The Language of an Epic

The story of Gilgamesh is delivered in a poetic voice that uses a mixture of techniques to give life to the story and vibrancy for the audience with the intent of making this tale larger than life, an epic. Since it's probably written much after any hypothetical historical Gilgamesh, the line between fact and myth are hard to distinguish, and the author(s) write in a way that incorporates the contemporary beliefs in the supernatural as a part of normal life, possibly deliberately obscuring the line so as to solidify Gilgamesh's story as legendary.

From the very beginning of the epic and throughout, the language that describes several characters and events highlights their epic proportions. Gilgamesh is first introduced with glowing praise:

"He who saw the Deep, the country's foundation,

who knew . . . , was wise in all matters!

Gilgamesh, who saw the Deep, the country's foundation,

who knew . . . , was wise in all matters!" p. 1

The phrases here tell of Gilgamesh's knowledge and wisdom and highlight his exploits. The repetition, possibly a product of the poetic structure, helps to emphasize the significance of this praise, as well as give the praise a form which would make sense if one actually heard it. This repetition of stanzas continues throughout, stressing or reemphasizing different parts. If the epic was read aloud by scribes, these repeated phrases would serve to remind the listener and bring them back to the central pace of the story.

The author(s) also continue to talk of the events in the epic with the same perspective of the scale of events. Gilgamesh is described as 2/3 god, 1/3 man. Enkidu is described in a dream as a falling star, made by the gods. When Enkidu is trying to convince Gilgamesh not to fight Humbaba, Humbaba is described as:

"Humbaba, his voice is the Deluge,

his speech is fire, and his breath is death!

Why do you desire to do this thing?

An unwinnable battle is Humbaba's ambush!" p. 18

The language that describes Humbaba as so terrifying and powerful makes the feat of conquering him that much more impressive, lending to this idea of Gilgamesh's legendary proportions.

Arrogance and Immaturity

Blog 2 January 31, 2011

The obvious characteristic of Gilgamesh is his arrogance and conceit. He uses his power to his benefit and to show his strength and make a display of his abilities. For example the contests he holds against other men in the city to show who is stronger and how he “lets no girl go free to her bridegroom”. (4) This attitude of how he thinks he can do anything and get away with it or defeat it is what drives him to want to go and kill Humbaba.

After Gilgamesh and Enkidu make amends on what it seems to be an impulse he announces to Enkidu that he wants to defeat Humbaba. There seems to be a bit of an obsession of wanting to prove that he is the mightiest, the best, etc at whatever task he brings upon himself. Now without any other reason Gilgamesh wants to “conquer him in the Forest of Cedar: let the land learn Uruk’s offshoot is mighty!” and “cut down the cedar, I will establish for ever a name eternal!” (20) He tries to live and be like a god. He is 2/3 gods and 1/3 human but thinks he is will somehow be exempt from death. He even expresses to Enkidu that he thinks he can live on, “As for man, [his days] are numbered, whatever he may do, it is but wind, … exists not for me……”. (19) It is not just his arrogance but his immaturity makes him believe that he can really conquer and withstand anything including the Humbaba.

Despite the concerns of the elders and Enkidu, Gilgamesh still persists on going to the Humbaba. As an elders advised him, “Your are young Gilgamesh, borne along by emotion, all that you talk of you don’t understand.”. (22) Here it shows the immaturity of Gilgamesh. He admits himself that on a task that he has know idea about but will still go through with it seeing it as a challenge. Also that fact that he thinks he is just as strong as a god and has the immortality of a god he truly believes he can kill the Humbaba. Gilgamesh’s conceit and immaturity are what drive him to do the challenges he sets for himself and are what I assumes will lead him to trouble and a harder and longer journey than he bargained for. As a king, he is not carrying out his duties, he focuses more on proving himself and attaining something only a true god could have.

A Name Eternal

In the first few tablets of the Epic of Gilgamesh we are introduced to Enkidu, a strong even powerful character, who is praised for his strength. As the story progresses however we can see that he is also a man of subtle intelligence, who understands Gilgamesh and what motivates him. Enkidu uses this skill to motivate and even control Gilgamesh.
As Gilgamesh prepares to depart on his journey to fight Humbaba he speaks to the elders of Uruk and tells them that through fighting Humbaba, “I will establish a name eternal.” We see here in this comment a very important aspect of the character of Gilgamesh. He is ambitious. This ambition brings him face to face with the powerful foe of Humbaba. Gilgamesh in a strange moment of indecision stands ready to deal a death blow to this foe, but he does not. Enkidu urges Gilgamesh to slaw the ogre and brings back the line from the second tablet. He tells Gilgamesh “Establish forever a name that endures, how Gilgamesh slew ferocious Humbaba!” Gilgamesh does not immediately respond to Enkidu’s urges. Indeed Enkidu must continue urging him on, and even repeats the line once more. Not long afterward Gilgamesh follows Enkidu’s directions, and kills Humbaba.
Enkidu’s ability to understand Gilgamesh allows him great control over Gilgamesh. It is this control that Humbaba sensed as he faced death. All of Humbaba’s verbal attacks are pointed towards Enkidu as a result of this. It is this control that we can catch a glimpse of as we read of the epic battle verse Humababa.

The Archetypal Friendship

The Epic of Gilgamesh sets the president for many books and themes today. This epic touches over love, greed and violence. Yet, the most prominent message is that of companionship. Enkidu and Gilgamesh together, make up the ultimate archetype of friendship.

Enkidu and Gilgamesh become friends in a way that only is deep and serious. They fight in a battle that would have resulted in a death except the two of them become the best of friends. Enkidu realizes that Gilgamesh deserves to be the leader and submits to his might. Although they are both fierce warriors and strong combaters, the two men realize that they are meant to be more like kin than like enemies. Enkidu becomes a brother-like figure to Gilgamesh and together, under the blessing of Gilgamesh’s mother, they face the world.

This friendship sets the stage for friendships in all sorts of stories. This way of blossoming friendship has become stereotypical: people start out as enemies and then end up as the best of friends. This archetype of friendship holds roots can be traced back to The Epic of Gilgamesh.

Gilgamesh...not so great.

Gilgamesh is a prominent character through the novel and is depicted as a very strong and independent person. He is supposedly very powerful, and his abilities are underscored through the novel. He is also a great warrior and knight, and works hard on the battlefield. However I think what makes this novel interesting is the fact that it’s not all about how great Gilgamesh is. Although he is portrayed to the readers and to the citizens as a upstanding person and someone to be revered, he clearly has flaws just like any other human being and if you examine the novel closely, you can find them as well.

Like all men, Gilgamesh has his own needs and desires and he will do anything to satisfy them. He is ambitious and works towards his goals, whether that means satisfying his cravings for certain foods, or for women, usually in disrespectful ways. This could mean raping the wife of another man or the sister of a friend, or a newly wed bride, he will take advantage of her.

It is upsetting that someone so powerful, promising, and intelligent has such a bad side to him. There isn’t much anyone can do to stop him or even advise him especially because he is the leader and does not expect that anyone can tell him what to do. Most would be scared to bring this up and have concluded that it is easier to just deal with his tactics. I think this sort of brings attention to the fact that he isn’t a great leader, because he is just instilling fear instead of real respect and leadership.

Balancing Powers

Though Gilgamesh is legendary, the author seeks to inform us that he is not always exemplary or admirable. An equal is needed in order to counter and control his supernatural powers. It is fair to state that Gilgamesh possesses more God-like characteristics than mortal, however, the narrator infers that his equal, Enkidu, is a similar force of nature. He is hairy and inhumane; he grazes with the animals, and lacks the ability to speak. He sets the animals free from the dominance of humankind, which he believes to be a threat to the world’s balance. When Enkidu departs from his life in the wild and enters civilization, his redemption is through a single woman. Throughout this process, he is tamed when facing the power of a single woman’s sexuality.

Enkidu’s story entails the evolution of mankind, a transformation from nature and existing in the wild as animals to human existence. It is interesting to note that his transformation and fall from nature to civilization points towards the biblical story of Adam and Eve and their fall from innocence as they begin to realize the difference in their genders and sexuality. Female sexuality is a very powerful force that is responsible for making mankind possible. Meanwhile, however, sexual attraction does not really have anything to do with the “ultimate human relationship.” The love that exists between two equal comrades is more important. Some virtues already seen in this first tablet are balance and moderation. Gilgamesh is a very complicated character, mostly because he is part god and part mortal. The very characteristics that make him so great also makes him monstrous until he finds a balance between his “God side” and his “mortal side.” Likewise, Enkidu’s inhumane character must reach equilibrium with his humanity. He also needs an equally fit and strong enough spirit to control his powerful body.

Misdemeanors of Gilgamesh

Gilgamesh, fourth king of the great city of Uruk, is greatly respected for building the great city walls defending his people and gaining much wisdom from his travels to meet Utnapistim. However, Gilgamesh surprisingly was not respected as a great king at first and may have even been looked upon in a bad light for the construction of the city walls. From the complaint of his people, it was obvious that Gilgamesh was a cruel tyrant.
In Babylonian ideology, the king is supposed to be just to his people and guide and protect them throughout. Theorists have inferred that Gilgamesh may have been sexually abusive with the woman in his city as evidenced by the couplet: “Gilgamesh will couple with the wife-to-be, he first of all, the bridegroom after.” Other theorists suppose that his tyranny was due to his need for games of great physical demands, causing the men of his city to be exhausted and the women to have to tend to them. The inference that I find most likely is related to his tyranny in constructing the great walls. The workforce attending to the wall consisted of public labor and there have been multiple references to mutinies of labor-gangs and other revolts.
Although he was renowned for building the great walls, we still call into question his methods in construction and his image to his people.

Universal Themes

In the Introduction of The Epic of Gilgamesh, Andrew George informs the readers of the themes that will be appearing in the story. One of the main themes that the story revolves around is the "fear of death" which leads to the hero's struggle to strive for "immortal renown" and to leave behind some lasting achievements. Although The Epic of Gilgamesh was written more than four millennia ago, the themes are surprisingly universal and current, and can be seen in many movies, books, and current events. The universality of the themes in The Epic of Gilgamesh seems to prove just how much of a masterpiece it is, and how although we do not know if it was written by one single author or multiple authors, the intellectual level of whoever wrote the story was very high.

The themes are considered universal because it touches upon the very nature of human beings. One of America's greatest philosophers John Dewey argued that the deepest urge in human nature is "the desire to be important." Due to this desire and longing to be "important," we humans try to be successful and to be someone notable. Everything thing we do, even if it is out of benevolence and generosity, is actually an act to make ourselves important. Even generous amounts of donations to charity, is an act to make ourselves feel important by having others remember you and to have your name be recorded in history. We strive to leave behind a legacy, although this may come in many different forms: some people prefer to leave behind a successful company while others believe that their children are the greatest forms of legacy. Whichever path they choose, it is truly remarkable that a lot (if not most) of our actions stem from this desire to be important and remembered, whether it is carried out consciously or not.

Whoever wrote The Epic of Gilgamesh must have been very aware of this natural human desire. Perhaps because of his awareness of human nature, his story is still translated, read, and analyzed even to this day. I am very excited to finish reading the entirety of The Epic of Gilgamesh and see that human nature does not change much, whether it is in 2,000 BC or 2010 AD.

Gilgamesh and Enkidu: Can They Really be Considered Equals?

The Epic of Gilgamesh, translated by Andrew George, is initially focused on Gilgamesh’s tyrannical rule over Uruk. Many of the residents of Uruk complain that true rulers and kings should be there to guide its people in the right direction, protect the people from harm, and rule with equality and justice, as described in the introduction to the epic. However, as we see in the first tablet, Gilgamesh indeed does not do that at all, but is instead a cruel, brutal tyrant. He oppresses the people by sleeping with newly-married wives (he dictates that this is his right as a ruler), and he exhausts the men by forcing them to games that test out their strength, by sacrificing warriors through fighting (Gilgamesh always wins), by forcing them to do random, menial projects, etc. Thus, the gods listened and created an equal to Gilgamesh, called Enkidu. He is very barbaric and large, and judging by his appearance, physical strength, and size, he surely must be considered to be Gilgamesh’s equal. In fact, the purpose of his creation was to counter Gilgamesh and distract him so that the people of Uruk would be less oppressed.

As we continue along with the story, we see that there is a trapped who spots Enkidu uprooting his traps, and his father tells him to go to Gilgamesh and get a temple prostitute to come and seduce Enkidu. Indeed, when the trapped returns, the prostitute is able to quickly seduce him, and they make love for about a week. When Enkidu’s lust finally quells, he returns to the forest where he once was, but the other creatures in the wild reject him (probably because of his sexual experiences with the temple prostitute), and he is forced to follow the prostitute back to Uruk. This is very interesting because technically, Enkidu was just bested by the temple prostitute, a lowly woman whose only job is to make love, have sex, and be a sex servant/slave. Even though Enkidu did not realize this since he was confused at the time, he is truly not as powerful as Gilgamesh. If we recall from the first tablet, one of the activities that Gilgamesh does is sleep with newly-married wives, the wives of nobles of Uruk, and I am presuming he also sleeps with the temple prostitutes as well.

That is probably the main argument of my paper- can we truly consider Gilgamesh and Enkidu as equals? Even in tablet 2, we can see that Gilgamesh ultimately does win over Enkidu in terms of fighting each other, and somehow, they become the best of friends. I am unsure how this could occur- yes, Enkidu might have more strength than the others in the city, but certainly, he is no match for Gilgamesh. It is my understanding that the sole purpose of Enkidu was to be an equal to Gilgamesh so that they become “friends” or “buddies” who will do activities and will be distracted enough to not rule the land with an iron fist. So far, we have seen that Enkidu is physically weaker, sexually weaker, etc., and so, can we still consider them equals? I don’t think so, and it truly is a puzzling story of how they actually become friends- in addition, Enkidu gets in a fight with Gilgamesh because he is sleeping with newly-married wives, and yet, he just slept with a temple prostitute for a week! So, Enkidu has very interesting and odd values, and the story of how Gilgamesh and Enkidu become friends also become questionable because I thought that Enkidu was mad at Gilgamesh for sleeping with these women in the first place.

In all, we see that the whole friendship is very questionable in terms of how Gilgamesh and Enkidu became friends all of a sudden even though they have different values, Gilgamesh is still superior in pretty much every way possible… so how is this FRIENDSHIP possible? We will probably see, though, in future tablets how Enkidu can influence Gilgamesh, and that will probably when Enkidu has an upper hand over Gilgamesh, which would bring them together more in terms of equality over each other.

Significant Elements of Societies

Michael Mann begins his analysis of power relations by providing the reader with meticulous argument of how societies are organized as power networks. His main argument revolves around the fact that societies are not to be seen as a unitary totality, but instead as overlapping networks of power which promote the social nature of human-beings. He introduces an intriguing question at the beginning of his section on ultimate primacy, asking whether we can specify a “most important element” in human society. He claims that many consider that it is impossible to denote a most significant part of a society, but I believe that there are certain aspects of a society that are integral to its subsistence.
One of these elements is the cohesiveness of human interaction within a society. I agree with Mann that are no various dimensions of totality within a society, but I believe that the social networks that replace these dimensions rely heavily on the dynamics behind the presence of social interaction in a society. If interaction is encouraged, an environment is created that is conducive to the formation of social power. This formation is related to Marx’s claim that man is a social animal that is able to achieve goals only through cooperation. It is this cooperation that serves as the cornerstone in the development of economics and politics in ancient near eastern civilization. Thus, we have a foundation for two very important element for creating societies—the promotion of social interaction and the promotion of cooperation between members of a society.

Savagery and Civilization

The Epic of Gilgamesh, translated by Andrew George, introduces various themes that will be developed in the following chapters. According to George, the themes include the fear of death, learning how to grow up, the duties of kingship and the theme of friendship. One important discussion that can give readers an insight of the beliefs and myths about human society is the theme of savagery and civilization. When reading The Epic of Gilgamesh, one can argue that it represents the creation of humans as well the transition from savagery to civilization.

On tablet one, the character Enkidu is introduced. According to the translations, he is the “the replica of the first man.” Goddess Aruru creates him with a pinch of clay that was thrown into the wild and was raised by animals. Tablet Number One tells readers of a hunter who discovers Enkidu and brings a ‘harlot” with the purpose to teach him the ways of living. The harlot seduces Enkidu and after the encounter, he gains knowledge and understanding. Then he becomes part of society by learning how to eat and dress like a proper person.

When analyzing the character Enkidu, one can argue that his introduction in the First and Second Tablet represents the transition from savagery or barbarism to civilization. It depicts the story of humankind, the cycle from an animal state of being to a civilized and self-aware condition. The harlot that tames Enkidu can represent the wisdom and the civilization that not only convert him into a man but also introduced him to Gilgamesh. By saying, “convert him to a man;” it refers to the sexual encounter between him and the harlot.

Repetition in The Epic of Gilgamesh

In The Epic of Gilgamesh, phrases, even whole stanzas are repeated. One of the many examples is:

"... there was a man came [by the watering hole.]

Mightiest in the land, strength [he possesses,]

[his strength] is as mighty [as a rock] from the sky (I 123-5)," which is repeated verbatim in I 150-3. The hunter speaks to two different people about Enkidu, his father and King Gilgamesh. In these descriptions, he uses the exact same phrases. Why is repetition so prevalent? It is most likely for emphasis of important facts. This could give insight into what that culture would have thought was important. For the first example given, it could be said that it is very important for the reader to note Enkidu's strength. This is the most straightforward way of emphasis, especially if this was to be read aloud to others. If you hear things repeated you will be more likely to remember the facts, especially when you are being read an epic, which is by definition, long. Another fact repeated multiple times is that Gilgamesh forces new brides to sleep with him before their husbands. This could be repeated multiple times to get the audience angry about this practice and for them to side with Enkidu who wants to put an end to it. The repetition is used for emphasis, but the emphasis means different things in different contexts.

Humanization

The cities of Babylon, Akkade, Uruk, and the other cities of the Ancient Near East had many temples reserved for gods and the residents performed duties for the happiness of god. This shows that these people saw the gods with great respect and maybe even fear. Although the people of Uruk looked up to gods as higher beings, it is interesting how human-like the characteristics of gods are through the myths presented.

The text of Naram-Sin has the lesson “of patience: wait for the gods, do nothing without their sayso.” This suggests that the gods were always right and if anything was done without their approval, the results would be detrimental. It contrasts the myths of how humans came to be on earth, which showed gods with the same qualities as human beings – lazy, untrustworthy, imperfect. Laziness was shown through how the gods made man in order to have someone else do the chores they had to do. Untrustworthiness is shown from how the god Ea tells Uta-napishti the plan to minimize the human race even though he promised Enlil she wouldn’t. Lastly an example of imperfectness is shown through how Enlil’s solution to minimize the human race led to the gods “to die of want.”

This shows something about the people of Uruk. They saw the gods as being with flaws, but they still prioritized the “god’s way.” It could mean the liked the idea of the gods being similar to them and knowing the suffering they were going through. Whatever the reason, the people of the Ancient Near East were devoted to their gods.

3 and a Half square Miles

Within the first few lines of the first tablet there can be found a stanza that talks about the "expanse of Uruk." According to this stanza the city has one square mile city, one square mile date grove, one square mile clay pit, and a half square mile for the temple. 
This break down of the city of Uruk becomes slightly more interesting when we consider the papers we have read. Barley is not mentioned, which is not surprising as the city would have relied on barley coming from the surrounding area not from within the city. It is curious that they mention date groves. This is something we haven't heard much about, but it seems to emphasize perhaps that the city still produced food and that the food it produced was perhaps more sophisticated. The mentioning of the clay pits make sense as they would have been so very important to this early city. Clay was the source for containers, writing tablets, tools and other things. Clay was essential to the city of Uruk. Lastly we see a mentioning of the temple. It is astounding that one seventh of the city was occupied by this building. It seems indeed to not only have defined the city politically, but geographically as well.
We can learn much of the city of Uruk from this simple stanza.

The Evolution of the Central Administration Driven by the Economy

One of Liverani's main claims is that economic developments precede and drive social developments. His discussions on barley and wool give some solid evidence supporting this claim, though clearly some social developments also necessarily influenced economic developments. Liverani's logic of economic restraints necessitating the systems of barley and wool harvesting, makes sense considering the limitations of the region and how essential these were to the central administration's success. However, each of these economic developments also presuppose certain social developments occurring concurrently or previously such as a system of semi-standardized measurements and at least some form of justice system to enforce them.

The cycles of barley and wool are effectively shown to be the natural resources for developing a system of payment and trade because of their intrinsic properties and the challenges the people of southern Mesopotamia faced due to their region. Liverani makes a great case for barley as the basis for payment; it is easy to grow there because of its suitability to the region's climate and seasons, it is easy to store and exchange, it intrinsically has value as food (unlike the dollar), and it is able to produce a surplus concentrated by the central administration because of how it is raised and harvested. One can imagine several systems of bartering going on initially at local level, but the barley system prevailed and was adopted by the central administration because of the very reasons Liverani describes, making it the most suitable currency at the time. Wool is not as clearly outlined, but it also does make sense to have evolved in the hands of the central administration to have become a major resource for trade. Liverani points out the need to supply clothes for laborers, the benefits of raising sheep as profitable for shepherds, the technology of the loom facilitating development of textile industry, as well as the means through slave labor and a division of labor. This is good evidence for the way the wool industry functioned, and the development to trade of this valuable product is not far fetched. However, both the barley and wool cycles alone could not have transformed themselves into currency and trade without some social developments along to help. For barley to have become a currency, there must have also been a system of measuring how much barely ones wages were. It also follows that there must be a system of regulation/enforcement. Similarly, there must have been a system to judge how to distribute the resources back for wool production. Liverani implies one, but neglects to elaborate.

The Convenience of the Temple

Mario Liverani stresses the roles of temples throughout his work Uruk. In Chapter 3, The Administration of a Complex Economy, he goes into detail about how temples were intrinsic to the concept of creating a societal surplus of barley and other goods. Liverani explains that the temples owned the farm land of a community, and that all yield on that land went to the respective temple, with deductions separated out for hired agricultural laborers. The temples only hired agricultural workers during points of the year when high agricultural activity was needed. This way the temples ensured a surplus, without having to compensate workers year-round. The temples acquired these laborers through the argument that the temple’s lands were lands of the god, and that it would be a service to the god to work in them for part of the year. While there are many reasons why barley was the crop of choice in Uruk, from the temple’s point of view, barley was easy to store, and could yield great surplus if farmed and irrigated correctly.

Liverani goes on to discuss how the temple stored wool and textiles. I thought the argument he presented in this chapter regarding the dependence of communities on barley and temples was well presented. Unlike some other arguments he presents earlier, I could follow his examples clearly. This chapter induced me to think about how the society of Uruk differs from our modern day one. Besides obvious differences in technology, I automatically notice the reliance on faith and the temple. I am looking forward to discussing how the civilizations we study utilize faith to facilitate cooperation from its members.

Temples and Houses

The graph (diagram 3) in the second chapter of Liverani's book caught my attention. Temples grew exponentially by about 4500 BCE while the house growth over time only increased slightly. I understand why the temples grew, but it was never explained why the houses remained pretty much stagnant. With more food coming in from the temples, wouldn't it make sense that families would have more kids? Or if they had more money because they were specializing instead of leading subsistence farming lives, wouldn't they want bigger houses. The only way for me to evaluate this is through today's lens, because I really don't know anything else. I can understand why families didn't grow, but isn't there still a human want for conspicuous consumption?

Through today's understanding, the ancient families not growing and thus not needing bigger houses makes sense. Though we have more disposable income than any time before, families have gotten smaller. This is to give the few children that parents do have a better quality of life. The emphasis here is on quality, not quantity, because childhood mortality is less of a problem now in developed countries and they don't need all the children to help with the work. However, if the houses didn't get bigger when the temples grew exponentially, does that mean that people in the first city weren't drawn to ostensible displays of wealth? Houses today are considered status symbols. The bigger your house, the more successful you are. If the house size only rose modestly, does it mean that that sort of competition wasn't present in this era? And furthermore, if they weren't concerned with flashing wealth and importance, does that mean our current society can change, too?

Organizational Power

According to Mann, “in its most general sense, power is the ability to pursue and attain goals through mastery of one’s environment” (Mann 6). However, when it comes to social power, it is more specifically defined as having mastery over other people and is the probability that someone will be in a position to carry out his or her will despite social norms and resistance. I personally think that a better definition social power is the ability to persuade and influence others, and this can either be subliminally or by brute force. I found it interesting that power could be described as something of the “zero-sum game” in which if someone gains power, another has to lose power. In a way, it makes sense: in order for someone to have “social power”, one person must be the more dominant and influential one- this also means that the ones subjected to the power have to be subdued.

On the other hand, Mann appears to agree with Parsons with the fact that there is collective power in the sense that one cannot work by his or herself to gain power. It is in the interest of a collective group of people to cooperate in order to gain more power. In effect, this whole “social power” process is a lot like currency. Some people will try and gain money while others will undoubtedly lose money. However, when one needs to do something big, like become an “institutionalized government”, for example, people need to work together to pool in their money (power, in this case) to be able to create a sense of massive social power that is able to pull off such a stunt. Indeed, that is what collective power essentially is.

However, the main point of this response paper/ post is to discuss how the interconnectivity between collective power and distributive power leads to something institutional. As I recall from Liverani’s Uruk: The First City, it used to be that in the more primitive states of government and society that even though there was a “leader” or chief (Liverani 20), he or she would be working like the rest of the people subjected by power. Later on, though, there was the administrative elite, in which all others would contribute directly to it, and this has to do with collective power. “But in implementing collective goals, social organization and a division of labor are set up. Organization and division of functions carry an inherent tendency to distributive power, deriving from supervision and coordination…Although it involves specialization of function at all levels, the top overlooks and directs the whole" (Mann 7).

So as we can clearly see, it was the idea of collective power and the reorganization of the distributive aspect of power that enabled for there to be different groups of people who were able to specialize in certain functions. This disguised the inherent greed for power of the smarter individuals who worked together to fuel the power that was brought upon the rest of the people who followed. Inherently, this brought us closer to “civility” because suddenly, people had to work together, and there was now a “center” that brought everyone together. It seems, though, that this hierarchy of power was not intentionally made to create a more focused, central civilization but as a process of organizations, intuit, creativity, and the need to gain more power for a set group of individuals. Anyone who did not want to participate could, as it was not forced, but any other option would be severely lacking in comparison with the new system and centralization of power (because even though there was the powerful elite who were the leaders of the group, everyone was able to gain because of the surpluses obtained due to more specialization and "thinking of the bigger picture").

The Divine Tranformation of Speech

Among many ancient societies and cultures, writing has held an extremely special and important role, which is creatively displayed by Liverani in part one of chapter four, Politics and Culture of the Early State. In ancient history, writing prized and revered for many religious reasons. For example, ancient Egypt’s first true and proper system of writing had been dedicated to their god, Thoth. In some Egyptian myths, Thoth is also depicted as the founder of speech, who had the unique ability to transform speech into material objects. Interestingly enough, this relates closely to the ancient Egyptian belief that if one chooses to pursue immortality, his or her name must be inscribed somewhere forever. In Mesopotamia, however, the Sumerians the god, Enlil, is believed to be the founder of writing and one of the most powerful gods. Later during Assyrian, and Babylonian periods, the god of wisdom, Nabu, was credited as the creator of writing and scribes. Similar to Thoth, Mesopotamian scribal gods also exploit the power of creation via divine speech. Liverani portrays the delicacy of ancient calligraphy and how it developed, all whilst depicting the importance of Susa and how many scholars make false assumptions when contemplating the real origins of writing.

Liverani stoutly states that there are major conceptual problems in accepting certain observations made by some scholars. It is often apparent throughout the chapter that he is pointing to the concept of evolution. However it is normal for values, necessities, and lifestyles to change over time. He explores the way customs and values have changed in the city of Uruk since the urban revolution, a time period that most scholars relate the creation of writing to. But writing has been used for far different needs in early urban society compared to in the Neolithic period. When reflecting upon our modern world, we tend to think of the booming industries, such as Apple Inc., a multi-billion dollar, multinational corporation, which recently revealed the creation of the Iphone 4. In a world of increasing advancement and progression, it is mind-boggling to even attempt guessing where our world would be without the ancient scribes of Susa. Who would have thought writing could have been so meticulous and time-consuming?

Liverani paints an in-detailed picture for a reason: to make it easy for us to understand the complexity of the long writing process that occurred in Susa. Liverani stresses that this already complicated system became even more complex as time passed when the relations between families intensified. College professors today promote the skill of writing in the most efficient, succinct manner by giving in-class essays worth 30 percent of the class grade. Just like today, knowing how to write is essential to communicating and one of the most important necessities in the working-world. Without the discovery at Susa, who knows where we would be today.

The Ups and Downs of Barley

The third chapter of Uruk, by Mario Liverani, explains the workings of Mesopotamia’s economy. It states that there were two basic elements to the economy – sheep and barley. While both were important, barley can be seen as the crucial component to people’s lifestyles. It affected life for all people. In the absence of barley, the temple’s economic system would not have existed and people’s diet would have been more nutritious.

Barley was used by the Sumerians simply because it was “easily stored, preserved and redistributed” (35). It stayed for long periods of time without spoiling. Barley was also easy to grow; unlike wheat, in addition to thriving in warm and dry climates, it “matures very fast and is very tolerant of saline soils” (32). Liverani compares the barley to onions or lettuces which molded quickly. Barley is the perfect grain that can be “produced in a great surplus, […] easily stored and redistributed” (36). However, it was more efficient for the producers to accumulate and redistribute this crop if the temple was in charge. The temple, which functioned as a central agency, hired corvee labor and seasonal laborers to harvest the barley. Liverani argues that the economic system would not have been possible with another kind of crop. While tubers and plants were abundant, “they are not suited for collection in ­a central place or for redistribution, because they cannot be preserved for long” (35). Barley allowed the temple to lead the people and create a complex economic system unlike those before it.

Barley was a vital part of people’s diets and being so easy to grow and store made it the main component to each meal. However, it lacks nutritional value. Without barley, people would have been forced to branch out eat other types of food. In turn, they might have been healthier.

Barley ­­­­is the most important crop the Sumerians had. Besides being people’s main dietary staple, it started an economic system which involved different families and temple. It provided labor and pay. Barley truly was crucial to the Sumerians’s lifestyle and economic advancements.

Complexity of Crafts

In order to strengthen his claim about Uruk being the first complex city, Liverani talks about the incorporation of crafts in chapter 3, The Administration of a Complex Economy. After discussing various points about the roles of barley and wool in the economy, as well as types of commerce, he goes on to explain the evidentiary complexities that the crafts provide in distinguishing the difference between villages and cities.

According to Liverani, “the specialization of crafts has always been considered an element that qualifies… the emergence of a socio-economic organization of the complex type” (44). He also goes on to state, “in the ‘Neolithic village’ every family nucleus by itself produced the domestic and working tools it needed” while “in the ‘city’ a social division of labor came about, with the consequent exchange of food for specialized products” (44). What Liverani means is that crafts are considered a luxury; villagers would have to devote some of their time to producing tools themselves whereas people living in a city where there is a division of labor that specialized in making those tools could simply exchange food for those tools. The complexity is evident through the exchange one has to carry out in order to receive pre-made tools, rather than having to make it on their own.

In addition to tools, the crafts also included ceramic products like jars and bowls, bowls that apparently characterize the Uruk period (48). Large jars were used for storage and bowls were used to distribute rations. The demand for such products led to the arrival of mass production, which was permitted by the adoption of the fast wheel (48). Private commission from selling the pottery and ceramics also allowed for savings, which deprived ceramic production of local and family varieties from the Neolithic period (48). Here, Liverani explains the complexity that the ceramics contribute to the city while contrasting the division of labor in the city with local and family varieties of the village.

Although a few components of his argument occurred before the urban revolution, it was the difference in how organized the factors were that made Uruk a great and complex city.

Why Barley and Wool Are So Important

In the beginning of The Administration of a Complex Economy, Liverani describes the various factors that led to a complete transformation in the Mesopotamian economic system in the third millennium. He begins by discussing the importance of barley and wool, two commodities that shaped these early economies. He formulates his argument by first describing the utilizations of both resources, and then continues by relating the specifics of these two resources to the whole scale economy. I think that he constructs his argument with more clarity and structure than the preceding chapters, and in doing so, he brings about an important point regarding the development of this new economy. Barley and wool may just seem to be two rather important commodities, but they essentially represent a gateway into a new realm of agriculture that is dependent on resources that can be easily stored and redistributed. These new innovations in agriculture led to developments in urbanization that, for the first time, relied upon the formation of a strong centralized administration.

As I read through this chapter, it seemed as if every economic innovation rooted from the persuasion of the community by the central agency to provide labor in return for the mere compensation for their costs of living. For example, Leverani once again discusses the importance of the temple in convincing farmers to donate two-thirds of their harvest when the costs of production were much greater than the one-thirds they managed to maintain. Personally, I feel that the combination of religion, politics, and economics can be extremely volatile, but in this case, it seems as if the central agency was devoted to using this surplus for social investment. Even when Liverani discusses the different aspects of trade, he concludes that merchants only looked after their best interests after accomplishing what the central agency told them to do. What we have here, is essentially the slow creation of a dominant, centralized government that is leading the way towards urbanization.

Exploitation of Labor

In the first two chapters of Uruk, Liverani states that due to a surplus of crops and certain technological advancements, an urban revolution became possible, making Uruk the first real city. He creates an ambiance of a productive, wealthy civilization in which the rulers and people are thriving in good harvest, and the citizens are giving up their surplus goods to the temple. He conveys a sense that these people "willingly" gave up their surplus goods to the temples, because their production levels increased dramatically. He argues that using the temple (that is, God) as a way of making the people give up their excess goods was even easier and more efficient than using military force. In chapter 3, however, Liverani produces a different set of arguments that completely changed my perception of the city of Uruk.

In chapter 3, Liverani discusses the importance of the production of barley and wool in facilitating urban development and pushing the economy. Although the historical details may not be accurate or reliable, Liverani explains that the administrators used almost slave-like methods to exploit the laborers into working to produce barley and wool. He even calls it "forced labor" and says that they were only paid for by food rations (38). The shepherds who were given the task of supervising the sheep were forced to follow strict quotas and did not make much profit for themselves. To me it seems as though this city did not have a fair "social contract" in which the citizens were voluntarily participating in helping the city, and in return getting protection, rights, and livelihood. The rulers of Uruk appears to have exploited their citizens in order to trade with neighboring cities such as Anatolia to increase its own wealth.

Although historical evidence is very difficult to confirm especially for events that happened such a long time ago, the discrepancy between the first two chapters of the book and chapter 3 really confused me and have left me with a negative perception of the city of Uruk.

The Unconventional Church

For each of us, religion represents and describes something different. To some of us, it is something we hold very close to ourselves, and believe in its power. We may attend weekly mass, church, or whatever it may be just to hold on to the connection we feel to any religious power. On the other hand, there are individuals that hold absolutely no importance for any sort of religion and find that it is too baseless to believe in. Of course, there are those that are also confused and just aren’t sure which side to take.

Mann explains that in his novel, the temples are used as a social tool. The temples became a source to build relations and hold common ground, as well as dictated rules and social practices for these relations. What I find interesting is that it seems more of a utilitarian concept than anything else. Although, today, we still have kids who may go to Church to meet other friends of their age, it is also true that a lot of individuals attend their religious locations just to relax and find peace of mind, instead of for socializing. It seems as though Mann claims that temples are used for the sole purpose of find and draw importance to “social life”, instead of what an individual’s desire to just worship a religious power.

Moreover, what is even more interesting about Mann’s depiction of this temple is the economics that are behind it. The temple, which is said to be the main power of the community, is who collects and distributes a source of food, which is the barley. Because barley needed to be distributed to a large number of individuals, the temple eventually had to create a whole system to manage this distribution. The temple not only had a hold over the land in which the crop is grown but it also mandated workers to farm this land. While these workers did get compensation, it became like a business: planting the crop, hiring workers to work the land, paying them through the crops created. This crop was a necessity in their economy and wasn’t going to be going away anytime soon. While today religious organizations and locations may hold economic processes, this one seems as though it is crucial to the economy of the town. To me, it is an active role of the government to do something like this, but for this town, the church has the authority to do so. It seems a little unordinary to have such a major process take place under the authority of someone other than the government, which is why the church, once again, seems a little unconventional in nature.

Development of Trade

Liverani believes that the development trade was sprang forth from geographical needs in the Lower Mesopotamian alluvium, which lacked raw materials such as metals, semi-precious stones, and wood. These materials were essential to the urbanization and expansion of Uruk and many other developing centers. In order to alleviate this deficit, long distance trade and the need for merchants arose. Long distance trade has been studied through archaeological excavations of materials that are not local to the area such as seashells, metals, and semi-precious stones. Unfortunately, due to a lack of textual evidence regarding merchant relations to the central administration of Uruk, Liverani is left pulling information from around the area.
Liverani argues that central agencies required the use of specialists, or merchants, to take the surpluses locally and bring them to distant lands and perform conversions that were very unstructured due to different conversion rates in each city and the risk involved in long distance trading such as shipwrecks or bandits. In order to regulate the merchants who were free from central control after they left the city, the central agencies used accounting systems, albeit inefficient, to make sure that the conventional value of the merchandise handed over to the merchants at the beginning matched the merchandise that was returned. Exports consisted primarily of textiles, while imports consisted primarily of metals. Commerce expanded through land and water and colonies were installed on the middle and upper courses of the rivers and in the Upper Mesopotamian plains to increase trading efficiency and reduce risks.
Liverani makes several good arguments about the necessity of trade and touches upon some of the risks involved, but I would have liked to see some more about the interactions of Uruk with its trading partners.

Temples in Uruk

In the Social Transformation of the Territory of the second chapter Mario Liverani mentions of the “egalitarian and austere” (22) culture. Being the “First City” I found it interesting the fact that Uruk was quite plain for something that has blossomed from a small population of a loosely knit community to a functioning city. Considering the advances in agriculture with the invention of the seeder plow and the threshing sledge and other tools became more complex so would other features of the city. The main feature of Uruk was the simplicity in everything there were not any elaborate decorations on houses. There was little variety in the homes; for the most part they were all about the same size. The style of the houses is a factor to suggesting that there was little or no “social inequality” (22). And the lack of decorations and designs on the pottery, burial items and “items of prestige” (22) such as metal and stones. What confusing is why did the first city have such a simplistic cultures despite that earlier periods of the Neolithic societies hade more “lively characteristics and decorations”. (22) The question is why is it that there is such a lack of decoration and how has social inequality been maintained despite the population growth and with other opportunities emerging besides agriculture?

Now it is not to say that the Uruk period completely lacked in decorations or any kind of intricate art. According to the diagram provided on page twenty-three, there is a large increase in the size of temples while the size of house mostly remained the same. Also the structure and architecture of the temples were more complex and decorative that the houses. Why is that the temples were treated as one could say “with special care”. This already hints the importance of the temples to the Uruk people. The temple was probably significant in more that one way. Too add to that many temples were located in the center of the communities. Food is essential to the people but there could be some religious value along with the temple. I find it hard to believe that the people are simply living just to grow crops and the significance of the temple is solely for food storage. There must be an underlying reason that goes beyond it and explains why there was so much put into the temples.