Response Paper to Uruk (Ch.3, Ch.4, and Ch.5)

Ronak Patel

Near Eastern Studies R1B

Response Paper; Uruk (Ch.3, Ch.4, & Ch.5)

Chapter 3-5 of Mario Liverani’s book Uruk: The First City covers the transition of Uruk from a primitive society to a complex society. The transition became obvious with the explicit divide between the central administration and the periphery. The roots of this complexity begin with the ‘primitive accumulation of capital’. Liverani believed individuals gave up their surplus for the greater good based on ideological beliefs. “The basic reason is obvious: the extraction of resources was less painful if it was done for the benefit of a super-human-entity, endowed with superior powers and with functions that were essential for the survival of the community, then if it was done for the direct benefit of a chief whom all could see to be a human like everyone else” (Liverani, 63). I must contend with Liverani’s reasoning because I believe that even though ideology played a role in the ‘accumulation of capital’, there must have also been some complementary factor, possibly force or the prospects of prosperity

Before I begin my explanation it is important to remember that the temple grew exponentially in size compared to houses in Mesopotamia after 4500 B.C.E. (Liverani 23). Even so, ideology may not be the reason why everyone would be seemingly altruistic and in any given group of people there are dissidents. Ideology could only take people so far, especially since “Lower Mesopotamia-was in essence a redistributive state with two concentric circles an inner and outer once (Liverani 62). Liverani goes on to explain that the inner circle of the central agency extracted from the outer circle labor and production, while the outer circle received very little”. This changed Mesopotamia from an egalitarian to a hierarchical society. Therefore, this contends Liverani’s point that the pain of extraction was eased by knowing that the offering was for a super human since it technically was not. Consequently, there is the possibility that many of these ‘free people’ spotted this in the initial buildup of the temple as society was being stratified between the temple administration and ‘free people’. Therefore, a bigger motivation for sticking with the status quo could have been economic since new crafts were being established. ‘Free people’ may have wanted to learn a specialty and to work for the central administration as a craftsman or some other economical job so it may have become a progressive ladder to success.

Of course, there is also the possibility of force from the center. Since the early state already had “guards” and “armed corps” (Liverani 50), there is a possibility of a more primitive form of militia in the temple administration days. Since the temple had a pool of resources, they may also have had enough to not only pay laborers, but also guards.