of Early Dynastic I, and began to disappear in the later part of Early Dynastic III. This
appears to have been a development within local brick-working traditions (Moorey
1994 : 308 ), perhaps reflecting divisions of labour driven by expanding economies:
workers skilled in laying flat layers of regular bricks were still needed for structurally
important parts of a building, such as corners, but less experienced people could now
build walls using the irregular, domed shaped plano-convex bricks, quickly filling the
hollow spaces between them with mortar (Nissen 1988 : 93 ).
The majority of people continued to rely upon the temple, and increasingly the
palace, for their livelihood. These institutions were organised much like large
households with dependents who provided labour. If these institutions represented the
largest social unit, domestic life was centred on the smallest one: a nuclear family of a
patriarch and his sons and grandsons with their wives and children or an extended
family group consisting of several generations. Urban life remained the defining
characteristic of Sumer. Of course, the urban population was not fixed and people
moved in and out of the settlements depending on circumstances; in times of war and
uncertainty, rural populations might seek security behind city walls, while periods of
peace and plenty may have encouraged settlement in the suburbs or even the
countryside.
Archaeologically, the best-known settlements of the third millennium BCthat
provide evidence for Sumerian home life are a number of small towns located in the
Diyala Valley to the east of the Mesopotamian plain: Tell Asmar (ancient Eshnunna),
Khafajeh (ancient Tutub) and Tell Agrab. Evidence from the plain itself comes from
Abu Salabikh (perhaps ancient Eresh) with some late examples of houses (around 2000
BC) known from Ur. Additional information is also provided by finds from Al-Hiba
and Fara (ancient Shurrupak).
As in the colony towns of the Uruk period, homes at these sites were packed
together in agglomerations along streets and approached via alleys. Space in the
settlements was restricted by the height of the tell, the extent of the fortification wall,
and the need to preserve surrounding land for agricultural. Mixed together with the
domestic areas of Abu Salabikh were industrial sectors where craft production took
place. At Ur c. 2000 BCsmall shops, chapels and a school were found among the houses,
which range from large houses to small, cramped rooms that were squeezed into
available space (Woolley and Mallowan 1976 ). There were benefits of this compact
arrangement of houses such as protection from the heat provided by the shade of walls.
The organisation of houses within settlements, however, varied between sites, perhaps
determined by the relationship of the inhabitants to each other and to the institutions
that employed them. At Abu Salabikh, for example, the Early Dynastic I housing on
the west mound was subdivided by a heavy perimeter walls into discrete blocks of
buildings: these are suggested to have housed co-resident extended families (Postgate
1983 , 1992 : 91 ). In contrast, the later Early Dynastic III settlement on the main mound
had a more traditional arrangement of public thoroughfares separating groups of
houses reached by lanes. However, during the same period at Khafajeh, the area of
housing was rebuilt with straight streets and alleys suggesting deliberate planning, and
enclosed behind a wall (Pollock 1999 : 131 ). Some alleys in these settlements are cul-de-
sacs and, as suggested for similar lanes in the later Isin-Larsa/Old Babylonian area of
private housing at Ur, may have been jointly owned by the residents (Crawford 2007 :
91 ); the inhabitants may have been related by blood or marriage, or were perhaps part
–– Paul Collins ––