Modern historiography has tended to assume that violence was the primary driving force behind the formation of the first civilizations. This idea, promoted by theorists ranging from Hobbes to Tilly, has dominated interpretations of early state development. However, a recent study published in the Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient challenges this notion and offers an alternative perspective on violence in Middle Bronze Age Mesopotamia.

The article, authored by researchers Steven J. Garfinkle and Seth Richardson, examines violence in Mesopotamia during the third and second millennia BCE, particularly in the Ur III (2012–2004 BCE) and Old Babylonian (2004–1595 BCE) periods. The idea that these ancient states were built on violence is, according to the authors, a historical distortion. Rather than a culture dominated by physical brutality, what emerged as the primary social regulator was reputation and the fear of communal ostracism.

The scholars unravel how the image of a blood-soaked Mesopotamia has largely resulted from an excessive focus on spectacular sources, such as war narratives and royal inscriptions. The propaganda of the kings of Ur and Babylon depicted military campaigns and exemplary punishments, but an analysis of administrative records and personal letters from the period suggests that state and communal violence was, in fact, rare.

Ancient mesopotamia violence myth
Capture of a Babylonian city, by H.L. Bacon (1915). Credit: Public domain / Wikimedia Commons

Between War and Everyday Life

While it is true that Mesopotamian monarchs regularly led military campaigns, especially on the kingdom’s frontiers, these actions did not translate into constant domestic violence. The analyzed sources show that justice and conflict resolution within cities were based on economic compensations and social sanctions rather than physical punishments.

In the case of the Ur III Kingdom, for example, inscriptions and year names commemorate military victories, but letters and administrative documents reveal that the internal society of these cities was organized around principles of cooperation and peaceful dispute resolution. A clear example of this difference is the legal code of King Ur-Nammu, which, while including the death penalty for certain offenses, primarily favored fines and compensations.

The study highlights the preeminent role of reputation as a mechanism of social control. Community exclusion or loss of prestige proved to be more effective sanctions than the use of force. This phenomenon is illustrated in the case of the merchant Ea-nāṣir, whose bad reputation in Ur led to significant financial losses and an inability to continue his business effectively. The letters sent to Ea-nāṣir by his business partners contain no threats of violence but rather reproaches for his unreliability and warnings about his deteriorating public image.

code ur-nammu
The code of Ur-Nammu, next to that of Hammurabi, in the Istanbul Museum. Credit: David Berkowitz / Wikimedia Commons

Law and the Absence of Physical Punishments

The authors also analyze the function of Mesopotamian legal codes, such as the Code of Hammurabi. Far from being a compilation of brutal punishments, these texts were fundamentally declarations of principles that were rarely enforced in practice. Only a small fraction of documented legal cases from the time show the implementation of physical punishments; most disputes were resolved through fines, restitutions, and agreements between the parties.

Moreover, the study reveals that the death penalty and mutilation, when present in the laws, were reserved for serious offenses and their application was subject to political and social criteria. In many cases, these punishments were more of a deterrent element than an actual practice.

The study by Garfinkle and Richardson debunks the vision of a Mesopotamia ruled by systematic violence and presents a model in which social regulation depended more on reputation and economic sanctions than on physical coercion. In doing so, they invite a reevaluation of traditional models of state formation and a recognition that the stability of the first civilizations may have rested on less brutal forms of control than commonly assumed.


SOURCES

Garfinkle, S. J., & Richardson, S. (2025). Community and State Violence in Middle Bronze Age Mesopotamia. Journal of the Economic and Social History of the Orient, 68(1-2), 161-199. doi.org/10.1163/15685209-12341641


  • Share on:

Discover more from LBV Magazine English Edition

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

Magenta, the Color Born from a Battle

The history of colors is intertwined with the evolution of humanity, reflecting scientific advances, cultural conquests, and historical moments that have left an indelible mark on our perception of the…

Something went wrong. Please refresh the page and/or try again.