FOUNDATIONS OF WESTERN CIVILIZATION

April, 2002

 

By

 

Joseph M. Miller

jmiller585@mchsi.com

 

Daan Joubert

daanj@kingsley.co.za

 

Marion Butler

Juneb01@msn.com

 

 

Introduction

 

Previous articles in our Elliott Wave series stated that since 10000BC there have been ten 1000-year economic advances that we call X Waves.  Unfortunately, none of our previous articles defined the first six X Waves, and this article addresses that deficiency in our writings by providing a brief description of the early X Waves.  Table 1 below shows the six X Waves from 10000 to 3200 BC.

 

 

Table 1:  Large Elliott Waves from 10000BC to 3200BC [1]

 

A quick overview of the Elliott Wave Principle is necessary for new readers to understand the above table.  Z Waves, lasting roughly 10,000 years, are composed of 5 Y Waves, Y1 to Y5.  Waves Y1, Y3 and Y5 are ascending waves lasting roughly 3,000 years, while Y2 and Y4 are shorter descending waves.  Each ascending Y Wave (Y1, Y3 or Y5) is composed of 5 X Waves, X1 to X5.  Waves X1, X3 and X5 are ascending waves lasting roughly 1,000 years, while X2 and X4 are shorter descending waves.

 

The above table can therefore be viewed as representing two ascending Y Waves (Z1Y1 and Z1Y3) each composed of three ascending X Waves.  It is convenient to think of the two ascending Y Waves as two distinct levels of the Neolithic or New Stone Age, referred to as “Neolithic 1” and “Neolithic 2”.  To be technically accurate we should refer to Wave Z1Y1X1 as the “Mesolithic” and Wave Z1Y3X5 as the “Chalcolithic” but those terms needlessly complicate our discussion, so we simply refer to Z1Y1 as Neolithic 1 and Z1Y3 as Neolithic 2.  Neolithic 1 represents an agricultural revolution during which mankind learned to domesticate plants and animals, while Neolithic 2 represents an urban revolution during which early cities developed.

 

Neolithic 1 (Wave Z1Y1) 10000 – 7300BC

 

Hunter-gatherers in the Near East began intensively harvesting wild grain with flint knives around 10000BC.  A thousand years later there is evidence that these grains were being sown outside their natural habitat, and around 8000BC these grains were being domesticated [2].  During Neolithic 1, ground stone tools replaced the flint tools of the Old Stone Age.  Hunting continued to provide a substantial part of the human diet, but animals were domesticated during this period.  These advances, which tended to be rapid rather than gradual, allowed for increased human population, and lay the foundation for the development of civilization in Neolithic 2 and beyond. 

 

According to N.O. Bader: “The emergence of food-producing economy is not treated as a gradual and seamless process.  One distinguishes, rather, the formation of preconditions, a time of transition, and the early consequences of the reliance on food production in the Neolithic.  The accumulation of prerequisites first proceeded at a slow rate within the framework of a hunting and gathering economy; the transition to food production was characterized by relatively rapid qualitative changes; and the progressive reliance on agriculture and animal husbandry was accompanied by a radical reformulation of the entire economy and society.” [3]

 

The best evidence of these early human advances is found in the Levant, comprised of Palestine, Lebanon, and Syria.  More than 20 Neolithic 1 sites have been discovered and studied in the Levant, ranging in size from less than 100 square meters to 4 hectares (10 acres)[4].  Jericho, in the Jordan Valley, (see map below) is the largest site at 4 hectares, Tel Aswad is the second largest at 2.7 hectares, and the remaining sites are much smaller [5].  Apart from Jericho and Mureybat (0.4 hectares) Neolithic 1 sites were probably occupied only intermittently or for relatively short times. 

 

Wild grain harvesters of the tenth millennium Levant are known as Natufian communities, and the earliest occupation level of Jericho represents one of these small Natufian settlements.  After a brief break in occupation, Jericho was resettled by 8500BC and was continuously occupied for more than a millenium.  One-room, plain-walled, mud brick houses of this latter settlement had mud floors dug three feet below ground level.  Tools were of flint and bone, with stone bowls and axes.  Obsidian, a volcanic glass, comprised 1% of the chipped stone tools at Jericho.  Obsidian at Jericho and other Levantine sites was obtained from Ciftik in Anatolia, indicating some long-range trade was conducted.  Around 8000BC a stone wall was built around Jericho that was several meters high, with a 9 meter high tower attached to its inner side.  This tower, combined with the settlement’s size and longevity, makes Jericho the principle settlement of Neolithic 1. 

 

Over the succeeding centuries, the wall and tower were modified or rebuilt several times, and a wide ditch was added in front of the wall.  In the middle of the eighth millennium these defensive works fell into disuse, and the ditch filled in while the wall and tower collapsed.  As the settlement expanded further, houses were built above the collapsing wall and beyond it. 

 

Abandonment of Jericho (Wave Z1Y2) 7300 – 6800BC

 

John Gowlett says, “At about 7000BC there was a major upheaval at Jericho, and the settlement appears to have been destroyed.”[6]  Other sources merely say it was abandoned.  We are not sure what happened, but we assume that the abandonment of Jericho is associated with one or more of the causes of Neolithic decline that we described in The Rise and Fall of Civilizations Part I.  Jericho was unoccupied for about 500 years, from late in the eighth millennium to early in the seventh millennium, and we have labeled this period as declining Wave Z1Y2.  The Elliott Wave Principle suggests that this decline should be shorter by a couple of centuries, but we have no basis for labeling this wave other than the abandonment of the principle Neolithic 1 site. 

 

Neolithic 2 (Wave Z1Y3) 6800 – 3400BC

 

Following Neolithic 1, the next step toward civilization was the development of farming villages in early Neolithic 2.  By the end of Neolithic 2 some of these settlements had become true urban centers incorporating virtually all of the elements considered essential to true cities. [7]  This urban revolution proceeded through three basic phases, Pre-‘Ubaid, ‘Ubaid, and Uruk, which correspond with ascending X Waves.  The Pre-‘Ubaid period witnessed the development of farming communities.  The ‘Ubaid period witnessed the development of proto-urban communities with some early evidence of craft specialization, long distance trade, and monumental architecture.  The Uruk period witnessed the development of early city-states (urban political centers controlling local farming villages and far flung trading posts), the evolution of economic classes, the development of early writing, and a number of important inventions such as the plow, wheeled cart, and fast potter’s wheel.

 

 Pre-‘Ubaid  (Wave Z1Y3X1) 6800 – 5900BC

 

During this period farming villages were established throughout the Near East.  These communities relied more heavily on domesticated plants and animals but still supplemented diets with hunting and collecting of wild plants.  Weaving, pottery and other crafts developed, but there was not a very high degree of specialized labor.  There is increased evidence of trade during this time, as well as some evidence of luxury goods.

 

Jericho was resettled around 6800BC and remained in continuous occupation for about a millenium, then was abandoned once more.  Neolithic 2 Jericho was at least as large as the Neolithic 1 site, with houses built down the side of the hill.  Buildings were mud brick with painted plaster floors covered by reed or rush mats.  Some of these houses were rebuilt ten times, then a wall was built near the top of the hill.  Neolithic 2 Jericho used obsidian from Ciftlik as before.[8] 

 

The principle Pre-‘Ubaid site was Catal Huyuk in Southern Anatolia, settled in the early 7^th millennium BC [9] and continuously occupied about 1,000 years.  Besides its longevity, surviving for the duration of the X Wave, Catal Huyuk was also the largest Pre-‘Ubaid settlement, and displayed the most complex social structure of its time.

 

At its peak, Catal Huyuk covered 13 hectares with a population approaching 3,000. [10]  The settlement consisted of hundreds of contiguous dwellings made of mud brick and plaster, containing living rooms about 4 by 5 meters with hearths and bread ovens and several adjoining rooms.  With houses all connected, there were no streets.  The community was traversed across the roof tops, with entry into the dwellings via ladders from above.  Catal Huyuk was the first true farming community, cultivating wheat, barley, peas and lentils, and domesticating sheep, goats and cattle.  Diet was supplemented by hunting, and by collecting wild apples, tubers, pistachios, almonds and acorns.  Obsidian was available locally, but other raw materials, in short supply, were obtained by trade from as far away as the Red Sea.  Craftsmen produced textiles and pottery.  Weapons included arrows, lances, daggers and maces made from obsidian and stone.  Luxury goods, presumed to belong to community leaders, included obsidian mirrors, metal beads, and ceremonial daggers. [11]

 

Farming communities were also established in northern Mesopotamia during this period.  The earliest known site is Jarmo in the foothills of the Zagros Mountains in Northern Iraq.  Jarmo was settled c6800BC and had a population of 100-150.  Rectilinear dwellings were made of puddled adobe.  Tools were of bone and stone, and small quantities of pottery have been found, along with clay figurines.  The Jarmo settlement domesticated wheat, barley, lentils, sheep, goats, and dogs, and at a later stage, pigs.  Diets were supplemented by hunting, and by collecting wild pea, pistachios, and acorns. [12]

 

Abandonment of Pre-‘Ubaid Villages (Wave Z1Y3X2) 5900 – 5800BC

 

For the most part, these early Neolithic 2 farming communities were abandoned around the end of the seventh millennium.  Harvey Weiss argues that the abandonment was due to an abrupt climate change that brought drier and cooler weather worldwide by c6000BC [13].  He states that in the Levant, “successor settlements displayed a new dependence on sheep pastoralism understood to be an adaptation to extended areas of decreased rainfall”, while in northern Mesopotamia, “this climatic oscillation may have induced the transfer of Umm Dabaghiya culture to refuge areas…”

 

 ‘Ubaid (Wave Z1Y3X3) 5800 – 4900BC

 

Around 5800BC farming villages reappeared in northern Mesopotamia, with economies similar to villages of the previous millennium.  Two separate cultures co-existed in northern Mesopotamia during this period, Hassunan and Sammaran, which are distinguished by two distinct pottery styles.  Northern Mesopotamian farming villages were in the 1 to 3 hectare range with maximum populations of about 600 inhabitants.  These villages did not grow substantially during the ‘Ubaid period.

 

In southern Mesopotamia, the proto-Sumerian ‘Ubaid culture appeared c5800BC with its own pottery style, but otherwise quite similar to the Hassunan and Sammaran cultures in the north.  Barley, wheat and dates were grown, and domesticated animals included cows, sheep, pigs and goats, with diets still supplemented with hunting and fishing (using narrow reed boats on the marshes). [14]

 

Southern Mesopotamia, located between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers at the head of the Persian Gulf, presents two obstacles to the formation of civilization there.  First, the region receives less than 200 millimeters of rainfall per year, which is inadequate for farming to occur without irrigation.  Second, the region has virtually no natural resources apart from the ubiquitous alluvial mud.  Therefore, in order to thrive, the villages of southern Mesopotamia had to adopt irrigation farming, and in order for true civilization to develop, critical natural resources had to be obtained via trade with other regions.

 

The mud of southern Mesopotamia proved to be the ideal building block, literally, of early Western Civilization.  Mudbrick and mud plaster were used for building construction, and clay was used for numerous tools and implements such as pottery, farm sickles, funnels, drain pipes, and fishing net weights.  The ‘Ubaid culture also used clay as a financial control mechanism by sealing jars and doors with lumps of clay and impressing them with images from sealing cylinders.  In later periods, clay was essential to the development of writing, first in the form of clay accounting tokens in the late Uruk period, then as the first writing material c3100BC in the Early Bronze Age.

 

Initially, proto-Sumerian ‘Ubaid villages ranged from a half-hectare to two hectares in size, but in the late sixth millennium some settlements were in the 10 to 12 hectare range, and served as urban centers linked economically to small nearby farming villages.  The larger settlements had early monumental architecture in the form of temples and elite residences, and other buildings included centralized warehouses and private houses.  The largest concentration of proto-Sumerian settlements, at the extreme southern end of Mesopotamia, consisted of Eridu (12 hectares), Ur (10 hectares), al ‘Ubaid (5 hectares), and numerous smaller villages. [15]  Regarding this settlement concentration, Henry T. Wright says, “In total there were about 50 hectares of settled area suggesting a population of about 10,000 and a population density of about 25 people per square kilometer. [16]  There were several proto-Sumerian settlements north of this concentration as well, including Shuruppak (located between Nippur and Uruk on the map below). [17]  By the end of the ‘Ubaid period, the proto-Sumerian ‘Ubaid culture spread north as far as Syria and Cilicia, and a number of ‘Ubaid sites have also been discovered on the western shore of the Persian Gulf.  This ‘Ubaid expansion outside of southern Mesopotamia was short lived, however.

 

 

 

Map: Locations mentioned in text and the Uruk trade network

 

 

Terminal ‘Ubaid: Population Crash  (Wave Z1Y3X4) 4900 – 4600BC

 

The maximum number of ‘Ubaid settlements occurred around 5200BC, but many of these settlements were abandoned, destroyed or severely reduced in population by 4800BC. [18]  This population crash may have been caused by flooding of the Mesopotamian plain, due to a ten meter rise in sea level during the Terminal ‘Ubaid period [19] , although archaeologists are not in agreement on this point [20].  Sumerian writings, the Epic of Gilgamesh and the Sumerian King List, relate the destruction of early Sumeria by the Flood, and the King List places the ‘Ubaid period towns of Eridu and Shurrupak among the 5 Sumerian cities existing before the Flood [21].  Sir Leonard Wooley described a region-wide flood based on eleven-foot silt deposits found at the excavation of Ur in the level associated with the Terminal ‘Ubaid period: 

 

“Eleven feet of silt - the maximum - would probably mean a flood not less than twenty-five feet deep; in the flat low-lying land of Mesopotamia a flood of that depth would cover an area about three hundred miles long and a hundred miles across; the whole of the fertile land between the Elamite mountains and the high Syrian desert would disappear, every village would be destroyed, and only a few of the old cities, set high on their built-up mounds, would survive the disaster.  We know that Ur did survive; we have seen that villages such as al ‘Ubaid and Rajeibeh were suddenly deserted and remained desolate for long or for ever.”[22]

 

In the plains between Mesopotamia and the Zagros Mountains, similar population declines occurred.  In the Deh Luran Plain, immediately east of Mesopotamia, the northwestern portion of the plain was completely abandoned at the end of the ‘Ubaid period, while the remainder of the plain experienced severe population decline. [23]  The Susiana Plain, south of Deh Luran, lost 80% of its population at the end of the ‘Ubaid period. [24]  In the case of Susiana, it appears that violence played a role in the decline, based on evidence at the settlements of Choga Mish and Susa.  Frank Hole says: “Choga Mish was abandoned in the early fifth millennium following the destruction of its central, massive architectural complex.  The center was relocated to Susa, a monumental mud brick platform with elaborate decorated buildings on top was built there.  This too was destroyed, rebuilt and then abandoned.  It is possible that Susa maintained its older system and traditions long after most sites had been abandoned and the transition to Uruk was already underway in Southern Mesopotamia.” [25]

 

There is also some evidence of population decline in northern Mesopotamia at this time, with the ‘Ubaid settlement at Tepe Gawra destroyed by fire. [26]

 

Uruk  (Wave Z1Y3X5) 4600 – 3400BC

 

Following the population crash, the distinctive hand painted ‘Ubaid pottery slowly transitioned to plain, mass-produced wares (made possible by invention of the fast pottery wheel) known as “Uruk” [27]  Southern Mesopotamian settlements were rebuilt or expanded, and developed into city-states representing early Sumerian civilization.  The principle settlement of the Uruk period was the city of Uruk, not far from Eridu.

 

According to the archaeological record, the earliest occupation levels of the city of Uruk (consisting only of the small settlement known as E-Anna) are associated with the ‘Ubaid period. [28]  During subsequent Uruk period levels, E-Anna merged with the nearby settlement of Kullaba to form the combined city known as Uruk [29].  The original settlement of E-Anna contained a Temple of Inanna, while the original settlement Kullaba contained a Temple of Anu, so the city of Uruk contained two temple districts: E-Anna (devoted to Inanna) and Kullaba (devoted to Anu).  These Uruk period developments correspond with post-Flood events described in the Sumerian King List. [30]  With the merger of E-Anna and Kullaba, the consolidated city of Uruk covered about 70 hectares, with a population around 10,000.  This was the largest city in the world at the time, and it maintained this position of preeminence for many centuries, reaching 100 hectares in the Late Uruk period. [31]

 

In addition to the cities of southern Mesopotamia, Sumerians also controlled the Susiana plain, which became an integral part of the Sumerian Uruk culture.  Susa (25 hectares) and Choga Mish (18 hectares) were presumably independent city-states in Susiana, probably controlling the smaller settlements in their immediate vicinity. [32]

 

The Sumerians overcame their lack of natural resources by developing a complex trade network during the Uruk period.  The Tigris and Euphrates Rivers provided access to the north, with east-to-west overland routes completing the network.  The Sumerians controlled this network with a system of enclaves built astride the junctions of north-south and east-west routes, as you can see from the map above.  Sumerian Uruk enclaves have been found on the Euphrates at Qannas (18-40 hectares), near Carchemesh (Taladir Tepe = 12 hectares, Sadi Tepe = 8 hectares), and Samsat (18 hectares), on the Khabur River at Tell Brak (40 hectares), and on the upper Tigris at Ninevah (approaching 40 hectares).  These enclaves were supported by nearby Uruk villages, which probably supplied the enclaves with their food requirements.  In addition, there were small Uruk outposts scattered along the various trade routes. [33] Built late in the Uruk X Wave, these far flung settlements only lasted for about 150 years [34]

 

The Uruk settlements outside of southern Mesopotamia maintained their Sumerian culture in the midst of indigenous non-Sumerian peoples, who lived in peace with the intrusive Uruk settlements.  An example of this relationship can be seen at the site of Godin Tepe in the Zagros Mountains, where an Uruk “Oval Enclosure” coexisted with a neighboring indigenous village.  “This well-built enclave, strategically situated at the summit of the large, long-established indigenous Period VI village settlement at Godin Tepe, appears to have coexisted peacefully with the local Period VI village culture during the latter part of that culture’s lifespan.  The Oval’s original size was approximately 33 X 21 meters, bounded by a 1.5 meter thick mudbrick wall.  The Oval’s plan consisted of a series of rooms surrounding a central court, primarily small storerooms,” Elizabeth F. Hendrickson. [35]  Godin Tepe, as you can see from the map, lies astride the principle route through the Zagros, and it is assumed that the “Oval Enclosure” fort controlled trade along that route.

 

The Uruk settlements (both in the southern Sumerian heartland and the hinterland beyond) represented a higher civilization than the neighboring cultures (ie. they had a higher level of sociopolitical and economic development), and we might think of the early Sumerian city-states as prototypes of first-world nations, and neighboring cultures as prototypes of developing nations.  According to Guillermo Algaze, this disparity in civilization levels has several implications regarding interregional economic and political relationships.  First, the neighboring “developing nation” economies were probably focused on making export goods for southern Mesopotamia, and did not grow in a balanced way.  Second, it is possible that the higher Sumerian civilization took advantage of its less civilized neighbors in terms of trade arrangements.  Third, the elite class within the “developing nation” cultures possibly gained and maintained their status by way of their trade connections with the south. [36] 

 

It is likely that the enclaves and outposts were colonies or daughter cities of different cities in southern Mesopotamia.  In this regard they would be similar to eastern Asian cities controlled by the English and Dutch in their competition for the spice trade, except that Uruk enclaves were populated by Sumerians rather than indigenous peoples.  This leads to speculation that the different enclaves were part of intense competition for trade between the early Sumerian cities.  (Note that while the King List always shows the kingship belonging to only one Sumerian city at a time, it is known that some dynasties actually ran concurrently, with numerous inter-city wars.  Sumeria is only known to be a single unified state by c2350BC.) 

 

Unfortunately we cannot state whether these hypotheses are true, since the Uruk period preceded written history, but we can report on the articles traded.  Southern Mesopotamia imported timber, olive oil, bitumen, utilitarian and semi-precious stones, and by the end of the Uruk Era, gold, silver, lead and copper.  Algaze says, “A further possible import into the alluvium from the periphery was dependent labor, either slaves acquired in exchange for other goods or, more likely, prisoners of war.”  Exports included dates, grain, dried fish, leather, textiles, wool garments, pottery, seals and silver.  It is possible that labor-intensive export goods such as textiles were produced by dependent labor in state or temple controlled enterprises.  The earliest evidence for beer, the staple drink of Bronze Age Sumeria, was found at Godin Tepe in the Uruk period, and its presence on the trade route may indicate that beer was an export item as well.  [37]

 

Late Uruk: Collapse of the Uruk Trade Network  (Wave Z1Y4) 3400BC-3200BC

 

During the Late Uruk period the Sumerian trade network collapsed as the far flung enclaves and outposts were abandoned or destroyed.  In Susiana, Choga Mish was abandoned, Susa shrank significantly in size, and total settlement area in the plain declined by a factor of three. [38]

 

In southern Mesopotamia the population was not reduced during the Late Uruk period, but a major population shift occurred there - from the northern part (the vicinity of Nippur on the map) to the southern part of southern Mesopotamia (the vicinity of Uruk).  During the Late Uruk period, the total settlement area in the north (Nippur vicinity) declined from 362 hectares to 200.6 hectares, while the total settlement area in the south (Uruk vicinity) increased from 173.1 hectares to 382.5 hectares. [39]  Therefore, the total settlement area for southern Mesopotamia as a whole increased slightly in Late Uruk times, from 535.1 hectares to 583.1 hectares, which implies a population increase of about 9%.  This is composed of a 45% population decline in the Nippur environs and a 121% increase in the Uruk environs.  In addition to this population shift, there was also a migration from smaller villages to larger urban centers.  Algaze says, “Whatever the actual reasons for this pattern, regional survey data do seem to indicate a certain degree of social disruption in the alluvium [ed: southern Mesopotamia] that may be correlated broadly with the collapse of the network of Uruk enclaves in the north and the retrenchment from Khuzestan [ed: Susiana], even though the total occupied area barely differs between the two temporal phases.” [40]

 

We can only conjecture as to what happened and why, and one person’s guess is good as another’s.  We present our thoughts here, and invite readers to inform us if they have a better theory.

 

As for the enclaves and outposts in the hinterland, it appears that the “developing nation” cultures suddenly took exception to the Sumerians in their midst, and drove them out.  Perhaps what started as a kind of informal Sumerian trade empire evolved to the point where Sumerian enclaves gained a measure of direct political control over the indigenous peoples who rebelled against this political development.  Or perhaps the trade arrangements themselves became onerous enough for the “developing nation” cultures to reject them violently.

 

Regarding the Late Uruk population decline in the Nippur environs, we offer three possibilities.  First, there is a possibility that Sumerians migrated from the Nippur environs to the Uruk environs.  Second, cities in the Nippur environs (bordering non-Sumerian cultures) may have suffered military losses against “developing nation” cultures in connection with events surrounding the trade network collapse.  Third, there is the possibility that cities in the Nippur environs suffered military defeat at the hands of other Sumerian cities in the Uruk environs.  This third idea is suggested by the Sumerian King List, which says that after the Flood the predominant Sumerian city was Kish (north of Nippur) for the reigns of 23 kings, then Kish was “smitten with weapons” and the kingship moved to Uruk. [30]  Perhaps the disruption in Susiana was due to such an inter-city war.

 

Regarding the doubling of population in the Uruk environs in the Late Uruk period, there are also three possibilities we can see.  First, there is the possibility that Sumerians migrated from the Nippur environs to the Uruk environs.  Second, there is the strong possibility that the doubling of population in the Uruk environs over two centuries merely represented natural population growth.  Third, it is possible that Sumerian refugees, fleeing the abandoned and destroyed enclaves in the hinterland (as well as the retrenchment from Susiana), settled in the extreme southern end of their heartland.

 

Foot Notes

 

1. Starting dates for the X Waves of Z1Y1 are from Past Worlds, HarperCollins Atlas of Archaeology (Ann Arbor: Borders Press, 2001), p.80.  Jericho dates are from C-14 tests done by the British Museum and Philadelphia labs. Test BM-251 places the last years of Neolithic 1 Jericho at 7370 +/- 150 BC, while the beginning settlement of Neolithic 2 Jericho is dated 6660 +/- 75 BC by test P-380 and 6708 +/- 101 BC by test P-381.  Other tests vary by hundreds of years, but it is accepted that Jericho was abandoned for about 500 years from late Neolithic 1 to early Neolithic 2.  Our declining Wave Y2 expresses this fact.  See A.M.T. Moore, The Neolithic of the Levant, http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Jericho_Tell_Sultan.html. (Oxford University, 1978)  Numerous conflicting chronologies have been published for Neolithic 2.  We use Joan Oates’s chronology primarily because Frank Hole does, and critical quotes by Hole would make no sense if we used an alternate dating scheme.  Oates starts Early ‘Ubaid at 5825BC, Terminal ‘Ubaid at 4864BC, and Early Uruk at 4672BC.  This chronology makes the Uruk period longer than we would prefer (based on the Elliott Wave Principle) while other chronologies make the Uruk period shorter and the ‘Ubaid period longer than we would prefer.  The important thing to understand is that Neolithic dates are by no means exact, and will certainly be subject to revision over the coming decades. 

 

2. Past Worlds, p.80.

 

3. Bader, N.O. “Summary of the Earliest Agriculturalists of Northern Mesopotamia”, Early Mesopotamian Civilization, Soviet Excavations in Northern Iraq. Yoffee, Norman and Jeffery J. Clark ed. (Tucson: The University of Arizona Press, 1993) p.71.

 

4. 1 hectare = 10,000 square meters (100 by 100 meters) = 2.5 acres.

 

5. Moore, The Neolithic of the Levant, is our primary source for Neolithic 1 Jericho.

 

6. Gowlett, John. Ascent to Civilization, The Archaeology of Early Man. (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984) p. 161.

 

7. A discussion of criteria that should be used to determine a true city is beyond the scope of this article.  Marc Van De Mieroop examined this topic in The Ancient Mesopotamian City (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1997).  George Modelski distilled the issue down to simple population numbers in Cities of the Ancient World: An Inventory. http://faculty.washington.edu/modelski/WCITI2.html, 1997, stating that settlements require about 10,000 inhabitants in order to meet the key criteria for a city.  This population level was first achieved by the city of Uruk during the Uruk period.

 

8. Moore is also our primary source for Neolithic 2 Jericho.

 

9. Todd, Ian A. Catal Huyuk in Perspective. (Menlo Park: Cummings Publishing Co. 1976) p.104.  Todd dates Level XII to c6500BC. “The earliest, unexcavated deposits on the site may therefore date to the first half of the seventh millennium.” p.104.

 

10. Different archaeologists use estimates of population per hectare that are inconsistent with each other and range from about 100 persons to 400 persons per hectare.  For a discussion of the problem see Modelski (URL in footnote #7 above).  Estimating population is further complicated by the fact that ancient suburbs were sometimes quite large, yet they have not been extensively excavated, and are typically not included in the stated size of an urban site (per Van De Mieroop).

 

11. Past Worlds and Catal Huyuk in Perspective (Todd) are our primary sources for Catal Huyuk.

 

12. Jarmo. http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/Qalat_Jarmo.html

 

13. Weiss, Harvey.  Beyond the Younger Dryas, Collapse as Adaptation to Abrupt Climate Change in Ancient West Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean. www.yale.edu/nelc/weiss/byd.html p.2.

 

14. Details on the ‘Ubaid culture were gleaned from numerous sources. A good summary is provided by Bruce Owen, The emergence of civilization in Mesopotamia: ‘Ubaid and Uruk, 2001, at http://members.aol.com/emciv/34101f09.htm. More detail is available in The Sumerians by Sir Leonard Wooley (New York: W.W. Norton & Co. Inc., 1965).

 

15. Adams, Robert McC. Heartland of Cities. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993) pp.324-5. (part of the appendix written by Henry T. Wright, The Southern Margins of Sumer, Archaeological Survey of the Area of Eridu and Ur).

 

16. Wright, Henry T. The Administration of Rural Production in an Early Mesopotamian Town. (Ann Arbor: The University of Michigan, 1969) p.25.

 

17. Modelski (URL in footnote #7 above) p.22 lists Shuruppak (one of the 5 antediluvian cities) as an ‘Ubaid period settlement.

 

18. Hole, Frank. “Environmental Instabilities and Urban Origins”. Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East. Ed. Gil Stein and Mitchel S. Rothman (Madison: Prehistory Press, 1994). p.130.

 

19. Ibid. p129.  Hole says that the Gulf was dry land 21000 years ago, with sea level some 120 meters below present, that sea level rose to present levels by c4000BC, with a 10 meter rise in the Gulf during the ‘Ubaid period.

 

20. Flooding was a common problem in southern Mesopotamia, and different settlements show evidence of flooding at different times. Also, no ‘Ubaid period occupation levels have been discovered for some of the five antediluvian settlements mentioned in Sumerian writings.  Therefore, most sources date the legendary Flood between the end of the Uruk period and the beginning of the Bronze Age. (And we stated it as such in our first article, 12,000 Years of Elliott Waves.) From the standpoint of the Elliott Wave Principle, it would be preferable that the commonly held view is correct, because the Flood would then be associated with the end of a Y Wave rather than the end of a lower-order X Wave.  The problem with the view of a post-Uruk Flood, in addition to other evidence shown in the body of this article, is that there was no significant population decline at the end of the Uruk period, while there was a significant decline in the Terminal ‘Ubaid period.  Therefore, to our thinking, it is more likely that the Sumerian Flood legend relates to events associated with the Terminal ‘Ubaid population crash than with Late Uruk events.

 

21. Jacobsen, Thorkild. The Sumerian King List (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press. 1939) pp.71-77.  The list shows 2 kings in the city of Eridu followed by 3 kings in Bad-tibira, 1 king in Larak, 1 king in Sippar, and 1 king in Shuruppak, each of them given improbably long reigns in tens of thousands of years.  “5 cities were they; 8 kings reigned their 241,200 years.  The Flood swept thereover.  After the Flood swept thereover, when the kingship was lowered from heaven the kingship was in Kish.”  Jacobsen concludes that while years stated are obviously not reliable, and some city dynasties ran concurrently rather than consecutively as shown, the King List nevertheless serves as a valuable historical document.  See Gilgamesh by John Gardner and John Maier (New York: Random House. 1984) for the Sumerian Flood legend.

 

22. Wooley, Sir Leonard.  Excavations at Ur. (London: Ernest Benn Limited, 1955) p.35.

 

23. The Deh Luran Archaeological Project. www.umma.lsa.umich.edu/OldWorld/Deh_Luran/Deh_Luran.html

 

24. Hole. p. 132. 

 

25. Ibid. p.134

 

26 Lloyd, Seton. The Archaeology of Mesopotamia. London: Thames and Hudson Ltd. 1978, pp. 67-75. Northern ‘Ubaid pottery was found in levels XII to XIX at Gawra. “It was in level XIII that the culture seemed to have reached its maximum state of sophistication” (p.68). “In level XII there were signs of a great conflagration which had destroyed the entire settlement” (p.75).

 

27. Wooley. Excavations At Ur. (London: Ernest Benn Limited, 1955) p.15. “At an archaeological congress of excavators held at Baghdad in 1929 it was agreed that the early civilization of Southern Mesopotamia could be classified in successive phases which should be called, after the places where the evidence for each was first discovered, the al ‘Ubaid Period, the Uruk Period (named after Uruk, the Biblical Erech and the modern Warka), the Jamdat Nasr Period, and then the early Dynastic Period within which (but relatively late in it) comes the First Dynasty of Ur.”

 

28. Mallowan, M.E.L. Early Mesopotamia and Iran. (New York: McGraw-Hill Book Co., 1965) p. 12 & pp. 25-6.  Eighteen “archaic” occupation levels have been excavated at Uruk, with the earliest levels (XVIII to XV) associated with the ‘Ubaid period, and levels XIV-IV associated with the Uruk period.  “Uruk ware reached its full development in the period known as Uruk IV which also coincided with the climax of architectural development.” p. 26. See also Lloyd. pp.36-39 .

 

29. Past Worlds p.125.

 

30. Jacobsen. pp 85-93. The Sumerian King List states that after the Flood kingship was in Kish, and lists a succession of 23 rulers of that city.  Then, “Kish was smitten with weapons; its kingship to E-Anna was carried. In E-Anna Mes-kiag-gasher, son of Utu became high priest and king…”  The King List then reports that En-me(r)-kar, son of Mes-kiag-gasher, built the city of Uruk, and places Gilgamesh, son of the high priest of Kullab (ie. high priest of Anu in the temple district of Kullaba), as the third ruler after En-me(r)-kar.  The King List says there were 12 kings of Uruk (and lists 12 kings including Mes-kiag-gasher of E-Anna) then Uruk, too, “was smitten with weapons” and kingship carried off to Ur.  Therefore, the King List implies that the city of Uruk was a post-Flood expansion of the E-Anna settlement, and implies furthermore that Kullaba was a temple district of the expanded city, which corresponds with the archaeological record for the city for the Uruk period.  For the city of Kish, the archaeological record (consisting of about 40 separate mounds spread over a 1.5 by 5 mile area) is dated by most sources to c3000 BC. (see http://ancientneareast.tripod.com using search term =Kish). Adams says in Heartland of Cities, however, that Kish may have been a dual settlement of less than 7 hectares in the Uruk period (p. 88).

 

31. For the size of Uruk city see Adams, Heartland of Cities, Fig. 15, p.71 or Modelski, p.9.

 

32. Algaze, Guillermo. The Uruk World System: The Dynamics of Expansion of Early Mesopotamian Civilization. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1993.  Chapter 2, Uruk Sites in the Susiana Plain of Khuzestan. 

 

33. Algaze, Chapter 3. A brief summary of The Uruk World System is available (including map of the trade network) at http://ancientneareast.tripod.com/10.html  A book review is available on the internet at www.csun.edu/~ms44278/uruk.htm.

 

34. Owen. (URL above – see footnote 14) p.7.

 

35. Hendrickson, Elizabeth F. “The Outer Limits: Settlement and Economic Strategies in the Central Zagros Highlands During the Uruk Era”, Chiefdoms and Early States in the Near East. p. 88.

 

36. Algaze. pp. 3-4 for hypotheses regarding relationships between Uruk enclaves and indigenous peoples. Describing the indigenous cultures as “prototype developing nations” is our term, but note the caveat that that no cultures of the Uruk period can be properly designated as “nations”.  Our point, based on the Algaze hypotheses, is that the relationship between Uruk and non-Uruk peoples was similar in many ways to relationships between the first world and developing nations in recent centuries. 

 

37. Trade details are from numerous sources. Owen’s ‘Ubaid and Uruk summary provides extensive data. Algaze covers trade in chapter 4, with the quote on slaves from p.82. For the beer reference, see the Tripod internet site with search term = Godin Tepe.

 

38. Algaze, Chapter 6 (Social Change in the Northern Periphery and the Collapse of the Uruk Expansion), and Chapter 2 pp. 16-17.

 

39. Adams. p.69. 

 

40. Algaze. p.106.

 

© COPYRIGHT 2002 By Joseph M. Miller, Daan Joubert and Marion Butler, ALL RIGHTS RESERVED