in Anatolian-style houses, used Anatolian utensils and pottery, and could
take local wives.
Central to the Old Assyrian–Cappadocian trading system was the karum, a
merchants’ association charged with representing the collective interests of
the Assyrians in dealing with local authorities. The origin of this institution
was in southern Mesopotamia: karum is Akkadian for“quay”or “wharf,”
referring to places along the rivers where goods were unloaded and business
transacted. Eventually the term was applied to the community of merchants
in a town. Rulers found it convenient to deal with private merchants as a
group, especially if they were resident foreigners, and in some places the
karum assumed such functions as lending money and operating warehouses.
In the Anatolian trade, karums were connected together in a network with
the chief branch in Assur and the next most important in Kanesh. Included
in its duties was the enforcement of proper ethical standards among its members
to ensure the overall integrity of the group. To maintain its officials and
carry out its functions, the karum extracted its own tax from the traders.
The karum in the Anatolian trade never evolved into a loosely organized
company. Political authorities on both ends regulated and taxed but never
controlled or administered the trade. This was private enterprise, early
second millenniumBCEstyle, using private capital with the goal of accu-
mulating wealth by professional merchants taking advantage of market con-
ditions based on supply and demand. Trade was structured and scheduled
within a large-scale wholesale system: this was not peddling. Silver and gold
were units of exchange; in other words, they served a money function. Most
of the time prices were relatively stable. Normally in Assur 1 unit of silver
was valued at 15 units of tin whereas in Anatolia the ratio was 1 to 7. This
would make the gross profit on tin about 100 percent where the gross profit
in textiles appears to have been closer to 200 percent. However, the price of
tin is known to havefluctuated as much as 20 percent over short periods.
Taxes amounted to 10 percent paid to the palace in addition to other pay-
ments on departure from Assur, en route, and to the karum.
For Anatolia, the Old Assyrian–Cappadocian trade system helped to sti-
mulate the process of state building by providing a steady source of govern-
ment income, and it was in this region that the Hittite Empire would soon
arise. As for the Assyrians, their system enriched several generations of mer-
chant families, then disappeared around 1750BCEprobably due to unsettled
conditions back in Assur. Under the next great empire to arise in
Mesopotamia, the Babylonian, the role of the state and the temples in trade
was greatly reduced when compared with that of Ur III. The government
still had a hand in some commodities, including food, but used private
operators as its agents. Through the second millenniumBCE, the trend
toward privatization was unmistakable. By thefirst millenniumBCE,entrepre-
neurs could operate independently, buying and selling whatever commodities
would make them the largest profit rather than being directed by the specific
Thefirst link 31