the uruk world system and hacinebi

Birkbeck Certificate in Ancient Near Eastern & Aegean Studies.Prehistory of the Ancient Near East (10,000-3500 BC).Chris Allen. December 2012.

The World System model views interregional exchange as a core controlled mover of socio-political change in peripheral economies. With reference toHacinebi, discuss the evidence for Uruk dominated trade and exchange.

The Uruk ‘Phenomenon’

During the fourth millennium BC, a major change took place across the

ancient near east. There was a transition from small scale ‘village’

settlements to larger scale ‘city’ size settlements; and an increase in the

number of settlements across the whole area. The significance of these

changes for human civilisation has been referred to as the ‘urban

revolution’. (Childe 1972 43; Roaf 1990 58). At this time, the pre-eminent

city was Uruk (Warka). By the Late Uruk period the city occupied about 250

hectares and had a population of tens of thousands; it had craft and

residential districts, was surrounded by a city wall, and at its centre it

had a series of temples and public buildings (Stein 1999 86). Its

sophistication implied the existence of a complex society including a

governing hierarchy, religious authority, skilled craftspersons, taxation,

knowledge, and the use of writing in particular to manage all of this.

(Roaf 1990 58-69).

1

Figure 1: Uruk style finds across Mesopotamia (Roaf 1990 64)

Evidence of Uruk influence has been discovered across the whole region

(figure 1) from modern eastern Turkey and northern Syria through

Mesopotamia to Iran. This is mainly in the form of pottery such as beveled

rim bowls, but also seals and building style. (Roaf 1990 64). The scale of

the city of Uruk, and its relationships with settlements across a wide

geographical area, has stimulated much debate about the exact nature of

this influence.

A World System Model…?

The World System model was formulated by I. Wallerstein in his studies of

European and third world economies in the early colonial period. The key

insight was the recognition that the changes in each could only be properly

understood in relation to each other: they functioned as a single political

and economic system. In such a system there is an increasing ‘asymmetry’ :

the more developed ‘core’ society dominates the weaker less developed

‘periphery’ culturally and in extracting much greater value in the trading

relationship which it also controls (Renfrew & Bahn 2000 352; Johnson 1999

80; Stein 1999 10). It is a very broad ranging model with the potential to

be deployed to understand different cultures at different times.

2

In this context, the dynamics of Uruk expansion in early Mesopotamia was

advanced as a case of a World System by G. Algaze. (Algaze 1993). While

southern Mesopotamia where Uruk is located has fertile land for plentiful

agriculture, it lacks various materials for example building wood, minerals

and metals such as copper which needed to be acquired from further afield.

The ‘world system’ developed out of the trading relationships and protected

trade routes which they set up for this purpose. Surplus materials from the

Uruk area such as grain and textiles would be exchanged for the valuable

minerals. The ‘peripheral’ economies would therefore need to be controlled

to ensure this flow and this would be reflected in social and cultural

terms. In order to test his thesis, Algaze surveyed the material evidence

obtained across the region from excavations including his own. (Algaze 1993

2-10). Larger ‘urban’ type settlements were generally found closer to Uruk

in the Tigris-Euphrates valley area, and smaller settlements beyond (Algaze

1993 53).

While it is difficult to generalise, most of the evidence of Uruk

influence cited is in the form of ceramics, with architectural features,

glyptic practices, and amulets etc at some sites. (Algaze 1993 59). In the

north ie Syro-Mesopotamian area, he concluded, in support of his thesis,

that ‘the intrusive Uruk enclaves… were significantly larger and more

complex…than the indigenous sites in their vicinity’. (Algaze 1993 92). At

the time of his work however, Hacinebe had not been fully excavated, and is

mentioned only in passing. (Algaze 1993 93). In his conclusions, Algaze

refers to other models and the ‘myriad possibilities’ of relationships

between settlements and their host communities, but argues that ‘the

expansion of Uruk societies is an early example of momentum towards empire…

cluster villages controlled by the enclaves they surrounded ………enclaves

themselves dependent on Uruk city states’; and that ‘the links though

primarily economic in nature… were deeply influential in the development of

peripheral societies.. in social and economic organisation, ideology, and

concepts of leadership.’ (Algaze 1993 114-5).

3

Figure 2: Location of Hacinebi (Stein 1996 209).

A case study – Hacinebi

These conclusions have been questioned. Does the available evidence,

especially that from more detailed excavation, support the hypothesis?

Hacinebi is located at some distance north of Uruk on the river Euphrates

in south eastern Turkey. As such it is positioned (figure 2) on the main

north-south river route through the region; and at a crossing point on the

route from Mesopotamia to Turkey. The stratigraphy of the site covers pre-

(phase A) and post- Uruk (phase B) activity and thus indicates the impact

of the Uruk influence on the settlement. The pre-Uruk levels revealed

evidence of rebuilding on the site, substantial stone walls and platforms,

plastered rooms in houses, fine wheel made ceramics, and a carved stone

pendant which could have only been obtained by trading. One infant jar

burial contained silver pieces, probably indicative of status. Stamp seals

and impressions are evidence of administrative hierarchy and social

systems. All of this material is taken to be evidence of ‘the beginnings of

social complexity’ at this settlement. (Stein et al. 1996 213; Stein 1999

126).

4

In phase B, Uruk style ceramics which had been made locally were found

alongside the indigenous style. Most of this was found in the northeast

corner of the settlement where there was also evidence of rebuilding to

create a walled enclave with residential buildings inside. Many stamp seals

were found which were used in trading goods. Analysis of the sealing clays

found on site demonstrated a difference between Uruk style and Anatolian

style sealings, the former being variously on local and non-local clays.

This ‘suggests the presence of two contemporaneous groups of people each

using their own sealing systems: local people only used local clays; but

Uruk traders were also receiving sealed items from southern Mesopotamia.

(Stein 1999 143). In the enclave, evidence of bitumen was found which was

imported – perhaps as a waterproofing material. Analysis of the bones found

also revealed differences of diet reflecting different food preferences,

and methods of butchery. (Stein 1999 145.)

Figure 3: phase A stone seal stamp indicating endogenous Anatolian culture at Hacinebi

The analysis of the evidence ‘suggests the presence of a small group of

Uruk traders in the northern area of Hacinebi … [and] no evidence that they

dominated the local community… the use of both Mesopotalian and Anatolian

(figure 3) seals … suggests each group had some control over the

circulation of goods….[the traders] were an autonomous group [which lived]

alongside the local host community’. (Stein et al. 1996 222). This is in

contradiction to the prediction of the World System model in that the pre-

5

existing local culture was evidently sophisticated, and on equal terms with

that of the Uruk traders who live alongside them (figure 4) - not as their

rulers.

Trade diaspora and Distance Parity

Stein argues for different models of interaction between cultures which can

allow for the range of variations in the cultures involved and other

factors such as distance. In particular he suggests that the ‘Trade-

Diaspora’ model achieves this aim. It applies when ‘culturally distinct

groups engage in exchange under conditions when communication and

transportation are difficult..’ (Stein 1999 47). The trading groups settle

in new areas or established centres on trading routes, maintaining their

separate identity, language and beliefs, to maintain cohesion and

effectiveness as a group. For the host community their value is in the

desirable and possibly prestige goods which they can arrange to be imported

in exchange for local material unavailable in their home area.

Within this, there are a range of possible relationships between ‘core’ and

‘periphery’ of which World System type domination is at one extreme. (Stein

1999 48-55).

Figure 4: phase B kitchen deposit of characteristic Uruk style ceramics – scraper, pestles,

grindstone, bevel rim bowls. (this and fig. 3 from Northwestern Uni site Hacinebi excavation

report).

6

On the evidence from excavations there, Hacinebe fits the more usual and

equal trade-diaspora type of arrangement.

The other major factor in maintaining power between core and periphery is

distance; this in turn depends on means of transport, ease of available

routes, the nature of what is being transported and the need for protection

en route. The ‘Distance-Parity’ model expresses this with power inevitably

diminishing with distance. (Stein 1999 58-64). Clearly in view of the

distances involved between Uruk and Hacinebe, those in power in Uruk would

have had considerable difficulty in exerting or maintaining any kind of

direct power or control.

Empire & Colonies….or a trading network… or….

Algaze’s work has provoked huge debate about the growth of Uruk and the

widespread settlements across the region during this period.

The example of Hacinebe seems to ‘puncture’ the description of ‘Greater

Uruk’ as a World System and many scholars agree. It is widely acknowledged

that there is limited evidence available to understand it. Other reasons

could explain the new settlements in the region. There could have been

emigration of landless individuals to new settlements and/or new

settlements away from the fertile agricultural land to manage flocks of

sheep needed to supply wool for the weaving industry. (Akkermans & Schwartz

2003 204/5).

Faced with a barrage of criticism, Algaze’s position on the Uruk expansion

is currently more nuanced. “Upon further reflection, it became clear to me

that my initial characterisation of the Uruk phenomenon was implausible”.

Instead of a monolithic Uruk empire he now suggests that a number of Uruk

city-states were in competition for the resources to their north and east;

and set up various arrangements to acquire them. These could vary from new

colonial towns, to enclaves in indigenous settlements, on the pre-existing

trade routes, such as occurred at Hacinebi. (in Rothman 2001 55). It is

nonetheless still described by him as “the world’s first colonial

7

enterprise”. (Rothman 2001 70). On balance, and on current information,

it does appear that something more than the simple growth of trading

activity does take place. The scale of activity over a period of time, does

indicate ‘an interpretation rooted in asymmetry and domination however

transmuted by distance and time’. (Matthews 2003 122) which implies the new

city states exercising their superiority across their hinterlands.

Chris Allen December 9th 2012.

8

Bibliography

Akkermans, P. & Schwartz, G. The Archaeology of Syria. Cambridge 2003.

Algaze, G. The Uruk World System. Uni. of Chicago Press. 1993.

Childe, V.C. The Urban Revolution, in Leone, M. Contemporary Archaeology Southern

Illinois UP 1972.

Johnson, M. Archaeological Theory: An Introduction. Blackwell 1999.

Matthews, R. Archaeology of Mesopotamia: theories and approaches. Routledge 2003.

Renfrew,C & Bahn, P. Archaeology: Theories Methods & Practise. 3rd Edn. Thames & Hudson

2000.

Roaf, M. Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia. Equinox 1990.

Rothman, M. Ed. Uruk Mesopotamia & its Neighbours. School of American Research.

2001.

Stein, G. et al. Uruk colonies & Anatolian communities: report on the excavations at Hacinebi

Turkey. American Journal of Archaeology V100 2 205-222. Apr 1996. Stein, G. Re-thinking World-Systems: Diasporas colonies & interaction in Uruk Mesopotamia.

Univ. of Arizona Press. 1999.

9