Primitive Democracy in Ancient MesopotamiaAuthor(s): Thorkild JacobsenSource:

Journal of Near Eastern Studies,

Vol. 2, No. 3 (Jul., 1943), pp. 159-172Published by: The University of Chicago PressStable URL:

Accessed: 20/11/2009 16:17

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=ucpress.Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

The University of Chicago Press

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Journalof Near Eastern Studies.

http://www.jstor.org

JOURNALOF

NEAR

EASTERN

STUDIES

JULY 1943

Number3

PRIMITIVEDEMOCRACYINANCIENTMESOPOTAMIA1

THORKILDJACOBSEN

ORDS

whichembodythehopes,thefears,andthevaluesofgen-erations arelikelyto loseinclar-itywhattheygainindepth.One suchwordis"democracy,"which denoted aformofgovernmentandnow stands for awayof life.Itmaynotbeamiss,there-fore,first to make clearinwhatsenseweintendtousethewordbefore weplungein mediasres.Weshalluse"democracy"inits classi-cal ratherthaninitsmodern senseasde-notinga formofgovernmentinwhichin-ternalsovereigntyresides inalargepro-portionofthegoverned,namelyinallfree,adult,male citizenswithout distinction offortune or class. Thatsovereigntyresidesin thesecitizensimpliesthatmajorde-cisions-suchasthedecision toundertakeawar-are madewith theirconsent,thatthese citizens constitute thesupreme ju-dicialauthorityinthestate,andalsothat

1 The substanceofthis articlewaspresentedinapaperreadat themeetingoftheAmericanOrientalSocietyheldinChicagoinApril,1941.Since then Pro-fessorE. A.Speiserhas touchedonthesubjectina

paragraphof hispaper,Some SourcesofIntellectualandSocialProgressin the AncientNear East("Studies

in theHistoryofCulture"[Philadelphia,1942]), p.60.Speiser'sviewsagreewithoursinimportantpoints;the term whichhesuggests,"politocracy,"seems,however,lessexpressivethan"primitivedemocracy"andtendsinadditiontosever the closeties whichconnecttheMesopotamianformswithsimilarprimi-tive forms ofgovernmentelsewhere,manyofwhichwereflourishinginapredominantlytribal,noturban,setting.

rulersandmagistratesobtain theirposi-tionswithandultimatelyderive theirpowerfromthatsame consent.By"primitive democracy,"further-more,weunderstandforms ofgovernmentwhich,though they maybeconsidered asfallingwithin the definitionofdemocracyjustgiven,differ from theclassicaldemoc-raciesbytheirmoreprimitivecharacter:thevariousfunctions ofgovernmentareasyetlittlespecialized,thepowerstruc-tureisloose,and themachineryfor socialco-ordinationbymeans ofpowerisasyetimperfectly developed.We shouldperhapsaddthat thecon-trast with which we areprimarilycon-cernedistheonebetween"democracy"asdefinedabove,on theonehand,and"au-tocracy,"used asageneraltermforformswhich tendtoconcentrate themajorpoli-ticalpowersinthehands ofasingleindi-vidual,on theother."Oligarchy,"whichsosubtly mergesintodemocracyandwhichsooften functions informssimilartoit,canhardly,at thepresentstageofourknowledgeofancientMesopotamia,beprofitably distinguished.

AUTOCRATICORIENTATION INHISTORI-CALTIMES

Thepoliticaldevelopmentinearlyhis-torical times seemsto lieunder thespellof

159

VolumeII

JOURNAL OFNEAREASTERNSTUDIES

onecontrollingidea: concentration ofpo-liticalpowerin asfewhands aspossible.Withinsmallareas,intown and town-ship,thisprinciplehad beenrealized-orwasbeingrealized-toaverysubstantialdegree duringthefirst centuries of Meso-potamian history.2Thecountryformedamosaic ofdiminutive,self-sufficient,au-tonomouscity-states,andineach suchstate oneindividual,theruler,unitedinhishands the chiefpoliticalpowers: legis-lative,judiciary,andexecutive.Onlyhecouldpromulgateandcarryinto effectnewlaw;3healone waspersonally respon-siblebycontract withthecity-godforupholding justiceandrighteousness;4as

ThebeginningofhistoryproperinMesopotamiamaybeplacedapproximatelyatthetime ofUrnanshe.Ashis date wegaveca. 2800

B.c.

in TheSumerianKingList("O.I.C.,"No.11),Table II. Sincethen,however,new material and treatments haveappearedmakingithighly probablethat thedateoftheFirstDynastyofBabylon, uponwhichall absolutedatesintheearlierperiodsdepend,mustberadicallylowered.Althoughthe various newchronologieswhich havebeenproposedareundoubtedlyingeneralnearertothe truththanwas the oldhighchronology,the mate-rial doesnot,inouropinion,permitus to fix onanyoftheavailablepossibilities.We are thereforeleavingthequestion open, acceptingprovisionallythedateforHammurabiproposedby SidneySmith(AlalakhandChronology [London,1940], p.29),1792-1750B.c. Thismeans that the scaleoftimegiveninTheSumerianKingList should beshifted downwardby275years.3Themajorpartof thelegislativeactivitiesofearly Mesopotamianrulersfallswithin theprovinceof"speciallaw"inthesense ofcommands issuedbythestate,enforcedbyitsauthority,and aimed atsomeimmediateandspecificsituation. Herebelongordersinitiatingthebuildingandrebuildingofspecifictemplesatspecifictimes andplaces,repairsanddig-gingofcanals,wagingofwars,etc.Forsuch achieve-ments therulergets-ortakes-solecreditinthein-scriptions.The mainbodyof the"generallaw" whichregulatedSumero-Akkadiansocietywaspresumablyunwrittencommonlaw.Heretoo, however,therulermayintervene,asisevidencedbyUrukagena'ssweepingchangesin theexistinglegalorder(seehisConeB+Cand OvalTablet).Theruler'spowers,however,thoughautocratic,werenotabsolute. Theauthorityfor newspeciallawas well as for newgener-al lawwas thewill of thegodofthe state as communi-catedto the rulerthroughdreamsand omens. Ade-taileddescriptionof thegenesisofaspeciallaw,thatinitiatingtherebuildingof thetempleEninnuinLa-gash,isgiveninGudeaCyl.A i 1-xii20.ThedivineordersleadingtoUrukagena'sreforms are referred toin ConeB+Cvii20-viii13.

UrukagenaCone B

Cxii23: n

u-s

nu-ma-sulu-a-tukunu-na-ga-ga-adNin-gir-su-daUru-ka-ge-na-ke4

supremecommanderof allarmedforces,heled thestateinbattle;5and,as adminis-trator of the maintemple complex,6hecontrolledthemostpowerfulsingleeco-nomic unitwithinthestate.Butthemomentumof theautocraticidea was stillfarfromspentwith there-alization of this idea within smallsepa-rateareas.ItdroveMesopotamiafor-wardrelentlesslytowardthemore distantaim:centralization ofpowerwithin onelargearea. Each rulerofacity-statewasforeverstrivingtosubdue hisneighbors,strivingto becomethe onewhowouldunite all ofsouthernMesopotamiainto asinglecentralized state under asinglerul-inghand-his own. Frombefore the dawnofhistory7throughthesoldier-kingdomsofLugalzagesiandtheearlySargonidstothehighly organizedbureaucraticstateof theThirdDynastyofUr,wewatchthese effortstoward ultimatecentraliza-tionsteadilygrowinpower,inintensity,andinefficiency.8

DEMOCRATIC INSTITUTIONSINTHEJUDICIARY IN POST-IMPERIALTIMES9

Tofindinaworldsosingularlyauto-craticinoutlook,propelledinitsdomesticandforeign policies bythe oneurgefor

i n im-beka e-da-si r:"Urukagenacontract-ed withNingirsuthat he(i.e.,Urukagena)wouldnotdeliveruptheorphanand the widowto thepower-fulman."5See,e.g.,Eannatum's SteleoftheVultures obv.ix1-x4andthepictorial representationson thatmonument;alsothe accountofthewarsbetween La-gashand UmmainEntemena'sConeA(onone oc-casion,thebattlein iii5ff.,thesonoftherulerofLagashseems tohave been incommand),theinscrip-tionofUtuhegal,RA,IX,111-20,andX,98-100,andmanyothers.

See DeimelinAnalectaorientalia,II,80.