A Companion to Assyria

by Eckart Frahm

  3 A later Old Babylonian tale about the so‐called “great rebellion” against Naram‐Sin of Akkad mentions the kings of Ḫaḫḫum and Kaniš among his enemies (Westenholz 1997: 250–1).

  4 Figure 17 on p. 331 offers Miglus’s reconstruction of the temple layout.

  5 In texts produced by the administration of the kingdom of Šamši‐Adad, “the city” refers to Ashur as well (Ziegler 2002: 213–17).

  CHAPTER 4

  Economy, Society, and Daily Life in the Old Assyrian Period

  Cécile Michel

  Introduction

  At the beginning of the second millennium BCE, Assyrians originating from Ashur settled in Kaniš and other Anatolian towns. They lived in the lower town of Kaniš with the local population. Almost no tablets from this period have been found in Ashur, whereas the commercial quarter of Kaniš has produced some 22,500 cuneiform tablets, dated predominantly to the level II period (ca. 1945–1835 BCE). Only 2 percent of the documentation dates to the later level Ib period (ca. 1832–1700 BCE).

  The private archives of the Assyrian merchants, found in their houses in Kaniš’s lower town, mainly concern the long distance trade they initiated, but also document the everyday life of their community in Anatolia, and, very indirectly, in Ashur. Because no archival texts were found in Ashur itself, we have only very few samples of their marriage contracts or of their last wills, which must have been kept in their houses in the mother city. There is, however, some information in the letters residents of Ashur sent to Kaniš about their religious beliefs, the organization of their households, and their daily occupations. These data may be compared with what we know about the Assyrians living in Kaniš, who left numerous archival texts.

  The 22,500 Kaniš texts belong to two or three generations of Assyrian merchants and include letters, legal texts, and private notices (Hertel 2013; Michel 2003; Michel 2008e; Veenhof 2003a; Veenhof 2013). Letters offer data about domestic affairs, while legal texts sometimes deal with family law. The archives also cast light on the Anatolian society of Kaniš, which is, however, not taken into account in this chapter (Dercksen 2004b; Kryszat 2008a, 2008b; Michel 2011a, 2011b, 2014a, 2014b; Veenhof 2008: 147–246).

  A major part of Ashur’s population seems to have been involved in the international trade in tin and textiles or in the local Anatolian copper and wool trade. The family formed the heart of Old Assyrian society. Letters give an idea of the activities of the various family members, including merchant wives, who were often alone in Ashur, managing their households and raising their children. In the family enterprises, almost everyone worked to boost their personal profits (Larsen 2007). Devoting most of their time to the trade, in which even priests and consecrated women were involved, the Assyrians depended on markets and shops to buy their food. Even though texts are usually silent about daily life, it is possible to describe some aspects of Assyrian society and the daily occupations of its members.

  Ashur and Kaniš

  The Old Assyrian city of Ashur occupied an area of about 55 hectares and probably housed between 7,000 and 10,000 inhabitants. But Assyrians were very mobile, often traveling to Anatolia (see Figure 4.1) and even staying there for extended periods of time. Archives unearthed in Kaniš’s lower town indicate the presence of large numbers of Assyrians during the 19th and 18th centuries BCE. The city of Kaniš comprised between 170 and 230 hectares and was inhabited by some 25,000 or 30,000 people. Some 3,000 to 3,500 of them, their majority from Ashur, were living in the lower town commercial district, of which ca. 9 hectares have been unearthed so far (Barjamovic 2014; Hertel 2014).

  Figure 4.1 Anatolia during the Old Assyrian period.

  Source: Reproduced with permission of Cécile Michel and Martin Sauvage.

  Because Ashur was a trading center at the junction of important roads, many foreign merchants visited the city. Elamites exchanged tin for gold there. Babylonians from southern Mesopotamia sold their textiles in Ashur. People from upper Mesopotamia probably traveled to Ashur as well. Both in the city and abroad, Assyrian merchants interacted with foreigners on a regular basis. They identified them by means of their ethnicity and the languages they spoke, as described in a verdict: “Assyrians can sell gold among each other but, in accordance with the words of the stele, no Assyrian whosoever shall give gold to an Akkadian, Amorite, or Subaraean” (Michel 2001: no. 2; Veenhof 1995a: 1731). “Akkadian” was the name given to the Babylonian population; the “Amorites” lived along the Euphrates River west of the upper Jezira; and “Subareans” were the Hurrians who settled north of Ashur along the Tigris River.

  In Anatolia, beyond the Euphrates River, the Assyrians referred to the local people with the word nuā’um, which encompassed all of the Anatolians of Kaniš, as opposed to the Assyrians, who were called tamkārum (“merchant,” see Edzard 1989). The personal names of the local population of Kaniš show that there were different ethnic groups: Hattians, Luwians, Hittites, and Hurrians (Garelli 1963: 127–68; Goedegebuure 2008; Wilhelm 2008). There were also merchants from Upper Syria who regularly visited Kaniš, from Ebla, for example. All of these people traded with each other and had no real communication problems. After one or two generations, Assyrian merchants had developed links with the local society that went beyond strictly commercial transactions (Dercksen 2002, 2007a; Michel 2010a, 2011a, 2014b; Ulshöfer 2000; Veenhof 1982a).

  Old Assyrian society was divided into two main groups: the free citizens, who were called “men” (awīlum) or “sons of Ashur” (DUMU Aššur), and “slaves” (wardum, amtum). There was no specific distinction between the Assyrian citizens, but according to their rank, age, and wealth, they were considered either as “big” (GAL, rabi) or “small” (TUR, ṣaher) members of the assemblies of Ashur and Kaniš (Hecker 2003). Legally, there was also no distinction between women and men, who had more or less the same rights (Michel, forthcoming; Veenhof 2003b).

  The great majority of Ashur’s inhabitants mentioned in the Old Assyrian archives from Kaniš participated in the long distance trade: the king and his family, the high dignitaries, the eponyms and other officials, priests and temples, etc. (Michel 2015b). Some merchants built large fortunes, which also benefited the city‐state – Ashur’s City Hall raised taxes on caravans leaving or arriving in the city.

  The king and the priests entrusted goods to a few important dealers in order to earn profits from the sale of their tin and textiles in Anatolia (Larsen 1976: 129–246; Michel 2015a). The eponyms, chosen from the important families of Ashur, were among the main traders in Ashur – some of them were active in Anatolia before or after their years of tenure (Dercksen 2004b; Kryszat 2004; Michel 1991; Veenhof 2003). Many occupations were linked to trade and caravan enterprises: bankers, bakers, traders, agents, employees (ṣuḫārum), porters, guides or escorts, donkey drivers (sāridum), who were paid with salaries, and harnessers (kaṣṣārum), who were paid with operating capital; these latter two groups are well documented in hiring contracts (Larsen 1967; Michel 2001: 171–233; Veenhof 1994b).

  In Kaniš, during the level II period, Assyrians were living in the lower town together with Anatolians, who participated in commercial activities as well. Initially, Anatolians were often indebted to the Assyrians. Later, through their implication in the trade and via mixed marriages, some Anatolians became increasingly wealthy and possessed some of the largest houses in the lower town (Michel 2011b). During the subsequent level Ib phase, commercial treaties distinguished the Assyrians who were involved in the caravan trade with Ashur (ālikū ša ḫarrān ālim) from those who were living in the lower town (wašbūtum). The first group profited from the international trade and visited Ashur regularly, while the second group devoted all of its time to the intra‐Anatolian trade and, subsequently, lost contact with Ashur. They were less wealthy, often even indebted to Anatolians and, as a consequence, specific clauses were created to protect them and their houses in the kārum, the “merchant’s harbor” (Barjamovic, Hertel, and Larsen 2012; Günbattı 2004; Michel
2011a, 2011b, 2014a; Veenhof 2008: 147–82).

  Slaves

  In Ashur and Kaniš, the possession of several slaves was considered a sign of wealth, like the possession of a house (Veenhof 2011b). Slaves appear in sale contracts, last wills, and divisions of inheritance; they could be referred to collectively as subrum (Michel 2008b; Veenhof 2008: 110–11). Male slaves (wardum) and female slaves (amtum, which can also be translated as “second wife”) cost an average of 30 and 20 shekels of silver, respectively. Anatolian slaves were usually less expensive (Kienast 1984: 28). Slave sale contracts served as title deeds. Wealthy merchants could afford and support an entire domestic staff. Women possessed their own slaves, whom they would acquire through their dowry or by purchase. Among the slaves they inherited, men could receive female slaves with whom they had sexual relations (EL 287). Some slaves belonged to institutions, such as the Ashur City Hall (Kt 93/k 76:32) and the Ashur palace (KTS 1 55b:3–4).

  Female slaves had to clean the house, prepare the meals, and help raise the children. They even could procreate on behalf of their infertile owners (Michel 2006b). Some of the male slaves were employed in the long‐distance trade, hired as caravan personnel. A slave could be sold in order to pay a debt: an Assyrian woman bought back a slave that had been sold by her daughter‐in‐law in order to pay the export tax her husband owed to the City Hall of Ashur (Michel 2001: no. 306). But a slave could also be seized by a creditor or by the authorities as security for a debt: “The eponym troubles me and he keeps seizing my slave‐girls as security” (Michel 2001: no. 315). There were many debt slaves, especially among the Anatolians, who could often not pay the high interest rates imposed by the Assyrians. But there were also Assyrian children in Ashur who were given as pledge (erubbātum) for their fathers’ debts, detained by the creditor, and sometimes sold to repay the debt after the deadline had expired (Michel 2003a; Veenhof 2001; and below “Housewives, children, and education”). From letters, we learn that Assyrians could be detained as hostages by the local authorities and released with a heavy ransom (Günbattı 2001; Michel and Garelli 1996; Michel 2008e, 2014a).

  The Assyrian Family

  The family formed the basic unit of Mesopotamian society and thus occupies an important place in the written documentation, especially in law codes. Since no written laws have been recovered in Ashur or Kaniš, Old Assyrian family law must be reconstructed on the basis of contracts, court decisions, and letters. The letters provide primarily data on women who were alone because their husbands were away, because they were widows, or because they were consecrated to a divinity. Married women living with their husbands in Ashur or Kaniš did not need to write, or wrote only very few letters to other members of their families (Michel 2009d, forthcoming).

  Contrary to the widespread belief that in Mesopotamia’s patriarchal society women were permanently under the men’s control, in the Old Assyrian sources they appear to be equal to men in many areas: men and women were both allowed to initiate divorce proceedings and had to pay identical fines, boys and girls could both inherit property, men and women participated in trade, lent money, bought and sold houses and slaves, or made their last wills (Michel, forthcoming; Veenhof 1995a, 2008a).

  The following discussion focuses on the Assyrian family but also considers Anatolians in case they had family ties with Assyrians (Michel 2008c).

  Marriage, divorce, and widowhood

  About forty Old Assyrian contracts, as well as a dozen legal texts, deal with marriage or divorce. These documents predominantly concern Assyrians, but also Anatolians, and reflect different traditions (Kienast 2015; Michel 2006b, forthcoming chapter 1; Rems 1996; Veenhof 1997b). Some letters provide data about the marriage ceremony and the status of wives. They also allow prosopographic reconstructions, which help us understand the various family situations.

  Written marriage contracts may have been drafted only in particular cases, and they do not seem to be standardized. The agreement was made between the parents of the bride and the groom or his family. The marriage was planned so that it would take place when the girl reached adulthood:

  Aḫu‐waqar and Zupa seized us (as arbitrators) and Aḫu‐waqar (said) to Zupa as follows: “My sister has grown up! Come here and marry my sister in Kaniš.” Zupa (answered) as follows: “Let her wait!” Then Aḫu‐waqar (said): “In Kaniš, you had the verdict of the kārum. You are far away! How long should my sister keep waiting?” Then Zupa (said): “Go ahead and give your sister to a husband of your choice.”

  (Kt i/k 120 published by Balkan 1986; Michel, forthcoming: no. 6)

  Marriage contracts document men taking (aḫāzum) women as wives. Marriage gifts (Veenhof 1998: 190, n. 66) are rarely mentioned in the Old Assyrian contracts, but a few letters state that if no gifts were exchanged the betrothal could be broken off (Figure 4.2):

  Pilaḫ‐Ištar seized us (as arbitrators) against Amur‐Ištar, and Pilaḫ‐Ištar (said to him) as follows: “You gave your word to my father. Come and marry your wife!” Amur‐Ištar (answered) as follows: “I indeed gave my word to your father, but as my in‐laws you (pl.) did not give me a belt for my waist, nor did you invite my brothers. Time passed and I have grown old, so I have married another girl from Ashur. Thus, I will not marry your sister.”

  (Kt 88/k 625 published by Sever 1992b: 670; Michel, forthcoming: no. 7)

  Figure 4.2 The Old Assyrian letter Kt 88/k 625. Ankara, Anadolu Medeniyetleri Müzesi.

  Source: Photo Cécile Michel, reproduced with the permission of the archaeological mission of Kültepe.

  The dowry given to the bride when she left her father’s house belonged to her and was later inherited by her children. During the marriage ceremony, the groom gave the bride‐price (šīmum) to the parents of the bride; a banquet took place and the bride was covered with a veil. But this symbolic act did not mean that married women had to wear a veil. After the ceremony, the woman left her family house for the house of her husband, who had to provide her with food and garments on a regular basis.

  As a rule, marriage was monogamous. Some marriage contracts state explicitly that the groom promised not to take another wife. If after two or three years of marriage the wife had not given birth to any children, the husband was allowed to buy a slave (who could also be chosen by the wife) in order to produce heirs. This woman, however, remained a slave and never gained the status of second wife (Michel 2006b).

  The particular situation of the Assyrian merchant, who was always far away from his homeland and settled in Anatolia for long periods of time, allowed him to take a second wife there:

  Puzur‐Ištar married as an amtum‐wife Ištar‐lamassi, daughter of Aššur‐nada, and he can take her along with him to Burušḫattum or to attum, wherever his journeys will (lead) him, but he must bring her back with him to Kaniš. If he divorces her, he shall pay 5 minas of silver. If it is she who divorces him, she shall pay him 5 minas of silver. Also he shall not marry another (wife) apart from his aššatum‐wife in the city of Ashur.

  (Prag I 490; Michel 2006b; forthcoming no. 23)

  attum was the name of the area located inside the Kızıl Irmak bend, and Burušḫattum represented the most western Assyrian trading post. As stated in this contract, the second marriage had to respect two rules: the merchant could not marry two women with the same status – one had to be the aššatum (“main wife”) and the other the amtum (“second wife”) – and he could not have two wives in the same area – one had to live in Ashur, the other in Anatolia. The main wife could be either Assyrian or Anatolian and she could live in either Ashur or Anatolia. So while the merchant was legally bigamous, he was not bigamous in practice since he never lived with both of his wives at the same time (Kienast 2008; Michel 2006b). Even if he travelled on a regular basis in Anatolia, he was not allowed to take a third wife in another trading post, but had to take the wife he married in Kaniš with him during all his travels, especially if she was Assyrian (Michel 2008c). The husband had to ensure that each of his spouse
s had a house to live in, as well as food and wood for their household. One can thus easily imagine that only wealthy merchants could financially support two wives and households at the same time.

  From the letters, it seems that both wives had the same rights concerning their husband, but it may have been that the children of the second wife had fewer rights regarding the inheritance of their father than those of the first wife.

  This special situation left married women to manage their households alone for extended periods of time. The Assyrian wife was in Ashur during her husband’s Anatolian career, raising her children, while the Anatolian wife could live with her husband as long as he was staying in Asia Minor but was left alone when her husband retired and went back to Ashur (Michel, forthcoming: chapter 1).

  Some marriage contracts deal with the case of a possible divorce. Husband and wife could both initiate a divorce, and the fines, often high (up to 5 minas of silver, ca. 2.5 kilograms), were the same for both parties. These gender‐neutral regulations, very different from the situation in Babylonia, may have been influenced by the Anatolian tradition, in which both spouses had equal rights and shared common property (Michel 2008c). A large majority of divorces were consensual and resulted from private agreements made in the presence of witnesses. If the wife behaved badly, the husband was allowed to repudiate her without paying any compensation: he could strip her of her possessions and chase her away. On the other hand, if a man developed a loathing for his wife, he could send her back to her father’s home but had to pay her compensation (Donbaz 2003; Kt 94/k 141; Michel, forthcoming no. 31). Divorced men and women could remarry as they wished: