The Early Dynastic-Akkadian Transition Part I: When Did the Akkadian Period Begin?

The Early Dynastic-Akkadian Transition Part I: When Did the Akkadian Period Begin?Author(s): Donald MatthewsSource: Iraq, Vol. 59 (1997), pp. 1-7Published by: British Institute for the Study of IraqStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4200433 .

Accessed: 12/06/2014 21:24

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at .http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp

.JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

.

British Institute for the Study of Iraq is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toIraq.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 62.122.79.56 on Thu, 12 Jun 2014 21:24:12 PMAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions

http://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bisi

http://www.jstor.org/stable/4200433?origin=JSTOR-pdf

http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp


1

THE EARLY DYNASTIC-AKKADIAN TRANSITION

PART I: WHEN DID THE AKKADIAN PERIOD BEGIN?*

By DONALD MATTHEWS

We may want to recognise an "Akkadian period" in archaeology for two reasons. A sequence of

periods is used as a system of chronological reference,1 and the Akkadian period conventionally

represents the time from 2334-2154 bc (Walker 1995, 234). Periods are also used to define fields

of analysis in which studies of social structure or other synchronie investigations may be conducted.

The Akkadian period is known as the "first empire" which saw major political and administrative

innovations. In archaeology periods have to be defined from the changes in artefact types, so a

concordance is needed between the historical and artefactual phases. During the last thirty years McG. Gibson has persistently addressed questions of chronology, and has made an especially

important contribution to the chronology of the Akkadian period. A new article (Gibson and

McMahon 1995) represents the present state of this issue, based on excavations in the Diyala and

Hamrin regions, and in the vicinity of Nippur. Dr McMahon has subjected thousands of sherds

from stratified occupation surfaces to statistical analysis, and publication of their distribution and

comparanda is expected. The resulting pottery sequence, exhaustively constructed, and summarised

in that article, will constitute the principal reference sequence for archaeological sites of this period in southern Iraq. In this article, while accepting the validity and importance of this achievement,

I will examine how the Akkadian period should be defined and how pottery sequences should be

calibrated with respect to historical periods. I will suggest that the Akkadian pottery should

be calibrated by ultimate reference to the glyptic sequence, and that this results in a different

dating for the strata in question. The Akkadian period may be defined in the first instance as the time of the Akkadian kings,

Sargon and his successors. There are special problems with the definition of both the beginning and the end of this time, because power did not pass abruptly from one dynasty to another. I

shall not discuss the end of the period further here (cf. Dittmann 1994). The accession of Sargon, founder of the Akkadian dynasty and empire, is a possible point at which to start the Akkadian

period. But we do not know how to correlate this time with the reigns of his contemporaries and

predecessors, such as the rulers of Lagash. Furthermore, Sargon became a great king after he

became a king, and the interval between these two events is unknown. In later times, thirty years

elapsed between the accession of Hammurabi and his emergence as the greatest king in

Mesopotamia. The Achaemenid period is not held to have started when Cyrus began to reign as

a minor king in Persia.

Culturally, some of the most significant aspects of "empire" such as imperial political organis- ation and a new style of writing tablets only emerged in the second half of the Akkadian period in the time of Naram-Sin. Sargon is often described as an "Early Dynastic king" (Gibson and

McMahon 1995, 5), though this should not be over-emphasised, because of his special reputation in subsequent Mesopotamian tradition. So the inception of the Akkadian dynasty is hard to define

historically, and is not the same as the beginning of the "Akkadian empire" or of the establishment

of "imperial" institutions. Since inscriptions of Sargon have not been found in archaeological contexts (and should not be expected in the near future) a defining criterion for the beginning of

the archaeological "Akkadian period" is needed. This criterion must be clearly recognisable, widely

?This article is a reaction to McG. Gibson and A. McMahon, Investigation of the Early Dynastic-Akkadian transition: report of the 18th and 19th seasons of excavation in Area WF, Nippur, Iraq 57 1995, 1-39. The arguments are given in more detail in Matthews 1997, 11-32.

traditionally, this has been the primary approach to time in archaeology, but more recently it has been chai-

lenged by absolute methods such as radiocarbon and den- drochronology which appear to offer the promise of a neutral dating system more like historical dates. This promise should be viewed with more caution than is normal today. Absolute dates should be used to calibrate conven- tional archaeological periods representing relative chronology: they should not be used to replace them.

/ra?LIX(1997)



2 DONALD MATTHEWS

distributed in archaeological sites, and reasonably associated with a time corresponding to the

beginning of the Akkadian period.

Sixty years ago this was not thought to be difficult. The Early Dynastic period was defined

from beginning to end by the use of plano-convex bricks, and the Akkadian period began when

buildings were constructed from flat bricks. This was a powerful definition because it was independ- ent of all other cultural considerations and was universally applicable wherever excavation was in

buildings. Unfortunately it is not true, at either end of the ED period. This was recognised long

ago but the implications were concealed by the invention of a "Protoimperial period", which, as

Gibson has shown (1982) should really be assigned to the Akkadian period. Gibson and McMahon offer some other criteria for the Akkadian period: royal inscriptions,

tablets of "classic" Akkadian type, art style in glyptic and sculpture, and pottery. As they show

(Gibson and McMahon 1995, 5) all of these except glyptic and pottery are useful in the extant

material only in the later Akkadian period. The question of whether glyptic or pottery, or both,

should be used to define the period is not one of principle. It is rather a matter of practicality. I

will show that glyptic provides a practicable definition and that pottery does not.

The glyptic of this era is well understood. Each phase in the stylistic sequence, ED IIIB, Early

Akkadian and Late Akkadian, is associated with the corresponding historical phase. This is not

always accepted in the literature and I shall give some supporting evidence below. It is important

to recognise from the outset that although these styles exist, not all contemporary seals can be

assigned to them. The division between Early Dynastic and Akkadian style is however well marked

and recognisable in nearly all cases.

Pottery assemblages conventionally described as ED IIIA, ED IIIB and Akkadian are known

from various sites such as Lagash, Abu Salabikh, Kish and the Diyala region. There is no dispute

about the ED IIIA assemblage. The older excavations at Nippur were deficient in our period

(Hansen 1965, 209), and Gibson has conducted a research programme to fill the gap there. The

latest component of this programme is McMahon's WF sounding, situated near the older WA50c

site. Gibson's research has demonstrated that the "ED IIIB" assemblage is sometimes found in

association with Akkadian glyptic, whereas the "Akkadian" assemblage is more often found with

late Akkadian and even Ur III dated objects. He has therefore proposed that the "ED IIIB"

assemblage should be dated to the early Akkadian period (Gibson 1981, 77-9, cf. Moorey 1978,

66-70). But this does not explain what pottery was used during the ED IIIB period. It is known,

both from the seal style and from the dynastic succession of the rulers of Lagash, that this period

was of significant length. Gibson and McMahon's approach (1995, 6) is exemplified by their dating of the levels in the

WF site at Nippur. The earliest Akkadian seal is in stratum XIV, but levels XV and XVI are also

assigned to the Akkadian period "because of the occurrence of pottery types that are generally

accepted as 'Akkadian'." The types are illustrated, but no comparanda are cited. Although Gibson

(1981, 1982) has made some criticisms of Delougaz's (1952) work on the Diyala pottery, he has

not published much of his own new material (Gibson and McMahon 1995, 3). Typical WF pottery

is published here, but its dating follows a chronology which is determined elsewhere. As the

distributions in other stratified sites of the particular pottery types which are used as the basis for

the dating of the WF levels are not described,2 we have to rely on expert opinion. This is not a

principle which has served archaeology well in the past. More seriously, this whole approach may be questioned. Is the diagnostic criterion for the

period an "Akkadian assemblage" or "Akkadian types"? There are difficulties in each case. If a

pottery assemblage is Akkadian, does this exclude the possibility that it could also belong to ED

IIIB? Surely not: indeed Gibson and McMahon (1995, 5) stress the improbability that pottery

assemblages change at the same rate as historical dynasties. But if so, then the finding of Akkadian

objects such as seals or inscriptions in association with an assemblage does not mean that the

same assemblage must always belong to the Akkadian period. This would also be observed if

there were an overlap between "ED IIIB" pottery and Akkadian glyptic. If, as seems to be the

case, there was such an overlap, then the assemblage should be called "ED IIIB or early Akkadian".

2 There is a list of types in Gibson 1982, 537; but the distributions of examples are not given.



WHEN DID THE AKKADIAN PERIOD BEGIN? 3

The situation might be refined by studying individual pottery types, but this has its own

problems, in the distribution of types and in the nature of excavated material. Exhaustive lists of

parallel stratified material are unusual in published work on pottery.3 It is therefore hard to decide

how far pottery types are chronologically specific. As an outsider to the field, I suspect that most

types were deposited over a long period of time. Gibson and McMahon (1995, 16, 28, Fig. 19:5)

imply as much when they remark how unusual it is that the Ur HI band-rimmed bowl is restricted

to only one period. If pottery types were restricted to the particular assemblages of which they

are most typical this would not be a problem, but most types are not only found in such

assemblages, but also in reduced numbers in adjoining phases. Individual excavations can be misleading about this, because (especially in small soundings like

areas WF and WA 50c at Nippur) they may not include representative assemblages of rare types, or even of common ones. This is why the distributions of diagnostic types have to be fully listed

and discussed, because individual excavations are most unlikely to give comprehensive evidence.

This is particularly important where the pottery takes the form of sherds rather than whole pots.

Although whole pots can get out of context, sherds are more likely to. Indeed it is questionable whether studies of sherds in fill contexts or on the surface are worthwhile. They may tell us how

a site relates to an established reference sequence. They do not have a useful role in establishing such a sequence.

This point about the unreliability of individual pottery types can be illustrated from a few well-

known types. The ring-based jar with ridged shoulder (Gibson 1972, Fig. 34 Akkadian A = Hansen

1965, 210 Fig. 42b) was originally thought to be a criterion for the Akkadian period, but Gibson

(1981, 79) has proposed that it is typical only of the late Akkadian period and later. Lebeau

(1985, 135) does not agree, because he has found it in levels at Mari which he dates to the ED

period. In the WF sounding it appears in level XIV (Gibson and McMahon 1995, 6), which in

their opinion is the third Akkadian level from the bottom. This opinion rests on a few sherds, without which the stratum could be dated to the beginning of the Akkadian period. Moon (1987,

128) says that spouted jars are missing from the ED IIIB period at Abu Salabikh, whereas Gibson

has them continuing into the Akkadian period (1981, 77). The double-carinated squat bottle, cited as an Akkadian type by Hansen (1965, Fig. 42a) occurs in ED III at Abu Salabikh (Moon

1987, No. 312). The jar with a pointed base (Gibson 1972, Fig. 34 Akkadian G = Hansen 1965, 210 Fig. 41b) appears at the end of the Akkadian period in the Diyala region (Delougaz 1952, PL 113g, 160: B.556.540), but it is assigned to her Early Akkadian Phase IV by Pollock (1985, 137 Fig. 2, types 197-9).

Of course these examples could be criticised, either through refinements of the types, or by

redating some of these levels. But this can only be done from a solid basis with a defined criterion

of ultimate reference. Assemblages are not helpful when no two sites yield exactly the same

assemblage and most sites only produce fragments of assemblages in broken sherds deposited in

fill layers after unknown processes of prior deposition and mixing. Even Gibson's site at Umm

al-Hafriyat did not produce precisely the same assemblage as Nippur, because there was more

combed ware.4 Is this difference chronological, spatial or functional? Without an answer to this

question the whole method of dating by assemblages becomes suspect. It is questionable what

value there is in basing a scheme on an assemblage which does not include external dating indications such as seals. Either it is identical to another assemblage which does include dated

objects, in which case it is superfluous, or it is not, in which case it cannot be interpreted. Statistical

analysis will not solve these problems. At best, it will reveal the relationship between the excavated

sample and the host population from which the sample was drawn. It will not show what factors

governed the formation of that host population.5

Types may be more helpful. I can imagine a chronology based on a few types such as the Ur

III band-rimmed bowl, which have been found by experience to be chronologically sensitive. But

this can only be established by exhaustive examination of every stratified example.

3 Cf. Tell Melebiya (Lebeau 1987 etc.) for an exception. 4 Gibson and McMahon 1995, 3. The dating evidence for this site has not been published.

5 Statistical analysis is also very expensive and impractic- able (cf. Moon 1993, 149).



4 DONALD MATTHEWS

Can we do better with glyptic? This was the old method which was discredited because of

disagreements between specialists over dating, and because of doubts over the universality of the criteria: "change would have been gradual and . . . would not have penetrated at a uniform rate

throughout the empire" (Gibson and McMahon 1995, 5). Both criticisms are valid, but irrelevant.

Specialists have been known to make mistakes, but there is no reason to suppose that glyptic

changed more slowly than pottery, or that glyptic specialists are more fallible than pottery experts. Indeed one could suggest that glyptic style is likely to have changed more rapidly. It represents

?lite culture, and the ?lite normally have wider frames of cultural reference than the ordinary

people. Elite culture could travel long distances, and sometimes was transferred to cultures which

retained their own pottery culture. Although southern pottery types were adopted at Mari in the

ED III period, this was not the case at the contemporary Syrian sites of Chuera and Ebla where

Early Dynastic glyptic and sculpture was imitated. Late Akkadian Brak had classic Late Akkadian

glyptic and tablets, but nearly all of the pottery is in the northern tradition. The most distinctive

motif in Ur III glyptic is the "Interceding goddess". The three earliest examples of this figure are in seals dated to Gudea of Lagash and Ur-Nammu of Ur, and in a sculpture of Puzur-Inshushinak

of Elam.6 These three rulers, each in a separate realm, were probably contemporaries7 and we see

the same innovation occurring at about the same time in each place. The Akkadian glyptic style is derived from ED IIIB glyptic, with some characteristic changes

in engraving style and in the range of subjects which are depicted. There is some reason to think

that the Akkadian style spread out very widely from the beginning of its existence. Recently Steinkeller and Westenholz have revived the idea that there were differences between the intellectual

interests of the Sumerians and the Akkadians (see Liverani 1993). Among the "Akkadian" ideas

are a new stress on depicting and symbolising the gods, and especially the scene of the "Battle of

the Gods", which does occur occasionally in ED seals, but much more often in Akkadian ones.

If we propose that the Akkadian style began by stressing subjects which were of particular interest

to the Akkadians, then it is noteworthy that the "earliest" seals of Akkadian style at Kish, Tell

Asmar, Brak and Tell Selenkahiye in western Syria, in relation to the stratification or associated

pottery, all show the "Battle of the Gods".8

As with all typology, classification of glyptic can get out of hand. It is not true that every seal

can be assigned with certainty to a subphase or even to a phase. While it is appropriate to specify as narrowly as possible while writing a seal catalogue, the attributions are sometimes guesses and

cannot support further inferences. But there are some distinctions which are universally accepted and which can be considered secure, or at least as secure as anything is in archaeology. The

engraving style of the Akkadian glyptic is distinctive and quite different from the Early Dynastic

style, especially in some details such as the shape of human heads. While there are some seals for

which this distinction is hard to make, the great majority of seals of these periods clearly belong to one style or the other, and most seals which cannot be so assigned should be dated on the

boundary between them. Subphasing within the ED and Akkadian styles is less well established.

Some seals, such as the ones published by Gibson and McMahon, can be reliably assigned to

subphases; many others cannot. The beginning of the Akkadian style is one of the most clearly marked divisions in the history of Mesopotamian art.

We need to know where this division lies in relation to other kinds of evidence. The Early Akkadian style can be recognised in the glyptic because it lies stylistically between ED and Late

Akkadian. While this does not necessarily prove that it originated earlier than the Late Akkadian

style (they could be contemporary variants), it establishes a presumption which should be accepted unless there are strong reasons against it. The earliest Akkadian glyptic, in relation to the

stratigraphy or associated pottery, at Kish, Khafaje, Tell Suleimeh and Brak is all of Early Akkadian style.9 Late Akkadian seals at these sites, where they exist, are stratified higher. Even

6CoUon 1982, No. 469; Coll?n 1987, No. 531; Amiet 1976, No. 32.

7Wilcke 1987, 108-11; Dittmann 1994, 80-1, 100 n. 79. 8 Watelin and Langdon 1934, PI. 34:3 (Moore 37); Gibson

1982, PL 67:3; Matthews 1991, No. 34 = Matthews 1997, No. 346; Van Loon 1979, Fig. 21.

9Watelin and Langdon 1934, PL 34:3; Frankfort 1955, No. 377; Matthews 1991, No. 34 = Matthews 1997, No. 346; Al-Gailani Werr 1992, No. 50.




more significant, the seriation of the graves in the Royal Cemetery at Ur by Pollock (1985) shows

that Late Akkadian began in Period V while Akkadian first appears in Period IV. Furthermore, the same grave at Ur often contains both an Akkadian or Early Akkadian and an Early Dynastic seal, but in such cases the Akkadian seal is never of Late Akkadian type. Early Akkadian and

Late Akkadian seals are only twice found together.10 The earliest Late Akkadian seal design from

the Diyala region is Gibson 1982, PL 67:2, which is said to come from the "Protoimperiar level

Houses Va at Tell Asmar. Its provenance is in an architecturally poorly defined area and I would

prefer to assign this stratum to the Early Akkadian period. Nonetheless the earliest Akkadian

design (which cannot be assigned to a substyle) from the site is stratigraphically even earlier

(Gibson 1982, PL 67:3, Earlier Northern Palace). This is admittedly not convincing, owing to the

questionable stratification, but the evidence from the other sites mentioned above, together with

the place of the Early Akkadian style in the general development of the seals, means that it would

be perverse to deny that Early Akkadian is earlier than Late Akkadian glyptic. So when did the Akkadian seal style originate? No trace of Akkadian style is recognisable in

the glyptic of the last Early Dynastic rulers of Lagash, and the ED IIIB glyptic assemblages of

Mari and Abu Salabikh near Nippur include no Akkadian designs. Therefore probably the style did not exist before the time of Sargon, except possibly in a very restricted area which is unlikely to have included Nippur. The evidence given above suggests that it began before the time of the

Late Akkadian style. Inscriptions show that Late Akkadian seals existed during the reign of

Sargon's grandson Naram-Sin, so it probably began before Naram-Sin's time. No known historical

persons are associated with the Early Akkadian style except for Enheduanna, daughter of Sargon, and she is also associated with a Late Akkadian design and may have lived into Naram-Sin's

reign, so this is not useful (Matthews 1997, 15). Although it would be possible to adopt contorted solutions to this problem, it is natural to suppose for the time being that the Akkadian style did

originate at some time in the long reign of Sargon. Since we have already seen that the Akkadian

empire also began at some time in the reign of Sargon, it follows that the origin of the Akkadian seal style is an appropriate marker for the beginning of the Akkadian period.

This is implicitly accepted by Gibson who has always used glyptic as his essential evidence for

redating ceramic assemblages; but he would prefer to define the period from pottery. Gibson and McMahon say (1995, 3): "All material in Mesopotamia which had previously been called

Protoimperial, as well as most of Early Dynastic IIIB was in fact Early Akkadian in date. . . . Hansen accepts the need for reform . . . and does eliminate the term Protoimperial; but ... he retains [ED IIIB] while agreeing that it may be greatly reduced in duration. In effect, Early Dynastic IIIB in his schema becomes a southern regional variant contemporary with the earlier half of the Akkadian period elsewhere." It is true that Hansen accepts (Porada et al 1992, 112-13) that Gibson has identified problems with the Diyala sequence. But he specifically denies that ED IIIB is a regional variant. Although building strata of this period were not found at Abu Salabikh or Nippur, Hansen states that this is because the levels in question have been eroded or destroyed by rebuilding. At Lagash (Al-Hiba), on the other hand, strata were found corresponding to the

reigns of the rulers of the first half of the ED IIIB period, with a material culture similar to that of the A Cemetery at Kish. The glyptic is Early Dynastic. Nearly all the seals from the Kish

graves with this pottery are Early Dynastic in style, though one is Akkadian ( Watelin and Langdon 1934, PL 34:3). In the Royal Cemetery of Ur, according to Pollock's (1985) seriation of the

graves, Phases I and II are ED IIIA, Phase III is ED IIIB, and Phase IV is early Akkadian, each

phase dated from the glyptic but seriated from the pottery. From the point of view of these sites, therefore, there is no difficulty with the existence of ED IIIB, slightly overlapping Akkadian at Kish.

What about the Diyala region? Here the contexts of the ED IIIB style seals are important. The

designs Frankfort 1955, Nos. 353, 495, 550, 561 and 575, are contest scenes with steeply rampant figures which do not cross. They do not represent the whole production of the period, but they are a type which is readily recognisable and widely distributed, whose chronological significance can be demonstrated from the material at Ur and in the Diyala region. One of them (575) comes from a late Akkadian context (Asmar Houses IVb) and should be discounted. No. 353 comes

10This material is studied in detail in Matthews 1997, 20-8.



6 DONALD MATTHEWS

from Khafaje Houses 1. The earliest Akkadian seal from Khafaje comes from a grave dug into this level (Frankfort 1955, No. 377). At Tell Asmar, there are seals from Houses Va (561) and Vc (550), and from the Earlier Northern Palace (495) which is contemporary with Houses Vb. The earliest Akkadian design is from the Earlier Northern Palace (Gibson 1982, PI. 67:3), thus later than the earliest "ED IIIB" seal.11 "ED IIIB" seals are not found in the Diyala strata which are wholly or mainly ED IIIA, such as Sin X, Khafaje Houses 3 and Oval II. Although there are not many of these seals, they are placed in strata which date later than the beginning of the ED III period and they begin immediately below the earliest contexts in which Akkadian seals are found. Therefore ED IIIB strata do exist in the Diyala region, even if a distinctive pottery assemblage cannot be defined at that time.

An important ED IIIB assemblage has been excavated in the Ash-Tip at Tell Abu Salabikh. Moon (1993) reports that the pottery is different from the ED IIIA assemblage at the site12 and similar to the pottery from the strata in the Diyala region which Gibson assigns to the early Akkadian period. A large collection of seal-impressions was found in this assemblage, which did

not include a single Akkadian design. It is interesting that the ED IIIB glyptic from Abu Salabikh

does not include any ED IIIB seals of the type just discussed in the Diyala: Martin and Matthews

(1993, 30) suggest that this is because the type originated in later ED IIIB. We have seen that

this seal type is stratified immediately before the beginning of the Akkadian glyptic and therefore

it is likely that it belongs to the second half of ED IIIB. This fits the evidence from Abu Salabikh.

So if either half of the period is missing from the Diyala region, it is probably the first half.

Although Hansen had no doubts over the existence of the first half of ED IIIB, owing to his

excavations at Lagash, he could not demonstrate the existence of the later part of the phase from

there. We know from the historical sequence at Lagash that there was a time interval between the

end of the strata at Lagash and the beginning of the Akkadian period. We should not therefore

conflate these developments into contemporary regional variations. As archaeology progresses, it

becomes more and more clear that individual soundings do not have to include levels corresponding to every period of time. It is impossible for an excavator to be sure that there are no gaps and

arguments which make this assumption should always be rejected. We know from the dynastic succession of Lagash that ED IIIB, as defined historically,13 covers

a significant period of time. Therefore it existed: the people must have had a material culture.

Gibson has proved that the ED IIIB and early Akkadian pottery assemblages cannot easily be

distinguished. Therefore either this single assemblage began earlier than the Akkadian seal style, or the ED IIIA assemblage covers the historical ED IIIB period. The latter solution seems unlikely, because we have "ED IIIB" assemblages which are wholly associated with Early Dynastic glyptic

and, in the case of Lagash, are actually associated with ED IIIB inscriptions. But if the former

solution is true, then it should not be called, whenever it is found, "Akkadian".

To summarise, there is clear evidence from the Diyala region and elsewhere for a chronological marker near the beginning of the Akkadian period in the form of the arrival of the Akkadian seal

style. Although we do not know exactly when this style was invented, it must have been roughly at the time of Sargon and it is convenient for the moment to use it as the defining criterion for

the beginning of the Akkadian period. No archaeological or historical problems are caused by

this, and no other usable archaeological definition of this time is available. This marker does not

define an assemblage or a cultural period: it defines a moment in time. Although the Akkadian

style presumably took some time to spread out from its place of origin, there is no reason to

suppose that this process took more than a few years ? much less time than we can ever hope to "see" archaeologically.

Cultural studies should be conducted within cultural assemblages. If these assemblages corre-

spond to historical periods, well and good; but we should not expect them to. The evidence

compiled by Gibson and McMahon suggests that there was no cultural change, except in art, at

the beginning of the Akkadian period. Therefore the assemblage in question should not be called

11 In Matthews 1997, 18-20, 28-30 I have suggested a more refined interpretation of the Diyala material, rejecting some glyptic from places which were not architecturally well defined. This widens the scope for "ED IIIB** strata.

12 Dated by associated tablets. 13Eannatum to Urukagina, including such parts of

Urukagina's reign as are earlier than whatever definition is adopted for the beginning of the Akkad period.




"Akkadian", because it also existed in the ED IIIB period. Individual pottery types may well be

distributed with similar precision to seal styles. Such types, if thoroughly and publicly investigated,

may make it possible to obtain greater ceramic precision in the future. There is no literature which

makes it possible to say that certain pottery types are "generally accepted as Akkadian": in fact

the literature suggests that there are considerable differences of opinion between pottery specialists on the dates of particular types.

How then should we date a stratum which contains the ED HIB/early Akkadian pottery

assemblage? If it does not have external dating evidence, or if the datable objects such as seals

and tablets are clearly antiques (much older than the context), then it should be dated by

comparison with a reference pottery assemblage such as McMahon's; if more than one stratum is

found, it would be reasonable to call the upper one Akkadian and the lower Early Dynastic. But

otherwise it is impossible to say which of these periods is represented. I suggest the following

principles for dating a reference assemblage: strata which contain a large glyptic assemblage which

does not include any Akkadian designs, such as the Abu Salabikh Ash-Tip, are ED IIIB; strata

which contain any Akkadian glyptic are Akkadian, so long as the provenance of the glyptic is certain.

The levels in the WF sounding should therefore be dated as follows (cf. Gibson and McMahon

1993, 5-6): XIX-XVIII have ED IIIA pottery; XVII contains ED IIIA and "ED IIIB" pottery; XVI-XV have "ED IIIB" pottery and may well date to that time; XIV with "ED IIIB" and

"Akkadian" pottery and an Akkadian seal, is probably early Akkadian; XIII is Late Akkadian

from the glyptic. Although in principle one would be willing to adjust these dates from ceramic

evidence, one should do so only if the evidence is strong. A few sherds are not a sound basis for

dating. It is unfortunate for cultural reconstruction that we cannot always tell whether a stratum

really belongs to the Akkadian period or not: but such is the nature of archaeology.

N.B. The author's bibliography has been merged with that appended to Part II (Ed.).



The Early Dynastic-Akkadian Transition Part I: When Did the Akkadian Period Begin?

Documents

Transcript of The Early Dynastic-Akkadian Transition Part I: When Did the Akkadian Period Begin?