mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================
Emergence of Civilizations / Anthro 341: Class 10
_
Mesopotamia: Early Dynastic period
_
ã Copyright Bruce Owen 2003
* Early Dynastic (I, II, IIIa, IIIb) 2900 BC - 2373 BC (473 years)

* The name of the period is the "Early Dynastic Period", in contrast
to later, named dynasties

* It is _not_ the "early" part of the "dynastic" period

We have lots more evidence for the Early Dynastic than for earlier
periods
* More written evidence, since writing was becoming more widely used
* The archaeological material is more spectacular, closer to the
surface, and there is more of it (because populations and wealth
had increased) so it has gotten more attention
* And the greatest attention is focussed on the most impressive
material from the most developed sites at the end of the period (a
common bias in many places and periods)
* This does not mean that the Early Dynastic period was the most
important for the _origin_ of civilization; one could argue that
Sumerian civilization had already appeared by this time and was
already changing from its earliest form

the city of Uruk
* near the beginning of the Early Dynastic (2800 BC), covered 250 ha
(617 acres)

* almost three times the area of the whole SSU campus

by the end of the Early Dynastic, covered 400 hectares
* 4.5 times the area of the entire SSU campus
* entirely enclosed by a city wall
* population probably 50,000
* this was its peak of size and importance

One other large city (Umma) and about 6 smaller cities also by this
time
* these cities were in competition, not a united system with the
largest at the top
* the alluvium of Sumer was filled by a series of separate "primate"
or simple 3-tiered settlement hierarchies at this point

* each with one city surrounded by towns (the middle level) and a
very few small agricultural hamlets (the bottom level)
* most of the small hamlets of earlier periods were abandoned
* most people moved into towns and cities

each of these would be called a "city-state"
* in contrast to a "nation-state" that would include multiple cities
* that themselves would be in a hierarchy of size and functions

the city-states had complex, shifting relationships, with alliances,
trade, raids, wars, etc.

this pattern of near-abandonment of the rural countryside and
extreme concentration of people into large settlements is called
"hyperurbanism"

Hyperurbanism
* The beginning of the Early Dynastic saw the culmination of a long
history of changes in the way people were distributed across the
landscape

* Sumer was probably the first place in the world where people
experienced city life something like what we know today
* To understand this change, we have to back up and follow the
trends from the beginning of the 'Ubaid period

Early 'Ubaid ('Ubaid: 5600-3900 BC): moderate-sized villages, evenly
dispersed

'Ubaid 2: the same kind of villages, plus one larger (4 ha) site:
Eridu

'Ubaid 4: the same kind of villages, plus Eridu, which had increased
to 10 ha

Uruk Period in general (3900-3100 BC):
* increasing number of sites, from 21 Early Uruk to 123 Late Uruk
sites
* increasing regional population

Late Uruk specifically (3400 - 3100 BC): instead of staying in
fairly uniformly dispersed medium-sized villages, population shifted
to a small number of large sites, each surrounded by a halo of rural
settlements that were smaller than the earlier towns
* this was the beginning of the general pattern of cities with a
supporting rural hinterland
* average settlement was only 1-2 ha
* the city of Uruk was unique in being far larger: 100 ha, maybe
20,000 people at 3000 BC
* plus a handful of large towns/small cities, especially Ur, Nippur,
Kish, and Eridu

* much smaller than Uruk, but much bigger than the small hamlets
clustering around them
* they reflected basically the same setup as Uruk, just less
exaggerated

why did people cluster into towns and surrounding villages like
this?
* maybe for defense?

Somewhere in the Jemdet Nasr period (3100-2900 BC) and/or the
beginning of the Early Dynastic period (2900 - 2373 BC) (say around
2900 BC), people quit living in small hamlets altogether and crowded
almost exclusively into large towns and cities
* this shift took only around 200 years
* leading to the virtual disappearance of small hamlets in the rural
countryside

* people would have had to walk considerable distances from the
large towns or cities to their fields to work

Uruk ballooned to 250 ha, maybe 50,000 people

Near Uruk:
* average settlement 6-10 ha

* most towns est. 20,000 - 25,000 people
* this is much larger than the small to medium-sized villages of
previous periods
* but there were fewer of them

most of the small to medium-sized villages were abandoned, and
people moved to large towns and cities, which grew drastically
* this is Adams' "hyper-urbanism"

two or even three "modes" of site sizes
* the clear differences between the modes (categories of site sizes)
suggests that some functions were carried out only at the larger
types of sites

* that is, there are distinct jumps in size between one size
category and the next, rather than a smooth gradation of sizes
* the generally accepted way to explain this is that each "jump" up
in size corresponds to a distinct additional function or
institution present at the site, which would require numerous
people to staff

* For example, a site either has no temple, or has one and is
therefore considerably bigger than sites without one - it can't
have half a temple

if correct, this model implies a hierarchy of sites something like
this:
* smallest sites

* mostly residential

medium sites
* residential, plus...
* some administrative functions requiring special buildings, storage
facilities, additional people, etc.

largest site(s)
* residential, plus...
* the same administrative functions as a medium site, plus...
* the temple, palace, army, etc.
* making it far bigger yet

the interesting point is that the different categories of
settlements would have been different not just in size, but in kind
* presumably ranked in importance, influence, and administrative
role, with the larger ones (with the additional, less common
functions) higher in the hierarchy
* this implies a complex, interdependent, and hierarchical society,
with three (or more) levels in its administrative hierarchy

Same hyperurbanism trends in other areas, around the cities of Kish,
Nippur, Akkad, and Susa (southeast of Sumer)
* the fact that this pattern happened in many parts of Mesopotamia
suggests that it was not just a local coincidence at Uruk, but a
general part of the process of increasing complexity, maybe
important in the formation of city-states

but there were also exceptions to this pattern
* near Ur, by this time also a major city, many smaller villages
continued to be occupied

* maybe Ur was more effective at keeping the peace, so people didn't
feel unsafe in their small villages?

And in the Diyala plain, the cities never got as big, and the
villages continued to be occupied, with no rural depopulation
* because it was a marginal region?

why did hyperurbanism happen?
* due to warfare between cities or fear of it?
* problems with nomadic people, with whom farmers would have had to
trade, but with whom there might have been conflicts?
* attraction of new economic possibilities in the towns?
* intentional policies of an emerging urban elite, encouraging or
forcing people to move into towns (as Adams suggests)?

* intended to improve control over population?

what effect might it have had?
* probably increased competition between people and magnified
differences in wealth
* increased interaction, communication, more complex economy...
* more potential for taxation, labor recruitment, etc.

the total population of the Mesopotamian plain by the Early Dynastic
was 500,000 to 1 million people
* but while they shared the Sumerian culture, the city-states were
not united in a single organization
* on the contrary, they were walled to defend themselves from the
others

* "hyperurbanism" may indicate that tensions were so great that it
was not safe outside the walls

Cities and architecture:
* dense, like modern Near Eastern cities
* in central, high-status areas, mostly two-story houses around
central courtyards
* some had latrines and drains
* "blocks" separated by streets and alleys
* arches of mudbrick over doorways
* no evidence yet of marketplaces (nor of money or other features of
a "market economy")

The temples' power increased
* huge walled-in precincts at the core of each city (>3 ha at
Khafaje in Diyala valley)
* the precincts included not only the temple, but also workshops
(sculpture in stone and cast copper), storage rooms, high-status
dwellings
* outer wall enclosed more public courtyard, inner wall enclosed
temple precinct itself

* presumably to keep some of the sacred activities secret or
restricted to certain people
* and to protect the temple workshops and stored wealth

by ED II, temples like the one at Khafaje had an open-air pedestal
in the plaza at the foot of the temple
* may mean that too many people were involved in ceremonies to fit
inside the temple

the temple itself was increasingly big and elaborate

temple details varied widely from city to city

yet some temples in different cities had certain items that were
nearly identical (as in the stela from Khafaje that exactly matches
one from Ur)
* suggests a lot of contact between high-level temple experts, if
not organization and control

Sumerian religion and ideology
* mostly known from 2nd millennium texts (1000's BC), which is many
centuries to millennia later than the periods we have looked at
* since temple architecture and religious iconography were very
stable over time, it is probably fair to project the general
outlines of these beliefs back to the Early Dynastic, Uruk period,
or even earlier
* religious cosmology was a model and legitimization for life here
on earth
* the gods established unchanging laws
* there was a hierarchy of gods

* The pantheon was headed by Anu

* King of heaven
* the one who bestows royalty on humans

next were two other main gods:
* Enlil, god of Earth
* Enki, god of water and subterranean world.

then three subsidiary deities:
* Utu, god of sun
* Nanna, god of moon
* Inanna, goddess of the star Venus

* also Anu's consort, lady of heaven
* responsible for lunar calendar, therefore for many omens
* became the goddess of war and sexual love (!)

these and other high ranking gods were lords of temple institutions
and cities

below them were lower gods for individuals

people were at the bottom
* they belonged to their city's god

the gods created people specifically to relieve the gods from the
drudgery of work

gods appointed human representatives to direct the work: the priests
of each temple

This is an example of an ideology that served to legitimize the
political and economic order
* as in several of the definitions of civilization
* question: did the ideology encourage the rise of a hierarchical
society, or did an emerging hierarchical society form the
ideology?
* if the latter, was it conscious and intentional, or not?

Temple ceremonies included seasonal feasts
* attended by the public
* biggest one was to ask for the annual spring regeneration of
vegetation

* by honoring the marriage of the city ruler to the goddess Inanna
(or her representative)

at the same time, a new powerful institution appeared: the palace
* the secular, military, royal residence compound of a king
* palaces appeared in addition to temples in ED III at Mari, Kish,
Eridu, maybe other cities (around 2500 or 2400 BC)

* architecturally distinct from temples
* lacked the ritual complex with a ziggurat platform, "cella" with a
freestanding pedestal and niche or pedestal at one end, the big
courtyard, etc.

* that is, no obviously public ceremonial space

although they did have smaller ritual areas, probably for internal
or personal use

palaces had hundreds of rooms
* storerooms, apparently for storage of tribute or taxes
* workshops, probably staffed by "attached" specialists
* royal residence
* administrative rooms
* archives of cuneiform documents, as at the temples

* the archive in the palace at Ebla contained 13,000 tablets

development of hereditary kingship (texts show kingship was passed
down as many as 6 generations)
* in contrast to temple leadership
* there must have been people in charge of the temple institutions,
but there are no written records that indicate that these
positions were hereditary

kingship seems to have had different origins in different cities
* based on linguistic evidence
* some kings were addressed as "lugal" (king), with a word
suggesting military leader appointed by a ruling council
* others as "sangu" (accountant) (!), the word used for the top
administrator of a temple
* others by "ensi", a word apparently related to the term for the
human husband of a city's goddess (that is, a ritual,
temple-related office)
* later, some by "ugula" (foreman)
* suggests that in different cities, different offices, roles, or
institutions gave rise to powerful secular institutions that look
the same to us: palaces

* presumably, the process by which this happened varied somewhat in
each case

The famous Sumerian epic of Gilgamesh illustrates how some people of
the time thought of kingship
* actually, a collection of stories, some tightly related, others
not, but involving overlapping sets of the same characters
* the most famous ones describe Gilgamesh's supernatural deeds, and
his failed attempts to become immortal
* many of the named characters are known from historical
inscriptions, and most scholars think that Gilgamesh was a real
ruler of Uruk in the Early Dynastic period
* for understanding the origins of kingship, the most relevant story
is the more recently discovered one that is translated in the
course Reader

* Gilgamesh, the _ensi _of Uruk in the middle Early Dynastic period,
has to first try to win the approval of a council of elders, and
then override them by convincing an assembly of the city's
able-bodied men, before he can make war against the threatening
city of Kish.
* Later, he does not have to get approval to end the war and let the
king of Kish go.
* In other stories, he is powerful enough to be independent of these
councils, and he builds (or rebuilds) the wall around Uruk, some
of which does indeed date to this period.

although a myth, this story may record how people perceived the
development of kingship

or propaganda about it that would have been plausible to them

that is, the institution of kingship in this case supposedly arose
as a consensus government granted a notable person special powers
during wartime, and he gradually took on permanent power
* a believable story...

the palace organized long-distance trade
* merchant agents employed by king
* they got cloth, clothes, barley, oil, flour from royal stores, and
took it abroad to exchange for foreign goods for the palace
* the temple, and possibly even independent traders, may have
carried out long-distance trade, too
* the other side of this trading was made up of neighboring groups,
especially to the east in the Zagros mountains, who themselves
were developing cities and complex societies

* example: Tepe Yaya in southeastern Iran, which made chlorite (a
kind of stone) bowls that they traded to Sumer
* this is not a case of a dominant core area extracting raw
materials from the periphery, like England during the British
Empire; the Sumerians were not so very much different from their
trading partners in complexity or technology

kings are recorded as building water projects, so this might have
been both a function and a source of power
* sites were increasingly located in linear patterns, suggesting
that they were along rivers that had been canalized
* one string of sites in a previously empty area implies a canal
project at least 15 km long, with cooperation between multiple
settlements

* this is still not a huge project
* but it may suggest increasing coordination and organization among
settlements

note that the Gilgamesh story we read emphasized an ongoing project
of building wells that seemed to be the responsibility of the city as
a whole

technology and production
* the Early Dynastic was not notable for technological innovation,
but rather for increasing scale of production and amount of goods
made
* large scale weaving of wool and flax (linseed - linen cloth)
* copperwork became more common for tools, containers, and art

* including both arsenic bronze and tin bronze

with a correspondingly increased number of specialist craftspeople
* although still probably under 20% of population

* that is, over 80% of the people were still farmers

went on in both the temple and the palace

some worked for temple
* frieze of the dairy at the Early Dynastic period temple at al
'Ubaid suggests organized dairy production attached to the temple
* decorations and supplies for ritual and the temple buildings
themselves
* goods for temple personnel
* goods for exchange by the temple, to get foreign raw materials

others worked for the palace
* making decorations and supplies for the royal court and palace
personnel
* goods for exchange to get foreign raw material
* goods for the military arm of the palace

* weapons, armor, chariots

still others worked for wealthy individuals
* evidenced by hoards of valuables in some large houses
* and apparent vendor's stalls facing the streets

overall pattern: lots of attached specialists producing goods that
were controlled by institutions, some by high-status individuals, and
maybe some unattached specialists - but probably not many

legal code: a secular (palace) matter, not religious
* the palace served a role in conflict resolution and maintenance of
order
* Urukagina, last Early Dynastic king of Lagash (i.e. around 2350
BC) is known for his legal reforms, which were recorded in
inscriptions on buildings of his time.

* that is over 500 years before the famous law code of Hammurabi
(1792-1750 BC)
* Hammurabi is better known because we have a nice, complete copy of
his law code, while earlier ones (well before Urukagina) are known
only from fragmentary references

Urukagina, a king, claimed that his legal reforms were meant to
"return to the good old days" when the temple ruled (!)
* this was, in fact, accurate history

* the temple did exist long before the palace, and presumably was a
place where conflicts were resolved
* before that role shifted to the palace, for whatever reason

it also played on a perception that the temple formerly had
legitimately exercised these powers
* and that the palace now legitimately had that power

this could easily have been propaganda to justify new powers
asserted by the palace...

Urukagina promised legal protections for common people against the
temple and palace
* this implies that there _were_ such abuses, and hints at the power
these institutions had

he also promised legal protection against confiscation of property
and cheating in trade
* implies that there was private property and regulated exchange

Urukagina also promised to cut certain taxes on commoners (!)
* heard that one before? (this promise dates to about 2350 BC)
* confirms that the palace collected taxes

these reforms would have increased the power of the king by giving
him more regulatory authority
* and would have weakened the wealthy families who probably competed
with him for economic and political clout
* this is the sort of maneuvering that anthropologists envision when
they talk about leaders "strengthening and expanding their
privileged positions"

military role of the palace
* stelae commemorate kings who led professional armies with
standardized weaponry
* the temple institution does not seem to have had much to do with
warfare

social stratification became more pronounced than ever before
* "royal burials" at Ur attest to a very privileged royalty and
court or nobility

* excavated by Sir Leonard Woolley
* over 2500 burials, mostly ED III (2500 - 2400 BC)
* 16 were particularly lavish, and have been called "royal" tombs

* most were badly looted, but not all

one example: tomb 789
* larger outer chamber containing:
* two wagons with oxen and male servants
* 59 bodies, mostly richly-attired females, and a few male soldiers
* supposedly went willingly to their deaths, maybe drugged, with
their valuables and finery

* based on absence of traumatic injuries or positions that would
suggest struggle
* but there could be other ways to explain this...

gold, silver, lapis, musical instruments, wood inlay...

another tomb (800), had a queen's chamber still intact
* the queen was named Shubad or Puabi (depending on how the signs
are read)
* her remains were still on her bed, surrounded by rich jewelry
* this tomb also had a larger, outer chamber in which many
attendants wearing jewelry were apparently sacrificed
* along with musical instruments, a sledge, animals to pull it, and
some soldiers or guards

goods from these tombs are illustrated in the Adams article; color
pictures online through a link on the class web page

at the other end of the social hierarchy, written records from the
Early Dynastic period include the first documentation of slaves
* although slavery may well have existed earlier, this is the first
clear evidence of it
* apparently not a large class; only a small part of the population
and economy
* mostly used for spinning yarn and weaving in shops run by the
temple
* mostly female
* records show citizens became slaves by falling into debt or being
sold by their families (!)
* it was possible to buy one's own freedom

intermediate social statuses included at least
* farmers, presumably near the bottom, many living on the outskirts
of the city; some in small towns or hamlets
* craftspeople, possibly further divided according to their products
and skills

* since some mass-produced crude pottery, while others made
finewares, metalwork, jewelry, etc. that presumably required more
training, contact with elites, etc.

scribes
* literacy was a skill in which people were specifically trained in
schools or apprenticeships
* and it involved a lot of contact with traders, political and
religious elite, etc. who had to trust them with crucial
information

scribes practiced by writing standard texts, including the "standard
professions list"
* a stereotyped list of particular jobs and offices
* always in the same order, with divisions and titles that suggest
that the order was from highest-status to lowest
* unfortunately, only some of the job titles can be translated

variation in houses suggests a wide range of social standings:
* size and number of rooms
* one vs. two stories
* doors off main streets or alleys
* presence or absence of central courtyard

warfare between cities (city states), power relationships constantly
shifting
* note that at this point, the wars were not like those we usually
imagine

* not conquest (taking control of a group of people for the long
term)
* but rather, raiding (capturing wealth, animals, people)
* or resolving small-scale territorial disputes (contested areas of
farmland in border regions)

* as in the Gilgamesh and Akka story, apparently fighting over water
sources

evidence is from written sources

and from the lack of evidence for one city-state dominating any
other for any length of time

shown by huge defensive walls at all major sites, completing a trend
that had begun already in the late 'Ubaid period

also by written records of wars

at least some of the conflicts were over control of disputed areas
of irrigated farmland

groupings of more than one city rare and short-lived, but were
increasing near the end of the Early Dynastic

at many times during the Early Dynastic, one king and his city-state
were seen as dominant, "ruling" Sumer, but there was little
integration or centralization
* the "ruling" king was just a "first among equals"
* or one who happened to be the most militarily powerful at the time
* the "ruling" city-state did not have any different functions than
the other city-states

Government: the temple vs. the palace
* the temple as an institution

* public and probably private religious ritual
* also production, labor mobilization, storage, redistribution

* temple officials not only performed rituals, but also
* accepted and stored surplus production

* probably in the form of offerings, tithes, payments for ritual
services, etc.

redistributed it to others
* probably mostly in compensation for labor, services, or goods

advised on timing of planting and harvesting
* giving the temple a central role in agricultural production

controlled irrigation water distribution
* again, giving the temple real economic power through its
supernaturally-sanctioned authority over water

initiated large corporate projects
* temples, canals, probably involved in early city walls, etc.

owned land and employed agricultural workers directly

used surplus to support craft specialists
* scribes, potters, masons, weavers, copperworkers, sculptors

managed long-distance trade
* especially for exotic materials needed to build, decorate, and
maintain the temple
* and to deck out the priests and other religious authorities
appropriately to their roles and importance

temples started as small structures in the middle 'Ubaid period, and
grew in size, complexity, and elaboration straight through the Agade
and Ur III periods

matching objects from temples in different cities suggest a network
of contacts among religious leaders across the region

temple had some power through interpretation of omens as well as
control of land and resources

all in all, the priests and temple administrators would have been
very powerful for both supernatural and material reasons

the palace: another institution recognized in part by architecture
* first known definite palaces appeared in Early Dynastic III at
Mari, Kish, Eridu

* there probably were some earlier stages of incipient palaces and
kings that just not have been identified yet
* compared to temples, palaces were a much later development,
parallel to the temple, eventually overshadowing and apparently
controlling it

large compounds with elite residences, workshops, storage, etc.

no venue for public ritual

associated with military (unlike the temple)

organized around hereditary kingship (texts show descent up to 6
generations)

kingship seems to have had different origins in different cities
* but at least in some cities, kings were initially seen as military
leaders

the palace came to have landholdings, storage, craft specialists,
etc., much like the temples
* with apparently unfree and landless ("serf") labor

shifting balance of power between temple and palace
* the temple was initially the only institutional power center
* and was probably more powerful than the early palaces and kings
that operated them
* but there was an apparent shift in power away from the temple and
towards the palace, with its secular king/military leader
* already pretty clear by the end of the Early Dynastic, with the
royal burials at Ur, art and texts concerning military conquest,
and even more so in subsequent periods

government (as of ED, at least) apparently involved a king with a
citizen council that could override him, maybe multiple councils
* as in the Gilgamesh stories

So: is this civilization yet?

meanwhile, in the later half of the Early Dynastic Period, some of
the towns in northern Mesopotamia finally began to grow and develop
temple and palace institutions similar to the Sumerian ones
* recall that northern Mesopotamian towns had remained small and
relatively simple even in spite of the temporary Uruk expansion
into the region