Petr Charvát - Mesopotamia Before History (2008, Routledge)

When kingship descended upon the earth 221

production seems to be moving into the centres during the ED epoch. Phase III of the Khafajeh Nintu temple (ED I) has yielded a find representing apparently the turntable of a potter’s wheel (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942, 101, but cf. Mayer-Opificius 1984, 147). Intra-urban pottery production obviously took place at al-Hiba/Lagaš (Killick and Black 1985, 222). The contemporary rural sites appear to have been well provided with professionally made pottery (Sakheri Sughir: Wright 1969, 61–74). In ED III, the role of a social status marker was probably taken over by metal (and stone?) vessels, and pottery served as an article of common everyday use, displaying nevertheless some specific semantic traits. The constant pottery component of the grave goods, represented by a set consisting of a jar with an upright (‘goddess’) handle and a pedestaled bowl both at Abu Salabikh (Postgate 1980b, 73) and at the A cemetery of Kiš (Mackay 1929, 146; Moorey 1978, 66–70) does seem to carry a message, especially in view of the clearly female symbolism of the pedestalled bowl or ‘fruitstand’ (Moorey 1978, 68; on another constantly recurring pottery group see Moorey 1980; on pottery forms and functions in ethnography see Henrickson and McDonald 1983). How far a ‘Freudian’ interpretation of such vessels may go, envisaging a possible symbolization of sexual binarity and perhaps the taking over of the role of clay female statuettes, next to nonexistent in the ED, by a distinct pottery type (see, for instance, Moon 1982, 61, Fig. 12:58 for a depiction of a female pudenda on a pedestalled bowl), remains to be investigated by further research. The same goes for the last vestiges of the mass consumption of pottery vessels exemplified by grave 80 of Abu Salabikh, containing, among other items, 140 conical bowls, a bottle and seven spouted vases (Postgate 1980b, 76). The general retreat of this usage has been confirmed by excavations of an ED I cemetery site at Kheit Qasim (Jebel Hamrin area) the later phase of which displays much more limited evidence for this custom than the earlier one (Forest 1983a, 140).

Mesopotamia before history 222

Figure 6.9 A copper/bronze bowl from the grave of King Meskalamdu at Ur (PG 755, 26th-25th century BC) (after Müller-Karpe, Pászthory and Pernicka 1993, Table 153:850.851)

A considerable amount of attention has been dedicated to Early Dynastic metallurgy. In Jemdet Nasr times, both central and peripheral sites could boast a number of copper artifacts, as is exemplified by finds from Fara (Martin 1988, 20, 22—a copper arrowhead), the Ur cemetery (Kolbus 1983, 11–12—copper vessels) and even from the faraway Tepe Farukhabad (Wright et al. 1981, 274). The situation at the last-named site (tools since Middle Uruk but slag first in ED) may again imply production of metal items in centralized facilities. The craftsmen of this period worked with arsenic bronze (Tallon 1987, cited in Pernicka 1992, 69—Mesopotamian parallels to developments at Susa), although doubts have been expressed as to whether such an alloy had ever been intended (Müller-Karpe 1991, 110). Much in line with their Uruk culture predecessors, they also experimented with copper—lead alloys (Moorey 1985, 24, 26; Tallon 1987, cited in Pernicka 1992, 69; on the Uruk experiments see Müller-Karpe 1991, 109) and apparently introduced such highly complex innovations as the lost-wax casting technique, first attested in the Uruk ‘Sammelfund’ (Moorey 1985, 42f). Artifacts previously reserved for élite centres appear now on minor sites as well. The only example of an Uruk culture copper mirror known to me found its way into the ‘Riemchengebäude’ deposit (see p.

When kingship descended upon the earth 223

102), but in the following Jemdet Nasr period even some of the deceased laid to rest in the rather modest Ur cemetery received such items for their journey into the nether world (Woolley 1955, 30).

The immediately following earlier segment of ED saw some changes. Most conspicuously, the quantity of metal finds decreases both in Mesopotamia (Moorey 1982b, 26–27 and 1985, 26–27) and at Susa (Tallon 1987, cited in Pernicka 1992, 70). Hoard finds of metal pieces such as that of the Tell Agrab Shara Temple (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942, 273, Ag 35:279) as well as the presence of half-finished items at such sites (ibid. 278, Ag 36:240–241—unworked copper blades) indicate both the growing rarity of metal as a commodity and the transfer of metallurgical activities to major centres, rather like the pottery production commented upon earlier. The relativity of the quantitative decrease in metal objects is demonstrated by the presence of metal items at such peripheral sites as Kheit Qasim (Forest 1983a, 137) or Tell Ahmad al-Hattu (Sürenhagen 1981, 46–47) in Jebel Hamrin. The contemporary masters preserved the knowledge of the ancients (lost-wax casting: Moorey 1985, 42–46) and added further refinements. Innovations in toreutic techniques have been observed (Müller-Karpe 1990a, 162–163; Müller-Karpe, Pászthory and Pernicka 1993) and the first example of true tin bronze, a flagon from the Y cemetery of Kiš, dates to this period (Müller-Karpe 1990a, 163, Fig. 2:4, 164 and 1991, Fig. 4 on p. 110). The existence of east Anatolian mining sites from which tin, apparently missing from local contemporary artifacts, has been extracted since the early third millennium points to an assumption of extensive trade with this precious commodity which might have been exported far and wide (Vandiver et al. 1993). Coppersmiths of the period abandoned the attempts at lead-copper alloying (ED Tell Obeid: Moorey 1985, 26). The ‘descent’ of élite artifacts continues: the bronze mirrors, referred to above, now turn up not only at the Diyala sites (Moorey 1978, 112) but even at the distant Tell Ahmad al-Hattu (Sürenhagen 1981, 46, Fig. 14). The high degree of expertise in contemporary metalworking indicates that the rarefaction of metal is a consequence of archaeological processes of preservation and/or retrieval and in no way point to any impoverishment of this production sphere.

It may seem redundant to comment on ED III metallurgy but some points merit attention. There are sites, some of them not exactly peripheral, that display a scarcity of metal. That may not surprise us at the Tell Obeid cemetery (Wright 1969, 77–87; Moorey 1985, 26), but the rarity of metal vessels at Abu Salabikh is striking (Postgate 1980b, 73). On the other hand, major sites give evidence of a professional mastery unparalleled hitherto, when virtually all the techniques known until the present time, with the exception of steel-making, can be exemplified. This applies first and foremost to the Ur ‘royal cemetery’ (Moorey 1982b, 29 and 1985, 28–29, 39, 47; Müller-Karpe 1990a, 162– 163; Müller-Karpe, Pászthory and Pernicka 1993; La Niece 1995). A similar quantitative increase in metal items occurs at Khafajeh (Moorey 1982b, 26), where even such average articles as fishhooks were now available in metal versions (Delougaz et al. 1967, 28). The location of metallurgical activities in major centres may have been the reason for the deposition of hoard finds including copper implements, such as that of Eannatum’s oval temple at al-Hiba (Hansen 1973, 69, Figs 12, 13). Tin bronze probably constituted a common, if not universal, metal at Ur (Moorey 1985, 17). Michael Müller-Karpe (1990a, 164 and 1991, 111) has noted its use for the production of metal vessels as against tools and weapons made of arsenic bronze. The common occurrence of tin bronze finds a

Mesopotamia before history 224

parallel at Susa (Tallon 1987, cited in Pernicka 1992, 70). The ores or ingots of raw copper/bronze could have been brought in from Oman (Moorey 1985, 11–12; Potts 1990, 90; Tallon 1987, cited in Pernicka 1992, 70) but iconographical evidence also indicates arrival of metal(?) vessels from western Iran and Anatolia (Müller-Karpe 1990a, 173– 174). Work with gold finds most eloquent illustrations at Ur (Moorey 1985, 76–78), where the very first golden vessels from ancient Mesopotamia were found. That such lavish display of this precious material need not be limited to ED III, and that its absence from other contexts may again well be due to archaeologization problems, is indicated by inventories drawn up on the occasions of the official journeys of Akkadian kings, showing, at the very least, a wealth of luxury artifacts comparable to the Ur ‘royal graves’ (Foster 1980, esp. pp. 33ff.). Inhabitants of ED Mesopotamia did not lack artifacts of iron (Moorey 1985, 91–107) or silver (ibid. 107–121), apparently introduced in the second half of the fourth pre-Christian millennium to Egypt, the Levant, Anatolia and Mesopotamia, where it is accompanied by lead, rather commonly on both sides of 3000 BC, both in a pure state and in alloys (Moorey 1985, 122–123; Woolley 1955, 30– 31 for the Ur ‘Jemdet Nasr’ cemetery). Mesopotamian silver, or at least a part thereof, came from Anatolia (Yener et al. 1991, 561–566). Though alloying of copper with lead was abandoned by ED III times (Moorey 1985, 123), the custom lived on in peripheral areas such as Luristan, even if the local smiths copied contemporary Mesopotamian implements (Vanden Berghe 1981, 24, 40, Fig. 3).

In their everyday life, population groups of the Early Dynastic period undoubtedly availed themselves of a number of articles made of organic material, but evidence for these survives only exceptionally. Traces of basketry products (Matthews 1991, 10; storage baskets at the Khafajeh Temple Oval: Delougaz 1940, 30f.) have sometimes been preserved by their bitumen coatings, as was the case at Kheit Qasim (Forest 1983a, 140). The dearth of evidence for the tanning and leather-working industry which must have supplied so many useful products is particularly deplorable (Crawford 1973, 236). Of personal articles, we should point to footwear, represented especially by luxury versions of sandals in precious metals from Abu Salabikh (Postgate 1980b, 73) and mentioned in the texts together with common leather shoes (an Akkadian example: Foster 1980, 33–2 golden and 120 leather sandals for a king and his retinue). Leather must have also served as a versatile material for containers and receptacles of every kind, exemplified by an exquisitely ornamented dagger sheath from the Kiš A cemetery (Mackay 1929, 137, Fig. 19 on Pl. lxii) or by the more down-to-earth bags or sacks which left their impressions on the reverse sides of sealings (an example from Fara: Matthews 1991, 5). Hides may have been used for sewing tents (an Akkadian text: Foster 1980, 33f.). One of the most ubiquitous materials of Mesopotamia, reed (Postgate 1980c) was employed in a variety of functions. In architecture, reed matting served both for floor insulation (e.g. Tell Asmar, Square Temple of ED II: Delougaz and Lloyd 1942, 179–180, room D 17:6; Tell Agrab, Shara Temple, same period: ibid. 258, room M 14:17) and in ceiling and roof constructions (Sakheri Sughir: Wright 1969, 59; Tell Ahmad al-Hattu: Sürenhagen 1980, 230). From among the movable reed articles certainly available at large in ED Mesopotamia, a fragment of what was probably a bitumen-coated round boat, or gufa, has been published from Sakheri Sughir (Wright 1969, 59). Abundant evidence for the use of reed matting as wrapping material has been yielded by the contemporary cemetery

When kingship descended upon the earth 225

sites. Moreover, evidence for reed-matting bales or packages, made available up to now only in a sketchy manner

Figure 6.10 Impression of a cylinder seal on clay from Jemdet Nasr. This presumably shows a group of animals.

Figure 6.11 The reverse side of the preceding seal impression shows the folds and wrinkles of what was probably originally a leather bag containing a commodity to which access was controlled by means of the impressed seal.

Mesopotamia before history 226

(sealings from Tell Gubba: Ii 1988, 111, 126, Fig. 16; Fara: Matthews 1991, 5, 9–10, 13), must lie idle in immense quantities in museum and archaeological storerooms. The same probably goes for rope-making, of which serious studies have only just begun (Tell Gubba: Ii 1988, 113, No. 77, 129, Fig. 19; Matthews 1991, passim). Goat hair may have been used for the manufacture of cords and ropes (Matthews 1991, 4).

Equally lamentable is the archaeological record of the textile industry, so well attested by the texts. The ubiquitous spindle whorls (e.g. Fara: Martin 1988, 55f.) bear out domestic production and the now well-known movement of the craft into the centres is represented by such evidence as the find of a loom weight at the Tell Asmar Abu Temple in its ED II Square Temple phase (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942, 210, As 33:273). A higher degree of specialization of the textile crafts can be read from the Tepe Gawra VI materials where the number of spindle whorls decreases but an abundance of clay reels and copper needles indicates work with half-finished materials brought to the site from elsewhere (Nineveh?). Various textile items mentioned in the texts (by way of an example, Foster 1980: two baldaquins for a throne, a tent? of hides or woven fabric?) find very few archaeological materializations save for quite exceptional cases such as the headcloths(?), fragments of which have been trapped by corrosion products of silver and copper diadems worn by the deceased laid to rest at the Kiš A cemetery (Mackay 1929, 178–179). Remains of linen and woollen fabrics have been retrieved from the Ur cemetery (Crowfoot, Whiting and Tubb 1995, 114, PG 1). Results greatly enriching our knowledge of ED spinning and weaving are to be expected from studies of the reverse sides of clay sealings. It seems that weaving activities carried a great deal of symbolic value, representing an emblematic female activity and therefore deeply linked with female procreation, childbirth and propagation of the human species (see Breniquet and Mintsi 2000, esp. pp. 350–353).

Woodwork suffers, of course, from the same archaeological under-representation. Its use as a construction element in architecture, especially for various timber and beam structures such as ceilings or door-frames, the latter with their distinctive closing pegs which left their impressions in clay sealings, has already been referred to. Here it may be noted that the versatile and talented craftsmen and craftswomen of ED Mesopotamia resorted to wood as a carrying or core-construction component not only in architecture but also in the assembly of composite works of art of various materials, combining it with bitumen coatings to hold the surface elements of more exquisite materials. This procedure, exemplified by the famous pieces from the Ur ‘royal graves’ (the ‘Standard’, the ‘Ram caught in a thicket’) or from the Tell Obeid temple (e.g. Mallowan 1965, 38, Ill. 26, 51, Ill. 44) was known in ED I (Ur, SIS 4: Woolley 1930, 327). The extremely limited amount of evidence of contemporary furniture is particularly regrettable, as the Ur funerary examples indicate the level of luxury and sophistication to be expected from the interiors of contemporary élite residences, borne out by texts of the Akkadian period (Foster 1980, 33f.: thrones, baldaquins, stools, footstools, chairs, beds, tables). The social ascent of residents of certain Jemdet Nasr period sites may have resulted in the presence of sophisticated furniture items. The Ur ‘Great Sherd Dump’ of Ubaid to Jemdet Nasr times is topped by a layer which has yielded a Jemdet Nasr-style cylinder seal and a charming steatite figure of a boar bearing insets sunk into its sides, most probably an original furniture ornament (Woolley 1930, 333 and 1955, 31; Orthmann 1975, 162–163, Fig. 15b). Needless to say, joiners of the Early Dynastic period could supply whatever

When kingship descended upon the earth 227

articles were desired, but the only surviving archaeological evidence points to the existence of wooden boxes and containers which left their impressions in the reverse sides of sealings on clay (Fara: Matthews 1991, 5, 9). Tamarisk and hawthorn wood made up a component of funerary furnishings of the Ur graves (Ellison et al. 1978, 172, PG I).

Specialists of Early Dynastic Mesopotamia were well acquainted with all kinds of work in stone. Chipped industry items turn up fairly constantly in the inventory of contemporary

Figure 6.12 Statuette of a pink stone bull from Jemdet Nasr

archaeological sites (e.g. Fara: Martin 1988, 20–22). The earlier Uruk period distribution network, bringing to lower Mesopotamia supplies of raw materials, half-finished or finished implements from areas blessed with such natural resources such as the Deh Luran plain (Wright et al. 1981, 267f.) or eastern Anatolia (Behm-Blancke 1992), underwent some reconstruction at the beginning of the Jemdet Nasr period. The preceding medium to coarse gray chert of Khuzestan was thus gradually replaced by fine mottled tan and gray cherts, likely to have been supplied by sources in the Khabur region and typical of the Jemdet Nasr period chipped industry (Pollock 1990a, 87 and 1990b, 70). How far the ‘Canaanean blades’, still manufactured at Hassek Höyük (BehmBlancke 1992, 170–173), were supplied to customers outside the upper Euphrates area is not known at present. Similar products were now manufactured in the lowland sites (Pollock 1990b, 70). The essence of ED chipped industry is constituted by the ubiquitous sickle blades hafted into wooden or bone handles by means of bitumen, occurring both at the beginning (Sürenhagen 1979, 44; Wright 1969, 56–58) and at the end of the period (Payne 1980, 112–113). Even this last-ditch stand of the chipped industry succumbed to

Mesopotamia before history 228

the onslaught of the more and more common metal, as is shown by the twenty copper sickle fragments discarded at Tepe Gawra VI (see p. 175) or by the imports of copper into contemporary Deh Luran sites (Neely, Wright et al. 1994, 180–183). On-the-spot production in lowland sites can be documented even for the initial ED period when stone seems to have been in good supply there (Wright 1969, 56, 58). Such mundane articles as sickle blades were, surprisingly, not limited to village sites (see p. 174 on Sakheri Sughir, Ahmad al-Hattu) but found their way even into major contemporary centres such as Fara (Martin 1988, 22), the Tell Agrab Shara Temple of ED II (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942, 269, Ag 36:292), the Khafajeh Temple Oval (Delougaz 1940, 30f.) or Kiš (Watelin 1929). The same goes for workshops turning out similar implements and exemplified by a site for manufacturing carnelian and rock-crystal beads by means of chipped stone blades and borers at ED(?) Uruk (von Müller 1963; Rau 1991, 65–67) or by a plant where shell was worked by means of serrated blades and micro-borers made of ‘bullet cores’ within al-Hiba/Lagaš (Killick and Black 1985, 222). Nevertheless, ED chipped industry production assumes the character of an extremely simplified craft, maintaining its position in well-defined and traditional work procedures such as bead-making (Larsen 1991, 91–100, esp. p. 99), but about to cede its role to other craft technologies, especially to metallurgy.

The coarser products of the ground stone industry such as various chopping tools or grinding slabs again characterize both village sites such as Sakheri Sughir (Wright 1969, 58) or Ahmad al-Hattu (Sürenhagen 1979, 44) and major centres, for instance, the Tell Agrab Shara Temple (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942, 258—room M 14:17). Some one-third of the ED Fara spindle whorls were for the first time made of stone (Martin 1988, 55f.) and such items were also deposited in graves (Tell Owessat: Jakob-Rost, Wartke and Wesarg 1983, 127–128). The introduction of cutting discs into work with softer stones, supposed to have occurred in the Jemdet Nasr period (Moorey 1985, 51), has been questioned (Larsen 1991, 183–184) and refuted recently (Sax and Meeks 1994, esp. p. 165; Sax, Meeks and Collon 2000, esp. p. 159, Fig. 1) in favour of a hypothesis assuming work with files. P. Larsen has argued that rotating borers with chipped stone bits, working with powdered abrasive and evidenced by traces in Jemdet Nasr-style cylinder seals (Gwinnett and Gorelick 1987, 24), may be dated as far back as the Neolithic (Jarmo: Larsen 1991, 139). Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Jemdet Nasr period witnessed a further proportional increase in work with harder stones of Mohs 4–7, first occurring in the Ubaid culture period (Larsen 1991, 60–61, esp. Table 12, p. 61). Copper borers with emery as an abrasive and water or oil as a lubricating agent had to wait until c.2000 BC for their introduction (Gwinnett and Gorelick 1987; Larsen 1991, 134–138). Such specialized work could again be performed at the centres, as is shown by finds of unfinished cylinder seals at the Tell Asmar Square Temple of ED II (Delougaz and Lloyd 1942, 210, As 33:697) or at the Tell Agrab Shara Temple of the same age (ibid. 278, Ag 36:243).

Remarkable information is conveyed by studies of stone vessels (Casanova 1991). In the Jemdet Nasr and pristine ED times they constituted a fairly frequent component of the inventory of Mesopotamian archaeological sites. A number of them turned up at the Ur ‘Jemdet Nasr’ cemetery (Woolley 1955, 31; Kolbus 1982, esp. pp. 7–8 and 1983, esp. pp. 11–12) and the individual population groups might have distinguished one another by stone or pottery versions of one and the same vessel shape (pottery type JN 17/16 of

When kingship descended upon the earth 229

group W=stone type JN 27/28 of group X; Kolbus 1983, 12). Another case in point concerns the Houses 12 layer at Khafajeh (Delougaz et al. 1967, 26) and even the rural cemetery of Tell Obeid (Martin 1982, 165) may be mentioned here. Far from being confined to cemetery contexts, however, stone bowls appear in settlements of Jemdet Nasr to ED I date (Fara: Martin 1988, 57–58; Sakheri Sughir: Wright 1969, 58) and even in rubbish-dumping areas (Abu Salabikh: Pollock 1990b, 70). Diffused as far as the periphery of Sumer, they played the role of grave goods at Tell Ahmad al-Hattu (Sürenhagen 1980, 230) and Kheit Qasim (Forest 1983a, 140). Stone-vessel types included miniature (cosmetic?) jars, as well as bowls and cups of greenish-grey steatite, most probably brought in from the Gulf area (Potts 1989, 140 and 1990, 66), and items of harder volcanic rocks or metamorphosed volcanic rocks, most likely originating in inner Iran or Anatolia (Potts 1989, 140). Much like the raw materials for chipped industry, these stone products were obviously freely available in Sumer at the end of the fourth and the beginning of the third pre-Christian millennium, having perhaps constituted an exchange commodity (Potts 1989, 147). This situation changed in ED II–III. First and foremost, the imported stone vessels became an item much rarer than before and some of their functions were taken over by other container types such as shells for cosmetic substances (Fara: Martin 1988, 59). Vessels of steatite/chlorite kept trickling in but they now bore exquisite carved decoration which probably rendered them a particularly esteemed item. Such vessels, manufactured in south-west Iran or central Arabia, were conveyed (also?) towards the Gulf island of Tarut (Potts 1990, 66–67), whence they set forth on their various journeys, taking them far and wide throughout the Near and Middle East (Kohl 1976 and 1978; Kohl, Harbottle and Sayre 1979; Potts 1989, 144 and 1990, 66–67, 77). Material analyses of these vessels (Kohl, Harbottle and Sayre 1979) identified three sites with vessel clusters of different origins, likely to have functioned as exchange centres (the islands of Tarut and Failaka and the city of Adab), as well as groups of sites probably supplied from single raw-material regions. One such network links Tarut, Failaka, Arabia, Adab and Mari (Kohl, Harbottle and Sayre 1979, 147), another one Ur, Nippur, Kiš and Khafajeh (ibid. 148) and a third one possibly Susa, Mari and Tepe Yahya (ibid.). The rarefaction of such stone objects, clearly discernible on contemporary sites such as Abu Salabikh (Postgate 1980ab, 73) or the Kiš A cemetery (Mackay 1929, 134) goes hand in hand with the rise in their prestige: in the Ur cemetery, they occurred three times, two instances of which concerned ‘royal graves’ (Potts 1989, 142–143). The same may be said of the volcanic rock vessels replaced by now by items of coloured or veined calcites (ibid. 147). Vessels of imported stones, freely available at first, gradually became rare and prized items, displayed only in élite circles.

Optimalization of the stone supply and concentration on particular, well-defined natural resources is also discernible in the sphere of stone ornaments worn as articles of attire, especially necklaces. Where present, Jemdet Nasr period necklace beads display a marked variety of materials and colours such as shell, carnelian, lapis lazuli, turquoise, onyx, frit and perhaps originally blue crystal (Fara: Martin 1988, 20–22, 61–62). Gradually, however, the foremost positions invariably go to carnelian and lapis lazuli (e.g. the ‘Jemdet Nasr’ cemetery of Ur: Woolley 1955, 32), even if they tend to be, at least in the ED I period, still accompanied by rock crystal and shell (Forest 1983a, 137) or even by green stone and gold (Tell Owessat: Jakob-Rost, Wartke and Wesarg 1983, 127–128). In the Khafajeh graves (Delougaz et al. 1967) the variety of stones is

Mesopotamia before history 230

maintained, though carnelian and agate predominate from Proto-literate times until ED III. Lapis lazuli turns up first in ED II (Houses 6, ibid. 93–101; on dating see Karg 1984– 1985, 306) and lasts until the end of the sequence, accompanied by frit. Even the rural population had access to exotic stones, as is shown by carnelian beads at Sakheri Sughir (Wright 1969, 58) or lapis lazuli in the Deh Luran (Neely, Wright et al. 1994, 180–183). This monopolization of the coloured-stone market is also paralleled at more distant sites such as Tepe Farukhabad in the Deh Luran plain (Wright et al. 1981, 273). The later part of the ED period is characterized by the virtual exclusivity of lapis lazuli and carnelian, as shown by the cemeteries of Ur, Abu Salabikh (Postgate 1980b, e.g. pp. 75–76) or Kiš A (Mackay 1929), as well as by a stray find from Uruk (Limper 1988, 30, type F 336; on the lapis lazuli trade: Casanova 1994). Ernest Mackay (1929, 183–184) noted the differing treatment of lapis lazuli (often only coarsely worked) and carnelian (treated with care), suggesting separate sources of both materials. An innovation of ED IIIa is represented by etched carnelian beads, surviving for the whole second half of the third and the beginning of the second millennium BC, perhaps imported from the Indus-valley regions (Moorey 1985, 141). The recent assessment of Uruk materials shows essentially the same picture (Limper 1988, esp. pp. 59–62). This choice of precious materials determined Mesopotamian taste for centuries to come. Upon his visit to paradise, Gilgameš saw trees with lapis lazuli leaves bearing fruit of carnelian (Dalley 1991, 10). Anyone who desires evidence for the imports of wholesale cargoes of foreign materials into ED Mesopotamia, very likely to have been brought in by specialized commercial agents commissioning them at large from their native suppliers, need only be reminded of the facts referred to above.

Undoubtedly, then, the sphere of processing of natural resources does indicate a great deal of sophistication and technical know-how, accompanied by considerable technological innovation. All this must have placed in the hands of Mesopotamian communities valuable tools for coping with the adversities of their environment.

Progress in the sphere of transport and communication may be measured only with difficulty (on contemporary international trade and exchange see Edens and Kohl 1993). Without any doubt, the twin rivers continued to function as first-grade circulation arteries carrying forth goods, people and ideas. The same was probably valid for a whole network of minor watercourses, both natural and artificial, which could have been used for transport by boats mentioned in the texts and, for the first time, possibly attested by archaeology (a gufa? fragment from Sakheri Sughir: Wright 1969, 59–60). The fairly numerous finds of both true examples and miniaturized three-dimensional versions of chariots, carts, waggons and sledges, clearly drawn by bovids and equids, point to the quality of the dry-land communication network and show that even heavy loads could move about fairly easily. Of course, all these devices should be perceived with an eye to the contemporary social context which determined their employment. That reciprocal exchange and redistribution procedures could have been realized over considerable distances seems to be rather clear (see pp. 71–73). Much ink has been spilled in debates concerning the character of Sumerian exchange, the possible existence of true commerce and the profit-oriented behaviour of Sumerian merchants (Powell 1977, 1978a and 1979; most recently Neumann 1992 with ref., and see also Charpin and Joannès 1992). Some of these studies brought out valuable evidence concerning the weight metrology of ancient Sumer which clearly begins in this period (Powell