Mesopotamia Before History
Mar 28, 2023
Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Mesopotamia Before HistoryLondon and New York
First published as Ancient Mesopotamia—Humankind’s Long Journey into Civilization by the Oriental Institute, Prague, 1993 This revised and updated edition published 2002 by Routledge 11
New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
“ To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to http://www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk/.”
© 2002 Petr Charvát
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Charvát, Petr.
Mesopotamia before history/Petr Charvát.—Rev. and updated ed. p. cm.
Rev. ed. of: Ancient Mesopotamia. c1993. Includes bibliographical references and index
1. Iraq—Civilization—To 634. 2. Iraq—Antiquities. 3. Excavations (Archaeology)—Iraq. I. Charvát, Petr. Ancient Mesopotamia. II. Title
DS70.7 .C47 2002 935-dc21 2001058964
ISBN 0-203-16481-4 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 0-203-25907-6 (Adobe e-Reader Format) ISBN 0-415-25104-4 (Print Edition)
Contents
3 The Neolithic 16
4 The Chalcolithic 49
5 The Uruk culture: A civilization is born 118
6 When kingship descended upon the earth: the Jemdet Nasr and Early Dynastic periods 191
7 Conclusions 278
1.1 A pre-pottery Neolithic skull from a Palestinian site 3
2.1 Masonry of cigar-shaped sun-dried mud bricks, aceramic Neolithic site of Nemrik 9
2.2 Two of the phases of the aceramic Neolithic house at Qermez Dere 12
2.3 The border between irrigated land and the clayey steppe in southern Mesopotamia 14
3.1 A Neolithic ‘husking tray’ 18
3.2 One of the tells in the clayey steppe of southern Mesopotamia 20
3.3 Painted and appliqué designs on Hassuna culture Neolithic pottery from Yarimtepe I 23
3.4 Forms of Neolithic pottery of the Hassuna culture from Yarimtepe I 23
3.5 An irrigated field in southern Mesopotamia 26
3.6 Forms of Hassuna culture Neolithic pottery from Yarimtepe I 28
3.7 The sun setting over the alluvial plain of southern Mesopotamia 28
3.8 Forms of Hassuna culture Neolithic pottery from Yarimtepe I 30
3.9 The river Euphrates, a scene familiar to the ancient Mesopotamians 33
3.10 A Neolithic painted bowl of the Samarra culture 35
3.11 Reconstruction of the use of a Neolithic chipped-flint borer 37
3.12 Head of a Neolithic Samarra culture female statuette from Tell Songor A 38
3.13 The river Euphrates leaves the Taurus mountain ranges and flows into the Syrian plains 41
3.14 A Neolithic Samarra culture female statuette from Tell Songor A 45
3.15 Neolithic chipped stone industry of the Hassuna culture from Yarimtepe I 45
3.16 Examples of Neolithic ground stone industry and chipped stone items of the Hassuna culture 47
3.17 Close to the Euphrates and Tigris rivers the clayey steppe gives way to lush greenery 48
4.1 Examples of Neolithic ground stone ornaments from the aceramic Neolithic site of Tell Maghzaliya 52
4.2 Examples of Neolithic ground stone industry from the aceramic Neolithic site of Tell Maghzaliya 53
4.3 Neolithic ground stone bracelets from Tell Maghzaliya 55
4.4 A valley in the Taurus mountain range 56
4.5 Neolithic beads of stone and obsidian from Tell Maghzaliya 60
4.6 Neolithic beads of stone, obsidian and shell from Tell Maghzaliya 60
4.7 Summits and slopes of the Taurus mountain ranges 62
4.8 A Neolithic ground stone hoe. Hassuna culture, Yarimtepe I 64
4.9 Reconstruction of a Neolithic house. Hassuna culture, the site of Hajji Firuz 65
4.10 The estuary of the Nahr el-Kelb river on the outskirts of the modern city of Beirut 68
4.11 Chalcolithic sickles of burnt clay. Ubaid to Uruk age 69
4.12 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Brak 72
4.13 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Halaf 73
4.14 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Arpachiyah 75
4.15 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Tepe Gawra 76
4.16 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Arpachiyah 78
4.17 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Arpachiyah 79
4.18 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Chagar Bazar 79
4.19 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Chagar Bazar 80
4.20 Ubaid culture sickles of baked clay point to the high level of Ubaid pyrotechnology and know-how 81
4.21 A Chalcolithic painted cup. Halaf culture, the site of Chagar Bazar 83
4.22 A Chalcolithic painted jar. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Arpachiyah 83
4.23 A Chalcolithic painted jar. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Arpachiyah 84
4.24 A Chalcolithic painted jar. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Arpachiyah 85
4.25 The Mediterranean port of Byblos 86
4.26 A Chalcolithic model of a seagoing ship. Late Ubaid culture, the site of Eridu 87
4.27 A Chalcolithic painted jar. Final phase of the Halaf culture, the site of Tepe Gawra 88
4.28 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Early Ubaid culture, the site of Eridu 90
4.29 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Early Ubaid culture, the site of Eridu 91
4.30 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Early Ubaid culture, the site of Eridu 92
4.31 Typical local houses built of clay or stone with ceilings of timber 94
4.32 Chalcolithic painted cups. Late Ubaid culture, the site of Eridu 95
4.33 A Chalcolithic spouted bottle and spouted painted jugs. Late Ubaid culture, the site of Eridu 96
4.34 Modern houses with domed roofs of clay in Harran, south-east Turkey 96
4.35 A Chalcolithic female statuette. Halaf culture, the site of Yarimtepe III 99
4.36 Chalcolithic animal figurines. Halaf culture, the site of Yarimtepe III 99
4.37 A Chalcolithic female statuette. Late Ubaid culture, the site of Tell Awayli 101
4.38 A Chalcolithic sealing from the west Iranian site of Susa 102
4.39 Pendant seals of stone of the Chalcolithic age. Halaf culture, the site of Yarimtepe II 104
4.40 A necklace of cowrie shells used among groups of small beads for a Chalcolithic sealing of a jar with a lid 107
4.41 Ubaid culture beakers available to wide circles of Chalcolithic consumers 108
4.42 A series of Chalcolithic round buildings (tholoi) on stone foundations. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Arpachiyah 113
5.1 Pottery vessels of the Uruk culture 118
5.2 A Late Uruk sealing showing a man ascending a ladder with a sack of grain 119
5.3 A bevelled-rim bowl of the Late Uruk age 120
5.4 Ubaid or Uruk age spindle whorls from Uruk 123
5.5 Late Uruk fishing hooks of copper from Habuba Kabira 126
5.6 Amulets and pendants worn in the Late Uruk age 129
5.7 Reconstructed view of the Late Uruk fortified site at Hassek Höyük 140
5.8 Late Uruk age tools 147
5.9 A Late Uruk lock 152
5.10 Reconstruction of a Late Uruk ‘temple’ on a terrace 154
5.11 Scenes carved on the Late Uruk alabaster vase from Uruk 166
5.12 A Late Uruk grave from Jemdet Nasr 171
5.13 Brick masonry of the ‘great residence’ at Jemdet Nasr 176
5.14 Large round kilns in one of the annexes of the Jemdet Nasr ‘great residence’ 179
5.15 A proto-cuneiform text from Uruk 181
5.16 A spindle whorl from Jemdet Nasr with a sign of proto- cuneiform writing 183
5.17 A fragment of a protective bitumen coating bearing an impression of a reed mat 185
5.18 Two spindle whorls from Jemdet Nasr on which images of women and men 'danced' 187
5.19 Fresco painting of a leopard dating to the Late Uruk age from Tel Uqair 188
6.1 A brick from Jemdet Nasr preserves the impression of the mat on which it was laid to dry 191
6.2 Fragments of painted pottery from Jemdet Nasr 195
6.3 A spindle whorl from Jemdet Nasr 202
6.4 A sealing on clay from Jemdet Nasr 207
6.5 A sealing on clay bearing an image of a temple façade with a central doorway 211
6.6 The reverse side of the preceding sealing showing clear impressions of a reed mat 212
6.7 An Early Dynastic depiction of milking cows on a temple frieze 214
6.8 A solid-footed goblet of the Early Dynastic age 220
6.9 A copper/bronze bowl from the grave of King Meskalamdu at Ur 222
6.10 An impression of a cylinder seal on clay from Jemdet Nasr 225
6.11 The reverse side of the preceding seal impression showing the folds and wrinkles of a leather bag 225
6.12 Statuette of a pink stone bull from Jemdet Nasr 227
6.13 The corner of a monumental brick building from the earlier part of the Early Dynastic age at Jemdet Nasr 231
6.14 The present state of the later Early Dynastic ‘Abu temple’ at Tell Asmar on the Diyala river 238
6.15 Two solid-footed goblets of the earlier part of the Early Dynastic age 241
6.16 Large jars of water were frequently provided at the courts of temples of the third pre-Christian millennium 248
6.17 The once spacious residences of the Near Eastern élites of the third pre-Christian millennium 251
6.18 A Sumerian warrior of the Early Dynastic age on a mother-of- pearl inlay from Mari 253
6.19 A silver vase of Enmetena or Entemena, ensi of Lagash 257
6.20 Reconstruction of an Early Dynastic Sumerian temple. The Bagara of Ningirsu at Lagash 261
6.21 A copper/bronze jar from the grave of King Meskalamdu at Ur 266
6.22 A contemporary burial excavated at the Early Dynastic building at Jemdet Nasr 267
6.23 A spouted flagon of copper/bronze from the grave of King Meskalamdu at Ur 269
6.24 Two libation vessels(?) of gold and silver from the grave of King Meskalamdu at Ur 272
6.25 Fragment of a sculptured plaque of the later Early Dynastic age from Lagash 276
Introduction
This book was written in 1991–1992 but incorporates elements of research that I carried out much earlier, in fact, since the beginning of the 1970s. It is an account of my work over a period of time when I was labouring ad maiorem Orientis antiquissimi gloriam only in my spare time, having had, principally for existential reasons, quite different official commitments. A further impulse towards the writing of this text has been constituted by my lectures on the archaeology of ancient Mesopotamia at the Faculty of Philosophy of Charles University, Prague, in 1982–1983 and then in 1990–1991. Things have changed considerably since 1993 and now courses on ancient Oriental archaeology have been included in the curricula of two other universities in the Czech Republic. I greatly appreciate the interest in my book expressed by colleagues both at home and abroad, as well as the decision by Routledge to launch a new edition of this treatise, on which I worked for most of the years 2000–2001.
As to the spatiotemporal dimension of this book, ‘Mesopotamia’ is to be understood in terms of the present territory of the Republic of Iraq. Sites outside this are cited for parallels but not systematically investigated. ‘Ancient’ means from the earliest human occupation of Mesopotamia down to 2334 BC when a fully fledged territorial state emerged in the territory in question.
In all my subsequent considerations, I view archaeology as the study of material traces of human behaviour in the past. I fear that all definitions concerning only the utilitarian aspects of past human activities are, for one thing, too narrow, and, for another, too much biased by the modern point of view. I believe that there is no a priori division of ancient, and especially pre-literate, human activities into ‘utilitarian’ and those which we have perceived until recently, in coarsest pseudo-Marxist terms, as ‘determined by the economic base’. If we fall prey to putting forward questions determined by our own vision of the past, we clearly run the risk of finding in our materials only answers to precisely this kind of interrogation which, in such a case, will be a loss well merited on our part. For myself, I can only confess that I have never felt conceited enough to prescribe to the ancients what they should and what they should not have done. My chief concern and fascination has always been best expressed by the famous maxim of Vere Gordon Childe, namely ‘what happened in history’. This orientation, in its essence rather palaeo-historic than purely archaeological and incorporating data yielded by written sources as soon as they appear, leads me to rely especially on two categories of evidence: those singular sources that comprise the greatest possible amount of information about human behaviour in the past, and then whole sets of data compared among one another, either on various sites in a single time segment or on a single site throughout subsequent periods of time. In this vision, a single corn of grain gives evidence on the behaviour of whole generations of ancient agriculturalists and is to be preferred to whatever ingenious spiritual constructs may be put forward by modern specialists to classify such evidence as pottery rims, architectural plans or art motifs. Of course, I hasten to add
Figure 0.1 The Mesopotamian alluvial plain. Unlike many other lands of the world, southern Mesopotamia displays only one single precise, definable and certain landscape feature: the line of the horizon, a frontier between two indefinites—the borderless clayey plain and the vast expanses of the sky.
that this statement involves in no way any depreciatory attitude to such pursuits. All I wish to point out is that such procedures, having immense value in terms of individual subhistorical disciplines like archaeology, art history, philology (in relation to written evidence) and the like belong properly to the heuristic phase of historical research while their relevance to the synthetical phases of the historians work is mediated by the amount of historical information they carry.
This essentially comparative manner of viewing the past opens the way to classifications of phenomena which we may not understand presently but which, by their repeated occurrence in well-defined spatiotemporal contexts, supply information relevant to the historical processes. What I have in mind here is a kind of ‘archaeological syntax’ of the individual components of material culture. I fear that up to now, archaeological research has in many instances tended to result in ‘archaeological lexicography’, wherein individual pieces of information are disengaged from their original contexts and re- arranged into intellectual constructions that may have little in common with their original environment. A case in point is the current practice of publication of major sites in the form of treatments of individual find categories (pottery, stone or metal artifacts, ecofacts and the like), in which the reconstitution of the original find contexts represents a highly laborious and time-consuming procedure. Even if we do not know what the ancient clay figurines were used for, for instance, their transfer from settlement rubbish to the
proximity of graves or even to their interiors clearly gives palaeohistorical evidence worth registering. It is thus on such highly eloquent sources, broad comparisons and notices of presence or absence that my reasoning is based. I shall be pleased to hear any constructive criticism and, of course, I do humbly confess the authorship of all the errors and inconsistencies. Yet, I do claim the legitimacy of my approach, attempting to integrate all indications of the sphere of material evidence and later of written texts into a coherent pattern of understanding and explanation of the historical course of events. (On modern archaeological method and theory see Kosso 1991.)
The reader may perhaps be surprised to find Neolithic artifacts illustrated in sections on the Chalcolithic. The reason behind this is my desire to provide as many illustrations as possible of the common, ‘ordinary’ artifacts that turn up so frequently in excavations of prehistoric but also later sites. In this manner, the later chapters, dedicated to the emergence and rise of literate society and the state, can feature highly accomplished examples of material culture. In their turn, these will then provide meaningful insights into the dynamics of historical movements of later times.
In the time which has elapsed since the publication of the first version of this book in 1993, a number of excellent studies on the same subject have seen the light of day. Highly inspiring examples of these are Bernbeck 1994; Breniquet 1996; Forest 1996; Frangipane 1996; Maisels 1993; Myers 1997; Pollock 1999; Postgate 1994; and Sasson et al. 1995. It is a considerable honour and pleasure for me to join this modest attempt to the fruit of efforts applied by such distinguished authors. If and when I diverge from their lines of reasoning, I certainly do not do so because of disregard for their conclusions. I rather feel convinced that the many paths we pursue lead to one goal common to all of us—more light on the history of ancient Mesopotamia, one of the pristine civilizations of humankind, to the inhabitants of which we are all so much obliged to this day.
I acknowledge with pleasure my indebtedness to those who have helped me along. My work was carried out in two institutes of the then Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Archaeological and Oriental. I must begin with thanking cordially Dr Jana Peirková, Vice-Director of the Oriental Institute in 1993, who initiated a series of events that led ultimately to my finding employment in the latter institute whereby my sixteen-year banishment from ancient Oriental studies ended. In both institutes, I have greatly profited from discussions with, and the suggestions of, a number of learned friends and colleagues. In the Institute of Archaeology, I feel especially obliged to Slavomil Vencl, Natalie Venclová, Zdenk Smetánka, Jan Klápšt and Jan Frolík. In the Oriental Institute, my thanks go to Blahoslav Hruška and Jií Prosecký, who has been my patient tutor in matters of computer use. A number of questions were clarified as a consequence of my studies in the library of the Seminar für Vorderasiatische Altertumskunde der Freien Universität Berlin, for the kind permission of access to which, as well as for help in a number of interconnected questions, I am obliged to Prof. Dr Johannes Renger of the same university. I have always greatly profited from discussions with, and the suggestions of, Prof. Dr Hans J.Nissen of the Freie Universität Berlin. Roger J.Matthews, Director of the British Archaeological Expedition to Iraq, not only invited me to participate in the 1989 Jemdet Nasr campaign but made accessible to me the rich funds of the Baghdad library of the BAE, wherefore I thank him most cordially. I am obliged for most interesting discussions and hints to Susan Pollock of the State University of New York at Binghamton, NY. For manifold help, a host of interesting suggestions and
assistance in practical matters I am indebted to Jean-Louis Huot of the French Archaeological Institutes in the Near East (Damascus, Amman, Beirut), Annie Caubet of the Louvre Museum in Paris as well as to Jesús Gil Fuensanta, Head of the Spanish Archaeological Mission to Turkey, of which I am now a member. I greatly appreciate the move of Gwendolyn Leick who first suggested that Routledge take up the new edition of this book, and of this book, and thank the anonymous assessor who found such kind words for it.
My wife, Kateina Charvátová, and both my sons, Jan and Ondej, had to live with the ancient Mesopotamians for more than a decade. I…
First published as Ancient Mesopotamia—Humankind’s Long Journey into Civilization by the Oriental Institute, Prague, 1993 This revised and updated edition published 2002 by Routledge 11
New Fetter Lane, London EC4P 4EE
Simultaneously published in the USA and Canada by Routledge 29 West 35th Street, New York, NY 10001
Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group This edition published in the Taylor & Francis e-Library, 2005.
“ To purchase your own copy of this or any of Taylor & Francis or Routledge’s collection of thousands of eBooks please go to http://www.ebookstore.tandf.co.uk/.”
© 2002 Petr Charvát
All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic,
mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any
information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers.
British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library
Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Charvát, Petr.
Mesopotamia before history/Petr Charvát.—Rev. and updated ed. p. cm.
Rev. ed. of: Ancient Mesopotamia. c1993. Includes bibliographical references and index
1. Iraq—Civilization—To 634. 2. Iraq—Antiquities. 3. Excavations (Archaeology)—Iraq. I. Charvát, Petr. Ancient Mesopotamia. II. Title
DS70.7 .C47 2002 935-dc21 2001058964
ISBN 0-203-16481-4 Master e-book ISBN
ISBN 0-203-25907-6 (Adobe e-Reader Format) ISBN 0-415-25104-4 (Print Edition)
Contents
3 The Neolithic 16
4 The Chalcolithic 49
5 The Uruk culture: A civilization is born 118
6 When kingship descended upon the earth: the Jemdet Nasr and Early Dynastic periods 191
7 Conclusions 278
1.1 A pre-pottery Neolithic skull from a Palestinian site 3
2.1 Masonry of cigar-shaped sun-dried mud bricks, aceramic Neolithic site of Nemrik 9
2.2 Two of the phases of the aceramic Neolithic house at Qermez Dere 12
2.3 The border between irrigated land and the clayey steppe in southern Mesopotamia 14
3.1 A Neolithic ‘husking tray’ 18
3.2 One of the tells in the clayey steppe of southern Mesopotamia 20
3.3 Painted and appliqué designs on Hassuna culture Neolithic pottery from Yarimtepe I 23
3.4 Forms of Neolithic pottery of the Hassuna culture from Yarimtepe I 23
3.5 An irrigated field in southern Mesopotamia 26
3.6 Forms of Hassuna culture Neolithic pottery from Yarimtepe I 28
3.7 The sun setting over the alluvial plain of southern Mesopotamia 28
3.8 Forms of Hassuna culture Neolithic pottery from Yarimtepe I 30
3.9 The river Euphrates, a scene familiar to the ancient Mesopotamians 33
3.10 A Neolithic painted bowl of the Samarra culture 35
3.11 Reconstruction of the use of a Neolithic chipped-flint borer 37
3.12 Head of a Neolithic Samarra culture female statuette from Tell Songor A 38
3.13 The river Euphrates leaves the Taurus mountain ranges and flows into the Syrian plains 41
3.14 A Neolithic Samarra culture female statuette from Tell Songor A 45
3.15 Neolithic chipped stone industry of the Hassuna culture from Yarimtepe I 45
3.16 Examples of Neolithic ground stone industry and chipped stone items of the Hassuna culture 47
3.17 Close to the Euphrates and Tigris rivers the clayey steppe gives way to lush greenery 48
4.1 Examples of Neolithic ground stone ornaments from the aceramic Neolithic site of Tell Maghzaliya 52
4.2 Examples of Neolithic ground stone industry from the aceramic Neolithic site of Tell Maghzaliya 53
4.3 Neolithic ground stone bracelets from Tell Maghzaliya 55
4.4 A valley in the Taurus mountain range 56
4.5 Neolithic beads of stone and obsidian from Tell Maghzaliya 60
4.6 Neolithic beads of stone, obsidian and shell from Tell Maghzaliya 60
4.7 Summits and slopes of the Taurus mountain ranges 62
4.8 A Neolithic ground stone hoe. Hassuna culture, Yarimtepe I 64
4.9 Reconstruction of a Neolithic house. Hassuna culture, the site of Hajji Firuz 65
4.10 The estuary of the Nahr el-Kelb river on the outskirts of the modern city of Beirut 68
4.11 Chalcolithic sickles of burnt clay. Ubaid to Uruk age 69
4.12 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Brak 72
4.13 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Halaf 73
4.14 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Arpachiyah 75
4.15 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Tepe Gawra 76
4.16 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Arpachiyah 78
4.17 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Arpachiyah 79
4.18 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Chagar Bazar 79
4.19 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Halaf culture, the site of Chagar Bazar 80
4.20 Ubaid culture sickles of baked clay point to the high level of Ubaid pyrotechnology and know-how 81
4.21 A Chalcolithic painted cup. Halaf culture, the site of Chagar Bazar 83
4.22 A Chalcolithic painted jar. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Arpachiyah 83
4.23 A Chalcolithic painted jar. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Arpachiyah 84
4.24 A Chalcolithic painted jar. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Arpachiyah 85
4.25 The Mediterranean port of Byblos 86
4.26 A Chalcolithic model of a seagoing ship. Late Ubaid culture, the site of Eridu 87
4.27 A Chalcolithic painted jar. Final phase of the Halaf culture, the site of Tepe Gawra 88
4.28 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Early Ubaid culture, the site of Eridu 90
4.29 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Early Ubaid culture, the site of Eridu 91
4.30 A Chalcolithic painted bowl. Early Ubaid culture, the site of Eridu 92
4.31 Typical local houses built of clay or stone with ceilings of timber 94
4.32 Chalcolithic painted cups. Late Ubaid culture, the site of Eridu 95
4.33 A Chalcolithic spouted bottle and spouted painted jugs. Late Ubaid culture, the site of Eridu 96
4.34 Modern houses with domed roofs of clay in Harran, south-east Turkey 96
4.35 A Chalcolithic female statuette. Halaf culture, the site of Yarimtepe III 99
4.36 Chalcolithic animal figurines. Halaf culture, the site of Yarimtepe III 99
4.37 A Chalcolithic female statuette. Late Ubaid culture, the site of Tell Awayli 101
4.38 A Chalcolithic sealing from the west Iranian site of Susa 102
4.39 Pendant seals of stone of the Chalcolithic age. Halaf culture, the site of Yarimtepe II 104
4.40 A necklace of cowrie shells used among groups of small beads for a Chalcolithic sealing of a jar with a lid 107
4.41 Ubaid culture beakers available to wide circles of Chalcolithic consumers 108
4.42 A series of Chalcolithic round buildings (tholoi) on stone foundations. Halaf culture, the site of Tell Arpachiyah 113
5.1 Pottery vessels of the Uruk culture 118
5.2 A Late Uruk sealing showing a man ascending a ladder with a sack of grain 119
5.3 A bevelled-rim bowl of the Late Uruk age 120
5.4 Ubaid or Uruk age spindle whorls from Uruk 123
5.5 Late Uruk fishing hooks of copper from Habuba Kabira 126
5.6 Amulets and pendants worn in the Late Uruk age 129
5.7 Reconstructed view of the Late Uruk fortified site at Hassek Höyük 140
5.8 Late Uruk age tools 147
5.9 A Late Uruk lock 152
5.10 Reconstruction of a Late Uruk ‘temple’ on a terrace 154
5.11 Scenes carved on the Late Uruk alabaster vase from Uruk 166
5.12 A Late Uruk grave from Jemdet Nasr 171
5.13 Brick masonry of the ‘great residence’ at Jemdet Nasr 176
5.14 Large round kilns in one of the annexes of the Jemdet Nasr ‘great residence’ 179
5.15 A proto-cuneiform text from Uruk 181
5.16 A spindle whorl from Jemdet Nasr with a sign of proto- cuneiform writing 183
5.17 A fragment of a protective bitumen coating bearing an impression of a reed mat 185
5.18 Two spindle whorls from Jemdet Nasr on which images of women and men 'danced' 187
5.19 Fresco painting of a leopard dating to the Late Uruk age from Tel Uqair 188
6.1 A brick from Jemdet Nasr preserves the impression of the mat on which it was laid to dry 191
6.2 Fragments of painted pottery from Jemdet Nasr 195
6.3 A spindle whorl from Jemdet Nasr 202
6.4 A sealing on clay from Jemdet Nasr 207
6.5 A sealing on clay bearing an image of a temple façade with a central doorway 211
6.6 The reverse side of the preceding sealing showing clear impressions of a reed mat 212
6.7 An Early Dynastic depiction of milking cows on a temple frieze 214
6.8 A solid-footed goblet of the Early Dynastic age 220
6.9 A copper/bronze bowl from the grave of King Meskalamdu at Ur 222
6.10 An impression of a cylinder seal on clay from Jemdet Nasr 225
6.11 The reverse side of the preceding seal impression showing the folds and wrinkles of a leather bag 225
6.12 Statuette of a pink stone bull from Jemdet Nasr 227
6.13 The corner of a monumental brick building from the earlier part of the Early Dynastic age at Jemdet Nasr 231
6.14 The present state of the later Early Dynastic ‘Abu temple’ at Tell Asmar on the Diyala river 238
6.15 Two solid-footed goblets of the earlier part of the Early Dynastic age 241
6.16 Large jars of water were frequently provided at the courts of temples of the third pre-Christian millennium 248
6.17 The once spacious residences of the Near Eastern élites of the third pre-Christian millennium 251
6.18 A Sumerian warrior of the Early Dynastic age on a mother-of- pearl inlay from Mari 253
6.19 A silver vase of Enmetena or Entemena, ensi of Lagash 257
6.20 Reconstruction of an Early Dynastic Sumerian temple. The Bagara of Ningirsu at Lagash 261
6.21 A copper/bronze jar from the grave of King Meskalamdu at Ur 266
6.22 A contemporary burial excavated at the Early Dynastic building at Jemdet Nasr 267
6.23 A spouted flagon of copper/bronze from the grave of King Meskalamdu at Ur 269
6.24 Two libation vessels(?) of gold and silver from the grave of King Meskalamdu at Ur 272
6.25 Fragment of a sculptured plaque of the later Early Dynastic age from Lagash 276
Introduction
This book was written in 1991–1992 but incorporates elements of research that I carried out much earlier, in fact, since the beginning of the 1970s. It is an account of my work over a period of time when I was labouring ad maiorem Orientis antiquissimi gloriam only in my spare time, having had, principally for existential reasons, quite different official commitments. A further impulse towards the writing of this text has been constituted by my lectures on the archaeology of ancient Mesopotamia at the Faculty of Philosophy of Charles University, Prague, in 1982–1983 and then in 1990–1991. Things have changed considerably since 1993 and now courses on ancient Oriental archaeology have been included in the curricula of two other universities in the Czech Republic. I greatly appreciate the interest in my book expressed by colleagues both at home and abroad, as well as the decision by Routledge to launch a new edition of this treatise, on which I worked for most of the years 2000–2001.
As to the spatiotemporal dimension of this book, ‘Mesopotamia’ is to be understood in terms of the present territory of the Republic of Iraq. Sites outside this are cited for parallels but not systematically investigated. ‘Ancient’ means from the earliest human occupation of Mesopotamia down to 2334 BC when a fully fledged territorial state emerged in the territory in question.
In all my subsequent considerations, I view archaeology as the study of material traces of human behaviour in the past. I fear that all definitions concerning only the utilitarian aspects of past human activities are, for one thing, too narrow, and, for another, too much biased by the modern point of view. I believe that there is no a priori division of ancient, and especially pre-literate, human activities into ‘utilitarian’ and those which we have perceived until recently, in coarsest pseudo-Marxist terms, as ‘determined by the economic base’. If we fall prey to putting forward questions determined by our own vision of the past, we clearly run the risk of finding in our materials only answers to precisely this kind of interrogation which, in such a case, will be a loss well merited on our part. For myself, I can only confess that I have never felt conceited enough to prescribe to the ancients what they should and what they should not have done. My chief concern and fascination has always been best expressed by the famous maxim of Vere Gordon Childe, namely ‘what happened in history’. This orientation, in its essence rather palaeo-historic than purely archaeological and incorporating data yielded by written sources as soon as they appear, leads me to rely especially on two categories of evidence: those singular sources that comprise the greatest possible amount of information about human behaviour in the past, and then whole sets of data compared among one another, either on various sites in a single time segment or on a single site throughout subsequent periods of time. In this vision, a single corn of grain gives evidence on the behaviour of whole generations of ancient agriculturalists and is to be preferred to whatever ingenious spiritual constructs may be put forward by modern specialists to classify such evidence as pottery rims, architectural plans or art motifs. Of course, I hasten to add
Figure 0.1 The Mesopotamian alluvial plain. Unlike many other lands of the world, southern Mesopotamia displays only one single precise, definable and certain landscape feature: the line of the horizon, a frontier between two indefinites—the borderless clayey plain and the vast expanses of the sky.
that this statement involves in no way any depreciatory attitude to such pursuits. All I wish to point out is that such procedures, having immense value in terms of individual subhistorical disciplines like archaeology, art history, philology (in relation to written evidence) and the like belong properly to the heuristic phase of historical research while their relevance to the synthetical phases of the historians work is mediated by the amount of historical information they carry.
This essentially comparative manner of viewing the past opens the way to classifications of phenomena which we may not understand presently but which, by their repeated occurrence in well-defined spatiotemporal contexts, supply information relevant to the historical processes. What I have in mind here is a kind of ‘archaeological syntax’ of the individual components of material culture. I fear that up to now, archaeological research has in many instances tended to result in ‘archaeological lexicography’, wherein individual pieces of information are disengaged from their original contexts and re- arranged into intellectual constructions that may have little in common with their original environment. A case in point is the current practice of publication of major sites in the form of treatments of individual find categories (pottery, stone or metal artifacts, ecofacts and the like), in which the reconstitution of the original find contexts represents a highly laborious and time-consuming procedure. Even if we do not know what the ancient clay figurines were used for, for instance, their transfer from settlement rubbish to the
proximity of graves or even to their interiors clearly gives palaeohistorical evidence worth registering. It is thus on such highly eloquent sources, broad comparisons and notices of presence or absence that my reasoning is based. I shall be pleased to hear any constructive criticism and, of course, I do humbly confess the authorship of all the errors and inconsistencies. Yet, I do claim the legitimacy of my approach, attempting to integrate all indications of the sphere of material evidence and later of written texts into a coherent pattern of understanding and explanation of the historical course of events. (On modern archaeological method and theory see Kosso 1991.)
The reader may perhaps be surprised to find Neolithic artifacts illustrated in sections on the Chalcolithic. The reason behind this is my desire to provide as many illustrations as possible of the common, ‘ordinary’ artifacts that turn up so frequently in excavations of prehistoric but also later sites. In this manner, the later chapters, dedicated to the emergence and rise of literate society and the state, can feature highly accomplished examples of material culture. In their turn, these will then provide meaningful insights into the dynamics of historical movements of later times.
In the time which has elapsed since the publication of the first version of this book in 1993, a number of excellent studies on the same subject have seen the light of day. Highly inspiring examples of these are Bernbeck 1994; Breniquet 1996; Forest 1996; Frangipane 1996; Maisels 1993; Myers 1997; Pollock 1999; Postgate 1994; and Sasson et al. 1995. It is a considerable honour and pleasure for me to join this modest attempt to the fruit of efforts applied by such distinguished authors. If and when I diverge from their lines of reasoning, I certainly do not do so because of disregard for their conclusions. I rather feel convinced that the many paths we pursue lead to one goal common to all of us—more light on the history of ancient Mesopotamia, one of the pristine civilizations of humankind, to the inhabitants of which we are all so much obliged to this day.
I acknowledge with pleasure my indebtedness to those who have helped me along. My work was carried out in two institutes of the then Czechoslovak Academy of Sciences, Archaeological and Oriental. I must begin with thanking cordially Dr Jana Peirková, Vice-Director of the Oriental Institute in 1993, who initiated a series of events that led ultimately to my finding employment in the latter institute whereby my sixteen-year banishment from ancient Oriental studies ended. In both institutes, I have greatly profited from discussions with, and the suggestions of, a number of learned friends and colleagues. In the Institute of Archaeology, I feel especially obliged to Slavomil Vencl, Natalie Venclová, Zdenk Smetánka, Jan Klápšt and Jan Frolík. In the Oriental Institute, my thanks go to Blahoslav Hruška and Jií Prosecký, who has been my patient tutor in matters of computer use. A number of questions were clarified as a consequence of my studies in the library of the Seminar für Vorderasiatische Altertumskunde der Freien Universität Berlin, for the kind permission of access to which, as well as for help in a number of interconnected questions, I am obliged to Prof. Dr Johannes Renger of the same university. I have always greatly profited from discussions with, and the suggestions of, Prof. Dr Hans J.Nissen of the Freie Universität Berlin. Roger J.Matthews, Director of the British Archaeological Expedition to Iraq, not only invited me to participate in the 1989 Jemdet Nasr campaign but made accessible to me the rich funds of the Baghdad library of the BAE, wherefore I thank him most cordially. I am obliged for most interesting discussions and hints to Susan Pollock of the State University of New York at Binghamton, NY. For manifold help, a host of interesting suggestions and
assistance in practical matters I am indebted to Jean-Louis Huot of the French Archaeological Institutes in the Near East (Damascus, Amman, Beirut), Annie Caubet of the Louvre Museum in Paris as well as to Jesús Gil Fuensanta, Head of the Spanish Archaeological Mission to Turkey, of which I am now a member. I greatly appreciate the move of Gwendolyn Leick who first suggested that Routledge take up the new edition of this book, and of this book, and thank the anonymous assessor who found such kind words for it.
My wife, Kateina Charvátová, and both my sons, Jan and Ondej, had to live with the ancient Mesopotamians for more than a decade. I…
Related Documents
