The University of Chicago Press, Chicago 60637
The University of Chicago Press, Ltd., London
© 1988 by The University of Chicago
All rights reserved. Published 1988
Paperback edition 1990
Printed in the United States of America
05 04 03 02 01 00 99 98 97 96 5 6 7 8 9
ISBN: 978-0-226-18269-8 (ebook)
Translation with new material of Grundzüge einer Geschichte der Frühzeit des Vorderen Orients, copyright 1983, Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft, Darmstadt
Translation by Elizabeth Lutzeier, with Kenneth J. Northcott
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Nissen, Hans Jörg.
The early history of the ancient Near East, 9000–2000 B.C.
Translation of: Grundzüge einer Geschichte der Frühzeit des Vorderen Orients.
1. Middle East—History—To 622. I. Title.
DS62.2.N5713 1988 939.4 87-25530
ISBN: 0-226-58656-1 (cloth); 0-226-58658-8 (paper)
The paper used in this publication meets the minimum requirements of the American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Materials, ANSI Z39.48–1984.
This book is printed on acid-free paper.
THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST 9000–2000 B.C.
HANS J. NISSEN
Translation by Elizabeth Lutzeier, with Kenneth J. Northcott
The University of Chicago Press
Chicago and London
Contents
List of Figures
Preface to English Edition
Preface to German Edition
1. Sources and Problems
2. The Time of Settlement (ca. 9000–6000 B.C.)
3. From Isolated Settlement to Town (ca. 6000–3200 B.C.)
4. The Period of Early High Civilization (ca. 3200–2800 B.C.)
5. The Period of the Rival City-States (ca. 2800–2350 B.C.)
6. The Period of the First Territorial States (ca. 2350–2000 B.C)
7. Prospects
Bibliography
Index
List of Figures
1. Chronological chart
2. Entrance and cross section of the cave of Shanidar (Iraq)
3. Neolithic sites in the Near East
4. Catchment area around a campsite, projected onto a narrow mountain valley and a larger river plain
5. Storage jars at Hajji Firuz (Iran)
6. Wild sheep (Ovis ammon anatolica)
7. Surroundings and plan of the Neolithic settlement of Beidha (Jordan)
8. Pottery vessels of the Neolithic period, from the Zagros Mountains
9. Graphic reconstruction of part of the Neolithic settlement of Çatal Hüyük (Turkey), and plan of the principal buildings at Umm Dabaghiyah (Iraq)
10. Tower of the fortifications at Neolithic Jericho
11. Typology of settlement systems
12. Pottery vessels of the Halaf period from Tell Halaf (Syria), and Tell Arpachiyah (Iraq)
13. Pottery vessels of the Ubaid period, from Tell al’Ubaid, Tell Uqair, and Ur (all Iraq)
14. Map of Near East, with sites mentioned in the text
15. Settlements on the plain of Behbehan around 4000 B.C. and zones of probable land use
16. Distribution of settlements in Susiana in Late Uruk times
17. Results from deep drilling in the floor of the Persian Gulf
18. Mean annual precipitation in the modern Near East
19. The Near East during the Late Uruk period
20. The Uruk countryside during Late Uruk, Jamdet Nasr, Early Dynastic I, and Early Dynastic II/III periods; comparison of number and size of settlements over time
21. Group of settlements northeast of Uruk, during Late Uruk and Early Dynastic I periods
22. Minimal extent of the settled area of Uruk during the Late Uruk and Early Dynastic I periods
23. Comparison of the sizes of some major cities of antiquity
24. Marsh settlements in lower Iraq of Jamdet Nasr times in the vicinity of Uruk and today (Segal in the Hor al-Hammar)
25. Cylinder seal and impression from the representational group
26. Seals of the Late Uruk and Jamdet Nasr periods, from Babylonia
27. Photo and graphic reconstruction of a fragmentary jar cover, from Uruk
28. Cylinder seal and impression from the abstract group
29. Seals of the Early Dynastic I period, from Babylonia
30. Cylinder seal and impression of the linear style group
31. Copies of the Standard Professions List A
32. Fire troughs and fire pits of a workshop area in Uruk, dating to the Late Uruk period
33. Bevel-rimmed bowl and the stage IV and III forms of the sign for “to eat.”
34. Examples of the early development of writing, from Uruk
35. Complex economic texts dating from stage IV and stage III in Uruk
36. Pottery vessels of the Late Uruk and the Jamdet Nasr periods
37. Shape and employment of the plano-convex bricks of the Early Dynastic period
38. Plan of the level IVa buildings in the precinct of Eanna in Uruk
39. The so-called Stone Mosaic Temple at Uruk
40. Graphic restoration of the Anu Ziggurat in Uruk
41. Find situation in the “Riemchen” building in Uruk
42. Form and decoration of the “cult vase” from Uruk, dating to the Late Uruk-Jamdet Nasr period
43. The “Lady of Uruk” and the “Little King,” both from Uruk, dating to the Late Uruk-Jamdet Nasr period
44. Cylinder seals and protoelamite tablets from Chogha Mish and Susa, dating from the Late Uruk–Jamdet Nasr period
45. Protoelamite seals, from Susa
46. View of the citadel of Godin Tepe (Iran)
47. Fragment of a vessel made of steatite, from Bismaya (Iraq)
48. Pottery vessels and stamp seals from Tepe Gawra (Iraq), dating to the Late Uruk period
49. Probable original size and excavated area of Tepe Gawra (Iraq), level XIII, dating to the Early Uruk Period
50. The Late Uruk settlement of Habuba Kabira South (Syria)
51. Finds, from Habuba Kabira South (Syria)
52. Southern Babylonia at the transition from the Early Dynastic I to the Early Dynastic II period
53. Development of some signs of the Babylonian cuneiform script
54. Obverse and reverse of an economic text from the end of the Early Dynastic II period, unknown provenience
55. Scheme of a dendritic irrigation network
56. Chronological chart containing the names of rulers and dynasties mentioned in the text
57. Cylinder seal and impression dating to the Early Dynastic II period
58. Seals from the Early Dynastic I and II periods, from Babylonia
59. Finds from the Royal Cemetery at Ur (Iraq)
60. Statues found at Tell Asmar (Iraq), dating to the Early Dynastic II period
61. One side of the largest fragment of Eannatums “Stela of the Vultures” from Tello, dating from the Early Dynastic III period
62. Isometric view of the late Early Dynastic III palace G at Ebla (Syria)
63. Fragment of a stela of Sargon of Akkad, showing prisoners being taken away in a “neck-stock”
64. Akkadian period stela, from Tello
65. Victory stela of Naram-Sin of Akkad
66. Seals of the Akkadian period, from Babylonia
67. Cylinder seal and impression dating to the Akkadian period
&nbs
p; 68. Aerial photograph of Norşun Tepe (Turkey) and plan of the Early Bronze “mansion”
69. Finds from the tombs at Alaca Hüyük (Turkey)
70. Bronze head of the Akkadian period, from Nineveh (Iraq)
71. Clay cylinders A and B containing temple hymns of Gudea of Lagash, from Tello (Iraq)
72. Statues of the Akkadian period and of Gudea of Lagash
73. Babylonia in the time of the third Dynasty of Ur
74. The ziggurat of Ur, partly restored
75. Brick with a stamped inscription by Ur-Nammu of Ur
Preface to the English Edition
In this English translation of the original German edition of my Grundzüge einer Geschichte der Frühzeit des Vorderen Orients, substantial changes have been incorporated. Due to strict space limitations and the impossibility of including photographs, parts of the German version were substantially abridged and the illustrations could not meet the quality intended. I was happy to be able to restore and, at the same time, to revise the text. Also, the bibliography could extensively be enlarged to include more technical titles but still be important for a general presentation. Last but not least, I was grateful for the opportunity to increase the number of illustrations, most of which serve their purpose better in the form of photographs than in line drawings.
Reviewers of the German edition have voiced some criticism: archaeologists would have appreciated the discussion of more archaeological details, and philologists would have preferred a larger presentation of the vast written record of Early Mesopotamia. But as the German title implied, this book was intended to be the outline of “a” history—of several possible ones—with a particular general view in mind. Again, it is true that aspects of religion are not treated with the same weight they enjoyed in the life of the ancient inhabitants of Babylonia. But more than twenty years after A. L. Oppenheim’s statement in his Ancient Mesopotamia that “a Mesopotamian religion cannot and should not be written” I still see his arguments fully justified: the difficulties result from the “nature of the available evidence, and the problem of comprehension across the barriers of conceptual conditioning.”
This having been said regarding the “historical” periods, it applies even more to the earlier periods. Yet, future research still may give us better insights.
A word should be said about the geographical terms used here, as they may differ from what the reader is used to. In order to avoid ethnic designations for areas and periods that we have no certain information about, like “Sumer” or “Akkad,” I prefer using more neutral terms as they were coined in the Hellenistic period. Thus I am using the terms “Babylonia” designating the plains between modern Baghdad and the head of the Gulf, and “Susiana” for the plains of modern Khuzestan. “Mesopotamia” stands more or less for the territory of modern Iraq, of which “Northern Mesopotamia” means the area north of Baghdad, whereas “Southern Mesopotamia” refers to the same territory as Babylonia.
I should like to express my thanks to those who helped me in the process of producing this book in English: to those who instigated the idea, to the translators, to those who provided the photographs, and, particularly, to the people at the University of Chicago Press.
Preface to the German Edition
Few other disciplines in the humanities have increased their share of public goodwill in recent years as much as archaeology, whether concerned with the relics of the past at home, in the countries of classical antiquity, or in more exotic lands. Opportunities available to the modern tourist have caused distances to shrink and have made travel to distant lands almost routine for an ever-increasing number of people. At the same time, our uncertainty about many aspects of our own history has led to greater interest in the history of older, more self-contained periods, and especially in the history of problem solving. And with this increase in interest, there has also been an increase in the legitimate demand of the public to be informed in a comprehensive, but generally comprehensible, manner about the history of countries and periods that do not lie within our normal field of vision. The various branches of archaeology are in different states of readiness to meet this demand.
Even today, our knowledge about the ancient Near East is at the stage where new research is more likely to bring to light new problems than to help complete the picture. The early history of the region is heterogeneous, and there is an imbalance in the evidence that has been handed down to us. Despite all the gaps in our knowledge, however, we must not abandon our attempt to draw a larger, more coherent, picture of the whole, an endeavor that not only helps us formulate new research projects but also illustrates the current state of research into the ancient Near East to the public.
Apart from attempting such a summary, it has also been my concern to emphasize a historical view of developments. For periods before the discovery of writing, the usual generalized presentation of the archaeological finds has had to be sacrificed to this goal. Such broad documentation seems dispensable because it may be found in a great number of readily available handbooks and individual accounts, which have been listed here in the bibliography.
There is naturally often a yawning gap between different interpretations of historical contexts, and it is hardly necessary for me to stress that the responsibility for this account rests solely with me. I do not even seek to impute a share of this responsibility to others by naming the many colleagues with whom, over the years, I have been able to discuss individual problems. However, I do wish to express my gratitude to my students at both the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago and the Freie Universität, Berlin, who were prepared to follow my example in assuming that nothing is ever certain, and who were never satisfied with the information I gave them.
ONE
Sources and Problems
The historian of the early periods of the ancient Near East faces many problems. The geographical terms “the Near East” and “Asia Minor” provide only a rough indication of the area whose early cultural development is to be traced. It is perhaps better to define the region as an area distinguished from the outside world by a multiplicity of internal ties, or as a fluctuating sphere of interactions.
This densely woven network of developments was seldom limited to what we commonly refer to as the Near East. Parts of the area, such as Palestine and Syria, at times had close contact with Egypt, which was very important for development on both sides. And we do not count Egypt as belonging to the Near East in the narrowest sense of the term. Similarly, parts of what is now Turkey were for most of their history oriented more toward the West and the Aegean, and the Iranian plateau kept up a rather more regular exchange with its neighbors to the East than with the other parts of the Near East. This situation is underlined by recent attempts to treat most of present-day Iran, Afghanistan, and the western part of present-day Pakistan as a single area, connected in many different ways and fairly autonomous in its significance for the development of early civilizations.
However, any account that included both internal entanglements and connections with the outside world would not only go far beyond the confines of the present discussion, but would also make too many demands upon the information provided by our sources. Though we know of contacts outside the narrow, limited area of the Near East, or must at least postulate such cases, it is only rarely that a comprehensive picture emerges. Even more rarely are we able to follow such contacts over any significant period of time.
We shall see in what follows that the demand for a balanced presentation taking equal account of all the contributions to cultural development cannot be satisfied even for the actual Near Eastern area. The available material is distributed far too unevenly over the region and over different periods of time. There is also the fact that the epoch we are dealing with embraces preliterate, paraliterate, and literate periods. Again and again, we run the risk of overestimating the importance of regions or periods about which we quite fortuitously possess a great deal of information, and of underestimating that
of other regions or periods of which we—equally fortuitously—know little or nothing. Thus, for example, early interest in the ancient history of Mesopotamia (Abraham’s biblical homeland being “Ur of the Chaldees”), especially after the written tradition had become known, produced an imbalance in the information about this region: for far too long, it allowed Mesopotamia, and more especially the southern part of Babylonia, to appear to be the natural center of the ancient Near East. One aim of this work is to distribute the emphasis more evenly and, wherever possible, to define the parts played respectively by all the regions of the Near East in building up its ancient civilization.
However, it is not the intention of the present work to propagate the other extreme—frequently defended in recent years—that maintains that all developments in every region were equally important, as though they all played an equal part in the development of Near Eastern civilization, whose great achievement must be seen as the creation and further development of universally valid forms of political organization that had an influence far beyond the chronological and geographical boundaries of the ancient Near East.
In the course of history, all the regions of the Near East were more or less involved in this process, but some areas certainly progressed more consistently and energetically than others. This work will show that the role of trailblazer in the most momentus phase of development—from city to regional state—fell to Babylonia. To deny this would be to deny the driving impulse behind, and the special peculiarities of, ancient Near Eastern history. A relatively large amount of space is thus devoted to discussion of what happened in Babylonia.
The more ambitious aim of including areas outside the Near East could not be tackled in this book, but should be kept in mind. Although complete in itself, the following survey should be seen as the preliminary work for a more comprehensive synoptic presentation.
By choosing to discuss both the preliterate and literate periods, the author has complicated things still further. This is a consequence of the concept underlying this work, which highlights historical development, and especially the development and changes in early forms of political organization in the ancient Near East. This development can in no way be said to start with the beginning of writing. It was not even particularly influenced by it.
The Early History of the Ancient Near East (9000-2000 BC) Page 1