“The first
unambiguously attested states yet known emerged round about 3200 BC in the Nile
Valley and in southern Mesopotamia – ‘unambiguously’, because writing had been
invented in those two areas, and we have documents instead of merely
archaeological records. There must certainly have been states before this:
city-states, at least, since Jericho had massive walls and a temple shrine as
early as c.6500 BC – but we know nothing of its social and political life.
Likewise, there were important states after this which, if we could interpret
their writing, might well disclose a political order to match the Egyptian or
Sumerian: Minoan Crete, for example, that flourished between 2000 and 1450 BC.
These states, however, all have another characteristic besides unfathomability:
they were ‘one-off’ states, dead-end states. As they arose suddenly and in
mystery, so they perished suddenly, in mysterious circumstances; and, dead,
left no progeny. Their very existence was unknown until their ruins were
exposed by the spade within the last hundred years.
This is
emphatically not true of the Sumerian or Egyptian civilisations, which passed
their tradition on through space and time. In a world-historical perspective,
the Middle East is the cradle of organised government, and it was to retain its
cultural, political, and military supremacy even under increasing pressure for
over 2000 years.”
- Finer,
Vol I, pg 99
http://sghardtruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/03/lky-singapore-out.jpg
One
suspects this city state would cleave more closely to the example of Minoan
Crete. Born in sudden surprise, gone quietly – or worse – into the night. Gone
without meaningful trace – all physical foundations built for and on transient
finance, no real attempt nor even minor success at creating lasting purpose, culture,
ideas, belief. Little, therefore, beyond a study into pecuniary transaction, for
the archaeologists that come digging centuries hence; nothing, thus, for those seeking high culture and classical civilisation millennia from now.
--------------------------------------
Post
Script:
But, of
course, none of this is to say that the Island Republic didn’t have parallels
with Mesopotamian antiquity. The parallels are present. But at this point, I suspend
moral valuation. The drawing of parallels which follows does not suggest measurement
against ideals – good or evil, right or wrong – none of that. The history cited here simply describes what was. And, in turn, we simply find that it uncannily
reflects what is.
“The terms ensi and lugal do not make their appearance before c. 2750-2600 BC (early
Dynastic II)... The word lugal is,
simply, lu-gal, ‘great man’. Significantly, however, ‘this is the only term
available in Sumerian to express a master’s complete control over his slaves,
or an owner’s over his house’. It seems to have escaped notice that this
meaning is identical with the one Aristotle attaches to the Greek term
‘despot’. The fact that (later, of course) all administrative officials are
‘slaves’ (Sumerian ir) of the kings
(inscribed on their seals) reinforces the point.” – pg 114
“The king
of a city... sat on his throne specifically to order the people’s service to
the gods and on him depended not only the routine business of the city, or even
its safety and independence, but its well-being and the bounty of Nature
itself. This immense responsibility of rulership implied an equally immense
duty of obedience on the part of his subjects. The people had been created to
serve the gods. The ensi or lugal was the surrogate of the gods.
Hence the people had been created to serve the king...
The whole
concept of the sacral monarchy was monist:
one king over all the gods, so one king over all his subjects. We reiterate:
the very word lugal signifies lord
and master of a house, a field, a household (oikos) of slaves.” – pg 117
“The
Sumerian city-state was an oikos...
Supreme power vested in the ruler, and the oikos
as a whole consisted of his palace as a master-household and a number of others,
arranged hierarchically in relation to it... The Sumerian word e means, precisely, an oikos. But this was not the small,
face-to-face community of Rodbertus, but a statist organisation, authoritarian
and highly bureaucratic, which, outside its social and religious function,
existed to satisfy the wants of the lord and master, the en and lugal – despots to the Greeks. It was, therefore,
a production unit, comprising domains – lands, villages, administrative
centres, dwellings, workshops, storehouses, and granaries
– and it was run by bodies of administrators, accountants, supervisors, and
inspectors.
Not merely
that. One of its principal characteristics, implicit in the concept of oikos, is that it was a
storage-redistributive organisation. Products were brought into storehouses and
granaries and went out again in the form of rations, dues, and gifts. Lands,
particularly the cereal lands on which the entire oikos depended, were the god’s – hence, in some sense, the ruler’s.
The temple’s lands were cultivated by the temple’s servants and administered by
the chief priests in the name of the god, hence, the ruler.” – pg 121
No comments:
Post a Comment