Journa! of World Prehiston', Vol.6, No. -1,1992
Bureaucrats and Managers, Peasantsand
Pastoralists, Imperialists and Traders: Research on
the Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in Mesopotamia
Susan Pollockl
In recent de<:ades
the Uruk and Jemdet Nasr periods ofthe ftturth millennium
B.C. itt Mesopotamiahave been the suhject of <:ottsiderttbleresearchby scholars
of the an<:ientNear East. Interests in arul intcrpretatktn.t ol'thcse periods huvc
litcused on their credential.stts early slate.s,urban.societies, and the immediate
untecedent.sof Sunterian civilization. ln this ovcrview', I Jirst pr?sent a brieJ'
historical backgrourulon the study of theseperiods, .followed hy u critical review
of recant approoche.sthat have had signiJicont inrpads on current direr:tions oJ
researc:hand understandingof the fourth millennium. Finally, I suggestsome
research evenues currentLy being tentatively expbred that moy he especially
appropriate for developingfurther our understandingsof theseperiods.
KEY WORDS: Mesopotanria;statcsi urbanism; exchange;production.
INTRODUCTION
Reading recentarchaeologicalliteratureon Mcsopotamia,one cannot fail
to be impressedby the momentousachievementswith which the societiesof the
fourth millennium B.C. have been credited. Identificationand interpretationof
these achievementsare diverse, varying according to the predilectionsof different researchers.
To some,the fundamentaldevelopmentwas the origin of the
first statesin the early part of the Uruk period and their subsequent
consolidation
and, in somecases,collapse(Wright and Johnson,1975;Johnson,1973, 1987,
1988-1989;Wright, 1971, 1918).Othershave identifiedurbanization,which
makesrapid advancesin the fourth millennium and reachesa peak in the midrDepartmentof Anthropology. SUNY-Binghamton, Binghamton, New York 13902-6000
297
0892-75.17l92l09m-0297$06.50()O 1992 Plenunr PublishinsConrration
294
The Uruk and Jemdel Nasr periods
irr Mesopotamia
299
t h i r d m i l l e n n i u m .a s t h e m o s tc r i t i c a ld e v e l o p m e n( tA d a m s ,1 9 6 6 , l 9 8 l ; R e d . etothershaveinterpretedtheseemingexplosion
m a n , 1 9 7 8 ; H u o t e t a l . , l 9 9 O )Y
Uruk materialin Late Uruk in areasas distant
of southemMesopotamian^related
Anatoliaand southemIran as indicationsof the existenceof an
as southeastern
empire and its colonies(Algaze. 1989). And still othershave emphasizedthe
that accompaniedthe rising social and economic
increasingbureaucratization
with the developmentof earlycivilization(Nissen.
complexitythat is associated
1971, 1986, 1988: Nissenet al., 1990).
The argumentsusedto supporttheseand other contentionsabout the Uruk
and Jemdet Nasr periods rest upon more than a century of fieldwork in which
remainsof theseperiodshave been explored,albeit not always intentionally,
recognized.Rernarkableincreases
and some o1'theirdistinctivecharacteristics
in the size and numbersof sitesoccurredin the Uruk relativeto the preceding
Ubaid period,and massiveshiftsin settlement
alsotook placeduringthe course
of the fourth rrrillenniurn(Figs. I and 2). Some sitesgrew to hithertounprecedentedsizesthat seen deservingof the termstown or city. By the end of the
fburth millennium,somecomnrunitieswere walled. Architecture,especiallyof
"public buildings." became increasinglygrandioseand differentiatedfrom
(Fig. 3). In the realmof crafi production,the Uruk period
domesticarchitecture
saw the appearanceof a particulartype of pottery-the beveledrim bowl-that
(Fig. 4). Large,
occurredin vast quantitiesand was apparentlynrass-produced
in the Jerndet
coarseconical bowls seemto have been their direct successors
Nasr period(Fig. 5). Varioustechnological
changeswere introduced,including
mold manufacture(of beveledrim bowls), throwing potteryon the wheel, and
the use of mechanicaltools tbr cutting seals.Artifacts used in bureaucratized
systemsof accountingproliferatedin seeminglyrapid succession,with the advent
of cylinderseals,sealedclay "envelopes" or bullae(Fig. 6), and finally, clay
tabletscontainingwriting (Fig. 7). A major breakwith prcviousperiodsseems
to have occurredin the realm of burial practices-in place of the ubiquitous
Ubaid cemeteriesand subfloor pot burials, there is an almost-conpletelack of
that
Uruk burials apart from that of the occasionalinfant or child, su-egesting
most of the deadwere disposedof in an archaeologically
invisiblefashion(perhapsbeing floateddown the river toward the semimythicalDilmun?). Iconography, principally on seals, shows scenesof bound .prisonersand anned
individuals,some of the first clear pictorial evidenceof the use of physical
force.
I begin this review by settingthe stagein two ways: first, by raisingthe
issueof how the practiceof archaeologyimpingeson and is impinged upon by
"the real world," specifically in light of recent events in the Mesopotanrian
of the environmentthat aft'ected
region; and second,by a sumnraryof f-eatures
ancientsettlementin the region and some generalcharacteristicsof the archaeological sites. l'his is followed by an overview of the history of archaeological
2350 BC
Early Dynastic
2900 BC
3 1 0 0a c
JEMDETNASR
Lale
URUK
Mrddte
Earty
3900Bc
5000 BC
Ubaid
Fig. l. Chronolo:.:ical
chrn
i:::,*'J,
:;.,
l._::::,m;:: T"ff ilil:,i,y:
.i,.
ill ::::::i::.,:
rntl nr,,. ^r. ^r-. ._
.-
.
,.",;;rl:ri*Ilitr
ft#Jd..',Tl#*",'jjiitrjtf[::ffi
n,,los)i\ n"*Ji."r".ii'rril"l";#ll''
lines'thcwaiia rcsion.rh.
.rr.,,-
300
Pollock
The Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in Mesopotamia
301
120
100
80
60
40
20
E /M U
Warka area
Nippur area
Susiana
m
=FEF05
F i g . 3 . E x a m p l eo f a n U m k p e r i o d ' . t c m p l c ' ( t e n p l e
n o r t l \ f r o m T e l l K a n n a ss h o w r n gt h e c l a b o r a t e dn. i c h e d
a r c h t t e c l u r ec h a r a c t e r i s t i co l ' n o n d o m e s t i cb u i l d i n s s .
( A d a p r c dl ' r o m F i n e t , 1 9 7 9 .p . 8 9 . )
Ubaid
EU
E/MU
MU
LU
JN
F i g . 2 . S c h e m a t i cr c p r e s c n t a t i o no sf c h a n g i n gs c t t l c n l c nPt a t t e m si n t h e S u s i a n a .
N i p p u r A d a b . a n t l W a r k a r e g i o n s .T h e u p p c r t i i a g r a n ls h o w s c i r a n g r - isn l h e
n u n r b e ro f s i t e so c c u p l e da t e l c h p e r i o d . l i h i l e t h e l o u e r t r n r -r e p r e \ c n t \t h c
c h a n ! : ci n t d a l h e c t a r e so l ' s c t t l c da r e a .E U . E a r l y U r u k : E / M U . E a r l Y i M i d d l e
t asr.
Uruk: MU. Middle Uruk: LU. Late Uruk: JN. JenrdeN
work on the fourth millenniunt.the aim of which is to make explicit the intcllectual and pragmaticroots on which recentwork is based.I then tum to a
which seemto me to contributemost to
discussionof thosecurrentapproaches
presentproblem-orientedand theoreticallyinformed work on the fourth rnillenin this
nium in Mcsopotamia.I make no pretensionsto comprehensiveness
whose
work
is
scholars
discussed.
orthe
discussion.in eithertheliteraturecited
In this regard. it should be noted at the outsetthat despitethe tenor of this
interpretativeand theoreticallybasedresearch.the
afticle. which ernphasizes
bulk of the work conductedon these(andother)periodsin Mesopotamia
remains
starklyatheoretical,
concernedprimarilywith the documentation
of aft andarchitecturalhistoryand the spatialand ternporaldefinitionsof "culture areas"
[evident, for example, in the controversyover whetherthe JemdetNasr periocl
"exists" and, if so, what it is (cf. Finkbeinerand Rcillig, l9g6)1. In the final
section of the paper, I offer some generalcritiques of the state of the art and
somethoughtson altemativeresearchdirections.
THE MODERN SETTING
-rwo
of the principalcountriesin which the remainsof ancientMesopotamian civilizationsare found are currentlyinaccessible
to westemarchaeologists. Theseare Iran and lraq. Revolutionand internationalwar, respectively.
forced the unexpectedintemrptionof many ongoing archaeological
pro.jects.
tncludingone that I was conducting.
Pollock
The Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in Mesopotamia
O123cm
GI
@GoGA&
F i g . 6 . E x a m p l e so f a c y l i n d e r s e a l . b u l l a . a n d c o u n t e r s .[ S e a l
schematic: bulla and counters adapted fiorn Le Brun and Vallat
( 1 9 7 8 .F i g . 3 ) a n d a u t h o r ' so r i g i n a l ) 1 .
Fig. 4. Examples of Uruk beveled-rimbowls from thc Uruk Mound. Abu Salabikh. The
s c a l ei s 6 c m l o n g .
Fig. 5. Examples of Jemdet Nasr coarse conical bowls from the Uruk Mound. Abu
Salabikh. The scale is 6 cm long'
The realitiesof the modern Middle East have encourageda good deal of
avoidancebehavioron the part of archaeologists,
who have tendedto try to
remain removedfiom the messiness
of world politics at all costs.This stance
is usually defendedon the grounds that archaeologicalwork is unrelatedto
politics:pragmatically,maintainingpolitical neutralityis considerednecessary
to the continuationof work in one's countryof choice.Whateverthe morality
of sucha stancein "normal" times, the tragedyof the recentGulf war should
make it clearthat that positionis now indef'ensible,
howeverwell intentioned.
In an editorial in Smithsonianmagazine(December 1990), Robert McC.
Adams ollers some thoughtson Iraq and Mesopotamiain light of then-current
politicaleventsin the region. His observations
capturean essentialpart of the
experienceof archaeological
fieldwork:that it is an activity involving its practitionersin relationships
that cross-cutpastand present.This is not just a statement of the impossibilityof removingourselvesentirelyfrom our own social,
cultural, and historicalcontext. Ratherit is a recognitionthat fieldwork involves
not just the remains of the past, from which we endeavorto learn something
about the people who createdthem, but also close working relationshipswith
the very much living peoplein whosevillages,towns, and homeswe residefor
a short time and into whose lives we inject our unsolicitedand often very alien
presenceand life-styles. That we are so often toleratedis surprisingenough;
that we are so often welcomed with warm and genuine hospitality, our social
and cultural/aux pas toleratedwith good humor, is testimonyto the possibilities
The Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in Nlesopotamia
Fig. 7. An archaictablet that deals with allotmentsof beer (seealso
F i g . l 0 ) . T h e t a b l e tm e a s u r e s1 0 . 7c m i n h e i g h ta n d9 . 8 c m i n w i d t h .
( C o u r t e s yo f C h r i s t i e ' s ,L o n d o n . )
of interpersonaland interculturalunderstandings
that far surpassthe capabilities
of any purely academicdiscourseto describeor explain.
If nothingelse, simple humanityshoulddictatethat we think of the lives
of theseacquaintancesand co-workerswhen we write of archaeology,not just
of the long-deadcivilizationswe study and our largely abstractideasaboutthem.
For thoseof us who have experiencedlife in the modem Middle East first hand,
evenas we make a living by studyingthe region'spast, it shouldbe unacceptable
to remain silent while so many in the Western world act out of ignoranceand
disrespectof theseculturesand peoples.
THE ANCIENT SETTING
The Mesopotamianlowlands are dominatedby the two large rivers, the
Euphratesand the Tigris, for which the region was named. Due to the severe
climate, characterizedby long, hot summers without any rain and low and
extremely variable winter precipitation,agriculture is practical only when irrigation is used, relying on the rivers as water sources.The natureof environmental changesin the last 6000 years is far from fully understood,but there is
no evidenceto suggestthat thesebasic featureswere significantlydifferentthen
than now. Although characterizedby relatively fertile land and ample pasturage
for flocks of sheepand goats,the alluvial lowlandsare almostcompletelylacking
in raw materialssuch as stone,metal, and high-qualitywood. Many of these
resourceswere procured f'rom the surroundinghighland regions, which were
endowedwith both raw materialsand a more congenialclimatein which rainfall
farming was possible.
consistof mounds,
As in muchof the Near East,mostsitesin Mesopotamia
or tells, which range from those that are low and spreadingso that they are
discemibleonly to the well-trainedeye to thosethat are tensof metershigh and
of their form, they all represen
clearlyvisible in the flat landscape.Regardless
the continuousor repeatedoccupationof the same site for centuriesor even
n'rillennia,with the accumulationof occupationaland especiallyarchitecturaltypically mudbrick-debris. Coupled with the fact that sites tend to be largeby the end of thc fourth millennium,a numberof sitesin Mesopotamiaexceed
25 ha, with the largcstestimatedat 100 ha-archaeologistsare usuallyable to
investigateonly a small proportionof a site, especiallywhen the occupation
levels of interestare buried under metersof later deposits.Indeed, the vast
were
investigations
of Uruk and JemdetNasr settlements
majorityof large-scale
undeftakendecadesago, when archaeologicalstandardswere much less rigorous
than today.
The surfacesof moundsare typically litteredwith artif'acts,fbrming a carpet
so densethat it is impossiblenot to stepon them when walking acrossa site.
Pot sherdscompriseby far the most numcrousfinds, accompanied
by varying
quantitiesof othcr artifactsmade of stone,baked clay. and mctal. On fourth
millennium sites, the latter frequentlyinclude ceramic wasters,chipped and
ground stone tools and manufacturingdebris, fragmentsof stone vessels,bits
of metal. and an array of durableceramicitems such as clay sicklcsand wall
cones.
The chronology of the pre- and protohistoricperiods-that is, prior to the
earlythird millenniumB.C.-is basedon radiocarbon
dates.The rclativelysmall
numberof carbon-14datesfor the fifth and fourth millennia,the problemsof
calibratingdatesin sometime rangesdueto fluctuationsin thecalibrationcurves,
and the chronic problemof contaminationof sampleswith bitumen (a natural
petroleumproduct,small fragmentsof which are easily mistakenfor charcoal)
all contributeto the imprecisionof the chronology.However. on the basisof
the availabledates,the Uruk andJemdetNasrperiodsseemto lastapproximately
1000 years, spanningmore or less the fourth millennium B.C. (Fig. l). For
easeof reference.I use the term "fourth millennium" to refer to thesetwo
periodstogether.
The Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in \lesopotamia
HISTORICAL BACKGROUND
Archaeologicalwork of some descriptionhas beentaking place in Mesopotamiafor nearlya centuryand a half. Despitethis long historyof fieldwork,
the explicit attentiondevotedto the fourth millenniumas a time of significant
achievementsin its own right is primarily a recent phenomenon.The earliest
excavatorswere a motley crew of explorers,diplomats,and engineerswhose
enterprises
were often guidedby a combinationof romanticism,biblical interests, and a desireto find "works of art" wofthy of shippingto museumsin
their homecountriesin Europeor America[for a detailedaccountof early work
in Mesopotamia"see Lloyd (1947) and, recently,Baud. (1991)l. Sites were
chosenfor excavationsimply becausethey were there,for their presumedbiblical associations.and becausethey were thought likely to yield impressrve
remains.
In compariscln
with the monumentalfinds unearthedat Assyriancities in
nofihernMesopotamia,southernMesopotamiansites,with their predominantly
mudbrick architectureand paucity of large stonesculpture,were less cnticing
'fhe
to early excavators.
results of the first attempts to excavatc them were
disappointing.It was only in the last quanerof the lgth centurythat sustained
excavationswere begunon southemsites. It was soon evidentthat they contained artifacts in a style different from any previously encounteredas well as
inscribedmaterials(mostlyclay tablets,but also bricks and seals).The wnring
was in a by-thenfamiliarcuneiformscriptbut in a languagethat boreno resemblanceto the recentlydecipheredAkkadian(a Semiticlanguagealso written in
cuneifbrm).Indeed,Sumeriancould (andcan) not be relatedto any dher know,n
language.
This strangenew civilization,nantedSumerian.quickly capturedthe intagination and interestsof archaeologists
and philologistsworking in the region.
Theseinvestigators
becamepreoccupiedwith finding out where Sumeriancivilization and the Sumerianpeople cante from. A fundamentalpremise\.\,asthat
both languageand distinct styles of art and artifactswere synonymouswith
d i s t i n c t g r o u p s o f p e o p l e ( s e e , e . g . , F r a n 1k 9
f o3r2t ,) . T h u s , t h e r a s k o f s e a r c h i n g
for the rootsof Sumerianculturebecameoneof examiningsequences
of artifacts
in order to find a stylisticbreakthat could be identifiedwith the coming of the
Sumerians.This concernand the accompanyingset of assumptionscontinued
to peruadeMesopotamianstudiesfor many decades(Frankfbrt. 1954; Falkenstein, 1965: Mallowan, 1965; Roux, 1966; Moortgat. 1967tJones. 1969;
H r o u d a .1 9 7 1 ) .
With the professionalization
of rhe archaeological
disciplineas a whole as
well as the sheerquantitiesof dirt moved and artifactsand architecturerecovered.
the desirabilityand indeednecessityof constructinga comparativeculturehistory of southernMesopotanria
and neighboringIran becanreever ntoreurgenl.
'fo
a popularprocedurewas to dig "deep
obtain the necessaryartifact sequences,
to
soundings."often of huge dimensions, reachsterilesoil. As an outcomeof
chronologicalperiods-Ubaid,
theseefforts,three pan-southemMesopotarnian
primarily
on the basisof changes
1930.
defined
in
Nasr-were
Jemdet
Uruk. and
whereone of these
sites
"works
Pafticular
seals.
such
as
of
art"
and
pottery
in
often
becamethe focus
accessible
easily
represented
and
was
well
occupations
site
which the Uruk
the
fbr
Warka,
notably
at
most
excavations,
extensive
of
periodis named.(For the sakeof clarity. I usethe temr "Uruk" to ref'erto the
chronologicalperiodand "Warka" to referto the site.)There,beginningin the
uncoveredlarge areasof tburth nrillennium
late 1920s.Germanarchacologists
in a centralareaof the site(reportsin UVB series).Among
"public" architecture
the artilactsrecoveredin theseexcavationswere a largequantityof clay tablets
with u'hat r,"asclearly a very "archaic" style of writing (Falkenstein,1936).
Similarly.the JemdetNasr periodis namedfor the site of the samenamewhere
complexcona joint British-Americanexpeditioncleareda large architectural
style of polychrornepaintedpottery(Fig. 8) and archaic
taininga characteristic
t a b l e t s( L a n g d o n ,1 9 2 8 ;M a c k a y , 1 9 3l ) .
Iran. the attentionof the early investigatorsIn neighboringsouthwestem
beginningin the 1890swith Frenchexcavationsat Susa-was directedtoward
paintedpotterytraditionsknown as SusaI and ll (Le Breton,i957).
the elaborate
Although Morgan noted that a "coarse unpaintedware" was presentin the
nanner of
lcvelsaboveSusaI and below SusaII paintedwares,the inadequate
with painted
excavationand recording.as well as the excessivepreoccupation
ceramicsto the exclusionof the unattractiveUruk pottery,enabledthe pottery
analystto declarethat the two stylesfollowed one anotherwithout a temporal
break. It was only as more comparativematerialfrom Mesopotamiaand elsewhere in Iran becanreavailablethat otherswere able to disputethis clainr and
cventually to rescuethe Uruk period occupationof Susa from a state of near
total neglect(Le Breton, 1957).
In additionto arrifact-based
definitionand the "Surnerianquestion," two
other featuresof the Uruk and JemdetNasr periodswere the subjectof particular
concem.Thesewere the developmentof writing and of cities. Almost without
of writerception,archaeologists
and philologistsalike viewedthe development
ing toward the end of the Uruk period as one of the most momentousof all
(e.9.. Childe, 1952:Frankfort.1954;Falkenstein,
Mesopotamian
achievements
1965; Roux, 1966). It was thoughtto mark the beginningnot just of history
(Hallo and Simpson, 1971) but also of civilization (Childe, 1952). That the
earliestusesof writing seem to have been almost completelyconcernedwith
bureaucracyand accountancy-not the recording of history or literature-was
recognizedquiteearly (Falkenstein.1936),without detractingfrom assessments
of its importance.
of Sumerian
Fourthmillenniumcitieswere seenas the direct predecessors
The Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in Mesopotamia
ar
r-=--r
03
Fig. 8. An eranrplc of a JemdetNasr jar u,ith pt>lychromepainteddecorarion.
The sriooicd
a r c a r e p r e s e n trse d p a i n t / w a s h ;t h e b l a c k l i n e s . b l a c k p a i n t . T h i s p a r t i c u l a rs p e c i m e n ' w a s
recoveredl'rornthc Uruk Mound. Abu Salabikh.
309
"temple cities." As part of a traditionof study basedin art and architecrura
history, the developmentof "temple" architecturewas traced from its roots in
in the third millenthe fourth millennium.or evenearlier.to its manifestations
(e.g.,
1954).
The
Frankfort,
focus
was
first
fbremost
and
on the discrete
nium
entity of the city as the residenceof deities,and only secondarilyof nten (certainly not of women!).
It shouldbe noted in passingthat the work of Childe (195I, 1952)representsa significantexceptionto the generaltrendof Mesopotamian
studiesprior
of Mesopotamian
to World War II. Unlike nearlyall other synthesizers
history
attentionto the Uruk-JemdetNasr
or prehistory.Childe devotedconsiderable
periods.This was not only because
they wereternporallyantecedent
to Sumerian
civilization,which he, too. regardedas the zenithof earlyMesopotamian
developments,but also becausehe attributedto them varioustechnologicalinnovations and economicdevelopmentsthat he consideredessentialto the emergence
of civilization.In this concemwith economicorganization,Childe'swork foreshadowssorneof what was to come in the 1960sand subsequently.
The yearsjust before and after World War II mark a significantdivide in
thc intellcctualhistoryof Mcsopotamian
archaeology.
changesin the antiquities
laws in Iraq as well as other Middle Eastem countries, put into e{i'ectin the
1920s.substantially
reducedopportunitiesfor removingdesirableantiquitiesto
westemmuseums(Lloyd. 1947;Falkenstein,1965).This spelledrhe demiseof
expeditionswhose primary aim was to recovertreasuresthat could be donated
to the-irsponsoringinstitutionsat home. In addition.a numberof expeditions
wereundertaken
that wereexplicitlymultidisciplinary
and inspiredby new kinds
of questions.often anthropological
and ecologicalin tenor. This represented
a
breakwith the previoustraditionof archaeologyin Mesopotan.ria
that was dominatedalmostentirelyby a practicewith few, if any, ties to anthropologybut
rvith connectionsto art history, history.and philology. Althoughtheseexpeditronswere most notablyconcemedwith earlierperiodsin prchistory,especially
with the origins of food productionand village life (Braidwooder a1.. 1983).
the tbcuson culturalecologyand settlementsystemswas alsoa sourceof inspiration to those working on later periods. out of this work came some of the
earliestexamplesof regionalsurveys,settlementpattem,and land use studies
in Mesopotamia[(Adams, 1961, 1965; Jacobsenand Adams. 1958): for an
earlierexample.albeitwith little explicit "problernorientation,"seeBraidwood
(1937)1.Suchregionallyfbcusedinvestigations
havecontinuecl
up to the present,
supplementedby surveysundertakenas partsof dam and other irrigation-related
salvageprojects[e.g., Hamrin and Saddamdamsin Iraq(Sumer35, 1979;State
Organizationof Antiquities and Heritage, 1987), Tabqa dam in Syria (Freedman, 1979),and Karababaand Kebandamsin Turkey (Wilkinson, 1990;Whallon, 1979)1.
Profoundly influencedby more generaldevelopmentsin the discipline of
310
Pollock
archaeologysincethc late 1960s,especiallyin the United States,a numberol
were responsiblefor a further reorientationof archaeological
archaeologists
research
in Mesopotamia-especially
Iran-in the 1960sand 1970s.
southwestern
Many of these scholarsadheredto an approachbasedon the perspectiveof
culturalevolutionand soughtexplanationsfbr the evolutionof statesand urban
societies.For those interestedin origins of the state.the Uruk periodcame to
be regardedas critical becauseit is deemed to be one of the relatively f'ewknown examplesin the world of primary statedevelopment(Wright and Johnson, 1975:Wright, 1977).For thosemore concemedwith the processof urbanization,the rootsof urbansocietyare tracedto the latefifih and fourthmillennia
(Adams. 198l; Rednran.1978). In a separatebut not unrelatedtradition of
scholarship,the evoluticlnof bureaucracy,as seenthroughthe developmentof
writing. sealing.and cltheraccounting
devices.hasbeena tbcal pointof research
on the rise of civilizationand one that also leadsto a direct concernu,ith the
fburth millennium(Nissen,1988).Althoughcoming from a numberof diff'erent
points of view. thesechangesin scholarlyen.rphasis
bmught in their wake a
vastly increasedinterestin the fourth millenniumfor its own sakeand. to some
degreeat least,in its own terms.
Practical-field-based-workassociated
with thesetrendsof the lastcouplc
decadeshas continuedto emphasizeregionalsun/eyand the associated
analysis
o f s e t t l e m e npta t t e r n s( A d a m sa n d N i s s e n .1 9 7 2 ;J o h n s o n .1 9 7 3 , 1 9 7 5 . 1 9 8 7 :
A d a m s , l 9 8 l ; W i l k i n s o n , 1 9 9 0 ) . I n a d d i t i o n .t h e n e w r e s e a r c hd i r e c t i o n s
spawnedan array of excavationsat smaller sites. sonreof them "villages."
ainred at yielding systematicallycollected samplesof artifacts in stratified
s e q u e n c e(se . g . , J o h n s o n ,1 9 1 6 : W r i g h t e r c / . , 1 9 8 0 ; W r i g h t . 1 9 8l ) . T h e s e
more rigoroustechniquescoupledwith limitationsof time and moneytendedto
precludethe traditionalemphasison completearchitecturalexposures.Within
the domainof salvagework. which hasoccupiedthe energiesof a largenumber
of Mesopotamianarchaeologists
in the last few decades,severalprojectshave
(e.g., Finet.
uncoveredsubstantialexposuresof fourth millenniumarchitecture
1979:-van Driel, 1979;Strommenger,1980)or, in somecases.individualbuildings that have been subjectedto detailedinvestigation(e.g., Killick, 1988).
Recently,severalpro1ectshave combineda number of dilTerentstrategiesin
attemptsto obtain some broad architecturalexposures-usingtechniquessuch
as surf'acescraping-as well as excavationsof a few buildingsand/or stratig r a p h i cs o u n d i n g s( M a t t h e w s ,1 9 8 9 , 1 9 9 0 :P o l l o c k , 1 9 8 7 , 1 9 9 0 a ;P o l l o c ks t
al.. l99l).
Having brought this historical review up to the presenttime, we are now
in a position to consider the major interpretiveapproachesto the study of the
Uruk and Jemdet Nasr periods that emergedin the last few decadesand that
continueto shaperesearchon theseperiods.
The Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in }lesopolamia
3ll
CULTURAL ECOLOGY: PEASANTS, PASTORALISTS' AND THE
EMERGENCE OF URBAN SOCIETIES
In his extensiveand wide-rangingscholarship,Robert McC. Adanls has
emphasizeda cultural ecological approachas one important perspectivefrom
which to study Mesopotamianhistory (see especiallyAdams, 1914, l98l).
Startingfrom natural environmentalconditions in Mesopotamia,he proceedsto
a considerationof how they have alfected human life in the region, strategies
historyto adaptto their environsocietieshave usedthroughoutMesopotamian
ment, and the selectivepressuresimposed by the environmentthat favor the
e v o l u t i o no f u r b a ns o c i e t i e s .
The fundamentalenvironmentalconstraintin southernMesopotamiais
water. Any kind of sustainedagricultureis wholly dependentupon irrigation.
due to the low averageannualprecipitationand its high degreeof interannua
variability.As a result, sedentaryoccupationin the southernalluvium is constrainedto narrow bandsalong naturaland human-madeor modifiedchannels
on irrigationfbrthe pursuit
of the Euphratesand Tigris rivers.This dependence
of agriculturehas had a numberof socitlpoliticalconsequences.
First, therc was rarely, if ever, a lack ol'land per se; rather, irrigable ltntd
has alwaysbeenat a premium.Second,controlof irrigationwaterby upstrcan
dwellershasthe potcntialof being translatedinto politicalpower. Peopleliving
locationare able to shut off suppliesof water to downstrean
in an upstrearrr
to
dutiesnecessary
users,or they miry neglecttheir sharcof canalnlaintenance
ensurethat adequatewater reachcscomtnunitiesliving downstreanl.Third. thc
river channelsdid not remain in the sante place through the centuries,but
migrated.ultimatelyin a westwarddirection.This meansthat as old chirnnels
dried up. son)esettlementshad to be abandonedand new onesformed elsewhere.
Particularlyrelevantto the fourth millennium,sometime during Early Uruk the
channelsof thc Tigris and Euphratesin the northernpart of the alluvium ternporarilyunited.The resultantdrying up of an importantchannelmay havebeen
a causeof the extensiveabandonment
of sitesin partsof that region.
I n a r e l a t e dd i s c u s s i o nN, i s s e n( 1 9 8 8 )h a s c i t e dc h a n g i n gc l i m a t i cc o n d i tions in the early part of the fourth millennium as causinga decreasein the
volumeof water carriedby the rivers. with the resultthat large sectionsof the
alluvial plain that had previouslybeenfloodedbecamedry land. This he takes
densityof settlement
beginas an explanation
for the greatlyincreased
aggregate
ning in the Uruk period. However,the basislor this environmentalreconstruc
tion appearsto be far from certain-discussionsof alluvial depositionin the
Gulf in the fourth millennium make referencemore or less exclusivelyto the
southemmostpart of the plain (south of Ur) and highlight the complex and
regionallyvariablenatureof the phenomena(Larsen,1975;Larsenand Evans.
312
Polkrck
1978; Sanlaville,1989).Although such environmentalfactorsmay contribure
to the increasein settlementin the southernalluvium, it fails to accountfbr the
equallylarge increasein the northernalluvium earlierin the fourth millenniunt
( s e eA d a m s . l 9 8 l ) .
Althoughthe availabilityof irrigationwaterrepresents
a criticalvariablein
determiningthe locationof permanent,agriculturallybasedsettlements-andall
permanentsettlementsin southernMesopotamiaare fundamentallydependent
on agriculture-Adams has repeatedlystressedthe importanceof pastoralismas
anothercomponentof the distinctiveMesopotamian
ecologicaladaptation.Hc
pointsout that in many ways pastoralismand agriculturerepresentcomplementary, not competitive,strategiesin the face of the environmentalrealitiesof
Mesopotamia.Vast areasof land that lie uncultivatedbecauseof lack of irrigation water nonethelessprovide adequatepasturefor flocks during much of the
year. Animals may also be grazedon fallow land. which has the addedbenefit
of contributingtheir manureas fertilizer.Herdsthemselves
area form of reserve
food in the eventof crop failure.In addition,they are a sourceof fibersfor the
manufactureof textiles,one of Mesopotamia'sprimary industriesthroughout
much of its history. Finally, pastoralists
may furnisha sourceof seasonallabor
at times of high demandin the agriculturalcycle, as well as cxchangingspecializedproductsfbr thoseproducedby the sedentarypan of the population.
The complementaryand indeedinterdependent
natureof pastoralismand
agriculture,and especiallythe possibilities
of maintaininga fluid balancebetween
them, offers,accordingto Adams, a much-needed
sourceof adaptiveflexibility
in an oftenharshand unpredictable
environment.In otherwords.it is not merely
the existenceof two separategroups. one maintainingflocks and the other
growingcrops,that is to be expected.but ratherthesegroupsareto be conceived
of asquitefluid in composition,their membership
waxingand waningdepending
on politicaland environmentalcircumstances.
In additionto the environmental
argumentalreadypresented,Adams supportsthis claim with referenceto political history, observingthat in periodsof strong. centralizedpolitical control
membersof nomadicgroupstendto becomesedentary(ofien underduress).but
when centralcontrol breaksdown a substantialcomponentof the population
tends to adopt a more nomadic way of life.
For Adams,not only do pastoralism
and agricultureform a continuumalong
which peopleand segmentsof societycan move, but alsothe urbansocietiesof
which they are a paft constitutea fbrm of ecologicaladaptation.Towns serve
as nodalpointsfbr facilitating(and regulating)exchangesof specializedresources
betweenadjacentregionsand betweenpastoraland peasantgroups.They also
are placesin which surplusgoodscan be storedagainstfuture shortages.and
they can be (andby the early third millenniumusuallyarc) surroundedby walls
that can servedefensivepurposes.In an environmentin which interannualfluctuationsin harvestsare greatand the risksof a poorharvesthigh. Adamsargues
The Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in Mesopotamia
3r3
to have social institutions,such as those associatedwith
that it is advantageous
urban society, that can act to pool both resourcesand risks (Adams, 1978).
On the basisof his extensiveregionalsurveys(1965, 198l; Adams and
Nissen. 1972), Adams identifies the fourth millennium as a key time in the
emergenceof Mesopotamianurbansociety.Emergingurbancenterswere critical
to the performanceof a range of political, religious, and economic functions
that both bound the populace to them (for example, through the conduct of
important religious ceremoniesin towns) and ensureda relatively smooth running of the societyas a whole. Within the "whole" of alluvial Mesopotamia,
Adams distinguishes different regional patterns of settlement, population
increase,and declineand what he perceivesas contrastingpatternsof urbanlif'e:
in the more southerly region, a single large urban site (Warka) dominated a
hinterlandof small villages, whereasin the more northerly area a pattern of
competingcentersexisted.He envisionsthe principalbasesof
equivalent-sized
organizationof the newly emergenturbanizedsociety to be those of religious
and cultic ties combinedwith politicalpower that reliedultimatelyon the threat
of military force. Although he disputesthe notions of Wright and Johnson
concerningthe existenceof a stronglycentralizedand closelycontrolledeconomy (seebelow), he doesconsidertowns to have playedan importantrole in
tradeand the flow of goodsand servicesbetweentown
organizinglong-distance
and rural dwellers.
In an exampleof some of the most intelligentusesof cultural ecology,
Adams emphasizes
the constraintsand limits imposedby the naturalenvironment, without becomingmired in environmentaldeterminism.Hc emphasizes
that adaptivestrategieshad to be flexible and that a dynamic balanceexisted
bctweensegments
of an urbansociety.His insistence
on thc critical importance
of understandingagricultural and pastoralproduction as the fundamentalbasis
ttn which Mesopotamianurban societiesrestedprovidesan importantcounterpoint to many other works concemedprimarily with the more glamorousobjets
d'art and architecture
producedby ancientMesopotamians.
However. Adams' ecologicalargumentscan be criticizedfbr a preoccupation with "the grand sweepof history" at the expenseof attentionto the
peculiarities
and uniqueness
of specifichistoricalperiods.This is not to saythat
he docs not givc any consideration
to historicalchangeor specificsbut, rather,
that in his concemto demonstrate
the pattemsand cyclical natureof Mesopotamianhistory.the stuffthat makesdifferentperiodsuniqueis all too easilylost
from view. As he himself remarks,his work dependsupon the assumptionthat
similar environmentalconditionsand constraintshave existedin Mesopotamia
tor at least 6000 years and that, in a generalway, humanshave respondedto
themin similarwaysover the courseof this time. Althoughf undamentally
much,
if not all. archaeologydependson similar assumptions-andmoreover,Adams
doesnot commit the errorof taking similar to meanthe same-such an approach,
314
pollock
The Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in Mesopotamia
concernedas ir is with broad,general(izable)
patternsapplicableto widely disparateperiods of time, cannot do adequatejustice to the details of variabiliry
betweendifferent periods.
Ecological approachesin general expressan overriding concem tbr the
adaptivefeaturesof societies.This leaveslittle room for consciousmanipulation
and advantage-seeking
behavioron the part of humans.since it is implicitly
assumedthat what contributesto the smoothoperationof the systemwill inevitably prevail.Adamstempersthis tendencyby introducingelementsof political
machinations
and self-seeking
behaviorinto his accoul'lts.
However,becauseof
the scaleofhis enquiryas well as culturalecology'sinherentadaptationist
tenets,
his picture of fourth millennium society tends to emphasizebroad regularities
and the ultimately successfuloperationof a systemover the elementsof conflict
and local-level variation.
LOCAL EXCHANGE AND THE GROWTH OF ADNTINISTERED
ECONOMIES
Studiesof local exchangeand administrationare closely associatedwith
the work of Henry T. Wright and GregoryJohnson(Johnson,1913,1975,1981:
W r i g h ta n dJ o h n s o n 1
, 9 7 5 ;W r i g h t , 1 9 1 1 , 1 9 7 8 , 1 9 8 6 ) .B o t h o f t h e s es c h o l a r s
identify their fundamentalinterestas being the explanationof the origin of the
state.Basedprimarily on researchconductedin southwesternIran. they propose
that the first statesemergedin Early Uruk.
Accordingto their definition,the stateis characterized
by its administrative
system.which is both internallyand externallyspecializedand hierarchicalin
structure.The stateacts as a nranager,and it and its newly structuredadministrativesystemare hypothesized
to havearisenin a situationin which unprecedenteddemandsforgoods, seNices,and ultimatelyinformationprocessing
and
decisionmaking exceedthe handling capabilitiesof more simply structured
political systems.Following from thesepremises,three setsof questionsare
posed: (l) How were Uruk adninistrativesystenlsstructured'l(2) What did
theseadministrativesystenscontrol, and how? and (3) What kinds of unprecedenteddemandsarosethat brought about the translbnnationof the previously
existingpolitical system?
Studiesof the administrativesystemare based, in the first instance.on
investigations
of the functionand distributionof administrative
artifacts,including seals, sealings,counters,bullae, and clay tablets. the latter containing
numericaland/clrwrittennotations.All of theseartifactswere usedto document
and ultimatelycontrolthe movenrentof goodsand services.Sealswere stamped
or rolled onto the wet clay of door sealings,jar stoppers.and varioustypesof
containers.leavingthe impressionof the designcan,edin them (Fig. 9). The
act of sealingrepresentedthe authorizationof a transaction,be it the locking of
F i g . 9 . T h c i m p r e s s i o no f a c v l i n d e rs e a l .o n a containersealing. Note the small figure
s i t h h a n d sb e h i n dt h c b a c k . t n t e r p r c t c da s a bound prisoner. The maximum height of
t h e s e a l i n gi s 9 c m . a n d t h e n t a r i m u n lw i d t h is 8 cm. (Courtesyof the Vorderasiatische
M u s e u n r .S t a a t l i c h eM u s c c n z u B e r l i n . )
a storeroomdoor or the closureof a container,by an official who had the right
to bearand use a seal. Unlike sealingswhich were usedto securethe contents
of sonrereceptacle,
clay bullae-"envelopes" containingcounterswithin them
and seal impressionson their exteriorand functioningas shippinginventories
(Fig. 6)-and clay tabletswere solely information-bearing
devices.Bullae and
tabletsneed not have been directly connectedto the goods or people whose
lnovementsthey documented.Insteadthey containedsummaryinformationand
eould serveas a meansof cross-checking.
The patternsof distributionof seals,sealings.andbullaeareusedby Wright
and Johnsonto infer patternsof administrativecontrol (see especiallyWright
until the end of
and Johnson,1975).Sincetabletsdo not make an appearance
the Uruk period and Wright and Johnsonare particularly concernedwith Early
and Middle Uruk, tablets do not figure directly into their analyses.Finds of
sealsare taken to imply the presenceof administratorswith the authority to use
them. Furthemlore,sealsoccur in a rangeof sizes, with differenttypes and
conrplexitiesof carved motifs, variableswhich Wright and Johnsoninterpretas
representations
of different levels of authority. Finds of broken and discarded
sealingsimply the openingof sealedrooms or containersand the distributionof
their contents.The presenceof unfinishedbullae indicatethat goods were pre-
316
Pollock
paredto be shippedelsewhere,r.r,hile
openedbullaeindicatethe receiptof goods
and checkingof their contentsagainsta record.The differentialdistributionof
thesevariousadministrative
sites-at lenstby Middle Uruk
artifactson difl-erent
times-and their associations
with sites of differentsizesare interpretedas a
direct indicationof a hierarchicaladministrativesystem.
pattem
The evidenceof the administrative
artifactscontributesto settlement
analyses.which aim to demonstrate
the existenceof a hierarchl,'
of sitesbased
on a combinationof sizeand spatialdominanceof smallerby largersettlenlents.
Together,thesesourcesof evidenceare usedto arguefor a hierarchicaladministrativesysten of at leastthree tiers in which administrationwas involved in
regulatingthe movement of goods from places where they were produced to
assemblypointsand subsequently
to centralplacesfrom which they wcre then
distributed.
What did this increasinglyelaborateadrninistrative
systcmcontrol,that is.
what was being administeredin Uruk times'l In the most generalsense.the
answeris the productionand exchangeof goodsand services.Thus. most analytical effort has been directedtoward investigatingthc developmentof specialized institutions and mechanisnrsof control that structurcd econoD'ric
organizationIhowever,seeBernbeck(1991)and Yoffee(1992).who arguethat
economicorganizationactuallyreceiveslittle attentionin this approach]
.
Administrative efforts are presumedto have been applied frrst and most
strictlyto thoseactivities,goods.and serviceswhich were perceivedby administratorsto be mclstvital to the operationof the (political)systenl(Zcder. 1988).
This assumptiontranslatesinto an enrphasison mundane"utilitarian" goods
and services.Theseincludeagriculturalproducts.cspeciallyfbod but also fibcrs
usedin textile making; a variety of craft productsand tools usedin productive
activities,such as pottery,sickles,and grinding stones:and labor requiredftlr
suchpublic works as maintenance
of irrigationcanals.harvesting.and construct i o n o f " p u b l i c " b u i l d i n _ e sl n. c o n t r a s t .l i t t l e e x p l i c i t a n a l y t i c aal t t e n t i o ni s
accordedto prestigegoods,presumablybecausethesewere less in needof the
administrative
attentionsof ancientpoliticalclites (cf. Johnson.1988-1989).
Wright and Johnsonproposethat duringthe earlierpart of the Uruk period.
productionof some craft goods. most notablyceramics,may have been re<lrganizedsuch that their nranulacture
took place only in a few large workshops
locatedat centers.Such a pattern is in direct contrastto the earlier (Ubaid)
situation,in which potterywas manufactured
in virtuallyeverycommunity.This
transfbrmationin the organizationof craft production is presumedto be associated,at leastin the first instance,with a desireto promoteproductiveefficiency
to meet increasedand unpredictable
demand.
If (at leastsome)productsusedin daily activitieswere madein only a I'ew
workshopsin a few communities,this requiredprovisionlbr distributingthe
productsto consumers.In a microstylisticstudy of ceramics.Johnson(1973)
The Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in Mesopotamia
317
claimsto be able to distinguishthe productsof differentpotteryworkshopsand
the distributionof their productsthroughoutthe SusianaPlain- On the basisof
this evidence,he arguesfbr the existenceof a systemof local exchangethat
was centrallYadministered.
not just the products
This systemof administeredexchangeencompassed
products,especially
rural
pottery,
also
but
as
prclduction
such
6f centralized
growing
segmentsof the
the
suppofi
tbod
to
need
for
surplus
A
labor.
and
tbotl
prtpulationthat did not producetheir own led to increasingdemands.first on
tbod producersin the centersthemselvesand subsequentlyon the surrounding
I illage populations.Agriculturalistswere under pressureto producea surplus
rvhichwas yieldedon demandto a centralauthority.Labor fbr public projects
llso came increasinelyfrom rural populations.The growing needto ensurethat
rlral dwellersdeliveredboth the goodsand the servicesrequiredof thenr was
systems
a contributingfactor in the growth of centrallydirectedadrninistrative
and influencedthe relativelocationof centersand villages.
Indeed.Johnsonpersuasivelyclaims that human labor must have been a
resourcein ancientcomplexsocieties(Johnson,1988-1989)'Nort'Lrndamental
the topic
rlally considereda ratherelusivephenomenonfbr the archaeologist,
in
of
ancient
Mesof labor has reccivedan unusualamountof attention studies
protocuneiform
in
cuneifbrm
and
opcltamiaboth becauseof fiequent reference
t c x t s( G e l b , 1 9 6 5 ;N i s s e n , 1 9 1 4 N i s s e ne t a l . . 1 9 9 0 ) a n d , e s p e c i a l l yb, e c a u s e
of the peculiarand omnipresentUruk "type fossil," the
of the interpretation
The
useof thesestrange.coarselymadevessels,which often
beveledrim borvl.
renlainsmuch debated
more
or
of the total potteryassemblage,
cornprise50%
( s e e .e . g . . B e a l e ,1 9 7 8 ;F o r e s t .1 9 8 7 ;M i l l a r d , 1 9 8 8 ;B u c c e l l a t i1, 9 9 0 ;C h a z a n
and Lehner. 1990).However. Nissen's(1970) argumentthat they were made
in standardized
sizesin order tclbe usedas vesselstbr issuingrations,probably
ol' grain or grain products.to workers laboring for "public" institutionsis
lhvoredby Wright and Johnson,as well as most otherproponentsof the adminrstrativemodel of Uruk developments.
that they were used
Recentsuggestions
as breadmolds (Millard, 1988:Chazanand Lehner, 1990)do not contradictthe
notion of their use in distributingrationsof some kind, in contrastto earlier
sugsestions
of their use as votive containers,tbr example(Beale. 1978).
Basedon this interpretation
of the use of beveledrim bowls, it is argued
that a centrallyadministeredlabor systemis attestedby the end of Early Uruk
uhcn thesebowls madetheir first appearance.
The relativedensitiesof beveled
rint bowls are usedto assessspatialand temporalvariability in the flow of labor.
Johnson(1987)proposesthat suchan administered
systemof public labormight
havc pennitteda tbrm of census-taking
of the distributionand availabilityof
labor. Further, he suggeststhat in order to keep such a system functioning
smoothly, it may sometimeshave been necessaryto "make work" to absorb
temporarysurplusesof labor. This may accountfor the monumentalityof some
Pollock
finds of presumedstatusor wealth objects have been found on small village
sites,both in Mesopotamiaproperand in the Susianaplain, findswhich a model
ofcentralizedcontrolby a politicalelite do not anticipate.yoffee (1992)argues
that the degreeof centralizedcontrol of the economy postulatedby the wright
and Johnsonmodel is virtually unknown in any historicallydocumentedperiod
in Mesopotarnia
and is thereforeunlikely to haveexistedin the earliestattested
examplesof states.
one of the many importantcontributionsmadeby wright's and Johnson's
approachhas beento highlightthe necessityof exarniningmundaneaspectsof
lif'e-the tools and wasteproductsof manuf-acture,
the productionof food. that
which made all of the rest possible.Along with this has conrethe recognition
of the importanceof excavatingsmall, rural sites. Arguably, however, this
emphasishas beentaken too far, resultingin a relativeinattentionto sociopolitically and ideologicallyimportantprestigeor elite goods. The production.
distribution,and even consumptionof such goodsare treatedmore or less as
footnotesto the studiesof mundaneitems, although occasionalreferencesare
made to their undoubtedimportance.However, prestigegoodscan be argued
to be no less sociallycriticatbecausethey cannotbe eatenclr usedto harvesta
crop.
The geographicfocus of analysisin the wright-Johnsonapproachis. like
Adams', on the level of the region. In contrastto Adams. nearly all of their
work and conclusionsare basedon researchconductedin southwestemIran.
Although the existenceof close connectionsto southemMesopotamiacannot
be doubted,it is not necessarilythe casethat the transformations,
events.and
responses
in the one regionare wholly applicableto thc other. In all farrnessto
the authors, no such claim is made. Howevcr, the assumptionbehind their
approachis that the basicprocesses
and pattemsare applicableto other regions
as well, even if the specificdetailsand eventswere dift'erent.
THE GROWTH OF BUREAUCRACY
The developrnent
of bureaucracyand an increasinglyhierarchicallyorganized economy,as indicatedby changesin technologyand the organizationof
production.are thenresthat figure prominentlyin the work of Nissen (1977.
1986, 1988; Nissen et al .. 1990). His researchsharesceftain common concerns-the development
of politicalorganization,
administrative
structures.
hierarchy, and control-with that of wright and Johnsonbut clerivesfronr a quite
differentintellectualbackgroundwhosefoots lie in historicaland linguistictraditionsof Mesopotamianscholarship.Ratherthanemphasizingthe origin of the
.state
as the nrostsignificanttransition,he is concernedu'ith the more tra6itional
problemof the developmentof Surneriancivilizationand attendanturbansocrety.
The Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in l\Iesopotamia
321
Nissenviews the inventionof writing toward the end of the fburth millenof technicaldevelopmentsin a burgeoning
nium as one in a rapid succession
system.Althoughnot uniquein its functionin its incipientstages,
hurcaucratic
offeredgreaterflexibility and sophistication
in comparison
u riting nonetheless
recordingtechnology.Throughthe medium of writing. as
forms
of
*ith other
devices,an increasingly
hierarchically
rvcllas seals.bullae.andotheraccounting
political
system
was
to
track
structured
able
keep
of
and
control its
rigidly
and
population.
of
In
the
sphere
writing.
is
and
this
attested
by
the vast
cc()nomy
rrrajorityof "archaictexts" which areecononricin nature,recordingtransactions
such as the issuanceof rations,receiptof goods, and division of fields (Fig.
l0r. The rapid developmentof new forms of accountingdevices-from starnp
innclvasculsto cylinderseals.from countersand bullaeto tablets-represents
tions designedto cope with an increasinglyhierarchicaladministrativesystem
rrhich requiredevergreaterinfbrmation-bearing
capacities[but seeMichalowski
r1990) fbr the argumentthat writing is not necessarilythe direct evolutionary
\ucccssorof other information-bearing
devices].Thus, fbr example.in relation
t() stampseals,cylindersealsallowedfora greatervariation
in the motifs carved
in thcm and thcrebyincreasedthe numberof distinctlydillerentdesigns,reprr-senting
differentseal-bearing
individuals.that could be produced.
Nissenadducessimilar conclusionsfrom study of the technologyof manutactureof certaincrafi goodsand the implicationsof the observedtechnological
changes1br the organizationof productionof thesegoods. Examiningpottery
lnd seal nranuf'acture
with a view to reconstructing
the stepsinvolved in their
producticlnsequences,
he suggeststhat, in comparisonto earlierperiods,later
Llruk and JemdetNasr manufacturingprocesses
were divided into more comp(incntparts,distincttasksthat could have been rnosteliciently pertbrmedby
diti'crentpeople. This division ol' labor and atrendantcreationof a growing
nurnberof distinctoccupationsled not only to greaterproductivitybut also to
therebypossibilitiestbr control-of tasksand of
Sreaterinterdependence-and
thc peoplewho performedthem. Nissenfinds similar supportfor the existence
o1-arigid. hierarchical
divisionof dutiesand officesin the Late Uruk text version
of the scl-called
StandardProfessions
List. which mentionsdifferentprofessions
and titles in a clear hierarchicalrelationshipto one another.Nissenusesthese
crrlnbinedanalyticalinsightsto arguethat the later fourth millenniumwitnessed
tncreased
productiveefliciency.Irnplicit in his argumentis the idea that these
developmentsmay have brought with them increasedpossibilitiesfor the control
of peoplethroughmanipulationand controlof production.
Another argumentfbr the extent and highly structurednatureof economic
ctlntrol in the later fourth millennium comes from the interpretationof beveledrinr bowls onginally proposedby Nissen and subsequentlyadoptecland elaborated by many others (Nissen, 1970; see also above, Local Exchangeand the
Growth of AdministeredEconomies).Beveled-rimbowls are interpretedas con-
Pollock
=
o>
=q
oq9
. .RE
aq
x6
dO
!
E
p'X
FI
kOO
rlHffiE
^
l,.t{llllll-bl
J
;
llB
alHlt.lA
tl
I
N
0)
=h
{ ) !
C)
O
a)
kOa
ob
dv
qc)
o
>l
q
a/\':
a/s
frm'
..glia
lt{
ll aE
.:P nnrl
! illlll
n^n
r) irFi
g
tl
llt
| | Il
;
lQn
co
:t
!
qOO
9
sB
q)C)
: :
r
nn
OI
o
oo
q)
6
0)
E
UF
-9
t
c
lEl
A
.zr=
u
The Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in Mesopotamia
tainers mass-producedin standardizedsizes for the distribution of rations to
laborersworking for public institutions.The introductionof standardizedunits
pf measurementis thought to representanother form of economic control and
an indication of the rigid structuringof economic units.
Productionprocessesof various sorts and certain technical aspectsof the
bureaucracyseem to have been streamlinedand simplified in the Jemdet Nasr
Deriod.in a trend that continuedinto the third millennium. Evidencefor this
lssenion comes from the adoption of a variety of mechanicaltools for the
nranutactureof cylinder seals;the use of the pottery-manufacturingtechnique
known as throwing from the hump; and the simplification of writing through
changesin the techniquesused(from incisionto impression),the eliminationof
detailsofothers. Thesechangesare
sonresignsin theirentiretyand superfluous
divisionof labor,
by Nissenas indicatingan increasinglyspecialized
inrerpreted
u hich would have increasedthe possibilitiesof controlof basiceconomicproccsses.The greaterdivision of activitiesinto smallerand more specificcomponentparls would also enablea greateruse of unskilledor low-skilledlabor
rn theseactivities,alongsidespeciallytrainedpersonnel.
Nissen also uses settlementpattern data to support his model of a hierarchicallyorganizedsystemby late in the fourthmillennium.Overall,he observes
an increaseddensityof sitesand the emergenceof site hierarchies,reachinga
litur-tieredsystemin Late Uruk. He creditsenvironmentalchangesthat resulted
in thc drainingof large areasof land previouslyunder swampsor subjectto
t'rL-quent
flooding with the primary responsibility for the dramatic settlement
growth in the southernmost
alluvium.
Althoughsharingwith Wright and Johnsonthe themesof politicaladministrationof the economy, Nissen'sapproachdilTersfrom theirs in numerous
uavs. Analytically,he devotesmuch attentionto the study of productionprocL'sses.
In contrast,he expresses
little explicitconcemwith the issueofexchange.
1'hisemphasismay be partly a function of a perspectivethat focuseson the city
as an entity that contrastswith rural communities,ratherthan on regionalor
rntcrrcgional
interactions.
Further.unlikethe otherapproaches
considered,Nissr-n'sowes little to the Americantraditionof anthropological
archaeology.This
trccs his work to some degreefrom the abstractand highly generalizinglegacy
ot processual
archaeologybut also contributesto a lack of explicitly articulated
thcoreticalor problemfocus in his work.
Despitethesedifferences,Nissen'sinterpretations
are in many ways compatible with the understandingof Uruk economy and political organization
dcscribedby Wright and Johnson,althoughhis concernis primarily with the
latcr ratherthan the earlierfourth millennium.He, too, offersvaluableinsights
rnto the structureof fourth millennium administrativesystemsand the direct
inipositionof administrativecontrol on aspectsof the economy.His interpretations, informed by the rich detail affordedby the study of the ancientwritten
324
Pollock
records, portray a somewhatmore complex picture of Late Uruk and Jemdet
Nasr administrativepracticesthan the simpler, ideal-type characterizationof
Wright and Johnson.ln commonwith the latterresearchers,
Nissen,too, gives
little thoughtto the implicationsof such restrucruring
on the lives of the producersthemselvesor the responsesand strategiesthat producersmay have made
to the initiativesof politicalleaders.
LONG-DISTANCE,
EXCHANGE AND THE
"INTERCULTURAL''
LATE URUK EXPANSION
Both in contrastand in connectionto the preoccupationwith local exchange
seenin the approachtakenby Wright andJohnsonin ntuchof theirwork. another
perspectivehighlightsthe critical importanceof long-distanceor intercultural
exchange,in other words, exchangethat occurs betweenrather than within
regions. The importanceaccordedto interregionalexchangeby sonte schc'rlars
is foundedon a basicfact of life in Mesopotamia:that the distributionof resources
in the Near East is starklyuneven.Lowland alluvial Mesopotamiais morc or
less completelylacking in materialssuch as stone, metal, and good-quality
wood, all of which are availablein the surroundinghighlandregionsof Anatolia
and Iran.
The presumednecessityof importingcertainraw materialsand the desirability of controllingthe networksby which such materialswere procuredare
thenresthat run throughdiscussions
of much of Mesopotarlianhistory.A nurnber of proponents
of the view that interregional
exchangewasone of the prirlirry
structuringfeaturesof Mesopotamian
civiliz:rtionarguethat suchexchangefirst
takeson extraordinaryimportancein the latter part of the fourth millennium.
Implicatedin this view is the phenomenon
known as the "Late Uruk expansion"
in which settlementscontaininglowland Uruk-styleanitacts and architecture
are found as far afield as southeastemAnatolia. the northern Mesopotamian
plains,and the Zagrosntountainvalleysof Iran, in areaswherepreviouscenturies were characterizedby various indigenouscultural traditions(Algazc.
1989).Discussions
of this expansiontend to be fomrulatedaroundthe topicsof
empirebuilding. colonization,and the growth of civilization.In tum. in order
to understandthe episodesof geographical
expansion,empires,and the rise of
Sumeriancivilization. interregionalexchangeis appealedto as a, if not the.
critical variable.
With specificreferenceto the fourth millennium, Algaze's (1989) work
providesthe most explicit and detailedexampleof this approach.A relatedbut
lesselaborated
discussioncan be found in the work of Weissand Young (1975).
while Kohl (1978, l987a.b) and Zagarell(1986) deal with similar issuesbur
with a principalfocus on the third millennium.
Algaze'sarsumentruns, in brief, as fbllows. He beginshis discussionwith
in Mesopotamia
NasrPeriods
TheUrukandJemdet
325
the Late Uruk. a period of time in which, accordingto his understanding,highly
societies
stratified societiesalready existed in lowland Mesopotamia. These
"essenincludin-S
available,
were
not
locally
that
materials
raw
various
rcquired
existence.
"exotic"
theircontinuing
(luxury)
support
items.
to
well
as
as
tiais"
and, in this case.intercultural
This needcould be met only throughinterregional
from the surrounding,
materials
needed
of
acquiring
process
The
cxchlnge.
highlandsentailedbuilding and maintainingeconomic,and occarcs6urce-rich
sionallypolitical, relationswith the politiesin thoseareas'
The highland societieswhich acted as providers of needed and desired
resourcesexisted at a different (lower) level of sociopolitical integrationfrom
rhe more corlplex polities of lowland Mesopotamia.It follows f'rom this that
thc relationsbetweenlowland and highland societieswere asynlnletricaland
of the economic,social,and politicalbases
in the furtherstrengthening
rcsulteci
after an initial period of growth in
In
contrast.
rrf rhe core lowland societies.
demand for nlaterialsthat they
response
to
the
in
thc peripheries.occurring
system
of the socioeconomic
a
weakening
market.
lowland
cguld provideto a
of
relationnature
the
the
essentially
exploitative
f'rom
resulted
lirlktwed.This
shipswhich were arrangedby the lowland politiesin a f'ashionnrostbeneficial
ro rheir interests.In short, Algaze suggeststhat the creationand maintenance
relationswould haveresultedin changesin both coreand peripheral
o1'e-rchange
in the core all of the changesin the economic,social,and
However,
socicties.
politicalsystentwould have been positive.whereasin the periphemlsocieties
irt leastsomewould have had negativeside effects.
betweenlowlandand highlandsociAlgaze'sdiscussionof the relaticlnship
cticsborrowsbothterminologyandconceptstiom Wallerstein'smodelsof world
development.Kohl (1987a'b)
s\stemstheoryand the sociologyof :rsymmetrical
hasdevotedconsiderable
attentionto the questionof whetheror to what extent
Wallerstein'sconceptsare applicableto the ancient,precapitalistworld. Considcringthe Near Eastfrom the late fourththroughthe earlysecondmillennium'
hc concludesthat many of the basicconceptsof a Wallersteinianapproachcan
bc valuablyappliedto the studyof the ancientworld. Theseincludenotionsof
corcsand peripheries;a "global" perspectivewhich takesaccountofan entire
''world" ratherthanc'xarliningindiirrtcracting.
extensive
often geographically
including,
r idualregionsseparately;
an emphasison a long historicalperspcctive
in the caseof Mesopotamianhistory, cyclesof imperialexpansionaltemating
urth pericldsof imperialcollapse;and an acceptance
of interculturalexchange
a\ a t-eatureof essentialimportance.Although he finds theseaspectsof a world
\\stems perspectiveuseful, Kohl also cautionsagainstan uncritical,wholesale
adoption of such an approach,pointing out important differencesbetweenthe
ancientNear Eastand the modem world system.Specifically,the ancientNear
Eastmust. in Kohl's view, be regardedas a multicenteredsystenl.with more
thanone core, and one which is best understoodas comprisingirtlcrdependent
326
Pollock
cores and peripheries.This last point is in contrastto the modern world system
in which the relationshipof peripheriesto coresis bestdescribedas a more fully
dependentone, with core societiesretainingtightercontrolover the lessdeveloped peripheries.
Returningto Algaze'sargument,let us considerhis specificapplicationto
the Late Uruk period.Reviewingsitesthat havedirect materialcultureconnections to the Uruk of southemMesopotarrria
but are locatedin peripheralregionsincluding,lbr him, the SusianaPlain in southwestern
Iran, the northemMesopotamianplains,and southeastem
Anatolia-he views the latefourthmillennium
as a time of an "expansionof impressivepropoltions.one that took a variety
of forms and affecteda numberof areasdifferently" (Algaze. 1989. p. 574.1.
Althoughthe form of thesesouthernMesopotamian"colonial" enterprises
differed, all were in some way involved in tapping into eristing nerrvorksof
exchangeand directingas much of the t'ruitsof this trade as possibleinto the
collersof lowlandpolities. Algazebasesthis assertionon the locationsof Urukrelatedsettlements
in the peripheries,which he claimsare uniformlv positioned
so as to controlroutesofexchangeeffectivelybut arenot in locationsthat *,ould
be particularlyfavorablefor controlling large territoriesor exploiting local agriculturalpossibilities[a statementthat is. however.calledinto questionby Watt e n m a k e (r 1 9 9 0 ) 1 .
The notionof Uruk colonies,sentout f'romlowlandMesopotamia
to locate
on criticaljuncturesalongtraderoutcs,was previouslysuggested
themselves
as
an explanationfor the so-calledPeriodV settlenlentat the site of Godin in the
IranianZagros(Weissand Young, 1975).More specifically.Weissand Young
identifythe presence
of southemMesopotamian-related
artif'acts
in a community
of otherwiseindigenousmaterialcultureas a merchantcolony sent out by the
Uruk centerof Susa.They point out that Godin sits on a historicallyknorvn
trade route, the KhorasanRoad, which runs from Iran into Mesopotamiaand.
from this, deducethat merchantstook up residcncein Godin in order to take
of tradenrovingalong this route.What kinds of materialswerebeing
advantage
tradedduring the Late Uruk period is not clear, since little or no exotic (i.e..
nonlocaland non-Uruk)materialwas found in the excavations.Indced.in none
of the Uruk settlements
in the peripherieshas any quantityof erotic materials
beenfound that can be identifiedas the objectof long-distance
tradingefforts.
The proponents of this approach-or, perhaps better. set of related
approaches-rnust
be commendedfor seekingto cometo gripswith thechallenge
of understanding
the ancientworld as a whole, ratherthan isolatingsmall and
portionsof it for analyticalpurposes.Reminiscent
manageable
of Adams' work.
thesescholarsall approachthe studyof the ancientNearEastrvitha commitment
to considerthe long sweepof Mesopotamian
history and to exploreand define
cyclesof growth and collapse,some of which are highly generalin character
and othersof which are distinctlvMesopotamian.Admirableas this emohasis
The Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in Mesopotamia
per.n the broad scale is. and productiveof new and valuableinsights,this
problems
differences
and
gloss
specific
to
over
tendency
from
a
suffers
spective
in an attemptto treatand make senseof "the big picture"'
Not the least of these problems is that of the goods which formed the
places
subjectof the much-vauntedinterculturaltradenetwork. In a model which
imporexplanatory
and
of
analytical
exchangeat or nearthe center
intcrregional
runcc.it is renarkablethat so little concemhas beenraisedaboutthe near-total
candidatesfor the valuabletradedmaterials.The two
llck of archaeological
away this problem-that many of the goods
explaining
of
ways
popular
r'ost
they were obiectsof tradethey would not
that
because
and/or
perishable
*cre
are
to be soughtin the southemMesopotamian
but
outposts
trading
the
in
rcrllin
If the "necessities"
:itcs that were the end pointsof trade-are unsatisfactory.
materialsas stoneand metal,
6l lit'cin the alluviumincludedsuchnonperishable
it is ro be expectedthattheseitemswould constitutesomeof the tradedmaterials.
upd theseshould be archaeologicallyrecoverable.Although most traded items
gprrlclpresumablyhave found their way to their destinationsin the cities of
struthernMesopotamia,it is difficult to conceiveof a situationin which the
tradersor colonistswould not have taken advantageof the opportunitiesto
crploit the situationfor as much as they could get away with-and that surely
:houlclincludea few fine exotic itemsif thesewere indeedmovingthroughtheir
Uruk sites,the quantityof exotic
hands.Finally.evenin southernMesopotamian
nraterialsthat have been found is pitifully small. In this regard, however, it
nrust be reiteratedthat only a handful of burials have been tbund that date to
thc Uruk period. Since burials are one of the more common placesin which
c\otic and valuedartifactsare found archaeologically,this may be a contributing
luctor in the apparentlack of exotic trade items in Uruk sites.
Also very much debatableis the definitionof what constitutesa colonial
or other direct southernMesopotamianpresencein the peripheries,as opposed
as a localadoptionof exoticstyles
to s'hatmight be equallyplausiblyinterpreted
(Kohl.
1989; Wattenmaker,1990).
purposes
tirr
such as prestigecon'rpetition
Although Algaze has distinguishedseveraldilTerenttypes of Uruk intrusive
scttlements,the lack of a clear theoreticalbasisfor interpretingmaterialobjects
ancltheir use preventshis argumentfrom being fully convincing.
In a recentreconsideration
of the Late Uruk, Johnson( 1988-1989)proposes
that it is not to be understoodas a period of expansionbut rather as one of
collapse.He arguesthat the far-flung Uruk-relatedsites may representthe settlenrentsof refugees-both elites and commoners-from a collapsing sociopolitical systenrrather than prosperoustrading colonies sent out to control the
frttntiers.Although Johnson'sproposalcan be challengedon a numberof points,
hrs argument highlights some of the weak and taken-for-grantedassumptions
that are embodiedin the traditional understandingof the Late Uruk as a flourishing and prosperoustime. It also has the advantageof offering a more conIincing rationalefor why so few exotic goodsare found in thesesites.
328
The Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in Mesopolamia
Johnson'sproposedscenarioalso indirectlyraisesanotherpoint that is not
satisfactorilydealt with in either his or Algaze'swork. When a time period is
describedas eitherflourishingand prosperous
or decliningand unprosperttus,
it
should immediatelybring to mind the question.(un)prosperous
for whoml
Although Algaze, following his world systems-inspired
perspective,makesthe
important observationthat core and peripheral societieswould be differently
affectedby their interactions
and the benefitswould accrueprimarilyto the core
societies,his assertionthat the core polities would experienceonly positive
repercussions
is unjustifiable.As Zagarell(1986)argues,it is essentialto considerthe dilferentspheresof powerand influencewithin a society.Somegroups
within Late Uruk societyundoubtedlybenefitedgreatly from the changesthat
weretakingplace.However.at the sanretime it is unthinkablethat all mernbers
of society.evenin the lowlandpolities,experienced
thesechangesas something
positive.Both Johnson'sconclusionsbascdon calculationsof agriculturalsustaining areasand labor needsand demandsand insightsbasedon the study of
Late Uruk bureaucracy(seeabove, The Growth of Bureaucracy)suggestthat
some social groups were subjectedto severeexploitationat thc handsof an
increasinglypowcrful and greedyelite. Thesepeoplesurelydid not experience
the changestaking place in their world as somethingpositive.
As a nunrberof scholarshave cornmented(Stcin. 1990:Johnson.19881989),the emphasison interregionalexchangeand interactionshas tendedto
obscurethe importanceof internal, local processesin explainingLate Uruk
developmentsin particularand cyclical developmentsin Mesopotamlamore
generally.Debatingthe prinracyof the one set of factorsor the other may well
be a misplacedelTort,an exampleof the chickenor the egg argument.
setwithin
mustbe balancedby detailed.specificinvestigations,
izingapproaches
clearly articulatedproblem frameworks.
in all of the
More specifically.what is missingto a Sreaterorlesserdegree
broadly
conhow
of
the
is
recognition
that have beendiscussed the
treatments
to
by,
and
responded
on,
were
processes
impacted
ccived social and cultural
peohow
"local"
given
to
been
concern
has
Little
level.
\\cre reshapedat the
the restructuringof
by increasingbureaucratization,
plc's lives were afi-ected
In addition.
societies.
of
urbanized
emergence
or
the
exchange.
productionand
(
e
.
g
.
,
1
9
8
1
) 'a l o n gw i t h
A
d
a
m
s
'
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
h
a
v
e
a
l
r
e
a
d
y
c
r
i
t
i
q
u
e
s
rs a numberof
toward
conhas
a
tendency
come
abstraction
generality
and
level
of
;l hi_eh
justice
the
archaethat
do
not
do
to
schemes
simplified
and
ideal
types
:rructing
ologicaldata, not to mentionthe peopleand societiesunderstudy' What have
rcsultedare in manv respectsratherimpoverishedaccountsof life and times in
the lburth millennium.
Furthermore.theseapproachestend to give inadequaterecogniticlnto peoplc.as conscious,motivatedactors.Peopleare tacitly treatedas passive.preoccur, the naturalenvironment
to externalstimuli: processes
dictablerespondents
rcslricts.populationsadapt,and so fbrth. To retum to the remarkwith which I
have beencreditedwith impreso;rencdthis paper.tburth millenniumsocierie's
but thepeople who constitutethesesocietieshave not.
sirc achicvements.
have adopteda "top-down" point of view,
Finally, most researchers
rr'gardingUruk and Jemdet Nasr societiesfrom the perspectiveof a manager.
'l'his
into somethingof an
has the dubiousresultof rnakingthe archaeologist
(unrvitting'l)apologistfor the social systemunder study, with all its attendant
lcaturesof inequalityand exploitation,while at the sametime servingto understateprcciselytheseaspectsof the societies.Thus, with a few recentexceptions
(espcciallyZagare|l,1986:Johnson,1987. 1988-1989),readingtheseaccounts
lcavesone with the impressionthat lit-e in the fourth millennium was rather
plcasantand unproblematicfor most people most of the time. Inequalities,
cxploitation,and generalrepressionare playeddown, in favor of an emphasis
on how aspectsof bureaucracyand control function to keep society(the system)
operating.
Someof thesecriticismshark back in disquietingways to my earlierremarks
aboutthe connections
practicehas-like it or not-with
that our archaeological
the world in which we live. Treatingancientsocietiesas more or lesshomoscneouswholes, in which the most importantconcernis the smoothand emcient
tlperationof the system;where the goals and schemesof managementfascinate
us far more than thoseof the producers;where conflict is somethingthat occurs
anlongcornpetingelitesor, occasionally,when commonersalmostunthinkingly
bring about a "system collapse"-all of thesehave implicationsfor the ways
in which we relate to the world around us. In this view, other countriesand
peoplesare homogeneousentities whose concernsand beliefs are reflectedby
GENERAL CRITIQUES AND ALTERNATIVE
DIRECTIONS
The variouspositionsand approaches
discussedin this paperhave served
to define the currently establishedstatusof problem-orientedresearchon fourth
millennium Mesopotamia.This researchand the debatessurroundingit have
contributedsignificantlyto the developn.rent
of our understanding
of the antecedentsof Mesopotamiancivilizations. Further, they are importantdemonstrations of the value of situatingresearchwithin specificallyformulated,problernorientedframeworks.in a field that is otherwisedominatedlargelyby thoroughly
empirical and often vaguely conceivedresearchendeavors.
'Ihe
prominentcurrent approachesalso exhibit some common weaknesses.
All are characterizedby an emphasison "global" (at the regional or interregional scale),often highly generalizedand abstractprocesses.
Sucha scopeof
enquiry may be appropriateand even necessaryat an early stageof researchand
problem definition. However, I would contendthat sucha stanceis fast reaching
the limits of its utility as a primary guide for research.Global, highly general-
330
Pollock
their govemments,while ordinarypeopleare invisible.Withoutthinkingclosely
about the connectionsamong our scholarship.the pursuit of our professional
interests,and ourplace in the modernworld. without thinking abou;.real,live
peoplelike thosewith whom we interacton our excavations,we, too, makeour
contributionto human exploitationand sufferingin ways we may not wish to
admit.
Although this is not the place to developa detailedset of proposalsfor
reorientinginvestigations
of the fourth millennium, I take this opponunityto
offer some brief suggestionsof directionsin which further work might procced.
Key to enrichingour understanding
of this period, making our appreciationof
the pastmore "human," and allowing fora more sophisticated
view of human
interactionsis to direct researchquestionsto a local level of enquiry. This is
not to be understoodas advocatingsite-specific
analysisin isolationbut. rather,
the examinationof local activitiesagainstthe backdropof a broadercontext.
Analysesmustalsohighlightintemalconflictsgenerated
from actsof daily social
life, as well as thosederivingfrom major sociocultural
transformations.
and the
strategiespeople use to cope with and attemptto better their lives. Such a
perspectivesharesmuch with the notion of political economy as recently
describedby Roseberry(1988). In his terms. political economy stressesthe
importanceof recognizingthat peopleexist within a largerhistorical.political.
'lo
a n d e c o n o m i c c o n t e xatt,t h e i n t e r s e c t i o n b e t w c c n t' h
e c a l ' ' a n d t h e' ' g l o b a l . "
It also reminds us of the political constructionof economiesand hence the
impossibilityof studyingeitherpoliticalor economicorganizationindependently
of the other [for a more specificallyarchaeological
treatment.seeBrumfieland
E a r l e( 1 9 8 7 ) 1 .
There is undoubtedlya wide rangeof ways in which thesedircctionscan
be pursuedin studyingthe fclurthmillennium.Here I briefly outlineonly a few
of them that seemto me especiallypromising.
Tantalizingpotentialsfor new insightson Late Uruk andJemdctNasrtimes
are becomingavailablethrougha major prqect studyingthe archaictextsfrom
Warka and JemdetNasr, as well as the contemporaryProto-Elamitetexts fronl
I r a n ( N i s s e ne t a l . , 1 9 9 0 , E n g l u n da n dG r 6 g o i r e ,1 9 91 : D a m e r o wa n dE n g l u n d .
primarily as "economic texts," these tablets record
1989). Characterizable
informationsuch as the receiptand allocationof goods (includingwho. what.
how much, and occasionallywhy); the size. composition.and employmentof
administeredlabor forces;and aspectsof the productionof somegoods.especially agriculturaland animal products.From theseaccounts,it is possibleto
infer aspectsof the organizationof some productiveenterprises.
hierarchiesof
authority(both political and economic)and social positions.bureaucraticand
administrativepracticesin intricatedetail. and ways in which time was poiitically and ideologicallymanipulated(on the latterpoint, seeEnglund. 1988).In
short, studiesof thesedocumentsoffer the potential for rich understandings
and
interpretations
of the politicaleconomyof the late fourth millennium.
The Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in Mesopotamia
331
Any study of the texts must also bear in mind a numberof cautions.The
ayailabletabletsare a limited sample,not just of the numberthat were probably
i|ritten at the time but also becausethey most probably come from no nlore
thrn a handful of major "public" institutions.IAlthough the exact derivation
of most of the tablets is unknown since the majority were found in secondary
rrcfuse)contexts.their original provenienceis inferredf'roma combinationof
thcir contentsand their findspotsin an area of the site apparentlydominated
cnrireiyby elaborate,presumablypublic, buildings.lIn addition,writtensources
kind must be treated with the understandingthat they were com.f' ,nvhatever
tiom a particularpoint of view and with a particularsetof concerns.This
pose<J
that much that we wish to know is left out and otherthingsare presented
rrrcans
lr.ontvery much intcrestedpoints of view that we may not be able entirelyto
qraspor define.Finally. sincethe first known textsdateto the Late Uruk, and
sccrrringlyquite late in Late Uruk. they offer no direct informationon preceding
ecnturles.
potentialfor new and
Anothertraditionalsubjectof studywith considerable
innovativestudiesis the examinationof sealingpractices.It is no longernovel
ro pclintout that the studyof sealsis of interestfor more thanjust chronological
or dcscriptiveart historicalpurposes,that inferencescan be madeaboutaspects
procedures.But studiesof sealsas adminisand bureaucratic
o1'administrative
trativcartifactshaveoften remainedrathercursoryoverviews.In contrast,analI scsthat combinethe iconographyof sealdesigns,the morphologyof the seals
the distributionof sealsand sealings,and the kinds of things that
thcnrsclves.
of adminric-resealedhavethe potentialfor producingin-depthunderstandings
goods
of
subjcct
istrativepracticesconcemingthe extractionand the allocation
political
relations
of
and
well
implications
for
the
to administered
as
control,as
cconomicauthority.The work of Charviit. who has examinedchangesin the
kindsof objectsand structuressealedover time (Charvrit,1988)and conducted
an historicalanalysisof textual referencesrelatedto sealingpractices(Charvrit,
199l). is oneexampleof the kind of research
thatpromisesto produceinteresting
insiehtsinto cognitiveand economicaspectsof sealingpractices.The forthcomins publicationof sealingson the tabletsfiom JemdetNasr offers additional
possibilitiesfbr combiningthe analysisof sealingpracticesand textual inforI r a t i o n( M a t t h e w s ,l 9 9 l ) .
Another fruittul researchdirection involves investigationof the production
andconsumptionof goodswithin communitiesbasedon the evidenceof finished
products,tools and facilities used in their production, and by-productsof production processes.Such studiesrequire detailed examinationof different kinds
of productswith attentionto suchquestionsas the size and socialcomposition
itf producinggroups; the degreeof restrictionof accessto raw materials,tools,
and facilities necessaryto the productionprocessas well as to the products;the
strategiesproducersdevelopedto cope with the demandsof elites and admin-
Pollock
istratorsupon them; and the kinds of conflictsof intereststhat differentdemands
would have created.In other words, analysesof production and consumption
must proceed from the "bottom up," from the stance of the producer and
consumer,not just from the top down. In this regard, the growing emphasisin
anthropologyand other social scienceson the householdas a unit of analysisis
useful and appropriate(for recent examples,see Smith, 1987; Wilk and Ashm o r e , 1 9 8 8 ;T r i n g h a m .l 9 9 l ) .
Some beginningsin this direction have been made by researchers
working
on slightly later periodsand concernedprimarily with the study of animal husbandrypractices(Stein, 1987:Wattenmaker.1987).Detailedecologicalstudies
that emphasizeboth the constraintsimposedon human societiesby the natural
environment and the strategiespeople may use to cope with and manipulate
their natural environnrentoffer important sourcesof evidencewhich allow the
building of increasinglysophisticatedmodelsof agriculturalproductionand animal husbandry[seeCharles(1989)for ecologyand modemagriculturalpractices
in southernIraql. A prqect that I conductedon the Uruk Mound of Abu Salabikh
(Iraq) was designedto investigatethe loci and compositionof units of production
and consumptionin a fourthmillenniumcommunity(preliminaryrepoftsinclude
Pollock, l990a,b; Pollock et al., 1991). Studiesof technologicalaspectsof
manufacturingprocesses
along the lines of thoseundeftakenby Nissen(1974.
1977),with a view to consideringtheir implicationsin ternrsof the structure
and compositionof the labor force involved,are also promisinglines of investigation(in this regard.seealso Coursey,1990).
Researchof the son proposedin the precedingparagraphscomesfar short
of exhaustingthe possibilitiesof investigatingUruk and JemdetNasr political
and economicstructures.not to mention a myriad of other topics that ment
study. Furtherrnore,these proposalsrepresent,as much as anything. an argument for the importanceof reconceptualizingthe questionsthat we considerto
be importantto understandings
of the entergentcivilizationsof ancientMesopotamia. Even when the ways to addressthese questionswith archaeological
evidencecurrentlyeludeus, the exerciseof posingthem and identifyingthem
as criticalis not a uselessone. Thesequestionsand the valuesthey enbody are
not divorced from those with which we addressthe world in which we live.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
A number of people took the time to read and comment thoughtfully on
this manuscript.I would like to thank them all for their helpful suggestionsand
criticisms,only someof which I have fbllowed:JudithBerman.ReinhardBembeck, RobertEnglund,MarliesHeinz, Hans Nissen,Henry T. Wright, Nomran
Yoffee, anonymousreviewers,and the editor, Angela Close. I wrote this paper
during rny tenure as ResearchFellow of the Alexander von Humboldt Foun-
The Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in Mesopotamia
dation at the Free University of Berlin. It is a pleasureto expressmy gratitude
to the Foundationfor this opportunity and to Hans Nissen, whose invitation to
apply for the fellowship made it possiblein the first place.
REFERENCES
\dams, R. McC
l2z.
Agriculture and urban life in early southwesternlran. Science136: 109-
.\dams, R. McC. (1965). lnnd Behind Baghdad, University of Chicago Press' Chicago.
.Urrns. R. McC. (1966). The Evolution of Urban Socierv,Aldine, Chicago.
\danrs. R. McC. (1974). The Mesopotamiansocial landscape:A view from the frontier. In Moore,
C. B. (ed.), ReconstructingComplex Societies.Supplementto the Bulletin of the American
Schools of American Resettrch 20: I - 1I .
.\rl,rr1s,R. McC. (1978). Strategiesof maxinrization, stability, and resiliencein Mesopotantian
society, settlement,and agriculture.Proceedingsofthe American Philosophical Society l22z
329-335.
.\.lrrrs, R. McC. (1981). Heartland of Cities, University of Chicago Press,Chicago.
\J.rms. R. McC., and Nissen, H. (1972). The Uruk Countrt-side,University of Chicago Press.
Chicago.
..\lgaze,G. (1989). The Uruk expansionCross-culturalexchangein early Mesopotamiancivilization.
Cuntnt Anrhropology30: 571-608.
Brud. M. (ed.) (1991). Citds Disparus D6couvreurs et arch6ologuesau Proche-Orienl. Sdria
"Monde," 55, Autrement, Paris.
llcele. T. (1978). Bevelled rinr bowls and their implicationstbrchange and economicorganization
in the later 4th millennium B.C. Journal of Near Eastern Studies372 289-313.
Ilcnrran. J. (1986). Ceramic Production and the DeveLopmentof Complex Polities in ktte Prehistoric
Southwesternlran, Ph.D. dissertation,City University of New York, New York.
Bcmbcck. R (1991). Die Aufdsung der Htjuslichen Produktionsweise.Das Beispiel Mesopoturtiels, Ph.D. dissertation,Freie Universitdt, Berlin, Germany.
I J r a i d w o o dL, . , B r a i d w o o d ,R . , H o w e , B . , R e e d ,C . , a n d W a t s o n ,P - J . ( e d s . )( 1 9 8 3 ) .P r e h i s t o r i c
archeologyalong the Zagros flanks. Oriental InstitutePublications.105, University ofChicago
P r e s s .C h i c a g o .
Ilraitlwood, R. (1937). Mounds on the plain of Antioch. Oriental Institute Public'ation,48, Unirersity of Chicago Press,Chicago.
B m r n f i e l ,E . . a n d E a r l e ,T . ( 1 9 8 7 ) .S p e c i a l i z a t i o ne.x c h a n g ea, n d c o m p l e xs o c i e t i e sA
: n introduction. ln Brumfiel, E., and Earle, T. (eds.), Specializotion,Etchange, aruI Comple.rSocieties,
CambridgeUniversity Press,Cambridge, pp- 1-9.
Iluccellati,G. (1990). Salt at the dawn of history: The caseof the bevelled-rimbowls. In Matthiae,
P . . v a n L o o n , M . , a n d W e i s s , H . ( e d s . ) ,I l e s a r r c c t i n +t l t e P o s t :A J o i n t T r i b u t e t o A d n u n
Bourni, NederlandsInst. vor het Nabije Oosten, Leiden, pp. l7-40.
Charles, M. (1989). Agriculture in lnwland Mesopotamia in the Ltte Uruk/Early Dltnastic Period,
Ph.D. dissertation,Instituteof Archaeology, University of London, London.
Chandt. P. (1988). Archaeologyand social history. The Susasealings,ca. 4000-2340 B.C. Pal6or i e n t1 4 ( l \ : 5 7 - 6 3 .
Charviit, P. (1992). On sealingsand officials: SumerianDUB and SANGA, c. 3,500-2,500 B.C.
In Vavrouiek. P.. and Zemiinek. P. (eds.), Karel PerrdcekMenorial Volunrc, Charles Univenity, Prague(in press).
Chazan, M., and Lehner, M. (1990). An ancient analogy: Pot baked bread in ancient Egypt and
Mesoootamia.Paliorient l6(h: 2l -35.
C h i i d e .V . G . ( 1 9 5 1 ) . S o c i a lE v o l u t i n n .W a t t s . L o n d o n .
C h i l d e , V . G . ( 1 9 5 2 ) . N e w L i g h t o n t h e M o s t A n c i e n tE a s t , 2 n d e d . , R o u t l e d g e& K e g a n P a u l ,
London
C ( ) u r s e yC
. .
Pasre Preparation and the Production of Mass-Producecl Ceramics from the
334
Pollock
Fourth Millenniunt B.C. in Mesopttrtunia,Master's thesis,SUNY-Binghamton, Binghamton,
N.Y.
Damerow, P., and Englund, R. (1989). The Proto-Elamite Te.rts.frontYahla. PeabodyMuseum of
Archaeology and Ethnology, Cambridge, Mass.
Englund, R. (1988). Administrativetimckeepingin ancientMesopotamia.Journul of the Econonit
and Social History of rhe Orient 3l.. 12l 185.
Englund, R.. and Grdgoire,J. -P. ( l99l ). The Proto-CuneiformTexts from JemdetNasr. Materiulien
zu den Friihen Schrifi:eugnissendes Vorderen Orients. l, Gebr. Mann. Berlin.
Falkenstein,A. (1936). Archriischc Te.tteuus Urrrl. DeutscheForschungsgemeinschaft.
Berlin.
F a l k e n s t e i nA, . ( 1 9 6 5 ) .D i e U r - u n d F r i i h g e s c h i c h tdee s A l t e n V o r d e r a s i e nI.n C a s s i n .E . . B o t t d r o .
J., and Vercoutter.J. (eds.), Die AltorientalisclrcnReiche, I, Von Pakjolitlikunt bis aur Mitte
des 2. Jahrtausend.r,Fischer Biicherei, Frankfun a.M. and Hamburg.
F i n e t , A . ( 1 9 7 9 ) . B i l a n p r o v i s o i r ed e s f b u i l l e sb e l g e sd u T e l l K a n n a s .I n F r e e d m a n D
. . N. (ed.).
Excavation Reports from the Tabqa Dam Project-Euphrates Valley. Syria. Annual of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 442 79-95.
F i n k b e i n e r ,U . , a n d R o l l i g , W . ( 1 9 8 6 ) . G a m d a t N a s r P e n o d o r R e g i o n a l S t y l e ' !B e i h e J i e : u n r
Tiibinger Atlas des VorderenOrients. 62, Dr. Ludwig Reichert. Wiesbaden.
F o r e s t ,J . - D . ( 1 9 8 7 ) . L e s B e v e l l e dR i r r B o w l s . N o u v e l l et e n t a t i v ed ' i n t e r p r e t a t i o nA. k k a d i c a5 3 2
Frankfon, H. (1932). Archaeology and the Sumerianproblem. Studiesin Ancient Oriental Civilization, 4. University of Chicago Press,Chicago.
Frankfort, H. (1954). Tht Art und Architectureof the Ancient Onerrl. Penguin. Hannondsu'orth.
Freedman,D. N. (1979). Archeological reports from the Tabqa Dam Project-Euphrates Valley.
Syia. Anrual of the Atnerican St'hoolsof Oriental Research,41.
Gailey, C. W ( I 985). The stateof the state in anthropology.Dialecrical Anthropologt'9: 65 89.
Gelb, I. J. (1965). The Early MesopotamianRation System.Joanral of Near EttsternStudie.s24:
230-243.
H a l l o , W . W . , a n d S i m p s o n ,W . K . ( 1 9 7 1 ) . T h e A n t ' i e n tN e a r E a s t : A H i s t o r t , H a r c o u r tB r a c e
Jovanovich. New York.
H r o u d a ,B . ( 1 9 7 1 ) .V o r d e r a s i e nI M e s o p o t a m i e nB, a b y l o n i e n ,I r a n u n d A n a t o l i e n .H a n d b u c hd e r
Archriolopie. C. H. Beck. Munich.
H u o t , J . - L . , T h a l m a n n ,J . - P . , a n d V a l b e l l e , D . ( 1 9 9 0 ) . N a i s s a n c ed e s C i r l s . E d i t i o n s N a t h a n ,
Paris.
J a c o b s e nT
, . , a n d A d a m s , R . M c C . ( 1 9 5 8 ) . S a h a n d s i l t i n a n c i e n tM e s o p o t a m i a na g r i c u l t u r e .
Scicn<
t ' 128: I25l 1258.
Johnson,G. (1973). Local exchangeand early statedevelopmentin southwestemIran. Urrllersll,r'
of Michigan Museum of Anthropologl', Anthropological Papers,51. University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
JohnsonG
, . ( 1 9 7 5 ) .L o c a t i o n a a
l n a l y s i sa n d t h e i n v e s t i g a t i o nosf U r u k l o c a l e x c h a n g es y s t e m s I. n
Sabloff, J., and Lamberg-Karlovsky,C. C. (eds.), Artcient Civili:arion and lrade. University
of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque,pp. 285-339.
Johnson, G. (1976). Early state organizationin southwesternIran: Preliminary field report. Proceedings of the lVth Annual S)-,nposiumon Archaeological Research in Iran 4: l9O-223.
Johnson, G. (1987). The changing organizationof Uruk administrationon the SusianaPlain. In
Hole, F. (ed.\, The Archaeologt'of Western1ran, SmithsonianInstitution Press,Washington,
D.C., pp. 107-139.
Johnson,G. (1988-1989). Late Uruk in greaterMesopotamia:Expansionor collapse?Origini 14:.
5 9 5 - 61 3 .
Jones,T. (ed.) (1969). The SumerionProblem, John Wiley, New York.
Killick, R. (ed.) (1988). Ercavationsat Tell RubeidhehAn Uruk Village in the Jebel Hamrin, Ai's
& Phillips, Warminster.
Kohl, P. (1978). The balanceof tradein southwesternAsia in the mid-third millennium B.C. Current
Anthropology 19: 463-492.
Kohl, P. (1987a).The ancienteconomy,transferabletechnologiesand the BronzeAge world system:
A view from the northeastemf'rontierof the Ancient Near East. In Rowlands.M.. Larsen. M.
The Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Periods in Mesopotamia
335
T., and Kristiansen,K. (eds.), Centre and Periphery in the Ancient World, CambidgeUniversity Press,Cambridge, pp. 13-24.
Kohl, p. (1987b). The use and abuseof world systemstheory: The caseof the pristine west Asian
state. Advances in Archaeological Method and Theory ll: l-35.
Kohl, P. (1989). Comment on Algaze. Current Anthropology 30t 593-594.
I_angdon,s. (1928). Pictographic inscriptionsfrom Jemdet Nasr. oxford Editions of Cuneform
Ie,rts 7, London, Oxford University Press
l_arsen.C. (1975). The MesopotamianDelta region: A reconsiderationof Lees and,Falcon.Joumal
of the American Oriental Socie1' 95: 43-57.
I_ersen.C., and Evans, G. (1978). The Holocenegeologicalhistory ofthe Tigris-Euphrates-Karun
Delta. In Brice, W. (ed.), The EnvironmentalHistory of the Near and Middle East Since the
Inst lce lge, New York, Academic Press,pp. 221 244.
Le Breton, L. (1957). The early periodsat Susa, Mesopotamianrelations lraq l9t 79-124.
L-c'Brun. A., and Vallat, F. (1978). L'Origine de l'6criture i Suse. Calriers de la Diligation
Frangaiseen lran 8: Il-59.
l-lovd, S. (194'7).Foundationsin the Dasr, Oxford University Press,London.
\lackay. E. (1931). Report on the excavationsat Jemdet Nasr, Iraq. Field Museum of Natural
Histon' Anthropologl' Memoirs, l(.3).
\lallowan. M. (1965). Earlt' Mesopotamiaand 1ran, Thames and Hudson, London.
\ l a r t h e w s ,R . ( 1 9 8 9 ) .E x c a v a t i o n sa t J e m d e tN a s r , 1 9 8 8 .I r a q 5 l : 2 2 5 - 2 4 8 .
\latthews, R. (1990). Excavationsat Jemdet Nasr, 1989. Iraq 52:.25-39.
\lrttheu's. R. (1992). Cities, seals and writing: Archaic seal impressionsiiom Jemdet Nasr and
des VorderenOrients,2, Gebr. Mann, Berlin
lJr. Materialien au den Frtihen Schrifizeugnissen
(ln Press).
\lrehalowski, P. (1990). Early Mesopotamiancommunicativesystems:Art, Iiterature,and writing.
In Gunter. A. (ed.), InvestigatingAnistic Environmentsin the Ancienl Near Easl, Smithsonian,
A r t h u r M . S a c k l e rG a l l e r y ,W a s h i n g t o n ,D . C . , p p . 5 3 - 6 9 .
\liiiard. A. (1988). The bevelled-rimbowls: Their purposeand significance.Iraq 50: 49-57.
\loonsat. A. (1967). Die Kunst des Alten Mesopotomiens,M. DuMont Schauberg,Koln.
\rssen. H. (1970). Grabungin den QuadratenK/L XII in Uruk-Warka. BaghdaderMitteilungen5z
l 0 l- l 9 l .
\issen. H. (1974). Zur Frage der Arbeitsorganisationin Babylonien wdhrend der Spiituruk-Zeit.
Acta Antiqua AcademiaeScientiarumHungaricae 22:5-14.
\ i i s : e n . H . ( 1 9 7 7 ) . A s p e c t so f t h e d e v e l o p m e not f e a r l y c y l i n d e r s e a l s .I n G i b s o n , M c C . , a n d
Biggs. R. (eds.), Sealsand Sealingsin the Ancient Near East. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica6i
l5 23.
\issen. H. (1986). The archaic texts from Uruk. World Archaeology l7:.317-334.
\issen. H. (1988). The Early Hisory nf the Ancient Near East,9000-2000 8.C., University of
Chicago Press,Chicago.
\irsen. H.. Damerow, P.. and Englund, R. (1990). Frtihe Schrif und Technikender Wirtschafsrentaltung im alten Vord.erenOrient, Franzbecker, Berlin.
P o l l o c k .S . ( 1 9 8 7 ) .A b u S a l a b i k h ,T h e U r u k M o u n d 1 9 8 5 - 8 6 .I r a q 4 9 : 1 2 1 - 1 4 1 .
Pirllock, S. (1990a). Archaeologicalinvestigationson the Uruk Mound, Abu Salabikh, Iraq. Iraq
it. R5_o1
Pollock. S. (1990b). Political economy as viewed from the garbagedump: JemdetNasr occupalion
at the Umk Mound, Abu Salabikh. Pal4orient 16(1): 57-75.
P o l l o c k ,S . , S t e e l e ,C . , a n d P o p e , M . ( 1 9 9 1 ) .I n v e s t i g a t i o nosn t h e U r u k M o u n d , A b u S a l a b i k h ,
1 9 9 O .I r a q 5 3 : 5 9 - 6 8 .
Redman,C. (1978). The Riseof Civilization, Freeman,San Francisco.
Roseberry,W (1988). Political economy. Annual Review of AnthropoLogl'l7: 16l-185.
R o u x , G . t 1 9 6 6 ( 1 9 6 4 ) 1A
. n c i e n tl r a q , P e n g u i n ,H a r m o n d s w o r t h .
Sanlaville,P. (1989). Consid6rationssur l'6volution de la basseM6sopotamieau cours des derniers
milldnaires.Pal4orienr l5(2): 5-27 .
Smith, M. (1987). Household possessionsand wealth in agrarian states:Implications for archaeology. Journal of Anthropological Archaeology 6: 291-335.
StateOrganizationof Antiquities and Heritage(1987). Researchs[sic] on the Antiquitiesof Saddam
336
pollock
Dam Basin Salvage and Other Researches,State Organizationof Antiquities and Heritage.
Mosul.
Stein, G. (1987). Regional economic integration in early state societies:Third millennium B.C.
pastoralproduction at Gritille, SoutheastTrrkey. Paldorient l3(2): l0l lll.
S t e i n .G . ( 1 9 9 0 ) .C o m m e n to n A l g a z e . C u r r e n tA n t h r o p o l o g l ' 3 l z6 6 6 7 .
Stronrnenger,E. (1980). Habuba Kabira Eine Stadt vor 50O0Jahretr, Philipp von Zabern, Mainz.
Sumer (1979). Lecturesof the symposrunron Himrin. Surner35: 415-602.
Tringham, R. (1991). Householdswith faces: The challengeof gender in prehistoricarchiteclural
remains. In Gero. J.. and Conkey, M. (eds.), EngenderingArchueologl' lltomen and Prehisr o r y , B a s i l B l a c k w e l l .O x f o r d , p p . 9 3 1 3 1 .
UVB : Uruk Vorliiufige Berichten(1930-). Walter de Gnryter. Berlin.
van Driel, G. (1979). Jebel Aruda 1971-78. Akkadica 12:.2-28.
Wattenmaker,P. (1987). Town and village economiesin an early state society.Paliorient l3(2):
113-122.
Wattenmaker,P. (1990). Comment on Algaze. Current Anthropologv 3l: 67-68.
Weiss, H., and Young, T. C. (1975). The merchantsof SusaGodin V and plateau-lowlandrelat i o n s i n t h e l a t e f o u r t h m i l l e n n i u mB . C . I r a n 1 3 : l - 1 7 .
Whallon, R. ( I 979). An archaeologicalsurvey of the Keban Resen'oirareaof East-CentralTurkeyUnivrsih- o.f Michigan Museun of Anthropolog,",Memoir. ll. University of Michisan. Ann
Arbor.
Wilk, R., and Ashmore. W (1988). Householdand Ccrnntunityin rhe MesoamericanPost, University of New Mexico Press,Albuquerque.
Wilkinson, T. J. (1990). Town and Country in SoutheastemAnatolia. Vol. l: Settlementand Land
Use at Kurban Hoyiik and Other Sites in the Lower Karababa Bastn. Oriental Institute Publication, 109, University of Chicago Press,Chicago.
Wright, H. T. (1911). Recent researchon the origin of the state.Annual Reviev'of Anthropology
6:319-391.
Wright, H. T. (1978). Toward an explanationof the origin of the state.In Cohen, R., and Service.
E. (eds.), Origins of the State: The Anthropolog,rof Polirical Evolution,Institutefor the Study
o f H u m a n I s s u e s ,P h i l a d e l p h i ap. p . 4 9 - 6 8 .
W r i g h t , H . T . ( e d . ) ( 1 9 8 1 ) .A n e a r l y t o w n o n t h e D e h L u r a n P l a i n E x c a v a t i o n a
s t Tepe Farukhabad. Universin'of Michigan Museum of Anthropologt,Memoir, 13, University of Michigan,
Ann Arbor.
W r i g h t , H . T . ( 1 9 8 6 ) .T h e e v o l u t i o no f c i v i l i z a t i o n s I. n M e l t z e r . D . . F o w l e r , D . , a n d S a b l o f f ,J .
(eds.), American Archoeologt,Past and Farure, SmithsonianInstitution Press, Washington.
D.C., pp. 323-365.
Wright, H. T. (1987). The Susianahinterlandsduring the era of primary stateformation. In Hole,
F. (ed.), The Archaeologyof lilesternlran, SmithsonianInstitution Press,Washington, D.C.,
pp. 14l-155.
Wright, H. T., and Johnson,G. (1975). Population,exchange,and early stateformation in southwestern kan. American Anthropologist 77 : 267-289.
Wright. H. T., Miller, N.. and Redding. R. (1980). Time and processin an Uruk rural center. In
Barrelet, M.-T. (ed.), L'Archdologie de I'lraq, Centre Nationale de RechercheScientifique.
Paris, pp. 265-284.
Yoffee, N. (1992). Too many chiefs? or safe texts for the 90s. In Sherratt, A., and Yoffee. N.
(eds.), Archaeological Theory-l{ho Setsthe Agenda?, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (in press).
Zagarell, A. (1986). Trade, women, class, and society in ancient westem Asia. Current Anthropology 272 415-430.
Zeder, M. (1988). Understandingurban processthrough the study of specializedsubsistenceeconomy in the Near East. Joumal of Anthropological Archaeology 7t l-55.
lournal of World Prehistory-, vol. 6, No. 3, 1992
The Late Paleolithic of the Yenisei: A New Outline
Sergey A. Vasil'evl
'fhe
area of the Middle and Upper Yeniseiis one of the most important concentrotionsof Paleolithic sites in Northern Asia. More than 200 localities, belongin.q,to various stagesof the Paleolithic, are now known. The initial phase of
rhe Inte Paleolithic is representedby Malaya Syiya, which is dated to approxinuttell-34,000-33,000 B.P. The middlephase of the ktte Paleolithic is marked
bt'rheblade industriesof Early Sartanage (24,000-18,000B.P.), as at Shlenka,
Torachikha,Ui I, and elsewhere.At 18,000-16,0008.P., thesewere replaced
bt'the Final Paleolithic Afontova and Kokorevo cuhures, ahhough some of the
eorlier blade industriescontinuedinto this period (GolubayaI).
KE\' \\ORDS: Siberial Late Paleolithrc:Yeniseii Afontova culture; Kokorevo culture
INTRODUCTION
The upper and middle reachesof the valley of the River Yenisei have one
of the most importantconcentrationsof Late Paleolithicsitesnot only in Northern Asia, but in the whole of Russia. Paleolithic researchin this huge area is
now entering its secondcentury. Severaltens of stratifiedsitesare known, and
thc total number of sites investigatedbefore 1981 approaches200 (Abramova
et al., 1991). The active program of fieldwork carried out by archaeologists
tiom St. Petersburgand Krasnoyank has greatly increasedthe numberof known
sites during the last few years. The Yenisei sites have long been seen as the
key to the Northern Asian Paleolithicand were the basis for assumptionsabout
the characterof Late Paleolithicdevelopmentin Siberia.Even today, one cannot
ignore the Yenisei evidencewhen discussingthe periodizationof the Siberian
'lnstitute
for the History of Material Culture. RussianAcademy of Sciences,Dvortsovayanab. 18,
S t . P e t e n b u r g1 9 1 0 6 5 ,R u s s i a .
337
0892-7537/9210900 0337$06.50/0 Gl 1992 Plenum Publishing Corporation