¹ The expedition wishes to express its special thanks to Dr. A. Bahnassi and to all the staff of the Department of Antiquities in Damascus and Aleppo for the great help and encouragement received; to Mr. Burhan Nissani, the representative of the Department, for his invaluable help; to Nabil Hadad, Imad al Zarif and Paul Sabbagh of Aleppo University for their assistance; to the Tell Nebi Mend and Tell Brak Expeditions for the use of their Landrover; and to the Jesuit Fathers of Azizie, Aleppo, for their hospitality.

² This map is based on the 1:200,000 of the Bureau Topographique des Troupes Françaises du Levant, number NJ-37-11, dated June 1936. It also includes some recent changes in the area kindly noted for me by R. Tefnin, the director of the excavations at Tell Abou Danne.

³ I am most grateful to John Matthers for allowing me to publish this interesting material.

⁴ Surveys have been done in the Amuq Plain: Braidwood, R. J., Mounds in the Plain of Antioch (OIP XLVIII; Chicago, 1937Google Scholar); in the Jabbul Plain: Maxwell-Hyslop, R., et al., Archaeological Survey of the Plain of Jabbul (PEQ 1942, 8–20Google Scholar); and in Cilicia: Seton-Williams, M. V., Cilician Survey (AnSt 4 (1954), 121–174Google Scholar); Courtois, J. C. (Syria 50 (1973), 56–99Google Scholar), Prospection archéologique dans la moyenne vallée de l'Oronte.

⁵ Excavated mounds include Tell Judeidah: Braidwood, R. J.Braidwood, L., Excavations in the Plain of Antioch (OIP LXI; Chicago, 1960Google Scholar); Ras Shamra: H. de Contenson, Le Neolithique de Ras Shamra V d'après les campagnes 1972–1976 dans le Sondage SH. (Syria 54 (1977), 1–23Google Scholar); id., Le Niveau Halafien de Ras Shamra (Syria 50 (1973), 13–33Google Scholar)—both articles should be read with earlier literature from the site; Hama: Fugmann, E., Hama, L'Architecture des Périodes Pré-Hellinistiques (Copenhagen, 1958Google Scholar); Qal‘at el Mudiq: Collon, D., Sondages au flanc sud du tell de Qal‘at el-Mudiq (in Fouilles d'Apamée de Syrie, Miscellanea, 33–73Google Scholar); Carchemish-Yunus: Woolley, C. L., The Prehistoric Pottery of Carchemish (Iraq 1 (1934), 146–154Google Scholar), also Dirvana, Selim, Cerablus Civarinda Yunus'ta Bulunan Tel Halef Keramikleri (Belleten 8 (1944), 403–420Google Scholar); Sakcagözü: Garstang, J., Excavations at Sakje-geuzi in North Syria (LAAA 24 (1937), 132 ff.)Google Scholar; Tarsus: Goldman, H., Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus, II, 1956, Neolithic and Chalcolithic Pottery, Mellinck, J. M., 65–91Google Scholar; Mersin: Garstang, J., Prehistoric Mersin (Oxford, 1953Google Scholar). The important site of Tell esh Sheikh in the Amuq remains unpublished: Woolley, C. L., A Forgotten Kingdom (Harmondsworth, 1953). 24–31Google Scholar.

⁶ For example, Sakcagözü and the Amuq sites are not identical, nor are the remains found at Ras Shamra and Tell Sukas the same, nor those from Mersin and Tarsus.

⁷ For a recent survey see Mellaart, J., The Neolithic of the Near East (London, 1975), 91–129Google Scholar; van Loon, M. N. (ed.), Korucutepe 2 (Amsterdam, 1978), 7–9Google Scholar (van Loon), 57-63 (R. W. Brandt).

⁸ J. Mellaart, op. cit., 42–48 for an easy summary; Moore, A. M. T., The Excavation of Tell Abu Hureyra in Syria, A Preliminary Report (PPS 41 (1975), 50–77Google Scholar).

⁹ Kirkbride, D., Dabaghiyah, Umm (Iraq 34 (1972), 3–19Google Scholar; Iraq 35 (1973), 1–7, 205–209Google Scholar; Iraq 37 (1975), 3–10Google Scholar; Waterbolk, H., Tell Bouqras and its environment (Communication at a Colloquium on the History of Environmental conditions on South-West Asia from the last Pleniglacial till today; 20–2302, Tubingen, 1978Google Scholar).

¹⁰ It should be kept in mind that the deposit for the A-B periods in the Amuq was 2·5 m thick and that it was dug below the water level, whereas the equivalent deposit of Amuq A alone at Mersin was over 10 m thick and at Çatal Hüyük in Turkey it was nearly 20 m thick.

¹¹ Of the 103 sherds illustrated (Figures 3–6), more than half (54) come from Ain et Tell which is on the northern outskirts of Aleppo, another 27 from Tell Aajar, and the rest from Tell Soussiane (7), Tell Khibi (5), Tell Maled (3), Tell ‘Azaz (3), Tell Aarane (1), Tell Ibbol (1), Tell Kaffine (1) and Tell Botnan (1).

¹² Sherds 85–87 from Tell ‘Azaz are an exception to this high quality, but they are of doubtful date.

¹³ There can be little doubt that the monochrome burnished wares that appear in the top layers of aceramic sites like Tell Abu Hureyra, El Kowm and Bouqras in or near the Euphrates basin are the equivalent of the dark-faced burnished wares of Amuq A, Ras Shamra VB and Tell Sukas. They follow upon and often overlap the “white ware” and the alabaster bowls of the later aceramic Neolithic (PPNB of Palestine). The local production of these earliest pots in the aceramic sites has not yet been demonstrated and it is usually assumed that they came from elsewhere, thus suggesting a centre of manufacture at the end of the aceramic period, the location of which is still a mystery.

¹⁴ Such as Tell Turlu in the Jabbul (brown burnished ware), Tell Aswad on the Balikh, and even Umm Dabaghiyah in the Jezireh where red and brown wares of Amuq A type were imported. They are very like those shown from Ain et Tell.

¹⁵ It must be stressed that the map is a provisional if not premature attempt to put together the sites from aceramic Neolithic to the Late Ubaid period.

¹⁶ C. 8500 B.C. on the uncalibrated radiocarbon scale, nearly a thousand years earlier with calibration.

¹⁷ Up to 6000 B.C., or 7000 B.C. on calibrated dating.

¹⁸ It is possible to postulate one, for example, going up the Orontes Valley, and another running from Aleppo to Hama. I have omitted these on the map as their course has not yet been charted for these early periods.

¹⁹ Kühne, H., Die Keramik vom Tell Chuera (Berlin, 1976), 99–103Google Scholar.

²⁰ Braidwood, R. J. and Braidwood, L. S., Excavations in the Plain of Antioch, Volume 1 (Chicago, 1960), Fig. 171.34, pp. 231–232Google Scholar, note 7.

²¹ King, L. W., Bronze Reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser, King of Assyria, 860–825 B.C. (British Museum, 1915), 33, plates LXVI-LXXIGoogle Scholar.

²² Parpola, S., Neo-Assyrian Toponyms (AOAT 6, 1970), 30–31Google Scholar.

²³ Seton-Williams, M. V., Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tell Rifa‘at (Iraq 23 (1961), 72Google Scholar, note 19).

²⁴ Dussaud, R., Topographic historique de la Syrie antique et mediévale (Paris, 1927), 468CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁵ Sauvaget, J., Alep (Paris, 1941), 27, note 60Google Scholar; Hawkins, J. D., “Halab” (RIA IV, 53Google Scholar).

²⁶ Orthmann, W., Untersuchungen zur späthethitisch Kunst (Bonn, 1971), 54Google Scholar.

²⁷ Hawkins, J. D., “Hazazu” (RIA IV, 240)Google Scholar.

²⁸ Hawkins, J. D., “Jahan” (RIA IV, 22–23)Google Scholar.

²⁹ Na'aman, N., WdO 9/2 (1978), 220–239Google Scholar

³⁰ Maxwell-Hyslop, R.et al., An Archaeological Survey of the Plain of Jabbul (PEQ 1942, Figure 19)Google Scholar.

³¹ Waage, F. O., Hellenistic and Roman Tableware of North Syria (in Antioch-on-the-Orontes IV (i) (Princeton, 1948)Google Scholar, Ceramics and Islamic Coins, where the Late Roman A and B wares are listed as Shapes, 800 ff. Henceforth all references to this publication will be under the title Antioch).

³² The term “slip” and “glaze” are both in common use to describe the surface-coating of these wares. The former is technically more correct and is used in the descriptions in this report, the latter is, however, sanctioned by tradition in the term “black-glazed ware”, which is retained here solely as a name for the class.

³³ Edwards, G. R., Corinth VII (iii), Corinthian Hellenistic Pottery (Princeton, 1975), nos. 401, 404, 456Google Scholar, shows its occurrence in local ware at Corinth; Bernardini, M., Vasi dello stile di Gnathia; vasi e vernice nera (Lecce, 1961Google Scholar), Pl. 21, shows examples in South Italian “Gnathia” ware, in which it is very common.

³⁴ Crowfoot, J. W., et al., Samaria-Sebaste III, The Objects from Samaria (London, 1957), Figure 37.1Google Scholar. Henceforth all references to this will be listed as “Samaria”.

³⁵ Similar plates have been found at Benghazi (ancient Berenice) in Libya and will appear in a forthcoming publication by the author. Dr. J. W. Hayes has expressed the opinion that this could be the best of the local black-glazed ware, and the clay is certainly not unlike that of Eastern Sigillata A.

³⁶ Samaria, Figure 37.3. Sherds of this ware have also been found at Benghazi.

³⁷ Samaria, Figures 38 and 49; Antioch, Shapes 75–80.

³⁸ Samaria, Figure 49.5; Waage, F. O., “Pottery” (in Elderkin, G. W. (ed.), Antioch-on-the-Orontes I (Princeton, 1934Google Scholar), Figure 2) where similar bowls are recorded from Beth Shan.

³⁹ Samaria, Figure 53.5 with the accompanying discussion.

⁴⁰ Antioch, Figures 9–18 and Pl. 4, Shapes HM 1–7l; Samaria, 272 ff.; Christensen, A. P. and Johansen, C. F., Hama Fouilles et Recherches 1931–1938 III (ii), Les poteries hellenistiques et les terres sigillées orientates (Copenhagen, 1971), 24 ff. and 124 ffGoogle Scholar. Henceforth all references to this latter publication will be listed as Hama.

⁴¹ Thompson, H., Hesperia 3 (1934), 472–474Google Scholar; see also Robinson, H. S., The Athenian Agora V, Pottery of the Roman Period, Chronology (Princeton, 1959)Google Scholar, and his comments under F48 and F50.

⁴² Antioch, 10–15.

⁴³ Antioch, Shapes 12, 14, 15.

⁴⁴ Not represented at Antioch, but Samaria, Figure 37.2, 11 and 13.

⁴⁵ Antioch, Shape 17.

⁴⁶ Samaria, Figure 51.5 and 8.

⁴⁷ Robinson, H. S., The Athenian Agora V. Pottery of the Roman Period, Chronology, 6Google Scholar.

⁴⁸ Samaria, 283.

⁴⁹ Hayes, J. W., Late Roman Pottery (London, 1972), 9–10Google Scholar. Henceforth this publication will be referred to in the text as “Hayes (1972)”.

⁵⁰ Zahn, R., “Thongeschirr” (in Wiegand, T. and Schrader, H., Priene (Berlin, 1904), 436Google Scholar and Figure 551, nos. 144 and 147).

⁵¹ Antioch, 51 ff.

⁵² Hayes (1972), 323 ff.

⁵³ Hayes, Form 3, has a long history with a continuous but subtle evolution, so that the dating of individual pieces within the series is not always easy.

⁵⁴ So far it has been difficult to establish the wares of the Ummayad period with any degree of certainty, so the date of the 8th century has been preferred.

⁵⁵ Many of the sherds with a pink paste covered with a cream-coloured slip and a monochrome green or brown glaze could be Mameluk, but there is no certainty about this. It is known that the Mongol invasion brought about, for a certain length of time, a decline in the quality of the production together with the disappearance of certain techniques.

⁵⁶ For the wares found at Hama: Riis, P. J. and Poulsen, Vagn, Hama, Fouilles et Recherches de la Fondation Carlsberg 1931–1938, IV (ii), Les veneries et poteries mediévales (Copenhagen, 1957Google Scholar). The Qala‘a Djabar excavations have not yet been published, but many of the sherds found on the surface belong to the so-called “silicate” category of the Ayyubid period. The ceramics from Raqqa have been studied, among others, by Grube, Ernst J., Raqqa—Keramik in der Sammlung des Metropolitan Museum in New York (Kunst de Orients IV, 1963), 42–78Google Scholar. The excavations directed by Qassem Toueir, of the Service des Antiquités Syriennes, are still in progress in Raqqa on the site called Qasr el Banat; the ceramics from these excavations are being studied by Q. Toueir and by the author who is also finishing the study of the wares found at Balis-Meskene during the five excavation campaigns (1970–1974) under the direction of Professor L. Golvin, from the Faculté d'Aix-en-Provence, and of A. Raymond, at the time Director of the Institut Francais d'Etudes Arabes de Damas.

⁵⁷ J. Michael Rogers, Apamea—The Medieval Pottery, Preliminary report (Colloque Apamée de Syrie, 15–18, avril 1972; Musées Royaux d'Art et d'Histoire, Bruxelles), 262–263, Pl. XCII, 2.

⁵⁸ Op. cit., 232, Pl. XVa, and 233, Figure 803.

⁵⁹ They correspond at least in shape of objects, to those found at Hama and Meskene.

⁶⁰ “6-2”, for example, means sherd number 2 from Site number 6, i.e. Tell ‘Azaz.

⁶¹ The very few lustre-decorated sherds and those with blue decoration over a white opaque glaze as found at Meskene have the same characteristics.

⁶² Canard, M., Histoire de la Dynastie des Hamdanides de Jazfra et de syrie (Alep, 1951Google Scholar); Cahen, C., La Syrie du nord à époque des croisades (Paris, 1940)Google Scholar.

⁶³ Op. cit., 270–274. The shape and decoration of sherd 5a-1 can be seen on the jars with handle, represented in Fig. 1021, p. 273, and in Fig. 1032, p. 275. See also M. Rogers, op. cit., 263–265 and Pls. XCIV and XCV.

⁶⁴ On this subject see article: Lane, A., Medieval finds at Al Mina in North Syria (Archaeologia 87 (1937), 19–78Google Scholar. This type of ceramic has been found at sites throughout the Mediterranean; see for example Kubiak, W. B., Crusaders' pottery of Al Mina found at Fostat (Folia Orientalis 12 (1970Google Scholar), Mélanges Lewicki, Cracovie, 1971).

⁶⁵ The technique is similar to that of the Zendjan wares; some specimens have been brought to light recently in Takht-i Suleiman and some at Örenkale in Soviet Azerbaidjan.