|region = [[Mesopotamia]]

|period = [[Chalcolithic|Copper Age]]

|typesite = [[Uruk]]

|majorsites =

|extra =

|precededby = [[Ubaid period]]

 

It was during this period that pottery painting declined as copper started to become popular, along with [[cylinder seal]]s.<ref name=Langer>{{harvnb|Langer|1972|p=9}}</ref>

| total_width=400

| image1 = Gebel el-Arak Knife ivory handle (front top part detail).jpg

| image2 = Uruk King-Priest 3300 BCE portrait detail.jpg

| footer=

}}

 

 

The traditional chronology is very imprecise and is based on some key [[Sondage|sondages]] in the [[Eanna]] quarter at Uruk.<ref>{{harvsp|id=BUT|Butterlin|2003|pp=286–297}}</ref> The most ancient levels of these sondages (XIX–XIII) belong to the end of the Ubaid period (Ubaid V, 4200–3900 or 3700 BC); pottery characteristic of the Uruk period begins to appear in levels XIV/XIII.

 

===Jemdet Nasr period===

 

{{multiple image|perrow=2|total_width=300|caption_align=center

Although the chronology of the Uruk period is full of uncertainties, it is generally agreed to have a rough span of a thousand years covering the period from 4000 to 3000 BC and to be divided into several phases: an initial urbanisation and elaboration of Urukian cultural traits marks the transition from the end of the Ubaid period (Old Uruk), then a period of expansion (Middle Uruk), with a peak during which the characteristic traits of the 'Uruk civilization' are definitively established (Late Uruk), and then a retreat of Urukian influence and increase in cultural diversity in the Near East along with a decline of the 'centre'.

 

 

== Lower Mesopotamia ==

Lower Mesopotamia is the core of the Uruk period culture and the region seems to have been the cultural centre of the time because this is where the principal monuments are found and the most obvious traces of an urban society with state institutions developing in the second half of the 4th millennium BC, the first system of writing, and it is the material and symbolic culture of this region which had the most influence on the rest of the Near East at this time. However, this region is not well-known archaeologically, since only the site of Uruk itself has provided traces of monumental architecture and administrative documents which justify seeing this region as the most dynamic and influential. At some other sites, construction from this period has been found, but they are usually known only as a result of soundages. In the current state of knowledge it remains impossible to determine whether the site of Uruk was actually unique in this region or if it is simply an accident of excavation that makes it seem more important than the others.

 

 

The ethnic composition of this region in the Uruk period cannot be determined with certainty. It is connected to the problem of the origins of the [[Sumer]]ians and the dating of their emergence (if they are considered locals of the region) or their arrival (if they are thought to have migrated) in lower Mesopotamia. There is no agreement on the archaeological evidence for a migration, or on whether the earliest form of writing already reflects a specific language. Some argue that it is actually Sumerian, in which case the Sumerians would have been its inventors<ref>{{harvsp|id=GLA|Glassner|2000|pp=66–68}}</ref> and would have already been present in the region in the final centuries of the 4th millennium at the latest (which seems to be the most widely accepted position).<ref>See thus {{harvsp|id=ENG|Englund|1998|pp=73–81}}</ref> Whether other ethnic groups were also present, especially Semitic ancestors of the Akkadians or one or several 'pre-Sumerian' peoples (neither Sumerian nor Semite and predating both in the region) is also debated and cannot be resolved by excavation.<ref>For a summary of the debate on this point, see: J. S. Cooper in {{harvsp|id=SDB|Sumer|1999–2002}}, col. 84–91; B. Lafont in {{harvsp|id=SDB|Sumer|1999–2002}}, col. 149–151; M.-J. Seux in {{harvsp|id=SDB|Sumer|1999–2002}}, col. 339–344</ref>

</gallery>

 

 

=== Other sites in Lower Mesopotamia ===

The region around [[Susa]] in the southwest of modern [[Iran]], is located right next to lower Mesopotamia, which exercised a powerful influence on it from the 5th millennium BC, and might be considered to have been part of the Uruk culture in the second half of the 4th millennium BC, either as a result of conquest or a more gradual acculturation, but it did retain its own unique characteristics.<ref>M.-J. Stève, F. Vallat, H. Gasche, C. Jullien et F. Jullien, "Suse," ''Supplément au Dictionnaire de la Bible'' fasc. 73, 2002, col. 409–413</ref> The Uruk period levels at Susa are called Susa I (c. 4000–3700 BC) and Susa II (c. 3700–3100 BC), during which the site became an urban settlement. Susa I saw the beginning of monumental architecture on the site, with the construction of a 'High Terrace', which was increased during Susa II to measure roughly 60 x 45 metres. The most interesting aspect of this site is the objects discovered there, which are the most important evidence available to us for the art of the Uruk period and the beginning of administration and writing. The [[cylinder seal]]s of Susa I and Susa II have a very rich iconography, uniquely emphasising scenes of everyday life, although there is also some kind of local potentate which P. Amiet sees as a 'proto-royal figure,' preceding the 'priest-kings' of Late Uruk.<ref>P. Amiet, "Glyptique susienne archaïque," ''Revue Assyriologique'' 51, 1957, p. 127</ref> These cylinder seals, as well as [[bulla (seal)|bulla]]e and clay tokens, indicate the rise of administration and of accounting techniques at Susa during the second half of the 4th millennium BC. Susa has also yielded some of the most ancient writing tablets, making it a key site for our understanding of the origins of writing. Other sites in Susiana also have archaeological levels belonging to this period, like [[Jafarabad, Alborz|Jaffarabad]] and [[Chogha Mish]].<ref>G. Johnson and H. Wright, "Regional Perspectives on Southwest Iranian State development," ''Paléorient'' 11/2, 1985, pp. 25–30</ref>

 

 

In this region, the retreat of the Uruk culture resulted in a particular phenomenon, the [[Proto-Elamite]] civilization, which seems to have been centred on the region of [[Anshan (Persia)|Tell-e Malyan]] and Susiana and seems to have taken over the Uruk culture's links with the Iranian plateau.<ref name=butiran>{{harvsp|id=BUT|Butterlin|2003|pp=139–150}}</ref><ref>P. Amiet, ''L'âge des échanges inter-iraniens, 3500–1700 av. J.-C.'', Réunion des musées nationaux, Paris, 1986.</ref>

Several important sites of the Uruk period have been excavated in the Middle [[Euphrates]] region, during the salvage campaigns preceding the construction of hydroelectric dams in the area.<ref name=huot8993>{{harvsp|id=Huot|Huot|2004|pp=89–93}}</ref> It is largely as a result of the findings of these excavations that ideas of an "Uruk expansion" have arisen.

 

The best known site is [[Habuba Kabira]], a fortified port on the right bank of the river in Syria. The city covered around 22 hectares, surrounded by a defensive wall, roughly 10 percent of which has been uncovered. Study of the buildings on this site shows that it was a planned settlement, which would have required significant means. The archaeological material from the site is identical to that of Uruk, consisting of pottery, cylinder-seals, bullae, accounting ''calculi'', and numerical tablets from the end of the period. Thus this new city has every appearance of being an Urukian colony. Around 20 residences of various sorts have been excavated. They have a tripartite plan, arranged around a reception hall with a foyer opening onto an internal courtyard, with additional rooms arranged around it. In the south of the site is a hill, Tell Qanas, which has a monumental group of several structures identified speculatively as 'temples' on an artificial terrace. The site was abandoned at the end of the 4th millennium BC, apparently without violence, during the period when the Uruk culture retreated.<ref name="strommenger" />

 

 

[[File:TellBrak-NE.jpg|thumb|Ruins of [[Tell Brak]], [[Syria]].]]

 

 

On the [[Tigris]], the site of [[Nineveh]] (Tell Kuyunjik, level 4) was located on some major commercial routes and was also within the Urukian sphere of influence. The site covered roughly 40 hectares—the whole area of Tell Kuyunjik. The material remains of the period are very limited, but beveled rim bowls, an accounting bulla, and a numerical tablet characteristic of the Late Uruk period have been found.<ref>D. Collon and J. Reade, "Archaic Nineveh," ''Baghdader Mitteilungen'' 14 (1983) pp. 33–41; G. Algaze, "Habuba on the Tigris: Archaic Nineveh Reconsidered," ''Journal of Near Eastern Studies'' 45/2 (1986) pp. 125–137; D. Stronach, "Village to Metropolis: Nineveh and the Beginnings of Urbanism in Northern Mesopotamia," in S. Mazzoni (ed.), ''Nuove Fondazioni nel Vicino Oriente Antico : Realtà e Ideologia'', Pisa (1994) pp. 88–92</ref> Nearby, [[Tepe Gawra]], which was also important in the Ubayd period, is an important case of the changing scale of monumental architecture and of political entities between the end of the 5th millennium and the first half of the 4th millennium BC (Level XII to VIII). The excavations there have revealed some very rich tombs, different kinds of residence, workshops, and very large buildings with an official or religious function (notably the 'round structure'), which may indicate that Tepe Gawra was a regional political centre. However, it declined before the Uruk expansion into Upper Mesopotamia.<ref>{{harvsp|id=FOR|Forest|1996|pp=91–103}}; {{harvsp|id=Huot|Huot|2004|pp=75–78}}. M. S. Rothman, ''Tepe Gawra: The Evolution of a Small, Prehistoric Center in Northern Iraq'', Philadelphia, 2001; P. Butterlin (ed.), ''A propos de Tepe Gawra, Le monde proto-urbain de Mésopotamie'', Turnhout, 2009</ref>

 

Other sites have been excavated in the region of [[Samsat]] (also in the Euphrates valley). An Urukian site was revealed at Samsat during a hasty rescue excavation before the area was flooded as a result of the construction of a hydroelectric dam. Fragments of clay cones from a wall mosaic were found. A little to the south is Kurban Höyük, where clay cones and pottery characteristic of Uruk have also been found in tripartite buildings.<ref>B. Helwing, "Cultural interaction at Hassek Höyük, Turkey, New evidence from pottery analysis," ''Paléorient'' 25/1, 1999, pp. 91–99</ref>

 

 

 

 

{{multiple image|perrow=2|total_width=450|caption_align=center

| image2 = King-priest with bow fighting enemies, with horned temple (reconstiution).jpg

| caption2 = Reconstitution

}}

Algaze's theory, like other alternative models, has been criticised, particularly because a solid model remains difficult to demonstrate while the Uruk civilization remains poorly known in Lower Mesopotamia aside from the two monumental complexes that have been excavated at Uruk itself. We are therefore poorly placed to evaluate the impact of the development of southern Mesopotamia, since we have almost no archaeological evidence about it. Moreover, the chronology of this period is far from established, which makes it difficult to date the expansion. It has proven difficult to make the levels at different sites correspond closely enough to attribute them to a single period, making the elaboration of relative chronology very complicated. Among the theories that have been advanced to explain the Uruk expansion, the commercial explanation is frequently revived. However, although long-distance trade is undoubtedly a secondary phenomenon for the south Mesopotamian states compared to local production and seems to follow the development of increased social complexity rather than causing it, this does not necessarily prove a process of colonisation.<ref>J. N. Postgate, "Learning the Lessons of the Future: Trade in Prehistory through a Historian's Lens," ''Bibliotheca Orientalis'' 60/1–2, 2004, pp. 5–26. See also {{harvsp|id=LIV|Liverani|2006|pp=40–44}}.</ref> Some other theories propose a form of agrarian colonisation resulting from a shortage of land in Lower Mesopotamia or a migration of refugees after the Uruk region suffered ecological or political upheavals. These explanations are largely advanced to explain the sites of the Syro-Anatolian world, rather than as global theories.<ref>{{harvsp|id=BUT|Butterlin|2003|pp=131–137}}</ref>

 

[[File:Mesopotamia-Egypt trade routes.jpg|thumb|upright=1.5|Possible Mesopotamia-Egypt trade routes from the 4th millennium BCE.<ref name="Redford 22">Redford, Donald B. ''Egypt, Canaan, and Israel in Ancient Times.'' (Princeton: University Press, 1992), p. 22.</ref><ref name="MKH427">{{cite book |last1=Hartwig |first1=Melinda K. |title=A Companion to Ancient Egyptian Art |date=2014 |publisher=John Wiley & Sons |isbn=9781444333503 |page=427 |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=z0NwDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA427 |language=en}}</ref>]]

 

==Egypt==

{{main|Egypt-Mesopotamia relations}}

 

==Society and culture==

What kind of political organisation existed in the Uruk period is debated. No evidence supports the idea that this period saw the development of a kind of 'proto-empire' centred on Uruk, as has been proposed by Algaze and others. It is probably best to understand an organisation in 'city-states' like those that existed in the 3rd millennium BC. This seems to be corroborated by the existence of 'civic seals' in the Jemdet Nasr period, which bear symbols of the Sumerian cities of Uruk, Ur, Larsa, etc. The fact that these symbols appeared together might indicate a kind of league or confederation uniting the cities of southern Mesopotamia, perhaps for religious purposes, perhaps under the authority of one of them (Uruk?).<ref name=amphi>{{harvsp|id=BUT|Butterlin|2003|pp=92–94}}. R. Matthews, ''Cities, Seals and Writing'', ''Archaic Seals Impressions from Jemdet Nasr and Ur'', Berlin, 1993; P. Steinkeller, « Archaic City Seals and the Question of Early Babylonian Unity », in T. Abusch (ed.), ''Riches Hidden in Secret Places, Ancient Near Eastern Studies in Memory of Thorkild Jacobsen'', Winona Lake, 2002, pp. 249–257.</ref>

 

 

It is clear that there were major changes in the political organisation of society in this period. The nature of the powerholders is not easy to determine because they cannot be identified in the written sources and the archaeological evidence is not very informative: no palaces or other buildings for the exercise of power have been identified for sure and no monumental tomb for a ruler has been found either. Images on steles and cylinder-seals are a little more evocative. An important figure who clearly holds some kind of authority has long been noted: a bearded man with a headband who is usually depicted wearing a bell-shaped skirt or as ritually naked.<ref>{{harvsp|id=BEN|Benoit|2003|p=61}}; D. P. Hansen, "Art of the Early City-States", in J. Aruz (ed.), ''Art of the First Cities: The Third Millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus'', New York, 2003, pp. 22-24.</ref> He is often represented as a warrior fighting human enemies or wild animals, e.g. in the 'Stele of the Hunt' found at Uruk, in which he defeats lions with his bow.<ref name="benoit-196-197" /> He is also found in victory scenes accompanied by prisoners or structures. He also is shown leading cult activities, as on a vase from Uruk of the Jemdet Nasr period which shows him leading a procession towards a goddess, who is almost certainly [[Inanna]].<ref name="benoit-208-211" /> In other cases, he is shown feeding animals, which suggests the idea of the king as a shepherd, who gathers his people together, protects them and looks after their needs, ensuring the prosperity of the kingdom. These motifs match the functions of the subsequent Sumerian kings: war-leader, chief priest, and builder. Scholars have proposed that this figure should be called the 'Priest-King'. This ruler may be the person designated in Uruk III tablets by the title of ''en''.<ref>P. Steinkeller, ''History, Texts and Art in Early Babylonia'', Berlin and Boston, 2017, pp. 82-104</ref> He could represent a power of a monarchic type, like that would subsequently exist in Mesopotamia.<ref>B. Lafont in {{harvsp|id=SDB|Sumer|1999–2002}}, col. 134–135</ref>

==== Urbanisation ====

[[File:Priest-king from Uruk, Mesopotamia, Iraq, c. 3000 BCE. The Iraq Museum.jpg|thumb|Sumerian dignitary, Uruk, circa 3300-3000 BCE. [[National Museum of Iraq]].<ref>{{cite book |title=Art of the first cities : the third millennium B.C. from the Mediterranean to the Indus. |page=[https://archive.org/details/ArtOfTheFirstCitiesTheThirdMillenniumB.C.FromTheMediterraneanToTheIndusEditedByJ/page/n513 25] |url=https://archive.org/details/ArtOfTheFirstCitiesTheThirdMillenniumB.C.FromTheMediterraneanToTheIndusEditedByJ |language=en}}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=The Looting Of The Iraq Museum Baghdad The Lost Legacy Of Ancient Mesopotamia |date=2005 |page=viii |url=https://archive.org/details/TheLootingOfTheIraqMuseumBaghdadTheLostLegacyOfAncientMesopotamia/page/n7/mode/2up}}</ref>]]

 

In the Late Uruk period, the urban site of Uruk far exceeded all others. Its surface area, the scale of its monuments and the importance of the administrative tools unearthed there indicate that it was a key centre of power. It is often therefore referred to as the 'first city', but it was the outcome of a process that began many centuries earlier and is largely attested outside Lower Mesopotamia (aside from the monumental aspect of Eridu). The emergence of important proto-urban centres began at the beginning of the 4th millennium BC in southwest Iran ([[Chogha Mish]], Susa), and especially in the [[Upper Mesopotamia|Jazirah]] (Tell Brak, Hamoukar, Tell al-Hawa, Grai Resh). Excavations in the latter region tend to contradict the idea that urbanisation began in Mesopotamia and then spread to neighbouring regions; the appearance of an urban centre at Tell Brak appears to have resulted from a local process with the progressive aggregation of village communities that had previously lived separately, and without the influence of any strong central power (unlike what seems to have been the case at Uruk). Early urbanisation should therefore be thought of as a phenomenon which took place simultaneously in several regions of the Near East in the 4th millennium BC, though further research and excavation is still required in order to make this process clearer to us.<ref name=brakurb/><ref name=buturb/><ref>{{harvsp|id=ALG|Algaze|2008|pp=117–122}} foregrounds the fact that the model of urbanism in northern Mesopotamia proved less durable than that of the south, since it declined at the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC.</ref>

 

==== Writing ====

 

The texts of this period are mostly of an administrative type and are found principally in contexts that seem to be public (palaces or temples), rather than private. But the texts of Uruk, which constitute the majority of the total corpus for this period, were discovered in a trash heap rather than in the context in which they were produced and used; this makes it difficult to identify them. Their interpretation is equally problematic, on account of their archaic character. The writing is not yet [[cuneiform]], but is linear. These texts were misunderstood by their first publisher in the 1930s, [[Adam Falkenstein]], and it was only through the work of the German researchers [[Hans Nissen]], [[Peter Damerow]] and [[Robert Englund (Assyriologist)|Robert Englund]] over the following 20 years that substantial progress was made.<ref>Publications in the series ''Archaische Texte aus Uruk'' (''ATU''), which was begun in 1936 by Adam Falkenstein, in the series ''ADFU'', Leipzig / Berlin, 5 vol. parus. The ancient tablets unearthed at Uruk are online on the site of the CDLI. {{cite web|url=http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/result.pt?result_format=list&size=100&index_name=graphemes&word=&-op_primary_publication=bw&primary_publication=&-op_author=bw&author=&-op_date=bw&publication_date=&-op_museum_no=bw&museum_no=&-op_excavation_no=bw&excavation_no=&-op_publication_history=bw&publication_history=&-op_provenience=bw&provenience=uruk&-op_genre=bw&genre=&-op_period=bw&period=uruk&-op_collection=bw&collection=&-op_dates_referenced=bw&dates_referenced=&-op_id_text=bw&id_text=&-sort=id_text|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120710194043/http://cdli.ucla.edu/search/result.pt?result_format=list&size=100&index_name=graphemes&word=&-op_primary_publication=bw&primary_publication=&-op_author=bw&author=&-op_date=bw&publication_date=&-op_museum_no=bw&museum_no=&-op_excavation_no=bw&excavation_no=&-op_publication_history=bw&publication_history=&-op_provenience=bw&provenience=uruk&-op_genre=bw&genre=&-op_period=bw&period=uruk&-op_collection=bw&collection=&-op_dates_referenced=bw&dates_referenced=&-op_id_text=bw&id_text=&-sort=id_text|url-status=dead|archive-date=2012-07-10|title=Lien}}</ref> Alongside the administrative texts, were discovered from the beginning of writing, some [[Sumerian literature|literary]] texts, the [[lexical lists]], lexicographic works of a scholarly type, which compile signs according to different themes (lists of crafts, metals, pots, cereals, toponyms, etc.) and are characteristic of Mesopotamian civilization. A remarkable example is a ''List of Professions'' (ancestor of the series ''Lú.A'', which is known from the 3rd millennium BC), in which various different types of craftsmen are listed (potters, weavers, carpenters, etc.), indicating the numerous types of specialist workers in late Uruk.<ref>{{harvsp|id=ENG|Englund|1998|pp=82–106}}; {{harvsp|id=GLA|Glassner|2000|pp=251–256}}. R. Englund and H. Nissen, ''Die lexikalischen Listen der Archaischen Texte aus Uruk, ATU 3'', Berlin, 1993.</ref>

The causes and course of the origins of writing are disputed. The dominant theory has them derive from more ancient accounting practices, notably those of the ''calculi'' mentioned above. In the model developed by [[Denise Schmandt-Besserat]], the tokens were first reported on the clay envelopes, then on clay tablets and this led to the creation of the first written signs, which were [[pictograms]], drawings which represent a physical object ([[logogram]]s, one sign = one word).<ref name=tokens>[[Denise Schmandt-Besserat]], ''Before Writing'', 2 vol., Austin, 1992 ; Ead., ''How Writing Came About'', Austin, 1996</ref> But this is very contested because there is no obvious correspondence between the tokens and the pictograms that replaced them.<ref name=tokens2>Discussions in {{harvsp|id=ENG|Englund|1998|pp=46–56}} and {{harvsp|id=GLA|Glassner|2000|pp=87–112}}.</ref> In general, a first development (occurring around 3300–3100 BC) is however retained as being based on accounting and management practices, and has been explored in more detailed by H. Nissen and R. Englund. This writing system is pictographic, made up of linear signs incised in clay tablets using a [[reed pen]] (both reeds and clay being very easily accessible in southern Mesopotamia).

 

 

A more recent theory, defended by [[Jean-Jacques Glassner]], argues that from the beginning writing was more than just a managerial tool; it was also a method for recording concepts and language (i.e. Sumerian), because from its invention the signs did not only represent real objects (pictograms) but also ideas (ideograms), along with their associated sounds (phonograms). This theory presents writing as a radical conceptual change, resulting in a change in the way the world was perceived.<ref>{{harvsp|id=GLA|Glassner|2000|}} note pp. 180–215.</ref> From the beginning of writing, scribes wrote lexical lists on the edges of administrative documents. These were proper scholarly works, enabling them to explore the possibilities of the writing system in classifying signs according to their 'families', inventing new signs, and developing the writing system, but more generally they were also producing a classification of the things that constituted the world which they inhabited, improving their understanding of it. According to Glassner, this indicates that the invention of writing cannot be entirely linked with material considerations. The invention of such a system required reflection on the image and the different senses that a sign could bear, notably for representing the abstract.<ref>{{harvsp|id=GLA|Glassner|2000|pp=231–239}}</ref>

 

==== Religion ====

 

The best-attested figure in the tablets is the goddess designated by the sign <small>MÙŠ</small>, Inanna (later [[Ishtar]]), the great goddess of Uruk whose sanctuary was located in the Eanna.<ref>On this goddess in documents of the Uruk period, see the works of K. Szarzynska, "Offerings for the goddess Inana in archaic Uruk," ''Revue d'assyriologie et d'archéologie orientale'' 87/1 (1993) pp. 7–28 ; Ead., "The Cult of the Goddess Inanna in Archaic Uruk," ''NIN: Journal of Gender Studies in Antiquity'' 1 (2000) pp. 63–74</ref> The other great deity of Uruk, [[Anu]] (the Sky), seems to appear in some texts, but it is not certain because the sign that indicates him (a star) can also indicate divinities in a general sense (<small>DINGIR</small>). These gods received various offerings in everyday cult, but also in festival ceremonies like those in subsequent periods. The great vase of Uruk also seems to represent a procession bringing offerings to the goddess Inanna, whose symbol appears on the frieze.<ref name="benoit-208-211" /> The religious beliefs of the 4th millennium BC have been the object of debate: [[Thorkild Jacobsen]] saw a religion focused on gods linked to the cycle of nature and fertility, but this remains very speculative.<ref>T. Jacobsen, ''The Treasures of Darkness: A History of Mesopotamian Religion'', New Haven, 1976, pp. 23–73</ref>

==End of the Uruk period==

 

 

==See also==