{"id":116,"date":"2015-03-10T21:37:56","date_gmt":"2015-03-10T11:37:56","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/2015\/03\/10\/notes-on-the-social-structure-of-third-millenium-bc-sumer\/"},"modified":"2019-11-12T20:45:03","modified_gmt":"2019-11-12T10:45:03","slug":"notes-on-the-social-structure-of-third-millenium-bc-sumer","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/stevewatson.info\/blog\/2015\/03\/10\/notes-on-the-social-structure-of-third-millenium-bc-sumer\/","title":{"rendered":"Notes on the Social Structure of Third Millenium BC Sumer"},"content":{"rendered":"

 <\/p>\n

<\/a>The People (sag-giga)<\/h2>\n

The principal identity of the people seems to have been with the city itself. One sign of this is the tendency to take names incorporating the name of the city.[1]<\/a> There is no evidence that alternative identities actually opposed to the city played any significant role in Sumerian history. The idea that there might have been a \u2018racial’ distinction felt between semitic-speaking Akkadians and their Sumerian compatriots was once conjectured, but is not now credited. There is no evidence at all of such super-city identities as the oligarchs and democrats in the Greek cities, with the dire effects that that often had. On the other hand, they were always keen to distinguish themselves from the (semi-)nomads that surrounded the civilised areas and frequently appeared within it. (The myth of the Marriage of Martu<\/em> gives evidence of their attitude.) There were, however, many other normal divisions that might appear within the city population itself. These divisions do not seem, for the most part, to imply inimical relations more than usual.<\/p>\n

<\/h3>\n

<\/h3>\n

Kin<\/h3>\n

Tribe<\/h4>\n

If the Sumerians had ever been organised tribally those structures had disappeared over the millennia of their urban existence leaving no trace. We can be fairly confident, however, that nomadic peoples who settled in the cities would retain some degree of tribal identity at least. This would especially be the case in the north of the land where the Semitic and recently nomadic element was significant and where the pressure to conform to Sumerian norms would have been less.<\/p>\n

Clan<\/h4>\n

The evidence of land sale practices from this period, and also as seen on the Akkadian \u2018Obelisk of Mani\u0161tusu’, suggests that the extended and augmented family was an important economic unit. This implies, of course, that it was also an important social division. The evaluation of the precise degree of its importance in this period depends largely upon whether we accept that housing enclosures seen in the north were standard in the south. The evidence for this is not very strong, and it does not improve as we look into later periods. Records of house sales in Shuruppak may suggest that neighbours were relatives, while studies of documents found in adjoining houses in OB Ur suggest quite the contrary.[2]<\/a> If it is accepted then it is likely that the population of the city was sharply divided into family communes or hierarchical extended families. This has been argued for by Diakonoff[3]<\/a>, and Jacobsen has even suggested that the institution of lu-gal<\/strong> is a development of the r\u00f4le of the clan head and that the \u00e9-gal<\/strong> is a bloated version of his extended household.[4]<\/a><\/p>\n

Associated with the family core in such an organisation of society would also be a more or less extensive periphery of dependants. This would include cadet members of the family, slaves, retainers, persons of no family who would seek incorporation as a form of social insurance, and many others. Not all of these would need to be living in the actual enclosure.<\/p>\n

Family<\/h4>\n

As with us, the nuclear family appears to be the basic social unit. Men and women at this time were more approximately equal than at almost any other time in the history of this area. Men were the heads of their families but women had property and business rights, and could qualify as witnesses.[5]<\/a> Marriage was theoretically a business arrangement by the parents involving a money gift, the ni-mi-usa<\/strong>, to the bride’s father to cover the cost of the wedding.[6]<\/a> It could also involve a written contract. This aspect of marriage may lie behind the proverb \u2018A joyful heart – the bride; a sorrowful heart – the groom.’[7]<\/a> Nevertheless, the tone of the literature in general suggests that marriages were also contracted for reasons of the heart. The tales of Inanna show two lovers determining their own marriage and a proverb also states \u2018For his pleasure – marriage; on thinking it over – divorce.’[8]<\/a> Divorce seems to have been relatively easy and equitable. Children are, of course, supposed to be absolutely submissive, but isn’t this always the case – and literature indicates that it was no more realistic an ideal then than in most other times.[9]<\/a> Wet nursing and adoption were common.[10]<\/a><\/p>\n

<\/h3>\n

Imrua<\/h3>\n

There is an institution of im-ru-a<\/strong> which we hear mentioned but not explained.[11]<\/a> A tablet of ED Shuruppak, for example, speaks of 539 boys from 7 imru<\/strong>, and Gudea of Lagash began the E-ninnu temple with labourers from 3 imrua<\/strong>. In the Lagash case the imru<\/strong> were all represented by a standard (\u0161<\/strong>u-nir<\/strong>) named after a major deity: Ningirsu – \u2018the king smiting the foreign land’, Nanshe – \u2018the pure bow of the ship’, Inanna – \u2018the rosette’. Such a scheme of names may indicate that these groups were associated with the temples of those go<\/a>ds, and organised through them; but the term seems to mean \u2018family,’ so it may have referred to a clan organization within the city.<\/p>\n

<\/a>Classes<\/h3>\n

The population of the city seems to have become much more stratified in this period. We have seen this reflected in house sizes, records of indebtedness, and, most strikingly, in the Royal cemetery at Ur. The researches of Diakonoff[12]<\/a> indicate that the population was divided into four categories; nobility, commoners, clients, and slaves. Others are inclined to see the distinction as a gradation of liberties and to use the vocabulary of free, semi-free and slave. In any case, these distinctions were not those drawn by the Sumerians themselves, and we sometimes have difficulty matching their vocabulary to our functional vocabulary. Partly this is because the meanings of the relevant Sumerian terms changed over time, and partly because our main clue to class differences below the nobility is in the different kinds of ration schedules that are applied by the temple or palace to their workers according to their status.<\/p>\n

First Class<\/h4>\n

The nobles and commoners of the first division are the free people of the second. At most times the greater part of the population of the Land were formally free. There seems to have been no other distinction between nobility and commoner except wealth. Kramer suggests that the two groups were the source of members for the assemblies of \u2018old men’ and \u2018young men’ respectively, but this is merely a guess. In any case, to be free is not to be without formalised obligations to the society: taxes had to be paid and there were doubtless other duties required. Amongst the classes that we hear of as free are the officials and the engar<\/strong> (peasants.)<\/p>\n

Most free citizens were eligible for corv\u00e9e for the temple or palace, for which they received rations and sometime special supplements according to the standard ration system originally established for the temple. But these rations, even when supplemented, could surely not have sufficed for a healthy diet, since, as we have seen, the food rations were mostly cereals. We must assume that the recipients of these rations, and the citizenry in general, also had other sources of food and goods. Unfortunately we know almost nothing of this domestic economy.<\/p>\n

We do know that essential to the status of freedom was the ability to provide for oneself (and family.) Thus for most of the period, free citizens must have had access to the usufruct of the land, whether as a rent or as a freehold farmer. Other possibilities are, of course, craft industries or trade or employment as an official with whatever recompense that brought. It was not until Ur III that we begin to see hired labour, l<\/strong>\u00fa<\/strong>-hun-ga<\/strong>, working for wages, \u00e1<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Second Class<\/h4>\n

The clients were of three sorts:<\/p>\n