• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
CHAPTER TWENTY-NINE
Democracy and Freedom
Matthew Martin III and Daniel C. Snell 
Democracy and a devotion to freedom are hallmarks of modern political thought.These mechanisms of government and associated values have in the past been under-stood as first appearing in ancient Greece, particularly in the city state of Athens dueto reforms begun by Solon in the middle of the sixth century 
BCE
. There is nonethe-less older evidence both of institutions that resemble democratic ones and also adevotion to aspects of freedom, some of which we shall examine here.Here what we mean by democracy and democratic is institutions or actions includ-ing broad representation of populations. In Athens the terms democracy and demo-cratic meant ‘‘ward-rule’’ and referred to the divisions in the Athenian malepopulation that constituted electoral constituencies. Athenians restricted participa-tion to adult men from old families and excluded newcomers, who eventually exceeded the number of native Athenians in the population. Rome too had a very restricted population who could participate in its representative institutions (Rhodes2003).Similar institutions in the Ancient Near East may or may not have included electionof representatives and voting by representatives. In most instances for which we haveevidence selection of representatives and their functions were informal. But theinformality ought not to blind us to the actual power of the institutions.Here we shall look at instances of such institutions by region and then in chrono-logical order, even though the stories relaying the events may come from later periodsand must be used judiciously when depicting earlier times. The earliest mechanismfor democratic rule appears to have been the institution of the assembly in thesouthern Mesopotamian city-states. It was called the u k k i n in Sumerian, and Akkadians translated this eventually as
puhrum 
, a verbal noun from a verb meaning‘‘to collect together.’’ This shadowy institution seems to have been responsible forrunning the great literate cities of the south, though how it was selected and what thelimits to its powers may have been are not depicted in the archival texts that mentionit (Postgate 1992: 8–81).In the tale of Gilgamesh and Agga, which was copied in Old Babylonian schoolsaround 1800
BCE
, we hear of Early Dynastic times perhaps as early as 2700
BCE
in
 
 which two advisory groups seemed to influence the conduct of kings (Jacobsen 1987:345–55). A group of old men advised against offending an overlord, while the youngmen were all for it. The assembly of young men is not otherwise attested, and it hasbeen argued that its existence in this text was a literary element not reflecting an early reality.Theeldersasanassemblywasotherwiseknown,though,andthestoryheremay even underline their importance since in order to oppose them the narrator gaveGilgamesh the support of a god (Katz 1987: 108–11). In the Gilgamesh Epic itself,developingoutofthismaterialinAkkadian language, bestknownfromAssurbanipal’slibrary around 700
BCE
, one hears also of the two groups who advised for and againsttherashactionofgoingonadistantadventure.Theoldmenwereagainstit,ofcourse,and the young encouraged it. But an earlier Old Babylonian version of the story hadonly the old men (George 1999a: 20–2, 112–13).There are good indications from literary texts that the kings of the Ur III period(2112–2004
BCE
) were dependent on the approval of the assembly, and two mencalled heads of the assembly are known (Wilcke 1974: 182–3). The assembly mighthave been a city organization only, or it might be a representative body from the whole area ruled by the state.These hints and other literary indications of how the gods made decisions, in greatmeetings by consensus, may reflect early Mesopotamian political practice and havebeen taken as a sign of ‘‘primitive democracy’’ (Jacobsen 1943). In most periods the judicial system was predominately democratic. And though the details of how assem-blies functioned are not so clear, a first millennium proverb assumes that anyone, orperhaps just free males, could stand in the assembly, but it argues that you must bepretty stupid to do so:
Do not go to stand in the assembly;Do not stray in the very place of strife.It is precisely in strife that fate may overtake you;Besides, you may be made a witness for themSo that they take you along to testify in a lawsuit not your own.(Jacobsen 1943 [1970]: 160)
More recent translations take ‘‘assembly’’ much more generally to mean ‘‘a law court’’ (Lambert 1960: 101, 31) or just ‘‘a crowd’’ (Foster 1993a: 328, 31), bothof which are possible.In spite of the general tendency of Mesopotamian history to increased centraliza-tion ofpolitical power, assembliesappeared tobe the ultimateseats ofsovereigntyandeven to elect monarchs or decide on war and peace in times of crisis. There was atendency to make the officers of the assembly, including the war leader, permanent,and this tended over time to favor the growth of the power of the king, who may haveoriginated as the war leader (Jacobsen 1957 [1970]: 138, 149–51).The Old Babylonian Code of Hammurapi, from around 1760
BCE
, assumed thatthe elders of cities would take group responsibility when no one else was available toassume such responsibilities, and other references show that the assembly consisted of  judges and witnessed judicial actions (Roth 1995: paragraphs 5, 23, 142, 202, 251).398
Matthew Martin III and Daniel C. Snell 
 
The record of an Old Babylonian trial for homicide was copied as part of the schoolcurriculum, and it showed who was likely to sit in the assemblies that made judicialdecisions. The persons identified by their jobs included various kinds of manuallaborers including a bird catcher, a potter, and an orchardman. These men wereprobably not paid for their work, and it is unclear how they found the time to dothis public work as well as their own (Jacobsen 1939a: 134–6; Van De Mieroop1999b: 146–7). Along with free and presumably prosperous workers, however, there was also a
mus ˇ ke ¯num 
, a term which probably includes any free lower-class person(Stol 1997). An omen from the same period mentions a woman revealing thebusiness of the assembly; this may mean that women were sometimes in the assembly and that proceedings were secret. But women might learn of business through men,and there is no reason to think all business was secret (Van De Mieroop 1999b: 148).It has been argued that the way that tribal groups functioned in Old BabylonianMari was essentially like the democratic forms of rule in Greece. We see this worldfunctioning because the king of Mari claimed also to be a tribal leader and thus had toplacate a variety of constituencies, not just the urban leadership to which otherMesopotamian kings looked for support. Elders were important, and so were assem-blies. And the strength of democratic traditions appeared to be stronger in oldertowns (Fleming 2004).In Assyria there is evidence of communal management in the Old Assyrian periodaround 1800
BCE
where the ‘‘harbor’’ or merchant establishment made decisions,perhaps only if the big men agreed to hear the case (Van De Mieroop 1999b: 149,151). But even later when there were strong kings there is evidence that the king hadto pay attention at least to the great families of Assyria (Tadmor 1986).In the Hittite Old Kingdom around 1650
BCE
there was an assembly which seemsto have functioned as a high judicial council judging very high ranking personsaccused of some crimes, but always under the king’s control. The assembly continuedto exist into the Empire period (1400–1200
BCE
), but its role was apparently circumscribed. The term for assembly was
panku 
, related to the English prefix pan-,and sometimes meaning ‘‘all,’’ implying broad representation. But not all citizens satin it, only some very high officials. Earlier scholarly notions that the assembly mightactually have elected the king in the midst of a dynastic crisis seem unlikely; an early edict calls for the assembly’s intervention in dynastic crises, but later, when such crisesarose, the assembly was not mentioned (Beckman 1982).From Israel soon before 900
BCE
we have the story of the split of the kingdoms which involved three different representative groups (1 Kings 12). Rehoboam,Solomon’s son and a southerner himself, went to the northern city of Shechem toassert his right to the kingship, and there he confronted ‘‘all of the assembly of Israel,’’ not further defined but representing the northerners in asking for relief intheir tax and forced labor burdens. Rehoboam put them off for three days andconsulted with two other groups, ‘‘the old men who stood before Solomon, hisfather,’’ and ‘‘the boys who grew up with him.’’ The old men suggested leniency,even saying he should be a slave to the northerners, and they would then be slaves tohim. But the young men said he should assert his prerogatives and threaten thenortherners with an even greater burden. The king, being young himself, chose their
Democracy and Freedom 
399
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...