Chapter 12. Patrimonial Society in the Bronze Age Near East AX WEBER'S patrimonial household model sources are inadequate to show in detail how the M (PHM) deserves greater attention in ancient household concept expressed itself in each of these Near Eastern studies than it has hitherto received. areas, in what follows I will sketch the ways in which This is because it agrees with the very durable native I think that it conditioned political, economic, and terminology used for all manner of political and so­ religious behavior in various Bronze Age patrimonial cial relationships throughout the Near East in the pre­ polities that were close to U garit in time and space. Hellenistic period. Household language-the use of This is not to deny the existence of regional and terms such as "house," "father," "son," "brother," temporal variations in social organization in the an­ "master," and "servant" in an extended political cient Near East, which served to distinguish Egypt, sense---carries more significance than is usually for example, from the Asiatic Near East, and perhaps thought, for it reveals the self-understanding of the served to distinguish southern Mesopotamia from its social order that was at work in these societies. These northern and western neighbors within the Semitic­ terms were used metaphorically, to be sure, but this speaking area (see Steinkeller 1993 and 1999 for a does not mean that they were merely casual figures of defense of the hypothesis that a long-lasting regional speech or euphemisms for "real" economic and po­ difference existed between a "southern" or Sumerian litical relationships. They were widely used because and a "northern" or Semitic socioeconomic system in alternative conceptions of social hierarchy were not Syro-Mesopotamia). But, as I have suggested in readily available. In the absence of the rather abstract chapter 3, these variations can be viewed as quantita­ idea that an impersonal political constitution or uni­ tive rather than qualitative differences, because they versal egalitarian social contract might underpin the have to do with the effective degree of control ex­ social order, personal relationships patterned on the erted by the apical ruler rather than with fundamen­ household model served to integrate society and to tally different conceptions of rulership. External legitimate the exercise of power. variations in the forms of ancient Near Eastern soci­ As I have argued at length in Part One of this ety therefore need not imply radically different cul­ book, the native understanding of society is of prime tural assumptions but may simply reflect more or less importance in sociohistorical reconstruction because centralized modes of operation within the same basic the symbolically mediated interpretations attached to framework. Patrimonialism can appear in many social relationships by those who take part in them guises, but historical and ethnographic sources reveal invariably affect social behavior, with the result that a striking uniformity in the way in which authority is such behavior cannot be adequately explained with­ understood and expressed in diverse pre-Axial socie­ out taking these interpretations into account. Indeed, ties. The evidence for a common patrimonial concep­ such interpretations are an integral part of the social tion of the social order throughout the Bronze Age reality being studied, as hermeneutically oriented Near East accordingly buttresses the claim that the theorists have long argued. This is not to deny the kingdom of Ugarit, in particular, is best understood influence of economic or material factors that may be as a patrimonial regime. hidden from social actors, but I agree with those who By using the term "pre-Axial" I am following argue that sound methodology requires equal if not Eisenstadt' s ( 1986) diachronic model of Near Eastern greater attention to linguistically mediated symbols sociohistorical development, which is discussed in and their dialectical interaction with the factual con­ chapters 3.1 and 4.2 above. Eisenstadt highlights the ditions of social life. Furthermore, the PHM, because historical development from patrimonial to more bu­ it conforms to the native symbolization of society in reaucratic regimes that is implicit in Weber's typol­ Ugarit and elsewhere in the ancient Near East, sheds ogy of legitimate domination, which distinguishes light not just on political attitudes and behavior but "traditional" and "legal-rational" types of domina­ also on the economic and religious aspects of social tion. He presents us with the hypothesis that before life. In other words, familiar household relationships the mid-first millennium B.C., the polities of the Near provided the pattern not only for governmental au­ East, including Late Bronze Age U garit, were based thority and obedience but also for the organization of on traditional rather than legal-rational domination production and consumption and for the integration and were therefore fundamentally different from later of the gods with human society. Although our kingdoms and empires in the region, both structurally 256 Models and Evidence and ideologically (although traditional elements of another addressed each other as "brother" (a!Jum), course persisted for a long time). I believe that this especially if they were vassals of the same overlord hypothesis is correct, and I endeavor to show that the (i.e., "sons" of the same "father"), or if a treaty rela­ data from Ugarit are best understood according to the tionship had been established between them. 2 PHM. One text from Mari that illustrates especially well It is beyond the scope of the present work to the basic conception of a hierarchy of households demonstrate in a detailed way the validity of the which underlay the political order is ARM 1.2 (Dos­ PHM for the Bronze Age Near East as a whole. Still, sin 1950:22ff.), in which the vassal ruler Abi-Samar no study of the kingdom of U garit would be complete calls Yal}dun-Lim of Mari his "father" (1. 6) and without an attempt to place Ugarit in the broader stresses his allegiance to him by affirming that "(my) context of the common cultural assumptions and house is your house and Abi-Samar is your son" (1. social behaviors that were found throughout the Near 13'). Alliances between rulers are expressed in simi­ East during the Bronze Age and into the Iron Age. lar terms. In text A.4350 we read that "the house of For that reason, I provide here a selective review of Ni.griya and the house of Mari have always been one the evidence and scholarly interpretations concerning house" (cited in Durand 1992:116 n.152). Likewise, social organization for a number of different third­ in ARM 26/2.449: 14f., I:Iammurapi of Babylon and second-millennium Near Eastern regimes. Much stresses the good relations between Mari and Baby­ more could be said about each of the examples given lon, stating that the two cities "have always been one below, and in presenting such a broadly based survey house" (bztum isten). I am well aware that no one author can hope to be Occasionally, an inferior might presume to call his cognizant of all the relevant data. But my purpose is political superior "brother" (or, more humbly, "elder simply to defend the proposition that traditional brother"),3 but to deviate in this way from the norm legitimation, and hence a relatively pure patrimon­ was itself to make a political statement. Bertrand ialism, characterized all known societies of the Near Lafont (1994) discusses a letter sent to Zimri-Lim of East before the first millennium B.C. Mari by a political advisor which deals with the deli­ cate diplomatic situation created when one of Zimri­ I. The Household Basis of Political Terminology Lim' s vassals, Sima)J-ilane of Kurda, presumptuously addressed him as "brother" rather than as "father" (on Following Max Weber, I have suggested that the pat­ this text see also Sasson 1998:462ff.). The advisor rimonial household model is a suitable description of blamed this faux pas on the elders of Kurda, who had ancient Near Eastern society because it conforms to pressed their new king to assert the autonomy of their the native understanding of the social order. This native model is revealed by the frequent use of household-derived terms such as "father," "son," 2 This familial terminology is discussed, with numerous examples, in Dossin 1938; Munn-Rankin 1956; Limet "brother," "master," and "servant" to describe politi­ 1985; Kupper 1990; 1991; Lafont 1994. The same political cal relationships. The use of the terms "father" and terminology was used in Syria already several centuries "son," in particular, is illustrated in the royal corre­ earlier, as shown by an Ebia text of the 24th century B.C. in spondence found at Mari, an important city which which the king of Ebia is declared to be the "brother" of the controlled the middle Euphrates River. The Mari let­ king of Hamazi (TM 75.G.2342 = MEE 1.1781; see Petti­ nato 1991:240f.). Third-millennium (Early Bronze Age) ters (written in Old Babylonian Akkadian) show very evidence is much scantier than second-millennium (Middle clearly that in Mesopotamia and Syria in the eight­ and Late Bronze Age) documentation, but this text demon­ eenth century B.C. a subordinate ruler called his over­ strates the longevity of a political symbolism that was op­ lord "father" (abum) as well as "master" (belum) and erative throughout the entire Bronze Age, especially among referred to himself both as "son" (miirum) and as the Semitic-speaking peoples of Syria and northern Meso­ potamia. "servant" (wardum) of his political superior. 1 Politi­ 3 The term "elder brother" is used, for example, in ARM cal equals who were more or less independent of one 26/2.404: 17, where Atamrum of Andarig is reported as having sworn allegiance to Zimri-Lim of Mari and is quoted as saying to the assembled company, which in­ 1 Note that Akk.