I’m wondering this morning if the Sumerian civilization of 5,400 B.C.E. would have gotten off to a better start had the Sumerians not united church and state in the same personage — the god-king or the priest-governor.
Maybe that unification was a necessary ploy to get folks to support an elite. Even to this day, we humans are strangely inclined to give up a portion of our wealth to anyone who claims to be on speaking terms with our deity. Perhaps it is no accident the first hierarchical, year-around cities were centered on temple complexes.
But was it a good idea? It does seem to have caused a great deal of suffering and confusion down through the millennia. What do you think?
My StumbleUpon Page
4 responses so far ↓
Brian // July 3, 2008 at 1:15 pm
There are actually quite a few novels that incorporate this concept and time in human development and use this as a device to show that the gods were in fact real. Belief of everyone in a godhead and that godhead is thus a living deity.
shirhashirim // July 4, 2008 at 4:18 am
It would have been too expensive and unnecessary.
Separation of church and state is only necessary when differences in ideology are considered relevant to the distribution of power.
Sumerians were polytheists. Polytheism usually allows a broad spectrum of religious thought. Most differences are either resolved through syncretism or simply do not matter.
Sumerian religion probably only defined the identities of Sumerians and non-Sumerians, so it was not relevant to the distribution of power within Sumerian society. Separating church and state would have solved a non-existent problem.
When different religions emerge -in the late middle ages e.g.- and start warring each other, then you need that separation. And indeed it was invented in the aftermath of the religious wars of that period.
Luckily in that same period Europe could generate enough surplus to finance the multiplication of hierarchies that ensued. Agricultural reforms in the 13th century, the flourishing of trade and influx of goods and precious metals from the America’s offered the stagnant mediaeval economy enough boost too successfully implement ‘modern’ solutions.
The Sumerian economy was a typical stagnant economy that could only generate enough surplus to finance farming, a little bit of trade and a little bit of government. Extra surplus had to be gotten elsewhere by expanding. Once the expanding stops -and it always does- the economy stagnates again and maintaining an apparatus of civil servants becomes too expensive. That’s why antiquity is filled with empires rising and falling.
Dana Hunter // July 4, 2008 at 5:18 am
I think the Sumerians would have done a lot better without such a right bunch of barstards as gods, meself. Have you read the Epic of Gilgamesh? Their gods created humanity as slaves because they were lazy gits, and then killed the lot (aside from what’s-his-guts, totally unspellable name when you’re not in the mood to consult teh Google). As I was saying, killed the lot simply because people were keeping them up at night.
So the first thing, they should have fired the whole pantheon and got themselves a better class o’ gods.
And the second thing, which is not a deep thought but a frequent one: the whole god-king thing only works so long as people don’t realize you’re a silly selfish bugger telling enormous fibs to make yourself more important than they are. Might take people a long time to cotton on to the fact you’re actually mortal, but once they do… well, let’s just say they can make the Sumerian gods seem awfully kindly.
I don’t think god-kings arose because of a deep and profound faith. I think it’s because some clever bastard realized early on it was the perfect con game. Telling people you’ve got a direct line to the Almighty’s always a great schtick.
Necessary for early civilization? Possibly. It would’ve taken some serious persuading to get a bunch of cantankerous tribes to budge up together in one place and allow themselves to be bossed around by some yahoo with a power-trip. And what if it was a fashion thing? You know, one con artist in one city proclaims himself a god-king, and the other cities leap up going, “Oh, yeah? Well, our king, he’s like a MEGA-god-king! So there!”
Would not surprise me in the least.
Stephen // July 4, 2008 at 5:28 am
I have always held that seperation of church and state is vital. But it occured to me this morning that maybe I’ve been thinking inside the box. Implicit in such thinking is an acknowledgement that both are flawed.
My first reaction to the unity you describe in Sumeria was that maybe they were trying to acknowledge and reflect in their institutions the concept that the veil between worlds is thin. I don’t think that is a bad thing, yet I am strongly opposed to the involvement of religious organisations in the running of my state. Apparently a contradiction. This apparent contradiction has proved very useful, because this morning I have realised that I am not against the idea of unity between church and state. I am against the idea of churches and states that claim superiority over people. I am against the idea of churches and states that see themselves as entitled to impose rather than serve. We are each our own moral, religious and political compasses. I am against religions and states that fail to acknowledge this. The veil between worlds is thin (I don’t mean this in a narrow sense, it is as true for an atheist as a theist, I am talking about the world of our awareness). I think unity of church and state may be a good thing, if the church and state were not in the hands of a few. I think the cause of suffering and confusion is in the giving of authority to another, before you know it they’ll have power over you. That’s the problem.
Leave a Comment