Economy

The Assyrian heartland was formed by a rich agricultural zone that was less de­pendent upon artificial irrigation than the cities of the south. A number of big settlements lay along the Zagros foothills, the rivers descending from the moun­tains, and the Tigris River.

At first, the expansion of the empire stimulated local economy by concentrating wealth and manpower and submitting it to centralized control. More permanent effects were achieved through a continuous readjustment of production, labor, and infrastructure. Methods applied were in essence time-tested approaches, such as the reorganization of the agricultural sector and the use of organized labor to open up new lands, but Assyria took such endeavors to a different scale. The con­centration of wealth in the capital cities gave strength and authority to the ruler, and was the necessary adjunct to a political system that was turning increasingly absolutistic. Conversely, the state grew progressively more vulnerable to disruptions of supplies from its outlying regions as the population not directly engaged in food production grew.^[232] To counter such tendencies, suitable ecological zones and areas of resource extraction were singled out to accommodate a production on an in­dustrial scale.

A precondition for such activities was a system of large-scale deportations that began already during the early empire period.^[237] Although these are described in the Assyrian royal inscriptions primarily as political or military maneuvers, their function was presumably more related to issues of growth. Shifts in the demog­raphy transformed the economy of the empire and literally changed the face of the state.^[238] Instead of relying upon a gradual increase in population, Assyria actively changed settlement patterns through relocation. Deportation formed a component in all the strategies mentioned earlier: agriculture and industry were boosted by the influx of laborers, provincial capitals were built and settled with deportees, and ambitious waterworks were constructed for the swelling agriculturalist population whose surplus production was used to support the burgeoning royal elite and army. Voluntary movement caused by economic incentives may also account for some of the demographic shifts on the imperial frontier, but this is less clear.^[239]

The importance of slavery for the imperial economy is uncertain; people referred to as slaves in the textual record mainly appear to have been indentured by them­selves or a family member, and were generally not chattel slaves or prisoners of war. They mostly appear in the possession of affluent urbanites, and could themselves own property under the head of the household.^[240] But whether this image is rep­resentative of reality is debatable, and it can be a problem to distinguish between slaves, prisoners, and deportees.^[241] Certainly, there was a market for (free) hired labor as well.^[242]

It is unknown whether the large expanses of new land that came under cultivation in theory all belonged to the ruler.^[243] In reality, conquered areas were often divided into estates that went to private ownership.

The overall administrative division of the empire can be described as a system of provincial territories surrounded by client states, although in reality territorial dominance never became continuous or fully integrated. At any given point, an in­ventory of the empire would include crown land, privileged cities, temple estates, territorial provinces, private lands, itinerant tribal groups, client communities, and semi-independent buffer states.

Corvee service (ilku) and taxes on trade were claimed in the provinces,^[246] while tribute was imposed upon the outlying clients; tribute came under the direct ju­risdiction of the king, while the governors collected the provincial taxes as part of their enterprise and presumably made a profit from it. Corvee service, grain tax and straw tax were also levied in the provinces, and there were agents who gathered horses and raised troops for the royal armies.^[247] Beyond the confines of the imperial provinces the economy of the subjugated areas varied according to local conditions.

The border regions remained under the control of the highest military officials— the “commander-in-chief” (turtanu), the “treasurer” (masennu), the “cupbearer” (rab sdqe), and the “palace herald” (nagir ekalli).

Newly annexed regions would see considerable initial investment in order to se­cure Assyrian rule and to set up a functioning infrastructure. This could include the construction of a provincial center and military installations, the reorganization of the local settlement structure,^[249] the linking up with the imperial information net­work,^[250] and the enhancement of agricultural potential by way of introducing new agricultural techniques and irrigation projects.^[251] The territory of a province was sometimes divided into smaller units, once imperial control had been consolidated and local agriculture developed,^[252] presumably because such tactics encouraged micro-management of the provincial economy and diminished the economic power of the individual governor.

The management of merchant communities was left particularly weak and the ca­pacity of frontier cities to act as interstitial ports of trade was actively promoted.^[253] With the exception of Sidon, the Phoenician city-states in the Levant were not in­corporated into the provincial system and instead the Assyrian annexation pre­sumably became an impetus for the Phoenician maritime expansion through the stability, investments, and market provided by the empire.^[254] Also the subjugated polities along the northern frontier toward Phrygia and Urartu were left under in­direct rule. There, patron-client relations were established with local rulers to create a band of strategic buffer states between the two contending empires.^[255]

Trading policies included the establishment of “ports” (karu) and “trading houses” (bet kari), e.g., on the Iranian frontier,^[256] and the forceful opening of Egypt's maritime ports to trade with Assyria.^[257] Some provinces even appear to have been formed specifically to manage trade relations with areas beyond the control of the state.^[258] Examples include Ashdod (in 711 bce), which was charged with overseeing traffic with Egypt and the kingdoms of South Arabia, and Sidon (in 677 bce), which in addition to strategic political considerations probably constituted an attempt to profit more directly from Mediterranean maritime trade.^[259] Following the conquest of Carchemish in 717 bce an influx of vast quantities of silver facilitated a change from a copper to a silver standard that was already underway.^[260]

The private sector of the Assyrian imperial economy is not well represented in the surviving evidence.^[261] However, there are enough data to demonstrate an advance in the degree of monetization of exchange^[262] as an important first step to facilitate the introduction of coinage.