Although we are far from being able to explain this phenomenon at the moment, we must at least compare it to the observation that some of the places that remained developed in a particular manner. At Godin Tepe in the northern Zagros region, for example, in an area that had also always displayed markedly local development in earlier periods, the changes are especially clearly visible. On the plain on top of the settlement hill, formed by several meters of the debris of earlier settlements, is a complex distinguished by its architectural form, that in addition provided finds that not only contrast with the characteristics of local development but can also be connected with the sort of inventory we know from the Late Uruk period in Babylonia and Susiana. Clear evidence for the fact that here we are dealing with a rather different phenomenon to the relationship between Babylonia and Susiana is provided by the appearance, within an otherwise local context, of architectural forms; cylinder seals; clay tablets with perhaps rudimentary, but nonetheless clearly recognizable, written signs; and pottery that, although it does not correspond exactly with that from Babylonia and Susiana, resembles it more than it does the local pottery.
Too little research has been done to make a generalized observation that settlements at one time retreated to fewer, but larger, sites, and that in addition these were subject to considerable external influence. Even so, similar observations can be made in places as widely separated as Tepe Sialk on the eastern slopes of the Zagros Mountains or even in Tepe Yahya in southern central Iran, near Kerman. In addition to the local milieu, there is clear evidence of some alien influence.
Although some objects found can be recognized mostly as alien, the peculiarities are, unfortunately, hardly so pronounced as to allow us to reconcile them with the finely differentiated sequences in Babylonia and Susiana. It is therefore, at the moment, impossible to fix exactly the point in time when this process of reaching out into the neighboring regions to the east and northeast began, apart from the fact that it took place during the Late Uruk–Jamdet Nasr period.
Figure 46. View of the citadel of Godin Tepe (Iran). Courtesy, T. C. Young.
An exact identification is only possible in one case, and that is with Tepe Malyan, a site on the eastern side of the Zagros Mountains at some considerable distance from the western lowlands. The small border plain on which Tepe Malyan lies is known more than anything else for the fact that the monumental structures of Persepolis were later erected there. Tepe Malyan reveals a long period of common interest with Susa. Thus the inscriptions dating from a later period that were found there made it possible to identify the site with Anshan. Anshan later became well known as a fixed part of the political entity of Elam. Afterwards, in the historical periods, Elam clearly politically linked areas that were geographically separated from one another by the traverse mountain chains of the Zagros area. A close similarity to Susa can also be confirmed for the early period, so that here too, we must consider the possibility of political affiliations, even if we have no further information to confirm such an assumption for the early period.
The reduction in indications of direct relations between the mountain regions and the lands to the west of the Zagros—with the exception of the cases already mentioned—and even the extensive abandonment of land that had earlier been heavily settled, is not therefore to be taken with any certainty as an indication of an actual retreat from large-scale relationships, but as a sign that the style of living in these regions was subject to drastic changes and that communication took place on a different level.
The use of cylinder seals and writing even beyond the confines of central Iran is certainly a sign of economic changes. However, this is definitely not meant in the sense that complex economic organizations such as could be found in the lowlands were now to be reckoned with here, but rather that these means of control were all parts of a cultural complex that was taken over as a whole. After all, it was not only the will to take over such a package that must have existed, but also the opportunity.
In these areas of what is today Central Iran, we see, in a more sharply defined way than in Susiana, how little these means of control provided answers to their own urgent problems. This is because these signs of closer direct relationship disappear as quickly as they came, without leaving behind any evidence of aftereffects. At all the sites in question, it is only for a short phase that relevant finds are available. At the very latest during the period we call Early Dynastic in Babylonia, there is not a single trace left in the rest of the Iranian area of cylinder seals, writing, or pottery showing a western influence.
Here, too, it would be a mistake to draw the conclusion that this meant a breaking off of all relations. This is because we know that Tepe Yahya, for example, was a center of production for a specific kind of vessel decorated with relief designs and made from chlorite, a stone found nearby. Products from this center were clearly sold over wide areas, including Babylonia, where such vessels have been found in levels of the Early Dynastic period. Once again, it was only the kind of relationship that had changed. We can only regret that these relationships increasingly took on forms that did not find expression in archaeologically tangible details—or took on forms we simply cannot understand.
If we now turn our attention to the lowlands to the west of the northern Zagros area just discussed, we once again find ourselves confronted with different conditions. This area has played a considerable role in providing us with information about the development of the early phases of civilization in the Near East, with sites such as Qalʾat Jarmo, Umm Dabaghiyah, and Hassuna. The northern Mesopotamian plain, with the mountain zones bordering it on the north and east, was a showplace for varied developments in the following period as well. Unfortunately, for this region too, it must be stressed that, for the time being, the evidence is still completely inadequate.
Figure 47. Fragment of a vessel made of steatite, from Bismaya (Iraq). From W. Orthmann, Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 14 (Berlin, 1975), fig. 76.
Thus it can be little more than conjecture, or, at least, almost inadmissible generalization, to think we can distinguish between the phases of independent change here and the far more numerous and longer phases in which northern Mesopotamia was merely an integral part of the larger settlement area that stretched from the Mediterranean to the mountains. This holds true for the whole of the early period, when, as we have seen, this region played a part in supraregional changes in pottery production, if it was not actually the center of those developments.
Just as we had seen in the other regions of the Near East, up to a phase corresponding to the so-called Ubaid Horizon, simpler forms of pottery were preferred in northern Mesopotamia. Decoration with simpler, concentric bands did not, however, totally replace the older type of painting that covered the whole surface of the vessel. Here, too, we see the tendency to shift older activities, which had not hitherto been carried out centrally, to larger working units, thus simultaneously satisfying a greater demand.
This trend continued into the following phase, which corresponds chronologically to the Late Uruk period in Babylonia. There was even less painting on pottery, and the forms of vessels are also even more restricted. This becomes very marked in the pottery we know from a total of twenty levels in the long sequence from Tepe Gawra, in the center of the northern Mesopotamian piedmont of the Zagros Mountains. Here, at the time of early high civilization, particular techniques in decoration, such as the impression of stamps on the necks of vessels and particular indented patterns, were added to the repertoire. Without the slightest difficulty, this can be seen as a completely normal development from the pottery previously dominant in the region. Thus we can regard this pottery sequence, which also turns up at other sites in the region, as a normal local development. Apart from the general trend toward simplification, it has nothing in common with developments in Babylonia or Susiana.
However, the general trend we have referred to and the discovery of a large number of stamp seals do show that here, too, we are in no way dealing w
ith a static civilization. These seals quite obviously had the same function as cylinder seals. A less developed economy required different sorts of controls, however, and most probably needed fewer of them. This meant that the Babylonian forms of control, which were the most effective, but also much more complicated to use, were not necessary here. At the same time we must also bear in mind that this region was completely in the area of dry farming, and that furthermore irrigation was possible at only a few places, so that we can assume there was extensive agriculture and animal husbandry, with settlements at relatively few, widely dispersed sites.
Figure 48. Pottery vessels and stamp seals from Tepe Gawra (Iraq), dating to the Late Uruk period. After A. J. Tobler, Excavations at Tepe Gawra II (Philadelphia, 1950), pls. 145, 147, 159.
Figure 49. Probable original size and excavated area of Tepe Gawra (Iraq), level XIII, dating to the Early Uruk period. Author’s original, based on A. J. Tobler, Excavations at Tepe Gawra II (Philadelphia, 1950), pls. 1, 11.
This does not rule out the creation of centers, as is shown by the example of Tepe Gawra. There, during a somewhat earlier period, a public precinct had grown up on the already ancient settlement mound, whose sides had, in the meantime, become so steep that only limited building was possible (fig. 49). This precinct was made up of a large square surrounded on three sides by buildings that, according to everything we know, may be referred to as temples. This public area took up almost a quarter of the total surface of the mound that could be built on. Since this can hardly be said to correspond to the normal size ratio between public and residential areas, we may rightly suppose that the importance of this central area of the settlement extended beyond the limits of the site itself. Unfortunately, we know of no sites in the direct environs of Tepe Gawra that could have belonged to a settlement system with Tepe Gawra at its center. This can surely be put down to the limited archaeological research done in the region.
Though the development of pottery as we know it from Tepe Gawra is to be seen as the norm for northern Mesopotamia, it was not the only kind produced. Here we find several places that, though they did produce pottery of the type known from Tepe Gawra, also produced things typical of late Uruk civilization in Babylonia in far greater numbers. Thus, in the deepest levels of ancient Nineveh, which have, unfortunately, been only very inadequately excavated, we find numerous cylinder seals and seal impressions, bevel-rimmed bowls, and a series of other vessels typical of the Late Uruk civilization.
It is impossible to say anything about the exact chronology of these levels in comparison with developments in Babylonia or in Susiana because the finds have hardly been examined in detail. In these finds, we do however possess irrefutable evidence of the fact that there was direct influence from the civilization of the Late Uruk period in Babylonia in northern Mesopotamia as well, though it did not embrace the whole region as it did in Susiana. Rather, it affected islands in an area that continued to develop culturally in a different way.
The very limited excavation work done in the old city of Nineveh does not allow us to make any statements about the architecture. It would be a miracle if large works of art had in fact been found there. A few other sites in northern Mesopotamia have been just as inadequately excavated, above all the ones situated in the border zones of the mountains to the east. Even so, similar collections of finds are known to us from these places as from Nineveh, even though they are not in context. From these finds we can draw the conclusion that a direct connection with the south was not an isolated phenomenon.
Given the fact that a normal local tradition and a tradition that mostly shows parallels with the south of Mesopotamia existed side by side, one is forced to draw different conclusions about relations between the northern Mesopotamian area and Babylonia and those between Babylonia and Susiana. The partial correspondence we have confirmed here cannot be interpreted as meaning that the economic situation in both geographical areas was the same or similar. In the case of northern Mesopotamia, we must consider rather the existence of two different economic systems, of which one had a greater similarity with the south than the other. We can hardly assume that with settlements of the “Nineveh type” we are dealing with external support bases. For the following period, the Jamdet Nasr and the Early Dynastic I period in the terminology of Babylonia, the evidence from Nineveh and from Babylonia is far too vague for us to be able to say whether, and how, the situation changed.
During our tour through the areas neighboring the two lowland plains, Babylonia and Susiana, we have already come to know of different ways in which the local variations of a civilization reacted to what were clearly very attractive influences emanating from the lowland plains. In the Syrian area, we now encounter yet another variant. In a completely independent local development, individual settlements were founded that are absolutely identical with what we know from Babylonia and Susiana, down to the last pottery sherd in the inventory. Communication, which must have taken place in some way, can only be detected to a limited extent in the inventory of objects found in the Syrian settlements. There does not seem to have been any traffic in the opposite direction. If, in addition, we consider that these alien types of settlement were all either directly on the Euphrates or on its tributaries, there seems to be a relatively simple explanation for the whole situation. We are most probably dealing here with settlements established by people who came there directly from the southern lowland plains. Without doubt, the securing of trade interests had a part to play here—the Euphrates and its tributaries had always been the preferred trade routes—and no other motivation has been revealed to us. Of these settlements, we know one—Habuba Kabira South—very well; the other, on the Jebel Aruda, we know about at least as regards its public area. Both settlements appear to have been set up within a very short space of time. The Habuba settlement has even been provided with a large perimeter wall, and both towns were equipped with large public buildings. These settlements were surely built to last, but the fact that only two levels of habitation can be differentiated shows that they hardly survived more than fifty years.
Figure 50. The Late Uruk settlement of Habuba Kabira South (Syria). Courtesy, Dr. E. Strommenger, Berlin.
Figure 51. Finds, from Habuba Kabira South (Syria): (a) sealed clay bulla; (b, c) sealed tablets with numerical signs, (d, e) drawings of seal impressions. Courtesy, Dr. E. Strommenger, Berlin. Cf. E. Strommenger, Habuba Kabira, Eine Stadt vor 5000 Jahren (Mainz, 1980), figs. 55, 56, 58.
Thanks to the complete agreement between the inventory and the changes that took place in Babylonian settlements of this period, it is possible for us to define exact chronological boundaries here, at least for the termination of these settlements. We have all the “forerunners” of writing—cylinder seals, sealed clay balls, and even clay tablets that show only signs for numbers. In the case of Babylonia, we were able to show all these as being characteristic of the period directly before the appearance of writing itself. However, given the fact that no written signs appear here, we can tell the precise point in time when this settlement was abandoned. In the terminology of the sequence of levels in Uruk it must come before level IVa, the phase in which the first written documents are found. If we count the two generations of the settlement at Habuba backwards from this point in time, we find ourselves with a date for the establishment of these settlements that is still within the Late Uruk period. As has already been shown from observations in other regions, we must consider the Late Uruk period to have been a phase of expansion.
Information about local developments in Syria is, on the one hand, rare and, on the other, generally limited in scope, as at sites with a protracted local continuity of settlement, layers of this period are buried deep beneath later layers, and it has therefore only been possible to excavate small areas of them. Only pottery is known in adequate quantities, and we have scant information about architecture and the structure of settlements in particular.
The pottery is completely within local traditions of prod
uction and decoration, which, as might be expected, were quite different from the traditions of the new arrivals. The only argument that can be offered beyond this is that in contrast to the pottery of the foreign groups, the pottery from the local tradition was without exception produced without the aid of the potter’s wheel. This allows us to conclude that there must have been differences in the rest of the technology too. The possible range of variation with this local and older method of production was very much greater, and hence there was not even the beginning of a trend such as the one in Babylonia that led to a gradual growth in mass production.
At this point, however, one reservation must be made. An examination of the situation points to the fact that specific needs must have existed that made it seem desirable to borrow certain features. In Babylonia, as already mentioned, there was a demand for mass production, which could not be satisfied with the aid of existing technology. This resulted in the use of the technique of making pots in moulds. In its turn, this led to the production of bevel-rimmed bowls, a type of pot that required the least expenditure in terms of material and techniques and hence represented far and away the cheapest containers (see p. 84). As such, they were already used for a multitude of purposes in Babylonia, quite apart from their original one. Although they clearly could not be used for every purpose because of their special properties, as the simplest of all containers, these vessels, and the way they were produced, became part of the local repertoires of most of the areas neighboring Babylonia, without, however, bringing in their wake other aspects of early high civilization (see fig. 19).
The Early History of the Ancient Near East (9000-2000 BC) Page 14