The Sumerians

C. Leonard Woolley

New York: Barnes & Noble, 1929 (1995 reprint); Pages: 198

Note: The B&N's edition wrongly lists the author as Leonard Wooley instead of Woolley.

Although fairly dated by recent developments, Sir Leonard Woolley's (1880-1960) The Sumerians should still be a required reading for budding Sumerologists or anyone interested in learning a bit more about what is now considered the earliest civilization. The reason for this is simply the author's eminence in the field. His excavations at Ur, which he did for the British Museum during 1922-34, were responsible for establishing the flagging field to a position of eminence among the ancient historians.

One of the most fascinating aspects of these archaeological digs is the evidence unearthed about the antiquity and advances of the Sumerians. Egypt's long-standing claim to fame as the cradle of civilization can be put to rest now. Indeed, Woolley's purpose in writing this little book was to introduce the lay person to Sumer and dislodge the Egyptians from their laurels. The style and content reflect this purpose. There are no bibliographic references, and no more than Woolley's own musings on various topics regarding Sumerian society and life. Some, but not all, have been modified by recent finds (see Kramer's excellent books) but the general picture has not really changed significantly.

The author covers the ground from the early prehistoric period and the growth of the city states through the fall of Larsa to the Babylonians (Hammurabi), which he considers the end of the Sumerian civilization. The book, however, is not very well organized, jumping back and forth between historical narrative (with hardly any dates!) and descriptions, sometimes in painful detail, of architecture. Although fascinating, the historical record of political events is quite spotty and so we can't discuss the reasons for the almost incessant inter-city strife at great length. Much of what pass today as explanations is just speculation really. Woolley himself is somewhat suspect when he concludes that the reason for the disappearance of the Sumerian civilization:

"For a long time the process of decay has been going on; by intermixture with Akkadians and other Semitic-speaking stocks the purity of the race has been lost and the numbers of those who could call themselves Sumerians had diminished until they formed a minority only of the population; parallel with the physical decay there had been a moral degeneration which is reflected in the art of the people, where softness has taken the place of strength and convention has swamped originality" (p. 170).

It is true that Europeans in general have tended to explain the destruction of empires in our history in terms of moral degradation, which saps the strength and the will to fight, and the most popular account, of course, is the fall of the Roman Empire to the barbarians. Whether this is true or not, it is no answer, and the Sumerian case is even more problematic. As Woolley is at pains to demonstrate, even after the Sumerians had ceased to exist as a separate people, even after their language had died and been forgotten, their civilization left lasting traces in that of the Mesopotamians that followed and, through them, on the Persians, Greeks, and therefore the West.

So much is doubtless true. The question then is why the Sumerians were overwhelmed by the very same people who admired their culture so deeply that they literally transplanted most of their religion (if that's not important, I don't know what is), literature (in translation), and even the cuneiform writing (later replaced by the Phoenician invention of the alphabet). Although there were some outbursts of Sumerian nationalism against the Semites (especially the Akkadians), it seems that as a whole the two coexisted to mutual advantage and the fighting between them was no more than the fighting between the city-states in general. Therefore, one has to deal with the question differently. Instead of seeing the Babylonians as backward hicks, as Woolley does, one should probably think of them as we do of the Japanese today: they borrowed the most useful traits of the more advanced civilization, adapted them, improved upon them, and finally caused the source to admire their achievements.

Woolley, by the way, gives a more plausible reason on p. 58: "the ruthless character of the wars between city-states" which frequently ended with the looting and wanton destruction of entire cities. Still, on p. 84 he argues that "it is to the credit of the Sumerian civilization that it survived unhurt the disaster which put an end to the political organization of the country" (i.e. the destruction of Sargon's empire by the Guti). What is one to make of all this?

Chapter IV, on the other hand, is a jewel in itself as it depicts Sumerian society, law, customs, religion, and life. The two things I found most fascinating here were the development of civil law, and the position of women. Although most famous, Hammurabi's Code of Laws is by no means without precedent in Mesopotamia. In fact, as Woolley shows, his version is mostly a restatement of ancient principles associated with the Sumerians along with more severe penalties for breaking them. When one reads Hammurabi's code, it is hard not to be depressed: for all his admirable desire to protect the weak from oppression by the strong, his employment of the death penalty, mutilation, and corporal punishment is far too generous, even by Inquisition standards. Comparing these penalties (mostly of retributory nature) to the benign code of the Sumerians is astounding: the latter would be certainly considered quite civilized even by our modern standards, given their predilection to avoid direct an-eye-for-an-eye punishment in favor of material compensation.

Although their society was stratified (nobles/priests/soldiers, middle class, and slaves), and although the law was not strata-blind, it is instructive to note that while a member of the lower classes paid more dearly for harming a member of an upper class, the punishment for a member of the upper class was more severe compared to that reserved for the lower classes for similar offenses! Woolley speculates (rightly, I believe) that the reason for this "anomaly" is the military basis of the upper class, which required both strict discipline if they were to be useful in war and civil protection for they were not expendable and had to be kept content. This is a remarkable contrast with the "better people" in our own history, who have never seemed to realize that privileges come with responsibilities (except perhaps for the brief noblesse oblige period, although from a different perspective).

The other bit of stunning information has to do with the position of women, traditionally thought to occupy a wholly subservient position, especially in eastern civilizations. On first blush a similar conclusion follows in the Sumerian case: husbands could easily divorce their wives, adultery for wives was punishable by drowning, concubinage was allowed, and the husband could even sell his wife into slavery. However, the severity of these written laws was mediated by the tolerant attitude of the Sumerians and the practices, at least those that we know of, show little evidence that the laws were applied literally or often. In fact, women could own property, engage in business (even after marriage they could still contract separately from their husbands), were not liable for their husbands debts incurred before the marriage, and divided the property with the sons when widowed. They also exercised significant control over the second wives, if any, and their status was protected by law even if their husband took a new wife. Religious prostitution was widespread (the temples also did quite a bit of commerce) and the many illegitimate children born to these women found their way into families through a very developed system of adoption. On the whole, life for women must have been fairly well-shielded from the depredations of a male-dominated society.

If only for Chapter IV, The Sumerians is worth reading. It is also quite interesting to hear a famous archaeologist describe the results of decades of work in his own words. Despite the somewhat obtuse prose here and there, the account is readable. If it sparks enough interest to convince the reader to seek out more recent scholarship (which usually appears quite forbidding to the newcomer), the book would have served its purpose. The final chapter, which traces the impact of the Sumerians on the Babylonians and the Greeks and compares the timing of discoveries with the Egyptian cases, is another worthwhile read also.

December 8, 2001

@book{woolley:sumerians,
  title     = {The Sumerians},
  author    = {{C. Leonard} Woolley},
  year      = 1929,
  publisher = {Barnes \& Noble},
  address   = {New York},
  isbn      = {1-56619-666-3 (hc.)},
  note      = {The King Lists on pp.21-6; index; Pp. 198}
}