts and took decisions, while the ruler seems to have functioned as its chairman and executive officer (see for the verdicts Hertel 2013: 88–92, 381–8 and Appendix 2, and Veenhof 2015). He communicated them to the colonies in official letters (see Michel 2001: ch. 1) that invariably start with the words: “Thus the Overseer, to kārum Kaniš: ‘The City has passed the following verdict … ’”. In the formulas of oaths and appeals the City comes first: “I swear by/bring my case before the City and the ruler/my lord!,” but the City and the ruler act as one authority. Erišum I (RIMA 1, 21: 55) designates the attorney granted to a plaintiff as “an attorney (rābiṣum; see Hertel 2013: 92–8) of the palace,” and he can be called “the attorney of my lord,” but we know (e.g. from AKT 6, 116) that a verdict of the City was the basis for obtaining one, so that he is also called “an attorney of the City” and can himself declare: “I am an attorney of the City” (EL 338: 10–11). The attorney’s authorization is “a strong tablet of the city,” also called “a tablet of the ruler” – both terms refer to the “waklum letter” he carried. The ruler may have appointed him after a decision by the City (Larsen 1976: 175–90). The ruler’s involvement in the administration of justice is understandable, since it was a Mesopotamian king’s divine mandate to uphold justice and equity – Erišum I (in RIMA 1: 21) speaks in detail about his concern for justice. The ruler is not called “(supreme) judge,” but his legal expertise was valuable and a unique letter (AKT 6, 113) reports how people in Ashur went to the ruler “as the constitutional expert” (Larsen) for advice on the proper procedure to be followed in the case of an appeal to the City.

  The ruler also had to secure the peace and prosperity of his people. The latter was promoted by the measures strengthening Ashur position in the international trade, mentioned above, which were certainly not taken without the City Assembly. Military activities, either by the ruler or the City, are never mentioned. The duties in Ashur of the official called laputtā’um (nu.bànda), who during the Ur III period could also supervise military personnel (some translate his title as “captain”), are not clear. Dercksen (2004a: 65–72) finds some evidence for a relation with the City Hall and the temple of Assur, but there is no association with the military. Was Ashur’s early history peaceful, also because military conflicts would have harmed the overland trade?

  Ashur’s ruler had various titles, analyzed in Larsen 1976: 109–59. In his seal inscription he figures as “ensí (Assyrian: iššiakum) of Aššur” (Figure 3.3a), where “Aššur” could refer to the god or the city. If the city is meant (Aššurki) the title would be similar to that of city governors appointed by the Ur III state, but the spelling dAššur (with the divine determinative) gradually becomes more current in Old Assyrian times (see Galter 1996). The variation shows that god and city were essentially the same, “divine Aššur.” As ensí the ruler is Assur’s steward, mandated by the god, who is the real king of the city. Inscribed seals of the contemporary rulers of Ešnunna explicitly state this about their god Tišpak, but in Ashur this only happened on the seal of the elusive ruler Ṣilulu (RIMA 1: 12f.). The ruler does not bear the title sanga, “priestly head of the temple” (which appears only centuries later), but his “ideological” association with the national god comes through in his promise in letters, “I will pray for you before Assur.”

  Figure 3.3a Seal of Sargon, son of Ikunum, ensí of Assur. Photo of Kt c/k 1389 (T. Özgüç 2003: 19 no. 5). Photo kindly supplied by the excavator, T. Özgüç.

  Citizens of Ashur designated the ruler as rubā’um, “the great one” (also used for Anatolian rulers), a title that expressed his status and authority as primus inter pares. Larsen (1976:126) suggests that the title refers to the ruler as head of the royal lineage; princes are called “son of the rubā’um.” We meet it in the formulas of oaths and appeals, mentioned above, and in references to “a tablet/the seal of the rubā’um,” and “silver/merchandise of the rubā’um.”

  A third title is bēlum, “lord,” which qualifies the ruler as the one whose servants his citizens were. It nearly always has a possessive suffix to express a person’s relation to his ruler and is frequent in the combination “the City and my lord,” e.g. in the formula of appeal. In KEL A (Veenhof 2003a: 7–9) the accession of a ruler is mentioned with the words: “The beginning of the rule (lit. “throne”) of RN, the waklum, our lord,” a collective recognition of the status of the ruler.

  The title waklum, “overseer,” still found in Middle Assyrian times, is used by the ruler in communications with his subjects, especially in letters, both the “official” ones mentioned abo
ve and private letters that deal, e.g., with his participation in trade. It may denote his position as the main administrator of the City, who has authority and has to be obeyed.

  This variety of titles and the limited evidence for the ruler’s activities make it difficult to evaluate the extent of his power. He seems to have operated within the framework of the City Assembly, and the importance of the City Hall explains the absence of references to his palace, his family (apart from the mention of a number of princes), and his staff; we do not know where he lived. The ruler’s economic power was essentially that of a rich citizen, who participated in the trade and apparently had better access to luxury items, such as iron and lapis lazuli, sold by the City Hall. The ruler had his own agents who traveled in Anatolia, but several letters to prominent traders (analyzed in Larsen 1976: 132–5), in which he asked them to make someone pay and to collect and send to Ashur the money earned, show the limitations of his power.

  The City Assembly

  The main governmental body of Ashur was “the City,” that is the City Assembly, which took all the important decisions; its administrative instrument and seat was the “City Hall.” We meet the City (Assembly) most often as a court‐of‐law, to which traders could appeal. In this capacity it convened in the so‐called “Step Gate” (mušlālum), situated “behind Assur’s temple,” in a “sacred precinct” (ḫamrum), presumably the locale with the statues of the seven divine judges, where oaths were sworn (see Veenhof 2015). Several texts report on what happened “in the City, in the Assembly (puḫrum), during a court‐case.” For other purposes the City may have convened in the City Hall (bēt ālim). We do not know the size of the assembly (texts never mention its members), but it probably comprised the more important citizens. Considering the specific nature of Ashur, “important” could refer to lineage, function, status, and wealth.

  The assembly of the colony (kārum) in Kaniš knew a bicameral system, with “great men” as a kind of executive committee which, aided by a secretary, took care of the daily running of the colony. It also decided whether a case warranted convening the plenary (“great and small”) assembly. Fragments of “Statutes of the kārum” (Larsen 1976: 283–332) reveal a decision‐making procedure by majority vote, for which purpose the assembly was first divided into three groups and if no unanimity was reached into seven. The City Assembly may have known similar procedures, but its “Statutes” are unknown and we have only one single reference in a damaged text to “the City (Assembly), great and small.” But several texts mention “the Elders” as a body that passes verdicts, and they may well have been equivalent to the “great men” of the kārum.

  Nearly all references to the City Assembly concern lawsuits about conflicts between individual citizens, but some decisions concern commercial or economic policy (Veenhof 2003c: 89–98, Hertel 2013: ch. 4). Two of them aim at protecting and furthering the import of textiles into Anatolia by prohibiting trade in Anatolian fabrics and by obliging traders to spend more silver in Ashur on buying textiles. Another forbids the sale of gold (imported from Anatolia) to other inhabitants (traders) of Mesopotamia on penalty of death. The official letter adds that the old rule, written on the stele (naru’ā’um), remains in force, which reveals the existence of legal regulations, written on stone, hence laws. They are not preserved, but a few more texts refer to them when decisions are said to be “in accordance with the words of the stele.” The references all concern commercial and financial matters, but the laws were not necessarily restricted to such issues. I assume that they were the result of deliberations in the City Assembly, which decided that certain decisions with a more general applicability would be fixed and published, a procedure rather different from what we know of the Babylonian law collections, which are presented as emanating from the king (Veenhof 1995a: 1732–43).

  The City was vitally interested in what happened in the colonies, because Ashur’s prosperity depended on the success of the trade. Many of Ashur’s senior citizens were merchants or investors in the trade. At least two of the līmum eponyms had lived in and served kārum Kaniš, others had traveled there, and a few princes feature in commercial documents as well. The City kept in contact with the colonies by means of official letters that gave directives dealing with issues such as smuggling and taxes (see AKT 5: 79–90). The City was officially present in Anatolia via the “Envoys of the City,” who were in particular involved in diplomatic relations with the native Anatolian rulers, with whom the leaders of kārum Kaniš concluded treaties.

  The City Hall

  The City Hall, the main instrument and locale of the administration of the City (see Dercksen 2004a: Part 1), was directed by an official called līmum. He was presumably chosen from among the representatives of the main families by casting lots and for a year wielded considerable powers, which in other states would be vested in the palace. That he had to hand over his job prevented the accumulation of power in one hand and secured a fair and impartial conduct. The City Hall managed the finances of the City, collected the export tax and fines, extended credit, and as a kind of public warehouse also sold merchandise, including lapis lazuli and the expensive iron, on the sale of which it seems to have had a monopoly. It was also involved in the stocking and sale of barley, essayed precious metals, and had its own (official) weights. Its personnel (Dercksen 2004a: 62–74) included a scribe/secretary, a “līmum of the barley,” and agents called bērum, whom we meet when defaulting debtors of the City Hall were forced to pay, eventually even by sealing or selling their houses. It had storage facilities and an archive; in connection with a trader’s lawsuit we read, “tablets with depositions by witnesses were submitted to the City Assembly and have entered the Līmum Office, where they are available” (AKT 6 no. 75: 23–5). Dercksen (2004a: 77–81), who collected evidence for the relation between the City Hall and the “Treasury of Ashur,” tried to identify its site and structure and suggested that the remains of so‐called the ‘Schotterhofbau’ are the most likely candidate. He envisages it as “a multi‐storey complex built around one or more courtyards, with rooms to accommodate the staff … and a number of storage rooms” (2004a: 6–13).

  We also know its seal, with the image of what must be the god Assur, a bull’s head protruding from a multi‐tiered mountain and inscribed with the words: “Of divine Assur, of the import tax, of the City Hall” (Figure 3.3b). The words “of the import tax” suggests that it was used for a specific purpose. There was also another seal, with the inscription “Of divine Assur, of the City Hall.” It was impressed, more than a thousand years later, on the tablets with the so‐called vassal‐treaties of king Esarhaddon. It again shows how closely the god (and temple of) Assur, the City Assembly and the City Hall were linked.

  Figure 3.3b Seal of Assur, of the nisḫatu‐tax, of the City Hall

  (drawing by K. R.Veenhof ). Source: Reproduced with permission of K. R. Veenhof.

  The End of the Old Assyrian Period

  Eponym List KEL G (Günbattı 2008b) shows that in Ashur the eponyms were duly appointed every year and that the Assyrian presence in Kaniš (where this list was found) continued perhaps until ca. 1710 BCE (see Barjamovic et al., 2012, Appendix 1), but we lack more detailed historical data. This makes it impossible to know when and how the Assyrian colonial presence in Anatolia came to an end. While the destruction of the kārum around 1700 BCE was no doubt the result of political rivalry and war in Anatolia, we do not know what effect it had on Ashur and its trade. Those searching for potential reasons for a presumed decline of Ashur have suggested that the profitable trade broke down because the tin caravans did not longer arrive in the City or had trouble in crossing the Jezira, so that the route along the Euphrates was preferred. This is speculation and we have no evidence. Anyhow, Ashur did not come to an end and the standard recension of the King List, after listing seven “usurpers” who shortly occupied the throne after Išme‐Dagan, continues with a series of new rulers, sons of the last usurper, Adasi.

  The insti
tutions of Ashur seem to have survived, and there may even have been a kind of restoration following the demise of Šamši‐Adad’s dynasty (after the disappearance of Mut‐Aškur, Išme‐Dagan’s son?), as the Puzur‐Sîn inscription mentioned above suggests. Anyhow, some innovations introduced by Šamši‐Adad, such as the use of Babylonian in official inscriptions and the oath by the king in contracts, are no longer attested. The treaty with the king of Šeḫna is not concluded in the name of the ruler but that of the city of Ashur, and later rulers until the 14th century BCE still use the title “ensí of the divine Assur.” The few Late Old Assyrian house sale contracts we have, presumably from the 17th century BCE (Veenhof 2011: § 5), use the Old Assyrian dialect, legal formulary, and calendar, and do not contain an oath by the ruler. The “City Hall” continues to function and is still attested in the Middle Assyrian Period. Some essential features of the civic structure and culture of Old Assyrian Ashur remained in place.