Agriculture in Mésopotamie

The Agriculture is the principal economic activity of the ancient Mésopotamie. Because of unfavourable natural conditions to this practice on most of this territory, the men had recourse to the Irrigation to be able to make push plants. At the price of these installations, they could reach very high outputs.

In the absence of excavations in rural environment, our knowledge of the agriculture of ancient Mésopotamie rests primarily on the old texts, in particular the many acts of the practice concerning of the sales of fields, the contracts of exploitation or the loans bound for farmers, as well as the abundant documentation found in the administrative buildings of the palates and temples of the cities mésopotamiennes.

The role of the natural conditions

Regional units

Mésopotamie, governed by a dry subtropical climate, is divided into two great agricultural zones. High Mésopotamie, extension Eastern of the fertile Crescent, is located above the limit of the Isohyète 200, allowing a dry agriculture, thanks to the winter and spring rains. That applies to high the Djézireh (around the triangle of the Khabur), for the Assyrie and the buttresses of the mounts of the Zagros. In the south of a line active of the middle price of the Balikh and low Djézireh until the Susiane while skirting the chain of Zagros in the east of the Tiger, it is the zone of irrigated agriculture, because it does not rain there enough to practice a dry agriculture.

From the point of view of the relief, north is a space of plates, of which the septentrional part is higher. On the contrary low Mésopotamie is extremely plane: the slope is very weak even almost null there at certain places. The extreme south, limits which evolves/moves during the old story, is a marshy zone.

The valleys mésopotamiennes are bordered by desert or steppe spaces, which play a big role in the activities of breeding. The steppes, especially located into high Mésopotamie, in particular around the Euphrate means, are sometimes a little sprinkled and become meadows for a few weeks. The desert, bordering Mésopotamie in the west, receives less than 100 mm of rain per annum on average, and is thus not exploitable for agriculture, its use as zone of course is limited as much as the dromedary is not introduced into the area.

Rivers

The two principal rivers of Mésopotamie, to which the area owes its name, are the Euphrate and the Tigre. The first has a course calmer than the second, and also richer in sediments. It is thus more favourable with agriculture. These two rivers drain a strong solid load, which causes a raising of their bed, which overhangs slightly with the plain. That made that their respective risings, which occur in spring under the effect of the snow melt, are often violent (especially those of the Tiger), and in any case insufficient to allow the development of an agricultural surface. It was thus necessary to develop techniques of artificial irrigation in the zone where agriculture dries was impossible. The basic plain Mésopotamie being very plane, the risings can there be spread far, and sometimes they have even evil to regain the major bed, causing a change of bed (defluviation).

Into high Mésopotamie and in the area of Zagros, other rivers of less scale sprinkle additional valleys in Mésopotamie: Khabur and its many affluents form the area known as of the " Triangle of Khabur" , Balikh, affluents of Euphrate; the Large one and Small Zab and the Diyala, affluents of the Tiger; the Karun and the Karkheh in Susiane.

Agrarian installations and landscapes

The irrigation

Towards 6.000 front J. - C., the first communities agricultural develop into low Mésopotamie. Their survival is not possible that thanks to the installation of a system of Irrigation, without which the agricultural surface of this area would be limited to the accesses of the great rivers. The addition of silt brought by the risings of the rivers and the water brought by irrigation gives outputs definitely higher than those obtained in zone of dry agriculture as into high Mésopotamie, where the irrigation also developed to increase the agricultural production.

Following K. Wittfogel, one a long time thought that the installation of the system of irrigation could be done only under the aegis of a strong and centralized capacity, within the framework of a very hierarchical company. Actually, the oldest systems of irrigations attested are the fact small communities. The States are on the other hand the only able ones to develop extended systems, to make dig large channels and to manage them. The sovereigns mésopotamiens always had a duty besides to set up to restore systems of irrigation. Conflicts also could be moved by the well irrigated ground possession, like those between Lagash and Umma with and centuries.

Water necessary for the irrigation was brought towards the zones cultivated by channels. Largest left directly the rivers, and were used as a basis for a network arranged hierarchically of channels of decreasing size, to the irrigation channels. The system could also include/understand tanks being used to control the flow of the rivers, the elevated channels and sometimes of the Aqueduc S, according to the relief. Locks were used to control the water run-off. The sediments brought by the rivers caused the heightening of their bed compared to the fields, and of this fact water could irrigate the field without special machine, by boring of a breach on the bank of the channel in direction of the field where drains distributed the homogeneous water of manner on all surface in culture. But there existed also elevatory machines, like the Shadouf, and the Noria starting from the thousand-year-old 1st. The irrigation could be also carried out since wells in the areas less better drained.

The maintenance of the principal channels was the responsibility of the State, by the means of the local representatives. Their clearing out and their repair were carried out in summer, in period of low waters; it was about a drudgery which the inhabitants of the neighborhoods of the channel were to achieve. Apart from their use for the irrigation, the large channels were navigable, and for the end it spring they could be used to transport harvests, at the moment when water of Euphrate is high. For the smaller channels, they are the users themselves which had the load of their maintenance.

The use of the water of irrigation seems regulated by the authorities. Administrators were charged to control the flow of the channels, like the sērikum with Mari, or the gugallu in Babylonia. It had in particular to be made sure that all the zones in culture receive sufficient water, even most distant; the fields close to the large channels appear nevertheless of better quality, and are worth expensive. Many litigations occur, and are attested in letters like in the Codes of laws. The latter approach in particular the case where a farmer badly closed again the furrow being used to irrigate his field, which caused the flood of its field and those of its neighbors; there must then be compensation.

To take a concrete example, the canal system of irrigation of Mari is known by the descriptions included/understood in certain shelves of first half of the 18th century, reporting the maintenance work necessary. They evoke the “mouth” (KA/ pûm ), the entry of the channel starting from the natural river, which should be cleaned to remove to remove from the clay deposits. The fundamental structure on this level is the muballitum , mechanism being used to control the diversion of the water of the river and to control level of the channel. It consists of a barrier made up of posts ( tarqullum ), reinforced by faggots of reeds and brushwood. One distinguishes the diversion canals ( takkīrum ) and the small channels ( yābiltum ). Other installations are useful for control of the floods: valves ( errātum ) are located on the edge of the channel to evacuate water if the level goes up too much. Ditches ( atappum ) are located at the end of the channel. One established stoppings ( kisirtum ) to stop water. Secondary basins are laid out on the network, and are supplied by terra cotta drains ( mašallum ). The maintenance of the channel is very heavy: the governor of the district of Terqa must mobilize nearly 2.000 men according to a letter, and that does not seem to be enough.

The irrigation of the fields involved a risk of salinisation of the grounds: the evaporation of water made go up rock salt that it contained, and if the content of the ground salt is too strong, the field cannot be cultivated any more. It was thus necessary to drain water out it field to rinse the ground. This problem affected many grounds in the south mésopotamien, which were made uncultivated following a too intensive exploitation. The palm trees put up on the other hand very well with a salinized ground, which to explain their strong development into low Mésopotamie.

agrarian Morphology

Various wedge-shaped documents comprise descriptions of fields, a hundred also presenting plans. They are above all shelves. As of the beginnings of the writing some give localizations of fields. Under the Third dynasty of Ur appear the first shelves with plans of fields, of which they give descriptions. They are intended to evaluate the outputs which one can expect. Thereafter, descriptions are done more precise. The times néo-Babylonian and achéménide delivered many documents of this type, that they are shelves and also Kudurru (steles engraved following donations of fields). Generally, the sale contracts of field comprise its localization and its measurement. The most precise texts specify measurements on sides, the owners of the contiguous pieces, and cut out the fields in different parts according to the awaited output.

Some of these documents could be intended for the training of the measurement of the fields by the land-surveyors, and for the estimate of harvest. Calculations of the surface of the fields were done by adapting their real forms to geometrical forms easy to calculate: a rectangle for the largest share, and the irregularities were comparable with triangles. Land surveying was done with cords (EŠ.GID in Sumérien, eblu (m) in Babylonia, ašalu in Assyrie). Specialized land-surveyors members of the royal adminsitration are attested at the time of Ur III and at the paléo-Babylonian period (SAG.DÙN, DUB. SAR.A.A.ŠÀ.GA, šassakum ).

The fields of the irrigated soils must have an direct access with a channel. So competition for the access to water makes that one reduces the width of the fields to allow a greater number of them to border the channel, and one gains a vaster surface by stretching the length of the field. The pieces are thus coarsely rectangular, much longer than broad, which would give a landscape of fields in “plate of parquet floor”. According to Mr. Liverani, it would be the type of field present in the country of Sumer. More in north, in the country of Akkad, the fields would be collected, at least until the thousand-year-old 1st, when it seems that the fields of Babylonia also become them of lengthened type. Always according to the same author, this type of field is resulting from a planning, aiming at optimizing the use of space while making it possible a maximum of fields to have access to the channels (and thus the possible extension of this type of landscape would be due to the will of the authorities of the great organizations).

Nothing like it is not known for high Mésopotamie, except the soil surrounding the city of Nuzi, where one sees a division between lengthened fields and collected fields.

Attempt at restitution of the agricultural landscapes mésopotamiens

With what could thus have resembled the agrarian landscapes of ancient Mésopotamie? The country of Sumer would have presented a landscape of field thin straps aligned along a channel, while the habitat would have been grouped, in large boroughs or more important cities, at least until the beginning of the 2nd millenium when the area knows a demographic fall and the abandonment of many agglomerations. The prospections carried out in the neighborhoods of Nippur and Umma seem to indicate that before this period the agglomerations of more than 10 hectares count more of the three-quarters of the population; the “villages” (complex concept to define moreover) would thus gather only one small proportion of the population, and much of farmers would be town. In the country of Akkad, with more collected fields, the more irregular forms, the villages would be smaller, with some dispersed hamlets.

In these areas of irrigated agriculture, the agglomerations are rather installed on the edges of the natural rivers or the large channels, where the contribution of sediments involved a heightening of the level of the ground (what limits the risk of flood). The palm plantations and the orchards are next to also the channels, close to the villages or around the cities; in Uruk at the néo-Babylonian period, the pieces of palm plantations are very lengthened, their long side bordering the rivers. When one moves away from the village towards the edges of the soil irrigated towards arid space, the canal system narrowed, and the quality of the grounds decreases. Uncultivated space is used to make feed the animals. The limit of the soil irrigated can also be marked by marshes, which are used as space of fishing and hunting or of supply reeds (especially in the extreme south of Mésopotamie). The distribution of space between irrigated soils, arid zone and marsh is not static: fields can become uncultivated following a too strong salt concentration in the ground, and thus désertifier, while conversely a desert space can be emphasized by the irrigation; same manner, marshes can be drained, or be created in limit of a recently irrigated zone, even following movements of river.

Into high Mésopotamie, in particular in Assyrie, country of dry agriculture, many soils are not irrigated. The relief is much more broken than into low Mésopotamie. The rural agglomerations are smaller, and many are the hamlets ( kaptu ). They seem to rather privilege the sites located on hills, or in the low valleys close to the rivers. The pieces, which one is unaware of the forms, are of rather reduced size. The accesses of the boroughs and the cities were often irrigated, and one planted gardens and orchards there. Soils were specialized in productions of strong report/ratio, in particular the vine growing, and were coveted by the rich person owners; that was to give characteristic landscapes. Certain areas of high Mésopotamie are out of the zone of dry agriculture: the means Euphrate and valleys of the Balikh and bottom Khabur, where the extension of agricultural surface is done by the irrigation as into low Mésopotamie. These spaces are better documented today thanks in particular to the médio-Assyrian files of Such Sabi Abyad and Such Sheikh Hamad, and in the prospections and searches of archeology of the landscape which were undertaken there.

T.J. Wilkinson proposed a space model of organization of the soils of Djézireh of the old Bronze Age (applicable to the Bronze Age in general), at the period of development of town planning into high Mésopotamie, in a zone where agriculture prevails (but the irrigation is also practiced). It is based on data of archaeological excavations and prospections. Space would be organized in a radioconcentric way around a major agglomeration, around which would concentrate the principal cultures. “Satellite” communities are laid out in the 15 to 20 kilometers neighborhood, separated from/to each other of approximately 5 kilometers, and in the center of spaces coarsely circular which are the agricultural working area their inhabitants (5 kilometers being the maximum distance estimated that one covers to go to work a field in the course of the day). Beyond the total zone of cultures the zones extend from grazing grounds. The communities of this space are very vulnerable because of the very hard climatic risks which this area located at the margins of cultivable spaces without irrigation knows. Although criticized, this model has the merit to stimulate the debate on the restitution of the rural areas of ancient Mésopotamie.

Structures of the agricultural production

The executives of the agricultural economics of Mésopotamie are documented on more than two millenia, by batches of files which are disseminated over this long period, each one informing us over a situation specific to a place and a time. One can however draw from it from the general features characteristic of the Agrarian structures mésopotamiennes, which are nevertheless vague and require an approach of agricultural reality by case studies. The economy mésopotamienne being a point on which the current historians discuss abundantly, it is initially appropriate to see the great problems which are posed.

Theoretical approach

Several rural readings of the company and the economy are thus possible. Classifications of the time are done between free and not-free, the first group being in its turn divided into two, awīlum and muškēnum in the Code of Hammurabi. The difference between those is of a hierarchical nature, the first are protected by the law than the seconds, and thus have a row more raised.

The contemporary historians used various models to interpret the close relation-Eastern companies and the economy. For what interests the rural world, several theoretical frameworks can be used.

The feudal model , imported since the studies on the European medieval company, was important until the years 1960, but it is in Net decline since.

The Marxist theory developed the model of the “Asian mode of production”. Karl August Wittvogel proposed the idea according to which these States would have developed because they would have been capable ones to the only frame the irrigation necessary to the survival of the companies of the south mésopotamien. That has had for summer called into question, as considering previously.

Mr. Diakonov, another historian of inspiration Marxist (but rather marginal within this current), developed a model separating the companies close relation-Eastern in two sectors: the first, “public”, gather the great organizations and those which work for them; the second, “deprived”, is that of the country communities, which are regarded as “free” economically, and have tributary relations with the first sphere. The first is the resultant of the constitution of the first States, which are superimposed with the former “Neolithic” peasants remained independent, who set up the second group. The principal defect of this model is that its separation is artificial, since the same person can belong to the two groups.

The current debates are dominated by the opposition between “formal” and “substantivists”, who are the successors of “modernistic” and “primitivists”. The great debate is to know if one can study or not the ancient economy according to the current economic models. Substantivistes, which thinks that is impossible, are based on the theories of max Weber and especially Karl Polanyi, which thinks that the preindustrial economy “is embedded” in the whole of the company. He proposes tools for analysis inspired of anthropology (discipline to which much call the substantivists make), in particular the concepts of reciprocity, redistribution and of exchange. With the difference of the formal ones, they estimate that there does not exist market (with the abstract direction) in the old Middle East, therefore, for what interests us, not market of the ground, agricultural produce, cattle, etc

A great debate on the economy of the old Middle East is that concerning the private property. If this one is not really any more denied, one quarrels much on his weight compared to the public property (that of the great organizations), and his evolution during time: one makes of it sometimes a marginal element, sometimes an element of weight; one sees it decreasing during time, or contrary developing. The situation of notable is not very clear besides: their files mixtures often of the businesses that one would regard today as “public” and “private”, some having besides their files in buildings of great organizations (even if it seems that one is a aware clear between what is deprived and public). To exceed the opposition private/public, one recently proposed to speak about “institutional” and “not-institutional”.

Other ways of seeing the things can be advanced, without having an approach as globalisante as the models seen above. Thus, one recently analyzed the rural company according to the opposition independent/dependant, the latter being those which do not have enough grounds to ensure their subsistence and that of their family, which obliges them to deal with those that the great organizations concede to them. This category includes/understands free men and the majority of the slaves.

General information

The economy mésopotamienne is dominated by what one calls following A. Oppenheim the “great organizations”: palate and temples, which have the greatest fields and the most important herds. It is the royal capacity which generally dominates this system, since the period of the antiquated Dynasties until that of the Achéménides. The king distributes grounds to the temples, his favorites, and can to put them take or them again in supervision if it wishes it. There also exists moreover small palaces, had by aristocrats depending on the royal capacity, very present into high Mésopotamie, above all in Assyrie.

If part of these great fields is development directly, by slaves or free men, another share was leased with small farmers or with the notable ones, who made there work their own men in their turn. Palate and temples distributed also grounds against services accomplished ( ilku (m) when it is about a service for the royal capacity, of a civil or military nature), as wages.

The land structure opposes the north and the south of Mésopotamie. In the first, in fact the palates, of large or more small size dominate; the temples do not have or very few grounds. Kinds of latifundiaires fields are constituted, in particular at the expense of the small holders who have exploitations more limited than to the south, and seem to have often problems of debt. It is the case with Nuzi, in Assyrie, also in kingdoms of Syria of north which divide similar features with north mésopotamien from the point of view of the agrarian structures. Once their yielded ground, the peasants were done operating on behalf of notable having repurchased their grounds. In the south, the palate is very present but the temples are also of very great landowners. The respective weight of both varies according to the period.

The “private property” is much documented than that of the great organizations, and it is a subject very discussed as considering higher. One knows well best the activities of the notable ones, because they preserved important batches of files, that of the small farmers who appear in the sources only in an indirect way, and the place in the system of production is prone to controversies. The “private” files appear in any case in great number starting from the beginning of the 2nd millenium, they are very limited before, even hypothetical for some. In addition, the notable ones can have different strategies, and seek to constitute great fields, therefore kinds of “great organizations” in miniature, like privileging the credits and the hirings of grounds development by their clean dependant. Their motivations remain impossible to apprehend: the formal ones seek to detect a capitalist spirit on their premises, whereas for the substantivists there is not.

It is possible that the collective management of the grounds was important in low Mésopotamie until the period of the Empire of Akkad, when private individuals buy grounds with a group of people, while also having to offer gifts to other members of the community. Thereafter, the sale contracts signed between household heads, which would show a movement towards the individualization of the exploitations. It seems nevertheless that there exist grounds in joint possession, perhaps following the too great fragmentation of the grounds following divisions. Perhaps one found grounds Community in Assyrie at the time average. Although it is often advanced, the theory of the existence of collective ownerships at the beginning of the history mésopotamienne lack of clear evidence which would confirm it definitively.

Slavery is not a major data of the economy mésopotamienne, which is in very great part does it free men. The slaves are of big number only on the fields of the great organizations, where they are generally used as labor for the part of the field exploited directly, and for various drudgeries. It does not seem that the maintenance with many slaves is something of profitable, and it is rather heavy to manage. There exist also categories of “semi-free”, that one qualifies sometimes “serfs”, who are attached to the ground, are compelled with heavy loads, but are not therefore the slaves, even if in the facts they are not treated inevitably better. The interest of the concept of “dependence” is to make it possible to exceed free/not-free cleavage, not inevitably relevant for seizing well the low layers of the farmers.

The nomads also play a part in the agricultural production. They are numerous to practice the seminomadism: part of the population remains sedentary and cultivates its own grounds, whereas the another (of the adult men) practical pastoral nomadism. The nomads are also done on the occasion farm laborers on the grounds of the sedentaries, and can deal with the herds of the great organizations during long seasonal displacements. The wandering tribes thus are very well integrated in the agricultural economics, which they can however disturb during the difficult periods by making raids, because of their greater vulnerability with the economic and climatic risks.

In the absence of notable technological advances at the historical times (one should not however minimize the role of progress of the metallurgy as well as the appearance of new instruments and techniques, in particular for the irrigation), the growth of the agricultural production depends for much the extension surface in culture, in particular thanks to the irrigation of new grounds. The role of the central capacity, with the construction of large channels irrigant of new spaces, is thus important for that, even if hydraulic installations are especially managed at community level (see higher). One of the recurring problems of ancient Mésopotamie, in particular in its septentrional part, is the lack of men. It is partly for that the kingdoms mésopotamiens, especially Assyrie, were accustomed to off-setting populations to emphasize new grounds. But when the stability of the social and economic structures was preserved over one long life, the growth of the production and the population could be considerable, and then low Mésopotamie became one of the arable lands richest of the ancient world, as it is the case with 5th and 4th centuries, and wholesale in second half of the thousand-year-old 1st, as testify some the Greek authors to this period.

Legal aspects

The legal sources mésopotamiennes offer information on husbandries, in particular the reports/ratios of production. The Codes of laws of the end of the 3rd millenium and the beginning of the 2nd millenium include/understand articles on the agrarian right. They treat payment of litigations exits of negligence during the irrigation of a field, relationship between owner and farmer, gardener, or with the days laborer. The owners are protected from the encroachments and the flights.

The acts of the practice (sale, loans, contracts of Tenant farming) make it possible to approach closest to social realities and economic agricultural. In addition to offering information of legal order, they make it possible to foresee the rural company, husbandries and even the agrarian landscapes.

Transfers of property

The majority of the private grounds are transmitted by heritage. The successional practices vary much: sometimes levelling, other times they support a principal heir; the shares are sometimes allotted by drawing lot. Because of the too important fractionation of certain grounds, it can happen that one does not practice it in the facts, and that the ground remains undivided. Grounds can be transmitted as dowry. The grounds of service or catches in tenant farming are often taken again by the heirs.

The other means of translation of the grounds is the sale. The sale contracts comprise the description of the sold good (surface, situation), its price, the name of the contractors (they are generally written from the point of view of the purchaser), of the witnesses, of the scribe, and an oath often comes to reinforce the agreement. With Assur and Nuzi, the ground sales must be announced publicly by a herald to make sure that there is not an other person being able to assert the possession of the good. At the néo-Assyrian period, the fields are sold with their owners, who are attached to the ground without being slaves for as much.

The sale contracts are regarded as being proof of the property of the real estate concerned. They are thus preserved as much as this one remains the possession of its last purchaser.

Agricultural loans

The trust deeds intended for agriculture can be done in foodstuffs (cereals especially), or out of money. The creditors are the great organizations, or many private individuals as from the 2nd millenium. Certain temples carry out loans without strong interest rates for the most stripped, but generally the rates are high even very high (with great variations, approximately between 20 and 50%). One refunds after harvest, which seems to indicate that the loans are often made for the welding; in the event of bad harvest, the debtor can find himself in a chronic debt position. The creditor makes sure refunding of the loan and the payment of the interests in several manners: the debtor can give a member of his family as an hostage time that it refunds, and in the cases the most dramatic certain people become slaves following not refunded debts; one can also pawn the grounds, generally in antichresis (the creditor seizes the ground time to refund itself on its production). When the rate is very high and that the duration of refunding of antichresis is very long, it is possible that it is acted in fact of a means of disguising to obtain a new ground.

The loan or sale contracts are not absolute: the agreement can be cancelled when the sovereign promulgates an edict of restoration ( andurāru (m) ), in particular during economic crises, which restores the situation former to the agreement (under particular conditions, and only if the salesman or the debtor claims it). Clauses of the contract could stipulate that a measurement of this type could not cancel the agreement, or one could use means diverted to prevent itself some.

Tenant farming

The contracts of tenant farming are generally conceded by great organizations, but also by easy private individuals. The takers can be people without grounds, of the owners taking another exploitation in complement, exploiting it making themselves or them exploit by their slaves if they are easier. Certain owners or farmers could thus secure a revenue. The takers were to emphasize the ground, and to provide part of harvest, that the owner takes his share (which varies much according to the place and from the time) on the threshing floor after harvest. Certain great organizations take all harvest, and remunerate the farmer (this same principle applies to the palm plantations). It can happen that this last must work (with its own material) on the grounds which the owner exploits in direct control at the time of great work.

Case studies

The various batches of files informing us about the agrarian structures mésopotamiennes are very varied: some relate to great organizations, in great majority of the temples; others come from private batches. In fact our knowledge of the organization of agriculture mésopotamienne is unequal, more precise on certain periods and areas, for a certain type of actors, whereas one knows nothing or very little for other cases. It is a question here of seeing some of the cases best known and studied, a part representing of the rather traditional situations, and others more original. For additional examples, to see the pages on the Third dynasty of Ur, the Eanna of Uruk and the kingdom of Babylon

Girsu at the time of the antiquated Dynasties

The oldest batch of files (1 200 shelves) giving us information on the agrarian structures of a great field is that of the temple of the goddess Ba' U with Girsu, in the State of Lagash, at the century, under the reign of Urukagina. These grounds are nominally allotted to the goddess and thus to her temple, but actually they are at the disposal of the queen, Sasag, which is regarded as representing terrestrial of the divinity (same manner the field of the king is allotted to the large local god, Ningirsu). This situation is very recent, because under the preceding kings this field was called “Field of the Lady”; this change was justified by the will to place the grounds of the temples under the cut of the royal capacity, which caused strong resistances in the priests.

The field of the goddess Ba' U covered 4.465 hectares, and employed from 1.000 to 1.500 people, remunerated in food intakes (KURUM₆). Three categories of grounds are attested: those exploited directly by the field, which made them exploit by agricultural workers slaves or basic people condition paid in food intakes (in barley grains especially); those entrusted to civils servant as wages, the fields of maintenance (for which the temples pay some four months revenues, probable duration of the indeed accomplished load); and those rented with individuals against royalty (these grounds are probably hereditary), which works on the field in direct control as drudgery, four to five months, lasted per annum for which they are paid in food intake (higher than that of the basic agricultural workers). The animals which one pupil are those that one generally finds into low Mésopotamie: bovines, sheep, pigs, poultry. One also fishes fish in the close marshes.

The breeding in the files of Puzrish-Dagan under the Third dynasty of Ur

The site of old the Puzrish-Dagan was not excavated by traditional manner, but only by clandestine diggers. A very great quantity of files were exhumed there, whose one very great majority informs about transfers of cattle. Recut, they could deliver a table of a very original situation, concerning the circulation of the cattle in the kingdom of Ur during the end of the reign of Shulgi and that of its successor, Amar-Sîn (medium of the 21e century).

The kingdom of Ur set up the system of the BALA (“rotation”): each central province of the kingdom in turn delivered a certain quantity of an agricultural production, according to its capacities and of its specialities, which was then redirected towards another part of the kingdom. Documentation attests especially circulation of the cattle. One has with the departure considered that was used for the sacrifices in the temples, in particular those of Nippur, close to Puzrish-Dagan. But it is probable that it is simply of a contribution to the operation of the kingdom, that the king reserves a part of it, and also about a means of transferring from the richnesses from one area to the other, according to the needs for each one. It would be thus a planning on a kingdom scale, made without precedent.

The files of Puzrish-Dagan attest circulation of approximately 60.000 sheep and caprine per annum during the five last years of the reign of Shulgi, that is to say the trifle of 300.000 sheep. To that are added some 30.000 bovines, 4.000 gazelles, 3.000 équidés, and a few hundreds of deer tribe, bear, also of the porcine ones. One generally thinks that they passed by Puzrish-Dagan, which would be then a gigantic park with cattle (what one cannot on the spot certify in the absence of excavations), but it is possible that it is only about one center of files concerning the cattle, whom would not forward inevitably by the city.

The shelves show also the management of the cattle and the personnel in charge of his maintenance. The KURUŠDA is in charge of the fattening of the animals to the cattle shed, and for this reason it has 2 liters of barley daily per sheep, whereas the bovines nourish reeds. The shepherds (SIPA) are divided between the pastors (NA.GADA) and the herdsmen (ÙNU). This very heavy administration supposed an important bureaucratic apparatus, with scribes specialized in various fields.

In addition, contemporary files of Girsu and Umma watch how the bovines were high. After their weaning, they receive a grain supply and fodder, and are regarded as loans to be used for the agricultural work. One gathers them in team of seven/eight animals. A whole personnel with various competences directed by a “scribe of oxes” (DUB.SAR.GU₄.ALPIN).

“Bedouins” in the files of Husband at the period amorrite

The files of the royal palace of Husband, dating from first half of the 18th century, affrent us a lighting on the lifestyle of the wandering tribes of pastors living into high Mésopotamie. They are indicated under the name of hanū , term of origin amorrite, which one can translate by “Bedouins”. Two tribes principal of nomads are installed in the area: Bensim' confine to bed, divided into two clans, to which belongs the king Zimri-Lim of Husband who is the chief; and Benjaminites, divided into five clans, more critical since Zimri-Lim must deal with three recoveries with their revolts. In the Syrian desert, with the margins of the kingdom of Husband, also lived Sutéens, regarded as more dangerous.

All the clan did not nomadisait: a part was installed on grounds which they exploited, and lived in rural villages or boroughs, and another lived downtown, these deux-là thus adopting a sedentary lifestyle; finally, a last part left in transhumance part of the year (it is thus a seminomad lifestyle). The wandering pastors devoted themselves primarily to the breeding of sheep; they could on the occasion be made engage as agricultural day workers. They carried out great transhumances between the zones of grazing ground of summer (rather in the mountainous regions) and of winter (in the steppe, nawum ). For the control of the herds, one chooses a chief, the mehrum .

If the zones of course ( nighum ) of the pastors vary according to the seasons, they remain the same ones for a one year old clan on the other; agreements were concluded by the merhum with the sedentary populations from these grounds to avoid to the maximum the litigations, even if generally their grounds of course were populated little, because not very hospital, having only some well-known water points of the nomads. The zones where were accustomed to living the tribes did not form therefore the precise territorial units. Bensim' confine to bed, faithful supports of king de Mari, generally remained in the kingdom: a sedentarized part lived on the edges of Euphrate, close to the capital or more in south-east towards the Suhu m; another, wandering, had its grounds of course in high the Djézireh. Four clans benjaminites seem to have the practice of nomadiser and to cultivate fields in the valley of the Balikh (area of Zalmaqum, low Djézireh), but the last, Rabbéens, goes towards the east of the kingdom mariote, to the close kingdom, the Yamkhad (Alep).

Private properties with Nuzi

Documentation available for the city of Nuzi of the 14th century primarily informs us on fields had by individuals, although there exist grounds belonging to the palate. Certain family members royal had great fields, like Silwa-Teshub, the son of the king of Arrapha (to which Nuzi belongs), but they are managed like private goods. These large farms are named dimtu (“turns”), undoubtedly according to the strengthened establishment which was used to them as center (like the médio-Assyrian dunnu and the WP Ugarit ains).

The rich person owners carry out many acquisitions of grounds at the expense of the small farmers owners who impoverish themselves. The latter sell their grounds, or lose them following not refunded loans (in particular after having pawned their field), but they remain owners afterwards, and are always charged about it to carry out the services for the royal capacity ( ilku ), normally with the load of the owner. Interest rates of the loans generally amount to 50%, that the debtors have apparently evil to refund.

The characteristic of the transfers of property to Nuzi is that they are carried out by the means of fictitious adoptions: the salesman “adopts” the purchaser like his “sons” ( ana marūti ), gives him his “share (heritage)” ( zittu ); in exchange, the purchaser gives him a “gift” ( qīštu ), out of barley or money generally. It is thus about a disguised purchase. Very active, the rich person owner Tehip-stripped is thus made adopt a hundred times! The origin of this practice remains discussed. More traditional transfers are attested, but the sold property as the purchase price is always called “gifts”. One also carries out exchanges ( šupe'' ultu ) of grounds, by contracts.

Néo-Assyrian agriculture

The agrarian structures of the time néo- Assyrie (9th-7th centuries) are dominated by the grounds belonging to the king; the temples also have great fields, and to a lesser extent that the high-ranking dignitaries of the Empire. Land power of the latter with tendency to bend assertion of the royal capacity progressively. Richest can have fields of almost 2.000 hectares, burst in exploitations of intermediate size located on different soils having each one a specific agricultural production. The base of the Assyrian agricultural economics is consisted small farmers independent or attached to a great field.

A found remarkable document with Ninive, the Census of Harran (undoubtedly of the end of the 8th century), watch a ground census of a great field, probably belonging to a family member royal, with the mention of the people in charge of their their family and development. These grounds are disseminated on several soils of the area of the Balikh. The great landowner has above all Vigne S, including/understanding between 4.500 and 29.000 vines; it is a culture of very a positive ratio because of its scarcity into high Mésopotamie. Beside that it has cereal grounds, of orchards, as well as herds. The situation of the families of owners attests demographic difficulties of the Assyrian Empire: few children, few elderly. Generally the small farmers seem to have many problems, in particular a chronic debt. The lack of men makes that the fields are often sold with their owners, even if the latter are not inevitably slaves.

Military fields with Nippur at the time achéménide and Babylonian family firms

The Perses Achéménides seize Babylonia into 539. The imperial capacity then sets up military fields, which one knows well thanks to the found files with Nippur. This system is connected with that of the military grounds already in place in Mésopotamie since the end of the 3rd millenium, conceded in exchange of a service ( ilku (m) ) military. The exploitations are gathered in districts ( hatru ), directed by a “employee” ( šaknu ). They were distinguished according to the type of combatant whom they are supposed to maintain: smallest and most are the fields of arc ( bīt qašti ); the fields of horse ( bīt sīsi ) are the higher level; finally the greatest fields are those aiming at equipping a tank ( bīt narkabti ), which because of their size are often attached to great fields, like those of the temples. The tenant of the field paid an amount of money, in addition to having to provide an effective military service when it was requisitioned. Certain military grounds concerned Persian high-ranking dignitaries, who benefitted from the incomes without having the real property, which; that made it possible to them to mobilize their own troops, which is not without risk for the royal capacity. The fields of arcs are not homogeneous: if there is providing all the required services, some are divided, others provide only reservists, or some have reduced loads. Gradually, hereditary transmission of the fields led sometimes to the privatization of those.

The management of these military fields also utilizes an important actor of the local economy of Nippur: the family firm of the Murashu (second half of the 5th century). These notable rich person take with farm fields of arc left by their tenants who prefer to perceive the revenue of it rather than to exploit them themselves. They are Murashu which takes care then of the relationships to the administration. The members of the firm are also important creditors, and also take with farm the management of irrigation canals. Their economic capacity becomes nevertheless too important, they start to encroach on fields not belonging to them, which causes complaints. The imperial capacity ends up intervening to reduce their economic power (years 420-410). This family is an example very representative of the family firms which take an important weight in the rural economy of Babylonia since the néo-Assyrian time. Other notable cases are those of the Egibi of Babylon at the néo-Babylonian period (6th century), or the family of Bēlšunu in this same city at the end of the 5th century, that of the descendants of Ea-ilūta-bāni, living with Borsippa 8th at the 5th century, of the “Barber” ( Gallabu ) with Ur at the end of the period achéménide and at the beginning of the domination Séleucide. The last private archives notable basic Mésopotamie date from the end of the hellenistic time. This group has similar activities over very a long life, more particularly in the agricultural domain where they take many grounds with farm, which they can emphasize thanks to their slaves and dependant as well as an important working asset. They can also deal with the management of the irrigation as do it Murashu, as well as the marketing of the agricultural produce towards the cities. That is coupled with other types of investments, the whole aiming at diversifying the means of earning money for better ensuring its backs. Thus, a descendant of the family of Ea-ilūta-bāni, at the 5th century, has a palm plantation whose contribution on investment is of approximately 14%, while the loans which they concede bring back them 20% of interests (annually). If the second investment reports more, the first is surer, since the money returns regularly and as long as the ground is kept, while the debtors have sometimes evil to refund their debts and that the loans are contracted in the short run.

Agricultural activities

Cultivation of cereals

Mésopotamie is a large cereal ground . To the first rank the Orge comes (Sumérien ŠE, Akkadien še' U (m) ). Above all because it was adapted better on the dry and saline ground and at the hot time of the area. It was the basic food of the populations of the country, and was also used as standard for the exchanges before the introduction of the money to replace it. The Corn (ZIZ, zizzu (m) ), of starch manufacturer type, was him also cultivated, but in less quantities, just like the German wheat (GIG, kibtu (m) ). With the thousand-year-old 1st, the Riz ( kurangu ) is introduced, but it is not very widespread.

The farm equipment being useful for the cultivation of cereals remained stable lasting the history mésopotamienne, it is approximately fixed at the beginning of the 3rd millenium (what does not want to say that slow improvements did not occur). The ploughings were carried out with a Araire (appeared with the Period of Uruk), with which certain models rather complex and were equipped with a seeder (starting from the antiquated Dynasties). One also employed the Bêche (or Houe) triangular for the work of the ground, and perhaps of the Herse S. the harvests were carried out with the Faucille, in Argile or Silex. A possible improvement was the use of metal to make certain parts of this material, of which the plowshare of the swing-plow.

A text sumérien baptized the Almanach of the farmer informs us about the techniques implemented for the cereal culture. A father explains to his son, farmer like him, the techniques allowing to obtain a better output, which were transmitted to him by the agrarian divinity Ninurta in person. Initially, it is necessary to irrigate. The farmer must take care that water is not propagated too much. For the drainage, it was necessary to protect the ground humidified from the cattle and other prowlers, who could damage it. Then it is necessary to clear the field and to enclose it. One divides then the field into equal parts, while it “burns with the sun of summer”, while, on another side, the servants put the agricultural tools in state. Once the field maintained sufficiently well, one can plow and sow. These two operations were carried out according to the text simultaneously (but it seems that one sometimes practiced a harrowing between the two), by means of a swing-plow, and the farm laborers were charged to pass behind the plow to insert seeds in the ground with suitable depth. In the texts of the practice, one sees indeed that the plowmen are gathered by teams, often directed by a chief, being able to use up to two or three draft animals in the case of the most important exploitations. These phases proceeded in autumn.

The only technique of allowance of the grounds attested is the manure, at the time of the passage of the herds of sheep after harvest. That being limited enough, it was necessary thus generally to resort to the Jachère one year out of two if they were grounds of average quality, and if a too intense exploitation had weakened them or caused their salinisation. The best grounds could possibly occur some. Sometimes on the other hand, one practiced a scrubbing of the grounds with water of the channels, aiming at evacuating the salt which had gone up on the surface.

When “the grain bored the ground”, it is necessary to make a prayer with the goddess of the vermin of the fields Ninkilim so that she moves away all those being able to harm harvest. Once the first growths left the ground, it is necessary to sprinkle, then the operation will be repeated three times still at various stages of the evolution of the seedlings, and then the output will be excellent. The favourable day, one carries out the harvest. The harvesters worked by groups of three: a reaper, a binder and another with the nondefinite task. The harvest was to be carried out in spring, before the rising of the rivers does not occur.

After the harvest the beating comes, which was made thanks to a tribulum , a plank of wood to which flints separating the grain of the stem and cutting were stuck the straw, drawn by oxen. Thanks to this system, very effective and fast compared with the plague, one obtained the grains and the straw which was going to be used for construction materials. Then, one winnowed the grain with forks to clean it.

Once finished harvest, the grain is stored in attics, which one could preserve traces by archeology. One preserved the grain in his envelope (nonedible), for a longer conservation, with the proviso of preserving it moisture.

The cereals could be cooked in the form of pulp, of wafers of Pain, or food for the animals. The barley could also be used to make Bière (KAŠ, šikaru (m) ), after fermentation. Many varieties of beers are attested. It was the alcoholic drink most consumed in Mésopotamie, by far; its production was of this very profitable fact. The women generally dealt with the production of beer.

The barley grains were also used as means of payment running, and are a standard of value. One also made use of it like part of the wages in rations allotted to the workers of the great organizations.

The cultivation of cereals mésopotamienne thus claimed an important work, organized well. It as well as supposed a collective organization of the farm laborers for the management of water for the agricultural work. During the time when the land utilization can be suitably made, it was possible to reach strong outputs on the basic grounds Mésopotamie, up to 20/1 in the best cases, even if 10/1 appear more current, according to certain estimates. Into high Mésopotamie, the situation is more difficult and of the shortages are likely to occur. The soils on which one practices an agriculture dries would have had a weak output, about 3/1, while in the irrigated zones the situation was better (up to 7/1).

Culture of the date palm

The culture of the Palmier-dattier occupied a major place in Mésopotamie, especially in the southern half. This tree needed much water, and one found some of this fact much along the rivers in a natural state. It supports moreover salinized grounds, while appreciating the sun and strong heats. As many favorable conditions to its development into low Mésopotamie.

The palm tree was cultivated in large palm plantations which one sees represented on certain low-reliefs with the Period néo-sumérienne. They were irrigated, and divided into several batches gathering of the trees planted at the same time. More current in the south mésopotamien, they depended on the administration of the great organizations. The palm tree being very widespread in a natural state, the palm plantations were essential only when it was necessary to improve the culture and the output of this tree. The large palm trees were used as shelter with other market gardenings, protecting them from the wind, the sandstorms and the too hot summer dayss (by the system of the protective shades). The palm plantations and the gardens are thus generally only one and even thing.

The palm tree starts to produce fruits only about the fifth year, and saw an about sixty years; one thus needs a medium-term investment to develop a palm plantation, and then to plant new trees regularly. Mésopotamiens had developed the technique of fertilization of the palm trees: male pollen was fixed on the female stems being at the top of the tree, and thus one increased the output of this one.

The palm tree is a very practical tree, because by cultivating it one can have many things. First of all the Wood. It is indeed one of the only trees pushing in the south mésopotamien, and thus the only source of wood, although its quality does not place it among the best trees for that; it is practical to build boats, and is also used to make beams to support the roofs of the dwellings. The palm tree gives dates, which then constitute one of the basic elements of the food of the inhabitants of Mésopotamie, and are not a simple delicacy. Their strong content of calorie in fact practical moreover one food. Its core can moreover is to be used as fuel, or, crushed, of food for the cattle. One can of more draw a strong drink than it, palm wine (actually a kind of beer).

Other agricultural productions

The flax (GADA, kitū (m) ) is cultivated apparently rather little in Mésopotamie before the thousand-year-old 1st, although it is known since the Neolithic era. It is useful above all for the textile, but its seeds can also be consumed or be useful for the production of an oil.

The Sésame (ŠE.GIŠ.Ì, šamaššammū (m) ) is the culture of full field with the most important after the cultivation of cereals. It is introduced in Mésopotamie towards the end of the 3rd millenium since the India. Its culture requires the irrigation; the sowing takes place in spring, and collects it at the end of the summer. One draws some from oil, being useful for the food, the care body and lighting. The grains can also be consumed.

In the Garden S (GIŠ.KIRI₆, kirū (m) ), which could be integrated into the palm plantations, one made push various Légume S, it does not seem to have had there specialization in a type of product. Before are very attested salad, the cucumbers, the Poireau X, the Ail, the Oignon, of the Légumineuses (Lentille S, Chick-pea S, Fève S). One also made push fruit trees, mainly Grenadier S and Figuier S, initially in north then in the south with the thousand-year-old 1st, and also of the Pommier S, Cognassier S, Poirier S. Of the Tamaris were also in the Verger S. the gardens of the néo-Assyrian kings present a larger variety of products; one in particular tries to acclimatize the olive-tree to it.

The Vigne pushes in the north of Mésopotamie, less in the south. One consumes the Raisin or one draws some from the Vin (GEŠTIN, karānu (m) ), for the tree like the products which of it are drawn). The wine however is consumed compared very little with beer; there remains a food product of luxury, whose best believed besides is produced in the mountainous regions close to Mésopotamie (Syria, Anatolia Eastern, Zagros), and is imported by the courses royal of the area of the two rivers.

The breeding

The individual owners had their own heads of cattle, but in fact the great organizations had the largest herds. They entrusted them to shepherds and herdsmen whom they remunerated. The latter must in particular lead the herds towards various areas according to the season, according to a principle similar to transhumance. The great organizations organize the reproduction of the cattle, and sometimes even of the crossings are tried. One takes care to make sure of the replacement of the killed animals. The fattening is also the attention object, sometimes of the men are assigned with this task.

The temples are large consumers of cattle for the needs for the worship: sacrifices intended to the divinities, and also for the Divination by Hépatoscopie (starting from the liver of the sheep), very widespread with the paléo-Babylonian time.

The most widespread animals were the Ovins (UDU, immeru (m) ) and the Caprin S (ÙZ, enzu (m) ), by far. The pastors were charged to mow them and give their wool to their employer; if the animals died, they were to provide wool, the skins and the tendons. The Lait (of goat, but also of cow) was consumed, and was used to manufacture Beurre or Fromage, whose various varieties are attested.

The Bovine (GU₄, alpu (m) ) and the ass S (ANŠE, imēru (m) ) were especially intended for the agricultural work and transport. One also found Porc S (ŠAH, šahū (m) ). The Chevaux (ANŠE.KUR.RA, sīsu (m) ) make their progressive appearance starting from the beginning of the 2nd millenium, and the Dromadaire S (ANŠE.A.AB.BA, ibilu ) thousand years later. One also raised Chien S (UR.GI₇, kalbu (m) ) of hunting for the sovereigns, as under the Third dynasty of Ur.

The Oiseaux of farmyard attested since the beginnings of the history mésopotamienne are the Oies, the Canard S, and the Pigeon S. the Poule S and the Coq S only appear more tardily, since the India, undoubtedly towards the beginning of the thousand-year-old 1st.

The Apiculture develops in Mésopotamie only with the beginning of the thousand-year-old 1st, before that the Miel and the Cire was to be imported, in particular since the Syria.

The nomads took a big part in the ovine breeding, which was one their principal activities, like in that of équidés. They could be engaged as pastors by the great organizations, because of their very good knowledge of the grounds of course and the water points in the drier zones.

Agriculture and religion

Many divinities are regarded as related of near or by far on the agricultural activity and the breeding. Art to cultivate the ground and to raise the animals was regarded as being a heritage of the teaching of Enki/Ea, the divinity who ordered the World. Several divinities had a feeder function for the ground, in particular the gods of the Storm (Ishkur, Adad, Addu, Teshub), persons in charge of the so important rain in Mésopotamie. Because it controlled water coming from the Sky, Adad was called gugallu , like the civils servant charged to control the irrigation. Ningirsu/Ninurta is also agrarian, which is erased with time, and one of its symbols is the swing-plow. Marduk, the god of Babylon, was perhaps agrarian in the beginning, as its symbol indicates it, the spade. Into high Mésopotamie and with the Raising, the god Dagan (of which the name means “grain”) is important for agriculture. A legend allots the invention of the swing-plow to him.

A text Sumérien watch opposition between Enkimdu, the god-farmer, and Dumuzi, god-Pasteur, which disputes the favors of Inanna/Ishtar, which represents the fertility. The latter, initially attracted by the first, will turn finally to the second after the councils of his brother Utu/Shamash, the sun.

The marriage between the two divinities was important in the religion mésopotamienne. A ritual, the crowned marriage, celebrated them, at the time of the month of Nissan, which marked the beginning of harvesting, which is also the mésopotamienne beginning of the year. The name of this ritual comes owing to the fact that it was about a representation of the union of these two divinities, the king of the city of Uruk, fatherland of these two divinities, playing the part of Dumuzi, and the large priestess of the Eanna, the temple of Inanna, played the part of the goddess. Once the union of these two beings consumed, one considered that the future of the country was assured, and that harvest would be good, the goddess of the fertility having granted her graces to the local god. So in a year disturbs this event did not occur, one thus perceived that like a great disaster. This ritual continued during all the history mésopotamienne, even if it lost its sexual character at the beginning of the 2nd millenium. The ritual of the New year ( Akitu ) had still as a function to ensure the rebirth of Nature for the New Year's Day. One will find it in particular with Babylon, but also with Assur where it was established.

Dumuzi was the son of the goddess Duttur, itself sponsors pastors. His/her sister Geshtinanna was also agrarian, and one finds fields bearing his name. She is identified with another goddess akkadienne related to the rural world, Bēlet-sēri (the “lady of the steppe”).

For this table, it is necessary to add Ashnan, goddess of cereals, and its brother Lahar, god of the cattle. A text described the importance of these two last divinities, before opposing them in a Tenson. The duel was arbitrated by the large gods Enlil and Enki themselves, which declared Ashnan gaining, celebrating this time the victory of the peasant over the shepherd. Others of these duels oppose the palm tree to the tamaris, which dispute to know which is most advantageous to the men, for their daily life as for the worship returned to the gods, and also the grain and the sheep, and hoes it and the swing-plow.

One finds also the divinities of the vermin, which should be requested to draw aside any danger to damage the cattle or harvest: Shumuqan, god of the wild animals, Ninkilim, goddess of the mice and the vermin of the fields, like prescribe it the Almanach of the farmer . The peasants could also rely to the gods of the Storm to make rain, or even on Nanna/Sîn, the moon, guard of the pastors, and people who move generally.

Random links: