Uruk 3-5

Liverani creates a very plausible sequence of events that provides a suitable explanation for how Uruk came into being as the first city. His focal point is that the creation of a central governing entity, synonymous with an ideological temple, centralized critical functions and oversaw the order of the area’s constituents. The power of this central organization was such that it managed domestic production of staple goods like barley and wool but also maintained a level of trade with foreign regions to obtain necessary materials such as metals and wood.

While the logic with Liverani’s explanation is sound, there is one facet that remains unclear. How was the central administration itself formed? Liverani supplied previously that as the surplus developed, those who specialized in skills other than agriculture devoted their time to other pursuits, which implies administration. The matter of following the central administration once it was formed is explained by its being associated with the temple and its ideology to convince people to labor for the state without reciprocating compensation (Liverani 63-64). Liverani even offers the polytheistic beliefs of the era and how various proverbs and tenets permeated the society itself to explain why people did not resist the temple (Liverani 64). Based on the almost propaganda-like nature of these proverbs, it is not implausible to think that people were mentally trained into serving the state from childhood.

However, before the central administration and temple were linked, there must have been a time when the administration was made up of secular people who had at that time no affiliation with any religious deities. I find it hard to believe that the central government that organized the system of long fields and made a surplus of barley possible had its roots in religious convictions. While it is plausible that perhaps someone had a stroke of genius and devised the idea themselves, they would be more likely to hoard the surplus, leading to a chiefdom instead of a state. Furthermore, as long-field irrigation requires management and a departure from independent family-based agriculture, there must have been some factor that convinced people to undertake this agricultural revolution. Without a central administration, Uruk would not have had the management and foresight to grow to the state it did, and without a valid explanation for how the administration formed and the decision to begin choosing long-field irrigation came about on the scale that it did, there remains a hole in Liverani’s explanation.