Although we have little data on urban organization from the later part of the third
millennium, similarities between mid-third millennium and early second millennium
cities suggest considerable continuity, although the broader settlement pattern incor-
porated many more small and medium-sized settlements. As was seen in the urban
structure of the third millennium, temple and palace served as the two anchors, usually
on opposite sides of the city, with the body politic located between, including manu-
facturing areas, shops and, in at least some instances, cemeteries.
In spite of the crucial role played by the temples, and later palaces, it was perhaps
the assembly as reflected in the large urban populations that may be the most striking.
Mesopotamian cities were made up of block upon block of houses, doubtless divided
into neighborhoods (Stone 1977 ) but without the manifestations of extreme class
differences familiar from modern cities. It was their inhabitants who were represented
by the assembly, and it was the interaction between assembly, temple and palace that
allowed the urban lifestyle first devised by the Sumerians to continue for some four
millennia.
NOTES
1 Here part of the problem is that the surveys by Adams and his students and colleagues rarely
distinguished between surface data dating to the Ur III period, the apex of Sumerian civilizations,
and that dating to the Isin-Larsa period, the first post-Sumerian stage in Mesopotamia’s history.
It may well be that there was little change in settlement between these two periods, that although
political control shifted and the Sumerian language went into decline, this does not necessarily
mean that other aspects of Mesopotamian society changed a great deal (Stone 2002 ).
2 There are fragments of domestic structures from the Diyala Region (Delougaz, Hill and Lloyd
1967 : pl. 2 ), but these are too fragmentary to provide comprehensive plans.
3 It can be difficult to know what sherd densities really mean when we examine their distributions
over large sites. While we can be reasonably certain that more recent sherd scatters almost
certainly reflect the distribution of ancient settlement–or at least rubbish disposal – this is not
necessarily the case for earlier sherds since new mud-bricks are often made from the remains of
earlier settlements, in the process incorporating early pot-sherds.
4 There are, however some problems with this interpretation. First, associating this phenomenon
specifically with the city of Uruk and not some larger consortium of large Mesopotamian sites
(many of which are deeply buried beneath later occupational levels) may be more the result of
the accidents of archaeological discovery within southern Iraq than the reality of southern
Mesopotamian political organization in the fourth millennium BC. More troubling, however, is
the fact that the administrative system represented by Uruk-style sealings found at Habuba
Kabira and elsewhere have more in common with the system in use at Susa than at Uruk itself
(Strommenger 1980 : 62 – 63 ; Pittman 1994 : 181 and note 25 ; Pittman 2001 : 439 – 440 ). Moreover,
when unbaked clay sealings with Uruk period-style sealings were tested using nuclear activation,
the only positive matches were with soils from the vicinity of Susa and not with those from Uruk
(Stein and Blackman 1993 ). Nevertheless, whether the trade routes went via Susa (and geography
would be against this) or Uruk, all of these sites–including Habuba Kabira–are clearly heavily
influenced by the Uruk phenomenon, and it is for this reason that in the absence of any data from
southern Iraq, I use Habuba Kabira as a source of information on the organization of early
Mesopotamian towns.
5 Sadly the details of the excavated remains from Habuba Kabira remain unpublished, so we lack
information on the finds associated with the different kinds of buildings identified by Vallet.
6 Tell ‘Uqair is located within the irrigated district and it looks as though part of the southern
mound has been destroyed by agriculture. Indeed, the sketch of the mound in the survey–– Elizabeth C. Stone ––