Ancient Mesopotamian Materials and Industries: The Archaeological Evidence

224 Pages·1999·26.89 MB·English

by  P. R. S. Moorey

ANCIENT %
MESOPOTAMIAN
MATERIALS AND
INDUSTRIES
~
The Archaeological Evidence
s.
P. R. Moorey
CLARENDON PRESS, OXFORD
1994
t \
vtD~l
o
UNDE
PREFACE
Oxford University Press, WallO" Sireel, Oxford OX2 60p
Oxford New York Toronto
Delhi Bombay Co/clitia Madras Karachi
Kuala Lumpur Singapore Hong Kong Tokyo
Nairobi Dar es Salaam Cape TOWII
Me/hOI/me Auckland MadrM
alld associated companies in When general histories of technology concern them sources (not attempted here), the extant material
Berlin lbadan selves with the civilizations of antiquity in the Old remains do not offer evidence for essays in economic
Oxford is a trade mark. of Oxford University Press World, they direct attention to China and Egypt, to history such as might be taken for granted in any study
Greece and Rome, rarely to Mesopotamia: the land of medieval European crafts and might be attempted
Published in the United States
by Oxford University Press [IIC, New York. between the Tigris and the Euphrates. This neglect of for those of the Graeco-Roman world. It is research on
the achievements of the Sumerians, the Babylonians, materials and methods of manufacture that conspicu
© P. S. Moorey 1994
and the Assyrians in exploiting and managing the natu ously provides what consistency the following survey
ral resources of the river valley and its highland periph has. Even then it will be obvious even to the most
All riRllts res{'fved. No part of Ihis publication may be reproduced, ery is explicable, if none the less regrettable. For over a casual reader that numerous significant subjects merely
stored in a retrieval system, or transmit/ed, in (lny form or by (IllY meam,
Wilhollt the prior permission in wriling of Oxford University Pre.u. century now students of ancient Mesopotamia, whether touched upon here await adequate research in depth.
Wi/hin the UK, exceptiom are allowed in respect of any Iflir <leafing for /Iie philologists, archaeologists, or anc~ent historia~s. have This attempt to make sense of what information is
purpose of research or private study, or critiCl:~m or review, as permitted
Imder tlie Copyright, Desigm and P(/(ents Act, 1988, or ill the ('(lse of been relatively little concerned with systematic study already to be found in the archaeological and art
reprographic reproduCiioll ill (lccordallce with Ihe lenni" of the ficences of local crafts and industries. This is most surprising in historical record for craft and industry in ancient Meso
ismed by Ihe Copyright Licenl"illg Agency. Enqlliries concemiflg
the case of archaeologists, since the debris of manufac potamia in as systematic a way as possible arises directly
reprot/llctioll outside these terms (lnd in otha countries should be
sent to the Rights Department, Oxford University I'ress, ture is a primary source of information for them from thirty years' close involvement with the collection
at the address u/wve whether it be flint tools or pottery, copper weapons or of Near Eastern Antiquities in the Ashmolean
faience ornaments. Traditionally, however, archaeolo Museum, Oxford, one of the finest study collections of
Brilish UI"ary Cawloguing ill PI/Miw/ion D(/fa gists working in Mesopotamia have treated the material its kind outside the region. It might never have been
Dafll avaifable
evidence, above all pottery, not in technological or made had I not also been responsible for the greater
Library of Congress Cataloging in PuMicariOlI Data industrial terms, but typologically as the primary means part of that time for the Museum's even more distin
Moorey, P. R. S. (Peter Roger Stuart), 1CJ37~ for structuring chronological systems or for establishing guished ancient Egyptian collection. In that capacity I
Anciellf mesopolamian malerials and industries: the ardU/eoloN/cal ('I'idell{:c II'.RS. Moorey.
the identities and relationships of the political and recurrently consulted Ancient Egyptian Materials and
Includes bibliographical references.
1. /raq-Antiqtlilies. 2. Handicraft--lraq"~History. J. Arti.I·(IIls-lraq-His/ory. I. Title. social groups taken to be defined by material culture. Industries by Alfred Lucas (in the fourth edition pre~
DS6g.j.M66 1994 935-dao 93~407j2 In the last thirty years the growing impact of the pared by J. R. Harris in 1962). Thissingle book enabled
ISBN (Hg--8I4921~2 social sciences on archaeology has directed attention me to answer easily numerous questions, both from the
109 8 7 6 543 21 elsewhere, notably to the elucidation of economic, pol general public and from students, which I found were
itical, and social processes. In Mesopotamia two such unanswerable when framed in relation to the crafts of
Typeset by Rowland PlwlOtype.\·elling Ltd,
Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk processes in particular, both pioneered locally, have ancient Mesopotamia without much private research.
Printed ill Greal Britain attracted concentrated research: first, the development Some years ago I published an attempt to provide a
on acid-free paper by
SI. Edl1umdsbury Pres.\", Bllry St. Edmund.\· of controlled farming; second, the subsequent emerg Mesopotamian counterpart for metals and metalwork,
ence of complex urban societies (,civilization'). At glazed materials and glass (Mo(Hey 19H5). These
limes this trend has increased rather than diminished essays, extensively revised, form parts of Chapters 4
the tendency to marginalize coherent studies of and 6 and all of Chapter 5 here. In so far as the more
material culture. Even with the greatly increased use of restricted surviving materials allow, I have tried to
scientific means of analysis and investigation in recent match the range encompassed by Lucas. Like him I
years, craft and industry have not attracte~ the atten have aimed to meet the needs both of the general
tion paid to other aspects of the archaeological record. reader interested in early craft technology and the Ncar
Yet technology, no less than administration or subsist Eastern specialist, if only as a bibliographical resource,
ence, is a vital part of past socio-economic systems, but ever mindful that I am neither a chemist, like Lucas,
whilst being particularly open to observation and study nor a philologist, like Harris.
through archaeological survey and excavations. Surviving artefacts reveal changes in technology once
The nature of the evidence largely explains this rela they have been tested and established. The springs of
tive neglect. Too often the material evidence is unavail invention and the processes of innovation, the aborted
able for serious study and, when available, scattered, technologies and the short-term experiments, which
sparse, and incoherent. At this stage it is not possible underlay the observable changes, usually remain as
to do more than put readers in the way of answers to elusive as the prime mover. It is the variations in tech
basic questions about materials and techniques, crafts niques and tools, the steadily increasing mastery of
and craftsmanship, and very much in that order of pri natural materials and the creation of artificial substi
\i ority. Even when integrated with the relevant textual tutes that are most evident. This, in short, is technology
vi PREFACE PREFACE vii
procedures recorded not at all, or inadequately, in L' Economia in a three-volumed study: CAlba della It is in the nature of the evidence that even for crafts
conceived as 'a collection of tricks of the trade drawn
from the experience of craftsmen ... accumulated and writing. Civi/ta: Societa, Economia e Pensiero nel Vicino Oriente illustrated by the surviving art-historical and archaeol~
developed at a leisurely pace' (Braude I 1981: 431). In Time has inevitably overtaken such pioneer studies Antico (edited by S. Moscati; Turin). ogical data the following chapters are in no sense com~
seeing the development of technology in ancient Meso as the relevant parts of Meissner's Babylonien und Mesopotamia is taken here to embrace those parts prehensive surveys. They are essays in which the
potamia in such terms I have sought to avoid the distor Assyrien (1920; 1925) and such useful secondary works of modern Iraq, Iran, Syria, and Turkey drained by specific is always open to continuing enquiry and the
tions which so easily follow from constructing the as Partington's Origins and Development of Applied tributaries of the Shatt el-Arab at the head of the Gulf, general is recurrently elusive. The source material is
history of technology as if it were a sequence of dis Chemistry (1935), though both remain fundamental though the focus is primarily on the area of modern always fragmentary, very often without a comprehen
coveries conceived as instances of widespread radical guides to early research. Forbes's Bibliographie anti Iraq. The choice of this region rather than the Near sible context, and at times extremely difficult to sum~
change with a momentum of its own. Like all other qua: Philosophia naturalis (1940-50; supplement 1952) East as a whole is simply to make an intractable subject marize coherently. The crafts in which the technologies
aspects of human history, it has 'many actions and reac is a useful and enduring bibliography, but the Mesopot as tractable as possible. It should not be taken in any primarily involve mechanical modification, as when
tions, many changes of gear. It is not a linear process' amian sections of his Studies in Ancient Technology way as indicating a particular cultural bias towards a using animal products (bone, ivory, shell, etc.) or
(1955-72) share the acknowledged shortcomings of the view of Western Asia in antiquity immutably fixed on stones, are treated first. These are followed by those in
(BraudeI198t: 334)·
In small areas and in adjacent regions in the ancient rest of these volumes. Although they contain in easily Mesopotamia as the one and only centre of inspiration. which the technologies involve chemical and structural
Near East, different peoples, exercising the power of accessible form much that is difficult to find elsewhere, Indeed, that very point of view is recurrently challenged alteration to the raw materials used during manufac~
choice, did things in different ways. Technological inno they are often criticized with some justice for a number as each craft tradition is examined here. ture, as with ceramics, glazed materials and glass, and
vation was a slow, continuous process through the time of serious deficiencies. The philological citations are Even within this area the balance of evidence is metals. The role of the natural sciences in studying this
and area studied here, operating simultaneously at a notoriously unreliable; archaeological evidence, all too rarely, if ever, what might be hoped for. Within Meso group is naturally the greater. The crafts of the builder,
number of levels and in a number of localities in society. rarely used, is uncritical1y handled; and there is a potamia the available material evidence is concentrated embracing both these technologies and also organic
Technological change was not a series of self~contained marked imbalance in the historical evidence selected in the north, centre, and east of the region from the materials which rarely survive, are then treated
stages linked together in some chain of causality. As for inclusion. Moreover, many references are either time of the earliest permanent villages until about together. In so far as the literature of the subject is
always, cultural factors were as important as practica misleading or so imprecise as to be merely irritating. 5500 BC Thereafter, for some four thousand years, the concerned, I have attempted to survey what was avail~
bility in determining whether or not craft practices were Unfortunately, the 'revised' editions are little better. centre and the south (Akkad and Sumer; Babylonia) able to the end of 199!.
modified or changed. Any successful technology, in the Landsberger (1965: 291 n. 27) said of one of them that are best known, until once again from about 1600 to Illustrating a survey of Mesopotamian crafts is diffi~
broadest sense, is the result of a subtle combination '[it1 is in a sense, up to date, but his results are so 600 BC the north (Assyria) becomes the primary source cult. Unlike ancient Egypt (cf. Drenkhahn 1976), the
of physical means (resources and tools) and social confused that they defy criticism'. of information. In other words, the earliest settlement imagery of Mesopotamia from earliest times to the
Until now philological studies of Mesopotamian of the south is barely understood; the nature of urban Achaemenid period did not draw upon the activities of
communication (diffusion and training). In ancient
crafts have been more common than archaeological growth in the north is only just beginning to come into daily life on the great estates. Such exceptions as the
Mesopotamia traditional ways of doing things persisted
side-by-side with newer ways, whilst traditional ones. The modern dictionaries (The Chicago Assyrian focus; and the material achievements of Babylonia from craft activities shown on sealings of the Late Uruk
materials were continuously exploited alongside freshly Dictionary (CAD); Akkadisches Handworterbuch soon after the reign of Hammurabi (C.1792-1750 BC) period from Susa (cf. Amiet 1972: pis. 14-17), the very
discovered ones, especially when the familiar ones were (AHw)) are fundamental to these studies, superseding to the accession of Nebuchadnezzar II (c.604-562 Be) occasional genre scenes on Old Babylonian terracotta
locally available, relatively cheap, and easily processed. the specialist monographs of Campbell Thompson are hardly known. This oscillation to some extent plaques (cf. Moorey 1975: 95), and rare glimpses on
It is a commonplace in the history of technology that (1936; 1949) 011 the vocabulary of Assyrian botany, explains the lack of balance in discussions of develop Nen-Assyrian reliefs (cf. Hrouda 1965; Madhlum
even an eventually acceptable invention may have to chemistry, and zoology, though his commentaries may ments in northern and southern Mesopotamia often evi 1970), only emphasize their rarity. These sources are
wait long before society has attained the required still be selectively read with profit. The series of vol dent in the following pages. drawn upon here as appropriate, supplemented from
degree of receptivity; but it is usually impossible umes on various aspects of daily life in Mesopotamia Each of the main sections of this book is a tentative, the equally meagre body of material evidence for cer~
from the archaeological record alone to explain why published by Armas Salon en between 1939 and 1976 necessarily selective attempt to present the primary evi tainly identified craft tools and equipment. For the
in a specific case people were not yet capable of (see bibliography) are potentially dangerous for any but dence and to assay its value as the basis for an under craftsmen's repertory the reader is directed to the stan~
achieving, or fully utilizing, the potential of a new specialist philologists to use. As Oppenheim (I97S: 660 standing of the traditional crafts of ancient dard and fully illustrated books on Mesopotamian art
n. IS l) remarked, 'Salonen's books in many respects Mesopotamia so far as they are represented in the and architecture. An easily acces'sible range of good
invention.
To the student of ancient technology, defined as the constitute pioneering work that of necessity is word record currently provided by archaeology. There are maps and coloured illustrations will be found in Roaf's
accumulating wisdom of successive generations of orientated. They do not take into account the specific vital crafts, primarily those using organic materials, Cultural AlIas of Mesopotamia and the Ancient Near
craftsmen, archaeology offers the great advantage of a evidentiary value of the text types in which these words unrepresented here, as they remain the territory of the East (New York and Oxford, 1990).
long perspective through time and a vertical perspective occur and the complexities of the socio-economic struc philologist in Mesopotamia. It is possible from time to
through society, from the privileged to the impover tures that created the documentation.' This may lead time, as Barber (1990) demonstrated with textiles, to P. R. S. MOOREY
ished, who are so often lost to the written record. For the unwary into serious difficulties. offer archaeological information from unlikely regions
the purposes of this book the time-range extends from The relevant articles in the continuing Reallexikon even for these topics, but by taking a wider perspective Ashmolean Museum, Oxford.
der Assyriologie und vorderasiatischen Archiiologie, and writing a different kind of study. December 1992.
the earliest farming communities permanently settled
in northern Mesopotamia by the eighth millennium BC particularly since it was revived in H)57 at the letter F,
through to the fourth century BC, when the region began are invaluable for their conjunction of archaeological
to be absorbed into the much wider Hellenistic socio and philological evidence and for their bibliographies;
economic system in which traditional local cultures but they suffer from alphabetic isolation of related
underwent radical transformation. Although archaeol~ topics, from uneven quality, and from a general indif
ogy loses its monopoly of the evidence increasingly ference to evidence from scientific analysis. In 1976 a
after about 3000 BC, it still provides information on craft distinguished group of Italian scholars produced very
and industry supplementary to that recorded by scribes useful summaries (with good select bibliographies), pri
as well as illuminating aspects of craft products and marily based on textual evidence, for the volume on
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS CONTENTS
Any author who attempts to summarize information working life in a happy and stimulating environment. List of Plates xiv
obtained through multidisciplinary research is particu~ Production of this book would not have been possible List of Figures xvi
larly conscious of his dependence on the advice of without the assistance of my secretary Ruth Flanagan,
List of Maps xviii
specialists among his colleagues. When he is also a who tragically died soon after this book went to press.
museum curator and a university tcacher he is no less I am grateful to Nick Griffiths for undertaking the draw Notes for the Reader XIX
aware of how much he owes to the questions and con~ ings and maps. l. Chronological Terminology xix
versations of innumerable people over many years, I am very conscious of the absence of the philological 2. Problems in Historical Geography XIX
whose assistance has imperceptibly and anonymously aspects of my subject save through cross~reference to
become part of the way he approaches particular prob standard sources; with many points of translation I have
INTRODUCTION
lems. It is only possible here to name those whose con been generously assisted over many years by Dr Jeremy
tributions, as the bibliography often makes clear, have Black, Dr Stephanie Dalley, and Professor Oliver Gur [. The Agricultural Poundations
brought me to this point, when along the way I have ney, to whom I am most grateful. It was Professor Sir 2. Resource Procurement 5
sometimes despaired of making any sense of it all. As John Boardman who suggested that I should gather
(i) Routes 6
I have constantly trespassed into fields of study well these studies together rather than continue to publish
(a) To the west and north-west 6
beyond my academic competence, I am more than usu them in separate monographs. I trust that the result (b) To the east and north-east 8
ally sincere when I say that I alone am to be held justifies his encouragement.
(c) To the south 10
responsible for the persisting errors and misconceptions Outside Oxford my debts are no less numerous,
(ii) Means of transport 10
from which even the most learned of friends could not above all to many curators of collections of Mesopot
(a) By water 10
protect me. amian antiquities, notably to Dr Muayad Saeed
(b) By land [2
My study of stoneworking crafts owes much to dis~ Damerji, Director of Antiquities in Iraq, for permission
3. Craft and Industry: Methods of Study [3
cussions with my former research student Dr Timothy to study objects from Kish, Ur. and other sites in the
Potts, to conversations with Drs Gorelick and Gwin~ National Museum of Antiquities in Baghdad; to the (i) Texts and archaeology [3
nett, and to Dr Carol Meyer (Chicago) for kindly authorities and staff of the Oriental Institute in Chicago (ii) Investigating the material record for craft and industry [7
allowing me access to her unpublished doctoral thesis for access to objects and records from excavations
in [985; of metals and metalworking to Mrs Judy B jork directed by Banks at Tell Adab (Bismaya) and by
man, Dr Paul Craddock, Dr Stuart Fleming, Professor Frankfort in the Diyala Valley; to Professor R. 1-1. l. THE STONEWORKING CRAFTS: THE COMMON STONES
Robert Maddin, Professor James Muhly, Dr Peter Dyson, Jr., to Maude de Schauensee, and to Dr I. Introduction 21
Northover, Dr Vince Pigott, Dr Tamara Stech and Mr Richard Zettler for much help when studying material
2. Sculpture and Sculptors 23
J. E. Rehder; of ceramic..<.; to Miss Mavis Bimson, Dr from Nippur and Ur in the University Museum, Phila
(i) Historical survey of stones used for sculpture 24
Robert Hedges, Professor Alex Kaczmarczyk, Pro~ delphia (and to Mary Voigt for use of her oHice there);
(ii) Sculptors at work 30
fessor Mark Pollard, Professor Michael Tite, and Dr to Prudence Harper of the Metropolitan Museum, New
(a) Workplaces and quarries 3 [
Pam Vandiver; of ivories to Dr Georgina Herrmann; York and to Annie Caubet of the Louvre in Paris for
and of shells to Dr David Reese. information and photographs; and last, but by no (b) The sculptors' methods 33
In Oxford my debt over many years to the rich means least, to the keepers and staff of the Department 3. Stone Vessel Manufacture 36
resources of the Ashmolean Library and the patience of Western Asiatic Antiquities in the British Museum (i) Concise notes on the stones used for vessels 37
of its staff, to the members of thc Research Laboratory who, over a period of thirty years, have assisted me (ii) Historical survey of stones used for vessels 38
for Archaeology and the History of Art, and to the with research on their remarkable collections. It was
(iii) Manufacture 55
staff of the Ashmolean Museum is fundamental, not through participation in the excavations at Abu Sala
(a) Methods of study 55
least to the Visitors and to successive Directors for bikh in [975, [977, and [98 [ that I finally convinccd
(b) Workshops 56
granting me indispensable periods of sabbatical leave myself of the need for a handbook of the type
(c) Drill-bits and drills 56
and to my colleagues in the Department of Antiquities, attempted here. I am most grateful to the Director,
(d) The pattern of production 58
particularly Helen Whitehouse and Michael Vickers, Nicholas Postgate, and his teams in each of those
(e) Sample identifications of stones used for vessels 59
for so ably holding the fort in my absence. It is a great seasons for a stimulating and most enjoyable
4. Working Stone for Tools and Weapons 59
pleasure and privilege to have spent so much of my experience.
(i) The chipped or flaked stone tradition 59
(a) Flint 6n
(b) Obsidian 63
(c) Rock crystal 7[
(ii) The ground Or polished stone tradition 7 [
X CONTENTS
2. THE STONEWORKING CRAFTS: ORNAMENTAL STONES
I. The Materials 74
(i) For seals 74
(i)
(ii) For beads, amulets, and pendants 77
(ii) Archaeological
(iii) Historical survey of the ornamental stones used in Mesopotamia
C~~I:~~~~~~~~~~~~!
(listed alphabetically; for convenience amber (5) ((ab)) TThhee potter's
and pearl (53) are included) 79
(iii) A historical sketch of the,","'.
2. Manufacturing Techniques 103
(a) The first stages: to ab(>ut~~f
(i) Seals 103 (b) Developing prehistoric
(ii) Beads 106 (e) Potting in the historic
(a) Drills and drilling in Mesopotamia 106
(iv) Working with clay: aspects of
(b) Bead production in the Indus Valley:
2. Working with Faience 166
foreign beads in Mesopotamia 109
(iii) Inlays 110 (i) The emergence of glazed IT
.~ in
(ii) A historical survey of faience l'I"v.
(a) The prehistoric period 171
3. WORKING WITH BONE, IVORY, AND SHELL
(b) The historic period 173
I. Antler I I I
(iii) Methods of manufacture 181
2. Horn I I I (a) Cores and manufacture 182
3. Bone 112 (b) Methods of glazing 184
(i) Tools 113 (e) Production and nature of individual colours in
(d) Notes on analyses of Mesopotamian faience
(ii) Personal ornaments and cosmetic articles "4
(iii) Inlays "4 3. Working with Egyptian Blue 186
(iv) Recreational objects 114 (i) Historical survey of use in Mesopotamia 186
4. Wild Boar's Tusk 115 (ii) Composition and manufacture 188
5. Hippopotamus Ivory 115 (iii) Analyses of Egyptian Blue from sites in Mesopotamia 189
6. Elephant Ivory 116
4. Glass and Glass-Making 189
(i) Sources of ivory for Mesopotamia 116
(i) Historical survey 190
(ii) The elephant in Mesopotamia 119
(a) The prehistory of glass production (to about 1650 BC) 190
(iii) The repertory of ivory objects in Mesopotamia 119 (b) Changes in the production of glass, c.1650-1150 BC 192
(iv) Methods of manufacture 125 (e) Revival of glass production (from about 900 BC) 198
(v) Chemical studies 127 (ii) Technology and composition 202
7. Ostrich Egg shells 127 «(I) Workshops and furnaces 202
8. Tortoiseshell 128 (b) Mixing and melting 203
(c) Forming processes 203
9. Marine and Freshwater Shells 129 (d) Composition 206
(i) Sources 130 (e) Provenance studies 210
(a) Freshwater 130
(iii) Ancient textual tradition 2lO
(b) Marine 130
(iv) Opaque red glass: the ancient texts and modern analyses 212
(ii) The repertory of uses 132
(a) Amulets, beads, and pendants 132 (v) The problem of enamel 214
(b) Bangles and rings 133
(e) Containers and utensils 133
5. METALWORKING
(d) Seals 135
(e) Spindle-whorls 136 I. Specialist Terminology 216
(f) Inlays '36
2. Preciolls Metals 217
(g) Ritual and votive use of shells 137
(h) Miscellaneous industrial uses 137 (i) Electrum 2'7
(i) Select check-list of specialist shell identifications (ii) Gold 217
U) Notcs on the pigments found in cosmetic shells (a) Recovery 217
(k) Mother-of-pearl 139 (b) Colour variation 217
CONTENTS XIII
xii CONTENTS
(iii) Decorative techniques in mudbrick architecture
(c) Refining and assaying 218
(a) Late prehistoric cone mosaics 309
(d) Sources 219
(b) Unglazed fancy brickwork 310
(e) The repertory of objects and uses 221
(c) Glazed brickwork 312
(J) Techniques 225
(d) Wall-painting 322
(g) Select analyses 231
2. Plasters and Mortars in Building 329
(iii) Silver 232
(a) Recovery 232 0) Mud plaster 329
(b) Sources 234 (ii) Gypsum and limestone plaster 330
(c) The repertory of objects, c. 3500-500 BC 235 (iii) Mortar 33 I
(d) As an index of value: silver as money 237 (iv) Gypsum bricks 332
(e) Manufacture 238
3. Bitumen in Building and Other Roles 332
(J) Select analyses 239
(i) Availability 333
3. Base Metals 240 (ii) Range of use 334
(i) Arsenic 240 4. Building in Stone 335
(ii) Antimony 240 (i) The availability of building stone 335
(ii) Historical survey 337
(iii) Copper and its alloys 242
(a) The prehistoric period 337
(a) Support technology 242
(b) The historic period 339
(b) Sources 245
(c) Mechanical properties and varieties 249 5. Building with Wood 347
(d) The repertory of objects 254 (i) The range of timber 347
(e) Workshops and manufacturing equipment 265 Oi) Sources outside Mesopotamia 349
(J) Techniques 269 (a) In the west and north-west 349
(g) The use of metal tools 276 (b) In the eastern Taurus and the Zagros 351
(h) Check-list of published analyses by site 276 (c) In the Gulf and regions beyond to the Indus Valley 352
Ov) Iron 278 (iii) Illustrations of timber procurement and working methods 353
(a) Types and sources 278 (iv) Timber in building 355
(b) Manufacture of smelted iron 283 (a) Roofing 355
(c) The problem of cast iron 285 (b) Walls 356
(d) Bimetallism 285 (c) Columns 357
(e) The development of iron working in Mesopotamia 286 (d) Doors 357
(J) The repertory of iron objects 291 (e) Internal fittings 358
(v) Lead 292 (v) Wood identifications for Mesopotamian sites (prehistoric to Seleucid) 300
(a) Recovery 292 (vi) Wood identifications for level IVB at Hasanlu, north-west Iran 361
(b) Sources 293
6. Building with Reeds 361
(vi) Nickel 297 (i) Reed identifications
(vii) Tin 297
(a) The metal and its uses 297
Bibliography
(b) The pattern of trade and the identification of sources
Index 407
(c) Objects 301
(d) An interim assessment of the 'tin problem' 301
(viii) Zinc 30 I
6. THE BUILDING CRAFTS
I. Bricks and Brickmaking in Mud and Clay 302
(i) The emergence of mud bricks 304
(ii) Brick manufacture and development 304
(a) Manufacture 304
(b) Kilns 306
(c) Bricks: sun-dried and kiln-fired 306
(d) Towards the standard rectangular brick 306
LIST OF PLATES xv
VIII. A. Dagger with a bronze hilt cast on to an iron blade from Nirnrud, eighth or seventh century
Be.
LIST OF PLATES
(Ashmolean Museum 1951.60; by courtesy of the Visitors.)
B. (left) 'Handle' of bluish-green faience spirally striped with black faience, from Kish c.2500 Be.
(right) 'Handle' of black and white stone rings on a copper or bronze rod, from Kish c.2500 BC.
(Ashmolean Museum 1925.256-7; by courtesy of the Visitors.)
I. A. The ruler as master craftsman: headless diorite statue of Gudea of I.agash (C.2IOO BC) seated
with a building plan on his lap.
(Louvre AO:2; by courtesy of the Louvre, Paris.)
B. A carpenter at work using an adze to shape a chair leg; Babylonian terracotta plaque, C. I 900-
'700 BC
(Louvre AO;6694bis; by courtesy of the Louvre, Paris.)
II. A. Mosul Marble relief fragment of the time of Assurnasirpal II (c.883-859 BC) showing a
besieged city.
(British Museum 1I8906; by courtesy of the Trustees.)
B. Mosul Marble relief fragment of the time of Sennacherib (c.704-68, BC) showing an irrigation
system with a shadool.
(British Museum 12480; by courtesy of the Trustees.)
III. A. Part of the bronze overlay on the Balawat Gates, showing an expedition by Shalmaneser III
(858-824 BC) to the source of the Tigris.
(Detail of British Museum 124656; by courtesy of the Trustees.)
B. Fragment of a Mosul Marble relief of the time of Sennacherib showing workmen with iron(?)
saws, shovels (or spades), and pickaxes.
(British Museum 124823; by courtesy of the Trustees.)
IV. A. Baked clay mould for making a model terracotta chariot front depicting (above) a worshipper
and a deity; (below) a man carrying a stool; Babylonian, c. 1900-1700 Be.
(Louvre AO:3150; by courtesy of the Louvre, Paris.)
B. Fragmentary baked clay Neo-Assyrian relief of a king spearing a lion; sometimes described
as a 'sculptor's model'.
(British Museum 93011; by courtesy of the Trustees.)
V. A. Fragment of a rock crystal bowl from Nimrud of the eighth or seventh century BC.
(Ashmolean Museum 1952.57; hy courtesy of the Visitors.)
D. Bowl of altered basaltic lava from Kish, c.3000-2750 BC.
(Ashmolean Museum 1929.338; by courtesy of the Visitors.)
VI. A. Enigmatic schist objects ('The Blau Monuments'), c.3500-32oO BC.
(British Museum 86260-1; by courtesy of the Trustees.)
B. Pair of pivoted stones (?granite) from Tell el-Amarna in Egypt, fourteenth century Be.
(Ashmolean Museum 1929-417; by courtesy of the Visitors.)
VII. A. Bronze mould for casting simultaneollsly three trefoil barbed and socketed arrowheads (or
wax models for subsequent lost-wax casting); seventh century Be; acquired at Mosul.
(British Museum 124624; by courtesy of the Trustees.)
B. Two of the three segments of a bronze mould for casting a trefoil barbed and socketed bronze
arrowhead; from Carchemish, seventh or sixth century Be.
(British Museum 116254; hy courtesy of the Trustees.)
LlST OF FIGURES XVII
15. Diagram to illustrate the technique for casting the blank of a glass vessel to be worked as if it was of
stone (earlier first millennium Be): 206
LIST OF FIGURES
(a) Casting: heating mould and continuously adding crushed or powdered glass.
(b) Blank removed; ready for drilling and polishing.
16. Industrial debris from a bronze-working place at Tell edh-Dhibai, c. [800 Be: 266
I. Two pot-bellows of baked clay.
2. Baked clay crucible.
I. Cattle and cattle byres in Southern Mesopotamia, C.3500 Be (Ashmolean Museum 1964. 744). 2
3. Baked clay crucible.
2. Plough with a large seeder C.2200 Be (Ashmolean Museum 1969. 346). 3 4. Baked clay open mould for casting long narrow bars, perhaps for working into knife- or dagger
blades.
3. The basic tools of the Mesopotamian craftsman, variously equipped with stone or metal cutting edges:
(a) drill; (b) awl or chisel; (e) saw or knife; (d) hammer; (e) adze (or axe). 19 5. Baked clay open mould for a flat sheet, perhaps for working into a vessel.
4. Limestone statuette of a man, c.2500 BC (Ashmolean Museum 1919. 65). 33 17. Industrial debris from a bronze-working place at Tell edh-Dhibai, c. 1800 Be:
6. Baked clay mould cover.
5. Drills and drill-fittings: (a) Early Dynastic stone drill-head; (b) Early Dynastic stone capstone;
(e) Woolley's reconstruction of a complete drill; (d) Egyptian representation of drilling from the tomb 7. Baked clay 'dish'.
of Sahure at Saqqara, e.2450 BC. 8. Baked clay pipe.
9. Baked clHY measuring dish.
6. Flint borers, probably for shell manufacture, e.3000-2600 Be from Kish.
10. Baked clay mould ('I).
7. (a) Diagram to illustrate the sectioning of an elephant's tusk to provide ivory panels and circular boxes
[I. A baked clay bellows or blow-pipe nozzle.
of ivory.
12. Baked clay model axe head for use in sand-casting.
(b) Diagram to illustrate cutting of a duck-shaped cosmetic dish from a hippopotamus tooth;
C.1400-1300 BC. Detailed drawing of the Nco-Assyrian bronze mould shown closed in Plate VIllA.
B. (a) Ancient seal impression from Susa, Iran, c.3500-3200 Be, perhaps showing pottery~making. Detail from the 'Uf-Nammu Stela' found at Uf, showing the King Ur-Nammu (C.2[ 12-2095 BC)
officiating at a temple-building ceremony. 303
(b) Ancient seal impression for Susa, Iran, c.350o-3000 HC, interpreted either as filling a kiln or a
granary. Various patterns lIsed in the laying of plano-convex bricks, c.3000-2350 BC. 30H
(e) Modern impression from an Akkadian cylinder seal (c.2350-2100 Be) variously interprcted as
Reconstruction of part of a terracotta cone mosaic fa~ade at Uruk, C.3500 BC. 309
illustrating potting or cheese-making.
Decorative mudbrick laying in the ziggurat at Tell Rimah. early second millennium Be: 31[
9. (a) Restored kiln at Habuba Kabira, Syria (Uruk IV, c.3500-3200 Be).
(a) Diagrammatic reconstruction of a spiral column on the west fac;ade.
(b) Kiln at Choga Mish in Khuzistan, Iran, c.3500-3200 BC.
(b) Successive course plans.
(c) Fire installation at Tell Asmar (restored), perhaps an oven rather than a kiln.
23. Transport of timber by water as illustrated on Sargon II's (721-7°5 Be) reliefs at Khorsabad. 353
(d) Kiln (rcstored) at Khirbet Qasrij; Neo-Assyrian period.
24. Detail from a scene carved on an Akkadian cylinder seal (C.2350-2100 He) showing a deity using an
10. Potters at work with various types of wheel as depicted in Egyptian art: [47 adze to trim or cut a tree. 354
(a) Pivoted wheel turned by the potter; Vth Dynasty, c.2400 Be.
(b) Wheel turned by assistant, XVIIIth Dynasty; c. [400 BC.
(c) Kick-wheel; reign of Darius I (C.518-485 BC).
II. (a) Baked clay nail-shaped object (?pestie) from Ur, C-4000 Be (Ashmolean Museum 1935. 773b). 166
(b) Baked clay sickle, broken through use, from lamdat-Nasr, c.32oo BC (Ashmolean Museum 1926.
480).
12. Three methods of glazing faience as explained by Vandiver. 185
13. Stages in the manufacture of a core-formed glass vessel of the later second millennium Be. 204
14. Diagrams to illustrate the manufacture of a mosaic glass vessel; later second millennium Be: 205
(a) Fusing, drawing, and cutting canes.
(b) Arranging eanes in a mould and heating.
(c) Removing a bowl from the mould, trailing on the rim, and reheating before final grinding and
polishing.
LIST OF MAPS NOTES FOR THE READER
I. Lines of contact within Mesopotamia and her periphery. xx I. Chronological Terminology site-focused and complex (for Susiana (Khuzistan), see
Carter, in Carter and Stolper 1984). Until the long
2. Mesopotamia's lines of contact with the east. XXI
promised third edition appears, the second edition of
(a) Prehistoric
3· Mesopotamia: main sites mentioned in the text. 7 R. H. Ehrich, Chronologies in Old World Archaeology
Aceramic Neolithic c.8000-6500 Be
(COWA) (Chicago and London, 1965) remains the
4· Northern Mesopotamia and Syria: main sites mentioned in the text. Hassuna/Samarra/Halaf c.6500-5500 Be
9 standard survey of archaeological chronologies.
Ubaid c.5500-4000 Be
5· Iran: main sites mentioned in the text. I I Uruk (Early/Middle) c-4000-3500 Be
Uruk (Late/Jamdat Nasr) c.3500-3000 Be 2. Problems in Historical Geography
Absolute dates before 3000 BC are still insecurely based. This is clearly not an appropriate place for lengthy dis
The figures given above are broad approximations to a cussions of historical geography, but in order to avoid
cluttering the main text with recurrent annotations, a
greater or lesser extent based on Carbon-14 determi
nations (cf. Aurenche et al. 1986). few regions constantly cited by their ancient names are
briefly reviewed here:
(b) Historic
(A) Within Iran (primarily third millennium Be)
Early Dynastic I C.3000-2750 Be
Early Dynastic II C.2750-2600 Be (a) Aralia immediately raises the critical issue. Many
Early Dynastic III c.2600-2350 Be scholars regard it as a reallocation (scc below), whilst
Akkadian (or Sargonic) c. 2350-2 100 Be Michalowski (1986: 132-3) has assembled cogent argu
Ur III C.2IOO-2000 Be ments in favour of a mythical 'EI Dorado' of remote
Isin-Larsa/Old Babylonian/Old C.2000-1600 BC antiquity. So far there is no certain reference to Aratta
Assyrian in a non-literary tcxt (but see Michalowski 1988); poss
Kassite/Mitannian/Middle Baby- c.1600-1000 BC ible references, if indeed toponyms, may be to Shurup
lonian/Middle Assyrian pak (Fara; cf. Green 1980: 17). Aralia appears with
Nco-Assyrian C. 1000-612 BC consistency in literary texts describing mythical Early
Nco-Babylonian c.612-539 Be Dynastic rulers of Uruk and their encounters with
Achacmenid Persian C.539-330 Be peoples to the east in tales designed to emphasize the
superiority of Sumerian culture. If Aralla is to be taken
The ahsolute dates before 612 BC given here are as a real location with rich resollrces including 'gold,
approximations. The chronology for individual kings silver, copper, tin, lumps of lapis lazuli' (Cohen, S.
cited in this book is that given by J. A. Brinkman in 1973: 112, lines 18-19), then the literary references
A. Leo Oppenheim, Ancient Mesopotamia (revised edi place it deep into Iran or beyond. cast of Anshan (Tepc
tion; Chicago, 1977), 355 ff. This is based, for con Malyan) (cf. Majidzadeh 1976; Hansman 1978). The
veniem:c (as is the chronology of the revised volumes name became an epithet for abundance and glory
of the Cambridge Ancient History), on thc 'Middle' (Cohen. S. 1973: 55 n. 67)·
chronology for the First Dynasty of Babylon (C. 1894- (b) MlIrhashi, sometimcs Barhashi or Parahshum,
1595 Be). The primary alternatives are the has long been conventionally located in the mountains
'High' (c.1950-1651 Be) and the 'Low' chronologies north-west or north of Elam and east of the Diyala
(c.1830-1531 Be). Recently the 'High Chronology' has river. Stein keller (1982; 1989) has advanced a case for
become more popular, but dendrochronological regarding it as an important part of central southern
studies have begun to raise fresh doubts about its Iran, to the cast of Anshan (Tepe Malyan) in Fars. It
validity. was a source of plants, animals, and semi-precious
Elsewhere in the Ncar East, where historical termin stones, including agate and cornelian.
ology is not usually used, the main chronological hori (c) Shimashki appears in an inscription of Shu-Sin
zons are: AceramiclCeramic Neolithic (c.8000- (c.2037-2029 He) as a region comprised of six named
4500 Be); Chalcolithic (c-4500-3300 Be); Early Bronze lands, Zabshali conspicuous amongst them (Edzard
Age (C.3300-2000 Be); Middle Bronze Age (C.2000- 1959-60: 9). Arguments for locating it south and cast
1550 Be); Late Bronzc Age (C.1550-1150 Be); Iron Age of Kermanshah in the provinces of Luristan and Fars
(c.IISO-550 Be). The chronology of Iran is still basically (Steinkeller 1988: 201; 1990) are more persuasive than
'-'-, ~
~
-.
Z
yl.a\'i S EUPhrateS .0..
~ '"
'.".,
0
"...
'"
'"
",.
'"
0
'"
"
',/
I. Lines of contact within Mesopotamia and her periphery.
~
~HasanlU
MOSUl
.... Tell Shemshara
.... Tureng
Tepe j
.t.
~TEHRAN
Tepe Hissar
"---~AMADAN
• KABUL
eHERAT
AFGHANISTAN
IRAN PESHAWAR
.... Shahdad
.... Quetta
KERMAN .t.
Shahr-i -Sekhta
IRAQ PAKISTAN
,,"
,,,0
Mohenjo-Daro
~
.... Bampur .t.
Melubba
z
Dare o...
c, _ '"
...... ~~ ..... ___ ~_~ ~ .. ~ I '.".,
o
"...
To Melubba
'"
Magan '"
SAUDI ARABIA OMAN "
'"
»
o
'"
"
2. Mesopotamia's lines of contact with the east. ~.