Ancient near Eastern societies also had specific views about foreigners. While the Mesopotamians initially rejected the Amorites coming from the West, they eventually accepted them. During the Early Babylonian period, the kings adopted Amorite traditions into what became known as the Amorite Oikumene. Kings shared ways of building temples, initiating urban projects, and in general being a “shepherd to the people.” This eventual acceptance of foreigners is evidenced by Enkidu, Gilgamesh’s original rival. Initially, this giant forest-dweller is feared and detested by the people. However, after spending some time with a woman and given clothes, he is domesticated and is gradually accepted. This is similar to how the Mesopotamians viewed the
…show more content…
Contextually, it makes sense. The Mesopotamians appear to be more accepting of chaos and see it as an opportunity, even though many do fear it due to the suffering it causes. The Pharoahs, however, are near-paranoid of any trace of disorder. While the Sumerian kings eventually allowed the Amorites to integrate into society, the Egyptians framed them as evil and rejected them outright. Merikare describes them as “a thief who darts about a group,” and that his successor must always be on the lookout for them. This is so important to the author that he devotes two paragraphs to this issue, giving him specific instructions to ensure the realm’s security. The last line of the paragraph is almost a desperate plea, “build buildings in the northland!” Unlike the Sumerians, there are no attempts to accept Amorites into their culture based on their text. While there is evidence from funerary artwork that Amorites peaceably traded with Egyptians, there appears to be a general contempt for them in the …show more content…
The Mesopotamians valued might, and Gilgamesh demonstrated that his physical strength was a reason why he had a right to lead Uruk. Probably his greatest feat which cemented his place on the throne was defeating the Bull of Heaven in combat. Ishtar, a goddess whose marriage proposal Gilgamesh rejected, sent down the bull to destroy him and his city. While the people did not approve of their king’s earlier quests, they were saved only by his ability to defeat it. Interestingly, this is the last time his position as king is challenged. It’s as if killing his toughest opponent demonstrates that he of all people has the right to be king. Similarly, Mesopotamian kings had to constantly justify their rule to remain the ruler of Sumer and Akkad. Generally, all kings had to constantly repress revolts, but Naram-Sin, Akkadian emperor, is mostly famous for how he displayed his right to rule. In one year, his forces routed nine enemy armies composed of coalitions from multiple city-states. This, at least for him, confirmed his legitimacy because he was so well able to defend his throne. Mesopotamian kings also used significant events to further claim legitimacy by deifying themselves. Aside from Naram-Sin, Shulgi, an Ur-III emperor, deified himself too. By connecting themselves with the Gods, either as being one or being a closely trusted representative of them,
Contextually, it makes sense. The Mesopotamians appear to be more accepting of chaos and see it as an opportunity, even though many do fear it due to the suffering it causes. The Pharoahs, however, are near-paranoid of any trace of disorder. While the Sumerian kings eventually allowed the Amorites to integrate into society, the Egyptians framed them as evil and rejected them outright. Merikare describes them as “a thief who darts about a group,” and that his successor must always be on the lookout for them. This is so important to the author that he devotes two paragraphs to this issue, giving him specific instructions to ensure the realm’s security. The last line of the paragraph is almost a desperate plea, “build buildings in the northland!” Unlike the Sumerians, there are no attempts to accept Amorites into their culture based on their text. While there is evidence from funerary artwork that Amorites peaceably traded with Egyptians, there appears to be a general contempt for them in the …show more content…
The Mesopotamians valued might, and Gilgamesh demonstrated that his physical strength was a reason why he had a right to lead Uruk. Probably his greatest feat which cemented his place on the throne was defeating the Bull of Heaven in combat. Ishtar, a goddess whose marriage proposal Gilgamesh rejected, sent down the bull to destroy him and his city. While the people did not approve of their king’s earlier quests, they were saved only by his ability to defeat it. Interestingly, this is the last time his position as king is challenged. It’s as if killing his toughest opponent demonstrates that he of all people has the right to be king. Similarly, Mesopotamian kings had to constantly justify their rule to remain the ruler of Sumer and Akkad. Generally, all kings had to constantly repress revolts, but Naram-Sin, Akkadian emperor, is mostly famous for how he displayed his right to rule. In one year, his forces routed nine enemy armies composed of coalitions from multiple city-states. This, at least for him, confirmed his legitimacy because he was so well able to defend his throne. Mesopotamian kings also used significant events to further claim legitimacy by deifying themselves. Aside from Naram-Sin, Shulgi, an Ur-III emperor, deified himself too. By connecting themselves with the Gods, either as being one or being a closely trusted representative of them,