1

The Bronze Age Article compiled by Dr. Kumkum Roy

The name “Bronze Age” is part of an archaeological tradition according to which the phases of human
history (or, more often, pre-history) are classified on the basis of the material most commonly used to
make tools and/or weapons and other artifacts. The three broad phases recognized according to this
tradition are (a) the stone age, with its sub-divisions, (b) the chalcolithic-bronze age, involving the
beginning of the use of metals, initially copper, and then of alloys such as bronze, and (c) the iron age.
This classification is based on the premise that tools vary in their effectiveness according to the metal
used to make them and that this effectiveness can be measured in terms of increase in production.
Thus, stone tools are much less effective as instruments of production than metal ones, and, amongst
metal tools, copper or bronze tools are less effective than iron ones. It is thus apparent that according
to this paradigm, the basic criterion used to distinguish one phase of historical development from
another is technological change. Further, according to one of the most consistent exponents of this view
(Childe, 1956), “Realistic history insists upon their (i.e. the tools’) significance in moulding and
determining social systems and economic organization.” Thus, it is suggested that changes in technology
induce social and economic changes, and hence it is held that the latter can be understood in terms of
the former. In order to examine the significance and validity of this approach, it is necessary, in the first
place, to study the technological changes associated with the phase under consideration. The first major
technological change was the discovery of the use of metal, initially copper. To start with, copper ores
were treated and worked with the techniques evolved for making stone tools but gradually, with the
evolution of metallurgy, the difference between copper ores and other rocks were discovered. A further
step forward was taken with the invention of bronze, an alloy consisting of copper and tin, which was
stronger than either of the component metals. According to Childe (1957), copper had certain
advantages as compared to stone, the material used for making tools and weapons earlier. In the first
place, it is malleable and hence can be worked much more easily than stone – it can be cut, sharpened
and bent easily. Secondly, on account of its fusibility, it can be liquefied and poured into a mould of clay,
to obtain a variety of tools of virtually any shape and size. One of the new tools which could be made
more easily with metal than with stone was the saw (Childe 1952). The saw facilitated the cutting of
timber and hence the making of wheels, which revolutionized both transport and pottery making.
Despite the advantages associated with the use of metal, it must be borne in mind that metalworking
was much more arduous and complex than making tools and weapons of stone, bone or wood –
materials commonly used during the preceding phase. First, to work metals effectively, a number of
other inventions were necessary. These included designing furnaces to attain and maintain the high
temperatures required to work the metal, and evolving other equipment such as crucibles, tongs,
moulds and bellows. Secondly, chemical processes had to be mastered, whereby ores – oxides,
carbonates, silicates and sulphides of copper – could be reduced to pure metal. Apart from the
technological problems that had to be surmounted, another problem was posed by the fact that copper
ores are not found everywhere, unlike the materials used earlier to make tools. Hence effort had to be
made to obtain ores from the restricted geographical locales where these were found. The problem
became much more acute when there was need for tin, an essential ingredient for the making of bronze,
because tin ores are found in far fewer areas than copper ores. The use of metals would thus lead to
three major changes. As Childe (1957) observes, the sciences applied in metallurgy are more abstruse
than those employed in agriculture, or even pot making, and even in the earliest historical societies,
metallurgists were specialists. This meant that metallurgists could not combine their professional
activities with subsistence activities such as agriculture or pastoralism. Hence a system whereby these
specialists could exchange their products for foodstuffs and

other necessities had to be devised. Secondly, if the individual householder required metal goods, he or
she would have to produce a surplus above the domestic requirements of food, in order to be able to
exchange this for metal products. Thirdly, long-distance trade would be stimulated by the need to obtain
metal. Unlike trade or exchange in the preceding phase which seems to have involved the exchange of
objects such as semi-precious stones over long distances, the networks evolved for obtaining metal
and/or finished metal products would rest on a different basis, as it would involve necessities as
opposed to luxuries. Thus, the socio-economic implications of the use of metal could be far-reaching.
The Bronze Age witnessed technological changes in other spheres apart from metallurgy. Perhaps the
most significant amongst these was the introduction of the plough in agriculture. This was important,
because, for the first time human beings harnessed a source of energy other than their own for
purposes of production. The plough, drawn by oxen, could be used to cultivate a larger area in shorter
time than was possible with a hoe. Thus, it was possible to extend the area under cultivation. The use of
the plough was accompanied by far-reaching changes in the organization of agricultural activities. It is
necessary to examine the nature of these changes to understand the bases of Mesopotamian society. It
was now apparent that animals could be used not only to draw the plough but also to draw wheeled
carts. This facilitated long distance transportation of goods and people by land. Secondly, animal
manure could be used to fertilise the fields. Thus, the domestication of animals now acquired a new
dimension. Among other technological innovations the wheel, as mentioned earlier, revolutionized
transport. Further it speeded up the process of pot-making considerably. At the same time, the
invention of the sailing boat, involving harnessing wind as a source of energy, made it possible to
transport goods through waterways. In the sphere of house-building the development of burnt brick as
a building material which was more durable, facilitated experimentation in architecture. Summarising
these developments, Childe asserts that “metallurgy, the wheel, the ox-cart, the pack-ass and the sailing
boat laid the foundation of a new economic organization.” It is thus evident that Childe locates the
primary motivating force for the transformation in the changes evident in the technological sphere.
However as Childe himself observes (1952) there were technological differences amongst bronze age
societies, despite their common economic basis. These differences are apparent not only in the political
and social organization and their economic structure but also at the level of technological achievement.
Thus in Europe, we may find Bronze Age villages, which were probably neither larger nor more complex
than their Neolithic counterparts, whereas other societies – those of the Egyptians, Sumerians, Minoans
and Chinese – became more complex, urban and literate. In the Mesopotamian context it is important
to note as Adams observes that there is no evidence for a change in the prevailing subsistence pattern at
all, and the emphasis was placed on the elaboration of existing techniques to meet greatly expanded
demands rather than on the introduction of new artifacts and processes. Further, it should be stressed
that the dominant position of southern Mesopotamia’s metal industry was not the result of priority in
their discovery. On the contrary, bronze seems to have been used earlier in north Syria than in Sumer or
Akkad. What was significant was that an effective socio-economic organization had evolved in
Mesopotamia, which made far greater control over metal supplies and finished products possible. It is
also noteworthy that the improvement in technology was by no means uniform – thus pottery, for
example, was now used only in poorer households, and hence declined in importance, with the result
that the finished product was cruder than before. Stone and metal vessels were used as substitutes in
the richer households, and hence greater emphasis was laid on the manufacture of these items. It is
thus apparent that any analysis of Bronze Age societies on the basis of technological criteria alone, can
have limited validity. Childe himself associates the Bronze Age with two related developments. (a) The
emergence of civilization and (b) the urban revolution. The former is defined in terms of the beginning
of the use of writing. The urban revolution, as defined by Childe is more complex, with the following
features: (1) the increase in settlement size towards “urban” proportions, (2) a

centralized accumulation of capital, resulting from the imposition of tribute or taxation (3) monumental
public works, (4) the invention of writing, (5) an advance towards exact and predictive sciences (6) the
appearance and growth of long-distance trade in luxuries, (7) the emergence of a class stratified society,
(8) the freeing of a part of the population from subsistence activities for full time craft specialization, (9)
the substitution of a politically organized society, based on the territorial principle, the state, for one
based on kin-ties, and (10) the appearance of naturalistic or representational art. Childe’s criteria,
despite their limitations, have the advantage of attempting to focus attention on the links between
technological and socio-economic changes, though, as noted earlier, the priority claimed for the former
may not be very valid. Secondly, as Adams (1966) observes, “these characteristics differ radically from
each other in their importance as causes or even as indices of urban revolution as a whole.” In analyzing
the emergence of the Mayan and Mesopotamian civilization, Adams (1966) focuses on the need to
examine the social processes involved. He identifies a set of core traits associated with the urban
revolution – related to the emergence of social stratification, urbanization, political differentiation,
militarism and craft specialization. He further qualifies his analysis by observing that the relationship
amongst the various trends thus identified were by no means uniform throughout the period under
consideration. According to him, what is significant is the emergence of stratified, politically organized
societies based upon more and more complex division of labour. Further, “it seems to have been
primarily changes in social institutions that precipitated changes in technology, subsistence and other
aspects of the wider cultural realm, such as religion, rather than vice versa.” (Adams) It must be borne
in mind that the processes of change discernible in Mesopotamia do not in any sense constitute a
pattern which may be regarded as typical of Bronze Age society. The specificities of each such society,
despite a common technological basis, would mean that any generalization on the nature of Bronze Age
societies would have to be qualified. With this in view, we will now proceed to examine the
Mesopotamian case as an example, though by no means a typical one of a Bronze Age society.
Geographical Background Mesopotamia derives its name from a Greek word meaning the “land
between the two rivers.” While the description is by no means accurate, for much of the land lies on
either side of the two rivers, it does have the advantage of focusing attention on the importance of the
Tigris and Euphrates in determining the nature of the land. According to Roux (1980), the Tigris-
Euphrates valley forms a large, coherent, well-defined geographical, historical and cultural unit. The
Tigris and the Euphrates both have their source in Armenia, the former south of Lake Van, and the latter
near Mount Ararat. The Euphrates is 1780 miles long, while the Tigris is 1150 miles. Both the rivers flow
roughly from north to south. When they emerge from the Taurus, their course is separated by about 250
miles of steppe lands. They converge near Baghdad, where they are barely 20 miles apart, and diverge
further south before uniting to form the Shatt el’Arab, about 60 miles north of Basra. However
according to Roux (1980), it is likely that during the ancient period, the two rivers flowed to the sea
along separate channels. The Tigris-Euphrates valley may be divided into two major units – the southern
or lower valley, where land forms associated with river deposition – lagoons, marshes, braided channels
and levees and ox-bow lakes – are the chief features and (b) the Mesopotamian region, a somewhat
more complex area, where features of erosion predominate. In the latter area are the two distinctive
basins with smaller tributary valleys, separated by a broad zone upland and plateau, within which occur
several basins with closed drainage. A further variation noticeable is that between the levels of the two
rivers. To the north of Baghdad, the Euphrates flows at a greatly higher altitude than the Tigris, while the
position changes further south. The natural drainage pattern influences artificial drainage and irrigation
systems. The relative importance of the two rivers for irrigation, and hence for agriculture, varies
considerably. The Tigris which runs through the eastern half of the plain, is not very useful for irrigation
as it has carved out a deep bed, hence the normal level of water lies far below the level of the adjoining
land and cannot be exploited by a simple canal system. The Euphrates on the other hand is much more

significant from the point of irrigation and agriculture. The Euphrates has a violent current during its
course through the hills and carries an enormous amount of fine sediment. It drops much of this load on
its bed on entering the plain; hence it flows on a raised bed, often higher than the level of the
surrounding plains. Thus it is possible to draw water from this source for purposes of irrigation. The silt
of the river bed is also useful, and serves to enrich the soil on which it is deposited. However the river
banks have to be strengthened to ensure that too much water does not inundate the fields. Secondly,
the water used for irrigation had to be drained off as well, as the natural process of evaporation often
leaves the topsoil impregnated with salt, hence infertile. Closely related to the problem of irrigation is
the nature of the flood of the Euphrates. The flood of the Euphrates differs from that of the Nile in two
respects: (a) it is much less predictable and (b) it occurs at a time when it is more of a threat than an
asset in terms of the agricultural cycle. The flood of the Euphrates is caused by the melting of the winter
snows in the mountainous regions of Anatolia. It occurs between the beginning of April and early June.
This means that it coincides with the period of the ripening crops sown in September or October and
hence can cause extensive damage to standing crops if it is not regulated. Further, at the time when
water is required most for agriculture, i.e. when the crops are sown, the river is at the lowest – hence an
irrigation system is required to tap the limited water sources effectively. Thus as Woolley (1964)
observes, a permanent system of irrigation was required to dig canals, to carry the water from the river
to the fields, to clean them when they were choked with silt and to prevent the breaching of the banks
of the Euphrates. It must be borne in mind that the climate of the entire area under consideration is of
the dry subtropical type. Summer temperatures are as high as 120 degrees F (50 degrees C), and the
average rainfall is well below 100 mm which marks the practical limit of the dry-farming zone, thus
making agriculture impossible without irrigation in this area. The rainfall which generally occurs in
winter is also quite unpredictable. Hence significance of irrigation in this context is evident. We will
examine the nature of irrigation in greater details in the section on the economy of Mesopotamia. It
would suffice to observe here that the natural climatic and physical conditions prevailing in
Mesopotamia both made irrigation essential for agriculture and also, to a certain extent determined the
nature of the irrigation network which was required. Apart from the need for irrigation, which may have
obviously influenced socio-political organization, shifts in the channels of the Euphrates, which has
tended to move westwards, may have affected historical developments. According to Gibson (1972),
shifts in the river course would have resulted in changes in the availability of arable land. These
variations could e upset settlement patterns and the ensuing distribution of the population, forced into
a restricted area, may have had the effect of a sudden, local population growth, and this may have led to
social change. Besides being sources of irrigation water, the rivers are important as channels of
communication. The Euphrates, which is slower than the Tigris, and carries much less water as well, is
much more used for navigation than the latter. To a certain extent, the rivers serve to demarcate
Mesopotamia as a distinct regional unit as well. Thus the Euphrates, in the last third of its course, serves
to separate the more arid lands to the west from the more fertile lands to the east. The Tigris, on the
other hand, is much less effective as a frontier. To the north, the upper reaches of both the rivers
provide the access to the mountains, the source of a number of raw materials. Apart from the rivers
which serve to give Mesopotamia its distinctive character, the second major feature of the area is the
absence or paucity of natural resources. The local natural resources are confined to clay, reeds and
bitumen. Metallic ores, hard stones and timber are totally lacking in the alluvial lands, and while the
Mesopotamians showed considerable ingenuity in devising tools out of baked clay, the need to procure
basic raw materials was a pressing one. Thus a network of trade was established fairly early. (also refer
to the section on the economic bases of Mesopotamian society). Copper was obtained from Oman in
the Persian Gulf to the mouth and from central Anatolia to the north. Tin was probably obtained from
eastern Iraq, Syria, Asia Minor and possibly from Europe as well. Silver was obtained from Anatolia,
trans-Caucasia and northern Iran, while timber from the mountains to the north east as well as from
Lebanon and the Levant to the west, which were particularly known for cedar and cypress trees. Stone
was obtained from Oman, lapis-lazuli from Badakshan in the north of Afghanistan, mother of

pearl from the Persian Gulf and sankh-shells from peninsular India. It may be noted that not all the
goods mentioned were necessities – many were obviously luxuries. However it cannot be denied that
the need to procure basic necessities not available in the alluvial plain may have stimulated the growth
of trading routes. Long distance trade was to a considerable extent facilitated by the rise of
communication both through land and through land and through water routes of the relatively flat plain.
The major route for communication with the west was from Nineveh on the Tigris opposite Mosul,
across the northern steppe via Shubst-Enlil, Huzana and Harranu, crossing at Curchemish and going
through Aleppo to the Orontes, with branches to central Syria and the Mediterranean coast. The routes
branched off to Cilicia and Anatolia. It was also possible to cross the Taurus mountains by following the
Tigris to the source. The Zagros, running along the eastern margin of Mesopotamia were more
impenetrable, although it was crossed at three points for access to Iran and Afghanistan and a fourth
route led off to the south east. Finally, the Persian Gulf provided a water-way linking Mesopotamia to
both adjacent areas as well as to more distant lands such as India. The third major feature which must
be taken into consideration in analysis of the geographical background is the regional variations. It is
possible to distinguish two levels of variation, (a) microvariations, which are discussed below, and (b)
micro-level variations which occur within each of the major political units. Both these are important for
an understanding of the historical development that took place in Mesopotamia. North western
Mesopotamia, the area lying between the Euphrates and the Tigris is drained by the Balikh and the
Khabur, tributaries of the Euphrates. Over here, winter rains, along with the resources available from
the water-table, facilitate agricultural activities. Orchards predominate gradually merging into pastoral
steppe lands of northern Syria to the west. Further east, along the foothills of the Zagros, the area
drained by the Greater Zab, the Lesser Zab, the ’Adhem and the Diyala, receives fairly heavy rainfall
(between 12 and 25”). Here agriculture is possible without irrigation, especially in the river valleys. The
third major regional unit is the edin, or the strip of barren land between the Tigris and the Euphrates –
this is a fluctuating zone, varying in size according to the availability/scarcity of water, which is
dependent on flood and rainfall. What distinguishes this zone is the difficulty, if not the impossibility of
agriculture, as well as the presence of pastoralists. The fourth major division is that of the marshland to
the south, near the Persian Gulf. This is the area covered with swamps and reeds and is drained by a
number of tortuous channels. The waters are full of fish while the reed clumps shelter wild pigs and wild
fowl. Further wherever there is a patch of soil, date palms grow in abundance. Here agriculture is far less
important than fishing, while the date palm provides a rich annual harvest. Finally, as mentioned earlier,
a number of micro-level niches must be recognized within each of the major regions. In fact
Mesopotamia is regarded as a mosaic of marshland, desert, steppe and agricultural land, with sharp
annual fluctuations in the boundaries delineating these units. These fluctuations depend on the
availability of water in each particular year – thus an excessive flood or rainfall may convert an
agricultural area into a marshland, whereas a scarcity of rainfall could reduce the same area into a
desert or steppe land. It is possible that, the need to coordinate subsistence activities which had
adapted to each of these distinct niches, in the context of the ecological instability outlined above, may
have led to the emergence of an overarching authority, which could organize and coordinate these
diverse activities. It is thus possible to view the emergence of institutions such as the temple and the
palace within this context. Also, it may be possible to suggest that to some extent at least, the evolution
of socio-political institutions which characterized Mesopotamian society were related to the specificities
of Mesopotamian geography. Sources for the study of Mesopotamian history

The sources at our disposal for the study of Mesopotamian history can be divided into two broad
categories – textual and archaeological. In a sense archaeology has a bearing on textual sources as well,
as the texts available at present have been obtained through archaeological excavations. Inscriptions
are found on a wide range of objects. These include stone and clay tablets, bricks, stones, door-sockets,
bowls and vases, nails, cones and mortars, mace-heads, steles, plaques, statues of stone and metal.
Apart from inscriptions on such miscellaneous objects, there are, at a conservative estimate, over a
quarter million texts at the disposal of the historian. The language of these is either Sumerian or
Akkadian, while the script used is cuneiform. The texts deal with a variety of subjects. Thus some
contain details about kings and rulers, while there are also law codes and legal documents,
administrative texts, literary texts, including epics and religious literature such as prayers and
lamentations, and other sacred literature including dictionaries, commentaries and theological texts.
Many of these texts are deliberately copied and preserved in scribal schools, whereas others, such as
letters and records of day to day activities owe their survival to accident. According to Oppenheim
(1960) the cuneiform texts give us a very distorted picture of Mesopotamian civilization, as we have
abundant and detailed information about certain aspects, whereas our knowledge about major political
and cultural developments is very often incomplete. Most of the information available comes from
temple or palace archives. What we know is thus based on the survival of records maintained by elite
groups from their perspective. Thus our knowledge about the lower strata f society and about
institutions such as kinship is extremely limited. Further, immense accidental gaps in the chronological
and/or spatial sequence constitute a serious limitation of our textual material. Nevertheless, the
Mesopotamian civilization is probably more fully documented than any other early civilization. The
archaeological material available for the study of Mesopotamian civilization is also much more extensive
than that available for other early civilizations. Excavations started as early as 1843 and have continued
ever since. In the last 80 years, over 50 sites have been excavated, and over a hundred mounds have
been explored. Apart from this, surface surveys have been conducted, all of which have led to a clearer
understanding of the developmental sequence in Mesopotamia. As Adams observes (1966), the
historian of Mesopotamia can study an ample, diversified and complete archaeological record, and place
the stages of development in temples, palaces, city-walls, private houses and graves. According to
Oppenheim (1960) archaeological evidence is of crucial importance for an understanding of the period
preceding 2800 BC, after which written documents becomes much more important. It is thus apparent
that in terms of both textual and archaeological material, the student of Mesopotamian history is at an
advantage in comparison to students of other early civilizations. Chronology The bronze age in
Mesopotamia begins with the phase known as the Jemdet Nasr (3100-2900 BC), named after the site
where the material remains of this phase were first identified. However, the Jemdet Nasr phase, also
known as the Late Proto-Literate Period was the culmination of a number of developments which can be
related to the preceding phases. The earliest archaeological remains found in the northern
Mesopotamian plain are attributed to the Hassuna culture. The Hassuna culture, as well as the
succeeding phases such as the Samarra and the Halaf, were based on Neolithic agriculture. More
important in terms of subsequent development were the growth of settled life in southern
Mesopotamia. The earliest archaeological remains belong to the culture known as Eridu, named after
the site where it was first identified. (Interestingly enough, Sumerian literary tradition recognizes Eridu
as the first city which existed before the mythical flood, which allegedly brought the first phase of
Sumerian history to an end). A remarkable continuity and development can be traced from the Eridu,
through the Haji Muhammad, to the ’Ubaid phases in southern Mesopotamia. Perhaps the most
significant feature is the continuous development noticeable in temple architecture from the earliest
period to the latest, with the temple growing more elaborate through succeeding phases.

The succeeding stage, Uruk, marks the transition to the Proto-Literate period. The temple continues to
develop, and towards the end of this phase, we find the use of a pictographic script for the first time in
the temple records of E-Anna in Uruk. The next phase Jemdet-Nasr, was a stage which reveals a
remarkable degree of continuity with the preceding period in terms of material culture. Further, the
script shows a tendency to evolve from the pictographic stage. From 2800 BC with the beginning of the
Early Dynastic period, we can trace the beginning of the historical period. The political history of
Mesopotamia which now serves to delineate chronological divisions, is characterized by the emergence
of independent city-states in the first phase (2800-2400 BC). This was followed (circa 2370 BC) by the
unification of Mesopotamia under the Akkadian rulers. The Akkadians ruled for a century and a half. It
was followed by a phase of instability, which was brought to an end by the rulers of the Third Dynasty of
Ur (circa 2113 BC). The end of the dynasty (c. 2000 BC) was followed by another period of political
instability, which was terminated by the rulers of Babylon. Ultimately, the Mesopotamians succumbed
to invasions by groups such as the Hittites and others. The Bases of Mesopotamian Society During the
period under consideration the subsistence needs of Mesopotamian society were met by a combination
of cereal cultivation and pastoralism. The organization of craft production, as well as the existence of
long distance trading networks were also salient features of Mesopotamian economy. We will examine
the nature of each of these activities and trace the links between them and the emergence of social
stratification. AGRICULTURE Agriculture by its very nature involves the long-term investment of labour.
First, cultivators are required to make collective and individual efforts to clear the land. Further, as
mentioned earlier digging and maintenance of canals for irrigation was a basic pre-condition for
agriculture in the Mesopotamian plain. Apart from the investment of labour, the fact that crops sown
mature over a period of time ties the cultivators to the soil. The amount of labour required in plough
cultivation is much more than that invested in hoe cultivation – hence the stake in maintaining
continued occupancy of the land is greater. In Mesopotamia another factor which tended to tie people
to the soil was the importance of fruit trees particularly date-palm. These when cultivated in orchards
demand a much higher degree of fixity of occupation. It is thus obvious that agriculture involves a
greater degree of permanence of settlement. A second feature of agricultural production is the relatively
greater storeability of agricultural produce particularly cereals. In comparison to the produce obtained
through hunting and gathering. This has important implications, as agricultural produce can be
converted into a ‘surplus’ much more easily i.e., it can be stored instead being used for immediate
consumption, and hence used for future investment. Further on account of its imperishable nature this
surplus can be used to sustain non-agricultural populations. A third feature associated with agriculture
is that labour requirements are by no means uniform throughout the year while the total labour
required may be much more than in hunting gathering societies. Activities in the field are usually
confined to certain periods of the year. Thus periods of relative inactivity are also created and this
allows for the possibility for channelising labour during such periods to other activities. Thus the control
and the manipulation of labour for a variety of purposes is possible. Finally settled agriculture is
accompanied by a tendency for population increase. This may be due to the fact that food supplies are
secure, hence it is relatively easier to sustain children. Further children can be put to work much earlier
in agrarian societies – hence they are less of a liability, and may be positively desired. The implication of
each of these features for the emergence of complex is difficult to assess. It would probably not be
wrong to say that plough agriculture was a necessary though by no means sufficient condition for the
emergence of civilization. Further the generation of an agricultural surplus was by no means an
autonomous activity – it was closely related to the emergence of social stratification, specialisation and
complexity.

One of the features of Mesopotamian civilization, which has been considered to be of crucial
significance for developments in other fields, is the use of irrigation. We have archeological evidence
testifying to the use of irrigation for agriculture as early as the ’Ubaid period. The ’Ubaid levels at Ur
have yielded remains of barley, wheat and flax and the size of the specimens of linseed discovered
indicate that these plants could only have been products of irrigation. (Mallowan, 1971) The
implications of the use of irrigation are far reaching. Thus it is possible to support one person in a given
area through hunting and gathering, ten people may be supported in the same area through dry farming
and as many as 60 people through irrigation agriculture. This is because crop production is much more
secure and the yield per unit area increases. Irrigation works moreover represent investment of labour
and very often result in improvement for the lands favourably located from the point of view of water
resources. This tends to distort the uniform nature of the primary productive resource: land, and hence
access to the better placed lands becomes a crucial issue. Conflicts over the control of such land are
likely and this may lead to the emergence of a stratified society. It has also been suggested that the
need to organize, maintain and control irrigation networks may have led to the emergence of the state.
However, Adams’ (1966) detailed study of the Mesopotamian situation has revealed that while irrigation
was crucial to Mesopotamian agriculture, its use did not necessarily imply elaborate organizational
machinery. Irrigation involves little alteration of the natural hydraulic regime and required the
construction of only small scale field and feeder canals. The organization required for the purpose need
not have been higher than that of the village community. It is only towards the end of the third
millennium BC during the rule of the Third Dynasty of Ur that we find references to state built canals.
These were used more as means of communication than as irrigation channels. Thus, while the use of
irrigation may have increased socio-economic disparities, there is no evidence to suggest that there is a
direct link between the control of irrigation networks and the exercise of political power. The allocation
of river water was in the hands of temple officials rather than royally appointed overseers and as early
as the ED Period, the necessary labour force for the maintenance work was also organized by individual
temples. We will now turn to the question of control over land resources. Our source for the study of
land ownership consists of records maintained by larger estates, both religious and secular, and records
of the sale and purchase of land. These records are by o means complete and there are obvious hazards
in making a general statement on the basis of information which is of specific value only. Bearing this
limitation in mind it is nonetheless possible to discern (a) a variety of landownership systems and (b) a
change in the landownership pattern during the period under review. One of the largest landowning
institutions during the period under review was the temple. Theoretically, each city-state was regarded
as the estate of the chief god or goddess of the city, with the rulers and priests acting as servants of the
divine owner. This has led scholars such as Falkenstein (1953) to postulate that, originally, the temple
was the sole owner of the land. However their view does not seem to be justified as detailed studies of
archival material reveal a more complex picture. A study of the records from Lagash indicates (Diakonoff
1959) that the Baba temples of Lagash owned approximately 66 sq. km of land. As this was the second
largest temple in the city, and as there were approximately 20 temples in Lagash, it is probable that the
land controlled by all the temples together would be between 200 and 300 sq. km. A text from the
Akkadian period suggests that the area of the state of Lagash was 1339 sq. km. Thus it is likely that in the
ED period (from which the temple records date) the area of the state was even larger. In any case it is
apparent that while the temple was a large landholder, temple lands did not constitute the entire
territory of Lagash. Some land appears to have been held by large patriarchal committees. The only
details that can be gathered about this form of land-ownership are from sales documents. Thus it is
recorded that on one occasion, 600 men were feasted for two days in connection with a land purchase
transaction. This would certainly suggest the existence of some kind of community rights in land, which
were surrendered through this elaborate sale procedure. Individual landowners constituted a third
category of landowners. They owned small plots of land. Once again our information is limited to the
sale and purchase of those plots.

Finally, from the ED period onwards, it is possible to observe the growth of large secular estates. These
estates were probably owned by hereditary nobility, who tried to extend their control of land resources
through purchase. According to Diakonoff (1959), this landed nobility was destroyed by the Akkadians,
and the kings of Third Dynasty of Ur created a bureaucratic nobility instead. This new nobility never
acquired such vast possessions. The fragmentary evidence discussed above seems to indicate a gradual
decline in the importance of the temple as a landowning institution, the breakdown of communal
landownership patterns, and the emergence of a class of secular landowners, initially controlling large
estates, and gradually reduced to small scale private landownership. The links between shifting
landownership patterns and socio-political changes will be examined in the next section. The evidence
for the organization of agricultural production suffers from the same limitations that hamper the study
of landownership. The fullest records come from the temples and to a certain extent from the larger
secular estates – the organization of production in the smaller holdings remains virtually undocumented.
The records from the Baba temple at Lagash indicate that the temple lands were divided into three
categories. The first category consisted of land cultivated on behalf of the temple, by workers known as
the shub-lugals. The entire produce from this category was appropriated by the temple authorities. The
second category consisted of plots of land assigned to temple personnel and to the shub-lugals in lieu of
services rendered. In some cases, the land assigned to the temple personnel was also cultivated by the
shub-lugals. Thus the land assigned to the ruler of Lagash and his wife for their functions as servants of
the goddess, were cultivated by the shub-lugals. The third category, comprising possibly half the temple
lands, was rented out on share crop basis. The plots assigned to the shub-lugals appear to have been
inadequate for subsistence purposes. They also received subsistence rations for four months in the year
in return for their labour services. All three categories of land were supplied with seeds, draught
animals, equipment and specialized personnel by the temple authorities. It is significant that the sign
which refers to the ploughing official may be recognized in the temple accounts of the Protoliterate
period. This would suggest that the centralization of agricultural production was as old as our earliest
written evidence. The produce obtained was stored in the temple for redistribution. Thus we have a
reference to 30 storerooms attached to the temple, one of which contained 9450 tons of barley.
Production in the larger secular estates was probably organized on similar lines. Thus, we have
references to estates employing several hundred dependent agricultural workers and their families. A
major change which accompanied the introduction and spread of plough agriculture was the relative
decline in women’s participation in agricultural activities. There is ample evidence to indicate that the
invention of agriculture, or more accurately horticulture, in the preceding Neolithic phase, was the work
of women, who had acquired the necessary skills through their activities as gatherers of fruits, root and
grain. During the Neolithic phase, women were not only responsible for the bulk of agricultural
production, but more significantly controlled this production as well. There is evidence to suggest that
with the introduction of the plough and the relative intensification of agricultural production women
spend more time in agricultural operations than they do under the horticultural system, but their
contribution in terms of the total labour involved declines. A number of explanations have been
suggested for this. These include arguments based on the alleged physical inferiority of women, who it is
believed, lack the physical strength to handle the plough, to others which focus on the relatively greater
burden of housework in sedentary societies. The argument in this case is that owing to the sexual
division of labour, housework is by definition women’s work – hence, when the burden increases,
women have less scope for participating in productive activities. The increase in housework may be due
to a variety of reasons. First, cereal grains require much greater inputs of labour to convert them into
edible or storable forms. Secondly, the sedentarisation implicit in intensive agriculture would also
probably lead to an elaboration of household activities. Thirdly, the population increase associated with
agricultural intensification would have also increased the burden on women,

10

saddled with the double load of child bearing and child rearing, owing to the prevalent sexual division of
labour (Esber 1983). Other arguments try to explain the relative decline in the contribution of women in
agriculture in terms of an increase in the contribution of men. This has been viewed partly as an
outcome of the alleged ability of men to handle the plough and domesticate animals better than
women. Secondly it has been suggested that as hunting declined in importance, men needed to turn to
alternative occupations, and as horticulture or agriculture appeared to be both stable and successful a
subsistence alternatives, they attempted to master it. In a situation where women were overburdened
with work, they were probably not in a position to resist this takeover (Stanley 1981). Most of the
arguments advanced to explain the change in control of agricultural production are speculative.
Nevertheless, this shift in control has been linked to a decline discernible in women’s status in political,
social and economic terms. Further it is likely that this social stratification of society along gender lines
may be of crucial importance for an understanding of other forms of social stratification which emerged.
However, further intensive studies are necessary where the actual nature of the links can be discerned
more clearly. The links between Mesopotamian agriculture and other forms of social stratification have
been studied more systematically. According to Adams (1966), the prices at which land was sold were
generally low, very often the equivalent of the value of crops which could be harvested in two or three
years’ time. Nevertheless certain variations were noticeable in the price of land and would also indicate
the importance of access to strategic plots. However as Adams (ibid) observes, there is little or no
evidence of intra community competition over scarce land and water resources. Nevertheless, wide
variations in the size of the holdings and changes discernible in the landownership patterns referred to
here may have perpetuated and intensified the process of social stratification. Further there is evidence
for inter city conflicts over access to water and land, the most classic being the warfare between Lagash
and Umma during the Early Dynastic period. Such conflicts may have contributed to the rise of groups or
individuals to positions of political or military importance in their respective communities.
PASTORALISM Pastoralism was a subsistence activity of considerable importance in Mesopotamia. It has
also been considered to be one of the disequilibrating factors in Mesopotamian history. The animals
herded included sheep, goats and cattle. Two salient features of Mesopotamian pastoralism were (a) the
existence of fully specialized groups involved in full-time pastoralism, and (b) symbiotic relationship
between sedentary agriculturists and nomadic pastoralists. According to Lees and Bates (1974), the
emergence of full time pastoralists is closely related to the emergence of irrigation agriculture. With the
help of irrigation, agriculture is possible in drier areas. However, the summer grazing of animals is
extremely difficult in these areas. As noted earlier, the mobility of cultivators is reduced if irrigation is
used; hence it is no longer possible for the same unit to undertake cultivation and to look after
domesticated animals as well. As a result, there is a tendency towards a specialized division of labour –
with separate groups undertaking separate activities. While exclusive social groups undertook
agricultural and pastoral activities both were dependent on one another. First, the geographical features
of Mesopotamia made a certain amount of interaction inevitable. In the steppes, water and fodder are
lacking in the dry summer and then sheep have to be brought into the sedentary zone or to its fringes in
the mountains, the lack of pasture and stabling make it necessary to move sheep down to the fringes of
the alluvial plain during winter. Thus the sedentary and the nomadic groups were brought into close
proximity. Further, pastoralism was important for food producers as it provided an alternative source of
energy and reduced to some extent the effects of environmental unpredictability. Finally, pastoralism
was extremely important in the Mesopotamian context as it provided the much needed wool, which was
one of the few raw materials available and was frequently used as an article in trade, being exchanged
for valuable metals. However, despite the fact that they wore thus part of the exchange network,
pastoralists occasionally disrupted communication along trade routes, as interaction between sedentary
population and pastoralists was not necessarily peaceful.

11

We know much less about the organization of pastoralism than we do about agricultural production. We
have records of herds owned by temple and the palace. Further there is evidence to suggest that
continuous pressure was exerted by nomadic groups on the sedentary population, especially in outlying
areas such as Mari. It is likely that the continuous peaceful influx of pastoralists into sedentary society at
various levels may have exerted a continuous disequilibrating pressure on Mesopotamian society.
Further, pastoralists occasionally invaded the country, the most notable of such invasions being the
Gutian invasion (c. 2250 BC), which coincided with the end of the Akkadian empire. Such invasions
disrupted settled life, if only temporarily. Finally, mention should also be made of fishing and
maintenance of orchards as subsistence activities. Once again, most of the evidence we possess on the
organization is derived from temple archives, which suggest a high degree of specialization. CRAFT
PRODUCTION Our earliest evidence in this sphere is from temples, which organized craft production in
their own workshops. Thus carpentry metallurgy and weaving were organized by the temples. The
temples provided craftspersons with the necessary raw materials, and redistributed the finished
product. The workers thus employed, generally known as gurush, were maintained through the ration
system. The gurush could be employed for both agricultural works as well as for craft production and
may be grouped into two broad categories – (a) those receiving rations throughout the year and (b)
those employed temporarily. The evidence from the E Anna temple at Uruk would indicate the temple
provided daily rations of bread and beer to 50 people as early as the Protoliterate period. However
according to Gelb (1965), the best documentation for the ration system comes from the second half of
the third millennium B.C. Three items generally included in the rations were barley, oil and wool. While
barley was issued once a month, oil and wool were probably issued once a year. Other articles
occasionally distributed included meat, milk, cheese, butter, onions, legumes, dates and other fruits,
beer and wine. The amount of the ration varied according to their age, sex, and status of the recipient,
as well as according to the type of work performed. In general, men received larger quantities than
women, while both received more than children. There is evidence to suggest that the gurush were also
employed by kings and private individuals. Apart from the gurush, slaves were occasionally employed in
craft production. While they were much fewer in number than the gurush, their role in craft production
was important (Adams 1966). Thus, the archives of the Baba temple at Lagash refer to a total of 1200
temple personnel, during the Early Dynastic period, of whom between 200 to 300 were slaves, most of
whom were women (geme), engaged in weaving. The rest of the women were engaged in activities such
as milling, brewing etc. Male slaves (arad) were also known and were used for gardening. Thus slaves,
though a relatively small group, were concentrated in strategic sectors of the economy. The
manufacture of wool and thread, which was of crucial importance for Mesopotamian trade, was thus
organized on the basis of slave labour. The organization of craft production appears to have undergone
certain changes during the period under consideration. According to Gelb, growing urbanization brought
about an increase in craft production and in the number of artisans who were free to work fr wages.
Secondly, the redistribution of land as a result of the Amorite invasion (2000 BC) created a new class of
small peasants who paid taxes and service to the palace. While in the preceding period the major
productive forces were concentrated and controlled by the state, temples and large landholders, by the
Old Babylonian Period, the major production seems to have been achieved by small landholders and
artisans. It is interesting to note the words for wages and hired people occur rarely in the earlier period,
but are used oftener during the period of the Third Dynasty of Ur. Significantly, the wages received by
workers add upto much more than the standard rations. Unfortunately, it is difficult to delineate the
processes underlying this crucial change. TRADE In a previous section (on Geographical background) we
had seen the paucity of raw materials in the Mesopotamian plains. The need to evolve a mechanism for
obtaining raw materials such as metals,
12

and wood was felt fairly early, and owing to the existence of fairly easy lines of communications, and to
the fact that adjoining areas were rich in many of the materials required, a network of exchange appears
to have developed during the period under consideration. The sources for information on trade are
both archaeological and textual. The archaeological evidence suffers from certain limitations as only
perishable objects survive, and perishable gods, which may have formed an important part of the
exchange, do not leave behind any trace. The textual evidence on trade, as on other matters, suffers
from the fact that it is extremely specific. Long-distance trade in Mesopotamia was of two kinds; the
first involved the export of manufactured goods such as textiles, from Mesopotamia and the import of
metal, stone, timber and spices. In the second category of trade, Mesopotamian traders played the role
of middlemen, and carried goods from one foreign city to another or from one neighbouring tribe to
another. The period when long-distance trade assumed maximum importance was between c. 2500 BC
and c. 1800 B.C (Dales, 1971). This trade reached its peak during the time of Sargon of Akkad. The
organization of trade appears to have undergone changes during the period under review. The evidence
from the Royal Cemetery at Ur would indicate that rulers attempted to control much of the wealth
gathered through long distance trade networks. Thus enormous quantities of lapis lazuli have been
discovered from this grave, dateable to the Early Dynastic III period. The texts of Ur Nansha of Lagash,
dateable to the same period, refer to the ships of Dilmun which brought wood as a tribute from far
lands. It is quite likely that trade may have been disguised as tribute to exaggerate the importance of the
ruler. Similarly, Sargon (c. 2350 BC), refers in his inscriptions to receiving gifts and tributes from the four
corners of the realm. He also refers to ships from Dilmun, Magan and Meluhha, which were docked at
his quay. Dilmun is correctly identified as with Bahrein, while Magan and Meluhha were probably
outposts of the Harappan civilization. In a later context (Third Dynasty of Ur) we are informed that the
imports from Dilmun, Magan and Meluhha included oils, essences, carnelian beats, tortoise shell, sea-
shells, Magan and Dilmun “onions”, multi-coloured birds from Meluhha (peacocks?), wood for making
furniture – i.e. raw materials for building, metals, jewellery, cosmetics, exotics and food staples. Exports
included raw wool, finished fabrics, garments, skins, hides, leather, barley, flour and cedar wood. The
temple appears to have participated in trade along with the palace. Thus, records from the temple of
Eanna at Ur indicate that merchants were given garments, wool and perfumed oil and leather goods and
brought lapis lazuli, “fish eyes” (probably pearls), stones, copper and bronze ingots, gold, silver,
antimony, ivory and wood in turn. Such merchants probably acted as agents of the temple rather than
as independent traders. Interestingly Enlil, the supreme god of Nippur is known as the trader of the vast
earth, and his wife is known as the merchant of the earth. From the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur
onwards there is evidence indicating the growth of commercial activity by individuals as opposed to
state activity. During the Old Babylonian period we come across a number of texts which reflect a
variety of partnership terms and conditions. This would reflect the complexity of trade. Simultaneously,
we find the beginning of the use of silver as money – as a unit of exchange, as a unit of account and as a
standard of value. While it is difficult to asses the volume of trade during this period, contact with
Magan and Meluhha are no longer referred to, while Dilmun appears to have increased in importance.
The implications of the development of long-distance trade were far reaching. It is likely that the
exigencies of trade and the need to produce manufactured goods in order to obtain foreign raw
materials stimulated the organization of craft production referred to earlier. Secondly, it is likely that
control over the exchange network reinforced social stratification within the community. The resources
required for trade could be most easily mobilized by institutions such as the palace and the temple, and
at the same time, control over both the necessities and luxuries obtained through long-distance trade,
reinforced the concentration of wealth in a few hands. Thirdly, the need to obtain access to raw
materials was a contributory factor in the inter-state rivalries, as rulers tried to control trade routes as
far as possible. We will examine the implications of militarism for social stratification in the next section.

13

In concluding this section we may note that despite the fragmentary nature of the evidence, it is
possible to postulate certain changes in the organization of both agricultural and craft production, and in
the organization of long-distance trade. What seems evident in all three areas is that there was a
gradual decline in the importance of the temple and the palace, which was accompanied by the
emergence of a class of small independent peasants, artisans and merchants.

Social Institutions The major feature which characterized society in the period under consideration was
the emergence of social differentiation. As Adams observes, we can trace the emergence of a fully
developed class society by no later than the end of the Early Dynastic period. The chronological evidence
of grave goods bears testimony to the process. There is no significant difference in the wealth associated
with individual graves in the ’Ubaid period. Greater differentiation appears during the Uruk and Jamdat
Nasr periods, and, by the late Early Dynastic Period, the evidence becomes fuller and less ambiguous.
However, there is sharp distinction between the rulers on the one hand and the impoverished people on
the other, but rather a gradual decline in the amount of wealth and hence probably in social status.
During this period, the contrast in wealth is not only discernible within settlements but between
settlements as well. Thus while this period produced the famous Royal Cemetery at Ur, the graves in the
neighbouring settlement of al ’Ubaid was poorly furnished. This would suggest that it was probably a
rural dependency of the major urban centre. House plans also reflect similar trends. Thus at Eshnunna
larger houses were located on the main streets, while smaller ones were situated along inside lanes. The
associated small finds from those houses also indicated that greater wealth was associated with the
larger houses. According to Diakonoff (1959), a four fold division may be recognized within
Mesopotamian society. The first group included the hereditary nobility who owned large landed estates
as well as the rulers and priests gradually extended their control over temple lands. As noted in the
section on agriculture, the composition of this group was liable to change in keeping with the changes in
landownership which accompanied social and political changes. The second group consisted of members
of village communities, generally patriarchal, who owned land jointly. The changes this group
underwent as landownership became more individual in character has also been referred to earlier. The
third group consisted of the clients of the temple and the deity. This was not a homogenous group, as it
included the well-to-do dependents of the temple such as officals as well as the great majority of the
temple personnel and the dependents of the nobility, who were involved in both agricultural and craft
production (the gurush and the shub lugal). The last category consisted of slaves. They could be
recruited through a number of processes – through capture in raids or warfare, through trade, or as a
result of inability to pay a debt. A bankrupt man could be enslaved for debt, or as was more common, he
could sell his wife, son or daughter into slavery. According to Hammurabi’s code, such slaves were to be
set free after three years. It was thus apparent that an individual was often reduced to slavery through
accident, and, as the condition was by no means permanent, the slave was potentially a free person
(Woolley 1964). Slaves were generally owned by temples and palaces and were occasionally employed
on the larger landed estates as well. They were occasionally used for agricultural and craft production
(see previous section). In no instance do they appear as the dominant labour force. Apart from the
social division thus outlined, kin groupings were extremely important. These units organized in lineages
or clans are referred to throughout the period under review. “They survived the superimposition of new
political relationships for a considerable time, retaining the loyalties and the forms of internal
organization were rooted in kin relationships, while adapting to the needs of the state through the
elaboration of a new series of specialized functions (Adams 1966). Thus, they served as units for military
training and service, providing a framework for the acquisition and employment of skills and served as
units for corvee labour.

14

It is quite likely that the kinship structure underwent changes. However these have not been adequately
studied, and hence it is only possible to speculate about this major aspect of Mesopotamian society.
URBAN CENTRES A distinguishing feature of Mesopotamian civilization is that what we have here is not
a single city or a number of isolated cities, but an agglomeration of cities (Oppenheim 1968). As Kramer
observes (1963), Sumerian civilization was urban in character though it rested on agriculture rather than
on industrial basis. The city-state was the basic socio-political feature of Mesopotamia. The major urban
centres were Uruk, Ur, Lagash, Umma, Eridu, Larsa etc. in southern Mesopotamia and Kish, Aksak and
Sippar in northern Mesopotamia. The archaeological evidence from Mesopotamian cities would suggest
that towns developed through the growth of settlements which began as villages. There is little or no
evidence of town planning. The evidence from Ur is probably typical (Woolley 1964). The remains
preserved there are from the Isin Larsa phase (c. 1700 BC). Ur consisted of three parts: the temenos or
sacred area, the old walled city, and the outer town. The Euphrates ran along the western side of the
walled city and a canal was constructed along the eastern side. The city was surrounded by a rampart of
mud brick, some 25 ft. high. The temenos was situated in the north western quarter of the city and
included the palace of the Nanna, the Moon-god, who was theoretically the owner of the city state. It
was a rectangular enclosure, measuring 270 yards by ……..on a raised terrace, and surrounded by a wall.
The ziggurat, a tower which characterized the Mesopotamian temple was situated in the western corner
of the complex and rose to a height of 69 feet. In front was a courtyard surrounded by storerooms and
offices. The palace lay outside the temenos. Other houses were built along a common plan of a series of
rooms around a central courtyard. However, restrictions are noticeable in house sizes, and these may be
linked to variations in the socio-economic status of status of occupants. Estimates about the population
density in Mesopotamian cities are varied. Thus, according to Adams the population of Jamdat Nasr
during the Protoliterate period may have been around 2800, on the basis of an estimated 160 people
per acre. During the same period Kish measured 700 acres, Khafajeh 100 acres, Adab 20 acres, Uruk
1100 acres. According to Adams it is unlikely that any of those sites was built up continuously but Kish
and Uruk have had between 20 to 30,000 inhabitants. According to Woolley, Ur was probably much
more densely built up, with a population density of 250 per acre, and a total population of around
360,000. Socially the urban elite was a small group, consisting primarily of administrators, priests,
scribes and perhaps crafts specialists. For the rest of the population, both urban and rural, urbanism was
one of a number of possible alternative ways of life. There were constant fluctuations in the urban
population, especially in times of economic difficulties. Thus debtors or those unable to pay taxes and
rents, would migrate from the town to the countryside and vice versa, while the nomadic pastoral
groups were a further destabilizing factor. The two urban institutions which appear to have been closely
associated with the process of social differentiation were the temple and the palace. We will examine
the nature of these institutions in greater detail. TEMPLE The role of the temple in the organization of
subsistence activities, craft production and exchange has been noted earlier (section on economic bases
of Mesopotamian society). It was believed that the city belonged to its chief god or goddess – thus
according to Mesopotamian beliefs, the temple was inextricably linked to the emergence of society, and
in all probability, it formed the nucleus of the city state. The archaeological record reveals the continuity
and development of the temple as an institution from pre-historic to historic times. Thus, at Eridu, the
development of the temple has been traced through the levels of archaeological record. Of these, the
lowest archaeological levels have been assigned to the Ubaid period (Mallowan), while the ones above
(levels 5 to 1) have been assigned to the Uruk and Jamdat Nasr phases. The temple appears to have
grown progressively larger and more complex with the

15

passage of time, and by the 11th level, it seems to have assumed the standard tripartite structure which
was to characterize Sumerian temple architecture. It now consisted of a rectangular central shrine, with
rows of rooms for priests on either side. There was a niche for the god’s statue at one end of the room,
in front of which the offering table was placed. The ziggurat, which is the most conspicuous feature of
Sumerian architecture, gained prominence much later, most notably during the period of the Third
Dynasty of Ur. It was a huge tower built of mud brick and baked brick. Steps led to the top, and the
entire structure towered over the city and the neighbouring countryside. The tower was surrounded by
a courtyard, around which were rooms used as stores and shops. Various explanations have been
offered for the construction of the ziggurat. It has been thought to bring the worshipper nearer to
heaven and to separate the priests from the ordinary people. Apart from everything else, the
construction of the ziggurat involved mobilization of labour on a large scale. Thus according to
Falkenstein (1953), the construction of the Ziggurat A at Uruk would have required as many as 1500
people working for five years. It is significant that the construction of ziggurats was undertaken on a
large scale during the period of the Third Dynasty of Ur, when the state and not the temple was the
dominant institution. Thus, Ur-Nammu, the ruler of the Third Dynasty of Ur, was associated with the
building of ziggurats at Ur, Eridu, Nippur and a number of other cities. It is possible that the secular
authority sought to buttress its position by buttressing the temple. The temple appears to have assumed
central importance in the socio-economic life of the community towards the end of the Protoliterate
period. According to Falkenstein (1953), this dominance comes to an end with the establishment of the
Akkadian empire. The exact point at which the temple authorities assumed the character of a full-time
staff is not known, as the development appears to have been steady but gradual, without sharp breaks.
The priests were possibly the first social group to emerge claiming high social status on the basis of the
leadership they offered in ritual terms. They appeared to be in a position to manipulate divine favour
through their ritual activities and probably came to exercise control over the actual processes of
production as well. As noted earlier, subsistence activities in Mesopotamia were organized in specialized
niches, hence the need was probably felt for an over-arching authority which could organize and
coordinate these diverse activities. Thus it provided the framework within which full-time specialists
could function. According to Adams (1966) the reason why religion was the focus of social life at the
outset of the urban revolution was the prevalent ecological instability. Droughts, floods, and famine
plagued both agriculturists and pastoralists. Hence, the earliest conceptions of the deity to crystallize
were those associated with the assurance of fertility and the annual regeneration of crops and livestock
(ibid). The temple administration was supervised by a priest or sanga, and was assisted by scribes and
officials. The temple derived its income from agriculturists, fisherfolk and pastoralists, engaged in
subsistence activities organized by the temple, from the goods manufactured in its workshops, and from
tributes and gifts which were not always voluntary. The income thus derived was partly redistributed in
the form of rations, partly used for obtaining metals such as copper, gold, silver and tin and other
articles such as semi-precious stones, timber and spices through long-distance exchange networks, while
the rest accumulated in the hands of the temple officials. Thus, the temple, in playing a crucial role in
the organization of production, may at the same time, have enhanced or strengthened tendencies
towards social differentiation in the process. Finally, it must be noted that the temple was closely
associated with certain features characteristic of the urban revolution, most notably the development of
monumental architecture and the evolution of writing. Some of the earliest tables inscribed with a
pictographic script have been found from the Uruk levels at the Inanna temple at Uruk. The temple also
functioned as an innovative centre for arts and crafts such as metallurgy, stone sculpture and carpentry.
PALACE If the temple displayed a crucial ole during the initial phases as urban institutions and social
differentiation emerged, the state played an equally important role in perpetuating and intensifying
these

16

trends. According to Adams (1966), state societies are hierarchically organized along political and
territorial lines rather than on lines of kinship or ascriptive relationships. The order thus established is
maintained ultimately through the monopolization of use of force by the state, which thus represents a
qualitatively complex mode of social integration, in comparison to earlier institutions. The state which
emerged in Mesopotamia was monarchical. Kingship appears to have evolved out of institutions which
were probably democratic in nature. Jacobsen (1957) postulates the existence of primitive democracy
during the proto-literate period, in the form of an assembly. Its two major functions were to pool
together all the resources of the community and to ensure that there was agreement and concerted
action. It also acted as a court of law when necessary. The assembly generally chose two leaders, the En
who was appointed to resolve internal administrative crises and the Lugal, who had to protect the
community in the event of warfare. The proceedings of the assembly were directed by a leader and its
verdict, shown in the law, was declared by a group of seven gods. Particular weight was given to the
opinion of elders in the assembly. However, to be valid, decisions had to be arrived at unanimously. This
could be feasible only as long as the community was relatively undifferentiated socially, limited
numerically and confined to a small area. Secondly, appointed officials, once they were in power, were
often reluctant to relinquish it, even when the crisis for which they were appointed was removed. Thus,
the Ninurta myth describes how the young King Ninurta continued to exercise authority even in peace
time. He led raids across the border, acted as a judge, and waged battles to maintain his position against
challenges to his authority posed by the elected leader. The inability of the assembly to deal with
increasingly complex social situations, as well as the tendency of the appointed rulers to usurp more and
more authority may have led to the emergence of monarchies during the Early Dynastic period.
References to the assembly continue through later periods. In epic literature which relates to the Early
Dynastic period, it is depicted as an instrument for organizing and declaring rebellions against rulers.
References to the council of elders and the popular assembly continued down to the time of
Hammurabi. However at that time it was little more than an organ of local administration. Despite its
decline in importance the assembly appears to have been present and remained somewhat significant
during the ED period – sources indicate its presence and control at Nippur, and the presence of the
divine assembly in Sumerian mythology also point to its significance. During the ED period, we find the
use of 3 terms to signify rulership. These were ‘en’, ‘ensi’ and ‘lugal’. The word ‘en’ had either political or
religious implications. Apart from organizing the internal administration of the city, the en played a
crucial role in the sacred marriage ritual. According to Jacobsen, the en was expected to possess
organizing ability as well as an ability to make things thrive. The legendary ruler Gilgamesh was the en of
Uruk. The ensi was probably an official in-charge of supervision of agricultural production in the temple
lands. It was a position of economic importance. According to Jacobsen, the ensi was probably the ruler
of a single city with its adjoining lands and villages, as opposed to the en and lugal, who probably ruled
over the entire region. The term lugal was the only one indicative of rulership which had purely secular
connotations. The lugal was originally appointed to direct inter-community warfare, and was chosen for
his skill and physical endurance. The word occurs for the first time in the ED I period. The earliest ruler
to have borne the title of lugal was possibly Enmebaragezi of Kish. During subsequent periods, his claims
to control Kish were symbolic of attempts to exert control over more than one city state by use of force.
It is also significant that the term lugal was the only one available in Sumerian to express a master’s
complete control over his slave, or an owner’s over his house. Gradually the king built up his household
of retainers and servants who owed loyalty to him alone – thus the basis of power shifted from the
popular support which had been important earlier. This was accompanied by the gradual conversion of
the lugal’s household troops from a band of raiders into a regular standing army. The shub-lugals, who
formed the core of the army were bound to the lugal in a patron client relationship (Adams, 1966). The
association of the lugal with warfare is significant. In fact, inter-community warfare was one of the
major features of ED period, the constant warfare between Lagash and Umma being a case in

17

point. Warfare was ostensibly waged in accordance with divine summons but was in reality linked to
conflict over the control over land and water resources, as well as for control over long distance trade.
The constant threat of warfare is reflected in the construction of city walls. The first widespread
occurrence of city walls is dateable archaeologically to the ED II period. The wall at Uruk which according
to legend was constructed during the rule of Gilgamesh was 9.5 km long and included over 900 towers.
It is obvious that the construction of walls on such a scale involved a mobilization of labour and “no
community would have accepted the enormous burden of constructing such walls were the need for
them not both patent and pressing (Jacobsen 1957). It is likely that constant warfare contributed to the
internal instability of the states involved. Thus, when Entemna, the ruler of Lagash, established his
control over Kish, this was followed by a period of upheaval in Lagash itself, which is probably reflected
in the need for reforms under his successor Urukagina. As Adams (1966) observes, successful warfare
brought political prestige, but it intensified the stratification within the community, as the prestige and
the newly acquired wealth was not evenly distributed. Warleaders tended to reward their successors
and kinsfolk alone, thus exacerbating social disparities. Further the wealth acquired through warfare
was probably not subject to the kinds of kin and community rights which were not associated with other
forms of property. Hence it is much more likely that the war leader would exercise unqualified rights
over this source of wealth to enhance his position. It is thus obvious that for an understanding of the
processes leading to social stratification in Mesopotamia. It is necessary to study both inter-community
and intra-community conflicts. The effects of prolonged militarism may be traced in the transformations
which certain deities underwent. Thus Enlil, who began as the farmer and the lord of the plough, was
gradually transformed into “the lord of all lands” or “He who broke the enemy land as a single reed.”
Apart from the king’s claim to power as a successful leader in warfare, there is evidence to suggest that
the palace organized protection along lines very similar to those evolved by the temple. The word for
palace é-gal occurs for the first time in the texts of the ED I period, while the archaeological evidence for
the occurrence of palaces is from the ED II period levels from Kish and Eridu. Texts from Ur, dateable to
the ED I period, refer to palace gatekeepers, cooks, stewards, cup bearers, servants, messengers, male
and female slaves. While these groups were obviously not involved in production, the archives from
Shuruppak, dateable to the ED III period, refer to palace musicians, chamberlains, butlers, masons,
potters, reed weavers, cloth workers, leather workers, carpenters, smiths, stone cutters, millers and
brewers. It is thus obvious that craft production was organized under the aegis of the palace. The king
also had a share in the temple lands under his capacity as chief servant of the city god or goddess. The
wealth the kings thus controlled is apparent from the Royal Cemetery at Ur, where, amongst other
things, gold vessels, daggers, statuettes, head dresses and helmets were discovered, along with lapis
lazuli statuettes, apart from numerous other articles. The archaeological evidence indicating increasing
social differentiation has been referred to earlier. It is interesting to note that certain new terms are
used for the first time during the ED period. These include ‘lu’ indicating a full, free citizen and ‘aash-en-
kak’, referring to a commoner of subordinate status. Thus it is obvious that the emergence of the state
coincides with the intensification of social stratification. The nature of the Mesopotamian state system
appears to have changed considerably with the establishment of the Akkadian empire (c. 2370 B.C). The
city state was shattered, its physical walls were dismantled. The new empire stretched from the Persian
Gulf to the Mediterranean Sea and from the Zagros mountains to the Taurus, while contact was
maintained with Cyprus in the west and with India in the east. The Akkadians employed a standing army
for conquering and garrisoning settlements. They also redistributed land to their supporters, dislodging
members of the pre-existing hereditary nobility. This created powerful enemies for the empire and may
have led to its ultimate collapse. Further, regional commanders rebelled frequently, and the empire
collapsed within three generations in the face of internal and external pressure.
18

Despite its limited duration, the Akkadian empire was important primarily because it marked a clear
extension of the bounds of territorial control and secondly, because of the emphasis laid on the
extension of trade and the acquisition of tribute (Adams 1966). That the Akkadian experiment had a
considerable impact is apparent from the fact that legends of Sargon and his grandson figure not only in
Sumerian and Akkadian, but also in Elamite, Hurrian and Hittite literature. The next major political
development is associated with the Third Dynasty of Ur. According to Falkenstein (1953), we can now
observe the integration of the Akkadian model with the Sumerian one. In fact, the techniques evolved
for administering the city state were now extended over the entire area. Shulgi (c. 2094-2049 BC) may
be taken to be fairly typical of the rulers of this dynasty. He continued the building activities of his
predecessor Ur Nammu, reformed the calendar, standardized the weights, and generally undertook the
political, economic, administrative reorganisation of the kingdom. He undertook a long series of
campaigns in the Diyala area to the north east, and followed a policy of diplomatic marriages. This
period has yielded between 20,000 to 30,000 administrative and economic documents. From these it
would appear that the state was at this stage the most important organizer of production, both
agricultural and craft production. The labour involved was obtained from independent craft people, free
people and slaves. The state had big workshops and numerous trading centres, both in Mesopotamia
and abroad. The centralized administration thus introduced appears to have collapsed under increasing
strains, both external and internal. The end was marked by a severe famine, in the course of which the
price of grain increased 60 fold. This was followed by a period when small monarchies once again rose
to importance, culminating in the establishment of the Babylonian dynasty. This period witnesses the
decline in the importance of the state, the temple and large landed estates as units of agricultural and
craft production. What emerges instead is the growth of a class of small production, involved in
agricultural and craft production, and the growth of a class of independent merchants. The new rulers
encouraged and supported this trend, as is apparent from the law codes of this period (see below).
Throughout Mesopotamian history, links between the institution of kingship and the temple are
apparent. Religious beliefs served as a means of legitimizing the ruler’s position in various ways. Thus
according to Sumerian mythology, kingship was descended from heaven, and hence was of divine origin.
Thus Gilgamesh, the legendary ruler of Uruk, was considered to be 2/3 divine. According to Jacobsen
(1957), the importance of religious sanction for the institution of kingship may have been felt rather
strongly at the stage when there was a shift in the power base of the rulers. If rulers no longer sought
the consent and the approval of the popular assembly for their position, the need for an alternative
stable basis of support would be apparent, and divine favour probably met this need. The king was now
regarded as the servant of the city god or goddess of the city-state and was accountable only to him or
to her. Sargon of Akkad maintained the traditionally respectful attitude towards Enlil, the god of Nippur.
His grandson, Naram Sin, however violated this tradition and styled himself the god of Akkad. According
to the lamentation text known as the Curse of Akkad, he was punished for his presumptuousness by
Enlil, who sent the Gutian hordes to wreck the Akkadian empire. Many of the rulers of the Third
Dynasty of Ur also assumed divinity. At the same time, they reduced the ensis, who were associated
with temple administration to a position of subordination. However, there were certain limits to their
divine pretensions. Thus as Saggs (1969) observes, sacrifices were never offered to the divine kings, but
were reserved for the gods. Secondly, the temples were not built for the kings, who concentrated their
energies on building larger temples for the gods instead. The dependence of the rulers on the gods
provided certain checks on their authority as well. Thus, any failure on the part of the ruler was
interpreted as divine dissatisfaction with his rule. Besides, kings often attempted to ascertain the
opinion of the gods by means of divine dissatisfaction with his rule.

19

Besides, kings often attempted to ascertain the opinion of the gods by means of divination and the
interpretation of omens. This meant that priests would have been able to exercise a certain degree of
control over political events as they alone were competent enough to interpret these omens. Evidence
for overt conflict between the temple and palace is rare. Apart from the evidence of Naram Sin cited
above, we have reference in the Early Dynastic period to the priest Dudu of Lagash, who apparently
usurped the royal role. More commonly, both the temple and palace appear to have reinforced one
another in authority and to the extent that this authority was related to the existence and maintenance
of stratified society, their mutual support was one of the most significant features of Mesopotamian
history. LAW The king was closely associated with the concept of ‘mesarum’, which is the process
whereby the law is made to function equitably (Speiser 1954). The just king was known as ‘sar-
mesarum.’ Theoretically the king was not the source of law, but merely the agent of enforcement. While
law rested on divine sanction, as is evident from the fact that the reforms instituted by Urukagina of
Lagash end with a covenant with the god Ningirsu, the enforcement of law was in the hands of officials
rather than priests. The criteria according to which judges were appointed are by no means clear.
However, they were generally recruited from high status groups – some were temple administrators,
whilst others were merchants, scribes, constables and even ensis. The earliest records available from
Mesopotamia reveal that considerable importance was assigned to written contracts. It has been
estimated that as many as 95% of the cuneiform documents recovered consist of records of contracts
such as receipts and accounts of various other transactions involving property (Saggs 1969). The role of
the king as the “righter of wrongs” in peace time may be traced back to the Ninurta myth referred to
earlier. The assumption of this role of the “righter of wrongs” and the protector of the weak is crucial, as
it completes the evolution of the state which can take the attitude of being “above” social conflicts. The
reforms instituted by Urukagina of Lagash constituted one of the earliest known law codes in history (c.
2350 BC). Like most promulgators of law codes, Urukagina claimed to be returning to ‘good old days’.
These reforms were probably necessitated by the unsettled conditions prevailing in Lagash as a result of
the prolonged warfare with Umma. Apparently, the palace illegally seized the donkeys, sheep and
fisheries of the citizens, and it appears that the poor orphans and widows were deprived of their limited
rights. The ensi appears to have treated the temple lands as his own property, and both the ensi and the
temple officials subjected the citizens to excessive taxes. The economic developments of this period also
produced a class of rich men who oppressed the poor by advancing loans to them, demanding
repayment at an inconvenient time and thus forcing the debtor to given the creditor animals or other
goods of far greater value that the original loan. Urukagina dealt with the situation by abolishing certain
exactions levied by the priests. He restored the property rights of the god, abolished law court duties,
introduced new rates of payments to the priests an incorporated a summary of the prevalent criminal
law. The next law code known is a fragmentary document of Ur Nammu, the first ruler of the Third
Dynasty of Ur. He claims to have checked those who seized oxen, sheep and donkeys and to have
protected the orphan, the weak and the poor from the rich and the powerful. A longer code of Lipit
Ishtar, a ruler of the Isin dynasty, is also available. The code deals with a variety of subjects: land,
gardens and orchards, where attempts are made to safeguard the rights of owners of private property,
(sections 7-11), slaves (sections 12-14), dependent workers (sections 15-16), laws of inheritance
(sections 21-27), marriage (sections 28-30), the division of estates (section 31-33), and fines (sections
33-37). Another law code, known as the laws of Eshnunna, probably dates to the century before the
code of Hammurabi. It includes a list of prices of basic commodities, rates of wages and associated
penalties for trespass (section 12-13), rules governing business transactions and dowry (section 14-21),
unlawful

20

restraint upon the slave-girl or the wife (section 22-24), regulations concerning betrothal and marriage
(section 25-28), rights of husbands over their wives (section 31), regulations governing foster-parents
and ownership of children of slave girls (section 32-35), liability in the event of loss of property
deposited for safe keeping (section 36-37), regulations concerning sales and purchase (sections 38-41),
fines for assaults and injuries (sections 42-48), theft and flight of slaves (sections 49-52), responsibility
for damage caused by an ox or collapsing wall (sections 53-58), rules regarding divorce and the division
of property (section 59). This law code is very similar to the more well known code of Hammurabi, and it
has been suggested that both were probably derived from a common source (Woolley 1964). By far the
most well known law code is that of Hammurabi. It deserved to name of a “code” more than the other
collections mentioned above in the sense that its organization is more orderly. There are 280 sections to
the code. The greater part of the text, consisting of the sections which bear numbers, was found on a
stele in Susa while the fragments classified alphabetically were obtained from clay tablets. A study of
the clauses of the code reveals three principal preoccupations. In the first place, efforts were made to
safeguard individual rights to property of all kinds – silver, gold, slaves, land etc. Emphasis was also laid
on drawing up proper documents for loans, sales, and other contracts involving property. The offences
against property (section 6-25) include theft, the kidnapping of minors, the problem of runaway and
stolen slaves, house-breaking and looting, problems related to landownership and houses are discussed
(sections 26-65 and fragments ………..). These include conditions on which land could be held as a fief
from the king, terms on which arable land was to be cultivated by tenants…. offences arising out of
negligent irrigation, grazing of cattle on corn land, unauthorized cutting of trees and the cultivation of
palm plantations. Contracts between merchants are also referred to (fragments L to R and sections
100126). These deal with …..rates of interest, the division of profit or loss between partners, regulations
for merchants’ agents, innkeepers, and the laws concerning debts. These rights would have been
meaningful only to the social groups which possessed property. The second set of clauses concerns
women, the family and marriage where the major concern appears to have been with upholding the
patriarchal family structure (sections 127-194). There are a variety of provisions, such as the one for the
punishment of slander of the high priestess or a married woman, for adultery, for divorce, concubinage
etc. Provisions are also made for the remarriage of the wife under certain circumstances. Details are laid
down for the inheritance of property of sons, and the legitimacy or otherwise of children is discussed.
The third set of clauses refers to assault and injury and provides examples of distinctions drawn
between the awelum, the mushkenu and the slave (sections 195-214). The awelum, a term used in all
provisions of the code appears to have been used in three distinct senses – as a term indicating a man of
the higher class or a nobleman, freeman of any class, high or low, and occasionally, a man of any class,
from the king to the slave. Generally, it probably included the bulk of the free population – farmers,
artisans, merchants and manufacturers. Apart from enjoying rights as a citizen, the awelum could
function as a soldier if necessary. ….. The mushkenu formed a separate class. They were distinguished
from slaves and could occasionally own slaves as well. They differed from the awelum in many
important respects. The punishments inflicted upon them for crimes of violence were much less severe
than those incurred by the awelum. Secondly, compensation paid to them for injuries done was only
half of that due to the awelum, though much more than due to the slave. The mushkenu probably could
not own land, hold government office, and were probably not liable to serve in the army. Other
provisions in the code deal with professional fees and responsibilities (sections 215-240), problems
related to agriculture (sections 241-261), the rates of hire of animals, wagons, labourers and ships
(sections 268-277) and problem related to the ownership and sale of slaves. According to Saggs (1969),
the Code of Hammurabi does not constitute a complete system of law. “It therefore has to be concluded
that Hammurabi was simply dealing with matters which needed amendment, adoption of one of a
number of alternatives found in different cities, or simply recapitulation of regulations liable to fall into
desuetude (disuse).

21

Saggs also postulated links between the need to formulate law codes and socio-economic changes.
According to him, in the period when the temple declined in importance, the class of independent
peasants which emerged was more vulnerable in the face of catastrophes such as floods, drought or
blight. In attempting to surmount these crises, peasants often incurred debts which could be ruinous.
The state, at this stage attempted to strengthen the newly emerging middle class, hence provisions were
made to safeguard the interests of this stratum, thus upholding and reinforcing the existing social
hierarchy. At the same time, the state extended support to the patriarchal family as a legitimate kinship
unit. ….The validation of these institutions would also imply that they were probably strong enough to
have provided the state with a certain amount of support as well. The processes leading to the
emergence of these institutions cannot be traced, but it is interesting to see that they became
significant as a basis of support for the state at a point when the temple appears to have declined as an
important centre of authority. It is possible that just as the palace and the temple served to reinforce
each other’s authority in the earlier period, the state and the social basis on which it rested reinforced
each other during the period under consideration. In conclusion it is obvious that there were important
changes in Mesopotamian society during the Bronze Age, while our knowledge, both of the nature of
the changes and of the processes responsible for them is far from complete, it is obvious that an analysis
of interrelated social developments is much more fruitful than one based merely on the technological
level of the society under consideration. The complexities revealed by the Mesopotamian case should
also make it apparent that generalizations about “Bronze Age Society” should be made with extreme
caution.