Provincial territory was a source of exploitation of fundamental importance to the central administration. It formed the primary basis for fixed state income, independent of the irregular and uneven quantities obtained as tribute from foreign kings or as booty from military campaigns. The ilku-duty ("forced" labour for the king), iskāru-duty (quotas on finished products and sheep), nusāhē (corn-tax) and other taxes[[37]] provided the centre with revenues and labour forces. Failure to punctually forward the nusāhē to the king was a serious fault, which earned a reprimand from the king personally (no. 82).
The pressure of the imperial centre upon the provincial system appears to have been sometimes excessive,[[38]] so that local authorities often complain of scarcity in their territories. See no. 117, where the sender attributes the lack of straw for pack animals in his province to forwarding all available supplies to Dur-Šarruken, the new capital under construction, and no. 120, referring to lack of reeds (though in this case a wish for increased supplies could be behind the request). Both letters were written by the nāgir ēkalli Gabbu-ana-Aššur, who might be suspected of protesting, from his high position, against excessive pressure on his own province, and to be trying to reserve for himself a higher proportion of its income.
On the other hand, attention was duly paid to keeping local production on a regular standard: the communication of observations on rain quantity (nos. 274-276) to the king was certainly intended to relate to the state of crops.
In general, many economically precious raw materials were extracted from provinces and forwarded to the centre. The subjects of cutting and floating timber (nos. 4, 6, 7, 8, 127, 129),[[39]] as well as pulling up fruit tree saplings for the royal parks (nos. 27, 105; no. 268 deals with problems of transport) figure prominently in our corpus. The cutting and transport of bull colossi (no. 17, 115, 117 and 118) or stone thresholds (no. 17) is also a frequent subject; long distance seems not to have posed a major problem, as one bull colossus is dealt with by Liphur-Bel, whose territory (Amidi) is far from central Assyria. Sheep were also forwarded to the centre (no. 263: 1,000 rams). Other letters deal with shipments of red wool to the king (no. 28, from Tushan) and of hewn stone objects (no. 29, same provenance); a letter containing a fragmentary list of precious stones (no. 205, probably from Mazamua) and another mentioning carnelian from Kumme (no. 284) may possibly refer to the same matter.
Specialized manpower was also conveyed from the provinces to the central administration, possibly resulting in the impoverishment of local craftsmanship.[[40]] In no. 56, the author refuses to give junior master builders to the magnates, as senior ones had already been distributed to various points of the empire; in no. 71, an axe maker from Syrian Damascus is sent to the king by the chief cupbearer.
37 On this matter, see Postgate, TCAE.
38 No. 269, a request by the king to forward 7,000 homers of barley, may be perhaps understood in this way; cf. also SAA I 26 and 27.
39 On this matter, see F.M. Fales, "II taglio e ii trasporto di legname nelle lettere a Sargon II," in O. Carruba - M. Liverani - C. Zaccagnini (eds.), Studi orientalistici in ricordo di Franco Pintore, Pavia 1983, pp. 49-92.
40 M. Liverani, Anlico Oriente. Storia societa economia, Bari 1989, p. 826.
Giovanni B. Lanfranchi
Giovanni B. Lanfranchi, 'Economic Exploitation', The Correspondence of Sargon II, Part II: Letters from the Northern and Northeastern Provinces, SAA 5. Original publication: Helsinki, Helsinki University Press, 1990; online contents: SAAo/SAA05 Project, a sub-project of MOCCI, 2020 [http://oracc.org/saao/saa05/activitiesinborderprovinces/economicexploitation/]