SURVEYS AND SETTLEMENTSurvey coverage in parts of northern Mesopotamia is now more comprehensive and
detailed than that in Sumer (Wilkinson 2000 b). Early selective tell-focused surveys of
Lloyd ( 1938 ; N Iraq) and Mallowan ( 1936 , 1937 ; NE Syria) have been supplanted by
other methods: extensive cross-regional surveys of Lyonnet ( 2000 ) and Meijer ( 1986 )
in Syria, and Wilkinson and Tucker ( 1995 ) in Iraq; wadi- or river-based surveys of
Eidem and Warburton ( 1996 ) and Montchambert ( 1984 ) in Syria; intensive site-centred
surveys around Beydar, Brak, Hamoukar and Leilan (Wilkinson 2000 a; Ur 2002 ;
Ristvet and Weiss 2005 ; Stein and Wattenmaker 2003 ; Weiss 1986 ). As in Sumer,
remote sensing data (LANDSAT, SPOT, SRTM, CORONA) have been used to good
effect (Menze et al. 2007 ). The combination of methods gives a picture of settlement
pattern dynamics and has been crucial for elaborating third millennium BCre-
urbanisation.
Problems that hamper surveys in Sumer appear in northern Mesopotamia also.
Small, single-period sites are under-represented, less often due to the alluviation of
Sumer (although this can occur) but due to landscape deflation or site destruction by
modern agricultural practices. Transition definitions and the continuity of artifactual
types across the Early Jezirah sub-divisions are also problematic (Ur 2010 ). For instance,
the Sumerian problems of separating Early Dynastic from Akkadian and Akkadian
from Ur III also exist in northern Mesopotamia. Surveys in the Upper Khabur
struggled to subdivide the later third millennium BC(Lyonnet 2000 ; Meijer 1986 ). To
the east, the Northern Jazirah survey subsumed the complexity of Ninevite 5 /late Early
Dynastic into a single category (Wilkinson and Tucker 1995 ).
Nonetheless, northern Mesopotamian third millennium BCsettlement can be
summarised. Generally, the number of known small sites is low, while the number of
urban sites reached its maximum by c. 2500 BC. Particularly in the Upper Khabur, tells
with extended lower towns were common, implying continuity of occupation from late
prehistory, accompanied by immigration and–conscious or natural–expansion of
settled space. The majority of sites of all sizes in the third millennium BCwere multi-
period tells; it was rare that a third millennium BCsettlement was founded on virgin
soil. The maximum size is approximately 100 hectares, a limit set by the agro-pastoral
economy and transportation parameters (Wilkinson 1994 ).
This general picture should be broken down into smaller trends. After an urban
beginning in the fourth millennium BCwhich rivals that of southern Mesopotamia, the
early third millennium saw a reduction in urbanism, contemporary with Sumer’s ED
I–II. Sites that had reached over 100 hectares in the Late Chalcolithic fourth
millennium BC(e.g. Tell Brak) were reduced to 15 – 20 hectares. Cities grew again in
the second half of the third millennium: Tell Leilan regained its maximum size of 90
hectares, Hamoukar re-grew to 105 hectares (Ur 2002 ), while Beydar ( 25 hectares) and
Brak ( 60 hectares) also re-expand. This urbanisation has long been attributed to
influence from the complex urban Early Dynastic south. But there is potential for
debate over this influence. The general picture of Sumer’s third millennium BCthriving
city-states is based almost solely on ED III evidence. ED I–II cities of Sumer are not
well known, and in fact both south and north experienced related undulating trends,
with limited urbanism in the early third and coincident resurgence in the mid-third
millennium BC.
–– Augusta McMahon ––