ABSTRACT
It is a common opinion among ancient Near Eastern historians that the Mesopotamian palace is a later development than the temple: that the construction of a separate seat of secular administration is the visible expression of the formation of a permanent secular authority separate from the temple. As we have already seen, in some Early Dynastic cities the government rested in the hands of the chief priests, who no doubt ruled from the temple precincts. If, with jacobsen, we assume that before history the ‘king’ (Sumerian Jugal or ‘great man’) was similar to a Roman dictator, chosen by a city in time of stress as a temporary leader, we should not be surprised if no secular palaces are known from those times. However, such a construct of the early formation of secular power subscribes trustingly to the idealized statements of later Mesopotamian sources, and even if valid for South Mesopotamia cannot be extended uncritically to the adjacent world. It is arguable that it was precisely the strength of the communal ethos of South Mesopotamian civilization that was responsible for the sophistication of its social forms. If so, the palace should perhaps be seen more as an intrusive element from less complex societies than as any sort of natural progression inherent in the traditional Mesopotamian scene.
