Download Domination and Resilience in Bronze Age Mesopotamia

SEVEN
Domination and Resilience in Bronze Age Mesopotamia
Thte Paalette
long occupied a prominent position in the public
imagination, recent eyen6-in particular, dre military occupation of kaq and
the large*cde loodng of museums a¡rd a¡chaeological sites-have d¡awn the
Iraqi present and the Mesopotamian past vividly into t}re spodighr Images of
legendary ancient cities, now suanded in arid waselands, and broken monu--.rr* .o kings of vanished civilizations resonate powerñrlly u¡ith modern
audiences, themselves increasingly uncertain about our collective future. For
a world in which environmental disaster and economic collapse loom on the
horizon, ancienr Mesopotamia can provide both cautionary tales and success
srories. Recurring hazards such as droughC flooding, and locust ettacks r¡¡ere
regularly planned foç counteracted, and endu¡ed in Mesopotamia; however,
Although Mesopotami4
has
several much-debated episodes ofpolftical a¡rd economic collapse testifr to the
precarious nature ofhuman-envi¡o¡rment dynanrics in the region.
This chapterprovidés an introduction to the range ofhazards-whether
stricdy environmentel or human-induced-rhat confronted r-he inhabitants of Bronze Age (ca.3000-1200 BC) Mesopotamia. Particular emphasis is placed on institutional organization a¡rd insticutional management as
key factors in determining the impact of these haza¡ds. The chapter begins
an introduction to Bronze Age Mesopotamia and to the rnost pertinent
archaeological and written sou¡ces; it then focuses more narrowly on úe evi-
with
uvMll\Al
7'1'
7.2.
:#:ü':f';';;:;:bv
the
orientatlnstinteMap
series'
dence for hazards a¡d hazard management before closingwith a look toward
the futurè.
BRONZE AGE MESOPOTAMIA
The ancient regio
and northeastern
and the Euphrare
lvl\
Al\u
ñE>rLrEr\!E
rr\ onvr!¿E
AvE
fv¡ErvrvrArvrr^
in rnodern Syrta, inigatedfulds in theforeground'. Photo
ofDura Europos, near Mari in the Midàle Euphrates region (see
The Euphrates Riuer
taken at tbe site
fgare 7.1).
Pboto by T¿te Paulette.
ing of sheep and goats is (and was) a major component of the economy and is
carefully factored into the daily and seasonal scheduling of agriculrural activides. The need for pasture requires that sheep and goats be taken out to graze on a
daily basis; when the herds become too large or when local pasture is scarce, they
are often taken out to more distant grazing areas for longer periods of time.
Falling immediately on the heels of the famous Urban Revolution,2 the
Bronze Age was a dme of demogaphic flux, economic transformation, and
intense politicai compedtion in -Mesopotamia. During several episodes of
political centralization, expansionist dynasties created regional-scale polities
encompassing portions
of both Northern and Southern Mesopotamia, but
these efforts towa¡d unification and integration ìilere rypically feeting. More
Throughout Mesopotamian history serdement has been concenrrared
within the rwo agriculrural zones-Southern and Norrhern Mesoporamiabut these zones are separated by a broad band ofarid steppe betrer suired to
exploitation by mobile pasroralists. Even within the cultivated zgne, the herdr68
commonly, Mesopotamia was divided into a patchwork of relatively autonomous ciry-states, whose territorial boundaries a¡rd relations with neighboring
polities were in constant motion. Chronologically, archaeologists disdnguish
among the Earþ Bronze Age, Middle Bronze Age, and Late Bronze Age. For
each geographical region (i.e., Northern and Southern Mesol>otamia), dris tripartite division is then broken down further into subleriods (figure 7.3).
Over the course of the Bronze Age, the inhabitants of Mesopotamia
found themselves increasingly at the mercy of a series ofpowerfirl urban insdtutions. Although communiry organizations, corPorate grouPs, and judicial
't69
Southern
Northern
Dates BC
(primary archaeolog¡cal
Mesopotam¡a
Mesopotam¡a
(approximate)
periods)
(region-spec¡fìc per¡ods)
(region-specif¡c per¡ods)
Early Iron Age
Second Dynasty
Mesopotam¡a
Neo-Assyrian Per¡od
1000
of Isln
Middle Assyrian
Period
Late Bronze Age
Kass¡te Per¡od
Middle Bronze Age
Babylonian
Mitanni Period
Kingdom of
Shamshi-Adad
Per¡od
Old Assyrian Period
2000
Ur
III
Period
Akkadian Period
Early Jezireh
Early Bronze Age
Period
(near
7.4. A typicat teIL or rnound, in the Upper Khabur region ofnortheastern Syria
Paulette.
b1
Tate
Photo
seefgure
7.1)
Tell
Leilan;
Brdþ
atzà
Tell
Early Dynast¡c
Period
tional control enrail a shift in economic planning, in risk-buffering strategies,
or in orher forms of hazard menagemenr on t'he household level? Did differJemdet Nasr
3000
Period
Late Chalcol¡thic
Period
J.j.
Uruk Period
Late Chalcolithic
Per¡od
Cbronological chart sbotuing the primary archaeological diuisions (Earþ, Mi¿¿le,
and Late Brbnze Age) and tbe conesponding, region+pecifu subdiaisions of the
Bronze Age in Mesopotarnia (i000-1200 BC); ako includes the preceding Late
Cbalcolithic period ¿nd the succeeding Earþ Iron Age.
bodies played an importanr role in ciry governance, rhe cenualized polirical
and religious organizations ("the palace" a¡d "the temple") emerged as major
economic powers, managing huge trects of land and able ro mobilize labor on
a massive scale. Many people were dependent on rhese insdrurions for rheir
livelihoods, and institutional demands for taxes, ribure, and labor became an
ever?resent fact oflife (e.g., Powell 1987).
It is often unclear, however, exacdy how institutionel interference impacted
the domesdc economy ofindividual households. Did rhe imposition ofinsdru-
170
enr sysrems of institudonal organization affect the localized impact of speci6c
types of hazard? Did some forms of instirutional conrrol invite disaster or
increase rhe chances of large-scale collepse, while others incorporated higher
degrees of fleibility and resilience? These remain oPen questions.
TYPES OF EVIDENCE
The archaeological explorarion of a¡cient Mesopotamia began in earnest during rhe later parr of the ninereenrh cenrur¡ and fieldwork has continued in Iraq
and Syria up to the presenr day, with some notable inrerruptions during dmes
of war and political unresr.3 The rypical archaeological site in Mesopotamia is
*mound"
in A¡abic (figure 7.4). Tell sites are the remains
the tell,which means
ofancienr towns and ciries, once consuucred on level ground but now rising
:?#ffi3:fli;*t,:"f
ill
small as halfof a hectare (1.2
they may rise only I m or as
(
and
acres),
1,483
acres) or as large as 600 hectares
much as 40 m above the surrounding landscape.
e as
17'l
Thousands of telk have been examined by archaeologists, tfuough excavetion and a range of noninvasive merhods. Excavations regularly uncover
the remains of houses, workshops, burials, temples, and palaces-all made of
sun-dried mud bricks and, less commonly, srone or oven-baked bricks. Many
differenr rypes of artifac$ are recovered, including porrery stone tools, metal
segments of society remain anonymous and without a voice in the written
objects, beads, figurines, seals, cuneiform rablers, human bones, animal bones,
and plant remains. The mosr important noninvasive merhod is archaeological
Hundreds ofthousands ofcuneiform documents have been uncovered from
archaeological sites in Mesopotamia, but dre Mesopotamian scribes did not
leave behind any detailed compilations of climate statistics or any manuals outlining strategies for coping with environmental sttess.4 To understand ancient
hazards and their impacts, modern schola¡s must piece together archaeological
evidence, scattered textual references, and paleoenvironmental data while also
making judicious use ofmodern climate records and mo¡e recent ethnographic
or historic accounts.
Magnus'W'idell, for example, has recendy drawn attêntion to the value of
a Medieval document known as rhe Cbronlcle of Michael tbe Syrian (Yzidell
2007). Compiled during the late twelfth century AD, this cwenry-one-volume
historical account providesiannual references to environmènal hazards and
their impacts in Northern Mesopotamia over a 600-year period.5 The most
common hazards were cold winters, locust infesations, and droughts; but the
fulI list also includes sno% storm winds, freezes, hail, floods, plagues, mildew,
rain, and attacks by rats and weevils. This Medieval chronicle cannot be taken
as an eccurete refecdon ofconditions during the Bronze Age, but it provides
the kind of long-term, synoptic view oo environmental hazards thac is lacking in úre a¡cient data. The pages that follow introduce a number of the most
common and most devastating hazards in Mesopotamia, reþing on a¡cient
sources where possible but also supplementing them with data Êom more
survey, which involves the systemaric examinarion and recording of remains
that a¡e visible on rhe surface (e.g., ardfacts, architecrure, and landscape fea-
tures; see, e.g., Vilkinson 2000a). Tiadirional survey is now supplemenred by
a host of remote-sensing rechniques rhat use innovative technologies-such
as magnetometry, ground-peneffering rada¡, a¡d satellire imagery-to obtain
neil-¡ierspectives on su¡face remains and ro probe beneath rhe surface in a nondestructive manner. The results in Mesoporamia have been spectacula¡, from
rhe detailed mapping of buried sreets a¡d buildings to rhe idendficarion of
extensive a¡cient road systems (Meyer 2007:IJr 2003).
Natural sciendsts and physical scientists also play an ecdve role in many
archaeological projects. For example, recenr.debares over dre evidence for
climate change and socieral collapse in Earþ Bronze Age Mesopotamia (discussed later in rhe chapter) have drawn together archaeologisrs, soil sciendsts,
climatologisa, bora¡ists, and volcanologists, among others (e.g., Dalfes, Kukla,
andveiss 1997;'weiss eteJ.l993).Jointprojects involvingspecialisrs in digiral
i-"gug, database manegemenr, and compurer modeling are also increasingly
conìmon (e.g., Vilkinson er al. 2007a,2007b).
It is the wrirren record, however, thar really sets Mesopotamia aparr as
e source of information about human-environment dynamics in the ancient
world. Cuneiform writing was invented in Mesopotamia near the end of dre
fourth millennium BC (Lare Chalcolithic period). By dre middle of the rhird
millennium BC, ir was being employed for a range ofpurposes, Êom administration and record keeping to royal inscriprions and literary works (e.g., Nissen,
Damerow, and Englund 1993; Posrgate 1992: ch. 3). ft was during the Early
Bronze Age, therefore, that writing uuly emerged as a major data sowce, mking
its place alongside archaeological evidence-the primary source of information about earlier, prehistoric periods.
Several caveec should be kept in mind with regard ro rhe wrirren
evidence. First, the preserverion of wrirren marerial in Mesopotamia is
extremely uneven, both chronologically and geographically. This sit ,ation is
partially a reflection of actual uends in the production ofwrirten documenrs
by Mesopotamian scribes, but it is also an effect of rhe accidenm of discovery. Second, mosr cuneiform tablers were produced by and for the palace
and temple institutions. They typically provide only a very parrial perspective, biased roward the needs and desires of rhe insdtutional powers. Many
172
record.
HAZARDS AND HAZARD MANAGEMENT IN MESOPOTAMIA
fecenf sources.
Drought
In arid zones, the threat of drought is a constent concern. This was especially the case in Northern Mesopotamia, where agriculrure was dependenc on
rainfall rather tha¡r on artificial irrigation (fig,rr. 7.5). Tony \Øilkinson calls
¡his northern region the "Zoneof Uncertainry," drawingattention to "the considerable risk that is inherent in cropping an area with such a wide intera¡nual
fluctuation in rainfall" (2000b: 3). Near the boundary of t'he zone defined as
adequate for rain-fed culdvation-where rainfall everages 250 mm per yearrhe percentage ofyears with no harvest is 36 percenc Vilkinson esdmates that
five to ten major droughts, each lasdng six years or longer, would have occurred
during dre rhousand-year span of the Early Bronze Age alone (tllZ,lS).
Tfuoughout history, water deficits have led to conditions of hunger, malnutrition, and, in the worst cases, starvetion. In Mesopotamia, surprisingly
173
/.J. A dust storm in the ntodern
site) in northeastern Syria.
uillage of Hamoukar (ako a large Earþ Bronze Age
photo was taken in 2010 àuring a reginn-uide
Tbe
drought that had alreaþ lasted rnore than three years. Photo by Amanda Scbupah.
litle
documenra-ry evidence directly links droughr
a few lecers dating
with famine, aside from
to the Old Babylonian period and a series of documenrs
Êom the very end of the Late Bronze Age (Neumann and Parpola 1987: 178;
I7'idell 2007:59). The archaeological identification of drought and irs impacts
has, however, recendy emerged as a major research focus, largely in response to
a series of provocative hypotheses proposed by Harvey $l'eiss and colleagues.
Their basic argumenr is rhat, during the later parr of rhe third millennium BC,
a sudden climatic shift toward more arid condirions led ro widespread collapse in Northern Mesopotamia a¡d across a much broader zone strerching
from Egypt to India (Veiss 2000; rùØeiss and Courry 1993; W'eiss et al.1993).
There is now general agreemenr that this drying trend did occur (e.g., Roberts
et al. 2011), but debate condnues over rhe suddenness of the climatic shift, rhe
causes ofthe aridification, and, most important, the impact on Mesopotamian
sociedes (e.g., Kuzucuoglu and Marro 2007).
\Øhatever the eventual verdict in rhis debare, ir is certain that drought
posed a significant and recurring threat to the people of Bronze Age Mesopotamia. fn many cases-especially when droughts were shorr-lived and infrequent-the negetive impacc of crop failure appear to have been successfully
avoided through a variety of buft'ering strategies (Halsread and O'Shea 1989;
'W'ilkinson
2000b):
174
region. Pboto by Thte Paulene.
l.
Storage ofagricultural surpluses (on
t-he
household and the institutional
levels)6
z. Increased mobility (e'g., moving flocks to better-watered areas)
3.
The
Mes
ism
n
Mesopota.mia)
4. Increased local and interregiond exchange (e.g., exchanging high-value
items such as metals and textiles for cereals and animals)
Salvaging failing crops (e.g., harvesting green crops early or allowing
she ep and goats to graze on them; frgore7 -6).
Severe Winters
Although the region was prone to drought and was beset by brutally hot
summers, severe winter wearher could also wreak havoc on crops a¡d on human
175
and animalpopulations in ancient Mesopotamia. The mountains to the nonü
and east of the region are more prone to cold weather, but even sout'hern Iraq
occasionally experiences low nighttime tempererures and crop-killing frosts
during the months of December,January, and February-right in dre middle
'Willcocks
of the growing seeson (Adams I98I: 12; Bricish Admiralty 1944;
IglI
69).
There a¡e numerous references in dre cuneiform record to cold weather
and its effects. Most commonl¡ low temperetures, snow and ice a¡e decried
for making transportetion routes difficult or impassable, thereby disrupting the
flow of tribute, messengers, and troops. Harsh w'inter weather is also blamed
for the deaths of animals a¡rd people, especially soldiers (Neumann and Parpola
'Widell
2007 55). Although direct evidence
1987: 181; van Driel 1992:46;
is absent in the cuneiform sources,'W'idell also draws attention to olive trees.
Like the ubiquitous date palms of Southern Mesopotamia, olive trees are valuable productive resources, representing a significant investment of time; their
death at the hands of a harsh winter could have produced long-term economic
consequences (\X/ideil 2007 : 55).
On a positive note, severe winters were regularly associated with higher
levels ofprecipitation and, drerefore, with normal or better-dran-normal crop
ha¡vests in Mesopotamia.J. Neumann and Simo Parpola have argued that this
correlation linking cold weather to rainfall and abundant harvests-and rhe
opposing correlacion linkingwarm weather co drought and famine-are visible
in the Mesopotamia¡r documenta¡y record. Using dris evidence, they argue that
a major climatic shifr towa¡d wârmer and drier conditions played a role in r-he
decline ofAssyria and Babylonia (i.e., Northern a¡rd Southern Mesopotamia)
at the end of the Late Bronze Age (Neumann and Parpola 1987).
Floods
Floods were a regular occunence
in Mesopotamia, and the danger of
destructive flooding was very real. Unlike the Nile, whos6 ¿¡¡1r'¡l flood arrived
at an ideal point within the agicultural cycle, 'the dming of the arrival of high
water in both dre Tigris and the Euphrates [was] poorly synchronized with
the needs of cultivators" (,Adams 1981:3). The Tigris typically reached its
highesr levels in April and the Euphrates in early May. On this schedule, even
minor floods, which may have occu¡red once errery three to four years, could
desroy mature crops in dre fields (Verhoeven 1998 202). More destructive
high-magnitude floods may have occurred two or three dmes per cenru.y, *iút
Tigris floods rypically more severe dran those of the Euphrates (ibid.r ZOa).
Floods could not be entirely prevented, but a number offlood-control
measures were employed. ln modern Iraq, overflow from the Tigris and the
Euphrates is directed into specially constructed storage reservoirs. During
176
it is likely that a series of natu¡al depressions-especially
the modern-day Habbaniyah and Abu Dibbis depressions near Fallujah and
Karbala-served a similar purpose. The Old Babylonian (i.e., Vtiddle Bronze
Age) king Samsuiluna may even have undertaken a massive project designed to
connect tlese rwo natural reservoirs to one another (Cole and Gasche 1998:
I l; Verhoeven 1998:201). 'When such reservoirs were not available, a meråod
known as controlled breacbing appeers to have been employed. For example,
a letrer written by the Old Babylonian king Hammurabi instrucrs an official
to open a series of canals to direct floodwaters into a marshy area (Cole and
Gasche 1998: ll). The physical remains of massive dikes, consuucted to protect seftlements Êom flooding, have also been excavated at a number of sites
(iuid., z-l).
Despite these protective measures, floods did reach fields and settlements,
sometimes ceusing great damage. Thick layers ofwa¡erlaid sediment excavated
at a number of sites tesdfir to the incursion of floodwaters, and written evidence from both Northern and Southern Mesopotamia refers to the inr¡ndation of fields, the destruction of bridges and canal works and the collapse of
houses and palace walls (ibid.; Gibson 1972:83-86).
the Bronze Age,
River Channel Shift
On the irrigated plains of Sourlern Mesopotamia, Bronze Age setdements were strung out along natural a¡rd a¡tificial watercourses like beeds on a
necklace. Sudden river channel shifu could have catastrophic results for associated sectlemenrc, leading, for example, to the drying up of irrigation canals and
the disruption of mansportation and communication networks. Most channel
shifts would have been rriggered by a process known as auulsion,when e v¡atercourse breaks ttrough the bank ofits levee and flows down the bank to creete a
new channel. Avulsions can be caused by natural fooding events, the weakening of levee banks úuough human interference (e.g., the cutting of irrigation
canals), or a combinarion of these facrors (V'ilkinson 20032 84).
There is clear evidence for a þoradic but continuing and cumulative
westward movement of dre Euphrares" over time (Adams 1981: 18; c[ Gibson
L973:454). This long-term process was the result of numerous distinct episodes of sudden channel shift. For example, t-he eascernmost channel of the
Euphrates, located to the north and east of the ancient ciry of Nþur (in
Southern Mesopotamia), appears to have been abandoned by dre river in favor
of a more westerþ branch during the later part of the UruI< period (Adams
1981:
6l; Gibson 1973: 450).
Sudden channel shifu can lead to the abandonment ofsetdemenc, to population dispersal, and, in arid zones like Southem Mesopotamia, to desertificadon (Gibson 1992: l2). For example, during the nineteenth and early twendeth
177
that, in recenr times, increasingly saline soils had forced the inhabitants ro
abandon rice and then wheat culdvation, leaving only rhe more salt-tolerant
barley. According ro villagers, between the years 1958 and 1966, the total area
ofculdvable land surroundingDaghara had been reduced by one-third (Fernea
I shifr just described played a crucial role
in Mesopotamia during the same period
:84).
Salinization
The alluvial soils of southern Mesopotamia are rich in salts carried down
from the mounrains by the Tgris and the Euphrates. These saks rend ro accumulare ar rhe warer table and can be broughr toward the surface either through
capillary acdon or through a rising of rhe water table. once a cerrain threshold of salt near the surface is reached, crop growdr becomes nearly impossible, and the land must be left unculdvared-somedmes for as lot g
fifry
",
or a hundred years (Adams l98Iz 4; Gibson 1974: I};Jacobsen ,¡rJ Ad"-,
1958: l25L). one of rhe mos! common causes of rhis sz linization process is the
excessive application ofirrigationwater. Complex drainage systems and fallowing regimes can help to both prevenr che onser of salinization and alleviate irs
efFects, but continued agricuhural success then becomes dependent on these
pracdces (Gibson 1974).
'May the god Adad, chief irrigation officer of Heaven and Earrh,
cause
wer-
Adams 1958: 1252), for example, have met with significant criticism (powell
1985).
The negative impacts of salinization can be devasrating. ln his ethnographic study of the town of Dagha¡a in sourhern lraq, Roberr Fernea reporrs
1970:22,38). There can be litde doubt thar salinization was also a persisrent
threat in Southern Mesopotamia during the Bronze Age. Several authors have
drawn artention ro rhe close connecrion berween salinization and the cyclical
rise and fall of centralized powers in Mesoporamia. During periods of political
cenralization, it is argued, che drive roward agicultural intensification led to
increased irrigation, rhe violation of fallowing regimes, and, eventuall¡ widespread salinization. The ultimare impact was a collapse ofsrare power and, consequend¡ e rerurn ro more decentralized polirical sructirres and more resilienr
agriculural pracdces (Adams 1978; Glbson 1974).
Soil Degradation
The effecrs of other rypes ofsoil degradation-for example, nurrient depledon, loss oforganic carbon, and soil erosion-in Bronze Age Mesopotamia are
not well understood. The issue has, however, emerged as a research focus within
the broader debare over lare rhird-millennium climate change and serdement
collapse in Norrhern Mesopotamia. In parricular, T. J. IØilkinson has argued
that the interlinked
process€s of population growth, sertlemenr nuclearion
(i.e., a focus on fewer, larger serdements), and agricultural intensification may
have encouraged a process ofsoil degradarion that left settlements vulnerable
ro even minor climatic variations (1997,76-86, 2000b: l6).
The best evidence supporring dris model derives not from direct indications of soil degradation but instead from apractice thar was inrended ro combat soil degradation: the application offertilizer. In a pioneering applicarion of
"oFsite" survey techniques (i.e., focusing on the areas berween settlements),
\Øilkinson has identified low-densicy artifacr scatters exrending out like a halo
around many Early Bronze Age sites in Norrhern Mesopotamia. Drawing on
ethnographic and historic parallels, he inrerprers these field scarrers es tÀe remnants of manuring, a common praccice in which household refuse is spread
across agricultural fields as fertilizer. The evidence suggesrs t'har manuring
was widely employed in Northern Mesopotamia but only during a relarively
resricted period of time-the mid- to lare rhird millennium BC. During this
period of urbanizarion a¡d population gromh, it appears thar fertilizer was
regularþ applied to fields in an arrempt to combat the declining ferdlity associated with agricultural intensification ('S7'ilkinson 1982, 1989, 1994: 491).
The eventual abandonment of many of these third-millennium setdements
suggests, however, that rhese arremprs may nor have been entirely successful
over the long term.
178
179
Pests
a crucial caveat. Resilience is a powerful concept, but
an analydcal focus on resilience at tlte qtstem leuel shotlJd not blind us to t.he
importance of acdons and consequences on tbe lturnan scale.
A number of conuibutors to the present volume have drawn upon t-he
conceptual repertoire of resilience theory. Originally developed to explain the
nature of stasis and change in ecosystems, resilience theory places particular
emphasis on the inevitabiliry of change and transfoimation. The basic unit of
aaalysis is typically the systern (e.g., the ecosystem or the social system), and
systems are nnderstood to develop along a trajectory known as rhe adaptiue
cycle (see, e.g., Redman 2005; Redman, Nelson, and Kinzig 2009).In discussions of ancient Mesopotamia, the term resilience appears with some frequenc¡
drough typically without arr explicit connecdon to resilience dreory. A brief
look at how this term is used by Mesopotamian specialists will help to draw out
two critical points regarding the dangers of an exclusive analytical focus on the
specialists-to inroduce
For farmers everywhere, insecrs, rodenrs, birds, and other vermin are not
only a perpetual nuisance; in many cases they represenr a serious threat to agriculural success and economic viabiliry. A whole range of such creaûues confronted the farmers of Bronze Age Mesoporamia,T bur the pest with úie most
potential for catastrophic damage was the locust. In modern Syria and Iraq,
swarms of locusts can spread our over an area 400 krn in diameter, devouring
as much as 70 percent of a year's cereal crop, as well as vegetables, uees, and
pastureland (British Admiralry 1944:464; \Øidell 2007:57). The periodiciry
and therefore the predictabiliry ofmodern locust outbreaks have been a marrer
of some debate. In the dara collected by Michael the Syrian (see earlier refer'S7'idell
ence), however,
sees no particular perrern; a calculated averege of 22.6
years between successive infesrarions actually conceals a much broader range
of
variation, with outbreaks separated by as few as 1 or as many as T4years (2007:
58).
Cuneiform documenrs provide a wealdr of detail about locust ourbreaks
resilience of social systems.
The first point is that a focus on systemic resilience may downplay the
role ofhuman agency. fn a now classic discussion of resilience in a¡cient Mesopotamia, Robert McC. Adams (1978) borrows his basic deÊnition ofresilience
from the ecological literature, but he makes the important aaalydcal move
roward what he calls strategies of resilience and stabiliry. For Adams, resilience
arrd stability in social systems are not only properties or behaviors that manifest themselves at the system level; they are also ded closely to the goals pursued
by the specific actors and social groups drat make up the system. Even though
individuals and groups may have litde control over the cumulative impact of
their practices and decisions, certain types ofstrategy are more likely to encour-
in Bronze Age Mesoporamia and about merhods for prevendng and combating them. For example, a series of letters writæn to rhe king of Mari (Old
Babylonian period, i.e., Middle Bronze Age) describes a regional governor's
fight against two back-ro-back years of locusr infesration. The locusts were
ravaging agriculrural fields, and many residenrs were fleeing to neighboring
regions. The methods employed against che locusrs included hitdng rhem,
uampling them with oxen and sheep, and filling canals with water ro serve
as barriers (Heimpel 2003: 420). References elsewhere indicate that locusrs
were also collected in jars and eaten (George 1999:291; 'Widell ZO0T,:61).
Preventative measures included a set of special-purpose rituals performed in
agricultural fields to prorecr them Êom Locust Tooth a¡d from dre so-called
Dogs of Ninkilim, a general term for field pesc. One ritual included offerings
to a range ofgods, a series ofprayers or incantarions, more offerings specifically
for the god Ninkillm, and rhe burning of locust figurines made our of wax. It
ended wirh rhis incantation: "O great dogs of Ninkilim, you have received your
fodder, nowgo away" (George 1999:295).
or srabiliry at the system level.
In Mesopotamia, for exa.mple, the cenralized institutions were built on
complex systems of redisribution that required the maintenance of steady,
predictable flows of agricultural goods into and out of cenralized storege
facilities. The institutional powers therefore tended to favor a maximizing
approach to agricultural production, with the ultimace goal of maintaining
srability in the supply of staple goods over the short cerm. Importandy, it
appears that these institudonal srategies of stability and maximization led
repeatedly to sysrem-level instability, resuldng in the well-known boom-andbust cycle that defines the broad contours of Mesopotamian political history
(Adams 1978:334). Although they are more difficult to idendfy in t-he available sources, some other segments ofsociery-Adams calls them "the protagonists of flexibility"-appear to have been more fuid and resilient over the long
term. ,A.dams points in particular to "the tribally organized, semi-nomadic
elements" whose mobiliry and diversified subsistence strategies allowed them
to survive throughout the rurbulent ups and downs of institutional history
age eirher resilience
RESILIENCE
^Ihe term resiliezr¿ is now in such widespre ad use thar it may be in danger oflosing some of its analydcal and explanarory power. The collaborarors who have
contributed to the current volume, however, are in gener4l agreement that dre
notion of resilience sdll holds grear porendal as a tool of cross-cultu¡al comparison and as a way of conceptuelizing human-environmenr dynamics over
the short and the long term. The followingparagraphs presenr a brief examination of the concept of resilience-as it is typically employed by Mesopotamian
(ibid.).
18o
Ib--
The second point regarding resilience is that an analysis focused on systemic resilience may inadvertendy overlook the existence and the effecm of
instirutionalized inequality and exploitation. Mesopotamian specialiscs are
often ambivalent in their assessments (positive versus negative) of úre role of
institudonal dependency in Mesopotamia, and this ambivalence is pardcularþ noticeable in discussions of resilience. Although Adamsb discussion of
the concept is regularly cited, t-he term resilience is often used in a looser, less
explicit sense råar actually merges rhe notions of stabiliry and resilience rather
than conuasting them, as Adams does. Many scholars tend to assume that the
Mesopotamian institudons, by virtue of their size and wealth, were inuinsically bemer equipped to weather environmental or economic crises than were
individual households (e.g., Postgate 1992: 299; Stein 2004: 77 ; Stone 2007:
224; Wexenholz 2002: 26). If vue, this assumption (often presented without
supporting evidence) would seem to contradict Adamst argument that the
maximizing strategies favored by the central institudons were unsustainable
and produced significant instabilicy.
Even if it is eventually shown that the insdtutions actually contributed to
system-level resilienc¡ rhis in itself says lirde about the effecrs of their pracdces on che people ofMesopotamia. In the highly stratified societies ofBronze
Age Mesopotamia, the impacts ofenvironmental hazards would not have been
equally distributed across the social and economic spectrum. Resilience at the
system or the institutional level might mask significant disruption and suffering for some segmenß of the population.
tNST|TUT|ONAL POWER, REStLt ENCE, AND COLLAPSE
Exactly how successful were efforts by the palaces and temples to prevent and
mitigate environmental hazards in Bronze Age Mesopotamia? To what extent
did institutional efForts to maximize and intensifrproduction increase the likelihood of systemic failure or the vulnerabiliry of specific segmen$ of society?
First, it is important to recall thac the insdtutional landscape was neither stacic
nor spatially homogeneous. The local balance of power berween palace and
temple was under continuel negodetion, and regional power blocs grew and
dissolved with relative freguency. At the same time, the forms and mechods of
institutional menagement were far Êom uniform; administrative reforms and
large-scale restructurings were regularþ instituted by newly ascendant regimes.
Generalizations about the scope, effects, a¡d effecdveness of institutional control in Mesopotamia are seldom possible.
The study ofcollapse has, however, generated a series ofvigorous debates
over the changing relationship berween institutional power and resilience in
Mesopotamia (e.g., Yoftèe 1988). The paragraphs that follow provide a brief
look at the three best-known episodes of collapse. The explanations offered for
182
these episodes range across the specffum, Êom environmental crisis to barbar-
ian invasion and economic or political meltdown (Richardson in prep; Yoffee
1988).
Late Third Millennium BC
The second half of rhe third millennium BC wirnessed the rise and fall
of two legendary political dynasdes. The Akkadia¡ and Ur III srates were the
Êrst successful attempts to unite the endrety of Southern Mesopotamia widrin
one cenralized polirical system, but neither lasted much more tha¡ a century.8
Explanations for the collapse of Akkadian a¡d, later, [Jr III hegemony have
pointed variously to external pressures (e.g., invading Gudans and Amorites),
organizational weaknesses (e.g., the bypassing of local power bases, hyper-centralization, and micro-malagemenc), and overextension (e.g., preoccupation
with military expansion and disregard for internal problems).
Others have credited environmental hazards with a primary causal role.
For example, ThorkldJacqbsen links the decline of the Ur III state to a longterm process ofprogressive salinization in Southern Mesopotamia (L982:55;
Powell 1985). The possibiliry of a sustained period of aridification during the
later third millennium (discussed earlier) has also generated significanr debare
in recent years. One contentious theory suggests that a climate-induced agricultural crisis in Northern Mesoporamia may have led indirecdy ro the collapse of che Akkadian state in Southern Mesopotamia ('Weiss et al. 1993:
1002).
The lare third-millennium collapse episodes bringup rwo importantpoinrs.
First, the suggested "environmental" causes were closely interrwined with instirutional manegement pracdces. Salinization is a naturally occurring process,
but it would have been accelerated by institutional efforts to intensifr irrigation
agriculrure in Southern Mesopotamia. The aridification scenario, on the odrer
hand, assumes and hinges on a degree of interregional integration that was only
achieved in Mesopocamia during a few periods of state expansion and exueme
cenralization. Second, a disdnction should be made berween political collapse
and the collapse of a settlement system. The breakdown of the Akkadian and
Ur III states as political entities may not have signiñcandy impacted tàe rou'Widespread
dnes of daily life for much of the population.
agriculrural failure
and setdement abandonment, hov¡ever, could indicate a more devastating and
potentially far-reaching historical ransformation.
End of the Old Babylonian Period
During the 1760s BC, Hammwabi of Babylon undertook a series of
conquests that gave him control over much of Southern Mesopotamia and
181
esnblished Babylon as the dominant power in d-re region. By earþ in the reign
of Hammu¡abi's successor, Samsuiluna, however, the unified Babylonian state
was dready beginning to fall apart. Samsuiluna gradually lost control over cities
in the sout'hern and then the cenral part of the alluvial plain. The dynasty ircelf
remaine d in power for another four generations, but the terricory controlled by
the state had shrunk to a core aree around Babylon itself.
Some theories ascribe t-he Old Babylonian collapse, et least in part, to
'narural" processes. Economic decline, for example, has been linked to a drop
in agriculrural productivicy, which might have resulted from either soil salinizarion or a series of major river channel shifts (Gasche 1989; Gibson 1980:
199; Stone 1977). More commonly, though, explanations for the collapse of
the Old Babylonian state have pointed to economic, administrative, and political problems, such as inflation, spiraling debt, adminisuative inflexibiliry, and
population. As debts and labor obligaeions mounred, many of these people
maaaged to escape from the system (e.g., Liverani 1987) and may even have
risen up in revolt.
Although environmental factors have played a relarively small part in the
broader debate about Late Bronze Age collapse, the breakdown of Kassire a¡d
Assyrian power in Mesopotamia has been linked to climare change. As men,
tioned earlier, Neuma¡n and Parpola argue rhat a shift roward warmer and drier
condidons around 1200 BC coincides wirh rextual evidence for "crop failure,
famine, outbreaks ofplague, and repeated nomad incursions." Ultimately, they
suggest that this climare change conributed strongly to "the political, militar¡
and economic decline of Assyria and Babylonia" (tltZl. rct).
pressure from external groups (Richardson in prep). This brings up an impor-
coNcLUStoN:tNSTTTUTTONAL(tZED) RESTLTENCE
IN THE PAST PRESENT AND FUTURE
tant point. The present chapter has emphasized the impact of environmental
hazards, perhaps downplaying the equally disruptive effect of other (often
interrelated) forces, such as social conflict, economic crisis, and political tension (Roberuon 2005).
End of the Late Bronze Age
During the period from approximately 1500 to 1200 BC (the Late Bronze
Age), Mesopotamia was linked inro an interregional interaction sphere of
unprecedented proportions. Southern Mesopotamia was ruled over by the
Kassite dynasry while Nonlern Mesopota.mia first played host to the Mitanni
empire and then to the emergingAssyrian empire. The rulers of these powerfirl
states exchanged lecers, gifts, and marriage partners wit'h one another a¡d with
the rest of the Great Powers-a group that included New Kingdom Egypt,
Hittite A¡atolia, Mycenaean Greece, and Elamite l¡an. Around 1200 BC
the system collapsed, ushering in a "Dark Age" characterized by widespread
socio-political upheaval. The eastern Mediterranean in particular witnessed
significant disruptions, including fiery desrucdons at many sites and the disappearance of the powerful Hittite state. In Mesopotamia the long-lived Kassite
dynasry came to an end, and Assyrian power waned. In both Northern and
Southern Mesopotamia, cities went into decline, and many people appear to
have adopted a more mobile lifesryle (Van De Mieroop 2004: I79).
Explanations for the synchronized breakdown and collapse of states
across such a broad region have been varied and numerous. External invaders, for example, have featured prominendy. Most famously, a number ofdocuments describe the movemen* of marauding "Sea People" around the coasts
of the eastern Mediterranean. It has also been suggested that the elite-centered
regional system was builc on the increasingly harsh exploitation of much of
184
t-he
To draw the chapter to a close, it is worth reflecting briefly on rhe lessons
that can be learned frorr¡ a study of environmental hazards in Bronze Age
Mesopotamia. M*y of the hazards faced during the Bronze Age sdll confront the region's inhabitants today. They are joined by a host ofnew haza¡ds,
including the reduction and pollution of water supplies (as a result of extensive
dam construction), the disappearance of úre marshes in southern Iraq, polludon related to oil extraction and production (6gure 7.7), anà unsustainable
levels of population increase (McGuire Gibson personal communicarion). It
is possible drat a¡ examination of ancienr forms of hazard management and
mitigation could resurrect some forgotten techniques thar could be direcdy
applied in the modern world.e There is also, however, another less obvious but
equally valuable way in which knowledge of ancient MesoporaÍria can inform
the present world. The study of the past is as much about learning ro ask rhe
right questions as ic is about uncovering exciring new discoveries. As we learn
to ask the right quesdons about ancient Mesopotamia, we can achieve a better
understanding of the porendal impacr of the decisions rhar a¡e made and the
policies that a¡e adopted in our own increasingly global sociery.
The tide of this chapter draws atrendon to the interrwined themes ofdomination and resilience, both crucial to an understanding ofhaza¡ds and h¿zard
management in Bronze Age Mesopotamia. Our knowledge ofhuman-environment dynamics in Mesopotamia is sdl far from complete, but we are increasingly learning to ask the right questions. These questions cenrer on dre complex
interseccion between resilience and the instirutionalized forms of domination
that emerged in Mesopotamia-for the first time in world history-during the
fou¡th and third millennia BC. I would like ro draw particular arrenrion ro
two issues that bear direcdy on our efforts to creare a more resilient, sustainable
furu¡e for the present world.
185
responses to environmenal crises and therefore to evaluate the effecdveness
of
wide diversity of institutional forms over both the short and the long term.
The second issue is inequality-in particular, the unequal disribudon of
-We
have seen thât evidence for resilience at the level of the
risks and benefirc.
society or the system might mask the existence of deeply entrenched inequality and exploitation. fusk and the negative impacts of environmental hazards
may be unequally distribured among the people and groups within a societ¡
even when that society is, at a higher level ofabstraction, resilient to repeated
a
environmental crises.
The states of Bronze Age Mesopotamia were built on high levels of institutionalized inequalit¡ but we sdll know relatively little about the distribudon of
risk within these sociedes. It is commonly asserted rhat the palace and temple
as a social safety net; the evidence for this function, howeve¡
is relatively restricted, consistinglargely ofreferences co the support oforphans
and widows (Postgate 19922 I35; 'ùØestenholz 1999: 6I). Ve know a lot about
the conditions of institutional dependency in Mesopotamia (including, for
example, tenancy, sharecropping, and debt slavery), but, to my knowledge, we
do not know l-row dependents were treated in times of scarcity or crisis.
In a now-classic study of tenancy and taxation in Southeast Asia, however,
James C. Scow has shown that this is precisely where our analyses should be
focused (Scott 1976). From the perspecdve ofpeasants living near the edge of
subsistence-especially those owing taxes or rent to the state or to a landlordwhat marters most is what happens in lean years, when food is in short supply.
In such circulnstances, how were dependents treated? 'Were they guaranteed
a minimum level of subsistence, even in a year of abnormally low harvests or
during a time of environmental crisis ? The detailed archaeological and written
evidence available from Bronze Age Mesopotamia is well suited to an exploration ofthese questions concerning the effects ofinequalit¡ and these are questions that need to be investigated as a crucial counterpart to analyses focusing
on resiliency, stabilit¡ and collapse at the system level.
In our or¡'n world, the issue of inequality is no less urgent. Although many
environmental hazards are no\il of global concern, the impacts of these hazards and of related policy decisions are seldom experienced worldwide in a
uniform fashion. As we work toward a more sustainable future for our planet
in the context ofan increasingly interconnected, globalized economy, v¡e need
to ensure that some people (or countries) do not benefit at the expense of others. In the same vein, there is a danger in treating resilience and sustainability
at the systern leuel as goals in themselves. W-hat if scientific study demonstrates
that the most resilient type of society is one built on extreme inequality and
exploiration, one in which the system is resilient only ar rhe cost of great suf-
institutions served
nortloeasterzt Sjtria. Tbe Tur Abdin
Mountains of Turkey are aisible in the distance, and to tbe right a gasf,are burns
waste materialforn an oil well. Pboto b1 Ananda Schupak.
7.7. Cerealfelds near the uillage of Hamoukar in
of
First, it is crucial that we pay careful ettention to the effects and the effectiveness of different institutional forms. Over the course of the Bronze Age,
Mesopotamia witnessed the rise and fall of a number of distinct systems of
centralized political and economic organization. [n some cases (e.g., the Ur III
state), cenrralized control was dght and regional economic integration carefully orchestrated; in others (e.g., the Old Babylonian period), private entrepreneurs and agents played e stronger role, and the institutions managed the
economy less closely. Throughout the Bronze Age the institutional powers
regularþ made efForts to prevent and combat environmental hazards, but in
many cases their practices also contributed to the creation or exacerbation of
hazards (e.g., soil salinization and channel shift).
ln the modern world, when natural disasters suike, the inadequacy of
institutional (i.e., state-organized) responses is often painfully obvious. One
need only recall, for example, controversies over the US government! response
to Hurricane Katrina in 2005 or to the oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010.
There is a pressing need to Êne-tune our orvn institutional structures, developing ways to increase their flexibility and the speed of their responses. In these
efforts to improve the functioning of our institutions, the archaeological and
historical records provide an invaluable, but largely untapped, resource. They
offer the chance to examine coundess examples of successful and unsuccessful
r86
fering for large portions of the population? \Øould this be a system worth sustaining? Of course not. The goal is not simply resilience or sustainabiliry but
187
rather resilience and sustainabiliry coupled with equaliry jusrice, and other
1978
Strategies
sopb
Acknouledgments.Iwouldlike ro thank Payson Sheets,Jago Cooper, Ben
Fitzhugh, Andrew Dugmore, McGuire Gibson, Tony'S7'ilkinson, Magnus
'widell,
and Karhryn Grossman for reading drafts of this chapter and providing
helpful commenrs and criticism. I also rhank members ofthe MASS project for
many sdmulating discussions on the ropics discussed here. The M,A.sS project
funding from the National Science Foundation (Grant
no.0216548). My own work has also been funded by a Research Fellowship
from rhe American Academic Research Insdrure in Iraq (TA,{RIÐ.
has been supported by
l98l
ical Society L22(5) | 329 -335.
Heartland ofCities: Surueys ofáncient Settlernent andLand Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. Universiry of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Akkermans, Peter M.M.G., and Glenn M. Schwartz
Tbe Arcbaeologl of Syria: From Cornplex Hunter-Gatherers to
2003
Societies (ca. 16,000-300
BC). Cambridge Universitv
E¿rþ Urban
Press, Cambridge.
British Admiralty
1944 Iraq and the Persian Gulf.B.R. 524 (Restricted). Geographical Handbook
Series. Naval lntelligence Division, Oxford.
Childe, V. Gordon
1950 The Urban Revolution. Town Planning Reuiew
2l:3-17.
Civil, Miguel
NOTES
l. For an introduction to Mesopotamian history and archae olog¡ see, e.g., pollock
1999; Postgate 1992;Roef 1990; Va¡r De Mieroop 2004. For the archaeology of Syria,
Akkermans and Schwartz 2003.
2. The term urban Reuolutiaz was coined by v. Gordon childe ( r 950) to describe
d-re multifaceted process of urbanization a¡d stare formation initiated in Mesopotamia
during the later part of che fourth millennium BC.
3. since the be ginning of the GulfrùØar in 1990, there has been a hiatus in fieldwork
by foreign archaeological teams in Iraq, but some reans are beginning to resume work.
4.There is, however, the Farmer's Instructions (Civil1994), a Sumerian texr from
the third millennium BC that provides a wealth of detail about agricultural practices
and the annual agricultural cycle.
5. The chronicle does not accually cover the entire 600-year span (AD 600-1196)
with rhe same level of comprehensiveness and eccuracy. In fact, \Øidell (zoo7t 50-52)
argues rhat the reliabiliry of the account can only be
for 276 years within this
"rro*.d
period.
6. See, e.g., Pfälzner 2002 enà my forrhcoming PhD dissertation (Universiry of
see
Chicago,20l2).
1994
Tbe Farmeri Instruciions: A Samerian Agricultural Manøal. Aula Orientalis-Supplementa 5. Editorial A.USA, Sabadell, Spain.
Cole, Steven'W., and Hermann Gasche
1998
BC Rivers in Northern Babylonia. In
Changing Watercourses in Babylonia: Towards a Reconstruction of tbe
Ancient Enøironrnent in Lower Mesopotamia, eò. Hermann Gasche and
Michel Tanret. Mesopotamian History and Environment, Series II, Memoirs V vol. l. Oriental lnstitute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, arrd
Second- and First Millennium
University of Ghent, Ghent, pp.
l-64.
Dalfes, H. Nüzhet, George Kukla, and Harvey'Weiss, eds.
1997
Third Millenniurn BC Climate Cbange and Old World Collapse. Springer,
Berlin.
Fernea, Robert
1970
A.
Efendi: Changing Paxerns ofAutbority among the El Shabana
of ,Southern lra4. Harvard Middle Eastern Studies 14. Harvard University
Press, Cambridge, MA.
Sbaykh and
Gasche, Hermann
7. The list of pests known from ancient Mesopotamia includes locusts,
þor.y
bugs," weevils, carerpillars, 'eater'-pests, grubs, 6eld mice, and granery mice, among
others (George 1999 : 29 I, 297 -298).
8. The pe ak of the
Akkadian state's power lasted from approxi netely 2340
ø
2200
BC and thar of rhe Ur III state from 2ll2toZOO4BC.
9. For example, in the Lake Titicaca region of Bolivia, there have been efforts to
reintroduce the raised-field farming syscem emploved in the region during tåe firsr mil-
lennium AD (Kolata
of Maximization, Stabilit¡ and Resilience in Mesopotamian
Society, Settlement, and Agriculture. Proceedings of the American Philo-
basic human righrs.
L989
La Bab/onie au 17
siècle aaant notre ère: Approche arcbéologique, prob-
l¿rnes et PersPectiues.Mesopotamian
Flistory and Environment, Series II,
Memoirs I. Universiry of Ghent, Ghent.
George, Andrew R.
1999
l99l).
The Dogs of Ninkilim: Magic against Field Pests in Ancient Mesopotannia.In Landwirtschaf im Aben Orient eð. Horst Klengel andJohannes
Renger. Berliner Beitrãge zum Vorderen Orient 18. Dietrich Reimer Verlag, Berlin, pp. 29I-299.
Gibson, McGuire
REFERENCES
Adams, Robert McC.
1965
r88
Land behind Baghdad.ll¡íversity of Chicago press, Chicago.
1972
1973
Tbe City
and'4rea of Kish.FieId,Research Reports, Coconut Grove, Miami.
Population Shift and the Rise of Mesopotamia¡r Civilizatiot In The
Explanation of Cuhure Change: Modek in Prebktory, ed. Colin Renfrew.
Duckworth, London, pp. 447 -463.
189
1974
1980
Violation of Fallow and Engineered Disaster in Mesopotamie¡ Civilization. ln Inigation's Impact on Society, ed. Theodore E. Downing and
McGuire Gibson. Universiry of Arizona Press, Tücson, pp. 7-19.
Cur¡ent Research at Nippur: Ecological, Anrhropologicd and Documen,
tary lnterplay. ln Llarchéologie de I'Iraq du début de lZpoque néolithique
à ii3 auant notre ère, ed. Marie-Thérèse Barrelet. Editions du Cenue
narional de Ia recherche scientifique, Paris, pp. 193-206.
t992
The Origin arrd Development ofsumerian Civilization and Its Relation ro
Environment. In Nature and Hurnanþ.ind in tbe Age ofEnøironrnental Crisz¡ ed. Ito Shunraro and Yasuda Yoshino¡i. International Research Cenrer
forJapanese Studies, Kyoto,Japan, pp. 1-27.
Halstead, Paul, andJohn O'Shea
1989
lntroducdon: Culrural Responses to Risk and (lncertainry.ln Bad year
Economics: Cultural Responses to Risþ and (Jncertainty, ed. paul Halstead
andJohn O'Shea. Cambridge Universiry Press, Cambridge, pp.
Heimpel, \Øolfgang
2003 Letters to the King ofMaz. Eisenbrauns, \Øinona Lake, IN.
Jacobsen,
l-7.
Pfálzner, Pete¡
2002
t25t_7258.
Kolata, AIan L.
in
the
Kuzucuoglu, Catherine, and Cathe¡ine Marro, eds.
2007 Sociétés humaines et changernent clinatique à laf.n du troisièrne millénaire:
une crise a-t-elle eu lieu en haute Mésopotamie? Actes da colloque de
þon,
5-8 décembre 2005. Varia Anatolica 19. Institut Français d'Eudes Anatoliennes-Georges Dumezil. DE BOCCARD Édition-Diffusion, paris.
Liverani, Mario
The collapse of the Near Eastern Regional System at the End ofthe Bronze
Age: The Case of Syria. ln Centre and Peripbery in tbe Ancient World, ed.
Michael Rowlands, Mogens Larsen, and Kristia¡ K¡istiansen. Cambridge
University Press, Cambridge, p p. 66-7 3.
,A.ugusta McMahon, Joan Oates, and Julian Reade.
NABU Publications,
London, pp. 259-286.
Pollock, Susan
1999
,4ncient Mesopotarnia: The Eden Tbat Neuer Vf/as. Cambridge University
Press,
Postgate,J.
Cambridge.
N.
Earþ Mesopotamia: Society and Economlt at the Daun of History. Rou:"-
1985
Town Planning in 3rd Millennium Têll chuera. rn Pouer ¿nd Architecture: Monurnental Public Architecture in tlte Bronze Age Near East and
Aegean, ed.Joachim Bretschneide¡Jan Driessen, and Karel van Lerberghe.
A Critique of the Theory
'4ssyriologie
und [/orderasiatische
-38.
Powell, Marvin ,{., ed.
1987
Labor in tbe Ancient Near East. American Oriental Series 68. American
Oriental Societ¡ New Haven, CT.
Redman, Charles L.
2005
Resilience Theory
in Archaeology. Arnerican Anthropologist 107(l):70-
77.
Redman, Charles L., Margaret C. Nelson, a¡rd Ann
2009
P.
Kinzig
The Resilience ofSocioecological Landscapes: Lessons from the Hohok¿m.
ofEnøironrnental Cbange: Socionatur¿l Legacies ofDeg'4rcbaeologt
r¿d¿tion and Resilience, ed. Chriscopher T. Fisher, J. Brett Hill, and Gary
M. Feinman. Universiry of Arizona Press, Tucson, pp. 15-39.
7n The
Richardson, Seth
In
prep
On Babylon and Collapse.
Roaf, Michael
1990
Cuhur¿l Atlas of Mesopotaznia ¿nd the Ancient Near East. Facts on File,
NewYork.
Roberts, Neil,'W'arren J. Eastwood, Catåerine Kuzucuoglu, Girolamo Fiorentino, and
Valentina Caracuta
2011
Orientalia Lovaniensia A¡alecta 156. Uitgeverij Peerers en Departement
Oosterse Studies, Leuven, Belgium, pp. 129-142.
Neumann,J., and Simo Parpola
1987 climatic change and dre Eleventjr-Tenth-century Eclipse of Assyria and
Babylonia.Journal of Near Eastem Studies 46(Z)t rct-nZ.
Salt, Seed, and Yields in Sumerian Agriculture:
of Progressive Salinization. Zeitscbrif f)r
,4rchàologie 75:7
Meyer,Ja¡r-W'aalke
2007
Modes of Storage and the Development ofEconomic Systems in the Earþ
Jezireh-Period.ln Of Pox and Plans: Papers on tbe Arcbaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria Presented to Dauid Oates in Honoar of His
75th Birtbday, ed. Lamia Al-Gailani W'err, John Curtis, Harriet Martin,
Powell, Marvin A.
Salinity and Inigation Agricuhure in Antiquitlt. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica14. Undena Publications, Malibu, CA.
Jacobsen, Thorkild, a¡d Robert McC. Adams
1958 SaIt a¡rd Silt in Ancient Mesopotamian Agriculture. science rz8(3334):
1987
BookþeePing: Writing and Techniques of Economic Adrninistration
in tbe Ancient Near East.University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
Iedge, London.
1982
The Technology and Organization of Agricultural Production
Tiwanaku Søte. Latin Arnerican,4ntiquity 2(Z): 99-125.
1993 , rchaic
1992
Thorkld
1991
Nissen, HansJ., Perer Damerow, and Robert K. Englund
Climatic, Vegetation and Cultural Change in the Eastern Mediterranean
during the Mid-Holocene Environmental Tiansition. The Holocene 27:
r47-t62.
Robertson,John
2005
F.
Social Tènsions in the Ancient Near East.
lt A Cornpanion
to tl¡e Ancient
Near East, ed. Daniel C. Snell. Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 196-210.
191
Scott,James C.
1976
Stein,
ture, Ideology, Tiaditions, ed. Mario Liverani. History of
che Ancient Near
pp. 13 f-l 55.
'W'ilma'Wetterstrom,
'lü'eiss, Harvey, Marie-Agnès
Fra¡cois Guicha¡d, Louise
Courty,
Senior, Richard H. Meadow, and A. Curnow
1993 The Genesis and Collapse of Third Millennium North Mesopotamian
Moral Economlt of tbe Peasant: Rebellion and Subsistence in Sorúbeast
Universiry press, New Haven, CT.
'Tsia.YaIe
Zhe
East / Studies V. Sargon, Padova,
Gil
2004
Structural Pa¡ameters and Sociocurtural Factors in the Economic organization of North Mesopotamian urbanism in the Third Millennium B.c.
rn Archaeological Perspectiues on poriticar Economies, ed. Gary M. Feinman and Linda M. Nichoras. universiry of utah press, salt Lake cit¡
pp.
Civilization.
1999
Economic crisis and social upheaval in old Babylonian Nippur. In
owlands: Essays in
. Levine and T. C
Publications, Malibu, CA, pp. 267 -299.
The Mesopotamian urba¡r Experience. rn settrement and society: Essays
Dedicated to Robert Mccormicþ Adans, ed. Erizabeth c. Stone. Ideas,
Debates, and Perspectives 3. cotsen Instituce ofArchaeology and the
ental Instirute of the University of Chicago, Chicago, pp. liZ_ZZ+.
gen,pp.17-117.
2002
satellite Phorography and Ancient Road Networks: A
ern Mesopotamian Case Sudy. Antiquity 77: 102_115.
pp.23-42.
ori-
2007
North-
\Tilkinson, TorryJ.
1982 The Definition of Ancient Manured Zones by Means of Extensive SherdSampling Tèch nigues. Joumal of Field Arch aeo logy 9 (3) : 323-333.
1989 Extensive Sherd Scatters and Land-Use lntensiry: Some Recent Results.
A History of tbe Ancient Near East ca. 3000-323 Bc.Blackweil, oxford.
van Driel, G.
1992
rØeacher: Berween the Natural and the [Jnnarural
Journal ofField Arcbaeology l6(I)t 3l-46.
The Suucture and Dynamics of Dry-Farming States in Upper Mesopotamie. Current Antbropology 35(5): 483-520.
1997 Environmental Flucnrations, Agriculcural Production and Collapse: A
View from Bronze Age Upper Mesopotamia. I¡ nir¿ Millenniurn BC
Climate Cbange and Old World Collapse, ed. H. Nüzhet Dalfes, George
Kukla, and Harvey \Øeiss. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 67-106.
2000a Regional Approaches to Mesopotamian Archaeology: The Contribution
of Archaeological Surveys.rlozr mal ofArcbaeo logical Raearcb 8: 219 -267.
2000b Setdement and Land Use in the Zone of Uncertainty in Upper Mesopotanie.ln Rainfall and
in Northern Mesopotamia, ed. Remko M.
'4.griculnre
Jas. MOS Studies 3. Publications de I'lnsticut historique-archéologique
néerlandais de Stamboul 88. Nederlands Historisch-,4.rcheologisch Instituut, Ista¡rbul, Türke¡ pp. 3-35.
2003 Arcbaeological Landscapes of the Near East. University of Arizona P¡ess,
1994
in First Millennium
cuneiform Inscrþrions. rn Nataral phenornena: rbeir Meaning, Depiction and Des*iption in the Ancient Near Eas¿, ed. Diederik
l.lø Nr.U*.
North-Holland, Amsterdam, pp . 39 _52.
Verhoeven, K¡is
1998
Geomorphological Rcsearch in the Mesopotamia¡ Flood p lain.rn cbang-
ing watercoarses in Babylonia: Touards a Reconstruction of tbe Ancient
Enaironment in Lower Mesopotanzia, ed. Flermann Gas.he and Michel
Tanret. Mesopotamian History and Environment, Series II, Memoirs V,
vol. l. oriental Institure of the university of chicago, chicago, and university ofGhent, Ghent, pp. lS9-245.
Y¡eiss, Harvey
2000
Beyond the Younger Dryas: collapse as ,{daptation to Abrupt climate
change in Ancient 's?'est -A.sia and rhe Eastern Mediterranean . rn Enøironrnental Disaster and the Arcbaeology of Human Response, ed. Garch
Tücson.
'S7'ilkinson,
Bawden and Richard Martin Reycraft. Anthropologicaì p-apers 7. Maxwell
Museum of Anthropology, University of New Mexico, Alboqo.rqo.,
pp.
TonyJ.,John H. Christiansen,Jason A. U¡ Magnus lVidell, and Mark
Altaweel
2007a
75_95.
\Øeiss,
Historical Evidence for Climate Instabiliry and Environmental Catastrophes in Northern.Syria and theJazira: The Chronicle of Michael the Syrí¿n. Enøironment and History 13 47-70.
Van De Mieroop, Marc
2004
The Sumerian Ciry-State. ln A Comparatiue Study of Six City-State Cultures, ed. Mogens Herman FIansen. C. A. Reitzels Forlag, Copenhagen,
!7idell, Magnus
U¡Jason
2003 coRoNA
The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture. In Mesopotamien:
Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zezr, ed. W'alther Sallaberger and Aage 'W'estenholz. Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/3. Universitäcsverlag Freiburg
Schweiz a¡d Va¡rdenhoeck & Ruprecht Göttingen, Freiburg a¡rd Göttin-
Stone, Elizabedr C.
2007
261 995-1004.
W'estenholz, Aage
61-78.
1977
Science
L"l¡
Urba¡ization within a Dynamic Environment: Modeling Bronze Age
Communities in Upper Mesopotamia. Amnican Antbropologist 109(l):
Harve¡ and Marie-Agnès Courry
The Genesis and collapse of the Akkadian Empire: The Accidental
Refraction of Hiscorical Law. In Aþþad: rhe First world Empire. struc-
1993
52-68.
192
193
,l-
Chrisriansen, Magnus'$7'idell, David
r
Voods,John Sanders, Kathy-Lee
ie Hritz,Jacob Lauinger, Tâte paulerte,
2007b
'\ù7'illcocks,
l9ll
Yoffee,
Modeling Setdement systems in a Dynamic Environmenr: case Studies
Êom Me
of Socionataral Sys_
tems, ed.
Leeuw. School for
Adva¡ced Research Press, Santa Fe, NM,pp. 175_20g.
Sir \Ø.
Ibe Inigation ofMesopotamia. E. and
F.
N. Spoon, Limited, London.
Norman
1988
The collapse of Ancienr Mesopotamiaa states and civ,Tizatio¡.r¡ rhe
zs, ed. Norman yoffee and George
Tücson,pp.4-68.
UNDERSTANDTNG HAZARDS, MITIGAT|NG tMPACTS, AVOtDtNG DISASTERS
Statement for Pol¡cy Makers and the Disaster Management Community
This chapter uses archaeological and rvritten evidence to document the
broad range of environmental haza¡ds t}rar confronted the inhabirants of
Bronze Age Mesopotamia. Some of ¡hese hazards (e.g., droughts and locust
attacks) could be expected to recur on a regular basis bur could not be reliablypredicted. Some (e.g., floods and river cha¡nel shifts) were more erretic,
appearing suddenly and without warning. Others (e.g, salinization and soil
degradation) took place gradually over much longer dmescales. The impacrs
of these hazards varied widel¡ from short-term fluctuations in the food supply to declining soil fertiliry setdement abandonment, and even large-scale
political collapse.
Two key points-with-direct relevancé co the modern world-emerge
from this study of Bronze Age Mesopotamia. First, it is viral drar we pay
ca¡eful affention to the effects and the effecdveness of differenr forms of
inscitutional organization In Mesoporamia, individual households and local
commr¡nities used a variery of risk-buffering strategies to prorecr dremselves
from environmental hazards, but these households and communiries were
also tied into complex systems of institutional management. In some cases
tle centralized palace and temple insdtutions may have provided a degree
of stabiliry insulating dependents from the worst effeccs of environmental
hazards; in other cases, however, insdtutional practices appear to have triggered the onset ofhazards or exacerbated their impacts. Second, the studyof
'resilience" must be combinedwith an analysis of the effecrs ofinequaliry. In
highly sratified societies, such as those of Bronze Age Mesopotamia, risks
are seldom distributed evenly across the population. The impacts of environmental hazards will often be felt more deeply by some people than by
others, and resilience may-but should nor-come ar rhe cosr of inequality,
exploitation, and suffering.
194
195