Diagnostic Essay

After reading through my diagnostic essay and comparing it to the next two essays that I have written for the class, I have seen a couple areas of improvement that will definitely be useful to my later writing. One of the biggest improvements that I have noticed is the organization of the essay. Before taking the class, I rarely wrote out outlines before writing and didn't have a clear style of organization to apply. After writing out a couple of outlines in this class, I realized how much easier it is to organize both the essay and your thoughts through an outline. Furthermore, I have started writing better transitions between paragraphs. I learned this through our in class reading of one of the better essays a student submitted. The transitions were not necessarily the fanciest ones that I have seen, but it was clear and connected which is easy on the brain to run through. I also noticed that I have improved my introduction paragraph and now understand more about the placement of my thesis within the organization of an essay. I realized that in my attempt to make the introduction flowery, I have misplaced the thesis and made the essay's introduction mottled and not to the point. One very important lesson that I learned was about backing up my claims with sufficient, concrete evidence. In my more recent essays, I have been called out for problems of putting out claims without evidence or substantiated evidence and I am now more cognizant of the problem and have worked to make sure that every claim that I make is backed. I still have a lot of learning to do and my writing is definitely not where I want it to be, but I have made several great improvements since the beginning of the class.

Diagnostic

In comparison to my writing today, I can tell that I have definitely changed as a writer.

One thing that I noticed was that there weren’t any pieces of evidence to back up my claims. I can see now after writing my research paper how importance backed up claims are with evidences from scholarly sources such as jstor, google books, and google scholars, as well as printed texts. I realize now that there is little credibility to making a claim without a reliable source, and how stupid personal stories and anecdotes are in an essay, because they provide no evidence or textual support.

I feel like I have also learned how to make a stronger thesis. Instead of just writing about a fact, I have learned to make more controversial statements and learned how to back them up with evidence in the essay. This clearly makes the essay more personal and more unique in that it offers the reader something to think about and a new point of view, instead of just stating the obvious.

There is definitely more room for improvement. I have not done very well in this class, but I feel like I have learned to think more critically about the readings and about how to analyze texts, instead of just writing about the plot line.

My Writing

Overall I do not think that I have improved much in my writing. The type of writing for this class is new to me and so this was something I had no experience. In high school I did not have to do research papers. I have done biographies and such but nothing at this level. I am used to the English class style of writing where we read novels and reflect on the books. The fact that I have been able to write these essays I think is pretty good for me because they were really hard and looking at the first assignment to now I see progress in that I am able to write longer research papers. The content of my essays still have things that need to be worked on. I remember the first assignment was tough for me and I felt that I didn't completely grab the concept over all. But now I am more aware of what I need to do but to execute will still be hard for me as this is something that is a work in progress for me. I didn't expect my self to improve a whole lot or become a perfect writer after this class. I am aware that the more practice I have the better I will get.

Looking back at Power

As I reflect on my first writing assignment and this last semester a few things come to mind. First, I had no idea how complex the concept of power was. I wrote about power as a one-dimensional issue, but after this class I realize that there are many ways to view power. I did not think to view power as Michael Mann did in his book The Sources of Social Power. In this first assignment discussed how power could be wielded, and did not mention how society is affected by such power. I also didn’t have a strong introduction or conclusion, and started my paper with a dictionary definition which was not a good move. My evidence wasn’t concrete either, and I could have done better analysis. Overall I was making statements that could have used some research to bolster their arguments. I know now that ideological power, economic power, military power, and political power are all aspects that comprise power in societies.

Diag Essay

After learning writing techniques and learning about power in this class, I noticed that my writing was not as much different than now. There were a few changes I would want to make to my diagnostic now, but overall I don’t think I have developed significantly as a writer.

One of the first things I noticed which made me wince was my introduction quote, which started out with a very unreliable source. Although I liked the quote when I used it, it didn’t add much to my two-page paper. I should have used more reliable sources in order to add a base to my statements. Most of my arguments did not have back-up evidence.

In my paper, I talked about how power is gained even though it has a bad connotation. I mention ideological and political power, but in class, through reading Mann’s article, we learned about political, ideological, military, economic power. If I were to write this essay again I would know to add military and economic power.

Changing Thoughts on Power

After reading over my diagnostic essay, I realized that I failed to include a clear argument in the paper, something I have placed great effort in doing all semester. My thoughts on power seem to be continuous rambling, with no emphasis on a structure and a clear thesis. I can say that I do bring up some relevant ideas, such as the different types of power and the significance of influence in describing power. I focused on the types of people that we are accustomed to holding power, describing them as charismatic leaders who characterize themselves and who others characterize them as dependable. I also provided a number of small-scale and large-scale examples of people who have a presence of power, utilizing family members and government leaders as my main sources.
If I had the option of writing this paper again, I would take the Michael Mann approach and analyze the different types of power that are available to people. This time around, I would actually cite real examples of people who have ascended to positions of power, and how their influential qualities led them to their respective positions. Throughout the semester, I feel that I have greatly improved the structure of my writing and I have made sure to relate my analysis back to my original thesis, something I failed to do in this diagnostic essay. If I was to write this paper at the end of the semester, I would utilize the knowledge I have gained through the different articles we have read to create an argument about the true meaning of power. With these knew resources at hand, I could argue a much better case about the definition of the various aspects of power.

Reflections

In the period of four months, one can learn a lot of information and skills, and this course is by all means, no exception. Reflecting back on the things that we learned and our knowledge of power before the readings provided to us during this course, I can personally say that I have a more concrete and standardized way of viewing power and its sources. I had written in my diagnostic paper that “power can be defined primarily as the measure of one’s ability to control something”, and while that was true, there was more to it than that. Power only really exists when there is a social environment involved, like a community, a kingdom, or any group of people. In society, there are many sources of these powers, and they are largely outlined by Michael Mann’s article regarding “Societies as organized power networks”. One of the most important things that Mann has taught us about power is that it can easily be broken down into four main sources, some more influential and “stronger” than the rest: political power, ideological power, military power, and economic power. Those are further broken down into practices and how they work, but essentially, we could compare and point out many of the components of power that was involved through each civilization.

Throughout the course of the semester, we built upon the “power” idea, utilizing and putting a perspective on it for many of the ancient civilizations that we have read and discussed. Throughout this semester, we have looked at Uruk, Mesopotamia, Babylon, Assyria, and many other places and civilizations as well. Reflecting back on this course and what we have learned, it is easy to pinpoint the instances each source of power came into play, from the economic power of barley, to the political and military power of Hammurabi. We also talked about the ideological powers of the priests and the temples and how they were able to influence people beyond the political (and sometimes geological) borders.

Getting back to the reflection of the diagnostic paper, I still agree with a lot of things that I said in the beginning, how everyone has some sort of power, because if you influence someone in any way, shape, or form, that is a form of power, even if it is not forced onto the other person. I am actually surprised how I had listed some types of power in my diagnostic paper, and even though the names for them differ from Mann’s view of power, some of them are right on the money. I had written that there was personal, influential, financial, and positional power, and financial and positional power could be directly translated to economic and political power, respectively (albeit political power is a bit more specific). Influential power seems to describe some types of power, like ideological power, but it really isn’t a source of power as Mann had described. However, even now, I still believe that there is a form of personal power (Mann probably didn’t bring it up since it was talking about power within a general society and not within oneself) because one’s decisions to do something may have been influenced by someone or something else, but I am sure that you have the conscious decision-making skills to make such a choice. And so, I believe that can fall within its own category of personal power.

Finally, in my diagnostic paper, I had talked about change and control as functions of power, and to some extent, that is still true after learning about everything in this course. People want power because they can control and can make influential decisions over some or a large group of people, and no matter who is in control, there is bound to be some form of change, no matter how small. No person is ever going to run or do something that is bound to be exactly the same as someone else’s, and so, change and control are still very important elements to power and why so many people want it. We have learned so much over this course of this semester about power, ancient civilizations, and writing, and I feel like it has improved my overall general skills and knowledge in this field, and I would like to thank the professor for that. It was a great semester.

Reflecting Back to 1/24/11

Now that we are at the end of the course, and as I glance back at my first diagnostic paper, my thinking towards writing essays has changed, especially when I'm primarily writing research papers about the Ancient Near East. In high school, I was never taught how to write research papers and instead, analyzed novels, poetry, and other works of literature. This class, however, has taught me how to effectively read historical texts about a subject I wasn't very interested in to begin with. History has always been one of my worst subjects, but this class has opened my mind up to studying many of the topics we've covered thus far and at times, I found these topics rather enjoyable!

Looking at my first paper in detail, I think my writing can be improved a lot more if I put forth the time and effort. Reflecting back upon this, I am extremely motivated to work on this final paper about Ancient Mesopotamian Music. Next week, I plan to stay focused and finish the course on a high note.

Importance of Evidence for Claims, Stylistic Preferences and Diction

Looking back on my diagnostic essay, several things come to mind. Claims unsupported by authoritative evidence tend to seem more biased, colloquial and less convincing. Generic examples can be convincing so long as the arguments are universally comprehensible, but with authoritative evidence or specific quotes you can often build up a strong case without having to argue as much - let your sources' own influence speak for itself. The lack of definitive evidence seemed to make my argument, which made some broad, sweeping generalizations about power, much less authoritative. It was interesting to read my essay because it talked about a lot of the things Mann discusses, but much less convincingly. I think my examples were fairly good examples, but they weren't scholarly.

I also notice that I have a very specific style in writing and my logic sometimes doesn't always come out as clearly as it seems in my head; I often think backwards from the claim to the evidence, which can work fine, but the way I write it out sometimes is a bit rough or long winded. I also use the same words over and over in my essays and I hope that as I continue to write my vocabulary improves. Lastly, two pages double space is really a short amount of space to say anything, so it would be great to improve in being more concise.

Diagnostic Reflection

After reading my diagnostic essay, it made me realize how important outside resources are in order to strengthen my argument. I honestly don’t think that my diagnostic was necessarily bad, but rather not as strong as it could have been to support my thesis since I did not incorporate outside resources. I guess after reflecting on strengths and weaknesses of the diagnostic and comparing it to writing the final research paper, I realized that finding resources that are reliable and worth citing help strengthen my argument.

For my diagnostic, I relied on a few outside resources from websites as well as my own memory. But without any hardcore evidence supporting what I included in the essay, I realized that while reading the essay, it may have easily just been information pulled out of no where.

As far as improvement goes, I feel like I learned a lot about how to write a stronger essay but I still have a lot of room to improve even more. I still feel as though the essays I wrote following the diagnostic were not as strong as they could have been, probably due to lack of including strong supporting evidence from outside resources.

I am hoping that after writing my research paper and after getting back the critiques from my first draft, I learn more about what I lack in my essay and what are my strengths in order to write better essays in the future.

Reflection on the Diagnostic Essay

It may be irrelevant to try to compare the diagnostic essay that we turned in at the beginning of the class with the research paper. Whereas the diagnosis paper relied on intuition and use of structure, the research paper employs many strategies learned throughout the course. Perhaps, both the diagnostic and the research paper can be used to see the progress made throughout the semester. Even though I had a pretty solid foundation on writing due to the fact that I took college writing in my first semester, this class has improved my ability to build an argumentation and made use of outside resources.

The diagnostic essay tried to define the meaning of the word power but it was a bit difficult to define it because it is a broad term to define. In that case, I tried to limit the essay into two different discussions; economic and political power. After reading Michael Mann’s chapter on the word power, we all know that it is impossible to gather all the concepts in two pages. After having two aspects of the word power, I approached the discussion. While I tried to follow an organized structure, there were some problems that were evident in the essay. First of all, some arguments out of the place meaning that they did not following a logical sequence that supported the thesis. In addition, I just gave summaries as an examples but that was because I did not have outside sources.

While the diagnosis essay served as an indication of the writing level, the research paper incorporates the techniques that we have learned throughout the course. One of the big improvement is the use of outside resources. I became more critical in analyzing outside resources. It is very essential that the research needs to be carefully evaluated and used properly. This includes the use of citations, and bibliography. Another technique that is critical is that the topic sentences of each paragraph needs to be linked to the thesis. It is clear that I am more confident in deploying these techniques in my writing.

Lastly, this class has contributed to my knowledge about the ancient Near East. Before taking this class, I did not know anything about ancient Near East, except the fact that it is considered one of the first civilizations. Learning is an endless process and surely, I have learned about Mesopotamia.

Diagnostic Essay Response

It's interesting because I don't think my response will be like most people's. I would like to say that I've come a long way in my writing since the beginning of the semester but quite honestly I can't say that. It seems weird to me that that essay is even comparable with the final essay we are about to turn in exactly 2 weeks from today. They are completely different essays, one's argument being created from my mind, and the other from research and employing other scholarly works.
While I can't per say notice a change in my writing, I have noticed something about myself. I realized that I fair much better in creative writing than I do with research papers. I can be more persuasive through the mean of my own words than through those of others, no matter how good their works. I also realize that, although fascinating, I am not one to enjoy reading and thinking about the past. I would much rather converse about a topic that affects me directly and currently.
All in all, even though I don't feel like I've changed as a writer, I do realize that I've learned more about myself in the past semester through my writing and this English class than I ever expected to do.

Reflection on Diagnostic Essay

After re-reading the diagnostic essay that I had written four months ago, I can say that I was quite embarrassed by the quality of that first essay. Not only was my introduction unclear and all over the place, the body paragraphs did not go well together and as a result the essay lacked a coherent thesis. Looking back at this essay I can see that I needed a lot of improvement in the way I structured my paragraphs. Often times I start out with an idea but by the end of the paragraph I would be referring to a different idea without really connecting the two ideas. Also, from one paragraph to the other, I did not create any smooth transitions, and often they seem like they could be paragraphs from two completely different essays. Another thing I noticed is that I use quite a bit of cliche expressions or ideas in this essay, especially when I seem to run out of things to say. However, I think it showed some effort on my part that I tried to incorporate a quote from a great American philosopher, and that I tried to use current events in my paragraphs as well. Throughout this semester, I do believe that I have made many improvements in my essay writing skills, and I hope that in the future I will become a much better writer.

Individual Power

Much of our early discussions and papers for this semester discussed the roles and categories of power. Prior to these readings my paper on power had focused very much on the power of the individual. It was a rather narrow view that focused less on the impact of outside forces and more on the impact of internal choices. It was a rather one sided view point that seemed to have taken for granted the argument that humans are perhaps little more then the sum of their experiences.
The paper was also a very micro perspective that focused on the individual and not the world as a whole. The readings from this class definitely points to a broader perspective that individuals as part of a system are at times able to exploit others for personal advantage. It looks at how groups of people can be manipulated to do things that might otherwise seem illogical.
In conclusion, a look back is always helpful to understand where we have come from and what we have learned. This semester's study of power in the Ancient Middle East have definitely broadened my view of the world around me, and has specifically given me a greater understanding of military power and its role in the world, both past and present.

Voodoo

The treatment of the statues and how they abduct and damage them reminds me of voodoo dolls. Whatever it is that they do to the statues is like an exact representation of what will happen in real life. With the voodoo dolls, whoever has possession of it is in control of it. So they could do whatever they want and whoever the doll represents is under that person’s control. The same idea I think applies to the war strategy of taking monuments and ruining royal images. To the Assyrians and having possession of the booty (including the people) it allowed them feel control over the land they had conquered it was as Bahrani had put it “physical evidence” or “proof”. By having that proof it was an assurance that they full control and unless someone took that away there was no way of someone else getting that. This could explain why wars were created over the taking of a monument because if the enemy could take back what was stolen from them then they would get control back.

Another advantage of this war strategy that I do not think Bahanri mentioned was that it was a good propaganda for the king. As they bring the booty, king’s head and/monument to their city it communicates to everyone of what they have done. Soon people will take of this and word will get around reaching other cities. And even by the armies that are jut leaving from battle as they pass by cities on the way back they probably ranted to others of their success and showed off their booty, the monument or the king’s head.

Bahrani on Omens

In chapters 7 and 8 of Rituals of War by Zainab Bahrani, the author discusses the relationship between religious rituals and war, and explores the relationship between war and the arts. In Chapter Seven, “Omens of Terror,” Bahrani claims that Assyrians believed that military decisions and strategies were handed down to oracles from the gods. Divination was often used in wars, and the diviners would address detailed questions to the gods concerning battle plans. Bahrani describes the format in which the queries were written on tablets, claiming that the repetition of the tablets revealed the anxiety of the Assyrians in certain situations. The author continues by explaining the interpretations behind certain liver readings, with meanings such as “the army will return empty-handed” and “the dynasty of Akkad is terminated”. Other omens described involved eagles, crows, and severed heads. I thought it was interesting that by consulting a god the Assyrians actually just presented their battle strategy to the cult statue of the god, and the god’s decision was determined from the entrails of a sacrificed animal. Also Bahrani describes how some weapons were deified and given names such as “That which Slays a Multitude”, “Fifty-headed Weapon”, and “Relentless Storm”. Bahrani also details the process of having substitute kings.

Battle Omens

When reading the liver, the omens presented are mainly bad luck, such as that of the downfall of the army or death of a diviner. It is of importance to notice that the signals that predict bad luck are more likely to occur that those which predict good luck. For example, when reading the liver, of all the examples Baharani gives, only “if the view is like a sceptor: the weapon of Sargon. (victory)” shows a good sign (187). The other ones such as “if the presence is seized tightly by red filaments” are more likely to occur, however, they fortell a misfortune, such as for the example given before, “the fall of my principle diviner in battle” (187).

Also for tertums, in which “chance occurances or terrestrial omens” predicted future events in battle, most of events have a bad result. The only example of a good result coming towards the army is “if a severed head laughs” (187). This is an impossible event, so by analyzing the other events, it can be shown that priests were wary about the answers they gave. Priests would most likely show that an event meant a bad telling, so the military would just avoid any situation that would occur, rather than tell of a good fortune.

Baharani states over and over again that reading omens and establishing a sense of the future were done with a sense of anxiety. This shows why the priests may show that bad results would occur more often than good results. However, they were saved by the kings blaming them for a misreading of omens by the justifying the gods for what occurs.

Maintaining Faith

In Chapter 7, Zainab Bahrani discusses the different ways in which the Assyrians utilized religion in justifying their war campaigns or for getting answers to their questions. Bahrani claims that the extreme tediousness and repetitiveness of the queries "reveal a profound anxiety about coming events" and that the Assyrians relied on these omens to give them direction and strength. However, my question is, how was this faith maintained when omens did not come true, such as when the army was destroyed when an omen foretold them that they would be victorious? Did the Assyrians simply accept it as god's will and not waver in their faith?

Another thing I found odd was that the palace reliefs depicting battle scenes did not glorify the king or single him out as the hero. In fact, Bahrani says that it is difficult to locate the king in these war depictions. However, the written accounts that were buried were always in first-person narrative of the king taking credit for everything. This doesn't really make sense to me because these written accounts weren't shown to public, so the propaganda seems unnecessary. Whereas the palace reliefs, which were seen by all members of the court and foreign dignitaries, should glorify the king, in order to subdue anyone who looks upon the reliefs.

The Instruments of the gods

In ancient Mesopotamia, the ideology of the king as divine, or at least divinely appointed instrument for ruling over the people, supported the theology of the gods as supreme yet deeply bound to the physical. Another corollary supporting this view of their gods is seen in the way they thought about weapons. Like the king, weapons are more than the instruments of physical might and military power, and they carry symbolic importance in representing this power. This fits into their concept of the divine and the mundane; everyday things could be transformed into ordained instruments of justice or peace if sanctioned or blessed by the gods. Bahrani claims that this was the case for the instruments of war; weapons "were sometimes deified and named" and "made divine through ritual incantations" (Bahrani 189). Just as every king of the time claimed to be the chosen representative and tool of the gods, the very weapons and technologies they used to carry out the will of the gods were divine and ordained.

It is interesting that though the 'holiness' of gods would seem to be diluted by applying the label of "sacred" to numerous ordinary objects, the supremacy of the gods is maintained because it is through these ordinary objects that they exercise their sovereign control over all aspects of life. The gods may appear to be limited in that they may only act through these physical instruments and omens, but to the Mesopotamian mind this was not a limitation; they believed the gods were working through many aspects of the world and only part of it was revealed through the omens and revelations. As a result, they named their weapons and said powerful rituals over them so that weapons, "carry a power that is both associated with a particular god of the pantheon and is divine in its own right, as a separate entity" (Bahrani 192). Bahrani claims that, "[a]s a result, the weapon's name carried potential strengths and capabilities that were then considered inherent in the weapon itself (192). In essence, "[t]he gods mediated the decisions of war by means of the omens, and they provided the vehicles and the weapons" with which to carry out their divine will (197). Thus, the gods' sovereignty wasn't theologically achieved through a transcendence of physical bounds, rather they were strongly attached to the physical in that the very method their sovereignty was achieved was through the use of the mundane physical world Mesopotamians experienced everyday.

Omens and Propaganda

On page 197 Zainab Bahrani claims that "oracles were taken seriously," and that the king himself was subject to follow and obey them. I think there may be some truth to that, but I also feel that omens could be manipulated by the king and perhaps even others. It definately appears that omens were signifant. It is also probable that there were many who followed and obeyed these oracles. However it seems very unlikely that all rulers would have been easily swayed by the interpretation of these omens.
On page 200 we seem to have an example of a king trying to impose his will on this process, or at least of advisors to the king attempting to impose some influence. There seems to have been some confusion over the process of bringing a substitute king to the thrown. There is a concern over wether the substitute king should actually be enthroned and wether he should actually be dressed as the king. The question is brought before the scribes to decide, and it is decided that it is indeed required to actually place the substitute king on the throne. This example seems to point to a little less absolute control then what is being claimed by the author.

Image of the King

It is interesting to see how the winning king, or the conqueror, the commander in chief, shifts in view of how he wants to be represented in war. In previous chapters, we saw that having the head of a beheaded king symbolized that the king and army had defeated the city/state/kingdom, and it makes sense because it shows that they were able to take “the head” of the kingdom, rendering the conquered region helpless and open for control by the winning king and army. Sure, in this case, why wouldn’t the king want to be associated with the defeat of the losing king? It would show that this king is powerful and he is in control of his kingdom and that he is not to be messed with. However, according to Bahrani, later on, even the king didn’t perform the final blow to the head to the other king (you would think that it would be “head on head”), or demonstrating his ability to determine the life or death of the other. Apparently, it was up to the king’s army to do so instead of the king himself, and the author tries to mitigate our puzzlement by explaining it in terms that we may be able to understand.

The author plays into our puzzlement, posing the same question that we had above- wouldn’t it seem better that the king be portrayed as someone who personally defeats his enemy? The author mentions that while it SEEMS true that portraying the king as someone who personally decides the fate of his enemies, it is actually counterintuitive because the real image that the king wants to present is “expressing his prowess and virility by hunting lions or wild horses, not by torturing or executing prisoners of war” (Bahrani 213). In an effort to build a kingdom, the king must not be presented to be one of oppressive rule, violence, and total bloodshed because that would not demonstrate any type of good leadership. Instead, a good alternative to that was to have the army do it and to have the army dish out the torture, the violence, and the executions.

However, the king still had the ultimate rule, of course. He was the one who commanded the army to do it, but the king was just not personally involved with the actual killing and torturing any longer to help boost his popularity and his image. Therefore, the king had incredible military power, and it conjures up memories of what Mann defined as the main sources of power, and military power is one of them. Like said by Bahrani, “the military had become a weapon in the hand of the king. Yet the weapons of the war machine are both destructive and productive. They destroy, obviously, but they also produce victory and absolute power” (Bahrani 213). This is definitely true, and in this sense, it really promoted the king’s image of overall power and leadership and less of the bloodshed and fear that would have been conveyed if he was personally deciding the fates of the lives of enemies.

Erra and Leviathan

On page 211, Bahrani says that the removal and destruction of Marduk's statue is the reason that war can reign so fully. In this way, I was reminded of the state of nature and the social contract made for Leviathan. Except in the case of the Erra epic, the roles are reversed. There was a state of civilization in the beginning, but by the end, chaos reigned. The fact that these themes continued for centuries afterward shows that war is an important, but scary part of society. When Erra rules over Babylon and subsequently destroys it reminds me of the state of nature where anarchy is the only governmental system and people live in a constant state of fear. However, in Hobbes, this fear is a fear of one another; while in the Erra epic, it is a fear of a higher power. Anu gives Erra "The Seven" which are personified parts of war that make up all of destruction.

The idea of human versus divine fear is an interesting subject. Hobbes, however, was an atheist, which could be why he saw the fear of no rule to stem from human rather than holy sources. Also, there is a distinction between no rule and rule by a vindictive god. These distinctions are partially due to the time difference. However, the similarities in themes are too close to dismiss. War, whether more modern or more ancient, is still a huge subject of concern.

Last Thoughts on Rituals of war

After reading chapters seven and eight of Rituals of war, I came upon several questions that relate to other texts. Chapter eight makes note of the number seven as being the number of creatures created by Anu that brought destruction to the land ( Bahrani 208). These seven creatures represent seven different plagues or types of destruction. As someone in the class said that it might be dangerous to draw comparisons to the bible but I particularly find number seven to be linked in the bible. According to the bible, seven are the days that took god to create the world (Genesis). In the seventh day, God finished creating the world (Genesis). In relation to the destruction afflicted by the seven mythical creatures, there exists a passage in the bible that tells about seven seals of the apocalypse; they brought destruction and catastrophes. It just seems that number seven is associated with destruction. In addition, the number seven is also mentioned in the epic of Gilgamesh several times. One example is on tablet number two when Enkidu fornicates with Shamhat for seven days and seven nights. It appears that the number seven represents a cycle; a cycle that the ancient ideology established.

There are instances where Bahrani’s arguments seem to be acceptable. However, on page 201, the author makes a big deal about the head but as we discussed in class, the head does not stands out, and is treated as a single component of the entire relief. In addition, Bahrani also argues that the images of war in reliefs and art did not serve for propaganda rather it was part of a religious ideology (197). On page 204, Bahrani brings out an interesting point that might support her argument. She affirms: The Assyrian palace reliefs that depict wars do not glorify the king as an individual in any obvious way.” Furthermore, she argues that there exists a difference of art reliefs and written accounts. On page 204 she argues that the written accounts in which the king takes a first person narrative and takes the credit for the main events. In my opinion, both the written accounts and the images were used for propaganda. The images portrayed the religious ideology that justified the violence and war. The written accounts as Bahrani has pointed out, served a tool for glorification. Although reading Bahrani’s raises the question to what extend her arguments are credible, Rituals of war has presented a critical view of the ways we can look at art in the ancient context.

Gods Relation with Man in War

After reading through Chapter Seven and Eight of the Rituals of War, there seems to be a very ambiguous relationship established between the gods and humankind. The pantheon of gods are at the top of the pyramid, but unlike other religions, the interactions between man and god are very dynamic. The Assyrians believed in fate or destiny and considered all outcomes as divine will. The gods decided the outcomes of every battle and military decisions and strategies were passed down from the gods to the oracles. The king never went to war until he had consulted the gods and oracles. The king went through this religious method in order to justify their battles as a "defensible, just war" (Bahrani, 184). Furthermore, it seems that every oracle predicted a victory for their own state. This is one of the first contradictions that I found interesting reading through the chapters. If the gods knew all and already knew the outcome of the wars, then why are the oracles of one state wrong? Could it be that their oracles made a wrong reading or was the patron god just not powerful enough to defend their home state? Moreover, throughout the chapters we see that when the statues of gods were desecrated or removed from their homes, it was already predicted by that god and it was actually the wish of the god to be removed. The reasoning that Bahrani gave for this was that the gods were angry at their home citizens and chose to be removed. However, why would any of these patron gods want their statues to be desecrated? The oracular omens and explanations just look to be excuses for unpredictable misfortune.

According to Bahrani, through the relentless repetition of inquiries to the gods and oracular readings, we see a profound anxiety and seriousness that reveals that these religious ideologies were not propagandistic acts for repression or coercion (Bahrani 197). However, looking at the evidence provided, I believe that their is some aggrandizement of the king and justification of his decisions given by these ideologies that were imposed upon the people. The Assyrians had so much contact with their gods leaving very little distinction between god and man. Texts depict gods' chariots accompanying the king into battle and cult statues were transported by land (Bahrani 193-197). Also, Bahrani writes that Hammurabi controlled and directed law on behalf of the gods, almost as a divine king (Bahrani 204). Although, the Mesopotamians worshiped their gods and the kings submitted themselves to the gods, the amount of interactions depicted by reliefs and other archaeological evidence points to a blurred line between god and man.

Why Fight?

Wars are commonly fought for various reasons. Based on what we have read in class, we have found that power struggle can lead to war, such as with Hammurabi and his desire to take over Northern Mesopotamia. He had to fight with Zimri Lim and many other Northern Mesopotamian leaders in order to gain control of the land he wanted. Another reason can be in the way that Endiku didn’t like Gilgamesh’s total power and misuse of his subjects.

In this novel, the omens tend to be reasons for war. The omens, such as the eye and lip infection before the war on Teumman as well as eventually getting beheaded, become so real, that we tend to believe that the omens are the right reasons to go to war. Additionally the precursor of an eclipse also call for the start of a war, without any particular reason, but just because of it being an evil omen of some sort. There are various reasons that wars can be started. But this novel shows us that there does not need to always be a struggle for power between two individuals or parties or states, but can actually be about omens, practices, and traditions held within a group of individuals.

The Truths of War

In the first chapter of Rituals of War, Bahrani describes the dynamics behind the importance of the beheading of Teumann during the Battle of Til-Tuba. She emphasizes the fact that the decapitation of this king serves as a vital part of the narrative, standing in front of the actual battle scene that is depicted behind him. Bahrani says that the event is of “paramount importance” and that it can be seen as the most significant symbol in the relief, demonstrating the sheer glamour of the Assyrian victory. It is also interesting to note that although this chapter is mainly an opinionated critique of what Bahrani thinks is happening in the relief, it is treated as purely factual information. There is no actual evidence that the decapitation was to be seen as a symbol of the entire portrait, yet Bahrani is confident that this was the artist’s intention. The highly opinionated first chapter gives an impression that the non-factual information presented in the rest of the book should be taken with a grain of salt.
In “The Art of War”, Bahrani turns to analyzing the effectiveness of military tactics geared towards the obtainment of sculptures and monuments. In an age where religion and Godly figures ruled superior to every human-being, the abduction of religious monuments resulted in catastrophic consequences for the citizens of an invaded state. Bahrani says that these tactics were most influential in terms of reordering space and dislocating the people of a state. These strategies were so effective because they led to a feeling of abandonment by the people due to the lack of protection from the Gods, who were embodied in these taken statues. As we read in a claim by Joannes, the only interaction some people had with the Gods was through these statues, so we can speculate the mental toll that was felt by these people as these lasting symbols of religion were stripped away from them.

Religion adn Conflicts

Johannes mentioned how foreign religions or just gods to Babylonia and other near by cities and empires did not spread as much as the Babylonian religion did. She said that the neighboring foreign communities were probably able to preserve their religion and way of practice but the Babylonian religion was the more dominant religion. What I have always wondered if there has ever been religious wars or any sort of conflict. Probably there was not as many between foreign religions if all were able to freely practice their own religion.

Another question is if there was any religious conflicts between cities with the same religion since different cities had different main gods. Like Marduk is for Babylon and Ishtar is for Uruk I find it hard that there was no conflict at all, at least I assume this because I have not found a statement by Johannes that has implied that. Or was everyone okay and understand that they believe in similar religions and everyone excepted each city’s preference. There is the mention of Nabonidus trying to make Sin the dominant god but it seemed to have been resolved over. Many kings started wars to take over more land and expand their empire and power but did kings make war over the gods? Could the have tried to make their god become the dominant in more cities. Or where there cities with rival gods and so conflict erupted? I find it hard to believe that there was hardly any religious conflict if there wasn’t in the Middle East.

Images in War

It seems imagery, especially in forms of artistic work developed into playing heavy roles in Assyrian warfare. Bahrani makes it quite clear in the first chapter of Rituals of War that works of imagery in Assyria had grown to become equally the very person, god or idea it was supposed to simply represent. Eventually it became apparent that imagery was used to predict what would come to happen to that which it represented as well.
Do to the fact that statues and images were seen as literal replacements for kings and gods it became very common practice of Assyrian armies to loot or destroy images of their enemies’ kings and gods as they attacked their cities. Images of kings were even thought to embody the king after he had died. The destruction or abduction of images like these was recognized as a great enough offence to go to war.
As imagery was seen as reality it is no wonder that Assyrian art is realistic and many times in relatively great detail in the way things are portrayed. This however does not mean that events shown in narrative imagery are historically accurate. It would appear that many times images were created to show how the Assyrians wished or willed things to happen. This ties back into the idea that their images could have some control over the future. It is very clear that imagery was not only a large part of Assyrian culture, but a large part of Assyrian war tactics as well.

Art in War

The assigned reading this week included Chapter Six, “The Art of War,” from Zainab Bahrani’s Rituals of War. In this chapter the role of art in war and how art was considered in military strategy was discussed. A military tactic in the Ancient Near East concerned the battering and seizure of monuments in wars (159). The author mentions that sometimes wars were fought specifically to acquire the statue of a god or to recover a divine statue that had been captured by an enemy previously (160). As an example, Ashurbanipal, the Assyrian king, mutilated statues of Elamite kings and then showed them off in their ruined condition after the statues had been carried off as spoils of war from the Elamite capital. Because cult images of gods and statues of kings carried so much power, the removal of any of these monuments was believed to have drastic repercussions for the state (165). Bahrani tells us that divine power and protection were removed from the city when the statue of a god was removed from it. Ancient poets would often write lamentations when their respective deities were removed from their cities. The chapter goes on to chronicle the various captures and recaptures of the cult statue of Marduk.

I found it interesting that wars were fought over cult statues and public monuments, and that the departure of such monuments negatively affected cities and states. Bahrani goes on to mention how conquered people were subject to mass deportations, the most famous being the movement of a subjugated Israelite population from Judaea to Mesopotamia (178). Conquered people were considered property of the king, just like the rest of the loot from the campaign (178). These people were used as warriors, laborers, and they were subject to the same taxes as the local population (180).