Did the Concept of Citizenship
Even Exist like 200 Years Ago? 

One of the earliest instances of citizenship dates back nearly 4,000 years to the city of Assur, located in what is now northern Iraq. Thanks to over 22,000 cuneiform documents excavated from Kanesh, an ancient city located 1,000 kilometers away in modern-day Türkiye, we can reconstruct in incredible detail the civic and economic institutions of Assur between 1895 and 1865 BCE.

These thousands of records exist because Assur established formal citizenship rights for its merchants, protecting their participation in a far-reaching trade network. Their commercial activity linked tin from Central Asia with copper from mines near the Mediterranean and brought textiles manufactured in southern Mesopotamia to communities across the Anatolian plateau. Although ancient historians hesitate to apply the term "nation" to ancient polities, it's hard not to see this system as an international commercial network secured by political treaties.

Being a citizen of Assur meant paying taxes. Taxation, in effect, secured active participation by its constituency. That participation granted individuals voting rights, access to public weighing and assaying facilities, and ability to invest or directly partake in the tin and textile trade. This taxation system applied both within the city of Assur and the colony at Kanesh.

When merchants departed Assur, they entered places where their city held little direct authority. So, Assur negotiated legal and economic agreements with regions across its trade network. In one such treaty, it explicitly states for border security against Akkadians, though the reason for being barred is unspecified (market competition may be a plausible explanation):

“There shall not be rope, peg, or lost merchandise belonging to a citizen of Assur within your land. If there has been lost merchandise in your land, you shall search for it and return it to us. If there has been blood(shed) in your land, you shall hand the killers over to us. You shall not invite an Akkadian. If they cross (the border), you shall hand them over to us and we will kill them. You may request nothing from us. Just like your fathers, you may take 12 shekels of tin for each (donkey) upon arrival; just like your fathers, you may take 1 ¼ shekels of silver per donkey upon return. You shall not take anything in excess (of this). If there is conflict such that someone cannot arrive, you may take five minas of tin from Hahhum.” (Kt n/k, 794)

Assuming that these treaties were enforced, they explicitly imposed restrictions on the movement of certain people between regions. I hesitate to say that these restrictions extended beyond economic concerns given the ambiguity of this text. That being said, evidence from other regions in the ancient Near East demonstrates that legal systems were respected between polities, especially in matters concerning runaways and escaped slaves.

As for the ability to simply leave a city, evidence suggests it was indeed possible, and citizens across the ancient Near East appear to have exercised the option to “vote with their feet.” Following the death of Babylonian king Hammurabi in 1750 BCE, multiple southern Mesopotamian cities revolted against his son, Samsu-iluna. Simultaneously, archaeological data indicates substantial depopulation of major economic centers such as Nippur and Ur, places that recognized the revolt. There is no compelling evidence that mass deportations occurred during this period, meaning that many residents may have voluntarily abandoned these urban hubs in response to shifting political conditions, choosing to live elsewhere. The fact that this may have taken place doesn't imply that abandonment was cheap, easy, or anything short of a last resort.

Sources:

• Mogens Trolle Larsen (1976), The Old Assyrian City-State and its Colonies .

• Cahit Günbattı (2004), “Two Treaty Texts Found at Kültepe” in Assyria and Beyond, studies presented to Mogens Trolle Larsen: 249-268.

• Elizabeth Stone (1987), Nippur Neighborhoods (SAOC 44).