cities of Sumer these projects included streets, irrigation ca-
nals, and walls to guard against invading armies, but Eridu
and other Sumerian cities until about 3000 b.c.e. probably
did not have monarchs. Instead, they developed an institution
that was called the lugal, which translates as “great man.” In a
crisis such as a great fl ood or a war, an assembly of free citizens
chose a leading fellow citizen to take charge until the crisis was
over. It is possible that at some point crises came so frequently
that a lugal was able to stay in power permanently.
Some historians call the earliest Sumerian city-states
simple democracies because people in them supposedly had
equal civil rights. Individual cities varied in how they orga-
nized themselves around the concept of free, socially equal
citizens, but in general no one person was supposed to be
born superior to another. Th ese societies may have been ma-
triarchal in outlook, with female ancestry being more im-
portant in identifying a person’s heritage than male ancestry
and with priestesses dominating religious rituals, but gender
rights seem to have been equal in matters of social standing,
control of land, marriage, and divorce. Much about the so-
cial organization of Eridu’s era, about 5000 to 4000 b.c.e., is
vague because of the absence of written records.THE URUK PERIOD
Th e Uruk Period (ca. 4000–ca. 2900 b.c.e.) is somewhat
clearer because written documents exist both from that
time and from soon aft erward. Th e period is named for the
dominant city of the age, Uruk, known as Erech in the Bible.
During this period men and women shared civic duties, with
a man called en and a woman called nin holding chief ad-
ministrative powers over a bureaucracy, each serving a term
of one year. Divisions of labor seem to have been developing
between the genders, with women in charge of the textiles in-
dustry, which was important to a city’s wealth through trade.
Wool was the primary material.
Although some archaeologists believe that there was
no social diff erentiation in Uruk, with all free people being
equal, there is evidence of an elite group of government work-
ers who organized and directed group activities. Govern-
ments combined civil administration and religious practices,
ma k ing public ser v ice an act of fait h. A lt hough t he en and the
nin supposedly controlled both government activities and re-
ligious rites on behalf of the general population, the existence
of a permanent bureaucracy indicates that those who knew
procedures and rituals well could manipulate the short-term
administrators.
Archaeologists sometimes point to physical evidence that
Uruk had an egalitarian society, meaning a society in which
no one had special privileges by right of birth. Th ey note that
the temples and government buildings were open, airy places
with numerous large doorways that were open to the outside,
so that anyone passing by could see what was taking place
inside. Th is free access implies that the government was open
to public scrutiny. Citizens could know all they wanted about
government and religious business merely by observing froma doorway or simply strolling in among the government and
religious offi cials. From this point of view, the en, the nin,
the bureaucrats, and the priests and priestesses were all ac-
cessible to any citizen and were accountable to the public for
what they did.
Th e institution of the assembly, even though it lingered
for hundreds of years aft er kings and dynasties appeared,
is another indication of egalitarianism. Th e assembly origi-
nally consisted of all free people, probably including women
(but excluding slaves). At some point women lost their right
to vote in the assembly; exactly when this happened is un-
known, and possibly they retained their right to vote in some
cities long aft er they lost it in others. By 3200 b.c.e., however,
the egalitarian aspects of Sumerian society had begun to fade.
Cities had not only ens and nins as well as the occasional lugal
but also governing boards composed of wealthy landowners.
Previously burials had shown no diff erence in status between
rich and poor, but this began to change as landowners as-
serted their economic power to infl uence society. Even so,
an assembly of citizens could overrule the governing board if
someone, perhaps an en or a nin, brought a board decision to
a public vote, which was typically held outside in a courtyard
or other large, open public space.DYNASTIC PERIOD
During the Early Dynastic Period (ca. 2900–ca. 2340 b.c.e.) in
southern Mesopotamia, permanent kingship developed, but
the kings had an uneasy relationship with their subjects, who
retained many of the rights they had held during the Uruk
Period. Perhaps the most interesting and most unaccount-
able change during this period was the loss of civil rights for
women. Th ey still had some legal protections, but by and large
they were owned by the men in their lives, with their wealth
always controlled by a male family member.
Social organization was dominated by the oikos. Archae-
ologists use this Greek word, which means “household,” to
refer to an extended family of close relatives who jointly own
land and perhaps workshops. An oikos always had a male as
its head, whose responsibilities included using family funds
to support infi rm family members, provide dowries, and pay
fi nes for criminal convictions of relatives; possibly it was also
his responsibility to carry out court orders for punishments
of family members. One of his most important duties was to
fi nd mates for the unmarried men and women of his oikos.
Marriages were arranged on the basis of wealth, although dis-
crimination based on social class seems to have been rare.
By the time of Babylon’s King Hammurabi (r. 1792–
1750 b.c.e.) society had divided itself into three groups: the
awilum, the mushkenum, and the wardum. Th e awilum were
landowners. Th ey had the most political power, and as the
centuries passed they came to possess most of a city-state’s
wealth. Th ey tended to hold the highest posts in government
and religion, and they expected the best government jobs to
go to their family members. Th e mushkenum were free people
but did not own land. Th ey retained the right to assemble in1020 social organization: The Middle East0895-1194_Soc&Culturev4(s-z).i1020 1020 10/10/07 2:30:47 PM