Ideology Ch. 3-5

In chapters 3-5, Liverani explains how ideology drove the development of Uruk into an urban city. This brings into question which was the prime factor that drove Uruk’s development: economy, which he explained in chapters one and two, or ideology. Which came first? Liverani does not answer this question, instead, he begins to talk exclusively about the temple and how it is the “central agency” that acquired the farmers’ surplus and used it for other skilled labor to build the city. However, Liverani’s explanation is too simple. Farmers giving away their surplus out of religious conviction is an explanation that is difficult to believe. And, later on, when trade to acquire necessary goods that cannot be produced in Uruk, merchants of Uruk were required to give a certain percentage of the goods to the state. Liverani does mention that the temple enforced theses quotas with methods ranging from “physical coercion to ideological persuasion”. However, he does not spend time describing how the temple used physical coercion. Did they have an army?

Liverani’s theories seems to involve too much scheming between the leaders of the temple and too much generosity of the laity. In earlier chapters, Liverani described how the temple grew in size compared to the houses after 4500 B.C.E. His socialistic theory is too theoretical. Ironically, Liverani describes how guards were used to protect the temples’ wealth or goods from the people. This suggests, in contrast to Liverani’s view that resistance to the central authority and how the central authority fought back played a more dominant role in Uruk’s development,

What Uruk fails to describe in more detail is what services the temple provided to the people. Besides ceremonial services, did it provide social welfare or health services, which convinced people that it was in their interest to give some of their wealth to the temple.

Uruk, Chapters 1-2

In his book Uruk: The First City, Mario Liverani discusses the formation of the urban society in southern Mesopotamia that occurred thousands of years ago. In the first two chapters Liverani focuses on the economic forces during this time period and how other scholars theorized about the development of the city of Uruk. He brings up the works and findings of Vere Gordon Childe, Fritz Heichelheim, Karl Marx, and Karl Polanyi, and the interpretation that each had of the ancient society. Since there were new and improved methods to utilize fertile soil, a surplus of food was created. This surplus allowed for more economic specialization which led to new construction of buildings and temples, and thus urban development. The main point of disagreement between the theories lies with which type of economic models describes the urban development. Some believed it followed a more market based, classical economics model of private ownership and others believed it followed a more Marxist, socialistic model. The majority of this discussion is, however, irrelevant because Liverani goes on to argue against most of what these men were concluding with the emergence of new archeological evidence. One specific point he makes is the discovery of ancient texts in the 1930s. These texts took until 1990, however, to translate, and when they were brought to light, revealed a lot about the accounting mechanisms used by the people of Uruk.

Liverani also gives a lot of weight to his discussion of the label of “revolution”. The Urban Revolution, as he discusses about Uruk, was a complete transformation of society. Uruk, being the first city, is what he would consider a “real” revolution as people became concentrated in an urban setting for the first time. But this revolution took hundreds of years, so people today would not tie the process to that specific word. The modern connotation of a “revolution” usually refers to something that happens quickly and explosively. In the French Revolution, for example, a government that was centuries old, was completely changed over the course of a few years. I believe both a fast process and a slow process can both be considered revolutionary, as long as the change is of massive significance to humanity. The Urban Revolution, was greatly important because the rise of cities had undisputable impact on human history. The American Revolution, on the other hand, still had a great impact on the lives of Americans for generations.

Elites and Sheep

In response to Liverani, I would like to challenge a few of his claims. First a claim about the actions of social elites, and second a claim about the reason for so many sheep remains found. The claim of social elites not gaining more power with the increasing centralized administration (30) seems plausible, but there must have been some elites who tried to extend their individual wealth with the opportunity. An increase in wealth can translate as power, especially since Liverani places such a high value on the economy source of power (even if the power is not directly exercised). However, it is likely that some elites would preach their ideology for control over and cooperation of non-elites, while living their own life under different ideology. Liverani agrees that merchants who are given the freedom to trade try to maximize their profits as much they can (43), as well as bring home the expected value for the centralized administration. I do not see how this would be much different for elites who are supposed redistribute wealth.

Liverani stats that the increased number of sheep remains are associated with the high demand of the textile industry (39). Sequential phases required for wool production (and other textiles) makes the textile industry more difficult to keep at a domestic level, and thus it could become more centralized and offer more production. Nevertheless, sheep prove beneficial for many other reasons besides textile production. Sheep close to death could be skinned or eaten. Sheep horn or hoofs can be used as material for goods. Sheep that are living offer sheep’s milk and fertilizer from their waste product. Sheep are also easily transported compared to many other animals, such as pigs, so more farmers may have chosen to keep sheep. It seems like the booming textile industry could account for some of the increase number in sheep, but it seems farfetched that it is the sole reason.

Temple City

In Chapters 3 to 5 of Uruk: The First City, Mario Liverani describes in more detail the proposal he laid out in the previous two chapters, namely that Uruk developed into a tri-polar temple-run city. Liverani provides numerous examples of the power of the temple over the inhabitants of Uruk. Though Liverani spends a few pages toward the end of Chapter 4 discussing the motivation the people of Uruk might have had for their altruistic actions (mainly ideology), he nonetheless makes very little progress toward proposing a sound theory. I would have appreciated it if Liverani had elaborated on the role that ideology played in the Sumerians’ actions.

Liverani describes workers as giving up to the temple barley, wool, skills, labor, and even their lives in the form of military service in exchange for adequate rations or land from the temple. It seems to me like the temple did not regard the general populace very highly. Toward the end of Chapter 3, Liverani also mentions that “guards” protected the central wealth from the people, rather than protecting the people from threats. This documentation, coupled with Liverani’s mention of the term “man-day” in Chapter 4 (defined as the amount of labor one man must perform in a day) (Liverani, 57), further suggests that the temple did not exactly view the general populace in the most respectful light.

Liverani makes Uruk sound as if it ran like a well-oiled machine, with workers willingly giving up their hard-earned possessions to the temple for the promotion of the general well-being of the state while receiving minimal compensation. In reality, such a system would be highly precarious and prone to toppling, as evidenced by numerous monarchies and dictatorships throughout history. I don’t believe that ideology would have sufficed as an explanation for such selfless actions by the people, either. Although some modern ideologies require followers to pay a tithe, none of them have the power to induce its followers to undertake measures as economically-burdening or self-sacrificing as those described by Liverani. Also, I would have expected to hear at least one mention of a rebellion or some resistive movement on the part of the people against the temple, but there were none. This all begs the question of how such an unlikely system could sustain itself. Though Liverani suggests that the temple, through ideological factors, had enormous control over the lives of Uruk’s inhabitants, I still harbor doubts about the strength of ideology as a motivating factor in Uruk.

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.

Uruk: 3-5

Liverani then talks about the crucial pieces to the economy of Uruk, barley and wool. These were simple basic resources were the crucial to the growth of Uruk. Barely was used as something to barter with because it was easy and cheap to produce. The saline resist of the crop makes it easy to plant unlike wheat, which requires a lot of energy to grow especially because it demands good conditions in order to grow. In Uruk, the salinity of the Euphrates fluctuates so growing wheat would be too difficult and so barely becomes the best and the easiest crop to grow. With the inventions of sickles, plows, long fields, and threshers, growing barely became easier and easier. Also growing sheep was useful as it provided as a means for both clothing and food. They were easy to herd and maintain, which made them ideal livestock to raise. With such abundance of crops and livestock, Uruk was in a prime position to grow in population as well as popularity. The grow of Uruk created mass production of goods. Using the ubiquitous clay, workers can craft them quickly and easily into bowls and other tools to provide for the growing population as well as tools for export. The surplus of these goods in addition to food made Uruk in a position to trade for other goods such as metals and precious stones.

The question of how the the administration of Uruk was able to control the surpluses and using them for the better of the city remains unanswered. Liverani answers it by saying that the services were given to the people in exchange for their skills or surpluses. The central government would provide for them, such as protection (from barbarians), roads, canals, and other public works. With the central government in possession of the goods, they were able to use it for the better of the city. By trading with other cities for their goods, Uruk was able to grow as a dominant trade force bringing exotic, foreign goods to its people.

Another question of how Uruk was able to stay cohesive since the people gave up their power to the central administration. The answer, according to Liverani, is the divinity that exists in the cities. There is a common cause and belief that brings the people together. That common ideology of religion made the people come together and create a common purpose to give their possessions for the common good of the city. The unity that religion brings shows the cohesive force that brings people together and makes the city of Uruk a powerhouse.

However, due to the wealth and fortune of the city from the surpluses, the leaders of Uruk started to use that wealth for personal benefit rather than communal growth. The selfish rule of the leaders showed how the trust system between the people and the rulers was tipped unequally. Also the pressure of growing to large caused the structure of the city harder to maintain. So with the failing structure both politically and economically.

The city of Uruk became a powerhouse because of its revolutionary use of surplus and resources. The advances in technology and the cooperations of the different people allowed Uruk to grow. However, that same structure caused the downfall of Uruk. The difficulty of maintaining a steady food supply for a growing city caused problems in maintaining the city. Also, the corruption of the leaders cause civil disorder and brought the city down. The combined problems caused the downfall of the first city.

Confusion Over Methods of Resource Extraction

In today’s reading from Liverani, some of our questions about how wealth was extracted from the producers were answered, but I find his explanation somewhat convoluted and poorly articulated. The third chapter implies that the work and produce were forced from the people by the central administration, while the fourth chapter seems to say that they were given more or less freely by people compelled by religion or desire to help uphold the system. While the two systems aren’t necessarily incompatible, it is unclear how they interacted and which carried the most weight.

The third chapter argues that seasonal labor was carried out by large groups of forced laborers. It is not clear how these workers were forced, we are only told that the central administration makes them work but gives them rations of food that Liverani doesn’t consider payment. Later the military and guards are discussed, but nowhere in that section is anything mentioned about the use of centrally controlled military or police force to control the corvée system.

The next chapter offers a brief look at the religion of Uruk and an argument as to why and how it was implemented. Liverani argues that the state was tied in with religion to ease the taking of resources: the people were more willing to give to a super-human idea than to a human ruler. He explains that private citizens made “offerings” to the gods to receive benefits in turn. However, it is unclear what is meant by “offerings;” were offerings the whole amount owed or were they small gifts? Also, if the state was to use religion to extract the required resources, where does force come in? Later he gives examples of proverbs and poems that give moral and logical reasons for the people to give their share to the central administration, but it is very unclear how this benevolence ties in with the forced labor argued for in the previous chapter. As so much of Liverani’s argument depends on offering a mechanism for central accumulation of wealth, it is surprising how unclear he is about the interactions and specific meanings of the mechanisms that he proposes.