Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization: History, Documents, and Key Questions (Crossroads in World History) 1440835462, 9781440835469

Citation preview

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

Recent Titles in Crossroads in World History The Enlightenment: History, Documents, and Key Questions William E. Burns The Rise of Christianity: History, Documents, and Key Questions Kevin W. Kaatz The Rise of Fascism: History, Documents, and Key Questions Patrick G. Zander The Industrial Revolution: History, Documents, and Key Questions Jeff Horn

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization HISTORY, DOCUMENTS, AND KEY QUESTIONS

Jane R. McIntosh

Crossroads in World History

Copyright © 2017 by ABC-CLIO, LLC All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, except for the inclusion of brief quotations in a review, without prior permission in writing from the publisher. Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Names: McIntosh, Jane, author. Title: Mesopotamia and the rise of civilization : history, documents, and key questions /   Jane R. McIntosh. Description: Santa Barbara, California : ABC-CLIO, 2017. | Series: Crossroads in world   history | Includes bibliographical references and index. | Identifiers: LCCN 2017007913 (print) | LCCN 2017012079 (ebook) |   ISBN 9781440835476 (ebook) | ISBN 9781440835469 (alk. paper) Subjects: LCSH: Iraq—Civilization—To 634—Juvenile literature. Classification: LCC DS69.5 (ebook) | LCC DS69.5 .M386 2017 (print) | DDC 935—dc23 LC record available at https://lccn.loc.gov/2017007913 ISBN: 978-1-4408-3546-9 EISBN: 978-1-4408-3547-6 21 20 19 18 17  1 2 3 4 5 This book is also available as an eBook. ABC-CLIO An Imprint of ABC-CLIO, LLC ABC-CLIO, LLC 130 Cremona Drive, P.O. Box 1911 Santa Barbara, California 93116-1911 www.abc-clio.com This book is printed on acid-free paper Manufactured in the United States of America Every reasonable effort has been made to trace the owners of copyright materials in this book, but in some instances this has proven impossible. The editors and publishers will be glad to receive information leading to more complete acknowledgments in subsequent printings of the book and in the meantime extend their apologies for any omissions.

Contents Alphabetical List of Entries vii Topical List of Entries ix xiii How to Use This Book Prefacexv Timelinexvii Historical Overview xxi Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization: A-Z1 Primary Source Documents 149 Creation149 Inanna and Enki 152 The Flood 155 Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta 157 Gilgamesh and Agga 159 The Netherworld—From the Epic of Gilgamesh 161 Umma and Lagash 164 Uru-inim-gina165 Two Kings 166 Enheduanna168 The Cursing of Agade 170 Gudea172 Shulgi174 Sheep and Grain 176 Schooldays179 Inanna and Dumuzi 181

vi

Contents

Kanesh Letters Mari Letters Hammurabi’s Law Code The Dialogue of Pessimism

183 185 187 190

Key Questions 193 Question 1: Was the natural environment of the Euphrates and Tigris valleys the key causal factor in the development of the world’s earliest civilization? 193 Question 2: Was international trade fundamental to Mesopotamia’s economic and cultural development as a civilization?205 Question 3: Was the invention of writing critical to the emergence of civilization in Mesopotamia? 217 231 Annotated Bibliography Index239 About the Author and Contributors 256

Alphabetical List of Entries Administration Agriculture Animal Husbandry and Wild Resources Architecture Assyria Astronomy and the Calendar Babylon and Babylonia Birth of Empire Boats and Ships City-States Cosmology Currency Death Domestic Economy Early Dynastic City-States Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization Education Elam Family Finance Food and Cuisine Hammurabi’s Empire Industry International Trade Irrigation Jewelry

viii

Alphabetical List of Entries

Kingship Land Tenure Languages Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization Law Literature Mari and the Middle Euphrates Region Mathematics ME—Essence of Civilization, The Medicine Merchant Houses Mesopotamia Mesopotamian Empires Metallurgy Metrology Palace Rule Pottery Religious Practices Seals Slavery Social Organization Taxation Temple Rule Temples Textiles Tribal Society Ur and the Marshes Urban Life Uruk and Sumer Visual Arts Vitreous Materials Warfare Wheeled and Animal Transport Writing

Topical List of Entries FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC ACTIVITIES Administration Currency Domestic Economy Finance International Trade Land Tenure Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization Mathematics Merchant Houses Metrology Seals Taxation Writing SUBSISTENCE Agriculture Animal Husbandry and Wild Resources Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization Food and Cuisine Irrigation Land Tenure Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization Tribal Society Wheeled and Animal Transport

x

Topical List of Entries

HISTORY Assyria Babylon and Babylonia Birth of Empire Early Dynastic City-States Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization Elam Hammurabi’s Empire Historical Overview Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization Mari and the Middle Euphrates Region Mesopotamia Ur and the Marshes Uruk and Sumer ENVIRONMENT Agriculture Animal Husbandry and Wild Resources Assyria Babylon and Babylonia Elam Irrigation Mari and the Middle Euphrates Region Mesopotamia Tribal Society Ur and the Marshes Uruk and Sumer RELIGION Astronomy and the Calendar Cosmology Literature Medicine Religious Practices Temple Rule Temples

Topical List of Entries

EVERYDAY LIFE Architecture Death Education Family Food and Cuisine Jewelry Law Literature ME—Essence of Civilization, The Medicine Metallurgy Pottery Slavery Social Organization Textiles Tribal Society Urban Life Visual Arts POLITICS AND PUBLIC LIFE Administration City-States Domestic Economy Finance Industry Kingship Land Tenure Law Mesopotamian Empires Palace Rule Seals Taxation Temple Rule Temples Tribal Society Warfare Writing

xi

xii

Topical List of Entries

INTELLECTUAL LIFE Astronomy and the Calendar Cosmology Death Education Languages Literature Mathematics ME—Essence of Civilization, The Medicine Visual Arts Writing INDUSTRY Architecture Boats and Ships Industry Jewelry Metallurgy Pottery Textiles Visual Arts Vitreous Materials Wheeled and Animal Transport TRADE AND TRAVEL Boats and Ships Currency Domestic Economy International Trade Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization Merchant Houses Metrology Taxation Tribal Society Wheeled and Animal Transport Writing

How to Use This Book Throughout the course of history various events have forever changed the world. Some, like the assassination of Julius Caesar, happened centuries ago and took place quickly. Others, such as the rise of Christianity or the Enlightenment, occurred over an extended period of time and reshaped worldviews. These pivotal events, or crossroads, were departures from the established social order and pointed to new directions and opportunities. The paths leading to these crossroads in world history were often circuitous, and the routes branching off from them led to developments both anticipated and unexpected. This series helps students understand the causes and consequences of these historical turning points. Each book in this series explores a particular crossroad in world history. Some of these events are from the ancient world and continue to reverberate today through our various political, cultural, and social institutions; others are from the modern era and have markedly changed society through their immediacy and the force of technology. While the books help students discover what happened, they also help readers understand the causes and effects linked to each event. Each volume in the series begins with a timeline charting the essential elements of the event in capsule form. An overview essay comes next, providing a narrative history of what happened. This is followed by approximately fifty alphabetically arranged reference entries on people, places, themes, movements, and other topics central to an understanding of the historical crossroad. These entries provide essential information about their topics and close with cross-references and suggestions for further reading. A selection of ten to fifteen primary source documents follows the reference entries. Each document is accompanied by an introductory paragraph discussing the background

xiv

How to Use This Book

and significance of the text. Because of their critical nature, the events covered in these volumes have generated a wide range of opinions and arguments. A section of original essays presents responses to key questions concerning the events, with each essay writer offering a different perspective on a particular topic. An annotated bibliography of print and electronic resources concludes the volume. Users can locate specific information through an alphabetical list of entries and a list of entries grouped in topical categories, as well as through a detailed index. The various elements of each book are designed to work together to promote greater understanding of a crossroad in world history. The timeline and introductory essay overview the event, the reference entries offer easy access to essential information about key topics, the primary source documents give students firsthand accounts of the historical event, and the original argumentative essays encourage students to consider different views related to the events and to appreciate the complex nature of world history. Through its combination of background material, primary source documents, and argumentative essays, the series helps students gain insight into historical causation as they learn about the pivotal events that changed the course of history.

Preface The series Crossroads in World History focuses attention on significant turning points in world history: the emergence of civilization in ancient Mesopotamia was the first and probably the most significant of these. Mesopotamia, the land between the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, lies mainly in what is now Iraq, extending into and interacting with other parts of West Asia. The region today is ravaged by war, as so often in the past. Here civilization has its origins, the source of many of the inventions, institutions, and ideas fundamental to the world’s development. Mesopotamia’s contribution to mathematics, literature, medicine, astronomy, technology, architecture, and art is enormous, and it was here that writing itself was invented. Understanding how civilization emerged is of key importance to understanding our own world. A timeline and a more detailed overview outline Mesopotamia’s history, providing the context against which the main part of the book can be considered. Sixty entries together paint a picture of Mesopotamian civilization. Some look at aspects of its technology, knowledge, and culture, such as its remarkable works of art and architecture. Five detail the events of critical periods in Mesopotamia’s development. Others examine its institutions and practices, which provoke interesting questions about the workings of society and its political and economic systems, now as then: these include currency and finance, slavery, and the responsibilities of rulers. One discusses what the Mesopotamians themselves understood by civilization: a nuanced picture. A quoted text enumerates the elements of civilization in the Mesopotamians’ own words: it is one of twenty primary texts that open a contemporary window onto their world. These reflect their speculations on the nature and purpose of the world around them; their justifications for armed conflict;

xvi

Preface

their attempts to improve life for all citizens; and their everyday concerns, from schoolchild to anxious merchant and busy ruler. While the volume looks at Mesopotamian civilization in the round, it focuses on its earlier periods, from its emergent stages in the fourth millennium BCE, through the development of city-states in the earlier third, the creation of the Akkadian and Ur III empires in the late third, and the competition between states, including Hammurabi’s empire, in the earlier second millennium. The fourth millennium BCE is the critical period for the emergence of civilization. Analyzing how and why southern Mesopotamia was transformed from one among West Asia’s many agricultural regions into the first urban landscape, vastly more complex in social, political, cultural, and economic terms than its neighbors, is key to understanding the processes of human development. Two out of the sixty entries give details of this period; and in an extensive Key Questions section three crucial strands of this development are discussed and analyzed: the environment, trade, and writing. The roles these may have played in the emergence of civilization are critically examined by scholars with opposing viewpoints, and selected further reading offers the opportunity to explore the various viewpoints in more depth, enabling readers to gain a better understanding of the path to civilization and to develop their own views.

Timeline 5400–4500 BCE

4500–4100 BCE 4100–3400 BCE



3400–3100 BCE

Ubaid 1–2 period Mixed farming communities are well established throughout West Asia, including the Ubaid culture in southern Mesopotamia (Babylonia, also known as Sumer and Akkad) where simple irrigation is required. Ubaid 3–4 period Characteristic Ubaid-style pottery is distributed throughout West Asia and along the Gulf’s Arabian coast, demonstrating the wide range of exchange networks. Early Uruk period Settlements in Babylonia increase greatly in number. Transformative innovations increase Babylonia’s economic prosperity and industrial efficiency: these include the plow, the threshing sledge, animal traction and transport, the potter’s wheel, wheeled transport, and sheep bred for wool. Cylinder seals are invented in Babylonia, used efficiently to create an official impression on clay sealing packages, containers, and doors; they replace simpler stamp seals. Tokens strung on strings or enclosed in clay balls are used in Babylonia as accounting devices; by 3500 BCE these are supplemented or replaced by tablets bearing token impressions. Late Uruk period Babylonia is characterized by high agricultural production; developing urbanism, with towns and at

xviii



3200 BCE

3100–2900 BCE

2900–2334 BCE 2750–2600 BCE





Timeline

least one city, Uruk; economic specialization; and substantial temple complexes that are the centers for administrative control. Sumerian outposts and colonies are established in northern West Asia and strong influence is exercised in Elam, probably in both cases to control trade in desired commodities. Uruk IVA phase in Uruk city Tablets appear bearing the first writing, including signs indicating the innovative perception of number as an abstract concept; these tablets are mostly economic records, but some bear sign lists, including a hierarchical list of titles (the Standard Professions List) that underlines the already complex nature of administrative organization. Jemdet Nasr period Writing is becoming more sophisticated, making some phonetic use of signs, and being used for more complex recording purposes; writing is becoming more widely accepted, with written tablets now appearing in several cities beyond Uruk. Cities are emerging in various parts of Babylonia. The Sumerian colonies and outposts in the north are abandoned, apparently peacefully, and the Sumerian influences in Elam cease. The sacred center of Uruk is completely remodeled, signifying some important but unknown local change. Early Dynastic (ED) period ED II period The writing system (script) has lost its curved, pictorial appearance: signs appear abstract, composed of a number of the wedge-shaped lines from which the script takes its modern name, cuneiform. City-states are proliferating, their cities concentrated along the river branches (now reduced in number) and now home to most of Babylonia’s population. They are ruled by kings and often protected by impressive walls. Later semihistorical texts and legendary stories describe developments, people, and places of this period, including Gilgamesh of Uruk; contemporary inscriptions occasionally name one of these people, showing a kernel of historical truth within these sources.

Timeline

2600–2450 BCE







2450–2334 BCE

2334–2193 BCE

2193–2113 BCE

2112–2004 BCE

xix

ED IIIA period A border conflict between Umma and Lagash city-states is documented in inscriptions; though arbitrated around 2500 BCE by Mesalim, king of Kish (a title that now has suprastate significance), it is repeatedly reignited. Leagues of collaborating city-states are attested during the earlier ED period; one involving six cities is known from texts at Shuruppak, ending when Shuruppak is sacked in 2500 BCE. Sixteen possibly royal burials at Ur are furnished with spectacular grave goods, including apparent human sacrifices, and jewelry and musical instruments made with exotic imported materials such as gold, carnelian, and lapis lazuli. The cuneiform script is now fully developed, used to write many different text types, including literature; devised to render the Sumerian language, it is now adapted to write the differently structured Akkadian language. ED IIIB period King Uru-inim-gina of Lagash introduces reforms to curb abuses and protect vulnerable members of society. Kings of several city-states campaign to extend their dominion over other cities, culminating in the claim around 2340 BCE by Lugalzagesi, king of Uruk, to exercise kingship over all Babylonia. Akkadian Empire Sargon of Akkad conquers the cities of Babylonia and certain lands beyond to create the Akkadian Empire, which unites the region under a single administrative and political authority, backed by a standing army. His successors extend the empire but also suffer many revolts; the empire eventually falls to internal decay and Gutian invaders from the east. Many Sumerian city-states enjoy revived prosperity, including Lagash, whose King Gudea (2141–2122 BCE) is a notable temple builder, employing exotic imported materials that reflect the continuing success of long-distance trade. Ur III Empire The Ur III Empire reunites Babylonia and gains control of neighboring regions; stiflingly bureaucracy, it

xx

2004–1595 BCE





1570–1155 BCE 1500–1350 BCE 1350–1200 BCE 1200–1050 BCE 934–612 BCE 612–539 BCE

Timeline

promotes industry, agriculture, and trade, especially with the Indus civilization; standardizes many aspects of life; and builds temples, including the first ziggurats. Declining under later rulers, it is destroyed by invading Elamites. Old Babylonian period Competing states in Babylonia and farther north occasionally achieve wider hegemony, particularly the Empire of Upper Mesopotamia created by Shamsi-Adad (1818–1781 BCE) and the Babylonian Empire of Hammurabi (1792–1750 BCE), which endures until Babylon is sacked in 1595 BCE. Environmental problems and the eventual collapse of Gulf trade cause economic decline in Sumer, formerly the center of civilization; the political heart of Babylonia shifts to its northern half, Akkad, which dominates Babylonia thereafter. Merchants from the northern city-state of Assur establish a trading hub at Kanesh in Anatolia around 1910 BCE, from which they control a profitable network of trading posts until Kanesh is sacked in 1830 BCE. The Kassite dynasty rules Babylonia. The Mitanni Empire controls northern Mesopotamia and adjacent regions. The crumbling Mitanni Empire is carved up between the Hittites and expanding Assyria, who then come into conflict. Climatic deterioration sparks famine, migration, raiding, and state collapse around the eastern Mediterranean, with repercussions felt in Mesopotamia. The Neo-Assyrian Empire, with periodic significant ebbs, expands to control West Asia, at times including Babylonia. Having conquered Assyria, the Neo-Babylonian Empire controls all West Asia, but eventually falls to the Persians.

Historical Overview For most of prehistory people lived by hunting and gathering, a way of life that generally involves seasonal movement to obtain foodstuffs available in different places at different times of year. Towards the end of the last Ice Age, however, some groups in a few parts of West Asia, particularly the Levant, began to occupy permanent settlements for most or all of the year, exploiting a range of local resources that included cereals and pulses, which could be stored for year-round use. No longer having to carry everything when they moved, such communities could accumulate possessions, including heavy equipment such as grindstones, and families could have children close in age, so population increased. By 11,000 BCE, evidence shows that some cereals were being cultivated, increasing their availability to the community as a storable resource. After 9600 BCE sedentary communities practicing some cultivation became much more widespread. These first farmers still hunted animals, but some also began raising small numbers of cattle, pigs, sheep, and goats, different animals being favored in different regions. Exchange mechanisms had developed that gradually moved desirable materials over long distances between sedentary communities. By 7000 BCE, farming communities, growing wheat, barley, and pulses and keeping domesticated animals, had spread throughout the regions of West Asia where rain-fed agriculture was possible, including the northern Mesopotamian steppe and Zagros foothills, and the northern plains where wild resources had been too sparse to support forager communities. Already by 6500 BCE domestic animals provided milk as well as meat. People had begun to make pottery and work metals by cold hammering. By 6000 BCE, simple irrigation devices, such as small canals, had been developed, allowing settlement to expand into central and southern Mesopotamia

xxii

Historical Overview

where rainfall was inadequate for agriculture. Domestic equipment included fine decorated kiln-fired pottery, stone vessels, small decorative objects of smelted metal, stone tools, and woven cloth. Farming settlements in southern Mesopotamia (Babylonia) increased in number in the fifth millennium BCE, the Ubaid period. The development of the tournette (slow-wheel), a labor-saving device speeding up pottery production, reflects the beginning of craft specialization in this region. The wide spread of Ubaid-style pottery shows that exchange and communications networks were flourishing at this time throughout West Asia and the lands bordering the Gulf . During the fourth millennium BCE (the Uruk period) Babylonia saw a population explosion, being transformed into the most densely settled region of West Asia and becoming an urban landscape—the first in the world—with towns and by the end of the millennium the first cities, centers of great social and economic complexity. This period also saw innovations that hugely increased economic prosperity, including the potter’s wheel, the plow, the threshing sledge, animal traction and transport, the wheel, sailing boats, and sheep bred for wool. The new uses for animals now made it worthwhile to keep them in large numbers, for lifetime exploitation, rather than keeping a few individuals to kill for an occasional feast. Using animals to haul and carry greatly increased the energy available to people, for example, in drawing the plow that enabled much larger areas to be cultivated, increasing agricultural productivity; hauling boats upstream; dragging timbers for construction; and carrying trade goods, a role particularly assigned to the donkey, domesticated at this time in northeast Africa and soon introduced into West Asia. Wool’s many advantages led to its rapid adoption as the main cloth-making fiber and the growth of a textile industry, part of the developing trend towards craft specialization. The role of priests in community management had been growing as settlements increased in size and complexity: extracting offerings and labor from worshipers to placate and honor the gods through rituals and the construction of impressive temples, and organizing society to meet the gods’ requirements. The mid-fourth millennium BCE saw the development of cylinder seals, used for administrative purposes, to impress an official mark on the clay sealing packages of goods and storehouse doors; their designs reflect a growing administrative hierarchy. It also saw the appearance of recording systems using tokens, probably marking the receipt of offerings to or their issue from the temple. Around 3200 BCE, the key first elements of writing were invented: initially an accounting device but with world-changing consequences. Early texts record the disbursement of rations and the receipt or deployment of commodities such as barley, reflecting the temple economy in which substantial lands owned by the temple were worked partly by community

Historical Overview

xxiii

members undertaking corvée labor, paid in rations. Efficient and intensive cultivation of these temple lands using irrigation works produced huge yields, which the temple deployed partly to pay rations, partly to support other activities, including industry and trade. Huge temple flocks produced wool to supply temple textile production; mass-production of wheel-made pottery and metalworking were among the other specialized industries. The first written tablets appeared only at Uruk, the world’s first city, a settlement that had by now grown to 250 hectares with a population possibly as high as 50,000. Its center, the Kullaba and Eanna precincts, had massive and impressively decorated temples and other buildings, frequently renewed and enlarged; little, unfortunately, is known of the rest of the city. No other settlement in Babylonia had reached this size and associated economic, political, and social complexity by 3200 BCE, though a number of major towns dominated their own regions. By 3000 BCE, however, these and others across Babylonia were becoming cities. Since Babylonia lacked many of the resources it required, particularly to construct and embellish its temples, such as massive timbers, stone, metals, and gemstones, trade played an important part in the economy, textiles and other manufactured goods, and perhaps also grain, being in part produced for export. While existing down-the-line exchange networks had supplied a stream of goods, their volume and reliability of supply were not adequate to the needs of Uruk-period Babylonia, necessitating the development of new, more direct methods of procurement. Characteristic southern Mesopotamian features found in adjacent Elam indicate a close link between these regions, though their paths diverged in the early third millennium. The north was less developed than the south, though towns were emerging in some regions. People from southern Mesopotamia established enclaves in some towns here and founded colonies, probably to facilitate trade. These were abandoned rather abruptly (though apparently peacefully) around 3100 BCE, when the internal situation in Babylonia changed. By around 3000 BCE southern Mesopotamia was trading with communities in the Gulf. The period 2900–2334 BCE in Babylonia is known as the Early Dynastic (ED). Knowledge of the shadowy first phase, ED I, depends largely on limited archaeological evidence. As writing developed greater complexity and more uses, however, historical texts begin to appear that also shed light on local development, and by ED IIIA these were becoming substantial and more informative. Changes in the river regime in the early centuries, concentrating more water in fewer, more major river channels, made it necessary to invest labor in building more substantial irrigation works to ensure the crops were adequately watered and to cope with the massive floods that periodically swept the region in this period. Cities were now concentrated along these major

xxiv

Historical Overview

watercourses, rather than more evenly distributed over the landscape, and the population became increasingly urban, most people residing in cities by 2500 BCE. City-states were developing, each seen as the estate of an individual city deity; somewhat later some also developed in the north and west, for example at Ebla and Mari. Good interstate relations were desirable, but tensions inevitably developed: fortification walls and evidence of warfare appeared before 3000 BCE. Inscriptions attest conflict between states: several chart a border dispute between the powerful city-states of Umma and Lagash from the twenty-sixth century onward. The importance of leadership in war favored the growth of secular political power, although royal authority required the approval of the city deity, and temple leaders still enjoyed considerable power. These authorities organized the construction of temples and irrigation channels and their maintenance; supervised the production of commodities, notably woolen textiles; collected, stored, and disbursed grain supplies; and sponsored trading expeditions. The Sumerian King List, written at a later date, lists kings for some leading cities of this period: at least some are genuine historical figures, known from contemporary inscribed objects, for example from Ur. This city-state enjoyed considerable wealth from trade to the south and east, reflected in the spectacular objects buried in sixteen (possibly) royal graves in the large cemetery near its sacred precinct, dated around 2600–2450 BCE. Legends, preserved in later literature, also describe this period; again, occasionally a legendary name is matched by an ED inscription. United by a shared culture, city-states also acted collaboratively. By 3000 BCE seals and texts attest the existence of cooperative leagues of a number of city-states; texts from Shuruppak dated around 2500 BCE show that these could enable huge numbers of people to be mobilized, probably for joint enterprises such as major construction projects or military expeditions. By 2600 BCE inscriptions show cities acknowledging the authority, in some form, of the King of Kish (not necessarily the city’s actual ruler, but a title borne by kings of various cities). Enlil was viewed as the chief of the gods by ED III and the priests of his shrine at Nippur gained the authority to bestow Enlil’s divine endorsement on the actions of kings. By the late ED period some kings were seeking power beyond the confines of their own city-states: for instance, inscriptions proclaim the victories of successive kings of Lagash over city-states both within Babylonia and beyond. Attempts to gain control over neighboring states grew, until around 2340 BCE. Lugalzagesi of Uruk, by a combination of diplomacy and military means, became ruler of all the city-states of Babylonia, and claimed control of the lands from the Gulf to the Mediterranean. Within a few years, Lugalzagesi himself was defeated by Sargon, who united Babylonia into the first territorial empire. Sargon (2334–2279 BCE) was a native of Akkad (northern

Historical Overview

xxv

Babylonia), where he became king of Kish, going on to win thirty-four battles that gave him control of Sumer (southern Babylonia). Sargon also conquered Elam and cities to the north and west including Mari and Ebla, and claimed to rule regions as far as Anatolia and the Mediterranean, though he probably only controlled outposts there, probably to facilitate trade. He created a new capital, Agade, and a centralized, highly regimented state, with a standing army. Under his dynasty trade flourished, both through the Gulf and with the Levant and Anatolia; and industry prospered. Sargon’s successors enjoyed military successes in Iran and northern Mesopotamia, bringing Assur and Nineveh within the empire, and dealt with revolts and border raids, but after the prosperous reign of Naram-Sin (2254–2218 BCE) lesser kings were undermined by internal unrest and external threats. By 2193 BCE many Sumerian city-states had regained their independence and by 2154 BCE the reduced Akkadian Empire and parts of Sumer were controlled by Gutian tribesmen from the Iranian mountains. These years, however, saw a revival in the rest of Sumer where city-states such as Lagash and Uruk prospered. Around 2119 BCE Utu-hegal of Uruk drove out the Guti. Within a few years his successor, Ur-Nammu (2112–2095 BCE), first king of the Third Dynasty of Ur (Ur III), had gained full control of the south, creating a new empire. He was succeeded by his brilliant son Shulgi (2094–2047 BCE), who continued his work of stabilizing the empire, extending it as far as Assur in the north and Susa in the east. Ur-Nammu and Shulgi established a stiflingly efficient bureaucracy, with scribal schools to train future civil servants; standardized the calendar and weights and mea­ sures; encouraged trade and industry; maintained and improved irrigation works; built temples, including the first ziggurats; and supported the gods while increasing royal power at the expense of the priesthood. The constant threat from tribal raiders grew under Shulgi’s successors, and floods and droughts brought economic decline, leading to the empire’s internal collapse and the secession of some provinces. Finally the capital, Ur, fell to a combined attack by Guti and Elamites in 2004 BCE. A number of small successor states emerged, competing for power. Initially the most powerful was Isin; later Larsa gained the upper hand. Others also controlled extensive territories and exercised significant power, including Elam and Eshnunna. Many states, here and farther west, had Amorite rulers, while some in northern Mesopotamia were ruled by Hurrian dynasties. Around 1813 BCE Shamshi-Adad (1836–1781 BCE), a minor northern king, began his meteoric rise by defeating Eshnunna. Within twenty years he had gained control of northern Mesopotamia as far south as Rapiqum on the middle Euphrates, creating the Empire of Upper Mesopotamia. As with many Mesopotamian states, this was carved out and held together through the personal qualities of its ruler,

xxvi

Historical Overview

and crumbled after his death. Among the city-states that gained in power thereafter were Babylon, Eshnunna, and Mari. Babylon was a latecomer to regional power politics, having begun to grow early in the second millennium. In 1804 BCE its king joined an unsuccessful alliance against Rim-Sin (1822–1763 BCE) of Larsa, who dominated the south. His successor Hammurabi (1792–1750 BCE) began his rise to dominance in 1787 BCE by seizing Uruk and Isin from Larsa. After ShamshiAdad’s death he was able to expand, in alliance with others, defeating Rim-Sin in 1763 BCE, conquering Eshnunna in 1762 BCE, and by 1757 BCE controlling an empire that encompassed all Babylonia, including his former ally Mari, with vassal states farther north. Hammurabi was a strong and capable ruler; his successors were lesser men, unequal to the challenges of growing unrest and economic decline in the south, bad harvests in the north, and pressure from nomads on the borders. The empire shrank, and was destroyed when in 1595 BCE a Hittite raid sacked Babylon. A shadowy Sealand dynasty had arisen in the south, which briefly controlled Babylon. Around 1570 BCE they were expelled by the Kassites, originally from the northwest, who by 1475 BCE created a stable state that encompassed all Babylonia and endured until overthrown by the Elamites in 1155 BCE. They reopened Gulf trade and promoted trade across the Iranian plateau, and for much of their reign maintained good relations with their neighbors in Elam and northern Mesopotamia. By 1500 BCE a Hurrian state, Mitanni, controlled a huge empire right across the north; among the states it absorbed was Assyria. Reflected in diplomatic correspondence found at Akhetaten (modern Amarna) in Egypt, this was a period of unusually active internationalism when the great powers of Egypt, the Hittites, Mitanni, and Babylonia dominated West Asia and the eastern Mediterranean. By 1380 BCE Mitanni was declining, its western lands falling gradually to the Hittites and those in the east to the growing Assyrian kingdom. The later twelfth through eleventh centuries BCE was a time of international crisis in the eastern Mediterranean zone, characterized by major natural disasters such as crop failure, famine, migration and raiding, and state decline and collapse. Mesopotamia was less affected but by the later tenth century BCE both Assyria and Babylonia had declined. The first millennium BCE saw major social and economic changes: technological innovations facilitating the exploitation of iron, abundant and widely available, brought metal tools within the reach of ordinary people; the invention of the alphabet made writing, and associated knowledge and power, more widely accessible; and trade became increasingly commercial and open to more people, with the development of camel nomadism, trans-Mediterranean shipping, and a burgeoning use of metal currency, including the first

Historical Overview

xxvii

coins. By the early ninth century BCE Assyria was again expanding, particularly under Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 BCE), who created a huge, efficient, and profitable empire, with a splendid new capital at Kalhu (Nimrud). He established good relations with Babylonia, now also reviving as a state, though it did not control the southern region, Sealand, now home to five prosperous Chaldaean tribes. However, in the early eighth century BCE, both Assyria and Babylonia declined, undermined by succession disputes, revolts, plagues, and nomad raids. Within a few decades, Assyria was again expanding, under Tiglath-Pileser III (744–727 BCE), who created a professional army, supported by excellent infrastructure, and reorganized the empire into provinces with eunuch governors, producing an efficient administration and an economically productive state, effectively deploying large numbers of deported enemies as farmers or state employees. He supported Babylonia’s kings against Chaldaean attacks; in 729 BCE having overthrown a Chaldaean usurper, he took the Babylonian throne himself. In 722 BCE a Chaldaean, Marduk-apla-iddina (MerodachBaladan) (721–710, 703 BCE), in alliance with Elam, restored Babylonia’s independence. Tiglath-Pileser’s successor, Sargon (721–705 BCE) having quelled rebellions and extended Assyrian territory in the west, in 710 retook Babylonia. His successor Sennacherib (704–681 BCE), abandoning Sargon’s new capital, Dur-Sharrukin (Khorsabad), moved to the ancient city of Nineveh, which he and his successors enlarged and embellished. Sennacherib savagely crushed a revolt by Judah, and after years fighting Chaldaeans and Elamites for control of the south, sacked Babylon, breaking with traditional Assyrian reverence for Babylonia. This sacrilegious behavior undermined his authority, and he was eventually murdered. His son Esarhaddon (680–669 BCE) lavishly restored Babylon. Under his rule the Assyrians conquered part of Egypt, seizing huge quantities of booty; it regained its freedom while his son Ashurbanipal (668–627 BCE) was campaigning to put down a rebellion in Babylonia. After its cultural zenith under these kings, Assyria crumbled after Ashurbanipal’s death, rapidly falling in 612 BCE to an alliance of Babylonia with the Medes of western Iran. In 605 BCE Nebuchadrezzar (604–562 BCE) defeated the last pockets of resistance and succeeded to the combined Babylonian and Assyrian throne. During his long and successful reign Babylon underwent a magnificent revival, but his successors were lesser men. The Persians under Cyrus (559–530 BCE) were now building a substantial empire, already controlling Iran and Anatolia. They invaded Babylonia in 539 BCE, defeating the Babylonian army in a major battle and capturing Babylon apparently unopposed. Cyrus proved a merciful, tolerant, and benevolent ruler; but Mesopotamia, for more than three millennia the leader in the development of civilization, had now lost its central role.

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization: A–Z ADMINISTRATION  A major characteristic of states and polities, such as those of ancient Mesopotamia, is their need to control their inhabitants in various ways. Fundamental to this control is administration, through which the state organizes those aspects of life that concern it, such as taxation, policing, and the construction and maintenance of public works and infrastructure. Features related to administration are among the earliest indications of developing social complexity. These include seals for imprinting an official stamp on the clay sealing packages of goods or the fastenings of storeroom doors, asserting official control over the movement and use of goods: such seals and sealings appear in some fifth-millennium BCE Mesopotamian settlements. Such evidence multiplies in the fourth millennium BCE, particularly associated with temples at Uruk and several other developing urban centers in southern Mesopotamia. Systems using tokens strung on strings or enclosed in clay envelopes now recorded quantities of goods received and distributed. By 3200 BCE these gave rise to rudimentary written records that provide clues to the administrative organization of Mesopotamian society by the temple authorities, who at this time supervised the labor-intensive but highly productive cultivation of temple estates using irrigation; kept large herds of animals, including sheep whose wool was processed into textiles by large numbers of women in temple employ; oversaw other industrial activities; organized the construction of public buildings such as temples; issued rations to workers on temple projects; received substantial quantities of offerings; and promoted and sponsored trade. A key text, the Standard Professions List, shows that the bureaucracy was arranged hierarchically: the title of ruler is followed by those of heads of department and other senior officials; lower down are listed supervisors in various fields and the personnel working under them.

2

Administration

As cities emerged and grew in complexity in the Late Uruk and Early Dynastic (ED) periods, the managerial role of the authorities increased. Royal political authority came to dominate community affairs, although temple establishments retained great economic power. City-states competed but also cooperated with each other, as the substantial archives at Shuruppak show. Here civil servants were organized into units of twenty to a hundred, supervised by officials answerable to heads of departments controlled by the head of state, the ensi. Men from other cities were drafted in to undertake a range of civil and military tasks. Organized in units of 680 men under various officials, the numbers deployed are sometimes staggering: figures as high as 160,000 occur. Around 2300 BCE Sargon created the Akkadian Empire. This state, far larger than any previous political entity, included the Akkadian heartland, the conquered Sumerian city-states, some neighboring areas, notably Elam, and outposts in more distant lands, and it required a far more complex bureaucracy than had existed previously in the city-states. Power was centralized in the king’s hands and focused on his capital, Agade, recipient of the empire’s wealth, including that derived from long-distance trade; royal authority was reinforced by a standing army. The Akkadian kings appointed Akkadian (so, nonlocal) provincial governors to run the former city-states, their authority backed by military garrisons. They conferred regularly in Agade with the king, who periodically visited them. The Ur III Empire, created some decades after the Akkadian state collapsed, was less overtly militaristic, but still made effective use of a standing army. Its first kings, Ur-Nammu and Shulgi, created a frighteningly regimented bureaucracy, in which everything was scrupulously documented and overambitious targets were set for production and work output, missed targets being accumulated as an individual’s lifetime debt to the state. A vast civil service of scribes trained in state-sponsored schools obsessively recorded the minutiae of personnel, taxes, industrial production, and the yields from state lands, generating a huge volume of meticulously detailed administrative documents. Sumer and Akkad were divided into twenty provinces governed by ensis drawn from the local elite, who administered local temple establishments, a major source of state agricultural and industrial revenue. Each province also had a military governor (shagina), not of local origin, often from the extended royal family: he kept an eye on the ensi, was responsible for the province’s armed forces, and managed crown land and its dependents. The conquered regions to the north and east, in Elam and northern Mesopotamia, were ruled by military governors who were granted crown lands in return for service and a produce tax. Later Mesopotamian states were organized in a variety of ways: some were hierarchical and bureaucratic, while in others there was officially a direct

Administration

3

relationship between landowner and king, without intervening bureaucracy. Administration was concerned with ensuring an income to the state, through taxation, tribute from the conquered, or booty from warfare, as well as through labor, trade, and industry. This income was used to maintain the state apparatus, particularly the king’s court; build and maintain public infrastructure including irrigation works, roads, palaces, and city walls; maintain law and order; and prosecute warfare. Early second-millennium Old Assyrian merchants’ letters from the major trading station (karum) at Kanesh in Anatolia shed light on a small-scale political system, the northern Mesopotamian city-state of Assur. The king (waklum, “overseer”) led the alum (“city”), the citizen assembly that took major administrative and judicial decisions. A smaller committee of leading citizens, “the Elders,” was responsible for the city’s everyday affairs. Professional associations like Assur’s merchants generally administered and policed their own affairs. Karum Kanesh mirrored Assur in miniature, with a full Assembly of Little (minor) individuals, probably the whole karum, called occasionally and taking decisions by majority vote, and the Assembly of Big (major) individuals, the “lords and fathers,” handling day-to-day business, including following instructions from the king or head-office in Assur; negotiating with Kanesh’s king; and taking responsibility for economic, administrative, and judicial matters affecting merchants based in any of Assur’s trading stations in Anatolia. The kingdom of Mari under Zimri-Lim (1775–1757 BCE) is the best documented example of an early second-millennium state ruled by an Amorite king with a tribal background. Here two separate administrative strands operated in tandem, dealing respectively with the tribal community (Hana) and the town dwellers of the settled realm, Ah Purattim (Banks of the Euphrates). The latter was divided into districts ruled by governors answering to the king. Citizens were registered by census for obligatory labor, including military service. Towns, which paid tribute to the king, were the main administrative unit; they acted autonomously in local matters. Most of the tribesmen belonged to the Sim’al confederacy of which Zimri-Lim was hereditary leader. Two “chiefs of pasture” were responsible for the tribe’s mobile members and commanded tribal military levies called up by tribal officials appointed by the king. Some tribesmen, however, belonged to the widespread Yamina confederacy. Those dwelling within Mari’s lands were called up by their own tribal kings when Zimri-Lim required it. Tribal division leaders were tasked with organizing work crews and military levies from among the town-dwelling tribal population. Hammurabi’s empire was much larger than the Mari city-state, with an extensive bureaucracy. His conquests coupled with major land reclamation and irrigation programs gave Hammurabi control of substantial lands, some

4

Agriculture

of which he issued as landholdings in payment to public servants (the ilkum system). An army of officials, backed by royal troops, assessed and collected taxes in grain and animals, or in silver from professionals. Nevertheless Hammurabi kept close control of the operation of government, delegating little. As communities have grown in size and complexity, they have needed to develop mechanisms to organize their members and manage their activities for the common good. The different administrative solutions to the organization of the state devised in ancient Mesopotamia illustrate both the range of possibilities and inherent regularities, such as the need for taxation. See also: Birth of Empire; Currency; Early Dynastic City-States; Hammurabi’s Empire; Industry; Land Tenure; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Mesopotamian Empires; Palace Rule; Temple Rule; Writing; Document: “Hammurabi’s Law Code” Further Reading Fleming, Daniel. 2004. Democracy’s Ancient Ancestors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Leick, Gwendolyn, ed. 2009. The Babylonian World. Oxford: Routledge. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. Warburton, David A. 2005. “Working.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 185–98. Oxford: Blackwell.

AGRICULTURE  The development of food production in early postglacial West Asia, and subsequently in other parts of the world, began a rise in the numbers of people that the land could support and went hand in hand with sedentism. Once established, population growth and the environmental changes caused by agriculture made it difficult to revert to foraging, instead promoting a path of spiraling development that led to larger settlements, increasing population density, and constant innovation to increase agricultural productivity or extend the range of environments in which agriculture could successfully be practiced. By the time that civilization emerged in Mesopotamia, agriculture was already some seven thousand years old, but the rising urban cultures significantly contributed to the advance in productivity, innovations in technology and organization enabling an increasing proportion of the population to engage in other activities. Though usually portrayed as progressive and beneficial, agriculture also had drawbacks. Agriculture supported higher population densities than foraging, but was generally more labor intensive, and provided a less varied, less healthy diet: early farmers show the first signs of tooth decay, due to a carbohydrate-rich

Agriculture

5

diet, and were generally smaller and less robust. While agriculture enabled food to be stored against lean seasons and years of poor harvest, it lacked foraging’s flexibility to cope with longer-term change or localized environmental disaster. Agriculture enabled sedentism (rarely possible for foragers), allowing people to accumulate nonportable possessions thus spurring technological innovation and artistic creativity but high concentrations of people also promoted the growth of endemic diseases. Agriculture began in West Asia before 10,000 BCE and rapidly spread. By 6000 BCE simple irrigation techniques had been developed, allowing farmers to colonize areas where rainfall was insufficient for cultivation. These included the alluvial plains of southern Mesopotamia (Babylonia), where irrigation agriculture is highly productive and could support dense occupation. Here date palms were also bought under cultivation. The fifth and fourth millennia saw major innovations here. These included the threshing sledge, facilitating the task of threshing harvested grain, and the scratch plow (ard) that enabled large areas to be tilled, increasing productivity, and making possible the intensive cultivation systems developing here from the later fourth millennium. These had long, thin, parallel fields sloping down from canals, irrigated along the furrows cut by the plow. The invention of the seeder plow, now or in the earlier third millennium, further raised productivity. Animal traction, another fourth-millennium innovation, was essential for pulling the plow; animals could also carry loads and draw wheeled vehicles, invented at this time. During the fourth millennium, the region’s population increased tenfold and continued to grow in the third; towns emerged, growing into cities. Settlements clustered along the watercourses, each surrounded by fields and gardens where high yields could be achieved by irrigation agriculture, while the adjacent desert provided grazing. Occupation was less dense in the north where agriculture was more dependent on rainfall, and cities developed here later. Cereals were the main Mesopotamian staple, principally hulled barley, though wheat was also cultivated. Vegetables, fruits, and pulses were also important. Pulses fix nitrogen from the air, maintaining soil fertility, and so were rotated with other crops. Fodder crops were also grown. By the twenty-third century BCE, sesame (originally from South Asia) was the main oil-bearing plant grown in Mesopotamia; unusually, it was a summer crop. Olive oil was imported from the Levant where olives had been cultivated since at least the sixth millennium BCE. Linseed oil was probably also produced, but its source, the plant Linum usitatissimum, was grown mainly for its fiber (flax) from which linen was made, though most textiles were made of wool. Cereals, pulses, and oil seeds were grown on both the fertile river levees and the poorer but more extensive backslope and basin land, easily irrigated by gravity-flow canals. Vegetables were usually cultivated in gardens on the levees,

6

Agriculture

accessible for frequent watering. These included highly efficient shade-tree gardens: tall date palms provided day-long shade from the hot summer sun, creating a microenvironment of cooler temperatures and higher moisture to raise shorter fruit trees, such as apple and pomegranate, and various herbs, spices, and vegetables. Similar gardens shaded by other trees were popular farther north. Dates were Babylonia’s chief fruit, being high in carbohydrates, rich in vitamins, and easy to store and transport. Date palms provided leaves for making roofs, baskets, and mats; bark fibers for rope; and, at the end of their productive life, timber. Grapes were among the many fruits grown in shade-tree gardens; vineyards were established in the north. Timber was also of great importance. Babylonia grew date palms and scrubby trees such as poplar and willow, serving for fuel, construction, tools, furniture, and boat building. Forests of such timbers were planted and carefully managed by professional foresters. Trees were more abundant in the north, with forests in some areas. Substantial trees, including oak, that could provide the massive beams required for large buildings and ships, grew in parts of the steppe and in adjacent regions. Texts describe agricultural practices that changed little over the millennia. The spring equinox marked the beginning of the Sumerian farmer’s year, when river floods spread water and silt over adjacent land and filled the canals and reservoirs. Water soaked into fallow fields, leaching away salt and softening the ground, which the farmer now cleared of weeds. Over the summer canals were cleaned and repaired. When the autumn rains came the fields were plowed and sown. A seeder plow was used: seed was dribbled down an attached funnel, releasing it at regular intervals along the furrow the plow was cutting. Though labor intensive it gave a remarkably high yield, between 1:10 and 1:15 seed to finished crop. The resultant ordered plant growth also facilitated weeding and irrigation. The plow was drawn by two (sometimes four) oxen, kept mainly for this task but fed year-round, a major expense. Three or four plowmen were required to manage the plow, animals, and seeder funnel together. Fields were irrigated several times between sowing and harvest. The barley harvest in March/April was the high point of the agricultural year, marked by the Babylonian New Year festival. Vegetables, flax, wheat, then fruit, followed, harvest being completed during June. The hot summer months were spent threshing, winnowing, and storing the grain. Sheep, goats, and the draft animals were grazed on the stubble of the harvested fields, adding nutrient-rich dung to the soil. These fields were now left fallow until the following spring floods when the cycle began again. Fallowing restored soil fertility and helped prevent soil salinization, potentially a major problem on irrigated land. Farther north the growing season came later in the year and crops were mainly rain fed, sometimes supplemented by irrigation to increase yields.

Animal Husbandry and Wild Resources

7

Seed was often broadcast sown, with correspondingly low yields—a ratio of around 1:5 seed to harvest. Sowing began after the autumn rains had thoroughly softened the ground. The success of the harvest, around five months later, depended on the amount and timing of winter rainfall. In the millennia since the fall of Babylon, arable agriculture has continued to spread until today it is the subsistence base of most of the world. Its productivity has risen, allowing it to support vast numbers of people, of whom most, in many countries, are now not involved in primary food production. Many relatively recent innovations have brought about this productivity, but all have their roots and parallels in ancient West Asia: the domestication of new crops; the improvement of established crops by breeding; the invention of more efficient technology for cultivation and water provision; efficient organization; the spread of crops through movement and trade; and mechanization to overcome human physical limitations, which was begun in Mesopotamian times by the employment of animal power for traction and transport. See also: Animal Husbandry and Wild Resources; Assyria; Babylon and Babylonia; Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization; Irrigation; Land Tenure; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Mari and the Middle Euphrates Region; Mesopotamia; Textiles; Uruk and Sumer; Wheeled and Animal Transport; Document: “Sheep and Grain” Further Reading Leick, Gwendolyn, ed. 2009. The Babylonian World. Oxford: Routledge. Liverani, Mario. 2006. Uruk. The First City. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. London/Oakville: Equinox. Pollack, Susan. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. Potts, Daniel T. 1997. Mesopotamian Civilization. The Material Foundations. London: Athlone Press.

ANIMAL HUSBANDRY AND WILD RESOURCES  Animal husbandry began in West Asia some time after arable agriculture. Keeping animals provided not only a year-round source of meat, but also a useful means of storage, consuming surplus crops in good times and available for food or trading in bad times. When resources became tight, however, it was hard to feed domestic stock. Commensal diseases also developed, jumping from animals to their owners as pathogens evolved. Later, people also began using domestic animals in other ways, to provide milk, wool, and harnessed energy, significantly contributing to the economic prosperity that saw the emergence of civilization in Mesopotamia.

8

Animal Husbandry and Wild Resources

After around 10,000 BCE, sedentary communities who relied increasingly on cultivated crops began to appear in parts of West Asia, initially still hunting animals, though some also began raising small numbers. Only certain wild animals were amenable to domestication, generally those with a tractable disposition that live in groups (herds, flocks, or packs). Farming communities became increasingly reliant on domestic animals, local conditions determining the relative importance of sheep, goats, pigs, and cattle in different parts of West Asia. For example, cattle were the main domestic animals raised by the early farmers in Sumer. Domestic animals were initially kept mainly for meat as well as for hides, bones, and other usable parts, and manure to improve field fertility. By 6500 BCE, however, food residues in pottery show that animals were also being milked. While human infants produce an enzyme (lactase) to digest milk sugars (lactose), older people are naturally lactose intolerant, becoming ill if they consume raw milk. When milk was first eaten, therefore, it was processed (for instance, into yoghurt or cheese) to make it more digestible. Milkprocessing equipment became common in parts of West Asia from the late fifth millennium BCE. Later, however, communities that had long utilized milk developed a genetic mutation to continue producing lactase after infancy, allowing them to consume raw milk: this is present in about a quarter of modern populations, including many West Asians and Europeans. The fourth millennium (Uruk period) saw further innovations in the purposes for which animals were kept: wool production, traction, and transport. These, combined with other secondary production such as milking, tipped the balance in favor of live, continuous exploitation rather than one-off raising for meat, vastly increasing economic productivity and efficiency. Wild sheep have a coarse hairy outer coat (kemp) and a fine woolly winter undercoat, white only on the underbelly: selective breeding enhancing genetic changes eventually produced sheep with woolly fleeces, in various colors including white, that were retained year-round. From the fourth millennium, sheep were bred for wool, which superseded flax for making textiles. Oxen began to be used for traction and transport, to carry goods and draw plows and sledges, as were donkeys, domesticated at this time. The scratch plow (ard), developed at this time, enabled ground to be broken and prepared for sowing: using animals to draw the plow allowed larger scale cultivation, often controlled by state authorities. Growing crops, like gathering plant foods, had probably previously been undertaken mainly by women; plowing, however, requiring greater physical strength both to guide the plow and to control the plow animals, became a male task, so the introduction of the plow shifted the focus of agriculture from women to men. Among other things, this released Uruk-period Sumerian women to process wool: the large-scale manufacture

Animal Husbandry and Wild Resources

9

of textiles, in part for export, became a major state enterprise, using wool from flocks directly controlled by the temple authorities. Mesopotamian farmers used oxen to plow their fields and thresh grain, and kept cows for breeding and for milk; cattle were rarely eaten. Individual households kept only a few, grazing them on vegetation at the edge of their cultivated land and on stubble in the summer, and feeding them on barley, reeds, and fodder crops, particularly when they were working. Only major state institutions could afford to keep large herds. Pigs were commonly kept throughout Mesopotamia and Khuzistan, mainly as a relished source of fat, at least until Akkadian times when sesame came under cultivation. Their hides were made into leather (as were those of other animals) and their bristles may also have been used. Like cattle they were raised in small numbers by individual households, while larger herds were tended by professional swineherds. Sheep were kept almost entirely for wool. The spring sheep-shearing was a major landmark in the agricultural year. Young kids and lambs were the most common offerings as temple sacrifices; their meat was consumed by temple personnel. Goats produced milk and hair and often led mixed flocks but were chiefly kept for meat. Flocks varied in size: small farmers owned a few animals; full-time pastoralists might manage several hundred, as well as breeding donkeys. Uncultivated land between city-states and beyond the irrigated cultivable land within them provided pasture. Mobile tribal pastoral groups also exploited seasonal grazing in the desert fringes of the lands beyond the river valleys, in the west and stretching to the foothills of the Zagros mountains in the east. These environments were also rich in game. Dense thickets of small trees, grasses, and rushes along the watercourses of southern Mesopotamia provided food and shelter for wild boar and fallow deer. The dry semidesert beyond had scrubby perennial vegetation supporting only small, elusive animals, but modest winter and spring rainfall produced fast-growing plants that provided rich grazing for game such as gazelle, antelope, and onager. In places, shallow lakes and seasonal swamps attracted a great variety of wild birds, including sand-grouse, teal, geese, and cranes. The extreme south was crisscrossed with waterways and lakes, with a vast spread of perennial marshes, more extensive in antiquity than in later times. The reedbeds and rushes that covered the area supported abundant waterfowl, while the waters were rich in fish, shellfish, and turtles. Game was hunted with dogs, and falconry was popular by the second millennium; animals might be caught with nets, especially when wanted alive to stock parks. Fowlers and bird catchers are recorded, and wild ducks, geese, and perhaps francolin were raised for meat and eggs from the third millennium BCE. Fish were caught in rivers, canals,

10

Animal Husbandry and Wild Resources

swamps, lakes, and the sea, using plant-fiber nets with terracotta, stone, or lead sinkers, or hooks and lines, and trapped in shallow waters. Artificial pools and ditches were deliberately stocked with fish, including eels. After 1500 BCE, however, fishing became less important. While sheep, goats, cattle, and pigs were domesticated in the early postglacial period, other domesticates were added much later. Chickens reached West Asia from India by the thirteenth century BCE. Donkeys were domesticated in northeast Africa and adopted in Mesopotamia in the fourth millennium BCE for traction and as pack animals. Horses, domesticated in the Pontic-Caspian steppe region, became the main animal used to draw war chariots from the second millennium BCE, but oxen remained the main domestic traction animal and donkeys the main beast of burden, except in desert regions where dromedaries, domesticated by the second millennium BCE for milk, blood, and meat, were being ridden by around 1000 BCE, allowing access to the rare, widely dispersed water and pasture of the inhospitable inner desert. Arab camel herders also operated as trade carriers, particularly from the eighth century BCE, bringing valuable incense and spices from southwest Arabia. Since ancient times, selective breeding has produced different varieties of domestic stock, suited to the needs of different times and places. Animals have been introduced to new lands, though much of this spread occurred in antiquity. New technology has also been introduced in recent times. The major developments in animal husbandry, however, were achieved in the ancient world, beginning with domestication, leading through the exploitation of secondary products such as milk and wool, and culminating in the employment of animal power for traction and transport: all subsequent innovations have been built on these foundations. See also: Agriculture; Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization; International Trade; Mari and the Middle Euphrates Region; Textiles; Tribal Society; Ur and the Marshes; Wheeled and Animal Transport; Document: “Sheep and Grain” Further Reading Akkermans, Peter M. M. G., and Glenn M. Schwartz. 2003. The Archaeology of Syria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anthony, David W. 2007. The Horse, the Wheel and Language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Hesse, Brian. 2000. “Animal Husbandry and Human Diet in the Ancient Near East.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 203–22. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Pollack, Susan. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Architecture

11

Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge.

ARCHITECTURE  Ancient Mesopotamian architecture encompassed a wide range of structures, ranging from houses to palaces, other city buildings such as temples and defensive walls, and infrastructure such as roads and bridges, as well as irrigation works. Construction followed a physical and mental template of what was appropriate. Traveling pastoralists dwelled in tents, probably of skins or cloth over wooden poles, but most Mesopotamians lived in permanent structures. Houses were generally of mudbrick, except in the extreme south where reeds were bound together in bundles and covered with reed mats. Mud, available everywhere, was mixed with a temper such as straw, dung, or sand, and hand shaped or molded into bricks, which were sun dried or fired. Baked bricks were used for the foundations and lowest courses of walls, drains, paved courtyards, and exposed architecture such as facades. In southern Mesopotamia stone had to be imported and was rarely used, but in the north foundations and lower courses were often of stone. Bitumen, used for mortar, was also used to waterproof bathrooms and drains. Brick walls were often plastered to protect against rain, using mud or a stronger gypsum or lime plaster. Floors might be plastered but were often of beaten earth. Timber such as pine and boxwood was used for doors, window frames, and other fittings, with reed shutters. Wooden pillars might support a first-floor balcony. Houses usually had flat roofs of timber beams, covered by reed mats or palm fronds and then mud plaster. Some buildings had brick roofs: the associated constraints led to the early development of arches, used above doors in houses and tombs, and brick-built barrel or corbelled vaults, seen, for example, in Early Dynastic tombs at Ur, some of which even had pendentives supporting a domed roof, a remarkably early example of this technique. House building used local materials, but for palaces, temples, and other public buildings some materials, such as decorative stones and precious metals, were imported. Substantial timbers, particularly cedar from the Levant, supplied the massive beams required to roof large buildings. Fine stone was used for some architectural elements, such as doorpost sockets. Limestone or marble slabs were used for paving. Wall paintings, mosaics, stone sculptures, wall hangings, and other sumptuous fittings often adorned palaces. Firstmillennium Assyrian palaces were particularly impressive, their doorways flanked by gigantic stone statues of winged bulls and lions, their brick walls clad in stone slabs decorated with magnificent low-relief carvings. The skills of Mesopotamian architects and engineers were further developed in the construction of city walls and their defenses, roads and bridges,

12

Assyria

docks and quays, and particularly canals and aqueducts, the latter reaching their climax under Sennacherib (704–681 BCE) who constructed a canal running more than 30 miles from Bavian in the mountains to the city of Nineveh that included tunnels, weirs, dams, and a magnificent aqueduct at Jerwan: remarkably, some parts of this system are still in use. The extensive use of mudbrick, baked brick, and timber, and limited employment of stone in Mesopotamia’s architecture have meant that its few surviving structures generally make less of an impression on the global imagination than, for example, those of Egypt or Rome. Nevertheless, its development of the architect’s craft, of significant features such as arches and domes, and of feats of architectural and engineering skill such as the creation of aqueducts and canals and the quarrying, carving, and transport of huge statues, are a significant legacy transmitted from Mesopotamia to the later world. See also: Assyria; Babylon and Babylonia; Irrigation; Mari and the Middle Euphrates Region; Palace Rule; Temple Rule; Temples; Urban Life; Visual Arts; Document: “Gudea” Further Reading Crawford, Harriet. 2009. “Architecture in the Old Babylonian period.” In The Babylonian World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick, 81–94. Oxford: Routledge. Dunholm, S. 2005. “Ancient Near Eastern Architecture.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 289–303. Oxford: Blackwell. Frankfort, Henri. 1996. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. 5th edition. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Moorey, P. R. S. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Roaf, Michael. 2000. “Palaces and Temples in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 423–41. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

ASSYRIA  Ancient Assyria encompassed the region east of the Euphrates river, south and west of the Zagros mountains, and north of the Diyala river, lying now mainly in Syria and Iraq. Its heartland, between two of its ancient capitals, Nineveh and Assur, was the alluvial plain of the upper Tigris river. This region was semidesert steppe, including the dissected Jazireh plain between the northern Tigris and Euphrates. Grasses watered by winter rainfall provided seasonal grazing for domestic flocks, wild cattle, gazelle, fallow deer, and onager. Cultivation was possible in small patches of alluvial soils and along the rivers, watered by rainfall, springs, wells, seasonal flow in wadis, and the rivers: the Euphrates, the Tigris, and their tributaries, including the Khabur. In

Assyria

13

the third and second millennia BCE adequate rainfall for cultivation extended farther south than today. In the north, the Zagros mountains join the Taurus mountains of eastern Turkey, source of many desirable raw materials, especially timber and metal ores. Bitumen (natural asphalt) was available in the Zagros foothills. It had many uses including waterproofing and fuel. Northern Mesopotamia had abundant stone for building, making tools, and decoration. Major land routes followed the Euphrates in the west and the foothills of the Zagros in the east. In their upper reaches the Euphrates and Tigris were not easy to navigate, but canals and lesser rivers provided water-borne routes through much of Assyria; the rivers linked Assyria with Babylonia to the south. Farming communities were established from early postglacial times in the parts of Assyria where rain-fed agriculture was possible; simple irrigation allowed farming to spread during the sixth millennium. In the fourth millennium, towns emerged in both southern Mesopotamia and some parts of the north. Tell Hamoukar in the Khabur basin had a town wall before 3500 BCE. People from Uruk in southern Mesopotamia established outposts and colonies in the north, probably to obtain the raw materials that they lacked. Some settlements such as Hamoukar show Uruk influences, for example in architecture and pottery styles. Around 3100 BCE, these contacts abruptly ceased, the colonies were abandoned, and for a while Assyria was more closely linked to the mountainous region to its north, where pastoralism was important. While southern Mesopotamia was transformed in the earlier third millennium BCE into a landscape dominated by towns and cities, densely settled, and supported by the high productivity of irrigation agriculture, in Assyria, where arable land was more widespread but less intensively productive, settlement was more dispersed and population growth slower. Urbanism came later here and was never as well developed as in Babylonia. Nevertheless, by the mid-third millennium BCE there were a number of substantial towns in north Mesopotamia controlling sizable regions, including Tell Brak (probably ancient Nagar) and Nineveh. Later many were conquered by the early southern empires. Tell Brak, for example, was probably the Akkadian administrative center for the Khabur region. Assur, a major town controlled by both Akkadian and Ur III governors, developed into a city-state in the early second millennium. Although its cultivable land was limited, it was strategically situated to control trade routes. A large archive of commercial documents preserved at Kanesh (modern Kültepe) in Anatolia gives a detailed insight into Assur’s nineteenth-century-BCE trade in eastern tin and Mesopotamian textiles for Anatolian silver. This trade was revived in the eighteenth century under Shamshi-Adad, who united all northern Mesopotamia into a short-lived empire. By around 1500 BCE the state of Mitanni, centered in the Khabur valley, had emerged as a major power,

14

Assyria

controlling a vast region from eastern Anatolia and the northern Levant to east of the Tigris, including Assyria. Mitanni had declined by 1350 BCE; its western lands fell to the Hittites, and Assyria seized control of its east, expanding further under successive rulers. After a period of decline, Assyrian fortunes revived in the ninth century. Vast wealth and manpower flowed from conquered states to enrich the heartland, enabling Ashurnasirpal II (883–859 BCE) to transform Kalhu (Nimrud), a small administrative center, into a magnificent new capital city, housing some 16,000 people. The construction and embellishment of later capitals similarly benefitted from war booty and tribute. Assyrian capitals were defended by massive walls and moats; a citadel in one corner surrounded by its own impressive wall contained palaces, major temples, administrative buildings, and elite housing. Gigantic figures including winged human-headed bulls guarded the palace gateways, and magnificent carved stone relief scenes depicting royal achievements decorated their walls. After a brief transfer to Dur-Sharrukin (Khorsabad), Sennacherib (704– 681 BCE) moved the capital to Nineveh. This small but ancient and prestigious city had an excellent strategic location controlling both extensive arable land and a major crossing on the Tigris. Sennacherib rebuilt and enlarged it, enclosing it with a massive wall and building a canal and aqueduct to bring water more than 30 miles to the city, which boasted orchards, fields, and a tiered royal park that may be what was later remembered as the “Hanging Gardens of Babylon.” On the citadel Sennacherib constructed his “Palace without Rival.” Relief carvings on its walls depict his military victories and major public works. Other reliefs in the palace of his grandson Ashurbanipal (668–627) magnificently and sensitively depict the drama of royal lion hunts. In 612 BCE Babylonia conquered the Assyrian heartland. Skeletons and burned and looted buildings at Nimrud and Nineveh bear witness to the thorough sacking of Assyria’s major cities. The remains of Assyria’s magnificent palaces were excavated in the nineteenth century and many of their stunning sculptures were carried off to grace European museums. In the early twentieth century, the new national states in West Asia gradually introduced laws to ban or control the export of antiquities. Recent warfare in the region has undermined this protection, unleashing massive looting to feed the huge international trade in illegally acquired antiquities and the deliberate, propagandistic destruction of pre-Islamic world cultural treasures, such as the sculptures of Nimrud. See also: Architecture; Birth of Empire; Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization; Irrigation; Jewelry; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Mari and the Middle Euphrates Region; Merchant Houses; Visual Arts; Document: “Kanesh Letters”

Astronomy and the Calendar

15

Further Reading Dalley, Stephanie. 2013. The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hussein, M. M. 2016. Nimrud: The Queens’ Tombs. Translated by Mark Altaweel, edited by McGuire Gibson. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago; Baghdad: Iraqi State Board of Antiquities and Heritage. http:// oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/misc -2016-Nimrud-Queens-Tombs-web.pdf. Last accessed October 16, 2016. Leick, Gwendolyn. 2001. Mesopotamia. The Invention of the City. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press. Oates, Joan, and David Oates. 2001. Nimrud. An Assyrian Imperial City Revealed. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Russell, John Malcolm. 1996. “Nineveh.” In Royal Cities of the Biblical World, edited by Joan Goodnick Westenholz, 153–70. Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum.

ASTRONOMY AND THE CALENDAR  From early times, the rhythms of life demanded the existence of a calendar, for example, to determine the right time to sow and harvest and to undertake appropriate religious rites. In Mesopotamia, as in many societies, the calendar was based on the cycles of the sun and moon. Since these and other heavenly bodies were thought to be controlled by the gods, it was a short step intellectually to viewing the movements and conjunctions of heavenly bodies as a guide to interpreting the intentions of the gods. The southern Mesopotamian (Babylonian) calendar was regularized in the late third millennium BCE by Ur III kings and was refined in later centuries. Time was divided into solar days, lunar months, and luni-solar years. Days ran from sunset to sunset and were divided into twelve “double-hours,” each of sixty “double-minutes” (measured using a water clock). A moon cycle lasts slightly over twenty-nine days. Mesopotamian months ran from the new moon’s first sighting on the western horizon to its first appearance in the following month, so they were either twenty-nine or thirty days long. The year had twelve lunar months, totaling 354 days. An intercalary month was inserted periodically to prevent the lunar-based calendar getting too far out of step with the actual solar years of 365 1/4 days: this practice is known in Babylonia by the third millennium. A very accurate version of this system operated by 500 BC: there are 235 lunar months in nineteen years, so seven intercalary months were added at predetermined intervals through the nineteen-year cycle. The Babylonian year began with the month Nisannu (March/ April), the New Year falling around the spring equinox. Various methods were used to record the passing of time. Probably from Akkadian times, dates were recorded by naming each year after the reigning king and an important religious, military, political or public event within that

16

Astronomy and the Calendar

year, such as the founding of a temple or the construction of a canal. Official lists of these year names were kept from Ur III times onwards. Later systems also often used regnal years combined with chronicles or annals of events; the Assyrians also used a system of naming each year after an important official (limmu). Other information used for dating was often included in the daily records of omens and observations of the heavens made by Babylonian priests for the purpose of divination. The Mesopotamians considered that the gods planned everything that happened in the world and communicated their intentions for the future in ways that could be interpreted by those with the relevant knowledge. Omens regarding matters of state importance could be obtained by studying the heavens. This specialist branch of divination was undertaken by expert royal astrologers. In observing and recording these phenomena diviners developed accurate and precise knowledge of the regular courses of the stars, planets, moon, and sun and other aspects of astronomy. The association of certain constellations with the sky at particular times of the year was noted by the early Babylonians. Some time after 500 BCE this was systematized: a band containing the ecliptic (path of the sun) through the circle of the heavens was divided into twelve 30-degree sections, named after constellations in their vicinity (zodiac), to assist in plotting the movement of heavenly bodies. From this time, mathematical calculations to determine the movements of the heavens flourished alongside observational astronomy. Babylonian astrologers interpreted the significance of celestial signs using omen texts. Portended disasters might be averted by performing lengthy and elaborate rituals to persuade deities to alter their plans. A number of astronomical texts survive, from around 1700 BCE onwards, giving observed astronomical phenomena and the events they were considered to presage: these included phases of the moon, lunar eclipses and conjunctions of the moon with planets and fixed stars; stellar and planetary movements; solar eclipses and coronas; and meteorological signs, such as thunderstorms and clouds. Such texts also gave arithmetic information for calculating when to insert intercalary months and establishing the variation in daylight hours throughout the year. Mesopotamian astronomy and calendrics had a powerful influence on later civilizations. The nineteen-year calendric cycle was widely adopted, both in West Asia and by the Greeks, who built on the Babylonians’ astronomical knowledge to develop their own understanding of the movements of the heavens. Personal astrological horoscopes based on the zodiacal situation at birth, which began in late Babylonian times, strongly influenced the later Hellenistic, Classical, and West Asian worlds and underlie popular modern horoscopes. The Babylonian day of twelve double-hours was transformed by the Greeks into the day of twenty-four equal hours used universally today.

Babylon and Babylonia

17

See also: Kingship; Mathematics; Religious Practices Further Reading Bottéro, Jean, 2001. “The Birth of Astrology.” In Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, 183–98. Translated by Antonia Nevill. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Farber, Walter. 2000. “Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1895–910. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Leick, Gwendolyn, ed. 2009. The Babylonian World. Oxford: Routledge. Liverani, Mario. 2006. Uruk. The First City. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. London/Oakville: Equinox. Rochberg, Francesca. 2000. “Astronomy and Calendars in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1925–40. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

BABYLON AND BABYLONIA  Babylonia lies south of the latitude of modern Baghdad, Iraq, where the Tigris and Euphrates come within 20 miles of each other. Land to the east along the Diyala, a tributary of the Tigris, formed an extension of the Babylonian political and economic sphere. The city of Babylon, capital of Babylonia from the mid-second millennium BCE, lay on the Euphrates some 55 miles southwest of modern Baghdad. Babylonia’s agricultural prosperity depended on irrigation since its rainfall was too meager to water crops and the rivers’ annual inundation unhelpfully occurred around harvest time; though in the Diyala valley both rain-fed and irrigated agriculture were possible. Canal irrigation focused cultivation on the levees and backslopes of the rivers. The force of the annual floods often damaged or destroyed canals and broke down the levees, making flood-control facilities essential. Most farming settlement was in the wide alluvial plain watered by meandering branches of the Euphrates, prone to changing their course in years of heavy flooding. During the late third millennium a minor branch developed though Babylon, growing to become the principal branch by the late second millennium BCE. Babylon’s rise to prominence coincides with a shift in the center of political gravity in the second millennium BCE from the delta plains of Sumer in the south to the river plains of Akkad (northern Babylonia). Thickets along the watercourses harbored game, such as boar and fallow deer. Beyond the narrow belt watered by the river and canals, semidesert scrub supported birds and small animals year-round while scanty rainfall produced herbaceous vegetation in winter and spring, providing seasonal grazing for domestic animals and game including onager and gazelle. Birds congregated around seasonal lakes. Local resources included reeds and palm fronds

18

Babylon and Babylonia

for making baskets, mats, ropes, and boats, and timber adequate to make furniture, boats, and roofs, though for ships and larger buildings more substantial timbers had to be imported. Most construction was in clay, abundantly available, used for structures from mudbrick houses to baked-brick city walls, as well as for pottery. Small stones were washed down by the rivers but most stone needed for tools, construction, or decorative purposes was imported, as were metal ores and many other materials. Rivers and canals were used for transport. Mesopotamia’s earliest cities developed first in Sumer in the late fourth millennium BCE. However, it was a native of Akkad, Sargon, who united Babylonia in the first empire, around 2334 BCE. Under both the Akkadian and Ur III empires, all Babylonia prospered, and trade flourished particularly southward through the Gulf. In the early second millennium, however, a northward shift in political focus began. The Ur III Empire disintegrated into competing smaller states, and others emerged farther north and west. Babylon grew in importance, joining a coalition of states defeated in 1804 BCE by Rim-Sin of Larsa, the most powerful southern ruler; the north was dominated by Eshnunna and Elam. Babylon, under Hammurabi from 1792 BCE, joined Mari and its western allies, driving out the Elamites in 1764, defeating Larsa in 1763, and conquering Eshnunna in 1762. Hammurabi then attacked his ally, Mari, and by 1755 controlled all Babylonia. Babylon became the focus for the flow of wealth and the center of administration for southern Mesopotamia, a position it held for more than a millennium. Hammurabi’s empire gradually declined under his successors, but Babylonia eventually revived under the Kassite dynasty, forging alliances with Elam, and interacting on equal terms with the great powers of Egypt, the Hittites, and Mitanni. In 1158 relations with Elam deteriorated; the Elamites sacked Babylon, carrying off the city’s precious statue of its tutelary deity, Marduk. The Kassites’ successors eventually recovered Marduk’s statue; under their rule, Marduk became the supreme god and Babylon superseded Nippur as Babylonia’s spiritual center. The first millennium BCE saw the rise to international power of Assyria: Babylonia generally maintained a powerful position, sometimes in conflict, sometimes in alliance with the Assyrians, though it was under Assyrian rule for much of the period between 728 and 627 BCE. Though often politically their enemies, the Assyrians felt great cultural respect for the Babylonians. Assyrian kings built and restored Babylonian temples and made generous offerings to Babylonian deities. In 612 BCE a combined army of Babylonians and Medes defeated the Assyrians and Babylonia inherited the Assyrian Empire, encompassing all West Asia. This prosperous state drew wealth from booty, tribute, and trade, much of which its kings invested in the embellishment of Babylon, creating a hugely

Babylon and Babylonia

19

impressive 2,100-acre metropolis. A moat and three massive walls, 5 miles long, surrounded the immense eastern part. In its northwest lay the main palace complex, with numerous courtyards and rooms, including the throne room, its facade decorated with a magnificent frieze of glazed bricks depicting lions and stylized palm trees. The palace’s eastern wall, beyond the city wall, decorated outside with glazed brick friezes of lions, ran beside the magnificent Processional Way, along which a great procession bore the gods’ statues to the external Akitu temple at the climax of the New Year festival. Exiting the city through the magnificent Ishtar Gate, decorated with blue and orange glazed bricks depicting the dragon of Marduk and the bull of Adad, the Processional Way began at the Esagila, Marduk’s temple in city center. Immediately north of the Esagila lay Marduk’s sacred precinct, containing the ziggurat Etemenanki (the “Tower of Babel”), probably begun by Hammurabi and later elaborated, finally achieving seven tiers. Exhaustive surveys have failed to locate the famous “Hanging Gardens” within Babylon: it has plausibly been suggested that the well-attested tiered gardens at Nineveh, probably supplied with water using the Mesopotamian precursor of the Archimedes’ Screw, were what was actually being described, since later Classical writers often confused Assyrians with Babylonians. The spiritual well-being of the Babylonian state depended upon Babylon’s annual celebration of the New Year festival, which required the presence of both Marduk’s statue and the king. Assyrian kings controlling Babylonia participated in the ceremony to lend divine legitimacy to their rule. The last Neo-Babylonian king, Nabonidus (555–539 BCE), absented himself from Babylon for ten years, during which the New Year festival could not be celebrated: it was perhaps due to his consequent unpopularity that, when the Persians attacked Babylon in 539 BCE, the city apparently yielded without opposition (though the Persians had already defeated the Babylonian army at Opis). Babylonia continued to prosper under the Persians and their Hellenistic successors, declining only in later times under the Parthians. The region has suffered badly in the strife of recent years. While Babylon was protected during and after the Iraq War, in wider Babylonia the expanding trade in illegal antiquities has encouraged widespread organized largescale looting and often the total destruction of many archaeological sites using heavy earth-moving machinery. The willingness of private collectors to purchase unprovenanced material fuels this trade, not only helping to destroy our shared cultural heritage, but also funding international criminal networks and terrorist organizations. See also: Assyria; Birth of Empire; Hammurabi’s Empire; Irrigation; Mesopotamian Empires; Document: “The Cursing of Agade”; Document: “Hammurabi’s Law Code”; Document: “Two Kings”

20

Birth of Empire

Further Reading Leick, Gwendolyn. 2001. Mesopotamia. The Invention of the City. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press. Oates, Joan. 1979. Babylon. Rev. ed. London: Thames and Hudson. Van de Mieroop, Marc. 2005. King Hammurabi of Babylon. Oxford: Blackwell. Westenholz, Joan Goodnick. 1996. “Babylon.” In Royal Cities of the Biblical World, edited by J. G. Westenholz, 197–220. Jerusalem: Bible Lands Museum. Wiseman, D.J. 1991. Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon. The Schweich Lectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press

BIRTH OF EMPIRE  Sometime in the late twenty-fourth century BCE Sargon of Akkad achieved the final victory in his long-running campaign to conquer the city-states of Sumer, and Sumer and Akkad were united in a single empire, the first in Mesopotamian history. The entire region later known as Babylonia was now unified under a single ruler and administrative framework, and many aspects of life were standardized. Although the empire lasted less than a century and a half, it permanently altered the political landscape both of the region and of West Asia in general. The earlier third millennium BCE (Early Dynastic [ED] period) had seen the rise of city-states in southern Mesopotamia, collaborating or competing with their neighbors. Although military actions had taken place from early ED times, and cities had been sacked, defeated city-states had always retained their independence. It is not until late ED III that there is evidence for aggressors carving out more substantial domains. By ED III, two suprastate institutions had developed, the kingship of Kish and the religious authority of Nippur. Nippur was the city of Enlil, chief of the gods. Rulers of other citystates made offerings in his temple, invoking his backing for their actions, including military enterprises. Kish was a major city-state in Akkad; the title “king of Kish” was sometimes used by the ruler of another city-state, implying the exercise of some higher authority, perhaps moral rather than political: most frequently its holders are seen dedicating offerings in the temples of other states, but at least one acted as arbitrator to settle a border dispute between two city-states. After 2500 BCE, however, warfare began to have more expansionist objectives. Tribute and political subservience were probably now demanded from defeated states though victors did not interfere in their internal affairs. The first substantial contemporary texts, documenting a long-running border dispute between Lagash and the adjacent city-state of Umma from around 2550 BCE, reveal the growing power of Lagash’s kings. Eannatum (c. 2450 BCE) claimed to have defeated Umma, Uruk, and Ur in Sumer, and other cities much farther north and east and held the title of king of Kish. His victories

Birth of Empire

21

in Sumer may represent an early attempt to gain control over neighboring states; and such endeavors became increasingly common through the following century. Around 2350 BCE Lugalzagesi, governor of Umma, sacked Lagash’s principal city, Girsu. According to his inscriptions, Lugalzagesi subsequently became the ruler of Uruk, Ur, and the other cities of southern Mesopotamia and gained control of the lands “from the Lower Sea” (the Gulf ) “to the Upper Sea” (the Mediterranean). Nevertheless, there is still no indication that his rule involved any interference in the internal administration of city-states under his hegemony. At some time during Lugalzagesi’s reign, Sargon, a native of Akkad (northern Babylonia), became the local king of Kish. Sargon’s early life is obscure and surrounded by later legends. He established a new city at Agade, and spent some years bringing Akkad under his rule. The chronology of his conquests is uncertain but he probably then campaigned in the lands to the west and north, including Silver Mountain (Taurus) and Cedar Forest (Lebanon), defeating and probably sacking Mari, and in Elam and Marhashi in the east. He fought thirty-four battles, over a ten-year period, to seize control of the Sumerian cities, possibly towards the end of his fifty-six-year reign, which is conventionally dated from 2334 BCE, though it is unclear what stage in his conquests this marks. Sargon’s empire was a complete political transformation, creating a united, single, integrated state. Authority was centralized; Sargon and his successors appointed Akkadian governors to administer the individual city-states and members of the royal family to senior religious posts. The capital, Agade, was the hub of the empire, where crafts and industry were concentrated and trading ships from distant lands brought their wares. Estates were settled on loyal supporters, and a substantial army, supported by the proceeds of trade and war, maintained royal authority. Frequent rebellions show how bitterly the loss of independence was resented by the former city-states. Sargon’s successors, particularly his grandson, Naram-Sin, continued his distant campaigns, probably to ensure access to important raw materials rather than any wider political control of far-flung regions. The empire declined under Naram-Sin’s successors, part eventually falling to Gutian raiders from the east, while many city-states enjoyed a revival of independence that lasted decades. In the late twenty-second century BCE Utu-hegal of Uruk drove out the Guti. Seven years later, around 2112 BCE, his relative Ur-Nammu, governor of Ur, succeeded him, and within a few years had gained full control of the south, creating a new empire, that of the Third Dynasty of Ur (Ur III). He reestablished stability, particularly by restoring and building irrigation canals. His son Shulgi consolidated the empire and established its bureaucracy, created a standing army, and reorganized the economic system, greatly increasing

22

Birth of Empire

royal power at the expense of the temple. He also conducted military campaigns and international diplomacy, securing important trade routes in the north and east and extending the lands under Sumerian control as far as Assur and Susa: foreign trade flourished, especially through the Gulf. Independent neighboring states, including Mari, Ebla, and Tuttul, became close allies. The Ur III dynasty created a highly bureaucratic and efficient state, with an excellent road network. Shulgi promulgated one of the first law codes. Ur-Nammu and his successors undertook extensive restoration and new building in the traditional religious centers, particularly Ur; among their temples were the first ziggurats. But after Shulgi, growing problems with external raiders and internal economic decline led eventually to the empire’s fall to Elamite and Guti forces in 2004 BCE. Larger political entities than the traditional city-states began to develop in the later third millennium as some rulers retained control over city-states that they had defeated. These larger territorial states, which in the case of Lugalzagesi’s kingdom may have encompassed all Babylonia, were nevertheless conceived within the traditional ideology, the king being recognized as ruler of each city-state by that city’s tutelary deity, and overall as ruler of the Land by Enlil, chief of the gods. Sargon paid lip service to this ideology but created a completely different form of state, imposing centrally controlled outside governors upon the defeated cities. The Ur III kings theoretically returned to the traditional model, each province, created around a city-state, being governed by a member of the local elite or royal house, but the parallel presence of a military governor appointed from outside demonstrates that the political pattern had changed irrevocably. From the time of the Akkadian Empire onward, large, integrated territorial states became an established and common political form in Mesopotamia, although individual city-states also continued to exist. See also: Administration; Domestic Economy; Industry; International Trade; Kingship; Land Tenure; Literature; Mesopotamian Empires; Palace Rule; Warfare; Document: “The Cursing of Agade”; Document: “Enheduanna”; Document: “Shulgi”; Document: “Two Kings”; Document: “Umma and Lagash” Further Reading Franke, Sabina. 2000. “Kings of Akkad: Sargon and Naram-Sin.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 831–41. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Klein, Jacob. 2000. “Shulgi of Ur: King of a Neo-Sumerian Empire.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 842–57. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Boats and Ships

23

Leick, Gwendolyn. 2001. Mesopotamia. The Invention of the City. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. Van de Mieroop, Marc. 2004. A History of the Ancient Near East. ca. 3000–323 BC. Oxford: Blackwell.

BOATS AND SHIPS  Waterways provided the easiest and most efficient means of travel and transport in antiquity. The development of boats and ships was therefore of key importance in ancient Mesopotamia. Watercraft first appeared in the Paleolithic period. Although actual vessels survive in some regions from as early as 9000 BCE, conditions in West Asia do not preserve perishable materials such as wood. Evidence for ancient boats therefore comes from art and, after writing was invented, from texts. A model boat with a socket for a mast from Ubaid-period Eridu shows that sails to harness wind power were invented in Mesopotamia before 4000 BCE; the spread of Ubaid-period pottery through the Gulf suggests that sailing vessels were also active at sea. The ancient Mesopotamians used boats for fishing and to carry people, goods, and animals both short and longer distances. In the southern marshes, boats were the main means of transport and some were used as houses. Domestic life, trade, industry, and military movement depended on water transport; texts show its scale and importance. Many manufactured goods and raw materials, including agricultural produce and animals, were shipped along the rivers and extensive networks of irrigation canals, as well as by sea. The simplest watercraft was an inflated sheep or goat skin that carried one person. Many inflated skins joined and covered with a wood and reed platform made rafts on which substantial loads were carried downstream; at their destination the platform’s wood was sold and the skins deflated and carried back upriver on donkeys to begin again. Coracles had an internal framework of willow rods over which hides were stretched, or, more commonly, the framework gave shape to a basket of coiled and tied palm-fiber rope. This was paddled with long oars, often by standing oarsmen. Varying in size, coracles carried from one to more than thirty people. Shallow-bottomed boats with high prows and sterns, of sewn or bound reed bundles, were the most common craft, particularly in the southern marshes. More substantial vessels were built of wooden planks joined with dowels and mortices and probably rope. Various types of timber were used for ship building, including local southern Mesopotamian pine and imported Indian teak and Lebanese cedar. Timbers from the north were floated downriver, either as separate logs or joined into rafts.

24

Boats and Ships

Whether of reeds, basketry, or wood, Mesopotamian vessels were waterproofed by caulking with bitumen. Heated in a furnace, this was applied as a layer inside and out, finished with a layer of lard to soften the bitumen and prevent it from cracking. Old bitumen removed from boats was heated for reuse. Lumps of bitumen bearing reed impressions and with pieces of barnacle embedded in them, from third-millennium-BCE Ras al-Junayz in Oman, are direct evidence both of this practice and of seagoing reed boats. Although their capacity was less than that of wooden ships, reed boats could sail in shallow waters, advantageous for loading and unloading. Inland boats were usually rowed or paddled, or steered while propelled by the current. To return upstream, boats were generally towed by oxen or men. Sailing on the Tigris and Euphrates was difficult as the prevailing wind blew in the same general direction as the current. Seagoing ships mainly used sails; these were probably square, of linen or reed matting. Sailing expeditions through the Gulf utilized the prevailing winds at particular times of year. Texts show that Gulf trade was active in the third millennium BCE, but became more restricted in the second millennium when private merchants sailed only as far as Dilmun (Bahrain), and in smaller ships, the largest only 40 gur (12,000 liters capacity) as compared with 300 gur (90,000 liters) in Ur III times. By 1500 BCE the focus of maritime trade had shifted to the Mediterranean, where the Mesopotamians were not themselves active as sailors, instead trading with eastern Mediterranean seafaring states. Boats and ships were also important in warfare. Several Akkadian kings conducted naval expeditions in the Gulf. Later the Assyrians employed Phoenician sailors and ships. Boats and ships have remained a vital part of transport since ancient times, for trade, communications, travel, and warfare. Despite significant developments in aquatic technology since ancient times, many types of boat used by the ancient Mesopotamians are still in use or have only recently disappeared. See also: Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization; International Trade; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Warfare; Document: “The Flood” Further Reading Bass, George F. 2000. “Sea and River Craft in the Ancient Near East.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1421–31. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Finkel, Irving. 2014. The Ark Before Noah. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Potts, Daniel T. 1997. Mesopotamian Civilization. The Material Foundations. London: Athlone.

City-States

25

Ratnagar, Shereen. 2004. Trading Encounters. From the Euphrates to the Indus in the Bronze Age. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Vosmer, Tom. 2003. “The Naval Architecture of Early Bronze Age Reed-Built Boats of the Arabian Sea.” In Archaeology of the United Arab Emirates. Proceedings of the First International Conference on the Archaeology of the U.A.E., edited by Daniel Potts, Hasan Al Naboodah, and Peter Hellyer, 150–57. London: Trident.

CITY-STATES  The city-state as a political form has appeared in various places across the world including Europe, but originated in ancient Mesopotamia. It is a state centered on a preeminent city, surrounded by a hinterland that may include towns and villages, as well as countryside from which it generally derives agricultural produce to support it. The city provides the administrative, political, spiritual, economic, and cultural focus for the state, giving its citizens a sense of unity that is grounded in place. Very often a group of city-states together form a larger cultural entity, sharing features that may include language, religious beliefs, and other cultural fundamentals, while maintaining individual political independence. The city-state evolved in southern Mesopotamia, where the investment of labor in irrigation works produced tightly focused, highly productive, densely settled farming communities separated by clearly defined areas of wasteland suitable only for grazing. The region was bounded to the east by marshes and mountains and by desert to the west, inhabited by mobile pastoralists perceived to lead barbaric lives. Here and in northern Mesopotamia, less heavily urbanized but culturally related, city-states became in the eyes of their inhabitants the locus of civilized existence. Through the fourth millennium, the population of southern Mesopotamia (Babylonia) dramatically increased. Its best known settlement, Uruk, grew to 20,000–50,000 people and around 600 acres before the end of the millennium, emerging as the world’s first city, a place not only of massive size but of corresponding complexity, home to farmers, herdsmen, artisans, traders, priests, and service personnel, led by the temple authorities. The city dominated the surrounding region and its hierarchy of lesser settlements: towns, villages, and hamlets. By the early third millennium BCE (Early Dynastic [ED] period) cities were developing throughout Babylonia, along the Euphrates river branches (now fewer but larger than in earlier times) and along the Diyala. Continuing expansion brought cities into competition, encouraging the gradual transfer of power to secular rulers able to lead in war, though the temple establishment retained considerable economic power and spiritual authority. Cities came to be regarded as the personal estate of individual gods, in whose name the city’s king acted. Citizens contributed to the upkeep of the temple through offerings of agricultural and other produce,

26

City-States

and the construction and maintenance of civic facilities, such as temples and vital irrigation works, through corvée labor, as well as forming citizen armies when required. The attractions of city life drew an increasing number of rural dwellers into the city, and by about 2500 BCE, around 80 percent of Sumer’s population dwelled in cities that provided the focus for services, industry, political control, religious activity, and defense. City-states also emerged in parts of the north during the third millennium BCE, later than in the south, fewer in number, and less densely distributed. Though politically independent, Babylonia’s city-states shared an overarching identity, united by their shared culture, environment, problems, and solutions. The river regime, while capable of supporting very high productivity, required complex irrigation and flood control mechanisms, and the management of large workforces to construct and maintain them. Shared cultural features included language. Sumerian was probably originally the language of southern and Akkadian of northern Babylonia, but already by the mid-third millennium BCE when the developing writing system allows names to be read, it is clear that there was considerable linguistic mixing throughout the region. By the early second millennium Akkadian was universally spoken in Babylonia while Sumerian was the language of scholarship. Cultural unity was reflected in a number of widely shared third-millennium developments. The first literary texts from around 2500 BCE begin to record the region’s shared mythology, knowledge, and philosophy of life, presumably previously shared as oral literature. Seals bearing the names of a number of cities, from ED I onwards, and information from texts in early ED IIIA, show that there were leagues of allied states, cooperating in civic and military enterprises, and perhaps jointly contributing to maintain important temples. The title “king of Kish,” used by the rulers of several city-states by around 2500 BCE, suggests that some individuals were acknowledged to wield higher authority; its nature is uncertain, though one function of this office seems to have been arbitration in disputes between rival states. By 2400 BCE, Enlil had emerged as the leading god in the shared Sumerian pantheon, and other city-states were contributing to the upkeep of his temple, the Ekur, in his city of Nippur, which now exercised the divine authority to approve the actions of individual monarchs. After 2500 BCE some city-states began extending their territories by conquering others. Nevertheless, their victorious leaders continued to view their expanded realms in terms of city-states, setting up inscriptions avowing the approval of their rule by both Enlil and the individual gods of each conquered city-state. This continued even when many city-states were united into an empire under a single ruler. For example, in the eighteenth century BCE, Shamshi-Adad, who created the Empire of Upper Mesopotamia, secured the

Cosmology

27

mandate of the local god in each city-state he conquered or controlled. When empires fell apart, Babylonia reverted to the ideology of the city-state, these reemerging as the basic political unit, though their kings frequently sought larger political hegemony. The city-state is a political form that has existed in many times and places. It was the earliest form of urban civilization to appear, emerging in ancient Mesopotamia, but has had a significant currency throughout history as an alternative to larger political units. Replicated across a region it combines a degree of cultural unity with considerable political independence (while in contrast larger states often combine political unity with cultural diversity). While Classical Greece is the most famous and best known example, others include Renaissance Italy, and in the modern world Singapore. See also: Administration; Early Dynastic City-States; Irrigation; Mari and the Middle Euphrates Region; Ur and the Marshes; Uruk and Sumer; Document: “Gilgamesh and Agga”; Document: “Kanesh Letters”; Document: “Mari Letters”; Document: “Umma and Lagash” Further Reading Cooper, Jerrold S. 1983. Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions: The LagashUmma Conflict. Sources from the Ancient Near East. Vol. 2, fascicule 1. Malibu, CA: Udena Publications. Leick, Gwendolyn. 2001. Mesopotamia. The Invention of the City. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. Van de Mieroop, Marc. 2004. A History of the Ancient Near East. ca. 3000–323 BC. Oxford: Blackwell.

COSMOLOGY  A need to explain and comprehend the world and humanity’s place in it gave rise to the Mesopotamians’ conceptions of the gods, the cosmos, and associated mythology. Omnipotent and magnificent, the gods were seen as generally just and beneficent but potentially unpredictable and terrible. People felt respect, awe, fear, and reverence for their gods, rather than love. In early times, the gods were seen as the life-force within natural features, such as earth, river, cereals, and cattle, their worship ensuring fertility and the continuity of life and the seasons. As Mesopotamia developed from small agricultural communities into complex, competing city-states, however, the gods increasingly became visualized in human form, members of a family, their society resembling that of humanity. Individual city-states became the

28

Cosmology

domain of particular deities whom the citizens served, earning his or her favor, protection, and continuing presence, which ensured the city’s prosperity. Thus during the third millennium, the gods gained a far wider role as active and conscious agents, controlling, ordering, and maintaining the world. In their Creation myths the ancient Mesopotamians attempted to answer fundamental questions about how the world came to be as it was. They visualized the primeval cosmos as water, composed of the saltwater ocean, Tiamat, and the freshwater Abzu, Earth forming from the silt engendered where their waters met. From these waters deities were born, and eventually the first true god, An, father of other gods, including Enlil and Enki. These principal gods apportioned the universe, An gaining On High (Heaven), Enlil the Earth, and Enki the Abzu. At first the labor of forming the world was undertaken by lesser deities but after they went on strike, humanity was created to toil in their place. Humanity, however, multiplied, their noise disturbing Enlil who attempted to destroy them with plague, famine, drought, and finally the Flood. Forewarned, Atraharsis (Utanapishtim) built an ark and saved his kith and kin and all the animals. Dismayed at the loss of the offerings that had sustained them, the gods were relieved to discover people had survived, but introduced infant mortality, celibacy, and sterility to curb population increase in the future. An, king of the gods, was remote in his heavenly domain; by the mid-third millennium the active ruler was his son Enlil, lord of the Earth. Enlil’s rise paralleled the contemporary political situation, in which Enlil’s city Nippur gained spiritual authority over Sumer. Enlil was god of winds, especially those bringing spring rains, vital in the north; in southern Mesopotamia, his association with storms and destructive floods made him feared. Enki (Akkadian: Ea) was intelligent and well disposed towards humanity, often protecting or aiding them against Enlil’s violent wrath. As lord of the Abzu, the source of rivers, springs, marshes, and rain, Enki symbolized the water upon which Mesopotamia depended for life. He played a leading role in creation myths, filling the empty world when the cosmos was formed and creating humanity in partnership with the Mother-goddess (known by various names). He was guardian of the ME (Akkadian parsu), which embraced all aspects of civilized existence. The goddess Inanna tricked Enki into giving her the ME, bringing civilization into the world. Inanna (Akkadian: Ishtar) was the powerful goddess of carnal love: patron of prostitutes, a spoilt flirtatious teenager, and bride who ensured Mesopotamia’s annual fertility. But she was also goddess of battle, delighting in bloodshed, and implacable if crossed. Many poems tell the story of Inanna’s wooing by and marriage to the rural god Dumuzi. Inanna was patron deity of the first city, Uruk, and featured prominently in the epic story of its legendary king,

Cosmology

29

Gilgamesh. At the height of his powers, Inanna fell in love with him, but he rejected her advances. In fury Inanna caused the Bull of Heaven to run amok, destroying Uruk’s lands and killing hundreds. Gilgamesh and his inseparable companion Enkidu arrogantly killed the Bull, further offending Inanna. For this impiety the gods doomed Enkidu to die, driving Gilgamesh mad with grief and, on reflection, with fear of his own death. The epic explores his quest for eternal life and concludes with his final acceptance that fame based on achievement is the only possible form of human immortality. Some stories made Inanna the daughter of Enlil’s son Nanna (Akkadian: Sin). He was god of the moon, linked to the calendar and fertility, and patron deity of the great city of Ur. Utu (Akkadian: Shamash), Inanna’s brother, was the sun god, who upheld justice and righteousness. Myths show him helping individual humans and indulging Inanna. The pantheon contained many other lesser deities, as well as a host of baleful demons and protective spirits. As intercommunications grew, deities with similar attributes from different cities or regions came to be regarded as a single deity with several names, Sumerian Inanna, for example, being identified with Akkadian Ishtar and the Levant’s Astarte. New deities entered the pantheon, mirroring and explaining new developments, as, for example, the introduction of a nomadic shepherd deity, Martu (Amurru), when Amorite nomads began to settle in Babylonia. Major political changes were explained and sanctified by changes in the divine order. In the second millennium Marduk rose to prominence as his city, Babylon, gained preeminence, eventually succeeding Nippur as Babylonia’s spiritual center. The magnificent Babylonian Epic of Creation (Enuma elish, “When On High . . .”) reworks the Creation story to explain his divine advancement. Unlike Enlil, his predecessor as supreme deity, Marduk was benevolent and approachable, liable to punish wrongdoing but moved to forgiveness by the sinner’s contrition and his own compassion. Marduk became responsible for order in the cosmos. Natural disasters and the breakdown of society were attributed to Marduk’s temporary absences from the seat of control. The Assyrian national god Ashur is somewhat shadowy, originally the god just of Assur city. As the destinies of north and south became more closely interwoven, Ashur was sometimes identified with Enlil. When the Assyrian king Sennacherib seized power in Babylonia in 703 BCE, he strengthened his own position by identifying Ashur with Marduk. Many of the myths and cosmology of Mesopotamia were adopted across West Asia and locally adapted: the biblical version of the Flood story is a fine example, continuing down the ages in Christian as well as Judaic tradition. Even where the underlying belief system has gone, elements of Mesopotamian cosmology survive, notably in the zodiac, still used in modern astrology

30

Currency

and derived from the astrological and cosmological framework of the Babylonians. See also: Assyria; Babylon and Babylonia; Literature; The ME—Essence of Civilization; Religious Practices; Ur and the Marshes; Uruk and Sumer; Document: “Creation”; Document: “Enheduanna”; Document: “The Flood”; Document: “Inanna and Dumuzi”; Document: “Inanna and Enki”; Document: “The Netherworld” Further Reading “Ancient Mesopotamian Gods and Goddesses.” http://oracc.museum.upenn.edu /amgg/. Last accessed October 16, 2016. Jacobsen, Thorkild. 1976. The Treasures of Darkness. A History of Mesopotamian Religion. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Leick, Gwendolyn. 1991. A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Mythology. London: Routledge. Leick, Gwendolyn, ed. 2009. The Babylonian World. Oxford: Routledge. Rochberg, F. 2005. “Mesopotamian Cosmology.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 339–52. Oxford: Blackwell.

CURRENCY  Currency (money) is a device that serves three purposes: enabling people to buy or sell; to store wealth (what they produce or own that is surplus to their needs), ideally in a nonperishable form; and as an index of value to compare unrelated things, both in physical transactions (buying and selling) and in the abstract calculations of accountancy. The idea of currency developed within the context of Uruk-period Mesopotamia’s increasing economic complexity. During the fourth millennium BCE, southern Mesopotamia developed an urban society in which the temple authorities controlled large areas of land and the labor of many individuals. Managing the movement of commodities, labor and its payment, taxation in the form of offerings, and trade led to the development of accounting, promoting the associated development not only of number notation, writing, and systematic measurement but also of various types of currency, initially as measures of value but soon also as media of exchange. Societies across the world have at times used many things as currency, including cocoa beans, textiles, grain, and, particularly, metals. While discrete currency units, such as shells, could simply be counted, others, such as grain and metal, needed to be measured, by volume or weight: the development of currency was therefore intimately associated with that of metrology. Early currency employed in southern Mesopotamia included barley and copper. By the mid-third millennium BCE, silver was also used, being valued against

Currency

31

copper in the ratio 1:180. Metals were particularly suitable as currency: easily portable; readily converted between attractive raw material, crafted object, and bullion; and permanently durable, unlike grain. Silver was particularly appropriate, given its midrange value, and was for most of antiquity the main exchange medium and value standard not only in Mesopotamia but throughout West Asia. Grain was also often used. Currency was mainly in the form of coiled silver-wire rings. During the Ur III period, silver rods or rings were made in regulated weights, of 1–10 shekels. More commonly, the rings’ weight was not standardized, but this was unimportant as silver was always weighed in transactions. To make up the exact weight required, pieces were cut from the coils, or any silver object such as jewelry could be included. Obviously, reliable weights were essential for such transactions. Heavily bureaucratic states, such as the Akkadian and Ur III empires, maintained rigorously standardized weights; in less controlled situations, such as when trading abroad, the parties to a transaction would agree to use a particular set of weights throughout their dealings. Silver in regular use as currency was maintained at a standard around 21–24 carats, in the range 87–90 percent purity. As well as its direct use in payments, silver (and, to a lesser extent, barley) acted as an index of value. Goods were often priced on the silver standard but paid for using something of equivalent value; conversely, some texts record transactions valued in barley and paid in silver. Currency as an index of value was essential for accounting. The minutely detailed and bureaucratic Ur-III accounts give the value in silver of each item listed on balance sheets, allowing calculation of total outgoings and incomings and the balance of funds held. A conversion rate of 1 shekel (0.3 ounces) of silver to 1 gur (8.5 bushels) of barley, used here, remained the accounting norm throughout Mesopotamian history. Though generally stable, rates of exchange could fluctuate depending on economic, political, and other factors. Prices were often fixed by the authorities, but in practice were hard to enforce, and inflation can be traced during some periods. The existence of currency should not give the impression that ancient Mesopotamian society was strongly market oriented: the majority of rural dwellers and many who lived in towns may never in their lives have had occasion to engage in monetary transactions. By the sixth century BCE, however, the economy was becoming increasingly monetarized: for example, temple employees were often paid wages in silver instead of rations of food and clothing. Coinage was invented in Lydia in Asia Minor in the seventh century BCE, possibly to provide standardized pay for mercenary troops, usable only within Lydia. As these first coins were of electrum, a (natural) alloy of gold and silver,

32

Death

their actual value could not be assayed (unlike unalloyed gold or silver) so their buying power was dependent on the value guaranteed by the ruler. Coins became widespread in the Greek world by the mid-sixth century, and further afield thereafter. Coins were units of metal whose weight and purity were guaranteed by the issuing authority, who theoretically undertook to redeem them at face value: this shifted the locus of trust from the reliability of the weights used to weigh currency to the reliability of the coin-issuing authority. Two drawbacks of coinage operated almost from the start: crooks could shave metal from the edges of coins or counterfeit them. Significantly, Mesopotamian rulers saw no need to issue coins, and other forms of currency continued in use, even in the Greek world, long after coinage was introduced. Later West Asian rulers, however, issued coinage: one advantage was its use for political propaganda, since coins could display the ruler’s head, city-state’s symbol, or other significant images, the coins’ circulation asserting the state’s economic power. The financial dealings of modern societies may seem very far from the currencies of antiquity. Nevertheless, when the ancient Mesopotamians first introduced the idea of using certain materials as currency, to facilitate transactions and accounting, they locked their own and later societies into a system that depended on collective belief in the value of commodities, such as precious metals, that might have no practical use and relied on the authorities’ power to maintain that value: a fragile act of faith, as periodic financial crashes demonstrate. See also: Administration; Domestic Economy; Finance; International Trade; Mathematics; Merchant Houses; Metrology; Taxation Further Reading Leick, Gwendolyn, ed. 2009. The Babylonian World. Oxford: Routledge. Liverani, Mario. 2006. Uruk. The First City. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. London/Oakville: Equinox. Monroe, C. M. 2005. “Money and Trade.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 171–84. Oxford: Blackwell. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. Snell, Daniel C. 2000. “Methods of Exchange and Coinage in Ancient Western Asia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1487– 97. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

DEATH  In ancient Mesopotamia timely death (after age seventy) was accepted, but the prospect of death was not appealing as the Netherworld was

Death

33

considered a grim and joyless place, relieved only by offerings made by the living, who had also to ensure that the deceased were given proper funerary rites. Unquiet spirits, dead in unfortunate circumstances, unburied, or not adequately provided for after death, posed a serious threat to the living. Ideally, Mesopotamians hoped to spend their last hours in bed, surrounded by family and friends. After breath had left the body, spoken rituals enabled the soul also to leave. The deceased was washed, anointed, dressed in clean clothes, and laid out with their personal possessions, food, drink, and sandals for the journey to the Netherworld, and gifts for the infernal deities to ensure his or her welcome. After leaving the body, the spirit traveled west across demon-infested steppe and the infernal river to the underworld beneath the Abzu and the Ocean. Here the dead endured a dreary existence, their happiness directly related to the quantity and quality of offerings from their living relatives. The long-forgotten dead may eventually have been recycled as spirits for new babies. Several Mesopotamian poems describe the underworld. In one Enkidu, friend of Uruk’s legendary king Gilgamesh, visited it to retrieve a favorite plaything Gilgamesh had lost. He described the dreadful sights he had seen: the childless man eating a loaf hard as baked brick, the childless woman, discarded like a flawed pot, and, ultimate tragedy, the man who had burned to death, now reduced to mere smoke. Stillborn children, however, played happily and fed on honey and ghee. The dead were always buried, since the body was needed to enable the deceased to enjoy food and drink offerings. The unburied and those who died young, tragically, or by violence (except war-heroes) would become ghosts, tormenting the living, who protected themselves with amulets. Offerings, made at the end of every month, and during two three-day summer festivals, were particularly the responsibility of the eldest son who therefore inherited the family home (beneath which the family dead might lie). The dead, returning for the ceremonies, could “smell incense”; food such as bread, honey, grain, and sometimes meat, was placed by the grave, while water, beer, hot broth, and other liquids were poured on to the grave or down a pipe into it. The dead were invoked by name, to prevent other ghosts receiving the offerings. These occasions allowed the living to communicate with the dead, asking favors or advice through an intermediary, the ghost raiser. Some families had a vaulted burial chamber in their house; others placed the body in a pit beneath the house floor. Alternatively the dead were buried in cemeteries, in simple pit graves or more substantial shaft graves or brick tombs. Graves contained single burials; the presence of another body suggests that a slave had been included among the grave goods. Few royal graves survive but sixteen richly furnished graves, dating mainly to the

34

Death

Early Dynastic IIIA period, were discovered in the large early cemetery at Ur. One simple grave contained spectacular offerings, including a beautiful sheet-gold wig-shaped helmet. Others had a shaft leading down into a substantial pit containing a vaulted brick and stone chamber in which the principal burial was laid, and magnificent grave goods including exquisite gold jewelry, gilded furniture, silver vessels, richly decorated sculptures, and lyres ornamented with fine bull and cow heads of sheet gold with hair and beards of lapis lazuli. Besides the principal burial, some contained other bodies (up to seventy-three). Woolley, their excavator, believed that these were willing victims, voluntarily sacrificed to accompany their beloved ruler. Since this would be unique in Mesopotamian history, Woolley’s interpretation has been questioned. However, recent forensic evidence from two skeletons in one of the graves suggests death by violence, reviving the idea of sacrifice. In 1990 an Iraqi team discovered the burials of four eighth-century Assyrian royal ladies in a vaulted chamber beneath the domestic quarters at Kalhu (Nimrud), buried with many fine vessels of alabaster, gold, and silver, jewelry of gold and precious stones, a gold mirror with an ivory handle, and other treasures. These precious objects were part of the deposit of material that thankfully survived the looting of the 2003 Iraq war, due to the foresight of staff who stored it safely in the vaults of the National Bank. Many others of Iraq’s treasures, its national patrimony and the world’s heritage, were lost at this time and in the years of disturbance that have followed. See also: Assyria; Medicine; Ur and the Marshes; Document: “The Netherworld”; Document: “Uru-inim-gina” Further Reading Farber, Walter. 2000. “Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1895–910. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Hussein, M. M. 2016. Nimrud. The Queens’ Tombs. Translated by M. Altaweel; edited by McGuire Gibson. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago; Baghdad: Iraqi State Board of Antiquities and Heritage. http://oi.uchicago.edu /sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/misc-2016-Nimrud-Queens -Tombs-web.pdf. Last accessed October 16, 2016. Scurlock, JoAnn. 2000. “Death and the Afterlife in Ancient Mesopotamian Thought.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1883–94. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Woolley, Leonard. 1982. Ur ‘of the Chaldees’. The Final Account, Excavations at Ur. Revised and updated by P. R. S. Moorey. London: Book Club Associates/Herbert Press.

Domestic Economy

35

Zettler, Richard L., and Lee Horner, eds. 1998. Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

DOMESTIC ECONOMY  The domestic economy of a society, such as that of ancient Mesopotamia, concerns the means by which its members obtain those things that they require for daily life: it includes the production and movement of foodstuffs and goods and the provision of services. Early subsistence economies were almost entirely self-sufficient. Huntergatherers were generally mobile and were therefore able to obtain many materials at source in the course of their seasonal round. Settled communities developed mechanisms for obtaining essentials that might not be locally available, such as stone for tool making, as well as desirable luxuries, but continued to produce most foodstuffs, goods, and services that they required. It was only when societies became more complex, with the rise of cities and occupational specialization, that the need for features of a more complex domestic economy developed. Three main mechanisms have been identified for the circulation of commodities and provision of services. All three still operate in modern societies, so one cannot argue for a simple evolutionary path from reciprocal exchange to redistribution to a market economy, but there is some debate over when each of these first appeared and their relative importance in antiquity. Reciprocity began in prehistory as gift exchange between members of families, communities, and other established groups, often moving materials and goods over considerable distances. Frequently such gifts involve delayed returns, feasting, and often formal, socially sanctioned rules. (An example still familiar today is wedding presents.) During the fifth and fourth millennia BCE communities in parts of West Asia grew in size and complexity, particularly in southern Mesopotamia, reflecting the high productivity there of irrigation agriculture. Offerings of agricultural produce, corvée labor, and the yields from temple estates supported a small but growing number of full-time or part-time specialists, enabling the temple authorities to manage and promote craft production, foreign trade, and the construction of (mainly sacred) monumental architecture and irrigation works, the workforce being issued daily rations. This marks the beginning of redistribution as an economic mechanism. During the early third millennium many city-states emerged in southern Mesopotamia, their temple and palace institutions controlling substantial estates. By around 2500 BCE larger territorial states were developing and around 2334 BCE all southern Mesopotamia was united within a single empire. It is unlikely that all land was state owned, but private land ownership is

36

Domestic Economy

difficult to detect in the surviving documents, and probably a significant proportion of the population belonged to institutional households. The personal establishments of high officials, along with other institutions such as textile factories, distribution centers, and administrative establishments, operated as households, feeding their workers and largely controlling their lives. Within the early empires there were many such institutional households, united under the overall control of the king, especially under the intensively bureaucratic Ur III Empire. Members of society serving the temple and palace were either completely dependent, tied, or free. The first were effectively slaves: these included prisoners of war; those, like widows and orphans, who had become temple dependents through misfortune or poverty; and debt-slaves. These people worked full time for the institutions, receiving rations. Many of the women and children worked in the textile factories; they might also grind grain, assist artisans, and undertake general laboring. Ordinary citizens were obliged to perform corvée labor for a specified number of days each month, paid in rations. On other days they could also work for wages (in rations, possibly at a higher rate). Many worked as farmers on the vast institutional estates; others as artisans; and all might be obliged to undertake other tasks, such as building temples, constructing or clearing irrigation channels, or serving as irregular soldiers. People of higher social status undertook more responsible jobs. These included skilled craftsmen, temple ritual personnel, supervisors and foremen, scribes, officials, and merchants. They received ration payments but also grants of land in return for their services, which included military duties. The circulation of produce and commodities is well illustrated by Ur III merchants’ interim accounts. A typical account states the balance in silver that the merchant holds from the previous accounting period; details the produce issued to him from the institutional estates and its silver value; lists the goods and materials he traded this for; and closes with a statement of the balance in silver remaining, to be carried forward to the next accounting period. The commodities received, representing the profit from the trade, went to the institution, while the merchant earned payment in rations and a land grant. The exotic materials and fine craft objects acquired and produced were mainly destined to embellish temple and palace, and other imported materials, such as metals and timber, to be used in state construction (including ship building) and military activity. Nevertheless, ordinary citizens may have had some private access to manufactured goods and imported materials. The third economic mechanism is the market, buying and selling for profit. It is uncertain to what extent this existed during the third millennium, though hints suggest merchants engaged

Domestic Economy

37

in some private activity alongside their official trading for the state. The second millennium BCE saw the emergence of a strong private sector with the growing shift from direct management of the economic surpluses generated by temple and palace from their lands and dependents, to their management by private entrepreneurs. Where in earlier times merchants had been employed to circulate surplus agricultural produce as directed by the state, they now purchased concessions to the produce of state land or flocks, at a discount price, and assumed the task of collecting, transporting, storing, and selling these. They also leased other state duties such as running craft workshops. Defaulting debtors became liable to private creditors rather than the state; when in difficulty they could take out loans from private lenders, at high rates; a run of bad years could then result in the loss of their land, on which they might remain as tied tenants. The role of the market in the domestic economy grew and by the first millennium BCE, silver currency was coming increasingly to replace rations for the payment of wages. This also implies the existence of a market in foodstuffs and other necessities, to purchase with these wages. Three economic mechanisms underlie domestic economies in the past and into the present day: gift exchange, redistribution, and the market. It is likely that only the first existed until the fourth millennium BCE, but by the first millennium BCE a system had evolved in Mesopotamia that involved elements of all three, and the market was beginning its trajectory towards its present-day dominance of world economic practice, although redistribution (through taxation and the provision of services by the state to its citizens) still holds an important place in every civilized society. See also: Administration; Currency; Finance; Industry; Palace Rule; Slavery; Social Organization; Temple Rule; Urban Life; Document: “The Cursing of Agade”; Document: “Uru-inim-gina” Further Reading Foster, Benjamin. 1977. “Commercial Activity in Sargonic Mesopotamia.” In Trade in the Ancient Near East, edited by John D. Hawkins, 31–43. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Leick, Gwendolyn, ed. 2009. The Babylonian World. Oxford: Routledge. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. Robertson, John. 2000. “The Social and Economic Organization of Ancient Mesopotamian Temples.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 443–54. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Warburton, D. A. 2005. “Working.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 185–98. Oxford: Blackwell.

38

Early Dynastic City-States

EARLY DYNASTIC CITY-STATES  Around 2500 BCE the city of Shuruppak was sacked. This ended a cooperative league of Sumerian city-states and perhaps initiated a more aggressive phase in intercity relations, in which territorial expansion began to play a part. Shuruppak was a leading example of the city-states that had developed in southern Mesopotamia (Sumer and Akkad) during the earlier third millennium BCE, known from archaeology but also, for the first time, from a small number of increasingly informative written sources. The later fourth millennium BCE had seen the emergence of the world’s first state, in Sumer, centered on the first city, Uruk (possibly alongside others in the region). It had created colonies and enclaves in northern Mesopotamia, probably to control trade, and had dominated neighboring Susa. Around 3100 BCE, however, Uruk city saw major changes, possibly reflecting a crisis. Its religious center underwent a huge structural transformation. Its colonies were abandoned (peacefully—their occupants apparently packed up and left), and the link with Susa was broken, Elam now establishing connections with towns to its east. Some settlements in the Uruk region were abandoned; some continued, and new ones were established. Overall there are signs of a major shift in the pattern of life—but its nature is at present little understood. Throughout this period (called Jemdet Nasr), however, cities continued to develop in southern Mesopotamia, and a new political reality emerged, in which there were now certainly other city-states besides Uruk. Although the complete remodeling of Uruk’s sacred center in the Jemdet Nasr period signals a major change of religious orientation or political regime, or both, the city continued to prosper, its area growing to around 1,500 acres by 2900 BCE and its population increasing to perhaps 60,000. The managerial role of the authorities continued to grow. An alabaster jar (the “Warka vase”) depicts members of the community bringing offerings of agricultural produce to the city’s goddess, supervised by a robed figure of authority. The latter also appears on seals and sculptures, fulfilling various leadership roles, hunting lions, but also towering over bound enemies. Weapons and the first city walls suggest that armed conflict was beginning. This figure was probably the war leader, perhaps at first a temporary appointment by the city assembly to lead the city defenses, but through time such leaders became permanent kings, governing in the name of the city deity and backed by divine authority. The first writing had been invented and used in Uruk around 3200 BCE, using logograms: these expressed meaning independent of language. By 3100 BCE signs were also regularly being used phonetically (representing the sound of the sign): the language of the texts was now certainly Sumerian. At the same time, the signs’ variability decreased, showing that writing was

Early Dynastic City-States

39

becoming standardized and systematized, and the script began to be used more widely, written tablets being known beyond Uruk at several other Sumerian cities. The end of the Late Uruk period had seen a radical change in foreign relations. Sumerian cities continued their international trade in necessities and exotics, but through different routes and intermediaries. Sumerian efforts to maintain access to resources from the Iranian plateau and beyond are reflected in later epic literature about Uruk’s legendary early kings. By 3000 BCE Sumer was trading with communities in the Gulf, including Oman, a major copper source. In addition to the gemstones, stone, timber, silver, and copper previously sought, the turn of the millennium saw a small but developing demand for tin, now beginning to be alloyed with copper to produce tin bronze. Around 3000–2800 BCE, minor watercourses reduced in number, concentrating water in the main river channels. This began a trend towards rural abandonment and settlement within cities located in the fertile land along major waterways. Through the earlier third millennium BCE, the Early Dynastic (ED) period, southern Mesopotamia saw the development of citystates and by about 2500 BCE, around 80 percent of its population dwelled in cities, mainly along branches of the Euphrates and the Diyala. Each city controlled its surrounding territory, whose high agricultural productivity supported populations reckoned in tens of thousands; beyond lay uncultivated land providing grazing and a buffer zone between the territories of individual city-states. Although water was abundant, considerable work was needed to construct and maintain the canals that irrigated crops during the growing season: organizing this fell to the authorities and reinforced their power. Thick layers of silt in many cities bear witness to periodic major floods in this period, probably giving rise to the Flood legend recorded in epic literature. The story also reflects the region’s substantial population growth, seen by the gods as an irritating problem to which the Flood was a solution, wiping out humanity. Each city was by now regarded as the personal property of an individual god who would promote its welfare. Nippur was the city of Enlil, acclaimed as chief of the gods by later ED III; offerings here by the rulers of other city-states acknowledged Enlil’s spiritual authority. Little is known about the ED I period, between 2900 and 2750 BCE. Further significant changes occurred around the beginning of ED II, when the main flow of the Euphrates in Sumer shifted to a more easterly branch. Cities on the former main channel, notably Uruk, now received less water and declined, while cities on the new main branch, such as Umma, grew in importance. Increasing evidence of warfare appears in this period. As

40

Early Dynastic City-States

populations expanded and cities grew, inevitably conflicts developed between them over land and water rights. Pressure grew to extend cultivation into tracts of land between neighboring city-states, sparking ownership disputes. Many cities now erected walls, for both defense and prestige. Gilgamesh, the semilegendary king of Uruk who probably lived around 2600 BCE, strengthened Uruk’s city walls, traditionally believed to have been constructed before the Flood. A later poem describes an unsuccessful attack on Uruk by Agga, king of Kish, son of (En-)Mebaragesi. The text hints that Gilgamesh had formerly accepted Agga as his overlord. The earliest known royal inscription, dated around 2600 BCE, is of Mebaragesi, king of Kish, on a bowl dedicated at Khafajeh on the Diyala river, suggesting that this city acknowledged Mebaragesi’s authority in some form. The title “king of Kish” seems by the midthird millennium BCE (ED IIIA) to have been borne on occasion by rulers of various city-states, who were not necessarily the dynastic rulers of Kish. The holder of this office was evidently respected by other city rulers: one, Mesalim, probably king of Der, acted as arbitrator in a border dispute between the rival cities of Umma and Lagash. Texts shed some light on ED II and more on ED III when writing was fully developed and lengthy documents began to appear. Textual evidence shows that, despite inevitable clashes of interest, there was also cooperation between city-states. Impressions of seals bearing the names of several cities occur from the Jemdet Nasr period onwards: these may indicate the existence of cooperative leagues. Such alliances could prevent interstate conflicts; cooperate to supply major shrines with offerings; provide enormous work teams for major construction projects, such as temples, canals, and dams; and field substantial armies for combined defense or aggression. ED IIIA administrative texts from Shuruppak repeatedly refer to Adab, Lagash, and Umma on the eastern branch of the Euphrates and Uruk and Nippur on the same, western, branch as Shuruppak; and mention huge workforces drafted into Shuruppak from other cities. When Shuruppak was sacked it was probably by Ur, not a member of this league. The earlier third millennium BCE saw the emergence and crystallization of the city-state, a political form that was to endure, reemerging repeatedly in later history. Evolving at a time when writing was only just beginning, surviving texts give an interesting though incomplete insight into its operation. A large group of such texts from Shuruppak reveal a cooperative league of six city-states, shortly before at least one of them was overwhelmed by a hostile state. This may signal a breakdown in the operation of such alliances; later texts increasingly record claims by states to have defeated other states, and kings of powerful states, particularly Lagash and Uruk, began to harbor territorial ambitions.

Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization

41

See also: City-States; International Trade; Kingship; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Palace Rule; Ur and the Marshes; Uruk and Sumer; Document: “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta”; Document: “The Flood”; Document: “Gilgamesh and Agga”; Document: “Inanna and Enki”; Document: “Umma and Lagash” Further Reading Finkel, Irving. 2014. The Ark Before Noah. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Leick, Gwendolyn. 2001. Mesopotamia. The Invention of the City. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. Van de Mieroop, Marc. 2004. A History of the Ancient Near East. ca. 3000–323 BC. Oxford: Blackwell. Woolley, Leonard. 1982. Ur ‘of the Chaldees’. The Final Account, Excavations at Ur. Revised and updated by P. R. S. Moorey. London: Book Club Associates/Herbert Press.

EARLY URUK—PRELUDE TO CIVILIZATION  In the earlier fourth millennium, a series of innovations—some recent, others earlier but given new life—came together in southern Mesopotamia to transform the region, accelerating development and creating an urban culture that led directly into the emergence here of the world’s first cities some centuries later. Agricultural communities were established in many parts of West Asia in the postglacial period. With the development of simple irrigation techniques, farming spread by the sixth millennium BCE to the plains of southern Mesopotamia where rain-fed agriculture was impossible. Abundant land, river water, and productive marshes provided an environment in which mixed farming communities expanded and multiplied. Water management techniques here often required collaborative effort and organization but could result in extremely high yields, greatly in excess of what was required to support the farmers themselves, eventually allowing a significant proportion of the population to engage in other activities, including craft production, foreign trade, religion, and management. The later fifth millennium BCE (Ubaid 3 and 4) here saw the development of the tournette (“slow-wheel”), a labor-saving innovation that made possible the rapid production of fairly standardized pottery. Its use indicates that Ubaid communities, growing larger and more numerous, now provided sufficient demand that some individuals could work part time or full time producing domestic objects, developing specialist skills. Other craft products, now vanished, were also probably made by specialists in these communities. The appearance of Ubaid 3 pottery in northern Mesopotamia, indicating the widespread adoption of the tournette, suggests craft specialization was developing in this region too,

42

Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization

reflecting greater social complexity and larger, more numerous communities. By Ubaid phase 4, similar pottery was made from lands bordering the Gulf in the south, to eastern Anatolia in the north, and Susiana (Khuzistan) in the east, marking developing interregional contacts that were encouraged by the need to obtain raw materials. Southern Mesopotamia’s fertile plains produced abundant crops and livestock, and mud, reeds, and date palms could supply many needs— their ingenious use included surprisingly efficient baked-clay sickles, slingstones, and pestles, and mansions of reeds—but timber, stone, and many luxury materials had to be brought in from outside, intensifying longstanding exchange networks. Lapis lazuli from Afghanistan, found at Tepe Gawra in northern Mesopotamia, shows how far materials might now travel. Gawra also had Ubaid pottery; temple buildings reminiscent of those in Ubaid villages, notably Eridu; and stamp seals. In the fifth millennium at a number of sites stamp seals were impressed on clay sealing jars, packages, and the doors of storerooms, reflecting the development of some degree of administrative control over the movement and ownership of and access to commodities, due to developing social hierarchy and surplus production. Myths named Eridu as the world’s first settlement: situated on a small island among the southern marshes, it was settled early in the Ubaid period. At this time a small mudbrick shrine was built here, its solidity a sharp contrast to the reed houses at Eridu and other Ubaid sites. Grave goods in Eridu’s large cemetery suggest a largely egalitarian society. Through time Eridu’s increasingly monumental shrine probably became the center of worship not only for the resident community but also for neighboring settlements. Temples were becoming increasingly important as the center of communities’ economic and social life: the repository for their accumulated wealth, the focus of communal endeavor in their construction, and the home of the priests responsible both for relations between the community and the gods, and for managing community affairs. During the fourth millennium (Uruk period) southern Mesopotamia saw a huge increase in both the number and size of settlements and the development of a settlement hierarchy far beyond that seen in other regions. This was also a highly innovative period, a cycle of change and invention bringing about major transformations. The plow was devised to improve cultivation, increasing arable productivity. Animals were now exploited for more than their meat, greatly increasing their contribution to the economy: sheep were bred for their wool, which largely superseded flax for making textiles; cows and probably sheep and goats had been milked since earlier times but milking increased in importance as larger numbers of animals were kept for other reasons; oxen were now used to carry goods and draw threshing sledges, plows, and sledges; donkeys, domesticated at this time, were also used for

Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization

43

traction and transport. The wheel had been invented initially as a pottery tournette. This now developed into the potter’s wheel. Wheels were also added to sledges to create carts, which were utilized to move goods in bulk over short distances, facilitating land transport. Water transport, known since at least the sixth millennium and more suitable for long-distance transport, was boosted by the fifth-millennium invention of sails to harness wind power. Although some of these had developed earlier, their combination with the fourth-millennium innovations in southern Mesopotamia brought about a quantum change in economic productivity and efficiency here that had revolutionary implications for society, including in agricultural productivity, craft organization, communications, and trade. The potter’s wheel enabled pottery to be mass produced cheaply, quickly, and efficiently. Also mass produced, on an industrial scale, but formed in molds, were beveled-rim bowls, crude pots that probably held the grain ration issued to people working for the temple as artisans or on community projects. Both craft specialization and corvée labor became more intensively developed later in the Uruk period, but were already part of earlier fourthmillennium (Early Uruk) life. The use of seals to place an official mark on the fastenings of doors or packages of goods increased. The ubiquitous stamp seal was superseded around 3600 BCE by the more practical cylinder seal, which could be rolled out to cover a sealing of any required size. Tokens, which had been used for millennia as simple counters in economic transactions, became more important, increasingly being used to record the receipt or disbursement of produce, and new shapes were added to represent more specific commodities. An individual transaction was now recorded by stringing together the tokens related to it or by sealing them within a clay ball, on which officials’ seals might be impressed, often along with the tokens themselves, indicating the ball’s contents. These records reflect the growing complexity of administrative control being exercised by increasingly powerful authorities. The earlier fourth millennium BCE saw a quantum change in southern Mesopotamia, as a series of innovations and earlier developments came together with the region’s extraordinary agricultural productivity and the growth of temple establishments around which settlement coalesced to create urban centers with substantial populations, craft specialization, impressive architecture, and a complex administrative organization that was developing recording techniques that led within a few centuries to writing. Southern Mesopotamia was poised on the brink of becoming the world’s first urban society. See also: Agriculture; Animal Husbandry and Wild Resources; International Trade; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Pottery; Religious Practices; Temple Rule; Temples; Wheeled and Animal Transport; Writing

44

Education

Further Reading Algaze, Guillermo. 2008. Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. McMahon, Augusta. 2005. “From Sedentism to States, 10,000–3000 BCE.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 20–33. Oxford: Blackwell. Nissen, Hans J. 1990. The Early History of the Ancient Near East. 9000–2000 B.C. Translated by Elizabeth Lutzeier, with Kenneth J. Northcott. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pollack, Susan. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rothman, Mitchell S., ed. 2001. Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press/Oxford: James Currey.

EDUCATION  Education is the deliberate and often formal process of passing on accumulated knowledge and skills from one generation to the next, by practical or written means. From time immemorial children learned the knowledge and skills needed for life from their parents or other elders in their community; as human endeavors came to include more specialist knowledge, such as metalworking, the medicinal use of plants, or how to intercede with the gods, this knowledge was also taught by its practitioners to their chosen apprentices or acolytes. Writing was one such specialist activity, and it was the development of writing that provides us with the first evidence of education, in ancient Mesopotamia. When writing began in the late Uruk period, the earliest texts included word lists, a tool that helped scribes learning to write: these recorded items that occurred in economic texts, such as domestic animals, types of pottery, trees, and metal objects. They were repeatedly copied, with new ones devised over the following millennia, and were used both as standard scribal exercises and as professional tools. Mathematical exercises, another key educational tool, are known as early as Early Dynastic III. Scribes were important since many aspects of administration, business, law, medicine, religious practice, and official life involved writing. In the late third millennium BCE, running the highly bureaucratic Ur III state required many scribes. To supply enough literate individuals, Shulgi (2094–2047 BCE) founded schools at Ur and Nippur, where scribes were trained in all necessary skills, including reading, writing, mathematics, and accounting procedures. Formal schooling for well-to-do children reached its peak in the Old Babylonian (OB) period. Schoolrooms (“tablet houses”) have been found in Ur, Nippur, and Sippar. After the OB period, academies disappeared but scribes still taught small groups of children privately. Although texts describe only boys’ schooldays and most scribes were male, records at Mari also refer to female scribes.

Education

45

In late third millennium and OB times, there was a set curriculum; later the course of study varied but the basic elements were the same. School was run by a master scribe (“school father”), paid from students’ fees and assisted by an advanced scholar (“big brother”). Pupils were worked hard, with only a few free days each month, and beaten for various offenses, including substandard work. The beginner, seated in the courtyard, was taught to form cuneiform signs in the sand. He then learned how to prepare a clay tablet and reed stylus for writing, and began his studies, copying lists that taught the different readings of each cuneiform sign, progressing from simple signs using few stylus strokes to more complicated ones using many and basic thematic word lists. Sumerian, the early language of the south, though rarely spoken by the second millennium, remained an important part of the curriculum. Many surviving student textbooks are Akkadian-Sumerian dictionaries: long lists of Sumerian words, their pronunciation, and their Akkadian equivalents; these were also important reference tools for working scribes. As the student became more proficient, education proceeded mainly by copying, learning, and applying model and traditional material in subjects such as law and mathematics, as well as studying literature, thus both acquiring a knowledge of grammar and vocabulary and gaining broader skills and information useful for his adult career. Mistakes in copying indicate that students often worked from dictation. Mathematical exercises concerned such practical calculations as the rations required to feed enough workmen to dig a canal of given length. Some were also more abstract algebraic problems, solved geometrically. Students had to learn multiplication tables and tables of reciprocals. Surveying was a necessary practical skill for land measurement, of vital importance to the scribe called upon in later life to calculate a field’s harvest or accurately divide land in line with inheritance provisions. On a lighter note, schoolchildren also copied humorous accounts of school life. The teacher helped his students obtain suitable posts in the royal, civil, or temple service. Those intended for a more specialist career pursued additional studies, such as versification, singing, and instrumental music, for future clergy. The least successful scholars pursued a mundane private career drawing up contracts, writing letters, and undertaking other scribal tasks for illiterate citizens, waiting at the city gate for custom. Children might be apprenticed, as young slaves often were, the master teaching his skills and knowledge and providing food and basic clothing in return for a fee and the youth’s labor during his apprenticeship. More commonly trade secrets and skills were handed down through families, with children being trained by their parents to pursue the same craft. Technological and scientific knowledge was largely transmitted orally and by example, from practitioner to pupil. Only doctors, pharmacists, astronomers, and exorcists

46

Elam

have left volumes of observational data on their disciplines. For example, animal physiology was studied in minute detail for divination, with attention focused on particular organs, notably the liver. Formal schooling began in Mesopotamia: its emphasis on learning by copying and repetition rather than investigation and inquiry has continued in the education systems of many subsequent cultures. Many of its elements are still basic to education: reading, writing, mathematics, and a knowledge of literature, as well as more specialist elements such as music. See also: Administration; Literature; Mathematics; Mesopotamian Empires; Writing; Document: “Schooldays”; Document: “Shulgi” Further Reading Black, Jeremy, Graham Cunningham, Eleanor Robson, and Gabor Zolyomi. 2004. The Literature of Ancient Sumer. Oxford & New York: Oxford University Press. Foster, Benjamin J. 2005. “Transmission of Knowledge.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 261–68. Oxford: Blackwell. Leick, Gwendolyn, ed. 2009. The Babylonian World. Oxford: Routledge. Pearce, Laurie E. 2000. “The Scribes and Scholars of Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 2265–78. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge.

ELAM  Elam is the name by which the Mesopotamians knew their principal eastern neighbor, located in southwest Iran, today’s Fars and Khuzistan. The Diyala river formed Elam’s northern boundary; anciently it joined the Tigris considerably south and east of their present confluence. Susiana (Khu­ zistan) is divided by marshes from the Babylonian plain, of which it is geologically part but from which it was culturally and economically distinct. Most of Susiana lies within the area where rain-fed agriculture was possible. Five rivers rising in the Zagros mountains allowed productivity to be increased by irrigation. Transhumant sheep and goat pastoralism played a major part in Susiana’s farming economy. In winter flocks were grazed on the plains and foothills, covered in tamarisk, pistachio, jujube, and grasses, and moved in the summer heat to cooler upland pastures where in antiquity there were widespread open forests, interspersed with abundant herbaceous vegetation, home to wild sheep, goats, and deer. The Diyala river was a major access route into the Zagros mountains, which rise to 11,000–13,000 feet in a series of steep terraces. Moving southeast into Fars, elevations reduce, rainfall declines, rivers are increasingly seasonal, woodland decreases, and pasture becomes poorer, while agriculture becomes increasingly dependent on irrigation. Elam

Elam

47

often had close economic and cultural ties east across the Iranian plateau. To the west, routes around the edges of the marshes gave access to Babylonia, by turns friendly or inimical to Elam; the northern passage also joined routes into Assyria, often hostile. The Elamite highlands were well endowed with natural resources, including lead and silver ore, timber, medicinal and aromatic plants, and stone. Beyond Elam to the northeast, there were rich metal ore deposits, particularly around Anarak/Talmessi where they included gold, silver, and the arsenical copper particularly favored in the fourth to third millennia BCE. Many other minerals, such as tin, chlorite, and lapis lazuli available farther east in eastern Iran and Afghanistan, were traded westward through Elam from early times. Seasonal movement encouraged pastoralists to participate in trade networks as carriers. Mixed farming communities flourished in the Zagros region from early postglacial times. Susa, founded in the plains before 4000 BCE, rapidly grew into a regional ceremonial center, where seals and sealings indicate the beginning of administrative control; comparable large sites developed in the highlands, including Anshan (Tal-i Malyan) by 3400 BCE. After around 3800 BCE new material in Susiana sites indicates strong influences from adjacent Sumer (southern Mesopotamia). By the early third millennium, these had disappeared; Elam now turned its attentions east towards the trading towns of the Iranian plateau, where tablets written in its Proto-Elamite script suggest it exercised some administrative influence. ED (Early Dynastic) Sumerian texts mention both conflict and trade between Sumerian and Elamite cities. After 2334 BCE the southern Mesopotamian Akkadian Empire brought Susiana under direct control, introduced the cuneiform script (which continued in use into Achaemenid times), and campaigned in Anshan and beyond. When the empire fell, local rulers gained control, expanding into northern Babylonia, but in the twenty-first century BCE, the Ur III Empire conquered Susiana and western Anshan. In 2004 BCE, Elam overthrew the Ur III Empire, sacking Ur and occupying it for twenty-one years. Elam entered a period of expansion and affluence. Its kings constructed many temples at Susa and Anshan; Susa grew to 200 acres and Anshan to 300 acres. By now Elam (calling itself “Anshan and Susa”) had become a major power internationally. It fought against or allied itself with the major contemporary Mesopotamian states, at times gaining control of important Mesopotamian cities. Elam’s control of trade from Afghanistan in the important, rare materials tin and lapis lazuli played a substantial part in its prosperity and power. Defeat and expulsion by a coalition of Mesopotamian states in 1764 BCE precipitated Elamite decline. Resurgent after 1500 BCE, Elam’s rulers allied with the Babylonians against the Assyrians.

48

Family

Untash-Napirisha (1340–1300 BCE) undertook major public works at Susa and elsewhere, commissioning temples and divine statues, and constructed a short-lived capital at Choga Zanbil (ancient Al-Untash-Napirisha). This 250acre city contained three royal palaces and a sacred precinct centered on the ziggurat of Inshushinak. Shutruk-Nahhunte built and restored temples at Susa and elsewhere. However, in 1158 BCE, citing his connections with the Kassite royal family, he claimed the Babylonian throne, initiating decades of hostilities culminating in the Babylonians’ sack of Susa. Elam was again prospering by the late eighth century, when a temple to Inshushinak, decorated with glazed bricks, was built at Susa. Fighting as Babylonia’s ally, Elam lost a number of significant and costly battles to the Assyrians; in 647 BCE the Assyrian king Ashurbanipal laid waste many Elamite cities and towns and sacked Susa, destroying the temples, emptying the treasuries, digging up and destroying the bones of former kings. This period also saw the rise in western Iran of the Medes and Persians. Anshan probably came under Persian (Achaemenid) control at an early date: Cyrus (610–585 BCE) claimed his family had ruled it for generations. An Achaemenid capital was established at Persepolis in Anshan region and Susa became an administrative center with royal summer palaces. Familiar to the West through both biblical and Classical sources, Susa was an early target of antiquarian investigation, but competent systematic archaeological work in the region only began in the 1930s. Iran’s vast size and rich history present a huge challenge to effective archaeological management, exacerbated by the country’s troubled recent international relations. See also: Babylon and Babylonia; Birth of Empire; Hammurabi’s Empire; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Document: “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta” Further Reading Potts, Daniel T. 2015. The Archaeology of Elam. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Roaf, Michael. 1990. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. New York: Facts on File. Rothman, Mitchell S., ed. 2001. Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press/Oxford: James Currey.

FAMILY  The family is the basic structural unit of society, remaining fundamental to its functioning, though built upon through time and overlaid by other social and political organizations. Despite the prominence of the latter in written sources, ancient Mesopotamia has evidence of many aspects of family life and organization.

Family

49

In early West Asia, people generally lived in extended families: a couple, their unmarried children, and their adult sons with their families. They might occupy separate adjacent houses or one large house in which each nuclear family had a private room and shared kitchen, storerooms, and living space. People probably continued to live together as extended families in later rural Mesopotamia, but in towns and cities, limited space often favored living as nuclear families in smaller houses. Households documented in second-millennium Kish generally comprised a couple and their unmarried children, sometimes with one or two other family members, and a few slaves. The urban move to living as nuclear families may also reflect the development of other bonds overriding those with the extended family, especially those to the institutional households of temple and palace. Nevertheless, the extended family enjoyed continuing importance, for example, in the inheritance and sale of land. Letters found in the Old Assyrian karum (trading station) at Kanesh show that Assur’s trade was operated by extended families who formed merchant houses. In Mesopotamian society the man was head of the household, controlling family property; his sons answered to him even after marriage. A girl married into her husband’s family, her fortunes dependent on his: wives and children could be hired out to work or even pledged as slaves to meet debts. Her husband managed her dowry property, and in some periods and regions women were confined to the home. Nevertheless, wives often exercised substantial responsibilities, deputizing for or working in partnership with their husbands, owning property, and managing their children’s inheritance after their husband’s death. Assur merchants’ wives ran much of the home end of the trading business, supplying textiles, handling financial and other matters, and, when necessary, selling their jewelry to raise funds. Letters to the absent kings of Mari and Karana show their queens running the complex palace administration and industries, observing religious rites, and hearing legal cases. At the opposite end of the social scale, in families without property, women worked for their living, in industry, especially woolen textile production, agriculture, and in the domestic organization of palace and temple. Raising a family took a central place in every married woman’s life. The dangers of pregnancy and childbirth were high for both mother and child, and many babies died in infancy. If no children appeared within three years of marriage, a wife could choose a slave girl to bear children that would legally become hers, or the couple might divorce. Once a woman had borne sons, divorce was frowned upon. Men could initiate divorce, but the laws for women varied, from an outright ban to conditional rights. Divorced women regained their dowry and might remarry. Girls married in their teens, boys a decade older. Their fathers (or if the girl’s father was dead, her mother or brothers) agreed through a verbal contract, the

50

Family

boy’s family paying “bridewealth,” usually in silver, after which the girl might move in with his family. Later his family held a feast at which the marriage was finalized, and a dowry was paid by the girl’s family, generally equal to the bridewealth: this was often given in household items and jewelry, though wealthier families might give property and slaves. Families arranged their children’s marriages, for their own social, economic, political, or other reasons, but it was thought natural for love and desire to develop between the young couple: Sumerian poems, often sexually enthusiastic and explicit, reflect both. Husbands could visit prostitutes if it did not threaten their marriage, but adultery was unacceptable. Homosexual relationships were accepted but discouraged, since they were childless. People earnestly desired children, to inherit their property and to care for them in old age and their spirits after death. Nevertheless, eunuchs are known from the late third millennium, increasing in number in the second and especially the first, when many held powerful and responsible official and military positions. At first the sons of working women, by Assyrian times eunuchs might come even from elite families, castrated in infancy to enhance their career prospects. The family was the basic building block of early society; the advent of written texts in ancient Mesopotamia allows its central place in early times to be traced, interwoven with the other institutions that were developing to structure society. Its importance has continued down the ages, and even in the complexity of the modern world, the family enjoys a key role in the structure, organization, and operation of society. See also: Education; Law; Slavery; Urban Life; Document: “The Dialogue of Pessimism”; Document: “Hammurabi’s Law Code”; Document: “Inanna and Dumuzi”; Document: “Kanesh Letters”; Document: “Mari Letters”; Document: “Schooldays” Further Reading Melville, Sarah C. 2005. “Royal Women and the Exercise of Power in the Ancient Near East.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 235–44. Oxford: Blackwell. Nemet-Nejat, Karen Rhea. 1998. Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Snell, Daniel. 1997. Life in the Ancient Near East. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Steele, Laura D. 2009. “Women and Gender in Babylonia.” In The Babylonian World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick, 299–316. Oxford: Routledge. Stol, Marten. 2000. “Private Life in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 485–99. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Finance

51

FINANCE  Finance is concerned with the movement of money (or its equivalent) and the generation of profit. Central to financial dealings was currency, invented in fourth-millennium-BCE Mesopotamia, initially as an instrument for accounting: this enabled the value of unrelated commodities to be compared. Early financial transactions fell into three main areas: rentals, loans, and profit-making enterprises. In the third millennium BCE, produce from the extensive institutional lands was used to finance state industries, construction projects, international trading expeditions, and wars. While most institutional land was exploited directly or granted to palace and temple dependents for their support, some was rented to tenants. The second and first millennia saw institutions increasingly delegating their financial activities to private middlemen. Foodstuffs, craft products, and other produce from temple or palace lands, industrial activities, and taxes could be sold to entrepreneurs, often as “futures,” usually at a low price, twothirds or one-third of its value: this compensated them for the time, effort, and potential trouble involved in collecting, storing, and selling it, and allowed for the possibility of yields not matching those predicted. Produce purchased in this way was storable, including grain, wool, sesame for oil, dates, onions, garlic, or dried fish. Entrepreneurs might purchase houses or land to rent to tenants, although land purchase was complicated. Land was not expensive: a field’s price was equivalent to one or at most three years’ anticipated yield. Entrepreneurs also leased concessions on other state activities such as running craft workshops, or harvesting fish or reeds from marshland. They also engaged in purely private business such as buying and selling slaves or hiring them out to work. Arable land was generally rented on a sharecropping basis or for a predetermined rent, the landowner providing the seed, equipment, and plow team. Fruit trees or orchards were also rented out. Sheep and goats were often taken to distant pastures for part of the year, so the authorities contracted shepherds to care for state-owned flocks. One or two in every ten sheep was an accepted annual loss; every two ewes were expected to produce one lamb, and every animal to yield around 2 minas (2 pounds) of wool annually. The shepherd generally kept the milk, a proportion of the wool, and any extra lambs. In the third millennium loans were made by the temple or palace, generally against household items or animals; loans from entrepreneurs only became common in OB (Old Babylonian) times, and now land and individuals were also pledged as security. Often the debtor had to assist with his creditor’s harvest. Loans were made in both barley, usually at 33.3 percent (one-third) interest, and silver, at 20 percent (one-fifth). These high rates made it hard to repay the loan as well as pay interest, and eventually an individual might have

52

Finance

to deliver himself or a family member into servitude to discharge the debt. Many rulers set a maximum term on this: Hammurabi’s law code specifies three years, after which the debt-slave was freed. The growing gap between rich and poor and the misery of those forced into debt slavery encouraged rulers (starting with Enmetena of Lagash around 2400 BCE) periodically to issue edicts annulling outstanding debts and freeing debt-slaves. By the second millennium BCE international trade also involved private merchants. This required considerable capital input, with complex arrangements for making and securing business loans and other forms of investment, well illustrated in the nineteenth-century BCE archives of merchants from Assur discovered in their Anatolian karum (trading center) at Kanesh. Consignments of tin and Mesopotamian textiles sent from Assur to Kanesh were sold directly for silver, or sent on to other trading stations to be exchanged for local commodities that the merchants sold in other Anatolian settlements, the profits accumulating until finally “turned back into silver” to be sent home. After deduction of taxes and expenses, tin yielded a profit of 100 percent on its purchase price in Assur and textiles even more. Young family members began as caravan freighters, given an interest-free loan with which to learn to trade profitably. Having accumulated capital through skillful trading, a merchant could increase it by making short-term loans. A trader’s ultimate goal was to be entrusted with a naruqqum (“moneybag”), jointly created by wealthy merchants in Assur: each contributed a large fixed capital sum, generally around 8 minas (10 pounds) of silver. The recipient was entitled to a third of the profits he generated; interim dividends were paid and at the end of the loan period (often more than a decade), the investors recovered double their original stake plus a share of the additional profits. Mesopotamian society, like many across the globe and throughout history, was concerned with keeping property in the family. Elite families were reluctant to dower daughters with real estate, which would be inherited eventually by her children, members of her husband’s family. A solution in the OB period was to dedicate some daughters as naditum priestesses: the dowry that the girl brought to the temple cloister reverted to her family on her death. In life, however, she controlled her dowry lands and their revenue, often using the income to lease fields or trade, keeping the profits. Married women could be their husbands’ business partners, as were the womenfolk of the Assur merchant houses, for example. As girls usually married men older than themselves, they were often widowed while their children were still young, when they might take charge of family affairs. Many women are attested in OB and later records conducting business, in particular lending silver. The early flowering of entrepreneurial financial dealings is vividly illuminated by the Old Assyrian merchant texts from Kanesh, showing that such

Food and Cuisine

53

transactions were already mature by the early second millennium BCE in Mesopotamia. The next step, the development of banking, is attested in Mesopotamian texts shortly after the fall of Babylon, under Achaemenid rule, and has continued to develop since, to achieve its current stranglehold on the operation of world economics. See also: Agriculture; Animal Husbandry and Wild Resources; Currency; Domestic Economy; Land Tenure; Merchant Houses; Taxation; Tribal Society; Document: “Kanesh Letters” Further Reading Dercksen, Jan G. 1999. “On the Financing of Old Assyrian Merchants.” In Trade and Finance in Ancient Mesopotamia, edited by J. G. Dercksen, 85–99. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut. Larsen, Mogens Trolle. 1977. “Partnerships in the Old Assyrian Trade.” In Trade in the Ancient Near East, edited by John D. Hawkins, 119–46. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Leick, Gwendolyn, ed. 2009. The Babylonian World. Oxford: Routledge. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. Veenhof, Klaas R. 1972. Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and Its Terminology. Leiden: Brill. Warburton, D. A. 2005. “Working.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 185–98. Oxford: Blackwell.

FOOD AND CUISINE  While all creatures must eat, only humans cook their food. The consequent variety of foodstuffs and ways of preparation have made eating a pleasurable activity rather than a mere necessity, and thus a focus for social interaction. Ancient Mesopotamians regarded cooked food and fermented drink as marks of civilization, contrasting with the raw meat, grass, and ditchwater they claimed that their uncivilized ancestors and uncouth nomad neighbors consumed. Usually two meals were eaten daily—in the morning and the evening. The main staple was bread—an unleavened loaf of barley meal cooked on a hot stone or in an oven—served with beer and raw or boiled vegetables, such as onions, leeks, garlic, lettuces, cucumbers, beetroot, and turnips. A savory porridge or gruel flavored with spices and herbs, such as cumin, coriander, and cress, provided a variation. Pulses such as lentils, chickpeas, broad beans, and peas were boiled whole, cooked in soup, or ground and made into bread. Sesame oil and pork fat were much used in cooking. Cows’ milk was drunk, although perhaps only as a medicine; pastoralists consumed sheep’s and goats’ milk; and milk was also turned into yoghurt, clarified butter, and cheese.

54

Food and Cuisine

Grapes, apples, figs, dates, and other fruits were eaten both fresh and dried. Meat and fish were also preserved by drying, smoking, pickling, or salting. A few recipes from around 1700 BCE survive, mainly for meat boiled in broth with vegetables and herbs, though one describes serving cooked birds in a pie. Only the elite ate meat frequently, including mutton, ducks, geese, pigeons, and partridges. Delicacies included gazelle, hare, mice, and gerbils. Fish and pork were eaten by country dwellers and the urban poor: over fifty varieties of fish are mentioned. Letters mention dried and potted fish, including fish roe and shrimps from the distant seacoast. Other wild foods included wildfowl and turtles, and rush and sedge tubers. Locusts were cooked on skewers or made into a fermented sauce that was also prepared from fish. Honey was sometimes gathered from wild bees; an eighth-century BCE governor of Mari claimed to have introduced beekeeping. A more common source of sweetness was date syrup. The wealthy enjoyed an elaborate cuisine, including cakes and pastries made of wheat flour, sweetened with honey, dates, and other fruit, and flavored with herbs and spices. Beer was the usual drink throughout Mesopotamia, brewed from malted barley, spices, and sometimes honey or dates: it was nutritious, but did not preserve well and was probably made daily. A ration of 1–4 quarts was issued daily to state employees. It was served warm, whereas wine, consumed by the elite, especially in the north, was chilled with ice collected in winter and stored in icehouses. Wine was generally made from grapes, though dates, pomegranates, and figs were also used. Drinks were often served in large communal jars, each person drinking from it using long straws made of reeds or metal with a filter end. Public festivals and private celebrations like weddings and funerals provided regular opportunities for feasting, an important part of social and political life, where ordinary people enjoyed the rare treat of eating meat. Although there have been significant changes, much of Mesopotamian cuisine would be familiar in the region even today. See also: Agriculture; Animal Husbandry and Wild Resources; Urban Life; Document: “Sheep and Grain” Further Reading Bottéro, Jean. 2001. “The Oldest Feast.” In Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, edited by Jean Bottéro, 65–83. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Hesse, Brian. 2000. “Animal Husbandry and Human Diet in the Ancient Near East.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 203–22. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Hammurabi’s Empire

55

Nemet-Nejat, Karen Rhea. 1998. Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Reynolds, F. 2009. “Food and Drink in the Babylonian World.” In The Babylonian World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick, 171–84. Oxford: Routledge.

HAMMURABI’S EMPIRE  In 1757 BCE Hammurabi, king of Babylon, fired the palace of his former ally, the king of Mari. This was the final act in a series of victories that within thirty years transformed the small kingdom of Babylon into an empire that controlled all southern and central Mesopotamia. In 2004 BCE, the defeated Ur III Empire disintegrated into smaller rival independent states. Initially Isin was the most powerful: its lands, crucially, included Nippur, giving its authority divine sanction. Texts frequently record the repair or building of defensive walls, reflecting the instability of the times. Eshnunna, allied with Elam, was powerful in the late nineteenth century BCE, controlling trade routes into the Iranian plateau, and conquering large areas in central and northern Mesopotamia. Soon they were driven back by Shamshi-Adad (1813–1781 BCE), ruler of Ekallatum, who conquered the whole region, creating the short-lived Empire of Upper Mesopotamia. In 1804 Rim-Sin I of Larsa (1823–1763 BCE) defeated a coalition of Uruk, Isin, Rapiqum, and Babylon and in 1794 conquered Isin; he dominated the south until 1763. Babylon’s First Dynasty was founded in 1894; in 1787 its sixth king, Hammurabi, wrested Uruk and Isin from Larsa. In 1764 he led an alliance, including Shamshi-Adad’s successor, that decisively defeated Elam and its allies. Hammurabi defeated Rim-Sin of Larsa in 1763, and in 1762 conquered Eshnunna. Hammurabi also turned against Mari, his long-time ally, defeating it in 1759, and sacking its palace in 1757. Hammurabi now controlled a great empire, including all Babylonia and stretching to Mari, with vassal states beyond as far north as Nineveh. Hammurabi was a strong ruler; his successors were of lesser caliber, and the empire rapidly declined economically and shrank politically as regions rebelled and were disastrously crushed. While Hammurabi’s inscriptions follow the traditional ideology of a Mesopotamian monarch, shepherd of his citizens, responsible for their well-being and approved by his city’s god, he and his empire reflect a significant political shift. The Sumerian city-states were envisaged as the personal estates of each city’s god, and the Akkadian and Ur III empires that developed from them were seen as a community of these cities under the control of one king, approved by Enlil, the leader of the gods: the king was the ruler of the territory. Hammurabi, like many kings of his day, was of Amorite tribal descent. He was therefore also the leader of his tribal group, by occupation originally mobile

56

Industry

pastoralists, and in this capacity his ties were to people rather than place, a very different ideology. This is reflected in the inscriptions and texts of Hammurabi and other Amorite kings, where they refer separately to their Amorite subjects by specific tribal name and to their urban subjects as Akkadians. Another major contrast was the geographical focus of his realm. The heartland of southern Mesopotamia had previously been Sumer, where civilization and urbanism first arose in the fourth millennium BCE, a region of boundless irrigation-fed agricultural wealth. By the second millennium BCE, however, the focus had shifted northward. One reason may have been economic decline: it is possible that the deposition of salts on the surface of the soil, due to irrigation and neglect of the essential alternate-year fallowing regime, had severely reduced agricultural fertility in Sumer, though this is still uncertain. More certainly, changes in the course of the Euphrates branches, a frequent occurrence throughout history and well attested at this time, severely reduced the supply of essential irrigation water to a number of major cities. At the same time, around 2000 BCE, a new branch developed that transformed the small city of Babylon into a major power over the course of several centuries. Under Hammurabi, it rose to command an empire and, though this empire rapidly disintegrated under his successors, Babylon and the northern part of southern Mesopotamia were to remain the focus of later empires in the region, until their fall to Persia in 539 BCE. See also: Administration; Babylon and Babylonia; Kingship; Land Tenure; Mesopotamian Empires; Social Organization; Tribal Society; Warfare; Document: “Hammurabi’s Law Code” Further Reading Leick, Gwendolyn. 2001. Mesopotamia. The Invention of the City. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press. Roaf, Michael. 1990. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. New York: Facts on File. Sasson, Jack M. 2000. “King Hammurabi of Babylon.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 901–16. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Van de Mieroop, Marc. 2004. A History of the Ancient Near East. ca. 3000–323 BC. Oxford: Blackwell. Van de Mieroop, Marc. 2005. King Hammurabi of Babylon. Oxford: Blackwell.

INDUSTRY  While some craft and industrial activities are easily performed in the home using locally sourced materials, others require specialist skills and equipment, exotic materials, and time beyond the reach of full-time foodproducers. Some domestic industries, such as potting, can also be taken to a different level by being performed on an industrial scale, with specialized

Industry

57

equipment and skills, but also organization beyond that of the family group. Mesopotamia saw the early development of such specialization. In early times people generally made their own domestic necessities such as pottery, tools, clothing, and houses, but some specialist products began to appear in West Asia by the late sixth millennium BCE. As societies grew in complexity, craft specialization became increasingly important. Some craft activities developed specifically to meet the demands of elite patrons, the temple authorities from the fourth millennium in Mesopotamia, and the rising palace authorities, powerful by the third millennium. Some goods were massproduced in workshops where workers undertook different parts of the production process, such as preparing clay, fueling the kiln, throwing pots, and decorating them. Early examples of the Sumerian Standard Professions List refer to jewelers, potters, metalworkers, and bakers, as well as supervisors. Through the third millennium BCE the range of industries under institutional control increased. Some artisans were temple or palace dependents, while others were free but worked for the state, perhaps also undertaking some private commissions. The state procured the raw materials through trade or agriculture, commissioned the work, organized and supervised the labor and execution, and distributed the finished goods to appropriate destinations. Raw materials were weighed on issue and the finished goods weighed again: any loss in weight had to be accounted for—a loss of around a third was allowed, for example, when roughly smelted copper was “washed” (refined to make it usable). The excessively bureaucratic Ur III Empire imposed strict regulations, specifying, for example, the exact production time required for many different pottery vessel types. Supervisors were held responsible for their workers’ output, fixed by such criteria, often unrealistically high. If the required output was not met, the shortfall was registered against the supervisor as a debt to the state. Artisans employed by Ur III workshops included leatherworkers, coppersmiths, ivory and wood workers, gold and silver smiths, rope makers, fine-stone workers, reed workers, potters, and weavers. While most craft products were commissioned as required and involved only seasonal or part-time work, the textile industry was full time and employed huge numbers, mainly of unfree labor: one recorded Ur III factory employed around 6,000 women and children. Sometimes (female) textile workers were drafted to undertake other work, such as dredging canals or towing barges. Unskilled work on major projects was provided by laborers fulfilling public service duties, working alongside specialists such as architects, builders, stone masons, and carpenters. Households probably still made their own domestic equipment, including reed mats and baskets, wooden tools, and perhaps ev­ eryday pottery, and their own garments, using wool issued as annual rations, alongside the regular food rations paid as wages.

58

Industry

In the second and first millennia, the tight state control of production was loosened and the private sector grew in importance. Many state activities, including the management of some industrial production, were now contracted out to entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, many industries depended upon resources beyond private means and artisans were often still employed, full or part time, by state institutions, some presumably also selling their services or products privately. Most metalworkers worked for the palace or temple. At Mari other craft personnel employed by the palace included carpenters, leatherworkers, reed workers, textile workers, potters, oil refiners, and perfume makers. A palace craftsman’s conditions of service could be very good: he was typically provided with wages, food, clothing, and accommodation for himself and his family as well as assistants and slaves, and given lifetime employment; but he was entirely at his patron’s disposal, to be sent wherever the latter chose, including being loaned or given to foreign kings. However, many artisans were employed on temporary contracts, as required. It was usual for the customer (palace, temple, or wealthy private patron) to supply the necessary raw materials for commissions. In the first millennium BCE, many artisans working for the Assyrian royal palaces were war captives, including Phoenician ivory carvers who made exquisite furniture decorations. The Old Assyrian texts from Kanesh show that for common commodities simpler commercial conditions applied: while the women merchants in Assur were often instructed to weave special types of textile to meet an identified demand or a specific commission, it is clear that huge volumes of standardized textiles were also produced, for which a market could be guaranteed. Many technological innovations, including advances in metallurgy and pottery manufacture, were devised in Mesopotamia and many later crafts developed on foundations laid there. Perhaps more important, though, was the legacy of industrial organization, set in train in fourth-millennium BCE Mesopotamia. See also: Domestic Economy; Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization; International Trade; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Merchant Houses; Metallurgy; Pottery; Textiles; Vitreous Materials; Document: “Kanesh Letters”; Document: “Mari Letters” Further Reading Liverani, Mario. 2006. Uruk. The First City. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. London/Oakville: Equinox. Matthews, Donald. 2000. “Artisans and Artists in Ancient Western Asia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 455–68. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Nissen, Hans J. 1990. The Early History of the Ancient Near East. 9000–2000 B.C. Translated by Elizabeth Lutzeier, with Kenneth J. Northcott. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

International Trade

59

Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. Warburton, D. A. 2005. “Working.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 185–98. Oxford: Blackwell.

INTERNATIONAL TRADE  Trade in the ancient world developed out of the need of some societies, such as ancient Mesopotamia, to control the procurement of certain critical resources that could not be obtained in sufficient quantity, or with adequate reliability, or at all, through the preexisting exchange mechanisms. The latter were generally embedded in social systems, including kinship networks, so that goods changed hands in contexts such as marriages and feasts, moving slowly and haphazardly between source and ultimate recipient, in quantities that decreased with distance. From early times, desirable goods and materials such as obsidian and stone vessels circulated widely among West Asian village communities. The presence in West Asia of lapis lazuli from Afghanistan shows prized materials could travel thousands of miles. Southern Mesopotamia, though agriculturally rich, lacked many essential or highly valued materials, including metals, hardwood timber, stone, and luxury materials such as gemstones, that were to be found in neighboring or more distant regions. By later fourth millennium BCE the Sumerians took active control of their procurement of materials, probably dominating Susa, now Elam’s major center, to obtain arsenical copper ore from western Iran. Sumerians established enclaves in some towns along trade routes or near sources of desirable materials in the north, and from around 3400 BCE, founded colonies, particularly on the upper Euphrates, probably to obtain and facilitate the transport of raw materials, especially timber from the Levant and metals from Anatolia. Stone for vessels and decorative semiprecious stones such as carnelian and lapis lazuli were also important, accessed through the Iranian plateau via Susa or the north. In exchange Sumer probably exported manufactured goods, especially textiles. Around 3100 BCE, however, the northern trading posts were evacuated and the link with Susa was broken. Elam became part of the trade network across the Iranian plateau, where towns were developing at nodes in natural routes and at sources of important materials. Later epic poetry, such as the deeds of Uruk’s legendary king Enmerkar, reflect earlier-third-millennium efforts to obtain resources from this region. By 3000 BCE trade was also developing with lands in the Gulf. As well as metals and gemstones, the trade routes now circulated distinctively decorated chlorite (steatite) vessels, produced at several towns on the Iranian plateau and later in the Gulf. By 3000 BCE, copper began to be alloyed with tin to produce bronze; as bronze gradually gained importance through the third millennium, trade was stimulated

60

International Trade

to obtain tin, a rare metal that probably came from Afghanistan, and possibly eastern Iran. By 2500 BCE, major changes reflect the growing involvement of Meluhha (the Indus civilization) in trade. Formerly participants in the Iranian-plateau network, the Meluhhans now adopted a route north that gave them direct access to the lapis lazuli, gold, and tin ore of Afghanistan, and began sea trade with Magan (Oman), whose substantial copper deposits were now being mined. This brought them into direct or indirect contact with Mesopotamian merchants who traded as far south as Magan’s north coast, creating a route from Afghanistan to Mesopotamia that bypassed the Iranian plateau. An early recipient of Meluhhan traded material was Ur, on the Euphrates at the head of the Gulf: objects in the sixteen “royal” graves here included distinctive Meluhhan carnelian beads and fine artifacts ornamented in gold and lapis lazuli. By 2300 BCE Meluhhan sea traders were sailing right through the Gulf to Mesopotamian ports. As well as conveying Afghan raw materials, Meluhha itself supplied many essential and luxury goods, including fine timbers, ivory, gold, agate, and carnelian. Akkadian and Ur III texts refer to Meluhhans living in Sumer, and a fine Sumerian cylinder seal identified its bearer as a “Meluhha interpreter.” Numerous texts record goods issued to and received from merchants engaged in trade with Meluhha, Magan, and Dilmun, at this time largely under institutional control. Dilmun referred to Bahrain, an island with sheltered harbors and “sweet water,” three days’ sail from Sumer. In exchange for grain, oil, and animals, Dilmunites offered fish, premier-quality dates, mother-of-pearl, and “fish-eyes” (pearls). From Magan Mesopotamia received copper, timber, and fine stone in return for textiles, oil, barley, and bitumen. Interest in the north was also reviving: Akkadian kings campaigned to control “Silver Mountain” (the Taurus range) in Anatolia, and “Cedar Mountain” (the Amanus Mountains) in the Levant. The smaller states that succeeded the Ur III Empire after 2004 BCE lacked the capital and financial security needed to fund large-scale ventures. Private merchants continued the Gulf trade, especially in copper, but with much smaller ships, sailing no farther than Dilmun, now a prosperous state that enjoyed a significant role as a trading entrepôt linking Mesopotamia with Magan and Meluhha. Changes in the Iranian plateau’s political geography revitalized overland trade routes; the political heart of Babylonia shifted northward; and by 1700 BCE Mesopotamia’s Gulf trade ceased. Copper now came from Alashiya (Cyprus), and the Taurus range in eastern Anatolia, which was also rich in gold, silver, and lead. All or most silver used in Mesopotamia over the millennia came from the Taurus sources. Gold was also obtained from elsewhere in Anatolia, eastern Iran, and later Egypt. The

Irrigation

61

import of silver into northern Mesopotamia in exchange for tin and textiles is exceptionally well documented in the nineteenth-century BCE merchants’ records preserved in the Old Assyrian trading station (karum) at Kanesh (modern Kültepe) in Anatolia. Trade through the Iranian plateau continued to be important in later times. Gulf trade was revived from the later second millennium. Political, social, and economic considerations were significant in determining which routes were followed by trading expeditions, as was topography. Rivers, canals, and the sea were the main highways wherever possible since water transport, particularly of bulk goods, was easier than that over land, and this could dictate also the most appropriate sources for procurement of raw materials. Pastoral nomads, whose way of life involved travel over considerable distances, often acted as land carriers and traders. They probably collected and traded salt crystals from Babylonia’s saline lakes and marshes. After 1000 BCE, camel transport opened up desert routes to trade incense and spices from southwestern Arabia. Through time political and other changes have altered the major players in trade networks; the commodities they seek have been modified by economic, social, and technological change; innovations in transport have altered routes, but trade has continued in importance, not only circulating goods but also spreading ideas and creating links between communities across the globe. See also: Boats and Ships; Finance; Merchant Houses; Metallurgy; Textiles; Ur and the Marshes; Wheeled and Animal Transport; Document: “Enmerkar”; Document: “Gudea”; Document: “Kanesh Letters” Further Reading Larsen, Mogens Trolle. 1967. Old Assyrian Caravan Procedures. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut in Het Naije Oosten. Potts, Daniel T. 2009. “Babylonian Sources of Exotic Raw Materials.” In The Babylonian World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick, 124–40. Oxford: Routledge. Potts, Timothy. 1994. Mesopotamia and the East. An Archaeological and Historical Study of Foreign Relations 3400–2000 BC. Oxford: Oxford University Committee for Archaeology. Ratnagar, Shereen. 2004. Trading Encounters. From the Euphrates to the Indus in the Bronze Age. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Rothman, Mitchell S., ed. 2001. Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press/Oxford: James Currey.

IRRIGATION  The success of arable agriculture depends on the availability of water in appropriate quantities at the right times of year. Early West Asian agriculture used localized seasonal floodwaters, springs, and rainfall; however,

62

Irrigation

farming in low-rainfall regions such as southern Mesopotamia (Babylonia) depended on people devising ways to provide water when required, and to control or remove excess water. By 6000 BCE farmers employing simple irrigation techniques had expanded into regions where rain-fed agriculture was impossible, including the alluvial plains of Babylonia. Here the high productivity of irrigation agriculture supported explosive population growth, giving rise in the fourth millennium to towns and cities. Among the concerns of the emerging urban authorities was organizing the construction and maintenance of irrigation channels for intensive cultivation. Around 3000–2800 BCE the number of minor watercourses in Babylonia declined, concentrating water in the main river channels. River levels probably fell during the third millennium BCE, particularly around 2350–2000 BCE. These changes necessitated greater investment in irrigation works, increasing the already high level of productivity. Irrigation infrastructure became extremely sophisticated, requiring constant maintenance, supervised by the state. The Tigris and Euphrates, swelled by spring snow melt, flooded their backslopes in Babylonia just at harvest time, making drainage and flood control as important as irrigation. As the deeply incised, fast-flowing Tigris was difficult to harness for irrigation, farming in Babylonia was concentrated along the meandering branches of the Euphrates. These flowed sluggishly through the plain, depositing silts that gradually elevated their beds and surrounding banks so that the rivers flowed on raised levees, up to 2 miles wide. Land in Babylonia was plentiful and could be taken into cultivation by creating new canals, dams, dykes, and reservoirs; farmland gave way to desert at the farthest point that river or canal water could reach. Even in the zone of rain-fed agriculture in the north, irrigation from rivers, wells, and springs was important to increase productivity. Babylonia’s fertile, well-drained levees were irrigated with water drawn directly from the river, canals, or reservoirs using lifting equipment, particularly the simple shaduf, devised by the Early Dynastic (ED) period. Regulators (brick-built structures that narrowed the watercourse and could be blocked or opened as required) allowed the river’s water level to be raised high enough to flow through sluices and outlets into canals cut through the levee banks. These canals, often several miles long, used gravity flow to irrigate the backslopes and lower land. Fields were generally long and thin, maximizing the number supplied by each canal. After crops were sown, the fields were flooded to the top of the furrows, repeated two or three times before harvest. Large networks of irrigation channels were constructed in the delta plain where early settlement concentrated. By the early second millennium BCE, however, developing technology enabled the Babylonians to cope efficiently with

Irrigation

63

the regime farther north in the river plain. Here the annual floods could sweep through with devastating ferocity, often damaging or destroying canals, breaking down levees, and depositing silt that clogged the river and canals. Much effort was therefore spent creating dykes and embankments to protect the land and its irrigation works from the force of the waters. Landowners and cultivators were legally responsible for controlling and maintaining the canals that supplied and the dykes that protected their lands, and there were stiff penalties for failing in these duties. Supervised by the canal inspector, farmers cleaned out and repaired irrigation canals in summer, and undertook further maintenance over the winter. Immediately before the floodwaters arrived, sluices and regulators were opened, allowing the flood waters to spread out, depositing fertile silt over several miles. Traditionally, the most impressive artificial landscape created using sophisticated hydraulic engineering was the Hanging Gardens of Babylon, one of the Seven Wonders of the World. Mesopotamian palaces often included pleasure gardens stocked with exotic trees and plants; what reputedly made those of Babylon exceptional was the engineering feat that supplied water to their tiered stone terraces. Nothing matching their description has been found at Babylon; but it does fit the well-attested royal pleasure park beside the Assyrian king Sennacherib’s palace at Nineveh, which was perhaps the real location. Later Greek texts say that water was brought to the terraces by a hidden mechanism. This could have been an Archimedes screw, a device apparently described in Sennacherib’s inscriptions (centuries before Archimedes): a bronze barrel containing a spiral bronze screw, whose rotation drew up water. Sennacherib (704–681 BCE) took a keen interest in civil and hydraulic engineering, creating artificial landscapes, including a marsh outside Nineveh for water management, and an automatic sluice, of which he was especially proud. West Asia, and particularly Mesopotamia, was a world leader in the early development of irrigation technology, and remained so down the ages as the need for water control continued to encourage innovation in hydraulic engineering. See also: Agriculture; Architecture; Assyria; Babylon and Babylonia; Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization; Document: “Creation”; Document: “The Flood” Further Reading Dalley, Stephanie. 2013. The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Liverani, Mario. 2006. Uruk. The First City. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. London/Oakville: Equinox.

64

Jewelry

Pollack, Susan. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. Russell, John Malcolm. 1991. Sennacherib’s Palace Without Rival at Nineveh. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

JEWELRY  Jewelry has been worn since at least late Paleolithic times. It may serve several purposes: as personal adornment, as amulets for personal protection, and as a visible expression of significant features such as personal or group identity, status, wealth, or official position. Frequently jewelry has been made of precious or exotic materials and displays skilled craftsmanship. Jewelry, including beads, pendants, bracelets, rings, and amulets, was an important form of wealth in ancient Mesopotamia, given in dowries, listed in wills, and exchanged as gifts between rulers. Beads were made from attractive stones such as rock crystal, chalcedony, hematite, agate, and lapis lazuli; shell; metals; faience; glass; and even clay. Some were made locally while others, such as “etched” beads of Meluhhan (Indus) carnelian, were imported. Stone, faience, glass, lead, copper, and bronze were also used for other jewelry, while the most prestigious pieces were made of gold, or less commonly silver, often combined with gemstones. Finds of precious jewelry are rare, but there are two outstanding examples, from the mid-third-millennium BCE royal cemetery at Ur and from three eighth-century BCE Assyrian royal tombs at Nimrud: in both the jewelry displays exquisite craftsmanship. Much of Ur’s beautiful jewelry was made of strings of gold and gemstone beads, arranged to form chokers, bracelets, and necklaces, sometimes with pendants, and even a cape worn by Queen Puabi. Exquisite leaves of fine beaten gold combined with delicate lapis-lazuli-inlaid gold rosettes and gold ribbons to form headdresses, along with high floral combs of gold. The use of sheet gold and gold wire gave these pieces exquisite delicacy. The Nimrud pieces were very different in style but showed equal skill and artistry. They were generally heavier, often of solid gold, set with gemstones and inlays of glass and faience. One of the finest was a massive gold ribbon set with tiger-eye agate discs. Others included a crown of flowers and vines worked in granulation; elaborate earrings covered with tiny granulated patterns; and substantial armlets with cloisonné inlays. Gold, glass, and gemstones were used for numerous beads, strung as necklaces or bracelets, or sewn on clothing, as were hundreds of gold rosettes. Jewelry had particular significance in its own time, but also retained intrinsic value later, making the continued use and recycling of objects and materials commonplace and encouraging tomb robbing, even at the time, so valuable ancient jewelry had a limited chance of survival. Today, with the wholesale

Kingship

65

destruction of archaeological sites by criminals and terrorists, any surviving jewelry is now a prime target to be plundered and illegally sold. See also: Assyria; Death; Metallurgy; Ur and the Marshes; Visual Arts; Vitreous Materials Further Reading Bahrani, Zainab. 2000. “Jewelry and Personal Arts in Ancient Western Asia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1635–45. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Hussein, M. M. 2016. Nimrud. The Queens’ Tombs. Translated by M. Altaweel; edited by McGuire Gibson. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago; Baghdad: Iraqi State Board of Antiquities and Heritage. http://oi.uchicago.edu /sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/misc-2016-Nimrud-Queens -Tombs-web.pdf. Last accessed October 16, 2016. Moorey, P. R. S. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Woolley, Leonard. 1982. Ur ‘of the Chaldees’. The Final Account, Excavations at Ur. Revised and updated by P. R. S. Moorey. London: Book Club Associates/Herbert Press. Zettler, Richard L., and Lee Horner, ed. 1998. Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

KINGSHIP  Kingship is the essence of the office held by a society’s ruler. In ancient Mesopotamia, as in many societies, the king was regarded as the mediator between his people and the gods, responsible for their welfare. Kings probably first appeared in late fourth millennium BCE Sumer as war leaders, possibly only a temporary role at this time. Contemporary art shows a bearded figure with long hair, wearing a “net skirt,” engaged in warfare, hunting lions, or leading the community. During the Early Dynastic (ED) period, in the earlier third millennium, increasing conflict between citystates made leadership in warfare and defense a permanent necessity, strengthening royal power. ED reliefs show the king leading his army, personally in the forefront of battle. This iconography continues through to the magnificent first-millennium Assyrian reliefs, showing the king as supreme commander in the strongly militarized state and hunting lions, a royal duty and prerogative. Interstate diplomacy was another royal responsibility, promoting and maintaining good relations by negotiating treaties, and exchanging gifts and royal brides. Kings also had a sacred role: city-states were conceived as the personal estate of the city’s tutelary deity; the citizens were members of the god’s

66

Kingship

community, maintaining god and temple through work and offerings; and the king occupied the place between them, responsible to the god for his citizens’ welfare and ensuring that the citizens properly served the god’s interests. The city of Nippur was the home of Enlil, chief god of the Sumerian pantheon. By making offerings to Enlil in Nippur, ED kings affirmed their cities’ participation in a larger community, the family of gods mirrored by the world of citystates. By extension, as kings gained control of larger political territories from the later third millennium, they legitimated their rule by erecting inscriptions in Nippur claiming Enlil’s divine approval. Later Enlil’s role was transferred to Marduk and his shrine at Babylon. The king was answerable to the gods for his state’s welfare, his stewardship ensuring that it flourished, to provide abundant offerings to the gods; and its prosperity signaled divine approval. A king’s untimely death would encourage his successor to make significant policy changes. The king’s decisions and actions often depended on divine guidance, given through divination or directly in dreams. Inscriptions addressing the gods might explain and justify unorthodox royal actions, such as usurpation. Kings achieved prosperity by good management of land and resources, building and maintaining vital irrigation works, and encouraging and sponsoring trade and industry. They supported justice, and protected the vulnerable, such as orphans and widows, some issuing an edict cancelling outstanding debts and freeing debt-slaves. Many set wages and prices, and some issued policy statements (“law codes”) laying down rules of conduct and appropriate punishments for crime: they probably had little impact on ordinary commerce and legal rulings, however. The king did not enjoy absolute power: he was required to heed the advice of various representative bodies, which varied through time and space: for example, the citizen council in third-millennium (and probably earlier) Sumer; the City Elders in early second-millennium Assur; his councilors and nobles in first-millennium BCE Assyria. The king played the principal role in his realm’s religious life, taking the leading part in major rituals. Commissioning the creation, decoration, and restoration of temples and divine images were important royal responsibilities. In some cities, notably Uruk and Ur, the king enacted a Sacred Marriage (probably with a priestess representing the city goddess or the city god’s wife) to ensure the state’s fertility. A vitally important ceremony, probably from early times, was the New Year festival (akitu). Records reveal its elaborate performance in the Neo-Babylonian period, when on its fifth day the king answered to the god Marduk for his care of the state. The officiating priest removed the king’s regalia and ritually humiliated him. The king assured the god of his righteous behavior and fulfillment of his duties towards his land and people throughout the year; and the priest returned the regalia, reinstating him in office.

Land Tenure

67

The Mesopotamian concepts of the king as the person responsible to the gods for the welfare of his subjects, and of the realm’s prosperity as a measure of the king’s piety and the appropriateness of his actions, can be seen in various forms in the best of many later regimes, though many kings have not upheld them. See also: Law; Palace Rule; Religious Practices; Temples; Warfare; Document: “Gilgamesh and Agga”; Document: “Gudea”; Document: “Hammurabi’s Law Code”; Document: “Shulgi”; Document: “Two Kings”; Document: “Uru-inim-gina” Further Reading Jones, Philip. 2005. “Divine and Non-divine Kingship.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 353–66. Oxford: Blackwell. Klein, Jacob. 2000. “Shulgi of Ur: King of a Neo-Sumerian Empire.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 842–57. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Liverani, Mario. 2000. “The Deeds of Ancient Mesopotamian Kings.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 2353–66. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 2000. “Royal Ideology and State Administration in Sumer and Akkad.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 395–411. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Selz, Gebhard J. 2009. “Power, Economy and Social Organisation in Babylonia.” In The Babylonian World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick, 276–87. Oxford: Routledge.

LAND TENURE  Since settled life and farming began, land ownership and land exploitation rights have been of fundamental importance to societies, concerns reflected in Mesopotamian texts. In the beginning mobile communities evolved systems giving them the right to exploit the annual produce of lands within their seasonal round, but it was not until the development of sedentary life that the concept of family or community land ownership arose. This reflects the reduced flexibility of sedentary existence, since settled (usually agricultural) communities were tied to a particular location. People also invested time and effort in improvements to this land, from which they would wish to continue to reap the benefits. As communities expanded into areas where irrigation and water control were necessary, the investment in land improvement grew greater. By the fourth millennium BCE, societies in southern Mesopotamia had developed dense populations with marked disparities in land ownership. Large areas of land were controlled by the temple and later also by secular authorities,

68

Land Tenure

though the majority of the population also continued to own land which they cultivated to support themselves. Artisans and other specialists in the emerging cities had other sources of income, but land ownership was probably still important to them. At this time, and throughout recorded Mesopotamian history, land ownership generally resided within the extended family group rather than with the individual, the head of the family having control over decision making and therefore often being named as the (chief ) owner. Some details of land ownership emerge after written records begin. Akkadian holdings averaged 4–10 iku (4–9 acres), presumably enough to support a household. At the other extreme, temple and palace authorities held huge estates. In the third millennium BCE, temple lands were cultivated in three ways. Most were worked directly, by the temple’s dependents, the temple receiving the produce. A small amount of surplus land was rented to tenants. Individuals who held the more important temple offices (often referred to as “prebends”) received both rations and grants of land from the remaining temple estates, to cultivate for their own benefit. Prebends were frequently handed down within families, along with the attached land, so that by the second millennium BCE both office and associated land were regarded as hereditary entitlements, allocated in wills, leased, and sometimes bought and sold. The state (palace) had large estates that were similarly cultivated, some directly by state dependents, some leased, some granted in return for service. From Akkadian times onward, much state land was granted to free citizens in exchange for military service, or other civic tasks as required, performed by the holder or a family member. This was known in Old Babylonian (OB) times as ilkum. By the later second millennium, instead of performing their duties ilkum holders frequently paid silver to the state, which then hired mercenaries or laborers. Ilkum grants and obligations were generally passed from father to son, so families often came to consider this land their private property. Tribal pastoralists from the neighboring desert and mountain regions, often hired as contract shepherds, were also known as fierce raiders. Some were employed as mercenaries, often receiving land to cultivate as part of their pay. Deported populations from defeated countries were also frequently given land, particularly in depopulated areas that the king wished to bring under cultivation. Granting land to newcomers was an effective way to integrate them into society. The inheritance of property was a major preoccupation. Dividing land could result in holdings too small for cultivation, with associated problems of ensuring equal land quality and fair access to irrigation water. Land was therefore frequently divided in name only and continued to be cultivated by the

Land Tenure

69

extended family as a single unit under joint ownership. In OB times the average number of named owners of a family estate was eight. Transferring ownership of such land was complicated and land sales were apparently forbidden in some areas and periods. Nevertheless agricultural land did change hands, particularly if pledged against a debt that its owner could not repay. By the second millennium BCE both private entrepreneurs and public institutions were acquiring land in discharge of debts. This was worked by tenants, often the former owners. Large estates had many economic advantages, including the flexibility to experiment with new crops and cropping patterns; and the ability to diversify and adopt long-term strategies, such as planting date orchards, which did not reach full productivity for twenty-five years. Institutional landowners could afford to take risks, bringing marginal land into cultivation, often for specialized crops such as timber. While state and large private landowners could afford some reverses and tenants could move, the small landowner suffered when things went wrong. Becoming a tenant removed the farmer’s risk, but also reduced his return from the land and his labor. Tenants either divided the crop with their landlord or paid him a fixed amount, assessed as a proportion (typically one-third) of the predicted harvest. In addition, the tenant was often required to work for a specified number of days on the landlord’s own fields, particularly at harvest time. Tenancy agreements made provision for crop failures: the tenant was penalized if he caused them by negligence or laziness, but natural disasters absolved him from delivering the agreed amount of produce. Contracts were frequently for two or three years. In early times land was held by families or communities and eventually institutions, and land itself was never really in short supply. The price of land was very low: equivalent to the value of one year’s to three years’ crops from it. Land was given value by the investment of labor in its maintenance and improvement, particularly by the provision of essential irrigation facilities, making labor a more critical resource than the land itself. The development of state obligations (taxation) and other demands on an individual’s productivity, coupled with the uncertainties of nature (such as floods) and society (such as warfare), resulted in many people falling into dependence and debt slavery, manageable while in the public, institutional, sector, which had an interest in maintaining a viable labor force. However, when the private sector became involved in the second millennium BCE, huge disparities in wealth began to develop between land owners and their tenants, periodically rectified by the issue of a royal decree cancelling debt slavery and restoring land to those who had lost it in payment of debts; but beginning a pattern of life that has characterized many of the societies that succeeded those of Old Babylonian times, down to the present day.

70

Languages

See also: Administration; Agriculture; Currency; Family; Mesopotamian Empires; Palace Rule; Social Organization; Taxation; Temple Rule; Tribal Society; Warfare Further Reading Leick, Gwendolyn, ed. 2009. The Babylonian World. Oxford: Routledge. Pollack, Susan. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. Robertson, J. F. 2005. “Social Tensions in the Ancient Near East.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by D. Snell, 212–26. Oxford: Blackwell. Rothman, Mitchell S., ed. 2001. Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press/Oxford: James Currey.

LANGUAGES  Communications mediate interactions and enable information to be transmitted. While most living creatures possess some means of communication, such as visual or physical signals, spoken language provides humans with a uniquely complex and nuanced mode of communication, capable of transmitting a vast range of detailed information and of structuring and sharing thought. There are myriad languages in today’s world; many others that once existed have died out. Some, such as English, are also spoken widely as a second language enabling speakers of different languages to communicate with each other. This was also true of the ancient world, including Mesopotamia. In remote times probably many different languages were spoken in West Asia, particularly in mountain regions where formidable natural barriers separated communities. Trade, seasonal movement, and migration brought groups speaking different languages into contact. Social, political, and other factors promoted some languages, while others died out. Two types of language were well represented: inflected, expressing grammatical features (such as case and tense) by making internal changes to words (Afroasiatic and Indo-European languages); and agglutinative, building words out of strings of units each representing a grammatical element (Sumerian, Elamite, and Hurrian). The first writing that can be read was in the Sumerian language. Spoken by the (literate) inhabitants of Sumer by 3000 BCE, Sumerian is not related to any surviving language family. Under the Ur III state it became the language of officialdom. Although by 1650 BCE Sumerian was no longer spoken, it survived in literature and royal inscriptions and as the language of scholarship until the late first millennium BCE. Some words not related to any known language occur in Sumerian texts, perhaps from a language spoken by hypothetical indigenous pre-Sumerian inhabitants of southern Mesopotamia

Languages

71

(Babylonia). Much of West Asia was occupied by speakers of two branches of Semitic, part of the wider Afroasiatic language family. Along with Eblaite, known from a few mid-third-millennium texts from Ebla, Old Akkadian and its descendants formed the Eastern Semitic branch. How early Akkadian and Sumerian speakers occupied Babylonia is unknown, but by 2600 BC, both were present throughout the region, though Sumerians were concentrated in the south and Akkadians in the north. A form of Akkadian was probably also spoken in northern Mesopotamia during the third millennium. Old Akkadian became the language of officialdom in the Akkadian Empire, and by the early second millennium it was the main language of Babylonia. From this period onwards, two dialects of Akkadian developed, Babylonian over much of Mesopotamia and Assyrian in the Assur region, becoming later the languages respectively of the Babylonian and Assyrian empires. Babylonian became the lingua franca of West Asia, used in diplomatic correspondence. Northwestern Semitic was spoken in western West Asia. By the late third millennium southern Mesopotamians often referred collectively to speakers of one such language as Amorites, pastoral nomads and raiders who occupied the desert fringes to their west. Another, Aramaic, attested from the ninth century BCE, was spoken in some of the northern coastal city-states of the Levant and by tribal groups in Syria; it eventually replaced Akkadian as the lingua franca of West Asia. Hebrew also belonged to this branch. Khuzistan and the adjacent highlands, Babylonia’s closest neighbors, were home to many disparate and independent groups, some speaking Elamite. Attested by 2200 BCE, Elamite has no known relatives; it was spoken in the region into Achaemenid times. Many of the mountain tribesmen who perennially plagued the Mesopotamians, such as the Guti and Lullubi, probably spoke separate languages, of which little survives except a few personal names; these included the Kassites who ruled Babylonia in the later second millennium BCE. In the northeast and north dwelled speakers of the Hurrian language. In the mid-second millennium Hurrian was the language of the Mitanni Empire in north-central Mesopotamia and was spoken as far west as Cilicia. The Hurrian-speaking area rapidly contracted after Mitanni disintegrated. A related language was spoken in neighboring Urartu (Armenia), part of the Caucasian family, many languages of which are still spoken between the Black Sea and the Caspian. Mitanni’s rulers, however, may have spoken a different language: their own and their deities’ names show affinities to early Indo-Iranian, an IndoEuropean language. Early-second-millennium Assyrian traders in Anatolia encountered speakers of various languages including Hurrian and an IndoEuropean language, Hittite. Still the subject of much debate, Indo-European languages are thought by many scholars to have originated in the region north

72

Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization

of the Black Sea and Caspian. Indo-European speakers were probably present in Anatolia by the late third millennium BCE; in the second millennium they included speakers of Hittite, Luwian, and Palaic; and Lydian, Lycian, and Carian in the first. The Medes and Persians, first-millennium inhabitants of the western Iranian plateau, were also Indo-European speakers. Descendants of some of these languages still dominate much of West Asia. Arabic, a Semitic language belonging to the North Arabian branch, owes its very widespread currency to the spread of Islam in the seventh century CE; other Semitic languages spoken in the region today include Hebrew and Aramaic. Farsi in Iran is a descendant of the Indo-European Persian language. The region’s turbulent history has also introduced other languages, in particular Turkic, which belongs to the Altaic family, spoken now and in the past by peoples spread across much of Central and northeast Asia. In West Asia, as in many parts of the world, the legacy of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries and the internationalism of the twenty-first century have also given western European languages, particularly French and English, an important currency as linguae francae. See also: Literature; Writing Further Reading Crystal, David. 1987. The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Language. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Dalby, Andrew. 1998. A Dictionary of Languages. The Definitive Reference to More Than 400 Languages. London: Bloomsbury. Rubio, Gonzalo. 2005. “The languages of the Ancient Near East.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 79–109. Oxford: Blackwell.

LATE URUK—THE EMERGENCE OF CIVILIZATION  In the later fourth millennium BCE—the Late Uruk period—southern Mesopotamia and more particularly Sumer, its southern part, saw the beginning of urban life, along with many of the features that are associated with the idea of civilization. Intensive agriculture; industrial production; state-controlled religion; complex, stratified society; and the city itself had their beginnings here, as did many key innovations—including writing, without which we could neither share nor preserve our cultural, intellectual, and technological heritage. In preceding centuries southern Mesopotamia had seen many significant innovations and increased population and settlement, associated with growing social complexity and economic specialization, and mushrooming productivity. During the later fourth millennium Sumer, previously extensively

Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization

73

marshland, became drier, creating a landscape of richly fertile land dissected by small waterways. Settlements multiplied as this great increase in arable land, with abundant water for simple irrigation, enabled indigenous communities to grow rapidly, attracted settlers from outside, and probably encouraged some mobile groups to settle permanently. Irrigation agriculture here was highly productive, with yields potentially well beyond subsistence needs, providing surpluses to support other activities. However, the environment was unpredictable: the annual floods were ill timed for agriculture and could be disastrously heavy, and rivers capriciously changed their courses in the almost level floodplain; placating the gods responsible for the conduct of nature was therefore important. Offerings of willing labor service and agricultural produce created temple establishments that supported permanent ritual personnel and housed stores of produce that they could deploy in various ways, particularly to finance trade to obtain the many luxury and mundane resources that southern Mesopotamia lacked, and to feed tied or corvée workers. These engaged in construction (such as temple building and embellishment, and the creation of city walls) or industry, herded temple animals, or cultivated the large areas of temple land, produce from which was also used to support temple enterprises and activities. While private fields were probably small and their water requirements manageable at the family level, the temple authorities through their command of communal labor could construct complex systems of long strip fields, laid out on either side of canals from which irrigation water was drawn. Though hugely productive, these long-field systems were labor intensive, increasing temple wealth but also fueling its demand for corvée labor. In return for offerings and labor, the community was guaranteed ritual support, the priests interceding with the gods on their behalf, and conducting festivals and other rituals that ensured that the world ran smoothly. The temple authorities wielded both spiritual and economic power. Their managerial role increased exponentially in the Late Uruk period. The prototype of the Standard Professions List, which appears in this period, follows the principal title, nameshda, with those of officials responsible for law, the labor force, agriculture, and the city; lower in the hierarchy come individual specialists, practicing crafts or other occupations, including cooks and bakers. Contemporary art depicts the leader supervising community offerings, hunting lions, overseeing agricultural activities, or dominating prisoners (enemies or wrong-doers); and community members engaging in industry or agriculture, such as women weaving textiles and herdsmen tending cattle. Crafts became more specialized, with state-run workshops in which individuals, rather than creating objects from start to finish, increasingly performed different tasks within production processes, some menial, some highly skilled.

74

Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization

This division of labor necessitated the emergence of supervisors who coordinated their activities, controlling the inflow of raw materials and the nature and quantity of the finished products. Industry included the mass production of dull but fine-quality wheel-made pottery in workshops. Metallurgy, begun several millennia earlier, was now growing in importance; remains of a probable copper foundry employing around forty people were found at Uruk. The largest industry, however, was textile production: woolen textiles were both a staple product used throughout southern Mesopotamia, and a major export. The greater complexity of administrative activity demanded more sophisticated recording methods. Cylinder seals had been used for centuries to place an official mark on clay sealing containers and storerooms. Two types were now in use: a few fine seals with distinctive figurative designs, used to impress many sealings, probably belonged to senior officials, while abundant seals with simple abstract designs, each impressed on only a few sealings, were probably used by those lower in the administrative hierarchy. The use of tokens as simple mnemonic devices was elaborated during the fourth millennium into a system where tokens enclosed in clay balls represented administrative transactions; sometimes the tokens were also impressed on the outside. By 3500 BCE tablets impressed the appropriate number of times with each relevant token type were also being used, making actual tokens superfluous. By 3200 BCE at Uruk (period IVa), the tokens were drawn instead of impressed—the beginning of writing; separate signs were employed for numbers and commodities; and many new signs were devised. These written tablets, known only from Uruk city, recorded accounts, reflecting the authorities’ accumulation of produce and its deployment to support stateemployed personnel. Further evidence of growing state control comes from a distinctive pottery type—the crude beveled-rim bowl. Mold-made in vast quantities, they were of several apparently standardized sizes, their volumes thought closely to match those of the daily food rations issued in later times to officially employed male, female, and juvenile workers. Many scholars therefore view these bowls as containers for grain rations issued to individuals working for the authorities. Beveled-rim bowls first appeared during the earlier fourth millennium but now became extremely common. Many features characteristic of Uruk-period Sumer, such as cylinder seals and wheel-made pottery, also appear in neighboring Elam. In the later fourth millennium a massive terrace was constructed at Susa, the region’s major center, upon which was built a temple, storerooms, and a palace. A substantial cemetery showed marked differences in grave goods, reflecting growing social hierarchy. Some time later, the appearance here of characteristic Uruk administrative paraphernalia, such as beveled-rim bowls, clay balls containing

Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization

75

accounting tokens, and impressed tablets, strongly suggests close Sumerian links and perhaps control, probably to manage the important trade in raw materials from across the Iranian plateau, including copper from western Iranian sources and lapis lazuli from Afghanistan. The north was generally less densely populated, economically less developed, and politically more fragmented than southern Mesopotamia, though towns were emerging in some areas. From around 3500 BCE some of these towns show Sumerian influences, for example in the architecture and decoration of temples. In some, an enclave of Sumerians was established, clearly distinguishable from the indigenous inhabitants by the contrasting material they used, typical of their Uruk homeland. In addition, there were a few probable Sumerian colonies, generally new foundations where no previous settlement had existed. Best known is Habuba Kabira South, a small, wellplanned town, one of a cluster of such settlements in a 20-mile stretch of the upper Euphrates valley. It was occupied for only a few centuries, around 3400–3100 BCE, then abandoned, its inhabitants departing with all their possessions. These colonial settlements may reflect an expansion of people from the densely populated south, particularly pastoralists exploiting areas where there was abundant pasture for the hugely growing flocks now being kept for wool production. However, they were probably established principally as Sumerian trading stations, suggesting that trade changed significantly during this period, the Sumerians becoming actively involved in obtaining and transmitting desirable materials, controlling the volume and reliability of their supply, by setting up trading outposts near sources and at strategic places for transport and communications. The city of Uruk provides the best evidence of the changes that were occurring in southern Mesopotamia, and may indeed have been the first place where they developed. It enjoyed a particularly favorable environmental setting, located at the interface between the alluvial plain and the southern marshes, rich in fish, fowl, and water plants. Beyond the alluvium were semidesert areas providing game and grazing for domestic stock. During the fourth millennium Uruk lay where the major channel of the Euphrates divided into a network of smaller channels, not only creating ideal conditions for irrigated agriculture but also providing unrivalled communications by boat throughout the Uruk region, linking with the riverborne transport route to the far north. In the Late Uruk period large, complex settlements were emerging in various locations in southern Mesopotamia. The Uruk area underwent a great expansion in population around 3200 BCE and by 3100 contained more than 100 villages of various sizes, dominated by Uruk city, around 600 acres in extent and housing perhaps 20,000–50,000 people. Uruk (on current evidence) was the preeminent settlement in Sumer at this time, the first city,

76

Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization

dominating a region that had emerged as the first state. It was four or five times larger than other contemporary settlements, which also seem less complex (though the available evidence is too incomplete to be certain). Cities differ from towns in their complexity, controlling and serving a hinterland of lesser settlements and housing a range and hierarchy of people who are supported by the surplus of subsistence (generally agricultural) production to engage in nonsubsistence activities. Frequent demolition and reconstruction, and the reverential burying of objects from demolished structures, have made it difficult to interpret the function of the great range of buildings in Uruk’s sacred precincts, Kullaba and Eanna, where excavations have focused, but as well as shrines they probably included workshops and housing for temple staff, as well as decorated open spaces where public activities may have been staged. Numerous sealings in Uruk’s Eanna precinct bear witness to the exis­ tence here of warehouses and administrative buildings. Cone mosaics decorated some of the principal buildings; similar decorations on temples at Eridu, Uqair, and probably Ur show that Uruk’s development was part of a cultural phenomenon widespread in southern Mesopotamia at this time. The late fourth millennium BCE saw the emergence of cities in southern Mesopotamia, epitomized by Uruk, known as the world’s first city and center of the world’s first state. Perhaps Uruk was Sumer’s only city-state at this time, though there may also have been others that we do not yet know of. The beginning of writing bears witness to the complex organization and administrative hierarchy of the time, in the hands of temple authorities, who oversaw the provision of ritual services, the management of large number of workers, the construction of major public works, the organization of foreign trade, industry on a growing scale, the raising of large flocks of sheep for large-scale textile production, and the farming of large institutional estates, supported by offerings and corvée labor by the citizens of the area focused on the developing city, where many of them resided. See also: Agriculture; Animal Husbandry and Wild Resources; Early Uruk— Prelude to Civilization; Industry; International Trade; Irrigation; Religious Practices; Temple Rule; Uruk and Sumer; Writing; Document: “Inanna and Enki” Further Reading Algaze, Guillermo. 2008. Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Liverani, Mario. 2006. Uruk. The First City. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. London/Oakville: Equinox. Matthews, Roger. 2000. “Habuba Kabira.” In British Museum Dictionary of the Ancient Near East, edited by Piotr Bienkowski and Alan Millard, 135–36. London: British Museum.

Law

77

Pollack, Susan. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Rothman, Mitchell S., ed. 2001. Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press/Oxford: James Currey.

LAW  Law is the body of rules accepted as binding by a society and enforced by its authorized officials, who can apply appropriate sanctions for failure to abide by them. The first known legal documents, from mid-third-millennium BCE Mesopotamia, include records of house sales inscribed on clay wrapped around pegs driven into house walls. It is clear that Mesopotamian law derived from earlier West Asian traditional and customary law, well established by this early date. As society changed, traditional law was modified to reflect contemporary practice and attitudes, but many aspects remained unchanged throughout Mesopotamian history. Kings were responsible before the gods for the well-being of society. Some issued “law codes,” in reality collections of pronouncements intended to demonstrate the king’s guiding principles and reflect his commitment to enacting justice, promoting fairness, and protecting the vulnerable: more propaganda than a binding code of law. These law codes were not comprehensive; some contradicted established practice; and court records do not show that they were consulted or followed. Many court judgments followed other systems, reflecting tradition and the judiciary’s experience. The Ur III king Shulgi (2094–2047 BCE) promulgated the first law code, laying down rules of conduct and punishments for crime, usually financial penalties and compensation, though a few very serious crimes like murder incurred execution. The most famous law code was that of the Babylonian king Hammurabi (1792–1750 BCE): this tended to prescribe less humane punishments than earlier codes, including the harsh “lex talionis” (punishment by reciprocal injury: “an eye for an eye”). The judiciary administered and enforced government decrees; witnessed and recorded legally binding agreements between individuals; and resolved disputes and punished criminal behavior. Local councils of elders, representing a village or an urban ward, dealt with everyday matters such as conflicts over inheritance, drawing on their knowledge of the litigants, and could call local witnesses to testify under oath. Often courts adjudicated conflicting claims, for example, disputed ownership. In such cases disputants might be required to swear an oath on a sacred object, with fear of committing sacrilege constraining them from perjuring themselves. In the most serious cases, one or both litigants might be required to undergo the river ordeal. The selected party(s) had to plunge into a given part of the river: if they drowned their guilt was established. Difficult matters could be referred up to a judge appointed by the king, or the king himself. Some serious offenses, such as

78

Law

murder, were automatically referred directly to the king—but he could send cases back to the council, whose detailed local knowledge would help in establishing or disproving guilt. Merchant corporations regulated their own affairs and exercised internal judicial authority. Many of the surviving legal documents relate to crimes: injury, manslaughter and murder, adultery and rape, theft and criminal damage. Prosecution of criminal cases rested with the injured party rather than the state. The penalty often depended on the victim’s wishes: for example, a victim’s family could choose whether his murderer be executed or pay them compensation. The harshness of punishments also depended on the victim’s social status: Hammurabi’s code often lists three tiers of penalties, the most severe for offenses against the elite, a lesser one for those against ordinary people, and the least for those against slaves. Inheritance arrangements were often detailed and complicated, a frequent source of litigation. The inheritance of real estate followed rules: in general, a deceased man’s property was divided among his sons, after providing a dowry or brideprice for his unmarried children. He could, however, specify the disposal of his moveable property, making bequests to individual household members; this might include the manumission of slaves. Also heritable were the rights to certain religious or civil offices, along with public duties and outstanding debts. Only in exceptional circumstances could a man disinherit his children, an extreme measure that needed court approval. Children were important, so many legal contracts concerned adoption. The children born to a man by his slave girl shared in the paternal inheritance if he adopted them; otherwise they and their mother became free on his death. Outsiders could also be adopted by men or women as a way of providing security in their old age, a contract regarded as a very serious commitment on both sides. The common and civil law system of Western civilization is based to a great extent on Roman law. However, both the form and provisions of Roman, and earlier Greek, law owe a great deal to the legal systems of ancient West Asia and that of Mesopotamia in particular. See also: Family; Kingship; Document: “Hammurabi’s Law Code”; Document: “Uru-inim-gina” Further Reading Greengus, Samuel. 2000. “Legal and Social Institutions of Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 469–84. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Roth, M. T. 1997. Law Collections from Mesopotamia and Asia Minor. 2nd edition. Atlanta: Scholars’ Press Wells, Bruce. 2005. “Law and Practice.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 199–211. Oxford: Blackwell.

Literature

79

LITERATURE  Literature provides a window into a society’s culture, reflecting many aspects of life and thought. All societies have forms of oral literature, such as stories told at home, and publicly performed drama and poetry; literate societies also have written literature. Only the latter can be recovered from the past; but we are fortunate in the quantity and richness of literature that survives from ancient Mesopotamia. Not only do Mesopotamian texts include a huge range of nonliterary subjects, but also a rich treasury of literature, including religious works, epics describing the legendary deeds of kings, tales about humbler individuals, and philosophical reflections. Writing was invented in Mesopotamia in the late fourth millennium; by around 2600 BCE it could fully record language and was already being used to write a wide range of different things, from royal inscriptions and legal documents to hymns and epic poetry. Most surviving Sumerian texts, composed from late Early Dynastic (ED) times onwards, are school copies made in the Old Babylonian (OB) period: these include school exercises, historical poems, love songs, formal letters, lamentations, and lullabies. Sumerian was by then a dead language, used mainly by scholars, while people spoke and wrote in Akkadian. Later Akkadian literature included both new versions of earlier stories and new compositions. Standardized editions of classic Sumerian literature were made, with Akkadian translations. Many literary works survive from the mid-first millennium, most notably the library of King Ashurbanipal (668–627 BCE) which housed a copy of every text available at the time, around 1,500 volumes. Many epic poems retold mythological stories probably familiar to every Mesopotamian, such as how the world was created. The early account, Atrahasis, also explains the creation of humanity to serve the gods and recounts their fate when their population grew too great: the famous Flood story. The later Babylonian version, the great poem Enuma Elish, tells how Babylon’s patron deity Marduk saved the gods from destruction and created the world from the body of the defeated primordial ocean goddess Tiamat. Other poems concerned individual deities, particularly Inanna: seductive, delightful goddess of love; intelligent, powerful patronness of her cities, Uruk and Agade; and implacable goddess of war. Third and early second millennium lamentations recounted individual gods’ anger against their own city, bringing its devastating destruction by invaders, but ending happily with the god appeased and the city restored. These were probably performed at inauguration ceremonies when temples destroyed by war were rebuilt. Sumerian literature also includes many hymns to individual gods and their temples. The earliest surviving examples were composed by the Akkadian princess Enheduanna (fl. 2270 BCE): these address

80

Literature

the goddess Inanna, exalting her powers and praying for her favor and support. Sumerian and Akkadian literature also contains many formulaic prayers, spoken on behalf of victims of ill health in order to placate the god causing their affliction. The inscrutability of the gods stirred philosophical speculation in the later second millennium, explored in poems. One outstanding example, Ludlul (the “Poem of the Righteous Sufferer”), expounds a philosophy of resignation, trusting in the gods’ ultimate benevolence, however incomprehensible and apparently cruel their behavior. Such reflective works, known together as “wisdom literature,” also include collections of Sumerian proverbs, riddles, and fables, and disputations in which opposed pairs of various things, including metals, tools, plants, creatures, and aspects of nature, such as winter and summer, each argue their own importance to humanity, denigrating their rival. The very early texts from ED Shuruppak include a collection of proverbs and wise advice, the Instructions of Shuruppak, expressed as a father’s advice to his son. There were also many folk tales and humorous stories. One, Why Do You Curse Me?, pours scorn on the inability of a doctor, supposedly an educated man, to understand when addressed in Sumerian by a humble street vendor. Many poems recounted the legends that grew up around historical and semimythical kings. The earliest surviving poem, dated before 2500 BCE, concerns the adventures of King Lugalbanda of Uruk. Tales of his heroic descendant, Gilgamesh, were particularly popular, the subject of five Ur III– period Sumerian poems, recounting his defense of Uruk against Agga of Kish, his adventures with his friend Enkidu, and his death. In the OB period the stories of Gilgamesh and Enkidu were woven into a single Akkadian epic, Shutur eli sharri (“Surpassing All Other Kings”). This and a fine later extended version, Sha naqba imuru (“He Who Saw the Deep,” “Standard Version”) circulated widely in West Asia and beyond. Fragments of history are woven into later tales of the Akkadian kings, distorted and embellished to serve propagandist purposes. In the Ur III poem The Cursing of Agade, Sumerian hostility to the Akkadian regime, manifest in frequent rebellions, is given literary form in a depiction of King Naram-Sin as the violent and sacrilegious opponent of the gods’ will. In contrast, the empire’s founder, Sargon, is shown in stories, enduringly over the centuries, as a god-favored hero around whom elements of folktale cluster. Appointed as cupbearer to the king of Kish, his personal protection by the goddess Inanna enables him to survive the jealous king’s repeated attempts to murder him. The wealth of literature that survives from ancient Mesopotamia gives an incredibly vivid picture not only of life among the people of the world’s first

Mari and the Middle Euphrates Region

81

civilization but also of how they thought and viewed their world. Though much may seem alien to modern readers, there are many aspects of the human condition that speak directly across the ages: physical suffering, the power of love, the ambition of the powerful, and the devastation of war are all unchanged in essence, and reading Mesopotamian literature helps us to appreciate the essential unity of humanity, however different our cultures are in detail. See also: Birth of Empire; Cosmology; Death; Early Dynastic City-States; Writing; Document: “Creation”; Document: “The Cursing of Agade”; Document: “The Dialogue of Pessimism”; Document: “Enheduanna”; Document: “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta”; Document: “The Flood”; Document: “Gilgamesh and Agga”; Document: “Inanna and Dumuzi”; Document: “Inanna and Enki”; Document: “The Netherworld”; Document: “Schooldays”; Document: “Sheep and Grain”; Document: “Shulgi” Further Reading Alster, Bendt. 2000. “Epic Tales from Ancient Sumer: Enmerkar, Lugalbanda, and Other Cunning Heroes.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 2315–26. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Black, Jeremy, Graham Cunningham, Eleanor Robson, and Gabor Zolyomi. 2004. The Literature of Ancient Sumer. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Bottéro, Jean. 2000. “Akkadian Literature: An Overview.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 2293–303. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. George, A. 2009. “Gilgamesh and the Literary Traditions of Ancient Mesopotamia.” In The Babylonian World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick, 447–59. Oxford: Routledge. Holm, T. J. 2005. “Ancient Near Eastern Literature: Genres and Forms.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 269–88. Oxford: Blackwell.

MARI AND THE MIDDLE EUPHRATES REGION  The middle Euphrates region runs from the Euphrates bend, where the river turns southeast, to the latitude of modern Baghdad, Iraq, where the alluvial plains of southern Mesopotamia begin. It was at different times politically independent of south and north Mesopotamia or absorbed by one or the other. Fertile plains lie along the river in the region’s north; today rainfall is generally inadequate for cultivation, though conditions were probably more favorable in antiquity. Near the modern Syrian-Iraqi border, the plain narrows considerably, the Euphrates running for around 125 miles through a valley constrained by cliffs. Substantial quantities of bitumen (natural asphalt) welled up between Hit and Ramadi: an important, tradeable resource, it

82

Mari and the Middle Euphrates Region

served many purposes, particularly as a waterproofing material. West of the Euphrates a vast desert runs continuously down to southern Arabia. Its fringes were home to many mobile pastoral tribes raising sheep, goats, and donkeys. The Euphrates river connected the timber-rich Levant and metal-rich Anatolia with southern Mesopotamia and thence the Gulf, and linked with other riverine and land trade routes into northern Mesopotamia and the Iranian plateau. The desert was a major barrier, but a route through it ran from Mari west through the Tadmor oasis (later Palmyra) to the Levant. Control of river trade and communications supported the few major ancient centers in the middle Euphrates corridor, such as Mari, set in a broader stretch, and Terqa, near the confluence of the Khabur and Euphrates. Hunter-gatherers occupied the region from early times; farming began early in the north where rain-fed cultivation was possible; animal husbandry was important, especially at more southerly sites. Contacts with southern Mesopotamia, existing by the fifth millennium BCE, were intensified in the fourth millennium when Uruk colonies and outposts were established in the north, probably to promote trade in important raw materials and perhaps to exploit the region’s grazing. By around 3100 BCE, however, the Uruk presence in the region had ceased. Local development continued; by 2600 BCE city-states were emerging across northern Mesopotamia, a few in favored locations in the middle Euphrates region, including Mari, Terqa, and Tuttul (modern Bi’a), possibly founded by largely pastoral communities. The adoption of the Sumerian script in some northern cities implies continuing interactions with southern Mesopotamia. Mari, founded in the early third millennium, had a substantial two-story palace; a massive city wall enclosing 600 acres, protecting against flooding; and a mile-long canal to supply water to the settlement. Records from Ebla, farther west, reveal states ruled by kings who shared power with royal officials and the heads of leading local families. Mari was the major state of the middle Euphrates, directly competing with Ebla during the twenty-fourth century BCE; soon both were conquered by the Akkadian Empire. The region still prospered after the latter fell: Mari and Tuttul were among the small independent states that enjoyed a close relationship with the Ur III Empire. In the early second millennium BCE, the leaders of some Amorite desert tribes founded kingdoms across the northern Levant and northwest Mesopotamia. These sheikhs assumed the established role of kings ruling urban agricultural societies, while also maintaining their traditional role as leaders of tribal, mobile pastoral groups: a dual power-base with very different types of organization. One such substantial kingdom, established in the nineteenth century BCE at Mari by Yahdun-Lim, dominated the middle Euphrates region. It was closely allied with the larger, more powerful kingdom of Yamhad

Mari and the Middle Euphrates Region

83

whose capital was Halab (modern Aleppo). Mari’s rulers made the most of its restricted agricultural land by constructing irrigation canals, and wells on higher ground. Yahdun-Lim’s successor was driven out by Shamshi-Adad, another Amorite ruler, who for several decades around 1800 BCE united northern Mesopotamia into a single state. Mari became the headquarters of one of the kingdom’s two viceroyalties, “the Banks of the Euphrates,” ruled by Shamshi-Adad’s indolent and spineless son, Yasmah-Addu. After ShamshiAdad’s death around 1781, Zimri-Lim, a relative of Yahdun-Lim, regained Mari’s throne, beginning a prosperous reign. Zimri-Lim’s kingdom exerted strong influence in the Khabur and Balikh basins, where small polities became his vassals or allies. His position as tribal leader gave him some control over several Amorite pastoral tribes, including both mobile and settled pastoralists within these vassal states, a source of manpower and resources. Like other contemporary rulers, Zimri-Lim trod a skillful path between diplomacy and force, counteracting raids with his armies, and making alliances with neighboring rulers, often cemented by marriage to one of his many daughters. Among his allies was Hammurabi of Babylon, whose rise to power Mari supported; but in 1759 BCE Hammurabi attacked Mari, and in 1757 BCE fired its palace. The city was not reoccupied, but the region enjoyed renewed importance in Classical times when the overland route to the Mediterranean through Palmyra flourished. In its final form under Zimri-Lim Mari’s palace had around 260 groundfloor rooms and an extensive upper story. Many of the rooms and courts had painted decoration. It followed a standard division into a suite of public rooms off an outer courtyard, including a shrine to Ishtar and a major sanctuary; and an inner courtyard giving access to a throne room, used by the ruler as an audience chamber, and residential and service areas, among them kitchens, a scribal school, workshops for various crafts, administrative offices and archives, and many small, locked storerooms. Excavations at Mari in Syria from the 1930s excitingly revealed an enormous archive of letters and official documents, shedding remarkable light on the world of its time. However, Syria’s recent descent into civil war and the rise of ISIS have terminated archaeological work in the region as well as threatening the excavated remains at important sites. See also: Administration; Assyria; Babylon and Babylonia; Hammurabi’s Empire; Tribal Society; Visual Arts; Document: “Mari Letters” Further Reading Akkermans, Peter M. M. G., and Glenn M. Schwartz. 2003. The Archaeology of Syria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

84

Mathematics

Dalley, Stephanie. 1984. Mari and Karana. Two Old Babylonian Cities. London: Longman. Fleming, Daniel. 2004. Democracy’s Ancient Ancestors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Margueron, Jean-Claude. 2000. “Mari: A Portrait in Art of a Mesopotamian CityState.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 885– 900. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Melville, Sarah C. 2005. “Royal Women and the Exercise of Power in the Ancient Near East.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 235–44. Oxford: Blackwell.

MATHEMATICS  Mathematics is the science of numbers and quantity, fundamental to understanding the world and manipulating it to human advantage. Mesopotamia played a key role in its development. Evidence shows that in early West Asia there were separate numbering systems for counting different things, such as sheep and measures of grain, which were tallied using tokens of different shapes. By the later fourth millennium BCE, bureaucrats in Sumer (southern Mesopotamia) had developed an administrative system of recording transactions on clay tablets using an appropriate number of impressions of the token representing the transacted commodity. A major conceptual breakthrough came around 3200 BCE when the idea of number was separated from the things being counted: at this point, scribes began to record numbers of things by writing a number sign of the appropriate value and an independent sign for the things being counted. This revolutionary idea of perceiving numbers as an abstract concept was the springboard for the development of mathematics. Its first consequences were to make possible such calculations as addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division, useful, for example, in totaling commodities received by the authorities and apportioning rations to the workforce; to create the possibility of quantified measurement; and to enable the value of unrelated goods to be compared through the medium of currency. By the third millennium BCE mathematics were facilitating civil engineering, complex administrative accounting, and labor organization; and scholars were studying theoretical problems in arithmetic and geometry. By the Ur III period a sexagesimal (base-60) positional system was used to write numbers in calculations. Mathematics became a key part of education, and complex mathematics had developed by the OB (Old Babylonian) period. The sexagesimal counting system had the advantage that 60 has many divisors, facilitating calculations: 2, 3, 5 and thence 4, 6, 10, 12, 15, 20, and 30. Numbers were written in powers of 60: 1; 60; 3,600; 216,000; and even 12,960,000, broken down into decimal units—six lots of 10, six lots of 600, and so on. Earlier there had been several sequences of different signs, used for

Mathematics

85

counting different broad categories, but the sexagesimal system used just two signs: vertical wedges for units and powers of 60, and diagonal wedges for 10s and for 10s of powers of 60. Numbers up to nine were written as vertical wedges arranged in two rows, 10 as a slanting wedge, and numbers up to 59 as a combination of 10s and units, the 10s placed to the left of the units. Sixties were again written vertically, to the left of the 10s, and 600s diagonally to the left of the 60s, and so on. Fractions were similarly written, to the right of units, although the most common fractions, a half, a third, two-thirds, and five-sixths, also had separate symbols. This system of positional notation was far in advance of number-recording systems used by other cultures, then and in later times, such as those of the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, which relied on different symbols for different sizes of number. Positional notation greatly facilitates calculations. However, one problem it poses is the need to indicate a null value (nothing; zero) in a particular position, for example to distinguish the Babylonian number 1,0,1 (3,601) from 1,1 (61). The Babylonians sometimes used a gap to indicate the null value and, from around 700 BCE onwards, sometimes a mark; but usually relied on context to make the intended number clear. Many texts of mathematical exercises survive, mainly from the OB period, although some are as early as ED IIIA. Most were school teaching aids, worked through by the teacher, and copied and learned by his pupils. They dealt mainly with practical matters, particularly related to construction or agriculture: for example, calculating the number of laborers needed to construct a canal of given length and depth and their required food rations; the volume of water needed to irrigate a given area of land, the quantity of grain required to sow it, and its predicted yield. Some, however, were theoretical problems, involving quadratic equations or arithmetic progressions. Texts might include worked solutions or illustrative diagrams. Many tables aided in solving these problems and in everyday calculations, such as surveying land, for agriculture, sale or inheritance, calculating commodity prices, or computing interest on loans. These included straightforward multiplication, reciprocals, and metrological tables, but also more advanced mathematical information such as squares, square and cube roots, coefficients, and lists of key numbers. A good approximation to root two was calculated, 1.414212963 (the correct value, to ten significant figures, is 1.414213562), but for pi, the Babylonians generally used 3, although lists of reciprocals show that they knew 3.125 was a closer approximation (the value used today, to four significant figures, is 3.142). Their calculations demonstrate an excellent grasp of plane and solid geometry, including knowledge of “Pythagoras’s Theorem” (some 1,300 years before Pythagoras). They worked skillfully with many shapes, including

86

The ME: Essence of Civilization

truncated pyramids and truncated cones, but not cones, pyramids, or spheres. They expressed some calculations as algebraic problems with one or several unknown values: these were probably solved geometrically. The level of mathematical skills demanded by the harder school exercises went far beyond what the ordinary scribe would require in his later working life. Mathematics served the Mesopotamians also in astronomy, in which they were highly skilled and knowledgeable, calculating the movements of stars, planets, and other heavenly bodies, for religious and calendric purposes. The Mesopotamians were remarkably accomplished mathematicians, and many of their mathematical ideas and discoveries are still used, including the base-60 counting system that survives in our divisions of time and space (seconds, minutes, degrees in a circle). Their achievements in astronomy underlie much later knowledge. Even writing began with Mesopotamian accounting devices. It may have been from the Babylonians that Indian mathematics derived its system of positional notation, which included the concept of and a sign for zero, possibly as early as the first century CE. Indian numerals were adopted by the Arabs around 800 CE and thence transmitted to the West where they developed into the “Arabic numerals” universally embraced today. See also: Astronomy and the Calendar; Currency; Domestic Economy; Education; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Metrology; Writing Further Reading “Babylonian Mathematics.” http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Indexes/Baby lonians.html. Last accessed October 16, 2016. Melville, Duncan. “Mesopotamian Mathematics.” http://it.stlawu.edu/~dmelvill /mesomath/index.html. Last accessed October 16, 2016. Powell, Marvin A. 2000. “Metrology and Mathematics in Ancient Mesopotamia .” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1941–57. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Robson, Eleanor. 2008. Mathematics in Ancient Iraq: A Social History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. 1996. How Writing Came About. Austin: University of Texas Press.

THE ME: ESSENCE OF CIVILIZATION  Civilization—a concept hard to define—began in Mesopotamia in the fourth millennium BCE. At its heart was urban life and its associated social and cultural complexity. The people of Mesopotamia had no doubts about what civilization entailed; they viewed their own part in it as central and contrasted it with the barbarity of alien others. Mesopotamians visualized the facets of civilization in concrete

The ME: Essence of Civilization

87

terms, as the ME, attributes owned by the gods and obtained for humanity through the machinations of the goddess Inanna, patron deity of Uruk, the first city. The ME (Akkadian parsu) encompassed everything related to civilized existence. The god Enki was their original guardian. Determined to obtain them for her own city, his daughter Inanna visited him, armed with her considerable feminine powers as the goddess of love. Enki was pleased and flattered; he provided fitting hospitality, but incautiously became drunk. When he returned to his senses, he discovered that he had given all the ME to Inanna; and she had already left, taking them with her. His attempts to recover them, using requests, threats, and supernatural forces, were unsuccessful; Inanna disingenuously expressed horrified disbelief that he would retract his divine word and repossess his gifts to her. She safely reached Uruk, and her city received the benefits of civilization, which thence spread to humanity. The features that constitute the ME are very varied. Some reflect traditional existence, such as aspects of animal husbandry, family and descendants, and the ability to kindle and extinguish fire. Most, however, relate to city life. These include many priestly offices and cultic paraphernalia, such as musical instruments; and the trappings, offices, and duties of the ruler, such as counseling, judging, kingship, the throne, and the scepter. Many are craft skills, including building, and working in wood, metal, leather, and reeds. Others are intellectual attributes, such as wisdom, decision making, writing, and the art of song, but also less admirable aspects, such as deceit. Civilized virtues include hard work, righteousness, and kindness; other desirable aspects of life include venerable old age. Warfare and state expansion contribute attributes such as heroism and the plundering of cities; the associated suffering is also recognized as inevitable, as are other unfortunate features of urban life, such as strife and wickedness. Sumerians also considered delight in sexual activity as a mark of civilized life. In one story the gods explicitly choose this aspect of civilization to transform the wild man Enkidu from a simple beast, eating grass, drinking water, and running with animals, into a civilized human: the prostitute Shamhat is sent to tame him; after he has fallen for her charms, his former animal companions shun him, but Shamhat can now take him into the city of Uruk and introduce him to other aspects of civilized life, such as temples, fine clothing, and music. Enkidu epitomized humanity in its precivilized state, unaware of civilization but able to learn. The world, however, also contained those who knowingly rejected civilization. In another story Martu, an uncouth though magnificent youth, wins the heart of a city god’s daughter. Its composition reflects the time when Amorite pastoral nomads began to settle in Babylonia,

88

The ME: Essence of Civilization

Martu (Amurru) being admitted into the Mesopotamian pantheon as a new deity. The description of Martu and his kin reflects the settled communities’ cultural disquiet at alien ways of life and behavior: for example, living in tents, wearing leather clothing, being constantly on the move instead of settled, eating raw meat, not being buried after death, not worshipping the gods correctly nor showing proper respect for authority. Other texts reflect on how easily civilized existence can be destroyed and highlight those aspects whose loss is most keenly felt. The Cursing of Agade paints a picture of civilized city life at its height in Agade, the Akkadian capital: Inanna’s divine patronage gives prosperity, marked by full storerooms, abundant offerings to the temples, quantities of exotic raw materials shipped in by foreign traders, and the festive activities of its happy population, rich in wisdom and living on splendid food and drink. Later, after divine favor is withdrawn, its disastrous decline is reflected in the cessation of land and river communications, the destruction of city defenses, the decline of agriculture and water purity, rampant price inflation, the failure properly to perform religious ceremonies, the breakdown of law and order and government, the disintegration of family life, and the reversion of the ordered countryside to wasteland. Exile from the city and its occupation by the enemy are the ultimate catastrophe. Like their modern counterparts, the citizens of ancient Mesopotamia knew that they were members of a civilized society. They defined civilization both by comparison with the ways of barbaric neighbors and ignorant savages, and by enumerating its many attributes, the ME. While some aspects are now obsolete, and others differ markedly from those we might choose, the majority are strikingly familiar and, in modern guise, could also be used in describing our own picture of civilization: good governance, order, education, culture, industry, productivity, family harmony, religious observance, shared community celebration; they also show an awareness of the inevitable downsides of life in huge and complex societies. See also: Early Dynastic City-States; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Tribal Society; Uruk and Sumer; Document: “The Cursing of Agade”; Document: “Inanna and Enki” Further Reading Kramer, Samuel Noah. 1963. The Sumerians. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Leick, Gwendolyn. 2001. Mesopotamia. The Invention of the City. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge.

Medicine

89

MEDICINE  The treatment of ailments and injuries has its roots in the remotest antiquity, as has the diagnosis of their causes, attributed to both natural and supernatural agencies. As in earlier and later times (including the present day), Mesopotamian medicine included both diagnoses and treatments that were good, effective, and soundly based on observation, experiment, and understanding, and others that were not. In early Mesopotamia, illness and premature death were believed to have been caused by malevolent spirits (“demons”) that embodied harmful and dangerous forces, or by troubled ghosts. Certain common catastrophes were attributable to specific demons: for instance, the demoness Lamashtu was held responsible for miscarriage, stillbirth, death in pregnancy or labor, and infant death. Such demons could be exorcised or driven away by magic; prophylactic amulets offered protection against them. By the mid-third millennium, the gods were believed to have sent these demons, bringing ill health in punishment for deliberate or involuntary sins. Treatment of illness still involved rituals, magic, and incantations, alongside straightforward medical remedies. Through time, witches, malicious practitioners of destructive magic, were increasingly blamed for ill health. Two categories of specialist treated the sick. The ashipu (exorcist) performed rituals to obtain the removal of divinely imposed illness, but might also prescribe medicines. Similarly, the asu (physician and pharmacist; male or female), treated the physical symptoms with medicines, but increased their efficacy with charms or incantations. Either specialist could treat problems, though exorcists were more commonly consulted by the mid-first millennium. Using divination or magic, the exorcist diagnosed the external cause and perpetrator of an illness or affliction, whether divine punishment or bewitchment. Treatment involved removing the affliction or its cause, for example by transferring the ailment to a symbolic object, or making an effigy of a witch: these could then be destroyed by burning, drowning, or burying. The patient might also be fumigated and washed. The exorcist uttered formulaic prayers that emphasized the sufferer’s piety, expressing contrition for any sin, praising the gods, and asking for the punishment to end. Demons and witches were also driven away by incantations and ritual gestures, including physical manipulation such as massage. Exorcists and physicians often possessed private reference collections of relevant textbooks including pharmacopeia and collections of prayers and incantations, omens and symptoms, spells and rituals. Handbooks often listed physical symptoms, diagnosis of the underlying affliction, instructions on preparing appropriate drugs, suitable incantations and rituals, and usually information on whether the patient would recover or die. Recorded medical

90

Medicine

troubles included toothache, ear and eye problems, impotence, epilepsy, gastrointestinal ailments, skin diseases, rheumatism, incontinence, respiratory disorders, tonsillitis, smallpox, tuberculosis, and plague. Diagnosis could involve taking patients’ temperature and pulse, observing their skin color, looking for inflammation, and examining their urine. Medicines were given as potions, enemas, medicinal baths, fumigation, suppositories, salves, or poultices. Collections of prescriptions, from Ur III times and later, specified the injury or ailment, followed by details of appropriate treatment. Pharmacopeia listed several hundred medicinal ingredients, including many plant materials, often with antibacterial properties; salts, alum, and various powdered minerals; and animal products such as blood, milk, fat, and bone. Ingredients for poultices and plasters included mud, alcohol, resins, honey, fat, and various plants. The affected area was washed with beer and hot water before dressing. Many physicians were attached to royal courts, though they could work privately. As well as treating illness, physicians dressed wounds, set limbs, and performed simple operations such as lancing boils. Practical experience of treating war casualties and accident victims provided a basic knowledge of human anatomy. Texts, including Hammurabi’s law code, suggest more complex surgery occurred, perhaps including cataract operations and a caesarean section performed on a dead woman. They also indicate knowledge of epidemic disease, the risks of dirty water, and the use of isolation to combat contagion. Favorable letters and other texts suggest Mesopotamian doctors enjoyed considerable success in treating disease and other medical problems. Mesopotamian medical knowledge had a significant influence on successors in the region. Medical references in the Jewish Talmud are grounded in Babylonian diagnoses and remedies. Greek medical treatises from the early Hippocratic corpus closely follow Babylonian handbooks, including the ordered compendium of symptoms Sha.gal that provides a taxonomy of diseases and their prognosis, and pharmacopeia such as the plant glossary Uru.an.na to which the schema of medical plants by the Greek scholar Dioscorides owes a huge debt. Later Greek scholarship also drew heavily on Egyptian medical knowledge, but the Mesopotamian contribution continued to underlie much Classical, and thence European, medical practice and knowledge. See also: Religious Practices Further Reading Biggs, Robert D. 2000. “Medicine, Surgery, and Public Health in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1911– 24. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Merchant Houses

91

Bottéro, Jean, 2001. “Magic and Medicine.” In Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, translated by Antonia Nevill, edited by Jean Bottéro, 162–82. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. Farber, Walter. 2000. “Witchcraft, Magic, and Divination in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1895–910. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Geller, M. J. 2009. “Incantations within Akkadian Medical Texts.” In The Babylonian World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick, 389–99. Oxford: Routledge. Scurlock, JoAnn. 2005. “Ancient Mesopotamian Medicine.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 325–38. Oxford: Blackwell.

MERCHANT HOUSES  Merchant houses are family businesses devoted to foreign and domestic trade. Textual evidence shows that such family firms existed in Mesopotamia by at least the second millennium BCE. While much trade in the ancient world was state organized, private enterprise also flourished and was particularly active in periods when state control was weak. How early private enterprise began, however, is uncertain. Thirdmillennium Sumerian texts distinguish merchants who operated as domestic traders, employed by the temple and palace, and long-distance traders, probably also state employees. Merchants may have undertaken some private trading as well. After the Ur III state fell in 2004 BCE, private enterprise grew in importance. Merchants maintained the existing trade mechanisms and networks, but on a smaller scale, reflecting the much-reduced funds available to private individuals, even in collaboration. Instead of trading state goods and receiving wages, they now traded on their own account, paying taxes to the authorities. In the first millennium BCE, much of the long-distance caravan trade was undertaken by Aramaean and Arab nomads (sheep and camel pastoralists respectively). Most surviving archives reflect official activity, and generally only small fragments of merchants’ private archives have been found. The extremely illuminating exception, however, is an archive of more than 25,000 clay tablets belonging to Old Assyrian (OA) merchants at Kanesh (modern Kültepe) in Anatolia, preserved when the town was sacked and burned around 1830 BCE. This provides an amazingly full picture of the activities of merchant families from the important northern Mesopotamian city of Assur. From around 1910 BCE Assur was prominent in the international trading networks in which many West Asian city-states participated. Its merchants enjoyed tax concessions and considerable independence, regulating financial, judicial, and other matters through the City karum. (Karum [“quay”] meant both the trading district and the chamber of commerce in Mesopotamian cities, and, by extension, trading colonies abroad.) Assur’s merchants

92

Merchant Houses

established karums in Babylonian cities to manage trade in goods from the south and east and others in northern Mesopotamia and Anatolia, including Kanesh, strategically situated on major north–south and east–west routes, where its merchants flourished for three generations. The tablets found in the strong rooms of OA merchants’ houses here were mostly documents sent from Assur or from other trading stations, such as invoices accompanying merchandise, instructions for the purchase or sale of goods, and fascinating personal letters from members of the family firm, running the full gamut from tender, loving, and anxious to accusatory and furious. These merchants had trading posts in around thirty small states in Anatolia and adjacent areas, answerable to Karum Kanesh, the hub of the Anatolian trading network, which in turn answered to Assur. Karum representatives negotiated trade contracts with local rulers, agreeing on trade restrictions and tax payable on imports. The heads of the merchant houses resided in Assur, many of them leading citizens (“Elders”). They controlled what goods were traded, sent instructions to junior members of the firm in Kanesh, and supervised operations. Younger family members and employees provided a support staff. Also active here were the firms’ womenfolk, the sisters and wives of merchants based in Anatolia, who lived in Assur with their children, dispatching goods and appropriately placing funds and goods sent back from Anatolia. Their letters to their menfolk in Kanesh often included complaints about excessive demands or tardy payments, as well as personal and local news. They supplied woolen textiles to trade in Anatolia, woven by themselves, family members, slaves, or employees. Textiles, particularly those of finer quality, were also imported from Babylonia. From the sale of their own textiles, the women in Assur earned silver to run their households and buy wool. When business prospered their husbands might send them valuable jewelry: this reflected the family’s prosperity and therefore status, but was also invested capital, to be sold if financial need arose. Around five hundred Assur merchants worked in Anatolia at the height of the trade. Each merchant family maintained a branch headquarters in Kanesh, usually headed by a son or brother of the firm’s principal in Assur and staffed by his relatives. Some members of the firm were based in or traveled to other trading stations, and others transported the merchandise. The Assur merchants established this trade network principally to obtain Anatolian silver and, to a lesser extent, gold. In exchange, as well as textiles, they supplied tin, brought to Assur by other merchants, probably across the Iranian plateau from Afghanistan. The tin and textiles were transported to Kanesh by donkey caravan, a 750-mile trip that took six to twelve weeks. Import and export taxes were paid to the Assur city authorities and to the local authorities in the trading stations; Karum Kanesh also received a levy

Merchant Houses

93

from incoming caravans to support its running expenses. Journey expenses included food and fodder and local taxes along the way. Nevertheless, the value differentials between the regions made the trade highly lucrative, and a profit of 100 percent was common. Trade was strictly regulated by the City authorities, who controlled or prohibited trade in certain goods: substantial fines were imposed for noncompliance. But with care, using a “smuggler’s path,” merchants could engage in tax evasion or illegal trade, for example in iron, a state monopoly. The Kanesh archives give the fullest picture of the operation of merchant houses, but other glimpses of private trading organizations also survive. Old Babylonian (OB) records from Ur show private merchants operating similarly in the south, continuing the Gulf trade that had flourished in the third millennium BCE, albeit now on a much smaller scale, in smaller ships that sailed only as far as Dilmun (Bahrain). The authorities (initially the temple, later the palace) levied a 10 percent tax on goods that the merchants brought in; and the merchants made partnerships and took out loans to raise the necessary capital for expeditions, working collaboratively. Although they operated in technologically, socially, politically, and economically different circumstances from later merchants, the merchant houses of ancient Mesopotamia, as exemplified by those of Assur working at Kanesh, are strikingly reminiscent of later merchant houses in Europe and elsewhere, such as the Italian Renaissance mercantile families. Ancient Mesopotamia, therefore, evolved a pattern-setting institution for conducting trade that proved remarkably useful and resilient, underlying much commercial activity into modern times. See also: Assyria; Boats and Ships; Currency; Finance; International Trade; Taxation; Textiles; Wheeled and Animal Transport; Document: “Kanesh Letters” Further Reading Astour, Michael C. 2000. “Overland Trade Routes in Ancient Western Asia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1401–20. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Larsen, Mogens Trolle. 2002. The Aššur-nādā Archive. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor Het Nabje Oosten. Leick, Gwendolyn, ed. 2009. The Babylonian World. Oxford: Routledge. Snell, Daniel. 1997. Life in the Ancient Near East. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Veenhof, Klaas R. 2000. “Kanesh: An Assyrian Colony in Anatolia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 859–72. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

94

Mesopotamia

MESOPOTAMIA  Mesopotamia—the land between the rivers—is the Classical name for the Tigris and Euphrates region, ancient Assyria and Babylonia. Most now lies within present-day Iraq, a little in Syria and Iran; conversely, Iraq includes some areas not in ancient Mesopotamia. Bounded by mountains to the north and east, desert to the west, and the Gulf to the south, Mesopotamia was shaped by its two rivers, which provided transport and communications networks; water for agriculture, industry, and daily life; fish; and vegetation supporting wild and domestic animals. Major environmental differences divided Mesopotamia into two distinct regions, the northern plains of Assyria, where rain-fed agriculture was possible, and the southern Babylonian alluvium, where agriculture depended on irrigation; here the rivers divided into a number of major and minor branches that in years of heavy flooding could change their course, with significant effects on settlement. Further differences split Babylonia into a northern river plain (Akkad) and a more southerly delta plain (Sumer). These geographical contrasts were mirrored by cultural, political, and economic distinctions. Marshes lay between the alluvial plain and the sea and divided Babylonia from Elam. Neighboring cities and states, such as Elam, were often involved with Mesopotamia, for war or peace, as were the mobile tribal groups who occupied the mountain and desert fringes. Mesopotamia’s crops and animals provided food; herbs and spices for medicines; hides for leather; oil for lamps and industrial activities; flax and wool for textiles. Reeds and palm leaves were made into mats, baskets, and houses, and palm fibers into ropes. Timber was used to build houses, vehicles, and boats, and to make tools. River sediments provided clay for building and making pottery. Stone suitable for tools and construction was plentiful in the north. Bitumen (natural asphalt), found in several localities, was used in building, for general waterproofing, as an adhesive, and as a fuel. However, many necessary or desirable resources were not available within Mesopotamia, particularly the south, promoting trade to procure metal ores, for example. For most of human existence, people lived by foraging, which generally necessitated some mobility to obtain seasonally available foodstuffs. Huntergatherer communities occupied many parts of West Asia during the Paleolithic period, including what is now the Gulf, then dry land, which was flooded as global temperatures increased after 16,000 BCE, causing ice sheets to melt and sea levels to rise. Favorable conditions in parts of West Asia allowed some foragers to settle permanently, and between 11,500 and 9500 BCE sedentary communities became more numerous. Sedentism brought major changes, including a great increase in material possessions and population growth, encouraging expansion, and this increased as communities

Mesopotamia

95

began to practice agriculture. By 7000 BCE, mixed farming communities were widespread in regions where rain-fed agriculture was possible, including northern Mesopotamia, and they were making pottery and simple metal objects. Simple irrigation techniques were devised by 6000 BCE and farmers spread into southern Mesopotamia. Significant fourth-millennium innovations, including animal traction and wheeled transport, the emergence of towns with craft specialization and administrative control, organized longdistance trade, and writing, allied with population growth, economic intensification, and growing political complexity, culminated in the emergence of civilization in southern Mesopotamia. The third millennium saw the growth of city-states here, united around 2334 BCE in the Akkadian Empire, which controlled the south and influenced the north, as did its Ur III successor, which fell in 2004 BCE. In the early second millennium the smaller states that vied for power included many farther north, in Assyria and the northwest, and northern Mesopotamia was united briefly under Shamshi-Adad (1813–1781 BCE). Hammurabi united the center and south around 1750 BCE, though his empire gradually crumbled after his death. Farther west lies Anatolia where towns and cities eventually united into the great Hittite Empire. The Babylonian Kassite and northern Mesopotamian Mitanni states dominated in the later second millennium, the latter carved up by the Hittites and rising Assyrians after 1350 BCE. City-states and kingdoms also sprang up in the Levant; their inhabitants included the seafaring Phoenicians and their enterprising predecessors, and the peoples of the Bible. With some periods of retrenchment, Assyria rose to dominate all West Asia for much of the first millennium BCE; Babylonia defeated and succeeded the Assyrians after 612 BCE, but in 539 BCE was conquered by the Persians, who created the Achaemenid Empire. Throughout antiquity West Asia was fought over by local states but also frequently by the empires of Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Egypt, and beyond them Iran and Europe; at its maximum unification a vast region from Egypt and Greece to northern India was briefly controlled by Alexander the Great before being again carved up by his successors. The region today is no less turbulent, the frequent scene of strife and hostility among and within states and would-be states. Mesopotamia’s rich past—monumental buildings, remarkable art, and above all, huge quantities of fascinating texts, written on clay tablets—was first revealed in the nineteenth century CE. Now it is under serious threat, as the region is torn apart by war. The Iraq war brought instability that enabled looters to obliterate many sites. The terrorist organization ISIS, controlling parts of Iraq and Syria in the 2010s, has not only taken great propagandist pleasure in destroying Mesopotamian and more recent

96

Mesopotamian Empires

monuments but has also gained a considerable income by selling looted antiquities. See also: Assyria; Babylon and Babylonia; Mari and the Middle Euphrates Region; Ur and the Marshes; Uruk and Sumer Further Reading Butzer, Karl W. 2000. “Environmental Change in the Near East and Human Impact on the Land.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 123–51. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Leick, Gwendolyn. 2001. Mesopotamia. The Invention of the City. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. Roaf, Michael. 1990. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. New York: Facts on File. Van de Mieroop, Marc. 2004. A History of the Ancient Near East. ca. 3000–323 BC. Oxford: Blackwell.

MESOPOTAMIAN EMPIRES  While city-states each had an identity shared by all its citizens, empires were not only larger political entities but ones that encompassed more than one identity, often a privileged core and a less engaged periphery, often with several different elements. Power was centralized in the king’s hands and deputed to those associated with him: members of the royal family and leading supporters enjoyed positions of authority, backed by the army, either or both often granted land taken from the defeated. This is exemplified in ancient Mesopotamia. In the later third millennium BCE, some Sumerian kings defeated other city-states, whose gods, they claimed, welcomed their rule; finally Lugalzagesi (2340–2316 BCE) made this claim for all Sumer, probably exercising leadership over all the city-states, already united by a shared culture, but without deposing their rulers or interfering in their internal affairs. In contrast, when Sargon of Akkad (2334–2279 BCE) conquered southern Mesopotamia, he established a unified state that submerged the city-states’ identities. Though Sargon used traditional titles in his inscriptions, this was a new political form—an integrated state in which authority was centralized, and traditional local authorities answerable to their local god and their citizens were replaced by outsiders answerable to the king. Sargon’s capital, Agade, was the main beneficiary of the wealth generated by the empire’s agriculture, industry, and trade. He and his successors replaced the Sumerian city-states and their kings with provinces administered by Akkadian governors, under the king’s direct supervision. A substantial

Mesopotamian Empires

97

army played a key role in maintaining royal authority, supporting governors, and countering frequent rebellions. The army also campaigned in distant lands, to promote and control trade. Taxation, temple offerings, trade, tribute, and the proceeds of war provided substantial resources to finance the state. Military success brought booty, prisoners to labor on public works, and confiscated land to grant to loyal supporters. The empire was created and consolidated by strong, powerful individuals, especially Sargon and his grandson Naram-Sin; under weak successors it declined and fell, a recurring pattern with empires. Within a few decades, however, a new empire was founded by Ur-Nammu. His Ur III dynasty emphasized its links with the past, and gained considerable support by their claim, founded in traditional ideology, to control the city-states and their revenues on behalf of each city’s god. However, while the kings of the leading citystates often remained in power, they did so only as provincial governors, responsible for the administration of the province’s temple establishments, while a military governor from outside, often a member of the royal family, administered the province’s crown lands, supervised the provincial governor’s activities, and controlled its army. Outside this core region of Sumer and Akkad the overt adherence to traditional values was unnecessary: the empire’s peripheral regions were placed under military governors. Again, weak later rulers, growing internal disaffection, economic decline, and attacks from outside brought about the empire’s downfall. Babylonia reverted to smaller political units, the strongest of these soon competing for greater power and more extensive domains. From then onward, the creation of empires was an established ambition, their extent and duration dependent on the strength and competence of individual rulers and dynasties. Hammurabi (1792–1750 BCE) exemplified the successful empire builder: an outstanding and ruthless military commander and highly competent administrator. Under his rule, Babylon, which had started developing into a major city only a few centuries earlier, became the administrative, cultural, and economic center of the south. While Hammurabi created an army of bureaucrats to run his empire, he also kept close personal control over much of the detail of government. A key element was the ilkum system, granting state land to individuals in return for military service. The later Neo-Assyrian Empire adhered to traditional Mesopotamian ideology in its heartland, but exploited its periphery, and ruthlessly punished rebellion; its success was largely due to its efficient army. Successive strong kings progressively expanded the empire, though it often shrank again under weaker rulers. Within Assyria itself, landowners were directly responsible to the king, who was answerable to the gods, especially Ashur. The state employed the traditional ilkum system, granting land in return for service,

98

Metallurgy

particularly as irregulars in the army. The king was commander-in-chief and most officials also held military posts. Beyond Assyria, in its conquered lands, vassal kingdoms were originally under local governors and paid tribute; later reorganization turned these into provinces under Assyrian governors, paying taxes. Conquered populations were often deported and resettled in distant areas, to suppress rebellion by breaking up local political organization, and for state purposes such as land reclamation. There was a major imbalance in prosperity: the provinces were drained of manpower and resources to aggrandize the center, causing their economic decline. Mesopotamia saw the rise of the world’s first empire, under Sargon of Akkad. This set a pattern that has endured through the ages, with many variations on the same theme. Empires centralize authority, generally for the benefit of those at their center, who have a close cultural relationship with the ruler and whose upper echelons participate in the administration and reap the fruits of its prosperity disproportionately, particularly at the expense of those outside the core. Even when ideologically justifying their imperial rule by reference to tradition and divine will, the rulers of empires have to back up their civil administration with military force, maintaining a standing army or one that can readily be called up. Empires’ structure makes them unstable, their success dependent upon the qualities of those in positions of authority. See also: Administration; Assyria; Birth of Empire; Hammurabi’s Empire; Land Tenure; Taxation; Warfare; Document: “Two Kings” Further Reading Chavalas, Mark. 2005. “The Age of Empires, 3100–900 BCE.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 34–47. Oxford: Blackwell. Franke, Sabina. 2000. “Kings of Akkad: Sargon and Naram-Sin.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 831–41. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Klein, Jacob. 2000. “Shulgi of Ur: King of a Neo-Sumerian Empire.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 842–57. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Matthews, Roger. 2003. The Archaeology of Mesopotamia. Theories and Approaches. London: Routledge. Van de Mieroop, Marc. 2005. King Hammurabi of Babylon. Oxford: Blackwell.

METALLURGY  Metals had great significance in the ancient world, since they could be used both to make practical, efficient tools and to display wealth and status. They were attractive and often rare, adding to their desirability and promoting trade. Ancient Mesopotamia contributed to important

Metallurgy

99

developments in metal technology though it lacked metal ores; metals were imported, generally as ingots already smelted at the source. Native (naturally occurring, pure) metal, though resembling stone, changed shape when hit: this was discovered by the ninth millennium BCE in West Asia where native copper was cold-hammered to make small objects. Hammering made copper harder but more brittle; annealing (heating) reversed this. By the seventh millennium BCE copper and lead ores were being smelted (heated to a high temperature to extract the metal). Open molds to cast simple objects appeared by the sixth millennium, and two-piece molds during the later fifth. Lost-wax casting began in the fourth millennium, using a clay mold formed around a wax model, which ran out when the clay was fired; after casting, the mold was broken to remove the cast object. Cupellation to extract silver from smelted lead ores began by 3500 BCE. Advances at this time included the production of sheet metal and wire. From the fourth to the early second millennium BCE arsenic-rich copper ores were deliberately selected to produce an attractive silver-colored alloy, harder than copper and easier to cast. After 3000 BCE the first bronze (copper-tin alloy) appeared in parts of West Asia including southern Mesopotamia. Bronze is harder than copper, melts at a lower temperature, and has an attractive golden color. Texts gave the recipe for bronze as six to ten parts copper to one part tin. Copper was imported as either “good” ingots, directly usable, or ingots that had to be “washed” (refined) before use. Initially bronze was a rare prestige material reserved for the finest objects, and third-millennium metal tools, weapons, statues, and architectural ornaments were generally of copper. Added parts, such as vessel handles, were joined by riveting or soldering, using tin solder. Larger statues were cast in the later third millennium, probably using multiple-piece molds. Other large objects were made by skillfully coating a wooden core with sheet metal. Most gold came from alluvial sources. By Ur III times the sophisticated process of cementation was probably used to extract gold from electrum (a natural gold-silver alloy): electrum and salt were heated together and the silver given off as silver chloride. Gold was the most highly valued metal, used as thin gold leaf decorating temples, palaces, divine statues, and palace furniture, or cast into royal statuary, tableware, ceremonial weapons, and jewelry. Early gold objects from Ur’s Royal Cemetery (around 2600 BCE) already display mastery of advanced techniques, including gilding, cloisonné inlaying, chasing, engraving, soldering, filigree, and the manufacture of gold wire. Many prestige silver objects, including decorative elements from furniture and musical instruments, ceremonial weapons, and jewelry, were made using the same techniques. Vessels were mainly produced by hammering, with repoussé decoration. The principal use of silver, however, was for currency,

100

Metallurgy

generally as silver-wire coils and rings. Lead was used for pipes and small objects such as statuettes, jewelry, rivets, and statue and weight cores; as a sheet-metal covering; and to repair stone and metal objects. By the second millennium bronze was commonly used to make weapons, jewelry, and statuary, and also tools, although poorer individuals still used stone tools. A very few objects of iron are known from the fourth millennium, probably extracted from slag produced when smelting iron-rich copper ores. Wrought iron, made by hammering the bloom produced when iron was smelted, to knock out impurities, was inferior to bronze. The few third- and second-millennium iron objects were highly valued prestige items, and the circulation of iron was strictly controlled at the highest level. But around 1200 BCE the development of carburization (alloying iron with carbon to produce steel), quenching, and tempering transformed iron into a hard, tough metal effective for tools and weapons, and able to be welded just by hammering, unlike bronze or copper. However, lacking furnaces able to reach the high temperature needed to melt iron, mass production by casting was impossible: each iron object had to be forged individually. Abundant iron ores and relatively simple though laborious iron smelting and smithing technology, compared with the intricacies of casting copper and bronze and the relative scarcity of copper and especially tin ores, made iron a revolutionary material for making tools and weapons cheap and common enough to be within the reach of ordinary people by around 900 BCE. Mesopotamia imported iron, probably as bar ingots or unworked blooms, from Anatolia, Urartu (Armenia), and the Levant. Copper and bronze were now freed to make decorative prestige and ornamental metalwork, including large pieces such as sheet-metal cladding for doors and gates. Metals have continued to play a central role in everyday life. Since antiquity, other metals and new alloys have been added. Only in medieval times did the West develop the technology to cast iron, long known in China. More recent advances in steel technology have reinforced and increased iron’s role as the most widely used and generally useful metal. See also: Currency; Death; International Trade; Jewelry; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Merchant Houses; Ur and the Marshes; Document: “Kanesh Letters” Further Reading Hussein, M. M. 2016. Nimrud. The Queens’ Tombs. Translated by M. Altaweel; edited by McGuire Gibson. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago; Baghdad: Iraqi State Board of Antiquities and Heritage. http://oi.uchicago.edu /sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/misc-2016-Nimrud-Queens -Tombs-web.pdf. Last accessed October 16, 2016.

Metrology

101

Moorey, P. R. S. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Muhly, James D. 2000. “Mining and Metalwork in Ancient Western Asia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1501–19. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Potts, D. T. 1997. Mesopotamian Civilization. The Material Foundations. London: Athlone. Zettler, Richard L., and Lee Horner, eds. 1998. Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

METROLOGY  Metrology is the science or system of measurement, including weight, length, area, and volume. Tallying began in early times, but systematic measurement was impossible before the invention of the concept of number, separate from the things being counted. This occurred within the growing economic and managerial complexity associated with the development of urbanism in Uruk-period Mesopotamia, which created the administrative need for quantitative recording. The development of writing, numerical notation, and metrology went hand in hand. The fourth millennium BCE in southern Mesopotamia saw the growing power of authorities who managed large landholdings and a huge workforce, paid in daily rations of barley and regular issues of wool or textiles for clothing. Early administrative records show that the authorities received and disbursed large quantities of agricultural produce, raw materials, and manufactured goods, demonstrating a growing need for measurement systems. At first, different number and measurement systems were used for the different categories of things. ED (Early Dynastic) texts show individual city-states developed their own measurement systems, controlled by their rulers. A uniform system was essential to the smooth running of a state’s economy, so when the Akkadian Empire united southern Mesopotamia, its rulers had to standardize weights and measures, harmonizing the different preexisting systems. The fourth Akkadian king, Naram-Sin, created a single integrated system for measuring weight, length, area, and capacity in general, regardless of what was being measured, unlike earlier systems, and ensured that the units of length, area, and volume were interrelated. The Ur III Empire undertook further official standardization of the measurement system. The Mesopotamians used a base-60 number system (in contrast to our base-10 system) so their units of measurement employed various factors and multiples of 60, particularly 3, 6, 10, 60, and 180. This is most apparent in units of weight:

102

Metrology

1 anshe (donkey load) = 180 minas or 3 talents; 1 gun (talent) [around 65 pounds, the load that a worker could carry] = 60 minas; 1 mana (mina) = 60 shekels; 1 gin (shekel) [equivalent to around one-third ounce] = 180 she (barleycorn); 1 little shekel = 3 barleycorn. Small weights were used to weigh precious metals and other small valuable materials. Length also introduced a factor of 2: 1 danna (league) = 1,800 nindan or 180 eshe; 1 eshe (line) = 10 nindan; 1 nindan (measuring rod) = 12 cubits/2 gi; 1 gi (reed) = 6 cubits; 1 kush (cubit—the length of the forearm), [equivalent to around 20 inches] = 30 shushi (fingers). In measures of capacity 5 was also a factor: 1 gur (bushel) = 5 bariga; 1 bariga (measuring basket) = 6 ban; 1 ban = 10 sila; 1 sila [equivalent to around 1 quart] = 60 gin (shekels). Measures of area comprised: 1 bur = 3 eshe; 1 eshe = 6 iku; 1 iku (field) [equivalent to 1 acre] = 100 sar; 1 sar (garden plot) [equivalent to 380 square feet] = 1 square nindan. Children learning to read and write often copied lists of names of measuring vessels, weights, and other measuring equipment as an exercise, familiarizing them with metrology. This system endured across Mesopotamia in later times, though major changes occurred by the first millennium BCE. Variant versions of both the Mesopotamian and Egyptian metrological systems were used in other parts of West Asia. Employing a uniform, standardized system was of great utility in commerce; this included weighing silver currency when transactions took place. The stifling Ur III bureaucracy also standardized many aspects of life and work, to facilitate administrative activities such as taxation, payment, and

Metrology

103

labor deployment. For example, the authorities standardized pottery types: the time, labor, and materials needed to produce them could then be calculated, allowing production targets to be set—these were owed to the state and accumulated as a debt if not met. Similarly they standardized human and animal productivity (for example, specifying what constituted a man-day of work, and the expected reproductive rate for flocks of sheep), and standardized time to allow productivity per unit of time to be monitored. Units of length were inscribed on graduated wooden, stone, or metal measuring bars, known from around 2200 BCE. Graduated stone or pottery vessels measured volume. Weights, used with scales, were made of metal or stone, often in the shape of ducks. Many documents refer to weights or volumes of goods received or issued, in taxation or payment of dues; as rations to pay workers; as produce from state-owned lands and herds; and in official industry and trade. Raw materials issued to artisans making goods for the authorities were measured, and in some cases also the finished objects, to check that loss of weight during manufacture stayed within acceptable limits. Merchants setting out on official trading expeditions were issued with weighed commodities for exchange and on their return the weight and value of the goods they delivered were recorded. Administrative calculations involved notionally converting commodities into their value equivalents in weights of silver or grain. Accurate and precise measurement made the Mesopotamians’ great achievements in civil engineering possible, including aqueducts, canals, roads, and bridges. Systems of measurement were important in architecture. Maps and plans on clay tablets give designed layouts for houses or temples, with written measurements. Other plans include land surveys, with measured arrangements of fields. These allowed calculations of the quantity of grain needed to sow them and of the harvest to be expected, data required for landtenure or rental contracts and tax assessments. One tablet gives a carefully labeled measured scale plan of Nippur around 1500 BCE, showing temples, the city’s walls and gates, the river Euphrates, and canals. The “Babylonian Map of the World,” the earliest such endeavor, schematically represents the world known to the Babylonians around 700 BCE. Two concentric circles surrounding the mapped area represent the ocean, and two parallel vertical lines the Euphrates, flowing to the southern marshes. Labels identify Babylon, mountains, Urartu, Assyria, Der, and Susa. Outside the ocean captions mark strange lands inhabited by fabulous creatures. Systems of measurement, begun by the ancient Sumerians, have continued to be of vital importance to society, and their standardization a major preoccupation of state authorities. Without accurate and precise means of measurement, very little can be achieved in many fields of human endeavor.

104

Palace Rule

See also: Architecture; Astronomy and the Calendar; Currency; Domestic Economy; Finance; Industry; International Trade; Irrigation; Land Tenure; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Mathematics; Taxation; Writing Further Reading Liverani, Mario. 2006. Uruk. The First City. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. London/Oakville: Equinox. Nissen, Hans J., Peter Damerow, and Robert K. Englund. 1993. Archaic Bookkeeping. Translated by Paul Larsen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Powell, Marvin A. 2000. “Metrology and Mathematics in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1941–57. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Robson, E. 2009. “Mathematics, Metrology and Professional Numeracy.” In The Babylonian World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick, 418–31. Oxford: Routledge. Skinner, F. G. 1954. “Measures and Weights.” In A History of Technology, edited by Charles Singer, E. J. Holmyard, A. R. Hall, and Trevor I. Williams, 774–84. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

PALACE RULE  The “palace” is the conventional shorthand used to denote the secular rule of the ancient state, contrasted with the “temple,” referring to rule by religious authorities. The two were not entirely distinct, since in ancient Mesopotamia and in many other ancient societies, the king was invested by the gods with responsibility for his subjects’ welfare, and often state revenues included those gathered by the temple but administered by the king. In early days authority rested with the temple, the focus of developing urban communities by the fourth millennium BCE in southern Mesopotamia (Babylonia). Evidence from art, however, suggests that kings already existed in some form by the late fourth millennium: a dominant figure is depicted standing with a spear before bound prisoners and combating lions; and the same figure is shown, for example, leading offering ceremonies to the gods. In the early third millennium BCE (Early Dynastic [ED] period) kings increased and consolidated their power. Texts now refer to e-gal (“great house”), signifying the palace establishment, as well as e (“house”), the deity’s household, signifying the temple establishment that had previously managed state activities. Temples, still influential, were major landowners commanding the labor of many people, but the palace owned equal or larger estates. Kings also came to control the bureaucracy, and were answerable to the city’s tutelary god for the well-being of citizens and state. Like the temples, kings could call on citizens to undertake corvée labor on public works, such as the construction and maintenance of public buildings and irrigation works. Through time, kings also gained control over some temple lands and revenues. As the city-states expanded, conflicts developed between them, mainly

Palace Rule

105

over land and access to water for irrigation. This increased the power of kings, as war leaders, mobilizing and leading armies, and as diplomats, making alliances with neighboring states, and negotiating peace treaties, with stelae erected to record agreed boundaries. One such stele mentions the involvement, around 2550 BCE, of a higher level arbiter in the negotiations, the king of Kish (an important city-state in Akkad). By ED IIIA, this title was held by certain kings of other city-states, possibly representing physical control of Kish and hegemony over parts of Babylonia, or, more probably, acknowledgement of the title-holder’s preeminence in some other sense. In the late ED period, larger territorial states began to emerge, with citystates such as Ur, Lagash, and Uruk gaining control over other city-states, culminating in the reign of Lugalzagesi who claimed hegemony over all Babylonia. Nevertheless, the rulers of defeated city-states were not deposed, nor did the victor interfere in their internal affairs. Things changed significantly with the creation of the first empire by Sargon of Akkad (2334–2279 BCE), an integrated state, encompassing Sumer and Akkad as well as some areas outside (notably Elam), in which authority was centralized in the king’s hands. Provinces within the state were administered by governors appointed by the king, backed by the army, and supported by a bureaucracy of increased complexity. State revenue from taxes, the produce of royal estates, trade, tribute, and diverted temple revenues, were augmented by the spoils of war, including booty, war captives, and land confiscated from defeated enemies. The Ur III state that eventually succeeded the Akkadian Empire returned to the ideology of city-states but maintained and tightened centralized control, creating one of history’s most bureaucratic states, in which the majority of citizens served the state in some way, whether as artisans, traders, farmers, herders, supervisors, or administrators, or by undertaking corvée labor. Much agricultural produce and many animals received as offerings to maintain the gods and their temple establishments were also used by the Ur III kings to support the state. Later kings were also able to utilize some temple revenues for state purposes. After the Ur III Empire fell in 2004 BCE, Babylonia split into smaller citystates, the more powerful vying with each other for increased territorial control. The kingship of some, and of others in northern Mesopotamia and the northern Levant, fell to Amorite sheikhs, introducing a new aspect to kingship in some states. Tribal society was patriarchal and organized by family ties; thus Amorite kings commanded the loyalty of their tribal followers through kinship bonds rather than through ties to place and service to a local deity. This necessitated a dual system of organization for such state concerns as taxation, administration, and conscription, with the army being divided into tribal and city units. Abundant texts reveal many aspects of palace life in

106

Palace Rule

this period. Kings were often absent, on campaign or engaged in diplomatic visits, but managed the kingdom’s affairs by exchanging letters with officials and with the queen, who often deputized for her husband. Village councils and town assemblies dealt with many local matters while the king and his officials controlled political, economic, and military affairs; but an active king, such as Hammurabi, might intervene even in small matters. The palace not only housed the royal family but was also the state’s administrative, industrial, and economic heart. Fine excavated examples include Mari, destroyed by fire in 1757 BCE and not reoccupied, and the palaces of Assyrian kings at Kalhu (Nimrud), Dur-Sharrukin (Khorsabad), and Nineveh, and Neo-Babylonian kings in Babylon. Their main features were magnificent public reception rooms, including the throne room, lavishly decorated, often with art conveying propagandist messages about the monarchy, such as their success in battle and performance of important rituals; substantial domestic quarters for the royal family and their household; offices and other administrative quarters; a treasury; service areas such as kitchens; food and equipment stores; and shrines. Frequently, as at Mari, these were the elements of a huge walled palace; the Assyrians, however, constructed discrete buildings within the citadel, the palace containing the reception and royal domestic suites, with separate temples, elite housing, storage areas, and administrative buildings, often along with military elements, such as an arsenal, a parade ground, barracks, and military workshops. Trees and gardens might be integrated into palace complexes, particularly in first-millennium BCE Assyria. Although it is likely that the temple played a major part in the organization of society in the fourth millennium BCE, and Mesopotamian ideology held that the king ruled by divine mandate, secular rulers were dominant throughout most of Mesopotamian history and may have been important from the beginning. See also: Assyria; Babylon and Babylonia; Birth of Empire; Early Dynastic City-States; Land Tenure; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Mari and the Middle Euphrates Region; Ur and the Marshes; Uruk and Sumer; Document: “Gilgamesh and Agga”; Document: “Mari Letters”; Document: “Two Kings”; Document: “Umma and Lagash”; Document: “Uru-inim-gina” Further Reading Leick, Gwendolyn, ed. 2009. The Babylonian World. Oxford: Routledge. Pollack, Susan. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge.

Pottery

107

Postgate, J. Nicholas. 2000. “Royal Ideology and State Administration in Sumer and Akkad.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 395–411. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Russell, John Malcolm. 1991. Sennacherib’s Palace Without Rival at Nineveh. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

POTTERY  Ceramics, such as pottery and brick, are hard materials created by baking clay or similar earths. Clay can be shaped into an unlimited range of forms and decorated in myriad ways. Baked clay is an extremely versatile material: able to hold liquids, heatproof, durable (though often fragile), and generally cheap to produce. Ceramics include storage vessels, serving dishes, cooking vessels, bricks, tiles, decorative objects, and figurines. Fine pottery can even imitate stone, for vessels and jewelry. Mesopotamia played an important role in the development of ceramic technology. Baked clay hearths and figurines are known by the late Paleolithic period. Pottery was independently invented in many places, the earliest in East Asia around 18,000–14,000 BCE. By 7000 BCE roughly shaped, sturdy clay pots were being made in West Asia. Early Mesopotamian pottery was handmade by various techniques: using fingers to hollow a ball of clay; assembling pots from slabs of clay; or, most commonly, building them up from clay coils or rings. Pottery could be fired in clamps (bonfire kilns), a technique still used, but by 6000 BCE updraft kilns were also employed: pots were stacked on a perforated floor above a fuel pit, surrounded by a cylindrical clay chamber, roofed with large sherds that were removed after firing was completed. The tournette (“slow-wheel”) was invented in mid-fifth-millennium southern Mesopotamia: a flat disc balanced on a spindle set into the ground, which was turned by hand, speeding up the shaping and decorating of pots. In the fourth millennium (Uruk period) the true potter’s wheel appeared, also in southern Mesopotamia: this had a lower fly-wheel, set in motion with a stick or propelled with the foot, attached to an upper wheel on which the clay was thrown. This device vastly increased the speed of pottery manufacture and facilitated the mass-production of uniform wares since it allowed the potter to use both hands and centrifugal force to draw up and shape the rotating clay. Though households probably continued to make everyday wares, pottery production now developed into a specialized and organized industry, with workshops employing assistants to prepare the clay in addition to the potter. Potting clays were readily available as river sediments throughout Mesopotamia. These needed little preparation for making coarse wares such as storage vessels and cooking pots, but for finer textured pottery they had to be worked well to remove mineral inclusions. The clay was given plasticity by adding fillers (tempers) such as chaff, dung, sand, or ash.

108

Religious Practices

Newly formed vessels might be decorated by incising, impressing, excising, or stamping designs into the surface. Once the pottery had dried to leather hard, it was often covered with a slip (clay wash) that was then burnished, making the vessel relatively watertight. Early pottery was also decorated by painting, but the introduction of wheel-made pottery brought the decline of decoration: these mass-produced wares were of fine quality but often dull and generally plain. Wheel-made pottery was later made throughout Mesopotamia. Various shapes were regularly made for different purposes: texts mention beer jars with an upward-pointing spout; pointed-based milk jars and tripods to support them; jars to store and transport oil; vats for serving wine; and honey containers. Cups, bowls, dishes, goblets, pedestalled vessels, fenestrated stands, jars, and vases are among the shapes known from excavated sites; sealed jars were used for storing tablet archives. Clay was also used to make human and animal figurines; spindle whorls; beads; slingshot; molds for casting metal objects; and architectural materials, including cones for decorating walls, and bricks. Pottery making has continued to see further technological advances over the millennia, both in West Asia and further afield. Ceramics today have become materials of vital importance in many fields, used not only for familiar domestic crockery but also for a range of industrial and technical purposes, for example as thermal insulators. See also: Architecture; Domestic Economy; Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization; Industry; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Urban Life; Visual Arts Further Reading Armstrong, James A. 1997. “Mesopotamian Ceramics of the Neolithic through NeoBabylonian Periods.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vol. 1, edited by Eric M. Meyers, 453–59. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Matson, Frederick R. 2000. “Potters and Pottery in the Ancient Near East.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1553–65. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Moorey, P. R. S. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Nissen, Hans J. 1990. The Early History of the Ancient Near East. 9000–2000 B.C. Translated by Elizabeth Lutzeier, with Kenneth J. Northcott. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

RELIGIOUS PRACTICES  Religious beliefs down the ages have sprung from people’s need to understand and explain the world about them, while religious practices reflect their attempts to gain some control over both its

Religious Practices

109

unpredictability, dangers, and problems, and their own destiny. Religion also meets a spiritual need in the human psyche. The Mesopotamians’ relationship to their gods was essentially that of servant to master: people were created to perform tasks for the gods; in return the gods were expected to look after their interests and treat them justly, but might cause individuals to suffer, for impenetrable divine reasons or to punish conscious or unwitting misdeeds. Discoveries at Eridu, among the southern marshes, traditionally considered Mesopotamia’s first settlement when the world was created, shed light on early Mesopotamian religious practices. A shrine to the benevolent god Enki, god of the waters, was established here around 5000 BCE and remained in worship for some 2,000 years. Numerous fish bones found on the floor were presumably offerings or left from ritual meals. During the Uruk period, temples became not only places of worship but also the seat of government and administration for the nascent urban society. In Eanna at Uruk, the best known fourth-millennium sacred precinct, public events such as festivals and religious ceremonies were probably held in both the temples and the public spaces between them. By the ED (Early Dynastic) period the developing city-states each had a patron deity, who ensured the city’s prosperity in return for its citizens’ service. The special association between gods and individual cities continued throughout Mesopotamian history. Deities also had roles that gave them a wider appeal: for example, Gula, Isin’s patron deity, was also goddess of healing. Prayer enabled individuals to communicate with the gods. Figurines from temples show worshippers in reverent pose, hands clasped or bearing offerings. The king approached the city god in the main temple on appropriate occasions, while smaller neighborhood shrines served ordinary people. Houses frequently had a shrine to the family’s personal deity, through whom they could approach the city god. Temple precincts housed the principal deity’s temple, smaller temples for his or her family, and associated buildings. The temple was the home of the deity, manifest within a divine image. Commissioning an image, from precious materials, was a pious royal duty, and its installation a major event. Loss of the divine image, and therefore of the god’s presence, was a catastrophe; in war or other danger, therefore, the images were removed to a place of safety. The god, through his image, was bathed, richly clothed, fed fine food twice daily, and generally served royally. Some of the huge quantities of food offerings entering the temple were prepared for the god, while the rest fed temple staff. The temple establishment combined ritual activities with managing the god’s household and estate. The principal priests, other ritual specialists,

110

Religious Practices

administrative and ancillary staff, and artisans were permanent employees, headed by the chief priest whose role was both administrative and religious. Cultic personnel included snake charmers, acrobats, and musicians, diviners, exorcists, and lamentation priests, the latter homosexuals, transvestites, or eunuchs. Some ritual offices were held by citizens as occasional, paid duties. Hymns praising the gods and dramas glorifying their achievements were performed to make them happy to remain in their city. Music was important in many rituals: temples maintained a choir and an orchestra of harps, lyres, wind instruments, tambourines, and drums. In spring, the twelve-day Akitu, the most important festival, inaugurated the New Year in Babylon. During the festival the king answered to the city’s god, Marduk, for his year’s care of Babylonia and was reaffirmed in office. Later came a great procession carrying the gods’ images in palanquins along the magnificent Processional Way from Marduk’s temple out to the Akitu temple, where Marduk’s creation of the world was commemorated and perhaps reenacted. New Year festivals, involving different deities, were performed from early times in many cities; little is known about them, though the king’s reinvestiture was probably central. Early rural festivals, which people traveled far to attend, would have included processions, music, dancing, and feasting. Other celebrations were held for individual deities and for phases of the moon. Gods’ images attended festivals and other important religious events such as temple consecrations. A god’s emblem was often transported locally to witness oaths or supply divine authority when required. Ill health and other ill fortune were attributed to demons sent by the gods to punish people for their sins. With divine approval, these could be driven away by an exorcist (ashipu), using rituals, magic, and incantations. A temple staff member, the exorcist also enacted prophylactic and purification rituals for the temple and king. He might consult a baru (diviner) to discover the cause of afflictions. Attached to a temple, the palace, or the army, the diviner was an important ritual practitioner who took omens for the future. The gods planned everything that occurred in the world, and their intentions could be divined from signs they gave. Seers recorded divine omens and associated events by the third millennium BCE, scientifically compiled into many handbooks by the second. Kings might experience dreams containing divine commands or warnings, interpreted by specialists, often women. Predicting the future from unsolicited omens was common practice across West Asia, but in Mesopotamia actively seeking guidance by divination was preferred. Divination, a practice attested from the third millennium onward, utilized the belief that the gods would “write” answers to questions using the medium chosen by the diviner, most commonly the entrails, and particularly the liver, of sacrificial animals (generally lambs). The sacrificial animal was probably

Seals

111

given in payment; a cheaper method used the patterns made by oil poured on water. At the opposite extreme, for issues of national importance, omens were sought in the movement of the heavens. Oracular omens were taken to discover if a proposed action had the gods’ approval and would therefore succeed. If not, it could be abandoned or postponed; appeasing the gods by rituals, prayer, and sacrifice might secure a more propitious future outcome. Private individuals only rarely consulted a diviner, mainly on health matters. The king, however, responsible for the welfare of the state, received or sought omens regularly. The principle of divination was completely accepted, though individual diviners’ competence or reliability might be questioned. Mesopotamian religious practices had a significant impact on later societies in the region. Many magical and ritual practices were widely adopted. Interpretative omen and divination collections were respected and assiduously copied in many neighboring lands, eventually reaching Europe. Babylonian astrologers, diviners, and scholars were highly regarded in the Classical world. See also: Astronomy and the Calendar; Babylon and Babylonia; Cosmology; Death; Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization; Kingship; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Medicine; Temple Rule; Temples; Uruk and Sumer Further Reading Black, Jeremy, and Anthony Green. 1992. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. An Illustrated Dictionary. London: British Museum. Bottéro, Jean. 2001. Religion in Ancient Mesopotamia. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. Hallo, William W. 2000. “Lamentations and Prayers in Sumer and Akkad.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1871–82. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Maul, Stefan M. 2009. “Divination Culture and the Handling of the Future.” In The Babylonian World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick, 361–72. Oxford: Routledge. Wiggermann, F. A. M. 2000. “Theologies, Priests, and Worship in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1857– 70. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

SEALS  Seals are small objects with a distinctive design, sometimes including an inscription, intended to make an impression in a soft material such as clay or wax, that would then harden into a permanent sealing. They have been used by many cultures through history, generally to indicate ownership for security and authentication, and were important in ancient Mesopotamia. Stamp seals were used in West Asia to mark property from the late seventh millennium BCE. In the late fifth millennium stamp seals bearing geometric

112

Seals

or figurative designs were used by officials for administrative control, to impress sealings on containers or packages, indicating institutional ownership and preventing tampering, and on storeroom door fastenings, effectively locking them. Around 3600 BCE stamp seals gave way to cylinder seals, better suited for use on administrative clay balls enclosing tokens and on the tablets that succeeded them: rolled across a wet clay cylinder seals produced an impression that could cover any surface area with no loss of clarity. Appearing first at Uruk and Susa, most represented officials or institutions. Personal names appeared on seals from the ED (Early Dynastic) II period, in part reflecting the shift from temple authority to rule by kings. By Akkadian times seals were also used to authorize transactions and “sign” (witness) legal documents. Cylinder seals often bore complex designs, including small scenes featuring animals or people and gods. A written inscription, if present, gave the owner’s name and other information such as occupation, parentage, the deity or master he or she served, and the current ruler; and from the second millennium a prayer. Seal ownership varied: during the late third and early second millennia it was common, with even slaves owning seals. Seals were generally made of stone, brightly colored and exotic varieties being particularly favored. Faience was also used and occasionally other materials such as glass and metal, and probably wood and other less durable media. Seal cutting was a specialist craft. Designs were usually carved or drilled into the surface; from the second millennium bow-driven horizontally operated cutting wheels and drills greatly facilitated the cutting of hard stone. While the form of seals and methods of sealing have changed, their concept and purposes have continued down the ages: to provide a means of personal or official identification that can be impressed on documents to authenticate and guarantee them, and to protect goods and places from unauthorized personnel by means of an impressed sealing, which has to be broken to give access. See also: Administration; Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization; International Trade; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Uruk and Sumer; Visual Arts; Writing; Document: “Mari Letters” Further Reading Collon, Dominique. 1990. Near Eastern Seals. London: British Museum. Collon, Dominique. 2005. First Impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. Rev. ed. London: British Museum. Pittman, Holly. 2000. “Cylinder Seals and Scarabs in the Ancient Near East.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1589–605. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

Slavery

113

Rothman, Mitchell S., ed. 2001. Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press/Oxford: James Currey Woods, Christopher, ed. 2011. Visible Language. Chicago: Oriental Institute. https:// oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/oimp32.pdf. Last accessed October 16, 2016.

SLAVERY  Slavery implies the loss of personal liberty and self-determination, reducing the individual to the status of a chattel owned by another individual or an institution. In societies, such as those of ancient Mesopotamia, where slavery was a recognized part of social organization (unlike its covert and unregulated place in our modern society), slaves often had rights that could be enforced, making their situation marginally less grim. Slavery probably existed by the later fourth millennium BCE. Initially slaves were war captives, generally female, and were state property, employed in the temples or palaces. Later their ownership widened; by Old Babylonian (OB) times slaves of either sex were becoming economically more important, and there was a flourishing trade in captives of war or raids on mountain and desert tribes. Male prisoners might be blinded to make them manageable. Slaves were expensive, 20 to 90 shekels of silver at OB rates, compared with around 10 shekels a year to hire a laborer; but they were an investment, potentially reproducing as well as working: many domestic or institutional slaves were the children of slaves. Free-born Mesopotamians might also become slaves, sometimes as a punishment for crime. More commonly, many people were driven into slavery by misfortune. In extreme hardship, a man could sell himself or family members to the temple or palace to prevent them from starving. High interest rates on loans often meant that individuals who suffered successive bad harvests or persistent ill fortune spiraled into debt. A man could bind himself or a family member as slave to his creditor for a period of time—fixed at three years in Hammurabi’s law code. Kings occasionally canceled such debts, releasing debt-slaves. Personal details of state-owned slaves, including their origin, were carefully recorded. Slaves were clearly identified by a special feature of their forehead hair: severe penalties were imposed on those who removed this or in any other way helped a slave to escape. Slaves themselves, however, were not punished for trying to escape, though persistent runaways might be chained. By the first millennium BCE it had become common to mark slaves with a more permanent brand. Households usually kept only a few slaves, who were often valued and treated well, though their conditions varied, and they had no legal protection against harsh treatment. Slave families could be split up and sold separately, though letters show that selling a long-serving slave was frowned

114

Slavery

on, and slaves themselves could appeal against this, as one did in a letter to Mari’s king. A slave girl who bore her master children could not be sold; she and they became free upon his death. If he adopted these children, they shared his inheritance with his free-born heirs. Some individuals manumitted their slaves in their will; the children of a freed slave also became free. Most household slaves undertook domestic duties, but those with a particular skill might work as artisans for their owners or be hired out. Some first-millennium slaves were apprenticed to learn a useful trade or skill. Craft workshops might keep slaves to undertake the menial tasks, such as preparing clay, or stoking furnaces and kilns. Some texts mention literate slaves, including women. In the third millennium most temple and state work was undertaken by free citizens, but later an increasing number of slaves worked with or instead of free individuals on public works, in state factories, and on large royal, temple, or private estates. Many slaves were dedicated to the temple as offerings, and some were transferred to the state in tax payment. Slaves and free employees received the same rations of basic food, with extras on feast days, and textiles or wool for clothing. In some cities or at some times, slaves operated similarly to free individuals, earning an income by working, owning and renting out houses, land, animals, and even their own slaves, and becoming involved in business ventures. However, they had to pay their owner regularly and could not buy their freedom; indeed they could still be sold by their owner. Temple slaves could attain senior administrative positions but likewise remained slaves. We think of slavery as a practice of the ancient world, outlawed in modern times. But as we are daily made horrifyingly aware, it is still very much in existence throughout the modern world. Being illegal, it is superficially invisible and uncontrolled, many de facto slaves being trapped by legal or economic circumstances (such as illegal immigrant status) that threaten them more than their captors. Many slaves in the ancient world enjoyed far greater rights and liberties than such modern slaves. See also: Domestic Economy; Family; Finance; Law; Social Organization; Document: “Hammurabi’s Law Code”; Document: “Mari Letters” Further Reading Greengus, Samuel. 2000. “Legal and Social Institutions of Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 469–84. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Leick, Gwendolyn, ed. 2009. The Babylonian World. Oxford: Routledge. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge.

Social Organization

115

Robertson, John F. 2005. “Social Tensions in the Ancient Near East.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 212–26. Oxford: Blackwell.

SOCIAL ORGANIZATION  Fundamental to the way society operates is how it is organized socially, in terms of the rights, responsibilities, and relative status of groups within it, identified by age, gender, class, occupation, wealth, ethnicity, or other distinguishing features. Textual and archaeological evidence reveals much about the organization of Mesopotamian society. Mythology hints that early Mesopotamian society might have been run by village assemblies in which men and women had equal status. During the fourth millennium BCE towns emerged in parts of West Asia, dominated by managerial authorities. In southern Mesopotamia where this trend is most marked, authority and power were focused on the temple, which controlled growing estates and large quantities of offerings, employing many people. The first written records included lists of occupations reflecting the emergent social hierarchy. Documented titles and artistic representations indicate the existence of both priests and kings, the latter perhaps elected by the citizen assembly. In the earlier third millennium BCE both temple and secular (palace) authority flourished, with palace rule becoming dominant. Burials reveal growing differences in wealth within society. Third-millennium texts reveal the social divisions of the time. At the bottom were slaves: prisoners of war, alongside debt-slaves who could eventually regain their freedom. Also classed with these were people lacking the social safety net of family, including paupers, widows, and orphans. These received rations year-round and worked as state or temple service personnel and laborers, for example, grinding grain, digging canals, and weaving textiles. Above them were semi-free ordinary people. They owed corvée labor to the state, for which they were paid in rations, working as laborers on institutional estates, as artisans, as irregular troops, or in many other capacities. Some may have farmed subsistence plots of state or temple land as sharecroppers or tenants. In later times they were known as mushkennum. Their political rights were probably relatively restricted although they could speak in the citizens’ assembly. The rest of society was free, and occupationally diverse, including temple and palace officials, skilled artisans, merchants, and priests, ranging widely in wealth and status. Many owned land and livestock or belonged to propertyowning extended families. They might also hold temple offices (prebends) for which they received rations and land grants; and they might be granted state land in return for military and other state service (later known as ilkum). Second and first millennium documents show that these social divisions remained broadly the same, although the activities and conditions of each class changed to some extent through time, particularly with the growing

116

Taxation

importance of the private sector. In these later texts the upper class were known as awilum (“man”), a term that denoted citizens who owned property, and the land that they received for discharging ilkum and prebendary duties had come to be regarded as their hereditary property. Much of the actual work on their land and in both the public and private spheres was performed by mushkennum, either for wages or as tenants. Hammurabi’s “law code” makes distinctions between the three tiers of society, for example, in the amount of compensation payable for injury, highest to an awilum and lowest for slaves. Societies may originally have been egalitarian, but already by the third millennium BCE Mesopotamia had evolved a social hierarchy, comprising an elite, substantial numbers of laboring citizens, and the destitute and economically enslaved, that has been mirrored in many societies up to the present day. See also: Domestic Economy; Industry; Land Tenure; Law; Slavery; Textiles Document: “Hammurabi’s Law Code” Further Reading Greengus, Samuel. 2000. “Legal and Social Institutions of Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 469–84. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Leick, Gwendolyn, ed. 2009. The Babylonian World. Oxford: Routledge. Pollack, Susan. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. Snell, Daniel, ed. 2005. A Companion to the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Blackwell.

TAXATION  Taxation is the system by which a state supports nonprimary producers, public works, and state activities through levies from its citizens, whether of money, produce, goods, or labor. Its use can be traced back into early times in Mesopotamia. During the fourth millennium BCE, temples in southern Mesopotamia were the religious, economic, and political focus of growing communities, owning large estates and flocks and employing craftsmen and traders, as well as administrators to organize and supervise community activities and works. The growing temple establishment was supported by offerings of agricultural produce: tokens enclosed in envelopes or strung on strings may record their payment. The earliest written texts, around 3200 BCE, record the authorities’ receipt and disbursement of various commodities, such as grain. A latefourth-millennium alabaster jar (the “Warka vase”) from Uruk vividly depicts

Taxation

117

people in procession bearing baskets and jars of grain and fruit to their deity. Such offerings, along with the produce of its large estates, were used by the temple to support its dependent workers and pay rations to community members undertaking corvée labor. Later, during the earlier third millennium BCE, the balance of power shifted from the temple to the palace (rule by kings). As the king had an important sacred role, he was able to a greater or lesser extent to control temple offerings, which continued as a major source of state revenue. Under Shulgi (2094–2047 BCE), the provinces of the Ur III Empire contributed enormous quantities of grain, other produce, and manufactured goods—these offerings were in effect taxes. Regions of the empire beyond Sumer and Akkad were ruled by military governors who were granted crown land, from which they paid taxes mainly in livestock. Taxes were centrally accumulated at major depots from where they were distributed to maintain officials, members of the royal household, and the personnel of major temples and state industries, and sent to the capital, Ur. The authorities also exacted taxes in the form of corvée labor, people being called up to work, for example, on construction and canal maintenance projects, or as irregular troops, being paid in daily rations. ED (Early Dynastic) IIIA texts from Shuruppak, around 2500 BCE, show that collaboration between city-states enabled huge numbers of men to be brought together from different city-states to undertake major public enterprises. The Shuruppak archive also for the first time lists the profession of tax collector. In the second millennium with the growth of a private sector, the range of taxes diversified, including import and export duties on goods traded outside the state, and business taxes in silver from professionals such as scribes and tavern keepers. Agricultural taxes were assessed on the basis of potential yields from the taxpayer’s land, and in a bad year the actual crop might fall short, creating problems that might see the farmer spiraling into debt and depen­ dency. One early second-millennium king boasted of lowering the barley tax from one-fifth to one-tenth. Under the Kassites later in the millennium, rural taxes included agricultural produce and animals but also vehicles and donkeys for transport, pasture for the cattle of provincial bureaucrats, fodder for military animals, and billets for military personnel. Increasingly through time, taxes might be collected in silver rather than produce, and by the midfirst millennium BCE there were the beginnings of a monetary economy, which developed further after the Persian conquest of Babylon. Where there are taxes there is also tax evasion: as early as the twenty-fourth century BCE, the reform decree of King Uru-inim-gina of Lagash mentions bribes that officials received to ignore substitutions and other tax avoidance practices; and the Old Assyrian merchant texts from Kanesh talk frankly

118

Temple Rule

about the “smugglers’ path” that they used to bypass places where they would be taxed on the goods they were transporting. Taxation may have its roots in voluntary religious offerings of produce and labor in ancient Mesopotamia and elsewhere; but the exacting of compulsory, assessed, and enforceable levies on income and in labor can be traced in rec­ ords from the early days of writing, and taxation has remained a feature of most societies since. See also: Administration; Currency; Domestic Economy; Metrology; Palace Rule; Temple Rule; Document: “Kanesh Letters”; Document: “Uru-inim-gina” Further Reading Pollack, Susan. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. Selz, Gebhard J. 2009. “Power, Economy and Social Organisation in Babylonia.” In The Babylonian World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick, 276–87. Oxford: Routledge. Van de Mieroop, Marc. 2004. A History of the Ancient Near East. ca. 3000–323 BC. Oxford: Blackwell. Warburton, David A. 2005. “Working.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by D. Snell, 185–98. Oxford: Blackwell.

TEMPLE RULE  Power and authority of various forms are often vested in those who stand between the gods and humanity, and in many early societies, such as that of ancient Mesopotamia, rule by religious authorities seems to have developed before that of secular rulers. Households in early farming communities were largely self-sufficient, their social relations managed by kinship structures. Where communities produced more food than was needed for subsistence, they grew larger and more complex, requiring new mechanisms to manage social interactions, giving rise eventually to a ruling class. They might also undertake ambitious communal projects, such as building monuments, and some community members could engage part time or full time in other activities, such as specialist craft production. In southern Mesopotamia where irrigation agriculture and marsh resources produced abundant food, population growth was particularly high, but an unpredictable environment, in which disastrous floods, droughts, and river-course changes could occur, made people anxious to placate the gods on whose whim their well-being depended, by building temples and making offerings. By the fifth millennium BCE in southern Mesopotamia the temple was emerging as the focus of the community’s social and economic life; a shrine at

Temple Rule

119

Eridu, for example, was repeatedly rebuilt, increasing in size and elaboration, its mudbrick solidity contrasting with the reed houses of its patrons, who probably came from a wide surrounding area. The temples’ role increased during the fourth millennium BCE. Most evidence comes from Uruk, emerging by the late fourth millennium as the world’s first city. Large numbers of cylinder seals and accounting tokens found in Uruk’s Eanna precinct, the religious heart of the city, attest the growing managerial activities of the temple authorities. When writing developed, from 3200 BCE, these become clearer: early tablets recorded quantities of produce such as barley, sheep, textiles, and oil, received as offerings or the yields of temple lands or industries, and issued for temple events such as festivals, for processing into other commodities, such as beer, or as rations to people working for the temple authorities, either as dependent workers or as corvée labor on temple projects; tablets might also give other information, such as the names or titles of supervising officials and the relevant accounting period. Such evidence demonstrates that temple leaders (chief priests) enjoyed a powerful managerial role in the towns and emerging cities of southern Mesopotamia, commanding a portion of the citizens’ labor and produce as offerings, making them in effect the rulers of the developing states. The magnificent buildings of Uruk’s Eanna precinct and frequent remodeling of its layout reflect the scale of labor available to the temple. Some of the urban population were partially or fully dependent upon the temple, cultivating temple land, herding temple animals, or working as laborers and artisans producing processed goods, textiles, pottery, or metalwork, as is shown in the designs on temple officials’ seals. Some of these goods were used in the temple, to glorify the gods and supply those that served them; others, including oil and textiles, were probably exported to obtain raw materials such as timber, metals, and fine stone from far afield. By the third millennium (Early Dynastic [ED] period), each city identified itself as the estate of its tutelary deity, upon whose presence and favor the city’s prosperity depended. By donating their labor and making offerings, citizens demonstrated that they were participating members of the community, actively maintaining the city’s god. The temple authorities controlled substantial estates, for example around 10 percent of Girsu’s lands in ED times, and exercised considerable power. However, during this period the secular royal establishment (the “Palace”) came to control as much or more land than the temple within the city-states; increasingly the management of community affairs, such as raising troops and deploying labor for public works, passed to kings, acting in the city god’s name, as intermediary between god and citizens. Some, like Uru-inim-gina of Lagash (despite his protestations to the contrary), increased royal power by appointing members of the

120

Temple Rule

royal family to key temple positions. Later, the Akkadian kings brought the temples more firmly under royal authority, reducing temple estates and filling temple posts with their own appointees. Subsequent empires and kingdoms also found ways to turn temple income into state revenue. Temples were located within a precinct, often walled, usually in the city’s center. This was the organizational hub of the huge temple establishment, including storerooms for the temple’s industrial products and agricultural produce; offices and administrative archives; accommodation for senior temple staff; sometimes textile and other workshops; kitchens for preparing the god’s food; rooms for ritual activities; and sometimes a crypt. Elsewhere in the city, the temple owned workshops, houses for temple staff, and other lands and buildings, and might also have large industrial complexes and granaries in the countryside. The temple needed substantial resources to feed and clothe the god’s image and support his or her attendants. Food and other offerings came both from the community as obligations and from individuals as thank-offerings when divine help was sought or provided. Many of the everyday objects and materials were issued to the temple staff; gifts of valuables, such as metal vessels, fine robes, or precious jewelry, were used to serve the god’s image, and the substantial surplus stored in temple treasuries. From their estates, temples drew huge revenues in grain and other produce, including wool that temple weavers made into textiles for local use or export by temple merchants; they also made loans, at usual interest rates. Temples commanded enormous manpower, including citizens performing corvée labor: in ED Girsu around 35,000 people, a third of the city’s population, worked for its temples. Some free citizens farmed temple land as sharecroppers. Temples maintained many dependent workers: cripples, orphans, and other unfortunates; debt-slaves; pauper children dedicated as neophytes; war captives donated by kings. The temple establishment was headed by the sanga, both chief priest, responsible for cultic activities, and chief administrator, running the god’s household and estates. Under him were a number of permanent employees, ritual specialists (including both priests and others such as snake charmers), administrative staff (from managers and scribes down to servants and slaves), artisans, and others such as cooks who prepared the gods’ food. Many tasks that did not require specialist skills, such as sweeping the temple courtyard, were performed by citizens who in return received rations, wages, or the use of temple land. These “prebends” were a jealously guarded and heritable privilege. While the authority over society that was originally enjoyed by the temple came increasingly into the hands of secular rulers from an early date, the economic power of the temple remained strong, as did its moral and spiritual authority, something that has remained true of many later states.

Temples

121

See also: Domestic Economy; Early Dynastic City-States; Industry; Land Tenure; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Religious Practices; Taxation; Temples; Ur and the Marshes; Uruk and Sumer; Document: “Uru-inim-gina” Further Reading Leick, Gwendolyn, ed. 2009. The Babylonian World. Oxford: Routledge. Nissen, Hans J. 1990. The Early History of the Ancient Near East. 9000–2000 B.C. Translated by Elizabeth Lutzeier, with Kenneth J. Northcott. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Pollack, Susan. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. Robertson, John. 2000. “The Social and Economic Organization of Ancient Mesopotamian Temples.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 443–54. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

TEMPLES  Temples in ancient Mesopotamia were both places to worship the deity and in a practical sense his or her home, so they incorporated both shrines and ancillary buildings to house staff, provide storage facilities, and accommodate other domestic functions. Some early shrines were elevated on platforms, giving rise by the later third millennium to the distinctive Mesopotamian architectural form of the ziggurat (temple pyramid). The location, form, and contents of a few early southern Mesopotamian buildings suggest they served a ritual purpose; some, for example at Eridu, were repeatedly rebuilt, enlarged, and embellished over many centuries. Eridu’s earliest shrine, built in the fifth millennium, was a single room, raised on a platform, with an altar in a niche opposite the entrance and an offering table before it. Later it developed a tripartite plan of central nave and side chambers: this became the standard design for Mesopotamian temples. In the Uruk period, temples were often strikingly decorated with mosaic patterns created by embedding baked clay cones with painted heads in the wall plaster; in one exceptional example at Uruk, the cones were of white alabaster and red and black limestone. Shrines’ plastered internal walls might be painted: a rare surviving example from Uqair depicts people and animals. Early brick-built temples were strengthened with buttresses, echoed in the interior by recesses; these soon became a decorative feature too. Uruk’s sacred buildings provide the best evidence of fourth-millennium temple architecture. Kullaba, the sky god An’s precinct, was focused on a single tripartite shrine, built on a slight platform, repeatedly enlarged; the final version, the White Temple, around 3100 BCE, was raised on a 40-foot-high platform. Eanna, the goddess Inanna’s precinct, in contrast, housed a complex of diverse buildings, including tripartite shrines but also square structures,

122

Temples

courtyards, and semi-subterranean buildings. Public buildings were usually of brick, but Eanna’s structures also used limestone, rammed earth, bitumen, and concrete made of gypsum and crushed baked brick. The tripartite temple plan continued in the ED (Early Dynastic) period as a large hall flanked by side chambers, with a cella (sanctum) at the far end; often its entrance was through a monumental gateway with towers. A courtyard flanked by rooms might replace the hall, and the cella might be raised, with steps giving access to its interior. Massive timbers were imported to roof the temples and valuable materials such as copper, gold, silver, and carnelian to embellish them. Temple platforms date back to Ubaid times. Their height increased with each rebuilding, incorporating earlier structures rather than replacing them. They reached their grandest form, from Ur III times onwards, as ziggurats— pyramids that dominated the sacred precinct of many cities. Ziggurats were constructed of solid layers of sun-dried brick, separated at every seventh course by a layer of reed matting and at intervals by layers of bitumen, to protect against rising damp. A thick facing of baked bricks set in bitumen protected the buttressed exterior. The Ur III king Ur-Nammu (2112–2095 BCE) built ziggurats at Ur, dedicated to the city’s patron deity, the moon god Nanna (Sin), and at Uruk, Nippur, and Eridu. They had three staged tiers, slightly sloping inward, their corners orientated to the compass points, with a platform at each stage, accessed by a triple stair on one side; some later examples were approached via a spiral ramp. The platform on the summit probably bore a shrine. The most famous ziggurat, Babylon’s Etemenanki (the “Tower of Babel”), dedicated to Marduk, was repeatedly rebuilt and embellished, eventually reaching seven tiers. Though the “Tower of Babel” has not survived, the ziggurat of Ur is well preserved and was partially restored by Saddam Hussein; lying in a zone that is militarily secure, it has fortunately escaped the massive plundering and destruction suffered by many Mesopotamian sites and structures in recent years. See also: Architecture; Babylon and Babylonia; Early Dynastic City-States; Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization; International Trade; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Religious Practices; Temple Rule; Ur and the Marshes; Uruk and Sumer; Visual Arts; Document: “Gudea” Further Reading Crawford, Harriet. 2009. “Architecture in the Old Babylonian Period.” In The Babylonian World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick, 81–94. Oxford: Routledge. Crawford, Harriet. 2015. Ur. The City of the Moon God. London: Bloomsbury. Dunholm, Sally. 2005. “Ancient Near Eastern Architecture.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 289–303. Oxford: Blackwell.

Textiles

123

Frankfort, Henri. 1996. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. 5th ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press Woolley, Leonard. 1982. Ur ‘of the Chaldees’. The Final Account, Excavations at Ur. Revised and updated by P. R. S. Moorey. London: Book Club Associates/Herbert Press.

TEXTILES  Cloth, basketry, nets, matting, rope, and other textiles are made by twining, looping, weaving, or other techniques from fibers that have been converted into thread or cord. Generally made from perishable materials, ancient textiles are rarely preserved; archaeology, art, and written sources, however, provide considerable information about Mesopotamian textiles. Tiny clues show that plant-fiber cord, and even cloth, was made in the late Paleolithic period. Leather, goat’s hair, and linen textiles were made in early West Asia and elsewhere; spinning and weaving flourished. Once selective breeding produced woolly sheep, by the fourth millennium BCE, wool became the main fiber used for making Mesopotamian textiles and the basis of a major industry. Linen, expensive to produce, became a luxury fabric, worn by kings, priests, and gods’ statues. Leather from the hides of domestic animals was still used for making bags and sacks; heavy garments such as cloaks and shoes; armor; parts of furniture and other objects; and harness straps. Textiles of various qualities were made into soft furnishings such as rugs, covers, and cushions; horse cloths; tents; bags and containers; and sails. Linings for objects and seat and table coverings were made from woolen felt. Reeds and palm leaves were made into baskets and mats, and palm fibers into rope. Baskets might be made watertight with bitumen. Probably invented in the Caspian region, carpets were made on Mesopotamia’s western fringes by the early second millennium. Textiles or elaborately patterned carpets, some with tasseled edges, might be hung on walls and laid on floors. After cleaning and combing, wool was spun and woven, generally women’s work. Weaving was on a horizontal loom: two beams held in place by four posts set in the ground, with the warp threads stretched between them. In the second millennium, Mesopotamia probably adopted the two-beam vertical loom from Syria, along with the technique of tapestry weaving for which it was designed. Wool’s natural colors included reddish-brown, white, yellow, brown, and black. Wool (particularly white wool) also takes up dyes much better than plant fibers. Dye colors available to Mesopotamians included red from the kermes beetle, or lichen fixed with an alum mordant; blue from indigo or woad; and yellow from saffron, pomegranate rind, or turmeric fixed with soda. There was also the extremely expensive and prestigious “sea-purple,” the dye extracted from marine mollusks as a monopoly by Canaanite (and later Phoenician) cities by the mid-second millennium BCE: this yielded colors ranging from red through purple to blue.

124

Textiles

Much of the cloth produced was for clothing: workers were issued annual rations of woven cloth or wool from which to make their own. Fabrics and clothing provided a vehicle for the display of social status and wealth, by fineness of material and thread, skill of manufacture and decoration, cloth color and pattern, and garment style. A letter from King ZimriLim of Mari giving exact and detailed specifications for the decoration of a garment illustrates the importance attached to dress and the significance it could carry. Fringes, embroidery, and appliques of leather, gold, or other materials were among the decorations used, in addition to woven patterns. Fine textiles were traded and used as diplomatic gifts. Textile manufacture was a major industry, both for domestic consumption and for export. For example, textiles of various grades, along with tin, were traded by the nineteenth-century Assyrian merchants known from the Kanesh archive: some that the merchants made themselves and others that they bought from Babylonia, whose products enjoyed an international reputation. Textile production was often undertaken in large establishments, particularly in the Ur III period when textile factories employed thousands. Leatherworking was also a specialist activity. However, households made their own reed baskets and mats, and often spun wool and wove textiles too. Ancient Mesopotamia was the first society to develop textile production as a state industry and economic mainstay, something that has been repeated in many later societies. Later times saw the development elsewhere of more complex looms, knitting, and other innovations. See also: Administration; Animal Husbandry and Wild Resources; Domestic Economy; Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization; Industry; International Trade; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Mari and the Middle Euphrates Region; Merchant Houses; Urban Life; Document: “Kanesh Letters” Further Reading Barber, Elizabeth J. W. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Good, Irene. 2009. “Cloth in the Babylonian World.” In The Babylonian World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick, 141–54. Oxford: Routledge. Liverani, Mario. 2006. Uruk. The First City. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. London/Oakville: Equinox. Moorey, P. R. S. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Rothman, Mitchell S., ed. 2001. Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors. Cross-Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press/Oxford: James Currey.

Tribal Society

125

TRIBAL SOCIETY  Tribal societies and groups are often mentioned in Mesopotamian texts. Generally their way of life was pastoral and transhumant, raising flocks of sheep and goats and moving with the seasons to obtain pasture, in a regular pattern. Such seasonal movement by animals to obtain food, accompanied by the people who depended upon them, goes back well into the Paleolithic period, when animals were hunted. Pastoral nomadism as a specialist way of life in West Asia probably began in the fourth millennium BCE, when the development of wool-bearing sheep made the keeping of enormous flocks a viable economic practice. It was well established by the later third millennium BCE, when texts attest the existence of pastoral nomadic tribes. In the early second millennium BCE, many of the kingdoms vying for power across Mesopotamia and the adjacent Levant had Amorite tribal leaders as their rulers, and in later times Aramaean and other tribal leaders similarly controlled some states. Farther west, the domestication of the dromedary opened up the desert interior: in the first millennium BCE Arab tribal groups practiced camel pastoralism across the Syrian and Arabian deserts, also conducting long-distance trade, particularly carrying incense from southwest Arabia. Extensive pasture was available in the fringes of the vast desert west of the Euphrates and in the semidesert steppe east of the Euphrates stretching to the Zagros foothills. These regions were home to many pastoral tribes raising sheep and goats, as well as donkeys for their own use and for sale to citydwellers. The pastoralists moved seasonally, to winter pastures in the steppe or desert fringes, and summer grazing on the stubble and fallow fields of settled areas, leaving fertilizing dung in payment. In the autumn they returned to their own villages, often occupied year-round by their old folk and mothers with small children; here they often planted some crops. Pastoralists also inhabited the mountains of Lebanon and the Zagros and Taurus ranges, grazing their flocks in summer upland pastures and in the foothills in winter. Pastoralists might also act as carriers in trade, and probably exploited wild plants and animals. Feared as raiders, tribesmen were also recruited as soldiers by settled communities from the Akkadian period onwards. Their pay might include grants of land, encouraging them to adopt a settled life. Their descendants became integrated into Mesopotamian society, but also maintained kinship ties with their tribal relations. Among such tribal mercenaries were Kassites, probably from the mountains in the northeast, who gave rise to a dynasty ruling Babylonia in the later second millennium. Settled farmers regarded their tribal neighbors as alien and barbaric, their nomadic lifestyle and abhorrent customs, such as eating raw meat and dwelling in tents, a marked contrast to their own civilized lives. Hostile tribesmen are often mentioned in texts, for example the savage Guti of Akkadian and Ur III times. Warfare

126

Tribal Society

between states and tribal raiders was a major source of slaves, and some tribal groups were noted as slave traders. Frequently, however, farmers and pastoralists cooperated profitably, exchanging grain for animals, wool, and other animal products. Pastoralists were often employed as contract shepherds taking flocks belonging to temples, kings, and wealthy landowners to distant seasonal pastures, away from the limited grazing in settled lands. Unlike settled farmers, who had strong ties to place, identifying themselves with their land and their city, pastoralists had their strongest ties to kinship structures: family, lineage, and tribe. Although they maintained traditional grazing rights over large regions, with boundaries between the grazing grounds of different tribes, they could move when circumstances demanded, whereas the bonds of tribal kinship were the bedrock of identity. Their social structure was strongly paternalistic and hierarchical. A pattern of varying relationships between tribal groups and settled communities continued throughout history, tribesmen raiding settled communities, particularly in times of crisis, but also cooperating with them as traders, herdsmen for their flocks, and the source of valuable animal produce, including manure, in return for grain and other resources; they also provided a pool of military recruits, in the process often settling and becoming integrated into the states whose armies they served. Over the millennia, the interplay between generally settled communities identifying themselves by geographically defined borders (place) and often mobile tribal communities identifying themselves by kinship ties (people) has shaped political realities. Geographically defined states have tended to dominate, but the military advantages of a mobile lifestyle have allowed tribal communities frequently to disturb and on occasion to completely overturn these states, most notably the Mongols through much of Eurasia. National boundaries are more rigidly defined and maintained in the modern world than ever before, to the detriment of communities defined by kinship ties rather than political borders, such as the Kurds. But even within many modern nation-states, the kinship-based structure of tribal society is still important in political, social, and economic life. See also: Administration; Animal Husbandry and Wild Resources; Cosmology; Hammurabi’s Empire; Mari and the Middle Euphrates Region; The ME—Essence of Civilization; Textiles Further Reading Akkermans, Peter M. M. G., and Glenn M. Schwartz. 2003. The Archaeology of Syria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Fleming, D. 2004. Democracy’s Ancient Ancestors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Ur and the Marshes

127

Koppen, F. van. 2009. “Aspects of Society and Economy in the Later Old Babylonian Period.” In The Babylonian World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick, 210–23. Oxford: Routledge. Schwartz, Glenn M. 2000. “Pastoral Nomadism in Ancient Western Asia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 249–58. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Snell, Daniel, ed. 2005. A Companion to the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Blackwell.

UR AND THE MARSHES  The great city of Ur lay on the Euphrates, though the river now runs ten miles from it. Well inland today, in ancient times it was near the coast, ideally placed for sea trade south. Ur was located in the extreme south of Mesopotamia (now in modern Iraq), a region of marshes and waterways between the delta plain and the sea. South of Naziriyah on the Euphrates and Amara on the Tigris the waters of the delta form a huge area of perennial marsh, lakes, and waterways. There is abundant wildlife, including fish, shellfish, turtles, and waterfowl. Reedbeds and rushes cover the area while along the waterways grow date palms. Reeds, palm leaves, and palm fibers are versatile materials, used to make boats, houses, and domestic objects including furniture, as well as for fuel. Bitumen (natural asphalt) was available near Ur, used for many purposes including caulking boats, waterproofing, or as a fuel, decorative inlay, adhesive, or medicinal ingredient. Both the extent and location of this region have altered over the millennia, as changes in sea level and alluviation have pushed the position of the coast farther north or south; the courses of the rivers have changed, altering the location of their deltas; and the volume of water in the rivers has risen and fallen, causing the marshes to expand and contract. By 3000 BCE the coast was 90 miles farther inland than today; later alluviation pushed the coast south to its present shoreline. In early times the marshes were more extensive, providing a rich livelihood for hunter-gatherers. The first (Ubaid) farming villages were established here by 6200 BCE, their inhabitants also exploiting fish, shellfish, and probably date palms. Ur was occupied from the Ubaid period; by 3000 BCE it had a temple surrounded by a massive enclosure wall, precursor to the precinct of the moon god Nanna (Sin), the city’s tutelary deity. The city covered around 125 acres by 2500 BCE; its wealth and power were reflected in sixteen spectacular “royal” graves within a large cemetery adjacent to the sacred precinct, in which the honored dead were laid to rest in vaulted chambers, each in a deep pit with an approach ramp. They were accompanied by guards, grooms, female attendants, and musicians—as many as seventy-three in the “Great Death Pit”—devoted servants who had, it seems, willingly accompanied their

128

Ur and the Marshes

masters and mistresses into the other world. Their magnificent grave goods, displaying extraordinary skill and craftsmanship, included harps decorated with bull’s heads; a sledge drawn by oxen; stone vessels; gold and silver tools, weapons, vessels and exquisite jewelry; and an inlaid gaming board. These were made from attractive, valuable, and generally exotic materials including gold, silver, lapis lazuli, and carnelian, reflecting trading links through the Gulf in which Ur played a major role for centuries. Around 2334 BCE Ur and other Sumerian city-states fell to Sargon, founder of the Akkadian Empire. Sargon appointed members of his family to senior positions; his daughter, Enheduanna, became the entu-priestess, bride of the god Nanna at Ur, a major religious office. A sacred marriage ceremony probably formed part of Ur’s New Year festival, with the king representing Nanna and the entu Nanna’s wife Ningal. Enheduanna wrote several temple hymns; in one she describes the Sumerian city-states’ revolt, under Lugal-ane of Ur, against her nephew, the Akkadian king Naram-Sin. Subsequent rulers also appointed their daughters as entu at Ur, underlining the post’s political and ideological importance. Some decades after the Akkadian Empire fell, Ur-Nammu, governor of Ur, reunited the region, founding the Third Dynasty of Ur (Ur III). As the dynasty’s capital, the city saw massive royal patronage and public building, particularly of sacred architecture. Most surviving remains at Ur belong to this period. The city was roughly oval, about half a mile long, with the sacred precinct in its northeast corner, separately walled. Buildings here included the giparu, the entu’s palatial residence, incorporating shrines, courtyards, kitchens, storerooms, public rooms, and private quarters, and a crypt where priestesses were buried; Ekishnugal, the temple of Nanna; and the temple of Ningal. Dominating the precinct was the great ziggurat built by Ur-Nammu and completed by his son Shulgi, set in its own enclosure. Beyond lay the magnificent royal mausoleum, with vaulted burial chambers beneath mortuary chapels, gold-covered altars, doors decorated with gold leaf, and walls elaborately inlaid with agate, lapis, and gold. A substantial wall surrounded the city, which had canals and two harbors. Outside lay an extensive industrial suburb. After the Ur III Empire fell in 2004 BCE, Ur was never again central to Sumerian life, but remained important as a center of learning and the worship of Nanna/Sin. In the second millennium BCE southern Mesopotamia suffered economic decline and many people migrated north. The discoveries in the Royal Cemetery made Ur famous in the 1920s. The ziggurat’s well-preserved remains were restored by Saddam Hussein in the 1970s, making Ur a major tourist attraction. Today it lies in a relatively stable part of Iraq, so has escaped the looting that has destroyed so much of the country’s archaeological heritage in recent years. In the 1990s Saddam

Urban Life

129

Hussein punished revolt in the Shi’ite south by destroying the marshes. After his defeat in 2003, the area was reflooded: in some parts the marshes are now completely revitalized, though the water now carried by the Euphrates, massively dammed far upstream, is inadequate to restore them fully. Life here is modern in some ways—satellite dishes, electricity, modern markets for the fish that the marsh dwellers catch—but there is much, like the boats and reed houses, that has not changed since ancient days when this was seen as the Garden of Eden. See also: Architecture; Birth of Empire; City-States; Cosmology; Death; Early Dynastic City-States; International Trade; Jewelry; Merchant Houses; Uruk and Sumer; Visual Arts; Document: “Enheduanna”; Document: “Shulgi” Further Reading Crawford, Harriet. 2015. Ur. The City of the Moon God. London: Bloomsbury. Ur Online. http://www.ur-online.org/. Last accessed October 16, 2016. Wilkinson, Tony J. 2003. Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. Woolley, Leonard. 1982. Ur ‘of the Chaldees’. The Final Account, Excavations at Ur. Revised and updated by P. R. S. Moorey. London: Book Club Associates/Herbert Press. Zettler, Richard L., and Lee Horner, ed. 1998. Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

URBAN LIFE  Mesopotamia was essentially an urban land. In southern Mesopotamia cities and towns were so close as to be intervisible. Some cities were huge: at their height, for example, Uruk covered 1,500 acres, Kalhu (Nimrud) 800, and Babylon around 2,500—compared with Athens’s 550 acres at the peak of its power. Though northern Mesopotamia was less urbanized than the south, the notion of the city as the focus of civilized life was central to the Mesopotamian worldview. In Mesopotamian eyes, to be settled was to be civilized—to live in a house, pay proper attention to the gods, bury the dead, eat cooked food, dress in proper clothing, tend fields and orchards and raise animals, and engage in proper sexual activity; but the city also harbored many more features essential to civilization, such as literacy, wisdom and literature, fine craftsmanship, music, exotic traded goods, the institutions and trappings of the well-ordered state and temple, martial might, well-maintained infrastructure, full granaries, and the pleasing order and splendor of a center in whose glory all its citizens shared.

130

Urban Life

Palaces and temples were the political, economic, administrative, and cultural heart of the Mesopotamian city. In first-millennium Assyria these were situated together within a walled citadel, in one corner of the city. More commonly, however, they were separately located: the temple precincts, often walled, at the city’s center, and palaces wherever enough land was available, often on the outskirts. The king and temple officials had access to the city temple, while ordinary citizens were served by small neighborhood shrines. City walls were defensive but also symbolized the city’s power and prestige; their destruction by enemies epitomized the city’s loss of autonomy. They divided city from countryside, although suburbs often developed among gardens and fields outside, dense near the city, dispersed in the land beyond. Outside the walls were the tented encampments of pastoral nomads, which sometimes became permanent settlements; and the karum, the center of trading activity, where merchants from other cities and regions were accommodated. It is unlikely that cities had shops. Merchants, however, made commercial arrangements with customers and suppliers; artisans took commissions and made direct sales from their workshops; and there may have been markets in the open area immediately inside the city gates. This open space was where the garrison was stationed, and it was probably used for meetings of the ward assembly. Cities were divided into administrative wards corresponding to the city gates, each with its own assembly, probably comprising all the ward’s free adult males, perhaps also including women at times. Assemblies issued warnings and convened hearings on local matters such as the unsatisfactory condition of buildings, and dealt with civil law cases, such as divorce and inheritance disputes. The city often contained rivers and canals, parks, private gardens, and even fields and waste ground when the city’s population was low. When it rose, however, dwellings would be crammed close together, houses sometimes subdivided. High thresholds, raised repeatedly as street levels rose, prevented discarded rubbish from being washed into houses by rain. Civic amenities included taverns, generally with female proprietors. These were often also brothels, decorated with erotic pictures and suggestive prayers to Inanna (Ishtar), goddess of love. Prostitution was considered normal and acceptable, as long as it did not undermine marriages. Some craft activities were undertaken in large establishments, such as textile factories, others in artisans’ own small premises. Ur-III texts refer to potteries of fewer than a dozen people with a supervisor, making pots for particular purposes, and larger potteries producing a wider range, including one at Umma that made forty-six different vessel types. Workshops might be scattered throughout the city or concentrated in one part. Industries that produced noxious by-products were often located on the outskirts.

Urban Life

131

Some cities had public or private schools; many professionals kept private libraries with both specialist manuals and literature; and larger libraries were collected in temples and palace. Though few in society were literate or educated, ordinary citizens had some access to their literary heritage through public events such as religious festivals. There was also a wealth of oral literature. Professional entertainers included jugglers, wrestlers, clowns, and acrobats, snake charmers and performing bears, singers, and musicians, who played stringed, wind, and percussion instruments. Children played with knucklebones, dice, board games and pull-along model animals set on boards. Houses occupied much of the city. These generally followed a plan still common in modern West Asia. A central courtyard opened from an entrance passage, offset to prevent street dust reaching the house interior. Scene of most everyday activity in the hot Mesopotamian climate, the courtyard offered fresh air, shade, light, and privacy. Water jars, filled from public wells, stood in one corner. House sizes varied: the smallest had only two rooms, one for storage, the other for everything else, such as cooking, washing, and sleeping. Larger houses, belonging to the wealthy or extended families, had many rooms, including a public room for entertaining guests; a kitchen, with a grindstone, cooking hearth, and bread oven; storerooms; private family rooms; sometimes a bathroom and perhaps a toilet; and sometimes stalls for animals. Some houses, at least in the north, had an upper story. Stairs or a ladder led to the flat roof where people slept in summer, dried clothes and food to store, and undertook many other activities. Houses might include a household shrine, with an altar and sometimes figurines of deities. Family members were often buried under the house floor. The simple wooden furniture might comprise a table, some chairs or stools, and one or two chests to store clothes. The walls might have built-in cupboards and shelves. People used mats, cushions, and rugs, and slept on mattresses; bedframes strung with rope were rare before the later third millennium. Stone had been used for tools from the earliest times; in the stone-poor south, wood or clay were often used instead. Metal tools were a luxury in early times; bronze was becoming more common by the second millennium, but poorer people probably used stone tools until the first millennium when everyday objects of iron were widely used. Pottery, wooden utensils, and basketry had been standard domestic equipment for millennia, particularly in the kitchen for storing, cooking, and serving food. Every household owned woolen textiles, particularly for clothing, which included kilts, tunics, and robes for men, and robes for women, with leather shoes and cloaks. Although there are still many parts of the globe where people live in small rural or mobile communities and have a subsistence way of life, urbanism

132

Uruk and Sumer

dominates the modern world and there are few whose lives are not touched by it in some way. It all began in Mesopotamia. See also: Architecture; Assyria; Babylon and Babylonia; Death; Education; Family; Industry; Law; Mari and the Middle Euphrates Region; The ME— Essence of Civilization; Palace Rule; Pottery; Religious Practices; Temple Rule; Temples; Textiles; Ur and the Marshes; Uruk and Sumer; Document: “The Cursing of Agade”; Document: “The Dialogue of Pessimism”; Document: “Inanna and Enki” Further Reading Collon, Dominique. 2000. “Clothing and Grooming in Ancient Western Asia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 503–15. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Simpson, Elizabeth. 2000. “Furniture in Ancient Western Asia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1647–71. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Stone, Elizabeth. 1997. “Mesopotamian Houses.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vol. 3, edited by Eric M. Meyers, 90–94. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Stone, Elizabeth. 2005. “Mesopotamian Cities and Countryside.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 157–70. Oxford: Blackwell. Van de Mieroop, Marc. 1999. The Ancient Mesopotamian City. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

URUK AND SUMER  Uruk, credited with being the world’s first city, lies beside an old branch of the Euphrates river in the delta plain of southern Mesopotamia in modern Iraq. This region was the cradle of civilization. South of the latitude of modern Baghdad, Mesopotamia’s two rivers, the Tigris and Euphrates, spread out to water wide alluvial plains. The more deeply incised Tigris is relatively stable, but the Euphrates, flowing through progressively flatter terrain, has split into a number of branches, liable to alter their course in years of heavy inundation, particularly in the delta plain, ancient Sumer. The wide river levees provide a fertile and well-drained environment ideally suited for cultivation, with dense thickets along the watercourses, sheltering game. Away from the river channels and backslopes, the land is semidesert. Its scrubby perennial vegetation was more abundant in antiquity. Slight winter and spring rains coat this landscape in fast-growing plants, providing seasonal grazing for domestic flocks, gazelle, and other herbivores, and create seasonal lakes that attract birds. Mud is the region’s main resource, used to make bricks for houses, pottery, and tools; and to grow abundant irrigated crops, as well as date palms for food

Uruk and Sumer

133

and many other purposes. However, many materials required by the people of Sumer, such as stone, metals, substantial timbers, and precious decorative materials, had to be imported. Rivers linked Sumer with the north and east, while sea trade flourished through the Gulf to the south. For much of the critical period between 4000 and 1500 BCE, the coast was much farther north than today. Farming began in the south by 6200 BCE; Uruk was occupied by 4800 BCE. During the fourth millennium, two villages here, centered on shrines that later became Kullaba, precinct of the god An, and Eanna, precinct of the goddess Inanna, coalesced into a single town. Situated on the main branch of the Euphrates, Uruk grew to around 600 acres by the late fourth millennium and was the only large settlement in its region, along with more than a hundred villages. While a number of major towns emerged in southern Mesopotamia during this period, Uruk was the first to attain the size and complexity that qualify it to be called a city. This magnificent site provides the best evidence for the crucial period of transition to city dwelling, literacy, and civilization. Excavations here have focused on the sacred precincts. Throughout the fourth millennium Kullaba saw repeated enlargements of a tripartite shrine on an increasingly elevated platform, features typical of later Mesopotamian temple architecture. The structures of the Eanna precinct, in contrast, were characterized by ebullient experimentation, including both buildings in a variety of forms and courtyards, some decorated with cone mosaics, the location for public events such as meetings, festivals, and religious ceremonies. The buildings must have included shrines, storerooms, workshops, administrative structures, and priestly residences. Cylinder seals, clay tokens, and inscribed tablets chart the beginnings of writing and the development of administrative control. Some seals depict weavers at work, reflecting textile production under official temple control. Others show an authority figure being carried in a boat or leading a procession of people bearing offerings. Towards the end of the period they also portray him armed, confronting bound prisoners. Weapons were also found here. This suggests growing tensions within Sumer. In the population explosion of the early ED (Early Dynastic) period, Uruk grew to around 1,400 acres and may have housed as many as 60,000 people: farmers, herdsmen, artisans, traders, priests, and service personnel. As well as the city, the Uruk region now had some towns and many villages. However, around 2750 BCE, the main flow of the Euphrates shifted to a more easterly branch, causing cities on this branch, including Umma, to grow in importance and Uruk to decline, though it remained a major city. The real-life individual behind Uruk’s legendary king Gilgamesh, hero of the world’s first epic poetry, probably lived around 2600 BCE. He is credited with refurbishing

134

Uruk and Sumer

and extending Uruk’s city walls, traditionally built by the legendary Seven Sages centuries earlier. A brick-built circuit 6 miles long and 13–16 feet thick, with perhaps 900 towers and at least two fortified gateways, surrounded the city, enclosing suburbs, gardens, waste ground where bricks were made, and probably areas of grazing. In late ED III conflicts between states began to result in the creation of more substantial domains. By 2350 BCE Uruk, Ur, and Umma were united. Lugalzagesi, their king from around 2340, claimed to have gained control of Sumer’s other cities, making him the first ruler to unite the south. Some years later, however, Lugalzagesi was defeated by Sargon of Akkad (2334–2279 BCE), who fought thirty-four battles against the southern city-states before uniting the region into the first enduring empire. Uruk was one of the principal successor states when the Akkadian Empire eventually collapsed. One of its kings, Utuhegal (2123–2113 BCE), eventually drove out the Guti who had seized control in northern Babylonia. His successor, Ur-Nammu (2112– 2095 BCE), reunited the whole of the region, creating the Ur III Empire. His dynasty traced their ancestry in Uruk’s First Dynasty, whose deeds they glorified by committing to writing the traditional stories of Gilgamesh and his forebears. They were closely involved with Inanna, patron goddess of Uruk: Ur-Nammu built a ziggurat to Inanna at Uruk and his son Shulgi (2094– 2047 BCE) performed the traditional sacred marriage with the goddess. By the late third millennium Sumer may have been suffering the economically detrimental effects of salinization, due to prolonged irrigation: the Uruk region saw settlement decline. Uruk was one of the competing states after the fall of the Ur III Empire; under its nineteenth-century-BCE ruler Sinkashid, Uruk for a while held the balance of power between Isin and its increasingly powerful rival, Larsa. Sinkashid constructed a palace and undertook building and restoration work in the Eanna precinct. In the eighteenth century BCE, Sumer fell to Hammurabi’s Babylonian Empire; when it rebelled, punitive destruction of the canals on which agricultural prosperity depended exacerbated Sumer’s economic and environmental decline. Only in the final century under the Neo-Babylonian Empire did the region see real regeneration as investment in irrigation canals improved local productivity. A reinvigorated Uruk continued to be an important city until sacked and abandoned in 654 CE. The scene of major dedicated and revealing archaeological investigations last century, in recent decades Sumer’s sites have suffered terrible looting as criminals armed with earthmoving equipment and powerful weapons destroy architecture, context, and fragile or mundane objects such as pottery, in order to extract illegally saleable antiquities such as seals, the proceeds from their activities going to fund criminality and terrorism.

Visual Arts

135

See also: Administration; Birth of Empire; City-States; Cosmology; Early Dynastic City-States; Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization; International Trade; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Literature; The ME— Essence of Civilization; Seals; Temple Rule; Temples; Ur and the Marshes; Visual Arts; Writing; Document: “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta”; Document: “Gilgamesh and Agga”; Document: “Inanna and Enki”; Document: “The Netherworld”; Document: “Shulgi”; Document: “Two Kings” Further Reading Algaze, Guillermo. 2008. Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Leick, Gwendolyn. 2001. Mesopotamia. The Invention of the City. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press. Liverani, Mario. 2006. Uruk. The First City. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. London/Oakville: Equinox. Rothman, Mitchell S., ed. 2001. Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors. Cross-Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press/Oxford: James Currey. Wilkinson, Tony J. 2003. Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East. Tucson: University of Arizona Press.

VISUAL ARTS  Visual arts, such as sculpture, played a functional and symbolic role in ancient Mesopotamia, serving propaganda and ideology, to which artistic and decorative qualities were secondary. As in many other times and places, sponsors of artistic works were often named while their creators remained anonymous. Objects were valued for their materials and significance, though skill was appreciated and artistic quality contributed to an object’s value and fitness for purpose. Skill and artistry were displayed in many media: for example, the exquisite craftsmanship of goldwork and inlaid objects; the simple naturalism of an Early Dynastic (ED) limestone statuette of a woman in reverential pose; the miniature perfection of some engraved seals; or the drama and sensitivity of Assyrian lion-hunt reliefs. Prehistoric West Asia had a long tradition of making terracotta figurines; these continued to be popular in ancient Mesopotamia. By the fourth millennium (Uruk period), both stone and metal were also used for three-dimensional art, including small copper figurines made by lost-wax casting. Sculptures were often naturalistic. The exceptionally fine copper portrait head of an Akkadian king realistically detailed his elaborate hair arrangement and conveyed his majesty and power. Figurines often served religious purposes. The Uruk period produced many schematic “eye-idols,” stone or clay votive plaques with a short neck surmounted by a pair of large eyes. Simple,

136

Visual Arts

often crudely modeled terracotta or gypsum figurines of worshippers were common in the ED period. Other figurines and relief-decorated clay plaques were used as divine images in small shrines. Later, the Assyrians carved gigantic stone guardian figures of winged human-headed bulls and lions, shown with five legs to look balanced from either front or side. Narrative relief carving began in the Uruk period. Fine vessels with relief decoration included the Warka vase, a huge alabaster vessel carved with people bearing offerings. ED limestone plaques show scenes of royal warfare, feasting, or pious royal works. Terracotta plaques depicted people at work and scenes from mythology, but kings’ success in war, care for their people, and service to the gods remained the main subjects. Beautifully detailed later reliefs from Assyrian palaces vividly depict warfare and its consequences, as well as remarkable peacetime achievements, powerful propaganda demonstrating the regime’s divinely sanctioned authority. Similar designs appear in wall paintings, although these rarely survive. Painting the plastered walls of houses and public buildings had begun in Neolithic times. Early Mesopotamian examples include leopards depicted alongside the more common geometric designs in an Uruk-period temple at Uqair. Wall paintings in the eighteenth-century-BCE palace at Mari include religious scenes, such as the king’s investiture before the goddess Ishtar. Inorganic materials such as metal oxides and colored stone were used as pigments. From the later second millennium external walls were sometimes decorated with brilliantly colored glazed bricks, occasionally bearing molded decoration, each a section of a design built up in courses: the dragons, bulls, and lions adorning the Ishtar Gate and Processional Way at Babylon are the apogee of this technique. Some of the finest works skillfully combined different materials, including objects of wood, glass, metal, terracotta, or stone inlaid with colored stones, shell, glass, and bitumen, or encased in gold, silver, or bronze. Many superb examples of such composite objects come from the Royal Cemetery at Ur. The impressive “Standard of Ur” was a wooden box entirely covered with designs built up of shapes cut from shell and red stone set in bitumen against a background of lapis lazuli pieces; it included scenes of war and victory celebrations. Two statues of goats, standing to feed from a plant, were probably originally the supports for small tables. The wooden baseboard and shrub were completely covered in sheet gold with gold leaves and flowers attached, while the goat’s wooden body was coated in bitumen, gluing in place its gold legs and face, sheet-silver belly, lapis lazuli horns, eyes, and shoulder hair, and shell fleece, carved as individual locks of hair. Many pieces of Mesopotamian art, recovered by excavation, are celebrated as among humanity’s finest creations. While some are safely housed in museums around the world, many of those remaining in situ in Iraq, such as the

Vitreous Materials

137

Assyrian reliefs and bull statues at Nimrud, are now either threatened or have already been destroyed as a consequence of warfare in the region, as criminals plunder sites and terrorist organizations deliberately obliterate works of ancient art. See also: Architecture; Assyria; Babylon and Babylonia; Death; Early Dynastic City-States; Jewelry; Kingship; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Mari and the Middle Euphrates Region; Metallurgy; Taxation; Temples; Ur and the Marshes; Uruk and Sumer Further Reading Bahrani, Zainab. 2009. “The Babylonian Visual Image.” In The Babylonian World, edited by Gwendolyn Leick, 155–70. Oxford: Routledge. Feldman, Marian H. 2005. “Mesopotamian Art.” In A Companion to the Ancient Near East, edited by Daniel Snell, 304–25. Oxford: Blackwell. Frankfort, Henri. 1996. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. 5th ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press Gunter, Ann C. 2000. “Material, Technology and Techniques in Artistic Production.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1539– 51. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Reade, Julian. 1983. Assyrian Sculpture. London: British Museum. Spycket, Agnes. 2000. “Reliefs, Statuary, and Monumental Paintings in Ancient Mesopotamia.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 2583–600. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Zettler, Richard L., and Lee Horner, ed. 1998. Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology.

VITREOUS MATERIALS  Vitreous (glassy) materials, made by heating silicates to high temperatures, include faience, glass, and glazes. In ancient Mesopotamia they served mainly decorative purposes. Vitreous materials were produced in West Asia by mixing grains of silica, such as sand or ground quartz, with an alkali flux, usually plant ash, lowering the melting point; lime (calcium oxide) to counteract solubility; and often small amounts of metallic oxides to give color. Heating the mixture caused the grains’ surface to sinter (adhere), producing frit. If the object’s surface melted to produce a glaze, the material is known as faience. Like clay, vitreous paste can be shaped into an unlimited range of forms. In early times glassy materials were used decoratively: imitating gemstones for jewelry; glazing architectural elements, particularly tiles; or made into figurines, prestige vessels, and other fine objects. The creation of vitreous materials, requiring higher temperatures than those needed to fire clay, began in mid-fifth-millennium-BCE Mesopotamia,

138

Vitreous Materials

producing small objects, especially beads of glazed siliceous stone. Northern settlements made faience beads, seals, and animal amulets in the fourth millennium. Faience objects became more widespread from the late fourth millennium, occurring also in the south and Susiana, now including small decorated vessels, figurines, seals, votive weapons, tiles, and wall inlays. Faience paste was modeled by hand or pressed into a mold, dried, then fired. In the later second millennium faience production expanded, palace workshops in Mesopotamia and the Levant mass-producing jewelry, cylinder seals, and vessels. Faience declined in popularity after polychrome pottery and glass were developed. Glass has a similar composition to faience but is heated until the mixture melts to a viscous liquid. Although some glass was produced by the late third millennium, it was not made in quantity nor its properties fully exploited until around 1600 BCE. Glass beads were made by wrapping a thread of molten glass around a metal rod. Vessels (usually blue) were similarly formed using a removable core of clay and dung; alternatively the core could be dipped into molten glass. The soft vessel was then marvered (rolled on a stone slab) to smooth the surface and even up the shape. Blobs and lines in yellow and white were often added as decoration. Molten glass drawn out into rods of various thicknesses were used to decorate or manufacture marbled or mosaic glass beakers and bottles. Around the same time the technical problems of bonding glass with the surface of ceramics were solved, and the manufacture of glazed pottery began, followed later by that of glazed figurines, tiles, and bricks, used architecturally to great effect. Pottery vessels with polychrome designs, the colors separated by thin ribs, were made from around 1000 BCE. From the eighth century objects such as pendants and inlays for jewelry and furniture were cast, in an open mold or using a method similar to cire-perdue metal casting. Cast-glass vessels were finished by grinding and polishing and might be decorated with cut designs. Although glass blowing is generally believed to have been invented much later, in the Levant, the production of a fine clear glass suggests that this technology may have already been used in Assyria from around 700 BCE. Glass was an expensive commodity, used for producing luxury items owned by royalty and the elite; faience was a cheaper alternative, as was glazed pottery. Both faience and glass originally imitated precious stones such as lapis lazuli, carnelian, and sapphire and were used in similar ways, while fine clear glass simulated rock crystal. Texts give recipes for producing glass and glazes that reproduced the colors of valued stones, written in impenetrable jargon to preserve trade secrets. Vitreous technology has continued to develop down the ages. Glass has become essential in many fields of modern life, from daily domestic use to

Warfare

139

sophisticated and specialized industrial and technical applications, such as the glass filament fiber-optic cables used in modern communications. See also: Babylon and Babylonia; Jewelry; Pottery Further Reading Freestone, Ian C. 1997. “Vitreous Materials. Typology and Technology.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vol. 5, edited by Eric M. Meyers, 306–9. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moorey, P. R. S. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Peltenberg, Edgar. 1997. “Vitreous Materials. Artifacts of the Bronze and Iron Ages.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vol. 5, edited by Eric M. Meyers, 309–14. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Wiseman, D. J. 1991. Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon. The Schweich Lectures. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

WARFARE  Conflict has formed part of human interactions since time immemorial, but warfare is a different order of engagement, involving organization and often rules by which the opponents consider themselves bound, including formal methods of ceasing hostilities. Warfare played a major part in Mesopotamian history. Though some claim violent conflict is as old as humankind, many argue that it arose after farming began, spurred by the development of land ownership. By the late fourth millennium BCE, weapons, artwork depicting bound prisoners, and a few defensive city walls bear witness to armed conflict in southern Mesopotamia (Babylonia). During the Early Dynastic (ED) period, increasing population exacerbated clashes between expanding city-states over land and water rights. Many cities now erected brick walls, sometimes with towers. Scaling ladders might be used to assault a fortified settlement, but ED sieges were often settled by battles outside the walls, not by attrition. Art vividly depicts ED citizen armies: leaders riding in ponderous war-carts; leather-helmeted foot soldiers armed with copper spears or pole-mounted axes; heavy infantry with large rectangular shields; archers and slingers with stone or clay slingshots. Success demonstrated the city god’s support; defeat, or worse, the king’s death in battle, signaled the loss of divine favor. Victory brought material benefits, such as booty, and favorable settlement of disputes; it was only from late ED III times that victorious kings began to take control of defeated cities and expand their territories, culminating in Sargon’s creation of Mesopotamia’s first empire, militarily unifying the south. He and his successors also fought successful wars further afield, acquiring substantial quantities of booty and thousands of prisoners to use as forced

140

Warfare

labor. Sargon (2334–2279 BCE) maintained a large standing army, including city levies; other recruits included some foreign nomads such as Guti and Amorites. Soldiers were paid in rations but might also receive land, some of it confiscated from defeated cities. Booty, tribute, confiscated land, and prisoners continued to make a substantial contribution to later Mesopotamian state economies, and territorial expansion remained a prime motive for warfare. The scale of warfare increased through time. Third-millennium armies were numbered in hundreds, but second-millennium kings might command tens of thousands, and those of the first millennium several hundred thousand. Some states maintained a standing army, for example the Ur III Empire: many of its soldiers held state land in return for public (particularly military) service, a system later known as ilkum. Alternatively states might field temporary forces: for example, Hammurabi utilized the ilkum system to raise troops when he required them. Later, kings increasingly employed professional soldiers, both locals and foreign mercenaries. Innovations improved fighting power. These included the composite bow, of sandwiched wood, horn, and sinew, developed in the later third millennium, which greatly increased the firing range and penetration of arrows. Horse-drawn chariots, introduced in the early second millennium, allowed fast-moving, powerful new elite forces to develop, hard for infantry to resist. In the early first millennium iron weapons, including swords, began to replace the more expensive bronze weapons of earlier times. Protective clothing was generally of leather or thick felt, although in the later second millennium the wealthy increasingly used bronze-scale body armor; later, with cheaper iron scales, body armor became more common. From the second millennium city defenses often included moats, glacis, and complex gates with guard chambers. Attackers now used high siege towers and wheeled battering rams, building ramps up which to drag them, while sappers undermined the walls. An effective army made Assyria the dominant power in earlier first-millennium-BCE West Asia. Assyrian soldiers were well equipped, with metal helmets and iron-scale body armor. The front ranks held shock troops with long spears and shields; behind them ranks of archers and slingers shot a stream of long-range missiles. Tiglath-Pileser III (744–727 BCE) built roads and bridges to speed communications and troop movements, and established a professional army with elite chariot and cavalry forces, mercenaries, specialist corps such as engineers, and allied troops. Improved harness facilitating the control of ridden horses allowed cavalry to replace chariotry from the seventh century. The adoption from steppe nomads of the short recurved bow, suited to horseback archery, increased the cavalry’s effectiveness. The Assyrians improved the design of battering rams, now often combined with siege towers manned by archers. Long sieges now occurred; sometimes cannibalism was

Wheeled and Animal Transport

141

reported when the starving defenders grew desperate. Assyria’s faithful allies were given generous and lasting support, but vassal states that revolted suffered merciless punitive campaigns: their cities were sacked, vast quantities of booty removed, their leaders brutally executed, and hundreds of thousands of their citizens deported to other parts of the empire. Assyria eventually fell to Babylonia, and Babylonia to the expansionist Persian king Cyrus the Great. The fortunes of the region and the wider world have ebbed and flowed over the centuries, but warfare is still frequently the means by which groups strive to dominate each other, control resources, and impose ideologies. While in some respects the rules of warfare have become more civilized, the means of destruction have become greater, as has the damage inflicted by those who choose to disregard the rules. Ironically, the role of warfare as a spur to technological development and innovation is as great today as it has been since early times. See also: Assyria; Birth of Empire; Boats and Ships; Early Dynastic CityStates; Hammurabi’s Empire; Kingship; Land Tenure; Tribal Society; Wheeled and Animal Transport; Document: “The Cursing of Agade”; Document: “Gilgamesh and Agga”; Document: “Mari Letters”; Document: “Two Kings”; Document: “Umma and Lagash” Further Reading Anglim, Simon, Phyllis G. Jestice, Rob S. Rice, Scott M. Rusch, and John Serrati. 2002. Fighting Techniques of the Ancient World. 3000 BC–AD 500. Equipment, Combat Skills and Tactics. London: Greenhill Books. Anthony, David W. 2007. The Horse, the Wheel and Language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Chapman, Rupert. 1997. “Weapons and Warfare.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vol. 5, edited by Eric M. Meyers, 334–39. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Dalley, Stephanie. 2000. “Ancient Mesopotamian Military Organization.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 413–22. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Mazar, Amihai. 2000. “The Fortification of Cities in the Ancient Near East.” In Civilizations of the Ancient Near East, edited by Jack M. Sasson, 1523–37. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson.

WHEELED AND ANIMAL TRANSPORT  Two significant developments, harnessing animal energy and the invention of the wheel, revolutionized human activity and took the first steps along the road to the industrial revolution. These innovations were brought together and their potential realized in Mesopotamia during the fourth millennium BCE.

142

Wheeled and Animal Transport

Hauling and carrying things on land initially depended solely on human muscle. The beginning of animal traction and transport brought a quantum leap in the power and energy available to people. Using pack animals enabled people to transport goods in much larger quantities: produce from the fields, for example, and trade goods over long distances. Animals also had greater pulling strength than humans: they increased the efficiency of plows (a fourth millennium invention), were harnessed to draw vehicles, and were used in other situations such as hauling timber or drawing boats upstream. Previously domesticated animals were the first to be so utilized: cattle, and particularly oxen, for traction; cattle, sheep, and goats as pack animals. Cattle were occasionally used for hauling by the sixth millennium BCE. Later, new traction and transport animals were domesticated, notably equids. The donkey, domesticated in northeast Africa, spread through fourth-millenniumBCE West Asia as a valued and expensive pack animal. The onager (wild ass), an equid native to West Asia, was too intractable to domesticate, but domestic donkeys were bred with wild onagers to produce stronger, larger domestic stock. A donkey could carry loads up to 200 pounds, subsist on a rough diet, and endure arid conditions: donkey caravans were regularly used in trade. Donkeys were also ridden and used for traction. Wheeled vehicles were invented around the mid-fourth millennium BCE, probably independently in Europe and Mesopotamia, in the latter by adding solid wheels to sledges. Though sledges continued, including a fine example from Ur’s Royal Cemetery, by the Early Dynastic (ED) period two-wheeled carts and four-wheeled wagons were in regular use, drawn by two or four oxen or donkeys. A wagon from Kish had a wooden platform surrounded by rails. Each wheel was made of three pieces of wood clamped together; copper nails set in the rim make it more durable. Wheeled vehicles greatly increased the bulk and weight of goods that could be transported over suitable terrain. They were also used by war leaders, for transport and as a vantage point from which to see and be seen. Horses were probably domesticated in the steppe north of the Black Sea and Caspian Sea, during the fourth millennium BCE; some were imported into third-millennium BCE Mesopotamia to breed mules, stronger, faster beasts of burden than donkeys. From the late third millennium BCE horses, swift and powerful, were used to pull vehicles whose lightweight form, speed, and maneuverability depended on spoked wheels: both these and the use of horses for traction were probably also northern steppe innovations. These horse-drawn two-wheeled chariots revolutionized West Asian warfare during the second millennium BCE, particularly from later in the millennium when the bit replaced the nose-ring, improving control and traction power. Chariots now became mobile fighting platforms, carrying a charioteer to control the horses

Writing

143

and an archer, adding another archer and a shield-bearer from the eighth century. Though horses were also ridden during the second millennium, the simple harness made it difficult to control them while fighting. The invention of better bridles improved the rider’s control, and by the seventh century BCE faster and more maneuverable cavalry were replacing chariotry on the battlefield, chariots being reserved for carrying commanders and nonmilitary activities such as hunting, processions, and royal and official transport. The single-humped camel (dromedary) was domesticated in Arabia by the second millennium, initially for meat and milk and only later used for riding and as a pack animal. Dromedaries appear in Mesopotamia after 1000 BCE, as the mounts of Arab mercenaries and as Assyrian military baggage animals. They could carry greater loads than donkeys and had much greater endurance, and were particularly important for making possible the desert trade linking the incense producers of southwest Arabia with the Levant and thence Mesopotamia. Subsequent developments in land transport have included advances in harness, including saddles and stirrups; and in recent times, motors to power wheeled vehicles. Wheels have also been harnessed in new ways, to utilize water power in later antiquity, wind power somewhat later, and, since the industrial revolution, in many other ways. See also: Animal Husbandry and Wild Resources; Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization; International Trade; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Merchant Houses; Tribal Society; Warfare; Document: “Kanesh Letters” Further Reading Akkermans, Peter M. M. G., and Glenn M. Schwartz. 2003. The Archaeology of Syria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Anthony, David W. 2007. The Horse, the Wheel and Language. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. Crouwel, J. H., and Mary Aiken Littauer. 1997. “Wheel.” In The Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East, vol. 5, edited by Eric M. Meyers, 343–44. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Moorey, P. R. S. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Potts, Daniel T. 1997. Mesopotamian Civilization. The Material Foundations. London: Athlone.

WRITING  Writing uses visual signs to record language in a form understood by writer and reader, allowing communication across both space and time. Its invention, in ancient Mesopotamia, was one of the most significant steps in human development.

144

Writing

In a Sumerian story, King Enmerkar of Uruk claimed this invention, writing the first letter. Not surprisingly, this was a puzzle to its recipient. A historical counterpart to Enmerkar may have lived around 2700 BCE, centuries after writing began; letters are not known before 2400 BCE; but the city of Uruk does indeed appear to be where writing was invented. Recent work, particularly by Denise Schmandt-Besserat, suggests that writing had its roots in the widespread use across West Asia from the eighth millennium onwards of simple clay tokens as counters in economic transactions. During the fourth millennium, as towns emerged and accounting needs became increasingly complex, particular token shapes were used to represent specific commodities, including a cylinder for an animal, and new shapes were added, such as an ovoid with a groove around it, representing oil. Tokens representing a transaction were often enclosed in a clay ball, impressed with seals. As the contents were invisible, the tokens might also be impressed on its outside, one impression for each enclosed token. By 3500 BCE people realized that the same information could be recorded simply with token impressions on a block of clay. Such “numerical clay tablets,” sometimes also bearing a seal impression, occur from northern Mesopotamia to western Iran. By 3200 BCE in the city of Uruk (period IVa), tokens began to be drawn instead of impressed—the invention of writing. Rapidly the limited range of signs depicting the original tokens was expanded, both by adding new shapes and by modifying them with lines. Signs began by representing commodities, but even at this early stage, signs for other information were also found necessary. A sign depicting a human head, for instance, meaning “head” or “person,” and the sign for bread/rations (a bowl) were combined to represent “disbursement of rations.” A few small perforated tags bear signs representing the names of individuals or institutions. Around 1,200 different signs came into use: their numbers were greatly reduced over subsequent centuries. At the same time, the idea of abstract counting was invented: previously commodity signs had been impressed the appropriate number of times (tallied), but now numbers and commodities began to be represented separately, so that a number of sheep, for example, was written as a number sign and a single sign for sheep—a revolutionary concept. The significance of these conceptual innovations cannot be overestimated: representing three-dimensional reality with two-dimensional signs; perceiving number as an abstract concept, separate from the things being counted; and progressing to use signs to represent ideas or sounds. The early tablets were mainly accounts, listing quantities of particular commodities as entries in separate boxes drawn on one side of the tablet, with their total on the reverse. However, around 15 percent were lexical texts (sign

Writing

145

lists), showing that right from the start efforts were made to standardize signs and educate future scribes in the use of the writing system. The script developed rapidly at Uruk, texts by 3100 BCE (Uruk III) including more complex administrative documents, such as recording the grain required to sow a given field area. The signs were now losing their pictorial quality: the difficulty of drawing curved lines on clay with a reed stylus led to the signs’ simplification into a series of wedge-shaped (“cuneiform,” from the Latin cuneus, “wedge”) straight lines, bearing less resemblance to the objects they originally represented (such as a cow’s head, a pot, or a fish). Progressive simplification resulted by the mid-third millennium in fully developed cuneiform signs whose original pictorial forms were totally obscured. In the Jemdet Nasr period (3100–2900 BCE) written tablets appear at several Sumerian sites; and in contemporary Susa a related but different script, proto-Elamite, was also developing. At first signs were used almost exclusively as logograms: representations of words, readable with the same meaning but different sound values by speakers of different languages. The flexibility of writing was greatly increased by using signs to represent sounds, allowing their meanings to be extended by punning (the rebus principle): thus, for example, the sign for dug “pot” could also represent dug “good” and dug “to say.” Some sounds were represented by several signs (there were fourteen signs for gu, for example); and some signs were used with several meanings and therefore several different sound values (polyphony), for example the sign for mouth (KA) could be read as ka (mouth), gu (shouting), zu (tooth), du (to speak), and inim (word). To reduce confusion, a determinative was often added to words: an unspoken sign indicating the word’s category, such as deity, animal, man, woman, place name, stone, river. Attested from the beginning, though rare, the phonetic use of signs became more common after 3000 BCE: this shows that by now (if not before) the script was rendering the Sumerian language. The signs’ phonetic use increased through the earlier third millennium, allowing the representation of grammatical elements and syntax. This also made it possible to write the very differently structured Akkadian language, for which phonetic signs were required: the script’s use for this purpose is first shown around 2500 BCE in a few Akkadian names in texts from Abu Salabikh. By later ED (Early Dynastic) III, the script could transcribe words and sentences as spoken; and there was a broad range of written material, including literary works. The number of signs was much reduced; only around 150 were now needed for writing, though considerably more were in common use. The cuneiform script spread; by ED III it was used at Ebla in the northwest to write Sumerian and Eblaite. The Akkadian kings standardized the script in the twenty-fourth century BCE. It was later modified to write texts

146

Writing

in various other languages, including Elamite, Hurrian, Urartian, Hittite, and Levantine languages, and used in royal international correspondence as far away as Egypt. The early second millennium in Sinai and the Levant saw the beginnings (Proto-Sinaitic/Proto-Canaanite) of alphabetic scripts. Utilizing Egyptian hieroglyphs, each sign was given a single consonantal value, the initial sound of the word describing it in the Canaanite (West Semitic) language (the acrophonic principle): thus, for example, the Egyptian hieroglyph depicting a hand, with the Egyptian sound value “d,” was read as “kaph” in Canaanite and therefore had the sound value “k.” The structure of Semitic languages made it unnecessary to represent vowels. This consonant-only alphabet (abe­ cedary) became established in the Levant and spread widely, giving rise to scripts in southern Arabia, Ethiopia, and South Asia. Around 1000 BCE, it was standardized as the twenty-two-letter Phoenician script, ancestral to the Hebrew and Aramaic scripts; most later West Asian scripts, including Arabic, developed from Aramaic. Adopted by the Greeks in the seventh century BCE, the abecedary was modified to include vowel signs, and from this fully alphabetic script developed the Latin script in which European languages, including English, are written, as well as the Cyrillic alphabet of Russia and adjacent regions. The alphabet was a convenient tool: more flexible than cuneiform in the sounds it could represent; easier to write, using ink on papyrus, parchment, or ostraka (potsherds); and easier to learn (though literacy rates in societies depended mainly on other factors). Alphabetic scripts predominate in the modern world, though other writing systems also flourish, notably the Chinese script, which originated independently in second millennium BCE China, and the related Japanese script. The invention of writing was one of the most important human developments. It provides for a permanent record, allowing information to be recorded and retrieved and knowledge to be accumulated, shared, and passed down the generations. It also permits people to communicate with each other far beyond the reach of spoken language. The invention of writing was the first step along the road to the universal interactions that characterize the modern world. See also: Early Dynastic City-States; Early Uruk—Prelude to Civilization; Education; Late Uruk—The Emergence of Civilization; Mathematics; Seals; Uruk and Sumer; Document: “Enmerkar and the Lord of Aratta” Further Reading Healey, J. F. 1990. The Early Alphabet. London: British Museum.

Writing

147

Nissen, Hans J., Peter Damerow, and Robert K. Englund. 1993. Archaic Bookkeeping. Translated by Paul Larsen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. 1996. How Writing Came About. Austin: University of Texas Press. Walker, C. B. F. 1987. Cuneiform. London: British Museum. Woods, Christopher, ed. 2011. Visible Language. Chicago: Oriental Institute. https:// oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/oimp32.pdf. Last accessed October 16, 2016.

Primary Source Documents CREATION The epic poem Atrahasis recounts the mythological basis of the ancient Mesopotamian worldview, explaining the relationship between the gods and humanity, and the eternal drudgery of southern Mesopotamian farming life. It describes how the lesser gods, the Igigi, overtaxed by work, go on strike; the greater gods therefore create humanity to labor instead, as the gods’ perpetual servants, molded from clay and the flesh, blood, and divine spirit of the executed strike ringleader. Sumerian versions were probably written in the third millennium; the excerpts translated here are from an Akkadian version attributed to Ipiq-Aya, a temple scribe around 1700 BCE. When gods were man, They did forced labor, they bore drudgery. Great indeed was the drudgery of the gods. The forced labor was heavy, the misery too much: The seven(?) great Anunna-gods were burdening The Igigi-gods with forced labor. Anu their father was king. Their counsellor was the warrior Enlil, Their prefect was Ninurta. [And] their bailiff(?) [En]nugi. . . . . . [The gods] were digging watercourses, [Canals they opened, the] life of the land. . . . . .

150

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

[The Igigi-gods dug the Ti]gris river, [And the Euphrates there]after. [Springs they opened up from] the depths. [Wells. . .] they established. . . . . . [They heaped up] all the mountains. . . . . . [They [coun]ted years of drudgery, [and] forty years, too much! [ ] forced labor they bore night and day. [They were com]plaining, denouncing, [Mut]tering down in the ditch. “Let us face up to our [foreman] the prefect, “He must take off (this) our [he]avy burden upon us!” . . . . . [Aw-ilu] made ready to speak, [Saying] to the gods his brethren, . . . . . “Enlil, counsellor of the gods, the warrior, “Come, let us remove (him) from his dwelling! “Now then, call for battle! “Battle let us join, warfare!” The gods heard his words, They set fire to their tools, They put fire to their spades, And flame to their workbaskets. Off they went, one and all, To the gate of the warrior Enlil’s abode. It was night, half-way through the watch, The house was surrounded, but the god did not know. . . . . . Nusku woke [his] lord, He got [him] out of bed, “My lord, [your] house is surrounded, “Battle has run right up [to your gate].” . . . . . Enlil made ready to speak, And said to the vizier Nusku, “Nusku, bar your gate, “Get your weapons and stand before me.” . . . . . He sent and they brought Anu down before him, They brought Enki before him. Anu, king of [he]aven, was seated,

Primary Source Documents

The king of the depths, Enki, was [ ]. With the great Anunna-gods present, Enlil arose . . . And said to the great [gods], “Against me would they be [rebelling]? “Shall I make battle [against my own offspring]? “What did I see with my own eyes? “Battle ran up to my gate!” Anu made ready to speak, And said to the warrior Enlil, “The reason why the Igigi-gods “Surrounded(?) your gate, “Let Nusku go out [to discover it] . . .” . . . . . [Nusku opened] his gate, [Took his weapons] and w[ent]. . . . [He . . . expounded the c[omm]and, “Anu, your father, “[Your counsellor, the] warrior Enlil, “[Your prefect,] Ninurta, “And [your bailiff ] Ennugi [have sent me (to say)]: . . . . . ‘Who [declared] war, ‘[(That) battle has run up to the gate of Enlil]?’” . . . . . “Every [one of us gods has declared] war; “We have set [ ] in the e[xcavation]. “[Excessive] drudgery [has killed us], “[Our] forced labor was heavy, [the misery too much]! “Now, every [one of us gods] “Has resolved on [a reckoning?] with Enlil.” [Nusku returns and repeats the Igigi-gods’ reply] When Enlil heard that speech, His tears flowed. . . . Anu made ready to speak, And addressed the gods his brethren. “Why do we blame them? “Their forced labor was heavy, their misery too much! “[Every day ] “[The outcry was] loud, [we could] hear the clamor.” . . . . . Ea (Enki) made ready to speak, And said to the gods [his brethren], . . . . .

151

152

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

“[Belet-ili [Nintu], the midwife], is present. “Let the midwife create a human being. “Let man assume the drudgery of god.” They summoned and asked the goddess, . . . . . “Will you be the birth goddess, creatress of mankind? “Create a human being that he bear the yoke, “Let him bear the yoke, the task of Enlil. . . .” Nintu made ready to speak, And said to the great gods, “It is not for me to do it, “The task is Enki’s “He it is that cleanses all, “Let him provide me the clay so I can do the making.” . . . The great Anunna-gods, who administer destinies, Answered “Yes!” in the assembly. . . . He [Enki] established a purification, a bath. They slaughtered Aw-ilu, who had the inspiration, in their assembly. Nintu mixed clay with his flesh and blood.

. . . . . From the flesh of the god [the] spi[rit remained]. It would make the living know its sign, Lest he be allowed to be forgotten, [the] spirit remained. After she had mixed that clay, She summoned the Annuna, the great gods. The Igigi, the great gods, spat upon the clay. Mami [Nintu] made ready to speak, And said to the great gods, “You ordered me the task and I have completed (it)! “You have slaughtered the god, along with his inspiration. “I have done away with your heavy forced labor, “I have imposed your drudgery on man. . . .” Source: Foster, Benjamin. From Distant Days. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1995, 52–59. Used by permission of CDL Press.

INANNA AND ENKI An early second-millennium BCE scribal copy of a probably third-millennium original (excerpts from which are translated here), this anonymous poem encapsulates the Sumerian view of civilization. In this myth, the goddess Inanna acquires

Primary Source Documents

153

the ME—the attributes forming the essence of civilization—from the god Enki, for her own city, Uruk, bringing civilization to humanity. The association of the ME with Uruk, the first known city, is significant: it was here that writing and probably many organizational features of civilization began. Written on clay tablets, the surviving copies are damaged, so much is missing, and the list of ME is incomplete. On that day the maid Inanna directed her step all by herself towards Enki’s Abzu in Eridu. On that day, the one who has overpowering knowledge, who knows the divine decrees in heaven and earth, who just from his dwelling knows about the plans of the gods, knew everything (about the plot) even before radiant Inanna had approached the temple in Eridu by a mile. So Enki, the king of the Abzu, spoke to his man and gave him instructions: “Come here, man, listen to my word! When the young girl Inanna has entered the Abzu and Eridu, have her eat butter-cake, let her be served cool water which refreshes the soul, at the lion Gate pour beer for her, treat her like a friend and colleague. At the pure table, at the table of An, you shall greet the radiant Inanna.” According to these instructions Isimud the vizier, follows his king’s commands. . . . Enki and Inanna drink beer together in the Abzu, enjoy the taste of sweet wine. The bronze AGA-vessels are filled to the rim, they have a competition, (drinking from the) bronze vessels of Uraš. . . . [Enki, the worse for drink, gives the ME to Inanna] “In the name of my power, in the name of my Abzu, I will give them all to my daughter, the radiant Inanna, and (this) shall not be [contested].” . . . . the radiant Inanna accepted EN-ship, LAGAL-priesthood, godship, the mighty legitimate crown, the throne of kingship, the noble scepter, staff and rein, the noble dress, shepherdship, kingship, EGIZI-priestess-ship, NINDINGIR-priestess-ship, IŠIB-priesthood, LUMAH-priesthood, GUDU-priesthood, truth, . . . descending into the Netherworld, having ascended from the Netherworld, the KURGARRA-priest, sword and club, the temple servant SAG-URSAG, the black dress, the colorful dress, the . . . hair, the . . . hair, [7 mainly broken ME], the standard, the quiver, love making, kissing, prostitution, running (?), speech, slander, cajoling, . . . the cult prostitute, the pure tavern, the holy NIGINGAR shrine, . . . the hierodule of heaven, the resounding lute, the art of singing, the (wise) state of old age,

154

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

heroism, possession of power, dishonesty, righteousness, plundering of cities, singing of lamentations, rejoicing, deceit, the rebellious land, kindness, travelling around, the permanent home, the craft of the carpenter, the craft of the copper-smith, the art of the scribe, the craft of the smith, the craft of the leather-worker, the craft of the fuller, the craft of the builder, the craft of the mat weaver, understanding, knowledge, purifying washing rites, the house of the shepherd (?), heaping up of coals, the sheepfold, fear, awe, reverent silence, the bitter toothed, . . . kindling of fire, extinguishing of fire, hard work, . . . the assembled family, descendants . . . dispute, triumph, counseling, deliberation, jurisdiction, decision-making. . . . [Inanna swiftly leaves with the ME. Eventually Enki wakes from his drunken sleep and notices] [Enki now addresses his vizier Isimud:] [ “My vizier Isimud, my sweet name of heaven!”] [“My king,] Enki! I am at your service, what is your wish?” “If she has not yet left for Uruk and Kulab, . . . I need to get hold of her, because of what I have said.” “The radiant Inanna has already gathered up all the ME, she has boarded the ‘boat of heaven,’ and the ‘boat of heaven’ has left the quay.” . . . when father Enki, the one who had drunk (too much) beer, had thrown up the beer, the great lord Enki gave all his attention to [. . .]. The lord (now) looks thoroughly at his Abzu and then speaks to his vizier Isimud: “My vizier Isimud, my sweet name of heaven!” “My king Enki, I am at your service, what is your wish?” “The . . . where are they?” . . . The prince speaks to his vizier Isimud . . . : “My vizier Isimud, my sweet name of heaven!” “My king Enki, I am at your service, what is your wish?” “The ‘boat of heaven,’ how far has it traveled?” “Right now, it has reached the [. . .] quay.” “Go! The Enkum shall seize the boat from her!” The vizier Isimud speaks to the radiant Inanna: “My lady, your father has sent me to you. What your father has said is sublime. . . . His important words must not be disregarded.” To this the radiant Inanna answers: “What did my father say to you? What did he remark to you? Why may his important speech not be disregarded?” “My king has said to me, Enki has instructed me: ‘Inanna shall return to Uruk, but you, escort the “boat of heaven” to Eridu!’” The radiant Inanna answers the vizier Isimud: “Why has my father changed his word to me? Why has he overturned his honest speech to me? Why has he disgraced his important words to me? My father has spoken dishonestly to me, he has spoken insincerely to me. Untruthfully he has made his promises

Primary Source Documents

155

in the name of his power and in the name of his Abzu, cheatingly he has sent you to me as a messenger!” Hardly had she finished this speech, when the Enkum tried to seize the “boat of heaven.” The radiant Inanna now says to her vizier Ninshubura: “Come here, my faithful vizier of the Eanna, my vizier of good tidings, my messenger of truthful words! Water has not touched your hand, water has not touched your foot!” . . . Inanna has thus saved the ME which had been given to her, and the “boat of heaven” . . . Her vizier Ninshubura [addresses] the radiant Inanna: “My lady, on the day you [bring] the ‘boat of heaven’ to the gate [‘Joy,’ to Uruk-Kulab], our city will [revel] in abundance.” Source: Farber, Gertrud. “Sumerian Canonical Compositions. A. Divine Focus. 1. Myths: Inanna and Enki (1.161).” In The Context of Scripture, I: Canonical Compositions from the Biblical World, edited by William W. Hallo, 522–26. Leiden: Brill, 1997. Used by permission of Brill.

THE FLOOD Disastrous floods that periodically swept through southern Mesopotamia, particularly around 2900 BCE, entered folk memory as the great Flood. This period saw huge regional population growth. In this popular story, the two are linked: the gods are irritated by humanity’s noisiness and decide to destroy them. Benevolent Ea (Enki) cunningly informs Utanapishtim’s wall, enabling Utanapishtim to build the Ark. The gods soon realize their mistake: they need people to provide for them. A recently discovered fragment of an early Sumerian version shows that the Ark was originally conceived as a vast roofed coracle. This Akkadian version (excerpts from which are translated here) dates to around 1200 BCE. Utanapishtim spoke to Gilgamesh, saying: “. . . The hearts of the Great Gods moved them to inflict the Flood. Their Father Anu uttered the oath (of secrecy). . . . Ea, the Clever Prince(?), was under oath with them so he repeated their talk to the reed house: ‘Reed house, reed house! Wall, wall! O man of Shuruppak, son of Ubartutu: Tear down the house and build a boat! . . . Make all living beings go up into the boat. . . .’ I understood and spoke to my lord, Ea: ‘My lord, thus is the command which you have uttered I will heed and will do it. . . .’ Just as dawn began to glow the land assembled around me—the carpenter carried his hatchet, the reed worker carried his (flattening) stone, . . . the men . . . The child carried the pitch, the weak brought whatever else was needed. On the fifth day I laid out her exterior. It was a field in area, its walls were each 10 times 12 cubits in height, the sides of its top were . . . 10 times 12 cubits each. . . . I provided it with six decks, thus dividing it into

156

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

seven (levels).The inside of it I divided into nine (compartments). . . . I saw to the punting poles and laid in what was necessary. . . . I gave the workmen(?) ale, beer, oil, and wine, as if it were river water, so they could make a party like the New Year’s Festival. . . . and I set my hand to the oiling(!). The boat was finished by sunset. The launching was very difficult. They had to keep carrying a runway of poles front to back, until two-thirds of it had gone into the water(?). Whatever I had I loaded on it: whatever silver I had I loaded on it, whatever gold I had I loaded on it. All the living beings that I had I loaded on it, I had all my kith and kin go up into the boat, all the beasts and animals of the field and the craftsmen I had go up. . . . I watched the appearance of the weather—the weather was frightful to behold! I went into the boat and sealed the entry. . . . Just as dawn began to glow there arose from the horizon a black cloud. Adad rumbled inside of it. . . . Erragal pulled out the mooring poles, forth went Ninurta and made the dikes overflow. The Anunnaki lifted up the torches, setting the land ablaze with their flare. Stunned shock over Adad’s deeds overtook the heavens, and turned to blackness all that had been light. The . . . land shattered like a . . . pot. All day long the South Wind blew . . . , blowing fast, submerging the mountain in water, overwhelming the people like an attack. No one could see his fellow, they could not recognize each other in the torrent. The gods were frightened by the Flood, and retreated, ascending to the heaven of Anu. . . . Six days and seven nights came the wind and flood, the storm flattening the land. When the seventh day arrived, the storm was pounding, the flood was a war—struggling with itself like a woman writhing (in labor). The sea calmed, fell still, the whirlwind (and) flood stopped up. I looked around all day long— quiet had set in and all the human beings had turned to clay! The terrain was as flat as a roof. . . . I fell to my knees and sat weeping, tears streaming down the side of my nose. I looked around for coastlines in the expanse of the sea, and at twelve leagues there emerged a region (of land). On Mt. Nimush the boat lodged firm. . . . I sent forth a dove and released it. The dove went off . . . ; no perch was visible so it circled back to me. I sent forth a swallow and released it. The swallow went off . . . ; no perch was visible so it circled back to me. I sent forth a raven and released it. The raven went off, and saw the waters slither back. It eats, it scratches, it bobs, but does not circle back to me. Then I sent out everything in all directions and sacrificed (a sheep). I offered incense in front of the mountain-ziggurat. Seven and seven cult vessels I put in place, and (into the fire) underneath I poured reeds, cedar, and myrtle. The gods . . . smelled the sweet savor, and collected like flies over a (sheep) sacrifice. . . . Just then Enlil arrived. He saw the boat and became furious, he was filled with rage . . . : ‘Where did a living being escape? No man was to survive the annihilation!’

Primary Source Documents

157

Ea spoke to Valiant Enlil, saying: ‘It is yours, O Valiant One, who is the Sage of the Gods. How, how could you bring about a Flood without consideration? . . . be compassionate lest (mankind) be cut off, be patient lest they be killed. . . . It was not I who revealed the secret of the Great Gods, I (only) made a dream appear to Atrahasis, and (thus) he heard the secret of the gods. Now then! The deliberation should be about him!’ Enlil went up inside the boat and, grasping my hand, made me go up. He had my wife go up and kneel by my side. He touched our forehead and, standing between us, he blessed us. Source: The Epic of Gilgamesh, Standard Version Tablet XI. Translated by Maureen Gallery Kovacs, electronic edition by Wolf Carnahan, 1998. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library /mesopotamian/gilgamesh/tab11.htm. Last accessed October 16, 2016. Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. All rights reserved. Used with the permission of Stanford University Press, www.sup.org.

ENMERKAR AND THE LORD OF ARATTA Ur III kings emphasized their family connections with Uruk; stories of Uruk’s legendary ancient kings Gilgamesh, Enmerkar, and Lugalbanda were therefore popular literary themes at the Ur III court: they generally survive in early secondmillennium copies. In this Sumerian poem (excerpts from which are translated here), Enmerkar, king of Uruk (“Unug”), attempts to obtain precious raw materials from distant Aratta (probably eastern Iran). Aratta’s king makes impossible demands that Enmerkar solves through his superior intelligence, using Uruk’s grain, reeds, and wool, and its manufacturing skills; eventually the deal is agreed and Uruk supplies Aratta with produce in exchange for silver, gold, and lapis lazuli. 1–24 . . . In days of yore, when the destinies were determined, the Great Princes granted Unug-Kulab’s Eana head-lifting pride. Opulence, carp floods, and rains that bring forth dappled wheat abounded in Unug-Kulab. . . . When the Eana of Unug-Kulab was already well founded, and the Gipar of Holy Inana and Kulab, the Brickwork, glinted like silver in the lode . . . there was no commerce. [Gold], silver, copper, tin, blocks of lapis lazuli, [the mountain ores] were not yet brought down from the highlands, . . . time passed. 25–32 . . . For Inana did the lord of Aratta don his golden crown and diadem, but he did not please her as well as did the lord of Kulab, for nothing even resembling the shrine Eana, or the Gipar, the holy place, did Aratta ever build for Holy Inana, unlike brickwork Kulab!

158

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

33–37. In those days did the lord, whom Inana chose in her heart, whom Inana from her shining mountain chose in her holy heart, Enmerkar, the son of the Sun, address a plea to . . . Holy Inana: 38–48. “My sister, let Aratta for Unug artfully work gold and silver for my sake! [Let them cut for my sake] polished lapis lazuli from its block; [let them] . . . build the holy mountain in Unug. A temple descended from heaven— your place of worship, the Shrine Eana—let [Aratta] build that! The holy Gipar, your dwelling, let Aratta artfully adorn its inner chamber for my sake so that I, the beaming youth, may embrace you therein! Let Aratta submit to Unug! . . .” 65–68. Thereupon the splendor in the sacred sky, the Lady who watches over the highland, . . . Inana, mistress of all the lands, thus spoke to Enmerkar, the son of the Sun: 65–85. “Come, Enmerkar! I shall advise you—let my advice be heeded!—. . . Having chosen among the troops a messenger, clever of speech and hardy, where and to whom shall he carry the grave word of word-wise Inana? He shall carry it up into the Zubi range, he shall carry it down from the Zubi range. Šušin and the land of Anšan will salute her humbly, like small mice. In the great mountain ranges, the teeming multitudes will grovel in the dust before her. Aratta shall submit to Unug! When the people of Aratta have brought down the stones of their hills and mountains, and built for you the great shrine. . . .” 105–106. The lord gave heed to the word of Inana; he chose among the troops a messenger, clever of speech and hardy. 470–471. “Messenger! When you speak to the lord of Aratta, say this: . . . [The messenger travels several times between the kings. On the 3rd occasion:] 500–514. His speech was very grand, its meaning very deep; . . . Because the messenger’s mouth was too heavy, and he could not repeat it, the lord of Kulab patted some clay and put the words on it as on a tablet. Before that day, there had been no putting words on clay; but now, when the sun rose on that day—so it was: the lord of Kulab had put words as on a tablet—so it was! The messenger was like a bird flapping its wings. Raging like a wolf chasing a kid he crossed five, six, seven mountain ranges. . . . Joyfully he stepped into

Primary Source Documents

159

the courtyard of Aratta and proclaimed the preeminence of his king. He spoke out what was in his heart and transmitted it to the lord of Aratta: . . . 518–535. “This is what my king spoke. . . . He who has manifested lordship and kingship, Enmerkar, the son of the Sun, gave me this tablet. O lord of Aratta, when you have read this tablet, learnt the gist of the message, when you have replied to me whatever you want, . . . I will speak that word as glad tidings in the shrine Eana, . . . I shall repeat it to my king, the lord of Kulab.” 536–540. This having been said, the lord of Aratta took from the messenger the tablet (and held it) next to a brazier. The lord of Aratta inspected the tablet. The spoken words were mere wedges—his brow darkened. . . . (However, after further events and negotiations, peaceful relations are established between Uruk and Aratta) 618–625. “The people of Aratta . . . figs and grapes . . . ; they shall heap up these fruit in great piles; they shall dig out flawless lapis lazuli in lumps; . . . and for Inana, lady of the Eana, they shall heap them up in piles in the courtyard of the Eana.” Source: Vanstiphout, Herman. Epics of Sumerian Kings: The Matter of Aratta. Atlanta, GA: Society of Biblical Literature, 2003, 57–63, 83–87, 91. http://is.muni.cz/el/1421 /podzim2012/RLB295/um/Epics_of_Sumerian_Kings_-_The_Matter_of_Aratta.pdf. Last accessed October 16, 2016. Used by permission of the Society of Biblical Literature.

GILGAMESH AND AGGA This Sumerian poem (translated here in full) survives in second-millennium scribal school copies but was probably composed during the later third. In it Akka (Agga), king of Kish, sends a message to Uruk, presumably demanding tribute, but King Bilgames (Gilgamesh) defies him. Akka besieges Uruk but is defeated and captured; he reminds Bilgames of the help he gave him in former times; and Bilgames releases him. Gilgamesh, although he is the subject of legendary adventures in epic poetry, was probably a real king of Uruk, living around 2600 BCE. Although probably not historical, this tale gives an authentic glimpse of the period. The envoys of Akka, Enmebaragesi’s son, came from Kish to Bilgames in Uruk. Before his city’s elders Bilgames laid the matter, seeking a solution: “‘To empty the wells, to empty the wells of the land, to empty the shallow wells of

160

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

the land, to empty the deep wells furnished with hoisting ropes’: let us not submit to the house of Kish, let us wage war!” The convened assembly of his city’s elders gave answer to Bilgames: “‘To empty the wells, to empty the wells of the land, to empty the shallow wells of the land, to empty the deep wells furnished with hoisting ropes’: let us submit to the house of Kish, let us not wage war!” Bilgames, the lord of Kullab, placing his trust in the goddess Inanna, took no notice of what his city’s elders said. Before his city’s young men Bilgames laid the matter a second time, seeking a solution: “‘To empty the wells, to empty the wells of the land, to empty the shallow wells of the land, to empty the deep wells furnished with hoisting ropes’: let us not submit to the house of Kish, let us wage war!” The convened assembly of his city’s young men gave answer to Bilgames: “To stand on duty, to sit in attendance, to escort the king’s son—to hold a donkey by the hindquarters—as they say, who is there has breath for that? Let us not submit to the house of Kish, let us wage war! Uruk, the smithy of the gods, Eanna, house come down from heaven—the great gods it was who gave them shape—their great rampart, a cloudbank resting on the earth, their lofty residence, founded by the god An: they are given into your charge, you are their king and their warrior! O crusher of heads, prince beloved of An, when he arrives why be afraid? That army is small and a rabble at the rear, its men will not withstand us!” Then Bilgames, the lord of Kullab, his heart rejoiced in what his city’s young men said, his mood turned bright, he spoke to his servant Enkidu: “Now make ready the equipment and arms of battle, let weapons of war return to your grasp! Let them create terror and a dread aura, so when he arrives fear of me overwhelms him, so his good sense is confounded and his judgment undone!” It was not five days, it was not ten days, Enmebaragesi’s son Akka laid siege to Uruk, and Uruk’s good sense was confounded. Bilgames, the lord of Kullab, addressed the city’s warriors: “O my warriors, whose eyes stare wide with alarm, let one stout of heart volunteer, ‘I will go to Akka!’” 55–58. Birhurturra, his royal bodyguard, did homage to his king: “My lord, I will go to Akka, so his good sense is confounded and his judgment undone.” Birhurturra went forth from the city gate. As Birhurturra passed through the city gate, in the city’s gateway he was taken captive, they battered Birhurturra from head to toe. He came into the presence of Akka, he addressed Akka. He had not finished speaking when the Steward of Uruk climbed up on the wall, and raised his head on the rampart. Akka caught sight of him and addressed Birhurturra: “Slave, is that man your king?”

Primary Source Documents

161

“That man is not my king! Were that man my king, were that his fearsome brow, were those his bison eyes, were that his beard of lapis lazuli, were those his fingers fine, would a myriad not fall, a myriad not rise, would a myriad thereby not roll in the dust, would all the nations thereby not be overwhelmed, would the mouths of the land thereby not be filled with dust, would he not cut down the horns of the boat, would he not make Akka, king of Kish, a prisoner in the heart of his army?” They hit him and they beat him, they battered Birhurturra from head to toe. After the Steward of Uruk, Bilgames climbed up on the wall, (his) dread aura overwhelmed the old and young of Kullab, but [put] weapons of war in the hands of Uruk’s young men. At the door of the city gate they stood in the roadway, Enkidu went forth from the city gate. Bilgames raised his head on the rampart. Looking up, Akka caught sight of him: “Slave, is that man your king?” “That man is indeed my king!” And it was just as he had said: a myriad did fall, a myriad did rise, a myriad did thereby roll in the dust, all the nations were thereby overwhelmed, the mouths of the land were thereby filled with dust, he cut down the horns of the boat, in the midst of his army he took prisoner Akka, king of Kish. [The lord] of Kullab, . . . that army. Bilgames, the lord of Kullab, addressed Akka: “O Akka, my lieutenant, Akka, my captain, O Akka, my commander, Akka, my general, O Akka, my field marshall! O Akka, you gave me breath, Akka, you gave me life, O Akka, you took to your bosom a man on the run, O Akka, a runaway bird you sated with grain.” Akka: “Uruk, the smithy of the gods, its great rampart, a cloudbank resting on the earth, its lofty residence, founded by the god An, are given into your charge: [repay me] my favour!” Bilgames: “Before the Sun God I hereby repay you the favour of old!” He let Akka go free to Kish. O Bilgames, lord of Kullab, sweet is your praise! Source: George, Andrew, trans. 1999. The Epic of Gilgamesh. Harmondsworth. UK: Alan Lane, The Penguin Press, 1999, 145–48. Translation copyright © Andrew George, 1999. Used by permission of Penguin Books, Ltd.

THE NETHERWORLD—FROM THE EPIC OF GILGAMESH Stories of Gilgamesh, semilegendary king of Uruk, were made into a coherent philosophical narrative describing his painful transformation from irresponsible youth to wise, responsible king. The turning point comes when the gods, angered

162

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

at the pair’s behavior, cause Gilgamesh’s friend Enkidu to die of fever. Gilgamesh, driven mad by terror of his own mortality, goes in search of eternal life. The immortal survivor of the Flood, Utanapishtim, makes him understand that all humans must accept the bitterness and inevitability of death and must make the best of life. These excerpts from the Akkadian, “Standard Version” of the exorcist Sinliqe-uninni, around 1200 BCE, also reveal the grim afterlife awaiting Mesopotamians. (Tablet VI) Enkidu was sleeping, and had a dream. He woke up and revealed his dream to his friend. (Tablet VII) “. . . (In my dream) Anu, Enlil, and Shamash held a council, and Anu spoke to Enlil: ‘Because they killed the Bull of Heaven and have also slain Humbaba, the one of them who pulled up the Cedar of the Mountain must die!’ Enlil said: ‘Let Enkidu die, but Gilgamesh must not die!’” . . . ‘Enkidu was lying (sick) in front of Gilgamesh. His tears flowing like canals, . . . : “O brother, dear brother, . . . So now must I become a ghost, to sit with the ghosts of the dead, to see my dear brother nevermore!” . . . “Listen, my friend, to the dream that I had last night. . . . There appeared a man of dark visage—. . . his hands were the paws of a lion, his nails the talons of an eagle! . . . Seizing me, he led me down to the House of Darkness, . . . to the house where those who enter do not come out, . . . where those who dwell, do without light, where dirt is their drink, their food is of clay, . . . they dwell in the dark, and upon the door and bolt, there lies dust. On entering the House of Dust, everywhere I looked there were royal crowns gathered in heaps, everywhere I listened, it was the bearers of crowns, who, in the past, had ruled the land, but who now served Anu and Enlil cooked meats, served confections, and poured cool water from waterskins. . . . there sat . . . Ereshkigal, the Queen of the Netherworld. Beletseri, the Scribe of the Netherworld, knelt before her, she was holding the tablet and was reading it out to her Ereshkigal. She raised her head when she saw me—‘Who has taken this man?’ . . . Enkidu’s illness grew ever worse. . . . (Tablet VIII) Just as day began to dawn Gilgamesh addressed his friend, saying: “Enkidu, . . . now what is this sleep which has seized you? You have turned dark and do

Primary Source Documents

163

not hear me!” But his (Enkidu’s) eyes do not move, he touched his heart, but it beat no longer. He covered his friend’s face like a bride, swooping down over him like an eagle, and like a lioness deprived of her cubs he keeps pacing to and fro. He shears off his curls and heaps them onto the ground, ripping off his finery and casting it away as an abomination. . . . (Tablet IX) Over his friend, Enkidu, Gilgamesh cried bitterly, roaming the wilderness. “I am going to die!—am I not like Enkidu?! Deep sadness penetrates my core, I fear death . . .—I will set out to the region of Utanapishtim, son of Ubartutu, and will go with utmost dispatch! . . .” (Tablet X) Utanapishtim said to Gilgamesh: “Why are your cheeks emaciated, your expression desolate! Why is your heart so wretched, . . . Why do . . . you roam the wilderness!” Gilgamesh spoke to Utanapishtim saying: “Should not my cheeks be emaciated, my expression desolate! Should my heart not be wretched . . . should I not roam the wilderness? . . . My friend, whom I love deeply, who went through every hardship with me, Enkidu, . . . the fate of mankind has overtaken him. Six days and seven nights I mourned over him and would not allow him to be buried until a maggot fell out of his nose. I was terrified by his appearance(!), I began to fear death. . . . How can I stay silent, how can I be still! My friend whom I love has turned to clay . . . ! Am I not like him! Will I lie down never to get up again!” . . . Utanapishtim spoke to Gilgamesh, saying: “. . . You have toiled without cease, and what have you got! Through toil you wear yourself out, you fill your body with grief, your long lifetime you are bringing near (to a premature end)! . . . No one can see death, no one can see the face of death, no one can hear the voice of death, yet there is savage death that snaps off mankind. For how long do we build a household? For how long do we seal a document! For how long do brothers share the inheritance. . . . How alike are the sleeping(!) and the dead. . . . (Yes, you are a) human being, a man (?)! After Enlil had pronounced the blessing, the Anunnaki, the Great Gods, assembled. . . . They established Death and Life, but they did not make known ‘the days of death.’” Source: The Epic of Gilgamesh, Standard Version Tablet VI–X. Translated by Maureen Gallery Kovacs, electronic edition by Wolf Carnahan, 1998. http://www.ancienttexts.org/library /mesopotamian/gilgamesh/. Last accessed October 16, 2016. Copyright (c) 1985, 1989 by the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Jr. University. All rights reserved. Used with the permission of Stanford University Press, www.sup.org.

164

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

UMMA AND LAGASH Girsu was the capital of Lagash state (patron deity Ningirsu), located only 20 miles south of Umma (patron deity Shara), capital of Umma state. This account (translated from the original Sumerian, given here almost in its entirety) charts a conflict between them over lands (the Gu’edena) along their mutual border. Among the first substantial contemporary historical texts to appear, it was inscribed on a clay foundation cone of Enmetena of Lagash (2404–2375 BCE). Mesalim, king of Kish around 2500 BCE, arbitrated, erecting a stele marking the boundary and awarding farming rights on the disputed land to Umma, with an annual payment to Lagash from the produce. The dispute was repeatedly reopened. Enlil, king of all lands, father of all the gods, by his authoritative command, demarcated the border between Ningirsu and Shara. Mesalim, king of Kish, at the command of Ishtaran, measured it off and erected a monument there. Ush, ruler of Umma, acted arrogantly: he smashed that monument and marched on the plain of Lagash. Ningirsu, warrior of Enlil, by his (Enlil’s) just command, did battle with Umma. At Enlil’s command, he cast the great battle-net upon it, and set up burial mounds for it on the plain. Eanatum, ruler of Lagash, uncle of Enmetena ruler of Lagash, demarcated the border with Enakale, the ruler of Umma. He extended the (boundary-) channel from the Nun-Canal to the Gu’edena, leaving a 215-nindan (1290 m.) strip of Ningirsu’s land under Umma’s control and establishing a noman’s land there. He inscribed (and erected) monuments at that (boundary) channel and restored the monument of Mesalim, but did not cross into the plain of Umma. On the boundary-levee of Ningirsu, (called) Namnundakigara, he built a chapel of Enlil, a chapel of Ninhursag, a chapel of Ningirsu, and a chapel of Utu. The leader of Umma could exploit one guru (5184 hl.) of the barley of Nanshe and the barley of Ningirsu as a(n interest-bearing) loan. It bore interest, and 8,640,000 guru (44,789,760,000 hl.) accrued. Since he was unable to repay(?) that barley, Urluma, ruler of Umma, diverted water into the boundary-channel of Ningirsu and the boundary-channel of Nanshe. He set fire to their monuments and smashed them, and destroyed the established chapels of the gods that were built on the (boundary-levee called) Namnundakigara. He recruited foreigners, and transgressed the boundary-channel of Ningirsu. Enanatum, ruler of Lagash, fought with him in the Ugiga-field, the field of Ningirsu. Enmetena, beloved son of Enanatum, defeated him. Urluma escaped, but was killed in Umma itself. He had abandoned sixty teams of asses at the bank of the Lumagirnunta-canal, and left the bones of their personnel strewn over the plain. He (Enmetena) made burial mounds in five places there for them.

Primary Source Documents

165

At that time, Il, who was the temple-estate administrator at Zabala, . . . took the rulership of Umma for himself. He diverted water into the boundary-channel of Ningirsu and the boundary-channel of Nanshe, at the boundary-levee of Ningirsu . . . the Namnundakigara of Enlil, Enki, and Ninhursag. He repaid (?) (only) 3600 guru (18,662,400 hl.) of Lagash’s barley. When, because of those (boundary-)channels, Enmetena, ruler of Lagash, sent envoys to Il, Il, ruler of Umma, the field thief, speaking hostilely, said “The boundary-channel of Ningirsu and the boundary-channel of Nanshe are mine! I will shift the boundary-levee from Antasura to Edimglabzu!” he said. But Enlil and Ninhursag did not allow him (to do) this. Enmetena, ruler of Lagash, nominee of Ningirsu, at the just command of Enlil, at the just command of Ningirsu, and at the just command of Nanshe, constructed that (boundary-)channel from the Tigris to the Nun-Canal. He built the foundations of the (levee called) Namnundakigara for him (Ningirsu) out of stone, restoring it for the master who loves him, Ningirsu, and for the mistress who loves him, Nanshe. . . . . If the leader of Umma transgresses the boundary-channel of Ningirsu and the boundary-channel of Nanshe, to take away fields by force—whether he be the leader of Umma or an(y) other leader—may Enlil destroy him! May Ningirsu, after casting his great battle-net upon him, bring down upon him his giant hands and feet! May the people of his city, having risen up against him, kill him there within his city! Source: Cooper, Jerrold S. Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions: The Lagash-Umma Conflict. Sources from the Ancient Near East. Vol. 2, fascicule 1. Malibu: Udena Publications, 1983, 49–50.

URU-INIM-GINA King Uru-inim-gina (UruKAgina) of Lagash (2351–2342 BCE), possibly a usurper, was concerned to justify his position by demonstrating how well he fulfilled his kingly duties. In a text spanning two foundation cones (extracts from which are given here, translated from the Sumerian) he describes his domestic reforms aimed at improving the lot of the ordinary citizen, particularly the weak and disadvantaged, eliminating abuses practiced by officials, and restoring the eroded power of the temple. Contemporary economic documents from the temple of Bau, however, suggest that he actually strengthened the economic power of the monarchy. Ningirsu was the patron god of Lagash state. For Ningirsu, the foremost warrior of Enlil, Urukagina, the king of Lagash, built the palace Tirash; built the Antasurra for him; . . . dug for Nanshe the

166

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

Idninadu, . . . her beloved canal, . . . ; built the wall of Girsu for him (Ningirsu). Formerly, from days of yore, . . . the man in charge of the boatmen seized the boats. The head shepherd seized the donkeys. The head shepherd seized the sheep. The man in charge of the fisheries seized the fisheries. . . . The shepherds of wool-bearing sheep had to pay silver (to the ensi) for (the shearing of ) the white sheep. . . . The oxen of the gods plowed the onion patches of the ensi (and) the onion (and) cucumber fields of the ensi were located in the god’s best fields. . . . The sanga (in charge) of the food (supplies) felled the trees in the garden of the indigent mother and bundled off the fruit. He who brought the dead man to the cemetery (for burial)—his beer was 7 pitchers (and) his (loaves of ) bread were 420. . . . The artisans had to beg for their bread. . . . From the borders of Ningirsu to the sea, there was the tax collector. . . . These were the (social) practices of former days. (But) when Ningirsu, the foremost warrior of Enlil, gave the kingship of Lagash to Urukagina, (and) his (Ningirsu’s) hand had grasped him out of the multitude; then he (Ningirsu) enjoined upon him the (divine) decrees of former days. He (Urukagina) held close to the word which his king (Ningirsu) spoke to him. He banned the man in charge of the boatmen from (seizing) the boats. He banned the head shepherds from (seizing) the donkeys and sheep. He banned the man in charge of the fisheries from (seizing) the fisheries. . . . He banned the bailiff from (receiving) the silver (paid for the shearing) of the white sheep. . . . From the borders of Ningirsu to the sea, there was no tax collector. He who brought the dead to the cemetery (for burial)—his beer was (only) 3 pitchers (and) his (loaves of ) bread were (only) 80. . . . He did away with (the necessity of ) the artisans to beg for their bread. The sanga (in charge) of the food (supplies) did not (dare) enter the garden of the indigent mother. . . . He (Urukagina) amnestied the “citizens” of Lagash who (were imprisoned because of ) the debts (which they) had incurred, . . . (or because of ) theft (or) murder, and set them free. (Finally) Urukagina made a covenant with Ningirsu that a man of power must not commit an (injustice) against an orphan or widow. Source: Kramer, Samuel Noah. The Sumerians. Their History, Culture and Character. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963, 317–19. Used by permission of the University of Chicago Press.

TWO KINGS Around 2340 BCE Lugalzagesi, king of Uruk, gained hegemony over all southern Mesopotamia (“the Land”). He dedicated offerings at Enlil’s shrine in Nippur; in

Primary Source Documents

167

their inscription (given in full, translated from Sumerian), Lugalzagesi implies that every city’s god felt satisfaction in his rule, Enlil choosing him to ensure the whole Land’s well-being. In contrast, Sargon’s inscription (translated from Akkadian; given in full), emphasizes his military successes as proof of Enlil’s support. It was displayed when Sargon paraded the defeated Lugalzagesi before Enlil’s shrine, to demonstrate the transfer of divinely sanctioned authority. The contrast between Lugalzagesi’s inscription, glorifying the peace and prosperity he brought the Land, and Sargon’s triumphalist victory inscription could not be more stark.

Lugalzagezi Inscription For Enlil, king of all the lands—to Lugalzagesi, king of Uruk, king of “the Land”, išib-priest of An, lumah-priest of Nisaba, son of U’u, ruler of Umma and lumah-priest of Nisaba, the one looked favourably upon by An, king of all the lands, the ensigal-priest of Enlil, the one given wisdom by Enki, whose name was chosen by Utu, great vizier of Suen, general of Utu, provider for Inanna, son borne of Nisaba, fed fine milk by Ninhursaga, man of the god Messanga’unuga, raised by Ningirim, lady of Uruk, chief steward of the gods— When Enlil, king of all the lands, gave kingship of “the Land” to Lugalzagesi, pointed the eyes of “the Land” towards him, set all of the lands at his feet, from east to west subordinated (them) to him,—at that time, from the Lower Sea, (along) the Tigris and the Euphrates rivers to the Upper Sea, he (Enlil) put their roads in order for him. From east to west Enlil let him have no rival. Under him, all the lands lay in lush pastures. “The Land” made merry under him. All the sovereigns of Sumer and the rulers of all the lands . . . to him at Uruk. At that time, under him, Uruk passed the days in rejoicing; Ur, like a bull, raised its head; Larsa, beloved city of Utu, made merry; Umma, beloved city of Shara, raised its mighty horns; the territory Zabalam cried out like a ewe separated from its lamb; and Kidingir raised its neck. Lugalzagesi, king of Uruk, king of “the Land”, . . . brings sumptuous food offerings and pours sweet water, in Nippur, for his lord Enlil. . . . “May Enlil, king of all the lands, say a prayer for me to An, his beloved father! May he (An) add life (to) my life! Under me, may the lands lie in lush pastures; may the population become as widespread as the grass; may the teats of heaven function well; may the people look upon a good land (only). May they (An and Enlil) not change the good fate they have decreed for me! May I always be the . . . shepherd!” For his life, he (Lugalzagesi) dedicated (the object on which this text is inscribed) to Enlil, his beloved lord.

168

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

Sargon Inscription Sargon, the king of Akkad, the bailiff of Ishtar, the king of the universe, the anointed one of An, the king of the land, the governor of Enlil. He vanquished Uruk in battle and smote fifty governors and the city by the mace of the god Ilaba. And he destroyed its fortress and captured Lugalzagesi, the king of Uruk, in battle. He led him to the gate of Enlil in a neckstock. Sargon, the king of Akkad, vanquished Ur in battle and smote the city and destroyed its fortress. He smote Eninmar and destroyed its fortress. He smote its territory and Lagash as far as the sea. He washed his weapons in the sea. He vanquished Umma in battle and smote the city and destroyed its fortress. Sargon, king of the land, to whom Enlil has given no rival, to him he (Enlil) gave the upper and lower sea. Indeed, from the lower sea to the upper sea the inhabitants of the land Akkad hold governorships. Mari and Elam stand before Sargon, king of the land. Sargon, king of the land, restored the territory of Kish and made them occupy it. Whoever should remove this inscription, may Enlil and Shamash uproot his foundation and obliterate his progeny. . . . Anyone who should neglect this statue, may Enlil neglect him. Let him (Enlil) destroy his weapon. May he not stand before Enlil. (This) inscription was written on the socle in front of Lugalzagesi. Source: Chavalas, Mark W., ed. The Ancient Near East. Historical Sources in Translation. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, 15, 18. Used by permission of John Wiley & Sons.

ENHEDUANNA Enheduanna (fl. 2270 BCE), daughter of Sargon of Akkad, enjoyed great influence and responsibility as priestess of the moon god Suen (Nanna) in Ur. Several hymns are attributed to Enheduanna, the earliest named author in history. In one she successfully prays to the goddess Inanna for help, probably during a rebellion against Akkadian rule. In this poem (of which excerpts, translated from Sumerian, are given here), Enheduanna proclaims Inanna’s supremacy: as goddess of war, exultant on the battlefield; goddess of love; keeper of the ME, the attributes of civilization; and goddess of the morning and evening star (the planet Venus), she has cowed all the other gods, who dare not oppose her. 1–10. The great-hearted mistress, the impetuous lady, proud among the Anuna gods and pre-eminent in all lands, the great daughter of Suen, . . . She

Primary Source Documents

169

makes perfect the great divine powers, she holds a shepherd’s crook. . . . Her great awesomeness covers the great mountain and levels the roads. 11–17. . . . Who opposes the mistress who raises her head and is supreme over the mountains? Wherever she . . . , cities become ruin mounds and haunted places, and shrines become waste land. . . . 18–28. She stirs confusion and chaos against those who are disobedient to her, . . . It is her game to speed conflict and battle, untiring, strapping on her sandals. . . . 29–48. . . . In her joyful heart she performs the song of death on the plain. . . . She washes their weapons with blood and gore, . . . Axes smash heads, spears penetrate and maces are covered in blood. . . . 49–59. On the wide and silent plain, darkening the bright daylight, she turns midday into darkness. . . . No one can oppose her murderous battle—who rivals her? . . . Exalted in the assembly, she occupies the seat of honour, . . . [Long section attributing all the ME (powers and attributes of civilized life) individually to Inana] 174–181. . . . who can oppose your great deeds? You are the lady of heaven and earth! Inana, in (?) the palace the unbribable judge, . . . 203–208. . . . Once you have made a decision . . . , it cannot be changed in heaven and earth. Once you have specified approval of a place, it experiences no destruction. Once you have specified destruction for a place, it experiences no approval. 209–218. Your divinity shines in the pure heavens like Nanna or Utu. Your torch lights up the corners of heaven, turning darkness into light. . . . You exercise full ladyship over heaven and earth; you hold everything in your hand. . . . You dwell with great An in the holy resting-place. . . . your name is praised, you alone are magnificent! 219–220. I am En-hedu-ana, the high priestess of the moon god. . . . 243–253. . . . May your heart be soothed towards me! . . . My body has experienced your great punishment. Lament, bitterness, sleeplessness, distress, separation . . . , mercy, compassion, care, lenience and homage are yours. . . .

170

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

254–263. My lady, let me proclaim your magnificence in all lands, and your glory! Let me praise your ways and greatness! . . . May the great gods calm your mood. . . . 264–271. . . . May your heart be restored for my sake! Source: Black, Jeremy, Graham Cunningham, Eleanor Robson, and Gabor Zolyomi. “A Hymn to Inana.” In The Literature of Ancient Sumer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, 93–99. Used by permission of Oxford University Press.

THE CURSING OF AGADE Sargon of Akkad (2334–2279 BCE) established a new city, Agade, as his capital. This Sumerian poem (of which excerpts are translated here) was composed during the Ur III period and is full of historical inaccuracies, including the false claim that Naram-Sin destroyed Enlil’s temple. It describes Agade’s architectural and cultural splendors, commercial success, and prosperity. Sargon’s grandson, NaramSin (Naram-Suen), claimed that his military success won him the gratitude of the gods, who made him Agade’s patron deity. Outrage at this radical ideological change and traditionalist hostility to the Akkadian regime are probably reflected in the poem’s latter part, describing the god Enlil’s destruction of the city, using Gutian raiders. 1–9. After . . . Enlil had given the rulership and kingship from the south as far as the highlands to Sargon, king of Agade—at that time, holy Inana established the sanctuary of Agade as her celebrated woman’s domain; she set up her throne in Ulmaš. 10–24. Like a young man building a house for the first time, like a girl establishing a woman’s domain, holy Inana did not sleep as she ensured that the warehouses would be provisioned; that dwellings would be founded in the city; that its people would eat splendid food; that its people would drink splendid beverages; that those bathed for holidays would rejoice in the courtyards; that the people would throng the places of celebration; that acquaintances would dine together; that foreigners would cruise about like unusual birds in the sky; . . . that monkeys, mighty elephants, water buffalo, exotic animals, as well as thoroughbred dogs, lions, mountain ibexes, and alum sheep with long wool would jostle each other in the public squares. 25–39. She then filled Agade’s stores for emmer wheat with gold, she filled its stores for white emmer wheat with silver; she delivered copper, tin, and blocks

Primary Source Documents

171

of lapis lazuli to its granaries. . . . She endowed its old women with the gift of giving counsel, she endowed its old men with the gift of eloquence. She endowed its young women with the gift of entertaining, she endowed its young men with martial might, she endowed its little ones with joy. . . . Inside the city tigi drums sounded; outside it, flutes and zamzam instruments. Its harbour where ships moored was full of joy. All foreign lands rested contentedly, and their people experienced happiness. 40–56. Its king, the shepherd Naram-Suen, rose as the daylight on the holy throne of Agade. Its city wall, like a mountain, reached the heavens. It was like the Tigris going to the sea as holy Inana opened the portals of its city gates and made Sumer bring its own possessions upstream by boats. The highland Mardu, people ignorant of agriculture, brought spirited cattle and kids for her. The Meluhans, the people of the black land, brought exotic ˘ Subir loaded themselves with goods for her as if wares up to her. Elam and they were pack-asses. All the governors, the temple administrators, and the accountants of the Gu-edina regularly supplied the monthly and New Year offerings. What a weariness all these caused at Agade’s city gates! Holy Inana could hardly receive all these offerings. . . . [Then King Naram-Suen hubristically destroys the E-kur, the temple of Enlil, bringing divine vengeance upon Agade] 149–175. Enlil, the roaring (?) storm that subjugates the entire land, the rising deluge that cannot be confronted, was considering what should be destroyed in return for the wrecking of his beloved E-kur. He lifted his gaze towards the Gubin mountains, and . . . brought out of the mountains those . . . who are not reckoned as part of the Land, the Gutians, an unbridled people. . . . Like small birds they swooped on the ground in great flocks. Because of Enlil, they stretched their arms out across the plain like a net for animals. Nothing escaped their clutches, no one left their grasp. Messengers no longer travelled the highways, the courier’s boat no longer passed along the rivers. The Gutians drove the trusty (?) goats of Enlil out of their folds and compelled their herdsmen to follow them, they drove the cows out of their pens and compelled their cowherds to follow them. . . . Brigands occupied the highways. The doors of the city gates of the Land lay dislodged in mud. . . . They established gardens for themselves within the cities, and not as usual on the wide plain outside. As if it had been before the time when cities were built and founded, the large arable tracts yielded no grain, the inundated tracts yielded no fish, the irrigated orchards yielded no syrup or wine. . . .

172

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

176–192. In those days, oil for one shekel was only half a sila, grain for one shekel was only half a sila, wool for one shekel was only one mina, fish for one shekel filled only one ban measure—these sold at such prices in the markets of the cities! Those who lay down on the roof, died on the roof; those who lay down in the house were not buried. People were flailing at themselves from hunger. By the Ki-ur, Enlil’s great place, dogs were packed together in the silent streets; . . . if three men walked there they would be devoured by them. Noses were punched (?), heads were smashed (?), . . . the blood of traitors ran upon the blood of honest men. . . . 272–280. . . .On its canal bank tow-paths, the grass grew long. On its highways laid for waggons, the grass of mourning grew. . . . On its plains, where fine grass grew, now the reeds of lamentation grew. Source: Black, Jeremy, Graham Cunningham, Eleanor Robson, and Gabor Zolyomi. “The Cursing of Agade.” In The Literature of Ancient Sumer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, 118–19, 121–22, 124. Used by permission of Oxford University Press.

GUDEA Best documented of the revived Sumerian city-states that succeeded the Akkadian empire is Lagash (capital Girsu). Its pious king Gudea (2141–2122 BCE) lavished imported materials on the Eninnu, temple of Girsu’s god, Ningirsu, including cedarwood, silver, and carnelian, showing that foreign trade still flourished. The temple also received booty from Gudea’s successful campaigns in southwestern Iran. The extracts here (translated from the Sumerian) are from the inscription on a diorite statue recording the Eninnu’s construction; it portrayed Gudea with the temple’s plan on his lap, along with a writing stylus and a measuring rule, suggesting that Gudea himself may have been the temple’s architect. ii 1–iii 14. For Ningirsu, the mighty warrior of Enlil, Gudea, whose name endures—the ruler of Lagash, the shepherd called in the heart by Ningirsu, regarded with favor by Nanshe, . . . the one whose head was raised high in glory in the assembly by his (personal) god Ningishzida—on the day when Ningirsu looked at his city with favor (and) called Gudea to be the faithful shepherd in the land, when he (Ningirsu) took him by the hand from the midst of the human multitude; (then) he sanctified the city, cleansed it with fire, established the brick mold, (and) selected the brick by extispicy. iii 15–v 11. . . . He built the temple of Ningirsu in a pure place. . . .

Primary Source Documents

173

v 21–vi 63. On the day when he (began to) build the temple of Ningirsu, his beloved king (Ningirsu) opened the way for him from the upper sea to the lower sea. From the Amanus (mountains), the mountain range of cedars, he made rafts out of cedar logs thirty yards long, cedar logs 25 yards long, (and) box-wood logs twelve and a half yards long; (and) brought (floated) them (down the river) from that land. . . . He fashioned those cedars into great doors, decorated them with precious metal flowers (?), and brought them all into the Eninnu for him. He used (the logs) as roof beams in the lofty temple. . . . From the city Ursu (and) the mountain range of Ibla he made rafts out of logs from junipers, large fir trees, and plane trees, mountain woods, (and) he used them for roof beams for him (Ningirsu) in the Eninnu. He brought great stones from Umanum, the mountain range of Menus, and from Basalla, the mountain range of the Martu, fashioned them into steles, (and) erected them in the courtyard of the Eninnu for him. He brought large blocks of alabaster from Tidanum, the mountain range of Martu, fashioned them into ferocious lions for him (Ningirsu), (and) installed them as (protective) door bolts (?) in the temple. He mined copper in Abullat, the mountain range of Kimash. . . . He brought ebony wood from the land of Meluhha and used it to build for him, (and) he (also) brought blocks of hulalu-stones from there. . . . He brought gold ore from the mountain range of Hahum and . . . from the land of Meluhha. . . . He brought oak wood from Gubin, the land of oak wood. . . . He brought a massive amount of bitumen from Magda, the mountain range of the Luruda (?) river and used it to build the retaining wall of the Eninnu, (and) he (also) brought Haum clay from there. He loaded stone slabs for him from the mountain range of Barme into great ships and brought them back (?) for the foundation of the Eninnu. vi 64–76. He struck the cities of Anshan and Elam with weapons and brought their spoil into the Eninnu for Ningirsu. . . . vi 77–vii 57. . . . He brought a diorite stone from the land of Magan (and) shaped it into this stone statue: “I built his temple for my king; life is my reward” he named it for him (Ningirsu) and brought it into the Eninnu for him. (Then) Gudea gave (the following) command to the statue: “O Statue, when you speak to my king (say this): ‘On the day when I built for him the Eninnu, his beloved temple, I remitted debts and washed all hands (of such obligations). For seven days no grain was ground, the slave girl was equal with her mistress, (and) the slave stood at his master’s side. . . . I turned all evil back from their houses. I paid close attention to the laws of Nanshe and Ningirsu; the orphan was not given over to the wealthy man; the widow was not given over to the powerful man; (and) in the house with no (male) heir its daughter became its heir.’” He installed the statue with this command. . . .

174

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

Source: Chavalas, Mark W., ed. “Gudea Statue B.” In The Ancient Near East. Historical Sources in Translation. Oxford: Blackwell, 2006, 47–50. Used by permission of John Wiley & Sons.

SHULGI The Ur III period saw the richest flowering of Sumerian literature, including royal hymns praising individual kings, describing their personal qualities and their laudable attention to the welfare of their subjects. These excerpts (translated from the Sumerian) come from a hymn giving a supposed self-portrait of the greatest, Shulgi: a model pupil at school (edubba); skilled musician; patron of literature; exceptional in warfare, hunting, and sports. A good son, he is a benevolent father to his people, tirelessly protecting the interests of the weak and humble, dealing wisely with affairs of state, expert in all religious activities, defending the country against enemies, promoting agriculture, acting always with energy, intelligence, compassion, and righteousness. 1–4. The king’s name, according to what is becoming, in order to bring (it) into light, for distant days, . . . Šulgi’s, the king of Ur. This is the song of his power, this is the hymn of his valour. . . . 11–14, 17–19. I, the king of royal descent, whom a princess bore; I, Šulgi, the legitimate prince, was allotted a good destiny, right from the faithful heart. Since my (very) youth I belonged in the edubba, (and) on the tablets of Sumer and Akkad I learnt the art of the scribe . . . and striving and toiling . . . all the science of numbers . . . goddess Nidaba, fair faced Nidaba, with a generous hand, provided me with intelligence and wisdom. . . . 21–35. (Then) my start (in life) was like that of a young lion, (and) my onward march on the road of valour was like (the run of a) fiery ass. The favour of An filled me with enthusiasm, and Enlil on that occasion, in faithful tones declared my triumph that was to be. On account of my righteousness, on account of the scepter I had been endowed with, I was to set my foot on the neck of the enemy lands. He let the fame of my weapons to be effective down the South, he let the smiting of my arms be effective up North . . . by the sword I established my triumph; with the spear . . . as many as there were. In the sling and slingstone I am an expert. . . . 54–55. . . . My intelligence being full of perfect accomplishments what (can matter with) me? Nothing is hidden to me! . . . 57–76. . . . in my roaming about treading along (through) alfa grass of marshes and reeds, hunting elephants (?) and wild animals of the plain, whenever a

Primary Source Documents

175

lion . . . would come whither I was marching, I would go fearlessly (in pursuit) in the intricate vegetation of the plain. . . . Indeed all alone I would bring the beast down, nobody meddling in it. To finish the lion with the cutlass was my privilege. 103, 109. . . . I proved an expert in shooting with the bow. . . . I Šulgi, when I am on running, can overtake a gazelle. . . . 127. Like a donkey-colt in its running, my strength does never give way. 130–131. My speech was never arrogant. My meekness (or, openmindedness) prompted words that were pronouncements of justice. 132, 146–147. I am a ritually pure baru diviner. . . . I myself investigated the sheep ready (for extispicy), (and so) good fortune would never be overtaken by misfortune. 155–157. I, Šulgi, the king of Ur, dedicated myself also to music. Nothing related to it was too complex for me. 190–191, 198, 200. . . . I, Šulgi, in (my) life of long days, what(ever) I did was great. . . . I am the leader that leads everything splendidly. . . . (I am) the builder with the measuring rod for the building of the cities. . . . 206–208, 216–219. I knew how to be the match of the words of the powerful. For the sons of Sumer . . . I am their mouthpiece. . . . In order to establish (justice and) right for Sumer, I answered in . . . five languages, . . . (and) administered justice setting the hearts free. 220–221, 224–226. Being intelligent, I am (at) the peak of kingship. To my administration peoples spontaneously acquiesced; . . . On the occasion of taking counsel, with good words, in the assembly where decisions were taken, I taught the governors how to deliberate, suggesting the apposite words. 230–232. By means of my bare word, as with weapons, I carry off cities, my wisdom acting (effectively) for their submission. 233–234, 238–240. To those who have no mother I can say kind words (?), for the afflicted I have words to cheer them up (?). . . . For all noble things I am the man! I have appreciation for the person of the humble and the noble, as for myself, I never wronged anybody.

176

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

247–249, 252–258. Whenever I found myself (involved) in great things I tackled them with courage and did not push anything aside in neglect. . . . For the large meadows, I had [the water] rise, for the fields (to make them) into fertile fields, I planted trees; for the high grounds I forced the dikes to [provide water] that created great abundance of oil, great abundance of wool, fine looking flax, fine looking wheat. In order to mind the will of the gods, my heart was engrossed with care. I, Šulgi, am the life(giver) of Sumer. 328, 332. I, the king, my arm is the protecting genius (and) this is the song of my valour. . . . I am the good king of the land! 378, 382–385 [My palace, the pal]ace of my kingship, its praise is exceedingly great. . . . I excell all (former) kings (as) in all places I have made perfect works. My praise is sweet! To Nidaba praise! Source: Castellino, Giorgio R. “Šulgi Hymn B.” Two Šulgi Hymns (BC). Rome: Istituto di Studi Vicino Oriente, Rome University, 1972, 31–69.

SHEEP AND GRAIN Philosophical disputation poems were popular court entertainment in Ur III Sumer. In these, two juxtaposed elements debate their relative value to society. The poems were performed publicly, with different individuals taking the two disputants’ parts. Some are humorous, with heated insults and the contestants resorting to violence, some lyrical and poignant. In these substantial excerpts from the debate between Sheep and Grain (translated from the Sumerian), the relative contribution of arable agriculture and pastoralism are discussed, considering not only their place in the Sumerian diet but also their by-products and the way of life of their practitioners, providing a fascinating glimpse of the world through Sumerian eyes. 1–11. When, upon the hill of heaven and earth, An spawned the Anuna gods, . . . the Anuna, the great gods, did not even know the names Ezina-Kusu (Grain) or Sheep. 12–25. . . .The people of those days did not know about eating bread. They did not know about wearing clothes; they went about with naked limbs in the Land . . . they ate grass with their mouths and drank water from the ditches. 26–36. At that time, . . . on the Holy Mound, they created Sheep and Grain. Having gathered them in the divine banqueting chamber, the Anuna gods of

Primary Source Documents

177

the Holy Mound partook of the bounty of Sheep and Grain but were not sated; the Anuna gods of the Holy Mound partook of the sweet milk of their holy sheepfold but were not sated. For their own well-being in the holy sheepfold, they gave them to mankind as sustenance. . . . . . 43–53. Sheep being fenced in by her sheepfold, they gave her grass and herbs generously. For Grain they made her field and gave her the plough, yoke, and team. Sheep standing in her sheepfold was a shepherd of the sheepfolds brimming with charm. Grain standing in her furrow was a beautiful girl radiating charm. . . . 54–64. They brought wealth to the assembly. They brought sustenance to the Land. . . . They filled the storerooms of the Land with stock. The barns of the Land were heavy with them. When they entered the homes of the poor who crouch in the dust they brought wealth. Both of them, wherever they directed their steps, added to the riches of the household with their weight. Where they stood, they were satisfying; where they settled, they were seemly. . . . 65–70. . . . When they had drunk sweet wine and enjoyed sweet beer, . . . they began a debate in the dining hall. 71–82. Grain called out to Sheep: “Sister, I am your better; I take precedence over you. . . . I am the gift of the Anuna gods. I am central to all princes. After I have conferred my power on the warrior, when he goes to war he knows no fear. . . .” 83–91. “I foster neighbourliness and friendliness. I sort out quarrels started between neighbours. When I come upon a captive youth . . . , he forgets his despondent heart and I release his fetters and shackles. . . . In sheep shacks and milking pens scattered on the high plain, what can you put against me? . . .” 92–101. Then Sheep answered Grain: “My sister, whatever are you saying? An, king of the gods, made me descend from the holy place, . . . All the yarns of Uttu (goddess of weaving), the splendour of kingship, belong to me. Šakkan (god of wild animals), king of the mountain, embosses the king’s emblems and puts his implements in order. He twists a giant rope against the great peaks of the rebel land. He . . . the sling, the quiver and the longbows.”

178

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

102–106. “The watch over the elite troops is mine. Sustenance of the workers in the field is mine: the waterskin of cool water and the sandals are mine. Sweet oil, the fragrance of the gods, mixed (?) oil, pressed oil, aromatic oil, cedar oil for offerings are mine.” 107–115. “In the gown, my cloth of white wool, the king rejoices on his throne. My body glistens on the flesh of the great gods. After the . . . priests . . . have dressed themselves in me for my holy lustration, I walk with them to my holy meal. But your harrow, ploughshare, binding and strap are tools that can be utterly destroyed. What can you put against me? . . .” 116–122. Again Grain addressed Sheep: “When the beer dough has been carefully prepared in the oven, and the mash tended in the oven, Ninkasi (the goddess of beer) mixes them for me while your big billy-goats and rams are despatched for my banquets. . . . 123–129. “Your shepherd on the high plain eyes my produce enviously; when I am standing in stalks in the field, my farmer chases away your herdsman with his cudgel. Even when they look out for you, from the open country to the hidden places, your fears are not removed from you: fanged (?) snakes and bandits, the creatures of the desert, want your life on the high plain.” 130–142. . . . I am Grain, I am born for the warrior—I do not give up. . . . What can you put against me? . . .” 143–155. Again Sheep answered Grain: “. . .When a banished enemy, a slave from the mountains or a labourer with a poor wife and small children comes . . . to the threshing-floor, . . . when his cudgel pounds your face . . . and you are . . . around by the south wind and the north wind . . . it makes your body into flour.” 156–168. “When you fill the trough the baker’s assistant mixes you and throws you on the floor, and the baker’s girl flattens you out broadly. You are put into the oven and you are taken out of the oven. When you are put on the table I am before you—you are behind me. Grain, heed yourself! You too, just like me, are meant to be eaten. At the inspection of your essence, why should it be I who come second? . . . 180–191. Then Enki spoke to Enlil: “Father Enlil, Sheep and Grain should be sisters! They should stand together! . . . But of the two, Grain shall be the greater. . . . Whoever has silver, whoever has jewels, whoever has cattle,

Primary Source Documents

179

whoever has sheep shall take a seat at the gate of whoever has grain, and pass his time there.” 192–193. Dispute spoken between Sheep and Grain: Sheep is left behind and Grain comes forward—praise be to Father Enki! Source: Black, Jeremy, Graham Cunningham, Eleanor Robson, and Gabor Zolyomi. 2004. “The Debate between Sheep and Grain.” In The Literature of Ancient Sumer. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004, 226–29. Used by permission of Oxford University Press.

SCHOOLDAYS The Ur III kings founded schools to train scribes; many such schools flourished in Old Babylonian times. Copying set texts was central to schoolwork, perfecting both writing and an understanding of many aspects of cultural and professional life. Some texts, however, struck a lighter note, reflecting the pupils’ own experience. In this text (translated from the Sumerian; given in full), a schoolboy describes a disastrous school day and the steps he and his father take thereafter to win him the teacher’s favor: the ending is perhaps a hint that teachers would appreciate bribes to give their pupils good marks or at least special attention! Nidaba, mentioned repeatedly, is the goddess of writing. “Old Grad, where did you go (when you were young)?” “I went to school.” “What did you do in school?” “I recited my tablet, ate my lunch, prepared my (new) tablet, wrote it, finished it; then my model tablets were brought to me; and in the afternoon my exercise tablets were brought to me. When school was dismissed, I went home, entered the house, and found my father sitting there. I explained (?) my exercise-tablets to my father, (?) recited my tablet to him, and he was delighted, (so much so) that I attended him (with joy). “I am thirsty, give me water to drink; I am hungry, give me bread to eat; wash my feet, set up (my) bed, I want to go to sleep. Wake me early in the morning, I must not be late lest my teacher cane me.” When I arose early in the morning, I faced my mother and said to her: “Give me my lunch, I want to go to school!” My mother gave me two rolls, and I set out; my mother gave me two rolls, and I went to school. In school the fellow in charge of punctuality said: “Why are you late?” Afraid and with pounding heart, I entered before my teacher and made a respectful curtsy.”

180

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

My headmaster read my tablet, said: “There is something missing,” caned me. [2 unclear lines] The fellow in charge of neatness (?) said: “You loitered in the street and did not straighten up (?) your clothes,” caned me. [5 unclear lines] The fellow in charge of silence said: “Why did you talk without permission,” caned me. The fellow in charge of the assembly (?) said: “Why did you ‘stand at ease’ (?) without permission,” caned me. The fellow in charge of good behaviour said: “Why did you rise without permission,” caned me. The fellow in charge of the gate said: “Why did you go out from (the gate) without permission,” caned me. The fellow in charge of the whip said: “Why did you take. . .without permission,” caned me. The fellow in charge of Sumerian said: “Why didn’t you speak Sumerian,” caned me. My teacher (ummia) said: “Your hand is unsatisfactory,” caned me. (And so) I (began to) hate the scribal art, (began to) neglect the scribal art. My teacher took no delight in me; (even) [stopped teaching(?)] me his skill in the scribal art; in no way prepared me in the matters essential to the art (of being) a “young scribe,” (or) the art (of being) a “big brother.” [Speaking to his father] “Give him a bit extra salary, (and) let him become more kindly (?); let him be free (for a time) from arithmetic; (when) he counts up all the school affairs of the students, let him count me (too among them).” To that which the schoolboy said, his father gave heed. The teacher was brought from school, and after entering in the house he was seated on the “big chair.” The schoolboy attended him and served him, and whatever he learned of the scribal art, he unfolded to his father. Then did the father in the joy of his heart say joyfully to the headmaster of the school: “My little fellow has opened (wide) his hand, (and) you made wisdom enter there; you showed him all the fine points of the scribal art; you made him see the solution of the mathematical and arithmetical (problems), you (taught him how) to make deep (?) the cuneiform script (?)” [Speaking to the servants] “Pour for him irdaoil, bring it to the table for him. Make fragrant oil flow like water on his

Primary Source Documents

181

stomach (and) back; I want to dress him in a garment, give him some extra salary, put a ring on his hand.” [Teacher speaks] “Young fellow, (because) you hated not my words, neglected them not, (may you) complete the scribal art from beginning to end. Because you gave me everything without stint, paid me a salary larger than my efforts (deserve), (and) have honored me, may Nidaba, the queen of guardian angels, be your guardian angel; may your pointed stylus write well for you; may your exercises contain no faults. Of your brothers, may you be their leader; of your friends, may you be their chief; may you rank the highest among the school graduates, satisfy (?) all who walk (?) to and from in (?) the palaces. Little fellow, you “know” (your) father, I am second to him; that homage be paid to you, that you be blessed—may the god of your father bring this about with firm hand; he will bring prayer and supplication to Nidaba, your queen, as if it were a matter for your god. Thus, when you put a kindly hand on the . . . of the teacher, (and) on the forehead of the “big brother,” then (?) your young comrades will show you favor. You have carried out well the school’s activities, you are a man of learning. You have exalted Nidaba, the queen of learning; O Nidaba, praise!” Source: Kramer, Samuel Noah. The Sumerians. Their History, Culture and Character. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1963, 237–40. Used by permission of University of Chicago Press.

INANNA AND DUMUZI Love poetry, often quite explicit, contributed significantly to Sumerian literature. Many poems concern Inanna, goddess of love, often portrayed as a young girl in a rural setting, reflecting the agricultural source of Mesopotamian prosperity. Some poems, including this example (translated from the Sumerian; the fragmentary surviving text quoted in full), deal with Inanna’s wooing by men of various occupations. Having considered their offerings, Inanna chooses the shepherd, Dumuzi. Poems often describe their courtship, with sneaked kisses away from parental view, their eventual marriage, and the delights it brings. Pictured as a handsome and vigorous youth, Dumuzi is both the desirable lover and the suitable bridegroom who can amply support his bride. col. i 1–10. . . . like . . . , like your . . . [are] . . . , [Nin]egalla, your bridesmen [are] lo[rds], . . . like one smashing eggs . . . ; [Inanna], your bridesmen are lords. My [shepherd] is first, [the far]mer is second, . . . [the fow]ler . . . the fisherman, the man in the midst of the canebrake.

182

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

11–20. “To the shepherd I will send a messenger: ‘May he treat me tenderly with the best butter and the best milk.’ To the farmer a messenger: ‘May tenderly with [honey and wi]ne.’ [To the fow]ler for whom the net is laid, I [the lady] a messenger: ‘May he tenderly with birds of good quality. To the fisherman that his net is laid in the canebrake, I, Inanna, a messenger: ‘May he tenderly with fat carps.’” 21–32. Her bridesmen brought the gifts. The fowler brought chosen birds, the fisherman brought fat carps, m[y] lady . . . placed them. . . . ; the shepherd carried butter in (his) hand, Dumuzi carried milk on (his) shoulder, carried butter and milk in NIG-ban-da-vessels on (his) shoulder, carried milk in the churn on (his) shoulder. M[y lord] called to the house; Dumuzi . . . : “Open the [house! My mistress, [open] the house!” col. ii 1–11. The hierodule . . . , [to] her own mother she directed (her) steps, . . . she stood (before) the . . . , who is an expert in singing: “[He will be for you] as if he were (your) . . . , [he will be for you] as if he were (your) . . . , he [will be] for you as if he were (your) [brother], he will verily be as if he were your father, he will verily be as if he were your mother, his mother too [will cherish you] like your mother, his father too will cherish you like your father.” “Open the house! My mistress, open the house!” 12–23. Inanna, as her mother told her, bathed herself in water, anointed herself with good oil, covered her body with the grand queenly garment, and took her pin in (her) hand,—She straightens the lapis lazuli stones on her neck—held the seal in her hand, the young lady stood (waiting). Dumuzi pushed open the door, came forth into the house like the moonlight, he gazed at her, rejoiced in her, embraced her, kissed her, . . . col. iii 1–8. . . . Dumuzi . . . The lord Dumuzi, . . . : “My king, to the house . . . my king, [my] wife . . . .” Dumuzi, the man. . . . not . . . My king, when he entered the house, the shepherd Dumuzi says to his wife: 9–13. “My wife, come out of the . . . , Inanna, . . . the house of my god, to the house of my god I will bring you, I shall make you lie down before my god, Inanna, on the seat of honor of my god you will sit.”

Primary Source Documents

183

14–18. Having spoken thus to her, he has set her on . . . to the god directed his steps, . . . prayed to him: . . . . . 24. . . . your bridesmen. . . . col. iv 1–13. . . . before you . . . My [Ama]ušumgalanna . . . the boat . . . [The young man] emb[raced] the young lady (saying): “I have not carried you off to be my slave girl, your table will be [a splendid table], will be a splendid table, at a splendid table you will eat, your table a splendid table, a splendid table will be, you . . . you will eat there, m[y] mother . . . will not eat there, [Tu]rtur’s brot[her] will not eat there, my sister Geštinanna will not eat there, (only) you will extend the hand to the [splendid table].” 14–27. “My wife, cloth you shall not weave for me! [Young lady], threads you shall not spin for me! [My wife], goat’s [wo]ol you shall not card for me! [Inanna, warp] you shall not mount for me!” . . . of queenship . . . you [shall not . . . for me] . . . Bread you shall not . . . Ninegalla . . . The wild bull Dumuzi . . . pure radiance [on] the horizon . . . my . . . , pure radiance in heaven . . . on the horizon . . . Source: Sefati, Yitschak.  “Dumuzi’s Wedding.” In Love Songs in Sumerian Literature: Critical Edition of the Dumuzi-Inanna Songs. Ramat-Gan: Bar-Ilan University Press, 1998, 286–300.

KANESH LETTERS Clay letters and business documents from the nineteenth-century-BCE Anatolian town of Kanesh, headquarters of a thriving trade network, reveal the commercial activities and private lives of merchants from Assur who procured Anatolian silver in exchange for tin and Mesopotamian woolen textiles, as these few excerpts (translated from Old Assyrian [Akkadian]) illustrate. Some letters are from their womenfolk in Assur, who supplied the textiles and used the silver to run their households and transact business: they reflect the difficulties and frustrations of operating with delayed returns and slow communications. One sequence of letters charts an inept and disastrous attempt to run a business smuggling iron (a state monopoly). Complicated Repayment Arrangements “So (says) Ili-bani: say to Sin-nada. Here I owe 1/2 mina of silver to Innaya. Over there, take the equivalent (in copper) of 1/2 minas of silver from the

184

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

copper which Iddin-Ishtar owes to Ennam-Assur, son of Aninum, and send it to Innaya, or else get 1/2 mina of silver taken to him. Please make sure you send him either the copper or the silver. Over there, you mustn’t fail to send it to him, because you mustn’t make him angry with me.” (OrNS 29, 32) Domestic Crisis “Say to Innaya: so (says) Taram-kubi. . . . When you left you didn’t leave me any silver, not even a shekel. You stripped the house, you completely emptied it. Since you left, a terrible famine (has settled) on Assur and you left no barley, not even a qu. I have had an unending need to buy barley for us to eat. . . . Where then is my extravagance which you never stop writing to me about? There is nothing for us to eat. . . . Make an effort to send me the equivalent value of my textiles in silver . . . so I can buy 10 measures of barley . . . Why do you never stop listening to calumnies and sending me irritated (letters)?” (CCT III 24) A Canceled Sale “(About) the 130 textiles which Susaya has had sent down to Wahshushana, the alahhinum [senior Anatolian official] doesn’t want them. He (said) this: ‘The marriage is off.’” (BIN IV 45) Excerpts from a List of Goods Being Sent Back to Assur “2 packets of 30 minas of silver belonging to me—entry tax extra, consignment tax paid; 1 packet of 10 minas of silver belonging to Puzur-Assur, on which I personally took care of the consignment tax; . . . 1 mina of silver from the sale of the tin belonging to Elali the officer; . . . 1 shekel of gold, the consignment of the prince; 6 shekels of silver from Urdala for Pilahaya for a kutanu textile; 5 shekels of silver, the consignment of Lamassi and Ahaha; 3 shekels of silver under Ahaha’s seal; . . . 3 shekels of silver from the sale of Adad-ellat’s textiles; . . . 3 shekels belonging to our Assur-muttabbil; 2 shekels for Innaya, son of Elali; 2 shekels for Puzur-Assur for the plane-tree (planks); . . . 5 belts, four for my representatives, one for Ea-bani; 3 minas of wool; 1 pack saddle: I have entrusted all of these to Imgua. I entrusted 1 5/6 minas 5 shekels of silver coming from Shalim-Assur to his son Shu-Kubum. In the presence of Puzur-shadu’e, son of Tu’imum, in the presence of Ahu-waqar, son of Isaliya.” (CCT V 41a) Worried Family “Say to Imdilum. So (say) Taram-Kubi and Shimat-Assur. Here we have been consulting female interpreters, bariatum diviners, as well as the shades of the

Primary Source Documents

185

dead. The god Ashur is constantly warning you. You love money. You have contempt for your own life. In the City, why can’t you please Ashur? I beg you, as soon as you have read my letter, come. Look at the Eye of Ashur and save your life.—Why haven’t you sent me the sale price of my textiles?” (TC 5) Dealing with a New Consignment “239 textiles . . . have gone up to the palace; the entry tax on them (is) 12 (textiles); the palace has taken 23 textiles as its tithe; they’ll pay you for 38 textiles in the karum office. 166 textiles, the balance of your textiles . . . have been released and are available for sale.” (ATHE 62) Instructions on Sale of Goods “If (the rate) for tin (is) 6:1 (and the price for) textiles is 15 shekels each, sell them with (my) tin for ready cash. If that is not the case, let my tin remain under seal.” (L 29–579) Smuggling “Innaya’s son had his goods smuggled through Pushu-ken and his contraband goods have been confiscated. The palace has arrested Pushu-ken and thrown him into prison. The guards (are) strong. The princess has written about the smuggling to Luhusaddiya, Hurama, Shalashuwa and to her whole country. They are keeping an eye open. Please don’t smuggle anything. If you pass through Timilkiya, leave the iron that you were hoping to bring through in a safe house in Timilkiya and also leave an employee you can rely on. As for you, come here so we can discuss (what to do).” (ATHE 62) Sources: Michel, Cécile. Innaya dans les tablettes paleoassyriennes. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations, 1991, OrNS 29, 32, pp. 158–59; CCT III 24, pp. 13–15; BIN IV 45, p. 162; CCT V 41a, pp. 178–80. Ichisar, Metin. 1981. Les Archives Cappadociennes du Marchand Imdilum. Paris: Editions A.D.P.F., 1981, TC 5, p. 342; ATHE 62, pp. 264–65; L 29–579, p. 240; ATHE 62, pp. 265–66.

MARI LETTERS An enormous archive of clay tablets preserved at Mari sheds a fascinating light on eighteenth-century-BCE royal life, particularly that of royal women, as these excerpts (translated from the Akkadian) show. Mari’s king, Zimri-Lim, was often absent on campaign; he exchanged letters with his wife Shiptu who managed the

186

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

household and many affairs of state. These suggest the couple liked and respected each other; less happy are letters to Zimri-Lim from his daughters, who were used as diplomatic pawns. Kirum was married to Haya-Sumu when her sister, his first wife, seemed barren. She antagonized her husband after her sister bore twins. Zimri-Lim did take her home. From Shiptu to Her Husband Zimri-Lim “Tell my lord, thus speaks Shiptu, your handmaid. The palace is well. My lord has written as follows: ‘I am now sending Yassur-Addu to you. Send along with him some responsible officials and have them take out the tablets from the places he indicates. Those tablets are to be deposited with you until my arrival.’ Now in accordance with what my lord wrote, I sent Mukannisum, Subnalu and (a third man) with that man, and Yassur-Addu indicated to the officials one room in the workshop under Etel-pi-sarrim’s supervision, and they opened the door of the room which he indicated, which was sealed with the seal of Igmilum of the secretariat, and took out two baskets of tablets, the baskets sealed with the seal of Etel-pi-sarrim. With their sealings those baskets are deposited with me until my lord’s arrival, and I have sealed the door of the room which they opened with my seal.” “To my lord, a letter from Shiptu your servant. May my lord conquer his enemies and return to Mari in peace and with a joyful heart! For now, may it please my lord to wear the robe and cloak that I have made [for him].” (ARM X.17) “To my lord, a letter from Shiptu, your servant. All is well at the palace. All is well, too, with the temples of the gods and the workshops. I have had omens read for the health of my lord. These omens are good until the end of the month; but my lord must take good care of himself when he is in the full sun!” (ARM X.11) From Zimri-Lim to Shiptu “To Shiptu, a letter from your lord. With regard to the choice of female musicians among the booty that I have had sent [to you] . . . , in the end [I prefer] that no musician should be chosen from this booty. These girls are to be accepted only as weavers. Booty has reached me; I myself will choose musicians from among them. I will then have [them] brought [to you].” (ARM X. 125) From Zimri-Lim’s Daughter Erishti-Aya, a Naditum at Sippar “I am always, always crying out, always! . . . When I wrote to you last year, you sent me two servant girls, but one of them died, and now they have

Primary Source Documents

187

brought me two more servant girls, and one of them has died too. I am the emblem of your father’s house, so why am I not provided for? They have not given me any silver or oil.” (ARM X.39) From Tispatum, Wife of Ili-Ishtar, King of Shuna, to Her Father Zimri-Lim “If it is true that my lord loves the city Shuna and his servant Ili-Ishtar, send 100 troops and a loyal servant of yours (to command them) quickly, and save your city and your servant! Because of me, the people who care about him are saying: ‘Because he is married to a daughter of Zimri-Lim, he ought to remain loyal to Zimri-Lim!’ My father and lord should take heed of this.” (ARM X.98) From Kirum, a Wife of King Haya-Sumu of Ilansura to Her Father Zimri-Lim “To my star and lord, a letter from Kirum your daughter. . . . If my lord does not bring me back to Mari, I shall cast myself from the highest rooftop! Let YarimDagan relate the whole matter to my lord! As for me, I went to Haya-Sumu and said: ‘You are a king . . . ; and what am I then? A poor man’s maidservant? . . . I have had enough of life! May my father write so that I may be taken back to Mari. . . . Meanwhile, I wish you much pleasure!’ Then in the presence of the kings he broke my cord, saying: ‘Be off to your father’s house! I have turned my eyes far away from my wife’s face.’” (ARM X. 33 and MARI III 170) Sources: Sasson, J. M. “Some Comments on Archive Keeping at Mari.” Iraq 34, no. 1 (1972): 58. Used by permission of the British Institute for the Study of Iraq (Gertrude Bell Memorial). Dalley, Stephanie. 1984. Mari and Karana. Two Old Babylonian Cities. London: Longman, 1984, ARM X.39, pp. 105–6; ARM X. 98, p. 152. Used by permission of Stephanie Dalley. Lafont, Bertrand. “The Women of the Palace at Mari.” In Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia, translated by Antonia Nevill; edited by Jean Bottéro, 127–40. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 2001, ARM X. 17, p. 130; ARM X. 11, pp. 129–30; ARM X. 125, p. 137; ARM X. 33 and MARI III 170, p. 133.

HAMMURABI’S LAW CODE The most famous Akkadian text is the law code erected on a stone stele by the Babylonian king Hammurabi (1792–1750 BCE). Translated here is a selection

188

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

of its 282 clauses, with part also of the prologue and epilogue, in which Hammurabi emphasizes his determination to ensure his subjects’ welfare. A relief above the text shows Hammurabi standing reverentially before Shamash, god of justice. Like earlier “law codes,” this is not a comprehensive judicial code but an eclectic selection of pronouncements, on law, rates of pay, inheritance, adoption, land rental, and loans. Punishments are harsh, often including the death penalty. Penalties and rates of compensation depend on the social standing of victim and offender. (A) “. . . Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; . . . to further the well-being of mankind.” (B) 1. If a man bring an accusation against a man, and charge him with a (capital) crime, but cannot prove it, he, the accuser, shall be put to death. (A) 5. If a judge try a case, reach a decision, and present his judgment in writing; if later error shall appear in his decision, and it be through his own fault, then he shall pay twelve times the fine set by him in the case, and he shall be publicly removed from the judge’s bench, and never again shall he sit there to render judgement. (B) 22–23. If a man practice brigandage and . . . be not captured, the man who has been robbed, shall, in the presence of god, make an itemized statement of his loss, and the city and the governor, in whose province and jurisdiction the robbery was committed, shall compensate him for whatever was lost. (A) 25. If fire break out in a house, and some one who comes to put it out . . . take the property of the master of the house, he shall be thrown into that self-same fire. (B) 117. If a man be in debt and sell his wife, son or daughter, or bind them over to service, for three years they shall work in the house of their purchaser . . . ; in the fourth year they shall be given their freedom. (A) 129. If a man’s wife be surprised (in flagrante delicto) with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slave [subject]. 137. If a man wish to separate from a woman who has borne him children, or from his wife who has borne him children: then he shall give that wife her dowry, and a part of the usufruct of field, garden, and property, so that she can rear her children. When she has brought up her children, a portion of all that is given to the children, equal as that of one son, shall be given to her. She may then marry the man of her heart. (B) 138. If a man would put away [divorce] his wife who has not borne him children, he shall give her money to the amount of her marriage settlement

Primary Source Documents

189

and he shall make good to her the dowry which she brought from her father’s house and then he may put her away [divorce her]. (A) 142. If a woman quarrel with her husband, and say: “You are not congenial to me,” the reasons for her prejudice must be presented. If she is guiltless, and there is no fault on her part, but he leaves and neglects her, then no guilt attaches to this woman, she shall take her dowry and go back to her father’s house. 143. If she is not innocent, but leaves her husband, and ruins her house, neglecting her husband, this woman shall be cast into the water. 145. If a man take a wife, and she bear him no children, and he intend to take another wife: if he take this second wife, and bring her into the house, this second wife shall not be allowed equality with his wife. 188. If an artizan [sic] has undertaken to rear a child and teaches him his craft, he can not be demanded back. 189. If he has not taught him his craft, this adopted son may return to his father’s house. (B) 196. If a man destroy the eye of another man, they shall destroy his eye. 197. If one break a man’s bone, they shall break his bone. 198. If one destroy the eye of a freeman or break the bone of a freeman he shall pay one mana [mina] of silver. 199. If one destroy the eye of a man’s slave or break a bone of a man’s slave he shall pay one-half his price. 200. If a man knock out a tooth of a man of his own rank, they shall knock out his tooth. 201. If one knock out a tooth of a freeman, he shall pay one-third mana [mina] of silver. (A) 206. If during a quarrel one man strike another and wound him, then he shall swear, “I did not injure him wittingly,” and pay the physicians. LAWS of justice which Hammurabi, the wise king, established. . . . That the strong might not injure the weak, in order to protect the widows and orphans, I have in Babylon . . . , in order to bespeak justice in the land, to settle all disputes, and heal all injuries, set up these my precious words, written upon my memorial stone, before the image of me, as king of righteousness. . . . let the oppressed, who has a case at law, come and stand before this my image as king of righteousness; let him read the inscription, and understand my precious words: the inscription will explain his case to him; he will find out what is just, and his heart will be glad.” Sources A—The Code of Hammurabi. Translated by L. W. King. 1915. http://www.ancienttexts.org /library/mesopotamian/hammurabi.html. Last accessed October 16, 2016.

190

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

B—The Code of Hammurabi King of Babylon. Translated by Robert Francis Harper. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1904.

THE DIALOGUE OF PESSIMISM Mesopotamian literature runs the whole gamut from sublime epic poetry to succinct epigrams and proverbs. It includes a number of humorous tales, such as this light-hearted piece in which a bored, world-weary master keeps changing his mind about what he is going to do, and his obliging slave keeps coming up with helpful and high-flown reasons to support his master’s choice—ending by cheerfully advising suicide, with a wry quip suggesting he knows his master cannot cope without him. This first-millennium-BCE dialogue, translated from the Akkadian, is given here in its entirety; like most Mesopotamian works, it is anonymous. “[Servant, listen to me].” “Yes, master, yes.” “[Quickly, get me the chari]ot and hitch it up for me so I can drive to the palace.” “[Drive, master, drive, it will bri]ng you where you want to go; the (others) will be outclassed, [the prince] will pay attention to you.” “[No, servant], I will certainly not drive to the palace.” “[Do not drive, mas]ter, do not drive. [The pr]ince will send you off on a mission, he will send you on a [journey that] you do not know. He will expose you to discomfort [day and ni]ght.” “Ser[vant, list]en to me.” “Yes, master, yes.” “Quic[kly, br]ing me water (to wash) my hands, give it to me so I can dine.” “Di[ne], master, dine. Regular dining expands the inner self, [he who eats well] is his own god. Shamash goes with him whose hands are washed.” “No, [ser]vant, I will certainly not dine.” “Do not dine, master, do not dine. Hunger, (then) eating, thirst, (then) drinking—this is what agrees with a man.” “Servant, listen to me.” “Yes, master, yes.” “Quickly, get me the chariot and hitch it up so I can drive to the open country.” “Drive, master, drive. The roaming man has a full stomach, the roving dog cracks open the bone, the roaming [bi]rd will find a nesting place, the wandering wild ram has all the [gra]ss he wants.” “No, servant, I will certainly not d[rive to the open country].” “Do not drive, master, do n[ot dri]ve. The roaming man loses his reason, the roving dog breaks his [te]eth(?), the roaming bird [puts] his home in the [ ] of a wall, and the wandering wild ass has to live in the open.” “Servant, listen to me.” “Yes, master, yes.” “I am going to make a [household and have] children.” “Do it, master, do it. [The man who makes] a household [ ] . . .” “No, I will certainly make a household.” “Do not make a household. The one who follows such a course has broken up his father’s household, [he has gone in] a door called ‘the trap.’ [The man with a wife and child is one third] robust and two thirds a weakling.”

Primary Source Documents

191

“Servant, listen to me.” “Yes, master, yes.” “I will do something dishonest.” “So, do it, master, do it. Unless you do something dishonest, what will [you] have to wear? Who will give you anything so you can fill [your] stomach?” “No, servant, I will certainly not do something dishonest.” “ The man who does something dishonest is executed or skinned alive or blinded or apprehended or jailed.” “Servant, listen to me.” “Yes, master, yes.” “I will fall in love with a woman” “[So], fall in love, master, fall in love. The man who falls in love with a woman forgets sorrow and care.” “No, servant, I will certainly not do fall in love with a woman.” “[Do not] fall in love, master, do not fall in love. A woman is a pitfall, a pitfall, a hole, a ditch, a woman is a sharp iron dagger that slashes a man’s throat.” “Servant, listen to me.” “Yes, master, yes.” “Quickly bring me water (to wash) my hands, give it to me so I can sacrifice to my god.” “Sacrifice, master, sacrifice. The man who sacrifices to his god makes a satisfying transaction, he makes loan upon loan.” “No, servant, I will certainly not sacrifice to my god.” “Do not sacrifice, master, do not sacrifice. You will train your god to follow you around like a dog. He will require of you rites or a magic figurine or what have you.” “Servant, listen to me.” “Yes, master, yes.” “I will made loans” “So make them master, [make them]. The man who makes loans, his grain is (still) his grain while his interest is profit.” “No, servant, I will certainly not make loans.” “Do not make them, master, do not make them. Loaning is [swee]t(?) as falling in love, getting back as pain[ful] as giving birth. They will consume your grain, be always abusing you, and finally they will swindle you out of the interest on your grain.” “Servant, listen to me.” “Yes, master, yes.” “I will do a good deed for my country.” “So do it, master, do it. The man who does a good deed for his country rests in Marduk’s basket.” “No, servant, I will certainly not do a good deed for my country.” “Do not do it, master, do not do it. Go up on the ancient ruin heaps and walk around, look at the skulls of the lowly and great. Which was the doer of evil, and which was the doer of good deeds?” “Servant, listen to me.” “Yes, master, yes.” “What, then, is good?” “To break my neck and your neck and throw (us) in the river is good. Who is so tall as to reach heaven? Who is so broad as to encompass the netherworld?” “No, servant, I will kill you and let you go first.” “Then my master will certainly not outlive me even three days!” Source: Foster, Benjamin. From Distant Days. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press, 1995, 370–72. Used by permission of CDL Press.

Key Questions QUESTION 1: WAS THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT OF THE EUPHRATES AND TIGRIS VALLEYS THE KEY CAUSAL FACTOR IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF THE WORLD’S EARLIEST CIVILIZATION? The Role of the Environment in Human Development What caused civilization to emerge where it did? Although hard to define (and much debated), civilization has certain universally accepted regularities: a large population and high population density, giving rise to social and economic complexity, and urban settlements. Large, dense populations, including many people not engaged in primary food production, imply high agricultural productivity to maintain them. The majority of early civilizations arose in river valleys where irrigation and water control produced high yields. Does this mean that the rise of civilization is caused by the potential of a region to support such large, dense populations (environmental determinism)? Or do factors within a society determine the use to which environmental potential is put, some societies ignoring promising opportunities for growth while others devise ways to overcome environmental brakes on expansion? Environmental determinism is a view strongly held by some scholars and utterly rejected by others. Some see the whole human story as one of population expansion wherever opportunities arose, constrained and driven by environmental factors, while others see societies as the drivers of human development and environmental constraints merely as a challenge to human ingenuity. Mesopotamia, where civilization first arose, provides an excellent laboratory in which to study the question.

194

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

Environment and Development in Early Mesopotamia Farming communities colonized southern Mesopotamia by the sixth millennium BCE. During the last Ice Age when global sea levels were more than 300 feet lower than today, the whole Gulf region had been dry land, but as global temperatures rose and ice sheets melted, sea levels also rose, progressively drowning the low-lying Gulf; its northern coastline probably reached 125 miles inland of its present location before 4000 BCE. At the time of their arrival, farmers encountered an environment that was extensively marshland, along with flood basins, river levees, and “turtlebacks” of higher ground well suited for settlement. The region was probably already home to hunter-gatherers exploiting a rich range of resources, including animals from the steppe, fish, waterfowl, animals, and water plants from the marshes, and date palms growing along the waterways. In the fullness of time, the date palm was domesticated, providing valuable food and other resources, while its groves created a particularly favorable environment for horticulture. By the fourth millennium BCE southern Mesopotamia was becoming drier, with reduced marshland; it was now crisscrossed by small waterways, creating a network of highways connecting communities throughout the region. The greatly increasing opportunities for simple irrigation farming are reflected in a massive rise in the region’s population over the course of the millennium: existing communities prospered and multiplied; no doubt people from outside the region were attracted to settle here; and perhaps some whose forebears had lived by foraging now adopted settled agriculture. Southern Mesopotamia was very suitable for raising cattle, kept particularly for dairying. During the fourth millennium the introduction of sheep bred for wool brought a new component to the mixed farming economy: since wool was easier to process than the flax previously grown for making cloth, and had many other advantages, it now became important to raise flocks for wool, instead of keeping just a few sheep to be eaten on special occasions. Plentiful grazing was available, on fallow or recently harvested fields, in marsh margins, and in the steppe beyond the cultivable land. Southern Mesopotamia was outside the area of West Asia where rain-fed agriculture was possible. The farmers who had settled this region in the sixth millennium BCE were already familiar with simple techniques of water management, enabling them to take advantage of the region’s opportunities. Rich soils and plentiful river water offered high agricultural productivity, well beyond subsistence needs, but the annual floods arrived at harvest time, making water diversion and storage of key importance. The volume of the flood waters and their ferocity were unpredictable; branches of the rivers frequently split or moved to new channels, abandoning their earlier course and the settlements

Key Questions

195

dependent on them. With this ever-present uncertainty, it is unsurprising that religion played an important role in society, temples appearing by the fifth millennium as the focus of public attention, frequently enlarged and embellished, and community organization being undertaken by increasingly powerful religious leaders. As population grew so did the size of some settlements, becoming towns, focused on the temple that provided ritual, economic, and managerial services for the surrounding villages. The temple stored surplus produce offered to the gods, using it to support the priestly administration, service personnel, and craft specialists. In particular, the temple authorities oversaw a growing woolen textile industry, producing cloth not only for local consumption but also for export. Southern Mesopotamia, though agriculturally rich, was deficient in many desired raw materials, such as stone, substantial timber, metals, and gemstones. These were available in neighboring regions: part of the growing economic activity of the temple authorities was directed at ensuring the production of commodities for use in trade to obtain them. A significant proportion of the imports were presumably intended for temple use: competition between communities was served by the ostentatious display of fine resources lavished on the gods, their servants, and the temples that were their homes. The fourth millennium had also seen the invention of the plow in southern Mesopotamia (and possibly of the seeder plow which greatly raised seedto-harvest yields, though this may have been an early-third-millennium innovation). Plowing prepared the ground effectively, efficiently, and quickly, but was labor intensive, requiring a team of oxen and matching team of plowmen and therefore best suited for use on large areas of land, divided into long, narrow fields. It revolutionized the cultivation of the extensive land available to the temple authorities, the high productivity of which increased the resources available to the temple, increasing their capacity to sponsor further activities, a virtuous circle that contributed to the emergence of cities in this region: very much larger than towns and far more complex. Uruk was particularly favorably placed to take advantage of the diverse opportunities offered by the southern Mesopotamian environment and was the first to develop from a town into a city. In the third millennium BCE further environmental changes occurred, many of the watercourses drying up, and water being concentrated in fewer, larger branches of the rivers. Settlement became largely concentrated in cities along these branches, the focus of states that as they expanded came into competition with each other. The larger, more powerful rivers needed more investment in water management infrastructure, again enhancing the power of the state authorities whose responsibility it was to organize its construction and maintenance, but also again increasing productivity.

196

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

During the late fifth and earlier fourth millennium BCE, towns were emerging in both the north and south of Mesopotamia; by 3000 BCE, southern Mesopotamia had cities but urbanism had declined in the north. Southern Mesopotamia’s prosperity was built on the opportunities that its environment offered, coupled with the challenges that its deficiencies threw up. The question is: Was this development inevitable? Does the environment propel people in a particular direction, or is it a matter of human choice whether people respond to their environmental opportunities and challenges in such a way? Is development impossible without such opportunities or is human ingenuity adequate to surmount any challenges the environment may offer?  ontrasting Views on the Role of the Environment in the C Development of Civilization in Mesopotamia The fifth and earlier fourth millennia saw the growth of social elites, craft specialization, larger and more complex settlements, and interregional trade across much of West Asia, but in the later fourth millennium southern Mesopotamia evolved into a far more complex society, emerging as the world’s first civilization. Was this due to southern Mesopotamia’s environment or were other factors equally important? Dr. Mary Shepperson, an independent researcher working in Iraq, argues that the environmental opportunities and constraints of southern Mesopotamia’s alluvial plain were both key to the emergence of civilization here. Only in this region, with its highly fertile soils and abundant river water, was agricultural productivity high enough to support high, dense populations and produce a surplus, making possible urbanism, craft specialization, a social and professional elite, and considerable trade. Successful agriculture required water management, encouraging the development of the managerial class; and the lack of many vital raw materials made trade essential, spurring production. The waterways crisscrossing the region allowed communications between communities, encouraging parallel development, and were the highways for external trade. Thus the environment was the prime mover that caused civilization to arise in this region. Dr. John MacGinnis, a Research Fellow at Cambridge University, sees the environment as only one among many factors important in the emergence of civilization: providing the means by which food was produced to support society. Other features of civilization arose from different sources: social stratification and settlement hierarchy from the evolutionary forces inherent in population growth; craft and other occupational specialization from society’s organizational propensities; religion from human imagination. Some developments, he argues, took place despite the environment: for example,

Key Questions

197

metallurgy, which flourished here although it depended on imported raw materials. Human ingenuity, he argues, played a far greater role in determining the course of development than did the environment. ANSWER: MESOPOTAMIA’S NATURAL ENVIRONMENT WAS THE KEY CAUSAL FACTOR IN ITS DEVELOPMENT OF CIVILIZATION Mary Shepperson The emergence of the world’s earliest civilization in the Euphrates and Tigris valleys was the product of a huge range of factors coming together at a specific point in time. However, the conditions provided by the natural environment of the Mesopotamian alluvial plain were the most crucial single factor in the early development of civilization here, without which no other combination of circumstances could have given rise to the complex societies of ancient Mesopotamia. When first considered, the climate and natural environment of the southern Mesopotamian alluvial plain does not seem particularly favorable as a place in which the earliest complex civilizations might flourish. The region is an extremely flat, low-lying landscape cut by the shifting courses of the two great rivers, the Euphrates and Tigris. Its southern margins consist of a large area of marshland of thickly growing reed beds, with comparatively little solid ground, running down to the head of the Gulf. The climate is very dry through most of the year, with insufficient annual rainfall to allow crops to grow without the help of irrigation. The summer months are extremely hot, commonly reaching temperatures above 120˚F, often with strong, hot winds carrying dust across the flat plains. The winters can be surprisingly cold and uncomfortable. The alluvial plain, built up by thousands of years of sediment deposits laid down by the two rivers, is devoid of many vital natural resources. With no accessible bedrock, the Mesopotamian plain has no good sources of stone for construction or tool making, or semiprecious stones for decorative craft objects. There are no metal deposits to be mined: no copper, tin, or iron for making tools and weapons, and no silver or gold for exchange or craft production. There are no forests to provide good-quality timber for roof beams, boats, vehicles, or furniture. What appear to be limitations, however, on closer examination acted as challenges that demanded innovative solutions from the region’s inhabitants. What the Mesopotamian plain lacked in stone, metal, and wood, it more than made up for in other resources, the most important of which was the

198

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

extremely fertile alluvium deposited by the Tigris and Euphrates. With careful cultivation, this soil was capable of producing a significantly higher agricultural yield per unit area and for each hour of labor than the land of surrounding contemporary communities. As well as higher crop yields, the southern Mesopotamian environment offered a wealth of other subsistence resources. The rivers and marshland provided reliable sources of protein in the form of fish and birdlife, and there was ample suitable grazing for both domesticated animals and wild animals for hunting. Vitally, this wealth of capacity in food production was capable of producing large agricultural surpluses well beyond the requirements of the number of people needed to produce it. The ability of the Mesopotamian plain to reliably produce these large agricultural surpluses was an absolutely critical factor in the development of complex society in the Euphrates and Tigris valleys for three reasons: First, it allowed for a rise in both overall population and in population density; second, it freed a proportion of the population from the need to have a direct role in subsistence production; and third, it provided a commodity for exchange with neighboring regions. The first point, concerning population, is important because the ability to sustain a large and relatively dense population is essential for the emergence of cities. A large settlement simply couldn’t be supported by its surrounding farm land without high food yields, and even with high agricultural production, very large settlements such as Uruk almost certainly had to bring extra food from outside the area cultivated by its own inhabitants, necessitating surpluses elsewhere on the plain. The second point, that surpluses freed part of the population from directly working the land, is vital to the development of social complexity because it allows for craft specialization and the emergence of social and professional elites. It enables there to be specialist metal workers, potters, weavers, soldiers, scribes, priests, or astronomers who were not required to grow their own food. Consequently these specialist skills and occupations could develop greater sophistication in the hands of dedicated practitioners. The third role of food surplus in the development of early civilization on the Mesopotamian plain lies in the ability to acquire the resources that were not available in southern Iraq; stone, metals, wood, and luxury materials. Staple commodities could be traded with neighboring regions for the materials that the emerging Mesopotamian societies needed. The food supply fluctuations experienced in neighboring regions dependent on less reliable rainfall agriculture ensured a constant market for southern Mesopotamia’s surplus produce. This need to develop trade in order to obtain the resources which the Euphrates-Tigris plain lacked led to the early development of extensive international trade, exposing southern Iraq to influences and imports from a

Key Questions

199

wide area, and generating a desire for luxury goods, which stimulated craft production and contributed to the establishment of elites. Trade was made necessary by the paucity of the southern Mesopotamian environment in some materials, but made possible by that environment’s capacity to produce a large surplus in others. It wasn’t just the high fertility of the natural environment that made it a key factor in promoting the emergence of civilization. Water resources were also crucial. With insufficient rainfall for unirrigated agriculture, the water of the two great rivers was essential, and it was along the courses of the Euphrates and Tigris that the earliest cities developed. The management of water resources was essential to agricultural production, but it required a significant level of organization to be effective. It has been proposed that the need to organize labor for large-scale irrigation projects may have been a vital early trigger for the formation of social structures capable of central organization and control, such as community councils or temple bodies, which could take decisions on behalf of the wider community. It was the natural conditions of high potential fertility but critically low rainfall that provided this incentive towards central organization. The rivers were also important as conduits of communication and transport. Moving people and goods, especially heavy, bulky goods, was extremely difficult during the periods in which the earliest civilization was emerging in Iraq. Wheeled transport only started to appear relatively late, during the fourth millennium BC, so most goods had to be carried over land on rough tracks on the backs of men or pack animals. The rivers allowed far easier transport of goods. With the water taking the weight of the cargo, very large loads could be rowed, poled, or sailed along the river channels between the settlements of the river valleys. This easy transit between the cities of the Mesopotamian plain would have promoted trade and information exchange up and down the Tigris and Euphrates, allowing southern Mesopotamian settlements to develop along parallel and similar lines, resulting in a coherent, complex culture. Movement along the river channels will also have facilitated the longer-distance trade routes discussed above, allowing large loads of Mesopotamian foodstuffs to be transported north towards Syria and Anatolia and south to the Gulf from where it could be traded along the Arabian and Iranian coast. The natural environment held other advantages that are less obvious. Although it lacked building materials in the form of stone and timber, the clay of the Mesopotamian plain was suitable for making mud bricks, and the marshes and river banks held a limitless supply of reeds and grasses for temper, matting, roofing, and other uses. These materials were ideal for constructing mud and reed architecture, which was quick and easy to build and repair, requiring only very local materials and needing only very basic tools.

200

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

This meant that buildings and settlements could be expanded quickly with fairly minimal expense in terms of labor and resources. Even the climate encouraged the formation of large, dense settlements that could form the basis of the early cities. One defense against the cruelly hot Mesopotamian summers was to cluster buildings together so that they could shade each other’s walls and the spaces in between. Houses that adjoined their neighbors reduced the wall area exposed to the sun’s heat, and a dense urban structure served to protect the buildings from the hot, dusty summer winds. In summary, the natural environment of the Mesopotamian plain provided all the critical conditions that allowed the world’s earliest civilization to emerge there, making it the key causal factor in that development. Of the factors discussed above, the most crucial, without which the large urban cen­ ters of the Mesopotamian plain could never have been supported, is the plain’s fertile alluvium fed by the dependable water sources of the Tigris and Euphrates. This allowed sufficient quantities of foodstuffs to be reliably produced to sustain large, dense populations. Although the natural environment cannot be said to have caused the emergence of civilization on the Mesopotamian plain, without the specific conditions it provided, such development would not have been possible. ANSWER: MANY FACTORS WERE IMPORTANT IN THE EMERGENCE OF CIVILIZATION IN MESOPOTAMIA John MacGinnis Addressing the role played by the environment in the development of societies is important. Doing so forces us to consider what the key features of a civilization really are, and how they relate to each other. Of course the environment plays a part in the emergence of any civilization—it would be ludicrous to argue otherwise. The question is whether it was just one factor among many or really the key factor. It is a question of multifaceted evolution against environmental determinism. In the case of Mesopotamia a case can be made for the former. To address this we need to go back to the basic issue: What makes a civilization? It is a famous question. In endeavoring to answer it, archaeologists have come up with many proposals, but all have in common that it is not just one factor but a portfolio of defining traits. A typical short-list would include hierarchical settlement patterns, stratified society, craft specialization, mastery of metallurgy, monumental architecture, fortification of cities, and development of a writing system. Important, of course, is that all of these leave a material trace that can be recovered in the archaeological record. It should be stressed that none of these features could have developed without the generation of

Key Questions

201

surplus food supply—this is the sine qua non without which complex society cannot develop. There might well be other traits—poetry, for instance, or the rule of law—which could be considered equally valid but which, unless evidence survives in written form, cannot be used as markers archaeologically. Let us now review each of these with a specific thought to how determinative the environment was for each one in the case of Mesopotamia. To start with hierarchical settlement patterns, amply attested in Mesopotamia, there is no particular respect in which this was the result of the environment. Rather, the development of settlement hierarchy is a basic feature of societies growing beyond hunter-gatherer existence—sufficiently universal that it is, really, a mathematical law. The same also applies to the emergence of stratified society: as a society grows in numbers and density, the requirement to organize the members of the society across the extent of its territory, together with the need for organization within the higher-order settlements, means that a degree of stratification is inevitable; it is, once again, practically a mathematical law. Craft specialization refers to the development of a society in which professional occupations emerge, so that instead of all able-bodied members of the society being involved in agriculture, there is sufficient surplus to allow for some to pursue specialist vocations as a full-time employment. Initially this would have involved such professions as smiths, carpenters, and potters, but there was no end to the specializations that might emerge (and indeed continue to do so). The salient point for the present discussion is that the emergence of craft specialization is not at all environmentally determined; it is the product of the organization of society by human agency. A facet of particular importance is the mastery of metallurgy, often taken as a defining attribute of advanced civilization. However, while this ultimately rested, of course, on natural resources, it can hardly be argued that in the case of Mesopotamia the rise of metallurgy was determined by the environment as the region is famously devoid of such resources. Copper, tin, and iron all had to be imported from elsewhere. In this case one could say that the development occurred despite the strictures of the natural environment. With regard to the appearance of monumental architecture and city fortifications, in both cases the resources needed to construct these works were only available due to the advanced organization of the society: monumental architecture was an expression of this organization within the society as circumscribed by the city-state, while the building of fortifications is indicative of the tensions arising between the multiple city-states of the wider society as a whole. However, while the environment plays a role in determining what materials (wood, stone, clay) these edifices are constructed with, their genesis is driven by societal, not environmental, dynamics.

202

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

A similar situation holds with the emergence of writing systems, perhaps the most fundamental tool in the organization of society, and a development that is inevitable when a population grows beyond critical density. Although this is considered in greater detail in another essay, it nevertheless needs stressing here. The form that the system takes—papyrus in Egypt, clay in Mesopotamia, rope in Peru—may well vary from place to place, and the materials used inevitably derive from the particulars of the local environment, but the fact that a recording system will be necessary and will be invented is determined not by the environment but by the laws of evolution. While the above documents the argument with respect to individual traits of Mesopotamian civilization, there is another reason for saying that the environment cannot be considered the determining factor. This is that the civilization could be exported. We see this most dramatically in the Uruk period, with the founding of colonies and the spread of Uruk culture to the north and the east. Individual traits could also be exported, the salient example here being the export of writing to present-day Syria, Turkey, and Iran. Later, by the time of the Neo-Assyrian empire, there is a whole package ready to be put in place for the implantation of intrusive imperial settlements. Finally one must mention the subject of religion. Mesopotamian religion was a polytheistic belief system—the most familiar parallel in the modern age might be Hinduism—with a vast pantheon of major and minor deities that evolved in a highly complex way over millennia. There were gods for all manner of aspects of the natural world (the sun, the moon, fire, rain), psychological dynamics (love, wisdom, justice), and inventions of mankind (agriculture, metal work, writing), and each city had its patron deity. But while this array offers a fascinating and variegated insight into the realm of psychology and perception, it is not something primarily determined by the environment (even if aspects of the environment were encoded in the programmatics of the pantheon as noted above). If one is to believe in a single determining factor that was critical to the emergence of civilization—in Mesopotamia or indeed generally—it has to be the plasticity of the human brain in envisaging and engineering solutions to a multitude of problems in a multitude of situations; this would be anthropic, not environmental, determinism. CLOSING: ASSESSING THE ROLE OF THE ENVIRONMENT IN THE EMERGENCE OF CIVILIZATION IN MESOPOTAMIA Despite a long shared history of similar development with the rest of West Asia, the southern Mesopotamian alluvium saw the emergence of civilization

Key Questions

203

in the later fourth millennium BCE while neighboring regions did not. Was this evolutionary difference caused by southern Mesopotamia’s environment? Dr. MacGinnis and Dr. Shepperson agree that southern Mesopotamia’s environment provided the agricultural potential not only to support a large, densely settled population, many living in urban settlements (towns and cities), but also to provide a surplus that could support significant numbers of non-food producers. Dr. Shepperson examines the ways in which the environment’s advantages and constraints pushed development. Waterways facilitated communications that brought the region’s communities together, sharing knowledge and innovation; the available building materials, mud and reeds, encouraged versatility in construction; and the summer heat encouraged urban dwelling for shade. The necessity for irrigation and water control spurred the development of organizational elites; the local paucity of raw materials, coupled with the ease of water transport, drove the development of trade, creating new demands that further encouraged productivity. Dr. MacGinnis, however, argues that natural evolutionary forces and human imagination and ingenuity were the drivers behind the emergence of the key features of southern Mesopotamian civilization. As societies grow in size it is inevitable that they become more complex, manifesting social and settlement hierarchies and occupational specialization. Writing, an administrative tool, similarly arises out of the growing population’s organizational needs. Other features develop for human reasons, intercommunity tensions, for instance, requiring the construction of city fortifications. The environment plays only a small part in these developments, for example, determining construction materials or writing media. While Dr. Shepperson presents an integrated picture of the role of the environment in driving the emergence of civilization, Dr. MacGinnis argues that many aspects of civilization are unrelated to environmental factors. DOING MORE Online Adams, Robert McCormack. 1981. Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads /shared/docs/heartland_of_cities.pdf. Last accessed October 16, 2016. Adams’s ground-breaking surveys of the southern Mesopotamian landscape charted its changing environment, and settlement and land-use history. This seminal work contributed significantly to the debate on the processes that brought about the emergence of civilization in ancient Sumer.

204

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

MASS—Modeling Ancient Settlement Systems. http://oi-archive.uchicago.edu/OI /PROJ/MASS/introduction.htm. Last accessed October 16, 2016. An ongoing project by the Oriental Institute of Chicago, Edinburgh University, and the Argonne National Laboratory to model ancient environment and settlement in Bronze Age Mesopotamia, in order to understand the dynamics of their interactions. Sherratt, Andrew. “Environmental Change. The Evolution of Mesopotamia.” Arch­ Atlas, Version 4.1. http://www.archatlas.org/EnvironmentalChange/Environ mentalChange.php. Last accessed October 16, 2016. A sequence of maps showing the development of the Mesopotamian landscape through time.

Print Algaze, Guillermo. 2008. Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This volume presents an integrated consideration of the emergence of civilization in southern Mesopotamia. Of particular relevance in relation to the role played by the environment in the development of the region as a whole are chapters 4, 7–9, and the epilogue, in which profitable lines for future research are outlined. The particular advantages of Uruk’s location are also considered in chapter 7, exploring reasons for its apparently precocious development. Liverani, Mario. 2006. Uruk. The First City. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. London/Oakville: Equinox. This short work presents an integrated account of the strands of development that led to the emergence of civilization. Aspects related to environmental factors are considered particularly in chapter 2, but this is best read in its entirety. The translators’ preface also makes some pertinent points about the environment. Pollack, Susan. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In chapters 2 and 3 of her anthropological study of ancient Mesopotamia, Pollock takes a detailed look at the environment and the patterns of settlement that developed in relation to it. In chapter 4 she considers the evolution of economic practices in the fifth and fourth millennia BCE, while in chapter 5 she looks at how things changed in the third millennium BCE. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. In chapter 1 of this excellent introduction to Mesopotamian civilization, Postgate paints a very clear picture of the different environments of Mesopotamia and the human responses to them, as well as looking at climatic changes. Chapter 2 looks at the region’s prehistory and early history, with the environment as an important backdrop.

Key Questions

205

Potts, Daniel T. 1997. Mesopotamian Civilization. The Material Foundations. London: Athlone. The opening chapter of this useful reference work (“The Country and Its Climate”) provides a good introduction to Mesopotamia’s environments, including changes it experienced through time. Roaf, Michael. 1990. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. New York: Facts on File. The first section (“Villages”) of this general introduction to West Asia and Mesopotamia’s past covers both its environmental and climatic background and the development of early communities here, while the first two chapters of the second section (“Cities”) chronicle the transition to urban life. Its many maps provide information that is helpful in understanding these developments. Pollack, Susan. 2001. “The Uruk Period in Southern Mesopotamia.” In Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors, edited by Mitchell Rothman, 181–231. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press/Oxford: James Currey. This paper discusses the developmental differences between Sumer and Akkad during the Uruk period, making use of environmental survey data. Wilkinson, Tony J. 2003. Archaeological Landscapes of the Near East. Tucson: University of Arizona Press. This volume considers many aspects of the environment of West Asia. Of particular relevance to the question of the impact of the environment on the emergence of civilization in southern Mesopotamia are sections on the West Asian environment (chapter 2); and on irrigation, particularly looking at the human-landscape interactions of the sixth through third millennia BCE (chapter 5).

QUESTION 2: WAS INTERNATIONAL TRADE FUNDAMENTAL TO MESOPOTAMIA’S ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT AS A CIVILIZATION? The Role of Trade in Societal Development Early civilizations generally emerged in regions where opportunities for intensive food production existed, particularly river valleys. Frequently these regions lacked raw materials considered essential by their inhabitants, but which were available in neighboring or distant regions, encouraging the development or intensification of trade. What part did this play in stimulating the production of agricultural surpluses, craft specialization, bureaucratic and political organization, and the emergence of civilization itself? Was trade a prime mover in or a consequence of the emergence of civilization? Was it important or peripheral?

206

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

The part international trade played in the emergence of civilizations in general and in that of Mesopotamia in particular has for long been debated by scholars: some consider that it was due to the exploitation of less developed peripheral regions that Mesopotamia gained its preeminent position, while others see trade as having marginal significance to the critical developments that took place within Sumer itself. Early West Asian and Mesopotamian Trade The postglacial spread of farming saw the proliferation of communities living in permanent settlements, with access only to local resources, whereas seasonal movement had previously enabled them to utilize the resources of a wider region. Networks therefore developed through which the products of different localities were exchanged. While the bulk of such exchanged goods traveled only a short distance from their source before being kept permanently, through a chain of such exchanges an ever-decreasing volume of such materials could gradually move over very long distances: for example, in West Asia during the early Neolithic period, obsidian (volcanic glass), highly prized for making stone tools, reached sites as much as 500 miles distant from its sources. It is likely that commodities were exchanged through the medium of kinship and other established social networks. The exchange networks involved contact between people, enabling ideas as well as goods to travel. In the later fifth millennium BCE Ubaid period, characteristic pottery made on the slow-wheel (tournette), a southern Mesopotamian invention, became widespread from Anatolia in the northwest to Elam and the Arabian shores of the Gulf in the southeast. While this pottery was made locally in the regions where it appears, knowledge of the technology had spread through the existing communications and exchange networks. A model boat from Eridu in southern Mesopotamia shows that sails had been invented by this time; fishermen probably traveled along the Gulf coast in sailing boats. A model of a reed boat, a vessel typical of the southern Mesopotamian marshes, was found at Mashnaqa on the Khabur river in the north, suggesting that people were traveling along the rivers by this period. A significant quantity of lapis lazuli at Tepe Gawra in northern Mesopotamia shows that the Ubaid-period exchange networks were carrying materials from as far away as Afghanistan. While simple exchange mechanisms served small farming communities well, they gave no control over the volume of materials that could be obtained nor over the reliability or frequency of supply. As communities grew in size and complexity, so did their requirements for nonlocal goods and the need to evolve new, more efficient procurement mechanisms. Southern Mesopotamia had been settled by farmers by the sixth millennium. During the Uruk period, from around 4000 BCE, its population increased and towns began to emerge.

Key Questions

207

Farming here required simple irrigation techniques for success but could be richly productive, yielding a surplus from which communities made offerings to the gods, invested by the religious authorities in constructing and embellishing temples and supporting specialist artisans. These included many making textiles, using wool from large flocks maintained by the temple authorities. Though agriculturally rich, southern Mesopotamia lacked many resources, such as stone, metals, massive timbers, and gemstones, that major building projects could employ or that were important in other ways, although the region’s people were ingenious in the uses to which they put the materials that they had to hand, creating efficient sickles, hammers, and pestles from baked clay, mansions from reeds, and fine temple decorations from clay nails with painted heads, embedded in wall plaster to make mosaic patterns. Towns were also emerging in parts of northern Mesopotamia. By the midfourth millennium concentrations of characteristic Uruk (fourth-millennium southern Mesopotamian) material are found in enclaves in some of these towns, such as Nineveh, suggesting small numbers of Uruk people were resident here. A little later, a number of new settlements appear, such as Habuba Kebira and Jebel Aruda, particularly in the middle Euphrates valley, established on virgin soil, their architecture and associated material characteristically Uruk: these seem to be Uruk colonies. The reason for the Uruk presence in the north is hotly debated: while a number of scholars strongly disagree, the most widely accepted theory is that these people were in the north to facilitate the procurement of raw materials, such as metals. A heavy Uruk presence in Susa, in neighboring Elam, could similarly be linked to direct involvement in trade, probably as a means to obtain ensured supplies of the prized arsenical copper ores from Talmessi to its north. The production of textiles for export was well established by the late third millennium BCE, along with oil, wool, grain, hides, bitumen, and other agricultural and industrial products, the authorities using these to obtain the materials they required to build and embellish temples, create and decorate divine images, and manufacture weapons for their armies, among other things. Royal inscriptions record campaigns to obtain materials by military means, as booty and subsequent tribute from defeated distant lands, from Anatolia, the Levant, and other northern lands, western Iran, and Oman. Texts written at this time but theoretically describing the situation earlier in the third millennium recount the enormous efforts made by kings to obtain such exotic raw materials from afar; while the archaeological evidence of the earlier third millennium makes it clear that trade networks were developing across the Iranian plateau, towns growing up at key nodes, and through the Gulf, and that southern Mesopotamia was a leading player in this trade.

208

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

Are we justified in projecting this situation back into the Uruk period and arguing that the Uruk authorities were organizing agricultural and industrial production to create goods for export, and setting up trading colonies to control the supply of nonlocal materials, for which they had a major need— was trade a prime mover in encouraging economic, social, and political intensification in southern Mesopotamia in the Uruk period? Or was the growing complexity driven by purely internal stimuli, with imported materials playing no more significant a role than in former periods, their importance growing later, when civilization was already established?  ontrasting Views on the Role of Trade in the Emergence C of Civilization in Mesopotamia Southern Mesopotamia was agriculturally rich but lacked many raw materials. In the later fourth millennium BCE it superseded millennia-old exchange mechanisms to take direct control of procurement by establishing trading outposts in neighboring regions where these were available. Through the third millennium imported materials abound and texts record trade and military expeditions seeking foreign raw materials. Was foreign trade’s high visibility matched by a key role in spurring the development of civilization in southern Mesopotamia? Dr. John MacGinnis, a Research Fellow at Cambridge University, examines southern Mesopotamia’s early domestic economy: the majority of local needs were ingeniously met using locally available materials, such as clay and reeds for construction, and cultural development reflects their use, rather than foreign influences. Metallurgy is the exception, based entirely on imported materials; but it was not until the third millennium that metals achieved a significant role, promoting revolutionary changes in military technology; in the fourth millennium when civilization was emerging, metals, like other imports, were purely luxury materials. Trade, then, was not of fundamental importance in driving the development of civilization. Dr. Mary Shepperson, an independent scholar researching in Iraq, however, argues that trade played a central role. Imported materials included both important basics that had a growing place in toolmaking and construction, and significant luxury goods that enhanced status, contributing to growing social stratification. Trade’s key role in fourth-millennium development is reflected both in neighboring regions, where outposts were established to control trade, and in southern Mesopotamia itself, where surplus agricultural production and a massive textile industry were partially directed towards providing goods for export. This drove growing bureaucratic control and labor management; imported materials also spurred craft creativity, specialization, and skill development. Trade provoked competition between southern

Key Questions

209

Mesopotamian communities, encouraged external warfare and diplomacy, and promoted increasing economic and financial complexity. ANSWER: TRADE DID NOT PLAY A KEY ROLE IN THE EMERGENCE OF CIVILIZATION IN MESOPOTAMIA John MacGinnis Addressing this question, of just how important international trade was in the economic and cultural development of Mesopotamia, forces us to evaluate what key material and nonmaterial traits characterized the society and what factors shaped them. We should say at the outset that we are really discussing early Mesopotamia here—there can be no doubt that by the later stages of Mesopotamian civilization trade was, indeed, a major dynamic. Starting with the economic side, we have to ask: Was there anything critical to the economic development of ancient Mesopotamia that could not be achieved without imported materials? And the answer to that would appear to be no. If we list the absolutely basic needs of a society—food, water, clothing, housing, transport—it is striking that all of these could be met with the resources at hand in the hills and plains of Mesopotamia. To take the first, it cannot be stressed enough that the overriding condition for the rise of any civilization is the ability to generate agricultural surplus. In the case of Mesopotamia, this clearly was achieved from at least the fourth millennium onwards through the cultivation of grains, complemented in the south by the date palm, a source of both food as well as an extensive range of by-products that lent themselves to use in the fashioning of boats, houses, baskets, clothes, and other things. Animal exploitation was similarly versatile, providing not only meat but also a number of basic materials—wool, leather, bone, horn, sinews—usable in craft production. So while the natural resources of the land may seem meager, the fact is that using no more than clay, reeds, wood, bitumen, and the by-products of agricultural production the Neolithic inhabi­ tants of Iraq were able to fashion everything they needed—houses, carts, boats, containers, baskets, tools, mats, spindle whorls, loom weights, toys, and even in due course, tablets and sealings. At the same time, the locally available limestone was used for jewelry (pendants, beads, bracelets), vessels, architectural elements, and even statuary. If this establishes, then, that the natural resources of Mesopotamia sufficed to supply the building blocks of the civilization, the next question is to ask what goods were brought in by international trade, and what were they used for. The most obvious imports were stones and metals. To start with the first, semiprecious stones—lapis lazuli, carnelian, turquoise, and chlorite—were

210

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

imported from the east, sporadically from the early Neolithic and in growing quantities from the fourth millennium BCE. All of these fed into luxury items, whether at the spectacular end, such as the treasures from the royal tombs in Ur, or at the level of the more rank and file members of society, who also had jewelry made out of these materials. Very much the same applies to shell, whether this came from the south or the west. In these cases, while the acquisition of items made out of or incorporating exotic materials certainly endowed and communicated prestige to their owners, one can hardly say that these imports and the trade that brought them were central to the existence of Mesopotamian society: they provided a gloss—and a brilliant gloss at that—but the structure and mechanics of the civilization were founded, overwhelmingly, on indigenous resources. There are some exceptions, or at least apparent exceptions, to this rule. Obsidian, which appears early on, is an imported material that certainly proved popular for the manufacture of blades. It is indeed a standard part of the archaeological assemblage. But even without obsidian, blades could be made from the quartzite locally available both in the foothills of the Zagros mountains and in the alluvial deposits of the plains. The same applies to grinding stones. The most common material for these was basalt, and from early on a specialist trade developed importing basalt grinding stones from Anatolia and Syria. But here again quartzite pebbles, which make excellent pounders, could be used. In brief, the stones imported into early Mesopotamia added color, literally, and in some cases even utility to the material repertoire, but in no case is it possible to say that they were fundamental to economic and cultural development. They were the icing but not the cake. The situation with metals is slightly different, at least for the early periods. It has to be admitted that from the Early Dynastic period onwards bronze held an important place in the material repertoire, and the constituent metals (copper and tin) were certainly imported. It was fashioned not just into luxury items but also into weaponry, triggering in the process a revolution in military technology. Looking further back, however, while copper was known in Mesopotamia from as early as the seventh millennium BC, in both the Halaf and Ubaid periods the level of copper use is very low, restricted to a small number of tools and ornaments. In the Uruk period this increases somewhat, with vessels and blades added to the inventory. Nevertheless, it is accurate to say that the metallurgy of these periods concentrated on the production of luxury items, while for utilitarian purposes the mainstream repertoire consisted of tools of stone and/or baked clay (hammers, axes, sickles, blades, adzes) or bone (needles and fishhooks). Silver and gold artifacts, which again grow from a very sparse presence in the Halaf period to a more sustained use in the Uruk period, were certainly luxury items.

Key Questions

211

We turn now to the cultural developments. Here, right away, it has to be stressed that the fundamental character of Mesopotamian civilization was, indeed, Mesopotamian. So many traits—architecture, religion, iconography, language, writing—are quintessentially and absolutely Mesopotamian without any demonstrable debt to foreign influence. The signature architectural forms of Mesopotamia, whether the house or temple in mud brick, or the hut or mudhif (reception hall) made of reed, are indigenous forms that evolved naturally out of the materials to hand. As regards religion, there is nothing in the extensive roll call of the pantheon that does not relate to the materials and conditions of Mesopotamia itself, and while various legends do indeed narrate episodes of interaction with extraneous cultures, this very much makes the point that these cultures are different, and with no sense that Mesopotamia is indebted to them. The same applies to the field of iconography: there is nothing in the iconography that indexes or pays homage to outside forces; in fact, quite the reverse—Mesopotamian iconography is an entity in and of itself. And it applies to the two languages, Sumerian and Akkadian, which constitute such a defining feature of the land. These were not there as a result of trade. Even if the origins of the Sumerians remain obscure, they are clearly ancient if not indeed aboriginal inhabitants of the land, while the Akkadian-speaking population must have entered Mesopotamia with Semitic nomads from the south and west. Lastly, when it comes to learning to write these languages down, the decisive steps are inventions that took place in Mesopotamia itself. In summary, then, the overriding picture is that trade was a factor that added variety to the material repertoire, and in so doing prestige to the individuals and groups who had access to its products, but that it was not fundamental to the primary development of the key institutions. When Sargon of Akkad boasts that in his time “boats from Meluhha, Magan, and Dilmun moored at the quay of Agade” it clearly was a source of great pride. And it was indeed a great accomplishment, an accomplishment worthy of a king. But while his very boast illustrates perfectly the prestige that trade could bring, the economic development of the land was primarily fueled by internal growth and the culture was indigenous. ANSWER: INTERNATIONAL TRADE PLAYED A CRUCIAL ROLE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIVILIZATION IN MESOPOTAMIA Mary Shepperson The international trade of ancient Mesopotamia went far beyond the acquisition of luxuries intended only for the enhancement of personal and

212

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

institutional prestige. Trade was essential for economic and social development, and it significantly affected the trajectory of Mesopotamian civilization. Even procurement of materials for prestige items had a cultural impact on Mesopotamian society, extending well beyond their end use by elites, in promoting craft specialization and technical innovation. International trade drove diplomatic relationships and military campaigns, and lay at the heart of the territorial empires that sprung from the Mesopotamian plain. The fundamental need for extensive international trade was based on the distribution of resources across the wider region. The extremely fertile plain of southern Mesopotamia had the capacity to produce very high yields of staple foodstuffs to support large population centers, but crucially lacked almost every other resource. The alluvial plain did not lack just the rare, precious materials used to make luxury items for social and religious elites such as gold, silver, ivory, and semiprecious stones. Southern Mesopotamia also lacked building stone; utilitarian metals such as copper, tin, and iron for making tools and weapons; and good-quality timber for implements, roofing, doors, and boat building. The regions surrounding the Mesopotamian plain, however, were particularly rich in all these resources. To the north and east the Taurus and Zagros mountains held rich deposits of stone and metals while to the west the Lebanese mountains were covered in high-quality timber forests. To the south, the Gulf gave access to the Iranian and Arabian coast, and beyond to the Indus Valley, where there were sources of copper, specialist stone, and other rare materials. In these circumstances, international trade was essential to the societies of southern Mesopotamia, not just for luxury items but also for economically vital materials, without which they would have been unable to develop metal tools and weapons, boats, carts, monumental architecture, and many other elements of Mesopotamian economic and cultural life. However, it is wrong to assume that even the trade goods that were destined for elite prestige objects had no role in the wider economic and cultural development of Mesopotamian society. Although the raw materials were obtained through international trade, it seems that the objects themselves were generally made in workshops in the Mesopotamian heartland. With the ability to gather a wide range of materials and elite demand for constantly improving products, Mesopotamian craft production became increasingly specialized, skilled, and innovative. Elite craft production became a driver of increasing social and economic complexity and interdependence. Beyond the effects of the processes of elite craft production, the presence in society of a wide range of more or less rare and high-status craft products did more than reflect the prestige of the owners. These objects were part of the process of establishing and negotiating the status of groups and

Key Questions

213

individuals. The huge variety of craft objects that international trade made available allowed these status negotiations to be far more complex and nuanced, and greatly contributed to the increasing stratification of Mesopotamian society. Luxury objects did not just reflect social inequalities, but helped to create them. Trade also transformed Mesopotamia through the goods that were flowing in the opposite direction. Much of the goods that were sent abroad for exchange seem to have been the agricultural surpluses of the fertile alluvial plain, but another significant trade product seems to have been finely woven textiles, specifically wool. The importance of textiles as a high-value, nonperishable trade commodity meant that it was required in very large quantities beyond the needs of the local populace. The Mesopotamian response was to develop a textile industry, apparently based in temples, which approached the modern idea of factory production. Weavers worked communally under supervisors, and weaving was coordinated with the other processes of spinning, bleaching, and dyeing to improve efficiency. In this way, the demands of international trade resulted in new levels of organized and interdependent labor that effected wider economic and cultural development. It wasn’t just the physical materials of trade that affected the economic and cultural development of Mesopotamia, but the process of trade itself. For most of ancient Mesopotamian history, the southern alluvium was host to several independent polities who were in direct competition with each other, and a key part of this competition was over access to trade routes. Different settlements had varying degrees of access to different resources. The city of Ur, for example, dominated the Gulf trade, particularly the import of copper, due to its position at the head of the Gulf. The major trade routes north were the Tigris and Euphrates river channels, and the settlements that lay along the rivers sought to control the trade that moved up and down them. This competition over trade routes generated conflict, innovation, and change across Mesopotamian culture as the various polities sought to gain advantage through politics, economic forces, and direct warfare. Competition to secure trade forced Mesopotamian society to look outward and attempt to extend their systems of control outside their own territories. From the fourth millennium onwards, southern Mesopotamian cultures began to establish a formal presence in areas with important trade resources across Iran, Syria, and Anatolia in the form of outposts, enclaves, and occasionally full-blown trading colonies such as Habuba Kabira and Jebel Aruda. It’s thought that some of the most important settlements of northern Mesopotamia, such as Tell Brak and even Nineveh, might have their origins as trading outposts founded by southern polities. Such sustained involvement

214

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

in distant lands contributed to developing and expanding international communication, setting up dialogues between distant rulers and generating a system of international diplomacy. On a darker note, the desire to secure trade routes pushed the cultures of the Mesopotamian core towards expansion and extension of control to neighboring areas, giving early Mesopotamia what has been described as a momentum towards empire. The first major attempt at large-scale territorial conquest came with the Akkadian Dynasty in the late third millennium BCE. Significantly, the surviving texts that detail these military campaigns describe their conquests predominantly in terms of resources; the Cedar Forest and the Silver Mountain were conquered by Sargon. Manishtushu campaigned “up to the silver mines” and brought back “black stone from beyond the sea.” A major motive behind the Akkadian Empire seems to have been a desire to establish absolute control over certain important trade goods at their sources. It’s easy to see how control of trade led down the road to political control through conquest and paved the way towards the large territorial empires of the first millennium BCE. The copper, tin, and iron of the north Mesopotamian uplands were returned from the south as spears and arrowheads, exchange became conquest, and trade was turned into tribute. A final means by which international trade contributed to the development of Mesopotamian economy and culture, other than the production of prestige-giving objects, is that it provoked greater complexity in the internal workings of administration, tax, and finance. Without the intricacies of distant exchange, it seems unlikely that Mesopotamia would have needed to establish systems such as the use of silver as a common measure of value, almost akin to money. Trade was undertaken both by the state and by private individuals aimed at profit, and complicated financial arrangements developed to manage such enterprises. Private individuals could become investors in a trading expedition, receiving either a fixed return or a share of the profits or losses at the end. Temple institutions could act in a similar way, often employing dedicated merchants to trade their goods. States also responded with increasingly complex systems to exploit trade, and by the second millennium BCE traders were paying tolls and import duties on their goods, contributing to an increasingly complex financial system. In summary, international trade was indeed fundamental to Mesopotamia’s economic and cultural development, far above and beyond the ability to produce luxury goods to satisfy a desire for prestige items for the social elite. The materials acquired through international trade were not just luxuries for prestige objects but also many of the basic materials needed for economic success and technological advancement. Even elite craft objects spurred the

Key Questions

215

emergence of increased social stratification and craft specialization in Mesopotamian cultures, leading to greater social complexity. The drive to produce goods for export, particularly textiles, led to developments in the organization of labor and production processes. Most importantly, competition for access to trade routes and material sources gradually drove Mesopotamian societies towards the extension of control, military conquest, and finally territorial empires extending beyond the Mesopotamian plain, fundamentally influencing the trajectory of regional history. CLOSING: ASSESSING THE ROLE OF TRADE IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MESOPOTAMIAN CIVILIZATION Southern Mesopotamia lacked many everyday and luxury materials that were available in neighboring areas, and used its abundant agricultural resources to support trade to obtain these. Whether these materials and this trade were of peripheral importance or a central driver in the region’s development of civilization is an issue that sharply divides scholarly opinion. While acknowledging that the Sumerians obtained some foreign goods through trade, Dr. MacGinnis focuses on the ingenuity with which they utilized locally available materials to supply their actual needs. In contrast Dr. Shepperson argues that the importance of imported materials is demonstrated by the strenuous efforts that were made to obtain them, including the creation of trading outposts and a major orientation of the domestic economy towards the production of trade goods such as textiles, driving administrative intensification. Dr. MacGinnis emphasizes the nonutilitarian nature of many of the imports, arguing that they played no part in the early development of civilization, and notes that no cultural influences from international contacts can be detected. Dr. Shepperson, however, argues that prestige imports not only reinforced status but also contributed to growing social stratification, and that imported materials in general encouraged domestic craft development. Dr. MacGinnis acknowledges the importance of trade in later times and notes that bronze, made from imported copper and tin, impacted third-millennium development, particularly in the military sphere. His thesis is therefore that, whatever its later significance, trade was not a prime mover in the crucial period that saw the emergence of civilization. Dr. Shepperson also considers third-millennium developments, documented in texts, arguing for the significant place of trade in spurring interstate competition within southern Mesopotamia and warfare to control trade in the wider world; but she emphasizes the significant role of trade even in the fourth millennium, demonstrated by the creation of the trading outposts.

216

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

DOING MORE Online Wilkinson, Tony. 2016. “Steps Towards the Study of Seasonality and Trade.” Arch­ Atlas, Version 4.1. http://www.archatlas.org/occpaper/Wilkinson.php. Last accessed October 16, 2016. A map-based article discussing seasonal constraints on travel for trade, including that involved in the Uruk trade network.

Print Algaze, Guillermo. 2008. Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This volume outlines the author’s current theories on the emergence of civilization in southern Mesopotamia. While presenting an integrated picture, these focus particularly on the role played by trade. Chapter 6 deals exclusively with trade but is best read in conjunction with the rest of the book, particularly from chapter 4 to the end. Broodbank, Cyprian. 2013. The Making of the Middle Sea. London: Thames and Hudson. This excellent synthetic volume on the Mediterranean world often includes material also relevant to Mesopotamia, setting the latter within a regional context. Chapter 7 contains insightful discussion related to the issue of early trade. Hawkins, John D., ed. Trade in the Ancient Near East. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. This is a volume of collected papers on aspects of trade through time. The introductory essay by Hawkins, “The Importance of Trade,” specifically considers the role that trade played in the emergence and subsequent development of Mesopotamian civilization. Liverani, Mario. 2006. Uruk. The First City. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. London/Oakville: Equinox. This short but dense volume presents an integrated thesis on the nature of fourthmillennium BCE Uruk society and economy. Trade is discussed particularly in chapters 1, 3, and 5, but a better understanding is reached by reading the whole work. Matthews, Roger. 2003. The Archaeology of Mesopotamia. Theories and Approaches. London: Routledge. Chapter 4, “States of Mind,” of this stimulating work considers the theories that have been put forward regarding the role of trade in the formation of the state in southern Mesopotamia.

Key Questions

217

Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. The chapters on the domestic economy and foreign trade (chapters 10 and 11) give the background picture of the movement of goods in Mesopotamia from early times until around 1500 BCE. This work is an excellent general introduction to Mesopotamian civilization, providing the context in which the role of trade can be assessed. Roaf, Michael. 1990. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. New York: Facts on File. This general introduction to Mesopotamia and West Asia contains much of relevance to trade, including many useful maps and a box text on transportation (pp. 122–23). Rothman, Mitchell S., ed. 2001. Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press/Oxford: James Currey. This volume contains essays by leading scholars looking at key issues of fourth-millennium BCE Mesopotamia: trade is central to many of them and plays a part in all of them. Of particular relevance are the papers by Algaze, Wright, Frangipane, Nissen, Schwartz, Stein, and Rothman.

QUESTION 3: WAS THE INVENTION OF WRITING CRITICAL TO THE EMERGENCE OF CIVILIZATION IN MESOPOTAMIA? The Role of Writing in the Development of Civilizations Discussions of the key features that define civilization and that were critical to its development always include consideration of the invention of writing. Out of the world’s six primary civilizations (that is, civilizations that developed independently), only those of South America did not develop writing, though the Inca used a sophisticated recording system using knotted cords, the quipu, that displayed features of writing. The purposes served by the first writing were not the same in the other five regions: in Mesoamerica and Egypt, the first identified writing gives names; in China, questions to the gods; in Mesopotamia, bureaucratic accounting; and no comment can be made on the undeciphered Indus script. Was writing a prime mover or a result of the development of civilization in these regions? The question has been and still is hotly debated: some scholars see writing’s role as central and do not believe civilizations can function without the developmental and organizational tools that writing provides; others view it as a consequence of certain paths taken by developing civilizations, a useful but not an essential tool. Mesopotamia, the earliest civilization to emerge (narrowly preceding Egypt), provides the best place to study this question.

218

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

Recording Systems in Ancient West Asia and Early Mesopotamia The development of agriculture in postglacial West Asia had provided the context for a huge rise in the region’s population; coupled with the development of irrigation techniques, this had encouraged the spread of farming communities into most parts of West Asia, and great population growth in favored regions, such as southern Mesopotamia (Babylonia). By the early fourth millennium BCE towns were emerging in some places in both the north and south, centers that not only accommodated large numbers of people but also showed signs of developing complexity: social inequalities, craft specialization, and the beginnings of administrative control. The latter is evidenced in finds of clay sealings: lumps of clay that had been placed over the bindings of packages, the covers of jars, or the fastenings of storeroom doors and impressed with a stamp seal, thus marking official ownership and preventing unofficial tampering or access. Those in whose hands power was beginning to reside, probably secular leaders in the north and temple officials in the south, were using these seals and sealings to control the flow of goods through their hands, particularly agricultural produce grown on lands that they controlled or by people whom they could influence to donate it, voluntarily or under compulsion, as well as materials obtained from outside the local area through the existing trade networks. Those in positions of authority could then use these goods to support specialist artisans, reward followers, sponsor major building work, and other activities. By the mid-fourth millennium BCE, the administrative tools in use in southern Mesopotamia had grown both in number and complexity, indicating that the volume of administrative transactions was increasing. The stamp seal, which created a complete impression of its design only when the clay sealing was of appropriate size and flatness, was replaced by the cylinder seal: this had a wrap-around design that could be rolled over any surface to create a continuous impression. Tokens, small simple stone or clay shapes that had been used across West Asia for millennia as generalized counters, were now given specific meanings, different shapes signifying an animal, a measure of grain, or a jar of oil, for example, and records of transactions (goods received or paid out) began to be made using perforated tokens strung together or unperforated tokens placed inside a ball of clay. Sometimes the clay ball would be marked on the outside with a seal impression or an impression be made on the outside with the tokens before placing them within. This period is also marked by the appearance of beveled-rim bowls, interpreted as holders for ration payments to people undertaking work for the authorities; and by the establishment of Sumerian enclaves within some of the northern towns,

Key Questions

219

where they are interpreted as outposts to facilitate the procurement of raw materials not locally available in the south but desired by the authorities. In the following centuries, clay tablets marked by impressing tokens on them replace or supplement the clay balls, and Sumerian colonies (probably related to trade) appear in the north, further indications of intensification by the south. These tablets record single transactions and are known from a few sites quite widely distributed through West Asia; their findspots are usually administrative buildings or temples. In contrast, around 3200 BCE, tablets appear bearing pictorial signs representing tokens, laboriously drawn with a reed, and dispensing entirely with the physical tokens, but these are known only from southern Mesopotamia, and specifically from the emerging city of Uruk. Rapidly the repertoire of signs increases and so does the information the tablet may hold: often they are divided into boxes, each one recording a quantity of a commodity, and on the reverse a total for the whole tablet is given; often they bear other (laconic) pieces of information, such as the sign “ration disbursement” indicating the destination of the listed grain. These are management documents, not records of single transactions. A few instead list professional titles, hierarchically arranged. By 3100 BCE the tablets are recording far more complex information: for example, field management, herd management, the processing of grain and milk products, the deployment of personnel, on a large scale and over long accounting periods. Uruk in particular and southern Mesopotamia in general at this time are becoming an urban society, hierarchical, occupationally differentiated, with a huge and growing population; in contrast towns in the north have declined. To the east Susa, closely tied to southern Mesopotamia until 3100 BCE, continues to prosper, independently, and develops its own writing system, Proto-Elamite, also used administratively. The succeeding centuries see the rapid development of the Sumerian script to perform ever-more-complicated tasks, as society itself becomes increasingly complex, with city-states appearing across southern Mesopotamia and adopting the use of the script, which is now known at sites beyond Uruk. The questions that arise from this are: Was writing necessary to allow this exponential growth in complexity to occur? Could the administration have operated in all its complexity without writing, and would the further development that took place have been possible if writing had not been invented? Did writing stimulate development that could or would not otherwise have occurred, or was it merely a useful but optional tool?  ontrasting Views on the Significance of Writing to the C Development of Mesopotamian Civilization Civilization emerged in fourth-millennium BCE southern Mesopotamia: densely populated, producing an agricultural surplus that supported

220

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

developing towns, craft specialization, long-distance trade, and managerial elites. Mnemonic devices facilitating administrative organization gave rise eventually to writing; Mesopotamian civilization and writing both developed further during the third millennium. While this broad trajectory is agreed, writing’s role in civilization’s evolution is much debated. Dr. John MacGinnis, a research fellow at Cambridge University, sees the fourth-millennium-BCE recording system as limited in its capabilities. The volume and complexity of the first cities’ administrative transactions required a more sophisticated system: writing. Simple at first, this rapidly developed, and by the mid-third millennium could record a huge range of genres. MacGinnis identifies royal propaganda and legal records as particularly important, but emphasizes writing’s continuing administrative role as central to civilization’s development. He argues that writing inspired related disciplines—metrology, mathematics, astronomy, calendrics, and formal classification of the world, the forerunner of science—and enabled civilization to spread. Writing, then, was essential: civilization would have stalled without it. Dr. Mary Shepperson, an independent scholar, argues that all the key elements of Mesopotamian civilization—including urbanism, social stratification, intensive agricultural production, long-distance trade, craft specialization, monumental architecture, and complex administrative control—grew from fifth-millennium developments, reaching fruition when complex urban society emerged in later fourth-millennium southern Mesopotamia, while true writing appeared only after 2800 BCE: an effect, not a cause, of this complexity. Fourth-millennium mnemonic devices adequately met the administrative needs of a society capable of mobilizing and managing labor and resources on the scale required, for example, to create Uruk’s monumental center; these continued in use for millennia, while writing was used by few. Writing was critical neither to civilization’s emergence nor to its continuation; the high value we accord it anachronistically reflects its more recent utility. ANSWER: WRITING WAS AN INVENTION THAT FOLLOWED, RATHER THAN SPURRED, THE DEVELOPMENT OF CIVILIZATION IN MESOPOTAMIA Mary Shepperson The invention of writing is rightly recognized as one of the defining achievements of Mesopotamian civilization, and is probably the Mesopotamian

Key Questions

221

innovation that has had the most far-reaching significance for human society. The written record recovered from the ancient sites of Iraq gives us an extraordinary level of information about ancient Mesopotamian society, economy, and ideology, unavailable for other contemporary cultures. However, just because writing has proved so critical to humanity in the long term, and because the written record is crucial to our understanding of ancient Mesopotamian society, it is a mistake to think that it was critical to the emergence and maintenance of Mesopotamian civilization. In fact, all the major features that defined the complex urban societies of southern Iraq were in existence well before the emergence of writing. Although a crude system of pictograms existed as early as the end of the fourth millennium for representing numbers and commodities, true writing, capable of expressing complex ideas and recording a measure of spoken language, did not emerge until around 2800–2600 BC. By this time, all the essentials of Mesopotamian civilization had been in place for centuries. Far from being a critical factor in producing this civilization, writing was a late product of the long process of social development, which saw the complex urban cultures of Mesopotamia emerge from earlier scattered village communities. The invention of writing was an effect rather than a cause of this development. Key features, such as urbanism, central organization, long-distance trade, and social stratification, began to emerge in southern Iraq as early as the fifth millennium BCE, during the Ubaid period. At this time village life began to take on more urban characteristics, with larger settlements including the first public buildings—large tripartite structures built on a raised terrace—implying central organization of public affairs. Some degree of central organization is also demonstrated by the emergence of large irrigation systems, known from sites such as Choga Mami. Such projects would have needed coordinated organization of labor beyond the family level. Fifth-millennium cemeteries, such as the burials at Tepe Gawra, begin to show significant variation in the wealth of grave goods, indicating the emergence of social elites. Also in evidence is the existence of an extensive trading network. Ubaid period Mesopotamians had access to imported stone, metals, and wood from as far away as the Mediterranean, Anatolia, and sources far down the Gulf. These early indications of complexity were in action a thousand years before even a basic system of written symbols emerged. The following Uruk period roughly corresponds to the fourth millennium BCE and witnessed the development of true social and economic complexity on the Mesopotamian plain, along with most of the distinctive elements of ancient Mesopotamian civilization. The fourth millennium is

222

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

characterized as a time of explosive growth in the size of settlements. The site of Uruk, which gives its name to the period, is the prime example. Lying on the southern reaches of the Euphrates, Uruk expanded dramatically during the fourth millennium to an area of over 250 acres. This was an unprecedented settlement size, thought to represent a population of around 50,000 people by the end of the fourth millennium, and made Uruk a fully urban city. Although no other settlement reached the size of Uruk, settlements of 50–100 acres became relatively common and people no longer lived in communities where everyone knew everyone else, but in a more anonymous, urbanized social landscape with social ties extending beyond the family. Uruk period society was increasingly stratified with the emergence of hereditary and professional elites who controlled an increasing share of labor and economic resources. These elites are evident in the richness of their burial goods and in the presence of larger, richer housing in Uruk period settlements. The fourth millennium also saw the appearance of the ultimate elite in the form of kings. The institution of kingship was central to Mesopotamian society throughout the historic period but appears to have been fully formulated as the divinely endorsed rule of a single preeminent individual well in advance of the earliest written evidence. The Sumerian King List, although largely mythological in its early parts, projects kingship far back into prehistory. The demands of these emerging elites stimulated a range of other developments in architecture, art, and trade during the fourth millennium. Increasingly skilled and specialized craftsmen began to produce more complex high-status goods for elite patrons. As early as 4000 BC, objects such as the Tell Brak chalice—an elaborate obsidian goblet with a limestone base and a gold rim—were being made for the rulers of important cities. The first examples of large-scale sculpture in the round and relief carving appear during the Uruk period along with new methods for casting metals. These innovations in craft production and elite demand for high-status objects in turn drove the expansion and elaboration of international trading networks. Southern Iraq is devoid of many craft materials; all metals, good-quality wood, and precious or semiprecious stones had to be brought to Mesopotamia from sources in the Anatolian highlands, Iran, Afghanistan, the Mediterranean, the Levant, the Gulf, and even the Indus Valley in modern-day India and Pakistan. The small-scale exchange networks that existed in the fifth millennium were no longer sufficient for the needs of Uruk-period Mesopotamia, so the fourth millennium saw far more organized trade with a permanent infrastructure. Way-stations for travelers were maintained, permanent enclaves of southern Mesopotamian merchants were established in foreign settlements, and even

Key Questions

223

whole new settlements were founded as trading colonies, such as the site of Habuba Kabira in northwest Syria. Throughout the Uruk period, this complex trading network was built and maintained without the need for written records. As well as encouraging the production of craft objects, the increasingly stratified and centrally organized societies of fourth millennium Mesopotamia began to produce architecture of a truly monumental character. The public buildings of the city of Uruk were huge, the largest covering 49,000 square feet. They were not only on a grand scale but also were elaborately decorated in a distinctive style using thousands of baked clay cones pressed into the wall plaster. The different colored heads of the cones were arranged like a mosaic to produce intricate patterns. These buildings also attest to the existence of large temple institutions and courtly establishments capable of commanding considerable resources and labor. These institutions evolved, functioned, and were able to organize large construction projects centuries before the development of an effective writing system. In fact, almost every significant feature of Mesopotamian civilization was in place in advance of the invention of writing. By the end of the fourth millennium, southern Mesopotamian societies had already established large urban settlements, divinely endorsed kingship, extensive international trade, sophisticated and specialized art and craft production, large institutions, and monumental architecture. Wheeled vehicles had been introduced, intensive textile production had begun, and early beer was being brewed. Writing was still at the level of basic pictograms. This is not to say that there were no administrative tools available to Mesopotamians before the invention of writing. The Uruk period had a welldeveloped system of mnemonic aids and authorizations. The numbers and commodities involved in transactions could be recorded using small clay tokens or simple pictograms. The fourth millennium saw the extensive use of personal seals, which functioned as both a symbol of office and authority and to denote ownership. These systems seem to have been sufficient for maintaining the complex economic and social structures that came into existence before the development of writing, and both clay tokens and personal seals persisted as active parts of the administrative system in Mesopotamia throughout the historical periods. The persistence of these administrative tools is probably due to the fact that they were easy to use and simple to understand, whereas the use of cuneiform script in its developed forms was restricted to specialist scribes who had to undergo years of training. Literacy never became widespread among the population, limiting the use of writing to institutions and individuals wealthy enough to access scribal expertise. Simpler, nonliterate means of recording agreements and transactions continued to serve much

224

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

of the population, relatively unaffected by the invention of a sophisticated writing system. In summary, the invention of writing was not critical to the emergence of Mesopotamian civilization because that civilization had already emerged in all its essentials before the development of cuneiform script. Even after writing came into use, its effects on Mesopotamian society as a whole was probably small due to restricted access to scribal expertise. The importance of writing to ancient Mesopotamian civilization is generally overstated because of the significance of its invention to wider global history, and because of the critical importance of writing to our understanding of the societies and economies of the ancient Near East. The invention of writing was a product of the complex, stratified, urban society that emerged on the Mesopotamian plain by the end of the fourth millennium; it was not the cause of that emergence. ANSWER: THE INVENTION OF WRITING WAS KEY TO THE FULL DEVELOPMENT OF MESOPOTAMIAN CIVILIZATION John MacGinnis The importance of writing in the emergence and development of civilization can hardly be overstated. It is not possible to imagine advanced civilization without this. The central point here refers to the emergence of “complex societies,” and that while societies can develop so far along the road to complexity without writing—and indeed, must start this way—a point is reached at which it is the gateway to an altogether higher level of operation. It is a quantum leap that fundamentally changes the nature and potential of a society. The fundamental base for this is the generation of agricultural surplus. In Mesopotamia it is quite clear that this is the context in and for which writing was invented, visible archaeologically in the appearance of settlement hierarchy and monumental architecture, and while this is not so exactly demonstrable in the cases of the other primary civilizations, it has to have been a factor. But in Mesopotamia we can see it happening. Whether for grain reserves stored in depots or sheep maintained in flocks, the central authorities had to have a system for monitoring and administering these resources. Initially this appears to have been done with preliterate recording systems such as the use of clay tokens, whose varying shapes were evidently used to designate different animals or commodities. While the exact correspondences are not yet known (and may indeed have

Key Questions

225

varied at different places and times), the fact that tokens were used for recording in this way is famously demonstrated by the Uruk period “bullae”—spheres of clay the size of a tennis ball containing clay tokens, often sealed and with marks representing the tokens on the outside. These are, in essence, the world’s first legal documents. Intriguingly, while this system of tokens and marks paved the way for the invention of writing itself, the tokens did not then disappear but continued in use as a paraliterate system of recording now attested right up to the Assyrian empire in the first millennium BC. From this springboard, writing took off. Inevitably, the environment played a part in determining the physical media, and in Mesopotamia the use of clay and reeds was a truly ingenious adaptation of available materials. While initially ideographic, the system rapidly developed into the “mixed script” using logograms, phonetic signs, and determinatives characteristic of all primary writing systems. At the same time it acquired its cuneiform (“wedge-shaped”) appearance, and from this point on is also found inscribed on other materials—notably stone and metal—though clay tablets remain the medium par excellence until the end. These developments gave cuneiform a flexibility and resilience that would see it in use for the next 3,000 years. Having reached the stage of a versatile writing system, cuneiform is used to record everything. No longer just administrative documents but, in due course, all manner of other genres—royal inscriptions, hymns, letters, literature, and many others. Nevertheless, the administrative use remains fundamental. It is not possible to imagine the great empires emerging without this. For example, in order to embark on long-distance military campaigns, it was essential for commanders to know how large their forces were, how much food was needed per day, where this had been stored, and so on. The generation of administrative material of this nature was essential for these enterprises, allowing a degree of planning that would otherwise simply not be possible, while at the same time giving modern archaeologists a fantastic insight into how these empires were run. Hand in hand with this are numerous technical aspects that the operation of a literate bureaucracy both required and enhanced: First, systems of weights and measures and the concordant recording conventions, a constantly evolving picture. Second, the formalization of calendrical systems and the development of mathematical models for the associated astronomy. Third, the formalization of the writing system itself: this involved both the creation of scribal schools and the codification of signs and vocabulary in lexical compilations listing trees, birds, fish, and so on—in fact

226

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

anything that could be written and listed. The systemization of knowledge in this way is a major cognitive achievement and at the core of what will become the scientific approach. Tellingly, forerunners of these lists are already present among the earliest texts from the late fourth millennium BCE. With the advent of literacy another aspect of society that burgeons is the law. With hierarchical society comes the concept of ownership and the limitless attendant considerations of rights, wrongs, and obligations. While the rule of law was at first most likely exercised by rulers and assemblies without recourse to formal laws, the accumulating loads of cases and judgements resulted in periodic codifications of the law—most famously (though not the earliest) Hammurabi’s law code, a document that serves not just to clarify the law but to celebrate Hammurabi himself as the king who did it. The sculpted scene at the top of the stone on which the code is inscribed shows Hammurabi receiving symbols of just rulership from the sun god Shamash himself— what more powerful demonstration of legitimacy could a king portray than that? This leads us on to another point to consider, the role of writing in royal propaganda. At the humblest level this takes the form of inscribed bricks— just ordinary bricks but giving, as a minimum, the name of the king who commissioned the palaces, temples, and fortifications in which they were used, and in some cases much more elaborate information than that. But at their most complex the royal inscriptions are masterly compositions, running into hundreds of lines and extolling the kings’ prowess in military campaigns and building projects. Perhaps the apogee of all such inscriptions is the monument of Darius I at Behistun in western Iran—not strictly Mesopotamian, of course, but absolutely in the Mesopotamian tradition. In a monument on this scale the medium and the message are perfectly matched, an expression of imperial power in a truly majestic format. The fact that Darius—an Achaemenid Persian ruler—chose to record his message in cuneiform (and indeed, invented his own version of the script to record in Old Persian)—is a testament to the far reach of the script and the esteem in which it was held. And the flexibility of cuneiform meant that (just like the Roman alphabet) it could be adopted to write any language. In Mesopotamia we are dealing predominantly with Sumerian and with the two principal dialects of Akkadian, Assyrian and Babylonian. But cuneiform was also used to write Hittite, Hurrian, Elamite, Urartian, and, in varying ways, Ugaritic, and, as mentioned, Old Persian. By doing all this, cuneiform was no longer just a component of civilization in the Near East—it was a means of propagating it.

Key Questions

227

CLOSING: ASSESSING THE SIGNIFICANCE OF WRITING IN THE DEVELOPMENT OF MESOPOTAMIAN CIVILIZATION The invention of writing in the late fourth millennium BCE followed the development of intensive agriculture, urban society, craft specialization, monumental architecture, long-distance trade, and administrative complexity in southern Mesopotamia, but was the precursor to the development of greater complexity in all these fields. The dilemma this poses is whether writing played a critical role in the transformation of society from the fourth millennium precivilization threshold to the fully fledged civilization of the third millennium BCE. Could Mesopotamian civilization have emerged without the development of writing to handle the volume and complexity of the state’s administrative requirements? Dr. Shepperson argues that the complexity already handled in the fourth millennium using the prewriting mnemonic and authorization devices was adequate for this purpose as is demonstrated, for example, by the organization of the labor force required to build Uruk’s monumental center, or by the sophisticated trade network. Dr. MacGinnis, on the contrary, argues that these devices were inadequate to the complexities of civilization’s administrative demands, and the invention of writing was crucial to the emergence of the third-millennium state. Did writing engender effects that were of crucial importance to the full development of civilization? Dr. MacGinnis discusses a range of key developments that arose as a result of the invention of writing, including metrology, mathematics, calendrics and astronomy, and the groundwork of scientific analysis, as well as social developments such as the recording of literature, the documentation of ownership, and the public promotion of royal ideology. Dr. Shepperson, on the other hand, points to the narrow spread of literacy and the adequacy of the preexisting recording systems for many ordinary purposes, seeing nothing essential to the emergence of civilization in the invention of writing, though it might be considered one of its numerous farreaching consequences. DOING MORE Online Woods, Christopher, ed. 2011. Visible Language. Chicago: Oriental Institute. https:// oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/oimp32.pdf. Last accessed October 16, 2016.

228

Mesopotamia and the Rise of Civilization

The introductory essay in this volume, by Christopher Woods, considers the differing roles of writing in the civilizations in which it originated, and the nature of writing itself, while chapter 2, by the same author, charts the early development of the Mesopotamian script. Other papers in the volume are less relevant to the question, but equally interesting.

Print Algaze, Guillermo. 2008. Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. While this volume addresses the question of the emergence of civilization in southern Mesopotamia in the round, with a particular focus on the role of trade, it also contains a very thought-provoking section on the significance of the development of writing and “technologies of the intellect.” Cooper, Jerold S. 2004. “Babylonian Beginnings: The Origin of the Cuneiform Writing System in Comparative Perspective.” In The First Writing. Script Invention as History and Process, edited by Stephen Houston, 71–99. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cooper considers the origins of the Mesopotamian script within its cultural context and compares it with writing systems in other civilizations, drawing conclusions about its role in the development of complex society. Liverani, Mario. 2006. Uruk. The First City. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. London/Oakville: Equinox. In chapter 4 of his thought-provoking work on Uruk and the birth of civilization, Liverani considers the role of writing in the developmental stages of complex society. The translators’ brief comments on the subject in their preface are also important. Nissen, Hans J., Peter Damerow, and Robert K. Englund. 1993. Archaic Bookkeeping. Translated by Paul Larsen. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This dense and closely argued account of the beginnings of writing in Mesopotamia provides a great deal of information about the content and context of the early texts, the complex counting systems that were used, and the subsequent development of the accounting system for which the script was devised. Pollack, Susan. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. In chapter 6 of her anthropological study of early Mesopotamia, Pollock traces the stages in the development of the script and considers the context in which it was invented. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge.

Key Questions

229

The section on the written record in this general work (chapter 3) provides an excellent introduction to the history of writing’s development and its place in Mesopotamian life. Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. 1996. How Writing Came About. Austin: University of Texas Press. In this volume Schmandt-Besserat summarizes in a very readable form her theory that Mesopotamian writing had its roots in the tokens widely used in West Asia over the preceding millennia. Though the correspondence between tokens and signs is not as straightforward or simple as she suggests, and the use of tokens was probably less systematic, the basic framework of her theory is a useful contribution to our understanding of how writing evolved, and this book makes an excellent introduction to the subject.

Annotated Bibliography Akkermans, Peter M. M. G., and Glenn M. Schwartz. 2003. The Archaeology of Syria. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. This region was an important neighbor of Mesopotamia, its history closely entwined. Algaze, Guillermo. 1993. The Uruk World System. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Algaze, Guillermo. 2008. Ancient Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Civilization. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Algaze’s research has focused on the Late Uruk colonies in northern Mesopotamia and their significance. These volumes offer his theories on this crucial and controversial period. ArchAtlas. http://www.archatlas.org/. Last accessed October 16, 2016. A map-based resource hosting a number of scholarly projects related to trade, environment, and land use. American Schools of Oriental Research. http://www.asor.org. Last accessed October 16, 2016. ASOR publishes journals and supports research on ancient West Asia: its Web site gives access to a huge range of material. “Babylonian Mathematics.” http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Indexes/Baby lonians.html. Last accessed October 16, 2016. Part of the University of St Andrews’ Web site on the history of mathematics. Barber, Elizabeth J. W. 1991. Prehistoric Textiles. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

232

Annotated Bibliography

Packed with technical information but always readable, this volume discusses the various fibers and textile production methods of antiquity. Bienkowski, Piotr, and Alan Millard, eds. 2000. British Museum Dictionary of the Ancient Near East. London: British Museum. Well illustrated, this dictionary provides concise but highly informative data on a huge range of subjects covering all West Asia. Black, Jeremy, Graham Cunningham, Eleanor Robson, and Gabor Zolyomi. 2004. The Literature of Ancient Sumer. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A print version of many of the Sumerian texts available online through ETCSL, this work also includes excellent background essays on literature and education. Black, Jeremy, and Anthony Green. 1992. Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient Mesopotamia. An Illustrated Dictionary. London: British Museum. A helpful source of information on the Mesopotamian pantheon and other aspects of religion. Bottéro, Jean, ed. 2001. Everyday Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. Translated by Antonia Nevill. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press. A collection of interesting essays on a number of subjects, not comprehensive. British Museum. http://www.britishmuseum.org. Last accessed October 16, 2016. The museum’s Web site gives access to its important West Asian collections, information about past exhibitions, and publications. Broodbank, Cyprian. 2013. The Making of the Middle Sea. London: Thames and Hudson. Although this excellent synthetic volume is about the Mediterranean world, its broad sweep often extends to Mesopotamia, offering a perspective on the wider setting in which Mesopotamia’s development took place. Chavalas, Mark W., ed. 2006. The Ancient Near East. Historical Sources in Translation. Oxford: Blackwell. A fascinating selection of important Mesopotamian and other West Asian historical documents, with introductions and commentaries. Collon, Dominique. 1990. Near Eastern Seals. London: British Museum. An introduction to the development, forms, and functions of seals, which combined important social and administrative functionality with artistry. Cooper, Jerrold S. 1983. Reconstructing History from Ancient Inscriptions: The LagashUmma Conflict. Sources from the Ancient Near East. Vol. 2, fascicule 1. Malibu, CA: Udena Publications.

Annotated Bibliography

233

The inscriptions charting the first well-documented war, the border dispute between Umma and Lagash around 2500–2350 BCE, with an extensive essay on its significance. Crawford, Harriet. 2015. Ur. The City of the Moon God. London: Bloomsbury. An up-to-date account of one of Mesopotamia’s most important cities. Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative Wiki. http://cdli.ox.ac.uk/wiki/. Last accessed October 16, 2016. A spin-off from the Cuneiform Digital Library Initiative, this offers useful short articles on subjects related to ancient Mesopotamia. Dalley, Stephanie. 1984. Mari and Karana. Two Old Babylonian Cities. London: Longman. Based on the clay tablets from these two second-millennium cities, this book paints a fascinating picture of royal life. Dalley, Stephanie. 2000. Myths from Mesopotamia. Rev. ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A translation of important Akkadian mythological poems, including the Creation and Ishtar’s Descent to the Netherworld. Dalley, Stephanie. 2013. The Mystery of the Hanging Garden of Babylon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. The full presentation of Dalley’s convincing theory about the true location of the Hanging Gardens. ETCSL (Electronic Text Corpus of Sumerian Literature). http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac .uk/. Last accessed October 16, 2016. A fascinating resource: Sumerian texts transliterated and translated. ETANA. http://www.etana.org/home. Last accessed October 16, 2016. A portal to a huge range of material related to the Ancient Near East, including the ABZU database and eTACT, translations of Akkadian texts. Finkel, Irving. 2014. The Ark Before Noah. London: Hodder and Stoughton. Starting from a newly discovered early text fragment describing the construction of the Ark, apparently a vast coracle, Finkel explores many interesting aspects of Sumerian culture. Foster, Benjamin. 1995. From Distant Days. Bethesda, MD: CDL Press. Prefaced by useful introductions, this volume offers a selection of the wonderful and varied Akkadian literature, from the magnificent Epic of Creation (Enuma elish) to pithy proverbs.

234

Annotated Bibliography

Frankfort, Henri. 1996. The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient. 5th ed. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. A beautifully illustrated guide to aspects of art and architecture in Mesopotamia and beyond. George, Andrew. 1999. The Epic of Gilgamesh. A New Translation. London: Alan Lane The Penguin Press. This fascinating volume brings together translations of all the Gilgamesh poems, along with scholarly commentary. Kramer, Samuel N. 1956. History Begins at Sumer. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press. A great scholar’s light-hearted look at the Sumerians’ many contributions to humanity. Kuhrt, Amélie. 1995. The Ancient Near East. c. 3000–330 BC. 2 vols. London: Routledge. A comprehensive history of the region, including Egypt, illustrated with many primary texts, good maps, and excellent chronological charts for individual regions and dynasties. Leick, Gwendolyn. 1991. A Dictionary of Ancient Near Eastern Mythology. London: Routledge. A useful source of information on Mesopotamian gods, legendary heroes, and their stories. Leick, Gwendolyn. 1999. Who’s Who in the Ancient Near East. London: Routledge. Brief summaries of all that is known about a wide range of historical figures. Leick, Gwendolyn. 2001. Mesopotamia. The Invention of the City. London: Allen Lane The Penguin Press. A scholarly and highly readable account of key developments in Mesopotamian civilization, seen through accounts of representative major cities. Leick, Gwendolyn, ed. 2009. The Babylonian World. Oxford: Routledge. An encyclopedic volume of essays focused on aspects of second- to first-millennium Babylonia but also extending further in time and place. Liverani, Mario. 2006. Uruk. The First City. Translated by Zainab Bahrani and Marc Van De Mieroop. London/Oakville: Equinox. A slim volume densely packed with theories and discussions on the nature of fourthmillennium-BCE society and economy. Matthews, Roger. 2003. The Archaeology of Mesopotamia. London: Routledge.

Annotated Bibliography

235

This book adopts an interesting and stimulating theoretical approach, examining the ways in which certain archaeological issues are understood. Melville, Duncan. “Mesopotamian Mathematics.” http://it.stlawu.edu/~dmelvill /mesomath/index.html. Last accessed October 16, 2016. A substantial collection of webpages on aspects of Mesopotamian mathematics. Moorey, P. R. S. 1994. Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries. Oxford: Oxford University Press. A comprehensive technical account of major Mesopotamian industries and the materials they used. Nemet-Nejat, Karen Rhea. 1998. Daily Life in Ancient Mesopotamia. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. Useful coverage of the various aspects of life in ancient Mesopotamia. Nissen, Hans J. 1990. The Early History of the Ancient Near East. 9000–2000 B.C. Translated by Elizabeth Lutzeier, with Kenneth J. Northcott. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. This influential work discusses the key developments in West Asian, and particularly Babylonian, prehistory and early history. Nissen, Hans J., Peter Damerow, and Robert K. Englund. 1993. Archaic Bookkeeping. Translated by Paul Larsen. Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press. A remarkable and fascinating study of the earliest written texts and the information that they have been made to yield through extremely skilled and concentrated analysis. Oates, Joan, and David Oates. 2001. Nimrud. An Assyrian Imperial City Revealed. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. An in-depth account of the early Neo-Assyrian capital, Kalhu (Nimrud), including its exquisite ivory carvings. ORACC—Open Richly Annotated Cuneiform Corpus. http://oracc.museum .upenn.edu/index.html. Last accessed October 16, 2016 A portal to a wealth of cuneiform-related materials, including publications and projects. Oriental Institute, Chicago. http://oi.uchicago.edu/research/projects/mesopotamia -iraq-syria. Last accessed October 16, 2016. The Web site of the Oriental Institute, long involved in West Asian research, offers many resources including information about excavations and research projects, details of publications, many downloadable, and useful links.

236

Annotated Bibliography

Pollack, Susan. 1999. Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. An anthropological study of the development of Mesopotamian society through the crucial fifth to third millennia BCE. Postgate, J. Nicholas. 1992. Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge. This immensely readable work offers a comprehensive introduction to Mesopotamian life from the rise of cities to the mid-second millennium BCE, copiously illustrated with primary texts. Potts, Daniel T. 1997. Mesopotamian Civilization. The Material Foundations. London: Athlone. A comprehensive study of the materials available in ancient Mesopotamia and the contexts in which they were used. Potts, Daniel T. 2015. The Archaeology of Elam. 2nd ed. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. A good introduction to a subject still heavily shrouded in obscurity. Ratnagar, Shereen. 2004. Trading Encounters. Delhi: Oxford University Press. Though focused on the Indus civilization rather than Mesopotamia, this volume provides detailed information on everything relating to trade between these two great third-millennium-BCE states. Roaf, Michael. 1990. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East. New York: Facts on File. Packed with informative maps, this valuable history is interspersed with special features on key sites and cultural developments. Rothman, Mitchell S., ed. 2001. Uruk Mesopotamia and Its Neighbors. Santa Fe, NM: School of American Research Press/Oxford: James Currey. Essays by leading authors examine key issues concerning the critical Uruk period during which civilization emerged in southern Mesopotamia. Russell, John M. 1991. Sennacherib’s Palace Without Rival at Nineveh. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. An account of the richly decorated palace at Nineveh, the last Assyrian capital. Sasson, Jack M. 2000. Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. 4 vols. Peabody, MA: Hendrickson. This massive encyclopedic work containing essays on most aspects of life in the region (including Egypt) provides essential background reading.

Annotated Bibliography

237

Schmandt-Besserat, Denise. 1996. How Writing Came About. Austin: University of Texas Press. This volume beautifully sets out Schmandt-Besserat’s now-famous theory on the origins of the writing system. Snell, Daniel. 1997. Life in the Ancient Near East. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. A discussion of everyday life in West Asia during different broad periods between 5500 and 332 BCE. Snell, Daniel, ed. 2005. A Companion to the Ancient Near East. Oxford: Blackwell. This encyclopedic work contains excellent background essays on a wide range of subjects. Ur Online. http://www.ur-online.org/. Last accessed October 16, 2016. This collaborative Web site outlines the background to the British Museum and Penn Museum’s 1920s excavations in Ur’s Royal Cemetery and makes available the astonishing material they yielded. Van de Mieroop, Marc. 1999. The Ancient Mesopotamian City. Oxford: Oxford University Press. This densely packed volume considers every aspect of cities in ancient Mesopotamia. Van de Mieroop, Marc. 2004. A History of the Ancient Near East. ca. 3000–323 BC. Oxford: Blackwell. A highly readable, analytical, and informative account of Mesopotamian history. Van de Mieroop, Marc. 2005. King Hammurabi of Babylon. Oxford: Blackwell. An account of Hammurabi’s rise, his achievements as ruler, personal qualities, and legacy. Veenhof, Klaas R. 1972. Aspects of Old Assyrian Trade and Its Terminology. Leiden: Brill. A very detailed and technical, but fascinating, account of Assur’s trade, based on texts from its trading station at Kanesh. Walker, Christopher B. F. 1987. Cuneiform. London: British Museum. A survey of the origins, development, form, and uses of the Mesopotamian writing system. Wiseman, D. J. 1991. Nebuchadrezzar and Babylon. Oxford: Oxford University Press. An account of Babylon in its final glorious phase of architectural embellishment.

238

Annotated Bibliography

Woods, Christopher, ed. 2011. Visible Language. Chicago: Oriental Institute. https:// oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/oimp32.pdf. Last accessed October 16, 2016. Beautifully illustrated, this is an excellent introduction to the origins of writing. Woolley, Leonard. 1982. Ur ‘of the Chaldees’. The Final Account, Excavations at Ur. Revised and updated by P. R. S. Moorey. London: Book Club Associates/Herbert Press. Lavishly illustrated, this is Woolley’s persuasive description of Ur and its treasures, skillfully revised. Zettler, Richard L., and Lee Horner, ed. 1998. Treasures from the Royal Tombs of Ur. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Insightful essays on these remarkable tombs and their cultural context, and a catalogue of finds from them, beautifully illustrated. Excerpts from three essays are available online. http://oi.uchicago.edu/museum-exhibits/special-exhibits/treasures -royal-tombs-ur. Last accessed October 16, 2016.

Index Page numbers in bold indicate the location of main entries. Accounting devices, early, 220, 223; continuing later use, 220, 223–224, 225; impressed tablets, xvii, 74, 75, 84, 144, 219; tokens and clay balls (envelopes), xvii, xxii, 1, 43, 74, 75, 84, 112, 116, 119, 133, 144, 218, 219, 223, 224–225. See also Currency; Mathematics; Writing Administration, 1–4; Akkadian Empire, xix, 2, 13, 21, 22, 96, 105, 120, 128, 171; Assur city-state, 3; early evidence, 1, 42, 218; ED period, xxiv, 2; Hammurabi’s empire, 3–4, 18, 97; Mari kingdom, 3; merchant houses, 3, 78, 92–93; metrology in, 101–103; NeoAssyrian Empire, xxvii, 97, 98; Ur III Empire, xxv, 2, 31, 44, 57, 97, 102–103, 105, 117; Uruk period, xvii–xviii, xxii, 1, 43, 74, 101, 109, 116, 145, 195, 218–219, 224–225 Agriculture, 4–7, 75, 94, 171, 174, 176, 227; in Babylonia, 5–6, 17, 62–63, 118, 194, 196; crop failure, xxvi, 69; crops, 5, 6, 8, 9, 69, 94, 117, 125, 132, 198; cultivation,

5–6, 62, 73, 103, 130; early, xvii, xxi, 4, 5, 13, 41, 95, 127, 194; in Elam, 46, 47; fallowing, 6, 56; intensification in Uruk period, xvii, 5, 8, 72, 73, 95; on large landholdings, 69; in literature, 149, 176–179, 182; management, 85, 103, 199, 218; manure, 6, 125, 126; in northern Mesopotamia, 6–7, 12–13; rain-fed, xxii, 17, 41, 62, 82, 94, 95, 194, 197; salinization, 6, 56, 134; sources of water, 61; threshing, xvii, xxii, 5, 6, 42, 178 Akkad (northern Babylonia), xx, xxiv, 2, 17, 18, 20, 21, 56, 94, 105; river regime, 63 Akkadian Empire, xix, xxv, 20–23, 24, 47, 55, 60, 80, 82, 95; Agade, xxv, 2, 21, 79, 80, 88, 96, 170–172, 211; army, xix, 2, 96–97, 140; creation, xxv, 2, 18, 20, 21, 97, 168; decline, xix, xxv, 21; Naram-Sin, xxv, 21, 80, 97, 101, 128, 170, 171; rebellions against, xix, xxv, 21, 80, 97, 128, 168; Sargon stories, 21, 80, 170; Sargon’s campaigns, xix, xxiv–xxv,

240

Index

20, 21, 96, 134, 139, 167–168, 214; sculpture, 135; standardization, 31, 101, 145; trade, 21, 60, 97, 211, 214 Akkadian language, 26, 71, 79, 211; and cuneiform script, xix, 145; as lingua franca, 71; literature in, 79, 80; and Sumerian, 26, 45, 71, 226 Amorites, 71, 140; and OB states, xxv, 3, 55, 82–83, 105, 125; way of life, 55–56, 87. See also Pastoralism; Tribal society Animal husbandry and wild resources, 7–11. See Animal husbandry; Wild resources Animal husbandry, 7–9, 141–143; animal traction, 5, 6, 8, 9, 95, 142; in art, 73, 136; bee keeping, 54; camels (dromedaries), xxvi, 10, 61, 91, 125, 143; chickens, 10; early, xxi, 7, 8; goats, 9, 42, 51, 53, 171, 178; pack animals, 5, 10, 142–143, 171, 199; pigs, 9, 53, 54; temple or state herds, xxiii, 1, 9, 51, 68, 73, 76, 104, 119, 126; use of secondary products, xvii, xxii, 5, 7, 8–9, 10, 42, 142 Aramaic: language, 71; language, as lingua franca, 71; script, 146 Architecture, 11–12; architects, 12, 172; building materials, 6, 11–12, 13, 18, 94, 122, 172–174, 199, 203, 207, 199–200; construction techniques, 11, 121–122; decoration, 11, 36, 121, 122, 207, 223; and metrology, 103; palaces, 11, 14, 19, 82, 83, 106; plans, 103, 172; temples, 109, 121–122, 133 Armies, 40; cavalry, 140, 143; chariotry, 10, 140, 142–143; foot soldiers, 139, 140, 174; infrastructure 117; military service, 2, 3, 4, 26, 36, 68, 97–98, 105, 115, 140; role in empires, 98; size, 140;

standing armies, xix, xxv, 2, 21, 98, 140; tribal recruits, 68, 125, 126, 140, 143; weapons and armour, 104, 139, 140, 153, 168, 169, 174, 175, 177, 210, 214. See also Warfare Assyria, 12–15: Ashurbanipal, xxvii, 14, 48, 79; Assur, xx, xxv, 3, 13, 22, 49, 52, 66, 91–93, 124; DurSharrukin (Khorsabad), xxvii, 14, 106; god Ashur, 29; history and environmental setting, xxv–xxvi, 94–95; Kalhu (Nimrud), 34, 64, 106, 129; Neo-Assyrian Empire, xx, xxvii, 11, 14, 18, 95, 97–98, 140–141, 202; Nineveh, early history, xxv, 13, 55, 207, 213; Sennacherib, xxvii, 12, 14, 19, 29, 63 Astronomy and the calendar, 15–17; astronomy, 45, 86, 198, 220, 225, 227; calendar, 29, 86, 225, 227 Atrahasis (Utanapishtim): and the Flood, 28, 39, 79, 155–157; and Gilgamesh, 163 Authors, named Mesopotamian, 79, 128, 149, 162, 168 Babylon and Babylonia, 17–20. See Babylon; Babylonia and Babylonians. Babylon, 17–20; “Hanging Gardens,” 19, 63; Ishtar Gate and Processional Way, 19, 136; Neo-Babylonian city, xxvii, 18–19; New Year festival in, 6, 19, 66, 110; OB city-state and empire, xxvi, 17, 55–56, 97; religious authority of, 18, 29, 66; size, 129; ziggurat, 19, 122 Babylonia and Babylonians, 17–20, 47–48, 55, 61, 62, 94; Akkadian period, xix, xxiv–xxv, 18, 20, 21; changes in river regime, 17, 194, 195; early settlement, xvii, xxii, 5, 41, 62, 194; ED period, xviii–xix,

Index

xxiii–xxiv, 20–21, 25–26, 38–41, 166–168; environmental constraints and opportunities, 62–63, 197–198; Neo-Babylonian Empire, xx, xxvii, 18; OB period, xx, xxv–xxvi, 18, 55–56, 83, 97; Ur III period, xix–xx, xxv, 18, 47; Uruk period, xvii–xviii, xxii–xxiii, 13, 25, 219 Basketry, bags and mats, 6, 18, 57, 94, 123, 124, 131, 209 Beveled-rim bowls, 43, 74, 218. See also Labor dues; Rations Birth of Empire, 20–23. See Akkadian Empire; Ur III Empire Bitumen, 11, 24, 94, 122, 123, 136, 207, 209; sources, 13, 60, 81–82, 127, 173 Boats and ships, xxii, 6, 18, 23–25, 36, 43, 57, 60, 75, 93, 94, 127, 129, 133, 142, 154, 155–157, 166, 171, 199, 206, 209, 211, 212 Books: Akkadian-Sumerian dictionaries, 45; libraries, 79, 131; manuals and collections, 16, 45–46, 89–90, 110, 131, 138 Bricks, 11, 18, 34, 122; glazed, 19, 48, 136, 138; mudbrick, 11, 18, 42, 119, 132, 211 Burial, 33; burial fees, 166; cemeteries, 33, 42, 74; funerary architecture, 11, 33–34, 127, 128; under house floors, 33, 131; mounds, for war dead, 164; offerings and rituals, 33, 50; treatment of dead, 33; Ur cemetery, xix, xxiv, 33–34 Calendar, 15–16, 29, 86, 225, 227 Canals, 12; for agricultural irrigation, 5, 14, 17, 62; in cities, 130; construction of, 14, 39, 117; maintenance, 6, 39, 57, 63, 117; at Mari, 82, 83; for transport, 18, 61, 75; in warfare, 134. See also Irrigation

241

Carnelian, xix, 59, 60, 64, 122, 128, 172, 209–210 Cattle, 8, 9, 142; dairying, 8, 9, 42, 194; draft oxen, 6, 8, 9, 42, 142 Children, 33, 49–50, 113–114, 125, 131, 171; adoption, 78, 114, 188, 189; as workers, 36, 57, 120, 155, 178. See also Education; Family; Inheritance Cities: attributes of, 25, 26, 76, 128, 129–132, 170–171; citizen councils, 66, 77–78, 130; emergence of, 5, 75–76, 195, 196; in northern Mesopotamia, 25; suburbs, 128, 130, 134; Uruk, world’s first city, xxiii, 25, 38, 75–76, 133, 195. See also Urban life City-states, xxiv, 25–27, 95; city and hinterland, 25; collaboration, xix, xxiv, 26, 40; competition and warfare, 20, 25, 159–161; identity as estate of city deities, 39, 55, 65–66, 119; shared culture, xxiv, 26, 166–167 City walls, 3, 73, 103, 128, 134, 171; defensive, xviii, xxiv, 11, 14, 18, 19, 38, 40, 55, 82, 106, 130, 139, 140, 160, 166; symbolic role, 130 Citizens, 3, 25, 26, 28, 36, 65–66, 68, 92, 105, 116, 119, 129, 165; citizen assemblies and councils, 3, 66, 77–78, 106, 115, 130; shared identity in city-states, 96 Civil engineering, 11–12, 63, 103; aqueducts, 12, 14, 103; and mathematics, 84 Civilization: defining the concept, 86, 88, 193, 200; emergence in southern Mesopotamia, 75–76, 95, 193, 196; fragility of, 88, 171–172; the ME, civilization through Mesopotamian eyes, 53, 86–88, 129, 152–155; Mesopotamian perceptions of others, 87–88, 125, 176

242

Index

Civilization, discussion of causal factors of its emergence in Babylonia, 193–227 Climate: and Late Bronze Age crisis, xx, xxvi; postglacial changes, 94, 127, 194 Clothing, 123, 124, 131, 186 Construction: building materials as factor in development of civilization, 199–200; corvée labor in, 36, 43, 73, 104, 115, 117; public works, 1, 25, 36, 40, 48, 66 Cosmology, 27–30; the Abzu, 28, 153–154; creation of humanity to serve the gods, 109, 152; Creation myths, 28, 29, 79, 149–152; divine favour and punishment, 26–28, 79, 89, 96, 109, 110, 166–168, 170– 172; the Flood, 28, 39, 155–157; nature of civilized existence, 28, 86–88, 129, 153–155; the Netherworld, 33, 153, 162 Currency, xxvi–xxvii, 30–32, 37, 51, 52, 84, 99–100, 102, 103, 214 Dates and date palms, 5–6, 42, 54, 60, 127, 132–133, 171, 194, 209; in financial dealings, 51, 69 Death, 32–35; afterlife in the Netherworld, 33, 162; associated rites, 33; causes, 89; unquiet ghosts, 33 Debt: annulment, 52, 66, 69; collateral, 69; contracts, 51; debt slavery, 36, 49, 52, 69, 113, 188; defaulting debtors, 37; finance, 51; high interest rates, 37, 51, 113; between states, 165; unfulfilled productivity targets, 2, 57, 103 Diplomacy, xxiv, 22, 65, 83, 105, 159, 214; Amarna letters, xxvi; cuneiform as diplomatic script, 146 Divination, 45–46, 66, 110, 111; from astronomical observation, 15, 16,

111; diviners (baru), 16, 110, 111, 175, 184; medical diagnosis, 89, 110; omens, 16, 110, 186; zodiac and horoscopes, 16, 29 Domestic economy, 35–37. See also Economics; Industry; Taxation Donkeys, xxii, 8, 9, 10, 23, 42–43, 82, 102, 117, 125, 142, 160, 166; breeding with onagers, 142; trade caravans, 52, 92, 93, 142 Early Dynastic. See ED (Early Dynastic) period Early Dynastic city-states, xviii, 20, 38–41, 165–166. See also ED (Early Dynastic) period Early Uruk—prelude to civilization, 41–44. See Uruk period Ebla (Tell Mardikh), xxiv, xxv, 22, 82; archive, 82; Eblaite language, 71, 145 Economics: domestic economy, 35–37; economic decline, xx, xxv, xxvi, 56, 134; economic specialization, xviii, xxii, 1, 35, 36, 41, 43, 57, 58, 73, 105, 115, 117, 120, 198, 203, 219; exchange mechanisms, 35–37, 59, 206; inflation, 31, 172; offerings of produce, 25, 35, 38, 73, 109, 116–117, 119, 120, 167, 195, 218; ration payments, xxii, xxiii, 31, 35, 36, 43, 54, 57, 68, 74, 84, 85, 101, 103, 114, 115, 116, 117, 119, 120, 124, 140, 144, 218; state (palace and temple) economies, 35, 73, 116–117, 119, 120, 195, 218; wages, 31, 36, 37, 58, 66, 68, 91, 113, 116, 120, 188. See also Agriculture; Currency; Exchange; Finance; Industry; International trade; Private enterprise; Taxation ED (Early Dynastic) period, xviii, xxiii–xxiv, 2, 38–41, 47, 104, 133, 195; aggrandising kings, xix, xxiv,

Index

20, 21, 139, 164–165; and city deity, 109, 119; city-states, xviii, 20, 25, 165–166; cooperative leagues, xix, xxiv, 2, 26, 38, 40, 117; graves, 33–34; population explosion, 39, 133, 155; trade, 39, 59–60, 157 Education, 44–46; apprenticeship, 45, 114, 189; classificatory word lists, 44, 45, 14–145, 225–226; clay writing tablets, 45, 179; intellectual attributes as ME, 87, 129, 154; literature, 45, 79; mathematics, 44, 45, 85, 86; patron goddess Nidaba, 174, 179, 181; school life, 45, 179–181; schools (edubba), 2, 44, 45, 83, 131, 174; scribal exercises and educational tools, 44, 45, 79, 85, 102, 179; Sumerian language and, 26, 45, 70 Egypt, xxvi, xxvii, 18, 60, 85, 90, 95, 105, 146, 202, 217; Amarna letters, xxvi Elam, 46–48; Anshan (Tall-i Malyan), 47, 48, 173; history and environmental setting, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, 2, 18, 21, 22, 94, 105, 168, 171, 206; in OB period, xxv, 18, 47, 55; Proto-Elamite script, 47, 145, 219; trade, 38, 47, 59, 171, 173; in Uruk period, xviii, xxiii, 38, 47, 59, 74–75, 207. See also Susa Elamite language, 70, 71; use of cuneiform to write, 146, 226 Enheduanna: entu-priestess, 128, 168; poems, 79–80, 128, 168–170 Enki (Ea): attributes, 28; in Creation story, 149–152; and Eridu, 109; and the Flood, 155, 157; and the ME, 87, 152–155 Enkidu, 87; and Gilgamesh, 29, 80, 160–163; and the Netherworld, 33, 162 Enlil (En), 28; attributes, 28; in Creation story, 149–151; destruction

243

of Agade, 171–172; and the Flood, 155–157; leader of gods, xxiv, 20, 22, 26, 39, 66. See also Nippur Enmerkar: epic poetry and, 157–159; Iranian trade and, 59, 207; Lugalbanda, 80, 157; Uruk and, 59; and writing, 144, 158–159 Environment, 9, 75, 94, 127; Babylonia, 5, 73, 194, 195; as causal factor in development of civilization, 193–203; constraints and opportunities, 118, 196; decline and its effects, xx, xxv, xxvi, 17, 56, 134; environmental determinism, 193; environmental uncertainty and religion, 118, 194–195; and irrigation, 62; providing productivity to support complex society, 196; settlement patterns and, 25; of Uruk, 75 Exchange, 35–37; early networks, xvii, xxi, xxii, xxiii, 59, 206; ensuring supply, 206; market exchange, 36–37, 130, 172; reciprocity (gift exchange), 35, 37; redistribution, 35, 37. See also International trade Family, 33, 48–50, 52, 58, 87, 88, 109, 113–114, 115, 131; extended families, 49, 68, 69, 78. See also Inheritance; Marriage; Merchants; Urban life Finance, 51–53, 214; dowry, 49, 52; futures, 51; interest rates, 51; investment, 52, 214; loans, 51–52, 93, 120; partnerships, 52, 93; private enterprise, 37, 51; state contracts with private sector, 51, 58; state control, 51, 214. See also Debt Fish, 9, 51, 54, 60, 109, 127, 182, 198; fishing, 9–10, 23, 182 Food and cuisine, 53–55, 190; beer and wine, 33, 53, 54, 108, 119, 153–154, 156, 177–178, 223;

244

Index

cooked food, as mark of civilization, 129; cooks and bakers, 57, 73, 120, 178; feasting, 50, 54, 88, 110, 136, 156; food preservation, 51, 54, 131; foodstuffs, 9, 53, 54, 162, 179, 184; herbs and spices, 6, 10, 53, 54, 61; honey, 33, 54, 182 Fruit, 5, 6, 54, 117, 166; fruit trees, 5–6, 14, 51, 69, 129, 171 Furniture, 34, 58, 99, 123, 131, 138; metal, glass and ivory decoration, 58, 99, 138; timber for making, 6, 18, 127 Gardens, 130, 134; for horticulture, 5–6, 166, 171, 188; royal parks, 14, 63, 106 Gemstones, xxiii, 39, 59, 60, 64, 128, 195, 197, 207, 209–210, 212, 222 Gilgamesh, xviii, 40; and Agga (Akka), 40, 80, 159–161; cycle of epic poems, 33, 80; and Enkidu, 29, 80; and Inanna, 28–29, 80; search for immortality, 29, 80, 161–163; and Uruk, 133–134 Girsu (Tello), 21, 119, 120, 164, 166; temple to patron god, Ningirsu, 172–174 Gods and goddesses, 27–29; attributes and nature, 27, 156, 174; in council, 150–152, 155, 162, 163; divine guidance, 15, 16, 46, 185; pantheon, 29, 87–88, 156, 162, 167, 190; relationship with humans, 27, 109, 118, 191; syncretization, 29; symbols of, 19, 136, 168; and their personal cities, xxiv, 25, 26, 27–28, 39, 55, 65–66, 96, 109, 157, 164, 167, 172. See also individual deities; Cosmology; Mythology Grain (usually barley), in economic transactions, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, 4, 30, 31, 43, 51, 60, 101, 116, 117, 119,

120, 126, 164–165, 172, 191, 207, 218, 219, 224 Grave goods, 33, 34; people as, 33, 34; in Nimrud royal tombs, 34, 64; as status indicators, 42, 74, 115, 221, 222; in Ur Royal Graves, xix, xxiv, 33–34, 60, 127–128, 136 Greeks, adoption of Mesopotamian cultural legacy, 16, 19, 63, 78, 85, 90, 111, 146 Gulf trade, xvii, xx, xxii, xxiii, xxv, xxvi, 18, 22, 23, 24, 39, 42, 59, 60, 61, 82, 93, 128, 133, 199, 206, 212, 213, 221; Dilmun (Bahrain), 24, 60, 93, 211; Magan (Oman), 39, 60, 173, 211; Meluhha (Indus civilization), 60, 64, 171, 173, 211, 212, 222 Guti, Gutians, 71, 125, 140, 171; and Mesopotamian empires, xix, xxv, 21, 22, 134, 170. See also Tribal society Hammurabi’s empire, xx, xxvi, 3–4, 18, 55–56, 95, 134, 140; Hammurabi, 47, 83, 97, 106, 226; Hammurabi’s “Law code,” 52, 77, 78, 90, 116, 187–190, 226 “Hanging Gardens of Babylon,” 19; possible location, 14, 63 Hittites, xx, xxvi, 14, 18, 95; Hittite language, 71, 72, 146, 226 Horses, 10; draft, 140, 142, 143; harness, 123, 140, 142, 143; ridden, 140, 143 Houses, 11, 130; domestic shrine, 109, 131; furnishings, 123, 131; houseboats, 23; layout, 49, 131; materials, 11; plans, 103 Hunter-gatherers, xxi, 5, 8, 82, 94, 127, 194; seasonal movement and resource procurement, 35, 67, 206 Hurrians, xxv, xxvi; Hurrian language, 70, 71, 146, 226

Index

Ideology: of civilization, 86–88, 129; of kingship, 22, 55, 65, 66, 67, 106, 119, 165, 172–173, 174–176, 188, 189; of relationship between gods, citizens, and city-states, 25, 27–28, 65–66, 97, 119, 167, 170–171, 172–173; of tribal society, 55–56 Inanna (Ishtar); attributes, 28–29, 79, 80, 130, 168–170; love poetry, 181–183; patron of Uruk and Agade, 28, 79, 87, 88, 134, 152–155, 157–159, 170–171 Indo-European languages, 70–72, 226 Industry, 56–59, 189; crafts as attributes of civilization, 87, 129; domestic production, 57, 107, 124; interdependence of trade and craft production, 36, 208, 212, 222; metalworkers, 57, 58, 74; pottery production, xxii, xxiii, 41, 57, 107, 114, 130; private enterprise, 37, 51, 58, 130; productivity targets, 2, 57, 103; range of craft activities, 57, 58, 112, 201; role of prestige craft products, 212–213; social status of artisans, 36, 37, 57, 58, 73, 110, 114, 115, 119, 120; state control, 57, 58, 103, 110, 119; supervisors, foremen, overseers, 1, 36, 57, 74, 130, 186; textile industry, xxii, xxiii, 8–9, 124, 207; trade secrets and skills, 45–46; workshops, factories, and mass production, 57, 73, 74, 76, 106, 120, 130, 133, 138, 186, 212, 213. See also Private enterprise; Textiles, woolen Inheritance, 33, 45, 49, 50, 52, 64, 68, 77, 78, 85, 114, 130, 188 International trade, 59–61; as causal factor in emergence of civilization, 198–199, 205–215; exports, xxiii, 60, 119, 199, 207; imports, xxiii, 5, 10, 47, 59, 60, 61, 119, 122, 125,

245

143, 195, 206, 209–210, 212; need for, xxiii, 42, 73, 94, 133, 195, 196, 207, 214–215; roads and routes, 3, 11, 13, 22, 39, 46, 47, 57, 59, 60, 61, 75, 82, 92, 140, 167, 169, 199, 213, 214, 215; trading outposts, xviii, xxiii, xxv, 3, 13, 38, 49, 52, 59, 60, 61, 74–75, 82, 91–92, 130, 183–185, 207, 208, 213, 218–219, 222–223. See also traded materials International trade, sources: Afghanistan, 42, 47, 59, 60, 75, 92, 206, 222; Anatolia, xx, 3, 13, 21, 42, 59, 60, 100, 210, 212, 213, 221, 222; Iranian plateau, xxvi, 39, 47, 59, 60, 61, 75, 82, 92, 157, 172, 199, 207, 212, 222; Levant, xxv, 5, 11, 21, 23, 24, 59, 60, 82, 100, 123–124, 143, 221, 222. See also Gulf trade Irrigation, 61–64; early development, xvii, xxi, 5, 13, 62, 95, 221; ED intensification, xxiii, xxiv, 62, 195; and emergence of civilization, 193, 199, 203; and flood control, xxiii, 17, 26, 39, 63, 73; and intensive labor, xxiii, xxiv, 1, 25, 26, 35–36, 39, 41, 62, 63, 73, 104, 195, 199; later developments, xxv, 2, 3, 21, 62–63; Sennacherib and hydraulic engineering, 12, 14, 19, 63; and settlement patterns, xxiii–xxiv, 17, 25, 39–40, 56, 62, 73, 195; Uruk period, xxiii, 1, 5, 35, 62, 67, 72–73, 194; water lifting equipment, 19, 62, 63 Isin-Larsa period, xxv–xxvi, 18, 55, 134; Isin, xxv, xxvi, 55, 134 Jewelry, xix, 34, 60, 64–65, 99, 100, 107, 108, 128, 137–138, 209, 210; jewelers, 57; purposes of, 31, 49, 50, 64, 92, 120

246

Index

Kanesh (Kültepe), 91–93; karum organization, 3; merchant houses, 49, 91; Old Assyrian trade, xx, 13, 52, 60–61, 91–93, 124; texts, 52–53, 91, 183–185 Karums, 130; as chambers of commerce, 91; Old Assyrian, 13, 91, 92; as trading posts, 92. See also International trade; Kanesh (Kültepe); Merchants Kassite: dynasty, xx, xxvi, 18, 48, 95, 117; language, 71; mercenaries, 125 Kingship, 65–67, 222; building public works, 109, 172, 175; checks on royal power, 66; diplomacy, 65, 105; military role, xxiv, 65, 104–105, 133, 167, 174; in New Year festival, 66, 110; propagandist inscriptions, 66, 226; protecting the vulnerable, 66, 166; sacred marriage, 66, 128, 134; sacred and religious role, 65–66, 104, 110; socio-political and economic role, 38, 66, 104, 167, 176 Kish, 20, 49, 142; Agga (Akka), 40, 80, 159–161; kingship of Kish, xix, xxiv, 20, 26, 40, 105, 164; Sargon and, 21, 80, 168 Labor dues (corvée labor), xxiii, 2, 3, 26, 35, 36, 43, 57, 73, 104, 105, 115, 117, 119–120; burden of labor and consequent strike, in mythology, 149–152 Lagash: conflict with Umma, xix, xxiv, 20, 40, 164–165; in ED period, 20, 21, 105; Enmetena, 52, 164; Gudea, xix, 172–174; Uru-inim-gina (UruKAgina), xix, 117, 119, 165–166. See also Girsu (Tello) Land: confiscation, as debt payment, 37, 69; extended families and, 68, 69; investment in improvement, 67, 69; ownership, 67, 68–69;

reclamation, 3, 68, 69, 98; sales, 49, 51, 68, 69; values, 69. See also Agriculture; Land tenure Land tenure, 4, 35–36, 37, 51, 67–70, 97–98, 115, 116, 119, 125, 140; apportionment of conquered land, 96, 97, 140; surveying for, 45, 85, 103 Languages, 26, 45, 70–72, 79, 145, 146, 175, 211, 226. See also languages of individual groups and regions Lapis lazuli, xix, 34, 42, 47, 59, 60, 64, 75, 128, 136, 157, 171, 182, 206, 209–210 Larsa, xxv–xxvi, 18, 55, 134, 195; Rim-Sin I, xxvi, 18, 55 Late Uruk—the emergence of civilization, 72–77. See Uruk period Law, 77–78; administration of justice, 77, 175; civil, 77, 78, 130; compensation, 77, 78, 116, 188; criminal, 77–78, 188; and family, 52, 78; judiciary, 77, 188; “law codes,” 22, 52, 66, 77, 113, 116, 187–190, 226; oaths, 77, 110; penalties, 63, 77–78, 113, 188, 189, 191; river ordeal, 77; royal duties, 66, 77, 166 Leather, 94, 123; clothing and armour, 88, 123, 131, 139, 140; hides and skins, 8, 9, 23, 94, 123, 207, 209; leatherworking, 57, 58, 87, 124, 154 Legacy: belief systems, 111; communications, 61; cultural, 12, 16, 29–30, 46, 54, 88; economic, 7, 10, 32, 37, 52–53, 69, 93; human, 81; legal, 78; linguistic, 72; mathematical, 86, 103; medical, 90; multi-faceted, 143; organizational, 58, 93; political, 27; technological, 7, 12, 24, 58, 63, 138–139; way of life in marshes, 129; writing systems, 146, 220–221, 224

Index

Letters, 45, 54, 79, 90, 106, 113, 144, 225; Kanesh, 3, 49, 92, 183–185; Karana, 49; Mari, 49, 83, 114, 124, 185–187 Lions, 11, 19, 136; hunting, as royal duty or prerogative, 14, 38, 65, 73, 135, 175 Literature, 26, 79–81, 128, 145; humorous tales, 80; hymns and religious texts, 79–80, 110; Lamentations, 79; literary forms, 79; love poetry, 28, 50, 181–183; myths and epics, 29, 33, 39, 59, 79, 80, 133; oral literature, 79, 131; wisdom literature, 80, 176–179. See also primary source documents Loans, 37, 51–52, 85, 93, 120, 164, 165, 188, 191 Love and desire, 50, 130, 191; adultery, 50, 78, 188; homosexuality, 50, 110; Inanna and 28, 29; love poetry, 28, 50, 181–183; sexual activity as ME, 87, 153 Lugalzagesi, xix, xxiv, 21, 22, 96, 105, 134, 166–168 Maps and plans, 103; “Babylonian map of the world,” 103; land surveys, 45, 85, 103 Marduk (Bel): Creation epic, 29, 79, 110; divine sanction by, 18, 29, 66; dragon of, (Mushhusshu), 19, 136; temple and ziggurat of, 18, 19, 122. See also Babylon Mari and the Middle Euphrates region, 81–84. See also Mari; Middle Euphrates region Mari, 44, 54, 82–83; early history, xxv, xxiv, 21, 22, 82, 168; letters, 49, 114, 185–187; OB palace, 58, 83, 106, 136; in OB period, xxvi, 18, 55, 82–83; and Zimri-Lim, 3, 83, 124, 185–187

247

Marriage, 49–50, 52, 64, 78, 188–189; in diplomacy, 83, 186–187; in literature, 28, 181–183, 190; marital problems, 49, 50, 78, 130, 188–189. See also Love and desire; Women Marshes, 23, 25, 28, 41, 42, 51, 61, 75, 103, 109, 118, 127–129, 174, 194; changing extent, 9, 72–73, 127, 194; destruction by Saddam Hussein, 129; recent restoration 129; way of life in, 129, 194, 197, 198, 199 Mass production from Uruk period onward, xxiii, 43; copper, 74; metalworking, xxiii; pottery, 43, 57, 74, 107; textiles, xxiii, 8–9, 57, 74, 124; in Ur III workshops, 57 Mathematics, 84–86, 220, 227; abstract concept of number in first writing, xvii, 30, 74, 84, 101, 144, 221; and astronomy, 16, 86, 225; counting and measurement systems, 84, 101; school exercises in, 44, 45, 85, 86, 174, 180; sexagesimal (base60) positional number system, 84–85, 86, 101 The ME: Essence of civilization, 28, 86–88; elements of, 87, 129; and Inanna, in mythology, 153–155. See also Civilization Medes, xxvii, 18, 48; language, 72 Medicine, 89–91, 109; Ashipu (exorcist), 45–46, 89, 110, 162; Asu (physician and pharmacist), 45, 80, 89–90, 189; exorcism, incantations, and magical remedies, 80, 89, 110; explaining ill-health, 80, 89, 110; medicinal remedies, 47, 53, 89–90, 94, 127 Merchant houses, 91–93; correspondence, 183–185; operation of trade, 183–185; organization, 92; role of women, 49, 92, 183, 184–185; roles of family members, 92. See also Finance; Kanesh (Kültepe)

248

Index

Merchants: accounting, 36; Assur merchant houses, 3, 13, 91–93; complex financial arrangements, 52, 183–184; dealings with foreign powers, 92; in OB Ur, 93; organization, 3; private enterprise, 24, 36–37, 52, 60–61, 91; selfregulation, 78, 91; state employees, 36, 37, 60, 91, 103. See also Finance; International trade; Kanesh (Kültepe) Mesopotamia: culture, 26; history and environmental setting, 94–96; resources, 94 Mesopotamian empires, 96–98; center and periphery, 13, 14, 96, 97, 98; centralization of power, xxv, 2, 18, 21, 22, 96, 98, 105; characteristic trajectory, xxv, xxvi, 55–56, 97, 98; disaffection, xxvii, 21, 55, 80, 97, 98, 128, 134, 141; land transfer to supporters, 2, 4, 21, 96–98; multiculturalism, 68, 71, 96, 98, 170, 202; provinces, xxvii, 2, 22, 96, 97, 98; reliance on army, xxv, xxvii, 2, 21, 97, 98, 140; revenue sources, xxvii, 3, 14, 18, 105 Metallurgy, 98–101, 197; bronze, 39, 59, 99, 100, 210, 212, 215, 221, 222; early, xxi, xxii, 95, 99; iron, xxvi, 93, 100, 131, 140, 183, 185; metalworkers, 57, 58, 74, 87, 119; Old Assyrian trade, 52, 61, 92–93, 124, 183–185; prestige uses, xix, 34, 36, 54, 60, 64, 99–100, 120, 122, 128, 135–136, 172–173, 210, 222; technology, 57, 59, 99, 108, 222; trade, xxiii, 13, 18, 21, 39, 47, 59, 60–61, 75, 94, 133, 157, 170, 173, 198, 201, 207, 210, 213, 214; uses, 63, 99–100, 103, 131, 139–140, 142, 210, 212, 214. See also Currency Metrology, 57, 100, 101–104, 164, 220, 225, 227; and currency, 30–31,

102; and mathematics, 45, 84, 85, 101; standardization, xxv, 31, 74, 101, 102–103; weights and measures, 30, 31, 74, 101–103, 172, 184, 218 Middle Euphrates region, xxv, 3, 75, 81–84, 125, 207, 213; Terqa, 82. See also Mari Milk, 9, 42, 51, 53; early use, xxi, 7, 8, 10, 42; and lactose tolerance, 8 Mitanni, xx, xxvi, 13–14, 18, 95; languages, 71 Modern situation: archaeological investigations, 14, 48, 83, 95, 134; destruction of cultural heritage, 14, 19, 34, 64–65, 95–96, 128, 134, 137; destruction and restoration of Iraqi marshes, 128–129; illegal antiquities trade, 14, 19, 64–65, 96, 134; museums, 14, 136; protection, conservation, and preservation of cultural heritage, 14, 19, 34, 122, 128 Mud (clay, alluvium): building material, 11–12, 18, 42, 94, 119, 132, 199, 203, 208, 209, 211; fertile soil for agriculture, 5, 12, 17, 42, 62, 63, 73, 75, 81, 94, 132, 196, 198, 200, 212, 213; material for tools and pottery, xvii, 18, 42, 57, 74, 77, 99, 107, 112, 131, 135, 139, 207, 210; medical use, 90; as resource, 132, 212 Music, 46, 110, 129; instruments, xix, 34, 45, 87, 99, 110, 127, 128, 131, 171; music, role in religion, 45, 87, 110; singers and musicians, 45, 110, 131, 174, 175, 186 Mythology, 26, 42, 79; Akkadian kings, 80, 170–172; Enmerkar, Lugalbanda, and Aratta, 59, 80, 144, 157–159; Gilgamesh, xviii, 28–29, 33, 80, 134, 159–163; Inanna and Dumuzi, 28, 181–183. See also Cosmology; Gods and goddesses

Index

Nanna (Sin, Suen), 29, 127; entupriestess of, 128, 168; temple and ziggurat of, 122, 128. See also Ur (Tell al-Muqayyar) Netherworld (underworld), 33, 153, 162 New Year, 15; New Year festival (Akitu), 6, 15, 19, 66, 110, 128, 156, 171 Nippur, 44; ancient scale plan of, 103; ED league of cities, 40; religious authority of Enlil’s shrine in, xxiv, 20, 26, 28, 39, 55, 66, 166–168; ziggurat, 122 Nomadic pastoralists, xxvi, xxvii, 29, 53, 61, 71, 87, 91, 125, 130, 140, 211; tents, 11, 88, 125, 130. See also Pastoralism; Tribal society OB (Old Babylonian) period, xx, 68, 105–106; competing states, xxv–xxvi, 18, 47, 55, 82–83, 95, 134; Eshnunna, xxv–xxvi, 18, 55; growth of private enterprise, 51, 52, 69, 93, 113; intellectual flowering, 44–45, 79, 80, 84, 85, 149, 179. See also Hammurabi’s empire; Mari Occupational specialization, xxii, xxiii, 1, 35, 36, 41, 43, 45, 57, 58, 73, 115, 117, 198, 201, 203; and emergence of civilization, 198; palace staff, 36, 58, 105; rural, 73, 181; seals and, 60, 74, 112, 119, 133; Standard Professions List, xviii, 1, 57, 73, 219; temple staff, 36, 73, 120 Oil, 53, 58, 94, 176; in economic transactions, 5, 51, 60, 119, 144, 172, 207, 218; types 5, 178 Old Babylonian period. See OB (Old Babylonian) period Palace rule, 104–107; dependents, 51, 57, 115; growth of secular authority,

249

xxiv, xxv, 115, 119, 120; ilkum, 4, 68, 97–98, 115, 116, 140; industry, 57, 58, 114; institutional households, 35–36, 49, 58; intensive agriculture 195; king as warleader, xxiv, 25, 40, 105, 159–161; managerial and economic activities, xxiv, xxv, 2, 51; possible king in Late Uruk period, 38, 73, 104; and private entrepreneurs, 37, 51, 58; proceeds of warfare, xxvii, 3, 14, 20, 140, 186; public works and temple patronage, 18, 22, 109, 128, 172–173; sources of labor, 36, 115, 117; sources of state revenue, 3, 18, 21, 40, 51, 97, 117; and temple revenues, 117, 120; trade, 36, 172–173; Ur III bureaucracy, 2, 36, 57, 105. See also Kingship; Labor dues; Taxation Pastoralism, 9, 11, 25, 68, 125; exchange of products, 126; herding contracts, 51, 68, 103, 126; and raiding, 68, 125–126; regions of pasture, 9, 13, 46, 75, 82, 125; seasonal movement, 46, 61, 51, 125; and settlement, 29, 82, 87–88, 125, 130; trade carriers, 47, 61, 91, 125; way of life, 68, 87–88, 125. See also Animal husbandry; Sheep; Tribal society Pasture, 51, 117, 125, 126; desert fringes, 9, 17, 75, 82, 125; desert interior, 10, 125; marsh margins, 194; mountains, 9, 46, 125; steppe, 12, 125, 194; stubble, 6, 9, 125, 194; uncultivated land, 9, 39 Persians (Achaemenids), 19, 47, 48, 72, 117, 226; conquest of Babylon, xx, xxvii, 95, 19, 141; language, 72, 226 Philosophy: Ludlul, 80; on mortality, 163; wisdom literature, 80, 176–179, 190–191

250

Index

Plow, xvii, xxii, 5, 42, 177, 178; effects of introduction, 8, 195; seeder plow, 5, 6, 195; use of animal traction, xxii, 5, 6, 8, 42, 51, 142, 166 Population growth, 13; agriculture and, 4; in Babylonia, 41, 118, 218; debate around its inevitability, 193; divine control over, 28, 39, 155; in ED period, 39, 133, 155; and emergence of civilization, 198; evolutionary consequences of, 196; productivity of irrigation and, 62; sedentism and, 94; in Uruk period Sumer, 5, 25, 38, 42, 73, 95, 194; in Uruk region, 75 Pottery, 107–108; beveled-rim bowls, 43, 74, 218; early, xxi, xxii, 95, 107; introduction of potter’s wheel, xvii, xxii, xxiii, 43, 107; range of ceramic products, 11, 18, 34, 42, 107, 108, 122, 135, 136, 138; technology, 107–108; tournette (slow-wheel), xxii, 41, 107, 206; Ubaid period, xvii, xxii, 23, 41–42; Ur III industrial production, 57, 130; Ur III standardization, 57, 103; Uruk, exported, 13, 74; Uruk industrial production, 56–57, 74, 107, 119 Private enterprise, 36, 117; artisans, 57, 58, 114, 130; buying and selling, 31, 37, 49, 51, 52, 58, 66, 68, 69, 77, 85, 88, 92, 113, 114, 130, 172, 183–185, 188; contract shepherds, 51, 68, 103, 126; financial activities, 51, 52, 93, 120, 214; leasing rights from temple or state, 37, 51, 57, 58; mercenaries, 68, 125, 126, 140, 143; merchants, 24, 37, 52, 58, 60, 91–93, 183–185, 214; property ownership and exploitation, 37, 51, 52, 68, 114, 188; scribes and schoolteachers, 45, 131; sharecropping and agricultural tenancy, 51, 68, 69, 116, 120. See also Debt

Raiders, xxv, xxvi, xxvii, 21, 22, 68, 71, 83, 125, 126, 170 Rations: in beer, 54; and beveled-rim bowls, 43, 74, 218; in food, 31, 43, 57, 74, 101, 114, 218; paid for corvée labor, xxiii, 36, 43, 74, 115, 117, 119; paid for military service, 68, 117, 140; paid to statedependent labor, xxiii, 36, 43, 114, 115, 117, 119; paid for state service, 36, 58, 68, 115, 120; paid for temple work, xxiii, 1, 35, 36, 43, 68, 101, 120; records of disbursement, xxii, 101, 103, 116, 119, 144, 218; school exercises to calculate, 45, 84, 85; in wool and textiles, 31, 57, 101, 114, 124. See also Labor dues Reeds, for making buildings, textiles, and boats, 11, 18, 23, 24, 42, 57, 94, 119, 122, 123, 124, 127, 155, 199, 203, 206, 207, 208, 209, 211 Reliefs, 188, 222; ED, 65, 135; of glazed bricks, 19, 48, 136, 138; Neo-Assyrian, 11, 14, 65, 135, 136, 137; terracotta and limestone plaques, 136 Religious practices, 108–111; amulets, 33, 64, 89, 138; burning incense, 156; correct practices, 88; and divine image, 109, 136; festivals, 19, 33, 54, 66, 109, 110, 119, 128, 131, 170; hymns, 79; images of worshippers, 135–136; incantations and formulaic prayers, 80, 89; purpose of, 108–109, 111; royal duties, 66; sacred emblems, in oathtaking, 77, 110; sacred marriage, 66, 128, 134 Rivers: agriculture and unhelpful timing of inundation, 17, 62; exceptional early ED floods, 39, 155; fluctuations in delta and sea coast location, 127, 133, 194; heavy flooding and course changes, 17, 73,

Index

94, 132; regime changes, xxiii, 39, 56, 62, 72–73, 133, 194, 195; as transport highways, 13, 18, 23, 24, 61, 75, 82, 94, 133, 199, 213; unpredictable regime as religious spur, 73, 118, 194–195 Royal family, 106, 157; political roles, 2, 21, 49, 106, 83, 96, 97, 120, 128, 168, 185–187; tombs, xix, xxiv, 33–34, 60, 64, 127–128, 136 Sacrifices: animal, 9, 156, 191; animal, for divination, 110–111, 175; human, xix, 34 Scribes, 2, 36, 44, 117, 120, 149, 154, 162, 174; education, 2, 45, 86, 179–181, 223; literacy, 129, 133, 146, 223, 226, 227; word lists, 44, 145 Scripts, 47, 145–146, 217, 219; alphabetic, xxvi, 146, 226; cuneiform (“wedge-shaped”), xviii, xix, 38–39, 44, 45, 47, 82, 144–146, 174, 223, 226. See also Writing Sculpture, 34, 135, 222; figurines, 107, 108, 109, 131, 135–136, 137, 138, 191; figurines, of faience, 137, 138; figurines, of terracotta, 107, 108, 135, 136, 138; metal, 135; stone, 11, 12, 14, 38, 135, 136, 137, 172 Seals, 111–113; cylinder seals, xvii, 38, 43, 74, 112, 119, 133, 218; designs on, xvii, 74, 112, 119, 133, 135; of ED city leagues, xxiv, 26, 40; materials, 112, 138; ownership, 60, 112, 182; seal impressions, 1, 43, 47, 76, 144, 209, 218, 225; stamp seals, 1, 42, 47, 111–112, 218; uses, xvii, xxii, 74, 111–112, 163, 184, 185, 186, 223 Settlement: development and consequences of sedentism, xxi, 4, 5, 67, 94–95, 206; environmental

251

conditions and, xxiii, 13, 17, 39, 62, 73, 75, 94, 134, 194–195; expansion into new areas, xxi, 4, 5, 13, 75, 95, 194; growth, xvii, xxii, 4, 25, 39, 42, 75, 133; patterns, xxiii, 5, 25, 38, 39, 42, 62, 73, 94, 130, 133, 134, 194–195; resettlement of deportees, 68, 98, 141; urbanization, xvii, xxii, xxiii, 5, 25, 39, 42, 43, 75–76, 133 Shamshi-Adad and Empire of Upper Mesopotamia, xx, xxv–xxvi, 13, 26–27, 55, 83, 95. See also Mari Sheep, 9, 84, 170, 224; domestic stock, 6, 119; institutional flocks, xxiii, 1, 51, 76; in literature, 176–179; milk, 42, 51, 53; shearing (plucking), 9, 166; shepherds, 154, 181–182; woolly sheep, development of, xvii, xxii, 8, 42, 123, 194. See also Pastoralism; Textiles, woolen; Wool Shuruppak (Tell Fara), xix, xxiv, 2, 38, 40, 80, 117 Slavery, 113–115; children of slaves, 49, 78, 113, 114; debt slavery, 36, 49, 52, 66, 69, 113, 115, 120; domestic slaves, 49, 114; institutional dependent laborers, 36, 113, 114, 115, 120; manumission, 78, 114; penalties for aiding escape, 113; rights, conditions, and treatment of slaves, 78, 112, 113, 114, 116; sale of slaves, 51, 113–114, 126; war captives, 36, 58, 97, 113, 115, 120, 126, 139–140, 186 Social organization, 36, 42, 115–116; consequences of status, 116; dependent workers, 36, 57, 115, 117, 120; development of social stratification, 215, 222; free citizens, ilkum holders, prebend holders, and awilum, 4, 36, 68, 97–98, 110, 115, 116, 120, 140; in Hammurabi’s “law

252

Index

code,” 116; slaves, 36, 58, 113–115, 115; social status, 36, 64, 92, 115, 123, 124, 208, 212–213; tied (semifree) workers and mushkennum, xxiii, 26, 36, 57, 68, 73, 115, 116, 117, 120 Standardization, xx, xxv, 20, 31, 39, 41, 58, 74, 79, 101, 102, 103, 144, 145, 146 Stone: imported, xiii, 11, 13, 18, 35, 39, 42, 47, 59, 60, 64, 94, 112, 119, 121, 128, 133, 173, 195, 197, 198, 199, 206, 207, 209, 210, 212, 214, 221; local limestone, 209 Storage: containers, 83, 107, 108, 123; granaries, 120, 129; icehouses, 54; security and control, xxii, 1, 42, 74, 112, 186, 218; storerooms, 49, 74, 83, 88, 106, 120, 121, 133; of tablet archives, 83, 108, 120, 186; by temples, 195; treasuries, 106, 120 Sumer (southern Babylonia), 72–73, 94, 127–129, 132–135; Akkadian Empire, xix, xxiv–xxv, 18, 21; cradle of civilization, 194–195; decline in OB period, xx, xxvi, 17, 56, 60, 134; ED period, xviii–xix, xxiii–xxiv, 20–21, 25–26, 38–41, 104–105, 195; post-Akkadian revival, xix; river regime, 62; Sealand and Chaldaeans, xxvi, xxvii; Sumerian King List, xxiv, 222; Ubaid period, xvii, 41–42, 127, 194; Ur III period, xix–xx, xxv, 18, 21–22, 105, 134; Uruk period, xvii–xviii, xxii–xxiii, 42, 194, 195 Sumerian language, 26, 70–71, 211; and Akkadian, 26, 45, 71, 226; earliest written language, 38, 70, 145; in education, 26, 45, 70, 79; literature, 79–80 Susa, 48, 219; in Uruk period, 47, 59, 74–75, 112, 207

Tablets, inscribed clay: archives of letters, 13, 49, 83, 91, 92; economic archives, 2, 13, 52, 82, 91, 183–185; palace archives, 49, 83, 106, 185– 187. See also Accounting devices, early; Education; Writing Taverns, 130; as attribute of civilization (ME), 153; as brothels, 130; female proprietors, 130; paying taxes in silver, 117 Taxation, 69, 116–118, 214; in agricultural produce, 2, 4, 105, 116, 117, 119, 120; in ED period, 2, 105, 119; in industrial products, 2; under Kassites, 117; in silver, 4, 117; in slaves, 144; tax collectors, 4, 117, 166; tax concessions, 91; tax evasion, 93, 117–118; tax rates, 117; trade tariffs, 91, 92, 93, 117, 214; in Uruk period, 119. See also Labor dues Temple establishment: buildings of precinct, 109, 120, 121; god’s house and household, 109, 42; industrial facilities, 120; naditum priestesses, 52, 186–187; personnel, 1, 35–36, 36, 57, 73, 109–110, 120; prebends, 68, 110, 115, 120; schools, 45; storage, 120; supported by temple revenue, 119, 120; temples and shrines, 109 Temple rule, 25, 118–121; administrative tools, 1, 74, 218– 219, 223; dependents, 36, 57, 115, 120; early development, xvii–xviii, xxii, 42, 73, 115, 195; in ED period and later, 104–105, 114; hierarchy in Uruk period, 73, 115, 222; industry, 57, 73–74; and intensive irrigation agriculture, 73, 195, 196; managerial and economic activities, xxii–xxiii, 1, 30, 35, 43, 73, 116–117, 118–120, 195; prebends, 68, 110, 115, 120; and private entrepreneurs, 37, 51, 58; public

Index

works, xxii, 223; revenues, 9, 25, 35, 38, 51, 73, 109, 116–117, 119, 120, 167, 195, 218; sources of labor, 36, 115; sponsorship of trade, xxiii, 75, 195, 222; in Uruk period, 73–75, 119, 195, 222–223. See also Accounting devices, early; Economics Temples, 121–123, 130, 195; cone mosaics, 76, 121, 133, 207, 223; divine images in, 66, 109, 136; royal patronage and construction, 22, 66, 109, 128, 172–174, 207; temple architecture, 121–123; Ubaid period, 42, 109, 121, 122, 221; Uruk period, 76, 109, 119, 121, 133, 223 Terracottas: figurines, 107, 108, 135, 136; plaques, 136 Textiles, 30, 123–124; dyes, 123–124, 213; materials, 5, 8, 9, 18, 24, 42, 94, 123, 183 Textiles, woolen, 131; industry, xxii, xxiii, xxiv, 1, 8–9, 49, 57, 58, 74, 119, 120, 124, 195, 213; textile workers, 1, 8, 36, 57, 92, 207, 213; trade in, xxiii, 9, 13, 49, 52, 59, 60, 61, 74, 92, 120, 124, 183–185, 195, 207, 213, 215; weaving, 73, 115, 123, 124; as work payment, 101, 114 Timber, 6, 11, 69, 94; imported, xxiii, 13, 18, 23, 36, 39, 42, 47, 59, 60, 119, 122, 133, 172–173, 195, 212; transport, 23, 82, 142, 173 Tools: of clay, 42, 131, 132, 210; of luxury materials, 128; metal, xxvi, 99, 100, 131, 210; protagonists in literary disputations, 80; stone, xxii, 13, 18, 94, 100, 131, 206; wood, 6, 57, 94, 131 Towns, 76; early development in Babylonia, xvii, xxii, xxiii, 5, 13, 62, 95, 115, 133, 144, 195, 196,

253

206–207, 218, 220; Kanesh, 91, 183; in northern Mesopotamia, xxiii, 13, 59, 75, 196, 207, 218; settlement hierarchy, 25, 133; town life, 3, 49, 106, 119; town wall, 13; trading towns of Iranian plateau, 38, 47, 59, 207 Transport: cart, 43, 142; chariots, 10, 140, 142–143, 190–191; overland, 43, 61, 141, 142; sledges, 8, 42, 43, 128, 142; solid wheels, 142; spoked wheels, 142; wagon, 142; war cart, 139; water-borne, 23, 24, 43, 61; wheeled and animal transport, 5, 10, 42, 141–143, 223 Tribal society, 55–56, 82, 125–127; administrative organization, 3, 105; languages, 71; leadership, 82–83; relations with settled communities, 94, 125, 126; role of kinship, 105, 126; tribal groups, xxv, xxvii, 3, 71, 82–83, 87, 91, 125, 140, 171. See also Mari; Pastoralism Ubaid period, xvii, 41–42, 210; emerging social and economic complexity, 41–42, 196, 221; Eridu, 23, 42, 76, 109, 118–119, 121, 122, 153; shrines, 42, 122; tournette and sail invented, xxii, 23, 41, 206; widespread trade, xvii, xxii, 23, 42, 206, 221 Umma (Tell Jokha) 130; conflict with Lagash, xix, xxiv, 20, 40, 164–165; in ED period, 20, 21, 39, 133, 134 Ur and the marshes, 127–129. See Sumer; Ur (Tell al-Muqayyar) Ur (Tell al-Muqayyar), environmental setting and history, xxv, 21, 47, 127–128; Akkadian period, 128, 168; ED period, xxiv, 20, 21, 40, 105, 134; Enheduanna, 128, 168; Nanna’s sacred precinct, 127–128; royal graves, xix, xxiv, 33–34, 60,

254

Index

64, 127–128, 136, 210; royal mausoleum, 128; schools, 44; trade, 60, 93, 213; Ur III period, xxv, 117, 128; Uruk period, 76 Urartu, 100; on “Babylonian map of the world,” 103; language of, 71, 146 Urbanization, xvii–xviii, xxiii, xxiv, 5, 13, 43, 73–75, 219, 222; development of complexity, 194–195; urbanism as a defining characteristic of civilization, 193 Urban life, 26, 109, 128, 129–132, 134; and civilization, 87, 88, 129; described in literature, 170–172; entertainment, 128, 131, 176 Ur III Empire (Third Dynasty of Ur), xix–xx, xxv, 20–23, 47, 97, 105; army, 2, 21, 140; cultural flowering, 80, 90, 99, 157, 170, 174, 176–179; decline and fall, xxv, 22, 47, 97; industrial organization, 2, 57, 124, 130; schools, 2, 44, 179; Shulgi, xxv, 2, 21, 44, 128, 134; Shulgi’s “autobiography,” 174–176; Shulgi’s “lawcode,” 22, 77; standardization, xxv, 15, 31, 101–103; temples, 122, 128; trade, 13, 18, 22, 60; Ur-Nammu, xxv, 2, 21, 128, 134; and Uruk’s legendary kings, 134, 157 Uruk and Sumer, 132–135. See Sumer; Uruk (Warka) Uruk (Warka), 132–135; in ED period, xix, xxiv–xxv, 20, 21, 39, 40, 105, 133, 134; favourable location of, 75, 195; invention of writing at, xxiii, 1, 38–39, 74, 144–145, 219; in later periods, xxv, xxvi, 55, 66, 134, 157; in literature, xviii, 28–29, 40, 59, 79, 80, 87, 133–134, 153–155, 157–161; sacred centre (Eanna, Kullaba) of, xxiii, 38, 76, 109, 119, 121–122, 133, 134, 157, 223; seals

at, 112; size, xxiii, 25, 75, 129, 133, 222 in Uruk and Jemdet Nasr periods, xviii, xxiii, 38, 75–76, 119; Warka vase, 38, 116–117, 136; world’s first city, cradle of civilization, xviii, xxiii, 25, 75–76, 133, 195, 153, 221–222 Uruk period, xxii, 194–195; agricultural intensification, xxiii, 73, 198; art, 38, 73, 116–117, 135–136, 222; Early Uruk period, xvii, 41–43; growing social and economic complexity, xviii, xxiii, 1, 9, 30, 43, 73–74; invention of writing, xviii, xxiii, 1, 38–39, 74, 144–145, 219; Jemdet Nasr period, xviii, 38–39, 40, 145; Late Uruk period, xvii– xviii, 72–77, 198; managerial role of temple, xviii, xxii, 1, 43, 73, 101, 116–117, 119, 144, 218; managerial tools, xvii, xxii, 1, 43, 73, 74, 112, 119, 218–219, 223– 224, 225; population explosion, xxii, 5, 25, 38, 42, 73, 194; trade, xviii, xxiii, 13, 38, 59, 74–75, 82, 206–208, 213–214, 222–223; transformational innovations, xxii, xxii, 8, 41, 42–43, 95, 141, 195; urbanization, xvii–xviii, xxii–xxiii, 38, 219 Visual arts, 135–137; composite creations, 136; ivories, 58; painting, 11, 83, 121, 136; as propaganda, 14, 38, 65, 135, 136, 188, 226; reliefs, 11, 14, 19, 48, 65, 135, 136, 137, 138, 188, 222; sculpture, 11, 12, 14, 34, 38, 107, 108, 109, 131, 135, 136, 137, 138, 172, 222; Uruk period, 38, 73, 116–117, 135–136, 222 Vitreous materials, 137–139; faience, 64, 112, 137, 138; glass, 64, 112, 136, 138

Index

Wages, 31, 36, 37, 58, 91, 116, 120; in clothing, 58; in food, 57, 58; for non-obligatory work, 36, 68, 116; rates of pay, 36, 66, 113, 188; in rations, 36; in silver, 31, 37 Warfare, 88, 139–141; Akkadians, xxv, 21, 134, 167–168, 214; booty, 14, 97, 139, 141, 172, 173; in ED period, xix, xxiv, 20–21, 38, 39–40, 65, 105, 134, 139, 159–161, 164–165; Neo-Assyrian, xxvii, 97–98, 140–141; in OB period, 18, 55, 83, 187; sack of settlements, 14, 79, 141, 169, 171–172; signs of conflict in Uruk period, xxiv, 38, 65, 73, 104, 133, 139; watercraft and, 24. See also Armies West Asia: adoption of Mesopotamian culture, 16, 29–30, 31, 53, 63, 71, 80, 90, 102, 111, 138, 145–146; Aramaeans, 91, 125; early development, xxi, 4–5, 8, 57, 59, 61–62, 84, 94–95, 99, 107, 111, 123, 135, 144, 206, 218; after fall of Babylonia, 95; languages, 70–72; Phoenicians, 24, 58, 95, 124 Wheeled and animal transport, 141–143. See also Animal husbandry; Transport Wild resources, 9–11, 46, 54, 75; aquatic resources, 9, 51, 54, 127, 194; birds, 9, 17, 54, 127, 132, 182, 194, 198; fowlers, 9, 182; game, 9, 12, 17, 46, 54, 132, 194, 198; hunting, 9, 143, 174, 194; plants, 11, 13, 17–18, 42, 47, 51, 54, 127 Women, 49, 171; Assur merchants, 58, 92, 183–185; economic activities, 8,

255

36, 44, 49, 52, 57, 123; Inanna as wife, 183; motherhood, 49, 78, 89, 114, 125, 166, 188, 189; political and administrative activities, 49, 106, 115, 130, 185–187; religious roles, 52, 110, 128, 168. See also Family; Inheritance; Marriage; Textiles, woolen, industry Wood: artifacts, 6, 94, 209; boats, 6, 23–24, 18, 36, 94; in construction, xxiii, 6, 11, 18, 36, 94, 122, 172– 173, 201; cores for sculptures, 99, 136; furniture, 6, 18, 127, 131; tools, 57, 103, 131; vehicles, 94, 142; weaponry, 140; wheels, 142; workers in, 57, 87 Wool, xvii, xxii, 8, 42, 51, 75, 123, 176, 194, 209; colours and dyes, 123–124, 178; in financial dealings, 51, 92, 172; processing, 183; rations in, 57, 101, 114, 124. See also Sheep; Textiles, woolen Writing, xxvi, 143–147, 219; critical factor in emergence of civilization, 217–227; earliest (Uruk IVA), xviii, xxii, 1, 38, 74, 116, 119, 133, 144, 153, 219; developing, xviii, xxiii, 38–39, 145, 225; fully developed, xix, 40, 79, 145; invention, in legend, 144, 158–159; number signs, xviii, 30, 74, 84, 101, 144; significance, 72, 76, 87, 95, 101, 143, 146, 202; sign lists, 44, 45, 144–145. See also Accounting devices, early; Scripts Ziggurats, 22, 48, 121–122, 128, 134, 156; Etemenanki (“Tower of Babel”), 19, 122

About the Author and Contributors THE AUTHOR JANE R. McINTOSH, PhD, is a professional archaeological writer. She has taught archaeology at the University of Cambridge, UK, where she was a senior research associate in the Faculty of Asian and Middle Eastern Studies. She has taken part in excavations in Europe, India, and Iraq. Her published works include the award-winning Practical Archaeologist and ABC-CLIO’s Ancient Mesopotamia: New Perspectives and The Ancient Indus Valley: New Perspectives. She holds a doctorate in Indian archaeology from the University of Cambridge. Her current research focuses on the trade between the Indus civilization and ancient Mesopotamia. THE CONTRIBUTORS JOHN MacGINNIS, PhD, is a Research Fellow at Cambridge University and a specialist in the archaeology and inscriptions of ancient Mesopotamia. He has worked on sites across the Middle East including Cyprus, Egypt, Iraq, Syria, Sudan, and Turkey. MARY SHEPPERSON, PhD, is an archaeologist specializing in ancient Mesopotamia. She studied at Cambridge and University College, London. She spends much of her time in the field and has excavated extensively in Iraq, Syria, Lebanon, Egypt, and Sudan.