Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-thh2z Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T07:12:26.029Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Distribution of Uruk, Jamdat Nasr and Ninevite V Pottery as Revealed by Field Survey Work in Iraq

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Behnam Abu Al-Soof
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This article is based mainly on archaeological surveys of the Iraqi Directorate General of Antiquities between the years 1938–1965. In preparing this study, the writer examined more than 7,000 files in the Directorate's archives. The reliability of the report on each site has been carefully assessed. The numbers following the site names indicate serial numbers of relevant files in the Directorate's archives. The name of the district (Qadha or Nahiya) in which a site is located usually follows the serial number.

Examination of the available surface material from all over Iraq, suggests that Uruk pottery is more popular in the north than the south. It is not possible at present to tell whether this fact is significant, as the existing southern surveys are far from complete. Moreover, in the south there is the added problem of silting and subsidence which would have tended to obliterate sites, in particular small ones, of Uruk and earlier dates. However, where extensive surface surveys have been carried out, as, for example, in the Diyala and Nasiriya Liwas, and now in the Eridu and Warka regions, a number of Uruk sites has been found. In spite of the smaller number of recorded sites, one is inclined to treat the south as the focal area at this time, owing to the social and urban development which is known to have taken place there, and for which we have no parallels as yet in the north. However, only further excavations in the north and further survevy in the south can satisfactorily resolve these problems.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , Spring 1968 , pp. 74 - 86
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1968

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Cf. in this respect Professor Mallowan's opinion: “Perhaps settlements in the Uruk period are diminishing in number, but they tend to increase in size.” Sumer 5 (1949) pp. 6–7.Google Scholar

2 The following Uruk sites were recently recorded by Henry Wright, of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, in the Eridu region: Gharbi el-Laham, Rifai‘ al ‘Ubaid, Rejibah Shamal, and Telul Rejibah.

3 Professor R. M. Adams conducted on behalf of the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, an intensive archaeological survey of the Warka district in January–June, 1967. The work was done in collaboration with the German Archaeological Institute, Baghdad (Dr. Hans J. Nissen).

4 There are altogether 104 known sites on which Uruk pottery has been found.

5 There are 47 Uruk sites in Erbil Liwa; 33 sites in Kirkuk, and 33 sites in Sulaimaniya.

6 41 sites in Diyala Liwa and 50 sites in Nasiriya.

7 For Sinjar occurrences cf. Iraq 5 (1938) pp. 124 ff.Google Scholar

8 Ten sites in Kirkuk Liwa, and five sites in Sulaimaniya. Potsherds resembling Ninevite V have been recorded as far north as Iranian Azerbaijan at two sites, Dinka and Girdi-i-Hasan Ali, cf. Mallowan, M. E. L. in Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Studien und Aufsatze, Anton Moortgat Gewidmet (1964) p. 147 and n. 16.Google Scholar

9 Telul el-Hadid (235). One painted Ninevite V fragment was reported from the H18:14 sounding at Tell Asmar (Diyala). Cf. OIP 63 p. 141, and pl. 64, no. 16.Google Scholar

10 An Uruk site, situated within the modern city of Erbil, was excavated by the present writer in winter and spring 1966 & 1967 respectively. Cf. Sumer 22 (1966), pp. 77–82.Google Scholar

11 Cf. Sialk 1 pls. XVII, XX, and XXII, nos. 2 and 5. MJ 23 no. 4 (1933) pls. LXXXV, LXXXVIA, LXXXVII, XCVII, XCVIIIGoogle Scholar; cf. also Schmidt, E. F., Excavations at Tepe Hissar, Damghan (1937) pls. III–IV, VIII–XGoogle Scholar; and figs. 64–67, and 69.

12 McCown, D.SAOC 23 (1942) p. 48, n. 88Google Scholar; Mallowan, Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Studien und Aufsatze, Anton Moortgat Gewidmet (1964) p. 153.Google Scholar

13 Mallowan, ibid. p. 153.

14 Gawra 2 (1950) pl. CXLVI, 399–401.Google Scholar

15 Iraq 7 (1940) pl. III, fig. 7, no. 6.Google Scholar

16 Iraq 2 (1933) fig. 65, no. 4Google Scholar; Gawra 2 (1950) pl. CXIV nos. 39–40, 41–42.Google Scholar

17 Sites from 57 to 82 are situated within Nahiyat el-Humaidat (Tell ‘Afar district) to the west of the Tigris not very far from Mosul.

18 West of the Tigris, to the south of Mosul.

19 As scarlet ware has not been found in excavation north of the Diyala, its presence here is perhaps surprising, but the discovery of a very similar type at Telul eth-Thalathat (a single fragment found in association with Ninevite V pottery in the upper levels at Tell V during the fourth season, October 1965–January 1966) suggests that the influence may be far wider than had previously been suggested. The occurrence, at Mari on the upper Euphrates, of two vessels which are related to this ware should be noted, also cf. OIP 73, p. 141, and n. 100.Google Scholar

20 It was not stated whether this pottery was plain or painted. In the vicinity of Shemshara, however, painted Jamdat Nasr pottery is said to have been found (Abdul Qadir Al-Tikriti, personal communication).

21 See pp. 34–38; and appendix C pp. 135–166. It has been noted that Uruk red and grey wares are virtually absent in the surveyed area, cf. ibid. p. 36.

22 The results of this season are now published in Sumer 21 (1965) pp. 17–32.Google Scholar The present writer was in charge of these excavations.

23 Settlements dated from the ‘Ubaid, Uruk, and Jamdat Nasr periods recorded on the Diyala plains, to the east and north-east of Baghdad, are included in section 5 above (Diyala Liwa).

24 Such as: Kish, Jamdat Nasr, and Ras el-‘Amiya.

25 Clay sickles are normally attributed to the ‘Ubaid period, but it is possible that they are also found in early Uruk context; they occur as surface material at a number of sites where Uruk but not painted ‘Ubaid pottery has been found.

26 Sites from 36 to 48 were surveyed in 1965, all are situated in Nahiyat el-Gharaph. Their surface collections were examined by the writer.

27 A short sounding carried out by the Iraq Directorate-General of Antiquities in 1940, has confirmed these surface occurrences.