EARLY
DYNASTIC PERIOD (MESOPOTAMIA)
![](images/Basse_Mesopotamie_DA.png)
Early
Dynastic Period c.2900 – 2350 BC
Geographical
range : Mesopotamia
Period
: Bronze Age
Dates
: fl. c. 2900–2350 BC (middle)
Type
site : Tell Khafajah, Tell Agrab, Tell Asmar
Major
sites : Tell Abu Shahrain, Tell al-Madain,
Tell as-Senkereh, Tell Abu Habbah, Tell Fara, Tell Uheimir, Tell
al-Muqayyar, Tell Bismaya, Tell Hariri
Preceded
by : Jemdet Nasr Period
Followed
by : Akkadian
Period
The
Early Dynastic period (abbreviated ED period or ED) is an archaeological
culture in Mesopotamia (modern-day Iraq) that is generally dated
to c. 2900–2350 BC and was preceded by the Uruk and Jemdet
Nasr periods. It saw the development of writing and the formation
of the first cities and states. The ED itself was characterized
by the existence of multiple city-states: small states with a relatively
simple structure that developed and solidified over time. This development
ultimately led to the unification of much of Mesopotamia under the
rule of Sargon, the first monarch of the Akkadian Empire. Despite
this political fragmentation, the ED city-states shared a relatively
homogeneous material culture. Sumerian cities such as Uruk, Ur,
Lagash, Umma, and Nippur located in Lower Mesopotamia were very
powerful and influential. To the north and west stretched states
centered on cities such as Kish, Mari, Nagar, and Ebla.
The
study of Central and Lower Mesopotamia has long been given priority
over neighboring regions. Archaeological sites in Central and Lower
Mesopotamia—notably Girsu but also Eshnunna, Khafajah, Ur,
and many others—have been excavated since the 19th century.
These excavations have yielded cuneiform texts and many other important
artifacts. As a result, this area was better known than neighboring
regions, but the excavation and publication of the archives of Ebla
have changed this perspective by shedding more light on surrounding
areas, such as Upper Mesopotamia, western Syria, and southwestern
Iran. These new findings revealed that Lower Mesopotamia shared
many socio-cultural developments with neighboring areas and that
the entirety of the ancient Near East participated in an exchange
network in which material goods and ideas were being circulated.
![](images/399px-Man_carrying_a_box,_possibly_for_offerings_ca._2900%962600_BCE_Sumer.jpg)
Man
carrying a box, possibly for offerings. Metalwork, ca. 2900–2600
BCE, Sumer. Metropolitan Museum of Art
History
of research :
Dutch archaeologist Henri Frankfort coined the term Early Dynastic
(ED) period for Mesopotamia, the naming convention having been borrowed
from the similarly named Early Dynastic (ED) period for Egypt. The
periodization was developed in the 1930s during excavations that
were conducted by Henri Frankfort on behalf of the University of
Chicago Oriental Institute at the archaeological sites of Tell Khafajah,
Tell Agrab, and Tell Asmar in the Diyala Region of Iraq.
![](images/Henri_Frankfort.jpg)
A
photograph from the 1930s of Dutch archaeologist Henri Frankfort,
who coined the term Early Dynastic period
The ED was divided into the sub-periods ED I, II, and III. This
was primarily based on complete changes over time in the plan of
the Abu Temple of Tell Asmar, which had been rebuilt multiple times
on exactly the same spot. During the 20th century, many archaeologists
also tried to impose the scheme of ED I–III upon archaeological
remains excavated elsewhere in both Iraq and Syria, dated to 3000–2000
BC. However, evidence from sites elsewhere in Iraq has shown that
the ED I–III periodization, as reconstructed for the Diyala
river valley region, could not be directly applied to other regions.
Research
in Syria has shown that developments there were quite different
from those in the Diyala river valley region or southern Iraq, rendering
the traditional Lower Mesopotamian chronology useless. During the
1990s and 2000s, attempts were made by various scholars to arrive
at a local Upper Mesopotamian chronology, resulting in the Early
Jezirah (EJ) 0–V chronology that encompasses everything from
3000 to 2000 BC. The use of the ED I–III chronology is now
generally limited to Lower Mesopotamia, with the ED II sometimes
being further restricted to the Diyala river valley region or discredited
altogether.
Periodization
:
The ED was preceded by the Jemdet Nasr and then succeeded by the
Akkadian period, during which, for the first time in history, large
parts of Mesopotamia were united under a single ruler. The entirety
of the ED is now generally dated to approximately 2900–2350
BC according to the middle chronology or 2800–2230 BC according
to the short chronology. The ED was divided into the ED I, ED II,
ED IIIa, and ED IIIb sub-periods. ED I–III were more or less
contemporary with the Early Jezirah (EJ) I–III in Upper Mesopotamia.
The exact dating of the ED sub-periods varies between scholars—with
some abandoning ED II and using only Early ED and Late ED instead
and others extending ED I while allowing ED III begin earlier so
that ED III was to begin immediately after ED I with no gap between
the two.
Many
historical periods in the Near East are named after the dominant
political force at that time, such as the Akkadian or Ur III periods.
This is not the case for the ED period. It is an archaeological
division that does not reflect political developments, and it is
based upon perceived changes in the archaeological record, e.g.
pottery and glyptics. This is because the political history of the
ED is unknown for most of its duration. As with the archaeological
subdivision, the reconstruction of political events is hotly debated
among researchers.
Period |
Particulars |
ED
I |
Middle
Chronology in BC : 2900 – 2750 / 2700
Short
Chronology in BC : 2800 – 2600 |
ED
II |
Middle
Chronology in BC : 2750 / 2700 – 2600
Short
Chronology in BC : 2600 – 2500 |
ED
IIIa |
Middle
Chronology in BC : 2600 – 2500 / 2450
Short
Chronology in BC : 2500 – 2375 |
ED
IIIb |
Middle
Chronology in BC : 2500 / 2450 – 2350
Short
Chronology in BC : 2375 – 2230 |
|
![](images/485px-Painted_ceramic_jar,_2800-2600_BCE,_Khafajah,_Sumer_EDII-III.jpg)
Scarlet
Ware Pottery excavated in Khafajah. 2800-2600 BCE, Early Dynastic
II-III, Sumer. British Museum
The
ED I (2900–2750/2700 BC) is poorly known, relative to the
sub-periods that followed it. In Lower Mesopotamia, it shared characteristics
with the final stretches of the Uruk (c. 3300–3100 BC) and
Jemdet Nasr (c. 3100–2900 BC) periods. ED I is contemporary
with the culture of the Scarlet Ware pottery typical of sites along
the Diyala in Lower Mesopotamia, the Ninevite V culture in Upper
Mesopotamia, and the Proto-Elamite culture in southwestern Iran.
[citation needed]
New
artistic traditions developed in Lower Mesopotamia during the ED
II (2750/2700–2600 BC). These traditions influenced the surrounding
regions. According to later Mesopotamian historical tradition, this
was the time when legendary mythical kings such as Lugalbanda, Enmerkar,
Gilgamesh, and Aga ruled over Mesopotamia. Archaeologically, this
sub-period has not been well-attested to in excavations of Lower
Mesopotamia, leading some researchers to abandon it altogether.
The
ED III (2600–2350 BC) saw an expansion in the use of writing
and increasing social inequality. Larger political entities developed
in Upper Mesopotamia and southwestern Iran. ED III is usually further
subdivided into the ED IIIa (2600–2500/2450 BC) and ED IIIb
(2500/2450–2350 BC). The Royal Cemetery at Ur and the archives
of Fara and Abu Salabikh date back to ED IIIa. The ED IIIb is especially
well known through the archives of Girsu (part of Lagash) in Iraq
and Ebla in Syria.
The
end of the ED is not defined archaeologically but rather politically.
The conquests of Sargon and his successors upset the political equilibrium
throughout Iraq, Syria, and Iran. The conquests lasted many years
into the reign of Naram-Sin of Akkad and built on ongoing conquests
during the ED. The transition is much harder to pinpoint within
an archaeological context. It is virtually impossible to date a
particular site as being that of either ED III or Akkadian period
using ceramic or architectural evidence alone.
Early
Dynastic kingdoms and rulers :
Map
of Iraq showing important sites that were occupied by the Early
Dynastic kingdoms
The
Early Dynastic period is preceded by the Uruk Period (ca. 4000—3100
BCE) and the Jemdet Nasr period (ca. 3100—2900 BCE). A full
list of rulers, some of them legendary, is given by the Sumerian
King List (SKL).
Dynasties |
Particulars |
Antediluvian
kings |
Dates
: Legendary
Main
Rulers : Alulim, Dumuzid the Shepherd, En-men-dur-ana,
Ziusudra |
1st
Dynasty of Kish |
Dates
: ca. 2900 - 2600 BCE
Main
Rulers : Etana, Enmebaragesi |
1st
Dynasty of Uruk |
Dates
: ---
Main
Rulers : Enmerkar, Lugalbanda, Dumuzid the Fisherman,
Gilgamesh |
1st
Dynasty of Ur |
Dates
: ca. 2500 - 2400 BCE
Main
Rulers : Meskalamdug, Mesannepada, Puabi |
2nd
Dynasty of Uruk |
Dates
: ---
Main
Rulers : Enshakushanna |
1st
Dynasty of Lagash |
Dates
: ca. 2500 - 2300 BCE
Main
Rulers : Ur-Nanshe, Eannatum, En-anna-tum I, Entemena,
Urukagina |
Dynasty
of Adab |
Dates
: ---
Main
Rulers : Lugal-Anne-Mundu |
3rd
Dynasty of Kish |
Dates
: ca. 2500 - 2330 BC
Main
Rulers : Kubaba |
3rd
Dynasty of Uruk |
Dates
: ca. 2294 - 2270 BCE
Main
Rulers : Lugal-zage-si |
|
The
Early Dynastic period is followed by the rise of the Akkadian Empire.
Geographical
context :
Lower Mesopotamia :
![](images/Stele_of_Ushumgal_MET_DT849.jpg)
Stele
of Ushumgal, 2900 - 2700 BC. Probably from Umma
The preceding Uruk period in Lower Mesopotamia saw the appearance
of the first cities, early state structures, administrative practices,
and writing. Evidence for these practices was attested to during
the Early Dynastic period.
The
ED period is the first for which it is possible to say something
about the ethnic composition of the population of Lower Mesopotamia.
This is due to the fact that texts from this period contained sufficient
phonetic signs to distinguish separate languages. They also contained
personal names, which can potentially be linked to an ethnic identity.
The textual evidence suggested that Lower Mesopotamia during the
ED period was largely dominated by Sumer and primarily occupied
by the Sumerian people, who spoke a non-Semitic language isolate
(Sumerian). It is debated whether Sumerian was already in use during
the Uruk period.
![](images/631px-Golden_helmet_of_Meskalamdug_in_the_British_Museum.jpg)
Gold
helmet of Meskalamdug, ruler of the First Dynasty of Ur, circa 2500
BC, Early Dynastic period III
![](images/640px-Ring_of_Gold,_Carnelian,_Lapis_Lazuli,_Tello,_ancient_Girsu,_mid-3rd_millenium_BC.jpg)
Ring
of Gold, Carnelian, Lapis Lazuli, Tello, ancient Girsu, mid-3rd
millennium BC
Textual evidence indicated the existence of a Semitic population
in the upper reaches of Lower Mesopotamia. The texts in question
contained personal names and words from a Semitic language, identified
as Old Akkadian. However, the use of the term Akkadian before the
emergence of the Akkadian Empire is problematic [why?], and it has
been proposed to refer to this Old Akkadian phase as being of the
"Kish civilization" named after Kish (the seemingly most
powerful city during the ED period) instead. Political and socioeconomic
structures in these two regions also differed, although Sumerian
influence is unparalleled during the Early Dynastic period.
Agriculture
in Lower Mesopotamia relied on intensive irrigation. Cultivars included
barley and date palms in combination with gardens and orchards.
Animal husbandry was also practiced, focusing on sheep and goats.
This agricultural system was probably the most productive in the
entire ancient Near East. It allowed the development of a highly
urbanized society. It has been suggested that, in some areas of
Sumer, the population of the urban centers during ED III represented
three-quarters of the entire population.
![](images/Euphrates_River.jpg)
Irrigated
palm grove along the banks of the Euphrates River, in modern-day
Southern Iraq. This landscape has remained unchanged since earliest
antiquity
The dominant political structure was the city-state in which a large
urban center dominated the surrounding rural settlements. The territories
of these city-states were in turn delimited by other city-states
that were organized along the same principles. The most important
centers were Uruk, Ur, Lagash, Adab, and Umma-Gisha. Available texts
from this period point to recurring conflicts between neighboring
kingdoms, notably between Umma and Lagash.
The
situation may have been different further north, where Semitic people
seem to have been dominant. In this area, Kish was possibly the
center of a large territorial state, competing with other powerful
political entities such as Mari and Akshak.
The
Diyala River valley is another region for which the ED period is
relatively well-known. Along with neighboring areas, this region
was home to Scarlet Ware—a type of painted pottery characterized
by geometric motifs representing natural and anthropomorphic figures.
In the Jebel Hamrin, fortresses such as Tell Gubba and Tell Maddhur
were constructed. It has been suggested [by whom?] that these sites
were established to protect the main trade route from the Mesopotamian
lowlands to the Iranian plateau. The main Early Dynastic sites in
this region are Tell Asmar and Khafajah. Their political structure
is unknown, but these sites were culturally influenced by the larger
cities in the Mesopotamian lowland.
Neighboring
regions :
Upper Mesopotamia and Central Syria :
At the beginning of the third millennium BC, the Ninevite V culture
flourished in Upper Mesopotamia and the Middle Euphrates River region.
It extended from Yorghan Tepe in the east to the Khabur Triangle
in the west. Ninevite V was contemporary with ED I and marked an
important step in the urbanization of the region. The period seems
to have experienced a phase of decentralization, as reflected by
the absence of large monumental buildings and complex administrative
systems similar to what had existed at the end of the fourth millennium
BC.
Starting
in 2700 BC and accelerating after 2500, the main urban sites grew
considerably in size and were surrounded by towns and villages that
fell inside their political sphere of influence. This indicated
that the area was home to many political entities. Many sites in
Upper Mesopotamia, including Tell Chuera and Tell Beydar, shared
a similar layout: a main tell surrounded by a circular lower town.
German archaeologist Max von Oppenheim called them Kranzhügel,
or “cup-and-saucer-hills”. [citation needed] Among the
important sites of this period are Tell Brak (Nagar), Tell Mozan,
Tell Leilan, and Chagar Bazar in the Jezirah and Mari on the middle
Euphrates.
![](images/First_Eblaite_Empire.png)
Map
detailing the First Eblaite Kingdom at its height c. 2340 BC
![](images/Second_Mariote_kingdom.png)
Map
detailing the Second Mariote Kingdom at its height c. 2290 BC
Urbanization also increased in western Syria, notably in the second
half of the third millennium BC. Sites like Tell Banat, Tell Hadidi,
Umm el-Marra, Qatna, Ebla, and Al-Rawda developed early state structures,
as evidenced by the written documentation of Ebla. Substantial monumental
architecture such as palaces, temples, and monumental tombs appeared
in this period. There is also evidence for the existence of a rich
and powerful local elite.
The
two cities of Mari and Ebla dominate the historical record for this
region. According to the excavator of Mari, the circular city on
the middle Euphrates was founded ex nihilo at the time of the Early
Dynastic I period in Lower Mesopotamia. Mari was one of the main
cities of the Middle East during this period, and it fought many
wars against Ebla during the 24th century BC. The archives of Ebla,
capital city of a powerful kingdom during the ED IIIb period, indicated
that writing and the state were well-developed, contrary to what
had been believed about this area before its discovery. However,
few buildings from this period have been excavated at the site of
Ebla itself.
The
territories of these kingdoms were much larger than in Lower Mesopotamia.
Population density, however, was much lower than in the south where
subsistence agriculture and pastoralism were more intensive. Towards
the west, agriculture takes on more "Mediterranean" aspects:
the cultivation of olive and grape was very important in Ebla. Sumerian
influence was notable in Mari and Ebla. At the same time, these
regions with a Semitic population shared characteristics with the
Kish civilization while also maintaining their own unique cultural
traits.
Iranian
Plateau :
In southwestern Iran, the first half of the Early Dynastic period
corresponded with the Proto-Elamite period. This period was characterized
by indigenous art, a script that has not yet been deciphered, and
an elaborate metallurgy in the Lorestan region. This culture disappeared
toward the middle of the third millennium, to be replaced by a less
sedentary way of life. Due to the absence of written evidence and
a lack of archaeological excavations targeting this period, the
socio-political situation of Proto-Elamite Iran is not well understood.
Mesopotamian texts indicated that the Sumerian kings dealt with
political entities in this area. For example, legends relating to
the kings of Uruk referred to conflicts against Aratta. As of 2017
Aratta had not been identified, but it is believed to have been
located somewhere in southwestern Iran. [citation needed]
![](images/640px-Middle_East_ED_III--Ur_III_(en).svg.png)
Map
detailing the approximate locations of regions and kingdoms that
are known from Mesopotamian written evidence of the third millennium
BC
In the middle third millennium BC, Elam emerged as a powerful political
entity in the area of southern Lorestan and northern Khuzestan.
Susa (level IV) was a central place in Elam and an important gateway
between southwestern Iran and southern Mesopotamia. Hamazi was located
in the Zagros Mountains to the north or east of Elam, possibly between
the Great Zab and the Diyala River, near Halabja.
This
is also the area where the still largely unknown Jiroft culture
emerged in the third millennium BC, as evidenced by excavation and
looting of archaeological sites. The areas further north and to
the east were important participants in the international trade
of this period due to the presence of tin (central Iran and the
Hindu Kush) and lapis lazuli (Turkmenistan and northern Afghanistan).
Settlements such as Tepe Sialk, Tureng Tepe, Tepe Hissar, Namazga-Tepe,
Altyndepe, Shahr-e Sukhteh, and Mundigak served as local exchange
and production centres but do not seem to have been capitals of
larger political entities.
Persian
Gulf :
The further development of maritime trade in the Persian Gulf led
to increased contacts between Lower Mesopotamia and other regions.
Starting in the previous period, the area of modern-day Oman—known
in ancient texts as Magan—had seen the development of the
oasis settlement system. This system relied on irrigation agriculture
in areas with perennial springs. Magan owed its good position in
the trade network to its copper deposits. These deposits were located
in the mountains, notably near Hili, where copper workshops and
monumental tombs testifying to the area's affluence has been excavated.
Further
to the west was an area called Dilmun, which in later periods corresponds
to what is today known as Bahrain. However, while Dilmun was mentioned
in contemporary ED texts, no sites from this period have been excavated
in this area. This may indicate that Dilmun may have referred to
the coastal areas that served as a place of transit for the maritime
trade network.
Indus
valley :
![](images/608px-Ur_Grave_gold_and_carnelian_beads_necklace.jpg)
Some
of the carnelian beads in this necklace from the Royal Tombs of
Ur are thought to have come from the Indus Valley
The maritime trade in the Gulf extended as far east as the Indian
subcontinent, where the Indus Valley Civilisation flourished. This
trade intensified during the third millennium and reached its peak
during the Akkadian and Ur III periods.
The
artifacts found in the royal tombs of the First Dynasty of Ur indicate
that foreign trade was particularly active during this period, with
many materials coming from foreign lands, such as Carnelian likely
coming from the Indus or Iran, Lapis Lazuli from Afghanistan, silver
from Turkey, copper from Oman, and gold from several locations such
as Egypt, Nubia, Turkey or Iran. Carnelian beads from the Indus
were found in Ur tombs dating to 2600–2450, in an example
of Indus-Mesopotamia relations. In particular, carnelian beads with
an etched design in white were probably imported from the Indus
Valley, and made according to a technique developed by the Harappans.
These materials were used in the manufacture of ornamental and ceremonial
objects in the workshops of Ur.
The
First Dynasty of Ur had enormous wealth as shown by the lavishness
of its tombs. This was probably due to the fact that Ur acted as
the main harbour for trade with India, which put her in a strategic
position to import and trade vast quantities of gold, carnelian
or lapis lazuli. In comparison, the burials of the kings of Kish
were much less lavish. High-prowed Summerian ships may have traveled
as far as Meluhha, thought to be the Indus region, for trade.
Government
and economy :
Administration :
![](images/304px-Lugaldalu,_King_of_Adab.jpg)
Lugaldalu,
king of Adab, circa 2500 BCE
![](images/640px-Detail_of_the_Sumerian_statue_of_Lugaldalu.jpg)
Detail
of the inscription with archaic cuneiform Lugaldalu
Each city was centered around a temple that was dedicated to a particular
patron deity. A city was governed by both/either a "lugal"
(king) and/or an "ensi" (priest). It was understood that
rulers were determined by the deity of the city and rule could be
transferred from one city to another. Hegemony from the Nippur priesthood
moved between competing dynasties of the Sumerian cities. Traditionally,
these included Eridu, Bad-tibira, Larsa, Sippar, Shuruppak, Kish,
Uruk, Ur, Adab, and Akshak. Other relevant cities from outside the
Tigris–Euphrates river system included Hamazi, Awan (in present-day
Iran), and Mari (in present-day Syria but which is credited on the
SKL as having "exercised kingship" during the ED II period).
![](images/640px-Relief_Ur-Nanshe_Louvre_AO2344.jpg)
Votive
relief for the king Ur-Nanshe of Lagash, commemorating the construction
of a temple
Thorkild Jacobsen defined a "primitive democracy" with
reference to Sumerian epics, myths, and historical records. He described
a form of government determined by a majority of men who were free
citizens. There was little specialisation and only a loose power
structure. Kings such as Gilgamesh of the first dynasty of Uruk
did not yet hold an autocracy. Rather, they governed together with
councils of elders and councils of younger men, who were likely
free men bearing arms. Kings would consult the councils on all major
decisions, including whether to go to war. Jacobsen's definition
of a democracy as a relationship between primitive monarchs and
men of the noble classes has been questioned. Jacobsen conceded
that the available evidence could not distinguish a "Mesopotamian
democracy" from a "primitive oligarchy".
"Lugal"
(Sumerian: a Sumerogram ligature of two signs: meaning "big"
or "great" and meaning "man") (a Sumerian language
title translated into English as either "king" or "ruler")
was one of three possible titles affixed to a ruler of a Sumerian
city-state. The others were "EN" and "ensi".
The
sign for "lugal" became the understood logograph for "king"
in general. In the Sumerian language, "lugal" meant either
an "owner" of property such as a boat or a field, or alternatively,
the "head" of an entity or a family. The cuneiform sign
for "lugal" serves as a determinative in cuneiform texts,
indicating that the following word would be the name of a king.
The
definition of "lugal" during the ED period of Mesopotamia
is uncertain. The ruler of a city-state was usually referred to
as "ensi". However, the ruler of a confederacy may have
been referred to as "lugal". A lugal may have been "a
young man of outstanding qualities from a rich landowning family".
[citation needed]
Jacobsen
made a distinction between a "lugal" as an elected war
leader and "EN" as an elected governor concerned with
internal issues. The functions of a lugal might include military
defense, arbitration in border disputes, and ceremonial and ritualistic
activities. At the death of the lugal, he was succeeded by his eldest
son. The earliest rulers with the title "lugal" include
Enmebaragesi and Mesilim of Kish and Meskalamdug, Mesannepada, and
several of Mesannepada's successors at Ur.
"Ensi"
(Sumerian: B464ellst.png C+B-Babylonia-CuneiformImage16.PNG B181ellst.png,
meaning "Lord of the Plowland") was a title associated
with the ruler or prince of a city. The people understood that the
ensi was a direct representative of the city's patron deity. Initially,
the term "ensi" may have been specifically associated
with rulers of Lagash and Umma. However, in Lagesh, "lugal"
sometimes referred to the city's patron deity, "Ningirsu".
In later periods, the title "ensi" presupposed subordinance
to a "lugal".
"EN"
(Sumerian: Sumerian cuneiform for "lord" or "priest")
referred to a high priest or priestess of the city's patron deity.
It may also have been part of the title of the ruler of Uruk. "Ensi",
"EN", and "Lugal" may have been local terms
for the ruler of Lagash, Uruk, and Ur, respectively.
Temples
:
Early religious relief (c.2700 BCE)
![](images/640px-Carved_figure_feathers_Louvre_AO221.jpg)
![](images/640px-Tablet_of_the_figure_with_feathers,_circa_2700_BCE,_Girsu,_Sumer.jpg)
Carved figure with feathers. The king-priest, wearing a net skirt
and a hat with leaves or feathers, stands before the door of a temple,
symbolized by two great maces. The inscription mentions the god
Ningirsu. Early Dynastic Period, circa 2700 BCE, Girsu.
![](images/640px-Wall_plaque_showing_libation_scene_from_Ur,_Iraq,_2500_BCE._British_Museum_(adjusted_for_perspective).jpg)
Wall
plaque from Ur, with image of a temple (lower right). Circa 2500
BCE. British Museum
The centers of Eridu and Uruk, two of the earliest cities, developed
large temple complexes built of mud-brick. Developed as small shrines
in the earliest settlements, by the ED the temples became the most
imposing structures in their cities, each dedicated to its own deity.
Each
city had at least one major deity. Sumer was divided into about
thirteen independent cities which were divided by canals and boundary
stones during the ED. According to the Sumerian King List (SKL),
the first five cities—listed with their principal temple complexes
and patron deities—to have exercised kingship before "The
Flood" were :
No. |
Particulars |
1. |
City-state
: Eridu
Archaeological
site : Tell Abu Shahrain
Principle
temple complex : E-abzu
Patron
deity : Enki |
2. |
City-state
: Bad-tibira
Archaeological
site : Tell al-Madain
Principle
temple complex : E-mush
Patron
deity : Dumuzi and Inana |
3. |
City-state
: Larsa
Archaeological
site : Tell as-Senkereh
Principle
temple complex : E-babbar
Patron
deity : Utu |
4. |
City-state
: Sippar
Archaeological
site : Tell Abu Habbah
Principle
temple complex : E-babbar
Patron
deity : Utu |
5. |
City-state
: Shuruppak
Archaeological
site : Tell Fara
Principle
temple complex : E-dimgalanna
Patron
deity : Ninlil |
The
next seven cities to have exercised kingship after
"The Flood" were |
6. |
City-state
: Kish
Archaeological
site : Tell Uheimir and Ingharra
Principle
temple complex : ?
Patron
deity : Ninhursag |
7. |
City-state
: Uruk
Archaeological
site : E-anna district, Bit Resh (Kullaba), and
Irigal
Principle
temple complex : E-anna
Patron
deity : Inana and An |
8. |
City-state
: Ur
Archaeological
site : Tell al-Muqayyar
Principle
temple complex : E-kishnugal
Patron
deity : Nanna |
9. |
City-state
: Awan
Archaeological
site : ?
Principle
temple complex : ?
Patron
deity : ? |
10. |
City-state
: Hamazi
Archaeological
site : ?
Principle
temple complex : ?
Patron
deity : ? |
11. |
City-state
: Adab
Archaeological
site : ?
Principle
temple complex : ?
Patron
deity : ? |
12. |
City-state
: Mari
Archaeological
site : Tell Hariri
Principle
temple complex : ?
Patron
deity : Mer |
13. |
City-state
: Akshak
Archaeological
site : ?
Principle
temple complex : ?
Patron
deity : ? |
|
The
exact location of this city is uncertain but is
probably somewhere in the territory of what is
today referred to as the "Islamic Republic
of Iran".
The
exact location of this city is uncertain but is
probably somewhere in the territory of what is
today referred to as the "Republic of Iraq".
The
location of this city is at an outlying archaeological
site in the territory of what is today referred
to as the "Syrian Arab Republic". |
Other
principal cities were |
14. |
City-state
: Lagash
Archaeological
site : Tell al-Hiba
Principle
temple complex : ?
Patron
deity : Enki |
15. |
City-state
: Nippur
Archaeological
site : Tell Afak
Principle
temple complex : E-kur
Patron
deity : Enlil |
16. |
City-state
: Umma
Archaeological
site : Tell Jokha
Principle
temple complex : E-mah
Patron
deity : Shara |
This
same principle of temple and deity was found at
cities outside of Mesopotamia |
17. |
City-state
: Ebla
Archaeological
site : Tell Mardikh
Principle
temple complex : ?
Patron
deity : Kura |
18. |
City-state
: Susa
Archaeological
site : ?
Principle
temple complex : ?
Patron
deity : Inshushinak |
|
Population
:
![](images/640px-Funeral_procession_at_Ur,_circa_2600_BCE_(reconstitution).jpg)
Funeral
procession at the Royal Cemetery of Ur (items and positions in tomb
PG 789), circa 2600 BCE (reconstitution)
![](images/367px-Mesopotamia,_Periodo_proto-dinastico,_figurina_femminile_con_coppa_e_braccialetto_su_polso,_da_khafajah,_2650-2550_ac_ca.jpg)
Female
statuette, with cup and bracelet, Khafajah, 2650 - 2550 BCE
Uruk, which was one of Sumer's largest cities, has been estimated
to have had a population of 50,000 – 80,000 at its peak. Given
the other cities in Sumer and its large agricultural population,
a rough estimate for Sumer's population might have been somewhere
between 800,000 and 1,500,000. The global human population at this
time has been estimated to have been about 27,000,000.
Table
1 : 2800 BC – 2300 BC
City-state |
Particulars |
Adab |
2800
BC : 11,000
2600
BC : ?
2500
BC : 13,000
2300
BC : 10,000 |
Akshak |
2800
BC : ?
2600
BC : ?
2500
BC : ?
2300
BC : ? |
Awan |
2800
BC : ?
2600
BC : ?
2500
BC : ?
2300
BC : ? |
Bad-tibira |
2800
BC : 16,000
2600
BC : ?
2500
BC : ?
2300
BC : ? |
Eridu |
2800
BC : ?
2600
BC : ?
2500
BC : ?
2300
BC : ? |
Hamazi |
2800
BC : ?
2600
BC : ?
2500
BC : ?
2300
BC : ? |
Kish |
2800
BC : 40,000
2600
BC : ?
2500
BC : 25,000
2300
BC : 10,000 |
Larsa |
2800
BC : ?
2600
BC : ?
2500
BC : 10,000
2300
BC : ? |
Mari |
2800
BC : ?
2600
BC : ?
2500
BC : ?
2300
BC : ? |
Shuruppak |
2800
BC : 20,000
2600
BC : ?
2500
BC : 17,000
2300
BC : ? |
Sippar |
2800
BC : ?
2600
BC : ?
2500
BC : ?
2300
BC : ? |
Ur |
2800
BC : 6,000
2600
BC : ?
2500
BC : ?
2300
BC : ? |
Uruk |
2800
BC : 80,000
2600
BC : 80,000
2500
BC : 50,000
2300
BC : ? |
|
Law
:
Code
of Urukagina :
![](images/640px-Statuette_of_a_man,_Early_Dynastic_Period_II_circa_2700_BC_Khafadje_Louvre_Museum_AO_188886.jpg)
Statuette of a man, Early Dynastic Period II, circa 2700
BC, Khafadje. Louvre Museum, reference AO 188886
The énsi Urukagina, of the city-state of Lagash, is best
known for his reforms to combat corruption, and the Code of Urukagina
is sometimes cited as the earliest known example of a legal code
in recorded history. The Code of Urukagina has also been widely
hailed as the first recorded example of government reform, as it
sought to achieve a higher level of freedom and equality. Although
the actual Code of Urukagina text has yet to be discovered, much
of its content may be surmised from other references to it that
have been found. In the Code of Urukagina, Urukagina exempted widows
and orphans from taxes, compelled the city to pay funeral expenses
(including the ritual food and drink libations for the journey of
the dead into the lower world), and decreed that the rich had to
use silver when purchasing from the poor. If the poor did not wish
to sell, the powerful man (the rich man or the priest) could not
force him to do so. The Code of Urukagina limited the power of both
the priesthood and large property owners and established measures
against usury, burdensome controls, hunger, theft, murder, and seizure
of people's property and persons—as Urukagina stated: "The
widow and the orphan were no longer at the mercy of the powerful
man."
Despite
these attempts to curb the excesses of the elite class, elite or
royal women may have had even greater influence and prestige in
Urukagina's reign than previously. Urukagina greatly expanded the
royal "Household of Women" from about 50 persons to about
1,500 persons and renamed it to "Household of Goddess Bau".
He gave it ownership of vast amounts of land confiscated from the
former priesthood and placed it under the supervision of Urukagina's
wife Shasha, or Shagshag. During the second year of Urukagina's
reign, his wife presided over the lavish funeral of his predecessor's
queen Baranamtarra, who had been an important personage in her own
right.
In
addition to such changes, two of Urukagina's other surviving decrees,
first published and translated by Samuel Kramer in 1964, have attracted
controversy in recent decades :
1. |
Urukagina
seems to had abolished the former custom of polyandry in his
country, on pain of the woman taking multiple husbands being
stoned with rocks upon which her crime was written. |
2. |
A
statute that stated: "If a woman says [text illegible...]
to a man, her mouth is crushed with burnt bricks." |
No
comparable laws from Urukagina addressing penalties for adultery
by men have survived. The discovery of these fragments has led some
modern critics to assert that they provide "the first written
evidence of the degradation of women."
Reform
Document :
![](images/640px-Cylinder_seal_MET_159962.jpg)
Summerian
cylinder seal, ca. 2500–2350 BC. Early Dynastic IIIb
The following extracts are taken from the "Reform Document"
:
1. |
"From
the border territory of Ningirsu to the sea, no person shall
serve as officers."
|
2. |
"For
a corpse being brought to the grave, his beer shall be 3 jugs
and his bread 80 loaves. 1 bed and 1 lead goat shall the undertaker
take away, and 3 ban of barley shall the person(s) take away." |
3. |
"When
to the reeds of Enki a person has been brought, his beer will
be 4 jugs, and his bread 420 loaves. 1 barig of barley shall
the undertaker take away, and 3 ban of barley shall the persons
of ... take away. 1 woman’s headband, and 1 sila of
princely fragrance shall the eresh-dingir priestess take away.
420 loaves of bread that have sat are the bread duty, 40 loaves
of hot bread are for eating, and 10 loaves of hot bread are
the bread of the table. 5 loaves of bread are for the persons
of the levy, 2 mud vessels and 1 sadug vessel of beer are
for the lamentation singers of Girsu. 490 loaves of bread,
2 mud vessels and 1 sadug vessel of beer are for the lamentation
singers of Lagash. 406 of bread, 2 mud vessels, and 1 sadug
vessel of beer are for the other lamentation singers. 250
loaves of bread and 1 mud vessel of beer are for the old wailing
women. 180 loaves of bread and one mud vessel of beer are
for the men of Nigin." |
4. |
"The blind one who stands in ..., his bread for eating
is 1 loaf, 5 loaves of bread are his at midnight, 1 loaf is
his bread at midday, and 6 loaves are his bread in the evening." |
5. |
"60
loaves of bread, 1 mud vessel of beer, and 3 ban of barley
are for the person who is to perform as the sagbur priest." |
Trade
:
![](images/447px-Raminathicket2.jpg)
The
"Ram in a Thicket" statue found at the Royal Cemetery
of Ur contains traded materials
![](images/Cup_with_architectural_facade,_Khafajah,_Sin_Temple_IX,_Early_Dynastic_period,_2650-2550_BC,_chlorite_-_Oriental_Institute_Museum,_University_of_Chicago_-_.jpg)
Chlorite
vase from Khafaje
Imports to Ur came from the Near East and the Old World. Goods such
as obsidian from Turkey, lapis lazuli from Badakhshan in Afghanistan,
beads from Bahrain, and seals inscribed with the Indus Valley script
from India have been found in Ur. Metals were imported. Sumerian
stonemasons and jewelers used gold, silver, lapis lazuli, chlorite,
ivory, iron, and carnelian. Resin from Mozambique was found in the
tomb of Queen Puabi at Ur.
The
cultural and trade connections of Ur are reflected by archaeological
finds of imported items. In the ED III period, items from geographically
distant places were found. These included gold, silver, lapis lazuli
and carnelian. These types of items were not found in Mesopotamia.
Gold
items were located in graves at the Royal Cemetery of Ur, royal
treasuries and temples, indicating prestigious and religious functions.
Gold items discovered included personal ornaments, weapons, tools,
sheet-metal cylinder seals, fluted bowls, goblets, imitation cockle
shells, and sculptures.
Silver
was found as items such as belts, vessels, hair ornaments, pins,
weapons, cockle shells, and sculptures. There are very few literary
references or physical clues as to the sources of the silver.
Lapis
lazuli has been found in items such as jewelry, plaques, gaming
boards, lyres, ostrich-egg vessels, and also in parts of a larger
sculpture known as Ram in a Thicket. Some of the larger objects
included a spouted cup, a dagger-hilt, and a whetstone. It indicates
high status.
Chlorite
stone artifacts from the ED are commonly found. they include disc
beads, ornaments, and stone vases. The vases rarely exceed 25 cm
in height. They often have human and animal motifs and semiprecious
stone inlays. They may have carried precious oils.
History
:
The contemporary sources from the Early Dynastic period do not allow
the reconstruction of a political history. Royal inscriptions only
offer a glimpse of the military conflicts and relations among the
different city-states. Instead, rulers were more interested in glorifying
their pious acts, such as the construction and restoration of temples
and offerings to the gods.
For
the ED I and ED II periods, there are no contemporary documents
shedding any light on warfare or diplomacy. Only for the end of
the ED III period are contemporary texts available from which a
political history can be reconstructed. The largest archives come
from Lagash and Ebla. Smaller collections of clay tablets have been
found at Ur, Tell Beydar, Tell Fara, Abu Salabikh, and Mari. They
show that the Mesopotamian states were constantly involved in diplomatic
contacts, leading to political and perhaps even religious alliances.
Sometimes one state would gain hegemony over another, which foreshadows
the rise of the Akkadian Empire.
The
well-known Sumerian King List dates to the early second millennium
BC. It consists of a succession of royal dynasties from different
Sumerian cities, ranging back into the Early Dynastic Period. Each
dynasty rises to prominence and dominates the region, only to be
replaced by the next. The document was used by later Mesopotamian
kings to legitimize their rule. While some of the information in
the list can be checked against other texts such as economic documents,
much of it is probably fictional, and its use as a historical document
is limited.
Diplomacy
:
![](images/640px-Foundation_nail_Entemena_Louvre_AO22934.jpg)
Foundation
nail commemorating the peace treaty between Entemena of Lagash and
Lugal-kinishe-dudu of Uruk (c. 2500 BC)
There may have been a common or shared cultural identity among the
Early Dynastic Sumerian city-states, despite their political fragmentation.
This notion was expressed by the terms kalam or ki-engir. Numerous
texts and cylinder seals seem to indicate the existence of a league
or amphictyony of Sumerian city-states. For example, clay tablets
from Ur bear cylinder seal impressions with signs representing other
cities. Similar impressions have also been found at Jemdet Nasr,
Uruk, and Susa. Some impressions show exactly the same list of cities.
It has been suggested that this represented a system in which specific
cities were associated with delivering offerings to the major Sumerian
temples, similar to the bala system of the Ur III period.
![](images/640px-Royal_Tombs_of_Ur_Objects_from_tomb_PG_580.jpg)
Gold
objects from tomb PG 580, Royal Cemetery at Ur, 26th century BC,
Early Dynasic Period III
The texts from Shuruppak, dating to ED IIIa, also seem to confirm
the existence of a ki-engir league. Member cities of the alliance
included Umma, Lagash, Uruk, Nippur, and Adab. Kish may have had
a leading position, whereas Shuruppak may have been the administrative
center. The members may have assembled in Nippur, but this is uncertain.
This alliance seems to have focused on economic and military collaboration,
as each city would dispatch soldiers to the league. The primacy
of Kish is illustrated by the fact that its ruler Mesilim (c. 2500
BC) acted as arbitrator in a conflict between Lagash and Umma. However,
it is not certain whether Kish held this elevated position during
the entire period, as the situation seems to have been different
during later conflicts between Lagash and Umma. Later, rulers from
other cities would use the title 'King of Kish' to strengthen their
hegemonic ambitions and possibly also because of the symbolic value
of the city.
The
texts of this period also reveal the first traces of a wide-ranging
diplomatic network. For example, the peace treaty between Entemena
of Lagash and Lugal-kinishe-dudu of Uruk, recorded on a clay nail,
represents the oldest known agreement of this kind. Tablets from
Girsu record reciprocal gifts between the royal court and foreign
states. Thus, Baranamtarra, wife of king Lugalanda of Lagash, exchanged
gifts with her peers from Adab and even Dilmun.
War
:
The first recorded war in history took place in Mesopotamia in around
2700 B.C. during the ED period, between the forces of Sumer and
Elam. The Sumerians, under the command of Enmebaragesi, the King
of Kish, defeated the Elamites and is recorded "carried away
as spoils the weapons of Elam".
It
is only for the later parts of the ED period that information on
political events becomes available, either as echoes in later writings
or from contemporary sources. Writings from the end of the third
millennium, including several Sumerian heroic narratives and the
Sumerian King List, seem to echo events and military conflicts that
may have occurred during the ED II period. For example, the reigns
of legendary figures like king Gilgamesh of Uruk and his adversaries
Enmebaragesi and Aga of Kish possibly date to ED II. These semi-legendary
narratives seem to indicate an age dominated by two major powers:
Uruk in Sumer and Kish in the Semitic country. However, the existence
of the kings of this "heroic age" remains controversial.
![](images/Standard_of_Ur_-_War.jpg)
The
"War" panel of the Standard of Ur showing combatants engaged
in military activities. Dated to c. 2600 BC
![](images/640px-P1130735_Louvre_st%E8le_des_Vautours_rwk.jpg)
One
fragment of the Stele of the Vultures showing king Eannatum as a
military charioteer. Dated to c. 2450 B.C. Currently in the Louvre
Museum
Somewhat reliable information on then-contemporary political events
in Mesopotamia is available only for the ED IIIb period. These texts
come mainly from Lagash and detail the recurring conflict with Umma
over control of irrigated land. The kings of Lagash are absent from
the Sumerian King List, as are their rivals, the kings of Umma.
This suggests that these states, while powerful in their own time,
were later forgotten.
The
royal inscriptions from Lagash also mention wars against other Lower
Mesopotamian city-states, as well as against kingdoms farther away.
Examples of the latter include Mari, Subartu, and Elam. These conflicts
show that already in this stage in history there was a trend toward
stronger states dominating larger territories. For example, king
Eannatum of Lagash was able to defeat Mari and Elam around 2450
B.C. Enshakushanna of Uruk seized Kish and imprisoned its king Embi-Ishtar
around 2350 B.C. Lugal-zage-si, king of Uruk and Umma, was able
to seize most of Lower Mesopotamia around 2358 B.C. This phase of
warring city-states came to an end with the emergence of the Akkadian
Empire under the rule of Sargon of Akkad in 2334 B.C. (middle).
Neighboring
areas :
The political history of Upper Mesopotamia and Syria is well known
from the royal archives recovered at Ebla. Ebla, Mari, and Nagar
were the dominant states for this period. The earliest texts indicate
that Ebla paid tribute to Mari but was able to reduce it after it
won a military victory. Cities like Emar on the Upper Euphrates
and Abarsal (location unknown) were vassals of Ebla. Ebla exchanged
gifts with Nagar, and a royal marriage was concluded between the
daughter of a king of Ebla and the son of his counterpart at Nagar.
The archives also contain letters from more distant kingdoms, such
as Kish and possibly Hamazi, although it is also possible that there
were cities with the same names closer to Ebla. In many ways, the
diplomatic interactions in the wider Ancient Near East during this
period resemble those from the second millennium BC, which are particularly
well known from the Amarna letters.
Recent
discoveries :
In March 2020, archaeologists announced the discovery of a 5,000-year-old
cultic area filled with more than 300 broken ceremonial ceramic
cups, bowls, jars, animal bones and ritual processions dedicated
to Ningirsu at the site of Girsu. One of the remains was a duck-shaped
bronze figurine with eyes made from bark which is thought to be
dedicated to Nanshe.
Culture
:
Sculpting :
Early Dynastic stone sculptures have mainly been recovered from
excavated temples. They can be separated into two groups: three-dimensional
prayer statues and perforated bas-reliefs. The so-called Tell Asmar
Hoard is a well-known example of Early Dynastic sculpture. It was
recovered in a temple and consists of standing figures with their
hands folded in prayer or holding a goblet for a libation ritual.
Other statues feature seated figures also in devotional postures.
Male figures wear a plain or fringed dress, or kaunakes. The statues
usually represent notables or rulers. They served as ex-votos and
were placed in temples to pray on behalf of the spender. The Sumerian
style clearly influenced neighbouring regions, as similar statues
have been recovered from sites in Upper Mesopotamia, including Assur,
Tell Chuera, and Mari. However, some statues showed greater originality
and had less stylistic characteristics in common with Sumerian sculpture.
![](images/448px-Mesopotamia_male_worshiper_2750-2600_B.C.jpg)
Statue
of a male figure, recovered from Tell Asmar
![](images/femaleworshipper.JPG)
Statue
of a female figure, recovered from Khafajah
![](images/kneelingnude.JPG)
Statue
of a kneeling male figure holding a vase, recovered from Tell Agrab
![](images/343px-Ebih-Il_Louvre_AO17551_n01.jpg)
Statue
of Ebih-Il, recovered from Mari (ED IIIb)
![](images/600px-Stone_statue_of_Kurlil_Early_Dynastic_III_2500_BC_Tell_Al-%27Ubaid,_Iraq.jpg)
Stone
statue of Kurlil, Early Dynastic III, 2500 BC Tell Al-'Ubaid
Bas-reliefs
created from perforated stone slabs are another hallmark of Early
Dynastic sculpture. They also served a votive purpose, but their
exact function is unknown. Examples include the votive relief of
king Ur-Nanshe of Lagash and his family found at Girsu and that
of Dudu, a priest of Ningirsu. The latter showed mythological creatures
such as a lion-headed eagle. The Stele of the Vultures, created
by Eannatum of Lagash, is remarkable in that it represents different
scenes that together tell the narrative of the victory of Lagash
over its rival Umma. Reliefs like these have been found in Lower
Mesopotamia and the Diyala region but not in Upper Mesopotamia or
Syria.
![](images/640px-P1150886_Louvre_bas-relief_sc%E8nes_banquet_AO31015_rwk.jpg)
Bas-relief
of a banquet and boating scene, unknown provenience
![](images/635pxbanquetplaque.jpg)
Bas-relief
of a banquet scene, recovered from Tell Agrab
![](images/640px-Mesopotamia,_Periodo_proto-dinastico,_placca_con_scena_di_banchetto,_da_khafajah,_2650-2550_ac_ca.jpg)
Banquet
scene, Khafajah, 2650 - 2550 BCE
![](images/640px-Relief_Dudu_Louvre_AO2394.jpg)
Votive
relief of the priest Dudu, of the time of Entemena, recovered from
Girsu. Circa 2400 BCE
Metalworking
and goldsmithing :
Sumerian metallurgy and goldsmithing were highly developed. This
is all the more remarkable for a region where metals had to be imported.
Known metals included gold, silver, copper, bronze, lead, electrum,
and tin. The use of binary, tertiary, and quaternary alloys was
already present during the Uruk period. Sumerians used bronze, although
the scarcity of tin meant that they used arsenic instead. Metalworking
techniques included lost-wax casting, plating, filigree, and granulation.
Numerous
metal objects have been excavated from temples and graves, including
dishes, weapons, jewelry, statuettes, foundation nails, and various
other objects of worship. The most remarkable gold objects come
from the Royal Cemetery at Ur, including musical instruments and
the complete inventory of Puabi’s tomb. Metal vases have also
been excavated at other sites in Lower Mesopotamia, including the
Vase of Entemena at Lagash.
![](images/557px-Bull_statuette_Louvre_AO2151.jpg)
Statue
of a bull (ED III)
![](images/Vessel_stand_with_ibex_support_-_MET_-_ED_III.jpg)
Vessel
stand in the shape of an ibex. Copper-based alloy with nacre and
lapis lazuli inlays, created with the lost-wax method (ED III)
![](images/339px-Reconstructed_sumerian_headgear_necklaces_british_museum.jpg)
Reconstructed
headgear of Puabi, found in the Royal Cemetery at Ur (ED III)
![](images/640px-Perfume_dropper,_bracelet,_earrings,_and_headdress_leaves,_Ur,_early_Dynastic_III,_mid_3rd_millennium_BCE_-_Nelson-Atkins_Museum_of_Art_-_DSC08127.jpg)
Gold
objects from the Royal Cemetery at Ur
![](images/pendants.JPG)
Animal-shaped
pendants of gold, lapis lazuli and carnelian from Eshnunna
![](images/beads.JPG)
Pearl,
lapis lazuli, carnelian and silver beads from Tell Agrab (ED I)
Cylinder
seals :
![](images/640px-Cylinder_seal_battle_Louvre_AO198111.jpg)
Cylinder
seal from the ED III period with its impression representing a mythological
combat scene
![](images/Cylinder_seal_and_modern_impression_bull-man,_bearded_hero,_and_lion_contest_frieze,ca._2600%962350_B.C._Early_Dynastic_III.jpg)
Cylinder
seal and modern impression bull-man, bearded hero, and lion contest
frieze, ca. 2600 – 2350 B.C. Early Dynastic III
Cylinder seals were used to authenticate documents like sales and
to control access by sealing a lump of clay on doors of storage
rooms. The use of cylinder seals increased significantly during
the ED period, suggesting an expansion and increased the complexity
of administrative activities.
During
the preceding Uruk period, a wide variety of scenes were engraved
on cylinder seals. This variety disappeared at the start of the
third millennium, to be replaced by an almost exclusive focus on
mythological and cultural scenes in Lower Mesopotamia and the Diyala
region. During the ED I period, seal designs included geometric
motifs and stylized pictograms. Later on, combat scenes between
real and mythological animals became the dominant theme, together
with scenes of heroes fighting animals. Their exact meaning is unclear.
Common mythological creatures include anthropomorphic bulls and
scorpion-men. Real creatures include lions and eagles. Some anthropomorphic
creatures are probably deities, as they wear a horned tiara, which
was a symbol of divinity.
Scenes
with cultic themes, including banquet scenes, became common during
ED II. Another common ED III theme was the so-called god-boat, but
its meaning is unclear. During the ED III period, ownership of seals
was started to be registered. Glyptic development in Upper Mesopotamia
and Syria was strongly influenced by Sumerian art.
Inlays
:
![](images/Alabaster_bull_inlay._From_southern_Iraq,_Early_Dynastic_Period,_c._2750-2400_BCE._The_Burrell_collection,_Glasgow,_UK.jpg)
Alabaster
bull inlay. From southern Iraq, Early Dynastic Period, c. 2750 -
2400 BC. The Burrell Collection, Glasgow, UK
![](images/400px-Inlay_Akurgal_Louvre_AO11249.jpg)
Piece
of inlay made of nacre, inscribed with the name of Akurgal, son
of Ur-Nanshe of Lagash (currently in the Louvre)
Examples of inlay have been found at several sites and used materials
such as nacre (mother of pearl), white and coloured limestone, lapis
lazuli, and marble. Bitumen was used to attach the inlay in wooden
frames, but these have not survived in the archaeological record.
The inlay-panels usually showed mythological or historical scenes.
Like bas-reliefs, these panels allow the reconstruction of early
forms of narrative art. However, this type of work seems to have
been abandoned in subsequent periods.
The
best preserved inlaid object is the Standard of Ur found in one
of the royal tombs of this city. It represents two principal scenes
on its two sides: a battle and a banquet that probably follows a
military victory. The "dairy frieze" found at Tell al-'Ubaid
represents, as its name suggests, dairy activities (milking cows,
cowsheds, preparing dairy products). It is our source of the most
information on this practice in ancient Mesopotamia.
Similar
mosaic elements were discovered at Mari, where a mother-of-pearl
engraver's workshop was identified, and at Ebla where marble fragments
were found from a 3-meter-high panel decorating a room of the royal
palace. The scenes of the two sites have strong similarities in
their style and themes. In Mari the scenes are military (a parade
of prisoners) or religious (a ram's sacrifice). In Ebla, they show
a military triumph and mythological animals.
Music
:
The Lyres of Ur (or Harps of Ur) are considered to be the world's
oldest surviving stringed instruments. In 1929, archaeologists led
by Leonard Woolley discovered the instruments when excavating the
Royal Cemetery of Ur between from 1922 and 1934. They discovered
pieces of three lyres and one harp in Ur located in what was Ancient
Mesopotamia and now is Iraq. They are over 4,500 years old from
ancient Mesopotamia during the ED III. The decorations on the lyres
are fine examples of the court Art of Mesopotamia of the period.
Source
:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Early_Dynastic_Period_(Mesopotamia)