Uruk Expansion Period and Tower of Babel

[cloudyday2]

The Uruk period in Mesopotamia was from 4000 to 3100 BCE ( Uruk period - Wikipedia ). Uruk was one of the earliest cities.

I have often wondered if the story of the Tower of Babel may have been inspired by a memory of the Uruk period. When I read the following quote I wonder if there might have been a common language throughout the entire Near East at that time in addition to other common cultural traits:

After the discovery in Syria of the sites at Habuba Kabira and Jebel Aruda in the 1970s, which were rapidly decided to be colonies or trading posts of the Uruk civilisation settled far from their own lands, questions arose about the relationship between Lower Mesopotamia and the neighbouring regions. The fact that the characteristics of the culture of the Uruk region are found across such a large territory (from northern Syria to the Iranian plateau), with Lower Mesopotamia as a clear centre, led the archaeologists who studied this period to see this phenomenon as an "Uruk expansion".

Uruk period - Wikipedia'

 

[amci]

I'd be cautious about the notion of retained cultural memory generally as well as about distilling a millennium of events into a single ongoing episode. I don't think that it's likely that an Bronze or Iron Age culture would remember a centuries long trend of human migration and settlement as unified era. On top of that, if we give an early date to the Babel story, we can place it as being written in the 10th century BC. That's more than a 2,000 year gap.

We can be too eager to find historical correspondence between the proposed setting of a myth and the actual history of that period. The Babel story is likely much more related to circumstances closer in time to the authors, if there are any reasonable 1-to-1 correspondences to draw at all. Human cultures have very short memories when it comes any information that requires more than superficial interpretation.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

The idea that myth does not hide some historic truth is nonsense. We have good examples where the history is fairly preserved and a mythic or legendary tradition grew up independant thereof. The legends often hide details which are readily apparent.

A good example is Alexander the Great, who is preserved in Balkan oral ballads, Persian Shanameh tradition, the Alexander romances and the Greek histories. While a lot accrued (such as going under the sea in a diving bell in the Romances, or Darius dying in his arms in the Persian tradition) a lot of the historic detail was retained.

Or another example is the Trojan War, where Schliemann could use the much later Heroic epics to find Troy and the Mycenaean sites - and details like Ajax's figure eight shield were confirmed in Mycenaean finds but absent from the Greek peoples when the epics were written.

There is a thing called a Sense of the Past, which is a cultural sense. Some cultures lump everything together before their grandfathers, like the Aboriginal Dreamtime; others like the Iranians into broad epochs; while the West maintains a Greco-Roman linear tradition. The West also does the Epochs informally in popular culture, so that we would lump a lot of the mediaval things together or Sword and Sandal ancient times - think of any Robin Hood movie to see what I am talking about. This was a later tradition, as in mediaeval times the West had no such sense, which is why Romans were depicted in mediaeval clothing and Biblical figures assigned coats of arms.

Sumeria had a fairly good sense of the Past. Their texts speak of the Kingship descending from Heaven onto Eridu, then Uruk (and continuing on through various cities till the Gutians when there was no kingship, until Ur restored it, and then continuing on through Babylon etc.). This actually fits the archaeology very well, with Eridu being an early center before the expansion of Uruk; and although they record long reigns for antediluvians, the flood itself, and other incongruent details, many names and places concur with what we find. We are clearly dealing with a real memory and remembrance here - though elaborated upon.

The question is if the Biblical narrative is related to this Sumerian/Akkadian tradition, or a later aetiological myth derived from the dominance of Babylon (which Babel obviously refers to). Thing is, the Sumerian language is a language isolate, and was almost certainly the language of Uruk during the expansion era. It left no heirs, and survived for millenia as a classical language (akin to Latin in the West, except if no Romance descendants). Even Ur III might have been speaking Akkadian rather.

So I can see people that speak East and West Semitic languages or Elamite, but share Sumerian as their language of learning, seeing it as the unified 'old language' which the gods confused into the modern tongues. I agree conceptually it looks like an interesting theory, but I don't see how such a conjecture can really be strongly supported. Taking later cosmopolitan Babylon with its mighty ziggurat and the plethora of languages in the area, are more than sufficient origin for a story of a confusion of a common tongue - especially if you ascribe to a divine creation of man at a single point.

 

[AV1611VET]

I have often wondered if the story of the Tower of Babel may have been inspired ...

You're right: it was inspired.

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

The $64.00 term for that is: verbal plenary inspiration.

 

[amci]

I want to note that I agree with the general ideas that Quid est Veritas is presenting. I'm not rejecting the notion of a cultural sense of the past; I think there are important limitations to consider when thinking in this way.

A good example is Alexander the Great, who is preserved in Balkan oral ballads, Persian Shanameh tradition, the Alexander romances and the Greek histories. While a lot accrued (such as going under the sea in a diving bell in the Romances, or Darius dying in his arms in the Persian tradition) a lot of the historic detail was retained.

Or another example is the Trojan War, where Schliemann could use the much later Heroic epics to find Troy and the Mycenaean sites - and details like Ajax's figure eight shield were confirmed in Mycenaean finds but absent from the Greek peoples when the epics were written.

These examples are not analogous to the theory of an Uruk Period inspiration for the story of Babel. Alexander the Great was a single person whose accomplishments and legacy were crafted and used as a political tool within the first decade after his death. Alexander's exploits took place over a decade and consisted of a string of dramatic events. The Uruk Period is a archaeological grouping of a millennium's worth of settlement.

As the memory of a dramatic set of events that occurred within several centuries of our mythologized version of it, the poetic depiction of the Trojan War is a better comparison. However, this is still a set of developments that can be conceptualized as a single ongoing event by those who were contemporary with it.

There's good reasons why Alexander or the Trojan War would be memorialized in mythologized form. There's no reason to assume that Bronze Age storytellers would even have identified a millennium long trend from their perspective.

There is a thing called a Sense of the Past, which is a cultural sense. Some cultures lump everything together before their grandfathers, like the Aboriginal Dreamtime; others like the Iranians into broad epochs; while the West maintains a Greco-Roman linear tradition. The West also does the Epochs informally in popular culture, so that we would lump a lot of the mediaval things together or Sword and Sandal ancient times - think of any Robin Hood movie to see what I am talking about. This was a later tradition, as in mediaeval times the West had no such sense, which is why Romans were depicted in mediaeval clothing and Biblical figures assigned coats of arms.

These are all good examples of the weakness of human cultures' long-term memory for details and context. Remember the dramatic bits, generalize the context into something that doesn't apply to any particular time and place, and fill in gaps with details and meaning that is historically proximate to those telling the newest version of the story.

Sumeria had a fairly good sense of the Past. Their texts speak of the Kingship descending from Heaven onto Eridu, then Uruk (and continuing on through various cities till the Gutians when there was no kingship, until Ur restored it, and then continuing on through Babylon etc.). This actually fits the archaeology very well, with Eridu being an early center before the expansion of Uruk; and although they record long reigns for antediluvians, the flood itself, and other incongruent details, many names and places concur with what we find. We are clearly dealing with a real memory and remembrance here - though elaborated upon.

Depending on what we mean by "a fairly good sense of the past", I don't know if we can actually make that determination. You've made the point that their mythologized records note the existence of long-inhabited settlements and royal dynasties-- big flashy stuff. Do we have a sense of how contemporaries of the Uruk period thought about their city states' place in the development of Mesopotamia? I don't know. I don't know how we could even start guessing.

 

[Quid est Veritas?]

These examples are not analogous to the theory of an Uruk Period inspiration for the story of Babel. Alexander the Great was a single person whose accomplishments and legacy were crafted and used as a political tool within the first decade after his death. Alexander's exploits took place over a decade and consisted of a string of dramatic events. The Uruk Period is a archaeological grouping of a millennium's worth of settlement.

As the memory of a dramatic set of events that occurred within several centuries of our mythologized version of it, the poetic depiction of the Trojan War is a better comparison. However, this is still a set of developments that can be conceptualized as a single ongoing event by those who were contemporary with it.

There's good reasons why Alexander or the Trojan War would be memorialized in mythologized form. There's no reason to assume that Bronze Age storytellers would even have identified a millennium long trend from their perspective.

Initially you cautioned against cultural memory, and Alexander was merely a good example that such deep memory does in fact occur. Another example was the memory of the Roman Empire in mediaeval times, that show up in such fantastical constructions of aetiological myth such as Brutus of Britain and the like.

Depending on what we mean by "a fairly good sense of the past", I don't know if we can actually make that determination. You've made the point that their mythologized records note the existence of long-inhabited settlements and royal dynasties-- big flashy stuff. Do we have a sense of how contemporaries of the Uruk period thought about their city states' place in the development of Mesopotamia? I don't know. I don't know how we could even start

As I stated before, the Sumerian accounts as well as the Akkadian lists that followed, do in fact retain a memory of the cultural dominance first of Eridu then Uruk. So there is every reason to assume that memory of Uruk's hegemony was retained, since we have archaeological and textual evidence to that effect. The Sumerian texts speak of the Lugal (later the Lugal of Kish) of the dominant state, and report where it lies. It remains in Uruk for a long chunk of the earliest parts of their lists. So people were aware that Uruk had been the paramount city for quite a period of their early history.

That said, I myself am not particularly supportive of this as the origin of Babel, which I think fits better to later Babylon on all counts.

 

[cloudyday2]

That said, I myself am not particularly supportive of this as the origin of Babel, which I think fits better to later Babylon on all counts.

What appeals to me about matching the Tower of Babel story with the Uruk expansion period is how I understand the story. The central theme of the story to me is the loss of cultural unity rather than building a tower. In the story the tower of Babel is only an example of the great things that cultural unity could have provided if it was not lost. Or I suppose the story could be seen as explaining the presence of so many different cultures.

Assuming the Uruk expansion was colonization powered by some knowledge from Uruk that enabled urbanization, there might have been a common culture briefly throughout the region. Of course there would have been non-urban people who did not share the culture, but it seems there might have been more cultural unity than existed in the later empires. Anybody who was civilized at that time might have spoken the same language, built houses the same way, shared the same religion, etc. The elites of later empires might have shared much in common, but the common people probably did not.

I realize it is a far-out idea.

 

[Robban]

What appeals to me about matching the Tower of Babel story with the Uruk expansion period is how I understand the story. The central theme of the story to me is the loss of cultural unity rather than building a tower. In the story the tower of Babel is only an example of the great things that cultural unity could have provided if it was not lost. Or I suppose the story could be seen as explaining the presence of so many different cultures.

Assuming the Uruk expansion was colonization powered by some knowledge from Uruk that enabled urbanization, there might have been a common culture briefly throughout the region. Of course there would have been non-urban people who did not share the culture, but it seems there might have been more cultural unity than existed in the later empires. Anybody who was civilized at that time might have spoken the same language, built houses the same way, shared the same religion, etc. The elites of later empires might have shared much in common, but the common people probably did not.

I realize it is a far-out idea.

Babel.
Each man said to his fellow,
"Come, let us build a city and a tower with it's top in the heavens,
and let us make a name for ourselves,
lest we be dispersed across the whole earth."

They said:
"God does not have the right to select for Himself alone the higher realms.
We will go up to the firmament and wage war with Him."

This is alluded to in their words,
"Let us build us a tower with it's top in the heavens."

They said,
"Once every 1,656 years,
the firmament collapses as it did in the days of the flood.
Come, let us make supports for it."

This is alluded to in their words,
"Let us build a tower with it's top in the heavens (i.e.,
in order to support the heavens) lest we be dispersed across the whole earth."

By creating the world's first tower,
the people of Babel sought to go down in the world's
hall of fame:
Come let us build us a city,
and a tower with it's top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves,
lest we be dispersed across the whole earth."

A decoded reading of the words,
"Lest we be dispersed across the whole earth."

Is, "Lest we fall between the cracks of world history and be forgotten."

The people of Babel did indeed go down in history,
but not exactly as they would have liked:
instead of glory and stardom, their name is smeared with shame.

An article by Mendel Kalmenson entitled,
a ticket to heaven.