The Birth of Civilization in the Near East

by Henri Frankfort

[ PREFACE] v [ LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS] xi [I. THE STUDY OF ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS] 1 [II. THE PREHISTORY OF THE ANCIENT NEAR EAST] 25 [III. THE CITIES OF MESOPOTAMIA] 49 [IV. EGYPT, THE KINGDOM OF THE TWO LANDS] 90 [ APPENDIX. The Influence of Mesopotamia on Egypt Towards the End of the Fourth Millennium B.C.] 121 [ CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE] 138 [ INDEX] 139

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS
Following [page 64]

[1A.] Bone sickle haft with end carved in form of animal’s (goat’s) head, and groove for inserting flints, 38 cm. long, from Mugharet el-Kebarah, Natufian (Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, LXII [1932], Plate XXVII, 1) [1B.] Upper part of bone sickle haft with carving of a young deer, about 11 cm. long, from Mugharet el-Wad, Lower Natufian (D. A. E. Garrod and D. M. A. Bate, The Stone Age of Mount Carmel, Vol. I [Oxford, 1937], Plate XIII, 3) [1C.] Upper part of bone sickle haft with end carved in form of human figure and groove, 12.8 cm. long, from Sialk in Persia (R. Ghirshman, Fouilles de Sialk, Vol. I [Paris, 1938], Plate LIV, 1) [1D.] Sickle of wood with cutting edge of flints, 51.5 cm. long, from the Fayum (G. Caton-Thompson and E. W. Gardner, The Desert Fayum [London, 1934], Plate XXX) [1E.] Wooden sickle of the First Dynasty with cutting edge of flints, 45 cm. long, from Saqqara (Walter B. Emery, The Tomb of Hemaka [Cairo, 1938], Plate XV, D) [2.] Camp site at Hassuna (Journal of Near Eastern Studies, IV [1945], Fig. 27) [3.] Papyrus swamp on the Upper Nile (Courtesy of Natural History Museum, New York) [4.] Chart of the sequence of predynastic and protodynastic remains, by Dr. Helene J. Kantor, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago [5.] Sculptured trough in the British Museum (W. Andrae, Das Gotteshaus and die Urformen des Bauens im alten Orient [Berlin, 1930], Plate II) [6.] Marsh Arabs in Southern Iraq (Photo Underwood) [7.] Clay objects of the Al Ubaid period, from Tell Uqair, in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad (Journal of Near Eastern Studies, II [1943], Plate XVI) [8.] The “White Temple” on its ziggurat at Erech (Achter vorläufiger Bericht, Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1937, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Plate 40b) [9.] Semi-engaged columns covered with cone mosaic (Dritter vorläufiger Bericht, Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, 1932, Phil.-Hist. Klasse, Plate I) [10.] Colonnade on platform at Erech (ibid., Plate 8) [11.] The Ishtar ziggurat at Erech in Assyrian times (W. Andrae, in Otto, Handbuch der Archaeologie, Plate 144) [12.] Cult relief, from Assur (W. Andrae, Kultrelief aus dem Brunnen des Assurtempels zu Assur [1931], Plate I) [13.] The development of Mesopotamian writing (J. H. Breasted, Ancient Times, 2nd ed. [Boston, 1935], Fig. 86) [14.] Impression of a cylinder seal of the Protoliterate period showing bulls and ears of barley (Frankfort, Cylinder Seals [London, 1939], Plate Vb) [15.] Impression of a cylinder seal of the Protoliterate period showing offerings of fruit, vases, etc., being made to the mother-goddess (ibid., Plate Vc) [16.] Impression of a cylinder seal of the Protoliterate period showing frieze of monsters (ibid., Plate Vh) [17-18.] Front and back of the stone figure of a ram in the Babylonian Collection, Yale University (Courtesy of Yale University Art Gallery), length 21.8 cm., height 15.8 cm. [19.] Early Dynastic temple at Khafajah (P. Delougaz, The Temple Oval at Khafajah [Chicago, 1940], Frontispiece) [20.] Copper model of primitive chariot, from Tell Agrab (Courtesy, Oriental Institute, University of Chicago), height 7.2 cm. [21.] Alabaster figure of the Early Dynastic period, from Khafajah (Frankfort, More Sculpture from the Diyala Region [Chicago, 1943], Frontispiece), height 7.2 cm. [22.] Head of an Akkadian ruler, from Nineveh (Courtesy of Department of Antiquities, Baghdad) [23-24.] The Gebel el Arak knife-handle (Louvre: Journal of Egyptian Archaeology, V [1919], Plate XXXII) [25.] The Hunters’ palette (British Museum and Louvre; Capart, Primitive Art in Egypt, 231, Fig. 170) [26.] Macehead of king “Scorpion” (Courtesy of Ashmolean Museum, Oxford) [27-28.] Palette of King Narmer (Cairo Museum; photographs of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York) [29.] Harvesting scenes, from the tomb of Ti, Old Kingdom, about 2400 B.C. (Wreszinski, Atlas zur Altaegyptischen Kulturgeschichte, III, Plate 49) [30.] Agricultural scenes, from the tomb of Menna, New Kingdom, about 1400 B.C. (Wreszinski, Atlas zur Altaegyptischen Kulturgeschichte, I, Plate 231) [31.] Plan of workmen’s village at Tell el Amarna, about 1360 B.C. (Peet and Woolley, The City of Akhenaten, I, Plate 16) [32.] Impression of a Mesopotamian cylinder seal, from Egypt (Berlin; Scharff, Altertümer der Vor- und Frühzeit Aegyptens, 1929, Plate 25, No. 135) [33-34.] Impressions of two cylinder seals of the second half of the Protoliterate period, from Khafajah (Courtesy of Oriental Institute, University of Chicago) [35.] Wooden cylinder seal of the First Dynasty, from Abydos (Berlin; Scharff, op. cit., Plate 27, No. 48) [36.] Impression of Fig. 35 [37.] Cylindrical funerary amulet (Berlin; Scharff, op. cit., Plate 26, No. 145) [38.] Impression of Fig. 37, showing long-haired man seated at offering table [39.] Cylindrical funerary amulet showing seated man (Berlin; Scharff, op. cit., Plate 26, No. 146) [40-41.] Flint knife with gold-foil handle, from Gebel et Tarif (Cairo; J. E. Quibell, Archaic Objects [Cairo, 1905], p. 237) [42.] Two buildings, with recesses and towers, of the First Dynasty in Egypt, and a seal impression of the second half of the Protoliterate period, from Khafajah (American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, LVIII [1941], Plate I, a, b) [43.] Stela of King Djet of the First Dynasty (Louvre) [44.] Three buildings with recesses, rendered on monuments of the First Dynasty in Egypt, and three Mesopotamian cylinder-seal impressions of the Protoliterate period (American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures, LVIII [1941], Plate 341, Fig. 7) [45.] Plan of the “White Temple” on the archaic ziggurat at Erech (Achter vorläufiger Bericht, 1937, Plate 19b) [46.] Plan of the Tomb of Hemaka at Saqqara (W. B. Emery, The Tomb of Hemaka, Plate I) [47.] Tomb ornamented with recesses, at Abu Roash (Kemi, VII [1938], Plate XIa) [48.] Recesses of the “White Temple” at Erech (Drawn after Achter vorläufiger Bericht, 1937, Plate 14b) [49.] Wooden coffin imitating a recessed building with round wooden beams, from Tarkhan (Petrie, Tarkhan, I, Plate XXVIII) [50.] Recessed tomb with round wooden beams, of the First Dynasty, at Abu Roash (Kemi, VII [1938], p. 40, Fig. 9) [51.] Map of the Ancient Near East, from the Westminster Historical Atlas to the Bible (The Westminster Press, [Philadelphia, 1945], 22)

I. THE STUDY OF ANCIENT CIVILIZATIONS

Our subject is the birth of civilization in the Near East. We shall not, therefore, consider the question how civilization in the abstract became possible. I do not think there is an answer to that question; in any case it is a philosophical rather than a historical one. But it may be said that the material we are going to discuss has a unique bearing on it all the same. For the emergence of Egyptian and Mesopotamian civilization has some claim to being considered as the birth of civilization in a general sense. It is true that the transition from primitive to civilized conditions has happened more than once; but the change has mostly been induced—or at least furthered—by contact with more advanced foreigners. We know of only three instances where the event may have been spontaneous: in the ancient Near East, in China, and in South and Middle America. However, the genesis of the Maya and Inca civilizations is obscure, and for China we must count with the possibility—some would say the likelihood—of a stimulus from the West. But no appeal to foreign influence can explain the emergence of civilized societies in Egypt and Mesopotamia, since these lands were the first to rise above a universal level of primitive existence.

In the sequel we shall leave this aspect of our subject to one side: in other words, though the fact that in the Near East civilization arose spontaneously, and for the first time imparts a particular weight and splendour to the events, we are specifically concerned with the events themselves. And here, at the very outset, a difficulty must be faced.

It seems easy to deal in a general way with civilizations as entities; at least this is commonly done. Arnold Toynbee, in his Study of History, distinguishes without hesitation twenty-one civilizations—“specimens of the species,” belonging to the “genus societies”—by what he believes to be an empirical method. But consider the problem which arises when we want to study the genesis of any one civilization in particular! We cannot merely assume that it is an entity and has a recognizable character of its own; we are bound to make that character explicit in order that we may decide when and where it emerged.

This problem is hardly ever envisaged by those who are best acquainted with the actual remains of antiquity. The archaeologist is either occupied with disentangling successive phases in his stratified material; or he constructs from his finds a fairly continuous story of man’s increasing skill and enterprise. In this context the questions when and why we are entitled to speak of the existence of Egyptian or Sumerian (i.e. early Mesopotamian) civilization seem of secondary importance. On the other hand, the philologist does not encounter the question at all. For him, Sumerian or Egyptian civilization exists from the moment when texts were written in these languages.

Our problem is pre-eminently a historical one, and it has, accordingly, two aspects: that of identity and that of change. What constitutes the individuality of a civilization, its recognizable character, its identity which is maintained throughout the successive stages of its existence? What, on the other hand, are the changes differentiating one stage from the next? We are not, of course, looking for a formula; the character of a civilization is far too elusive to be reduced to a catchword. We recognize it in a certain coherence among its various manifestations, a certain consistency in its orientation, a certain cultural “style” which shapes its political and its judicial institutions, its art as well as its literature, its religion as well as its morals. I propose to call this elusive identity of a civilization its “form.” It is this “form” which is never destroyed although it changes in the course of time. And it changes partly as a result of inherent factors—development—partly as a result of external forces—historical incidents. I propose to call the total of these changes the “dynamics” of a civilization.

The interplay of form and dynamics constitutes the history of a civilization and raises the question—which lies outside our present inquiry—to what extent the form of a civilization may determine its destiny.