Book Review: Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History by Marc Van De Mieroop

@msiduri (5687)
United States
December 18, 2016 8:01am CST
Some time after people stopped recording events on clay tablets and started hitting the keys of things called typewriters, I studied journalism. Even in those hoary days, we were taught that objectivity was an elusive ideal. According to author Marci Van De Mieroop it is impossible even for scholars to view the past without bias, conscious or not. The most egregious example of bias, which he mentions only in passing, is that of the German scholars of the early 20th century using the study of Mesopotamia to further their notions of anti-Semitism. A less virulent (but no less pernicious) example is that of the early archaeologists of the mid- and late 19th century, who are seen as interpreting their finds in the light of their own views of European colonial expansion. Van De Mieroop says that because bias in scholars is unavoidable, scholars must make efforts to acknowledge their own biases. Having said all that, he now wishes to review the cuneiform records, what he calls “an embarrassment of riches” to draw conclusions about ancient Mesopotamian cultures. He examines the written records from four different perspectives: "History from above," royal inscriptions, diplomatic correspondence; "history from below," an attempt to construct a social history of the "non-elite"; economic history, particularly the role of trade and the ration system; and gender. He tries to summarize a history of how each particular aspect of Mesopotamian society has been viewed up till now. In the section on economics, he discusses Karl Marx, Max Weber, Karl Polyani and others. Short though it is, the book takes a while as it is nevertheless information-dense. The longest chapter is the one dealing with material on the elite of Mesopotamian society, as might be expected since this is where the greatest wealth of information lies. But he stresses repeatedly that the texts are often difficult to understand, to translate and to place in context. He advises against using models based on the study of classical Greece or Rome, and warns that using classical texts as source material on Mesopotamia should be taken with grain of salt. For example, the Greek historian Herodotus relates that all women in Babylon are required to take money from strangers in exchange for sex at least once in their live. Most scholars see this as a misunderstanding of temple prostitution, but could it also be a bit of Greece looking down its nose at “decadent” Babylon? The ancients weren't free of bias either, and seldom saw any reason to be. The last chapter is titled "Gender and Mesopotamian History." Again, his purpose is to discard the biased expectations the reader may have and cautions (not for last time) against using models of Mesopotamian society built on the classical world or the modern Mideast. An odd example of this is found in the Middle Assyrian (roughly 15th-10th century BCE) laws, which severely punish slaves, prostitutes and unmarried women for wearing what appears to be a form of headwear translated as "veil." Married women and concubines were expected to wear this veil. "The exact intent of these rules is difficult to grasp," Van de Mieroop writes, but concludes that the purpose is quite different from the practice in modern Islamic societies, which is "the protection of their face from the male gaze." (pp. 150-151) I cannot recommend this book for the casual reader. The writing is thick as Van De Mieroop spends as much time describing history as he does describing how we know what we know about history. His explanations may seem tentative but he’s only trying to parse out what is known, what is conjectured and what is speculated. If the topic of epistemology applied to ancient history appeals to you, this might be a good book to study. It is relatively short, but it is not for everyone. This is one volume in the "Approaching Ancient History" series edited by Richard Stoneman. According to the cover blurb, author Marc Van De Mieroop is professor of Ancient Near East History at Columbia University in New York. Among his other publications are The Ancient Mesopotamian City, A History of the Ancient Near East: ca. 3000-323 BC, King Hammurabi of Babylon: A Biography and the scholarly publication of cuneiform tablets held at Columbia since 1896. I shuddered when I saw the price of this book—even used! Even the Kindle version!—at amazon. I don’t recall what I paid for it when I originally bought it, but it wasn’t it anywhere near these prices. I’m far too cheap. _____ Book: Cuneiform Texts and the Writing of History Author: Marc Van De Mieroop (b. 1958) Published: 1999 *An earlier version of this review appeared on another site. It has been updated and expanded for its inclusion in myLot.* Pages:196
3 people like this
3 responses
@topffer (42155)
• France
18 Dec 16
Nothing new here. The use that made Germany of archaeology during the Nazi period, or France in North-Africa to justify colonization has been analyzed long ago. I think it has been highlighted first by the "New Archeology" school in the USA and UK, which said a few smart things among a lot of stupid things. We have a French magazine, "Les Nouvelles de l'Archéologie", publishing often articles about the history of archaeology with these kind of analysis. They had an interesting one last year about "Gender and Archaeology". Circa 2000 I published with a friend an article in the proceedings of an international round table subtitled "About the contemporary use of wrong scholar traditions" and we made a few enemies with it at the time, although its content has been adopted today. Most of the time historians and archaeologists are not manipulating data to make them fit their theories, but many have not the knowledge to take the distance needed to interpret objectively the data they collected : there is today a gap between archaeologists and historians, many archaeologists have no or little historical knowledge, and many historians do not care about archeology and have no up to date knowledge about it. Add to this a zest of intellectual laziness, that makes easier to repeat what others have said before, and you understand why a new theory based on serious evidences needs usually about 30 years to be admitted by the scientific community when it comes to archaeology. Anyways, thank you to have started this interesting discussion.
1 person likes this
@msiduri (5687)
• United States
18 Dec 16
I think he was speaking, on the whole, of much more subtle biases than the Nazis and their ideas of an Aryan master race. There is also the odd tendency among well-intentioned people to idealize the past and see things as they wish they were, i.e., a golden age. Or more likely, to project present ideas onto the past. While the trend—and the understanding of the trend—might not be new, it is damnably persistent. As I mentioned with the study of journalism, objectivity remains an elusive ideal, but something I (at least) feel is worth striving for. And I am well aware that journalism is not the same as the scholarly pursuit of history or an investigation of archaeology. About your own article, congratulations on its publication. I'm sorry it wasn't better received. That its contents have been adopted, belatedly, must serve as some recompense, but it would have been better to have its merits acknowledged at the outset, I'm sure. I'm glad to have started an discussion you found interesting.
1 person likes this
@topffer (42155)
• France
18 Dec 16
@msiduri It would not have been printed if a few people had not found it interesting. I have contributed to several popular science books because I think that science popularization is something important, but when it comes to scientific articles, I am used to write for about 20/30 specialists able to understand and appreciate what I am writing, and I do not care when it will be globally accepted by the scientific community, and discovered and quoted on Wikipedia. Things have improved with internet though.
1 person likes this
@msiduri (5687)
• United States
18 Dec 16
@topffer Well, that is, of course, the best attitude. Just for my own curiosity, may I ask what your specialty is?
1 person likes this
@teamfreak16 (43418)
• Denver, Colorado
19 Dec 16
Sounds like it might be interesting, but I don't know what kind of effort I'd want to put into it.
1 person likes this
@msiduri (5687)
• United States
19 Dec 16
Yeah, it does take a bit of effort. And money. Geez, books have gotten expensive. It's not likely the local used book store has this one, either.
1 person likes this
@JohnRoberts (109845)
• Los Angeles, California
18 Dec 16
I belong to the casual reader category.
1 person likes this
@msiduri (5687)
• United States
18 Dec 16
Yeah, most people do. I am in the helpless nerd category. Dang, book have gotten expensive.