Breasts In Mesopotamia

It's not that type of article so stop those dirty minds from churning. It's breast cancer awareness month and AllMesopotamia has not only reminded us of that, but they compiled an excellent article on Mesopotamian sculptures which depict mother's nursing, mother goddesses, love, evil, and some other pieces of note.

As expected, Mesopotamians associated the female form with fertility. Many statues believed to be those depicting fertility have been unearthed throughout Mesopotamia. They usually feature mother goddesses with prominent breasts held up suggestively with folded arms underneath (see below), while some statues feature only one of the breasts being held up as if it were an offering.

A statue from Samarra, ca. 6000 BC, believed to be of a mother goddess, with exaggerated breasts being held up for prominence. (Source)

Read the Entire Article: Breasts in Mesopotamia

Sorry this page has been removed

Removed

A Brief Discussion on Indus Valley Civilization Compared to Mesopotamia and Egypt

In response to a recent email I received from a student, I wanted to provide a brief discussion on the major differences between the Indus Valley Civilization Compared to Mesopotamia and Egypt. This is a general discussion and not meant to be a thorough paper on the topic.

Evidence suggests that Mesopotamia, Indus Valley, and Egyptian culture had somewhat of a cultural and economic impact on one another; however there are many observable differences and similarities in their artistic expression, social organization, and technologies.

Water, Irrigation, Flooding

Whereas rainfall was highly unpredictable in the Indus Valley, the Nile experienced a steady flow of ocean fed water, and while the Tigris and Euphrates could experience a lowering of water levels due to drought, the Nile’s flooding was a predictable occurrence, therefore soil remained highly lush and fertile. This of course supports the idea that irrigation was not as important in Egypt, yet vital in the Indus Valley, leading Indus Valley residents to create economic exchange networks to provide the many necessary resources that could not be obtained on the river floodplains.

Fragmentation

Fragmentation of the Indus culture can be attributed in part to changing river systems that disrupted the agricultural and economic system, whereas fragmentation of Egypt was largely because of politics and not related to the Nile or its impact on resource management.

Symbols and Writing

According to Kenoyer, “the urban expansion and increasing stratification of social classes in the Indus cities required the development of new forms of symbolic expression and new mechanisms for reinforcing social organization.”

We see this in seals and writing from the Indus Valley as well as cylinder seals in Mesopotamia. Cylinder seals from Uruk were linked to the invention of cuneiform writing on clay, therefore when this spread to other areas of the Near East, the use of cylinder seals spread too.

There were seals discovered in Egypt, albeit they were much smaller, in the deserts outside of Cairo. They are called scarab seals and they would have been attached to a document, possibly some form of weights and measures by a string.

Although many of the seals from Mesopotamia were pierced all the way through, like the scarab seals in Egypt, and worn around the neck as amulets, they tend to have the same message as seals found in the Indus Valley, which more often than not, were used as some sort of totem or art, hung instead of worn.

Monday Ground Up: What Do You Think Were The Best and Worst Aspects of Life In Complex Society?

I was posed this question(Best and Worst Aspects of Life In Complex Society) in a class called Archaeology of Complex Societies. It took me some time to even formulate an opinion as the amount of complex societies is vast, each one complicated in their own way. Each society and their info- structure, social organization, technology, architecture, and access to resources, is like a set of nested tables. One society was built on the next and others rearranged as societies came together because of warfare or environmental pressures.

 Best: Social Equality

Social equality in Mesopotamia complex society for women was virtually equal for both men and women. Women controlled their fertility and marriage was monogamous. If a divorce was sought by husbands and the wife had provided him sons, he forfeited considerable assets and the wife’s dowry was returned. This fact was seen in Knossos as well, as it was remarkably egalitarian between men and women. Women even had social, economic, and political roles as well. In Egypt, although women could not hold government offices, they could handle finances and the household.

In Peru, there was relatively little evidence to suggest social inequality or hierarchy, as people seem to have participated in collective labor without developing strong differences in access to resources.

Best: Infostructure, Trade and Technology

Nothing impresses me more with the planning and development of cities in complex society. Harappan society experienced urban planning, writing, a uniform system of weights and measures, the potter’s wheel, and a waste water system. Mesopotamia had the first writing to serve as record keeping, Cuneiform, Copper metallurgy, Gold, Smelted alloys (copper and tin), and they invented BEER. The Inka had knots for record keeping and taxation (Kepu) and the Maya, hieroglyphics.

As for trade, long-distance trade has been important in the evolution of many states, including those of Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica. Such exchange does develop eventually in all states, but it can follow rather than precede state formation. Mesopotamia and Mesoamerica controlled food production and distribution, which equals power. These societies regulated trade routes in order to suit to own needs, and sometimes, of their people.

In Habuba Kabira, inhabitants were purchasing their food from neighboring cities, thus, Habuba Kabira was mostly inhabited by Sumerians who were not interested in colonizing the territory, but rather using their river access to transport valuable resources south.

In Mesoamerica and Mesopotamia, with the advent of the hydraulic system, the authorities were beginning to control and maintain water as well as personal and group relations. Why is this good? More water=more food=more people. People are able to exploit new environments. In fact, Mesoamerica had “a wide range of resources available from region to region which encouraged exchange among different groups”.

Worst: Social Inequality

In the Dawenkou culture, grave goods painted a considerable picture of inequality as some were filled with jade, tools, ivory, animal bones, and others, were filled with nothing. In the Harappan urban zones, houses with single rooms “crammed together in tenement-like apartment buildings”. However, there were also no palaces in the five large cities that made up Harappan society, so it’s hard to determine the divide in society exactly.

At Teotihuacan, leaders utilized forced resettlement programs after immigrants from surrounding areas and Cuicuilco, populated the large city after the volcanic destruction. Most of the population (extended family) inhabited compounds and nuclear families often took up residence in “smaller sub-patios “in the larger apartment complexes.

Worst: War and Environmental Impact

Archaeological evidence of violence and warfare in Longshan villages turned up burned abodes and burials containing human sacrifices and several scalped individuals. Located between the arms of the Oaxaca Valley were “unoccupied “buffer” zones that archaeologists believe were border areas between competing, and possibly conflicting, political groups”.

At San Jose Mogote a temple was burned, which archaeologically, indicated an elite family was laying claim to the site and used violence to obtain it. At Burial 2 at Teotihuacan, the presence of predators leads many to believe that this offering refers to prowess in warfare. The human sacrifice had hands tied behind their back and was accompanied by a caged puma and wolf. By C.E. 500, temples at Teotihuacan had been burned and looted, possibly the result of a “violent uprising”.

Final Thought

What is evident is that the peoples of complex societies destroyed the environment to support economy via deforestation, soil exhausting, and erosion. We see this in Mesoamerica, China, Olmec, and Cahokia. Consequently, at the site of Catal Huyuk in Turkey, mounds, or “Tells”, rise high above the landscape, and what lies beneath, is thousands of years of garbage and human waste, polluting the earth. Of course, archaeologists view this in another context, calling it stuff or artifacts.

Regardless of impact on the environment, the only way we can examine the past is by looking at people’s garbage, which is representative of cultures across space and through time.

What Do You Think Were The Best and Worst Aspects of Life In Complex Society?

Related Content You May Like

South American Vs Old World Complex Societies: Similarities and Differences

The civilizations of the Old World were in fact derivatives of the first ancient cultures, even dominating their ancient counterparts in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and China. They did so by utilizing new forms of agriculture and technology, improving upon the methods previously noted. The South American societies paralleled the Old World ancient societies in that they exhibited advanced architecture, powerful armies, social hierarchies, and intensive farming systems.

Read more: South American Vs Old World Complex Societies: Similarities and Differences

Monday Ground Up: Hunter-Gatherers, Agriculture, and Global Warming

Hunter Gatherers are traditionally described as being highly nomadic individuals that traveled with very  few possessions in a marginal environment. Of course, the factors of the environment directly influenced the ability to be mobile. However, up until the Last Age, we can agree hunter gatherers were highly mobile.

Read more: Monday Ground Up: Hunter-Gatherers, Agriculture, and Global Warming

Social Complexity of the Ancients: A Brief Overview

The concept of isolation is among one of the most significant ideas for social complexity, in that all complex societies were never “truly isolated from each other” . If this was the case, all complex societies would or could have, adopted a similar social organization, with the exception of the people living in Shandong Province as the Dawenkou culture, mentioned as having a limited or different access to resources, therefore aiding to a slight variation in organization.

Read more: Social Complexity of the Ancients: A Brief Overview

South American Vs Old World Complex Societies: Similarities and Differences

The civilizations of the Old World were in fact derivatives of the first ancient cultures, even dominating their ancient counterparts in Egypt, Mesopotamia, and China. They did so by utilizing new forms of agriculture and technology, improving upon the methods previously noted. The South American societies paralleled the Old World ancient societies in that they exhibited advanced architecture, powerful armies, social hierarchies, and intensive farming systems.

Agriculture

In Mesopotamia, China, and Egypt, the citizens were “inextricably tied to the irrigation system fed by the great river through canal systems, controlled by the government” (Wenke and Olszewski 2007). This was not the case in South America, as citizens of the civilization worked as a collective, to provide the community with ample resources.

Relatively simple agricultural villages in South America grew mostly maize, beans, squash, and peppers and the abundance of the Pacific Ocean didn’t require the reliance on one staple crop. Overall the impact on the land was relatively low as opposed to their Old World counterparts, who utilized hoofed animals for intensive agriculture. Domesticates in Peru, or rather the role of these animals (llamas and guinea pigs) is unclear.

Sites like Tucume thrived, raising crops and animals and formulating a complete infrastructure including waterways and manmade watercourses, like the advanced systems we observed in Mesopotamia. The advancement of irrigation in this society located in Peru is fascinating. Why? The extreme environment and dry arid lands required physical and cultural adaptations.

South Americans “partially solved” a long standing Old World agricultural problem regarding tubers, developing a method of freeze drying potatoes for storage. In Old World Africa, the use of tubers was limited, as they were never brought under cultivation. Furthermore, tubers were also under cultivation in ancient China, India, the Near East and the Mediterranean Basin.

In sum: Old World societies relied on one staple crop, whereas South American complex societies saw crops as a supplement, utilizing maize, beans, potatoes, quinoa, fish from the nearby Pacific, and squash, to sustain the populations.

Class and Social Hierarchy 

Culturally, Old World societies were a bit different than South America. There was social inequality as sited by the hierarchical organization of class systems. State religions provided, as Wenke and Olszewski (2007) noted, the “context of life”. We saw temples in Mesopotamia which clearly indicated some sort of social hierarchy. The Shang society was headed by a king, who ruled through hierarchically arranged nobility (p 446). Consequently, the Erhlit’ou culture, as evidenced archaeologically, consisted of large abodes, middle sized lodging, and small villages, suggesting an administrative hierarchy.

There was relatively little evidence to suggest social inequality or hierarchy in Peru, as “people seem to have participated in collective labor without developing strong differences in access to resources. Michael Moseley suggested that these Peruvian societies living in villages along the water exhibited “simple social stratification” on the basis of fishing.

In the case of Chan Chan, however, there was clear evidence of a class system much like the districts are separated today. Social classes were sectioned off in nine "citadels" where they lived, worked, and carried on with their daily lives. Evidence at Chan Chan’s reflects a strict political and social strategy, marked by the city's division. The Inka were organized into a stratified class society under a monarch.

In sum: The beginnings of South American complex societies may have not exhibited social inequality, however as advanced architecture was created, farming techniques grew more dependent on labor and class divisions became apparent. This movement towards a more hierarchical class based system was seen in the Old World as well. As technology and agriculture became more advanced so did the need for a political entities and polities to control the new system.

Trade

Old World trade typically happened in the lowlands by the river valleys. This was seen in Mesopotamia, Indus Valley, and Huanghe. If we consider Peru, however, there were populations living in both the highlands and lowlands. Two separate environmental zones were utilizing trade, and not always via waterways. In fact, there is no evidence of boats being used along the Andean coast, so we can assume in fact that seafaring trade was absent.

Technology

Unlike the Old World, the Inka were the only Pre-Columbian civilization to lack or develop a written language. Furthermore, the Inkas and the New World civilizations developed or utilized the inventions of the Old World including wheeled vehicles, making farming and trade much for efficient and thus allowing the Old World civilizations to have overwhelming power.

The Egyptians, although many are unaware, were excellent seafarers, building boats for exchange with other societies via waterways. On the other hand, no boats have ever been found at any sites along the Andean coast, therefore we can assume trade was occurring between highland and lowland societies on foot.

Economics

In Old World Egypt, the resources were similar along the Nile Valley and Delta, however in Andean South America, different natural resources, ocean and farm, gave way to an economic advantage when both resources were utilized.

Final Thought

Although the civilizations of the Old World and South America were quite varied, there was a fundamental similarity between the two. The evolution of the “social institution” gave way to exploitation of peoples, even using the excuse that it was the civic or religious duty of the citizens to conform to this new structure.

Resources

• Wenke and Olszewski: Patterns of Prehistory 2007

Social Complexity of the Ancients: A Brief Overview

The concept of isolation is among one of the most significant ideas for social complexity, in that all complex societies were never “truly isolated from each other” . If this was the case, all complex societies would or could have, adopted a similar social organization, with the exception of the people living in Shandong Province as the Dawenkou culture, mentioned as having a limited or different access to resources, therefore aiding to a slight variation in organization.

What some of these societies do have in common, evidently, is there location, approximate in distance to rivers or water resources. However, Huanghe River’s annual flooding aided in rice production, yet the peoples didn’t depend on this resource, since grain millet (tolerant of dry climates) was grown in the same area as well. In actuality, reliance of some kind on agricultural subsistence, whether millet, pigs, rice, corn, wheat, wild plants and animals, chickens, and so on, were all present.

Social Hierarchy

As evidenced in Mesopotamia, the temples which held the gods, and ziggurats, which on many occasions, state officials called home, were clearly depictive of a social hierarchy.

Erhlit’ou
 
The same can be said for the Erhlit’ou culture, as archaeological evidence consisting of large abodes, middle sized lodging, and small villages, suggesting an administrative hierarchy. Albeit, there’s no written record to suggest this was the actual organization of the site.

Angang

 

Angang exhibited another settlement pattern; however, extensive looting has destroyed much of the evidence. What is evident is that there was a central palace, and several specialty workshops for prized items such as jade, bone, and bronze. If there were craftsmen who made these items then there had to be a central area for them to be accommodated. Although, the manufacture of these particular items was watched closely, so it is possible the individuals who made them resided within the walls of the palace.

Crete

 

The settlement patterns in Crete were a bit more perplexing considering the peoples were living in small villages without clear evidence for political authority extending beyond the village scale.

At the Palace at Knossos, there’s a series of rooms holding storage jars and documents, as well as a room for rituals by gods and goddesses. A throne room is present at Knossos, however there’s no clear evidence of the type of political unit once present. Furthermore, even the villas situated on the outskirts of Knossos have been rumored to be part of agricultural units, but this still does not indicate a single ruler of the area. The Goddess figurine from Knossos is depicted in artwork elsewhere in Crete and at Knossos and probably represents an important early divinity, similar to the Sumerian relation of king and gods.

Uruk


Historians believe priests and priestesses of several early city-states played an essential role in ruling in Uruk. Sumerians believed kings derived their power from the gods, and in so doing, were agents of the gods. Therefore, ruling power was primarily in the hands of kings.

Shang



Wenke and Olszewski (2007) mentioned that archaeological evident and written documents after the Shang period indicate that Shang society was headed by a king, who ruled through hierarchically arranged nobility (p 446). This is further explained by the relationship between the king and Di (god), mirrored by relationships between the king and his living servants and vassals: as the king served Di, so living people served the king.

Burials

The Chinese shared the custom of burials with Mesopotamia, as seen at the Royal Tombs of Ur. Not only were chariots and rice buried with the dead, but ruler’s wives, servants, guards, and other staffs were present as well, to aid him in the afterlife. Oddly, this custom wasn’t widely adhered to in Egypt, as we tend to see more material items: pottery, gold, necklaces, clothing, etc., in the tombs of Pharaohs.

Burials in eastern Crete contained valuable times like gold diadems and other forms of personal adornment. Consequently, the M10 Tomb at Dawenkou exhibited vessels and pig bones from feasting during funerary activities, although the scraps from swine don’t seem like an offering, rather an individual’s attempt to climb the social ladder while erasing someone’s past. Throwing out the garbage per se. Of course, this is not what it seems.

Final Thought

China's political authority consisted of small polities which didn’t span the vast areas like its counterparts in Mesopotamia. Like Egypt, there was evident inequality and large river valleys for trading and irrigation. However, in the case of both Egypt and China, eventually “a geographically large political unit was created. Consequently, social organization in Minoan Crete is poorly understood and within reason. There’s insufficient evidence. Like China, Egypt, and Mesopotamia, there was social inequality and some type of political authority. There were no city-states in Minoan Crete, but rather small polities like China. Authority was rumored to be in the hands of elite families and divinities, rather than one single ruler.

Sources

Bronze Artifact (Bronze two-sided mask, Late Shang Period (c. 1200-1050 B.C.)
Jiangxi Provincial Museum, Nanchang)

Uruk Period Kings

The Uruk Period lasted from 4100-3000 B.C. (time frame not set in stone) and exemplified the dawn of civilization and city-state growth. New cities emerged; arts and crafts became more advanced; social hierarchies were created and molded by system administrators; writing and documenting trade transactions took place on cuneiform; and warfare stretched the Mesopotamian landscapes as city states popped up around the Euphrates and Tigris rivers.

The landscape during the Uruk Period was dominated by agricultural growth, as cities competed for resources and warfare and hostilities sparked from disputes over water rights and property. Mudbrick walls were constructed around the developing and urbanizing cities in order to cut tensions. Ziggurats were created by the Uruk kings to protect the people and house the gods. The question remains, however, were there actual kings during the Uruk Period?

The answer is yes, albeit the evidence suggests that kings were more mythological in nature. After priests, who held economic and political powers, still retaining their religious mystique of course, Uruk period kings emerged as dual rulers in an effort to combat warfare and forge sociocultural bonds with their people.

Historians believe priests and priestesses of several early city-states played an essential role in ruling (Spielvogel 2009). Sumerians, however, believed kings derived their power from the gods, and in so doing, were agents of the gods. Therefore, ruling power was primarily in the hands of kings.

“You in your judgment, you are the son of Anu [god of the sky]; your commands, like the word of a god, cannot be reversed; your words, like rain pouring down from heaven, are without number” (Spielvogel 2009). This quote was recited by one being as a petition to his king. Is there evidence for this event? There’s only one documented source available for this meeting, however there’s also no archaeological records to dispute this actually occurred.

Looking at the archaeological record of Mesopotamia, there is at least one centrally located temple that housed the deities or deity who watched over the community. Each centrally located temple is controlled by a priest who manages the deity’s wealth. These priests appear to have been the most prominent political and economic forces in early Mesopotamian communities (Bulliet et al. 2008:36-37). Were they the Uruk kings?

The kings most often mentioned during the Uruk period are regarded as antediluvian; relating to the period before the flood described in the Bible. A problem arises, however. These mythological kings, some of which ruled for over 60,000 years, have very little support for their actual existence, with the exception of faith. Furthermore, it’s quite difficult to place certain kings with the time frame of the Uruk period since all were regarded as existing prior to 2900 B.C. and many were mythological and undocumented.

Sumerian King List

The only documented antediluvian kings mentioned in text, possibly reigning during the Uruk period or shortly thereafter, are mentioned in an ancient Sumerian King list. The list, mentioned in I Studied Inscriptions from Before the Flood": Ancient Near Eastern Literary, and Linguistic Approaches to Genesis 1-11, includes Alulim of Eridu, Alalgar of Eridu, Enmenluanna of Badtibiria, Enmengalanna of Badtibira, Dumanzi of Badtibira, Ensipazianna of Larak, Enmeduranki of Sippar, Ubar-Tutu of Shuruppak, and the Sumerian flood-hero Ziusudra (Xisuthros) of Shurappak (1994). There’s another list, however, pertaining to Uruk, published by J.J.A. van Dijk. Hess and Tsumura (1994) noted Dijk’s list includes seven antediluvian kings including (Ajalu= Alulim of Enmeduranki) and seven antediluvian sages, presumed to have lived under these kings: U-An, U-An dugga, Enmedugga, Enmegalamma, Enmebulugga, An-Enlilda, and Utuabzu (p. 225).

The “Lugar” or “Big Man”, mentioned by Kramer (1963), emerged in Sumerian cities during the third millennium B.C.E. (p.74). It’s not clear as to why these regent rulers appeared, however with the ongoing conflict occurring between city-states for water, food, and other resources, there’s seems to have been a need for control, and indeed there was. Pressures from (Kramer [1963] barbaric peoples from the east and west of Sumer increased), therefore military leadership became a pressing need. The “Big Man” took his rightful superior place.

The kings led armies, built city walls and defenses, protected people against crime, supervised public works projects, initiated legislation, provided courts, and organized workers for irrigation projects, on which Mesopotamia agriculture depended (Spielvogel 2009 ). The Sumerian priest-kings received advice from a general assembly made up of free men. The army, government bureaucracy, and the priests and priestesses all aided the  Uruk kings in their rule. By about 3000 B. C., they took their place as permanent kings (Kramer 1963). As time went by, the king’s power rivaled that of the priesthood. Why? The temples started to grow weaker in a sense as palaces were the center for political and economic assemblies. Furthermore, the army now followed the rule of the king.

So are we to assume that priests just evolved into kings? Text based evidence seems to support this notion. However, if we assume, or rather deny the flood or mythological kings prior to the flood, how does this explain the archaeological evidence at Uruk discovered in the 1920s?



In 1929, Leonard Woolley discovered a clay deposit laid down by the legendary Great Flood. “On top of this deposit was the stratum that contained the famous Royal Tombs of Ur, which belong to the period called Early Dynastic III (c.2600-2400 BCE); underneath it was a settlement from what is called the Late Ubaid period, which ended in c.3100” (Woolley 1934). What exactly does this have to do with the Uruk Period? The following evidence may substantiate the existence of a king who founded the First Dynasty.

In Ur: Royal Inscr. 268 was published the inscription which I should now transcribe nin-TUR nin; dam mes-an-ni-pdd-da; i.e. 'the lady NIN-TUR^, wife of Mesannipadda' ; from a seal (U. 8981) found loose in the stratum between the Sargonid and the older part of the cemetery. Mesannipadda is naturally assumed to be the king of that name who founded the First Dynasty. In 1928/9 it appeared that a stratum of rubbish was laid down above the older cemetery during (probably) the First Dynasty. In 1929/30 the stratum SIS I was discovered and named, and determined by the excavator to be, together with SIS II, continuous with the dividing stratum that elsewhere divides the lower cemetery from the upper. In SIS I was a seal-impression containing the inscription \ine\s-an-ni-pdd-da; lugal kis^'; dam-nu-gig'^ [Woolley 1994:312].

Stele of Vultures

One of the earliest archaeological depictions of warfare in Mesopotamia was on the Stele of Vultures, kept in the Louvre, dating to the Early Dynastic III (2600-2330 BC) during the reign of Eannatum, King of Lagash (Pollock 1999). Indeed, the stele date doesn’t fall in the time frame of the Uruk Period, however it does allude to patron deities who were heavily involved in battle when his city was threatened. Pollock (1999) noted King Eannatum’s reign falls in the 1^st Dynasty of Lagash, following the 2^nd Dynasty of Uruk, one ponders if there was such a parallel to warfare led by divine kings and nature of deities during the Uruk Period (p. 184). Indeed there is.


The Mask of Warka may be one of the most fascinating archaeological finds of the Uruk period, dating to 3100 B.C. Jan Russell (2008) that the Mask of Warka is believed to be the world's oldest known naturalistic sculpture of a human face (p.86). Even more fascinating is the fact the face is off a women, and not just any women, Inanna.

The kingship of Sumer is given to Ninisinna, otherwise known as Inanna, the daughter of An, documented in the Lipit Ishtar Code. Inanna is often depicted as a fickle person who first attracts men and then rejects them, a richly dressed goddess, or as a naked woman (Collins 1994). Did Uruk period kings exist? Let’s look at some archaeological evidence.

Ward (1910) noted a cylindrical seal kept at the British Museum, dating about 3000 B.C Uruk Period, clearly depicts a 'priest-king', Bin-Gur-Akhi, King of Erech. The seal reads “To Bin-Gur-Akhi, King of Uruk; the scribe; thy servant”. This is indeed one of the most valuable seals The British Museum has ever procured (p. 21).

The Royal Tombs of Ur discovered by Leonard Woolley have yielded evidence of kings dated to 2600 B.C. The most complete of the burials was that of Pu-abi, a high ranking woman. Her name is known because a cylinder seal was found in the tomb and is engraved with a banquet scene. It has been suggested that this indicates that the owner was female and a queen. The cuneiform inscription on this seal reads 'Pu-abi nin’, with ‘nin’ formally read as Shubad. This would be the feminine equivalent of “lugal”.

When lugal is applied to a mortal it means “queen”. A seal discovered next to Pu-abi had been an unknown person; however Woolley seems to have believed the cylinder read “A-bra-ge”, the king and husband of Pu-abi (Moorey 1977).

How does this pertain to Uruk kings? Let’s take a step back to the cylindrical seal kept at the British Museum, dating about 3000 B.C Uruk Period. The seal of the priest-king represents a new social organization in the city-states, and although warfare is missing from the seal, it doesn’t rule out the existence of kings during that time. Is this evidence that kings existed during that time? Possibly so.

Conclusion

Indeed, the existence of archaeological texts and written records are lacking for the Uruk period. However, based on the Stele of Vultures, the cylindrical piece at the British Museum, and the Mask of Warka, it is possible there could be more. Further excavation and investigation needs to take place, especially in light of the evidence found during the 1920s. If cylindrical and seal devices can be found depicting kings in warfare during the Uruk period, arguments for the existence of actual kings could be heavily changed. The seal discovered by Woolley depicting A-bra-ge dates to 3200 B.C. and clearly shows a priest-king making an offering. The Uruk period ended in 3000 B.C., so it seems anomalous, and hardly feasible, that kings should only exist 200 years after this time.

REFERENCES CITED

• Bulliet, Richard W., Pamela Kyle Crossley, Daniel R. Headrick, Lyman L. Johnson, and Steven W. Hirsch. 2008 The Earth and Its Peoples: A Global History, Volume I. Houghton Mifflin Company, Boston.
• Collins, Paul. 1994 The Sumerian goddess Inanna (3400.2200 BC). Institute of Archaeology, UCL, Los Angeles.
• Hess, Richard S. (editor) and David Toshio Tsumura (editor).1994 I Studied Inscriptions From Before The Flood: Ancient Near Eastern, Literary, and Linguistic approaches to Genesis 1-11, Volume 4. Einsenbrauns, Inc. Winona Lake.
• Kramer, Samuel N. 1963 The Sumerians: their history, culture, and character. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
• Moorey, P.R.S 1977 What do we know about the people buried in the Royal Cemetery? Penn Museum Documents and Publication. Accessed February 18, 2011.
• Pollock, Susan. 1999 Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Russell, Jan, J. (editor). 2008 They Lived to Tell the Tale: True Stories of Modern Adventure from the Adventurers Club. The Explorers Club. Lyon’s Press, Guilford.
• Spielvogel, Jackson J. 2009 Western Civilization, Volume 1: To 1715, Seventh Edition. Thomson Higher Education. Belmont.
• Ward, William, H. 1910 The Seal Cylinders of Western Asia. Carnegie Institute of Washington, Washington D.C.
• Woolley, C.L. 1934 Ur Excavations: The Royal Cemetery. A Report on the Predynastic and Sargonid Graves Excavated Between 1926 and 1931, Volume II. British Museum and The University of Pennyslyvania. Oxford University Press, London.
• Stele of Vultures picture.
• Mask of Warka picture. BBC
• Leonard Woolley
• Royal Tomb photo © Answers in Genesis
• Sumerian King List photo © Christina Mina

Monday Ground Up: Sumerian Cities

The Sumerian cities were surrounded by walls, much like the Forbidden City, as a way to keep their culture secret and sacred. Sumerian city dwellings were constructed out of sun-dried bricks, including peasant quarters and the larger dwellings of priestly and civic officials.

One of the Sumerian cities, Uruk, occupied an area of 1000 acres enclosed by a wall 6 miles long with defense towers every 35 feet or so। Uruk was founded by Enmerkar who constructed the Eanna temple for the goddess Inanna in the Eanna District of Uruk. In the Epic of Gilgamesh, Gilgamesh builds the city wall around Uruk and is king of the city.