Download "By the rivers of Babylon" - Welfare in Ancient Mesopotamia

1
Martti Muukkonen
”By the Rivers of Babylon1” – Welfare in Ancient Mesopotamia
Presentation to the work-group of historical sociology at the annual meeting of Finnish sociological
association, Jyväskylä 26.3.2004
Introduction
In 1990 Gösta Esping-Andersen published his famous book on three welfare regimes2. In this work,
he identified Nordic, social democratic regime, Central European conservative regime and AngloSaxon liberal regime. However, scholars of social policy have been aware that the Central European
model is actually a Catholic one since it was launched by Christian Democratic parties and is based
on two papal encyclia, Rerum Novarum and Quadrogesino Anno. These encyclias are based on the
Thomistic theology, which is a combination of Biblical and Aristotelian thinking3. Thus, the roots
of this model should be sought from ancient Greece and Israel.
However, scholars of social policy are not as aware that the Nordic Social Democratic model could
be named as Lutheran model since its roots are in Luther's theology and, especially, in the ethos of
the 17th century officials who were trained in Pietistic Halle University. These Pietists launched the
first welfare projects in Denmark and Prussia4. In the case of Britain and the US, we have to
remember that the British Labour Party got its first leaders from Methodism5 and one cannot speak
of the emergence of American culture without acknowledging the impact of Puritanism6. Moreover,
one significant social movement in the break of the 19th century was the Social Gospel movement,
which influence to the whole ecumenical movement, including bishop William Temple, who
launched the concept of the welfare state.
All these Protestant streams have stressed the importance of the Bible for both the doctrine and
ethics. Luther and Pietists aimed for the abolition of poverty and Puritans and proponents of the
1
2
3
Ps 137:1
Esping-Andersen 1990.
Studies on the impact of Catholic social ethics on the South European welfare states have been made by Donald Dorr
(1983), Michael P. Fogarty (1966), Alf Tergel (1987), Baldwin (1990) and Kersbergen (1995).
4 On the influence of Lutheranism on the Nordic welfare state, see Lindberg (1993; 2001), Gelpi and Bowen (1994),
Kopperi (1996), Health Care and Poor Relief in Protestant Europe, 1500-1700 (1997), Sørensen (1998), Health
Care and Poor Relief in 18th and 19th Century Northern Europe (2001), Arffman (2002), Raunio (2002)
5 On Methodism and Labour Party, see Wearmouth (1957), Pelling (1965, 129), Brand C. (1974, 16), Smith L. (1993)
6 On Puritanism and the American society, see Niebuhr (1937), Gaer and Siegel (1964, 105-155), Perry (1964) and
Handy (1974). On revivalism and social reform, see Smith T.L. (1965), Muukkonen (2002, 155-166 - see especially
references to Social Gospel literature). On American religious philanthropy, see Faith and Philanthropy in America
2
Social Gospel wanted to create God's Kingdom on earth. Models for these attempts were taken from
the Old Testament prophets and from the ministry of Jesus.
However, Greece and Israel did not emerge out of nothing. They were part of the world system that
existed in their time. The centre of this world system7 was in Mesopotamia and its influence
reached from present day China to Gibraltar. Even Egypt, the other old civilisation, got its first
impacts from Sumer -although its later history was much that of isolation. In this paper, I study how
the ancient Mesopotamians framed their responsibility of each other and how they organised it.
Ancient Mesopotamia (a land between two rivers, as the Greek name means) is the cradle of IndoEuropean culture. Perhaps because its influence to European culture is indirect through Jewish
religion and ancient Greece and Rome, scholars of philanthropy have not paid as much interest on
the philanthropic systems of the Land of Two Rivers as they have on Israel, Greece and Rome.
However, in order to understand the Israeli and Greek contexts, it is revealing to see focus first to
the culture of which the Palestine and Greece was part of.
When we study the social conditions of ancient Mesopotamia, we face the problem that majority of
the existing sources are made by the urban elite. This means that the frame in these texts maintains often even propagates - the elite world view. Thus, we have little information on nomads, lower
classes, counter-cultures and religious sects. Even this knowledge is given from the elite
perspective.
Along with Babylonian and Assyrian texts, we have descriptions of some Greek writers on
Mesopotamia. For example, Herodotos deals Mesopotamia and Persia in his Histories. However,
the Greek perspective is biased with the political atmosphere of the time. Classical works in Greece
emerged in the time when Persia was a real threat to Hellas. Therefore, like in most descriptions of
enemies, all eastern people are, if not dehumanised, at least presented in a negative view.
A special problem for a sociologist is that most sociologists do not master cuneiform writing and
languages of the country. This gives only two possibilities: either to learn, as some anthropologists
have done, or rely on secondary sources. I have chosen the latter option. Fortunately, during last
two decades, there has emerged a host of literature on Mesopotamia that relies on the methodology
of social sciences. Especially anthropologists but also historical economists have been active in the
field. Additionally, there has been many projects that have translated Mesopotamian texts to
English. Thus, what follows, is a combination of the information that studies give on the
7
(1990), Jeavons (1994), Welfare in America (1996).
Guillermo Algaze (1989; 1993) has utilised Immanuel Wallerstein’s (1974; 1980) world system thesis with the
exception that, contrary to Wallerstein, Algazehe he does not restrict it to modern time. There has recently emerged
several works that apply ‘world system’ theory to early Mesopotamian world (e.g., Kohl 1978; Frank 1993;
Ratnagar 2001).
3
Mesopotamian context, its religion and welfare, and my own focus on these texts according to the
hints that specialists have given.
…
”The Lord God planted a garden eastward in Eden8” – The
Mesopotamian Context
Civilisation of The Land of Two Rivers emerged before the written history. Already during its first
phase, prehistoric period9, emerged agriculture and basic structures of society. When we are
speaking about Mesopotamian culture, we have to remember that even the written history covers
some 4000 years and we have some data even from “the early Neolithic period between 8000 and
6000 B.C.E.10” However, what we call Mesopotamian history, usually means a period from ca.
3500 BC on11. This necessarily means a vast difference in historical phenomena. When the first
written documents emerge, we see already a well established civilisation, which was, however, in
constant change and, thus, I only try to locate such trends that have left their fingerprints in the
history of welfare thinking.
MESOPOTAMIAN CULTURE emerged ca. 4000 BC when Sumerians entered from unknown
direction to southern Mesopotamia. From that time begun a period that has normally been called
‘the Uruk expansion12.’ It was that period when the basis of Mesopotamian civilisation was laid and
basic forms of the society were created. It was also a time when Sumerian influence reached from
Indus to Nile. Circa 3100 BC., a new invention, cuneiform writing was invented and the historical
period began.
Mesopotamia was a multicultural area almost from the beginning of its civilisation. It mixed
traditions of Ubaidians, Sumerians, Semites, Kassites, Gutians, Assyrians, and Persians. On the
other hand, Mesopotamian was a mixture of urban, sedentary rural and nomadic lifestyles. It was
this multiculturalism that speeded the process of innovations in the country.
8
9
Gen 2:8.
I accept Dietz O. Edzard’s (1994, 866) view that historic period begins with the invention of scripture and emergence
of literal documents.
10 Watkins 1992, 176.
11 Chronology of the early Mesopotamian history before 1450 BC. forms a special problem. From that time on, there is
a general agreement but the chronology before it depends on how much time separated the end of the first dynasty of
Babylon from this date. There are basically three competing chronologies concerning the period before 1450 BC.
These chronologies are called short, middle and long chronologies. In this study, I follow the middle chronology.
12 On Uruk period, see, e.g., Edzard (1994), Liverani (1996), McCorriston (1997), Postgate (1992), Uruk Mesopotamia
& Its Neighbors (2001), Yoffee (1995), Zagarell (1986).
4
The basic unit of the society was the household13. These, in turn, were grouped to smaller and
larger kin or occupation groups that had both authority and responsibility on their members. The
important aspect from the welfare perspective was that also royal palace and temple were seen as
households. Actually, a town, village or a nomadic tribe were seen as a household of their
respective god and, thus, this god had similar authority and responsibility on the members of this
household than the head of the family. This frame had certain consequences on the responsibilities
of the temple: when the family could not support its members, the temple substituted the clan and
gave aid14. Here we can rather easily see Durkheimian model of the religion’s function in the
society: it guaranteed the basic solidarity among the population. Being more stable than the state,
the temple formed the basic social safety net that quaranteed life after serious economic setbacks.
Later, when kingship was strengthened, the palace was modelled according to similar household
pattern. Along these two basic institutions, there were independent families as well. The centrality
of these three types of households differed according different periods. Thus, there were times when
the temple was the centre of the society, times when the palace occupied the central role and times
when independent families were central, for example in economy. I.J. Gelb describes the difference
between temple, palace and noble households as follows:
A temple household, like the household of the crown and nobility, consists of managers (or owners), labor
personnel, and domestic animals, as well as residential buildings, shelters for the labor force, storage bins and
animal pens, also fields, orchards, gardens, forests, and pastures. Unlike crown households, whose labor force
may have consisted mainly of serf peasants and craftsmen and prisoners of war deported and settled on the land,
and unlike the noble households with their serf peasants and craftsmen, in both of which we can assume the
existence of men and women in more or less equal proportions, the temple households utilized the women-andchildren personnel in a much greater proportions than the men personnel.15
Hierarchies inside of the family or clan were accompanied with the hierarchy of families and clans.
Basically, as the Law of Hammurabi reveals, the society was divided into three basic layers: awilum
(gentlemen, or noblemen), free citizens and slaves. Inside these groups, there were then more
nuanced divisions.
The combination of mixed cultures with different social layers and their different interests sparkled
innovations that made Sumerian culture superior to other cultures of its time. Most important of
these was the writing that enabled effective administration and trade. Frequent contacts with other
cultures – either by commerce or by war – increased the cultural competence. Although neighbours,
13
On Mesopotamian household economy, see Lamberg-Karlovsky & Wright (1996, 174), Liverani (1996, 31) and Van
der Toorn 1994 (66-69; 1996, 17-40). See also Weber's (1976, 42-46) siscussion on household economy in antique.
14 This early version of subsidiarity principle cal be seen also later in Hammurabi’s Law but there only in the case of
buying the prisoners of war free (CH §32)
15 Gelb 1972, 10.
5
from time to time, occupied the country, they were Mesopotamised and they brought their new
innovations to the common cultural pool.
ECONOMY of the Mesopotamia was based on three basic fields, agriculture, pottery and textile
industry, and foreign trade. As a consequence, these fields gave their spice to the culture, political
system and religion of the Mesopotamia. Society’s values were in harmony with the needs of these
fields of economy.
Already since the Uruk period, the Mesopotamian agriculture was based on both planting crops in
irrigated fields and herding animals in less fertile areas. Moreover, agricultural products were aimed
both for nutrition and for raw material of industry. Since the agriculture was based on irrigation, it
required highly developed co-operation. Thus, the institutions that were able to organise the work
were also economic centres of the country. In the early period, temples were power centres and
Simo Parpola even speaks of 'temple capitalism' when he describes the centrality of temples16.
There were several reasons for this dominance of temples. As McCorriston argues, the land was
originally communal property, which was administered by the local temple. Religiously, it was
understood that the land was property of the god of the temple17. When the large part of population
was alienated from the use of this common land, it was quite natural that the temple recruited them
to reprocess the products.18 The role of the temple must be understood in a view what Karel van der
Toorn has argued: gods were for a great deal tribal gods19 – thus, the early temple was a sanctuary
of the tribe and giving landless population work there can be seen as tribe’s attempt to adapt itself to
new situation.Later palaces took this position although there seems to have been constant shifts
between the dominance. In any cases, the agriculture and industry needed labour force and, thus,
employment was the major channel of ensuring welfare for the population.
Along with agriculture, the other pillar of Mesopotamian economy was trade20. In time, it shifted
from the supervision of great organisations (temple and palace) to private enterprises.
The important point here is that Mesopotamian culture had, from the beginning, elements that
emphasised urban, village and nomadic lifestyle. Along this, there was both communal and private
16
17
Parpola 1982, 148-152.
Since the land was in the beginning property of the city-god (i.e. the temple), it could not, in principle be sold. It was
given to a farmer to be planted but it was not his property although the right or duty to plant it might have been
hereditary. Zagarell (1986, 416), following I.J. Gelb (1979) notes that “whereas land sales recorded for Early
dynastic III are invariable sales of groups, in the following Sargonic period (2340-2100 B.C.) the groups involved are
often smaller and in over half the cases the sellers are individuals. By the Ur III period, houses are overwhelmingly
being sold by individuals.”
18 McCorriston 1997, 529f., See also Yoffee 1995, 289.
19 Van der Toorn 1996, 42-93.
20 On the development of Mesopotamian foreign trade, see, e.g., Algaze (1989; 1993; 2001), Lamberg-Karlovsky
(2001), McCorrison (1997), Ratnagar (2001), Yoffee (1995), and Zagarelli (1986).
6
emphases in the economic thinking of Mesopotamians. It was in no sense a homogeneous entity but
a cocktail of different lifestyles and these different elements can be seen in Mesopotamian religion,
legislation and ethics.
POLITICALLY, for the most time, Mesopotamia was constructed of rivalling city-states and the
old idea of strong state with Oriental despot was more an exception than a rule. It was more
propaganda than reality. Although rulers like Sargon, Hammurabi, Nebuchadnezzar and some
others created empires, they also created potential to rebellion. These rebellions weakened the
country so much that the country faced several attacks of foreign invaders. With Persian occupation
in the sixth century BC, the idea of Babylonian state was over. After that, Mesopotamia was a
province of foreign rulers although there existed autonomous cities, especially in the Hellenistic
period.21.
Occasional unification of the land left, however, an idea of the united Mesopotamia, where the
kingship was seen as continuous – in spite that the throne shifted from family to family and from
town to town. It was only after Sargon, that a large empire became a dominant model of political
organisation. Both Babylonian and Assyrian empires got this model from Akkad. However, it must
be noted that empires were exceptions in the political organisation and independent city-states
formed the dominant model.
In these city-states and empires, a king had to compete with the power of the noble families which
was centred around the temples. The power of the king was secured by his own resources. Wars
were fought either in order to get both minerals and control of mercantile nodes or (in the case of
invaders) to achieve the treasures and fertile land. The development of warfare techniques (chariot
forces) required such investments that only the king had and this, in turn, led to the king’s instead of
citizen’s army22.
2.2. “The norms had been fixed23” – Religion of Mesopotamia
Sociologically, Mesopotamian religion can be seen as an attempt to explain the cultural, economic
and political factors that influenced people’s lives. Farmers were well aware that the fertility and
success of harvest did not depend only on their work. Forces of nature – gods – have the final word
in their lives. In the same time, religion legitimised many social and political practises that had been
proven effective by experience. For example, irrigation was not possible without co-operation. It
21
On Mesopotamian political structures, see Bailkey (1967), Dandamayev (1979), Greengus (1995), Postgate
(1995),Roaf (1995), Jacobsen and Dandamayev (1996) and Lamberg-Karlovsky (2000).
22 On Mesopotamian military organisation, see Dalley (1995).
23 Enuma elish (Mesopotamian Cosmogony 1955).
7
required organisation that was seen a contrast to chaos. Kings also needed legitimisation to their
power in order to minimise rebels. Merchants needed protection for their properties. All these
aspects can be found in the Mesopotamian religion. However, we must remember that religion was
not just a consequence of these needs. It might have such pre-historic roots that were developed
already before Sumerians came to Mesopotamia. Thus, cultural, economic and political factors can
as well be applications of the early Sumerian religion in the new environment.
Mesopotamian religion can, according to Karel van der Toorn, be divided into three overlapping
realms. The first one is the official state religion, which included the liturgy of the state cult,
temples and shrines, priests and priestesses, cosmology of the elite, and theological formulations.
The second is, what van der Toorn calls family religion. It was primarily question of worship of the
god of the family and the cult of forefathers. In between these lies the local or folk religion, which
is public but not supported by the state elite.24
PANTHEON of Mesopotamian religion was enormous25. There is an estimation that the early
“Sumerian pantheon contained no fewer than 3,000 deities26.” Religion of Mesopotamia was, thus,
an attempt to modify a compact whole from a multitude of different deities. It reflected the
organisation of society and vice versa.
The unification of the land also had assimilating effects in pantheon. In the Mesopotamian religion
can be seen three layers: official, domestic and folk religions. Official religion legitimised the
hierarchy of the society, since the society imitated the hierarchy of the pantheon. In this level, there
were the service of the three leading gods, An/Anu, Enki/Ea and Enlil/Bel. From the rise of
Babylon, these local deities started to assimilate into Marduk and turned to be his different
characters. In the same time, Marduk was seen as a son of Bel and elevated as the leader of gods.
Thus, as a by-product of the Marduk cult, there emerged a trend towards monotheism. However,
this was not so much a theological aim than a consequence of political unification of the country
under the leadership of Babylon. Under them was the host of local and natural deities.
DOMESTIC CULT concentrated primarily on family gods and ancestors27. Karel van der Toorn
argues that in the case of Babylonian religiosity, focusing only on the official cults would give a
limited view since “female piety flourishes primarily outside the official cult, behind closed doors
so to speak28.” The service of these family gods was both imbedded to everyday routines and
24
25
Van der Toorn 1994, 112; 1996, 2ff.
Morris Jastrow’s work from 1898 is outdated but, unfortunately, replaceable when dealing with the official religion
of Mesopotamia.
26 Age of God-Kings 1987, 13.
27 On Mesopotamian domestic cult, see Karel van der Toorn (1994, 1996)
28 Van der Toorn 1994, 37.
8
feasted in special important moments of the family. A meal was not simply getting nutrition but it
was an image of the divine meal that was also imitated in the temple and in the court. It included
both sacrifice and prayers to the gods. In this occasion, there emerged an important concept of
impurity. Impurity was not, according to van der Toorn, not principally a violation against an
ethical norm. It might be, but in the first hand, it was a violation against etiquette codes. Everything
that was unpleasant to the gods was impure: dirty hands, dirty utensils, some sicknesses like
leprosy, woman’s menstruation, etc. Also improper behaviour caused impurity, which meant that
one could not approach gods or if (s)he approached, the prayer would be in vain because the habitus
was too unpleasant to gods.
FOLK RELIGION lies somewhere between the official cult and private devotion. Van der Toorn
argues that
folk piety consists of the feelings and practices which the official religion has elicted from people. In spite of all
its possible deviations from the official doctrine, folk piety feeds on it. Popular belief is a multicolored collection
of convictions … originating from folklore, fantasy and official religious doctrine. Folk religion is more than
this. It consists of intuitions and convictions, sometimes incorporated into stories and teachings, religiously
interpreted experiences and number of religious interpreted experiences and a number of religious rituals carried
out in groups.29
In folk religion there lies elements from religiously oriented folk festivals, sorcery, necromancy,
revelations by dreams and prophecy. The common denominators with folk religion practices are
that they are religious forms of the non-elite (and women) and that elite groups either persecute,
discourage or just tolerate them. However, often some forms of folk religion sweep into the official
religion as well.30
MAN’S ROLE in this cosmological system was to serve gods. The man was created to serve gods
and free them from some routine tasks (e.g. reproduction). Thus, the starting point was that man’s
fate was to be servant on earth. A representant of men in front of gods was priest-king, enki, and
later king, lugal. Since their task was to duplicate the divine order on earth, they held a similar
status as Marduk held in the pantheon – they were leaders and men served gods by serving them.
The king was responsible of keeping the order.
Kings violation of divine order caused misfortune over the land. In similar way, individuals
misbehaviour caused divine punishment on him/her. This led to the concepts of sin and guilt, which
led to the definition of universal duties towards one another. Thus, in Hammurabi’s Law, there is
not so much question of individual’s rights as his duties. Taking care of one’s neighbour was just
implementing man’s duty to free gods from such tasks.
29
30
Van der Toorn 1994, 112.
Van der Toorn 1994, 111-133.
9
CONCEPT OF SIN was an essential part of the Mesopotamian religion. Especially in magical
texts, sin and guilty play prominent role. Jastrow argues that Mesopotamians saw “misfortunes and
ills come as punishment for sins of commission or omission” although there was not a distinction
between ceremonial errors and social misbehaviour31. When the role of a man was to serve gods,
the sin was acting against this duty. Since maintaining the order of the cosmos was the main aim, all
that broke this was misbehaviour. If this was done either in individual or communal level, gods sent
misfortunes as punishment. These misfortunes could be sicknesses, natural disasters or defeat in a
war. Jastrow point out that “it is this doctrine of guilt… that we must seek both for he starting-point
of an ethical system (so far as such a system existed among the Babylonians), and also the
limitations of this system32.” The concept of sin in front of gods has a special influence on the
question what is right and what is wrong. Instead of utilitarian point of view, what is beneficial to
me is right, we find universal norms that all must follow.
ZOROASTRIANISM33, although a latecomer in Mesopotamia, became influential religion in the
whole Near East Area. When Persians occupied Babylon, the country faced a different religious
tradition. Contrary to Assyrian pantheon, which was mostly similar to the Babylonian one,
Zoroastrianism grew out of the same ancient Persian religion that later gave rise to Indian religions.
The speciality of Zoroastrianism was in its dualism and eschatology. The world was seen as a
battlefield of Auramazda and Ahriman, good and bad. Mans role was to fight for good and oppose
bad. When he died, (s)he was judged and (s)he entered either to the House of the Light (Paradise) or
to the Houses of the Dark.
2.3. “To further the well-being of the mankind34” – Babylon’s Social
Welfare
2.3.1. “The strong should not harm the weak35” – Social Layers and Equality
From the perspective of religion’s influence to social welfare, the most important aspect is the
stability. A polytheist world required some basic understanding how the hierarchy of the pantheon
31
32
33
Jastrow 1898, 693.
Jastrow 1898, 693.
On Zoroastrianism, see, for example, Dresden (1980b [1962]; 1980c [1962]), Riekkinen (1988) Duchesne-Guillemin
(1994), Dhalla (2003 [1938]).
34
35
CH, Prologue.
CH, Prologue.
10
was fixed. This order of the pantheon was then applied on immanent administration and it fixed the
duties of human beings.
As we have already seen, the idea of heavenly order had some consequences on the welfare of the
people. The first was that the legislation regulated wages, taxes and prices when king aimed to
maintain the stability of his rule. Legislation also fixed the rewards and punishments so that the elite
could not act as it wished. When the legislation was linked to divine order, it preceded the idea that
all men are equal in front of the law, although in Mesopotamia the justice was given according to
class36. Weber’s remark of the alliance between dictators and middle class is interesting. We can
see it in the first social reform of Uru-inim-agina when the coup d’êtat was made with an alliance of
the middle class, clergy and the rival. His reform left the tradition of royal degrees. These degrees
worked as safety valves against too rude forms of capitalism. Especially the cancellation of debts,
freeing debt-slaves and returns of land to their previous cultivators re-established the peasant class
and ensured the food supply of the country.
HAMMURABI’S LEGISLATION seem to reflect more Amorite than Sumerian thinking. The
significant difference is in the famous “eye-for-eye, tooth-for-tooth” principle which lacked from
Sumerian legislation37. Lamberg-Karlovsky and Wright also point out that Old Babylonian tradition
balanced rights and obligations:
This balance is exemplified by the contrasting misharum (‘equity, justice’) and andurarum (‘freedom’). Thus the
Babylonian kings were obliged to protect the freedom and liberty of individuals in the context of equity and
justice, the balancing of the rights and obligations of ruler and ruled. These concepts are unknown elsewhere in
the ancient world, and were only seen again as concepts borrowed by the Hebrews in the Iron Age and in the
later civilizations of the classical Mediterranean. 38
Social divisions were not always clear in Babylon. First, Weber argues that slaves were not
numerous in Babylon and there were not clear division between slaves and coloni, bondsmen, those
who rented themselves out39. Especially as Edzard puts it “a free citizen who got into debt as a
result of bad harvest or some other misfortune had one foot in the slave class40.” Moreover, when
most of the population was obliged to give some sort of liturgies to the state, they were all more or
less bound to their obligations to the king. Bickerman and Smith notes that the same word that
meant slave, also meant king’s minister41. However, Hammurabi’s Law recognises the distinction
between slaves, freed men, palace dependants42 and independent citizens. This can be seen, for
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
Hanson 1994, 12; Bickerman & Smith 1976, 34.
Parpola 1982, 219; Lamberg-Karlovsky & Wright 1996, 179; Edzard 1994, 875.
Lamberg-Karlovsky & Wright 1996, 179f.
Weber 1976 (1896), 96.
Edzard 1994, 875.
Bickerman & Smith 1976, 34.
For example, CH §§ 35-38 deny the sell of the cattle, sheep or land that the king has given to a chieftain or a
11
example, in the famous paragraphs of the eye for an eye 43. This principle was, namely, valid only
between two free men. A free man’s harm to both a freed man and to a slave could be settled with a
fixed amount of money.
STATUS OF THE WOMEN must be seen from the perspective of the order in the cosmos and the
duality of gods and goddesses. All had their proper place and duties both in heaven and on earth.
The starting point of the question of woman’s status is that she was a person that departed from her
childhood family and entered to a new one44. In this way, investing on her would mean that the
investment would not benefit his childhood family but the family of her husband. This economic
precondition also determined the status of the woman: the only way to get family’s investment back
was the systems of bride price and dowry. The bride price must not be seen only from the
perspective that a woman was a commodity that was sold45 but from a perspective that two families
share the benefit from the work of one of their common member. Since the (male) mortality was
high because of wars, a woman could remarry and, thus, enter again to a new family. For this
reason, Hammurabi’s law has detailed laws on economic consequences of various marital options.
A dowry was basically a woman’s share of her father’s inheritance. It belonged to her and – after
her death – to her children, not to her husband.
Since women were under the patriarchal authority, this also meant that they had some rights. The
most important of these was the right for food and clothing. It was the duty of the husband to feed,
clothe and protect his wife and unmarried daughters. This duty was expressed with the tradition of
veiling. By veiling his bride, a man accepts a woman as his wife and the responsibility of clothing
and feeding her.46 The veil was a mark that a woman was under the protection of her husband (his
family and tribe). Actually, the use of veil was forbidden for slaves and prostitutes, since they were
not ‘respectable’ wives or daughters47
According to Bickerman and Smith, the primary duty of women was to rear children to their
husbands48. However, in other matters, unrelated to this basic duty, they were relatively free: they
could master their own money49 and other property and widows50, wives of runaways51, divorced
common soldier.
CH §§196, 198f.
Van der Toorn (1994, 67) describes how a new wife was introduced to family gods when she came under their
dominion. A woman did not have her own gods but served the god of her father and then the god of her father in law.
45 Herodotos (1:196), for example, describes of an yearly maid-market when all marriage-aged girls were sold in a
common auction of the village. He applauds this habit and regrets that it was not anymore practised.
46 Van der Toorn 1996, 43ff.
47 Lerner 1986, 248ff.
48 Bickerman & Smith 1976, 34.
49 CH §§ 150ff.
50 CH § 172.
43
44
12
women52 and a wives of a prisoners of war without sustenance53 were free to remarry in certain
conditions.
Related to the child rearing was also the practice of the use of wife’s maid servants 54 as reares of
children. If a maid servant gave a son to a house-master, she and her son could not be treated as a
slave but had certain rights for freedom55 unless she “assume equality with the wife” – in that case
she cannot be sold but kept as a maid-servant56.
Hammurabi’ Law also guarded the reputation of women. False accusations were punished57; in the
case of a rape of a virgin, the woman was not seen as guilty58; and a woman could, on certain
conditions, take a divorce59. Women and men were also equal in the cases of proven adultery and
incest – both were to die although the husband had the right to pardon her60.
The question of prostitution is so complex that van der Toorn writes about it as follows: “Our
imagination about this rests mainly on hearsay and this is pre-eminently an area in which many
people easily let their imagination run wild61.”
Herodotos is one of the ancient sources that has influenced the view on South West Asian women..
According to him, after decrease of their economy, Babylonians had a practise to prostitute their
unmarried children62. This part of Herodotos’ information might well be true, since sacral
prostitution was part of the Ishtar cult. Van der Toorn mentions that temples used girls also as
merchandise in order to create income from their services63. Along with daughters of impoverished
families, also female prisoners of war were used as prostitutes.
Totally another question is the issue of lay sacred prostitution and/or sacrifice of maidenhood,
which was also attached to Ishtar cult. On this theme, Herodotos’ information is much debated. He
says that “Every woman born in the country must once in her life go and sit down in the precinct of
Venus64, and there consort with a stranger65.” Some Assyriologists reject this information totally,
51
52
53
54
CH § 136.
CH §§ 137-142.
CH § 134f.
In cases when a wife, who could not rear children, gave her maid servant to her husband, and this gave him children,
the husband did not have right to take a second wife (§ 144).
55 CH §§ 170f.
56 CH § 146.
57 CH § 127.
58 CH § 130.
59 CH §§ 134f., 142.
60 CH § 129, 157.
61 Van der Toorn 1994, 93.
62 Herodotos 1:196. In another part of his work (I:93) that Lydian girls practise pre-marital prostitution and collect their
dowry in that way.
63 Van der Toorn 1994, 103; Lerner 1986, 244, 247.
64 Herodotos used not the Latin name Venus, as in the English translation, but the Greek Afrodite.
13
mainly on the basis of the valued status of virginity among Oriental people66 but also because of the
nature of Herodotos’ work – it was a political book aiming to show the troops of Xerxes as
barbarian as possible67. Obviously, Herodotos’ information referred to some kind of tradition of
sacrificing women’s maidenhead to Ishtar, Babylonian goddess of fertility, through sacral
lovemaking in the temple. The archetype of this tradition is the sacred marriage between Ishtar and
Tammuz that was acted by the king/high priest and high priestess during the Tammuz festival. We
do not know whether this practice was also imitated by lower ranks of the population68. However,
in Gilgamesh Epic, there is a passage that might be related to this. Gilgamesh, as an ensi of Uruk,
claims his right to ius primae noctis69 which Enkidu then rejects from him70. This might reflect a
diminishing prehistoric tradition of sacrifice of virginity in the temple. If the rite of virginity
sacrifice before marriage had existed in Sumer, it had given way to Akkadian emphasis on virginity
up to marriage71.
Sacred prostitution was also manifested in other ways. Van der Toorn describes the practice of
vows. Both sexes made vows in the temple and vows to gods had to be fulfilled as soos ans
possible. A woman that had made a vow to a god, could be in trouble, since her own property was
often limited. If her husband was not willing to pay (or he did now about it), the woman had to pay
it by any means and temporary sacral prostitution in a temple was an accepted way to do that. 72
TO SUM UP, the Mesopotamian society was not egalitarian but hierarchical. Moreover, these
hierarchies were seen as fixed according to heavenly model. After all, humans were on earth to do
serve gods. However, the smooth function of the organism of the society also required protection of
the non-privileged against the arbitrariness of the nobles. This was achieved by the legislation that
set fixed standards of relationships and protected even the life of slaves.
Women in Mesopotamia did not have independent status. Their role arose from their role as
reproducers of the kin and from their value as labour force. They were under the authorship of the
head of the family but, on the other hand, this system guaranteed them food and clothing.
65
66
67
Herodotos 1:199.
Van der Toorn 1994, 107.
Rollinger 2000, 69f. Rollinger (idem. 76) sees that many Herodotos’ stories “belong to a kind of literary ‘gene pool’
in the Near East.”
68 A hint to this might be the tradition of the ‘right of the first night’ of the landlord that was practised still in feudal
Europe. Gilgamesh, who was often accused of running after women, made sure that
69 On ius primae noctis, see Wettlaufer 2000.
70 EG II:iv,33-39; II:vi,10-14. Another passage, that deals with Gilgamesh’s sexual misbehaviour is at I:ii,16f.,28f.
71 On the other hand, the Midrashic texts present a legent that Hasmonean rebellion started when Seleudikes required
ius primae noctis (Patai 1974, 177f. according to Wettlaufer 2000; Hanuka n.d.)
72 Van der Toorn 1994, 97-102.
14
2.3.2. “To protect the widows and orphans73”– Mesopotamian Social Care
“The image of Aneas fleeing burning Troy, holding his little son by the hand and carrying his aged
father on his back, vividly expresses the burdens that ancient families had to bear74.” This Raymond
Westbrook’s note illustrates how the responsibility on the welfare lied on the male breadwinner of
the family. G. Van Driel expresses the same with a generalisation. “normal care is identical with
having a wife and a son75.” Van Driel continues:
The point of departure is … a marriage of the Mediterranean type”: a man marries… a girl who is some ten years
younger… The girl is to provide a son or sons and as she will survive her husband she will be able to care for
him. In turn she will have a full-grown married son caring for her… A marriage according to this plan solves the
issue of care, at least if there is a son. If not, there is a problem. 76
THE FAMILY77, ‘flesh and blood’, to be more exact, as Van der Toorn argues, was the the basic
source of the social care in ancient Mesopotamia. As we have seen above, the family was a property
of the family god and the father or the eldest son, was only the one in charge. In general, the father
of the household was responsible for the income flow. As long as the father was able to do so, he
organised the works and had paternal authority of the household. When he was not cabable or there
was no father, the paternal authority was shifted to someone else. Normally this was the eldest son,
who was responsible for the support of his parents and unmarried siblings. Van der Toorn argues
that in the Fourth Commandment of the Mosaic Ten Commandments, the ‘honor’ refers to financial
support78 and not only general respect and subordinance (as Luther explains it in his Catheceses).
If this general scheme did not work, there were special arrangements, both private and public. The
first option was to arrange the issue inside the household. In the Pathriach stories we find old
Abraham complaining “O Lord God, what wilt thou give me, for I continue childless, and the heir
of my house is Eliezer of Damascus? (Gen 15:2)” In this passage, we see one household solution to
the problem. Claus Wilcke (focusing the third millenium) and Marten Stol (focusing on the Old
Babylonian Period) argue that there has been a manumission contract where a slave stayed with
their patrons and supported them until the owner’s death. Variations of this practice were adoption
73
74
75
76
77
CH, Epilogue
Westbrook 1998, 2.
Van Driel 1998, 167.
Van Driel 1998, 167f.
Now it is good to remind what van der Toorn (1996, 11f.) underlines: “The channels of written communication were
dominated by the upper classes… It also has an urban bias, since most of these people lived in cities.” In spite of this,
van der Toorn does not see this as a major problem, since “the middle and lower classes regarded the gentry… as a
model to emulate. Although the realities of their lives might suggest otherwise, their aspirations did not greatly differ
from those of the elite.” On the other hand, van Drill (1998, 172) noting the same lack of evidence, says that “for
them [lower layers of free population] old ages or infirmity, coming early, could pose serious problems.”
78 Van der Toorn 1994, 27; Stol 1998, 62ff.
15
of a slave and marriage, when a new child or spouse was in the same way responsible of the care as
any other child/spouse.79
A special aspect in the old care support was the role of inheritance80. In Babylon, the inheritance
shares were defined by the law81 and therefore the adoption was necessesary. Contrary to this, in
Assyria there were no such regular division of inheritance and, therefore, there the custom was of
the last wills. The significance of these last wills concerning social care was that the testator could
combine the inheritance and with the care (either to the testator or to his widow).82 A bit similar
practice also existed in Babylonia in the case of nuns. They might adopt a heir (usually a niece,
nephew or another nun) to take care of them in their old days or they could give their fields or other
property to someone (for example to some relative) and receive certain continuous support83.
If the family was unable to give support, the responsibility was on the wealthier relatives. Basically,
all property of the clan belonged to the god of the forefathers. If the god had helped someone, it is
his duty to deliver this support to other members of the clan. If he did not do it, there was always
the possibility that the god withdraws his support and drops the hard-hearted one into the misery.84
TEMPLE became responsible if the family or clan was unable to give the aid. Van der Toorn
argues that “technically, a woman in Mesopotamia only counted as almattu, ‘widow’, when she no
longer had a male protector, when she was deprived not only of her husband but of father and son as
well85.” The temple was a place where impoverished orphans and widows could seek refuge86. I.J.
Gelb, in turn, informs that
Disregarding the relatively small numbers of women-and-children prisoners of war and even smaller number of
women chattel slaves, the masses of the temple labor force consist of individuals without families, without a
male provider, or visible means of economic support. These are: widows, orphans, old people especially old
women, sterile and childless women, cripples, especially blind and deaf persons, beggars and vagabonds,
prostitutes, bastards, foundlings, and the ex-voto (arua) personnel.
The temple apparently served as a collecting center for all these poor, unwanted and rejected people, who could
join the temple of their own free will if they were independent, or could be offered to the temple by individuals
on whom they were dependent. socially or economically. 87
79
80
Wilke 1998, 53ff.; Stol 1998, 80, 83f.
Along with inheritance, there were also gifts that enabled a widow to take care of herself (Wilke 1998, 48; Stol 1998,
80ff.). These were needed in the cases when a widow remarried and, thus, turned to another family and under the
care of her new husband. Her own sons did not any more have responsibility on her. (Stol 1998, 81). In those cases,
the gift or absence of it had an influence on the widow’s rights to inherit her husband with his sons (CH §171, 172).
81 CH §§28, 29,162-193
82 Veenhof 1998, 136-145.
83 Stol 1998, 68f., 84-109.
84 Van der Toorn 1996, 108f.
85 Van der Toorn 1994, 134.
86 It might also have been a way how impoverished clan would have been able to get rid of their care responsibility.
See Gelb (1972, 12) and McCorriston (1997, 527).
87 Gelb 1972, 10f. Gelb (idem., 11) also reviews some studies from the other parts of the world and founds that
employing cripples, old, orphans and widows to temple work craft has been a world wide phenomenon.
16
For Gelb, giving humans to the temple (arua-system) was a form of exposure. It was a more
benevolent way than infanticide of sick children (like in Sparta), burying them in to the sand (preMohammedan Arabia), leaving them into snow (Eskimos), jungle (Brazilian indians), river (stories
of Moses, Romulus and Remus, Sargon), or throwing them into the well (Sumeris).88
As I have noted above, the temple was earlier the administrative unit of the clan’s common landed
property and, therefore, the temple used certain degree of paternal authority over the members of
the clan. From the Durkheimian perspective, it is this common view of the Bronze Age clan temples
where religion’s universal responsibility on welfare comes from. Although the temple system
differentiated from its old clan basis, the tradition remained.
As we have seen above, the temple aid was mostly given in the form of employment – either in the
fields, pastures or in the temple. This was possible for three reasons. First, when the irrigation
problem was solved, there was land available. Second, the temple had the organising skills and
capital to launch large building projects. Third, this kind of employment activity was profitable.
Hammurabi’s law mention another form of the temple aid. If a kings soldier was imprisoned and he
or his relatives could not buy him free, the funds were given from the temple89. The temple90 could
also give interest free loans to poor sick, that should be paid only if the god was favourable to the
debtor and blessed his actions91. In those cases, it was a risky issue for a debtor not to pay because
the god could withdraw his support.
There was also a group of people of which the temple was responsible in a special way: the temple
workers. I already noted that some nuns utilised the adoption as a quarantee of the old age care.
According to Wilke, the family support line seems to have been the main line also in the case of the
temple workers. Only if there was nobody who could take care for the one who was unable to work,
(s)he got some sort of pension (food and clothing) from the institution (s)he served. This group
consisted of young children, childless old men and widows with children, and alike.92
STATE responsibility on social care was rather limited. There are rather little information on the
state direct intervention in the social care. The only paragraph in Hammurabi’s law for state
responsibility for the poor is the purchase price of the imprisoned soldiers, mentioned above. Even
that was only in the cases when the local temple was not able to pay the price. Another important
text is from the correspondence of Sargon II. A letter that has been titled as The Widows of Fallen
88
89
90
Gelb 1972, 10.
CH §32.
Here it is worth to remember Rita P Wright’s (1986, 425) argument that, although officially in the name of the
temple, the real actors were often naditus who used their dowry as a capital to extent the family property. Thus, some
of the free loans of the temple might have been from individual naditus to their relatives.
91 Bromberg 1942, 81f., 84f.
17
Soldiers93 give orders to Sargon’s official to investigate the financial status of widows and orphans
of fallen soldiers and to inform the regent of them. Supposedly, this meant that Sargon had an
intention to take care of them94. However, it can be supposed that the palace had somewhat similar
pension system as in the temple although the number of help needing persons must have been
smaller than in the temple95.
The role of the state seems to be in creation of such legislation that minimised the need. However, it
was not actually social legislation in the same sense we will find in Israel. As we have seen above,
Hammurabi’s Law paid much attention on the inheritance issues96. The main idea seems to be that
the law tried to make sure that all got such share of family property that they could live with it. This
principle can be seen, for example, in the law of wife’s right to remarry if her husband has became a
prisoner of war. It was allowed if the household did not have enough means to maintain the woman
and her children. If there was sufficient means, ‘going to another man’ was regarded as adultery.97
Hammurabi’s Law also regulated wages and tariffs, allowed debts to be paid with products, reduced
debt slavery to three years98, gave sanctions concerning violations against personal safety and
property, and gave sanctions concerning improper products99. Thus, the task of the state was to
implement such rules under which people could take care of their own welfare. It was only in the
extreme cases when the state was forced to intervene. This was done, first by the right to appeal to
the king100 and, second, through the royal edicts which cancelled all the debts and freed the debt
slaves. In this sense, all Mesopotamian states were ‘nightwatch states’. It can also be argued that the
92
93
94
95
Wilke 1998, 25-42.
Parpola 1987, 21f.
Parpola, personal communication, Fall 2003.
This hypothesis is based, first, on the thesis that the temple was the main source of aid and, thus, most family-less
aid-seekers sought help there. Second, it is based on Allen Zagarell’s (1986) argument that “there appears to have
been a tendency to send male prisoners of war to the palace and female prisoners to the temple… Interestingly, in the
Early dynastic texts, the taking of male prisoners is rarely reported; the men were usually massacred and the women
and children brought to their captor’s city.”
96 For example, the dowry of a wife was not a property of husband but went to her sons after her death (CH §162).
Father’s property was shared equally between sons and unmarried daughters (CH §§ 180-4). Daughters, however,
had only usufructuary right to the property – after her marriage (except the dowry) or death the property returned to
her brothers. The general principle was that father’s property was divided equally but mother’s property to only her
own sons (CH § 167). In the case of fallen soldiers, his son had right to take his fathers possession and, if he is still
too young, the widow had right to bring him up in the farm until he was able to take the possession (CH §§ 28f.).
97 CH §§ 133-135.
98 CH § 117. In case of debts, the important preventive rule was the ‘insurance’ against dearth (§ 48), which meant that
in those years no rent had to be paid. Another was the right to pay debts in corn according to royal tariff (§ 51),
which was important because loans were often taken when the price of the corn was low and paid back after the
harvest, when there was plenty of corn and price was low.
99 This included the famous lex tallionis, eye-for-eye, principle.
100 See, for example, Parpola 1987, 21.
18
Mesopotamian society applied a strict subsidiarity principle already 4,000 years before invention of
the concept.
PRIVATE PHILANTHROPY was also known in Mesopotamia. Van der Toorn argues that ‘fear
of god’ included both human kindness and fulfilling the duties of the rite. In the conclusion of the
Old Babylonian poem Man and his God, this double character of the concept is revealed:
In future days you must not forget your god
your creator, now that you are happy again …
As for you, do not tarry to anoint the parched one,
Feed the hungry one, give the thirsty one water to drink;
may he who sits down with feverish eyes
see your food, suckle, receive it and be pleased with you. 101
As we saw above, the human was made in order to free gods from some works. Thus, taking care of
one’s neighbour was one part of this service for gods. Van der Toorn argues that this was especially
the duty of the upper classes since they have benefited from the benevolence of their god. However,
if these blessings were not used for the benefit of others, they are not immune from divine
punishment “since also the ‘small ones’ enjoy divine protection.” Along this, actiong without
payment in a public office and practising philanthropy added honour to the wealth. 102
TO SUM UP, the Mesopotamian social care was based on the kin support. The family, and
especially the head of the family, was responsible for the well-being of its members. Parents were
responsible for the maintenance of their children and sons had a duty to take care of their old
parents. In cases where someone did not have a child, (s)he adopted one, got married, or arranged a
manumission of slave who then took care of the elderly.
In cases where this model did not work, people sought help from the temple. They were adopted in
the temple household, which meant that the temple fed and clothed them but also used paternal
authority over them and organised them into the work. Even in the cases when people were not able
to work, the temple household took care of them like any normal household.
The state had seldom direct intervention in the social care. State’s role was to maintain the stability
in the society and make sure that the lower units had capability to carry their responsibilities.
2.3.3. “If a physician heal the broken bone103”-Babylonian Health Care
MEDICAL CARE of the ancient Mesopotamians104 was based on their understanding of the
harmony in the cosmos. Illnesses were disturbing the harmony and, therefore, they must have been
101
102
103
104
Quoted in Van der Toorn 1994, 107.
Van der Toorn 1996, 104, 106-109, 112--5 (quotation 109).
CH §221.
On literature, see Rashidi’s (n.d., <2003) bibliography
19
cured. Darrell W Amundsen and Gary B Ferngren note that Mesopotamians viewed disease
“etiologically rather than symptomatically105.” The reason for illnesses was seen in spirits and
demons and “the spirit intrusion was viewed both as the cause of the disease and the disease
itself106.” They argue that in early Sumerian period people’s personal gods, towards which a
sufferer turned were weaker than demons and could only serve as mediators between great gods and
the individual. However, this changed during the Akkadian period when the personal gods were
seen as stronger than demons. This meant that if a person get ill, it was because his personal god
had allowed it. Here comes the concept of sin into the play: there had been an offence against the
god and illness was a punishment of it.107
In the first place, to avoid illnesses, one had to live so that gods did not get angry and make sure
that one had so strong protection that evil spirits were powerless. Preventive methods included, for
example, placing protecting gods in the entrance of the house and wearing all kinds of amulets108.
Along with these, there were also some manners that today would be regarded as basic hygiene, like
handwashing and washing of the eating utensils (as a religious ritual) before eating109. Along
handwashing, also other purity/impurity110 codes had their hygienic dimension since they often
included seclusion norms in cases of diseases.
In general, health care is, according to Arthur Kleinman, “composed of three overlapping parts: the
popular, the professional, and folk sectors.” The popular sector means the family, friends and
neighbourhood. According to Kleinman, seventy to ninety percent of treatment is given in this
sector.111
The importance of the popular sector was true also in Mesopotamia. Mark Hayes, Ethan Watrall
and Nancy Demand argue that “the majority of health care was provided at the patient’s own house,
with the family acting as care givers in whatever capacity their lay knowledge afforded them 112.” It
might be this general emphasis on the popular sector why Herodotos writes on Babylonian custom
as follows:
105
106
107
108
109
110
Amundsen & Ferngren 1982, 56.
Amundsen & Ferngren 1982, 57.
Amundsen & Ferngren 1982, 57.
Jastrow 1898, 269.
Van der Toorn 1994, 30.
According to van der Toorn (1994, 49f.) impurity was mostly question of etiquette. In the same way, as it was
against etiquette to enter to a feast with dirty working clothes, it was against the etiquette to bring anything
unpleasant in front of gods. Unfortunately, this included also normal female menstruation and physical
malformations.
111 Kleinman 1980, 50ff.
112 Hayes, Watrall and Demand 1997. Amundsen & Ferngren (1982, 58) also note that personal petition “seems to
have been the most common religious – and perhaps the only strictly religious – recourse for the ill in Mesopotamia.”
20
They have no physicians, but when a man is ill, they lay him in the public square, and the passers-by come up to
him, and if they have ever had his disease themselves or have known any one who has suffered from it, they give
him advice, recommending him to do whatever they found good in their own case, or in the case known to them;
and no one is allowed to pass the sick man in silence without asking him what his ailment is. 113
This information should be partly doubted since Hammurabi’s Law have nine paragraphs dealing
with physicians114. Herodotos may also be right that later Babylonians did not have surgeons
because surgery practically disappeared from Babylon115 because of the Law, which applied the
eye-for-eye principle on the unsuccessful physician116.
Along with the home care, a sufferer could turn to specialists. There were two kinds of medical
specialists in Mesopotamia, the ašipu and the asû. The ašipu was a magician, priest and exorcist.
His role was to find the diagnosis (the spirit that had had caused the sickness) and make a
prognosis117. The asû, in turn, was not a priest and his concern was that of therapy. Although the
āšu used herbs, lotions and other empirical methods118, he also used similar exorcism as the āšipu
used.119 Moreover, these medical practitioners often co-operated. Along with these specialists, in
the cases of childlessness, a mother could turn to a religious specialist, barû, who “consulted gods
through both oil and liver omina at the explicit request of – and in return of a fee from – his
client120.”
From the philanthropy and welfare point of view, we can see that medical care was a ‘welfare-mix’
system. The major responsibility was, like in social care, on the family. If the illness was not able to
be healed at home, the sick searched help from the ašipu in the temple. Asû, although only
implicitly, are referred in Hammurabi’s Law as a private entrepreneur (or as part of the temple
staff) who has right to charge his customers121 according to a fixed tariff122. Along these,
Herodotos’ information would suggest some degree of individual aid on voluntary basis.
113
114
115
116
Herodotos 1:197
CH §§ 215-223.
Parpola 1982, 221.
“If a physician make a large incision with the operating knife, and kill him, or open a tumor with the operating
knife, and cut out the eye, his hands shall be cut off (§218).”
117 On diagnosis and therapy in Mesopotamia, see Stol (1991-2).
118 Hayes, Watrall and Demand (1997) mention that “Many of the plants incorporated into the asu medical repertoire
had antibiotic properties, while several resins and many spices have some antiseptic value.” They mention, for
example the use of sesame-oil as an anti-bacterial agent.
119 Amundsen & Ferngren 1982, 58f.
120 Van der Toorn 1994, 80.
121 If a physician make a large incision with an operating knife and cure it, or if he open a tumor (over the eye) with an
operating knife, and saves the eye, he shall receive ten shekels in money (§ 215).
122 Here is also an interesting detail because physician’s charges depended on the socio-economical status of a patient.
Ten shekels was a charge from a free man, from freed man it was five shekels (§ 216) and from a slave it was two
shekels (§ 217). Thus, the richer you were, the more you paid. The same ancient principle is today used, for example,
in Finnish municipal day care services in which the payment is based on the income of the family.
21
Zoroastrianism brought a new view to this ancient understanding of sicknesses. Amundsen and
Ferngren state that “suffering and disease are evils; they come from Ahriman.” The ill were
polluted. Since the essence of Zoroastrianism was the fight against Ahriman, the main task was to
purify the ill and release them from Ahriman’s dominion. As a consequence, “all healers were
priests”, who saw medicine as one part of their mission. According to Amundsen and Ferngren,
there were three classes of healers: “(1) priests who healed by the holy word…; (2) priests who
healed by pharmacological means; and (3) priests who engaged in surgery.”123
NURSING is another aspect of health care that we know from ancient Mesopotamia. However,
while the medical care was primarily a realm of men124, nursing was that of women. Among these
nurses were qadištu (sacred prostitute), šabsutu (midwife), and naditu (nun). Van der Toorn
describes that
According to the Old Babylonian Atharasis myth, the delivery bed was setup in ‘the house of the qadištu’ (I
290). This qadištu, the ‘sacred one’, represented the mother goddess in all of her aspects. As such she was
closely linked to birth. Often she also acted as wet nurse. 125
Van der Toorn adds that also naditu
seems to fill the role which traditionally belongs to the šabsutu. Thus, it has been suggested that both the
midwife and the wet nurse had special religious status. 126
This religious role was needed because every child was seen as a new action of creation and gods
(at least Belet-ili, the mother goddess and šassuratu, the birth goddesses) were thought to be
present. Since gods gave birth painlessly, a considerable number of incantations were used in order
to relieve the pain of delivery.127
SORCERY was part of the folk sector, Kleinman mentions. Althought it was not actually part of
the healing practice, it was one possible source of illness. A sorcerer cursed his/her enemy and,
thus, caused the illness. Ontologically, it was question of an accusation before gods who then send
the sickness as a punishment. While the official ašipu status was restricted from women, witchcraft
was not. Consequently, van der Toorn sees the sorcery as a weapon of a powerless who does not
have any other means to combat against her enemy. Almost needless to say that ašipu strongly
opposed them and witchcraft was forbidden by the law.
TO SUM UP, health care in Mesopotamia was primarily a responsibility of the family. Since the
source of illness was seen either in the punishment of gods or in attack of evil spirits, the following
of rituals was the main way to avoid sicknesses and individual prayer was the primary means of
123
124
125
126
127
Amundsen & Ferngren 1982, 60f.
However, Rashidi (n.d., <2003) mentions that there were also women among asûs. Ašipus, were, however all men.
Van der Toorn 1994, 84.
Van der Toorn 1994, 85f.
Van der Toorn 1994, 86, 88f.
22
cure of them. Thus, the main responsibility of the health care lied on the family. If this did not help,
aid was sought from the medical professionals. There were two classes of them, exorcists, who were
priests and who used incantations in order to identify the cause of the sickness. The other group
consisted of physicians, who were private entrepreneurs and who used herbs and ointments. These
two groups also co-operated. Along them, midwifes and wet nurses took care of the child delivery
by similar incantations as the exorcists.
2.3.4. “With the wisdom that Marduk gave me128”-Mesopotamian Education
PRIMARY EDUCATION at home given according to ‘fearing god and king’ ethos, as van der
Toorn puts it. The ideal citizen was religious and obedient. While boys got systematic teaching in
doctrine, social manners and arms, girls’ education was not systematic. They got their pricks to their
world view from stories and rituals.129 Actually, like even in today’s orthodox Jewish family, most
of the episodes at home carry religious message. Thus, table manners and sacrifices were as
important in Mesopotamian family as seder meal is for Jews – certain rituals reveal the essence of
the belief and daily practices are anchored to them.
FORMAL EDUCATION in pre-historic time trace its roots from the apprenticeship. Knowledge
was transmitted orally and by imitation. However, as Elias Bickerman and Morton Smith argue, it
was in Sumeri where the invention of writing differentiated the school from apprenticeship. Since
writing was needed in bureaucracy and in commerce, the school produced ‘a white-collar’ class of
scribes to work as secretaries, accountants, revenue officers, etc.130 J. Kaster note that the large
amount of school texts found from 2,500 to 1,500 B.C, show that numerous schools for scribes
flourished throughout the ancient Sumer131. Although they did not have entire monopoly on the
skill, literacy remained rare and most knowledge was transmitted as oral tradition or learning-bydoing.
The model for the school was that of a household. The ummia (professor) was the ‘school father’ of
his ‘school sons.’ Along with him, there was the ‘assistant professor’ or ‘big brother’ who prepared
the daily exercises for pupils. Teachers were paid out of the fees that parents paid. Thus, schools
were on private basis.132
The curriculum, according to the school tablets, included basics of botanicals, zoology, mineralogy,
geography, mathematics and grammar. Mythical text were copied and studied. This basic system of
128
129
130
131
CH, Epilogue
Van der Toorn 1994, 28-34.
Bickerman & Smith 1976, 29f.
Kaster 1980 (1962), 27.
23
schooling prevailed in the South Western Asia long after Sumerian ceased to be a living
language.133
HIGHER EDUCATION focused on some special groups that need to be mentioned. Medical
practitioners were one of those groups. Unfortunately, according to Jennifer Rashidi, we do not
know much of it. The asû were probably trained in Isin in the temple of goddess of healing, Gula134
and there might have been some sort of professional guild for them.135 The ašipu were, as said,
members of the priesthood. Morris Jastrow argues136 that “at an early period of Babylonian culture
it must have been one of the main functions of priests to combat the influence of evil spirits.” It was
only later that the “priests were divided into classes”, like sacrificers, oracle givers, day and night
watchers, scribes etc. Among them were also “the forerunners of the eastern magi or magicians.”
While incantations were the major device in diagnostics and exorcism, this evidently required a
long education in the temple.
Along the teaching of medicine, the high level of mathematics137 and astrology138 in Mesopotamia
required higher teaching in these fields. Also other Mesopotamian artefacts like canals and
buildings required high knowledge in hydrology and architecture.
In general, the school education can be seen primarily as a family investment on one of its
members, although temples and palaces utilised this private service in reproducing the cultural
heritage. This principle we will find later in Greece, Rome and even today’s USA.
2.4. “If a succeeding ruler considers my words139” - Legacy of
Mesopotamia
The legacy of the Land of the Two Rivers on the modern welfare state is manyfold. First,
Mesopotamian influence, according to Edzard, reached ca. 1,000 kilometres to every direction from
its centre140. Sumer and later Semitic Akkadian were languages of diplomacy and education in this
area – just in the same way as Greek in Hellenistic world and Latin in Middle Ages. The practical
132
133
134
Kaster 1980 (1962), 27.
Kaster 1980 (1962), 27f.
Jastrow (1898, 175) describes Gula as follows “Her role is that of a ‘life-giver,’ in the widest sense of the word. She
is called the ‘great physician,’ who both preserves the body in health and who removes sickness and disease by the
‘touch of her hand.’ Gula is the one who leads the death to a new life.”
135 Rashidi s.n. (<2003)
136 Jastrow 1898, 269.
137 On Mesopotamian mathematics, see, e.g., Melville (2003), O’Connor and Robertson (2001), and Robson (1997).
138 Mesopotamian astrology, see, e.g., Ness (2002).
139 CH, epilogue.
140 Parpola (1982, 154-159) argues that it was Mesopotamian Mesopotamian occupation that turned Egypt fast from
stone age to civilisation in ca. 3100 BC.
24
meaning of this influence was that Mesopotamian culture has had a deep impact on the eastern part
of the Mediterranean from the very beginning of its history. There are good ground to claim that
neither Israeli141 nor Greek cultures cannot be understood without putting them into a larger
Mesopotamian cultural context. However, although the Mesopotamian culture was wide, this did
not downplay the local variances and ethnic identities. From the welfare and philanthropy point of
view, the interesting point, then, is what were the specialities of Israeli and Greek thinking and why
these specialities appeared.
The main legacy is in the tradition of written law. Earliest written law codices are of Mesopotamian
origin. From the welfare perspective, the written law reduced the misbehaviour of the elite since
their actions could be evaluated according to a fixed standard. Moreover, they all state as their aim
to protect the “orphan and widow”, the ones who had not a shelter of their family to protect their
rights.
Second legacy of Mesopotamia is the emphasis on family. Family is the basic unit that has
responsibility on one’s welfare. The reverse side of this responsibility is the paternal authority
which enables the bill payer to organise others into work. The modern principle of subsidiarity has
its roots already in the dawn of the civilisation.
Third legacy of Mesopotamia is its basic religious values which have filtered to the modern western
thinking via ancient Israel and the Bible. Mesopotamian culture influenced Hebrew thinking already
in its nomadic period (Abraham stories) but also in during the period of Exile. One of the foremost
religious value that emerged in Sumer, was the responsibility of religious institutions for the poor
relief. Especially the concern on widows, orphans, poor and weak.
Fourth legacy of Mesopotamia is the idea of king as a mediator between heaven and earth and a
quarantine of heavenly order on earth. This seems to have come to Europe via Alexander the Great,
since the idea of a king as an imitator of gods and a mediator between gods and men occurred rather
late in Greece and Rome142. Later we see it in the Byzantine Empire and in the Western Europe
since Charlemagne. Along with the king, also other nobles were responsible of philanthropy in
Mesopotamia and this model was accepted later in Europe. The Mesopotamian system combined
141
As the later Patriarch stories of the Old Testament (Gen 12-50) show, Semitic nomads (Aramites) had no difficulty
to move between Mesopotamia and Egypt – they lived basically in the same cultural sphere. The attachment to
Mesopotamia can also be seen in the stories of finding wives to Isaac and Jacob (Gen 24, 28). They show that
Mesopotamians living in far colonies looked to their homeland in the same way as British did in the 19 th century AD.
Taking a wife from a foreign ethnic croup was not preferable.
142 Parpola (1982, 310) notes that model for Augustine divinity in Rome was a loan from east. Contrary to this, Hands
(1968, 56) argues that this hypothesis is unnecessary and the emperor cult can be interpreted with Greek-Roman
tradition.
25
the system of inequality and charity into a system that was much similar than the European system
in Middle Ages.
Literature
The Age of God-Kings
1987
3000-1500 BC. By the editors of Time-Life Books. Time-Life Books. Amsterdam.
Algaze Guillermo
1989
1993
The Uruk Expansion. Cross-cultural Exchange in Early Mesopotamian Civilization. Current
Anthropology 30, 1989, 5, December, 571-608.
The Uruk World system. The dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization. University
of Chicago Press. Chicago & London.
Amundsen Darrel W. & Ferngren Gary B.
1982
Medicine and Religion: Pre-Christian Antiquity. In Martin E. Marty & Kenneth L. Vaux (eds.):
Health/Medicine and the Faith Traditions. An Inquiry into Religion and Medicine. Fortress Press.
Philadelphia.
Arfman Kaarlo
2002
Luterialinen auttamisjärjestelmän reformi [Reform of the Lutheran Poor Care]. In Virpi Mäkinen (ed.):
Lasaruksesta Leipäjonoihin. köyhyys kirkon kysymyksenä [From Lazarus to Bread-cues. Poverty as a
Question for the Church]. Atena. Jyväskylä.
Baldwin Peter
1990
The Politics of Social Solidarity. Class Bases of the European Welfare State 1875-1975. Cambridge
University Press. Cambridge.
Basa Kishor K.
2001
Comment [to Shereen Ratnagar’s ‘The Bronze Age’]. Current Anthropology 42, 2001, 3, June, 365f.
Bailkey Nels
1967
Early Mesopotamian Constitutional Development. American Historical Review 72, 1967, 4, July, 12111236.
Bickerman Elias and Smith Morton
1976
The Ancient History of Western Civilization. Harper & Row. New York, Hagerstown, San Francisco &
London.
Brand Carl
1974
The British Labour Party. A Short History. Revised Edition.Hoover Institute Press. Stanford, Cal.
Bromberg Benjamin
1942
The Origin of Banking: Religious Finance in Babylon. The Journal of Economic History 2, 1942, 1,
May, 77-88.
The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East
1998
Edited by Marten Stol and Sven P. Vleeming. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near
East, volume 14. Brill. Leiden, Boston & Köln.
CH - Hammurabi’s Code of Laws
1997 [ca. 1800 BC] Translated by L. W. King. In Exploring Ancient World Cultures. Readings from the Ancient Near
East. http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm (12.5.2003)
Dalley Stephanie
1995
Ancient Mesopotamian Military Organization. In Jack M. Sasson (ed. in chief): Civilizations of the
Ancient Near East. Volume I. Charles Scribner's Sons, Simon & Schuster Macmillan, Prentice Hall
International. New York, London, Mexico City, New Delhi, Singapore, Sydney, Toronto.
Dandamayev M. A.
1979
State and Temple in Babylonia in the First Millenium B.C. In Edward Lipinski (ed.): State and Temple
Economy in the Ancient Near East. Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 6. Katholieke Universiteit.
Departement Oriëntalistiek. Leuven.
Dhalla Maneckji N.
2003 (1938)
History of Zoroastrianism. Oxford University Press. New York, London & Toronto. Electronic version
at http://www.avesta.org/dhalla/dhalla1.htm (16.10.2003).
26
Dresden Mark J.
1980a(1962)
1980b(1962)
1980c (1962)
Avesta. In George A. Buttrick (ed.): The Interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible. Volume 1, A-D.
Abigdon. Nashville.
Persia, History and Religion of. In George A. Buttrick (ed.): The Interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible.
Volume 3, K-Q. Abigdon. Nashville.
Zarahustra. In George A. Buttrick (ed.): The Interpreter’s dictionary of the Bible. Volume 4, R-Z.
Abigdon. Nashville.
Duchesne-Guillemin Jacques
1994
Zoroastrianism and Parsiim. In The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. Macropaedia. Volume 29. 15th
edition. Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. Chicago & Aucland & London & Madrid & Manila & Paris &
Rome & Seoul & Sydney & Tokyo & Toronto.
Dorr Donald
1983
Option for the Poor. A Hundred Years of Vatican Social Teaching. Gill and Macmillan. Dublin.
Edzard Dietz O.
1995
Mesopotamia to the end of the Old Babylonian period. As part of the Mesopotamia, The History of
Ancient. In The New Encyclopaedia Britannica. . Macropaedia. Volume 23. 15th edition.
Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. Chicago & Aucland & London & Madrid & Manila & Paris & Rome &
Seoul & Sydney & Tokyo & Toronto.
EG – Epic of Gilgamesh
1973 [ca. 2000 BC] In The Ancient Near East. An Anthology of Texts and Pictures. Volume I. Edited by James B.
Pritchard. Sixth Hardcover printing. Princeton University Press.
Esping-Andersen Gøsta
1990
The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Polity Press. Cambridge.
Faith and Philanthropy in America
1990
Edited by Robert Wuthnow and V. Hodkinson. Jossey Bass. San Francisco.
Fogarty Michael P.
1966
Christian Democracy in Western Europe 1820-1953. University of Notre Dame Press. Notre Dame,
Ind.
Frank Andre G.
1993
Bronze Age World System Cycles. Current anthropology 34, 1993, 4, August-October, 383-429.
Gaer Joseph and Siegel Ben
1964
The Puritan Heritage. America's Roots in the Bible. New American Library of the World Literature Inc.
New York.
Gelb I.J.
1972
1979
The Arua Institution. Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Archéologie Orientale 66, 1972, 1-32.
Household and family in Early Mesopotamia. In E. Lipinski (ed.): State and temple economy in ancient
Near East. Leuven: Katolieke Universiteit te Leuven.
Gelpi Ettore & Bowen James
1994
Education, History of. \ European Renaissance and Reformation. In The New Encyclopaedia
Britannica. Macropaedia. Volume 18. 15th edition. Pp.26-31 Encyclopaedia Britannica Inc. Chicago &
Aucland & London & Madrid & Manila & Paris & Rome & Seoul & Sydney & Tokyo & Toronto.
Greengus Samuel
1995
Legal and Social Institutions of Ancient Mesopotamia. In Jack M. Sasson (ed. in chief): Civilizations of
the Ancient Near East. Volume I. Charles Scribner's Sons, Simon & Schuster Macmillan, Prentice Hall
International. New York, London, Mexico City, New Delhi, Singapore, Sydney, Toronto.
Handy, Robert T
1974
A Christian America. Protestant Hopes and Historical Realities. Oxford University Press. London.
Hanuka
n.d.
The Maccabee re-establish independence in the land of Israel. At Department for Jewish Zionist
Education, http://www.jafi.org.il/education/festivls/hanuka/han.html (3.11.2003)
Hanson Paul
1994
The Ancient Near Eastern Roots of Social Welfare. In Emily A. Hanawalt and Carter Lindberg (eds.):
Through the Eye of the Needle. Judeo-Christian Roots of Social Welfare. The Thomas Jefferson
University Press at Northeast Missouri State University. Kirksville. Missouri.
Hayes Mark, Watrall Ethan & Demand Nancy
1997
Medicine in Ancient Mesopotamia. The Axclepion. Indiana University, Bloomington.
http://www.indiana.edu/~ancmed/meso.HTM (21.8.2003).
27
Health Care and Poor Relief in Protestant Europe, 1500-1700
1997
Edited by Ole Peter Grell and Andrew Cunningham. Studies in the social history of medicine.
Routledge. London.
Health Care and Poor Relief in 18th and 19th Century Northern Europe
2001
Edited by Ole Peter Grell, Andrew Cunningham, and Robert Jütte. History of medicine in context.
Ashgate. Burlington, VT.
Herodotos
1997
Historiateos 1-2. WSOY. Helsinki, Porvoo & Juva. English text from The History of Herodotus
by Herodotus. Translated by George Rawlinson. The First Book, Entitled Clio. At
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/ancient/herodotus-history.txt (25.6.2003)
Jakobsen Vladimir A. And Dandamaev Muhammad A.
1996
From State to Empire. In A. H Dani and J.-P. Mohen (eds.): History of Humanity. Scientific and
cultural Development. Volume II. From the Third Millenium to the Seventh Century BC. Unesco &
Routledge. London.
Jastrow Morris Jr.
1898
The Religion of Babylonia and Assyria. Handbooks of the History of Religions. Volume II. Ginn &
Company. Boston, New York, Chicago & London. Available at
http://www.cwru.edu/UL/preserve/Etana/JAST.REL/JAST.REL.html (15.6.2003)
Jeavons Thomas H.
1996
When the Bottom Line is Faithfulness. Management of Christian Service Organizations. Indiana
University Press. Bloomington.
Kaster Joseph
1980 (1962)
Education, OT. In George A. Buttrick (ed.): The Interpreter’s Bible. Volume 2, E-J. 11th printing.
Abingdon. Nashville.
Kersbergen Kees van
1995
Social Capitalism. A Study of Christian Democracy and the Welfare State. Routledge. London & New
York
Kleinman Arthur
1980
Patients and Healers in the Context of Culture. An Exploration of the Borderland Between
Anthropology, Medicine, and Psychiatry. University of California Press. Berkeley, CA.
Kohl Philip L.
1978
The Balance of Trade in southwestern Asia in the Mid-Third Millenium B.C. Current anthropology 19,
1978, 3, September, 463-492.
Kopperi Marjaana
1996
Saalistusta vai solidaarisuutta? Hyvinvointivaltion moraalisesta oikeutuksesta [Plundering or solidarity?
On the moral justification of the welfare state]. In I.A. Kieseppä, Sami Pihlström & Pasi Raatikainen
(eds.): Tieto, totuus ja todellisuus [Knowledge, truth and reality]. Gaudeamus. Tampere.
Lamberg-Karlovsky Clifford C.
2000
The Near Eastern "Breakout" and the Mesopotamian Social Contract. In Martha Lamberg-Karlovsky
(ed.): The Breakout. The Origins of Civilization.Peabody Museum Monographs, Nr. 9. Harvard
University. Cambridge, Mass.
Lamberg-Karlovsky Clifford C. & Wright Rita P.
1994
Mesopotamia. The Tigris and Euphrates Valley (3000-1500 BC). In A. H Dani and J.-P. Mohen (eds.):
History of Humanity. Scientific and cultural Development. Volume II. From the Third Millenium to the
Seventh Century BC. Unesco & Routledge. London.
Lerner Gerda
1996
The Origin of Prostitution in Ancient Mesopotamia. Signs 11, 1986, 2, Winter, 236-254.
Lindberg Carter
1993
Beyond Charity. Reformation Iniatives for the Poor. Fortress. Minneapolis.
Liverani Mario
1996
Economic and Political Developments. In A. H Dani and J.-P. Mohen (eds.): History of Humanity.
Scientific and cultural Development. Volume II. From the Third Millenium to the Seventh Century BC.
Unesco & Routledge. London.
McCorriston Jay
1997
The Fibre Revolution. Textile Extensification, alienation, and Social Stratification in Ancient
Mesopotamia. Current Anthropology 38, 1997, 4, Aug-Oct, 517-549.
28
Melville Duncan J.
2003
Mesopotamian Mathematics. Additional material for the course of Ancient and Classical Mathematics.
St. Lawrence University. At http://it.stlawu.edu/~dmelvill/mesomath/index.html (22.10.2003)
Mesopotamian cosmogony
1955
Translation by E. A. Speiser, in Ancient Near Eastern Texts (Princeton, 1950), pp.60-72, as reprinted in
Isaac Mendelsohn (Ed.), Religions of the Ancient Near East, Library of Religion, paperbook series
(New York, 1955), pp.1946; notes by Mendelsohn. At
http://alexm.here.ru/mirrors/www.enteract.com/jwalz/Eliade/055.html (12.5.2003)
Muukkonen Martti
2002
Ecumenism of the Laity: Continuity and Change in the Mission View of the World's Alliance of
YMCAs, 1855-1955. University of Joensuu Publications in Theology N:r 7. Joensuu.
Ness Lester
2002
Research Sources For Astrology. Mesopotamian And Ancient Near East Sources. At
http://www.smoe.org/arcana/astrol4.html (22.10.2003)
Niebuhr Richard H.
1937
The Kingdom of God in America. Harper and brothers. New York.
Pelling Henry
1965
Origins of the Labour Party 1880-1900. Second Edition. Oxford University Press. Oxford.
Perry Ralph B.
1964
Puritanism and Democracy. Harper Torchbook edition. Harper & Row. New York & Evanston.
2001
History Topics: Babylonian mathematics. School of Mathematics and Statistics University of St.
Andrews, Scotland. At http://www-groups.dcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/~history/Indexes/Babylonians.html
(22.10.2003).
O’Connor, John and Robertson Edmund F.
Parpola Simo
1982
1987
Mesopotamia. In Rotislav Holthoer, Asko Parpola & Simo Parpola (eds.): Otavan suuri
maailmanhistoria 2: Jokilaaksojen valtakunnat [The Otava Great World’s History 2: Kingdoms of River
Valleys]. Otava Keuruu.
The Correspondence of Sargon II. Part I. Letters From Assyria and the West. State Archives of Assyria.
Volume I. Helsinki University Press.
Postgate J. Nicholas
1994
1995
Early Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History. London: Routledge.
Royal Ideology and State Administration in sumer and Akkad. In Jack M. Sasson (ed. in chief):
Civilizations of the Ancient Near East. Volume I. Charles Scribner's Sons, Simon & Schuster
Macmillan, Prentice Hall International. New York, London, Mexico City, New Delhi, Singapore,
Sydney, Toronto.
Rashidi Jennifer
s.d. <2003
Mesopotamian disease and Medicine. Cuniform Digital Library Initiative. A joint project of University
of California at Los Angeles and the Max Planck Institute for the History of Science.
http://cdli.ucla.edu/EDU/medicine.html (19.10.2003)
Ratnagar Shereen
2001
The Bronze Age. Unique Instance of a Pre-Industrial World System? Current Anthropology 42, 2001,
3, June, 351-379.
Raunio Antti
2002
Kristittyjen keskuudessa kenenkään ei pitäisi kerjätä. Köyhyyden ongelma Lutherin teologiassa
[Among Christians, nobody should beg. Problem of poverty in Luther's theology]. In Virpi Mäkinen
(ed.): Lasaruksesta Leipäjonoihin. köyhyys kirkon kysymyksenä [From Lazarus to Bread-cues. Poverty
as a Question for the Church]. Atena. Jyväskylä.
Riekkinen Wille
1988
Taivaan ja helvetin välissä. Zarahustralainen ettiikka ja eskatologia [Between Heaven and Hell. Ethics
and Eschatology of Zoroastrianism]. In Risto Saarinen and Risto Uro (eds.): Lopun ajat eilen ja tänään
[The Ends of Times Yesterday and Today]. Kirkon tutkimuskeskus [Reseach Institute of the Finnish
Evangelical-Lutheran Church] A:48. Tampere.
Roaf Michael
1995
Palaces and Temples in Ancient Mesopotamia. In Jack M. Sasson (ed. in chief): Civilizations of the
Ancient Near East. Volume I. Charles Scribner's Sons, Simon & Schuster Macmillan, Prentice Hall
International. New York, London, Mexico City, New Delhi, Singapore, Sydney, Toronto.
29
Robson Eleanor
1997
Bibliography of Mesopotamian Mathematics. At
http://it.stlawu.edu/~dmelvill/mesomath/biblio/erbiblio.html (22.10.2003)
Rollinger Robert
2000
Herodotus and the intellectual Heritage of the Ancient Near East. In Sanna Aro and R.M. Whiting
(eds.): The Heirs of Assyria. The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Helsinki.
Smith Leonard
1993
Religion and the Rise of Labour. Nonconformity and the Independent Labour Movement in Lancashire
and the West Riding 1880-1914. Ryburn Publishing & Keele University Press. Keele.
Smith Timothy L.
1965
Revivalism and Social Reform. American Protestantism on the Eve of the Civil War. Harper & Row.
New York.
Sørensen Aage B.
1988
On Kings, Pietism and Rent-seeking in Scandinavian Welfare States. Acta Sociologica 41,1998,4,363375.
Stol Marten
1991-2
1998
Diagnosis and Therapy in babylonian Medicine. Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Lux 32, 1991-2, 42-65.
The Care of the Elderly in Mesopotamia in the Old Babylonian Period. In Marten Stol & Sven P.
Vleeming (eds.): The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East. Studies in the History and Culture
of the Ancient Near East, Volume XIV. Brill. Leiden, Boston & Köln.
The Sumerian King List
s.d.[2125 BC] At http://www.csun.edu/~hcfll004/sumking.html (22.5.2003).
Tamarisk and date palm
1992
Dispute between the tamarisk and the date palm. Translated by Robert D. Biggs. In James B. Prichard
(ed): The Ancient Near East. Volume II. A new Anthology of Texts and Pictures. 6 th paperback
printing. Princeton University Press. Princeton, NJ & Chichester.
Tergel Alf
1987
Kyrkan och det kalla kriget [The Church and the Cold War]. Verbum. Stockholm
Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbors
2001
Cross-Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation. Edited by Mitchell S. Rothman. Papers from
Seminar on Mesopotamia in the Era of State Formation: Aiming for Consensus (March, 1998). Santa
Fe: School of American Research Press
Van der Toorn Karel
1994
1996
From Her Cradle to Her Grave. The Role of Religion in the Life of the Israelite and the Babylonian
Woman. The Biblical Seminar. JSOT Press.Scheffield.
Family Religion in Babylonia, syria and Israel. Continuity and Change in the forms of Religious Life.
Studies in the History and Culture if the ancient Near east, volume7. E.J. Brill. Leiden, New York &
Köln.
Van Driel G.
1998
Care of the Elderly. The Neo-Babylonian Period. In Marten Stol & Sven P. Vleeming (eds.): The Care
of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East. Studies in the History and Culture of the Ancient Near East,
Volume XIV. Brill. Leiden, Boston & Köln.
Veenhof Klaas R.
1998
Old Assyrian and Ancient Anatolian Evidence for the Care of the Elderly. In Marten Stol & Sven P.
Vleeming (eds.): The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East. Studies in the History and Culture
of the Ancient Near East, Volume XIV. Brill. Leiden, Boston & Köln.
Wallerstein Immanuel
1974
1980
The Modern World System. Academic Press. New York.
The Modern World System. Vol. 2. Academic Press. New York.
Watkins Trevor
1992
Pushing back the Frontiers of Mesopotamian Prehistory. Biblical Archeologist 1992, December, 176181.
Wearmouth R. F.
1957
The Social and Political Influence of Methodism in the Twentieth Century. Epworth Press. London.
Weber Max
1976
The Agrarian Sociology of Ancient Civilizations. NLB. London.
30
1978
Max Weber. Selections in Translation. Edited by W.G. Runciman. Cambridge University Press.
Cambridge, London, New York & Melbourne.
Welfare in America
1996
Christian Perspectives on Policy in Crisis. Edited by Stanley W. Carson-Thies and James W. Skillen.
Eerdmans. Grand Rapids.
Westbrook Raymond
1998
Legal Aspects of Care of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East: Introduction. In Marten Stol & Sven P.
Vleeming (eds.): The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East. Studies in the History and Culture
of the Ancient Near East, Volume XIV. Brill. Leiden, Boston & Köln.
Wettlaufer Jörg
2000
The jus primae noctis as a male power display: A review of historic sources with evolutionary
interpretation. Evolution and Human Behavior 21, 2000, 2, 111-123. Available also at
http://www.fibri.de/jus/arthbes.htm (3.11.2003)
Wilke Claus
1998
Care of the Elderly in Mesopotamia in the Third Millenium B.C. In Marten Stol & Sven P. Vleeming
(eds.): The Care of the Elderly in the Ancient Near East. Studies in the History and Culture of the
Ancient Near East, Volume XIV. Brill. Leiden, Boston & Köln.
Wright Rita P.
1986
Comment to Zagarell. Current Anthropology 27, 1986, 5, December, 425.
Yasna
Ahunavaiti Gatha.
Translation by C. Bartholomae, from I.J.S. Taraporewala, The Divine Songs of Zarathushtra.
http://www.avesta.org/yasna/yasna.htm (16.10.2003)
Yoffee Norman
1995
Political Economy in Early Mesopotamian States. Annual Review of anthropology 24, 1995, 281-311.
Zagarell Allen
1986
Trade, women, Class, and society in Ancient Western Asia. Current Anthropology 27, 1986, 5, Dec,
415-430.