instead, almost exclusively, on the metaphor of the shepherd and the builder. The
Babylonians, too, in sharp contrast to the Akkadian and, later, the Assyrian kings,
did not consider either military achievements or inheritable kingship as the dominant
source of legitimisation. At least on ideological grounds, the most important concerns
of the Babylonian government were peaceful deeds and the maintenance of social
equilibrium.
CONSCRIPTED LABOUR AND MILITARY
PERSONNEL – THE SOCIAL EQUILIBRIUMAny government needs a solid economic basis, and welfare can only be upheld by a
controlled equilibrium between the different sectors of society. In Babylonia, as
compared to the Akkadian or the Assyrian kingdoms, conquest and booty played a
minor role. Only in the Late Babylonian period did this situation change when the
Babylonian empire followed the model of the Assyrian expansion. By this time,
Babylonia had adjusted its political doctrine to those of other competing powers. At
that time colonies, booty and the resulting influx of wealth became central for its
economic performance. The militia, however, played an important role during all of
Mesopotamian history. Originally, their duties were manifold: in times of conflict
they had to fight against the enemy, in periods of peace they were used in various
public activities – such as building canals, temples or palaces. Military personnel
devoted almost exclusively to warfare – what we might term a ‘standing army’ – was
probably a relatively new achievement. Conscripted labour of the younger male
population was likely to have existed early in Mesopotamian history, and we might
assume that this was linked to the formation of complex and hierarchic societies.
This sort of compulsory labour cannot have been popular. Already in late Early
Dynastic times, in the mid-third millennium, king Enmetena from the state of Lagash
stated that he had sent home the ‘children’ of those cities he had drafted for the
building of a temple in the city of Badtibira. Such freeing of drafted personnel was
later incorporated in most of ancient Mesopotamian ‘laws’, from Iri-KA-gina (also
read Uru-inimgina) down to Hammurabi of Babylon. In fact, it was soon understood
as a measurement to establish or to uphold the social equilibrium. This was generally
supplemented by provision for the weak and the poor.
THE EMERGENCE OF BABYLONIAN SOCIETYWe have already alluded to the fact that the written documentation – on which
modern historiography primarily depends – comes from a limited segment and is
therefore biased. More mundane matters are generally neglected which hampers our
understanding of the administrative records. There is ample evidence that, during
all periods of Mesopotamian history, two larger groups of population inhabited the
area. One was permanently settled in cities and towns, another was formed by semi-
nomadic people in the hinterlands, among the Akkadian, Hanaean and Amorite tribes,
as well as non-Semitic people (Stol 2004 : 645 – 650 ). They arrived first in western
and northern parts of Mesopotamia but after the end of the Third Dynasty of Ur,
Elamite intruders from the east also played a major role in Mesopotamian politics.
Though it is difficult to evaluate their impact, society clearly changed due to the
— Power, economy and social organisation in Babylonia —