Paper 1: More of a "report' on Meso. Archaeology

[us4-he2-gal2]

Thread Orientation: If you've written a paper on Mesopotamian or the ANE you could post it here

---

Hey everyone:





This thread is just like it sounds, a place where I intend to post the papers I'm writing for class this year. While professionals tend to be concerned about "intellectual property" or some such, I should explain that I am an undergraduate student in my first year of ANE studies and so this is not really a concern - the papers I am called on to do this year are small and, especially by the limitations of what you can explore in 5 to 8 pages, not really competitive in the field at large anyway. And of course this is enenuru, where ideas are shared freely.

The gesture of posting any applicable papers here is in line with the "So you want to be an Assyriologist?" thread, in that I'm attempting to document the process of entering these studies, in part to say thats its not impossible.. and I suppose that its also a way for me to post more material as the demands of these classes keep me from writing as much at enenuru as I'd like to.




Of course I can always hope that this example of posting ones papers may be followed by others. Nothing wrong with hoping

[us4-he2-gal2]

Orientation for this Paper:





This was my first major project of this year for NMC260 which is an introduction to the Archaeology of the ANE. It is not really a true essay as we were only to answer 5 questions about the nature of our selected time period and place. I selected Early Dynastic Mesopotamia (though I could have chosen anytime in the Levant or Egypt etc). Of course since the class is Archaeology, we are mainly confined to relevant archaeological subject matter. A real essay has of course something you are investigating and a thesis statement and your own assertion on some aspect of the material and attempt to prove it - this paper is instead something more of a survey assignment. The required length, 3-5 pages (double spaced!) is also much smaller than a normal essay. The questions we were address were the following:



· When does this time period take place? Are these precise dates? If so, why? If not, why?
· What geographical region is associated with this time period? What are the main
topographical features of this region? What type of environment characterizes this region?
What are the primary resources in this region?
· What are the major archaeological sites associated with this time period? Why are these sites
characteristic of this time period? What do they exemplify?
· What type of architecture and artefacts are characteristic of this time period?
· Why is this time period important for the study of the archaeology of the ancient Near East?



My marks: For my answers below I received 80% - I of course was attempting to get higher and as I am very familiar with some of the material was able to use 11 or 12 sources instead of the required 2 (which is good). The comments on my marked paper in fact stated that the paper was "excellent" and "well researched" - however I was marked down for:

- Using the wrong footnote style (although my foot notes were perfectly usable they were not in the style the Prof. wanted).
- Not including a Bibliography at the end (I am debating on whether to take the time and go to the office to complain on this one, as in the Assignment instructions there is not direction to include a bibliography)
- Using sentences that are too word heavy



On with the assignment then.

---

MESOPOTAMIAN IN THE EARLY DYNASTIC PERIOD





William McGrath




Introduction:

In the following I have attempted to synthesize some of the

aspects and issues of the study of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia

today. A field that has been combining the innovative progress of

Archaeology and Philology for well over a century, the

Sumerology of this period remains promising, yet incomplete. In

this survey I have outlined the chronology, setting and

archaeological elements of the period, and alluded to some of the

larger issues of the study.



Time Period and Dating of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia:

Of the various estimates provided for the length of the Early

Dynastic period in Mesopotamia, of which 2900 BC to 2373 BC is a

familiar example, there is no one system of chronology that

overturns the others; scholars of Mesopotamian history contend

not with one or two possible chronologies for the dating of

dynastic kingship but four: a high , middle, low and ultra-low

estimate. These divergences are mainly the result of an

inconsistent valuing of key data¹. The commencement

of the ED period is a scholarly projection that owes it's coherence

in part to the Sumerian King list and in part to a scattering of EDII

and EDIII Royal Inscriptions which verify to some degree the

historicity of this list² (the division of the ED period into

three segments itself has nothing to do with political events and

everything to do with pottery sequences studied by an American

team in the Diyala region³). Finally, the termination of

the period is often stated to correspond with the rise of the “First

Empire,” that of Sargon the Great of Agade, yet even this may be

subject to correction as Donald Matthews has suggested:

“imperial political organization and a new style of writing didn't

actually occur until Naram-sin.” (The author reacts to work by

Gibson and McMahon's Investigation of the Early Dynastic-

Akkadian Transition⁴).



Geography, Topography and Resources:

Of cardinal importance to any examination of the Mesopotamian

environment is of course the Tigris and Euphrates rivers which

descend from the Armenian Mountains and which annually

produced life sustaining floods. Mesopotamia proper, though

certainly also “between the two rivers,” is more accurately defined

by Seton Lloyd⁵ as being bound on the NE by the

foothills of the Iranian Mountains, and to the SW by the fringes of

the Arabain Plateau. He then divides the land approximately in

two at the so called Hit-Samarra line (near the edge of the

Southern Flood Plain); Southern Mesopotamia extends across this

alluvial Flood Plain reaching the Persian Gulf, the land here was

extremely fertile although an inadequate seasonal rainfall

necessitated the constant upkeep of dikes and irrigation

systems; clay, reed and date palms were ever plentiful in the

south, however, a lack of natural resources such as stone or

timber meant that the land was reliant on external means of

supply. North of the Hit-Samarra line and East of the Jazirah, a

fertile part of Northern Mesopotamia extended up the Tigris,

opening up into the sometime Assyrian Hinterland; four

tributaries of the Tigris branched off in this area, and this region

received between 30 and 60 centimeters rainfall annually6,

meaning the agricultural situation in the North was actually quite

different. The North was also better stocked in building materials

and natural resources than the south and strong trade is known

to have existed between the two areas from Uruk times (in

return for Northern supplies of natural resources, the South sent

items such as cloth, wool garments, cereals, dried fish, leather

and finished goods⁷).



Major Sites and Social Complexity:

When considering the major sites of ED Mesopotamia, questions

of North/South, Sumerian or Semite, Sumer or Akkad may be in

some ways detrimental: Harriot Crawford, in her 2004

work⁸, makes it clear that there is a challenge in

defining culture in the region: both Sumerian and Semitic names,

and so languages, are attested in the south from “earliest written

records” and when speaking of the culture of this period, the

author is most comfortable describing it as “the fusion of all the

elements in the population that produced the distinctive

civilization [of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia].” The question of

ethnicity is unclear again in the important archaeological sites in

the Northern Diyala region, where sculpture that has traditionally

(and perhaps arbitrarily) been labeled “Sumerian sculpture” is

nonetheless inscribed with Semitic names, when it is inscribed at

all⁹. In any case, it is accepted that Early Dynastic

culture generally follows on Uruk and Jemdat Nasr period

exemplars, and a commonality of style is observable between

Northern and Southern sites (often this is seen as the result of

cultural transmission from the South). On the basis of shared

architecture, sculpture, seals and religion than, the Northern cities

of Khafaje, Tell Asmar, Tell Agrab and the Southern cities of Ur

(the Royal Cemeteries have been of particular interest), Al 'Ubaid,

Kish, Lagash, and Nippur have been discussed together in Lloyd

1978 (along with the outside site of Mari). These sites are

further characterized by the presence of fortified city walls,

sometimes doubled or reinforced by towers which is typical of ED

period sites and reflecting of a turbulent age¹⁰.



Architecture and Artifacts:

Henri Frankfort informs us that basic temple layouts demonstrate

“continuity” with the Uruk period¹¹, although some

innovations and distinctions emerge with Early Dynastic

Architecture: stone foundations become more common, arched

doorways make an influential appearance (and are even present

in domestic architecture) and Frankfort states that the age is

“characterized” by the introduction of plano-convex bricks;

although, more specifically, this was a change occurring in the

EDII period¹². Other distinctive or irregular features of

ED architecture include the Temple Oval as at Khafaje “distinctive

of the Early Dynastic Period” (Frankfort, 1954:43) and the circular

columns on a secular building at Kish “found only once in the

Early Dynastic period” (Frankfort, 1954:43), and the Inanna

Temple complex at Nippur, which in addition to the usual 'bent-

axis' sanctuary, featured a second free standing shrine in its own

courtyard opposite the alter – the only one of its kind in the ED

period, it was to become the basic principle of temple

arrangement from the end of the Early Dynastic period

onwards¹³. EDII saw a growing number large public

buildings (examples at Kish, Eridu, Wilaya, Mari and possibly

Uruk¹⁴). These buildings are characterized by

heavy buttressing and are commonly referred to as palaces; the

understanding that these structures are necessarily palaces

should be taken with some caution however, as some scholars

find “no objective justification” in that label¹⁵.

As for artifacts in the Early Dynastic era, stylized

sculpture in the round particularly from the Diyala region have

become very visible representations of Mesopotamian culture, and

their presence in the temple and the interpretation that they pray

in place of their owners is a widely accepted characteristic of the

era. Relief carvings in the form of wall plaques, sometimes

inscribed, give insights into Royal lines (as in the Ur-Nanshe

plaque) or at other times represent popular generic scenes as in

the case of the “banqueting” scene¹⁶. Relief carving

reaches its highest degree of proficiency in the EDIII period

according to Lloyd although unfortunately “few examples of major

works..survived” with a notable exception being the well known

Stele of Vultures from Lagash¹⁷. Foundation

deposits, grave goods and pottery are all extremely important

subjects which inform on the culture, religion or chronological

sequencing of ED Mesopotamia and deserve a paper of their own.

Cylinder Seals, made commonly of stone but also faience, glass,

baked clay, wood, bone, shell, ivory or metal, contain imagery

that allows scholars to note developments in the iconography of

deities, mythology and daily life¹⁸. The presence of

certain motifs termed “City Seals” on clay tablets and other

surfaces has allowed scholars to posit the existence of political

alliances in ED Mesopotamia¹⁹. Finally, the

importance of the clay tablets and their cuneiform texts can hardly

be over stressed, although many of the best known insights on

this period come from later periods. Nonetheless, literature is

known from approx. 2600 BC onward (though crude and often

obscure), lexical texts (to include god lists) give us a perspective

on Sumerian world, economic texts on infrastructure, incantations

and the UD.GAL.NUN hymns inform us to a lesser degree on magic

and religion, and the ED Royal Inscriptions are particularly

intriguing when they allow for the historicity of some early kings

from the Sumerian King list²⁰ (which as mentioned

above, provides the foundation for the scholarly projection of the

ED period as a whole).



Conclusion:

The culture of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia occupies a formative

period in Near East, and one might venture to say, world history,

as the beginnings of early urbanism were expanded on and public

institutions developed and matured. The body of evidence that

remains, together with that of the UrIII period, represents the

quintessential evidence for the Sumerian people, from their own

hands and in their own words. While the dedicated effort of

generations of scholars has revealed the cultural epicenter of

Mesopotamia, the view is only partially clear: our inability to define

cultural boundaries and ethnicity is certainly a limiting factor

(though an examination of thousands of yet unpublished texts

from the Diyala region may someday help to remedy this). Further

advances in the field of linguistics, especially around the area of

difficult archaic texts, may allow for definitive editions of genres

such as the UD.GAL.NUN texts for example (now limited to partial

and haphazard treatments). As for the gaps in our

understanding of Mesopotamian archaeological such as the

indeterminate nature of large scale secular buildings in the ED

period, or our inability to overcome chronological problems, the

inaccessibility of sites in Iraq today is certainly lamentable;

however, (unless I have missed it), an updated and

comprehensive manual and synthesis of the architecture, pottery

sequences, and artifacts of both Northern and Southern

Mesopotamia in the Early Dynastic Period seems lacking, and may

therefore be a suggestible direction.







Notes:

1. A prime example is the difficulty of interpretation of the Venus Tablets which contain datable astronomical observances by Babylonian Astronomers. See “A Third Revision of the Chronology of West Asia", W. F. Albright, BASOR 1942. Also discussion in Frayne, RIM 1, pg. 4

2. George Roux, Ancient Iraq, p. 122; also Lloyd 1978, p.88; Frayne, RIM I pg. 5

3. Seton Lloyd, Archaeology of Ancient Mesopotamia, p. 91. Yet, definition of the division of the ED period may vary, as Frayne in RIM I notes, pg,3 (Edzard.)

4. Donald Matthews “ The Early Dynastic-Akkadian Transition Part I: When Did the Akkadian Period Begin?”Iraq Vol. 59, pp. 1-7

5. Seton Lloyd, Archaeology of Mesopotamia, pg. 13

6. George Roux, Ancient Iraq, p. 13

7. Samuel Mark, From Egypt to Mesopotamia, A Study of Predynastic Trade Routes, p.9

8. Harriot Crawford, Sumer and the Sumerians, pg. 26

9. Clemens Reichel, personnel communication, Aug. 18th 2010

10. Roux 1978 p.126; Michael Roaf 1990, pg. 82 agrees with this statement although adds that actual evidence for city walls has not been found before the middle of the ED period.

11. Henri Frankfort, The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Near East, pg. 42

12. Harriot Crawford, Sumer and the Sumerians, pgs. 96

13. Seton Lloyd, Archaeology of Mesopotamia, pg. 121

14. Harriot Crawford, Sumer and the Sumerians, pg. 96

15. Crawford pg. 99. The author refers to the work of Hans Nissen 2002: “Nissen has wisely pointed out that there is no objective justification for calling any of these buildings palaces...”

16. Seton Lloyd, Archaeology of Mesopotamia, pg. 115

17. Lloyd, pg. 116

18. Michael Roaf, The Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East, pg. 72

19. See Thorkild Jacobsen, “Early Political Development in Mesopotamia,” ZA 52 (1957)

20. See D. Frayne, The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia Early Periods: Vol. 1

[madness]

> Using the wrong footnote style <

This really depends on who is marking it. I've known instructors to not care if people even use the wrong format of referencing, as long as things are referenced. I've also known instructors to quibble over the most insignificant differences, and mark down for it.


> Not including a Bibliography at the end <

Always, always include a bibliography regardless of whether it is asked for or not. And it must be on its own separate page.


> sentences that are too word heavy <

You do what I do and write long sentences. This is good for complex thinkers who can juggle several ideas at once, but I don't think most people appreciate it. Try to keep sentences at about 1-3 lines for short papers. Keep in mind that markers usually have to go through hundreds of papers in a limited amount of time (here they're only paid for a paltry 6 minutes per paper), and prefer things that are easy to follow.


Also, you are using first person (I, our, us). I don't know how things are in Toronto, but over here you would only use first person when writing a philosophy essay. Every other discipline forbids it.

[alvean]

I liked your answers

About notes & bibliography: when I wrote my "Nanshe Hymn" thesis I had to read carefully a Bibliography muanual. I discovered many unthinkable ways to produce notes and lists of authors and I had to choose the ones preferred by my teacher.

I'd love to post my essay on Kultepe/Kanish Archives (which is also the subject of my next thesis for my Specialization "Laurea" in ANE Archaeology), but it's a 20 pages essay with 2 pages of bibliography and, unfortunately for you, it is in Italian!

[sheshki]

Very interesting! And the "wordheavy sentences" factor wasnt higher than normal
Thanks for sharing!

[us4-he2-gal2]

Thanks for answers all - Well I've learned some lessons with this first paper and today am working on one that may actually be closer to a real paper, instead of the report type one Archaeology required.

I am attempting to counter B. Schmidt's assertion that Israel had no early Necromancy and the reason why its featured in numerous places in the Bible is because it necromancy was a later transfer from Mesopotamia. I am finding problems with his usage of Mesopotamian materials however. Will post it when it'd done.

[ummia-inim-gina]

You should post your work on your academia.edu profile. It seems like a great tool to get your work out to other people.