Scribd Logo
Fazer o upload

Bem-vindo(a) ao Scribd!

  • Rise of Sumerian Civilization in Ancient Mesopotamia

    Enviado por

    Horacio Miguel Hernán Zapata
    201 visualizações55 páginas
    This document provides an introduction to the ancient Mesopotamian city of Uruk and the Uruk Period in Mesopotamian civilization. It discusses three key realizations about the Uruk Period: 1) It spanned most of the 4th millennium BC, longer than previously thought; 2) Early developments in Mesopotamia were not unique to the south as urban societies also emerged in northern Mesopotamia and Syria; 3) Around 3500 BC, societies in southern Mesopotamia began dramatically outpacing their northern counterparts, leading to the emergence of Sumerian civilization. The document outlines the geography and ecology of ancient southern Mesopotamia and notes differences during the Ur

    Descrição original:

    Algaze Uruk Mesopotamia

    Título original

    Algaze Uruk Mesopotamia

    Direitos autorais

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Formatos disponíveis

    DOC, PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd

    Você considera este documento útil?

    Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

    Denunciar este documento
    This document provides an introduction to the ancient Mesopotamian city of Uruk and the Uruk Period in Mesopotamian civilization. It discusses three key realizations about the Uruk Period: 1) It spanned most of the 4th millennium BC, longer than previously thought; 2) Early developments in Mesopotamia were not unique to the south as urban societies also emerged in northern Mesopotamia and Syria; 3) Around 3500 BC, societies in southern Mesopotamia began dramatically outpacing their northern counterparts, leading to the emergence of Sumerian civilization. The document outlines the geography and ecology of ancient southern Mesopotamia and notes differences during the Ur

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato DOC, PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    201 visualizações55 páginas

    Rise of Sumerian Civilization in Ancient Mesopotamia

    Enviado por

    Horacio Miguel Hernán Zapata
    This document provides an introduction to the ancient Mesopotamian city of Uruk and the Uruk Period in Mesopotamian civilization. It discusses three key realizations about the Uruk Period: 1) It spanned most of the 4th millennium BC, longer than previously thought; 2) Early developments in Mesopotamia were not unique to the south as urban societies also emerged in northern Mesopotamia and Syria; 3) Around 3500 BC, societies in southern Mesopotamia began dramatically outpacing their northern counterparts, leading to the emergence of Sumerian civilization. The document outlines the geography and ecology of ancient southern Mesopotamia and notes differences during the Ur

    Direitos autorais:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Baixe no formato DOC, PDF, TXT ou leia online no Scribd
    Sinalizar o conteúdo como inadequado
    de 55

    1

    ToappearinTheSumerianWorld,editedbyHarrietCrawford.London:Routledge

    URUKMESOPOTAMIA

    GuillermoAlgaze
    UniversityofCalifornia,SanDiego

    INTRODUCTION

    Ancient Mesopotamian civilization emerged in the alluvial lowlands of the Tigris


    Euphrates rivers in what is today southern Iraq in the fourth millennium BC, and it
    enduredinrecognizableformforwelloverthreemillenniauntilAlexandertheGreatand
    hisarmiesbreachedthegatesofBabylonin331BC.Ofthismillennialonghistory,no
    timespanismorefundamentalforourunderstandingofMesopotamiancivilizationthan
    theUrukperiod,spanningthebetterpartofthefourthmillenniumBC. Thisisbyno
    meansanewidea. Intheculturalrealm,forinstance,thearthistoriansH.Frankfort
    (1958)andHeleneKantor(1984)manyyearsagoalreadynotedthemultiplewaysin
    whichtheiconographicrepertoireofUruktimessettheconventionsthatwouldguide
    artistic representation inMesopotamia untilthedemise oftheneoAssyrianandneo
    BabylonianempiresinthefirstmillenniumBC.Similarly,MarioLiveranihasrecently
    pointedoutthattheconventionsofscribaladministrationthatemergedattheendofthe
    Uruk Period and are reflected in the socalled Archaic Texts, in effect, also set the
    framework for how Mesopotamian urban scribes would continue to comprehend,

    2
    categorize,andrecordtheirworlduntiltheendofthecuneiformtraditionmillennialater
    saveforminorimprovementsandadjustments(LiveraniandHeimpel1995:134).
    Asimilar argumentcanbemadeforurbanism,perhapsthemostfundamental
    characteristicofMesopotamiancivilizationthroughtheages(Stone1997). Ithasbeen
    argued many times that cities and citystates were the default spatial and political
    configurations,respectively,ofMesopotamiainthethirdmillennium(e.g.,Gibson1976),
    with periods of regional political consolidation and transregional imperial outreach
    representing largely episodic albeit highly visible departures from the norm (Larsen
    1979). If this broad characterization is correct, as I believe it is, cities can be
    conceptualizedasboththecruciblewhereMesopotamiancivilizationwasfirstforgedand
    thelocuswhereitsuniqueinstitutionsanddistinctiveweltsaanshaung(Frankfortetal.,
    1951;Jacobsen1976)replicatedthemselves(withmodifications)overmillennia.Again,
    thehistoricalurbantraditionoflaterMesopotamiansocietiesisfirmlyrootedinUruk
    perioddevelopments,ashasbeenwidelyacknowledgedsinceatleastthefirsthalfofthe
    20thcentury.
    Whatisneworatleastmorerecentarethreeinterconnectedrealizationsthat
    add significant nuance to our understanding of the context in which the various
    continuitiesofMesopotamiancivilizationjustnotedfirstarose. Thefirstisthatofthe
    substantialtemporaldepthoftheUrukperiod,whichnowappearstohavespannedmost
    ofthefourthmillennium,asHenryWrightandEricRupley(2001)demonstratedjust
    overadecadeago.ThesecondrealizationisthatforatleastthefirsthalfoftheUruk
    Period, developments in southern Mesopotamia were by no means as unique as

    3
    previouslythoughtformostofthe20th century. Rather,recentarchaeologicalworkat
    TellBrakandKhirbatalFakhar,bothintheUpperKhaburbasinofSyria,leavesno
    doubtthatparallelandquitecomparabletrajectoriestowardsurbanscalesocietiesexisted
    in both southern and northern Mesopotamia for much of the first half of the fourth
    millenniumBC(Uretal.,2007;Oatesetal.,2007;McMahon2009;McMahonandOates
    2007;AlQuntaretal.2011;Copper,thisvolume).Thethirdrealizationfollowsfromthe
    preceding and is that the parallel trajectories exhibited by the southern and northern
    portionsofgreaterMesopotamiadivergedabruptlysometimeinthesecondhalfofthe
    fourthmillenniumBC,whensouthernpolitiesstartedtodramaticallyoutpacecompetitors
    elsewhereinsouthwestAsiaintermsofscale,populationdensity,andsocialcomplexity
    a process that eventually culminated with the intrusion of variously configured
    southernMesopotamiancoloniesintoselectedareasofnorthernMesopotamiaandIran
    (below)duringtheMiddleandLatephasesoftheUrukperiod,roughlycorrespondingto
    the500orsoyearsbetween3700/3600and3200/3100BC.
    Inwhatfollows,IbrieflyoutlinewhatisknownabouttheUrukperiodinsouthern
    Mesopotamia and speculate on some of the possible reasons underlying the dramatic
    reversalofregionalfortunesjustnoted,whichledtotheemergenceoftheearliestiteration
    (Sumerian)ofMesopotamiancivilizationasweknowit.Beforeproceeding,however,a
    fewwordsareinorderaboutthegeographicalscopeofthisessayandtheevidentiary
    sourcesitrelieson.

    4
    GEOGRAPHYANDENVIRONMENT

    Asmaybesurmisedbythepreceding,thetermMesopotamiaisusedherenotinits
    expansive original Greekmeaning that includes all ofthe areas contained withinthe
    TigrisandEuphratesriversandbetweentheAnatolianPlateauandthePersianGulf,but
    morenarrowlytodenoteonlytherelativelyflatalluviallowlandsoftheTigrisEuphrates
    fluvial system. This is the area that geographers refer to as Lower or Alluvial
    Mesopotamia (Liverani 2007)and that inantiquity broadly correspondedto the self
    consciousculturalentitiesofSumerandAkkad(orBabylonia).Thisarelativelyflatbut
    bynomeanshomogenousplainthatextendsfromthevicinityofmodernBaghdad,where
    theTigrisandEuphratesstarttomeanderanddeposittheiralluvialloadsinearnest,tothe
    vicinity of modern Basra and the Shatt elArab marshlands (see also Pournelle, this
    volume).
    AsRobertMcCormickAdams(1966)andMichaelRowton(1973)notedmany
    yearsagoalready,throughoutantiquity,thealluvialplainsofsouthernMesopotamiawere
    comprised of a mosaic of complementary ecological zones or niches that fostered
    considerableregionaleconomicspecializationandtrade.Thesezonesrangefromwell
    wateredareasnearactiveriverchannels,wherecultivationofgardenandotherwater
    intensivecropssuchasflaxwaspossible,tobroaderirrigableplainsjustbeyondnatural
    river levees that are optimal for cereal cultivation, to more marginal areas ideal for
    pastoralismattheedgesofcultivationandinfallowareasbetweenfields,and,finally,to
    waterloggedmarshes,brackishlagoons,andestuariesattheconjuncturewheretheTigris
    andEuphratesthecoastofthePersianGulf,wherereedsusableasanimalfodderand

    5
    construction materials as well as abundant proteinrich fowl and fish were easily
    obtained.
    While a comparable mosaic of ecologic niches also characterized alluvial
    Mesopotamia throughout the fourth millennium, recent geomorphological data do
    indicatesomeimportantdifferencesatthattime,whichhavebeenthesubjectofmuch
    recentanalysisanddiscussion.Withoutquestion,themostsignificantsuchdifferences
    pertain to the nature of the TigrisEuphrates Rivers, which then formed a single
    complexlyintertwinedfluvialsystem,andtothelocationoftheheadofthePersianGulf
    atthetime,whichwaswellnorthofitspresentlocation,andsotoowereitsassociated
    marshesandestuaries(Hole1994;Pournelle2003a,2003b,2007,thisvolume)
    Atthesametime,recentpaleoclimaticdatasuggests,inturn,thattheclimateof
    theMesopotamianalluviumthroughtheUrukPeriodwasalsosomewhatdifferentthan
    wasthecaseinhistorictimes,and,further,thatitchangeddramaticallyduringthecourse
    ofthefourthmillennium(BarMatthewsandAyalon2011;Brooks2006;Staubwasser
    andWeiss2006).Twochangesappearmostsignificant.Thefirstpertainstotheinitial
    phaseoftheUrukperiod,roughlydatedtofirsthalfofthefourthmillennium, when
    available data indicates that the southern Mesopotamian alluvial plains would have
    receivedagreateramountofrainfallthanwasthecaselater,and,further,thatsomeof
    thatrainfallwouldhavefallenduringthesummer.Thiswouldhavebeencompounded
    bytheequallybeneficialeffectsthatthemorenorthernlocationoftheheadofthePersian
    GulfwouldhavehadontheTigrisEuphratesfluvialsystemofthetime.Theseincludea
    higherwatertableacrossthesouthernMesopotamianalluviumandagreaterrateofriver

    6
    meandering (because the shorter length of the rivers increased water momentum)
    ensuringthatlargerportionsoftheMesopotamianalluvialplainsawayfromtheenlarged
    marsheswouldhavebeenexploitablebymeansofrelativelysimplebasinflowirrigation
    without the need to construct the sorts of larger, more capital and labor intensive,
    irrigation channels that became necessary to efficiently exploit the southern
    Mesopotamian landscape later on when the head of the Persian Gulf had receded
    southwards, lengthening the courses of the rivers and shrinking the extent of the
    interstitialmarshes.
    The second change pertains to the final phase of the Uruk period, when the
    conditionsthathadbeensouniquelyfavorabletotheinitialgrowthoflargescalehuman
    settlementintheareastartedtodissipate.Recentlyobtainedpaleoclimaticdatasuggest
    thatanintervalofdryerclimatelastingperhapsasmuchastwocenturiesaffectedthe
    southernMesopotamianalluviumsometimeattheendofthethirdandthebeginningof
    thefourthquartersofthe4thmillennium,markingashifttothesortsofhighlyseasonal
    conditionsthatcametocharacterizethesouthernMesopotamianalluviumthroughthe
    historicandmodernperiods(Brooks2006;StaubwasserandWeiss2006).Interestingly,
    thoughwedonotyethaveclosechronologicalcorrelation, thisclimatic deterioration
    seems to have taken at about the time when a longterm process of expansion that
    broughtUrukpolitiesindirectcontactwithpeerandlessdevelopedsocietiesattheir
    peripherywasreachingitspeak.Atleastinsomeareasofthatperiphery,thosecontacts
    culminated in what may be characterized as the worlds earliest colonial intrusion
    (below).

    EVIDENTIARYSOURCES

    AvailablesourcesofinformationforUrukperiodMesopotamiaareuneveninqualityand
    detail. Ourbest andinmanywaysstillonlydatabearingonthedevelopmental
    dynamics of the period as a whole are the pioneering surveys conducted by Robert
    McCormickAdamsandhiscolleaguesacrosslargeportionsoftheancientalluvialplains
    oftheTigrisandEuphratesrivers(Adams1965,1981;AdamsandNissen1972;Gibson
    1972;H.Wright1981;forareworkingofthedata,seenowKouchoukosandWilkinson
    2007;Pollock2001;andWilkinson2000).Fundamentalastheymaybe,thesesurveys
    arebiasedinanumberofwaysthatmustbeacknowledgedevenasweusethem.First,
    becauseofrestrictionsonworknearthemoderninternationalborderbetweenIraqand
    Iran,coverageofareaswateredbytheancientEuphrateswasmuchmoreextensiveand
    representativethancoverageofareaswateredbytheancientTigris.Second,becausethey
    weredesignedtobeextensiveinnature,andbecausedepositional(alluviationrates)and
    erosional(channelscouring,winddeflation)patternsinenvironmentssuchassouthern
    Iraqsnecessarilyhindersitevisibility,existingsurveysofsouthernIraqarelikelyto
    havemissedasubstantialnumberofsmall,shallow,andburiedsites(Wilkinson2000).
    Notwithstandingtheseproblems,thereisgeneralagreementthatexistingdatacanstillbe
    usedtodiscernspatialrelationshipsbetweensettlementcategoriesintheregionand,inso
    doing,toinferthepoliticalandeconomicrelationshipsthatmayhaveexistedbetween
    those categories. Additionally, and equally importantly, the surveys allow for a
    diachronicreconstructionofgrosstrendsinthedemographichistoryofthelargeportions

    8
    oftheMesopotamianalluvialplainsthatcouldnotbediscernedotherwiseandtheyallow
    ustocomparedemographictrendsfortheUrukperiodagainstthoseoftheimmediately
    precedingandsucceedingsettlementphases(seealsoUr,thisvolume).
    Existingexcavationsarenolessusefulandnolessproblematic.Nowhereisthis
    better illustrated than in the case of excavations that German teams conducted
    intermittentlyovermuchofthe20th centuryat theancientcityofUruk(modernWarka,
    nearNasiriyah)(Eichmann1989,2007).Theseeffortshaveshedmuchlightonthenature
    ofthestructuresthatexistedattheverycoreofwhatwaswithoutadoubtoneofthemost
    importantpolitiesinalluvialMesopotamiathroughouttheUrukperiod,onthescaleofthe
    laborresourcesneededtoerectthosebuildings,andontheactivitiesconductedwithin
    them at least insofar as those activities may be reconstructed on the basis of the
    associated artifactual record. Alas, this key corpus of data, too, comes to us with
    importantevidentiarybiases.
    AsnotedbyHansNissen(1993,2001,2002)inaseriesofseminalarticles,the
    most important of these biases are: (1) that the Warka excavations, though unusually
    extensive,concentratedonlyonelitequartersofthecityandarethusnotrepresentativeof
    thecityasawhole,muchlessofitshabitationandindustrialareas;and(2)thatsavefora
    small number of limited soundings, the overwhelming portion of the materials and
    buildingsuncoveredbytheUrukexcavatorsbelongtotheveryendoftheUrukperiod,by
    whichtimeMesopotamiancivilizationwasalready,sotosay,fullyformed.Thismeans
    thattheformativephasesofMesopotamiancivilizationdatedtotheearlierphasesofthe

    9
    UrukperiodremainlargelyunexploredatWarkaorelsewhereintheMesopotamian
    Alluviumforthatmatter,outsideofsurfacesurveys.
    Afurtherproblemisthelackofsubstantialsystematicexplorationofsecondtier
    Uruk period regional centers elsewhere in the Mesopotamian alluvium, save for
    excavationsconductedinthe1940satthecoreofTellUqair(LloydandSafar1943)and
    Eridu(Safar,Mustafa,andLloyd1981),whichmirrorthemoreextensivedatafromthe
    coreofUrukandthusaddlittletoourunderstandingoftheperiod,orexcavationsinto
    sitessuchasNippur(Hansen1965),Ur(Woolley1955),andTello(Parrot1948),which
    sampledUrukperiodlevelsbutwereeithersolimitedinextentsoastoproducelittle
    informationbeyondceramicchronologies(Nippur)orwereconductedinsuchahaphazard
    fashionsoastobelargelyirrelevantforscholarlyuse(UrandTello).Evenmoregallingis
    thefactthatafteracenturyorsoofsystematic exploration insouthernMesopotamia,
    researchdesignsthatweremassivelybiasedfromthebeginningtowardstherecoveryof
    elitearchitectureandartifactsmeanthatwestillhavealmostnosystematicexplorationsof
    Urukperiodvillagesorhamletsawayfromthelargerregionalcenters.1
    Afurtherbiasmuststillbediscussed.Becauseoftheshortcomingsjustnotedof
    existingarchaeologicaldatafortheUrukperiod,Mesopotamianscholarsoftenputmuch
    stockonavailabletextualdocumentationfortheperiodanditsimmediateaftermath,which
    consistsofacorpusof5000plusArchaicTextsexcavatedinEannaIVIIIlevelsat
    Warka(Englund1998)andofanundeterminednumberofpaleographicallycomparable
    AnexceptionisasystematicsurfacesurveyofanEarlyUruksitenearNippurby
    CharlesRedman(1971)aspartofhisdoctoraldissertation.Additionally,itshouldbe
    notedthatlimitedsoundingsofatleasttwosmallruralUruksitesdoexistinSusiana
    (Johnson1976).
    1

    10
    tabletsexcavatedor,morecommonly,plunderedfromothersouthernMesopotamiansites
    (Englund2009:footnote11).However,thisdataisalsoproblematicinitsownway.To
    beginwith,thetabletsdateonlytotheveryfinalphaseoftheUrukperiodandshedno
    lightwhatsoeveronthebeginningsoftheurbanrevolutioninthearea,whichbeganmuch
    earlier(below).Moreover,evenatWarka,onlyahandfulofthethousandsoftabletsand
    tablet fragments recovered were found in primary contexts, so that it is difficult to
    associateanyparticularinformationcontainedinthetextswithanyparticularinstitutionat
    thatsite(Englund1994:1119).
    MindfulthatourdataforreconstructingdevelopmentsinsouthernMesopotamiain
    the Uruk Period are not always complementary and are hopelessly partial, we may
    tentativelyforgeaheadwithanattemptnecessarilyimperfecttocreateanarrativeof
    sortsabouttheoriginsofearlyMesopotamiancivilization.Bynecessity,thatnarrative
    focusesonwhatwecansaywiththedatawedohave.

    THEEVIDENCEFROMSURVEYS:

    URUKPERIODSPATIALANDPOLITICALORGANIZATION

    Available survey evidence suggests that the transition between the Uruk and the
    immediately preceding Ubaid periods was rather abrupt throughout the Mesopotamian
    alluvium(Nissen1988:66).Tobesure,thereisnowaytoknowforcertainwhetherthis
    abruptness reflects an actual demographic pattern, whether, at least in part, it reflects
    accidentsofdiscoveryduetochangesintherateandintensityofgeomorphologicalforces
    thatobscuredsitevisibilityinthealluviumbetweenthetwoperiods,orboth.

    11
    Perhapsbecauseofthiscaveat,inhisanalysisoflongtermsettlementtrendsinthe
    southernMesopotamianalluviumRobertMcCormickAdams(1981:5460)wasunwilling
    tocharacterizethenatureofpreUruksettlementintheMesopotamianalluviumindetail,
    limitinghimselftonotingthatingeneralthedensityofpreUruksitesisverylightand
    declinesnorthwardsfromtheheadofthegulf,thatmostpreUruksettlementsrepresented
    butsmallhamletsorvillages,andthatlargersettlementswerenotattestedinthealluvium
    untiltheendoftheUbaidPeriod(endofthefifthmillennium),whenahandfulofsites,
    each about10hainextent, emerged. Theselargersites,heargued,providetheonly
    indication we have for social differentiation and complexity in southern Mesopotamia
    priortotheUrukperiod.
    Though Adams chose not to quantify the extent of occupation in the alluvium
    duringtheUbaidPeriod,whatdatawehave,imperfectasitis,showsastarkcontrast
    betweentheUbaidandthesucceedingUrukPeriods.Whereastheearlierperiodevinceda
    bimodal settlement structure with a handful of towns with monumental religious
    architectureattheircoresurroundedbyrelativelyundifferentiatedvillages,thelaterperiod
    sawthedevelopmentofamorecomplexmultimodalsettlementconfiguration,comprising
    atleastthreeorfourtiersofsettlement.Thisisreflectedinaconsiderableincreaseinthe
    totalnumberofsitesrecordedacrossthealluvium,inthegrowthofmultipleindividual
    centers to urban proportions, and, most tellingly, in the thickening of the associated
    settlementnetworksthatsurroundedthenewlyemergedurbancenters.
    These differences matter. The bimodal settlement structure of Ubaid
    Mesopotamia correlates wellwiththeexpected spatial configuration ofchiefdomlevel

    12
    polities(Steponaitis1981;Wright1984;Nissen1988;butseeYoffee2005foracontrary
    opinion),2whilethemultimodalsettlementstructurethatdevelopedintheareaduringthe
    UrukPeriod,inturn,correlateswellwithformsofspatialorganizationtypicalforstate
    levelpolities(Johnson1975;IsbellandSchreiber1978).Strikingly,theavailablesurvey
    evidencesuggeststhatsuchpolitieswerealreadyinplaceacrossthesurveyedportionsof
    thesouthernMesopotamianalluviumbythefirstquarterofthefourthmillennium,the
    EarlyUrukperiod,whenUruk/Warka,situatedonamajorbranchofthefourthmillennium
    Euphrates,isestimatedtohavebeenbetween70to100hectaresinextent.Atleastthree
    othersitesacrossthealluviumatthispointwere40hectaresorlargerinsize(Eridu,Site
    1237,andTellalHayyad[Site1306]). Multipleothersitesacrossthealluviumatthis
    timewereintherangeof1525hectares(Adams1981;Wright1981;Algaze2008:fig.16
    andappendix1).
    Thesevariouscentersdidnotexistinisolation.Whentherelevantsurveydataare
    tallied,itappearsthattheyanchoredcomplexsettlementgridsminimallycomprisingfour
    tiersindepth(Johnson1980:249).Indeed,availabledataindicatethattheproportionof
    thepopulationlivinginrelativelylargetownsized(ca.10+ha)orurbansized(ca.40+ha)
    TheexistenceofUbaidianchiefdomshasbeenrejectedbyYoffee(2005)whonotesthe
    almosttotallackofmaterialculturemarkersofpersonaldifferentiationinexcavated
    cemeteriesoftheLateUbaidperiodwithinsouthernMesopotamia.However,thedearth
    ofarchaeologicalevidenceforwealthaccumulationbyeliteindividualsinUbaidtimes
    looksquitedifferentifonetakesintoaccountcontemporarydatafromthenearbyand
    relatedSusianaPlainofsouthwesternIran,wheresignificantwealthintheformmetal
    toolsandweaponsexistedintheSusaAPeriodcemeteryormassgraveatthebaseofthe
    socalledMassifFuneraireatthesiteofSusa(Moorey1999:256).Moreover,andmost
    importantly,evenifitwerereal,suchadearthisnotinandofitselfasufficientreasonto
    rejecttheexistenceofUbaidianchiefoms,apointmadeindependentlybyStein(1994)
    andFlannery(1999),whonotethatconspicuousconsumptioninlifeanddeathisonly
    oneofthemanypotentialstrategiesusedbychiefstolegitimizethemselves.
    2

    13
    agglomerations in the alluvium in the Early Uruk period was just under 50 percent
    accordingtoAdamss(1981:75,table4)originalcalculations. IfPollocks(2001:216,
    table6.7)recentreassessmentofthesamedata,whichtriestotakeintoaccountthefact
    that not all sites assigned to a discrete period are likely to have been strictly
    contemporaneous,ispreferred,thatproportionrisestoanastonishing80percentorso.
    Impressiveasthismaybe,developmentsinthesucceedingLateUrukPeriodare
    even more striking. As in the earlier phase, the proportion of the population of the
    Mesopotamian alluvium living in relatively large townsized or urbansized
    agglomerationsremainedastonishinglyhigh(ca,70%fortheNippurAdabRegionandca,
    60%fortheWarkaregion).3 Asintheprecedingperiod,multipletowns(ca.1015ha)
    andsmall(ca.25ha:Nippur,Site1172,site125)andlarger(50ha:Site1306)cities
    existedacrossthesurveyedportionsofthealluviumatthistime(Algaze2008:fig.17,
    appendix 2) and further such cities also existed in areas not systematically surveyed,
    minimallyincludingUmmaandTello(Algaze2008:112).WhatisnewintheLateUruk
    period,however,istheextraordinarydevelopmentanddemographicgrowthofthecentral
    portion of the alluvium surveyed by Adams, where Uruk/Warka attained the
    unprecedentedsizeofupto250hectares,accordingtoadetailedsurfacesurveyofthesite
    conductedbyaGermanexpeditionjustbeforetheonsetoftheFirstGulfWar(Finkbeiner
    1991:fig.18).Althoughthereisnoconsensusonpreciselyhowtocorrelatesettlement
    Adams(1981,75,table4)originallyestimatedthatupto70percentofthepopulationin
    theNippurAdabregionwasurbanintheLateUrukperiodasopposedtoabout40
    percentintheWarkaarea,butthelatternumbermustberevisedsharplyupwardstoabout
    60percenttoaccountforthegreatlyincreasedestimateforthesizeofWarkaitselfatthe
    time(250haasopposedtoAdamssinitialestimateof100ha).
    3

    14
    extent and population in ancient Mesopotamian cities, there is general agreement that
    Nissens(2003)estimateofthepopulationofWarkaintheLateUrukperiodat40,000or
    sopeopleprobablyrepresentsareasonableapproximation.4
    Not surprisingly, the settlement grid that surrounded Warka at this time was
    exceptionallycomplexintermsofitsdensityandhierarchy(fourormoretiersdepending
    onhowthedataareanalyzed). Itincludednumerousdependentsmallandlargetowns,
    villages,andhamletssituatedwithina15kilometerrangeofthecity,totalingaminimum
    of280orsohectaresoffurtheroccupation(AdamsandNissen1972;Nissen2002:fig5).
    Inotherwords,ataminimum,bythefinalphaseoftheUrukperiod,thegrowingregional
    politycenteredatUruk/Warkahadapopulationthatcanbeconservativelyestimatedat
    wellupwardsof80/90,000peopleandthisestimatenecessarilyexcludesthemanysmall
    sites that were surely missed by the surveyors as well as associated, but inherently
    difficulttotrace,transhumantandmarshdwellingpopulations.
    Howandwhydidapolityofsuchunprecedentedscaleform?Thehowpartofthe
    questionisapproachablewiththearchaeologicaltoolsatourdisposal.Whiletheoverall
    density of population in the Mesopotamian alluvium remained essentially unchanged
    betweentheearlierandlaterphasesoftheUrukPeriod,importantchangesdidtakeplace
    inthedistributionofpopulationswithintheareabetweenthosephases(Adams1981:70
    71).Inparticular,absolutepopulationlevelsappeartohavedeclinedinsomeareasofthe
    Nissenarrivedatthisestimatebypresumingadensityof200personsperhectareof
    surveyedoccupied areaandbypresumingthatthelightlyinhabitedpublicquarterof
    Warkaamountedtoca.20%ofthe250haextentofthesite. Almostcertainly,this
    underestimatestheactualpopulationdensityofWarkaintheLateUrukPeriodasmaybe
    inferredfromPostgates(1994)studyofthedemographyofMesopotamiancitiesinthe
    thirdandsecondmillenniaBC.
    4

    15
    alluviumintandemwithWarkasgrowth,suggestingthatthedramaticgrowthofthatcity
    anditsimmediatehinterlandwasfueledinpartbyintraalluvialpopulationtransfers.A
    caseinpointisofferedbytheNippurAdabregion,northofWarka,whereAdamss(1981)
    surveysshowthat,whiletownandurbansizedsettlementsremainedstablethroughthe
    Urukperiod,thenumberoftheirassociatedvillagesandhamletsdeclinedsignificantlyas
    theperiodprogressed.Asimilardeclineinabsolutepopulationlevelsbetweentheearlier
    andlaterUrukphasesisvisibleintheUrEriduregion,southofWarka,anareasurveyed
    byHenryWright(1981).There,however,thelossofpopulationtookplacelargelyatthe
    expense of Eridu, which had been one of the largest Early Uruk cities in the entire
    alluvium.
    Additionally,itislikelythattheexplosivegrowthoftheWarkaanditsimmediate
    hinterlandintheLateUrukperiodalsodrewinpopulationsfromareaswelloutsidethe
    Mesopotamianalluviumproper. Suggestedinthepastbyanumberofauthors(Adams
    1981;Algaze1993;Wright andJohnson1975),this possibility nowfinds quantitative
    supportinarecentcomparativereanalysisoftheavailablesurveydatafromsouthernand
    northern Mesopotamia and southwestern Iran in the fourth millennium by Nicholas
    KouchoukosandTonyWilkinson(2007).TheynotethatsettlementprocessesinGreater
    MesopotamiathroughouttheUrukperiodappeartohavebeencausallyarticulatedover
    vast regions and persuasively show that, when recalculated using a single standard,
    demographic trends intheMesopotamian alluvium andimmediately neighboringareas
    appeartobeinverselycorrelated:theexplosivegrowthofWarkaanditshinterlandtook
    placenotonlyattheexpenseoftheNippurAdabandEriduUrareas,asarguedearlier,but

    16
    seeminglyalsoattheexpenseofareaswelloutsidetheimmediateconfinesofalluvial
    Mesopotamia, where a monotonical decline in settled population can be observed
    throughoutthefourthmillennium.Minimally,thisisthecaseinareasasdisparateasthe
    JazirahplainsnorthoftheJebelSinjarinnorthernIraq,theSusianaplainofsouthwestern
    Iran,andFarsPlaininhighlandsouthwestIran(seeKouchoukosandWilkinson2007for
    theJezirahandSusianaandSumner1986forFars).
    Thewhypartofthequestionislessstraightforwardandrequiresustothinkin
    termsofselfamplifyingiterativeprocesses. Elsewhere,combiningscrapsofavailable
    datafromMesopotamiaitselfandhistoricalanalogies,Ihavearguedforgrowingintra
    andinterregionaltradefunneledthroughUrukcities,andforimportsubstitutionprocesses
    resultingfromthattrade,asprimaryforcesfuelingemploymentinthosecitiesandspurring
    continuedimmigrationintothem(Algaze2008).Nodoubt,thiswascompounded,inturn,
    bytwofurthermutuallyreinforcingprocesses:(1)escalatingconflictbetweenrivalcenters
    thatbecameevermoreassertiveastheygrewinscale,increasingthedefensiveflightinto
    thoseverysamecentersofruralpopulationscaughtinthemiddle,and(2)theideological
    attractionsoflivingincenterswherethegodsthemselveswerethoughttoreside(Adams
    1981),whichsurelyhelpeddrawfurtherpeopleintoalreadygrowingcities. Asbigger
    poolsofconsumersforimportedandlocallymadecommoditiesandofexploitablelabor
    werecreated,furtheriterationsofselfsustaininggrowthprocessesbecameincreasingly
    likely.
    Bethatasitmay,theunprecedentedgrowthofurbanisminsouthernMesopotamia
    duringthelaterphaseoftheUrukPeriodcanalsobegaugedbythescaleofthebuilding

    17
    programsthattookplaceintheburgeoningMesopotamiancitiesofthetime.Itistoan
    examinationofthatevidencethatwenowturn.

    EXCAVATIONS:ANARROWBUTREVEALINGLOOKATURUKURBANISM

    OurknowledgeofthenatureofUrukurbanismhasincreasedexponentiallyinthelastfew
    decadesasaresultofexcavationsintheTabqaDamareaofSyria,wherelargeportionsof
    anUrukurbanenclavehavebeenuncoveredbythecombinedeffortsofGerman,Belgian,
    andDutchexcavators(below).WithinalluvialMesopotamia,however,thebulkofwhat
    detailedevidencewehaveforthenatureofUrukurbanismcomesfromtheeponymoussite
    ofUruk/Warkaitself,whichwasintermittentlyexcavatedoverthelast100orsoyearsby
    Germanteams.
    WhileWarkaappearstohavebeenurbaninsizesincethebeginningoftheUruk
    period (above), little can be said about how the settlement was organized at the time
    becauseofthelimitednatureofpertinentexposures.Thatisnotthecase,howeverwith
    thesucceedingLateUrukPeriodforwhichthesiteprovidesawealthofevidence. As
    notedearlier,thesettlementsprawledoveranareaofabout250ha(2.5sq.km)atthetime.
    OnthebasisofparallelswithUrukcolonialsettlementsinSyria,itislikelythatUrukwas
    walled,5 andthatitwasdividedintoreligious/administrative,residential,andindustrial
    quarters.However,Germanexcavatorsfocusedtheireffortsonlyontheverycoreofthe
    city,wheretheyeventuallysucceededinexposinganareaofabout9ha(orjustunder4%
    Thispossibilitystrengthenedbycontemporarycylindersealimpressionsdepicting
    urbanfortifications,someofwhichcomefromWarkaitself(e.g.,Boehmer1999:fig.
    26).
    5

    18
    ofthesite;Nissen2001).Thissubstantialexposureyieldedaseriesofmonumentalelite
    buildingsorganizedintotwoseparatearchitecturalclusterssituatedsome300mapartfrom
    eachother,knownastheEannaandKullaba(Anu)Precincts.Inthelaterhistoricperiods,
    these precints were devoted, respectively, to the gods Inanna and Enlil, and almost
    certainlythiswasthecasealreadyintheUrukperiodaswell.Becausethetwoareaswere
    clearly distinct and are situated at significantly different elevations, it is plausibly
    hypothesizedthattheystartedasacropoleisfortwodistinctsettlementsthatwerelater
    joinedatthetimeUrukfirstgrewtourbansize(Nissen2002).
    Whilefarfromrepresentativeofthecityasawhole,theEannaandAnuexposures
    arequiteinformativeaboutthenatureandscaleofeliteinstitutionsattheheartofthe
    settlementintheLateUrukPeriod.Asthepertinentevidencehasrecentlybeentheobject
    ofdefinitivestudiesbyRicardoEichmann(1989and2007)andofarecentreanalysisby
    MarliesHeinz(2006),onlyabriefsummaryofsomeofthemostsalientdataisnecessary
    here.
    Themostcoherentoratleastbestunderstoodofthetwoexposedareaswasthe
    AnuPrecinct,whereexcavatorsuncoveredamassivetripartitestructure(24x19m)of
    Late Uruk date with a central cella and recessbuttressed walls known as the White
    Templeonaccountofthecoloroftheplasterthatlineditswallswhenfirstexcavated.
    Thosewallswerepreservedinplacestoaheightofover3metersandallowtheoverall
    heightofthebuildingtobereconstructedwithsomeconfidenceatabout6meters(Nissen
    andHeine2009:23).Becauseofitstripartiteplanfocusedaroundacentralhall(which
    recallsthatofearlierUbaidtemples)andbecausethathallcontainedbothafreestanding

    19
    centralofferingtableandacornerpodium(wherethestatueofthegodwouldhavestood),
    theWarkaexcavatorsplausiblyinterpretedthisstructureasatemple.
    TheWhiteTemplewasclearlythelastofseveralsimilarbutsmallerstructures
    erectedoveraseriesofsuccessivelyrebuiltmudbrickterracesintheAnuarea.Bythetime
    thatthefinalversionofWhiteTemplewasbuilt,thoseterraceshadrisentoaheightof13
    metersandthetemplecouldonlybeaccessedbymeansofanarrowstaircasecarvedinto
    theterrace.Thesubstantialbulkandheightofterrace,addedtothealsosubstantialheight
    ofthebuildingitself,meantthattheWhiteTempledominatedthevisuallandscapeofboth
    thecityanditssurroundingregion.
    ButtheWhiteTemplewashardlythemostmassivestructureintheAnuarea.Just
    at the base of its terrace, the Warka excavators uncovered a roughly contemporary
    structurethatwasevenlarger(25x30m)butwasbuiltlargelyunderground.Knownas
    theSteingebaudebecauseofitswallsmadeofbitumenmortaredlimestone,thisbuilding
    hadahighlyunusuallabyrinthineplansurroundingacentralspaceatitscore.Becauseof
    the highly restricted nature of that space, the Steingebaude is generally interpreted as
    servingaculticpurpose(Forest1999;Vertesaltji1989,193,note19).
    The interpretation of the more numerous and sometimes more massive
    contemporarystructuresuncoveredintheEannaareaislessstraightforward.Thisisdue
    tothefactthattheexcavatorswerenotalwaysabletotracetherelativestratigraphyof
    manyofthestructuresuncoveredinthatarea,whichhasprecludedaconsensusasto
    exactlywhichbuildingswereinusecontemporaneously. Whatfollowsisbasedforthe
    mostpartontheanalysisoftheevidencebyEichmann(1989)andHeinz(2006),whouse

    20
    the superimposition of particular buildings over others and extrapolations of general
    alignmentsbetweenbuildingsasawaytodisentanglethearchitecturalsequence.
    Bydesign,thebulkofexposuresintheEannaAreafocusedonLevelIVofthe
    sequence(Nissen2002).Becauseexposuresofdeeperlevelswaslimited,onlytwoofthe
    many Uruk structures exposed in Eanna predate Level IV: the socalled Stone Cone
    MosaicTemple(ca.20x30m)andthemuchlargerLimestoneTemple(ca.27x80m),
    theformerderivingitsnamefromitswalldecorationsandthelatterfromthematerialused
    for its construction. Both structures have the tripartite architectural arrangement that
    reflexively gets subsumed under the category of temple by Mesopotamian
    archaeologists,buttheylackaltarsandofferingtablesacharacteristicthat,interestingly,
    issharedbyallofthelatertripartiteUrukstructuresclearedinEanna.
    Numerous buildings assignable to three superimposed but not always clearly
    delineablebuildingphasesandpartsofatemenoswallseparatingthosestructuresfromthe
    restofthesettlementwereclearedinLevelIV.Theearlieststructuresinthelevelwerea
    seriesofthenowusualtripartitebuildings(TemplesA,B,F,G,andH),eachroughly
    similarinscaletotheearlierStoneConeMosaicTemple.Whatwasnewandsignificantly
    differentatthistime,however,wasaverylargesquarestructurewithrecessedcorners(ca.
    57mperside)ofuniquedesignassignedtoEannaIVb. KnownasBuildingE,this
    structurehasmultipleexternalentrancesleadingtotwosymmetricalrangesofroomsand
    hallsoneachofitssideswhich,inturn,surroundalargecentralsquarecourtyard(ca.31m
    perside)thatisalsoaccessiblethroughmultiplepointsofentry.6
    ThisstructureisalsosometimesreferredtoasPalaceE(e.g.,Nissen1988)or,more
    neutrally,astheBuildingwithFourHalls(Heinrich1982).Forarecentdiscussionof
    thestructure,seeBrentschneider2007.
    6

    21
    ThefinalbuildingphaseassignedtotheEannaIVsequenceintroducedsubstantial
    changes in the spatial organization of the exposed area. Three such changes are
    noteworthy.OnewasthedismantlingofBuildingEandtheerectionpartlyoveritofnew
    tripartitestructure(BuildingD)oftraditionalarchitectural designbutmuchgranderin
    scale(ca.80x50m).Anotherwasthebuildingofarowofnewstructuresperpendicular
    to Building D, including two elaborately decorated halls (the Pillared Hall and the
    GreatHall),which,liketheearlierBuildingE,couldbeenteredfromeverydirection.
    Thethirdwasthebuildingofalarge(ca.60mperside)partlysunkenwalledcourt(the
    Great Court)adjoiningthetemenos wall,whichis generally interpreted as agarden
    becauseoftheabsenceofinteriorwallsandbecauseassociatedwaterchannelsdraininto
    thecourt,ratherthanthereverse.
    WhatcanwesayaboutUruksocietyonthebasisoftheexposedarchitectureatthe
    heartofUruk/Warka? Itisimpossibletobegintoanswerthisquestionwithoutdelving
    into the function of the exposed buildings, but such an inquiry is inherently difficult
    becausetheoverwhelmingmajorityofthosebuildingswereonlypreservedatthelevelof
    theirfoundations,havingbeenrazedandleveledinantiquity,andaccordinglytheyhad
    fewdirectlyassociatedfinds.Moreover,asnotedearlier,evenwhensuchfindsexisted,
    excavationmethodologiesandrecordingprioritiesinuseatthetimetheywereexcavated
    meanthatfewofthefindscanbeputbackintothebuildingsinwhichtheywerefound
    (Nissen2002).Inlightofthis,inferencesaboutthefunctionofparticularEannastructures
    arealmostentirelybasedontheformoftheexposedbuildingsthemselvesandmustbe
    consideredlittlemorethaninformedspeculation.

    22
    SeekingtoreconcilethetripartitefloorplanofmanyoftheEannabuildingswith
    thewidespreadevidenceforcontemporaryadministrativeactivitiesfoundintheirgeneral
    vicinity (below), many archaeologists refer to the Eanna structures simply as
    religious/administrative in nature. This may certainly be correct but still begs the
    questionoftheirexactfunction.Others,inturn,notingsimilaritiesintheproportionsof
    thecentralhallsofmanyofthestructuresandmodernreedbuiltreceptionhutsusedby
    traditionaltribalchiefsinsouthernIraq(Arabic: madhaif),suggestthattheyservedas
    culticreceptionhallsormeetingplaces,anideatraceabletoWalterAndrae(1936).Be
    thatasitmay,onefactimmediatelystrikestheeye:whileentrancetothestructuresinthe
    AnuAreaappearstohavebeencarefullycontrolled,thiswasnotalwaysthecaseinthe
    EannaArea,wheremanyofthebuildingshadmultipleentrancesandmusthaveserved
    purposesrequiringtherelativelyfreecongregationoflargenumbersofpeople(feasting
    asamodeofsocialmobilization?SeeDietlerandHerbich2001),ashasbeennotedbya
    numberofscholars(e.g.,Crawford2004;Dittmann2007).
    ButifattemptstogetatthefunctionofthestructuresexposedattheheartofUruk
    yieldlittlebeyondbroadgeneralities,thereisstillmuchthatcanbesaidaboutUruk
    society, and particularly about the ability of its elites to command both labor and
    resources,bylookingattheenergeticsrequiredtoputthosestructurestogetherinthefirst
    place.
    MostMesopotamianscholarsarequitefamiliarwithearlycalculationsmadeby
    theexcavatorsoftheWhiteTemplecomplex,whoestimatedthatitwouldhavetaken
    1,500laborersworkingonaverage10hoursperdayforabout5years(Heinrich1939:24,

    23
    note2)tobuildthelastmajorrevetmentofitsmassiveunderlyingterrace(43x60mat
    itsbaseand13minheight=33,540m3, ofwhichtherevetmentoccupiedca.80%by
    volume=26,832m3).7Usingthesamelaborestimatesforcomparativepurposes,wecan
    calculatetheamountoflaborrequiredtobuildsomeofthecontemporarystructuresinthe
    EannaPrecinct.Lackofspacepreventsathoroughanalysishere,butafewbackofthe
    envelopecalculationsforsomeofthelargersuccessivebuildingserectedinEannawill
    servetoillustrate thepoint: theLimestone Temple assignedtoEanna V,BuildingE
    assignedtoIVb,andTempleDassignedtoIVa.Ifwedisregarddoorways,presumethat
    eachofthethreestructureswasastallastheWhiteTemple,andtreattheLimestone
    Templeasifithadbeenbuiltusing(lesslaborintensive)mudbricks,thenthecombined
    volumeoftheinternalandexternalwallsofthesebuildingswouldhaveamountedto
    some25,054m3.8 By constructionstandardsofthefinalWhiteTemplerevetment,this
    volumeofmudbrickwouldhaverequiredthelaborofabout1,400workersforfiveyears.
    TherevetmentinquestionwaslabeledA12byHeinrichandisrelabeledZ67in
    Eichmanns(2007:517,note770)reconstruction.Theestimateoftherelativeproportion
    ofthetotalvolumeoftheWhiteTempleTerraceoccupiedbyitslastrevetmentprovided
    hereisderivedfromaschematicprofileoftheterracepublishedbyitsexcavator,E.
    Heinrich(1938:19,fig2).
    7

    AllcalculationsarebasedondimensionsextractedfromplansinEichmann2007.
    LimestoneTemple:Externalwalls:2x(2.6m[thickness]x30m[length]x6m
    [height]);2x(2.6mx75mx6m).Internalwalls:1x(3mx30mx6);2x(2.6mx60
    mx6m).Crosswalls:8x(2mx5mx6m);2x(2mx7mx6m);2x(2mx10mx6
    m).Totalvolume:6,576m3.
    BuildingE:Externalwalls:4x(2m[thickness]x47m[length]x6m[height).Internal
    walls:4x(2mx57mx6m);4x(2mx20mx6m);Crosswalls:16x(2mx10mx6
    m).Totalvolume:6,912m3.
    TempleD:Externalwalls:4x(3m[thickness]x80m[length]x6m[height];2x(3mx
    50mx6m).Internalwalls:2x(3mx31mx6m);2x(3x55mx6m);Crosswalls:4
    x(3mx7mx6m);8x(1.3mx7mx6m).Totalvolume:11,566m3.
    8

    24
    It does nottake much imagination to see that preliminary calculations such as these
    wouldamounttoastaggeringamountoflaboratthedisposaloftherulersofUrukcities
    if one includes all pertinent architectural evidence as well as associated architectural
    levelingeffortspriortobuilding,andparticularlysoifNissen(2003:12)iscorrectin
    presumingthattheadministrativequarterofUruk/Warkaprobablyoccupiedca20%of
    thetotalextentofthecity(i.e.,about50ha).
    Impressive this may be, the energetic requirements of the massive building
    programs at the core of Uruk required more than just labor. Substantial access to
    resources, many of them imported, was also needed. Take, for instance, the timber
    requirementsofthesamethreesuccessivebuildingsinEannadiscussedearlier. Given
    thewidespanofmostoftheroomsandhallsthattheycontained,thesestructurescould
    onlyberoofedusingwoodnotthenlocallyavailableintheMesopotamianAlluvium,
    almostcertainlypinescutfromthehighlandsofeithertheTaurusorZagrosMountainsof
    TurkeyandIran,respectively.9CalculationsbyJeanClaudeMargueron(1992)allowus
    toinferwhatthoserequirementswouldhavebeen.Heestimatesthatsomewherebetween
    3,000and6,000linearmetersoftimberwouldhavebeennecessarytorooftheLimestone
    Temple,dependingon,amongotherthings,whetheritscourtyardwasroofed,numberof
    stories, and roofing beam placement interval. Extrapolating from these figures and
    presuming similar construction parameters und uncertainties per unit of built space,
    Building E would have required between 4,330 and 8,660 linear meters of imported
    roofingtimberandTempleD,inturn,wouldhaveconsumedsomewherebetween5,580
    CarbonizedpinehasinfactbeenrecoveredinLateUrukLevelsatWarka(Engeland
    Krshner1993).
    9

    25
    and 11,160 linear meters, fora combined total of between 12,910and 25,820 linear
    metersforthethreebuildings.Again,wehavetoassumethatthisrepresentsbutasmall
    fractionofthefulltimberrequirementsofLateUrukWarka.
    WecouldcontinuewithcalculationsoftheenergeticsofLateUrukurbanism,but
    by now the point should be abundantly clear. The scale of the Late Uruk building
    programatthecenterofUruk/Warkaleaveslittledoubtastothesubstantialabilityofthat
    cityselitesandinstitutionstoacquireanddeploystaggeringamountsofbothlaborand
    resources.Wehavetopresumethatelitesandinstitutionsatothercontemporaryurban
    siteselsewhereintheMesopotamianAlluviumwouldhavehadcomparableneedsand
    comparable abilities to satisfy those needs, as shown, for instance, by the massive
    bitumen mortared, mudbrick and limestone revetted platforms of Late Uruk Temples
    (LevelsIII)atEridu(Safar,Mustapha,andLloyd1981). Whothoseeliteswereand
    what labor resources they were able to command are subjects addressed in the
    discussionsthatfollow.

    LATEURUKELITESANDTHEIRINSTITUTIONS

    ApictureofthetoprungofMesopotamiansocietiesisnotpossiblepriortotheMiddle
    and Late Phases of the Uruk Period, when iconographic and textual evidence,
    respectively,becomeavailable.Withoutquestiononeofthemostimportantsourceswe
    havebearingonthenatureofUrukinstitutionsisrepresentedbyfragmentsofascribal
    exerciseconventionallyreferredastheTitlesandProfessionsList,whichdatetofinal
    phase of the Uruk Period (Uruk IV script). In its complete version dating to the

    26
    succeedingEarlyDynasticPeriod,thedocumentlistsover120categoriesofspecialized
    administrative and priestly personnel in some sort of hierarchical order. While the
    earliestUrukIVscriptfragmentsofthislistarenotcomplete,whatportionswedohave
    closely match later versions, strongly suggesting that those later versions are in fact
    scribalcopiesofdocumentsalreadyincirculationbyLateUruktimes.Therankedlist
    starts withanentrythatonthebasis oflater parallels maybeinterpreted as king.
    Subsequententriesarenotallclearlyunderstoodbutincludethetitlesofadministrators
    andlesserofficialsinchargeofvariousstateinstitutionsincludingindividualsincharge
    oftheadministrationofjustice,thecityassembly,plowing,sowingandotheragricultural
    activities,temples,etc.(Nissen,Damerow,andEnglund1993:11015).
    Further details of Uruk institutions and the individuals that created them are
    providedbyiconographyofMiddleandLateUrukdate.MuchofUrukart,forinstance,
    dealswiththeideologicallychargedactivitiesofalargerthanlifebeardedmalefigure,
    whowearshishairinachignonandsportsanetlikeskirt.Typicallydepictedasahunter
    ofwildanimalsandmen,asaleaderinbattle,asafountainofagriculturalwealth,in
    directassociationwithnichedbuildingsofpresumablyculticsignificance,andasthe
    main officiator invarious religious rituals (Bahrani 2002;Boehmer 1999;Schmandt
    Besserat1993;Winter2007),thisindividualisgenerallythoughttorepresentapriest
    kingorcityruler,attributionslargelybasedonthecloseparallelsbetweenthemanner
    inwhichheisdepictedinUrukartandthewayhistoricMesopotamiankingswerelater
    portrayed.

    27
    When not focusing on heroic warlike rulers, Uruk iconography often depicts
    various types of economic activities, such as agricultural labor and the storage of
    agriculturalproducts,thetransportofcommodities,theherdingofcapridsandbovines,
    andtheprocessingofwoolanddairyproducts. Theseimages,too,provideimportant
    inferentialinformationaboutUrukinstitutions.AsnotedbyReneDittmann(1986)inhis
    pathbreaking review of Uruk glyptic from Susa, at that site, most scenes depicting
    economicactivitiesareassociatedwithimagesofbuildingswithnichedfaades.Ifwe
    presume that the glyptic containing these images represented bureaucratic records of
    economic activities at the site, and that the niched structures depicted in the Susian
    glypticarerepresentationsofsimilarlybuiltstructuresexcavatedinUrukcities,suchas
    Warka,forinstance,thenthephysicalcentralityofthenichedstructuresinthosecities
    maybetakenasanindicationoftheeconomiccentralityoftheinstitutionsthatthey
    housed.

    LABORINURUKMESOPOTAMIA

    TheearliesttabletsthatemergedinMesopotamiaattheveryendoftheUrukperiodafter
    many generations of urban life had already elapsed are not always entirely
    understandabletous.Nonetheless,thosetabletsarestillenormouslyinformative.Ofthe
    many aspects of Uruk Mesopotamian societies that they illuminate, few are more
    importantthanhowinstitutionallaborwasorganizedinLateUrukcities.
    Theoverwhelmingmajorityofthetabletsweresimpleaccountsdocumentingflows
    ofcommodities. Manyrecord thedisbursement oftextiles, grain, ordairy products to

    28
    individuals. Whilegenerallytheydonotrecorddetailsoftheinstitutionorinstitutions
    makingthesedisbursementsandonlyrarelyrecordthestatusoftheindividualsreceiving
    them, parallels to later cuneiform documentation suggest that many such accounts
    represent summaries of allotments to administrators for later distribution to fully or
    partiallydependentworkersundertheircommand(Nissen,DamerowandEnglund1993;
    Englund1998).
    Thatsuchworkersexistedisbothdirectlydocumentedinthetabletsandindirectly
    inferable from them. Direct corroboration, for instance, is provided by a recently
    publishedArchaicTextfragment(UrukIVscript)summarizinggroupsofmaleandfemale
    captivesusedaslaborers,totaling211individuals(Englund1998:17879,fig.66).While
    it is difficult to ascertain how representative this tablet really is, the frequency of
    references to captive individuals in the Archaic Texts is quite high. Robert Englund
    (1998)notesthatifoneexcludesnonnumericalsignsthesecondmostcommonsignin
    thosetextsisthatdenotingfemaleslavesofforeignorigin.Signsforcaptivemales,while
    lesscommon,arealsoquitefrequent.
    InferentialevidencefortheimportanceofencumberedlabortoUrukinstitutionsis
    alsonothardtofind.Suchevidencetakesseveralforms.Onehasemergedonlyrecently
    asscholarswerefinallyabletoperusethenumerousplunderedArchaicTexts(UrukIV
    andIIIscript)intheSchoyenCollection,whichexponentiallyexpandedtherepertoireof
    personalnamesknownfromsuchtexts(from38to440!). Inarecentstudyofthose
    names,Englund(2009)convincinglyshowsthattheoverwhelmingmajorityofthemare
    composedwithsignsthatspecificallydenotethestatusoftheindividualsbearingthemas

    29
    eitheroutrightchattelorasfetteredinsomeway,afacthepresumesisexplainedbyUruk
    overlords renaming foreign captives in terms comprehensible to themselves. Equally
    tellingisafinalinferentiallineofevidence:scribalsummariesintheArchaicTextsthat
    detailthecompositionofgroupsofforeignandnativelaborersconsistentlydescribethem
    withdetailedageandsexcategoriesidenticaltothoseusedtodescribeherdedanimals
    (Englund1998:17681,2009). Itwouldappear,therefore,thatintheminds ofUruk
    scribes,andintheeyesoftheinstitutionsthatemployedthem,suchlaborerswerethought
    ofasdomesticatedhumansequivalentinstatustodomesticanimals.
    Tobesure,theevidencejustoutlinedistoopartialforareliablepictureoftheUruk
    economytoemerge asthetablets thatprovidemostofourinformation, bydefinition,
    excludeallactivitiesbeyondtheimmediatepurviewoftheurbanscribesthatproduced
    themandoftheinstitutionstheyworkedfor.Accordingly,thedataoutlinedearlierdoes
    notnecessarilymeanthatcaptiveswereasignificantcomponentoftheUruklaborforceas
    awhole,justthattheyweretheprimarycomponentoftheinstitutionallaborforceatthe
    commandofLateUrukurbanelites(Englund2009).Laterhistoricalparallelsallowusto
    easily imagine the deployment captives as part of the workforce used to build the
    monumentalstructuresthatstoodasatestamenttopowerattheverycenterofUrukcities.
    Urukiconographydepictingsiegescenesandboundprisoners(e.g.,Boehmer1999:pls.
    1127),whileamenabletovaryinginterpretations,provideuswithmultiplerepresentations
    thatcanalsobereasonablyinterpretedasdepictingthetakingofcaptivesthatwouldlater
    swelltheranksoflaborerstrackedbyUrukscribes.Tounderstandhowandwheremany

    30
    ofthoseindividualsmayhavebeenacquired,wemustnowturntoanexaminationofthe
    socalledUrukExpansion.

    THEURUKEXPANSION:THEWORLDSFIRSTCOLONIALINTRUSION

    No aspect pertaining to the origins of Mesopotamian civilization has garnered more


    attentioninthepastfewdecadesthantheexpansionofUrukpolitiesintoavarietyof
    geographical and cultural areas across the periphery of alluvial Mesopotamia. This
    expansiontookavarietyofformsindifferentareas,dependingnodoubtondistance
    awayfromthealluvium,easeoftransport,andthevaryingnatureofpreexistingsocieties
    intheintrudedareas.Thoughithasbeenthesubjectofconsiderablerecentdiscussion
    (Algaze1993,2001ab,2005:128155;Postgate[ed.]2002;Potts2004;Rothman[ed.]
    2001;Stein1999,2005;SeealsotheessaysbyCooperandLambergKarlovskyinthis
    volume),itisstillnecessarytoaddressherethebroadoutlinesoftheUrukExpansion
    because of what they reveal about the nature of Uruk societies and their evolving
    capabilitiesthroughtheUrukPeriod.
    Vastlyoversimplifying,theUrukExpansioncanbeheuristicallydividedintotwo
    components,whichmayhavebeenpartlyoverlapping,bothchronologicallyandcausally.
    ThefirstandpossiblyearliestphaseoftheexpansiontookplaceasUrukpopulations
    colonized the neighboring Susiana plain of Khuzestan, in southwestern Iran, where
    indigenouspopulations(TerminalSusaA)hadpreviouslybeenindecline(Wrightand
    Johnson 1975). This expansion may be discerned in the introduction of a full
    complementofUrukmaterialandideologicalcultureacrosstheSusianaPlain(Algaze

    31
    1993:fig.3),whereitisfoundinsitesbothlargeandsmallsuggestingthatthewhole
    region was taken over by the intruding populations. 10 Given existing gaps in our
    understandingoftheearlierpartoftheUrukPeriod,littlecanbesaidaboutwhenexactly
    thiscolonialintrusiongotunderway,howlongittook,orhowmanyalluvialpolities
    participatedintheinitialpush.WhatisclearisthatceramicsandglypticofMiddleUruk
    type,datedsometimebetween3700/3600and3500/3400BC,providea terminusante
    quemforthestartoftheintrusionandthatitsendresultwasthedivisionoftheSusiana
    intotwocompetingUrukpolities(WrightandJohnson1975;Johnson1987),centered
    respectively at Susa and Chogha Mish. Culturally, though probably not politically,
    Susianahadbecome,ineffect,partandparcelofUrukMesopotamia.

    AtaboutthesametimethatthiswastakingplaceinSusiana,someUrukpolities,

    possiblyinreactiontoeventsinSusiana,appeartohaveinitiatedsystematiccontactswith
    societies situated at their north and northeastern periphery. These contacts were
    particularlyintenseinthehighrollingplainsofUpperMesopotamiastretchingbetween
    theTigrisandEuphratesriversanareathatintheearlierhalfofthefourthmillennium
    waswellunderwaytodevelopingitsowntraditionsofurbanismandsocialcomplexity
    (below)andledtoestablishmentofanumberofsouthernMesopotamianoutpostsof
    varyingtype.
    On the basis of existing C14 dates from Uruk sites in Upper Mesopotamia
    (WrifghtandRupley2001)andpertinentparallelsinceramics,glypticiconography,and
    Butforacontraryopinion,seeWright(1998),whointerpretstheconvergenceof
    materialandideologicalcultureinSusianaandtheMesopotamianalluviumasacaseof
    acculturation.
    10

    32
    accountingprocedures,thoseoutpostswereestablishedintheMiddleUrukPeriodand
    theearlierpartoftheLateUrukPhase. Forreasonsthatwecanonlyspeculateabout
    (below),theoutpostswerewithdrawnorabandonedjustbeforetheveryendoftheLate
    UrukPeriod(Nissen2001;Rothman[ed.]2001;Surenhagen1986). Asagroup,these
    outpostsrepresentasecondcomponent oftheUrukExpansion,onethatevolvedand
    grewinscaleandgeographicscopeovertimebutthatwasclearlydistinctfromtheUruk
    takeover of the Susiana in that it did not include the colonization of whole regions.
    Rather, the northwards component of the Uruk Expansion appears limited to the
    implantationofindividualsitesatstrategiclocationsofsignificancefortransportacross
    theMesopotamianperiphery,principally,butnotsolely,attheintersectionofthenorth
    tosouthflowingriversandtheprincipaleastwestoverlandroutesacrossthehighplains
    ofnorthernMesopotamia.
    TheintrusiveUruksettlementsacrossthenorthernandnortheasternperipheryof
    Alluvial Mesopotamiacanbelumpedintothreetypes. Thefirst(andearliest)typeis
    representedbysmalltradingdiasporas.Theseappeartohaveconsistedofsmallgroupsof
    UrukcolonistslivingeitherinthemidstofpreexistingindigenousLateChalcolithicsites
    alreadyexploitingcovetedresourcesorcontrollingaccesstothoseresourcesorlivingin
    morediscretesmallsettlementsplacedintheimmediatevicinityofsomeofthelargerLate
    Chalcolithic centers ofUpperMesopotamia, commonly notmuchmorethanastones
    throwaway. ExamplesofthefirsttypeofdiasporasettlementincludeHacnebiTepe
    (Stein1999),locatedjustnorthofmodernBirecikinTurkey,astrideoneofthefewnatural
    fordingareasoftheUpperEuphratesinantiquity,andGodinTepe(GopnickandRothman

    33
    2011),situatedintheKangavarValley,astrategicnodecontrollingthehistoricaleastwest
    overlandroutefromsouthernMesopotamiaintotheIranianplateau(theKhorasanRoad).
    Examplesofspatiallydiscretediasporasettlementsnearlargerpreexistingcentershave
    beenhypothesizedtorepresentOldAssyrianKltepeKarumlikeemplacements(Algaze
    1993:4850;Ur2010;Uretal.2011)andhavethusfaronlybeenidentifiedinsurveys.
    TheyandhavebeenrecognizedalongtheUpperEuphratesnearSamsat,alongtheBalikh
    nearHammametTurkman,andalongtheUpperKhaburnearBrakandHamoukar.
    In many areas of the north and northeastern Mesopotamian periphery, Uruk
    penetrationneverproceededbeyondthediasporatypeoutpostsjustdescribed. Insome
    areas,however,asecondstageandadifferenttypeofoutpostfollowedfromthepreceding
    in which important preexisting centers of substantial size, which by their very nature
    alreadyservedasnodesforinterregionaltrade,weretakenoverbyUrukcolonists,almost
    certainlybycoercivemeans(Emberling2011).Insofaraswehaveevidence,suchsecond
    stagetakeoversonlytookplaceinthelaterphases(LateUruk)oftheUrukExpansion.
    Evidenceforsuchtakeoversis,tobesure,somewhatambiguous.Myearliersuggestion
    (Algaze1993)thatCarchemishontheEuphratesandNinevehontheTigrismayrepresent
    preexistingregionalcenterstakenoverbyUrukcolonistsremainsimpossibletoevaluate,
    asnonewworkhastakenplaceateitherofthetwolocations,althoughthisisaboutto
    changeatCarchemish,whereanewmultinationalexcavationprojectissettostartin2011.
    More promising, however, is new work in the Upper Khabur basin of Syria.
    Excavations at Tell Hamoukar, a townsized (ca. 12 ha) Late Chalcolithic settlement
    situatedineasternSyriaalongahistoriceastwestrouteconnectingtheUpperKhaburand

    34
    UpperTigrisareas,forinstance,haveshownthattheintroductionofLateUrukmaterial
    cultureatthatsitewasprecededbyaviolentconflagrationthatdestroyedthepreexisting
    indigenous center (Reichel 2002 and personal communication 2009). A similar case
    appearstohaveobtainedatTellBrakonthemorecentralJaghJaghbranchoftheUpper
    Khabur,whichwasclearlythelargestandmostimportantindigenousLateChalcolithic
    centerinUpperMesopotamiaduringthefirsthalfofthefourthmillennium(Oatesetal.,
    2007;Uretal.,2007;Ur2010).ExcavationsinAreaTWoftheBrakHighMoundleave
    little doubt that some sort of an intrusive Uruk colony was established at the site.
    EvidenceisprovidedbyafullrepertoireoftypicallysouthernmaterialcultureofLate
    Uruktype(TW1112;Oates2002),whichcapsalongandimpressivesequenceofearlier
    indigenousLateChalcolithicremains(EmberlingandMcDonald2001;OatesandOates
    1997;McMahonandOates2007;McMahon2009).
    Whatisnotimmediatelyclear,however,iswhetherthatcolonywasanisolated
    diasporatypepresencesimilartothatatHacinebiorGodinorwhetherthewholesitewas
    in effect taken over by southern intruders at the time. In considering precisely this
    question,GeoffEmberling(2002,2011)argues,plausiblyinmyopinion,forthelatter
    explanation.Therearetwopartstohislineofreasoning.First,Emberlingnotesthat,as
    was the case at Hamoukar, an intervening destruction layer separates the final Late
    ChalcolithicarchitecturallevelatBrak(TW16)andtheearliestsuperimposedLateUruk
    architecture(TW12). Second,Emberlingsurmisesthatonaccountofthecommanding
    positionthatthelastrebuildingoftheEyeTemple(excavatedbyMaxMallowaninthe
    1930s)occupiedatthesite,itsbuildersmusthavecontrolledthesiteasawhole.Who

    35
    those builders were, in turn, he infers from the pervasive southern Mesopotamian
    affiliationofthetemplesplanandarchitecturaldecorations,whichheseesasevidencefor
    theimpositionatBrakofareligiousagendaofsouthernMesopotamianorigin.
    Thethirdtypeofintrusivesettlementisfoundinareasinwhichnosignificant
    preexistingoccupationhadtobereckonedwith.Inthoseareas,fromtheverybeginning,
    UrukpenetrationwasaprocessofurbanimplantationwherebyMesopotamiansocialand
    urban forms were reproduced in essentially virgin landscapes. This type of intrusive
    strategy appears restricted to the immediate vicinity of river fords along the Upper
    EuphratesandisparticularlyclearinthelowercorneroftheGreatBendoftherivernear
    themoderntownofMeskene.There,builtfromscratchintrusiveUruksettlementshavea
    longhistorythatgoesbacktothefoundingofthesmallsiteofTellSheikhHassanonthe
    leftbankoftheriverduringtheMiddleUrukPeriodandcontinuedintotheearlierpartof
    theLateUrukperiodwhenamuchlargerurbanenclave(ca2040ha)inextentcomprised
    byHabubaKabirasd,TellQannas,andJebelArudawasfoundedontheoppositebankof
    the river (Strommenger 1980; Vallet 1996, 1998).11 Because these latter sites were
    abandonedbytheendoftheUrukperiodandwerenotreoccupiedinlatertimes,the
    relativewideexposuresthatwerepossiblewithinthemyieldasnapshotofwhattheUruk
    colonialenterpriseinvirginareaslookedlike:Themassivesurroundingfortificationwalls,
    TheactualextentoftheHabuba/Qannas/Arudaenclavedependsonestimatesofhow
    muchofanextramuraloccupationsurroundedthemainwalledsettlement.Foradetailed
    discussion,seeAlgaze1993:2529.
    11

    36
    carefully laidout streets and welldelineated residential, industrial, and administrative
    quartersoftheHabuba/Qannassettlementarepartofavastand,beforethen,unimaginably
    coherenturbanplanningeffort.
    WhatdothesevarioustypesofUrukoutpoststellusaboutUruksocieties and
    abouttheirstrategiesofcontactwithfarawayperipheralareas?Ofthemanypointsthat
    couldbemadeinanswertothesequestions,Iwillhighlightbutfour.Thefirstisthatthe
    carefullychosenlocationsoftheoutpostsatriverfordingareasoratlocalsitesattheapex
    ofpreexistingregionalhierarchiesalongeastwestroutessuggestthatcontroloftradeand
    transport were the primary (thoughsurely not the sole) motivations forthe expansion
    northwards. However, because there was no obvious attempt to control the vast
    hinterlandsawayfromthosechosenlocations,wearedealingwithaverydifferenttypeof
    colonialstrategythanthateffectedinSusiana.
    ThesecondpointisthatprocessesofexpansionofUruksocietiesevolvedoverthe
    centurieslonglifetimeoftheprocess. Whilewetendtothinkoftheestablishmentof
    coloniesasaprocessuniquetostatelevelpolitieswhoseektoacquireandexploitnon
    contiguousterritoriesandresources,thereisinfactaconsiderablebodyofethnographic
    and historic literature (Curtin 1984) showing that nonstate actors can and have
    repeatedly established andmaintained distant diasporastylecolonies infarawayareas
    and,conversely,thatterritorialannexationbystatesisoftenonlytheendresultoflong
    termprocessesofcolonizationthatbeganmuchmoremodestlywithstrategicallysituated
    isolatedoutpostsseekingresourcesfromnativepopulationswillingtotrade(Gallagherand
    Robinson1954),aprocessfittinglyencapsulatedbytheexpressionTheFlagFollowsthe

    37
    Trade.Againstthislight,asStein(2005)hasnoted,therelativelysmallscaleofMiddle
    UrukoutpoststhusfardocumentedalongtheUpperEuphrateswouldnotbeinconsistent
    withanOldAssyriantypefamiliarenterpriseseekingtoplugintopreexistingnetworksof
    tradeandredirectsomeofthattradefortheirbenefit. Thesamecouldbesaid,forthat
    matter,forthesmallsiteswithUrukmaterialsnearlargeLateChalcolithiccenters,noted
    earlier,alongtheBalikhandUpperKhaburbasins.Additionally,Iwouldargue,someof
    thosesameoutpostswouldnotbeinconsistentwithsmallgroupsofspecializedmerchants
    sent out by specific Uruk urban institutions to acquire a particular suite of coveted
    commoditiespossiblynotunlikethedamgar/tamkarumwhoprocuredforeigngoodsfor
    someMesopotamiantempleadministratorsintheEarlyDynasticPeriod(Postgate2003)or
    thosesentbythecityofUmmatoSusaduringtheAkkadianperiod(Foster1993). In
    eithercase,suchoutpostswouldrepresentacaseof colonieswithoutcolonialism,to
    borrowGilSteins(2005)aptphrase.
    ThethirdpointisthatwhatevertheinitialnatureandimpetusfortheMiddleUruk
    expansion into Upper Mesopotamia, the sorts of massive, quickly erected and well
    plannedenclavesthatweencounterinthesucceedingLateUrukphasecouldonlyhave
    beenbuiltbystateinstitutionscapableoflevying,commanding,anddeployingsubstantial
    resourcesandlabor. Similarly, thescaleofsomeoftheindigenousLateChalcolithic
    politiesthatappeartohavebeenvanquishedandtakenoverbysouthernintrudersinthe
    Khabur area in the Late Uruk period also leaves little doubt that by then the Uruk
    Expansionhadbecomeastatesupportedenterpriserequiringtheabilitytoorganize,equip,
    feed,andfieldarmiescapableofoperatingfarawayfromtheirbase(s).

    38
    Thefinalpointmayappearcounterintuitiveinlightoftheprecedingremarks,butis
    not. ThereislittleneedtoconceiveoftheUrukExpansionassomesortofacentrally
    plannedunitaryphenomenonthattookdifferentformsindifferentareas.Rather,because
    available survey evidence from alluvial Mesopotamia (above) is consistent with an
    interpretation of multiple politically balkanized but culturally homogeneous polities
    throughouteveryphaseoftheUrukperiod,theexpansionisperhapsbestconceivedasa
    organic process of action and counteraction, wherein individual Uruk (city) states
    scrambled to colonize specific areas of their periphery, or to found specific strategic
    outpoststailoredtolocalconditionswithinthatperiphery,inordertosecureaccesstothe
    critical lines ofcommunication through which coveted resources were obtainable and,
    equallyimportant,todenytheirlocalsouthernrivalssuchaccess.

    CONCLUSIONS:SMITHIANGROWTH
    Working with assumptions ultimately derived from Marxian conceptions of history,
    economic historians generally contrast ancient and modern modes of economic
    growthasinherentlydifferent;withtheformercharacterizedbytheselflimitinggrowth
    of largely agricultural regimes with stable or, more commonly, declining output per
    capita as they expand, Malthusian constraints on population density, and a slow or
    stagnantrateofoveralltechnologicaladvance,andthelatter characterizedinsteadby
    selfsustaininggrowthbasedonincreases inbothincomepercapitaandtotaloutput,
    everrecedingMalthusianconstraints,andeveracceleratingtechnologicalprogress(Clark
    2007).

    39
    Whileroughlycorrectinits generaloutlines,thisbroadbrushcharacterization
    ignoresoneimportantpremodernexceptionthatisquiterelevanttotheunderstandingof
    whatDanielPotts(2004)aptlyreferredtoasTheUrukExplosion.Thisexceptionis
    what the historian Jack Goldstone (2002) terms Smithian Growth. As Goldstone
    (2002:324)explainsit,SmithianGrowthissimilartomodernprocessesofgrowthinthat
    gainsfromspecializationproducehigherproductivityandhencehigherincomesper
    capitaaswellastotalgrowth.Thesegainscancomefromspecializationacrossdifferent
    societies that accompany increased long distance trade, from regional or urban/rural
    specialization accompanying increased domestic trade and urbanization, or from
    increased occupational specialization accompanying increased population density and
    localcirculationofgoodsandservices. However,GoldstonewarnsusthatSmithian
    Growth,unlikeModernGrowth,wasnotselfsustaininginthelongrun,andultimately
    amountedonlytoseriesofbrightbuttemporaryefflorescences.Thisisexplained,he
    argues, by the fact that Smithian Growth was not commonly accompanied by major
    productivityenhancing technological advances and therefore ceased when trade was
    interruptedor,eventually,wheninitialgainsfromtraderelatedspecializationreacheda
    plateau,reestablishing(thoughatahigherlevel)growthlimitingMalthusianconstraints.
    In Goldstones view, then, in the aggregate, premodern growth is sharply
    punctuated:shortphasesoffastgrowthfollowcloselyintheheelsofepisodicandlocally
    notable increases intrade,specialization, andpopulation agglomeration butgiveway
    eventuallytolongerandmoretypicalperiodsofmuchslowergrowthorevenstagnation.
    These transitions, he notes, are not without consequences. Historically, significant

    40
    decreasesinincomepercapitacanleadtoalossofpoliticallegitimacy,rebellion,therise
    ofalternatereligionsorideologies,andanintensificationofallmannerofconflictasself
    definedfactionswithinadecliningsocietycompeteoveritswaningresources(Goldstone
    2002:325).
    UrukMesopotamiacan,inmyopinion,befittinglycharacterizedasacaseof
    SmithianGrowthasdefinedbyGoldstone.Whilecorrelationisnotcausation,available
    datasuggeststhattheexplosivegrowthofbothpopulationandspecializationinsouthern
    Mesopotamiansocietiesofthesecondhalfofthefourthmillenniumtookplaceatatime
    when substantial crosscultural trade and transregional resource flows were the norm.
    Thisisinferable,indirectly,fromthelocationalcircumstancesofUrukoutpostsacross
    theMesopotamianperiphery,which,irrespectiveofwhethernewlyfoundedorimplanted
    withinpreexistingLateChalcolithiccenters,wereinvariablysituatedatcrucialnodesof
    transportationacrossthearea(Algaze1993,2008). Itisalsoinferable,moredirectly,
    fromthedramatic (ifstillunquantifiable)increaseinboththeamountandvarietyof
    utilitarianandexoticresourcesimportedintosouthernMesopotamiaintheMiddleand
    LateUrukPeriodsascomparedtoLateUbaidtimes. Flowsofresourcesofthesorts
    presumed here, to be sure, would have had important ramifications in all societies
    involvedinthem,includingthosefromwhichtheresourceswereextracted,butthose
    ramificationswouldhaveparticularlymarkedinthecaseofUrukpolitiesbecauseoffour
    compoundingfactorsthatdifferentiallyfueledthegrowthofspecialization,employment,
    andpopulationinsouthernMesopotamiaasopposedtoelsewhere.

    41
    Thefirstfactorappliesirrespectiveofwhetherresourceswereacquiredviatrade
    orplunderandisthatthemajorityofthecommoditiesflowingsouthwardswererawor
    only partially processed goods, such as timber, metals, and stones, that required
    significantprocessingbeforetheycouldbeincorporatedintotheeconomy.Thesecond
    factorpertainstoimportsacquiredbytrade.Historically,intheMesopotamiancase,this
    requiredtheexportoffinishedtextilesaspecialized,laborintensiveindustrythatunder
    Mesopotamianconditionshadmultipleemploymentramificationsthatwentwellbeyond
    theproductionandprocessingofwoolitself(Algaze2008). Thethirdfactorisscale
    dependentandfollowsfromtheincreaseinthescaleoftheeconomythattheneedto
    processbothimportsandexportswouldhavegeneratedinalluvialMesopotamia.Under
    suchconditions,itoftenbecomesbothpossibleandprofitabletostartreplacingimported
    commoditiessubjecttoscaleeconomieswithlocalproduction(importsubstitution),
    fuelingfurtherspecializationdriveniterativedevelopmentcyclesthatconcentratenew
    growthinregionsthatarealreadyexpanding(Krugman1995).Thefourthcompounding
    factorisonethatfullycomplementstheprecedingthreeandpertainstotheinterrelated
    factsthatcaptives,includingnodoubtbothunskilledandskilledindividuals,wereamong
    theresourcesflowingsouthwardsintheUrukperiodandthattheywereaprimarysource
    oftheworkersatthedisposalofUrukstateadministrators.Theeconomicimportanceof
    suchindividualsprobablyfaroutweighedtheirnumbers.Suchcaptiveotherscouldbe
    madetoworkmorethannativelaborand,moreimportantly,couldalsobemoreeasily
    coercedthannativesintoworkinginnontraditionalwayssoastotakeadvantageofgains
    fromlaborspecializationandeconomiesofscale.

    42
    Itdoesnottakemuchimaginationtoseehowtheconjunctureofthesemutually
    reinforcingforceswouldhavesetintomotionaspecializationdrivenburstofSmithian
    GrowthinUrukMesopotamia.AswithallcasesofSmithianGrowthpriortotheadvent
    oftheModernAge,however,theresultingefflorescencecouldnotlast,asitdependedon
    anuninterruptedflowofforeignresourcesthatcouldnotbemaintainedoverthelongrun.
    Three principal reasons account for this: (1) the flow would have altered the socio
    politicallandscapeofresourcerichareasinwaysthatwouldhavebeendifficultforcore
    societies to predict and much less control, (2) inherent inefficiencies of premodern
    transportationaltechnologiesmadeinterruptionsintheflowoftradebetweenfaraway
    areaslikely,and(3)thosesameinefficienciesguaranteedthatcoreattemptstoreestablish
    accesstoperipheralresourcesbyforce,whennecessary,wouldnotalwayshavebeen
    timelyorsuccessful.
    IntheMesopotamiancase,thebeginningoftheendoftheUrukefflorescenceis
    perhapsalreadyreflectedinthecollapseofthenetworkofUrukoutpostsacrossUpper
    Mesopotamia,whichtookplaceinalatebutnotfinalphaseoftheUrukperiod(predating
    EannaIVonthebasisofaccountingtechnologies). Howeveritwasnotuntilthestill
    littleunderstoodJemdetNasrinterlude,conventionallydatedtothetransitionfromthe
    fourthtothethirdmillennia,whenthebreakdownbecamefullyvisible.Thisisreflected
    insubstantialchangesinsettlementpatternswithintheMesopotamianalluvium(Postgate
    1986)and,moredramatically,intheuseofspaceattheverycoreofUruk/Warka,where
    the earlier building program of the Uruk Period was entirely demolished (Eichmann
    2007).

    43
    TheMesopotamiancaseisparticularlyinteresting,however,inthattheintervals
    betweenitsphasesofefflorescenceandstagnationdepartfromtheexpectedtrajectoryof
    ancient economies in several notable ways. These departures become clear when
    viewedincomparativeperspective.Thefirstdeparturepertainstothelengthoftheinitial
    Smithiangrowthphase,whichlastedforthebetterpartofthefourthmillenniuminthe
    southern Mesopotamian case but was much shorter in other areas of southwest Asia
    where early exchangebased specialization and urbanism also flourished, such as the
    UpperKhabur.Theseconddeparturepertainstowhathappenedaftertheinitialgrowth
    spurtcametoahalt.IntheUpperKhabur,aspredictedbyconventionalcharacterizations
    of ancient economies, the initial efflorescence eventually led to a long period of
    stagnationmarkedbythedisintegrationoftheindigenousurbantraditionoftheareafora
    millenniumorso. ThiswasnotthecaseatallinsouthernMesopotamia,wherethe
    JemdetNasrretrenchment gavewaytoanotherfastpacedphaseofSmithian Growth
    barelytwocenturiesorsoaftertheendoftheUrukefflorescence.Thismaybeinferred
    fromtheexpansionofUrukandAlHiba(Lagash)toencompassanareaof600ha(6sq.
    km) by the first quarter of the third millennium (Nissen 2001 and Carter 1985,
    respectively),bythecontemporaryemergenceofmultiplenewsmallerurbansitesacross
    thealluvium(Adams1981),andbythevigorousresumptionoftheflowoftradeand
    growthofspecializationthatareimpliedbythemanyhighlycraftedsumptuarygoods
    interredinEarlyDynasticgraves.
    WhatmadetheearlysouthernMesopotamianeconomysoresilient,soatypically
    able to bounce back relatively quickly from the inevitable crises and stagnation that

    44
    alwaysfollowaperiodofpremodernSmithianefflorescenceis,however,asubjectfor
    anotherday.

    BIBLIOGRAPHY
    Adams,R.McC.
    1965.LandBehindBaghdad.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
    1966.TheEvolutionofUrbanSociety:EarlyMesopotamiaandPrehispanicMexico.
    Chicago:Aldine.
    1981.HeartlandofCities.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
    Adams,R.McC.andH.J.Nissen
    1972.TheUrukCountryside.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
    Algaze,G.
    1993TheUrukWorldSystem:TheDynamicsofExpansionofEarlyMesopotamian
    Civilization.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
    2001a Initial Social Complexity in Southwestern Asia: The Mesopotamian
    Advantage.CurrentAnthropology43:199233.
    2001bThePrehistoryofImperialism:TheCaseofUrukPeriodMesopotamia.In
    UrukMesopotamiaandits Neighbors. Edited byM.Rothman. SantaFe:SAR
    Press.Pp.2783.
    2005TheUrukWorldSystem:TheDynamicsofExpansionofEarlyMesopotamian
    Civilization,2ndEdition(revised).Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
    2008 EarlyMesopotamiaattheDawnofCivilization:TheEvolutionofanUrban
    Landscape.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
    AlQuntar,S.,L.Khalidi,andJ.Ur
    2011ProtoUrbanismintheLate5th MillenniumBC:SurveyandExcavationsat
    KhirbatalFakhar(Hamoukar),NortheastSyria.Paleorient37:xxxxxx.
    Andrae,W.
    1936TheStoryofUruk.Antiquity38:133145.
    Bahrani,Z.

    45
    2002PerformativityandtheImage:Narrative,Representation,andtheUrukVase.
    In LeavingNoStones Unturned:EssaysontheAncient NearEastandEgyptin
    HonorofDonaldP.Hansen,editedbyE.Ehrenberg. Eisenbrauns:WinonaLake
    (Indiana).Pp.1522.
    BarMatthews,M.andA.Ayalon
    2011MidHoloceneClimateVariationsRevealedbyHighresolutionSpeleothem
    Records From Soreq Cave, Israel and Their Correlation with Cultural Changes.
    TheHolocene21:163171.
    Boehmer,R.M.
    1999Uruk,FrhesteSiegelabrollungen..MainzamRhein:PhilippvonZabern.
    Brentschneider,J.
    2007TheReceptionPalaceofUrukanditsArchitecturalOrigin.InPowerand
    Architecture:Monumental PublicArchitectureintheBronzeAgeNearEastand
    Aegean. EditedbyJ.Bretschneider,J.Driessen,andK.vanLerberghe. Leuven:
    Peeters.Pp.1122.
    Brooks,N.
    2006CulturalResponsestoAridityintheMiddleHoloceneandIncreasedSocial
    Complexity.QuaternaryInternational151:2949.
    Carter,E.
    1985Lagash(TellAlHiba).Iraq47:222.
    Clark,G.
    2007AFarewelltoAlms.Princeton:PrincetonUniversityPress.
    Crawford,H.
    2004SumerandtheSumerians.2nd.Ed.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.
    Curtin,P.D.
    1984 CrossculturalTradeinWorldHistory. Cambridge: CambridgeUniversity
    Press.
    Dietler,M.andI.Herbich
    2001 Feasts and Labor Mobilization: Dissecting a Fundamental Economic
    Practice.InFeasts:ArchaeologicalPerspectivesonFood,Politics,andPower,ed.
    byM.DietlerandB.Hayden.WashingtonDC:SmithsonianInstitutionPress.Pp.
    240264.

    46
    Dittmann,R.
    1986 "Seals, Sealings, and Tablets: Thoughts on the Changing Pattern of
    AdministrativeControlFromtheLateUruktotheProtoElamitePeriodatSusa."In
    GemdetNasr:PeriodorRegionalStyle? EditedbyU.FinkbeinerandW.Rllig.
    Wiesbaden:LudwigReichert.Pp.332366.
    2007 Elam and Babylonia Two Neighbors in the Third Millennium BC. In
    PowerandArchitecture:MonumentalPublicArchitectureintheBronzeAgeNear
    EastandAegean. EditedbyJ.Bretschneider,J.Driessen,andK.vanLerberghe.
    Leuven:Peeters.Pp.4572.
    Eichmann,R.
    1989Uruk,DieStratigraphie.MainzamRhein:PhilippvonZabern.
    2007Uruk,ArchitecturI.Radhen:VerlagMarieLeidorf.
    Emberling,G.
    2002PoliticalControlinanEarlyState:TheEyeTempleandtheUrukExpansion
    inNorthernMesopotamia.InOfPotsandPlans:PapersontheArchaeologyand
    HistoryofMesopotamiaandSyriaPresentedtoDavidOatesinHonorofhis75 th
    Birthday. Edited by L. AlGhailani Werr, J. Curtis, H. Martin, A, McMahon, J,
    Reade,andJ.Oates.London:NabuPublications.Pp.8290.
    2011OntheEarlyCitiesofMesopotamia(ReviewofGuillermoAlgazesEarly
    MesopotamiaattheDawnofCivilization:TheEvolutionofanUrbanLandscape).
    HumanitiesandSocialSciencesNetOnline:www.hnet.org/reviews.
    Engel,T.andH.Krshner
    1993WeitereHolzkohlenundHolzresteausUruk. BaghdaderMitteilungen 24:
    127135.
    Englund,R.K.
    1994ArchaicAdministrativeTextsfromUruk:TheEarlyCampaigns.Berlin:Mann.
    1998 "Texts From the Late Uruk Period," In Mesopotamien: SpturukZeit und
    Frhdynastische Zeit. Edited by P. Attinger and M. Wafler. Freiburg Schweiz:
    Universittsverlag,Gottingen:VandenhoeckandRuprecht.Pp.15236.

    47
    2009 The Smell of the Cage. Cuneiform Digital Library Journal 2009:4
    (dli.ucla.edu/pubs/cdlj/2009/cdlj2009_004.pdf).
    Finkbeiner,U.
    1991

    Uruk Kampagne 3537, 19821984. Die archologische

    Oberflchenuntersuchung(Survey).Mainz:PhilippvonZabern.
    Flannery,K.V.
    1999ChiefdomsintheEarlyNearEast:WhyIt'sSoHardtoIdentifyThem.InThe
    IranianWorld:EssaysonIranianArtandArchaeology(StudiesinHonorofEzatO.
    Negahban). Edited by Abbas Alizadeh, Yousef Majidzadeh, and Sadegh Malek
    Shahmirzadi.IranUniversityPress,Tehran.Pp.4463.
    Forest,J.D.
    1999LespremierstemplesdeMsopotamie,(4eet3emillnaires).Oxford:BAR.
    Foster,B.
    1993"InternationalTradeatSargonicSusa." AltorientalischeForshungen20:59
    68.
    Frankfort,H.
    1958 TheArtandArchitectureoftheAncientOrient. Hammondsworth:Penguin
    Books.
    Frankfort,H.,H.GroenewegenFrankfort,J.Wilson,andT.Jacobsen
    1951BeforePhilosophy:TheIntellectualofAncientMan;anEssayonSpeculative
    ThoughtintheAncientNearEast.Harmondsworth:Penguin.
    Gibson,McG.
    1972TheCityandAreaofKish.Miami:FieldResearchProjects.
    1976ByCycleandStagetoSumer.InTheLegacyofSumer,ed.byD.Schmandt
    Besserat.Malibu:Undena.Pp.5158.
    Goldstone,J.
    2002EfflorescencesandEconomicGrowthinWorldHistory:RethinkingtheRise
    oftheWestandtheIndustrialRevolution.JournalofWorldHistory13:323389.
    GopnickH.andM.Rothman
    2011 OntheHighRoad:TheHistoryofGodinTepe,Iran. CostaMesa (CA):
    MazdaPublishers.

    48
    Hansen,D.
    1965TheRelativeChronologyofMesopotamia,PartII:ThePotterySequenceof
    NippurFromtheMiddleUruktotheOldBabylonianPeriod(34001600B.C.).In
    Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, 2nd. Ed., R. Ehrich, ed. Chicago:
    UniversityofChicagoPress.PP.201215.
    Heinrich,E.
    1938GrabungenimGebietdesAnuAntumTempels.VorlufigerBerichtberdie
    von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in UrukWarka unternommenen
    Ausgrabungen9:1930.
    1939GrabungenimGebietdesAnuAntumTempels. VorlufigerBerichtber
    die von der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in UrukWarka unternommenen
    Ausgrabungen10:2133.
    1982 Die Tempel und Heiligtmer in Alten Mesopotamien. Berlin: Walther De
    Gruyter.
    Heinz,M.
    2006ArchitecturundRaumordnung:SymbolederMacht,Zeichen,derMchtigen.
    InConstructingPower:Architecture,Ideology,andSocialPractice.Editeded.by
    JosephMaran.Hamburg:LIT.Pp.135147.
    Hole,F.
    1994 "Environmental Instabilities and Urban Origins." In Chiefdoms and Early
    StatesintheNearEast,editedbyG.SteinandM.S.Rothman.Madison:Prehistory
    Press.Pp.121152.
    Jacobsen,T.
    1976TheTreasuresofDarkness.NewHaven:YaleUniversityPress.
    Johnson,G.A.
    1975LocationalAnalysisandtheInvestigationofUrukLocalExchangeSystems.In
    AncientCivilizationsandTrade.EditedbyJ.A.SabloffandC.C.LambergKarlovsky.
    Albuquerque:UniversityofNewMexicoPress.Pp.285339.

    49
    1976EarlyStateOrganizationinSouthwesternIran.InProceedingsofthe4thAnnual
    SymposiumonArchaeologicalResearchinIran.EditedbyF.Bagherzadeh.Tehran:
    IranianCentreforArchaeologicalResearch.Pp.190223.
    1980SpatialOrganizationofEarlyUrukSettlementSystems.In LArchaeologie
    deLIraqdudbutdelepochenolitiquea333avantnotreere.EditedbyM.T.
    Barrelet.Paris:ditionsduCentreNationaldelaRechercheScientifique.Pp.233
    64.
    1987TheChangingOrganizationofUrukAdministrationontheSusianaPlain.In
    The Archaeology of Western Iran. Edited by F. Hole. Washington, DC:
    Smithsonian.Pp,10740.
    Isbell,W.andK.Schreiber
    1978WasHuariaState?AmericanAntiquity43:372389.
    Kantor,H.J.
    1984"TheAncestryoftheDivineBoat(Sirsir?)ofEarlyDynasticandAkkadian
    Glyptic."JournalofNearEasternStudies43:27780.
    Kouchoukos,N.andT.Wilkinson
    2007 Landscape Archaeology in Mesopotamia: Past, Present, and Future. In
    SettlementandSociety:EssaysDedicatedtoRobertMcCormickAdams.Editedby
    ElizabethC.Stone.LosAngeles:UCLACotsenInstituteofArchaeology.Pp.118.
    Krugman,P.
    1995Development,Geography,andEconomicTheory.Cambridge:MITPress.
    Larsen,M.T.
    1979TheTraditionofEmpireinMesopotamia.InPowerandPropaganda,ed.by
    M.T.Larsen.Copenhagen:AkademiskVorlag.PP.75106.
    Liverani,M.
    2007TheMiddleEuphratesinPreClassicalTimesasanAreaofConplexSocio
    PoliticalInteractions.MediterraneoAntico10:112.
    Liverani,M.andW.Heimpel
    1995ObservationsonLivestockManagementinBabylonia. ActaSumerologica
    17:127144.

    50
    Lloyd,S.andF.Safar
    1943TellUqair:ExcavationsbytheIraqGovernmentDirectorateofAntiquitiesin
    1940and1941.JournalofNearEasternStudies2:13158.
    Margueron,J.Cl.
    1992Lesboisdansl'architecture:premieressaipouruneestimationdesbesoins
    danslebassinmesopotamienne.BulletinonSumerianAgriculture6:7996.
    McMahon,A.
    2009 The Lion, The King, and the Cage: Late Chalcolithic Iconography and
    Ideology.Iraq71:115124.
    McMahon,A.andJ.Oates
    2007ExcavationsatTellBrak,2006and2007.Iraq69:145171.
    Moorey,P.R.S.
    1999AncientMesopotamianMaterialsandIndustries:TheArchaeologicalEvidence.
    2nd.Edition.Oxford:ClarendonPress.
    Nissen,H.J.
    1988TheEarlyHistoryoftheAncientNearEast.Chicago:UniversityofChicago
    Press.
    1993TheEarlyUrukPeriodASketch.In BetweentheRiversandOverthe
    Mountains: Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata.
    EditedbyM.Frangipane,H.Hauptmann,M.Liverani,P.Matthiae,andM.Mellink.
    Rome: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antropologiche
    dell'Antichit,UniversitdiRomaLaSapienza.Pp.12331.
    2001CulturalandPoliticalNetworksintheAncientNearEastDuringtheFourth
    andThirdMillenniaB.C.InUrukMesopotamiaanditsNeighbors. EditedbyM.
    Rothman.SantaFe:SARPress.Pp.14980.
    2002 UrukKeySiteofthePeriodandKeysiteoftheProblem.In Artefactsof
    Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East. Edited by J.N. Postgate.
    Warminster:ArisandPhillips.Pp.116.

    51
    2003UrukandtheFormationoftheCity.In ArtoftheFirstCities:TheThird
    MillenniumB.C.fromtheMediterraneantotheIndus. Edited by.J.Aruz. New
    York:MetropolitanMuseumofArt.Pp.1120.
    Nissen,H.J.,andP.Heine
    2009 From Mesopotamia to Iraq: A Concise History. Chicago: University of
    ChicagoPress..
    Nissen,H.J.,P.Damerow,andR.K.Englund
    1993 Archaic Bookkeeping: Early Writing and Techniques of Economic
    AdministrationintheAncientNearEast.Chicago:UniversityofChicagoPress.
    Oates,J.
    2002TellBrak:The4thMillenniumSequenceanditsImplications.InArtefacts
    of Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near East. Edited by J.N. Postgate.
    Warminster:BritishSchoolofArchaeologyinIraq.Pp.111122.
    Oates,J.andD.Oates
    1997 An Open Gate: Cities of the 4 th Millennium B.C. (Tell Brak 1997).
    CambridgeArchaeologicalJournal7:287307.
    Oates,J.A.McMahon,P.Karsgaard,S.AlQuntar,andJ.Ur
    2007EarlyMesopotamianUrbanism:ANewViewFromtheNorth.Antiquity:81:
    585600.
    Parrot,A.
    1948Tello.Paris:AlbinMichel.
    Pollock,S.
    2001TheUrukPeriodinSouthernMesopotamia.InUrukMesopotamiaandits
    Neighbors.EditedbyM.Rothman.SantaFe:SARPress.Pp.191232.
    Postgate,J.N.
    1986TheTransitionFromUruktoEarlyDynastic:ContinuitiesandDiscontinuities
    intheRecordofSettlement.InGemdetNasr:PeriodorRegionalStyle?Editedby
    U,FinkbeinerandW.Rllig.Weisbaden:LudwigReichert.Pp.90106.
    1994HowManySumeriansperHectare?ProbingtheAnatoimyofanEarlyCity.
    CambridgeArchaeologicalJournal4:4765.

    52
    2003TradeinPrehistoryViewedFromHistory.BibliothecaOrientalis60:525.
    Postgate,J.N.(ed.)
    2002ArtefactsofComplexity:TrackingtheUrukintheNearEast.Warminster:Aris
    andPhillips.
    Potts,D.T.
    2004 TheUrukExplosion:MoreHeatthanLight(ReviewofRothman). The
    ReviewofArchaeology25:1928.
    Pournelle,J.
    2003a The Littoral Foundations of the Uruk State: Using Satellite Photography
    TowardaNewUnderstandingof5th/4thMillenniumBCELandscapesintheWarka
    SurveyArea,Iraq.InChalcolithicandEarlyBronzeAgeHydrostrategies.Edited
    byD.Gheorghiu.Oxford:BARInternationalSeries.Pp.524.
    2003b Marshland of Cities: Deltaic Landscapes and the Evolution of Early
    Mesopotamian Civilization. Ph.D. Dissertation, Department of Anthropology,
    UCSD.
    2007 KLM to Corona: a Birdseye View of Cultural Ecology and Early
    Mesopotamian Urbanization. In Settlement and Society: Essays Dedicated to
    Robert McCormick Adams, edited by Elizabeth C. Stone. Los Angeles: UCLA
    CotsenInstituteofArchaeology.Pp.2962.
    Redman,C.
    1971 Controlled Surface Collection as an Integral Element in Archaeological
    ResearchStrategies. Ph.D.Dissertation,DepartmentofAnthropology,University
    ofChicago.
    Reichel,C.
    2002AdministrativeComplexityinSyriaduringthe4thMillenniumBC:TheSeals
    andSealingsfromTellHamoukar.Akkadica123:3556.
    Rothman,M.(ed.)
    2001UrukMesopotamiaanditsNeighbors.SantaFe:SARPress.
    Rowton,M.

    53
    1973 UrbanAutonomyinaNomadicEnvironment. JournalofAncientNear
    EasternStudies32:201215.
    Safar,F.,M.A.Mustafa,andS.Lloyd
    1981Eridu.Baghdad:StateOrganizationofAntiquitiesandHeritage.
    SchmandtBesserat,D.
    1993 "Images of Ensiship." In Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains:
    ArchaeologicaAnatolicaetMesopotamicaAlbaPalmieriDedicat. EditedbyM.
    Frangipane, H. Hauptmann, M. Liverani, P. Matthiae, and M. Mellink. Rome:
    UniversitadiRoma"LaSapienza."Pp.201220.
    Staubwasser,M.andH.Weiss
    2006HoloceneClimateandCulturalEvolutioninLatePrehistoricEarlyHistoric
    WestAsia.QuaternaryResearch66:372387.
    Stein,G.
    1994Economy,Ritual,andPowerinUbaidMesopotamia. In, Chiefdomsand
    Early States in the Near East. Edited by G. Stein and M. Rothman Madison:
    PrehistoryPress.Pp.3547.
    1999 Rethinking WorldSystems: Diasporas, Colonies, and Interaction in Uruk
    Mesopotamia.Tucson:UniversityofArizonaPress.
    2005 ThePoliticalEconomyofMesopotamianColonialEncounters. In The
    Archaeology of Colonial Encounters. Edited by G. Stein. Santa Fe: School of
    AmericanResearchPress.Pp.143172.
    Steponaitis,V.
    1981SettlementHierarchiesandPoliticalComplexityinNonmarketSocieties:The
    FormativePeriodoftheValleyofMexico.AmericanAnthropologist83:320363.
    Stone,E.
    1997 "Citystates and their Centers, the Mesopotamian Example," In The
    ArchaeologyofCityStates.EditedbyD.L.NicholsandT.H.Charlton.Washington,
    D.C.:SmithsonianInstitutionPress.Pp.1526.
    Strommenger,E.

    54
    1980 HabubaKabira:EineStadtvor5000Jahren. MainzamRhein:Phillipvon
    Zabern.
    Sumner,W.
    1986 ProtoElamite Civilization in Fars. In Gemdet Nasr: Period or Regional
    Style?EditedbyU.FinkbeinerandW.Rllig.Wiesbaden:LudwigReichert.Pp.
    199211.
    Surenhagen,D.
    1986TheDryFarmingBelt:TheUrukPeriodandSubsequentDevelopments.In
    The Origins of Cities in Dry Farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the Third
    MillenniumBC.EditedbyH.Weiss.Gulford:FourQuartersPublishing.Pp.743.
    Ur,J.
    2010 Urbanism and Cultural Landscape in Northern Syria:The Tell Hamoukar
    Survey19992001.Chicago:OrientalInstitute.
    Ur,J.,P.Karsgaard,andJ.Oates
    2007EarlyUrbanDevelopmentintheNearEast.Science317:1188.
    2011 "TheSpatialDimensionsofEarlyMesopotamianUrbanism:TheTellBrak
    SuburbanSurvey,20032006."Iraq73:119.
    Vallet,R.
    1996"HabubaKabireoulanaissancedel'urbanisme."Palorient22:4576.
    1998Lurbanismecolonialurukien,lexampledeDjebelAruda.Subartu4:5387.
    Vertesalji,P.
    1989 Were There Supralocal Cemeteries in southern Mesopotamia in Late
    ChalcolithicTimes.InUponthisFoundation:TheUbaidReconsidered.Editedby
    E.HenricksonandI.Thuesen. Copenhagen:CarstenNiebuhrInstituteofAncient
    NearEasternStudies.Pp.181198.
    Wilkinson,T.J.
    2000 RegionalApproachestoMesopotamianArchaeology:TheContributionof
    ArchaeologicalSurveys.JournalofArchaeologicalResearch8:219267.
    Winter,I.

    55
    2007RepresentingAbundance:TheVisualDimensionoftheAgrarianState. In
    SettlementandSociety:EssaysDedicatedtoRobertMcCormickAdams.Editedby
    ElizabethC.Stone.LosAngeles:UCLACotsenInstituteofArchaeology.Pp.117
    138.
    Wooley,L.
    1955UrExcavationsIV:TheEarlyPeriods.Philadelphia:TheUniversityMuseum.
    Wright,H.T.
    1981"TheSouthernMarginsofSumer:ArchaeologicalSurveyoftheAreaofEridu
    andUr."InR.McC.Adams,HeartlandofCities.Chicago:UniversityofChicago
    Press.Pp.295346.
    1984"PrestatePoliticalFormations." In OntheEvolutionofComplexSocieties:
    EssaysinHonorofHarryHoijerEditedbyT.Earle.Malibu:Undena.Pp.4178.
    1998 Uruk States in Southwestern Iran. In Archaic States Edited by G.M.
    FeinmanandJ.Marcus.SantaFe:SARPress.Pp.17398.
    Wright,H.T.andG.A.Johnson.
    1975 Population, Exchange, and Early State Formation in Southwestern Iran.
    AmericanAnthropologist77:26789.
    Wright,H.T.andE.Rupley
    2001CalibratedRadiocarbonAgeDeterminationofUrukRelatedAssemblages.In
    UrukMesopotamiaanditsNeighbors.EditedbyM.Rothman.SantaFe:SARPress.
    Pp.85122.
    Yoffee,N.
    2005MythsoftheArchaicState.Cambridge:CambridgeUniversityPress.

    Você também pode gostar