Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 7 (2016) 900–904

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jasrep

The Uruk Expansion and Beyond: Archaeometric and Social Perspectives

on Exchange in the IVth Millennium BCE
Henry T. Wright
The University of Michigan and the Santa Fe Institute

a r t i c l e i n f o a b s t r a c t

Article history: This review of papers on the contribution of archaeometry to the understanding of the Uruk Expansion shows
Received 21 April 2016 that there is very little evidence for the exchange of pottery among the widely scattered Uruk settlement enclaves
Accepted 22 April 2016 of IVth millennium Mesopotamia or the similarly scattered settlements of the later Proto-Elamite expansion. The
Available online 27 May 2016
limited evidence of the transport of ceramics indicates that only a few examples of a few forms were carried to
distant places. The widespread similarities of ceramics in the Uruk world and it successor seem more likely to
Ancient Near East
have been created by itinerant potters than by the transport of pots. Likewise, the wide similarity of both Uruk
Uruk and Proto-Elamite administrative technology such as numerical counters and tablets, seals, and sealings seems
Proto-Elamite to be a result of itinerant officials, who with few exceptions recorded and sealed on local clays. Where we have
ceramic provenance some indication of what was administered, as at Godin and Yahya, it seems to be small scale and local production,
bitumen rather than long-range exchange. However, some materials, most definitely bitumen, were moved in substantial
seals and sealings amounts over hundreds of kilometers. However, we do not yet have any direct evidence of how such distant ma-
terial transport was administered or regulated.
© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

1. Cultural Dynamics in the Uruk World and Beyond Helwing, 2013; Petrie, 2015) in a seemingly rapid expansion similar in
scale to the Uruk Expansion. This expansion has also been explained in
By the middle of the IVth millennium BCE, the distinctive Uruk ar- terms of the procurement of raw materials. However, the displacement
chitecture, ceramics, seals and sealings, and other technologies were of Uruk sites from the Southern Zagros and the establishment of Proto-
widely used in Lower Mesopotamia and the nearby plains in the pied- Elamite sites nearby (Wright, 1987, 2013) argue for population move-
mont of the Zagros Mountains to the north and east. During the span ments or even conflicts and political expansion.
from 3600 to 3100 BCE, these material elements appeared in regions As current conditions in the Near East severely limit fieldwork, we
distant from this homeland. Assembling the scattered qualitative evi- have time to think about the evidence recovered during the past half
dence of early to mid-20th century excavations, Algaze (1989, 1993) century and to consider new ideas about the economic and political or-
explained this in terms of an “Uruk Expansion”, which, he argued, ganization of the earliest Mesopotamian states, using new analytical ap-
could be understood as a network of Uruk colonies and outposts in proaches on extant material in museums to evaluate some of the many
Upper Mesopotamia and beyond, emplaced to facilitate the procure- propositions regarding the “Uruk expansion”. Archaeometric ap-
ment of material resources. This seminal work inspired much additional proaches have greatly improved in recent years, and some methods
research and argument (Rothman, 2001; Postgate, 2002), and many dif- now available were not even dreamed of when the fieldwork was
ferent propositions involving more balanced patterns of trade (Stein, done. Minc (2016–in this volume) provides a very useful summary of
1999), conflict and the movement of refugees (Johnson, 1988-89) and the state of analytical approaches in her paper on provenance determi-
other processes that might have driven the long history of Uruk involve- nations, which is supplemented in the discussions by Sanjurjo Sánchez
ment in lands far from Lower Mesopotamia (see the brief review in et al. (2016–in this volume); Mutin et al. (2016–in this volume), and
Emberling and Minc, 2016–in this volume). Schwartz and Hollander (2016–in this volume). These discussions
What is termed the “Proto-Elamite” phenomenon developed in the stand on their own and should be read in their entirety. I focus my com-
high valleys of the Southern Zagros during the mid-IVth Millennium ments on the substantive results of the use of new perspectives and
BCE (Alden, 1979, 1982, 2013). At the end of the IVth millennium, the dis- methods on materials of the Uruk and Proto-Elamite expansions. I first
tinctive architecture, ceramics, writing, administrative artifacts, and other discuss the contributions on single sites or small areas, the building
technologies of this cultural phenomenon appear to the northwest, north- blocks of trans-regional systems; I then discuss the studies of larger
east and southeast of the southern highlands of Iran (Desset, 2011; samples from many sites in different regions.

2352-409X/© 2016 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
H.T. Wright / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 7 (2016) 900–904 901

2. Establishing Local Baselines in Ceramic Archaeometry resources such as chlorite schist (Lamberg-Karlovsky, 1972). A variety of
evidence indicates this phase of occupation lasts from only 3100 and
Archaeology is fundamentally local. Without solid studies of locali- 2900 BCE. Subsequent detailed analyses, summarized in a key monograph
ties, sites, and particular classes of artifacts, studies of far-ranging rela- (Mutin, 2013; Potts, 2001), and much important work in adjacent areas,
tions and trans-regional processes are unconvincing. This volume have confirmed many aspects of this early paper, but show that mineral
presents four local studies, three of which (Humeida, Godin, and resource procurement and processing was a minor endeavor at this
Yahya) focus on particular sites in context and two of which focus on time. Both the Proto-Elamite tablets (Damerow and Englund, 1989) and
key classes of artifacts (beveled rim bowls from Tell Humeida and near- the artifactual remains indicate that local farming and herding were the
by sites, and ring scrapers from Tal-i Kureh and related sites). primary focus of the community during this period. The study of Mutin
In the Middle Euphrates region, several Uruk sites have been investi- et al. (2016–in this volume) of a large sample of Yahya IVC sherds (as
gated by Syrian, Spanish, and French teams. A large assemblage of beveled well as mid-third millennium Yahya IVB ceramics, not of concern in this
rim bowls from Tell Humeida date between 3800 and 3500 BCE during review), shows that most of the “Proto-Elamite”-related IVC vessels, in-
Middle Uruk times; a similar assemblage is known from Tell Ramadi far- cluding grit-tempered plain ad painted jars and bowls, as well as fiber-
ther downstream. Like the great majority of beveled rim bowls, these are tempered beveled rim bowls and trays, were made of clays found near
made from a vegetal-tempered clay similar to those used for mud bricks, the site. The fiber-tempered forms, shared with Uruk assemblages, are
using a simple press-molding technique, and fired at a low temperature; thought to have been used for a particular cuisine, perhaps bread-
their uses are discussed below. The fragility of this common form suggests making (Potts, 2009; Goulder, 2010). In contrast, a number of grit-
that they were made not far from where they were broken, and would tempered vessels with stylistically local painted designs have clays appar-
therefore be useful indicators of local clays. The Middle Euphrates bowls ently from nearby valleys in Kerman. Finally, a few vessels with visually
were intensively studied by the Spanish-Portuguese team of Sanjurjo distinctive fabrics and painted design are made with clays from the
Sánchez et al. (2016–in this volume). After a relatively detailed presenta- lower arid basins of Seistan and Baluchistan to the south and east of Ker-
tion of the difficulties and results of various different analytical methods, man. None of the analyzed sherds were made from clays known to orig-
which account for the few significant elemental differences between the inate in the Southern Zagros to the west, and specifically not from the
geochemical compositions of the bowls, they conclude that the clays clays of the relatively well known Kur River Basin with its major Proto-
used to make these bowls were very similar in sites stretched along Elamite center of Malyan. In addition, the sherds of the burnished ware
170 km of the Euphrates Valley. The authors suggest two possible expla- typical of Northern Iran found at Yahya are made of locally available
nations for this homogeneity: either one settlement using one clay source clays. This suggests that potters from distant regions came to Kerman
may be producing the bowls for the others, or alternatively, each settle- and made their characteristic products on site. As with Godin, while the
ment may be producing its own bowls, but the sediments of the Euphra- ceramic fabrics do not inform us about whether either intra-regional pro-
tes alluvium may be particularly homogenous. This possibility is curement of vessels among the valleys of Kerman or the limited transport
supported by another paper in this volume, in which it was noted that from Baluchistan to Susiana was institutionally mediated, they clearly
the ceramics of Jebel Aruda are quite similar to those of the Lower Euphra- show that intra-regional transport was limited and inter-regional trans-
tes alluvium (Emberling and Minc, 2016–in this volume). The Spanish port was uncommon.
team proposes a method of determining sources of Euphrates clays One local study takes advantage of the fact that Uruk and Proto-
using clasts of materials from rocks brought by different tributaries enter- Elamite potters used a distinctive tool made of clay. In an insightful
ing the river. Clearly more fieldwork on available raw materials is needed, paper, John Alden (1988) demonstrated that small ceramic rings wide-
when that is possible. spread in the Uruk Period were used to scrape excess clay from the inte-
Godin Tepe was initially presented as a “colony” of lowland mer- riors and exteriors of leather-hard vessels, thus thinning them down
chants on the “high road” threading between the Central and Northern before firing. These would be made by potters with clays found near
Zagros to connect Mesopotamia with the resource-rich Iranian Plateau their workshops, but might be carried to other localities by itinerant pot-
(Weiss and Young, 1975). The oval compound on the high point of the ters, as documented for ethnographic potters in Afghanistan (Matson,
local town dates from about 3300 to 3100 BCE, firmly in the Late Uruk 1965) and suggested for early Kerman-area potters of burnished ware
Period. It yielded discarded ceramics with affinities to local traditions by Mutin et al. (2016–in this volume). Archaeometric studies of Kur
of the Central Zagros, lowland Uruk traditions, and traditions elsewhere River Basin clays and ceramics were initiated several decades ago by
in the Iranian plateau and perhaps even in Anatolia. Decades of careful Blackman (1981), and have recently been expanded with additional char-
restudy of many aspects of the Godin evidence, summarized in an out- acterizations by Minc (Alden and Minc, in preparation.). Geochemical
standing final report (Gopnik and Rothman, 2011), have expanded characterization of rings from the one area with a larger sample from a
this understanding. The detailed ceramic studies presented by Gopnik workshop site—Early Proto-Elamite Tal-e Kureh in the Kur River Basin
et al. (2016–in this volume) show that Godin was a small center in a val- in the southern Zagros—and examples from other sites, including a possi-
ley of the Zagros concerned primarily with local production and con- ble Uruk production site on the Susiana Plain, was undertaken to test
sumption and secondarily with mediating the movement of goods these ideas (Alden and Minc, 2016–in this volume). The geochemistry
between Zagros valleys. This is supported by the numerical tablets, shows that the ring scrapers on production sites were made from diverse
which use a numbering system commonly used for recording amounts clays, rarely the local clays used for pottery production at the site. This im-
of presumably local grain (Englund, 2006, 26; Hallo, 2011, 116-118). plies that some Uruk and Early Proto-Elamite potters were itinerant
The ceramics are almost exclusively made from clays local to Godin or (Wright, 2001). As we turn now from local studies to studies of the
from nearby valleys with a similar geology. Even the ubiquitous beveled trans-regional movement of ceramics and other materials, we need to
rim bowl, thought by Godin researchers to be used for serving liquid ra- keep in mind that it may often have been craft workers rather than craft
tions to workers, are locally made. Only one vessel definitely came from products that moved.
the lowlands: a large jar from the area of Susa. While the ceramic fabrics
do not inform us about whether either intra-regional procurement of ves- 3. Using Archaeometry to Assess Trans-regional Relations in Greater
sels among the Zagros valleys or the limited contact with Susiana was in- Mesopotamia
stitutionally mediated, they clearly show that intra-regional transport
was limited and inter-regional transport was rare. Having developed an understanding of local variability in Uruk and
Tepe Yahya IVC was initially presented as a distant outpost of the Post- Proto-Elamite ceramics, one can now consider broader relations and is-
Uruk Proto-Elamite civilization in a high mountain valley of southeastern sues relevant to hypotheses about the Uruk expansion and the subse-
Iran in Kerman province, close to sources of widely traded scarce quent Proto-Elamite expansion. This can be done by examining a wide
902 H.T. Wright / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 7 (2016) 900–904

range of ceramics from all the component regions of Greater Mesopota- We owe our understanding of ancient bitumen exploitation to
mia and the Iranian Plateau. Fortunately, ceramics from a variety of sur- the curiosity of petroleum chemists concerning the early history of their
veys and excavations are available in museums and research institutes material (Forbes, 1936; Marschner et al., 1978; Connan and Deschesne,
in regions far from the conflicts of the Near East today. It was possible 1992) and to the improved characterization of petroleum sources in gen-
to initiate a comprehensive overview study of Uruk ceramics using the eral, motivated by the need to identify modern petroleum spills near
most developed methods in Oregon State University’s archaeometry re- coastlines, ports, and sea lanes. Fortunately, bitumen has been found on
search center (Emberling and Minc, 2016–in this volume). Knowing, many sites of the Uruk Period. Because bitumen can be re-cycled, mixing
given the site-focused studies exemplified above, that local ceramics material from several sources, and because it can be altered by
constituted a substantial proportion of any settlements repertoire of weathering, source identification is not easy. However, building on
vessels, Emberling selected sherds representing a limited set of stylisti- these earlier studies, Schwartz and Hollander (2016–in this volume)
cally distinctive Uruk vessels often said to be ‘identical’ to those from have undertaken a study of Uruk bitumen transport. They undertook
Lower Mesopotamia. If any vessels were transported between regions, “whole sample bulk isotope studies” which can broadly differentiate
it would be these. The archaeometric evidence is complex, but after “southern” or Lower Mesopotamian sources (including both Hit on the
due consideration, the authors report limited evidence of transport. Middle Euphrates and the geographically distant southwest Iranian
There are no definite imported exotics among the 198 sherds analyzed sources) from “northern” or Upper Mesopotamian sources (including
from the Susiana Plain (Ghazal et al., 2008 and reexamined here). sources near Kirkuk and probably other sources in the Middle Tigris re-
There is only one possible import of uncertain origin among 90 exam- gion). Their best-dated Uruk samples are from northwestern or Upper
ined sherds from Lower Mesopotamia. There are only four possible im- Mesopotamia. The uses of bitumen attested in this region are as cakes
ports among 88 examined sherds from the Middle Euphrates, of which or ingots prepared for transport, adhesives for tools such as the fixing of
one is an incised jar fragment probably from Lower Mesopotamia; and sickle blades and other tools into hafts, and for the waterproofing of
three are of unknown origins, perhaps from farther west in the Levant. reed bundle boats. Many kilograms of bitumen are found discarded at
The more interesting results relate to Lower Mesopotamia, Nineveh some sites. Schwartz and Hollander observe that sites of the local Late
in the Middle Tigris, and Tell Brak in the Khabur valley, a tributary of the Chalcolithic (ca. 4000-3700 BCE, i.e., before Uruk contacts) use bitumen
Middle Euphrates. Among the 33 sherds examined from Nineveh, three from the Middle Tigris, while sites of the period of Middle Uruk contact
small four-lug jars are from Lower Mesopotamia and one is from Brak. use mostly Lower Mesopotamian sources (probably from Hit on the Mid-
Among the 95 sherds examined from Brak, two are imported, one a dle Euphrates). Late Uruk sites (ca. 3300-3100 BCE) in Upper Mesopota-
small cross-hatched incised jar from Nineveh and the other a bottle mia return to Kirkuk and other sources in Upper Mesopotamia. Note
base perhaps from Lower Mesopotamia. Considering that these exam- that some of these sites and sources are only a few hundred kilometers
ined sherds were selected to emphasize types that might be exported, apart, and this massive transport of an important technological material
even this reciprocal distribution through the rich plains at the foot of is properly ‘intraregional’ or ‘interregional’, but not demonstrably trans-
the Zagros and Anti-Taurus—which textual evidence shows was a regional. The report of stacks of cakes of matt-impressed bitumen from
major transport route from the Late IIIrd millennium BCE until Hellenis- a storeroom at Middle Uruk Sheikh Hassan (Boese, 1995) indicates insti-
tic times—cannot be taken to indicate a major exchange. These small tutional control, but nothing about how the movement was mediated.
jars and bottles could have carried precious commodities, but they Thus far, this overview has dealt with objects such as ceramics and
could as well have been the household possessions of families, groups, bitumen, which might provide indices of social and economic inter-
or official entourages moving between regions. It is worth noting that course. More than once there has been cause to remark that though
the bottles and incised jars in question do appear in Uruk representa- there is some evidence for transport, there is none for how the move-
tions of rituals (Heinrich, 1936: Tafel 2 right, 38; Lindemeyer and ment of people and goods could have been mediated or regulated. We
Martin, 1993: Tafel 9, 24), and could have been viewed as necessary do, however, have classes of artifacts that were used in control activities.
for cultic observances in the Uruk world. Thanks to a long and fruitful collaboration between art historians and
One might dismiss the limited evidence of Uruk pottery transport by archaeometricians, we can consider trans-regional variability in Uruk
asserting that one would not expect fragile ceramic vessels to be Administrative technology. In a paper which draws together many
transported anyway, that the stylistic similarities could better be ex- strands of evidence (Pittman and Blackman, 2016–in this volume) we
plained by the movement of potters. It is therefore important to look are given evidence to begin answering questions about social and eco-
at other materials. This is not as easy as it seems. One needs a material nomic mediation. The paper begins with a clear summary of Uruk
from known sources, exhibiting distinctive chemical or physical attri- seals and their iconography and the uses to which seals were put.
butes commonly preserved on archaeological sites, and commonly Then previously published work on local assemblages of seals and
retained in archaeological collections. Obsidian, a felsic volcanic glass sealings which have both iconographic and archaeometric studies is
formed in lava flows, is such a material and it is no accident that it summarized. This includes both pre-Uruk local Late Chalcolithic sealing
was the first material studied with quantitative archaeometry in order assemblages from Tepe Gawra and Hacınebi in Upper Mesopotamia
to document long-range procurement in the Near East (Renfrew and (Rothman, 2002), and post-Uruk Proto-Elamite sealings from Malyan
Dixon, 1976). Alas, obsidian was not commonly transported outside of in the Kur River Basin in the southern Zagros and Susa in lowland south-
its Anatolian and Caucasian source regions after the poorly known western Iran (Pittman, 2013) and the large sample of mostly local Post-
Early Uruk Period. Flints, which were transported, are common and lo- Uruk seals and sealings from Arslantepe in the Upper Euphrates valley
cally highly variable (Wright, 2000), and the immense task of source in the Anti-Taurus mountains (Frangipane, 2007). Of greater relevance
characterization in the Near East has only begun (Borrell, 2010). The to the present concern is the small Late Uruk sealing assemblage from
materials of stone bowls, such as calcites (including marbles), gypsums Hacınebi of only nine sealings which had a homogenous Uruk style
(including alabasters) and sandstones, are also common and difficult to with close iconographic relations to Susa. These seals are mostly
source. Other stones are rare in Uruk sites. Metals, particularly copper or impressed on local clays, but a few were on Susiana Plain clays, includ-
copper alloys (Helwing, 2013; Vatandoust et al., 2011) and silver, were ing sealings on small jars or bottles, medium-sized jars, and a clay tablet
first widely smelted and transported during the Uruk Period, but were or docket without numbers. After these summaries, new evidence from
commonly re-cycled and are therefore rare in the archaeological sites. Tell Brak is presented in detail. Thirty-five sealings were studied, all of
In addition, their sources were often heavily exploited in later periods which share a generalized Late Uruk iconography that shows no specific
and their original ores are difficult to characterize. One material that affiliation with other sites. Of these, neutron activation analysis shows
can be studied and sourced is bitumen, which seeped to the surface in that eight are from outside the region, but have not yet been linked to
several parts of Greater Mesopotamia. any center in Lower Mesopotamia. Thus the Brak sealing assemblage
H.T. Wright / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 7 (2016) 900–904 903

has a similar minor but significant component of exotic clays like that processes. Because complex societies manifest many different kinds of ex-
from Hacınebi, but we cannot say more without making geo-chemical change, with the same people engaging in different kinds of exchange
or stylistic linkages to Mesopotamian sites as Pittman and Blackman from day-to-day, and because such constructs will necessarily involve so-
(2016–in this volume) have done for Hacınebi. In general, all of the cial movement and conflicts as well as exchange, they will necessarily be
Upper Mesopotamian Uruk sealing assemblages appear to be predomi- agent-based models involving many actors in complex spatial and tempo-
nantly on local clays and used to seal relatively small vessels, baskets, ral frameworks. The construction and testing of such models is difficult
etc., indicating that the sealing technology was used primarily to control but manifestly worthwhile (Wilkinson et al., 2007, 2013).
local transactions and local storage.

4. Summary and Future Directions References

Alden, J.R., 1979. Regional economic organization in Banesh Period Iran (Doctoral disser-
This synthesis of the papers in the Uruk Expansion special issue tation) Department of Anthropology, University of Michigan.
Alden, J.R., 1982. Trade and politics in Proto-Elamite Iran. Curr. Anthropol. 23 (6),
shows that there is very little evidence for the exchange of pottery
among the widely scattered Uruk settlement enclaves of IVth millenni- Alden, J.R., 1988. Ceramic ring scrapers: an Uruk period pottery production tool.
um Mesopotamia or the similarly scattered settlements of the later Paléorient 14 (1), 143–150.
Proto-Elamite expansion. The limited evidence of the transport of ce- Alden, J.R., 2013. In: Petrie, C.A. (Ed.), The Kur River Basin in the Proto-Elamite
era—surface survey, settlement patterns, and the appearance of full-time transhu-
ramics indicates that only a few examples of a few forms were carried mant pastoral nomadismAncient Iran and its Neighbours: Local Developments and
to distant places. The widespread similarities of ceramics in the Uruk Long-range Interactions in the Fourth Millennium BC 3. British Institute of Persian
world seem more likely to have been created by itinerant potters than Studies Archaeological Monographs, Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 207–232.
Alden, J.R., Minc, L., 2016. Itinerant potters and the transmission of ceramic technol-
by the transport of pots, just as the wide similarity of both Uruk and ogies and styles during the Proto-Elamite period in Iran. J. Archaeol. Sci. 7,
Proto-Elamite administrative technology (such as numerical counters 863–876 (in this volume).
and tablets, seals, and sealings) seems to be a result of itinerant officials, Alden, J.R., Minc, L., 2016. Milieus of production: regional diversity in ceramic production
from 3500 to 1000 BC in the Kur River Basin of Fars Province, Iran (Ms. in preparation).
who with few exceptions recorded and sealed on local clays. Where we Algaze, G., 1989. The Uruk expansion: Cross-cultural exchange in early Mesopotamian
have some indication of what was administered, as at Godin and Yahya, civilization. Curr. Anthropol. 30 (5), 571–608.
it seems to be small scale and local production, rather than long-range Algaze, G., 1989. The Uruk World System. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Alizadeh, A., 2008. Chogha Mish II: The Development of a Prehistoric Regional Center in
exchange. However, some materials, most definitely bitumen, were
Lowland Susiana. Southwestern Iran: Final Report on the Last Six Seasons of Excava-
moved in substantial amounts over hundreds of kilometers. No doubt tions, 1972-1978Oriental Institute Publication 130. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
other material such as stones and metals were similarly transported. Blackman, M.J., 1981. The mineralogical and chemical analysis of Banesh Period ceramics
from Tal-e Malyan, Iran. In: Hughes, M.J. (Ed.), Scientific Studies in Ancient Ceramics.
However, we do not yet have any direct evidence of how such material
British Museum, London, pp. 7–20.
transport was administered or regulated. Boese, J., 1995. Ausgrabungen in Tell Sheikh Hassan. Saarbrücken, Saarbrücker Verlag.
Without doubt there are additional steps to be taken that will ampli- Borrell, F., 2010. Characterizing flint outcrops in secondary position. A study case: the Eu-
fy the strong contributions presented in these papers. phrates terraces and their exploitation during the 8th-7th millennia cal BC. In: H.,
Alarashi, Chambrade, M.L., Gondet, S., Jouvenel, A., Sauvage, C., Tronchère, H. (Eds.),
First, more local baseline studies are needed across the ancient Near Regards croisés sur l’étude archéologique des paysages anciens. Nouvelles recherches
East. For some Uruk sites, samples are available and some have already dans le Bassin méditerranéen, en Asie centrale et au Proche et au Moyen-Orient.
been archaeometrically characterized but not published. One would Travaux de la Maison de l'Orient méditerranéen 56, pp. 117–128.
Connan, J., Deschesne, O., 1992. Archaeological bitumen: identification, origins and uses of
need to assemble the data, perhaps do some supplementary analyses, an ancient Near Eastern material. In: Druzik, J.R., Freestone, I.C., Vandiver, P.B.,
and write them up. Among these are Sharafabad, a small village on the Wheeler, G.S. (Eds.), Materials Issues in Art and Archaeology III. Materials Research
Susiana Plain (Wright et al., 1980, 1989); Chogha Mish, a large town Society Symposia Proceedings 267, pp. 683–720.
Crawford, H.E.W., 1973. Mesopotamia's invisible exports in the third millennium BC.
on the Susiana Plain (Delougaz and Kantor, 1996; Alizadeh, 2008), and World Archaeol. 5 (2), 232–241.
Jebel Aruda, a small town in the Middle Euphrates (van Driel and van Damerow, P., Englund, R.K., 1989. The Proto-Elamite Texts from Tepe Yahya. American
Driel-Murray, 1979). For others, substantial samples are available in School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 39. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Eth-
nology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA.
museums, but require archaeometric study. Among these are Uruk itself Delougaz, P., Kantor, H.J., 1996. Chogha Mish I: The First Five Seasons of Excavations
in Lower Mesopotamia, the new sites recently excavated in the 1961-1971. Oriental Institute Publication 101. Oriental Institute of the University of
Sulaimaniyya and Erbil plains in the northern Zagros front ranges, and Chicago, Chicago.
Desset, F., 2011. Éléments d’archéologie du plateau iranien, de la 2ème moitié du 4ème
Habuba Kabira in the Middle Euphrates. Unfortunately, some site collec-
millénaire au debut du 2ème millénaire av. J.-C. (ca. 3500-1800 av. J.-C.). Thèse de
tions turned over to Museums (such as Hassek Höyük in the Upper Eu- doctorat d’archéologie, Paris: Université Paris I: Panthéon-Sorbonne UFR 03 –
phrates and many collections in Syrian provincial museums) probably Histoire de l’art et archéologie.
have been largely destroyed. Emberling, G., Minc, L., 2016. Ceramics and long-distance trade in early Mesopotamian
states. J. Archaeol. Sci. 7, 819–834 (in this volume).
Second, additional material studies need to be done and durable ma- Englund, R.K., 2006. An examination of the "textual" witnesses to Late Uruk world sys-
terials previously studied need to be re-examined. Schwartz and tems. In: Yushu, Gong, Yiyi, Chen (Eds.), Oriental Studies 2006: Special Issue of Orien-
Hollander (2016–in this volume) have already noted the need to tal Studies: A Collection of Papers on Ancient Civilizations of Western Asia. Asia
Minor and North Africa. Peking University, Beijing, pp. 1–39.
apply more advanced methods to bitumen analysis. New methods are Forbes, R.J., 1936. Bitumen and petroleum in antiquity. E.J. Brill, Leiden.
being developed to track the life histories of animals such as sheep, cat- Cretulae–An Early Centralised Administrative System Before Writing. In: Frangipane, M.
tle, and equids through archaeometric study of animal bones. Materials (Ed.), Arslantepe: Risultati dell richerche e scavi della Missione Archeologica Italiana
nell'Anatolia Orientale 5. Visceglia, Rome.
such as flint, copper, and silver require new initiatives to improve Ghazal, R., Kouchoukos, N., Speakman, R., Glascock, M., Descantes, C., 2008. Production
methods and apply them to mterial in museums. zone sourcing and intra-regional exchange of ceramics in the fourth millennium BC
Third, we need new approaches to tracking the seemingly ‘invisible’ Susiana Plain: an INAA case study, Appendix I. In: Alizadeh, A. (Ed.), Chogha Mish
II: The Development of a Prehistoric Regional Center in Southwestern Iran: Final Re-
materials (Crawford, 1973). Residues of oils, honey, and lipids in vessels port on the Last Six Seasons of Excavations, 1972–1978Oriental Institute Publication
require new samples carefully curated. Fiber and fabrics can be studied 130. Oriental Institute, Chicago, pp. 93–152.
with impressions, but surviving organic molecules must exist, and may Gopnik, H., Rothman, M.S., 2011. On the High Road: the history of Godin Tepe, Iran. Royal
Ontario Museum, Toronto.
help is to trace the cloth trade. The identification of wood, a widely
Gopnik, H., Reichel, C., Minc, L., Elendari, R., 2016. A view from the east: the Godin VI Oval
exported material, is possible, but is rarely undertaken. and the Uruk sphere. J. Archaeol. Sci. 7, 835–848 (in this volume).
Finally, the very difficult task of establishing how the movement of Goulder, J., 2010. Administrators' bread: an experiment-based re-assessment of the func-
goods was socially mediated needs to be confronted. We must move be- tional and cultural role of the Uruk bevel-rim bowl. Antiquity 84 (324), 351–362.
Hallo, W., 2011. The Godin Period VI tablets. In: Gopnik, H., Rothman, M.S. (Eds.), On the
yond assertions about ‘markets’, ‘redistribution’ and the like, and develop High Road: The History of Godin Tepe, Iran. Royal Ontario Museum, Toronto,
appropriate and testable models of early Mesopotamian exchanges as pp. 116–118.
904 H.T. Wright / Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 7 (2016) 900–904

Heinrich, E., 1936. Kleinfunde aus dem archaischen Tempelschichten in Uruk. Ausgrabungen Rothman, M.S. (Ed.), 2001. Uruk Mesopotamia and its neighbors: cross-cultural interac-
der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk-Warka 1. Harrassowitz, Leipzig. tions and their consequences in the era of state formation. School of American Re-
Helwing, B., 2013. Some thoughts on the mode of culture change in the fourth millenni- search Press, Santa Fe.
um BC Iranian Highlands. In: Petrie, C.A. (Ed.), Iran and Its Neighbours: Local Devel- Rothman, M.S., 2002. Tepe Gawra: the evolution of a small, prehistoric center in northern
opments and Long-range Interactions in the 4th Millennium BC. British Institute of Iraq. University Museum Monographs 112. University of Pennsylvania Museum of
Persian Studies Archaeological Monographs, Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 93–105. Archaeology and Anthropology, Philadelphia.
Johnson, G., 1988-89. Late Uruk in Greater Mesopotamia: expansion or collapse? Origini Sanjurjo Sánchez, J., Montero Fenollós, J.L., Prudêncio, M.I., Barrientos, V., Marques, R.,
14, 595–611. Dias, M.I., 2016. Geochemical study of beveled rim bowls from the Middle Syrian Eu-
Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C., 1972. Tepe Yahya 1971: Mesopotamia and the Indo-Iranian bor- phrates sites. J. Archaeol. Sci. 7, 808–818 (in this volume).
derlands. Iran 10, 89–100. Schwartz, M., Hollander, D., 2016. The Uruk Expansion as dynamic process: A reconstruc-
Lindemeyer, E., Martin, L., 1993. Uruk Kleinfunde III. Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka tion of Middle to Late Uruk exchange patterns from bulk stable isotope analyses of bi-
Endberichte 9. Philipp von Zabern, Mainz am Rhein. tumen artifacts. J. Archaeol. Sci. 7, 884–899 (in this volume).
Marschner, R.F., Duffy, L.J., Wright, H.T., 1978. Asphalts from ancient town sites in South- Stein, G.J., 1999. Rethinking world systems: diasporas, colonies, and interaction in Uruk
western Iran. Paléorient 4, 97–112. Mesopotamia. University of Arizona Press, Tucson.
Matson, F.R., 1965. Ceramic Ecology. Wenner-Gren Foundation for Anthropological Re- van Driel, G., van Driel-Murray, C., 1979. Jebel Aruda 1977-1978. Akkadica 12, 2–28.
search, New York. Vatandoust, A., Parzinger, H., Helwing, B., 2011. Early Mining and Metallurgy on the West-
Minc, L., 2016. Trace-element analyses of Uruk ceramics: establishing a database to track ern Central Iranian Plateau: The First Five Years of Work. Archaeologie in Iran und
interregional exchange. J. Archaeol. Sci. 7, 798–807 (in this volume). Turan 9. Darmstadt, Phillip von Zabern.
Mutin, B., 2013. The Proto-Elamite Settlement and Its Neighbors. Tepe Yahya Period IVC. Weiss, H., Young Jr., T.C., 1975. The merchants of Susa: Godin V and plateau-lowland
American School of Prehistoric Research (ASPR) Monograph Series. Harvard Univer- relations in the late fourth millennium B.C. Iran 13, 1–17.
sity and Oxbow Books, Oxford, UK and Oakville, CT, USA. Wilkinson, T.J., Christiansen, J.H., Ur, J., Widell, M., Altaweel, M., 2007. Urbanization within
Mutin, B., Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C., Minc, L., 2016. Investigating ceramic production during a dynamic environment: modeling Bronze Age communities in Upper Mesopotamia.
the Proto-Elamite Period at Tepe Yahya, Southeastern Iran: results of instrumental neu- Am. Anthropol. 109 (1), 52–68.
tron activation analysis of Periods IVC and IVB ceramics. J. Archaeol. Sci. 7, 849–862 (in Wilkinson, T.J., Gibson, M., Widell, M., 2013. Models of Mesopotamian landscapes: how
this volume). small-scale processes contributed to the growth of early civilizations. BAR Interna-
Petrie, C., 2015. Iran and Uruk Mesopotamia: chronologies and connections in the fourth tional Series 2552. Archaeopress, Oxford.
millennium BC. In: McMahon, A., Crawford, H. (Eds.), Preludes to Urbanism: The Late Wright, H.T., 1987. The Susiana hinterlands during the era of primary state formation. In:
Chalcolithic of Mesopotamia. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, Cam- Hole, F. (Ed.), Archaeological Perspectives on Western Iran. Smithsonian Institution
bridge, pp. 137–155. Press, Washington, DC, pp. 141–155.
Pittman, H., 2013. Imagery in administrative context: Susiana and the west in the fourth Wright, H.T., 2000. In: Emberling, G. (Ed.), Middle to Late Uruk flaked stone assemblages
millennium BC. In: Petrie, C.A. (Ed.), Iran and Its Neighbours: Local Developments and from Tell Brak Syria: 1997-98. Excavations at Tell Brak 1998, Iraq 61, pp. 1–41.
Long-range Interactions in the 4th Millennium BC. British Institute of Persian Studies Wright, H.T., 2001. Cultural action in the Uruk world. In: Rothman, M. (Ed.), Uruk Meso-
Archaeological Monographs, Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 293–336. potamia and Its Neighbors: Cross Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation.
Pittman, H., Blackman, M.J., 2016. Mobile or stationary? Chemical analysis of clay adminis- School of American Research, Santa Fe, pp. 123–148.
trative devices from Tell Brak in the Late Uruk Period. J. Archaeol. Sci. 7, 877–883 (in Wright, H.T., 2013. In: Petrie, C.A. (Ed.), A bridge between worlds: Southwestern Iran dur-
this volume). ing the fourth millennium BCAncient Iran and Its Neighbours: Local Developments
Postgate, J.N. (Ed.), 2002. Artefacts of Complexity: Tracking the Uruk in the Near and Long-range Interactions in the 4th Millennium BC 3. British Institute of Persian
EastBritish School of Archaeology in Iraq, Archaeological Reports 5. Aris and Phillips, Studies Archaeological Monographs, Oxbow, Oxford, pp. 51–73.
Warminster. Wright, H.T., Miller, N.F., Redding, R.W., 1980. Time and process in an Uruk rural center.
Potts, D.T., 2001. Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967-1975: the third millennium. In: Barrelet, M.-T. (Ed.), L’archéologie de l’Iraq. Éditions de la Centre Nationale de la
American School of Prehistoric Research Bulletin 45. Peabody Museum of Archaeolo- Recherche Scientifique, Paris, pp. 265–284.
gy and Ethnology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Wright, H.T., Redding, R.W., Pollock, S., 1989. Monitoring interannual variability: an ex-
Potts, D., 2009. Bevel-rim bowls and bakeries: evidence and explanations from Iran and ample from the period of early state development in Southwestern Iran. In:
the Indo-Iranian borderlands. J. Cuneif. Stud. 61, 1–23. Halstead, P., O’Shea, J.M. (Eds.), Bad Year Economics: Cultural Responses to Risk
Renfrew, C., Dixon, J.E., 1976. Obsidian in West Asia: a review. In: Sieveking, G., and Uncertainty. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp. 106–113.
Longworth, I.H., Wilson, K.E. (Eds.), Problems in Economic and Social Archaeology.
Duckworth, London, pp. 137–150.