Content deleted Content added
→Tell Brak: Tell Brak |
Ploversegg (talk | contribs) |
||
| (24 intermediate revisions by 11 users not shown) | |||
Line 8:
|region = [[Mesopotamia]]
|period = [[Chalcolithic|Copper Age]]
|dates =
|typesite = [[Uruk]]
|majorsites =
|extra =
|precededby = [[Ubaid period]]
|followedby = [[Jemdet Nasr period]]
}} The '''Uruk 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>
Line 34 ⟶ 35:
}}
The term "Uruk period" was coined at a conference in [[Baghdad]] in 1930, along with the preceding [[Ubaid period]] and following [[Jemdet Nasr period]].<ref name=matthews2002>{{citation |title=Secrets of the dark mound: Jemdet Nasr 1926–1928 |last=Matthews |first=Roger |year=2002 |publisher=BSAI |location=Warminster |isbn=0-85668-735-9 |series=Iraq Archaeological Reports |volume=6 }}</ref> The chronology of the Uruk period is highly debated and still very uncertain. It is known that it covered most of the 4th millennium BC. But there is no agreement on the date when it began or ended and the major breaks within the period are difficult to determine. This is due primarily to the fact that the original stratigraphy of the central quarter of Uruk is ancient and very unclear and the excavations of it were conducted in the 1930s, before many modern dating techniques existed. These problems are largely linked to the difficulty specialists have had establishing synchronisms between the different archaeological sites and a relative chronology, which would enable the development of a more reliable absolute chronology.
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.
Line 43 ⟶ 44:
===Jemdet Nasr period===
This phase of "Late Uruk" is followed by another phase (level III of Eanna) in which the Uruk civilization declined and a number of distinct local cultures developed throughout the Near East. This is generally known as the [[Jemdet Nasr period]], after the archaeological site of that name.<ref>U. Finkbeiner and W. Röllig, (ed.), ''Jamdat Nasr: period or regional style ?'', Wiesbaden, 1986</ref><ref name="matthews-55/4-196-203" /> Its exact nature is highly debated, and it is difficult to clearly distinguish its traits from those of the Uruk culture, so some scholars refer to it as the "Final Uruk" period instead. It lasted from around 3000 to
{{multiple image|perrow=2|total_width=300|caption_align=center
Line 62 ⟶ 63:
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'.
Some researchers have attempted to explain this final stage as the arrival of new populations of [[Ancient Semitic-speaking peoples|Semitic]] origin (the future [[Akkadians]]), but there is no conclusive proof of this.<ref>M.-J. Seux in {{harvsp|id=SDB|Sumer|1999–2002}}, col. 342–343</ref> In Lower Mesopotamia, the researchers identify this as the Jemdet Nasr period, which sees a shift to more concentrated habitation, undoubtedly accompanied by a reorganisation of power;<ref name="matthews-55/4-196-203" /><ref>B. Lafont in {{harvsp|id=SDB|Sumer|1999–2002}}, col. 135–137</ref> in southwestern [[Iran]], it is the [[Elam#Proto-Elamite (c. 3500 – c. 2700 BC)|Proto-Elamite]] period; [[Niniveh]] V in Upper Mesopotamia (which follows the Gawra culture); the "Scarlet Ware" culture in [[Diyala Governorate|Diyala]].<ref>{{harvsp|id=Huot|Huot|2004|pp=94–99}} ; {{harvsp|id=FOR|Forest|1996|pp=175–204}}</ref> In Lower Mesopotamia, the [[Early Dynastic Period (Mesopotamia)|Early Dynastic Period]] begins around the start of the 3rd millennium BC, during which this region again exerts considerable influence over its neighbours.
== Lower Mesopotamia ==
Line 68 ⟶ 69:
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.
This is the region of the Near East that was the most [[Agriculture in ancient Mesopotamia|agriculturally]] productive, as a result of an irrigation system which developed in the 4th millennium BC and focused on the cultivation of [[barley]] (along with the [[date palm]] and various other fruits and legumes) and the pasturing of [[sheep]] for their wool.<ref name=liveco/> Although it lacked mineral resources and was located in an arid area, it had undeniable geographic and environmental advantages: it consisted of a vast [[River delta|delta]], a flat region transected by waterways, resulting in a potentially vast area of
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>
Line 94 ⟶ 95:
</gallery>
The function of these buildings, which are unparalleled in their size and the fact that they are gathered in monumental groups, is debated. The excavators of the site wanted to see them as 'temples', influenced by the fact that in the historic period, the Eanna was the area dedicated to the goddess [[Inanna]] and the other sector was dedicated to the god An. This conformed to the theory of the 'temple-city' which was in vogue during the
=== Other sites in Lower Mesopotamia ===
Line 116 ⟶ 117:
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>
Further north, in the [[Zagros]], the site of [[Godin Tepe]] in the [[Kangavar]] valley is particularly important. Level V of this site belongs to the Uruk period. Remains have been uncovered of an ovoid wall, enclosing several buildings organised around a central court, with a large structure to the north which might be a public building. The material culture has some traits which are shared with that of Late Uruk and Susa II. Level V of Godin Tepe could be interpreted as an establishment of merchants from Susa and/or lower Mesopotamia, interested in the location of the site on commercial routes, especially those linked to the [[tin]] and [[lapis lazuli]] mines on the [[Iranian Plateau]] and in [[Afghanistan]].<ref>H. Weiss and T. Cuyler Young Jr., "Merchants of Susa: Godin V and plateau-lowland relations in the late Fourth Millennium B.C.," ''Iran'' 10 (1975) pp. 1–17</ref> Further east, the key site of [[Tepe Sialk]], near [[Kashan]], shows no clear evidence of links with the Uruk culture in its Level III, but [[beveled rim bowl]]s are found all the way out to Tepe Ghabristan in the [[Elbourz]]<ref>Y. Majidzadeh, "Sialk III and the Pottery Sequence at Tepe Ghabristan: The Coherence of the Cultures of the Central Iranian Plateau," ''Iran'' 19 (1981) p. 146</ref> and at
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>
Line 126 ⟶ 127:
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" />
Habuba Kabira is similar in many ways to the nearby site of
==== Tell Brak ====
Line 142 ⟶ 143:
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>
Further to the north, the site of [[Arslantepe]], located in the suburbs of [[Malatya]], is the most remarkable site of the period in eastern Anatolia. It has been excavated by M. Frangipane. During the first half of the 4th millennium BC, this site was dominated by a building called 'Temple C' by the excavators, which was built on a platform. It was abandoned around 3500 BC and replaced by a monumental complex which seems to have been the regional centre of power. The culture of Late Uruk had a discernible influence, which can be seen most clearly in the numerous sealings found on the site, many of which are in a south Mesopotamian style. Around 3000 BC, the site was destroyed by a fire. The monuments were not restored and the [[Kura–Araxes culture]] centred on the [[southern Caucasus]] became the dominant material culture on the site.<ref>M. Frangipane (ed.), ''Alle origini del potere : Arslantepe, la collina dei leoni'', Milan, 2004</ref> Further west, the site of {{interlanguage link|Tepecik Çiftlik|lt=Tepecik|de|Tepecik-Çiftlik|fr|Tepecik|tr|Tepecik – Çiftlik Höyüğü}} near [[Çiftlik, Niğde]] has also revealed pottery influenced by that of Uruk.<ref>Gil Stein (1998), [https://www.academia.edu/426459 “World Systems Theory and Alternative Modes of Interaction in the Archaeology of Culture Contact.”] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220615074308/https://www.academia.edu/426459 |date=2022-06-15 }} academia.edu</ref><ref>[https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=da3c52f476957287c28fa38ad955c3b212866933] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230326124734/https://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/document?repid=rep1&type=pdf&doi=da3c52f476957287c28fa38ad955c3b212866933
==
[[File:Uruk expansion.svg|thumb|upright=1.8|The 'Uruk expansion': sites representing the 'centre' and 'periphery'. Tell Sheikh Hassan settlement can be seen on this map to the upper left.]]
After the discovery in Syria of the sites at [[Habuba Kabira]] (see above) and
Tell Sheikh Hassan was located on the left (eastern) bank of the river, and it was founded during the Middle Uruk period. Later, during the earlier part of the Late Uruk period, Jebel Aruda, and Habuba Kabira-South, together with Tell Qanas right next to it, were founded on the opposite bank of the river.<ref>Sheikh Hassan is now partly submerged; the other 3 sites are completely submerged as a result of the modern dam construction. Three of these sites can be seen on the map in this section of the article.</ref> Together the last three comprised a much larger urban enclave (about 20–40 ha in extent) compared to Sheikh Hassan.<ref>{{cite book|editor1-last=Crawford|editor1-first= Harriet|editor-link=Harriet Crawford|last=Algaze|first=Guillermo|title=The Sumerian World|chapter=The End of Prehistory and The Uruk Period|year=2013|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4SKYAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT125|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-136-21912-2}} p.125</ref>
Later, questions arose about the relationship between Lower Mesopotamia and the neighbouring regions. The fact that the characteristics of the culture of the Uruk region are found across such a large territory (from northern Syria to the Iranian plateau), with Lower Mesopotamia as a clear centre, led the archaeologists who studied this period to see this phenomenon as an
Recent excavations have focused on sites outside Mesopotamia, as a 'periphery', and with an interest in how they related to the 'centre',
The main issue here is how to interpret the word ‘expansion’. Nobody really doubts that, for many centuries, there was a significant cultural influence of Uruk in the wide areas north and east of it. But was it really a ''political takeover'' of an area, which constitutes the more extreme colonization hypothesis? Or was it perhaps some sort of an infiltration by groups of Urukean or southern Mesopotamian people trying to farm suitable lands – perhaps even by some refugees fleeing growing political oppression and overcrowding at Uruk?<ref>D. T. Potts 2016, [https://books.google.com/books?id=WE62CgAAQBAJ&pg=PA64 The Archaeology of Elam: Formation and Transformation of an Ancient Iranian State.] Cambridge University Press. p.64. (also see the [https://www.academia.edu/42983124/ 1999 edition] of the same book at academia.edu)</ref>
[[Guillermo Algaze]] adopted the [[World-systems theory]] of [[Immanuel Wallerstein]] and theories of [[international trade]], elaborating the first model that sought to explain the Uruk civilization.<ref>Debate begun in G. Algaze, "The Uruk Expansion: Cross Cultural Exchange in Early Mesopotamian Civilization," ''Current Anthropology'' Volume 30/5 (1989) pp. 571–608 ; the theory was presented in a more complete fashion in Id., ''The Uruk World System : The Dynamics of Early Mesopotamian Civilization'', Chicago (1993, revised edition in 2005) and revised in Id., "The Prehistory of Imperialism: The case of Uruk Period Mesopotamia," M. S. Rothman (ed.), ''Uruk Mesopotamia and its neighbours : cross-cultural interactions in the era of state formation'', Santa Fe, 2001, pp. 27–85; see also {{harvsp|id=ALG|Algaze|2008|pp=68–73}}.</ref> In his view, which has met with some approval, but has also found many critics,<ref>{{harvsp|id=BUT|Butterlin|2003|pp=98–107}}</ref> the 'Urukians' created a collection of colonies outside Lower Mesopotamia, first in Upper Mesopotamia (Habuba Kabira and Jebel Aruda, as well as Nineveh, Tell Brak and Samsat to the north), then in Susiana and the Iranian plateau. For Algaze, the motivation of this activity is considered to be a form of economic imperialism: the elites of southern Mesopotamia wanted to obtain the numerous raw materials which were not available in the Tigris and Euphrates floodplains, and founded their colonies on nodal points which controlled a vast commercial network (although it remains impossible to determine what exactly was exchanged), settling them with refugees as in some models of [[Greek colonisation]]. The relations established between Lower Mesopotamia and the neighbouring regions were thus of an asymmetric kind. The inhabitants of Lower Mesopotamia had the advantage in the interactions with neighbouring regions as a result of the high productivity of their lands, which had allowed their region to "take off" (he speaks of "the Sumerian takeoff") resulting in both a [[comparative advantage]] and a [[competitive advantage]].<ref>G. Algaze, "Initial Social Complexity in Southwestern Asia: The Mesopotamian Advantage," ''Current Anthropology'' 42/2 (2001) pp. 199–233; {{harvsp|id=ALG|Algaze|2008|pp=40–63}}.</ref> They had the most developed state structures and were thus able to develop long-distance commercial links, exercise influence over their neighbours, and perhaps engage in military conquest.▼
Another hypothesis is perhaps the need to control valuable trading networks, and setting up the type of [[Karum (trade post)|Karum]] trading posts, which was done during an Old Assyrian period. These types of strategies did not involve the state authorities, as such, but was done by commercial trading houses.<ref>{{cite book|editor1-last=Crawford|editor1-first= Harriet|editor-link=Harriet Crawford|last=Algaze|first=Guillermo|title=The Sumerian World|chapter=The End of Prehistory and The Uruk Period|year=2013|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=4SKYAAAAQBAJ&pg=PT125|publisher=Routledge|isbn=978-1-136-21912-2}} p.126</ref>
▲[[Guillermo Algaze]] adopted the [[World-systems theory]] of [[Immanuel Wallerstein]] and theories of [[international trade]], elaborating the
{{multiple image|perrow=2|total_width=450|caption_align=center
Line 174 ⟶ 179:
[[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>]]
It might be added that an interpretation of the relations of this period as centre/periphery interaction, although often relevant in period, risks prejudicing researchers to see decisions in an asymmetric or diffusionist fashion, and this needs to be nuanced. Thus, it increasingly appears that the regions neighbouring Lower Mesopotamia did not wait for the Urukians in order to begin an advanced process of increasing social complexity or urbanisation, as the example of the large site of [[Tell Brak]] in Syria shows, which encourages us to imagine the phenomenon from a more 'symmetrical' angle.<ref name=buturb>{{harvsp|id=BUT|Butterlin|2003|pp=66–70}}</ref><ref name=brakurb>J. A. Ur, P. Karsgaard and J. Oates, "Early urban development in the Near East," ''Science'' 317/5842, (August 2007)</ref>
Indeed, at Tell Brak, we find that this city developed as an urban center slightly earlier than the better known cities of southern Mesopotamia, such as Uruk.<ref>{{cite book|title= A Companion to World History|editor1-first= Douglas|editor1-last=Northrop|first1= Norman|last1=Yoffee|chapter=Deep Pasts Interconnections and Comparative History in the Ancient World|chapter-url=https://books.google.com/books?id=l4oyAArnc_AC&pg=PT159|publisher=John Wiley & Sons |year=2015|orig-year=2012|isbn=978-1-118-30547-8}} p.159</ref>
==Egypt==
Line 253 ⟶ 260:
==== 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>]]
The Uruk period saw some settlements achieve a new importance and population density, as well as the development of monumental civic architecture. They reached a level where they can properly be called cities. This was accompanied by a number of social changes resulting in what can fairly be called an 'urban' society as distinct from the 'rural' society which provided food for the growing portion of the population that did not feed itself, although the relationship between the two groups and the views of the people of the time about this distinction remain difficult to discern.<ref>G. Emberling, "Urban Social Transformations and the Problem of the 'First City': New Research from Mesopotamia," M. L. Smith (ed.), ''The Social Construction of Ancient Cities'', Washington and London (2003), pp. 254–268</ref> This phenomenon was characterised by [[Gordon Childe]] at the beginning of the 1950s as an 'urban revolution', linked to the
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>
Line 307 ⟶ 314:
==End of the Uruk period==
Near the end of the 4th millennium, small settlements in the Uruk heartland were abandoned whilst the urban center increased in size. The [[Eanna]] precinct also underwent restructuring. Meanwhile, Uruk's influence declined in the [[northern Mesopotamia]], the rest of [[Syria (region)|Syria]] and [[Iran]].<ref name=":1" />
Some blame the collapse on the [[Piora Oscillation]], which was characterized by [[Climate change|decreased temperatures and increased rainfall]]<ref name=":0">Lamb, p. 128.</ref> <ref name=":1">{{Cite book |last=Radner |first=Karen |title=The Oxford History of the Ancient Near East: Volume I: From the Beginnings to Old Kingdom Egypt and the Dynasty of Akkad |last2=Moeller |first2=Nadine |last3=Potts |first3=D.T. |publisher=Oxford University Press |year=2020 |isbn=9780197521014 |pages=163}}</ref>.Others blame it on the intrusion of [[Kish civilization|East Semitic tribes]].<ref>{{cite book|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=g9F9NAaBquMC&pg=PA120|title= Approaching Chaos: Could an Ancient Archetype Save C21st Civilization?|author=Lucy Wyatt|page= 120|isbn= 9781846942556|date= 2010-01-16|publisher= John Hunt}}</ref>
Regardless, Uruk's legacy was preserved through the development of [[cuneiform]], which improved on Uruk writing systems, and the popularization of myths such as the [[Epic of Gilgamesh]]<ref name=":1" /> and the [[Genesis flood narrative|Great Flood]].<ref name=":0" />
==See also==
| |||