Administration, ancientNear EastMICHAEL JURSA

The invention of writing, mathematics, and

metrology in the ancient Near East at the end

of the fourth millennium BCE is owed to the

exigencies of (public) administration and con-

trol under conditions of increasing social and

economic complexity. The precursors of writ-

ing (systems of accounting based on the use of

“tokens” and seals) that are attested in the

region document the need for complex admin-

istrative practices already at a much earlier

period (Nissen, Damerow, and Englund 1991).

For historical periods, ancient Near Eastern

administrative systems can be studied through

numerous “archives” of cuneiform tablets.

Such documents were found, and therefore usu-

ally also kept, physically together as a group and

belonged to individuals, families, or institu-

tional households. Administrative matters are

normally reflected best in institutional archives.

Heuristically, it is useful to make a distinction

according to the reach of bureaucratic systems:

they may deal with an institutional household

(a palace or temple) only, with administration

on a local level, or they may belong to the

sphere of royal or state administration. How-

ever, the borders between these three categories

are sometimes indistinct and generally differ

from period to period. The principal purpose

of ancient Near Eastern bureaucratic systems

is that of keeping track of obligations, i.e., of

fulfilling what Moses Finley (1981) called a

“police function”: administrations were chiefly

interested in monitoring the performance

of their dependants. Planning and prognosti-

cation of future economic performance within

an administrative context were achieved less

by rational and systematic data collection

and extrapolation than by the application

of simplifying models or “rules of thumb”

(“one plow team will cultivate such-and-such

a surface area every year; this surface area will

yield such-and-such a quantity of barley”).

This means that administrative recordkeeping

was never comprehensive. Written documen-

tation was only required for transactions

implying an obligation that could potentially

be referred to in the future (van de Mieroop

1997; Jursa 2004).

The “style” of individual administrative sys-

tems could vary considerably. Some systems,

such as the bureaucracy in the state of the

Third Dynasty of Ur (southern Mesopotamia,

at the end of the third millennium BCE), display

an interest in maximizing the “reach” of cen-

tralized administration and book-keeping,

aiming at a near-comprehensive documentary

coverage. At other times direct administrative

control was restricted to a very narrow range

of transactions, while many aspects of the insti-

tutional household economy, even important

ones such as the administration of institutio-

nal agricultural production, were entrusted

as franchises to private businessmen. These

men took care of the day-to-day business

while institutional administrators limited

their activities to auditing the fulfillment of

the businessmen’s obligations (Postgate 2001).

Administrative archives usually can be

assigned to one of three categories: institu-

tional household administration, local or city

administration including local jurisdiction,

and royal administration (for a survey of

archives of the later second and first millen-

nium, see Pedersen 1998).

Most well-documented institutional house-

holds are temple households: complex eco-

nomic structures whose nominal head was

the chief deity residing in the temple in ques-

tion. The principal topics treated in temple

archives include the management of the tem-

ples’ estates, personnel management (ration

lists, personnel rosters, and the like), craft

production, including inventories of objects

of value and cultic implements, and, impor-

tantly, the organization of the preparation of

the regular food offerings presented to the gods

of the temple (e.g., Bongenaar 1997). The day-

to-day business of institutional administration

was in the hands of scribes; higher-ranking

The Encyclopedia of Ancient History, First Edition. Edited by Roger S. Bagnall, Kai Brodersen, Craige B. Champion, Andrew Erskine,

and Sabine R. Huebner, print pages 71–73.

© 2013 Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published 2013 by Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

DOI: 10.1002/9781444338386.wbeah01002

1

administrators and priests (who were usually

able to read and write) came from the ranks

of the local elite families or were appointed

by the king.

The archives of palace administrations, or

rather administrations of the extended house-

holds of rulers and members of the elite, are

structurally similar to temple archives (Postgate

2004, with further references). Military mat-

ters tend to be of greater importance, while

religion and cult are less frequent topics

(but they are by nomeans absent). Professional

scribes and members of the royal household

who were not blood-relatives of the ruler

(“courtiers,” in Assyria perhaps frequently

eunuchs) formed the backbone of the admin-

istrative personnel.

Institutions of local government are fre-

quently connected with institutional house-

holds (chief priests can also act as heads of

judicial assemblies, for instance) and with

theroyal establishment, but they are nevertheless

clearly distinguished from these other spheres of

administrative control. City governors, mayors,

as well as chief merchants rank among the prin-

cipal city authorities. Their responsibility typi-

cally extended over matters of local jurisdiction

and government, public building activities, the

maintenance of irrigation installations, andmil-

itary levies on behalf of the king. Many aspects

of local government seem to have been trans-

acted orally and involved various assemblies

of citizens (Barjamovic 2004; Seri 2005).

Royal or state administration refers to those

aspects of state business that transcend theman-

agement of the kings’ extended households, the

palaces. Genuine “state archives” in this sense

have been found in particular at MARI (eigh-

teenth century BCE) and in NINEVEH (eighth

and seventh centuries BCE). Both text groups

contain large epistolary archives documenting

the communication between the sovereigns and

their various governors, agents, military com-

manders, scholars, and family members on the

one hand, and between the sovereigns and their

foreign counterparts on the other. Lists of per-

sonnel, tax and tribute lists, and similar

documentation referring to state revenue are

also present (Durand 1987; Fales 2001).

SEE ALSO: Accounting, Mesopotamian; Alphabets

and scripts, ancient Near East; Archives; Assyria;

Eunuchs, ancient Near East; Law, ancient Near

East; Mathematics, Mesopotamian; Palace

economy; Temple economy, Greek and Roman.

REFERENCES AND SUGGESTED READINGS

Barjamovic, G. (2004) “Civic institutions and

self-government in southern Mesopotamia in

the mid-first millennium BC.” In J. G. Dercksen,

ed., Assyria and beyond: studies presented to

Mogens Trolle Larsen: 47–98. Istanbul.

Bongenaar, A. C. V. M. (1997) The Neo-Babylonian

Ebabbar Temple at Sippar: its administration

and its prosopography. Istanbul.

Durand, J.-M. (1987) “L’organisation de l’espace

dans le palais de Mari: Le temoignage des textes.”

In E. Levy, ed., Le Systeme palatial en Orient, en

Grece et a Rome: 39–110. Leiden.

Fales, F. M. (2001) L’impero assiro. Storia e

amministrazione (IX–VII secolo a.C.). Bari.

Finley, M. (1981) Economy and society in ancient

Greece. London.

Jursa, M. (2004) “Accounting in Neo-Babylonian

institutional archives: structure, usage,

implications.” InM. Hudson and C. Wunsch, eds.,

Creating economic order: record-keeping, standardi

zation, and the development of accounting in the

ancient Near East: 145–98. Bethesda.

Nissen, H. J., Damerow, P., and Englund, R. K.

(1991) Fruhe Schrift und Techniken der

Wirtschaftsverwaltung im alten Vorderen Orient.

Informationsspeicherung und -verarbeitung vor

5000 Jahren, 2nd ed. Bad Salzdetfurth.

Pedersen, O. (1998) Archives and libraries in the

ancient Near East 1500–300 BC. Bethesda.

Postgate, J. N. (2001) “System and style in three

Near Eastern bureaucracies.” In S. Voutsaki and

J. Killen, eds., Economy and politics in the

Mycenaean palace state: 181–94. Cambridge.

Postgate, J. N. (2004) “Palast. Einleitung.”

Reallexikon der Assyriologie 10, 3/4: 195–200.

Seri, A. (2005) Local power in Old Babylonian

Mesopotamia. London.

Van de Mieroop, M. (1997) “Why did they write

on clay?” Klio 79: 1–18.

2