waves during the second half of the Old Babylonian period. Some of the Kassites
integrated into Babylonian society, others earned their living as mercenaries, but as
a group they became increasingly important, just as the Amorites did during the Ur
III period. The silver extracted by the crown from the traditional northern Babylonian
towns Sippar, Dilbat, Babylon and Kish was redirected to the garrison towns, which
caused instability in the long-established urban centres.
Thus, the Babylonian kingdom, falling victim to the Hittite raid in 1595 BC, was
internally weakened.
The three economic sectorsFor the periods of greatest territorial expansion (the reigns of Rim-Sîn of Larsa and
of Hammurabi of Babylon), it becomes increasingly difficult to separate the sectors
through which the Mesopotamian economy is traditionally studied – the palace, the
temple and the private or communal sector – from each other. This situation continues
during the last two centuries of the era. Nearly all the private individuals who kept
accounts of their economic activities were involved with palace, temple or other
religious institutions as entrepreneurs, prebend holders, nuns or officials. The temples
and palaces contracted private individuals to manage their assets and the temple
surpluses were redirected to the palace as much as possible.
Sumu-la-el, the first king of the First Dynasty of Babylon, took the first steps
towards economic integration in northern Babylonia. For the most clearly distinguished
sectors, we must turn to the early Old Babylonian petty kingdoms.
Palace householdsTwo examples of the administration of (part of) the household of a petty ruler have
been recovered from Sippar and Kisurra respectively. It appears that initially the king
controlled only a fraction of the agricultural land in these towns. However, his
administration acquired more lands through the acquisition of fields pledged for
unpaid debts. As for the cultivation of the agricultural assets, royal letters from the
Sippar archive refer to the assignment of subsistence plots attached and to ilkum
service, whereas an administrative document from Kisurra lists farmers of royal land,
most of whom are known as previous owners of land sold to the royal household.
Also, there are allusions to substitute workers, rations and cattle management, elements
that are well known from more extensive royal or temple administrations. The surpluses
were invested in metal industry, cultic and diplomatic obligations, trade and large
building projects.
Since the Old Babylonian layers of Babylon, the capital, are situated below the
water table, no other palace administration has been recovered from northern Babylonia.
Only where the palace economy interfered with the private sector – in the frame of
the edicts and the engagement of entrepreneurs – did it leave traces in our documentary
evidence. Other direct information concerning the royal economic policies is contained
by letters from kings to their local agents, such as the correspondence of Hammurabi
with Shamash-hazir and Sîn-iddinam.
— Anne Goddeeris —