Bronze Age Civilisations 9 3

emed as a hase ent l d system', integrating these regions into a symbiotie relationship.
heeping in mind seveilefnitions of civilisation, inchuding that of V. Gordon Childe (1950), the
ivilisational fealures of Mesopotamia can be studied under the following heads: Urbanisation
and surplus proieton, metallrgy and existence of an specialist class, a class stratified
society, state formialion, organised religion, monumental architecire, writing and predictive
scienees and long distance trade.

Urbanisation and Surplus Production

With respect to the ancient world, urbanisation has been defined by some as denoting an
gglonerate, in a particular settlement, of fairly large population (with at least 5,000 inhabit-
nts) pursuing diveC economic activities and having a high degree of interdependence. Such
centres are also said to have specialisation of erafts and division of labour. Ancient cities are
also marked by a complex society and have some political mechanism to regulate social and
cconomic activities. As an evidence of community bonding, cities of the antiquity also contain
monumental buildings that have specific functions. But in the recent years, urbanism as a phe-
nomenon has been qualified with more preconditions. Peter Bogucki
(2000) is of the opinion
that for a society to be considered as truly 'urban', the agglomerates of population must play a
clear role in interaction with a much larger territory and must be sustainable over a period of
more than few generations. Viewed against these preconditions, Mesopotamia, towards the
beginning of third millenniunm BCE, emerged as world's earliest urban civilisation.
By about 3000 BCE, several settlements in the Sumerian region had assumed the size of a city.
Few of the prominent Sumerian cities were Uruk, Ur, Nippur, Kish and Lagash. According to an
estinate provided by George Modelski (2003), population of these cities ranged between 20,000
and 80,000. Among these, Uruk was the largest, having a population of 80,000 inhabiting an area
of almost 400 hectares by this time. The rapid growth of the city has been attributed to migra-
tion from the nearby rural settlements. Maintenance of such a large population presupposes the
availability of enough surplus that was made possible mainly by the highly fertile soil of
Southern Mesopotamia. It has been estimated that the average yield of barley in Southern
Mesopotamian soil was 86 times the sowing. Besides the fertility of the soil, an intensive agri-
culture method adopted by the farmers, which included the use of metal
plough and draught
oxen, also contributed to increase in the
agricultural yield that supported a large population.
One of the unique features of
Mesopotamian urbanisation was that the cities were closely
integrated with the nearby village settlements rather than acting as political and religious centre
of rural hinterlands. All the aforementioned cities were
city-states, incorporating the nearby
villages. Yet the level
of urban inhabitation was quite high in
Mesopotamia. C. C. Lamberg-
Karlovsky and R. Wright (1996) argue that majority of the Mesopotamians were urban, living in
towns and cities least 40 hectares in size and only 25 per cent lived in places less than 10
at
ares. On the reasons behind migration of rural population to the cities, Robert M. Adams
hect
is of the view that cities served as market centres and this was a
(1960)
primary motivating force in
the immigration of rural population to the cities. Cities,
according to Adams, were also centres
of production and redistribution and were therefore a
significant attraction to the inhabitants
of the rural areas. Besides, during the
inter-city-state warfare, which was very common during
the
Early Dynasticperiod in Mesopotamia, the cities became a place of relative security. Thus,
the city (Uru in Sumerian
language) acted as an
ideological, administrative, commercial and
social centre of the world surrounding it.
 Ancient and Medieval World

Metallurgy and Crat Specialisation

feature of
the Bronze Mesopotamia,
Age Mes brin
Growth of metallurgy was a distinguishing Gordon Childe
(1950) has found a clos
about significant socio-economic changes. V. civilisations. Few evid
and rise f Bronze
Age
urbanisation, growth of metallurgy does indicate existence of a sper
eveen Uruk which had limited i
have been found fronm
copper, beng a sot ateral,
use of copper
n e metalworker But several advantaue

ClEs of along with potters.Bronze, on the other hand, had

hammered into a she
tool becausei have an edge.
did not could be
a shape; it
metal could be given any and axes.
Copper as a metal. This such as daggers
hoe and weapons both raw material.
plough
very useful as and copper and required
as fulltime being
besides
y
wel use specialists to
involved alloying
of tin
manufacture bronze objects. But the advantages of broneAng
netalurgY essentially a long-distance exchan
tin throughand
copper
involved in procuring number of
metalworkers presuppOsessuf
outweighed the
cost
a large
that existence of
Surplus was also essential tot
Childe has argued classes.
rOrdon these
non-producing
localy available. South
production to feed was not
nclent surplus
whuch
and tin ous
to acquire
copper
wood which
had to be brought from Dutside
in exchange stone and
used non-producers andi
esopotamia deposits of copper,
lacked it could
s u s t a i n the

enough surplus, l o n g - d i s t a n c e communic

Mesopotamia w a s producing a r e a s . Prior
e x i s t e n c e of
ince several parts of the Old Worl
from far off
raw materials had spread to
the surplus to get maritime travel)
(including the
millennium BCE.
This enabled Mesopotamia
tion and interaction
by the beginning ofthird of bronze is
also associated
(mainly Europe and Asia)
use
Syria. Large-scale
Anatolia and
from Iran, exchange of raw matenak
to get copper and tin sustained interregional
as the and tin
social complexity required in mixing copper,
with the growth of the knowledge
bronze objects
and
required to fashion wealth.
became a s o u r c e of
a c c u m u l a t i o n of
since the late-Uruk period. This
in Southem Mesopotamia
had developed He further argues
Craft specialisation the marker of social complexity.
Gordon Childe (1950)
as
of s o m e to divert large
w a s considered by civilisation was the ability
hallmarks of urban craft productions
that one of the important bronze tools and other
to manufacturing of found from
number of subsistence producers professional list, first
termed as 'standard
A series of texts from the cities of
as fulltime specialists. millennium BCE and those
from late fourth
the Eanna precincts (Uruk)
dating such specialist class as
of later times, shows the existence of
and Nippur courties
Ur, Kish, Lagash priests, ambassadors,
stonecutters and potters along with kings, bring
smiths, jewellers,
of craft specialisation has been widened to
supervisors. In recent years, the concept craftsman
and
and attached' craftsmen. Here, independent
between 'independent'
out a distinction of common masses whereas
those who manufactured goods for the market for the use
refers to such as the
attached craftsmen produced for a particular client or for the organisation
the that from the
the palace. On this basis, scholars such as G. J. Stein (1996) suggest
temple or individua
'dual' craft economy represented by
late-Uuk period onwards, Mesopotamia had
a

attached craft specialists who were clients

craftsmen operating in the community at large and
out that both categories were not mutualy
of the centralised institutions. But Stein points He
exclusive, the absence of state monopoly in the sphere of industrial production.
indicating
also argues that the manufacturers of high-prestige goods (goods of gold, copper, carmela
polished stone vessels, elaborate textiles, ete) were under the monopolistic control o t
Mesopotamian states. Thus, the growth of metallurgy and existence of specialistclasses
craftsmen also províde us important insights into the nature of state organisation
Mesopotamia (discussed in detail below).
 Bronze Age Civilisations 95

State
or
of state n Mesopotamia can be traced to the political and economic requiremens
The origin
times, temples had played an impor:
the Mesopotanian socety. Right since the late-Neolithic
agriculture through organising labour for putting irrigation system
n
tant role in pronotnng
in erecting
order, paticularly
n a low-rainfall
region such as South Mesopotamia, as well as
defensive walls lor protection. With the growth of specialist class
in Mesopotamia, sufticient
had become imperative
and regular prochietOn of surplus (not only favourable soil conditions)
and to achieve this, Sonie type of coercive mechanism had to be developed. Thus, temples in
assuined the role of such an authority before the development of state institu-
Mesopotama
could
tions. But since
the temples had no state organs such as an army to support them, they
only coerce the peasants to produce more surplus by propagating an ideology and a value
or by instilling the fear of god. Fear of
system emboldened by suitable legends and mythologies
displeasure of god was easy to instil in the minds of the farmers as despite favourable geo
graphical conditions, great uncertainty was still attached with the agriultural produce. Onthe
other hand, desirability of surplus production to appease the deities was propagated so that
they shower farmers with abundant crop. Temples also collected a part ofthe surplus produce
in the fornu of offerings to the deity, and, gradually, it became a centre of production, storage
and redistribution of surplus produce, including crafts production. Most of the temples of big

cities such as Ur, Unuk, Eridu and Nippur contained large granaries and warehouses along with
the priest and temple officials.
quarters of the craftsmen. This further enhanced the authority of
In this manner, temples, prior to the dynastic period in Mesopotamia, assumed the status of a
state. Based on her study of the temple at Lagash, Anna Schneider (1920) has termed the early-
Mesopotamian state as the 'temple-state' (cited in Manning and Morris 2005). Schneider has put

forward the argument that temple was the centre of economic power in the ancient Near East.
While recent researches have identified other spheres of economic activities too, it is generally

agreed that temples remained the most important economic institution with vast redistributive
on archaeological findings and the Sumerian written texts, the political history
of
power. Based
Mesopotania has been divided into Early Dymastic period (3000-2350 CE), Akkadian Dynasty
(2350-2150 BCE) and the Third Dynasty (2150-2000 BCE) But the present diseussion would be
confined to the study until the Akkadian Dynasty.
The Sumerian king list, an ancient manuscript recorded in Sumerian language, suggests that
with 3000 BCE, the Sumerian ruled by chiefs and kings, who also
beginning city-states were

performed the role of priests. Titles such as En (spouse of the city Goddess), Sangu (temple
administrator) and Ishakku (tenant farmer of the deity) for the early kings of Mesopotamia are
a testimony to the above. But from the Early Dynastic period (3000-2350 BCE), there was a mas-
sive competition among several city-states (such as Erech, Ur, Uruk, Kish and Lagash) over the
control of fertile resources of Southerm Mesopotamia. It is important to note here that in com-
parison to the late-Neolithic period attachment to a particular territory was more intense
of of
during the early state formation in Mesopotamia. This was a part of the process transition
clans into tribes and then into states. The competition to control natural resources manifested
into inter-city-state warfare and each city-state raised its army not only to protect its irrigation
and water rights, trade routes and city walls but also to acquire more from the other states.
Kings provided leadership in these wars and success in wars further enhanced their prestige
and brought concentration of power in their hands. This brought about a change in the nature
of kings as priests were replaced by selected/nominated kings with their owm organised army,
bureaucracy and well-defined laws. By the time of the Akkadian Dynasty, temple was replaced
 Ancient and Medieval World

Dpalace as the centre of political authority. Thus, title such as lusgal (big Tman) wAs ue
concentration of power in their hands w
s ruling o v e r large territories with tremendous Hogucki (2000) has te
S(Cty nuler) was used for rulers ruling over small area. Peter
eary-Mesopotamian state as a 'tributary state' while comparing wiun modern 'capital
States. i e opines that while firns and other such enterprises provide the means of generati
Wen n capitalist states, personnel of the state are directly involved in the extraction
accumulation of surplus goods and services in tributary slates. Comparing With pre-state
enes, Bogucki argues that in a pre-state society, households are persuaded, Coerced or manin
kated into producing extra to support specialists and elites; however, in tributary states, sta
personnel directly interverne in the household economy and extract surplus through su
means as taxation or forced labour (corvée) backed by the army. The details of the politie
history of Mesopotamia and its rulers are unclear due to several problems related to reading
the Sumerian text, but we do get reference of a legendary king, Gilgamesh, of Uruk fron
mythological text known as Epic of Gilgamesh. Similarly, Semitic script (popular in Akka
provides information about a king by the name of Sargon who is supposed to have ronquere
a large area covering Persian Gulf to Syria and was instrumental in political unification
Sumer and Akkad.

Social Stratification
One of the features of ancient civilisation is the growth of a complex society with marked social
differentiation. Morton H. Fried (1960) defined stratified society as the one in which membes
of the same sex and equivalent age status do not have the equal access to the basic resources
that sustain life. Making a distinction between stratified and unstratified societies, Fried argued
that stratified societies developed with institutions of private property and elite control over the
means of production (water, land, etc.). Whereas unstratified societies were characterised by
communal forms of property and unlimited access to the means of production. It has been
argued by Fried that wherever unequal access to basic means of production exists, state
becomes necessary which provides legitimacy to such differentiation. States had to develop
institutionalised forns of coercion that protected property and appropriation of surplus prout
ucts from the direct producers. In his study of societies of early Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica
Robert M. Adams emphasised less on private property and more on control over central institu
tions. Adams argues that in Mesopotamia, class differentiation was an important cause of the
development of theocracy into state with temples and palaces. The earliest states were theocra*
cies based on the donation of labour service to the service of gods. In Mesopotamia, Adams
argues, the main god and goddess of each city-state theoretically owned all the land within the
jurisdiction of the city-state. Later, separate administrative and military institutions emergea.
represented by the palace as distinct from the temple.
In Mesopotamia, evidence of rudimentary social differentiation can be traced back to the
Uruk transitional phase. By the time of the beginning of the Sumerian
civilisation, social
fication had become pronounced. With the emergence of a centralised authority (state),stral eco
nomic, religious and military powers came to be rested with the priest king. Leadership "
warfare and ability to manage food and essential objects (through the use of
persuasion or
force) for all the inhabitants created the trust of the common masses towards the elite king and
his officials. This enabled the elite to systematically extract surplus from the producers
redistribute it among the needy. Thus, the wealth generated in the hands of the elite, along wit
and
 Bronze Age Civilisations

gious
religiou and secular auhornty, ereated conditions for the growth of social differentiation. The
available surpius was austributed in an inequitable manner with larger share going to t h e king

priests and warriors whereas actual producers (peasants and artisans) were denied legitimate
share of the surplus. Society thus came to be divided among the elites and the commoners. The
earlier egalitanan groups (clans and tribes) came to be stratified on class lines. This has led
some scholars to opune that transition from Neolithic to Bronze Age also reflected a transition
from clan and tribe organisation to a society with class differentiation.
Robert Adams (1960), in his analysis of early-Mesopotaian society, uses the growing a
in
ferentiation artefacts as an index of
growing class differentiation. His study of the
Mesopotamian bural sites suggests that burials of the Ubaid period do not provide much evi-
dence of difterental burials except few pottery vessels found in some. But the burial goods
rom the Early Dynastic period show a great disparity in the wealth they contain. The royal
tombs were richly furmished with copper and gold objects (earrings, headdress with gold
leaves, hairpins and beads) and objects of lapis lazuli. A larger number of burials contained few
copper vessels and occasionally precious metals. But majority had only pottery vessels or noth-
ing at all. It is obvious that metals, being costly, could be used as burial objects only by the
wealthy. By the time of the third dynasty, burial-based social stratification had become even
more pronounced with distinction between royal tombs (containing gold and other items of
high value) and the burial chambers of the royal officials (containing goods of lesser value such
as copper). Adams also refers to texts from the Early Dynastic period indicating social and
economic stratification particularly with respect to allotment of land by the temple with larger
portion of land going to temple or palace officials.

Religion
Our information about Mesopotamian religion is based on literary texts written on clay tablets
in Cuneiform script as well as artefacts recovered through archaeological findings that give us
insights into religious beliefs and cultic practices of the people inhabiting this region between
3000 and 2000 BCE. Since writing was invented first in Mesopotamia, scholars such as Jean
Bottéro (2001), claim that Mesopotamian religion was the world's oldest religion.
Mesopotamian
religious beliefs were not in a fom of a unifed religion, and there was a clear distinction
between religion at the popular level and at the state level. At the popular level, Mesopotamians,
in general, practiced a pantheistic religion and worshipped a multitude of anthropomorphie dei-
ties representing cosmic and terrestrial forces of the world that they were living in. At the state
level however, the deities were worshipped as anthropocentric and from nature gods they were
transformed into city gods. At the popular level, several deities were worshipped in smaller
shrines but the state promoted worship of the chief city deity in a big temple dedicated to the
deity, which was termed as ziggurat. However, the political unification of Sumer and cultural
exchange between several regions led to the development of some sort of a common religious
tradition in Southern Mesopotamia. Various deities worshipped at the popular level were assimi-
ated through appropriate myths, legends and rituals created by the Sumerian priests. As a result
of this proces of assimilation, many deities were worshipped as members of a single family, a
practice that was common in the contemporary polytheistic religions. As the Mesopotamian
Society had become stratified, gods were also ranked in an order. The prominent deities whose
Worship was promoted by the state were Aw/Anu (sovereign god), Enlil (controller of the
universe and king of kings) and Enki/Ea (lord of the earth or
god of sweet water).
 98 Ancient and Medieval World

Among the goddesses. the most popular was Inanna (goddess of fertility) which was
as
identified with Ishtar (goddess of love and war). later
Political developments such as inter-city-state warfare was also reflected in the way
were perceived and worshipped. Lamberg-Karlovsky and Wright (1996) argue that some deitod
who were earlier connected with primary economies such as agriculture and herding came leities
be identified with a particular city in the middle of the third millennium BeE, reflecting a sho
rivalry between the city-states. Most of these city deities had major temples dedicated to then
Since temples were considered as 'homes' where the deities resided, a number of temple stae
were appointed to look after the organisation of the temple. A big temple (ziggurat) was ded
cated to god Anu at Uruk. Political developments affected the religious beliefs in other matte
ers
too. After the political unification of Akkad and Sumer, Nippur becanme the religious centre
unified Sumer and a tenmple was dedicated to the most worshipped deity Enlil in this city. A
the Mesopotamian society became patriarchal, male deities assumed greater significance and
number of female deities lost their importance. Some female deities remained important bur
were worshipped as spouse of the chief deity and were given inferior position. But Goddess
Inanna, as the chief fertility deity, retained her popularity and a large temple was dedicated to
her at Unnk. Religious texts also inform us that a major harvest festival was celebrated, symbol
ising marriage of Inanna with Dumuzi, the god of vegetation and cattle. Thus, we see that
Sumerian religion during 3000-2000 BCE Was closely connected with political, social and eco
nomic changes in Mesopotamia.

Monumental Architecture
Monumental architecture is considered as one of the intrinsic features of ancient civilisations
Pubic buildings such as termples, palaces and other large buildings had prominent position in the
Sumerian civilisation. For quite some time, many of the public buildings found from the archaeo
logical excavations in Sumer were temed as shrines but recently, this identification has been
challenged. It has now been argued that many of the large buildings were meeting places and
centres of local administration rather than shrines. However, shrines were an integral part of the
Sumerian community since the Ubaid times (temple at Eridu) and had become elaborate com
plexes by the Uruk phase. Prior to the beginning of Early Dynastic period, temples were the hub
ofall political, cultural and economic activities and were therefore built with a grand plan ona
high platform (ziggurat). It is argued that by the end of the Uruk phase, the temple at Unk
(devoted to goddess Inanna), which was built on a tripartite plan, had spread over an area of 240
by 100 feet and rose to the height of 35 feet. It was not merely a ritual complex but also contained
warehouses, workshops and living quarters for the artisans. The warehouses were used to
store
grains meant to be distributed among the non-food producers such as metallurgists, potters and
textile workers working for the temple. Temple also used to distribute land, seeds and draught
animals to the peasants for cultivation. Surplus grain was also used to procure metal such
copper from outside. Another huge temple structure has been excavated at Tell Uqair which is
famous as the 'painted temple' because ofthe elaborate fresco on the temple walls.
However, in the Early Dynastic period (3000-2350 HCE), with the increased centralisation of
state power, palace assumed much of the political authority of the temple. Temple construction
in this period also lacked the standardised building plan of the fourth millennium BCE. Explaining
reasons behind the decline in the autonomy of temples, Karlovsky and Wright (1996) have
pointed out that many of the temples came under the control of the relatives of ruling king
 Bronze Age Civilisations

during Early Dynastic and Akkacdian period and later temples were placed under the Jurns
tion of provincialgovernors who siphoned off surplus production into the state treasury. Most
of the shrines dated to this period have been found to be located in the middle of domestic
quarters. lHarmet Crawtord (2004) has argued that this building pattem may reflect local taste
or constraints imposed by the need to fit the shrine between existing buildings and roads rather
than by strictly canonical practice. Crawford further argues that the Early Dynastic period was
a tine of poliical iragmentation that may have encouraged diversity, with small city-states
asserting ther independence and vying with each other for cultural and political superiornty.
But despite political authority passing into the hands of the palace, the theoretical connection
between kingshipand gods assured that religious architecture retained its place of prominence
in the urban life of Sumer. Many architectural features (particularly the formal symmetry) of the
Uruk period show continuity in the third millennium BCE, even if the earlier plan is missing.
Theseincludedsingle-room shrines with a bent-axis approach (popular since Ubaid times) and
bipartite and tripartite plan (popular since Uruk phase). A new type of temple plan termed as
house-plan temple, which consisted of a courtyard surrounded by several large rooms on each
side, introduced in the Early Dynastic period, became quite popular from the time of Akkadian
Dynasty (2350-2150 BCE). Adoption of this temple plan has been related to the concept of
temple emerging as a residence of the god to whom it was dedicated. Another innovation in
temple architecture, which has also been attributed to the Early Dynastic period, is the oval
plan such as the one found in Sin temple at Khafajah. Believed to be dedicated to female deities,

these temples were built on top of a prepared foundation.

Although temples and ziggurats were the dominant features of the urban fabric of
Mesopotamia, there were several other buildings of importance, few of which have been
referred to as palace (termed as e-gal or 'the great household' in Sumerian language). Reference
to palace-like structures appears in the Sumerian texts from the Jemdet Nasr period and their
existence becomes definite by the end of the Early Dynastic period. Palace asa distinct urban
monumental architecture emerged from the beginning of the third millennium BCE. Finding a
correlation between ise in the power of the kings and palace construction, Karlovsky and
Wright (1996) point out that the appearance of both, palace archítecture and city walls, during
the later phase of the Early Dynastic period lend credence to the idea that kingship as a power-
ful institution, separate from temples and community organisations, emerged during the
Second quarter of the third millennium BCE. The best representative of palace architecture of
this period was the palace at Kish, which was consisted of two large buildings separated by a
narrow alley Each building had its own exterior wall and both were surrounded by an outer
wall.gateway and tower. Similar type of palace architecture has also been found at Lagash,
ruk and Eridu. It has been estimated that at Lagash 25-35 per cent of the total area of the
city-state was owned by the palace. By the Akkadian phase, majority of the land and artisanal
production was owned by the palace in most of the city-states of Sumer. Later, by the beginning
of second millennium BcE, palaces became even more elaborate with several hundred rooms,
nalls, courtyards and corridors.

Writing
lesopotamia was the earliest civilisation in the world to develop writing with far reaching
consequences for the humans. We have already noted earier hat writing originated in the Uruk
ulture in the form of pictographic signs representing objects. We have also pointed out that the
 100 Ancient and Medieval World

nitiative to develop writing came from the temples that organised the economic activii
including distribution of surplus. Since it was not possible to memorise large economic transa
tion so a written system of recording of these was developed. Later dunng the Jemdet Naa
phase, the writing was simplified through a combination of phonetic representation and sigh
as the pictograms could not represent large number of objects (barley, cows, bulls, ete.). Thi
led to the development of Cuneiform (wedge-shaped) script in Mesopotamia (Figure 3.1)
from

FIGURE 3.1 Evolution of Writing in Mesopotamia (3200-1000 BCE)

3000 BCE 2400 BCE 1000 BCE
3200 BCE

sag
"head

gin
"to walk

su
'hand

ae
barley'

D
ninda
"bread'

water

ud
day

muaen

bird
d
urce: http://www.ancientscripts.com/sumerian.html
te: The first column in the image represents reading and meaning of the word, the second
earle
represents
tographs, the third represents Pictographs in rotated position, the fourth and fifth column represent the Cuneifor
the

ant of the pictographs.

 rinning of the thurd millennium BE
ntext. Jean Bottero (2001) is of Thus. one sign could refer to large number of oEES
eThings by themseives b t through the opinion that pictograms coud denote
eral objects closely connected in nature adopting a method
of signs one sign couldony rete
O
1s cultivation) and (e.g. ear of grain could
Juxtaposed signs of plough represent the gran s
*
acuultural tool and the farmer). Ín this manner, (eg. wood and man could represeni
ms was enough tor the entre purpose of according to Bottéro. use of roughly thousand bot
where each sign retered to a word thataccounting Later. each sign was tumed into
could be reduced to phonet-
nronounceable. When Sumer and Akkad were unified. a sylable that made the sgns
the Semitic script of Akkad was mixed with the supposedly by Sargon in around
Cuneiform script of Sumer to develop
aiphabet. Now the wTIng was no longer related to concrete an
to words and to the spOken
language, thing or things but was connectd
ing or bookkeeping and enter into a
furthering the prospet of writing to go beyond accOunt-
realm of literary
poetry was mainly related to love stories. genre of prose and poetry. Sumeran
great epics and hymns to the
extS emerged along With inscriptions that were gods Sacred and terary
circuiated both within and outside Mesopotzamia
Writing on the stone sculptures glorified the
also led to the emergence of a new
military exploits of the rulers Growth of writine
specialist class of scribes

Long-distance Trade in Mesopotamia

The Tigris and Euphrates promoted intraregional trade in
passage to movement of goods from north to south and viceMesopotamia by allowing smooth
versa Sumerian texts inform that
centralised agencies organised the
tive officials were
exchange of grain fishes and animals and that
administra
employed to look after the canais for transportation of goods Besides intra-
regional movement of goods, the temple and the palace in Sumer
trade. Lack of essential raw materials such as also organised ong-disance
als and even wood copper. precious stones tones. building materi
made it imperative for the Sumerians to
engage in
relationships with areas situated far away. Procurement of raw materials establishing exchange
considered as a cheaper option than acquiring these through exchange was
through military operations
ong-distance exchange was increased because of the fact that except pottery. Necessity
most of the of

Uumerian craft products (including exotic ones) were dependent on raw materials from out-
Sde. Although Mesopotamia's engagement in long-distance trade can be traced back to the
Lruk phase, the scale and
the range of interregional contact greatly increased
mlennium BCE. Although there is indeed reference to import of finished during the third
goods (such as carved
CTlornte vessels from the Iranian site of Tepe Yahya) into Mesopotamia. the largest proportion
imports consisted of raw materials that were used for making ormaments,
weapons and pres-
ge goods. Copper came from Magan (Oman), Iran and Anatolia; tin from Eastern iran. Syria
d Anatolia; silver and lead from Taurus Mountains Timber from mountains of North and East
esopotamia; lapis lazuli from Badakhshan area of Northeastem Iran and other
precious
ones from Telmun (moden Bahrain). Most of the goods did not onginate from these places
to ere brought from as far as Meluhha/Melukhkha (identifñed with Indus Valley) which used
Led ivory and woods to these areas. Mesopotamians exchanged these with piges perfumes
textile
ues and agricultural goods. Trade to the east was carned by shup through the Persian Gulf
or
y pack animals (in caravans) through the mountaans wule westwad trade was carried
C h e Euphrates (which was easily navigable over long distances) or on pack aninals
S (exotic oils eastwards through Telmun Goods
and woods) from the west were sent
from
 102 Ancient and Medieval World

river systems.
Archaeological excavations at
were send towards west through the two
Cast d e t a l s or trad
trade and

anclent Mesopotanmian city of Ur have provided

records giving
second millennium
BCE.
rading
activities of the traders during third and
autonomy being taken awav
activities despite its y by
played a major role in trading
ne temple were produced
in temples, whicn,
Desides fulfilling th
h e palace. Large amount of textiles
distant lands in exchange
to
1or metals, precio
requirement of the temple, was also exported was also
involved in long-distan
Besides temple, the state
g0ods and other natural r e s o u r c e s .
fulfil its own requirement,
particularly nmetals, such
of
rade that was guided by the need to
to manufacture
bronze. Due to the extensive nature of trade me
copper and tin, to be alloyed scholars have sper
even those associated with the temple),
ated through the state (sometimes been argued that for th
state or not. It has
lated whether the traders acted as agents of the
on its part provided protection to the
customer and the state
merchants, state w a s an important
been suggested that merchants
worked for profit and the
traders at all times. But it has also advantageous to them.
o r the state only, if it
was
were likely to work for either the temple

Science and Mathematics

such as temples (on ziggurats), palaces and

The construction of several monumental buildings
structures in Sumer could not have
been possible without the knowledge of some
other public
mathematics. Besides, large-scale economic transactions, mea
system of measurement and
surement of fields and agricultural production also required adoption of some method of math
ematical notations. Similarly, maritime trade over long distances could not have been possible
without a certain anmount of astronomical knowledge. In Sumer, rapid growth of science and
mathematics can be seen from the beginning of the third millennium BCE, the evidence of which
is provided in the written texts. In fact, archaeologist Denise Schmandt-Besserat (1996) has
argued that writing and mathematical notations emerged simultaneously in Surmer and has aso
pointed out that clay accounting tokens, which were in use in Sumer prior to 3000 BCE, were the
forerunners of writing and mathematical notations. Based on these texts, it has been suggested
that Sumerians had elementary knowledge of mathematics that served the purpose of measure
ment of fields, debit and credit calculation and counting of bodies. Thus, economics proved to
be the motivating force ind the growth of both writing and mathematics. It is believed that
the Mesopotamian numeral system was sexagesimal (counting system with a base of 60 rather
than 10). There were reciprocal clay tablets to facilitate division along with those for the pur
pose of multiplication. These tablets were combined with that of weights and measures, sug
their Use of geometrical equations suggests their awareness about the
gesting economic usage.
Pythagoras theorem. Development in the field of astronomy, however, was more elementary
during 3000-2000BCE andwas to
limited
accurate division of day and night into 12 hours. It was
only later in the Babylonian period that we hear about the growth of lunar and solar calendars
along with astrological predictions.

EGYPT (UNTIL THE OLD KINGDOM)

The Egyptian civilisation developed parallel to Mesopotamia with similar civilisational featues
but in entirely different ecological settings. Just like Mesopotamia, which developed along the
Euphrates and Tigris Valley, Egypt developed around the Nile Valley. But, unlike Mesopotamians