The Elders in Mesopotamia
Written by Michael Heller
Introduction
The first governors in human history are likely to have been elder men. In prehistory women are unlikely to have ruled over men [‘The Sexes’ are coming soon]. And in reference to the term ‘elders’ it should be kept in mind that life expectancy at birth in the Palaeolithic and Neolithic was lower than today.
In our theoretically realistic T1 group society—reduced for expositional purposes to a mere ‘sextet’ of individualistic differentiation—there would only have been one ‘elder male’ whereas in communalistic and coordinated societies (T2, T3) with larger populations the lead governor would have been the more intelligent, physically strong or charismatic among all the elders. Or, the elders may have governed as a ‘council’.
Before imagining the probable T1 societal dynamics I want to justify this initial focus on the ‘elders’ as the first category in the ‘first’ society by showing the longevity of eldership in historical perspective. The importance of the governing role of elders in societies only really dies out when in the medieval period the formally specified ranks of leadership and influence by male elders (having been hyper-institutionalised in the Roman polity) were opened up with ever-increasing organic fluidity to many categories of new men and women of all ages. So let us first take a short trip through history from the time when eldership can be identified in the historical record.
One point to make at the outset is that the function of groups of elders (assemblies or councils of elders) is often interpreted as ‘egalitarian’ in anthropological studies of traditional hunter-gather lifeways and as ‘communalistic’ in the context of ancient Mesopotamia. In a tempered Weberian sense I use the term ‘communalistic’ in the hunter-gatherer context and other situations—such as those to be discussed—which either precede or modulate rulership. There is a sense in which communalism is—like individualism—a permanent human condition. But I avoid the term ‘egalitarian’. As with so many words in the lexicons of political thought ‘egalitarianism’ can describe an expressed desire or tendency among loosely grouped individuals who profess to agree about common ideals and material objectives but yet are reluctant to recognise that the achievement of their desired condition would require enforcement mechanisms that are bound to neutralise the very political objectives they profess to. Egalitarianism has never proved useful or accurate as a description of any true social condition. The capacity and willingness to influence and implement decisions is by nature always differentially distributed among persons. [fn]
In the present context I want to trace the individualistic origins of eldership as a capacity to influence decision making in T1, T2, T3 without a necessary requirement for rulership. What follows immediately below is simply a brief future-orientation so that the evolution of eldership can be contextualised from the perspectives of T4, T5, T6, and T7 societies.
Ancient Elders
The Epic of Gilgamesh is a series of poems about the ruler of Uruk, the legendary builder of Uruk’s “brick” fortress wall (which of course required forcibly conscripted labour). The earliest versions appear to date from about the time of the Ur III Dynasty, long after the 4th millennium Uruk period in which the tale is set. Its historical accuracy is disputed in some respects. Nevertheless some passages of the story are widely accepted, such as the observation that an assembly of “elders” existed as the king’s “senior advisers”. In the poem these elders emphatically recommend the “young” king not to go impetuously into battle with Huwawa, a monster. However, an assembly of militia comprised younger men who were eager to fight against Huwawa, and the king sides with these energetic and emboldened warriors. [fns]
Various considerations arise from this influential story. One that relates to Uruk is that the elders traditionally held greatest influence over the early Mesopotamian rulers. It has been argued that militia assemblies acquired strategic influence only after Uruk’s demise. In normal conditions the elders were representative of the communality of Uruk’s governance. Gilgamesh—one historian who is sympathetic to the communalistic account calls him a “despot-king”—simply defied the communal elders and went to war. [fn]
On the other hand, there is the possibility that a form of ‘dual system’ or ‘bicameralism’ existed whereby the potentially divergent opinions of elders and the young men of larger Mesopotamian settlements were considered in deliberately organised assemblies, and that this formed an integral part of the executive’s decision making process. Even if elders did not have a formally constituted advisory role in 4th millennium BCE they nevertheless did one to two millennia later when the Epic of Gilgamesh was translated from Sumer into Akkadian. Administrative, legal and plenary documental evidence from ancient Iraq in the period of Old Babylon and Akkadian rule in the 3rd and 2nd millennia is more detailed and reliable than the myths in verse. Gilgamesh had been deified but there was no need to justify political organisation with recourse to the legends of mythical ‘gods’. Assemblies of elders were by then simply the ingrained public tradition. This phenomenon has often been filed away conceptually as ‘communal’. This could be apt. It clearly was not ‘democratic’, but it might have constituted an advanced form of ‘representation’. The representatives were the elders. [fns]
In the histories of Mesopotamia for the 3rd and 2nd millennia one finds clear indications of the routine influence of assemblies of elders. In some extreme accounts of the running of the Akkadian empire a subgroup of elders was in conflict with the bureaucracies of the royal household and exercised great power in momentous decisions about war or the appointing of military commanders, in addition to a vast range of governmental functions from land allocations to public works, taxes, and myriad other matters impinging on communal affairs. But for these stupendously powerful assemblies of elders there appears to be no real evidence, only literary accounts (similar to the Epic of Gilgamesh). More reasonably, elder assemblies might well have been the only or major vehicle for expressing a non-administrative ’public interest’ to the Akkadian kings who were building bureaucracies. In core settlements (populous, walled, urbanised) councils of elders may have incorporated appointed royal officials into their assemblies to facilitate coordinate decision making.
Over time elders are likely to have exerted most of their influence in neighbourhood or village administration rather than at the central levels. In this iteration elders were heads of households, and heads of households represented their settlements and their agricultural estates. This is because by the 2nd millennium a T4 differentiated core administration under the control of royal households (rather than T2 communality or T3 two-directional coordination) was the norm. Rulership was in full swing. Mesopotamia was now governed by the fast-evolving forms of administrative differentiation that peaked in the 1st millennium. [fns]
However, the bulk of the documentation for noteworthy active elder governance in ancient Mesopotamia relates to legal matters in the countryside concerning land disputes or purchases. This illustrates the ebb and flow of eldership throughout its history, from the prehistoric to the middle ages. In Mesopotamia after the consolidation of regimes of centralised rulership the senior elder’s function could be adjudicatory. The mayors of a village represented the central authority along with the village elders and these were the people responsible for administering the laws of the larger governed territory. Within their boundaries villages held assemblies to discuss and determine rights and responsibilities concerning local (communal) irrigation and agriculture. Above all, this form of governance required that elders be entrusted with the verification, recording, and witnessing of private legal transactions in land. The elders could also act in place of an (absent) husband in transacting land deals. If the husband was absent the land would revert to the king’s palace. The royal household is represented by the mayor and elders of the village, and the latter will decide what should be done with the woman and with the land. This itself may be evidence that village lands were no longer ‘communal’. In 2nd millennium Assur there was increasing interest in rural land ownership by urban elites. [fn]
Quoted in Postgate 2013:
… [So-and-so] acquires for silver, before he acquires the fi[eld or] house for silver, for 1 month he shall have the herald proclaim thrice within the city of Aššur, and proclaim thrice in the village of the field or house which he is acquiring, saying “The field or house of so-and-so son of so-and-so in the common land of this village I am acquiring for [silver]. Let any for whom there is (a case for) acquiring or litigating bring up their tablets and place them before the representatives, let them litigate, clear (their claims and) acquire”. Whoever within this month, before the completion of the deadline has brought their tablets (and) has placed them before the representatives, (each) man in proportion to his field shall acquire in full. On the day when the herald proclaims within the city of Aššur, one of the chancellors serving the king, the city scribe, the herald and the king’s representatives shall be present. The person who is acquiring the village, the field or the house, the mayor (and) three elders of the village shall be present, shall have the herald proclaim, shall write their tablets (and) hand them over, saying “Within this month the herald has proclaimed thrice. Whoever within this month has not brought his tablet, (and) has not placed (it) before the representatives, shall forfeit his field or house.
Quoted in Postgate 1992:
Text 15:1 The city judges called into a village dispute
An official and the judges of Larsa write to:
… the mayor and elders of Bulum: Watar-Samas has informed me that he bought an orchard 5 years ago and that the village is claiming it from him. Examine his case and pass judgement according to the edict. If it is too difficult(P) for you, send him and his adversaries to us …
… Say to the mayor of Laliya and the village elders, the judges say: lli-idinnam has appealed to us. His deposition states: 'I gave 30 bushels of corn to my son to plant in a field, but they ate the corn and rented my field out to a tenant, and the tenant treated me contemptuously. I went before the mayor and village-elders and put the matter before them, and my son answered me before the mayor and village-elders. I said to him: 'I am going to put a stop to your wife and your mother-in-law, your witches'. He replied to me: 'I shall put a stop to your witch'. This was his deposition before us. Now that our tablet has reached you, send Ur-Subula, his wife and his mother-in-law to us, so that we may pronounce justice on them according to the royal edict.
Text 15:5 Swearing on divine symbols
Iddin-Enlil appealed to the judge of Larsa, and the mayor of the village of Kutalla and the village elders were present and (for) Iddin-Enlil the axe of Lugal-kidunna was taken up and it went round the orchard and he made a solemn declaration and took (the orchard).
Quoted in Postgate 2007:
Cuneiform text
If a woman has been given (in marriage), and her husband has been taken by an enemy, (and) she has no father-in-law or son, she shall belong to her husband for two years; during these two years, if there is not enough to eat, she shall come and declare it. If she is a villager of a palace, her [palace] shall feed her, and she shall do its work. If she is the [wife] of a Hupsu [?] … he shall feed her … and, [if she is a free woman and there is] a field and [a house at her disposal], she shall come [and declare it] saying: '[I have nothing] to eat’. (Then) the judges shall ask the mayor (and) elders of the village whether the field and house belong in that village, (and) they shall sell the field and house for her maintenance during the two years, on her behalf … She is 'in waiting' and they shall write a tablet for her (to that effect). She shall complete two years, (and) then she may be 'in waiting' for the husband of her choice, (and) they shall write a tablet for her as if she were an almattu ('widow').
[fn] = footnotes, which are omitted here..
‘T1’ to ‘T10’ are summarised on the nearby ‘About’ page..
Today’s work of art is pinned on the Website version:
The Old Men, by Andrei Ryabushkin [late 19th century]