The discovery of the administrative and epistolary archives in the royal palace of Mari has thrown some light on a region and period previously unknown to us. The archives cover a period of three generations in the first half of the eighteenth century bc. Mari’s critical position between the Mesopotamian alluvial plain and the west, and its role as an outpost and necessary stop in the journey from Mesopotamia to northern Syria has already been mentioned in the previous chapters (Figure 13.1). In the south, the alluvial plain and its irrigation system enabled the development of an agricultural and densely populated area. In the north, rainfall levels allowed the practice of rainfed agriculture. The Middle Euphrates constituted a sort of corridor linking these two areas, locked between a fertile valley on one side and a semi-arid plateau on the other. This area was characterised by seasonal farming and nomadic settlements in the winter and the spring.
...... Main kingdoms of the time of Zimri-Lim
-Maximum extension of Shamshi-Adad's kingdom
Sutu Nomadic tribes
ISippar
Figure 13.1 Map of Upper Mesopotamia in the Mari Age.
The region of Mari was therefore characterised by the close contact and intersection of two contrasting elements, which, for convenience, we will define as nomadic and sedentary. These represent, respectively, the political and organisational structures of the tribe and the palace. In the past, the relation between these two elements has been analysed in terms of their respective anteriority and posteriority, mobility and stability, and aggressive and defensive attitudes. These interpretations were influenced by the partiality of the available documentation, which was written by sedentary scribes, and of the scholars who unintentionally took on this biased point of view. In this way, they consolidated the stereotype of the nomads as uncivilised, aggressive and unstable groups. However, a more anthropological approach has restored the subjective nature of the points of view attested and the diversity and complementarity of these two different lifestyles.
Another misinterpretation was the idea that the presence of pastoral groups in the Middle Euphrates was one of the steps in the wider migration of Semitic people from their ‘primitive seat’ to their final destination in the Mesopotamian alluvial plain. Consequently, their semi-nomadic lifestyle was interpreted as an intermediary stage in their transition from nomadism to sedentariness. These misinterpretations, which varied between the drastic and naive to more elaborate and balanced approaches, have survived for a long time. They therefore prevented a full understanding of this semi-nomadic lifestyle, with its transhumant farming and village agriculture, as a characteristic and perfectly suitable lifestyle for the area.
The view that sees mobile groups of nomads as new arrivals in the pre-existent world of the sedentary palaces is also untenable. If there was a secondary and intrusive element in the Middle Euphrates, this was certainly the palace. In reality, both these organisational and economic structures developed alongside each other and influenced one another. Moreover, although the development of palatial states is better documented, tribal groups also experienced an evolution, partly as a response to the evolution of the palaces.
On the issue of aggressiveness, the ancient and modern stereotype of the aggressive nomad has to be reconsidered. In this view, nomads were more dedicated to plundering than to a productive economy and were motivated by the desire to steal the wealth accumulated by the farming communities thus forced to defend themselves. In reality, both economies were focused on production. They both needed the ‘other’ element and this inevitably led to conflicts over the exploitation of the same territories. There certainly was a degree of nomadic aggression against the palaces. However, the opposite was also present, constituting an attempt to subdue pastoral groups and employ them as an additional workforce or in the military.
In terms of mobility, it is clear that the movements of pastoral groups were not an unplanned wandering in search for food. These movements were the concrete expression in space of their transhumant economy. However, there was also a mobility of the palace. From a structural point of view, palaces depended on various networks that relied on mobility, from communication, to trade and the military. From a diachronic point of view, both the construction of new palaces and political changes required painful modifications of earlier consolidated models for the utilisation of the land.
In the Middle Bronze Age, the pastoral groups of the Middle Euphrates and the Khabur Valley were predominantly Amorite. They were a relatively new presence in the area, substituting previous Eblaite and Akkadian groups. The latter lived in similar conditions and developed a similar economy, based on the farming of sheep and goats, as well as agriculture. Farming included ‘horizontal’ movements between summer pastures located in the fertile valleys (the ah Purattim, namely, the ‘Euphrates Valley’) and winter pastures in the semi-arid plateau (the matum elltum, ‘Upper Land’). Only one part of the pastoral group (nawum) moved on a seasonal basis, the rest remained in the villages located in the valley to cultivate the lands. Therefore, there was a typically ‘dimorphic’ situation, with higher concentrations of people in the summer and lower ones in the winter. The agricultural cycle worked well with the pastoral cycle. The main crops (cereals) were cultivated in winter, allowing fields to be used as pastureland in the summer. Moreover, not all of the land was cultivated, since fields were rotated on a biennial basis. If necessary, groups could move over longer distances, especially towards the north (Upper Khabur), or the west (northern Syria).
The political organisation of these groups was centred on a kin-based structure, with several types of sub-groups, from smaller kin-based groups (the pastoral camp or migratory group) to the tribe and the tribal confederation. Until recently, it was believed that there were three tribal confederations within the kingdom of Mari: the Haneans, who were the ones most integrated with the palace, followed by the Benjaminites and the Sutians. However, Jean-Marie Durand and Dominique Charpin have shown that the term ‘Haneans’, which gave the name to the homonymous region (Hana), indicated nomads in general. Apart from the more mobile and detached character of the Sutians, who gravitated towards Syria, the two tribal groups of the kingdom of Mari were the Banu-Yamina (Benjaminites), ‘sons of the right’ (that is, the south) and the Banu-Sim’al, ‘sons of the left’ (that is, the north). Their names referred to their geographic position in relation to the rising sun. Since the ruling dynasty was of Sim’alite origins, the submission of the Benjaminites seems to have been a difficult task, causing several wars.
Tribes and smaller kin-based groups were normally centred in villages acting as permanent bases. They had their own leaders, whose titles were extraneous to Akkadian and its palatial structure (such as the sugagum and other names). These leaders were military leaders as well as political representatives of the tribes before the palace, which considered these leaders as some sort of local functionaries. The palace provided them with a sort of investiture or formal recognition, requiring the exchange of gifts and payments. Palaces therefore constituted the other side of this complex structure (Figure 13.2). Along the Euphrates
Figure 13.2 Royal palace of Mari: plan and reconstruction.
And the Khabur there was a whole network of walled cities with temples and palaces. These cities were part of a hierarchical system. Some cities had independent rulers, while others were governed by local functionaries. This hierarchy changed over time. The period attested in the Mari archives features the alternating supremacy of Mari and Shubat-Enlil (Tell Leilan). The former controlled the Middle Euphrates and the Lower Khabur region. The latter controlled Assyria and the Upper Khabur region and was chosen by Shamshi-Adad as his own residence.
Following the Mesopotamian model, royal palaces were the seat of the royal administration, with scribes acting as administrators in a variety of sectors. Functionaries appointed by the ruling kings governed the provincial palaces. These provincial palaces had a much more limited bureaucratic structure. Nonetheless, the latter included all functions needed for the correct administration of the city. In the Mari sphere of influence, there were the provincial palaces of Terqa (Tell Ashara), Saggaratum, Qattunan and Tuttul (Tell Bi’a), while in the one of Shubat-Enlil there were Shaghar Bazar and Karana (Tell Rimah). The political structure of all kingdoms belonging to the Amorite cultural sphere, which extended from Syria to Elam, was therefore based on two main components. On the one hand, there was the city with its palace and agricultural fields (mamlakatum). On the other, there was the tribal group with its wider presence in the region (nawum). Royal titles such as ‘king of Mari and Hana’, or ‘king of Tuttul and Amnanum’ are a clear indication of this double component. The latter is also attested in the Sumerian south in the title of ‘king of Uruk and Amnanum’.
The economy of the palaces was partly based on the agricultural activities in the fertile valleys. These were limited, but still able to support the small palaces. Moreover, palaces could rely on taxes on sheep farmed by the tribes and on the north-to-south and east-to-west commercial networks that had to cross this strategic region. The lands directly managed by the palace were not vast compared to their Mesopotamian counterparts. A large share of the surplus was therefore gathered through taxes levied on villages and pastoral groups. Due to its proximity to raw materials, such as wood and metal from Syria and Anatolia, the quality of craftsmanship continued to be as high as the one from Mesopotamia.
Unlike in Mesopotamia, however, life in the palaces of the region seems to have been marked by a scarcity of human, technological and economic resources. This problem is attested in the numerous letters written by royal functionaries and their colleagues in the provincial palaces. In these letters, the functionaries complain about the lack of specialised workforce. They therefore tried to organise the transfer of both specialised and non-specialised workers from one palace to the other and to cope with a wide range of needs (which were difficult to take care of in a stable manner) through the re-organisation of what was available. The situation became significantly worse at the time of Shamshi-Adad. In fact, the construction of his palace at Shubat-Enlil required large amounts of resources. Consequently, the older palaces of Mari and Ashur had to provide parts of their workforce and expertise, worsening a situation that was already unstable.
Another problem was the state of constant conflict caused by the expansionistic ambitions of several kings ruling at the time: from Yahdun-Lim of Mari to Naram-Sin of Eshnunna, Shamshi-Adad of Assyria and Hammurabi of Babylon. In order to pursue these wars, kings relied on copious numbers of tribal troops. Therefore, far from fearing the arrival of nomadic groups, as previously believed, palaces eagerly encouraged their arrival in order to form an army large enough to cope with their various offensive or defensive undertakings. Wars were fought in summer, which was the only season when roads were accessible and food resources were available from the late spring harvests. Just like there was a seasonal complementarity between transhumant farming and agriculture, so there was one between farming and wars. For both agricultural and military needs, the late arrival and reunion of pastoral groups in the valleys caused palaces a great deal of anxiety, often forcing them to resort to several constrictive measures.
The coexistence of two economic and political systems with different characteristics and needs in the same area was based on this territorial and seasonal complementarity. The strategies used by these two systems, however, remained inherently different. The tribe used a more flexible strategy, characterised by a slow pace of development, large territories and a more traditional technical knowledge. Therefore, it produced little surplus in terms of resources, since its main asset was the ownership of herds. However, it still managed to remain safe from sudden crises. On the contrary, the strategy of the palace was much more fast-paced. The palace focused on the effective use of time and space, the over-exploitation of technical and administrative competences and the recruitment (at times even forced) of labour for urban and military endeavours. The palace was also dedicated to the accumulation of surplus to finance the production of luxury products, the maintenance of palatial culture and the exchange of prestigious gifts. In other words, palaces required as much as possible from their territories — a situation that was bearable in favourable times, but that could also cause drastic crises in difficult periods.
It is highly likely that the situation was further worsened by the palaces’ introduction of summer cultivations (such as sesame). The latter effectively took away fields formerly used as pastureland. Moreover, the building programs and wars undertaken by the palaces were occasional, yet equally aggravating, initiatives. The economy of the Middle Euphrates could not bear this growing pressure. However, this situation did not affect pastoral groups, which managed to return to their former rhythms. It affected the palaces, which collapsed one after the other, for a variety of reasons. Hammurabi destroyed Mari, while Shubat-Enlil was significantly reduced after Shamshi-Adad’s reign. Having kept Mari’s legacy alive for a short while, even Terqa suddenly collapsed and so did Tuttul. Around 1800—1750 bc, the Middle Euphrates Valley and the Lower Khabur had been a large network of thriving palaces. However, only a century later, the area became a de-urbanised region. It began to be ruled by pastoral groups that were hindering commercial activities, but could not be conquered by the sedentary states, now located increasingly further away from this region.
World History
