sign in sign up
<<
Home , Aratta, Etched carnelian beads, Hajji Firuz Tepe, Imi, Jarmo, Shadoof

Our Past Matters: Materials and Industries of the Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence by P. R. S. Moorey Review by: C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol. 117, No. 1 (Jan. - Mar., 1997), pp. 87-102 Published by: American Oriental Society Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/605624 . Accessed: 15/12/2011 01:40

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

American Oriental Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Journal of the American Oriental Society.

http://www.jstor.org REVIEW ARTICLES

OUR PAST MATTERS: MATERIALS AND INDUSTRIES OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST* C. C. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY HARVARDUNIVERSITY

The volumeunder review contains a muchneeded synthesis of the majorindustries and technolo- gies of the ancientNear East. Although the geographicalemphasis is on ,the author's rangeextends from to the IndusValley and from central to the ArabianPeninsula. The chronologicalfocus is on the Bronzeand Iron Ages withinthe aboveregions. The book is an indis- pensableguide to the archaeologicaldiscoveries, physico-chemical analysis, and textualreferences pertainingto the craftsof ,metal, glass, faience,and stone working, and to the role of bricks, mortar,and plaster in architecturalconstruction.

The created world is but a small parenthesis in eternity. Sir ThomasBrowne

ARCHAEOLOGISTSAREPREDISPOSED TODIGGING things ivory, and so on analyzed, as well as botanical and zoo- up. In the early days of the discipline, success was reck- logical remains. oned by how many excavated objects were worthy of Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The museum display. When Near Eastern archaeology was Archaeological Evidence is an indispensable guide to the young, written texts and artifacts pertaining to the technological skills and industrialproducts of the ancient were given a privileged place. At a later time objects Near East. It is a work of exceptional breadth and ex- were deemed especially significant if they contributed emplary scholarship. Although the technological base of to the reconstructionof regional chronologies, diffusion- the majority of materials discussed is firmly embedded ary concerns, and typological classification. Later still in Mesopotamia, the author frequently discusses materi- the artifact was to play its fundamental role in the re- als recovered from Palestine, Anatolia, the Iranian Pla- construction of cultural history and the search for cul- teau, central Asia, and the Indus Valley. This book, like tural processes. Only in recent years have archaeologists Alfred Lucas' Ancient Egyptian Materials and Indus- turned to material scientists in an effort to understand tries (1962), will long endure as a fundamentalreference and reconstructthe propertiesand that form work for the study of ancient Near Eastern technologies. the foundation of the object the archaeologist digs up. It The richness of detail and comprehensive coverage is possible to point out, as Roger Moorey does in the call for a brief review of what is included within each book under review that Sir Austen Henry Layard in the chapter.I shall then comment upon various aspects that I mid-nineteenth century had already analyzed the glazed found of particular interest ("discussion"). It is impor- bricks he had recovered from Borsippa. Such examples tant to note that within each chapter, when detailing a remained rare, even idiosyncratic, undertakingsuntil the specific material and/or technology, the author covers a middle of this century.It is only in the past three decades chronological range that traces the first (prehistoric) use that a significant number of archaeologists have made a of the material and/or technology through to its later systematic effort to have their metals, ceramics, glass, methods of manufacturein the Late Iron Age.

A brief introduction reviews evidence for * This is a review article of: Ancient Materi- (pp. 1-19) Mesopotamian "the foundations."In this the author als and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence: By P. R. S. agricultural chapter touches the evidence for the earliest uses of MOOREY.Oxford: CLARENDONPRESS, 1994. Pp. xxiii + 414, upon irriga- 8 plates.$98, CDN$162.50. tion, the plough and the seeder, the use of the shadoof

87 88 Journal of the American Oriental Society 117.1 (1997)

and the digging of wells, and the importance of storage while the immediate periphery remained illiterate for facilities. In discussing Mesopotamia's need to procure millennia. And etched beads appearto have re- distant resources, the author outlines his theoretical po- mained a product of only the craftspeople of the Harap- sition, one which recurs throughoutthe work: pan civilization. Additional examples for the restricted geographicaldistribution of specific materials,their tech- In the ancientNear East, differences in technologywere niques of production, and their slow diffusion could be relativelysmall and the problems of long-distancetravel cited (Hodges 1964). Indeed technologies such as the unaidedby waterwere so greatthat significant economic production of carbon steel in Luristantoward the end of differentiationand exploitation were relatively rare. But, the second millennium appear to have been invented whenthey existed, their importance was proportionately and then become extinct (Smith 1971). That some tech- greater.The contrast between Mesopotamia and her high- nologies may have been held as the secret knowledge of land neighborswas not just one of unequalaccess to their producers is indicated by a colophon found in raw materials,but also of unequaldegrees of socio- second-millennium texts: "Let the initiate show the - economicorganization and complexity. The urban crafts tiate, the non-initiate shall not see it. It belongs to the ta- andindustries of Mesopotamiawere as dependenton the booed things of the greatgods" (cited in Saggs 1962:471). highly organizedlabor of those who producedbut did In Mesopotamia occupational skill in the craft, mili- notparticipate in theconsumption of whatwas tradedas tary, and scribal (administrative) spheres offered the in- theywere on sustainedaccess to foreignmaterials. (p. 5) dividual social mobility. It is not unlikely that closely held technological knowledge would enhance one's po- In considering productionand consumption, within the sition, if not one's wealth. Clearly "technology," like its context of exchange, the author correctly considers re- parent the "economy," is embedded in society; techno- ciprocal, redistributive,and commercial structuresas co- logical systems and economic structuresare given defini- existing systems within the Mesopotamian economy; to tion by the specific structuralcharacteristics of the social which might be added tribute and warfare. Fundamental order.Nevertheless, the origins of a technology may dif- to a consideration of Mesopotamian resource procure- fer fundamentally from its later practice. Summarizing ment is an understandingof land and water routes as well the views of Sasson (1968), discussing the "later prac- as the means of transportand the role of nomads. The au- tice" of the artisansof Mari, Moorey writes: "They were thor discusses each of these in turn, including the role assessed for their technical rather than their imagina- played by the camel and the horse. tive skills .... Their work was not assessed for its artistic The introduction concludes with a consideration of worth, but for the quality of its production, for its utili- "Crafts and Industry: Methods of Study." One of the tarian and functional adequacy or inadequacy" (p. 15). great strengths of this volume is the interplay of ar- Yet, these conditions were in direct contrast to the man- chaeological and textual data. Where relevant the author ner in which the crafts in Mesopotamia originated. Al- mines a wealth of textual information to shed light on though Moorey does not consider the influential views of specific aspects of distinctive technologies, geography, the late Cyril Smith (1981), his own beliefs appear to be and social institutions. He buttresses the archaeological in accord with them. Smith believed that technologies and textual evidence for reconstructingpast technologies were born from "play";artisans, initially attractedby the by bringing to bear ethnographic analogies, experimen- varying propertiesof materials, began to transformthem tal archaeology, and scientific techniques for identifying in their desire to produce "aesthetic"items. Thus, behind and fingerprintingmaterials in order to determine their the products of an evolved material science, e.g., metal- point of origin and/or manner of manufacture. lurgy, rests the initial motivation of an artisan attempt- Discussion. Moorey would appearto agree with Kohl's ing to manipulate a material (stone/ore) in an effort to recent statement (1989: 234) that "Bronze Age technol- transform it into an aesthetic ARTifact: "The message ogies could not be monopolized but quickly diffused is simple: time and again very subtle properties of mat- from one area to another or, in this sense, were transfer- ter have been discovered and exploited by artists and able." Kohl notes that the speed of diffusion is a relative artisans long before rigorous science even took notice phenomenon-but how relative? We note that the pro- of them, much less explained them" (Smith 1980: 23). duction of metal items (copper) began by 7000 B.c. but took about three millennia to diffuse throughoutthe Near Chapterone addresses "The Stoneworking Crafts:The East. Horses were domesticated in the Ukraine by the Common Stones" (pp. 21-74). These include sedimentary middle of the fifth millennium but only made their ap- rocks (limestone, marble, ),metamorphic deriv- pearance in Mesopotamia in the mid-third millennium. atives (dolomite, sandstone, steatite, chlorite, serpentine), Writing existed within "cores" of cultural complexity, and igneous rocks (basalt,diorite, dolerite, granite;i.e., the LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY:Materials and Industries of the Ancient Near East 89 hard dark stones). This chapterincludes an extensive dis- colored stones predominated in manufactured statuary, cussion of sculptureand sculptors: including an historical wall plaques, rareroyal monuments,maceheads, and even survey of the types of stone used for statuary,workplaces, cylinder seals. Toward the end of Early Dynastic II and quarries,and the methods employed in the production of throughout the Akkadian and III periods, there is a sculpture; stone vessels: their methods of manufacture significant shift to dark stones-diorites, gabbros, and and types of stone utilized; tools and weapons: including dolerites-that were used principally for the manufac- the flake-tooltradition, projectile points, hoes, an excellent ture of items for rulers and their high officials. These dark review of the productionand exchange, analyses of ob- stones, no doubt expressive of the elite status of their sidian, and a brief review of the polished stone production owners are believed to have derived from the Gulf, al- of celts, maceheads, mortars,weights, and so on. though it should be noted that they are also extensively Discussion. The chapters on "Stones and Stonework" documented in the MakkranRange of southeastern and "Stone Vessels" in Mesopotamia and the East by (Snead 1970). The earlier lighter stones came from the Timothy Potts (1994) offer, in combination with the two nearby chains of the . This recalls the relevant chapters in this volume, a state-of-the-artreview view of Mary Helms, whose important book (1988) on on the use of stone in Mesopotamia. Both books em- the ethnography of trade points out that there is a uni- phasize that the IV-III Period witnesses an unprece- versal attitude in which locally available products lack dented variety of stones entering Mesopotamiafor temple the prestige, mystery, and magic of items imported from use as vessels, statuary,and inlay. Precisely where these great distances. Thematic in Moorey's discussion is the stones come from remains unknown. At different times observation that archaeologists rarely offer precise min- northernMesopotamia and Anatolia, the IranianPlateau, eralogical descriptions of the stones they excavate. This the Gulf (Dilmun and Magan),and the distantIndus Valley obviously hinders identifications of provenience, while (Melubba) were centers from which southern Mesopo- the all-too-frequent casual guesses distort the picture. tamia obtained animal, vegetable, and mineral resources. Mineralogical analyses are the sine qua non for pro- Throughout the past three decades, important research viding both the identity and provenience of the object. has been devoted to identifying the cultural geography of Unfortunately, even when these are performed, confu- resource procurement;discussing the nature of the eco- sion abounds. No greater confusion exists than in the nomic structure and institutions involved in commerce; terminology of steatite, chlorite, and serpentine. Each is and relatingchanges in the geographyof resourceprocure- a complex silicate mineral, and each is distinguishable ment to the shifting socio-political conditions of core- under analysis. In mineralogical terms, Kohl (Kohl and peripheryrelations. In this regard the works of Ratnagar Harbottle 1979) has identified as chlorite the vessels (1981), Amiet (1986), D. Potts (1990), T. Potts (1994), and and seals produced and used at Yahya. For reasons left Moorey in this volume are of special significance. unspecified, Pierre Amiet (1980) has termed this iden- Although it is tempting to identify the colonies of the tification incorrect. He prefers the term serpentine to "Uruk Expansion" as the agents responsible for the in- chlorite. This incorrectsubstitution leads to confusion and creased shipment of exotic stones into southern Mesopo- distorted perceptions. As Moorey correctly notes (p. 75), tamia, the archaeological evidence remains ambiguous. serpentine is the dominant stone used in southern Meso- Nevertheless, there are some suggestive correlationssuch potamia for the production of seals in the Late Uruk and as the productionof Late Uruk cylinder seals from a ser- Akkadian periods. The source for the serpentine is be- pentine that virtually disappearsfrom seal productionfol- lieved to be (Collon 1982). It can be noted here lowing the collapse of the Uruk settlements along the that the presence of serpentine seals from Syrian sources Euphrates (Collon 1982). The increased use of stone in in the Late Uruk and Akkadian periods coincides with southern Mesopotamia appears to be directly linked to periods of Mesopotamian expansion along the Euphra- the increasing significance of the temple. An expansive tes into Syria. In post-Akkadianand Ur III times, serpen- variety of objects, from vessels to statuary and inlay, tine is replaced by chlorite for the production of seals. were producedfrom colored limestone, smoky quartz,ag- This suggests a shift from exploiting the Syrian serpen- ates, bituminous limestone, and , among other tine sources to utilizing the chlorite sources of eastern stones, and placed in temples as votive offerings. Temple Iran and the Gulf. The rather arbitrarydesignation by deposits comparable in richness to those of the Uruk do Amiet of the chlorite materials from Yahya and eastern not exist in the succeeding Early Dynastic Period and Iran as serpentine, despite the analyses, simply results in may skew our appreciation of the types of stone and lumping together the sources of Syria and eastern Iran products produced. as serpentine. This, in turn, precludes the recognition of The archaeological evidence suggests that, from the importantshifts in the procurementof differentresources Late Uruk to the end of the Early Dynastic Period, light- from different geographical regions. 90 Journal of the American Oriental Society 117.1 (1997)

Moorey writes that "decorated vessels in chlorite/ to explain the mechanism for the local distribution of steatite have been the subject of unusually concentrated chlorite at Yahya. I have recently addressed the implau- interest following excavations at Tepe Yahya, in south sibility of this perspective (Lamberg-Karlovsky 1993). central Iran, between 1968 and 1973 [should be The discussion pertaining to pocketbook-shaped stone 1975]..." (p. 47). In discussing decorated vessels in objects, referred to as "handled weights," is given ex- chlorite/steatite, the author follows Amiet (1986) both cellent treatment in the recent study of Muscarella in preferring the use of the phrase serie ancienne to (1993). Moorey mentions the existence of these "hand- "interculturalstyle" (Kohl 1974) and in believing that led weights" in Uzbekistan but, since they remained the vessels have a "peculiarly Iraniancharacter" (p. 47). largely unpublished, he can offer little specificity. In He writes that "these decorated vessels had an 'intercul- 1985 when Philip Kohl and I participated in the exca- tural'appeal, but the style in which they were carved has vations at Sarazm, in Tadjikistan,we noted the presence more specific origins" (p. 47). The "specific origins" for of over a dozen of these items of various size and differ- both Moorey and Amiet appear to be in southeastern ent stone. I know of no other site from which so many Iran. However, the analyses of chlorite/steatite under- have been recovered. The excavator, Abdula Isakov, taken by the Yahya Project (Kohl and Harbottle 1979) placed them within Period III, the late third millennium. indicate that there were several workshops producing This discussion of chlorite/steatite objects began by this commodity and not only in Iran. Analyses indi- noting Moorey's complaint that archaeologists fail to cate that the carved vessels recovered from the work- give precise mineralogical descriptions of stone objects. shops at Yahya and from Tarutin the come He wisely cautions the archaeologist against making fac- from distinctive sources. These sources differ again from ile and misleading identifications of minerals and ur- those of the carved vessels found in Mesopotamia, e.g., ges identifications by mineralogical analysis. Turning to or Mari. Furthermore,the first important typolo- other types of stone, at Yahya what the excavators invar- gical study of this style of carved vessels, unmentioned iably identified as "alabaster"turned out on analysis to by Moorey, was undertaken by Durrani (1964), who be calcite. When laboratoryanalyses are undertakenthe showed that specific iconographic features were charac- results can reach beyond the expected and even the com- teristic of distinctive geographic areas. The discovery of prehensible. In our excavations of the mound the workshops at Yahya have skewed the evidence and of Tepe Gaz Tavileh, undertakenby Martha Prickett on given birth to the view that the carved chlorite/steatite behalf of the Tepe Yahya Project (Prickett 1986), we re- vessels have a "peculiarly Iraniancharacter." It must be covered from a context dated to ca. 4800 B.c. a sizable noted that there are virtually no carved chlorite/steatite crystal. Dr. Carl Francis of the HarvardUniversity Geol- vessels at Shahr-i Sokhta, Hissar, Malyan, Tal-i Iblis, or ogy Museum identified the object by spectroscopy as the entirety of northwestor central Iran.The phrase serie danburite,an exceedingly rare colorless crystal (Francis ancienne has merit when dealing with chronological 1991). There are no known sources for danburite in the issues while "interculturalstyle" is useful when dealing Near East; for nearby sources one must travel to eastern with culture process. The fact remains that the analytical Siberia or perhaps Madagascar-certainly not to New programto fingerprintcarved chlorite vessels has shown York State, where deposits are also known. that this distinctive type of vessel was both produced The authorconcludes this chapterwith an excellent dis- and consumed within different cultures extending from cussion of obsidian. He reviews the different models of- Yahya in southeasternIran to Mari in northernSyria and fered for its trade and exchange and summarizes the from Gonur in Turkmenistanto Tarut in the Gulf. Pin- results of the different analytical studies that have been pointing southeasternIran as the region of "specific ori- undertaken.The rather cursory treatment of stone tools gins" for this category of vessel simply overemphasizes such as arrowheads,blades, burins, and sickles, is not due the importance of the workshop at Yahya and overlooks to the author'sdisinterest but to the fact that archaeolo- the complexity of its production, consumption, and dis- gists working on Bronze Age sites in Mesopotamia rarely tribution in different regions. Moorey does not doubt give this category of artifact the attention it merits. Cer- that the production of chlorite at Yahya was meant for tainly there is not a single in-depth study of a Mesopota- distant markets, but he does not mention that Possehl mian stone tool-type that compares with Avi Gopher's (1986) has recently challenged this commonly accepted study of the arrowheadin the (Gopher 1994). view. Possehl takes the position that chlorite at Yahya was produced exclusively for local and/or regional con- Chapter two reviews "The Stone-working Crafts: sumption. In good anthropological fashion he invokes OrnamentalStones" (pp. 74-110). In this chapter, stones gift exchange and the "kula ring," the exchange of shell used for seals, beads, amulets, and pendants are dis- necklaces among the TrobriandIslanders of the Pacific, cussed. A historical survey of the use of ornamental LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY:Materials and Industries of the Ancient Near East 91 stones includes a study of amber (and other resins), ag- ported to Mesopotamia in a semi-processed state. It re- ate, alabaster, ammonite, anhydrite, aragonite, azurite, mained throughout the third millennium a highly prized basalt, beryl (aquamarine, emerald), calcite, cheroot, stone. Pettinato writes (1981: 186), that at , in Syria chalk, coral, corundum (emery), quartz, citroen, came- of the mid-third millennium, "the ratio between lapis lian, chalcedony (agates, jasper), cairngorm,bloodstone, lazuli and silver is 3.1 to 1." Yet this represents relative flint, onyx, ruby, sapphire, diamond, diorite, feldspar, popularity. And the popularity of lapis lazuli in Meso- garnet, granite, grindstones (nephrite, jadeite), gypsum, potamia, Syria, and central Asia contrasts with its rela- jet, lapis lazuli, limestone, malachite, marble, pearl, rock tive rarity on the . Even more surprising crystal, steatite, chlorite, serpentine, and turquoise. List- is the paucity of lapis lazuli recovered from sites of the ing the various types of stones discussed serves to in- mature Indus civilization. It is difficult to account for dicate the thoroughness of this study. The detail offered this asymmetry of distribution. How much is the result on each of the stones varies according to its popularity of distinctive patterns of cultural fashion, archaeologi- and importance to Mesopotamia. Thus, each of the en- cal methods of recovery, or our inability to understand tries pertaining to lapis lazuli, carnelian, and turquoise the mechanisms of trade and/or exchange? How do we merits several pages, while the entry concerning the account for the fact that two contemporary production diamond simply notes that drillbits of diamond were first sites, one involved in the manufactureof lapis and the used in the Sassanian period and procured from . other of chlorite vessels, each lacks the other's commod- This chapter concludes with a discussion of the manu- ity? There is virtually no chlorite at Shahr-i Sokhta and facturing techniques for the productionof cylinder seals no lapis at contemporaryTepe Yahya! and a brief review of bead productionin the Indus Valley While an asymmetry of trade characterizes the dis- and the presence of beads in Mesopotamia. tinctive nature of broad geographical regions, a sharing Discussion. In discussing the trade of lapis lazuli of technology unites distant places. Thus, microlithic Moorey writes: ".. . Lapis was travelling overland in the phthanite borers of identical type, used for the coring of third millennium B.C. through Iran [and] evidence for beads, have been recovered from Shahr-i Sokhta, Yahya, local use is instructive. The largest quantities may be ,Mohenjodaro, , ,Mundigak, and those from the virtually unpublished graves at Shahdad" Altyn Depe, and would doubtless be identified in Meso- (p. 89). But what is the actual "evidence for local use"? potamia if archaeologists excavating there would attend What strikes me, in fact, is the rarity of lapis lazuli on to their stone tool industries. the entire IranianPlateau. Shahr-i Sokhta and Hissar are With reference to lapis lazuli, Michele Casanova has almost alone in exhibiting both an abundance and a recently made the interesting observation that lapis pro- manufacture of lapis artifacts. Lapis is rare at Malyan, duction in central Asia utilized rudimentarytechniques although raw lumps are reported,and at Susa, and all but compared to Mesopotamia (Casanova 1994: 137-46). absent from Bampur, Yahya, Tali-i Iblis, Sialk, Tureng While much attentionis paid to the social role of the crafts Tepe, Shah Tepe, , and other sites. In fact, and the nature of craft specialization, we remain largely there is not much lapis lazuli at Shahdad.In the catalogue ignorant of techniques of production. Mark Kenoyer of finds from the 382 excavated graves at Shahdad(com- and his colleagues (Kenoyer 1992; Kenoyer, Vidale, and piled by Mansour Sajjadi from the field records of the Bhar 1994; Kenoyer and Miller 1995) are making com- excavator; Ali Hakemi has kindly made a copy of this mendable efforts to replicate the ancient productiontech- compilation available to me), there are only ten graves niques of the Indus civilization. His experimental studies that contain lapis lazuli. Of these, nine contain lapis have offered valuable insights into the technology of pro- necklaces, the tenth only a few beads. The necklaces con- duction of shell, ceramics, carnelian beads, and metals. tain a maximum of twenty-threelapis beads (grave 65). Moorey offers a concise and valuable review of the Thus, less then three percent of the graves at Shahdad manufacturing techniques of seals. To this study must contain lapis lazuli in the form of beads strung on neck- now be added the recent work of Sax and Meeks (1995), laces. The cruciformshapes of many of the beads at Shah- who detail the methods of engraving quartz cylinder dad have direct central Asian parallels (Sarianidi 1986: seals. Moorey emphasizes cylinder seals while giving 135). The raw lumps of lapis recovered from fourth- stamp seals secondary notice. It is the latter category, millennium Djebel Arudain Syria and fourth-millennium however, that has been highlighted in the recent excava- Mehrgarh in indicate both the widespread and tions of neolithic Sabi Abyad (Akkermansand Verhoeven early use of this mineral. 1995), in northern Syria, as well as in the re-analysis It appears, however, that the availability and/or pop- of the older excavations at Tal-i Bakun, in southwestern ularity in the use of this stone varied. Lapis, originating Iran (Alizadeh 1988). On both sites a number of stamp in , with minor sources in Pakistan, was im- seals and sealings has been recovered. The evidence 92 Journal of the American Oriental Society 117.1 (1997) from Sabi Abyad indicates that rudimentary levels of administrativemonitoring, through the use of the stamp seal for the sealing of jars and doors, was already evi- dent in the sixth through fourth millennium in northern Mesopotamia. An Iranian counterpartis apparentat the nearly contemporarysite of Tal-i Bakun. The functionally comparableand contemporary,although distinctive, types that characterize the Sabi Abyad and Tal-i Bakun seals and sealing evidence remind us of a very early example of Amiet's insightfully discussed (1979) "ethnic duality" and reciprocity that characterized the relationship be- tween Mesopotamia and Susiana in later periods. Lastly, 0 5 the appearanceof seals and sealings at these two sites are i i i t ! i unexpectedly early and indicate a previously unsuspected 1. seal from PeriodI- degree of cultural complexity. Fig. Unperforatedcylinder Sarazm, last centuriesof the fourthmillennium. I take the opportunityto publish here an unperforated seal from the site of Sarazm in Tadjikistan(figure 1). The seal was recovered from a late fourth- or early third mil- lennium context and is of an opaque, uniformly brown stone (no mineralogical analysis!). It is unique as the earliest and the most easterly of seals in central Asia. Of equal significance, but also little known, is a seal with- . out good context but of a style belonging to the BMAC /I or Oxus civ- (Bactrian-MargianaArchaeological Complex ~~SIG~~~ ilization of central Asia) which illustrates horse and rider ?~~~3 . (figure 2). The seal should date between 2000-1800 B.c. and thus be among the earliest illustrations of horse 0 3 cm riding. For the publication of this seal and others illus- trating horse riding in Bronze Age central Asia, see Sar- ianidi (1986a: 43). Fig. 2. Cylinder seal of horse and rider from a Bactrian tomb, ca. 2000-1800 B.C. Chapter three (pp. 111-40) concentrates upon prod- ucts manufacturedof bone, ivory, and shell. Wherever possible the author attempts to discriminate between antler, horn, hippopotamus ivory, wild boar's tusk, and millennia, were recovered from the cemeteries excava- tusk. Artifacts produced from ostrich eggshell, ted at Harad and Isa towns, Hili, Ali, and Umm Jidr in tortoise shell, and mother-of-pearlare relatively rare and Bahrain and the United Arab Emirates (al-Khalifa 1986). briefly noted. As pointed out by the author, shell is one Seals of this type are known exclusively from burial con- of the most durable of natural materials and abundantly texts, and, like the better known Persian Gulf seal type, present throughout Mesopotamia. Until quite recently their counterpartsin sealings are all but nonexistent, sug- shell was rarely reported; it was recovered from exca- gesting a different function for the seal in the Gulf than vations in a cavalier manner and few specialists were in Mesopotamia. concerned with its study. The use of shell as inlay, vo- With reference to the Gulf, mention must be made of tive offerings, lamps, seals, beads, bangles, and so on the recent discovery of an ivory comb by Daniel Potts are all duly noted, as are the most common types of shell (1993) at Abraq in Umm al-Qawain (United Arab (marine and freshwater) recovered from the regions of Emirates). The comb, manufactured of elephant ivory the Gulf, Red Sea, Indian Ocean, and the Mediterranean. (personal communication from D. Potts), contains an in- Discussion. The author is usually so thorough that it cised floral and dot-and-circle motif that the excavator is surprising to find a material or industry of relative convincingly parallels to Bactrian counterparts in cen- significance left unmentioned. In this spirit I mention the tral Asia. Since elephants were not indigenous to central interesting seals made from shell of the conidae spe- Asia (Bactria), the ivory must have been imported, per- cies, found in the Gulf and the Indian Ocean. These haps from the Indus Valley. The only reported "ivory" distinctive seals, dated to the late third and early second from central Asia are two incised "sticks" from Altyn LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY:Materials and Industries of the Ancient Near East 93

Depe (Masson 1988: pl. XIX.2) which have not, in fact, fourth or early third millennium (Isakov 1993: 28-35). been analyzed. They are regardedas ivory because simi- Thus, it dates to centuries before the existence of the lar artifacts from Harappa(Vats 1974: 23) are said to be mature Indus civilization and attests to the wealth of of ivory. However, like their counterpartsat Altyn Depe, resources being exploited in central Asia, including the those in the Indus have never been analyzed either. There use of Turbinellapyrum from the Indian Ocean. In the are countless examples of constructing a house of cards later excavations at Gonur Depe in Turkmenistan,Dan- based on eye-ball identifications that would collapse if iella Bar-Yosef has identified, among a rich variety of analyses were undertaken. There is a certain parallel shells, the presence of Lambdis truncata from the Indian between an antiquities dealer making up a provenience Ocean and Nessarius gibbosulus from the Mediterra- and an archaeologist making up the identification of an nean (Hiebert 1994). artifact. Both are intentionally fabricating an historical datum to fulfill their wishes. Not surprisingly, it takes a more extensive discussion Two recent studies by ChristopherEdens (1987, 1992) to review "The Ceramic and Glassworking Crafts," the deserve mention for their special importance when con- subject of chapter four (pp. 141-216). This chapter is a sidering the use of shell in Mesopotamia. In his exca- marvel of concise synthesis, particularly with regard to vations on the island of Khor Ile Sud, Edens recovered the manufactureof pottery. The author reviews the evi- literally tons of shell from mounds situated adjacent to dence for kiln construction and, more thoroughly, the a second-millennium site. The shells were identified as evolution of pottery manufacture.He emphasizes tech- Thais savignyi. These molluscs, readily obtained from niques of productionthat led to traditionsof manufacture the Gulf and Indian Ocean, are not edible but were most culminating in recognizable styles, styles both aesthetic, definitely utilized by the local inhabitants. Through ex- in terms of their type and appearance, and technologi- tensive experimentation, Edens was able to demonstrate cal, in terms of their methods of manufactureand deco- that a specific organ of the mollusc was extracted and ration. Where laboratoryanalyses have been undertaken, utilized for the production of a purple dye (Edens 1987: the author reviews the evidence. Thus, the important 203-58). In a subsequent article-a rarity in shell stud- technical analyses of Vandiver,Mynors, Kamilli, van As, ies-he attempted a quantitative analysis of the export Thuesen, and Matson, to mention but six, are all judi- of shells (Turbinella[Xancus] lambdis) from the Gulf to ciously reviewed. Mesopotamia, where they were used for the production The most common material studied by the archae- of so-called "lamps" (Edens 1992). Not very surpris- ologist is pottery, and each of us may feel especially ingly, he found that the quantitative shifts in the supply expert in dealing with this category of artifact.Neverthe- and demand of this commodity were influenced by less, reading this chapter on pottery will be instructive to changing political conditions in Mesopotamia. even the best informed on this most common of com- In discussing Turbinella pyrum, Moorey is entirely modities. Glass, faience, and blue frit (Egyptian Blue) correct to point out that the presence of this large shell (as well as methods of glazing and techniques of color- does not necessarily imply contact with the Indus Val- ation) become more common in the second millennium ley, where it was the shell most commonly used for the and later. Manufacture based on these items involves production of bangles and rings (Kenoyer 1984). The skills both related to and different from those of the pot- recent excavation of a Harappan shell-working site in ter. The author offers a historical sketch of the develop- the Gulf of Kutch provides an importantopportunity to ment of each of the above industries and summarizes understandthe techniques used to manufacturedifferent the results of important analytical studies such as the items of this shell (Hedge et al., 1990). analysis of Egyptian Blue from sites in Mesopotamia I take this opportunityto publish a drawing of a burial and glass from Nuzi and Nimrud. Lastly, the well-known recovered from Sarazm, Tadjikistan(figure 3). The illus- collaborative study on ancient Mesopotamian glass, ini- tration indicates that the woman (in her early 20s) was tiated by A. L. Oppenheim (1970), is revisited with com- buried wearing two shell bracelets of Turbinellapyrum. mendable results. In that volume Oppenheim translateda Dozens of lapis lazuli and carnelian beads run along number of texts believed to refer to the production of the outer seam of her arms and legs, gold beads run glass. The challenge has always been the interpretation down her back (perhapsas today, where braids were held of these texts and the meaning of specific words. R. H. together and decorated with beads), while lapis lazuli, Brill wrote that "there is sufficient ambiguity in the carnelian, and cerargyrite beads appear to outline her translations of the texts to leave room for the possibility elaborate headdress. Finally, a bronze mirror, a female that the materials being prepared were glassy faience, figurine, and a sheep or goat burial are placed alongside Egyptian Blue, or some related but not yet clearly de- the body. This rich burial dates to the very end of the fined material"(Oppenheim 1970: 108). In spite of this 94 Journal of the American Oriental Society 117.1 (1997)

" . . o. t

?0,-o~ o .. I. -?u i~ . I * 00 '?~~~_rrCI , I 0~~~~~Q ? . . ???e ?,~~~~~~~~~~~.... 0 O? ~~~~~~~~~~~~~,,-2~ ' ', ' ' 'r eSb ~ ~.. ~ ~ ~~. ?. 0"Se ..t,? ol L . ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...T u C ,~" .~ . , ? :~??- ~~~~~~~~.... 'o.? ? . ? ~oo ,. ?.: . .- ? .... , . ... ? .. .,' ,'.'4 ? ~~ ,,....rs ~~~~~~. : . . ~~~~~~~~~~~', 5 ~ ~ ...~~~~.? '.... ~~~~.. ~ ?- ? 'o" .. ?? ..., ...... o'?ag;. '..' -'.- ? ' ...... i ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~...? ...,...... ?...... - ,.e ,'~~~~~~~~~~-.. ? '.? ,. .?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~'.0 ..-.- .~ : . . .o ' ? .~'' : - .. . ' ' ...... " ?~??? (.. OShll, LpisLaql Trui Crea Gl st

microbeads

Fig. 3. Burial of young female (ca. twenty years old) from Sarazm, . Over the entire burial were paste microbeads (de- picted as small solid beads). Lines of beads made of lapis, carnelian, turquoise, and shell (depicted as open beads) were found along the limbs and above the head, outlining the dress and the headdress of the figure. Carnelian beads were found strung along the feet and along the fingers of the hands, and were also found in a pattern extending from the feet to the animal bones. Gold beads (depicted as solid beads) extend from the back of the head down the back, as if part of a braid. To the upper left of the body were found: a copper mirror (1), terracotta figurine (2), bone needle (3) and an ochre colored clay bead (4). Remains of a young sheep or goat (5) were found at the lower right. At the back of the head were found three ochre-colored clay beads (6), a stone whorl (7), and one of several step-shaped bone beads or amulets (8). At the chest was a shell gorget (9) and many beads including one silver bead (10). At the wrists of both arms were large carved bracelets made of Turbinellapyrum (11). LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY:Materials and Industries of the Ancient Near East 95 cautionarynote, Moorey believes that the texts pertainto the end of the fourth millennium, at Ganj-i dareh, Seh the productionof glass. He reviews the most recent con- Gabi, Hajji Firuz, Tepe Sabz, Tepe Yahya, and other sites tributions pertaining to these texts, their interpretation, in Iran; , Sarab, and Hassuna, in ; in and the meaning of specific words. These texts conform the Levant; Mehrgarh in Pakistan; and Merimde and to a specific genre of Mesopotamian literary tradition: Mostagedda in , to mention but a few. In the sev- the preparation of lexical lists. They were written by enth millennium the technique was known from Meso- scribes, and they fulfill their lexicographic purpose, but potamia to Baluchistan, indicating the existence of a they are also wholly inadequate to the needs of the stu- shared technology that had diffused over an exception- dent of the technology of glass production. As Moorey ally large area. In fact, the presence of this technology re- notes: "literary tradition is a notoriously inadequate mains one of the best demonstrations that these distant source for the " (p. 211). regions already shared a network of technological skills Discussion. The use of fired clay prior to the pro- in the seventh millennium. The fact that this type had a duction of pottery is given little notice. Thus, the role of wide distribution was recognized by Dyson (1966) al- clay (and stone) geometric tokens in the evolution of most thirty years ago and was described by him as the writing is left unmentioned. The importance of geo- "soft ware horizon." metric tokens, often encapsulated in bullae, and their In discussing the trade in Ubaid pottery between role in early communication systems was first recog- Mesopotamia and the Gulf, Moorey re-addresses the ear- nized by Amiet (1966: 70) and later greatly embellished lier work of Joan Oates et al. (Oates, Davidson, Kamilli, by Schmandt-Besserat(1992). The argument is familiar and McKerrel 1977). That work, as Moorey observes, to all Near Eastern archaeologists and need not be reit- indicated that the Ubaid pottery recovered from sites erated here. Suffice it to say that this hypothesis, which located along the northeastern shores of the Arabian traces the evolution from token to tablet, is neither as Peninsula were exported from Mesopotamia. The sta- direct nor as simple as has been suggested (see Oates tistical re-analysis of the earlier data base undertaken 1993 for a critical review). by Michael Roaf and Jane Galbraith(1994) substantially One of the most valuable aspects of this chapter is the tempers the certainty of the earlier conclusions. At a author's informative treatment of the technical differ- later date there is little doubt that the Gulf was import- ences-the definitions-of faience, frit, glaze, and glass. ing pottery from at least two regions, Mesopotamia and The complexity of these products recalls a comment southeastern Iran. Moorey refers to pottery from the made by Cyril Smith (1980: 27): "A glazed pot could Sumerian workshops reaching the sites of the Umm provide the material for a three-yearcourse in solid-state an-Nar culture in the Gulf. To the Mesopotamian pottery physics." Pamela Vandiver'simportant work (1987) doc- exports mentioned by Moorey must be added those sent umenting the earliest vessels of clay in the Near East as from southeastern Iran to the Gulf, the black-on-grey built up by "sequential slab construction" is reviewed. Emir wares, also recovered from Umm an-Nar sites in the This is one of many instances where an understanding Gulf (Wright 1989). Lastly, the recent argument for the of the topic would be enhanced by the inclusion of a domestic context of pottery productionat KurbanHoyuik drawing. Given the wide scope of the book and the and its surrounding neighborhood is noteworthy (see numerouscrafts and techniques discussed, there is a pau- Wattenmaker1994) and complements Moorey's views of city of illustration. Whether it is "sickles" or "plough- the centralized modes of production. shares" of stone, "etched carelian beads," examples of The author'sinformative treatmentof faience, glazes, design that distinguish the "interculturalstyle" from the Egyptian Blue, and glass suggests that certain technolo- "serie recente, "bimetallism"or the nature of "sequen- gies were differently distributed. This may result from tial slab construction,"the reader is left without visual either a limited number of skilled artisans capable of aid as to what is meant. This would not necessarily ham- manufacturing the artifact and/or a limited number of per the specialist, for whom the book is largely written, elite parties able to afford the luxury. Throughout the but could frustratethe novice. In discussing "sequential third and second millennia the sites of the Iranian Pla- slab construction"the author passes over two extraordi- teau, the Gulf, Baluchistan, and central Asia are rela- nary aspects of this technique: the exceptionally long tively devoid of the above materials. Clearly, there were duration of the technique and its wide geographical dis- centers involved in the production of these items that tribution. This method of pottery production was first served the regional elite, and these were valued items discovered by Vandiver (1986) in her study of the fifth of regional trade. The scatter of faience beads in the and fourth millennia ceramics at Tepe Yahya. This led Gulf, as far south as Oman (de Cardi et al., 1979), ap- her to document the presence of "sequential slab con- pears in the first half of the third millennium and pre- struction" throughout the Near East, from the eighth to dates the later and more extensive Indus-Gulf trade. A 96 Journal of the American Oriental Society 117.1 (1997) major program of analytical work on faience, in an ef- the repertory of objects, their uses, and the methods of fort to trace centers of production and networks of trade production of the principal metals employed in Meso- and exchange from Egypt and the Aegean to the Indus potamia: copper, iron, lead, gold, silver, and tin. In Valley, would prove a most rewarding exercise. discussing them, the author reviews each of the follow- A central motivation for the productionof glass was to ing topics: ancient textual references, modem regional produce an artifact that imitated a stone. Valued stones, sources, scientific source detection, and methods of re- such as lapis lazuli, turquoise, and carnelian, were - fining and assaying. There is also a review of the in- tated in glass and passed off as the more valuable items, ventory (with respect to ornaments,weapons, seals, tools, as is a zircon for a diamond. Deceit and imitation were, foundation deposits, and architectural decorations) and in the past as today, stimuli for invention and discovery. techniquesof production(casting, filigree, cloisonne, wire Oppenheim (1970: 19-20) even found a Sumerian word, production,joining, granulation).The author reproduces AN.ZAH, that refers to the glass imitation of a precious a number of select analyses of gold objects, including a stone. However, as Moorey points out, philologists differ numberof artifactsfrom the royal cemetery at Ur, as well as to the meaning of this word. as the remarkableelectrum ring-ingots from the Chalco- Moorey discusses the recent discovery of cobalt blue lithic Period of Palestine (ca. 4000-3500 B.C.).Similarly, glass ingots recovered by George Bass from the late four- he reproduces analyses of silver objects from the royal teenth-century B.C. shipwreck at Ulu Burun in southern cemetery, , Brak, Tell el-Der, and Telloh. .The experimental laboratorywork undertakenby In reviewing the base metals, the author begins by Dayton (1993) involving the production of cobalt blue eliminating the use of arsenic as a metal in Mesopota- glass was not yet available to the author. Dayton sug- mia, while correctly emphasizing the early importanceof gests that the initial productionof cobalt blue glass took the use of arsenical copper ores. A review of the textual place in , in the region of the silver-cobalt-nickel- evidence touches upon those regions from which Meso- arsenide belt of the Erzgebirge in Saxony. Dayton has potamia received copper ores: Dilmun (Bahrain and the shown that the byproduct of the smelting of these ores eastern shores of the Persian Gulf), Magan (Oman), was a cobalt blue glass and silver. He argues that the (Baluchistan and the Indus Valley), and, later, cobalt blue glass ingots recovered from the cargo of the Alasiya (Cyprus) and the Nairi-lands (eastern Anatolia). Ulu Burun shipwreck were produced from the ores of The author's commendable review of both the tech- the Erzgebirge. On this ship the presence of amberbeads, nology of metal production and the repertory of metal silver bracelets, eighty-four oxhide copper ingots, as well objects, from the prehistoric period to the Achaemenid, as ingots of tin, suggest seafaring merchants-but from ca. 300 B.C., is necessarily selective. Nevertheless, it of- where and headed in which direction? Moorey cautiously fers an admirably coherent narrativeof the practice and avoids ascribing to them an ethnic identity. Dayton sees the development of the metallurgical craft. This pic- them as Mycenaeans while others have suggested they ture is complemented by a review of the archaeological were Canaanites. Nothing recovered from the ship con- evidence for workshops and manufacturingequipment. tributes to this discussion. Readers familiar with Moorey's earlier study of this topic The author writes: "If one thing emerges clearly from (1985) will recall the publication of an extensive list of this preliminary survey, it is the prevailing confusion in metallurgical analyses. This useful guide is not repub- the popular terminology for ancient glazed and related lished here; the author inexplicably states that "analyses materials" (p. 168). There are a number of items re- done before about 1980 now have little more than a his- ferred to throughout the book that cross the boundaries torical value" (p. 276). of ready definition. An early example that might have As an exemplary archaeologist, the author divides found a place in this chapter, or perhaps in another the use of iron into three stages: ca. 3000-1250 B.C.;ca. chapter depending upon what one thinks they are, are 1250-850 B.C.; ca. 850-350 B.C. The first is character- the plaster beads from the Pre-PotteryNeolithic B cave ized by confronting technological concerns: the experi- of Nahal Hemar in Israel. Kingery writes: "... the mental use of iron, culminating with the perfecting of most spectacularbeads have a coating of emerald-green iron smelting. The second stage involves an increased copper silicate monohydrate(CuSiO3:H20) diopase crys- knowledge and use of iron but knowledge that is differ- tals" (1988: 446), a coating placed over the heated as- ently distributed. Thus, before the eighth century, the phalt covering of the bead. Is this a glaze? If not, what? Assyrians and Babylonians had little if any iron. Yet at Hasanlu in northwest Iran, there was a very considerable The author's contributions to the study of metal ar- number of iron tools and weapons. The final stage, tifacts and metallurgical technology are well known. reached in the second half of the first millennium, in- Chapter five, "Metalworking" (pp. 216-302), reviews volves the dissemination of the technological skills es- LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY:Materials and Industries of the Ancient Near East 97

Table 1 Origins of Third Millennium Metals According to Sourcesa

ECONOMIC ROYAL LITERARY LEXICAL ADMINISTRATIVE TEXTS TEXTS TEXTS TEXTS TEXTS

Copper Dilmun Kimas Dilmun Magan Dilmun Magan Melubba Magan Melubba Melubba ? Tin Simaski/ Aratta Dilmun Ansan Zabsali Magan [Za]rba Dilmun? Melubba Ebih (Hamrin) Zarsur (unspecified) (unspecified) BAR-gungunnu Silver Simaski Dilmun Zarsu Der [Mar]daman Melubba Uasbar Urua La[bura] Aratta Ianakita /Susa SilverMtn. "15 cities" Kusu (unspecified) Gold Dilmun Elam Aratta (IJ)arali Magan Parabsum (Q)arali LJublul Mt. jabbum Meluhhba Zarsasum Melubba (unspecified) Simaski(booty) [Mar]daman Adamdun (booty) IJa[bura] aCompiledfrom T Potts(for completereferences, see T. Potts 1994: 148, 156, 162, 165).

sential for the production of iron and, perhaps more ores were exploited early. The alloying of copper with importantly,the transformationof economic dependency tin was principally a late third-millennium innovation. from bronze to iron. Gold and silver were early items of luxury. In a word, The author concludes this chapter on metalworking the technological base was relatively uniform over a with a consideration of tin. As is well known, the source very extensive area. What differed were the styles of of tin in the Near East is a much debated, and at times objects produced, the distribution of resources, and the acrimonious, issue. Moorey reviews the archaeological manner by which distinctive regions procured their evidence for the use of tin, the textual sources that refer metal. Metal as stored wealth-for such it was, whether to it, and the geological evidence for its presence or copper or gold-traveled as tribute, booty, taxes, gifts, absence. His conclusions are as brief as they are sound: and trade. The shifting patterns by which a site or re- in the third millennium tin came from the east through gion obtained its metal depended upon many factors; Iran to Mesopotamia, Anatolia, and Syro-Palestine. Af- chief among them were political conditions, resource ghanistan is the likely source of this tin. Later texts from availability, technological developments, the availability Hittite and Assyrian towns identify eastern Turkey as a of craftsmen, and social alliances. In discussing the role source of tin. Recent research indicates that Anatolia of each of these, the following commentary builds upon may already have been an important tin source in the Moorey's observations. third-millennium. Reports of rich tin deposits and an- Many scholars have pointed out that both the textual cient mining operations south of Bursa in Turkey con- and archaeological evidence indicates that, throughout tinue to be enthusiasticallypromoted (Yener and Vandiver the second half of the third millennium, Mesopota- 1993) and vigorously denied (Muhly 1993). mian metal was largely imported by ship from the Gulf; Discussion. Throughout Mesopotamia, Anatolia, the whereas in earlier periods metal came from highland IranianPlateau, the Indus Valley, and central Asia, met- Iran and Syro-Anatolian sources (D. Potts 1990: 113- allurgical industries were based on copper. Arsenical 25). Table 1 shows the geographical sources from which 98 Journal of the American Oriental Society 117.1 (1997) copper, tin, silver, and gold are said to come according to and to extend his influence eastward to distant Shahdad, third-millenniumMesopotamian texts. where a characteristic "linear Elamite" inscription was Several interesting features are apparentin this compi- discovered in tombs that contained an extensive inven- lation: (a) the consistent mention of Dilmun (the islands tory of central Asian bronzes and other artifacts (Hiebert in the Persian Gulf), Magan (Oman), and Melubba (the and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992). The "linear Elamite" Indus Valley) in virtually all of the texts as regions from script is directly associated with the Elamite revival ini- which all types of metal were obtained; (b) the complete tiated by Puzur-Insusinak. It is not unlikely that the absence of identifiable Syro-Anatolian sources for any central Asian artifacts at Susa, so ably documented by of the metals; (c) the concentration of texts, not unex- Pierre Amiet (1986; see also Tallon 1987), date to the pectedly given their biases, that detail the sources of gold period of Puzur-Insusinak,when Susa was free of Meso- for royal use; (d) the relatively small numberof resource potamian dominance, and Elam looked to the east. It is areas mentioned; and (e) while the precise location of the not unlikely that Puzur-Insusinak,like earlier and vast majority of metal sources remain unknown to us, later Ur III kings, maintained a diplomatic alliance with those mentioned, Elam, Aratta, and Marhasi/Parahsum, Marbasi, a kingdom possibly located in the vicinity of Susa-Awan-Adamdun,Zabsali-Simaski, and Harali, are Shahdadin southeasternIran (Steinkeller 1982). geographical regions either known to be, or suspected of There was no need for Moorey to dwell on the impact being, to the east of Mesopotamia, on the greater Iranian of central Asian artifacts on Mesopotamia, for they are Plateau. all but absent there save for a compartmentedstamp seal Receiving far less comment is the difference in metal recovered from Mari, a shaft-hole axe from Ur, and a use and style that characterizedMesopotamian, Iranian, handful of more generalized metal objects, as likely and central Asian metallurgy in the second half of the local products as imports from Iran or central Asia (for third millennium. In Iran and in central Asia there are a discussion of these see T Potts 1994; 168-76; and far more extensive deposits of metal artifacts (axes, Amiet 1986: 141-60). The arrival of central Asian ob- decorative items, and vessels) placed in graves than in jects on the Iranian Plateau, the Gulf, and the Indus Mesopotamia. The Iranian and central Asian bronzes Valley is an entirely different matter. Central Asian arti- evince a predilection for elaborate zoomorphic reliefs facts of metal, stone, and ceramic can be documented placed on the butts of axes, on the heads of pins, and from Susa to Shahdad and from Hissar to Tepe Yahya. on vessels (for extensive illustrations of the above, see The mechanism by which they arrived at their destina- Sarianidi 1986 and Ligabue and Salvatori 1989). Meso- tions could have included trade or exchange, tribute or potamian objects of these types generally lack the same booty, or the movement of populations. There can be degree of elaboration. little doubt that exotic artifacts, recovered from distant One can account for the differences in the style of places and singular in kind, like the ivory comb from metal production and the shifting patterns of trade by Tell Abraq (D. Potts 1993) or the central Asian seal from detailing the political relationships that characterized Harappa (Vats 1974: pl. xcl, no. 255) were items of the lowlands (Mesopotamia) and the highlands (Iran) trade and/or exchange. On the other hand, the central throughout the second half of the third millennium. Asian artifacts recovered from the tombs of Shahdad, From at least the beginning of the Akkad Dynasty to the Khinaman, Sibri, and other sites suggest the presence of end of the Ur III Period, political interaction between peoples from central Asia in a foreign land. It is un- these regions was characterized by constant conflict, likely that booty and/or tribute would be disposed of in including war. Timothy Potts (1994: 174) has recently a tomb: one of the principal functions of this category of suggested that there were no political boundaries sepa- goods is display and public propaganda.The widespread rating Susa from Mesopotamia, since Mesopotamia con- occurrence of a variety of central Asian commodities trolled Susa throughout most of the Akkad and Ur III recovered from individual tombs at Shahdad, Khina- periods. He furthercontends that the presence of central man, Sibri, and Khurab,as well as numerous artifacts on Asian metal types (and other central Asian artifacts) at such sites as Susa and Hissar, suggest both an extensive Susa, and their conspicuous absence further to the west trade as well as the presence of central Asians on the in , can be accounted for by different trading pat- IranianPlateau (Hiebert and Lamberg-Karlovsky 1992). terns. But it is more plausible that it was precisely politi- It is of interest that there is an asymmetry in the na- cal factors that brought Bactrian objects to Susa during ture of this interaction. There is an abundance of cen- the early Ur III Period. It was at this time that Puzur- tral Asian artifacts scattered all over the Iranian Plateau Insusinak was able to establish a period of Susain inde- in many contexts; yet, there is hardly a single iden- pendence, to conquer the kingdom of Simaski to the east, tifiable artifact from the Iranian Plateau in central Asia. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY:Materials and Industries of the Ancient Near East 99

This is parallel to the interaction between Mesopotamia of wall paintings discussed are those from Catal Hiiyiik, and the Indus Valley. A wide variety of Indus artifacts Tell Uqair, Mari, Nuzi, Aqar Quf, and paints placed over is found in Mesopotamia; the texts even indicate the Assyrian and Achaemenid sculpture. presence of a Melubban colony in Sumer (Parpola, Par- The role of plasters, mortar,and bitumen are reviewed pola, and Brunswig 1977). Yet, there is not a single ob- prior to the final sections that offer historical surveys for ject of uncontested Mesopotamian origin recovered the use of stone, wood, and reed in construction. Of spe- from the Indus Valley. One the other hand, sites in the cial merit is the attempt to identify the specific types of Gulf contain abundantmaterials from the Indus Valley, stone, wood, and reed utilized, by examining both the Mesopotamia, the Iranian Plateau, and an ever increas- archaeological and textual evidence. The recent attention ing scatter of central Asian artifacts. We can observe the given to identifying charcoal, wood, and the contents of archaeological pattern, but we are still far from under- dung adds further to our understandingof the resources standing the political, economic, and social foundations exploited (Miller 1990: 70-79). The reader may be sur- behind such patterns. prised by the great variety in the types of wood em- ployed in Mesopotamian construction. No doubt much The sixth and final chapter (pp. 303-62) is a welcome of this wood was of local production (see Steinkeller addition to the literature. It deals with "The Building 1987) as well as imported from a numberof more distant Crafts," a subject much ignored by archaeologists fol- places, including Dilmun, Magan and Meluhha (Ratna- lowing their exposure of architecture.The authorbegins gar 1981: 78-156). with the fundamentalunit of architecture,the mud-brick. Discussion. In recent years archaeologists have been We know virtually nothing of the kilns constructed for much concerned with the origins of the state and its brick manufacture in Mesopotamia. Nevertheless, the associated phenomenon, the emergence of settlement emergence of the brick, its firing in kilns, its standard- and bureaucratichierarchy. The terra-cottacone, a solid ized dimensions, and its glazing are the principal mile- clay peg inserted into the plaster face of mud-brickwalls stones in the history of the brick. Each of these stages and whose colored or plain ends formed geometric pat- is documented in the archaeological record: sun-dried terns, has played a special role in these theoretical dis- bricks are evident in the ninth-millennium community cussions. Terra-cotta cones are taken to be diagnostic of Nemrik, fifty-five kilometers northwest of Mosul in of the , ca. 3500 B.C., when they were used Iraq; fired bricks are reported, although by no means to decorate the walls and half-columns of temples and common, at a number of Ubaid sites (e.g., and when the process of state formation is believed to have Gawra); standardized dimensions are introduced in the taken place. When such cones were found in surface sur- manufacture of bricks in the Samarra culture (Tell es- veys in Mesopotamia and Susiana, they were believed to Sawaan, Baghouz) and more commonly utilized through- date the occupation of the settlement, at least in part, out the ; and the productionof glazed brick to the Uruk Period; to indicate the presence of "admin- can be documented by the mid-second millennium on a istrative outposts of larger centers" (Johnson 1973: 105); number of sites, such as Nuzi, Tell Rimah, Nineveh, and and to suggest the presence of "architecturalcomplexes" Tchoga Zanbil. which are "usually identified as temples" (Adams 1981: The author warns us that "few aspects of the tech- 77). Such sweeping generalizations are tempered by nology of the ancient Near East have generated more the recognition that there is a far greater indeterminacy false assumptions and confusions than the production of in the role of the terra-cotta cone; they have, in fact, glazed materials" (p. 312). This was readily apparentin been recovered from good Early Dynastics contexts at the earlier chapter on glass, and the author sets us aright Abu Salabikh (Postgate 1984: 108), while at Hassek with referenceto the productionof glazed bricks and their Hiiytik they were inserted into a small portable shrine colorants. As noted above, the physico-chemical analysis within a small community containing a half dozen houses of glazed brick was already undertaken in the middle (Behm-Blancke 1989)-hardly an "administrative out- of the nineteenth century in connection with the ex- post." Terra-cottacones are both more and less signifi- cavations of A. H. Layard (1853). Unfortunately, the cant than indicated by theories pertaining to state and analyses erroneously reported that the glazes of Neo- bureaucratic origins. This recalls a statement recently Babylonian/Achaemenid(?) brick recovered from Bor- made by the geneticist Richard Lewontin: "If scientific sippa were tin glazes. advance really came from theorizing, natural scientists Wall paintings are treatedto a historical survey with an would have long ago wrapped up their affairs and gone emphasis on pigments and techniques rather than upon on to more interesting matters" (Lewontin 1995: 69)- style, design, and iconography. Among a wide sampling and so would archaeologists! 100 Journal of the American Oriental Society 117.1 (1997)

This book will raise the consciousness of archaeolo- weaving and dying, leather production, woodworking, gists in several respects. It will raise the standard of ar- basketry and matting, musical instruments, and transport chaeological reporting by requiring analyses rather than (e.g., wagons and boats), to name but a few of cavalierly identifying a plaster as lime or gypsum, or the more obvious industries and technologies of which loosely considering frit, faience, and glaze as variations we know too little. on a single theme, or believing all greenish stone to be I end with a consideration of the quotation by Sir turquoise. We are indebted to the author for reminding us Thomas Browne with which this review began. Roger that precision in vocabulary and definition is central to Moorey has dealt with the "created world" recovered by a consistent understanding of material culture. Anyone the archaeologists and in so doing has offered more than who has carefully read this book will be impressed by a parenthesis, an exclamation point at least-one that the need for more analytical work in defining the nature will endure for decades. It is to be hoped that Moorey of the material recovered from excavation. The book will will put out a supplement to this work every ten years, endure for decades as an authoritative and comprehen- and that he will produce at least ten such supplements! sive study of the major industries represented in the ar- It will give all of us interested in the ancient Near East, chaeological record. One is reminded, however, of those technology, and society something to look forward to industries that do not survive an archaeological context and learn from while helping to sustain the long life of a and thus lack extended commentary: textile manufacture, scholar of great erudition and creativity.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Adams, Robert McC. 1981. Heartland of Cities: Surveys of Dayton, John. 1993. The Discovery of Glass. American School Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Flood- of Prehistoric Research, Bulletin, 41. Cambridge, Mass.: plain of the Euphrates. Chicago: Univ. of Chicago Press. Peabody Museum, HarvardUniv. Akkermans, Peter M. M. G., and Marc Verhoeven. 1995. An Durrani, Farzand. 1964. Stone Vases as Evidence of Connec- Image of Complexity: The Burnt Village at Late Neo- tion Between Mesopotamia and the Indus Valley. Paki- lithic Sabi Abyad, Syria. American Journal of Archaeol- stan Archaeology 1: 1-50. ogy 99: 5-32. Dyson, Robert H. 1966. Problems in the Relative Chronology Alizadeh, Abbas. 1988. Socio-Economic Complexity in South- of Iran, 6000-2000 B.C. In Chronologies in Old World western Iran During the Fifth and Fourth Millennium Archaeology, ed. Robert W. Ehrich. Pp. 173-91. Chicago: B.C.:The Evidence from Tall-i Bakun A. Iran 26: 1-18. Univ. of Chicago Press. Amiet, P. 1966. Elam. Paris: Editeur Archee. Edens, Christopher. 1987. A Late Second Millennium B.C. Pur- .1979. Archaeological Discontinuity and Ethnic Du- ple Dye Industry in Qatar (Arabian Gulf) Archaeological ality in Elam. Antiquity 53: 195-204. and Historical Interpretations.Ph.D. dissertation: Harvard .1980. Antiquites de serpentine. Iranica Antiqua 15: University. 155-66. .1992. Dynamics of Trade in Ancient Mesopotamia .1986. L'Age des echanges inter-iraniens 3500-1700 "World Systems." American Anthropologist 94: 118-39. avant J.-C. Paris: Notes et documents des Musees de Francis,Carl. 1991. The Oldest Mineral Specimen? Matrix 2: 44. France. Gopher, Avi. 1994. Arrowheadsof the Neolithic Levant. Winona Behm-Blancke, M. R. 1989. Mosaikstifte am oberer Euphrat- Lake, Ind.: Eisenbrauns. Wandschmuckaus der Uruk-Zeit. Istanbuler Mitteilungen Hegde, K. T. M., et al. 1990. Excavations at Nageswar, Gu- 39: 73-83. jarat: A Harappan Shell Working Site in the Gulf of de Cardi, Beatrice, et al. 1979. Excavations at Tawi Silaim and Kutch. Baroda: Department of Archaeology and Ancient Tawi Sa'id in the Sharqiya. Journal of Oman Studies 5: History, Univ. of Baroda. 61-94. Helms, Mary. 1988. Ulysses' Sail. Princeton: Princeton Univ. Casanova, Michele. 1994. Lapis Lazuli Beads in Susa and Press. Central Asia: A Preliminary Study. In South Asian Ar- Hiebert, Fredrik. 1994. Origins of the Bronze Age Civilization in chaeology 1993, ed. Asko Parpola and Petteri Koskikal- Central Asia. American School of Prehistoric Research, Har- lio. Pp. 137-46. Helsinki: Suomalainen Tiedeakatemia. Bulletin 42. Cambridge, Mass.: Peabody Museum, Collon, D. 1982. Cylinder Seals II, Akkadian ... Ur III Peri- vard Univ. ods. Western Asiatic Seals in the . Lon- Hiebert, Fredrik and C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky. 1992. Central don: British Museum Publications. Asia and the Indo-IranianBorderlands. Iran 30: 1-15. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY:Materials and Industries of the Ancient Near East 101

Hodges, Henry. 1964. Artifacts: An Introduction to Primitive Masson, V. M. 1988. Altyn-depe. Philadelphia: University Technology.New York: F A. Praeger. Museum. Isakov, Abdula. 1993. Sarazm et la civilisation de l'Asie cen- Miller, Naomi. 1990. Clearing Land for Farmlandand Fuel: Ar- trale. Les Dossiers d'archeologie 185: 28-35. chaeobotanical Studies of the Ancient Near East. In Econ- Johnson, Gregory. 1973. Local Exchange and Early State De- omy and Settlement in the Near East: Analysis of Ancient velopment in Southwestern Iran. Ann Arbor, Mich.: Mu- Sites and Materials, ed. Naomi Miller. Pp. 70-79. Phila- seum of Anthropology, Univ. of Michigan. delphia: The University Museum, Univ. of Pennsylvania. Kenoyer, J. M. 1984. Shell Working Industries of the Indus Moorey, P. R. S. 1985. Materials and Manufacture in Ancient Civilization: A Summary.Paleorient 10: 49-63. Mesopotamia: The Evidence of Art and Archaeology, .1992. Ornament Styles of the Indus Tradition: Evi- Metal and Metalwork, Glazed Materials and Glass. BAR dence from Recent Excavations in Pakistan and India. International Series, no. 237. Oxford: British Archaeo- Paleorient 17: 79-98. logical Reports. Kenoyer, J. M.; M. Vidale; and K. K. Bhar. 1994. Carnelian Muhly, James. 1993. Comments on "Tin Processing at Bead Production in Khambat, India: An Ethnoarchae- Goltepe .. ." by K. A. Yener and P. B. Vandiver.American ological Study. In Living Traditions:Studies in the Ethno- Journal of Archaeology 97: 239-46. archaeology of South Asia, ed. Brigitte Allchin. Pp. 165- Muscarella, 0. 1993. InterculturalStyle "Weights."Bulletin of 84. New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishing. the Asia Institute 7: 143-53. Kenoyer, J. M., and H. L. Miller. 1995 (in press). Metal Tech- Oates, Joan. 1993. Early Writing in Sumer: A Review. Cam- nology of the Indus Valley Tradition in Pakistan and bridge Archaeological Journal 3: 149-53. India. In The Emergence of Metallurgy, ed. V. Pigott. Uni- Oates, Joan; T. E. Davidson; D. Kamilli; and H. McKerrell. versity Museum Monographs, no. 89. Philadelphia: Uni- 1977. Seafaring Merchants of Ur? Antiquity.51: 221-34. versity Museum, Univ. of Pennsylvania. Oppenheim, A. Leo. 1970. Glass and Glassmaking in Ancient al-Khalifa, Haya. 1986. The Shell Seals of Bahrain. In Bahrain Mesopotamia. Corning: Corning Museum of Glass. Through the Ages, ed. Haya al-Khalifa and Michael Rice. Parpola, S.; A. Parpola; and R. Brunswig. 1977. The Meluhha Pp. 250-61. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul. Village: Evidence of Acculturationof HarappanTrade in Kingery, . 1988. Nahal Hemar Cave Plaster Beads. In Late Third Millennium Mesopotamia. Journal of the Eco- Nahal Hemar Cave, ed. Ofer Bar-Yosef and David Alon. nomic and Social History of the Orient 20: 129-64. CAtiqot18. Pp. 127-34. Jerusalem: Hebrew Univ. Press. Pettinato, Giovanni. 1981. The Archives at Ebla. New York: Kohl, Philip. 1974. Seeds of Upheaval: The Production of Doubleday. Chlorite at Tepe Yahya and an Analysis of Commodity Possehl, Gregory. 1986. Kulli: An Exploration of Ancient Civi- Production and Trade in Southwest Asia in the Third Mil- lization in Asia. Durham, N.C.: Carolina Academic Press. lennium B.C. Ph.D. diss.: HarvardUniversity. Postgate, J. N. 1984. Excavations at Abu Salabikh. Iraq 46: .1989. The Use and Abuse of World Systems Theory: 95-114. The Case of the "Pristine"West Asian State. In Archaeo- Potts, Daniel. 1990. The Arabian Gulf in Antiquity. Two vols. logical Thoughtin America, ed. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky. Oxford: Oxford Univ. Press. Pp. 206-18. Cambridge:Cambridge Univ. Press. 1993. A New Bactrian Find from Southeastern Ara- Kohl, P.; E. Sayre; and G. Harbottle. 1979. Physical and Chem- bia. Antiquity 67: 591-96. ical Analyses of Soft Stone Vessels from Southwest Asia. Potts, Timothy. 1994. Mesopotamia and the East: An Archaeo- Archaeometry 21: 131-59. logical and Historical Study of Foreign Relations, ca. Lamberg-Karlovsky,C. C. 1993. The Biography of an Object: 3400-2000 B.c. Oxford Univ. Committee for Archaeol- The InterculturalStyle Vessels of the Third Millennium. ogy Monograph, 37. Oxford: Oxbow Books. In History from Things, ed. Steven Lubar and W. David Prickett, Martha. 1986. Man, Land and Water: Settlement Dis- Kingery.Pp. 270-92. Washington,D.C.: SmithsonianPress. tributionand the Development of IrrigationAgriculture in Layard, A. H. 1853. Discoveries in the Ruins of Nineveh and the Upper Rud-i Gushk Drainage, SoutheasternIran. Ph.D. Babylon. London: Murray. diss.: HarvardUniversity. Lewontin, Richard. 1995. The New YorkReview of Books, "Let- Ratnagar, S. 1981. Encounters: The Westerly Trade of the ters to the Editor."42.10, 69. Harappa Civilization. New Delhi: Oxford Univ. Press. Ligabue, Giancarlo and Sandro Salvatori. 1989. Bactria: An Roaf, Michael and Jane Galbraith. 1994. Pottery and p-values: Ancient Oasis Civilizationfrom the Sands of Afghanistan. Seafaring Merchants of Ur Re-examined. Antiquity 195: Venice: Erizzo Press. 187-213. Lucas, Alfred. 1962. Ancient Egyptian Materials and Indus- Saggs, H. W. F 1962. The Greatness That Was Babylon. Lon- tries. Fourth edition by J. R. Harris. London: Allen. don: Sidgwick and Jackson. 102 Journal of the American Oriental Society 117.1 (1997)

Sarianidi, Viktor. 1986. Die Kunst des alten Afghanistan. Leip- Tallon, E 1987. Metallurgie susienne, I: De la fondations de zig: E. A. Seeman. Suse au XVIIle siecle avant J.-C. Notes et documents des .1986a. Seals from Central Asia (in Russian). Soviet- mus6es de France. Paris: editions de la reunion des mu- skaya Archaeologia 2: 28-44. sees nationaux. Sasson, J. M. 1968. Artisans ... Artists: Documentary Perspec- Vandiver,Pamela. 1986. The ProductionTechnology of Earthen- tives from Mari. In Investigating Artistic Environmentsin ware Ceramics, 4900-2800 B.C. In Excavations at Tepe the Ancient Near East, ed. A. C. Gunter. Pp. 21-27. Yahya, Iran 1967-1975 ed. C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Press. American School of Prehistoric Research, Bulletin 38. Sax, M., and N. O. Meeks. 1995. Methos of Engraving Quartz Pp. 91-101. Peabody Museum, HarvardUniv. Cylinder Seals. Archaeometry 37: 25-37. .1987. Sequential Slab Construction: A Conservative Schmandt-Besserat,Denise. 1992. Before Writing:From Count- Southwest Asiatic Ceramic Tradition, Ca. 7000-3000 ing to Cuneiform.Austin: Univ. of Texas Press. B.C. Paleorient 13: 9-35. Smith, C. S. 1971. The Technique of the Luristan Smith. In Vats, Madho Sarup. 1974. Excavations at Harappa. New Delhi: Science and Archaeology, ed. R. H. Brill. Pp. 32-54. Bhartiya Publishing House. Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press. Wattenmaker,Patricia. 1994. State Formation and the Organi- .1980. From Art To Science: Seventy-two Objects zation of Domestic Craft Production at Third Millennium Illustrating the Nature of Discovery. Cambridge, Mass.: B.C. Kurban Hoyuk. In Archaeological Views from the MIT Press. Countryside, ed. Glenn Schwartz and Steven E. Faloner. 1981. A Searchfor Structure.Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Pp. 109-20. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Press. Press. Wright, Rita. 1989. New Tracks on Ancient Frontiers:Ceramic Snead, Rodman E. 1970. Physical Geography of the Makran Technology on the Indo-IranianBorderlands. In Archae- Coastal Plain of Iran. National Technical Information ological Thought in America, ed. C. C. Lamberg-Kar- Service. Washington, D.C.: Departmentof Commerce. lovsky. Pp. 268-79. Cambridge:Cambridge Univ. Press. Steinkeller, Piotr. 1982. The Question of Marhasi: A Contri- Yener, K. Aslihan, and Pamela B. Vandiver. 1993. Tin Process- bution to the Historical Geography of Iran in the Third ing at Goltepe, an Early Bronze Age Site in Anatolia. Millennium B.C. Zeitschriftfiir Assyriologie 72: 237-65. American Journal of Archaeology 97: 207-38. .1987. The Foresters of . In Labor in the Ancient Near East, ed. M. A. Powell. Pp. 72-115. New Haven, Conn.: American Oriental Society.