Download pdf - Wilkinson 2000

P1: FLFJournal of Archaeological Research [jar] PL143-78 July 1, 2000 14:33 Style file version Nov. 19th, 1999

Journal of Archaeological Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, 2000

Regional Approaches to Mesopotamian Archaeology:The Contribution of Archaeological SurveysT. J. Wilkinson1

This work synthesizes and critically evaluates the results of field surveys conductedover the last 20 years in southern (lower) and northern (upper) Mesopotamia, withemphasis placed on the increasing contribution of off-site and intensive surveys toregional analysis. During the Ubaid period the density of settlement was probablyhigher in the rain-fed north than the irrigated south, and even during the phase of3rd millennium B.C. urbanization, settlement densities in the north were probablyequivalent to or even exceeded those in the south. Although trends in settlementwere often synchronous between north and south, there was also a marked spatialvariability in settlement, with declines in one area being compensated by riseselsewhere. Particularly clear was the existence of a major structural transforma-tion from nucleated centers during the Bronze Age towards dispersed patterns ofrural settlement and more extensive lower towns in the Iron Age.KEY WORDS: archaeological survey; Mesopotamia; settlement; population.

INTRODUCTION

Ancient Mesopotamia forms a major heartland of early civilization. One man-ifestation of this civilization is the pattern of settlement, especially the distributionof its component cities. Archaeological survey provides the means of recoveringsuch settlement patterns; therefore, this field of research is fundamental to an un-derstanding of the development of the early state. The golden age of archaeologicalsurvey in Mesopotamia and Iran was arguably in the 1960s and 1970s, when manyinnovative techniques and theoretical approaches were applied to regional analysisof settlement patterns and economic systems. Since that time archaeologists havecontinued to conduct surveys. Despite the various levels of scale and quality, ar-chaeological surveys have contributed significantly to our knowledge of the social

1Oriental Institute, 1155 East 58th St., Chicago, Illinois 60637; e-mail: [email protected].

219

1059-0161/00/0900-0219$18.00/0 C 2000 Plenum Publishing Corporation


220 Wilkinson

dynamics and cultural development of greater Mesopotamia, especially concern-ing the dry-farming zone. Here I focus particularly on how archaeological surveyshave contributed to our knowledge of changing patterns of settlement, population,and land use, emphasizing structural changes in settlement, such as processes ofurbanization and settlement dispersal, as well as qualitative shifts in settlementand population that reflect changing political, socioeconomic, and environmentalconditions.

WHY SURVEY? HAVE THE GOALS SHIFTED?

Few would now question the importance of surveys for contributing robustdata fundamental to understanding human activity at a regional scale (Banning,1996, p. 25). Yet when the earlier Mesopotamian surveys were initiated, theyrequired some justification. At first, surveys in the Near East were conductedsimply to find a good site for excavation (Redman, 1982, p. 375). This goal per-sisted throughout much of the 20th century, although as early as the 1930s RobertBraidwoods Amuq survey sought to find data on the relationship between patternsof settlement and human behavior (Braidwood, 1937). Braidwoods approach wasechoed by Lloyd (1954) who appreciated the value of Near Eastern surveys forproviding data on the extent and interrelation of cultural provinces, the com-parative density of population, the economy and military sites, the directions ofancient roads, and place names. More specifically, Jacobsens initial survey in theDiyala area in 1936 attempted to establish a relationship between irrigation andsettlement by plotting the tells of each period on period maps. The site alignmentsso formed then reflected the alignments of rivers and canals upon which they de-pended (Jacobsen, 1995, p. 2747). Similar methodologies were then employed in1953 when Jacobsen teamed up with Vaughn Crawford and Fuad Safar for a surveyof central Sumer (Jacobsen, 1969).

At a later stage, in an introduction to Heartland of Cities, Jacobsen then statedthe aims of Mesopotamian survey rather generally: to provide the geographicalsetting within which ancient Mesopotamian history evolved, and to throw light onthe rise of the earliest cities in human history (in Adams, 1981, p. xiii). The ob-jectives of Adams original surveys were ambitious, namely to provide some levelof explanation for the precocious early growth of this oldest, literate civilizationin the world as well as its precipitous decline (Adams, 1981, p. xvii). AlthoughAdams realistically noted that no comprehensive explanation could be offered forsuch growth or decline, there is no doubt that these early surveys contributed enor-mously to our ability to describe the process of urbanization. With Adams work,patterns of differential growth and decline were explicitly tackled, an interpretiveframework that has continued up to the present day, albeit now using techniquessuch as those of Dewar (1991) for establishing more fine-grained population trends(Kouchoukos, 1998; Pollock, 1999, pp. 5277). Despite the fact that archaeological


Regional Approaches to Mesopotamian Archaeology 221

landscape has been the subject of archaeological surveys since Jacobsens initialDiyala survey of the 1930s, the more phenomenological approach to landscapespracticed in recent years by postprocessual archaeologists has made little impact inthe Near East. Even though Morandi (1996a), for the Neo-Assyrian Khabur Valley,has explored the concept of landscapes of power, his methodological approachis more tied to those of the locational models of 1960s geography than to those ofthe postprocessual schools.

Whatever the goals of survey, interpretation of patterns of settlement anddemographic trends are only as good as the quality of survey data retrieval. Thusa 1981 review of the field stated that a current concern of survey archaeology ingeneral was a return to basic questions (Ammerman, 1981, pp. 8182). This back-to-basics approach included increased emphasis on site recognition, a shift to moreintensive strategies, an appreciation of geomorphological factors and relationsbetween surface and subsurface remains, to which I would add cultural taphonomicprocesses. Such objectives that focus on the nuts and bolts of site recognition andartifact recovery would seem mean-spirited in comparison with the earlier goals ofidentifying the origins of urbanization and human institutions (Adams, 1966), orstate formation (Wright, 1977; Wright and Johnson, 1975). Here I follow a back-to-basics approach, with an emphasis on the description of patterns of settlementdevelopment, land use, and the economic infrastructure in the form of traces ofirrigation and communication systems.

In general most surveys in greater Mesopotamia have treated the agriculturaleconomy, population trends, or relationships between settlement and the environ-ment. Unlike in Mesoamerica, few have explicitly examined political organization.Specific themes pursued in this paper include landscape transformation processesand settlement; demographic patterning and long-term trends; urbanization, ru-ralization, and the recognition of trace occupations of transitory settlement, bothsedentary and nomadic; the reconstruction of land use systems, and, more tenta-tively, the recognition of long-distance communications (for complementary aimssee Hole (1980, p. 24). The broad issue of state development and development ofthe political economy are only touched upon, but I hope that some of the resultssummarized here may contribute useful building blocks to these debates.

Because relatively few large-scale surveys have been conducted in southernMesopotamia since the publication of Heartland of Cities (Adams, 1981), thereis less to say about this area than the rain-fed north. Consequently, the status ofsurveys in southern Mesopotamia is simply updated based on results from smallsurveys that can act as a control on earlier, more extensive field operations, as wellas recent reassessments of regional settlement and environment (e.g., Pollock,1999), especially those derived from remote sensing. Specifically, it is the growthof the last-named methodology that has moved the field forward significantly inrecent years, through the use of satellite images to map settlement systems withintheir environment, and their analysis using Geographical Information Systems(Verhoeven and Daels, 1994).


222 Wilkinson

Since the publication of the seminal works of Adams (Adams, 1965, 1981;Adams and Nissen, 1972) and his coworkers (Gibson, 1972; Wright, 1981), and thereview articles and other overviews of the field that followed (e.g., Ammerman,1981; Redman, 1982), there have been no major studies on the subject ofMesopotamian surveys. On the other hand, the major synthetic work on the ar-chaeology of western Iran (Hole, 1987) provides a valuable overview of the areato the east, and I therefore say little more about that area. The main thrust of thispaper postdates 19801982 when reviews by Hole (1980), Ammerman (1981),and Redman (1982) were published, and Heartland of Cities appeared. With theburgeoning of surveys and excavations in northern Iraq, the Syrian Jazira, andsouthern Turkey during the last 20 years, especially in response to major salvageprojects, there has been a substantial growth of information. Unfortunately, owingto the location of many salvage projects within river valleys, there has also beena consistent bias in survey coverage. Nevertheless, it is now possible to comparethe developmental trajectories of the rain-fed zone with those of the irrigated zonefurther south in order to see if trends in population growth and urbanization weresynchronous within these two contrasting areas.

GREATER MESOPOTAMIA

The surveys discussed fall into two major zones: (a) irrigated LowerMesopotamia with rainfall less than 200 mm per annum, and (b) the rolling rain-fedsteppe of Upper Mesopotamia where rainfall is mainly above 250 mm per annum(Fig. 1 and Table I). Despite their flat and uniform appearance, the plains of LowerMesopotamia comprise a varied mosaic of levees, flood basins, and marshes ofriverine plains, the channels of which can be subdivided into those with single ormultiple branches (Verhoeven, 1998). By providing access points for water, thegradient down which irrigation water can flow, better drained soils for cultivation,and flood basins for pasture or for the disposal of irrigation water, this terrainprovides a basic framework for every day life.

In contrast to the southern alluvial plains, where the agricultural economywas underpinned by a network of irrigation canals and river channels, the northwas primarily dependent on the extensive farming of rain-fed staple crops, primar-ily wheat, barley, some legumes, and supplementary animal husbandry (Weiss,1986). Such large areas, as Weiss has argued, compensated for the relatively lowcrop yields. The archaeological reconstruction of land-use patterns within severalecological zones of the Jazira provide support for this model of large-scale prairie-type agriculture, but with an added emphasis on differential levels of land-useintensity dependent upon location.

The combined area of Upper and Lower Mesopotamia include much of thecatchment of the TigrisEuphrates basin that is situated in southeastern Turkey,Syria, and Iraq, but stops at the Iraq/Iran border to the east. The above usage



Fig. 1. Major surveys and regional projects conducted over the last 30 years in Greater Mesopotamia(based on TAVO, Maps B II 7 and 12, Butterlin (1998), and other sources; for details see Table I).

sufficiently abuses the term Greater Mesopotamia, therefore, I do not extend thisoverview into the Taurus Mountains and Anatolian Plateau beyond. Further detailsof site distributions can be found in Hours et al. (1994), the TAVO Atlas (1988),and Atlas of Archaeological Sites in Iraq (1976).

TECHNIQUES

Archaeological surveyors in the Near East often cling tenaciously to tradi-tional modes of site survey, in part, because large conspicuous sites on plains forman important part of the record, and by default the smaller sites have sometimesbeen deemed less important. Because of this focus on tells the adoption of inten-sive survey and sampling techniques has often been sluggish. Consequently, therecognition of aceramic Neolithic sites (see Table II; Watkins, 1998, p. 4), or set-tlements of mobile communities has been inhibited. An additional problem is thatinadequacies in the dating of ceramics result not only in major gaps in the recordbut also in long ceramic periods (Table II), and therefore sites that are ceramica-lly contemporaneous may not necessarily have been occupied at the same time


224 Wilkinson

Table I. Surveys in Iraq, Syria, and Southeast Turkeya (for Locations See Fig. 1)Map no. Area of survey Reference

1 Karababa (Turkey) Ozdogan (1977)2 Adiyaman survey (Turkey) Blaylock et al. (1990)3 Kurban/Titrish area (Turkey) Algaze et al. (1992), Wilkinson (1990b)4 Carchemish-Biricik survey Algaze et al. (1991), Algaze et al. (1994)

(Turkey)5 Tishrin Copeland and Moore, (1985), McClellan and

Porter (1990)6 Sajur Besancon et al. (1980), Sanlaville (1985).7 Tabqa Dam (Syria) Van Loon (1967), Zettler (1997, Fig. 1.3)8 Jabbul Maxwell-Hyslop et al. (1942/1943)9 Mid-Euphrates a Kohlmeyer (1984, 1986)

10 Mid-Euphrates b Geyer and Monchambert (1987), Monchambert (1983)11 Mid-Euphrates c Simpson (1983)12 Balikh Valley (Turkey) Yardimci (1993)13 Balikh survey (Syria) Akkermans (1993), Bartl (1994), Curvers (1991)14 West Jazira Einwag (1993)15 Khabur Basin Davidson and Mckerrell (1976), Lyonnet (1996a, b),

Mallowan, (1936, 1937)16 Leilan Stein and Wattenmaker (1990), Weiss (1983, 1986)17 Brak Eidem and Warburton (1996)18 Beydar Wilkinson (1998a)19 Jebel Abd al Aziz Hole (1997, 1998), Kouchoukos (1998)20 NE Syria Meijer (1986)21 Middle Khabur Monchambert (1983)22 Lower Khabur Morandi (1996b), Rollig and Kuhne (1977/1978, 1983),23 Wadi Ajij survey Bernbeck (1993), Pfalzner (1984)24 Tigris survey (Turkey): Batman Algaze (1989), Algaze et al. (1991)25 Tigris survey: Garzan Algaze (1989), Algaze et al. (1991)26 Tigris survey: Bohlan Algaze (1989), Algaze et al. (1991)27 Tigris survey: Cizre-Silopi Algaze (1989), Algaze et al. (1991)28 Saddam Dam/Eski Mosul No reference for survey29 North Jazira Project (Iraq) Wilkinson and Tucker (1995)30 Afar plain (Iraq) Hijara (1980), Ibrahim (1986, data from Oates)31 Sinjar plain Lloyd (1938)32 Hatra area Kirkbride (1974), Ibrahim (1986)33 Haditha Dam Abdul-Amir (1988)34 Hamrin Dam Kim (1991), Young and Killick (1988), Gibson (1981)35 al-Fatha Ibrahim (1972)36 Diyala survey Adams (1965, 1981)37 Kish Gibson (1972)38 Uruk area Adams and Nissen (1972)39 Mesopotamian plains, incl. Adams (1981)

Nippur40 Akkad survey Adams, in Gibson (1972)41 Ur-Eridu Wright (1969, 1981)42 Hammar Lake area Roux (1960)43 Mandali Oates (1966)44 Samarra Northedge and Falkner (1987)45 Dukan Dam No reference for survey46 Darbandi Khan No reference for surveyaTable includes surveys that have been published or are in press.



Table II. Archaeological Periods Used in the Texta

Dates A.D./B.C. Upper Mesopotamiab Lower Mesopotamiac

200018001600 Late Islamic Late Islamic14001200 Middle Islamic Middle Islamic1000800 A.D. Early Islamic Early Islamic600 Sasanian/Early Islamic Sasanian/Early Islamic400 Sasanian Sasanian2000 Parthian Parthian200 HellenisticParthian HellenisticParthian400 Hellenistic/Seleucid Hellenistic/Seleucid600 Late Iron Age Neo-Babylonian800 Late Assyrian/Iron Age1000 B.C. ?1200 Late Bronze Age/Mid Assyrian Middle Babylonian1400 Late Bronze Age Kassite

1600 Late MBA/Early LBA1800 Middle MBA Old Babylonian2000 Early MBA/Old Assyrian Isin Larsa2200 Late Early Bronze Age Ur III2400 Mid Early Bronze Age Akkadian2600 Early Dynastic II/III2800 Early Early Bronze Age/ Early Dynastic I3000 Ninevite 5 Jemdet Nasr32003400 Late Chalcolithic/Uruk Late Uruk36003800 Late Chalcolithic Early Uruk40004200 Late Northern Ubaid Ubaid 444004600 Ubaid 34800 Early Northern Ubaid5000

(Continued )

5200 Late Halaf Ubaid 2

5400 Middle Halaf


226 Wilkinson

Table II. (Continued )

Dates A.D./B.C. Upper Mesopotamiab Lower Mesopotamiac

5600 Early Halaf Ubaid 15800 Ceramic Neolithic/ Ubaid 06000 Hassuna6200640066006800 Aceramic7000 Neolithic72007400760078008000

aDates are approximate only; those in the second millennium B.C. are subject to revisionaccording to the chronology of Gasche et al. (1998).

bUpper Mesopotamia based on Schwartz and Weiss (1992) and Wilkinson and Tucker (1995).cLower Mesopotamia based on Porada et al. (1992), Adams (1981), and others.

(Dewar, 1991). The existence of a fine-grained local ceramic typology, therefore,provides an essential local reference sequence, and many of the more successfulrecent surveys in greater Mesopotamian have been conducted in tandem with exca-vation. Furthermore, some recent surveys have been undertaken as part of salvageirrigation projects where deep cuts were available to provide windows into earlieroccupations as well as estimates of depths of sedimentation. The employment ofmore intensive methodologies, finer ceramic chronologies, and geoarchaeologicalcontrols helps address earlier criticisms concerning the lack of reliability of surveyresults (Brinkman, 1984, p. 171, citing Parr, 1972).

It is a cliche that mound survey is synonymous with Near Eastern survey, butover the last twenty years there has been a gradual but significant shift towardsthe recognition of the importance of smaller sites in the archaeological record.Nevertheless, survey standards continue to be uneven. Fortunately, Adams recog-nized that small sites played an important role in the settlement record. Yet in spiteof this focus, evidence from Ur III texts has led Piotr Steinkeller to suggest thatthe surveys by Adams may underrepresent the spectrum of smaller settlements,the component buildings of which were made, perhaps, from perishable materialssuch as reeds or palm fronds (cited in Stone, 1997, p. 22). The recognition of suchsettlements may eventually benefit from the application of off-site survey tech-niques. Although such techniques have been conducted in the Near East since atleast 1974, they have yet to become part of the established repertoire of techniques.



Surprisingly, the debate concerning intensive sample survey versus full-coverage survey continues (Kowalewski and Fish, 1990; Sumner, 1990a; cf. for ex-ample full-coverage surveys in Mesoamerica: Kowalewski, 1990; Parsons, 1990).In contrast to sample survey that makes generalizations about the whole by sam-pling only a part of the area, full-coverage survey takes as its limits the boundaryof the natural region so that all significant sites are visited within the designatedarea. This topdown approach, which continues to be practiced almost exclu-sively in Mesopotamia, has the distinct advantage of providing structural patternsthat can then be analyzed by spatial analysis and location models (Falconer andSavage, 1995; Sumner, 1990a, p. 109). On the other hand, it has the disadvantageof underrepresenting smaller sites, which can be fundamental to understandingthe processes of settlement change. I therefore advocate a combined approach forMesopotamian archaeology in which full-coverage methods are used to recoverthe basic settlement structure, and sample surveys (e.g., Batovic0 and Chapman,1985) provide estimates of the distribution of site sizes, particularly those at thesmaller end of the spectrum (Redman, 1973).

The surveys of Adams were extensive operations covering very large areas,and only at a later stage was localized control initiated in the form of sample surveysof 1 km squares (Adams, 1981, p. 40). Such an extensive approach was justifiedbecause the general survey would provide a first approximation that would speakmore comprehensively to major historical and anthropological problems (Adamsand Nissen, 1972, p. 8). Surveys by Gibson (1972) and Wright (1969, 1981) haveadded further details, and more intensive operations have tested the results of theearlier surveys. For example, in the areas of Abu Salabikh and Abu Duwari, whichinclude both cultivation and desert, mounded sites exist within a matrix of deflateddesert covered by a light scatter of pottery and crossed by occasional linear upcastmounds, soil, or moisture marks of relict canals (Wilkinson, 1990a, Fig. 1). Withinthe low and deflated site of Abu Duwari, systematic surface collection provided adistribution of artifact classes that supplied a clearer pattern of the layout of sitefunctions (ceramic kilns, metal working, religious quarter) than is possible on mosthigh mounded sites in Upper Mesopotamia (Stone, 1990; Stone and Zimansky,1994).

Despite the early introduction of on-site sampling methodology (see Stein andWattenmaker, 1990, Fig. 5; Whallon, 1979), these techniques are not frequentlyapplied. In part, this is so not only because of the large number of archaeologicalsites that must be recorded by small teams, but also because there is sometimesgreater utility in spending the available time carefully evaluating the greater sitearea (including apparent off-site areas) in order to determine whether subtletraces of other settlements remain in the immediate site periphery. In other words,it can be more effective to recover a 10 ha lower town than to neglect such a featureand elegantly subdivide a 1- to 2-ha tell into smaller subunits that may fall betweenthe main size classes employed in statistical analysis.


228 Wilkinson

Although in recent years advances have been made in the recovery of off-sitedata (Wilkinson, 1982), buried sites (Banning, 1996), landscape features such ascanals, and pastoral camps (Bernbeck, 1994; Hole, 1991), such contexts continueto be overlooked because the focus remains on the more visible elements of thearchaeological spectrum.

Criteria for site recognition have now been extended to include site micro-topography, scatters of foundation stones, diagnostic objects such as querns, doorsockets, etc., soil color, and various negative topographic features (Bernbeck, 1993;Wilkinson, 1990b; Wilkinson and Tucker, 1995). Although surveyors are now wellaware that more closely spaced transects are necessary to recognize smaller settle-ments (Neely and Wright, 1994; Redman, 1982; Wright, 1981, p. 298), consider-able numbers of sites are still being missed. This is unfortunate because such sitesare fundamental to the recognition of changes in settlement structure, such as onethat took place in the late 2nd and early 1st millennium B.C. (see below).

At a still lower level of visibility are the low-density scatters of battered sherdsthat extend across large areas of terrain between conventional sedentary sites andthat can be related, in part, to the practice of hauling organic refuse from settlementsto spread on the fields as fertilizer (Bintliff and Snodgrass, 1988; Wilkinson, 1982;for review see Alcock et al. (1994)). These field scatters form a background noisethat not only inhibits recognition of very small sites, but can alternatively providevaluable data on ancient land-use zones. Because of their extensive methodology,few surveys actually recognize such off-site materials, let alone make an attemptto differentiate them from true occupation sites as is virtually the norm in adjacentparts of the Mediterranean (Bintliff, 1985; Cherry et al., 1991). In the Near Eastas one moves west towards the Mediterranean, it appears that small settlementswere more common on the uplands, especially during the Roman and Byzantineperiods. Therefore, the application of intensive survey techniques, as have longbeen practiced in the Mediterranean basin (cf. Cherry et al., 1991), to areas ofwestern Syria and southern Turkey is essential in order to recover the smaller sites.Surveys also need to allow for the missing sites and landscapes, such as are nowbeing recognized in the Levantine uplands where punctuations in the settlementrecord may be due to the failure to recognize buried sites in wadi floors (Banning,1996). Similar techniques might be applicable to many of the uplands that fringeMesopotamia.

Earlier Mesopotamian surveys made use of air photos when they were avail-able; satellite images (mainly LANDSAT images with a very coarse resolution)were only just becoming available when Adams was undertaking his later sur-veys. Now with a wider range of available images, at different resolutions or pixelsize, spectral range, and surface penetrability, major advances are being madein site recognition and mapping, especially when image analysis is conductedin tandem with detailed ground truthing by archaeological survey (Verhoeven andDaels, 1994). Ironically, because they include less urban industrial clutter from the1970s, 1980s, and 1990s, the earlier low-tech photographic declassified (Corona)



images are now providing a wealth of information on both sites and off-site featuresover vast areas of the Near East (Kennedy, 1998). This availability of high-qualityCorona images is now enabling Adams and others to re-evaluate the earlier surveysof southern Mesopotamia.

PHYSICAL AND CULTURAL TRANSFORMATIONSOF THE SURVEY RECORD

That physical loss of archaeological sites occurs as a result of geomorpholog-ical landscape processes is well known (n transforms, Schiffer, 1987, p. 22). Thusvarious degrees of sedimentation have resulted in the burial of the archaeologi-cal record in the TigrisEuphrates lowlands (Reichel, 1997; Stronach, 1961), theMahidasht Plain in central west Iran (Brookes et al., 1982), and the Amuq Plainin Turkey (Yener et al., 1996). What is less well understood is that the alluviallowlands of Iraq have undergone extraordinarily complex processes of aggradationand deflation as a result of the interplay of both human and natural processes. As aresult, early sites in some areas are buried whereas others within a few kilometerscan be pedestalled above the existing plain level.

Cultural transformations are not so well documented in the Near East, butthey clearly inhibit the interpretation of the settlement record. The notion of land-scapes of survival and landscapes of destruction as initially recognized forBritain (Taylor, 1972) may also be applied to the Middle East. Thus settlementis rare in deserts or in many uplands, but where settlement or off-site activity didtake place, their traces have a high probability of survival because there wouldbe little subsequent activity to remove them. The desert, therefore, constitutes alandscape of survival. On the other hand, in moister areas where conditions aremore conducive to sustained long-term settlement, later phases of occupation ei-ther obscure earlier traces (if they rest upon them) or effectively erase them aspart of a constant process of recycling. Therefore field boundaries, ancient roads,or canals only remain if they are sufficiently robust, or as long as they continueto be of use to the inhabitants. Otherwise mud or mudbrick features may be dugaway and stones recycled into other structures. As a result, as rainfall and humanactivities increase, other things being equal, a larger amount of the settlement andlandscape record will be lost by being recycled, obscured, removed, or disturbed.This process may have resulted in the attrition of many landscape features in themore verdant parts of Upper Mesopotamia. Where later occupations are apparentlymore numerous than those of earlier periods it is, of course, difficult to assess towhat degree earlier occupation has been lost from view. This obscuring process isnot uniform, however, and in parts of the Khabur basin, Syria, for example, settle-ment on tells often ceased in the late 3rd millennium B.C. with the result that thepre-Bronze Age levels are frequently obscured. On the other hand, further west in,for example, the Amuq Plain of southern Turkey and much of western Syria, tells


230 Wilkinson

are frequently occupied until the Islamic period (e.g., Tell Judaidah and ChatalHoyuk, Haines, 1971) with the result that a significant amount of both Bronzeand Iron Age occupation will have been lost from view, and earlier prehistoricoccupations may be entirely invisible.

EMERGING RESULTS FROM SURVEY: THE IRRIGATEDLOWLANDS OF SOUTHERN MESOPOTAMIA

The major surveys of southern Mesopotamia were conducted in the 1950s,1960s, and 1970s, since that time survey work has been sporadic, and much of thislater work remains unpublished. Three conclusions can be drawn from surveysin this region over the last 20 years: First, the complexity of the site and off-siterecord is considerable; second, there are large voids in the record of settlementthat may include important population centers; and third, the integration of remotesensing and ground survey promises to provide a significantly enlarged databasefor future research.

The early phases of occupation of the plains continue to be frustratingly sparseand elusive, in part because of the burial of sites below alluvium, but perhapsbecause archaeologists have not looked intensively at the western desert plainswhere early Holocene Euphrates channels are postulated to exist (Zarins, 1990,Fig. 8). There is a general distinction between a northern riverine plain that isregarded as the homeland of the Akkadians and a southern delta and marsh plainof Sumerian settlement (Zarins, 1990; for general discussion see Potts (1997, pp. 155)). In terms of the development of the regional economies, the northern region(later to become Babylonia) has been suggested as forming a hearth of Semiticsettlement characterized during prehistoric and early historic times by a substantialpresence of pastoral nomadism (Zarins, 1990). Unfortunately, the burial of earlysites in the northern plains, which renders the pattern of earlier sites unreliable,also makes this compelling theory untestable, at least by survey.

In general, the visibility of archaeological sites and artifact scatters oftendetermined which areas were selected for survey by Adams, and this visibility has,in turn, influenced where voids remain in the pattern of settlement. Hence areasof modern cultivation, within which smaller sites were obscure or plowed away,were avoided, whereas the highly visible landscapes of the alluvial desert weremore readily surveyed (Adams, 1981, p. 35). Thus around Abu Salabikh wherecultivated areas were not surveyed by Adams, subsequent survey has demonstratedthat sites were quite common. Within a 12 sq km area 10 sites were recorded, ofwhich three 3rd and 4th millennium B.C. sites were buried below alluvium, as werethe early levels of Abu Salabikh and an adjacent canal (Wilkinson, 1990a, pp. 76,81). In general, within the desert zone of southern Iraq, early sites can be bothburied (e.g., an Ubaid site north of Nippur, about 3.5 m beneath alluvium) and on



the surface. Near both Abu Salabikh and Abu Duwari off-site pottery scatters formextensive, continuous scatters of Seleucid/Parthian, Sasanian, and early Islamicsherds over many square kilometers. Although associated in places with evidenceof sedentary settlement or individual buildings, such scatters are mainly adjacentto traces of within-field canals, where they can plausibly be interpreted as theremains of ancient fertilization with settlement-derived refuse.

As noted above, the selection of the area to be investigated has partly struc-tured the interpretation of survey results. For example, a decline in settlement ofthe Middle Babylonian period was recognized by Adams for the surveyed area(Adams, 1981, Fig. 25). Although apparently reflecting a general decline of set-tlement throughout the alluvial plains, this may partly be explained as a result ofa westward shift in the course of the Euphrates. This shift may then have pre-cipitated a significant change in the locus of settlement during the late 2nd andearly 1st millennium B.C. away from the surveyed central plains toward the west-ern part of the alluvial plain where modern cultivation inhibited both access andsite visibility (Brinkman, 1984, pp. 175176; see also Morony (1994) for similarremarks concerning the early Islamic period). This negative space on the surveymaps is primarily occupied by sites of Seleucid or later date (Armstrong, 1992,pp. 224225), whereas earlier settlement is confined mainly to 3rd and 2nd millen-nium B.C. Dilbat. Settlements of the Old and Neo-Babylonian periods are attestedin cuneiform texts, however, the obvious conclusion being that, as a result of long-term sedimentation associated with the above-mentioned channel shift, most earlysites have either been obscured or erased, except where larger sites such as Dilbatproject above the alluvial surface. A combination of lack of survey, taphonomicprocesses, and alluvial sedimentation have, therefore, conspired to obscure therecord of this potentially important area of early Babylonia. As noted above, sedi-mentation also has obscured the settlement record in the Nippur-Abu Salabikh-AbuDuwari area, as well as perhaps much of the central and northern plains. Such aloss may not affect the interpreted shift of settlement towards Uruk in the laterUruk period (Adams and Nissen, 1972), but almost certainly must have reducedthe visible record of Ubaid settlement. Loss of sites by sedimentation was antici-pated by Adams (1972a, p. 737), and now recent estimates of buried land surfacesbelow sites confirm that sedimentation was greatest in the northern alluvial plainsand the Diyala region (Reichel, 1997).

From the Sippar/Tell ed-Der area in the northern alluvial plains, importantresults are now emerging as a result of the integration of data from ground survey,remote sensing, and cuneiform texts (Gasche and Tanret, 1998; Verhoeven andDaels, 1994, Figs. 1113). Evidence of settlement patterns and historically attestedwatercourses can be related, in turn, to changing geomorphology, sedimentarystratigraphy (Gasche, 1985, 1988; Verhoeven, 1998), and terrain types as inferredfrom satellite remote sensing (al-Saadi and Daels, 1987; for results of Sovietremote sensing programs see Glushko and Maslennikova (1990)). In these northern


232 Wilkinson

plains the multidisciplinary Belgian team, using 1:10,000 topographic maps, airphotographs, and satellite images, has shown that both the settlement pattern andnetwork of relict watercourses is considerably more dense than noted by Adams(1972b) (compare Adams Map 1B, with Verhoeven and Daels, (1994, Figs. 11and 12)). Furthermore, the use of topographic maps with a contour interval of 1 mdemonstrates that some of the original reconstructions of watercourses would haverequired water to have flowed up and over levees (Coles and Gasche, 1998, p. 16).The new reconstructions consequently provide settlement patterns that are morein harmony with the topography and hydraulic geometry of the plain.

Nevertheless, despite this substantial advance in our understanding of thealluvial geography of the plains, the settlement patterns continue to be interpretedon the basis of the survey data of Adams. Few completely new surveys havebeen initiated since the publication of Heartland of Cities with the exception ofthe salvage projects behind the Hamrin (Gibson, 1981; Kim, 1991; Young andKillick, 1988) and Haditha Dams (Abdul-Amir, 1988) that provide information ona regional scale to complement that of the surveys further south.

EMERGING RESULTS FROM SURVEY: RAIN-FEDNORTHERN MESOPOTAMIA

Surveys have been conducted in rain-fed northern Mesopotamia over threebroad phases: the early pioneer phase of the 1930s, 1940s, and 1950s and before,during which the Khabur, Balikh, and Sinjar plains were explored at a general level,on the ground by, for example, von Oppenheim (Warburton, 1985, p. 16), Mallowan(1936, 1937, 1946), and Lloyd (1938, 1954); and from the air by Poidebard (1934),Stein (Gregory and Kennedy, 1985; Stein, 1938, 1940), and Van Liere and Lauffray(1954). There was then a second phase during the 1960s and 1970s of pragmaticsurveys along main river valleys, primarily to record sites prior to salvage excava-tions (Van Loon, 1967; Ozdogan, 1977). Finally, a wide range of full-coverage andreconnaissance surveys has been undertaken over the last 30 years for both researchand salvage purposes (see Table I and Fig. 1). As a result of this recent spate ofsurvey activity, the archaeological record of settlement has increased substantiallyso that it is now possible to sketch trends in the settlement record in broad outlineand to compare this record with that of the irrigated alluvial plains of the south.The themes that can be distilled from these studies are not always evident from thesurvey reports themselves, but only appear after a broad overview of many surveys.Emerging themes include structural changes in the pattern and scale of settlementthat may reflect overall shifts in the political economy, settlement trends inferredfrom site surveys, land-use reconstructions made from landscape archaeology thatsupply a cross-check on the demographic record inferred from conventional sitesurveys, and lastly, studies of population dynamics inferred from patchiness in thesettlement record.



Settlement Patterns Through Time

As in southern Mesopotamia, ebb and flow of settlement has varied from areato area; therefore, the frequently small survey areas of northern Mesopotamia maynot provide a representative sample of the overall trend of settlement. However, ata very broad level it appears that these extensive areas of cultivable lowlands androlling steppe attracted settlement from the aceramic Neolithic on. The moderatelydense scatter of ceramic Neolithic and Hassuna settlements in the more low-lyingsteppe compares with a small but significant number of Epipalaeolithic and ac-eramic Neolithic sites often on surrounding uplands and alluvial terraces, e.g.,Qermiz Dere, Nemrik, and Magzalliyah on the uplands of northern Iraq (Watkins,1998) and southeast Turkey (Algaze et al., 1991, p. 194; Rosenberg and Togul,1991). Elsewhere, what appears as a rather indistinct but locally dense pattern ofaceramic and early ceramic Neolithic settlement (e.g., Balikh Valley: (Akkermans,1989, 1993, Fig. 5.1) Hatra and Umm Dabaghiyah, Iraq (Kirkbride, 1974; Oates,1982, p. 368), developed by the Halaf (Table II) into a denser pattern of mainlysmall settlements throughout the rain-fed zone. This is best exemplified in theSyrian Balikh Valley (Akkermans, 1993, Fig. 5.6, Balikh phase IIIC), the WadiDara in the Khabur basin (Davidson and McKerrell, 1976), the Euphrates Valleyand Cizre plains in Turkey (Algaze et al., 1991, p. 195; Wilkinson, 1990b, pp. 8593), and parts of northern Iraq (Campbell, 1992; Hijara, 1980, Figs. 8589; Oates,1980, pp. 308309). Some differentiation of settlement is evident, especially in thelater part of the Halaf when there was a spread of settlement down the Balikh Valleybeyond the present limit of rain-fed cultivation. Whether these southern sites weretemporary camps of mobile or semisedentary groups or settlements associatedwith some form of irrigation often remains unclear, but excavation of some sitesin marginal locations demonstrates that a considerable effort was often expendedby the inhabitants on hunting wild game (Shems ed-Din (Uerpmann, 1982) UmmQseir (Zeder, 1995, p. 25)). On the other hand, not all ceramic Neolithic and Halafsites are small, settlements such as 3035-ha Mounbateh (of which 1012 ha wasoccupied in the later Halaf) near the present limit of rain-fed cultivation mayhave functioned as gateway communities (Akkermans, 1993, pp. 199201). Thepresence of such gateway communities suggests that during the earlier Holocene,regional economies were not simply determined by subsistence or staple produc-tion, but that there was also a significant amount of trade or exchange. Along muchof the Euphrates and Tigris Valleys in Syria and Turkey, Halaf settlement was ap-parently much more sparse, in part, perhaps as a result of considerable reworkingof the floodplain and lowest alluvial terraces by fluvial activity.

By the Ubaid, the settlement picture is one of a broad dispersal of villageswith emerging centers, usually in the form of tells, some of which grew, in turn,into settlements of perhaps 1520 ha in area (Wilkinson et al., 1996). From thistime on, the tell became significant in the development of settlement in northernMesopotamia, but it is only one of a range of morphological classes of sites. These


234 Wilkinson

Fig. 2. Tell Beydar survey, western Khabur basin: (a) Site height versus area for sites of all periods;(b) nucleated settlements (tells) versus dispersed small sites through time (updated from data inWilkinson, 1998a).

can be classified as follows (based on a recent survey of the Tell Beydar area,Fig. 2(a)): tells, which formed multiperiod sites usually greater than 810 m high,but extending over only a small area; small low sites less than 5 m high and usuallycovering less than 5 ha; and extensive lower towns, located mainly at the foot of tellsand extending over 525 ha or more. Beyond these conventional sites, extensive



low-density scatters of battered pottery over and within the existing topsoil spreadover many tens of square kilometers (field scatters as described above).

Tells are usually long-lived mainly fortified settlements that have grownslowly over many centuries. As a result they are high (other things being equal, anindicator of longevity), and because of their small area they probably only accom-modated modest populations. Small sites and extensive lower towns, on the otherhand, appear and disappear within a few generations. Therefore, by grouping sitesinto these simple morphological classes, one is able to gain an impression of set-tlement dynamics that may complement results from the estimation of populationtrends (see below). Whether the two classes, tells and small settlements (villagesand farmsteads), can be equated respectively with the Akkadian alu (township orcenter?) and kapru (village, farmstead, suburb (for discussion see Adams (1981,p. 136), Fales (1990, pp. 93105)) is an attractive but unproven supposition.

The general trend in settlement in the Jazira is well illustrated from the area ofTell Beydar in the western Khabur where, following a ceramic Neolithic and earlyChalcolithic village period of small, dispersed settlements, tells became significantby the late Ubaid or late Chalcolithic (Wilkinson, 1998a; Fig. 2(b)). By the 3rd mil-lennium B.C., with the exception of occasional extensive lower towns, settlementwas mainly on tells, large or small. There then followed a rapid late 3rd mil-lennium abandonment of the area (Weiss and Courty, 1993), the area remainedlargely abandoned with only one or two tells occupied in the early 2nd millen-nium B.C. (Lyonnet, 1996a, but see below). During the midlate 2nd millenniumthere followed the development of numerous extensive lower towns at the baseof tells. These lower sites increased in size in the early 1st millennium at the sametime that small settlements not only became extremely common but were alsodispersed throughout the area.

A related pattern of Early and sometimes Middle Bronze Age settlementnucleation, mid-2nd millennium decline, and Iron Age dispersal can be recognizedin the North Jazira of Iraq, parts of the Khabur basin (Tell Beydar survey), andthe Balikh Valley. Similar trends in settlement are evident along the Euphrates inSyria and Turkey, but with some variations due to local circumstances.

By the later 2nd millennium B.C. in the North Jazira, Iraq, the preexisting tell-based urban settlements appear to have decayed in place (Wilkinson and Tucker,1995), whereas in contrast, in the Beydar area lower towns emerged after whatmay have been several centuries of desertion. Further west on the Euphrates, EarlyBronze Age settlements paired at probable river crossings; these sites eventuallygave way to a series of fortified tells on alternating banks of the river.

Settlement Decline and Dispersal

Although decline in aggregate settlement area (and presumably settled popu-lation) occurred during the third and fourth quarters of the 2nd millennium, several


236 Wilkinson

important centers (Carchemish, Tell Fakhariyah, Mumbaqa, Hadidi, among oth-ers) continued to be occupied throughout much of the millennium. It is only duringthe final quarter of the millennium during an apparent dark age sandwiched be-tween the Middle Assyrian and Late Assyrian empires that, overall, settlementreached its minimum. This decline, although partly a dark age due to our lack ofunderstanding of the ceramics, does appear to be a phase of significant decline inurbanization and state-level society in Upper Mesopotamia, one that also relatesto the post 1200 B.C. collapse in Babylonia (Armstrong, 1992, p. 219) and in theeastern Mediterranean (Drews, 1993; McClellan, 1992).

The phase of Iron Age settlement that followed in the early 1st millen-nium B.C. represents a basic structural transformation in the pattern of settlementover much of the Jazira. In some areas major settlements on tells had declinedand been replaced by lower towns, many of which expanded in size during theIron Age, or by dispersed patterns of small rural settlements (Wilkinson, 1995).These rural settlements may have resulted from deliberate policies of resettlementby the Neo-Assyrian authorities (Barbanes, 1999, pp. 154155; Morandi, 1996b,pp. 145165, 231) or from the spontaneous settlement of nomadic groups suchas Arameans. In the lower Khabur Neo-Assyrian settlement occurred along majorcanal systems of regional scale (Morandi, 1996b), and even marginal areas suchas the Wadi Ajij (rainfall ca. 150 mm p.a.) were settled (Bernbeck, 1994). Cen-ters, when present, were often large, such as 120 ha Dur Katlimmu (Tell SheikhHamad), which formed the apex of a six-level hierarchy (Ergenzinger et al., 1988;Morandi, 1996b, Fig. 23). The pattern of dispersed rural settlements and occa-sional extensive larger settlements may prove to be characteristic of much of theJazira, but occasional gaps in the record may either be due to nonsettlement, forexample, areas that were not deliberately resettled or were unattractive for no-madic settlement, or because those particular surveys underrepresented Iron Agepottery (e.g., Meijer, 1986). Unfortunately, because there have been no surveys inthe area of the three Neo-Assyrian capitals of Nimrud, Khorsabad, and Nineveh,little is known about the rural landscapes within the Assyrian heartland. To date,only the pattern of canals and quarries and related Assyrian monumental con-structions have been recorded (Jacobsen and Lloyd, 1935, Fig. 9; Oates, 1968a;Reade, 1978). Nevertheless, because of the sheer scale of cities such as Nineveh(not necessarily fully occupied, but around 750 ha during the time of Sennacheribin the 8th and 7th centuries B.C.; Stronach, 1994, p. 100), the demand for agri-cultural products must have been massive. The dense scatter of 23 rural settle-ments with Neo-Assyrian pottery upstream on the Tigris around Cizre (Algazeet al., 1991; Parker, 1997, p. 224) may have developed in response to demandfrom the capitals to act as suppliers of food for the capital (Wilkinson, 1995,p. 159).

In this context, surveys are also aiding in the definition of the Neo-Assyrianempire, or at least of patterns of ceramic distribution that may reflect its extent.This is demonstrated by Parkers use of diagnostic Neo-Assyrian pottery versus



those of indigenous manufacture to define the limits of the empire in southeasternTurkey (areas 2427, Fig. 1). Although dangerously reliant on a pots-equals-peoplenotion, this study demonstrates convincingly that, for example, the Cizre-SilopiPlain lay comfortably within the limits of the empire. On the other hand, furtherup the Tigris, settlements along the Batman Su lay just outside the frontier, whichin that area roughly followed the line of the main river (Parker, 1997, p. 233). Suchconclusions provide support for historical conclusions by explicitly tying certainareas to the empire while excluding others, as well as giving insights into the roleof the empire as an economic entity.

This basic pattern of settlement continued until the late Islamic period so that,although lower towns and tells were occasionally occupied, the predominant formof settlement was the small rural settlement or the more extensive low non-tellsettlement. As noted above, the impression gained of the last three millennia ofsettlement is that a significant number of sites were occupied fairly briefly com-pared to the tells that represented foci of long, sustained occupation and/or publicfunctions. These later settlement patterns increased or decreased depending onlocal circumstances or the construction of irrigation canals, the latter often lead-ing to completely new areas of settlement (Wilkinson, 1998b) or a substantial in-crease in the number of late settlements (Geyer and Monchambert, 1987; Simpson,1983).

The pattern of dispersed settlement evident in the early 1st millennium B.C.seems to be common, but may not be universal throughout the Jazira. When present,however, this dispersed pattern of non-tell settlement appears to have prevailedthroughout the remaining 1st millennia B.C. and A.D. until the mid/late Islamicperiod when there was a significant, but not total, decline of settlement (Hutteroth,1990). However, this pattern of Early Bronze Age settlement nucleation, 2nd mil-lennium decline, and 1st millennium dispersion away from tells that is character-istic of the Syrian/Iraqi Jazira does not appear to prevail in western Syria wheretells often continued to be occupied through most of the 2nd millennium B.C. tothe Islamic (e.g., Haines, 1971). There is as yet no clear evidence of Iron Agesettlement dispersion in western areas. Similarly, the sharp division between tellsand small sites evident on Fig. 2(a) is blurred in, for example, the Amuq Plainwhere scatter plots of site height versus area reveal a random pattern (J. Verstraete,personal communication, 1999).

Settlement and Land-Use Reconstructions as Cross-Checkson Population Size

In the wetter parts of Upper Mesopotamia the Bronze Age landscape wasdominated by nucleated tells, occurring at a fairly regular distribution every 10to 15 km across the plains, with small tells at lesser distances. Settlement wasfrequently arranged in a hierarchy, dominated by sites up to or rarely slightly more


238 Wilkinson

than 100 ha in area (Wilkinson, 1994, Table 3, Figs. 3 and 4) within which a citadelarea located on a tell rose above the surrounding lower town. Settlement growthprimarily occurred between the early 3rd millennium B.C. Ninevite V period,when settlements were usually less than 20 ha and perhaps relatively self-sufficient(Stein and Wattenmaker, 1990; Weiss, 1986; Weiss and Courty, 1993), and the mid-3rd millennium B.C. (Leilan IIId and IIa), when settlement nucleation was evidentall over the Jazira, occasionally attaining the massive scale of walled lower townssuch as 90-ha Leilan (Weiss, 1983) and 100-ha Kazana Hoyuk (Wattenmaker andMisr, 1993). Around some sites, surveys have detected the foundations of buildingsof outlying suburbs, as, for example, at Titrish Hoyuk (Algaze et al., 1992).Prolonged, often dense, settlement on tells is matched by a landscape in which low-density scatters of sherds veneer the land surface around tells. In addition, straightshallow valleys (linear hollows) radiate from sites to fade out usually between 3and 5 km from them (Fig. 3; Van Liere and Lauffray, 1954; Wilkinson and Tucker,1995). The sherd scatters can be interpreted as the remains of intensively fertilizedareas of nearby fields (Wilkinson, 1994), whereas the radial linear hollows appearto be remains of tracks that were used to reach fields and outlying pastures. Thefade out point was the limit where humans, pack animals, and flocks dispersedinto the outlying steppe (but see McClellan and Porter (1995) for a conflictingview). From these data it is possible to infer the presence of land-use zones as

Fig. 3. Land-use zones around Tell al-Hawa (northern Iraq) inferred from off-site survey data andestimated sustaining areas. The latter are based on site population density estimates of 100 and 200persons per ha (solid line and outer broken lines respectively). Black dots represent midlate EarlyBronze Age sites.



follows: intensive cultivation within 12 km of the main settlement, lower intensitycultivation, probably with biennial fallow, from 2 km to 35 km, and open space,either low-intensity arable or pasture, beyond (Fig. 3).

In the north Jazira, the western part of the survey region was densely settledin the 4th millennium B.C. but was abandoned towards the end of that millennium,possibly becoming a pastoral resource zone for the developing Early Bronze Agetowns. Land-use zones inferred from off-site features such as field scatters enabledsustainable population to be estimated as a cross-check on sustaining areas esti-mated from the areas of the major sites (Fig. 3). In normal or wet years, centers wereprobably self-sufficient and were, perhaps, capable of redistributing grain to outly-ing communities, in dry years they would have suffered production shortfalls thatwould have required grain to be imported from neighboring communities within anextended compound catchment (Wilkinson, 1994, Fig. 17). At such times neigh-boring small satellite towns or villages would probably have supplied staple foodsto the main center, so that what was previously a series of relatively autonomoussmall communities became an integrated series of settlements connected by a webof supply lines. However, these small satellite communities would have experi-enced labor shortages that would have constrained production. Similar constraintsalso would have operated regionally, perhaps, during seasons of particularly abun-dant cereal growth when there may have been more cereals in fields than laborto harvest and process them. Labor deficits could, however, have been offset bythe use of seasonal labor from pastoral nomadic or other communities. Althoughlong-distance transport of grain may have occurred, I maintain that within the EarlyBronze Age economy, due to the frictional effect of overland transport, this wouldhave been inefficient, especially as in many years droughts may have extendedover the entire Jazira (Neumann and Parpola, 1987, pp. 169, 172). The nature ofthe field evidence has limited these reconstructions to a cereal-and-staple-basedeconomy, but no doubt less quantifiable factors such as pastoralism (nomadic andsedentary based) and contributions of trade and other sectors of a wealth economyneed to be included to make such models more realistic (Butzer, 1997; Danti andZettler, 1998).

Settlement in the Drier Margins

In drier parts of the Jazira, between the Jebel Abd al-Aziz and the Balikh andKhabur Rivers (Fig. 1, area 19), a distinctive pattern of large circular walled tells(kranzhugel sites) are the most common type of major settlement for the earlierpart of the 3rd millennium B.C. Typified by Tell Chuera (Orthmann, 1995, 1997),such sites are located in areas where cultivable soils and water supply allowed agri-culture to take place but where there was probably insufficient land to grow staplecereals for the entire populations of these substantial settlements (Kouchoukos,1998). Furthermore, the settlement pattern of the kranzhugel sites did not include


240 Wilkinson

the ranked hierarchy of tells and subordinate towns that existed in the wetterparts of the Jazira and which could operate as an integrated supply network(Kouchoukos, 1998; Meyer, 1998). Consequently, for this climatically marginalzone, Kouchoukos argues that political and economic hierarchies developed as aresult of vigorous exchange of pastoral products with expanded polities that werelocated in moister parts of the northern Jazira. Such exchange, together with theintrusion of foreign wealth, military power, and maybe agricultural technologies,as well as the emergence of new religious and political ideologies (1998, p. 438),contributed to the development and growth of this distinctive class of settlement.

Along river valleys where rainfall is today less than 300 mm, a beaded pat-tern of Early Bronze Age (EBA) settlement can be seen (Curvers, 1991, for theBalikh). Survey of the lower Khabur (Monchambert, 1983; Rollig and Kuhne,1977/1978, 1983) and subsequent excavations (Schwartz, 1994) demonstrate thata rapid spread of mainly small early 3rd millennium B.C. settlement was replacedby a smaller number of nucleated settlements during the mid-3rd millennium B.C.Early EBA sites such as Tell Raqai included large areas devoted to storage, thegrain from which either was destined to supply downstream communities suchas Mari (Schwartz, 1994) or, more likely, formed part of an integrated pattern ofsupply for local sedentary and mobile pastoral groups (Hole, 1991; Zeder, 1995).

Settlement and Communications

Trade and communications played a crucial roles in the development of earlystates (for recent reviews see Algaze (1993) and Lamberg-Karlovsky (1996)), andarchaeological surveys provide important insights into this debate. Similarly, theimportance of interregional linkages to the development and decline of the 3rd mil-lennium political economy is emphasized by Butzer, who has argued that a seriesof loosely connected circuits provided a network infrastructure that underpinnedthe functioning of Near Eastern states (e.g., Butzer, 1997, p. 283; see also Marfoe,1979). When these circuits were strong, the growth of centers was encouraged;when they were weak, centers declined and population dispersed into outlyingrural communities. Fortunately, archaeological surveys enable the existence ofsuch networks to be inferred either from certain configurations of sites or fromdistinctive landscape features. Characteristic settlement patterns include the align-ments of sites along assumed cross-country routes and the pairing of settlementson opposite sides of major rivers.

More explicit in the context of communications is the existence of linear hol-low systems that not only form connecting links between Bronze Age settlementsand their outlying fields (see above) but also cross the terrain between larger sites,therefore providing a physical manifestation of interregional networks. Despitethe problems of dating and assigning a function to such features (Lyonnet, 1998;McClellen and Porter, 1995; Van Liere and Lauffray, 1954; Wilkinson, 1993), a



good case can be made for them having been in use when the tells from whichthey radiate were occupied (contra Weiss, 1997, p. 128). Therefore, the presenceof Bronze Age settlements such as Tell al-Hawa, as well as ceramically specializedsouthern Uruk communities along major long-distance linear hollow features, sug-gests that there was an association between such settlements and communications.In turn, long-distance exchange may have contributed to the growth of settlementsthat are linked by interregional linear hollows (Wilkinson and Tucker, 1995, p. 86).

The case of northern Mesopotamian settlements growing up on opposite banksof major rivers is reminiscent of the phenomenon of paired settlements devel-oping at break-of-bulk and provisioning points where major routes cross rivers(Burghardt, 1959; Wilkinson, 1990b, p. 101). Gateway communities such as pre-historic Mounbateh in the Balikh (Akkermans, 1993, pp. 199201) and Tell Brak(Oates et al., 1997, p. xvii) grew large in such marginal locations because of theexchange of products between sedentary communities to the north and nomadiccommunities on the steppe to the south, or because they engaged in long-distancetrade.

Settlement Scale and Complexity

Prehistoric settlement patterns can be seen to have developed from systemsof small village-size (but not necessarily fully sedentary) settlements frequentlyregarded as early chiefdoms (Stein, 1998, pp. 810) that became tell-dominatedcitystate systems by the 3rd millennium B.C. During the third quarter of the3rd millennium, these systems then were administered by the territorial Akkadianempire (Yoffee, 1995). There is, however, no sign that the long-established patternof settlement changed as might be expected from any administrative restructuring;instead the tell remained the basis of the settlement, sometimes with the additionof an outer town. In general, Early Bronze Age settlement in much of northernMesopotamia underwent increases in scale, complexity, and integration toward thepeak of urbanization in the middle of the millennium (Stein, 1994a). In terms of sur-vey data, scale changes are represented by increases in the sizes of the settlementsand the appearance of compound site territories; complexity by the appearanceof several levels of site hierarchies and land-use zones, and integration by the in-creased interdependence of different parts of the settlement system when staplefoods need to be shifted from settlement to settlement to avert shortfalls duringlow-yield years (Stein, 1994a; Stein and Wattenmaker, 1990; Wilkinson, 1994).These changes may reflect a shift from more elementary segmentary states charac-terized by spatially variable levels of economic integration to larger more complexand hierarchically organized entities of unitary states (Stein, 1994a, pp. 1112).

By the 1st millennium B.C., when the pattern of dispersed rural settlementswith occasional newly founded towns appeared, Upper Mesopotamia was undera well-attested and sustained territorial empire. At this stage much of the Jazira


242 Wilkinson

Table III. Complementary Survey Areas Showing Dense versus Sparse Settlement of the SameArchaeological Perioda

Period Area with Dense Settlementb Area with Sparse Settlementb

L. Chalcolithic Beydar survey (18)1 Abd al-Aziz survey (19)2Mid-3rd mill. B.C. North Jazira, Leilan (29, 16)3 Cizre-Silopi, Upper Tigris (24, 27)4Mid-3rd mill. B.C. Kurban/Titris Hoyuks (3)5 Carchemish/Biricik (4)6Late 3rd mill. B.C. Carchemish/Biricik (4), Tabqa (7)7 Kurban/Titris Hoyuks (3), Leilan (16),

Brak area (17)8Early 2nd mill. B.C. Eastern Khabur (20), North Jazira Western Khabur (15), Beydar area (18)10

(29), Cizre-Silopi (27)9Early Islamic Balikh Valley (13)11 Kurban Hoyuk (3), Carchemish (4)12aNumbers in ( ) refer to survey areas on Fig. 1 and Table I.bSources: 1: Wilkinson (1998a); 2: Hole (1997, 1998), Kouchoukos (1998); 3: Stein and Wattenmaker(1990), Wilkinson and Tucker (1995); 4: Algaze et al. (1991, pp. 182, 196), Rosenberg and Togul(1991, p. 245); 5: Algaze et al. (1992), Wilkinson (1990a); 6: Algaze et al. (1994); 7: Algaze et al.(1994), Holland (1976), Danti (1997); 8: Eidem and Warburton (1996), Wilkinson (1990a), Algazeet al. (1992), Weiss et al. (1993); 9: Algaze et al. (1991, p. 197), Meijer (1986), Wilkinson and Tucker(1995); 10: Lyonnet (1996a), Wilkinson (1998a); 11: Bartl (1994); 12: Algaze et al. (1994, p. 23),Gerber (1996), Wilkinson (1990a).

between the Tigris and Euphrates then became the hinterland of major capitalcities such as Nimrud, Nineveh, and Khorsabad for the Neo-Assyrian period, andSamarra, Aleppo, and Mosul for later periods, all of which were located outsidethe region. This represents a sharp contrast with the one existing in the 3rd millen-nium B.C. when the main centers were contained within the Jazira and the Jazirawas apparently administered via a patchwork of local or semiautonomous polities.

Settlement Flux and Patchiness

A marked feature of settlement in northern Mesopotamia from the lateChalcolithic onwards is its patchiness; consequently, for any given period, cer-tain areas appear relatively densely settled whereas others may have been virtuallydeserted. Because this is evident only when viewed over large areas, most sur-veys do not detect this pattern. It now appears that declines in some areas maybe complementary to increases elsewhere. Such shifts may relate to what Adamsdescribed as a zero-sum game in which shifts in settlements occur, but in whichthere is no numerical gain within the system as a whole. In some cases though,there may have been real losses (or gains) of population (Table III), as popula-tion arrived or departed from a region. Rapid population decline or catastrophicpopulation collapse may even have occurred; a noteworthy example is the late3rd millennium Khabur, as is discussed below.

COMPARISONS BETWEEN SOUTH AND NORTH MESOPOTAMIA

One of the few studies to compare settlement trends in the alluvial south withthose of the rain-fed zones to the west or north is that of Falconer and Savage (1995),



who demonstrate very different settlement trajectories for the southern Levantand the Mesopotamian plains. Whereas the Mesopotamian plains rapidly attainedurban primacy during the 4th and 3rd millennium B.C., the southern Levant in theEarly Bronze Age exhibited localized urban growth superimposed on a networkof resilient towns and villages that followed their own courses of development(Falconer and Savage, 1995, p. 55). Because site size is one of the most readilymeasured variables, archaeologists have adopted this as the fundamental parameterin ranking sites into settlement hierarchies, but this has led to the misleadingassumption that these scalar hierarchies are in fact equivalent to, for example,administrative hierarchies. The adoption of notions of heterarchy in Near Easternsettlement pattern analyses in the future will enable settlement elements to beranked in a number of ways, or even unranked, depending on systemic requirements(Crumley, 1994, pp. 1213).

As yet no comparative study has been attempted between Upper and LowerMesopotamia. The following summary of qualitative trends of settlement andpopulation relies primarily on survey data, but is anchored by key excavationsequences (Fig. 4). The phase of early village settlement in Upper Mesopotamia,including the Neolithic, early Chalcolithic, and early Ubaid periods, appears tohave started earlier and been denser than in the south. In turn, within southernMesopotamia, Ubaid settlement appears to have been denser and earlier in the

Fig. 4. Broad trends in settlement comparing irrigated Lower Mesopotamia (left) and rain-fedUpper Mesopotamia (right). Archaeological periods are approximate only (see Table II).


244 Wilkinson

southern part of the alluvium than farther north (Adams, 1981, pp. 55, 58; Pollock,1999, p. 65; Wright, 1981, pp. 323325). However, because thick sedimentationhas obscured early settlement in Babylonia and the Diyala region, the relativedearth of sites in the alluvial plains may not reflect the true state of early settlement.During the Ubaid period, settlement density was significantly higher in the rain-fednorth than in southern Mesopotamia. For southern Mesopotamia, surveys recordapproximately one site for every 59 to 157 sq km, compared to between one sitefor every 710 sq km in northern Iraq, and one site for every 16 to 19 sq kmin the Deh Luran Plain (data from Hole, 1987, Table 2; Oates, 1980; Wilkinsonand Tucker, 1995; Wilkinson et al., 1996). This disparity could simply reflectreal differences between the south and the other two areas but, given the above-mentioned evidence for site burial, it is likely that sedimentation has depressed sitecounts in the alluvial plains. On the other hand, Adams and Nissen have provided agood case for the distribution of Early Uruk and Ubaid sites as genuinely reflectingthe conditions at the time (Adams and Nissen, 1972, p. 9), in which case it appearsthat during the Ubaid period settlement densities were significantly higher in thesteppe fringing the Mesopotamian plains than on the plains themselves. If this istrue, it implies that the roots of urbanization and state formation must be soughtin the surrounding rain-fed farming belt rather than in the plains, and that thepath to southern urbanization was extremely rapid, in contrast to the more gentletrajectory evident in the north. Despite such potential differences in the formativestages of state formation, in both northern and southern Mesopotamia there was atrend towards settlement nucleation and the development of a settlement hierarchythroughout the Ubaid into the 4th millennium B.C. In the alluvial south by theLate Uruk period, not only was settlement becoming truly urbanized, but therealso was an apparent differential movement of population towards growing urbancenters.

Although compelling, this notion of the prime city drawing in population fromits hinterland is questioned by new studies that use Dewars model to examine thedetailed sequence of abandonment, settlement continuity, and resettlement (Dewar,1991). Such recalculations suggest that population growth around Warka (Uruk)could be explained simply by natural growth rather than immigration from theplains further to the north (Kouchoukos, 1998, p. 234), and that population growthoccurred in both the Nippur and Uruk areas rather than the latter city havinggrown at the expense of the former (Pollock, 1999, p. 71). Postgate (1986), on theother hand, using a related assessment of abandonment and resettlement, providesevidence of a substantial settlement decline between the Late Uruk and Jemdet Nasrperiods. The intrusion of a southern Uruk presence into northern Mesopotamia inthe mid-4th millennium B.C. resulted in localized clusters of settlement particularlyalong the Euphrates in northern Syria and southern Turkey (Fig. 1, Locations 4 and5; Algaze, 1993; Algaze et al., 1994, p. 12), but urbanization did not get underwayin general until around 2600 B.C. (Leilan IIId; Weiss et al., 1993, pp. 997998)in the less arid parts of the Jazira, on the kranzhugeln in the south and central



Jazira, or along much of the Euphrates Valley in Syria (Geyer and Monchambert,1987; Simpson, 1983). Thus during the earlier part of the 3rd millennium B.C.(Ninevite V period) when urban development was muted in the north, the southcan be regarded as the worlds first truly urbanized society (Adams, 1981, p. 94).

In the alluvial south urbanization reached its maximum in Early DynasticII/III times, roughly contemporary with maximum urbanization and nucleationof tells in the north (above) and in the Hamrin (Kim, 1991; Young and Killick,1988). Although there was often significant ebb and flow of population (Adams,1981, pp. 130, 134; Gibson, 1973), the south can be regarded as being fully urbanuntil the end of the Old Babylonian period. Whereas during the Early Dynasticperiod the urbanized southern alluvium had a dominantly primate site hierarchy,the northern alluvium and Diyala had settlement patterns more like those of UpperMesopotamia. There was then a progressive shift so that by the Old Babylonianperiod the northern alluvium was virtually as urbanized as the south and alsoexhibited a primate site hierarchy (Stone, 1997, pp. 2324). In Upper Mesopotamiathe above-mentioned flux of population was clearly apparent during the mid-3rd millennium and the early 2nd millennium. This period witnessed the desertionof large areas (Weiss et al., 1993) while sites such as Brak (Oates and Oates,1994, pp. 173174) had post-Akkadian settlement. Elsewhere during the finalquarter of the 3rd millennium, settlement growth occurred at the same time whenmuch of the Khabur was in decline. Such growth is evident, for example, along theEuphrates in Turkey (Algaze et al., 1994) and Syria (Holland, 1976; Zettler, 1997),whereas further north along the Euphrates ruralization resulted in a dispersedscatter of small settlements (Wilkinson, 1990b). Settlement flux was also evidentin the early 2nd millennium B.C. when population increase and urbanization wasconsiderable in the Euphrates around Mari and Terqa (Tells Hariri and Ashara;Geyer and Monchambert, 1987; Simpson, 1983), the Haditha dam area (Abdul-Amir, 1988), eastern Syria (Meijer, 1986; Weiss, 1986, Fig. 11), and northern Iraq(Wilkinson and Tucker, 1995), whereas parts of the western Khabur basin wereabandoned (Lyonnet, 1996a, 1998; Table III).

Deurbanization in southern Mesopotamia during the mid-2nd millennium B.C.is apparently paralleled by a similar decline in northern Mesopotamia, but detailedcorrelations are dependent on recent revisions of the 2nd millennium chronology,which suggest that the commonly used middle chronology is too high by 75125 years (Gasche et al., 1998, p. 25). How such revisions affect the chronologyof sites in the north remains to be seen.

Population shifts were pervasive in the Middle and Late Assyrian periods butespecially so between the 9th and 7th centuries B.C. when imperial policy impelledmass transfers of populations throughout the empire. This pattern is manifestedin the survey record by a considerable increase in rural settlement (Barbanes,1999, pp. 3571; Wilkinson, 1995). Defensive considerations also resulted in asubstantial increase in fortified settlements and what are interpreted as temporarycamps in the Haditha dam area in Iraq (Abdul-Amir, 1988). Although population


246 Wilkinson

increase in the southern alluvial plains was probably underway some time after the8th century B.C., the precise timing is difficult to establish. Nevertheless, throughthe late 1st millennium B.C. and early 1st millennium A.D. there was a substantialincrease in population in the south so that both aggregate settlement area and thesheer scale of urban settlements were higher than at any time before. This processreached its peak in either Parthian or Sasanian times when imperial investments,particularly in canal construction and irrigation systems, attained a maximum inthe alluvial plains, the Diyala (Adams, 1981), much of southwestern Iran (Wenke,1987), and the Hamrin (Kim, 1991). This phase of settlement increase also wasevident along parts of the Euphrates Valley in Syria (Geyer and Monchambert,1987; Simpson, 1983) but the scale of southern urbanization could hardly bematched in the rain-fed north. Nevertheless, the dispersed settlement pattern waslocally very dense, especially where the construction of new irrigation systemsenabled rural settlement to take place in areas that were formerly uncultivated.Meanwhile, in the western part of the Euphrates basin there were considerableincreases in the settlement of alluvial terraces and upland areas during the LateRoman and early Byzantine periods (Gerber, 1996; Wilkinson, 1990b), a timewhen commercialized agriculture developed around the eastern Mediterranean.

Historical observations indicate that there were great translocations of pop-ulations during the 1st millennium A.D. (Adams, 1981; Morony, 1994). Fromhis survey data, Adams posits a major decline in southern Mesopotamia duringthe early Islamic period. This should, however, be tempered by the question ofwhether the ceramics described as Sasanian may, in fact, be early Islamic in date.If such were the case, it is possible that demographic growth, or at least stability,prevailed into the early Islamic period. Furthermore, southern decline, when itoccurred, was probably counterbalanced by the rise of massive urban foundationssuch as Baghdad and Samarra in present-day Iraq and Raqqa in Syria (Northedge,1994). Such urban expansion also included the development of dense scatters ofrural settlements in the regions of these massive cities, as demonstrated by, for ex-ample, Bartl (1994, 1996) in the Balikh and along the Syrian Euphrates (Berthier,1990; Geyer and Monchambert, 1987). Surveys indicate that early Islamic settle-ment growth in the Balikh was matched by a contemporaneous decline along theEuphrates to the north. This may be explained as the result of urbanization andcaliphal investment around Raqqa at the south end of the valley that took place atthe same time as a corresponding population decline along the Euphrates withinTurkey. Such a population change, which took place across what was the shift-ing border between the Abbasid and Byzantine empires (the Thugur), would beexpected to reflect the uncertainties of life in a capricious border region.

Although it is possible to quibble about the precise date of onset of settlementdecline, during approximately the mid-9th to mid-10th centuries A.D. fiscal crisesaffected both the irrigated south and the rain-fed north, and there was progressivedecline in both regions (Adams, 1981; Waines, 1977; Wilkinson and Tucker, 1995).Yet this decline, which accelerated after the Mongol invasions, should not be seen



as a total depopulation because the number of Islamic settlements recorded innorthern Syria varies according to the type of survey. According to extensive tellsurveys, Early Islamic settlement was very sparse in the Khabur basin (Lyonnet,1996b, Figs. 3, 5, and 6), but more intensive programs indicate a denser scatterof small dispersed settlements (Fig. 2(b)), often in more marginal areas. It isnow evident that differential growth and decline of population that was alreadynoticeable by the 3rd millennium B.C. was equally or more significant by theIslamic period (see King, 1994; Morony, 1994; Northedge, 1994), and, althoughthe actual path of population shifts cannot be recognized, the occurrence of theseshifts can be inferred from a number of surveys (see Table III).

POPULATION ESTIMATES

Data from archaeological survey provide a seductively attractive way of es-timating population over long spans of time. In recent years population curvesbased on survey data from several parts of the world have appeared in the generalliterature (e.g., Whitmore et al., 1990). Survey data, although valuable as a demo-graphic proxy indicator, should be used with caution. If the quantity of sites throughtime is employed as a proxy and there were many small sites, population may beoverestimated; if there were a few large sites, population may be underestimated.Aggregate settlement area, defined here as the sum of the areas of all sites of agiven phase, preferably displayed according to site-size class, has supplied betterestimates of population than the number of sites alone; see for example (Fig. 5),the Diyala (Adams, 1965, Table 25), the alluvial plains of Iraq (Whitmore et al.,1990, based on Adams, 1981), southern Turkey (Wilkinson, 1990b), and north-ern Iraq (Wilkinson and Tucker, 1995). However, factors such as burial of sitesbelow alluvium or later occupation levels, lack of recognition or low visibilityof certain ceramic types, and assumptions of uniform on-site population densities[usually assumed to fall in the range 100150 persons per ha, but see Postgate(1994) for high estimates] all serve to reduce the accuracy of estimates. In ad-dition, population estimates may be inaccurate because the aggregate settlementarea method assumes that all components of each ceramic phase are contemporary,which is not necessarily the case (Dewar, 1991, p. 604; Weiss, 1977). Not only areceramic periods usually of different lengths so that long periods may contain moresites than were actually occupied at one time, but also within the time span dur-ing which a cultural phase existed, settlements were founded, grew, declined, andwere abandoned or moved to other locations (Dewar, in Neely and Wright, 1994,p. 200). To adjust for both varying lengths of ceramic periods and the dynamics ofsettlement foundation, continuity, or extinction, probabilistic models now exist forestimating the abandonment and establishment rate of sites as well as the numberof sites that continued in use through two adjacent periods (Dewar, 1991; for anearly Mesopotamian application see Gibson (1972, Table 3)).


248 Wilkinson

Fig. 5. Demographic estimates from southern and northern Iraq and southeast-ern Turkey based on archaeological survey data (Diyala based on Adams, 1965;Tigris/Euphrates from Whitmore et al., 1990 (based on Adams, 1981); North Jazirabased on Wilkinson and Tucker, 1995; Kurban Hoyuk on Wilkinson, 1990b). Allcurves are based on an estimated site population density of 100 persons/ha.



For all of the above reasons, population estimates from Mesopotamian sur-veys may be inaccurate. Despite these potential problems in primary survey results,Dewars methodology has been successfully applied to data from the Deh LuranPlain in western Iran, from the Choga Mami Transitional (ca. 5500 B.C.) to EarlyDynastic III (ca. 2600 B.C.) (Neely and Wright, 1994, Fig. 6.1). The resultantsmoothed curve rises and falls parallel to the unadjusted curve but gives usuallyslightly lower population estimates. By using such dynamic probability models,Kouchoukos demonstrates how rising population in the Warka area between earlyUruk and Early Dynastic I occurred at the same time as falling populations in thearea of the Nippur survey (therefore supporting Adams, 1981). Such falling pop-ulations also occurred in the Susiana, Deh Luran, and North Jazira Plains as well(Kouchoukos, 1998, Fig. 5.9). By adding a dynamic component to population esti-mates, it is, therefore, possible to analyze potential population trends with greatersubtlety than hitherto. Nevertheless, because estimates based on the rising limbof a population curve, in which each successive phase may obscure an unknownamount of earlier settlement, frequently under recognize earlier occupations, thereis a danger that these phases will be presented with a degree of spurious accuracy.On the other hand this problem is less acute for falling curve estimates, which forthe Near East frequently occur after 2000 B.C. Therefore, although theoreticallyflawed, the presentation of aggregate site area per ceramic period should be con-tinued, for they provide the basic data against which the derivative curves can thenbe compared.

As an alternative to long-duration population proxy curves, spatial popula-tion (or settlement) density estimates can be made for selected periods, bearing inmind, however, the above caveats concerning the quality of the settlement record.One perhaps surprising outcome of estimating population per square kilometerfor various parts of the Near East is that, during the 3rd millennium B.C., partsof the rain-fed north appear to have been occupied at a greater density than theirrigated south. Thus based on population densities of 100200 persons per hectareof occupied site area for each defined survey region, population densities in north-ern Mesopotamia were in the range of 2960 persons per square kilometer (dataestimated from the Leilan area and North Jazira Projects) compared to 5.4 to18 persons per square kilometer in the irrigated south. The figures for northernMesopotamia may be biased, however, because of the concentration of populationin the north around growing urban centers such as Leilan (Stein and Wattenmaker,1990) or Tell al-Hawa (Wilkinson and Tucker, 1995). On the other hand, in southernMesopotamia large areas may have remained unsettled by sedentary inhabitantsin part because available water was insufficient to irrigate the entire plain (Adams,1981, pp. 6, 143). If such voids remained over large areas, this would have reducedpopulation estimates significantly. The densities for northern Mesopotamia are alsohigher than most estimates for the EBA II/III Levant (Falconer, 1994; Finkelsteinand Gophna, 1993), except for fertile plains with concentrated settlement suchas the Biqa Valley, Lebanon (Marfoe, 1979). Altogether the above estimates do


250 Wilkinson

suggest that, although northern city-states may not have achieved the urban scaleor degree of literacy of their southern counterparts, in terms of population densitythe Khabur plains and adjacent parts of northern Iraq were very heavily settled.Furthermore, the total population of this part of Upper Mesopotamia may haveequaled or even exceeded that of the irrigated south.

The processual enthusiasm for population pressure as a driving force behindsocial change appears to have abated in recent years, in part due to academic fash-ion, but also because of data supplied by regional projects conducted during thelast 20 years. Survey evidence clearly demonstrates that population densities werelow during the ceramic Neolithic and Halaf periods (Akkermans, 1993); it was