The names of years and royal inscriptions do not give the impression that the kingdom of Babylon was in economic decline during the long 17thcentury : we see the kings embarking on major works, such as the construction of secondary residences or forts, the digging of canals, etc. The number of statues and other objects offered to the gods in temples does not seem to have diminished either. The number of statues and other objects offered to divinities in temples does not seem to have diminished either. All this requires considerable human and material resources. Similarly, we have seen that the frequency of mîšarum has not increased compared to the previous period, which could have signalled the kings' response to increased economic hardship. So why have we entitled this session " A fragile economy " ? The loss of the South, which occurred in two phases during Samsu-iluna's reign, could not fail to diminish the resources of the kingdom as a whole. Although we still don't know what percentage of the inhabitants of the southern Sumerian cities took refuge in the North, it was certainly significant : this sudden influx of population cannot have failed to pose problems.
We began by examining the merchants and their organization into groups called kârum: this term literally means " the quay " and its use to designate the merchant "guilds" of Babylonian cities is explained by the fact that traffic was primarily by river. Every city of a certain size had a kârum, headed by a " chief of merchants " (UGULA DAM.GÀR). Once again, in the absence of any regulatory or descriptive text, we have to draw on a mass of documents to gradually reveal how the system worked. Contrary to what Chicago's " Sippar project " had predicted, the position of "chief merchant" was neither annual nor chosen by lot: real dynasties existed. A few portraits of merchants have been drawn up, such as that of Kuru or Marduk-mušallim, based on their archives discovered in Babylon.
