As Pascal Butterlin recalled a few years ago in the introduction to an article, there was a time when the city of Uruk was not considered, on the basis of an antonomasia and a somewhat stereotyped topos, to be the centre of the homonym cultural entity. In the 4th millennium BCE, this entity was the driver of the first urbanisation in Greater Mesopotamia, by the diffusion of an organisational system of unprecedented complexity. But, at that time the Euphrates was not yet considered the gateway for the spread of the Uruk “culture” from southern Mesopotamia to the North, and it was rather imagined that this spread had been the work of merchants who travelled the Iranian plateau departing from the city of Susa. This long-awaited book by A. Le Brun, now published in a manageable and elegant format, documents the excavations carried out in Susa towards the end of that period. Starting from 1969, while fieldwork in Susa was being carried out in the so-called Acropolis I Sounding, an expedition of the Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft was excavating the Syrian site of Habuba Kabira whose discovery, along with the other South Mesopotamian “colonies” on the Euphrates, was drastically changing the historical and scientific picture of the Uruk phenomenon. This book documents the last excavation campaigns (the only ones not yet published) at the Acropolis I Trench in Susa between 1977 and 1979, which were carried out precisely in the years in which a crucial evolution of the archaeological image (and imaginary) of the Uruk cultural entity was taking place. It is particularly significant that the focus of Le Brun’s publication is on phases 21-18. Although these levels at Acropolis I are not comparable to a city like Habuba Kabira in terms of chronology, extent and variety of contexts, their domestic character associates them with most of the remains discovered in the same years in the “colony” on the Middle Euphrates. These simple portions of houses, with rooms dedicated to living functions or to processing foodstuffs, portray an ordinariness far from the imposing monumentality of the Eanna district at Uruk. This is precisely why these levels played such an important role. At the scale of the site, the clever location of the Acropolis I Trench exploited what remained of both J. de Morgan’s and R. de Mecquenem’s excavations, allowing to replace the ceramic chronology of L. Le Breton by a proper stratigraphic sequence. More massive structures with thicker masonry would have required much longer excavation work, which would have compromised the possibility of reconstructing a precise phasing of the site as a whole. At the larger scale of the Uruk world, on the other hand, a record constituted of domestic contexts (which were rare in the 1970s) offers a culturally and functionally homogeneous base for future comparative studies with other dwelling areas of Uruk sites discovered in recent decades and years.

In other words, the documentation of the levels presented in this publication provides an extremely useful scientific tool, both in terms of local history and broader knowledge of late prehistoric Greater Mesopotamia. It is probably for this reason that the author decided to organise the book in such a way as to make it a useful tool not only on a scholarly level, but also on a purely practical one. In fact, apart from an introduction on stratigraphy, the whole book is structured according to a strictly typological criterion, with chapters dedicated to different types of vestiges: architecture, accounting documents, glyptics, ceramics, unfired earth objects, stone and metal. Within each chapter, data and artefacts are discussed following a chronological order by strata, from the earliest to the most recent, always according to a typological classification principle. This makes it possible to describe the different remains in a concise and simple way, while offering a variety of valuable information unfortunately very difficult to find in the publications or preliminary reports of most West Asian excavations. For example, the schematic drawing of the different types of masonry of Level 18 (p. 18), illustrating the variables in the arrangement of mudbricks, is a helpful little gem in the context of Uruk studies. Likewise, except for a study by F. Balossi on Arslantepe, there are very few protohistoric sites for which a classification of fire installations is available (p. 54-55). The chapters on glyptics and ceramics bring together, and widely extend, a body of data that was already partly published but was often difficult to find in separate articles. Glyptics and ceramics are among fields in which studies have made most significant advances in recent decades. However, as in the rest of the book, the author’s aim is not to propose new analyses, but to document the variety of the archaeological materials according to the stratigraphic sequence. The result is a vibrant picture not only of Uruk society in Susa (with scenes of bread-making, agricultural work, feasting with musical instruments, flocks, animal motifs and moments of family life), but also a sketch of the evolution of the administrative practices associated with the use of cylinder seals. Although I am by no means a glyptics specialist, I think that the insights offered into the use of seal impressions on contractual documents (p. 69 and p. 82, fig. 23) are particularly interesting and worthy of future reflections. In fact, detailed studies about administrative dynamics exist for the stamp seals evidence from Arslantepe VII-VI, as well as for some Late Uruk cylinder seals from Habuba Kabira, but I do not know similar studies focused on the Middle Uruk period. Likewise, the chapter on pottery includes some remarkable details, especially considering that it is based on drawings from the late 1970s. For instance, until relatively recent years, it was still believed that roughly scraped surfaces were indicative of a uniquely North Mesopotamian technique, whereas it is clear that the Uruk world did not disdain to do so (p. 99, bowl 3). Also, the generalised belief that bevelled rim bowls were produced on the potter’s wheel survived for a long time, whereas traces of finger pressures are unmistakable in many drawings (p. 121, bowl 2). These are just details, but they offer very significant evidence with respect to long-standing debates. Finally, N. Miller’s contribution constitutes a short chapter on some archaeobotanical remains, and perfectly respects the parameters of synthesis, simplicity and documentary effectiveness of the whole book, with, once again, some particularly intriguing information. This is the case with the remains of vitis vinifera (sample 2249, p. 233) from a domestic context of Level 18, which will fuel future studies on Uruk wine production and consumption.

Given that, with the exception of N. Miller’s contribution, the whole book is in French, one might think that its circulation in the English-speaking world is likely to be relatively limited. This is the reason why this review is written in English. But personally, I do not share this fear, since for some time now specialists in the Uruk phenomenon, especially in the United States, have made extensive use of publications in French and, of course, German. In my opinion, the only aspect in this book that might seem slightly dissonant is the insistence, both in the preface and in the conclusions, on the incompleteness of the publication. The author’s motivations on this point are clear, since this work offers a large record of the latest campaigns at the Acropolis I Trench, without proposing new and updated studies including the most recent discoveries and debates on the Uruk world. But in this respect the author is totally honest and clear from the outset: therefore, it is not a matter of incompleteness, but rather a general perspective implying an essentially documentary and typological character of the whole book. Indeed, such a work could be limited to a review of the most remarkable discoveries of the latest French excavations in Susa. The black and white photographs are beautiful and explanatory, the layout is sober and elegant, so it would still have been a considerable volume for the history of the discipline. But in reality, this publication is (also) a very functional archaeological tool, with extremely informative ceramic drawings, descriptions, reflections and illustrations (plans with the distribution of the in situ materials are stunning, p. 45). This is not an unfinished construction, but rather a solid foundation.

It is true that, because of the (often geopolitical) uncertainties of archaeological fieldwork, many crucial questions, especially with respect to the evolution from Susa I to Susa II phases (Levels 24 to 22, between Susa A and B), remain unanswered. In this respect, A. Le Brun is lucid, using the conclusions of the book as a base for indicating the main goals for future work. He is right: if and when excavations will re-start in Susa, the transitional phase between 5th and 4th millennia (i.e. between Ubaid-related and Early Uruk occupations, contemporaneous with Levels XIII-XI of the Uruk Eanna) will clarify the relationships between Susiana and southern Mesopotamia at the dawn of the Uruk phenomenon.

However, what is not yet known does not undermine the relevance of what we know best thanks to the publication of the Middle Uruk Levels 21 to 18. Above all because this clear and precise volume makes it possible for the first time to ask questions that were unimaginable only a few years ago, questions that did not emerge from the debates of the late 1970s but which are rather fully embedded in the context of current Uruk studies. In particular, it is no longer just a matter of clarifying what relationship existed between the Uruk traditions of Susiana and southern Mesopotamia (local evolution or reception of allogenic models?). It is now also a matter of defining the role of Susa in the framework of the Uruk presence along the entire trans-Tigridian and Zagros corridor, between Luristan, the Hamrin Basin and Iraqi Kurdistan. Therefore, it means understanding the similarities and differences between this axis of Uruk expansion and the one along the Euphrates.

From the time of the excavations at the Acropolis I, the image of the Uruk world changed radically and repeatedly. First it was described as a colonial World-System interacting asymmetrically with Northern Mesopotamian societies. Then it was largely eclipsed and challenged by the evidence of a proto-urban northern Mesopotamia that was anything but passive and culturally subordinate (as confirmed by the little northern “spectacle idol” from Level 18 at Susa, p. 225). Finally, with the questioning of the very notions of “culture” and “colonies” in recent years, the Uruk phenomenon is now being studied from the point of view of micro-regional networks and connections. With the reopening of excavations at large South Mesopotamian sites characterized by extensive 4th millennium occupations, it is quite possible that the image of the Uruk phenomenon is about to evolve again. Thanks to A. Le Brun, we are a little better prepared to deal with this possible paradigm shift, with a book offering key answers, but above all, opening the way to new crucial questions.