Wednesday, January 26, 2011

Uruk Chapters 3-5

As many questions and doubts arise from the first few chapters of the book, Mario Liverani answers most of the questions with rather convincing arguments later on in his book. In chapter 3, Liverani discusses how the complex economy worked back during the Uruk period. Continuing on with his argument that economy was the driving force of this urban revolution, he describes and stresses the significance of barley (and also wool) in this process, which I found to be both true and fascinating. He dedicates a considerably long section regarding the cycle of barley and its importance: its natural growth cycle, great resistance to agricultural threats, and its length of preservation all contribute to its suitability to the Lower Mesopotamia. Its abundance proved to be useful both for food and for construction (straws were used to produce bricks), and through its surplus a complex system could develop to organize as people could use the surplus to redistribute for non-producing specialists in the area. This, to me, seemed very logical because he considers both its natural properties and its effects on the people. He then also refers to the cycle of wool, the mechanism of merchants and services, and the trade for other resources.
This nevertheless still has not answered one of the main questions raised early in the readings: what was the role of the central agency, or the temple, and how did it derive its authority? He suggests that the temple had both the ceremonial purposes and the economical and administrative powers. He also explains how people were willing to give up their surplus to the temple by mentioning that the method could “range from physical coercion to ideological persuasion.” This seems reasonable because the farmers would not likely to give away their food, especially when they would not receive anything in return. The idea of giving for the higher entity would be plausible as it could make people share their resources with the temple. Nonetheless, I still do not understand what gave the temple the reasons to start “urbanize” in the first place. Was it because they saw that they could benefit from getting the corvee labor? Or was there another explanation?
Although his theory and descriptions do provide a convincing scheme of the development, I sometimes would want to know which parts of his explanations are theoretical and which parts are actual facts supported by texts and archaeological materials. For instance, he did mention that religious ideology played a role in convincing people to give up their resources, but later he claims that “texts of the period do not adequately document the specific details of this religious ideology.” Thus, it seems confusing to me if his provided details were factual or theoretical.

No comments:

Post a Comment