What groups were the population of the ancient Mesopotamia divided into? The most ancient population of Mesopotamia

Slavery in Ancient Mesopotamia had specific features that distinguished it from the classical one. On the one hand, here free people bore a heavy burden of duties to the state or householder. The latter had the right to force household members to work, to marry off young women for ransom, and in some cases even to force his wife into slavery. Household members found themselves in the worst position when the householder exercised his right to use them as collateral for a loan. With the development of commodity-money relations, freedom began to be limited by various forms of legalized bondage into which the insolvent borrower fell. On the other hand, slaves here had certain rights and freedoms. Giving slaves legal personality turned out to be a kind of institutional counterbalance to the ease with which a full-fledged person could lose his freedom. But not least of all, this became possible because in the community of full-fledged people of Mesopotamia the prevailing idea was of a slave not as a thing or a socially humiliated agent, but primarily as a source of constant income. Therefore, in practice, in most cases, the exploitation of slaves in Mesopotamia acquired soft, almost “feudal” forms of collecting quitrents, and the slave himself often became the object of investment in human capital. Conducting an accurate usurious calculation of benefits and costs, the slave owners of Mesopotamia learned to turn a blind eye to class prejudices and see their benefit from providing the slave with broad economic autonomy and legal rights. The distance between freemen and slaves in Mesopotamia was further reduced by social institutions that provided vertical mobility, allowing people to move from one social class to another.

Keywords: slavery, Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, Babylonia, Mesopotamia, civil law relations, social structure, economic system.

Slavery in Ancient Mesopotamia was characterized by a peculiar feature that distinguished it from classic slavery. On the one hand, the free men carried a heavy burden of obligations to the government or patriarchal householder. They had the right to compel the family to work, to marry young women for ransom, and sometimes even pay wife into slavery. The worst situation was when a householder would exercise the right to use the family as collateral for a loan. When commodity-money relations developed, freedom became more restricted due to the introduction of several forms of legalized slavery of the bankrupts. On the other hand, slaves possess certain rights and freedoms. This became a kind of institutional counterweight to the easy enslavement of free people. However, this became possible because the Mesopotamian community considered slaves not as things, but mostly as resources of a steady income. Therefore, in practice the exploitation of slaves in Mesopotamia mostly acquired a soft, almost “feudal” form of collection of dues, and the servant was often the target of investment in human capital. Slave-owners in Mesopotamia would keep an accurate calculation of costs and benefits, and thus learned to disregard some class prejudice, and to perceive the benefits from providing a slave with a broad economic autonomy and legal rights. The distance between free and slaves in Mesopotamia declined even more due to the activity of social institutions, which provided vertical mobility for people to move from one social class to another.

Keywords: slavery, Sumer, Akkad, Assyria, Babylonia, Mesopotamia, civil relations, social structure, economic system.

According to the prevailing principles in the 19th century. views, the social organization of societies of the Ancient World was fundamentally based on common principles. They were formulated during the analysis of ancient societies that had been well studied by that time and assumed the existence of irreconcilable and irremovable contradictions between the two main classes of the slave-owning formation - slave owners and slaves. The former were endowed with the right of ownership of the means of production and the slaves themselves, while the latter, although they were the main productive force of society, were deprived not only of property, but also of any rights at all (Philosophical... 1972: 341).

This paradigm quite correctly characterized the social relations that existed in Ancient Greece and Ancient Rome, as well as in the states that fell into the orbit of their economic and cultural influence. However, today it is unlikely that any specialist would risk asserting that it was equally adequate in relation to the societies of the Ancient East.

Doubts about the heuristic value of a single nomothetic approach to understanding slavery in the west and east of Eurasia were expressed almost immediately after its emergence, and were formulated in its final form by Karl August Wittfogel (Wittfogel 1957). As he expanded and studied historical material, his hypothesis about the uniqueness of the Asian mode of production found more and more confirmation. In particular, in recent decades, in the course of historiographical, anthropological and sociological research, results have been obtained that make it possible to judge the blurring of the boundaries between the main classes in the slave states of Ancient Asia. It turned out that here they were not at all separated by the social gulf that lay between them on the pages of books outlining ideal-typical ideas about ancient slavery, and the severity of the contradictions between classes was dampened by state legislation designed to ensure social peace and order.

A good addition to the overall picture illustrating the features of slavery in the Ancient East could be a description of the social practices that developed between the state, free people and slaves in the societies of Mesopotamia - Sumer, Akkad, Assyria and Babylonia.

Considering the economic cultures of these societies as parts of a single economic and cultural complex, it is easy to see that an invariant feature of the class structure of Ancient Mesopotamia is the presence in it, in addition to a layer of those partially endowed with rights (Sumer. shub-lugal or Akkadian miktum And mush-kenum), two opposite poles - full-fledged free people, called “people” (Akkad. avilum), on the one hand, and slaves, on the other. In addition, one can find that free people here bore a heavy burden of duties, slaves had certain rights and freedoms, and social institutions ensured the existence of corridors of vertical mobility that allowed people to move from one social class to another.

Thus, analyzing the situation of free community members in Mesopotamia, we can come to the conclusion that they could not fully enjoy the privilege of their social position.

It is well known that among other classes, free community members had the greatest number of rights. First of all, they were endowed with the right to use land plots and the ability to dispose of them. This possibility of theirs was interpreted by some researchers even as a manifestation of the private property rights of community members to land (Shilyuk 1997: 38–50; Suroven 2014: 6–32), which they may not have actually possessed. Despite the discussions surrounding the issue of ownership of land by full free people, today it is generally accepted that they had the right to own, use and dispose of other real estate, as well as movable property. In addition, in a critical situation, they could count on emergency government support, forgiveness of debts to private individuals and, with the exception of later periods, even write-off of arrears to the state. These rights were legislatively enshrined in the Laws of Uruinimgina (I, art. 1–9, II, art. 1–11), the laws of Lipit-Ishtar (art. 7, 9, 12–19, 26–32, 34, 36–43 ), Middle Assyrian laws, Table B + O, laws of Hammurabi (vv. 4, 7, 9–13, 17–18, 25, 42, 44, 46–56, 64–66, 71, 78, 90, 99, 112 –116, 118, 120–125, 137–139, 141–142, 146–147, 150–152, 160–164), etc.

Having a significant amount of powers and freedoms, full-fledged community members were not free from very burdensome obligations, and above all in relation to the state.

Thus, in Sumer they were required to serve four months of the year as laborers on irrigation work and cultivating temple lands. At the same time, the administration of the temples vigilantly ensured that the community members fully fulfilled their duties. For this purpose, temple officials carefully monitored the working time spent, adjusted to take into account the worker’s ability to work.

For these purposes, each of them was assigned a working capacity coefficient, calculated in shares of the labor force. The resolution of the work ability scale was very high. Usually, full-time and half-time workers were distinguished, but in the cities of Nippur and Puprizhgan there is also a “subtle” differentiation of the worker’s ability to work - in 1, 2/3, 1/2, 1/3 and 1/6 of the labor force (World... 1987: 52 –53). Community members who paid their debt in full, as well as temple personnel, received in-kind and cash allowances from state storage facilities, which was also reflected in the reporting. According to it, food was distributed to workers in most cases on a monthly basis.

Those serving conscription received food rations, which included grain, fish, bread, vegetable oil, dates, beer, as well as non-food items - fabric or wool for clothing and even some silver, which was used in Sumer as a means of payment (World... 1987: 53) . The amount of remuneration was also determined by the quantity and quality of labor expended. In Lagash, for example, there were three categories of food ration recipients: lu-kur-dab-ba– “people receiving food” (skilled workers); igi-nu-du– “people receiving separate plates” (unskilled workers); gim-du-mu– “slaves and children”, including nu-sig- “orphans”. Similarly, in Ur, in addition to full-time workers, food was received by: dum-dumu- "half-time workers" bur-su-ma- “old people”, as well as “bread eaters” (Tyumenev 1956). In order to ensure uninterrupted work on the formation of public consumption funds and the reproduction of the labor force, temple officials had the right to apply sanctions against those who evaded the conscientious performance of their duties to the state. There is reason to believe that draft dodgers were obliged to compensate the state for lost labor in an amount equal to “the average wage, i.e., the wage that had to be paid to those hired to replace workers who did not show up for any reason at public work" (Kozyreva 1999: 48).

With the development of means of production, the temple farming system began to degrade. Even during the reign of the III dynasty of Ur, lands gradually began to be alienated from temples and transferred to free people as awards for service or for conditional lifetime use. With the fall of the dynasty, centralized temple economies practically ceased to exist. But it can hardly be said that with the abolition of the centralized planned economy, ordinary community members of Mesopotamia became freer. Some forms of addiction have been replaced by others.

Indeed, the elimination of the monopoly of temples on the disposal of resources contributed to the expansion of the sphere of commodity-money relations and the development of the economic institutions of purchase and sale and temporary transfer of rights to property, lease, sublease, credit, pledge and guarantee that provided them. Often, as a result of the unfavorable outcome of market transactions, people found themselves in extremely difficult situations, losing their property and even, in whole or in part, their freedom. This inevitably led to the emergence of a large class of people who were partially or completely deprived of their rights and became dependent on the new owners of the means of production - the state and private individuals (Kechekian 1944).

The state has repeatedly made attempts to regulate private law relations in order to protect “people” from moneylenders, for which it legislatively established the terms of trade and even prices for basic goods and services, as well as the terms of credit, hiring, rent, etc. This is reflected in laws King Eshnunna (XX century BC), the laws of Lipit-Ishtar (XX–XIX centuries BC), the laws of Hammurabi (XVIII century BC) (History... 1983: 372–374 ). These measures, of course, restrained the process of property and social stratification in Mesopotamia and contributed to the fact that a fairly significant layer of free people remained in society. But even they could not help but feel the pressure of social and economic pressure.

One of the most vulnerable categories of the free population of Ancient Mesopotamia were members of the family of the patriarchal householder.

For example, according to the Laws of Hammurabi, the latter had the right to force them to work, to marry young women for ransom, and even to enslave his wife, if she caused damage to the household with her preparations for divorce (Article 141). But the households were probably in the worst position in the case where the householder exercised his right to use them as security for a loan and entered into an agreement on this matter with the lender (Grice 1919: 78). This happened if the head of the family was unable to repay the debt to his creditor. Using a hostage in this way, the householder had the right either to sell him to a third party with the subsequent transfer of the proceeds to the creditor (Articles 114–115), or to transfer a member of his family directly to the lender into bondage to pay off his obligations (Article 117). In both cases, the debtor was considered freed from his obligations, but at the cost of the freedom of his family member.

It is important to note, however, that the state did not leave the hostage alone with his new owners, but actively interfered in their relations.

First of all, the code prohibited the creditor from using the debtor’s difficult life situation for selfish purposes. According to Art. 66, “if a person took money from a tamkar and this tamkar presses him, and he has nothing with which to pay the debt, and he gave his garden to the tamkar after pollination and said to him: “The dates, how many of them there are in the garden, you will take for your silver,” then tamkar must not agree; only the owner of the garden must take the dates, how many of them there will be in the garden, and the silver with its interest, according to his document, he must pay tamkara, and only the owner of the garden must take the rest of the dates that will be in the garden” (Chrestomatiya... 1980: 138) . As can be seen from the text of the article, the law provides the debtor with a deferment in repaying the debt and prohibits the lender from seizing the debtor’s crop in excess of the cost of the loan with interest. Obviously, this norm was intended to limit the process of impoverishment of free, full-fledged people and their loss of their high social position as a result of self-selling into slavery or being taken hostage for debts.

However, if this did happen and a free person became dependent on a creditor, then, according to the Code of Hammurabi, he was not deprived of legal protection from ill-treatment. It was defined by Art. 196–211 and established the degree of responsibility of a person depending on the degree of damage to the physical condition that he caused to another full-fledged person, as well as to a person affected in terms of his rights - a muskenum and even a slave.

Thus, if a person lost an eye due to ill-treatment, then his offender also had to have his eye gouged out (Article 196). Similarly, for a broken bone, the offender of equal status was punished with a broken bone (Article 197), for a knocked out tooth he was deprived of a tooth (Article 200), for a blow to the cheek he was obliged to pay a fine of 1 mina of silver (Article 203), for an unintentional inflicting harm to health, he had to swear: “I hit unintentionally” - and pay the doctor (Article 206), but if as a result of beating an equal died, then the fine was already 1/2 mina of silver (Article 207). But for intentionally causing death, the Code of Hammurabi provided for a more severe punishment than fines or the implementation of the principle of talion for minor damage. Thus, by causing the death of a woman as a result of beatings, the perpetrator doomed his daughter to death (Article 210), and Art. 116 of the Code directly determines that “if a hostage died in the house of the mortgagee-lender from beatings or ill-treatment, then the owner of the hostage can incriminate his tamkar, and, if this is one of the full-fledged people, the lender’s son must be executed...” (Chrestomathy... 1980 : 161).

The fundamental point of the Old Babylonian legislation is that it not only protected the hostage from ill-treatment, but also determined the maximum period for his stay in servitude to the buyer or creditor. According to Art. 117 “if debt overcomes a man and he sells his wife, his son and his daughter for silver or gives them into bondage, then for three years they must serve the house of their buyer or their enslaver, in the fourth year they must be given freedom” (Ibid. : 161). It is important to note that this norm not only established the time frame for the social dependence of a full-fledged person, but also limited the process of property differentiation. After all, knowing the maximum terms of exploitation of the hostage’s labor, a rational lender was forced to limit the amount of the loan, thereby increasing the debtor’s chances of repaying it. As a result, a significant number of full-fledged free people remained in society, and capital owners did not have the opportunity to unlimitedly enrich themselves through usurious transactions.

It should be noted, however, that with the development of commodity-money relations, the legislative rights of the creditor were expanded. For example, the Middle Assyrian laws of the second half of the 2nd millennium BC. e., discovered at the beginning of the 20th century. during excavations in Ashur and which have come down to us in the form of tablets from A to O, good treatment of the hostage is no longer used as an absolute imperative, as it was in the Code of Hammurabi. Table A of the Assurian laws states that "if an Assyrian or Assyrian woman living in a man's house as collateral for their price is taken for full price, then he (the lender) may beat them, pull them by the hair, damage or pierce their ears" ( Reader... 1980: 201). As can be seen, legal protection against mistreatment in bondage extended only to people taken hostage whose value was assessed above the value of the loan. If this condition was not met, the lender had the right to force the hostage to work using physical force. It is also significant that the Ashur laws did not even contain any mention of limiting the duration of a hostage’s stay in the lender’s house, in fact allowing for his lifelong enslavement.

Babylonian laws further increased the lack of rights of household members. They removed the restrictions apparently established by Hammurabi on the right of a householder to dispose of his family members at his own discretion. If the Code of Hammurabi allowed the sale or enslavement of a household member solely in the form of payment of an existing debt (Articles 117, 119), then in Babylon in the 7th–6th centuries. BC, the practice of selling family members for the sake of enrichment had already become widespread. This is evidenced by the texts of contracts on the sale and purchase of slaves. In one of them, for example, it is stated that the Assyrian woman Banat-Innin announced in the national assembly and in the presence of the state property distributor that she remained a widow and, due to her poor situation, “branded her young children Shamash-ribu and Shamash-leu and gave them to the goddess (that is, to the temple. - S. D.) Belit of Uruk. While they are alive, they will truly be temple slaves of Belit Uruk” (Yale... 1920: 154).

Having reduced the level of protection for an insolvent debtor and a member of a patriarchal family, Assyrian society nevertheless developed practices for their social rehabilitation. The most common among them are “revival” and “adoption”.

The practice of "revival in distress" involved an insolvent father giving his daughter to the "revivalist." The latter accepted the “revived” one for feeding and received the right to use her labor force in his household until she was bought back at full price by her own father. In addition, the “reviver” received the right to marry off the girl, which could be considered by him as a profitable commercial enterprise, since according to the rule that existed among the Assyrians, he received a property ransom from the future husband - a “marriage gift.” But the reasons for the girl’s own father were obvious in this case: for handing over his daughter to the “reviver,” he received a monetary reward and retained her status as a full-fledged Assyrian (Dyakonov 1949).

Like “revival,” “adoption” was also the form in which the relationship between the creditor and the insolvent debtor was clothed. For example, according to the text of the treaty between the Assyrians Erish-ili and Kenya, the son of Erish-ili Nakidu was adopted by Kenya “with his field and his house and all his property. Nakidu is the son, Kenya is his father. In the field and inside the settlement, he (Nakidu) must work for him (Kenya). Nakidu like a father and Kenya like a son should treat each other. If Nakidu does not work for Kenya, without trial or dispute, he (Kenya) can shave him (Nakidu) and sell him for silver” (Chrestomatiya... 1980: 209). This document is obviously evidence of a pretended adoption by the lender of a family member of the debtor who is unable to fulfill his obligations under the loan. After all, its signatories did not forget to mention that the debtor’s son is adopted along with all his property, and they focus on the sanctions that awaited the “adopted” in the event of his refusal to work for the “adoptive parent.” But, as in the case of “revival,” this form of relationship between lender and debtor was beneficial to both parties. The creditor received at his disposal labor and property, as well as the unconditional right to dispose of the fate of the “adopted” at his own discretion, up to and including selling him into slavery. In turn, the debtor was released from his obligations under the loan and retained the status of a free person for his family member, whose full rights, under the terms of the agreement, were limited to no more than in his former family - by the patriarchal power of his new “father”.

One should not be surprised at the ingenuity that entitled people have shown in order to avoid debt slavery. The attitude towards slaves in Mesopotamia is well illustrated by how much the life and health of a slave were valued in comparison with the life and health of a free person.

For example, the legal principle of talion did not apply to slaves. If for causing physical defects to a free person the criminal received a symmetrical punishment, then when causing damage to a slave he got off with a fine of half his purchase price, and even that was paid not to the victim, but to his owner (Article 199). The death of a slave from ill-treatment in the house of the new owner threatened the latter not with the loss of his son, as would be punishable if the death of a full-fledged person was caused, but only with a fine of 1/3 of a mina of silver and the loss of the entire amount of the loan issued to the debtor (Article 161).

It is easy to see that the law valued the life and health of a slave lower than the life and health of a full and partial person. And yet, the position of the slave in Mesopotamia was incomparably higher than the position of the slave in the ancient states. This is evidenced by documents that reveal to us certain aspects of his social and legal status.

First of all, from Art. 175–176 of the Code of Hammurabi, it follows that slaves belonging to the state, as well as to non-full muskenums, had the right to marry representatives of any social class, as well as to have their own property and run their own household. In later times, the legislation of Mesopotamia completely removed obvious restrictions on these rights, granting them, apparently, to all slaves without exception.

The source of the formation of the property complex of slaves was not only their own funds, but probably also the funds of their masters. There are no direct indications of this. However, this can be judged by how carefully the slave owner, who viewed his slave as a reliable source of permanent income, treated his “property” and with what rationality he usually approached the formation of the slave’s ability to receive these incomes. The basis of this frugality was, most likely, simple economic calculation. As Douglas North showed in his work Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance, in some cases the marginal cost of controlling a slave was greater than the marginal benefit of his servitude. “In view of the increasing marginal costs of evaluation and control,” he wrote, “it is not profitable for the owner to establish comprehensive control over the slave’s labor, and he will exercise control only until the marginal costs equal the additional marginal revenue from controlling the slave. As a result, the slave acquires some property rights over his own labor. Masters can increase the value of their property by granting slaves some rights in exchange for those results of slave labor that the masters value most" (North 1997: 51).

It is no coincidence that slave exploitation in Mesopotamia appears to us in a soft, almost “feudal” form of collecting quitrent from a slave (Scheil 1915: 5), and investments in his human capital have become very widespread. For example, we have documentary evidence that free people paid for the training of their slaves in weaving (Strassmaier 1890: 64), baking ( Ibid.: 248), house-building (Petschow 1956: 112), leatherworking (Strassmaier 1892: 457), etc. It is easy to understand that during the training slaves acquired sought-after professions and were protected from the mistreatment of extreme forms of exploitation by the high qualifications of their labor .

Probably, in some situations, it was even more profitable for the slave owner to grant his slave freedom subject to the lifelong maintenance of his former master, rather than limit his freedom. There is also documentary evidence of this. Although it should be noted here that, when granting freedom to a slave, the owner, as a rule, did not forget to bind his former slave with obligations to “deliver him food and clothing,” and in case of failure to fulfill these obligations, he “broke”, that is, disavowed, the drawn up document on granting freedom freedman ( Idem 1889: 697).

This combination of “generosity” and prudence in relation to slaves is a sure indication that investments in the human capital of slaves and granting them freedom were not so much a manifestation of the humanism of slave owners as they expressed their desire to best provide for themselves materially. But in any case, it should be noted that the position of the slave in Mesopotamia was in many ways at odds with the image of a silent living instrument, crushed by the burden of backbreaking monotonous work, which is still attributed to him on the pages of some scientific publications. The importance of the slave in the socio-economic Ancient Mesopotamia was reinforced by his by no means insignificant legal status.

There is documentary evidence that since the time of Sumer, a slave had the right to independently appear in court, including with claims about the illegality of his stay in the status of a slave. The plaintiff usually addressed the judges with the words: “I am not a slave” - and tried to bring arguments established by law in support of his rights. As a rule, they were either signs that established or confirmed his status as a free person, or sworn testimony of witnesses (Chrestomatiya... 1980: 148–149).

This tradition was continued in Babylonia and Assyria. This is evidenced by both the texts of laws and the records of court hearings devoted to disputes over the legality of a slave’s stay in captivity. So, according to Art. 282 of the Laws of Hammurabi, a slave had the right to go to court to gain freedom, but had to convincingly argue his demands - otherwise the owner had the right to cut off his ear. Documents from later times serve as a good illustration of the fact that slaves were not afraid of possible punishment and boldly put forward claims against their masters. The numerous records of court hearings with similar disputes indicate that slaves had a chance to gain freedom through the courts. Here we can cite as an example the protocol of a lawsuit by a slave named Bariki - or to recognize him as free. When asked by the judges to present a document confirming his freedom, Bariki-ili replied: “I escaped twice from my master’s house, they didn’t see me for many days, I hid and said: “I am a free man.”<…>I am a free man, the guard of Bel-rimanni, who is in the service of Shamash-dimik, the son of Nabu-nadin-ah..." (Strassmaier 1890: 1113). The document may be of interest to us not only as direct evidence of the routinization of the practice of a slave challenging his status. From its context, it can be seen that Barika-ili's regime of captivity was such that it allowed him not only to escape, but to do so twice. It is also noteworthy that such actions of the slave remained without any harmful consequences for him. Indeed, despite his capture and return to his former master, he was not marked with lifelong markers of his slave status and tendency to escape, which allowed Shamash-dimik to accept him into service as a guard.

One must think that in the societies of Ancient Mesopotamia the sphere of legal personality of a slave was not limited only to his participation in trials regarding disputes regarding his status. It was much broader and was expressed not only in endowing the slave with such “formal” rights, such as, for example, the right to testify against his master without being subjected to bastonade (Chrestomatiya... 1980: 237), but also opened up for him certain opportunities to freely organize his relations with full rights on a mutually beneficial contractual basis.

The practice of slaves purchasing property from full-fledged slaves and even their participation in the creation of commercial enterprises on an equal basis with free people on the terms of an equal partnership became widespread. For example, according to an agreement between Bel-katsir, a descendant of a washerman, and the slave Mrduk-matsir-apli, concluded in 519 BC, each party contributed 5 mina of silver in order to organize trade, and also divided the proceeds from trade equally (Strassmaier 1892: 97). As can be seen in this case, the low social status of Mrduk-matsir-apli did not in any way affect his negotiating positions and did not reduce his share in the profits received.

It is important to note that in economic relations with free people, slaves could occupy an even higher position in relation to free people. This happened if their role as an economic agent turned out to be more significant in comparison with the economic role of a full-fledged person.

First of all, the slave was endowed with the right to provide a loan to a free person on the terms of payment of interest and to demand from the debtor the fulfillment of his obligations. For example, in 523 BC, the slave Dayan-bel-utsur provided Bariki-Adad, the son of Yahal, 40 hens of barley, 1 mina of silver and 3300 heads of garlic on the condition of receiving 40 hens of barley from the debtor every month, and in addition , “out of 1 mina of silver, ½ mina of silver (and) garlic Bariki-Adad must give to Dayan-bel-utsuru from his income” (Strassmaier 1890: 218). It is obvious that, taking on the role of a lender, the slave did this for the sake of obtaining material gain. And in this sense, it is important to note that his economic status was protected by a document issued to him with the signatures of a scribe, as well as witnesses certifying the legality and purity of the transaction. There is also no doubt that free people were forced to fulfill their obligations to the slave. This is evidenced by the texts of receipts issued by slave-lenders to their former debtors, stating that they received everything due under the contract and consider the relationship under it completed. An example of such a document is a receipt issued in 507 BC by the same slave Dayan-bel-utsur to another full-fledged one. It stated that “Dayan-bel-utsur, a slave belonging to Marduk-matsir-apli, a descendant of Egibi, received his debt, capital and interest from the hands of Kunnata, daughter of Akhhe-iddin, wife of Bel-iddin” ( Idem 1892: 400).

Babylonian slaves had the right not only to engage in usurious transactions, but also to act as tenants. At the same time, they could rent both the property of free people (The University... 1912: 118) and labor. First of all, a slave had the opportunity to exploit the labor power of another slave. An example is the agreement of 549 BC between Idti-marduk-balatu, the son of Nabu-ahhe-iddin, and the slave Ina-cilli-Belu, the slave of Ina-kiwi-Bela, in that the latter for rent He takes 9 shekels of silver for himself for a year and has the right to use the labor of the slave Idti-marduk-balata named Bariki-ili (Strassmaier 1889: 299).

However, the rights of the slave as an employer of labor were not limited to this. As surprising as it may seem to some of us, his rights extended to the sphere of hiring the labor of full-fledged Babylonians. For example, according to the agreement concluded in 532 BC, Zababa-shum-utsur, the son of Nabu-ukin-zer, hired out his son Nabu-bullitsu to the slave Shebetta for 4 shekels of silver per year, with the condition, however, that he continued to do work in his father's house for two months a year. Having signed the agreement, the parties, as equal participants in the transaction, “received one document each” (Strassmaier 1890: 278). The document gives no reason to think that Shebetta's obligation to grant the son of a free man leave to work in his father's house is a concession that she was forced to make by virtue of her slave status. Agreements concluded between free people abound with clauses of this kind.

The boundaries of the economic freedoms of the Babylonian slave were so wide that they even included his right to become a slave owner himself. This, for example, is evidenced by the text of the agreement between the full-fledged Babylonians Iddia, Rimut and Sin-zer-ushabshi, on the one hand, and the slave Id-dahu-Nabu, on the other, concluded in Ur during the reign of Artaxerxes. According to the text of the contract, the sellers received from the buyer 1 mina 18 shekels of silver - the full price of the slave Beltima, and transferred her to the buyer. At the same time, the contract specifically notes the responsibility of the full-fledged Babylonians to the slave in the event that a third party challenges the deal: “As soon as claims to their slave Beltima arise, then Iddiya, the son of Sin-iddin, Rimut, the son of Muranu and Sin-zer-ushabshi, the son Shamash-Etira, must purify their slave Beltima and give them to Id-dahu-Nab” (Figulla 1949: 29). In this context, the word "clear" should be understood as to release from claims, to assume all the costs associated with freeing the property of a slave from encumbrances, and then transfer it to the buyer. As you can see, according to the terms of the contract, the slave became the full owner of the acquired slave and even received guarantees that his acquisition would never be challenged by anyone.

The opportunities granted to the slave to participate as an active (and in some cases even very influential) economic agent in a certain sense brought his economic status closer to the status of persons whose freedom was not limited. The slave's position became even more independent in cases where he was freed from the obligation to live in his master's house. The fact that this actually took place is evidenced by contracts for the rental of rented housing by slaves. It is worth noting, however, that in the cases known to us, the quality of such housing left much to be desired. For example, according to a treaty concluded in 546 BC in Babylon between Shushranni-Marduk, the son of Marduk-nadin-ah, and Bel-tsele-shime, a slave of a full-fledged man named Nabu-ahe-iddin, Shushranni-Marduk provided for the use of Bel-tsele-shime, for a fee of 2 ka of bread per day, a room located on the roof of the barn, as well as an extension near the barn (Strassmaier 1889: 499). It is impossible to say for sure why Bel-tse-shima was not provided with better housing under the contract: whether the reason for this was his low solvency or whether access to the quality housing stock of Babylonia was still differentiated depending on the social status of the tenant. The latter could be supported by the fact that in some contracts of that time housing rented by slaves was called “slave quarters” ( Idem 1892: 163). But, one way or another, the position of a slave, not “physically” tied to the house of his master, in some ways turned out to be even more advantageous in comparison with the position of a full-fledged Babylonian, under the patriarchal authority of the head of the family.

Apparently, the fact that the society of Ancient Mesopotamia provided slaves with significant rights and freedoms in the economic sphere was the result of following a cultural tradition established in Sumer and refracted through the Code of Hammurabi. The legal allowances for slaves were also able to act as an institutional counterbalance to the ease with which a full-fledged person could lose his freedom. But not least of all, this became possible because it was completely consistent with the interests of the slave owners. Probably, in the community of full-fledged people of Mesopotamia, the dominant idea was of the slave not as a thing or a socially humiliated agent, but primarily as a person capable of being a source of constant income. This could explain that in practice, the slave and the owner in most cases were connected not so much by social as by economic dependence, and the slave himself often became the object of investment in human capital. It should not be surprising that under such conditions, slave owners learned to turn a blind eye to class prejudices and were able, with precise usurious calculation, to see their benefit from providing the slave with broad economic autonomy and legal rights.

So, with a more careful examination of the social practices characterizing the position of free and slaves in Sumer, Akkad, Assyria and Babylonia, it is possible to supplement the picture of the social organization of the societies of Ancient Mesopotamia with touches that make it different from the social organization of classical slave societies. Although the existence of slavery here was an indisputable fact, free and slave, who formed the opposition in the social structure, were nevertheless not separated by an insurmountable gulf. People with full rights were under the pressure of numerous state burdens and patriarchal dependence on the head of the family. At the same time, slaves had legal personality and a high degree of freedom in carrying out economic activities, and the opportunity to act as active and influential players in economic life. All this eroded the class contradictions that existed in the societies of Ancient Mesopotamia and opened up the possibilities for people to exercise economic initiative, regardless of their social status. It is no coincidence that for many centuries Mesopotamia demonstrated the continuity of economic culture and became the embodiment of sustainable economic development and social stability.

Literature

The World History economic thought. T. 1. From the origins of economic thought to the first theoretical systems of political life. M.: Mysl, 1987.

Dyakonov, I. M. 1949. Development of land relations in Assyria. LSU.

Story Ancient East. The origins of the most ancient class societies and the first centers of slave-owning civilization. Part I. Mesopotamia. M., 1983.

Kechekyan, S. F. 1944. General History of State and Law. Part I Ancient world. Vol. 1. Ancient East and Ancient Greece. M.

Kozyreva, I. V. 1999. Social Labor in Ancient Mesopotamia. In: Dandamaev, M. A. (ed.), Taxes and duties in the Ancient East: Sat. Art. SPb.: Oriental Studies.

North, D. 1997. Institutions, institutional change and economic performance. M.: Foundation for the Economic Book “Beginnings”.

Severity, D. A. 2014. The process of the emergence of private and state property (based on written sources of Ancient Mesopotamia of the Protoliterate period). Problems of the history of society, state and law(pp. 6–32). Vol. 2. Ekaterinburg: UrGUA.

Tyumenev, A.I. 1956. State economy of Ancient Sumer. M.; L.

Philosophical dictionary / ed. M. M. Rosenthal. M., 1972.

Reader on the history of the Ancient East. Part 1. M.: Higher School, 1980.

Shilyuk, N. F. 1997. History of the Ancient World: Ancient East. 2nd ed. Ekaterinburg: Ural Publishing House. un-ta.

Ebeling, E. 1927. Keilschrifttexte aus Assur juristischen Inhalts. Wissenschaftliche Veroffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. Bd. 50. Leipzig.

Figulla, H. H. 1949. Business Documents of the New-Babylonian period. Ur Excavations Texts. London.

Grice, E.M. 1919. Records from Urand Larsa Dated in the Larsa Dynasty. Vol. VIII. London: New Haven.

Petschow, H. 1956. Neubabylonisches Pfandrecht. Berlin.

Scheil, V. 1915. La liberation judiciaire d'um fils. Revue d'Assyriologie XII.

Strassmaier, J. N.

1889. Inschriften von Nabonidus, Konig von Babylon. Leipzig.

1890. Inschriften von Cyrus, Konig von Babylon. Leipzig.

1892. Inschriften von Darius, Konig von Babylon. Leipzig.

The University of Pennsylvania. The Museum. Publications of the Babylonian Section. Vol. II. Philadelphia, 1912.

Wittfogel, K. A. 1957. Oriental Despotism. A Comparative Study of Total Power. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Yale Oriental Series Babylonian Texts. Vol. VI. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1920.

“Everyone will converge in Mesopotamia,
Here is Eden and here is the beginning
Here once in common speech
The Word of God sounded..."

(Konstantin Mikhailov)

While wild nomads roamed the territory of ancient Europe, very interesting (sometimes inexplicable) events were taking place in the East. They are colorfully written about in the Old Testament and other historical sources. For example, such famous biblical stories as the Great Flood happened precisely in the territory of Mesopotamia.

Without any embellishment, ancient Mesopotamia can be called the cradle of civilization. It was on this land that the first eastern civilization arose around the 4th century BC. Such states of Mesopotamia (Ancient Mesopotamia in Greek) as Sumer and Akkad gave humanity writing and amazing temple buildings. Let's go on a journey through this land full of secrets!

Geographical position

What was the name of Mesopotamia? Mesopotamia. The second name of Mesopotamia is Mesopotamia. You can also hear the word Naharaim - this is also her, only in Hebrew.

Mesopotamia is a historical and geographical territory located between and the Euphrates. Now there are three states on this land: Iraq, Syria and Türkiye. The history of Mesopotamia developed precisely in this territory.

Located in the very center of the Middle East, the region is bounded on the west by the Arabian Plateau and on the east by the foothills of the Zagros Mountains. In the south, Mesopotamia is washed by the waters of the Persian Gulf, and in the north rise the picturesque Ararat Mountains.

Mesopotamia is a flat plain stretching along two great rivers. Its shape is similar to an oval figure - such is the amazing Mesopotamia (the map confirms this).

Division of Mesopotamia into regions

Historians conditionally divide Mesopotamia into:

On the territory of Ancient Mesopotamia, four ancient kingdoms existed at different times:

Sumer;
Akkad;
Babylonia;
Assyria.

Why did Mesopotamia become the cradle of civilization?

About 6 thousand years ago, an amazing event occurred on our planet: two civilizations arose at about the same time - Egypt and Ancient Mesopotamia. The character of civilization is both similar and different from the first ancient state.

The similarity lies in the fact that both arose in territories with conditions favorable for human life. They are not similar in that each of them is distinguished by a unique history (the first thing that comes to mind: there were pharaohs in Egypt, but not in Mesopotamia).

The topic of the article, however, is the state of Mesopotamia. Therefore, we will not deviate from it.

Ancient Mesopotamia is a kind of oasis in the desert. The area is fenced on both sides by rivers. And from the north - by mountains that protect the oasis from humid winds from Armenia.

Such favorable natural features made this land attractive to ancient man. It surprisingly combines a comfortable climate with the opportunity to engage in farming. The soil is so fertile and rich in moisture that the grown fruits turn out juicy and the sprouted legumes are tasty.

The first to notice this were the ancient Sumerians, who settled this territory about 6 thousand years ago. They learned how to skillfully grow various plants and left behind a rich history, the mysteries of which are still being solved by passionate people to this day.

A little conspiracy theory: about the origin of the Sumerians

Modern history does not answer the question of where the Sumerians came from. There are many assumptions about this, but the scientific community has not yet come to a consensus. Why? Because the Sumerians stood out strongly against the background of the other tribes inhabiting Mesopotamia.

One of the obvious differences is the language: it is not similar to any of the dialects spoken by residents of neighboring territories. That is, it has no similarities with the Indo-European language - the predecessor of most modern languages.

Also, the appearance of the inhabitants of Ancient Sumer is not at all typical for the inhabitants of those places. The tablets depict people with smooth oval faces, surprisingly large eyes, delicate facial features and above average height.

Another point that historians pay attention to is the unusual culture of the ancient civilization. One of the hypotheses says that the Sumerians are representatives of a highly developed civilization that flew from Space to our planet. This point of view is quite strange, but has a right to exist.

How it really happened is unclear. But one thing can be said with certainty - the Sumerians gave a lot for our civilization. One of their undeniable achievements is the invention of writing.

Ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia

Different peoples inhabited the extensive territory of Mesopotamia. We will highlight two main ones (the history of Mesopotamia would not be so rich without them):

Sumerians;
Semites (to be more precise, Semitic tribes: Arabs, Armenians and Jews).

Based on this, we will talk about the most interesting events and historical figures.

Sumer: a brief historical background

It was the first written civilization to emerge in southeastern Mesopotamia from the 4th to 3rd centuries BC. Now in this area there is the modern state of Iraq (Ancient Mesopotamia, the map again helps us orient ourselves).

The Sumerians are the only non-Semitic people on the territory of Mesopotamia. This is confirmed by numerous linguistic and cultural studies. Official history says that the Sumerians came to the territory of Mesopotamia from some mountainous Asian country.

They began their journey through Mesopotamia from the east: they settled along river mouths and developed irrigation. The first city where representatives of this ancient civilization stopped was Eredu. Then the Sumerians moved deeper into the plain: they did not subjugate the local population, but assimilated; sometimes they even adopted some of the cultural achievements of wild tribes.

The history of the Sumerians is a fascinating process of struggle between different groups of people under the leadership of one king or another. The state reached its peak under the ruler Umma Lugalzages.

The Babylonian historian Berossus, in his work, divided Sumerian history into two periods:

before the Flood (this refers specifically to the Great Flood and the story of Noah, described in the Old Testament);
after the Flood.

Culture of Ancient Mesopotamia (Sumer)

The first settlements of the Sumerians were distinguished by their originality - they were small cities surrounded by stone walls; From 40 to 50 thousand people lived in them. An important city in the southeast of the country was Ur. The city of Nippur, located in the center of the country, was recognized as the center of the Sumerian kingdom. Famous for the large temple of God Enlil.

The Sumerians were a fairly developed civilization; we will list what they achieved heights in.

In agriculture. The agricultural almanac that has reached us speaks about this. It tells in detail how to properly grow plants, when they need to be watered, and how to properly plow the soil.
In craft. The Sumerians knew how to build houses and knew how to use a potter's wheel.
In writing. We will talk about it in our next chapter.

The legend of the origin of writing

Most important inventions happen in rather strange ways, especially when it comes to ancient times. The emergence of writing is no exception.

Two ancient Sumerian rulers argued among themselves. This was expressed in the fact that they asked each other riddles and exchanged them through their ambassadors. One ruler turned out to be very inventive and came up with such a complex rebus that his ambassador could not remember it. Then writing had to be invented.

The Sumerians wrote on clay boards with reed sticks. At first, letters were depicted in the form of signs and hieroglyphs, then in the form of connected syllables. This process was called cuneiform writing.

The culture of Ancient Mesopotamia is unthinkable without Sumerian culture. Neighboring peoples borrowed the skill of writing from this civilization.

Babylonia (Babylonian Kingdom)

A state arose at the beginning of the second millennium BC in the south of Mesopotamia. Having existed for about 15 centuries, it left behind a rich history and interesting architectural monuments.

The Semitic people of the Amorites inhabited the territory of the Babylonian state. They adopted the earlier culture of the Sumerians, but already spoke the Akkadian language, which belongs to the Semitic group.

It arose on the site of the earlier Sumerian city of Kadingir.

A key historical figure was During his military campaigns, he subjugated many neighboring cities. He also wrote the work that has come down to us - “The Laws of Mesopotamia (Hammurabi).”

Let us tell you in more detail about the rules of social life written down by the wise king. The laws of Hammurabi are phrases written on a clay tablet regulating the rights and responsibilities of the average Babylonian. Historians suggest that the principle of “an eye for an eye” was first formulated by Hammurabi.

The ruler came up with some principles himself, while others he copied from earlier Sumerian sources.

The laws of Hammurabi indicate that the ancient civilization was truly advanced, since people followed certain rules and already had an idea of \u200b\u200bwhat is good and what is bad.

The original work is in the Louvre; an exact copy can be found in some Moscow museum.

Tower of Babel

The cities of Mesopotamia are a topic for a separate work. We will focus on Babylon, the same place where interesting events described in the Old Testament took place.

First, we will tell an interesting biblical story about the Tower of Babel, then we will tell the point of view of the scientific community on this matter. The legend of the Tower of Babel is a story about the emergence of different languages on Earth. The first mention of it can be found in the Book of Genesis: the event occurred after the Flood.

In those immemorial times, humanity was a single people, therefore, all people spoke the same language. They moved south and came to the lower reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates. There they decided to found a city (Babylon) and build a tower as high as the sky. The work was in full swing... But then God intervened in the process. He created different languages, so people no longer understood each other. It is clear that very soon the construction of the tower was stopped. The ending of the story was the settlement of people in different parts of our planet.

What does the scientific community think about the Tower of Babel? Scientists suggest that the Tower of Babel was one of the ancient temples for observing the stars and conducting religious ceremonies. Such structures were called ziggurats. The tallest temple (reaching 91 meters in height) was located in Babylon. Its name sounded like “Etemenanke”. The literal translation of the word is “The house where heaven and earth meet.”

Assyrian Empire

The first mentions of Assyria date back to the 24th century BC. The state existed for two thousand years. And in the seventh century BC it ceased to exist. The Assyrian empire is recognized as the first in human history.

The state was located in Northern Mesopotamia (on the territory of modern Iraq). It was distinguished by its belligerence: many cities were subjugated and destroyed by Assyrian military leaders. They captured not only the territory of Mesopotamia, but also the territory of the Kingdom of Israel and the island of Cyprus. There was an attempt to subjugate the ancient Egyptians, but it was not successful - after 15 years the inhabitants of this country regained independence.

Cruel measures were applied to the captured population: the Assyrians were obliged to pay a monthly tribute.

Major Assyrian cities were:

Ashur;
Kalah;
Dur-Sharrukin (Sargon's Palace).

Assyrian culture and religion

Here again one can trace a connection with Sumerian culture. The Assyrians spoke a northern dialect. In schools they studied the literary works of the Sumerians and Babylonians; Some moral standards of ancient civilizations were adopted by the Assyrians. On palaces and temples, local architects depicted a brave lion as a symbol of the military successes of the empire. Assyrian literature, again, is associated with the campaigns of local rulers: the kings were always described as brave and courageous people, and their opponents, on the contrary, were shown as cowardly and petty (here you can see an obvious technique of state propaganda).

Religion of Mesopotamia

The ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia are integrally associated with local religion. Moreover, their inhabitants firmly believed in the gods and necessarily performed certain rituals. Speaking very generally, it was polytheism (belief in various gods) that distinguished the Ancient Mesopotamia. To better understand the religion of Mesopotamia, you need to read the local epic. One of the most striking literary works of that time is the myth of Gilgamesh. A thoughtful reading of this book suggests that the hypothesis about the unearthly origin of the Sumerians is not groundless.

The ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia gave us three main mythologies:

Sumerian-Akkadian.
Babylonian.
Assyrian.

Let's take a closer look at each of them.

Sumerian-Akkadian mythology

Included all the beliefs of the Sumerian-speaking population. This also includes the Akkadian religion. The gods of Mesopotamia are conventionally united: each major city had its own pantheon and its own temples. Still, similarities can be found.

Let us list the gods important to the Sumerians:

An (Anu - Akkadian) - the god of the sky, responsible for the Cosmos and the stars. He was very revered by the ancient Sumerians. He was considered a passive ruler, that is, he did not interfere in people's lives.
Enlil is the lord of the air, the second most important god for the Sumerians. Only, unlike An, he was an active deity. He was revered as responsible for fertility, productivity and peaceful life.
Ishtar (Inanna) is a key goddess for Sumerian-Akkadian mythology. Information about her is very contradictory: on the one hand, she is the patroness of fertility and good relationships between men and women, and on the other, she is a fierce warrior. Such inconsistencies arise due to the large number of different sources that contain references to it.
Umu (Sumerian pronunciation) or Shamash (Akkadian pronunciation, indicating the similarity of the language with Hebrew, since “shemesh” means sun).

Babylonian mythology

They adopted the basic ideas for their religion from the Sumerians. True, with significant complications.

The Babylonian religion was built on man's belief in his powerlessness before the gods of the pantheon. It is clear that such an ideology was based on fear and limited the development of ancient man. The priests managed to build such a structure: they carried out various manipulations in ziggurats (majestic high temples), including a complex ritual of sacrifice.

The following gods were worshiped in Babylonia:

Tammuz was the patron saint of agriculture, vegetation and fertility. There is a connection with a similar Sumerian cult of the resurrecting and dying god of vegetation.
Adad is the patron of thunder and rain. A very powerful and evil deity.
Shamash and Sin are the patrons of the heavenly bodies: the sun and the moon.

Assyrian mythology

The religion of the warlike Assyrians is very similar to the Babylonian one. Most of the rituals, traditions and legends came to the people of Northern Mesopotamia from the Babylonians. The latter borrowed, as mentioned earlier, their religion from the Sumerians.

Important gods were:

Ashur is the main god. The patron saint of the entire Assyrian kingdom, he created not only all the other mythological heroes, but also himself.
Ishtar is the goddess of war.
Ramman - responsible for good luck in military battles, brought good luck to the Assyrians.

The considered gods of Mesopotamia and the cults of ancient peoples are a fascinating topic, rooted in very ancient times. The conclusion suggests itself that the main inventors of religion were the Sumerians, whose ideas were adopted by other peoples.

Those living in Mesopotamia left us a rich cultural and historical heritage.

Studying the ancient civilizations of Mesopotamia is a pleasure, as they are associated with interesting and instructive myths. And everything that concerns the Sumerians is generally one continuous mystery, the answers to which have not yet been found. But historians and archaeologists continue to “dig the ground” in this direction. Anyone can join them and also study this interesting and very ancient civilization.

The settlement of Mesopotamia began in ancient times due to the resettlement of the inhabitants of the surrounding mountains and foothills to the river valley and noticeably accelerated in the Neolithic era. First of all, Northern Mesopotamia, which was more favorable in terms of natural and climatic conditions, was developed. The ethnicity of the carriers of the most ancient (preliterate) archaeological cultures (Hassun, Khalaf, etc.) is unknown.

Somewhat later, the first settlers appeared in the territory of Southern Mesopotamia. The most vibrant archaeological culture of the last third of the 5th - first half of the 4th millennium BC. e. represented by excavations at Al-Ubeid. Some researchers believe that it was created by the Sumerians, others attribute it to pre-Sumerian (proto-Sumerian) tribes.

We can confidently state the presence of the Sumerian population in the extreme south of Mesopotamia after the appearance of writing at the turn of the 4th - 3rd millennia BC. e., but the exact time of the appearance of the Sumerians in the Tigris and Euphrates valley is still difficult to establish. Gradually, the Sumerians occupied a significant territory of Mesopotamia, from the Persian Gulf in the south to the point of greatest convergence of the Tigris and Euphrates in the north.

The question of their origin and the family ties of the Sumerian language remains highly controversial. At present, there are no sufficient grounds to classify the Sumerian language as belonging to one or another known language family.

The Sumerians came into contact with the local population, borrowing from them a number of toponymic names, economic achievements, some religious beliefs,

In the northern part of Mesopotamia, starting from the first half of the 3rd millennium BC. e., and possibly earlier, lived East Semitic pastoral tribes. Their language is called Akkadian. It had several dialects: Babylonian was widespread in southern Mesopotamia, and the Assyrian dialect was widespread to the north, in the middle part of the Tigris Valley.

For several centuries, the Semites coexisted with the Sumerians, but then began to move south and by the end of the 3rd millennium BC. e. occupied all of Mesopotamia. As a result, the Akkadian language gradually replaced Sumerian. By the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. e. Sumerian was already a dead language. However, as a language of religion and literature, it continued to exist and be studied in schools until the 1st century. BC e. The displacement of the Sumerian language did not at all mean the physical destruction of its speakers. The Sumerians merged with the Semites, but retained their religion and culture, which the Akkadians borrowed from them with only minor changes.

At the end of the 3rd millennium BC. e. from the west, from the Syrian steppe, West Semitic cattle-breeding tribes began to penetrate into Mesopotamia. The Akkadians called them Amorites. In Akkadian, Amurru meant “Syria”, as well as “west” in general. Among these nomads there were many tribes who spoke different but closely related dialects. At the end of the 3rd - first half of the 2nd millennium, the Amorites managed to settle in Mesopotamia and found a number of royal dynasties.

Since ancient times, Hurrian tribes have lived in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and the Armenian Highlands. The Sumerians and Akkadians called the country and tribes of the Hurrians Subartu (hence the ethnic name Subarea). In terms of language and origin, the Hurrians were close relatives of the Urartian tribes who lived on the Armenian Highlands at the end of the 2nd-1st millennia BC. e. The Hurrians lived in certain areas of the Armenian Highlands back in the 6th-5th centuries. BC e.

Since the 3rd millennium, in North-Eastern Mesopotamia, from the headwaters of the Diyala River to Lake Urmia, there lived semi-nomadic tribes of the Kutians (Gutians), whose ethnic origin still remains a mystery, and whose language differs from Sumerian, Semitic or Indo-European languages. It may have been related to Hurrian. At the end of the XXIII century. Kutni invaded Mesopotamia and established their dominance there for a whole century. Only at the end of the XXII century. their power was overthrown, and they themselves were thrown back to the upper reaches of Diyala, where they continued to live in the 1st millennium BC. e.

Since the end of the 3rd millennium, in the foothills of the Zagros, next to the Gutians, lived the Lullubi tribes, which often invaded Mesopotamia, about whose origin and linguistic affiliation nothing definite can yet be said. It is possible that they were related to the Kassite tribes.

The Kasites lived in Northwestern Iran, north of the Elamites, from ancient times. In the second quarter of the 2nd millennium BC. e. Part of the Kassite tribes managed to establish themselves in the valley of the Diyala River and from there carried out raids into the depths of Mesopotamia. At the beginning of the 16th century. they captured the largest of the Mesopotamian states, Babylonia, and founded their dynasty there. The Kassites who settled in Babylonia were completely assimilated by the local population and adopted their language and culture, while the Kassite tribes who remained in their homeland retained a native language different from Sumerian, Semitic, Hurrian and Indo-European languages.

In the second half of the 2nd millennium BC. e. A large group of West Semitic Aramean tribes moved from Northern Arabia to the Syrian steppe and further to Northern Mesopotamia. At the end of the 13th century. BC e. they created many small principalities in Western Syria and Southwestern Mesopotamia. By the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. e. they almost completely assimilated the Hurtite and Amorite populations of Syria and ancient Mesopotamia. The Aramaic language began to spread widely and firmly beyond this territory.

After the conquest of Babylonia by the Persians, Aramaic became the official language of the state chancellery of the entire Persian state. Akkaden was preserved only in large Mesopotamian cities, but even there it was gradually replaced by Aramaic and by the beginning of the 1st century. BC h. was completely forgotten. The Babylonians gradually merged with the Chaldeans and Arameans. The population of Ancient Mesopotamia was heterogeneous, due to the policy of forced resettlement of peoples, which was carried out in the 1st millennium BC. e. in the Assyrian and Neo-Babylonian powers, and the strong ethnic circulation that took place in the Persian power, which included Mesopotamia.

Ancient Greek geographers called Mesopotamia (Interfluve) the flat area between the Tigris and Euphrates, located in their lower and middle reaches.

From the north and east, Mesopotamia was bordered by the outlying mountains of the Armenian and Iranian highlands, in the west it was bordered by the Syrian steppe and semi-deserts of Arabia, and from the south it was washed by the Persian Gulf.

The center of development of the most ancient civilization was in the southern part of this territory - in ancient Babylonia. Northern Babylonia was called Akkad, southern Babylonia was called Sumer. Assyria was located in northern Mesopotamia, which is a hilly steppe that extends into mountainous areas.

No later than the 4th millennium BC. e. The first Sumerian settlements arose in the extreme south of Mesopotamia. Some scientists believe that the Sumerians were not the first inhabitants of southern Mesopotamia, since many of the toponymic names that existed there after the settlement of the lower reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates by these people could not come from the Sumerian language. It is possible that the Sumerians found tribes in southern Mesopotamia who spoke a language different from Sumerian and Akkadian, and borrowed ancient place names from them. Gradually, the Sumerians occupied the entire territory of Mesopotamia (in the north - from the area where modern Baghdad is located, in the south - to the Persian Gulf). But it is not yet possible to find out where the Sumerians came to Mesopotamia. According to tradition among the Sumerians themselves, they came from the Persian Gulf Islands.

The Sumerians spoke a language whose kinship with other languages has not yet been established. Attempts to prove the relationship of Sumerian with Turkic, Caucasian, Etruscan or other languages did not yield any positive results.

In the northern part of Mesopotamia, starting from the first half of the 3rd millennium BC. e., lived the Semites. They were pastoral tribes of ancient Western Asia and the Syrian steppe. The language of the Semitic tribes who settled in Mesopotamia was called Akkadian. In southern Mesopotamia, the Semites spoke Babylonian, and to the north, in the middle Tigris Valley, they spoke the Assyrian dialect of Akkadian.

For several centuries, the Semites lived next to the Sumerians, but then began to move south and by the end of the 3rd millennium BC. e. occupied all of southern Mesopotamia. As a result, the Akkadian language gradually replaced Sumerian. However, the latter remained the official language of the state chancellery even in the 21st century. BC e., although in everyday life it was increasingly replaced by Akkadian. By the beginning of the 2nd millennium BC. e. Sumerian was already a dead language. Only in the remote swamps of the lower reaches of the Tigris and Euphrates was it able to survive until the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. e., but then Akkadian took its place there too. However, as a language of religious worship and science, Sumerian continued to exist and be studied in schools until the 1st century. n. e., after which cuneiform, along with the Sumerian and Akkadian languages, was completely forgotten. The displacement of the Sumerian language did not at all mean the physical destruction of its speakers. The Sumerians merged with the Babylonians, preserving their religion and culture, which the Babylonians borrowed from them with minor changes.

At the end of the 3rd millennium BC. e. Western Semitic pastoral tribes began to penetrate into Mesopotamia from the Syrian steppe. The Babylonians called these tribes Amorites. In Akkadian, Amurru meant "west", mainly referring to Syria, and among the nomads of this region there were many tribes speaking different but closely related dialects. Some of these tribes were called Suti, which translated from Akkadian meant “nomads.”

From the 3rd millennium BC e. in northern Mesopotamia, from the headwaters of the Diyala River to Lake Urmia, on the territory of modern Iranian Azerbaijan and Kurdistan, lived the Kutia, or Gutia, tribes. Since ancient times, Hurrian tribes lived in the north of Mesopotamia. Apparently, they were autochthonous inhabitants of Ancient Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and the Armenian Highlands. In northern Mesopotamia, the Hurrians created the state of Mitanni, which in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. e. was one of the largest powers in the Middle East. Although the Hurrians were the main population of Mitanni, tribes of Indo-Aryan language also lived there. In Syria, the Hurrians appear to have formed a minority of the population. In terms of language and origin, the Hurrians were close relatives of the Urartian tribes who lived on the Armenian Highlands. In the III-II millennium BC. e. The Hurrito-Urartian ethnic massif occupied the entire territory from the plains of Northern Mesopotamia to Central Transcaucasia. The Sumerians and Babylonians called the country and tribes of the Hurrians Subartu. In certain areas of the Armenian Highlands, the Hurrians persisted in the 6th-5th centuries. BC e. In the 2nd millennium BC. e. The Hurrians adopted the Akkadian cuneiform script, which they used to write in Hurrian and Akkadian.

In the second half of the 2nd millennium BC. e. A powerful wave of Aramaic tribes poured from Northern Arabia into the Syrian steppe, into Northern Syria and Northern Mesopotamia. At the end of the 13th century. BC e. The Arameans created many small principalities in Western Syria and southwestern Mesopotamia. By the beginning of the 1st millennium BC. e. The Arameans almost completely assimilated the Hurrian and Amorite populations of Syria and northern Mesopotamia.

In the 8th century BC e. the Aramaic states were captured by Assyria. However, after this the influence of the Aramaic language only increased. By the 7th century BC e. all of Syria spoke Aramaic. This language began to spread in Mesopotamia. His success was facilitated by both the large Aramaic population and the fact that the Arameans wrote in a convenient and easy-to-learn script.

In the VIII-VII centuries. BC e. The Assyrian administration pursued a policy of forcibly relocating conquered peoples from one region of the Assyrian state to another. The purpose of such “rearrangements” is to complicate mutual understanding between different tribes and prevent their rebellion against the Assyrian yoke. In addition, the Assyrian kings sought to populate the territories devastated during endless wars. As a result of the inevitable mixing of languages and peoples in such cases, the Aramaic language emerged victorious, which became the dominant spoken language from Syria to the western regions of Iran, even in Assyria itself. After the collapse of the Assyrian power at the end of the 7th century. BC e. The Assyrians completely lost their language and switched to Aramaic.

Since the 9th century. BC e. Chaldean tribes related to the Arameans began to invade southern Mesopotamia, which gradually occupied all of Babylonia. After the conquest of Mesopotamia by the Persians in 539 BC. e. Aramaic became the official language of the state office in this country, and Akkadian was preserved only in large cities, but even there it was gradually replaced by Aramaic. The Babylonians themselves by the 1st century. n. e. completely merged with the Chaldeans and Arameans.