1
Martti Muukkonen
”By the Rivers of Babylon[1]” – Welfare in Ancient Mesopotamia
Presentation to the work-group of historical sociology at the annual meeting of Finnish sociological association, Jyväskylä 26.3.2004
Introduction
In 1990 Gösta Esping-Andersen published his famous book on three welfare regimes[2]. In this work, he identified Nordic, social democratic regime, Central European conservative regime and Anglo-Saxon liberal regime. However, scholars of social policy have been aware that the Central European model is actually a Catholic one since it was launched by Christian Democratic parties and is based on two papal encyclia, Rerum Novarum and Quadrogesino Anno. These encyclias are based on the Thomistic theology, which is a combination of Biblical and Aristotelian thinking[3]. Thus, the roots of this model should be sought from ancient Greece and Israel.
However, scholars of social policy are not as aware that the Nordic Social Democratic model could be named as Lutheran model since its roots are in Luther's theology and, especially, in the ethos of the 17th century officials who were trained in Pietistic Halle University. These Pietists launched the first welfare projects in Denmark and Prussia[4]. In the case of Britain and the US, we have to remember that the British Labour Party got its first leaders from Methodism[5] and one cannot speak of the emergence of American culture without acknowledging the impact of Puritanism[6]. Moreover, one significant social movement in the break of the 19th century was the Social Gospel movement, which influence to the whole ecumenical movement, including bishop William Temple, who launched the concept of the welfare state.
All these Protestant streams have stressed the importance of the Bible for both the doctrine and ethics. Luther and Pietists aimed for the abolition of poverty and Puritans and proponents of the Social Gospel wanted to create God's Kingdom on earth. Models for these attempts were taken from the Old Testament prophets and from the ministry of Jesus.
However, Greece and Israel did not emerge out of nothing. They were part of the world system that existed in their time. The centre of this world system[7] was in Mesopotamia and its influence reached from present day China to Gibraltar. Even Egypt, the other old civilisation, got its first impacts from Sumer -although its later history was much that of isolation. In this paper, I study how the ancient Mesopotamians framed their responsibility of each other and how they organised it.
Ancient Mesopotamia (a land between two rivers, as the Greek name means) is the cradle of Indo-European culture. Perhaps because its influence to European culture is indirect through Jewish religion and ancient Greece and Rome, scholars of philanthropy have not paid as much interest on the philanthropic systems of the Land of Two Rivers as they have on Israel, Greece and Rome. However, in order to understand the Israeli and Greek contexts, it is revealing to see focus first to the culture of which the Palestine and Greece was part of.
When we study the social conditions of ancient Mesopotamia, we face the problem that majority of the existing sources are made by the urban elite. This means that the frame in these texts maintains - often even propagates - the elite world view. Thus, we have little information on nomads, lower classes, counter-cultures and religious sects. Even this knowledge is given from the elite perspective.
Along with Babylonian and Assyrian texts, we have descriptions of some Greek writers on Mesopotamia. For example, Herodotos deals Mesopotamia and Persia in his Histories. However, the Greek perspective is biased with the political atmosphere of the time. Classical works in Greece emerged in the time when Persia was a real threat to Hellas. Therefore, like in most descriptions of enemies, all eastern people are, if not dehumanised, at least presented in a negative view.
A special problem for a sociologist is that most sociologists do not master cuneiform writing and languages of the country. This gives only two possibilities: either to learn, as some anthropologists have done, or rely on secondary sources. I have chosen the latter option. Fortunately, during last two decades, there has emerged a host of literature on Mesopotamia that relies on the methodology of social sciences. Especially anthropologists but also historical economists have been active in the field. Additionally, there has been many projects that have translated Mesopotamian texts to English. Thus, what follows, is a combination of the information that studies give on the Mesopotamian context, its religion and welfare, and my own focus on these texts according to the hints that specialists have given.
…
”The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden[8]” – The Mesopotamian Context
Civilisation of The Land of Two Rivers emerged before the written history. Already during its first phase, prehistoric period[9], emerged agriculture and basic structures of society. When we are speaking about Mesopotamian culture, we have to remember that even the written history covers some 4000 years and we have some data even from “the early Neolithic period between 8000 and 6000 B.C.E.[10]” However, what we call Mesopotamian history, usually means a period from ca. 3500 BC on[11]. This necessarily means a vast difference in historical phenomena. When the first written documents emerge, we see already a well established civilisation, which was, however, in constant change and, thus, I only try to locate such trends that have left their fingerprints in the history of welfare thinking.
Mesopotamian culture emerged ca. 4000 BC when Sumerians entered from unknown direction to southern Mesopotamia. From that time begun a period that has normally been called ‘the Uruk expansion[12].’ It was that period when the basis of Mesopotamian civilisation was laid and basic forms of the society were created. It was also a time when Sumerian influence reached from Indus to Nile. Circa 3100 BC., a new invention, cuneiform writing was invented and the historical period began.
Mesopotamia was a multicultural area almost from the beginning of its civilisation. It mixed traditions of Ubaidians, Sumerians, Semites, Kassites, Gutians, Assyrians, and Persians. On the other hand, Mesopotamian was a mixture of urban, sedentary rural and nomadic lifestyles. It was this multiculturalism that speeded the process of innovations in the country.
The basic unit of the society was the household[13]. These, in turn, were grouped to smaller and larger kin or occupation groups that had both authority and responsibility on their members. The important aspect from the welfare perspective was that also royal palace and temple were seen as households. Actually, a town, village or a nomadic tribe were seen as a household of their respective god and, thus, this god had similar authority and responsibility on the members of this household than the head of the family. This frame had certain consequences on the responsibilities of the temple: when the family could not support its members, the temple substituted the clan and gave aid[14]. Here we can rather easily see Durkheimian model of the religion’s function in the society: it guaranteed the basic solidarity among the population. Being more stable than the state, the temple formed the basic social safety net that quaranteed life after serious economic setbacks.
Later, when kingship was strengthened, the palace was modelled according to similar household pattern. Along these two basic institutions, there were independent families as well. The centrality of these three types of households differed according different periods. Thus, there were times when the temple was the centre of the society, times when the palace occupied the central role and times when independent families were central, for example in economy. I.J. Gelb describes the difference between temple, palace and noble households as follows:
A temple household, like the household of the crown and nobility, consists of managers (or owners), labor personnel, and domestic animals, as well as residential buildings, shelters for the labor force, storage bins and animal pens, also fields, orchards, gardens, forests, and pastures. Unlike crown households, whose labor force may have consisted mainly of serf peasants and craftsmen and prisoners of war deported and settled on the land, and unlike the noble households with their serf peasants and craftsmen, in both of which we can assume the existence of men and women in more or less equal proportions, the temple households utilized the women-and-children personnel in a much greater proportions than the men personnel.[15]
Hierarchies inside of the family or clan were accompanied with the hierarchy of families and clans. Basically, as the Law of Hammurabi reveals, the society was divided into three basic layers: awilum (gentlemen, or noblemen), free citizens and slaves. Inside these groups, there were then more nuanced divisions.
The combination of mixed cultures with different social layers and their different interests sparkled innovations that made Sumerian culture superior to other cultures of its time. Most important of these was the writing that enabled effective administration and trade. Frequent contacts with other cultures – either by commerce or by war – increased the cultural competence. Although neighbours, from time to time, occupied the country, they were Mesopotamised and they brought their new innovations to the common cultural pool.
Economy of the Mesopotamia was based on three basic fields, agriculture, pottery and textile industry, and foreign trade. As a consequence, these fields gave their spice to the culture, political system and religion of the Mesopotamia. Society’s values were in harmony with the needs of these fields of economy.
Already since the Uruk period, the Mesopotamian agriculture was based on both planting crops in irrigated fields and herding animals in less fertile areas. Moreover, agricultural products were aimed both for nutrition and for raw material of industry. Since the agriculture was based on irrigation, it required highly developed co-operation. Thus, the institutions that were able to organise the work were also economic centres of the country. In the early period, temples were power centres and Simo Parpola even speaks of 'temple capitalism' when he describes the centrality of temples[16]. There were several reasons for this dominance of temples. As McCorriston argues, the land was originally communal property, which was administered by the local temple. Religiously, it was understood that the land was property of the god of the temple[17]. When the large part of population was alienated from the use of this common land, it was quite natural that the temple recruited them to reprocess the products.[18] The role of the temple must be understood in a view what Karel van der Toorn has argued: gods were for a great deal tribal gods[19] – thus, the early temple was a sanctuary of the tribe and giving landless population work there can be seen as tribe’s attempt to adapt itself to new situation.Later palaces took this position although there seems to have been constant shifts between the dominance. In any cases, the agriculture and industry needed labour force and, thus, employment was the major channel of ensuring welfare for the population.
Along with agriculture, the other pillar of Mesopotamian economy was trade[20]. In time, it shifted from the supervision of great organisations (temple and palace) to private enterprises.
The important point here is that Mesopotamian culture had, from the beginning, elements that emphasised urban, village and nomadic lifestyle. Along this, there was both communal and private emphases in the economic thinking of Mesopotamians. It was in no sense a homogeneous entity but a cocktail of different lifestyles and these different elements can be seen in Mesopotamian religion, legislation and ethics.
Politically, for the most time, Mesopotamia was constructed of rivalling city-states and the old idea of strong state with Oriental despot was more an exception than a rule. It was more propaganda than reality. Although rulers like Sargon, Hammurabi, Nebuchadnezzar and some others created empires, they also created potential to rebellion. These rebellions weakened the country so much that the country faced several attacks of foreign invaders. With Persian occupation in the sixth century BC, the idea of Babylonian state was over. After that, Mesopotamia was a province of foreign rulers although there existed autonomous cities, especially in the Hellenistic period.[21].
Occasional unification of the land left, however, an idea of the united Mesopotamia, where the kingship was seen as continuous – in spite that the throne shifted from family to family and from town to town. It was only after Sargon, that a large empire became a dominant model of political organisation. Both Babylonian and Assyrian empires got this model from Akkad. However, it must be noted that empires were exceptions in the political organisation and independent city-states formed the dominant model.
In these city-states and empires, a king had to compete with the power of the noble families which was centred around the temples. The power of the king was secured by his own resources. Wars were fought either in order to get both minerals and control of mercantile nodes or (in the case of invaders) to achieve the treasures and fertile land. The development of warfare techniques (chariot forces) required such investments that only the king had and this, in turn, led to the king’s instead of citizen’s army[22].
2.2. “The norms had been fixed[23]” – Religion of Mesopotamia
Sociologically, Mesopotamian religion can be seen as an attempt to explain the cultural, economic and political factors that influenced people’s lives. Farmers were well aware that the fertility and success of harvest did not depend only on their work. Forces of nature – gods – have the final word in their lives. In the same time, religion legitimised many social and political practises that had been proven effective by experience. For example, irrigation was not possible without co-operation. It required organisation that was seen a contrast to chaos. Kings also needed legitimisation to their power in order to minimise rebels. Merchants needed protection for their properties. All these aspects can be found in the Mesopotamian religion. However, we must remember that religion was not just a consequence of these needs. It might have such pre-historic roots that were developed already before Sumerians came to Mesopotamia. Thus, cultural, economic and political factors can as well be applications of the early Sumerian religion in the new environment.
Mesopotamian religion can, according to Karel van der Toorn, be divided into three overlapping realms. The first one is the official state religion, which included the liturgy of the state cult, temples and shrines, priests and priestesses, cosmology of the elite, and theological formulations. The second is, what van der Toorn calls family religion. It was primarily question of worship of the god of the family and the cult of forefathers. In between these lies the local or folk religion, which is public but not supported by the state elite.[24]
Pantheon of Mesopotamian religion was enormous[25]. There is an estimation that the early “Sumerian pantheon contained no fewer than 3,000 deities[26].” Religion of Mesopotamia was, thus, an attempt to modify a compact whole from a multitude of different deities. It reflected the organisation of society and vice versa.
The unification of the land also had assimilating effects in pantheon. In the Mesopotamian religion can be seen three layers: official, domestic and folk religions. Official religion legitimised the hierarchy of the society, since the society imitated the hierarchy of the pantheon. In this level, there were the service of the three leading gods, An/Anu, Enki/Ea and Enlil/Bel. From the rise of Babylon, these local deities started to assimilate into Marduk and turned to be his different characters. In the same time, Marduk was seen as a son of Bel and elevated as the leader of gods. Thus, as a by-product of the Marduk cult, there emerged a trend towards monotheism. However, this was not so much a theological aim than a consequence of political unification of the country under the leadership of Babylon. Under them was the host of local and natural deities.
Domestic cult concentrated primarily on family gods and ancestors[27]. Karel van der Toorn argues that in the case of Babylonian religiosity, focusing only on the official cults would give a limited view since “female piety flourishes primarily outside the official cult, behind closed doors so to speak[28].” The service of these family gods was both imbedded to everyday routines and feasted in special important moments of the family. A meal was not simply getting nutrition but it was an image of the divine meal that was also imitated in the temple and in the court. It included both sacrifice and prayers to the gods. In this occasion, there emerged an important concept of impurity. Impurity was not, according to van der Toorn, not principally a violation against an ethical norm. It might be, but in the first hand, it was a violation against etiquette codes. Everything that was unpleasant to the gods was impure: dirty hands, dirty utensils, some sicknesses like leprosy, woman’s menstruation, etc. Also improper behaviour caused impurity, which meant that one could not approach gods or if (s)he approached, the prayer would be in vain because the habitus was too unpleasant to gods.