Late Uruk Research Articles

Uruk Colonies and Anatolian Communities: An Interim Report on the 1992-1993 Excavations at Hacinebi, Turkey

The first Mesopotamian city-states in the Uruk period (ca. 3800-3100 B. C.) pursued a strategy of commercial expansion into neighboring areas of the Zagros Mountains, Syria, and southeastern Anatolia. Recent research in these areas has located several Uruk outposts, in what is apparently the world's earliest-known colonial system. Although some Uruk "colonies" have been excavated, virtually nothing is known about either the operation of this system or its role in the development of local polities in Anatolia. Excavations at the site of Hacinebi, on the Euphrates River trade route, investigate the effects of the "Uruk Expansion" on the social, economic, and political organization of southeastern Anatolia during the fourth millennium B. C. Hacinebi has two main Late Chalcolithic occupations—a pre-contact phase A and a later contact phase B with high concentrations of Uruk ceramics, administrative artifacts, and other Mesopotamian forms of material culture. The Hacinebi excavations thus provide a rare opportunity to investigate the relationship between the Uruk colonies and the local populations with whom they traded, while clarifying the role of long-distance exchange in the development of complex societies in Anatolia. Several lines of evidence suggest that the period of contact with Mesopotamia began in the Middle Uruk period, earlier than the larger colonies at sites such as Habuba Kabira-South and Jebel Aruda in Syria. The concentrations of Uruk material culture and the patterns of food consumption in the northeastern corner of the Local Late Chalcolithic settlement are consistent with the interpretation that a small group of Mesopotamian colonists lived as a socially distinct enclave among the local inhabitants of Hacinebi. There is no evidence for either Uruk colonial domination or warfare between the colonists and the native inhabitants of Hacinebi. Instead, the presence of both Anatolian and Mesopotamian seal impressions at the site best fits a pattern of peaceful exchange between the two groups. The evidence for an essential parity in long-term social and economic relations between the Mesopotamian merchants and local inhabitants of Hacinebi suggests that the organization of prehistoric Mesopotamian colonies differed markedly from that of the better-known 16th-20th century European colonial systems in Africa, Asia, and the Americas.

The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications

Abstract This paper investigates the history of ziggurats and brick making as well as the settlement patterns and development of urbanization in southern Mesopotamia. Gen 11:1–9 is interpreted in light of this information, and the conclusion reached is that the tower, as a ziggurat, embodied the concepts of pagan polytheism as it developed in the early stages of urbanization. Yahweh took offense at this distorted concept of deity and put a stop to the project. The account is seen against the backdrop of the latter part of the fourth millennium in the late Uruk phase.

The Mesopotamian Background of the Tower of Babel Account and Its Implications

Abstract This paper investigates the history of ziggurats and brick making as well as the settlement patterns and development of urbanization in southern Mesopotamia. Gen 11:1–9 is interpreted in light of this information, and the conclusion reached is that the tower, as a ziggurat, embodied the concepts of pagan polytheism as it developed in the early stages of urbanization. Yahweh took offense at this distorted concept of deity and put a stop to the project. The account is seen against the backdrop of the latter part of the fourth millennium in the late Uruk phase.

The Sumerian Goddess Inanna (3400-2200 BC)

Of the myriad Sumerian deities that have emerged from the cuneiform records of ancient Mesopotamia perhaps the most famous - but least understood - is the goddess Inanna, the' lady of heaven'. As a patron of sexuality and aggression she appears in many ancient myths and legends and continues to exert a fascination over contemporary minds. Southern Mesopotamia, called Sumer, witnessed the development of the world's oldest writing system during the Late Uruk period. However, there are few references to Inanna in the extant cuneiform records before the Dynasty of Akkad. Any reconstruction of the cult of Inanna at the dawn of history must, therefore, rely initially on textual evidence of much later periods: the vast repertoire of myths, hymns and prayers to the goddess have been attributed to the 3rd Dynasty of Ur III and the Isin-Larsa Dynasties. Certain details in these stories may reflect beliefs and practices from earlier periods but, these elements are difficult to identify. However, the archaeological record of the late fourth and third millennia has revealed evidence for numerous temples dedicated to Inanna, testifyingto an important and widespread cult. This paper first discusses the archaeological record, before going on to attempt to define the role of Inanna and investigate a proposed syncretism of the goddess wi th the Semitic deity Ishtar.

The Sumerian Goddess Inanna (3400-2200 BC)

Of the myriad Sumerian deities that have emerged from the cuneiform records of ancient Mesopotamia perhaps the most famous - but least understood - is the goddess Inanna, the' lady of heaven'. As a patron of sexuality and aggression she appears in many ancient myths and legends and continues to exert a fascination over contemporary minds. Southern Mesopotamia, called Sumer, witnessed the development of the world's oldest writing system during the Late Uruk period. However, there are few references to Inanna in the extant cuneiform records before the Dynasty of Akkad. Any reconstruction of the cult of Inanna at the dawn of history must, therefore, rely initially on textual evidence of much later periods: the vast repertoire of myths, hymns and prayers to the goddess have been attributed to the 3rd Dynasty of Ur III and the Isin-Larsa Dynasties. Certain details in these stories may reflect beliefs and practices from earlier periods but, these elements are difficult to identify. However, the archaeological record of the late fourth and third millennia has revealed evidence for numerous temples dedicated to Inanna, testifyingto an important and widespread cult. This paper first discusses the archaeological record, before going on to attempt to define the role of Inanna and investigate a proposed syncretism of the goddess wi th the Semitic deity Ishtar.

In Search of the First Empires

The correlation of archaeological evidence with political phenomena is notoriously difficult and has rarely been seriously addressed in a Mesopotamian context. Here the complex relations between the political and cultural regions attested for early historical times in ancient Mesopotamia are reviewed, and how they might be reflected in the archaeological record is considered. Two or three culturally defined regions (southern Mesopotamia, the middle Euphrates, and northern Mesopotamia) are recognized in the third and early second millennia B.c., and are compared with the political realities claimed in the public statements of ruling dynasties. Cultural homogeneity and political regimes of different kinds should have different archaeological correlates, and we should be looking for them. Such a comparison with the historical record may well suggest interpretations for the effective prehistoric archaeology of the formative Uruk period in the later fourth millennium.

The First Farmers at Oueili

The first cities of the ancient world appeared in lower Mesopotamia during the Uruk period (3500-3200 B.C.E.). To comprehend fully how these societies made the transition from a hunting and gathering lifestyle to an agricultural one, these sites must be investigated thoroughly. Recent research at Tell el-'Oueili has added a new perspective.

Defining the style of the period: Jemdet Nasr 1926–28

The mounds of Jemdet Nasr, 100 km south of Baghdad, were subjected to two seasons of excavations in 1926–28. These campaigns yielded a tremendous assemblage of artefacts which have never received the full publication to which they are undoubtedly entitled. In order to rectify this shortcoming a programme of publishing all known items from the 1920s seasons is now well underway, with museum work completed on the Jemdet Nasr collections in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, and the Field Museum, Chicago. It is intended to publish the 1920s material as Volume 1 of the seriesJemdet Nasr Excavations, which will continue with volumes concerning our own recent work at the site. Pending completion of study of Jemdet Nasr items in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad, it has been decided to present this preliminary survey as an indication of the wealth of material retrieved during those two seasons in 1926 and 1928, and in order to address questions that have arisen in the subsequent decades. The main issues of debate have been whether or not it is justifiable to speak of a Jemdet Nasr period, distinct from the Late Uruk and Early Dynastic periods, and a concern to specify items of material culture, particularly pottery, which may assist in the identification of such a period in both temporal and geographical terms. Recent and future excavations at the site, and elsewhere, are likely to provide some of the pointers, but it is perhaps too often the case that excavations of the early part of this century are dismissed as below modern standards and therefore not worthy of detailed study. It is hoped that this article can show the value of re-analysing old excavations from a contemporary viewpoint, particularly by drawing upon comparative material from a range of other excavated sites in order to place the Jemdet Nasr assemblage within a wider Mesopotamian context.

Archaeological Investigations on the Uruk Mound, Abu Salabikh, Iraq

The 1987 field season was the first full season of work on the Uruk Mound at Abu Salabikh (see Postgate & Moon 1984 and Pollock 1987 for discussions of previous work). The interests and questions guiding this work center on the political economy of the Uruk period—the ways in which decisions of a political nature structure, and are structured by, economic activities. Our work thus far has provided preliminary insights into patterns of production, distribution, and consumption of both craft and subsistence goods. Because our samples are relatively small, the results of this season's work must be viewed as suggestive rather than definitive. The reader should also bear in mind that the analytical and interpretive study of the material is still underway. Fuller discussions of the work will be presented elsewhere (Pollock n.d. a, n.d. b).In the 1987 season 2280 m2 of the mound was surface collected and 1805 m2 was scraped, mostly in 10 × 10 m units (Fig. 1). The scraping enabled us to further elucidate the plan of a large, well-constructed building in the 3D95 grid square that was first identified in 1985 (Pollock 1987). To the north of this building, we followed out an area of solid brick construction, revealing the remains of a mudbrick platform more than 55 × 32 m in extent. On the west edge of the mound, in grid squares 2C12–13, 23–24, we also found a massive brick construction, approximately 17 m wide. Its location near the mound's edge is suggestive of a town wall, but until we trace it further this idea remains highly speculative. Elsewhere, the scraping revealed either little in the way of coherent architecture or enigmatic areas of brick that do not at present yield any meaningful architectural plans.

The Uruk Expansion: Cross-cultural Exchange in Early Mesopotamian Civilization [with Comments and Reply

The Uruk Expansion: Cross-cultural Exchange in Early Mesopotamian Civilization [with Comments and Reply

The Effects of context on bone assemblages: examples from the Uruk Period in Southwest Iran

Using data from Uruk sites in southwest Iran, this study examines the effects of depositional context and social variables on the composition of faunal assemblages. Examination of samples from inside structures and open midden or trash pits showed that delicate bones belonging to small or young individuals were more likely to survive inside buildings, and larger bones to be deposited outside. Comparison of Early, Middle, and Late Uruk samples shows an increase in the presence of sheep/goat and pig, but indicates that utilization of cattle remained constant. Little social variability was indicated by comparison of samples associated with high status and low status buildings, or from areas associated with administrative and non-administrative activities.

The Bevelled-Rim Bowls: Their Purpose and Significance

For Barbara who introduced me to Iraq and Donald who introduced me to cuneiformThe Uruk period is one of the most fascinating in the archaeology of the Near East. Its great temples, fine sculpture and glyptic, metal-working skills, and, above all, introduction of writing, mark it as the summit and the turning point in the beginnings of urban civilization. By these characteristics its spread can be traced up the Tigris and Euphrates into central Syria and Anatolia, and eastwards across Iran. Beside the impressive products of its architects, artists and clerks, the Uruk culture proclaims its presence most loudly through its pottery. Among the pots and pans, the most common is one of the simplest and least attractive of all near eastern pots, the bevelled-rim bowl (Glockentopf, écuelle grossière à lèvre bisautée).

Tell Brak: Uruk Pottery from the 1984 Season

It has long been evident that by the late fourth millennium Brak was a large urban site, and that at this time its inhabitants were in close contact with southern Mesopotamia. Mallowan's excavation of the Eye Temple provides important evidence in this respect, although we now know that the Eye Temple itself could not have been Brak's major shrine (D. Oates, n.d.). Our own excavations have produced large quantities of Late Uruk pottery, in 1978 in a sounding at the southeast corner of CH and in 1981 in Area TW (Iraq 1982, 189–90, 195–96), but until this past season none of this material has been found in well-stratified contexts. The area of the 1978 sounding yielded no identifiable building remains, but the pottery seemed to comprise a consistent assemblage which, by comparison with that from the Late Uruk levelling fill in Area TW, we decided was likely to derive from a later, final Uruk (Jamdat Nasr) horizon (Iraq 1982, 191). Of particular interest was a hearth surrounded by relatively complete “casseroles” (Iraq 1982, 203). A numerical tablet was found in the level immediately beneath the hearth, still without any associated building remains.During the 1984 season investigation of the adjacent area by J.-M. Meunier revealed that the ED III levels excavated over most of CH, and published in Iraq 1982, had actually been terraced into the side of a Late Uruk tell, the intervening strata having been largely destroyed in the course of extensive terracing and levelling operations (cf. p. 163, Fig. 3). Both the ED III buildings, and what is preserved of the earlier tell, slope sharply downhill to the north, resulting in a situation where some Late Uruk levels on the southern side of the CH excavations lie, in terms of absolute height, above those of ED III.

Problems of the Uruk-Period in Susiana, viewed from Uruk

Problems of the Uruk-Period in Susiana, viewed from Uruk

Inscriptions from Tell Brak 1984

The 1984 season of excavations at Tell Brak numbered among its discoveries the eight inscriptions that form the subject of the present note. Prior to the 1984 season a small group of mostly fragmentary Old Akkadian inscriptions was recovered during the course of the three pre-war seasons conducted at the site by M. E. L. Mallowan, while an inscribed seal impression dating to the same period and a Late Uruk numerical tablet were found during the 1978 season. The group now presented contains material of considerable importance, and consists of two pictographic tablets, two stamped bricks, three cuneiform tablets, and a fragment of an amulet. This material, which falls into the Uruk, Old Akkadian and Middle Babylonian periods, is presented in chronological order.

エアンナ地区古拙III層について

Those magnificent large temples in Eanna Precinct at Uruk, which had highly developed during the Uruk period, completely disappeared at the point of transition to the next Jamdat Nasr period. In the “Zwischenschicht” there were more than fifteen troughs dug into the ground for the purpose of purification of the whole sanctuary by the “Brandopfer”. In this new phase (Uruk-III Stratum) the High Terrace was the only imposing construction relating to the religious rituals. Other structures were composed of many small rooms, courtyards, and corridors. This great change was performed in such a short term that there must be taken into consideration of the existence of the powerfull leaders who could control both a mass of man-power and financial ability. The “Stampflehmgebäude” (100×120m2) newly excavated westward the High Terrace may be the largest building in Eanna Precinct through the J. N. period. Compared with the palaces in the Early Dynastic period, I would like to find some clues as to whether this gigantic labyrinthian building was the oldest “palace” in early Sumerian City-States.

A Late Uruk Pottery Group from Tell Brak, 1978

A Late Uruk Pottery Group from Tell Brak, 1978

神殿建築から見たシュメール王権の成立

It was generally thought that the Sumerian kingship appeared in their society which had been equal, when the Sumerian cities became to need the powerful director with the intensification of the disputes between the cities. H. Frankfort, Th. Jacobsen, S. N. Kramer, and some others generally thought like this, and concluded that the Sumerian kingship established at the Early Dynastic II.But recently some scholars has begun to think earlier than the Early Dynastic II about the appearance of the kingship. They think that the centralization and the leading minority was rather suggested in the Sumerian great enterprises as the river improvements, the irrigation, and so on, though H. Frankfort thought them useful for strengthening the unity of the community.I consider the establishment of the Sumerian kingship from the development of the temple architecture.The Sumerian temple architecture deriving from the small shrines at Eridu developed into the gigantic temples of Uruk at the late Uruk period (c. 3000 B. C.). But after this period the precincts became more extensive and to be enclosed with the walls on the one hand, the temple architecture itself was inclined to be rather small, and to be built on a high terrace, that famous ziggurat, on the other hand. Almost all the great temples at the Early Dynastic period took this style, and this suggests the separation of the grades in the Sumerian society, that is to say the privileged class to be able to use the temple on the large terrace, and the mass to be able to approach only under the ziggurat. The former intervened between the mass and the great gods, and grasped the gods' will in their hands. The most powerful man of the privileged class became their king.And so the Sumerian kingship already appeared at the late Uruk period, that is earlier than the period when H. Frankfort and some others suggested.

The Relevance of the Diyala Sequence to South Mesopotamian Sites

The Chicago Oriental Institute excavations in the Diyala region have contributed much to our knowledge of the latter part of the Uruk period (including the Jamdat Nasr phase) as well as to more than six later stages of Mesopotamian history. The ceramic material of these periods has been thoroughly presented in Delougaz's long and valuable publication, Pottery from the Diyala Region. Some early and middle Uruk sherds were found, but not in their proper stratigraphical context; the earliest pottery excavated in situ dates from phases ‘c’ and ‘d’ of what Delougaz calls the ‘Protoliterate Period’, and these are equivalent to the late Uruk or Jamdat Nasr phase, which extends, in the E-anna sequence, from the end of Warka IV to the beginning of Warka II. This material comes from three sites: Tell Asmar, Tell Agrab, and Khafajah. At the two former sites deep soundings driven to virgin soil produced sherds of Protoliterate ‘d’, but the stratigraphical value of these soundings is limited, as the floor-levels could not be distinguished and the sequence had therefore to be determined by depth. Protoliterate ‘d’ material also came from in and under the earliest Abu Temple at Tell Asmar. Khafajah, however, produced much well-stratified material, especially from the Sin Temple; this was founded on debris of Protoliterate ‘c’ during the same phase, and continuously repaired and rebuilt at least until ED III b.

Bronze Age Chariots from Europe

The Oriental origin of the wheeled vehicle has long been recognized. It seems to have originated in Sumer, in the Uruk period, in the first half of the fourth millennium B.C.A rich collection of material, including isolated wheels and other remains of wheeled vehicles, models and pictures representing vehicles, show that wagons and carts had spread to Italy, Eastern and Central Europe, and the south Scandinavian countries by the middle of the second millennium B.C. Although the presence of wheeled vehicles has been claimed in Spain as early as the ‘copper age’ the first datable evidence for them is given there by the Solana de Cabanas stele and other west Spanish stelae that probably belong to the end of the second and the first millennium B.C.