The Early History of the Ancient Near East (9000-2000 BC)

by Hans J Nissen

  Figure 42. Form and decoration of the “cult vase” from Uruk, dating to the Late Uruk–Jamdet Nasr period. From E. Heinrich, Kleinfunde aus den Archaischen Tempelschichten in Uruk, (Berlin, 1936), pls. 2, 38.

  Apart from the content of the friezes, we are interested in their composition, the strict ordering of which can be explained by a belief to which we have found repeated references. It is not only by their external framing—for example, the gradually increasing heights of the friezes—that the pictorial strips make the uppermost inevitably appear to be the most important. The water, plants, animals, ordinary people, and people of higher rank in the strips are arranged in such a way that the sequence must, of necessity, illustrate a view of the world that carefully fits man’s own existence into a hierarchy by comparing him with all the surrounding phenomena. Here, perhaps, the intellectual roots of the conversion of all areas of life into a hierarchy are most clearly visible.

  We possess numerous works of art from the period of early high civilization, mostly however objects in isolation, torn from their context, so that we can say nothing of their function or intent. The question of whether they had a cultic connotation or not would probably in any case not be the right one to ask in this form, since we are not even in a position to answer the question of whether there was a distinction of any sort made between cult and noncult objects. On another level, the question of whether there were differences between public and private art can also not yet be answered, because, up until now, the interests of the excavators have only been directed at the public areas of these settlements, and hence private houses in Babylonia from this period are unknown. Most of the objects known to us probably do, therefore, come from this public sector of the community.

  We are left with more open questions than positive answers. We can, however, still conclude that in the period of early high civilization communal energies were evidently released to such an extent that speedy and comprehensive changes took place in all fields of life. This energy was so great that the rate of change increased rather than decreased in the following two to three hundred years during which a development took place in Babylonia that influenced the course of history more enduringly than many another.

  Figure 43. The “Lady of Uruk” and the “Little King,” both from Uruk, dating to the Late Uruk–Jamdet Nasr period. From A Nöldeke, Uruk Vorbericht 11 (1940), pl. 1; H. J. Lenzen, Uruk Vorbericht 16 (1960), pl. 17a.

  The discussion has thus far centered on Uruk and its hinterland because hardly anything is known about other places in Babylonia, such as, for example, Ur, Lagash, Nippur, and Kish, during the period of early high civilization apart from the fact that they were inhabited. The things found there have such a direct connection with the finds from Uruk that we can certainly assume that there was the same cultural context throughout Babylonia. We should like to know more about mutual relations between the larger centers, but our material is inadequate for this.

  If we assume, for the time being, that Babylonia was subdivided into a number of political entities, each of which—as was the case with Uruk—consisted of a center with a surrounding hinterland, then this corresponds to a picture that, it is true, matches situations of a later date, but that so far is not confirmed by anything at all. As we shall see, considerable expansion of trade took place, radiating outward from Babylonia, above all during the Late Uruk period. This expansion proceeded in all directions in the Near East and was connected in part with the setting up of “colonies,” and in part simply with a strong cultural expansion, for which—in addition to economic necessity—a political imperative must also have been operating. Was every center active on its own, or was there—perhaps for this purpose alone—something like a supraregional political alliance?

  Epics, which were admittedly written later, but which in part describe events from the period of early high civilization, allow us to assume that the initiatives proceeded rather more from individual cities. Thus, for example, the Enmerkar epic tells us about the economic relationship between Uruk and Aratta, a city in what is today central Iran that has not yet been located. No other centers in Babylonia are mentioned as being linked with the outside world in this way, but we lack the basic evidence to say anything more definite on the subject.

  Though linkage must, of course, always have existed on a more general level, the first signs of some sort of institutionalization of the relationships of these political units with one another are from the last phase of the period of early high civilization, the Early Dynastic I period. These are the cylinder seal impressions found in many different places in Babylonia, especially at Ur, that bear nothing but the written symbols for various cities (fig. 29c). The theory that in this case we are dealing with the official seals of economic unions to which the cities mentioned on the seals all belonged is a very plausible one. Unfortunately, this period has left us so little information about itself that this theory cannot at present be supported by anything else. Further discussion will, however, show that such unions would fit in completely with the general picture of development.

  Susiana, the foremost of Babylon’s neighboring regions, had seen a diversity of new developments in the period preceding the early high civilization period. Physically, this region is very similar to Babylonia. It, too, was an alluvial plain created by rivers in a section of the large rift valley whose southern part is now covered by the Gulf. However, one difference has already been mentioned, namely, that Susiana lay in an area where, for the larger part, dry farming was still possible.

  According to the previous chapter, it might be expected that, of all the areas in the Near East, Susiana would be most likely to show the same development as Babylonia. The fact that this assumption does not hold true must be explained in detail. First of all, however, we must give a short sketch of Susiana’s development.

  Situated in the direct foreland of the Zagros Mountains, Susiana was probably never marshland, except for its southern part, which even today has hardly been settled. Thus, from the most ancient time on, Susiana represented a large coherent tract of settlement land that awaited exploitation as soon as the organizational and technical preconditions came into being. In the previous chapter we saw how this led to a continuous development of settlement in Susiana, which, in the Middle and Late Susiana phases, that is, at the time of the Ubaid period in Babylonia, had led to a relatively dense settlement of the land. The complex settlement systems, with the creation of centers, that grew up under these conditions contrasted with the widely separated isolated settlements in water-logged Babylonia. However, on the whole, both areas formed parts of a greater unity. The surprising thing comes with the changes that led to the next phase.

  Unlike the development in Babylonia, where a slow change took place from the painted pottery of the late Ubaid period to the unpainted pottery—made on the potter’s wheel—of the Uruk period, with some repetition and parallel developments in the intermediate phase, in Susiana, the richly painted pottery of the Late Susiana phase was followed directly—with no noticeable transition—by unpainted pottery, thrown on the wheel, of the sort we know from the Uruk period in Babylonia. This observation suggests that this clearly recognizable pottery was developed in Babylonia and taken over by Susiana.

  This statement can be expanded. In Susiana, it was not only the special way of producing pottery that was taken over, but also almost all the other developments we have learned of in Babylonia. Thus, for example, we again find all the details previously assembled in trying to build up a picture of economic conditions. On the one hand, we have the mass appearance of bevel-rimmed bowls; on the other, tally stones, sealed balls, cylinder seals from both of the large groups, clay tablets that only have impressions of numbers on them, and, finally, writing. It is no easy task to define an independent development in Susiana at this time. Since the excavations in Susa and in other places that reveal strata from this period have not led to the uncovering of such large areas as in Uruk, we have to regard the absence of large bui
ldings and of monumental sculpture as pure chance; but other differences may justifiably be regarded as significant.

  One important argument in favor of the idea that, in spite of all the things they had in common, there must also have been fundamental differences, is provided by an examination of the writing. It seems to emerge in its usable form somewhat later in Susiana than in Babylonia. It is true that it corresponds exactly to Babylonian writing in the materials used and in the technique and elements of writing, but it uses different symbols and most probably reproduces a different language. Unfortunately, efforts to decipher these tablets have not yet been successful. Close inspection also reveals differences in the things represented on the cylinder seals. In Susiana, these are drawn from a wider thematic area than in Babylonia and, judging by the way they are put together, may well be based partly on different concepts. Thus, whole series of seals show scenes connected with the theme of the siege and conquest of a city or scenes representing the erection of buildings, themes that were of course actualities in Babylonia too, but were apparently not depicted there. The common factors mentioned above were therefore probably more related to economic and other forms of organization. We can deduce this from the fact that all the things necessary for organization, such as all means of control, even including the system of ration containers, had been taken over. Each area’s own cultural traditions were probably largely untouched by all of this and took their own shape as soon as an opportunity presented itself.

  Figure 44. Cylinder seals and protoelamite tablets from Chogha Mish (a, c) and Susa, dating from the Late Uruk–Jamdet Nasr period. After (a, c) P. P. Delougaz and H. J. Kantor, “New Evidence for the Prehistoric and Protoliterate Culture Development of Khuzestan,” Vth Congress of Iranian Art and Archaeology (Teheran, 1972), pl. 10b, d; (b) L. Legrain, Memoirs de la Del. Arch. en Perse 16 (1921), no. 330; (d) P. Amiet, “La Glyptique de l’Acropole,” Cahiers de la DAFI 1 (1971), fig. 43.10; (e) A. Le Brun and F. Vallat, “L’Origine de l’écriture a Suse,” Cahiers de la DAFI 8 (1978), fig. 4; (f) V. Scheil, Mem. de la Del. Arch. en Perse 17 (1923), pl. 7, no. 45.

  This strong mutuality seems to have lasted for a relatively short time, that is, only during the Late Uruk period. The extent to which this mutuality had already begun to dissolve in the following phase is shown, for example, by the fact that from the Jamdet Nasr period on, the system of distributing rations using special containers was no longer maintained, at least not according to the Babylonian pattern. The earlier mass-produced types of bevel-rimmed bowls, which were just as numerous in Susiana as in Babylonia, had no successors. Among the subsequent types of pottery found in Susiana there is no type that can in any way be described as mass-produced, whereas the development in Babylonia during this and the following period was characterized precisely by the spread of mass-produced wares.

  On the other hand, one aspect of the complex from the Uruk period, which probably fell victim to new forms of organization in Babylonia after the Late Uruk period, survived in Susiana—the carrying out of business transactions with faraway regions, insofar as this can be perceived through archaeological methods. Tepe Sialk, Tepe Yahya on the central Iranian plateau, and Shahr-i-Sokhtah in distant Seistan are probably examples of such outposts that retained their connections with Susiana.

  Figure 45. Protoelamite seals, from Susa. From L. Delaporte, Musée du Louvre, Cat. des cylindres orientaux I (Paris, 1920), (a) pl. 24.8, (b) pl. 26.7.

  Similar differences to those we have mentioned before can be observed in writing. From the sort of rapid changes that took place in Babylonia the conclusion can quite unambiguously be drawn that the aim was to make writing more readily usable, so that the range of uses for writing obviously became larger. However, in Susiana the form of writing remains remarkably static. During the period that in Babylonia brought far-reaching changes in writing techniques, and thus in the appearance of writing, there is no sign of any internal changes at all in writing from Susiana. After a short time this so-called “proto-Elamite” writing even ceased to be used. This happened at a time when writing in Babylonia gradually found itself on the way toward the stage of development that, for the first time, allowed complicated texts to be written down in faithful detail.

  It is almost superfluous to point out that changes in building techniques because of the introduction of the plano-convex brick, which we referred to when discussing the sphere of development of socioeconomic conditions in Babylonia, also did not occur. Here, the normal building material remained the flat brick, which had been in use for a very long time.

  In Babylonia a culture was constantly expanding both internally and in relation to the outside world. In place of this, in Susiana during the period contemporary with the Early Dynastic I period in Babylonia, we find a form of economic and cultural life that, in its outward expression, was rather more similar to what we know of in Susiana before the assumption of the civilization of the Late Uruk period. Things we have seen to be essential yardsticks for the further development of civilization, such as writing and cylinder seals, were no longer developed independently here, and only art found a new sphere of activity in its old medium, the painting of pottery, which had ceased to be practised in the intervening period.

  This whole development is remarkable because, as noted, conditions and opportunities in both areas were, at least for a time, so similar that one might reasonably expect that forms of economic organization would also be similar or the same. There must, therefore, be an explanation for the fact that this form of civilization could expand and develop further in Babylonia, but collapsed in Susiana. However, here we must remind ourselves that this form of civilization grew up in Babylonia and was merely taken over by Susiana. Thus we are, once again, thrown back on the question of why this form should occur in Babylonia and not in the neighboring areas.

  We have already given a general answer to this question by pointing to the relatively sudden opportunity for settlement that arose in this large, coherent habitable tract of land, to the necessity of providing the land with artificial irrigation, and to the greater density of settlements that this made possible. On the other hand, the fact that, in spite of the absence of these criteria, the civilization of the Late Uruk period could be taken over almost in its entirety by Susiana shows how low the threshold must have been that prevented Susiana from achieving the same degree of organization by its own efforts.

  The greater the change in organizational forms suited specifically to conditions in Babylonia, the higher this threshold grew, so that with the sharp pace of change in Babylonia, the time soon had to come when new organizational structures created there no longer had any meaning for the management of living conditions in Susiana, because of differences in scale. Then the answer could no longer lie in a retention of the forms that had been taken over, but in a return to forms of organization more relevant to Susiana’s own conditions. This development allows us to return to one of our former lines of thought, because we can hardly think of a better example for the proposition that in the Early Period the size of the interconnected economic and settlement areas was closely related to the degree of complexity of forms of organization.

  On account of this fundamental difference between the two great plains, it is in no way possible for us to fill in the gaps in our knowledge about conditions in Susiana by using our information about Babylonia. We can find no evidence for Susiana to confirm what has already been said about the state of the division of labor and the strict hierarchy, or about forced labor as a means of carrying out a great collective project, though we cannot on this account rule out these forms of organization. The fact that we know of high terraces, which must definitely have originally been surmounted by temples, as the only form of cult buildings, a form that has its equivalent in Babylonia, still gives us no right immediately to draw conclusions from this about common factors in the field of religion. But we also find no material from the early period that would support the assumption that religious concepts differed
greatly, as they did in the later period. At points like this, when we already possess a considerable number of pieces from the original mosaic, gaps in our knowledge become more apparent than in other places.

  As we said earlier, up to this time the Zagros area was always in the front line of developments. After a dense pattern of settlement had spread out during the Late Susiana period by creating settlement hierarchies in valleys and on small plains, the changeover to the phase that corresponds roughly to the Uruk period in Babylonia is even more striking. In rare agreement, all surface investigations of these valleys and plains in the Zagros Mountains have shown that the number of settlements shrank considerably, if indeed any one of these settlements survived into this period at all. One impressive example of this is the small plain of Behbehan, which has already been mentioned (fig. 15), where there is not a single pottery fragment to indicate that the rich settlement tradition of the previous period was carried on. It is only on very few such plains that at least one settlement remained alive.