(Grayson 1987 : 53 ). It is not until Naram-Sin’s reign that southern presence is reflected
in texts from Brak and Leilan. And in the Post-Akkadian period, Subartu returns to
atextual status.AGRO-PASTORAL ECONOMY
The clearest economic difference between the rolling landscapes of northern
Mesopotamia and the alluvial plains of Sumer is the viability of rainfall agriculture in
the north. This is a high-risk strategy with lower yields than irrigation but fewer
restrictions and investment. Studies of hollow ways and sherd scatters have led to a
model of intensive use of fields in concentric rings extending 3 – 5 km from most mid-
third millennium sites. But the growth of large sites that could not be sustained by
agriculture in their immediate surroundings may have compelled or enabled the
development of an integrated agro-pastoral economy (Zeder 1995 ), further upheld by
trade (Wilkinson 2000 c).
Plants farmed were dominated by barley and wheat, but their relative importance
varied temporally and sub-regionally. Botanic remains from EJ III Tell Brak indicate a
concentration on (drought- and salinity-resistant) two-row barley over emmer and
einkorn wheat and pulses such as lentil and pea (Emberling and McDonald 2001 ;
Matthews 2003 ). Similar crop ratios are seen at EJ I–II sites on the Middle Khabur
(Bderi, Raqa’i; van Zeist 1999 / 2000 ) and from EJ III–IV Tell Mozan (Deckers and
Riehl 2007 ). Some animals, particularly those destined for meat rather than dairy, may
have been fed on barley, thus figuring into its frequency (McCorriston 2002 ; Riehl
2006 ). However, botanical remains from EJ I–II contexts at Leilan show a reliance on
wheat over barley (Wetterstrom 2003 ). Only in EJ III contexts was there a shift to
barley, together with an increase in weeds associated with drier poorer soils. This may
imply a shift in practices and/or an expansion of agricultural lands, as the site grew in
size. The climate change in EJ IV–V creates an unsurprising increase in the relative
percentage of barley, but the effect at Subartu’s northern edge is curious: Tell Mozan’s
reliance on barley in EJ III–IV shifted to free-threshing wheat in EJ V (Deckers and
Riehl 2007 ).
Context is crucial in understanding this variability: EJ III institutional contexts at
Brak are overwhelmingly supplied with barley, but contemporary domestic contexts
are more variable (Emberling and McDonald 2001 ). There may have been a dual
economy: mixed household versus specialised institutional. This variability makes the
north’s agricultural economy appear more flexible and less regulated than Sumer’s.
However, we have unequal data: botanical remains are poorly preserved in Sumer due
to salinisation, and there we rely heavily on texts, with their strong administrative
focus, for reconstruction of the agricultural system. Sumer may have had equal flexi-
bility, risk-spreading and crop choice below the administrative radar.
Despite the region’s potential for farming and the visible intensity of land use
adjacent to settlements, surveys indicate that in some periods large areas were ‘empty’
of permanent settlement, although probably occupied by semi-nomadic people and
flocks (Wilkinson 2000 a).
There is a trend towards higher proportions of domesticates and fewer wild animals
from the fourth through third millennia (Emberling et al. 1999 ; Zeder 1995 ). Wild
fauna (onager and gazelle) were present in most assemblages, but in small numbers,
–– Augusta McMahon ––