Anthropology: Ancient Civilization: Response Paper: Trade; Emerging Complexity in Mesoamerica
Description
In Lecture 7, we discussed about trade in Mesopotamia, especially the Gulf trade. From the reading, Pulak (1998) discusses another trade route in the eastern of Mediterranean Sea. Both illustrate the importance of trade in the development of complex cultures in Mesopotamia. For this assignment, compare these two routes of trade using archaeological evidence. (1) What was the structure of the long-distance trade? That is, who carried what from where to where and how did they carry it? (2) How do we, as archaeologists, detect this long-distance trade? That is, what is the evidence that this process occurred? (3) What was the importance of this long-distance trade to the development or maintenance of the society at one end of the trade route or the other? That is, how did it support the social and/or political structure of that society?
Review: The Old Assyrian Colonies in AnatoliaReviewed Work(s):Assyrian Colonies in Cappadocia by Louis L. OrlinMogens Trolle LarsenJournal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 94, No. 4. (Oct. – Dec., 1974), pp. 468-475.Stable URL:http://links.jstor.org/sici?sici=0003-0279%28197410%2F12%2994%3A4%3C468%3ATOACIA%3E2.0.CO%3B2-FJournal of the American Oriental Society is currently published by American Oriental Society.Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/about/terms.html. JSTOR’s Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unless you have obtainedprior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and you may use content inthe JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/journals/aos.html.Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is an independent not-for-profit organization dedicated to and preserving a digital archive of scholarly journals. Formore information regarding JSTOR, please contact [email protected]://www.jstor.orgSun Apr 1 22:25:22 2007REVIEW ARTICLETHE OLD ASSYRIAN COLONIES IN ANATOLIA1This review article attempts to give an outline of the present state of knowledge regardingthe Old Assyrian trade colonies in Anatolia in the beginning of the second millennium B.C.By showing that the economically decisive element in the Old Assyrian society is not foundon the “state level” it becomes apparent that the Old Assyrian commercial penetrationinto Anatolia was not based on military expansion. This is corroborated by a discussionof provisions laid down in treaties and agreements between the Assyrian traders and thelocal rulers.THESTUDY OF THE TEXTS which have been discoveredin the ruins of the Assyrian colonies incentral Anatolia-today numbering ca. 3000published and perhaps more than 15.000 unpublisheddocuments-was begun shortly after1880 when the first few tablets appeared in Europe;but one must say that the research goingon now has its roots in the basic contributions ofLandsberger and J. Lewy from the twenties of thiscentury. These two scholars formulated the twotheories concerning the background for the Assyrianpresence in Anatolia, ideas which havedominated a large part of the studies in the fieldfor many years. In his still basic booklet from1925, Assyrische Handelskolonien i n Kleinasienaus dem dritten Jahrtausend, Landsberger claimedthat the Old Assyrian colonies were evidence ofa purely commercial penetration which was notbased on a military conquest or a political domination;for comparative material he referred tothe Genoese and Venetian colonies in Byzantiumand the towns of the Levant. In a series of articlesJ. Lewy instead explained the colonies aselements in what he called “das alt-assyrischeGrossreich,” an empire which was based on amilitary expansion and which included such institutionsas governors installed in Kanesh and asystem of vassal kingdoms in the Anatolian area.It is sad that the latter theory came to take upso much time and energy; the subject was notReview article of LOUISL . ORLIN’SA,ssyrian Coloniesin Cappadocia, 1970, Mouton, the Hague-Paris; 272 pages,1 map. F1. 64.discussed in a comprehensive way in the followingyears, although the appearance of new evidencenow and then gave rise to discussions and certainrevisions. It seems fair to say that the very fewtexts which contribute directly and expressly tothe elucidation of the problem were often discussedin isolation so that the questions asked, andsometimes answered, were not always particularlymeaningful. These discussions could not lead muchfurther unless the political questions were viewedon the background of the economic aspects of theOA penetration of Anatolia. After all, practicallyevery single tablet was directly concerned withthe various complicated aspects of the Assyriancommerce, and one may say briefly that when itwas known in some detail just what the Assyrianswere doing in Anatolia, it should be possible totackle the other problems in a more adequateway. Unfortunately, there was a fundamentaldisagreement between Lewy and Landsberger alsoon this point: Lewy claimed that the Assyriansbrought lead to Anatolia for the extraction ofsilver, Landsberger that the metal was tin, meantfor the production of bronze.A turning-point came in 1963 with the publicationof Garelli’s book Les Assyriens en Cappadoceand with it ended the discussion outlined. Garelli’saim was to discuss the theories concerning thepolitical relations between Assyrians and Anatolianson the background of a synthetic view of theOld Assyrian society in Anatolia; so whereas hediscussed practically all aspects of the economicand commercial system, his main concern was adefinition of the Old Assyrian “colonialism.” InLARSEN:A ssyrian Colonies in Anatolia 469a way he can be said to have offered a third interpretation,for although he rejected Lewy’s idea ofa proper empire he stressed the point that theAssyrians in their dealings with the local kingswere inspired by what he termed a “volont6 dominatricefond6e sur l’expansion commerciale.”It is somewhat surprising to find that a bookpublished in 1970 should be dedicated to an investigationof the two old theories, and one wonderswhether it can bring anything new. It istrue that Garelli’s treatment of some aspects cannotbe said to be definitive and a number of hisconclusions-specifically concerning the chronologicalissues-are in need of modification; butOrlin’s book does not establish a definite advanceover Les Assyriens en Cappadoce on many pointsrather,it represents a new examination in detailof the same textual repertoire and the resultsreached arc nearly identical. Rloreover, Orlin’sbook does not build on the results reached byGarelli whose contributions are referred to infootnotes only. This is in part due to the rathersad story of the manuscript which is told in thepreface; it served as a doctoral thesis as early as1960, was accepted by the publisher in 1963 shortlybefore Garelli’s book was published, was then apparentlyreworked and finally delivered to theprinter in 1965-since when it was “in the press”for five years. One can sympathize wit11 theauthor and understand his decision to have themanuscript printed in virtually unchanged formin spite of the existence of Les dssyriens en Cappadoce,but it seems to me that we would all havegained from a careful and comprehensive revisionof the original manuscript in the light of Garelli’sIn particular, it is a pity that Orlin’swork is not on the same level of philological competenceas Garelli’s. One does find some theoreticalpolitical and sociological material in Orlin’stext, but it seems to me that the results are rathertraditional in character, and at the same time heneglects the historical parallels with the MedievalItalian city-states which are at least briefly mentionedin Garelli’s book. Nevertheless, the bookis in many ways stimulating and it deals withproblems which are of obvious importance.“hat the various revisions since 1960 have not beencarried very far appears for instance from the remarkon p. 129, note 58, where a statement in the text ismodified as follows: “Add now ATHE, 66: 9-13, whichappeared in 1960, after my original study.”When the Old Assyrian colonial system is regardedfrom the point of view of economic historyone can make a few basic observations. First,like all primitive long-distance trade the Old Assyriancommercial penetration of Asia Minor wascharacterized by venturing, i.e. all shipments weresent abroad without the sender being guaranteeda certain price for them in advance. Secondly,the colonies created a quite sophisticated contextfor the international commerce, and the underlyingpattern of permanent representation, partnerships,and “factories” served to reduce the risks involved;stocks of goods could be established and the localmarket abroad could be watched so that sale andpurchase could be carried out at the most profitabletime. We are indeed quite far from the systemof itinerant traders which is known from otherperiods in the history of the area.3Our texts clearly indicate that the economicallydecisive element in the Assyrian society is notfound on the “state level,” even though the roleplayed by the temples is still somewhat obscure.Instead, the trade is clearly organized via a greatnumber of large kinship-based groups, called“houses,” which we may provisionally describe asfirm^.”^ In this-as well as in many other details-the Old Assyrian texts bring us close to theevidence from both the Italian cities and theGeniza texts; the predominance of the family mayin fact be a feature which is closely linked withthe recurrent pattern of city-states and commercialcolonies and long-distance trade.5 TheOld Assyrian firms have never been adequatelystudied so we do not know how many there wereor how they were organized and on which levelsThe relevance of the OA material for general economichistory will be seen by anyone who reads J. Iiicks, ATheory of Economic History, Oxford 1969; according toHicks city states and colonies represent the “First Phaseof the Mercantile Economy,” and even though he doesnot incorporate the OA material it is clear that it is ofconsiderable interest for his theories.The expressions bifum, bit PN, and bif abim have notbeen correctly treated in the two new dictionaries; allthree terms can be given any of the translations: “house,”“household,” “family,” and “firm.”Cf. F. C. Lane, “Family Partnerships and JointVentures in the Venetian Republic,” Journal of EconomicHistory 4, 1944, especially p. 178; also S. D. Goitein,“Commercial and Family Partnerships in the Countriesof Medieval Islam,” Islamic Studies 3, 1964, especiallypp. 328-332.470 Journal of the American Oriental Society 94.4 (1974)they functioned. Consequently, the picture of theOld Assyrian society which we are at present ableto give is fragmentary and in part incoherent.The financing of the Old Assyrian trade wasorganized in long-term partnerships, referred toas naruqqu-transactions; only one contract regulatingsuch a partnership is known and it showsthat the capital involved amounted to no lessthan 30 minas of gold, a very substantial sumindeed. These partnerships or “societies” appearto have cut across the boundaries of the basicunits, the families, and the exact relations are infact quite unknown. Both Garelli and Orlin tendto overestimate the role of the “state” in thesematters, and that is due to an inadequate treatmentof the difficult terms ummednum and tamkdrumwhich typically, although not exclusively, occurin this ~ o n t e x t .O~n e must realize that theterms had a rather wide semantic range so thatthey could denote various relationships, and inparticular that they were not used as professionaltitles as in Old Babylonian times. They are usuallytranslated as “banker” and “licensed merchant”respectively, and they are often seen as somethingclose to public officials, but in fact the wordsalways refer to relationships between individuals,i.e. contractually regulated capacities. Since thereis no adequate investigation of this importantproblem it may be premature to go any furtherhere, but I venture to propose the renderings:ummeCnum, “investor,” “shareholder,” and tamkiirum,“manager,” “trader,” meaning a personwho administers invested capital. The parallelismwith the medieval commenda and compagnia contractsas well as with the Arabic muqiirada procedureis very obvi~us.~We are still far from a reasonably clear understandingof the social structure of the Old Assyriantrade colonies, but it is very obvious that they consistedphysically to a large extent of branch-offices,“factories,” for the firms which were based in theSee the discussion in Garelli, pp. 235-248, and in Orlin,pp. 52-56.7 See e.g. R. S. Lopez and I. W. Raymond, hledievalTrade in the Mediterranean Tlrnrld, New York 1955,174-176 and 185-187, and A. L. Udovitch, “CommercialTechniques in Early Medieval Islamic Trade,” in D. S.Richards (ed.), Islam and the Trade of Asia, Oxford 1970,47-50. A most interesting parallel to the OA practices isfound in the inland cities of northern Italy as describedin Y. Renouard, Les hommes d’affaires italiens du MoyenAge, Paris 1968, 85-97.mother city. The fact that practically all ourevidence comes from one single colony complicatesthe situation, for we cannot be absolutely certainthat Kanesh was as important or as typical as thetexts seem to indicate. Still, we can readily seethat the colony was a true community with administrative,political, and judicial functions aswell as the necessary institutional apparatus. Butbefore looking at these questions it may be wellto keep in mind that the elaborate network ofcolonies and trading posts which was spread overmuch of Northern Syria and most of the centralAnatolian plateau was controlled by a quite smallcity-state which had no substantial resources of itsown.Oates has pointed out that Assur “both geographicallyand economically [is] on the fringe ofthe main concentrations of population,” its localresources are inadequate to support a major settlement,and it lies open to raids from the steppe;its main positive attraction is its location on someimportant trading routes and it also seems tohave been on the frontier between north and soutllin Rles~potamia.T~h e existence of these tradingroutes, notably the tin-route from somewherebeyond the Zagros, is in fact the only immediatelyuseful element in any explanation of the evolutionof the Old Assyrian trade, but it is obviously nota sufficient explanation in itself. The idea of aspecific nomadic flair for overland trade is unconvincing-in fact, it remains to be shown thatthe old Assyrian traders had a recent nomadicpast. But one must emphasize the undoubtedlycorrect observation made by Oppenheiin that theOld Assyrian trade followed a pattern whichhad already been established many centuries,perhaps millennia, earlieqS the trade did notsuddenly arise out of nothing but represents anexploitation of already existing institutions andobviously also a very intense elaboration ofthem. The specific Old Assyrian expansion mustalso to some extent have its background in politicaldecisions made in Assur, and in this connectionI refer to the building inscriptions which statethat the adduriirum, perhaps to be understood asfreedom from restrictions and taxation, of variouscommodities had been established in hssur. TheD. Oates, Studies in the Ancient History of NorthernIraq, London 1968, pp. 20-21.A. Leo Oppenheim, “Trade in the Ancient NearEast,” V. International Congress of Economic History,Moscow 1970, 15-16 with note 39.LARSENA: ssyrian Colonies in Anatolia 471texts from Anatolia have shown that Assur wasa transit town, and even though it had a localindustry producing textiles out of imported wool,it is quite obvious that the role played by Assurwas to organize and direct the commercial penetrationof Anatolia. It is probably not too audaciousto theorize about a conscious commercialpolicy which was inspired by and which couldfacilitate a rapidly expanding trade towards thewest.Orlin rightly insists that the Assyrian positionin Anatolia reflects what he calls “an organicdevelopment.” When the colonies were establishedthey came naturally to be inhabited mainly bypersons who were sent out to represent the Anatolianinterests of the firms in Assur, and it seemsthat at least the first of the three generations whoworked during the level 2 period in Kanesh werereally temporary residents whose wives and otherclose family stayed in Assur. Already tlie secondgeneration appears to have been more firmlyestablished in the colonies, having Assyrian wiveswith them or being married to girls from the localaristocracy;1° it is likely that these men also wona higher degree of independence from the richfinanciers in Assur. However, these individualrelations must not obscure the general picture,for there is absolutely no doubt that the colonistsremained bound with the closest possible ties tothe mother city which they must have visitedregularly; it seems even that their children merebrought up in Assur or at least received theireducation there.ll Moreover, the Assyrians weremembers of a colonial community which on theinstitutional level was an extension of the govercmentof Assur.The political institutions in the capital xcre toa considerable extent dominated by the same greatfamilies who controlled the trade. Very brieflyone may say that the system exhibits a division ofpot1er betweed the ruler (rubdum) and the cityassembly; the year eponym, who represented thegreat families, held considerable power in thelo A well-known example is the family of PiiSu-ken sonof Suejja; his wife Lamassi lived in Assur but his sons,at least BuzHzu and ASIur-muttabhil, had their wives inAnatolia.ASSur-nldii son of AISur-idi lived permanently inKanesh and mas married to a local woman by the nameSiSah~uIar, but according to the letter CCT 3:6b his sonand daughters spent their childhood in Assur with theirgrandfather.city, and to some extent he can be described as thecounterpart of the ruler whose position was basedlargely on his religious functions as the vicar ofthe city-god Assur. it was the city assembly,represented by special envoys, Siprii Su Alim,that supervised the colonies in Anatolia, and theseenvoys played a particularly important role inall the negotations with local Anatolian kings.12The administration of the colonies is not verywell known, but the poor, damaged remains ofthe statutes of the Kanesh colony which we possessdo inform us about the most important institutions;these were the primary assembly (kcrumsal~er rubi) and a special council (pubrum)whose members mere the “big men”; the latterbody appears to have served as an executive committeefor the assembly. One or more secretarieswere responsible for various aspects of the administration,both in connection with the judicialprocedures and with the daily work, for instancelevying taxes on the colony. The administrativeand to some extent also the economic centre ofthe colony mas the “house of the colony”; thevarious procedures which involve deposits on individualaccounts there have not been studiedadequately, although a beginning has been madeby Garelli13 and in particular by Veenhof.14 It islikely that the responsibility for the affairs of the“house of the colony” was held by special groupsof people who also served as week eponyms, butthe precise nature of these arrangements is notknown.What has been said here applies to one colony,Icanesh, and we have to admit that we do notknow to what extent it constitutes a valid descriptionof the institutions of the other colonies andtrading posts; the existence of such local officialsas tile s’dqil dtitim u btruttim who are known fromone colony only, tlie one a t ~ a l a t u ~ v a ri,nld~ic atesthat Ifre must reckon wit11 some variation fromcolony to colony, but in the main there can belittle doubt that the overall pattern was the samel2 See M. Trolle Larsen, “The City and its Icing. Onthe Old Assyrian Notion of Icingship,” Compte Rendude la XX Renconfre Assyriologique, [in press], 199-214.l3 See the chapter entitled “Le klrum,” pp. 171-201.l4 K. R. Veenhof, Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade andits Ter~ninology, Leiden 1972.-In my forthcoming studyon the OA eponymic system of dating I deal with someaspects of this problem.l5 In the later OA period, “level lb,” these officials arefound in other towns as well; cf. Veenhof, pp. 289-291.472 Journal of fhe American Orienfal Society 94.4 (1974)for all colonies. Nor is there any uncertaintyabout the fact that the ten colonies which werelocated in Anatolia were under the control of theKanesh colony and the envoys of the city assembly.Why exactly Kanesh came to play this roleis not entirely clear, and its undoubted strategicposition can only have been partly the reason.The political pattern of central Anatolia wasquite complex in this period, the area being splitup into a substantial number of quite small territorialstates. Some of these are known also fromthe Hittite material and it seems that many ofthem constituted “natural” political entities, i.e.their territory was quite firmly determined by thegeographical boundaries constituted by the manymountain ranges on the Anatolian plateau. Someof the kingdoms were in the process of enlargingtheir influence, however, and had apparentlyestablished a network of dependent vassals aroundthem. The Assyrian texts contain only very occasionalreferences to the political situation in thearea but, not unexpectedly, we do hear of warsand internal unrest at times. On the other hand,there are signs of a certain solidarity among thelocal rulers vis-ci-uis the Assyrians, but that mayhave been an unusual feature.16The official relations between the Assyrian administrationin Kanesh and the local kingdomswere based on what we could call “treaties”; wedo not possess the text of such an agreement, butseveral letters refer to negotiations and the swearingof an oath in connection with the establishmentof such treaty relationships. These textshave been subjected to intense scrutiny severaltimes and they constitute the basis for the worksof both Garelli and Orlin. The central chaptersof Orlin’s book are contained in parts two andthree which provide a discussion of twelve texts;a few more texts of relevance in this connectionhave appeared since Orlin’s manuscript went topress.In particular the terminology of these few documentshas been studied carefully because it wasexpected that one would here find clear reflectionsof the relative political strength of the two partiesinvolved, but it seems to me that this aspect hasbeen overestimated. One can easily find indicationsof Assyrian superiority in these documents:the oaths seem always to be sworn by the king(except, perhaps, in the case of the ruler of thel6 Cf. ATHE 62, discussed in Veenhof, pp. 307-308and 333-334.important town WahsuSana),” and in all knowncases it is he who initiates the contact; the Kaneshcolony sends out special envoys for the occasionand they administer the oath; local kings areknown to have referred to the executives of theAssyrian administration at Kanesh as “my fathers,”which has been rendered “my superiors.”All this has been seen as support for the idea ofa clear Assyrian superiority and the position of thekings has been described as “vassalage.” Butone must warn against the idea that such phrasesas “(as) you are my father(s)/son(s)” should denoteclear-cut relationships. When someone is called“father” or “lord” it is obvious that his superiorityis in some way being recognized, but the relationshipis often vague and ill determined and it wouldbe quite mistaken to believe that a formal politicalsubordination is implied. One can for instancerefer to the letter KTP 6 which was sent from theKanesh colony to the ruler of the small kingdomof ~i rmi j a ,fo r in it we find the passage: meranibClni atta, “(as) you are our son (and) our lord !”Orlin’s conclusion is that “the 1i;Brum Xanig recognizesthat the Sirmiyan prince is both superiorand inferior to it at the same time-hence theIcdrum is both superior and inferior to the prince.Thus they appear to be parties of equal sovereigntyand status uis dr vis each other.”18 Such observationsseem to me rather limited in value and Idoubt that a semantic, diplomatic algebra of thiskind brings us any closer to a real understandingof the situation. The same tcrms (with the exceptionof the phrase involving the word “son”) arefrequently used in private letters as well, and it isclear that very often they do not reflect a formalor real relationship but that their use is ratherdetermined by the immediate needs of the situation.In the same way it seems too drastic to claimthat the use of thc D stem of tamdum as used insuch passages as mamitam utammu’uka, “they(i.e. envoys from Kanesh) will make you (i.e. theking) swear an oath,” indicates that the king is ina status of vassalage.lSPractically all direct references to such treatiesconcern small principalities20 and it should bel7 Cf. TC 3 143, a fragment of a letter which containsthe passage: (1′) it-ti Wa-ah-Su-$a<-nu>-i-im ta-am-&l8 P. 155.l9 KTP 14, discussed by Orlin, pp. 114-118.20 Two more fragmentary texts which refer to theswearing of oaths are found in Jankowska’s edition ofLARSEN:A ssyrian (7olonies in Anatolia 473reasonably clear that there was considerable variationin the individual relationships establishedwith the kingdoms; consequently, one may welldoubt whether the material available at the momentis very typical of the general situation. Itis obvious that some of the local kingdoms hadmore power politically and also that they hadmore to offer economically, and one must insiston the basic interdependence of the two groups,Assyrians and Anatolians. A strictly terminologicalinvestigation cannot provide us with a satisfactorilysubtle view of the situation. The existenceof the colonies is based on the local kingdoms’need for the imports provided by the Assyrians,presumably first of all the metal tinwhich was what in modern terms would be a“strategic commodity” in the Bronze Age. TheAssyrian merchants in their turn needed securityand stability along the roads and in the colonies.Evidently, in some cases the Assyrian negotiatorsmust have been in a strong position, able to offera small kingdom on the fringe of the trade networka deal which the king needed more than the traders.And the kingdom of PuruShaddum, which seemsto have controlled a large part of the productionof silver which the Assyrians wanted before anythingelse, and whose political power in the areais illustrated by the fact that only the king of thisstate is given the title rubfium rabium, must havebeen in a position to dictate terms to the AssyrtheOA texts in the museums of the USSR, KTK 7 and
The former is a fragment of a letter, presumably addressedto the Kanesh colony, and it contains the followingstatement made by a trading post at an unknownlocality: (4′) i-nu-mi ra ?-bu ?-Su ?I kd-ru-urn (5 ‘) d-fame-‘bl (. ..) 1 T ~ Ga-narsl [x x] rni-Si-il (8′) a-ha-d-ni be-lu-ni (9′) a-td-nu 2 TUG(10′) 36-bi-id-nim-ma (11′) d ma-ld td-3a-ha-za-ni-a-ti(12′) lu ni-pu-US, ”When the colony made his father(?)swear (. . .) we gave as a present one textile to the lordof the town and one textile to [. . .]. (As) you are ourfathers and lords-send us two textiles and then we shalldo whatever you ins t~uctu s to do.”–KTK 8 is a letterto the Icanesh colony from some envoys, perhaps somesent out by the colony itself; it starts as follows: (3) a-ma-Id ti-ir-ti-ku-nu ru-ba-am d GAL si-mi-i15-tim?d-fa-me-d-ma um-ma ru-ba-um-m[a break], “In accordancewith your orders they(]) made the ruler andthe [crown prince?] swear, [and] the ruler said [as follows].”Cf. also the unpublished Ib text n/k 32 whichwas mentioned by Landsberger at the Rencontre held inChicago in 1967 (see Veenhof, p. 305, note 428).ians. One could well have thought that the Assyrianswould try to exploit the political disunityin the area in an attempt to gain special privileges,but there are no signs of such activities. Whetherthe Assyrian authorities at all times avoidedinvolvement in local politics is of course uncertain,2l but we must remember the quite remarkablefact that the entire colonial system was directedfrom a colony which was located as a suburb ofone of the most important capital cities in Anatolia;yet, there is no sign anywhere that the Assyriansmaintained special relations with the rulersof Kanesh.Some of the texts in fact do reflect the differencesin the approach of the Assyrians when dealingwith small or big kingdoms; one may for instancecompare two texts published after Orlin’s manuscriptwent to press: MAH 16203 and II’TK 3.The formerz2 is a letter to the Kanesh colony fromthe ruler of the obviously quite small kingdom ofTumana(?), and it expresses the anxious desireon the part of the king to keep in constant contactwith the Assyrian traders; “as you know, anyAssyrian is welcome in my house !” KTK 3, aOne can refer to the letter CCT 4:30a which dealswith some highly complicated negotiations between adelegation of Assyrians and the princes of the kingdomof Hahbum; unfortunately, Orlin has not given this textan adequate treatment; he has suggested a number ofunconvincing new readings and his translation is in someplaces quite clearly incorrect; one must therefore in allcases prefer the readings established by Garelli and Balkanwhich are mentioned in Orlin’s footnotes.-The textrefers to an unusual situation in which a major politicalcrisis has been caused by certain “bloody deeds” committedby the king. The princes appear to be conspiringagainst each other in an attempt to gain control of thethrone, and when the Assyrians come with certain requests(which are unfortunately not directly spelled outin the text) they have to negotiate with the princes-theking must have been powerless. Not unexpectedly, theprinces do not wish to commit themselves but giveevasive answers, and the writer continues: “Behold, thecopies of the oath which they offer to us have beenwritten down for the colony; then, we agreed with themon a settlement but the men changed their minds. (. . .)The agreements are suspended.”-The last part of theletter is damaged and Orlin’s restorations are not satisfactory;
23: one should not read 1& tal-kam and onecannot translate: “don’t you come”; Id-ial-kam is “I shallcome.” 11. 29-30: be-[li] a-ia a-ld-nu-kc3 ma-[nam] i-Su.2z Published by Garelli, RA 60 (1966), 119-121.474 .Tournal of the American Oriental Society 94.4 (1974)letter from the colony at 7rVahSuSana to the envoysof the City and the Kanesh colony, reflects thenervous care of the Assyrians when dealing withone of the powerful and important kings. Therecipients of the letter are strongly advised notto let their own envoy “interfere with” the envoyof the king-“lest a quarrel with the palace shouldarise in the colony !”23The diplomatic contacts and confrontationswhich are the subject of such letters belong towhat one could call the Assyrian “foreign policy.”Orlin has devoted a chapter to a survey of whathe calls “political encounters,” dealing with seventexts;24 although they are not all that could beadduced, they do seem to be fairly representative.The major omission is a discussion of the evidenceconcerning smuggling, but a number of Orlin’stexts do in fact refer to such activities. Most ofthe texts deal with situations in which the localauthorities hare confiscated shipments which passedthrough their territory, but the precise backgroundfor each encounter is unfortunately obscure.In some way each case must represent a breachof the existing treaty, and that alone makes theminteresting. The document I<TK 3 is interpretedto mean that the local authorities involved wereobliged to restore merchandise lost in the territoryunder their jurisdiction, and that does certainlyappear to be a viable i n t e r p r e t a t i ~ n . ~M~o re-23 (!) ‘) a-sb-ri (10’) fi-pcir-l:~-nu if-tf s’i-ip-ri-s’u (11 ‘)e ![I-hi-a-nim-ma sa-nl-tri-um (12′) .fa 6. (; L-lim i-ncc /;ari-im (13′) c i-fi-ki-in-mn.94 Pp. 130-158; in this chapter Orlin does not providetranslations of the tets discussed which means that onlyAssyriologists can follow his argumentation in the details,and that seems to me to be a questionable arrangement.One may also well argue that the texts TC 3 75 and 85,which arr treated in the preceding chapter, really belongin this context.25 Orlin has chosen simply to reproduce 1,cwy’s originaltranslation of the text and that is in this caw not an acceptableprocedure since some corrections are necessary.Thus, it is obvious that in 1. 17 we have to read ip I-111-Su-ma, “they broke into the house,” and in 1. 19: ep-rar-raxam,“I poured dust over my head.” The text refers to arobbery made by some Assyrians and the writer tellsthat he has gone to the town of Badna where he musthave told the authorities what had happened; the textthen says: “The trading post of Badna went up (to thepalace) to the barullu [a local police agency] and said:We will search (ni-iS-e!) and replace what may belost !”-The last statement is taken as said by the barulluover, Orlin discusses another text which appearsto confirm that such a rule was in effect, the verydifficult letter TC 35%; unfortunately, Orlin’sinterpretation of this document is unsatisfactorysince he maintains that the negotiations referredto concern a confiscation of certain merchandiseby the local king; instead, certain goods havebeen “lost” (halag) and the trouble is to get theking to accept responsibility for these losses whichhappened within his realm.26But perhaps the best way to a real understandingof the diplomatic relations between Assyriansand Anatolians will be a study of the quite numerousreferences to smuggling, for it is obvious thateach instailce of such behaviour constitutes aviolation of whatever agreements existed. Happily,such a study has been made by Veenhof whoseconclusions are of great importance in this contest.27 First, it is worth pointing out that smugglingwas a purely private enterprise which didnot involve the Assyrian authorities and consequentlydid not have diplomatic repercussions.The individual Assyrian smuggler and his principalwere responsible and could be punished bythe local authorities. One must also note theimportant point that the existence of professionalsmugglers, who were referred to as such in thetexts, was accepted in the Assyrian community,indeed, smuggling was a matter ~vllich could beregulated by a written, legally binding contract.These facts indicate the existence of a latent conflictof interest between Assyrians and Anatolians,a conflict which played a role on all levels. It issurely also significant that it was Assyrian smugglingwhich in at least one instance brought abouta true cooperation among several local kings whowarned each othcr so that the roads could bein Orlin’s interpretation, but it seems more likely thatit was the trading post authorities, i.e. the Assyrians,who accepted responsibility for a theft which had beencommitted by other Assyrians. One can in this actionsee an indication of a responsibility carried by the localauthorities for crimes committed by their own subjects.26 Orlin’s discussion is found on pp. 132-137, and thetext is treated in Garelli, pp. 344-346. Garelli’s readingof 11. 19-20 is surely correct and one should not introducea new term argammanu; against both Orlin and GarelliI suggest the reading I-a-ma as a PN in 1. 32, and in
35 the last word should be read ha-al-qf-im !; finally,
37 should be: a-wi-li fa-me ti Sa-Sa-num.27 His entire “Part Four” is devoted to an investigationof practically all aspects of the Oh smuggling.carefully wat~hed.~EA n Assyrian who “has closeconnections with the palace and always playsthe game of the nativeswz9w as an exception and,more importantly, he was regarded with coolfeelings by his countrymen. It is very doubtful,however, whether one can find support for ideasabout a “national” Assyrian interest in these referencesto a strong group solidarity, and I cannotaccept Orlin’s claim that the traders primarily“served an economic motive of the state.”Smuggling was clearly a relatively widespreadactivity and it appears to have been quite successful.It could take two forms: either avoiding thepayment of taxes, or trading in contraband,merchandise which for some reason was prohibitedor restricted. Both kinds of smuggling presupposeclauses in the treaties.Since the rules concerning taxation 011 caravansappear to have been uniform in all the kingdomsof central Anatolia, it is to be presunled that theywere part of a standard treaty.30 How such generalrules camc into existence is not at all clear, andit seems beyond doubt that they did not applyirl the ~ ~ a r i o ulrsin gdoms in northern Syria vhichwere passed en route to Anat~l ia.~X’ caravan passingthrough one of the Anatolian kingdoms haclto pay a tax called nisltdtum; it amounted to fivepercent of the textiles carried and to two minason every standard container of tin, a s’uqlum, i.e.2/65 of the tin carried. In addition the palace hadthe right to buy up to ten percent of the shipmentwhich contained quality textiles, and we must assumethat this preemption also cntailed priceswhich were favourable to the purchaser. Thetaxation could thus be quite severe and this wassurely one of the reasons why the sale in Anatoliaregularly was organized as credit sale transactions,for a single itinerant trader carrying a relativelysmall shipment of goods from town to town couldpresumably avoid paying most of these taxes.The restrictions imposed on the trade concernedthe incredibly expensive metal aSium or umiitum,presumably meteoric iron. The reason for thegeneral prohibition against trade in this commodityappears to have been its enormous value.“ILTEIB 62.‘9 TC 2 27:12-14: a-lvi-lu-urn (13) a-nu i . c s ~ – l i m[a -hi-i(14) nu-wa-a-ta-rna e-ta-nu-pd-cis.30 See my own book Old Assyrinn Caravan Procedures,Istanbul 1967, and Veenhof, pp. 332-333.31 See the treatment of the term datum in Veenhof,pp. 229-269.It should be noted that similar restrictions wereimposed by the authorities in Assur where theoffice of the eponym had a monopoly in the tradein various luxury items, for instance this metal.I believe that the preceding remarks constitutethe basis on which to build any attempt to reconstructthe contents of an actual treaty; theinterdependence of the two parties to such an agreernentleads naturally to the formulation ofsome mutual guarantees: me know that the kingswere promised 1) the payment of taxes on caravanspassing througll their territory, 2) the right ofpreemption, and 3) the right to impose certainrestrictions on the trade in luxury items; the kingfurthermore retained the right to punish any Assyrianwho violated these rules. On the otherhand, the king granted a number of guarantees:1) residence rights in special “harbour” quarters,the “colonies,” 2) the right of extraterritorialityexceptingbreaches of the treaty, and 3) protectionof the roads, right of passage, and probably guaranteesagainst losses due to robbery.32These points must have constituted the nornlalljrovisions in a treaty, but obviously such a list canonly help us to understand the rough outlines of theAssyrian “colonialism” in Anatolia. We now havetwo books which deal in some depth with theseaspects and we must hope that the very substantialnew insights that have been gained in recentyears .ill soon lead to a better understanding ofthe social structure of the Old Assyrian society.Orlin’s list of provisions in a treaty does not strikeme as quite satisfactory; his points are: (1) residencerights, (2) self-government, (3) a principle of ethnicsolidarity, (4) religious symbiosis (the idea being thatthe treaties were protected by the gods of both parties),(5) “in commercial dealings goods were sold ‘at the price, ‘which suggests the idea of administered trade-a tradefostered by treaty.”-This is based on a misunderstandingof the common expression ana girnim which can refer tothe preemption of the palace; see Veenhof, chapter 18;(6) the right to preemption and the collection of taxes;(7) “the Assyrians mere allowed to make use of the palacewarehouses”-but that is simply not correct; under thesame point Orlin says: “the palace administration carrieson both cash and credit dealings with the Bit Kbrinzestablishments in their environments;” as far as I can seethe sometimes quite complicated accounting operationswhich involve both institutions simply result from dailycontacts and do not belong in this connection; finally,(8) protection and guides for the caravans as well as theright to control them to prevent smuggling.
Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply
Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?
Whichever your reason may is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.
Our essay writers are graduates with diplomas, bachelor’s, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college diploma. When assigning your order, we match the paper subject with the area of specialization of the writer.
Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?
Plagiarism free papers
Timely delivery
Any deadline
Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
Subject-relevant academic writer
Adherence to paper instructions
Ability to tackle bulk assignments
Reasonable prices
24/7 Customer Support
Get superb grades consistently
How It Works
1. Place an order
You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.
2. Pay for the order
Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.
3. Track the progress
You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.
4. Download the paper
The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.
Get Professional Assignment Help Cheaply
Are you busy and do not have time to handle your assignment? Are you scared that your paper will not make the grade? Do you have responsibilities that may hinder you from turning in your assignment on time? Are you tired and can barely handle your assignment? Are your grades inconsistent?
Whichever your reason may is, it is valid! You can get professional academic help from our service at affordable rates. We have a team of professional academic writers who can handle all your assignments.
Our essay writers are graduates with diplomas, bachelor’s, masters, Ph.D., and doctorate degrees in various subjects. The minimum requirement to be an essay writer with our essay writing service is to have a college diploma. When assigning your order, we match the paper subject with the area of specialization of the writer.
Why Choose Our Academic Writing Service?
Plagiarism free papers
Timely delivery
Any deadline
Skilled, Experienced Native English Writers
Subject-relevant academic writer
Adherence to paper instructions
Ability to tackle bulk assignments
Reasonable prices
24/7 Customer Support
Get superb grades consistently
How It Works
1. Place an order
You fill all the paper instructions in the order form. Make sure you include all the helpful materials so that our academic writers can deliver the perfect paper. It will also help to eliminate unnecessary revisions.
2. Pay for the order
Proceed to pay for the paper so that it can be assigned to one of our expert academic writers. The paper subject is matched with the writer’s area of specialization.
3. Track the progress
You communicate with the writer and know about the progress of the paper. The client can ask the writer for drafts of the paper. The client can upload extra material and include additional instructions from the lecturer. Receive a paper.
4. Download the paper
The paper is sent to your email and uploaded to your personal account. You also get a plagiarism report attached to your paper.
PLACE THIS ORDER OR A SIMILAR ORDER WITH Essay fount TODAY AND GET AN AMAZING DISCOUNT
The post Paper on ancient civilization appeared first on Essay fount.
What Students Are Saying About Us
.......... Customer ID: 12*** | Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐"Honestly, I was afraid to send my paper to you, but you proved you are a trustworthy service. My essay was done in less than a day, and I received a brilliant piece. I didn’t even believe it was my essay at first 🙂 Great job, thank you!"
.......... Customer ID: 11***| Rating: ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐
"This company is the best there is. They saved me so many times, I cannot even keep count. Now I recommend it to all my friends, and none of them have complained about it. The writers here are excellent."
"Order a custom Paper on Similar Assignment at essayfount.com! No Plagiarism! Enjoy 20% Discount!"
