The name of this polity derives from the site of Uruk (modern Warka) located c. 35 km east from the Euphrates River, in south Iraq. This period is perceived as a time of deep transformations and significant inventions (such as wheel, fast wheel, plough, using alloys - bronze, writing system, etc.). There is very little known about the people living in Mesopotamia during that time (so-called Sumerian problem). There are some voices suggesting that Uruk population might have been identified as Sumerians, however there is no direct evidence to support this hypothesis. On the contrary, there is a lack of traces of invasion or appearance of completely new group of people. There is rather highlighted undisturbed continuation between previous polities, such as Ubaid and Uruk, and endurance of some cultural patterns, which are especially visible in architecture (construction of temples at Eridu or Uruk). [1] , [2] , [3] The nature of relations between Mesopotamia and Susiana land in this period deserves the special attention. There are few main ideas regarding the relationships between these two geographical areas. According to Algaze, the Susiana was colonized by group of people from southern Mesopotamia in the Uruk period and he indicates cultural homogeneity these two lands in Uruk period. [4] The opposite opinion is presented by Amiet, who suggested that Susiana was inhabited by two different ’ethnic’ group (so called - ’Elamite’ and ’Mesopotamian’ type). The culture of this land, hence, was seen as some kind of hybrid and the alternately appearance of ’Elamite’ or ’Mesopotamian’ cultural elements is related to some sort of ’fashion’ or ’trends’. [5] , [6] The Uruk polity is perceived by Algaze as some kind of proto-state organism and he describes it as “an early instance of an "informal empire" or "world system" based on asymmetrical exchange and a hierarchically organized international division of labour that differs from modern examples only in degree.” [7] He emphasizes very rapid and intense cultural growth of Uruk polity and he considers few types of Uruk expansions: “(1)new form of spatial distribution: the growth of cities and their dependencies; (2)new form of socio-political organization: the explosive growth of social differentiation, the emergence of encumbered labour, and the crystallization of the state; (3) new forms of economic arrangements and of record keeping: state control of a substantial portion of the means of production and of its surplus, craft and occupational specialization on an industrial scale; and, finally, (4)the new forms of symbolic representation needed to validate the changes taking place in the realm of social and political relationship-leading to the creation of an artistic tradition and iconographical repertoire that were to set the framework for pictorial representation in Mesopotamia for millennium to come.” [8] There are many hypotheses regarding the political system of Uruk polity. Most of the researchers (e. g. Frangipane, Rothman, Pollock, Wright) perceived the Uruk polity as some kind of united (in cultural sense) community which shares number of features (particularly in material culture) and they represent some early stage of city-state organization with dominant position of some cities and the group of elite. [9] , [10] However, other archaeologists believed (e. g. Algaze) that some cities have been already ruled by one person - ruler which collected all political, religious and military power. There are many images of this person on seals, sealing, vase, furniture inlays where he is showed as a warrior, bearded man in cap, hunter and master of animals. Algaze even writes: “comparison with inscribed statues of later Sumerian rulers in strikingly similar poses leaves no doubt that the analogous Uruk-period images are stylized and standardized representations of kings.” [11]
[1]: Roux 1998, 75-78
[2]: Crawford 2004, 16-18
[3]: Kuhr 1997, 22-23
[4]: Algaze 1993, 15-17
[5]: Amiet 1979
[6]: Amiet 1992: 80
[7]: Algaze 1989, 571
[8]: Algaze 1989, 590-91
[9]: Nissen 2001, 161
[10]: Pollock 2001, 181-233
[11]: Algaze 2001, 34
| unknown [---] |
| unknown |
| Early Dynastic Sumer |
| suspected unknown |
| Preceding: Ubaid (iq_ubaid) [unknown] | |
| Succeeding: Early Dynastic (iq_early_dynastic) [continuity] |
| unknown |
| [7,000 to 20,000] people | 4000 BCE 3501 BCE |
| [40,000 to 50,000] people | 3500 BCE 3000 BCE |
| [2,000 to 2,100] km2 | 4000 BCE 3501 BCE |
| [1,600 to 2,200] km2 | 3500 BCE 3000 BCE |
| [20,000 to 38,540] people | 4000 BCE 3501 BCE |
| [21,300 to 41,000] people | 3500 BCE 3000 BCE |
| inferred absent |
| unknown |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| present |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| unknown |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| present |
| inferred present | 4200 BCE 3501 BCE |
| present | 3500 BCE 3000 BCE |
| inferred present | 4200 BCE 3501 BCE |
| present | 3500 BCE 3000 BCE |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| inferred absent |
| absent |
| inferred absent |
| present |
| present |
| present |
| unknown |
| inferred present | 4200 BCE 3501 BCE |
| present | 3500 BCE 3000 BCE |
| present |
| Year Range | Uruk (iq_uruk) was in: |
|---|---|
| (4200 BCE 3000 BCE) | Southern Mesopotamia |
Probably there was no single capital seen as main and dominant city gathering whole power, but instead of it, there were many centres - big cities and associated with them smaller towns, villages etc. Therefore there is impossible to pinpoint which city was the most important. However, according to Steinkeller, the city of Uruk might have played a role of religious capital since Uruk and Jemdet Nasr Period. He based his assumption of the tables from Jemdet Nasr Period saying that individual cities and towns were sending some resources and foodstuff to Temple of Inanna in Uruk as some kind of ritual offering.
[1]
[2]
[1]: Algaze 2001, 32
[2]: Steinkeller 1999, 1-22
4000-3000 BCE
[1]
. Note that the period 3100-2900 BCE is contested, and unclear if Uruk were still in control of S Mesopotamian territory at this time. "There is the issue of the Jemdet Nasr period, which may not be completely real or present in all regions of southern Mesopotamia, but that period seems to fit between 3100-2900, with the Early Dynastic from 2900-2350." We do not code the Jemdet Nasr directly here
[1]
. Algaze proposed a little bit different periodization: Early Uruk: 3900-3600 BCE, Middle Uruk: 3600-3300 BCE, Late Uruk: 3300-3100 BCE.
[2]
[3]
; Early Uruk Period: 4100/4000-3800 BCE; Early Middle Uruk (Late Chalcolithic 3): 3800-3600 BCE; Late Middle Uruk (Late Chalcolithic 4): 3600-3300 BCE; Late Uruk: 3300-3000BCE.
[4]
The most problematic is Jemdet Nasr Period (3100-2900 BCE), which some researchers treated as separated polity, others as a continuation and later stage of the Uruk polity
[5]
[1]: Pers. comm Mark Altaweel, Dec. 2021
[2]: Algaze 2005, 5-6
[3]: Pollock 1992, 299
[4]: Ur 2010, tab. 1, 392
[5]: Matthews 1992, 196-203
There are no traces of any dramatic cultural interruption between these two periods.
"By the Early Uruk period {4000-3500}, Uruk (Warka, Erech, Unu)2 encompassed 70 hectares, two other cities were 50 hectares, and a final two 30 hectares each (M. = CAM 58-9). The population in these cities might have ranged fi.-om 7000 to 20,000." [1]
[1]: (Hamblin 2006: 36) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4WM3RBTD.
"By the Early Uruk period {4000-3500}, Uruk (Warka, Erech, Unu)2 encompassed 70 hectares, two other cities were 50 hectares, and a final two 30 hectares each (M. = CAM 58-9). The population in these cities might have ranged fi.-om 7000 to 20,000." [1]
[1]: (Hamblin 2006: 36) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4WM3RBTD.
in squared kilometres. Adams discerned two settlement areas: northern and southern. In the Early Uruk period, the southern area had 2010 km2, and the northern area had 2087 km2. In the Late Uruk Period: southern enclave: 2231 km2 and the northern area: 1619 km2. [1]
[1]: Adams 1981, 90
People. Adams proposed estimations for northern and southern enclaves. The southern enclaves had 20,110 inhabitants and the northern enclave had 38,540 people in Early-Middle Uruk Period. The northern enclave had 21,300 people and southern enclave had 41,020 people in the Late Uruk period [1] The available data concerns also the Susiana Plain. The population of whole Uruk polities is unknown. Early Uruk Period: 6,290-12,580 people; Middle Uruk: 8,860-17,520; Late Uruk Period: 4,560-9,120 people. [2]
[1]: Adams 1981, 90
[2]: Wright 2001, 129-131
People. Adams proposed estimations for northern and southern enclaves. The southern enclaves had 20,110 inhabitants and the northern enclave had 38,540 people in Early-Middle Uruk Period. The northern enclave had 21,300 people and southern enclave had 41,020 people in the Late Uruk period [1] The available data concerns also the Susiana Plain. The population of whole Uruk polities is unknown. Early Uruk Period: 6,290-12,580 people; Middle Uruk: 8,860-17,520; Late Uruk Period: 4,560-9,120 people. [2]
[1]: Adams 1981, 90
[2]: Wright 2001, 129-131
levels. cities (1), towns (2), villages (3), hamlets (4) [1] [2] ; The biggest cities had between 40 to even 100 ha in extent in the Early Uruk Period, towns reached size of 10 ha. The huge agglomarations had even more than 100 ha (Uruk - 250 ha), big towns had - 50 ha, smaller towns - 25 ha, but there are known also smaller towns, ar. 15 ha. [3]
[1]: Crawford 2004, 16
[2]: Algaze 2012, 73
[3]: Algaze 2012, 73-74
Though administrative artifacts have been found dating to the entire Uruk sequence (see e.g. Pollock 1992, 314-320 for a summary), sources do not indicate that these artifacts have been found in buildings that appeared to specialise in administrative activities; instead, whenever sources associate these kinds of artifacts to a specific kind of building, it is a building that likely also fulfilled ritual functions, e.g.:"Seeking to reconcile the tripartite floor plan of many of the Eanna buildings with the widespread evidence for contemporary administrative activities found in their general vicinity (below), many archaeologists refer to the Eanna structures simply as ’religious/administrative’ in nature." [1]
[1]: (Algaze 2008: 77) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/FJ63HECN.
Is there a piped network that connects the drinking water to individual settlements?
archaic pictographic script & early cuneiform script [1] ; c. 3400-3200 BCE (Early and Middle Uruk Period)- ’beginning of Proto-Cuneiform’- mainly numerical tablets and clay bullae; c. 3200/3100- 3000/2900 BCE - (Late Uruk Period and Jemdet Nasr Period) - ’beginning of Proto-Elamite’ - texts discovered at Uruk (Uruk III and Uruk IV). [2]
[1]: Roux 1998, 70-71
[2]: Nissen et al. 1993, 5-6
[1] One of the first written ’documents’ were numerical tablets, discovered e. g. at Uruk, Susa, Godin and Jebel Aruda. [2] Most of the archaic texts had administrative character and were used as ’as an instrument in the management of economic transaction’ [3] However, there are few exceptions, there were found also the texts which were dedicated to educate scribes and were used as ’copy book’. [4]
[1]: Nissen et al. 1993, 11
[2]: Cooper 2004, 75-76
[3]: Nissen et al. 1993, 30
[4]: Nissan et al. 1993, 30
A Late Uruk cylinder seal "shows an early arms factory making bows and bronze daggers, and perhaps javelins as well". [1]
[1]: (Hamblin 2006:40) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4WM3RBTD.
A Late Uruk cylinder seal "shows an early arms factory making bows and bronze daggers, and perhaps javelins as well". [1]
[1]: (Hamblin 2006:40) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4WM3RBTD.
A Late Uruk cylinder seal "shows an early arms factory making bows and bronze daggers, and perhaps javelins as well". [1]
[1]: (Hamblin 2006:40) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4WM3RBTD.
A Late Uruk cylinder seal "shows an early arms factory making bows and bronze daggers, and perhaps javelins as well". [1]
[1]: (Hamblin 2006:40) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4WM3RBTD.
"The later third-millennium development of the composite bow revolutionized warfare." [1]
[1]: (McIntosh 2005: 188) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/KK2E3KMD.
"The Priest-king, armed variously with spear, mace, and bow, is thus shown in a whole sequence of martial activities". [1]
[1]: (Hamblin 2006: 39) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4WM3RBTD.
A Late Uruk cylinder seal "shows an early arms factory making bows and bronze daggers, and perhaps javelins as well". [1]
[1]: (Hamblin 2006:40) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4WM3RBTD.
A Late Uruk cylinder seal "shows an early arms factory making bows and bronze daggers, and perhaps javelins as well". [1]
[1]: (Hamblin 2006:40) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/4WM3RBTD.
Donkey was domesticated first. "In Iraq and Syria domesticated donkey appeared during the Late Uruk period (ca. 3600-3100 BCE) at Uruk (Boessneck et al., p. 166), Tell Rubeidheh (Payne, pp. 99-100), and Habuba Kabira (Strommenger and Bollweg, pp. 354-55)". [1]
[1]: (Potts 2012) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/DWHJQHHJ.
Donkey was domesticated first. "In Iraq and Syria domesticated donkey appeared during the Late Uruk period (ca. 3600-3100 BCE) at Uruk (Boessneck et al., p. 166), Tell Rubeidheh (Payne, pp. 99-100), and Habuba Kabira (Strommenger and Bollweg, pp. 354-55)". [1]
[1]: (Potts 2012) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/DWHJQHHJ.
"In Iraq and Syria domesticated donkey appeared during the Late Uruk period (ca. 3600-3100 BCE) at Uruk (Boessneck et al., p. 166), Tell Rubeidheh (Payne, pp. 99-100), and Habuba Kabira (Strommenger and Bollweg, pp. 354-55)". [1]
[1]: (Potts 2012) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/DWHJQHHJ.
Donkey was domesticated first. "In Iraq and Syria domesticated donkey appeared during the Late Uruk period (ca. 3600-3100 BCE) at Uruk (Boessneck et al., p. 166), Tell Rubeidheh (Payne, pp. 99-100), and Habuba Kabira (Strommenger and Bollweg, pp. 354-55)". [1]
[1]: (Potts 2012) Seshat URL: https://www.zotero.org/groups/1051264/seshat_databank/items/itemKey/DWHJQHHJ.