What is "Complex Society"? and When did it emerge in Ancient Egypt and Mesopotamia?

The emergence of "Complex Society" in Egypt and Southern Mesopotamia during the 4th Millenium BC.

Author: D. I Kim (2016, University College London)

 

 

Introduction

 

Definition of the term “complex society” is very vague in the broad term; nevertheless, scholars have attempted to define the term with some of the common traits of "complexity" appeared in an archaeological and anthropological context.

Rothman (2004, p. 76) proposes that complexity is the process of interaction and interdependence with “a variety of distinct groups based on dimensions like ethnicity, social rank, gender occupation, etc.” In more concrete terms, “segregation” (such as craft and service specialization and social stratification etc.) (Carneiro 1967, p. 239) and “centralization” (between local units and urban-based organizations, a highest central urban-based organization controls a particular group of people, a city and a state) (Bennett 1967, p. 443) are formed in economic, religious and governmental sphere of society (Rothman 2004, p. 76).

In this essay, we will examine the case studies of late 4th millennium Egypt and Southern Mesopotamia in which archaeological evidence, such as potteries, burials and writings, were revealed; and the scholarly interpretations of the evidence supports the presence of complex society in these regions in late 4th millennium BC. Case studies in Egypt (Buto-Ma’adi & Naqada culture) and Southern Mesopotamia (Uruk) in the late 4th millennium BC.

 

Egypt

 

The known main 4th millennium archaeological sites in Egypt, which seem likely to have a certain degree of a complex society, are Buto-Ma’adi culture (4000-3200 BC) of Lower Egypt, and the Naqada culture (4000-3000 BC) of Upper Egypt’, which are distinguished by different ceramic traditions (Bard 2015, p. 95).

Some scholars attempt to figure out the possible existence of cross-cultural contact, which thought to be a part of the traits of a complex society, using potteries and the evidence of animal domestication.

For example, at the settlement of Ma'adi, imported pots from Beersheba culture and locally made ceramics were excavated together; at this point, this indicates the possibility of cross-cultural contact between two different regions (p.95). Moreover, the evidence of domesticated donkey at Ma'adi sug-gests that it might have enabled the overland trade with southern Palestine (p. 95).

Burials indicate a certain degree of complex society by analysing the size of graves and the numbers of grave goods; because burials contain some social information such as social status, rank, ethnicity, gender, etc. For instance, in Lower Egypt, burials with grave goods are rarely identified. At the two cemeteries excavated near the settlements of Ma’adi and Wadi Digla, only the half of these burials had grave goods consists of usually one or two simple and undecorated pots (p. 95). However, more burials with grave goods were excavated in Naqada.

Particularly highly elaborate mudbrick burials (Cemetery T), which contained many artefacts such as jewellery, and carved stone palettes and stone vessels made from exotic imported materials, were excavated in the phase of Naqada II (3500-3200 BC) (p.95). But during the Naqada III phase (3200-3000 BC), it appears the declination of the number of high-status burials with the fewer grave goods in exotic material (p. 95).

 

Southern Mesopotamia

 

In the 4th millennium Southern Mesopotamia, Uruk (3800-3200 BC) is known as the main centre of economic, social and cultural exchange (Leick 2001, p. 34). During this period (so-called ‘Uruk peri-od'), a certain homogenous culture is identified with a number of artefacts including potteries, stamp and cylinder seals, clay tablets, multifunctional and monumental buildings.

Above all, the key feature of Uruk regarding complex society is in the writing system in the 4th millennium BC; whereas the earliest attested writing system in Egypt is 3000 BC (Baines 1983, p. 575). Ac-cording to Baines (p. 573), use of writing systems is crucial because the social background in the ancient world can be hypothetically assumed by the range of written genres. He also argues that the first few centuries, the writing was centrally controlled by a state (p. 577).

In Uruk, stamp and cylinder seals and clay tablets are considered as the critically vital bureaucratic tool and administrative function which made it possible to keep track of the flow of certain commodities (Ferioli and Fiandra 1994, p. 150). Also, Charvet (1993) suggests that “the iconography of seal designs certainly appears to bear some relation to types of institution and perhaps to the nature of the commodities being treated". Also, some of the seals and the earliest written records describe centralised production of textiles with female corvee labour (Algaze 1993: p. 118).

We can also infer labour mobilisation with analysis of pottery distribution. Nissen (1974) suggests that "by mapping the distribution of a uniquely ugly pottery type, the bevelled rim bowl in both north and south of Mesopotamia at the beginning of the Uruk expansion could be a clue of labour mobilisation". Further, Write (2001, p. 125), says that "potteries could indicate a region-wide pattern of labour recruitment". However, Rothman (2004, p. 100) criticised their theoretical assumptions, and he argues that still "more work to be done to figure out the whole issue of labour and its relation to social organisation, ethnicity, status identification, and particularly centralised control networks".

 

Conclusion

We have discussed some of the important archaeological sources which bear hypothetical interpretations on complex society in late 4th millennium Egypt and Southern Mesopotamia. However, it is still tough to get a full comprehension of how complex society was through solely relying on the fragmentary and very scarce amount of archaeological evidence and hypothetical scholarly interpretation.

Although the definition of the term "complex society" is still so vague and too broad, usual interpretations about complex society in archaeological context include: 1) cross-cultural contact;2) bureaucracy;3) economic specialisation; 4) population (via the scale of sites and burials); 5) labour mobilisation, etc.

In conclusion, the term “complex society” is appropriate in 4th millennium Egypt and Southern Mesopotamia; but there is only the different degrees of complex society existed in the regions. Southern Mesopotamia, relatively, more complex than Egypt in the late 4th millennium BC in terms of the scale and size of the settlement, burials and use of writing system. On the contrary, in the case of Egypt which had less complexity, particularly considering the burials, we could only infer the existence of a stratified society which is also a part of components of a complex society.

 

Bibliography

1. Algaze, G. (1993). The Uruk World System, University of Chicago
2. Baines, J. (1983). Literacy and Ancient Egyptian Society. Man, New Series.18 (3): 572-599
3. Bard, K. A. (2015) An introduction to Archaeology of Ancient Egypt, 2nd edn., United States: Wiley-Blackwell.
4. Bennett, J. W. (1967). Microcosm-macrocosm relationships in a North American agrarian society. Amer. Anthrop. 69: 441-54
5. Carneiro, R. L. (1967). On the relationship between size o populations and complexity of social organ-isation. Sthwest. J. Anthrop. 23: 234-43
6. Charvat, P. (1993). Ancient Mesopotamia: Humankind's Long Journey into Civilisation, Prague.
7. Ferioli, P., and Fiandra, E. (1994). Archival techniques and methods at Arslantepe. In Ferioli, P., Fian-dra, E., Fissore, G., and Frangipane, M. (eds.). Archives Before Writing, Scriptorium, Torino, Italy: 149-161
8. Leick, G. (2001) Mesopotamia: The invention of the City, 1st edn., London: Penguin Books.
9. Rothman, M. S. (2004). Studying the Development of Complex Society: Mesopotamia in the Late Fifth and Fourth Millennia BC. Journal of Archaeological Research 12(1).: 75-119
10. Nissen, H. (1974). Zur Frage der Arbeitsorganisation in Babylonien während der Späturuk-Zeit. Acta Antiaua Academiae Scientiarum Hungaricae 22:5-14