to the surrounding area. A similar Akkadian administrative centre at Tell Leilan,
including palace and scribal school, dominated the central acropolis and replaced EJ
III public buildings (de Lillis Forrest et al. 2007 ; Weiss et al. 2002 ). The often-
simplistic equation of large sites with institutions and power does seem valid in these
instances.
In contrast to these organic tell sites, an alternative site morphology developed in
the western Upper Khabur-Balikh region from EJ I: a central mound surrounded by a
regular ring of fortifications, the Kranzhügel(Meyer 2006 ). Beydar and Chuera are
classic examples of this form. At both, institutional buildings clustered in the centre:
separate palace and massive one- to two-room temples at Chuera and integrated
palace–temple complex at Beydar. The Beydar palace is a multi-room structure more
than 20 x 30 m, arranged over two storeys. It may precede Palace A at Kish–usually
identified as the earliest known Mesopotamian palace – since its initial construction
is dated to c. 2500 BC. Beydar’s palace has a set of adjacent temples with storage and
kitchens (Lebeau 2006 ; Lebeau and Suleiman 2003 , 2007 ); the entire complex was
terraced into an acropolis that surely made a power statement within the urban
landscape, as well as from the site’s exterior. Despite the scale of this palace, Beydar is
a mid-range site, holding economic power over its own region but falling under the
control of Nagar/Brak (Archi 1998 ). Gateways at the inner and outer walls continue the
material statement of power, and regular streets connect Outer Town to centre; houses
in the Outer Town are tightly packed and grouped in blocks delineated and linked by
these streets. A granary and ‘sheepfold’ reflect urban management of the economy. Tell
Taya and Tell Leilan are close cousins to Kranzhügels, although they are less regularly
concentric. Each has an imposing Upper Town with institutional buildings and a
Lower Town of houses, spacious, well-built and served by streets. There is no parallel
for this settlement form in third millennium Sumer; although some sites were
expanded in politically inspired programmes (e.g. Ur III Nippur), they are less regular
and artificial.
It has been argued that the agricultural base and network of linked smaller sites were
insufficient to support the probable populations of Beydar and other large sites and
that intensive exchange with a pastoral population was a necessary supplement
(Kouchoukos 1998 ; Sallaberger 2007 ). Hollow ways would have enabled cross-regional
movement of staple goods (Wilkinson 2000 c). And the artificial development of
Beydar’s urban skyline may have been intended to create a visible power statement in
a pastoralised landscape. This statement persists, in a different form, in EJ IV–V, when
only one temple was in use at Beydar, at the highest point within a settlement that had
shrunk to less than one hectare. This conscious use of high-visibility points for public
buildings during the decentralised Post-Akkadian period is also seen at Chagar Bazar
and Tell Khoshi (Lloyd 1940 ).
MATERIAL CULTURE
The mostly undecorated, mass-produced pottery of ED I–III Sumer contrasts to
contemporary ceramics of the north: Ninevite 5 ware (Thompson and Mallowan 1933 ).
The densely painted, incised and excised variants of this ware give the impression of
focused effort on each piece and thus of high value and aesthetic standards. Changes
over time include reduction in painted motifs in favour of incised and excised designs–– North Mesopotamia ––