CS.6_Stein2003

The Political Economy of Mesopotamian Colonial Encounters

Introduction

• Focuses on two main episodes of colonization in ancient Mesopotamia:

  • Uruk colonies (4th millennium B.C.)

  • Old Assyrian trading colonies (early 2nd millennium B.C.)

• Investigates the nature of colonization and interregional exchange from 4000 to 323 B.C.

• Defines a colony as an implanted settlement established by one society:

  • For long-term residence, spatially and socially distinguishable

  • Can exist without direct political dominance from the homeland

• Uruk and Old Assyrian colonies provide points of comparison with other ancient societies

Nature of Colonization in Mesopotamia

• Colonization is seen as an unusual economic strategy prior to the Hellenistic period.

• The two episodes (Uruk and Old Assyrian) suggest a pattern:

  • Both colonies formed under relatively weak city-state centralized institutions.

  • Engaged in trading with complex, external societies for commodities.

Resource Procurement and Interregional Interaction

• Southern Mesopotamia (Tigris and Euphrates) was rich in irrigation agriculture but lacking in essential natural resources:

  • Required trade or control over resources from neighboring regions like Anatolia, Zagros, and Oman.

• Three major trade routes facilitated exchange:

  1. Euphrates and Tigris Rivers (north-south routes)

  2. Great Khorasan road (east-west trade)

  3. Persian/Arabian Gulf (linking to Oman and Indus Valley)

• Despite rich agricultural surpluses, Mesopotamians sought resources through:

  • Trade

  • Colonization

  • Raiding

  • Diplomatic gift exchanges

Exchange Mechanisms

• Mesopotamian states procured goods through various mechanisms:

  1. Private entrepreneurial ventures independent of state control

  2. Indirect exchange at ports of trade (e.g., with Harappan civilization)

  3. Encouragement of foreign merchants to trade within Mesopotamia

• Evidence does not support organized colonization to obtain foreign goods before the Old Assyrian period.

• Claims to control resources were often decentralized through individual efforts rather than state-sponsored initiatives.

Comparison of Uruk and Old Assyrian Colonies

Organizational Patterns

• While Uruk engaged in colonial networks as a primordial state, the Old Assyrian system emerged as secondary post-Ur III collapse.

• Colonial strategies compared:

  1. Structure and dynamism of state authority

  2. Social complexity and political independence of host communities

  3. Nature of exchange (symmetric vs. asymmetric)

Old Assyrian Colonies

• Established trading networks in Anatolia with an organized colonial presence (notably at Kanesh).

• Comprised family-based merchant firms operating collaboratively:

  • Engaged in a highly profitable trade system of silver and tin for textiles.

  • Established commercial enclaves along trade routes.

Uruk Colonies

• Established during a period of enhanced exchange relations with highland areas, controlling trade routes.

• Known only through archaeological evidence due to absence of written records:

  • Distinctive ceramic styles, architecture, and administrative practices marked Uruk presence.

• Debate continues over whether Uruk sites served primarily as trading posts or outposts for population resettlement.

Comparative Conclusions

• Despite differences, both Uruk and Old Assyrian colonies exhibited

  • Symmetry in political and economic relations with host communities.

  • Lack of military dominance over local populations in areas of settlement.

• Patterns of trade suggest Mesopotamian colonies served as commercial hubs rather than centers of political control.

• Implications of these patterns may suggest early Mesopotamian trade colonization as a sign of adaptations rather than brute strength in state authority.

Acknowledgments

• Thanks to various institutions and individuals for contributing to the research, particularly regarding the archaeology of colonization.

Notes

1. Indicates that Old Assyrian colonies were integral to the state but not directly founded by the king.

2. Distinguishes between trade colonization as a strategic decision influenced by external factors.

3. Notes recent findings in tin sourcing in central Anatolian regions relevant to trade with Assyrians.