Nature As Conceived by the Mesopotamians and the Current Anthropological Debate Over Animism and Personhood
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Nature as Conceived by the Mesopotamians and the Current Anthropological Debate over Animism and Personhood. The Case of Ebiḫ: Mountain, Person and God Anna Perdibon Abstract: The present paper considers how Mesopotamians conceived and related to the mountains ac- cording to Sumerian and Akkadian literary sources, while combining them with current anthropological theories, especially the so-called new animism with its innovative notion of personhood. From the written sources pertaining to the religious framework (i.e. myths, incantations, rituals and personal names) a mul- tifaceted portrayal emerges, in which mountains were conceived not only as the abode of the gods and cosmic places at the border of the world, but were also conceptualized as living beings, acting in the world on behalf of humans and partaking of the divine community. The case of Mt. Ebiḫ offers the most striking evidence for how a mountain was regarded by the inhabitants of Mesopotamia over the centuries: it was envisioned as a mountain, as a person and as a god. Introduction of Mesopotamia related, understood and con- Mountains are major topographical entities, ceptualized their natural surroundings. The that form a crown embracing the Mesopotami- present article focuses on how mountains were an plain. With their distant but bulky presence, embedded within the religious framework mountains represented a dialectic element through the emblematic case of Ebiḫ.1 While with the urban plain, and were fertile ground exploring the ancient cuneiform sources, I use for the imagination of the ancient Mesopota- anthropological explanations to better under- mians. Together with other natural elements stand the ancient myths and rituals, in order to and topographical features of the landscape – investigate and further explain the connections such as rivers, trees, and stones– mountains between nature, the sacred and their materiali- constitute an essential part of the Mesopota- ty. I focus on the ongoing anthropological dis- mian landscape. In ancient Mesopotamian cussion about the term animism, with its inno- myths and rituals, mountains are referred to as vative notion of personhood, which I apply as living beings, acting in the world and partak- a theoretical tool in order to explore the ways ing of the divine community: they protect and in which mountains were understood, concep- heal, do not submit to deities and threaten the tualized and worshipped. divine spheres with their beauty, radiance and divinity. This evidence speaks for different understand- ings of divinity, personhood and nature on the 1 The present paper is based on the part of my PhD part of ancient Mesopotamians, as reflected by dissertation Mountains and Trees, Rivers and the literary sources, and calls into question the Springs. Animist Beliefs and Practices in ancient Mesopotamian Religion (submitted in June 2018 and different ways in which the ancient inhabitants accepted in March 2019) focusing on Mt. Ebiḫ. Distant Worlds Journal 4 (2020) 125 Anthropological theory and ancient Meso- sumed as establishing anachronistic and un- potamian religion: a fertile dialogue critical parallels between an ancient culture The anthropological concept of animism, es- and a non-Western one, nor between oral and pecially in its innovative notion of “other- written cultures, but it represents a fertile con- than-human” person, represents a category and ceptual tool in order to explore and to interpret conceptual tool which enables a great variety the written sources from an emic perspective.4 of questions regarding the relationship be- tween humans and nature to be asked, and With the progressive dismissal of the classic which can contribute to shedding light upon use of the term animism, due to its colonialist various aspects of Mesopotamian conceptions and evolutionist connotations (Tylor; Frazer), and practices involving religion, magic and a new usage of the term has come into being nature. Hallowell’s concept of “other-than- in the light of recent ethnographic, cognitive, human” person (1960), Descola’s modes of literary, performative and material culture ap- interaction between humans and nature (1996 proaches (Bird-David; Descola; Harvey). Ac- and 2013), and Harvey’s relational animism cording to the new animism, in some societies (2006 and 2013), are all notions that contrib- (or in some worldviews within a given socie- ute to pointing out relevant aspects of how an ty), the world is perceived and conceptualized ancient culture related to and conceptualized as a relational and social one, as a “communi- 5 its natural surroundings. ty of living beings”, populated by different persons, most of whom are non-human. Dif- These notions are employed as conceptual ferently from its metaphysical counterpart of tools to reassess some emic notions of nature, Tylorian memory, the new understanding of divinity and personhood in the ancient Meso- animism should be considered not as a delud- potamian polytheism, understood as complex ed belief that everything is alive, nor as a mere and multilayered lived religion. The applica- fossil from earlier stages of mankind, but ra- bility of anthropological theories and ap- ther as a “sophisticated way of both being in proaches to the study of an ancient culture is the world and of knowing the world”, that is considered a challenge and an opportunity to “a relational epistemology and a relational on- try to explore some aspects of how ancient tology”.6 Consequently, the new animism human communities, far away in time and highlights radically different understandings place, envisioned, knew and related to their of divinity, person, and nature, and calls into world.2 As noted by Rochberg, this matter question the dualistic naturalistic worldview, poses several challenges, but such an approach with its oppositions of animate and inanimate, is required for anyone attempting to interpret natural and cultural, natural and supernatural, and explore those societies, according to the immanent and transcendent. different written sources.3 Thanks to the ad- vance of philological and linguistic under- The notion of “other-than-human” person is standings of the cuneiform sources, with the one of the salient features of the school of the consequent flourishing of editions of different new animism (Hallowell 1960; Bird-David textual corpora, the ancient Mesopotamian 1999; Harvey 2006; Harvey 2013a, Harvey documentation has become more easily avail- 2013b), and was firstly used in Hallowell’s pi- able and awaits further studies on the Sitz im oneering study on the Ojibwa worldview Leben of the ancient Mesopotamians. Hence, the anthropological theories should not be as- 4 Rochberg 2016, 57–58. 2 Robson 2008, 455–483; Rochberg 2016, 57–58. 5 Harvey 2013a, 2. See also Sahlins 2017, 121–123. 3 Rochberg 2016, 57–58. 6 Hall 2011, 105 (commenting on Harvey 2006). 126 Perdibon, Nature as Conceived by the Mesopotamians and the Debate over Animism and Personhood. over Animism and Personhood (1960).7 This notion partakes of a broader They demonstrate agency and autono- and the Current Anthropological Debate philosophical and ontological debate which is my with varying degrees of autonomy 12 still ongoing, and which involves disciplinesover Animism and Personhooand freedomd. as varied as cognitive sciences, ethology, phi- The animistic universe is permeated by per- losophy and biology. According to this inno- sonalities, forces and spirits, which are inter- vative understanding, the salient trait for de- connected and related to one another, in a fining a person is not physical appearance, but “heterarchy of related beings”.13 According to behavioral and relational features. In fact, the Harvey, animist people “recognize that the matter of personhood cannot be reduced to world is full of persons, only some of whom mere anthropomorphism or anthropocentrism. are human, and that life is always lived in rela- As stated by Hallowell, anthropomorphism is tionship with others”.14 Exploring the different not a marker of what distinguishes a person “other-than-human” persons of the lively and from a non-person. What characterizes a per- personal ancient Mesopotamian polytheism is son is its behavior and relationality: according an essential step toward readdressing the in- to Hallowell, “animate persons” are “relational teractions between humans and non-humans, 8 beings, actors in a participatory world”. With- and the conceptions of nature, landscape and in the Ojibwa myths, Thunderbirds are con- the cosmos according to the Mesopotamians 9 ceived as acting like human beings. Other in- (Black 2002; Horowitz 1998; Rochberg 2016). dicators of the animate nature of relational be- ings are movement, gift-giving and conversa- Together with the notion of personhood, tion.10 Thus, “all beings communicate inten- Descola’s modes of identification between tionally and act toward each other relationally: humans and non-humans are relevant tools for this makes them ‘persons’”.11 Reassessing investigating the connections between the an- Hallowell’s definition of what a person is, cient myths and rituals with their materiality. Harvey argues that In his exploration of the modes in which hu- mans relate to the natural world, and in dis- Persons are those with whom other cussing the dichotomy of nature and culture, persons interact with varying degrees Descola identifies four modes of interaction of reciprocity. Persons may be spoken with. Objects, by contrast, are usually between humans and the natural world around spoken