With these ethical, intellectual and religious innovations (which, from our point of view, seem the normal legacy of individuals and societies), the history of Ancient Near Eastern cultures drastically changed. However, one may wonder if these innovations have preserved anything that can enlighten us on the ideas and values of the previous phases. It may be sufficient to think of the way (and the amount of time) in which the Western World rediscovered and reconstructed the history of the Ancient Near East to realise an essential fact: the history of the Greek and Roman World always remained an intrinsic part of the cultural legacy of the Western World, even in the various forms in which it had been revisited. On the contrary, Pre-Classical history originally emerged out of an anthropological investigation of the ‘primitive’ cultures that still survived at the time. On a side note, it is striking how this revival took place in the last phase in which it was physically possible to do so. Soon after the discovery and study of ‘other’ world cultures, the impact of colonialism, and the Industrial Revolution (and, then, world economy) led to the irreversible mutation or elimination of these cultures. The same can be said for the recovery of ancient archaeological and historical remains, which slightly anticipated the savage destruction of their original environment in favour of new forms of exploitation and settlement. These interventions fatally compromised earlier forms of human settlement. In other words, the study of these cultures foreshadowed and preceded their imminent destruction. This pattern is attested both for ancient and modern imperialism in its military, economic or intellectual connotations alike.
During this phase of global unification and intense interaction with ‘other’ cultures, Western culture established a comparative relationship with ancient cultures. Consequently, through the identification of similarities and differences, Western culture either tried to demonstrate how things have never changed or, alternatively, how things have changed, thus proving the uniqueness of the Western World. These extreme interpretations may appear naive and unacceptable, but their more detailed and thorough elaborations constitute the core of structuralism and historicism. These two approaches cannot be ignored, regardless of one’s preference for one or the other. As much as one tries to unify historical developments, one inevitably encounters exceptions. Similarly, as much one tries to establish universal ‘laws’, one has to realise that in history these rules are more often broken than followed. Yet despite one’s effort to focus on the historical context of specific customs, events, centuries and regions, one notices the existence of common institutional, phenomenological and fundamental categories. After all, if that were not the case, it would be impossible to discuss them in our own language and with our own approach.
In order to identify these ‘elementary forms’ constituting a sort of basic grammar of history, one has to admit that the Near East provides us with a relatively complex and complete sample of evidence. This has the added advantage of showing us elementary forms in their early formation and their later developments, relatively free of further complications. As already pointed out earlier, the Near East has become a sort of privileged historical ‘workshop’. This allows (to a certain extent) the study of certain phenomena in their purest state possible, avoiding those interferences that make these same phenomena difficult to identify or analyse in later phases. Elementary forms can therefore be easily identified in their earliest stages and simplest forms. Moreover, once identified, they can be easily recognised as elementary forms within more sophisticated phenomena.
In this volume, we have encountered various forms of human aggregation, first in their formative and then in their later stages. Thus we have moved from villages and transhumant groups to cities, tribes, ethnic groups, nations, confederations and empires. Within them, we have identified and explored the formation of centres of power: from the temple to the palace, the warehouse, the scribal school, the fortress and the armoury. We have also seen the establishment of a wide range of ways to establish control and subordination: from social stratification within a single community to foreign conquest, at times in its more drastic forms of annexation or destruction. We have discovered the way labour was subdivided and rewarded (from rations to salaries), and surplus was accumulated (from tributes to taxes). We have seen the way (or the ‘rules’) in which war was waged and peace was established. We have followed the development of the means for the justification of power and inequality: from legal reforms to usurpers’ apologies; from the celebrations of victories to the descriptions from the point of view of the defeated; and from punitive interventions to alluring alliances.
In terms of communication, we have seen the development of the ‘elementary forms’ of the message, both in its transmission and recording. We have therefore explored the development of messages from letters to administrative reports, from receipts to payment orders, from lists to summaries, from archives to libraries. In more general terms, we have seen the transition from a visual or monumental language to a written (and then alphabetic) one, from interlineal translations to the rise of a lingua franca, and from diplomatic agreements to commercial barter.
In terms of socio-political organisation, we have explored the development of codes and edicts, assemblies and courts, councillors and delegates, inheritances and testaments, adoptions and donations, and confiscations and exemptions. All these ‘elementary forms’ did not exist before. The necessary conditions for the development and implementation of these practices first appeared in the portion of history considered in this book. Despite their natural evolution in response to changing socio-economic, political and cultural developments, all these innovations remained relatively stable. Therefore, they can be recognised today as more elementary forms of our own, alas more structurally and historically complex, achievements.
Today, it would be impossible to conceive a study, be it a comparative or a phenomenological one, on the great themes of the city, the state, imperialism, communication, writing, social stratification, production economy or trade in which the Near East does not hold a privileged position. Apart from providing a set of documentation equal to any other (later) historical context, the Near East also provides the origins of the city, the state, imperialism, writing, administration and so on. If the term ‘origin’ is inevitably shrouded in myth, we can at least state that with the Near East we can experience for the first time (similar developments would appear later on elsewhere) the progressive development of the elementary forms of the organisation and interaction of communities.
World History
