The Assyrian ‘colonial’ system in Anatolia involved around ten main karum and ten minor colonies (wabar-tum), all linked to local cities (Figure 12.5). These settlements were mainly distributed in three areas: 1) around the Middle and Upper Euphrates, both on the eastern/ Upper Mesopotamian side (Nihriya, Badua, Zalpah) and the western/Anatolian side (Urshum, Hahhum, Mama); 2) on the Konya plain (Purushhattum, Wahshushana, Wahshaniya, Shalatiwar); 3) along the bend of the river Halys (Hattusa, Karahna, Turhumit), its valley (Samuha) and river mouth (Zalpa). Due to the orographic characteristics ofAnatolia, city-states were concentrated in the valleys and plains between mountains and forests, or in the lakes and salt deserts in Central Anatolia. This concentration is confirmed by the archaeological evidence, which attests to a rise of cities at the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, right after the decline of Early Bronze Age settlements. This was especially the case in Cilicia, in the Konya plain and the Central Anatolian plateau.
There were more local city-states than colonies in Anatolia, with textual evidence attesting to around thirty city-states. While there were probably more, albeit unattested, cities, the number of karum known to us is probably close to their actual number. The local city-states varied in size and power and were independent from one another. However, minor cities gravitated around major centres. Each independent city had its own palace and king. The Assyrian sources call the local political authorities the ‘palace’ and define the king as a ruha’um, the Assyrian term for a ruler, or sarrum, a term that implies a higher role.
Figure 12.5 Central and eastern Anatolia in the Old Assyrian period, ca. 1950—1780 bc.
Another title attested only sporadically is ruba’um rabi’um, ‘great king’, implying an extended supremacy over other subordinate cities. In some areas, it is possible to locate some hegemonic cities, such as Kanesh, Wahshushana and Purushhattum. In the period belonging to Level II at Kanesh, the situation seems to have been characterised by a balance of power amongst various independent states. However, in the following phase (Level Ib), expansionistic tendencies began to appear.
Alongside kings, city-states had several important functionaries, the highest ranking one being the ‘chief of the citadel’ (rabi simmiltim), There were other officials linked to those sectors pertaining trade, such as the ‘chief of the storehouse’, ‘chief of the market’, ‘chief of metals’ and so on. These were all Assyrian denominations and all the titles in the local language remain unknown to us. Apart from the few attestations on this administrative organisation, we know of relatively developed palatial states. The latter were able to engage in legal and commercial agreements with the Assyrians (Figure 12.6). These relations were agreed on through treaties sealed by oaths, involving each new local king and the central karum of Kanesh, or the local karum. Treaties certified that the local king allowed the Assyrian colony to stay in his territory and to engage in its commercial activities. The local king also ensured the protection of the colony in his land and along trade routes. Old Assyrian trade was therefore based on a complex set of treaties with all the cities involved in the system. However, the latter was always in danger of breaking down each time there were conflicts between local states, or a new king caused some difficulties.
While a variety of states were involved in these agreements, the other contractual party (the Assyrians) was always the same, represented by the central authority of karum Kanesh and Ashur. The system was relatively stable and homogeneous, with standardised transit taxes and the palace’s pre-emption rights on a minor share of the imported stock. There were some disagreements, but they were considerably fewer than the several disputes among the merchants for credit issues. Smuggling itself was meant to avoid the taxes imposed by local rulers, rather than the karum’s ones. However, it was forbidden and punished by the latter, rather than by the local rulers.
If the political status of local rulers was entirely independent from Assyria, it is also clear that Assyrian merchants were not helpless in their relations with the local authorities. Somehow, it is possible to see that these merchants were supported by the Assyrian state. The latter could have even provided a certain amount of military support. This type of Assyrian intervention does not seem to have been required on the other side of the Taurus, although it is well attested in Upper Mesopotamian cities, at least at the time of
Figure 12.6 Anatolian seal impressions on Old Assyrian tablets from Cappadocia.
Shamshi-Adad. Moreover, despite Assyria’s potential political and military support, the unity of the colonial system was already strong enough to support its own merchants. Both on a financial and practical level, the system was strong enough to be able to deal with the local states on an equal standing, since the colonies brought tin and textiles to Anatolia. They were also able to exercise a profitable business, which, as far as we can see, was not hindered by obstacles or threats to the caravans travelling across the Near East.
Despite the fact that Assyrians and Anatolians were separate entities, they still remained in close contact. Several mixed marriages are attested and even in terms of material culture, the houses built by the Assyrian merchants were not different from Anatolian houses. Naturally, once merchants had reached a certain age, they usually returned to Assyria, without leaving any ethno-linguistic traces in Anatolia. In this regard, the ethno-linguistic context ofAnatolia of the time is only visible to us through the local names attested on the Old Assyrian texts. These personal names partly belonged to dialects somehow related to Hittite, which would begin to be attested shortly after this time. There were also large groups of Luwian names, especially in the south, Hurrian in the south-east and Hittite or pre-Hittite in Central Anatolia. Following the disruptions experienced at the end of the third millennium bc, the Anatolian population thus began to establish itself in a way that will be better attested in the mid-second millennium bc, thanks to the documentation from the Hittite capital at Boghazkoi.
In its first eighty years, the Old Assyrian trade enjoyed a period of political stability. The following hiatus of the network was not due to local disruptions, but Assyrian ones, which led to the destruction of the karum of Level II after its sudden abandonment. When the Assyrians returned, possibly supported by a stronger political power in Assyria, they had to deal with a much more complex political situation. This is attested in a letter of the king of Mama, Anum-Hirbi (a king whose name was Hurrian and whose kingdom was located in the south, between the Euphrates and the Taurus) to Warshama, king of nearby Kanesh. The two kings had sealed an alliance through a treaty, but were now accusing each other of plundering each other’s kingdoms, either on their own, or through vassals. The latter could have acted independently, but were nonetheless under these kings’ jurisdiction. This letter depicts an Anatolia marked by internal conflicts and difficult relations between neighbouring states. Anum-Hirbi must have had territorial ambitions, since he left a stele on Mount Amanus. This stele would eventually be found by Shalmaneser III almost a thousand years later. Having deciphered the name of the unknown ruler, Shalmaneser then left his own stele near Anum-Hirbi’s.
If Anum-Hirbi’s letter has the advantage of being a direct and authentic piece of evidence, the overall picture of the time can be confirmed considering another source as reliable. Being a later text, this other source has to be used with great caution. Initially, it was believed to be reliable, and later suspicions that it was a fake text, composed by those Hittite rulers who had kept it, now seem excessive. This text was a copy made several centuries after the original inscription of Anitta, king of Kushshara, a king also attested in the Old Assyrian texts from Kanesh (level Ib). On his inscription, Anitta celebrates his victories. He started from his own city, located along the bend of the Halys river and conquered Central and northern Anatolia, reaching Zalpa, near the Halys river mouth and Kanesh (Nesha in Hittite) in the south. The military interventions and destructions of cities were repeated in three campaigns, indicating a situation of local conflicts and the progress of Anitta’s expansionistic move.
The succession of local wars similar to the ones attested in Anum-Hirbi’s letter or Anitta’s inscription explains why the Old Assyrian network collapsed. The network lost the essential prerequisites for this system, namely, political stability and peace, both in Anatolia and in Assyria. This severely hindered the possibility of continuing long-distance trade. However, the significance of Anitta’s inscription for Hittite scribes needs to be taken into consideration. Firstly, Kushshara, capital of Anitta’s kingdom, was to become the capital of the Old Hittite kingdom. Its kings could have recognised in Anitta’s endeavours their own achievements. Secondly, Anitta destroyed Hattusa, the next and most important Hittite capital. He then cursed those who would eventually restore it. Therefore, this text required taking the necessary magic or ritual precautions when the seat of power was moved from a victorious city (Kushshara) to a cursed one.
World History
