Quick viewing(Text Mode)

Early Mesopotamian Urbanism: a New View from the North

Early Mesopotamian Urbanism: a New View from the North

Early Mesopotamian Urbanism: A New View from the North

The Harvard community has made this article openly available. Please share how this access benefits you. Your story matters

Citation , Jason A. 2007 Early Mesopotamian urbanism: a new view from the North. Antiquity 81(313): 585-600.

Published Version http://antiquity.ac.uk/ant/081/ant0810585.htm

Citable link http://nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:4269009

Terms of Use This article was downloaded from Harvard University’s DASH repository, and is made available under the terms and conditions applicable to Other Posted Material, as set forth at http:// nrs.harvard.edu/urn-3:HUL.InstRepos:dash.current.terms-of- use#LAA 5 4 3 2 1 aa lQuntar Al Salam h otencr.Btti dai o nraigycalne,ntmrl through merely not by challenged, increasingly initiated being contact now after is development idea of this But phase was core. ‘secondary’ northern southern own in the of its upstream emergence zone into Wilkinson dry-farming the stimulated 2005; the 2001; for only that (Algaze have habitats is civilisation ‘pristine’ rivers corollary suitable of The uniquely development 1994). and the with and south the first the of the provide channels to water thought braided logistical the been closely associated as the the such and of landscape environments lacustrine Mesopotamian advantages and south irrigated iconic the of the to potentials Mesopotamia, agricultural southern peculiar of Features locate Cities’. alluvial East of Near the the ‘Heartland in in processes genesis these of and beginnings societies complex the of emergence the of accounts Most urbanism Early is north the in periphery a developing south Keywords: the from core north-eastern a revision. in of for been ripe model have now the to late and likely the , as by are southern goods, cities’ as prestige earliest along ‘world’s and far The industrialisation was monumentality, BC. Mesopotamia in northern seen fifth culminating that as study, show urbanism, of here, to campaign reported long 2006 the A from down. discoveries upside new model the this in turning are Iraq’ team southern her in landscape and the Oates of (2005) feature Zimansky noteworthy most & the Stone are cities for And 1998). Yoffee 1981; (Adams sites large into shift 1988. population the in massive as a seen in ‘ been resulted has cities: Mesopotamia , millennium and ancient , civilisation and of Ur centre of origin Mesopotamia southern the , many For Oates Joan north the from view new a urbanism: Mesopotamian Early eevd 1Spebr20;Acpe:7Nvme 06 eie:5Dcme 2006 December 5 Revised: 2006; November 7 Accepted: 2006; September 11 Received: antiquity S Eal [email protected]) (Email: USA [email protected]) [email protected]) (Email: UK 3ER, rhelg,Uiest fEibrh l ihSho,Ifimr tet dnug H L,U (Email: UK 1LT, EH1 Edinburgh Street, Infirmary School, [email protected]) High (Email: Old UK Edinburgh, 3DZ, of CB2 University Cambridge Street, , CB2 Downing Cambridge Archaeology, Street, of Downing University, Department Cambridge Research, Archaeological for Institute McDonald The eateto nhoooy avr nvriyPaoyMsu,1 iiiyAeu,CmrdeM 02138, MA Cambridge Avenue, [email protected]) Divinity 11 (Email: Museum, UK Peabody University 3DZ, Harvard CB2 Anthropology, Cambridge of Street, Department Downing Archaeology, of Department Teenwct-ttsstteptenfrMsptmaa h erln fcities’ of heartland the as Mesopotamia for pattern the set city-states new ‘These 1(07:585–600 (2007): 81 eooai,Sra iis rgn fcvlsto,tl eteet,urbanism settlements, civilisation, of origins cities, Syria, Mesopotamia, 1 ,AugustaMcMahon 4 ao Ur Jason & h ra mlso flt-orh n early-third- and late-fourth- of implosion urban The 5 2 hlpKarsgaard Philip , 585 Rmiso h ol’ first world’s the of ‘Remains 3 , .ButatTellBrakJoan adNissen said ’

Research Early Mesopotamian urbanism: a new view from the north concerns with the underlying core-periphery model and its emphasis on regional asymmetric interactions, but because of recent and compelling evidence for early northern developments in social complexity that are not directly tied to the south (Frangipane 2001; Stein 2002). Early Mesopotamian cities famously survive as tell settlements, which represent the accumulation of level after level of mud-brick or piseconstruction,cutdown,levelledoff´ and replaced, often over many thousands of years – mud is, of course, the great ‘reusable’ resource. Such longevity is a factor not only of both landscape and the ancient environment but also, since the , the ‘substantial commitment to farming’ (Sherratt 1997). But a serious problem for the archaeologist wishing to investigate the background to urban growth in Mesopotamia is that the very situations that encouraged the growth of later cities were often equally attractive to early villagers; the early phases, however, soon become inaccessible through the build-up of later levels. At Uruk (Warka), for example, undoubtedly the greatest of the early cities and the site that has yielded not only the earliest written documents but also the largest area of late-fourth-millennium public buildings, soundings have failed up to now to yield pertinent information about the nature of earlier settlement (for a recent summary see Nissen 2002). Indeed our knowledge of the Neolithic/ background to such urban complexity comes largely from small farming settlements which, although they remain less compromised by overlying occupation, are less informative of wider social and economic developments. Here we review recent evidence from the north Mesopotamian site of TellBrak, indicating its growth as a major settlement apparently well before the emergence of large urban centres such as Uruk in the southern alluvium. In particular we report the convincing evidence for monumentality, industrial workshops and prestige goods that has emerged from the latest excavations of fifth/fourth-millennium BC levels. We show that these northern developments, while particularly well attested at Brak, are indicated also by evidence from across northern Mesopotamia, for example at sites like , and Qalinj Agha, and at Arslantepe in south-eastern (Gibson et al. 2002; Rothman 2002; Hijara 1973; Frangipane 2001). The implications are that northern Mesopotamia was already a land of cities long before the appearance of colonies in the later fourth millennium BC.

Tell Brak The importance of derives in part from its controlling position on one of the major routes from the Tigris Valley northwards to metal-rich and westward to the Euphrates and the Mediterranean (Figure 1, centre). This route ran through the pass at the western end of Jebel directly to the river crossings at Brak. Tell Hamoukar, another important fifth/fourth-millennium BC site referred to more than once in this paper, sits astride the eastern route around this massive mountain (Figure 1, right). Both sites are well situated to benefit from the rich agricultural potential of their surroundings as well as areas suitable for nomadic pastoralists. Brak was selected for excavation in 1976 owing to the accessibility of its third-millennium BC remains, at that time a period little known in northern Mesopotamia. The main tell at Brak is one of the largest in northern Mesopotamia, occupying over 40ha and rising to a height of over 40m, comparable in area to the mound of Quyunjik

586 xaain aenwetbihda n ftelretubncnrsi h ot D Oates (D. north the in centres our urban which largest city the third-millennium of the one of as depth established great now the have beneath excavations buried be would these that ancient for extracted was which construction. (Wilkinson a ploughing from of modern with pits and total ancient quarry by town, a purposes, extensive building over outer by Ur occupation destroyed also of also heavily see evidence been includes 2; widespread constitutes which (Figure and tell complex 300ha areas the almost settlement size, mounded impressive the smaller its of of Despite corona cent high. per as 21 twice but only ) of citadel (the location. showing inset with Oates), (D. Syria North-east , the of Map 1. Figure xaain a efudi ae 02 2005). 2002; for Oates in evidence found contemporary the be and the fourth-millennium can later excavations fifth is the of late impression (Summaries below. the this discussed from settlement, ‘suburban’ Reinforcing extended dating BC. all millennia levels, fourth household early beyond Here the labour organisation 3). activity, the of (Figure craft the for provisioning evidence paper near organised and and TW, this paraphernalia with Area bureaucratic of associated goods, in focus prestige structures excavations of the monumental manufacture these forms revealed of that has recent city, work most ancient our the the is to It entrance site. northern the of parts several in al. et twsntoroiia neto oecvt orhmlenu Clvl,recognising levels, BC fourth-millennium excavate to intention original our not was It 01.Raoal cesbefut-ilnimlvl aebe dnie,however, identified, been have levels fourth-millennium accessible Reasonably 2001). tal et onOates Joan npes.Ufruaeymc fti rahas area this of much Unfortunately press). in . 587 tal. et tal et 01 n ymodern by and 2001) .

Research Early Mesopotamian urbanism: a new view from the north

Figure 2. Tell Brak and its suburbs, showing known extent of late fifth (ENU LC2) and first half of fourth millennium BC = (MNU LC3) occupation. (TW, CH, UA site codes of excavations; ENU Early Northern Uruk (LC2), c.4200-3900 = = = BC; MNU Middle Northern Uruk (LC3), c.3900-3600BC). = Area TW: the excavated evidence The Monumental Level 20 building The earliest and almost certainly the largest of the recently excavated non-residential buildings was identified some 11m below the surface of the tell in what is now designated TW Level 20 (Figure 4). Here, in the south-east corner of the excavations, the then 10 20m trench literally cut across the north-west corner of a clearly important building of× totally unknown type (Oates & Oates 1997). This small corner contained a massive entrance with towers on either side and an enormous doorsill consisting of a single piece of basalt, 1.85 1.52m in area and 29cm thick, a type of stone not native to the open steppe in which Tell Brak× is situated. The red mud-brick walls of this monumental structure were 1.85m thick, and still stand to a height of 1.5m. Of the plan itself, our original trench revealed only the very small corners of two apparently empty rooms. No contemporary parallel exists for abuildingofthistypeandscalebut,regrettably,fourfurtherseasonsdevotedtoopeninga larger area revealed no more than further parts of the same two rooms. Although both rooms proved empty, we were able to establish a number of unusual features of the construction: first, that the walls were not set in foundation trenches, a

588 rprasa trg ra o od asn nadoto h ulig rhv enrelated been have or added building, the been of had out ‘shops’, and rooms suq-like in small passing small as goods served for further have areas might structure storage They as empty. main were perhaps too or the They 5). of 4, nos. front 4; (Figure north once. least the at along rebuilt was while itself building the while been had times, area very three had courtyard was least which outer itself at of The replastered entrance feature. surface foundations been the unusual the stone at another area, underflooring, which of open wooden beneath use large laid plaster, of carefully a the (waterproof) depth was of lime a building example white the to with rare of covered a north red and the clean To procedure and Brak. unusual cobbles at very large a of was platform 80cm, building over constructed whole the carefully that a but on buildings, monumental built of erection the in practice common this level, modern whole above the 15m fifth, some late BC. still the spans millennia lies section third now visible early to The very millennia. up the sixth excavated and and fourth level fifth the lowest earlier of the the to west; dating the occupation representing from depth TW Area 3. Figure h aattrsodbidn nqioal otelt fhmlenu C h Early the BC, millennium fifth late the to unequivocally building basalt-threshold .the Eye well-known the in Brak Mesopotamia throughout at attested later widely slightly plan found religious certainly the and – to outside building relationship monumental no finds is bears secular building plan genuinely one services the the a function, provide desks of formal clerks example its of Mesopotamian Whatever other within. earliest series suggest and business the having the to those where of of anachronistic) today, benefit equivalent East (if the for Near ancient tempting the the is in been It offices government have it. may within they place that taking administration the to usd h nrnewr w ml om,psil urros(iue4 om3), room 4, (Figure guardrooms possibly rooms, small two were entrance the Outside aicro eemntosadpteyfo otmoaybidn otews date west the to building contemporary a from and determinations Radiocarbon onOates Joan 589 tal. et

Research Early Mesopotamian urbanism: a new view from the north

Figure 4. The eastern part of Area TW at Level 20 (late fifth millennium BC), showing the basalt-threshold building and, to the north, the corner of a Level 18b ritual building (not discussed in the text); rooms 7-11 constitute the eastern part of the western Level 20 building, excavated in 2006.

Northern or ENU.1 Its position, near what we believe was the north gate of the city, suggests a possible economic function, a view strengthened by evidence from new buildings excavated between March and May 2006.

The western Level 20 building The second Level 20 building (Figure 4, rooms 7, 8 and westwards) was built on a smaller and apparently more domestic scale than its neighbour to the east, but revealed a remarkable intensity and variability of craft activity. The rooms contained large numbers of basalt pounders and grinding stones, beautifully made stone and bone , many clay spindle whorls, carefully polished stone palettes, delicate blades, neatly ground obsidian discs, large quantities of mother-of-pearl inlay cut from local mollusc shells, together with extensive evidence for flint-working including an unusually long brown flint blade (Figure 5).

1 Conventional periods cited in this report are ENU, Early Northern Uruk (LC2) c. 4400-3900 BC, and MNU, Middle Northern Uruk (LC3) c. 3900-3600 BC.

590 rudoti re ofr epyhloe rnigvse;tebs a also had base been the had vessel; which drinking of interior deeply-hollowed the a core, form obsidian to large order a from in made out was ground itself region. of Khabur cup the benefit in The the evidence no without yet the and as of distances, is most there considerable molluscs latter, which from the river for transport brought of of exception quantities been the were had With found materials cut. Also raw were site. inlays importance the mother-of-pearl the at which emphasise from levels presumably fourth-millennium faunal and later / in wool of also of percentage but high There here the 1kg. and only Much under these not objects. just whorls; remains weighing spindle various stone clay piece other of and large deposits and single serpentine large a celts were including , polished present, jasper, also beads, was of (including bitumen manufacture raw stones the coloured for of used d ) variety both great with together a example, also for obsidian, moulded and levels. the flint ENU unlike raw bowl, of mass-produced of characteristic type of pots’ suggestive new marks a flower craftsman’s incised and ‘wide with 7) new bowls (Figure the small pictographs Among bowls, Uruk. later represent open Northern to large appears Middle very 19 and were Level Northern of types Early pottery between the and transitional Thus 1950) Brak. phase (Tobler Tell Gawra a at Tepe earlier from and well-known 20-22 forms repertoire other Levels (LC2) while TW types ENU (LC3) the MNU of to versions closer early were both included with pottery described. the identified, that were just fact the floors building distinct and 20 Three walls mud-brick ‘industrial’. Level red much undoubtedly massive western were had the 6), that (Figure ovens overlay 2006 many in buildings discovered building, two 19 18, Level The and 19 Levels In 19) Level (TW building’ libn to ‘red tell The high the with of together area itself, unexcavated entrance the the beneath gate; unfortunately north lie south. the the building, of the direction ran of street the rest sherd-paved in the A north. with side the western to furnished area its working also along open possibly were impressions, a ‘industrial’ which with an clay of associated of is building building impression number overall The large the locking. ‘official’ the indicating of was sealings interest door rooms including especial Of the bins. and within basins lay plastered ovens large Several osmto,ivlig nteoehn,uiu n ihyvsbeatfcssc sthe as mass- such of the artefacts and practices visible placed vessel highly in and this was differentiation unique between itself a hand, contrast one suggests vessel stark the levels the The on these before involving, found. throughout consumption, removed was found within been it something bowls which presumably added, had produced material, in bitumen this other the bin of since some the within covering of The , in insertion photograph. narrow both as the the a bitumen, such for in and groove visible valuable by neat ground as could a together vessel slightly obsidian was the been held which of the had parts were which two rim pieces in the upper encasing stone depression and cup-like two base hollowed smooth The a inserted. provide be to hollowed been h otetariayfidwsauiu,osda n ht abe‘hlc’(iue8). (Figure ‘chalice’ marble white and obsidian unique, a was find extraordinary most The beautiful very of piles great materials, raw of quantities large very of consisted finds Other nsitu in aeil ugsigarltvl ogpro fue fpriua neetwas interest particular Of use. of period long relatively a suggesting material, onOates Joan 591 tal. et btg n nl okdpieces, worked finely and ebitage ´

Research Early Mesopotamian urbanism: a new view from the north

Figure 5. Objects from the new Level 20 ‘industrial’ building (Area TW, western part of trench). Left to right: three mother-of-pearl inlays cut from local mollusc shells; three ground obsidian discs; two obsidian blades. Below: an unusually long, brown flint blade (length 26cm).

Figure 6. TW Level 19 ‘red libn [mud-brick] industrial building’, view from the east (c. 4000 BC).

592 iue7 ml ol rmLvl1 ulig ubrof number a ‘pictographs’. building, similar 19 bore Level which from bowls Small 7. Figure tBa h aoiyo elnsfo h eetecvtosba igesapseal stamp single bear excavations recent the from sealings production. of centralised more majority Brak’s the to Brak at opposed while At as residence-based Brak, contrasting, 2002) at suggests authority evidence (Rothman glyptic of ‘cottage-industries’ Gawra, hierarchy of complex site 1ha a (e.g. contemporary, De suggests the south evidence the the and in millennium unrepresented fifth sites, & northern Gawra; (Akkermans on BC practice Tepe 7000 well-developed as a early become as had Ferioli Mesopotamia also northern and 1997; central Duistermaat in origins its had ( script pictographic the and tablets’ in capture, south their organise , to a able prerogative. seal himself royal being ruler a strictly in the of a is periods presence only a than later Not the of greater 10). is (Figure behalf but net context on speaking, a this or metaphorically in in symbol caught lion by lion significant a controlled unusual, a more periods, depicting was indeed even later impression building Perhaps in beautiful, the certainly, official. a that and senior of seals suggesting is very early 9), building ‘importance’ on (Figure same of found ‘kingship’ the rarely concept of motif in The a presence suggested). sealing, the stamp been by recently also has implied as ’, ‘warring not fatp htapast rcd h oesyie itgah fWra(ae 2005: (Oates Warka of pictographs stylised the more ‘dockets’ in the pictographic still precede small persists to two that are appears Brak 16). practice Figure that at a type context official, is NMU a need of official an of the from responsible types suggests Interestingly, Also one today. different complexity. sealing than East but organisational Near double more sealings equal substantial of Such of two for signatures 10). instances or evidence for two (Figure administration case large least seal of either is at levels in one fragment also distinct surviving than are two the more There if either of found). seal impressions same when the broken bearing of always impressions are 3 (they or 2 often impressions, h s fsast inf wesi rcnrlwsi ae eid ao ae of facet major a periods later in was control or ownership signify to seals of use The eooainamnsrto,apaiga rkhn nhn ih‘numerical with hand in hand Uruk at appearing administration, Mesopotamian imneei ot-atr uky sn19) yteedo the of end the By 1994). Esin Turkey, south-eastern in girmentepe ˇ tal et c 94 ae 96 n yteLt Uadperiod ‘Ubaid Late the by and 1996) Oates 1994; . 40B) e hsipratamnsrtv practice administrative important this Yet BC). 3400 . onOates Joan 593 elns(hs sigbles,a es,were least, such at bullets’, for ‘sling material (these raw sealings as certainly container almost perishable other or sack a stored in the been there having in room, found NE the was of bullets’ corner ‘sling 50 pile including A over 10. of and sealings, 9 Figures in large illustrated stamp those a of was rooms collection workshop these from (Wengrow 2002). stratification a social only increasing suggest population, to great the of proportion exclusive small mass- a standards undecorated other, aesthetic involving differences, crude, Such the types. produced of on number and, chalice tal. et mn h otitrsigfinds interesting most the Among

Research Early Mesopotamian urbanism: a new view from the north

Figure 9. Lion sealing from ‘red libn industrial building’ (TW Level 19).

Figure 8. Obsidian and white marble chalice, height = 16cm (from Level 19 building, c.4000BC). Figure 10. Large jar sealing, Level 19 building, bearing the impressions of two different ‘lion seals’, one of lions tete-ˆ beche,ˆ the other, lozenge-shaped, depicting a lion killing a small mammal.

The ‘feasting hall’, Level 18

Overlying these buildings, in Level 18a, was another unique building of early MNU attribution, a formal tripartite structure with niched decoration of a type often associated with ‘ritual’ buildings (Figure 11; see Emberling & McDonald 2003; Oates 2005: 18-21). Despite its apparently ‘ritual’ plan, this building was clearly not a temple, at least not in the usual sense of the word. Its northern courtyard contained a number of ovens, rebuilt or

594 rgiln flreqatte fma,sre,i ol per ntems-rdcdplates baking mass-produced 19, the the Level on indicate appear, of remains would those faunal it The served, to meat, scale. contrast of large quantities in a large but, on of food grilling large, or of were cooking These the use. for intended long its BC). throughout millennium fourth replaced (early hall’ ‘feasting 18 Level TW of Plan 11. Figure onOates Joan 595 tal. et

Research Early Mesopotamian urbanism: a new view from the north which formed a large portion of the surviving pottery – perhaps a pre-echo of the throwaway ‘paper plate’ (Oates & Oates 1993: Figure 54: 66 & description; Weber 2003). Entered from a later version of the sherd-paved street, it remains unclear whether the building was designed as a form of ‘feasting hall’ (see Helwing 2003) or whether its purpose was to serve some nearby formal institution. Its association with the north gate also suggests the possibility of a guesthouse or ‘travellers rest’. Such a hall hints at the ways in which the provisioning of people had gone beyond that of a single household, since its large ovens and ubiquitous mass-produced plates suggest patterns of consumption well beyond that of familial households. Also relevant to levels of ‘organisation’ are the often moulded, mass-produced bowls already referred to, predecessors of the well-known bevelled-rim ‘ration bowls’ of the Late Uruk period. For the moment at least, evidence for the earlier forms comes, again, largely from the north, and is suggestive of the large units of labour that would have been required not only for on-site production and the construction of the monumental buildings themselves, but also the cultivation of sufficient land to have fed the increasing number of non-agricultural administrators and craftsmen. Monumental buildings also require very large amounts of straw and water for the enormous quantities of mud-brick and plaster necessary for their construction (D. Oates 1990: 389-90). Certainly the large fifth-millennium buildings for which we have evidence at Brak would have required considerable investment of time, materials and labour not only for their construction but for their operation and maintenance. It has been suggested that the very large number inscribed on a Brak ‘numerical tablet’ of clear NMU date (perhaps to be read ‘3600’, Oates 2002: Figure 6), reflects the keeping of records for just such labour requirements. Certainly the control of manpower was a major preoccupation of the earliest written texts. In Area CH, some 300m south of TW, a sequence of monumental structures has also been identified, dating from at least as early as the end of the ‘ (c.4400BC). Indeed a major ‘boundary wall’, which in the third millennium marked the eastern limit of the Naram- ‘Palace’ (c. 2250 BC, see D. Oates et al. 2001: Figure 26), had remained in approximately the same position from at least as early as the fifth millennium. Such evidence suggests that the area beneath the ‘Palace’, situated between this boundary wall and the western limits of the much earlier Eye Temple, had persisted as ‘monumental’ or even ‘sacred’ space for over two millennia. The Eye Temple itself, excavated (and mis-dated) by Mallowan in the 1930s (Mallowan 1947), adds significantly to the Area TW evidence for early indigenous complexity and ‘monumentality’ at Brak (Oates & Oates 2002). The foundations of an early-fourth-millennium version of this structure are the source of the thousands of small ‘eye idols’ that give this building its name, together with large numbers of stone stamp amulets and early ; examples of the amulets and eye idols have now been found at Tell Hamoukar, an important late-fifth/fourth-millennium site to the east of Brak (Reichel 2002). The evidence for social and economic complexity from Areas TW,CH and the Eye Temple are far from isolated phenomena at Brak. In relatively restricted soundings on the north-west flank of the site, for example, Roger Matthews (2003: Figure 3.9) identified in 1996 an impressive mud-brick wall some 2m thick, dated to the late fifth millennium ENU phase (Area HS). This was, if not a city wall per se, at the least a wall defining some large compound.

596 nasalrs ot-eto h anmudadas otesuhes.I remains It south-east. the to also and mound main the particular in southern of cluster by south-west but colonised town rise been lower small have the around to a density appear on low settlements in northern found are other Mesopotamians, of number a and by covered now from is mound, outwash area eroded high this with gully. the together but central town Brak’s Temple, of lower Eye third-millennium south the the Again, the of to remains 130ha. to north substantial over immediately extended of settled probably cluster area and outer example, settled The larger these for total conservative. mound, form minimum are high a to figures the creating together outer, these 100ha, to the grown least time at have In covered same settlement. to zones the of appear At areas settlement intensified. continuous town ENU more outer of the clusters in isolated occupation while pottery settled distinctive fully 182). very production 2004: This Oates is Gawra. & and there (Oates Turkey Brak which south-eastern both in for at also wasters ceramic, some occurs kiln ‘elite’ served type of an have form an to of the over seem in presence pottery evidence which the identical vessels ‘channel-rim’ and virtually includes function of This ‘distilling’ production 300km. the some in of (Ur linked area origins closely urban also of are 1991), model Hamoukar (Dewar Uruk-centric contemporaneous current been the have of even to the all extensive with unlikely spatially Hamoukar placed are these of be they suburbs must outer tell. Although the Brak high 2002). al-Fakhar, villages, Khirbet (Ur the at small on area are settled occupation least date 300ha of low-density, at this larger, mound. estimate occupied of settlement high conservative settlements ENU the our most total, from given While In 300m more, 5ha. least probably to at 1.5 and showed from all 50ha survey covered town, suburban clusters outer the seven the while of in in 30ha, Each settlement of (illustrated minimum of by periods revealed a clusters MNU as covers isolated itself, now, and tell to the ENU up on the excavations settlement ENU the of late-fifth-millennium general, sherds of in area of The urbanism recent 2). distributions Figure Eastern to town Near relevance outer early particular the Of and are periods. Brak, zone Islamic at extensive the settlement 300ha. excavation of an through fourth/fifth-millennium under patterns millennium area, shifting just ‘suburban’ revealed sixth has covering the its area from settlement this lies in ploughed itself collection sherd heavily tell systematic Intensive generally high millennia and the low-mounded fourth of of limits early outer and the fifth Beyond late the in Brak Suburban ilnimB otenMsptma eetrsac tBa n te north other and fourth- Brak in at originated research have to Recent thought Mesopotamia. widely southern are societies BC urban millennium earliest world’s The Conclusions were settlements outer Assyrian populations. southern Old these indigenous the intrusive that large to among proposed similar and tentatively type a local be of might the colonies merchants’ it between but settlement, contemporaneity of certain areas establish to difficult hrso h aeUu hs 30-20B) h eidwe h ihtl tBrak at tell high the when period the BC), (3400-3200 phase Uruk Late the of Sherds ( period MNU subsequent the In northern eooainstlmnsaenwfrigareassessment a forcing now are settlements Mesopotamian c 9030 C h ihmuda elBa remained Brak Tell at mound high the BC) 3900-3600 . onOates Joan 597 tal. et k tal. et arum ¯ npes.,Gwaand Gawra Brak, press). in hc eeas established also were which

Research Early Mesopotamian urbanism: a new view from the north

Mesopotamian sites, however, reveals a level of nascent social and economic complexity together with proto-urban growth up to 1000 years earlier. For the moment, Brak remains unique in three respects – the size of its fifth- and early-fourth-millennia areas of settlement, the range and types of contemporary ‘public’ buildings and the accompanying, long sequence of well-stratified archaeological materials from this most crucial period in the growth of complex urban society, a phase that has recently been referred to as already representing a ‘state-level’ (Gibson & Maktash 2000: 477). As yet, no other large site, indeed no other Near Eastern site, has yielded comparable evidence, though such may ultimately be found at Hamoukar where the apparent spatial extent of the outer ENU settlement covers an area even larger than that at Brak. This is not to argue that such developments will never be discovered in southern Mesopotamia, only that there exists a wider picture, far more complex than had previously been realised. The discovery in 2006 of large workshops with an extraordinary array of non-local raw materials promises further evidence of complexity in earlier levels below. Certainly we have yet to reach the earliest phases of such social and economic innovation. Indeed current evidence suggests that the initial stimulus may originate in the underlying ‘Ubaid period, itself currently subject to ‘north-south’ debate and, to judge from Area CH and out-of context evidence, undoubtedly well-represented at Brak. The 2006 results also help to make sense of the unparalleled grave goods from an approximately contemporary cemetery at the very small site of Tepe Gawra in north-eastern Iraq, which included gold studs and rosettes, an electrum wolf’s head and complete vessels of ground obsidian (Tobler 1950), symbols of an elite that up to now has been ill-represented in the archaeological record. Unfortunately, the Brak cemetery continues to elude us. Indeed the negative evidence of the intensive ‘suburban’ survey suggests that it may lie well beyond the settlement boundary. In of the development of complex society in southern Mesopotamia Gil Stein (1994) emphasised the importance of small scale, -based ‘Ubaid polities using ‘inclusive ideologies emphasizing group membership through a strategy of ritually mobilized staple finance’. This is in contrast with areas where ‘wealth distribution’,notsofarvisibleinthesouthernevidence, played a crucial role. Our work at Brak suggests a complex combination of both strategies. The location of Brak within later ’s most dependable ‘’ and a wool-rich steppe, together with the 2006 evidence for accumulation of ‘status raw materials’ and the unique ‘chalice’ itself, suggest that developing complexity in the north involved both ‘staple finance’, though here not apparently ‘ritually’ mobilised, together with a considerable degree of ‘wealth distribution’ seen in the elite grave goods at Gawra and in their ‘institutional’ manufacture at Brak. We must admit to some difficulty in defining more precisely our use of the term ‘urban’. Certainly definitions of urbanism that remain applicable cross-culturally present problems. Childe’s 1950s list remains influential despite the many cases which seem differentiated in some way from those around them but which fail in some or all of Childe’s categories. Recent work seems to accept urbanism as a more fuzzy concept, characterised by a cluster of variables that are best considered along of degree rather than simple presence or absence. What is clear from our evidence is the differentiation of a site like Brak from those in its hinterland (now subject to a wider survey, Oates 2005: 28-35). Moreover, in terms of a significant number of Brak’s residents, their ‘activities, roles, practices, experiences, identities and attitudes’

598 ea,R.E. Dewar, G.L. Cowgill, McC. R. Adams, meln,G. Emberling, P. Akkermans, –2005.TheSumerianTakeoff. G. Algaze, References (2004, Quntar our Al McMahon. Helen Skuldbøl; Augusta Salam with Dr Tim 1998-2002 Director is (2000), of Field Director Yusuf was Field Emberling current assistance Hussein Geoff office; the the Dr 2000-2004; Hasake 2001-2), 2005). the McDonald with the 2002-3, (1992-3, (survey of while Ganem Karsgaard, Director Murad Eyad survey’ now and Philip Ibrahim (1998), area 2006) and Baghdo (1991), ‘sustaining Ur Messih el Hassan the Jason Abd Dr Heitham for include by Representatives Director out Syrian Quntar Field helpful Al carried very as Salam was (2002-06), acted Karsgaard survey’ 1991. has Philip since (2001), Wright ‘suburban excavations Thomas Henry TW Emberling Area (2000), Professsor Geoff Dr Eames the and (2004-06); Sam Way Twigs for Dr Dr responsible (1991-93; late from Lupton been the Oates Alan has Dr David (1997), for been Professor who have have late Institute ) supervisors the that site McDonald (2004- of TW institutions direction Oates Contributing the overall Joan various the Iraq, Dr under the in was and Brak thank 1976-2004, Archaeology Tell at to of Research work for Field and School Committee Exploration. Geographic encouragement National project, and British the and help, Brak Academy the British Museums, friendly the the here: Cambridge, and Research, their of Archaeological reported Antiquities for years work of Al-Maqdissi, many the Directorate-General Michel the supported the and through in Jamous support colleagues Bassam and our Drs thank currently to , especially like would We Acknowledgements or south East. the northern Near in the ‘backward’ appeared in developments for elsewhere such unsuspected before previously apparently scale and spatial, Mesopotamia, a growth demographic, attaining urban was also Brak of emerging presumably excavations, the trajectories the alongside and by the that revealed show Certainly complexity town social outer meaning. the of any in manifestations collection have surface Brak to intensive qualifies the is on surely based term extent, that spatial great if ‘urban’ its region. least, as the not in and, craft sites non-residential practices smaller buildings, administrative other, specialised activity, and of monumental those for here from presented evidence significantly The differ do 526) 2004: (Cowgill eiwo Anthropology of Review Perspectives. Archaeological Urbanism: Sabi Neolithic Syria. late Abyad, from sealings the nomads: and tTl rk 2001-2002. Brak, Tell at Antiquity American Analyses. Settlement-Pattern into Span Occupation socdyn/sdeas/vol1/iss1/art2 http://repositories.cdlib.org/imbs/ 2. Science article Related and Anthropological of eJournal Anthropology Current Advantage. Mesopotamian The : Southwestern Press. Chicago of University 01 nta oilCmlxt in Complexity Social Initial 2001. 91 noprtn aito in Variation Incorporating 1991. 04 rgn n eeomn of Development and Origins 2004. & & Pal 1981. .Duistermaat K. .McDonald. H. ´ eorient 6 604-20. 56: erln fCities of Heartland 2 199-215. 42: 3 525-49. 33: 22 17-44. 22/2: Iraq tutr n Dynamics: and Structure 5 1-75. 65: 03 Excavations 2003. .1997.Ofstorage .Chicago: Annual onOates Joan 1, 599 ewn,B. Helwing, Al-Quntar, S. Reichel, C. Al-Azm, A. M., Gibson, isn M. Gibson, M. Frangipane, U. Esin, eil,P,E inr,GG Fissore G.G. Fiandra, E. P., Feriolo, tal. et rhsoi etr Asia. Western Prehistoric Excavation. of Seasons Three Aziz G. Hartnell Tenney, T. J. Colantoni, Altaweel, C. M. Coyle, Hritz, C. C. Khalidi, L. Franke, J. 477-78. Syria. north-eastern in city early at e(M:Sho fAeia eerhPress. Research American of School (NM): Fe Santa Rothman M. (ed.) in Region, Mesopotamian of Greater Areas the among Interactions Systemic of Climax the as ‘Expansion’ Uruk Mesopotamia: Greater Scriptorium. Rome: Frangipane M. (ed.) Writing Frangipane M. & Fissore G.G. De of Sealings 94 h ucinlEiec fSasand Seals of Evidence Functional The 1994. rkMsptmaadisNeighbors its and Mesopotamia Uruk :59-81.Turin:Scriptorium. & 03 essa oilDnmcin Dynamic Social a as Feasts 2003. .Maktash. M. 01 etaiainPoessin Processes Centralization 2001. .2002.Hamoukar:ASummaryof imnee nP eil,E Fiandra, E. Ferioli, P. in girmentepe, ˇ (ed.) 1994. Pal 00 elHamoukar: Tell 2000. rhvsBfr Writing. Before Archives ´ eorient Akkadica Antiquity 92 63-86. 29/2: & rhvsBefore Archives 2:11-34. 123: :307-47. 74: &

Research Early Mesopotamian urbanism: a new view from the north

Hijara, I. 1973. Excavations at Tell Qalinj Agha Reichel, C. 2002. Administrative Complexity in Syria (). Sumer 29: 13-34 ( section). in the 4th Millennium BC – the Seals and Sealings Mallowan, M.E.L. 1947. Excavations at Brak and from Tell Hamoukar. Akkadica 123: 35-56. . Iraq 9: 1-259. Rothman, M. 2002. Tepe Gawra: The Evolution of a Matthews, R.2003.Excavations at Tell Brak, Vol 4: Small Prehistoric Center in Northern Iraq. Exploring an Upper Mesopotamian regional centre, Philadelphia: University Museum Monographs 112. 1994-96 (McDonald Institute Monograph). Sherratt, A. 1997. Climatic cycles and behavioural London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq & revolutions. Antiquity 71: 271-87. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Stein, G. 1994. , Ritual and Power in Ubaid Research. Mesopotamia, in G. Stein & M. Rothman (ed.) Nissen, H.J. 1988. The Early History of the Ancient Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. (Monographs in World Archaeology 18): 35-45. – 2002. Uruk: key site of the period and key site of the Madison (WI): Press. problem, in J.N. Postgate (ed.) Artefacts of – 2002. From Passive Periphery to Active Agents: Complexity, Tracking Uruk in the Near East:1-16. Emerging Perspectives in the Archaeology of London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq. Interregional Interaction. American Anthropology Oates, D.1990.Innovationsinmud-brick:decorative 104: 903-16. and structural techniques in ancient Mesopotamia. Stone, E.C. & P. Zimansky.2005.TheTapestryof World Archaeology 21: 388-406. Power in a Mesopotamian City. Scientific American Oates, D. & J. Oates. 1993. Excavations at Tell Brak 15,1: 62-7. 1992-93. Iraq 55: 155-99. Tobler, A.J. 1950. Excavations at Tepe Gawra 2. –1997. An Open Gate: Cities of the fourth Millennium Philadelphia (PA): University of Pennsylvania BC (Tell Brak 1997). Cambridge Archaeological Museum of Archaeology and Anthropology. Journal 7: 287-97. Ur, J.A.2002.SettlementandLandscapeinNorthern Oates, D., J. Oates & H. McDonald. 2001. Mesopotamia: The Tell Hamoukar Survey Excavations at Tell Brak, Vol. 2: Nagar in the third 2000-2001. Akkadica 123: 57-88. millennium BC (McDonald Institute Monograph). Ur, J.A., P. Karsgaard & J. Oates. In press. Earliest London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq & Urban Development in the Near East. Science. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Weber, J. 2003. Animal processing in the fourth Research. millennium BC at Tell Brak: preliminary results. Oates, J. 1996. A Prehistoric Communication Iraq 65: 22-6. Revolution. Cambridge Archaeological Journal 6: Wengrow, D. 2002. The Evolution of Simplicity: 165-73. Aesthetic Labour and Social Change in the – 2002. Tell Brak: The 4th Millennium Sequence at Neolithic Near East. World Archaeology 33: Brak and its Implications, in J.N. Postgate (ed.) 168-88. Artefacts of Complexity, Tracking Uruk in the Near Wilkinson, T.J.1994.TheStructureandDynamicsof East:111-22.London:BritishSchoolof Dry-Farming States in . Archaeology in Iraq. Current Anthropology 35: 483-505. – 2005. Archaeology in Mesopotamia: Digging Deeper Wilkinson, T.J., C.A.I. French, W. Matthews & J. at Tell Brak. Proceedings of the British Academy 131: Oates. 2001. Geoarchaeology, Landscape and the 1-39. Region, in D. Oates, J. Oates & H. McDonald Oates, J. & D. Oates. 2002. The Reattribution of (ed.) Excavations at Tell Brak, Vol. 2: Nagar in the Middle Uruk Materials at Brak, in E. Ehrenberg third millennium BC (McDonald Institute (ed.) Leaving No Stones Unturned: essays on the Monograph): 1-14. London: British School of and in honor of Donald P. Archaeology in Iraq & Cambridge: McDonald Hansen:145-54.WinonaLake(IN):Eisenbrauns. Institute for Archaeological Research. Oates, J. & D. Oates. 2004. The Role of Exchange Yoffee, N. (Baines, J. & N. Yoffee). 1998. Order, Relations in the Origins of Mesopotamian Legitimacy and Wealth in and , in J. Cherry, C. Scarre & S. Shennan Mesopotamia, in G.M. Feinman & J. Marcus (ed.) (ed.) Explaining Social Change: studies in honour of Archaic States:199-260.SantaFe(NM):Schoolof Colin Renfrew:177-92.Cambridge:McDonald American Research Press. Institute for Archaeological Research.

600

Top View