You are on page 1of 13

Christine Barrera

AnthrArc 386

Ancient Religions Compared: China and Mesopotamia

Religion and correlating monumental architecture were important to Mesopotamian and

ancient Chinese societies in different ways, but in both societies it provided a way for the elites

to exercise power and regulate aspects of society. Religious ideology is important to the function

of a society. It is important to begin with what Mesopotamian people understood their gods to be,

and what they did. Understanding the function of the gods leads to discussion of the function of

religion in society. Natural phenomena and imposed social order were both explained and

asserted through religious ideology. The main difference between these two societies and their

religious monumental architecture is that China significantly lacks it. Instead of the temple

imposing natural and social order, it was the king with this responsibility. Although the king was

the intermediary between Heaven and harmony on earth. He answered to the Gods and the

Oracle bones. The success of these world views is seen in of the pervasiveness of religion in

various aspects of Mesopotamian and ancient Chinese society, such as politics, social order and

the economy.

The king and the high-priest were the most important people in society, and they too were

ruled by the gods. The temple, especially in Babylon, was built by the king and specialist

architects with significant ritualistic and traditional methods, material and design. A statue of the

deity lived in the sanctuary inside. This supreme god was understood to physically live inside

here as well as inhabit the heavenly world. This is where his powers were exemplified through

natural forces. The supreme deity that lived in the temple was a gold and wooden statue who was

taken through everyday rituals the same as the king, such as morning rituals to get dressed and
cleaned. The temple thus held a lot of power and high-priests and kings held manipulability of

society through their positions of power. The priest especially was in a position of power due to

his proximity to the temple as a space of power in Mesopotamian society. The temple was also

an economically significant place, with serfs to do the labor for God and priests to export the

goods. However, even though many people worked outside of the temple, they were not allowed

inside the sanctuary with the deity.

In Mesopotamian religion there were numerous gods and goddesses who were in charge of

different natural world phenomena. Religion evolved over time, and names of the gods as well as

their purposes varied over time and between places. Interestingly, in later times the characters of

the gods became more and more human-like in pictorial representations instead of being

understood as actions or forces of the natural world. The gods evolved in representation and

thought to be more like humans (Pollock: Ancient Mesopotamia, 189). The idea that human-like

beings controlled the natural world eventually lead the king Naram-Sin to feel his power was so

closely associated with natural forces and the power of gods that he declared himself a god.

Before this radical use of religious ideology, however, the rulers emphasized their power

through the people’s acceptance of natural order. Rulers declared social hierarchy - their having

power, and lower classes lack of power - as a part of natural order. Religion functioned to explain

these ‘natural conditions’ and this ideology was incorporated into society by elites and rulers

who used the idea of natural order to make social hierarchy seem a part of natural order as well.

The ideology behind Mesopotamian religion comes down to subtly instilling social order through

social hierarchy. In Ancient Mesopotamia on page 190 Susan Pollock uses the Warka Vase, an

Uruk-period vase from Jemdet Nasr as an example of how natural hierarchy was imagined. This

vase shows a hierarchy with plants at the bottom, representing nature and also natural order. In
the middle levels are animals and then above them are men holding baskets of food, finally the

top level shows this food being given to the goddess Inanna.

The physical presence of the great temples of Mesopotamia, promoted religious ideology

and also social hierarchy within the state. This can be exemplified in a few ways. The temple

housed priests and priests-in-training. These priests had many responsibilities such as acting out

religious ceremonies, playing music for these ceremonies, manufacturing religious utensils as

well as maintaining the temple. Scholars were allowed in the libraries, but using the temples

were only for the “sacerdotal officials” (Oppenheim: The Mesopotamian Temple, 58). Outside on

the temple grounds it was quite different. Serfs and the lower classes worked in the fields,

pastures and workshops doing the labor to support the temple’s wealth. The temple was a very

economically wealthy institution of the state and this could be seen in the immense storage areas

such as granaries and warehouses. The king, who had a nearly equal but secular status, worked

with the temples to maintain and create wealth by occasionally exempting the religious

institutions from paying royal taxes and by sharing their spoils of war. Being economically

important institutions of the state, temples also took responsibility to help underprivileged

people. Thus, “the economic weight of this institution was a tangible reality in the city-state, and

its powerful influence was felt in every domain of the political, social, and economic life of the

community” (Oppenheim, 62).

Temple construction was a way to subject people to power of the elites, and exemplifies

the economic power the temple held. Assyrian king Ashurnasirpal II (883 – 859 BC) brought in

47,000 people to construct a temple after conquering Nimrud (Oates, 390). The Mesopotamian

house of god was elaborately and ceremoniously constructed. David Oates in Innovations in

Mud-Brick: Decorative and Structural Techniques in Ancient Mesopotamia discusses the


significance of mud-brick and architecture mostly in temples. He focuses his examples on the

Great Temple at Tell al Rimah in northern Iraq. Temple architecture was not standardized until

after the 3rd millennium. Temples were constructed with specialized professional architects, not

local craftsmen. “It is likely that the basic design followed a principle that was long established,

applied at Tell al Rimah by masons with long experience of executing it by thumb” (Oates,396).

For example, sun-dried mud bricks were used even after kiln-fired bricks were standard. In

beginning construction, the orientation of the building is determined by the placement of the

libittu makhrittu or “the first brick”. This brick was ceremoniously laid on clean earth,

surrounded by precious beads and anointed with perfume oil (Oppenheim, 57).

In terms of decoration, temples had specific types of decoration that were used almost

only on temples. Specific temple decoration was used on the columns that interestingly

incorporated patterns of light and shade. Also, only found on temple columns are representations

of palm-trunks or ascending spirals (Oates, 392). Specialized types of monumental architecture

and designs show the physical significance of temples.

Religious monumental architecture, the temple, in Mesopotamia was very important in

the function of society. Susan Pollock’s perspective on exactly why religion and temples were

important in an institutionalized and formal way is because this is how the elites were able to

maintain power and social hierarchy. In Babylon the high-priest had the most power since he was

most closely associated with the god, he even had more power than the king who appointed him.

For example, the Mesopotamian god statue that lived in the sanctuary could only be visited by

the king once a year, at New Years, and he had to dress as a humble servant. For most people,

although religion controlled most aspects of life, they did not have a close relationship with god

in the sanctuary of the Great Temple at Tell al Rimah. Most people engaged with God outside of
the temple with the rest of the population, from far away at festivals, or in smaller neighborhood

temples.

However important the temple was as a symbol in the community, large temples were

distant to the regular people of the state. Just like the king’s palace was separate from its

subjects, regular people were not allowed into the great temples, although they did have smaller

neighborhood temples. The people’s connection to the deity statue and worship was limited to

public mass ceremonies such as festivals. Religion was really not beneficial to the majority of the

people in the Mesopotamian state. Religion was beneficial to the elites by allowing them to

promote their status as elites, but the king and priest were servants to god as well.

The king was expected to rebuild the temple often and he would express gratitude to the

god by making the temple more elaborate. The ritual of rebuilding the temple was very exact,

“when the temple must be rebuilt, replacement of [the first brick] is exact and important”

(Oppenheim, 58). In addition, even though the king was in charge of building the temple, and

appointing the priest, he was not even allowed in the sanctuary but once a year. This must not

have been too much to ask for the king, as these same beliefs kept the lower classes in their

lower places without much objection because the pervasive ideology of their religion.

Susan Pollock understands Mesopotamian religion as basically an act of control and

power by the state. “The power of ideologies comes in part from the difficulty of pinning them

down. Ideological messages strive for consensus, for a feeling of common sense; they are not

static but open to modification in different contexts and over time” (Pollock, 195).

Mesopotamians were ingrained with the belief that social hierarchy is a natural order, just like

the rising and setting of the sun. Religion makes labor for the state by the working class seem
necessary, but in thinking that it is necessary for the people to work for the god, this hides the

fact that the purpose of monumental architecture that they work under perpetuates inequalities.

Although there are some similar ideologies, religious beliefs and corresponding

monumental architecture in China are quite contrasting to Mesopotamia. One important material

difference is that the Chinese did not rely on monumental architecture to enforce social hierarchy

and success of the state. Architecture was not exceptionally monumental, but there were other

aspects of religion that served the basic purpose of explaining natural phenomena and enforcing

social hierarchy. The following aspects of ancient Chinese religion that are discussed come

mostly from knowledge of the Shang dynasty and the following Zhou dynasty.

Ancient Chinese religious beliefs centered around two elements: the cult of ancestors and

belief in cosmic order. The belief in cosmic order stems from ‘chthonic’ religion, a worship of

earth deities that was common to early man everywhere (Smith, 173). Other aspects of ancient

Chinese religion that were important to maintain the function of the state was the king was the

mediator to Heaven; and the god of the soil or the Earth.

The Earth, or Realm of the Dead, was an important aspect of ancient Chinese religion.

This was because their ancestors were born from, nourished by, and was buried in the Earth and

once again became part of the Earth and what it offers. Altars were constructed to pray to the god

of the soil; as well as to the gods in Heaven. The altars did not have roofs like temples did in

order to let all of the influences of Heaven – wind, dew and rain, be freely received by the god of

soil (Wheatley, 172). Altars for ancestral and Earth worship were created on a mound, and a tree

was planted to create a “sacred grove” (Smith, 180). This idea of creating a sacred space is

similar to the ceremonious style of laying the first brick for the Mesopotamian temple. Further,

the Mesopotamian gods Enlil and Tammuz were worshipped with a similar style altar (181).
Open altars were also a place for the people to pray to their ancestors, Heaven and for their well

being in addition to the Earth.

There were various levels of altars that people had in their yards were based on their

status in the social hierarchy. The type of altar worship corresponds to the societal importance of

the person who possesses it. For example, the altars that the masses or “pit-dwellers” had outside

of their houses were to pray to the god of soil for the family possessions. Higher up, the chiefs

had altars to worship the god of soil as well as to protect the land that he presided over. At the

highest level was the altar at the palace which was to worship god and protect all of the land. In

the Zhou dynasty, altars are one way that social order was imposed on the citizens. This idea is

similar to how non-elite Mesopotamians had neighborhood temples. Though it is not elaborate

and durable monumental architecture, the altars similarly function like the temples in

Mesopotamia to create social hierarchy through religion.

Some archeologists have been surprised to find that ancient China seems to have a

significant lack in monumental architecture. There are numerous factors contributing to this

aspect of ancient Chinese society. For one, the ancient civilizations were built around the people

not the physical space of a society. God was an unknown force or concept while the king was a

person of particular importance, as a semi-divine being and he had the ability to move the

location of the city if he wanted; especially if the oracle taker found Heaven to agree with such a

move. Wherever the king decided to settle, he had a royal palace-temple complex, where he

lived, in the center of the settlement. These buildings were built of clay with the waddle-and-

daub method which is a layering of clay on top of the earth. The palace-temple complex was a

walled city center, occupied by the elite community. Architecture was not very elaborate. In the

Shang Dynasty settlement of Qishan near Anyang, for example, the thatched roofs of Fengchu
buildings were capped with semi-cylindrical tiles, and by late Zhou, the roofs of elite roofs were

fully tiled (Barnes, 128).

In modern Zhengzhou, the remains of a middle Shang period earthen wall was found that

was a total of 3.25 square kilometers which is twice as big as the present city limits. One thing

that differentiated spaces occupied by elites from those of commoners were wall enclosures that

were used mostly to keep out non-elites more than for defense. Elites also built their dwelling on

raised platforms made of earth so that they were physically higher up than the less important

people. Inside the walls of modern Zhenzhou, earthen platforms were found which palatial

architecture would have been built on. This is also where a bronze hairpin was found which

verifies elite occupation because they controlled bronze production.

The construction of earthen platforms, and the bronze hairpin, exemplifies elite control

and power over land use, and also over human labor. Inside the walls earthen platforms were

found which palatial architecture would have been built on. This is also where a bronze hairpin

was found which verifies elite occupation since they controlled bronze production. Elites, as

lineage clans, were in control of rituals like gods and the priest in Mesopotamia. There is

archeological evidence that shows earthen platforms to be connected to a ritual of human

sacrifice. This aspect of ritual and elite control is discussed further in the next page. Ancient

Chinese architecture might have been less monumental and elaborate than Mesopotamian stone

temples, but the elites similarly marked their status and power.

If the saying ‘your body is a temple’ holds true in ancient Chinese society then the king

was the monumental part of ancient Chinese civilization just like the temple was for

Mesopotamia. The king was equal to a mix of the supreme god and high-priest in Mesopotamia.

He was not regarded as a god, but he was the crucial element in keeping the world balanced, and
natural forces in order. The king was known as the Son of Heaven, and he acted as a regulatory

between the Heaven and earth. His primary duty was “preserving prosperity of the land by means

of acts of semi-magical nature, or ensuring regular succession of the seasons, and maintaining a

harmonious relationship between Heaven and Earth and man” (Smith, 183). The religious acts in

which the king participated ensured regularity of seasons and productivity of soil and crops. This

tradition extends back before Chinese kings, when tribal leaders were thought of as wise men,

astrologers and sorcerers rather than being associated with the powers of a god. In ancient China,

oracle bones were an important method for the king to communicate with Heaven, and also

important in creating a written record. Oracle bones were pieces of animal bones that were first

cleaned, and then cavities were hallowed out so that a heated metal rod could be stuck in to make

cracks in the bone. The king would ask a question like ‘should I go to war against this ruler?’ and

‘Is today a good day for hunting?’ or ‘Would it be a good move to relocate the city?’. The cracks

were then read by a diviner as answers to the ‘charges’ put forth by the king (Barnes, 131).

When the king became old, and perhaps could not perform his duties as well as he used

to, he was replaced with a younger king. This is comparable to the way a Mesopotamian king

ritually rebuilt a temple when it started to lose value. So, instead of subtly asserting authority in

grand structures like in Mesopotamia, Chinese rulers did not use the medium of architecture but

rulers and elites controlled commoners in other ways.

The ancient Chinese social hierarchy was perhaps more systematic than Mesopotamia

because of the harsh physical manipulation and differentiation of status. Ancestral deities were a

key element of Chinese spiritual beliefs. This shows that clans and lineages were important in

creating and enforcing social hierarchy. Lineage was an “instrument of the ruling class. It was a

symbol of powery and a tool necessary for maintaining power” (Chang, 8). The ruler directly
asserted his status over the people by treating the lower classes like objects necessary for the

overall function of society. Mesopotamian elites had the same sort of power, but instead of

lineage as a tool, it was religious ideology. The mighty force of elite clans in control in the

commoners is seen in the way that farmers were be objects of wealth, and collected as spoils of

war. Excavated bones of lower classes have been found to be extremely heterogeneous, meaning

that they were genetically diverse and came from various regions of origin, which makes sense

since prisoners of war captured to be put in the ranks of the lower class in their new society. This

was how population and social hierarchy was maintained. The commoners lived in harsh social

conditions in ancient China.

There is also archeological evidence of elite control over lower class lives in workshops.

In modern Zhengzhou, along with wall remains, is evidence of workshops where the commoners

worked to manufacture goods for elite use. There were bronze workshops where food, drink and

eventually ritual vessels were made for elites. Beginning in the Longshan society, ultimate social

stratification emerged through the new technology of bronze casting to make elite drinking

vessels. In the Mainland Bronze Age, and urbanization transformed the Central Plain culture,

industrial craft production created major stratification of society. The elites controlled production

of bronze ritual vessels. This suggests elite control over ancestral and religious worship because

communication with the ancestors was only possible through bronze vessels. In the Northern

Zhou states of the succeeding period, the “Nine Bronze Tripods” provide tangible evidence of

the right to rule (Barnes, 125). Production of bronzes create and maintain elites status and their

position of control.

Besides bronze workshops, there were bone workshops. Human skulls have been

excavated near workshop sites with their crowns sawn off to be used as bowls. This evidence of
bone workshops suggest that the elites who lived within the walls even had control over life

through the production process (Barnes, 126). Human sacrifice was a ritual that was an important

means to enforce social hierarchy. Instead of the lower classes of Mesopotamia who simply

labored in the temple fields, hundreds of Chinese commoners were sacrificed at a time to

reaffirm the temple-like status of the king. In Wangchenggang, archeologists have found several

underground pits with skeletons of adults and children, and they attribute these human sacrifices

to rituals connected with the construction of earthen platform foundations.

The construction of the royal tomb at the death of the king was a piece of religious

monumental architecture because it was similar in function to the temple of a god. The royal

tomb was quite elaborate, and the ceremony was more like the “inauguration of a royal ancestral

deity” (Smith, 185). In construction, a large pit of up to 43 x 65 feet was dug, and then at the

bottom of the pit a wooden-tomb chamber was constructed. This ceremony might be compared to

religious festivals or parades in Mesopotamia in the way that the status of the masses was

reaffirmed in their role as the lower class masses.

There are a few similarities between Chinese and Mesopotamian religion that Smith

discusses in Divine Kingship in Ancient China. One such thing Smith suggests is that in the 2nd

and early 3rd millennia BC, Mesopotamian beliefs of God dwelling above and ancestors residing

in Heaven made their way to China. In Mesopotamia the temple was a place where god was

received from Heaven, in the tower, and also where he lived in his earthly body, in the private

house section of the temple. Through the religious ideology that the temple represented, it was

also a place that promoted social hierarchy. The idea of constructing things for religious use like

earth mounds, was a common idea between these two civilizations. Also, like the Mesopotamian

temples, Chinese altars made to worship different levels of the divine hierarchy by different
status groups of people within, or even helped to define, a social hierarchy. Even though

elaborate religious buildings like temples were not important in ancient China, the king had the

responsibilities of maintaining natural order and social order like Mesopotamian gods except less

through subtle uses of ideology and more through physical force and warfare.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Barnes, Gina, China Korea and Japan: The Rise of Cilivization in East Asia. Thames and
Hudson, 1993.

Chang, KC
1974 Urbanism and the King in Ancient China.
World Archaeology 6: 1-14.

Linduff, Katheryn M., and Robert D. Drennan, and Gdeon Shelach


2004 Early Complex Societies in NE China: The Chifeng International Collaborative
Archaeological Research Project. Journal of Field Archaeology 29: 45-73

 Oates, David
1990 Innovations in Mud­Brick: Decorative and Structural Techniques in Ancient 
Mesopotamia. World Achaeology 21: 388­406.

Oppenheim, A. Leo
1944 The Mesopotamian Temple. 
The Biblical Acheologist 7: 54­63.

Pollock, Susan, Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge University Press, 1999

Smith, Howard
1957 Divine Kingship in Ancient China.
Numen 4: 171-203

Wheatley, Paul
1970 Archaeology and the Chinese City.
World Archaeology 2: 159-185

You might also like