by Eckart Frahm
Another important responsibility of the “district governors” was the supervision of the local labor force, i.e. farm workers and craftsmen. The governors had to coordinate their activities and to secure their living with rations. In cases of need (i.e. if the stocks were not sufficient for supply), they were instructed to inform higher officials in order to get support from elsewhere. Conversely, they were required to provide help for other districts or for special occasions on request, for which they were compensated (Jakob 2009: 59–68).
Among the duties and taxes of a district, the delivery of the regular offering (ginā’u) to the god Assur, represented by the rab ginā’e official in the capital, stands out. In this way, the affiliation of an administrative unit with the “land of Ashur” (māt Aššur) was expressed. The provinces of the kingdom had to provide barley, sesame, fruits, and syrup to feed the god (Postgate 1992: 204; cf. Holloway 2002: 100f.). The amount of offerings demanded by the crown was rather small, and was mainly symbolic. Negligence regarding the offerings could, nonetheless, be understood as a rebellion against Assur, punishable by the Assyrian king as the god’s representative on Earth. Late payers were given warnings by way of loan contracts; that is, the god himself allowed them to defer payment. Those who did not fulfill their task for several years were summoned in person.
The incoming supplies were carefully registered by the administration of the Assur sanctuary: first on the quay by specification of supplier, provenance, and commodity, and then in the form of tables at the year’s end. These texts recorded the total quantity delivered by the taxable districts during the past eponym year. Although the office of the rab ginā’e was an institution of the temple, the “governor of the land” (šakin māte) in the city of Ashur was the final authority for registering the incoming goods.
Returning to the duties of the bēl pāḫete in their districts, we must refer to his role as a representative of the Crown with respect to internal security and to diplomatic relationships with other countries. It is obvious from contemporary sources (see Chapter 6) that the Assyrian authority in the regions outside of the heartland was challenged constantly by enemies of various types (nomads, insubordinate inhabitants, or the former “elite” of conquered regions). Thus, the maintenance of garrisons was an important task. It can be demonstrated, especially for the western part of the realm, that lack of personnel was a substantial problem not only in the economic sector, but also in the military. Therefore the bēl pāḫete had to have some talent for improvisation.
Along the main roads, provincial centers were used by couriers and foreign delegates to rest. There, they were accommodated and supplied with rations. The same is true for members of the Assyrian “elite,” who were given permission to use the local facilities (see below, “The Assyrian cursus publicus”).
City government
At the head of the administration of a city was the “mayor” (ḫazi’ānu), who represented the local “elite,” even though he was appointed by the crown. Similar to the (more important) bēl pāḫete, he was primarily responsible for economic processes (Jakob 2003: 151–60), including the agricultural production on crown land, the organization of labor, and the supply of rations.
The ḫazi’ānu was also involved in property transactions. According to a legal document from Nineveh, he was present, together with the local district governor, a herald, and two scribes, when an arable field was expected to be sold. This brings to mind a passage in the Middle Assyrian Laws that deals with the sale of land in the vicinity of Ashur; there the ḫazi’ānu is accompanied by the local “magnates,” including a herald, a vizier, and several royal representatives.
The coordination between the cities of a district and the surrounding villages, both with respect to the agricultural sector and the workforce of the state, was handled by the “village inspector” (rab ālāne) who, if necessary, had to act on behalf of a higher official (ibid.: 160–6).
The Assyrian cursus publicus
The increasing extent of the Assyrian kingdom required an improvement of communication channels, which led to the establishment of rest stops along the roads. Primarily intended for the transmission of messages within the administration, the stops were used by both royal messengers and the couriers of high officials. The exact distance between stations is still not entirely clear. From contemporary letters of Assyrian officials, we know that messengers were able to cover a distance of more than thirty‐five miles a day (Jakob 2003: 291f.), but this applies only to the express service, kallû in Assyrian. Usually, a courier could cover approximately twenty miles from dawn to dusk without haste, especially if there was an opportunity to change horses (Jakob 2009: 45f.). Between the more important road stations there must have been smaller stopping places to spend the night safely and comfortably. Depending on the density of settlements, it also cannot be excluded that travelers had to stay outdoors overnight. In this case (or maybe regularly), the Assyrian administration provided the couriers with an escort (Jakob 2003: 69f.; cf. Jakob 2009: 156 sub ka’ulu).
The road system also offered benefits to private individuals or messengers from other countries. This is revealed in letter orders prescribing rations for the travelers and fodder for the animals. From these documents, we can deduce the composition of traveling groups: messengers, couriers, and delegates used chariots and mule‐drawn carriages, but some of them also went by foot. A delegation could consist of anywhere from twenty people to only two to three.
When royal couriers and other Assyrian travelers were concerned, instructions to local authorities on how they should be treated were rather general in nature (“With you they shall eat, with you they shall drink. Give barley and straw (to their horses) until they will depart!”; see Jakob 2009: 57). In contrast, the provisions for foreign delegates were listed precisely: the required quantity of beer and bread, in some cases even meat, for the messenger and his entourage, besides barley for horses, donkeys, and mules. The expenses for feeding the delegates could be covered by the office of the grand vizier, on the condition that a document listing them was submitted to the responsible official within one month (ibid.: 59–69)
The Military
In Middle Assyrian textual sources, many references to military personnel, campaigns, and weapons can be found. Unfortunately, the evidence lacks sufficient clarity in most cases, and any review of this topic will be liable to be fundamentally revised in the future.
It seems obvious that there was no standing army in the true sense of the word. This can already be seen in the high command: military leaders were recruited from the officials of the royal administration, including the sukkallu (rabi’u), the tartennu, and the nāgiru, and (based on Neo‐Assyrian evidence, see Mattila 2000: 45ff.) probably also the “chief cupbearer” (rab šaqē).
The majority of the soldiers were mobilized only in cases of necessity, i.e. an upcoming military campaign or civil projects. Servants of the crown could be recruited on the basis of legal regulations and relationships of dependence (ilku or perru; see Figure 7.1). In addition, there is some evidence of mercenaries, who were employed and remunerated for specific operations (Jakob 2009: 44; cf. Cancik‐Kirschbaum 1996: 108). We do not know how and to what extent these soldiers were prepared for their respective tasks. Nevertheless, it is hard to imagine that the military successes of the Assyrian army over several decades during the 13th century BCE could have been possible without any training.
Figure 7.1 Conscription and labor organization in Middle Assyrian times.
Source: Stefan Jakob. Reproduced with permission of Brill.
In contrast to these troops, who were referred to as ḫurādu or ṣābū ḫurādātu (Jakob 2003: 202ff.), there is evidence to suggest the existence of more “professional” soldiers, who were referred to as ṣābū kaṣrūtu (ibid.: 19612). It cannot be decided for certain what exactly distinguished them from the other troops, but keeping in mind that at least some branches of the army, such as archers or charioteers, required continu
al training, their professional skills could have played an important role.
Large parts of the infantry probably belonged to the ḫurādu. The official term ṣābū ša kakkē “weapon troops,” known from administrative letters from the 13th century BCE, as well as from inscriptions of the king Aššur‐bel‐kala (1073–1056 BCE; see; RIMA 2, A.0.89.1:10’ and passim), does not specify the weapons these soldiers carried. In listings, they appear in opposition to the chariotry (BATSH 4/1, 8:38’), as do the ṣābū ša arâte “shield‐bearing troops” with regard to the archers (Jakob 2003: 214ff.). It seems reasonable to assume that both terms could refer to the same branch of the army. The shield might be seen as only one component of the equipment, besides coats, swords, and lances (Postgate 2007: 289ff.).
It cannot be excluded that the ṣābū ša kakkē also comprised the “archers” (ṣābū ša qalte) and “slingers” (ṣābū ša ušpe), who are mainly attested in ration lists from the reign of Tukulti‐Ninurta I (Postgate 2008: 86f.), whereas the chariotry must be considered separate. Pictorial representations of Middle Assyrian chariots suggest that their crews were composed of two men, a driver and a bowman. This seems to correlate with the two titles māru damqu and ša mugerre, with the former most likely designating the commander of the chariot and the latter the driver (Jakob 2003: 208–11).
There is no evidence that chariotry was ever decisive in determining the outcome of a war before the reign of Tiglath‐pileser I. In his royal inscriptions, he, as his son Aššur‐bel‐kala would do after him, put particular emphasis on the chariotry as a combat unit as well as a prestigious vehicle of the ruler. There is mention, inter alia, of two conflicts against the Babylonian king in which both parties faced each other with a battle line of chariots (RIMA 2, A.0.87.4:45–9). These events are also recorded in the “Synchronistic History” (Grayson 1975: 164). Obviously, chariotry was of particular strategic importance at this time. In comparison, horsemen (ša petḫalle) did not play any special role as a branch of the army. In the Middle Assyrian period they served merely as couriers or as escorts; they were apparently not an important factor in battle (Jakob 2003: 212f.).
Besides the fighting troops, there were many additional occupations within the military sector; for instance, the “sappers” (ša nēpeše), who where particularly in demand during the siege of enemy cities, but also during public building activities (ibid.: 216). In addition, there were numerous specialists in the baggage train, including the ša muḫḫi emārē “overseer of the donkeys (which carried military equipment and booty)” (ibid: 221f.) and various craftsmen. Other personnel worked for the administration of military bases, such as the “house of the chariots” (bīt mugerrāte) or the “carriage house” (bīt utnannāte), where, perhaps, horses and mules were kept (ibid.: 217–19).
The size of military units can be determined only in exceptional cases. In texts from the 13th century BCE, troops by the name of ṣābū kaṣrūtu are mentioned. It cannot be said with certainty whether or not these units, who were under the command of a rab kaṣrūte, were similar to some extent to a kiṣru in the Neo‐Assyrian period, i.e. one hundred men (Fales and Postgate 1995: XXVII; differently Postgate 2007: 344). The term rab kiṣri “captain,” however, did not appear before the 12th century BCE (Jakob 2003: 196). So we can only assume that these officials were higher in rank than the “commanders of fifty” (rab ḫanšê), who were the chiefs of five ešertu groups under the command of a “commander of ten” (rab ešerte). This unit was the smallest one within the state administration. It ideally comprised ten people, but there could have been more or fewer workers or soldiers (ibid.: 201).
Recruitment and Labor Administration
The large‐scale building activities and military campaigns undertaken on behalf of Assyrian kings from the 13th century BCE onwards required a sophisticated system of personnel administration to provide large quantities of workers or soldiers where and when they were needed.
It has been suggested that there was a royal doctrine in Assyria according to which the palace had a claim to much of the land, including private property (Lafont 2003: 524). So, if the ruler provided his attendants with arable land from which to make their living, he demanded their service in return (Jakob 2003: 34f.). The nature and scope of employment, either military or civil, was determined by the royal administration. In the event of death or breach of duty, land could be withdrawn from the respective family.
This practice, the so‐called ilku system, was applied widely amongst the employees of the Middle Assyrian state. It is still unknown, however, what criteria were used to calculate the extent of an allotment. High‐ranking officials were granted extensive estates, perhaps in conjunction with entire villages and their inhabitants. In contrast, the plots of lower‐ranking attendants were apparently not sufficient to support an entire family. Therefore, this group was dependent on additional rations (ibid.: 36–8).
In theory, the close link between the attendant and his ilku land resulted from the principle “land for service.” But as soon as Middle Assyrian written sources become available, factors that would lead to the destabilization of the system are already present: the ilku duty did not need to be exercised in person, but could be performed by a substitute or fulfilled with a payment of gold. Furthermore, ilku land could be sold, with the purchaser having to prove that the duties of the previous owner would still be fulfilled. As a rule, the latter had to continue performing this duty after the sale, tilling the field as a dependent on behalf of the new owner. In the long term, this meant that the close connection between ilku duty and land tenure was partially abolished.
In order to register and administrate heterogeneous groups of people, the Assyrian administration used waxed tablets, the so‐called lē’u (pl. lē’ānu), a practice that can be traced back to the reign of Adad‐nirari I (Freydank 2001: 107; cf. Postgate 2007: 143–7), when the growing administrative tasks of the Assyrian state necessitated a more efficient means of personnel administration. The writing boards served various purposes, including the acquisition of data concerning available manpower; the documentation of complex structures of responsibilities; and the calculation of required provisions.
An administrative document regarding the workforce that was employed for building activities in the royal palaces of Ashur and Kar‐Tukulti‐Ninurta gives an impression of the workforce’s demographics (MARV II 17:1–14): among the 2,000 men of the “writing board of the king” (lē’u ša šarre), it lists diverse groups such as recruits (ḫurādu), inhabitants of various Assyrian cities, “engineers/architects” (šalimpāju), cult functionaries, and carpenters. Another document (MARV I 5) registers the chiefs of various groups (exorcists, diviners, and attendants of the royal shed) who were subordinate to several high‐ranking officials such as the “governor of the land” (šakin māte) or the “chief administrator/treasurer” (mašennu). In other cases, military commanders such as the tartennu (Freydank 2001: 110) or the “herald” (nāgiru) are mentioned, the latter involved in supplying the army with provisions when the troops were returning from war (MARV I 1 iv 27–35; Freydank 1974: 69–71).
Taxation
The mechanisms for applying taxes in the Middle Assyrian kingdom are not yet fully understood. As we have seen above, the state allocated land plots with the expectation of military and civil service (ilku). Besides that, there must have been the possibility of recruiting people without an ilku obligation or recruiting owners of private estates. It seems that these are summarized as perru troops (ṣābū perrūtu) under the command of the “lords of the perru” (bēlē perre; see Figure 7.1). The levy of further duties on these properties cannot yet be proven.
The only direct tax payable by individuals that is known at this point is associated with the import of goods from abroad. According to a private document from Tell al‐Rimah dealing with the taxation of a two‐year‐old mare, a rate of fifty minas of lead was determined, i.e. presumably 25 percent of the purchase price (Jakob 2003: 170–2).
The evidence of payment had to be provided by the final buyer and not by the importer.
Other obligations imposed by the state and directly or indirectly benefitting the ruler, members of the royal family, or religious institutions include the ginā’u tax, already mentioned in connection with the provincial government. Tribute (madattu) was also of great importance. Generally, a victorious king never left a conquered land without plundering it. By doing so he was able, inter alia, to reduce the costs of war. Thus, the booty became a kind of reparation. Continuous payments of tribute by the defeated party served the dual purpose of indicating the latter’s loyalty as well as contributing to the income of the Assyrian state.
“Audience gifts” (nāmurtu) are attested by a 12th century BCE archive from Ashur. These texts register such gifts, normally sheep, to the prince Ninurta‐tukul‐Aššur, a son of king Aššur‐dan (1168–1133 BCE). An account of a period of nearly six months between the 12th day of the month of Kalmartu and the 22nd day of Ša‐kēnāte reveals that, during this time, 914 sheep were delivered by officials to the king. Obviously, the nāmurtu gift was economically important (Donbaz 1976: 15).
Middle Assyrian Society: Social Strata
The majority of written sources from the Middle Assyrian period pertain to the area of public administration. Even archives from private houses contain many documents dealing with administrative matters (Pedersén 1998: 86f.). Information regarding the living conditions during this period is primarily available for the socio‐economic “elite.”
