Early Dynastic Period
With the emergence of cities and a greatly increasing population, the organization and administration of society in Sumer became increasingly complex toward the end of the fourth millennium. The written records from this time, albeit limited, reflect the accumulation of produce by the authorities and its deployment to support the personnel employed by the state.
Heavy reliance on one substantial temple archive from Lagash state initially suggested that in the third millennium the temple authorities ran the administration, controlling most of the land and employing most members of society, whether as agricultural laborers, soldiers, traders, or artisans, and that only at the end of the ED (Early Dynastic) period did secular authorities come to dominate the administration.
Evidence from archaeology and other ED texts had overturned this view by the 1970s, indicating that secular and sacred authority developed together in the ED period. It has become clear that, although temples were major landowners and exerted a powerful influence on society, the secular royal establishment (the "Palace") controlled as much or more land in the ED city-states. Growing interstate conflict enabled kings to increase and consolidate their power. Competition between the palace and the temple developed, and gradually the palace came to wield greater power, the king, as the gods' representative, controlling many of the temple lands and personnel. Nevertheless, throughout Mesopotamian history, both palace and temple remained powerful, and the tensions between them continued.
A number of scholars see the third millennium as a time of change when a kinship-based society of largely self-sufficient households, supporting the temple and king through the payment of tribute, gave way to an oikos (house-hold)-structured society, in which kings and temple authorities controlled agriculture, industry, and other activities by maintaining vast households of dependents who produced goods and performed services. Temples existed for the direct benefit of the gods, requiring substantial resources to feed, clothe, and house the statue of the deity and support his or her attendants. They had therefore to own substantial estates and command the services of large numbers of people. Many people, such as widows, orphans, or prisoners of war, became temple dependents through misfortune or poverty. Distressed individuals might borrow from the substantial temple resources, but repayment could be difficult and many debtors had to sell themselves or their families into dependency. Free citizens might also become temple dependents as sharecroppers, cultivating temple or palace lands in return for a portion of the resultant produce. Similar processes, particularly indebtedness, turned many citizens into dependent members of the royal household.
Nevertheless, the idea that the state completely controlled land and industry in the third millennium is now also questioned. Despite the paucity of documentary evidence, many scholars argue that a private sector existed at this time, rather than developing in the early second millennium when many texts attest its importance. Legal documents and other evidence show that kinship ties were important at least into the late ED period, and it is clear that kinship groups often owned land. Some texts attest to the buying of land by the palace and the transformation of individuals and families into crown dependents.
A key text, the Standard Professions List, provides clues to the ordering of society from around 3000 b. c.e., when it is first known. Although this early version is broken and its signs cannot be perfectly read, its format is so closely followed in later versions that most of its contents can confidently be ascertained. The list reflects the hierarchical nature of the society that developed in the late Uruk and ED periods. Grouped by occupation, the list gives the titles of personnel engaged in particular activities, headed in each case by a supervisory official. Variations reflect changes taking place in the organization of society through time. For example, the lists from the substantial ED IIIa archives at Shuruppak for the first time include the profession of tax collector. Other administrative texts also provide information on political organization.
At Shuruppak the bureaucracy was organized into units with up to a hundred employees, supervised by officials answerable to heads of departments controlled by the head of state. At Shuruppak the latter was called the ensi, a secular title used in most ED cities, although the direct ideological relationship between the city and its temple meant that the head of state also had a sacred role. Kingship was generally vested in dynasties, although the citizens may have played some part in selecting a king's successor from among his sons or brothers. The essential approval of the gods was probably obtained by divination. Misfortunes reflected divine disapprobation, and an unsuccessful monarch could be overthrown. One entry in the Sumerian King List indicates the diverse nature of ED kings: "Kug-Bau, the woman tavern-keeper, who made firm the foundations of Kish," reigning for one hundred years. (Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature "Sumerian King List," lines 224-231).
The two highest offices in the early version of the Standard Professions List are sanga and en—probably respectively sacred and secular titles, although by ED IIIa (or earlier) en had become a title with sacred connotations, signifying the spouse of the deity. This was the title borne by the leader in Uruk. Sanga was the title of the chief temple administrator in a number of city-states and of the rulers of Umma and Isin. Another title was lugal, used particularly to denote the office of King of Kish, who apparently exercised a higher authority over the rulers of Sumer's city-states. For example around 2550 b. c.e. the warring ensi of Lagash and sanga of Umma accepted arbitration by Mesalim, lugal of Kish.
During the early ED period, city-states were emerging throughout Sumer and much of Akkad, and some, such as Assur, Ebla, and Mari, in the north and the west. Texts attest to conflict between adjacent or competing states, of which the running border dispute between Umma and Lagash is best documented. There were also elements of cooperation between states. The secular authority of the lugal of Kish (not necessarily, it seems, the incumbent king of that city but often the king of another city invested with the title) was frequently acknowledged; and by ED III, if not earlier, the priests of Enlil (who had emerged by or during this period as the chief of the gods) in Nippur could endorse a king's actions and authority by giving them the god's sanction. A number of texts suggest the existence of a cooperative league of the six cities of Adab, Lagash, Umma, Uruk, Shuruppak, and Nippur during ED I and ED II; such alliances could obviate harmful interstate conflict over land and water resources. The sack of Shuruppak in early ED IIIa may signal a breakdown in the operation of such alliances—and it is in the years that followed that the bitter conflict between Umma and Lagash developed.
The Emergence of Empire
After 2500 b. c.e. there was a gradual shift in political perceptions. Individual kings of powerful states, particularly Lagash and Uruk, began to harbor territorial ambitions, culminating in Sargon's creation of the first empire, of Sumer and Akkad, an integrated state in which authority was centralized in his hands. His capital, Agade, was main beneficiary of the agricultural, industrial, and traded produce of the empire. In place of the old Sumerian kings Sargon and his successors appointed Akkadian governors to administer the individual city-states. Estates were settled on loyal supporters, and a substantial army played a large part in maintaining royal authority. In the northern parts of the empire, where political life had not previously been highly developed, this seems to have been successful, but frequent rebellions show how bitterly the loss of independence was resented by the traditional city-states of the south.
Nevertheless, when the Akkadian Empire collapsed the political situation did not return completely to the ED mosaic of small states, and larger political entities came and went. The imperial experiment was successfully repeated by the Ur III dynasty a century later and from then onward, sizeable territorial states were to be the norm, their extent and power depending on the strength and competence of individual rulers and dynasties. When a state's leaders lost their grip, there were usually other up-and-coming leaders ready to carve out a new state, often with a new center. The earlier second millennium saw the rise of competing states centered on Isin, Larsa, Babylon, and others, as well as lesser players like Eshnunna and Mari. With the emergence of Hammurabi's Babylonian Empire and the stability given later by the long-lived empire of the Kassites, Babylonia became an enduring political entity, although the environmentally and economically degraded south (Sealand) was at times either politically separate or disaffected. Northern Mesopotamia took longer to develop a political identity. Culturally linked to and following Babylonia from the start, Assyria enjoyed an uneasy schizophrenic relationship with its southern neighbor during the first millennium, culturally and spiritually its disciple, while politically often its master.
The Administration of Empire
The Akkadian and Ur III Empires. The organizational requirements of empire demanded a more complex bureaucracy than the ED oikos system. Sargon and his successors, particularly Naram-Sin, imposed a cadre of Akkadian provincial governors, known by the traditional title of ensi, to administrate the former city-states. Answering to the crown, the ensis' authority was backed by military garrisons. These governors visited Agade regularly to confer with the king, who also periodically visited the ensis in their provinces. Although temples continued to enjoy considerable power as the seat of the gods from whom monarchs derived their legitimacy, the Akkadian kings took steps to bring them more firmly under their own authority, creating or filling existing temple posts with their own appointees, often members of the royal family. Although the Akkadian kings built and embellished temples, they also seized opportunities to reduce temple estates and the independence of the temples. Nevertheless, there was not a complete break with tradition, the Akkadian kings maintaining the traditional roles and titles derived from control of Kish and Nippur.
Trade, taxation, tribute, and offerings provided substantial resources, but these were swelled by the booty derived from war. Defeated cities yielded not only material booty but also prisoners, who could be employed in public works, and land confiscated from defeated cities and their authorities, which was granted to loyal servants of the crown. Ensis were given estates to support them, located in provinces other than the one they governed in order to prevent the buildup of localized power. Military colonists were settled on expropriated land and contributed to the maintenance of Akkadian authority.
The Ur III kings elaborated the administrative legacy of their Akkadian precursors. Ur-Nammu and Shulgi created a bureaucracy of stifling efficiency, with a huge civil service obsessively recording the minutiae of taxes, tribute, and yields from state lands. In principle they upheld traditional Sumerian political organization, dividing Sumer and Akkad into twenty provinces that coincided largely with the main city-states and which were governed by ensis who belonged to the local elite. These ensis also controlled the local temples and their households, a major source of state revenue in agricultural produce and the products of industry. On the other hand, the Ur III kings imitated the Akkadians by appointing a military governor (shagina) alongside each ensi, drawn from the royal family or from nonlocal sources loyal to the crown. The names are known of more than a hundred princes and princesses, many holding civil or temple posts. The shaginas had responsibility not only for the armed forces stationed in the provinces but also for state dependents settled on crown land, and were independent of the ensi. From the time of Shulgi onward, the Ur III state maintained a standing army.
Although the Sumerian city-states resented their loss of independence, the Ur III kings created an ideology that helped win them support throughout Babylonia, claiming descent from Uruk's king Gilgamesh. They made much of their piety and role as divinely appointed protectors of the people and promoters of their well-being. They also followed tradition in adopting the system through which temples, and in particular, the temple of Enlil in Nippur, were supported by offerings (bala) paid on a rotating basis by the individual provinces: Although in principle destined to support the temple, these amounted to taxes. Huge state-run industrial complexes, particularly for making textiles, also contributed to the empire's economic prosperity.
Beyond the core of Sumer and Akkad there was no need for the Ur III kings to subscribe to traditional ideology; these regions, to the east and north, were ruled by military governors who were granted crown lands. They were liable for service and paid a tax (gun mada) from their produce—settlers on crown land had paid the same tax under the Akkadians.
Despite the Ur III state's economic efficiency and centralized bureaucratic control and the reverence felt for its kings, it eventually fell apart. No later Mesopotamian state attained its degree of control over its dominions.
Old Babylonian States. In the centuries that followed, the temples gained in power and authority, private entrepreneurship flourished, and many smaller states vied for power, many falling to Amorite sheikhs. In the Sumerian city-states the loyalties of the people and their rulers had long been to their city and its god. Among the nomadic peoples of the west, however, including the Amorites, tribal loyalties took priority over those of place. This for the first time produced states whose basis was ethnic instead of or as well as territorial. Ethnic ties also became a factor in international relations—between the families of Shamshi-Adad and Hammurabi, for example, who offered each other succor and support.
Shamshi-Adad consolidated his authority by ensuring that he was seen as the appointee of the local god in each of the city-states he conquered or controlled. He made his two sons viceroys for the major cities of Mari and Ekallatum, the capitals respectively of provinces on the Euphrates and the Tigris, and progressively extended the areas under their rule, retaining control of the region around his capital, Shubat-Enlil. The princes directly ruled the district surrounding their capitals, while a number of lesser officials administered outlying districts. Some districts were left in the hands of local rulers who had submitted to Shamshi-Adad, and peripheral regions exposed to hostile neighbors were run by military governors. Officials rose through the ranks of the bureaucracy and were regularly moved to prevent them establishing a local power base. The princes were responsible for the civil administration of their territories, although Shamshi-Adad retained supreme authority in political and military matters.
Private entrepreneurship, which had flourished in the more open political climate that succeeded the Ur III Empire, was progressively curbed by the authorities in the rising states, notably of Rim-Sin and Hammurabi. Formerly free agents often became bureaucrats in the new centralized regimes. Under Hammurabi, Babylon become the focus for the flow of wealth and the center of administration for the south, a position it held for more than a millennium. A tangible expression of this was the transfer of supreme divine authority from Enlil with his shrine at Nippur, to Babylon's god Marduk, henceforth the chief god of the Babylonian realm. Thus spiritual as well as secular authority now passed to Babylon. Hammurabi established a substantial royal bureaucracy to run his large and centralized realm. One of the mainstays of the state economy was the ilkum system, in which crown land was granted to individuals in return for military service. Archives at Sippar show that the king ruled here through an official who was not a native of the city and who had royal troops at his disposal. An army of officials assessed and collected taxes in grain and animals, or in silver from professionals like scribes and tavern keepers. Hammurabi kept a tight personal grip on the bureaucracy and the minutiae of government throughout his realm: He appointed temple officials and controlled royal workshops where textiles were made, and surviving texts include notes he sent to officials on matters such as tax arrears and the payment of ransoms. His successors were less able and the empire gradually disintegrated.
Kassites and Mitanni. After a hiatus following the sack of Babylon in 1595, a state centered on Babylon was reestablished by the Kassites, under whose stable rule a lasting empire was finally created. Unlike the dense pattern of city-states of the third millennium, Babylonia in the later second and first millennia (like Assyria) had few large urban centers, of which Babylon was by far the most important, surrounded by countryside with villages. Kassite Babylonia was divided into provinces run by a hierarchical bureaucracy that undertook public works, collected taxes, and issued rations to state dependents such as temple staff, guards, and craftsmen. The stelae known as kudurru (see photos pp. 94, 213) documenting land grants give details of rural taxes, which included agricultural produce and animals but also vehicles and donkeys for transport. Corvee labor was used to build and maintain bridges, roads, walls, and irrigation systems. Rural communities had also to provide pasture for the cattle of provincial bureaucrats, fodder for military animals, and billets for military personnel. The crown granted parcels of land to a wide variety of individuals, as a reward for military bravery or for other exceptional service. This introduced a new element that has been likened to feudalism, but such grants were ad hoc and exceptional, and often concerned land in sparsely occupied areas such as Sealand, where they served the purpose of colonizing and developing territory. Unlike a feudal system, moreover, the grant of land did not give the recipient control over the people living there.
In earlier periods, parts of the geographically far less united north were at times incorporated into adjacent states, such as the Ur III Empire, but only briefly, under Shamshi-Adad, was most of it unified into a larger polity. Some time after the latter disintegrated, however, the whole north saw the development of the huge Mitanni state. Its political organization was a pyramidal hierarchy: All land belonged to the king, now the supreme secular authority with no ideology of responsibility to the gods. He awarded authority over it to vassals, who in return provided troops and served the state in other ways; these vassals in turn controlled lesser rulers. At the empire's height Mitanni's vassals included Alalakh in the northern Levant, Kizzuwatna in the northwest (which later transferred its allegiance to the Hittites), Assyria, and Arrapha in the east. The extensive archives from the provincial town of Nuzi, subject to Arrapha, shed light on local government under Mitanni rule (see section entitled "Local Government"). The vassal states were clearly required to act subordinately: When the Assyrian king sent an independent embassy to Egypt, the Mitanni king sacked Assur.
The Neo-Assyrians and Neo-Babylonians. The Assyrians gained their revenge when Mitanni crumbled in the mid-fourteenth century. From then until 612 B. C.E., Assyria became the dominant force in northern Mesopotamia, owing largely to their army, a professional and effective force that was also in the forefront of technological progress. Successive strong kings pushed the frontiers of the state ever outward, although it often shrank again under weaker rulers. Within Assyria proper—mat asshur, "the Land of Ashur," which stretched as far west as the Euphrates valley—the crown made grants of land to dependents in return for a proportion of their produce, corvee labor, and military service as irregulars, continuing the ancient ilkum system. Militarism underlay the whole state, most officials holding both civil and military posts and every man being obliged to serve in the army if required, and the king was also the commander in chief. The Assyrian state enjoyed a simpler structure than the Mitanni hierarchy, all landowners being responsible directly to the king, who, as in former times, was answerable to the gods, especially Ashur. Through time, power was transferred away from the traditional landowning elite; as the crown gained control of an increasing proportion of the land, it granted estates to bureaucrats and generals. The ancient bala system was employed to provision temples, and especially that of Ashur: Offerings were made in turn by regions throughout the empire.
In the conquered lands beyond, vassal kingdoms were ruled by governors (shaknu) drawn from local dynasties or prominent local families. They paid tribute (often enormous quantities) to their Assyrian overlords and acted in concert with them. Much of the wealth from provincial tribute was used to create and embellish new Assyrian capitals. Kalhu, built by Ashurnasirpal, was established with a population of 16,000. Its construction involved not only huge resources but also the labor of 7,000 people for three years. Later capitals, Dur Sharrukin and Nineveh, also tied up vast material and human resources. The royal court and central administration were also supported largely out of tribute.
In the ninth century the Assyrians began to establish military outposts in conquered territory, supported by local taxes. These became administrative centers, developing into regional capitals. It was not until the eighth century under Tiglath-Pileser III that the Assyrians actually began to take the administration of the greater empire into their own hands, dividing the conquered ter-
Detail of a relief in Sennacherib’s palace in Nineveh, depicting the siege of the Judaean city of Lachish in the year 701 B. C.E. Rebellion against the Assyrian state was savagely punished. (Zev Radovan/Land of the Bible Picture Archive)
Ritories into provinces under Assyrian governors instead of local rulers. The changeover occurred gradually, vassal states passing into direct rule when they rebelled.
Military force backed bureaucratic authority, and Assyrian actions were seen as the will of Ashur. The highest officials were the majordomo (rab sha muhhi ekalli), who had direct access to the king, the vice-chancellor (ummanu), who acted as the king's scribe, and two field marshalls (turtannu), who could deputize for the king on the battlefield. Other high-ranking courtiers, who also held senior military offices, included the cupbearer (rab shaqe), the steward (abarakku), and the palace herald (nagir ekalli).
High court officials held the governorships of provinces, and lesser provinces were ruled by less senior officials. A provincial governor maintained his own court and was backed by a standing army. The province was regarded as his private estate, and the office often passed from father to son: a temptation to extortion or the exercise of independent rule. Nevertheless, provincial governors were generally honest, loyal, and conscientious. Bureaucrats were frequently illiterate, but there were many scribes attached to the administration, who wielded considerable power. Important bureaucrats were often eunuchs, enjoying particular trust because they could not entertain dynastic ambitions. Although most officials were Assyrians, foreigners in principle could also become part of the bureaucracy.
Under Neo-Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian kings, the temple became an integrated part of the political structure. Endowed by the king with substantial lands confiscated from rebellious individuals, the temples were given a considerable measure of responsibility for their local community, temple officials acting as local judges and presiding over district assemblies. They collected tithes from the citizens of their districts and paid a proportion of these to the crown. They also had to provide labor and resources as the palace required, for example pasturing royal herds and provisioning royal officials. Temple accounts and activities were open to scrutiny by royal officials.
The Assyrians increased agricultural productivity, founding new settlements and estates in both the Assyrian heartland and the provinces, under Assyrian generals and senior bureaucrats, and using deportees as labor. Conquered peoples also made up an increasingly large proportion of the armed forces, a circumstance that by weakening loyalty to the regime contributed to its eventual downfall. Another factor was the imbalance between the center and the provinces: The latter were drained of manpower and resources to aggrandize the former, causing economic depression.
Among the Assyrian provinces, Babylonia was a special case. Assyria needed peace along its southern frontier, and periodic hostility had to be dealt with. For several long periods, Babylonia was under Assyrian control, but the respect felt by the Assyrians for the elder state meant that it was not treated as a conquered land and not administered as an ordinary province. Instead the two realms were united, and Babylonia came directly under royal control, although the actual administration could be delegated to a royal chief minister. When Babylonia attempted to throw off Assyrian rule, it was not subjected to the brutal treatment usually meted out to insubordinate regions. Sennacherib's aberrant behavior in sacking Babylon was widely viewed as hubristic. He swiftly paid the price of his impiety, and his son Esarhaddon lost little time before attempting to restore the city. When Assyria fell in the reign of Esarhaddon's grandson, Babylonia was swift to seize control of the whole empire.
Local Government. In general, a king's influence on the life of the individual depended on the strength of the monarch and his authority: Strong kings could make demands upon their subjects' resources and labors, through taxation, military service, the appropriation of land, and the resettlement of people, whereas weak kings might make little impact on life.
Although political, economic, and military matters were controlled by the king and his officials, many aspects of civil life were governed by local bodies. In the countryside and particularly in the less urbanized north, villages governed themselves through village councils, under a local headman. Towns were governed by assemblies (Sumerian unken, Akkadian puhrum) probably composed of all free adult males, although some legal documents suggest that women might also have been included at times. Some matters were dealt with by an inner council of leading citizens or elders {skibutum). Cities, being larger, were divided into wards (babtum), each with their own assembly or council. These could issue warnings and convene hearings on local matters such as the unsatifactory condition of buildings or the unacceptable behavior of domestic animals; they monitored the movement of strangers in the neighborhood, checked local morals, and made good losses sustained through robbery if the thief was not apprehended. They also dealt with cases in civil law, such as divorce and inheritance disputes {see chapter 6).
Professional associations also administered their own affairs. Many cities had a separate trading quarter (karum) where merchants could set up their offices, often outside the city walls and usually legally and administratively independent although sanctioned by the state government. The archives at Kanesh in Anatolia provide a picture of the running of a major Assyrian trading station. Karum Kanesh was the organizational center to which merchants in other Assyrian trading stations were answerable. The "lords and fathers" here passed on orders from head office in Assur, collected the taxes and duties payable to the local ruler, arbitrated in disputes, and took other decisions; when appropriate they could convene an assembly of the whole karum, where decisions were taken by majority vote. Back home in Assur, although the city-state was under the ultimate authority of the ruler {waklum—"overseer"—a post held by a member of one leading family), many decisions were taken by the council of city elders or the larger city assembly.
Within the tribal society of the nomad groups, the organization was kin-based, each tribe {known as Bitu—"house") having a hierarchy under the authority of its tribal sheikh. When tribal groups such as the Amorites, Aramaeans, and Chaldaeans gained control of substantial areas, these were divided into tribal territories where this organization held sway—such as Bit Yakin from which came the dynasty of Chaldaean kings of Babylon. Village communities also had stronger kinship ties than city dwellers.
Considerable information on local government comes from the archives at Nuzi, a town in the province of Arrapha, whose king was a vassal of Mitanni. One of his queens resided in Nuzi as his representative, and the town maintained her household out of local taxation. Local government in the town and its hinterland was run by the mayor (kazannu) who, along with other officials, resided in the government house {ekallu). The center of local administration, this contained archives, storerooms, and offices as well as public reception rooms. The mayor was responsible for ensuring the military security of the town and its surrounding area: The Assyrians eventually sacked the town, and the administrative texts record the mustering, equipping, and provisioning of troops in the town's final days. The bureaucratic records also detail the taxes collected by the town to support the infrastructure and personnel of local government, including the army and the town's temples, and for payment to the king in Arrapha: These included finished goods and agricultural produce as well as labor and military service.
Some centuries earlier, in the northern Babylonian city of Sippar, documents refer to hazannu as the official representing a ward of the city, whereas the mayor was known as rabianum, an office particularly concerned with legal matters and held for a relatively short period, perhaps a year. The state administration was involved in public works such as the maintenance of irrigation facilities, but the responsibility was shared by the city authorities—the assembly (known as "the city") led by its chairman (gal. ukken. nal), the rabianum, hazannu and other officials. Local affairs, such as leasing local property and maintaining law and order, the courts, and sanitation, were also in the purview of the local authorities.
Royal Propaganda
The universally recognized role of the king was to ensure the welfare of his subjects, defending them against external threats; promoting prosperity through appropriate construction projects (particularly of irrigation systems), good management of land and resources, and the encouragement and sponsorship of trade and industry; supporting justice; and caring for the most vulnerable members of society such as orphans and widows. To this end some kings issued an edict (misharum) cancelling outstanding debts. Many kings also fixed wages and prices and standardized weights and measures. Kings also had important ritual duties, representing the community in making offerings, and in some cities, notably Uruk, taking part in a sacred marriage with the goddess.
In their inscriptions, kings informed the gods of their pious, appropriate, and successful activities following divine wishes; they also addressed future monarchs, offering themselves as models of righteous behavior, and the public at various levels. Royal inscriptions began in ED times with simple dedications of objects or structures by a named monarch to a deity, but by late ED times had developed into considerable narrative descriptions. Royal propaganda grew progressively more detailed, eulogizing the military and civil achievements of the king. By early Neo-Assyrian times, substantial records were created as texts and inscriptions, giving full details of campaigns and other achievements. The great reliefs on the walls of the Assyrian palaces provided a particularly vivid visual message: reassuring citizens of the power and piety of their ruler and the effectiveness of their army, and striking terror into the hearts of visiting foreigners. Those without direct access to the message—for example villagers—eventually became party to it through hearsay and gossip. Thus the ordinary citizen gained confidence in the divinely supported actions of the monarch. Like all propaganda, however, what the kings claimed was not always true.
Success was in itself indicative of legitimacy and divine approval. Nevertheless, royal inscriptions might offer an apologia for unorthodox actions: for example, usurpation justified by emphasizing the misdeeds of the deposed ruler and the need to restore the status quo. Often stories from history were reworked to give the sanction of tradition to a king's present actions.
International Relations
Foreign lands were often a source of desirable materials, which could be obtained either by diplomacy and trading, or by aggression. Both strategies were variously employed by Mesopotamian states, depending on the nature of the players with whom they had to deal. Other lands could also be the source of aggression, whether raids by tribal groups or full-blown invasions by hostile states, or they might become allies against the aggression of third parties.
Traders and ambassadors played a key role in articulating international relations. The economic and political importance of their activities made it expedient for rulers to protect messengers and merchants traveling through their domains; where the local leader, whether settled king or tribal sheikh, could not maintain law and order, travelers were at risk from highwaymen or hostile natives. A messenger might therefore be a military man, furnished with a fast horse by the first millennium, and accompanied by an armed escort. The NeoAssyrian kings built royal highways with way stations to expedite the movement of couriers throughout their lands. Rulers often issued their messengers with a passport valid for a particular mission: This prevented local red tape impeding his journey, although it did not guarantee safe passage beyond the messenger's own state. However, a reciprocal arrangement developed between states that wished to engage in diplomatic activity, the envoy being furnished with an escort by the state to whom he was sent; failure to supply such an escort was a strongly hostile sign.
Particular events might encourage an exchange of messengers, for instance expressing good wishes for a monarch's recovery from ill health or congratulations on a victory. Envoys (mar shipri) bore written messages, although they were often illiterate themselves. A senior envoy, a relative or close confidante of the king, might also be empowered to conduct oral negotiations. Although envoys were often treated well and generously entertained, they were at the mercy of the ruler to whom they were sent and could be visited with the displeasure or hostility he felt toward their masters or held as hostages.
Good relations were promoted and maintained by the exchange of gifts and by treaties negotiated orally or by letter and ratified by solemn oaths, whose breaking would call down devastating divine retribution. Their terms might include a commitment not to aid each other's enemies, agreements to repatriate runaways, and arrangements to support and protect merchants. Despite superficially good relations underwritten by treaties, there were often undercurrents of suspicion or friction between states, and diplomats were expected to keep their eyes and ears open as spies for their own ruler. Although treaties were often sealed by royal marriages, hostages might also be taken to encourage the honoring of commitments. Fugitive princes from overthrown regimes might also be kept as political pawns, to be used as a threat to keep the current monarch in line or installed as a puppet ruler. Failure to return such rival claimants to the throne, on the other hand, was a hostile gesture and could be a source of prolonged friction.
World History
