postulated these were actually colonial enclaves, settled by peoples from southern
Mesopotamia (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003 : 190 – 196 ). Several other sites with
evidence of the Uruk ‘intrusion’ exist in the middle Euphrates River Valley, among
them Jerablus Tahtani and Tell Hadidi (Dornemann 1988 : 16 ; Wilkinson et al. 2007 :
227 – 229 ). They are marked in particular by the presence of the southern, intrusive,
bevel-rimmed bowls and varying quantities of other Uruk elements. Not all of these
Euphrates sites may have been Uruk colonial enclaves, but nonetheless were still
strongly affected by the Uruk expansion, either through the profitable trade routes to
raw materials in existence or the efficient systems of administrative control and symbols
of prestige which local elite groups adopted and emulated (Frangipane 2009 : 22 ).
Further to the west, evidence for the Uruk expansion can also be detected at sites such
as Hama, Qarqur and the Amuq, principally in the form of bevel-rimmed bowls
(Braidwood and Braidwood 1960 : 234 – 235 ; Thuesen 1988 : 187 ; Dornemann 2003 : 113 ).
Such Uruk material, however, is totally absent at many other sites in the region. It is
difficult to know for certain the impact of the Uruk expansion in the more westerly
regions of Syria, but it seems unlikely that any settlements experienced full Uruk
colonisation like that which took place in the middle Euphrates.
At c. 3100 – 3000 BC, Uruk settlements and Uruk material culture in the middle
Euphrates vanished, along with most traces of interaction with southern Mesopotamia
(Ur 2010 a: 401 ). What follows is a period of slow socio-economic growth, driven
principally by indigenous cultural developments (Schwartz 1994 : 154 ). This slow
progression towards urbanism, which did not make any significant strides until c. 2600
BC, stands in marked contrast to the situation in Sumer, where the process of urbanism,
which had first gained momentum in the earlier fourth millennium, continued
unabated into the third millennium and resulted in the formation of Sumer’s pros-
perous city-states. Nevertheless, there are signs of socio-economic complexity in Syria,
and one can speak of the modest growth of small centres even in the early phases of
the Early Bronze Age (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003 : 211 ). Moreover, the structures
put in place in these early periods provided the bases and the catalysts for the growth
of the larger-scale urban societies which emerge in the later third millennium.
Although EB I–II settlements in the middle Euphrates Valley were quite small,
averaging no more than a few hectares in size, they were often well defended. Solid lines
of defence have been found circuiting the settlements of Tell Habuba Kabira and Tell
Halawa B, for example, and the presence of a high mud-brick and stone-boulder citadel
on the central mound at Tell es-Sweyhat underlines its defensive capabilities (Heusch
1980 : 161 ; Orthmann 1989 : 87 – 88 ; Danti and Zettler 2002 : 40 – 41 ). Considerable
planning, resources and labour must have been required for the successful completion
and maintenance of these constructions (Cooper 2006 : 73 ).
Evidence for well-established religions traditions come from the site of Qara Quzaq,
where a religious complex within its own temenos wall was exposed on a high terrace
in the central part of the tell (Olávarri and Valdés Pereiro 2001 : 18 – 26 ). The complex
also included a peculiar above-ground funerary structure containing human remains
and a rich assortment of offerings in the form of vessels, metal pins, weapons and
jewellery (Olávarri 1995 : 16 – 17 ). Even more impressive is the mud-brick temple from
Tell Halawa B. Set atop an elevated platform in the central part of the site, its exterior
facades were adorned with niches and buttresses. The entire complex was set within a
temenos enclosure and accessed via a special gatehouse (Orthmann 1989 : 89 – 101 ). In
–– Lisa Cooper ––