Discuss the development of the arts, literature and philosophy in Greece during the classical period.

Greece achieved a zenith of cultural development in its classical age, from the beginning of the fifth century BC to the time just before the reign of Alexander the Great. The Parthenon, Aeschylus Prometheus Bound, Plato's Republic and Aristotle's Politics are all products of this age. This essay attempts to study the socio-economic context of these cultural development, gain an insight in to the nature of the 'Greek mind' which produced them and finally to do a brief survey of the vast treasure of Hellenic culture. Culture is often regarded and studied as independent of the historical period to which it belongs. This often leads to a distortion in our understanding of cultural history. Although individual genius is crucial to producing great works of art, but it cannot be denied that culture is the product of it times. The Graceo-Roman world 'invented' the slave mode of production - it was the presence of slavery as the predominant form of surplus extraction, which formed the basis for these extraordinary cultural developments. The solstice of classical urban culture also witnessed the zenith of slavery. Thus, while the slaves worked the predominantly rural economy, the elite classes were able to enjoy the urban luxuries. This slave labour emancipated the ruling stratum for the construction of a new civic and intellectual world. So the elite strata, on the surplus labour of the chattel slaves, created the Greek culture that we examine and appreciate. Slavery also rendered possible the harmony of man and universe that marked the art and philosophy of classical Greece : unquestioned exemption from labour (of the elite groups) was the precondition of the serene absence of tension with nature. So essentially intellectual and cultural growth was restricted to the thinnest layer or the metropolitan and provincial ruling class of classical Greece. Greece sees a very close link between the art and the community. Greek architecture, even sculpture and painting, were public arts in a strict sense. Of the public buildings, the temple and later the theatre outranked all others. The state was almost the sole patron of monumental art. The same men who levied taxes and signed peace treaties patronized art. Art was enmeshed with daily living, not set apart for occasional leisure time. Whether it be in ht form of temples, theatres, coins, vases, jewellery or mirrors - art was a part of most people's lives (not the slaves, of course). In all fields of art, quality was remarkably high. From the surviving remains of Greek art and literature, we shall try and discern the nature of the Greek 'mind'. When we examine the nature of the Greek mind, which created this spectacular culture, we should remember that we are looking at only a small minority of the people of Greece. This elite Greek mind took an essentially aesthetic view of the world around them this is evident from the varied usage of the term beautiful. The Greek mind views the universe, both moral and physical, as not only rational, and therefore knowable, but also simple the apparent multiplicity of physical things was regarded as purely superficial. There is a constant disregard for what is on the surface -t he transitory appearances of things, their multiplicity and variety - and an attempt to reach the inner, the simplifying, reality. This trend is reflected not only in Greek philosophy, but also in

drama and sculpture. The Greek conviction that the Universe is a logical whole, and therefore symmetric led to the great impact on their minds of mathematics. The use of the Number is amply reflected in the monumental architecture of this period. The greatest achievement of Greek architecture was governed by a structural logic based on aesthetic beauty. Greek architects built their temples in accordance with the harmony of nature, measured in units and proportions. All parts were in perfect agreement, harmonizing sizes and shapes. Temples were so carefully designed that no mortar or cement was used in their construction. The function of the temple was to house and protect the divine image of a god or goddess and not to provide of worship their architects had less restraints such as those of a large assembly of devotees. Temples were designed mainly to be looked at from outside. The ground plan for all Greek temples had one typical plan. The entrance was called the cella or naos, and was the room where the deity was placed. The entrance porch was called the pronaos. A second porch was constructed behind the cella for symmetry. In larger temples, the central rooms were surrounded by a row of columns called the colonnade or peristyle. These columns had a feeling of strength and massiveness. There were three main divisions in temple construction : the stepped platform, the columns, and the entablature. Roofs were made from terra cotta tiles and supported by wooden beams. Using a system of orderly arranged parts in architecture led to a development of orders. The Doric order came from the mainland of Greece and was the most simple; the lonic order evolved in the islands of the Aegean Sea and on the coast of Asia Minor, and the Corinthian order was used in the Hellenistic period, and later in the Roman culture. These orders consisted of detailed rules that guided their construction based on proportions of the parts to the whole. The Doric order consisted of a shaft made of sections called drums and marked with vertical grooves, called flutes. This was done so that the connections were not easily noticeable. The capital supported the horizontal marble blocks of the architrave. Above this were a frieze and the cornice. Most of the sculptural pieces that added to the frieze were brightly painted. The Doric order reached its zenith during the Classical period in the Parthenon - 447 - 438 BC. It was dedicated to the city's patron goddess, Athena Parthenos (The Maiden Athena) and remains to masterpiece of world architecture. The lonoc order is both lighter and more elaborate, treating the bases and capitals more decoratively, with a different architectural rhythm, less square and mathematical in its impact. Greek history speaks of being proud of the paintings that decorated the temple walls, however few remain today. Instead, it is the exquisite vases that are studied for their panting styles. The Greeks were magnificent potters. Although their vases are beautifully symmetrical, the Greeks did not use a potter's wheel, instead they built their vessels using the coil method. They painted mythological scenes using a black slip called an 'engobe'. The firing process involved three stages : oxidation, reduction, then re-oxidation. This caused the engobe to reach its final colour - a black silhouette on reddish clay. The Redfigure technique, 500 BC, was freely drawn with the brush, rather than incised. The artist could now depend less on just the profile view. Foreshortening (figures receding in

space) and overlapping limbs could be freely drawn representing a more realistic figures. Scenes from daily life were painted in a precise and delicate linear style. After the sixth century BC, paintings are almost exclusively an Athenian preserve. While earlier Corinthian pottery was painted for purely decorative purposes, the Athenian painter made pottery a 'work of art'. They excelled in covering curved surfaces with scenes, often complicated in composition. The painting was kept in balance with the curved surfaces. Much pottery was used in connection with religion - to be buried I an grave or for oils for libation and the designs were appropriate. But the majority of the objects were for ordinary personal use and hence, there were no limits to the themes on the pottery. Painters of pots had a freedom, in this respect, which was denied to sculptors. Their limitation was another, inherent in the very material itself. The paintings were lacking in depth and ultimately in significant variety. It was in sculpture that Greek art saw the most development. There was a special link between sculpture and architecture. The Greeks attached the sculpture to the structure as an integral element. It would be almost true to say that almost all Greek sculpture was directly associated with religion. Greek sculpture made not the slightest attempt at portraying the individual, but strove always to perfect its representation. This was but another manifestation on the Greek mind's attempts to the virtuous, inner and simple reality, below the transitory appearance. They strove to find the ideal, and they believed that the path to it lay through mathematical terms, expressing the ratios between the various elements of the human figure and their relationship to each other. Early works in the Archaic Period were stylized and idealized, stiff and rigid, reflecting an Egyptian style - left leg forward, with arms and hands attached to the body. The hair and facial character also reflected Egyptian stylization, as well as the perpendicular quality of the shoulders to the torso. They were often painted with wax paints and carved in limestone or marble. The most common type was the 'kouros', a nude male figure who represented the god Apollo. A common female figure was called a 'kore', and dressed in a clinging drapery garment. Both faced front with arms rigidly by their sides. This stylization had one important difference from the Egyptian, it stood freely and was attached to blocks of stone. In the early Classic Period, after 480 BC, the Greeks enjoyed a time of peace following the defeat of the Persian fleet at Salamis. In these times, the arts flourished. The uniqueness of ideas, thoughts, and artistic expression was widely supported. Many sculpture were made from bronze, with inlays of copper and glass. These three dimensional forms portrayed both a balance and prowess of physical beauty. Detailed features showed personal character, only to reach a more expressive level a bit later in the Age of Pericles. Strenuous action and dynamic movement had already been explored in the relief pediment sculpture of the Late Archaic Period. To incorporate the same freedom of movement into free standing sculptures, the concept of 'contrapposto' was established. This meant that the weight of the sculpted form was shifted onto one leg also called a 'triangle of stability'.

During the Classical Period, the first realistic nudes were sculpted. To the Greeks, the human body showed perfection. A Venus or Aphrodite, the goddess of love, was supposed to be viewed without a garment to show her natural form. The nude figure was proportioned mathematically and sculptures had a systematic, ideal quality, unlike true human from with its irregularities. The nude in Kenneth Clark's words is an art form invented by the Greeks. Male Gods were regularly portrayed in the nude. It is undeniable that there were erotic overtones in these sculptures, even in the most archaic, mixed in with the religious. In a sense the work of art had become autonomous, at the same time that it retained its intimate connection with the various social functions and activities that it served. The Classic Period was a time of harmony and prosperity in Greece. The fluidity and freedom of this period was reflected in the sculptural style of dynamic movement. This style was a visual representation of an action stopped in time. The sculptures of the Parthenon are one of the Classical Period's greatest achievements. The East and West pediments were filled with larger than life figures designed to fit the spaces exactly. There were ninety-two metopes sculpted in relief. A frieze ran continuously around the top of the wall of the cella and contained the large sculpture of Athena. These elaborate adornments were finished in a period of twelve years, sculpted by a team of artists under the direction of Phidias, whom the contemporary sources regard as the epitome of the development of Greek sculpture. In the Three Goddesses on the East Pediment, the drapery of the figures seems to cling to the creases of the natural form. The lines of the folds move the viewer's eye to the focal point of the composition, which is the birth of Athena. The artists of Classical Greece were superbly skilled in anatomy, and the use of rhythm and movement. The secularism which first began to show itself in the late fifth century became more and more marked as the years went on, and with it the subordinate of the ideal type to the individual personality. Following the discussion on architecture, painting and sculpture, we now proceed to discuss another equally, if not more significant manifestation of Greek culture - literature. In cities like Athens reading writing appear to have been common attainments among the free population. M.I. Finley, however, states that the Greeks preferred to talk rather than listen. The elevation of oratory to a high literary form is the final outcome of the Greek 'addiction' to the spoken word, an aspect of their life always has to kept in mind in any consideration of the literature, till the end of the classical period. The oral quality of literature is probably an important part of the explanation for the very slow development of prose. Greek poetry underwent several changes, which reflected the history of Greek society. If the beginning of the archaic period was marked by a shift from epic to personal poetry, the transition to the classical period saw another significant change. The striking feature of classical Greek poetry was how the themes and the occasions associated with it, became those of the community, not of the individual. The purely emotional poetry was abandoned for the social, religious and high moral themes. This passage is most easily perceived in three men who brought lyric poetry to its close : Simonides, Bacchylides and Pindar, who lived from 518-438. Poetry was now written for specific occasions usually on commission from a patron. Religion was an inherent part of the fabric of poetry itself.

From the combination of this Greek lyric poetry, with the Dionysiac ritual emerged the celebrated art the various form - tragedy. Like so many of their great works, it had its roots in religion. At the festival dedicated to the worship of Dionysus, the God of spring and wine, a chorus of men dressed as satires, or goat-men, sang and danced around an altar, enacting forms of a choral lyric that related the story of God's career. In time a leader came to be separate from the chorus and he narrated a main part of the story. Aeschylus introduced a second actor, perhaps the decisive technical step in actually creating the art form itself; then Sophocles added the third. The role of the chorus was gradually but persistently minimized, until Euripides in many of his plays reduced it to a little more than a musical interlude. These playwrights probed with astonishing latitude and freedom into traditional myths and beliefs and the new ideas, which Greek society was throwing up. Greek tragedy did not show conflict between individuals; the tragic fate that befell the main characters was external to the individuals. It was brought on by the fact that someone had committed a crime against society, or against the gods thereby offending the moral scheme of the universe. Punishment followed to balance the scale of justice. One of the first tragic dramatists was Aeschylus (525-456 BC). Guilt and punishment is the recurrent theme of nearly all his plays. Though he is reputed to have written eighty plays, only seven have survived in their complete form, among them The Persians, Seven Against Thebes, Prometheus Bound, and a trilogy known as The Orresteia. The second of the leading tragedians whose works have survived is Sophocles (496-406 BC). His attitude was distinguished by love of harmony and peace, intelligent respect for democracy, and profound sympathy for human weakness. The most famous of his plays now extant are Oedipus Rex, Antigone and Electra. The works of the last great tragedian, Euripides (480-400 BC) reflects a far different spirit. He was a sceptic, an individualist and a humanist. He was the first to give the ordinary man a place in drama. The situations he dealt with often had analogues in real life. Among his best known tragedies are Alcestis, Medea and The Trojan Women. Fifth century provided the atmosphere in which this art could flourish. To present a direct link between tragedy and democracy would be too simplistic. If there is a tie with the democratic atmosphere of fifth-century Athens it must be sought at another level - in the way the dramatists were encouraged, so to speak, to explore the human soul and in tolerance shown in the tolerance shown in circumstances in which that particular quality is not what one might have expected. Hellenic comedy in common with tragedy appears to have grown out of Dionysiac festivals, but it did not attain its full development till the fifth century BC. Its outstanding representative was Aristophanes (448-380 BC), a somewhat coarse and belligerent aristocrat who lived in Athens. Most of his plays were written to satirize the political and intellectual ideas of the radical democracy of his time. His wit and inventiveness were boundless, as was the savagery of his invective, and he possessed a penetrating mind. He represented the genre of the so-called 'Old Comedy'. The end of the Peloponnesian War also saw the end of this kind of comedy. By the middle of the fourth century it had

become a totally different art form 'New Comedy', which abandoned current affairs, current political ideas and broad social issues altogether. The interest was narrowed to the portrayal of stock characters, to obvious moralizing and to the poet's skill in turning a phrase or resolving a situation. It is difficult to avoid the conclusion that the New Comedy was appropriate to the final days of Athenian independence, when the polis was struggling to survive. No account of Greek literature could be complete without discussing the two great historians of this age : Herodotus and Thucydides. Before Herodotus there was no tradition of historical enquiry. Herodotus himself was a native of Asia Minor, but he traveled extensively through the Persians Empire. His famous account of the Great War between the Greeks and the Persians had so much background that it almost seems the history of the world. The skepticism and the practicality of the Sophists influenced his younger contemporary Thucydides. The subject of his History was the war between Sparta and Athens. His aim was to present an account which was accurate and objective. He worked in a scientific manner, sifting through evidence, rejecting opinion, legends and hearsay. Thereafter history, though it grew in popularity and many men tried their hands at it, went into a permanent decline. In a sense, with the later writings, history fell curse to the post - fifth - century Greek culture - rhetoric. The manner in which and idea was expressed became more important than the idea itself. We shall now proceed to examine the philosophy of classical Greece - one of the most significant achievements of this civilization. Philosophy, in Greece had begun as cosmology and as a subject that tried to understand the Universe. Even in the fifth century BC this trend continued, but with some additional developments. The explanation of how the Universe works soon became one of the many aspects of philosophy. Socrates observed that the philosophical tradition of the times had become diverse and pluralist, traditional cosmology continued alongside with the newer development of Ethics and Reason. The relationship between form and matter intrigued the Greek philosophers of the age. The per-Socratic philosophers came from the city of Miletus in the region of lonia. Miletus was a prominent trading depot and its people had direct contact with the ideas of the Near East. Around 600 BC, Milesian thinkers 'discovered' speculation after asking simple but profound question :what exists ? it was the Ionian natural philosopher, Thales of Miletus (c 624-548 BC) who answered that everything in the universe was made of water and resolves itself into water. What was so revolution about Thales was that he omitted the gods form his account of the origins of nature. Pythagoras of Samos (c 580507 BC) did not find that nature of things in material substances but in mathematical relationships. The Pythagoreans, who lived in Greek cities in southern Italy, discovered that the intervals in the musical scale could be expressed mathematical and that this principle could be extended to the universe. In other words, the universe contained an inherent mathematical order. What we witness in the Pythagoreans is the emphasis on form rather than matter, and here we move from sense perception to the logic of mathematics. Democritus of Abdera (c 460-370 BC) argued that knowledge was derived through sense perception - the senses illustrate to us that change does occur in nature.

However, Democritus also retained Parmenides confidence in human reason. His Universe consisted of empty space and an infinite number of atome (a tomos, the uncuttable). Eternal and indivisible, these atoms moved in the void of space. An atomic theory to the core, Democritus saw all matter constructed of atoms, which accounted for all change in the natural world. What the Pre- Socratic thinkers from Thales to Democritus had gone was nothing less than amazing -they had given to nature a rational and non-mythical foundation. This new approach allowed a critical analysis of theories, whereas mythical explanations relied on blind faith alone. Into such an atmosphere of change came the traveling teachers, the Sophists. The Sophists abandoned science, philosophy, mathematics and ethics. What they taught was the subtle art of persuasion. A Sophists was a person who could argue eloquently - and could prove a position whether that position was correct or incorrect. In other words, what mattered was persuasion and not truth. The Sophists were also relativists. They believed that there was no such thing as a universal or absolute truth, valid all times. The Sophistic movement of the fifth century BC has been the subject of much discussion and there is no single view about there is no single view about their significance. Plato's treatment of the Sophists in his late dialogue, the Sophists is hardly flattering. He does not treat them as real seekers after truth but as men whose only concern was making money and teaching their students success in argument by whatever means. Aristotle said that a Sophists was one who made money by sham wisdom. At their very best the Sophists challenged accepted values of the fifth century. They wanted the freedom to sweep away old conventions as a way of finding a better understanding of the universe, the gods and man. The Sophists have been compared with the philosophers of the 18th century Enlightenment who also used criticism and reason to wipe out anything they deemed was contrary to human reason. Regardless of what we think of the Sophists as a group or individually, they certainly did have the cumulative effect of further degrading a mythical understanding of the universe and of man. From the ranks of the Sophists came Socrates (c 469-399 BC), perhaps the most noble and wisest Athenian to have ever lived. The Athenian youth flocked to his side as he walked the paths of the agora. They clung to his every word and gesture. He was not a Sophist himself, but a philosopher, a lover of wisdom. Socrates wrote nothing himself. What we know of him comes from the writings of two of his closest friends, Xenophon and Plato. Although Xenophon (c 430- c 354 BC) did write four short portraits of Socrates, it is almost to Plato alone that we know anything of Socrates. Our knowledge of Socrates comes to us from numerous dialogues, which Plato wrote after 399. in early every dialogue - and there are more than thirty that we know about - Socrates is the main speaker. The style of the Plato's dialogue is important - it is the Socratic style that he employs throughout. Socrates did not give his student's answers, but only questions. His job was not to teach truth but to show his students how they could pull truth out of their own minds (it is for this reason that often considered himself a midwife in the labour of knowledge). And this is the point of the dialogues. For only in conservation, only in dialogue, can truth and wisdom come to the surface.

Plato's greatest and most enduring work was his lengthy dialogue, the republic. This dialogue has often been regarded as Plato's blueprint for a future society of perfection. The Republic discusses a number of topics including the nature of justice, statesmanship, ethics and the nature of politics. It is in the Republic that Plato suggests that democracy was little more than a charming from of government. Plato's Republic also embodies one of the clearest expressions of his theory of knowledge. He felt reality is always changing - knowledge of reality is individual, it is particular, it is knowledge only opt the individual knower, it si not universal. Building upon the wisdom of Socrates and Parmenides, Plato argued that reality is known only through the mind. There is a higher world, independent of the world we may experience through our senses. Because the senses may deceive us, it is necessary that this higher world exist, a world of Ideas of Forms - of what is unchanging absolute and universal. Plato's most famous student was Aristotle (384-322 BC). At the age of eighteen, Aristotle became the student at the Academy of Plato. Aristotle also started his own school, the Lyceum in 335 BC. Very little of Aristotle's writings remain extant. But his students recorded nearly everything he discussed at the Lyceum. In fact, the books to which Aristotle's name is attributed are really little more than student notebooks. Aristotle did not agree with Plato that there is an essence or Form or Absolute behind every object in the phenomenal world. While Plato suggested that man born with knowledge, Aristotle argued that knowledge comes from experience. And there, in the space of just a few decades, we have the essence of those two philosophical traditions, which have occupied the western intellectual tradition for the past 2500 years. Rationalism - knowledge is a priori (comes before experience) and Empiricism - knowledge is a posteriori (comes after experience). Aristotle argued that there were universal principles but that they are derived from experience. He could not accept, as had Plato, that there was a world of Forms beyond space and time. Aristotle argued that there were Forms and Absolutes but that they resided in the thing itself. A survey of some of the features of architecture, art, sculpture, literature and philosophy brings before us the high level of creative achievements and intellectual discourse, which existed, in classical Greece. Indeed, we can agree with W.H Auden that "had Greek civilization never existed we would never have become fully conscious, which is to say that we would never have become, for better or worse, fully human." In conclusion, we can say that Greek culture symbolized humanism - the glorification of man as the most important creature in the Universe. Thought most of Greek art and literature revolves around religious themes, this does not detract from its humanist quality. The Greek deities existed for the benefit of man; in glorifying them he was glorifying himself. It was the Art of the community, not of the individual. It was not 'art for art's sake' but 'art with a purpose'; it was not just aesthetic but political, as well. The Greek arts embodied the idea of balance, order, moderation and harmony. As mentioned in initial pert of this essay, this harmony arose because the creators of this culture were not involved in production and hence, there was no sense of conflict with nature. The entire edifice of Greek culture was built upon the surplus extracted for the slave labour. So the 'beautiful' and 'virtuous' (terms typical to the Greeks) culture of the classical period, bid beneath it a social context of intense exploitation.

BIBLIOGRAPHY : 1. M.I Finely : Ancient Greeks. 2. Arthur Cotterel (ed.) : Encyclopaedia of Ancient Civilisations 3. Ralph, Burns and Lemer : Western Civilisation (Vol. I) 4. Encyclopaedia Britannica 5. Columbia Encyclopaedia ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,, Discuss the role played by the environmental setting in the development of Mesopotamian civilization. The role played by environment in the rise of the Mesopotamian civilization is a matter of sharp debate among historians. E. Huntington believed that certain optimum climatic conditions were essential to the rise of civilization. This position was further strengthened by L. Woolley who believed that the favourable soil and climate of Mesopotamia provided the necessary prerequisites for the emergence of civilization there since they allowed man to produce in excess of his needs for the first time and yet have leisure to enjoy the surplus. However I.A Diaknoff argued that the climate was not a primary factor in encouraging the development of civilization as Neolithis man had to work hard enough to survive in any climate. The production of a surplus then was possible under certain conditions (alluvial lowlands) but not in others (dense woodlands). The crucial point that stands regardless of the polemics, as pos for the development of an original civilization in the form of a constant source of water in the twin-rivers and an extremely fertile soil. But the realization of these possibilities, according to G. Roux, was achieved at the cost of a constant struggle against nature that left an indelible imprint on every aspect of the subsequent development of Mesopotamia civilization. In the absence of natural rains, Mesopotamia agriculture had from the outset depended upon artificial irrigation. Extensive diking and walling were necessary to protect against the floods of the Euphrates, which occurred in the late spring as crops were maturing. Moreover the volume of the combined floods of the Tigris and Euphrates was unpredictable. Drainage of superfluous saline water was as essential as irrigation to ensure the soil's fertility. This required co-operative effort and centralized control beyond the scope of the village community. From the outset the Euphrates delta was parceled into a number of agricultural irrigation units, each having its own center of administration, and thus L. Woolley believed that the development of the city-state was a result of the physical character of Sumer. The rise of cities, which according to C.G. Starr were vital to the appearance of civilization in Mesopotamia, was made possible by two technical characteristics of Sumerian agriculture. Firstly, the relatively flat and stone-free terrain of the lower Tigris-

Euphrates valley was easily worked and this together with the rich alluvial soil facilitated the production of an agricultural surplus. Though barley and dates were the staple diet, the yield of wheat in Mesopotamia in 2400 B.C, according to G. Roux, could favourably compare with that of the most modern Canadian wheat fields. Secondly, annual floods renewed the fertility of the soil, making sedentary cultivation possible. Thus it became possible for a relatively dense population to sustain life in the lush river valleys of Mesopotamia, and this in turn provided the mass labour needed to erect monumental structures, extend irrigation and improve transport as the complexity of life increased. The cities were the center of craft production and commerce. The various crafts that the Sumerians specialized in included seal cutting, brick-making, pottery, stone, masonry, spinning, weaving, basket-making, leather-working and carpentry. Paradoxically the Sumerians were the best metalworkers in their day even though they had no metal of their own. They knew how to produce bronze and invented the cire-perdue method of casting and the socket. The Sumerians also invented glass and the wheel that immensely improved both transport and pottery. Thus a stratified society and relative sophistry in crafts and techniques. Stimulated by the ingenuity of the Sumerians, had already appeared in proto-literate times foreshadowing the rise of the mature Sumerian civilization by 3000 B.C. Mesopotamia was rich in agricultural products, and those from stock-breeding, fisheries, date palm cultivation and reed industries, but in entirely lacked stone, metal and timber. Thus an extensive network of trade routes developed early, linking the various parts of Mesopotamia with each other and with the rest of the Near East. Within Mesopotamia, the Tigris and Euphrates and the larger irrigation canals could be used as waterways between villages and cities, the latter forming centers of communication and stimulus for the whole surrounding region. There were also roads linking Mesopotamia with Syria and the Mediterranean coast in the west and with the Iranian plateau in the east. The Persian Gulf provided access to India and the Far East. The Sumerians were skilled metal workers who procured tin from Iran, Asia Minor and Syria; gold from Elam, Cappadocia and Antioch; copper from Oman, Anatolia and the Caucasus; while silver and lead came from the Taurus Mountains. Stone was obtained from Oman, lapis lazuli from the Persian Gulf, sank shells from India, cedar and pine from Lebanon and the Zagros mountains. Commerce with distant region also led to establishment of trading outposts whose character differed according to the conditions of the various countries. For instance Syria was parceled into a number of petty states none of which would have been able to guarantee the safety of Mesopotamia trading interest in the region. Therefore Qatna was established as a purely Mesopotamia colony at par with its neighbours but secured against them by the military power of the home government. L. Carlovsky describes the colonization of Qatna as 'primary incorporation'. This was followed by 'secondary involvement' (Carlovsky) or the process of acculturation between the colonizing and the indigenous people, evident from the fact that Qatna was built around a temple and exhibits distinct Mesopotamia characteristics. Mesopotamia cylinder seals and a royal palace designed on Mesopotamia lines at Alalakh, which commanded the approach to the famous Cedar mountain speaks of the same process. C.G Starr believes that since

Mesopotamia was a part of the Fertile Crescent, it was far more reception of external influences and able to spread its achievements more widely than the secluded early Egyptian civilization. The precariousness of existence in southern Mesopotamia also led to a highly developed sense of religion. Cult centers such as Eridu, dating back to 5000 B.C., served as important centers of pilgrimage and devotion even before the rise of Sumer. Many of the most important Mesopotamia cities emerged in areas surrounding the pre-Sumerian cult centers, thus reinforcing the close relationship between religion and government. According to G. Roux, religion occupied such a prominent position in Mesopotamia society because it was here that man felt himself utterly dependent upon the will of the gods. The Sumerians were pantheistic; their gods generally personified local elements and natural forces. Sumerian theology held that men had been created to free the gods from the necessity of working for a living. Man was considered a slave of the gods, obliged to serve regardless of flood, drought, disease or punishment. The frequency with which such disasters afflicted Mesopotamia cities gave rise to attitude of anxiety toward divinities who often acted maliciously and in ways beyond human understanding. To prevent incurring the displeasure of the gods and to correctly interpret the signs and portents they may bestow, a powerful priesthood emerged to oversee ritual practices and to intervene with the gods on behalf of the rank and file. Thus W.H McNeill remarks that "Sumerian theology plausibly explained the vicissitudes of human life under the precarious condition of irrigation-agriculture in the Tigris-Euphrates Valley, and through the doctrine that men were slaves to the gods, effectively inculcated obedience to the priests". Sumerian religious beliefs also had important political aspects. Decisions relating to land rentals, agricultural questions, trade, commercial relations, and war were determined by the priesthood, because all properly belonged to the gods. As Thorkild Jacobsen points out, the priests combined in one office the organization of both practical and religious affairs. The priests ruled from the temples, called ziggurats, which were essentially artificial mountains of sun baked brick, built with outside staircases that tapered toward a shrine at the top. In the earliest days of Sumerian city life, a temple was a simple rectangular house for the god, set on a raised platform. In later times the temple was raised higher and higher by inserting additional stages between the ground level and the inner sanctuary, while various subsidiary sacred precincts were added to the base of the structure, until it achieved its classical form in the time of the Third Dynasty of Ur (c. 2050-1950 B.C.). In the deeply religious mind of the Sumerians the ziggurats were 'prayers of bricks' (Roux). Like the biblical 'Tower of Bable', the ziggurats attempted to reach into heaven. The most plausible theory regarding the origin of the ziggurats sees them as a colossal staircase, a bridge between the lower temples and the upper sanctuary halfway between heaven and earth, where men and gods could meet on certain occasions. They extended to the gods a permanent invitation to descend on the earth while they simultaneously

expressed man's wish to rise above his miserable condition and establish closer contacts with divinity. The melancholy undertones of Sumerian religion were rooted in the fundamental pessimism that characterized their world-view. This Tigris - Euphrates valley was a country of unexpected and violent dangers. The same rivers that brought life could also destroy it with their unpredictable floods that could wipe out entire peoples. The winters many be too cold or rainless, and the summer too dry for the ripening of dates. Cloudbursts could transform a desert into swamp while sandstorms could wreak sudden devastation. Confronted with these manifestations of supernatural forces, the Mesopotamia felt bewildered and helpless and completely at the mercy of the will of the gods. Since the social discipline of the early Sumerian temple communities was directed towards lavish appeasement of the gods rather than war, they were unable to adequately defend themselves against the superior military might of pastoral raiders. Mesopotamia had no natural defences and on every side the valley with its flourishing cities lay exposed to attacks by barbarians. Inter-city relations presented an equally serious problem. As soon as most of the irrigable land of lower Mesopotamia came under cultivation and the fields of one community began to skirt those of another, the previously harmonious relationship between cities changes. Since there existed no authority to determine boundaries between cities and to allocate water in times of shortage, common borders gave rise to chronic warfare between 3000-1700 B.C. Thus the deficiency of priestly management with respect to defence gave rise to first semisecular kindship alongside the older temple administration. According to McNeill, as war became endemic kingship became necessary. Kings assumed superior military and judicial authority which led to improved defences against barbarian raids, and coincided with construction of massive city walls. A position upstream was always of supreme importance in Mesopotamian politics and war since downstream populations were inescapably at the mercy of whoever controlled their water supply. In this regard kings assumed the role of providers of water since they managed the large-scale hydraulic agriculture (K.Wittfogel). The king 'lugal' or governor, 'ensi', was the head of the temple around which the Sumerian city-state had grown. They royal family lived in a palace distinct from the temple. The king governed the city on behalf of the gods. One of his most sacred duties was the maintenance and building of temples, in keeping with the belief that humanity was created for the service of the gods and he was only the first of their servants. Kings organized royal households similar to the divine households of the temple communities, encroaching upon the administrative authority of the priests. Thus the relationship between king and priest was an uneasy one. Over time royal usurpation became sanctified in myth and ritual, of which the central act was the marriage between king and goddess of the city.

If the influence of the natural environment is apparent in the Sumerian religious and political institutions, it had an even greater impact on art and architecture. Firstly the climate and geology imposed practical limitations - in the absence of wood and stone, Mesopotamian sculptors were either dependent on scarce and costly imported materials or compelled to use local substitutes like clay. In fact given the almost exclusively mudbrick architecture and the number and variety of clay figurines, cylinder seals and pottery artifacts, as well as the use of clay tables for writing, it seems that the raw material that characterized Mesopotamian civilization was clay. A more abstract association between the environment and the arts can also be drawn. The precariousness of existence in the river valleys meant that the Mesopotamians felt themselves in constant conflict with the hostile and potentially destructive elements in nature. This confrontation and frustration was reflected in the imagery of their art. The pious Sumerian aspired to win the favour of the gods by faithful attendance and prayer by placing a statue of himself, showing him in the attitude of humble prayer, in the presence of the god's statue. Thus Woolley believes that Sumerian statuary was limited in range and confined to one or two structural poses as typified by the group of statues from Tell Asmar. Having analysed the role played by the environment in the development of the Sumerian civilization with respect to its main aspect, namely society, economy, religion, kingship, arts and architecture, we may now return to the polemic on the extent of the environment's role in this process. The civilized life that emerged at Sumer was shaped by two conflicting factors: the unpredictability of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers, which at any time could unleash devastating floods that wiped out entire peoples, and the extreme fertility of the river valleys, caused by centuries old deposits of soil. But once artificial irrigation was put in place, the Tigris-Euphrates valley became a fertile and rich agricultural land, capable of producing a surplus to sustain a dense society incorporating divergent occupational interests. Thus as Roux points out, in many respects Mesopotamians was a gift of the twin-rivers. However to presume as Brooks does, that the mere existence of an abundant water supply and a fertile land automatically produced civilization, is to employ geographical determinism. As Glyn Daniel argued, the geographical environment of the river valley and the alluvial plain were an important factor in the development of the Mesopotamian civilization, but only to the extent that they provided possibilities, but did not pre-empt, the rise of civilization. The origins of the Sumerian civilization cannot be reduced a single factor. In this regard it is important to take into account other theories such as the materialist interpretation of V. G. Childe that enumerates the ten criteria for civilization greater size and density of cities, surplus production and concentration, monumental public buildings, existence of a 'ruling class', use of sciences, invention of writing, artistic expression, trade and a state organization based on territory rather than kinship. Though Chile's criterion have not been uncritically accepted, for instance G.L. Possehl believes that they represented a straightforward and interlinked typology of traits which can be reduced in half, nevertheless Childe's theory is widely cited and retains its assured place in the history of archaeology. With respect to the Mesopotamian, Childe believed that the nature of the river valleys provided an 'exacting environment' that nurtured the numerous technological inventions and discoveries which made the rise of the first civilization possible.

The environment of Mesopotamian thus held the prospect of both prosperity and disaster what L. Woolley eloquently describes as a 'conditional promise'. Although their insecure and tenuous existence in the face of threatening natural elements profoundly influenced the 'form' of their civilization, and was at the root of their pessimism, their melancholy theological doctrine and in the imagery of their art, it was through sheer hard-work and ingenuity that the Sumerians were able to take advantage of the potentialities offered by the valley of the twin-rivers to grow and prosper. Thus the role of the genius of the people must not be neglected, for as Kramer points out, this was the mainspring of the cultural and material achievements of the Sumerians. To conclude : "it was not God but the hard working Sumerians who created the land between the two rivers" - V. Gordon Childe BIBILIOGRAPHY Glyn Daniel - The First Civilisations G.L. Possehil - Ancient Cities of the Indus C.L. Redman - The Rise of Civilisation W.H. McNeill - The Rise of the West Thorkild Jacopsen - Sumer (in A. Cotterel - The Encyclopaedia of Ancient Civilizations) Georges Roux - Ancient Iraq C.G. Starr - History of the Ancient World C.L. Woolley - History of Mankind Series - Volume II, The Bronze Age - Ur of the Chaldees Britannica Macropaedia, 21 ,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,