The Uruk Expansion Cross-Cultural Exchan PDF

The Uruk Expansion: Cross-cultural Exchange in Early Mesopotamian Civilization [with
Comments and Reply]

Author(s): Guillermo Algaze, Burchard Brenties, A. Bernard Knapp, Philip L. Kohl, Wade R.
Kotter, C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky, Glenn M. Schwartz, Harvey Weiss, Robert J. Wenke, Rita
P. Wright and Allen Zagarell
Source: Current Anthropology, Vol. 30, No. 5 (Dec., 1989), pp. 571-608
Published by: The University of Chicago Press on behalf of Wenner-Gren Foundation for
Anthropological Research
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2743567 .
Accessed: 06/10/2014 22:44
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
.
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of
content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms
of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.
The University of Chicago Press and Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Research are collaborating
with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Current Anthropology.
http://www.jstor.org
This content downloaded from 137.110.192.6 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 22:44:17 PM

All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 3o, Number 5, December I989
? I989 by The Wenner-Gren
Foundation
forAnthropological
Research.All rightsreserved
OOII-3204/89/3005-0003$2.50
Early Mesopotamian civilization arose in the alluvial
The Uruk Expansion

lowlands of what is now southernIraq duringthe Uruk
period,sometime in the second half of the 4th millen-
nium B.C. Recent attempts to understandits origins
have exploredthe role ofsourcesofdisequilibriumin the
social textureof local communities as a factorin the
Cross-culturalExchangein Early evolutionaryprocesses that culminated in the rise of
city and state as the preeminentformsof spatial and
MesopotamianCivilization' political organization. Studies have focused on the
growthofurbanpolities (Adams I 966, I 98 I; Adams and
Nissen I972), the emergenceofcomplexhierarchicalad-
by GuillermoAlgaze ministrativestructures(JohnsonI973, i987; Wrightand
JohnsonI975) and class stratification(Zagarell I986),
the transitionfromreciprocalto redistributiveecono-
mies (Polanyi I957), and, finally,the impact of specific
"primemovers,"such as agriculturalintensification and
BytheUrukperiodin thesecondhalfofthe4thmillenniumB.C., population growth (Adams I972, Smith and Young
highlyintegrated societiesofthesouthernMesopotamianal-
luviumhad succeededin establishing a systemofinteraction ty- I972), warfare(Wrightet al. I975), and the development
ingtheirresource-deficient homelandwiththeresource-rich but of intraregionaltrade (Johnson I973, Wright I972,
less-developed highlandperiphery. This was accomplishedbythe Wrightand JohnsonI975).
colonizationoftheplainsofsouthwestern Iranneighboring the Importantas each of these various factorsmust have
alluviumand theestablishment ofa numberofurban-sized en- been, the complex modificationsand innovationsin in-
clavesat focalnodesofthelinesofcommunication acrossthe
plainsofnorthern Mesopotamia,ofmuchsmallerstationsalong ternal social, political, and economic organizationre-
theprincipalroutesfromthealluviumto theenclaves,and of sultingin the elaborationofa "greattradition"(Redfield
smalloutpostsdeepin thesurrounding highlands.Although I 956) thatwas both enduringand distinctivelyMesopo-
short-lived, thisforaywas to have important repercussions on the tamian surelydid not occur in a vacuum. The marked
development oftheindigenoussocietieswithwhichit cameinto
contact,andthisin turncontributed to theabandonment ofthe geographic,environmental,economic,and culturalcon-
intrusivesettlements shortlybeforetheendoftheUrukperiod. trastsbetween the lowlands and the surroundingplains
The expansionofUruksocietiesbearssomeresemblance to the and highlandsimposeda numberofenduringconstraints
colonialexpansionofEuropeansocietiesintoless developedareas on the developmentofsocieties in each ofthese areas. A
oftheThirdWorld.The Urukphenomenon maybe characterized crucial one is that in the alluvium, a land devoid of re-
as an earlyinstanceofan "informal empire"or "worldsystem"
basedon asymmetrical exchangeanda hierarchically organized sources otherthan the most basic ones providedby ag-
international divisionoflaborthatdiffers frommodernexamples ricultureand animal husbandry,a substantialproportion
onlyin degree. of the material requirementsneeded to sustain highly
stratifiedsocial systemshad to be imported(Oppenheim
GUILLERMO ALGAZE is ResearchAssociateat theOrientalInsti- I976). The necessaryresourceswere largelyto be found
tute,University ofChicago,and at theSmithsonian Institution in distant highland areas inhabited by communities
(hismailingaddress:I I 55 E. 58thSt.,Chicago,Ill. 60637, U.S.A.).
Bornin I954, he was educatedat theUniversity ofPuertoRico which, if we may judge from existing historical and
(B.A.,I9761andtheUniversity ofChicago(M.A.,I979; Ph.D., archaeological evidence, were characterized-at least
i986). His researchinterest is thedevelopment ofcomplexsoci- prior to the 3d millennium B.c.-by a significantly
etiesin theancientNear East.He has directedarchaeological sur- lower level of sociopolitical and economic integration.
veysoftheTigrisand Euphratesin southeastern Turkeyandhas Thus the origins of Mesopotamian civilization can
published"PrivateHouses and Gravesat Ingharra: A Reconsidera-
tion" (Mesopotamia I8-I9:I35-94), "Habuba on the Tigris: Ar- only be understoodwithina frameworkin which cross-
chaicNinevehReconsidered"(Journal ofNear EasternStudies culturalexchangeoccupies a prominentposition.This is
45:I25-38), "FirstResultsoftheTigris-Euphrates Archaeological underscored by later historical documentation from
ReconnaissanceProject,i988" (Journal ofNearEasternStudies Mesopotamia itself.Fromat least the 3d millenniumon,
48[3],in press),and,withothers,thecollectionTownand Coun-
tryin EarlySoutheastern Anatolia,vol. 2, The Stratigraphic Se- a varietyof evidence allows us to trace the changing
at
quence KurbanH6yuik(Chicago:OrientalInstitute, in press). roles of exchange and coercion and of both public in-
The presentpaperwas submitted in finalformI 5 iv 89. stitutionsand privateentrepreneurs in the procurement
of the requiredresources.Even thoughthe relativeim-
i. This paperis condensedfroman unpublishedmonographen- portanceof each of these elements varied considerably
titled"The UrukExpansion:'MomentumtowardsEmpire'in Early fromperiodto periodand considerabledifferences in the
MesopotamianSociety,"a revisionof my doctoraldissertation, typesofgoods exchangedand in the strategiesemployed
presented to theDepartment ofNearEasternLanguagesandCivili-
zationsofthe University ofChicagoin DecemberI986. That dis- to obtain them may be documentedthroughtime, one
sertationand variousdraftssince its completionbenefited greatly factorremainedconstant:over the long run the mainte-
fromtheeditorialadviceand substantivecriticismofa numberof nance ofcomplexpolitical organizationsin the alluvium
scholars,most prominently Elise Auerbach,H. J. Kantor,and invariablyoccurredwithintheframework ofa widersys-
McGuireGibson of the Universityof Chicago,H. Wrightof the
University ofMichigan,and E. CarteroftheUniversity ofCalifor- tem of economic and, on occasion, political relation-
nia, Los Angeles.Their various contributions are gratefully ac- ships with areas with complementaryresourcesand so-
knowledged. cieties at significantly
differentlevels of socioeconomic
57'

5721 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 30, Number 5, December I989
integration.In a sense, then,the processesgeneratedby munitiesin the northernperipheryand the alluvial low-
the internal variables on which recent research has lands were based on the flow fromhighlandsources of
focusedmay be seen as a precondition-a sortof "head essential (e.g.,base metals,timber,commonstones,oils)
start"(WallersteinI974)-that allowed successive soci- and exotic (e.g.,raremetals, precious and semiprecious
eties in the south to respondactivelyand creativelyto stones)raw materialsand, occasionally,dependentlabor
the immutableconditionsof disequilibriumimposedby (slaves and prisonersof war),eitherunderduressin the
the physiographicand cultural context in which they formoftributeor plunderor,more commonly,in return
were embedded. for labor-intensiveprocessed and semiprocessedgoods
In theMesopotamiancase, one such responseseems to (FosterI977, LarsenI987, PettinatoI972, YoffeeI98I).
have been a recurrentcycle ofcentralization,expansion, Ifmodernsociological and historicalstudieson devel-
and eventual collapse (Gibson I976, Larsen I979). Pe- opment and underdevelopment(e.g., Emmanuel I972,
riods of internalcoherencewere invariablyprecededby FrankI970, GaltungI97I) maybe usedas a guide,asym-
an increase in the level of resourceprocurementactivi- metrical exchange such as that just described would
ties and followedby more or less successfulprocessesof have resulted in two parallel and closely related long-
expansion in an attempt to control the critical lines term processes. In the alluvium, contacts would have
of communication throughwhich flowed needed re- strengthened the economic,social, and politicalbases of
sources. This expansion took a varietyofformsranging the communitiesinvolved.In the periphery, on the con-
from the more informal(sporadic trade contacts, in- trary,afteran initial period of vigorous growththere
stitutionalizedtradenetworks,and occasional military would eventuallyhave been a significantweakeningof
expeditions and raids) to the more formal (territorial the socioeconomic systemsofindigenouscommunities.
annexation, provincial systems). The specifics varied The differing impact of cross-culturalcontacts on core
widely by period and area and had as much to do with and peripheralsocieties is explained by the "spinoff"
conditions in the periphery as they did with de- effectsof those contacts on the polities involved.
velopments in the Mesopotamian core (see Gallagher In the periphery, no positivespinoffscould come from
and Robinson I953). A particularlyclear and well- havingto pay tribute,havinga portionofthe able-bodied
documentedexample is that of the Akkadian periodin population deportedas prisonersof war, or being plun-
the second half of the 3d millennium B.C., when the dered.Economic contactsare,however,anothermatter.
sporadic raids and trade expeditionsof late Early Dy- Historical and ethnographicstudies indicate that when
nastic kingswere regularizedand institutionalized.This societies at differentlevels of sociopolitical and eco-
was accomplishedby (i) the extensionof political con- nomic integrationcome into close contact, a certain
trol into the neighboringSusiana plain of Khuzestan amount of institutionalrestructuring in the social tex-
(Susa) and possibly the Upper Tigris area (Nineveh and ture of each is inevitable.Invariably,however,the im-
its environs,Assur); (2) the establishmentof a network pact of contacts is fargreateron the less complex so-
ofenclaves at focalnodes along the lines ofcommunica- ciety-particularly if it was already on the verge of a
tion crisscrossingthe northernMesopotamian plains social evolutionaryprocess fueledby internalpressures
(Brak,Mari, and possibly Nuzi); (3) the intensification (AdamsI974, TerrayI974). In such a society,cross-
and regularizationof exchange with an ever-widening cultural exchange will be a powerfulstimulus to the
circle of peripheralcommunitiesalong an arc spanning evolutionofmore complex sociopoliticalconfigurations
the Persian Gulf coast and beyond (Magan, Meluhha, as local elites controllingeitherthe resourcesbeing ex-
Dilmun), the Taurus/Anti-Taurushighlands (Silver ploited,access to those resources,or the labor involved
Mountain,Purushanda),and the coastal uplandrangesof in theirextractiontake advantageoftheirnaturalrole as
Lebanon and Syria (Cedar Forest);and (4) periodicmili- organizersof the means of productionand (at times)
taryexpeditionsand raids directedagainstlocal polities mediators of the exchange to consolidate and extend
not amenable to trade (e.g., Ebla, Armanum,Subartu, theirpower,both in the contextof theirown societies
Lullubu, and Simurrum)(Bottero i967, Hirsch i963, and vis-a-vistheirlocal rivals (PaynterI98I).
Larsen I979, Maeda i984). An instructiveexample of short-termchanges in pe-
The close correlationbetweenpolitical centralization ripheralcommunitiesbroughtabout by economic con-
and expansionhas been noted by Larsen (I979:97), who tactswithmorehighlyintegratedpolitiesis the transfor-
suggests that we may see the recurrenceof imperial mation of Southeast Asian communities in the early
phases in Mesopotamian historysimply as episodes of centuriesof the Ist millenniumA.D. as a resultof their
especially intense activityaimed at securinga reliable incorporationinto the tradingsphereofmerchantsfrom
flowofresources.The reasons a flowofresourceshad to the Indian subcontinentwhose ultimategoal was trade
be maintainedat all times and in specificperiodshad to with China. By combininga varietyof historical evi-
be ensuredby force,if necessary,lie in contrastsin the dence fromChinese sources, indigenousliterarytradi-
natural resources available in the alluvium and those tions, and archaeological data, studies of this transfor-
obtainable in the surroundingperipheryand in differ- mation have tracedthe adoption by local communities
ences in the sociopolitical and economic structuresof not long afterthe establishmentofcontactsofexplicitly
societies at either end of the geographicalspectrum. Indian conceptions of the social order-evinced by the
Documentarysources dated to the 3d and 2d millennia growthof complex political systemscenteredupon the
B.C. suggestthat,on the whole, contactsbetween com- figureof a king where simpler,more egalitariansocial

AL GAZE The Uruk Expansion | 573
relationshipshad prevailedand by the emergenceof in- poses the employmentof armies of laborersand contin-
creasinglysophisticatedeconomic structuresbased on gents of supervisorsin order to create, maintain, and
centralizedmobilizationand redistribution of resources operatethe necessaryirrigationnetworksand to harvest
where simplerreciprocativeeconomic mechanismshad the grain,winnow it, store it, and, finally,bale it for
been therule.These changeswerepartofa widerprocess shipment.Similarly,the productionof driedfish,dates,
of acculturation which also saw the introductionof and leather products requires considerablemanpower:
Sanskritas the written(butpresumablynot the spoken) fish have to be caught,processed, and packaged; date
language of many local courts and the adoption of palms have to be pollinatedand datesgatheredand pack-
Buddhist rituals and associated styles of religious ar- aged; sheep and goats must be fed,herded,sheared,and
chitecturein an otherwise local context (Hall I985, killed,and theirskins have to be cut, tanned,and other-
WheatleyI975 ). wise processed. Moreover,the productionof otherpro-
In the long run,however,the initialphase ofvigorous cessed goods for export,such as textiles,demands an
sociopolitical growthand economic reorganizationjust even more sizable investmentin manpower-judging
described cannot be maintained, since the protracted fromlate 3d-millenniumeconomic texts,principallyde-
economic spinoffsof the exchange will be negligible. pendent labor, mostly female slaves (Jacobsen I970
The tradeitselfinvolves not the creationof any signifi- [I953],MaekawaI980, WaetzoldtI972). Another factor
cant means of productionwithin peripheralcommuni- of considerableimportanceis thatthese variousproduc-
ties but only the extractionof preexisting(and finite) tive activities require legions of bureaucratsto record,
unprocessed resources. And while the exploitation of store,and redistribute productionand to house,feed,and
these resources may require varyingand potentially otherwise maintain the dependent laborers. Once in
significantmanpowerexpenditures,its end resultis not place, the pressuresforsuch a bureaucraticapparatusto
furtherdown-the-lineprocessingemploymentand ad- become self-perpetuating will be overwhelming,since
ministrativecomplexitybut a hole in the groundor a exclusive access to the importedresourcesand luxury
hillside barrenof trees. The final consequence of this goods will surely be invested with significantsocial,
exploitationwill be a loss of flexibilityforthe econo- political,and religiousmeaningand used as a tool forthe
mies ofperipheralcommunitiesas theybecome increas- maintenance and strengtheningof the hegemony of
ingly overspecialized in the procurementof a limited the bureaucratic and administrativeclasses (Adams
numberof specificgoods forexportand dependenton a I98I:8I; TerrayI974:3I7). A reliableflowofresources
singlemarket(GaltungI 97 I).2 Thus sociopoliticalstruc- must be ensured at all costs, since interruptionswill
tures already in place in the peripherywill be con- result in politicallyunacceptable socioeconomic dislo-
solidated and strengthenedat the same time that the cations: the survivalof the social orderis predicatedon
economic base needed to sustain them is being weak- the productionof the exportablesurplusesthat,shortof
ened and made more susceptibleto eventual collapse. war, ensure access to resourcesotherwiseunavailable.
In contrast,in the alluvium all of the sociopolitical All this explainswhy expansionoccurredonlyat partic-
and economic spinoffswill be positive. The benefitsto ular juncturesin Mesopotamian history-when a grow-
societies at the receivingend of tributeand plunderare ing economyrequiredthe takingofactive and expensive
immediatelyobvious, since those resourcesstrengthen steps forits maintenance.
the power base of militaryelites in directproportionto
the weakening of the forces arrayed against them.
Benefits from economic contacts, however, although The Uruk Expansion: Testable Hypotheses
similar to those already discussed for peripheralsoci-
eties, will, if anything,be more far-reaching and perva- When exactly did an interactionsystem based on the
sive. This is explainedby the prevailingpatternoftrade. ability of highlyintegratedsocieties in the Mesopota-
The resourcesexportedin the Mesopotamian case, prin- mian alluvium to mobilize and accumulate resources
cipally surplusgrain,leatherproducts,driedfish,dates, drawn from a far-flungperipheryfirstdevelop, and,
and textiles,are all labor-intensive.3 The productionof moreover,how farback into Mesopotamianhistorycan
an exportableagriculturalsurplus,forexample,presup- we tracethe closelyassociatedphenomenonofrecurrent
phases of imperialexpansion?
These questions can now be addressedby means of a
2. The word "market"is used here in a genericsense,with no growingcorpus of new and reinterpreted data for the
implicationof the existenceofmarkettrading(PolanyiI975:I50) archaeologicalhistoryof several areas surroundingthe
as a modeofexchangein the 4thmillenniumB.C. Mesopotamian alluvium. In the last two decades or so,
3. See Crawford (1I973)fora reviewofdocumentary andarchaeolog-
ical evidenceforexportsfromtheMesopotamianalluviumin the archaeologicalresearchhas begunto be focusedsystem-
3d millenniumB.C. It is also noteworthy thatin theEnmerkarand atically on both the fertilealluvial plains of southwest-
LugalbandaEpic (Krameri952) thecityofUrukin thealluviumis ern Iran and the high plains of northernMesopotamia,
exporting grainin exchangeforexoticrawmaterialssuch as lapis northernSyria, and southeasternAnatolia. Although
lazuli. This has led Kohn(1I978:472) to suggestthatsomehighland
communitiescontrolling resourcesmayactu- many excavations and surveys(in the north)are still in
access to exportable
allyhave come to dependon grainimported fromthealluviumfor progressand much of the relevantmaterialis still only
theirsubsistence,but this view has been disputed(e.g.,Possehl incompletelypublished,a considerablyclearerpictureof
i986:85). the archaeologicaldevelopmentofareas at theperiphery

574 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 30, Number S, December I989
of southernMesopotamia is beginningto emerge.This tion of local production;and (6) the eventualcollapse of

evidence has contributedto a more precise understand- the political orderas an inevitable long-termresult of
ingofthe nature,intensity,variety,and directionofcon- asymmetricalexchange.
tacts between communities in the alluvium and sur-
roundingareas in the Uruk period. It stronglysuggests THE COLONIZATION OF THE SUSIANA PLAIN
that Uruk societies were in the midst of a process of
expansionofimpressiveproportions,one thattook a va- Fromat least the 6th millenniumB.C. on a trendcan be
rietyofformsand affecteda numberofareas differently.observedtowardsincreasingregionaldivergencein the
This process, I would argue, implies the existence of culturalassemblagesoftheMesopotamianalluvium and
asymmetricalexchange mechanisms of previouslyun- the neighboringplains of Khuzestan in southwestern
suspected complexityand geographicaldifferentiationIran. This millennia-old trend was sharply reversed
thatprovidedthe economic basis forboth the growthof sometime in the Uruk period of the 4th millennium,
Uruk city-statesand the originsofMesopotamiancivili- when communities in each of the two areas began to
zation. Similarin magnitudeto thatdescribedabove for develop in increasinglyanalogous ways. This is clearest
the Akkadian period,this supraregionalinteractionsys- in the case ofthe Susiana plain,thelargest,mostproduc-
tem representedthe earliest well-attestedexample of tive, historicallymost important,and archaeologically
the alreadynoted cycle ofcentralization,expansion,and best understoodof the various plains of southwestern
inevitable collapse undergone by successive civiliza- Iran.
tions in the alluvial lowlands ofsouthernMesopotamia. By the later part of the Uruk sequence (Middle/Late
Ifthis is so, we should be able to findarchaeologically Uruk in local terminology),the Susiana plain had be-
recognizable evidence attestingto both the expansion come part and parcel of the Mesopotamian world, an
itself and its immediate impact on peripheral com- eastwardextensionofthe cultureand institutionspreva-
munities. From the perspectiveof the alluvium, some lent in southernIraq. Excavations at a numberof sites
clues as to what evidence to expect are provided by show that the material culture of Uruk settlements
the historicallydocumentedAkkadian case alluded to throughoutthe plain was homogeneousacross the site-
above: (i) expansioninto neighboringterritories;(2) the size spectrum.Moreover,the artifactualassemblagesof
placingofintrusivesettlementsofsouthernoriginin the these occupationsexhibita remarkablenumberofexact
northernand northwestern periphery, preferablyat loca- parallels with pertinentmaterialfromneighboringset-
tions dominatinglines of communication; and (3) in- tlementsin the Mesopotamian alluvium. These include
creases in the varietyand amount of importedgoods in ceramic assemblages that are largelycomparable (e.g.,
the archaeological recordof Uruk sites resultingfrom fig. iA-H), save for a few types in southwesternIran
intensifiedtrade with peripheralcommunitiesand in- thatbetraycontactswith the highlands,and a varietyof
crease in Uruk-typeartifactswithin otherwiseindige- othertellingevidence. Sealing and accountingpractices
nous sites and assemblages.The powerfulpressuresun- (tokens,balls, bullae, and tablets) that are identical in
leashed in peripheralsocieties bycontactswiththe more the two regions(e.g.,fig.iS-X) suggestthe existenceof
advanced Uruk polities in their midst would likewise uniformrecord-keepingand administrativeprocedures
have left archaeologicallyrecognizable clues. On the (Schmandt-Besserati986), and this, in turn,may indi-
basis of modernstudies of the consequences of unequal cate largely analogous institutions (Dittmann i986a,
terms of trade between societies at markedlydifferent Nissen I977). Comparable modes of social organization
stages of socioeconomic evolution,the followingtrans- are also revealed by iconographicalsimilaritiesin the
formationsand theirarchaeologicalcorrelatesin indige- glypticrepertoiresofthe two areas: in each case it is the
nous societies can be expected: (4) the emergenceofex- same larger-than-life figurewho appears at the top of
ponentially more complex administrativestructures, the administrativeand religioushierarchy(fig.iM, P).
possibly modeled explicitlyon Mesopotamian institu- Othericonographicparallels evince a sharedmythology
tions; (5) increasedelite controloverlocal labor supplies implying the existence of common religious rituals
(requiredforthe extractionofresourcesforexchangeand (Amiet I972, I986). This is illustratedmost vividlyby
forprovidingthe minimal securitythatis a precondition representations ofapparentlyidenticalofferings
brought
forit) and its companionphenomenon,the standardiza- into temples (e.g., fig. i 0, R). Finally, traditionsof
FIG. i. Selected parallels between the culturalassemblages ofthe Susiana plain and theMesopotamian alluvium
in theLate Urukperiod(nottoscale).A, Le Breton(I957:fig. I3a); B,Le Brun(I978a:fig.30[I4]); C, Steve and
Gasche (I97I:Pl1 32/I41; D, Le Brun(I978a:fig.24/4]); E, Siirenhagen(I986b:69, no. 39); F, de Genouillac (I934:Pl.
4[54341; G, Siirenhagen(i986b:32, no. IOO); H, von Haller (I932:pl. i9D[b]; I, Amiet (I972:no. 474); J,Amiet
(I972:no. 475); K, Schott(I933:pl. 26B);L, Schott(I933:pl. 26C); M,Amiet(I972:no. 695); N, Amiet(ig8o:no.
330); 0, Le Brunand Vallat (I978:fig.7[8]); P, Amiet (ig8o:no. 6ii); Q, Amiet (ig8o:no. 337); R, Lenzen (ig6i:pl.
25N); S, Le Brun (I978b:fig.8[6]); T, Vallat (i986:fig.i); U, Amiet (i986:figs. 24[2, 8], 25[4]); V, Lenzen (i964:pl.
26G); W, Lenzen i96o:pl. 3iE); X, Lenzen (i965f:pl.i9C); Y, Amiet (I972:no. 695); Z, Le Brunand Vallat
(I978:fig.7[7]); AA, Heinrich(i982:fig. 94); BB, Schott(I933:pl. 22A).

ALGAZE The Uruk Expansion 1575
| SUSIANA | M. ALLUVIUM
POTTERY
7 E71
~ ~~BDH
MYTHOLOGY
KL
SOCIAL ORDER
m~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~m
yYZ
~~~~~~~w
ARCHITECTURE
3~0900 ___
9d 2 PROI1IElElnEl 1'.
TRIxJ
I I IT'i I'
z AA BB

monumental and religious architecturealso appear to tion which sharplyreverseddemographictrendsof the

have been uniformacross the two areas-at least if we precedinghalf a millennium in the area (Wrightand
may extrapolatefromrepresentationson contemporary JohnsonI 9 7 5:2 74- 76, table 3). The end ofthe Uruk tra-
glypticin Susiana (fig.I Y-BB). dition was equally disjunctive.Chogha Mish was once
This cultural convergenceis too pervasiveto be ex- again abandoned, the size of Susa diminished signifi-
plainable as a process of acculturation.Rather,it is in- cantlyfora second time,and,in at least some portionsof
dicative, I would argue, of the colonization of the the site, there is a clear break in the archaeological
Khuzestanplains by settlersfromthe alluvium and rep- (AcropolisI, I7 and i6) and artifactualsequence (Le Brun
resentsan earlyphase ofthe expansionofMesopotamian I97I; see also Dittmann I986b). Regionally, these
societies in the Uruk period (Amiet i986, Lamberg- changes were accompanied by a precipitousdecline in
Karlovskyi985, Nissen i983; but see Johnsoni987 for total occupied area: settlementin the Susiana declined
objections).The end result of this process was the cre- by a factorof threein comparisonwith the end of the
ation ofat least two rival states,centeredrespectivelyat Uruk period and by a factorof six in comparisonwith
Susa and Chogha Mish. These appearto have been inde- the peak of Uruk settlement(Alden i987). Finally,the
pendent of each other,since by the end of the period colonization hypothesisexplains the full spectrumof
each site was surroundedby numerous subsidiarycen- Uruk site sizes and concomitantfunctionsacross the
tersand villages tightlyclusteredin a defensivearrange- plain and the homogeneityof Uruk material culture
ment that lefta largelyuninhabitedband of terrainbe- throughoutthe region. Mesopotamian materials are
tween them (JohnsonI973, i987). Almost certainly, foundat all sites, frommajor administrativecentersto
these rival city-stateswere also independentof contem- hamlets whose location and size leave no doubt as to
porarypolities in the alluvium. their rural orientation. If the Uruk presence in the
This hypothesisexplains the remarkableand broad- Susiana representednot a process of colonization but
based identity of elements of Mesopotamian culture rather a functionallyspecialized intrusion,then we
throughoutthe alluvium and the Susiana plain in the would expect to findarchaeologicallyidentifiabletraces
laterpartof the Uruk period.It also explains the appar- ofan alternativebut contemporary traditionin the area.
entlylongerevolution of the Uruk traditionin Iraq as Such a divergenttraditionhas not been recognized.
opposed to Khuzestan. Le Breton's (I957:94) original Althoughthe evidence fora colonization of the Susi-
suggestionthatthe Late Susiana sequence ofsouthwest- ana plain by settlersfromthe Mesopotamian alluvium
ernIran overlapswith the beginningsofthe Uruk period in the Uruk periodis compelling,we know little about
in the alluvium is now supportedby a comparisonof the mechanics and exact chronologyof the process and
available clustersofradiocarbondates fromLate Susiana less still about its original impetus. A tantalizinghy-
levels in Khuzestan and Ubaid 4 levels at Tell el cOuelli pothesis,which unfortunately cannotyetbe properlyas-
in southernIraq. Recalibratedunder a single standard, sessed because of difficultiesin correlatingthe earlier
theIraniandates are consistentlylaterbya fewcenturies part of the Uruk sequences of the alluvium and the
than those fromthe alluvium (Oates [J.]I983:fig. 9). Susiana, is that the colonization of the Susiana was
Further,the colonization hypothesisexplains the ar- somehow related to the significantpopulation shifts
chaeological breaks in the Susiana sequence preceding fromthe northern(Nippur-Adabregion)to the southern
and followingtheUruk period.These breaksare discern- and westernsectorsof the alluvium that surveysshow
ible in significantchanges in the settlementpatternof to have taken place sometime late in the Early Uruk
the Susiana plain at the onset of the Uruk traditionthat period as a result of the natural dryingup of a major
would otherwisebe difficultto accountforand thatcon- channel of either the ancient Tigris or the Euphrates
trastdramaticallywith the situationin the Mesopota- (Adams ig8i:60-63; Gibson I973, I976). Whateverits
mian alluvium (Adams I 98I: 59). At Susa, the largest roots,the Mesopotamianintrusiondidnot cause the col-
site on the western portion of the plain, the massive lapse of the indigenousprehistoricculturesof the area.
steppedplatformin the centerofthe acropoliswas aban- Rather,it merelytook advantageof an internalprocess
doned,neverto be rebuilt.And,while occupationat the of disintegrationthat was at the time well advanced.
site continued, it appears to have consisted of much The various surveysof the Susiana plain indicate that
more ephemeralstructuresofdomesticcharacter(Canal eversince the end ofthe Middle Susiana period(late 5th
I978), which extended only over a greatlydiminished millenniumB.C.) regionalpopulationand settlement
area (JohnsonI973). Also abandoned were a numberof had been in decline, even as the level of sociopolitical
smallerdependentsettlementsin its environs(G. Doll- integrationof remainingpolities such as Susa increased
fus,quoted in Weiss I983:42). A parallel abandonment (WrightI984, Wrightand JohnsonI975; foran opposing
can be observedat Chogha Mish, traditionallythe most view, see Weiss I 977). This endogenousprocessis as yet
importantsite on the opposite side of the plain (H. J. poorlyunderstoodbut mirrorsdevelopmentsin thevari-
Kantor, personal communication). The dislocation of ous highland plains surroundingthe Susiana (Wright
settlementin these sites reflectsa patternof regional I987) and in the Kur Riverbasin (SumnerI977). By the
significance.The onset of the Uruk traditionin the very end of the Late Susiana period (TransitionalSusa
Susiana was markedby a substantialjump in the num- A), no single site appears preeminentin the Susiana
berofsettlements,and total occupied area trebledin the (JohnsonI973:fig i5), and in termsof its economic and
earliestUruk phase-an exponentialgrowthin popula- political potential,the plain was largelyundeveloped.

~~''\ ~~~~~ ~~"C~~~ ,\ ~~~

-~~~~~~~N Lake Va
/\ K~~~~~~e
ban
/-\ ~~~~~~~Sa ms ase
Scmst* ass
-'
--
; -0 _-
~~ *Ku~rban \ Amuda1 Nisibin0
el 'AinL
t _ _ _ _ zN 'N ,_ Ku;b, / n ?
I V 1 Hamoukar
- - - - - - ------
.
Cilicia '> Carchemish0 -
AA
/N ~ )?AIeppo
,OAleppo
el Ar-uto
r|AIn
Ain el' rus 0 '-Vr \ H\ '> (Rsneveh
N \\
,
-\
AJ j?
* < m Hammam
S c~~~Harbubaz}\NQ
-N~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Nc
AS '')-
A
(XT
\ ~ ~~ ~~~~~~~
I
e KowmO 0~~~~. 50 100 Km 0
- - -Land Routes * Ancient Sites

?
--?-- Oraya
FIG. 2. The Syro-Mesopotamianplains, showingsites and routesdiscussed in the text.
Uruk settlerswere thus drawninto a fertileand produc- in type. The formercan be understoodas indigenous
tive area that was only lightlysettledand could surely occupations in contact with Uruk settlements else-
mount only minimal resistance. where. Examples are numerous and range from the
The southernMesopotamian expansioninto the Susi- Amuq plain in northwestern Syria(Braidwoodand Braid-
ana plain was by no means an isolated phenomenon. wood i960) to Nuzi in the Kirkukarea of northeastern
Rather,it is to be understoodwithin a frameworkthat Iraq (StarrI939). The latter,however,may be considered
takes into account othervaryingprocessesof expansion to representintrusivesettlements.Three typesmay be
it may have helped to spur.These varyingprocesseswill distinguished:enclaves, stations,and outposts.
now be explored. Enclaves. Uruk enclaves are found in selected loca-
tions in the Syro-Mesopotamianplains, usually at the
URUK ENCLAVES, STATIONS, AND OUTPOSTS
juncturesof the principaleast-westoverlandroutesand
the main north-southwaterways. Typically, they are
Recognizable elements of Uruk material culture have composed of a centralsettlementof urban proportions
long been reportedfrom excavations across the high surroundedby a varyingnumberof smallersatellitevil-
plains of northernMesopotamia, northem Syria, and lages, and theyappear to be significantly largerand pre-
southeasternAnatolia (referred to here simplyas Syro- sumably more complex than indigenous Late Chalco-
Mesopotamia). Only recently, however, as evidence lithic sites in their vicinity. Three such settlements
fromnew excavationsand surveysin areas to be flooded have been identifiedalong the great bend of the Eu-
by dams along the Euphrates,Khabur,and TigrisRivers phrates: Samsat and Carchemish in southeasternTur-
has been made available, has it become possible to de- key and Habuba Kabira-sud/TellQannas in the Tabqa
finewith some precisionthe contextof these findsand Dam area of northeasternSyria (fig.2). The Anatolian
theirimplications.To simplifya complex situation,it sites are only poorlyunderstood,as exposuresof perti-
can be said that typicalUruk artifactsare foundin two nent levels have been limited (Ozgiiu I988, Woolley
distincttypesofsites across thenorthernplains: (i) sites I95 2), and,in the case ofCarchemish,associated surveys
in which isolated Uruk objects appear in the contextof are still largelylacking(but see Algaze i989). The Tabqa
an otherwiselocal Late Chalcolithic assemblageand (2) Dam enclave,however,providesus witha preciseidea of
sites characterizedby a culturalassemblagethatis over- the nature and magnitude of Uruk enclaves along the
whelminglysouthernMesopotamianin originand Uruk Upper Euphrates.

578 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 30, Number 5, December 1989
Perchedon a low terracedirectlyabove the Euphrates I974-75). Finally,the similaritiesin record-keeping pro-
floodplain some I 7 km north of the modern town of cedures (i.e., the use of numericalnotationtablets,im-
Meskene is the largeflatsite of Habuba Kabira-sudand pressedballs, and complex tokens)pointto the essential
its acropolis, Tell Qannas. Excavations there have re- correspondenceof the economic activities being con-
vealed that an earlier settlement,relativelymodest in ducted and of the administrativeapparatus in control
size and apparentlyshort-livedas well, was replacedbya (Strommenger I 98oa, TopperweinI 973, van Driel I 982).
well-plannedcity with carefullylaid-out streets,well- Remarkableas the scale of the Uruk clusterson the
differentiated residential,industrial,and administrative Upper Euphratesmay appear,it is by no means excep-
quarters,and a sturdily-built fortification wall with at tional. AnotherUruk enclave has been identifiedat Tell
least two gates, all apparentlyconstructedas part of a Brak,a large multiperiodmound on the JaghjaghRiver
single coherentmaster plan (Finet I979, Strommenger not farfromthe moderntown of Hassaka. The remains
ig80a). Directly to the southwestof the acropolis was uncoveredby Britishexcavations at the site more than
an extendedlow mound thathas been shown by surveys 50 yearsago leave littledoubt as to a southernMesopo-
and small probesto be contemporaneouswiththe settle- tamianpresencehere,althoughthe site had been an im-
ment nearbybut that does not appear to have been en- portantregionalcenterpriorto the Uruk intrusion.The
compassedwithinthe citywalls (Heinrichet al. I973:9). so-called Eye Temple, for example, with its tripartite
The scale of this settlementis impressive. The area plan, buttressedexteriorfacade,and bent-axisapproach,
within the city wall as preservedis about io ha, but is of unmistakable southernderivationin spite of its
when the contemporarysettled area southwestof Tell unique easternwing (Mallowan I947:pl. 57; fora vary-
Qannas is added to this, the minimum size of the site ing view see Weiss i985:86-89). Also southernin style
comes to about i8 ha (Strommengerig8oa). Moreover, are the associated objects,particularlythe strikingfrieze
surface traces of Uruk potteryfound across a .2oo-m- of gold, silver,and semipreciousstones foundover the
wide by i-km-longband borderingthe rivernorthofthe podium,the wall cones, rosettes,and relatedwall deco-
citysuggestthat it could have been significantly larger, ration,many of the amulets, and some of the glyptic
as muchas 40 ha (Suirenhagen I974-75:44-45). (Mallowan I947). Also recoveredat the site,albeitnot in
This settlementwas not isolated; it was surrounded situ, were furtherexamples of typicalseals and sealings
by a clusterof smallersites in which Uruk materialcul- (Buchanan i966), a numericalnotationtablet(Jasimand
turealso prevailed.At least nine ofthese sites have been Oates i986), and a fullrepertoireof characteristicUruk
identified(Boese I986-87, Domemann I988, Strom- pottery(Oates [J.]i985, i986). The size of the Uruk set-
menger ig80a, van Loon i967). Of these, the best- tlementat Brakhas been clarifiedby new investigations
understoodis JebelAruda, situated on a natural hill which show the presenceof Uruk levels over the whole
some 8 km due north.Here, on an easily defendedspur of the site's 40-odd ha (Oates [D.] i982:I4). Moreover,
some 6o m above the nearbyfloodplain,were cleared Brak is surroundedby a ringof smaller settlementsin
two monumental niched and buttressedbuildings of which Uruk materialshave also been identified.These
tripartitetype and associated residentialquartersthat may representeitheran extensivelower cityor a num-
closelymatchcorresponding structuresuncoveredin the ber of satellites.In eithercase the Uruk enclave at Brak
Habuba/Qannas settlement(van Driel and van Driel- must have been significantlylargerthan the site itself.
MurrayI979, i983). And again, the enclave was not isolated; Uruk pottery
It appearscertainthattheplannersand probablya sub- was found in at least ii sites in its vicinityalong the
stantial proportionof the inhabitantsof the Habuba/ Lower Jaghjagh(Fielden I98 I:263).
Qannas city and its dependencies were of southern A thirdMesopotamian enclave is found at Nineveh,
Mesopotamianorigin.As I have suggestedwithregardto oppositeMosul on the UpperTigris.This settlementtoo
the Middle/LateUruk sites in the Susiana plain, the re- was establishedin a preexistingregionalcenter.Kuyun-
markable congruitiesbetween the cultural assemblage jik, the largermound of Nineveh, has yieldeda fullrep-
of Uruk sites in the Tabqa enclave and the assemblage ertoireof Uruk material culture: potteryproduction,
characteristicofcontemporary politiesin southernMes- glyptic practices, iconography,and accounting proce-
opotamia cannot be explainedas a process of accultura- duresat the site were typicallysouthernMesopotamian
tion; not only are the buildingsand the artifactsthem- in style (Campbell Thompson and Hutchinson I93I,
selves identical but, more important,the underlying Campbell Thompson and Hamilton I932, Campbell
ideologyand economy also appear identical. The close Thompson and Mallowan I933, Collon and Reade i983).
parallelsin the monumentalarchitectureofTell Qannas Moreover,a recentreconsiderationof the earlyexcava-
and JebelAruda and that of sites in the southernal- tions suggeststhat the extensive deposits of the Uruk
luvium(LudwigI979), forexample,are indicativeof perioduncoveredbyMallowan in his deep soundingnear
shared administrativepractices.No less significantare the centerofthe mound were not unusual forthe site as
the shared iconographyrevealed by the glyptic,which a whole, making it likely that the southernMesopota-
evinces a common mythologyand religious beliefs mian occupation of Nineveh may have closely approxi-
(Strommenger 1980a, TopperweinI973, vanDrielI983), mated in size the 40-odd-haextent of Kuyunjik itself
and the parallels in ceramictechnologyand production, (Algaze I 986 b).
which suggestidentical manufacturingtechniques and Althoughthe riverinelocations of the enclaves would
mechanisms for the organizationof labor (Siurenhagen seem to suggestthat a crucial factordeterminingtheir

ALGAZE The Uruk Expansion | 579
placementwas controlof the north-southwaterways,a i986-87) and the relativelylong sequences of sites such
detailedanalysisrevealsthattheyare also orientedalong as Brak, Nineveh, and, possibly, Carchemish contrast
east-west overland routes of communication across starklywith the more explosive growthof the Habuba/
Syro-Mesopotamiaknown fromclassical times (see Dil- Qannas/Arudaenclave, which thus representsthe cul-
lemann I962, Miller I962).4 Each, it seems,commandsa mination of a long organicprocess of expansion. That
historicaljuncturewhere the principaloverlandroutes climax may be dated with some precisionto the later
intersectthe rivers.Along the Euphrates,Samsat, for part of the Uruk period (Warka,Eanna VI-IVa; Susa,
example, controlsthe main fordon the route fromthe AcropolisI, I9[?J-I8-I7) on the basis of glypticand
KurdishAnti-Taurus(Commagene) into northernMes- epigraphicparallels (Nissen I986 b: 328; Strommenger
opotamia via Urfa,Harran,and the northernreaches of ig80b:486; but see Suirenhageni986a:32 fora different
the Upper Khabur (Amuda, Nisibin). Carchemish,an- view). The absence ofpictogramsin numericalnotation
other of the historical Euphrates fords,connects the tablets discovered in the north indicates that the en-
northernSyrian steppe and the environsof the fertile claves were abandoned in an advanced but not final
Aleppo plain with the northernMesopotamian plains phase of the Late Uruk period (Eanna IVa).
east ofthe riverand ultimatelythe Tigrisvia the middle Stations.Away fromthe largerenclaves just described
reaches of the Balikh (Ain el cArus) and the Upper are foundmuch smallerisolated Uruk settlementsserv-
Khabur (Ra's el cAin).And finally,the Tabqa Dam area ing as links or "stations" alongside overlandroutesbe-
in the lower cornerof the greatbend of the Euphrates tween the enclaves and the alluvium and also along im-
representsthe last major fordbeforethe onset of the portantroutes into the northernplains. Althoughsuch
Syriandesert-the traditionalterminusofoverlandcara- stations may have existed on the Balikh (Akkermans
vans alongside the Euphratesbeforecuttingacross di- i984) and LowerKhabur(MonchambertI984, Rolligand
rectlywest in the directionof Hama on the Orontesor, KuihneI977-78) and possibly even deep in the Syrian
alternatively,northwestacross the Syriansteppe in the desert(Cauvin and Stordeuri985), theirpatternof set-
directionofAleppo, the Amanus, and ultimatelyCilicia tlementis clearest on the Euphrates.Strungalong the
(Dillemann i962:I7I-76, figs.I7-I8; Miller i962:map riveron the route fromthe alluvium to the Tabqa en-
io). The location of Mesopotamian enclaves along the clave, to Carchemishand Samsat (via the Balikh),and to
UpperKhaburand UpperTigrisbasins is also bestunder- Brak(via the Lower Khabur)are at least seven small sites
stood in termsof a strategyforensuringcontrolof over- characterizedby overwhelminglyUruk ceramic assem-
land routes. Tell Brak,forexample, is well situated to blages. Four of these sites have been identifiedin a re-
controloverlandnorth-southtrafficfromthe Euphrates centsurveyofthe stretchoftheriverbetweenRaqqa and
alongsidethe Khabur.Of equal importance,however,it Lake Assad (Kohlmeyeri985), and three others have
lies at the juncture of the Jaghjaghand an important been recognizedbelow the confluencewith the Khabur
classical route that crosses the Euphrates at either (Geyerand MonchambertI987; M. van Loon, personal
Zeugma or Carchemishand cuts across Ra's el cAinbe- communication).Soundings in one of these sites, Tell
foreheadingtowardsthe Tigrisvia the JebelSinjar.The Qraya, just north of Ashara (Terqa), have revealed at
Nineveh/Mosul area was historicallythe most impor- least 3 m of Uruk depositsand a wide repertoireof typi-
tantofthe UpperTigrisfords,and Nineveh is situatedat cal Uruk ceramics,small objects,glyptic,and account-
theintersectionofthe riverand severalofthemain over- ing devices within what appears to be an isolated out-
land routesfromthe Euphrates.Moreover,traditionally post on a ledge overlookingthe river,about i.8 ha in
the Tigriswas also an importantthoroughfare fordown- maximum extent (Reimer I989, Simpson i988). Best
streamnavigation,and the convergenceof complemen- understoodis the Uruk station uncoveredby German
taryoverlandand waterborneroutes at Nineveh makes excavatorsat Hassek H6yiuk,a small site (ca. i ha) on the
the site an ideal transshipmentpoint where the over- Euphrates some 50 km north of the Samsat enclave.
land trafficfromthe west could be easily and cheaply Here, at an importantfordallowing passage fromthe
funneled south downstream on the river (Oates [D.] Anti-Tauruspiedmont west of the Euphratesinto the
I 968:2 I1). northernMesopotamian plains, was exposed a small,
There is no need to presumethatall the enclaves thus roughlyoval fortifiedsettlementcenteredupon a large
faridentifiedwere establishedas partof a single coher- building of tripartitearrangementsimilar in plan to
ent effort.On the contrary,the remarkablylong se- some of the Uruk buildings of Habuba Kabira-sud
quence ofUruk depositsrecentlyuncoveredat the small (Behm-Blanckei986:fig. i; cf.SiirenhagenI974-75:map
site of Tell Sheikh Hassan in the Tabqa region (Boese 4). This buildingwas surroundedby a numberofmono-
cellular residential structures,work areas, and grain
alongthese
storagefacilitiesand appearsto have been builtas partof
4. OtherUruk enclavesmay remainto be identified
overlandroutes,away fromthe moreintensively surveyedrivers. a single coherenteffort,althoughsome minormodifica-
One possibilityis the large(go-ha)site ofTell Hamoukar,on the tions and subphases could be traced.The associated as-
plainsnorthoftheJebelSinjar,wherea widerangeofUrukceram- semblageis largelyUrukin type,althoughan indigenous
ics has been identifiedduringrepeatedsurfacesurveys(Weiss Late Chalcolithic ceramic component is also present
I983:44). Reportsofnumerousbeveled-rim bowlsin sitessouthof
the Sinjarrange(LloydI938:I33, I40; Abu al-Soofi985:95) raise (Behm-Blancke et al. 198I, I984).
the possibilitythatotherenclavesmayhave existedalongroutes Outposts. Outside of the geographicalhorizon of the
skirting the southemflankoftheJebelSinjar. Syro-Mesopotamianplains, large Uruk enclaves with

580 I CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 30, Number 5, December 1989
theirassociated clustersare no longerfound.What are is indicativeof theirfunction:theirsettlementpattern

found,occasionally, are small isolated outposts more seems efficientlysuited only to controlthe flow of re-
similar in size to the stationsjust described.These are sources. Although some, such as Brak and Nineveh,
located deep in the highlandsastridesome of the most could have and most probablydid tap into the consider-
importantoverland routes. Two such outposts have able agriculturalpotential of their surroundings,the
been recognizedto date,both in the IranianZagros: Go- scattereddistributionof the enclaves as a whole is an
din Tepe, in the KangavarValley, and Tepe Sialk, near indicationthat neitherthe controlof broad expanses of
the moderntown of Kashan. The formersits astridethe territory northe efficientlarge-scaleexploitationoflocal
Khorasan Road, historicallythe most importantof the agriculturalresourceswas a primaryconsideration(fora
east-westroutesacross the Zagros,followingthe course different view, see Schwartz i988). Eitherof these goals
of the Diyala River into the mountains (Weiss and would be reflectedby a broaderrange of site sizes dis-
YoungI975: I4-1I 5), whilethelatteris situatedalongthe persed over a wider landscape-a settlementpattern
principalnorth-southroute connectingKhuzestan and similar,in fact,to thatdocumentedforUruk sites in the
the otherplains of southwesternIran with the plain of Susiana plain. The occurrenceof intrusiveenclaves at
Rayy,near Tehran, and ultimatelyAfghanistan(Majid- the head of regionalhierarchiesin alien hinterlandsis a
zadeh i982:59-6i, fig.2). featurecommonly encounteredin situations of initial
The evidencefromGodin is clearest.The site is strate- colonial contactbetweensocieties at markedlydifferent
gically situated in the southeasterncornerof the Kan- levels ofsociopoliticalevolutionwhen long-distanceex-
gavarValley near a natural entrancecut by the Gamas change representsa considerationof primaryeconomic
Ab River and thus in a position to control overland importance.Often described by geographersas "den-
trafficacross the valley. On the highest point of the driticcentralplaces" or "gateway communities,"such
moundwas uncovereda small fort(GodinV) surrounded centers are characteristicof vertical distributionsys-
by a largerand apparentlyotherwiseindigenoussettle- tems that cut across political, ecological, and cultural
ment(Godin VI). The fortappearsto have been inhabited boundaries and allow highly integratedpolities max-
by settlersfromthe Uruk world, since the associated imum access to less complex social systemsat the pe-
assemblage included a variety of ceramic types and, ripheryat minimal expense (BurghardtI97I, Smith
more important,glypticand numericalnotationtablets I976). But if, indeed, the presence of Uruk enclaves
in styles characteristicof the end of the Uruk period across the Syro-Mesopotamianplains and of outposts
(Weiss and Young I975). Surveysof the valleyhave deep in the highlandsrepresentsa tellingindicationthat
failedto identifyfurthersuch occupations(Young i986). peripheralresourceswerebeingexploitedforthealluvial
Fartherinto the plateau, between the innerfoldsof the market,what exactly were those resources,and how
Zagros and the edge of the great salt desert (Dasht-i (and where)were theyacquired?
Kavir),at the top ofthe southernmound ofTepe Sialk, is Peripheralresources in Uruk contexts.A varietyof
anotherUruk outpost.Establishedat a positionthatmir- archaeological and epigraphicalevidence allows us to
rorsthat of the Godin fort,this outpost may be recog- discern the range of peripheralresources importedby
nized in the earlieroftwo phases assignedto PeriodIV at Uruk societies. While some of these commoditieshad
themound (IV.I) and is representedbya well-builtstruc- been importedbefore,their variety-and presumably
turethat was only partiallyexposed. Various character- quantity-in Uruk times appear to representan expo-
istic elements of Uruk material culturewere foundin nential increase over previousconditions,although,ad-
association (Amiet I985, GhirshmanI938). mittedly,fullyrepresentativesamples are not yet avail-
Intriguingly, while some of the enclaves in the Syro- able forthe earlierperiods.The importedcommodities
Mesopotamianplains evolvedovera possiblysignificant may be dividedinto two types:(i) essentialunprocessed
span of time, these highlandoutposts appear to have a resourcesnecessaryforthe day-to-day operationofcom-
much more restrictedchronologicaldevelopmentthat plex social organizationsin the resource-pooralluvium
coincides only with the veryend of the periodin which and (2) nonutilitarian,prestigecommoditiesnecessary
the enclaves flourishedand could possiblybe later.Par- for the consolidation and maintenance of social and
ticularlyimportantfroma chronologicalstandpointare political relationshipswithin elite groups.
the convex,cushion-shapednumericalnotationtablets, Of all the essential resourcesbroughtin by Uruk soci-
some with isolated pictograms,foundat both sites (e.g., eties, the most difficultto discernin the archaeological
Weiss and Young I975:fig. 4:2; GhirshmanI938:pls. 92 recordis wood. There can be no doubt,however,that
and 93. These tablets are unlike those recoveredin the timbermust have been importedin substantialquan-
enclaves and have parallels only in the latest phase of titiesto satisfythe architecturalrequirementsofrapidly
Uruk-periodsequences at Warka (Eanna IVb) and Susa growingUruk urban centers.Althoughstudies of car-
(Acropolis I, I7) (DittmannI986b: I7I; Le BnunandVal- bonized timberfromUruk contextsare still lacking,it is
lat I978). likely that the eastern Taurus regionof the Anatolian
highlandswas the source.Trunkscut in theMalatya and
Keban areas could have been easily and cheaplyfloated
CROSS-CULTURAL EXCHANGE IN THE URUK PERIOD
downstreamon the Euphrates(Rowton i967), and this
The location ofUruk enclaves at focalnodes ofthe lines may well have been a factorinfluencingthelocation of
ofcommunicationacross the Syro-Mesopotamian plains Uruk enclaves along its banks. Moreover,a recentstudy

ALGAZE The Uruk Expansion 158I
of carbonizedmaterialsfromarchaeologicalcontextsin tion of tools and implementsin Uruk sites (Eichmann

the Keban/Altinovaregion has indicated gradual de- i987), but tabularflintscrapersof Levantineorigin(Ro-
forestationthere in antiquity,its onset corresponding sen i983) and Canaanean blades of northernSyrian
withthe establishmentofUruk enclaves in thenorthem manufacture(Suirenhageni986a:ig-2o; HanburyTeni-
plains (Willcox I974). Anotherimportinto the alluvium son i983) are also common. Other nonexoticstone im-
duringthe Uruk period that is difficultto detect but ports include basalt, of northernMesopotamian or
must have had considerableeconomic impact is depen- northernSyrianorigin,used in the manufactureofprac-
dent labor, slaves acquired eitherin exchangeforother tical artifacts(e.g.,grindingstones) and reliefs(e.g.,the
goods or as prisonersofwar. The signsforslaves thatare Warka lion-huntstela [Moortgati969:pl. '41),and vari-
specificallystated to be of foreignorigin(i.e., fromthe ously veined marbles and limestones,common in the
mountains) can be recognized already in the Archaic Zagros rangeand the centralplateau ofIran (Beale I973)
Texts fromthe Eanna Precinctat Warka (Eanna IV/III), and used forutilitarianand ritualvessels (Lenzen I958,
which are partlycontemporaneouswith the finalphase i959) and, occasionally,sculpture(e.g.,the Warka head
of the Uruk expansion (Gelb i982, Vaiman I976). [Moortgati969:pls. 25-271).
More easily traced in the archaeological record are No less importantthan the above in theirsocial im-
other essential imports, such as bitumen, common pact (SchneiderI977) but acquired in smallerquantities
stones, and base metals-in particularcopper,which duringthe Urukperiodwerevariousnonutilitariancom-
figuresprominentlyin the ArchaicTexts (Nissen i985). modities,such as raremetals and semipreciousand pre-
Copperobjects,vessels,and tools are amplydocumented cious stones. Such exotic imports are recoveredat a
in Uruk contextsboth in the Mesopotamian alluvium numberofUruk sites in the alluviumand Khuzestanbut
and in Khuzestan (e.g., Warka [Heinrich I938; Lenzen most strikinglyin the Eanna Precinct area at Warka
I958, I959], Tello [de GenouillacI9341, Susa [Le Brun (HeinrichI936; Lenzen I958, i959). Rare metalsand
I97I, I978a]), and numerousunworked copperlumps alloys,in fact,are frequentlymentionedin the Archaic
and metallurgical installations were recognized at Texts (Nissen i985). Silver,lead, and gold were obtain-
Warka(HeinrichI938, Nissen I970). Copperwas obtainable fromsources in highlandIran (Caldwell i967), and
able either fromsources in or near the Dasht-i Kavir silverwas mined in the Keban regionof highlandAna-
desert in central Iran (Berthoudet al. i982, Caldwell tolia at the time of the Uruk expansion (Yener i983).
i967) or in the ErganiMaden area of the eastem Taurus Many of the exotic stones foundin Uruk levels, such as
(de Jesusi980). The formerwere accessible to Urukcity- colored and bituminous limestones,aragonite,quartz,
states in Khuzestan via the Uruk outpostat Tepe Sialk, serpentine,chalcedony,amethyst,jasper,and rock crys-
while the latterwere withineasy reachofUruk enclaves tal, are of uncertain provenance (Heinrich I936). Ob-
in the Syro-Mesopotamianplains, notably Tell Brak, sidiantools (Lenzeni959) and vessels(HeinrichI937,
only ioo km due south of the Erganiarea on the natural JordanI932), however,are surelyof easternAnatolian
north-southrouteacross the Karacadag/TurAbdinhigh- originand both finishedproducts(cf.Tobler i950) and
lands. Anotherimportedresourcewas bitumen,which raw materials may have been imported.Similarly,the
could be procuredfromnaturalseepages at variousloca- lapis lazuli fromwhich numerousrecoveredfragments
tions in southwesternIran at the footof the Zagros, in of jewelryand inlaysweremade (LenzenI958, i959)
the Middle Euphratesregionin the vicinityof Hit, or incould only have originatedin Badakhshan in northern
the Upper Tigris region near Mosul (Marschnerand Afghanistan(Hermann i968:22). Steatite/chlorite and,
WrightI978). It was made into asphaltbymixingit with morecommonlyat thistime,high-qualityalabaster(cal-
a varietyof mineral and vegetable matterand used as cite) used forthe manufactureof elaboratevessels (e.g.,
mortarand for general waterproofingin architectural the Warka vase [Moortgati969:pls. I7-I91), cylinder
contexts.Extensiveamounts of asphalt were noticed in and stamp seals (Asher-Greveand Sterni983), amulets,
connectionwith elite Uruk buildingsat Warka and Tell weights,and various otherhigh-prestige artifactsmust
Uqair(HeinrichI937, Lloydand SafarI943). have come from sources in southeasternIran (Beale
Substantialquantitiesof limestoneboulderswere im- I973, Kohn I978), while beads made fromotherprecious
portedinto the alluvium in the Uruk periodforbuilding stones such as carnelianand agate must have originated
purposes,and limestoneplasterwas commonlyused to still fartheraway, in India and south-centralAfghani-
coat the walls of public buildings.Moreover,limestone stan(Lamberg-Karlovsky andTosi I973).
plasterwas even made into bricksand employedas mor- Urukmaterial culturein indigenoushighlandsites. If
tar,practicesthat are seldom attestedafterUruk times the distributionofperipheralresourcesin Uruk sitesfur-
(Huot and Marechal i985). Limestone is available near nishes us with importantevidence as to one possible
Warkain the westerndesertthat separatesmodernIraq rationale underlyingthe Uruk expansion,the distribu-
fromSaudi Arabia (Boehmer i985) but may also have tion of Uruk-typeobjects in otherwiseindigenoushigh-
been quarriedin outcropsacrossthe Syro-Mesopotamian land sites, in turn,points to the geographicorientation
plains and shipped down the Tigris or the Euphrates. of highland-lowlandinteractionand to the mechanisms
Anothercommon stone importwas flint,available as wherebycommoditieswere acquired. Highlandsites in
nodules in the westerndesert,the Zagrospiedmont,and which Uruk materials have been recognizedare typi-
the northernplains. It must have been importedfroma cally located eitheralong importanthighlandroutes or
varietyof sources as raw materialforthe local produc- at positions commandingaccess to coveted resources.

58.21 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 3o, Number 5, December I989
tV AX tLXtr %~~~~~~~~y- X/n

I\'+r,\nr,4\n''~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~j BR
Za
IS s<'\
/ ,A4\~_ ' UL A YA
WzAnn
>:r .............' \on...
" .'
^ / / ' / u . *' ;HAMADAN
%'
> F C0 ~ ~ RWADI
/,
>NINEVEH /r\z /<
FIG.~~~
3.Tenrhr ars soigstsadruesdsusdi h et
This distributionindicates thatwhile Uruk enclaves in larlyclear in the case of sites in the principalintermon-
Syro-Mesopotamiaand Uruk city-statesin Khuzestan tane valleys traversedby east-west routes across the
controlledthe flowof resourcesand goods in and out of Zagros. In the northernZagros piedmont area in Iraqi
the alluvium,by and largecontrolof the sources ofraw Kurdistan,forexample,a limitedvarietyofUrukpottery
materialsthemselvesand of the routesthatfedinto the occurredin at least seven sites in the Rania and Shahrzur
lowlands was held by indigenous communities that plains, which controlroutesfollowingthe course of the
were willing to trade. LesserZab andAdheimRivers(Abual-SoofI970, I985;
The distributionof Uruk materialsin indigenousset- Hijara I976). Deeper still in the mountains,a numberof
tlements astride importanthighlandroutes is particu- indigenoussites with tracesof Uruk materialshas been

AL GAZE The UrukExpansion1583
~~>\ >\ A ~%.*i~\ f\N\\ TO SIALK
A~~~
AA/
~\ (
HIDASHT
'*'KANGAVAR
AAA/N/
A
A A
W~... ,A
A V~~~~
TO
MANDALI.
* ~
*:~~ ~~~~~~~~~~~A 0 50 ioo 200km
BURUJI~D
AA
A~~~~~~A
Vt Vt
LURAN ..... A
.61SFAHAN~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
/<~ 7c f WN
SAHIOD
A~~~~
W-"6 " AUSIAANf
COMMUNICATIO
/IN/V\. \
A A~~~
ORMuz ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T ERA
FIG.4. Th otenZgos hwn ie adrue icssdi h et
identifiedin the Mahidasht, Shahdad, and Kangavar provinces must have been important,too, since Uruk
Valleys traversedby the Khorasan Road (Levine and potterytypesare foundin surveyedEarlyBanesh sites in
Young I986) (fig.3). As noted above, at least one Uruk the westernportionofthe Kur Riverbasin at the head of
outpost (Godin Tepe) was located on this route. The routesfromKhuzestanvia the Ram Hormuz and Behba-
situation in the south-centraland southernZagros is hanplains(AldenI979) (fig.4).
less clear, as explorationsto date have been less inten- A similar patternis evidentin southeasternAnatolia
sive, but a surveyof the Shahr-iKordplain in the Bahti- and the eastern Taurus. Whereas beveled-rimbowls
yariregionnortheastof Khuzestanrevealedat least two have been recognizedat a few sites along the Tigrisjust
indigenoussites (possiblysuccessive occupations)with south of Cizre and along the Batman Su and the Bohtan
substantialevidence of Uruk ceramicson theirsurfaces Su (Algaze I989), it is at ArslanTepe, near theEuphrates
(Zagarell I982). Both are strategicallylocated along an on the Malatya plain, thatwe findthe most convincing
importantroutefromthe Susiana plain via theIzeh plain illustrationof the correlationbetween Uruk materials
into the centralplateau, the same routethatleads even- and sites commandingaccess to highlandroutes.Recent
tually to the Sialk outpost. Routes across the southern Italian excavationsat the site have revealeda numberof
Zagros towardsFars and eventuallyKermanand Sistan characteristicUruk artifactsin the contextof massive

584 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 30, Number 5, December I989
*TEPECIK
RANI ) CASPIAN
DIYARBAKIR
*OAZVIN
GHABRESTAN*
1*5IALI( ,ANARAK
_e < ~~~~
GODIN VESHNOVEH
~~GODIN SIALK _-
DASHT-I KAVIR
| a A S oISFAHAN ~~~~~~~~~~~~~DASHT-1I
LUT
NK
- X 5 o~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
KERMAN
INDIGENOUS S
* SITES WITH URUK MATERIALS IRAZ
OTHER SITES
0 MODERN CITY d
COPPER DEPOSITS
? 500 kem &<Al
FIG. 5. Principalcopperdepositsin southeasternAnatolia, the Iranian plateau, and westernAfghanistanand

location ofindigenoussites (*) in theirvicinityin which Uruk-type
potteryhas been found(redrawnafter
et al. [I982:4I] and Caldwell[I967:12].)
Berthoud
indigenous structuresand largely local artifactualas- in the nearbyErgani area at the time of the Uruk en-
semblages (Period VIA). Particularlyimportantare a claves in the northernplains (fig.5).
number of spouted jars and bottles of unmistakable On the Iranianplateau, too, a few typesof Uruk pot-
Uruk ware and typerecoveredin situ inside storerooms, teryhave been recoveredin otherwiseindigenoussites
as well as a numberof cylinder-sealimpressionsin typi- that can be shown to have been metallurgicalcenters
cal southernMesopotamian styles(PalmieriI98I, Fran- alreadyin prehistorictimes and thatcommandedaccess
gipaneand Palmieri I988). Surveysindicatethatthe site to some of the most importantcopper deposits in the
is the largestby farin the Malatya plain and the nearby area. Tepe Ghabrestan,for example, where numerous
Tohma Su basin. Moreover,the Malatya area commands beveled-rimbowls and occasional conical cups of Uruk
one of the veryfewyear-roundpasses across the Taurus typehave been found(GhabrestanIV.I-3), is located in
Range and has historicallybeen the meetingpoint of thevicinityofa numberofimportantcopperdepositson
routes fromthe Kayseriplain and centralAnatolia via the Qasvin plain and appears to have exploited those
Elbistan or the Tohma Su and routes from eastern sourcessince the 5thmillenniumB.C. (Majidzadeh I976,
Anatolia and northernMesopotamia (Yakarand Gursan- I979). Copper fromthe Qazvin area was accessible to
SalzmannI979). Uruk societies by way of the KhorasanRoad or an east-
In additionto sites in intermontanevalleys traversed west road of lesser importanceinto northernMesopo-
byhighlandroutes,Urukpotteryis also oftenrecognized tamia via the Solduz Valley and the Lesser Zab. At Tepe
in indigenous sites exploitingknown deposits of high- Sialk,variousisolated Uruk materialsare foundin indig-
land resources. This patternis clearest in the case of enous levels predatingthe Period IV.i Uruk outpost
metals,particularlycopper.In the Taurus highlands,for (Amiet I985). Sialk too had been an importantearly
example, a small varietyof Uruk ceramicshas been re- metallurgicalcenter,and the site is in the vicinityof
portedin an isolated structureat Tepecik, an important some of the most importantdeposits of copper-bearing
site on the Keban plain (Esin I982). Substantialtracesof ores in Iran-the Anarakmines, ioo km due east in the
coppersmeltinguncoveredin Late Chalcolithiclevels at Dasht-i Kavir (Berthoudet al. I982), and the smaller
Tepecik itself(Esin I975) and at a nearbysite ofNorsun- Veshnoveh source near Kashan (Holzer and Momen-
tepe (HauptmannI975) indicatethe existenceofa flour- zadeh I 97 I). Copperprocessedat Sialk was withinreach
ishingnative copperworkingindustryexploitingmines of Uruk communities in Khuzestan via north-south

routes across the centralplateau and the south-central Hammam et-Turkmanhave uncovered portionsof an
Zagros. Finally,importantcoppersources are also found elaboratelyniched monumental buildingin an unmis-
in the Kerman region (Berthoudet al. I982), and once takable southernMesopotamian style (van Loon I983:
again, a limited varietyof Uruk materials is found at fig.4) that has close parallels in tripartitestructuresin
indigenoussites near those sources.One ofthese sites is contemporary levels ofUruk sites in the Mesopotamian
Tal-i Iblis (Iblis IV) in the BardsirValley, an important alluvium(e.g.,Heinrichi982:figs. 82, II5, II7) and in
indigenous metallurgicalcenter since the 5th millen- the nearbyUruk enclave in the Tabqa area (e.g., Finet
nium (Caldwell I967). Another case in point is Tepe I979:fig. i5). Significantly,the Hammam building
Yahya, where a handfulof beveled-rimbowl sherdswas marksan importantdeparturein the use of the area ex-
foundin late-4th-millenniumlevels (Yahya VA) (Beale cavated: it caps a long uninterruptedsequence of con-
I978). The Kerman area resources were obtainable by tinually rebuilt, much smaller domestic buildings of
Uruk societies in Khuzestanvia routesacrossthe south- the Late Chalcolithic period (van Loon I983). The as-
centralZagros and the Kur Riverbasin. sociated ceramics (Hammam VB) are predominantlyof
the Amuq F chaff-tempered typeand are matchedat nu-
THE IMPACT ON INDIGENOUS SOCIETIES
merous Late Chalcolithic sites elsewhere in the Syro-
Mesopotamian plains and the southeasternAnatolian
It seems clear thatwhat the expansionofUruk societies highlands.Typical Uruk potteryis not recorded,norhas
into areas on theirnorthernperipheryentailedwas not a it been foundelsewhereat the site (AkkermansI988).
process of colonization such as took place in Khuzestan The apparentdiscrepancybetweenthe indigenousna-
but the appropriationof a few selected locations that tureoftheartifactualassemblageand the Mesopotamian
allowed them to tap into preexistinglowland-highland connectionsevinced by the buildingitselfis easily rec-
tradenetworkscontrolledby indigenouscommunities. onciled ifthe evidence is interpreted to signifythe adop-
In so doing,theywere able to funnelsome of thattrade tion by a local groupnot only of an architecturalstyle
into a moreextensiveand better-organized long-distance that is typicallysouthernMesopotamian in originbut,
exchangenetworkorientedtowardssupplyingthe needs farmore important,of parts of the ideologyassociated
of emergingUruk centers. withthatdistinctivestructuretype.The sharpalteration
By and large the hinterlandsaway fromthe intrusive in the functionof the excavated area at Hammam can
Uruk settlementswere leftuntouched(thoughnot unaf- thenbe seen as the resultof changesin a groupthathas
fected). They were characterizedby indigenous com- suddenly come into intense contact with a more ad-
munities at a lower level of social, political, and eco- vanced social system.Other than the tripartite building
nomic integration.This is clear when one comparesthe itself,evidence of this contactis providedby a jar-neck
sizes of the Uruk enclaves with those of Late Chal- sealing impressedwith a seal cut in a provincialversion
colithic sites in their surroundings.Most preexisting ofthe Uruk stylefoundnearbyon the surfaceofthe site
sites were not much largerthan villages (see Braidwood (van Loon i983:fig. 5). More specifically,I see the Ham-
I937, MatthersI98I, Ozdogan I977, Whallon I979, mam structureas markingthe adoptionbylocal elites of
Meijer I986, Wattenmakerand Stein I989, Benedict the ideas of rulership,modes of social integration,and,
I980, Algaze I989, and Henrickson I989), and the few possibly, concomitant ritual displays introducedinto
more sizable contemporaryLate Chalcolithic commu- the northby the largerand more highlystratifiedMes-
nitiesin thenorth(e.g.,Tell Hammam et-Turkman,Tell opotamian enclaves. In the contextof local Late Chal-
Leilan, and Arslan Tepe) pale by comparisonwith the colithic society,this adoptionwas expressedconcretely
enclaves. The level ofurbanplanningevidencedin a site by the use of preciselythat architecturalformwhich in
such as Habuba/Qannas and the degreeof social control Mesopotamian society constitutedthe focus of the ad-
over labor supplies that may be inferredfromits appar- ministrativeand religious activities being emulated.
ently rapid development contrastsharplywith condi- This makes sense only if the increased power of local
tions in the surroundingindigenouscommunities,and elites in their own society derived fromtheir role as
the locations of the intrusivesites imply an exponen- mediatorsof contactswith those southernenclaves and
tially more complex economic system. These various mobilizersof local and importedresources,presumably
strandsofevidence suggestthatthe Uruk enclaves were fortradebut conceivablyfortributeas well.
appendagesof communitiesat a state level of organiza- The economic impact. The Hammam case and its im-
tion and were themselves similarlyorganized.In con- plications representone facet of a rangeof interactions
trast,the contemporaryLate Chalcolithic communities between indigenouspolities and the Mesopotamian en-
are likely to have representedexamples of that inter- claves in theirmidst. Anothercomplementaryfacet of
mediatestagein the evolutionofsociopoliticalcomplex- thatinteraction,the economic,may be discernedin data
ity traditionallyreferredto by sociologists as patrimo- fromtwo otherLate Chalcolithic settlements.
nial societies (Doyle I986) and by anthropologistsas KurbanHoyuk, a small mound (6 ha maximum)situ-
complex chiefdoms (Wright I984). If this is so, we ated in the Karababa Dam area of southeasternTurkey,
should expect to findevidence in local societies of in- has produced a stratifiedsequence documentingeco-
stitutionalchangescaused by the onset ofcontactswith nomic changes broughtabout by the onset of contact
the more complex southernpolities in theirmidst. with the nearby Uruk enclave of Samsat (see Algaze
The ideological impact. Recent excavations at Tell I186a). The main Late Chalcolithic sequence (Area A)

586 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 30, Number 5, December 1989
consistsoffivesuperimposedphases compressedwithin
I.9 m of depositsclearedoveran area of 30 m2. The
lowest of these phases is characterizedby an indigenous
chaff-tempered (Amuq F) assemblagewhichpredatesthe
Uruk intrusion.The succeeding fourphases, however,
containvaryingamountsofUruk ceramics,and the pro-
portionofgrit-tempered pottery,includingmanytypical CHAFF
Uruk types,increasesin each (fig.6). Thus it is possible

so-
to observe at Kurban a gradual change from a local
ceramicindustryto one of exogenousorigin,the former
producingchaff-tempered vessels by hand or on a slow
wheel and the latterproducingmass-manufactured, grit-
8707
temperedvessels of Uruk type on a fast wheel. The E GRIT
significanceof these changes lies in that they betray R
C 60-
broadertransformations precipitatedby the intrusionof E
N
the Uruk enclaves. Presumably,the shifttowardsmass- T
A 5
o
producedceramics observedat Kurban is symptomatic G
E
ofthe developmentoffull-scalecraftspecializationas an 40-
importantfactorin the economies of indigenoussoci-
eties and points to the growingabilityof local elites to P 30- HAS
controlexistinglabor supplies.
At Arslan Tepe, substantiallylargerexposuresof Late 20-
Chalcolithic levels provide a greaterrange of evidence

forthe impact of contacts with Uruk societies-surely 10-
mediated throughUruk enclaves across the northern

0-
plains-on local communities in the northernperiph- 6 7 8 9 10 6 7 8 9 10
ery,even those deep in the highlands.Particularlyim- PHASE
portantis the evidence fromthe Period VIA architec-
turalcomplex.The associated ceramics,forexample,are
characterizedby two juxtaposedtraditions:a hand-made FIG. 6. Relative frequencies(by weight)ofindigenous
red/blackburnishedware that is at home in the eastern chaff-tempered and exogenousplain simple wares
Anatolian highlands and a very differentfast-wheel- (grit-tempered) in Late Chalcolithiclevels ofArea A at
made, plain simple ware that has no precedentsin the Kurban Hoyuik.
area even thoughit is locally made (Frangipaneand Pal-
mieriI 98 8). The latterrepresentsthelocal versionofthe
mass-manufactured potteryof Uruk sites and enclaves ing the adoptionofmodes ofsocial organizationthatare
and constitutesan importantshiftin the technologyand ultimatelyof Mesopotamian origin(Frangipaneand Pal-
underlyingsocial organizationofpotterymanufacturein mieri I988).
the highlands.A similardichotomymay be observedin
the contemporary glypticassemblageat the site,consist- INDIGENOUS SOCIOPOLITICAL DEVELOPMENT AND
ing of thousands of discardedsealings,most in a single THE COLLAPSE OF THE URUK EXPANSION
cache withina small roomby the entranceto the Period
VIA complex. The majorityof these sealings bear the The broadgeographicaldistributionofthe affectedlocal
impressionof square or circularstamp seals with sche- communitiesfromthe northernplains to the highlands
matized animal figures,often arrangedantithetically, is indicative of the degree to which the strategically
in a style common to Late Chalcolithic sites elsewhere located Mesopotamian outposts across the northern
(Amiet I973, Frangipane and Palmieri I988; cf. Bu- peripheryhad achieved effectivecontrol of the long-
chanan I967). A few,however,are impressedby means distancetradeeconomyoftheregion,a controlnot based
of cylinderratherthan stamp seals,5 and these not only to anygreatextenton actual territorialdominionbut no
reveal the influenceof Mesopotamian sealing practices less effectiveforbeing indirect.Such control,I have ar-
and iconography but hint at important economic gued, could only have meant an exchangesystembased
changes within local communities.The numerousbul- on the flowof raw materialsfromhighlandsourcesto a
lae discardedat the main access point to the PeriodVIA resource-starvedcore in returnforlabor-intensivepro-
complexindicatewithouta doubtthatthe sitewas func- cessed and semiprocessed goods. Under these condi-
tioningas a redistributive centerforthe surroundingre- tions, one would have expected that initiallyvigorous
gion-a role which is seen by the excavatorsas reflect- social, political, and economic growthin the peripheral
regionswould inevitablyhave given way to stagnation
5. Amongthe i,8oo or so sealingsrecoveredas a singlecache in and regression as local economies grew increasingly
RoomA2o6 by thegateway,forexample,some 76 different stamp
seals and io cylinderseals are said to be represented(Collon overspecializedand dependenton a marketthey could
i987:I4). not control.The expected regressionappears,however,

not to have materialized.It was abortedby the collapse creased use of irrigationas ever more marginal lands
of the Uruk expansion. This collapse was inevitable,as were brought into intensive cultivation (Boserup
it resultedfromthe conjunctionoftwo independentand I965:23-40). The consequencesofsucha shiftarepre-
diametricallyopposed processes that could not coexist dictable: a naturaland inevitabledecline in agricultural
forlong. productivityas a consequence of salinization. Effective
In the alluvium, the very success of selected Uruk agriculturalintensificationin the environmentofsouth-
polities in foundingfarawaycolonies and therebyestab- ern Iraq, then,cannot be maintainedover the long run
lishing some controlover the lines of communication (Adams I 978, Jacobsenand Adams I 958; but see Powell
critical to centralizedurban life ensured the eventual I985).
decline of the resultingsupraregionalinteractionsys- The absence of pictogramson the numericalnotation
tem. Surelyimportantin this regression,given the pre- tabletsfoundin the northernenclaves suggeststhatthe
vailing patternof trade,was that an adequate flow of hypothesized weakening of the socio-environmental
local resourcesforexchangewould have had to be mar- system in the alluvium must have startedin an ad-
shaled at all costs. Thus the larger centers through vanced but not final phase of the Late Uruk period
which the importedresourceswould have been funneled (Eanna IVa), althoughthe retrenchment fromKhuzestan
(i.e., those capable of the considerableexpendituresre- appears to have taken place slightlylater,just priorto
quired for the establishmentof enclaves in the first the transitionto the so-called JemdetNasr period. A
place) would naturallyhave attractedthe agricultural recentreanalysisoftabletsrelatingto agricultureamong
and pastoralproductionof nearbyruralcommunitiesby the Archaic Texts appears to show relativeproportions
whatever means were necessary (Adams i98I:8o-8i), of barleyto wheat on the orderof threeto one, suggest-
therebystrengtheningpreexistingtrends favoringthe ing the onset of salinization in the environsof largeur-
growthof settlementhierarchiesand buttressingtheir ban centersalreadyat this transition(Powell I985:I4-
position vis-a-vis regional rivals. Some archaeological 15).6 In addition,thereare various indicationsof impor-
correlatesof this process are discernible:surveysshow tant settlementdiscontinuitiesat this time, both at a
thatwhile thetransitionfromthe earlierto thelaterpart regional level (Postgate I986) and within some of the
of the Uruk periodwas markedby a substantialpopula- principal centers of the alluvium. At Warka, for ex-
tion shiftfromthe northernto the southem reaches of ample,none oftheprincipalLate Uruk public structures
the Mesopotamian alluvium, total settled area did not survivedthe transitionto the JemdetNasr period,and
change markedly. Other than the location of settle- therelativelymeagerremainsassignableto the Eanna III
ments,what did changewas the proportionof the popu- phase contraststrikinglywith the much more coherent
lation that lived in urban-sizedagglomerationsand the architecturalcomplexes that had characterizedthe pre-
size ofthose agglomerations.Whereasin the earlierpart ceding phase (Finkbeiner I986; Strommengerig8ob:
oftheUrukperiodmorethanhalfoftheestimatedpopu- 486-87).
lationlived in centersdeemedurban,in thelaterpartthe Meanwhile, in the northa diametricallyopposed pro-
proportionofthepopulationlivingin smallerdependent cess was takingplace. At the same time that the eco-
settlementsincreased.While the overall numberof ur- nomic viabilityof alluvial communitieswas being un-
ban centers decreased, however, the average size of derminedby the degradationof the subsistence base,
the remainingcenters increased considerably(Adams peripheralsocieties were becomingstrongeras a result
I98I:68-76, tables 3 and 4, figs.I5 and i6). The cityof ofthe internaldevelopmentstimulatedbycontactswith
Warkain the Late Uruk period,forexample,is estimated the Mesopotamianenclaves in theirmidst,and it is con-
byAdams to have been in the ioo-ha size range,and new ceivable that some began to expand in theirturn.Such
more intensivesurveysnow show this estimateto have communitiescould have threatenedsoutherndomina-
been fartoo conservative(FinkbeinerI987:I42). These tion of the critical trade routes at preciselythe same
enlargedcentersappear to have been capable of inhibit- time that internal rivalries and unavoidable environ-
ing the growthof similar (rival)agglomerationsin their mental pressureshad weakened the capabilities of se-
vicinityand were surroundedinsteadby a dense scatter lected city-statesin the alluvium to respondeffectively
of satellitesettlementsengaged,no doubt,in dependent and beforethe realities of long-termunequal exchange
agriculturalproduction(Adams I98I:75). could assert themselves. This scenario, admittedly
In the chronicallyunstable alluvial environmentof somewhathypothetical,helps to explain the apparently
southem Iraq, the resultingacceleration of trendsto- sudden abandonmentof Uruk outposts throughoutthe
wards centralization discernible in the survey data northernperipheryand the retrenchment fromKhuze-
would have representeda powerfuldestabilizingforce stan.
thatmust ultimatelyhave resultedin the partialbreak- By removing the eventually suffocatingeffectsof
down ofthe socio-environmental system.This pointhas asymmetricalexchange,the collapse ofthe Uruk expan-
been argued persuasively by Gibson (I974), who has sion may have allowed the growthof increasinglycom-
shown a close correlationbetween political centraliza-
tionin the alluvium and the intensification and regulari-
zation of economic demands on that inherentlyfragile 6. There are, however,significant
uncertainties
inherentin our
environment.In southernMesopotamia, this can only understanding ofthesedifficult-to-translate
tablets,and theymay
have meant progressivelyshorterfallowperiodsand in- not constitutea representative
sample.

plex and independentperipheralcommunitiesto con- moreeasily and cheaplyobtainedbyallowingthe indige-

tinue unchecked. Archaeologically,this is reflectedin nous communitiesalreadyexploitingthemto continue,
the appearanceof a numberofdistinctEarlyBronzeAge providedtheycould be persuadedor coercedintotradeat
assemblages with very specific geographic distribu- terms favorableto the communities of the alluvium.
tions-which presumablybetraysome sort of cultural Anotherfactorthat surelyaccounts forsome of the ob-
(and political?)boundaries.Sociopolitically,we witness serveddifferences in the outcomes of Uruk penetration
the emergenceof a number of stronglocal kingdoms of theireastern and northernperipheriesis that in ad-
(glimpsedin Mesopotamian documentsof the EarlyDy- vancinginto the Susiana plain Uruk settlerswere drawn
nastic period)that controlledpartsof the lines of com- by a relativesettlementvacuum into which theycould
municationpreviouslyheld by Uruk city-states.This is step unmolested or with only minimal resistance. In
best documentedin the case of the Proto-Elamitestate moving northwardinto Syro-Mesopotamia,however,
centeredat both Susa and Anshan (Tal-i Malyan). It not Uruk settlersintrudedinto an area where indigenous
onlyinheritedand expandedthe trans-Iranian routesto- culturesflourishedand wherewell-developedtradenet-
wardsthe east oftheprecedingperiod(Alden 1982, Lam- works alreadyexisted.
berg-Karlovskyi985) but even appears to have taken A profitableway to tackle the question of how the
controlof traderoutes in and out of the Mesopotamian strategiesof contact between Mesopotamian societies
alluvium via the Diyala basin (Collon i987:20). The rise and peripheralcommunitieswere shaped by preexisting
of these various indigenouspowers astrideportionsof conditionsin the peripheryis to use comparativemate-
the internationaltraderoutes explains why,in spite of rial on presumablysimilar or related phenomena for
the Uruk collapse, contactsbetweenthe now shrunken which adequate historicaldocumentationis available. A
Mesopotamian core and its peripherycontinued un- useful and provocative study is that of Curtin (i984),
abated(Zagarell i986:420), althoughwe have to presume who exploresthe formsthatcross-culturalexchangehas
thatthe termsofthe tradewould not have been as favor- taken throughhistory,the ways in which it has been
able to the alluvium as before. organized,and its impact on the societies exposed to it.
His premise is that aftera certainpoint in social evo-
lution the general outlines of the institutions of
Conclusions cross-culturaltrade become remarkablysimilar across
otherwise very differentcivilizations and historical
THE VIEW FROM THE PERIPHERY
circumstances,even thoughthe specificsof the institu-
By the second half of the 4th millennium B.cC., highly tionsand ofthe tradeitselfvaryconsiderably.According
integratedsocieties of the Mesopotamian alluvium had to Curtin,the most common institutionalformofcross-
succeeded in establishinga systemof interactiontying cultural exchange afterthe coming of the city is the
theirresource-deficient lowlands with the resource-rich "trade diaspora," definedbroadly as the settingup of
but less-developedhighlandperiphery.This was accom- communitiesforthe specificpurposeof mediatingcon-
plished by the colonization of the neighboringplains tacts between areas with different but complementary
of southwesternIran and by the foundingof enclaves, resourceendowments.Curtinfindsthatin areas ofcon-
stations, and outposts at selected locations across the siderableeconomic potentialbut relativelyundeveloped
northernperiphery.This intrusionwas in many ways or underdevelopedintraregionaltradenetworks,trading
comparableto the historicallydocumentedexpansionof settlementstend to be spreadwidelyin the local hinter-
the Akkadian empireinto some of the same areas some land and to be directlyinvolved in the exploitationof
600-700 years afterthe Uruk period and was equally resources-a settlementpatternat variance with that
short-lived.Nevertheless,it was to have importantand observedforUruk settlementsin the northand north-
immediaterepercussionson the developmentof indige- west. In areas wheremore or less powerfullocal polities
nous cultureswith which it came into contact,and this already control a developed trade network,however,
partiallyexplains the eventual collapse of the resulting tradingsettlementsare more likely to be established
supraregionalinteractionsystem. only at selected locations,usually at the junctureof in-
One importantquestion thatremainsis whythe Uruk terregionaland intraregionaltransportation networks.
intrusioninto the Syro-Mesopotamianplains involved A particularlyinstructiveparallel forthe sortof rela-
onlythe takingover ofselectedlocalities so as to ensure tionshipenvisionedhere betweensocieties ofthe Meso-
controlof long-distancetraderatherthan the more per- potamian peripheryin the 4th millenniumB.C. and the
vasive process of colonization that took place on the Uruk outposts in their midst is the Portugueseintru-
Susiana plain. An importantfactormust have been that sion into Senegambia(WestAfrica)in the i6th and I7th
the Susiana was about a week to ten days away from centuriesA.D. When Portuguesecolonists firstarrived
southern Iraq, either on foot or by donkey caravan on the Senegambiancoast in searchofslaves,gold,ivory,
(Wrightig8i:264), while the northernenclaves could be and spices, the area was occupied by a numberof inde-
reached only afterone or more monthsof travel(Hallo pendentchiefdomsengagedin livelyintraregionaltrade
i964). The logistical constraintsimposed by distance in salt, iron, textiles, agriculturalproducts,and fish.
and transportation technologiesmeant thatthe enclaves Moreover, for several centuries prior to their arrival
must have been expensiveto establishand then to sup- therehad been long-distancetrade(overlandvia the Sa-
port and defend. The northernresources were much hara) between the coast and the Muslim states of the

Mediterraneanbasin. Given these conditions,the Por- pictorialrepresentation:cylinder-sealimpressionsofthe

tuguese were contentwith establishingonly a limited time commonlydepict a varietyof militaryscenes and
number of settlements at strategiclocations. In the the takingof prisoners(e.g., Amiet I972:nos. 682, 683,
Senegambiancase this did not involve the takingover 688, 689, 69I, 695; BrandesI979:pls. I-I3). Much ofthe
of importantpreexistingsettlements,since those were impetus forthis competitionmust have been provided
aligned with the trans-Saharanroutes and were located by the need to secure access to requiredresources,al-
far inland in agriculturallyself-supportingsavannah though population pressure (Schwartz i988) and the
areas. Rather,the Portugueseestablishedsettlements- political and religious ideology of self-consciouselites
in almost all cases, it seems, with the consent of the (R. McC. Adams, personal communication)could have
populations involved-only along the coast and at the representedimportantcontributingfactors,particularly
delta of the Gambia River. These settlementshad easy at a laterstage.The primacyofan economic explanation
access to both the maritimeroutes to westernEurope for the expansion of Uruk societies is shown by the
thatthe Portuguesenavy controlledand the waterborne selective location of theirenclaves, by the apparentin-
and overlandroutesleadinginland.Thus the Portuguese crease in the amount and varietyof importsin Uruk
were able to bypass preexistingroutes and establish sites at this time,and,finally,by the veryspecificdistri-
themselves as an importantmediator of long-distance bution of indigenous highland sites in which isolated
trade.Controlofinlandroutes,now partiallyreroutedto Uruk artifactsare found-invariably along important
feedinto the Portuguesecoastal enclaves,was, however, highlandroutesor near known sources of coveted com-
leftin the hands oflocal chieftainswillingto trade-the modities.
same chieftainswho had had controlofthe bulk oflong- Withina frameworkof conflictin the Mesopotamian
distanceand intraregionaltradepriorto thearrivalofthe core, the establishmentof individualUruk settlements
Europeans(Curtin I975, Daaku I970). in the peripheryis best conceived as part of an organic
The Uruk intrusion,too, is unintelligibleunless we process of action and counteraction,with individual
presume the existence of local communitiesthat, ini- Uruk city-statesfoundingspecificenclaves or outposts
tially at least, were willing to participatein the wider in an attemptto position themselves on (and exclude
exchangenetworkopened by the Uruk outposts.Other- their rivals from)the critical lines of communication
wise, the position of the intrusivesettlementsin the throughwhich resourceswere obtainable.These polities
midstofalien hinterlandswould have been untenablein would have been orientedtowardsparticularportionsof
the face of active local opposition.Althoughthe Uruk the peripheryby virtueof theirlocations and past his-
enclaves themselves and theirimmediate environsare toriesof contacts.The colonization ofthe Susiana plain
likely to have been dependent on specific Uruk city- and the subsequent emergencethereof two rival states
states,thereis no evidence of southernMesopotamian would have acted as a powerfulstimulusto further com-
political control of the areas away fromthe enclaves. petition within the now enlargedMesopotamian core
Rather, the links between the Syro-Mesopotamian and, conceivably,to expansion northwardby rival poli-
plains and the surroundinghighlands and the Uruk ties in an attemptto offsetthe advantagesenjoyed by
worldwere primarilyeconomic in nature. Uruk centers in southwesternIran that were ideally
From a peripheralperspective,then,the Uruk expan- situated to tap into trade routes across the Iranian
sion appears as a phenomenon not unlike that of the plateau. A laterhistoricalparallelfromMesopotamiafor
informal("tradingpost") empiresofPortugaland Britain the hypotheticalsituation envisioned here is in fact
in Africa and Asia in modern times (Gallagher and available. Documents indicatethatlate in the Isin-Larsa
Robinson I953) or even that of Carthagein the western period(firstquarterofthe 2d millenniumB.c.), afterthe
Mediterraneanpriorto the 3d centuryB. C. (Whittaker collapse of the empire of the Third Dynasty of Ur and
I978). Common to these empires was the ability of a beforetheunificationofthe alluviumunderHammurabi
more highly integratedpolity possessing little in the of Babylon, specific states controlled particular seg-
way of territoryto influencethe economic life of vast ments of the traderoutes-whether overlandalong the
regionsby means of strategicallylocated enclaves and a Tigris or the Euphratesor maritimetowardsthe Gulf.
networkof alliances with otherwiseindependentlocal The cityofUr on the southernedge ofthe alluvium,for
rulers. example,seems to have been intimatelyconnectedwith
Persian Gulf trade,whereas Larsa, its neighborto the
THE VIEW THE CORE
northeast,was more closely associated with land routes
FROM
eastwardinto southwesternIran via the Diyala region.
Though instructivefromthe pointofview oftheperiph- Similarly,Sippar, on the northeasternedge of the al-
ery,the informal-empire metaphorfailsus in thatit pre- luvium, appears to have been more closely tied with
sumes the existence of a single political center.This trade routes along the Tigris towards Assur and the
may have been the case in the Akkadian and later pe- north,while Babylon,on one ofthemain branchesofthe
riods but surelywas not the case in Uruk times. The Euphratesin the centralalluvium,was orientedmainly
surveyevidence fromsouthernIraq and Khuzestanindi- towardsroutesalong thatriverin the directionofnorth-
cates that we must visualize the Uruk world as charac- ern Syria and the northwest (Larsen I987; Leemans
terizedby a small numberof cores, almost certainlyin ig60:I34-35).
fierce competition.This is reflectedin contemporary Fromthe perspectiveofthe Mesopotamiancore in the

Uruk period,then, a more illuminatingmetaphorthan existed throughoutMesopotamian history (Diakonoff

that of informalempireis that of a "world system"-a I975, Gelb I979).
suprastructureof cross-culturalinterdependency based In short,if control over exchange networkswas the
on systematicprocesses of asymmetricalexchangeand primaryrationale for the establishmentof Uruk en-
a hierarchicallyorganizedinternationaldivision of la- claves and outposts across the periphery,then we have
bor-such as is posited by Wallerstein(I974) to have to conclude that in the Uruk period the state (here
resultedfromthe growthof capital imperialismin mod- equated with the public sector,including both palace
ernEuropeand the closelyrelatedphenomenonofWest- and temple) took an especially active role in ensuring
ern colonial expansion. What makes Wallerstein's the procurementof resources(Zagarell i986). This role
model pertinentto the study of the expansion of early seems supportedby available textual and representa-
Mesopotamian civilization is that,while presuming,as tional evidence fromthe Mesopotamian core, namely,
does the informal-empire model, that the primarylink- the still little-understood
ArchaicTexts fromWarkaand
ages between complementaryregionsand societies are cylinder-sealimpressions of Uruk style from various
economic, it also takes into account the dynamics of sites. A case in point appears to be the productionof
competingpolities at the center(Ekholmand Friedman textiles,traditionallya crucial state-controlled,
export-
I979, Schneider I977; but see Kohl i987). Initially at oriented industry.Although we do not yet have un-
least, the supraregionalinteractionsystemof the mod- equivocal evidence forthe manufactureof textilesspe-
ern world described by Wallersteinemerges fromthe cificallyforexportin Uruk times as we do forthe 3d
independenteffortsof a few fiercelycompetitivecores millennium,all the preconditionsforsuch an activity
that,moreoftenthannot,were simplyreactingto earlier were in place by the apogee oftheUruk enclave network
moves and perceivedthreatsfromregionalrivals. Such (Nissen i985). The existenceofthe requiredtechnology
was surelyalso the case in the Uruk world. is demonstratedby a cylinder-sealimpressionfromSusa
clearlydepictinga horizontalloom and weavers (Amiet
THE CONTEXT OF EXPANSION
I972:no. 673). State controlover the necessaryraw ma-
terials (wool) seems assured in light of recentlypub-
The new data on the Uruk presence in the Syro- lished Archaic Texts on animal husbandryfromWarka
Mesopotamian plains and the surroundinghighlands that attest to the existence of state-managedflocks
bear not only on our comprehensionof the develop- (Green ig80). Similarly,controlover the requiredlabor
mental historyof those peripheralareas but also on our (principallydependentwomen) is implicit in the pres-
understandingof developmentsin the Uruk core itself ence of slaves. The specifictermused forfemaleslaves
forwhich otherwisewe lack pertinentevidence. What in the Archaic Texts (SAL + KUR) means not only
peripheralevidence exists concerningthe organization "slave offoreignorigin"but also "dependentwoman" or
of exchange in the Uruk period provides a varietyof "serf" (Gelb i982:9I-93), and it is these last (GEME)
clues to the social structureofearlyMesopotamiancom- who figureprominentlyin the later documentationas
munitiesof the late 4th millenniumB.C., forwhich the theprincipalsource oflaborin theproductionoftextiles
only pertinentevidence is thatfurnishedby not always for export. Significantly,the weaving scene just men-
clearly understood glyptic and epigraphic materials tioned shows the attendantpersonnelas wearinglong
(DittmannI986a; Nissen I985, i986a). At one end of pigtails,an indicationthat the labor was performedby
the spectrum stands the hilltop fort at Godin Tepe, women (Amiet I972:io5). A finalpreconditionis a state
where it is clear that we are dealing with a group of role in the storageand redistributionof raw materials
commercialspecialistssettledas aliens withtheirhosts' and finishedproducts.This, too,seems to be indicatedin
approvalin a foreigncommunity.The patternobserved the Archaic Texts (Nissen i985, i986a).
bringsto mind the well-documentedcase of Old Assyr-
ian merchantsin Anatolia (Larsen I976), althoughwe THE ROOTS OF EXPANSION
do not know whetherthe few occupants of the Godin
fortwere acting in the interestof theirkin groupor on Societies in the Mesopotamian alluvium during the
behalfofan Uruk statein theIraqi alluviumorin Khuze- Urukperiodwere expandingrapidly,bothinternallyand
stan. A diametricallyopposed patternis revealedin the externally.Internally,this expansion took a varietyof
Habuba/Qannas complex, where the settlementscan forms:(i) new formsof spatial distribution:the growth
onlybe explainedas a case ofurbanimplantation,a spe- of cities and theirdependencies;(2) new formsof socio-
cialized appendageof an Uruk city-statethatitselfmust political organization: the explosive growthof social
have been similarlyorganized.The Tabqa cluster,and differentiation,the emergenceofencumberedlabor,and
possiblythose at Carchemish,Samsat, Brak,and Nine- the crystallizationof the state; (3) new formsof econo-
veh, representeda conscious and expensive act of pol- mic arrangements and ofrecordkeeping:statecontrolof
icy thatsimplycannotbe ascribedto anykin-basedfam- a substantial portion of the means of productionand
ily firmon the Old Assyriantrade model. Rather,the ofits surplus,craftand occupationalspecializationon an
foundingof such enclaves would have requiredlevels of industrialscale; and, finally,(4) the new formsof sym-
planningand resources,access to labor supplies,and ex- bolic representationneeded to validate the changestak-
penditureswell beyondthose we traditionallyassociate ing place in the realm of social and political relation-
with kin-relatedorganizationssuch as we know to have ships-leading to the creationofan artistictraditionand

ALGAZE The Uruk Expansion I 59I
iconographicalrepertoirethatwere to set theframework tion similar to that describedabove forTell Hammam

forpictorialrepresentationin Mesopotamia formillen- et-Turkman-and intense economic contacts between
nia to come. Externally,this expansionmanifesteditself the Upper Tigris basin and the southernalluvium that
in migration-the establishmentof specialized settle- precededby centuriesthe Uruk intrusion.
ments at locations of strategicimportance-and in the While it may be safelyinferred, however,thatthe ex-
formalizationand maintenance of long-distancetrade pansion of Mesopotamian societies of the Uruk period
networksto supplythe requirementsofincreasinglyur- has its roots in earlier developments,the details still
ban and stratifiedsocieties.These variousphenomenaof elude us. We do not know whethertheexpansionclimax
internaland externalexpansionwere interdependent. A discerniblein the Late Uruk period evolved gradually
crucialand as yetnotfullyanswerablequestionis thatof and without interruptionfrompatternsof interaction
the causal relationshipbetweenthem-whether (as I am establishedearlieror representeda quantumleap. In this
inclinedto believe) strongcentralizedstates crystallized connection,an interestingquestionthatdeservesfurther
at locations throughwhich long-distanceexchangewas researchis thatofthe role ofthe possible domestication
being funneled in prehistorictimes (Rathje I97I) or of pack animals by the second half of the 4th millen-
whetherthat exchange originatedin settlementsthat nium in enabling broad-scale expansion.7 Obviously,
had evolved into strongcentralizedstates for endoge- pertinentdata could be gainedfroma detailedexamina-
nous reasonsnot necessarilyrelatedto cross-culturalin- tion ofthe earliestUruk levels ofintrusivesites in areas
teraction(see Brumfieland Earle I987 and WrightI977 of the northernperipherywhere the possibilityof long-
forsummariesof the various positions). term interactionappears stronger,namely, the Upper
An early attemptto address exactly this issue with Khaburand UpperTigris.Similarlyneeded are represen-
archaeological data from the Mesopotamian world is tative exposures and quantitative analyses of interre-
thatofWright(I972, i981), who analyzedevidencefor gional exchangedata fromEarlyUruk and Ubaid levels
importsand exportsfromUruk and JemdetNasr levels of sites in the Mesopotamian alluvium itself.
at Farukhabad,a small regionalcenterin the Deh Luran
plain of southwesternIran. He concluded that while
some evidenceforinterregional exchangecould be found
throughout,large-scalemovementsof commoditiesoc- Comments
curredonly afterthe establishmentof the state. In the
more centralMesopotamian alluvium,however,the is-
sue of the relationship between state formationand BURCHARD BRENTJES
long-distanceexchangeis still clouded by the ratherdis- Martin-Luther-Universitat, Universitatspl.12,
jointed and nonquantifiabledata available forthe most Halle-WittenbergIf, GermanDemocratic Republic.
importanturban centersof the Uruk period. Adequate 25 v 89
(althoughnot necessarilyrepresentative) exposuresexist
onlyfora singlesite,Warkaitself.Makingmattersmore Algaze's title is verypromising,but the contentof his
complicatedis the factthatwe have yetto come to grips paperis disappointing.It is difficult to findanythingnew
with the natureof developmentsin the surprisingly ur- about it exceptperhapsthe attemptto systematize.The
banized EarlyUruk period(Adams i981), datingroughly main thesis has been presentedmany times before.The
to the firsthalf of the 4th millenniumB.C. expansion of the Uruk culture into the Susiana and
Nevertheless,a varietyof evidence pertainingto the the link between its northwardexpansion and the need
immediatelyprecedingLate Ubaid periodpointstheway to importraw materialscannot be doubted,but the title
to an eventual solution. Unless we are preparedto pro- promisesmuch more.
ject the originsof city-statesin Mesopotamia back into
Ubaid times, it is more likely that long-distanceex-
change preceded state formation.Increasingly,as more 7. An important problemin ascertaining whendomesticpack ani-
data are made available forUbaid sites,it becomes clear mals wereintroducedin the ancientNear East is thedifficulty in
that cross-culturalcontactsbetween societies in the al- differentiating domesticatedasses (E. asinus) fromwild ones (E.
luvium and communitiesacross its northernperiphery africanus)on thebasis ofpurelyosteologicalevidence.This prob-
lem is furthercomplicatedbythedifficulty in distinguishing
asses
were already commonplace in late prehistory(Marfoe fromhybridass/onagers (E. asinus x hemionus),whichalso served
i987:28; Surenhagen i986a:7-8). Of thepertinent data as pack animals(P. Wattenmaker, personalcommunication). The
thus faravailable fromthe periphery,most instructive consensusoffaunalanalystsrelyingon evidencefromearlyMeso-
are still those fromthe Ubaid levels of Tepe Gawra, a potamian (Clutton-Brock i986:2Io-I3) and Iranian (Zeder i986:
small (i-ha) site on the plains east of the Tigrisnot far 407) sitesis thatdomesticasses andass/onagers arealreadypresent
in the firstquarterof the 3d millenniumB. C. It seems certain,
fromNineveh. Particularly relevant in this context is however,thatdomesticpack animalsmusthave existedwell be-
theimpressivecomplexoftripartite buildingsuncovered forethe time theycan be recognizedin the osteologicalrecord.
more than 50 years ago in Level XIII at the site (Tobler Significantly, theSumeriansignANSE (i.e.,thebasicdomesticass
I950:30-37, pls. ii and I2). Builtin a typicalsouthern or ass/onager) is alreadyfoundin the ArchaicTexts fromWarka
andin tabletsfromthesiteofJemdet Nasr,bothdatableto thevery
Mesopotamianstyle, these structuresshow the adoption end of the 4th millenniumB.C. (ZarinsI978:3). The existenceof
in a northerncontext of a numberof culturaltraitsof pack animalsby the laterpartof the Urukperiodis thushighly
southernMesopotamian origin-a processof accultura- probable (Wrighti98i:264).

Algaze limits himselfto the well-knownstations on A. BERNARD KNAPP

the Euphrates,in northernMesopotamia,and in western DepartmentofArchaeology/Museumof Classical
Iran and avoids discussion of the problemsarisingfrom Archaeology,Universityof Cambridge,SidgwickAve,
the "Asian" elementsin predynasticEgypt-the Jemdet CambridgeCB3 9DA, U.K. 6 v 89
Nasr seals, the niched facades,the Jebelel-Arakknives,
the fetteredsnake-neckedlions of the Narmer palette, Algaze's superb synthesis cites "cross-cultural ex-
the "Uruk" boats in eastern Egyptianrock engravings, change" (Curtin i984) as a major factorin urbanexpan-
and othermotifsofAsiatic provenance.Had he analyzed sion and emergentsocial complexityduringthe late 4th
these he mighthave come to question whetherwe are millennium B.C. in Mesopotamia. Although extensive
justifiedin speakingof a single Uruk civilization,espe- materialindicatorsof Uruk presencehave been known
ciallygiventhatthe glypticfoundat Habuba Kabira,like forsome time in "Syro-Mesopotamia"(northwestofthe
the majority of the Asiatic elements in early Egypt, Mesopotamian alluvial plain), particularlyat Habuba
seems much more similar to the art of Susa (or some Kabira/Qannas,and in Khuzistan (southeast of the al-
third,unknown center)than to that of Uruk itself.We luvium),particularlyat Susa, Algaze has now convinc-
may ask whetherUruk civilization was the productof inglylinked the Late Uruk economic expansion in the
a single unifiedstate (an ancient "greatpower") or of a northwestto politico-ideologicaldevelopments(coloni-
regioncontainingseveral states or centersmore or less zation) in the southeast.In the process,he has provided
equal in development.There does seem to be homogene- importantnew insightinto the sociopolitical and eco-
ityin the ceramicsofthe expansion,butnot much more. nomic processes at work in westernAsia at that time.
The seriesofUruk settlementson the Euphratesleading The "informalimperialmodel" utilized by Algaze is a
to the copper(and timber?)regionsdoes indeedpoint to highlyrefinedversionofworld-systems theory,withpri-
the objective of access to raw materials,but this is an maryemphasis on the economic aspects of exploitation
inferenceunconfirmedby any materialevidence.More- and interactionin the peripherybut full account taken
over,Algaze does not reflecton the reasonforthe expan- of competitivepolitical dynamicsin the core. Thus the
sion. In my opinionit was the shiftto state organization asymmetricalnature of exchange which broughtcriti-
based on the permanentsurplusproducedby irrigation cally importantraw materials to the resource-pooral-
agriculture,which he brieflymentions. luvium is balanced in Algaze's equation by the hierar-
Of the social systemorganizingthisnetworkofsettle- chical organization of productionbeyond subsistence
mentsand tradingposts we know almost nothing.Were within the alluvium. This assymetricalexchange be-
these settlementsdependentin some way upon a center, tween the alluvial centers and peripheralregions (in
or were theysimilarto the Greek colonies or a variation northwesternMesopotamia and the Iranian highlands)
on the Carthaginiansuprematie? was conducted-it is argued-within a hierarchicalin-
The distinctionbetween colonization (in the sense of teractionspherethatconsistedofurbanenclaves staffed
the European expansion to America) of the Susiana and by intrusiveMesopotamians, locally populated village
the establishmentof bases in the northseems too sim- stations,and isolated outposts. Such tripartitesystems
ple. Should the Susiana be considereda unit open to a occupy an importantand well-establishedplace in the
general"colonization"? A completechange of ethnos- development of settlement theory (e.g., the primary
a total replacementby Uruk Sumerians(?)-is improb- nodes, regionalcenters,and local centersof the Middle
able in the lightofthe Elamite characterofthefollowing Woodland exchange network[see FlanneryI972:I32]);
threemillennia ("pots are not people"). Also doubtfulis theyalso accordwell with theprincipleunderlyinggrav-
the equivalence of stations such as Godin Tepe and ity (distance-decay)models of exchange (e.g., Hodder
fortifiedriverports(?)("emporia"?) such as Habuba Ka- I974:I73).
birawithextensivesettlementcenterssuch as Tell Brak. I am not convinced, however, that the data Algaze
What we have here is probablya verycomplicatedplu- marshalsdemonstratesuch a patternforancientwestern
ralityof formsand relationsas distinctiveas the much Asia. Whereas the evidence forurban enclaves is unde-
better-knownancient Assyriantradingsystem in Asia niable, thatforstations is less secure or as yetless well-
Minor. published (seven known, one discussed),while that for
It would also have been worthmentioningtheforerun- outposts seems very insecure: the two examples cited
nersofthe Uruk expansion-the formationofthe Ubaid are in the Iranian Zagros, while the remainderof the
"koine" and the expansion of the Tell Halaf cultureas cases discussed forthe proposedinteractionsphereare
faras Mersin and Tilki Tepe. located in distant northwesternMesopotamia. Algaze
Algaze's paper is interestingas an indicationthat the also acknowledgesa potentialproblemwiththeir(appar-
"New Archaeology,"withits neo-Marxistrecognitionof ently later) chronologicalposition. Is it perhaps more
theimportanceofsocial history,is stillat work.Eitherit likelythat such outpostswere typicalofthefinalstages
should be reworkedwith a largercorpus of material, ofan Uruk exchangesystem,which suddenlycontracted
however,or its titleshould be changed,since it explains with the collapse of Late Uruk politics in the Mesopota-
neitherthe Uruk expansion nor any cross-culturalex- mian heartland?
change (northerninfluenceson southernMesopotamia Whereas a more complete discussion of the develop-
not being mentioned). mentofsociopolitical complexityin earlyMesopotamia

would have to emphasize centralization,expansion,and Sestieri's study. Since some of these studies may not
collapse, Algaze's focus on expansion provides impor- have been available to Algaze, these commentsshould
tant new insightsand facilitatesdiscussion of issues of in no way detractfromhis extremelyvaluable contribu-
long standing. Citing a I6th-I7th-centuryA.D. case tionto Mesopotamianprehistoryand to theliteratureon
studyfromWest Africa,forexample, Algaze maintains state formationand emergentsocial complexity."The
that the Uruk "intrusion"is inexplicablewithouta pe- Uruk Expansion" demonstrateswell the key role that
ripherycharacterizedby well-developedlocal exchange politico-economicapproachesplay in the advancement
systems primed to participate in more extensive, in- of archaeologicalmethod and theory.
fluentialand profitablenetworksof trade.
The Uruk enclaves controllednot only north-south
riverineroutesbut also east-westoverlandtracks.If,as PHILIP L. KOHL
Algaze suggests, the establishmentof these enclaves DepartmentofAnthropology,WellesleyCollege,
would onlyhave been possible with state-level(notkin- Wellesley,Mass. 02I8I, U.S.A. i6 vi 89
based) organizations,then (as Algaze carefullynotes)
Henry Wright'sposition that large-scale exchange of I congratulateAlgaze forbringingtogetherand interpret-
goodspostdatedstateformationmust be reconsideredin ing importantnew data on the developmentof complex
the Mesopotamian context.Anotherrecentstudywhich societyin the greaterNear East duringthe secondhalfof
postulatesthat long-distancetradein materialand non- the 4th millennium B.C. This article not only synthe-
materialcommoditieswas well developedin the eastem sizes archaeologicalreportsfroma varietyof sources-
Mediterraneanand western Asia at least by the Neo- some more accessible than others-but also raises,im-
lithicperiod(Runnelsand van Andel i988) must also be plicitly or explicitly,fundamentalquestions affecting
taken into account in this context. our understandingof the emergenceof state-structured
Long-termtrends of expansion and contractioncan society in western Asia. Furthermore,since it can be
now be seen to formpart of the geopoliticalmakeup of arguedthat this Mesopotamian case may representthe
Mesopotamian polities as early as the 4th millennium only undisputedexample of "pristine"state formation
B.C. Because Mesopotamia's peripheryhas become so in the Old World,the specificsofthisprocessas outlined
well documented archaeologicallyand has now been in this articleare of fundamentalsignificance.While it
competentlyand comprehensivelyevaluated by Algaze, occasionally lapses into cumbersome, fatalistic ter-
inferencesabout politico-economicdevelopmentsin the minology ("immutable conditions of disequilibrium,"
core may be postulatedand tested. "natural and inevitable decline in agriculturalproduc-
One minorquibble: archaeologistsworkingin western tivity,""unavoidable regression,"etc.),the articleis rea-
Asia often adopt a narrowly "Mesopotamiocentric" sonably well-written,copiously documented, and, at
view of culturalpatternand process. Whereas Algaze's least forme, generallypersuasive.
studyis in no way so restricted,it still favors"histori- Particularlyimportantis the thesis that in orderto
callydocumented"as opposedto ethnographicor (world) understandcultural evolution at this time one must
archaeologicalcase studiesas comparanda.Forexample, look beyondthe "center"ofthe southernMesopotamian
his briefdiscussionofcollapse (ascribedchieflyto socio- alluvial plain to the "peripheries"ofIranianKhuzestan,
environmentalfactors-overexploitation of land and northernMesopotamia and Syria,extendinginto eastern
city-staterivalry)would have benefittedfromreference Anatolia, and the Iranian plateau; the properunit of
to case studiesin Yoffeeand Cowgill (i988), particularly analysis is not a single ecological zone or regionbut a
those of Yoffeeon Mesopotamia and Culberton Meso- broad territoryof western Asia. Indeed, the relevant
america.Althoughthe workofBrumfieland Earle (i987) peripheriesactually encompass even more regionsthan
is cited in passing,no considerationis given to some of Algaze mentions: the Nile Delta and Valley, the Per-
its key chapters,which discuss the association amongst sian/Arabian Gulf and the Arabian peninsula, and
interregionalexchange,specialized production,and the Transcaucasia, to name the most obvious.
developmentof social complexity.The models ofimpe- Parenthetically, I wish to add thatI. G. Narimanovof
rial and political organizationthat increasinglyforman the SovietAcademyofSciences in Baku has discovereda
important part of the archaeological literature (e.g., series of small Late Chalcolithic sites in the Agdam re-
D'AltroyI987, Dyson I985, EisenstadtI986, Schreiber gion of southern Soviet Azerbaijan (Karabakh steppe)
I987, TriggerI974) findlittle consideration in this that,on the basis ofhis previousworkat Yarim Tepe III
study.Finally,Bietti Sestieri (i988) has proposeda dy- in northernIraq,he has identifiedas Late Ubaid colonies
namic, sophisticatedsocio-structuralmodel to account (Narimanov i985). D. Surenhagen(personalcommuni-
forthe developmentof social complexityand politico- cation)examinedsome ofthe ceramicsfirstrecoveredat
economic change in the centralMediterranean(mid-to- theprincipalsite,Leila-depe,and noteddefiniteparallels
late Bronze Age) as it affectedand was affectedby long- with the Uruk ceramicsfromHabuba Kabira; laterexca-
termcontact and exchangewith easternMediterranean vations at this site revealedevidenceforcopperproduc-
(Aegean and Cypriot)polities (see also Knapp i989); cer- tion, the earliest definitelyattested copperworkingin
tain problematic aspects of Algaze's proposed settle- Transcaucasia (Narimanov, personal communication).
ment hierarchymightbe reconsideredin lightof Bietti Whetherthese sites are more properlyidentifiedas late

Ubaid or as Uruk, their material culture is definitely were integratedinto the countrysidein which theywere
intrusiveand foreign.There seems little doubt of a rec- situated. Such a question can only be approached by
ognizable "Mesopotamian" presence in Transcaucasia comparingrelevantexcavated data, includingfloraland
in Late Chalcolithic times (4th millenniumB.C.). faunal remains,not only fromthe enclaves themselves
AlthoughI accept Algaze's generalthesis and am glad but also fromsites in theirimmediate hinterland.My
thathe has articulatedit in such a stimulatingfashion, understandingis that such data are not yet in hand.
some methodological/epistemologicaldifficultiesim- Finally,it would have been usefulto distinguishmore
mediately present themselves. The differentiation of concretelythe different peripheriesinto which southern
colonization from the establishmentof enclaves, sta- Mesopotamiansmay have expanded.The productiveand
tions, and outposts seems at first glance relatively resourcepotential of easternAnatolia differsfromthat
straightforward and useful; certainlythe evidenceforan ofthe Iranianplateau, which in turncontrastswith that
"Uruk" (i.e., southernMesopotamian) presence varies oftheGulf,etc. The priorculturalhistoryofeach region,
fromregionto region,and it is importantto distinguish as it can be reconstructedarchaeologically,is also rele-
processesofexpansionon the basis ofthisevidence.The vant,particularly-as Algaze seems to implyin his con-
distinctionbetween station and outpost seems, how- clusion-since the natureand level of the development
ever,to be purelygeographical:if the site is on the Ira- of the indigenouscommunitiesnecessarilyaffectedthe
nian plateau or farremovedfromthe southernMesopo- termsof the tradethat the Mesopotamianswere able to
tamian core, then it is an outpost,otherwisea station. obtain (or demand). Perhaps a case can be made forthe
But what constitutes sufficientevidence for an Uruk collapse of the Uruk expansiondominantlyto the north
presence? Surely, the case is strongerwhen one can and a later 3d-millenniumredirectionof long-distance
pointto a rangeofceramics,sealing/accounting devices, trade to the southeast and the copper sources, among
and, perhapsmost convincing,exact architecturalparal- others,of Oman preciselyforthis reason. The societies
lels. Ifpresent,however,these data, generallyspeaking, of northernMesopotamia/Syria,eastern Anatolia, and
are only compiled throughfairlyextensiveexcavations; Transcaucasia were or became strongenough to resist
manyof the data cited to documentUruk expansionism Mesopotamian exploitation, and newer, more pliable
come fromregionalsurveysin which the Uruk presence and dependent colonies were created in agriculturally
is postulatedon the basis ofUruk ceramics,particularly, less productiveregions,where the inabilityto produce
though not exclusively,bevelled-rimbowls. When are grainin sufficientquantitiesmade societies vulnerable.
southernMesopotamians present at a site (as traders, Indisputableproofof the success of a researchproject
missionaries,or whatever),and when are local inhabit- or syntheticarticlesuch as Algaze's is thatit stimulates
ants just adoptingpatternsor stylesultimately(perhaps) further speculationand work.We are all indebtedto him
of southem Mesopotamian origin? forthis stimulatingand importantcontribution.
The case forUruk enclaves in nothernMesopotamia/
Syria seems more substantialin that it is based on the
interpretationof extensivelyexcavated sites the entire WADE R. KOTTER
materialculturesofwhich almostuniformly recall those 1292 ICrisfield Rd.,SilverSpring, Md. 20906, U.S.A.
of southernMesopotamia. While Algaze's model explic- 19 VI 89
itlydemandsan almost incrediblelevel oforganizational
sophistication,he tempers it somewhat by admitting With the publicationof this paper,any lingeringdoubts
that "there is no need to presume that [such enclaves] concerningthe place ofthe Uruk periodin thehistoryof
were established as part of a single coherent effort"; Mesopotamiancivilizationshould be eliminated.Algaze
some sites seem to have been formedall at once, others persuasivelyinterpretsthe Uruk phenomenon as the
developed more gradually.His model, however, does earliestexample ofthe cyclicalpatternofgrowth,expan-
make the additional demand that such enclaves exist sion, and collapse so evidentin the historyofearlycom-
primarilyto promotelong-distancetrade,and here the plex social formationsin the southernMesopotamian
evidence cited is largelylocational: the enclaves are al- alluvium.
ways situated on some major east-west/north-south Only a fewminorquestions arise: In his discussionof
communication route. Cynically, one might ask the location of Uruk enclaves and outpostsin the Syro-
whetherarchaeologistsever botherto investigatesites Mesopotamian plains and surroundinghighlands,Al-
that are not situated on some major crossroadleading gaze places greatemphasis on theirassociationwithim-
fromone importantarea to another.The point is not to portanttraderoutes.It seems thatwe face the dangerof
deny the possible significanceof the location of the circular reasoning in such arguments.When a site is
identifiedUruk enclaves but ratherto query how one located, it is commonplace to look for possible com-
confirmsarchaeologicallythe thesis that the enclaves municationroutesassociated with it. Once such routes
functionedprimarilyto controlaccess to and facilitate are discovered,it may be suggestedthatsiteswereestab-
the movement of criticallyneeded resources,most of lished at certainlocations because of theirproximityto
which,unfortunately, remaininvisiblebecause theydo these routes.A carefulreadingof Algaze's argumentin-
not survive the passage of time. Similarly,it seems to dicates that this potential problem has been avoided,
me that one cannot gloss over the problemofhow such althoughit is not always clear how the importanceof
enclaves of foreignerssupportedthemselves,how they the routes describedwas established.

Anotherconcern arises fromhis discussion of Uruk duction of the exportablesurpluses that, shortof war,
materialculturein indigenoushighlandsites. This dis- ensure access to resources otherwise unavailable."
cussion focuses almost exclusively on the presence of Thus, he adoptsa materialistapproachwherebythe need
Urukpottery.Yet potteryis not amongthe commodities to procureresourcesdrivesbothagriculturalsurpluspro-
suggestedas the primaryresources exportedfromthe duction in southernMesopotamia and colonization of
alluvium.What is the connectionbetweenUruk pottery distantareas. Even his typologyofintrusiveUruk settle-
and the exportofthese otheritems?It seems thata more ments signifiesthe existence of a coordinatedcentral-
systematicanalysis of the processes responsibleforthe ized authoritydictatingtheirgeographicpositioningfor
presenceofUruk potteryat sites outsidethe alluvium is the controloftraderoutesand/orresources:"enclaves,1
in order.Obviously, the presence of Uruk potterydoes "stations," and "outposts."
not necessarily mean the presence of Uruk people. Algaze's persuasiveargumentis givenfurtherauthor-
Neither does it automaticallyindicate the presence of ityby southernMesopotamia's laterhistoryofrecurring
otherexportsfromthe Uruk heartland. phases of imperial expansion duringtimes of political
Algaze is certainlycorrectin contrastingtheprocesses centralization.Perhapsthefirstsuch phase relatesto the
of expansion in the Susiana plain with those in the earlier Ubaid period in both southern and northern
northernperiphery.Obviously, distance plays a major Mesopotamia. Although he makes a good case forhis
role in explaining this contrast,as does the apparent control-of-resources hypothesis,there are otherfactors
"settlementvacuum" in Khuzestan at this time. Also that may have been involved. I mention but two. The
importantmay be the factthatthe Susiana plain offersa emigrationout ofsouthernMesopotamiamayhave been
similar pattern of resource potential to the Iraqi al- drivenby demographicfactors.Much of the westernex-
luvium. It may have been attractivefor permanent, pansion in colonial America was motivatedby "over-
large-scalecolonization because it providedadditional population" of farmlandsin the East; theresimplywas
land forgrowingof cereals and stock raising,thus in- not enough farmlandto sustain the population as in-
creasingthe resourcebase ofheartlandUruk statescom- heritance split farms into increasinglysmaller units.
petingforadvantagein tradewith more distantregions. In mid-3d-millenniumMesopotamia, inheritancelaws
As Algaze hintsat one point,the expansionintoKhuzes- similarlyfavoredthe allocation ofequal sharesofland to
tan may have been an attemptto expandthe core rather all sons. This would have led in time to reductionin
than to solidifyconnectionswith the periphery. farmsize and demand fornew lands. That the inhabit-
Algaze is to be especially commendedforhis critical ants of Habuba Khabira appear to have been dependent
use of such ideas as "trade diaspora" and "world sys- upon foods producedby the local inhabitantsdoes not
tem." Too oftenwe archaeologistsare overanxiousto rule out a land-drivensouthernMesopotamian emigra-
jump on the bandwagonand attemptto forceour data to tion. Furthermore, it is entirelypossible that the polit-
fit models borrowed from sociohistorical analyses of ical centralizationthat characterizedUruk Mesopota-
more recent social formations.Rather than inflexible mia, manifestin managerial devices of social control
molds into which our data must be fitted,such models such as writing,cylinderseals, and beveled-rimbowls,
providealternativeways of looking at our data in order was associated with coercionand oppressionby the rul-
to generate additional questions and focus futurere- ersand flightofthe ruled.Again,historicalanalogiesare
search. The questions raised in the concluding para- numerous.
graphsof this article provide a most promisingframe- Algaze would have us believe that over the course of
workforcontinuingrefinementof our understanding of two to three centuriesmany thousands of individuals
the Uruk social formationand our pictureof earlycom- leftsouthernMesopotamia forthe sole purposeof con-
plex societyin Mesopotamia and beyond. trollingtrade routes and exploitingdistant resources.
Are we to believe that southernMesopotamia had the
social infrastructure to organize this mass exodus and
C. C. LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY the subsequent resource-procurementstrategies? Or
Peabody Museum, Harvard University,Cambridge, that this was an individuallymotivatedmovementof
Mass. 02138, U.S.A. I4 vi 89 people with the "frontierspirit" seeking theirprivate
fortunes?Hardly.Neithercamel norhorsewas available
Algaze has made available a richtapestryof archaeolog- as a beast of burden,and one is left to imagine that
ical data within an importantconceptual framework. primitivecarts pulled by equids providedthe transport
Focusingupon a significantphenomenon,the Uruk ex- forthis exodus. One must ask whetherthe controlof
pansion,he summarizesresultsprincipallyderivedfrom traderoutes and the exploitationof resourceswere the
salvage programsin Turkey,Syria,and Iraq that are of- initial conditionsthatfueledit or a by-productof other
ten difficultof access and incompletelypublished. He conditions. Under the circumstances,I find Algaze's
produces what he believes to be a testable hypothesis economic determinant,though appropriateto the ar-
involving what is, in the final analysis, a complex chaeological evidence, not wholly convincing.On the
"prime mover": "A reliable flow of resourcesmust be basis of a fewbeveled-rimbowls, withoutcontext,from
insured at all costs, since interruptionswill result in Tal-i Iblis and fromYahya VA, he judgesfarthesteastern
politically unacceptable socioeconomic dislocations: Iran within the reach of the Uruk expansion.At Yahya
the survivalof the social orderis predicatedon the pro- VA the fivebeveled-rimbowl fragmentsare bettercon-

596 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 30, Number S, December 1989
sideredas belongingto the succeedingProto-Elamiteset- Mesopotamia to indirectprocurementof Gulfresources

tlement(PeriodIVC), when such bowls are farmorefre- also strikesme as simplisticin the lightofinscriptional
quent. That the exploitationofresourcesneed notbe the evidencereferring to "Naram-Sin,kingof the fourquar-
sole phenomenoninvolved is perhapssuggestedby the ters,a vase of bootyfromthe land of Magan."
excavations at Hassek Huiyiik (Behm-Blancke i988), Clearly,Algaze has confrontedan issue of remarkable
where metallurgicalanalyses do not supportthe idea complexityand focused upon an importanttheme,the
of exploitationof a local native copper source 30 km controloftraderoutesand theneed forresourceprocure-
away. Similarly,it would be difficultto argue that the ment.It can only be hoped thatfutureessays addressing
searchforresourcesalone carriedthe Uruk expansionto this topic,fromdifferent vantagepoints,will be as lucid
the westernDelta ofthe Nile, whereexcavationsat Tell and as stimulatingas his.
el Faracin(ancient Buto) have revealed diagnosticUruk
materialremains (von der Way i987).
Algaze has clearlyprovideda most useful framework GLENN M. SCHWARTZ
forconceptualizingtheUruk expansion.That it maynot DepartmentofNear EasternStudies, The Johns
be the only frameworkshould be self-evidentin so re- Hopkins University,Baltimore,Md. 2121 8, U.S.A.
markably complex a picture as is representedby the i8 VI 89
Uruk expansion. The archaeologicalevidence does not
allow me even to suggestanythinglike Turner's(I977 Algaze's paper is a veryhandy presentationof the evi-
[i891]) "frontier hypothesis," wherein a particular dence in favorof long-distanceexchange as the "prime
"spirit" or "mentality"is consideredone of the driving mover" in the expansionfarafieldofUruk materialcul-
forcesin the openingofthe Americanfrontier, but some ture.He providesan impressivesynthesisof a complex
such concepts may have been part of the framework set of data from both the northwesternand eastern
adumbratedin Algaze's importantcontribution.Though peripheriesof southernMesopotamia and engages in a
this suggestionmay prove wanting as a "testable hy- thought-provoking discussion ofproblemsin data inter-
pothesis,"the presenceof what appearsto be a portable pretationforeach region.
shrineat Hassek Huyuk and characteristicmosaic cones I suspect, however, that an emphasis on trade will
fortempledecorationsat Tell el Faracinare but two indi- cause us to overlook other possible explanatoryvari-
cations that the Uruk expansion was being legitimated ables. The well-knownscarcityof natural resourcesin
in termsof typicallysouthernMesopotamian religious southernMesopotamia is too easily invoked to explain
ideology.If, as in southernMesopotamia, the land be- any southernactivityoutside the heartland-wherever
longed to the temple gods and humans were merelyits theywent,the southernMesopotamians were bound to
stewards,then one may even ask whetherthe Uruk ex- findan area richerin naturalresourcesthan theirhome-
pansion was simply expressingits "manifestdestiny" land. But "trade diasporas" can involve much more
and claimingthose lands in the name of theirdivinity. than trade,as, forexample,the 8th-century B.C. archaic
Lastly,Algaze does not considertheresultoftheUruk Greek colonization of the Mediterraneandemonstrates
expansion.Did the Mesopotamianpeople voluntarilyre- (Schwartzi988).
turnto theirsoutherncity-states?Did the exploitation What needs to be stressedhere is the unique natureof
of local resources result in open conflictforcingtheir the Uruk expansion. No subsequent case of Mesopota-
return?Were theysimplyassimilated?IfWeiss (i986) is mian activityin the periphery,be it Akkadian, Ur III,
correct, urbanization was not to occur in northern Hammurapi, neo-Assyrian, or neo-Babylonian, in-
Mesopotamia until the veryend of the Ninevite V pe- volved large-scaleproductionmovement fromcore to
riod, 500 years after the Uruk expansion. Of equal peripherysuch as that evinced by the Habuba/Jebel
significanceis the unknown relationshipbetween the Aruda complex and, if the evidence is to be so inter-
Uruk expansion and the demographicshiftsnoted by preted,the colonization of the Susiana. The question
Adams (I98I) and Wright (I987) within southern that Algaze never addresses is why colonization was
Mesopotamia and Khuzistanduringthe Uruk period.To necessaryto ensure long-distancetrade.If the resources
reduce the complexityof this pictureto an understand- of the northwesternperipherywere "much more easily
ing of resourcecontrolseems fartoo restrictive. and cheaply obtained by allowing the indigenouscom-
Perhapswith the loss of access to the northernMeso- munitiesalreadyexploitingthem to continue,provided
potamianresourcesfollowingthe "collapse" oftheUruk they could be persuaded or coerced into tradeat terms
expansion, southern Mesopotamia turned to Dilmun, favorableto communitiesof the alluvium," whydid the
Magan, and Meluhha forits resources.Fromthetextswe southernMesopotamiansfindit necessaryto establisha
know that southernMesopotamia did indeed deriveim- set of urban enclaves along the Euphrates?
portantresourcesfromthese places, but one searchesin The interactionof the southernMesopotamian state
vain thereforEarlyDynastic or Akkadian "colonies" of withits peripheryin the Akkadianperiod,whichAlgaze
the Habuba Khabira type. Thus, at the time of clear cites as a better-(i.e., historically)documentedepisode
political centralizationand imperialexpansion (the Ak- of expansion,differsquite significantly fromthatof the
kadian period),there is no archaeological evidence for Uruk period if one examines the archaeologicalrecord.
"colonies" exploitingresources in foreignareas. That The Akkadian-periodevidence fromthe peripheryin-
Mesopotamia went fromdirectexploitationofnorthern cludes the massive Naram-Sin"palace" at Tell Brakand

epigraphic evidence for an Akkadian administrative the acquisition of these materialswas an activitywith-
presenceat Nuzi, Nineveh,Assur,and perhapsMari,but out which those states could have been neithergener-
thereare no Sargonic"colonies" and no large-scaledis- ated nor sustained. While some of these materialshad
tributionof Sargonicmaterialcultureacross the periph- been importedin earlierperiods,Algaze maintainsthat
eral landscape in northernMesopotamia or Syria(Reade "the varietyand quantityof importsincreasedexponen-
I968, Speiser I935). The ceramics and othersmall finds tially duringthe Uruk period." A quick review of the
fromAkkadian levels at Tell Brak itselfhave veryfew secondaryliteraturethat treatsthis evidence,however,
parallelsin southernMesopotamia: the potteryfromthe fails to confirmthese hypotheses.
levels contemporarywith the Naram-Sin palace re- i. Wood columns and beams were neithernecessary
trieved in the recent excavations by David and Joan nor absent in 3d-millenniumsouthern Mesopotamia:
Oates is almost completely of local origin and varies circularpillars of brickwere used in largepublic build-
onlyslightlyfromthe assemblageofthe preceding"Late ings (e.g.,Palace A at Kish, IshtarTemple at Mari [Early
EarlyDynastic III" phase (J.Oates I 982). We need to ask, Dynastic III period],the Pillared Hall and Cone-Mosaic
therefore, why the Uruk case differedfromsucceeding Courtat Warka[lateUrukperiod]),and local palm trunks
expansions and what this difference signifies. and poplarbeams commonlyservedto supportand span
I would like to add a few more mattersof detail: In roofs(Collon i969; Steinkelleri987:9I-92). Ships bear-
orderto explain the demise of the Uruk expansion,Al- ing wood fromElam and Dilmun are noted in EarlyDy-
gaze cites southerncollapse and the growthofperipheral nastic Lagash documents (Leemans I972-73:78), but
polities. But the northern Mesopotamian periphery Sargonic-periodwood shipmentsoccur in "small quan-
shows no sign of state or urban developmentuntil the tities and seem to be private enterpriseon a modest
mid-3d millennium, long after the Uruk collapse scale" (Foster I977:37). Margueron's statement that
(Schwartzi987). Also, I feel it is too soon to pronounce "while clay served as a substitutefor stone, nothing
Brakor Nineveh to have been southernenclaves or col- served as a substituteforwood" (i982:529, translation
onies along the lines ofHabuba Kabira; Brakhas yielded mine)' considers exceptional 2d-millennium Syro-
a good deal of local Uruk material culture as well as Lebanese timberimports.Small quantitiesof cedar and
southem,and the presence or absence of local material cypressoils were importedduringthe Early Dynastic
culture at Nineveh, whose Uruk remains were only period (Leemans I972-73).
sampled in a small sounding,remainsto be established. 2. Slaves and prisonersofwar were a negligiblecompo-
Despite the aforementioned reservations,I am grateful nent of southernMesopotamian productivelabor from
to Algaze forhis synthesisofthe materialfromso broad the EarlyDynastic throughat least the Old Babylonian
an area and forthe manystimulatingpointsraisedin the period (Gelb I976, Maekawa i987). Most Sargonic-
course of his essay. The ideas that are expressedin this periodslaves were local (FosterI977:37).
paper will no doubt inspiremuch furtherdiscussion of 3. Bitumenin southem Mesopotamia was derivednot
the strikingassociation of urban/statedevelopmentin from northernoutposts but from central Mesopota-
southernMesopotamia and peripheralcolonization and mian pools formedby the sulfurousspringsnear Hit
expansion.Now thatdata retrievalhas been halted-one and Ramadi (Forbesi964:i6-37) or adjacent Khuzistani
hopes only temporarily-in the eastern periphery,we sources.
must turnwith particularinterestto the resultsof con- 4. The exceptional gypsum at Warka, Ur, and Eridu
tinuingfieldworkin thewest-northernIraq,Syria,Tur- was extractedfromthe nearbyformationsat Eridu(Huot
key,and even the Nile Delta (von der Way i987). and Marechal i985:273-74); gypsumis also worked at
Falluja (Great Britain I944:475). Flint nodules are col-
lectable in the westerndesert; Levantine flintscrapers
HARVEY WEISS and North SyrianCanaanean blades were indeed "com-
DepartmentofNear EasternLanguages and mon" but not at Warka: theywere retrievedat Habuba
Civilizations,Yale University,New Haven, Conn. Kabira and are "unknown in Babyloniaand Khuzistan"
o6520, U.S.A. 22 vI 89 (Suirenhageni986:20). Vesicular basalt and useful con-
glomeratesubstituteswithsimilarpropertiesas grinding
Algaze extends the discussion of trade/urbanism/pri- tools and forsculpturewere available in outcropsalong
mary-stateformationlinkages to incorporatean expla- the desertmargins,the westernflanksofthe Zagros,and
nationforthe late Uruk-periodcolonies retrievedin the the JebelSinjar (GreatBritainI9I8, Stol I979).
past I5 years along the traditionaltrade routes of "pe- 5. Because copper, when available through long-
ripheral" Mesopotamia. The colonies are commonly distance trade,perhapswith Anatolia and Iran,was ap-
understoodas a functionof the needs of the nascent parentlyvery costly,baked-claysickles and even axes
southernMesopotamian polities for exotic commodi- were often used in place of copper tools. Tin-bronze,
ties, perhaps base metals and decorative stone (Weiss introducedto southernMesopotamia only in the Early
and Young I975). Littleevidenceforthe commodities DynasticIII period,"is likelyto have remaineda 'luxury'
acquired or tradedhas, however,been adduced. Algaze product until the second millennium B.C." (Moorey
hypothesizesthatthe colonies procureda rangeofmate- i985:23, 29). The recentlydiscoveredTaurus tinmine at
rials, both "essential" and "nonessential," forthe late
Uruk-periodstates of southernMesopotamia and that I. "Si l'argilea remplace la pierre,
rienn'a remplace
le bois."

598 1 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 30, Number S, December 1989
Kestel was exploitedduringthe middle 3d and the early waysbeenconsidered "imports"(ToblerI950:45). Now,
2d millennium;thereis no evidenceforits Uruk-period however, the northernintroductionof this southern
exploitation(Yener et al. i989). institutionhas been shown coincident with the first
6. The trade in lapis (and copper) may be related to northernadvances towards exclusive propertyrights
the establishmentof late Uruk colonies in the Zagros, withinpatrilineages (ForestI983:IO9). The adoptionof
but the southernMesopotamian finished-steatite-vesselthesoutherntemple,therefore, is an examplenot ofcon-
tradewas an EarlyDynasticIII phenomenon(Kohl I 975), text-free"trade" but of the northernassimilation of a
while the carnelian (chalcedony)tradewas, apparently, southerninstitutionalformalready proven capable of
mostly post-Uruk(Tosi ig80) as well. Marble, diorite, consolidatingrestrictedaccess to the means of produc-
gabbro,and otherstones forsculpturewere available in tion.
the westernZagros and Oman (Heimpel i987). Rejection of Algaze's hypothesesdoes not requirere-
Withthe exceptionoflapis (Hermanni968) and possi- treatto mechanicalformulationsinsistingupon a south-
bly copper (BarreletI974, Muhly i983), thereis no evi- ern Mesopotamian civilization exclusively "based on"
dence for an increase in southernMesopotamian im- the surpluses of high-yieldirrigationagriculture(Ek-
ports duringthe Uruk period. Similarly,evidence for holmand FriedmanI979:43). But replacingthebehav-
3d-millenniumand certainlyUruk-periodlong-distance ioralparadigmsthatcurrentlydominateanthropological
exportofsouthernMesopotamianproductsremainselu- archaeology and refiningthe postmodern geography
sive. There are few data on long-distancetradein grain (Soja I989) that affectsmuch of the core-periphery de-
between southernMesopotamia and other regions,al- bate will requirereinsertionof social analysisinto what
thoughwater-borneshipmentsofgrainpassed fromEbla once was the ultimate historicalscience.
to Mari and perhapsalong the Jagjagh(Loretz i969:68),
while clothingand stonespassed fromGasur and Mari to
Ebla (Archi i988:25). From EarlyDynastic III Lagash, 3 ROBERT J. WENKE
of the 4I textstreatedby Lambert(I953) mentionlarge DepartmentofAnthropology,Universityof
shipmentsof grain/flour, i to Dilmun and 2 to Elam. Washington,Seattle, Wash. 98195, U.S.A. 25 vi 89
Priorto the Third Dynasty of Ur, large-scalesouthern
Mesopotamian exportof grain,leathergoods,driedfish, Algaze's reviewis a useful summaryof recentresearch,
dates,and textilesremainsessentiallyinvisiblearchaeo- and aspects ofhis analysisare bothnovel and perceptive.
logicallyand undocumentedepigraphically. Given samplingdifficultiesand preservationbiases, his
Algaze also hypothesizes accelerated development main thesis-that asymmetricalexchangerelationships
and ultimate collapse of the societies of "peripheral" between core and peripheralsocieties were primaryfac-
Mesopotamia as a functionof southerncontactand ma- tors in both tempo and mode of initial southwestern
nipulation.The trajectoryofNinevite 5 societiesin dry- Asian culturalevolution-will probablyalways remain
farmingMesopotamia does not, however, conformto arguable,but he effectively bringsthe available evidence
this hypothesis. The late-Uruk collapse in northern to bear on this issue. In general,the importanceofinter-
Mesopotamia was followed by abandonmentof large regionalexchangein the evolutionofearlyculturalcom-
late-Uruk centers, limited sedentaryoccupation, and plexityis not clear; certainlythereis no evidence that
possibly"devolution"or "tribalization"(PriceI978:I73, complexsocieties failedto evolve in otherwiseappropri-
I80; Weiss I988:xix). At the terminationoftheNinevite ate ecological and demographicconditions simply be-
5 periodthe intrusionof southernEarlyDynastic III in- cause they did not develop effectiveinterregionalex-
tereststransformed mid-3d-millenniumchiefdomsinto changesystems.Also, interregionalexchangeappearsto
the powerful,if short-lived,urbanizedstates of the dry- have been much less importantin some other early
farmingzone (Weiss and Calderone n.d.). Lastly, the civilizations,such as Egypt,than in southwesternAsia.
Uruk expansionis illuminated,it seems to me, moreby But Algaze has illustratedhow the specificresourcedis-
fromthe Akkadian expansion(spatial ex- tributionsof southwesternAsia may have resultedin
its differences
tent, types of economies and settlements,presence/ exchange systems that greatlyinfluencedthe unique
absence ofsouthernmaterialculture)thanby theirfaint characterand historyof southwesternAsian cultures.
similarities. A key elementis his conclusion thatthe Susiana plain
Ultimately,Algaze returnsus to the questionofwhich was colonized by Uruk settlersfromthe Mesopotamian
came first,long-distancetrade or cities. This question heartland.He explains this unusual developmentpri-
posits "trade" as a variable independentof regionalso- marily in terms of the relativelyshort travel distance
cial development:thegenerationofclasses, thecontend- between the Susiana and centralMesopotamia. He also
producers, infersthe existence at times of two competingUruk
ing interestsofpoliticalelites and agricultural
the need foreffectivestate controlthroughthe powerful states on the Susiana. His analysis is plausible, but I
representationof ideologies and the architecturalsym- thinkthatthe weightofthe evidence (reviewedin John-
bols of administrativehierarchiesand militias. To sup- son i987) is more consistentwith indigenousdevelop-
port the hypothesisthat long-distancetrade preceded mentthanwithcolonization.My own (Wenkei987) sur-
stateformation,Algaze reiteratesthe unprecedentedap- veys of later occupations of the Susiana have revealed
pearanceof templeswith southernMesopotamianplans patternsof regionaland interregionalartifactsimilarity
in Late Ubaid Tepe Gawra XIII. These templeshave al- and settlement-pattern changes that-while in some

ways not directlycomparableto those of the Uruk pe- social stratificationwould seem to requireexplanation
riod-might also be interpretedaccordingto Algaze's in termsotherthan those he proposes.
criteria as evidence of colonization and competing In general,however,Algaze has provideda verycur-
Susiana polities in periods when thereis no otherevi- rentand comprehensivereviewofan importantaspect of
dence of these. earlyMesopotamian civilization.
I do not fault Algaze forhis relativelynarrowfocus
on southwesternAsia, but in some ways his analysis
of exchange systems is most interestingwhen one RITA P. WRIGHT
compares Mesopotamia with other early civilizations DepartmentofAnthropology,College of William and
and looks at international-not just interregional- Va. 23185, U.S.A..i2 VI 89
Mary,Williamsburg,
exchangepatterns.Forexample,Buto,thelegendarycap-
ital ofPredynasticLowerEgypt,has been shown (vonder Algaze's analysis makes a persuasive argumentforex-
Way I987) to contain late 4th-millennium-B.c. occupa- pansion as an integralpart of statecrafteven in these
tions in which there are clay cones, pottery,and other firststrides toward civilization. Accordingto Algaze,
artifactsthat indisputablyreflectcontacts with south- the motivation for expansion duringthe Uruk period
western Asian states, specificallythe Amuq F period was the acquisitionofimportantresources;he mentions
settlementsin northernSyria and probably,by way of copper,bitumen,limestone,and semipreciousand pre-
tradeconnectionsthroughthat area, settlementsin the cious stones.I would arguethattextileswere the critical
Tigris,Balikh,Khabur,and UpperEuphratesregion.The resourcein this and later periodsand that the evidence
clay cones-though of local manufacture(R. Stadel- points to a complex relationshipbetween agriculture
mann, personal communication)-are virtuallyidenti- and husbandryas an additionalmotivatingforcein ter-
cal to those used at Uruk-Warkaand otherMesopota- ritorialexpansion.
mian sites to decorate temple buildings.One clay nail Gelb (I986) has recentlyoutlined a fundamentalcon-
(Grubenkopfnagel)closely resembles those found at trastbetween the cities of Ebla and Lagash in the Ur III
Susa. The Egyptiansite of Maadi has long been thought period.In a stimulatingrevisionofour understandingof
to have been an importanttradingpartnerwithmid-4th- state development,he arguesthatthe abilityto generate
millennium-B.c.southwesternAsian communities.Al- a surplusof animal productsin dry-farming areas was a
gaze emphasizes the importanceofthe domesticationof significantfactorin statedevelopmentin northernSyria.
pack animals, such as the ass, in the evolution of ex- Mesopotamia, in contrast,was primarilyagricultural,
change systems,and he considersit "highlyprobable" and the absence of referencesto pastureand largehold-
thatsome varietiesof this animal were domesticatedby ings of sheep and goats at Lagash underscoresa mutual
the late Uruk period.Thus it will be of interestto him dependencebetween the northand the south forgrain
that Bokonyi (I985) has recentlyidentifiedremains of and wool/sheeprespectively.Adams (I98i )also empha-
numerous asses in mid-4th-millennium-B.c. levels of sizes animal products but takes a somewhat different
Maadi and suggestedthatmost or all were domesticated. view, pointingout that "the ratio of sheep and goats to
VonderWay(i987:257, concludesthat
mytranslation)' the human population was about four times greater
"the reason that it is Buto and not Maadi that shows [there]. . . than it is today" (p. I49) and suggestingthat
these contacts with cAmuq F and the Uruk culture is specialized herdsmenlived in communitiesbeyondthe
surelyclear fromits location: Maadi was an inland site, limits of cultivationbut managedby the state. The two
connected by land routes mainly with southernPales- points of view are not mutuallyexclusive; responsesto
tine; Buto,on the otherhand,was a-if not the-port in the demand foranimal productsmay have varied with
the western delta, connected by water not only with local conditions.
Palestine but obviously also with cAmuqF and beyond For the Uruk period,thereare numerousreferencesto
therewith the Uruk culture." cattle, sheep, and goat in documentarysources (Tyu-
There is little evidence,however,that tradebetween menev i969:72); Algaze refersto animal products in
Egyptand the southwesternAsian states was markedly the context of textiles, which he describes as "tradi-
asymmetrical. tionally a crucial state-controlled,export-oriented in-
In a more general context,it would be interestingto dustry" the preconditionsfor which were present in
applyAlgaze's ideas to the Harappancivilization,where Uruk times. A relatedfactor,referred to by Algaze in a
the extremeurbanization and great artifactsimilarity different context,is a barley-to-wheat ratio of threeto
over large areas in an apparentcontext of only minor one duringthe period,which he interpretsas a response
to salinization(thusinvokinga scenarioforthe collapse
of the Uruk expansionistphase similar to the one that
I. "Der Grund,dass Buto und nicht Maadi diese Kontaktezu has been developedforUr III).
Amuq-Fwie derUruk-Kultur aufwistis sicherlichganz einfach Since humans and grazinganimals essentially com-
durchdie Lage derFundstatten erkliirt:
Maadi wareineBinnensta- pete forland (grainyields and pasturage),it seems likely
tion,uberLandhauptsachlich mitdemsudlichenPalastinaverbun- that in the south tensions occurredbetween practices
den. Buto hingegenwar ein-wenn nicht der-Hafen im west-
lichen Delta, von dem aus Schiffsverbindungen nichtnur nach beneficialto agriculturalproductivityand those benefi-
Palastina,sondem offenbar auch in Richtung'Amuq-Fund dort cial to animal husbandryas both industriesexpanded.
weiterzur Uruk-Kulture verliefen." Such conflictsmay be inferredfromthe decline in the

6oo I CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 30, Number 5, December 1989
ratio of wheat to barley and fromGelb's and Adams's mian site had administrativecontrol over any Uruk
discussionsofhighlandtradeand herdsmenin the Ur III enclave site? Can one reallyimagine a site like Habuba
period.One way of strikinga balance betweenneeds for Kabira/Qannas,with its urbancharacter,as beingunder
grain and foranimal productswould have been to ex- the administrativecontrol of a lower Mesopotamian
pand into territoriessuitable for husbandry;another community?Since such directlong-termadministrative
would have been to develop specialized communitiesof control(as opposed to hegemonicdomination)of other
herdsmenand yet anotherto practice both agriculture centersis evidentonly towardsthe end of the EarlyDy-
and husbandrywithin the limits of cultivation.Seden- nasticand theearlyAkkadianperiod,it seems improbable
tarypopulations attemptingto raise livestockin an ag- that it was alreadyfunctioningduringthe late Uruk. A
ricultural context would have been dependent upon more likely comparisonthan the Portugueseexpansion
grazing their herds on fallow land or supplementary (Portugalbeinga unitary/centralized state)would be the
grainfeedings.A reasonablesolutionwould have been to expansionof the earlyClassical Greek city-states,often
shiftto a more vigorouscrop,barley,and allow animals in conflict with one another. New colonies were
to graze for specifiedperiods in fields of barley,later planned,encouraged,and organizedbycity-states.These
harvested.This typeofgrazingon barleycan be arranged new communitieswere frequently directedtowardscrit-
in a varietyof ways, althoughall resultin lower yields ical exchange nodes, becoming involved in exchange
(Poycki962:52). A shiftfromwheattobarleymayrepre- with non-Greekcommunities and oftensending trade
sent an effortto accommodate the demand foranimal goods to the foundingcommunity,but they rarelyre-
products while maintaininggrain production.In fact, mained under its administrativecontrol. Rather,they
animal husbandryand crop farmingappear to be inter- began as or quickly became independentcity-states,al-
related aspects of the agriculturalsystem in some pe- though maintainingsentimentaland trade ties to the
riods;forexample,JonesandSnyder(I96I:22I) mention foundingcommunity.Even this Greek comparison is
animals maintainedin corralsand pens in areas referred difficult,however, because the underlyingproduction
to as "fields." The principaldisadvantageof expansion systemsdiffered radically.I have arguedthatit was the
or specialization would have been the difficulty of cen- centralized/public/state sector that produced much of
tralizedadministration of herds.As Adams(I98I:I49) the trade goods and that this productionsystem en-
puts it, "the formationof these impressiveroyalherds couragedexchange,which in turnfundedthe state cen-
carriedwithinit the seeds ofa far-reachingdissolutionof tralizationof power. One has to look at the real histor-
the web of political and economic interrelationships." ical, economic,and political relationshipsto understand
Only the combination of farmingand herdingwould the changingincentivesforsocial transformation.
have insuredcentralizedcontrol,but it would have en- I fully agree with Algaze that Mesopotamian com-
tailedproblemsofallocation ofresources.It seems to me munitiesdid not directlycontrolthe surroundingcoun-
reasonable to include the tension between agriculture trysidebut oftenworkedin conjunctionwith local, re-
and husbandryand the importanceof textiles to the gional elites. In fact,in surveysofa considerablenumber
economyas an additionalfactor,alongwiththeproducts ofvalleys in the Bakhtiarimountainregion(Gandoman,
discussed by Algaze, in territorialexpansion. Chighakhor,Shahr-eKord,Lurdagan,Khana Mirza, and
many others)I found"Mesopotamian" sites only in the
extreme northeast, although very small amounts of
ALLEN ZAGARELL Uruk ware (beveled-rimbowls, for example) can be
DepartmentofAnthropology,WesternMichigan foundon sites withlocal potterysuggestinglocal control
University,Kalamazoo, Mich. 49008, U.S.A. 24 VI 89 of the highlands(Zagarell I987, I989). But the Bakhtiari
materialsuggestsa more complicatedscenariothan Al-
In generalI am in agreementwithAlgaze. The argument gaze's. The key "Mesopotamian" Shahr-e Kord site,
that Uruk-expansionsettlementssit along the major Sharak, also contains large amounts of late Sialk III
trade routes, that they tend to dominate critical ex- ware, just as foreignto the Bakhtiariregionand to the
changenodes, and thatthis expansionis moreeconomic Shahr-eKordplain. This suggestseitheran earlierdomi-
than political largely the parallels my conclusions in nation of the northernroute by central-plateaucom-
I986 (Zagarell I986), althoughAlgaze goes into consid- munities or a port of trade where northand south ex-
erably more detail. There are, however,several major changedgoods. Clearly,the centralBakhtiarihighlands
areas whereI have some problemswith his suggestions. werenot underthe directcontrolofMesopotamiancom-
Throughoutmuch ofthe articlehe describesthe Uruk munities,and cooperationbylocal elites representedthe
expansion as the consequence of relations between a necessary precondition for such foreignenclaves. It
morecomplexsocietyand less complex,peripheralcom- should be noted that the Bakhtiari highlands do not
munities.In the last thirdof the article,he (correctly,I seem to have taken up the same centralizedproduction
believe) notes that lower Mesopotamia consisted of a systemthat characterizedmany lowland regions.
series of competingcentersand arguesthat each center Finally,Algaze suggests that the lowlands exploited
dominated its own section of the exchange system. the highlands, exchangingmanufacturedproducts for
Althoughit is certainlyprobable that certainMesopo- raw materials.Exceptby modernanalogy(theindustrial
tamian centers "controlled" some sections of the ex- world exploiting the Third World), what evidence is
change route,is thereany evidence that any Mesopota- thereforexploitation?What criteriacould one use forit?

ALGAZE The Uruk Expansion I 6oi
The question, in my view, is whetherrelativelyequal reasonsfordifferences in developmentaltrajectoriesbe-

amounts of labor inputwere exchanged(i.e., as opposed tween Proto-ElamiteIran and the northernMesopota-
to tributeor grosslyunequal conditions of exchange). mian plains duringthe early 3d millennium.Thus, the
The exchangeof raw materialsformanufacturedgoods Ninevite 5 regressioncould well representthe otherside
is not in itself exploitative. Local elites may have of the coin: indigenousdevolutionwithinthe core area
wanted Mesopotamian goods, which were difficultfor of intrusiveUruk settlementsresultingfromthe long-
commonersto obtain, as symbols of theirelite status. termeffectsofthe asymmetricalexchangeofthepreced-
Similaraims certainlyexplain some ofthe goods sought ing period.
by Mesopotamian elites, as many of these were not The question of the impact of the Uruk intrusionon
necessitiesin the ordinarysense. For example,although neighboringperipheralcommunities bringsme to the
timberwas in shortsupplyin Mesopotamia, the woods comments of Lamberg-Karlovsky and Schwartzregard-
soughtwerenotforhutsbutforpalaces, symbolsofmas- ing the "uniqueness" of the Uruk expansion-particu-
sive state power. larlyas contrastedwith the Akkadianpenetrationofvir-
The analysisofthe recentlydiscoveredsystemof"for- tuallythe same area more than halfa millenniumlater.
eign" Uruk sites requires much work and discussion. In arguingthat the two episodes representrecurrentin-
This article is certainlyan importantcontributionto stances of a single cyclical phenomenonI do not gloss
that discussion. over the considerabledifferencesof detail that may be
observedbetween the two. Schwartzis correct,forex-
ample, in suggestingthat the massive emigrationfrom
Reply the alluvium of the earlierperiodis absentin the Akka-
dian case. These differences may be explainedin partby
the factthat sociopoliticallythe peripherythat the Ak-
GUILLERMO ALGAZE kadians attemptedto penetratewas no longera tabula
Ankara, Turkey.24 vii 89 rasa. Rather,largelyas a consequence ofMesopotamian
intrusionin the Uruk and late Early Dynastic periods,
Because I am writingfromthefieldand have no access to the Akkadianshad to deal with a varietyofmore or less
a library,I can address only the major issues, and even powerful local polities (e.g., Tell Mardikh/Ebla,Tell
these only at a general level. I am gratefulfor and Chuera,Tell Taya), each centeredon a city-stateofcon-
intriguedby the referencesto pertinentwork in the siderablesize (Weiss i983).
Mediterraneanand the New World (Knapp) and, most Perhaps the most significantissue raised is that not
interestingly, the Caucasus. Moreover,I am gratifiedby enough considerationhas been given to the possibility
the generaltone of the commentsand by the numberof thatfactorsotherthanlong-distanceexchangemay have
suggestionsofferedforfurtherresearch,which generally had a bearingon the Uruk expansion.One such factoris
show a keen comprehensionofthe data and ofthe prob- suggestedby Wright,who considersthe possibilitythat
lems inherentin attemptingeven a preliminarysynthe- the requirementsof textile productionfor exportmay
sis ofa corpusofmaterialvaryingin reliability,farfrom have helped spurterritorial expansionintoareas suitable
complete,and,in some cases, not fullypublished.Under foranimal husbandry.Anotheris put forwardby Lam-
the circumstances,I have attemptedto presentwhat berg-Karlovskyand Schwartz, who see demographic
amounts to a testable hypothesis,namely, that asym- shiftswithinthe Mesopotamian core as potentiallyim-
metricalcross-cultural exchangewas a criticalfactorin (i) portant.(I did not, it should be noted,completelydisre-
the initial crystallizationof Mesopotamian civilization garddemography,arguingthat the Uruk penetrationof
during the 4th millennium B.C., (2) the closely con- Susiana must be understoodin the contextofsignificant
nected processes of expansion of the rapidlygrowing population dislocations within the Iraqi alluvium.) But
Uruk city-statesof the time, and (3) the delineationof the most importantfactornot accountedforin my syn-
increasinglycomplex polities in the Mesopotamian pe- thesis is that addressedhere by Lamberg-Karlovsky and
ripherythroughoutthe 3d millennium.The last ofthese privatelyby R. McC. Adams (personalcommunication,
points appears to be most controversialand should be i987): the potential role of political and religious
made clearer. ideologies.These scholarsare correct,ofcourse,thatmy
The sociopolitical impact of the Uruk expansion in presentationhas an excessively narrowfocus on (un-
the Mesopotamian peripherypredictedby my model is deniably important) economic factors. As Lamberg-
rapid initial growthfollowedin the long run by regres- Karlovskyinsightfully notes, however,this emphasis is
sion and stagnation.The emergenceofa vigorousProto- suitedto the natureofthe available archaeologicaldata,
Elamite state in southwesternIran followingthe Uruk which simplydo not lend themselveseasilyto the evalu-
retrenchment fromSusiana conformsclosely to the pre- ation of noneconomicvariables.
dicted short-termeffectsof the model. Schwartz and Anotherimportantconcern,raisedmost emphatically
Weiss are correctin pointingout thatNinevite 5 settle- by Weiss, is the fragilenature of the evidence forthe
ment patterns in northern Mesopotamia present a flowof importedresourcesinto the Mesopotamian core
sharplyvaryingpicture. However, we still know little duringthe Uruk period.As I have acknowledged,"fully
about pertinentdevelopmentsin the northernSyrian representativesamples are not yet available," and it re-
plains west of the Euphratesand about the endogenous mains impossible to quantifythe presumedincrease in

602 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 30, Number 5, December 1989
Uruk-periodimports.Yet this need not mean that we Brentjes's suggestionthat colonization of Susiana is
cannot extrapolatefromevidence that,thoughcircum- unlikelyin view of the Elamite characterof the follow-
stantial, is persuasive. Later historical documentation ing threemillennia thereis based on a radical definition
clearlyindicatesthatlargeurbanagglomerationssuch as of "colonization" as total replacementofthe indigenous
developed in Mesopotamia during Uruk times (Late population. I make no such claim. While his warning
Uruk Warka is now estimatedat ca. 200 ha [Finkbeiner that pots are not people is usually well taken, the fact
I987]) importeda significantproportionof theirnonag- remains that the cultural similaritiesbetween Susiana
riculturalmaterial requirements.It would seem to me and the alluvium in the second half of the Uruk period
thatthe succession of impressiveUruk public buildings go well beyond artifactualassemblages, encompassing
at Warka simplycould not have been built withoutac- uniformrecord-keepingand administrativeprocedures,
cess to roofingtimbersof a type not locally available. comparablemodes of social organization,and common
Thus Weiss's citation of Margueron's assertion that mythologyand religious rituals. Those who argue for
nothing substitutes for wood is appropriatebut in indigenousdevelopmentin the Susiana throughoutthe
a sense entirelycontraryto that in which he employs Uruk period (Wenke,followingJohnsonI987) will have
it. Moreover,Foster's conclusion that Sargonic-period to come up with a model that accounts for the over-
wood shipmentsappear to have represented"a private whelminglySumerian character of elite activities in
enterpriseon a modestscale" reflectsnothingmorethan southwesternIran by the second halfof the 4th millen-
the narrowfocus of the archivesfromUmma available nium.
to him. Royal inscriptionsof late EarlyDynastic,Akka- I agree with Kohl and Kotterregardingthe obvious
dian,and Ur III kingsdo in factattestto boththe impor- geographicalgaps in our understandingof the northern
tance of securingaccess to timbersupplies throughout and northwesternMesopotamian periphery-particu-
the 3d millenniumand the state's rolein thatenterprise. larlyaway fromthe more intensivelysurveyedrivers.I
Further,the varietyofpreciousand commonmetals,ex- am quite aware of the biases in any analysisof the data.
otic and utilitarianstones, and various otherimported Partlyto correctsome of these biases, I am currently
resourcespresentin Uruk levels of Mesopotamian sites engagedin surveysofsoutheasternAnatolianareas to be
is significantlygreaterthan that attestedin earliercon- floodedbythe constructionofnew dams alongthe Tigris
textsat the same sites. At the veryleast, this is indica- and the Euphrates. The areas involved include more
tive of the much wider geographicalrange of external than 400 m2 fromthe vicinityofBirecikto Carchemish
contactsand exchangecharacteristicof Uruk times. on the Euphratesand fromthe Batman area to the envi-
The absence of referencein my paper to contactsbe- rons of Cizre on the Tigris.Added to what information
tween the Uruk worldand Egyptin the late 4th millen- we already possess fromprevious ongoingresearchin
nium B.C. is not accidental.The complexityofthe Egyp- southeastern Anatolia, northernSyria, and northern
tian state in the early dynastic period can hardlybe Iraq,these surveysshould providea morerepresentative
compared with that which must be presumedfor the cross section of areas near the principalwaterwaysof
much smallerpolities of the Syro-Mesopotamianplains northernMesopotamia in which furtherUruk settle-
and the Zagros/Taurushighlands at the time. Indeed, ments could be located, thus confirmingor undermin-
recentevidence fora significantEgyptian"Dynasty 0" ingsome ofmyhypothesesas to thestrategicrationalefor
expansioninto the Sinai, the Negev,and southernPales- the location of Uruk sites in the north.Preliminaryin-
tine (Kantorn.d., Stagern.d.) parallels in startlingways dications appear positive. Another intrusive site has
the expansion of Mesopotamian societies of the Uruk been located along the Euphrates($adi Tepe, located on
period(MarfoeI987). This evidence indicatesthatearly top of a natural ridgesome 8 km upstreamof Carche-
contactsbetweenthe nascent civilizationsofMesopota- mish [Algaze I989]). Field research now in progress
mia and Egyptmusthave been ofa fundamentally differ- should help clarifythe matterfurther.
ent naturefromthose hypothesizedto have existedbe-
tweenUruk states and communitiesin theirimmediate
periphery-thatis, that theywere not asymmetrical.It
is gratifying to see that Wenke reaches the very same
conclusion afterreviewingthe evidence froman Egyp-
ReferencesCited
tian perspective. ABU AL-SO OF, B. I970. Moundsin theRaniaplainand excava-
Brentjesappears to believe that I argue fora "single tionsat Tell Basmusian.Sumer26:65-I04.
Uruk civilization... theproductofa singleunifiedUruk . I985. Urukpottery. Baghdad:StateOrganization ofAntiq-
state." In contrast,I stated that "we must visualize the uitiesandHeritage.
ROBERT MC C. I966. The evolutionofurbansociety.
Uruk worldas characterizedby a small numberofcores, ADAMS, Chicago:University ofChicagoPress.
almost certainly in fierce competition." Each of these . I972. "The urbanrevolution in lowlandMesopotamia,"in
cores, I contend, dominated a specific portion of the Populationgrowth:Anthropological implications.EditedbyB.
long-distanceexchange network. Thus, Schwartz and Spooner, pp. 60-62. Cambridge: M.I.T. Press.
Zagarell are correct in suggesting that the well- . I974. Anthropological perspectives
on ancienttrade.CUR-
RENT ANTHROPOLOGY I5:239-58.
documented competing-Greek-city-states model could . I978. Strategies
ofmaximization, stability,
andresilience
potentially shed considerable light on available ar- in Mesopotamiansociety,settlement, andagriculture.
Proceed-
chaeological evidence forthe Uruk period. ingsoftheAmericanPhilosophicalSocietyI22:329-35.

.I 98I. Heartland of cities. Chicago:University

ofChicago societies.Dialoghidi
its impacton thecentralMediterranean
Press. Archaeologia I:23-51. [ABK]
ADAMS, ROBERT MC C., AND H.-J. NISSEN. I972. The Uruk BOEHMER, R. M. I985. Kalksteinfurdas Urukzeitliche Uruk.
countryside. ofChicagoPress.
Chicago:University Baghdader Mitteilungen I5:I4I-49.
AKKERMANS, P. P. M. G. I984. Archaologische Gelandebegehung BOESE, j. I986-87. Excavations at Tell Sheikh Hassan: Prelimi-
im Balih-Tal.ArchivfiirOrientforschung 3I:I88-90. naryreporton the year I987 campaign in the Euphrates Valley.
.I988. An updatedchronology forthenorthern Ubaidand Annales Arch6ologiques Arabes Syriennes 36-37:67-IOO.
Late Chalcolithicperiodsin Syria:New evidencefromTell BOKONYI, S. I985. "The animal remains of Maadi, Egypt:A pre-
Hammamet-Turkman. Iraq 50:I09-46. liminaryreport,"in Studi di paletnologia in onore di S. M. Pu-
ALDEN, J.I979. Regionaleconomicorganization in Baneshperiod glisi,PP. 495-99. Rome:Universitadi Roma "La Sapienza."
Iran.Ph.D. diss.,University ofMichigan,AnnArbor,Mich. [RJW]
* i982. Tradeandpoliticsin Proto-Elamite Iran.CURRENT BOSERUP, E. I965. The conditionsofagriculturalgrowth.
ANTHROPOLOGY 23:6I3-28. Chicago: Aldine.
"The Susa III period,"in The archaeologyofwestern
.I 987. BOTTERO, J. I967. "The first Semitic empire," in The Near East:
Iran.EditedbyF. Hole,pp. I57-70. Washington, D.C.: Smithso- E. Cassin,andJ.
The earlycivilizations.EditedbyJ.Bott6ro,
nianInstitution Press. Vercutter,pp. 9I-I32. New York: Delacorte.
ALGAZE, G. I986a. "KurbanHoyudk and theLate Chalcolithicpe- BRAIDWOOD, R. J.I937. Moundsin thePlain ofAntioch.Vol. I.
riodin thenorthwest Mesopotamianperiphery," in Gemdet Oriental Institute Publications 48.
Nasr: Periodorregionalstyle?EditedbyU. Finkbeiner andW. BRAIDWOOD, R. J., AND L. S. BRAIDWOOD. I960. Excavations
Rollig,pp. 274-3I5. Beiheftezum Tiubinger Atlasdes Vorderen in the plain ofAntioch. Vol. I. Oriental Institute Publications
Orients B 62. 6I.
. I986 b. Habubaon theTigris:ArchaicNinevehrecon- BRAND ES, aus den archaischen Bau-
M. I979. Siegelabrollungen
sidered.JournalofNear EasternStudies45:I25-37. schichten in Uruk-Warka. FreiburgerAltorientalischenStu-
.I989. A newfrontier:FirstresultsoftheTigris-Euphrates dien3.
ArchaeologicalReconnaissanceProject,I988. JournalofNear BRUMFIEL, E. M., AND T. K. EARLE. I987. "Specialization, ex-
Eastern Studies 48(3). change, and complex societies: An introduction,"in Specializa-
AMIET, P. I972. Glyptiquesusienne.M6moiresde la Delegation tion, exchange, and complex societies. Edited by E. M. Brumfiel
Arch6ologique Francaiseen Iran43. andT. K. Earle,pp. i-9. Cambridge:Cambridge
University
.I973. Apercupreliminaire surla glyptiquearchaique Press.
d'Arslantepe. Origine7:2I7-24. BUCHANAN, B. I966. CatalogueofancientNear Easternseals in
.I980. La glyptiquemesopotamienne archaique.Paris: theAshmoleanMuseum.Vol. I. Oxford:ClarendonPress.
CentreNationalde la RechercheScientifique. .I967. The prehistoric of
stampseal: A reconsideration
.I985. "La p6riodeIV de Tep6 Sialkreconsid6ree," in De some old excavations. Journalof the Ancient Oriental Society
l'Indus aux Balkans:Recueila la m6moirede JeanDeshayes. 87:265-79, 525-40.
EditedbyJ-L.Huot,M. Yon,and Y. Calvet,pp. 293-3I2. Paris: BURGHARDT, A. aboutgatewaycities.An-
F. I97I. A hypothesis
EditionsRecherchesurles Civilisations. nals of the Association ofAmerican Geographers 6i:269-87.
.I 986. L'age des echangesinter-Iraniens. Paris:Editionsde CALDWELL, J. R. at Tal-i-Iblis.IllinoisState
I967. Investigations
la R6uniondes Musees Nationaux. Museum PreliminaryReports 9.
ARCHI, A. I988. Prices,workers' wages,andmaintenanceat Ebla. CAMPBELL THOMPSON, R., AND R. HAMILTON. I932. The Brit-
Altorientalische Forschungen I5:24-29. [HW] ish Museumexcavationson theTempleofIshtarat Nineveh,
ASHER-GREVE, J. M., AND W. B. STERN. I983. Anew analytical I930-3 I. LiverpoolAnnalsofArchaeology and Anthropology
methodandits applicationto cylinderseals.Iraq 45:I57-62. I9:55-II6.
BARRELET, Dispositifs a feu et cuissons des aliments
M-T. I974. CAMPBELL THOMPSON, R., AND R. HUTCHINSON. I93I. The
a Ur,Nippur,Uruk.Pal6orient2:243-300. [HW] site of the palace of Ashurbanipal at Nineveh excavated in
BEALE, T. W. I973. Earlytradein highland Iran:A viewfroma I929-30 on behalfoftheBritishMuseum.LiverpoolAnnalsof
sourcearea. WorldArchaeology5:I33-48. Archaeology and AnthropologyI8:79-II2.
.I978. Bevelledrimbowlsandtheirimplications for CAMPBELL THOMPSON, R., AND M. E. L. MALLOWAN. I933.
changeandeconomicorganization in thelaterfourth millen- The BritishMuseumexcavationsat Nineveh,I93I-32. Liver-
niumB.C. Journal ofNear EasternStudies37:289-3 I3. pool AnnalsofArchaeology and Anthropology 20:7 I-I86.
BEH M -BLAN C KE, M. R. I986. "Die Ausgrabungen aufdemHas- CANAL, D. I978. La terrace de l'Acropolede Suse. Cahiersde la
sek H6yulkim JahreI985," in VIII. Kazi Sonu,lariToplantisi, Delegation Arch6ologique Fran,aise en Iran 9: II-5 5.
pp. I39-48. Ankara:EskiEserlerve MiuzelerGenelMudur- CAUVIN, J., AND D. STORDEUR. I985. Une occupation
lugu. d'6poque Uruken Palmyrene: Le niveausuperieur d'El Kowm
.I988. Northern EarlyNinevites contactswith
frontiers: 2-Caracol. Cahiers de l'Euphrate 4: i1i-206.
southeastern Anatolia.Northern MesopotamiaNinevite5 Con- CLUTTON-BROCK, J.I986. "Osteologyoftheequidsfrom
ference, New Haven,Conn. [CCL]
Yale University, Sumer," in Equids in the ancient world. EditedbyR. H.
BEHM-BLANCKE, M. R., H. BECKER, J. BOESSNECK, A. VON DEN MeadowandH.-P.Uerpmann, zum Tubin-
pp. 207-29. Beihefte
DRIESCH, M. R. ROH, AND G. WIEGAND. I98I. HassekHoyuk: gerAtlasdes Vorderen OrientsA i9(i).
VorlaufigerBerichtuberdie AusgrabungendenJahren
I978- COLLON, DOMINIQUE. I969. Mesopotamiancolumns.Journalof
I980. Istanbuler
Mitteilungen 3I:II-94. theAncientNear East Society2: I-I8. [HW]
BEHM-BLANCKE, M. R., M. R. ROH, N. KARG, L. MASCH, F. .I987. Firstimpressions:Cylinderseals in theancient
PARSCHE, K. L. WEINER, A. V. WICKEDE, AND G. WIEDER- ofChicagoPress.
Near East. Chicago:University
MAYER. I984. Hassek H6yiAk: VorlaufigerBerichtuberdie COLLON, D., AND J. READE. I983. Archaic Nineveh. Baghdader
in denJahren
Grabungen I98 I-I983. IstanbulerMitteilungen Mitteilungen I4:33-43.
34:3I-I50. CRAWFORD, H. E. W. I973. Mesopotamia's invisible exports in
BENEDICT, P. I980. "Surveyworkin southeastern Anatolia,"in the thirdmillennium. WorldArchaeology 5:232-4I.
Prehistoricresearchin southeastern Anatolia.EditedbyH. CURTIN, P. D. I975. Economicchangein precolonialAfrica.
Cambeland R. J.Braidwood, pp. I5i-206. Istanbul:Edebiyat Madison: Universityof Wisconsin Press.
Basimevi.
Facuiltesi .I984. Cross-culturaltradein worldhistory.Cambridge:
BERTHOUD, T., S. CLEUZIOU, L. P. HURTEL, M. MENU, AND CambridgeUniversity Press.
C. VOLF OVSKY. I982. Cuivreset alliagesen Iran,Afghanistan, DAAKU, K. Y. I970. Tradeand politicson theGold Coast, i6oo-
Oman au coursdes IVe andIIIe mill6naires.
Palkorient
8:39-54. I720. Oxford:ClarendonPress.
BIETTI SESTIERI, A. M. I988. The "Mycenaean connection" and D 'ALTROY, T. N. I987. Transitionsin power:Centralization of

604 i CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 30, Number 5, December 1989
Wankapoliticalorganization
underInkarule.Ethnohistory FRANGIPANE, M., AND A. PALMIERI. I988. "A protourban
34:78-IO2. [ABK] centreoftheLateUrukperiod,"in Perspectives onprotourban-
DE JESUS, P. S. I980. The development miningand
ofprehistoric izationin easternAnatolia:Arslantepe(Malatya),an interim
metallurgy in Anatolia.BritishArchaeological ReportsInterna- reporton theI975-I983 campaigns.EditedbyM. Frangipane
tionalSeries74. andA. Palmieri,pp. 287-454. OriginiI2.
DE GENOUILLAC, H. I934. Fouilles de Tello.Vol. i. Paris: FRANK, A. G. I970. "The development ofunderdevelopment," in
Geuthner. Imperialismand underdevelopment: A reader.EditedbyR.
D I AKONOFF, I. M. I 975. The ruralcommunity in theancient Rhodes,pp. 4-I7. New York:MonthlyReviewPress.
NearEast.Journal oftheEconomicand Social Historyofthe GALLAGHER, J., AND R. ROBINSON. I953. The imperialism of
Orient I8:I2I-33. freetrade.EconomicHistoryReview,2d series,6:i-i5.
D I LLEMANN, L. I 962. Haute Mesopotamie orientaleetpays ad- GALTUNG, J. I97I. A structural theoryofimperialism. Journal of
jacents. Paris: Geuthner. Peace Research2:8i-I7.
DITTMANN, R. I986a. "Seals, sealings, and tablets: Thoughts on GELB, I. J.I976. Quantitative evaluation of slavery and freedom.
thechangingpatternofadministrative controlfromtheLate Altes Orient and Alten Testament 25:I95-207. [HW].
Urukto theProto-Elamite periodat Susa," in GemdetNasr: .I979. "Householdandfamilyin ancientMesopotamia,"in
Periodorregionalstyle?EditedbyU. Finkbeiner andW. R6llig, Stateand templeeconomyin theancientNear East. Editedby
PP. 332-66. Beiheftezum TubingerAtlasdes Vorderen Orients E. Lipinsky, pp. I-98. Leuven:KatholiekeUniversiteit.
B 62. .i982. "Termsforslavesin ancientMesopotamia," in Soci-
. i986b "Susa in theProto-Elamite periodand annotations etiesand languagesoftheancientNearEast: Studiesin honor
on thepaintedpottery ofProto-Elamite Khuzestan,"in Gemdet ofI. M. Diakonoff, pp. 8I-98. Warminster: Arisand Phillips.
Nasr: Periodorregionalstyle?EditedbyU. Finkbeiner andW. .I986. "Ebla and Lagash:Environmental contrast," in The
R6llig,pp. I7I-96. Beihefte zum TubingerAtlasdes Vorderen originsofcitiesin dry-farming Syriaand Mesopotamiain the
Orients B 62. thirdmillenniumB.C. EditedbyHarveyWeiss,pp. I57-67.
DORNEMANN, R. H. I988. Tell Hadidi:One BronzeAgesite Guilford:FourQuarters.[RPW]
amongmanyin theTabqa Dam salvagearea.Bulletinofthe GEYER, B., AND J-Y. MONCHAMBERT. I987. Prospection de la
American Schools of Oriental Research 270:I3-42. moyennevall6ede l'Euphrate:Rapportpr6liminaire i982-i985.
DOYLE, W. M. I 986. Empires.Ithaca:CornellUniversity Press. ManiAnnalesde RecherchesInterdisciplinaires 5:293-344.
D Y SO N, S. L. Editor.I 985. Comparativestudiesin thearchaeol- GHIRSHMAN, R. I938. Fouilles de Sialk. Vol. I. Paris: Geuthner.
ogyofcolonialism.BritishArchaeological ReportsInternational GIBSON, MC G. I973. "Population shiftand the rise of Mesopota-
Series 233. [ABK] miancivilization,"in The explanationofculturechange:Mod-
EICHMANN, R. I986. Die Steingerateaus dem"Riemchenge- els in prehistory. EditedbyC. Renfrew, pp. 447-63. London:
baude" in Uruk-Warka.Baghdader Mitteilungen I 7:97- I 30. Duckworth.
EISENSTADT, S. N. Editor.I986. The origins and diversity of .I974. "Violationoffallowandengineered disasterin
axial-agecivilizations.Albany:StateUniversity ofNew York. Mesopotamiancivilization,"in Irrigation's impacton society.
[ABK] EditedbyT. E. DowningandMcG. Gibson,pp. 7-20. Tucson:
EKHOLM, K., AND J. FRIEDMAN. I979. "'Capital' imperialism University ofArizonaPress.
and exploitation in ancientworldsystems,"in Powerand pro- .I976. "Bycycleand stageto Sumer,"in Thelegacyof
paganda. EditedbyM. T. Larsen,pp. 4I-58. Copenhagen: Sumer.(Bibliotheca Mesopotamica4.) EditedbyD. Schmandt-
AkademiskVorlag. Besserat,pp. 5I -58. Malibu: Undena.
EMMANUEL, A. I972. Unequal exchange: A study of the im- GREAT BRITAIN, ADMIRALTY NAVAL STAFF. I9I8. Geology of
perialismoftrade.New York:MonthlyReviewPress. Mesopotamiaand its borderlands.
London.[HW]
ESIN, U. I975. Tepecik, I974. Anatolian Studies 25:46-49. GREAT BRITAIN, NAVAL INTELLIGENCE DIVISION. I944. Iraq
. i982. "Die kulturellen Beziehungen zwischen Ostanato- and thePersianGulf.(Geographical
HandbookSeries,B.R. 524.)
lien undMesopotamiensowie SyrienanhandeinigerGrabungs London.[HW]
undOberflachfunde aus demoberenEuphrattal im 4. Jt.v.Chr.," GREEN, M. V. I980. Animal husbandryat Uruk in the Archaic
in Mesopotamienund SeineNachbarn.EditedbyH.-J.Nissen period.Journal ofNear EasternStudies39:I-35.
andJ.Renger,pp. I3-22. Berlin:DietrichReimer. HALL, K. R. I985. Maritimetradeand statedevelopment in early
FIELDEN, K. j. I98I. The chronology ofsettlement in northeast- SoutheastAsia. Honolulu:University ofHawaii Press.
ernSyriaduringthefourthandthirdmillenniaB.C. in thelight HALLO, W. I964. The roadto Emar.Journal ofCuneiform Studies
ofceramicevidencefromTell Brak.Ph.D. diss.,OxfordUniver- i8:57-96.
sity,Oxford, England. HANBURY TENISON, J.I983. The i982 flaked stone assemblage
FINET, A. I979. "Bilanprovisoire des fouillesbelgesdu Tell Kan- at JebelAruda,Syria.Akkadica 33:27-33.
nas," in ArchaeologicalreportsfromtheTabqa Dam Project- HAUPTMANN, H. I975. Norsuntepe, I974. Anatolian Studies
EuphratesValleySyria.EditedbyD. N. Freedman, pp. 79-96. 25 35-38.
AnnualoftheAmericanSchoolsofOrientalResearch44. HEIMPEL, WOLFGANG. I987. "Das Unterer Meer."Zeitschrift
FINKBEINER, U. I986. "Uruk-Warka: EvidenceoftheGemdet fiirAssyriologie77:22-91. [HW]
Nasrperiod,"in GemdetNasr: Periodorregionalstyle?Edited HEINRICH, E. I936. Kleinfunde aus den archaischen Tem-
byU. Finkbeiner andW. Rollig,pp. 33-56. Beihefte zum Tubin- pelschichten in Uruk.Leipzig:OttoHarrassowits.
gerAtlasdes Vorderen OrientsB 62. - I937. Die Grabung im PlanquadratK XVII.Vorldufiger Be-
1 987. Uruk-Warka,I 983- I 984. Archiv fiirOrientfor- richtiuberdie vonderDeutschenForschungsgemeinschaft in
schung 34:I40-44. Uruk-Warka untemnommenenAusgrabungen 8:27-55.
FLANNERY, K. V. I972. "Summary comments: Evolutionary . I938. Grabungen im Gebietdes Anu-Antum-Tempels.
trendsin social exchange and interaction,"in Social exchange Vorliufiger Berichtiiberdie vonderDeutschenForschungs-
and interaction. EditedbyE. N. Wilmsen,pp. I29-35. Univer- gemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka untemnommenen Ausgrabungen
sityofMichiganMuseumofAnthropological Papers46. [ABKI. 9:I9-30.
FORBES, R. j. I964. Studiesin ancienttechnology. Vol. i. Leiden: 1
i982. Die TempelundHeiligtiimer in AltenMesopota-
Brill.[HWI mien.Berlin:Walterde Gruyter.
FOREST, JEAN-DANIEL. I983. Les pratiquesfun6raires en HEINRICH, E., E. STROMMENGER, D. R. FRANK, W. LUDWIG,
Mesopotamiedu cinquiememillenaireau debutdu troisieme: D. SURENHAGEN, E. TOPPERWEIN, H. SCHMID, J-C.
Etude de cas. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilizations. HEUSCH, K. KOHLMEYER, D. MACHULE, M. MARKUS, AND
[HWI T. RHODE. I973. VierterVorlaufigerBerichtiiber die von der
FOSTER, B. I 977. Commercialactivityin SargonicMesopotamia. DeutschenOrient-Gesellschaft
mitmittelnderStiftung
Iraq 39:3I-43. Volkswagenwerkin HabubaKabiraundin Mumbaqatunter-

ALGAZE The Uruk Expansion I 605
nommenenarchaologischen Untersuchungen, erstattet

von LAMB ERT, M. I953. Textescommerciaux
de Lagash.Revued'As-
MitgliedemderMission.Mitteilungen derDeutschenOrient- syriologie47:57-69, IO5-20. [HWI
GesellschaftI05:5-58. LARSEN, M. T. I976. The Old Assyriancity-stateand its colonies.
H E N R I C K S O N, E. I989. "The Late Chalcolithic
periodin thecen- Copenhagen:AkademiskForlag.
tralZagroshighlands,"in Out oftheheartland:The evolution .I 979. "The tradition ofempirein Mesopotamia,"in Power
ofcomplexity in peripheralMesopotamiaduringthe Urukpe- andpropaganda.EditedbyM. T. Larsen,pp. 75-I06. Copenha-
riod,workshopsummary.EditedbyM. Rothman.Pal6orient gen:AkademiskForlag.
I5(I). - I987. "Commercial networksin theancientNearEast,"
HERMANN, G. I968. Lapislazuli: The earlyphasesofits trade. in Centreand periphery in theancientworld.EditedbyM.
Iraq 30:2I-57. Rowlands,M. T. Larsen,and K. Kristiansen, pp. 47-56. Cam-
HIJARA, I. I976. Excavations at ShahrazurPlain,Tell Kurdrsh. bridge:CambridgeUniversity Press.
Sumer(ArabicSection)32:59-80. L E B R E T O N, L. I957. The earlyperiodsat Susa: Mesopotamian
HIRSCH, H. I963. Die Inschriften derKbnigevonAgade.Archiv relations.Iraq I9:79-I24.
furOrientforschung 2o:i-82. LE B RUN, A. I97I. Recherchesstratigraphiquesa l'Acropolede
H O D D E R, I. A. I974. Regression analysisofsometradeandmar- Suse, I969-I97I. Cahiersde la DelegationArch6ologique Fran-
ketingpatterns.WorldArchaeology6:I72-89. [ABKI gaise en Iran i:I63-2I6.
HOLZER, H. F., AND M. MOMENZADEH. I97I. Ancientcopper . I978 a. Le niveau I7B de l'Acropole de Suse. Cahiers de la
minesin theVeshnoveharea,Kuhestan-E-Qom, westcentral DelegationArch6ologique Frangaise en Iran9:57-I54.
Iran.ArchaeologiaAustriaca49:I-22. . I978b. La glyptiquedu Niveau I7B de l'Acropole(cam-
HUOT, J-L., AND C. MARECHAL. I985. "L'emploidu gypseen pagnede I972). Cahiersde la DelegationArch6ologique Fran-
M6sopotamiedu sud a l'6poqued'Uruk,"in De l'Indus aux Bal- gaise en Iran 8:6I-79.
kans: Recueila la m6moirede JeanDeshayes.EditedbyJ-L. LE BRUN, A., AND F. VALLAT. I978 L'originede l'6criture
a Suse.
Huot,M. Yon,andY. Calvet,pp. 26I-75. Paris: Editions Re- Cahiersde la DelegationArch6ologique Frangaiseen Iran
cherchesurles Civilisations. 8:Ii-6o.
JACOBSEN, T. I970(1I95 3). "On thetextileindustry at Ur under Foreigntradein theOld Babylonianpe-
L E E M A N S, W. F. I 9 60.
Ibbi-Sin,"in TowardstheimageofTammuz.EditedbyW. L. riod.Leiden:Brill.
Moran, pp. 2i6-30. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Press. .I972-73. Handel.ReallexikonderAssyriologie
4:76-go.
JACOBSEN, T., AND R. MC C. ADAMS. I958. Salt and siltin an- [HWI
cientMesopotamianagriculture. Sciencei28:i25 i-5 8. LENZEN, H. I958. Listederfundeaus demRiemchengebaude.
JASIM, S. A., AND J. OATES. I986. An archaicrecording system Vorlaufiger Berichtiiberdie vonderDeutschenArchaolo-
andtheoriginsofwriting.WorldArchaeologyI 7:348-62. gischenInstitutand derDeutschenOrient-Gesellschaft aus
JOHNSON, G. A. I973. Local exchangeand earlystatedevelop- MittelnderDeutschenForschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka
mentin southwestern Iran.AnnArbor:University ofMichigan unternommenen Ausgrabungen I4:30-35.
MuseumofAnthropology. .I959. Die Grabungen derWesteckevonE-anna.Vorlaufi-
.I987. "The changing organization ofUrukadministration gerBerichtiiberdie vonderDeutschenArchdologischen In-
in theSusianaplain,"in The archaeologyofwesternIran. stitutund derDeutschenOrient-Gesellschaft aus Mittelnder
EditedbyF. Hole,pp. I07-39. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian DeutschenForschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka unternom-
Institution Press. menenAusgrabungen I5:8-I9.
JONES, TOM B., AND JOHN W. SNYDER. I96I. Sumerian eco- .I960. Die Kleinfunde. D. Siegelabrollungen. Vorldufiger
nomictextsfromtheThirdUrDynasty.Minneapolis:Univer- Berichtiiberdie vonderDeutschenArchdologischen Institut
sityofMinnesotaPress.[RPWI und derDeutschenOrient-Gesellschaft aus Mittelnder
JORDAN, J. I932. Ausgrabungen in UrukI930/3 I. Vorldufiger Be- DeutschenForschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka unternom-
richtilberdie vonderDeutschenForschungsgemeinschaft in menenAusgrabungen I6:48-56.
Uruk-Warka unternommenen Ausgrabungen 3:I-37. I96I. Die Kleinfunde. D. Siegelabrollungen aufTontafeln
KANTOR, H. j. n.d. "The relativechronology ofEgyptanditsfor- undKrugverschliissen. Vorldufiger Berichtilberdie vonder
eigncorrelations beforetheFirstIntermediate period,"in DeutschenArchdologischen Institutund derDeutschen
Chronologies in Old Worldarchaeology. EditedbyR. Ehrich.In Orient-Gesellschaft aus MittelnderDeutschenForschungs-
preparation. gemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka unternommenen Ausgrabungen
KNAPP, A. B. I989. andMediterranean
Copperproduction trade: I7:29-36.
The view fromCyprus. OpusculaAtheniensiaI8. In press. 1 Die Siegelabrollungen.
I964. VorlaufigerBerichtiiber
[ABKI die vonderDeutschenArchdologischen Institutundder
KOHL,PHILIP. I975. Carvedchlorite
vessels:A tradein finished DeutschenOrient-Gesellschaftaus MittelnderDeutschen
commoditiesin themid-thirdmillennium.ExpeditionI8: I8- Forschungsgemeinschaftin Uruk-Warka unternommenen Aus-
3I. [HWI grabungen
20:22-23.
.I978. The balanceoftradein southwestern Asia in the 1.I965. Amulette.Vorldufiger
Berichtiiberdie vonder
thirdmillenniumB.C. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY I9:463-75. DeutschenArchdologischen Institutund derDeutschen
.I987. The use and abuseofworldsystemstheory:The aus MittelnderDeutschenForschungs-
Orient-Gesellschaft
case ofthepristineWestAsianstate.Advancesin Archaeolog- gemeinschaftin Uruk-Warka unternommenen Ausgrabungen
ical Methodand TheoryII:I-36. 2I:32.
KOHLMEYER, K. I985. Euphrat-Survey: Die mitMittelnder LEVINE, L., AND T. C. YOUNG, JR. I987. "A summary ofceramic
GerdaHenkelStiftung durchgefiihrte archaologischeGelan- assemblagesofthecentral-western ZagrosfromtheMiddle
debegehung in syrischen Euphrattal. Mitteilungen der Neolithicto thelate thirdmillenniumB.C.," in Pr6histoire
de
DeutschenOrient-Gesellschaft II6:95-Ii8. la Mesopotamie.EditedbyJ-L.Huot,pp. I5-5 4. Paris:Centre
KRAMER, S. N. i952. Enmerkar and theLordofAratta.Philadel- Nationalde la RechercheScientifique.
phia:University Museum. LLOYD, S. I938. Some ancientsitesin theSinjardistrict.
Iraq
LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, C. C. I985. "The longuedure6 ofthe 5:I23-42.
ancientNear East,"in De l'Indus aux Balkans:Recueila la LLOYD, F. SAFAR. I943. Tell Uqair:Excavations
S., AND bythe
m6moirede JeanDeshayes.EditedbyJ-L.Huot,M. Yon,andY. IraqGovernment DirectorateofAntiquitiesin I940 and I94I.
Calvet,pp. 55-72. Paris: Editions Recherchesurles Civilisa- Journal
ofNear EasternStudies2: I3I-58.
tions. LORETZ, O. I969. Texteaus ChagarBazarundTell Brak.Altes
LAMBERG-KARLOVSKY, C. C., AND M. TOSI. I973. Shahr-i OrientundAltenTestament3(I). [HWI
SokhtaandTepe Yahya:Trackson theearliesthistoryofthe LUDWIG, W. I979. "Mass, SitteundTechnikdes Bauensin
Iranianplateau.East and West23:29-58. HabubaKabira-suid," in Le MoyenEuphrate:Zone de contacts

6o6 CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 30, Number S, December I989
et d'echanges.EditedbyJ-C.Margueron, pp. 63-74. Leiden: from

OATES, JOAN. i982. Some late EarlyDynasticIII pottery
Brill. Tell Brak. Iraq 44:205-19. [GMSJ
MAEDA, T. I984. "KingoftheFourRegions"in thedynasty of I 983. "Ubaid Mesopotamiareconsidered," in Thehilly
Akkade.Orient2o:67-82. flanksand beyond.(Studiesin AncientOrientalCivilization
MAEKAWA, K. I980 Femaleweaversand theirchildren in La- 36.)EditedbyT. C. YoungJr.,P. E. L. Smith,and P. Mortensen,
gash-PresargonicandUr III. Acta Sumerologica2:8i-i25. pp. 25 i-82. Chicago: Oriental Institute.
. I987. "Collectivelaborservicein Girsu-Lagash: The pre- . i985. Tell Brak: Uruk potteryfromthe i984 season. Iraq
SargonicandUr III periods,"in Laborin theancientNearEast. 47: I75-86.
EditedbyM. Powell,pp. 47-7 I. New Haven:AmericanOrien- . I986. "Tell Brak:The Uruk/Early Dynasticsequence,"in
talSociety.
[HWI GemdetNasr: Periodorregionalstyle?EditedbyU. Finkbeiner
MAJIDZADEH, Y. I976. The earlyprehistoric culturesofthecen- andW. Rollig,pp. 245-73. Beiheftezum TubingerAtlasdes
tralplateauin Iran:An archeological historyofits development Vorderen OrientsB 62.
duringthefifth andfourthmillenniaB.C. Ph.D. diss.,University OPPENHEIM, A. L. I976. "Tradein theancientNear East."Inter-
ofChicago,Chicago,Ill. nationalCongressofEconomicHistory(Leningrad1970), vol.
. I979. An earlyprehistoric coppersmith workshopat Tepe 5, pp. i26-47. Moscow: Nauka.
Gabristan.Archaologische Mitteilungenaus Iran,suppl.6:82- OZDOGAN, M. I977. LowerEuphrates Basin survey,1977. Istan-
92. bul: MiddleEasternTechnicalUniversity.
i982. Lapislazuli and theGreatKhorasanRoad.Paleori- OZGUC, N. i988. Samsat Kazilari, i987. Belleten52:29I-94.
ent8:59-70. PALMIERI, A. i98i. Excavationsat Arslantepe (Malatya).Anato-
MALLOWAN, M. E. L. I947. Excavations at BrakandChagarBazar. lian Studies3 I:IOI-I9.
Iraq 9:I-87. PAYNTER, R. i98i. "Social complexity in peripheries:Problems
MARFOE, L. I987. "CedarForestto SilverMountain:Social andmodels,"in Archaeologicalapproachesto thestudyof
changeand thedevelopment oflong-distancetradein early complexity. EditedbyS. E. van derLeeuw,pp. II8-43. Amster-
Near Easternsocieties,"in Centreandperiphery in theancient dam:University ofAmsterdam.
world.EditedbyM. Rowlands,M. T. Larsen,andK. Kristian- PETTINATO, G. I972. Il commercio con l'esterodellaMesopota-
sen,pp. 25-35. Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. mia meridionalenel 3.millennioav.Cr.alla luce dellefonti
MA R G U E R O N, J-c. I 982. Recherchessurles palais mesopota- letterarie e lessicalisumeriche.Mesopotamia7:43-i66.
miensde l'Age du Bronze.Paris:Geuthner.[HW] POLANYI, K. I957. "The economyas instituted process,"in Trade
MARSCHNER, R. F., AND H. T. WRIGHT. I978. "Asphalts from and marketin theearlyempires.EditedbyK. Polanyi,C. M.
Middle Eastern archaeological sites," in Archaeological chemis- Arensberg,and H. W. Pearson, pp. 243-69. Chicago: Henry
try,vol.2. Edited by G. F. Carter,pp. I50-7 I. Washington,D.C.: Regnery.
AmericanChemistry Association. I975. "Tradersand trade,"in Ancientcivilizationand
MATTHERS, j. I98I. TheRiverQoueiq,northernSyria,and its trade.EditedbyJ.A. Sabloffand C. C. Lamberg-Karlovsky,pp.
catchment.BritishArchaeological
ReportsInternational
Series pp. I33-54. Albuquerque: Universityof New Mexico Press.
98. POSSEHL, G. L. i986. Kulli:An exploration
ofancientcivilization
MEIJER, D. K. I986. A surveyofnortheastern Syria.Amsterdam: in Asia. Durham:CarolinaAcademicPress.
DutchArchaeological Institutein Istanbul. POSTGATE, j. I986. "The transition fromtheUrukto theEarly
MILLER, K. i962. Die Peutingersche Tafel.Stuttgart:Brockhaus. Dynastic:Continuitiesand discontinuities in therecordofset-
MONCHAMBERT, J-Y. I984. Prospection arch6ologique sur tlement,"in GemdetNasr: Periodorregionalstyle?Editedby
l'emplacement du futurlac du Moyen Khabour. Akkadica 39: U. Finkbeiner andW. Rollig,pp. go-io6. Beihefte zum Tubin-
I-7. gerAtlasdes Vorderen OrientsB 62.
MO OREY, P. R. s. I985. Materialsand manufacture in ancient P O W E L L, M. I 985. Salt,seed,andyieldsin Sumerianagriculture:
Mesopotamia:The evidenceofarchaeologyand art.BritishAr- A critiqueofthetheoryofprogressive salinization.Zeitschrift
chaeologicalReportsInternational Series 237. [HWI furAssyriologie 75:7-38.
MO O RTGAT, A. I969. The artofancientMesopotamia.London: POYCK, A. P. G. I962. Farmstudiesin Iraq:An agro-economic
Phaidon. studyoftheagriculture in theHilla-Diwaniyaareain Iraq.
MUHLY, JAMES D. i983. Kupfer. ReallexikonderAssyriologie Mededelingenvan de Landbouwhogeschool te Wageningen
6:348-64.[HWI 62:I-99. [RPWI
N A RI M A N O V, I. G. I 985. ObeidskoyeplemenaMesopotamiiv PRICE, BARBARA. I978. "Secondarystateformation:An explana-
Azerbaidzhane. Paper delivered at the conference"Dostizheniva torymodel,"in Originsofthestate: The anthropology ofpo-
Sovetskoi Arkheologii v XI Pyatiletke," Baku,U.S.S.R. [PLKI litical evolution.Editedby R. Cohen and E. R. Service,pp.
NISSEN, H. -J. I970. Grabung in den Planquadraten K/L XII in i6i-86. Philadelphia:InstitutefortheStudyofHumanIssues.
Uruk-Warka.Baghdader Mitteilungen:ioi-92. [HWI
. I977. "Aspects of the development of early cylinder RATHJE, W. L. I97i. The originanddevelopment oflowland
seals,"in Seals and sealingsin theancientNearEast. Editedby Classic Maya civilization.AmericanAntiquity36:275-85.
McG. Gibson and R. Biggs,pp. I5-24. Malibu: Undena. READE, JULIAN. i968. Tell Taya i967: Summary report.Iraq
1.I983. "Political organization and settledzone,"in The 30:234-64. [GMS]
hillyflanksand beyond.(Studiesin AncientOrientalCiviliza- REDFIELD, R. i956. Peasantsocietyand culture.Chicago:Uni-
tion36.)EditedbyT. C. YoungJr.,P. E. L. Smith,andP. Mor- versityof Chicago Press.
tensen,pp. 335-46. Chicago:OrientalInstitute. REIMER, s. i989. "Tell Qrayaon theMiddleEuphrates,"
in Out
. I985. The emergenceofwritingin theancientNearEast. oftheheartland:The evolutionofcomplexity in peripheral
InterdisciplinaryScienceReviewsIO:349-6I. Mesopotamiaduringthe Urukperiod,workshopsummary.
. I986 a. The Archaic Texts fromUruk. WorldArchaeology EditedbyM. Rothman.Pal6orientis (i).
I7:3I7-34. ROLLIG, W., AND H. KUHNE. I977/78. The Lower Habur: A pre-
. I986 b. "The development ofwritingandglypticart,"in liminaryreporton a surveyconductedbytheTubingerAtlas
GemdetNasr: Periodorregionalstyle?EditedbyU. Finkbeiner des Vorderen Arabes
Orientsin I975. AnnalesArcheologiques
and W. Rollig, pp. 3I6-3I. Beiheftezum TubingerAtlasdes Syriennes 27-28: II 5-40.
Vorderen OrientsB 62. ROSEN, S. I983. Tabular scraper trade: A model of material cul-
OATES, D. I968. Studiesin theancienthistory
ofnorthernIraq. turedispersion.
BulletinoftheAmericanSchoolsofOriental
London:OxfordUniversity Press. Research 249:79-86.
. i982. Recent excavationsin northernMesopotamia:Tell ROWT ON, R. I967. The woodlandsofancientWestern
Asia. Jour-
el RimahandTell Brak.BulletinoftheSocietyforMesopota- nal ofNear EasternStudies26:26 I-77.
mian Studies4:7-23. RUNNELS, C., AND T. H. VAN ANDEL. i988. Trade and the origins

ofagriculture ofMediter-
Journal
in theeasternMediterranean. T RI G G E R, B. G. I97 4. The archaeology ofgovernment. WorldAr-
raneanArchaeologyi :83-IO9. [ABKI chaeology6:95-I06. [ABKI
SCHMANDT-BESSERAT, D. I986. Tokens at Susa. Oriens Anti- TURNER, FREDERICK JACKSON. I977(189i). The characterand
quus 25:93-I25. influenceoftheIndian tradein Wisconsin.EditedbyD. H. Mil-
SCHNEIDER, J. I977. Was therea pre-capitalist
world-system? lerandW. W. Savage,Jr.Norman:University ofOklahoma
PeasantStudies6:2o-29. Press.[CCLI
S C H O TT, E. I 93 3. Die Siegelbilder
derUruk-Schicht
IV. TYUMENEV, A. I. I969. "The state economy of ancient Sumer,"
Vorlaufiger Berichtuberdie vonderNotgemeinschaft der in AncientMesopotamiansocioeconomichistory.Editedby
DeutschenWissenschaft in Uruk-Warka unternommenen Aus- I. M. Diakonoff. Moscow:Nauka. [RPWI
grabungen 5:42-54. VAIMAN, A. A. I976. "Uberdie Protosumerische Schrift,"in
SCHREIBER, K. j. I987. Conquestand consolidation: A compari- Wirtschaft und Gesellschaft in AltenVorderasien. EditedbyJ.
son oftheWariand Inkaoccupationofa highlandPeruvianval- Harmattaand G. Komar6czy, pp. I5-27. Budapest:Akademiai
ley.AmericanAntiquity52: 266-84. [ABKI Kiad6.
SCHWARTZ, GLENN M. I987. The NineviteV periodand the VALLAT, F. I986. The mostancientscriptsofIran:The current
development ofcomplexsocietyin northern Mesopotamia. situation.WorldArchaeologyI 7:336-47.
PaleorientI3:93-IOO. [GMS] VAN DRIEL, G. I982. "TabletsfromJebelAruda,"in ZikirSumin:
. I988. Excavationsat KaratutMevkiiandperspectives of Assyriological studiespresentedto F. R. Kraus.EditedbyG.
theUruk/Jemdet Nasr expansion.Akkadica 56: I-4I. van Driel,Th. J.H. Krispijn, M. Stol,andK. R. Veenhof, pp.
SIMPSON, K. I988. Qrayamodularreports. Vol. I. Earlysound- i2-25. Leiden:Brill.
ings.(Syro-Mesopotamian Studies4[41.)Malibu:Undena. .I983. Seals and sealingsfromJebelAruda,I974-I978. Ak-
SMITH, C. A. I976 "Exchangesystemsandthespatialdistribution kadica 33:34-62.
ofelites:The organization in agrariansoci-
ofstratification VAN DRIEL, G., AND C. VAN DRIEL-MURRAY. I979. JebelAruda,
eties,"in Regionalanalysis,vol. 2. EditedbyC. A. Smith,pp. I977-78. Akkadica i2:2-8.
309-74. New York:AcademicPress. .I983. JebelAruda,the i982 season of excavations. Ak-
SMITH, P. E. L., AND T. C. YOUNG, JR. I972. "The evolutionof kadica 33:i-26.
earlyagriculture and culturein GreaterMesopotamia:A trial VAN LOON, M. N. I967. The Tabqa Reservoir SurveyI964.
model,"in Populationgrowth:Anthropological implications. Damascus: DirectorateGeneralofAntiquitiesandMuseums.
EditedbyB. Spooner,pp. I-59. Cambridge:M.I.T. Press. .I983. Hammamet-Turkman on theBalikh:Firstresultsof
SOJA, EDWARD. I989. Postmodern geographies. London:Verso. theUniversity ofAmsterdam'si982 excavations.Akkadica
[HWI 35:I-23.
SPEISER, Excavationsat Tepe Gawra.Vol. I. Philadel-
E. A. I935. Tell el-Fara'in-Buto.
VON DER WAY, T. I987. 2. Mitteilungendes
phia: University ofPennsylvania Press.[GMS] DeutschenArchaologischenInstitutsAbteilungKairo43:24I-
STAGER, L. E. n.d. "The periodizationofPalestinefromNeolithic 6o. [CCL, GMS, RJWI
through EarlyBronzetimes,"in Chronologies in Old Worldar- VON HALLER, A. I932. Die KeramikderarchaischenSchichten
chaeology.EditedbyR. Ehrich.In preparation. vonUruk.Vorlaufiger Berichtiiberdie vonderDeutschen
STARR, R. F. S. I939. Nuzi. Cambridge:HarvardUniversity Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka unternommenen Aus-
Press. grabungen4:38-42.
STEINKELLER, PIOTR. I987. ofUmma:Towarda
"The foresters WAETZOLDT, H. I972. Untersuchungenzurneusumerischen
definitionof Ur III labor,"in Labor in the ancient Near East. Textilindustrie. Rome:Centroperle Antichitae la Storia
EditedbyM. A. Powell,pp. 73-I I . New Haven:American dell'Artedel VicinoOriente.
OrientalSociety.[HWJ WALLERSTEIN, I. I974. Themodernworldsystem.New York:
STEVE, M-J., AND H. GASCHE. I97I. LAcropolede Suse. AcademicPress.
Fran9aiseen Iran46.
M6moiresde la D6l6gationArch6ologique WATTENMAKER, P., AND G. STEIN. "Leilan I987 survey:Uruk
STOL, MARTEN. I979. On trees,mountains,and millstonesin summary," in Out oftheheartland:The evolutionofcomplex-
the ancient Near East. Leiden: Ex Oriente Lux. [HWI ityin peripheralMesopotamiaduringthe Urukperiod,work-
STROMMENGER, E. i98oa. Habuba Kabira:Eine Stadtvor5000 shopsummary.EditedbyM. Rothman.Pal6orientI5(i).
Jahren.Mainz am Rhein: Phillip von Zabern. WEISS, H. I977. "Periodization, population,andearlystatefornia-
. ig80b. The chronological division of the Archaic levels of tionin Khuzestan,"in Mountainsand lowlands:Essaysin the
Uruk-EannaVI to III/II:Past to present.American Journalof archaeologyofGreaterMesopotamia.EditedbyL. D. Levine
Archaeology 84:477-87. andT. C. Young,Jr.,pp. 347-70. Malibu:Undena.
SUMNER, W. I977. "Early settlement in Fars province, Iran," in .I983. Excavations at Tell Leilanand theoriginsofnorth
Mountainsand lowlands:Essaysin thearchaeologyofGreater Mesopotamian cities in the thirdmillennium B.C. Paleorient
Mesopotamia.EditedbyL. D. LevineandT. C. Young,Jr.,
pp. 9 39-52.
29I-306. Malibu: Undena. .I985.Ebla to Damascus: Artand archaeology ofancient
S U RE N HA GE N, D. I974-75. Untersuchungen zur Keramikproduc- Syria.Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Press.
Institution
tion innerhalb der Spat-Uruklichen siedlung Habuba Kabira-siud .I986. The originsofcitiesin dry-farming
Syriaand
in Nord Syrien.Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 5-6:43-i64. Mesopotamiain thethirdmillenniumB.C. Guilford: Four
Ig86 a. "The dryfarmingbelt: The Uruk period and subse-
9. Quarters Press. [CCLI
quent developments," in The originsof cities in dry-farming Sy- I 9 88. "Introduction," in A ceramicchronology
fromTell
ria and Mesopotamiain thethirdmillenniumB.C. EditedbyH. Leilan Operationi. EditedbyG. M. Schwartz, pp.xiii-xxiii.
FourQuartersPublishing.
Weiss, pp. 7-43. Guilford: New Haven: Yale University Press.[HWI
- 9.Ig86b. Archaische Keramik aus Uruk-Warka. I. Die WEISS, HARVEY, AND LAURA CALDERONE. n.d. "The endof
KeramikderSchichtenXVI-VI aus den Sondagen"Tiefschnitt" theNinevite5 periodat Tell Leilan,"in TheoriginsofNorth
und "Sagengraben" in Eanna. Baghdader Mitteilungen I7:7-96. Mesopotamiancivilization:NineviteS chronology, economy,
TERRAY, M. I974. Long distance exchange and the formationof society. Edited by H. Weiss. New Haven: Yale UniversityPress.
the state: The case of the Abron Kingdom of Gyaman. Economy In press.[HWI
and Society3:3 I5 -45. WEISS,H., AND T. C. YOUNG, JR. 1975. The merchantsofSusa:
TOBLER, A. j. I950. Excavations at Tepe Gawra. Vol. 2. Philadel- GodinV andplateau-lowland relationsin thelatefourthmillen-
phia: UniversityofPennsylvania Press. niumB.C. Iran I3:I-I8.
TOPPERWEIN, E. I973. Kleinfunde. derDeutschen
Mitteilungen WENKE, R. j. I987. "Western Iranin thePartho-Sasanian period:
Orient-Gesellschaft I05:20-32. The imperialtransformation," in The archaeologyofwestern
TOSI, MAURIZIO. I980. Karneol.ReallexikonderAssyriologie Iran.EditedbyF. Hole, pp. 25 I-8I. Washington, D.C.: Smithso-
5:448-52*. [HWI nianInstitution Press.[RJW]

6o8 | CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY Volume 30, Number 5, December I989
WHALLON, R. I979. An archaeological surveyoftheKebanRes- YAKAR, J., AND A. GURSAN-SALZMANN. I979. Archaeological
ervoirarea ofeast-central Turkey.AnnArbor:University of surveyin theMalatyaand Sivas Provinces-I 977. Tel Aviv
MichiganMuseumofAnthropology. 6:34-53.
WHEATLEY, P. I975. "Satyanrta in Suvarnadvipa: Fromreciproc- Y E N E R, K. A. I 983 exchange,andutilizationof
. The production,
ityto redistribution in ancientSoutheastAsia," in Ancient silverand lead metalsin Anatolia.Anatolia io: i-i5.
civilizationand trade.EditedbyJ.A. Sabloff and C. C. Lam- YENER, K. ASLIHAN, ET AL. I989. Kestel:An EarWy'Bronze Age
berg-Karlovsky, pp. 227-83. Albuquerque:University ofNew sourceoftinorein theTaurusMountains,Turkey.Science
MexicoPress. 244:200-203. [HWJ
WHITTAKER, C. R. I978. "Cartagenian imperialism in thefifth YOFFEE, N. I98I. Explainingtradein the ancientNear
andfourthcenturies,"in Imperialismin theancientworld. East. (Monographson theAncientNear East 2[21.)Malibu:
EditedbyP. D. A. Garnseyand C. R. Whittaker, pp. 59-90. Undena.
Cambridge:CambridgeUniversity Press. YOFFEE, N., AND G. L. COWGILL. Editors.I988. The collapseof
WILLCOX, G. H. I974. A history ofdeforestation as indicatedby ofArizona
ancientstatesand civilizations.Tucson:University
charcoalanalysisoffoursitesin easternAnatolia.Anatolian Press. [ABKJ
Studies24:II6-33. YOUNG, T. C., JR. I986. "GodinTepe PeriodVI/Vand central-
WOOLLEY, L. I952. Carchemish. Vol. 3. Theexcavationsin the westernIranat theendofthefourth millennium,"in Gemdet
innertown.London:BritishMuseum. Nasr: Periodorregionalstyle?EditedbyU. Finkbeiner andW.
WRI GHT, H. T. I972. "A consideration ofinterregional exchange Rollig,pp. 2i2-28. Beiheftezum TubingerAtlasdes Vorderen
in GreaterMesopotamia:4000-3000 B.C.," in Social exchange OrientsB 62.
and interaction. EditedbyE. Wilmsen,pp. 95-ioS. AnnArbor: ZAGARELL, A. i982. Theprehistory oftheBahtiyariMountains,
University ofMichiganMuseumofAnthropology. Iran.Beiheftezum Tiubinger OrientsB
Atlasdes Vorderen
1.I977. Recentresearchon theoriginofthestate.Annual 42.
Review ofAnthropology6:379-97. . I986. Trade,women,class,and societyin ancientwestem
. I98I. "Conclusions,"in An earlytownon theDeh Luran Asia. CURRENT ANTHROPOLOGY 27:4I5-30.
plain: Excavationsat TepeFarukhabad.EditedbyH. T. Wright, . I987. "Regionaland social borders in theBakhtiariand
pp. 262-79. AnnArbor:University ofMichiganMuseumofAn- LuristanhighlandsofIran,"in Politiesandpartitions:Human
thropology. boundariesand thegrowthofcomplexsocieties.EditedbyK.
. I984. "Prestatepoliticalformations," in On theevolution MaurerTrinkaus,pp. 83-96. ArizonaStateUniversity Anthro-
ofcomplexsocieties:Essaysin honorofHarryHoijer.Editedby pologicalResearchPapers37. [AZ]
T. Earle,pp.4I-78. Malibu: Undena. 1.I989. "Pastoralism and theearlystatein GreaterMesopo-
. I987. "The Susianahinterlands duringtheeraofprimary tamia,"in Archeologicalthought in America.EditedbyC. C.
stateformation," in The archaeologyofwesternIran.Editedby Lamberg-Karlovsky, pp. 280-30I. Cambridge:Cambridge Uni-
F. Hole, pp. I4I-56. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution versityPress.[Az]
Press. ZARINS, J. I978. The domesticated Equidae ofthird-millen-
WRIGHT, H. T., AND G. A. JOHNSON. I975. Population, ex- nium-B.C. Mesopotamia. Journalof Cuneiform Studies 3o:
change,andearlystateformation in southwestern Iran.Ameri- 3-I7.
can Anthropologist77:267-89. ZEDER, M. A. I986. "The equidremainsfromTal-eMalyan,
WRIGHT, H. T., J. A. SPETH, G. A. JOHNSON, AND J. SPETH. southernIran,"in Equids in theancientworld.EditedbyR. H.
I975.. Earlyfourth-millennium developments in southwestern MeadowandH.-P.Uerpmann,pp. 366-4I2. Beihefte zum
Iran.Iran I 3: I 29-48. TubingerAtlasdes VorderenOrientsA I 9 I1).
Erratum
* In Kennedyand Deraniyagala's reporton fossilre- listed under "Deraniyagala" (p. 398) should,fromI980
mains fromSri Lanka in the Juneissue, the works on, have been attributedto S. U. Deraniyagala.
Prizes
i The Society forApplied Anthropology invitesnomi- political. The recipientof the award should be willing
nations forthe I989 Malinowski Award,presentedto and able to addressthe annual meetingof the Society.
an outstandingsocial scientistin recognitionof efforts Nominations should include a detailed letteroutlining
to understandand serve the needs of the world's soci- the candidate's accomplishments,a curriculumvitae,
eties throughsocial science. Nominees should be of and selected publicationsand othersubstantiatingma-
seniorstatus and, whetherwithinor outside the terialand shouldbe sentbyJanuary 26, I990, to
academy,stronglyidentifiedwith the social sciences. Carole E. Hill, Malinowski Award Committee,Depart-
Their contributionsshould have implicationsbeyond ment of Anthropology, Georgia State University,Uni-
the immediate,the narrowlyadministrative,or the versityPlaza, Atlanta,Ga. 30303, U.S.A.


The Uruk Expansion Cross-Cultural Exchan PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Uruk Expansion Cross-Cultural Exchan PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

The Uruk Expansion: Cross-cultural Exchange in Early Mesopotamian Civilization [with

Comments and Reply]

This content downloaded from 137.110.192.6 on Mon, 6 Oct 2014 22:44:17 PM

Early Mesopotamian civilization arose in the alluvial