SUBARTU–SUMER RELATIONSHIPAfter intensive interaction in the Late Uruk period, the Sumer–Subartu relationship
cooled in the early third millennium (EJ I–II). No cultural flow is visible between the
two regions until EJ III, when southern influence is evidenced by Sumerian style in
statuary from Ashur and Chuera and in hoard objects from Tell Brak (Area HS 5 ;
Matthews 2003 ). Contemporary seals and writing betray mixed south and north styles.
But monumental and private architecture, ceramic assemblages and economic arrange-
ments remained unaffected. Southern influence is thus seen purely in prestige goods
and is generally proposed as a symptom of elite–elite interaction. In support, the Ebla
archive reveals a network of diplomatic and economic connections among Ebla, Mari,
Brak/Nagar and Kish. Were Sumerian items in Subartu part of a two-way flow of goods
and information or the one-way emulation of an exotic vocabulary by an under-
developed power? Despite the absence of Subartian objects and influence in Sumer that
might imply the latter, comparison of Beydar’s palace with Kish’s royal palace indicates
the north was hardly a backwater.
The question is complicated by the strong cultural similarity across all of
Mesopotamia. Funerary practices are illustrative. Burial locations (cemeteries, open
areas or below house floors) were similar in both sub-regions. Single intact burials in
simple pits were the norm in both; pottery vessels and jewelry usually accompanied the
dead. Any graves with elaborate structures, such as mud-brick vaults, contained larger
sets of ceramics and tools, weapons and richer ornaments. The social messaging
potential of burial, and the messages’ meaning for status, wealth and power, is well-
matched in the two regions, as were the practices. So when ‘Sumerian’ statues appeared
at Ashur, were they ‘Mesopotamian’ rather than ‘Sumerian’? Both emulation and
acculturation assume greater social distance between cultures.
The Akkadian period saw unification of Sumer and military expansion that
included northern Mesopotamia. Sargon is said to have controlled from the Upper to
Lower Sea, but it is only under Naram-Sin that we see direct intervention. Destructions
at Ebla, Brak and Mari may be attributed to Sargon or to Naram-Sin; our temporal
accuracy is not fine-grained enough to separate their claims. In fact, it is possible that
Ebla, and even Brak, were destroyed by Mari (Archi and Biga 2003 ; Sallaberger 2007 )
in an earlier local conflict.
The buildings, sealings and texts at Brak and Leilan prove that these were Akkadian
outposts during the reign of Naram-Sin. The Leilan project argues for impact beyond
the urban settlements, an intensive exploitation of the region’s agricultural system, with
reorganisation of settlement. In support, at least one state-organised grain shipment
went from Subartu via Brak to Sippar (Ristvet et al. 2004 ). Yet evidence for Akkadian
presence is limited to large sites, and a vast gap exists between these, particularly on the
east between Leilan and the ambiguous and minimal Akkadian materials from the
upper Tigris (Nineveh, Bassetki). There is no evidence for Akkadian presence in the
western Upper Khabur. In addition, at the northern Hurrian edge of the Khabur,
Akkadian control was minimal, as represented by the equal marriage of Naram-Sin’s
daughter Taram-Agade to the leader of an independent Urkesh/Mozan (Buccellati and
Kelly-Buccellati 2002 ). Our knowledge of the Akkadian relationship with nomadic
tribes within its territory is also unknown, and these tribes’ autonomy may have been
significant. And if the political impact of the Akkadian ‘empire’ outside of major cities
was minimal, its cultural impact was even less.
–– Augusta McMahon ––