Hello Spark - You ask some of my favorite kinds of questions.
Now if these are 'homework' questions, one of two things will happen.
Either I will provide as much of the research as you might need and
point you to the information you want so you can do your paper, in
which case I hope you are happy - or - you will be upset that I didn't
do the answer in a form that could simply be copied and turned in as a
'done deal.' Please don't take that as a smartalecky statement, it is
simply the guidlines I must follow when dealing with what might be a
homework question.
I also give free lessons in writing run-on sentences.
Since I do not know your level of expertise in the subjects you are
asking about, I will presume there is none and start with basic
information and build from there.
The first part of your question has to do with the Epic of Gilgamesh
and what it tells us about Sumerian values. So, if you are not
already familiar with it you should read the text of the Epic along
with some additional explanatory material. "Gilgamesh Summary"
( http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/GILG.HTM ) This page is from Richard
Hooker's excellent "World Civilizations" site hosted by Washington
State University.
The Sumerians and the people they influenced had a strongly religious
interpretation of life. They believed that there was a wide variety of
supernatural forces, visualized mostly as gods with human-like
characteristics. These divinities were responsible for creation, for
the existence of humanity, major events effecting the communities and
even interceded for their own personal well-being.
This religious concept of the universe was so basic that Sumerian
literature from this era is entirely filled with the supernatural.
This was a 'wisdom literature' which sought to instill ideas of right
and thoughtful actions. However, there was not a single official body
of divine law, no Ten Commandments, no Levitical legislation, no canon
law.
The particular piece of wisdom literature known as the Epic of
Gilgamesh is the most widely known. As a "pure" guide to Sumerian
thought regarding your questions ( Is the universe trustworthy and
benign? Are the gods supportive of human activities and goals? What
should one live for? How should one face death?), the Epic is not
entirely dependable. There is no single Epic of Gilgamesh, just a
variety of incomplete versions in different languages, sometimes
separated by more than a thousand years. There is a traceable plot,
but any telling of it is to some degree a modern reconstruction. But
it is still the best resource we have for dealing with the thought of
the people of Sumer and their various Mesopotamian cultural
descendents.
"Is the universe trustworthy and benign?" - The Sumerian universe was
trustworthy in as much as it represented the balance between man and
gods and the 'contractual' relationship between them. Humanity was
required to do certain things in the form of worship and sacrifice and
in exchange, the gods were to do certain things in return. Overly
simple I know, but that was the basis of religious thought. So the
answer to that, in my humble opinion, is 'yes' the universe was
'contractually' trustworthy. - - - - As far as being "benign" that is
another story all together. Even the gods were not always benign and
did not always work for humanity's benefit. An was the father of the
gods, the god of the heavenly firmament. His relationship to
humanity was rather neutral when he had any relationship at all.
Enlil was the god of the air, he was perceived as playing a far more
active role than the rather bland An. Enlil was often angry, and
human beings had reason to fear crossing him. He had in the past
tried to destroy the human race. Enki, "Lord Earth," was the most
approachable of the major gods. He represented the power of the
living waters and was one of the creators of humanity and the one most
interested in its welfare. In the time of the Great Flood, Enki had
saved humanity when the rest of the gods were uniting to destroy it.
Which brings us to: "Are the gods supportive of human activities and
goals?" - By the mid-third millennium, each city had a patron deity
to which the city's main temple was dedicated. Within the
'contractual' framework, the city divinity was expected to be
supportive of the city's activities and goals. You will notice I said
"city" not individual people. The official religion was a state
religion and for the benefit of the state alone. There is a
considerable difference between the "official" religion and the
popular religious practices of the people. The people believed they
had the support of their household divinities but looked to the state
religion as not being really supportive of individual desires and
wants.
"What should one live for? How should one face death?" - In death as
in life, status within the community had much to do with status after
death. The Sumerian name for the place of the afterlife is "land of
no return". It is presided over by Ereshkigal and Nergal. Within the
house of Nergal, the house of darkness, the house of Ashes, no one
ever exits. "They live on dust, their food is mud; their clothes are
like birds' clothes, a garment of wings, and they see no light, living
in blackness. It is full of dust and mighty kings serve others food.
That is in the first house to which most must be resigned after death.
However, in Ereshkigal's court, heroes and priests reside. The
scorpion-people guard the gates in the mountain to the underworld.
"There are seven gates, through which one must pass. At each gate, an
adornment or article of clothing must be removed. The gates
(gatekeepers?) are named: Nedu, (En)kishar, Endashurimma, (E)nuralla,
Endukuga/Nerubanda, Endushuba/Eundukuga, and Ennugigi. Beyond the
gates are twelve double doors, wherein it is dark. Siduri waits there
by the waters of death, beyond which, is the Land of the Living, where
Utnapishtim and his wife dwell."
The Sumerian version of Gilgamesh includes a trip to the nether
world. In the prologue, Enki sails for the Kur, presumably to rescue
Ereshkigal after she was given over to Kur. He is assailed by
creatures with stones. The main body of the tale includes a trip to
the nether world as well. Enkidu enters the "Great Dwelling" through a
gate, in order to recover Gilgamesh's pukku and mikku, objects of an
uncertain nature. He broke several taboos of the underworld, including
the wearing of clean clothes and sandals, 'good' oil, carrying a
weapon or staff, making a noise, or behaving normally towards ones
family.
Sumerian religion was oriented squarely in this world. The gods did
not occupy some world existentially different from this one, and no
rewards or punishments accrued to human beings after death. Human
beings simply became wisps within a house of dust; these sad ghosts
would fade into nothing in time. the Epic of Gilgamesh does nothing
to dispel that philosophy.
For additional information, try:
"Spiritual Systems of Mesopotamia" - (
http://www.hist.unt.edu/ane-07.htm ) - provides an outline of Sumerian
spiritual systems adopted by later people such as the Babylonians.
"Sumerian Text Archive" - (
http://www.leidenuniv.nl/~jagersma/sta/sta.htm ) - "The Sumerian Text
Archive offers a growing collection of transliterated Sumerian texts.
These texts have been transliterated using only characters from the
ASCII alphabet so that the text files can be used on every type of
computer. As a result, however, the transliterations deviate in a
number of ways from what is common practice in Sumerology..." Here
you may find supporting texts for whatever you put into your paper (if
you are doing a paper).
"NU 2055, Lecture 4: Mesopotamian Civilization"
( http://www.nipissingu.ca/department/history/muhlberger/2055/l04anc.htm
) - provides a good basic overview of Mesopotamian and Sumerian
civilization if you need it.
I hope the above gives you a good base from which to proceed.
Google search and personal knowledge
Key words - sumeria, mesopotamian mythology, mesopotamian ethics,
sumerian texts
Now for Rome and the U.S.
The nature of the question makes it a touchy subject. There are a
variety of comparisons being made between the United States and
ancient Rome. When studying them, it is very important to isolate the
source. Many sound quite reliable and make all the right noises of
respectability, but be careful. Rome to many people represents the
Biblical colossus in history which fell due to its "sinful" nature and
this is most likely the reason for the frequent comparisons with the
USA. Modern America's political liberalism is often compared to the
'decadence of Rome' which, one hears, caused it to fall. In my
opinion the USA/Rome comparison has become a favoured tool for
demagogues, who see the end of America's dominance coming, unless it
changes its way and adheres to their dogmas and practices.
Any comparison between Rome and America faces an enormous rift.
Modern history is mostly about the struggle for freedom, liberty,
rights, democracy. Ancient Rome is not so much about any struggle
for liberty, but a struggle against civilized (for the most part) but
opposing forces. One may state that Rome existed in a day when
priorities were not freedom of speech, but were much more fundamental,
such as not having your village burned down.
Unlike modern America which feels it has a mission, Rome didn't set
out to civilise the world. As I mentioned, later history focuses on
the struggles for liberty while the ancients were surrounded by
barbarians and the outlook was fundamentally different. As for Roman
military might and their willingness to use it, which many compare to
the growth of the U.S. and its expansion west, it would be a mistake
to understand Rome's expansion solely as a military exercise. While
American expansion was simply the taking and buying (mostly taking) of
land for settlement and using military force to the move native
inhabitants away and into a 'controled' life, many parts of the Roman
Empire such as Cyrenaica, Pergamum, Lycia and Pampyhilia were not
'conquered.' And some other parts, such as Syria were hardly taken by
force either.
The most "significant differences" you ask about has nothing to do
with the way ancient Roman and modern American societies live or how
liberal society becomes, but with the very reasons these "empires"
came into being.
The main territorial gains of the Roman Empire were made in the
republican era, and by particular men (Caesar, Pompey, the Scipios)
acting mainly for purposes of personal gain. The empire was mainly a
way of funding their own personal and domestic spending. The notion
of 'civilising' subject peoples is a 19th century invention, largely a
creation of the British empire and later inherited by the U.S.A.
These modern empires felt a security created by their very existance.
Because of that , comparisons with Rome may well be anachronistic.
Rome was never able to feel quite that secure; they had not
'encompassed the earth' - there was always someone out there, beyond
the (actual, geographical) imperial boundaries, posing a threat -
complacency and 'decadence' was never an issue beyond the personal
lives of the few.
These empires (particularly the British) naturally looked to Rome as a
forebear, and their historical focus colours our views to this day -
the way that certain commentators on the USA react to current issues
and trying to make a comparison to ancient Rome owes as much to the
British experience in the 19th century, and to Roman historians of
that period, as it does to Roman history itself.
Greece has done us the favour of creating Hellenism, and yet, someone
had to make sure that word got around - and I guess that's where Rome
steps in... that's not to mean it was a conscious decision, but I
guess it's the role they fulfilled in getting us where we are today.
Much the same position the United States (along with its allies) are
in today. Making sure that the philosophic concepts of recent history
also "get the word around." So in that sense, we are more like the
Romans than the Athenians.
Given the strength of American military power as well as logical
persuasion, we do not always need to resort to the military to effect
change. Given the military might of ancient Rome and the numerous
examples of peaceful Roman expansion, that empire, too, didn't always
need to bang heads together to get what it wanted.
This may not be the direction you expected the answer to go. But when
it comes to the points where we and the Romans are different or alike,
it is the pragmatic way. Comparisons made based on subjective
moralities or political concerns are just that, subjective. I feel
they have no place in an answer such as this. Of course that is just
my own opinion.
Rome got us to where we are today. Rome is our grandfather and we
better be respectful to our grandfather. We might be disgusted at
grand dad's views and embarrassed at his habits, and yet it was the
old man who got us where we are today. (that last paragraph is a quote
from someplace, but I no longer have any idea where - I just like it)
Now this might get a bit touchy as I am posting no websites or sources
of authority for the above. We are anonymous in Google answers. So
all I can tell you is that as a historian, the above answer was
composed by me as an answer to the question. It is based on my own
background, training, and career. You will have to decide if that is
expert enough. Sometimes anonymity can get in the way.
Who knows, maybe I did a paper for you afterall.
If you need any clarifications, please ask.
Cheers
digsalot |
