Eastern tradition of group-oriented decision making that may somehow stand behind
the remarkable development in Athens” (Fleming 2004 : 16 ).
Should we think of early Mesopotamian societies as under the thumb of despotic
rulers and strongmen then? No. Throughout Mesopotamian history there existed self-
governing civic institutions, which we even find attested in the first millennium, the
era of empires (Barjamovic 2004 ; Liverani 1993 ; Van De Mieroop 1997 : chapter 6 ). The
relationship between state rulers and their subjects always was one of negotiation,
where each side had to adjust to internal and external realities. An emperor intent upon
far-flung conquests might want to secure his back by granting urban privileges in the
empire’s core, while urban residents who felt threatened by hostile inhabitants of the
surrounding countryside might want to grant full authority to a distant emperor’s
representative. The systems of mediation make the analysis of ancient Mesopotamian
political structures interesting and still relevant, for creating them ranks among the
greatest challenges every society faces. Throughout history there were many ways in
which people organized themselves and came to formulate their opinions. A detailed
study of collective governance in early second millennium BCnorthern Syria, based
on the rich material from the palace at Mari, shows how varied these organizations
could be. Some focused more on family connections, real or perceived, others on
locality, etc. (Fleming 2004 ). The third millennium situation in southern Mesopotamia
was probably not simpler; although the city-state was the common political structure,
there could have been differences between the assorted cities and everywhere the kind
of concerns involved probably led to variations in practices. Unfortunately the evidence
at hand is scarce and too unfocused to allow for grand conclusions, and the royal
personage will always remain dominant in our view. But that should not mislead us
into believing that the people had no role in historical developments. However much
a king’s authority may have been rooted in his ability to muster force, it is clear that
he needed support from others for his rule to be successful. Not only the gods needed
to approve of him, but also the people had to be content with him. The purpose of
his rule was to do good for the people, even if that meant going against the powerful
in his land, as the law codes and edicts show. Hammurabi’s famous code draws all of
these elements together: he was successful in war and battle defeating all of his
opponents and this enabled him to honor the gods of the lands he had conquered
properly. But, the main beneficiaries of his accomplishments were his people who had
the guarantee that truth and justice would rule their lives. Ultimately he was a good
shepherd.
ABBREVIATIONS
LU = Laws of Ur-Namma (see Roth 1997 : 13 – 22 ).
LH = Laws of Hammurabi (see Roth 1997 : 71 – 142 ).REFERENCES
Aruz, J. (ed.) 2003 Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the
Indus. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art; New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bailkey, N. 1967 “Early Mesopotamian Constitutional Development.” American Historical Review
72 : 1211 – 1236.–– Democracy and the rule of law ––