| Both sides previous revisionPrevious revisionNext revision | Previous revision |
| uruk_mod._warka [2011/12/13 17:21] – englund | uruk_mod._warka [2011/12/13 17:40] (current) – englund |
|---|
| In the Uruk IV phase, written documents come in three varieties: | In the Uruk IV phase, written documents come in three varieties: |
| |
| [[Image:P001183.jpg|left|75px|thumb|Uruk IV tag [http://cdli.ucla.edu/P001183 (P001183)]]](1) Clay “tags” with incised drawings that probably corresponded to the person receiving or selling the item(s) to which the tag was attached. | {{ http://static.cdli.ucla.edu/images/wiki/P001183.jpg?200}} |
| | (1) Clay “tags” with incised drawings that probably corresponded to the person receiving or selling the item(s) to which the tag was attached. |
| |
| [[Image:P000813.jpg|right|100px|thumb|Uruk IV tablet with multiple cases. The sum of the numerical signs is noted on the reverse. [http://cdli.ucla.edu/P000813 (P000813)]]](2) Small tablets that combine impressed rounded numerical signs with incised pictographs representing objects or personal names. | {{ http://static.cdli.ucla.edu/images/wiki/P000813.jpg?200}} |
| | (2) Small tablets that combine impressed rounded numerical signs with incised pictographs representing objects or personal names. |
| |
| (3) Larger tablets divided into sections, each containing impressions of numerical signs and incised pictographs representing objects or personal names. Sometimes, the numerical signs are added together and the total is incised on the back of the tablet. | (3) Larger tablets divided into sections, each containing impressions of numerical signs and incised pictographs representing objects or personal names. Sometimes, the numerical signs are added together and the total is incised on the back of the tablet. |
| It is important to note that the purpose of all of these early forms of writing, including the Uruk IV and Jemdet Nasr period texts, along with their precursors, was to record economic transactions. Writing itself developed out of a need to remember exchanges of large numbers of goods among the inhabitants of those cities whose population had increased throughout the Uruk period so that face-to-face contact was no longer the norm. It was a tool of economic administration, not a means to record literature, history, or sacred ideas. | It is important to note that the purpose of all of these early forms of writing, including the Uruk IV and Jemdet Nasr period texts, along with their precursors, was to record economic transactions. Writing itself developed out of a need to remember exchanges of large numbers of goods among the inhabitants of those cities whose population had increased throughout the Uruk period so that face-to-face contact was no longer the norm. It was a tool of economic administration, not a means to record literature, history, or sacred ideas. |
| |
| [[Image:P000744.jpg|left|75px|thumb|Small Uruk IV tablet [http://cdli.ucla.edu/P000744 (P000744)]]][[Image:p001972.jpg|left|100px|thumb|Uruk III (Jemdet Nasr) text showing numerical signs and commodity [http://cdli.ucla.edu/P001972 (P001972)]]]It took several centuries for the written language to develop so that it could represent the complexities of grammar and syntax. The earliest signs used in the Uruk texts, which were either pictographic representations of objects, symbols representing deities, abstract images, or numerical signs, eventually developed into the more abstract cuneiform signs characterized by horizontal and vertical wedges. In the Uruk IV and Jemdet Nasr phases, signs represented concepts or nouns, and perhaps simple verbs, but there is no grammatical relationship between those ideas represented on the texts. Sometimes signs were combined to form ideas related to both signs (such as the sign for disbursement which combines the sign for head with the sign for ration), and other times signs were combined to form words that sounded like those signs. In this way, signs which originally had a pictographically assigned meaning became associated with abstract concepts that sounded similar. For example, the Sumerian word for “life” is pronounced “til,” and the word for “arrow” is pronounced “ti.” In writing, the same sign, TI, is used for both ideas presumably because it is easier to draw an arrow than it is to draw the more abstract notion of life. | {{ http://static.cdli.ucla.edu/images/wiki/P000744.jpg?200}} |
| | |
| | {{ http://static.cdli.ucla.edu/images/wiki/P001972.jpg?200}} |
| | It took several centuries for the written language to develop so that it could represent the complexities of grammar and syntax. The earliest signs used in the Uruk texts, which were either pictographic representations of objects, symbols representing deities, abstract images, or numerical signs, eventually developed into the more abstract cuneiform signs characterized by horizontal and vertical wedges. In the Uruk IV and Jemdet Nasr phases, signs represented concepts or nouns, and perhaps simple verbs, but there is no grammatical relationship between those ideas represented on the texts. Sometimes signs were combined to form ideas related to both signs (such as the sign for disbursement which combines the sign for head with the sign for ration), and other times signs were combined to form words that sounded like those signs. In this way, signs which originally had a pictographically assigned meaning became associated with abstract concepts that sounded similar. For example, the Sumerian word for “life” is pronounced “til,” and the word for “arrow” is pronounced “ti.” In writing, the same sign, TI, is used for both ideas presumably because it is easier to draw an arrow than it is to draw the more abstract notion of life. |
| |
| Later, the TI sign might be combined with other signs, whose sounds would act as the syllables that make up a longer word. Although it is generally agreed that the language represented on the archaic texts is Sumerian, it is only once the syllabic function of the signs was applied that language could truly be represented in a permanent medium. | Later, the TI sign might be combined with other signs, whose sounds would act as the syllables that make up a longer word. Although it is generally agreed that the language represented on the archaic texts is Sumerian, it is only once the syllabic function of the signs was applied that language could truly be represented in a permanent medium. |
| |
| [[Image:development.jpg|right|300px|thumb|Development of cuneiform signs (from Nissen ''et al''. 1993)]][[Image:P005987.jpg|left|150px|thumb|ED I tablet [http://cdli.ucla.edu/P005987 (P005987)]]]The form of the signs also changed over time. Originally, pictographs were incised in clay using a sharp stylus. By the Jemdet Nasr phase, the sharp stylus was replaced by an angled stylus with a triangular tip. The result of pushing a stylus of this shape into wet clay is a wedge with a triangular shaped “head” and a long straight “tail.” The shape of these wedges provide the name we use for the writing system of Mesopotamia, “cuneiform,” Latin for wedge-shaped. As the use of the triangular stylus continued, the signs themselves became more and more abstracted into combinations of horizontal and vertical wedges that no longer bore much resemblance to their original forms. The range of sign forms used also decreased as the number of similar-looking signs reduced. | {{ http://static.cdli.ucla.edu/images/wiki/Development.jpg?400}} |
| | {{ http://static.cdli.ucla.edu/images/wiki/P005987.jpg?200}} |
| | The form of the signs also changed over time. Originally, pictographs were incised in clay using a sharp stylus. By the Jemdet Nasr phase, the sharp stylus was replaced by an angled stylus with a triangular tip. The result of pushing a stylus of this shape into wet clay is a wedge with a triangular shaped “head” and a long straight “tail.” The shape of these wedges provide the name we use for the writing system of Mesopotamia, “cuneiform,” Latin for wedge-shaped. As the use of the triangular stylus continued, the signs themselves became more and more abstracted into combinations of horizontal and vertical wedges that no longer bore much resemblance to their original forms. The range of sign forms used also decreased as the number of similar-looking signs reduced. |
| <br> | <br> |
| |
| The name Uruk is also applied to the archaeological period corresponding to the fourth millennium BC (Uruk levels VIII-IVa). Not only did the written documents appear in this period, but the Uruk period also saw the rise of the first cities, monumental art and complex political structures. Prior to the Uruk period, maps of settlement in southern Mesopotamia show several sites of a small size, mostly under 10 hectares (0.1 km<sup>2</sup>). These sites are evenly distributed over the landscape, and some may have been economic or religious centers. At the start of the Uruk period, the number and size of sites increased dramatically. Uruk itself swelled to 70 hectares (0.7 km<sup>2</sup>). The reasons for such an extraordinary change are unclear. There may have been a sudden influx of new population groups or favorable changes in climate, but the trend continued into the Late Uruk period. By the end of the Uruk period, the site of Uruk occupied about 100 hectares (1 km<sup>2</sup>), and more than half of the settled area of southern Mesopotamia was located in its vicinity. | The name Uruk is also applied to the archaeological period corresponding to the fourth millennium BC (Uruk levels VIII-IVa). Not only did the written documents appear in this period, but the Uruk period also saw the rise of the first cities, monumental art and complex political structures. Prior to the Uruk period, maps of settlement in southern Mesopotamia show several sites of a small size, mostly under 10 hectares (0.1 km<sup>2</sup>). These sites are evenly distributed over the landscape, and some may have been economic or religious centers. At the start of the Uruk period, the number and size of sites increased dramatically. Uruk itself swelled to 70 hectares (0.7 km<sup>2</sup>). The reasons for such an extraordinary change are unclear. There may have been a sudden influx of new population groups or favorable changes in climate, but the trend continued into the Late Uruk period. By the end of the Uruk period, the site of Uruk occupied about 100 hectares (1 km<sup>2</sup>), and more than half of the settled area of southern Mesopotamia was located in its vicinity. |
| |
| [[Image:seal1.jpg|left|thumb|Cylinder seal and impression showing ruler on a boat with icons symbolizing the goddess Inanna. (''ADFU'' 1, Plate 17)]][[Image:WarkaVase.jpg|right|200px|thumb|The Warka Vase. Note that the ruler is reconstructed from the preserved hem and train of his garment. (''ADFU'' 1, Plate 2)]]The rapid increase in the size of the settled area of Uruk meant that new developments in the social structure of society were inevitable. The archaic texts, cylinder seals and monumental art all provide information about these changes. In the cylinder seals and seal impressions on tablets of levels IV and III, a bearded figure wearing a netted skirt and hat appears in religious, agricultural, or military scenes. This figure is generally understood to represent the ruler of Uruk, whose role as priest, provider, and protector is emphasized. The same figure also appears on the Lion Hunt Stela,[[Image:seal2.jpg|left|thumb|Cylinder seal and impression showing ruler with vessels heaped with grain and the goddess Inanna or her preistess. (''ADFU'' 1, Plate 17)]] a basalt stone monument which shows him attacking lions with a spear and with a bow and arrow. On the Warka Vase, an alabaster vessel over a meter tall, he is depicted in relief presenting an offering to Inanna. Below him runs a row of naked servants or priests carry offerings, and below them is a row of domestic animals and a row of plants growing from a river. The remarkable vessel clearly shows the shared view of a social hierarchy, at the bottom of which were the plants an animals that sustained society, and at the top of which were the ruler and the god, who managed and distributed those staples. The Uruk period marks the first instance when these roles were expressed in figurative art, and this type of royal propaganda is a theme that continues in the millennia of Near Eastern history that follow. | {{ http://static.cdli.ucla.edu/images/wiki/seal1.jpg?400}} |
| | {{ http://static.cdli.ucla.edu/images/wiki/WarkaVase.jpg?400}} |
| | The rapid increase in the size of the settled area of Uruk meant that new developments in the social structure of society were inevitable. The archaic texts, cylinder seals and monumental art all provide information about these changes. In the cylinder seals and seal impressions on tablets of levels IV and III, a bearded figure wearing a netted skirt and hat appears in religious, agricultural, or military scenes. This figure is generally understood to represent the ruler of Uruk, whose role as priest, provider, and protector is emphasized. The same figure also appears on the Lion Hunt Stela,{{ http://static.cdli.ucla.edu/images/wiki/seal2.jpg?400}} a basalt stone monument which shows him attacking lions with a spear and with a bow and arrow. On the Warka Vase, an alabaster vessel over a meter tall, he is depicted in relief presenting an offering to Inanna. Below him runs a row of naked servants or priests carry offerings, and below them is a row of domestic animals and a row of plants growing from a river. The remarkable vessel clearly shows the shared view of a social hierarchy, at the bottom of which were the plants an animals that sustained society, and at the top of which were the ruler and the god, who managed and distributed those staples. The Uruk period marks the first instance when these roles were expressed in figurative art, and this type of royal propaganda is a theme that continues in the millennia of Near Eastern history that follow. |
| |
| The types of artifacts found in Uruk levels V-IVa have been found at sites from the same period throughout the entire Near East. The most easily recognizable identifier of this period is the bevelled-rim bowl, a crude, handmade, mass-produced ceramic type with a distinctive rim. This type of pottery has been found in fourth millennium sites in southwest Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Egypt. Other aspects of Uruk culture, such as the tripartite temple plan and niched and buttressed facades of the Eanna precinct buildings are found in northern and southern Mesopotamian contexts. Cylinder seals of a type that was developed in Uruk also spread throughout the Near East. The convergence of these artifact classes at sites outside of Uruk has prompted theories of the expansion of Uruk political control over Mesopotamia by the establishment of merchant colonies north and east of Uruk itself. Now archaeologists recognize the unique cultural development of northern Mesopotamia that can be seen at sites alongside or in place of Uruk culture, which suggests that the methods by which Uruk influence expanded are much more complicated than originally thought. There is no doubt, however, that the Uruk period, which saw innovations including writing, the cylinder seal, the plow, and wheeled vehicles constituted a crucial phase in the history of the Near East. | The types of artifacts found in Uruk levels V-IVa have been found at sites from the same period throughout the entire Near East. The most easily recognizable identifier of this period is the bevelled-rim bowl, a crude, handmade, mass-produced ceramic type with a distinctive rim. This type of pottery has been found in fourth millennium sites in southwest Iran, Syria, Turkey, and Egypt. Other aspects of Uruk culture, such as the tripartite temple plan and niched and buttressed facades of the Eanna precinct buildings are found in northern and southern Mesopotamian contexts. Cylinder seals of a type that was developed in Uruk also spread throughout the Near East. The convergence of these artifact classes at sites outside of Uruk has prompted theories of the expansion of Uruk political control over Mesopotamia by the establishment of merchant colonies north and east of Uruk itself. Now archaeologists recognize the unique cultural development of northern Mesopotamia that can be seen at sites alongside or in place of Uruk culture, which suggests that the methods by which Uruk influence expanded are much more complicated than originally thought. There is no doubt, however, that the Uruk period, which saw innovations including writing, the cylinder seal, the plow, and wheeled vehicles constituted a crucial phase in the history of the Near East. |
| == References == | == References == |
| |
| *''Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka.'' Berlin: Mann. 17 volumes. 1946-2001 | //Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka//. Berlin: Mann. 17 volumes. 1946-2001 |
| |
| *''Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, Endberichte'' Mainz: Philipp von Zabern GmbH. 25 volumes. 1987-2003. | //Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka, Endberichte//. Mainz: Philipp von Zabern GmbH. 25 volumes. 1987-2003. |
| |
| *Boehmer, R. M. "Uruk-Warka." In ''Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East,'' vol. 5, 294-298. New York: Oxford University, 1997. | Boehmer, R. M. Uruk-Warka In //Oxford Encyclopedia of Archaeology in the Near East,// vol. 5, 294-298. New York: Oxford University, 1997. |
| |
| *Crawford, H. ''Sumer and the Sumerians.'' Cambridge: Cambridge, 1991. | Crawford, H. //Sumer and the Sumerians.// Cambridge: Cambridge, 1991. |
| |
| *Englund, R. K. "Texts From the Late Uruk Period." In ''Mesopotamien 1: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit.'' OBO 160, 15-233. Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. | Englund, R. K. Texts From the Late Uruk Period In //Mesopotamien 1: Späturuk-Zeit und Frühdynastische Zeit. OBO// 160, 15-233. Freiburg and Göttingen: Universitätsverlag and Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1998. |
| |
| *Nissen, H., P. Damerow, and R. K. Englund. ''Archaic Bookkeeping: Writing and Techniques of Economic Administration in the Ancient Near East.'' P. Larsen, trans. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1993 | Nissen, H., P. Damerow, and R. K. Englund. //Archaic Bookkeeping: Writing and Techniques of Economic Administration in the Ancient Near East.// P. Larsen, trans. Chicago: University of Chicago, 1993 |
| |
| *Postgate, J. N. ''Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History.'' London: Routledge, 1992. | Postgate, J. N. //Early Mesopotamia: Society and Economy at the Dawn of History.// London: Routledge, 1992. |
| |
| *Roaf, M. ''The Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East.'' Oxford and New York: Facts on File, 1990. | Roaf, M. //The Cultural Atlas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near East.// Oxford and New York: Facts on File, 1990. |
| |
| [[Site Descriptions]] | [[Site Descriptions]] |
| |
