The End of Empire: Akkadian and post-Akkadian glyptic in the Jezirah, the evidence from Tell Leilan in context

This paper will outline the glyptic evidence from Tell Leilan and demonstrate how it corresponds to general and specific trends within the Khabur region towards the end of the 3rd millennium BC. The evidence from Tell Leilan, along with contemporary sites in the region, clearly shows an indigenous northern Mesopotamian glyptic style in the mid-3rd millennium Leilan IIIdlEarly Jezirah 3 (EJZ 3) period, beginning at 2600 BC (Weiss 1990; Calderone and Weiss 2003; Lebeau et al. 2000; Lebeau et al. 2011). The development of this glyptic style accompanies the emergence of cities and a complex administrative system that shares some uniform characteristics as a region, indicative of a regionally interdependent economy developing from its roots in the late Ninevite 5ILeilan IIId period (Weiss 1990; McCarthy 2011). At the same time, there is evidence of glyptic importation and blending of styles that shows extensive and sophisticated linkages with other regions. Outside ofthe Jezirah, we know of an emerging Akkadian glyptic style indigenous to central and southern Mesopotamia (Frankfort 1939; Boehmer 1965; Gibson 1982). This Early Akkadian glyptic entered into the repertoire of the Jezirah as one influence among many, probably indicating an increasingly attractive, but not exclusive, relationship between the cities of the Jezirah and the increasingly powerful Akkadian state (Matthews 1997: 143). The local EJZ 3b glyptic began to adapt and take influences from other regions, and incorporate and overlap with seals carved with Akkadian designs. Matthews argues that there was 'almost no provincial or derivative glyptic, indicating that Akkadian art was always seen as foreign' (ibid.: 198-9). While this may be true, it is also true that even in the south, closer to the heartland of Akkad, there was an overlap of material culture between the EDIII and the Early Akkadian periods, including glyptic design (Gibson and McMahon 1995: 8). This means that the Early Akkadian glyptic did not appear as a finished product, rather it emerged from amongst an already complex signatory system spread over a wide area, overlapping in time and space with other design styles. In the north, the resulting late EJZ 3b and transitional EJZ 4a glyptic from the Khabur area likewise can be best described as mixed (local designs with occasional foreign imports) along with the incorporation of emulative elements from both EDIII and Early Akkadian designs into the local style. The development and consolidation ofthe glyptic style continues. well into the Early Akkadian period in the south, probably until the reign ofNaram Sin. This is also when we see a profound changein the Jezirah glyptic. The local styles that had been blending and adapting in the Early AkkadianlEJZ 4a seem to disappear at most sites in the EJZ 4b period. The local styles are replaced by what appears to be a·rigid, formalized and mostly foreign style (Matthew's.1997: 140·,1; McCarthy 2011: 269); This change signifies a takeover ofthe adminis-