Following the decline of the Early Dynastic I period (ca. 2900—2750 bc), the Early Dynastic II (2750—2600 bc), Illa (2600—2450 bc) and Illb (2450—2350 bc) periods experienced a relatively homogeneous development. This progress can be studied thanks to the increased availability of archaeological evidence and more informative texts, initially only administrative in nature, but then also political and legal. Compared to the previous pre-eminence of Uruk, the Early Dynastic II—III period is characterised by the supremacy of a number of centres, with several city-states of equal size and status competing with each other (Figure 6.1). In the south there were Uruk, Ur (Figure 6.2), and Eridu. In the east, there were Lagash and Umma, and in the centre Adab, Shuruppak, and Nippur. Finally, in the north there were Kish and Eshnunna. Along the Tigris and the Euphrates, Ashur and Mari appeared as new centres of Sumerian expansion. In the Persian Gulf, the Iranian plateau, south-eastern Anatolia and Syria commercial and political links continued to expand.
In this period, the population living in the Mesopotamian alluvial plain was far larger than in any of the earlier periods. The population was more evenly distributed across the territory, despite the survival of ecologic niches (made of arid steppes or marshes), whose economic and political function has already been explained. This integrated territorial system was centred on a network of canals. In the long history of hydraulic interventions in the alluvial plain, which developed alongside local political developments, the Early Dynastic period becomes a phase of friction. This friction caused the difficult integration among neighbouring political entities. Despite their internal unity, there was no overarching unity in the area. Due to the obvious interconnection of water canals and the dependence of settlements in the valleys on those located higher up, the optimisation of water resources for one centre constantly caused significant problems to another. Naturally, such problems caused conflicts between cities over the control of intermediary areas and canals. Over time, this issue caused the shift of privileged areas to the north. This tendency would last until the political unification of the whole area, which perhaps happened too late and did not manage to avoid the eventual crisis of the southernmost centres.
In the irrigated and cultivated areas, a hierarchical division of settlements (capital, intermediary centres and villages) continued to exist. However, it is in this phase that the concept of village changed as a result of its relations with the central administration (a change gathered from the comparative analysis of archaeological data with the textual evidence). Alongside the old kinds of villages, inhabited by ‘free’ farmers obliged to serve and pay tributes to the central administration, there were now agricultural
Figure 6.1 Map of Lower Mesopotamia in the Early Dynastic period: cities, canals, and morphological zones.
Settlements. These were directly linked to the centre and were designed for the cultivation of the temples’ lands through servile labour.
Within this wide range of settlements in the Mesopotamian alluvial plain, pastoral groups continued to provide an important contribution. On a regional level, a marked difference began to appear between north and south, which was both ecologic and socio-political in nature. Ecologically, the north had a distinct advantage in managing and distributing water resources, while the south had the constant problem of marshes. On a socio-political level, the temples in the south continued to acquire lands managed by their administrative centres, while the north left a considerable amount of land at the disposal of the ‘free’ population.
On top of this variety of settlement types, there was an ethno-linguistic diversity, which is attested in the written sources (and through personal names in particular). However, in view of previous over-simplifications in the study of the relations between languages and cultures, two main points need to be borne in mind. First, the correlations between material culture and ethno-linguistic groups cannot be considered as directly related and univocal. In an area inhabited by a population speaking a wide range of languages such as Mesopotamia, technical progress has to be attributed to the population as a whole. This makes it difficult to attribute certain features to, for instance, the Sumerians and certain others to the Semites. On
Figure 6.2 Satellite view of the ruins of Ur (Google Earth).
A socio-economic level, differences between the north and the south seem to have arisen from ecologic and historical differences, rather than a different ethnicity. Moreover, on a political level, it has already been demonstrated (by Thorkild Jacobsen) how individual cities were not linguistically exclusive, and their conflicts were not ethnic in nature.
The second point is that the issue of the arrival of ethnic groups in Mesopotamia is a badly formulated problem, if one is looking for a more or less precise ‘arrival date’. Lower Mesopotamia has not been inhabited ‘all along’, but has been the destination of several migration fluxes from its periphery. Therefore, it seems completely arbitrary to wonder whether or not Ubaid culture was Semitic, or whether the Sumerians had ‘arrived’ at the beginning of the Ubaid or Uruk period. We do not know if their ‘arrival’ was the consequence of a migration of people that can be precisely dated or, rather, a slow process of infiltration. Most importantly, the Ubaid and Uruk cultures, with their fundamental technological and organisational
Developments, were closely linked to their territory. They did not ‘arrive’ from other areas where they had already developed their characteristics traits.
It is necessary to understand that the cultural development of Mesopotamia took place in a mixed ethno-linguistic context as early as the first written evidence appeared (the only type of evidence which can provide a concrete contribution in this matter). This interpretation may, however, seem reductive if compared to the interpretation provided by traditional historiography. The latter prefers to see this development as the result of movements of people, grouped into several ‘cultural cycles’. Within this complex mixture of ethnic and linguistic factors, there undoubtedly were significant variations both in time and space. Nonetheless, the correlation of these variations with contemporary technological and organisational developments runs the risk of over-simplifying the actual historical context.
In the Early Dynastic II—III period, texts were normally written in Sumerian, and this aspect alone reveals much about the prevalence of this language over the others. This prevalence leads to the assumption that this culture was ‘Sumerian’ — a legitimate statement as long as it is clear that this label is in fact a simplification. In reality, the situation must have been much more complex. The distribution of personal names shows that the Semites (Akkadians) were already present in this phase (if not even earlier on). Therefore, the prevalence of Sumerians in the south was counterbalanced by a prevalence of Akkadians in the north, which was a clear consequence of the concentration (formerly defined as the ‘primitive seat’) of Semitic people in the area.
Similarly, the study of Sumerian vocabularies, especially of more informative terms such as names of services and professions, indicates the presence of at least three different linguistic components (Text 6.1). There were some Sumerian words, in particular those indicating basic functions in terms of production, characteristic of the Chalcolithic stage (thus preceding the process of urbanisation), with a pre-Sumerian origin. These words are attributed to a substrate language with potential links to Iran. Then, there were Sumerian terms, mostly indicating more specialised activities and administrative functions. Last, there were Semitic borrowings, predominantly used for words indicating mobility and control.
World History
