et al. 2001 ; Matthews 1997 ). However, a local variant of seal style and praxis persists
in strung clay bullae from Brak’s Area SS, impressed with seals bearing rows of frontal
bull and lion heads (Oates et al. 2001 ); other motifs, such as equid chariots, are ‘Brak’
style rather than southern and may be the heirs of the equid sealings of EJ III Beydar.
And beyond the reach of the Akkadian imperial arm, at Mozan, local style persists, with
unusual figures in adapted southern introduction scenes.
While the pottery of northern Mesopotamia reflects local idiom and seals betray a
complex north–south relationship, other elite material culture is more clearly influ-
enced by the south. Shell inlay in southern style was recovered from Tell Atij (Fortin
2000 ). Votive statues in Sumerian style appear at Ashur’s Ishtar Temple and Tell
Chuera’s shrines. But are these instances of borrowing or acculturation?
TABLETS AND ADMINISTRATIONEarly third millennium northern Mesopotamia is sometimes referred to as ‘prehistoric’,
although ‘atextual’ might be preferred. A few numerical tablets were found at the EJ
I–II Middle Khabur grain redistribution sites (Raqa’i, Atij; Curvers and Schwartz 1990 ;
Fortin 1990 a, 2000 ) and an ED IIIB tablet at Tell Bderi (Maul 1992 ). Ebla’s and Mari’s
EJ III archives are supplemented by significant tablet numbers from Beydar (c. 230 ) and
a few finds from Brak. The writing is cuneiform taken from Sumer, although the
language is a local dialect of Akkadian, with a sprinkling of Sumerian logograms; it is
distinct from but related to Eblaite and closest to the language used at Mari (Ismail et
al. 1996 ). Tablet language and contents point to a northern Mesopotamian tradition
distinct from that of Sumer but still tightly linked. For instance, a literary text in
Sumerian comes from Beydar and texts from Brak include a version of the southern
Standard Professions List (Sallaberger 2004 ).
The EJ III Beydar archives record palace administration, mainly economic. Texts
include ration lists for agricultural workers and artisans and records of animal
exploitation (sheep for plucking, oxen for ploughing); together with sealings, these
texts reflect sophisticated control over the movement of and access to goods and raw
materials within a linked hinterland. In scope and details, the Beydar texts closely
match their southern contemporaries from, for example, Lagash. But the administra-
tion and control of goods is hardly a southern borrowing; the system is a more complex
and well-articulated version of arrangements present in the north from the late fifth
millennium BC(evidenced by sealings from Brak and Gawra).
Beydar and Ebla texts indicate that late EJ III Nagar (Brak) had expanded beyond
the scale of city-state to a provincial state, with other cities, such as Beydar, as sub-
capitals (Sallaberger 1999 ) and linked smaller sites of lesser importance. Nagar was
engaged in international trade and diplomatic relations with Ebla and Kish (Archi
1998 ; Archi and Biga 2003 ; Emberling and McDonald 2001 ; Sallaberger 1999 ). The
scale of this state and attempt at regional hegemony are similar to the expanding
powers of Uruk and Kish in terminal Early Dynastic III. It is out of this context in both
south and north that the Akkadian kings’ territorial state was born.
And what was the textual or administrative legacy of the Akkadian adventure in the
north? Sargon’s conquest is not represented by local texts (nor archaeology). Inscribed
bowls of Rimush from Brak may have migrated there after his reign. Manishtushu’s
building at Nineveh is only reported in a text of the early second millennium BC
–– North Mesopotamia ––