The shift from commercial to agricultural activities, alongside the conquests and the expansion of the Middle Assyrian state, led to the formation of a class of wealthy landowners. These individuals received lands through royal grants, and belonged to the military and administrative aristocracy. Fortunately, we possess some of these royal land grants, which were very similar to those described for the Hittite kingdom and Syria, and those attested in Kassite Babylonia. Royal grants were part of a mechanism typical of the Late Bronze Age. Apart from these grants, lands were freely sold, without any royal intervention to reduce the debts incurred by farmers. Consequently, we still encounter in the evidence debt slaves or farmers who gave up wives and daughters as slaves.
The population was divided into three categories: palace functionaries, ‘free’ (hupsu) village farmers, and owners of lands allocated by the king. Even the Assyrian army had members from all three categories, who held various titles relating to their ownership of land, or other means of sustenance. The class of free farmers, however, was in the process of becoming a secondary class. This class was afflicted by economic difficulties and debt slavery. The latter was progressively becoming a type of slavery connected to a specific land. Individuals receiving royal land grants belonged to the elite, a class closely linked to the palace, but able to personally manage royal lands. This was unlike lower ranking palace officials, who were not as privileged. Consequently, the elite was able to access those military and administrative roles in the provinces offered by the rising empire.
The palace was the heart of Middle Assyrian society. It was a large building with an equally large staff, but had a more restricted role compared to elsewhere in the Near East. The palace was simply a royal residence that had eventually expanded. From the instruction texts written to provide guidance on the internal management of the palace, and in particular of its harem, we gather a relatively unpleasant picture of life in the palace (Text 20.3a). The latter appears as a sort of prison, in which its residents, such as women and servants, were kept under constant control by a network of guards and informers. However, the accusation of individuals constituted an equally serious offence as the one perpetrated by the offenders. Eunuchs became typical functionaries of the Assyrian palace, both for their efficiency in managing the harem, and their close dependence and loyalty to the king.
Comparing Middle Assyrian instruction texts, which are attested from the reigns of Ashur-uballit to Tiglath-pileser I (who collected them), to the earlier Hittite ones, we note two completely different situations. Middle Assyrian society was extremely close, while Hittite society was much more open. However, they both emphasised personal relations of loyalty, which held the entire political system together. The instructions were called riksu (‘bond’), a term that was also used in the establishment of a state as one’s vassal, and both situations were sealed through an oath (mamltu).
A broader, yet incomplete, picture of Middle Assyrian society can be found in a collection of laws whose final edition was probably written in the reign of Tiglath-pileser I (just like the collection of edicts), although it was originally from the fourteenth to the thirteenth centuries bc. This collection is quite different from the Old Babylonian ones. Despite the fact that it was also written, copied and stored in the palace, the collection was not part of a royal edict. It lacked the standard prologue and epilogue, and the propagandistic or celebratory tone. Moreover, each law lacked that desire to regulate socio-economic relations, which was typical of the Old Babylonian period, but was now completely unsuitable for the conceptualisation and administration of power.
The Middle Assyrian Laws did not have price lists or measures to alleviate economic difficulties or liberate debt slaves. Therefore, the overall aim of these laws remains unclear. Since they were not celebratory in an obvious way, they could have been more normative, yet not necessary innovative, measures. It is possible that, having seen the Old Babylonian codes, Middle Assyrian scribes decided to develop an Assyrian code. However, they clearly misunderstood the implications of the Old Babylonian codes, which were rooted in a completely different ideology of kingship.
The Middle Assyrian Laws are mainly concerned with civil penal law, with a particular attention to the behaviour of women (Text 20.3b). The resulting picture is quite crude. The patriarchal structure of Middle Assyrian society was very imposing and centred on the absolute subordination of women to men (first the father and then the husband). Punishments were cruel, ranging from the frequent executions to the widespread practice of mutilations, beatings and forced labour, while payments were rarely required. Equally crude was the list of possible crimes (especially sexual abuse) and the frequent violence. It has been often believed that this picture is a good reflection of the aggressive and military nature of Middle Assyrian society. In this regard, it has to be pointed out that this same insistence on physical and humiliating punishments is also attested in the way the Assyrians treated the enemies they defeated in battle.
World History
