This development was somehow parallel to the appearance of inherited as well as financially acquired property. These acquisitions required historical proof for the right of ownership. This development was in marked contrast to previous periods, when ownership was either in the hands of the family or the temple. Be that as it may, the Old Babylonian period experienced a surge of the historiographical activities of scribes, normally in connection to current political problems (such as royal legitimacy and royal decisions). This historiographical effort generated at least three types of compositions. First, there were king lists, which developed along two lines: a Sumerian and an Amorite one. The former expressed more traditional southern Mesopotamian ideas, exemplified by the Sumerian King List (as well as the Lagash King List). The aim of this type of list was to provide a single line of kingship and to legitimate the dynasty of Isin. These texts therefore provided the deceptive image of a unified kingship from its mythical foundation (‘when kingship descended from the sky’) to periods of rivalries and fragmentations. The Amorite line was less traditional, providing the antecedents of the new dynasties through lists of tribal ancestors of a more or less legendary nature (found in the beginning of the Assyrian King List and the one of Hammurabi’s ancestors).
The second type of composition consists of the collections of Akkadian and Ur III royal inscriptions (copied from the monuments that still stood in the main Mesopotamian sanctuaries) and from the royal correspondence of the Ur III kings. These texts are fundamental sources for the reconstruction of the history of these periods. They were mainly written down for scholarly purposes, rather than political ones.
The third type of composition, partly derived from the second type, was that of pseudo-historical texts, from ‘false inscriptions’ (naru), imitating authentic inscriptions, to historical poems of the kings of Akkad. As mentioned above, these texts contain more inaccurate than reliable information and provide little evidence on these ancient rulers. However, they contribute to the understanding of the political problems of the periods in which they were composed.
Expressions of increased individualism were also typical of the time. These expressions were linked to that social evolution considered above and can be analysed through two examples. The first one is the iconography of seals. The repetitive Neo-Sumerian scenes depicting the presentation of the seal’s owner to the chief deity (or the deified king) by a minor deity continued to be used in the Old Babylonian period. However, since the owner of the seal was identified in writing, the Old Babylonian scenes became even more stereotyped. They therefore depicted the deity introducing the person in question as a generic divine figure (lamassu, a sort of personal protective deity or ‘guardian angel’) and not a recognisable deity. The second example concerns letters written to the gods. These were written by individuals to denounce their state of unjust despair and ask for help. Both mechanisms (presentation and letter to the god) were expressions of an increasing psychological introspection. Through the inclusion of recommendations, official presentations and pleas, these expressions transferred to a religious level what happened in the human sphere. Therefore, there was a clear attempt among common people to develop a personal tie with the divine, effectively avoiding the mediation of the priesthood or the king.
A visible expression of these individual attempts to find explanations through a direct interaction with the divine, unmediated by cults and the state, is the sudden appearance of collections and interpretations of omens (virtually unknown in the third millennium bc). Omens were considered to be visible and perceptible presages of what was happening or was going to happen on an imperceptible level. This connection was possible because these two levels co-existed within the same cosmic order. In the third millennium bc, there were means to communicate with the divine sphere directly, such as premonitory dreams, where a deity appeared to a king in order to tell him what to do. However, these dreams were more than just signs. Dreams were a channel of communication with the divine, using the same language, without the need for interpretation. In the Old Babylonian period this situation changed. Clear dreams continued, but the dreamers were mostly normal individuals, especially women. Therefore, apart from prophetic dreams concerning kings, common dreams also began to be interpreted, in the hope that they contained a cryptic message about the dreamer’s future.
The most popular divinatory art of the Old Babylonian period was haruspicy, the inspection of the livers taken from sacrificial animals. This practice would later on develop into extispicy, the examination of all internal organs. The Old Babylonian scribes collected both in writing and through liver models the historical omens of the famous kings of the past. However, despite their conviction, there were few precedents of the practice in the third millennium bc. These artificial historical omens were largely secondary to the large amount of liver omens (Figure 11.5), which came to form a bona fide science based on analogies and opposite interpretations, facilitating the discovery of important signs in any liver, object, or ominous situation.
Apart from haruspicy, the Old Babylonian period saw the development of various divinatory sciences. For instance, there was the identification of omens in deformed births (summa izbu), anomalies of the environment or in daily life (summa alu), incense smoke (libanomancy), physiognomies, astrology, and so on. Ah these techniques would become part of Near Eastern history and each period would develop its own preferences and differentiations. However, the idea developed at the beginning of the second millennium bc was that anyone, from the king to any of his subjects, could know his fate by interpreting the signs appearing around him.
The study of omens constitutes a fundamental tool for the understanding of the fears and expectations of Old Babylonian society. First, there was a distinction between two spheres, the land (matu) and the house (batu), namely, between the public sphere of the state and the private one of the family. Some divinatory techniques taking place or observed in a cultic context were reserved for the public sphere. Others were accessible to all and were mostly encountered in the private sphere. Sometimes, omens could have a double meaning, being one thing in the matu sphere and another thing in the bitu sphere. Apart from this distinction, omens show a high level of conflict between these two spheres, which is unattested in the official documentation. This division is further distorted by the role of omens as outlets for fears and tensions. The public sphere was obviously the place in which usurpations, regicides, revolts and defections took place. The private sphere had the problem of generational conflicts and contests amongst relatives. The main worry was that of cohesion, also in its diachronic aspect, namely, continuity. The values of solidarity and loyalty seem to have been the ones most under threat. This was probably because they were at the heart of society, and were developing in a period when important changes were taking place on an economic and family level.
The structure of the omen (even in its formulation: ‘if. . . then. . .’) became the typical conceptual structure of Mesopotamian culture. This same structure was applied in collections of laws. The main difference in this case was that the relation between the two hypothetical phrases was not one of sign and interpretation, but of crime and punishment. The structure was also applied to texts of a ‘scientific’ nature, such as medicine. After all, our modern distinction between science and divination did not exist in Mesopotamia. On the contrary, there were two branches of Mesopotamian medicine, both based on the interpretation of signs. Leo Oppenheim defined the two branches as ‘practical’ and ‘scientific’. The ‘practical’ branch, typical of the Old Babylonian period, was performed by a physician (asu). It consisted in the careful observation of symptoms to develop a diagnosis of the type of illness and the suitable cure (whose efficacy might be dubious, but was based on the use of herbs for healing purposes). The ‘scientific’ branch was practised by an exorcist (asipu). It consisted in the careful observation of any types of signs, such as signs that the exorcist noticed on his way to the patient’s home and an indication of the outcome (survival or death). The latter did not depend on cures, but could be changed through various exorcisms. These magical measures (exorcisms and spells) were for now still relatively marginal, at least compared to the popularity they would experience later on. This indicated a fluctuating preference between an active intervention and a fatalistic acceptance of one’s destiny.
World History
