Lecture-5: Ubaid Through Late Uruk Syria-Mesopotamia and Beyond ..

ANTH.
416 / 516:
War & Peace in Ancient Mesopotamia
(Prehistory through 323 BCE)
Lecture-5: Ubaid through Late Uruk
Syria-Mesopotamia and beyond ...
© Notes & images compiled by Gregory Mumford 2022
Lecture outline:
1. Pottery Neolithic B / Early-Mid.Chalcolithic 5,400 – 4,000/3,800 BCE
1.a. (Late) Ubaid Culture 5,400 – 4,300/4,000/3,800 BCE
2. Uruk Culture and urbanism Near East 4,000/3,800 – 3,100/3,000 BCE
2.a. Uruk Culture and early urbanism
2.b. Summary trends during Uruk Period 4,000 – 3,000 BCE
2.c. Introduction: Uruk Expansion in Mid-Late Uruk 3,800 – 3,000 BCE
2.c.-i. Susa (SW Iran) Uruk expansion 3,800 – 3,000 BCE
2.c.-ii. Tepe Gawra: Uruk expansion 3,800 – 3,000 BCE
2.c.-iii. Tell Brak: Uruk expansion 3,800 – 3,000 BCE
2.c.-iv. Habuba Kabira: Uruk expansion 3,800 – 3,000 BCE
2.d. Uruk culture in Northern Mesopotamia 3,800 – 3,000 BCE
2.d.-i: Hacinebi B: Uruk expansion 3,800 – 3,000 BCE
2.d.-ii Hassek Hoyuk: Uruk expansion 3,800 – 3,000 BCE
2.d.-iii: Arslantepe: Uruk expansion 3,800 – 3,000 BCE
2.d.-iv. Norsuntepe: Uruk expansion 3,800 – 3,000 BCE
2.d.-v: Sos Hoyuk: Uruk expansion 3,800 – 3,000 BCE
3: Near Eastern influence(?) in Chalcolithic Palestine (Ghassulian culture):
4. Near Eastern influence(?) in Early Bronze Age I Palestine (Proto-urban culture)
Lecture outline:
5. Early Bronze Age I-II Trade in Near East – Egypt 3,500 – 3,000+ BCE
5.a. Egyptian trade, etc., with Southwest Palestine
5.b. Egyptian trade with Syria-Lebanon
5.c. Egyptian trade with Mesopotamia
6. SUMMARY:
Instructor tips for lectures, etc.:
(1). Attend class regularly (& listen) …
→ Many clarifications, tips, announcements,
reinforcement & reviews of materials/concepts.
(2). Take notes on lectures, etc. …

→ The act of writing down notes, even with
most course materials and instructions online,
serves as an invaluable aid to one focusing on
a class topic and retaining information better.
https://howtostudyincollege.com/how-to-get-good-grades/note-taking-strategies/
(3). Complete the required textbook
readings, and/or review the ppt.,
prior to the specific class day …
→ This will provide greater clarity and
comprehension of the material, and will enable
asking focused questions where something
may be less clear (in the textbook or lecture).
(4). Ask questions during the class if

you are confused/wish more data
→ The class is an ideal place to ask for more
clarity or further information not contained in
the textbook, ppt., and/or lecture (If nobody
asks questions, the lecture proceeds …).
(5). Complete optional materials:

→ Additional reinforcement, studying & bonus?
Mesopotamia and the Near East: ca. 5,400 – 3,100 BC.
1. PN.B:
Middle Chalcolithic Anatolia:
5,400 – 4,300 BC
Mesopotamia
1.a:
Syria-Mesopotamia:
UBAID CULTURE
(5400–4300/4000/3800 BC):
Early–mid-Chalcolithic Near East: ca. 6000-4000+ BC
Early-mid Chalcolithic Near East
ca. 6,000 – 4,000 BCE
Mid-Chalco- Ubaid culture expanding: 5400–4300/4000/3800 BC
lithic cultures
in the Near
East:
5400–4000 BC
Amuq D-E:
(N. Levant);
Gawra and
Nineveh 3:
(Syria-N. Meso-
potamia);
Early-Late
Ubaid:
(S. Mesopot-
amia)
Southern Mesopotamia: Grave 134, Ubaid cemetery at Eridu
REVIEW: Early Ubaid culture:
• A few early settlements have been found
in southern Mesopotamia, producing:
“Early Ubaid culture” ca.5,900–5,400 BCE
• Early Ubaid pottery: Light coloured ware
with dark-painted designs.
• Originating in southern Mesopotamia during
early Ubaid
https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/49.133.3/
• Expanding throughout Mesopotamia in
late Ubaid (next section).
Tell al-’Ubaid: 1919; 1923-24; 1937 excav.
1919 (Hall) & 1923-24 (Woolley) excavations
Early settlement
Tell al-’Ubaid:
• Type site for

Ubaid culture
• Southern
Mesopotamia,
near Ur and
Eridu.
• Lowest levels
at site …
Early settlement to south

MESOPOTAMIA: ca. 6,000–3,100 BC
Early-Mid.Chalcolithic: 6000–4000 BC
East Anatolia:
Middle Chalcolithic (5,500 – 4,000 BCE):
E.g., Pottery and chronology:
- Next phase → Ubaid ca. 4,500 BC+
(succeeds Halaf culture phase).
- From South Mesopotamia;
- Trade with southern Mesopotamia;
- Ubaid stamp seals:
(a). Southern influence;
(b). Administration & accounting;
(c). Seal impressions (bullae),
(d). Geometric
Lowest designs,
levels animals,
of temples
vultures, humans, etc.
at Eridu (in Sumeria)
display
- Ubaid “Ubaid culture”
pottery:
plain and painted
Ubaid period: ca. 5,900 – 4,300 BC
Less consistent, irregular design;
Levels XVI, IX, and VII at Eridu, from
Coba bowls, scraped.
Ubaid phase-1 to Ubaid phases 3-4.
Eridu (S. Mesopotamia):
• Lower levels of temples from Ubaid period
Southern Mesopotamia:
Early Ubaid culture:
• The site of Eridu contains the entire span
of Ubaid culture in southern Mesopotamia:
• Eridu used to lie along a branch of the
Euphrates river system (near anc. coast):
• It formed a centre for a water deity, Enki,
• The Babylonian Epic assigned Eridu a place
as “the first city”:
“A reed had not come forth;
A tree had not been created;
A house had not been made;
All lands were sea;
Then Eridu was made.” (Roaf 1990: 53).
• An excavation trench at Eridu has revealed:
14 metres’ depth in Ubaid occupation.
Eridu Level VI contained a temple (Ubaid),
earlier structures appear in Ubaid 1-4. Eridu Temple XVI, Ubaid 1 period,
• Ubaid period 1 at Eridu: dated to ca. 4,900 BCE:
(a). 2.8 metre square chamber … Containing essential features with a niche
for an “altar” & a central offering platform
Early Ubaid culture:
Ubaid 2 “Temple”:
• A structure containing:
a platform set in a large niche.
• The same room had a central platform
Eridu VIII = Ubaid 2 period
with burn debris covering it.
• Eridu & 10 local sites yielded “Eridu ware,”
which consisted of dark-painted pottery.
• During the Ubaid period, a period of
Hajji Muhammed pottery appears,
featuring a painted background (i.e.,
highlighting the design: negative image)
“Eridu ware” (Lloyd 1984: 44, fig. 12)

Eridu Temple Level IX (= Ubaid culture/period 3: ca. 4,100 BCE)
• Level IX = underlain by Eridu Temple Level VIII:
VIII = Ubaid culture/period-2 ca. 4,500(?) BCE
East Anatolia and Mesopotamia:
(Ubaid succeeds Halaf culture phase).
- UBAID culture = South Mesopotamia;
- southern Mesopotamia → Northwest;
-*Coba bowls
Ubaid stamp seals:
(d). Geometric designs, animals,
- Ubaid pottery:
plain and painted
Coba bowls, scraped. UBAID Culture
Late Ubaid culture:
• Has Hajji Muhammed pottery containers
(i.e., still appearing …)
• New pottery appears: with new, basic dark-
painted designs, typifying “Late Ubaid”
• It supplants Halaf pottery in N. Mesopotamia
• It appears: Eastern Mts.: Similar pottery;
Khuzistan: Related pottery
(i.e., Middle Susiana)
Eastern Saudi Arabia (n = 40)
Bahrein (n = 2)
Qatar (n = 5)
UAE (n = 2)
East Anatolia:
- Ubaid pottery:
= plain and painted
Ubaid pottery:
Ca.
4,500 BC
Ca.
3,500 BC
MESOPOTAMIA: ca. 6,000–3,100 BC Early
Ubaid
East Anatolia:
(b). Administration & accounting; Late
(c). Seal impressions (bullae), Ubaid
- Ubaid pottery:
plain and painted
*Coba bowls, = scraped.
East Anatolia:
Tell Tawila, NE Syria: Coba bowls
- Ubaid stamp seals: Website http://www.orientarch.uni-halle.de/digs/tawila/taw2006e.htm
(b). Administration & accounting; Coba Hoyuk
- Ubaid pottery:
plain and painted
Coba bowls, scraped. Widespread
UBAID TEMPLES:
E.g., (A). Eridu Temple VII, Ubaid 4 period: ca. ca. 3,800 BC
Southern Mesopotamia: At the advent of Early Uruk …
Late Ubaid culture TEMPLES:

(A). Ubaid 4 period temple at Eridu:
• 1 metre high platform supporting temple(s).
• NB: In later periods, such platforms develop
into ziggurats / ziggurat complexes.
• The Temple building (at Eridu) contained:
Altar, lay at SW side of central chamber;
NE side had a podium yielding a deposit of Eridu Temple VII (Ubaid 4) ca. 3800 BC
ash & fishbones:
i.e., an offering to water-deity, Enki.
Presumably associated rituals included:
a. Prayers / reciting spells
b. Singing
c. Music
d. Applying aromatics(?)
(B).Other temples known during this period:
E.g., Uruk: late Ubaid temple;
E.g., Tepe Gawra: 3 temples in a complex.
“Ubaid cubit”: A constant 72 cm application in
design and building …
Late Ubaid culture:
(B). Tepe Gawra Temples:
• 6 earlier Ubaid culture levels at this site,
initially interpreted as “temples” → housing(!).
• While Level XIII has a well-built temple:
there = 3 separate structures in a complex,
suggesting three deities: polytheistic religion
• The North Temple yielded many stamp seal
impressions on clay bullae:
i.e., owners’ marks (private?; institution?);
perhaps reflecting a transaction/delivery
An early, sealed record of a transaction,
in which lay the original record tokens.
• This brief temple phase is replaced by a Sample of clay bullae with impressions
return to a residential area again: WHY?
• Did this brief temple phase (which might
elsewhere contain a sequence of temples
on continuous sacred ground) reflect
external influences??? (See Roaf 1990).
• Utilized the standard Ubaid cubit: 72 cm.
Selected tokens: placed within such clay envelopes
(B). Tepe Gawra XIII Temple, Ubaid period.
East Anatolia:
(a). Southern(?) influence: N. Mesop.
- Ubaid pottery:
plain and painted
Bullae
East Anatolia:
- Ubaid pottery:
plain and painted
Ubaid per. stamp seals:
I.e., Administrative system:
a. Indicating sender/institution;
b. Securing contents from
pilfering in-transit & storage
c. Securing facilities: doors.
Late Ubaid culture:
(C). Ubaid temples in general:
• The Ubaid culture temples at Eridu, Uruk,
and Tepe Gawra are similar:
• Tripartite plan: (later on low platform):
A large, long rectilinear hall in the centre;
Adjacent side chambers along length;
Niches and buttresses around exterior.
• These features become typical components
in later Mesopotamian temples.
Late Ubaid culture:
Ubaid period housing:
• Ubaid period housing had a similar tripartite
layout:
e.g., Ubaid-4 period house at Tell Madhhur
(A). Tell Madhhur:
• A small village with several houses: …
• One house had been burnt down;
• It is preserved variously up to 2 m. in height
• It contained many abandoned utensils:
Grinding stones;
Baked clay mullers: for processing grain.
Stone hoes: agricultural tools (breaking soil)
Spindle whorls: making thread (wool; flax)
Many pottery containers: Storage
cooking
Tableware (incl.
drinking vessels)
Tell Madhhur:
Foothills of Zagros Mts.
Late Ubaid period
housing …
Cruciform-type tripartite Ubaid house Tell Madhhur:
Tell Madhhur:
2nd storey? / roof-top
Tell Madhhur:
Tell Madhhur
Pottery and
area functions
Cooking &
food prep.
Serving
vessels
Food prep
(no cooking
Storage
vessels
Ubaid domestic housing: Agricultural tools (?) Tell Madhhur:
Late Ubaid period housing …
Ubaid domestic housing: Tell Madhhur:
Late Ubaid period housing …
Household pottery for a broad range of uses:
• Food storage, processing (e.g., cooking),
and consumption.
Tepe Gawra: Tepe Gawra
Ubaid 3 period
Tripartite type housing
Ubaid culture/period:
Tell Hamoukar (North Syria):
• In the “Habur Triangle” in Syria
• Ubaid-type architecture and pottery
Tell Brak (North Syria):
• In the “Habur Triangle” in Syria
• Ubaid-type architecture and pottery;
• Imported bitumen from Mesopotamia, &
copper and obsidian from Anatolia.
E.g., 4000 BC composite chalice: obsidian,
marble, and bitumen adhesive.
Brak level 19
Tell Zeidan (Western Syria):
• Balih River, east bank (in Syria)
https://oi.uchicago.edu/sites/oi.uchicago.edu/files/uploads/shared/docs/10_11_Tell_Zeidan.pdf
• Ubaid-type architecture & pottery, while

8 large kilns (like a factory) made pottery
• Yields early copper smelting evidence,
plus an earlier usage of seals (7000+)
than in southern Mesopotamia.
• By 5000 BC, a substantial wall is built
around the settlement, which rivals
Eridu in size, namely 30 acres, and
a population ca. 3,000 persons.
Late Ubaid culture:
Ubaid period housing:
• Ubaid housing tends to be larger,
about 200 square metres.
• This could hold an extended family:
E.g., 20 or so persons.
Grandparents, parents, children, and
associated spouses, etc.
Theory:
• Roaf suggests that the tripartite plan may
reflect Ubaid culture’s social organization:
i.e., Such as a separate men’s and women’s
quarters (this is known in Anc. Egypt).
2 adjacent bedroom suites flanked a central,
communal, living room: cooking, eating, etc.
Other notions (less likely?):
Maybe two separate components within an
extended family could dwell on either side?
i.e., Maybe not divided by gender?
Ubaid culture material culture: Baked clay tools (e.g., sickles; wall nails; net weights;
socketed axes), celts, hammer stones, and digging stones.
Late Ubaid culture:
Ubaid period graves & burials:
• The cemetery at Eridu had 200 pit graves
• The pits had a mudbrick lining & capping.
• Bodies lay extended on their backs,
with heads to the NW.
Contents:
• A few graves had 2 skeletons (spouses?)
• Two graves also held dogs (pets/hunting?)
• Jewelry (on the body)
• Jar(s) at the foot end
• Cup(s) “ “
• Dish(es) “ “
• Female burial: male figurine at the shoulder
Note: Most figurines = female.
• Most graves had a similar quality & quantity
of items, suggesting more equal soc. status.
• BUT, an elite/chief? might have had burials
elsewhere. Ubaid culture figurines:
• Infants buried in jars under house floors. Example of male & female types.
Eridu
Cemetery:
Ubaid period
burials
Mesopotamia:
Late Ubaid culture:
• Late Ubaid culture ends ca.4,300-3,800 BC
• It contained broad similarities across
Syria and Mesopotamia:
(a). Pottery types & decorative styles.
(b). Baked clay tools;
(c). Tripartite architecture:
Housing & temples.
• In other words, this broad region displays
some components of a “shared culture”
Ideas:
(Ubaid) Coba bowls …
• It is highly unlikely that the various people
across this huge region were all the same
ethnic group, religion, etc. (different!)
• The selected, shared & visible features
probably reflect broad interconnections
and trade, with ideas & influence spreading.
• It is not until the next phase that evidence
occurs for some colonization, trade enclaves
and other aspects of expansion: Uruk culture
Rise of urbanism: 4000–3000 BC, Anatolia, Levant, and Mesopotamia
2. URUK CULTURE
& adjacent areas
Early urbanism in
the Near East:
c.4,000/3,800–3,000 BC
Transitioning from Late Ubaid culture to …
Uruk period/culture in the late Chalcolithic Near East:
• Ca. 4,000/3,900 – 3,100/3,000+ BCE = Uruk levels 18-15 …
Uruk period/culture in late Chalcolithic/+ Near East:
Ca. 4,000/3,900–3,000+ BCE = Uruk levels 14-9 (early) & 8-4 (late)
Rise of urbanism: ca. 4,000–3,000 BC, Anatolia, Levant, and Mesopotamia
2.a.
URUK CULTURE
Early urbanism in
the Near East:
ca.4000+-3000 BC
Uruk period: ca. 4,000/3,800 – 3,000 BCE
An “urban revolution”(i.e.,urbanization”)
occurs increasingly in the Uruk period:
• (1). Society is shifting into having many
non-food producers living in
urban centres, relying on separate
larger/many agricultural personnel
(farmers; herders; affiliated people)
• (2). This also entailed people shifting
from smaller, kinship-based groups
to a social organization controlling
a larger territory & its populace.
• (3). The new urban society contained
more social stratification: classes.
• (4). The emerging authority/leadership
reflected some combination of
political, military & religious elite
(i.e., leadership).
• (5).The elite gathered surplus materials
& products (i.e., wealth) via taxation
and tribute –with a return of various
services: E.g., community works+ Uruk period: City of Uruk, temple precinct
An “urban revolution”(i.e.,urbanization”)
occurs increasingly in the Uruk period:
• (6). The elite also commissioned the
building of monumental public
(& more restricted) buildings:
E.g., Temples; magazines; canals;
• (7). The elite fostered the development
of specialized industries & crafts
persons, which also encouraged
greater regional through long-
distance trade: i.e., desirable and
marketable products (e.g., textiles)
• (8). Other innovations accompanying
and aiding urbanization include:
(i). Writing: e.g., records; letters; +
(ii). Science: Theoretical & hard …
(iii). Figurative art: Cultic & secular
• These and other factors (e.g., agency;
environment; climate; etc.) worked var.
together and in succession in a very
complex fashion → urbanization/state.
Uruk period “urban revolution”:
• The gradual shift in societal views &
its character coincided with urban
development, both of which realized
eventually the appearance of bigger
and more complex polities:
i.e., “State formation”
• The emerging new society consisted of
larger urban centres with their own
affiliated agricultural population,
including a network of smaller
agricultural towns & villages, plus other
specialized communities and peoples:
(a). Farming communities (agriculture)
(b). Herders (livestock)
(c). Traders traversing hinterland+
(d). Less directly associated nomadic
and semi-nomadic pastoralists
(between urban centres/fringes).
(e). More specialized communities in
various areas: Bitumen & salt
extraction; mud brick production;
hunters; fishers; etc.
Uruk period “urban revolution”:
Beginning in Early–Middle Uruk period:
• ca.4000–3500 BC (or: 3900–3450 BC)
• The main transformation of villages
to large towns & cities occurred around
4,300 / 4,000 / 3,800 BCE in southern
Mesopotamia.
• Note: This is prior to the point during
which the process of urbanization
began in Ancient Egypt: ca. 3500 BCE
(advent of Naqada II / Gerzean period).
• Although much more archaeological
excavation is needed in southern
Mesopotamia, archaeological surface
surveys (observing datable potsherds)
have revealed suggestive settlement
patterns in selected parts of S. Mesop.
E.g., Robert Adams survey.
• Adams’ survey covered approximately
100 by 200 or so km region in southern
Mesopotamia (e.g., NE of Nippur).
Uruk period: ca. 4,000/3,800 – 3,000 BCE Southern Iraq: Safwan hill
Drawbacks in surface surveys:
• Unfortunately, surface surveys have
various limitations:
(a). Some sites lie too far beneath the
alluvial plain;
(b). The later occupation levels at long-
term sites can obscure earlier levels
(c). Many surface potsherds are worn,
non-diagnostic, or not dateable.
(d). Some potsherds & time periods
reflect less well-known/defined
periods in Mesopotamian history:
E.g., Jemdet Nasr (late 4th mill. BC)
Summary results of survey(s):
• However, Adams’ survey has yielded
significant clarifications to the process
of urbanization (urban “revolution”) in
southern Mesopotamia:
Late Ubaid foundations for Uruk period
“urbanization”:
• In the Late Ubaid period, which spans
approx. 5400+ to 4300/4000/3800 BC,
surface surveys have shown:
• Late Ubaid settlements tend to be
small, with a few attaining about 10 ha.,
and are approx. equally spaced.
• Ubaid sites =even+widespread spacing
seems to have left much of the flood
plain devoid of settlements, but open
to nomadic & semi-nomadic herders.
Adams, 1981 published survey map:

Ubaid period sites.
Early Uruk period: ca. 4,000 – 3,500 BCE
Early-(Middle) Uruk “urbanization:
• The survey revealed a much denser
occupation in the Early-Middle Uruk
period: A dramatic rise in settlement
numbers and settlement sizes.
• Larger populations also settle in many
small to moderate settlements to the
northeast of Nippur near a relic river
course:
i.e., One of several branches of the
Euphrates in this region.
• Uruk forms a 70 hectare settlement.
• The northern survey zone contained:
(a). Two sites of 50 ha.
(b). Two 30 ha. Sites;
(c). 60% of the overall survey area’s
population (for early-middle Uruk)
resided in this northern zone.
• It =unknown if the pop increase reflects:
(a). Indigenous growth (at ea. town);
(b). External pop. shift to these towns;
(c). Some combination of growth+influx
LATE Uruk period: ca. 3,500–3,100+ BCE
Late Uruk urbanization:
• Settlements shift significantly in the
Late Uruk period, with …
(a). Many northern communities being
abandoned, despite some new
northern settlements.
(b). Many new sites being occupied to
the south, near Uruk.
(c). An increase occurs in the number
and sizes of southern settlements;
Uruk grows to over twice its size.
(d). There is a continuing population
shift to the south during the
Late Uruk / Jemdet Nasr period:
ca. late 4th millennium BCE.
• One theory suggests that a river shift
caused many of the site abandonments,
and relocations to better sites near new
river courses and/or further south.
• The population shift reduced the
northern area to 40% (i.e., 2/3rds) from
its former 60% of the survey region’s
south-north coverage).
• The southern areas’ pop. increased to
60% (from its former 40% of the survey
area’s population).
• Uruk itself almost grew by 50% (30 ha)
from 70 hectares to 100 hectares:
= 25,000+? inhabitants (“mega city”).
The city of Uruk and its hinterland:
• Uruk’s population would have needed
at least a 6 km radius in farm land
(i.e., a diameter of 12 km of land)
to supply its estimated population.
• Farmers could have lived in Uruk,
being able to reach their farms after
one hour’s walk (like recent farmers).
• The city’s needs could also have been
Reconstruction
met by bringing of Uruk
in other ca. 3000foodsBCE from
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/280134491_fig1_Fig-1-3D-Visualisation-of-the-city-of-Uruk-3000-BC
fishing, livestock, and other sources.
• The population shift reduced the
northern area to 40% (i.e., 2/3rds) from
its former 60% of the survey region’s
south-north coverage).
• The southern areas’ pop. increased to
60% (from its former 40% of the survey
area’s population).
• Uruk itself almost grew by 50% (30 ha) http://www.artefacts-berlin.de/en/uruk-visualisation-project-the-ur-iii-period/
from 70 hectares to 100 hectares.

• Uruk’s population would have needed
at least a 6 km radius in farm land
(i.e., a diameter of 12 km of land) to
supply its estimated population: 25,000+.
• Farmers could have lived in Uruk,
being able to reach their farms after
one hour’s walk (like recent farmers).
• The city’s needs could also have been
met by bringing in other foods from
fishing, livestock, and other sources.
Jemdet Nasr: ca.3,100–3,000/2,900 BCE
Uruk period “urbanization” → into the
Jemdet Nasr & Early Dyn. 1 periods:
• The growth in southern sites continues
in this period in southern Mesopotamia:
• The population around Uruk rose to
over double, to 850 hectares’ worth
in urban coverage (in its hinterland):
i.e., many 1000 residents: 25,000+?
• The settlement of Uruk contained
about 50% of the region’s population,
and was about 250+ hectares in area
(by 3,100 BCE).
• Small villages decrease greatly in
number (in the Uruk region),
• While large towns grow in size and
population in the Uruk region.
• The arrangement of settlements also
changes, with many new sites lying
along straight lines reflecting linear
relic irrigation channels.
Jemdet Nasr: ca.3,100–3,000/2,900 BCE Generic city & farmland
Uruk period “urbanization” into the
Jemdet Nasr & Early Dyn. 1 periods:
• The expanded city+population at Uruk
needed a much larger radius of
agricultural land in this period, namely
16 km (i.e., a diameter of 32 km).
• This would have required external
settlements & farmers located outside
Uruk to furnish Uruk with sufficient
food and other produce (obtained via
taxation? Tribute? etc.).
Early-Late Uruk period: 4,000–3,000 BCE
Uruk in the Uruk period:
Names:
• The site =called Warka (or Uruk) today
• Sumerian texts labelled it Unu
• Biblical texts designate it Erech
Excavations:
• Two main areas have been excavated:
(a). Eanna Temples of Inanna,
a deity of war & love.
(b). The Temple complex of An/Anum:
a sky deity.
URUK: Eanna Temple Complex:
• Excavations uncovered substantial
construction in the Eanna Complex in
the Late Uruk period: 3,500-3,100 BC
Or 3,400-3,000 BC.
• Unfortunately, the later residents had
levelled much of this complex to make
way for new buildings.
Eanna Temple Complex Level V:
• Fragmentary foundations revealed
some buildings.
• The initial main structure in the level V
precinct is the “Limestone Temple”
(which existed throughout 2 levels):
“Limestone Temple”: building in stone!
• Layer of mud forming its base;
• 30 x 76 m stone foundation course
overlying the mud layer.
• Enough surviving to indicate
a. Elaborate niched+buttressed exterior
b. Tripartite plan (as in Ubaid period)
• Although the function is not definite, its
(a). location in a subsequent long-term
sacred precinct, and
(b). Architectural features (tripartite;etc),
→ argue for a probable cultic function.
https://howlingpixel.com/wiki/Uruk
Eanna Temple Complex Level IV.b:
• Two distinct temple complexes;
• Each one has its own enclosure wall.
(a). Large SE complex;
(b). Smaller NW complex.
1. SE Temple Complex (at Uruk):
(i). Mosaic Court / Pillar Temple:
• Double stairway access (1.7 m high)
• Fronted by columns in 2 rows;
• Walls+pillars made from square bricks
(riemchen)
• Mud plastered surface with 1000s of
baked cones: designs with red, white,
and black in triangles, zigzags, sloping
bands, and lozenges.
• Probably serving as main entry to the
SE complex.
(ii). Several rectilinear structures inside:
• Tripartite layout;
• A few had central cruciform chambers
• Others had intricate niches+buttresses
• 3 to the NW may = priestly housing.
Eanna Temple Complex Level IV.b:
(iii). Square Building:
• Lay to the southwest;
• 4 large rectilinear rooms around a
courtyard;
• Made of mudbrick with niches.
2. NW Complex (at Uruk):
(i). “Stone Cone Mosaic Temple”:
• Western side of the precinct;
• Enclosure wall with interior and
exterior buttressing;
• Red, black and white stone cones
forming a wall mosaic;
• Only limestone foundations survived.
(ii). 5 fragmentary structures are
apparent.
Eanna Temple Complex Level IV.a:
• A different layout is found in the
Eanna Temple Complex, but the
residents maintained the 2 subdivisions
• Some older buildings (IV.b) continued
to exist alongside new structures (IV.a).
(i). Temple D (at Uruk):
• 50 x 80 metres;
• Placed on a terrace engulfing the
earlier courtyard+pillared entry.
• Contains a main, cruciform chamber;
• 10 m width would have required 10+m
cedar roofing beams (from Mt. Amanus)
(ii). Temple C (at Uruk):
• 22 x 54 metres;
• Tripartite plan;
• Cruciform layout;
• Better preserved.
• A tripartite unit at the NW side.
Eanna Temple Complex Level IV.a:
(iii). Pillared Hall (at Uruk):
• Stone cone designs in mosaic;
(iv). Great Court:
• Approx. square courtyard (50 sq. m.)
• Sunken & surrounded by benches.
2. NW Complex (at Uruk):
(i). Riemchengebaude (at Uruk):
• Riemchen Brick Building.
• Built over the Stone Cone Mosaic
Temple;
• Interior room;
• Passageway around this room;
• One chamber on southeast side.
• Contents:
a. Pottery flasks;
b. Fragments from life-size male statue
(- deity cult statue)
c. Numerous burnt animal bones.
(perhaps from a burial rite in room).
Eanna Temple Complex Level III:
Level III temple in Eanna Temple
Complex:
• dates to the Jemdet Nasr period:
ca. 3,100–3,000 / 3,000–2,900 BC
• It is poorly preserved;
• It lies on a 2 metre high terrace;
• One chamber produced a cache of
items (see later).
URUK: Anu Temple Complex:
• Lay 500 m. west of Eanna Complex;
•dates to the Jemdet Nasr period:
ca. 3,100–3,000 / 3,000–2,900 BC
• Contained a sequence of terraces
engulfing several earlier temples
spanning Ubaid through Jemdet Nasr
periods.
(i). The White Temple:
• Well preserved;
• Placed on a 13 m. high platform;
• Measuring 17.5 x 22.3 m.
• Tripartite plan;
• Niched and buttressed exterior;
• Gypsum plastered coating → “white”
• Buttresses originally held poles: groove
• Base course at East corner yielded
corpses of adolescent lion(?) and
a leopard (foundation deposits?)
• Interior offering table
• Altar (placed in former doorway).
http://www.danel.info/uruk.html
Other sites in South Mesopotamia:
• Many sites lie beneath later occupation
i.e., obscured / not excavated.
• Some Uruk period buildings are found
at a few sites: mostly temples.
E.g., Eridu:
• The temple platform becomes larger
and has pillars;
E.g., Tell Uqair:
• A Late Uruk period temple (3500-3100)
situated on a tall, stepped/terraced
platform with stairway access.
• Mosaic cone decorated exterior;
• Bitumen coating the platform top;
• The temple has standard tripartite plan,
offering table, and altar.
• Walls featured painted designs:
both pictures & geometrical motifs.
• The altar area displays: Lion, leopard,
and a bull scene.
Tell Uqair
2.b.
SUMMARY TRENDS
during Uruk period
(ca. 4,000 – 3,000 BCE):
to EB Age …
Mesopotamia urban trends →3100 BC
Cities / centres / villages:
EARLY urban centres:
• Various specialized features versus the
surrounding countryside communities:
i.e., agricultural/rural settlements.
• Ancient provincial centres:
i.e., Typically have a few 1000 persons
Relationships to peripheral settlements:
• “Central place” with satellite villages;
• Site hierarchy: spatial spectrum of sizes
South Mesopotamia:
• Many large urban centres
• Huge irrigation networks on floodplain
to re-disperse water for fields/crops;
North Mesopotamia:
• Fewer large urban centres (smaller);
• More reliant on precipitation (i.e., non-
irrigation) for farming/crops.
• Some irrigation, but = less intensive. Modern irrigation network
Early-Middle Uruk period:
Mound of Uruk:
Mound of Uruk:
Uruk: Reconstruction of later ziggurat (temple) in late Early Dynastic period – Ur III
Uruk+ period temple platforms lead to the later ziggurats of Ur III+ (maybe ED per.?)
Uruk period cylinder seals:
• Illustrating …
(1). Hunting wild animals
(2). Fishing & boats
(3). Farming: ploughing?
(4). Livestock (farming)
(5). Harvesting grain
(6). Building brick structures
(7). Craftsmen: Making vessels
(8). Weaving scene (horiz. Loom)
(9). Bringing grain to silos
(10). Grain storage & dispersal

Uruk period cylinder seals:
• Illustrating …
(1). Delivering products to a temple:
i.e., Livestock, butchered animal
(meat cuts), containers of
different commodities …
(2). Bringing other goods to temple,
including wild animals (gazelle?;
feline/lioness?), and bearers with
pots, jars, and other items …
(3). Males and female beside the
temple with wild goats, a lamb(?),
shrubs/bushes (goats feeding),
males carrying hide(?) and cup,
and temple façade with female.
(4). Fighting animals beside grain silo;
(5). Fighting foes near temple (horns);
(6). A line of warriors (bows & arrows);
(7). Bound captives being delivered …
Uruk period/culture:
• Pottery containers
E.g., Sumerian vessel with
“Scarlet Ware”
• Ca. 3,000 BCE
(Late Uruk–Jemdet Nasr stage)
South & North Mesopotamia & N. Syria:
Farmland irrigation &/or maintenance
required organized large labour force:
(a). Digging, maintaining +new irrigation
(b). Plowing, planting, tending fields;
(c). Harvesting,winnowing,storage grain.
(d). Expanding fields: fallow & new ones
(e). Tending herds, grazing, culling, etc.
E.g., Digging the Suez Canal
Early Near Eastern cities:
• Various roles within Syria-Mesopotamia:
(a). Political role: via the authority in
controlling re-dispersal of food
and other resources btw. areas.
(b). Usually administering a hinterland,
with satellite agricultural villages.
(c). Central economic role governing
the re-dispersal of food surplus
from farmers to non-farmers.
South & North Mesopotamia & N. Syria:
• Farmland irrigation and/or maintenance
required org./admin. large labour force:
(a). Digging, maintaining +new irrigation
(b). Plowing, planting, tending fields;
(c). Harvesting, winnowing, storage, etc.
(d). Expanding fields: fallow & new ones
(e). Tending herds, grazing, etc.
E.g., Digging the Suez Canal
=various roles in Syria-Mesopotamia:
(a). Political role: via the authority in
controlling re-dispersal of food
and other resources btw. areas.
(b). Usually administering a hinterland,
with satellite agricultural villages.
(c). Central economic role governing
the re-dispersal of food surplus
(from farmers to non-farmers).
•Mesopotamia urban trends →3100 BC
(d).Service to city & hinterland villages:
Redistribution of many resources
from individual localities, regions,
and outside city-state hinterland:
E.g., Raw materials, finished items
livestock, and skilled services.
(e). Many components within city-state
supporting each other via central
administering authority: elite, etc.
Materials, products, and services
provided to farmers +non-farmers:
Farmers: Crops, meat, etc.
Labourers: Construction, +
Crafts persons: Finished items
Warriors/troops: Policing & enfrc.
Administrators: Supervise system
Priesthood: Divine assistance
Ruling class: Supervise all
(e). Many components in city-states

supporting each other via central
administering authority: elite, etc.
materials, products, and services
provided to farmers +non-farmers:
Farmers: Crops, meat, etc.
Labourers: Construction, +
Crafts persons: Finished items
Warriors/troops: Policing & enfrc.
Administrators: Supervise system
Priesthood: Divine assistance
Ruling class: Supervise all
(f). Trade between city states & beyond:
Obtaining materials, products, &
services beyond resource base:
E.g., Stone, minerals, metals, wood
E.g., Animals & persons (slaves)
E.g., High status items (luxuries)
Lapis lazuli
Pre-camel: donkey caravans

(g). Trading expeditions: normally req.

resources beyond capabilities of
most individuals (ships; wagons):
E.g., State expeditions + troops
E.g., Temple expeditions + troops
E.g., Bedouin trading btw centres
E.g., (Some private merchants).
The EB Age witnesses the emergence
of clusters of cities & settlements →
large city-states, alliances, & kingdoms
i.e., = interdependent communities.
Mesopotamia & SE Anatolia.
Late Chalcolithic → Early Bronze I:
South Mesopotamian Uruk colonies
ended in late Chalc./EB I: ca. 3,100 BC.
Centralized Uruk government/admin.
system disappeared. Affects SE Anatolia
Replaced by different trading entities
and means in EB I-II (3,100 – 2,500 BC).
By 2600-2500 BC (EB II/III), other South
Mesopotamian urban communities &
polities emerged & extended influence.
E.g., Rural Middle Eastern village

2.c.
INTRODUCTION:
Uruk Expansion
during Middle-Late Uruk
(ca. 3,800+ – 3,000 BCE):
Colonies and trade:
• In the Late Uruk period (dated variously
ca. 3500-3100 BC; 3400-3000 BC),
Southern Mesopotamian culture and
influence extends abroad …
(a). (SW) Iranian Plateau
(b). Northern Mesopotamia & Syria
(to the Mediterranean coast)
(c). Eastern Arabia (Qatar etc.)
(*). Other influences elsewhere …
• These influences include:
i. Architectural designs: tripartite and
niched-buttressed facades
ii. Architectural components: mosaics
iii. Pottery (selected)
iv. Cylinder seals & sealings
• Numerous Southern Mesopotamian
features are found in SW Iran and
northern Mesopotamia:
a. Direct contact with S. Mesopotamia;
b. Perhaps some colonization (selected)
c. Trade links (& trading enclaves);
d. Local imitation of affluent Sumer.
Colonies and trade:
• It remains uncertain what, if any, and
if so, how much, political control was
placed over these adjacent regions.
• The main motives for extending any
“control” would likely incorporate the
desire to have direct access to key
resources absent in S. Mesopotamia:
(a). Lumber: E.g., Cedar, pine, etc.
(b). Metals: E.g., Cooper, silver, gold.
(c). Precious & semi-precious stones:
E.g., Carnelian; rock crystal; etc.
• One cannot ignore the potential input
of agency, such as the motivations of
individual rulers and others in directing
expansion –not to mention the varying
foreign desire for, and emulation of,
?
Southern Mesopotamian material
culture and related things …
• E.g., Modern dispersal of “blue jeans”
across the world, both genuine U.S.
and foreign “knock-offs”, etc.
2.c.-i.
SUSA (SW Iran)
Uruk Expansion
(ca. 3,800+ – 3,000 BCE):
SW Iran: Susa (later ancient Elam):
• By the end of the Ubaid period (ca.
4000 BC+/-), the city of Susa appears
in the alluvial plains of SW Iran,
an area designated Susiana.
• Susa served as the “capital” (centre)
of this region for most of its subsequent
history to the Persian period (& later).
• The culture of Lowland Mesopotamia
(i.e., southern Mesopotamia) extended
into Susiana (later Elam).
Susa I = Early Uruk period:
ca. 4,000 – 3,500 BCE
• At the advent of Susa I (ca. 4000 BC),
Susa contained:
(a). A 65 x 80+ m platform (10 m high)
made of mudbrick
(b). Decorated with pottery cylinders
(c). Remains of possible temple and
storage chambers (e.g., grain) Much exaggerated reconstruction:
(d). 1000+ graves around the platform -- Mound/platform much lower
Early-Late Uruk period: 4,000–3,000 BCE Susa general image
SW Iran: Susa (later ancient Elam):
Susa I continued (Early Uruk) …
• Susa probably functioned as a cultic
centre & central burial place:
• The graves had adult burials mainly,
(a). intact inhumations, and
(b). Disarticulated bones (in jars)
(c). Valuable items, such as copper
items.
Susa II = Late Uruk period:
Susa I pottery
ca. 3,500 – 3,100 BCE
• Many cultural influences originate from
southern Mesopotamia, including:
(a). Jars with spouts;
(b). 4-lugged containers;
(c). Beveled-rim bowls;
(d). Sealed clay bullae (tokens inside);
(e). Seal-impressed tablets;
Etc.
2.c.-ii. TEPE GAWRA
North Mesopotamia
(Gawra Culture)
Uruk Expansion
(ca. 3,800+ – 3,000 BCE):
TEPE GAWRA (Gawra Culture; NE Mesopotamia): Links with Uruk culture
Tepe Gawra & northern Mesopotamia:
• Gawra culture emerged in Northern
Mesopotamia at the end of the Ubaid
period: ca. 4,000 BCE+/-
Level XII at Tepe Gawra:
• This occupation level post-dates the
Ubaid culture and influence, equating
with Early Uruk period: 4000-3500 BC
• Tepe Gawra contained a village,
which replaced the Ubaid level XIII.
Level XI at Tepe Gawra:
• A massive “Round House” is built in
the next phase, perhaps reflecting the
dwelling of a chieftain.
• It dates to the Late Uruk to Jemdet
Nasr periods: ca. 3,100 / 3,000 BCE.
• It held many items, including:
(a). Grain supplies: for redispersal?
(b). Pear-shaped mace heads
(c). Etc.
Late Uruk-JN period: 3,500–2,900 BCE
Tepe Gawra & northern Mesopotamia:
Level X at Tepe Gawra:
• This level dates to the Jemdet Nasr
period (i.e., at end of the Uruk period):
• It contains a tripartite type temple
• A cemetery with many graves around
the temple platform.
• The graves contained:
(a). Many beads in various applications
Headdresses, necklaces, hands,
bracelets, belts, knees, & anklets.
(b). One grave had 1000s of beads;
(c). Another graves had 25,000 beads.
• Such beads included gold, electrum,
turquoise, lapis lazuli, carnelian,
jadeite, diorite, faience, ivory & shells.
• This appearance of lapis lazuli shows
long-distance (or down-the-line) trade
2,000 km to east with Badakhshan
mines in Afghanistan:
1 tomb had 500 lapis lazuli beads.
2.c.-iii.
TELL BRAK:
North Mesopotamia
Uruk Expansion
(ca. 3,800+ – 3,000 BCE):
TELL BRAK (Habur region; N. Mesopotamia): Links with Uruk culture
Tell Brak & northern Mesopotamia:
• Tell Brak lies in the Habur region
near the Euphrates (Syria).
• It exhibits close ties with Southern
Mesopotamia during the Late Uruk
period: ca. 3,500 – 3,100 BCE.
• The “Eye Temple” is a southern
Mesopotamian style temple.
(a). Tripartite plan with a cruciform
central chamber.
(b). Decorated with clay cone mosaics
and stone rosettes;
• The temple contained:
(a). Silver nails with gold ends;
(b). Bands of gold (fittings)
(c). Bands of stone (various colours)
(d). 1000s of small sculptures in stone
(votives)
• The settlement is comparable to Uruk
in size: Gawra measures 110 hectares
Tell Brak Eye-Temple. Tell Brak Eye Temple:
4,000 – 3,100 BCE Late Chalc.
(Uruk per.) E.g., 20,000 eye idols
2.c.-iv.
TELL HAMOUKAR:
North Mesopotamia
Uruk Expansion
(ca. 3,800+ – 3,000 BCE):
TELL HAMOUKAR (Habur region; N. Mesopotamia): Links with Uruk culture
LATE Uruk period: c.3500–3100+ BCE
Tell Hamoukar & north Mesopotamia:
• Evidence for southern Mesopotamian
military expansion, attacks, and
subsequent colonization appear at
Tell Hamoukar, in Syria (NE of T. Brak):
• (a). A typical Ubaid period town existed
at Tell Hamoukar prior to the Uruk
period: typical north Mesopotamian
town, material culture & people.
• (b). In the Uruk culture/period, this
town displays extensive destruction, Uruk colony replacing former
including burnt buildings, deep ash indigenous (Ubaid) settlement
(conflagration), fallen walls, etc.
• (c). The destruction is equated with an
attack & destruction, & interpreted
as evidence for early org. warfare
• (d). The town is replaced by Uruk town!
• Side note: I still need to check if other
evidence is present, such as bodies &
scattered weaponry. Extensive burning
can be a byproduct of earthquakes+
2.c.-v.
Habuba Kabira
North Mesopotamia
period of expansion …
(ca.3,800+ – 3,100+ BCE):
HABUBA KABIRA (Northern Mesopotamia): Links with Uruk culture
MESOPOTAMIA: Uruk culture expands
Late Chalcolithic: 4,000 – 3,100 BC.
Significant turning point in this region:
(a). A new social structure emerging
(more stratified; differential wealth)
(b). Changes in the economic base:
i.e., Control; copper trade; etc.
More differential wealth; less access
(c). Fewer persons holding authority
within community: ruling family:
i.e., less luxury items in population.
(d). Rising demand/desire for imported
luxuries i.e., prestige/status markers
(e). Rising demand for raw materials
to support homeland infrastructure.
(f). Expansion of territory: to control …
(g). Greater interaction between peoples
and regions via traders & others.
(h). Foundation of EB Age polities-trade.
Uruk colonies
Jebel Aruda
Habuba Kebira
Habuba Kabira (N. Syria):
4000-3100 BC
Habuba Kabira (N. Syria): 4000-3100 BC
2.d.
Southeast ANATOLIA:
mainly during the
Middle-Late Uruk period
of expansion …
(ca.3,800+ – 3,100+ BCE):
SOUTHEAST ANALOLIA: Links with Uruk culture
SE Anatolia (south of Taurus Mts.).
- Major changes appear along the
Upper Euphrates river in SE Turkey.
- Society → more socially stratified.
- Dramatic increase in technological
innovations: e.g., copper production.
- Much greater trade & interactions
btw neighbouring peoples & regions.
- “Chiefdoms” appear in cultural zones:
(1). Upper Euphrates (N of Taurus);
(2). SE Anatolia culture –lowlands
(Jezirah & Karababa); it later
spreads to Syria-N.Mesopotamia.
(3). Gawra culture (N. Iraq): circular huts
- Uruk culture: Mesopotamia spread
northward via trade & colonization:
E.g., Late Uruk at Harsek Hoyuk.
E.g., Arslantepe: seal impr. & wheel-
made pottery.
- Uruk culture: Mesopotamia spread
E.g., Arslantepe: seal impr. & wheel- A ruler of Uruk / Warka:
made pottery. contemporary with northern chieftains
- Uruk culture: Mesopotamia spreads
E.g., Arslantepe: seal impr. & wheel-
made pottery.
MESOPOTAMIA: ca. 6,000–3,100 BC URUK Culture
Mesopotamia to SE Anatolia …
Uruk expansion:
- Initiated from South Mesopotamia,
with specific Uruk material culture
spreading northward:
- A major site at Uruk-Warka in South
Mesopotamia = founding site.
(a). Pottery
(b). Iconography: i.e., specific motifs.
(c). Architecture: niched temple façade
(d). Ceramic wall cones (in temples)
(e). Administrative infrastructure

i.e., cylinder seals; clay sealings.
(f). Proto-cuneiform tablets

Uruk expansion:
(a). Pottery


Beveled-rim bowls: heartland, contact & influence
URUK culture
Uruk expansion:
(a). Pottery


Warka / Uruk vase
Uruk expansion:
(a). Pottery


Uruk expansion:
(a). Pottery


Uruk expansion:
(a). Pottery


Uruk expansion:
(a). Pottery


URUK CULTURE: Proto-cuneiform tablets …
Uruk expansion: Arslantepe
- It reached Arslantepe in the Upper
Euphrates;
- Intricate/complex settlement layout;
- Very well-studied: admin. Centre
- Indigenous development of early
state complex societies (late 5th
mill. B.C.).
- Many polities already in place in
Mesopotamia and its environs
(later tied together by Uruk expansion)
- Uruk expansion now believed to be
longer in time: ca. 3800 – 3100 BCE,
in the Middle to Later Uruk periods.
- SE Turkey exposed to foreign
influence by 3,600 B.C. (Uruk):
- 5 stages now defined in late Chalc.:
a. Early, Early-Mid, late Mid, & late …
Uruk expansion:
- It reached Arslantepe in the Upper
Euphrates;
- Intricate/complex settlement layout;
- Very well-studied: admin. Centre
- Indigenous development of early
state complex societies (late 5th
mill. B.C.).
- Many polities already in place in
Mesopotamia and its environs
(later tied together by Uruk expansion)
- Uruk expansion now believed to be
longer in time: ca. 3800 – 3100 BCE,
in the Middle to Later Uruk periods.
- SE Turkey exposed to foreign
influence by 3,600 B.C. (Uruk):
- 5 stages now defined in late Chalc.:
a. Early, Early-Mid, late Mid, & late …
Uruk expansion:
How did the Uruk deal with northerners?
a. Traders in enclaves
b. Colonizers? Subduing lands …
→ It is hard to define:
3 types of Uruk settlements:
(1). Uruk colony: = sites/stations.
- A community established outside its
homeland / heartland in …:
(a). Uninhabited land, or low pop. land;
(b). Long term settlement;
(c). Initially well-identified with original
culture (i.e., homeland);
(d). Later merges with local culture;
(e). May have var. relations with home
and little to more autonomy.
Features:
1. Niched temple face with dec. clay cones;
2. 3-part housing with central hall/room
3. Uruk pottery forms (wide variety)
Uruk expansion:
(2). Uruk enclave:
- A foreign settlement within or near
the local settlement.
- A guest of a host polity: e.g.,
Old Assyrian karum in central Turkey.
- Uruk enclaves appear in many places:
hill country; mountains; plains:
E.g., Hacinebi Tepe.
(3). Large Uruk Enclave:
- Characteristics:
a. Some use of military force
b. Some removal of prior population;
c. Takeover of former settlement
E.g., Kuyunjik (Nineveh)
E.g., Tell Brak
- None have been found in Turkey.
Uruk expansion:
(2). Uruk enclave:
- A foreign settlement within or near
the local settlement.
- A guest of a host polity: e.g.,
Old Assyrian karum in central Turkey.
- Uruk enclaves appear in many places:
hill country; mountains; plains:
E.g., Hacinebi Tepe.
(3). Large Uruk Enclave:
- Characteristics: Tell Brak
a. Some use of military force
b. Some removal of prior population;
c. Takeover of former settlement
E.g., Kuyunjik (Nineveh)
E.g., Tell Brak
- None have been found in Turkey.
Uruk expansion:
Reasons behind the Uruk expansion:
a. To get various needed materials to
build elite structures: e.g., temples.
Mesopotamia lacked building stone.
b. To obtain materials for var. artifacts:
Temple fittings: e.g., copper statues
Military weapons: e.g., Cu arrows Uruk
Secular tools: e.g., stone chisels
c. Enhance status & political control:
i.e., Luxury/exotic imports to display
wealth, power, distinguish self, +
i.e., Disperse gifts to elite & others
(inspiring loyalty; reliance; etc.)
→ Trade or conquest is required to get
distant needed resources & luxury
items → maintaining elite system. Resource poor Uruk (Sumeria)
(used existing trade network).
Uruk expansion:
Military weapons: e.g., Cu arrows
items → maintaining elite system.
Uruk expansion:
Military weapons: e.g., Cu arrows
items → maintaining elite system.
2.d.i. HACINEBI B.
(SE Anatolia)
Uruk Expansion
Before and during the
Middle-Late Uruk
(ca. 3,800+ – 3,000 BCE):
HACINEBI B (SE. Anatolia, South of Taurus Mts.): Links with Uruk culture
Late Chalc. Anatolia 4,000–3,100 BC.
Late Chalc. 4 (3,450 – 3,250 BC):
Hacinebi B settlement:
- Admixture of preceding local culture
and new Uruk culture from Southern
Mesopotamia.
- Uruk colonists only a small % of pop.
in NE corner: = foreign enclave.
- Peaceful relations with neighbours:
a. No fortifications around settlement
b. No destruction evidence at site
i.e., no fire, no discarded weapons
- Probably 300-500 years of peace
btw SE Anatolians & S. Mesopotamia
- Unsure what role the small Uruk
community played in the late Chalc.4
settlement: → just trade???
Bevelled rim bowls
Late Chalc. 4 (3,450 – 3,250 BC):
(A). Foreign, Uruk enclave:
- Imported Middle Uruk pottery:
i.e., Bevelled rim bowls: with some
bitumen placed on Uruk-pottery
(from S. Mesop. & Deh Luran…)
i.e., 90% Bv-rim = specialized activity
- Foodways: Mesopotamians preferred
sheep/goats; sometimes beef & pork
- Butchering techniques = > Mesopot.
- Stone tools more similar to Anatolian,
but tend to use smaller blades.
- Administration different: i.e., using
cylinder seals for impr.-sealing clay.
Dec.: procession of humans-animals
- Sealing clay balls, tablet, jars, etc.
Late Chalc. 4 (3,450 – 3,250 BC):
(A). Foreign, Uruk enclave:
- Imported Middle Uruk pottery:
i.e., Bevelled rim bowls: with some
bitumen placed on Uruk-pottery
(from S. Mesop. & Deh Luran…)
i.e., 90% Bv-rim = specialized activity
- Foodways: Mesopotamians preferred
sheep/goats; sometimes beef & pork
- Butchering techniques = > Mesopot.
- Stone tools more similar to Anatolian,
but tend to use smaller blades.
- Administration different: i.e., using
cylinder seals for impr.-sealing clay.
Dec.: procession of humans-animals
- Sealing clay balls, tablet, jars, etc.
Late Chalc. 4 (3,450 – 3,250 BC):
(A). Indigenous part of settlement:
- Chaff-tempered Amuq F style pottery
- Domestic types of pottery (food
storage; processing; consumption)
i.e., non-specialized (unlike enclave)
- Foodways: Anatolians consumed all
4 animal types regularly: sheep,
goats, beef, & cattle (no preference!).
- A difference in Anatolian butchery
techniques (versus Uruk technique).
- Stone tools display more similarities
to Uruk (but larger blades than Uruk)
- Administration: Anatolians use square
& round stamp seals: lions & caprids.
Used on bags, sacks, boxes, etc.
2.d.-ii.
HASSEK HOYUK
(SE Anatolia)
Uruk Expansion
Middle-Late Uruk expansion
(ca. 3,800+ – 3,000 BCE):
HASSEK HOYUK (E. Anatolia, South of Taurus Mts.): Links with Uruk culture
Late Chalc. 5 (3,250–3,000/2,950 BC):
- Various sites with late Chalcolithic
materials, including Hassek Hoyuk:
Hassek Hoyuk (South of Taurus):
- Site measures 1.5 hectares
- A fortified oval town
- Has Middle/Central Room houses
i.e., = N. Syrian/Mesopotamian
- Grain storage (economic base)
- Working areas (crafts)
- Equal quantities of local Anatolian
material culture+presence in relation
to foreign Uruk culture (= significant!).
E.g., Uruk Bevelled rim bowls
Local Chaff Tempered pottery.
Late Chalc. 5 (3,250–3,000/2,950 BC):
- Various sites with late Chalcolithic
materials, including Hassek Hoyuk:
Hassek Hoyuk (South of Taurus):
- Site measures 1.5 hectares
- A fortified oval town
- Has Middle/Central Room houses
- Grain storage (economic base)
- Working areas (crafts)
- Equal quantities of local Anatolian
material culture+presence in relation
to foreign Uruk culture (=significant!).
E.g., Uruk Bevelled rim bowls
Local Chaff Tempered pottery.
Other Uruk vessels (spouted)

2.d.-iii.
ARSLANTEPE
(SE Anatolia)
Uruk Expansion
(ca. 3,800+ – 3,000 BCE):
ARSLANTEPE (E. Anatolia, North of Taurus Mts.): Links with Uruk culture
Late Chalc. 3 (3,650 – 3,450 BC): Arslantepe
Arslantepe VII:
- Some monumental buildings
- A large settlement with some pre-
planning in layout of key structures.
- NE area = cultic structures (shrines)
- West area: Large mud brick buildings Arslantepe: SE Anatolia
with wide walls (multi-storied):
a. Painted decoration on walls
b. Mud brick columns (plastered)
c. Clay lumps in cluster (implying
administration: sealing records)
d. Activity areas & workshops
(various crafts; processing; etc.)
Late Chalc. 3 (3,650 – 3,450 BC):
Arslantepe VII:
- Some monumental buildings
- A large settlement with some pre-
planning in layout of key structures.
- NE area = cultic structures (shrines)
- West area: Large mud brick buildings
with wide walls (multi-storied):
a. Painted decoration on walls
b. Mud brick columns (plastered)
c. Clay lumps in cluster (implying
administration: sealing records)
d. Activity areas & workshops
(various crafts; processing; etc.)
Late Chalc. 3 (3,650 – 3,450 BC):
Arslantepe VII:
Monumental Building A900:
- Huge mud brick structure
- Three main parts (tripartite plan)
- Traces of painted walls
- Two pairs of niches in walls
- Central hearth & nearby platform
(i.e., main reception room?)
- Storage area:
a. 100s of simple bowls
b. Clay sealings (= admin. function)
- An elite structure for controlling &
directing the economy (local elite).
- Social complexity increases(!):
Stratified society is now emerging
Late Chalc. 3 (3,650 – 3,450 BC):
Arslantepe VII:
New types of pottery:
- Chaff-Faced pottery (lots of straw)
and some thin red-orange slip and
burnishing.
- Pottery now a utilitarian item normally
without decoration, not well-made,
i.e., Mass production; standardization
- Potters’ marks, indicating multiple
professional workshops (craftsmen).
- Only a few, well-made, quality pots
i.e., for some elite customers.
- Pottery forms/shapes = more limited:
E.g., Many open forms (bowls; pots)
1. Round-based bowls +scraping+mk
2. Conical bowls +wide, flat base+mk
Late Chalc. 3 (3,650 – 3,450 BC):
Arslantepe VII:
New types of pottery:
- In late level VII, some new pottery
emerges (i.e., only 2%):
a. Burnished Ware
b. Wheel-made pottery
c. Three main types of decoration:
i. Red-black
ii. Monochrome: red-grey-brown)
iii.Black
- This influx of new, albeit minimal
quantities of pottery, represents some
influence from Eastern Anatolia
and Trans-Caucasus.
- i.e.,=wider spread trade connections.
Late Chalc. 5 (3,250–3,000/2,950 BC):
Arslantepe VIA (North of Taurus):
- It displays greater ties with Late Uruk
Mesopotamia: i.e., trade; politically?
- SW area: large complex of structures
called “palace,” but = public buildings
E.g., Two large temple.
Temple B (SW area): earlier.
- Open courtyard beside building;
- Bent-axis and large entryway;
TRADE WITH
- Paved rm; storerooms flank corridor.
- Smaller outer part with entry vestibule
LATE URUK
including paintings: stylized male in
front of table/altar under canopy.
…
- A broad sanctuary (Cella)
- Inner rooms contain decoration with
impressed lozenge design on wall
faces.
Late Chalc. 5 (3,250–3,000/2,950 BC):
- It displays greater ties with Late Uruk
Mesopotamia: i.e., trade; politically?
- SW area: large complex of structures
called “palace,” but = public buildings
E.g., Two large temple.
Temple B (SW area): earlier.
- Open courtyard beside building;
- Bent-axis and large entryway;
- Paved rm; storerooms flank corridor.
- Smaller outer part with entry vestibule
including paintings: stylized male in
front of table/altar under canopy.
- A broad sanctuary (Cella)
- Inner rooms contain decoration with
impressed lozenge design on wall
faces.
Late Chalc. 5 (3,250–3,000/2,950 BC):
Temple A (SW area): later.
- Added later alongside Building I
- Similar layout to Temple B
- Sanctuary (Cella):
a. Traces of painted decoration in
red and black pigment.
b. Two raised wall niches in 1 wall;
c. Basin + bench lay nearby with
bones of goats, cattle, and a boar.
d. Podium in room centre (wt.plaster)
- Temple entryway:
a. Stamp decoration in plastered
wall faces.
- Small number of clay sealings imply
some commercial activity.
Late Chalc. 5 (3,250–3,000/2,950 BC):
Overall SW area public complex:
- Produced 2000+ frags. of clay lumps
in a series of clusters:
a. Still sealing/near items
b. Corner of storeroom;not discarded
c. Neat piles of discarded sealings
- Clay lumps used for sealing:
a. Wooden pegs
b. Jar openings: cloth+overlying clay
c. Lump fastened to jar neck/string
d. Baskets & lids
e. Doors (securing from covert entry)
- Seal types: dec. with stylized animals
a. Stamp seals → impression in clay
b. Cylinder seals → impression in clay
- Held valuables: Cu swords, spears +
Late Chalc. 5 (3,250–3,000/2,950 BC):
- Produced 2000+ frags. of clay lumps
in a series of clusters:
a. Still sealing/near items
b. Corner of storeroom;not discarded
c. Neat piles of discarded sealings
- Clay lumps used for sealing:
a. Wooden pegs
b. Jar openings: cloth+overlying clay
c. Lump fastened to jar neck/string
d. Baskets & lids
e. Doors (securing from covert entry)
- Seal types: dec. with stylized animals
a. Stamp seals → impression in clay
b. Cylinder seals → impression in clay
- Held valuables: Cu swords, spears +
Arslantepe “palace”: 3350 BCE:
Late Chalc. 5 (3,250–3,000/2,950 BC):
Pottery → now four main types reflecting
changes in manufacturing & fashion:
1. Wheel-made buff pottery resembling
Syro-Mesopot. plain simple ware.
2. Mass-produced simple rough bowls
3. Red-black Burnished Ware (VII+-VI) MAJOR links with Uruk culture
4. Kitchen ware (cooking pots; etc.)
- Greater interactions with neighbours:
a. Trans-Caucasus (North)
b. Major links with Uruk culture (Msp)-
- No potters’ marks now → signifying
greater central admin. control
- Much more limited pottery forms
- Arslantepe VIA destroyed c.3000 BC
2.d.-iv.
NORSUNTEPE
(SE Anatolia)
Uruk Expansion
(ca. 3,800+ – 3,000 BCE):
NORSUN TEPE (SE. Anatolia, North of Taurus Mts.): Links with Uruk culture
Late Chalc. 1-2 (4,300–3,650 BC):
Norsuntepe, West Terrace lv. 40-38:
- Large mud brick building
- Some late/terminal Ubaid pottery
- Mostly Dark-Faced Burnished Ware
(i.e., Amuq D/C pottery)
Norsuntepe, West Terrace lv. 37-35:
- Many handmade Coba bowls
- These bowls are widely found to
the south of the Taurus mts.
Dark Faced Burnished Ware
2.d.-v.
SOS HOYUK
(Kura-Araxes culture)
Uruk Expansion
Late Uruk expansion
(ca. 3,800+ – 3,000 BCE):
SOS HOYUK (E. Anatolia, Caucasus Mts.): Some links with Late Uruk culture
Eastern Highlands (Anatolia):

- Encompassing the hill country east
of the Euphrates River, discouraging
formation of a uniform culture, or
a single polity (i.e., fragmented area)
- Most of the population concentrated
in more isolated, rural villages,
cultivating crops & herding animals.
Kura-Araxes (Karaz) culture: Kura-Araxes culture & pottery
- Early Trans-Caucasian culture
ca. 3,500 BCE a change occurs …
a. Red-and-black fired pottery appears
Handmade, burnished, usually dec.
b. Becomes widespread regionally:
E. Turkey to NW Iran; (see Amuq H-I).
-Cont. → EB Age: Red-Black Burnished;
-Named Khirbet Kerak ware: Beth Yerah
-It lasts 1,500 years in NE Anatolia.

- Encompassing the hill country east
of the Euphrates River, discouraging
formation of a uniform culture, or
a single polity (i.e., fragmented area)
- Most of the population concentrated
in more isolated, rural villages,
cultivating crops & herding animals.
Kura-Araxes (Karaz) culture: Kura-Araxes culture & pottery
- Early Trans-Caucasian culture
ca. 3,500 BCE a change occurs …
a. Red-and-black fired pottery appears
Handmade, burnished, usually dec.
b. Becomes widespread regionally:
E. Turkey to NW Iran; (see Amuq H-I).
-Cont. → EB Age: Red-Black Burnished;
-Named Khirbet Kerak ware: Beth Yerah
-It lasts 1,500 years in NE Anatolia.
Formative stage of Kura-Araxes horizon:
- How & why did Kura-Araxes culture
begin?
Sos Hoyuk, Period V-A:
- ca. 3,500 – 3,300 BCE
- 2.5 m wide stone wall foundation, as
part of a circular fortification wall.
- Destroyed twice (initially earthquake);
- Displayed repair/rebuilding.
- Hearth placement apparently quite
significant since there are several, &
later ones are built over early ones.
- Portable hearths are popular (heat?)
Wall repair stage:
- Built a circular mud brick house;
- Obsidian tool production inside (refit)
- Circular corner hearth; portable ones
- C14: 3,350 – 3,000/2,900 BCE.
NOTE: =minimal Uruk culture items etc.
EB Age Anatolia: ca. 3,100 – 2,000 BCE
Regions: Eastern Anatolia. EB Age I-III.
• Trans-Caucasian Kura-Araxes
culture:
(a). Minimal Syro-Mesopotamian
items+influence: late Uruk-JN
(b). Less detailed EB Age data.
• EB Age sites including peripheral ones
E.g., Sos Hoyuk (Eruzurm); Karaz; Pulur;
Guzelova; Karagundus; Dilkaya.
General Kura-Araxes settlement patterns:
• Semi-nomadic pastoralist camps
• Farming settlements av. 150 m diam.
• Larger, fortified sites at E & W periphery
• Data suggests migrations aided in
dispersing their widespread culture.
• Exact mechanisms for dispersal unclear
• Some homogenous K-A traits:
E.g., Architectural designs; layout of
the household; spec. pottery traits;
hearths (emphasis on placement);
3. Chalcolithic – EB I
NEAR EASTERN
ITEMS, MATERIALS
& INFLUENCE IN
Chalcolithic Palestine
(Ghassulian culture):
Ca. 4,300 – 3,300 BCE
Ubaid to
Uruk cultures
Ghassulian
culture
Chalcolithic period: 4300-3300 BCE
Introduction:
• “Chalcolithic”
= Copper-stone Age
Greek Chalcos = “copper”
• Greek lithos = “stone”
• This period, as its name implies
indicates the appearance
of copper, alongside the
prime use of flints (stone tools).
• This period spans the
late 5th to much of the
4th millennium BCE.
Introduction:
• The Chalcolithic is also
characterized by the
emergence of related cultures
with specific settlement types,
economy, social structure,
& religion.
• Mazar (1990) follows the
system of labelling only
“Ghassulian culture” as being
“Chalcolithic” versus other
terminology (see Ben-Tor 1992)
that defines some earlier PNB
& contemporary cultures as
“Early” & “Middle-Late
Chalcolithic.”
• Mazar applies “Ghassulian”
culture to a broad area
with regional variants:
- E.g., Galilee & northern Valleys

Golan Heights
Beer-Sheba brook culture
• The main Ghassulian site in the

Chalcolithic = Teleilat Ghassul
• This site lies on a slope to the

NE of and overlooking the
Dead Sea.
Map of Chalcolithic (Ghassulian) sites

Origins of Ghassulian culture (cont.):
• C14 dates from Teleilat Gassul →
mid-5th mill. BC (uncalibrated dates)
• C14 dates from Judean Desert and
Beer-Sheba artifacts → late 4th mill.
→ ca. 4,500 – 3,300 BCE
• Hence, such dates correspond with
much of the Ubaid and early Uruk
periods in Mesopotamia.
• Around this period, Tell Halaf culture
expanded in Syria & N. Mesopotamia.
• However, despite the expansion of
these cultures, there is less direct
evidence for close connections with
the Ghassulian culture.
• The few connections that do exist
appear to reflect trade rather than
any migrations of a Ghassulian peoples
into Palestine.
Trade relations/contact with:
E.g., Byblos & Ras Shamra (Syria)
‘Amuq region
Parts of Iran(?)
Egypt (Naqada culture)
Egypt has similarities in …
- Pottery manufacture
- Flint tool production
- Art (i.e., ivory figurines)
- Trade (export of haematite, granite,
and calcite [‘alabaster’]). Nahal Qanah
• Hence, it seems that the Ghassulian gold most
culture maintained commercial probably came
relations with a broadening sphere. from Egypt
- Some early scholars have argued that
the Ghassulians had foreign origins:
1. Mellaart argued that brachycephallic
skulls from Chalc. Palestine indicated
an origin from Armenia-Caucasus.
(Invalidated by P. Smith).
2. Perrot viewed the Ghassulian culture
as developing in the Syrian Desert
?
3. Hennessy suggested it reflected
a greater migration of eastern
peoples (Mesopotamia)
- More recent studies focus on a more
indigenous development for Chalc. Pal
4. Moore & Levy argued for a local
origin, esp. after Hennessy’s discovery
of a transitional phase between PNB
and early Chalc. at Teleilat Ghassul.
- Some early scholars have argued that
the Ghassulians had foreign origins:
1. Mellaart argued that brachycephallic
skulls from Chalc. Palestine indicated
an origin from Armenia-Caucasus.
(Invalidated by P. Smith).
2. Perrot viewed the Ghassulian culture
as developing in the Syrian Desert
3. Hennessy suggested it reflected
a greater migration of eastern
peoples (Mesopotamia)
- More recent studies focus on a more
indigenous development for Chalc. Pal
4. Moore & Levy argued for a local
origin, esp. after Hennessy’s discovery
of a transitional phase between PNB
and early Chalc. at Teleilat Ghassul.
- Some scholars have merged both
ideas into a composite theory:
5. Elliott argues that Ghassulian culture
emerged locally in Palestine, but was
influenced heavily by Ubaid culture
transmitted from Mesopotamia via
Syria ca. 4,000 BCE.
• Ubaid culture does find expression
via some Ghassulian pottery forms
and copper-working technology.
• To-date, modifications of this
composite indigenous and foreign
origin theory find general favour.
Some
• The linking Ubaid from
data, missing
influences?
southern Syria & northern Palestine,
is beginning to be excavated for
the late Pottery Neolithic to Chalc.
- Some scholars have merged both
ideas into a composite theory:
5. Elliott argues that Ghassulian culture
emerged locally in Palestine, but was
influenced heavily by Ubaid culture
transmitted from Mesopotamia via
Syria ca. 4,000 BCE.
• Ubaid culture does find expression
via some Ghassulian pottery forms
and copper-working technology.
• To-date, modifications of this
composite indigenous and foreign
origin theory find general favour.
• The linking data, missing from
southern Syria & northern Palestine,
is beginning to be excavated for
the late Pottery Neolithic to Chalc.
Collapse of the Ghassulian culture:
• The Ghassulian culture terminated
‘mysteriously’ around 3,300 BC.
• The main Gh.-sites were abandoned,
& remained largely uninhabited in
subsequent periods.
- E.g., Teleilat Ghassul
Beer-Sheba sites
Judean Desert sites
Sites in Golan Heights
• The Ghassulian
a.Abandonment of their En Gedi shrine
b.Blocking-up of the shrine’s entry
c.Hiding of its(?) votives in N.Mishmar
→ suggest a significant sudden change
• However, no signs of violence emerge
?
in late Chalcolithic occupation levels.
• Issue remains largely unresolved
Collapse of the Ghassulian culture:
Several theories:
1. EB Age I migrants destroyed the Gh.
settlements.
2. EB Age I culture took control of
northern Palestine, leaving Chalc.
peoples residing in southern Palestine
3. Protodynastic through early Dyn.1
Egyptian invasion of southern Pal.,
with subsequent colonization.
• However, other possibilities, such as
4. Increasing aridity, diseases and other
natural causes are equally valid factors
behind the Ghassulian culture’s end.
• In some aspects, elements from the
Ghassulian culture were retained in 2007
the Early Bronze Age, suggesting a ABV = a good, recent overview on the
change in a prior way of life versus Chalcolithic period; see also Levy’s
the virtual ‘extermination’ of a peoples. 1995 Arch. of Soc. of Holy Land.
4.
SYRIAN & MESOPOTAMIAN
LINKS WITH PALESTINE:
EB Age I:
Ca. 3,500/3,300 – 3,000
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC
Mesopotamia (Sumeria):
• The process of state formation
and urbanization technically
began earlier & more gradually
in Mesopotamia:
- Ubaid period: 5th - 4th mill. BC
- Uruk – Jemdet Nasr
(proto-literate) periods:
ca. 3500 – 3000 BC.
- Uruk reaches 400 acres in

scale:
-8 x larger than Chalcolithic
T. el-Ghassul.
-13x larger than large Neolithic
towns in Palestine.
Mesopotamia (Sumer):
- Massive temple complexes
being built & playing a key role
in Sumerian socio-political &
economic life.
- Early Dynastic Sumerian
city-states yield a wealth of
written materials and
archaeological evidence.
- Mesopotamia influenced
North Syria, which developed
a similar literate society.
(later subsumed by Akkad
empire).
Syria-Palestine & neighbours:
• Hence, relations also intensified
between Syria-Palestine, Egypt,
and Mesopotamia in commercial
and other aspects.
- N. Syria became dominated by
its adjacent (Meso) neighbour:
a. Adopting aspects of
Mesopotamian language and
culture: e.g., Ebla used
the Sumerian script.
b. Serving as trade conduit
between East Mediterranean
& Mesopotamia.
Syria-Palestine & neighbours:
- Palestine, southern Syria, &
Lebanon had varying, albeit
relatively more links with Egypt,
and enabled some contact
between Egypt, Anatolia, and
Mesopotamia.
- EB I: Initially sedentary
agrarian towns.
- EB II-III: Fully urbanized
city-states.
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC EB 1b plan
Site plan & architecture: of Megiddo
• A few sufficiently excavated EB I sites
enable an assessment of their layouts:
- Megiddo Phases VII-IV & Str.XIX
- Yiftahel (Lower Galilee)
- ‘En Shadud (Jezreel Valley)
- ‘En Teo (Huleh Valley)
* Beth-Yerah (Sharon Plain)
- Meser (Sharon Plain)
* Aphek (Sharon Plain)
- Tel Kitan (Beth-Shean Valley)
- Hartuv (near Beth-Shemesh)
* Tel ‘Erani (Negev)
- Tel Halif (Negev)
- Tel Malhata (Negev)
- Arad (Negev)
- Jawa (Transjordan: E. Desert)
- Bab edh-Dhra‘(Transjordan)
- T.Umm Hamad(Jordan Valley)
* 12+ acres; (Others = small unfortified villages)
Site plan & architecture:
• Dwellings and structures in northern
Palestine usually exhibited circular,
elliptical, curvilinear, or apsidal forms.
(i.e., similar buildings in S. Lebanon).
• The curvilinear forms represent mostly
foreign designs than ones used in Chalc.,
suggesting a non-indigenous tradition.
• Foreign “Gray Burnished Ware” occurs Yiftahel: EB I oval-shaped dwelling
more frequently with such housing,
suggesting more foreign Syrian links.
• Aside from dwellings & public features,
only cultic structures dominate most
settlements, thereby excluding (later)
massive private dwellings that would
signify a greater social hierarchy: EB2+
• The cultic focal point suggests that
religion &/or the priesthood formed the
main controlling force in EB I society.
Pottery:
Gray Burnished Ware (northern type):
• Also called “Esdralon culture”
• Kenyon’s “Proto-Urban C”
• It consists of open vessels,
• Manufactured locally in a gray fabric,
• A well-burnished, thick, dark gray slip.
• Shapes include large bowls and bowls
on a tall pedestal-foot (with openings).
• Often carinated & ornamented with
knobs and “rope”-like applications.
• Copied in brown or buff clay.
• Restricted to northern valleys:
E.g., Beth-Yerah, Megiddo, Beth-Shan
• Foreign shape & decoration!
- Parallels from northeastern Anatolia
- Migrants from E. Anatolia assimilated
with local population (prod. trad. pots)
Cylinder seals:
• EB 1 Palestine yields cylinder seals &
cyl. seal impressions on storage jars.
• These seals began in 4th millennium
BC Mesopotamia and spread to the
Near East and Egypt.
• Seal impressed jars are absent in
Mesopotamia, but may have been
Syro-Mesopotamian
applied in this way in Syria-Palestine.
• Pottery cylinder
seals may have seals
be of wood
- They may symbolize manufacturer’s
→ workshop), or
marks (i.e., pottery
appear
- They likelyin EB 1the
represent Palestine
owner
• Designs: geometric or animals in rows
and further south
• Parallels from Byblos indicate close
in Late
trading Predyn. Egypt:
relations.
= trade
• Seals rep. local&motifs,
influence(!)
but some seals
reflect Jemdet Nasr,Elamite, & Egy. art
Cylinder seals:
• EB 1 Palestine yields cylinder seals &
cyl. seal impressions on storage jars.
• These seals began in 4th millennium
BC Mesopotamia and spread to the
Jemdet Nasr style cylinder seals
Near East and Egypt.
• Seal-impressed jars are absent in
Mesopotamia, but may have been
applied in this way in Syria-Palestine.
• Pottery seals may have been of wood
- They may symbolize manufacturer’s
marks (i.e., pottery workshop), or
- They likely represent the owner
• Designs: geometric or animals in rows
• Parallels from Byblos indicate close
trading relations.
• Seals rep. local motifs, but some seals
reflect Jemdet Nasr,Elamite, & Egy. art
Origins of Early Bronze I culture:
• EB culture displays distinct differences
from Chalcolithic (Ghassulian)culture:
a. Settlement patterns,
b. Population size and density,
c. Agriculture (i.e., more cultivation)
d. Trade relations (broader; more)
e. Material culture (more complex)
f. Artwork
• The material evidence has been
interpreted variously to indicate either
a. Continuity btw. Chalc.-EB peoples
b. The appearance of a new EB people
• Hennessy claimed Proto-Urban A
reflected migrants from North Syria
and Cilicia. → NO(!)
• Kenyon suggested Proto-Urban A
= migrants from areas East of
Palestine. → NO(!) Syria-Palestine & East Mediterranean
• BUT, Mesopotamia did exert some
influence in EB 1 culture:
a. Pottery “teapots” with bent spouts
b. Cylinder seals
• Sumerian colonies had expanded into
the Upper Euphrates by late 4th mill. BC
E.g., Habuba Kabira. (Late Uruk)
• The Mesopotamian influences, which
reach as far as Egypt, likely reflected
trade, but it remains uncertain whether
direct or indirect relations occurred.
• Arguments in favour of indigenous EB
development note continuity with Chalc.
E.g., Some EB 1 pottery forms
Some Metal items
Architecture of EB shrines
• Overall minor material continuity, but
human remains also reveal continuity. Syria: mound of Habuba Kabira
• Mesopotamia did exert some influence
in EB 1 culture:
a. Pottery “teapots” with bent spouts
b. Cylinder seals
• Sumerian colonies had expanded into
the Upper Euphrates by late 4th mill. BC
E.g., Habuba Kabira.
• The Mesopotamian influences, which
reach as far as Egypt, likely reflected
trade, but it remains uncertain whether
direct or indirect relations occurred.
• Arguments in favour of indigenous EB
development note continuity with Chalc. Nos.1-2:
E.g., Some EB 1 pottery forms Habuba Kabira pottery
Some metal items
Architecture of EB shrines
• Overall minor material continuity, but
human remains also reveal continuity.
• Early Bronze I culture in Palestine
apparently adopted multiple elements:
a. Syria,
b. Anatolia,
c. Mesopotamia,
d. Chalcolithic (Ghassulian).
• The EB Age I peoples may reflect:
- a mixing of indigenous Chalcolithic
and foreign migrants (mostly Syrian),
to form a new culture that retained
regional variations.
- The lack of overly apparent warfare
alongside climatic change & different
settlement patterns suggests that the
Chalc. population may have shifted
subsistence & settlement strategies
to forge a new peoples and culture Multiple cultures/areas affected the
(few peoples are ever fully destroyed) development of Early Bronze Age
culture: e.g., Indigenous & foreign
Early Bronze I: ca.3500/3300-3000 BC Late Chalcolithic
Origins of Early Bronze I culture: ca.3500 BC
• Early Bronze I culture in Palestine
apparently adopted multiple elements:
a. Syria,
b. Anatolia,
c. Mesopotamia,
d. Chalcolithic (Ghassulian).
• The EB Age I peoples may reflect:
- a mixing of indigenous Chalcolithic
and foreign migrants (mostly Syrian),
to form a new culture that retained
regional variations.
- The lack of overly apparent warfare
alongside climatic change & different
settlement patterns suggests that the
Chalc. population may have shifted
subsistence & settlement strategies
to forge a new peoples and culture
(few peoples are ever fully destroyed)
5:
EARLY BRONZE I-II
NEAR EASTERN
ITEMS, MATERIALS
& INFLUENCE IN
PREDYN-ED EGYPT:
SYRIA
PALESTINE
MESOPOTAMIA
N. SINAI
S. SINAI
SOUTHWEST ASIA: Syro-Mesopotamian relations / trade with Egypt
AFGHANISTAN:
- Lapis lazuli (indirect trade)
MESOPOTAMIA:
Sumer; Babylonia; Assyria SYRIA
Pottery (containers):
- Late Uruk ware (EB I-II)
?
Seals/amulets:
- Cylinder seals (EB I-II) MESOPOTAMIA
Architecture:
- Niched / palace façade
- ”Wall cones” (e.g., Buto?)
Motifs:
- Hero separating 2 animals
- Boats
- Garments, etc.
Mesopotamian Products in Predynastic
Egypt: Lapis lazuli from Afghanistan
• Lapis lazuli as inlay in 5th millennium BC+

• Lapis lazuli as jewellery (Tomb 11 Hierakonpolis)
Mesopotamian
influence in
Protodynastic to
Early Dynastic
Egypt:
• Buildings with a
niched façade.
(“palace façade”)
Egyptian mastaba:
Mesopotamian
Influence in
Protodynastic to
Early Dynastic
Egypt:
• Palace façade
motif:
Egyptian mastaba: Sumer (Uruk 4ab) Sumer (Susa):

Mesopotamian
Influence in
Protodynastic to
Early Dynastic
Egypt:
Mosaic wall-cones?
Buto (tenuous
connection): Mesopotamia:
Mesopotamian
Products in
Protodynastic to
Early Dynastic
Egypt:
• Mesopotamian
pottery in Egypt
Mesopotamian
Influence in
Protodynastic
To Early
Dynastic Egypt:
• Cylinder seals
& sealing
impressions
in Egypt
Mesopotamian
Influence in
Protodynastic
to ED Egypt:
“Gilgamesh”-hero
figure separating
two animals
Mesopotamian
Influence in
Protodynastic
to ED Egypt:
Mesopotamian-
Style garments
(including hat)
Egypt:
Gebel el-Arak
Knife handle:
Mesopotamian
Influence in
Protodynastic
to ED Egypt:
• Mesopotamian-
animals with
entwined necks
Sumeria
Mesopotamian
Influence in
Protodynastic
to ED Egypt:
• The Mesopotamian
language is (mostly) no
longer believed to have
influenced development
of Egyptian hieroglyphs
5.a:
PREDYNASTIC – ED
EGYPTIAN
ITEMS, MATERIALS
& INFLUENCE IN
SW PALESTINE:
SYRIA
PALESTINE
MESOPOTAMIA
N. SINAI
S. SINAI
PALESTINE / CANAAN (SW LEVANT):
Agricultural produce: e.g.,
-Olive oil
-Wine
-Resins
-Livestock & by-products
Minerals, etc.: e.g.,
-Bitumen (Dead Sea)
-Salt SYRIA
-Sulphur
Metals: e.g.,
-Copper (Wadi Feinan, N. Arabah)
Finished products: e.g.,

-Stone vessels (EB I)
-Flints
-Pottery vessels (containers for other items)
Security: e.g., Late Predyn.-ED Egypt
-Asiatic Bedouin & city states has intense contact with
Trade routes: N. Sinai → S. Palestine:
-Eliminate costly “middleman” to SYRIA
Personnel: e.g., It held highly desirable
-Captives / slaves → labour source materials & commodities
5.b:
PREDYNASTIC – ED
EGYPTIAN
ITEMS, MATERIALS
& INFLUENCE IN
SYRIA-LEBANON:
SYRIA
PALESTINE
MESOPOTAMIA
N. SINAI
S. SINAI
Predynastic
Egyptian
influence
in EB I
Syria:
• Egyptian
pottery
a). Lug-handled
vessels
(F-ware)
Chalcolithic = much of Predynastic.
EB I = Early Bronze Age I in Syria-Palestine

contemporary with late Predyn.- Dyn.1
EB II = Early Bronze Age II (late Dyn.1 – Dyn.2)

5.c:
PREDYNASTIC – ED
EGYPTIAN
ITEMS, MATERIALS
& INFLUENCE IN
MESOPOTAMIA:
Predynastic+
Egyptian
influence
in EB I
Mesopotamia
• Non-
indigenous
gold from
Tepe Gawra
Egyptian gold?
GOLD?
The only preserved Egyptian(?)
trade product with Mesopotamia
(probably also aromatics, etc.)
Ubaid, Uruk and Jemdet Nasr periods: 5,400 – 2,900 BC
8.
SUMMARY:
(in-progress)
Middle Chalcolithic: ca. 5,500/5,400 – 4,000 BCE:
• Much regionalism in Anatolian culture during this period;
• East Anatolia is particularly close to the Levant and Mesopotamia regarding
architecture and material culture in general: i.e., many influences & contact.
• Central-western Anatolia has a more distinct, separate culture, but does
have some similarities and contact.
• Northeast Caucasus region also displays a distinct culture.
• Copper working improves greatly, with cold hammering: e.g., mace, bracelets
East Anatolia in Middle Chalcolithic: ca. 5,500/5,400 – 4,000 BCE:
• East Anatolia absorbs many influences and direct contact & items from the
Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia:
E.g., Architecture (including niched facades), stamp seals (i.e., administration)
sealing impressions in clay, Ubaid painted pottery, Coba bowls (scraped).
Central Plateau in Middle Chalcolithic: ca. 5,500/5,400 – 4,000 BCE:

• Can Hasan: houses with roof-top access, benches, plastered & painted walls.
Late Chalcolithic: ca. 4,000 – 3,000 BCE:
• More improvements in copper working with open mould casting of more types
of copper tools and luxury items: e.g., chisels, axes, etc.
• Some arsenical bronze, presumably natural versus artificially made;
• Some tin-bronze, with indications of early experimentation with making bronze
• Arsencial and tin-bronze enables the manufacture of larger and stronger
items (versus copper implements).
• New social organization emerging: greater social stratification, differential
wealth amongst population, more luxury items, more trade, more authority
residing in a small part of the population: mainly chieftains (chiefdom system).
• Still many differences across Anatolia: i.e., regionalism.
Southeast Anatolia in Late Chalcolithic: 4,000 – 3,000 BCE:
• This area contains the most socially stratified population in Anatolia with
strong links to Syria and Mesopotamia, namely the Uruk culture.
• Uruk culture expands north via conquest, colonization, trade, and influence:
(a). Uruk-style and type pottery: e.g., Bevelled rim bowls.
(b). Uruk-type art motifs: e.g., fantastical animals with entwined necks.
(c). Uruk-type architecture: e.g., Niched temple facades; dec. wall cones.
• Uruk culture expands north via conquest, colonization, trade, and influence:
(d). Uruk-type administration: cylinder seals & sealings (doors; goods; etc.).
(e). Proto-cuneiform tablets: i.e., recording various product types, quantities,
supplier, destination, etc. (central collection; accounting; re-dispersal);
(f). Complex settlement plans: temples, communal buildings (storage; admin.),
industrial areas, houses of varying sizes, etc.
(g). Debated: Uruk colonies and military takeover of areas in N. Mesopotamia
Uruk trading enclaves (Karum): e.g., Hacinebi Tepe (50/50).
Uruk influence: in settlements with mostly Anatolian features.
(h). Pottery workshops & potter’s marks → shifted to more centralized pottery
“factories” that did not have potter’s marks: i.e., centralized authority(!).
• E.g., Norsuntepe: Large mud brick buildings, late Ubaid pottery: Corba bowls.
• E.g., Arslantepe: Large communal buildings, Temples A-B, painted decoration
sealings (administration), Uruk pottery (Chaff-Faced), widespread trade
(e.g., Trans-Caucasus; East Anatolia).
Large mud brick temples A-B: altar, niche, painted walls, sacrificial
animals; storerooms with sealings, stamp & cylinder seals, swords.
• E.g., Hacinebi: Many Uruk-type Bevelled-rim bowls, Mesopotamian-type
foodways (preference for sheep/goats), Mesopotamian-style butchery,
& sealings alongside more Anatolian-type foodways & material culture.
East Anatolia in Late Chalcolithic: 4,000 – 3,000 BCE:

• The emergence of a more uniform culture across the eastern rugged
highlands, namely the Kura-Araxes culture (which continues into EB Age).
• A specific ethnic group with broad similarities over a wide area, but with
regional differences within this area.
• Housing varies from transitory camps to permanent settlements, and from
circular huts to semi-rectilinear to rectangular housing, with hearths, etc.
• The fixed hearth forms a key component, retaining its exact position in later
rebuilding of houses over earlier house locations, & undergoes modifications,
including the later introduction of portable hearths.
• Hand made Red and Black pottery;
• Animal figurines; copper/bronze implements and vessels, etc.
UBAID CULTURE in Mesopotamia:
Ubaid Culture Mesopotamia in ca. 5,400 – 4,000 BCE:
• Equivalent to SE Anatolia Middle Chalcolithic (ca. 5,500/5,400 –
4,000 BCE),
• Northern Mesopotamia and East Anatolia absorbs many influences and
direct contact & items from the Ubaid culture of southern Mesopotamia:
• Characteristic architecture (including emerging platform temples with
tripartite plan and niched-and buttressed facades), stamp seals
(i.e., administration) and sealing impressions in clay, Ubaid painted
pottery, Coba bowls (scraped).
URUK CULTURE in Mesopotamia:
Uruk Culture Mesopotamia in ca. 4,000 – 3,100 BCE:
• Uruk culture expands north via conquest, colonization, trade, and
influence:
• (a). Uruk-style and type pottery: e.g., Bevelled rim bowls.
• (b). Uruk-type art motifs: e.g., fantastical animals with entwined necks.
• (c). Uruk-type architecture: e.g., Niched temple facades; dec. wall cones.
• Uruk culture expands north via conquest, colonization, trade, and
influence:
• (d). Uruk-type administration: cylinder seals & sealings (doors; goods; etc.).
• (e). Proto-cuneiform tablets: i.e., recording various product types, quantities,
supplier, destination, etc. (central collection; accounting; re-dispersal);
• (f). Complex settlement plans: temples, communal buildings (storage;
admin.), industrial areas, houses of varying sizes, etc.
• (g). Debated: Uruk colonies and military takeover of areas in N. Mesopotamia,
Uruk trading enclaves (Karum): e.g., Hacinebi Tepe (50/50).
Uruk influence: in settlements with mostly Anatolian features.
• (h). Pottery workshops & potter’s marks → shifted to more centralized pottery
“factories” that did not have potter’s marks: i.e., centralized authority(!).
• Equivalent to SE Anatolia Late Chalcolithic (ca. 4,000 – 3,000 BCE),
• Long distance contact with Southeast Anatolia, with a most socially stratified
population in Anatolia.

Lecture-5: Ubaid Through Late Uruk Syria-Mesopotamia and Beyond ..

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture-5: Ubaid Through Late Uruk Syria-Mesopotamia and Beyond ..

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Lecture-5: Ubaid Through Late Uruk Syria-Mesopotamia and Beyond ..

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ANTH.

(2). Take notes on lectures, etc. …

(4). Ask questions during the class if

(5). Complete optional materials:

1919 (Hall) & 1923-24 (Woolley) excavations

• Type site for

Early settlement to south

“Eridu ware” (Lloyd 1984: 44, fig. 12)

Late Ubaid culture TEMPLES:

2nd storey? / roof-top

• Ubaid-type architecture & pottery, while

Adams, 1981 published survey map:

from 70 hectares to 100 hectares.

(1). Hunting wild animals

(2). Fishing & boats

(3). Farming: ploughing?

(4). Livestock (farming)

(5). Harvesting grain

(6). Building brick structures

(7). Craftsmen: Making vessels

(8). Weaving scene (horiz. Loom)

(9). Bringing grain to silos

(10). Grain storage & dispersal

(e). Many components in city-states

Pre-camel: donkey caravans

(g). Trading expeditions: normally req.

E.g., Rural Middle Eastern village

(b). Iconography: i.e., specific motifs.

(c). Architecture: niched temple façade

(d). Ceramic wall cones (in temples)

(e). Administrative infrastructure

(f). Proto-cuneiform tablets

(b). Iconography: i.e., specific motifs.

(c). Architecture: niched temple façade

(d). Ceramic wall cones (in temples)

(e). Administrative infrastructure

(f). Proto-cuneiform tablets

(b). Iconography: i.e., specific motifs.

(c). Architecture: niched temple façade

(d). Ceramic wall cones (in temples)

(e). Administrative infrastructure

(f). Proto-cuneiform tablets

(b). Iconography: i.e., specific motifs.

(c). Architecture: niched temple façade

(d). Ceramic wall cones (in temples)

(e). Administrative infrastructure

(f). Proto-cuneiform tablets

(b). Iconography: i.e., specific motifs.

(c). Architecture: niched temple façade

(d). Ceramic wall cones (in temples)

(e). Administrative infrastructure

(f). Proto-cuneiform tablets

(b). Iconography: i.e., specific motifs.

(c). Architecture: niched temple façade

(d). Ceramic wall cones (in temples)

(e). Administrative infrastructure

(f). Proto-cuneiform tablets

(b). Iconography: i.e., specific motifs.

(c). Architecture: niched temple façade