746
centers were fewer and smaller than in the lowland, and political
formations devolved primarily on ethno-linguistic divisions and their
aristocratic elites.^5 On a contemporaneous level, a peculiar situation
obtained in lowland Mesopotamia and Syria, where an as yet poorly
understood process of conquest had introduced Amorite dynasties in
most city states. The newcomers belonged to different ethnic groups,
often referred to as “tribes” in the modern literature, and these divi-
sions clearly had some influence on international alliances and conflicts.^6
Similarly, the Amorites may have introduced particular standards
and procedures in international relations, like the much-discussed rit-
uals attending conclusion of treaties (see 3.2 below). It must be
stressed, however, that the impact of these contemporaneous influences
vis-à-vis traditional standards is difficult to define, due to the uneven
nature of our documentation.2.3 Outline of International Relations
Although the power of Mesopotamian kings was balanced in vary-
ing degrees by local elites, assemblies, and public opinion, the kings
were usually the main agents in international relations, and for pur-
poses of this brief survey we must treat them as supreme agents of
their states. Relations between rulers were described with kinship
terms. Thus, the most important kings were “fathers” in relation to
their vassal “sons” and addressed each other as “brothers.” The
sources provide interesting examples of how political changes were
paralleled on this level and could give rise to fierce disputes.^7 In the
early eighteenth century, the most powerful states were those cen-
tered on Halab (Aleppo), Qatna (Tell Meshrife), Mari, Babylon,
Eshnunna (Tell Asmar), and Ekallatum (near Assur). The kings of
these states would have a large following of vassal kings, bound to
them by treaty. The major powers could form alliances, and vassals
could contract alliances with other kingdoms and their own vassals,
provided that the agreement did not run counter to stipulations in
their treaty of vassalage. Treaties were concluded both as general
alliances and for distinct ad hoc purposes. General alliances were
often affirmed by establishment of affinal kinship ties in the shape
of royal marriages, the more powerful king normally assuming the(^5) Eidem and Læssøe, Shemshàra I.
(^6) See Charpin and Durand, “Fils de Sim"al...”
(^7) Lafont, “L’admonestation...”
westbrook_f20_744-752 8/27/03 1:33 PM Page 746