Part V
Chapter 18

Back to top: Part V Chapter 18

18.1 Mesopotamia within the Cosmopolis

The new cosmopolis led to an international equilibrium^{Note 1} articulated in a very formal way through predefined channels of communication; this emerged as a necessity, since the different state entities were differenr in size, power, language, political system, religion, etc.

Behind the scenes, there was still a strong impulse for a territorial expansion; Mesopotamia itself was a portion (a greatest one, particularly in the first phases; cf. below, 18.5) of this international world, giving a peculiar imprint to these new dynamics (specifically in the concept of ‘city’ and the use of Babylonian as lingua franca.^{Note 2}

In a way, we can define this new setup as the ‘world as a city’.

Back to top: Part V Chapter 18

18.2 The Great Dichotomy: The Second Regional System

A new dichotomy between Assyria and Babylonia is now a reality:^{Note 3} as a result of Hammurapi’s campain, the cities of Mari (cf. 6.11.2) and Eshnunna (cf. 6.11.1) disappeared, creating a vacuum affecting the development of a macro-region (cf. 17.3).

At the fringes of this de-urbanized vacuum, two distinct fully homogenous and geographically well-differentiated macro-regions emerged as a feature of the second regional system different from the first regional system (cf. 13) which was instead multi-regional.

Even though, there were two moments of consolidation:

1. the shift of power from Mittani to Assyria (in the north; cf. below, 18.3 and 18.4);
2. the change of leadership from the Kassites to the second dynasty of Isin (in the south; cf. below, 18.5 and 18.6).

These two changes represented a kind of withdrawal towards the old centres of gravity, i.e. Assur and Isin, in a political structure close to that of the city-state.

Back to top: Part V Chapter 18

18.3 The First Northern Consolidation: Mittani (1500-1350 BC)

As a possible echo of the kingdom of Shamshi-Adad (cf. 14.4), Mittani moved its core towards the Khabur, in a dynamics leading states to be closer to the Mediterranean.

There were two capitals:

1. Wasshukanni (= Tell Fekheriya);
2. Ta’du (= Tell Hamidiya).

The archaeological limit is that the Mittani levels in both this site are very deep and not yet reached throught excavation.

Significantly, the name of the kingdom did not correspond to the name of one of the capital cities.

Further, there were two ‘satellite’ smaller centers from which many textual documents have been retrieved:

1. Alalakh (= Tell Atchana), to the West;
2. Nuzi (= Yorghan Tepe), to the East.

The kingdom was ethnically divided into two groups:

1. Hurrians;
2. Indo-Europeans, whose presence is clear from some proper names and technical term like mariannu (‘charioteer’), very close to Sanskrit marya (‘young warrior’)

This ethnic differentiation between the elite of the maryannu and the other Hurrian people (present since the beginning of urbanization; cf. 7.6.1, about Urkesh/Tell Mozan) is significant, because it points to a «progressive dissolution of urban based sense of solidarity of the social group» (Buccellati, Politics, p. 208).

Nevertheless, the Hurrian component strongly affected the culture (specifically in the religious field) of the Mittani [and later on, also of the Hittite empire, throught the land of Kizzuwatna; EN].

The kingdom lasted for little less than a century (till the conquest of this territory by the Hittite king Shuppiluliuma I, aided by strong attacs from Assyria),^{Note 4} being bordered (at its maximum; cf. Map 19) by Egypt, with which Mittani interlace a policy of inter-dynastic marriages; the lat Mittanian king Tushratta had relationships with Amenhotep III and Amenhotep IV/Akhenaten [as testified by the so called ‘Mittani letter’, i.e. EA 24 = VAT 422, for which see C D L I, P271214; the letter, in Hurrian is about a marriage between Tadu-ḫepa, a daughter of Tushratta, and Amenhotep III; NE].

Another example of interaction between Egypt and Mittanni is represented by the sending of a statue of Ishtar (see Source #).

Back to top: Part V Chapter 18

18.4 The Second Northern Consolidation: Assyria (1350-1100 BC)

Back to top: Part V Chapter 18

18.5 The First Southern Consolidation: The Kassites (1500-1160 BC)

Back to top: Part V Chapter 18

18.6 The Second Southern Consolidation: Isin (1160-1100 BC)

Back to top: Part V Chapter 18

Notes

• Note 1: the international relationships of this period, defined by Mario Liverani as the period of ‘The Great Powers’ Club’, were structured in a strictly hierarchical way:
  • between ‘Great States’: relationship of aḫḫūtu(m), i.e. ‘brotherhood’ (see C A D, 1/1=A, pp. 186-188): first phase (Egypt, Babylonia and Mittani); second phase (Egypt, Ḫatti, Assyria);
  • between ‘Great States’ (Egypt, Mittani, Babylonia, Mittani, Ḫatti, Assyria) and ‘Small States’ (the smaller entities of the Syro-Levantine area): relationship of marūtū(m), i.e. ‘sonship’ (see C A D 10/1=M, pp. 319-321).
  About these relationship see mostly Cohen&Westbrook 2000 Amarna. _{Back to text}
• Note 2: Babylonian as ‘lingua franca’ is particularly attested in the ‘el-Amarna correspondence’ written (besides some few letters in Hittite or Hurrian) using a dialectal variant of this language (with loanwords from Canaanite languages and Egyptian and a different cuneiform ductus). For the ‘el-Amarna Letters’ (abbreviated EA), see mostly Knudtzon 1915 E A; English and Italian translations (without transliteration of cuneiform) in Moran 1992 E A and Liverani 1998 Amarna + Liverani 1999 Amarna, respectively. The most recent and updated translation in English (with transliteration of cuneiform and philological comment) is in Schniedewind & Cochavi- Rainey 2015 Amarna. For the language used in this correspondence, and its diplomatic implications, see Mynarova 2007 Amarna. _{Back to text}
• Note 3: Mesopotamia as a whole was only experienced twice:
  • under the third dynasty of Ur (see 14.2);
  • under Hammurapi (see 14.5).
  After these two moments Mesopotamia was included in the wider geopolitical horizon of the imperial experiment of Akkad (see 9.1). _{Back to text}
• Note 4: an inscription from Qatna reads: Mittani ḫaliq, ‘Mittani is destroyed’. _{Back to text}