Chalcolithic Period in the Near East Topic 5 Uruk Period: Tributary economies, specialization, and the growth of dependent labor Uruk period: time of urbanization (Adams) • Childe and the “Urban Revolution” – urban centers have greater population size and density – emergence of full-time craft specialists • Adams focuses instead on process of urbanization and relationship between urban centers and their rural hinterlands – interdependence of urban and rural dwellers • Crucial importance of irrigation water for farming – Other areas well suited for grazing animals • Pastoralism/nomadism and farming/sedentism as complementary strategies • Exchange of specialized products between farmers and herders • Towns as nodal points: – facilitated exchange – storage of surplus – defense – religious ceremonies – organized long-distance trade Uruk period: time of state emergence (Wright, Johnson) • States as administrative systems – internally and externally specialized – managers to deal with overload of information • Functional hierarchy of sites: 3-tiered hierarchy • Differential distribution of seals and sealings – seals with elaborate figurative motifs and simple seals at Susa – only simple seals at the small village of Sharafabad – mostly ‘commodity’ sealings at Sharafabad, information-bearing items (bullae, tablets) sealed at Susa • Pottery production restricted to large sites in the Susiana Plain – in contrast to the Ubaid pattern of pottery production at almost all sites – pottery made by specialists • Administrators living in towns controlled production and exchange – control over corvée labor Specialization of production • Hans Nissen argues that production of pottery and seals were divisible into multiple parts – These parts could have been carried out by different people – Greater and more specialized division of labor improved efficiency – Also allowed more effective use of semior unskilled labor • Standard Professions List – among the earliest proto-cuneiform tablets – Lists approximately 100 different professions, in apparent hierarchical order – Including gardeners, bakers, cooks, jewelers, smiths, potters, etc. Control of labor • Labor important issue in agrarian societies – Having more labor means being able to produce more – More production allows more consumption, exchange – But why do people produce more than they need? • Examining labor archaeologically – In the Uruk period, argued to be possible – indirectly – due to the use of beveled rim bowls – Found in the thousands at many Uruk-period sites (mass-produced) – Often found unbroken – Not very attractive! – In (more or less) standard sizes Rations and Tribute • Beveled rim bowls (BRBs) as ration containers – to distribute set amounts of food to workers during labor service • Tribute – obligations in the form of services (labor) or goods – If beveled rim bowls delivered rations to laborers performing tribute, then the quantity of bowls is an indication of amount of tribute labor • In Early Uruk, BRBs found mostly in larger settlements – in Middle and Late Uruk, they increase vastly in quantities and are found in sites of all sizes • Would imply that demand for tribute labor initially affected people living in larger communities primarily, but later fell on people everywhere Tribute labor: what for? • Building projects – Labor to construct temples, city walls, and other public buildings • Military expeditions • Supplying goods for exchange • Agricultural activities – Preparing the land, sowing, and especially harvesting – Processing crops – Digging and maintaining irrigation canals • Textile production Tribute and food • Supplying larger settlements with adequate food – Presumably the larger a settlement, the larger the population – At some point there is not enough land in easy reach of a settlement to meet the food needs of residents • Usually suggested that farmers do not travel further than 5 km from their homes to their fields on a daily basis – Based on estimates of population size and land requirements to feed a person, we can then estimate whether larger sites could sustain themselves – Population: 100-200 people/ha – Land needed: 2 ha/person • Result: at least some of the larger Uruk sites could not be self-sustaining – Would therefore have been dependent on tribute exactions Textile production • From later (3rd millennium BCE) texts, we know that woolen textiles were major element of Mesopotamian economy • Indications that textile production was also important in Uruk period – Vast increase in proportions of faunal remains from sheep/goat – Depictions of spinning and weaving on seals • Much of the work in the textile industry seems to have been done by women Beer production • Also seems to have been a major industry – Proto-cuneiform texts mention up to 9 different kinds of beer and amounts up to 135,000 liters • Barley was the main ingredient – grows better than wheat in southern Mesopotamia, especially because of somewheat greater salt tolerance • Chemical analyses of pottery residues, for example from Godin Tepe in Iran, have revealed traces of beer Specialized production • Wright and Johnson, using data from the Susiana Plain, argued that essential kinds of craft production, such as pottery, were specialized, centralized and administered – Pottery made at a few sites (Susa, Chogha Mish, Abu Fanduweh) – Users of pottery had to obtain vessels from those workshops – Allowed centralized control of production and exchange – Affected settlement patterns, interaction among communities • Adams – Working in southern Mesopotamia – Specialization mainly function of ecology – Production in towns similar to villages • Plus some additional things: luxury goods Examining the evidence • Reanalysis of Adams’ survey data – To consider evidence for use of clay sickles, production and use of chipped stone tools, firing of ceramics • Tend to be found at most sites, regardless of size – Usually same amounts or more at larger sites – Implies greater participation in these productive activities by residents of larger sites – Opposite of what Wright and Johnson suggest • Abu Salabikh, Uruk Mound – Surface distributions of artifacts indicative of production and use – Ceramic wasters; chipped stone debitage; chipped stone tools; spindle whorls; etc. – Overall, differential degrees of participation, but little evidence of centralization • Important differences between Susiana and southern Mesopotamia Abu Salabikh, Uruk Mound Pottery wasters Chipped stone tools Labor-saving and labor-intensive activities • Growing tribute demands may have encouraged laborsaving forms of production – Wheel-thrown and mould-made pottery – Use of chaff temper: pottery dries more quickly – Bow drills to cut some seals • But other elements of production more labor-intensive – Wheel-thrown pottery requires more carefully prepared clay – Making multiple different vessel forms – Constructing monumental buildings – Some of these, such as monumental constructions, might have been ‘make work’ projects, to train and discipline a labor force Tributary economy • One based on mobilization of tribute, in the form of goods and labor – From producers to elite – Elite members of society often produce little or no of their material needs • Growing dependencies – Due to specialization – Dependence on tribute and sanctions (real or threatened) for not meeting tribute obligations • Changing conditions of labor – For many people labor took place increasingly in contexts of alienated labor – rather than in predominantly kin-based context • “Voting with the feet”