The new cultural developments

The end of our journey is not just marked by the expansion of historical developments outside the Near East. It is also marked by the sudden appearance of significant intellectual and religious innovations. The sixth century bc (or, better, the two centuries between 650 and 450 bc) is the heart of what has been defined as the Axial Age of world history. In this phase, a series of reformers and innovators rose to prominence, from Confucius in China (550—480 bc) to Buddha in India (560—480 bc), Zoroaster in Iran (seventh century bc), and the Ionian philosophers and scientists in Greece (sixth century bc). The latter laid the foundations of the Classical philosophy, tragedy and historiography of the fifth century bc. Then, there were the great prophets of Israel (Deutero-Isaiah, Jeremiah and Ezekiel) linked to the Babylonian exile (587—539 bc), and preceded by the first formulation of Yahwism by the Deuteronomist (in Josiah’s reign, 640—609 bc). The protagonists and trends of the Axial Age are as different from each other as their respective cultural backgrounds and traditions. Even their innovations varied from rationalism to ethics. This concentration of cultural changes in the Axial Age is more than just a mere coincidence: it developed out of common situations and a common need to define the role of human beings in the world. In other words, this phase constitutes a significant separation from previous traditions and lifestyles.

The Axial Age developed alongside the formation of ‘universal’ empires, from the Assyrian to the Persian empires in the Near East, and similar states in India and China. All these territorial states were the result of similar processes developing over millennia, and were based on premises that had by now lost their potential. Therefore, it is no coincidence that the Axial Age tried to overcome the founding principles of empires, and developed on the margins or even against the empires themselves. Consequently, the great traditional cultures and their privileged centres were cut off from this process, and even antagonised it. For instance, Babylonia or Egypt did not have ‘Axial’ innovators. They were fully dedicated to the standardisation and archaising revival of their cultural legacy, from the esoteric expressions of Chaldean astrology to Egyptian Hermeticism. In contrast, the main centres of innovative cultural developments were located in new or marginal areas: from the Greek poleis on the edge of the Persian empire to the deportees within the Mesopotamian empires, the new communities in the Iranian mountains, and the new political and religious environments outside the traditional seats of power in India and China.

In terms of religion, the innovations of the Axial Age produced new ideologies. These ideologies eventually substituted polytheism, the latter being an important outcome of the Urban Revolution. However, Judaic monotheism (then Christian and Islamic monotheism, which derived from it) or Iranian dualism (Mazdaism and then Manichaeism) did not mark a ‘reduction’ of the divine sphere, but the birth of a different divine model. The increased influence and size of empires had not reduced the number of deities at the expense of the conquered cultures. On the contrary, empires had increased the number of deities through accumulations and syncretisms. Monotheism and dualism (the latter being a particular form of monotheism) do not unify a wide range of divine figures, but remove this variety. They therefore reject all the distinctive features of deities in favour of a more general and ethical characterisation of the divine. Up until the Axial Age, religion had been firmly in the hands of those in power. These individuals acted as the only legitimate mediators in the relations between the human and the divine sphere. The rise of universal empires, however, gradually increased the gap existing between the ruling elite and the rest of the population. Consequently, the former mediatory role of rulers was (or had to be) removed in favour of a direct connection between the individual and the divine. For this reason, the new religions developed in the Axial Age were ‘ethical’ and closely linked to the individual. They therefore were in marked contrast with previous religions, which were far more ‘ceremonial’ and concerned with the maintenance of the official socio-political structure of a state.

The other great legacy of the Axial Age is the rationalisation and secularisation of knowledge. Science and philosophy developed along internal lines, through their own methods and without those practical or cosmological connections that had previously hindered intellectual research. In other words, ‘mythical thought’, or at least the tendency to explain or envision reality in mythical terms, was replaced by ‘rational thought’. A cumulative type of knowledge was replaced by a structural interest in the understanding of the world, both in its physical and conceptual aspects. Consequently, historiography, ethnography and political theory developed alongside science and philosophy. Ah these new disciplines had pre-Axial precedents in the Near East, but lacked more comprehensive and conscious formulations.

The emergence of moral concerns in religion and the rational aspects of knowledge can be linked to the emergence of the individual. This phase saw the development of the individual personality, and of a direct link between the individual and his own issues, outside family, social, communal and political structures. This development can be seen in high status expressions as well as in the wider population, in the tip of the iceberg as well as in the mass below the surface of the water. Stylistically, there is a marked tendency towards originality and creativity (for instance, in sculpture). Moreover, an attention for unique physical traits substituted stereotyped and standardised depictions. Now, then, the ultimate goal of a narrator or a poet was originality. This was in marked contrast with the earlier obsession for the reproduction of ancient traditional models. The content of literary works itself tends to be more specific, rather than based on previous models.

Prior to the Axial Age, the only renowned figures were rulers. This was due to their constant efforts in placing themselves in a super-human category alongside gods and founding heroes. Kings therefore always emphasised their contribution to the order of the world, its correct management and their fight against the forces of chaos. The few other personalities or the few authors we know of are simply early efforts at anticipating the eventual changes that would take place in the Axial Age. However, these painful efforts could only have succeeded by becoming models and founding prototypes of later literature. Pre-Axial literature therefore developed together with political power, and was actually funded by the palace. On the contrary, post-Axial literature would (or could) become not only autonomous, but even in opposition to the palace administration.

In terms of longue duree (if one can accept the application of Braudel’s approach here), the Axial Age constitutes a suitable development to mark the end of the phase treated in this book (3500—500 bc) and to open a new one (ca. 500 bc—1500 ad). It is, however, necessary to understand in what way this marked change relates to the previous phase. The Axial Age displays elements of both continuity and change. The ‘revolutions’ of the Axial Age, then, may have developed against the traditional cultures and empires (although they would become an integral part of the following empires), but they were also the final outcomes of tendencies that existed throughout the previous three millennia.

In this book, we have tried to follow a coherent line of development and its repercussions on a material (namely, the ownership and management of means of production), social and ethical level. Consequently, it has been possible to follow the gradual rise of the role of the individual from its anonymous presence within kinship and family groups. The latter controlled means of productions, managed them according to strictly traditional practices, and only categorised its members according to gender or age groups. The process continued throughout the Urban Revolution and its subsequent developments. This rise was initially (and, to a certain extent, always) limited to adult males, and mainly within specialist classes. In this process, the idea that a man’s destiny was written in his family and in his social position was slowly replaced with the conviction that a man’s destiny depended on his behaviour and abilities. In this regard, the evolution of inheritance systems is a significant indication of the evolution of legal responsibility (from collective to family and personal responsibility) and socio-economic mobility (both vertical and horizontal). This evolution also contributed to the appearance of other criteria, such as the importance of originality in literary works, and the marked transition from state religion to a more intimate and personal type of religion.

to the gradual accumulation of functional, socio-economic, ethnic, cultural and religious differentiations, the emergence of the individual from the group continued throughout the Bronze Age. This gives us the impression that a non-traumatic turn of events was still possible, at least in terms of the development of the individual’s rationality, moral values and introspection. On the contrary, the process came to an abrupt standstill in the Early Iron Age, when the rise of nomadic and pastoral groups marked the return to tribal structures and kinship values. This situation led to a different regression in the Late Iron Age at the hand of the rising empires. The latter conquered and essentially suppressed thriving cultural and political centres, imposed a sort of ‘mass slavery’, and revived archaisms. Moreover, they only allowed the practice of magical (for example, prophecy and exorcisms), cumulative and theosophical (astrological or not) wisdom.

This regression, which was controlled by the empires’ centres, brought about the ‘revolutionary’ reaction of the great prophets, religious reformists, scientists and philosophers of the Axial Age. Despite their opposition to the great cultural centres of a tradition in decline, however, these innovators did not fail to draw from previous experiences (after all, they could not have done otherwise). The latter allowed them to bring change, further emphasised by the overall cultural regression of the time. Therefore, the search in the previous millennia of Ancient Near Eastern history for the religious, scientific and philosophical precedents and premises of the Axial Age cannot be considered a merely arbitrary or useless thought experiment.