Facing An Empire

For Francesca
vii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents .................................................................................. vii

List of Figures ......................................................................................... ix
List of Tables .......................................................................................... xv
Foreword ............................................................................................... xvii
Preface .................................................................................................... xxi
Acknowledgments .............................................................................. xxiii
Introduction.............................................................................................. 1
1 The Area During the Iron Age ....................................................... 5
1.1. The Environmental Context: Geography, Land Use and
Resources .........................................................................................5
1.1.1. Assyrian Landscape in the Upper Tigris .................6
1.1.2 Colonizing the Resources ...........................................8
1.1.3 Symbolic Landscape ..................................................11
1.2. Political and Historical Boundaries ....................................13
1.2.1. Major Cities and Kingdoms of the Upper Tigris
Valley .....................................................................................13
1.2.2. Nairi: the Upper Tigris and the Neighboring
Regions' Historical Events .................................................17
2 The Site During the Iron Age ....................................................... 29
2.1. Settlement and Architectural Contexts ..............................29
2.1.1. Chronology and Sector Division ............................29
2.1.2. The Excavation Areas ..............................................30
2.2. The Pottery Production .......................................................33
2.2.1. Analysis Methodology ..............................................33
2.2.2. Wares ...........................................................................33
2.2.3. Fabrics .........................................................................35
2.2.4. Surface Treatment .....................................................36
2.2.5. Typology and Comparanda ........................................37
Brown/Pink Ware (BPW) .........................................38
viii FACING AN EMPIRE
Grooved Ware (GRW) ..............................................54

Plain Ware (PW) .........................................................65
Others ...........................................................................89
3 Discussion and Conclusive Remarks ........................................... 91
3.1. Issues and Problems Related to the Study ........................91
3.1.1. Dating the Early Iron Age Phase ............................91
3.1.2. Architectural and Settlement Dynamics as
Expression of Lifestyle .......................................................95
3.2. Facing an Empire: Local Vs. Foreign ..............................100
3.2.1. Local Manifestations of Kinship ..........................101
3.2.2. The Correlation of Local and Foreign Identities
...............................................................................................104
3.2.3. Pottery Production as a Local Distinctive Trait or
as a Reflection of Foreign Influence ..............................106
3.3. Conclusions .........................................................................114
Bibliography.......................................................................................... 119
Index ...................................................................................................... 143
Figures ...................................................................................................149
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. North Mesopotamia and the Upper Tigris region (after Parpola
and Porter 2001) ..............................................................................................153
Figure 2. The Upper Tigris valley topography showing the settlement in-
crease from the Early Iron Age (top) to the Neo-Assyrian period (bot-
tom), (after Parker 2002) ................................................................................154
Figure 3. The Assyrian-indigenous network relationship in the Upper Ti-

gris region and the associated material culture proportions (after Matney
2010) ..................................................................................................................155
Figure 4. Log drivers on the Tigris ca. 700 B.C.. (after Parker 2002) ......155
Figure 5. Main copper, silver (top) and iron (bottom) deposits around the
Upper Tigris region .........................................................................................156
Figure 6. Shalmaneser III (left) and Tiglath-pileser I (right) ‘Source of the

Tigris’ reliefs (after Schachner 2009) ...................................................157
Figure 7. Detail from the Balawat gates of Shalmaneser III at the ‘Source
of the Tigris’ (after Schachner 2009) ............................................................158
Figure 8. Nairi lands between the 12 and the 11 century B.C. (after Sal-
th th
vini 1967) ..........................................................................................................159
Figure 9. Urartu during the middle 8 century B.C. (after Piotrovskij 1966)
th
.............................................................................................................................159
Figure 10. The Neo-Assyrian Empire boundaries in three of its main

phases ................................................................................................................160
Figure 11. Topography of the site and of the survey area (after Ur and
Hammer 2009 ..................................................................................................160
x FACING AN EMPIRE
Figure 12. Topographic map of Hirbemerdon Tepe highlighting the exca-

vated areas and the squares investigated by the means of magnetic survey
.............................................................................................................................161
Figure 13. Early Iron Age (sub-phase IVA) structures from Area A in the
High Mound .....................................................................................................162
Figure 14. Early Iron Age (sub-phase IVA) structures from Step Trench
AC (Area A) in the High Mound ..................................................................163
Figure 15. Early Iron Age structures (sub-phase IVA) in Area A and Step-
trench AC in the High Mound ......................................................................164
Figure 16. The Early Iron Age ‘bakery’ (sub-phase IVA) from Area D in
the High Mound ..............................................................................................165
Figure 17. Neo-Assyrian (sub-phase IVB) structures from Area B in the

Outer Town .....................................................................................................166
Figure 18. A cist grave from Area A in the High Mound. Viewed from
north. Top: The remains of the head and trunk of a young woman. Bot-
tom: The grave's goods; bronze earring and pin (left), necklace beads of
various materials (right) ..................................................................................167
Figure 19. Early Iron Age vessels (sub-phase IVA) found in situ in the
‘bakery’ from Area D in the High Mound. Grooved hemispherical hand-
made bowl (top); Brown/Pink Ware handmade jug (bottom) ................168
Figure 20. Neo-Assyrian objects (sub-phase IVB) found in situ in Area B

in the Outer Town. Fragment of a corrugated basalt bowl (top); two bas-
alt cleft grinding stones (bottom) .................................................................169
Figure 21. Brown/Pink Ware sherds of the Early Iron Age period (sub-
phase IVA) from Area A in the High mound. Pink hue bowl sherds (top);
brown hue painted jar (bottom) ....................................................................170
Figure 22. Sherds examples from the Early Iron Age period (sub-phase
IVA). Brown/Pink Ware spouted jar (top) and Grooved Ware sherds
(bottom) with applied decorations from Area D in the High Mound.....171
Figure 23. Grooved Ware sherds examples of the Early Iron Age period
(sub-phase IVA) from Area A in the High Mound ...................................172
Figure 24. Plain Ware sherd examples of the Neo-Assyrian period (sub-
LIST OF FIGURES xi
phase IVB) from Area A in the High Mound (top) and Area B in the Out-
er Town (bottom) ...........................................................................................173
Figure 25. Plain Ware bowl sherds (top) and a Palace Ware fragment (bot-
tom) of the Neo-Assyrian period (sub-phase IVB) from area A in the
High Mound .....................................................................................................174
Figure 26. Iron blade of the Neo-Assyrian period (sub-phase IVB) from
area A in the High Mound .............................................................................175
Figure 27. Early Iron Age and Neo-Assyrian pottery of the same level
from Zeviya Tivilki (after Ökse et al. 2010 B) ..........................................175
Figure 28. Architectural contexts of Middle Assyrian phase (Late Bronze

Age) in the Upper Tigris region. A: map of the structures of Trench 1 at
Giricano; B: map of the structures of Trench 6 at Giricano (after
Schachner 2002) C: section of the step-trench (MA structures at bottom)
at Uçtepe (after Köro lu 1998); D: photo of the structures of Operation
E at Ziyaret Tepe (after Matney et al. 2003) ................................................176
Figure 29. Pottery examples of Middle Assyrian phase (Late Bronze Age)
from the Upper Tigris region. A: pottery from the Giricano assemblage
(after Schachner 2002); B: pottery from the Uçtepe assemblage (after
Köro lu 1998); C: pottery from the Ziyaret Tepe assemblage (after Mat-
ney et al. 2003) ..................................................................................................177
Figure 30. Reconstruction of a simple Middle-Assyrian domestic structure

at Kavu an Höyük (top); Simple structure found in the Upper Tigris re-
gion (South-eastern Turkey) today (after Kozbe 2008), (bottom) ..........178
Figure 31. The Kurkh stele. Erected by Shalmaneser III in 853 BCE. Brit-
ish Museum, London (BM 118884) .............................................................179
Figure 32. Grooved Ware: 1-2 (p. 55), 7-10 (p. 58); Brown/Pink Ware: 3-6
(pp. 40-41) ........................................................................................................180
Figure 33. Grooved Ware: 11-20 (pp. 58-59) .............................................181
Figure 34. Grooved Ware: 21-27 (pp. 59-60), 28-30 (p. 56) .....................182
Figure 35. Brown/Pink Ware: 31-33 (p. 38), 36, 37-39 (p. 41); Plain Ware
34-35 (p. 66), 40-41 (pp. 66-67) ....................................................................183
Figure 36. Plain Ware: 42 (p. 66), 46 (p. 65); Brown/Pink Ware: 43-45, 47-
xii FACING AN EMPIRE
48 (pp. 38-39); Grooved Ware: 49-52 (pp. 54-55) .....................................184
Figure 37. Brown/Pink Ware: 53-55 (p. 39-40); Plain Ware: 56-60 (p. 71-
72), 61-67 (pp. 72-73) .....................................................................................185
Figure 38. Plain Ware: 68-71 (pp. 73-74); 72, 74, 76 (p. 74), 77-78 (pp. 67-
68); Brown/Pink Ware: 73, 75 (p. 44), 79-81 (pp. 43-44) .........................186
Figure 39. Plain Ware: 82-86 (pp. 74-75), 87-92 (pp. 68-69); Brown/Pink
Ware: 93-95 (p. 42) ..........................................................................................187
Figure 40. Plain Ware: 96 (pp. 70-71), 97, 98 (p. 71), 99-109 (pp. 69-70);
Brown/Pink Ware: 110-112 (pp. 42-43, cf. also p. 67) ..............................188
Figure 41. Brown/Pink Ware: 113-116 (pp. 42-43), 121-123 (p. 44); Plain
Ware: 117-120 (p. 75); Grooved Ware: 124-126 (pp. 57-58) ....................189
Figure 42. Grooved Ware: 127-131 (pp. 56-57); Brown/Pink Ware: 132-
134 (pp. 46-47); Plain Ware: 135-137 (pp. 75-76), 138-140 (pp. 76-77)
.............................................................................................................................190
Figure 43. Plain Ware: 141-143 (p. 77), 144-147 (pp. 77-78), 150-153 (p.
82); Brown/Pink Ware: 148 (p. 45), 149 (p. 49) .........................................191
Figure 44. Plain Ware: 154-157 (p. 82), 158-160 (p. 80), 161-165 (p. 83)
.............................................................................................................................192
Figure 45. Plain Ware: 166-168 (pp. 83-84), 169-172 (pp. 80-81), 173-175
(p. 81), 176-178 (p. 80) ...................................................................................193
Figure 46. Brown/Pink Ware: 179-181 (p. 47); Plain Ware: 182-184 (p.
84), 185-187 (pp. 84-85), 188-191 (p. 79) ....................................................194
Figure 47. Plain Ware: 192-193 (p. 79); Brown/Pink Ware: 194-196, 198,
199 (p. 48), 197 (pp. 48-49), 200 (p. 46), 201 (p. 78), 202 (pp. 45-46), 204
(p. 48); Grooved Ware: 203 (pp. 63-64) ......................................................195
Figure 48. Grooved Ware: 205 (pp. 63-64), 206-211 (pp. 61-62), 212-215
(p. 61), 216-221 (pp. 62-63) ...........................................................................196
Figure 49. Brown/Pink Ware: 222, 223, 225 (p. 52, cf also p. 86 for n.
223), 233 (p. 51); Plain Ware: 223-226 (pp. 86-87), 228-230 (p. 88), 231,
232, 234 (p. 85), 235-238 (p. 86), 239-243 (pp. 87-88) ..............................197
LIST OF FIGURES xiii
Figure 50. Brown/Pink Ware: 244-246 (pp. 50-51), 247-251 (pp. 49-50),
252-253 (pp. 53-54, cf. also p. 64) .................................................................198
Figure 51. Plain Ware: 254-256, 258, 259, 261 (pp. 88-89); Grooved Ware:
257 (pp. 64-65); Brown/Pink Ware: 260 (p. 53), 262-265 (pp. 52-53); Oth-
er: 267 (pp. 89-90) ...........................................................................................199
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Distribution of the three Iron Age wares at Hirbemerdon Tepe

and the two sub-phase assemblages ...............................................................35
Table 2. Leicester University Geology Grain Card charts used for the in-
clusions’ grain, size, percentage and sorting ..................................................35
Table 3. Types of fabric among the three Iron Age wares. Number of
sherds (left) and their percentage (right) ........................................................36
Table 4. Scheme of the pottery dynamics of interaction and influence be-

tween local and foreign communities within the Upper Tigris Region dur-
ing the Iron Age sub-phases (IVA, IVB) ....................................................107
FOREWORD
Connecting archaeological data with historical sources is usually a

complex exercise in which balancing the two sources is quite diffi-
cult. Further complicating this intellectual exercise is the attempt to
interpret the archaeological data using written texts as a magnifying
lens that enlarges the “quality” of the discovered material culture.
This approach can be thorny because the historical sources can
engulf the archaeological data, leading the latter down the danger-
ous road of using material culture to provide “answers” to histori-
cal questions (i.e., text first ... archaeology behind it).
Guido Guarducci was able to overcome this risk in carrying
out his MA dissertation at the University of Florence under the
auspices of Stefania Mazzoni. His dissertation was then turned into
a book that Gorgias Press has decided to publish. His approach to
the Iron Age period in the Upper Tigris region is fresh and innova-
tive. He was able to avoid the thorny game of combining written
and archaeological data through a dichotomic perspective that al-
lows the reader to focus either on the neo-Assyrian written sources
or the archaeological data discovered at the site of Hirbemerdon
Tepe. He was then able to combine the two sets of data supported
by other elements, such as modern ethnographic studies on pasto-
ral activities, a phenomenological approach to the surrounding
landscape, and the data available form the regional survey enacted
by Jason Ur and his team.
In the specific, with his work Guido Guarducci has given
voice to the local communities of this region during the Early Iron
Age, highlighting the differences in settlement patterns, pottery
production and economic resources that are recognizable before
the region was conquered by the Assyrians during the first millen-
nium BC. In so doing, he compared the material available from the
site of Hirbemerdon Tepe with the data brought to light at other
sites, such as the provincial capital of the Assyrian empire in this
xviii FACING AN EMPIRE
region (i.e., Tushan, modern Ziyaret Tepe). Moreover, the end of

the occupation in the High Mound at Hirbemerdon Tepe corre-
sponds to the construction of the palatial structures at Tushan. As
correctly pointed out by Matney (2010), the Assyrians brought to
this region a new policy that was based on a direct control of the
territory trough military enforcement. The use of force by the As-
syrians brought to a halt the complex phenomena of nomadism
and transhumance that marked the region throughout the Early
Iron Age. The arrival of the Assyrians is also linked to a dramatic
shift in the allocation of economic resources in the Upper Tigris
with a greater interest in agricultural production versus pastoral
activities. As adeptly exposed by Guarducci, this new political and
economic perspective leads to an increase in the number and size
of specific sites (i.e., the major centres directly controlled by the
Assyrians), while the minor centers, such as Hirbemerdon Tepe,
are instead transformed into farming sites located in close proximi-
ty to the Tigris river, as is recognizable in the Outer Town of
Hirbemerdon Tepe where poorly preserved architecture of the
Neo-Assyrian period is found together with numerous examples of
grinding stones.
Guarducci’s work is also extremely useful in highlighting the
ritual and religious values that the Upper Tigris region would have
had for the Assyrians. The location of the sources of the Tigris
river north of the city of Diyarbak r was probably another reason
for the Assyrian kings to conquer this region. A materialistic ap-
proach to the conquest of the region by the Assyrians has been the
predominant explanation for the desire to conquer this region,
which includes the need to control the frontier with the Kingdom
of Urartu, to increase the production of grain, and to import more
timber to the motherland. While all of these reasons are probably
correct, we also have to envision a different perspective: the ritual-
istic and religious importance of this locale in representing the
place from where the Tigris river was born and whose water flowed
through northern Mesopotamia, homeland of the Assyrians and
dotted by the most important Assyrian cities (such as Assur, Nim-
rud, Niniveh, etc.). The importance of the source of the Tigris and
it being conquered by the Assyrians is confirmed by the presence
of Assyrian reliefs by Tiglath-pileser I and Shalmaneser III at Birk-
leyn as well as the description of the arrival to the sources illustrat-
ed in the bronze door bands of the Balawat gates by Shalmaneser
FOREWORD xix
III.
In conclusion, Guarducci’s work is a very exhaustive and reli-
able account on the history of the region during the Iron Age.
Moreover, this volume will be a useful tool for scholars and stu-
dents interested in studying the region. Considering the lack of
publications on pottery studies for the Iron Age in the Upper Ti-
gris region, the pottery catalogue of the Early Iron Age period
forms from Hirbemerdon Tepe will be a yardstick for those inter-
ested in finding comparable pottery types and categories from this
specific region.
Nicola Laneri
July 25th, 2011
PREFACE
Great attention has been drawn to the Upper Tigris River valley, in
province in South-eastern Turkey, since the Turkish
res-
ervoir dam. Located 65 km upstream of the Syrian and Iraqi bor-
plant project
of Turkey. As similar projects were carried out in the past (i.e., the,
Keban, Atatürk, Karakaya and Carchemish dams etc.), the filling of
the dam will flood a large part of the valley’s territory relegating
underwater numerous sites and cities belonging to the historical
heritage of the area. It is then of paramount importance to under-
stand and record as much data as possible about the local commu-
nities and the foreign connections that flowered in this area. There-
fore, a conspicuous number of excavation projects have been en-
couraged and accorded by the Turkish authorities. Among these
projects there is the Hirbemerdon Tepe Archaeological Project.
The Project, directed by Dr. Nicola Laneri, is composed of multi-
ple elements of investigation and scientific analysis. After an exten-
sive landscape and geomagnetic survey had been carried out over
the entire settlement area, the excavation finally took place starting
in the summer of 2005. Furthermore, a broad and detailed pedes-
trian survey is being conducted by Prof. Jason Ur of Harvard Uni-
versity, within the area surrounding the site. These and other recent
archaeological discoveries within South-eastern Anatolia offer the
unique opportunity to understand the dynamics of the Assyrian
Empire borderland and the lesser-known interaction with and be-
tween its indigenous communities.
The material culture yielded by Hirbemerdon Tepe and other
similar nearby settlements is now playing a major role in bringing
back to light the socio-economic and historical traits of the ancient
past of these lands.
xxii FACING AN EMPIRE
The book intends to briefly analyze these local cultures, in

particular between the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age (ca.
13th - 10th century BCE), and the dramatic changes introduced by
the Neo-Assyrian Empire in the following centuries (ca. 10th - 7th
century BCE). These aspects will be explored mainly by means of
the case study offered by the Hirbemerdon Tepe Iron Age settle-
ment.
The network that is emerging, formed by different economic
and social components such as pastoral nomadism, chiefdoms and
city-states, together with the strong Assyrian influence from the
south, create a lively multiracial, correlated and dynamic environ-
ment, that is contributing so much to the better-known Mesopo-
tamian Low-lands and that only now is revealing its importance
within the ancient Near Eastern general landscape.
The following study is the result of five years of active excava-
tion and survey, together with a background work of research and
analysis of the material yielded from the Iron Age levels of the an-
cient settlement of Hirbemerdon Tepe.
Guido Guarducci
Febbruary 22nd, 2010
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
First of all I would like to sincerely thank the director of the mis-
sion and my friend, Dr. Nicola Laneri, who believed in me since
the first day on the excavation and without whom this work simply
would not have been made possible. I will never be able to repay
the patience and perseverance that he has shown me. Moreover, I
would like to deeply thank Prof. Stefania Mazzoni, who had the
patience to follow me and support my choices, providing me great
freedom of action over my ideas and the structure of this study.
Her continuous positive words were a great motivation for me.
My greatest thanks goes to Francesca, my wife, who support-
ed me in the darkest moments of this journey and to my parents
for their help and encouragement, especially my mother who sig-
nificantly helped me in revising the English grammar of this study.
I would also like to thank my colleagues and friends: Dr.
Stefano Valentini, who introduced me to Hirbemerdon Tepe and
always supported me, in class as well as in the field; Dr. Anacleto
D'Agostino, who shared his great knowledge of ceramics and anal-
ysis methodology, giving me a direction to follow; Prof. Jason Ur,
who introduced me to landscape survey and the inspiring pastoral
nomad perspective over these ancient lands. In addition, I would
like to express my profound gratitude to Prof. Pecorella, who was
the first ever to believe in me by introducing me to this world.
I would also like to thank the Ministry of Culture and Tourism
of Turkey for its support and the permit for archaeological work at
Hirbemerdon Tepe, and, especially, Ms. Nilüfer Babacan, Ms. Yeliz
Kocayaz, and Ms. Rana Alyakut who have been our representatives
in the field. The project was jointly planned with Mr. Necdet nal
and Ms. Nevin Soyukaya of the Archaeological Museum of Diyar-
, dam project, and to them goes the team’s
warmest acknowledgment as well as my own. Moreover, our thanks
for financial and logistical support go to the Istituto Italiano per
xxiv FACING AN EMPIRE
l’Africa e l’Oriente (IsIAO), Grand Valley State University

(GVSU), Harvard University, the Italian Ministry of Foreign Af-
fairs, the Curtiss T. and Mary G. Brennan Foundation, Credito Si-
ciliano and other private donors who have supported most of the
excavation seasons at Hirbemerdon Tepe. Thank you all.
INTRODUCTION
The area around the upper course of the Tigris River is a land of
geological transition and a merging point of various cultures
throughout history. These contrasting aspects of different nature
find a unique combination within this land. The epoch under exam
sees this area subject to intense political organization and conflict.
This is the Assyrian Empire's most northern boundary. Therefore,
a peripheral perspective of the empire system, examining a small
rural settlement first of indigenous then of the empire's concern,
offers an extremely interesting point of view of a frontier land. The
Assyrian sources provided a unilateral and perhaps biased historical
perspective and landscape view of the human ecology of this terri-
tory, but it is with the new emerging archaeological data that the
opposite side is finally coming to light revealing the nature, the
ethnicity and cultural aspects of the local communities of the Up-
per Tigris region.
Subjects dealt within the study

The present study intends to examine a number of defining ele-
ments of the Upper Tigris region during the Iron Age period.
Those elements are collected in the following subject matters: (A)
the illustration of the relationship established between the foreign
and local communities with the environment of the Upper Tigris
region and its resources; since these are part the fundamental moti-
vations that modeled the social and historical aspects of those pop-
ulations. (B) The provision of a broad and detailed historical over-
view of the region mainly through the Assyrian texts and its ar-
chaeological evidence. Therefore, jointly with the first point, it cre-
ates the necessary context in which the site is positioned and relat-
ed to. (C) The description of the archaeological context of the site
of Hirbemerdon Tepe, through its sectors and excavated Areas of
investigation. Greater attention will be directed to the architectural
2 FACING AN EMPIRE
features and other material culture elements, considering the struc-

tural dynamics, the possible utilization and the related phases of
inhabitancy. (D) The creation of a comprehensive and detailed
analysis of the pottery production supplied by the Iron Age levels
of the site. This will be realized by defining the main morphotypes
of the pottery assemblage, describing all of their characteristics,
provide an illustrated catalogue of those types and an extensive
correlated comparanda. (E) The elaboration of all the gathered and
processed data, in order to discuss and reach an organic perspective
of the site during the Iron Age as a case study or model of a small
local settlement correlated with the surrounding communities and
with the following Assyrian presence. This will be mostly done in
light of the material culture characteristics and related manifesta-
tions. Other than this, distinctive aspects of the ceramic production
and architectural features will be further discussed by concerning
tangential issues raised during the study in order to propose a new
social pattern for the two phases of the Iron Age concerning mul-
tiple relationships and connoting elements of the ethnic groups
within the Upper Tigris region.
Objectives of the study

Within the research framework created by the above-mentioned
topics and the associated data, the present study will try to achieve
three main objectives. First of all it is important to depict a valid
survey of the region's landscape during the Iron Age by its specific
features, to better understand the socio-economic pattern of the
Upper Tigris region and interacting communities. Secondly, the
heart of the study will be the creation of a pottery typology, which
will concern a comprehensive analysis of the chronology, mor-
phology, fabric, comparanda and graphic illustration of every single
potsherd. By obtaining such data it will then be possible to define
three corollary aspects. The first aspect is the production of a short
Iron Age pottery compendium to the Upper Tigris and neighbor-
ing regions. The second aspect will feature the consideration of
these material culture characteristics as a case study to better un-
derstand the general view over the region’s archaeological land-
scape and in particular the relationship of the local and foreign cul-
tural expressions. The last aspect sees the acquisition of a local per-
spective by its affiliation reflected within its material culture pro-
duction. The whole of this data can be considered a tool to estab-
INTRODUCTION 3
lish or better explain, where possible, by which means and in which

degree the material culture can be defined by ethnicity and/or kin-
ship and vice versa. That brings us to the third objective, which will
try to establish the characterizing aspects of the relationship be-
tween the South-eastern Anatolia local communities with the Neo-
Assyrian Empire; these are the material culture production and the
archaeological/historical data as a reflection and designation of
such entities and their sphere of action. Among these aspects I will
put particular emphasis on identifying the material culture distinc-
tive traits and the social-economic pattern related to a possible
semi-nomadic connotation within a perspective of a dimorphic-like
type of society in the Upper Tigris region community environment,
in consideration of ethnical and kinship1 linking aspects of affinity.
Structure of the study

The present study is subdivided into three main sections, plus a
catalogue of illustrations.
1 Due to the importance of these aspects it is necessary to better

define the boundaries of these two terms; the following defini-
tions will help in that intent.
Ethnicity: A term for group identity that came into use in
anthropology in the 1950's, primarily to describe aspects of the
processes of modernization going on in Africa (see the Manches-
ter School). The concept received its modern form after Barth's
anthology Ethnic Groups and Boundaries (1969). Barth here de-
scribes ethnicity as a contrastive category. I am "Norwegian" be-
cause I see myself (and / or: I am seen) in contrast to e.g. Saami
or Swedes. Ethnicity is thus a concept describing a particular way
of drawing boundaries between groups, in contrast to culture,
which is the meaningful ‘contents’, the ‘life-world’ that the
boundaries contain.
Kinship: is a relationship between any entities that share a
genealogical origin, through biological, cultural, or historical de-
scent. Kinship is the broad term for all the relationships that
people are born into or create later in life that are considered
binding in the eyes of society.
It is important to underline how within this study, the blood re-
lationship connotation is not part of this concept.
4 FACING AN EMPIRE
Section one concerns the multiple aspects of the ecology in-

herent to the area of the Upper Tigris regions during the Iron Age.
The first part of section one considers the environmental context,
geography, land use and resources under the Assyrian and indige-
nous landscape layout and exploitation. The second part will con-
centrate on the historical facts of the area.
Section two brings under analysis the settlement itself by con-
sidering its archaeological features during the Iron Age. The first
part in particular will examine the architecture and other issues of
the material culture, while the second part will focus on all aspects
of the pottery production.
Section three contemplates the discussion regarding the main
topics of the study. Moreover, the discussion will be brought into a
broader view in consideration of ethnical aspects and other bond-
ing elements that emerged in the study and in the material culture
analysis. A nomadic/semi-nomadic hypothesized social characteri-
zation together with a subsequent phase of reciprocal influence
originated by the ‘collision’ of the local/indigenous perspectives
with the foreign Assyrian domination, will delimit the social land-
scape reflected within the material culture expressions.
The figures follow the presentation of these three sections,
and embody a broad iconographic apparatus designed to illustrate
and assist the reading of this study. The first part contains the illus-
trations related to the text, while the second part features the illus-
tration figures of the examined pottery.
1 THE AREA DURING THE IRON AGE
The landscape tenure and historical information concerning the

Upper Tigris, as well as other surrounding regions, is almost com-
pletely defined by Middle Assyrian and Neo-Assyrian texts. There
are very few other types of information necessary for this recon-
struction, which are mostly inferred on the basis of common ar-
chaeological data of the regional settlements. Therefore the follow-
ing landscape and resources analysis, as well as the historical recon-
struction, are based on the paradigmatic activities carried out by the
Assyrians but that can easily be enlarged to a broader perspective,
which includes the local communities.
Although I am aware and concerned about the possible biased
perspective intrinsic in such elements and sources, this seems the
most plausible starting point for an interpretation of the popula-
tions’ interactions with the Upper Tigris region and its features.
1.1. THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT: GEOGRAPHY,

LAND USE AND RESOURCES
The Upper Tigris region stretches around the upper course of the
Tigris River in South-eastern Turkey (Fig.1). This strip of land de-
limits the geomorphologic transition from the Mesopotamian
plains to the Anatolian mountains, an elevation gradient that
stretches from about 550 m to more than 1700 m a.s.l. in the Van
region.
The north-eastern area of the valley is embraced by the moun-
tain slopes of the Armenian Taurus (aka Occidental Taurus or An-
ti-Taurus) whereas the southern part starting from the r ‘Abd n,
the Ka j ri/Ka iyari Mountain in the Assyrian texts, gently blends
into the hills and plains of Central Mesopotamia. The western area
presents a smoother land made up of hills of modest entity, while
eastward, starting from the Mardin heights, climbing up towards
the Batman’s River confluence with the Tigris, one is struck by the
6 FACING AN EMPIRE
increasing ascent and roughness of the hills. Clearly this part of the
region did not and does not have a strong agricultural vocation (cf.
Matney 2010: 29). Instead we find an extensive cattle breeding
linked to nomadic and semi-nomadic pastoralism (Fig. 11)2. In fact,
the importance of pastoral activities is still recognizable in the Di-
region where winter pasturelands lak) of non-sedentary
groups were in common use for at least two millennia and possibly
much longer (Ur and Hammer 2009: 4). Agricultural practice how-
ever was not completely discarded. On the contrary, west and
south of the site large portions of land were highly productive in
this matter, while the river’s water guaranteed a capillary irrigation
where possible.
1.1.1. Assyrian Landscape in the Upper Tigris

Anatolia and the Upper Tigris regions after the End of the Bronze
Age were highly under populated due to abandonment. This period
of crisis was the result of multiple events, the last of which was the
decline and fall of the precedent empires' power structures (i.e., the
Middle Assyrian domination, mainly 14th – 13th but also 12th – 11th
century BCE). The returning Assyrian establishment dating to the
beginning of the 9th century BCE brought a massive landscape re-
modeling, due to a capillary colonization process. Assyrian coloni-
zation procedure had a standard number of playing elements. After
conquering an area it had to be secured. In order to gain control of
the acquired land and possibly its provincialization, a strategic con-
trol network needed to be installed. This network was composed of
a radiating number of concurring elements (Fig. 3), which estab-
lished the success of the territorial occupation and its productive-
ness. The center of a new province was always its main city, a capi-
tal. In the Upper Tigris region, this is the case of Tu han (modern
Ziyaret Tepe). We know that this city was already present in the
Middle Assyrian and Early Iron Age phases and that under the new
imperial control (i.e., the Neo-Assyrian period) the settlement
seems to have grown from its original 3 hectares extent to an im-
2 The land use data was gathered after four years of intense sur-
vey activities in the region surrounding Hirbemerdon within a 5

km radius (Fig. 11).
THE AREA DURING THE IRON AGE 7
pressive expanse of 32 hectares (Parker 2001: 210). Considering the

capital as the center of the radiating governmental system, we find
a large number of settlements of decreasing power created ex-novo
or refurbished in order to take advantage of the key areas of the
region. In fact, if we consider the data gathered by Algaze and his
colleagues (1989, 1991), also stressed by Parker (1998, 2001, 2002),
we notice that the inhabitation percentage of the valley seems to
augment more than 300% from the Early Iron Age phase – ca.
1150/1050-900 BCE – to the Neo-Assyrian Imperial period – ca.
900-610 BCE, (Fig. 2; Parker 2002: 385). Following this hierar-
chical model of settlements pattern, we encounter medium-sized
centers, which were controlled by the local governor who paid
tribute to the Assyrian king (e.g., Gre Dimse, Schachner 2003: 160).
Jointly with these administrative and living installations, the Assyri-
an landscape involved other types of land use units. These were
fortified farming villages known as dunnu (e.g., Giricano/dunnu- a-
Uzibi 11 km southeast of Bismil, Radner 2004)3, which constituted
the core of the peripheral administration and agricultural applica-
tion. Smaller hamlets of a similar rural character, probably named
kapru (Radner 2003: 118), where also present and can possibly in-
clude the site of Hirbemerdon Tepe. This brings us to the perimet-
ric confines of a province, which in most cases corresponded to
the empire's frontier. This contour area played a crucial role in pro-
tecting the heartland and at the same time it could possibly give
access to the confining territories. This was brought into practice
mostly in two ways. The first was to create a series of direct or indi-
rect areas of control or buffer zones, especially near other empires
or organized powers. In addiction to this, a vast deployment of
fortresses were arranged along the borders, such as the Upper Ti-
gris valley, in order to gain prompt countermeasures and create a
sort of deterrent towards the empire’s enemies (Parker 1997: 77).
Forts were probably the principal elements of the province’s far
periphery. As Liverani (1988: 86) and Parker (1997: 77) already ar-
3 The tablets found inside a ceramic vessel at Giricano, dating

to 1069 or 1068 BCE, included loan documents which were
never repaid, perhaps due to the loss of Assyrian influence in
the Upper Tigris River valley at this time (Schachner 2003: 156).
8 FACING AN EMPIRE
gued, the Assyrian forts and strongholds had further employments.

The foundation of a fort would usually precede the actual territorial
occupation. It acted as a preliminary ground establishment, island
of seizure, and as a lookout bulwark. This would have been the
first contact and the first step to slowly penetrate the new region of
interest in order to later take control with greater emphasis. Assyri-
an expansion was, therefore, not only dictated by massive invasions
or hard hitting attacks but even by gradual submission through this
particular network system. These observations seem confirmed by
the opening formula of the majority of the letters from Tu han and
other northern provinces (cf. Lanfranchi and Parpola 1990). In fact,
the governors ensure the Assyrian ruler that ‘The forts and the land
of the king, my lord, are well’. Perhaps by stating this stock phrase,
the subject was guaranteeing that the territory in its whole was at
peace and devoid of any kind of issue. The ‘forts’ seem to represent
the borders, or a particular part of the territory, opposite and at the
same time completing the rest of the ‘land’.
1.1.2. Colonizing the Resources

The Assyrian colonization process had multiple purposes, especial-
ly in the Upper Tigris region. Primarily agricultural motivations
exercised a great incentive due to the scarcely productive homeland
that was absolutely insufficient to sustain the empire’s needs.
Grains, orchards and vineyards we know were broadly present (cf.
e.g., Lanfranchi and Parpola 1990). We must not forget that the
construction of large-scale canals for irrigation was indispensable
for the creation of the agricultural landscape of the Upper Tigris.
Without this technical knowledge, the Assyrian agricultural produc-
tion would not have been as broad (cf. e.g., Ur 2005). Obviously,
this kind of arrangement needed enormous quantities of people to
populate and deeply exploit the subdued territory. That is why the
Assyrians, especially under Tiglath-Pileser III (744-727 BCE), re-
sorted to mass deportation especially from the Levant4, in areas
4 This coercive practice had the corollary of spreading the

common language of these populations to the various provinc-
es of the empire. In fact, Aramaic, widely diffused in the Pales-
tinian territories or Canaan (i.e., Lebanon, Palestine, Israel and
such as the Upper Tigris or the nearby Cizre plain, which brought
almost costless labor power5, rapid development and a weakening
of the local authorities (Parker 2002: 385; Matney 2010: 16).
Another fundamental aspect of this territory that can be con-
sidered to all effects a resource was the Tigris River itself. In an-
cient times, the river was navigable as far as the city of Am du
(Lipi , mostly during the spring
time when the snow in the mountains started to melt and filled up
the river bed (Parker 2001: 388, 389). Therefore, it was widely used
for the transportation of goods and people (see further ahead), at
least downstream, since Radner (2006: 274) does not believe that
the Tigris was navigable upstream due to the deep cuts in the Cizre
section of the river. Nevertheless, the river was clearly of great im-
portance for the empire and for this reason it could not fall into the
enemy’s hands.
This brings us to a well-documented type of supply process.
Many governors' letters, such as the ones of Am du and Tu han,
keep the Assyrian king constantly notified as to the timber purvey.
Timber was obviously extremely precious for Assur and great
quantities were constantly necessary as a letter from Liphur-Bel of
Am du clearly reports a shipment of 2,500 log beams. We must
bear in mind that this vast exportation was executed because
South-eastern Anatolia was the only area that could provide these
building materials. The letters (i.e., Lanfranchi and Parpola 1990: n.
4, 6, 7, 25, 33, 34, 39, 43) describe which kind of wood beams were
necessary (e.g., door-beams, roof-beams) and how the Tigris func-
tioned as a means of transportation. The logs were put in the river,
parts of Syria and Jordan), started to become the new lingua fran-
ca of the Near East, subsequently amplified by the Persian Em-
pire domination.
5 Recently (summer 2009) another tablet was discovered at
Ziyaret Tepe ‘listing 144 women's names who were likely em-
ployed by the palace as agricultural workers or laborers at its
granary. Yet, while the tablets were written in the Late Assyrian
language, the women's names are not Assyrian. It's an intriguing
possibility that these women may have been one group that was
involved in these deportations’ (T. Matney; also cf. Matney et al.
2011: 236).
10 FACING AN EMPIRE
tied together in small groups and driven along the river’s course to
their final destination as seen in a bas-relief (Fig. 4) of Sennacher-
ib’s time (704-681 BCE). Obviously this method needed a constant
surveillance along the way to prevent the risk of clogging up the
river with the logs. Two letters (ibid. 33, 34) reveal how the local
rulers had to send their men into ubrian and Urartian territories in
order to gather the necessary lumber. This was a very hazardous
practice, which again reveals the importance of this commodity
transiting the Upper Tigris region.
Assyrian exploitation of the Anatolian heights resources ex-
panded to a plethora of raw materials such as precious stones,
needed to adorn the cult statues or other special objects, and a
whole range of minerals. Moreover another type of raw material,
possibly the most important of all, created great concern: metal.
These regions formed one of the most metal rich areas of the en-
tire ancient Near East, attracting merchants and groups from all
directions since the Middle Bronze Age at least (Forlanini 2006).6
Urartu also was aware of the great presence of metals including
their economic and utilization relevance. The evolution of this
northern empire benefited greatly by mastering iron-working tech-
niques and a broad exportation of iron objects influencing metal
casting cultures as far away as Etruscan Italy (Piotrovskij 1966:
239). Certainly this metal hoarding between these two forces was
one of the main causes of war. The list7 of the objects seized by
Sargon II from the Urartian temple of Haldi at Mu a ir is more
than enough for us to realize the amount of metal objects and the
manufacture’s quality present in that era. The Upper Tigris region
was very important primarily for its rich galena and copper ore de-
6 As a matter of fact, copper, silver, iron, lead and, in smaller
quantities, gold, where significantly extracted during the period

of Assyrian colonies in Central Anatolia (20th – 18th century
BCE).
7 Part of the booty comprehended: a total of 167 talents and
half a mina of silver (i.e, 5,060 kg) in objects and an impressive

number of bronze objects such as 25,212 shields, 1,514 spears,
305,412 swords, 607 vases plus bronze bows and banners for a
total of more than 3,600 talents of bronze (i.e., 98,883 kg), (Belli
1991: 20, 29).
posits, in particular the Ergani area (Yener 2000: 57–60; Belli 1991:
25) and the Siirt area (Belli 1991: 25), moreover iron and silver de-
posits were present although they were not as rich (Fig. 5). Note-
worthy is a part of the inscription of the Kurkh stele describing the
pledge paid by B t-Zam ni to Assurnasirpal II (883-859 BCE) after
the assassination of his allied Aramean ruler: 100 talents of tin, 100
talents of copper, 300 talents of iron, 100 bronze caldrons, 3,000
bronze receptacles, bowls and containers (Grayson 1991: text
A.0.101.1, p. 211, lines 121-122; text A.0.101.1, p. 252, lines 115-
118; text A.0.101.19, p. 261, lines 88-89). This pledge to pay reveals
the value attributed to metal objects in the same way it does for the
metal types circulating within the region’s royal courts. In addition
to copper it seems that B t-Zam ni was also famous for its iron
trade and manufacture, probably due to the alliance and its proxim-
ity with Assyria. Lipi ski (2000: 535) and Maxwell-Hyslop (1974:
139) are also of this idea. The annals of Assurnasirpal indicate also
the nearby ubria as a place rich with metals such as lead, tin, gold
and silver (Grayson 1972/1976: n. 642).
1.1.3. Symbolic Landscape

What has been hitherto contemplated are some of the main aspects
of Assyrian colonization and land use. Under this light, by referring
to the Upper Tigris region, we must consider another fundamental
element, which brought great concern to the Assyrians, that is the
religious and cosmological spheres. There are two main features
that could have attracted the attention of Assur, maybe even sur-
passing the above-cited economic factors. First of all we must bear
in mind that the uplands, which comprehended South-eastern Ana-
tolia, in the eyes of the Mesopotamian civilizations, Assur as well,
were a mountainous area, the end of the world and the access to
the underworld, the sacred Kur. Even though traditionally this Su-
merian term is associated mostly with the Zagros chain, the per-
spective of Assur over the Taurus Mountain chain was certainly
similar. In this way, a far land with striking heights which deeply
contrast with the flat Mesopotamian planes is therefore of great
significance and symbolic attribution. The second feature was even
more important, and it ideologically completed the first. In fact
north-west of the valley, at the site of Birkleyn, rises the so-called
‘source of the Tigris’ or ‘Tigris tunnel’, 70 Km north-east of Diyar-
. Here Assyrian sovereigns as Tiglath-pileser I (1114–1076
12 FACING AN EMPIRE
BCE) and Shalmaneser III (858–824 BCE) carved their images

(Fig. 6) and inscribed their royal words as signs of their passage and
greatness. Beyond this, their visit was motivated by other meanings.
Both kings are depicted as performing the so-called ubana tarasu,
‘stretching the finger’ gesture that Ursula Magen (1986) believes is a
form of praying enactment, which positively connects the human
subject with the deities. Shalmaneser represented this sacred mo-
ment also in the famous bronze bands of the gates of Imgur-Enlil
(Tell Bal w t) - (Fig. 7) as in his annalistic texts. This aspect de-
notes the desire to conserve and reiterate the performed enactment
and the symbolic power that this place bore as well as the necessity
of importing this place-event into the urban sphere of the Land of
Assur by propagandistic and transmission matters. This was ac-
complished in specific and detailed narrative representations of the
Assyrian expeditions in the foreign landscapes (cf. Harman ah 2007:
197). Harman ah in his study on the ‘source of the Tigris’ stresses
the aspects of commemorative significance, as well as the trend to
merge or enclose the local practices and symbolic power with for-
eign tradition, in fact he states that generically:
Ancient states often appropriated symbolic or ritual land-
scapes, making them durable through their commemorative
ceremonies, acts of inscription and building operations. These
commemorative sites became event-places where state specta-
cles encountered and merged with local practices that were an-
chored to those places. By definition, commemorative practic-
es are also ideological. Sites of commemoration, therefore,
served as public spheres in which elite and local ideologies in-
teracted in a set of material and discursive practices related to
notions of kingship and servitude. They constituted loci for the
display and its material embodiment, becoming places through
which local histories were negotiated and written.8
This view seems to be confirmed by the data gathered at Birk-
leyn by Adreas Schachner (2009: 231-241). In fact, he argues that
although we have the relief and inscription of Shalmaneser III we
do not have any kind of Assyrian ceramic relic belonging to that
8 Harman ah (2007: 180)

period, almost as if there was some kind of agreement or religious

tolerance kindled by this holy place and its significance for the local
communities (Schachner 2009: 239). Moreover, we must also con-
sider another perspective. As I have greatly stressed, this was an
area of major symbolic significance and the greatest and purest gift
of all, the Tigris, the same river that flowed through the heartlands
of Assyria, sprang from these gorges. That is a connection that di-
rectly linked the ‘source’ to the motherland, almost an extension of
the river and vice versa. Moreover, the great reverence that this place
exercised along with the numinous character of the river and its
symbolic charge perhaps did not meet with the idea of leaving the-
se two elements in the impure hands of strangers or even enemies
like the kings of Nairi or subsequently the Urartians. In fact, no
Urartian traces were ever discovered by the various surveys carried
out here (e.g., Schachner 2009: 239). This condition and the above
mentioned factors could have easily been a strong additional moti-
vation to take control over the area.
1.2. POLITICAL AND HISTORICAL BOUNDARIES

Before approaching the historical facts it is worth looking at an
overview of the political repartition of the region during the Iron
Age phases (Figs. 1, 3).
1.2.1. Major Cities and Kingdoms of the Upper Tigris Valley

Following the river’s course the first important social organization
that we encounter is that of B t-Zam ni and its capital Am du. This
kingdom was one of the oldest in the region, counting at least elev-
en governors under Assyrian domination (Radner and Schacher
2001: 759). The first attestations come from the state archives of
Tell Billa dating to the first third of the 13th century BCE. (Finkel-
stein 1953: 116-117). Here A r-k id is mentioned probably be-
cause he was the first governor when this territory became an As-
syrian province. As its name reveals, the origin of B t-Zam ni (=
‘House/dynasty of Zamân’) is clearly Aramean. Zamânu was the
eponymous founder of the chiefdom and its dynasty (Lipi ski
2000: 135), as usually happened within the majority of the commu-
nities of tribal origin. Starting with Assurnasirpal II (883-859 B.C.),
the kings of B t-Zam ni are appointed as ‘The Son of Zamânu’, a
form of royal titling, which expresses lineage. Since the beginning
14 FACING AN EMPIRE
of the Neo-Assyrian Period this kingdom managed to always main-

tain a special relationship with Assyria. Tukulti-Ninurta II (890-884
BCE) and Assurnasirpal II consider it an important ally against the
Hurrians and afterwards the Urartians, therefore allowing the pos-
sibility to remain autonomous and preserve their ethnicity for a
long period of time compared to the other kingdoms. Shalmaneser
III in his annals speaks positively of this region at the moment of
his passage in 856 BCE. Such information leads us to believe that
the state was still independent. According to Lipi ski (2000: 160)
we probably have to wait until the battle against Sarduri I (ca. 840-
830 BCE) and Shalmeneser’s turtanu9 Dayy n-A r to consider
B t-Zam ni again as an Assyrian province (Grayson 1996: text
A.0.102.14, p. 69, lines 141b-143; text A.0.102.16, p. 81, lines 228-
231). The participation of Am du as one of the 27 allied cities cap-
tained by A r-da’in-aplu against Shalmaneser and secondarily by
his son am i-Adad V (823-811 B.C.) – (Grayson 1996: text
A.0.103.1, p. 183, line 49; cf. also Kessler 1980: 101), possibly con-
firms this hypothesis also claimed by Radner and Schachner (2001:
759).10
Proceeding along the river we encounter Sinabu/ inamu,
which was an important city-state that can possibly be identified
with modern Fafih (Lipi ski 2000: 141-142) or Pornak (Kessler
1980: 79, 121). Its foundation seems to date back to the reign of
Shalmaneser I (1273-1244 BCE) – (Grayson 1991: text A.0.101.19,
p. 261, lines 92-93), who founded it for defensive purposes as he
did for other cities along the empire’s perimeter. We find the city
cited together with Am du within the gubernatorial titles in Neo-
Assyrian periodization (Millard 1994: 100-111), probably because it
was part of B t-Zam ni. Sinabu is mentioned in the annals of As-
surnasirpal II as well, along with Tu han, Damdamusa, another
fortified site, and T du (Grayson 1991: text A.0.101.19, p. 262, line
97).
Shifting eastwards was the city of T du/Ta’ du, which Lipi ski
associates to Tell Ermen (2000: 143), while Kessler more likely
with Uçtepe (1980: 117-121). Uçtepe is also associated with the old
9 Or ‘field marshal’. The highest official after the king.

10 For further details on B t-Zam ni cf. p. 21 ff.
town of Kurkh (Kessler 1980: 117-121), the location where the

English diplomat J.G. Taylor discovered two inscribed stone mon-
oliths in 1861 (1865: 21-58). One of these two famous stele was
erected by Assurnasirpal II (lost), concerning his first five years of
reign and the second by his son Shalmaneser III regarding his first
six years of kingship (Fig. 31). These are probably the most im-
portant documents on the Upper Tigris region’s ancient history.
T du underwent the same fortification process of Sinabu ordered
by Shalmanesser I (Grayson 1991: 256–262, text A.0.101.19), but
its foundation probably goes back to Mitannian origin. In fact,
thanks to the inscription of his father Adad-nirari I (1295-1264
BCE) – (Grayson 1987: text A.0.76.4, p. 137, lines 37-41; text
A.0.76.22, p. 158, lines 55-60), we know that he had to intervene in
this area against Wasa atta, king of Hanigalbat, to reconquer the
city of T du (and probably even Sinabu) transformed by the Hur-
rians into a capital after the fall of Wa ukanni (Radner and Shach-
ner 2001: 756, 757). This could mean that the city was founded
much earlier than the others considered here.
Tu han, modern Ziyaret Tepe, is the next settlement along the
Tigris’s southern riverbank. The city gave the name to the homon-
ymous province, which became, apart from B t-Zam ni, the most
powerful and important element of the Upper Tigris regional land-
scape. Regarding the Middle Assyrian period we have no direct
documents related to the city. According however to the inscrip-
tions of Assurnasirpal II from the Temple of Ninurta and the
Great Monolith at its entrance at Kalkhu/Nimrud (respectively:
Grayson 1991: text A.0.101.1 pp. 191-223; text A.0.101.17, pp. 237-
254), Tushhum, as it was called earlier, had long been an Assyrian
city. Famine and hunger at a certain point had pushed away the
inhabitants to other lands as ubria (Radner and Schachner 2001:
757). The proof of this dating seems to come directly from the ce-
ramic assemblage of the site, which exposes Middle Assyrian types
of sherds (cf. e.g., Matney 1998: 24). We also know that Shalmaneser
I (1273-1244 BCE) fortified the older settlement as he did with
others (see above). Assurnasirpal II recounts in his annals directly
about Tu han during his first campaign (the second overall) in the
Nairi lands of 882 BCE (Grayson 1991: text A.0.101.1, p. 202 lines
1-9; text A.0.101.17, p. 242f, lines 6-28). The Assyrian king de-
scribes how he demolished the old walls replacing them with new
ones, claiming that he then built a palace and erected a limestone
16 FACING AN EMPIRE
stele. For some time scholars thought that the stele in question was
the same one that Taylor retrieved at Kurkh. In fact Uçtepe and
Ziyaret Tepe have both been proposed as possible candidates to be
identified with Tu han. Kessler (1980: 117-118) correctly objected
that the Kurkh stele of Assurnasirpal could not have been the one
of Tu han, because its text refers to the king’s fifth campaign, while
the stele of Tu han described in the king’s annals goes back only to
his second campaign. This means that the Kurkh stele does not
come from Tu han, therefore Tu han cannot be identified with
Kurkh. Kessler instead connects Ziyaret Tepe to the capital by
topographic reconstructions based on Assurnasirpal’s indications.
The Neo-Assyrian phase is the period of the settlement’s maximum
extent and wealth (cf. p. 18), as the letters11 to Sargon II (721-705
BCE) confirm, by becoming the leading city and capital of the re-
gion. Subsequently, Tu han and B t-Zam ni’s related territories
were united as a single province under Esarhaddon (680-669 BCE).
North of the Tigris we encounter ubria, a kingdom that par-
ticipated and influenced numerous times the occurring events of
the region. The dimensions of its territories were very vast and re-
mained oddly independent for a long period of time. Two realms
belonging to the respective eponymous city-states of Up mu and
Kullimeri, possibly Fum and Gre Migro (Kessler 1995: 57), formed
this kingdom as a whole. This piece of land had a crucial burden
mutually and tacitly ascribed to it by the Assyrian and Urartian em-
pires. In fact ubria probably owes its independence and prosperity
to performing as a buffer state. The multiethnic population residing
here, Hurrians, Arameans and perhaps Urartians and Assyrians,
would confirm this. Radner and Schachner (2001: 756, 757) argued
that ubria and the Taurus piedmont area in general were probably
one of the last holdouts of the fallen Mitanni Empire. Considering
the possibility, as mentioned above, that T du was their new capital
after the loss of Wa ukanni, and that ubrian rulers during the
Neo-Assyrian Period bore Hurrian names (Hu-Te up, Ik-Te up)
- (Radner and Schachner 2001: 757; cf. also Salvini 1967: 48, 50),
along with king ‘E li-Te up of Alzi, it seems highly credible that
Hurrian culture had an ultimate rooted presence in the area, espe-
11 Cf. pp. 8-9

cially in ubria, which benefited by a considerable and rare status of

freedom. Moreover, the etymology of ubria itself, according to
Kessler (1995: 55) derives from the old political and topographical
designation of ubarû. This territory during the Iron Age and even
previous to that became a new home to others besides the Hurrian
community. As mentioned earlier the citizens of Tu han had to
move to this area also, after the problems they encountered in their
land (Grayson 1991: 202: A.101.1 ii 1-9; 242f: A.0.101.17 ii 6-28).
Other than this, the letters from the northern provinces depict an
extremely singular portrait of this kingdom. Deserters, traitors,
murderers and any kind of criminal fugitives unwanted in their
homeland (including Urartu) fled to this area (Lanfranchi and Par-
pola 1990: e.g., 32, 35, 52, 53, 54). In fact, surprisingly, even the
assassins of Sennacherib (704-681 BCE) sought asylum within this
area (Parker 2001: 245, 246). Following these events, the brother
and successor of Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, in 673 BCE moved
towards ubria, claiming in his ‘Letter to the God’ that his gesture
was connected to the attempt to capture his brother’s assassins
(Borger 1956: 106 23-269), he then conquered and transformed the
kingdom into two provinces, Up mu and Kullimeri.
1.2.2. Nairi: the Upper Tigris and the Neighboring Regions’

Historical Events
The historical events concerning the regions around and near the
Upper Tigris valley that we are about to overview may seem unre-
lated, if only by geographical means. In fact, as we have managed
to briefly consider the main political organizations inherent to the
upper course of the Tigis River, we encountered a range of cities
and kingdoms that composed a general perspective that appear to
have had an isolated character or a separate administration. This is
probably true, but only in part. During the Neo-Assyrian period we
can claim to observe the creation of an organic system, a settlement
network, due to the empire’s nature, that dramatically increases the
organization connected to the land use by centralizing the main
types of production (e.g. ceramics) and by retrieving, converging
and redistributing commodities mainly to/from the main centers of
the Upper Tigris (i.e. Ziyaret Tepe, Uçtepe etc.) and subordinately
to/from the surrounding lands and satellite sites (e.g. Hirbe-
merdon). In the earlier phases of the Iron Age, we encounter
something similar in terms of connectivity, although extremely di-
18 FACING AN EMPIRE
verse in the purposes and dynamics of interaction as for the sub-

sistence economic framework tied to the territory.12 As we will see,
part of South-eastern Anatolia had a territorial identification, which
coincides with this earlier network, called Nairi/Na‘iri and a
chronologically subsequent and much more smaller one named
Ur(u)atri, probably subdivided by tribal and ethnic matters, which
in the following centuries will become the land of Urartu. This and
the following parts of the study will mainly concern Nairi.
As partially mentioned earlier, according to various scholars
(cf. e.g., Salvini 1967; Piotrovskij 1966; Goetze 1936, 1957; Ziman-
sky 1998; Dinçol 1994), the Nairi lands very likely could have been,
for the most part, of Hurrian derivation, possibly formed in the
aftermath of Mitanni/ anigalbat’s dismemberment. In fact, ar-
chaeological excavations at sites like Giricano, Ziyaret Tepe and
Uçtepe demonstrate the Mitanni occupation during the end of the
2nd millennium BCE (Radner 2006: 276). Salvini offers a range of
possibilities, without certainty, of the etymology of the term.
Unlikely it can be explained with the help of Urartian Nara (=
population) ... or the Assyrian naru (= river), moreover, it is
not clear whether it is related to Naharain, name of Mitanni in
documents of the 18th Egyptian dynasty (cf. Schäfer 1931: 430-
38) or if we possibly should connect it to the Hurrian toponym
‘Nihra’... or as a personal name (Hurrian)...which returns exact-
ly the same in an Urartian source (Lehmann-Haupt 1928-1935:
129) in which Nihiria (URUn-hi-ri-a-ni) is the capital of the
country of Arme’. A country, continues explaining Salvini
(1967: 46, endnote 18), that recurs in Assyrian sources in con-
nection with ubria or with the Ka j ri Mountain as ‘Arime’
(Luckenbill 1926-1927: I, 390).13
Moreover, as Piotrovskij demonstrates (1966: 107-109; cf. pp.
35-36), this toponym definitely must be put in relation to ubria,
and in particular, in an area 40 km north of Hirbemerdon.
12 This particular pattern of connectivity will be objective of a
future study of mine.

13 Salvini (1967: 45-46)
The first mention of the ‘lands of Nairi’ denomination (Assyr-

ian KUR.KUR Na-i-ri /Na-'i-ru) comes from a royal entitling from
Assur of the Assyrian king Tukulti-Ninurta I (1243-1207 BCE),
dating to his first year of reign, in which he proclaims himself also
as the ‘king of all lands of Nairi’ (Grayson 1987: text A.0.78.1;
Schroeder 1922: n. 58). This ruler informs us that Nairi is a cluster
of kingdoms to the north, which corresponds also to the Upper
Tigris region (Radner and Schachner 2001: 761-765; Radner 2006:
288). In fact, in a number of inscriptions, 10 including the entitling,
the Assyrian king reveals his success in defeating ‘40 kings of the
lands of Nairi’, among these Paphi, Katmu i, Bu i, Alzi, Madani
Ni ani, Alaia, Terpuzi, Purulumzi and the entire extension of the
ubarean country (i.e., Upper Mesopotamia) (Grayson 1987: text
A.0.78.24). According to the inscription, the subjected area reached
the ‘Upper Sea’ otherwise known as the ‘Upper Sea of Nairi’, prob-
ably Lake Van. Salvini (1967: 21) points out that these are ‘a plurali-
ty of countries (m t ti), not yet a unified state, governed by multiple
kings ( arr ni), very possibly gentilitial chieftains’. The confirmation
that the lands of Nairi correspond, at least partially, with the Upper
Tigris region comes from the successor of Tukulti-ninurta, Assur-
nadin-apli (1206-1203 BCE). He tells us that in order to reach the
Nairi lands he had to cross the Ka j ri Mountain, modern r
‘Abd n, which is the southern area of the Upper Tigris valley.
At this time it is important to make clear that the Nairi term,
within Assyrian texts, from now on will rapidly include an increas-
ing number of territories, which jointly with Uruatri (i.e., Urartu
and other smaller territories) will generically designate the Assyrian
geographical perspective of the northern lands.
Further on, Tiglath-pileser I (1114-1076 BCE) recounts in his
annals about his clash with the ahlamû-aramaia (Grayson 1991: text
A.0.87.2 lines 28-29) on the Upper Euphrates near Jebel Bi ri. This
is the first accepted mention of the presence of Aramean tribes,
one of the future ethnic majorities of the Upper Tigris region and
Northern Mesopotamia in general. In fact, thanks to an inscription
of Assurnasirpal II, we know that the primitive tribal group of the
ahlamû-aramaia is the same who will subsequently form the Aramaic
state of B t-Zam ni (Grayson 1991: text A.0.101.19 line 96).
Thanks to the great mobility and descriptive precision of Tiglath-
pileser I, we are informed of important additional information con-
cerning the Nairi lands (Fig. 8). His annals describe a coalition of
20 FACING AN EMPIRE
‘23 kings of the lands of Nairi’ against him, listing the precious 23
related toponyms: Tumme, Tunube, Tuali, Kindari/Dardari, Uzula,
Unzamuni, Andiabe, Pilakinni/Piladarni, Adurgini, Kulibarzini,
inibirni, imua, Paiteri, Uiram, ururia, Abaeni, Adaeni, Kirini,
Albaia, Ugina, Nazabia, Abarsiuni and Daia ni (Grayson 1991: text
A.0.87.1 lines 71-84). Tiglath-pileser continues his report revealing
that further on the alliance had increased up to ‘60 kings of Nairi’,
because of the arrival of new allies. The king tells us that he fought
and defeated this alliance all the way to the ‘Upper Sea’ (Grayson
1991: text A.0.87.1 lines 96-101). The only name mentioned related
to all these countries is S ni, king of Daia ni, who refused to sub-
due to Assur (Grayson 1991: text A.0.87.1 lines 22-32). This sepa-
rate nominating ‘privilege’, and the last place on the list, suggests
that perhaps S ni was in charge of this coalition and that he guided
at least one of the three battles, even though we cannot be certain
(Salvini 1967: 53).
Tiglath-pileser mentions Nairi again a few years later when he
reaches the ‘source of the Tigris’. Here the Assyrian king carves his
image (Fig. 6; also cf. p. 11 ff.) and an inscription regarding his third
campaign against Nairi, which he had just concluded (cf. e.g. Har-
man ah 2007: 188). The Yonjalu inscription (Luckenbill 1926/27: I,
170) of the same ruler, offers an idea on the extension and limits of
Nairi during this period. The king asserts that the conquered area
spanned from Tumme to Daia ni. Unfortunately we lack the
knowledge of the exact location of such kingdoms, but it is highly
probable that it also comprehended a fraction of the Uru-
atri/Urartu area. Salvini (1967: 23) observes that ‘between the 13th
and 9th century the Assyrians by the Nairi toponym designated a
large-scale area that encompasses the entire north-eastern moun-
tains. The approximate boundaries under Tiglath-Pileser I seem to
have been: in the south-west today's r ‘Abd n, south-east the
Urmia basin and north-west probably the Black Sea, or otherwise
the Çoroh Valley’, therefore the southern area was still occupied by
the Upper Tigris valley (Fig. 8).
At this point Assyria experiences an internal collapse. The de-
layed End of the Bronze Age crisis finally brought its repercussions
manifesting itself in Assur. The documentation contracts enor-
mously as well as the empire’s confines. The failing of the imperial
control and the present system in these and other regions leads to
the direct consequence of a substantial infiltration of other popula-
tions such as the Arameans in the Upper Tigris region. Most likely,
sustains Lipi sky (2000: 152), the Arameans conquered the city of
T du and Sinabu in the second half of the eleventh century after
the reign of Assur-bel-kala (1073-1056 BCE) who had to face them
in this area. Nevertheless, archaeological data from the late Middle
Assyrian levels of Giricano, Ziyaret Tepe and Uçtepe and other
smaller sites, demonstrate at least a weak presence of the Assyrians
in the Upper Tigris and perhaps certain forms of control over the
area during that period of time.
We have to wait for Adad-nirari II (911-891 BCE) to receive
new information on the upper lands; in fact he is heavily engaged
on several fronts, including Northern Mesopotamia. In an inscrip-
tion (Luckenbill 1926/27: I, 355 ff.) he recounts how he marched
four times against the Nairi rioters, greatly reduced in this period,
as well as against Uruatri. This is the first Assyrian inscription that
mentions both denominations, which are here clearly identified as
two separate entities (Salvini 1967: 64). After a period of relative
calm, of probable settlement and reorganization, the data from the
annals resumes with Tukulti-NinurtaII (890-884 BCE), who speaks
again of the Arameans. Only that this time it is interesting to notice
that the king refers to them not as a tribe or part of Nairi, but as an
individual entity. Once Tukulti-Ninurta regained control of Assur,
he headed back to the Upper Tigris and conquered the area of B t-
Zam ni. Shortly after he proceeded towards the ‘source of the Ti-
gris’, as an act of thanksgiving and consecration of his deeds and
power. As previously mentioned, it is important to underline that at
a certain point the Aramean kingdom is seen as an ally against the
threat to Assur perpetrated by the Hurrians and Urartians of the
‘lands of Nairi’, not as a common enemy. A coalition and diplomat-
ic accord confirmed by a letter from a Syrian prince to the Assyrian
court. The Assyrian king himself does not fail to underline his
goodwill towards the Syrian ruler and his kingdom (Grayson 1991:
text A.0.100.5 lines 23-25). It is the annals of Tukulti-Ninurta that
reveal the capital of the Aramean kingdom as Am du, the classic
Amida .
In the following period detailed information is provided by
the annals of Assurnasirpal II (883-859 BCE). These texts are
mainly provided by the Kurkh stele and his palace in Kalkhu,
which narrates about the conquest of the lands that run ‘from the
source of the River Subnat (at Babil near Cizre in the Upper Tigris
22 FACING AN EMPIRE
region) to the land of Urartu’ (Grayson 1991: text A.0.101.2 line

13). Moreover, this is the first attested document, which indicates
the term Urartu as a replacement for Uruatri. The stele provides us
with a wealth of information on Assurnasirpal’s campaigns around
the Upper Tigris. It is now that Tu han finds its maximum splen-
dor. As Parker noted (2001: 169, 170), Tu han not only served as a
measure of the king's power and influence, but also proved that the
Assyrians were thereafter to be a permanent part of the geopolitical
configuration of the region’. B t-Zam ni also has an important
place in the annals. Even though the Aramean kingdom was an
important ally, the problems that the Assyrian king had to deal with
were manifold. In fact, the ruler had to drastically intervene, not
short of political aims, following the death of the king of B t-
Zam ni, ‘Ammi-b’al. The rebellion had been caused by the local
elite, who probably revolted because of the ruler's friendship with
Assyria (Lipi ski 2000: 157). Prior to his arrival, the nobles had
promptly placed a new sovereign on the throne, Bur-Râmmani, the
executioner of ‘Ammi-ba’l. Assurnasirpal managed to capture the
newly enthroned king and had him skinned, displaying his flesh on
the wall of Sinabu. It is the year 879 BCE and Assurnasirpal gains
back the cities of Tidu and Sinabu, which had not been under As-
syrian rule since the reign of Shalmaneser I. At this point, the As-
syrian king surprisingly designates as the new king of B t-Zam ni,
the brother of Bur-Râmmani, Ilânu, founder of the fortified city of
Damdamusa (Grayson 1991: text A.0.1.101.1, p. 220 lines 105-109).
Later on he also rebels, probably because of the continuous pres-
sure of his people. Again Assurnasirpal is forced to intervene and
quell the insurgency by removing his appointee by besieging and
conquering Damdamusa, reserving the same treatment for the Ar-
amean capital. It appears singular the way in which the Assyrian
king at this time still appoints Am du as a ‘royal city’, a capital, in-
stead of being already reduced to an Assyrian province, comments
Toffteen (1907). In fact, in contrast with his definition, the king
describes how he devastated the city and the area and proceeded
onwards to the Ka j ri Mountain. Other scholars, such as Radner
and Schachner (2001: 759), believe that a possible provincialization
occurred between 856 and 849 BCE, even though they admit that it
isn't clear whether or not Assurnasirpal actually subdued the capi-
tal. B t-Zam ni is one of the most long lasting kingdoms of North-
ern Mesopotamia also as an Assyrian province, counting eleven
governors. This was indeed one of the most influential states of the
Upper Tigris region. Assurnasirpal installed a new regime in this
region, bringing a solid landscape organization. The various king-
doms must pay tribute to him and an inscription reveals that the
tributary kings of B t-Zam ni, ubria, Nirdun and of the land of
Urumu, were all ‘among the kings of the lands of Nairi’ (Grayson
1991: text A.0.101.1 lines 12-13) as Parker noticed (2001: endnote
793).
The successor to the Assyrian throne and son Shalmaneser III
(858-824 BCE), is very active in the Upper Tigris (Fig. 10), as much
as his father was, even though a few of his campaigns will be con-
ducted by his turtanu, Dayy n-A r. Although Shalmaneser re-
quested tribute and passed here many times, there is now indication
of a dedicated campaign to the Upper Tigris, which leads to the
possibility that the region was already a well-controlled or provin-
cialized area perhaps under his father's domination (Parker 2001:
214). In this period we have the first Urartian inscription (in Assyr-
ian language), discovered at Tu pa, by Sarduri I (840-830 BCE).
The document is the first non-Assyrian mentioning of Nairi, of
which the Urartian ruler proclaims himself king (Meliki vili 1960:
1-3; Salvini 1967: 13, 14). In fact, the Urartian state (Bianili) forms
itself now, and sometimes the texts confuse Nairi with Urartu or
vice versa. A similar fate is shared by the kingdom of abu kia,
which becomes part of Nairi, who's ruler, Kakia, is appointed as
the king of Nairi (Grayson 1996: text A.0.102.1 lines 22-23; text
A.0.102.2 lines 20-21). This framework reveals the great confusion
that reigns in Assyria and within the upper lands themselves. It
seems now that the ancient meaning and reference of the term
Nairi is lost. The denomination appears crystallized in a rhetorical
form, which has the only purpose of infusing importance and pres-
tige within royal titling. Surprisingly though, Shalmaneser reintro-
duces the ancient designation of Lake Van as the ‘Sea of Nairi’.
The Assyrian king mentions this place as the one where he cleaned
and purified his weapons, after he had conquered the Sugunia for-
tress (Grayson 1996: text A.0.102.1 lines 33-34) of Aramu who is
considered the first king of Urartu. Unfortunately, there is no doc-
umentation dating back to his reign. Two years after, Shalmaneser
heads again towards Urartu passing through B t-Zam ni, which is
used as a base from which he departed for his northern campaigns
(Radner and Schachner 2001: 759). Shalmaneser is the Assyrian
24 FACING AN EMPIRE
king who reaches the ‘source of the Tigris’ twice, probably during
his seventh (852 BCE) and fifteenth (844 BCE) years of reign and
leaves a carving of his image with an inscription reporting his deeds
(Fig. 6). As Tiglath-pileser I before him, the king in his first inscrip-
tion describes one of his campaigns as directed to Nairi (Grayson
1996: 95). Further on, in the year 849 BCE we have notice of the
first governor of Nairi, Ihtadi-lipu u, which means that an official
Assyrian province bearing such a name had been created (cf. An-
drae 1913: n. 39, 43).
Shalmaneser and afterwards his son and successor Shamshi-
Adad V (823-811 BCE), started their reign by dealing with the
above-mentioned rebellion of the 27 cities led by A r-da’in-aplu
against Assyria. The new king had a very short reign, which he
concentrated northward in the Nairi lands (Grayson 1996: text
A.0.103.1 lines i 53b-ii 16a). At this moment, Nairi includes an ex-
tremely vast area as far as North-west Iran and Northern Syria
(Parker 2001: endnote 908). Even though all the kings of Urartu
who left inscriptions behind declare themselves as ‘King of Nairi’,
Urartu is only a fraction of this area. This period is extremely lack-
ing in information and the few inscriptions in our possession clear-
ly reflect the confusion and turbulence ongoing in the upper lands.
King Menua (ca. 820-785/80 BCE), on the contrary, starts to bring
Urartu to its highest point of extension and splendor, soon to be-
come the largest state of West Asia. This was probably made pos-
sible by the momentary crisis and weakness of Assyria. A rock in-
scription left by Menua at Palu (Koning 1955/1957: 16), recounts
one of his southward campaigns, which possibly describes a num-
ber of sites near the Upper Tigris. In fact, he indicates a series of
places of his passage, specifically two pairs of toponyms, Dirria
(Dirgu) and Isalla (Ishala), and Ulluba (Uliba) and Qumme
(Qumenu), which are found in Assyrian documents as well. There-
fore, the first two toponyms in particular, refer to the same area in
both sources confirming that the Urartian militia most likely
reached the territory south-west of B t-Zam ni, the area of the Ka-
raca Da (Kessler 1980: 25). If true, this would be the southern-
most point reached by Urartians, well beyond the Anti-Taurus
piedmont natural limits. Unfortunately though, no Urartian artefact
or any kind of trace has yet been found in these locations, which
would have cleared any doubt. The only possible information con-
nected to the upper lands in this period is provided perhaps by the
annals of Adad-nirari III (810-783 BCE), in which he tells us about

the tribute levied on the kings of Nairi (Grayson 1996: text
A.0.104.7 line 12), in this case, the area around the Armenian Tau-
rus. Considering that some doubts exist about what actually oc-
curred at these events (cf. Parker 2001: 217; Tadmor 1973: 144) we
cannot be certain if Assyria regained control of this area, as an act
of tax collecting would induce us to think. From this moment on,
Nairi is not attested anymore as an Assyrian province, and the same
area is referred to as Am du or B t-Zam ni until the end of the 7th
century BCE. Under Shalmaneser IV (782-773 BCE) Assyria con-
tinues its expeditions against the uprising Urartu, while a few epi-
sodes of loss of control near the heartland demonstrate its decline
in power (Parker 2001: 217). Piotrovskij (1966: 107-109) in his
work on Van, reports an interesting inscription (Meliki vili 1960: n.
156) of Sarduri II (756-730 BCE), yielded from a stele in the
church of Surb-Pogos, originally from Van, in which the Urartian
ruler describes a few of his victories. Among these appear the
country of Arme (Urme) and the country of the royal city of
Nihiria. According to the author both should be counted as part of
the Upper Tigris (i.e., ubria). In particular Nihiria (cf. p. 29), the
Armenian city of the Roman period Tigranocerta/Tigranakert, near
Silvan, 40 km north of Hirbemerdon Tepe, the site in question.
Moreover, according to other Urartian inscriptions, continues Pi-
otrovskij, as the one of Menua from Mu a (Meliki vili 1960: n. 40,
41), Arme was located near the royal city of Kullimeri. If these in-
dications are correct, it would mean that the northern area of the
Upper Tigris has been effectively part of the Urartian Empire, even
if for a very short period of time. Considering that under Sarduri,
Urartu gained its maximum wealth and territorial expansion (Fig.
9), this hypothesis, although at present not confirmed by any mate-
rial culture evidence, could be more than a remote possibility. Ökse
(et al. 2001: 349), in fact, is convinced that Urartu was never present
in these lands in light of the fact that there is a total absence of
Urartian pottery in the area between Diyarbak and Siirt (i.e., north
of the Upper Tigris course).
Whether or not this theory is to be considered true, the
above-mentioned territories must not have been subject to Urartian
control for long, since under Tiglath-pileser III (744-727 BCE) As-
syria recuperates a considerable part of the lands that were previ-
ously lost. Tiglath-pileser demonstrates his great knowledge of poli-
26 FACING AN EMPIRE
tics and warfare by bringing Assyria back to its glorious eras. Un-
fortunately, though, the king does not leave us his annals in great
condition or number, making it very hard to reconstruct his gov-
ernment phases, since most of the stone slabs that bore them were
used in the construction of Esarhaddon's palace (Piotrovskij 1966:
116, 117).
During this period, trade routes, especially iron, are a subject
of great concern, bringing even more tension between Assyria and
Urartu. In fact, the latter, had achieved total control over such traf-
fic of commodities, which now were concentrated in northern Syr-
ia. Moreover, Urartu gained the favor of the kingdoms along the
way, which had chosen the lesser evil, necessary to the these trade
routes. For what concerns the Upper Tigris, there were two main
traffic arteries within the valley. One of these routes followed the
Tigris course west from Tu han to T du, Sinabu and on to B t-
Zam ni, while another, extremely close to Hirbemerdon, followed
the Batman river north through ubria and on to Urartu (Parker
1998: 304).
As a response to the Assyrian claims of possession, Urartu
and four northern Syrian princes formed an alliance, which will
have a short life against the reinvigorated Assyrian war machine.
Tiglath-pileser in fact, some time after, will win over Urartu and its
allies at Arpad. The next move sees him concentrating on Ulluba,
another territory under Urartian influence. Finally, after consolidat-
ing the empire's borders, the Assyrian ruler aims towards the
Urartian heartland. His exact itinerary is a subject of controversy, as
for one of the main hypotheses, also supported by Lehmann-
Haupt (1910-1931: II, 2 p. 77), the starting point can be located
near Enzite, north-west of B t-Zam ni, near the Tigris-Tunnel (Fig.
1). From this point the Assyrian ruler would have proceeded north
following Sarduri throughout Urartu, all the way to Tu pa, laying
siege to it. It is very difficult to find any mention of the Upper Ti-
gris within this period.
The annals of Tiglath-pileser refer to the province of Tu han,
as Tadmor (1994: TP III, 62, 63) suggests, as a place together with
Ulluba, to which Assyria was deporting people. The interpretation,
however, is still under debate (cf. Parker 2001: 220). Another possi-
ble but uncertain mention regarding the Upper Tigris, hypothesizes
Piotrovskij (1966: 130), comes from an inscription (Meliki vili
1960: n. 286) of the Urartian king Rusa (ca. 730-714 BCE), in which
he lists the toponyms of the places he had conquered. ‘Zamani’ is

among these places and may possibly refer to B t-Zam ni, although
it is highly unlikely.
The following ruler, Sargon II (721-705 BCE) in a part of his
famous campaign against Urartu in 714 BCE (Fig. 10), tells us that
he left the area of Bitlis and that his army entered the Nairi coun-
try, situated in the valley of the river Bohtan. Here he was offered
rich gifts by the king of abu kia (Thureau-Dangin 1912: line
306). The Upper Tigris has not been included in this definition for
some time as we have seen, and in this case it is pretty clear that
Nairi includes geographic territories (downstream of Bohtan) to the
west and south of Van. From another perspective, this is one of
the most documented periods related to the Upper Tigris, and in
particular Tu han and B t-Zam ni. In fact, a large number of letters
from the correspondence of Sargon with the northern provinces
fills in multiple gaps, since the information contained in them is of
various nature, by offering great knowledge on everyday problems
and issues of the northern Assyrian domains. The epistolary con-
tacts with these two provinces interact with three figures. The first
group of letters is written by a-A ur-dubbu, governor of Tu han
in 707 BCE (Millar 1994: n. 48, 60: Lanfranchi and Parpola 1990: n.
31-40), the second group, also from Tu han, by a certain A ipa of
whom we know nothing, (Lanfranchi and Parpola 1990: n. 21-30).
The last group of letters is written by the governor of Am du,
Liphur-Bel (Lanfranchi and Parpola 1990: n. 1-20). In terms of es-
pionage, the outpost role played by the course of the Upper Tigris
River, continued to exert its function, as demonstrated by a letter
(Winckler 1899: n. 424) of an informant sent to Sargon in which he
speaks of his surveillance on the town of Harda, north of Diyar-
bak r. The letter also tells about a conflict sparked by the Assyrian
export of timber. As we have seen, this was a standard practice for
the Assyrians perpetrated throughout the centuries. In a second
letter (ibid.: n. 548) the same informant warns of the proximity of
the Urartian army marching towards Harda.
In addition to timber, we mentioned that the area north of the
Tigris was once famous for being a place of refuge for fugitives and
deserters. This tradition seems to continue in the 7 th century, since
in 681 BCE the Assyrian king Sennacherib (704-581 BCE) was
killed following a palace plot, as the two people involved found
asylum in ubria. Even the Bible mentions these events indicating
28 FACING AN EMPIRE
the place of refuge generally as Ararat or Urartu (cf. the Book of the
Kings, chap. XIX, v. 37; Geremia, cap. II, v. 27; Isaia chap.
XXXVII, v. 38).
Attention is drawn again in this area under Esarhaddon (668-
627 BCE), who reveals in an inscription (Knudtzon 1893: II, n. 48)
his request for an oracle from ama if Urartian and Cimmerians
would have taken up arms or not against the country of ubria.
The king finds an ulterior motive to invade the northern kingdom
in question, as the place where the traitors and murderers of his
brother had fled to. Quite obviously these were both excuses to
make his next move. In fact, he carries out his campaign against
ubria in 673 BCE, conquering the main cities of Up mu and
Kullimeri. Within the former, Esarhaddon captures a few Urartian
deserters, who he promptly sends back to the Urartian sovereign.
Piotrovskij (1966: 165) indicates this act as an attempt to maintain
peace, although we know that the return of fugitives was a tacit
agreement in force for a long time between Urartu and Assur. Also
under the reign of this monarch we have great political changes
around the Upper Tigris. Following the conquest of ubria, this
was divided and transformed into two provinces, eponym of the
two major cities, Up mu and Kullimeri. The reversed fate hap-
pened to Bit-Zamani and Tu han, which become a single province
united under the name of the first. The status just described did not
last for long. Only a few decades later, first Assyria and then Urartu
will be conquered and swept away mostly by the hordes of Medes,
Mannaeans, Neo-Babylonians and Scythians. Two empires crumble
in a few months and the political-geographical connotations quickly
become completely different and unstable.
2 THE SITE DURING THE IRON AGE
2.1. SETTLEMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXTS

The archaeological site of Hirbemerdon Tepe is situated in South-
eastern Turkey, province, 40km east of the mod-
ern town of Bismil (Fig. 1). The main settlement rises on a 30m
high limestone terracing on the southern bank of the Tigris River,
1km east of the confluence of the Batman River tributary, offering
a strategic position overlooking almost the entire valley (Fig. 11). In
fact, the complexity of the area’s geology (i.e., river terraces and
uplands, cf. Ur and Hammer 2009) was crucial for the site’s settle-
ment pattern throughout its entire history.
2.1.1. Chronology and Sector Division

The Iron Age Period levels at Hirbemerdon Tepe (Phase IV) are
divided in two chronological sub-phases:
The Early Iron Age Period, (sub-phase IV-A) ca. 1150/1050-

900 B.C.
Characterized by the local communities' organization and their
material culture production, such as Grooved Ware pottery.
The Neo-Assyrian Period (sub-phase IV-B) ca. 900-610 B.C.
Distinguished by a strong influence or a direct presence of the
Assyrian Empire's material culture and social organization, which
deeply remodeled the precedent one.
The Iron Age archaeological contexts of the site can be divided

into two major sectors, which contain the excavated Areas of in-
vestigation (Fig. 12):
The High Mound, on top of the terracing, covers about 4 ha of
occupied surface, at around 540 m a.s.l. Includes Area A, Step-
Trench AC and Area D.
30 FACING AN EMPIRE
A flat Outer Town, on the north-eastern versant, ca. 3.5ha and

about 520m a.s.l., divided along the southern limit by a natural
rock formation. Includes Area B.
For a total of ca. 7.5ha. (Laneri 2009: 216).
2.1.2. The Excavation Areas

The Iron Age evidence was yielded by the related levels of the fol-
lowing excavated Areas.
Area A – (Figs. 12, 13, 15) The Area is positioned on the

southern slope of the High Mound. This is the largest area yet
excavated. Erosion due to the mound inclination and the ac-
tion of weathering elements, concurrently with the settlement
material reutilization and construction leveling, have left a
scarce presence of architectural elements. The strata have also
been greatly disturbed by a conspicuous number of pits proba-
bly of Hellenistic and Medieval derivation. The only remains,
about which we are confident, are a few intersecting wall seg-
ments (loci 193, 194, 195) near the south-western corner of the
area. These walls are contemporary to the related structures in
Step-trench AC and belong to the Early Iron Age horizon. Di-
agonally opposite there are possibly two related floors (loci
174, 192) with very few surviving elements. The ceramic pro-
duction retrieved in the filling of these contexts is referable to
Early Iron Age and Neo-Assyrian periodization sub-phases.
Within this area, a cist grave (Fig. 18, probably belonging to an
earlier period - cf. e.g. McGovern et al. 1991 for the beads) of
what appears to be a young woman or an infant was found.
Unfortunately only the upper part of the body (cranium and
trunk) was preserved, due to the obliteration caused by a pit of
a latter period. The body remains were positioned along the W-
E axis of the High Mound with the head towards the east, rest-
ing on its left side. The grave itself was partially carved out of
the ground, to form a depression that was subsequently em-
bedded with small pebbles, in which the corpse was lodged.
No Neo-Assyrian structers were found in this area apart from
large quatities of pottery and a Iron blade (Fig. 26) very similar
to those found at Ziyaret Tepe (Matney et al. 2007: fig. 20 p.
72)
THE SITE DURING THE IRON AGE 31
Step-Trench AC – (Figs. 12, 14, 15) The Step-trench AC-AB

stretches along the south-central sector of the High Mound,
cutting through Area A. In the northern section of the trench,
the Iron Age levels revealed two perpendicular walls (loci 68
and 74) forming the angle of an enclosed space with its related
floor (locus 72). The northern wall (locus 68) proceeds north-
west out of the investigated area of the trench. In the inside
face of this corner there is a small arched enclosure (locus 70)
made of stones that might have functioned as a small borehole.
As a whole, the architecture is constructed of medium-sized
stones. It was built on top of the Late Bronze Age filling of the
piazza, dating to the Middle Bronze Age architectural complex
(Laneri et al. 2008), and overlaps the collapsed buildings of the
uppermost and southern sectors of the complex. The material
culture found inside the room belongs to an Early Iron Age
horizon confirming that these architectural features must be
contemporary with the previously mentioned walls found in
Area A. No architectural traces of later Iron Age phases were
found in the Step-trench.
Area D – (Figs. 12, 16) This area is situated on the southern

sector of the High Mound and is characterized by a large open-
ended room aligned along an E-W axis. The archaeologists
have excavated part of the room (Room 1) that consists of two
perpendicular stone walls (loci 4, 10) built on a foundation cut
into the virgin soil, consisting of natural limestone bedrock and
a thick layer of compacted pebbles. The bedrock was thus used
to limit the western part of the building and as the floor for the
rooms (locus 18). Except for a few pits dating to successive
Medieval periods, the whole building is in an excellent state of
preservation and consists of a series of features that are con-
nected to the bread-making process. In fact, two elliptically
shaped tannur ovens (loci 7, 19) were discovered inside one of
these rooms situated along a wall (4). Across from them and in
a central position there was a small pit (locus 16) that was
probably used for water poured from the small jug found in situ
along the pit’s western edge (Fig. 19 bottom). South of the pit
was a grinding stone and next to it a large stone to be used in
combination with the grinding stone and, in the nearby mortar
in which a pestle was found, the crushing of whole grains was
32 FACING AN EMPIRE
performed. Another mortar is recognizable in the section clos-

er to the northern side of the room. Moreover, the floor, as
well as all the features found in the room, are heavily burnt
confirming the hypothesis of the use of fire for carrying out
working activities in the room. Unfortunately, part of the room
is heavily disturbed by a Medieval pit, but the remainder of the
findings form the basis of this extraordinary discovery of a
‘bakery’ that, according to the numerous pottery sherds and
complete vessels of the Grooved Ware pottery horizon found
in situ (see below), can be dated to the Early Iron Age phase,
making it a unique discovery for the whole Upper Tigris River
valley. Furthermore, the baking of bread in the surrounding
modern Kurdish villages possibly allows us to reconstruct the
production cycle based on ethnographic analogies in which (1)
the grain is first pounded in the mortar with a pestle to sepa-
rate the hull from the seed; (2) after that, the stripped seeds are
ground into flour on the large stone by a friction process ex-
erted through the use of a grinding stone; then (3), the flour is
mixed with water (i.e., contained in the jug) in a small recepta-
cle (i.e., the pit) in order to obtain the dough, which is then
spread out and, finally (4) baked against the walls of the tannur
oven.
Area B – (Figs. 12, 17) This area is collocated in the northern

part of the Outer Town. The strata here are poorly preserved
due to their proximity to the riverbed, moreover a heavy level-
ing has occurred during modern times by agricultural machin-
ery. The remaining structure is composed of two foundation
walls (loci 1, 4), one of which (1) is monumental and with a
large stone used as threshold, and the related enclosed floor (lo-
cus 5). This area yielded pottery sherds of Neo-Assyrian pro-
duction (Fig. 24 bottom) together with a corrugated basalt
bowl and a pair of cleft grinding stones (Fig. 20) distinctive of
this later period (Laneri et al. 2006, cf. also Bombardieri 2010:
78-85). These data confirm that this area must have been used
for processing agricultural products during the Neo-Assyrian
Period.
2.2. THE POTTERY PRODUCTION

The pottery production here presented is composed of a number
of sherds that were collected from Iron Age Period (i.e., sub-phases
IVA and IVB) archaeological contexts between the 2005 and 2009
excavation campaigns at Hirbemerdon Tepe.
2.2.1. Analysis Methodology

The artifacts went through the following process:
labeling – washing – cataloguing – morphological and temper anal-
ysis – description – illustration – photography – typification and,
finally, a comparative analysis.
Based on these premises, the Iron Age corpus assemblage to-
tals 552 selected diagnostic sherds (i.e. 2009), 400 of which have
been further selected for the creation of the site’s Iron Age typolo-
gy. 267 of these are presented in this study and include the follow-
ing: 221 rims and whole vases, 22 bases, 8 handles and 16 body
sherds.
In the following section the purpose is to provide a general de-
scription of the three wares (and other unique fragments), of the
fabrics and surface treatments belonging to these broad categories.
Subsequently a detailed analysis will be presented of the individual
morphotypes and their related characteristics and comparative
analysis with other similar pottery types in the region and neighbor-
ing areas.
2.2.2. Wares
According to commonalities in clay fabrics, surface treatments,
class categories, and chronological seriation, the Iron Age pottery
assemblages can be divided into the following categories or wares14
(Table 1):
A) Brown/Pink Ware (BPW) and B) Grooved Ware (GRW)
belonging to the Early Iron Age phase (sub-phase IVA);
C) Plain Ware (PW) belonging to the Middle/Late Iron Age
phases (i.e., the Neo-Assyrian phase or sub-phase IVB). Amidst the
14 To describe the pottery, the Munsell Soil Color Charts (2000
ed.) were used to identify the hues.

34 FACING AN EMPIRE
pottery assemblage, a few painted sherds belonging to BPW were

found, but it has not been possible to distinguish a proper Painted
Ware category. Moreover, all three Wares present morphological
and clay fabric characteristics that can lead to the identification of a
type within a category or, more likely, a variation of a type that has
been named Cooking Pots (CP). The almost total lack of body
sherds with evidence of use related to fire, makes it even more dif-
ficult to identify a Cooking Ware category from within our pottery
assemblage (for further details on the pottery wares and character-
istics cf. chap. 3.1.3.).
Brown/Pink Ware (Figs. 21, 22 top) mainly features medium
grain tempers with a slight trend towards mineral (i.e., sand, lime-
stone, grit and mica) and vegetal fabrics (chaff + minerals). In
some cases the sherd cores are under fired as revealed by a grey or
black coloration. The colors of the slip and paste range from most-
ly brown to pink hues. The majority of the sherds present hand-
made traits, while a few may have been made on a potter’s wheel.
A strong to slight burnishing is widely present, usually applied in a
rough manner and with incoherent direction. Observed decora-
tions include a few incised or excised type variations, molded or
applied elements, which are mostly rope-shape bands. Open forms
are the class of higher occurrence.
Grooved Ware (Figs. 22 bottom, 23) temper and hues are very
similar to the previous BPW assemblage. The main characteristic of
this group is its decoration that is usually located very close to the
rim, or between the rim and the vessel shoulder. The types of dec-
oration consist of incisions or excisions, and sometimes a corrugat-
ed modeling of the area (indented or undulated), varying from one
to four grooves. Moreover, almost every type features a variation
with fingernail or fish-bone motive impressions within the grooves.
Again almost the whole assemblage appears to have been hand-
made and, as in the previous case, low firing temperatures were
used. For this phase the majority of GRW vessels are closed
shapes, in particular hole-mouth jars, spouted jars and closed bowls
(e.g., bossed and lugged bowls).
Plain Ware (Figs. 24, 25) is mainly characterized by a medium

mineral or, in minor frequency, a medium vegetal fabric (chaff
face). The surface is commonly treated with a pink range slip, oth-
erwise light reddish brown or light brown. Most vessels of this cat-
egory seem to have been thrown on a wheel. Only a few examples
present decorations obtained with incised or excised techniques.
Every type included in this ware shows variations in burnishing
typical of this region, although resembling Neo-Assyrian models
(Matney et al. 2007: 46). Open shapes are for the most part encoun-
tered.
BPW 74 types
27,71%
GRW 57 types
21,35%
PW 135 types
50,56%
1 type
Other 0,38%
IVA 131 types

49,06%
IVB 135 types

50,56%
0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160
Table 1. Distribution of the three Iron Age wares at

Hirbemerdon Tepe and the two sub-phase assemblages
2.2.3. Fabrics
The fabrics of the described ceramic wares are based on grain and
inclusion attributes of the paste. Grain percentage and size values
follow this scale:
Table 2. Leicester University Geology Grain Card charts

used for the inclusions’ grain, size, percentage and sort-
ing
The fabrics are divided in the following types, each of which is sub-
divided in ‘mineral’ or ‘vegetal’, according to the highest percentage
of the inclusion's nature (Table 3).
36 FACING AN EMPIRE
BPW 5 1,87%
Medium- GRW 1 0,37%
fine mineral PW 11 4,11%
Other 0 0,00%
BPW 0 0,00%
Medium- GRW 0 0,00%
fine vegetal PW 0 0,00%
Other 0 0,00%
BPW 34 13,73%
Medium GRW 26 9,73%
mineral PW 68 25,46%
Other 1 0,37%
BPW 20 7,49%
Medium GRW 16 5,99%
vegetal PW 22 8,23%
Other 0 0,00%
BPW 7 2,62%
Medium- GRW 6 2,24%
coarse
PW 3 1,12%
mineral
Other 0 0,00%
BPW 3 1,12%
Medium- GRW 3 1,12%
coarse
PW 5 1,87%
vegetal
Other 0 0,00%
BPW 5 1,87%
GRW 7 2,62%
N/A
PW 25 9,36%
Other 0 0,00%
0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30%
Table 3. Types of fabric among the three Iron Age

wares. Number of sherds (left) and their percentage
(right)
2.2.4. Surface Treatment

The surface treatments observed in the assemblage can be divided
into six processes.
With slip we denote a layer of liquid clay with coloring pig-

ment, different from the resulting clay hue, applied on the ceramic
product.
By smoothing we intend the manipulation process of rendering
the pot’s surface homogeneous by using the liquid clay belonging
to the pot itself. The result will be a smoothed surface with the
clay’s same hue.
Burnishing is a clay compressing procedure through an apposite
blunt utensil (usually wood or ceramic), which determines a shiny
and water-repellent surface. The examples that feature this tech-
nique are not uniformly burnished. The strokes are uneven and
with different direction.
Painted decorations (festoons, polka dots and lines), occur only
on two sherds of the whole Iron Age corpus, which is why we do
not have an apposite ware, but only type variations.
Incised and excised decorations (grooves, short lines and wavy
lines, fingernail impressions, rope-band impressions, circles, fish-
bone incisions, small holes and bands) broadly concern Grooved
Ware, although a few Brown/Pink Ware and Plain Ware examples
have been found.
Applied or modelled elements (bosses, navel-shape knobs, deco-
rative lugs) are mainly present in the first two wares.
2.2.5. Typology and Comparanda

Based on the pottery analysis and comparison of the precedent
values (i.e., morphology, wares, fabrics and surface treatments) I
have been able to identify and establish the following types that are
here described following an order based on their affiliation within
the previously described pottery wares and classes (i.e., from open
to closed classes). Each type of each ware’s string is composed by a
brief profile description, the reference number of the catalogue,
size15, outer/inner/section colors, temper/inclusions/grain of the
fabric, surface treatments and the related comparanda. The illustra-
tions of the types are to be found in the catalogue at the end of the
volume in appendix.
15 Pot sizes are al in centimeters, as follows: miniature <5, small
5-15, medium 15-25, large 25-40, very large >40.

38 FACING AN EMPIRE
Brown/Pink Ware (BPW):
Bowls
Small/medium bowls with simple round rim. (Nos. 31-33)
Surface
No Color (out) Color (in) Color (sec) Fabric
Treatment
Medium
mineral
5YR 7/4 5/6 yellow-
31 9 5YR 7/4 pink sand, chaff, Slip
pink ish red
limestone5,
grit2, mica
Medium
5YR 6/4 mineral
5YR 6/4 light 5/6 yellow-
32 15 light reddish sand, chaff, Slip
reddish brown ish red
brown grit5, lime-
stone2, mica
5YR 5/6 Medium

5YR 6/4 yellowish mineral Slip
5YR 6/4 light
33 16 light reddish red to 5YR sand, chaff, Incised wavy
reddish brown
brown 4/1 dark grit2, lime- line
gray stone5, mica
(Lidar Höyük. Müller 1996: pl. 22 n. 1, 5, 9; Talava Tepe. Parker

and Creekmore 2002: fig. 39 lett.T).
Medium lug-bowls with simple round rim. (Nos. 43-45)
Surface
Color
No Color (out) Color (in) Fabric Treat-
(sec)
ment
10YR 8/3 10YR 8/3

7.5YR 6/3 Medium mineral Slip
43 15 very pale very pale
light brown sand, grit2, mica Burnishing
brown brown
Surface
Color
No Color (out) Color (in) Fabric Treat-
(sec)
ment
7.5YR 7/3 Medium mineral

pink to 7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 5/3 sand, limestone5,
44 N/A Slip
7.5YR 6/3 pink brown grit5, mica,
light brown CP
Medium mineral
7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 5/3 Slip
45 21 sand, grit5, mica,
light brown pink brown Burnishing
CP
(No analogy found).
Medium/large sinuous bowls with slightly everted simple square

rim. (Nos. 47-48)
Surface
Treatment
Medium
vegetal
7.5YR 6/4
5YR 6/4 chaff, sand, Slip
7.5YR 6/4 light brown
47 30 light reddish limestone5, Strong bur-
light brown to 7.5YR 5/3
brown less than nishing
brown
grit2, mica
CP
Medium
5YR 6/2
Out to 7.5YR mineral
pinkish gray 7.5YR 7/4
48 33 4/1 dark gray sand, grit10, Slip
to 7.5YR 7/2 pink
to in limestone5,
pinkish gray
chaff, mica
(Nor untepe. Bartl 2001: fig. 3 n. 2).
Medium/large sinuous bowls with everted simple rim. (Nos. 53-

55)
40 FACING AN EMPIRE
Surface
Treatment
Medium
7.5YR 6/4
2.5YR 3/1 vegetal
light brown 7.5YR 5/4 Slip
53 25 dark reddish chaff, sand,
and 7.5 6/3 brown Burnishing
gray limestone2,
light brown
mica
Medium
54 30 Pink Pink Pink Slip
mineral
Medium
Slip
vegetal
Brown to Traces of
55 40 Light Brown Light Brown chaff, sand,
Gray strong bur-
limestone2,
nishing
mica
(Ziyaret Tepe. Matney and Rainville 2005: fig. 4 n. 9; Gre Dimse.

Karg 1999: fig. 11 n. 9; Gundik Tepe. Parker 2001: fig. 4.5 lett. H)
Medium/large bowls with slightly everted simple round rim.

(Nos. 3-6)
Surface
Treatment
Medium
vegetal
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4
3 24 chaff, grit5, Smoothing
pink pink pink
limestone2,
sand, mica
Medium
vegetal
7.5YR 8/3 7.5YR 8/3 7.5YR 8
4 28 chaff, sand, Smoothing
pink pink pink
limestone10,
grit5, mica
Excised decora-
5 29 N/A N/A N/A N/A
tion
Medium-
coarse vegetal
7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/3
6 40 chaff, lime- Smoothing
pink pink pink
stone5, grit2,
sand, mica.
(Near Çiçek Yordu. Parker 2001: fig. 4.10 lett. G; Kenan Tepe.
Parker et al. 2003: fig. 6. Lett. F, I)
Large/very large bowls with indented simple round rim. (No. 36)
Surface
No Color (out) Color (in) Color (sec) Fabric Treat-
ment
36 45 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
(Parker 2001: Type 1 p. 285).
Medium/Large bowls with slightly squeezed neck and simple

round rim (Nos. 37-39)
Surface
Treatment
Medium vegetal
7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4 light 7.5YR 6/4 chaff, sand, lime- Slip
37 25
light brown brown light brown stone5, Burnishing
mica
Medium vegetal
5YR 6/4
5YR 6/4 light 7.5YR 6/4 light chaff, sand, lime-
38 31 light reddish Slip
reddish brown brown stone5,
brown
mica
Medium mineral
Light reddish Slip
39 35 Pink Out to gray sand, grit2,
brown Burnishing
chaff, mica
(No analogy found)
Large bowls with inverted thickened rim (Nos. 93-95)

42 FACING AN EMPIRE
Color Surface
No Color (in) Color (sec) Fabric
(out) Treatment
Medium-coarse
10YR 7/3 10YR 7/3
10YR 4/1 vegetal, chaff,
93 30 very pale very pale Slip
dark gray grit5, mica5,
brown brown
limestone5
Medium vegetal
5YR 6/4
7.5YR 7/3 Out to 5YR chaff, sand,
pink 6/1 gray to In limestone5,
brown
grit2, mica
Medium mineral
7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 5/3 Smoothing
95 45 sand, grit2,
light brown light brown brown Burnishing
chaff, mica
(Lidar Höyük. Müller 1996: pl. 23 n. 13; Kurban Höyük survey.

Wilkinson 1990: fig. B.11 n. 7; Tell Jurn Kabir. Anastasio 2007: fig.
61 n. 3).
Large bowls with everted tapered rim (bec du canard). (Nos. 110-
116)
Surface
Treatment
7.5YR 6/3
Slip
light brown Out to 7.5YR Medium mineral
7.5YR 6/3 Burnishing
110 21 to 7.5YR 3/1 3/1 very dark sand, grit2, chaff,
light brown Fingernail exci-
very dark gray mica
sions
gray (burned)
Medium mineral
111 25 sand, grit5, lime-
pink pink pink Rim incisions
stone5, chaff, mica
Smoothing
Out to 7.5YR Medium mineral
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 Slight burnish-
112 30 7/1 light gray sand, chaff, grit5,
pink pink ing
to In mica
Rim incisions
Surface
Treatment
Medium-fine min- Smoothing

7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4
113 38 eral sand, lime- Strong burnish-
light brown light brown light brown
stone2, chaff, mica ing
7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4 Medium vegetal

114 36 N/A N/A
light brown light brown chaff, mica sand
Medium-fine min- Smoothing

7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4
115 30 eral sans, lime- Strong Burnish-
stone2, chaff, mica ing
Medium-fine min-
5YR 6/5
7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 7/4 eral sand, lime-
light brown pink stone2, chaff, mica,
brown
grit2
(Lidar Höyük. Müller 1996: pl. 8 n. 3, 4, 8, 9).
Large collar neck bowls with everted rim. (Nos. 79-81)
Surface
Treatment
Medium vegetal
chaff,
7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/3
79 30 limestone5, Smoothing
sand, mica,
grit2
Medium vegetal
10YR 6/3 10YR 6/3 10YR 6/3 Smoothing
80 38 chaff, sand,
pale brown pale brown pale brown Burnishing
mica
Medium vegetal
10YR 7/3 5YR 6/6 r chaff, sand,
7.5YR 6/4 Slip
81 36 very pale reddish grit2,
light brown Burnishing
brown yellow limestone2,
mica
44 FACING AN EMPIRE
(Hakemi Use. Tekin 2006: fig. 4 n. 3. Gre Dimse. Karg 1999: fig.
10 n. 7; Lidar Höyük. Müller 1996: pl. 11 n. 8, 9; Ernis-Evditepe.
Belli and Konyar 2003: fig. 29 n. 3, 4; Kurban Höyük survey. Wil-
kinson 1990: fig. B/11 n. 4).
Medium/large squeezed neck bowls with inverted hammerhead

rim. (Nos. 121-123)
Surface
Treatment
Medium-coarse
7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/3 mineral sand, Smoothing
121 15
pink pink pink grit, limestone, Burnishing
mica
Medium-coarse Smoothing
7.5YR 5/2 7.5YR 5/2 7.5YR 5/2
122 17 mineral Slight burnish-
brown brown brown
sand, mica ing
123 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
(Kenan Tepe. Parker et al. 2003: fig. 6 lett. D)
Large deep high carinated bowls with everted rim. (Nos. 73, 75)
Surface
Treatment
Medium-coarse
10YR 8/3 10YR 8/3 10YR 8/3
vegetal chaff,
73 40 very pale very pale very pale Slip
limestone10,
brown brown brown
grit5
Medium vegetal Slip

7.5YR 6/2 7.5YR 5/3 Out to 5YR 3/1
75 32 chaff, sand, Rim/body
pinkish gray brown very dark gray
grit5, mica excisions
(Dilkaya. Çilingiro lu 1991: fig. 03.5 n. 2 (end of EIA); Nor untepe.

Bartl 1994: fig. 11 n. 5; Gre Dimse. Karg 2001: fig. 7 lett. F; Ernis-
Evditepe. Belli and Konyar 2003: fig. 29 n.1)
Painted bowls
Open shape body fragments with rope-shape band decoration.

(No. 265)
Surface
Treatment
Medium mineral Smoothing

5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4
– sand, chaff, lime- Rope-shape
265 light reddish light reddish light reddish
stone5, grit2, band
brown brown brown
mica Painted bands
(No analogy found)
Jars
Small globular jug with straight inverted tapered rim. (No. 148)
Surface
Treatment
Medium
mineral
148 7 Light brown Light brown Light brown Sand, chaff, Smoothing
limestone,
mica
(Korucutepe. Winn 1980: pl. 52 n. 8, pl. 60 lett. D; Tille Höyük.

Blaylock 1999: fig. 2 n. 9).
Medium hole-mouth jars with oval thickened rim. (No. 202)

46 FACING AN EMPIRE
Surface
Treatment
Medium mineral
Out to 7.5YR
7.5YR 5/3 7.5YR 5/3 sand, grit25, Smoothing
202 15 to 7.5YR 5/1
brown brown mica, Burnishing
gray
CP
(No analogy found)
Medium deep jars with oval thickened rim. Cooking Pot (No.
200)
Surface
Treatment
7.5YR 5/3 Medium-coarse

7.5YR 3/2 dark
brown to 7.5YR 7.5YR 3/1 mineral sand,
brown to 7.5YR Smoothing
200 25 3/2 dark brown very dark limestone2,
2.5/2 very dark Burnishing
to 7.5YR 2.5/2 gray grit10, mica
brown
very dark brown CP
(No analogy found).
Medium jars with sinuous inverted round rim. (Nos. 132-134)
Surface
Treatment
Medium vegetal
7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 5/3
132 14 chaff, sand, Slip
light brown light brown brown
limestone2, mica
5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4 Medium-fine

7.5YR 6/4
133 20 light reddish light reddish mineral, sand, Smoothing
light brown
brown brown grit2
Surface
Treatment
Medium mineral
In to 5YR
5YR 6/4 sand,
5YR 7/3 4/2
134 N/A light reddish limestone10, Slip
pink dark reddish
brown grit2, chaff,
gray
mica
(No analogy found).
Medium/large conical neck jars with everted brim rim. (Nos.

179-181)
Surface
Treatment
Smoothing
Medium mineral
7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/3 Burnishing
179 20 sand, limestone2,
pink pink pink Impressions
chaff, mica
under rim
Medium mineral
pink pink pink Burnishing
chaff, mica
Medium mineral
pink pink pink Incised rim
chaff, mica,
(Lidar Höyük. Müller 1996: pl. 75 n. 4, 5, pl. 94 n. 6; Kenan Tepe.

Parker et al. 2003: fig. 6 lett. FF).
Large high carinated jars with inverted rim. (Nos. 194-196, 198-
199)
48 FACING AN EMPIRE
Surface
Treatment
5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4 Medium mineral

194 27 light reddish light reddish light red sand, calcareous, Smoothing
brown brown brown mica
Medium vegetal
7.5YR 5/3 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 5/3
195 N/A chaff, sand, lime- Smoothing
brown light brown brown
stone5, mica
Medium mineral
pink pink pink Incised rim
chaff, mica
5YR 6/4 5YR 6/6 Medium vegetal

Out to 5YR
198 30 light reddish reddish chaff, sand, grit2, Slip
5/1 gray
brown yellow limestone5, mica
2.5YR 6/4 2.5YR 6/4 Medium vegetal Smoothing

7.5YR 5/1
199 33 light reddish light reddish chaff, limestone, Burnishing on
Gray
brown brown grit, sand, mica rim
(Nor untepe. Bartl 2001: fig. 3 n. 7; Lidar Höyük. Müller 1996: pl.
55 n. 7).
Medium very closed hole-mouth jars (No. 204)

Surface
Treatment
204 25 N/A N/A N/A Medium mineral N/A
(Kurban Höyük survey. Wilkinson 1990: fig. B.11 n. 3)
Painted Jars
Medium high carinated jar with inverted rim. (No. 197)

Surface
Treatment
Medium-fine Smoothing
mineral vegetal Burnishing
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 Out to 7.5YR
197 30 sand, Painted decora-
pink pink 5/2 brown
limestone2, tion (10R 4/6
mica, chaff red)
(Nor untepe. Bartl 1994: fig. 3. Bartl 2001: fig. 3 n. 12; Near Yazli-
ca. Parker 2001: fig. 4.5 lett. K).
Small flared neck jug with everted round simple rim. Cooking
Pot (Nos. 149)
Surface
Treatment
Medium min-
Slip
7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4 eral
Burnishing
light brown to 7.5YR 6/4 light brown to sand, lime-
149 11 Painted festoon
7.5YR 4/1 light brown 7.5YR 4/1 stone10, grit5,
(7.5YR 4/2
dark gray dark gray mica
brown)
CP
(No analogy found).
Handles
Cylindric/ribbon grooved handles. Cooking Pot (Nos. 247-251)
Surface
Treatment
7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 7/2 7.5YR 6/4 Medium mineral Slip

247 25
light brown pinkish gray light brown sand, grit5, mica Burnishing
50 FACING AN EMPIRE
Surface
Treatment
7.5YR 5/2
brown to 7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 5/3
248 20 sand, grit10, Excisions on
7.5YR 5/3 light brown brown
limestone5, mica pot
brown
Medium-coarse
5YR 5/1 gray
mineral, sand, Smoothing
249 25 5YR 5/1 gray to 5YR 7/4 In to Out
limestone25, Burnishing
pink
grit10, mica
5YR 4/1 dark 5YR 4/1 dark 5YR 4/1 dark

Medium-coarse
gray 5YR 6/2 gray 5YR 6/2 gray 5YR 6/2
– mineral sand,
250 pinkish gray pinkish gray pinkish gray Smoothing
grit10,
and 5YR 5/1 and 5YR 5/1 and 5YR 5/1
limestone2
gray gray gray
Medium-coarse
5YR 5/1 gray
– mineral, sand, Smoothing
251 5YR 5/1 gray to 5YR 7/4 In to Out
limestone25, Burnished
pink
grit10, mica
(Ziyaret Tepe. Matney and Rainville 2005: fig. 5 n. 15; Hakemi Use.
Tekin 2006: fig. 8 n. 1, 2; Lidar Höyük. Müller 1996: pl. 60 n. 13;
Korucutepe. Winn 1980: pl. 59 n. 66, 67).
Cylindric/ribbon handles with ‘chain’ and ‘ladder’ motives deco-

ration. (Nos. 244-246)
Surface
Treatment
5YR 6/4 In to 5YR 4/2 Medium mineral

– 5YR 7/3
244 light reddish dark reddish sand, limestone10, Slip
pink
brown gray grit2, chaff, mica
– Very dark
245 Pink Pink Medium mineral Smoothing
gray
Surface
Treatment
5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4

pink to pink to Medium vegetal
– Out to 5YR
246 5YR 6/6 5YR 6/6 sand, chaff, mica, Smoothing
4/1 dark gray
reddish reddish grit2
yellow yellow
(Korucutepe. Winn 1980, pl. 60 lett. I).
Bases
Small concave bases. (No. 233)
Surface
Treatment
Medium mineral
7.5YR 7/3 5YR 5/4
vegetal sand,
pink to reddish brown Slip
233 13 N/A chaff,
7.5YR 4/1 to 7.5YR 5/3 Burnishing
limestone2,
dark gray brown
mica
Numerous examples of this type.
Gentle ring-bases (No. 227)

Surface
ment
5YR 6/4 light

Medium vegetal
reddish brown 7.5YR 6/4 out to 7.5YR Slip
227 7 chaff, sand, lime-
to 7.5YR 6/4 light brown 5/4 brown
stone5, mica
light brown
. Sagona and Sagona 2004: fig. 115 n.6; ‘A region. Bern-

beck 1993: pl. 128 lett. F-I; Tell Shiukh Fawqani. Luciani 2005: pl.
28 n. 321).
52 FACING AN EMPIRE
All sizes simple flat bases. (Nos. 222, 223, 225) 16
Surface
Treatment
5YR 6/3 5YR 6/3

Medium mineral
light reddish light reddish
sand, limestone5,
222 7 brown to brown to Out to In Smoothing
grit10, mica,
5YR 5/1 5YR 5/1
CP
gray gray
225 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Body sherds
Open shape body fragments with rope-shaped band decoration.

(Nos. 262-265)
Surface
Treatment
–
262 N/A burned N/A burned N/A burned N/A burned N/A burned
5YR 6/4 10YR 4/2 10YR 3/2 Medium mineral

– Slip
263 light reddish dark grayish very dark sand, chaff, lime-
Applied band
brown brown grayish brown stone5, mica
16 223 and 225 are present as a morphotype also in Plain Ware

Surface
Treatment
5YR 5/4 5YR 5/4 Medium vegetal

– 5YR 5/4 Smoothing
264 reddish reddish chaff, sand, lime-
reddish brown Burnished
brown brown stone2, grit2, mica
Smoothing
5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4 Medium mineral
– 5YR 6/4 light Rope-shape
265 light reddish light reddish sand, chaff, lime-
reddish brown band
brown brown stone5, grit2, mica
Painted bands
(Kenan Tepe . Parker et al. 2003: fig. 6 lett. CC; Boztepe, Talava
Tepe. Parker and Creekmore 2002: fig. 15 lett. J - fig. 39 lett. AA;
Korucutepe. Winn 1980: pl. 56 n. 18; Kurban Höyük survey. Wil-
kinson 1990: fig. B.11 n. 53).
Closed shape body fragments with rope-shaped band decoration.

(No. 260)
Surface
Treatment
5YR 6/4
Medium mineral
light reddish 5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4 Smoothing
– sand, chaff,
260 brown to light reddish light reddish Rope-shape
limestone5,
5YR 5/2 brown brown band
grit2, mica
reddish gray
(Ta kesen, Çengiler Tepe. Sagona and Sagona 2004: fig. 111 n. 3 -
fig. 191 n. 4; Kurban Höyük survey. Wilkinson 1990: fig. B.11 n.
54; Birkleyn. Schachner 2009: fig. 126 n. 3, 6, 8, 9, 11, 13, 18, 21)
Spout fragment. Possible Cooking Pot. (Nos. 252-253)

54 FACING AN EMPIRE
Surface
Treatment
7.5YR 5/2 7.5YR 5/2 Medium-coarse

– brown to brown to 7.5YR 4/1 mineral Slip
252
7.5YR 4/1 7.5YR 4/1 dark gray sand, grit25, Burnishing
dark gray dark gray CP
7.5YR 5/3
Smoothing
25 7.5YR 6/3 10YR 6/3 brown to
253 N/A External bur-
light brown pale brown 7.5YR 6/2
nishing
pinkish gray
(Nor untepe. Bartl 2001: fig. 4 n. 2, 4, 5, 7;. Bartl 1994: fig. 13 n. 4;

Ziyaret Tepe. Matney and Rainville 2005: fig. 5 n. 19; Hakemi Use.
Tekin 2006: fig. 8 n. 6, 7; Giricano. Schachner 2003: fig. 6 lett. D,
F).
Body fragment with applied embossed decorations (the arched

element had probably lug functionality). (No. 266)
Surface
Treatment
– 7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/3 Medium mineral Smoothing

266
light brown light brown light brown sand, grit5, mica Burnishing
(Nor untepe. Müller 2003: fig. 4 n. 2; Gre Dimse. Karg 2002: fig. 3
lett. A).
Grooved Ware (GRW):
Bowls
Small/medium (occasionally sinuous) bowls with simple round

rim. (Nos. 49-52)
Color Surface
(out) Treatment
Medium mineral
49 12 Pink Pink Pink sand, chaff, lime- Smoothing
stone, grit, mica
Medium vegetal
5YR 7/3 5YR 7/3 5YR 7/3 chaff, sand, grit5,
51 13 Smoothing
pink pink pink some lime-
stone,mica
Out to Medium-coarse
7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 4/1 mineral vegetal
52 13 Slip
light brown light brown dark gray sand, chaff, grit5,
to in mica
(Ziyaret Tepe. Matney and Rainville 2005: Fig. 4 n. 7. Matney et al.

2009: fig. 17 lett. A; Kavu an Höyük. Kozbe 2008: fig. 10 n. 7;
Nor untepe. Bartl 1994, fig. 6 n. 3. Bartl 2001: fig. 2 n. 11, 12;
miku a i. Köro lu 2003: fig. 2 n. 2. Sevin 1995: fig. 15 n. 2; Tu pa.
Terhan 1994: fig. 30 n. 7, 8, 9)
Medium bowls with simple square rim (Nos. 1-2)
Surface
Treatment

1 15
pink pink light brown sand, grit5, mica Burnishing
7.5YR 6/4
7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/3 light brown Medium mineral
2 18 Slip
pink pink to 7.5YR 5/1 sand, grit5, mica
gray
(Kazanci. Köro lu 2003, fig. 3 n. 10; Kenan Tepe. Parker et al.

2003, fig. 6 lett. H; Talava Tepe. Parker and Creekmore 2002, fig.
39 lett. K; Korucutepe. Winn 1980, pl. 53 n. 11; miku a i. Sevin
1995, fig. 13 n. 4)
56 FACING AN EMPIRE
Medium/large bowls with simple round rim. (Nos. 28-30)
Surface
Treatment
Medium-coarse
7.5YR 4/2
7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/3 mineral sand,
28 17 brown Slip
light brown light brown limestone5,
(burned)
grit2, mica
7.5YR 6/3
Medium mineral
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 light brown
29 20 sand, grit2, Slip
pink pink to 7.5YR 6/1
chaff, mica
gray
(Ziyaret Tepe. Matney and Rainville 2005: fig. 4 n. 4; Kavu an

Höyük. Kozbe 2008: fig. 6, 8; Nor untepe. Bartl 1994: fig. 9 n. 5;
Hakemi Use. Tekin 2006: fig. 3 n. 1, fig. 5 n. 3. Kopekli. Köro lu
2003: fig. 3 n. 3; Talava Tepe. Parker and Creekmore 2002: fig. 39
lett. M, BB; Tu pa. Tarhan 1994: fig. 22 n. 2; Korucutepe. Winn
1980: pl. 58 n. 29, 30; Birkleyn. Schachner 2009: fig. 124 n. 6, 11).
Medium/large bowls with slightly inverted simple rim. (Nos.

127-131)
Surface
Color
No Color (in) Color (sec) Fabric Treat-
(out)
ment
Medium mineral Slip

7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/3
127 19 sand, limestone5, Fingernail
light brown pink light brown
mica, grit2 excisions
Surface
Color
(out)
ment
Medium-coarse v
Smoothing
5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 egetal chaff, sand,
128 20 Rope-shape
pink pink pink limestone5, grit2,
impression
mica
7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 6/4 Medium mineral

129 25 Slip
pink pink light brown sand, grit5, mica
5YR 7/4
5YR 6/4 Medium vegetal
pink and Out to 5YR
130 35 light reddish chaff, sand, grit2, Slip
5YR 6/2 5/1 gray
brown limestone5, mica
pinkish gray
Medium-coarse
7.5YR 7/4 6/3 light Gley1 3/N
131 45 vegetal chaff, grit, Slip
pink brown very dark grey
limestone, mica
(Ziyaret Tepe. Matney and Rainville 2005: fig. 4 n. 3; Kavu an

Höyük. Kozbe 2008: fig. 11 n. 2; Lchashen-Metsamor. Avetisyan
and Bobokhyan 2008: fig. 44 n. 3; Nor untepe. Bartl 1994: fig. 6 n.
2; Hakemi Use. Tekin 2006: fig. 3 n. 2; Giricano. Schachner 2003:
fig. 6 lett. A, B; Nor untepe. Bartl 2001: fig. 2 n. 4, 5; Lidar Höyük.
Müller 1996: pl. 60 n. 1, 4, 7; Kenan Tepe. Parker et al. 2003: fig. 6
lett. Q, Y; Ernis-Evditepe. Belli and Konyar 2003: fig. 28 n. 1, 2;
Tu pa. Terhan 1994: fig. 30 n. 1, 5; Korucutepe. Winn 1980: pl. 52
n. 5; Hulvenk, Hankedi. Russel 1980: fig. 18 n. 278.19 - fig. 18 n.
281.16; Birkleyn. Schachner 2009: fig. 124 n. 1, 4; miku a i. Sevin
1995: fig. 13 n. 1, 2; Holkan Hirbesi. Parker 2001: fig. 4.5 lett. N;
Tille Höyük. Blaylock 1999: fig. 3 n. 8, 11).
Large bowls with inverted square rim. (Nos. 124-126)
Surface
Treatment
5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4

124 25 light reddish light reddish light reddish
sand, chaff, mica Burnishing
brown brown brown
58 FACING AN EMPIRE
Surface
Treatment
Medium vegetal,
5YR 6/4
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 chaff, sand, lime-
125 N/A light reddish Slip
pink pink stone25, grit10,
brown
mica
Smoothing
Medium mineral
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 Slight burnish-
126 30 sand, grit5, chaff,
pink pink pink ingFishbone
mica
incisions
(Ziyaret Tepe. Matney 1998: fig. 7 n. 3; 2005, fig. 4 n. 1, 5; Kavu an

Höyük. Kozbe 2008: fig. 11 n. 4)
Large/very large bowls with everted tapered rim. (Nos. 7-27)
Surface
Treatment
Smoothing
Medium vegetal
7.5YR 7/4 6/4 light 7.5YR 7/4 Burnishing
pink brown pink Fingernail
stone5, mica
incisions
Medium vegetal
8 25 chaff, sand, grit5,
light brown light brown light brown Burnishing
mica
Medium vegetal
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4
9 25 chaff, sand, lime- Smoothing
pink pink pink
stone5, grit2, mica
7.5YR 7/3
pink to 7.5YR 3/1
11 37 10YR 3/1 very dark
pink sand, grit5, mica Burnishing
very dark gray
gray (burned)
Surface
Treatment
Medium-fine
Smoothing
7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4 mineral sans,
12 30 Strong Bur-
light brown light brown light brown limestone2,
nishing
chaff, mica
Out to Medium vegetal

7.5YR 7/2 7.5YR 7/2
13 30 7.5YR 5/1 chaff, sand, Slip
pinkish gray pinkish gray
gray grit5, mica
Out to Medium mineral

7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 7/3
14 33 7.5YR 4/1 sand, grit10, Slip
light brown pink
dark gray chaff, mica
6/6 reddish Medium vegetal

7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/3
15 45 yellow to 5/1 chaff, sand, lime- Slip
light brown light brown
gray stone5, grit5, mica
7.5YR 6/3
5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4 light brown Medium mineral
Slip
16 N/A light reddish light reddish to 7.5YR sand, limestone5,
Burnishing
brown brown 4/1 grit2, chaff, mica
dark gray
Out to
5YR 7/6 5YR 4/1
19 25 light reddish chaff, sand, lime- Slip (inside)
reddish yellow dark gray
brown stone5, mica
to in
Out to Medium mineral Slip

7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/3
20 25 7.5YR 4/1 sand, grit5, chaff, Slight bur-
dark gray mica nishing
out to Medium vegetal

7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4
21 30 7.5YR 6/2 chaff, sand, grit2, Slip
pink pink
pinkish gray mica
Medium mineral
7.5YR 7/2 7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 7/6
22 30 sand, grit5, chaff, Slip
pinkish gray light brown reddish yellow
mica
60 FACING AN EMPIRE
Surface
Treatment
Medium-coarse
7.5YR 8/3 7.5YR 8/3 7.5YR 8/3
24 35 vegetal chaff, sand, Smoothing
pink pink pink
grit2, some mica
Medium vegetal Slip

5YR 7/4 6/6 reddish yel-
25 35 5YR 7/4 pink chaff, sand, lime- Fishbone
pink low to 5/1 gray
stone5, grit5, mica excisions
Medium mineral
7.5YR 6/4 Out to 7.5YR Slip
26 35 7.5YR 7/4 pink sand, grit5, chaff,
light brown 4/1 dark gray Burnishing
mica
5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4 Medium vegetal Slip

5YR 6/4 light
27 40 light reddish light reddish chaff, limestone 10, Slight bur-
reddish brown
brown brown grit2, sand, mica nishing
(Ziyaret Tepe. Matney 1998: fig. 7 n. 4; Kavu an Höyük. Kozbe

2008: fig. 10 n. 2, 4; Lchashen-Metsamor. Avetisyan and
Bobokhyan 2008: fig. 43 n. 8, 10; Nor untepe. Bartl 1994: fig. 6 n.
1, Bartl 2001: fig. 2 n. 3; Hakemi Use. Tekin 2006: fig. 5 n. 4; Ko-
pekli. Köro lu 2003: fig. 3 n. 1; Kenan Tepe. Parker et al. 2003: fig.
6 lett. K, M, N, O; Talava Tepe. Parker and Creekmore 2002: fig.
39 lett. J, L; Korucutepe. Winn 1980: pl. 58 n. 22, 30; Kazanci,
Gokçetevek. Köro lu 1998: fig. 16 n. 6 - fig. 16 n. 12; Birkleyn.
Schachner 2009: fig. 124 n. 2; Çiçek Yordu, Sari Köy, Rum Tepesi.
Parker 2001: fig. 4.10 lett. K - fig. 5.12 lett. I, - fig. 4.10 lett. J; Tille
Höyük. Blaylock 1999: fig. 3 n. 13, 17).
Jars
Medium/large hole-mouth jars with pointed simple rim. (Nos.

212-215)
Color Surface
(out) Treatment
Medium mineral
7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 Slip
212 30 sand, grit5, mica,
light brown pink pink Burnishing
some limestone
Slip
Slight internal
Medium-coarse
5YR 6/3 and rim bur-
5YR 6/2 5YR 6/2 mineral, sand,
213 30 light reddish nishing
pinkish gray pinkish gray limestone5, grit2,
brown Diagonal exci-
mica
sions
Dot line
Medium mineral
5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4 Smoothing
sand, chaff,
214 N/A light reddish light reddish light reddish Slight burnish-
limestone5, grit2,
brown brown brown ing
mica
5YR 6/4
5YR 6/2 Medium mineral Slip
215 10 light reddish N/A
pinkish gray sand, grit5, mica Burnishing
brown
(Nor untepe. Bartl 2001: fig. 2 n. 2; Lidar Höyük. Müller 1996: pl.
59 n. 8; Kenan Tepe. Parker et al. 2003: fig. 6 lett. V, W; Birkleyn.
Schachner 2009: fig. 125 n. 4; Gre Migro. Parker 2001: fig. 5.25 lett.
F, G, H; Tille Höyük. Blaylock 1999: fig. 3 n. 5).
Medium/large hole-mouth jars with simple round rim. (Nos.

206-211)
Surface
Color
(out)
ment
Medium-coarse
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 mineral
206 30 Smoothing
pink pink pink sand, chaff, lime-
stone
62 FACING AN EMPIRE
Surface
Color
(out)
ment
Medium mineral
207 N/A sand, grit2, chaff,
light brown light brown light brown Burnishing
mica
Medium-coarse
mineral sand, Smoothing
7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/3 5/1 gray
208 30 grit10, Strong bur-
light brown light brown to In
limestone5, mica, nishing
chaff
Slip
Medium vegetal Rim and in
5YR 6/2 7.5YR 6/1 7.5YR 5/1
209 35 chaff, sand, grit5, burnishing
pinkish gray gray to out gray to In
limestone2, mica Fish-bone
excisions
Slip
Medium mineral
7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 4/1 Slight bur-
210 N/A sand, grit10, lime-
light brown pink dark gray nishingrope-
stone5, mica
shape band
Medium mineral
7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/3 5YR 5/3 Slip
211 35 sand grit5, lime-
light brown light brown reddish brown Burnishing
stone2, mica
(Van Castle Mound. Sevin 1994: fig. 21.5 n. 2, 3; Ziyaret Tepe.

Matney 1998: fig. 7 n. 1. Matney and Rainville 2005: fig. 5 n. 19, 20.
Matney et al. 2009: fig. 17 lett. B. Parker 2001: fig. 5.19 lett. H; Ka-
vu an Höyük. Kozbe 2008: fig. 15 n. 3, 4, 5, 6; Tille Höyük.
French, Moore and Russel 1982: fig. 13 n. 11; Hakemi Use. Tekin
2006: fig. 6 n. 1, 2; Nor untepe. Bartl 2001: fig. 2 n. 1; Lidar
Höyük. Müller 1996: pl. 58 n. 2, 3, 4; Tu pa. Terhan 1994: fig. 30 n.
2, 6; Korucutepe. Winn 1980: pl. 52 n. 4; Hinsor. Russel 1980: fig.
118 n. 282.10; Birkleyn. Schachner 2009: fig. 125 n. 1; Tille Höyük.
Blaylock 1999: fig. 3 n. 4, 15).
Medium/large hole-mouth jars with simple square rim (Nos.

216-221)
Color Surface
(out) Treatment
216 20 Light brown Light brown Light brown Medium mineral Smoothing
Out to
Medium mineral Slip
– 5YR 7/3 5YR 6/3 light 7.5YR 4/1
217 sand, grit2, chaff, Burnishing
pink reddish brown dark gray
mica Applied nasil
to In
Yellow to Medium mineral

Reddish (Completely Smoothing
218 27 reddish sand, grit, chaff,
yellow burned) Applied nasil
yellow limestone, mica

219 30 Smoothing
pink pink pink sand, chaff, mica
Medium vegetal
7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/4
220 30 chaff, sand, grit5, Smoothing
limestone2, mica
Medium vegetal
5YR 7/3 5YR 7/3 5YR 7/4
221 N/A chaff, sand, lime- Smoothing
pink pink pink
stone5, grit2, mica
(Kavu an Höyük. Kozbe 2008: fig. Hakemi Use. Tekin 2006: fig. 7
n. 1-4; Lidar Höyük. Müller 1996: pl. 64 n. 9, 10).
Medium very closed hole-mouth jars with simple round rim (Nos.
203, 205)
Surface
ment
7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4

25 to 7.5YR 5/3 to 7.5YR 5/3 7.5YR 5/3 Medium mineral Smoothing
203
brown to brown to brown sand, grit5, mica Burnishing
7.5YR 4/2 7.5YR 4/2
brown brown
5YR 5/4 Medium mineral

5YR 6/4 light Out to 5YR Smoothing
205 20 reddish sand, grit10,
reddish brown 4/1 dark gray Burnishing
brown mica,
64 FACING AN EMPIRE
(Cf. Nos. 206-211, for similar shapes).
Body sherds
Spout fragment. Possible Cooking Pot (Nos. 252-25317)
Surface
Treatment
7.5YR 5/2 7.5YR 5/2 Medium-coarse

– brown to brown to 7.5YR 4/1 mineral Slip
252
7.5YR 4/1 7.5YR 4/1 dark gray sand, grit25, Burnishing
dark gray dark gray CP
7.5YR 5/3
Smoothing
7.5YR 6/3 10YR 6/3 brown to
253 25 N/A External bur-
light brown pale brown 7.5YR 6/2
nishing
pinkish gray
(Nor untepe. Bartl 2001: fig. 4 n. 1, 3, 6, 8. Bartl 1994: fig. 13 n.1,

2; Lidar Höyük. Müller 1996: pl. 60 n. 10-12, 14; Gre Dimse. Karg
2001: fig. 7 lett. A; Giricano. Schachner 2003: fig. 6 lett. E; Tille
Höyük. Blaylock 1999: fig. 3 n. 2, 3, 12; Ernis-Evditepe. Belli and
Konyar 2003: fig. 28 n. 5; Korucutepe. Winn 1980: pl. 52 n. 4, 5).
Closed shape body fragments with rope-shaped band decoration.

(No. 257)
These two fragments are BPW but spouts are widely associated with
17
GRW also.
Surface
Treatment
Slip
Burnishing
Medium vegetal
7.5YR 6/4 Fish-bone
– 7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/3 chaff, sand, lime-
257 light incisions + 2
pink pink stone5, grit2,
brown rope-shape
mica
impression
2 bosses
(No analogy found)
Plain Ware (PW):
Bowls
Medium/large sinuous bowls with slightly everted simple square

rim. (No. 46)
Surface
Treatment
Medium-fine
7.5YR 7/3
7.5YR 7/3 5YR 6/4 light mineral vegetal,
pink to 5YR
pink to reddish brown sand, chaff,
46 25 6/6 reddish Slip
7.5YR 6/4 to 5YR 7/6 grit2,
yellow (few
light brown reddish yellow limestone2,
strokes)
mica
(Sogutlu, Kazlarbogalzi Tepe. Sagona and Sagona 2004: fig. 119

n. 10 - fig. 183 n. 7; Hamilih. Blaylock 1990: fig. 23 n. 2)
Large steep wall bowls with simple rim externally ridged. (No.
42)
66 FACING AN EMPIRE
Surface
ment
Medium-fine
5YR 8/3 5YR 8/3 7.5YR 6/4 mineral sand,
42 35 Slip
pink pink light brown limestone10,
grit10, mica
(No analogy found)
Large/very large bowls with indented simple round rim. (Nos.

34-35)
Surface
ment
Medium mineral
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 Slip
pink pink pink Burnishing
mica some grit

7.5YR 5/4 Slip
35 41 light reddish reddish sand, grit5, lime-
brown Burnishing
brown yellow stone5, chaff, mica
(Kharabeh Shattani. Goodwin 1995: fig. 32 n. 5)
Large bowls with thickened simple round rim (Nos. 40-41)
Surface
Treatment
40 30 Pink Pink Pink to gray Medium mineral Slip

Surface
Treatment
7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 8/3

Medium mineral
pink to pink to Out to
41 40 sand, grit2, mica, Slip
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4
chaff
pink light brown
(No analogy found)
Large bowls with everted pointed rim (bec du canard). (No. 11018)
Surface
Treatment
7.5YR 6/3
Out to Slip
light brown Medium mineral
7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 3/1 Burnishing
110 21 to 7.5YR 3/1 sand, grit2, chaff,
light brown very dark Fingernail
very dark mica
gray excisions
gray (burned)
(Ziyaret Tepe. Matney 1998: fig. 8 n. 1).
Large collar neck bowls with everted rim. (Nos. 77-78)
N Surface
Color (out) Color (in) Color (sec) Fabric
o Treatment
Medium mineral
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/2 Slip
pink pink pinkish gray Burnishing
chaff, mica
18This sherd is BPW, nevertheless, according to Matney (see above), it is

a PW morphotype as well, and that is why I decided to put this type in
both ware sections.
68 FACING AN EMPIRE
N Surface
Color (out) Color (in) Color (sec) Fabric
o Treatment

7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 3/1 chaff, sand,
78 30 Smoothing
light brown light brown very dark limestone5, grit2,
gray to in mica
(Çimentepe. Sagona and Sagona 2004: fig. 160 n.1; Gre Dimse.
Karg 2001: fig. 5 lett. M (smaller); Boztepe. Parker and Creekmore
2002: fig. 15 lett. C (smaller); Tell Hamoukar. Ur 2002: fig. 14 n. 11
(associated with other EIA inspired elements); Qasrij Cliff. Curtis
1989: fig. 7 n. 5. fig. 9 n. 23, fig. 24 n. 34; Silope Höyük. Parker
2001: fig. 3.6 lett. B).
Large shallow bowls with inverted tapered rim externally thick-

ened. (Nos. 87-92)
Surface
Treatment

87 20
light brown pink light brown sand, chaff, mica Burnishing
88 30 Pink Pale Brown N/A N/A N/A
7.5YR 7/4
pink and Out to Medium mineral
7.5YR 7/4
89 30 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 5/2 sand, grit2, lime- Slip
pink
light brown brown stone2, chaff, mica
ridges

7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4
90 30 Gray 5YR chaff, limestone, Smoothing
Pink Pink
6/1 mica, sand
5YR 6/6
Light reddish
5YR 6/6 5YR 6/6 brown to Medium vegetal Smoothing
91 35 Light reddish Light reddish Gray Light Chaff, limestone, Slight burnish-
brown brown gray 7/N mica ing
and Gray
5/N - GLEY1
Surface
Treatment
5YR 7/4
pink to Medium mineral
5YR 7/4 5YR 4/1 Smoothing
92 37 10YR 4/1 sand, grit2, chaff,
pink dark gray Burnishing
dark gray mica
(burned)
(Lidar Höyük. Müller 1996: pl. 35 n. 1, 3, pl. 36 n. 10, 11; Yankale

Höyük. Parker 2003: fig. 9 lett. F; Boztepe. Parker and Creekmore
2002: fig. 15 lett. F; Qasrij Cliff. Curtis 1989: fig. 26 n. 57, 62, fig.
28 n. 92; Sultantepe. Anastasio 2007: fig. 51 n. 16, 17; Tell Es-
Sweyhat survey. Wilkinson 2004: fig. 6.16 n. 3; Tell Shiukh
Fawqani. Luciani 2005: pl. 10 n. 128, pl. 13 n. 152-153; Uçtepe.
Köro lu 1998: fig. 10 n. 7; Tell Abu Dhahir, Seh Gubba. Green
1999: fig. 5 n. 3, 5, fig. 7 n. 1; Nineveh. Lumsden 1999: fig. 4 n. 10).
Medium/large steep wall bowls with hammerhead rim. (Nos. 99-

109)
Surface
Treatment
5YR 6/4
light reddish Medium
5YR 6/4 5YR 4/1 Smoothing
brown to mineral
99 34 light reddish dark gray Slight burnish-
7.5YR 5/2 sand, grit25, lime-
brown to In ing
brown stone2, mica
(burned)
100 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Medium
5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 mineral
101 20 Smoothing
pink pink pink sand, limestone2,
chaff, mica
5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 5YR 5/3 Medium vegetal

102 20 Slip Burnishing
pink pink reddish brown chaff, sand, mica
Medium mineral
5YR 6/6 6/4 light 5YR 6/6
103 22 sand, chaff, mica, Slip
reddish yellow reddish brown reddish yellow
limestone2, grit2
70 FACING AN EMPIRE
Surface
Treatment

7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 6/4
104 25 7.5YR 6/1 chaff, sand, lime- Slip
pink light brown
gray stone5, mica, grit2
105 30 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
106 31 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5YR 6/6 r
Medium mineral
7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/3 eddish yellow
pink pink to 5YR 6/2
mica
pinkish gray

7.5YR 6/4 5YR 6/6 Slip
108 35 very pale chaff, sand, grit2,
light brown reddish yellow Burnishing
brown limestone2, mica
5YR 6/3 5YR 6/3

7.5YR 7/4
109 45 light reddish light reddish N/A Slip
pink
brown brown
(Ayanis. Kozbe et al. 2001: pl. VI n. 10; Boztepe. Parker and

Creekmore 2002: fig. 17 lett. I; Tell Es-Sweyhat survey. Wilkinson
2004: fig. 6.17 n. 27; De irmentepe, Kaleköy. Ökse 1988: fig. 100,
102 - fig. 104; Çattepe. Parker 2001: fig. 4.11 lett. F).
Large bowls with hammerhead rim. (No. 96)
Surface
Treatment
Medium mineral
pink pink gray Burnishing
mica
(Harabe Bezikan Höyük; Khirbet Qasrij. Curtis 1989: fig. 27 n. 67;

Sultantepe. Anastasio 2007: fig. 51 n. 28; ‘A region. Bernbeck
1993: pl. 94 lett. P; Tell Keisan. Lehmann 1996: pl. 8 n. 46/1)
Large bowls with thickened hammerhead rim. No. 97)
Surface
Treatment
7.5YR 7/6
Medium vegetal
10YR 6/6 10YR 6/6 reddish yellow
97 N/A chaff, sand, grit2, Slip
light red light red to 7.5YR
limestone2, mica
5/1 gray
(Ziyaret Tepe. Matney 2007: fig. 18 lett. F. Parker 2001: fig. 5.17
lett. F; Lidar Höyük. Müller 1999: pl. 26 n. 6; Tell Shiukh Fawqani.
Luciani 2005: pl. 9 n. 122).
Large high carenated and squeezed neck bowl with hammerhead

rim (No. 98)
Surface
Treatment
Medium vegetal
5YR 6/4
2.5 6/6 2.5 6/6 chaff, sand, grit10,
light red light red limestone5, mica
brown
CP
(‘A region. Bernbeck 1993: pl. 97 lett. k; De irmentepe. Ökse

1988: fig. 676).
Large/very large shallow bowls with everted tapered rim. (Nos.

56-60)
72 FACING AN EMPIRE
Surface
Treatment
Medium-coarse
7.5YR 8/3 7.5YR 8/3 7.5YR 8/3 vegetal chaff, s
56 65 Smoothing
pink pink pink and, limestone5,
mica
Medium mineral
7.5YR 7/2 7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 8/4
57 40 sand, chaff, lime- Slip
pinkish gray pink pink
stone5, mica
Medium-coarse
7.5YR 7/4
Out to mineral sand,
pink to
5YR 6/4 light 5YR 4/1 chaff,
58 30 7.5YR 6/4 Slip
reddish brown dark gray limestone5,
light reddish
to in grit5,
brown
mica
Out to Medium-fine
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 Smoothing
60 32 7.5YR 5/1 mineral vegetal
pink pink Burnishing
gray sand, mica, chaff
(Tell Es-Sweyhat survey. Wilkinson 2004: fig. 6.16 n. 33; Tell Shi-
ukh Fawqani. Luciani 2005: pl. 33 n. 390).
Large high gently carinated bowls with everted tapered rim.

(Nos. 61-67)
Surface
Treatment
Out to
7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 7/4
62 23 7.5YR 4/1 Medium mineral Slip
light brown pink
dark gray
Medium mineral
7.5YR 8/3 7.5YR 8/3 7.5YR 8/4 sand, grit2,
63 21 Smoothing
pink pink pink limestone5, chaff,
mica
Surface
Treatment

7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4
65 36 7.5YR 4/1 chaff, limestone5, Smoothing
dark gray grit5, sand, mica
Medium-coarse
7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 6/4 vegetal chaff,
66 40 Slip
pink pink light brown sand, limestone5,
grit2, mica
Medium mineral
67 50 sand, grit2, chaff,
brown light brown light brown Burnishing
mica
(Çorak Tepe. Sagona and Sagona 2004: fig. 125 n. 11; Takyan Tepe.
Parker 2001: fig. 3.6 lett H)
Medium/large high carinated bowls with indented simple rim.

(Nos. 68-71)
Surface
Treatment
Out to
69 35 Pink Pink 7.5YR 6/1 Medium mineral Smoothing
gray

7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 7/4
71 45 7.5YR 4/1 sand, grit2, Slip
light brown pink
dark gray chaff, mica
(Ayanis. Kozbe et al. 2001: pl. XIV n. 14, pl. XIX n. 32; Lidar
Höyük. Müller 1996: pl. 11 n. 4, 12; De irmentepe. Ökse 1988: fig.
815).
74 FACING AN EMPIRE
Large deep high carinated bowls with everted rim. (Nos. 72, 74,
76)
Surface
Treatment
Out to 7
72 36 Pink Pink .5YR 6/1 Medium mineral Smoothing
gray

7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4
74 31 7.5YR 4/1 chaff, sand, grit5, Smoothing
pink pink
dark gray limestone5, mica
(Ayanis. Kozbe et al. 2001: pl. VI n. 8; Khirbet Qasrij. Curtis 1989:

fig. 25 n. 42; De irmentepe. Ökse 1988: fig. 121).
Medium/large carinated bowls with everted rim. (Nos. 82-86)
Surface
Treatment
10YR 6/4 10YR 6/4 Medium mineral Smoothing

10YR 4/1
82 20 light yellowish light yellowish sand, chaff, lime- External bur-
dark gray
brown brown stone5, mica nishing
Medium mineral
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/5
83 30 sand, chaff, lime- Slip
pink pink reddish yellow
stone5, mica
5YR 6/6
5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4 Medium-fine min-
reddish yellow
84 31 light reddish light reddish eral vegetal, sand, Slip
to 5YR 5/1
brown brown mica, limestone2
gray
7.5YR 6/4
light brown Medium mineral
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4
85 31 to out to sand, chaff, grit5, Slip
pink pink
7.5YR 5/1 limestone5, mica
gray
Surface
Treatment
Out to
7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 7/4
86 35 7.5YR 4/1 Medium fabric Slip
light brown pink
dark gray
(Ayanis. Kozbe et al. 2001: pl. XIX n. 25, 26; Lidar Höyük. Müller
1996: pl. 17 n. 16. Qasrij Cliff, Khirbet Qasrij. Curtis 1989: fig. 9 n.
22 - fig. 23 n. 7, fig. 24 n. 25. Hattara. Negro 1997: fig. 1 n. 5, 7;
Kaleköy. Ökse 1988: fig. 225, 234. Basorin Höyük, Gre Migro.
Parker 2001: fig. 3.8 lett. P - fig. 5.26 lett. I).
Large thin walled and high carinated bowls with inverted rim (IV
variants). (Nos. 117-120)
Surface
Treatment
117 24 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Medium
7.5YR 3/1
7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/3 mineral Slip
119 25 very dark
pink pink sand, grit2, Burnishing
gray
chaff, mica
120 27 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
I (Ayanis. Kozbe et al. 2001: pl. XXI n. 1; Basorin Höyük. Parker

2001: fig. 3.8 lett. J) - II (Nineveh. Lumsden 1999: fig. 5 n. 21) - III
(Gre Dimse. Karg 2002: fig. 7 lett. B; Qalat ergat. Anastasio 2007:
fig. 79 n. 4 lett. AB; ‘A region. Bernbeck 1993: pl. 93 lett. D;
Yankale Höyük. Parker 2001: fig. 3.6 lett. F) - IV (no analogy
found).
Jars
Small/medium cylindric neck jars with “D” shape rim. (Nos.

135-137)
76 FACING AN EMPIRE
Surface
Treatment
Medium vegetal
5YR 7/3 5YR 7/3 7.5YR 6/4
135 11 chaff, sand, lime- Slip
pink pink light brown
stone5, grit2, mica
Medium mineral
136 9 Pink Pink Light Brown Sand, limestone2, Slip
mica
5YR 6/6
Medium mineral
7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/3 reddish yellow
light brown light brown to 5YR 5/1
mica
gray
(Ziyaret Tepe. Matney 1998: fig. 9 n. 4; Lidar Höyük. Müller 1996:

pl. 103 n. 7; Gre Dimse. Karg 2001: fig. 5 lett. O, P, fig. 6 lett. N;
Kenan Tepe. Parker and Creekmore 2002: fig. 17 lett. H, P;
Kurban Höyük survey. Wilkinson 1990: fig. B.11 n. 9, 19; Khirbet
Qasrij. Curtis 1989: fig. 33 n. 167; Tell Beydar survey. Wilkinson
and Barbanes 2000: fig. 3 n. 9; De irmentepe. Ökse 1988: fig. 400,
406; Girik Tahti. Parker 2001: fig. 3.17 lett. L).
Medium cylindrical neck jars with oval internal and external

thickened rim. (Nos. 138-140)
Surface
Treatment

5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4
138 16 5YR 6/2 sand, limestone2, Slip
pink pink
pinkish gray chaff, mica
Medium mineral
7.5YR 7/6 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/1
139 22 sand, limestone2, Slip
pink light brown Gray
chaff, mica
Surface
Treatment

7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4
140 22 light reddish chaff, sand, lime- Slip
brown stone5, grit5, mica
(Ziyaret Tepe. Matney 1998: fig. 9 n. 5; Zeytin Bahçeli Höyük.

Deveci and Mergen 1999, fig. 4 n. 5; Tell Hamoukar. Ur 2002: fig.
14 n. 7; Tell Beydar survey. Wilkinson and Barbanes 2000: fig. 2 n.
9; Tell Shiukh Fawqani. Luciani 2005: pl. 17 n. 190. Makinson
2005: pl. 17 n. 108; De irmentepe. Ökse 1988: fig. 403).
Medium/large cylindrical neck jars with brim oval everted rim

(Nos. 141-143)
Surface
Treatment
141 20 Pink Pink Pink Medium mineral Slip
7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/3 5YR 5/6 Medium-fine Slip

142 29
light brown light brown yellowish red mineral Burnishing

143 44 Slip
pink pink pink sand, grit2, mica
(No analogy found)
Large/very large cylindrical short neck jars with oval everted rim
(Nos. 144-147)
78 FACING AN EMPIRE
Surface
Treatment
Medium vegetal
Out to chaff, sand,
7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/3
144 30 7.5YR 5/2 grit2, Slip
brown limestone2,
mica
5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4

145 40 light reddish light reddish Slip
reddish yellow sand, chaff, mica
brown brown
5YR 6/6
5YR 6/4 5YR 6/4
reddish yellow Medium mineral
146 45 light reddish light reddish Slip
to 7.5YR 6/1 sand, chaff, mica
brown brown
gray
Medium-coarse
7.5YR 5/1 7.5YR 5/1 mineral and
7.5YR 6/3 gray to gray to vegetal, sand, Slip
147 60
light brown 7.5YR 4/1 7.5YR 4/1 chaff, Burnishing
dark gray dark gray limestone5,
grit5, mica
(No analogy found)
Medium deep jars with oval thickened rim (No. 201)
Surface
Treatment

7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/3
201 38 7.5YR 4/1 sand, grit2, chaff, Smoothing
pink pink
Dark gray mica
(Lidar Höyük. Müller 1996: pl. 65 n. 11, 18).

Large neck-less jars with “D” shaped rim. Possible Cooking Pot
(Nos. 188-191)
Surface
Treatment
188 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Smoothing
Medium mineral
7.5YR 6/2 7.5YR 6/2 7.5YR 6/2 Depressions
pinkish gray pinkish gray pinkish gray on and under
grit5, mica
rim
7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/3

light brown light brown 7.5YR 5/2 Medium mineral Slip
190 35
to 10YR 4/1 to 10YR 4/1 brown sand, grit2, mica Burnishing
dark gray dark gray
191 35 Light brown Light brown Light brown Medium mineral Smoothing
(‘A region. Bernbeck 1993: pl. 118 lett. L, pl. 119 lett. A; Çiçek
Yordu, Gre Migro. Parker 2001: fig. 4.10 lett. I, H - fig. 5.27 lett. B;
Tell Barri. D'Agostino 2004: fig. 5 n. 34-36).
Medium squeezed neck jars with lugs and everted thickened rim.
(Nos. 192-193)
Surface
ment
Coarse mineral
sand,
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4
192 22 limestone10, Smoothing
pink pink pink
grit10, mica
CP
7.5YR 3/1
7.5YR 4/2 7.5YR 5/3 Medium mineral Slip
193 23 very dark
brown brown sand, grit5, mica Burnishing
gray
(No analogy found).

80 FACING AN EMPIRE
Medium flared neck jars with tapered everted rim. (Nos. 176-178)
Surface
Treatment
Medium mineral
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/4 sand,
176 15 Slip
pink pink light brown limestone10,
chaff
177 15 Pink Pink Pink Medium mineral Smoothing
Slip
Medium vegetal
7.5YR 7/2 7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 7/2 Burnishing
pinkish gray light brown pinkish gray (strong on top
stone, mica
of rim)
. Sagona and Sagona 2004: fig. 187 n. 7, 9; Tell

Shiukh Fawqani. Makinson 2005: pl. 3 n. 12).
Medium flared neck jars with everted thickened oval rim. (Nos.
158-160)
Surface
Treatment
158 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4 Smoothing
159 15 7.5YR 3/1 sand, chaff, grit2,
light brown light brown Burnishing
very dark gray mica

5YR 7/6
160 18 very pale very pale sand, limestone5, Slip
reddish yellow
brown brown chaff, mica
(Çengiler Tepe. Sagona and Sagona 2004: fig. 191 n. 3; Ayanis.

Kozbe et al. 2001: pl. VII n. 6, pl. XVII n. 24).
Medium slightly flared neck jars with everted brim rim. (Nos.
169-172)
Surface
ment
169 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Medium mineral
Slip
170 20 Light brown Pink Pink to gray sand, grit5, chaff,
Burnishing
mica
171 20 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 Medium vegetal

172 30 Smoothing
pink pink pink chaff, sand, mica
(Khirbet Qasrij. Curtis 1989: fig. 35 n. 196).
Medium/large cylindric neck jars with everted brim rim (Nos.

173-175)
Surface
Treatment
7.5YR 7/4
pink (slip) Out to Medium vegetal Slip
7.5YR 6/3
173 25 and 7.5YR 7.5YR 5/1 chaff, sandm grit5, Slight burnish-
light brown
6/3 light gray limestone2, mica ing
brown

7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4
174 30 7.5YR 5/1 sand, grit10, chaff, Slip
pink pink
gray limestone5, mica

7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4
175 35 7.5YR 5/1 sand, grit10, chaff, Slip
pink pink
gray limestone5, mica
(Mezarl , Ziyaret Tepe. Sagona and Sagona 2004: fig 111 n.

9, fig. 180 n. 7; Talava Tepe. Parker and Creekmore 2002: fig. 39
lett. e; Tell Shiukh Fawqani. Luciani 2005: pl. 16 n. 174; Girik Tah-
ti. Parker 2001: p. 74 lett. f).
82 FACING AN EMPIRE
Medium/large flared neck jars with everted round simple rim.

(Nos. 150-153)
Surface
Treatment
7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 6/4 Slip

150 13 Medium mineral
pink pink light brown Burnishing

151 14 Pink Pink Pink sand, grit5, chaff, Slight burnish-
mica ing
152 15 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Out to
153 20 Pink Pink Medium mineral Slip
Pinkish gray
(Ziyaret Tepe. Matney and Rainville 2005: fig. 4 n. 10; Ayanis.

Kozbe et al. 2001: pl. III n. 12, pl. XVII n. 3, 4) Numerous exam-
ples of this type.
Medium flared neck jars with everted simple round rim (Nos.
154-157)
Surface
Treatment

7.5YR 6/4 2.5YR 7/2
154 16 light reddish limestone, mica, Burnishing
light brown pale red
brown sand outside
5YR 7/41
Medium mineral
5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 light gray
155 23 sand, limestone, Slip
pink pink to 5YR 6/1
grit, mica
gray
156 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
In to
Medium mineral
7.5YR 7/3 2.5YR 6/6 5YR 6/4
157 25 limestone10, Slip
pink light red light reddish
grit5, chaff, mica
brown
(Very diffused morphology, can't be accurate)

Medium/large flared neck jars with everted pointed rim (bec du
canard). (Nos. 161-165)
Surface
Treatment
5YR 6/2
pinkish gray Medium mineral
5YR 6/2 5YR 5/3 Slip Burnish-
161 20 to 5YR 6/4 sand, chaff, grit2,
pinkish gray reddish gray ing on rim
light reddish limestone2, mica,
brown
162 25 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 Out to Medium mineral

163 30 Smoothing
pink pink 7.5YR 5/1 gray sand, chaff, mica
5YR 6/6 5YR 6/6

reddish yellow reddish yellow
to 7.5YR 6/4 to 7.5YR 6/4 Out to Medium mineral
164 35 light brown light brown 7.5YR 3/1 sand, limestone5, Smoothing
and 7.5YR 4/2 and 7.5YR 4/2 very dark gray grit5, mica
brown brown
burned) (burned)
Medium mineral
165 35 Pink Pink Out to Gray sand, limestone2, Smoothing
chaff, mica
(U . Sagona and Sagona 2004: fig. 112 n. 8; Lidar

Höyük. Müller 1996: pl. 103 n. 10, 11; Gre Virike. Ökse 1999: fig. 7
n. 25; Tell Hamoukar. Ur 2002: fig. 14 n. 5) Very diffused mor-
phology.
Medium/large flared neck jars with everted thickened square rim.

(Nos. 166-168)
84 FACING AN EMPIRE
Surface
Treatment

7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4
166 25 sand, grit5, lime- Burnishing
pink pink pink
stone2, chaff, mica (mostly on rim)
Medium vegetal
7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 4/2
167 30 chaff, sand, lime- Slip
stone5, mica, grit2
7.5YR 6/2 7.5YR 6/2 Medium vegetal

7.5YR 6/3
168 40 pinkish gray pinkish gray chaff, sand, lime- Slip
light brown
to 5/3 brown to 5/3 brown stone5, grit2, mica
(Very diffused morphology, can't be accurate).
Medium/large flared short neck jars with oval thickened everted

rim (Nos. 182-184)
Surface
Treatment
182 21 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Medium mineral
7.5YR 5/3 7.5YR 5/3 7.5YR 3/2 Slip Burnish-
183 28 sand, grit10,
light brown light brown dark brown ing
chaff, mica
Medium-coarse
7.5YR 5/2 Slightly bur-
184 28 N/A N/A mineral, sand,
brown nished
mica
(Eski Koyeri Tepe . Sagona and Sagona 2004: fig. 118 n. 13,
fig. 115 n. 1, 5).
Large no neck jars with externally thickened flat top rim (Nos.
185-187)
Surface
Treatment
7.5YR 4/3
Medium mineral
7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 6/3 brown to
185 35 sand, grit5, chaff, Slip Burnishing
light brown light brown 7.5YR 3/1
mica
very dark gray

7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 7/4
186 24 light reddish sand, limestone5, Slip Burnishing
light brown pink
brown chaff, mica
Out to
Medium-coarse
7.5YR 6/3
7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/3 vegetal, chaff,
187 40 light brown Slip
pink light brown sand, limestone2,
to 7.5YR 5/1
grit, mica
gray
(Lidar Höyük. Müller 1996: pl. 84 n. 22; Poor analogy compara-

tion).
Bases
Small concave bases (Nos. 231, 232, 234)
Surface
Treatment
Medium-fine
7.5YR 8/4 7.5YR 8/4 7.5YR 7/4 mineral sand,
231 10 Smoothing
pink pink pink chaff, limestone5,
grit5, mica
Medium mineral
7.5YR 7/2 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 5/1
pinkish gray pink gray
mica
Medium-fine
7.5YR 8/3 7.5YR 7/4 5YR 6/6
234 14 mineral sand, Slip
pink pink reddish yellow
chaff, mica
(Very diffused morphology, can't be accurate).

86 FACING AN EMPIRE
Small/medium ring concave bases. (Nos. 235-238)
Surface
Treatment
Medium mineral
Out to
7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/3 sand, grit10,
235 5 7.5YR 6/2 Smoothing
pink pink limestone2,
pinkish gray
chaff, mica
Medium mineral
7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/4 l 7.5YR 3/1 sand, lime-
236 9 Smoothing
light brown light brown very dark gray stone10, chaff,
grit5, mica
237 11 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
5YR 6/4 In to Medium mineral

7.5YR 6/3
238 17 light reddish 5YR 4/1 dark sand, grit2, Slip
light brown
brown gray chaff, mica
(Ayanis. Kozbe et al. 2001: pl. XIV n. 34; Khirbet Qasrij. Curtis
1989: fig. 44 n. 341, 348; Tell Shiukh Fawqani. Luciani 2005: pl. 28
n. 331; Tell Beydar survey. Wilkinson and Barbanes 2000: fig. 2 n.
14; ’A region. Bernbeck 1993: pl. 128 lett. N).
Simple flat bases. (Nos. 223-226)19
Surface
Treatment
7.5YR 7/4
pink to 7.5YR 7/4
224 10 7.5YR 5/1 chaff, sand, lime- Slip
7.5YR 6/4 pink
gray stone5, mica
light brown
19 223 and 225 are present as a morphotype also in Brown/Pink Ware

Surface
Treatment
225 10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/3
226 20 7.5YR 4/1 chaff, sand, grit2, Smoothing
pink pink
dark gray mica
(Very diffused morphology can't be accurate).
Convex ring-bases. (Nos. 239-243)
Surface
Treatment
Medium-fine min-
7.5YR 6/2 7.5YR 6/2 7.5YR 6/2 eral sand, lime-
239 5 Smoothing
pinkish gray pinkish gray pinkish gray stone10, grit10,
mica
7.5YR 6/4 7.5YR 6/6

Medium-fine min- Slip
light brown 7.5YR 6/4 reddish yellow
240 5 eral sand, lime- Strong bur-
to 7.5YR 5/2 light brown to 7.5YR 5/2
stone2, mica nishing
brown brown
5YR 6/4
Medium-fine min-
light reddish
7.5YR 6/3 5Y 5/6 eral sand, chaff, Slip
242 13 brown to
light brown yellowish red limestone2, Burnishing
5YR 7/2
mica
pinkish gray

243 20 Slip
light brown light brown reddish yellow sand, chaff, mica
(Eski Koyeri Tepe. Sagona and Sagona 2004: fig. 118 n. 4; Ayanis.
Kozbe et al. 2001: pl. XIII n. 7, pl. XIV n. 36, 37; Gre Virike. Ökse
1999: fig. 6 n. 13; Tell Hamoukar. Ur 2002: fig. 14 n. 17; Khirbet
Qasrij. Curtis 1989: fig. 44 n. 334, 349; ‘A region. Bernbeck
88 FACING AN EMPIRE
1993: pl. 128 lett. R, S, pl. 129 lett. G, K; Tell Shiukh Fawqani. Lu-
ciani 2005: pl. 28 n. 329, 330).
Gentle ring-bases. (Nos. 228-230)
Surface
Treatment
5YR 5/6
Medium-fine
yellowish red
7.5YR 8/3 7.5YR 7/3 mineral sand, Slip
228 9 to 5YR 6/4
pink pink limestone5, Burnishing
light reddish
mica, chaff
brown

7.5YR 7/2 7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 4/1 sand, grit5,
229 15 Slip
pinkish gray light brown dark gray limestone2,
to In chaff, mica
5YR 6/4 Out to Medium vegetal

230 16 light reddish N/A 5YR 4/1 chaff, sand, N/A
brown dark gray grit2, mica
. Sagona and Sagona 2004: fig. 115 n.6; ‘A region. Bern-

beck 1993: pl. 128 lett. F-I; Tell Shiukh Fawqani. Luciani 2005: pl.
28 n. 321).
Body sherds
Body fragments with rope-shape band decoration. (Nos. 254-

256, 258, 259, 261)
Color Surface
No Color (out) Color (in) Fabric
(sec) Treatment
Smoothing
– 7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 7/3
254 Medium mineral Rope-shape
pink pink pink
band
Color Surface
No Color (out) Color (in) Fabric
(sec) Treatment
Medium-coarse
Smoothing
– 5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 5YR 7/4 vegetal chaff,
255 Rope-shape
pink pink pink limestone5, sand,
band
grit5, mica
Medium mineral Slip

– 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 6/3 7.5YR 4/1
256 sand, chaff, lime- Rope-shape
pink light brown dark gray
stone5, grit2, mica band
Medium-coarse
Smoothing
– 5YR 7/3 5YR 7/3 5YR 7/3 vegetal chaff,
258 Rope-shape
pink pink pink sand, limestone2,
band
mica
Medium vegetal Slip

– 7.5YR 7/3 7.5YR 6/2 7.5YR 7/3
259 chaff, sand, lime- Rope-shape
pink pinkish gray pink
stone2, mica, grit2 band
Smoothing
Medium mineral
– 7.5YR 8/3 7.5YR 7/4 7.5YR 7/4 External bur-
261 sand, limestone2,
pink pink pink nishing Rope-
grit5, mica
shape band
(Kurban Höyük survey. Wilkinson and Barbanes 2000: fig. 2 n. 17;

Çubuklu. Köro lu 1998: fig. 16 n. 11; Gre Migro. Parker 2001: fig.
5.24 lett. A; Kö kerbaba. De irmentepe. Ökse 1988: fig. 1096, 1126
– fig. 1097). Very diffused morphology.
Others:
Wedges. Baked clay objects that possibly had a wedge function

used during the firing process. They are flat underneath and round-
er on top, with small depressions at the ends (not always) perhaps
90 FACING AN EMPIRE
the marks of what they were holding in place. In a few cases fin-
germarks are evident. (No. 267)
Surface
Treatment
– Fingermarks on
267 Pink hues Pink hues Pink hues Medium mineral
some examples
( miku a i. Sevin 1995: fig. 18 n. 7).

3 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIVE
REMARKS
This section concerns a wide variety of subjects and their problem-

atics that are commonly related to the Iron Age and the Upper Ti-
gris in particular, which are in fact reflected by this study. Moreo-
ver, a few distinct aspects have come to my attention during the
process of this work. A range of corollary concerns that I will try to
explore and interpret.
The first part is connected directly to the site and its charac-
teristics, while the second part deals with general argumentation
that embraces the status of the area and the relationship between
the different communities (partially) expressed by their material
culture production.
A conclusive chapter will be closing the study.
3.1. ISSUES AND PROBLEMS RELATED TO THE STUDY

The following considerations, even though strongly connected to
this study, and still under debate, may contribute to elucidate a
broader perspective. Therefore, I would like to put into focus
where possible, those elements that are of enigmatic or of multiple
interpretation.
3.1.1. Dating the Early Iron Age Phase

Recently the dating of the Early Iron Age Period in the Upper Ti-
gris River region has been broadly reconsidered. This early phase,
mainly marked by the presence of the Grooved Ware assemblage,
has been modified in light of the data collected at the site of
Giricano in the Upper Tigris valley, some 11 km south-east of the
town of Bismil. Andreas Schachner, director of the excavation (cf.
Roaf and Schachner 2005: 119-120; 2003: 158; Schachner 2002), is
convinced that the Grooved Ware production should start at a
much later date, in consideration of the absence of this kind of pot-
tery within the late Middle Assyrian levels of the site. Schachner
sees this lack of data as proof of the chronological boundary of the
92 FACING AN EMPIRE
exact beginning of Grooved Ware, therefore he shifts the chronol-

ogy of the beginning of the Early Iron Age phase of the whole Up-
per Tigris region from 1200/1150 BCE to ca. 1050 BCE. In this
perspective, the Early Iron Age material culture production, which
is widely present throughout the region, would have developed and
spread out in only 150 years of time.20
In particular, the context exposed at Giricano that brought us
to this dating, features late 2nd millennium strata with their related
structures, in which a few pits were dug containing only Middle
Assyrian pottery (Fig. 29: A, B). As we said, no trace of Grooved
Ware was found within, only in the subsequent latter level. Under
these circumstances, together with other Late Bronze/Middle As-
syrian presence in the Upper Tigris (e.g., Girnavaz, Gre Dimse,
Uçtepe, Pornak and Ziyaret Tepe; cf. Figs. 28, 29) Schachner con-
cludes that the Assyrians subdued this territory at least since Assur-
bel-kala (1073-1056 BCE). This chronology seems to be certain
because of the dating of the limu-official Illi-iddina in eleven of the
tablets retrieved at Giricano, oddly buried in a jar next to the pits.
We know this limu-official served under the reign of Assur-bel-kala
thanks to his nomination within the annals of this king on the Bro-
ken Obelisk. It is this information that permitted us to narrow
down the dating of the tablets to 1069 or 1068 BCE, hence the
new chronology.
The archaeological data seems to support this view; neverthe-
less I would like to point out a few elements in contrast with such
conclusions. First of all, the Middle Assyrian contexts of Giricano
and of the other mentioned sites are rather weak. Giricano bears
only a few pits with Middle Assyrian/Late Bronze Age ceramic and
no Grooved Ware, in support of Schachner's thesis. Moreover, he
claims that the following Iron Age levels, badly disturbed, finally
hold Grooved Ware together with Middle Assyrian examples, in-
cluding some complete vessels (Roaf and Schachner 2005: 117). It
seems that maybe after all there is overlapping of the two pottery
20This is a very short period of time that, for example, brought

to Hirbemerdon almost 50% of the whole ceramic production
from the Iron Age, considering the data which emerged from
the sample pieces in this study.
DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIVE REMARKS 93
productions, perhaps in a secondary phase. The other possibility,

more likely, is that as soon as the Assyrians left the installation local
people took their place and settled there for a certain period of
time, thus the mixed context. The other sites that hold Middle As-
syrian evidence are very few and have rather small contexts, along
with some dating issues. Furthermore, there is no evidence of de-
struction at any of the sites, and the public area of Uçtepe appears
to continue from the Middle to Neo-Assyrian periods (Szuchman
2007: 54). This is in evident contrast with the view of the Grooved
Ware filling the vacuum left by the Assyrians. Other than that,
none of these can claim to have sealed contexts like Giricano (i.e.,
without any trace of Grooved Ware).
This is not a landscape of Assyrian domination and territorial
control one would expect considering the characteristics of the
following Neo-Assyrian phase.
By these means, I would like to view the data forwarded by
Giricano under another light. Even though we accept that the Late
Bronze context is valid, we must consider another option since the
site is at present a unicum within the Upper Tigris Middle Assyrian
setting. It seems clear that the settlement pattern does not indicate
a strong presence of the Assyrians in such period. Historically this
is one of the worse moments for the empire. The End of the
Bronze Age crisis was finally reaching Assur. This is a period of
time where hordes of invading tribal communities start to concen-
trate in Northern Mesopotamia. In the Upper Tigris case, we have
a massive presence of Aramean tribes, which in fact battle with the
same Assur-bel-kala, among others. It is a fact that Assyrians had
points of control, a number of settlements occupied by them in
this period of time. What is at doubt is the degree of this occupa-
tion. Giricano was almost certainly a dunnu, an Assyrian garrison in
a foreign land, which also had farming activities. Schachner howev-
er, considers Giricano as a different kind of dunnu such as Tell Sabi
Abyad (cf. Akkermans and Wiggermann 1999; ibid. in press) and
with less fortification and architectural articulation. We must men-
tion though that the Giricano excavation data still isn't able to de-
pict a valid survey of the entire settlement and the dynamics of the
different phases of inhabitation. Moreover, this was a land, as we
have seen, rich in trees. It seems simpler and obvious to think of a
more perishable fortification based on trunks of wood, which, as
94 FACING AN EMPIRE
we have seen, were quite easy to obtain for the Assyrians, than to
consider Giricano as a special kind of dunnu.
As the few and small settlements indicate, it seems clear that
the Middle Assyrian presence is now discontinuous, laid out in a
scattered pattern. The control was concentrated in a few sites while
the rest of the territory preserved certain autonomy, as the settling
of the Arameans communities demonstrates. Hence, there is the
necessity of fortified settlements, not just simple Assyrian villages.
We must consider the possibility that the missing data at Giricano
is a confirmation of a strong, condensed Assyrian presence, a fort,
which inhibited the introduction of Grooved Ware at the site or its
access within. This pottery was a direct manifestation of the local
communities, which obviously kept themselves far from a powerful
military garrison of foreign origin such as a dunnu. Within this per-
spective, Liverani (1988) offers us a completing view of the pres-
ence and meaning of a settlement such as Giricano/dunnu- a-Uzibi .
He explains how Assyrians tended to create fortified installations,
garrisons in foreign lands that functioned as isolated lookouts.
These garrisons were ‘islands of power’ forming a ‘Network Em-
pire’, that only subsequently would have been homogeneously
connected to the rest of the territory and fully occupied (Liverani
1988: 86; cf. also Parker 1997: 77). Schachner himself cites Liverani
and his ‘Network Empire’ (2003: 158), but he collocates Giricano
in the subsequent phase in which the transition to territorial state,
he claims, had been fully achieved. Moreover, Giricano is situated
beyond the Tigris River course frontier, in a territory that very like-
ly was not under Assyrian control, perhaps not even in the Neo-
Assyrian period. The Middle Assyrian pattern emerging from the
archaeological record together with the historical information pro-
vided by the texts seems very close to what Liverani depicts, a se-
ries of connected and isolated fortified small sectors that mainly
functioned as lookouts that emphasized the concept of Assyrian
presence in a foreign land. Shalmaneser I invests great amounts of
energy and resources in fortifying the cities along the Upper Tigris
during his reign. A procedure that has no parallels in the future
annals in terms of methodological detail and perseverance upon
such a precise argument (cf. chap. 1.2.2.).
Ultimately, the statement made by Schachner, in which he
designates Nairi as the only possible group corresponding to the
Grooved Ware seems rather contradictory (2005: 120), when we
know Nairi appear in the 13th century BCE exactly in the Upper
Tigris region during the hypothesized Middle Assyrian domination.
After these observations it seems to me very unlikely that: (1)
the Middle Assyrian Empire formed a territorial state in any way
similar to the one in the following Neo-Assyrian Period; and, (2)
regardless of the diffusion of Grooved Ware in almost all of the
Upper Tigris' neighboring regions during the Late Bronze Age, it
appears even more unlikely the assertion that this area was interest-
ed by this local production only a century later. Even at the highest
peak of control, the settlements under the yoke of Assur always
bore local pottery manifestations. Such an event can be explained
only if the site in question was a closed fortified installation, which,
unlike a city or a village, had no kind of relationship with the local
communities, just like dunnu-Giricano. This case scenario would be
true especially during the end of the 11th century BCE, when Assyr-
ia did not have a sufficient power organization to control and/or
relate with the ‘enemy’ in a foreign land. Perhaps we are simply
facing a river checkpoint for the control and transportation of
commodities towards the south.
The chronology of this delicate phase still needs to be investi-
gated and corroborated by further information. Perhaps reliable
radiocarbon datings would finally dissolve all the concerning
doubts21.
3.1.2. Architectural and Settlement Dynamics as Expressions

of Lifestyle
The analysis of the settlement parts, their engineering and geo-
graphical disposition together with a confrontation with similar
circumstances and contexts, brought to my attention a few aspects
that might change the perspective over the small rural settlements
in this area particularly during the first phase of the Iron Age.
21 I would like to add that recently (summer 2010) I personally
excavated a perfectly preserved Early Iron Age context. A few

samples have been collected for the above-mentioned purposes.
Hopefully, further data might be yielded by the tests, which
would bring a little more light to this problem and a step fore-
ward towards its solution.
96 FACING AN EMPIRE
For example, in the case of Hirbemerdon Tepe, after a period

of abandonment following the Late Bronze Age, the settlement
was re-inhabited at the beginning of the Early Iron Age Period in a
completely different arrangement. As previously mentioned, the
structures corresponding to this phase are in deplorable condition
since the settlement underwent harsh weathering erosion and a
drastic reutilization in the past. In fact, it is highly probable that the
site was occupied during the Hellenistic phase, perhaps in the way
it happened at Tille Höyük (cf. Blaylock 1998: 115). Additionally, a
large number of pits, and in some cases siloi, were excavated all
over the High Mound's surface in later times. Apparently, this situ-
ation is not a unicum, since the majority of the Early Iron Age sites
in the Upper Tigris region show a similar or even identical scheme
(cf. e.g., Matney 2007: 69, 2005: 63; Schachner 2003: 51; Kozbe
2008: 292). Moreover, we must consider another element in this
landscape. According to the archaeologists, ruins of the older phase
were probably still evident, therefore we think that a few of the
excavated pits are the result of the dismantling of the structures in
order to reuse the stone materials for the new constructions. Espe-
cially in Area A and Step-trench AC it seems that the surface was
leveled out, probably setting the new buildings on the Middle and
Late Bronze Age fillings (Fig. 14). The majority of the structures
were probably not entirely realized in stone materials, but a combi-
nation of these and other perishable ones such as wood, sun-dried
mud-bricks or adobe, now gone. Recently Kozbe (2008: 293) illus-
trated a similar possibility for Late Bronze Age structures, which
show strong resemblance to contemporary construction techniques
in South-eastern Turkey (Fig. 30). These wood structures are simi-
lar to pile-dwellings, upraised, possibly of one or two levels and in
some cases leaning against small stonewalls (ibid.: 321). This ar-
rangement could explain the presence and meaning of singular wall
sections or double ones disposed on an angle at Hirbermerdon
Tepe such as in other similar Early Iron Age contexts. Perhaps the-
se could have been leaning walls or open environments protected
only on one or two sides. Cribb reports that the use of walls for the
above mentioned intents is very common in nomadic contexts in
South-eastern Turkey and that the ethnohistorical accounts indicate
some antiquity in this practice, usually employed in winter camps
or high-altitude summer camps to screen out cold winds (Cribb:
1991: 95, 96). Naturally we must consider the possibility that this
disposition is the result of erosion or destruction, but it seems ra-

ther strange that a good number of Early Iron Age settlements
within the Upper Tigris show a similar layout.
According to this type of engineering and the resulting cir-
cumstances of our settlement space organization it is possible to
hypothesize two configurations, which perhaps represent two sides
of the same coin. First of all, the constructions may have risen sep-
arate from each other or in groups, with a scattered layout pattern
such as Nor un Tepe (Müller 2005: 108). Secondly, the settlement,
perhaps in certain phases of the Iron Age, was occupied on a sea-
sonal basis. This could mean that in certain periods of time during
the Early Iron Age, Hirbemerdon could have been subject to a
semi-nomadic arrangement. The latter hypothesis may find confir-
mation under the light of the features and connections described
above and a few other facts.
Iron Age communities, as we have said, differ profoundly
from the earlier ones. The residual material culture confirms a great
transformation in the long-lasting starting phase of this period, in
which the settlement pattern within the Upper Tigris and confining
regions reveals a low inhabiting percentage. Moreover, we must
bear in mind that this valley is positioned in a geographical gradient
landscape, as the sudden increase in altitude of the slopes west of
the site demonstrates. In this context transhumance and pastoral
activities find their optimal configuration. Furthermore, the on-
going Hirbemerdon Tepe Regional Survey (cf. e.g., Ur and Hammer
2009) discovered and demonstrated that, in a limited five-kilometer
radius from the site (south riverbank only) due to survey re-
strictions, an ancient well-organized pastoral-nomad system once
existed in this area and is still in practice today. We must remember
that ‘ region has been the winter pastureland of non-
sedentary sheep and goat pastoral nomads for at least two millennia
and possibly much longer’ (Ur and Hammer 2009: 40).
In addition to this, in his recent work on indigenous peoples
in South-eastern Anatolia, Matney analyses a series of nomad-
ic/semi-nomadic aspects, which are extremely interesting and per-
tinent to this matter. In fact, he observes that
tribal groups such as B t-Zam ni could have incorporated ur-
ban elements, settled agricultural communities, and seasonal
pastoralists into a single polity while maintaining both hierar-
chical and heterarchical structures (Matney 2010: 7).
98 FACING AN EMPIRE
He then continues on claiming that

the texts suggest that nomadic groups played an important role
in the economy of the region. The Tigris River near the Assyri-
an city of Tu han sits approximately halfway between the high
Taurus Mountains to the north, and the lowlands of the north-
ern Jazeera to the south. Pastoralists moving their flocks from
summer pastures in the Taurus Mountains would have first
passed through the fertile, low-lying Upper Tigris River valley
before reaching the traditional winter pastures of northern Syr-
ia approximately 120 km south of Ziyaret Tepe (ibid. : 17).
Matney also refers to Hirbemerdon, among other similar set-
tlements, stating that
the broken uplands further east from Hirbemerdon Tepe
are suitable only for herding and have a long antiquity of
pastoral encampments’…‘This is probably an indigenous
Iron Age community and perhaps one with close con-
nections to the pastoral populations further east beyond
the direct influence of the imperial Assyrians’ (ibid. : 29).
Within this framework, it is then possible to advance the hy-
pothesis that the building remains of Area A and Step-trench AC
reflect a seasonal context, as a result of the above-depicted semi-
nomadic landscape22.
22 In consideration of these elements, it is useful to consider an

economical perspective over this landscape. Khazanov (1994:
17) defines pastoral nomadism as ‘a distinct form of food pro-
ducing economy in which extensive mobile pastoralism is the
predominant activity and in which the majority of the popula-
tion is drawn into periodic pastoral migrations.’ He identifies
five criteria for classifying pastoral nomads (Khazanov 1994:
16): (1) Pastoralism is the primary economic activity; (2) Free-
range herd maintenance is practiced throughout the year; (3)
The movement of herds is seasonal and within bounded territo-
ries; (4) At least the majority of the population participates in
pastoralism; (5) Pastoral mobility aims at subsistence-level pro-
duction.
Ökse and Görmü (2006: 190) also take into consideration a

nomadic/semi-nomadic frequentation possibility at Salat Tepe,
where no structures of the Early Iron Age survived except for a
number of pits of ca. five meters in diameter containing Grooved
Ware examples. Together with that, at least two pits had horse-
shoe shaped hearths on the floor, which according to Ökse and
also Yakar (2000: 407), they claim, fit into the possibility that
‘rounded semi-subterranean dwellings are frequently interpreted as
architectural remnants of winter pastures of nomadic tribes’. Un-
fortunately, nomadic/semi-nomadic installments are highly perish-
able. Therefore, it is virtually impossible to demonstrate such kind
of settlement use and social landscape during the Early Iron Age.
What are in good condition, are the structures in Area D, in fact
they are part of a food processing area, a ‘bakery’, something that
would have been continuously used, restored and that belonged to
the entire community because of its importance and necessity, just
as today in modern Kurdish villages. In fact, next to the eastern
wall of the ‘bakery’ in Area D we found something very similar to
the description of Yakar. A very large pit (ca. 4 x 2m) that, perhaps,
before being used for disposable purposes, could have ben utilized
as a subterranean dwelling or ‘pit-house’ as a horseshoe shaped
portable hearth on the bottom of the pit seems to suggest.23 We
can find similar examples also in Early Iron Age Gordion (Voigt
and Henrickson 2000: 42).
Clearly, this hypothesized social attitude isn’t a standard in the
Upper Tigris Valley. Nomads were surely a minority, especially dur-
ing Neo-Assyrian times and beyond, but as today, a part of the
population very likely did practice this way of life, and possibly did
it within hamlets and camp-sized settlements.24
Concerning the Neo-Assyrian phase of construction, unfortu-
nately almost no structures have survived. Area B left us important
evidence on how the settlement could have appeared during the
23 Further details about these structures will be available in futu-

re pubblications since the yielded data is still being processed
and studied.
24 Cf. the pottery trends chapter 3.2.3. for additional features on
this perspective
100 FACING AN EMPIRE
Middle and Late Iron Ages. In fact, we know that the Assyrina ex-
ploitation mainly concentrated on agricultural activities as con-
firmed by the remains of the building and numerous grinding
stones retrieved in this area within the ‘Outer Town’ at the base of
the tepe. As Wilkinson (et al. 2005: 47-49) observed in nearby
Jazeera (North-eastern Syria), the settlements of these periods are
mostly concentrated around the mounds, in contrast with the Early
Iron Age layout, in the so-called lower town. Obviously, there are
some exceptions such as Ziyaret Tepe, where Matney (1998) found
traces of this phase on top of the Tepe as well. The Syrian Jazeera
offers another contrasting example, such as Tell Barri, on top of
which king Tukulti-Ninurta II erected a palace. Again, these are
rare exceptions that prove the rule although out of the region. A
confirmation of both of these types of construction planning is
provided by a letter written to Sargon II (721-705 BCE) from a
high official, in which he insures and inquires that "As to what the
king my lord ordered: 'The people living on the mounds should
come down and build at the bottom;' they have come down;
should the ten fortified towns in the desert come down as well?'"
(Fales 1990: 111). Clearly this is a process which started late during
the Neo-Assyrian period, not from the beginning, although the
motivation remains obscure. Barbanes (2003: 18) points out that
obviously this regulation was not applied with force nor did it re-
gard all of the settlements. Instead, in light of archaeological evi-
dence, she thinks that the use of height as a construction device
was reserved for cities of relatively high rank and therefore of ma-
jor symbolic significance. That would explain the presence of build-
ings on the High Mound and in the Lower Town at Ziyaret Tepe
and perhaps in all the other sites of similar nature.
3.2. FACING AN EMPIRE: LOCAL VS. FOREIGN

The data gathered and analyzed up until now can finally give us a
good perspective on the relationship between local/indigenous
communities and the foreign presence mainly represented by the
Assyrian Empire. Defining aspects of both sides and their interac-
tion have, at least in part, already emerged in the study. Neverthe-
less, I would like to review them and go more in depth in others,
the pottery production above all, in order to reach a broader and
more detailed vision of this cross-cultural context in the Upper
Tigris regions.
3.2.1. Local Manifestations of Kinship

In the precedent chapters of this section we have considered the
main aspects of the material culture production of the settlement of
Hirbemerdon Tepe during the two sub-phases of the Iron Age pe-
riod. What has been achieved from the emerging data is an im-
portant local perspective within a peripheral context. These param-
eters are usually bypassed in order to observe the dominant view,
the large settlements and the people who wrote the history of these
lands. Paradoxically, we have probably learned more through this
indigenous perspective about the Empire than other direct ways of
investigation and study. In order to understand the boundaries of
these interactions, which are determined by and reflected within
the material culture's expressions, jointly with a completing source
of information brought by the texts, we must consider the defying
aspects of these kinds of production and of the related producers.
Dr. Laneri has correctly interpreted the Middle Bronze Age
material culture (e.g., Red Brown Wash Ware; cf. e.g., Laneri et al.
2007, 2009) of Hirbemerdon Tepe as a direct expression and affir-
mation of the communities' own affiliation, its common tribal ori-
gins, in one word, its ethnicity. At this point I think it is useful to
try to determine the concept connected to an ethnic group. Various
studies on this subject always suffered in defining such a notion.
Nevertheless, Emberling (1997: 304) offers us a useful definition,
affirming that
an ethnic group is most essentially a group whose mem-
bers view themselves as having common ancestry, there-
fore as being kin. As kin units larger than any others,
they must include members of more than one lineage or
extended family. Members of an ethnic group usually
possess some common language. Ethnic groups often are
unified by constructions of their past, by perception of
injustice in the past or in the present, and often by hopes
of a future reunification. Finally, ethnic groups are not
states but exist in some relationship to them.
This is a very important concept that cancels the equation
pots=people (cf. Kramer 1977), and that individuates pottery as one
of peoples' distinctive traits as are other aspects (e.g., religion, tradi-
tion, language, origins etc.), in other words it's what makes them
kin. This model, I must admit, does not completely fit the local
communities of the Iron Age. The only ethnic aspect that is an af-
finity between these populations is a common cultural basis. In this
study we broadly analyzed the Upper Tigris' connotative multifac-
eted aspects. What appears obvious is that these lands bear a great
number of populations and communities of different ethnic and
tribal origins. Concentrating on the Early Iron Age pottery produc-
tion, we saw that the various ethnic groups or populations that
moved into the Upper Tigris scenery cannot be related to this pro-
duction. In fact, Schachner states that ‘it is clear that a variety of
peoples of various ethnicities used Grooved Ware, it should not be
associated with only one of them’ (Roaf and Schachner 2005: 120).
As reported earlier, only ‘the Nairi people’ can be associated with
the Early Iron Age assemblages (ibid.: 120). Therefore, ethnicity is
insufficient to explain the bond that linked the Nairi lands and their
related communities. It is unquestionable that there is an ongoing
lowest common denominator, which correlates the various popula-
tions of Nairi. The demonstration is the fact that we are witnessing
the result of such kinship networking, expressed within the material
culture manifestations such as the Grooved Ware common traits or
the architectural layout of most settlements. Perhaps we must look
somewhere other than common moral values, language, tradition,
religion etc. and try to individuate by which means there was a con-
nection. It is possible to individuate at least three aspects that par-
ticipated in the conformation of this identity (cf. Porter 2009: 204).
The first commonality is surely territorial, in terms of geographical
membership and possession by occupancy. The piedmont area
around the course of the Upper Tigris along with the nearby areas,
are the originating chronological and geographical points of Nairi,
when the union was genuine and organically aware, before its sub-
sequent oblivion or corruption of the referring term in the texts.
The second commonality is their kinship expressed by the material
culture, which I will better explore further on (cf. also chap. 3.1.2)
and which probably represents the strongest of all the known man-
ifesting traits. The third commonality can be indicated as political.
A manifestation of such linking is the sense and capacity to unite,
demonstrated by Nairi especially during the period it is first men-
tioned by the Assyrians. In fact, during the middle of the 13th cen-
tury BCE, as we previously explored, Nairi faced the Assyrian ex-
panding forces within its territories. The reaction is an increasing
broad coalition that reaches 60 Nairi kings and related kingdoms
against the invasion of Tiglath-pileser I. This episode reveals fur-

ther important aspects. First of all we understand that there is a
communication and connection between these kingdoms. Alt-
hough it appears that there was no kind of political unity between
these lands, it is obvious that once threatened, these populations
united against their common enemy. The organization of an alli-
ance of such massive proportions reveals somehow a notion and a
perception of the landscape structure together with its inhabitant
communities, hence the Assyrian collective definition of Nairi. If
the consideration of S ni as the leader of the insurrection were
true, as the texts lead us to think, it would bring us to an even
higher level of military and organizational consciousness. Forming
an alliance and being led by a single person in charge is not simple
opposition. These features can all be defined as quite uncommon
for that period of time, considering the diversity of ethnic, religious
and political background in addition to other tribal boundaries.
Within this perspective, Faust (2006), in terms of ethnogenesis,
identifies ethnicity as a form of resistance especially among social
groups interacting with state-level societies. Since we probably do
not have anymore a common ethnicity, this attitude must have
lived on or generated in a second moment by their kinship. In the
event of a strong menace, a sentiment of unity and territorial de-
fensiveness is easily kindled with this type of common background.
Their capacity for grouping, organizing and moving against an im-
perial force like Assyria is truly outstanding. After considering these
few aspects we can state that we are in the presence of a cultural
affiliation, possibly belonging to an original nucleus of ethnic iden-
tity, which developed in a legacy of different clusters, connected by
a kinship expressed and distinguished in part by material culture
manifestations. These clusters formed an increasingly solidary con-
federation or network that went under the name of Nairi Lands.
In consideration of the social landscape depicted above and in
the precedent chapters, in order to collocate and relate the nomad-
ic/semi-nomadic aspect with the sedentary aspect both surely pre-
sent (e.g., respectively the ahlamû-aramaia [Zadok 1991: 105] or
simply the Arameans before settling [Heimpel 2003: 14] and
ubria), it seems plausible to hypothesize a social pattern laid out as
an overlapping of these two elements in coexistence and/or sym-
biosis. Therefore, the relationship of the semi-nomadic portion of
the population together with the sedentary one might have resem-
bled a dimorphic society as hypothesized in the multi-ethnic Mid-

dle Euphrates during the late 3rd millennium BCE (cf. Liverani
1973; Rowton 1973, 1974, 1977). As Rowton pointed out (1973:
202f), this correlation is not only defined by a dichotomy between
sedentary and nomadic lifestyles but also between tribe and state,
between the ‘autonomous tribal chiefdoms’, composed of both
pastoralists and villagers, and the great urban centers. In this re-
gard, the Nairi confederation, which will slowly lose its distinctive
kinship traits during time, was perhaps composed of a sedentary
grouping of cities and kingdoms, in addition to a semi-nomadic
component, which took shape as a portion of the population
and/or as separated communities of symbiotic interaction, which
subsequently opposed itself to the Assyrian presence (cf. Szuchman
2007: 136, for SE Anatolia Eberhard 1953: 36, 37). The connection
between these two elements, as greatly stressed above, is an affinity
of cultural connotations and possibly a binding origin of these eth-
nics condensed in the concept of kinship, the ethnic commonality
that has failed to persist.
Within this perspective we must mention that there is a strong
possibility that the local ethnic connection that might have charac-
terized Nairi perhaps in the beginning, could be originated by a
Hurrian rooting in the region, as Salvini also hypothesized (1967:
53), subsequent to the fall of Mitanni. As we have seen in Section I,
their presence is widely attested by diffused cultural evidence, to-
gether with a number of toponyms/onomastics connected to these
lands and cities during the 13th century BCE and beyond. Szuch-
man (2007: 111) also noticed that a ‘large portion of the local in-
habitants of Hanigalbat/Mitanni were pastoral nomadic tribes,
some of whom appear in the Middle Assyrian textual record’.
However, we must consider this only as a possibility.
3.2.2. The Correlation of Local and Foreign Identities

After better defining the Assyrian impact in the Upper Tigris in the
first section, and the local traits and manifestations of affiliation in
this section, it is now possible to consider the relationship and cor-
related issues between these two identities, the points of contact
and exchange, meaningful to this study. In this view, it is useful to
retrace the phases of the Assyrian approach in order to individuate
the spheres of interaction.
As we have seen, Assyria penetrates an area through a slow

process taking small portions of territory and garrisoning them.
The following step concerns the conquest and the submission of
large parts of the region. During the aftermath Assyria rapidly de-
velops an organization and landscape remodeling, which creates
the right synergy to expand and take control over the entire area.
The government and productive systems start to take shape at this
stage, while their presence begins to have an influencing effect.
Time is certainly the main accomplice in this background process.
Objects imported from other regions and especially from the heart-
land begin to arrive, perhaps together with a number of specialized
workers that bring their trends and techniques. There is a spread of
customs, traditions and products of the new dominant civilization.
Obviously, this is a mutual influence, as the following analysis of
the pottery will demonstrate, but absolutely not of the same degree.
Indigenous influence is rather slow and has trouble making a
breach, and if it does, it does so weakly. The final product is a mix-
ture of these and other intangible assets that in turn produce new
expressions, which can be defined at this point, once again, local.
Plain Ware, for example, is a direct emanation of Assyrian influ-
ence but the resulting product is something new and original from
this region. We can claim that fusion elements sooner or later be-
come tradition with time.
Within this framework, we must consider the fact that the var-
ious ethnic groups composing the region could have opened up to
foreign trends, but a number of values and distinctive aspects,
mostly connected to the tradition and traits of their ethnicity, were
certainly fiercely preserved and passed on to the future generations
with decreasing intensity.
During the Early Iron Age a strong sense of affiliation and
pride in its manifestation brought, to the material culture, connota-
tions that were an integral part of those preserved features. Hirbe-
merdon was certainly part of that world that was rapidly changing
and being corrupted in the following phase. Nevertheless, there are
a few aspects that denote reciprocal respect, tolerance and ac-
ceptance during that phase. As we have briefly observed the sym-
bolic landscape communicated this kind of closure. The case of the
‘source of the Tigris’ offered a union of religious respect, a com-
monality within the sacred sphere, uncommon to others. Some-
thing similar can be individuated in the pottery production as well.
Assyrians do not impose their styles or traditions, unless there is a

useful reason to. In fact, that is why it is easy to individuate Early
Iron Age traits surviving in the Neo-Assyrian period. The perpetua-
tion of Grooved Ware is one of the most evident manifestations of
this survival, as is burnishing surface treatment application.
We must remember at this time, the relationship established
between Assyria and B t-Zam ni. This Aramean state, following a
peculiar form of alliance with Assyria, managed to preserve its eth-
nic characteristics and tribal-like structure for a very long time. Un-
fortunately and surprisingly, we are still not able to distinguish the
material culture production of such a large ethnic identity in the
Upper Tigris, therefore the difficulty in correctly analyzing and in-
terpreting this kind of relationship, and its presence within the ter-
ritory. The most obvious possibility of explaining this fact is that of
a merging or an acceptance of the cultural traits already present in
the region in which they settled, therefore the presence of the same
pottery types before and after their arrival. Sader (1987: 286) has
suggested, in fact, that ‘Aramaean culture’ in the Neo-Assyrian pe-
riod can be characterized precisely by this integration of the artistic
principles of neighboring cultures (Szuchman 2007: 112). We know
that this reign together with others around the course of the Upper
Tigris contributed actively in labor and rich tributes to Assyria such
as metals, textiles and agricultural products much appreciated in the
heartland. This is a special relationship of tolerance articulated by
‘giving and demanding’ actions of compromise that may appear
normal but if confronted with the relationship with other territories
and power structures, such as Mitanni, Urartu or a few Levant
reigns, we see that Assyria adopted very different measuring
weights. The reason for this was probably due to the conformation
of Nairi. The absence of a king or common leader of the territory
together with no territorial state network facilitated access to the
region and promoted a low profile within the relationships estab-
lished with the different reigns, city-states and simple communities.
3.2.3. Pottery Production as a Local Distinctive Trait or as a

Reflection of Foreign Influence
In this chapter I would like to generate an overview of the trends
of the pottery production in the Upper Tigris region during the two
ceramic phases of the Iron Age (i.e., Early Iron Age IVA and Neo-
Assyrian Period IVB). Pottery production and its trends in a small
local settlement such as Hirbemerdon, can be considered a case

study to individuate the reflection of the local/foreign correlation
and related manifestations of distinctiveness. This is the completing
process of the detailed morphologic analysis of chapter 2.2.5. To-
gether with the preceding chapters, this overview will allow us to
better understand the underlying dynamics between the local
communities, which are trying to maintain their identity and that
subsequently will be facing the presence of an empire installment.
The corpus of the production can be divided into four main
assemblages, which somehow reflect the social assessment through
the centuries (cf. Tab. 4).
Table 4. Scheme of the pottery dynamics of interaction

and influence between local and foreign communities
within the Upper Tigris Region during the Iron Age
sub-phases (IVA, IVB)
(a) First of all we have an entirely local production mainly

characterized by Grooved Ware together with parallel productions
such as the Brown/Pink Ware presented in this study. (b) Subse-
quently, we have another local production divided in two branches,
two hybrid trends25. One shows Assyrian traits of influence, which
is half of the Plain Ware assemblage considered in this study. The
other presents morphotypes linked to the precedent phase. Both
cases are difficult to recognize without a proper context and con-
frontation. (c) The third group is made up of typical Neo-Assyrian
vessel shapes with local traits of influence, which is the other half
of the Plain Ware assemblage. (d) The last grouping is composed of
Neo-Assyrian Palace Ware, vessels imported from the heartland.
The examples of this kind of ceramic are extremely rare in the Up-
per Tigris region, which are usually found by the main sites.
(a) Grooved Ware deserves further details due to its im-
portance and diffusion; therefore I will linger over its main attrib-
utes.
This and other parallel wares take the reins of the ceramic
craftsmanship in the Upper Tigris and surrounding regions after
the vacuum created by the weakening and disappearance of orga-
nized powers of the Hittite, Mitanni and the Middle Assyrian Em-
pires. It is still under debate if the presence of the latter two were
chronologically subsequent or overlapping especially within the
Upper Tigris region (cf. chap. 3.1.1.). Grooved Ware seems to have
its origins or antecedents in the Northeast. Armenia (Avetysan
2008: fig. 44 n. 3, 8), Transcaucasia in general (Sorokin 1958: no. 2,
149 ff., fig. 2/1 - 3), and Iran (Brown 1948: fig. 36/643, 915 -
39/23) bear examples of this pottery in the earlier phases, even
earlier than the Iron Age in a few cases. These first groups of
Grooved Ware, however, are different by the known southern
standards belonging to the middle of the 12 th to the end of the 10th
centuries BCE. Many attempts of linking this highly identifying and
identifiable ceramic/decoration category have been made. There
25Due to the impossibility of a confident subdivision by chron-

ological or morphological distinguishing, the Plain Ware has
been approached as a singular assemblage in which these trends
are recognizable.
are two possible theories: one sees a massive group movement of

Aramean tribes in the Upper Tigris and Upper Euphrates, and the
other possibility considers the coming of Indo-European groups
from the Upper North-east, such as the enigmatic Mushki (Sevin
1991: 97). The opposite view proposes that this ceramic manifesta-
tion is a spontaneous, hence indigenous, combination of new and
old multicultural elements, like most styles in history. Therefore,
there is only one group belonging to this area from the middle of
13th to the beginning of the 9th centuries BCE, which collimates
with the distribution of Groove pottery. These are the Nairi (Roaf
and Schachner 2005: 120).
Grooved Ware characterizes Anatolia and, partially, North
Mesopotamia starting in 1200/1150 BCE. As we said we find the
so-called Groove Ware stretching at least from the Malatya-Elazig
region to the west and as far as the Erzurum region to the north,
Transcaucasia to the north-east, Lake Urmia area to the east and
the middle Euphrates river to the south. Towards the other cardi-
nal points (West, North, East) the diffusion is most impressive;
meanwhile to the south the situation is very different. Considering
that the major sites that hold this kind of pottery are in the valleys
south of the Taurus chain, we would expect a broader range of
diffusion in that direction. This abrupt halt in the southern distri-
bution can be explained by the presence of the Assyrian Empire
and/or because of a strong connection of the related communities
with the uplands, possibly, among others, of transhumant nature.
In the middle of the 9th century BCE, the Early Iron Age as-
semblage begins to disappears, although, maybe not as much as we
think. Some communities remained and others moved north,
bringing with them their cultural connotations. Perhaps, in this
way, we can understand and explain the presence of Grooved Ware
in the Urartian landscape during the Middle Iron Age (cf. e.g.,
Kozbe et al. 2001). In contrast to this point, the idea that the pro-
duction around Van actually belongs to the Early Iron Age phase
as well and that it continues up to the 7th century BCE (Konyar
2005: 111), is rather convincing. For this reason it is quite difficult
to understand and affirm the precise development of this kind of
pottery.
After this introduction and the identification of this group of
ceramics, as one of the most important distinctive traits of the Ear-
ly Iron Age local communities, it is important to evaluate a possible
social connection to this production. Therefore, I would like to

expand here the hypothesized semi-nomadic connotation, observed
in the architectural aspects of the settlement, to the corresponding
pottery production, mainly characterized by the Grooved Ware.
One of the first elements of interest within this perspective is the
almost total absence of the Grooved Ware in the surrounding area
of the site, as I personally managed to ascertain during the three
seasons of survey26. As director of the survey Prof. Jason Ur no-
ticed (Ur and Hammer 2009: 51), ‘Instead of heavy ceramic vessels,
pastoral nomads have often used containers of lighter, more
ephemeral materials that do not survive in the archaeological rec-
ord. They tend to carry small numbers of belongings on migra-
tions, and their campsites often have short spans of inhabitation’.
Perhaps, this could explain the great concentration of Grooved
Ware within the site and no examples out of its perimeter, especial-
ly in light of the fact that the majority of the fabrics hold great per-
centages of mineral elements such as sand, grit and limestone, mak-
ing this pottery extremely heavy and difficult to transport.
In a similar context in Jordan, Jabal Hamrat Fidan, a pastoral
nomad installation of the 10th - 9th century BCE within the Assyri-
an Empire periphery (i.e., Edom), studied by Levy (et al. 1999; et al.
2009), offers us a good example of this possibility thanks to the
findings of the Wadi Fidan 40 cemetery. The site shows a number
of cist graves and goods, very similar to ours (Fig. 18), and besides
that a large number of wooden receptacles that demonstrates mo-
bility. In fact, Levy states that
‘infants and children are found in small cist graves
and adults in full-size units that accommodate their ex-
tended or semi-crouched burial position. Some of the of-
ferings include beads, necklaces, copper and iron jewelry
(bracelets, anklets, finger and toe rings), wooden vessels,
shrouds (of linen and animal skins), pomegranates, and
other objects’ (ibid. 2009: 154).
26 The total number of Grooved Ware sherds at the end of
three seasons of survey equals <10 fragments.

Moreover, Cribb's perspective (1991: 68 ff.) seems to support

this hypothesized pottery distribution by speaking of the existence
of permanent material culture on nomadic (or semi-nomadic) sites,
whether these are occupied or unoccupied. He distinguishes in ‘fix-
tures’ and ‘portables’ in consideration of the function, size and
weight of an item. Cribb bases his view on Binford's (1978) consid-
eration of ‘site furniture’, something that belongs and that does
not move from the site, to which the community will return to in
the future.
Turning back to the site, we must bear in mind that the local
handmade ceramics like the Grooved Ware and the Brown/Pink
Ware were most likely produced in situ, in contrast with the Assyri-
an centralized ceramic wheel-made production (Kozbe 2008: 295;
cf. also Müller 2005: 109). It is then possible due to their weight and
subsequent reutilization that the ceramic pottery was left behind at
the campsites during the migration cycle to find them again at their
return. Moreover, bearing in mind the temper of the majority of
these vessels, it is obvious to claim that, whether sedentary or no-
mad, if you want to cook food and beverages you must put them
on a fire within a container that can resist and evenly distribute that
kind of heat. Thus the production and presence of very heavy and
gritty wares along, probably, with more perishable types.
Apart from this, the other types of wares that accompanied
Grooved Ware are often neglected. In our case the Brown/Pink
Ware. This is probably due to the difficulty in identifying this kind
of ware and/or associating it to the grooved one. The main topic I
would like to introduce is the presence of painted decoration exclu-
sively on this ware rather than the grooved one. Only two frag-
ments of the assemblage bore this kind of decoration in the form
of polka-dots, lines and festoons (Figs. 21 bottom and 44 no. 149).
The jug that was decorated with brown festoons is, in my view,
clearly and without any doubt a cooking pot. The gritty fabric and
the fire burn marks are evident. Moreover, a whole variety of
Brown/Pink and Grooved Wares (Figs. 22, 23 bottom) show fab-
rics and in some cases burn marks that led to interpret the vases as
cooking pots. There is no cooking ware within the ceramic produc-
tion, only cooking pots as variations of the main morphotypes.
This aspect was also noticed by Müller (2005: 109; 116) at Nor un-
tepe and especially at Lidar Höyük, where the examples of
Grooved Ware are all cooking pots. Müller observes that his as-
semblage, as in the majority of the Early Iron Age sites westward, is

formed by jars, cups and spouted-jars or, as he calls them, ‘drinking
vessels’ created for drinking and serving possibly hot liquids. The
remaining shapes of the assemblage concern food processing oper-
ations (i.e., cooking and serving). Müller points out a changing
within the diet of the people connected to this assemblage, but
other than that it is possible to see a confirmation of what I stated
above (cf. chap. 3.1.2.), that perhaps this ceramic production is a
reflection of a semi-nomadic lifestyle. Cribb observes that
‘large items such as cooking pots, storage jars or
bowls might be expected to remain on particular sites as
fixtures and to sustain a much higher rate of breakage or
abandonment and incorporation into archaeological con-
text. Ceramic cooking pots are known to have a relatively
short use-like and would be discarded on occupied
campsites at a relatively constant rate’ (Cribb 1991: 76).
Usually cooking pots are considered the low end of produc-
tion, something to use daily without any symbolic or particular at-
tributes associated to them. In an extremely simple environment,
where every object is meaningful and greatly useful, every type of
production is elevated to a status of significance. This would hap-
pen especially with objects connected with food and other basic
needs. Therefore, the explanation of the presence of painted and
grooved decorations on what appear ‘normal’ objects such as cook-
ing pots. As Kunanbaeva (2002: 86) wrote,
‘in their traditional daily lives, nomads do not know
an unadorned space. All of their surroundings, beginning
with the internal appointments of the yurt, are adorned
or ornamented by their own skilled hands. To “orna-
ment” is to domesticate, to turn an object into a part of
one’s own cultural universe. Thus everything that is local-
ly produced, from simple household necessities like
drinking vessels and blankets to specially crafted items
like horse harnesses and jewelry, represents an inviolable
link between art and life. Moreover, ornaments serve not
simply as decoration, but comprise a special language
that is essential knowledge for an understanding of no-
madic arts’.
(b) In this grouping we witness the first foreign contacts and

influences in local style. The ceramic production is partially charac-
terized by an evolution of the Grooved Ware. It is widely accepted
that this kind of ware proceeds into the Neo-Assyrian phase (cf.
Fig. 24 bottom). In fact, more and more, we are finding Middle
Iron Age Grooved Ware within the same Early Iron Age sites (cf.
Bartl 2001: 391; Konyar 2005: 2; Sevin 1991: 95; Köro lu 2003:
233; Parker 2001: 232ff; Roaf and Schachner 2005: 116 etc.). Re-
cently Ökse (et al. 2010 A and B) discovered a sealed context with
Neo-Assyrian pottery and Grooved Ware within the same layer at
Zeviya Tivilki near the Il su dam. This ‘new version’, or perhaps
just a protraction of the Grooved Ware production is, as men-
tioned, rather difficult to identify with confidence, especially with-
out a good number of reliable contexts. Nevertheless, we can try to
individuate a few defining elements. First of all, this production is
mostly tournette made (slow-wheel) unlike the previous assemblage
that was mostly handmade. The assemblage at Zeviya Tivilki seems
to differ in this aspect (Fig. 27). Moreover, this ware has a trend
towards open shapes and fish-bone excisions (possibly Figs. 23 top,
34, 35 until no. 27). The fabrics are less gritty, tending to chaff-face
typologies, and the slips or the clay employed show mostly Mun-
sell-pink hues. Overall, burnishing is less present than in the prece-
dent phases. Jointly with these examples, this ware is also charac-
terized by a few simple types that do not match the Neo-Assyrian
forms but in some cases can imitate their colors and fabrics, previ-
ously mentioned, and can be collocated within the Plain Ware as-
semblage (Fig. 25 bottom). Matney defines them as the Local Late
Iron Age assemblage (Matney 1998: 13, 25).
(c) The third group, as already mentioned, is also part of the
Plain Ware and greatly influenced by foreign domination (Figs. 24,
25 top)27. In fact, this ware consists of a number of Neo-Assyrian
inspired shapes, fabrics and surface treatments. These morphotypes
emulate the ones present in the Assyrian heartland (cf. e.g., the
comparanda in PW typology), together with indigenous traits. The
most evident of these is a surface burnishing treatment applied to
27 For detailed Neo-Assyrian Plain Ware types compare the cat-
alogue at the end of the volume.

26% of the entire Plain Ware. That is a fourth of the assemblage.

Interestingly, that is the exact percentage that Matney observed at
Zityaret Tepe. Matney also concludes that this is a purely local
Anatolian feature, differing from the heartland production (Matney
et al. 2007: 46).
(d) During the Neo-Assyrian phase it is the main centers (e.g.,
Uçtepe and Ziyaret Tepe) that show almost exclusively this kind of
imported production, which obviously had a major role in the As-
syrian influencing process. Nevertheless, a few fragments of im-
ported Palace Ware have also been found at Hirbemerdon (Fig. 25
bottom). This grouping can also include other exotic types of pot-
tery of minor impact.
After defining this framework of ceramic assemblages and in-
fluencing traits it is clear how the pottery production within the
Upper Tigris during the Iron Age, can be subdivided in two stages.
One stage contemplates complete autonomy of production ex-
pressed by local aesthetics, production techniques and intrinsic
characteristics of the vessels, possibly reflected in the settlement
layout and lifestyle as well. The second stage features the passage
and/or a co-presence of a local and centralized production. The
assemblages corresponding to this phase and period of time are
clearly affected by a mutually osmotic influence of ceramic traits
and trends generated and protracted by the local communities' and
the empire's blending cultures.
3.3. CONCLUSIONS
The archaeological record and the written sources explored in this
study together create a valuable profile of the Upper Tigris region
during the Iron Age Period. These elements reveal a transfor-
mation of the settlements pattern and the related material culture
that is determined by a broader picture of socio-economic changes
that occur between the end of the Bronze Age and the Middle-Late
Iron Age (that corresponds to the Neo-Assyrian Empire).
Moreover, the main subjects of study emerging from this
study can be concentrated into four issues.
The first issue is connected to the passage from the Middle
Assyrian phase, or Late Bronze Age, to the Early Iron Age phase.
The texts in our possession give us a good perspective over the
Middle and Neo-Assyrian historical framework. Nevertheless, with-
in the Upper Tigris region, the archaeological pattern seems to
have a different arrangement. During the Late Bronze Age there is

certainly an Assyrian presence in the territory. A small number of
sites, in fact, bear a few small Middle Assyrian levels, which don't
seem linked as in the Neo-Assyrian phase. Later on, during the
middle of the 12th century BCE we know that the Assyrians start to
withdraw from the uplands. According to the data retrieved at
Giricano/dunnu- a-Uzibi (Schachner 2002, Radner 2003, 2004), this
occurrance in the Upper Tigris region must be moved forward to
the middle of the 11th century BCE, more than a hundred years
later. A broad shifting in chronology, as discussed above, that does
not seem reflected however within the archaeological data except
for the site itself. In the period immediately preceding the aban-
donment of the area by the Assyrians, we have a massive presence
of the local Grooved Ware pottery production in the majority of
the sites around the Upper Tigris region. The evidence yielded by
the partially excavated small settlement of dunnu/Giricano doesn't
seem able to confirm a strong Assyrian territorial establishment,
nor does the absence of Grooved Ware in its Middle Assyrian
sealed levels. It is in fact this absence that led the director of the
excavations Andreas Schachner to believe in a broad Assyrian pres-
ence in the region, and therefore an earlier beginning in the chro-
nology of the Early Iron Age, usually marked by the appearance of
this type of pottery (Roaf and Schachner 2009). The broad diffu-
sion and presence already attested to the end of the Late Bronze
Age and at the beginning of Early Iron Age of distinguishing mate-
rial culture such as the Grooved Ware in neighboring regions leave
little doubt over a contemporary presence of Grooved Ware within
the Upper Tigris region as well. For these reasons it seems natural
to accept the perspective advanced by Liverani and stressed by
Parker of a ‘network system of islands of power’ (Liverani 1988,
Parker 1997). A system composed mostly of isolated and fortified
settlements under Assyrian control, such as a dunnu, in key places in
the area of interest. In fact, Giricano is positioned at the extreme
northern periphery of the empire, an area that wasn't under control
not even at the peak of the Neo-Assyrian power and expansion.
The second consideration is inherent to the material culture
production. We have analyzed in depth the morphologic and sym-
bolic characteristics of the pottery, Grooved Ware in particular.
What has clearly arisen from this study and the comparison with
others is that the large area interested by this production, as previ-
ously discussed, can only find a possible known geographical match

with the Nairi lands (Roaf and Schachner 2009). This is a generic
term brought to our attention by the Assyrians, who firstly grouped
together the northern lands and populations within the Upper Ti-
gris region, and which then referred to the uplands in general. As
we clearly marked, the association pots/people is not and cannot
be contemplated. In fact, Nairi is a multiethnic merging of popula-
tions, as illustrated above, of different traits. It is a fact, though,
that the Grooved Ware is a production of those lands, and that it
shares the same or very similar technology, fabrics, surface treat-
ments and decoration throughout. This number of similar connota-
tions, together with a few architectural considerations expressed in
the study, is obviously meaningful. Within the framework created
by the different analyzed elements, the data leads us to interpret
these common characteristics as a manifestation of a distinctive
trait. A trait that would link people and communities and/or that
would manifest affiliation. This would not necessarily happen be-
tween people who know each other. It would simply signify a
commonality between them. That is an additional value to this cul-
tural expression. What emerges from the data is that a common
based cultural linking is bonding the different communities of these
regions. It is an affiliation that cannot go under the classification of
ethnicity, as we have seen, but under an underlying kinship, which
most evidently finds expression and delimiting boundaries within
the material culture.
The third concern regards a hypothesis that emerged during
the study of the distinctive traits of the Early Iron Age material
culture of Hirbemerdon and the comparative evidence expounded
by other important landscape layouts. This hypothesis, explored in
detail in the different chapters of the study, brings a possible identi-
fication of certain aspects of the architectural arrangement and
characteristics, together with the pottery production and survey
data, of a pastoral semi-nomadic connotation (cf. Ur and Hammer
2009, Cribb: 1991, Szuchman 2007). A number of concurring ele-
ments taken closely under examination within the discussion seem
to point in that direction. Moreover, I have tried to understand the
social relationship that was subsequently established between the
communities of the Upper Tigris region. In this framework, I ad-
vanced the possibility of a dimorphic-like social pattern, in which a
coexistence and/or symbiosis of the semi-nomadic and sedentary
branches of the population would subsequently interact with for-

eign elements of power (cf. Rowton 1973, 1974, Szuchman 2009).
The degree to which and by what means this phenomenon was
present are impossible to establish at this time. What seems certain
is the fact that through the centuries, mostly thanks to the Assyrian
texts and a weak reflection in the material culture, this dichotomy
seems to attenuate and blend, such as in the initial bonding kinship.
If this scenery proves to be correct, many obscure points of
Early Iron Age settlements would finally find an explanation. That
is why it is most important to insist on the nature of this and other
similar contexts such as the indigenous elements that brought it to
its creation in order to better define this important period of time.
The fourth and last issue is the transformation of the social
and cultural pattern that takes place when the Neo-Assyrian Em-
pire penetrates and profoundly changes the Upper Tigris regions at
a capillary level. The area is massively remodeled under different
tenure (cf. Postgate 2007, Wilkinson et al. 2005, for the homeland
Altaweel 2008). A network of newly founded settlements, increased
by over 300% compared to the previous phase of occupation,
joined with an intense land exploitation creates a totally different
political and social order in the region (Parker 2001). The conse-
quences of this environment are clearly manifest within the materi-
al culture. Even though we observe a strong influence in various
aspects of the Upper Tigris region’s society, a local connotation
formed by the previous traits together with the new ones, manages
to succeed in creating an original social pattern and cultural mani-
festation. In fact, the pottery production shows distinctive old in-
digenous and new foreign trends in the Plain Ware, such as decora-
tive grooves in the first case and fabrics/hues in the latter case.
Nevertheless, in an imprecise moment later on, there is a reworking
of these aspects expressed by new ceramic trends, also part of the
Plain Ware. Hirbemerdon in this phase, as in other small settle-
ments, concentrates its life at the base of the tepe in large and solid
structures, perhaps focusing on farming activities and food pro-
cessing, such as the cleft grinding stones and the settlement's prox-
imity to the river seem to indicate. In this phase of domination, the
Upper Tigris demonstrates a certain autonomy and local identity,
made possible due also to the degree of tolerance exercised by the
Assyrians. Kingdoms like B t-Zam ni or ubria are able to maintain
their ethnicity and distinguishing features, even though the Nairi

lands grouping have almost lost their initial affiliation.
The above-mentioned elements confirm the interest and the
importance, in my opinion, of always considering the tangential
aspects of an area in general, or of a settlement in particular. As I
previously stated, Assyria revealed many aspects about these lands
through its annals and inscriptions, and perhaps, to the same ex-
tent, local settlements are also offering us a new and different kind
of perspective over the Assyrians behavior in foreign lands thanks
to the emerging archaeological evidence of sites and areas previous-
ly neglected.
In conclusion, the information gathered here in this study
about the local communities of the Upper Tigris region during the
Iron Age will hopefully provide another small piece to help reas-
semble the puzzle of the region's past. This data better allows us to
understand some of the aspects that characterize these silent popu-
lations, in some cases even offering new perspectives regarding
their material cultural manifestations and the relationships estab-
lished between one another other and secondarily with a foreign
domination. In this way, social patters and the composing elements
of past populations are primary subjects that must be understood
and interpreted through or together with the archaeological record,
possibly with the aid of other types of research, and a cognitive
approach. Many remaining aspects, however, are waiting to be un-
covered or to be solved. Future studies in this direction could final-
ly bring more light to the internal dynamics of Northern Mesopo-
tamia clarifying the profound relationships established with the
populations further up north (Transcaucasia) and to the south (As-
syria). Whatever the nature of this approach, a local and/or a pe-
ripheral perspective not only completes the picture of the ones
who actually wrote history, but it is necessary to the fulfillment of
an unabridged view of the past of these and other lands whether
they are inside or outside an empire's landscape.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akkermans P. M. M. G., and Wiggermann F. A. M., 1999 – Middle

Assyrian Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. Excavations and Texts, Ar-
chéologia 358, 56-65.
Akkermans, P. M. M. G., and Wiggermann F. A. M., in print –
West of A ur: The Life and Times of the Middle Assyrian
Dunnu at Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. In, Rouault/M.-G. Masset-
ti-Rouault, O. (eds.), After the Empire: Crisis of the State and of
the Monarchy in Northern Mesopotamia and in Anatolia (XIIIth-
Xth centuries BCE), (Lyon).
Alcock, S. E., D’Altroy, T. N., Morrison, K. D. and Sinopoli, C.,
(eds.) 2001 – (2005 ed.) Empires: Perspectives from Archaeology
and History, (Cambridge).
Algaze, G., 1989 – A new frontier: first results of the Tigris–
Euphrates Archaeological Reconnaissance Project, 1988.
Journal of Near Eastern Studies 48 (4), (Chicago), 241–281.
Algaze, G., 1993 – (2005 ed.) The Uruk World System. The dynamics of
expansion of early mesopotamian civilization. 2nd edition (Chicago)
Algaze, G., Breuninger, R., Lightfoot, C., and Rosenberg, M., 1991
– The Tigris-Euphrates archaeological reconnaissance pro-
ject : a preliminary report of the 1989-1990 seasons. Anatoli-
ca 17, (Leiden), 175-240.
Altaweel, M., 2008 – The imperial landscape of Ashur: settlement and land
use in the Assyrian heartland. Heidelberger Studien Alten Ori-
ent bd. 11 (Heidelberg) Heidelberg Orientverlag.
Anastasio, S., 1999 – Prospection archéologique du Haut-Khabur
occidentale (Syrie du N.E.). Preliminary Information on the
Pottery of the Iron Age. In, Hausleiter, A. and Reiche, A.
(eds.), Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria
and South-Eastern Anatolia. Altertumskunde des Vorderen
Orients, band 10 (Münster), 173-191.
Anastasio, S., 2007 – Das Obere Haburtal in der Jazira zwischen dem 13.
und dem 5. Jh. v.Chr. Die Keramik des Projektes 'Prospection ar-
chéologique du Haut-Khabour Occidental (Syrie du N.E.), CET,
(Firenze).
Andrae, V. W., 1913 – Die Stelenreihen in Assur, Wissenschaftliche
Veröffentlichungen der Deitschen Orient-Gesellschaft 24
(Liepzig).
Avetisyan, P. and Bobokhyan, A., 2008 – The pottery traditions of
the Armenian Middle to Late Bronze Age “transition” in the
context of Bronze and Iron Age. In, edited by Rubinson, K.
S. and Sagona, A., Ceramics in transitions: Chalcolithic
through Iron Age in the highlands of the Southern Caucasus
and Anatolia. Ancient Near Eastern Studies supplement n. 27
(Leuven), 123-184.
Barbanes, E., 2003 – Planning an empire: city and settlement in the
Neo-Assyrian period. Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopo-
tamian Studies 38 (Québec), 15-22.
Barth, F. (ed.), 1969 – Ethnic groups and boundaries: The social organiza-
BIBLIOGRAPHY 121
tion of culture difference. A group of essays which are the results

of a symposium of Scandinavian social anthropologists. Lit-
tle, Brown (Boston).
Bartl, K., 1994 – Die frühe Eisenzeit in Ostanatolien und ihre
Verbindungen zu den benachbarten Regionen. Baghdader
Mitteilungen 25 (Berlin), 473-518.
Bartl, K., 2001 – Eastern Anatolia in the Early Iron Age. In, Eich-
mann R., Parzinger, H. (eds.), Migration und Kulturtransfer: Der
Wandel vorder- und zentralasiatischer Kulturen im Umbruch vom 2.
zum 1. vorchristlichen Jahrtausend. Kolloquien zur Vorund
Frühgeschicte Band 6 (Bonn), 383-410.
Belli, O., 1991 – Ore deposit and Mining in Eastern Anatolia in the
Urartian Period: Silver, Copper and Iron. In, Merhav, R. ed.,
Urartu: A Metalworking Center in the First Millennium B.C.E.
(Jerusalem), 16-41.
Belli, O. and Konyar, E., 2003 – Ernis-Evditepe: The largest early
Iron Age necropolis in Eastern Anatolia. Tel Aviv vol. 30 n.
2 (Tel Aviv), 167-203.
Bernbeck, R., 1993 – Steppe als Kulturlandschaft: Das ’A -Gebeit
Ostsyriens vom Neolithikum zur islamischen Zeit (Berlin).
Binford, L. R., 1978 – Dimensional analysis of behavior and site
structure: learning from an Eskimo hunting stand. American
Antiquity 43 (3), (Menasha), 330-361.
Black, J. and Green, A., 2003 – Gods, Demons and Symbols of Ancient
Mesopotamia. An Illustrated Dictionary. University of Texas
Press (Austin).
Blaylock, S., 1998 – Rescue excavations by the BIAA at Tille
Höyük, on the Euphrates, 1979-1990. In, Matthews R. (ed.),

Ancient Anatolia: fifty years’ work by the British Institute of Archae-
ology at Ankara. British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara
(London), 111-126.
Blaylock, S., 1999 – Iron Age Pottery from Tille Höyük, South-
Eastern Turkey. In, Hausleiter, A. and Reiche, A. (eds.), Iron
Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and South-
Eastern Anatolia (Münster), 263-86.
Bombardieri, L., 2010 – Pietre da Macina, Macine per Mulini:
Definizione e Sviluppo delle Tecniche per la Macinazione nell’Area del
Vicino Oriente e del Mediterraneo Antico. British Archaeological
Reports International Series 2055 (Oxford).
Borger, R., 1956 – Die Inschriften Asarhaddons Königs von Assyrien.
Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 9. Graz: E. Weidner
(Osnabrück).
Brown, B. T., 1951 – Excavation in Azarbaijan, 1948 (London).
Budge, E. A. W. and King, L. W., 1902 - Annals of the Kings of Assyr-
ia (London).
Cecchini, S. M. and Mazzoni, S., (eds.) 1998 – Tell Afis (Siria) Scavi
sull’acropoli 1988-1992. The 1988-1992 Excavations on the
Acropolis. Edizioni ETS (Pisa).
Cribb, R., 1991 – Nomads in Archaeology. (2004 ed.) Cambridge Uni-
versity Press (Cambridge).
Cuomo di Caprio, N., 2007 – Ceramica in Archeologia 2. Antiche tec-
niche di lavorazione e moderni metodi di indagine. Studia Archeo-
logica 144 (Roma).
Curtis, J., 1989 – Excavations at Qasrij Cliff and Khirbet Qasrij. Saddam
BIBLIOGRAPHY 123
Dam Report 10, Western Asiatic excavations 1(London).

D'Agostino, A., 2004 – Pottery Production and Transformation of
the Social Structure in an “Assyrian” Settlement from the
Late Bronze Age to the Iron Age: the Tell Barri case, in Pro-
ceedings of the 4th International Congress on the Archaeology of the
Ancient Near East (Berlin), 47-64.
Dinçol, A. M., 1994 – Cultural and Political Contacts Between As-
syria and Urartu. Tel Aviv 21 (Tel Aviv), 6-21.
Eberhard, W., 1953 – Nomads and Farmers in Southeastern Tur-
key: Problems of Settlement. Oriens 6 (Canberra), 32–49.
Emberling, Geoff 1997 Ethnicity in complex societies: Archaeo-
logical perspectives. Journal of Archaeological Research vol.
5, n. 4, (New York), 295-344.
Fales, F. M., 1990 – The Rural Landscape of the Neo-Assyrian
Empire: A Survey. State Archives of Assyria Bulletin IV/2
(Padua), 81-142.
Faust, A., 2006 – Israel’s ethnogenesis: settlement, interaction, expansion
and resistance. Approaches to anthropological archaeology.
(London).
Finkelstein, J. J., 1953 – Cuneiform Texts from Tell Billa. Journal of
Cuneiform Studies 7 (New Heaven), 111-176.
Forlanini, M., 2006 – Étapes et itineraries entre Assur et l’Anatolie
des marchands Paléo-Assyriens: Nouveaux documents et
nouveaux problèmes, Kaskal 3 (Venice), 147-175.
Gelb, I. J., 1944 – Hurrians and Subarians, Studies in Ancient Oriental
Civilization 22, University of Chicago Press (Illinois).
Goetze, A., 1957 – (First ed. 1933) Kleinasien. Handbuch der Alter-
tumswissenschaft III.1.3. Kulturgeschichte des Alten Orients

III, I. C. H. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung, (Munchen).
Goodwin, J., 1995 – The First Millennium B.C. Pottery. In, Baird,
D., Campbell, S., Watkins, T., Excavations at Kharabeh Shat-
tani. Volume II (University of Edinburgh, Department of
Archaeology. Occasional Paper No. 18) (Edinburgh), 91-
141.
Grayson, A. K., 1996 – Assyrian Rulers of the Early First Millennium
BC, 2 (858-745 BC). Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia: As-
syrian Periods 3, (Toronto) University of Toronto.
Grayson, A. K., 1991 – Assyrian Rulers of the Early First millennium
BC I (1114–859 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopota-
mia Assyrian Periods 2, (Toronto) University of Toronto.
Grayson, A. K. 1987 – Assyrian Rulers of the Third and Second Millen-
nia BC (to 1115 BC). The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia
Assyrian Periods 1, (Toronto) University of Toronto.
Grayson, A. K. 1972/1976 – Assyrian Royal Inscriptions, 2 vols.
(Wiesbaden).
Grayson, A. K. 1976 – Studies in Neo-Assyrian history: the Ninth
century BC, Bibliotheca Orientalis 33 (Leiden), 134-145.
Green, A., 1999 – The Ninevite Countryside. Pots and places of
the Eski-Mosul Region in the Neo-Assyrian and Post-
Assyrian Periods. In, Hausleiter, A. and Reiche, A. (eds.),
Iron Age Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and
South-Eastern Anatolia. Altertumskunde des Vorderen Ori-
ents, band 10 (Münster ), 91-126.
Guarducci, G. and Laneri, N., 2010 – Hirbemerdon Tepe during
BIBLIOGRAPHY 125
the Iron Age Period: A Case Study in the Upper Tigris River
Region. Anatolica 36 (Louven), 17-65.
Harman ah, O., 2007 – ‘Source of the Tigris’. Event, place and
performance in the Assyrian landscapes of the Early Iron
Age. Archaeological dialogues 14 (2). Cambridge University
Press (Cambridge), 179-204.
Hausleiter, A., and Reiche, A. (eds.), 1999 – Iron Age Pottery in
Northern Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and South-Eastern Anato-
lia. Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients, Band 10 (Mün-
ster).
Heimpel, W., 2003 – Letters to the King of Mari: A New Translation
with Historical Introduction, Notes, and Commentary. (Winona
Lake).
Karg, N., 1999 – Grê Dimsê 1998: Preliminary report. In, Numan
Tuna and Jean Öztürk (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological
1998. Middle East Technical University, Centre for Research

and Assessment of the Historic Environment (Ankara), 262-
296.
Karg, N., 2001 – First soundings at Grê Dimsê 1999. In, Tuna, N.,
Öztürk, J. and Velibeyo lu, J. (eds.), Salvage Project of the Ar-
v-
ities in 1999. Middle East Technical University, Centre for
Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment,
(Ankara), 671-693, figures in 662-669.
Karg, N., 2002 – Sounding at Gre Dimse 2000. In, Tuna, N.,
Öztürk, J. and Velibeyo lu, J. (eds.), Salvage Project of the Ar-
chaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Ac-

tivities in 2000 (Ankara), 723–737.
Kessler, K., 1980 – Untersuchungen zur historischen Topographie Nord-
mesopotamiens (Weisbaden).
Kessler, K., 1995 – ubria, Urartu and A ur: topographical ques-
tions around the Tigris sources. In, Liverani, M. (ed.), Neo-
Assyrian geography. Università di Roma La Sapienza, Diparti-
mento di Scienze storiche, archeologiche e antropologiche
dell’Antichità, Quaderni di Geografia storica 5 (Roma), 55-
67.
Khazanov, A. M., 1994 – Nomads and the Outside World. 2nd edit.
Trans. Crookenden, J. (Madison) University of Wisconsin
Press.
King, L. W., 1915 – The bronze reliefs from the Gates of Shalmaneser,
King of Assyria, B.C. 860–825 (London).
Konig, F. W., 1955/1957 – Handbuch der chaldischen Inschriften, Ar-
chiv fur Orientforschung 8 (Graz).
Konyar, E., 2005 – Grooved Pottery of the Van Lake Basin: A
Stratigraphical and Chronological Assessment. In, Alparslan,
M., Alparslan-Dogan, M. (eds.), Colloquium Anatolicum IV.
Türk Eskicag Bilimleri Enstitusu Yayinlari (Istanbul) 105-
127.
Köro lu, K., 1998 – Üçtepe I -
-Üçtepe ve Çevresinin Yeni Assur Dönemi Tarihi
Ço V/45. Ankara,
Türk Tarih Kurumu (Ankara).
Köro lu, K., 2003 – The transition from Bronze Age to Iron Age
BIBLIOGRAPHY 127
in Eastern Anatolia. In, Fischer, B., Genz, H., Jean, E. and

Köro lu, K. (eds.), Identifying changes: the Transition from Bronze
to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its Neighboring Regions. Türk
Eskiça Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Istanbul), 231-244.
Köro lu and Konyar 2008 – Comments on the Early/Middle Iron
Age Chronology of Lake Van Basin. In, Peeters (ed.), A Re-
Assessment of Iron Age chronology in Anatolia
and Neighboring Regions. Proceedings of a Symposium
held at Ege University, Izmir, Turkey 25-27 May 2005. An-
cient Near Eastern Studies 45 (Leuven), 123-146.
Kozbe, G., Çevik, Ö. and Sa lamtimur 2001 – "Chapter 4: The
pottery". In, Cilingiroglu A. and Salvini, M. (eds.), Ayanis 1:
Ten Years’ Excavations at Rusahinili Eidurukai 1989-1998,
(Documenra Asiana VI). Pubblicazioni Dell'lstituto per gli
Studi Micenei ed Egeo-Anatolici (Roma), 85-153.
Kozbe, G., 2008 – The Transition from late Bronze Age to Early
Iron Age in the Upper Tigris region, Southeastern Anatolia:
identifying changes in pottery. In, Rubinson, K. S. and Sa-
gona, A. (eds.), Ceramics in transitions: Chalcolithic through
Iron Age in the highlands of the Southern Caucasus and
Anatolia. Ancient Near Eastern Studies, Supplement 27 (Leu-
ven), 291-322.
Kramer, C., 1977 – Pots and People in Mountains and Lowlands:
Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia. In,
Levine, L. and Cuyler Young, T., Jr. (eds.), Bibliotheca Mesopo-
tamia Vol. 7 (Malibu), 91-112.
Kreppner, F. J., 2002 – Public Space in Nature: The Case of Neo-
Assyrian Rock Reliefs, Altorientalische Forschungen 29 (Wien),

367-383.
Kunanbaeva, B. A., 2002 – Nomads. The Silk Road: Connecting Cul-
tures, Creating Trust. The 36th Annual Smithsonian Folklife Festi-
val On the National Mall (Washington D.C.), 81-87.
Luckenbill, D. D., 1926-1927 – Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylo-
nia, (Chicago).
Laneri, N., 2005 – Hirbemerdon Tepe 2003: A Preliminary Report.
26 (Ankara), 63-72.
Laneri, N., 2006 – The Second Season of Archaeological Work at
Hirbemerdon Tepe (Turkey): A Preliminary Report. East and
West 56.4 (Roma), 419-430.
Laneri, N., 2009 – Biografia di un vaso. Tecniche di produzione del
vasellame ceramico nel Vicino Oriente antico tra il V e il II millennio
a. C. (Paestum).
Laneri, N., A., D’Agostino, M., Schwartz, S., Valentini, and G.
Pappalardo, 2006 – A Preliminary Report of the Archaeo-
logical Excavations at Hirbemerdon Tepe, Southeastern
Turkey. Anatolica 32 (Leiden), 153-188.
Laneri, N., Schwartz, M., Ur, J., Valentini, S., D’Agostino, A.,
Berthon, R., and Hald, M. M., 2008 – The Hirbemerdon
Tepe Archaeological Project 2006–2007: a preliminary re-
port on the Middle Bronze Age ‘architectural complex’ and
the survey of the site catchment area. Anatolica 34 (Leiden),
177–240.
Laneri, N., Schwartz, M., Valentini, S., D’Agostino, A. and Nannucci,
S., 2009 – ‘The Hirbemerdon Tepe Archaeological Project:
BIBLIOGRAPHY 129
The First Four Seasons of Archaeological Work at a Site in

the Upper Tigres Rivel Valley, SE Turkey. Ancient Near Eastern
Studies 46 (Melbourne), 212-276.
Laneri, N., in press – The Hirbemerdon Tepe Archaeological Pro-
ject 2003-2008. In, Babacan N., et al. (eds.), Archaeological
Work in the Ilisu Dam Rescue Project 2003-2008 (Ankara).
Lanfranchi, G. B. and Parpola, S., 1990 – The Correspondence of Sar-
gon II, Part II: Letters from the Northern and Northeastern Provinc-
es. State Archives of Assyria V. Helsinki University Press
(Helsinki).
Lehmann, G., 1996 – Untersuchungen zur späten Eisenzeit in Syrien und
Libanon. Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients (AVO),
Ugarit-Verlag (Münster).
Lehmann-Haupt, C. F., 1910-1931 – Armenien Einst und Jetzt. 3
parts, (Berlin).
Lehmann-Haupt, C. F., 1928-1935 – Corpus Inscriptionum Chaldicar-
um (Berlin-Liepzig).
Levy, T. E., Adams R. B. and Shafiq, R. 1999 – The Jabal hamrat
fidan Project: excavations at the Wadi fidan 40 cemetery,
Jordan (1997). Levant 31 (Leeds), 293–308.
Levy, T. E., 2009 – Pastoral nomads and Iron Age Metal Produc-
tion in Ancient Edom. In, Szuchman, J. (ed.), Nomads, Tribes,
and the State in the Ancient Near East Cross-disciplinary Perspec-
tives. The oriental Institute of Chicago, Oriental Institute
Seminars No. 5 (Chicago) 147-177.
Lipi ski, E., 2000 – The Aramaeans: Their Ancient History, Culture,
Religion. Orientalia Lovaniensa Analecta 100 (Leuven).
Lipi ski, E., 2002 – Diyarbakir – An Aramaean Capital of the 9th

Century B.C. and Its Territory. In, Taracha, P. (ed.), Silva
Anatolica. Anatolian Studies Presented to Maciej Popko on the Occa-
sion of his 65th Birthday (Warsaw), 225-239.
Liverani, M., 1973 – The Amorites. In, Wiseman, O. J. (Ed.), Peo-
ples of Old Testament Times (Oxford), 100-133.
Liverani, M., 1988 – The growth of the Assyrian Empire in the
Habur/Middle Euphrates area: a new paradigm. State Ar-
chives of Assyria Bulletin 2 (2), (Padua) 81-98.
Liverani, M., 1992 – Studies on the Annals of Ashurnasirpal II. Quad-
erni di geografia storica (Roma).
Liverani, M., (ed.) 1995 – Neo-Assyrian Geography. Quaderni di Geo-
grafia Storica 5 (Roma).
Luciani, M., 2005 – Area G: The Iron Age Productive area (period
IX) and the inhumation cemetery (period X). In, Bachelot,
L., Fales, F. M. (eds.), Tell Shiukh Fawqani, 1994-
1998 / volume 2 (Padua), 720-993.
Luckenbill, D. D., 1926-1927 – Ancient Records of Assyria and Baby-
lonia. (Chicago).
Lumsden, S., 1999 – Neo-Assyrian Pottery from Nineveh. In,
Hausleiter A., Reiche A. (eds.), Iron Age Pottery in Northern
Mesopotamia, Northern Syria and South-Eastern Anatolia. Alter-
tumskunde des Vorderen Orients, Band 10 (Münster), 3-15.
Magen, U., 1986 – Assyrische Königdarstellungen – Aspekte der
Herrschaft, (Mainz am Rhein).
Makinson, M., 2005 – IV: Le Chantier F, Archéologie la stratigra-
phie générale et l’occupation de l’Âge du Fer (Architecture
BIBLIOGRAPHY 131
et Matériel). In, Bachelot, L. and Fales F. M. (eds.), Tell Shi-

ukh Fawqani, 1994-1998 / volume 2° (Padua), 411-580.
Mann, M., 1986 – (2008 ed.) The Source of Social Power. A history of
power from the beginning to A.D. 1760. Volume I (Cambridge).
Matney, T., 1998 – The First Season of Work at Ziyaret Tepe in
Anatolica 24
(Leiden), 7-30.
Matney, T., 2010 – Material Culture and Identity: Assyrians, Ara-
maeans, and the Indigenous Peoples of Iron Age Southeast-
ern Anatolia. In, Steadman, S. R. and Ross, J. C. (eds.), Agen-
cy and Identity in the Ancient Near East. Approaches to An-
thropological Archaeology series (London).
Matney, T., Roaf, M., MacGinnis, J. and McDonald, H., 2002 –
Archaeological excavations at Ziyaret Tepe, 2000 and 2001.
Anatolica 28 (Leiden), 46-89.
Matney, T., MacGinnis, J., McDonald, H., Nicoll, K., Rainville, L.,
Roaf, M., Smith, L. M. and Stein, D. 2003 – Archaeological
Investigations at Ziyaret Tepe 2002. Anatolica 29 (Leiden).
Matney, T., and Rainville, L., (eds.) 2005 – Archaeological investi-
gations at Ziyaret Tepe, 2003-2004. Anatolica 31 (Leiden),
19-68.
Matney, T., Rainville, L., Köro lu, K., Keskin A., Vorderstrasse, T.,
, N. and Donkin, A., 2007 – Report on Exca-
vations at Ziyaret Tepe, 2006 Season. Anatolica 33 (Leiden),
23-74.
Matney, T., Greenfield, T., Hartenberger, B., Keskin, A., Köro lu,
K., MacGinnis, J., Monroe, M. W., Rainville, L., Shepperson,
M., Vorderstrasse, T. and Wicke, D., 2009 – Excavation at

Ziyaret Tepe 2007-2008. Anatolica 35 (Leiden), 37-84.
Matney, T., Greenfield, T., Hartenberger, B., Jalbrzikowski, C.,
Köro lu, K., MacGinnis, J., Marsh, A., Monroe, M. W.,
Rosenzweig, M., Sauer, K. and Wicke, D., 2011 – Excava-
tion at Ziyaret Tepe 2007-2008. Anatolica 37 (Leiden), 67-
114.
Matney, T., Wicke, D., MacGinnis, J., 2011 – Twelfth Preliminary
Report on Excavations at Ziyaret Tepe (D r Prov-
ince), 2009 season. K Sonuçlar Toplan 32 4. cilt, 233-
244.
Maxwell-Hyslop, H. R., 1974 – Assyrian Sources of Iron: A Prelim-
inary Survey of the Historical and Geographical Evidence.
Iraq 36 (London), 139-154.
Mazzoni, S. (ed.), 1992 – Tell Afis e l’Età del Ferro. Seminari di Ori-
entalistica 2. Giardini Editori e Stampatori in Pisa. (Pisa).
Mazzoni, S., 1995 – Settlement pattern and new urbanization in
Syria at the time of the Assyrian conquest. In, Liverani M.
(ed.), Neo-Assyrian geography. Università di Roma “La Sapien-
za,” Quaderni di Geografia Storica 5 (Roma), 181-192.
Meliki vili, G. A., 1960 – (second edition) Urartskie klinoobraznye
nadpisi (The Urartian cuneiform inscrptions), (Moscow).
McGovern, P. E., Fleming S. J. and Swann C. P., 1991 – The Beads
from Tomb B10a b27 at Dinkha Tepe and the Beginnings
of Glassmaking in the Ancient Near East. In, American Jour-
nal of Archaeology, Vol. 95, No. 3 (Boston), 395-402.
Millard, A., 1994 – Eponyms of the Assyrian Empire 910-612 BC. State
BIBLIOGRAPHY 133
Archives of Assyria Studies 2,The Neo-Assyrian Text Cor-

pus Project, (Helsinki).
Müller, U., 1996 – Die eisenzeitliche Keramik von Lidar Höyük, PhD
dissertation. Fakultat fur Orientalistik und Altertumswissen-
schaften. Ruprecht Karls Universitat (Heidelberg).
Müller, U., 2003 – A Change to Continuity: Bronze Age Traditions
in Early Iron Age. In, Fischer, B., Genz, H., Jean, E. and
Köro lu, K. (eds.), Identifying changes: the Transition from Bronze
to Iron Ages in Anatolia and its Neighboring Regions. Türk
Eskiça Bilimleri Enstitüsü (Istanbul), 137-150.
Müller, U., 2005 – Nor un Tepe and Lidar Höyük. Two Examples
for Cultural hange During the Early Iron Age. In, Çilingi-
ro lu, A. and Darbyshire, G. (eds.), Anatolian Iron Ages 5,
Proceedings of the Fifth Anatolian Iron Ages Colloquium held at
Van, 6-10 August 2001. British Institute at Ankara, BIIA
Monograph 31 (London), 107-114.
Moore, J., and Russel, H. F., 1982 – Excavations at Tille 1979-
1982: An Interim Report. Anatolian Studies 32 (London) 161-
187.
Negro, F., 1997 – Rapporto di scavo a Khirbet Hatara Saddam

Dam, Eski Mossul, Iraq ll. 18. Mesopotamia 32 (Firenze), 163-
188.
Ökse, A. T., 1988 – Mitteleisenzeitliche keramik zentral-ostanatoliens. Mit
dem Schwerpunkt Karakaya-Stauseegebiet am Euphrat. Dietrich
Reimer Verlag, (Berlin).
Ökse, A. T., 1999 – e-
search in 1998). In, Tuna, N. and Öztürk, J. (ed
(Salvage
Project o r-
chemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in 1998), (Ankara), 119-
155.
Ökse, A. T., O uz Alp, A., Engin, A., U ur Da , H., Görmü , A.,
Mustafao lu, G., 2001 – Salat Tepe 1999 Ara
Tepe Researches in 1999. In, Tuna, N., Öztürk, J. and
Velibeyo lu, J.),
(Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage

Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in
1999), (Ankara), 593-642.
Ökse, A. T., and Görmu , A. 2006 – Excavations at Salat Tepe in
the Upper Tigris Region: Stratigraphical Sequence and Pre-
liminary results of the 2005-2006 Seasons. Akkadica 127
(Brussels), 167-198.
Ökse, A. T., Görmu , A., Atay, E., Ta kiran, H., and Erdon an,
N., 2010 A – Il
K çlar Toplan 32 1. Cilt, 258/269.
Ökse, A. T., Görmu , A. and Atay, E., 2010 B – A rural Iron Age
site at Zeviya Tivilki: in the construction
Dam, south-eastern Turkey. Antiquity 84, issue 323
(http://antiquity.ac.uk/projgall/okse323).
Parker, B. J., 1997 – Garrisoning the Empire: Aspects of the Con-
struction and Maintenance of Forts on the Assyrian Fron-
tier. Iraq 59 (London), 77-87.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 135
Parker, B. J., 1998 – Archaeological Evidence for the Location of

Tushan: A Provincial Capital on the Northern Frontier of
Assyria. In, Prosecky, J. (ed.), Intellectual Life in the Ancient
Near East. (Prague), Charles University Press, 299-314.
Parker, B. J, 2001 – The Mechanics of Empire. The Northern Frontier of
Assyria as a Case Study in Imperial Dynamics (Helsinki).
Parker, B. J., 2002 – At the edge of the Empire: conceptualizing
Assyria’s Anatolian frontier ca 700 BC. Journal of Anthropologi-
cal Archaeology 21 (Ann Arbor), 371-395.
Parker, B. J. and Creekmore, A., 2002 – The Upper Tigris Ar-
chaeological Research Project (UTARP): A Final Report
from the 1999 Field Season. Anatolian Studies 52 (London),
19-74.
Parker, B. J., Creekmore, A., Swartz Dodd, L., Meegan, C., Mose-
man, E., Paille, R., Abraham M. and Cobb, P., 2003 – The
Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project (UTARP): a
Preliminary Report from the 200l Field Season. Anatolica 29
(Leiden), 103-174.
Parpola, S. and Porter M., (eds.), 2001 – The Helsinki atlas of the
Near East in the Neo-Assyrian period (Helsinki), the CascoBay
Assyriological Institute, the Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Pro-
ject.
Parpola, S., 2008 – Cuneiform Texts from Ziyaret Tepe (Tu han),
2002-2003. State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 17 (Udine), 1-114.
Piotrovskij, B. B., 1966 – Il regno di Van Urartu. Incunabola Graeca
vol. XII (Roma).
Porter, A., 2009 – Beyond dimorphism: ideologies and materialities
of kinship as time-space distanciation. In, Szuchman J. (ed.),

Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the Ancient Near East Cross-
disciplinary Perspectives. The oriental Institute of Chicago, Ori-
ental Institute Seminars No. 5 (Chicago), 199-223
Postgate, J. N., 1979 – The Economic Structure of the Assyrian
Empire. In, Larsen, M. T. (ed.), Power and Propaganda. A Sym-
posium on Ancient Empires. Mesopotamia 7 (Copenhagen),
193-222.
Postgate, J. N., 2007 – The land of Assur & the yoke of Assur: studies on
Assyria, 1971-2005. (Oxford).
Radner, K., 2003 – Ausgrabungen in Giricano I: Das mittelassyrische
Tontafelarchiv von Giricano/Dunnu-Sa-Uzibi (Ankara).
Radner, K., 2004 – Das mittelassyrische Tontafelarchiv von
Giricano/Dunnu-sha-Uzibi (Ausgrabungen in Giricano 1). Subartu
14 (Turnhout).
Radner, K., 2006 – How to Reach the Upper Tigris: The Route
Through the Tur ‘Abdin. State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 15
(Leiden), 273-305.
Radner, K., and Schachner, A., 2001 – From Tu han to Am di:
Topographical Questions concerning the Upper Tigris Re-
gion in the Assyrian Period. In, Tuna, N., Öztürk, J. and
Velibeyo lu J. (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage
Activities in 1999 (An-
kara), 729-776.
Rice, P. M., 1987 – Pottery Analysis. A Sourcebook (Chicago).
Roaf, M., 2001 – Continuity and change from the Middle to the
Late Assyrian period. In, Eichmann, R. and Parzinger, H.
BIBLIOGRAPHY 137
(eds.), Migration und Kulturtransfer: Der Wandel vorder- und zen-

tralasiatischer Kulturen im Umbruch vom 2. zum 1. vorchristlichen
Jahrtausend. Dr. Rudolf Habelt GmbH (Bonn), 357-369.
Roaf, M. and Schachner, A., 2005 – The Bronze Age transition in

the Upper Tigris region: new information from Ziyaret Tepe
and Giricano. In, Çilingiro lu, A. and Darbyshire, G. (eds.),
Anatolian Iron Ages 5, Proceedings of the Fifth Anatolian Iron Ages
Colloquium held at Van, 6-10 August 2001. British Institute at
Ankara, Monograph 31 (London), 115-123.
Rowton, M. B., 1973 – Urban autonomy in a nomadic environ-

ment. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 32 (Chicago), 201–15.
Rowton, M. B., 1974 – Enclosed Nomadism. Journal of the Economi-
cal and Social History of the Orient 17 (Leiden), 1-30.
Rowton, M. B., 1977 – “Dimorphic structure and the Parasocial
element.” Journal of Near Eastern Studies 36 (Chicago), 181–
98.
Russel, H. F., 1980 – Pre-Classical pottery of Eastern Anatolia. Oxford:
British Institute of Archaeology in Ankara (London).
Sader, H., 1987 – Les États Araméens de Syrie Depuis Leur Fontation
Jusqu’à Leur Transformation en Provinces Assyriennes. Beiruter
Texte und Studien Band 36 (Beirut).
Sagona, A. and Sagona, C. (eds) 2004 – Archaeology at the North-
East Anatolian Frontier, I: An Historical Geography and a
Field Survey of the Bayburt Province. Ancient Near Easter
Studies supplement 14 (Leuven).
Salvini, M., 1967 – Nairi e Ur(u)atri : Contributo alla storia della forma-
zione del regno di Urartu . Incunabola Greca XVI. Edizioni

dell'Ateneo, Roma.
Salvini, M., 1986 – Assyrian and Urartaean Written Sources for
Urartaean History. Sumer 42 (Baghdad),155-159.
Salvini, M., 1995 – Some historic-geographical problems concern-
ing Assyria and Urartu. In, Liverani. M. (ed.), Neo-Assyrian
Geography. Quaderni di geografia storica 5 (Rome), 43-53.
Schäfer, H., 1931 – Armenisches Holz in ägyptischen Wagnereien.
Sitzungsberichte der Preussischen Akademie der Wissen-
schaften. (Berlin)
Schachner, A., 2002 – Ausgrabungen in Giricano (2000-2001) Neue
Forschungen an der Nordgrenze des Mesopotamischen Kulturraums.
Istanbuler Mitteilungen 52 (Tübingen), 9-57.
Schachner, A., 2003 – From the Bronze Age to the Iron Age: Iden-
tifying Changes in the Upper Tigris Region. The Case of
Giricano. In, Fischer, B., Genz, H., Jean, E. and Köro lu, K.
(eds.), Identifying changes: the Transition from Bronze to Iron Ages
in Anatolia and its Neighboring Regions. Türk Eskiça Bilimleri
Enstitüsü (Istanbul), 51-66.
Schachner, A., 2009 – Assyriens Könige an einer der quellen des Tigris,
Archäologische Forschungen im Höhlensystem von Birkleyn und am
sogenannten Tigris-Tunnel. Istanbuler Forschungen Band 51,
(Tübingen).
Schroeder, O., 1922 – Keilschriftexte aus Assur historischen Inhalts 2.
Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Ori-
ent-Gesellschaft 16 (Leipzig).
Sevin, V., 1991 – The Early Iron Age in the Elazi Region and the
BIBLIOGRAPHY 139
Problem of the Mushkians. Anatolian Studies 41 (London),

86- 97.
Sevin, V., 1994 – Three Urartian rock-cut tombs from Palu.
Tel Aviv 21 (Tel Aviv), 58-67.
Sevin, V., 1995 – Imiku a i I, Türk Tarih Kurumu Basitevi (Anka-
ra).
Sorokin, V. V., 1958 – Sledij drevnejsego poselenija u Karmir-
Blura. Sovietskaia Arkheologiia 2 (Moscow), 149-163.
Szuchman, J. J., 2007 – Prelude to Empire: Middle Assyrian Hanigalbat
and the Rise of the Aramaeans. PhD dissertation in Near East-
ern Languges and Cultures. University of California (Los
Angeles).
Szuchman, J. J. (ed.), 2009 – Nomads, Tribes, and the State in the An-
cient Near East Cross-disciplinary Perspectives. The oriental Insti-
tute of Chicago, Oriental Institute Seminars No. 5. (Chica-
go).
Tadmor, H., 1973 – The Historical Inscriptions of Adad-nirari II.
Iraq 35 (London), 141-150.
Tadmor, H., 1994 – The Inscriptions of Tiglath-Pileser III King of Assyr-
ia. The Israel Academy of Sciences and Humanities, (Jerusa-
lem).
Taylor, J. G., 1865 – Travels in Kurdistan, with notices of the
sources of the Eastern and Western Tigris, and ancient ruins
in their neighbourhood. Journal of the Royal Geographical Society
35 (London), 21-58.
Tekin, H., 2006 – Yatay Oluk Bezekli Bir Seramik Grubunun Ele
Geçti i Yeni Bir Merkez: Hakemi Use. Hacettepe Üniversitesi
Edebiyat Fakültesi Dergisi, 23/1 (Hacettepe) 151-172.

Terhan, M. T., 1994 – Recent Researh at the Urartian Capital
Tu pa. Tel Aviv 21 (Tel Aviv), 22-57.
Toffteen, O. A., 1907 – Notes on Assyrian and Babylonian Geog-
raphy. The American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures,
Vol.23 (Chicago), No. 4.
Ur, J. A., 2002 – Surface Collection and Offsite Studies at Tell
Hamoukar. Iraq 64 (London), 15-44.
Ur, J. A., 2005 – Sennacherib’s Northern Assyrian Canals: New
Insights from Satellite Imagery and Aerial Photography. Iraq
67 (London), 317-345.
Ur, J. A., and Hammer E. L., 2009 – Pastoral nomads of the se-
cond and third millennia AD on the Upper Tigris River,
Turkey: archaeological evidence from the Hirbemerdon
Tepe survey. Journal of Field Archaeology 34 (Boston), 37-56.
Van De Mieroop, M., 2007 – (first ed. 2004) A History of the Ancient
Near East ca. 3000 - 323 BC. Blackwell History of the An-
cient World (Oxford).
Vidale, M., 2007 – Ceramica e Archeologia (Roma).
Voigt, M. M., and R. C. Henrickson, 2000 – Formation of the
Phrygian State: The Early Iron Age at Gordion. Anatolian
Studies 50 (London), pp. 37–54.
Whincop, M. R., 2009 – Pots, People, and Politics: A Reconsideration of
the Role of Ceramics in Reconstructions of the Iron Age Northern Le-
vant. BAR International series 1902 (Oxford).
Wilkinson, T. J., 1990 – Town and country in southeastern Anatolia vol.
1: settlement and land use at Kurban Hoyuk and other sites in the
BIBLIOGRAPHY 141
lower Karababa Basin. Oriental Institute Publications no. 109

(Chicago)
Wilkinson, T. J., 2004 – Excavations at Tell Es-Sweyhat, Syria Volume
1 on the margin of the Euphrates settlement and land use at tell Es-
Sweyhat and the Upper lake Assad area, Syria. Oriental Institute
Publications, volume 124, (Chicago).
Wilkinson, T. J., and Barbanes, E., 2000 – Settlement patterns in
the Syrian Jazira during the Iron Age. In, Bunnens, G. (ed.),
Essays on Syria in the Iron Age. Ancient Near Eastern Studies
Supplement 7 (Leuven), 397-422.
Winn, M.N., 1980 – The Early Iron Age Pottery. In, Van Loon,
M.N. (ed.), Korucutepe 3. Final Report on the Excavations of the
Universities of Chicago, California (Los Angeles) and Amsterdam in
the Keban Reservoir, Eastern Anotalia (1968-1978), (Oxford –
Amsterdam), 155-175.
Yakar, J., 2000 – Ethnoarchaeology of Anatolia. Rural Socio-Economy in
the Bronze and Iron Ages. Monograph Series of the Institute of
Archaeology of Tel Aviv University No. 17 (Tel Aviv).
Yener, A. K. 2000 – The Domestication of Metals. The Rise of Complex
Metal Industries in Anatolia (Leiden).
Yoffee, N., 2005 – (2007 ed.) Myths of the Archaic State. Evolution of
the Earliest Cities, States, and Civilizations (Cambridge).
Zadok, R., 1991 – Elements of Aramaean Pre-History. In, Cogan,
M. and Eph’al, I. (eds.), Ah, Assyria...: Studies in Assyrian His-
tory and Ancient Near Eastern Historiography Presented to Hayim
Tadmor (Jerusalem), 104–117.
Zimansky, P. E., 1985 – Ecology and Empire: The Structure of the
Urartian State. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 41,

(Chicago).
Zimansky, P. E., 1995 – The Urartian frontier as an archaeological
problem. In, Liverani M. (ed.), Neo-Assyrian Geography,
(Rome), 171-180.
Zimansky, P. E., 1998 – Ancient Ararat: A Handbook of Urartian
Studies. Anatolian and Caucasian Studies (Delmar).
INDEX
‘A , 51, 71, 75, 79, 87, 88 Assur, 9, 11, 13, 19, 20, 21, 28,
‘Ammi-b’al, 22 93, 95
Abaeni, 20 Assur-bel-kala, 21, 92, 93
Abarsiuni, 20 A r-da’in-aplu, 14, 24
Adad-nirari I, 15 A r-k id, 13
Adad-nirari II, 21 Assur-nadin-apli, 19
Adad-nirari III, 25 Assurnasirpal II, 11, 13, 14, 15,
Adaeni, 20 19, 21
Adurgini, 20 Assyria, 11, 13, 14, 20, 22, 23,
Ahlamû-aramaia, 19, 103 24, 25, 26, 28, 95, 103, 105,
, 51, 84, 88 106, 118
Alaia, 19 Assyrian colonies, 10
Albaia, 20 Assyrian Empire, xxi, xxii, 1, 3,
Alzi, 16, 19 29, 95, 100, 109, 110, 114,
Amida, 21, See Am du 117
Am du, 9, 13, 14, 21, 22, 25, 27 Assyrian texts, 1, 5, 19, 117
Anatolia, xxi, 6, 9, 10, 11, 18, Assyrians, 5, 8, 11, 16, 20, 21,
97, 104, 109 22, 27, 92, 93, 94, 98, 102,
Andiabe, 20 106, 115, 116, 117, 118
Annals, 11, 14, 15, 16, 19, 21, Ayanis, 70, 73, 74, 75, 80, 82,
22, 25, 26, 92, 94, 118 86, 87
Arameans, 16, 21, 94, 103 Babil, 21
Ararat, 28 Basorin Höyük, 75
Area A, 29, 30, 31, 96, 98 Batman, 5, 26, 29
Area B, 30, 32, 99 Bianili, 23, See Urartu
Area D, 29, 31, 99 Bible, 27
Arime, 18 Birkleyn, 11, 12, 53, 56, 57, 60,
Arme, 18, 25 61, 62
Armenia, 108 Bismil, 7, 29, 91
A ipa, 27 Bitlis, 27
B t-Zam ni, 11, 13, 14, 15, 19, Deportation, 8

21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 97, Dilkaya, 44
106, 117 Dimorphic society, 104
Black Sea, 20 Dirria, 24
Bohtan, 27
Boztepe, 53, 68, 69, 70 21, 25, 27, 29, 97
Broken Obelisk, 92 Dunnu, 7, 93, 94, 95, 115
Bronze, 10, 11, 12 Dunnu- a-Uzibi, 7, 94, 115, See
Bronze Age, 6, 10, 20, 93, 95, Giricano
114 Early Iron Age, xxii, 6, 29, 30,
Brown/Pink Ware, 33, 34, 37, 31, 32, 33, 91, 95, 96, 97, 99,
38, 86, 108, 111 100, 102, 105, 106, 109, 112,
Burnishing, 34, 35, 37, 61, 106, 113, 114, 116, 117
113 Edom, 110
Bur-Râmmani, 22 Elazig, 109
Bu i, 19 Enzite, 26
Canaan, 8 Ergani, 11
Carchemish, xxi Ernis-Evditepe, 44, 57, 64
Çattepe, 70 Erzurum, 109
Çengiler Tepe, 80 Esarhaddon, 16, 17, 26, 28
Chiefdoms, xxii, 104 Eski Koyeri Tepe, 84, 87
Çiçek Yordu, 41, 60, 79 Ethnicity, 1, 3, 14, 101, 102,
Çimentepe, 68 105, 116, 118
Cimmerians, 28 Euphrates, 19, 104, 109
City-states, xxii, 16, 106 Fafih, 14
Cizre, 9, 21 Fum, 16
Cleft grinding stones, 32 Galena, 10
Colonization, 6, 8, 11 Giricano, 7, 18, 21, 54, 57, 64,
Comparanda, 2, 37, 113 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 115
Cooking Pot, 34, 46, 49, 53, 64, Girik Tahti, 76, 81
79, 111, 112 Girnavaz, 92
Copper, 10, 11, 110 Gokçetevek, 60
Çorak Tepe, 73 Gold, 10, 11
Çoroh, 20 Gre Dimse, 7, 40, 44, 54, 64, 68,
Çubuklu, 89 75, 76, 92
Daia ni, 20 Gre Migro, 16, 61, 75, 79, 89
Damdamusa, 14, 22 Gre Virike, 83, 87
Dayy n-A r, 14, 23 Grooved Ware, 29, 32, 33, 34,
De irmentepe, 70, 71, 73, 74, 37, 54, 91, 92, 94, 95, 99,
76, 77, 89
INDEX 145
102, 106, 108, 109, 110, 111, Iron Age, xxii, 1, 2, 4, 7, 13, 17,
113, 115 29, 30, 31, 33, 37, 91, 92, 95,
Gundik Tepe, 40 96, 97, 98, 99, 101, 102, 106,
abu kia, 23, 27 108, 114, 115, 118
Hakemi Use, 44, 50, 54, 56, 57, Isalla, 24
60, 62, 63 Israel, 8
Haldi, 10 Jabal Hamrat Fidan, 110
Hamilih, 65 Jazeera, 98, 100
Hanigalbat, 15, 18, 104 Jebel Bi ri, 19
Hankedi, 57 Jordan, 9, 110
Harabe Bezikan Höyük, 71 Kakia, 23
Harda, 27 Kaleköy, 70, 75
Hattara, 75 Kalkhu, 15, 21
Hearths, 99 Kapru, 7
Hellenistic, 30, 96 Karaca Da , 24
High Mound, 29, 30, 31, 96, 100 Ka j ri, 5, 18, 19, 22
imua, 20 Katmu i, 19
Hinsor, 62 Kavu an Höyük, 55, 56, 57, 58,
Hirbemerdon, 6, 17, 18, 26, 92, 60, 62, 63
97, 98, 105, 107, 116, 117, Kazanci, 55, 60
See Hirbemerdon Tepe Kazlarbogalzi Tepe, 65
Hirbemerdon Tepe, xxi, xxii, Kenan Tepe, 41, 44, 47, 53, 55,
xxiii, xxiv, 1, 7, 25, 29, 33, 57, 60, 61, 76
96, 97, 98, 101, 114 Kharabeh Shattani, 66
Holkan Hirbesi, 57 Khirbet Qasrij, 71, 74, 75, 76,
Hulvenk, 57 81, 86, 87
Hurrians, 14, 15, 16, 21 , 80
Hu-Te up, 16 Kindari/Dardari, 20
Ihtadi-lipu u, 24 Kinship, 3, 102, 103, 104, 116,
Ik-Te up, 16 117
Ilânu, 22 Kirini, 20
lak, 6
Illi-iddina, 92 Kopekli, 56, 60
Imgur-Enlil, 12, See Tell Bal w t Korucutepe, 45, 50, 51, 53, 55,
miku a i, 55, 57, 90 56, 57, 60, 62, 64
indigenous communities, xxi, Kulibarzini, 20
100 Kullimeri, 16, 17, 25, 28, See
Indo-European, 109 Gre Migro
Iran, 24, 108 Kur, 11
Iron, 10, 11, 26, 110
Kurban Höyük, 42, 44, 48, 53, Mitanni, 16, 18, 104, 106, 108
76, 89 Mu a, 25
Kurkh stele, 11, 16, 21 Mu a ir, 10
Lake Van, 19, 23 Mushki, 109
Lands of Nairi, 19, 20, 21, 23, Nairi, 13, 15, 18, 19, 20, 21, 23,
103 24, 27, 94, 102, 104, 106,
Late Bronze, 92 109, 116, 118
Late Bronze Age, xxii, 31, 92, Nara, 18
96, 114, 115 Naru, 18
Late Iron Age, 33, 100, 113, 114 Nazabia, 20
Lchashen-Metsamor, 57, 60 Near East, 9, 10
Lead, 10, 11 Neo-Assyrian, xxii, 3, 5, 6, 14,
Lebanon, 8 16, 17, 29, 30, 32, 33, 35, 93,
Letters, 9, 10, 16, 17, 27, See 94, 95, 99, 106, 108, 113,
Assyrian texts 114, 117
Levant, 8, 106 Neo-Babylonians, 28
Lidar Höyük, 38, 42, 43, 44, 47, Ni ani, 19
48, 50, 57, 61, 62, 63, 64, 69, Nihiria, 18, 25
71, 73, 75, 76, 78, 83, 85, 111 Nihra, 18
Limu-official, 92 Nimrud, 15
Lingua franca, 9 Nineveh, 69, 75
Liphur Bel, 9 Ninurta, 14, 15
Liphur-Bel, 27 Nirdun, 23
Madani, 19 Nomads, 99, 110, 112
Malatya, 109 Nor untepe, 39, 44, 48, 49, 54,
Mannaeans, 28 55, 56, 57, 60, 61, 62, 64, 111
Mardin, 5 Outer Town, 30, 32
M t ti, 19 Paiteri, 20
Medes, 28 Palace Ware, 114
Medieval, 30, 31 Palestine, 8
Menua, 24 Palu, 24
Mesopotamia, 5, 19, 21, 22, 93, Paphi, 19
109, 118 Pastoral nomadism, xxii, 98
, 81 Pastoral nomads, 97, 98
Middle Assyrian, 5, 6, 15, 21, Pastoralism, 6, 98
91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 104, 108, Pastoralists, 98
114 Persian Empire, 9
Middle Bronze Age, 31, 96, 101 Pilakinni/Piladarni, 20
Middle Iron Age, 33, 100, 109, Pit-house, 99
113, 114
INDEX 147
Plain Ware, 33, 35, 37, 52, 65, Source of the Tigris, 11, 12, 20,
105, 108, 113, 117 21, 24, 105, See Birkleyn
Pornak, 14, See Sinabu South-eastern Anatolia, xxi, 3,
Portable hearth, 99 9, 11, 18, 97
Provincialization, 6, 22 South-eastern Turkey, xxi, 5, 29,
Purulumzi, 19 96
Qalat ergat, 75 Step-Trench AC, 29, 31, 96, 98
Qasrij Cliff, 68, 69, 75 ubarû, 17
Qumme, 24 Subnat, 21
Red Brown Wash Ware, 101 ubria, 11, 15, 16, 18, 23, 25, 26,
Rum Tepesi, 60 27, 28, 103, 117
Rusa, 26 Sugunia, 23
a-A ur-dubbu, 27 Sultantepe, 69, 71
ama , 28 Surb-Pogos, 25
am i-Adad V, 14 ururia, 20
Sarduri I, 14, 23 Survey, xxi, xxii, xxiii, 2, 6, 93,
Sarduri II, 25 97, 110, 116
Sargon II, 10, 16, 27, 100 Syria, 9, 24, 26, 98, 100
Sari Köy, 60 Talava Tepe, 38, 53, 55, 56, 60
arr ni, 19 Tannur, 31, 32
Scythians, 28 Ta kesen, Çengiler Tepe, 53
Sea of Nairi, 19, 23, See Lake Taurus, 5, 11, 16, 24, 98, 109
Van Tell Abu Dhahir, 69
Seh Gubba, 69 Tell Bal w t, 12
S ni, 20, 103 Tell Barri, 79, 100
Sennacherib, 10, 17, 27 Tell Beydar, 76, 77, 86
Shalmaneser I, 14, 15, 22, 94 Tell Billa, 13
Shalmaneser III, 12, 14, 15, 23 Tell Ermen, 14
Shalmaneser IV, 25 Tell Es-Sweyhat, 69, 70, 72
Shamshi-Adad V, 24 Tell Hamoukar, 68, 77, 83, 87
Siirt, 11, 25 Tell Jurn Kabir, 42
Silope Höyük, 68 Tell Keisan, 71
Silvan, 25 Tell Sabi Abyad, 93
Silver, 10, 11 Tell Shiukh Fawqani, 51, 69, 71,
Sinabu, 14, 15, 21, 22, 26 72, 77, 80, 81, 86, 88
inibirni, 20 Terpuzi, 19
Slip, 34, 35, 37, 81 Tidu, 22
Smoothing, 37 T du, 14, 16, 21, 26
Sogutlu, 65 Tiglath-pileser I, 11, 19, 24, 103
Tiglath-Pileser III, 8, 25
Tigranocerta/Tigranakert, 25 Upper Tigris, xxi, 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8,

Tigris, 1, 2, 5, 9, 13, 15, 16, 21, 10, 11, 15, 17, 19, 20, 21, 23,
22, 25, 26, 27, 29, 91, 93, 94, 24, 26, 27, 28, 32, 91, 92, 93,
98, 102, 106, 115 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100,
Tigris tunnel, 11, See Birkleyn 102, 104, 106, 108, 114, 116,
Tille Höyük, 45, 57, 60, 61, 62, 117, 118
64, 96 Up mu, 16, 17, 28
Tournette, 113 Ur(u)atri, 18, See Uruatri
Transcaucasia, 108, 109, 118 Urartians, 13, 14, 16, 21, 24
Tuali, 20 Urartu, 10, 17, 18, 19, 20, 22,
Tukulti-Ninurta I, 19 23, 24, 26, 27, 28, 106
Tukulti-Ninurta II, 14, 21, 100 Urmia, 20, 109
Tumme, 20 Uruatri, 19, 20, 21, 22
Tunube, 20 Urumu, 23
r ‘Abd n, 5, 19, 20 Uzula, 20
Turkey, xxi, xxiii, 5, 29, 96 Van, 5, 25, 27, 62, 109, See Lake
Turtanu, 14, 23 Van
Tu han, 6, 8, 9, 14, 15, 17, 22, Wadi Fidan, 110
26, 27, 28, 98 Wasa atta, 15
Tushhum, 15, See Tu han Wa ukanni, 15, 16
Tu pa, 23, 26, 55, 56, 57, 62 Yankale Höyük, 69, 75
Ubana tarasu, 12 Yazlica, 49
Uçtepe, 14, 16, 17, 18, 21, 69, Yonjalu, 20
92, 93, 114 Zagros, 11
Ugina, 20 Zamânu, 13
U yük, 83 Zeviya Tivilki, 113
Uiram, 20 Ziyaret Tepe, 6, 9, 15, 17, 18,
Ulluba, 24, 26 21, 30, 40, 50, 54, 55, 56, 57,
Unzamuni, 20 58, 60, 62, 67, 71, 76, 77, 81,
Upper Sea, 19, 20, See Lake 82, 92, 98, 100, 114
Van
FIGURES
150
FACING AN EMPIRE
Figure 1. North Mesopotamia and the Upper Tigris region during the Neo-Assyrian Period (after Parpola and Porter 2001)
FIGURES 151
Figure 2. The Upper Tigris valley topography showing the settlement increase from the Early Iron Age (top) to
the Neo-Assyrian period (bottom). (after Parker 2002)
Figure 3. The Assyrian-indigenous network relationship in the Upper Tigris region and the associated material
culture proportions. (after Matney 2010)
Figure 4. Log drivers on the Tigris ca. 700 B.C.. (after Parker 2002)
FIGURES 153
Figure 5. Main copper, silver (top) and iron (bottom) deposits around the Upper Tigris region.
154
FACING AN EMPIRE
Figure 6. Shalmaneser III (left) and Tiglath-pileser I (right) ‘Source of the Tigris’ reliefs (after Schachner 2009)
FIGURES
Figure 7. Detail from the Balawat gates of Shalmaneser III at the ‘Source of the Tigris’ (after Schachner 2009)
155
Figure 8. Nairi lands between the 12th and the 11th century B.C. (after Salvini 1967)
Figure 9. Urartu during the middle 8th century B.C. (after Piotrovskij 1966)
FIGURES 157
Figure 10. The Neo-Assyrian Empire boundaries in three of its main phases
Figure 11. Topography of the site and of the survey area (after Ur and Hammer 2009)
Figure 12. Topographic map of Hirbemerdon Tepe highlighting the excavated areas and the squares
investigated by the means of magnetic survey.
FIGURES 159
Figure 13. Early Iron Age (sub-phase IVA) structures from Area A in the High Mound
Figure 14. Early Iron Age (sub-phase IVA) structures from Step Trench AC (Area A) in the High Mound
FIGURES 161
Figure 15. Early Iron Age structures (sub-phase IVA) in Area A and Step-trench AC in the High Mound
Figure 16. The Early Iron Age ‘bakery’ (sub-phase IVA) from Area D in the High Mound
FIGURES 163
Figure 17. Neo-Assyrian (sub-phase IVB) structures from Area B in the Outer Town
Figure 18. A cist grave from Area A in the High

Mound. Viewed from north. Top: The remains of the head and trunk of a young woman. Bottom: The grave's
goods; bronze earring and pin (left), necklace beads of various materials (right).
FIGURES 165
Figure 19. Early Iron Age vessels (sub-phase IVA) found in situ in the ‘bakery’ from Area D in the High
Mound. Grooved hemispherical handmade bowl (top); Brown/Pink Ware handmade jug (bottom)
Figure 20. Neo-Assyrian objects (sub-phase IVB) found in situ in Area B in the Outer Town.
Fragment of a corrugated basalt bowl (top); two basalt cleft grinding stones (bottom)
FIGURES 167
Figure 21. Brown/Pink Ware sherds of the Early Iron Age period (sub-phase IVA) from Area A
in the High mound. Pink hue bowl sherds (top); brown hue painted jar (bottom)
Figure 22. Sherds examples from the Early Iron Age period (sub-phase IVA). Brown/Pink Ware spouted jar
(top) and Grooved Ware sherds (bottom) with applied decorations from Area D in the High Mound
FIGURES 169
Figure 23. Grooved Ware sherds examples of the Early Iron Age period (sub-phase IVA) from Area A
in the High Mound
Figure 24. Plain Ware sherd examples of the Neo-Assyrian period (sub-phase IVB) from Area A
in the High Mound (top) and Area B in the Outer Town (bottom)
FIGURES 171
Figure 25. Plain Ware bowl sherds (top) and a Palace Ware fragment (bottom) of the Neo-Assyrian period (sub-
phase IVB) from area A in the High Mound
Figure 26. Iron blade of the Neo-Assyrian period (sub-phase IVB) from area A in the High Mound
Figure 27. Early Iron Age and Neo-Assyrian pottery of the same level from Zeviya Tivilki (after Ökse et al.
2010 B)
FIGURES 173
Figure. 28. Architectural contexts of Middle Assyrian phase (Late Bronze Age) in the Upper Tigris region.
A: map of the structures of Trench 1 at Giricano ; B: map of the structures of Trench 6 at Giricano (after
Schachner 2002) C: section of the step-trench (MA structures at bottom) at Uçtepe (after Köro lu 1998); D:
photo of the structures of Operation E at Ziyaret Tepe (after Matney et al. 2003)
Figure 29. Pottery examples of Middle Assyrian phase (Late Bronze Age) from the upper Tigris region.
A: pottery from the Giricano assemblage (after Schachner 2002); B: pottery from the Uçtepe assemblage (after
Köro lu 1998); C: pottery from the Ziyaret Tepe assemblage (after Matney et al. 2003)
FIGURES 175
Figure 30. Top: Reconstruction of a simple Middle-Assyrian domestic structure at Kavu an Höyük;
Bottom: Simple structure found in the Upper Tigris region (South-eastern Turkey) today (after Kozbe 2008)
Figure 31. The Kurkh stele. Erected by Shalmaneser III in 853 BCE. British Museum, London (BM 118884)
FIGURES 177
Figure 32. Grooved Ware: 1-2 (p. 55), 7-10 (p. 58); Brown/Pink Ware: 3-6 (pp. 40-41)
Figure 33. Grooved Ware: 11-20 (pp. 58-59)

FIGURES 179
Figure 34. Grooved Ware: 21-27 (pp. 59-60), 28-30 (p. 56)
Figure 35. Brown/Pink Ware: 31-33 (p. 38), 36, 37-39 (p. 41) ; Plain Ware 34-35 (p. 66), 40-41 (pp. 66-67)
FIGURES 181
Figure 36. Plain Ware: 42 (p. 66), 46 (p. 65); Brown/Pink Ware: 43-45, 47-48 (pp. 38-39); Grooved Ware: 49-52
(pp. 54-55)
Figure 37. Brown/Pink Ware: 53-55 (p. 39-40); Plain Ware: 56-60 (p. 71-72), 61-67 (pp. 72-73)
FIGURES 183
Figure 38. Plain Ware: 68-71 (pp. 73); 72, 74, 76 (p. 74), 77-78 (pp. 67-68); Brown/Pink Ware: 73, 75 (p. 44),
79-81 (pp. 43-44)
Figure 39. Plain Ware: 82-86 (pp. 74-75), 87-92 (pp. 68-69); Brown/Pink Ware: 93-95 (p. 42)
FIGURES 185
Figure 40. Plain Ware: 96 (pp. 70-71), 97, 98 (p. 71), 99-109 (pp. 69-70); Brown/Pink Ware: 110-112 (pp. 42-43,
cf. also p. 67)
Figure 41. Brown/Pink Ware: 113-116 (pp. 42-43), 121-123 (p. 44); Plain Ware: 117-120 (p. 75); Grooved Ware:
124-126 (pp. 57-58)
FIGURES 187
Figure 42. Grooved Ware: 127-131 (pp. 56-57); Brown/Pink Ware: 132-134 (pp. 46-47); Plain Ware: 135-137
(pp. 75-76), 138-140 (pp. 76-77)
Figure 43. Plain Ware: 141-143 (p. 77), 144-147 (pp. 77-78), 150-153 (p. 82); Brown/Pink Ware: 148 (p. 45), 149
(p. 49)
FIGURES 189
Figure 44. Plain Ware: 154-157 (p. 82), 158-160 (p. 80), 161-165 (p. 83)
Figure 45. Plain Ware: 166-168 (pp. 83-84), 169-172 (pp. 80-81), 173-175 (p. 81), 176-178 (p. 80)
FIGURES 191
Figure 46. Brown/Pink Ware: 179-181 (p. 47); Plain Ware: 182-184 (p. 84), 185-187 (pp. 84-85), 188-191 (p. 79)
Figure 47. Plain Ware: 192-193 (p. 79); Brown/Pink Ware: 194-196, 198, 199 (p. 48), 197 (pp. 48-49), 200 (p.
46), 201 (p. 78), 202 (pp. 45-46), 204 (p. 48); Grooved Ware: 203 (pp. 63-64)
FIGURES 193
Figure 48. Grooved Ware: 205 (pp. 63-64), 206-211 (pp. 61-62), 212-215 (p. 61), 216-221 (pp. 62-63)
Figure 49. Brown/Pink Ware: 222, 223, 225 (p. 52, cf also p. 86 for n. 223), 233 (p. 51); Plain Ware: 223-226 (pp.
86-87), 228-230 (p. 88), 231, 232, 234 (p. 85), 235-238 (p. 86), 239-243 (pp. 87-88)
FIGURES 195
Figure 50. Brown/Pink Ware: 244-246 (pp. 50-51), 247-251 (pp. 49-50), 252-253 (pp. 53-54, cf. also p. 64)
Figure 51. Plain Ware: 254-256, 258, 259, 261 (pp. 88-89); Grooved Ware: 257 (pp. 64-65); Brown/Pink Ware:
260 (p. 53), 262-265 (pp. 52-53); Other: 267 (pp. 89-90)

Facing An Empire

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Facing An Empire

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

For Francesca

Table of Contents .................................................................................. vii

Grooved Ware (GRW) ..............................................54

Figure 3. The Assyrian-indigenous network relationship in the Upper Ti-

Figure 6. Shalmaneser III (left) and Tiglath-pileser I (right) ‘Source of the

vini 1967) ..........................................................................................................159

Figure 10. The Neo-Assyrian Empire boundaries in three of its main

Figure 12. Topographic map of Hirbemerdon Tepe highlighting the exca-

Figure 17. Neo-Assyrian (sub-phase IVB) structures from Area B in the

Figure 20. Neo-Assyrian objects (sub-phase IVB) found in situ in Area B

Figure 28. Architectural contexts of Middle Assyrian phase (Late Bronze

Figure 30. Reconstruction of a simple Middle-Assyrian domestic structure

Figure 33. Grooved Ware: 11-20 (pp. 58-59) .............................................181

48 (pp. 38-39); Grooved Ware: 49-52 (pp. 54-55) .....................................184

Table 1. Distribution of the three Iron Age wares at Hirbemerdon Tepe

Table 4. Scheme of the pottery dynamics of interaction and influence be-

Connecting archaeological data with historical sources is usually a

region (i.e., Tushan, modern Ziyaret Tepe). Moreover, the end of

The book intends to briefly analyze these local cultures, in

l’Africa e l’Oriente (IsIAO), Grand Valley State University

Subjects dealt within the study

features and other material culture elements, considering the struc-

Objectives of the study

lish or better explain, where possible, by which means and in which

Structure of the study

1 Due to the importance of these aspects it is necessary to better

Section one concerns the multiple aspects of the ecology in-

The landscape tenure and historical information concerning the

1.1. THE ENVIRONMENTAL CONTEXT: GEOGRAPHY,

1.1.1. Assyrian Landscape in the Upper Tigris

vey activities in the region surrounding Hirbemerdon within a 5

pressive expanse of 32 hectares (Parker 2001: 210). Considering the

3 The tablets found inside a ceramic vessel at Giricano, dating

gued, the Assyrian forts and strongholds had further employments.

1.1.2. Colonizing the Resources

4 This coercive practice had the corollary of spreading the

6 As a matter of fact, copper, silver, iron, lead and, in smaller

quantities, gold, where significantly extracted during the period

half a mina of silver (i.e, 5,060 kg) in objects and an impressive

1.1.3. Symbolic Landscape

BCE) and Shalmaneser III (858–824 BCE) carved their images

8 Harman ah (2007: 180)

period, almost as if there was some kind of agreement or religious

1.2. POLITICAL AND HISTORICAL BOUNDARIES

1.2.1. Major Cities and Kingdoms of the Upper Tigris Valley

of the Neo-Assyrian Period this kingdom managed to always main-

9 Or ‘field marshal’. The highest official after the king.

town of Kurkh (Kessler 1980: 117-121), the location where the

11 Cf. pp. 8-9

cially in ubria, which benefited by a considerable and rare status of

1.2.2. Nairi: the Upper Tigris and the Neighboring Regions’

verse in the purposes and dynamics of interaction as for the sub-

12 This particular pattern of connectivity will be objective of a

future study of mine.

The first mention of the ‘lands of Nairi’ denomination (Assyr-

region) to the land of Urartu’ (Grayson 1991: text A.0.101.2 line

annals of Adad-nirari III (810-783 BCE), in which he tells us about

he lists the toponyms of the places he had conquered. ‘Zamani’ is

2.1. SETTLEMENT AND ARCHITECTURAL CONTEXTS

2.1.1. Chronology and Sector Division

The Early Iron Age Period, (sub-phase IV-A) ca. 1150/1050-

The Iron Age archaeological contexts of the site can be divided