the sword and the lie

The state was likely born out of a cult. The former would not have been supportable with the latter. Further, it is unlikely that the latter would last long without evolving into the former. Thus it is reasonable to believe that both would have originated in the same place. In my post “Between the rivers, before the state“, I argued that archaeology shows that mankind in the near east lived in a prosperous, agricultural, anarchic society, until a new culture, dominated by priest-kings, arose and spread from the south. Where did this “Ubaid” culture start and how? It seems likely that that culture, and the very ideas of cult and state first arose in Eridu. My evidence for this claim is as follows.

Evidence from Literature
The “Eridu Genesis”, found in a tablet dating from the 18th century BC, calls Eridu “firstling of the cities”. And the Sumerian king list states:

After the kingship descended from heaven, the kingship was in Eridug. In Eridug, Alulim became king

It is uncontroversial that the first “city-states” arose in Sumer. And here we find a Sumerian text pointing to Eridu as the first Sumerian city-state. And here, in the words “kingship descended from heaven” we have an indication of false legitimacy fostered by religion being used to establish a worldly power.

Alulim is considered the first king of Eridu. But there is a yet more important figure in the city’s foundation story: the mysterious character of Adapa. According to ancient tablets, the legendary figure of Adapa was:

the wise man of Eridu, Ea had created him as chief among men, A wise man whose command none should oppose, The prudent, the most wise among the Anunnaki was he, Blameless, of clean hands, anointed, observer of the divine statutes

Each city in Mesopotamia had its chief deity. The city’s temple for that god was considered to be its home, and the priests of that temple were its servants. Eridu, throughout its history, was considered by all of Mesopotamia to be the home of Enki (known to the Semites as Ea) the god of fresh waters and fertile land. According to the above passage, the first god of the firstling of cities chose Adapa as his chief priest.

Furthermore, Adapa is often associated with the mythic character Oannes, who according to the later Babylonian scholar Berossus:

taught (the people of Mesopotamia) to build towers and temples; and to establish laws;

If this myth has any basis in cultural memory, then perhaps Adapa was a real person who introduced a cult to the area now known as Eridu. As the new cult’s chief priest, it is easy to imagine this ancient Jim Jones amassing power.

Evidence from Archaeology Eridu is the oldest Sumerian city known to archaeologists. And it is the first place in which evidence of the “Ubaid” culture is found. In fact, the early phase of the Ubaid period is known as “Eridu”.

The archaelogical site of Eridu reveals that a series of successively larger temples was built on the same spot, starting with a simple, tiny one-room building, and ending with a vast sprawling proto-ziqqurat.¹ This is the first instance in the archaeological record in which any kind of heavy centralization of power is evidenced by a few buildings being dramatically larger than the rest. And one can see that centralization of power growing as each successive temple is built with ever greater opulence, while the surrounding buildings stay humble.

The temples of Eridu are numbered such that the most recently built temple is numbered 1, and older temples are successively numbered higher.

Temple 17, the earliest discovered temple on the site (and most probably in the world), is a small square building (no more than 4 meters square) with a simple, small square pedestal inside. This is possibly the site of the first ever “offerings” to Enki (or to any god for that matter), with ovens outside for baking the offerings.

Temple 16 is a larger reconstruction of 17, with two pedestals, one surrounded by ash. The construction is of higher quality than preceding temples, with plaster bricks. Pottery was found outside, as well as an oven.

By the time we reach Temple 11, Enki’s home has grown to be 15 meters long. And now it is raised on a platform (to suitably represent the superiority of the god and his servants), with a 1 meter ramp leading up from a lower level (there are signs that the platform was extended at some point). It has a large central chamber, a sanctuary conjoined with an offering room, and a private room for the priest(s).

Temple 10 has a yet larger podium, and the platform is extended by a further 8 meters.

Temple 9 has thicker walls, a large door before the altar, and a bench (perhaps for votive statues). This arrangement is very similar to level 13 of the archaeological site, Gawra.

Temple 8 is greatly enlarged (21 x 12 m). It has even thicker walls, false doorways behind the altar, and the remains of fish offerings. This is particularly interesting as Berossus depicts Oannes as wearing a mantle which looked like the head of a fish.

Temple 7 has a special priests-only entrance to the altar-end of the sanctuary.

Temple 6 also has a bench for votive statues.

At some point, a separate palace is constructed one kilometer north of the temple site. This palace site, the earliest known in the world, also undergoes a series of upgrades through the ages. However, most of the palace levels were not archaeologically recoverable. Level 2 is the most complete. It bears resemblances to palaces in the city-state and later holy site of Kish. It is distinguished from temples in the absence of altars and the presence of gates, chambers, courtyards, guard’s rooms, and living quarters.

Perhaps this palace, and palaces in general, developed as a residence for top priests, who evolved into kings. Alternately, perhaps the priests gave some local uneducated ruffian command of the army, so they would not themselves need to get in harms way. This “general” acquired a power-base of allegiance of his own among the soldiers, and evolved into a king, then demanding his own lavish quarters.

Did Adapa come into Eridu, convince a small fishing village that he had the ear of the god Enki, translate that influence into great wealth for himself and his temple, pass on his position to his sons, and thus create the first temple-state? We will never know with certainty exactly what happened. But what hardly admits of doubt is that

1. according to both literary and archaeological evidence, Eridu really was the “firstling of cities”,
2. Eridu is the earliest archaeological instance of acute centralization of power and pelf (as indicated by its buildings),
3. Eridu’s centralization of power and pelf fell upon the first great cult (as indicated by the fact that the earliest great buildings were also the earliest great temples),
4. in this firstling of cities, the cult antedated the secular state (since its temples andedated the palaces), and
5. the first great cult gave rise to the first ever secular state (it is too much of a coincidence that the first great temples arose in the same exact place as the first palaces)
.

Eridu’s place on the King’s List also indicates that it was something of an empire. The King’s List is known to have only included kings whose cities reigned over (or were at least hegemonic over) the entire region of “Sumer-and-Akkad”. This jibes perfectly with the fact that the Ubaid culture which first arose in Eridu was later found throughout the region. And given how, throughout history, the most centralized nation-states have also been the most war-thirsty, it seems very likely that the priest-kings of Eridu would not be satisfied with completely subjugating only the local population. And also seems very likely that an all-powerful central cult-state, with the ability to dragoon its young men into war, would be able to put under the yoke village after peace-loving village as it marched up the Euphrates.

People tend to implicitly assume that the state has always been with us, and thus it is somehow a natural fact of life. This assumption is greatly assisted by the fact that, even though agriculture pre-dates the state, the state predates writing and written history. Writing itself played a key role in ratcheting up the power of the state. I will discuss that role in my next post.

¹ Reconstruction of Eridu, http://babel.massart.edu/~tkelley/v5.0/eridu/. This is an excellent HTML model of the archaeological site. I highly recommend taking this stratigraphic “tour” of Eridu. For more information see this excerpt from the Cambridge Ancient History (on Google Books).

Again, I am writing a series of posts called “A History of Truth and Prosperity”.  What do I mean my “truth” and “prosperity”?

Truth

By “truth” I mean the history of mankind’s search for knowledge. My theory is that human learning thrives in a condition of linguistic unity and  jurisdictional disunity.

Linguistic Unity

It’s obvious how a common language would help human learning.  If thinkers can collaborate, debate, discuss, and share freely with each other, they can together get at the truth much more quickly than a solitary sage might all by himself.

Jurisdictional Disunity

But for learning to truly thrive amongst a people of a common language, there must also be a fragmentation of power.  The temple and the state always tries to control thought and discourse in order to consolidate their power.  And controlled thought and discourse will always be slower than free thought and discourse at getting at the truth.  With fragmentation of power within a linguistic whole, unsanctioned thinkers can preserve their intellectual honesty by hopping from rival state to rival state.

Prosperity

Most historians are obsessed with rulers and those rulers’ wars.  As I’ve written before, What is more important to the mass of humanity is not so much which cast of thugs has managed to put them under a yoke in any given period: but what they themselves have managed to achieve in spite of them.  In my discussion of history you will still find the same cast of characters you might find in a history textbook: Alexander, Louis IV, Elizabeth I.  But rather than fixate on their characters or marvel at their personal success as they would have had us do (and as most historians faithfully do), I am going to discuss how their policies and actions have affected the livelihood of the people: which will be a mostly negative assessment.  And most importantly, I am going to explore how the people have contributed to their own prosperity: through innovation and hard work.Human prosperity is also dependent on linguistic unity and jurisdictional disunity.  But the latter seems much more important than the former.  Jurisdictional disunity is important because it leads to a larger number of economic actors freely competing and innovating: that is it permits markets. In my next post, I shall give an outline of the biggest economic and intellectual epochs in western history, and discuss how the developments that characterize each period seems to support my theory.

As announced in my last post, I am going to write a series of posts entitled “A History of Truth and Prosperity.”  I shall argue that the determining factors of human progress are power and language.  And the key aspect of both power and language is its level of unity.  The optimal condition for human progress, I shall argue, is disunity in power, and unity in language. 

My thinking regarding all things human is rooted in my understanding of history.  So to let my readers know where I’m coming from, I shall describe the major developments of western history as I understand it, with a focus on truth and prosperity: that is, the progress of human knowledge and human well-being. In my next post, I shall explain why I focus on those two particular threads of history. 

Louis XIV, the “sun king” of France from 1643 to 1715, is often marveled over by historians for his “magnificence”. Buy like most rulers with their own cult of personality, he did far more harm than good to his people:

The economic and financial condition of France at the beginning of the eighteenth century was truly pitiable. In spite of her great natural resources, the variety of her favourable climates, the fertility of her well-watered soil, and the thrift, industry, and intelligence of her people, the efforts of able ministers like Mazarin and Colbert to increase her national wealth had been rendered nugatory by the senseless politics of the Great Monarch. Costly campaigns abroad, ruinous extravagance at home, left the kingdom at his death, in 1715, with a debt of 3460 million francs, of which over 3300 had been contracted since the death of Colbert in 1683. His murderous wars, reducing the birth-rate, increasing the mortality, and “an act of religious intolerance, disavowed by religion” –the expulsion of the Protestants–had reduced the population by four millions, or 20 per cent, since 1660. Agricultural products had fallen off by one-third since he ascended the throne.

The Physiocrats, Henry Higgs, p. 5

This is what centralization of power around a few egos leads to: “costly campaigns abroad” (like those brought to us by today’s neocons), ruinous extravagence at home (like that brought to us by today’s “compassionate conservatives” and tax-and-spend leftists), and massive debt (like that brought to us by the combination of all of the above).