Value of a Human

The effects of the divinity influencing the role of warfare shows the dependency deities had on the kings and their actions. If one was looking to the gods for the inspiration for war, then it infers that the people thought the gods were very influential and that the people were fearful of war. The amount of it must have cost when an entire nation went to war and the number of lives that would be risked to undergo such such a procedure shows the dynamics of what it means to go to war. So it makes sense that the people would look to deities for advice since going to war knowing that you'll lose is a pretty good advice on not to go to war. Hence the total dependency the people had on living their lives describes the fear of war. Perhaps even though there was a high value on warfare, it perhaps shows the dynamic of the value they placed on human life. Going to war required a lot of resources, especially since manpower was an expensive resource. If they had placed this much concern on war and people, it is understandable that they would consult the gods to provide advice that would better off their empire.
Warfare will always have a victor and a loser. One will gain, the other lose. It is as simple as that when it came down to warfare and its effect on the empires. Bahrani explains that the destructive and productive aspects of warfare shows the risk that kings were not willing to place on their empires, especially if they are to lose. Perhaps, the fear of losing and failure provoked the scarce desires of war. It also led to the kings consulting the gods for advice. So there was much at stake when it came down to warfare amongst the kings of these empires. Bahrani provides a clear understanding of what it meant to the people to live through war and the stress war had on kings as they were to make their decisions on war. That translate to even today as leaders weigh the price of war and the cost of going to war, especially if they are to lose. Although the Mesopotamians were more fearful of it, due to their constant consultation of the deities, the idea of weighing warfare especially on the soldiers and what it meant for them to go risk their lives, shows the dynamic of war on people, both the soldiers and the leaders who send them out.

Justifications of War

Chapter seven of Rituals of War discusses the use of omens by the Assyrians as a way of predicting the future and justifying military conflicts. Bahrani discusses the “queries” of the diviners asked to the gods directly, most of them being extremely specific questions. Analysis of animal bodies, especially livers, was also an important indicator for the Assyrians of what is to come in the future. I think these practices of trying to predict the future are a general reflection of human nature that can still be seen in modern society. In many ways, the Mesopotamian religions are comparable to modern science. In both cases, people are trying to get answers to what is currently unknown to them. Our environmental scientists analyze sea levels and atmospheric conditions, to predict future increases of global temperature, while ancient people analyzed animal livers and other omens to predict answers to questions that were important to them. Both societies saw their results as evidence and justification for certain ideologies. The Assyrians use of the color of filaments in the livers to justify wars that killed hundreds of people makes me think about how people consider “factual” evidence in making important decisions. I think when people look back at the leaders of today’s society and the things they based their decisions off of, they may find that some justifications were equally as irrational as the liver analysis we are now reading about and reflecting on.

A More Personal Understanding

This reading from Bahrani presented a personal side of the wars in Mesopotamian Antiquity that we have not yet seen in other readings. Bahrani delves into the terror and chaos that these wars caused which reminds us of the human side of war. In describing “the essence of war,” Bahrani opens with the writings of one Kabti-ilani-Marduk, who wrote epic poetry about the damage of war. His poetry describes the conquests of the war god Erra, who boasts of great destruction he laid on war torn cities. Bahrani argues that through his writing, Kabti-ilani-Marduk aims to explain war and its incredible force of violence. The excerpts from Kabti-ilani-Marduk demonstrate the impact of the omnipresent wars on the people around them, and help us to understand the wars on a more personal level.

Another interesting level of the impact of war on people we see is the voyeuristic enjoyment of war art, which makes an unexpected connection between the appreciation of war by ancient Mesopotamians and of contemporary people. Bahrani argues that some of the appeal of pieces like the Victory Stele of Naramsin was due to its thrilling depiction of a graphic scene. That is, the graphic reliefs were in part created to appeal to the voyeuristic nature of those who would see it. This concept presents an interesting connection to modern times, where a ton of media targets this same kind of appeal. Countless movies, images, video games, and novels display violent scenes of war to attract audiences seeking a violent spectacle. I was certainly not expecting to see this connection between the ancient Mesopotamians and modern people, but it forced me to see a part of our culture in theirs, giving me a more personal understanding of these people that usually seem so distant.

The Artistic Formation of War

Ritik Malhotra

Near Eastern Studies R1B Lecture 4

Response Paper: Rituals of War (Ch7, Ch8)

The Artistic Formation of War

As the text of Rituals of War, by Zainab Bahrani, continues into its seventh and eighth chapters, Bahrani starts to illustrate exactly what his book is called – the rituals of war – that govern the ancient military powers. As Bahrani specifically goes into the acts of war, he talks about “torture [and] execution” as two primary forms of “war in art” (219), explaining that much of the torture and war-time actions were not only for the war itself, but also to “fascinate and entice the viewer” (ibid.). I believe that this tactic, while useful for war and the conquest of the empire, was also a means to nationalize and bring together the entire empire.

As Bahrani describes the use of “torture, execution, and war in art,” he describes how the “dead and tortured bodies produce[d] an aesthetic […] of an interested engagement with the dramatic violence of war” (ibid.). This methodology of depicting war in an artistic, and aesthetically pleasing form, to the mass public can be inferred to be a method of bringing together the inhabitants of the empire. Since the pictures were “designed for an audience that would willingly participate in the glorification of Assyrian power […] with the aim of providing visual pleasure,” (221-222) the sculptures were designed to directly provide civilians with a pleasurable view and be proud that the empire that they inhabited was of such great power. This form of art, as a ritual for war in Assyria, must have proved to be quite useful not only in keeping records, but also in keeping the people happy and apprised of their victories.

Social Stratification Maintenance

Social stratification has a high chance of being maintained in the Mesopotamian society, especially considering the consultations with the gods. Since humans (and kings) are servants to the gods their actions depend on omens. Omens provided a sort of checks and balances system upon the King’s decisions, so that he is not too powerful. The king is considered subordinate to the gods, and a king with little ideological guidance may prove to be a tyrant like Gilgamesh, as depicted in the early ancient epic. Subordinate to the king are his people, and they are mainly kept in their social classes. This is aided by the belief in a fixed destinies, which was often attributed to social class. Peasants were expected to provide service to the king and temple, thus also the gods. Oracles and soldiers were given separate respect due to their societal functions, and they were often placed in higher regards than peasants. Oracles were expected to offer the answers of the gods, and Assyrian soldiers were given credit for military success. These social roles thus have their own place in the stratification of Mesopotamia, and is enforced by the ideological ritual or meaning.


Enemies were also treated differently and symbolically placed very low after death, which also encouraged the maintenance of social stratification. Bodies of enemies were not given the same treatment as the king’s citizens. They were often denied proper burial rituals (202), and sometimes their bodies or body parts were publicly displayed. Weapons that were given names and destiny for great power could also enhance the social stratification, since those wielding special weapons are expected to succeed against enemies. The king was one who could wield such divine tools, even if they resembled other non-divined weapons. Since success and defeat were outcomes of divine will the gods would either lend aid or not, but if a king was still in power social stratification remained as “Mesopotamians never acknowledged defeat in war”(204). Enemies were still subordinate to the kingdom (if left independently standing), and citizens remained subordinate to their king.

Determining the Outcome of War

In chapter 7, Bahrani continues to talk about omens, but omens specifically related to war. The courses of wars were determined by the answers that diviners received from the gods directly. These questions could be about very general things, such as "will so and so attack us on so and so day?" or very detailed. The detailed questions could ask about what weapons or methods should be used in an attack, such as "should we use battering rams, ramps, etc." or a battle plan could even be drawn up and placed in front of a god along with a sacrificial animal in order to get the god's opinion on the battle plan. However, what all these questions had in common was that they could all be answered by yes or no questions.

The work of the diviners did not end with pre-war consulting; they were taken along to ask more questions of the gods or to interpret signs as they troops marched or over the course of battle, such as if crows are seen as the troops are marching. Sometimes these signs would tell the diviner that the whole army will fall, however Bahrani does not talk about what the course of action for the army would be if it did see an unfavorable sign. Would they turn back and not fight? Would they continue on in hopes of seeing a favorable sign? Would they continue on and accept this fate because it is the will of the gods? Also, on a related issue, if a diviner performed extispicy and was told that the fate of the army and/or king would be unfavorable in a war, would the king have the extispicy redone until a favorable fate was seen? Or would they accept the reading and not go to war/ go to war and accept this fate?

Lastly, the treatment of prisoners of war was very shocking. They were relocated, violently tortured, and their bodies were desecrated. As was seen in chapter 3, the mesopotamians believed that every part of the body represented that person's identity, possibly making this practice very significant. In chapter 6, Bahrani also talks about how images of kings were also desecrated after they died, and they believed that the king still suffered and could feel the pain. Was the practice of the actual bodily mutilation of enemies based on this same idea? Also, what did they hope to achieve by putting these prisoners through such torment? The prisoners themselves would die, and thus they wouldn't e able to go back and tell their people about the torture they endured, and therefore it couldn't be used as a scare tactic. So why was this practiced?

Religion Quells Corruption

In Rituals of War we have learned the significance that omens and sacrifices played in the ancient Mesopotamian culture. These beliefs in the oracles put a great amount of power in the hands of the 'expert seers', so much so that one can not help but think of the possibility for corruption within the system. While Bahrani did not talk about the existence of corruption, it seems likely that the ancient Mesopotamian cultures were so dedicated to their theological beliefs that they were kept from pursuing corruption.
In instances such as with substitute kings, where an oracle foretold an evil fate of the king and a scapegoat was put in the true kings place, the oracles could have easily used their power to put in place a leader of their choice as they were the ones who chose the substitute. While this could be possible it seems unlikely because as Bahrani states 'there was certainly a human sacrifice here'(pg 198). Since the ritual almost always ended in human sacrifice in order to fulfill the evil fate that was predicted, it is not likely that these priests would use this ritual to install a new king.
The substitute king was made king by essential giving him a name tag of 'king' or by making him even ingest something containing the name. This method of trying to prove legitmate kingship to the gods is like that of the ancient king who's name translated to 'legitimate king'. It appears naive of them to believe that the gods would fall for such a trick, especially since they believed the gods to be so powerful and all knowing in the first place.
While priests may not have used the substitute king ritual for means of corruption, it would seem that the king and priests used loopholes to try and get their desired answer from a reading. When asking things of the gods they would inscribe what would end up being an entire list of detailed questions in which they would expect a simple answer of 'yes' or 'no', and by doing so they could manipulate the outcome.
This also proved to be because of their 'intense anxiety and unease'(Bahrani 189) about things such as deciding war tactics. This shows that the ancient Mesopotamian cultures were so dedicated to their religious beliefs because they were indecisive and sought answers to their many questions.

Getting the “Permission” from God

Chapter 7 of Rituals of Wars goes on to talk about the relationship between religious rituals and war. Since religion was such an important part of the ancient Near Eastern culture and gods were highly respected, it is no surprise that people looked for ways to consult the gods before making any decisions.

But what’s interesting is that it almost seems like people were only asking the gods to have results in their favor. All the questions were asked in a yes or no format, which made it really easy to get a “yes.” Instead of asking “what should the king do with the tribe on the east,” they would ask “should the king send army to the tribe on the east?” This is obviously a leading question with a clearly expected reason. But I guess there are justifications for that. After all, it would be really hard to get any detailed instructions from gods by reading signs from animals’ livers and human body parts.

This system seems to make adulteration possible for the diviners. In order to please the king, the diviners might interpret the signs according to his will. I wouldn’t imagine the diviner to have enough guts to come up with some predictions against the king’s favor. So it looks like it’s not so much about the decision of gods, but of the king himself. This then leads to this ironic situation where the king is asking for permission to do something, but he is actually the permission giver himself.

As Bahrani also mentioned in the introduction of the book, the Mesopotamians were the first to develop the use of semiotics or observation of signs. Since there were precedents, the interpretations of the diviners must not have received that many challenges and questions. At least the Mesopotamians had enough intelligence to view virtually everything in the world as a sign and come up with an explanation for it based on the way it acts. Furthermore, since such explanations were used as guidelines of wars sometimes, the system of semiotics allowed everything embedded in nature to be a part of the mechanism of wars.

The Substitute King

Ronak Patel

Near Eastern Studies R1B

Response Paper; Rituals of War (Ch.7 and Ch.8)

Zainab Bahrani’s book Rituals of War continues by describing the omens related to war, and the reasoning behind warfare. A key aspect of Bahrani’s description involves describing the use of a substitute king to protect the actual king. The bad omens were localized in the body of the substitute king (Bahrani 198). Bahrani does describe the occurrence of the event in some detail, but does not give a thorough explanation of the reason behind it and how effective it was.

It seems a bit odd that the ritual practice of using a substitute king would be used to protect the actual king since the purpose of a negative omen is a response to a sin. Bahrani fails to explain why the substitution of a king was allowed, especially since omens were seen as the judgment of the gods. Bahrani does not explain the reason behind preserving the existing king.

Also, Bahrani mentions that the substitiute king was dressed exactly like the actual king, and had the actual king’s name inscribed on him (198). Bahrani fails to mention the reasoning behind this.. He does not say whether this was to deceive the gods or not. Bahrani also does not explain whether the imminent evil was produced by one of the gods or the entire pantheon.

Furthermore, Bahrani said that the priests choose a citizen to be the substitute king (198), but he does not explain anything about what criteria the priests used. All he states is “He (substitute) was never a prisoner or a slave” (Bahrani 198). This is very important because knowing the characteristics of the substitute king would give for insight into whether the purpose of the ritual was truly preserving the omens, or to find a way to indirectly bring another king to power. The possibility of replacement can be seen from Bahrani’s historical recount an actual king who died in the 19^th century BC, while the substitute king lived (198).

Bahrani does give some information on how the substitute king is used, but there are many gaps in how the substitute king is utilized. There is also a lack of knowledge of what actually happens to the substitute king. Some of these gaps cannot be blamed on Bahrani because of lack of archeological evidence, but there are instances where Bahrani leaves out key explanations.

NOT Dependant on Gods' Will

In the seventh chapter, “Omens of war”, Bahrani reiterates the importance of divination in military decisions and the divine and ritual character of Mesopotamian warfare. We saw earlier in Van de Mieroop’s Hammmurabi that Hammurabi often used ideology or specifically the gods to justify his military action against neighboring states. Bahrani goes into further detail of the rituals involved in warfare.

When asking for the gods’ permission or approval for their battle plans or outcomes, the gods were asked to show a specific sign that meant non-consent Since the occurrence of the specific external response was almost impossible, the gods’ approval would have been almost certain. To me, the purpose of such a ritual was to use this ideology to assure the general public that the government made the right military decision. The ritual was used because it is the best way to explain to the general public an occurrence or a decision.

This applies to why the palace used substitute kings. Ideology would explain that the reason is that the substitute king would absorb all the evil forces in place of the real king. This may be just an explanation for the removal of an incompetent king. The explanation may be made either by the real king to explain his incompetence and to calm the public by showing that someone else better is doing his job. Or the explanation can be made by subversive subjects and the substitute king to explain why the real king, chosen by god, is no longer king.

The people were not dependent to the gods, merely reliant on chance. Instead, they were dependent on the powerful few who do not rule on whim and merely use the gods’ an ideological power tool.

Doing the Work of God

The first time I was introduced to the ways of Ancient Mesopotamia with Uruk: The First City by Mario Liverani, it was clear that the temple had held significant power over the people. In particular, the temple was in charge of the economic system of distribution, had a hand at the production of barley (their main crop), and oversaw the city’s defenses. Now, with Zainab Bahrani’s Rituals of War, it is becoming even clearer just how much of a role ideology plays in the political scope of the kingdom. The belief in the gods has the power to not only shape foreign policy, but it can also influence people to sacrifice their lives all in the name of the god.

Documents have been found at archaeological sites that confirm that it was custom for kings to have diviners in their court. Diviners were people who could read and interpret the oracles and signs, whether it was coming from a sheep’s liver or from a dream. Many times, and especially when the outcome was uncertain, kings would ask the diviners to consult the gods to essentially “ask them for their permission” to attack a nearby kingdom or to accept help from another country. By asking the gods for their permission, and receiving a resounding “yes” in return essentially placed the anticipated action of the king in the god’s favor. Often, the kings would ask repetitive “yes or no” questions which only revealed their “profound anxiety [for the] coming events” (186). Omens such as “if a severed head laughs, conquest of the army” (187) uses graphic images to propound the belief that if such a thing were to occur, an unfortunate future was surely in the midst.

In other cases of ideology shaping political ways, was the use of a “substitute king.” When times were bad and ominous, the real king would be put on hold while another took his place (198). It was believed that bad times meant evil forces were at work, and if a substitute king could absorb those wicked spirits and die in the end to do so, then so be it!

Random Justification of War

The emphasis on the role and decisions of the gods and their communication to man through omens and signs is even more prevalent in strategies of war than in everyday life. Every aspect of a battle was consulted through the omens before being carried out, and the progression and outcome of wars were believed to be preordained and approved by the gods, necessitating a need for a divinely sanctioned and justified war.

The degree to which the consultation of omens was used in military applications far exceeds that of other applications. The requests and inquiries made to the gods regarding battle plans or outcomes were ridiculously specific and included provisions that all but guaranteed that the god’s response would be untainted by any external factor (Bahrani 184-185). Furthermore, an extensive number of possible battle plans were submitted for the gods consideration such that the ritual and omen reading would need to be repeated multiple time (Bahrani 189). What is interesting to note is that this process would be easily seen as a form of corruption of the priests and a subversion of the general populace if it weren’t for the fact that it was a genuine belief that the gods were directly corresponding with man through omens. Related is the association between divinely named weapons and their believed increase in power as compared to unnamed weapons (Bahrani 192). These named weapons would have most likely been identical in design and manufacture to unnamed weapons, yet their believed strength was much greater than ordinary ones. If greater care had gone into their creation or if better quality materials were used, then perhaps the believed increase in strength could have been justified by actual physical properties.

The heavy use of omens in dealing with war strategies also shows the intense need for the wars being fought to be divinely justified. The belief was that if a battle was lost or a city destroyed, the gods had decided that to happen which provided an explanation for their defeat and the possible death of hundreds of lives (Bahrani 215). This implies that the people of ancient Mesopotamia, in fighting these wars, did so without a great personal conviction and needed some sort of reason to prove to themselves that what they were doing was not completely backwards and that they really weren’t fighting a losing battle. This heavy dependence on the “will” of the gods, which could be amounted to chance depending on the circumstances under which the omens were read, could have also led to these wars being fought almost entirely by chance with essentially random dice rolls determining the actions of an entire state.

Predestination in Mesopotamia

In conjunction with the foreshadowing power associated with rituals and the organic body as described by Zainab Bahrani in Chapters 3 and 6 of Rituals of War, the description in Chapter 7 of the exhaustive manner by which Mesopotamians consulted the gods before making decisions further contributed to my incredulousness regarding the power of divine messages in Mesopotamia. Thankfully, Bahrani’s explanation in Chapter 8 of the Mesopotamian view of the world as a continuation of space and time provided an explanation for these bizarre practices.

According to Bahrani, the Mesopotamians viewed themselves as part of a configuration of space and time in relation to the world (216). Monuments and inscriptions were a way for Mesopotamians to preserve themselves in history (216). Although history could be reconfigured by damaging or destroying monuments or inscriptions (217), the future could not. In essence, each Mesopotamian viewed himself as locked into an unalterable destiny, which was determined by the gods.

Applying this ancient Mesopotamian view to the rituals and omens Bahrani described elucidates the mysteries of their workings. For example, since Mesopotamians believed their fates were predetermined, perhaps the reason why they placed so much weight on the messages revealed by rituals and bodily omens was because they wanted to get a glimpse into their future. In addition, the complicated and detailed questionnaires that kings submitted to the gods before engaging in warfare may have resulted from their unwillingness to deviate from their destinies and disobey the gods by following an unapproved battle plan. The belief of Mesopotamians that fate was predetermined makes further sense when looking at the willingness of Mesopotamians to stoically accept defeats in warfare by attributing them to the will of the gods.

Thus, although Mesopotamians could have falsified divine messages to grant credibility to their actions, another explanation could be that they actually did believe in the will of the gods and were afraid of being punished for not consulting the gods carefully enough and deviating from their fates.

The Will of the gods

The Assyrians thought that every action of the king and every thing that was done with regard to him in his personal life and in military affairs was believed to be ordained and controlled by the gods. In Rituals of War by Zainab Bahrani, queries are written out that show this belief in the way the oracles treated the gods. Questions such as should the king take a medication, or should he use a certain battle strategy in his attack on another kingdom etc. show this explicitly. The king was very scared that he would do something that the god hadn’t wanted and cause harm for everyone. Therefore, this practice of making sure that every possible question was asked was their way of ensuring that they were truly following the desire of the god. However, the belief that the gods were in control over every action and decision made life less worrisome. The people had a reason for everything that happened, and the king could be confident that their decision was approved simply because it was the decision he made, so it must be that the gods had wanted it.

If the people, especially the king, believed that every thing they did was the derivative of the will of the god, then it seems as though they could have lived in a way that reflected this in a reckless manner. However, for fear of the gods, they were very reverent and did everything they could to make sure that they were following the god’s will. This was a very obedient faith that was all that they knew. It seems that the king was perceived to be extremely confident and sure of himself in the view of the people, but behind the scenes he was in constant fear, which is why the queries are repetitive and seemingly over-detailed. However, as Bahrani explains, it is actually very informative to the attitudes of the people and the fear that they had of making the wrong decisions and upsetting the gods. Therefore, they were able to live in a balance of confidence and insecurity provided by the gods: fear of mistakes, but confidence that the decisions followed the will of the god.

Mesopotamian War

Bahrani talks in Chapter 7 of Rituals of War about “Omens of Terror.” This was a very interesting chapter to understand the culture back then. The chapter begins with discussions and examples about queries to the sun god Samas that people made prior to making any major decision (in fact, even minor questions were asked.) Specific questions, such as questions regarding when or where or whether or not to attack an enemy, were commonly asked. As we have discussed in class last time, however, it is very interesting, and funny, to note that most of these questions are yes-or-no questions. This would not make it very hard for the gods reply, especially if they were to look into animal’s insides to find these answers. For instance, once they had asked the question and expected answer from a sheep’s liver, they could always interpret the organ as either a yes or a no. There’s no room for the gods to not answer the questions, which to me, was quite fascinating to note. It is as if they’re forcing the gods to answer no matter what they asked. The major question remains, however: what if the outcome was not as predicted from these signs? Did they keep adjusting (did they ever adjust) the interpretations of these signs after they had recorded them into tablets? Or did they always associate those cases with stories about gods getting angry with them?

The chapter also discusses about divine weapons and then the substitute kings, both of which were very fascinating to me. I have never really heard about putting substitute kings on the throne just because there were unfavorable signs about the actual king, and I feel that this characteristic emphasized how important and integral religions and ideologies were to their politics and culture.

Chapter 8 is primarily about the war itself and the views on war in that period. One interesting aspect in this section is when Bahrani claims that war was considered a separate space and time to these people. For instance, “to kill in war is appropriate and sanctioned.” This strikes to me as important because this is actually true even in later empires up onto today. We often somehow justify ourselves that war is an exception to moral standards and normal order. It’s quite interesting to see similar characteristics even as far as about three millennia ago.

The society based on omens

Signs were interpreted both very strictly and freely in the ancient Near East. It was strict in a sense that only certain people had the authority of giving explanations of the various phenomenon that occur in everyday life, including dreams, body signs, and the activities of all the other creatures in the nature. But it was also free in the sense that anything can indicate an omen from the gods, and it pretty much depends on the omen interpreter to explain what the sign foreshadows. This system seems really unreliable in every way. I have a few inquiries about the operation of this process.

First of all, how did the omen interpreters acquire the power that they had? Extispicy and hepatoscopy were really mysterious and serious matters back in the ancient Near East. The interpretation of signs was taken so seriously that many important decisions, politically and socially, were made based on it. Baharani did not exactly explain how people gained the status of being sign interpreters. I wonder if certain social status was required, since the general public put so much faith and belief in the very few individuals who held the power of virtually determining the fate of the country.

Moreover, since there existed definitely more than one omen interpreters, what happened when conflicts existed? Most likely people had different opinions on what certain omens meant, since there wasn’t anything like laws or rules to follow for interpretation. I wonder if there existed a status ladder for these omen interpreters, in which there was a go-to person when different interpretations existed. The interpretation process must have been really subtle and subject to change, since a slight variation can mean a big change. The most inscrutable puzzle seemed to be the analysis of human body parts. Body parts were ultimately controlled by human beings; so what if someone intentionally made a move to make an “omen?” It feels like there must have been many loopholes.

This, then, leads to my next point. It seems like the social importance of the omen interpreters made it possible for bribery to exist. Since many crucial decisions were made according to the interpretations of the signs, other figures could have bribed the omen interpreters according to their own will. This seems to imply a very unstable or corrupt society. But on the other hand, religion was considered so important and people had more respect as well as fear in the gods. So maybe their morals would prevent them from doing that. As Baharani has mentioned, the removal of a god statue was so disrespectful and powerful that wars were carried out with the intent of recovering or stealing a god statue from an enemy. After all, much of the social and cultural values were based on the gods and their religion.

But despite of all, the Near Eastern reliability on the interpretations of signs seems to be very inaccurate today. Maybe it’s because people back then didn’t have any better knowledge to operate the society; therefore, superstition acted as the supreme role.

p.s. sorry I forgot to submit this on time!

The External Identification System of the Past

Ritik Malhotra

Near Eastern Studies R1B Lecture 4

Response Paper: Rituals of War (Ch3, Ch6)

The External Identification System of the Past

In chapter three of Zainab Bahrani’s Rituals of War, Bahrani presents an interesting depiction of what he calls the “mantic body” (75) in which he embodies (no pun intended) the belief and depiction of the human body as an entity in ancient times. Bahrani’s description of the body is highly detailed; however, an interesting concept arises when he discusses the “identity” that “certain elements of the body” contained (78) as it resembles a primitive system of identification through external, observable features.

Bahrani tells the reader about how “inorganic objects […] were all associated with the body and identity and could stand in for the person in a very real sense” (78). This concept brings closer attention to the value of the garments and external jewelry, ornaments, etc. that people wore because, according to Bahrani’s description, these elements were elevated to be symbolic of the people that wore them. This implies that these items were of such significance to the bearer that they were always worn and were worthy of being shown in public.

Interestingly, items on the body were also used in legal proceedings as forms of identification for the bearer (78). This idea of identification, however highly primitive in nature, was effective in associating a person to a face. While this seems like a useful tactic, it seems that it would’ve been easy to fool as items and garments are easily transferrable from one entity to another, which could have definitely been a mode of confusion for many people back in ancient times. Albeit this downfall of this system, it was still a unique way of identifying people and was a good first step at doing so.

The signs are everywhere

In chapter 3 of Baharani’s book, Rituals of War, she discusses what is basically divination through the liver of sheep and through human bodies. Apparently, the ancient Near East was filled with signs that could be spotted anywhere. Peoples bodies were even marks of signs, some that could show evidence of events that could affect entire socities. Its clear that such interpretations were very important to every day life during that time, even if some of the interpretations (to me at least) seemed almost too ridiculous. For example, the interpretation of dreams: there are simply way too many detailed explanations of what a dream could mean if a man had a dream urinating on some specific body part.

What I was most amazed about while reading through this chapter is how could anyone really believe that these interpretations are actually permissible. Besides religious legends that legitimizes the practices, there does not seem to be that much else about the matter. It could be possible that the people of Mesopotamia simply did not have any other method of guessing what future events could occur. It does make sense for people of that time to be as concerned about the future like we are today. Just look at how many people look up weather forecasts (which we know are not always 100% true) or the number of different fortune telling stores that are scattered around Berkeley. The future is a mystery to all, and if times were rough or unclear for the civilizations of the Near East, then maybe their best “scientific” tool was the use of body/animal signs.

But what evidence did they have that actually convinced them that doing such rituals actually worked? Baharani did state that that they would base their interpretation type encyclopedia off of past correlation with events and the markings that were present at that time…but did they truly repeat? It truly is amazing how much the culture relied on such interpretations, because these interpretations ended up causing many events that shaped their world.

Symbolism and Omens

The strong belief in symbolism and omens in ancient Mesopotamia reinforce a culture in which ideological forces remain prevalent and cult beliefs in signs from the gods heavily influence decisions. The representation of life through these symbols and the consequences of what may happen to them can also be drawn to modern life and are not simply artifacts of the ideology of the era.

The use of symbolism as representation of the self and omens as portents from the gods held prominent places in ancient Mesopotamian society. The belief that the body itself was composed of multiple parts, both internal and external, which all retained the identity of the self was an important concept in the perception of the body as a mantic instrument (Bahrani 76). The fact that this affiliation extended beyond bodily products such as hair or fluids to material objects like clothing and personal cylinder seals highlights a rigorous association between a person’s identity and their physical manifestation (Bahrani 77). The consequences that befell these representations were then studied through both divination and physiognomy to both portend future events and provide medical diagnoses respectively (Bahrani 91). While the medical diagnoses of symptoms were often drawn to absurdly specific and detailed conclusions, they did provide insight into the significance of even minute physical signs and how they were interpreted (Bahrani 92). The practices of extispicy and hepatoscopy to tell the future epitomized the belief in divine symbols present in earthly objects, in this case the organs of sacrificial animals (Bahrani 80). These innards were examined, and depending on their physical characteristics, certain omens were foretold. While some of the signs in the livers of the sheep sacrificed did not likely have any logical connection to the events that may have occurred, they could have served as accurate representations of possibly poor environmental conditions that affected both people and animals, such as poor drinking water (Bahrani 86).

In addition to symbolic representation of people and events, the gods and kings were also manifested in physical idols. Physical treatment of these idols was immensely significant however as defacing or stealing a monument carried vast ideological consequences (Bahrani 165). The implications of removing a god statue were so powerful that wars were carried out with the intent of recovering or stealing a god statue from an enemy (Bahrani 163). However, this symbolic defeat of a state is not confined to the era of ideological dominance. In modern warfare, an attack upon a symbolic landmark can carry significant repercussions, as in the attack on the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, or the destruction of the Berlin Wall at the end of the Cold War. The physical destruction of hugely significant buildings and monuments represents the defeat or loss of whatever they symbolized, in this case America’s strength and the end of the Cold War and the Soviet Union.