Tuesday, January 25, 2011

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.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.