Mesopotamian Politics

I. The Argument
The Narrative

Part IV
Chapter 13

‘Mesopotamia’ and its Regions

Marco De Pietri – April 2024

13.1 The Region as a Political Construct

Territory is a central point in this narrative, since it represents the concrete extension of the para-perceptual system (cf. Section 2) which shaped the construction of the state.

Territories, from the first cities to the city-states (i.e. nuclear territorial states, see Section 6) and the expanded territorial states (cf. Section 7), perceived as regions, might acquire a political valence (cf. Sections 8.2, 10.5, 12.2).

With the end of the ‘imperial experiment’ (cf. 12.4) the most relevant center of power collapsed; it is in this very moment that the region acquires the role of a political construct, leading to the formation of a hierarchy or regions, simple and complex.

13.2 The Climatic Zones

The Syro-Mesopotamia area can be seen as divided into three main climatic zones (see Map 2)^{Note 1}:

the lower basin of the two great rivers is a great alluvial plain with minimal precipitations: here, the exploitment of water by digging canals for irrigation was the basis for agriculture (cf. Section 10.3); other areas far from the waterflow are desertic;
the middle Euphrates has a semi-arid environment with limited rainfall enough to produce minimal vegetation: here we find the steppe (cf. Section 11), exploited for animal husbandry, with some springs or wells;
the norther part of Mesopotamia (the mātum elītum, ‘high country’; cf. Sections 6 and 10), the Khabur area, today known with the Arabic term جزيرة, jezirah, i.e. ‘island’, is protected to the north and south by mountain chains (at first, the Jebel Bishri and the Tur Abdin): here rainfall is the main source of water.

These areas were perceived as a region, a macro- or multi-region, or as ‘Mesopotamia’ (the whole of all the regions).

13.3 The Regions

The ‘invention’ of the rivers (cf. Section 10) allowed to create a flexible (because the rivers are a fluid reality) and limited (because irrigation through canalization,^{Note 2} Akkadian ugārum,^{Note 3} is a very well-defined area). The territories along the two rivers were affected by an -emic transformation which defines them as a political construct.

The whole area had a geographical coherence: since the rivers were used also as a mean of transportation (for moving people and goods; cf. Section 10.3), in a way it was possible to para-perceive the river and the ‘region’ as a coherent whole.

The tributaries of the two great rivers (the two Zabs, the Diyala, the Karun, the lower Balikh from the Tigris, and the lower Khabur from the Euphrates; cf. Map 1) were significant for the formation of urban centers, like Tuttul (at the confluence of the Balikh), Terqa/Mari (a little below the confluence of the Khabur; cf. Section 6.11.2), Nineveh and Assur (above the confluence of the two Zabs).

In the southern part, from Babylon to Ur, the environment is more fluid, because of the irrigation system based on rivers and canals.

The steppe, far from this environment, will play in this period a relevant role.

The regions to the north/north-east include the plains at the foothill, especially the triangle of the Khabur (the ‘upper land’, cf. Section 6.10.6), the area of Assyria, and the valley of the Diyala.

The new regional states of this period are characterized by both:

a clear imposition of political control from above (a top-down phenomenon, cf. Section 12.3;
the inclusion of more than one major city, each with its own surroundings.

13.4 Macro-Regions and Multi-Regions

We can observe in the timespan of this Part IV (i.e. 2100-1600 BC) the formation of two new political structures:

the macro-region (second half of the second millennium BC): a unified territorial entity (a cohesive whole) with an integrity independent from a specific urban center, so that different cities may alternate as capital city (see the Mittani and the Kassite kingdoms; cf. Section 18);
the multi-region (first half of the second millennium BC; cf. Section 14): an area that achieved a political configuration as a cluster of components which are included into the region by military conquest; they are quite dis-homogenous and last for a relatively short period of time (no cohesive whole).

Both these entities are the result of a progressive political process similar to that that had led to the formation of the nuclear states (cf. Section 8.7); furthermore, they have a center that dictates unity which transcends geographical differences. In a way, we can consider this phenomenon as a repetition of the Akkadian ‘imperial experiment’ (cf. Section 9) even if in a minor key.

The main difference with the ‘empire’ is that these new configurations basically share the same culture, mainly at the level of language and historical traditions; this is indeed a plus towards a stronger cohesiveness, because it was easier for these entities to reach a level of integration that the ‘empire’ of Akkad lacked, being in the end disaggregated (cf. Section 12.3).

13.5 Syro-Mesopotamia and Mesopotamia

Considering what has been defined in the previous section, we could even describe the whole ‘Mesopotamia’ as a super-region, regarded as the macro-region par excellence, interpreting ‘Mesopotamia’ in the light of Naram-Sin’s titles (cf. Sections 10.5 and 12.2). As such, ‘Mesopotamia’ corresponds to the second ecumene (cf. Section 8.2).

After the collapse of the ‘empire’ of Akkad’ (cf. 12.4), the ‘Mesopotamia’ retained its cultural unity, but not its political unity; from this time onwards, Syro-Mesopotamia became “the crucible for the codification of real international relations” (Buccellati, Origins, p. 167; cf. Section 14.7).

After the Gutians’ occupation, ‘Mesopotamia’ emerged as an entity restricted to the eastern portion south of the Taurus, with just two, quite short, experiences of a unitary political configuration:

the third dynasty of Ur (= Ur III, ca. 2112-2004 BC; cf. Section 14.2);
the reign of Hammurapi of Babylon (ca. 1792-1750 BC, middle chronology; cf. Section 14.5).

‘Mesopotamia’ is now more and ideal goal than a concrete political unity: around the mid-second millennium BC, the political concept of ‘Mesopotamia’ was altered and basically it disappeared, as a state, forever.

13.6 The Regional Dynamics

We can envisage two dynamics behind the new political entity of the multi-region:

a tendency towards Mesopotamian unification, at least at the level of an ideological goal;
a political equilibrium, a situation where each single region is capable of being equal to the others, a condition granted by the acceptance of reciprocal limitations.

Hence, sovereignity became the core of the new political development as the background for international relationships between different entities, adhering to the same political presumption of sovereignity and autonomy.

13.7 The Amalgamation of Sovereignty

Cf. Section 5.6.

The new setting of autonomous sovereignity/ies carried on also a true ‘functionalization’ of the territory (cf. Section 22.1). This period, besides the ‘non-starters’ (cf. Section 15.7), can be analyzed as a continuation of the third-millennium mechanisms of control, within “a form of vassalage through which a state substantially accepted a total limitation of foreign policies, passing them along to a power recognized as superior. This means that different levels of sovereignty fit together within other sovereignties with an explicit recognition of the effective subordination” (Buccellati, Origins, p. 168-169).

This new awareness is testified in a document from Mari written just before Hammurapi’s unification (cf. Section 16.2), which shows a constellation of great sovereigns along with their vassals: “There is no king who is the strongest by himself. Ten or fifteen kings follow Hammurapi of Babylon, the same number follow Rim-Sin of Larsa, the same number follow Ibal-pi-El of Eshnunna, the same number follow Amut-pi-El of Qatna, and twenty kings follow Yarim-Lim of Yamkhad (Aleppo)”. Here, the concept of ‘following’ is a technical term to define a situation of vassalage, implying:

payment of a tribute;^{Note 4}
military support in conflicts;
preferential treatment in business;
limitation of contacts with other states even within a situation of local autonomy, especially in hereditary succession.

This new political setup is a kind of compromise, involving a reciprocal recognizing of limits which implies the value of automony; it is, indeed, a case of ‘unresolved sovereignity’ (cf. Section 5.6).

Notes

Note 1: on Ancient Near Eastern climatic zones, see Liverani 2014 History, ch. 2, pp. 17-33; cf. also Liverani 2018 Paradiso. _{Back to text}
Note 2: on canals and canalization in the Ancient Near East, see Liverani 2018 Paradiso, chs 3.5 and 4.1. _{Back to text}
Note 3: the Sumerian term equivalent to the Akkadian ugārum should be agar (literally ‘meadow’), written LAGAB×IGI^g or LAGAB×(A.GAR); in Sumerian there was also technical term, even if not entirely sure, for ‘canal digger(?)’, i.e. adun; it is also attested the Sumerian verb niŋin, meaning ‘to dam a canal’ (literally, ‘to encircle’). _{Back to text}
Note 4: for an old attestation of tribute and tribute bearers on the ‘Standard of Ur’ (British Museum, BM 121201, ca. 2500 BC) see e.g. Lawecka 2017 Tribute. _{Back to text}