The archaeology of northern Mesopotamia:

the Hassuna-Samarra period

Item Type text; Thesis-Reproduction (electronic)

Authors Thompson, Barry Edward, 1945-

Publisher The University of Arizona.

Rights Copyright © is held by the author. Digital access to this material

is made possible by the University Libraries, University of Arizona.
Further transmission, reproduction or presentation (such as
public display or performance) of protected items is prohibited
except with permission of the author.

Download date 21/09/2022 09:48:12

Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/318239

iTHE ARCHAEOLOGY OF NORTHERN'MESOPOTAMIA;

THE HASSUNA-SAMARRA PERIOD

Barry Edward Thompson

A Thesis Submitted to the Faculty of the

DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY

In Partial Fulfillment of the Requirement$

For Degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

In the Graduate -College

THE UNIVERSITY OF ARIZONA

19 6 9
 STATEMENT BY AUTHOR

This thesis has been submitted in partial fulfillment of

requirements for an advanced degree at The University of Arizona
and is deposited in the University Library to be made available to
borrowers under rules of the Library,

Brief quotations from this thesis are allowable without

special permission,provided that accurate acknowledgment of source
is made, Requests for permission for extended quotation from or
reproduction of this manuscript in whole or in part may be granted
by the head of the major department or the Dean of the Graduate
College when in his judgment the proposed use of the material is
in the interests of scholarship. In all other instances, however,
permission must be obtained from the author.

SIGNED : ,

APPROVAL BY THESIS DIRECTOR

This thesis has been approved on the date shown below:

J. JELINEK Date
Professor of Anthropology
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

I desire to express my gratitude to my parents for their

support and encouragement,,'which enabled 'the necessary research

and completion of this thesis, I also wish to express my

appreciation to Professor Arthur J e Jeliaek for his helpful

comments and suggestions.

 TABLE.OF CONTENTS

Page

LIST OF TABLES . . •. . . . ■, * C 0 *. 0. © 0 0 85 © © viii

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS .» . • 0 <

9. * © © © *- * A a ix

ABSTRACO? c e Q o c c c o c e « * © © ° * A •» ® X

INTRODUCTION , , . . , * , . « © * ©. * e © > a 1

Northern Mesopotamia @ ®" 0 © © © c c 0 e © © a 2

Geographical Features & « © © © © © © 0 A '© a 3
Clxniate c ^ » c- » » a 0 s © 6 A h © © o & 10
Flora c- c & t> © & & & o o 0 9 o s © © © © 0 © e © ■© 14
5 au zxa e *> © © © e © © .<> <e e © 0 © © e 0 e © 18
Communications.and Trade © * a , © © 9 e a. 19
Previous Research « © © :® ®. © • © < S 8 A « 29

EASSUNA-SAMARRA PERIOD © © © ° <6 © • © © © .* 34

Tell Hassuna © © © © © r. . A e 0 0 6 34
Nineveh © © © © ® © •© © ®’ e •© ©
© © « 0 p © • 52
Tell Arpachiyah e. « © © © © © © ©
6 » © © s .O 53
Matarrah © © © © » © ■ * © © e © © ©
© s A 0 © 56
Tell ShemshEra © * © * , © o © c 0
& 0 © 0 © © 64
Sites in Northwestern Iraq © © © e
© © © © o 0 71
Umm edh-Dhiab © © ♦ ..* © © © © © 0 © * © 0 © „ ?4
Telul eth-Thalathat © » C 0 © 0 «
0 0 @ a & 0 8 74
Tape Gawra © © © * © © © © ©. 0 c e © S 6 6 0 0 « 77
Tell al-Khan $ » © , * , © 0 © c e © 6 © & a 8 79
Gird All Agha © © » © » <5 0 © © e o © c © © 9 © e e 80
The Erbil Area © © © c © © e © © s 0 e « A e © © a « 81
Gird Banahilk © ®. « © « « ® 0 © © © © © © A © •a 8; 81
Other Sites in Northeast Iraq © © © © 0 © o 0 83
The Makhmur Plain © © © © © © © o © » . e © a 84
The Kirkuk Area « © ©. © 0 s e Cr 0 '© e © » 85
larmo # » « » © © © © © © e e © © 9 0 a 86
Samarra « © © © © © © * © s © e 0 0 » o A 0 95
Tell es-”Saw wan , , , » * © © © c © 0 » 6 9 © a 97
Biyala Sites » » © © © © o © 0 © © A 9 » e •e 10?

iv
 V

TABLE OF CONTENTS— Continued

- Page

Mandali Sites @10?

BQ.gll0U!S 9 0 . * € 0 * 0 4 6 6 6 0 0 0 4 0 0 6 0 f)XXX
T oXL Bl?c^lC . e> <• <£> o o o o e o e e 5 e o c » » a » c c XX6
C l'iaga.x'* BcISjSiz* & © © © © © © © © & » © « © © ■ © © © © X X * 7

Te .L-L TTalajL « »© © ©@ © X2.0

© © © © ©© ©© © © © ©©
Other Khabur Sites * « * **
, . * » 122 ,, * * * **
Tell Chu&ra © © © © © © » ©©
» © © © X2J^ ©<> ©.© © ©©
*Balx^h Sx ue s © « © © © * ©©
©©-©■©. 12jS ©© © © © ©©
Bouc^ras © ©© » © © .« © » ©©
© ©© © 125 . ©.© © © © ©©
E X ^ K O W J B © c © © e © V © © © © © © a e ' o © © s © o 12S
Tell I^iure^foxt ©© » © © © ©© ©© © © © ©© © ©© © X2fp?
The <Tabbul Plaxn © © © » © © © © © © ©.© « © ©$ © 128
Xe 11 Ah mar » ©© © © © © ©© »© © © © ©© © ©© o 128
Yunnus-Carehemish © © © * © © . © © * © © © © © © $ 129
Toll Turlu e © © © © 129 a © © o e © » s o © © g o d ©

Adx^ania.n © © » « © © © © ©© » © < > © © © © © » © © 1^0

Mala c^ra*3’Els.,isx © © © © © « © © © » © © © © © & © © 130
I)x va.rX)alc.xr © « © © © © © « © © © © © © © < & . © ■ © © ■© 131
Southeast Turkey-TiIkitepe , * © . . , ** © .* © 131

TEE HASSUNA-SAMARRA'PERIOD:CORRELATIONS WITH OTHER

RECIOXJS e » e » c e c o e t> e « o » g o b e c e » © 0 © 13

Southern Mesopotamia 133

Erxdu © © ©» © © © © «© ©© # .© © ©© © ©© .© 133
Has al ^Amxya © © '© » ©© ©© © © © ©© © ©© .© 138
Iran ©. » ©© © © © © © © *© ©© » © © ©© © &© # 1^^
Khuzxstan « © © © © . © © ^ © © © © © © » o © * ©

Central Zagros .. , * » * * * e * © *a * *$ * 147

Central Plateau-Tepe Sialk » e « * *«, * *© © 148
Northwest Iran 149
Armenia and the Antifcaurus © © © © © © © © s © © 6 IgO.
Syro*31CxXxcxa ©© © » © © © «© © © © «© © ©© © 13x &

The. Cilician Plain © © © © » © © » © © © © © © 134

S3.kc0 G ojsu "., © a © © r © © © © © © © © » © © e » 198
The Amuq c t © © © © © ^ © © • © © © © © © & © © © ItS1
Northwest Syria * © © , © a * . , » * * © * * © 169
Byblos and Palestine 16?
Central and Western Anatolia © » © © © ©© © ©© © 168
.The Aegean © ©© © © © © ©© ©© © © © ©© © «© © 1(59
Connections with Other .Regions * © * * * -» © ,* *. 170
 vi

TABLE OF CONTENTS--Continued

Page

4. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS i 171

Previous and Cur'rd'At Interpretations 171

The Hassuna-Samarra Assemblage-. . . . . . . . . $ e 183
Problems of Furture Research . . . . . . . . . . . .199

APPENDIX A; THE DISTRIBUTION OF HAS S U M AND

SAMARRAN POTTERY . . . . . . . . . . . . . 201

Partial List of Sites with Reported Occurrences

of. Archaic or Standard Hassuna Pottery . . . . „ 202
Partial List of Sites with Reported Occurrences
of Samarran Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 204

APPENDIX B: THE DISTRIBUTION OF HALAF POTTERY . . . . . 206

Partial List of Sites with Reported Occurrences

of Halaf Pottery . . . . . . . . . . . „ . . * . 207

APPENDIX C: REPORTED OCCURRENCES OF HASSUNA,

SAMARRA, AND HALAF WARES . ... . ... . 210

Partial List of Sites with Reported Occurrences

of Hassuna, Samarra, and Halaf Wares in
Northern Mesopotamia and Neighboring Regions . « 211

APPENDIX D: MATARRAH CERAMICS, SHERD COUNTS . . . . . . 215

Matarrah Pottery, Operation IX, Sherd Count . . . . 216

Matarrah Pottery, Operation ¥1, Sherd Count .. . « 217
Matarrah- Pottery, Operation- TT-i, Sherd Count . .. . 218

APPENDIX E: AMUQ, POTTERY PHASES A-E . . . . . . . . . 219

APPENDIX F: RADIOCARBON DATES . . . . . .. . . . .. . . 220

Jarmo Radiocarbon Dates . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 221

Radiocarbon Dates, Northern Mesopotamia . . . . . . 222
Radiocarbon Dates, Northern Mesopotamia and
Syrp—O3LI1LC3.S .. . . .0 . . . . . . . . . .. ... 22^>
Radiocarbon Dates, Western Iran . . . . . . . . . . 224
 vii

TABLE OF. CONTENTS— Continued

Page

Radiocarbon Dates» Anatolia . , , » < > . , , < » < , » 225

APPENDIX G: CONVERSIONS . . .. . . e . . . . » . „ » . 226

LIST OF REFERENCES * * . „ » „ .» „ » , „ , . . „ « 22?

 LIST OF TABLES

Table Page

I, Tell Hassuna, Sherd Count, Sounding 1 , e « » c » , . 39

II« Tell Hassuna Pottery, Relative Percentages of

Wares, Sounding 1 e i , , . 40

IIIe Tell Hassuna, Sounding 2, Sherd Count

IV. Tell Hassuna, Selected Cultural Inventory

I^eve1s I T * 1 ,, , , , , , , , , , , , , , . 4?

V. Ma tar rah Pottery, Sherd Count . 58

VI. Matarrah, Selected Cultural Inventory i » 61

VII. Tell Shemsh&ra Pottery . 66

VIII. Tell Shemshara, Selected Cultural Inventory , , . . e 69

IX. Banahilk, Selected.Cultural Inventory e 82

X. Tell es-Sawwah, Selected Cultural Inventory« . . . . 102

XI. Relative Chronology, Southern Mesopotamia . . . . . e 135

XII. Relative Chronology, Iran « 144

XIII. Relative Chronology of Northern Mesopotamia

a n o. the Amu c[ . , « ... . . , . . . . . . ... « 153

XIV. Relative Chronology of Northern Mesopotamia,

Amuo, and Anat ol%a . . ■. . . . . . . . , .. . . > 155

XV. The Relative Chronology of Northern Mesopotamia,! . . 187

XVI. The Relative Chronology of Northern Mesopotamia,II . 188

viii
 LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure - . Page

1 ti .Northern^Mesopotamia and the Near East *. * « , e 4

2. Northern Mesopotamia:The Geographic Setting . . * • © 6

CommUnieations Routes . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . 20

k. Obsidian and Copper Sources . • 25

Northern Mesopotamia;The Hassuna-Samarra Period e • • 35

66 Northern Mesopotamia:Halaf Sites . . . . . . . • e 6 ' 36

7* Southern Mesopotamia and Iran . . . . . . . . . . • 6 154

8* Approximate Correlation of Tepe Gawra and Eridu • • 141

9. Syr o^CI li czla . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . * • e ' 152

10. Hassuna-Samarra Sites . . . . . . . . . . . . . c 184

11. Halaf Sxtes . . .« . © © » . . . . ... . » © . < ° 185

12. Near Eastern Chronology * . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 . 193

ix
 ■ ' ABSTRACT

The prehistoric sequence of cultural development in

'Northern 'Mesopotamia, during the sixth and early fifth millennia

B.C 6 was characterised by the increasing sophistication of the

village farming community. The Hassuna-Samarra assemblage

was centered in Worth Iraq, which is perhaps the best known area,

archaeologically during this time range, Samarran Ware is

.interpreted as having developed within the Hassuna ceramic

tradition and it is the distinctive ceramic ware of the'Hassuna-

Samarra Period,

During the Hassuna-Samarra Period,some villages appear

to have been experimenting with irrigation, but most of the

villages were confined to the present area of rainfall farming.

Evidence of an extensive obsidian trade and the presence of

copper in pre-Hassuna-Samarra levels is an indication of the

degree of contact and level of development. The Hassuna-Samarra

Period was part of a continuum from the Hassuna through Halaf

and Ubaid Periods to the beginnings of urbanism in Mesopotamia,

Unfortunately many of the mechanisms involved in the change to

urbanism remain obscure. The significance of the Hassuna-Samarra

assemblage in this continuum will require more excavations and

resultant rethinking of the prehistoric sequence,.

:
 CHAPTER 1

INTRODUCTION

Understanding the nature and interpretation of the Hassuna-

Samarra assemblage is the principal conern of this s t u d y T h e time

range involved- spans approximately five hundred years from the

mid-sixth to the beginning of the fifth millennium B.C, The problems

involved include the construction of an adequate description of the

assemblage and a concept of its interrelationship with contemporary

..assemblages .in space and time, based on the evidence, available»

A survey of the present body of literature, indicates.that

for all of Northern Mesopotamia approximately fifty sites are

reported for the time range under consideration. Less than a third

of these sites are recorded in stratigraphic context and .only four

sites have fairly extensive exposures of occupational floors. In

neighboring regions, about twenty-five sites are known with related

cultural materials., a n d :of these less than a dozen are well enough

documented for comparison purposes. Considering the limited scope of

reliable data and the differrences in the quality of reporting,

the challenge of reaching both specific and general conclusions

about the prehistoric sequence can be appreciated,

1
 Northern Mesopotamia

Mesopotamia, "the land between the rivers" of the Greeks

and al-Jazirah, "the island" of the Arabs is generally defined

as the region between the Tigris and Euphrates Rivers. Mesopotamia

is a somewhat ambiguous term with varying.interpretations. For

convenience, modern■Iraq is often made the equivalent of Meso­

potamia (Porada 1965 )♦ In its larger sense, Greater Mesopotamia

[includes all of the drainage of the two rivers from the Persian

Gulf to the Taurus and Zagros Mountains. In this sense the area

north of Baghdad to the mountains is considered North Mesopotamia

and the alluvial lands . to the south, South Mesopotamia. Histor­

ically these two subdivisions have been known by many names,

notably Babylonia for the' southern portion, consisting of Akkad

and Sumer, and Mesopotamia for the northern portion, including

Assyria and Mitanni. Mesopotamia may also refer to just the

northern portion exclusive of Assyria, the upper Tigris region of

northern Iraq. Studies of the Aramaic meaning of Mesopotamia

indicate that it may have included only the lands within the Great

Bend of the Euphrates, bounded by the Balikh or Khabur Rivers to

the east (Finkelstein 1962). It is obvious that the limits of

Mesopotamia have been expanded or contracted according to the

concepts, of both ancient and modern scholars.

For the purpose of this study, Northern Mesopotamia is

6
defined as the region between the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers,
including the foothills of"the Taurus and Zagros Mountains

(see Fig. 1). It is as a geographical entity.that Northern

Mesopotamia is considered in this study. The political and

cultural boundaries of Northern Mesopotamia have flucuated

through time and cannot be prescisely determined except through

our imperfect knowledge of the distribution of sites with related

cultural materials;or literary references. The boundaries■of"

Northern' Mesopotamia as a geographical unit are very evident

fin the south, where an irregular line of cliffs, between Hit on

the' Euphrates and Samarra on the Tigris, "separates the desert

plateau of the north from the alluvial plain of the south. The

Euphrates Valley forms the western boundary of the region. To

the north •the •boundary ■is, less obvious as the foothills merge

with the major mountain chains. The uplands surrounding Diyarbakir

mark the northern limits of Mesopotamia-. To the east, Northern

Mesopotamia is bounded by the major ridges of the Zagros Mountains

Most of Northern Mesopotamia is open country of undulating plains

broken by lines of foothills in the north and east*

Geographical Features

'Physiographically, Northern Mesopotamia, has been .divided

into several sub-regions based on topography and environment*

Basically, Northern Mesopotamia•consists of four physiographic

EQ'nes, the ■mountains, the. foothills, the plains , and the desert

plateau. Unifying these zones are the Euphrates and Tigris river
 Black Se'/

Lake Van
j Aeges0^ Anatolian
Plateau Sea
I Sea *
Cilicia Azerbaijan
NORTHERN

MESOPO' Media
Iranian
Syrian
Mediterranean Sea Plateau
Desert Kuhha-Ye

Palestine Zagros

Su/iana

100 200 rersian

Miles
:ed 0 100 200 Gul

Kilometers

Figure 1. Northern Mesopotamia and the Near East.

 5

systems (see Fig. 2).

The mountain.;, zone is composed of the eastern ranges of

the Taurus Mountains of eastern Turkey, and the Zagros Mountains

of southeastern Turkey,northeastern Iraq, and western Iran. The

Taurus reach crestlines■of 8,000 to 10,000 feet above sea level

and form a rugged barrier .along the northwestern and northern

frontiers of Northern Mesopotamia. The Zagros Mountains are a

series of anticlines or immense folded and often parallel ridges

usually running.from northwest to southeast. Zagros crestlines

average 8,000 feet above sea level with several peaks well over

12,000 feet above sea level south of Lake Van and along the

Iraqi-Iranian border.

The foothills zone also known as the "hilly flanks of the

Fertile Crescent," is a region of abrupt limestone ridges and

intermbntane valleys (Braidwood and Howe i 960 ). The foothills

range in elevation up to about 3,000 feet above sea level and

extend in a belt varying from twenty to seventy miles wide between

the high mountains and the plains. Volcanic Karaca Dag, over

6,200 feet above sea level and its associated lava fields, combines

with the lower ranging Mazi Mountains near Mardin to partially set

apart the Diyarbakir area from the rest of Northern Mesopotamia.

Descriptions of the foothills zone have varied, being considered

as a unit with the mountains (Wright 1955) or with the upper

plains (Guest 1966 ), This reflects the overlapping nature of any

 Lake van
Lakxa Urmia
" - ' x
T A U R U S 1 R A N
f Diyarbakir
\ /
I^A^Karaca^Dag Tigris
IRiver
^-^•Samsat Mazi Calo^Daga^

5
^ I t£ell Ahmar
Ma^5in
/ f

Grcav Zao
River
Z A G R O S

) '
Jabal Abdel Jabal Sinjar
/Balikh Irbil
Aziz
\ Jabbul ^ RlVer Qar/--
\Khabur ChawT Little Zab
| Plain
V River Wadi ath
Zenobia
Tharthan Z , . . . ^ iver
I -• ^ Jabal Makh;/L

r
Fa th a ,G or gbv-
\
Euphrates River
TlSri= S l r V V , , ^ , f ' d-Dfyala
( .
o. % 5,0 7? 10.0
Samarra
V Adhei 'v i iz&y *T
Khanaqin
Miles v.crr
0 25 50 75 100
a ^ ^ MandSli
Kilometers j

Figure 2, Northern Mesopotamia:The Geographic Setting

system of physiographic regions devised for Northern. Mesopo­

tamia ,

The third zone is the plains or piedmont, an area of

rolling grasslands about twenty to forty miles wide between the

foothills and the desert plateau. This zone is within the area of

adequate annual precipitation, approximately eight.to .ten inches

or more, necessary for dry farming. The plains are broken in

several places by isolated mountain peaks and rifges. Host

impressive of these are the Jabal Abdel Aziz, in northeast Syria,

and the Jabal Sinjar, in northwest Iraq, rising to 3,000 and

4,800 feet above sea level respectively. The Jabal Qara Chawq

between the Great and Little Zab Rivers separates the Makhmur

Plain from the upper plains near Irbil to the northeast. The

Jabal Makhul and the more extensive Jabal Hamrin are spectacularly

divided by the Tigris River at Fatha Gorge and together, they mark

the division between the plains and the desert plateau to the

southwest,

The desert plateau zone of Northern Mesopotamia is an

extension of the Syrian Desert dissected by the. Euphrates-and

Tigris Rivers, The portion of the desert plateau south of the

Jabal Sinjar and between the Euphrates and Tigris is a downward

warped area, also known as the lower Jazirah, A system of

internal drainage prevails characterized by dry salt lakes or

sabkhats, seasonal wadis, and cliff formations. The Wadi ath

Tharthar, over one hundred miles long, drains the region

immediately south of the Jabal Sinjar and follows a course

parallel to and about thirty miles west of the Tigris River.

The Wadi ath Tharthar terminates in the basin of the intermittent

Lake Tharthar, located just north of the alluvial plain of

Southern Mesopotamia.

The Euphrates River originates in the highlands, of

eastern Turkey. Flowing through deep gorges the Euphrates

emerges in the foothill zone of Northern Mesopotamia at Samsat.

Throughout most of-Northern Mesopotamia, the Euphrates meanders

through a steep walled valley below the surrounding plateau. The

Euphrates flood plain varies from two to-four miles in width but

broadens in places such as Tall Ahmar, the ancient Til Barsip..

Along the nine hundred mile course of the Euphrates through

Northern Mesopotamia, the valley narrows at points as in the

volcanic area north of ancient Zenobia. The Middle Euphrates •

Valley is also characterized by several recent and abandoned oxbow

lakes. The tributaries of the Euphrates include the Sajur River,

on the right bank south of Carchemish, and numerous seasonal wadis

along the right bank,draining, the desert plateau to the south.

The Balikh and the Khabur are the two main tributaries on the left

bank of the Euphrates. The khabur River is the most important with

an extensive and fanlike network of lesser tributaries draining the

foothills of Northern Mesopotamia. '

 The Tigris River emerges from Lake Hazar in the Taurus

Mountains of eastern Turkey and then flows southeastward,

gathering tributaries,and passing through several impressive

canyons before reaching the vast flood plains of Southern

Mesopotamia below Samarra. The major Northern Mesopotamian

tributaries of the Tigris include the Great Zab, Little Zab,

Adheim, and Diyala all on the left bank* T h e f l o w of both the

Tigris and Euphrates is at its lowest point in the months of

■
September and October, Usually the Euphrates floods reach maximum

in May, while the Tigris reaches maximum flood stage in April, due

to the earlier snow melt in the southern Zagros Mountains.

In Southern Mesopotamia the Tigris and Euphrates combine

to form the Shatt al Arab which empties into the Persian Gulf. It

is currently thought that the two rivers are filling a subsidence

basin rather than adding to a growing delta (Lees and Falcon 1952)«

The courses of the Tigris and Euphrates have changed several times

in the historic period as they cross the alluvial plains of

Southern Mesopotamia. The floods of the Tigris are more unpredictable

than.those of the Euphrates due to the number and spacing of major

tributaries emerging from the Zagros Mountains*

The Euphrates and Tigris are enclosed in entrenched valleys.

along most of their courses through Northern Mesopotamia. Therefore,

it seems likely that the present natural drainage systems and

channels of the Euphrates and Tigris-closely approximate their

 10

location during the sixth and fifth millenniums B cC e However,

the effects of both ancient and modern irrigation projects and

a number of local climatic conditions should not be ignored in

considering the relationship of prehistoric sites to river

systemso.

A knowledge of the geographical.features of northern

Mesopotamia is important to an understanding of the prehistory

of the region. The role of geographical features in relation to

trade and communication routes, regionsl and local climatic

conditions and in relation to the distribution of cultures

during the Ha.ssuna-Samarra Period will be noted in this study.

The geographical setting of Northern Mesopotamia (see Fig. 2) is

that of a broad basin,, surrounded by the peaks of the Taurus and

Zagros Mountain Ranges , which slopes down toward the Persian

Gulf. An aerial photograph of the entire Euphrates-Tigris drainage

basin would best illustrate the vast sweep of country described

in this study.

Climate • • . '

The climate of most of Northern Mesopotamia is of the

semi-arid type, in which the transitional seasons are relatively

short while-the summers are long, hot and dry, and the winters
 11

are brief and cool. In the upper plains, foothills and mountains .

the winters are longer and colder, extending from December to

March or April. ..The summers are correspondingly shorter and

milder in the highlands. The recorded temperature extremes at

Mosul on-the Assyrian Plains in North Iraq, range from 12-124 F.

(•Guest 1966).

The, winds are usually northwest throughout the year in

most of Northern Mesopotamia. From May on a low pressure zone is

over the Persian Gulf and the shamal or dry northwestern winds

are drawn in, causing sandstorms on the desert plateau. Rainfall

is the.heaviest during the winter months of January and February,,

when cool, damp southeasterly winds, the shark! accompany

depressions passing eastward across Northern Mesopotamia from the

Mediterranean Sea. The shark! are often associated with dust storms,

high winds and rain. Thunderstorms are frequent in March and April

(Cressey I960; Guest 1966).

Rainfall varies over Northern Mesopotamia but permits an

arc of successful rainfall farming, the "Fertile Crescent," which

extends from southeast of the Assyrian Plains, across the Upper

Khabur and Balikh Valleys, to and beyond the Euphrates River. This

zone receives an average of ten or more inches of rainfall a year.

Annual rainfall averages for the various physiographic zones of

Northern Mesopotamia fiucuate and range from over forty inches

for the high mountains, twenty to thirty inches for the foothills,

ten to twenty inches for the plains, to less than ten inches for
 12

the desert plateau„

, Evidence of climatic conditions during the sixth and

fifth millenniums B>C„ have to be largely drawn by indirect .

means from .limited studies of earlier and later time periods.

Pollen studies are one of the main means employed in climatic

ireeonstruction. Changes in the macro and micro fauna are not

yet clear enough to indicate much more than a climate generally

similar to the present one.' Detailed consideration of the faunal

remains of the Hassuna-Samarra and Halaf assemblages are included

in the description of each site in the following chapters of this

study. The basic problem with both faunal and pollen studies is

that they may be reflecting only local conditions and the.small

number of sites with such data compounds the problem.

In the mountains of Western Iran, pollen studies from

Lake Zeribar and' Lake Mirabad (Wright 1968) seem to indicate an

increasing percentage of oak pollen between 8,000 and 5,500

years ago. By 5*500 years ago. oak pollen reaches the present high

values for an oak woodland type of vegetatipn. According to

H.E'. Wright ’s sequence the sixth" and fifth millenniums B.C. was

a time of dak pistachio savanna vegetation (Van Zeist and Wright

1965;Wright 1968). Wright interprets the pollen sequences as

-showing a gradual warming trend beginning 11,000 years ago and

continuing until 5*500 years ago.'This climatic change is in part

responsible for the change from a cool dry steppe into an oak
 13

pistachio savanna and finally into an oak woodland around

.3500 BcCe! based; on-one radiocarbon date of 3510-120 B.C. (Y-934)

from the base of Zone C 9 the oak woodland zone at Lake Zeribar

(Van Zeist and Wright 1963 *67)0

The pollen sequence from Lake Mirabad in southwestern

Iran may indicate that the Mesopotamian piedmont before 14*000

years ago was a treeless cool steppes If this is true it might

mean that as at Lake Zeribar and Lake Mirabad, an oak-pistachio

savanna developed on the plains replacing the steppe between .

11.000 and 5 9500 years ago. Two processes may have been in operation,

the expansion of the savanna including numerous wild grasses and

-man 1s utilization of wild cereals,eventually leading to intensive

cultivation which in combination with natural factors reduced the

plains to a near treeless steppe*that exits today. The application

of the Western Iranian pollen sequences to the foothills and plains

of Northern Mesopotamia is highly speculative and should be

considered with caution until comparable data is available for

Northern.Mesopotamia* Preliminary information from Tell Mureybit, „

along the Euphrates in Syria,.indicates the. presence of wild einkorn

wheat which may. mean the continuence of cooler conditions until

7000 BtC* (Van Loon 1968)0 This is typical of the nature of climatic

information presently available for Northern Mesopotamia*

In contrast to Wright Ss ideas of a climatic change about

11.000 years ago, are the conclusions of Charles Reed and Robert
 14

Braidwood (Braidwood and Howe i 960 ) who earlier pointed out that

there was as yet no certain evidence of a markedly different

climate in the foothills region of Northern Mesopotamia from the

present, climatic situation. Excepting colder average temperatures

their 'opinion seems, to hold true for the time range under consider­

ation in this paper» However, more palynological studies and faunal

data are desperately needed to clarify the climatic-sequence for

the sixth millennium B.C. The climatic processes involved in the end

of the last glaci-al period are not sufficiently to fully interpret

the scattered segments of information currently available,

Flora .

•The vegetation of Northern Mesopotamia varies from desert

through steppe to mountain-forest in type, dependent upon a number* of

variables which include.altitude, precipitation, and man's.use of the

land, As Guest (1966 ) notes in duscussing the boundary between desert

and steppe, the occasional and exceptional may be as important as the

ayerage, several dry years, a violent hailstorm or a sharp frost may

alter an areas vegetation.

The steppe and mountain forest regions are the most important

in considering the prehistoric sequence, E.Guest (1966) follows

Gillett in dividing* the steppe into moist and dry vegetation zones.

The dry steppe ranges in altitude from J>00 to 1,200 feet above sea

level and in annual rainfall from eight to fourteen inches which

makes the dry steppe a marginal region for winter crop, dry

farming,. The soils of the dry steppe are mostly sierozem except some
 15

reddish-brown soils in its northern portions*

The moist step'pe is the area of major prehistoric

occupation based on the visible density of tells. This steppe

region receives an annual rainfall of fourteen to twenty inches

and ranges in altitude from 750 to 2 ,00G- feet -above sea level *

The soils of the moist steppe are primarily brown with some

reddish-brown and lithosols* The moist steppe is a region of

successful dry farming of winter crops»

The mountain-forest vegetation zone is divided into, two

sub-zones, the forest and thorn cushion zones* The forest zone

is of principal concern to this study and ranges from 1,600 to

6 9000 feet above sea level and from over twenty to over /fifty inches

of rain a year» The upper limits of the oak forest.apparently

is between 6,000 (Guest 1966) and 6 9500 feet (Wright 1968) above

sea levele The soils of the forest zone are mostly mountain soils

with some brown and chestnut soils (Guest 1966)» The forest zone

is mostly composed of oak woodlands with some isolated pine stands

at higher altitudes» Riverine forests of the plains and foothills

areas were extensive under favorable, conditions and':important .-in

prehistoric times as convenient sources of fuel and lumber» ■

‘ Evidence of degraded vegetation zones are common in Northern

Mesopotamia * Large sections of the foothills probably represent

degraded oak forest areas now reduced to steppe conditions * There

is also evidence of degraded dry steppe regions in the lower

 16

Jazirah (Quest 1966)„ The natural vegetational climax of the

moist steppe is thought to be an open savanna with small trees

such as pistachio and numerous shrubs and bushes. Remnants of

this -savanna exist on the Jabal Sinjar, the Jabal Qara Chawq

and in other isolated areas as low as 1,300 feet above sea level.,

Sheep over grazing and intensive farming activity over several

millennia are possible explanations of the change from savanna.'

to a treeless steppe (Guest 1966:82). An additional, study of the

degradation of woodlands, based on cuneiform sources shows that

a considerable amount of woodland survived in less accessible

mountain areas as late as 1250-550 B.C. (Rowton 196.7).

The grasses of the steppe and the lower mountain areas are

particularly important-in•the development of the village farming

communities which had taken place in Northern Mesopotamia by the

sixth millennium B.C. Studies of the present distribution of

wild grasses later domesticated, include.wild barley, Hordeum sp.,

•reported all along the fringes of the Zagros and Taurus Mountains.

Wild einkorn wheat, Triticum boeoticum, is found in the Taurus

Mountains' of Southeastern Turkey and in the Zagros Mountains. Wild

emmer wheat, Triticum dicoccoides., is found throughout the Taurus

and Zagros Mountains..All three grasses occur along the foothills

of Northern Mesopotamia with barley ranging lower down, on the plains

(Harlan and Zohary 1966 ). Harlan and Zoharys study (1966) of these

wild grasses concluded that barley could have been domesticated

 ■ - 17-

anywhere along the "Fertile Crescent," while emmer wheat was

probably domesticated in the Jordan watershed and einkorn in

Southeastern Turkey. It should be noted that all these findings

are based on the assumption that the-climate has- not changed

greatly in the last 10,000 years. It should also be mentioned

that if an open pistachio savanna existed in moist steppe areas

of Northern Mesopotamia, wild stands of einkorn wheat and barley

would most likely be part of this vegetation. The Jabal Sinjar

has wild einkorn, emmer,'and.barley (Wright 1968:336).

Considering Wright1s idea of a climatic change, the

’distributions of wild grasses .before 11,000 years ago are altered

by depressing their-zones. Barley may have been found in' lower

altitudes in what is now dry steppe and desert..Wild emmermay or

may not have occurred in the Zagros and wild einkorn may-havebeen,

common in the foothills and plains -region (Wright 1968:338). If

this is true it may partially explain why some of the, early village

sites are found in a wide number of environments.

Wild flax, Linum bienne, is an important noncereal plant

found naturally distributed in the ffoothiils region (Helbae.k in

Braidwood and Howe i 960). Flax in its domesticated form is used for

its fibers and linseed oil. Natural distributions of fruit tress

such as pistachios, figs, almonds, and walnuts are noteworthy.

Our conception of the.natural flora .of Northern Mesopotamia

during the sixth and fifth millenniums B.C. is not complete but a
 18

flora similar to the present except for the likely pnesence of

an open pistachio savanna on the plains and an oak-pistachio

woodlands in the foothills.

Fauna

The natural fauna of Northern Mesopotamia may be divided

'into three major faunal regions. : the desert, the- plains and '

foothills, and the mountains. Major mammals of the desert fauna

include the onager, gazelle, cheetah, and wolf. Robert Hatt (1959)

also notes that the oryx may have been part of the desert fauna

until overhunted in the early twentieth century A .D . The mammals

of the plains and foothills region include gazelle, wolf, fox, hare ,

hyena, jackal, cat, and wild boar. Now extinct but once present

mammals include the onager, lion, and wild ox. Bos taurus primagenius.

Less certainly present in the natural fauna were the elephant and

giraffe which may have existed' in savanna areas (Hatt 1959:22}.

Onagers were abundant on the plains until the early twentieth

century A.D. In prehistoric times wild oxen may or may not have

been present on the plains in addition to woodland areas. There is

limited evidence of the presence of bison in areas fringing, the

forested hills (Hatt 1959)• Major mammals of the mountain fauna

include roe deer, gazelle, wild boar, wild sheep, wild goat,.leopard,

wolf, and the Syrian Brown Bear. Fallow deer were also present until

the early twentieth century A.D. The red stag may have also been

present but is now extinct,

 19

During the sixth and fifth millenniums B.C. onagers

gazelles, deer, and some wild oxen were present in Northern

Mesopotamia. A discussion of the domestic animals of this time

period is included in the description "of each archaeological

assemblage. Prehistoric utilization of riverine resources such

as the. Tigris Barbel or carp is not fully known at present.' Land

snails such as Helix salamo.nica were very possibly consumed

during this time range (Harris 1961). Other features of. the fauna

include malarial mosquitos and locusts. Locusts have been quite

destructive of agricultural.crops especially in dry years (Watson

1931).

C ommuni cat ions -and Trade

An outline of the major lines of communication is basic

to the understanding of the interrelationships of prehistoric

communities, The exact route of the trails is -usually dictated

by the topographical features, the degree of safety, and t h e .

available water supply. Historically there are several main lines

of access and it seems highly probable that they or portions of

them were utilized during the sixth and fifth millenniums B.C.

In Northern Mesopotamia there are three main corridors of

internal communication : the plains or piedmont, and the valleys

of the Euphrates and Tigris Rivers. Across the plains of the

"Fertile Crescent," a number of possible routes could have been

 'v^Elazig Nemrut Dag* yLake Xro^

Malatva A x*rz* *

f/
if
k„
x
cf\ uhnd^a
1

^ ‘Samsat
Zeu^md ,%
Nisd.bin \ ) Khabur^cRiv:e*r

h , y.
Aleppo,/' ^
* v!ro^ieskene«. Khibur River - • v'^— \ / > „
"' }jjiLit tle^ao^Hxver

Euphrates River""'
1
/ Hatra ^>- ' %
'
' h.

Tigris River
j!
' *V
%f
y
/ ^Sulaymaniyffh

V
Kipxui
( / \
m O-
" s'x'-,.
Ealab ja>

f
|

; Palmyra It AdhcM, ZlBidfaaqia

I 0 25 50 75 100 ■* ^ VBaghouz
~ x lev ' .
% RiveA f f
Vgemarr^ \ i,*
I Miles
V1 1 - ^ ySiyqla
"V- f • ___
|

I
0 25 50 75 100

Kilometers
Elt ^
lif
V**«/ Mandall
^ ----

/ N

Figure 5. Communication Routes rv

o
 21

used depending on local economic, social, political, or

climatic conditions. Talcing modern Aleppo and Mosul as terminals

possible routes may be outlined (see Fig.. 3). One such route,

follows the course of the old Berlin-Baghdad Railroad, passing

from Aleppo via Carchemish, Harran, R a ’s al Ayn, Nisibin to Mosul

Another route leaves Aleppo and follows the Euphrates Valley.to

the mouth of the Khabur River, turning north up the Khabur and

finally crossing below the Jabal Sinjar before reaching the Tigri

Valley and Mosul(D,Oates 1968).

Routes leading to the northwest include the valleys of

the Euphrates and Tigris and the route of the ancient Royal Road:

of the Persians. The Royal Road, extends north from Mosul via the

Jabal Sin jar, Ra's al Ayn, Harran, Ur fa., .and then across the

Euphrates at either Samsat or Zeugma,contintuing beyond through

the Taurus Mountains. . .

Both the Tigris and Euphrates Valleys were common links

between north and south. Trails along the valley plain and the

plateau above were utilized (Musil 1927), In regard to river

transport, inflated skins and rafts may have been used during the

sixth and fifth millenniums B.C. but certain evidence of this is

lacking. The Euphrates is navigable below Carchemish while the

Tigris is more difficult to navigate north of Baghdad." However,

rafts may have.been used on both rivers for downstream transport„

Actual evidence of sailing- craft during the sixth and fifth

 . . 22

millenniums B.C. is extremely doubtful at present (Barnett 1958).

In addition to the Tigris itself, routes to Baghdad from Mosul

include, the plateau west of the river and along the piedmont via

Irbil, Kirkuk., and either the Adheim or Diyala Rivers south to

Baghdad.

External communication links with neighboring regions are

frequent along the frontiers .of Northern Mesopotamia. In the west,

routes may leave the Euphrates Valley at several points such as the

mouth of the Khabur River and the prehistoric sites of Baghouz. These

routes then pass across the upper Syrian Desert to the vincinity of

Palmyra where they may branch either west or south, toward Horns

and the Mediterranean or toward Damascus and Palestine. Other

western routes begin at Aleppo near the Jabbul Plain, and lead

westward via the Amuq to the Mediterranean Sea ..or Cilicia ,by passing '

through the Syrian Gates in the Amannus Mountains. Routes leading

southwest from Aleppo may connect with the Oront.es Valley and the

sea coast or southern sites such as Hama and Byblos. From Carchemish

a route runs west through the mountains to Sakce Gozu and then on

to the Cilician Plain, Following the Euphrates River northward, a

number of difficult trails head north and west across the Taurus'

Mountains to highland Anatolia.

Various mountain trails lead northeast from the Tigris River

and i t s 'tributaries to the vincinity of Lake Van. To the east at

least five major routes are available : the Raiat Pass east of

Rowanduz,, the.gorge of the-Little Zab River, the Halabja Pass south

 23

of Sulaimaniya-, the Khanaqln Pass, northeast of Khanaqi.n, and

the piedmont zone along the Southern Zagros (Roux 1Q66;Dyson

1965)« All of these routes give access to the Zagros Mountains

of Western Iran.

The major impetus behind the lines of communication

was probably commerce by the mid-sixth millennium B.C. Village-

farming communities were widespread over the entire Near East

1and extended west into Southeast Europe and east across the

Iranian Plateau, This trade most likely consisted of the barter

and exchange of materials .such.as obsidian, copper, turquoise,

and shells over long distances. Recently our knowledge of the

obsidian trade has been expanded ( Gann and Renfrew 1964 ),

illustrating the complexity and scale of early communication

networks in the Near East. The studies of Renfrew, Dixon and

Gann (1966) have located several sources of Armenian and Anatolian

obsidian and connected them by spec.tographic analysis of obsidian

with prehistoric sites,

A peralkaline , usually green obsidian from the Nemrut

Da^f area west of Lake Van is found at a number of sites of the

seventh and early sixth millennium B.C. This Armenian obsidian is

found in the Zagros area at Ali Kosh, Tepe Guran, Tepe Sarab,

Jarmo, Tell Shemshara and by the mid-sixth millennium B.C. it

occurs at Matarrah. In the west Bouqras, Ramad, and Beidha show,

the. extent of the Lake. Van obsidian trade. Cappadocian obsidian

 24

is restricted to Anatolia and the Levant during .this early .

time periods (see Fig* 4)

Studies of the fifth millennium B.C. show that the

obsidian trade remained widespread* Armenian obsidian from two

sources, Nemrut Da% and Bayezid is found at several sites

including Byblo.s, Chagar Bazar, and Tell Arpachiyah* The obsidian

tested from Chagar Bazar and Tell Arpachiyah is all placed' in

association with the Halaf or Ubaid Periods« Cappadocian obsidian

declines somewhat in distribution but is still found in the south

at the sites of Herein, Pas Shamra, and Byblos* Obsidian in

Northern Mesopotamia is also found in sixth and fifth millennium

B.C. context at the sites of Tell-al-Khan, Banahilk, Hassuna,

Tell es-Sawwan, and others» This obsidian is probably of Armenian

•origin but their exact sources have not yet been determined*

The obsidian trade demonstrates the early development of

contacts between Northern Mesopotamia with the Lake Van area,

the Mediterranean.coast, inland Syria and Palestine, and western

Iran. Obsidian from Central Anatolia does not appear to have-

penetrated Northern Mesopotamia, The obsidian trade continued to

flourish during the Ubaid Period. The mechanisms of this trade

are important and may have involved a systematic exchange system

"from one group to another. Traders and specialists in this trade

were quite likely employed in this exchange. Obsidian being in

popular demand for tools, luxury items, and some weapons by the
 25

/r
^ <n%afi t •»i- < v j n i t -rr-irr tinr i— tt — rr-rmir im n r f r T » ~r r r r e m

ANATOLI/if,7
Vr 7 x _

ARMEX
Kars
• Erevan.,

Bayezid
Caspian
AciRQl
N em
Ciftlik
Copper
^rtal1 Huyuk
Huyu Co^p.
J, Mado©,
Kercif'^y * ShemshSra
Cyprus nA. * Jarmo
Ras Shamra
Copper
Tigris >/ *
Mediterranean tarrah
•Byblos Si a Ik

Euphrates Riven

V -
Egypt

Persia
0 50 100 Gulf
w i » 1$*w -'t»rA.JrajOKp^.atxSAjg

Miles
0 50 100

Kilometers

tt*ei*WeB3»3M»aKWV

Figure 4. Obsidian and Copper Sources.

Obsidian Sources Underlined.

farmers and pastoral!sts, of Northern Mesopotamia„ The large

quantities of obsidian found at Jarmo and Tell Shemshara illustrate

the large scale nature of the trade. Jean P'errot has suggested that

wandering pastoralists played a role in the transmission of obsidian

(Perrot in Braidwood and Willey 1962:157). Renfrew,Dixon and Gann

(1969:327) have set up obsidian supply and contact zones, based

Oil utilization and the percentage of obsidian of the total chipped

stone industry present at a site; eighty percent or more being a

supply zone site. Tell Shemsh&ra falls on the periphery of a supply

zone. They (Renfrew,Dixon,and Capn 1969:330) suggest an obsidian

distribution from village to village along the Zagros and Levantine

The use of the sea as a means of communication has been

suggested for areas along the Levantine coast, linking Mersin,

Ras Shamra, Byblos. and Cyprus (Renfrew,Dixon, and Gann 1 96641969).

The obsidian found at Khirokltia and Troulli on Cyprus suggest

sea contacts between Cyprus and the Near East at least by the fifth

millennium B.C. Four obsidian chips from the aceramic levels of

Khirokitia have been analyzed and all belong to Group 2b from the

£iftlik source in Cappadocia (Renfrew,Dixon and Cann 1969:322,325).

Early Neolithic finds of Melian obsidian in the Aegean area from

Thessaly to Crete also support the possibility of early sea contacts.

The earliest representation of a sailing ship in Northern Mesopotamia

may be shown on a stone vessel from Coba Huyuk dated to the Halaf
 27

Period (Barnett 1958;Taylor erfc al« 1950:119,Fig» 29, No. 7).

However direct evidence is lacking for sailing during this period.

The possibility of wheeled vehicles during the Halaf Period

has been suggested based on the insecure evidence of a representation

of what may be a chariot on an Halaf bowl from Tell Arpachiyah (Saggs

1966:12; Childe 1952:P1. XIX), Wheeled transport appears to have

developed over a wide area of the Near East, especially in Trans­

caucasia (Piggott 1968 ,1969). The earliest accepted evidence of

wheeled vehicles and onager domestication is from the Uruk Period

of Mesopotamia about 3000 B.C. (Piggott 1969:274), It should be

noted, that onager remains have been found in Hassuna-Samarra and

Halaf contexts but their domestic status is not clear. The limited
i . '
use of wheeled transport by the mid-fifth millennium B.C. should not

be ignored as a possibility.

Trade in copper was probably well developed by the fifth

millennium B.C. Major copper sources' are located in southeastern

Turkey at Maden and copper and malachite were utilized at nearby

payonu in the seventh millennium B.C. Other copper sources occur in

Azerbaijan in northwest Iran, and near Sialk at Anarak-Nachlak in

central Iran (Flannery 1965 ). The occurrence of popper at Tell es-

Sawwan (El-Wailly 1966 ),Chagar Bazar,Tell Arpachiyah,Mersin,gatal

Huyuk,Suberde, and Sialk shows our present knowledge of the early

use of copper (Wertime 1964), The hammering and annealing of native

copper was certainly well developed by Halafian times, James Mellaart

 . . 2B.

has (1967:32) suggested that Halaf sites in the Malatya and Kaden­

ar eas may have been trading stations for copper and other natural

resources*

- In addition to copper,semi-precious stones were traded in

Northern Mesopotamia, an example being turquoise from Western Iran.

During the Late Ubaid Period a complex network for the trade of

turquoise, amethyst, agate, jadeite,beryl,and lapis lazuli existed,

between the Iranian Plateau and Northern Mesopotamia (Herrmann 1968 ),

IA. limited trade in .such stones as carnelian and turquoise certainly

was in operation by the mid-sixth millennium B.C. as indicated by

their presence at sites of the period.

Certain villages near important natural resources as obsidian

and copper may have been connected in a loose trading network to

control-the distribution of the material to other communities. Sialk

in connection with copper and Tilkitepe with obsidian may be examples

of this situation. _ ,

' Early trading contacts with distant regions such as Melut^a,

probably southeastern Iran, and Makkan, the gulf coast of southern

Iran (Mallowan 1965 ) or with Bahrain and Oman seem unlikely for

the Hassuna-Samarra and Halaf Periods. While such contacts may have

begun by the fifth millennium B.C.,the supporting evidence is so far

lacking. -

Trade during the sixth and fifth millennia B.C. was quite

possibly much more extensive than can now be reasonably projected.

 29

Exchange in timber and luxury ceramics quite possibly was

extensive by H&laf times. Further discussion of trade within

Northern Mesopotamia is reserved until after the sites involved

have been described.

Previous Research

Archaeological activity in Northern Mesopotamia has been

conducted for about three-quarters of a century with some early

interest and exploration well over a century ago. The prehistory of

the sixth and early fifth millennia B.C. was almost completely

neglected until the last quarter century. Discoveries of Hassuna-

Samarra and Halaf materials have been secondary, incidental efforts

to a major concern with either historic levels or the fvery earliest!

levels and settlements.

Samar ra ,Sakce Go%u, Halaf and Carchernish are four important,

sites excavated in the twentieth century,A.D .^ which revealed •

evidence of the Hassuna-Samarra and Halaf Periods not fully

appreciated when first discovered. In 1911, Ernst Herzfeld (1930)

excavated Islamic- houses at Samarra in Iraq, and discovered a

cemetery with graves containing Samarran Painted Pottery and some

Halaf Painted Pottery. The Samarran pottery was recognized as

important and named after the site because-of its exceptional aesthetic

qualities* John Garstang's excavations in the Sakce Gozu area of

southeast Turkey between 1908 and 1911 revealed,quantities of

Samarran and Halaf;ceramics but their significance and identification

 30

could not be completely realized (Taylor _et al„ 1950 ).

Work on the Berlin-Baghdad Railroad led to the German

discovery of Tell Halaf near Rais al Ayn in 1899* Between 1911

and 1913 and again in 1929 Baron Max Von Oppenheim and Felix

Langenegger.excavated the site with emphasis on Iron Age levels.

They did recognize the importance of a polychrome pottery from the

lower Painted Pottery Level and called it "N-l Ware," now known

as Halaf Painted Pottery (Oppenhwim 1933).. The British expedition

to Carchemish on the west bank of the Euphrates led to the

discovery in 1913 of a series of kilns and painted pottery w i t h -

curious bukranium designs, now known, to be Halaf Pottery (Woolley

1934).

Following these early discoveries, the surveys and

excavations of M.E.L.Mallowan are particularly important, for the

Hassuna-Samarra and Halaf,Periods. Mallowan's contributions began

with his work in the excavations at Nineveh between 1931-32 which,

placed the Hassuna-Samarra and Halaf assemblages in stra.tigraphic

context in the basal two layers of the deep sounding. For the first

time pre-Halaf materials were recognized stratigraphically below the

Halaf. In general outline, the Nineveh sequence of the lower layers'

was found to contain mostly incised wares in Level I called

"Ninevite I Ware," Samarra Ware in Level 2B and Halaf Ware in Level

2G.
 ' 31 '

In 1933 1 Mallowan excavated the small site of Tell

Arpachiyah, four miles from Nineveh. This new site revealed the

richest assemblage of the Halaf Period so far excavated (Mallowan

and Roze 1935)* Mallowan's considerable achievements were expanded'

by his Khabur Ruver survey and excavations at Chagar Bazar between

193^ and 1936 (Mq1Iowan 1936;1937a). Halaf and Samarra levels were

excavated at Chagar Bazar and found to be comparable to Arpachiyah..

In 1938 , Mallowan directed a survey of the Balikh Valley and made

soundings at two sites with Hassuna-Samarra and Halaf materials

(Mallowan 1946). Mallowan1s later work at Tell Brak in northeastern

Syria was primarily concerned with historic levels and is of limited

:value to this study (Mallowan 1947)*

While Mallowan was working in Northern Mesopotamia,other

excavations were also encountering Hassuna-Samarra and Halaf

materials. Halaf ceramics■were found in the basal levels of the

French excavations at Tell Ahmar, the ancient Til Barsip,conducted

between 1929 and 1931 (Mallowan 1937b), The 1932-38 University of

Pennsylvania Expedition to Tepe Gawra reached Halafian materials

at the base of its operations (Tobler 1950). The excavations at

Tilkitepe near Lake Van (Reilly 1940) are important to the study of

the distribution of Halaf ceramics. The excavations of Count du

Mesnil du Buis son at Baghou.z in 1934-35 found Samar ran Pottery

(Braidwood e_fc al. 1944;Kleindienst i 960 ). Seton Lloyd’s 1938.survey

of mounds in the Sinjar District of northwest Iraq is important

for locating several Hassuna-Samarra and Halaf sites (Seton Lloyd 1938).
 52

The next stage' in the study of the. Hassuna-Samar.ra

Period is marked by Seton Lloyd and Fuad Safaris 1$4^-44

excavations at Tell Hassuna in northern Iraq, which amplified

our knowledge of the assemblage (Lloyd and Safar 1945;Loyd 1963 )*

Their excavations carried out under difficult circumstances gave

substance and definition to the Hassuna materials previously known

ast!Ninevite IJ* Despite their neglect of the Halaf levels in their

report, the information they uncovered remains the best, so far

^available until the final Tell es-Sawwan report appears,

American excavations at Matarrah in 1948 (Braidwood et a l ,

1952) added to an expanding knowledge and interest in the Hassuna-

Samarra Period in the post-war years6 The iiatarrah .excavations

were preliminary to the Iraq-Jarmo Project of 1954-55 (Braidwood and

,Howe i 960) with subsequent discoveries of Hassuna-Samarra materials

at Tell alr-Khan and of Halaf materials at Gird Banahilk, The scale

and depth of this project was ambitious and the complete descriptions

of" these sites are eagerly awaited*

The Danish surveys and excavations conducted as part of the

Dokan Dam Project between 1957 and .1959 were important for the

work at Tell Shemshara in northeast Iraq (Mor tens on 19o2), The

Samarran Pottery discovered at Shemshara and the total assemblage

may have important implications for nearby sites such as Jarmo*

During the 1960*s excavations in the Hassuna-Qamarra and

Halaf time ranges have expanded. Most notable are the excavations
 33

at Tell es-Sawwan between 1964-6? (El-Wailly ,.1965,1966):, This

site may alter previous conceptions about the Hassuna-Samarra

Period and already indicates a .much more sophisticated culture

than had been expected. A survey in the •Mandali region of Iraq has

discovered several sites relevant to the time period and excavations

are expected (Oates 1966;1968). The surveys and excavations of the

Iraq Department of Antiquities have made.invaluable contributions

to the study of the Hassuna-Samarra.Period,

The recent surge of interest in this time range should be

greatly assisted by the spectacular finds at Tell es-Sawwan and

offers promise for future investigations of the Hassuna-Samarra Period.

Our knowledge of the Mesopotamian sequence during the sixth and

fifth millennia B.C. is in a state of transition and it is hoped

that during the decade of the 1970 's our interpretations of the

Hassuna-rSamara,Halaf,Ubaid and other assemblages v/ill focus closer

to the prehistoric situation^

 CHAPTER 2

. HASSUNA-SAMARRA PERIOD.

Evidence of.the Hassuna-Samarra Period is found- widely

distributed over Northern Mesopotamia from the Mandali region of

East-Central Iraq to the Jabbul Plain, southeast of Alegio in

Syria (see Fig, 5 and:1Appendix A ) . However, the number of sites

at which the assemblage is reasonably well represented and reported

is limited to four: Tell Hassuna, Matarrah, Tell Shemshara, and

Tell es-Sawwan, Comparative stratigraphy, ceramic analysis and

radiocarbon dating indicate that the assemblage should be placed

in the middle to late sixth millennium B,C,

Tell Hassuna

Tell Hassuna (36° 6tNorth Latitude, 43*12'East Longitude)

is located about 35 kilometers south of Mosul and 7 kilometers west

of the Tigris River in north Iraq, The site is a low mound about

7 meters high, with an occupational area of about 200x 150 meters,

between the arms of two wadis. Tell Hassuna is at present a small

site situated on the edge of the cultivated region sloping down to

the Tigris to the east and bordering the desert plateau of the

Jazirah to the west. Prehistoric Hassuna probably owed its existence

to its location near .the juncture of two perennial wadis in the moist

34
 Emsor Lake Van /
Lake Urmia

T U R

Kajji Firuz
Ar;
pa<ihijah
^ IIbrah •fNinaveb
■ ' 1 Ahmed
Sheikh? Y a n m Tepe
’ V ujoiu
Hassuna
JededieirsLabbuJw!
*»*werfcy'
Makhmu.
Umm edh-Dhiab
i
Ma tarrah

Baghouz Tigris Riv^r

925 5,0 73100 (Teli ^A^yadh
Samarra
Miles Tel]/ Imnethir
Tell es-Sawwa’lH.J
9— ?3 ?0 ,75,100 Euphrates River 1 /^erik *•
Kilometers
| IChoga l^uni ^
X 1
Figure 5* Northern Mesopotamia: The Hassuna-Samarra Period. Vl
V I
 ? = Yarimca
------ . T.Ailua ^

Carchcl.rn^sh
T .Ahmar-^
xl,.ky"-htfct*^
As wad Tei^l eth-Th*alathatV
"'■%Teps^p.wra.

-\Nincj.'ah
Banahilk

# T.Shiirba
/ T.Mefesh
* T.S^baine
Hassuna
Sinjar Sites

Inuzil
* i • Kurdish Saghxir
Z
Tigris River

0 25 50 75 100
Scale of Miles Euphrates River

LiLSl^i 00
Kilometers

Figure 6 , Northern Mesopotamia : Halaf Sites.

 37 >

steppe vegetation zone where dependence upon winter rainfall

farming is possible. A humber of villages evidently existed in the

area and a much larger, neighboring mound has surface sherds of

Hassuna Pottery (Lloyd and Safar 1945:260). Attention was drawn

to Tell Hassuna by a 1942 surface collection of Ninevite I pottery,

: - - -

The site was excavated by Seton Lloyd and Fuad Safar for the Iraq

Antiquities Department in two seasons of 1943 and 1944,requiring

a total of eleven weeks.

Two soundings and a two meter wide connecting trench were

made: Sounding 1 on the southeastern flank, about 2,500 square meters

in area, and Sounding 2, a small pit on the crest of the mound, The

center of occupation at Tell Hassuna shifted from earlier Hassuna

and Hassuna-Samarra Period villages, closer to the wadi juncture, to

more extensive Halaf and Ubaid Period villages to the northwest,only

partially overlapping the earlier mound. The soundings and trench

revealed a stratigraphy of fifteen building levels down to virgin

soil. The depth od deposits above virgin soil varied from 3-6 meters

in Sounding 1 to 7 meters in Sounding 2 (Lloyd and Safar 1945:Figs.

33,3^)« The stratigraphic order of Tell Hassuna in levels numbered

from the bottom to the top of the mound may be simplified-- as

follows: la-II Hassuna Period, III-VI Hassuna Samarra Period, Vl-XI

Halaf Period, XI-XIT Ubaid'Period, X1II-XV Mixed stratigraphy

containing Assyrian, Ubaid and Halaf sherds, XV probably, was Assyrian«

The Hassuna-Samarra Period levels' (III-VI) span about 3 meters of

 38

deposits,including three clear building levels and a portion

of a fourth (Level VI).

All the ceramics of the Hassuna-Samarra levels are handmade

and consist of Coarse Wares,Hassuna Standard -Wares,Samarra Wares,

and Hassuna Archaic Wares, including burnished ceramics (see Tables

I-III)o The Coarse Wares are. straw tempered and very common in the

Hassuna Period levels but they decline in subsequent levels.. Lloyd

and Safar utilized the sherd yard method to obtain field counts of

.the sherds from each level. Unfortunately they did not include

coarse ceramics in these counts (Lloyd and Safar 1945:Fig.5). The

two distinctive Coarse Ware forms, during the Hassuna-Samarra Period

were "husking trays" and"milk jars" a s .named by Lloyd and Safar (1945

277-278 ). The husking tray (Lloyd and Safar 1945:Fig.3 :8,9,10;PI..

XVIII,1). occurred in levels II-V, and was a flat-bottomed,o v a l .

tray with a :jbitted or corrugated inner surface. As its name implies,

Lloyd and Safar (1945:278) suggest that it was.used to separate the

grain from its husks. Milk jars are lug-handled and steep-sided, oval

vessels which were common in levels III--VI (Lloyd and Safar 1945:

•Fig.3:7;Pl. XII,2).

Hassuna Standard Wares consist of incised, painted, and

painted and incised varieties and were the dominant ceramics of the

Hassuna-Samarra levels. Hassuna Standard Incised Ware is the most ,

numerous ware of levels III-VI,beginning earlier in Level lb. This

incised ware is made of buff to pink clay and has a fine sand temper,
 TABLE I

Tell Hassuna Pot tery, Sherd. Count, Sounding 1 (Lloyd and Safar 1945: Fig .5).

LEVEL SAMARRAN HASSUNA STANDARD' HASSUNA ARCHAIC TOTAL

NUMBER
Painted Painted .Painted Painted Incised Painted Burnished Coarse
OF
and and
SHERDS
Incised Incised

VI 88 3 97 . 80 276 T •544

V .' 197- .4 354 274 1395 ** 2,224

IV 129 ■ 1 723 201 1441 *** *** 2,495

III 9 3 437 21 766 40 1,276

II — ” 87 5 973 100 6 Some 1,171

Ic — 10 11 1062 106 51 Some 1,240

lb — 385 12 ' 53 Some 450

la — T ‘ - 8 Much 8

TOTALS 423 11 1708 592 6298 258 118 .

434 8,598 376 9,408

M ■
VO
 4o

TABLE II,

Tell Hassuna Pottery, Relative Percentages of Wares, Sounding 1.

Coarse Wares not included in count,Levels larlX.

(Based on Lloyd and Safar 194$:Fig,5)

LEVEL PERCENTAGE TOTAL NUMBER

OF SHERDS
SAMAHRAN HASSUNA HASSUNA
STANDARD ARCHAIC

VI 16.72 83.26 .a 544

V 9»03 90.95 ■ - 2,224

IV 5.21 94.7? ew 2,495

III 0.94 95.92 3.13 1,276

II "e 90.93 9 .O7 1,171

Ic 87.34 .12.66 1,240

lb 85.56 14.44 450

la 8 8
 41'

TABLE III

Tell Hassuna, Sounding 2, Sherd Count.

(Lloyd and Safar 194$:Fig«$)

LEVEL . UBAID HALAF ■SAMARRAN HASSUNA TOTAL NUMBER"

STANDARD OF SHERDS

XV

XIV Near Surface,Unreliable

Mixed Assyrian,Ubaid and Halaf Sherds
XIII

XII 5 . 12 ** 1?

XI 20 78. 1 3 102

X — 33 1 34

IX - 21 21

VIII -** 316 9 ■ '5 ■ 330

VII — 245 15 6 266

VI - 44 10 26 80

V Fairly equal amounts of Samarran and

Hassuna Standard
IV No data

TOTALS 25 749 36 40 850

 .■■■■■• ' . 42
and a cream slip,sometimes with pink areas from baking. Designs

are linear and drawn with a fine point. Typical vessel shapes

include globular jars and tall-sided to shallow bowls (Lloyd and

Safar 1945':Fig.3,5;Fig.4,3i7)v Hassuna Standard Painted Ware began

in Level Ic and is present in quantity in the Hassuna-Samarra

levels III-VI (Lloyd and Safar 1945:Figs. 11-12). Pink to buff clays

were used and a cream to rare green and pink slip was applied to this

ware. The paint varies from reddish-brown to almost black and was

•used in designs which included oppossed oblique lines and cross-

hatched triangles. Lloyd and Safar (1949:279) suggested that it

developed from Hassuna Archaic Painted Ware. Bowls are the most

common shape but jars do occur,two of which from Level III look like

crude imitations of Samarran jars (Lloyd and Safar 1945:Fig. 2:5-6.;

PI. XVI,1:2-3)- • '

Hassuna Standard Painted and Incised Ware appears in quantity

in Level IV, but began in Level lb in painted additions to incised

ware. This ware is a combination of Hassuna incised and painted

wares in clays, slip, and paint. Typical shapes and designs include

shallow, bowls with herringbone designs outside the rim and painted .

design's inside, and carinated,tall-sided bowls with a-painted .band,

outside and herringbone designs or triangles below it (Lloyd and

Safar- 1945:Figs. 9,13). Jars of painted and incised ware are frequent

in levels IV-VI (Lloyd and Safar 1945':Fig. 3:l-4;Fig. 14). The jar

necks are often painted with crosshatching or oppos#ed lines. One

 • ; 4$

Level V jar (Lloyd and Safar 19^5 •Fig» 3*2) has a bukranium-like

potters mark and a complete jar from Level VI. contained an infant

burial (Lloyd and Safar 19^5:Fig* 3:4;P1. XIII,2).

Samarran Ware, first appears in Level III,but these twelve

sherds may be intrusive from Level IV. Samarra Ware was found in

.Levels III-VIII, reaching a peak in Level V, One Samarra sherd

was found in Level XI and another in Level X. These, sherds, were

viewed as survivals by Lloyd and Safar (194$:Fig,3). Samarra. Ware

was handmade from buff to pink clay and was usually medium baked

but sometimes it turned greenish* A thick cream slip was applied

with a matt finish * Monochrome painted decoration was typical with

choclate, red , and brown to black colors being preferred * Vessel

shapes include bowls and jars with bowls being most common. Specific:

vessel shapes include almost all of the types described by Herzfeld

at Samarra (1930): wide bowls or plates, high-footed plates,

carinated bowls, deep bowls, krater-like jars, beakers, and low

and high collared jars. Painted and Incised Samarra Ware was

restricted to jars and was rare at Tell Hassuna \ only sixteen sherds

were found in Levels IIT-XI,

Notable examples of Samarra Painted Ware include an unusual

tall-necked jar with a painted human face on the neck found in

Level V of Sounding 2 (Lloyd and Safar 194$:Fig, 1:2;PI. XVII,2), .

Lloyd and Safar believed Samarra Ware was imported, based on a

number of factors including the earlier development of Hassuna. shapes

 44

and designs and the riveting of Samarra Ware vessels viewed as

suggestive of its higher value. Specifically, the greater variety

of Samarran shapes, the jab-like nature of Samarra incisions, and •

the superior firing,temper,and thicker slip of Samarra Ware all

distinguish it from Hassuna Wares (Lloyd and Safar- 1945:282). In

addition Samarran designs, are noticably more carefully executed.

Samarra jar necks are decorated with groups of diagonal lines and

bowls with parallel lines at the rim. Samarra Designs were often

combinations of geometric and naturalistic patterns such as the

t •
horned animals on the interior of a bowl from Level IV (Lloyd and

Safar 194$:Fig., 1:4), While some of the Samarra'Ware may have been

imported, it may also have been developed and made at Tell Hassuna

(Dabbagh.1965)*

Hassuna Archaic Painted Ware was present in Level III but

not above it* Archaic Painted Ware was the earliest painted ware

at Tell Hassuna,first appearing in Level lb. It was handmade from,

buff* pink or brown clays and a cream slip was applied. Monochrome

painting,, predominantly red in color was utilized in decorating

bowls and jars. Glossy surfaces, were obtained by combinations of

matt and lustrous paints on burnished surfaces. Painted designs .

consisted of chevron patterns below bowl rims and solid or hatched

triangles on jar necks (Lloyd and Safar 1945:Pig, 8 :13-J>2;Fig,9:10-1?

278-279).

Burnished ware was also present in Hassuna Period Levels

la."11* but declines after Level II, Two burnished bowls of the
 45

'Has.suna-Samarra Period are noteworthy. One from Level IV, is a

gray burnished bowl matching similar bowl sherds from. Sakce

Gozu (Lloyd and Safar 194$:P1, XIV,1:11). The other is from Level

V and. is a carinated,black burnished bowl also similar to Sakce

Gozu bowls (Lloyd and Smfar 1945:278,PI. XIV,1:9),

Level VI is situated near the surface in Sounding 1 and in

addition to Samarra and Hassuna Wares, eight Halaf sherds were

found. In Sounding 2, Halaf sherds outnumber (see Table III)

Samarran, so apparently on ceramic grounds Level VI is transitional

between the Hassuna-Samarra and Halaf Periods at Tell Hassuna 8

The architecture of the Hassuna-Samarra Period consisted of

rectangular multi-roomed houses of tauf wall construction* The

rooms of the houses characteristically hrouped about a courtyard.

Other features of the houses included buttresses ,benches ovens ,

hearths, and sunken grain bins * Level III included one complete

house and couhtyard (Lloyd and Safar 1945:Fig« 30). A pivot stone

or door-socket was found in the doorway of one room in Level III»

Level IV (Lloyd and Safar 1945:Fig* 51) had the best preserved

walls, about 45 centimeters thick and portions of two houses were

excavated in this level. Fuad Safar noted that the arrangement of

rooms in one house suggested that low pitched roofs of mud and

branches may have been used (1945:274). The floors of several rooms

were paved with a mixture of clay and straw. A short water channel

was also present in Level IV.

 - 46 ',

The architecture of Level V (Lloyd and Safar 1945:Fig,32)

consisted of two houses divided by a common wall, Clay and straw

floor paving was used in these houses. Level VI revealed little

architecture except a small kiln. No walls were encountered in

Levels V and VI of Sounding 2.

' As Perkins (1949:4).noted, the fact that each new level

of Tell Has-suna was marked by a complete rebuilding may indicate

a fairly long occupation of each level. The 30 centimeter.deposit

of earth and ashes in Level III houses suggested to Fuad Safar. .

a long secure period (Lloyd and Safar 1945:274).

Circular grain bins were frequent in Sounding 1 where over

thirty were found, but none were found in Sounding 2. These grain

bins were made of unbaked straw tempered clay with anc exterior •
’
costing

bitumen and interior gypsum plaster linings„ Their average diameter

was about one meter. A .change in shape occurs in Level IV, when the

earlier carinated bottom form of Levels Ib-III was replaced by bins

with rounded bottoms (Lloyd and Safar 1945:268).

In addition to ceramicwares, the material culture of Levels

III-VI was rich and varied (see Table IV). Baked clay spindle

whorls usually discoid in shape occurred in all levels. Some spindle

whorls were painted and,others were made of stone, Baked clay sling,

pellets were found in these levels; a cache of them was found in

room 15 of Level IV (Lloyd and Safar 1945:274).

Three baked, clay female figurines (Lloyd and Safar 1945:PI-

XI, 1:5-7) were found in Level IV, Room 1 of Level V produced one
 TABLE IV

Tell Hassuna,Selected Cultural Inventory,

Levels Ia-VIe
(Based, on Lloyd and Safar 194$)

ITEM PRESENT

"Hulking Trays" X
Baked Clay .
Spindle Whorls (Most biconical) X
Sling Pellets X
Stopper Level II ,X
Female Figurines (3)Level IV X
Unbaked Clay Female Figurine (l)Level V X
Reed Matting X
Flint
-Sickle Blades X
Flakes X'
,,Arr.owh,eads X
Chipped Hoes X
Obsidian
Blades , X
Notched Blade X
End-scraper X
Lanceheads (Javelin head) Level la X
Ground Stone
Pounders, Rubbers, Mortars,Grinders X
• Poker-stones X
Spherical Stone Balls Level II X
Polished Celts X
Miniature alabaster bowl (1) Level II X
Pivot Stone (door socket) Level III X
Pegs (Nails) Levels II1-IV X
Beads (Most.ring type) X
Pendants X
 TABLE IV (Continued)

ITEM PRESENT

Ground Stone (Continued)

Spindle Whorls X
Stamp Seals (2:Level II and V) X

Bone
Awls X
Spatulas X

Shell
Beads X
Pendants X

Buruals
12 infants (Levels Ib^-Vl) X
4 adults (Levels la-III) X
1 skull and 2 bone caches (Level IV) X
 49 .

unbaked, seated "Mother-goddess" figurine (194-5-PI* XVIII,2)

which is interesting because of a protuberance bn one leg and

the greenish color of the head or headdress as oppossed to the red

clay of the body (Lloyd and Safar 1945:270). Two unusual hollow

clay objects,pierced in three places were found in Level V and are

thought to be whistles (Lloyd and Safar 1945:Pic X,1:21,25).

Polished stone celts, chipped hoes and flint and obsidian

blades,points,and flakes were all present in the assemblage. A nearly

complete flint sickle with blades set in bitumen and traces of wood

hafting was found in Level III (Lloyd and Safar 1945:Pig» 37)* Pour

stone pegs or nails were found, two each from Levels III and IV

(Lloyd and Safar 1945:Pig* 26:13,16 and 7,8), Ground stone mortars

and grinding stones were also common.

Ornaments- consisted of stone and shell pendants and beads.

Most of the beads were of the ring type and one turquoise bead was

found in Level III. Stone bowls did not appear in Levels III-VI but one

miniature alabaster bowl was found in Level II (Lloyd and Safar 1945:

PI, XI,1:4). Bone awls,spatulas and points .were also part of the

Hassuna-Samarra assemblage, As Edith Porada (1965 :140) pointed out,

t wo1stamp seals were found at Tell Hassuna, The earliest one was

found in Level II, with,an incised crosshatched design (Lloyd and

Safar 1945:PI* XI,2:3), The other stamp seal* (1945:PI* XI,2:1) was

found in Level V and was called ahdiscoid button-shaped amulet" by

the excavators (Lloyd and Safar 1945:289), The presence of reed

 50. :
matting was indicated by a clay impression from Level III or IV

at Tell Hassuna (Lloyd and. Safar 194$:Pig, 38 )*

No trace of metallic copper was found (Lloyd and Safar 1945:

262)» Yellow ocher, hematite, antimony,galena, and copper carbonate

or malachite were found (Lloyd and Safar 1945:284-285) and were

probably used for eye pigments and paints. Bitumen was available

from a mineral source about 13 kilometers north on the Tigris River

tat Hamm am Alii (Lloyd and Safar 1945:268),

Human remains from Hassuna, most commonly consisted of

infant burials in jars beneath house floors. An Hassuna Standard

Painted and Incised, jar containing an imitation Samarran bowl -and

an infant was found in Level VI* Two adult skeletons, one without

a skull were found in a grain bin of Level III, A rubbish pit in

Level IV contained a crushed human skull and two caches of human bones

were found, one in./each corner of the southern half of room 4 in

Level IV, No skull was found with either cache. Carleton Coon

(1950) from a study of three Hassuna skulls described them as

dolicocephalic and probably of Mediterranean type, except for

larger teeth and some prognathism.

Preliminary studies of the faina indicated that sheep or

goat remains were the most numerous» Wild pig, ox, ass, hare,toad

and rat were also present, Gazelle may also have been found, The

domestic status of the sheep or goats and cattle has not been determined

and in the case of the cattle would be difficult since only afew

teeth were found (Lloyd and Safar 1945:284). No detailed study of

 51
the flora of Tell Hassuna was reported. Carbonized grain and

decayed chaff were found inside the grain bins and barley and ■ .

wheat, were evidently grown.

The radiocarbon dating of Tell. Hassuna (see Appendix F) is

based on two dates. One date 'of 1080-200 B.C. (W-609) is from a

Level la hearth and is certainly incorrect. Charcoal from Level

V was dated to 5090-200 B,C,(W-660) which is probably closer to

being accurate (Rubin and Alexander i 960 :182-185).

At Tell Hassuna we have evidence of fully developed Hassuna

and Samarra Wares in Levels III-VI. Hassuna was a small farming

village which may have housed 20-50 families at its greatest extent

(Mallowan 196?: 83 ). The Hassuna-Samarra assemblage seems to. mark both .

continuation and change of the earlier Hassuna assemblage. In

architecture, Levels III-V1 houses exhibit greater regularity in

planning. Above Level III the shape of grain bins changed, Hassuna. .

Archaic Painted V/are disappeared, Hassuna Standard Wares continued

and predominated, and Samarra Ware appeared in quantity. The flint

and obsidian industry was not studied in detail, but apparently

shows no marked changes. The appearance of Samarra Ware is tie major

determinant in placing, the beginning of the -Hassuna-Samarra Period, In

Reviewing the Hassuna-Samarra. sequence at Tell Hassuna, a clear

overlap of Samarra and Halaf Wares is indicated in Learels VI-VI11,

What is often ignored is that Hassuna Standard Wares also persist

to Level VIII (see Table III), Three sherds of Hassuna Standard Ware

were found in Level XI. "

 . . ■ . .» -
Nineveh

The mound of Noneveh or Quyuniq is located about 3 kilometers

northeast of modern Mosul and about one kilometer east of the Tigris

Valley„ The site is about 2,364 meters in circumference and 32 meters

high. Nineveh was excavated by M.E.L. MaiIowan as part of the

Campbell-Thompson Nineveh Expedition of 1931-32, A deep sounding,

20x15 meters was made northwest of the Temple of Ishtar and carried

down 27.5 meters to virgin soil. Building levels were not clear- and

the stratification was based on ceramic analysis (Perkins 1949: 8 ).

The basal levels 1,2A, and 2B contained materials revelant to

the Hassuna-Samarra Period. No real architectural remains were

reported» Level 1 was characterized by 'incised ware and some painted

and incised ware similar to Hassuna Standard Wares, A few sherds of

a dark burnished ware and two painted sherds with a pink slip were

present. Perkins noted (1949:9) that three Level 1 sherds had typical

Samarran designs. Fifteen crude lumps of clay with linear■markings, .

a fluted clay cone, and flint and obsidian were also present in Level

1.

Level 2A ceramics included wares very similar to Hassuna

Standard incised, painted, and painted and incised wares and one

sherd of Samarran Ware* In Level 2B Samarran Ware was the dominant

painted ware* Nineveh *s contribution to the Hassuna-Samarra Period

is restricted due to the limited area exposed and the lack of

complete descriptions * .Ha-laf ceramics were dominant in Level 2C

 52

and many Samarran type designs were also present (Perkins 194-9:26).

Only two of the Halaf sherds were said to be polychrome» An. obsidian

pin or stud * a celt and miniature stone objects such as perforated

stones and little rods.were all described as being from Level 2*

i - .'
Tell Arpachiyah

Tell Arpachiyah (36.•20BNorth Latitude $ 43 1^ East Longitude)

also known as Tepe Reshwa is located about 6 kilometers northeast of

Nineveh* Arpachiyah is a small mound about 5*5 meters high and a

basal diameter of 6? meters* The mound is situated near a wadi in

the rolling Assyrian Plains country. The site was excavated by

M..E.L* Mai Iowan in 1933 (Mallowan •and Rose' 1935 )»The excavations

were halted at a depth of 5®5 meters or about half of the estimated

height of the mound above virgin soil* Ten building levels were

uncovered in the main sounding. An Ubaid cemetery and Halaf materials

were found in test operations around the base of the mound» The top

2*5 meters of the main operation (TT-1^4) contained four levels of

the Ubaid Period while the lower six building levels (TT~5~10) all

belonged to the Halaf Period. Neither virgin soil or an Hassuna~Samarra

occupation was reached in the main trench. In the outlying areas the

top 2*5 meters contained three building levels which the excavators

correlated with TT-6-10 of the main sounding (Mallowan and Rose

1935:19)* Two deeper levels at 3 and 5 meters were found and

interpreted as being older than TT-10.

 ■ 5^

Most of the Samarran ceramics found were concentrated in . .

the lower levels of Field Square G.A. IV.4 in the outlying

area, northeast of.the mound (Mallowan and Rose 1935:22,Fig. 77:4,

,10-24,29). The Samarra Ware was found beneath a tholos and stone

road level of the Halaf Period. The -tholos was of the type without

an antechamber and was equated with TT-9 of the main sounding

(Mallowan and Rose 1935:27,Fig. 3). Samarra War e .was rare but both

Painted and Painted and Incised Samarra Wares were present. One

almost complete Samarran high collared jar was found at a depth of

1.5 meters in Field Square G.A'. IV. 4 (Mallowan and Rose 1935 ?Fig.

68:3). -

Evidence of the Hassuna-Samarra Period at Tell Arpachiyah

does .not occur in a clear stratigra.ohic position and consists

entirely of Samarra ceramics. Mallowan and Rose assigned the Samarra

Ware to a period earlier than TT-6 and perhaps earlier than TT-10,

although no Samarra Ware was found on virgin soil in the outlying

operations. An overlap of Samarra and Halaf Wares at Arpachiyah

seems most likely. Unfortunately as the excavators admit (Mallowan

and Rose 1935:172) little attention was.paid to unpainted pottery.

One incised sherd was found just, above virgin soil in

Field Square G.A. IV.4 and was described as being identical to the

incised ware of Nineveh Level 1, which probably means Hassuna

Standard Incised Ware, A punctuated ware also found in Nineveh Level

1 was common in levels attributed to a pre-TT-10 period, A few gray

 -55
and black burnished sherds were found in pre~TT-10 levels

(Mallowan and Rose 1955:174)*

Mallowan and Rose held that the Samarra Ware was imported

with "Scorpion Goddess'* festoon, and palm designs being characteristic

(Mallowan and Rose 1955:22), There is some question as to whether

or not all of the described Samarra sherds are really Samarran. .

Ann Perkins (1949:10,27) considered several designs to be '

derivative Samarran or Early Halaf, especially the "Huts and Flowers"

design (Mallowan and Rose 1955:Fig. 20,Fig,. 77:17)® This may be

further evidence of the overlap of Samarra and Halaf ceramics,

Takey Dabbagh (1965:P1« VI,111) apparently considers the "Huts and

Flowers" design as Samarran but he do'es not discuss the point.

Regardless of these arguments, tre Samarra Ware was present in

limited quantity at Arpachiyah (Mallowan and Rose 1955:Fig, 77:18,

21-22) and an Hassuna Samarra occupation is suspected for the lower

unexcavated levels of .the mound and near virgin soil in the outlying .

areas. , ■ a

•Two radiocarbon dates (Stuckenrath and Ralph 1965:188) were

made from Tell Arpachiyah and collected in 1954 as part of the Iraq-

Jarmo Project. One date of 6114-78 B.C. (P-585 ) was obtained from

charcoal and ash in a band of dark soil about 50 centimeters below

the top of a well in the main sounding. The well was equated with

Level TT-6» The other date of 5077185 (P-584) was from charcoal and

ash, 8 centimeters below the top of Level TT~8. Both dates are

associated with the Halaf Period and may be inaccurate. The well
date seems much too early (see Appendix E),

Ma farrah
' - -

Matarrah (33^12^ North .Latitude , ktf* 2^ East Longitude) also

known as Qara Yatagh is located about 3^ kilometers by road south

of Kirkuk, in north Iraq, ^Matarrah ."is situated in the piedmont

zone about 220 meters or 720 feet above sea level. The site is a

small mound about 8 meters above the plain and 200 meters in.

‘diameter. The village was apparently built on part of a natural hill

since only the upper half of deposits have cultural material

(Braidwood ejb al^. 1952:2; Braidwood and Howe 1960:26), A small

perennial wadi cuts through part of.the base of the mound. Matarrah

is in the moist steppe vegetation zo:ne and rainfall farming was

possible» In relation to other sites Matarrah. is located by land .

route over 150 kilometers from both Tell Hassuna to the northwest

and Samarra to the southwest.

Matarrah was excavated in 1948 by the Oriental Institute

(Braidwood et a l . 1952), The excavations consisted of thirteen.2x2

meter soundings of which two, Operations VI and IX were expanded and

a step trench TT-1 was excavated,extending out of Sounding VIII, The

total area exposed was 460 square meters of which Operations VI,XI

and TT-1 composed about 365 square meters (Braidwood and Howe 1960:36)*

About 5 meters of deposits were excavated above virgin soil including

five iand.: possibly six building levels, Upper and Lower Phases of the
 ■ 57

assemblage were distinguished bythe presence of Samarra Ware in

quantity in the upper levels. The Upper.Phase or the Hassuha-

Samarra occupation included all levels of Operation IX,Operation

VI surface to one meter, TT~1,I,and possibly TT~1,I T ,X s The last

occupation of Matarrah was Ubaidas indicated by surface sherds from

Operation I on the top of the .mound,

Matarrah ceramics were sorted in the field and a selected

sample of over 1,000 sherds was collected for detailed analysis

(see Table V and Appendix D), The sample taken to Chicago

represented .only five percent of the total sherd bulk and purposely

contained more Samarran examples than were found proportionally

in the field. Type sorting of wares in the field gave the following

percentages for the Upper Phase: 5% Painted Wares* 20% Fine Simple

Ware,incised , 30% Fine Simple Ware,undecorated, and A‘-5% Coarse Simple

Ware including 10% husking trays (Braidwood•et al. 1952:8)*

The Coarse Simple Ware of Matarrah is very similar to that

of Tell Hassuna; both having husking trays and.milk jars. A Fine

Simple Ware usually buff in color occurred in undecorated and incised

forms of which a quarter were greenish-buff and more elaborate than

Hassuna Standard Incised Ware, Hassuna Standard Painted and. Painted

and Incised Wares and Hassuna Archaic Painted Ware were absent from

the Matarrah assemblage (Braidwood et. al, 1952:6?)*

Samarra Painted Ware is the only painted ware at Matarrah,

except for a few Halaf and Ubaid sherds near the surface. Only six
 58

TABLE V

Matarrah Pottery, Sherd Count (Braidwooti et al. 1952:9)

OPERATION COARSE FINE SAMARRAN HALAF UBAID MISCEL- TOTAL NUMBER

SIMPLE SIMPLE LANEOUS OF SHEI
WARE WARE

IX 89 238 146 — 27 «= 500

VI 185 64 28 1 4 282

TT-'l- 63 11? 26 2 1 — 209

I 1 7 5 1 22 4 40

II 10 31 3 «, 7 1 52

III 1 - «» — — -=• 1

IV — 7 5 - - 12

V 12 ~ •» - 12

VIII 5 - 2 — 1 6

X 8 7 3 - 2 20

XI 5 5 3 1 1 15

XII 13 *■. - - 13

TOTALS 374 492 221 4 63 8 1,162

 - . 59

Samarra Painted and Incised sherds 5 four from high collared jars

were found at Matarrah which parallels their rarity 'at Tell Hassuna.

The Samarra Ware at Matarrah was handmade of orange-buff clay and

,
usually had a cream slip. About fifteen percent of the Samarran

sherds were overfired producing a greenish-buff color (Braidwood

et al„ 1952:15) . Shapes included deep bowls,krater-like jars,

low and high collared jars,subhemispherical bowls and walled sub-

hemispherical bowls. Apparently beakers were absent in Samarran

Wares at Matarrah but they were present in Fine Simple incised ware.

The execution and quality of Samarra designs is described as being

poor at Matarrah. Paint ranged in color from choclate,maroon,orange-

■red, and black to green. Choclate-brown paint was the most popular.

Considering the ceramic sequence at Matarrah, Coarse Simple

Wares are. most numerous in the: Lower Phase paralleled by the

developing Fine Simple Wares* Fine Simple Wares seem to reach a peak

in development during the Upper Phase at the same point when Samarra

Ware appears in quantity.

Architecture of the Upper Phase was mainly represented in

Operations VI and XI and consisted of rectilinear houses with tauf

walls grouped about courts. Ovens occurred in the walls of some

rooms*. Operation IX contained five building floors of. which only the

upper two floors or 2.5 meters belong to the Upper Phase, No large

bitumen and gypsum lined grain bins were found at Matarrah (Braidwood

et al. 1952 :67 ).

 60

The material- culture of Matarrah (see Table VI) added to

the growing body of data about the -Hassuna-Samarra. Period * Baked

clay sling missiles' were common in the Upper Phase: 144 of 199

reported were found between the surface and the first floor of

Operation IX (Braidwood ef al. 19$2:l8). Baked clay spindle whorls

were present and 44 of 46 found were biconical in shape« Twenty

spindle whorls were found on the first floor of Operation IX» The
/ - ’ , . ■;
only baked clay female figurine found at Matarrah was found in the

top one meter of deposits of Operation VI (Braidwood at al» 1952:18)e

Two fragments of animal figurines were found, one from the surface

of Operation IX and the ether from the first floor of Operation I>

Two clay nails were found at Matarrah in Operation VI;one from the

surface and the other from the third floor which is thought to be

.intrusive from the Ubaid Period,

The study of the flaked stone industry was based on 722 pieces

of flint and 94 pieces of obsidian which represented about forty

percent of the total pieces excavated* Spectographic analysis of an

obsidian blade and flake placed their source near Nemrut Dag',west of
• -
take Van (Renfrew Dixon,and Gann 1967:44)« Sickle blades with traces,

of bitumen and hafting were found. The flaked stone industry is

described as being generally poor, consisting of flakes,blades,

and blade-like flakes. Chipped hoes are absent at Matarrah in contrast

to Tell Hassuna, Unusual microlithic "side blow-blade flakes" occur

at Matarrah and also at Jar mo and All Agha (Braidwood and Howe 196.0: .

36 ;t *S ,Braidwood I 96I),
 TABLE VI

Matarrah,Selected Cultural Inventory,

(Based on Braidwood. et al „ 1952)

ITEM PRESENT
Coarse Ware "Husking Trays" X
Baked' Clay
Sling Missiles X
Spindle Whorls (44 of 46 biconical) X
. Female Figurine (1) X
Animal:Figurines . X
.Clay Nails (2) X
Flint
Sickle Blades X
Blade-like Flakes X
Borers X
Knife (1) ' . X
Chipped Hoes -
Obsidian
Blades X
Microlithic "Side blowblade-flake" X
Ground Stone
Mortars,Pestles,Rubbers X
Celt (1) " X
Bowls X
Nails X
Stud (l) and Imitationcowrie-shell (l) X
Stamp-seal object: X
Bone -
Awls,Gauges,Rib”blades X
Shell "
Beads ' ' X
Burials Six, one multiple X
 . _ 62
The ground stone industry of Matarrah included mortarst

pestles, and rubbers. One ax-type celt was found. Evidence of

stone vessels was limited to two rim fragments of a bowl and a

small cup,'.One of the rim fragments came from the Upper Phase of

'Operation VI, Six stone nails were present in the Matarrah assemblage.

Simple stone beads were numerous in the Upper Phase and made of

such stones at chalcedony,carnelian,soapstone and limestone (Braidwood

et. al. 1952:21), A 'stamp seal type of object 1 also occurred at

Matarrah (Braidwood and Howe i 960 :56)°

Ninety bone artifacts were studied from Matarrah, including

awls, gauges, rib-blades,spatulas,and beads. Shell beads of dentalia

shell were found as part of necklace with one burial (Braidwood et a l .

1952 :22), Apparently no evidence of metals .was found and reported at

Matarrah. •

The burials at Matarrah were poorly preserved and no physical

type determination could be made. Four burials were found in an •

Hassuna-Samarra context ,’all from the first floor of Operation IX.

A multiple burial (S-M-2) included four individuals: an infant, a

young'child, a young adolescent, and a young adult probably female,

All four were dismembered and had evidently been -thrown without

offerings into a pit, A .second burial (S-M-3) of an adult male, was

found in another pit. The"individual was found with slightly flexed

legs and with his head on the left side and oriented to the northwest,

Burial gifts included a Fine Simple Ware incised bowl and storage

jar,and a stone and a bone bead were also found in the pit. Two other
 ' 63

burials were found in association with the first floor (S-M-5 and '

S~M-6) but both were fragmentary. Burial S~M-5 was flexed and on

its right side (Braidwood et al,. 1932:24).

Studies of the fauna and flora of Matarrah are incomplete

' ■ . .: i
and have not yet appeared.'Two row barley was found and.identified

by Hans Helbaek but beyond that no further information is available

in published form (Braidwood and Howe 1960:37)«

There is one radiocarbon date for Matarrah of 5620-250 B.C.

(W-623). This date (Rubin and Alexander i 960 :183 ) was made on

charcoal lumps from a burned layer in Operation VI-4, a level lacking

Samarra ceramics ,belonging to about the middle of thee total

stratigraohic sequence of the site. The presence of modern rootlets

and insect material in the sample may have caused some contamination

but the date at present seems about right.

Robert and Linda Braidwood1s assessment(Braidwood at al. 1952:

66-68) of Matarrah as an improverished southern variant of the Hassunan

assemblage was made without the advantage of recent discoveries. The

southern limits of the Hassuna-Samarra assemblage extend as far

south as the Mandali region well over l60 kilometers south of Matarrah,

Any improverishment at Matarrah’ is more likely due to its precarious

location on the border of effective dry farming as Robert Braidwood.

noted (Braidwood e_t al. 1952:3iBraidwood and Howe 1960:37).

Essentially the Hassuna Samarra Period evidence from Matarrah

is that of a small farming village with an assemblages generally

 64
similar to Tell Hassuna* The major difference being that

Samarra Ware is the only painted ware0 The coarse wares of

Hassuna and Matarrah and Hassuna. Standard Incised Ware and

Ma tar rah *s Fine- Simple incised ware are similar«, The presence of

large quantities of an undecorated Fine Simple Ware at Matarrah is

not paralleled at Tell Hassunar The ceramic differences between

these sites probably reflects local variations within the Hassuna-

Samarra assemblage5the complexity of which seems certain*

Tell Shemshira

Tell ShemshSra (36 15' North Latitude 945^ 0;8East Longitude)

is located about 5 kilometers west.of.the town of Darband on the .

right bank of the Little .Zab. River'in- northeast Iraq, The. site is

situated on the Rania■Plain-in the Dasht-i-Bitwain area of the upper

foothills and moumtain zone» Shemshara is a conical mound about .19

meters high and 60 meters in diameter with a southern extension

about 13 meters high and 330 meters long. The site was excavated by

the Danish expedition between 1957 and 1959 as parr of the Dokan

Dam Salvage Program (Mbrtensen 1962;Laess^e 1963)* Sixteen levels

numbered from top to bottom were excavated in the main tell. Levels

16-14 were aceramic but Levels 13-9 contained Samarra Painted Ware

and are of the Hassuna-Samarra Period, Above Level. 9 there is a time

gap in the sequence; Levels 8-4 being Hurrian followed by another

time gap, then Islamic, materials occur in Levels 3-1. No Halaf

Ware was reported found at Tell Shemshara,

 65
The ceramic sequence of Tell Shemshara during the

Hassuna-'Samarra. Period is summarized in Table VII. The ceramics

of Levels 13~9. consisted of coarse ware, two types of incised

ware, painted ware, and Samarra Painted Ware« The coarse ware was.

handmade from straw tempered clay. Visible grains of gravel,lime

and mica were present in the temper. Husking trays were present

along with bowls and some cups. Some burnished bowls were also . .

found. Coarse ware was very numerous and formed more than half.of

the total ceramic yield from Tell Shemshlra. The coarse ware in

general resembles the coarse ware of Tell Hassuna but there are shape

differences and ShemshSra1s husking trays were more superficially

incised (Moriens'en 1962 :79) •

An incised ware constituting about six percent of the

ceramics of Level .13 is mostly composed of bowls and collared

vessels, usually jars. The jars are thin-walled with a thin slip

and decorated with crosshatching and chevron designs. Above Level

13 is rare but present. Peder Mortensen (1962:79) notes that

this incised ware seems to be identical with Hassuna Standard.

Incised Ware. A second incised ware was found in Levels 12-9,and

consists of buff or brown burnished bowls and cups with incised dots

or chevrons as decoration. ' ■

A handmade .painted ware of buff-pink or green■clay and not

usually slipped was present throughout the Hassuna-Samarra Period

levels. Red paint was rare while brown-black paint was preferred to

make designs of opposing lines,chevrons, and crosshatched triangles.

 /

66

TABLE VII

Tell Shemshara Pottery (Mortenson 1962:77-78).-

Percentages are Approximate

LEVir~~COARiE" INCIsiF_l7ARE~PAIN ' SAMARRAN'

WARE Type 1 Type 2 WARE Painted Painted
and
Incised

59% Present 3~ Present 35% * p

a d
e e
c c
d
10 Present 3- Present r r
e
e e
c
a a
r
8 8
e
11 Present 3— 4% Present i i
a
'n n
s
i g g
i j
n i
12 Present 3“-"4% Present 54% * 7%

13 66% Present 25% * Present

14

ACERAMIC
15

16

* NOTE: Samarra Painted Ware and Painted Ware with

surface covering decoration together make
up these percentages.
 6?

Mortensen indicated (1962 :79 ) that this ware was parallel in

appearance to Hassuna Standard Painted Ware» '

Samarra.Painted Ware with suggested imported and local

varieties based on draftsmanship and quality of designs was present .

in quantity in Levels 13-9* The percentages given in Table VII are

combinations of the painted ware and Samarra Painted Ware which

Mortensen did not subdivide, in the preliminary report (1962.); although

the painted ware declined in relationship to Samarra Ware from Level

12-9, A major increase in Samarra Painted Ware occurred in Level 12

(Mortensen 1962:78). Samarra Painted and Incised Ware occurred

throughout Levels 13-9* A few sherds of this ware were present in

Level 13 before it reached a maximum of seven percent of all

ceramics in Level 12 paralleling the surge of Samarra Painted Ware,

Samarra Painted and Incised Ware then declined to two percent in

Level 9* Again as at Hassuna.and Matarrah, Samarra Painted and Incised

Ware' cosisted of jars but it may be significant that it occurred

in much greater quantity at Shemshara than either of the two

previously discussed sites,

In. architecturer no walls were encountered in Levels 13-9

but packed mud walls were present in the aceramic levels,including

stone- foundations in Levels 19-14, Storage basins and ovens were

. -
found in Levels 13-12 and 9 of the Hassuna-Samarra Period, Eratic

concentrations of stones were present in Level 10, and may represent

floors.
 . 68

Baked clay,biconical spindle whorls were present in the

assemblage (see Table VIII). Female or animal figurines and sling

missiles were not mentioned in the preliminary report (Mortensen 1962 ).

The flaked stone industry of Tell Shemshara was well developed

and consisted mostly of blades. Obsidian averaged about eighty-five

percent of the-total flint and obsidian industry. Studies of samples

of Shemshara obsidian by Senfrew, Dixon, and Gann (1967:44,58) indicated

that obsidian from Nemrut Dag near lake Van was popular during the

aceramic levels and an Armenian obsidian from an unknown source

was common in the Hass'una-Samarra levels. The flint and obsidian

industry included scrapers,borere,sickle blades and a 'beak' burin.

The obsidian tools ware often finely retouched.-Trapesoid microliths

were present in the aceramic levels.

The ground stone industry of Tell Shemshara was also quite

elaborate, including five types of marble vessels which were common

in Levels 13-9. Small polished celts,rubbers,pestles,querns,stone

nails, beads, and marble bracelets were also present (Mortensen 1962:

77)« Bone artifacts ranged from awls and pins to spatulas and beads.

; No report of fauna! or floral remains was made in the

preliminary account (Mortensen 1962). One humanlburial of an infant

was noted in a contracted position from Level 13 (Mortensen 1962:77).

Four radiocarbon dates are available from Tell Shemshara

(Tauber 1968:322-23). All the dates were made on the charred remains

of organic temper in coarse ware sherds. In all four samples the

 TABLE VIIE

Tell S.hemshshra,Selected Cultural Inventory.

(Based on Mortensen 1962)

ITEM PRESENT

Coarse Ware '’Husking Trays" X

Baked Clay or Stone Sling Missiles 2
Baked Clay Spindle Whorls (Biconical) X
Female or Animal Figurines ?
Flint and Obsidian (Obsidian 85%)
End-scrapers X
Borers X
Trapezoid Microliths X
Burins X
Beaks (Burins?) X
Knife (Obsidian) X
Ground Stone
Pestles,Querns,Rubbers X
Pierced Disks (Spindle Whorls?) X
Polished Celts X
Beads X
. Marble Bowls X
" Bracelets X
" Beads X
" Nails. X
Bone
Awls X
Pins X
Spatulas X
Lancet-shaped objects (Hafts?) X
Burials 1 Infant (Level 15) X
 ?0

carbon content was ranch less than one percent,ranging from

0 .16- 0 ^32% and this may have caused errors in their dating.

This was apparently true of the 8080-160 B.C. (K->98l) date from

Level 10. The other three dates are: Level 13, 5990-150 B.C.

(K-951); Level 11,■ 5870-150 B.C. (K-972); Level 9 ,. 5350-150 B.C.

(K-96O) * The- dates from Levels and 11 seem too early but if

correct would extend the Hassuna-Samarra Period back to the beginning

of the sixth millennium B.C.

Mortensenvs preliminary conclusions (1962:80) about the

comparative stratigraphy of Tell ShemshSra s equated Shemshara•

Levels 13-9 with Tell Hassuna Levels IV-VI and were mainly based on

the presence of Bamarra W are and wares similar to Hassuna Standard

Incised and Hassuna Standard Painted Ware9and the absence of Hassuna

Archaic Painted Ware» Mortensen in attempting to explain the

ceramic levels at Shemshara suggested that the Dasht-i-Bitwain area

may have been relatively_isolated from the village communities of

central and northern Iraq« However ShemshSra’s specialization in

obsidian indicates connections -with Lake Van and perhaps much wider

connections in an obsidian trade network. The blade industry and

marble vessels of Shemshara have -parallels at JarmorTepe Sarab and

Tepe Guran (Mortensen 1964:33)* The presence of stone vessels similar

to those of aceramic Jarmo in. an Hassuna-Samarra context is at first

puzzling but probably reflects a lingering tradition which•continued

to develop at Shemshara. If a time gap exists between aceramic Jarmo

 71
and ceramic ShemshHra it may be bridged by such sites as Guran

and Sarab. An alternative explanation" would be that Jarmo and

ceramic Shemsh#ra were in part contemporary. The final Shemshara

report should provide fuller descriptions of the assemblage and may

.enlarge or resolve many questions.

Sites in Northwestern Iraq ;

Seton Lloyd condusted a survey of mounds in the Jabal Sinjar

area in 1938 (Lloyd 1938). Over seventy-eight mounds were visited,

and surface collections were made. Two sites were immediately

recognized a s .Hassuna-Saraarra Period sites since the painted wares

collected corresponded to Samarra and Nineveh 2B wares. Yarim Tepe,

Survey Site 34 $ is situated about 8 .kilometers southwest of Tell"

Afar. Yarim Tepe:is a low mound partially cut by a wadi. Surface

sherds included Samarra, Nineveh 2B type wares, Halaf and some Ubaid

ceramics. Much flint and obsidian was also observed on the surface

(Lloyd 1938:138). About 5 kilometers northwest of Yarim Tepe is a

small mound known as Survey Site 37, and located south of the village

of Ibrah Kahir and 16 kilometers west of T,ell Afar. Much obsidian

and Nineveh Level 2 type ceramics was found on the surface with Ubaid

and Uruk sherds. No Halaf sherds.were reported from the site near .

Ibrah Kahir. Both sites 'are located in the present band of winter

rainfall cultivation which is about .16 kilometers wide and extends

about 130 kilometers long south of the Jabal Sinjar, from the Tigris

River to about 24 kilometers, west of Balad Sinjar where the density

 72 .

of mounds declines sharply as do the climatic conditions .favorable

for farming. This region south of the Jabal Sinjar was evidently

well populated during the Hassu.na-Samarra Period*

A recent British School of Archaeology Survey in the Tell

Afar region has improved on Lloyd,s ;brief 1938 survey. About fifty-

six prehistoric sites were noted of which twenty-three had Hassuna or

Samarra materials and of these eleven sites' had definite sherds of

Samarra Ware (J*Oates 1968 :12)* Thirty-five of the fifty-six sites

surveyed had Halaf ceramics reported from surface observations.

Tell al Hawa is a site located north of the Jabal Sinjar

about l8 kilometers from the Syrian border and 35 kilometers north­

west of Tell Afar, Samarra and Hassuna, surface sherds are reported

for Tell al Hawa by the British School of Archaeology survey (J .Oates

1968:12). Seton Lloyd (1938:136) recorded Tell al Hawa as site 20

and described it as a vast mound about 500 meters in circumference at

the base and 25 meters high, but Lloyd did not report finding

Hassuna-Samarra sherds*

Tell Ashiq is another Hassuna-Samarra site, located about

14 kilometers northeast of Tell Afar and 10 kilometers.southwest of

th*e Tigris River. Tell Ashiq is described is described by « Reade

(1968:237) as an Hassuna-Halaf mound with sherds of Samarra"Ware of

the Tell es-Sawwan type. Tell Ashiq was site 10 of Lloyd's survey

but again Lloyd did not report it's Hassuna-Samarra or .Halaf Period

materials (Lloyd 1938:135)»

 73
Another Hassuna-Samarra site in the ..Sinjar district is

Tell Khazir with reported surface sherds of Samarra Ware (Al-

Soof 1968:77)® In the Tell Afar district at least three other

mounds of importance have been named and reported: Tell es-Salami,

All Ku— Tuzinghi.and Dem Tepe» Tell es-Salami has sur face sherds

m f Hassuna and Halaf wares and is located west of the Tigris not

far from Mosul, Ali Ku-Tuzinghi has reported surface sherds- of

both Hassuna and Samarra Wares (Al-Soof 1 9 6 8 :78)0 Dem Tepe has

surface sherds of Samarra Ware (Al-Soof 1968:79)*

■ In the Tell Kaif district of the Mosul area, the mound of .

Khirbet Ba'wiza has both Hassuna and Samarra surface sherds (Al-Soof

1968:7 9 )* Tell Kaif is a modern town about 16 kilometers north of

Mosule Definite Samarra Ware sherds are reported from Tepe Chenchi,

located about 3 kilometers south of Tepe Gawra and 22 kilometers

northeast of Mosul (Perkins 1949:13)* Khirbet el-Baiar, a mound in

the Shaikhan district north of Mosul has reported surface sherds

o f ’incised Hassuna w a r e 1 (Al-Soof 1968:77). This site may possibly

be the Tell B&yar mentioned by Lloyd and Safar (194$:26.0) as having

surface sherds of Hassuna Standard and Hassuna Archaic Wares and being

located in the. Ain Sifni district about 4$ kilometers northeast of

Mosuls

Halaf sites reported in L l o y d ’s 1938 survey in the Sinjar

district were Tell as Seman and Yarim Tepe near Tell A far/.and

Sharug and Guir Balik near Balad Sinjar (Lloyd 1938 :135s138 ,1391l 4 l ),
 ■ ?4
Sites with reported occurrences of Halaf pottery in addition

to those already mentioned and Tell Hassuna and Tepe Gawra/ include

Tell Ahmad Agha Kabir and Kharaieb el-'Urs in the Tell Afar

district, Tell W a $ai in the Shurra district , and Telul Gurmria

and Telul Khrkhruk. in the Shaikhan district north of Mosul (AT-

Soof 1968:77,79).

Umm edh-Dhiab

. Umm edh-Dhiab is a mound located about 15 kilometers west

of Hatra in the desert plateau of the Al Jazirah in northern Iraq*

This site is reported to have Hassuna-Samarra-materials (J.Oates

1968:12), Umm edh-Dhiab is .situated about 80 kilometers southwest

of Tell Hassuna and 60 kilometers west of the Tigris River* ' The

discovery of this site is important because it may be a link between

the Hassuna-Samarra materials of the Mosul and Sinjar areas and

contemporary sites in Southern Mesopotamia, and perhaps Baghouz on.

the Euphrates to the southwest* ■

Telul eth-Thalathat

Telul eth-Thalathat or Utch Tepe is located about 16

kilometers northeast of Tell Afar. The site includes four principal

m ounds, Tokyo University conducted excavations at Tell II in 1956--57

and 1964 (Egarni ,S o n o ,and Horiuchi 1 9 6 6 ). Tell II is on the southeastern

side of the site and is about 8 meters high, and 60x 100 meters in

extent. Twelve major levels of occupation were excavated in 1956-57

 - 7 5 ':

and four more levels down to virgin soil were excavated in 1964.

Levels .XIII and XIV contained ceramics of the Ubaid Period. The

ceramics of the basal two .levels, XV and XVI consisted of all

straw-tempered plain wares, divided into fine and coarse varieties.

- ' ' •

Coarse ware sherds were numerically predominant. Simple and carinated

bowl shapes were common. No painted or incised sherds were reported

found (Egami,Sono and Horiuchi 1966:7,14, Fig. 8:6~7)=

Level XV was divided into three sublevels. Level XVa

^consisted of about 20 centimeters of debris below Level XIV and

filling Level XVb.,The architecture of Level XVb consisted of a four

room house constructed of 'pise and half dried clay blocks' (Egami,

Sono,Horiuchi 1966 :9, Ij) ,Fig. 5)« Level XVc was a thin layer with

evidence of boulder floored circular areas. Eight oval pits,some

containing ovens were found dug into virgin soil in Level XVI. .

Other materials found in Levels XV-XVI included disc-shaped

stone, spindle wjiorls and obsidian blades. The assemblage is only

vaguely described in the preliminary report. The excavators'

considered the assemblage of Levels XV-XVI, especially Level XVI to

be most closely related to Matarrah (Egami,Sono,Horiuchi 1 966 :9 )*

Architectural continuity in general planning is suggested between

Structure F2 of Level XIV and the structure in Level XVb. However

Structure F2 was constructed of sun-dried bricks and the similarity in

layouts is very general (Egami,Sono, Horiuchi 1966:12,Fig. 4, 13,Fig,5)-

v The significance of the findings at Tell II of Telul eth-Thalathai

remains uncertain. The absence of.painted and'incised wares i n .Levels

XV and ■XVI and their "s.tratigraphic relationship to the Ubaid

levels immediately above are the major problems at. this site.

Perhaps the answers may in part be found- in the size, extent

and choice location of the Japanese excavations and their

interpretation of the sequence. Many questions such as whether or. not

the plain wares of Levels- XV and XVI were present in Level XIV were

unanswered by the preliminary report.

The partially reported assemblage of Levels XV and XVI

cannot be assigned a firm place in the Northern Mesopotamian

sequence. Levels XV and XVI were pre-Ubaid and may have been

contemporary with either,the Hassuna, Hassuna-Samarra, or Halaf

Period. Consideration of the location of Telul eth-Thalathat may be

important. Telul eth-Thalathat is situated east of Tell Afar and within

5 kilometers of atrleast three known sites: Tell Ashiq,an Hassuna-

•Samarra and Halaf site, Tell as-Seman, an Ealaf and Ubaid site, and

Tell Abu Maria, the dominant site in the area with Ubaid through

Islamic occupations and suspected pre-Ubaid remains. At Telul.eth-

Thalathat , the larger tells I,III, and IV have not been excavated in

pre-Ubaid levels. Telul eth-Thalathat points out a problem in-Near

Eastern archaeology the incomplete study of plain wares. Without

the presence of any painted sherds, the reddish-brown plain.wares of.

Levels XV-XVI are difficult to correlate„The preliminary' descriptions

of this assemblage are so incomplete that much room i# left for

speculation.; .
 ■ ■ 77
Tepe Gawra ..

Tepe Gawra'. 'The Great Mound 5 formerly called Tell All Beg,

is.located about 25 kilometers northeast of Mosul and 2 kilometers

south of the village of Fadhiliyeh* Tepe Gawra is situated near the

foot of Jebal Bashiqah and a pass through the jahal formed by the

Khosr.River (Speiser 1935)» Tepe Gawra is a conical tell about

120x 160 .meters in extent and 22 meters above the level of the plain*

t-The site was excavated in five seasons, 1932-38 by the University

Museum of the University of Pennsylvania (Speiser 1935;Tobier 1950)«

Twenty levels were encountered but virgin soil was not reached» The

H&laf Period is the earliest represented in the tell by Level XX,

actually just a few trenches below Level XIX/ The Halaf Period is

also represented by two soundings: Area A and the Northeast Base» :

The Halaf Wares from Area A and the Northeast Base appearred.to be

earlier instyle than those of Level XX (Tobler 1950:48)* A few Ubaid

sherds occurred in Level XX and Ubaid ceramics were dominant in

Levels XIX-XII, while Halaf Wares were not found above Level XVJI*

The Northeast Base Sounding was 10x15 meters and revealed a

thin layer of Halaf material over virgin soil. The excavations in

Area A, on the southeast side of the tell, covered an area 14*5x8

meters and reached virgin soil at a depth of about 5 meters. Roughly

six levels A~F were found in Area A, Halaf Painted Ware predominated

especially near the bottom of the sounding (Tobler 1950:48). Eight

stone bowls were found in Area A and the Northeast Base (Tobler 1950

PI, CLXXX,71-74).
 78

No definite Hassuna or Samarra ceramics were found at

Tepe Gawra (Perkins 19^9 s13)* A few incised sherds•from Levels

XX and XIX were described as like Nineveh Level 1 wares and

Samarra Ware (Tobler 1930:133) but probably really belong to the

Halaf Period* Choclate-brown obsidian is apparently peculiar to

Area A and the Northeast Base not being found in Level XX (Tobler

1930:200), However the small excavated area of Level XX may be

responsible»

A well or cistern in the eastern end of Area A below level

F, contained twenty-four adult human burials, found in four levels

between 2 and 3*7 meters below the mouth of the well. The graves

grouped A~D consisted of two,twelve,nine,and one individuals

respectively* Only one individual in Grave A appeared to have been

formerly buried. No offerings were found in the other graves and

the skeletons were scattered (Tobler 1950:^-9-50)* Two other graves

from Area A included a child from level F and a young adult from

below level F were found with an Halaf bowl and jar respectively

(Tobler 1950:121). The skull of one of the twelve skeletons in Grave

B was studied by W.M. Frogman and W.H.Sassaman and found to be that

of an adult female, about twenty-five years old and of the Mediterranean

type (Tobler 1950:216-219)*

One radiocarbon date .of 3450-800 B.C. (C~83.7) an average

of two determinations was made on ash between Levels XVII and XVIII

of the Ubaid Period (Libby 1954:734), The date appears to be

too late (see Appendix F)» .

 Tell al-Khan

Tell al-Khan (3>6* 18* North Latitude, 43° 33^ East Longitude )

is a small mound located about 35 kilometers east of Mosul on the

right bank of the Khazir River, a tributary of the Great Zab River/

jThe site is a low mound about 4 meters high and 86x100' meters in

extent, Tell al-Khan is somewhat unusual in that it is nearly

encircled by a tank trap and surmounted by a concrete pi 11-box of

the Second World War Period, The site was tested by use of the tank

trao exposures as part of. the Iraq-Jarmo Project of 1954-55 (.Braidwood

and Howe 1960:25)* The stratigraphy consisted of a thin ..Islamic'

layer on the surface of the mound followed by a two meter wide band of

silt which yielded only a few random Hassuna sherds* A thin layer of

Hassuna sherds existed between the silt and virgin soil,encountered

at a depth of about 3 meters. According to.H.Ev Wright, a silt wash

from the foothills to the northwest probably covered, the Hassuna

mound» RLJ. Braidwood notes that no Hassuna sherds may have been

present on the surface of the mound before the tank trap was

excavated (Braidwood and Howe 1960:25)*

The ceramics from the Hassuna layer consisted of a coarse

ware similar to Tell Hassuna and included husking trays and milk

jars. Hassuna Standard Painted, Painted, and Painted and Incised Wares

were all found at Tell .al-Khan, Samarra Painted Ware was rare and only

a few sherds were found * Based on the ceramics, R.J. Braidwood

(Braidwood and Howe 1960:35) correlated the al-Khan assemblage with

Tell Hassuna Level III,

 80

No trace of architecture,true floors or hearths were

found at Tell al-Khan (Braidwood and Howe 1960:130)» The flaked

stone industry sample was small and no obsidian tools were found*

Broken pestles and milling stones were also found in the assemblage *

Data about faunal and floral remains and a complete ceramic

'analysis have not yet been published* Tell al-Khan is closely

related to Tell Hassuna and.probably dates to the beginning of the

Hassuna-Samarra Period*

Gird Ali Agha

The assemblage represented at Gird Ali Agha, located on. the

left bank of the Great Zab River about 6-5 kilometers due east of

Mosul is of the Hassuna Period. It is a small mound with about 2

meters of deposits (Braidwood and Howe 1960:37) which are probably

best correlated with basal Hassuna. and Matarrah. Coarse ceramics

were dominant including a few spindle.whorls and trays without the

corrugated bottoms of Hassuna rs husking trays. The flaked stone,

ground stone and bone materials all generally resemble basal Tell

Hassuna..The transverse nside-blow flake" also found at Jarmo and

Matarrah.was present. Of some significance may be fine sherds with

molded eye and eyebrow fragments found at Ali Agha., R,J* Braidwood.

also noted that similar’decorated sherds were found at. Matarrah

(Braidwood and Howe 1960:66)»

 . ' 81

The Erbil Area

Three Hassuna Samarra sites located in the Erbil Liwa

are Khirbet W ast’Arab. , Kirdi Mamerta, and Kirdi Rubiya. Khirbet

Wast ’Arab, located in the Erbil district has Hassuna and Halaf

surface sherds. Kirdi Mamerta, located near Qushtepe has Hassuna

surface sherds, Kirdi Rubiya, near Rowandua has surface sherds of {

JSamarra. and Halaf Wares (Al-Soof 1968 :80 ),

Halaf ceramics were found in the Erbil district at Kidri

’Abdul ’Aziz and within the city of Erbil at Tell Qalinj A-gha

(Al-Soof 1968 :80;1966 ), One and three Halaf sherds were found

respectively in Levels. XI. and XII of Sounding I at Oalinj Agha

(Al-Soof 1966:79), Virgin soil was hpt reached and six levels are

suspected below Level XII,

Gird Banahilk

Gird Banahilk (ca, 36 40$ North Latitude, 44 32*East Longitude)

is located one kilometer southwest of Diyana,north of Ruwanduz,’ The

mound is about 5 meters high and 100x160 meters in extent. Soundings

were made at the site in connection with the Iraq-Jarmo Project of

1954-55 (Braidwood 1954:126;Braidwood and Howe 1960:33-35), Evidently

' :- . ' ' . • - .
the earliest ceramics at the site were of Halaf Ware , and no Hassuna

or Samarra were definitely reported for Banahilk (Braidwood and Howe

1960:34). Banahilk’s cultural materials are partially summarized in

Table IX, Banahilk is included in this report for comparative purposes.

 TABLE IX

Banahilk, Selected Cultural? Inventory.

(Based on Braidwood and Howe i 960 )

ITEM;' ' PRESENT

Plain Pottery Flat-Bottomed Trays X

Clay Spindle Whorls X
Baked Clay
Perforated Disks (Sieves?) X
Disks,Rings,and Funnel-Shaped Objects X
Female Figurines -
Other Figurines -
Flint
Flakes . X
Flake Blades (little retouch) X
Drills X
Microliths X
Lunate (1) X
Obsidian •
Plain Blades X
Notched Blades X
Ground Stone
Mortars, Pestles X
Bowls (well made) X
Fully Ground Celts :X
Pendants X
Beads X
Seals (Cross-hatched designs) X
Bone
Awls X
Punches X
Burials ?
 83
Other Sites In Northeast Iraq -

Three sites with Hassuna materials are present in the

Dasht-i-Bitwain area:Bazmusian,Oamarian, and Tell ed Daim 0 These

sites were surveyed and excavated by the Iraq Department of :

Antiquities in connection with the Dokan Dam Project. All of these

sites in the project area includingiTe.il Shemshara are now either

partially or completely under water (Al-Soof 1968:82-83)^ Bazmusian

is located on the former right bank of the Little Zab-River about

3 kilometers south of Tell Shemshara," Peder Mortensen (1962:78)

reported that all three of these sites had. heavy concentrations of

obsidian paralleling the situation at Tell Shemshara, The exact

nature of their assemblages is not more detailed than 'Hassunan,*

Whether or not Samarra Ware was present is not clear from either

the brief English or Arabic descriptions of the sites (Al-Alusi 1959)»

Tell ed Daim (Al-Tekriti i 960 ) is a small circular.mound-about.10

meters above the plain and '

■90x105 meters in extent, A trial trench

was excavated down about 9 meters and encountered -eleven levels. The

basal level may contain ?Hassunan f materials» No Samarra sherds were,

illustrated,

Takey.Dabbagh (1965:101) lists several sites:Kidri Baskin,

Mesejra,Nakkar and Rebedha as having surface material of Hassuna

Standard and Hassuna Archaic Wares, Dabbagh , unfortunately gave no

further details about these sites. Kidri Baskin if"it is the same site

as the Kirdi Buskain listed-by Al-Soof (1968:82) is located in. the

•Dasht-i-Bitwain and is now probably under water»

James Mellaart (196$:6?,Fig, 4 l ) indicated on a map showing

the distribution of Halaf and Samarra Wares that Halaf Ware was found

at two sites in the Khabur River Valley of extreme northern Iraq,

.The Iraq Khabur River is a tributary of the Tigris River and should

not be confused with the larger and more important Khabur River of

northeastern Syria» The Iraq Khabur River rises near Kara Dag. in

far southeastern Turkey and then flows into Iraq,forming the Iraqi-
i ■ ‘ 1 '
%
Turkish boundary along the rivers last 25 kilometers before joining

the Tigris Biver. The Khabur River Valley is situated over 200

kilometers east of Tell Halaf and about 100 kilometers north of

Mosul,

The Makhmur Plain

■Hassuna-Samarra material, is represented at Tell Ibrahim

Bayis, a low mound located on the Makhmur. Plain about one kilometer

northwest of the old city of Makhmur, 80 kilometers southeast of

Mosul, Tell Ibrahim Bayis is situated about 23 kilometers east of

the Tigris River and 5 kilometers west of the main pass,through the

Jebal Qai'a Chawq,which leads to' the piedmont country between the

Great and Little Zab Rivers, Sherds of Samarra.,Nineveh Level 2,and

Halaf Wares were reported from Tell Ibrahim Bayis, A few Halaf

sherds were found on the flanks of the old city of Makhmur, 2

kilometers west of. modern Makhmur (AL-kAmi.n and Mai Iowan 1950:56,66),
 ■ ■ - . 85
The -Kirkuk Area

.Yorgan Tepe or ancient'Nuzi, located about 16 kilometers

southwest of Kirkuk is reported to have some. Hassuna Standard ■

Incised Ware in the lower levels of the L~k pit» Kurdish Saghir

located southeast of .Yorgan Tepe is also reported to have Hassuhan

sherds in its test trenches (Braidwood .and Braidwood 1953-305)»

Hassunan ware is also reported from the upper levels of Baradost

Cave (Safar 1950). Samarra Ware evidently was not present at these

sites and they may not fall within the Hassuna-Samarra assemblage»

Tell Kujjuk Jarmo has surface sherds of Hassuna wares and is

located in the Kirkuk district of the Kirkuk li-wa. Q al’at Ka is

a mound with surface sherds of Samarra and Halaf Wares,located

near Chamchamal in the Kirkuk, liwa (Al^Soof 1968:81)«

In connection with the ..Iraq-Jarmo Pro jecl of 195^ro55i two

large sites, Tell Sgrgarden and Tell Ibrahim Aga located northwest

of Chamchamal had reported surface finds on their talus slopes of

Hassuna-type coarse wares (Braidwood and Howe 1960:2?), Chamchamal

is located about 25 kilometers northeast of Kirkuk»

Halaf sherds have been found at Tell Meraud near Kopri, Tell

el-Mukhfiya near Daquq, and Kirdi Qal fat near Chamchamal. ». All three

sites are located in the Kirkuk liwa (Al-Soof 1968:8l)»

 86
Jar m o

Qalafc Jarmo (ca. 33* I'iorth Latitude, 44^ $7^ East Longitude)

is located about 12 kilometers east of Chamchamal in northeast

Iraq, Jarmo is a very.ilow mound which merges almost imperceptively

with the barren rolling hill country called the Chamchamal Plain,

The site is about 90x140 meters in extent and has a maximum depth

of deposits of over seven meters (Braidwood and Howe 1960:26,27)1.

The remaining portion of the prehistoric village covers approximately

3,2 acres or 1,3 hectares. The Cham-Gawra, a wadi which cuts through

northwestern side of the natural hill on which Jarmo is situated,

may have undercut and helped to wash away a third of the site

according to H.E. Wright (Braidwood and Howe 1960:38; Pis,. 4,8),

Jarmo was excavated during two major periods in 1950-51 and 1954-55

by members of the Iraq-Jarmo Project under the overall direction

of Robert J.Braidwood,

. A combined total of about sixteen floors were found above

virgin soil and 1,370 square meters were exposed. However,only

a maximum of ten floors were found in any one of the three main

operations : Step Trench-Area A, 10 levels, J-I or Operation. I,

8 levels, J-TI or Operation II, 6 levels (Braidwood and Howe 196.0:

39).

Ceramics were not found more than 2.25 meters below the

surface at Jarmo (Braidwood and Howe 1960:40)« Architectural

remains consisted of tauf.walled buildings of a fairly consistent

 8?
.nature throughout all levels* Stone foundations for the tauf

walls and door sockets, including both top and bottom portions

were also present (Braidwood and Howe 1960:4$)*

The final Jarmo report has not yet been published and .

the ceramics reported so far (Braidwood and Howe i 960) were

divided into two groups: .the sherds from the J - l 'sounding of

I 95O-5I 9 and the sherds from the J-1J sounding of 1954-55* The .

ceramic yield from J-I consisted of 204 sherds from floors 5-5

and -about 12,000 sherds from floors 2-1 ; the floors were numbered

1-10 from the top to the’bottom of the- sounding* -The sherds from

the lower three ceramic floors 3-5 were handmade, buff to orange-

buff in color and contained vegetable temper * More than half of

these sherds were burnished on the outside, often over a red slip

or painted linear decoration* Floors 2-1 yielded handmade sherds

but very few examples of painted dec oration a Incised decoration

was present in addition to a pierced lug;handle type.

The ceramics of the 1954-55 season consisted of seventeen

cubic feet of sherds from the upper four levels 1-4 of J-II. A

few sherds were found scattered in level 5* Most of the ceramics

were of a coarse chaff tempered ware. Level 3 produced the most

interesting shapes including : carinated cups, carinated shallow

bowls, and s traight-walled mugs with nose lugs (Matson in Braidwood

and Howe i 960 :63-66; Pi* 15).» F .R* Matson reported that less than

ninety sherds had evidence of red ocher application and of these

 . 88

a tenth had bands and diagonal lines as decoration (Matson

in Braidwood and Howe 1960:65). A third of the sherds with

traces of red ocher were burnished. Fuad Safar, after a brief

examination cf some of the painted sherds, classified them as

like Hassuna Archaic Painted Ware (Matson, in Braidwood and Howe

I960:65 ). In general, the ceramics of Jarmo were thought to ,

resemble those of basal Hassuna and of Gird Ali Agha with some

vpieces similar to the Fine Simple Ware of Matarrah (Braidwood and

Howe 1960:44; Matson in Braidwood and Howe 1960:66).

Clay beads, a clay cone with incised decoration, and over

five thousand pieces of animal and human figurines were -found.

The human figurines, mostly female and horned animal■figurines

were most common and complex in the upper levels but occurred in

aceramic levels as well. '

The flint and obsidian industry consisted mostly of blade

tools. Obsidian reported from Jarmo made" up approximately 45% of

over 72,000 pieces of flint and obsidian from J-II, and 28% of over

21,000 pieces of flint and obsidian from J-I (Renfrew,Dixon,.and

Cann 1967 :58 ). Obsidian analyzed from Jarmo was from the Nemrut-

Dag source near Lake- Van, and an unknown source in Armenia (Renfrew,

Dixon and Cann 1967 :44-45). The flint industry included flake

scrapers, end scrapers and some mlcroliths. Most of the chipped

obsidian industry -was microlithic with bladelets being most common,

Microlithic "side blow blade-flakes"were present (Braidwood and

Howe-I960:45>.
 89

The ground stone industry of Jarrno included fully ground

celts, pierced balls, querns, rubbers, mortars, pestles, and marble

vessels. The stone vessels were interesting.in that the most common

form of the aceramic levels was. the inverted truncated conical

bowl which was also present in the Hassuna-Samarra levels of Tell

Shemshara (Mortensen 1962:79)- Other items of ground included spoons

polishers, spindle whorls, pivot stones, marble bracelets, and a

variety of beads of cylindrical, barrel and flattened biconical

types. Pendants were also present and several had incised decoration.

Stone disks and nails were also found.

Bone awls, pins, rings, hafts, points, and spoons were found.

Impressions of reed bedding and woven mats or baskets were present

in the. assemblage. Few intentional burials were encountered and those

human remains found were all poorly preserved. The fauna of Jarmo was

studied by Charles Reed and of the varied fauna found, goats,sheep,

and dogs and later in the upper levels pigs were all thought to

be domestic. The domestic status of of an equid probably onager and

cattlq was not clear. The largest groups which Reed thought .were

hunted wild were pig, sheep, and gazelle. Snail shells of a large

land snail Helix salomonica were found in large quantities in the

lower levels at Jarmo.'In addition, riverine clamshells were also found

with unidentified fish remains at Jarmo(Braldwood and Howe 1960:47-48).

The preliminary study of the Jar'mb floral remains was made

by Hans Helbaek and the wheat found was interpreted as being about
 90

midway between domestic and wild forms. In another botanical

study of samples of woody charcoal, most of the examples were

found to be of oak.

• Thirteen radiocarbon dates are available from Jarmo, although

only twelve are accepted by Braidwood (Braidwood arid Howe 1960:159,

Braidwood 1967:120;Watson' 1965 :8^- 85 ; see Appendix F ) . The dates

range from 5316-450 B.C. (0-744;Libby'1954:754) to 9290-300 B.C. .

(W-657;Rubin, and Alexander 1960:182), Two of the dates are in the late

tenth.millennium B eC » (W-657 and W- 665 )« One of these dates W-657,

came from hearth material, 120 centimeters below the site base line

in an uncertain context„ Two clusters of five dates each occur * One

-cluster ranges from.the late eighth to the early sixth millennia B,C.

(W- 607 ,H 551/491, W- 65I, 'W-6521 W-608 ). The other cluster ranges.in

the late to middle fifth millennium BIG. (C-113, 0 - 7 ^ 3 , 0 - 7 ^ 2 , F-^5).

One date was in the middle to late fourth millennium B.C. (C_744).

Braidwood and Howe suggested 6750-500 B.C. as the T7probable'•true.

general daten for Jarmo with a maximum site duration of 400 years

(Braidwood and Howe I960:160)„ Association of the dates with levels

within the site and coordinating them with ceramic and aceramic levels

is difficult based o n •the information given with the dates» Three dates

are from the two major operations, J-I and J~II«, A date of 6000-200

B.C. (W-652) is from, the aceramic level J-I-7a, while the date.

6879-200 B.C. (W-65I ) is from the ceramic level J-I1-4. The youngest

date r 3316-450 B.C. (C-744) is from a ceramic level J~XI~2.

 . 91 .

•The Jarmo radiocarbon dating situation is complex.

Whether or not the 6750 B.C. date suggested by Braidwood is

•correct depends upon a number of factors including the reliability

of radiocarbon de t e r m i n a t i o n s A s M, Stuiver and H ,Suess pointed

out (1966), flucuations of the Cl4 activity in the atmosphere have varied

in the past and there may be several true calendar year ages for each

radiocarbon age* The general date from Jarmo is ah approximation

and depends in part upon whether or not Jarmo is a none period" site

as Braidwood maintains (1967:118), Despite the change from aceramic

to ceramic levels and changes in the ground stone industry, the

chipped stone industry and the general assemblage remained basically

the same, Braidwood considered that the time range of the 16 Jarmo

levels was within 250-400 years, allowing about 15-25 years per

level respectively, Braidwood based his estimate in part on local

information from the Jarmo area that a mud-walled and roofed house

is exceptional if it has a life span of 15 years, However, Peder

Mortensen has pointed out (1964:^) that a tauf -walled house in

Kurdistan may last 50-100 years with proper repairs to floors,walls,

and roof, Mortensen observed such repairs at Tepe Guran.and he has

t

suggested a life span of about 50-70 years for each building level.

If 50 years is taken as the average life' span for the Jarmo levels,

an 800 year duration for the site.i s .obtained. If Jarmo was first

occupied about 6750 B.C. it would have been occupied until roughly

6000 B.C. which would roughly fit the"evidence of parallels with

Tepe Guran and Tepe Sarab in Iran.

 . 92

Two radiocarbon dates from Tepe Guran place it in the

.late seventh and early sixth millennia B.C. (Tauber 1968 :J22)»

Mortensen has suggested that the,painted sherds from Jarmo may show

greater affinity to Guran archaic painted sherds than to basal

Hassuna -(Mortensen 196.2:32). Three radiocarbon dates from Tepe

Sarab dateeit from the beginning to the middle of the sixth millennia

B.C. (Stuckenrath 1963:91-92).

The interpretation.of the .Tepe Guran sequence is important in .■

understanding Jarmo. Tepe Guran is thought (Dyson 1968) to have a

sequence of pre-Jarmo, Jarmo, and Sarab ceramics. Tepe Guran is

located in Buristan about 60 kilometers south of Kermanshsh and over

360 kilometers by land route southeast of Jarmo. Gtiran was excavated

in 1963 by a Danish expedition (Mortensen 1964). Twenty-one levels .

were encountered over virgin soil. The lower 18 levels were of early

village materials and were listed as Levels D-V from top to bottom.

The radiocarbon dates are 6460-200 B.C. (K-10006) from aceramic

Level U , and 9810-150 B.C. (K-8?9) from ceramic Level H (Tauber

1968:322). The"ceramics of the middle levels 0-H at Guran were

described as being almost identical to upper Jarmo (Mortensen 19.62:31) *

Pottery similar to rhat of Tepe Sarab was found from Guran Level L

upward to D. A red burnished ware was present in the upper levels,

Sarab is a site in the central Zagros located about seven

kilometers northeast of Kermanshah and about 300 kilometers southeast

of Jarmo, Sarab was excavated under the direction of Robert Braidwood

(I96I). The Sarab assemblage has been interpreted as a high altitude

 - 93

seasonal camp of herders contemporary with the Jarmo assemblage

(Flannery 1965:1255)» Braidwood viewed Sarah as a slightly, more

developed assemblage than Jarmo .(Braidwood 1967:118,120). Although

Braidwood earlier considered Sarah as an upland shepherd camp

probably connected with a Jarmo-type permanent settlement (Braidwood

1962). Sarab has been radiocarbon dated to 6006-98 B.C. (P-466)

from aceramic level 5, 5655-96 B.Ge'(B^465) from ceramic level .4,

and 5694-89 B.C.. (P-467) from ceramic level 1 (Stuckenrath. 1963.:

91-92).

If Moptensen's interpretation of the Quran sequence is

correct, then Braidwood's 6750 B.C. date for the beginning of Jarmo

allowing a longer duration for Jarmo levels would.fit the Quran

evidence. The Jarmo assemblage would overlap at Quran with the

Sarab assemblage. It should be noted that some parallels with the

Jarmo assemblage can also be made at gayOnS in Turkey and Ali Kosh

in Khuzistan.

Mortensen further proposed a Zagros Group during the seventh

and early sixth millennia B.C. composed of Jarmo, Quran, Sarab, and

ShemshSra. Two of the four.radiocarbon dates from Shemshara of

5990-150 B.C. (K-951) and 5870-150 B.C. (K-972) and the typological

similarities of Jarmo'and ceramic Shemshara tend to support this

idea (Tauber 1968:325; see appendix F), While Mortensen may be

correct including ShemshSra in the Zagros Group , comparison with

other Hassuna-Samarra sites indicates that a mid-sixth millennium to

late sixth millennium B.C. date would better fit the evidence from
 : 94

Tell Hassuna.and Tell es-Sawwa.n, The Shemshara ~ Jarmo relationship

remains unresolved and more excavation is needed to help solve it*

The Jarmo assemblage se'gms at .present to remain best dated

in the seventh millennium .B,C, as supported by: the Guran-Sarab

connections.. However an overlap of Jarmo, Guran, Sarab, Hassuha,

and perhaps but less likely Hassuna-Samarra assemblages seems

possible in the early sixth millennium B.C. .1-Jarmo type site

has been discovered in the ginjar area southwest of Tell al-Himah .

at Tell Ghazal (Oates 1968;4),'Another Jarmo-type site, Tamerkhan

has been found in the Mandali region (Oates 1968:5-4), The ceramics '

from the surface of Tamerkhan and the. ground stone and flint and

obsidian industry resembles Jarmo., Sarab, Guran, and Ali Ko'sh." The

prehistoric sequence of the Mesopotamian plains prior to and including

the time.of the Hassuna-Samarra assemblage appears complicated at

present. Several agricultural groups and groups of gatherers and,

herders may have moved into and across the plains and foothills

areas from the Taurus and %agros regions. The'presence of contemporary

indigenous groups seems very likely^, Aceramie settled villages

not based on agriculte may have been present. The origins of the

Hassuna assemblage remains obscure at present.

 95
Samarra'

xSamarra (3^ l]f North Latitude 5 4jf 53^ East Longitude) is

located by land route over 250 kilometers south of Tell Hassuna

and 150 kilometers, north of Baghdad. Samarra is situated on the left

bank of the Tigris River , about 33*5 meters or 110 feet above sea

level and receives an annual average rainfall of 155 millimeters or

six inches of rainfall in the desert plateau region* In' 1911,Ernst

Herzfeld encountered an Hassuna-Samarra cemetery while excavating.

Islamic houses just above the Tigris mud flats in the city of

Samarra* The cemetery layer about 1*5 meters thick rested on virgin

soil and contained numerous closely spaced burials in shallow pits.

Some graves were surrounded by a mud brick layer. The human skeletal

material was. poorly, preserved. Most of the individuals were in a

flexed position on their right side with no fixed orientation

(Perkins 19^9:5)* The ceramics found with the burials consisted of

Samarra Ware in quantity and some' Halaf Ware, Her zf eld concentrated on

the Samarra Ware and collected the finest examples (Herzfe.ld 1930).

Samarra is the type site of Samarra.ceramics and Herzfeld 9s

descriptions of the Ware were quite detailed (Herzfeld 1930).Samarra

Ware was handmade with frequent cases of overfiring. In general

Samarra Painted Ware was characterized by light paste,self slip,

mineral paint, monochrome decoration and medium wall thickness.

Burnishing and deliberate polychromy were not present (Dabbagh 1965;

Perkins 1949).
 Following Herzfeld 1s description^Samarra Painted Ware

encompassed a number of vessel shapes which included: (1 )

Schusseln, carinate plates, (2 ) Fussschalen, high footed plates

mounted on hollow cylindrical b a s e s , (3 ) Napfe, flaring, hemi~-

spherical and carinate bowls (Perkins 1949:6), (4) Flache Topfe,

,deep bowls, (5) Tiefe T opfe, krater-like jars,wide mouthed jars

very similar to Flache Topfe (Braidwood et a l , 1944:83)$ (6)Becher ,

• ~ '
beakers, usually tall, (?) Topfe mit Kurzem H a l s , low collared jars

(8) Flaschen mit Holem H a l s , high collared jars, and (9) Besondere

formen, miscellaneous such as two-handled cups (Braidwood et a l ,

1944:53),

The color of the paint of Samarra Ware varied from a red-

brown and violet brown to green, Samarra painted design employed

geometric motifs such as stepped patterns,zigzags,chevrons, and

crosshatchings often in multiple parallel bands. Designs usually:

were painted f r o m .the rim to the point of greatest diameter on the

vessel's exterior. Negative designs were quite common. Designs

were carefully painted with a medium brush.

Designs on the interior of bowls and plates are quite

excellent« In this circular area designs include, scorpions, fish,,

birds,hirned quadrepeds, and women with flowing hair or the "Scorpi

Goddess." These designs were highly stylized and frequently arranged

in a quadripartite pattern. The use of incisions was restricted to

jars. One painted sherd is notable (J.Oates 1966:PI, IV) for its.
representation of a human face with slanted eyes and zigzag

decorated cheeks*

In addition to ceramics,other artifacts found in the graves

included flint tools,bone pins,stone; bead's , a slings tone -,a macehead,

and copper» Herzfeld considered the metal to be intrusive but it

"may not be since copper does occur at the Hasauna-Samarra site of

Tell es-Sawwan (El-Wailly 1964;1965)» Braidwood and L >S .

Braidwood (1953:304-305) pointed out that stone studs and stone imita

tion cowry-shell beads occurred at both Samarra and Matarrah* Samarra

is significant as the. type site of Samarra -Ware but because of the

special nature of the site, a cemetery,and the selective collecting

of the excavator, Samarra is of.limited value to t h e .Hassuna-

Samarra assemblage.

Tell es-Sawwan

Tell es-Sawwah or the MMound of the Flintsn (3^ 7*North

Latitude, 43°" 5 ^ East Longitude) is located on the left bank of the

Tigris River immediately south of Samarra (Adams 1965•Figs7 )» The

site is situated on top of a commanding cliff which rises vertically

about forty feet or twelve meters above the level of the Tigris

floodplain. Tell es-Sawwan is about 3«5 meters above the plain

behind it and is approximately 230x110 meters in extent e This oval

area encloses three mounds, identified from" north to south as A ,B,

and C. The largest mound, Mound B is separated from both A and C by

small seasonal wadis (El-Wailly and Al-Soof 1965 ^Fig. 2). One of the
earliest reports of the site was made by Herzfeld in 1911»

Surface collections from Tell es-Sawwan were predominantly of

Samarra Ware although Hassuna and Halaf Wares were also noted,

Robert McC, Adams noted.Tell es-Sawwan as Site 861 in his survey of

sites in connection with the Diyala Basin Project of 1957-58 (Adams

1965 •166s171)» The site was described as having a surface at least

half pitted with small round pits about 1,5 meters deep at most,

Adams further noted that any.cultivation for the site would have to

be based in depressions behind the site, unless the Tigris did not •

flow at the foot of the cliff and permitted a wider floodplain.

The Iraq Department of Antiquities under Faisal El-Wailly

began excavating Tell .es-Sawwan in 19.64 and in following seasons of

1965i 1966 ,1967,1968, and may continue in 1969 , Islamic graves were

encountered on Mound A and major operations were then shifted to

Mounds B and C were Hassuna-Samarra levels were excavated. The five

major levels encountered were at first numbered from the bottom I-V

but by the third season this was reversed and they were numbered I-V

top to bottom (El-Wailly 1966) which will be followed in this report.

The first season in 1964 concentrated on the early levels,IV

and V, but during the fourth, season in 1967 most all of Level II

near the surface was exposed. Levels. IV and V of Tell es-Sawwan

correlate With the Hassuna Period while Levels III-I correspond to

the Hassuna-Samarra Period. Most of the evidence presently available

is based on the preliminary report by El-Wailly and Al-Soof (I965 ).

 99

The ceramics of Tell es-Sawwan Levels IV.and V according

to El-Wailly and 'Al-Soof resemble' Hassuna Archaic Ware» Hassuna

Standard Incised and Hassuna Standard Pointed Wares appeared in

Level IV. The coarse ware was buff in color and had a self slip and

•some burnishing. Level IV also had reported fragments of red-slipped

*and gray wares (El-Wailly.and. Al-Soof 1965:21). Hassuna Standard

Incised Ware was common in Level III, while Hassuna Archaic Ware

disappeared and Samarra Painted Ware.appeared. In Level II, Samarra

Painted Ware was predominant. Samarra Painted and Incised Ware was

also present in Level II. Hassuna Standard Incised Ware was

present in Level II but not in the very thin and exclusively Samarran

Level I. A painted human face on a pedestal foot found in the

Hassuna-Samarra Period levels,during the 1966 season is noteworthy

and comparable to similar examples from Samarra and Tell Hassuna

Level V (Oates 1968 :6 ), The ceramic sequence as interpreted by

El-Wailly and Al-Soof (1965) shows no gaps in a gradual development

from Level V to Level I.

The architecture of Level V consisted of two large muiti-

roomed units (El-Wailly and Al-Soof 1965 *.Lig» 24) built of

rectangular mud bricks. Buttresses were present and the eastern

four rooms of Building 1 were linked by axial doors. A number of

features including a niche containing an alabaster female figurine,

burials beneath the floor, an alabaster and two clay female figurines,

and long occupation and continued use in Level IV all led the
 100

excavator's to suspect that Building.1 was at least in part a

religious structure. Building 1 continued in use during the

occupation of Level IV,while Building was rebuilt (El-Wailly

and Al-Soof l<#5:Fig. 31),

Exposures of Level III were limited during the first

season (El-Wailly and Al-Soof 1965 :Fige 39) but expanded during

5later seasons* Two phases of. construction were evident in Level III-

and in general the mud brick architecture was basically the same

as in Levels V-IV, Three, circular gypsum lined grain bins were

discovered in an open area of Level III in 1964. During the 1967

season, a group of buildings described as a temple area were

excavated (El-Wailly 1966),

The architecture of Level II showed continuity with the

previous levels. Notable features of Level II included gypsum

door sockets and three mud brick enclosures possibly used as storage

bins (El-Wailly and Al-Soof 1965-21). Several rooms showed

evidence of two phases of occupation with floors separated by 40

centimeters of fill, El-Wailly noted (1964:Fig*l) a 1T 1 shaped

building of Level II which he described as a temple * Level I

architecture was a continuation of Level IT, but little remains

of Level I * on or near the surface.

Gypsum floor plaster was common in Levels III-I and first

appeared in Level IV. Mud bricks were uniform throughout all levels

and were made in molds, 50-70 by 21-30 by 6-8 centimeters (El-Wailly

 101

and Al-Soof 1965*21), The walls were plastered both inside and

outside, %

Other features of Tell es-Sawwan include a V-shaped ditchr

which narrowed from 2»5 to 0*5 meters in width and .was 5 meters

deep* The ditch was found to form three sides of a square on the

eastern side of Mound B<,the central mound* The two arms of. the

1ditch line up with the courses of two wadis,located north and

south of Mound B. (El-Wailly and Al-Soof 1965 :Fige2), A thick •

.buttressed wall was built on the inside of the ditch and many

slingstones were found in the fill of the ditch, El-Wailly and

Al-Soof interpreted the ditch as a defensive feature designed to

protect the village of Level V, The defensive system would have

included the bluff to the west, wadis to the north and south' and

the ditch on the east, linking up with the wadis. The ditch

evidently remained open during Levels IV and III-I. Painted Samarra

sherds' and one Halaf sherd, were found in the bottom of the ditch

(El-Wailly and Al-Soof 1965:19).

The material culture." (see Table X) also included baked clay

spindle whorls in all levels. Several clay figurines were also present

including a baked clay male figurine which was -painted red (El-Wailly.*

1964:Fig*2). During the fourth season in 196?, all of.Level II

was exposed and much of Level III, In association large quantities

of Samarra. Painted Ware and baked clay stamp seals were found» The

stamp seals were incised with intersecting lines. The wording of the
 102
TABLE X ••

Tell es-Sawwan, Selected Cultural Inventory.

(Based on El-Wailly and Al-S6of I 965 )

ITEM - PRESENT

"Husking Trays" - ?
Basketry , ' X
Baked Clay
Engraved Stamp Seals (button-shape)
Spindle Whorls
Female Figurines
Male Figurines
Flint
Arrowhead, Curved Points
Scrapers (Parallel-sided,notched, core)
Sickle Blades
Obsidian •
Sickle Blades
Core Scrapers
Borers
Knife Blades
Ground Stone
Mortars,Pestles,Rubbers* Querns, Mullers,
Palettes
Hoes
Celts
Alabaster Dishes,rlates, Bowls, Cups, Flasks,
Large Pots,Beads,Footed Vessels,
Female Figurines, "Cult Objects"
Gypsum Female Figurines
Gypsum Door Socket
Bone
Awls, Pins, Spatulas X
Shell
• Beads X
Copper
Knife, Beads X
Burials
More than 130 (Majority in Level V) X
 103
preliminary note (El-Wailly 1966:b) was not clear but. the stamp

seals were probably from Level II and button-shaped.-

The chipped stone industry included both flint and obsidian

flakes and blades in all levels. Flint sickle blades,points,

^scrapers and one arrowhead were found» A sickle fragment was found

consisting of three flint and one obsidian blade. Obsidian scrapers,

borers and blades were present.

..The ground stone industry included querns ,pestles ,mortars,

palettes ,polishers ,celts ,hoes . and slingstones .-Stone beads were

also common. Stone vessels of alabaster were numerous in the graves

under Level V and included bowls, plates,footed vessels,cups,and

scoops (El-Wailly 1964:Fig.3;El-Wailly and Al-Soof 1965 :Fig. 73,74).

Alabaster female.statuettes were especially common in the graves of

Level V' (El-Wailly and Al-Soof 1965 :Fig. 67 ). In Hassuna-Samarra

levels the stone vessel industry was very limited and the few

found in -Level III may have been reused as the excavator’s suggested

(El-Wailly and Al-Soof 1965:22). A gypsum figurine was found in a

Level III grave. The alabaster vessels and figurines may have been

part of a funerary tradition.

Bone materials from Tell es-Sawwan included awls,pins,

spatulas.and beads. Shell eye inlays on figurines and beads were also

present. The impression of a reed mat ,thought to be a door was found

in the 1temple 1 building of Level II (El-Wailly 1964:Fig.1)»

Impressions o f .two bitumen" caulked baskets were found in Level IV

which provided evidence of basketry at Tell -es-Sawv/an.

 104

Metal finds from Tell es-Sawwan consisted of several'

copper beads and a small copper knife found in a Level V grave

during the second season in 1965 (El-.Wailly and Al~5oo-f "1965:22),

El-Wailly suggested that, the copper was imported (El-Wailly 1964:2).

The'discovery of copper if verified is most significant■especially

in a context which is equated with the Hassuna Period*

Over 150 graves were encountered during the 1964 season.

Most of the graves were found cut into the virgin soil below

Building 1 of Level V and belong to the period proceeding the

Hassuna-Samarra Period. Only one Hassuna-Samarra Period grave was

mentioned in the preliminary report (.El-Wailly and Al-Soof 1965:22) ,

a Level III grave containing a gypsum fugurine.

Information about faunal remains from Tell Hassuna was

not included in the preliminary report».The .floral material so

far studied consisted of a small deposit o f ,carbonized grains and seeds

found near the bottom of the defensive ditch. Hans Helbaek studied

(1964) the samples and found them to contain einkorn,emmer,bread

wheat,six-row naked barley, six and two rowed hulled barley,linseed,

Goat’s-face grass, Prosopis or the Shok bush, Caper bush, and

unknown thistle species. Three grains of bread wheat,Tritic'um

aesticvum w ere found. Only one grain of einkorn wheat or Triticum

monococcum was found and its identification was not certain. Twenty

grains of emmer wheat, Triticum dieoccum were identified. Barley

grains were the most numerous, including six-row naked barley,Hordeum

 105
vulgare (60 grains) and two row hulled barley, Trlticum

distichon (179 grains). Only one perhaps freak grain of six

row hulled barley was found (Helbaek 1964:46,47). Of the seeds

found Prosopis, Prosopis stephaniana, and Caper bush seeds,Capperis

spinosa were the most numerous. Prosopis is a small deep rooted bush

of value for sheep and goat grazing. The Caper bush is a spiny plant

which bears a fruit edible in autumn. Several thistle fruits were .

,

also found«, Three linseeds and one seed of Gbat *s~ face grass ..

completed the floral evidence found.

Helbaek (1964:46) noted that all of the poorly preserved

grains were small and possibly may have been grown under unsuitable

conditions or were in the.process of adjustment to a.new environment.

.Helbaek in assessing the floral evidence, suggested that seasonal

flood water agriculture was most likely. The size of the linseeds

indicated to Helbaek that artifical watering had been used and

some limited experiments with irrigation may have been made, but not

true canal irrigation (Helbaek 1964:47). If this limited sample is

representative, the farmers of Tell es-Sawwan deoended upon two row

hulled barley and six row naked barley supplemented by emmer and bread

wheat. Gathering of the fruits of semi-desert bushes was also

practiced in season.

Three radiocarbon dates are available from Tell es-Sawwan

(Stuckenrath and Ralph 1965:190). A date oof 5506^73 B.C. (P-855)

was made on charcoal from a Level V context; 3*5 meters below the
 106

surface on sub-level 2 of Room 21 in Building 1. Another date-

of 4858-82 B.C. (P-857) was made on charcoal but its level

association is not clear. The laboratory report (Stuckenrath

and Ralph 1965:190) attributed this date to Level V from a floor

of Room 39, Building 2, about 3 meters below the surface. El-Wailly

and Al-Soof report that this date (P-857) was. from a Level III floor

of Room 39. (El-Wailly and Al~Soof 1965 :19) * In either case^ the date

in question was probably contaminated although it .would 'fit* better

in relation to the other dates if it came from Level III. A third

date,5349-86 B.C. (P-856 ) was made on charcoal from a grain bin

of Level'III, about 1,5 meters below the surface of the mound. This

(P-856 ) is the only certain date for the Hassuna-Samarra Period from-

Tell es-Sawwan (See Appendix E ) .

The full implications of the Tell es-Sawwan assemblage of

Levels III-I are not yet completely understood. Tell es-8awwan is

significant because it is a reasonably complete Hassuna-Samarra

assemblage near Samarra«, The evidence so far available indicates a

sophisticated assemblage characterized by mud brick architecture,

possible defensive works, temple structures, and a well developed

ceramic tradition. At present, Tell es~Sawwan III-I is probably

best correlated with Tell Hassuna III-VI, although longer occupation

of levels at Tell-es-Sawwan may mean a .greater overlap with the

Halaf time range which, would mean- that Tell es-Sawwan I may h a v e .

been contemporary with Tell Hassuna VII-VIII.

 10?
Diyala _Sites .

Three sites' of the Hassuna-Samarra Period are reported

for the Diyala River drainage: Tell Abyadh, Tell.rmnethir, and

Telul ed-Hadid« Samarra Ware sherds were found at Tell Abyadh,

ilocated near Jalaula, southwest of Khanaquin (J.Oates '1968:1).

Tell Imnethir is located about 20 kilometers southeast of the

Diyala River and 40 kilometers southwest of K h a n a q u i n T e l l

Imnethir is situated on the left bank of a small tributary of

the Diyala River at the base of the eastern extension of the Jabal

Hamrin*. Tell Imnethir is 100x60 meters in' extent and 1*5 meters

high (Adams 1965 :Site Number 12). Hassuna surface sherds were

reported from the tell in addition to libaid sherds (J.Oates 1968:1).

Telul ed-Hadid,located near Khanaquin and the Iranian border has

..surface sherds painted in the 'Samarra and Halaf style 1 (Al-Soof

1968 :82 ). . .

Mandali Sites

A 1966 survey of the Mandali and Badra regions of East-

Central Iraq (J.Oates 1966 ;1968) revealed the location of several

sites of the.Hassuna-Samarra Period in the Mandali area. No

Samarra ceramics or prehistoric mounds, were reported in the Badra

region, 90 kilometers south of Mandali. Mandali is a modern town

situated about 180 kilometers southeast of Samarra in a marginal

area which varies between moist and dry steppe in vegetation. Mandali
 • 168
is almost 140 meters or 4-50 feet above sea level and has an

average annual rainfall near 300 millimeters or 12 inches (J.Oates

1966:51iGuest 1966:12). Choga Mami and Serik Kabir are the two

major Hassuna-Samarra mounds in the Mandali area,

Choga Mami is a low mound about 2-5 meters high and over

200 meters long, located about!115 kilometers northwest of Mandali.

Serik is a smaller mound about .140 meters long, located 2 kilometers

south of Choga Mami. Surface, sherds of .Hassuna and Samarra ceramics

were reported from both sites. Samarra Painted Ware is the most

common ware found on the mounds and the surrounding plain. Hassuna

sherds were present but rare on the surface of the mounds. No

definite Hassuna incised ware was found at Choga Mami (J.Oates

1968:8) but it was present at. Serik (J.Oates 1968 :PI. V,7)° Samarra

Painted and Incised Ware was present and a fragmentary jar,

comparable in designs to one from Tell Hassuna Level V was found at

Serik (J,Oates 1968 :8 ; Lloyd and Safar 1945:Fig« 18:14), Samarra

Painted Ware (J.Oates 1968:P1. VII,VIII.) found was in general,very

similar to that of Tell es-Sawwan, Scorpion and centipede motifs

were particularly noteworthy (J, Date's 1968 :P1. VIII: 14,15,18),

Joan Oates (1968 :8 ) pointed out an interesting group of

painted sherds thought to be contemporary with Samarra Painted Ware,

which were comparable i h V.s ty 1 erwi th I Ifbai d 1-2 sherds (J.Oates 1968 :

PI. IV). Some of these sherds wereidecorated with combinations of

Ubaid 1-2 and Samarra stylistic features (J.Oates 1968 :P1. VII,U;

PI. VIII, 1.0),

 • 109
Some sherds of this general type1 perhaps transitional

between thev.Hassuna-Samarra and Ubaid 2 assemblages , were of buff'

■ . '' ' .

paste with grit temper and decoratedwith apurple or purple-brown

paint (J.Oates 1968:PI. IV, 3 - 4 One sherd found at

Ali Kosh in Iran was described by JoanOates as being virtually

identical‘with one sherd from Mandali of this unusual group (J.Oates

1968:9).

. The plain ware observed and collected was not described

in detail, but in -general it had a smooth surface and an orange

slip* Some of the coarse ware resembled that of Tell Shemshara,

Tell es-Sawwan and Tamerkhan, a pre-Hassuna-Samarra site also

found in the Mandali region* Two" brown ware sherds from Serik were

described as being very similar to sherds from Tepe Sarab in Iran

(JoOates 1968:8)* Painted, ladled cups with cone-shaped handles,

were an unusual feature of the ceramics of both Choga Mami and

Serik, and attributed to the H^ssuna-Samarra assemblage (J,Oates:

1968:10, PI. XII, 11-17, PI. VII,1). A painted fragment was.

interpreted as the arm and shoulder of a baked clay.■“human figurine

was found at Choga Mami (J ,Oates 1968 :P1 . VII,2).

A small terracotta human head was found on the surface of

Choga Mami (i.Oates.1968:Pis. I-III)* in association with Samarra

sherds* According to Joan Oates (1968:5-7) it was closest related

to Ubaid Period figurines, but it may have belonged to the Hassuna-

Samarra assemblage. An Hassuna-Samarra association v/as based on. the

stylistic similarity of the head with painted human faces on Samarra

 - 11°
sherds from Serik, Ssmarra,Tell Hassuna,and Tell es~Sawwan

("J.Oates 1966 :56 ;1968:6)» Similar molded eye and eyebrows- were

also represented on Hassuna sherds at' Matarrah and Gird Ali Ahga

(Braidwood and Howe 1960:66), The only mention- of stone industry,

in the preliminary report was that a few micro-blade cores were

present at both Choga Mami and Serik,

The mound of Choga Mami was evidently an important Hassuna

Samarra community in a well occupied Mandali region,-. Evidence' of

the Halaf Period in the Mandali area was limited to three sherds

found on the surface of Choga Mami (J,Oates 1968:13),

In addition to Hassuna and Samarra Wares, Hajji Muhammad

or Ubaid 2, Ubaid 3-4, and Uruk Wares were found at both Serik

and Choga Mami, The presence of Hajji Muhammad Ware is especially

significant and marks the- northernmost occurrence so far found of

this Southern Mesopotamian Ware (Oates 1968:10), Hajji Muhammad

Ware is also reported from the large site, Tell Chichakan or Bazar

Keri, located about 5 kilometers north of Mandali (Al-SoOf 1968 :83 :

J.Oates 1966:53), and from a small mound between Serik and Tamerkhan

(J.Oates 1968:10). -

-' The Mandali-sites are important because they represent the

first recognized association of Samarra. and Hajji Muhammad materials.

Excavation is needed to establish their stratigraphic relationship.

According to present interpretation of the Mesopotamian sequence,

Hajji Muhammad materials would be expected to be slightly overlapping-

and stratigraphically above Samarra'materials. Excavations may

 ; . . in "
discover a transitional assemblage between those of the Hassuna-

Samarra and Ubaid 2» As Joan Oates noted, the Mandali region is .

geographically a crossroads of routes from'.Northern Mesopotamia to ,

Southern Mesopotamia and Susiana, along the foothills zone of the

Zagros Mountains» Present Mandali has a mixed population of Kurds,

Lurs,Turcomans and Arabs» The number of sites and wide range of

periods represented in the Mandali region suggest that it may. have

j .

been an important contact zone between Iranian and Mesopotamian

cultures (J ,Oates .1968 :13)» Excavations at Choga Marni or other sites

in the Mandali area should'-be of major significance in understanding

'' .
the Hassum-Samarra: assemblage. Excavations were planned for the

autumn of 196? in the Mandali area®

Baghouz

Baghouz, is located on the left bank of the Euphrates River

about 5 kilometers northeast of Abu Kemal in Syria^about 5 kilometers

from the Iraq border. In relation to other sites, Baghouz is located

by land routes over 300 kilometers from both Tell Hassuna to the

northeast and Tell es~Sawwan to the east« The mound is situated on

the edge of a low cliff formation at the mouth of the Wadi Baghouz,

about 1.5 kilometers northeast of the village ofBaghouz. The ••

prehistoric site of Baghouz is about 100x 60 meters in extent and

2 meters high. The mound was first reported by Count du Mesnil du

Bui63:0.1*.iri 1935, in connec tion with the Yale Expedition at Dura-

Europas„ In 1936, a trench two meters wide and twenty-five meters

 112
long was excavated down to bedrock at the mound (Count du Mesnil

du. Buisson 19^8). Evidence of mud brick walls with Samarra Painted

■ Ware was found but no stratification was established by the

excavators (.Braidwood et al. 1944:49).

The limited collection of painted ceramics and a few other

artifacts resulting from these excavations was divided equally

between the,Louvre,the National Museum at Aleppo and Yale University.

The Yale portion was eventually exchanged to the University of

Chicago and consisted of 53 painted sherds and 10 pieces of flint

and obsidian. Field photographs enabled an additional 19 sherds and

25 other artifacts to be described in a 1944 report on Baghouz,

organized by P.J.Braidwood (Braidwood et al.'1944), The Iraq-Jarmo

Expedition of 1954-55 visited Baghouz and collected a field sample

from the surface and the 1936 trench (Kleindienst-1960:66) This new

sample consisted of 75 painted sherds, 6l plain ware sherds, 60

artifacts of stone, a gypsum plaster 'cone* and impressions of a

log, reeds and coiled basketry (Kleindienst 1960:69)® ’

Samarra Ware was the only painted ware at Baghouz, No Hassuna

or Halaf Wares were reported found. The Samarra Painted Ware was all

handmade and conformed in style to the Samarra ceramics of the type

site, Samarra (Braidwood et al. 1944:P1s. I-VII sKleindienst 1960:72.)

Three sherds with fugitive or unfired red paint were found at -Baghouz

*- but not at Samarra; Samarra Painted and Incised Ware was present

at Baghouz. Edna Tulane in her discussion of the Samarran style

 ' * 13 .

(Braidwood ejb al, 19^2.57-65) indicated that Baghouz Samarra

Ware designs were less carefully executed than those from

Samarra, but as B.JV Braidwood pointed out (Braidwood et al.

1944:52),the Samarra type site collection was highly selective

for the best examples» The limited size of the sample which Tuiane

studied must also be considered„ Differences in painted design

between Samarra and Baghouz are in general m i n o r . and probably

due to regional variations.

The plain wares found at Baghouz were particularly

interesting and were all handmade e Forty-eight of sixty-one

Plain ware sherds were grit-tempered and varied in color from gray

through red and buff to green* The grit tempered plain ware sherds

were classified into very fine, fine, and coarse groups,according

to the.size of grit particles included in, the temper * Red slipped

plain wares were also present and included both fine and coarse•

grit-tempered varieties* These red slipped wares were all polished.

One sherd of Dark-faced Burnished Ware,common,in Syro-Cillcia, was

found on' the surface (Kleindienst i 960 :6? )<> Thirteen sherds of

chaff-tempered plain ware were collected and were all fragments

of thick-walled vessels* Kleindienst (1960:68) noted that the

" , - '
plain wares from Baghou^z may be considered as types within a single

range of variation*

Kleindienst1s list of pottery types from Baghouz (1960:69)

included a Baghouz polychrome or bichrome but she gave no further

 114

details. R.J.Braidwood (Braidwood et al. 1944:52) earlier had

noted the slight possibility of a bichrome ware at Baghou'z,based

on one doubtful sherd. This dubious bichrome ware may be present

at Tell Hassuna if three bowl sherds from Level VI are comparable

and really similar. The Tell Hassuna sherds were decorated with

choclate and pink paint on a matt cream slip (Lloyd and Safar

1945 :270 ,P I . X I ,1 ).

Mud brick architecture was present and walls up to one

meter thick were found. There was evidence of floor and wall

plaster (Count du Mesnil du Buisson 1948). No figurines were

reported found on the surface or in the trench,

The stone industry so far studied from.Baghouz included

both flint and obsidian materials. The' flint materials included

27 tabular knives, 14 flakes, 15 ,flake-blades or blades, 8 blades

and blade sections, 7 cores, 4 small blades, and 1 possible

fabricator. Obsidian finds collected included 6 blades, 6 blade

sections, 5 flakes, and 2 possible cores (Kleindienst 1960:69;

L.S .Braidwood in Braidwood et, al. 1944:54-55) •

Two pieces of ground stone shown in a 1956 field photograph

may be pounders (L.S. Braidwood in Braidwood et al. 1944:55 1P I •I X ,

2,5). Count du Me s nil du Buis son's report (1948) indicated the.

presence of ground stone vessels, a full.ground celt, a tanged

a r r o w h e a d a n d a tripod footed mortar (Braidwood and Braidwood .1955

300).
 115 -

A shell probably cowry and a stone or clay stud or peg

were also shown on a 1936 field photograph (Braidv/ood ejt al* 1944:

PI6 IX, 8,9)* Several cones of gypsum plaster were found at

Baghouz (Count du Mesnil du Buisson 19^8;Kleindienst i 960)»Three,

impressions of coiled basketry, one of which may be of split-coil

technique were found by the Iraq-Jarrno Project investigators

(Kleindienst 1960 :69 ),

The evidence from Baghouz is limited but it appears to

represent a one period site occupied during the Hassuna-Samarra time

range» The absence of Hassuna or Halaf Wares,makes correlation of

the assemblage more difficult» The absence of Hassuna Wares is

particularly difficult to explain» One possible explanation is that

Baghouz had an.assemblage equivalent with Level I at Tel 1 es-Sawwan,

which lacked Hassuna Wares, Another possible explanation is that

Baghouz represents an independent Samarran assemblage which existed

during•the Hassuna-Samarra Period* The red slipped and gray wares

reported by El-Wailly and Al-Soof from Tell es-Sawwan Level IV

(1965:21) may be related to red slipped plain ware and gray grit-

tempered plain ware found at Baghouz (Kleindienst 1960 :67 )« More

specific correlation of the Baghouz materials is at present

impossible»

Baghouz is important merely by being the most southwestern

occurrence of Samarra Ware in relationship to Mesopotamia as a

whole» More significantly, Baghouz has the only known occurrence

 116
of Samarra Ware in the Euphrates Valley., The closest reported

Hassuna-Samar'ra site is Umm edh-Dhiab, about 210 kilometers to

the northeast near Hatra, The lack of sites in the Middle

Euphrates Valley near Baghouz is partly explained by the desert

climatic conditions making the region unsuited for rainfall

agriculture. However settlement is possible based on floodplain

farming and some minor efforts in irrigation. The Euphrates Valley

may have been sparsely populated during the Hassuna-Samarra Period

but was not unoccupied. Other shallow sites like Baghouz, only

one. or two meters deep are suspected along the Euphrates Valley

and penetrating the desert where water was availablea

• Tell Brak •

Tell Brak (ca, ^ 6 ^ ' North Latitude, 4l^3^East Longitude) is

located 32 kilometers northeast of modern A1 Hasakah in. extreme

northeast Syria near the Syrian-Iraqi border. Brak is approximately

210.kilometers northwest of Nineveh and 25 kilometers southeast

of Chagar Bazar, Brak is an oval mound situated just north of the

Jaghjagha River or the Nahr Jarh-Jarh, a major tributary of the

Khabur River. Brak.is a large site, 40 meters above the plain and

800x600 meters in extent. Tell Brak was partially excavated by

Mallowan in 1937 (Mallowan 194?) but no emphasis was placed oh

Halaf or pre-Halaf materials. Evidently the earliest materials',

Mallowan found at Brak are of the Early Halaf Period, but earlier

■levels must be present since, virgin soil was not. reached,* The
 . . 117

sherds which Mallowan considered to be Samarran were probably

Early Halaf (Perkins 1949:27). The excavated information from

Tell Brak is of lit.tle value -to the Ha-ssuna-Samarra Period, but

the lower levels may contain important Hassuna-Samarra materials.

Chagar Bazar
I....................................... .

Chagar Bazar also referred to as Tell Shaghir Bazar is

located about 25 kilometers south* of A m u da in extreme northeastern

Syria» Chagar Bazar" is located 75 kilometers east of Tell Halaf and

2k0 kilometers northwest of Nineveh» The mound is .situated on the

right bank of the Wadi Bara* a small tributary in the Khabur River

drainage system* Chagar Bazar is 21 meters high and roughly 400x300

.meters in extent at its base including a northern ridge 200 meters

long and 60 meters wide, about 14 maters high (Mallowan 1936:5)*

Chagar Bazar is in a moist steppe vegetation area and in the

traditionally productive farming country of the Upper -Khabur River

area* Chagar Bazar was noted in Mallowan1s survey of the•Khabur and

two test trenches were made at the site in late 1934* Sixty-two

mounds were recorded in the survey but specific details of the

survey as a whole were not published* The major excavations at

Chagar Bazar were conducted by Mallowan in two months during the

spring of 1935 (Mallowan 1936)* The main excavation was made in

Area fM ? on the northwestern side of the mound and began with an

area twenty by twenty-five meters and was narrowed to less than, a

third of that area when virgin soil was reached, fifteen meters
 118

below the top of the pit. Fifteen major levels were encountered

in the sounding. The,sequence, as outlined by Mallowan (1936:9-11)

for the middle and lower levels consisted of an Early Dynastic

or Ninevite- V occupation in Level 5 followed by a gap and remains

of a Ninevite -V cemetery in upper Level 6 . Basal Level 6 and Levels

*7-12 were all assigned to the Halaf Period and thought to

correspond closely with Tell Arpachiyah Levels TT-6-10. Levels 13-

15 represented a period in which Samarra Ware, predominated but

Halaf.Wares were also present. The absence of libaid levels and

Mallowan’s definitions of Halaf and Ssmarra Wanes were among the

problems of this sequence.

As-Perkins noted (1949:29) Ubaid features appeared-as.nearly

as Level 9 and increase in Levels 8- 6 . A tendency toward a full

Ubaid assemblage was evident but was not present. MallOwan’.s ,

classification of Samarra sherds has- been questioned in several

cases, Ann Perkins (1949:11~12) cited three sherds from Level 15

.(Mallowan 1936:P1. Ill,15-17) of which one is Halaf Ware and the

other two may be what she termed 'derivativeSamarran, Takey

Dabbagh in two recent studies of both Hassuna(1965) and Halaf (1966 )

ceramics, indicated that many of the sherds illustrated in Mallowan's

report (Mallowan 1936) from Levels 13-15 were actually Halaf Ware

sherds. These designs included a goat from Levels 12-13, a quadreped,

from Level 14, human figures from Level 15, and - stylized dancing

girls from Levels 13-14 (Mallpwan 1936 :Fig, 27 ^3 ,13 s22 ,.23 5 Dabbagh

1966:PI. XVIII, 320,321, PI. XVII, 306,308). The leopard design on

 119
a sherd from Level 13 and the row of crosses on a sherd from

Level' 14 were also'probably Halaf Ware (Mallowan 1936:Fig. 27,1,2;

Mallowan and Rose 1933:Fig,77,1IHerzfeld 1930:Fig, 1). However

Dabbagh considered sherds with bird designs from Level 15 and

the "Huts and Flowers" design from Level 13 as being Samarra Ware

(Mallowan 1936:Fig*27,11,1^*,Dabbagh;PI. VII, 119 , PI. VI,111). As

previously mentioned in this study, Perkins (1949:27) considered

the "Huts and Flowers" design as ’derivative' Samarran .or Early .

Halaf. Regardless of these motif association problems, Samarra

Ware was present at Chagar Bazar. The sherds Mallowan chose to

illustrate have tended to support the argument that Samarra Ware

was not dominant in Levels 13-15» Samarra and Halaf overlap in

ceramics seems the situation ,in Levels 13-15*

The ceramics of Levels 13-15 in addition to Halaf and

Samarra Wares included Ninevite 1 and 2 wares and some fine •

monochrome gray and black wares sometimes highly burnished and

incised (Mallowan 1936:10).Plain wares were reported to be rare■

and were not given much attention by the excavators (Mallowan 1936:11).

No buildings were found in Level 15 on vurgin soil, but two

pits, were discovered containing many sherds of- Samarra Ware and a

cache of monochrome gray and black burnished and incised wares.

A few sherds of Halaf Ware with bukranium designs were also found,
■ ^ ..."

The architecture of Levels 13-14 consisted of ’pise’ walls; a long

wall three quarters of a meter 'thick crossed Level 14.

 - ' 120

A marked architectural transition was in evidence between

Levels 13 and 12* After the destruction of Level 13, the area was

releveled and a two meter thick, mud brick.platform was constructed

throughout the entire area of the•sounding (Mallowan 1936:1?)»

Level 12 was an Halaf Period level*

Seventy-five graves were found in the main sounding but

none were found below Level 12* Considering the presence of Halaf

Ware in Level 13, Ann Perkins (1949:12) suggested that the first

settlement at Chagar Bazar was of -the Halaf Period * Level 15 of

Chagar Bazar probably was Early Halaf with some overlap with the.

Hassuna-Samarra Period„evidenced b y .Ninevite 1 and 2 ceramics,

esoecially Samarra and Samarra influenced Halaf ceramics * The caches

of Samarra and burnished wares in Level 15 suggest a semi-permanent

occupation of at least part of the site» The presence of some

Dark-faced Burnished Ware indicated contacts with the west,perhaps

Syro-Cilicia*

Tell Halaf

Tell Halaf (36^48' North Latitude, 40*0* East Longitude). is

located about 3 kilometers southwest of .Pas a l 1Ayn and less than

one kilometer from the Turkish border in northeast Syria* Tell Halaf

is situated on the right bank, of the Khab.ur River about 210 kilometers

east of Carchemish and over 330 kilometers west, of Nineveh* Tell

Halaf was discovered in 1899 and excavated under the direction of

Bar on Max Von Oppenheim inr seasons of 1911-13 and 1929 (Oppenheim
 121

1953; 19^2) <• Evidence- of the earliest periods ,at the sitewas

found in the citadel where test pits were excavated downto

bedrock. The stratigraphy of the earliest materials was not

precisely reported at first . a.nd the early deposits were called

the Painted Pottery Layer (Langenegger in Oppenheim 1933:273)°

; Apparently there were three subdivions. of the Painted

Pottery Layer: altmonochrome levels with coarse unpainted pottery,

levels with mixed mono.chrome,unpainted and painted wares, and

levels with painted ware dominant (Oppenheim 19^3)° The ceramics

of the altmonochrome levels consisted mainly of burnished wares'

psually thick-walled and with a slip which varied from gray to red.

Bowls were the chief shape- found and knobs or lugs below therim

were' common (Oppenheim 1942:23,Pis. I ,I I ,XXX, IX,XL; Perkins 1949':

12). These early monochrome wares were probably part of the

Syro-Cilician Dark-faced-Burnished Ware group (Braidwood and

Braidwood 1923:298-299). Unburnished'ceramics were also present

with spouts, loop handles'and carinate bowl forms.

The major painted ware'- found in the Painted Pottery Layer

was Halaf Ware , occurring above the altmonochrome - levels. Evidence

of the Hassuna-Samarra assemblage is restricted at Tell Halaf. An

Hassu.na husking tray was found in the unburnished group of the

altmonochrome levels (Oppenheim 1943:30;Braidwood and Braidwood

1923:299)° Ann Perkins noted that four sherds of-uncertain context

within the Painted Pottery Layer may be of Hassuna Archaic Painted

 122 -

Ware and Hassuna Standard Incised Ware (Perkins 1949:1$;

Oppenheim 194$:P1. XCVIII’:1-4). Samarra Painted Ware was present

mixed with Halaf Wares and its exact stratigraphic position is ..

not clear (Oppenheim 1943:65-67, PI, XC,?,11-13, Pl.XLVII/ll).

Other features of the altmonochrome levels included

animal figurines, cone-shaped figurines, spindle w h o r l s , and

sling missiles but their ceramic associations' were not made

clearo Flint and obsidian tools were found throughout the P a i n t e d ..

Pottery Layer but no.detailed descriptions or associations were made *

Tell Halaf provided evidence of an overlap of Samarra and

Halaf- Wares and some evidence of Hassuna Wares in the earliest

levels, A full Hassuna-Samarra assemblage was not found* T h e .

situation was confused by poorly reported stratigraphy- Tell. Hala.f

is most significant as the type site of Halaf W a r e 6 .

One radiocarbon date of 5620-35 B.C. (GrN-2660) is available

from Tell Halaf* The date was made on charcoal from a hearth

containing Halaf Ware but stratigraphically located near the transition

from the early altmonochrome wares to Halaf Wares (Vogel and Waterbock

1964 :355) » This date seems to be about a half century too early for

the Halaf Period.

dther Khabur Sites

MaiIowan ’s 1934 survey of the Khabur . (Mallowan 1936) noted

the relatively high density of mounds in the Upper Khabur region

and the absence of obvious sites along- the Lower Khabur. The Hpper
 123

Khatmr was. an important farming region aadd link in the major

east-west route in Northern Mesopotamia. The inadequate rainfall

for farming is the most obvious reason for the rarity of sites along

the Lower Khabur„ It is unfortunate that the Hassuna Samarra Period

is so poorly represented for this area: Tell Halaf. Chagar Bazar.,

and possibly Tell Brak and Tell Ailun. Halaf Ware was reported from

Tell Ailun, located virtually on. the Syrian-Turkish border about.

43 kilometers northwest of Chagar.Bazar and 40 kilometers northeast

of Tell Halaf (Watson 1963:70; Moortgat 1937:23), It is possible that

the full Hassuna-Samarra assemblage did not penetrate the Khabur

Biver region. A survey and careful! excavation of pre-Halaf materials,

in the Khabur region is necessary to clarify the situation. .

. • ' Tell Chuera .

The area, between the Upper Khabur and Upper Balikh River ...

Valleys,, about 75 kilometers is dotted with.mounds, many possibly

of.prehistoric age but they have not been reported so far. Tell

Chuera. located about midway between Tell Halaf and modern Tell A b y a d ,

is the main site known from this area. A.Moortgat conducted excavations

at the site. Tell Chuera is a large s i t e , over 1,000 meters long.

•No Hassuna., Samarra, or Halaf levels were reached or associated

ceramics found (Moortgat 1965) Mallowan 1966),

Balikh Sites .

The Balikh River is a tributary of the Euphrates located

in northern Syria. The Balikh rises in the springs of 'Ain-al-Arus

 . 124. \

just south of the Turkish border. The Balikh.Valley is

extended north by the Jullab and other seasonal.streams near .

Harran and Urfa in Turkey. Brief surface surveys of the Balikh .

area by Kallov^an in 19^8 (Mallowan 1946) and of the Jallub Plain

by Lloyd and Brice, in 1950 (Lloyd and Brice 1951) have contributed

most of the information about this region.

Mallowan1s survey included soundings at five m o u n d s .two

of which Tell Aswad and Tell Mefesh . had Halaf Ware present.

Mallowan (1956:115) stated that, ’cognates1 of Samarra Ware were

found at these two sites. Tell Aswad is located 22 kilometers south '

of Tell Abyad and is a mound 20 meters high and 400x500.meters'in

extent. Halaf Period materials were found in a trench on the.top

of the mound.- Below Mallowan’s excavations are 17 meters of deposits

simply.referred to as Neolithic (Mallowan 1956:125,124), Tell

Mefesh is located 40 kilometers south of Tell Abyad and 10 kilometers

west of the Balikh. Mefesh is 15 meters high and 250x150 meters in

extent» Mallowan’s test excavations indicated that the first

occupation of the lower five meters of the mound was of the Halaf

Period„ The middle and upper levels were dated to the Ubaid Period

of Northern Mesopotamia. No Hassuna materials were reported from

these sites.

No Hassuna or Samarra Wares were reported from the Jallub

Plain but Halaf sherds were found on the surface of Asagi Yarimca,

located about 5 kilometers northwest of Harran on the east bank of

 125

the Jallub River. Sherds of Northern Ubaid and later periods

were also found, on this mound.

Another site in the Balikh Valley is Tell Zeidan, located

on the left bank of the Balikh. about 6 kilometers east of Raqqa

on the Euphrates River in Syria, Zeidan is a large mound about

500 meters long and a brief collection made in 1925 included sherds

(now known to be Northern Ubaid Ware in addition to flint and

obsidian blades and lanceheads (Albright 1926),

For the Balikh drainage area, no definite evidence of the

■Hassuna-Sgmarra assemblage was found other" than a few possible

Samarra sherds mixed with Halaf Ware at Tell Aswad and Tell Mefesh,

The pre-Balaf sequence is poorly understood and excavations of Tell

Aswad or a similar site carried down to virgin soil would help to

resolve this problem.

. B'ouqras

Several sites located along the western periphery of Northern

Mesopotamia have recently been excavated but evidence of the Hassuna-

Samarra Period is limited. Bouqras is located about 120 kilometers

northwest of Baghouz and 40 kilometers southeast of Deir ez-Zor,Syria

Bouqras is a small site situated on a promontory along the right

bank of the Euphrates Valley, almost opposite the confluence of the

Khabur River (Van •Liere and Contenson 1963:182), The. stratigraphy

of the site was described as consisting of three major periods and

seven levels. The first two periods Bouqras I. and II were aceramic.
 126

Bouqras III, the final occupation, contained a few sherds of

dark burnished wares, probably including Dark-faced Burnished

Ware. Stone bowls of. gypsum and alabaster were made during the

Bouqras II period. Architecture varied from ’pise' houses in

Bouqras I to mud.brick construction in Bouqras II-III. The obsidian

samples so far tested have indicated an Armenian source (Renfrew.,

Dixon,Gann 1969:522,325).

Four radiocarbon dates are available for Bouqras (see

Appendix E). Dates of 6l90-60 B.C. (GrN-48l8) and 6290-100 B.C.

(GrN-4852) were obtained from Bouqras I material«, Bouqras II and

III were dated 6010^55 B.C. (GrN-48l9) and 5990-60 B.C. (GrN-4820)

respectively,(Vogel and Waterbolk 1967:128) a

No evidence of the Hassuna-Saraarra or Halaf assemblages

was found at Bouqras, Bouqras as the radiocarbon dates indicated was

a pre-Hassuna-Samarra Period site and is interesting -because it. is

one of the few prehistoric sites so far reported along the Middle

Euphrates Valley in Syria, Bouqras. lacked reported evidence of plants

especially cereals and has been described as possibly being a

community of hunters and shepherds (Van Liere- and Contenson 1963:182),

James Mellaart described Bouqras as an attempt to establish settled

farming which failed (Mellaart 196.7:25)» ° ■;

El-K.owm .

West of Bouqras, another site, El-Kowm has recently been

tested (Van Loon and Dornemann 1969:68). El Kowm is located in a

pass between Jabal Abu Rujmein and JAbal Bishri, about 120

kilometers northeast of Palmyra and 85 kilometers south of Raqqa

on the Euphrates River-* The mound is 25 meters high ,with over 15

meters of Neolithic occupation so far reported. Virgin soil was

not reached in a brief five day sounding made at the site in 1967-

Over ten meters of. aceramic floors were reported below five meters

of ceramic materials. The ceramic materials were reported to be

related to U gar it VB,_ Ramad II, and Amu q Phase B wares (Van Loon ■

and Dornernann 1969^68-70). No Hassuna or Halaf. were specifically,

noted.

Tell Mureybit

In connection with the construction of a dam on the.Euphrates

in Northern Syria, a 1964 survey of the Meskene area revealed fifty-

six sites, seventeen of which were noticable mounds<> One of these

mounds., Tell Mureybit was excavated in 1965 (Van Loon 1966; 196-8).

Mureybit is located on the left bank of the Euphrates River about

.86 kilometers east of Aleppo. The tell was about 6 meters high and

75 meters in diameter. Three major aceramic phases and seventeen

strata were encountered before virgin soil was reached almost eleven -

meters below the surface of the mound (Van.Loon 1968:265). Six

radiocarbon•determinations were made (Van Loon 1968:281) which

ranged from 8265?117 B.C. (P-1217) to 7 5 ^ 1 2 2 B.C. (P-1224). No

evidence of the Hassuna-Samarra or -Halaf Period was reported for

'Mureybit«
 . 128 ■

The Jabbul. Plain.

-The Jabbul Plain is that region around the Sabkhat.al^

Jabbulr an. almost completely dry salt ..lake, southeast of Aleppo* .

The Jabbul Plain is about 30-40 kilometers west of the Euphrates

River* One hundred and;fourteen, mounds were visited in a survey

conducted in 1939 throughout the Jabbul region (Maxwell Hyslop

et al* 1942-43)e Two sites, Jededieh Jabbul II and Sheikh Ahmed

had surface sherds which were described as resembling those of

1
Nineveh Level 2B f with chequer board designs in red and black

paint on a buff slip (Maxwell Hyslop et al. 1942-43:24)e Apparently

Samarra and possibly Hassuna.Wares were present at these two sites* ,

Brown burnished ware and straw-tempered plain wares were also

present at these sites * Both sites are long and low mounds * Halaf

sherds in the "Jabbul area were reported for Tell Sabaine, Tell Shirba,

and Jededieh Jabbul, all situated along the left bank of the Nahr

ed Dahab ,slightly over 30 kilometers southeast of Aleppo*

'V Tell Ahmar

Tell Ahmar or Til Barsip is located on.the left bank of

the Euphrates River about 20 kilometers south of Carchemish and 170

kilometers west of Tell Halaf* The mound was excavated by the Louvre
. •

between 1929 and 1931 (MaiIowan 19>7‘:328; Thureau-Dangin and Dunard

1936)» Twenty-five meters of deposits and seven major stratigraphic

units were encountered over virgin soil. Level VII on virgin soil

was three meters thick and contained mostly Northern Ubaid ceramics*
 129 ...

The lowest strata on virgin soil had sherds of Halaf Ware

but no Hassuna or Samarra W ares were reported found (Mallowan

1937:339)..

Yunnus-Carchemish

Carchemish is situated on the right bank of the Euphrates

River immediately north of Djerablous,Syria, near the Turkish-

Syrian border„ Carchemish is located over 210 kilometers west

of Tell Halaf and 150 kilometers northeast of Tell al-Judaidah

in the Amuq., The stratigraphy at Carchemish was not clear but

evidently Dark-faced Burnished Ware was found below the twenty

meter level. Robert and Linda Braidwood (1953:298) noted that one

sherd may be of Hassuna type incised ware at Carchemish, Yunnus,

a small mound near Carchemish has evidence of round structures

described as kilns» Halaf Painted Wares were predominant at Yunnus

which was excavated in 1913 (Woolley.1934:Pis.XIX-YX). No Samarra ,

Ware, was reported for either Yunnus or Carchemish.

Tell Turlu.'

Tell Turlu, located about 35 .kilometers northwest, of

Carchemish and 4-5 kilometers east of Gaziantep in Turkey, has

materials of the Halaf Period. Turlu is a mound about 30 meters high.

In 1962, Jean Perrot made a few trenches at the foot of the western

slope of the mound.' Seven levels were encountered and .".numbered from

bottom to top before bedrock was reached„ The earliest levels 1-2

contained 'slightly burnished’ wares. The ceramics of levels 5-6

 . 130

appeared to be of the Northern Ubaid Period. The intervening

levels 3-4 had Halaf and Dark-faced Burnished Wares (Perrot in

Mellink 1964:156). No Hassuna-Samarra ceramics, were reported.

Adiyaman

In the Adiyaman area ,north of Carchemlsh on the right

bank of the Euphrates, three mounds have reported occurrences of

Halaf ceramics: Adiyaman Hityuk Boz Huyuk and Yassi Hnyuk. Adiyaman

Huyuk is located about 1$0 kilometers north of Carchemlsh and

230 kilometers northwest of Tell Halaf, Boz and Yassi Huyiiks

are located south and southwest of Adiyaman (Mellaart 1963 :67 ,

Bigc 41), No Hassuna-Samarra materials were reported from these

sites,

Malatya-Elt'zlg ■ /

Along the northern periphery of Northern Mesopotamia

evidence of the Hassuna-Samarra Period is' restricted to a few sites,

In the west the sites of Isakoy and Hiiisor have one jar rim each

which was described a s 1Hassuna type ? ware (Burney 1958:161) , Hinsor

is.located 10 kilometers west of Elazig and about 125 kilometers

northwest of Diyarbakir, Isakoy is located near Hinsor in the

Malatya-Elazig region, Halaf Ware in the Malatya-ElSzig are was

reported for Kuyuluk, Hinsor, Karahilyllk$ and Arslantepe (Burney 1958:

l6l;Mellaart 1965 :67 ^Fig,4l), Surveys and excavations connected with

t h e ■Keban Project along the Upper. Euphrates may yield.additional

information about the Halaf Period?, but it is doubtful that the

 131

Hassuna-Samarra assemblage ever penetrated that far northwest of

the Mesopotamian Plain, A mound with Halaf Ware is reported near

the site of Cayonu near Ergani, about 65 kilometers northwest

of Diyarbakir (Jelinek 1969)* No IIassuna-Samarra material is

reported for the Ergani area, Cayonu is an aceramic village site

located near. Ergani, When published the ^ayonif assemblage should

be useful in describing pre-Hassuna-Samarra developments on the

periphery of Northern Mesopotamia, Two published radiocarbon dates

from £ayonu are 7570-100 B.C. (GrN-4458) and 7250-60 B.C. (GrN-4459)

place the assemblage much earlier than Hassuna-Samarra times (Vogel

and Waterbock 1967:127). '

Diyarbakir

Diyarbakir is a. modern community located about 175 kilometers

east of Adiyaman and 125 kilometers north of Tell Halaf„ Halaf Wares

were reported in the Diyarbakir area by James Mellaart (1965:6? iFig,

4l). The citadel of Diyarbakir, or ancient Amida,was built on the

right bank of the Tigria River. Trenches made into the citadel

yielded obsidian blades and sherds of buff and dark burnished wares

in addition to ’painted wares’■(Dcmmez and Brice 1949:48)."However

Hassuna-Samarra materials were not specifically reported from the

citadel. • . " .

Southeast Turkey — Tilkitepe

The regions surrounding modern Mus, Batman, Bitlis Si ir1 9 and

Van are poorly investigated in the prehistoric r>eriodse No Hassuna-

 • . ' ■ 132

Samarra sites are known, based on published evidence. Tilkitepe

or Saiairamalti, a mound on the eastern shore of Lake Van , about

10 kilometers south of Van is the only site reported with Halaf

materials (Reilly 1940). In .1937 E. B. Reilly enlarged an earlier

trench made by Belck in 1899. Halaf'Ware was found in Tilkitepe

III, the deepest and earliest level found by Reilly. Levels II and

I contained wares which probably correlate with Geoy Tepe Levels .

N and .M, in Iran (Burney 1958:l6o), Robert and Linda Braidwood

(1953:306-307) reported that in 1939 Kirsop Lake made some

additional excavations a t 'Tilkitepe. Four levels were found with

Halaf Ware and a burnished red ware was found in the deepest level.

Tilkitepe is important as the most northeastern Halaf site found.

Tilkitepe is situated over 300 kilometers from Nineveh and 450

kilometers from Tell Halaf.

 CHAPTER 3

THE HASSUNA-SAMARRA PERIOD:CORRELATIONS .WITH OTHER' REGIONS

A brief survey of the evidence of the Hassuna-Samarra

assemblage in the regions of the Near- East neighboring Northern

Mesopotamia is necessary to place the assemblage in the perspective

of contemporary developments» The occurrence, of Halaf materials

is included for comparison purposes«

Southern Mesopotamia

The prehistoric sequence in Southern Mesopotamia (See Fig*7)

during the sixth and early fifth millennia B*Co- is vaguely

understood and tentatively divided into two phases: Ubaid 1 and

Ubaid 2, the first two phases of a four phase Ubaid ceramic

tradition (J.Oates 1960:33;Porada 1963:149), The earliest phase

so far known in Southern Mesopotamia is the Ubaid 1 or Eridu Phase

characterized by the presence of Eridu Ware» Ubaid 1 is presently

thought to be i n .part contemporary with the Hassuna-Samrra Period of

Northern Mesopotamia« The Ubaid 2.or Hajji Muhammad Phase is equated

with the Halaf Period (Porada 1965.;Dyson 1968).

Eridu -

Eridu or Abu Shahrein is a site located about 360 kilometers

south of Baghdad, 240 kilometers- northwest of the Persian Gulf, and

133 ' /
| \ ( Sarab.. a°din \Tepe Sialk

/
I _ 3 3 y i >
1 1 AnaaliX x C ' X
Khorra.j7iaoad
1 // r \
BAGHDAD / #IRAQ V 8"
X "V
^iSris River
'
Tepe Sabz ^ ,
\
_

N -
Has al,«aiya V''_Xus52Lc^h
—^ V J *
°S gha Mish

AX K K A D \ ^ (J aaff
VJ ffa^aXd
efaXd |
v Susa**13 |

Euphrates River
V » Nijppur
x KX k j 1 s T

S U| M E R KX f i i v e X ) (ELAM) '
Hajji K^ihammad
i 1 /Karun - ^

Miles
:• . f\_ f
2 ^ 5 50 100 Eridu
----
Kilometers j Z X
""^VPersian Gulf
IL,
Figure 7. Southern Mesopotamia and Iran.

H
vj
4^
 135

TABLE XI

•;Relative Chronology, Southern Mesopotamia«

YEARS NORTH SOUTH •. *

B.C. MESOPOTAMIA MESOPOTAMIA ERIDU RAS A L 'AMIYA
PERIOD PERIOD

UBAID UBAID J> XI I

4,500-
XII
HALAF UBAID 2 XIII
XIV
>5,000-

XV
XVI
HASSUNA- UBAID 1 XVII
SAMARRA X^ITI

■XIX
5 ,500— -
 136
30 kilometers south of the Euphrates River. In 1947-49, the

earliest materials found at Eridu in the Hut and Temple Soundings'

were excavated by Lloyd and Safar (Lloyd and Safar 194?;1948;Safar

1950). In the bes t•reported sounding, the Temple Sounding nineteen

levels were found over a green sand, thought to be virgin soil

and tested to a depth of five meters. Levels XIX-XV of the Temple^

Sounding were assigned to the Ubaid 1 Phase (J.Oates 1960:33).

Eridu Ware, a monochrome usually choclate-colored painted ware

with a buff to cream slip was common in Levels XIX-XV. Coarse wares

including a green-colored variety also were present. The correlation-

of Ubaid 1 andi Hassuna-Samarra materials is principally based on

ceramic similarities. Hassuna-type husking trays were found at

Eridu in Levels XIX,XVII, and XV (Lloyd and Safar 1948:PI. III).

Eridu Painted Ware has a number of similarities in dec orated;:designs

with Samarra Painted Ware. Joan Oates noted that the main analogies

included:the decoration of the outside of bowls with zig-zags and

triangles made of parallel lines, the use of horizontal zones of

decoration on jars and bowls, and the interior decoration of shallow

bowls (J.Oates 1960:42). In vessel shapes similarities between Eridu

and .Samarra Ware occurred including beaker-like vessels, low and

high collared jars, and ring-based bowls (J.0ates 1960:42-43).

However there were many differences in vessel shapes and design

motifs between Samarra and Eridu Ware. The decoration of simple

bowls' and the presence of husking trays are really.the only two
 13?
indications of contact. General similarities in designs also

exist between Eridu and Halaf Wares (Oates 1960:43).

In Level XVI,a four meter square, mud brick building

was found with pedestals in the center of the building and a

wall recess which suggest that the building was a temple beginning

the Sumerian traditiop. In Level XV, Hajji Muhammad Ware first

appeared and then predominated in Levels XIV-XII of the Ubaid 2

Phase. Hajji Muhammad Ware has several similarities with Susiana.

ceramics especially Jaffarabad I and early Jowl (J.0ates i 960 :

-43-44). Hajji Muhammad Ware is also known from Ur (Wqolley 1955),

Nippur (J.Oates 1960:48), Has al'Amiya (Stronach 1961), the Mandali

area (J.Oates. 1966 ;1968 ), and the type site of Q a l ’at Hajji

Muhammad- near Warka (Ziegler 1953).

Very little additional information about the early Eridu

assemblage is available and the final report is awaited» A report

on fauhal remains from the Hut Sounding was concerned with Ubaid

3 or the former Ubaid I Period materials (Flannery and Wright 1966 ).

No.definite sherds of Hassuna, Samarra, or Halaf Painted Wares were

reported in an Ubaid 1 or 2 context at Eridu or any other site in

Southern Mesopotamia. The correlation of Ubaid 1 with the Hassuna-

Samarra Period rests on the strength of a few design and? vessel

shape, parallels between Eridu and Samarra Ware. Joan Oates (1960:43)

noted that in addition to Hassuna type ^husking trays',^milk jars .of

the Hassuna type were prestflt at Eridu. However the illustration which
 138

she cited (J.Oates I960: PI. IV, 7 ) was not a itnilk jar. Instead

she apparently was noting the general similarity in shape of large

storage-type vessels found at Eridu (J.Oates I960:PI„ IV,'7) and

Tell Hassuna (Lloyd and Safar 1945:Fig. 6 ). The vessels from Tell

Hgssuna were most common in Level la and were made of Hassuna

Archaic Coarse War e.

Has al'Amiya ■

Pas al'Amiya, meaning 'Head of the Blind (River)' in Arabic,

is an alluvium site located about 8 kilometers north of Kish and

80 kilometers southeast of Baghdad. The site was discovered in

connection with an irrigation project and excavated by David Stronach

in i 960 (Stronach 3-961). The village of tauf-walled structures was

found buried under one to two meters of alluvium. The village as

a whole was estimated to cover an oval area of seven acres (Stronach

1961 :98 ,99)« Five levels and probably a sixth were encountered. The

bottom two levels IV and V were under the present water table and

were mostly sandy deposits mixed with a few sherds. Virgin soil under

Level V,was tested in a one meter deep pit before water baited

the.digging. . '

The ceramics found at Has al'Amiya consisted principally of

Hajji Muhammad Ware with a number of shapes similar to the Ubaid

Ware of Eridu Levels XI-VIII and Tepe Gawra Levels XVIII and XVII

(Stronach 1961:121). The paint of Hajji Muhammad Ware was. usua3.1y

thickly applied and most commonly purplish-black in color, The

 • ' 159"

combination of this paint on a cream slip gave the ware a

metallic luster. True polychromy did not occur in Hajji Muhammad

Ware. A particular type of carinated bowl of Hajji Muhammad Ware

was- present at Ras a l ’Amiya, one example of which has a kink at the

carination^distinctive of similar but polychrome bowls or plates

from Ha laf levels at Tell Arpachiyah (Stronach 196l:113'sPl. XLVIII,

2; Mai Iowan and Rose 1939: frontispiece.). -

Most of the Ras a l ’Amiya design motifs were similar to

those at Eridu or Q a l ’at Hajji Muhammad, but some Halaf motifs

were present (Stronach 196l:Pl. XLV,6, PI. XLVII,9), including

naturalistic 'mouflon’ designs (Stronach 1961:119,P1« XLV,10)„ The

'mouflon’ design is a stylized representation of a bukranium or

bull's skull design with the. horns reyersed (Malicwan and Rose

1935:194, Fig. 68,2) o

David Stronach concluded (1961:122,123) that Ras al'Amiya

was probably equivalent in date to Eridu Level XI which':is thought

to mark the beginning of the Ubaid 3 Phase. The Ras al'Amiya

assemblage as a whole seems to be transitional between Ubaid 2 and

.Ubaid 3. No definite evidence of the Hassuna— Samarra Period was

reported although some Samarra design.influence may be indicated

on a few sherds (Stronach 1961:123, Pi. L1X, 6-9)»

The discovery and excavation of additional sites or levels

■of.Ubaid 1-2 Phases or earlier materials is urgently needed to

clarify the sequence in Southern Mesopotamia. The situation at

 140

Ras" a l fAmiya and Eridu indicates the possibility that early

villages may be buried a few or many meters beneath the present

level of alluvium. Shifting river courses, a series of floods,

and sandstorms have concealed many sites. Discovery of Ubaid 1

sites in the Ras al:8Arniya area would be important in testing

,the tentative Hassuna-Samarra and Ubaid 1 correlation, A geographicall

gap of about 350 kilometers separates the Samarra and Mandali

area from the Eridu area, Joan Oates noted (1968:8) some design

affinities between the Samarra Ware of the Mandali area and

Eridu Ware but nothing more definite than that,

The Ubaid 2 - Halaf correlation is also somewhat dubious,

Hajji Muhammad Ware is present in quantity in the Mandali region

about 150 kilometers northeast, of Ras al'Amiya, Joan Oates noted

several nearly identical carinated bowl sherds from Choga* Mami

and Ras a l 'Amiya (J.Oates 1968:PL, V I 14 15‘i PE, IX,12; Stronach

1961: PI, XEIX, 3i 1-2, P1, XEVIII,2), As previously noted'

only a few sherds of Halaf Ware are reported from the Samarra and

Mandali regions and the stratigraphic relationship of Halaf and

Ubaid 2 Wares has not been established.

An attempt to indirectly correlate Hajji Muhammad and

Halaf Ware has been madeLby comparing the stratigraphic sequences

of Tep'e Gawra and Eridu (see Fig, 8), Gawra Levels X I X - XVH of the

Early Northern Ubaid Period have been correlated with Eridu Levels

XI-VIII of the Ubaid 3 Phase or former Ur Ubaid I Period. The

 I TEPE GAWRA EH IDU
§ Phase
| Ceramics: Ceramics:
I Ubaid Halaf Level Level Ubaid Muhammad , aradu
j XV ! VII 5 Ubaid 4

I XVI VIII

Northern XVII I IX
6u, . — S-
{ Ubaid 3
Ubaid I
S XVIII !
j X
1
J
I XIX ) XI
1
Halaf
XX XII
(Late) I
XIII Ubaid 2

XVII Ubaid 1

XVIII

Figure 8, Approximate Correlation of Tepe Gawra and Eridu.

i Present in quantity

141
 142

relationship of Gawra to Eridu levels was earlier discussed

by Ann Perkins (1949*94) and was summarized by Edith Porada

(1965*142)* Specific correlations include: ^tortoise vasesn

in Gawra XIX-XVII and Eridu XIII-VIII, bent clay nails or

mullers in Gawra X1X- X V I .and.Eridu XXI-VIII9 and temple

architecture in Gawra XIX-XVIII and Eridu XI-VIII* The similarity

of Pas a l *Amiya bent clay nails, "tortoise vases,*1 and a special

type of spindle whorl with the Gawra XIX-XVII assemblage reinforces

this -correlation* Hajji Muhammad Ware occurred in Levels XV-.VIII

at Eridu overlapping. TJbaid .Ware in Levels XIII-VIII, while at

Tepe Gawra, Halaf and Ubaid Wares were both present.in Levels

XX-XVI1, taken together this information indicates a possible"

indirect correlation of Hajji Muhammad and Hqlaf Ware* This

correlation seems to indicate that while Hajji Muhammad and. Halaf

Wares do overlap, the possibility that the Halaf. Period may be

slightly earlier in t i m e .exists*

Figure 8 attempts to present the comparative stratigraphy

of Tepe Gawra and Eridu» The placing of Gawra XIX opposite Eridu

XI is based on the c l o s e •similarity of religious architecture

between the two levels and ceramic connections* This type of long

range correlation is difficult and subject to change * Tepe Gawra

is over .800 kilometers north of Eridu and 500 kilometers north of

Pas al*Amiya, The general correlations that have been made seem

reasonable based on the limited evidence available, but they are

not secure e
 w

Iran

Connections between Iran and Northern Mesopotamia during

the Hassuna-Samarra Period appear to have been very limited„ The

evidence of influence available based on ceramic similarities is

present in the Sabz Phase or Susiana a Phase of Khuzistan and

SiaIk Level I (see F i g , ■7 and Table XII ).

Khuzistan

The preliminary results of excavation in the Deh Luran area .

(Hole and Flannery .1967) of Khuzistan or southwestern Iran, have

made it possible to modify Louis. Le Breton's earlier (1957) Susiana

sequence, Susiana phases a~d roughly equate with Deh Luran phases

Sabz, Khazineh, M e hmeh, and Bayat (Hole and Flannery 1967;Dyson 1968).

Phase a of the Susiana sequence was defined as Jaffarabad I at the

type site of Tepe Jaffarabad 8 kilometers north of SusaaLe Breton

showed some connections of Susiana a with the Hassuna-Samarra

assemblage but there were also analogies in ceramics with Hajj'i

Muhammad, The'.basal:, levels of Jowi another site near Susa and the

type site of Susiana- phase b had direct ,parallels with Hajji Muhammad

Ware and indirectly Halaf (Le Breton 1957:84-86), Susa is situated

between the Karkheh and Dez Rivers in southwestern Iran also known

as Khuzistan or ancient Elam*

The sites of Tepe Musiyan, Tepe Sabz and Ali Kosh are

located in the Deh Luran- area about 300 kilometers east of Baghdad

and 120 kilometers northwest of Susa» Some: general ceramic analogies

 144

TABLE XII

Relative Chronology, Iran.

YEARS PERIOD GODIN GIYAN SUSIANA DEE LURAN SIALK

B.C. PHASE PHASE

DBAID VI VB

4,500-

. HALAF VA b Khazineh I
' . . 4

5 ,000.

' 1 2
i

5 ,500-

Gap
HASSUNA
Mohammad
Jaffar
, -
6 000
 14$

.were noted between the early materials from Tepe Sabz'and

early Eridu, Samarra and Matarrah. A series of radiocarbon dates

for the Deh Luran sequence suggest that 5500-5000 B.C. is the most

likely time range for the Sabz Phase (Hole and Flannery 1967:170;

see Appendix F )•„ Sabz phase materials in Khuzistan are mostly located .

on sites in the area of rainfall farming. In the Deh Luran area there

are six.known sites and in the Susiana area thirty-four Sabz Phase

sites are known including Jaffarabad and Choga Mish (Hole and Flannery

1967:187-188). In Hole and Flannery's Deh Luran scheme the Sabz Phase

begins a n 'era of early irrigation ,farming and cattle domestication.

Hole and Flannery suggest early irrigation to supplement rainfall

farming in the Sabz Phase. Based on the distribution of sites and

stream channels, Adams had earlier (1962:110,112-113) suggested

irrigation for the upper plains of Khuzistan for Susiana phases

b, c and later phases. Hole and Flannery report that Helbaek1ss study

of flax or linseed from the Sabz Phase indicated that irrigation

began in the Sabz Phase (Hole and Flannery 1967:182). Experiments in

irrigation at least in the case of flax is also reported from Tell

es-Sawwan (Helbaek 1964). The floral" remains of the Sabz Phase

consisted of domestic hulled, six- row and two-row barley, lentils,

vetch, vetchling and irrigated flax (Hole and Flannery 1967:184).

Faunal remains from the Sabz Phase included domestic goats,

sheep, dogs, and cattle. Gazelle were hunted and fishing was also used

to supplement the food supply.

 146

Perhaps there is a longer gap between the Mohammad Jaffar

Phase ,6 OOO- 56 OO. B.C. found at Ali Kosh and the Sab 7., Phase 5500-

5000 B.C.. found at Tepe S'abz than Hole or Flannery suspected. As

Hole a„nd Flannery noted, they could not .determine whether or not

the Sabz Phase developed from the Mohammad Jaffar (1967:188). There

were major changes in the chipped stone industry from a developed

flint and obsidian industry to a less elaborate and limited flint

industry. Some continuity in ceramics is noted and stone bowls

overlap the Sabz Phase. However human or animal figurines were not

found in the Sabz or later Phases (Hole and Flannery.1 9 6 7 :174,180).

It should be noted that mast of the Sabz Phase material was excavated

in a midden area. No resolution of the Sabz-Mohammad Jaffar

connection appears evident at present«.

■ Following the Sab.z Phase 5 the Khazineh Phase dated to about

5000-4500 B.C. is almost identical with Susiana b . The Khazineh- Phase

has •strong ties with Hajji Muhammad and some"similarities with Halaf,

Banahilk and Siabid * (Hole and Flannery 1 9 6 ? :lS9)* A n :increased

population seems evident, given 12 known Khazineh sites in the Deh

Luran area and about 102 Susiana b sites in Susiana(Hole and Flannery

1 9 6 7 :189; Adama 1962:113).. Following the Sabz and Khazineh Phases

at Tepe Sabz? the Mehrneh -Phase overlaps the assemblage of Susiana c

and has ties with the Ubaid 3 Phase at Eridu and Pas a l 1Amiya

(Hole and Flannery 1 9 6 7 :190). Strong connections are also indicated

-with -the Iranian Plateau area especially SiaIk III,

 147

The Deh Luran sequence is significant for the quantity of

evidence excavated^ and its interpretation by Hole and Flannery fl967).

However most of the connections of the Deh Luran sequence appear

to be with Southern Mesopotamia arid the Mandali region during the

Hassuna-Samarra time range»

Central Zagros .

Evidence of the Hassuna-Samarra assemblage in the Central

Zagros area-.has- not been reported* .Parallels with the Hassuna-Samarra

assemblage in SiaIk I,' 1-5 prompted Robert Dyson (1965*218) to

i '

suggest that Hassuna-Ssmarra "...influence enters Iran via the Central

Zagros and reaches the Central plateau.11 Sites in the Central Zagros

with the linking evidence between the-Dokan Dam,Khanaqin, and Mandali

areas of Iraq and SiaIk have not been found. Halaf Wares have not

been found in the Central Zagros area but Halaf influence is

indicated at Tepe Giyan VA and SiaIk I, 4-5 and .II. Earlier sites

such as Tepe Quran (Mortensen 1964), Teoe Sarah (Braidwood 1961), and

Gang Dareh Tepe (Smith 1968) do not have an clear connections

with the Hassuna-Samarra or Halaf assemblage. Godin Tepe (Young and.

Smith 1966;Young 1967) has no connection with the Hassuna~Samarra

assemblage but Godin period VII may. be contemporary with the Hassuna-

Samarra Period if the excavators estimated range of 5500-5000 B eC» is

correct.

Tepe Giyan (Contenau and Ghirshman 1935) is located about

14 kilometers southwest of Nahavand and 150 kilometers east of

 148

Kermanshah. The earliest phase of Level V, is VA .(MeGown 1942:13)

which is located just, above virgin soil. Giyan VA is a meter thick

and is thought to be related to the Halaf Period on the basis of

three design parallels pointed out by MeGown (1942:Figs. 26-9,28-10,

48-32) with A r pachiyah TT-6-9 and Gawra XIX and Northeast Base. The

relative dating of: Giyan VS. places it in the Ubaid 3 Phase and this

correlation is another reason for dating Giyan VA to the Halaf.Period

(Dyson 1963:231). Based on the few design parallels Tepe Giyan

would seem better dated if placed in the transitional period between

the Halaf :and Ubaid Periods.

In the Central Zagros a 1961 survey of the Assadabad,

Kangovar, Sahneh, Nehavand , Borujerd, and part of the Khorramabad

valleys (Young 1966 ) failed to find any evidence of Hassuna-Samarra

or Halaf materials although the objectives of the survey were later

period sites» Twenty-four sites were found with early straw-tempered

wares; four of these sites had straw tempered painted wares. Pottery,

of the .Giyan■V type red slipped wares and finger impressed wares were

found at five, twelve and five sites respectively with some overlap.

Central Plateau-Tepe Sialk

Tepe Sialk is located about 420 kilometers east of Kermanshah

and about 8 kilometers southwest of Kashan in. Central Iran. Sialk

was excavated, by Ghirshman in 1933 and 1937 (Ghirshman 1938). Level

I just above virgin' soil contained five sub-strata. Sialk I, 1-3

has at number of ceramic stylistic parallels with Hassuna Levels IV-V

 ^ ■ •

149
of the Hassuna-Samarra Period as outlined by Robert Dyson (1965 :

236).. Copper is als'o reported for Si a Ik I, 3 (Wertime 1964). Based

on design parallels Sialk I, 5~5 is assigned to the Halaf Period

and Sialk II overlaps the Halaf and Ubaid 3 Periods. Connections

between Tepe Giyan VA and Sialk 1,4-5 and II are clearer and the.

correlations with Northern Mesopotamia remain tentative at best®

Sialkfs. location near the Anarak copper source and the presence of "

copper in Sialk 1,3 and later levels has led to suggestions; that

Sialk may be a craft specialist village based on copper(Hole and

i • •
Flannery 196?:183;Flannery 196 5 )* It should be noted that vessel

shape parallels between Hassuna-Samarra wares and Sialk ceramics»

No definite sherds of Hassuna,Samarra or Halaf pottery were found

(Ghirshman 1938;Vanden Berghe 1959;MeGown 19^2;Dyson "1965)» Sialk

is located over 65O- kilometers east of the nearest Hassuna-Samarra

material in the Mandali area, however contact during late Hassuna-

Samarra times and the early Halaf Period seems evident e

Northwest Iran _

Two sites, Yanik Tepe and Hajji Firuz are of significance

in the Hassuna-Samarra time range. Yanik Tepe is located about 32

kilometers southwest of Tabriz and 5 kilometers east of Lake Urmia*

Yanik Tepe was excavated by C.A.Burney (1961,1962,1964) but a low

mound near Yanik Tepe proved significant because of the presence of •

ceramics like Hajji Firuz and mud brick architecture.(Burney 1962 :55-

56 )* These levels known as Neolithic Yanik Tepe are correlated with

 150

Hasanlu Period X at Hajji Firuz and dated 6000-5000 B.C. (Dyson.

1968;1969).

Hajji Firuz (57 0 North latitude, 45 29 East Longitude) is

located about 1.6 kilometers south of Hasanlu and. about 20 kilometers,

southwest of Lake Urmia (Young 1962)« The lower levels of Hajji

Firuz contain a full assemblage with mud brick architecture and

ceramics but no specific parallels have yet been made with the

Jlassuna-Samarra assemblage » Hajji Firuz is radiocarbon dated‘to

the late sixth and early fifth millennia B.C. (Stuckenrath 19.651

see Appendix F ), however the excavatorfs feel that.it belongs i n .

the sixth millennium B.C. A fuller description of the Hajji Firuz

assemblage is needed to assess its position.

Armenia and the Antitaurus

Armenia and the region northwest of Lake Van has very little

reported evidence of the sixth and.early fifth millennium B.C. No

trace of the Hassuna-Samarra or Halaf assemblage is reported. The

Antitaurus Mountain area is located to the northwest of Northern

Mesopotamia and includes the Elibistan Plain about 120 kilometers

west of Malatya in Southeast Turkey. Two surveys h a v e .been made

of this area directed.at prehistoric materials; one survey by Donmez

and Brice in 194? (Donmez and Brice 1949)9 and another by G.H.Brown

in 1962 and 1965 (Brown 1967 )* Neither survey reported the

discivery of Hassuna, Samarra, or Halaf ceramics, A number of sites

had sherds of.Dark-Faced Burnished Ware * Goksun located on a tributary

 151

of the Ceyhan River about 65 kilometers southwest of Elibistan

and over 150 kilometers north of Sakce Gozu ^ is a flat-topped

mound about 12 meters high and 500x150 meters in extent * Sherds, of .

Dark-Faced Burnished' Ware and sherds similar to Periods II-III '

of Sakce GoVii were found at Goksun (Brown 196?: l 6 l )» Periods 11^ III

at Sakce Gozu have sherds of Halaf Ware and a few Samarra sherds in

addition to Dark-Faced Burnished Ware and plain wares * Brown (196 ?)

did not specifically indicate that Samarra or Halaf sherds were,

found but it is possible they were especially in the case of Halaf

sherds«

Syro-Cilicia

Syro-Cilicia includes the Cilician plain, the Sakce Gozu

area, the Amuq, and. the Mediterranean coastal area of Syria„ The

early ceramic assemblage of this region is characterized by the

presence of Dark-Faced Burnished Ware (Braidwood 1954a ;1956 ),

Evidence of connections with the Hassuna-Sarnarra or Halaf assemblage

has been found at Mersin, Tarsus, Coba Huyuk Tell Rifa'at, Tell

al-Judaidah, Tell Kurdu, Tell esh-Sheikh, Pas Shamra,.H a m a , and

possibly Tabbat -al Hamman, Halaf and especially Ubaid influence

throughout Syro-Cilicia is quite evident but early contacts with

Northern Mesopotamia are also indicated (see TableXTEI and Fig. 9) »

 TURKEY ver
Can Hasan

•Tartali
) Molla Ahmet
Tur

V^Yumuk Tepe Carchemish

Syrian
o* ; Tell/ Rifa'at
Tell Kurdu
/ I"" Tell Judaidah

MEDITERRANEAN SEA
Ras Shamra Orontes River

Tell Sukas

CYPRUS Hama SYRIA

Tabbat al-Hamma:

LKu} LEBANON
Miles Kilometers Byblo;

Figure 9, Syro-Cilicia.
VI
 TABLE XIII

Relative Chronology of Northern Mesopotamia and the Amuq.

YEARS PERIOD ' AMUQ COBA HUYUK TURLU RIFA.IAT ESH-SHEIKE RAS SHAMRA
B.C. PHASE ■ ,

■ UBAID E IV 6 VI upper IIIC

5
4.500 — — ---- ;
---- D— ------- ----- ------------- — -— .— x v a — —
VI lower XI?
4 IVB
HALAF C III

. 3 XII IVC
5,Q00
■ :

— — — -------
i

' .2
HASSHNA- • _ ...
SAMARRA B 1 ' VA
1

5.500

HASSUNA A VB

6,000

C5T
 154

The Cilician Plain

There are only two major excavated-- sites in Cilicia with

materials relevant to the Hassuna-Samarra assemblage: Mersin

(Garstang 1953) and Tarsus (Goldman 1956), Four additional sites

have reported surface sherds of Halaf Ware in the Cilician Plain

(Seton Williams 1954; see Table XIV),

Mersin or Yumuk Tepe (36 48 North Latitude, 34 31 East

Longitude) meaning "closed" or "soft" hill and also called Souk

Su Huyuk is located about 1,25 kilometers northwest of modern Mersin,

Mersin is located near the Mediterranean Sea coast and is about 75

kilometers west of Adana» Mersin was excavated under the direction

of John Garstang in 1939-40 and 1946-48 (Garstang 1953)* Thirty-three

.levels were encountered, in the combination of the two major operations,

Trench X and a deep sounding Trench A, Virgin soil was not reached

although excavations were carried a .half of a meter below the water

tablee Mersin Levels XXII-XXTV have been interpreted as dating to

Amuq Phase'' B in the Hassuna-Samarra time range (Braidwood and

Braidwood i 960 :505;Watson 1965 :67 ). Garstang described some of the

painted and incised pottery of Level XXIV as being like *Archaic

Hassuna’ pottery (Garstang 1953:Fig, 37).. Gar stang found parallels

for Level XXIV sherds with 'combed' patterns from Nineveh Level I

(Garstang 1953:62)*

Halaf'Wares occur in Mersin Levels XIX-XVII (Garstang 1953:2;

Braidwood and Braidwood 1960-:-509) which are dated to Amuq Phase C and
 TABLE XIV

Relative.. Chronology of Northern Mesopotamia, Amuq, and Anatolia,

TEARS PERIOD ' HACILAR gATAL HUYUK CAN HASAN MERSIN TARSUS AMUQ
B.C. PHASE
Tarsus
UBAID 1 XII E
Ub'aid
4,500- -Gap- -XVI— - — D - —

XVII
Tarsus
XVIII Early
HALAF 2A
Chal­
colithic
XIX
I
5 ,000. "1“" WeSt'~~ - .-XX— --
2®
V Early .
Chalcolithic II XXII
VI
Tarsus
'HASSUNA-
Neolithic
SAMARRA West 5 XXV
IX
Early 4 XXVI
Chalcolithic I
XXVII
5,500
I

T "
HASSUNA XXXIII A

i
X
6,000

155
 156

Do Robert Braidwood suggested that Halaf influence was present

in Mersin Level XXIV .(Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:509) and

Garstang had noted this possibility earlier when .he observed that

some Level XXIV designs suggested Halafian styles but Garstang

thought they wereccloser to Hassuna Ware styles (Garstang 1953:

59, Fig* 36)o Mud brick architecture'does not definitely appear.

yntil Level XXIII at Mersin. Copper was found in Mersin Levels

XXI,XVII ,XVI and later levels (Garstang 1953:76*108., 134). Ubaid

influence and ceramic style is evident in the pottery of Levels

XIX-XII (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960*511) Garstang recognized

Ubaid influence in Levels XVI-XIIB at Mersin.

Mersin has one radiocarbon date of 60001250 B.C. (W^6l?),

from- Trench A about one meter above the river in black sand (Rubin

and Alexander 1960:183)* The Mersin correlations are just

approximate but it may be sugnificant that no Samarra influence

was noted in the ceramics and it seems likely that Hassuna- Samarra

influence at Mersin was very weak.

Tarsus or Gozlu Kule is located in the center of modern Tarsus'

about 30 kilometers, northeast of Mersin and over 20 kilometers from

the'Mediterranean coast. The site was excavated under the direction

of'Hetty Goldman beginning in 1934 (Goldman 1956 )* The mound sounding

at Gozlu Kule did not reach virgin soil and excavations were halted

at the 52 meter level which was below the water table encountered at

3 O.5O meters„ The levels between 30.50-32.00 meters were termed

*Neolithic 1 while levels between 30.50-30.00 meters were attributed

 ' 15?
to an f"Ubaid Phase! (Gars tang 1956)* The earliest painted wares at

Gozlu Kule occurred in the Ubaid Phases levels, or in unstratified

contexts* The early painted wares have affinities with those of

Hersin.Levels XXIV-XXII (Mellink in Goldman 1956:73). Just a few

scattered Halaf and Halaf influenced sherds were found mixed with

the Ubaid materials» A few Halaf sherds w e r e .found which are

similar to Amuq Phases C and D. Halaf influence was not very

strong at Tarsus but as Mellink noted the painted pottery levels

were found- telescoped in the small sounding and it is quite likely

that the full sequence is not clearly represented at GSzlu Kule

(Mellink in Goldman 1956:72)*

There is no reported evidence of Samarra Ware from Cilicia,

Four sites in the Cilician Plain surveyed by Seton Williams in 1951,

were noted as having a few surface sherds of Halaf or Halaf

influenced ceramics; Molla. Ahm e t ,■Tartali Huyugu, Veilcan Tepe,

and Yasil Huyuk (Seton Williams 1954:165,170,171,172), Molla .

Ahmet and Yasil Huyuk had only two or three sherds of definite Halaf

Ware (Seton Williams 1954:129), Molla Ahmet and Velican Tepe are

relatively small mounds but Molla Ahmet was under cultivation and

Velican . is located on a rocky outcrop* Tartali. Huyugu and .Yasil ,

Httyiik are large mounds , 55 and 25 meters in height respectively,

and they are situated near important roads at the eastern end of the

•Cilician Plain (see. Fig* 9) * Careful excavation of one of these

mounds or comparable mounds is needed to clarify the nature of"

 15.8

early Northern Mesopotamian contacts. The chipped stone industry,

of the Cilician Plain is best represented at Mersin where the

industry is typologically very close•to Amuq Phases A-B. Obsidian

at Mersin is: predominant in Mersin.’s early levels and does not

■decline until after Level XVI when the Ubaid Phase begins. Tests

made on samples of Mersin Obsidian, indicate central Anatolian

sources with most of the obsidian coming from the Ciftlik and Acigol

sources north of Cilicia; therefore in the obsidian trade Cilician;

contacts are not indicated with Armenian sources (Renfrew,Dixon, and

Cann 1967 :4-5,60) „ ' .

Sakce Gozu

Sakce Gp'zu or Keferdiz is a modern village at the foot of the

Kurt Dag in Southeast Turkey, A number of prehistoric mounds are

situated on the marshy plain in the vicinity of 'Sakce Gozu, including

b& 40 o 0 o '0
Songrus Huyuk, the largest mound in the area. O h m o u n d , Coba Huyuk

has. excavated materials relevant to the Hassuna-Samarra and Halaf

assemblages. Cbba tiuyuk is located about 3 kilometers northwest of

Sakce Gozu* In relation to other regions the Sakce Gozu area is about .

240 kilometers east of Mersin, 135 kilometers north of Tell al-Judaidah

and 120 kilometers west of Garchemish on the periphery of Northern

Mesopotamiao

Coba Huyuk is a low mound about 9 meters high and 140x90

meters in extent with six meters of deposit above bedrock. The first

excavations were conducted by John Garstang in 1908 and. 1911« Outside

 159

a Syr.o-Hittite wall, levels with handmade painted pottery, and

Dark-Faced Burnished -Ware were found above bedrock. In 1949

a. new series of excavationswwere -conducted at Coba Huyuk (Taylor,

Seton Williams and Waechter 1950). Twelve ceramic periods were

_defined at Coba Huyuko The first four ceramic periods in sequence

a r e :I ,Chalcolithic, pre-Halaf, I I ,Halaf and Samarra, III Developed

Halaf, and IV.Ubaid (Taylor,Seton Williams and Waechter 1950:56)

The ceramics of Period I included mostly plain burnished

ware and a Hatched Ware was the only painted ware present, Period I

is perhaps contemporary with Amuq Phase B although the chipped stone

industry is different than that of Amuq A-B (Watson 1965*68).

Samarra and Halaf Ware appear in Period II levels. Only a

few sherds of Samarra Ware were found in 1949 (Taylor,Seton Williams

and''Waechter 1950:86). Earlier sherds identified by Gars tang as

Samarran included several derivative sherds but the 1949 sherds

were interpreted by the excavators• as being directly related to

the type site of Samarra. The Samarra sherds illustrated (Taylor

Seton Williams, Waechter 1 9 5 0 :Fig. 13,1.2) consisted of part of the

neck of a high collared jar and part of a footed plater which resembled

one from Baghpuz-v

Halaf Ware was found in Periods II III, and IV with most of

the Halaf Ware occurring‘in Period III. The excavators1s noted that

most of the parallels of Coba Halaf sherds with Northern Mesopotamia

were with Carchemish, Halaf and Arpachiyah TT-6(Taylor» Seton Williams,

and Waechter 1 9 5 0 : 9 2 , Fig, l4,4,5,8).Peri6ds II-III probably are

 160
best dated to Amuq Phases C-D. In relation to Northern Mesopotamia,

Coba Huyuk Periods 11-111 dates to the Halaf Period although Period •

III may be dated to a transitional Halaf-Ubaid Phase» No architecture

was -found, with Periods I-III. metarial although a group, of ditches,

p i t s , and some mud brick fragments.were found in Period I . ■Stone

bowls were present in Periods II-III and. were usually well finished.

The flint and obsidian industry was fairly uniform throughout

Periods I-III* Flint implements were predominant over obsidian and

the obsidian present was related to Mersin» No green or streaked

Lake Van type obsidian was found (Ta y l o r ,Seton Williams- ,and 'Waechter

1950:124,138). The chipped stone industry of Coba Huyuk is similar

to that,of Amuq Phase C (Braidwood. and Braidwood 1960:507)*

Coba Huyuk is significant as the most northwestern reported

occurrence of Samarra Ware and is about 900 kilometers by land route

from the type site of Samarra* In correlating the Sakoe Gozu Periods

with Northern Mesopotamia, Period I probably dates to the Hassuna-

Samarra Period while Period II is most likely late Hasauna-Samarra

and early Halaf 5and Period III dates to the Halaf and transitional

Halaf-Ubaid time range»

Gaziantep also in Southeastern Turkey also has Halaf

materials» Gaziantep is located about 65 kilometers northwest of

Car chernish and has reported sherds with designs similar to Halaf

and Nineveh Level 2 wares which were found in a ditch near the

Seljuk Fort of the citadel (Dcfnmez and Brice 1949:4?)*

 161

Moving southward from the Sakce Gozu area, no Hassuna-

Samarra or Halaf sites are reported until the Amuq area, with the

exception of Tell Rifa'at* Tell R i f a ’at is theocitadel mound of the

modern town of the same name» Tell Rifa*at is located 35 kilometers

north of Aleppo in Syria* Tell Rifa'at is a flat-topped:"* mound about

30 meters high and 250x233 meters in extent * .The mound was partially

^excavated by M.V« Seton Williams between 1960-1964 (Seton Williams

i96l;1967)« Bedrock was reached at a depth of almost 30 meters below

the top of the mound * Seton Williams defined five major periods of

occupation which she termed Levels l-V, In I 96I, prehistoric

materials were found in Level V, then called Level VI (Seton Williams

1961:8 7 ;1967)• In Level V a series of pebble floors with Ubaid

sherds were found* Under the Ubaid floors a blackened plaster floor

was found with traces of Halaf Ware * The pottery found on the lowest

.fllor above bedrock was handmade and included apricot- and buff sherds

with semi lustrous red-brown paint or black paint (Se ton Williams

1961:PI* XXXIX, 21,22,23). Gray and black ceramics evidently traces

of Dark Faced-Burnished Ware were also present. Seton Williams

interpreted these earliest floors as being similar to Hama L. Level

V at Tell R i f a fat probably dates to the Ubaid Period with the

earliest occupation belonging to the Halaf Period*

The Amuq

The Amuq or the Plain of Antioch is situated in the Turkish

Hatay region and includes the lower drainage of the Orontes River
 162
and the'marshy plain around the Lake of Antioch* Three sites are

of importance to the sixth and fifth millennia.-B*C * sequence in the

Amuq: Tell al-Judaidah and Tell Kurdu excavated by the Syrc-Iiittite

Expedition of the University of Chicago, 1932-1938 (Braidwood and

- Braidwood i 960), and Tell esh-Sheikh excavated:by Leonard Woolley

(1953)« The Amuq sequence was divided into a series of Phases based

mainly on ceramic typology and the stratigraphic sequence of

Tell al-Judaidah and Tel 1 Kurdu for the first- five Phases A~E which

are of interest to the general time range under consideration (see

Appendix E )* Before briefly considering the Amuq sequence two points

should be noted. First the excavation methods employed in the Amuq

were inferior by present standards, sites were not. excavated

1'according to stratigraphic units such as soil units* Tell Kurdu was

not even excavated with reference to floors (Braidwood and Braidwood

i960 :20-21; Dyson 1961 :638 ). Secondly as Dyson noted .(1961:638) the'

Amuq phases were based on a ceramic typology which usually ignored

vessel profiles. These ceramic phases were formed!by"' combining: the

stratigraphic evidence from several different sites.

Amuq Phase A was represented in a stratified section only

at Tell al~>Judaidah in the basal three to four floors of Sounding

JK-3, floors 25-28. All of these floors were under the water table

and operations were halted before virgin soil was reached (Braidwood

and Braidwood 1960:46). Phase A materials have their closest

parallels with Mersin pre-XXVII as'part of the Dark-Faced Burnished

.Ware assemblage of Syro-Cilicia.

 163

. Connections of Amuq A with Northern Mesopotamia primarily

consisted of the presence of Dark-Faced Burnished Ware at Tell

Hassuna, M n e v e h , and Tell Arpachiyah in North Irao and Tell Hal. af

in Syria, all dating approximately to the Hassuna Period, Two

Syro-Cilician javelin heads found.in Tell Hassuna la are further

indications of contact. (Braidwood and Braidwood I960:$04; Lloyd

and Safar 194$: Fig* 22, 9-10)*.Watson pointed out (196 3 :6 7 ) that

these projectile points were also paralleled at Chatalhuyuk Eastt

in Central Anatolia*

Phase B of the Amuq is defined on by- one floor at Tell

al-Judaidah, JK-3, 24-25 (see Appendix E for assemblage description)*

Connections with Northern Mesopotamia are- noted in the general

resemblance of Brittle Painted V/are to Hassuna Archaic Painted Ware

and in the presence of fHassuna type* incised decoration in coarse

ware (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:505)* 'The Braidwood*s .(i960 :5069

interpreted sites from the western portion of Northern Mesopotamia

with Bark-Faced Burnished Ware such as Carchernish and Chagar Bazar

as dating tp Amuq B» They also noted a.possible occurrence of

Phase B Brittle Painted Ware at Tell Halaf, Watson (1965•6 6 ,82,8 3 )

interpreted!, the occurrences of Dark Faced. Burnished Ware with Halaf

materials at Carchemish.Chagar Bazar, .Jabbul Plain ,Yunnus s and Tell

Halaf as most likely dating to late Amuq B or Amuq C* the Halaf

Period*

The sequence at Tell al-Judaidah following Phase B is

confused and is known as the Firs t •Mixed Ka.nge containing artifacts

of Phases B through.F. This is extremely unfortunate because if

 16 4

present interpretations are correct the time range of late Phase B

and the transition to Phase C would include the Hassuna-Samarra

time range in.Northern Mesopotamia * Two sherds found in the First

Mixed Range, were described as Derived Samarran Ware (Braidwocd

arid Braid wood I960:104,, 116 ,Fig* 8 9 : ) « Attacking the problem from

the other direction at Tell Kurdu where Arnuq C , D 9 and E Phases .were

defined. Phase C materials were found in Trenches I and IV* Ground

Water halted, operations in' Phase C levels at a depth of 11* 5 meters,

while in Trench IV virgin soil was not reached but excavations

were halted in Phase C material at a depth of 3*5 meters (Braid-wood

and Braidwood i 9 6 0 :1 7~l8)0Therefore a clear Phase B- Phase C

connection has not been stratlgraphically demonstrated in the Arnuq*

How much of a gap. between the two existed cannot be determined* In

ceramics there were major changes and only Dark-Faced Burnished and

Unburnished Wares remain of the Arnuq B ceramics (see Appendix E ) «

A major change in the chipped stone industry occurred between that

of Phases A~B and Phases C~E (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960:508)* Clay

sling missiles 'became increasingly common in Phases C-E* Halaf Ware

was present -in Phases C~S in addition to Transitional Halaf-Ubald

wares in Phases D-E and Ubaid Ware in Phases D-E.

In general 9 Arnuq Phase correlations with Northern

Mesopotamia tentatively may be set as Arnuq A - Hassuna Period,

Amuq B Hassuna-Samarra.Period Arnuq C - Halaf Pe r i o d , Arnuq D -

Transitional Halaf-Ubaid time r a n g e ? and Arnuq E - U b a i d Period. The

correlation of Arnuq A-B is not precise and to date them to the

general Hassuna a n d ■Hassuna-Samarra time range is really all -that

 165

can be established«

Tell esh-Sheikh is located about 15 -kilometers east of

Antioch and is situated.west of the Orontes Fiver* In Level-XII,

the earliest excavated at the si t e , Dark-Faced Burnished Ware was

-
■predominant (Woolley 1953 :24-31)» Level XI had Dark-Faced Burnished

Ware mixed with some sherds of Halaf Ware and on- this basis? Tell

fesh-Sheikh XI is correlated with Amuq C and Tell esh-Sheikh XII

is dated to Amuq B (Braidwood and Braidwood ’19.60:506 ^508) * .

Northwest Syria

Fas Shamra (35 4? North Latitude ? 35 48 East Longitude), or

Ugarit is located on the Mediterranean coast about 13 kilometers

north of Latakia and over 120 kilometers southwest .of Tell al-.Judaidah

in the Amuq * Fas Shamra is about 20 meter s high and includes about

18 meters of deposits (Schaeffer1 1962 fDepliant IV ) « Major excavations

at Fas Shamra were conducted in 1934,1935,1953, and 1955-60

(Schaeffer 1962)* The basal level V is divided into three sub-divisions

VA,VB, and VC* The earliest level just .above bedrock is VC which is

aceramic and pre-Amuq Phase A. . " -

Fas Shamra VA or the Neolithioue Recent, best defined

between 8*70-10*70 meters in the 1-955'”60 Sounding west of the

Temple of Baal, was probably contemporary with the Hassuna-Samarra

Period* The ceramics of VA included Dark-Faced Burnished W a r e , a

pattern burnished ware and a coarse.ware which included le plat a

cupules or the husking tray like that of Tell Has-suna (Contensen

 166

in Schaeffer 1962:503, Fig, 25)* Level VA included two ash

layers and stone wall foundations with some tauf or pise* jeune

walling in the top layer. The ceramics of VA are similar- to Amuq

Phase B and Hama M, The presence of the "husking trays" indicates

connections with Tell Hassuna 11-VI but their exact nature is

uncertain (Contensen 1963;1966; Watson 1965; Braidwood and Braidwood

1 9 6 0 :506).

Halaf ceramics were present in Levels IVAj,IVB and IVC oflwhich

of lower two levels IVB arid IVC are dated to the Halaf Period or

Amuq Phase C, Level IVA is rougly equated with Amuq Phase -D '(Contensen

1963;1966; Watson 1 9 6 5 :8 2 ). Ras Shamra IIIC with red wares is

dated to the Ubaid or early Amuq E. but Ubaid Ware does not

appear until IIIB at Ras Shamra6 There are five radiocarbon dates

from Ras Shamra (see Appendix F ) . Level VA is dated 5234-84 B.C.

(P-457;Stuckenrath 1 9 6 3 :8 3 ) from a depth of nine meters in the top

of the- upper layer of VA, This date for the end of VA and by

analogy Amuq B is.agreeable with the present evidence from Northern

Mesopotamia.

Tell Sukas located about 4.0 kilometers south of Ras Shamra

was excavated in i 960 (Riis 1961:214-216) to bedrock where an

assemblage similar to Amuq A and Ras Shamra V was encountered,

East of Tell Sukas about 90 kilometers.from the coast is Hama where

the early level Hama M is equated by the Braidwoodfs (i96 0 :506) with

Amuq B or possibly A. Hama L tentatively is correlated with Amuq C .

However the Halaf Ware reported .is not certain and is mixed with.
 167

Ubaid sherds (Fugmann 1958), The Braidwood *s (i9 6 0 :508) noted

that only a few glazelike.sherds were found and their idendification

as:Halaf Ware was not certain,

Tabbat al-Harriipan is located on .the Mediterranean coast

about one kiolmeters southwest of M o n t a r ,Syria, Dark-Faced.Burnished

Wares were found in a trench at the base of the .mound (Seton .Williams

1948:46). The Braidwood *s (1960:503 ) interpreted the Tabbat a.l Hamman

flint industry as being closer related to Palestine and Byblos than

the Arnuq, Basal Tabbat al Hamman probably dates' in the Amuq A-B

t i m e ‘range and it has been tentatively assigned to Amuq B by

Watson (1 9 6 5 :6 8 ) and Parrot (1962:156), No definite Halaf sherds

were reported, although tv/o possibly Halaf sherds were noted and

termed *indeterminate painted ware f by the Braidwoodfs (1960:509)*

Evidence so far discovered in Northwest Syria for Hassuna-

Samarra connections is limited to the "husking traysn found at

Pas Shamras The contacts between Northwest Syria and the Amuq with

the!Hassuna-Semarra.:'assemblage were evidently very limited. For all

of Syr o-Cilicia contacts with Northern Mesopotamia began in the

Amuq A-B time range in the form of trade , The Syro-Cilician Dark-

Faced Burnished Ware" assemblage appears to have expanded eastward

and was overlapped by the expanding Halaf and Ubaid assemblages ,

Byblos and Palestine

Byblos located 210 kilometers south-of Ras Shamra has been

described as a, southern variant of the Syro-Ciliclan assemblage but

 168

it also has strong Palestinian connections and with the

,Neolithique Anclen of Byblos which is correlated with Amuq. B

(Perrot 1 9 6 2 |Watson 1965:82)* No specific Hassnna-Samarra

connections have yet been demonstrated for Byblos or any sites

in the Palestine Area*

Central and Western Anatolia

Influence of the Hassuna-Samarra assemblage is virtually .

unknown i n .this vast area* Many sites may be contemporary with

the Hassuna-Samarra time range and three sites have reported

Halaf sherds* A survey of the Goksu Valley west of Mersin failed

to encounter any Hassuna~Samarra.or Halaf materials (French 1965)»

Can Hasan is located about 13 kilometers northeast of

Karaman in the eastern end of the Konya Plain (French 1962:2?)*

In the 1 9 6 7 "excavation season, one painted sherd of 9true Halaf*

type was found in upper Layer 2B (French in Mellink 1968:127 )>

Layer 2B was dated by ceramics to Mersin Level XX-XXI (French 1966:

121) * Some sherds closely related to Mersin Levels are thought to

be imports in Layer 2B (French 1963:4l,42,Fig.8;Garstang 1953: Fig*

53) » Layer 2B is radiocarbon dated by seven.dates (see Appendix F )

ranging from 4720-76 B.C. (P-7S2) to 5240-l$0 B.C. (BM-153)< An

eighth date (P-793 ) was from an undersized sample and is not

reliable (Stuekenrath and Ralph .1965:193)* Therefore by radiocarbon

dating (Stuekenrath and Ralph 1965; Bakker and Mackey 1968 ) Layer

2B is dated to the beginning of the fifth millennium B.C. which

agrees.with the .present interpretation of the beginning of the Halaf

 " 169 ■

Period in Northern Mesopotamia *

James Mellaart indicated that Ealaf imported sherds were

found at the 'Early Chalcolithic '• sites .of Kizilviran Huyuk,

a n d .Seydihan Huyuk on the Konya Plain but no further details were

given (Mellaart 1965a:6? Fig, 4l; Mellaart 1963)0 Two other excavated

sites in Anatolia are important : Ca’

t al Huyuk and Hacilar both

excavated by James Mellaart, A third site Suberde'(Bordaz in Mellink

1966) probably dates earlier than the Hassuna-Samarra time range,

Catal Huyuk and Hacilar are approximately correlated with the

Northern Mesopotamian sequence on Table X V I , These correlations are

primarily based on M ellaartfs interpretation of the sequence with -

some modification based on the Can Hasan evidence* Mersin and Can

Hasan are the connecting links with Northern.Mesopotamia and the

analogies made by Mellaart (1958;I96I 91965b;X9670a n ^ French (1965;196?)

are dependent upon the strength of He r s i n 's correlations with the

Amuq or directly with Northern Mesopotamia which makes the sequence

a rough approximation at best. The radiocarbon dates from Can Hasan,

Catal Huyuk , and Hacilar are given in Appendix F and generally conform

with the sequence presented in Table XVI;,

The Aegean .

Connections between the- Hassuna-Samarra assemblage and the

Aegean area are very limited and doubtful as evidence of contact* In

Thessaly a f O t z a k i ^bowl designs resemble Samarran Ware (Weinberg

1965:295) and at Nea Nikomedeia m o d e l e d .faces in g e n e r a l .resemble

 170.

those in Hassuna-Saraarra. contexts« Saul Weinberg has pointed? out

the similarities of Northern Ur-firnis wares with Halaf •ceramics,

especially early Halaf analogies (Weinberg 1961; 1965:292).

Parallels in figurines are also noted. These contacts are not

impossible to suggest, but much more documentation is needed and

perhaps sites in Anatolia along the coast or inland with linking

evidence are needed.

Connections with Other Regions

■ The prehostoric sequence in Southern Turkestan (Masson

1961) has a number of general similarities with the Hassuna-

Samarra assemblage and with Sialk. The Turkestan sequence,periods

Djeitun, Anau I A-B and Namazga I-III roughly parallels the

sequence from Hassuna through Ubaid Periods in Northern Mesopo­

tamia. Anau IB and Namazga I probably fall in the Hassuna-

Samarra time range (Mellaart 196?:8 ,5*0« Direct contact between

the assemblages is not impossible but no evidence has been found

to support such contact, and they seem to be part of similar

village farming traditions, paralleling each other in time.

Kwang-chih Chang (1965:512-513, Fig. 1) has pointed out the

similarity between a painted Samarran jar neck from Tell Hassuna

Level V and figurines of the Panshan-Mach'ang phase from Kansu,.

China, However, based on this evidence alone and the factors of

distance, time, and differing total assemblages the chances for

contact are diminished.

 CHAPTER 4

. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS

The Hassuna-Samarra Period -is defined as that unit of

time in Northern Mesopotamia when a characteristic Hassuna-Samarra

■assemblage was widespread through the middle Tigris drainage, area.

The time unit involved is interpreted as being 5500-5000 B,C, based

of radiocarbon dating and relative chronology. The Hassuna-Samarra

assemblage overlaps the preceding Hassuna and following Halaf

assemblages in Northern Mesopotamia and the Eridu-Hajji Muhammad

assemblage of Southern Mesopotamia', A brief summary of previous and

current interpretations of the Hassuna-Samarra assemblage is necessary

to indicate the major problem areas and will be followed by my

interpretation of the assemblage.

Previous and Current Interpretations'

Following the excavations at Samarra (Herzfeld 1930) and

at Nineveh (R.C ,Thompson and Mallowan 1933) the first meaningful

discussion of the"Nine-vite 1 11and pre-Halaf materials was that of

Robert Braid wood and Ann Perkins (Braidwood et_ al, 19^4:65-69) in

a report which concentrated on the Bagh.buz Samarran pottery. In 1944

t h e .Samar.ran material was considered "little more than a style of

pottery" (Braidwood et_ al. 1944:65) and not a culture or assemblage.

171
 172

Earlier .Donald' E.McCown (19^2:35»Fig. 12) had briefly

discussed the relationship-of the fSamarra culture s 'with'Iran. He

considered the *Samarra culture* to be part of the buff ware

culture of Iran and based this mainly on design analogies with ■

"Bakun B II, Cheshmah All IA and Giyan V-A-B. Braidwood -and

Perkins admitted that Nineveh 2B Samarra decoration was not exactly

paralleled in Iran but credited Iran as the stimulus for Samarra"

decoration (1944:6?) ^ Braidwood and Perkins also noted that based .

,

on NinevehtSamarra style pottery preceded and overlapped Halaf

■Ware. Braidwood and Perkins did not accept the 'Sama-rran Ware * .

identification by Mai lew an and Speiser. They pointed out that all

glaze-like painted ware was being considered Halaf and all matt-
• ■ ' ' c - 1
painted ware as something else. Braidwood and Perkins stressed that

design be the diagnostic criterion of Samarran style pottery. Samarra

derivatives were -considered to occur at Arpachiyah, Chagar "Bazar,

Sakce Go:zu . Tell al-Judaidah and possibly in the Sin jar the Balikh,

and at Carchemish (1944:6 9 )« Braidwood and Perkins further suggested

that the spread of Samarran influence in pottery probably coincided

with a westward expansion of t h e 1Halaf culture1 because all such

sherds were found in am Halaf context (1944:6 9 )*

The excavation of Tell Hassuna in 1944-45 provided much

more evidence from what was then described as "the earliest settled

community yet found in Mesopotamia" (Lloyd and Safar 1945:262)e Seton

Lloyd and Fuad Safar briefly assessed the meaning of Hassuna and
 173

thought it unlikely that their evidence•would contradict1 McUownls

idea of the Iranian origin of Samarran style pottery (Lloyd and Safar

19^5-266)„ More important was the assemblage excavated* Hassuna

wares were defined at Tell Hassuna a n d HNinevite I M or!,Ninevite II-like,

descriptions could.be discarded(Safar in Lloyd and Safar 194$:276-284)

Safar described Samarra Ware rather than referring to it as Samarra

style pottery.

Robert J.Braidwood reviewed the Hassuna material as a preface

to the report (Braidwood in Lloyd and Safar 194$:255-259) <> Braidwood

considered the new evidence and noted that one major question was

whether or not Samarran style pottery was a kind of "luxury w a r e "

in the Hassuna assemblage or part of- its own distinctive assemblage

(1945:258). Despite Lloyd and S afar1s suggestion that Samarran Ware

was imported (1945:282), Braidwood suggested the possibility that

the Samarran painted style might have developed out of the Hassuna

Archaic and Standard Ware tradition (194$:2$8). Braidwood indicated

that.Samarran painted style may have been made by a *group of

crafstmenf perhaps a traveling group* Braidwood seemed to favor

considering Samarran style pottery as part of the Hassunan assemblage

in North Iraq (194$ :259^ «

M.E.L.Mallowan briefly discussed the question of Samarra

Ware significance in his 1947 report on Tell Brak and Chagar Bazar

(MaiIowan 1947). Mai Iowan admitted his loose usage of *Samarran Ware 1

at Arpachiyah and Chagar Bazar and thought that derivative Samarra

 ' 174 •

would be a better term. However he maintained that true Samarra

Ware.was present at both sites. Mallowan f elt■that the sequence

at Arpachiy'ah showed Halaf Ware on virgin soil and overlapped

with Samarra Ware. Mallowan felt that Braidwood and Perkins (Braidwood

et al. 19.44) had misunderstood the Nineveh sequence when they applied

the idea that Samarra style pottery preceded Halaf Ware over all of

North Iraq. Mallowan felt that Samarra Ware and Halaf Ware were

contemporary and that neither could be proved earlier. Mallowan

did not fully appreciate the Tell Hassuna sequence in making this

suggestion. : .

The first major attempt to summarize.the Hassuna-Samarra

assemblage was included in Ann Perkin's study (1949)»Perkins.

described at length the "Hassunah assemblage" which included

Samarran Ware in Tell Hassuna Levels III-VIII and Nineveh 2B. Perkins

concluded (1949:14-15) that on the basis of comparative stratigraphy

at Nineveh,and Tell Hassuna that Samarran style pottery proceeded

Halaf Wares and a longer lasting overlap with Halaf Ware was also

indicated. Perkins, concluded that the "Hassunah culture" was a

local development in North Iraq of which Samarran pottery was the

finest ceramic product (Perkins 1949:15).According to Perkins

Halaf Ware also developed in the Mosul area of North Iraq (1949:45-45)

Albright (1951) in reviewing Perkins study noted that much more

excavation was needed to determine the chronological range of

Hassuna pottery.
 175

After the excavation of the Ma tar rah assemblage in 1948,

another series of interpretations of the Hassuna-Samarra materials

was made by Charles Leslie and Robert and Lindas Braidwood (Braidwood

et alp 1952)0 Charles Leslie (Leslie in Braidwood e_t 9.1*1952:65-6 6 )

discussed, the fSamarran style f and stylistic change in North Iraq*

Leslie developed the hypothesis that the 1Samarran sty l e 1 was part

of the Hassuna painted pottery tradition as a *luxury w a r e ! within

that tradition. Leslie suggested that there were specialized centers of

ceramic production of the sub styles of t h e 5Samarran style1 which

traded- with, each other* Leslie and the BraidwoodTs postulated

a stylistic continuity between Hassuna and Samarra9 and Hal af styles.

Robert and Linda Braidwood (Braidwood et. a l *1952:66-6 7 )

concluded the Matarrah report by considering the Matarrah assemblage

as related to Hassuna but on the periphery of the Hassuna "heartland/'

and merely a southern variant with regional differences. In the next

year the Braidwood*s published an excellent but brief summary of

early village materials (Braidwood and Braidwood 1953)* A Jarmo

phase was proposed as proceeding the *Hassunan assemblage * which was

discussed as having two sub-phases, based on Hassuna Levels la-II

and II-VI (1953:303)* T h e 1Hassunan assemblage' was viewed as

a distinct development of the upper Tigris Valley which.could be

contrasted with the Syro-Cilician tradition. Sites in the

Khabur area were considered transitional between the two (Braidwood

.and Braidwood 1953 :305X

 • 176
Louis Le Breton discussed the early periods at Susa and

concerning Mesopotamian connections he noted that Me Gown's' theory

of an Iranian origin of Samarran Ware was not substantiated by the

evidence from South Iran (LeBreton 1957:86). Joan Oates also briefly

discussed the Iranian origin question and concluded that there

was n o .convincing evidence from Sialk or Ears to support an

Iranian origin of Samarran War e .(Oates 1960:47).

The results of the Iraq-Jariao Project (Braidwood and Howe

I 960) provided more information for the interpretation of the •

Hassuna-Samarra- assemblage in the surface collection made at Bagholiz,

Braidwood once again suspected the existence of a full Samarran ,

assemblage ’or p e r h a p s t h a t Samarra. pottery was part of another

unidentified assemblage (Braidwood and Howe 1960:162)* However, the

Hassuna phase designation was retained by Braidwood which covers

the Hassuna and the Hassuna-Samarra Periods as treated in this

paper *

Kleindienst (i960 ) further suggested based on the newer

Baghouz sample that Samarran pottery, in addition to being an -’•aspect1

of the later Hassunan assemblage was also part of a separate ,

assemblage * This Samarran assemblage would chronologically b e ‘placed

between the Hassuna and Halaf Periods (Kleindienst 1960:70)«

Another result of the Iraq-Jarrno Project was the elaboration

of the concept that the earliest village farming communities

developed in the "hilly flanks" zone of the Near East» The Jarrno
 177

assemblage was interpreted as representative of a Jarmo Phase

of the earliest village farming era, which preceded the Hassuna

Phase developments on the Mesopotamian plain (Braidwood and.Howe

I960:l83~l84)* The Ali Agha assemblage once thought (Braidwood

195^: 132) to be about'.midway.between the. Jarmo and Hassuna

assemblages was thought to possibly be equated with basal Hassuna

(Braidwood and Howe 1960:38)* Braidwood and Howe (i960:l60-l62)

considered the Jarmo-Hassuna relationship and although they

suggested Mgeneral,fdates of 6750 B.C. for the Jarmo Phase and

5750 B.C. for the .Hassuna Phase, they did not see much of a

gap between the two phases.

As a result of the Tell Shemshara excavations* Peder

Mortensen reassessed, the "Hassuna Phase and examined the Jarmo-Hassuna

relationship (Mortensen 1962 ).Based partly on the *confusing*

parallels of Shernshdrafs Hassuna-Samarra levels to aceramic Jarmo,

Mortensen (1962:79) tentatively concluded that Jarmo could no

longer be placed earlier than the Hassuna Phase based on typological

or stratigraphic evidence,, and tnat only radiocarbon dating could

be used to support a pre-Hassuna Phase dating for Jarmo.

After the excavation of Tepe Guran, Mortensen reconsidered

the Jarmo-Hassuna problem (Mortensen 1964). Based on .the-combined

typological, stratigraphic, and* radiocarbon dating evidence from

Quran* Sarab, and Jarmo, Mortensen (1964:33) felt that the 6750

,rgeneraln date for Jarmo suggested by Braidwood and Howe (1-960;

160) was a treasonable * beginning date for Jarmo* Mortensen

 . ' 178

admitted that the aceramic Jarmo - ceramic Shemshara problem

was still unresolved» However^Mortensen proceeded to group

Shemshtra with Jarmo, Guran, and Sarah in a common.. "Zagros Group,"

based on similar environment, chipped and ground stone industry

and ceramics, with the exception of Shemshara in ceramics:(Mortensen

196kijk)„ In regard to the relationship of the "Zagros Group" with

the Mesopotamian plain assemblages of the sixth millennium B.C.-,

Mortensen 'assumed1 that the '.Hassuna - Samarra group1 could not

be considered as a development from the "Zagros Group." Mortensen

indicated that the origin of the Hassuna tradition was not clear, but

that it may have orignated in the Taurus Mountains area or locally

in Northern Mesopotamia (Mortensen 1964:36).

Edith Forada (1965 )■very briefly summarized the Mesopotamian

sequence and tentatively included Hassuna and Hassuna-Samarra

Periods based on the sequence at Tell Hassuna: Levels la-II, Hassuna

Period , Levels III-V, Hassuna--Samarra Period ,. Level VI, a Samarr a~

Halaf development (Porada 1965 :13.9 ?Eig« 1)« A number of generalized

accounts which briefly mentioned the Hassuna-Samarr a Period, were

published in the middle 1960's which includ'ed those by Georges Boux

(1964), Jacquetta Hawkes (1965), James Mellaart (1965a) , and H.Vi.F.

Saggs (1962)„

The excavation of Tell es-Sawwan by the Iraq Department of

Antiquities began in 1964 and an assemblage with Samarran Ware was

found in Levels III-1 (El-Wailly and Al-S'oof 1965 ). Mud brick

 179

architecture was.present in all five Levels, V-I, and copper •

was" found in a Level V grave* Certain buildings in each level

from Level V to Level II were described by the excavatorfs as '

religious structures, temples 9 or temple areas» Evidence of a

well-developed alabaster bowl and statuette industry was found in

the lower Levels V-IVL Although Hassuna wares were found in Levels

^~Xi, El-.Wailly described Level II as dating to the fearly Samar ran

Phase * and Levels 11-1 as representing the ?Samarran Phase? (El-

Wailly 1966:b)* Radiocarbon dating (Stuckenrath and Ralph 1965:190)

roughly placed the Tell es-Sawwan assemblage in the mid to late

sixth millennium B.C* -

Dro Takey Dabbagh (196$) reviewed the study of Hassuna

Pottery and by his interpretation,Samarran pottery w a s .termed

’’derivative Hassuna” and was a ceramic style and not a ware* ’’Derivative

Hassuna ware” developed out of the Hassuna ceramic tradition which

Dabbagh felt centered and originated in North Iraq (Dabbagh 1965:102),

However, Dabbagh *s arguments seemed to ignore the .Baghouz findings

of the Iraq-Jarmo Project (Kleindienst i 960)* Dabbagh1s article was

evidently written before the Tell es-Sawv/an material became available

to him. In general, Dabbagh*s interpretation seemed to express and

expand upon Robert Braidwood's and Charles Leslie *s trend of ■

thought as published in 1952 (Braidwood et al, 1952),

James Mellaart summarized the developments on the Mesopotamian

Plain for the revised edition of the .Cambridge Anci e n t Hi story

(Mellaart 196?:25^56), Mellaart referred to an ”Hassunah culture”

 . 180
with Tell Hassuna III-V, Upper Matarrah Tell Shemshara l>-9■
? and

Tell es-Sawwan III-I as representing.its fullest development

(Mellaart 1967:28)* Me11aart also noted a "Samarra culture" known

mainly through Samarra Ware which was distinct from Hassuna Ware»

Mellaart described Samarra Ware as"more sophisticated" often

naturalistic and more dynamic than Hassuna Ware (Mellaart 1967:30)*

In discussing the"Halaf culture9V Mellaart noted that its origins,

.were obscure but that it did not develop from the "Hassuna or

Samarra cultures" and was a "new-comer"in North Iraq (Mellaart 196?:

32). Mellaart suggested the southern foothills of the'Taurus '

Mountains as the origin area of Halaf Ware (Mellaart 1967:36).

Dr o Takey Dabbagh in his study of Halaf pottery (1966) .

suggested as Perkins had earlier (1949) that North Iraq was the

origin area of Halaf Ware based -on,the greatest number of stratified

sites with Halaf pottery being concentrated in North Iraq, Dabbagh

was not certain that Halaf Ware was an outgrowth of the Hassuna

Wares (Dabbagh 1966:26).

In the seventh edition of Robert Braidwood 1s Prehistoric

Men (1967)5 he briefly summarized his views on the Hear Eastern

sequence cIn the sequence the Jarmo assemblage still preceded the

Hassuna assemblage (Braidwood 1967 :101,118)« Pottery of "Samarran

style" was described as appearing in the .Hassuna assemblage (Braidwood

1967:121,144)* However the sites of Baghouz,Samarra, and Tell es-

Sawwan were described separately from the Hassuna assemblage and

 181

were considered as representing a somewhat different assemblage

(Braidwood 1967:144). Braidwood described the Samarra and Halaf

"painted pottery styles1' as being partly contemporary and he

suggested that a blend of these two styles with some Khuzistan

influence may have led to the development of Eridu Ware (Braidwood

1967:146)*

The preliminary results of a survey of the Mandali region

of Iraq (J.Oates 1966 ;1968) were of major significance because

Hassuna-Samarra sites were discovered southeast of Tell es~Sawwan

in a new region* The northernmost occurrence of Hajji Muhammad

Ware was found and often mixed on the surface with Hassuna-Samarra

materials* A site with a Jarmo-like assemblage was also found'in

the area* The Mandali region was evidently one in which Northern

and Southern Mesopotamian and Iranian influences overlapped® A

stratigraphic sequence of assemblages obtained from excavations in

the Mandali region should be of more significance chronologically

than.the excavations at Tell es-Sawwan*

A seminar held at Columbia University in I 966-I 967 on

Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, produced some interesting

reports'* Edith Porada and Donald P ,Hansen *s review of the Mesopo­

tamian sequence indicated . that the Neolithic culture found at.

Jarmo can no longer be regarded as ancestral to the Hassuna-Samarra

Culture of northern M e s o p o t a m i a * ( P o r a d a , H a n s e n ,and Von

Beckerath 1968 :301), Although JPorada and Hansen *s full report .was
 182

not published, they apparently were following Mortensen's

tentative conclusions (Mortensen 1962;1964), because they

noted that Jarmo appeared to belong to the"Zagros group," It

should be pointed out that Porada and Hansen did not use

radiocarbon dates in working out their, interpretation of the

Mesopotamian sequence (Porada,Hansen,and Von Beckerath 1968:301).

Also in connection with the Columbia seminar, Robert

H.Dyson briefly mentioned some of the problems of Mesopotamian-

Iranian correlations in revising (Dyson 1968) his earlier

relative chronology of Iran (Dyson 1969 ). Dyson (1968:310)

presented an early North Iraq sequence of Aceramic,-Jarmo,

Hassuna, Samarra, Halaf, and Ubaid. Periods, in successive order.

A "Samarran Period" was included in the sequence with the support

of the Tell es-Sawwan evidence and was roughly dated with the

use of radiocarbon" dates, between ,5500-5000 B.C. (Dyson 1968:308-310).

Dyson noted, that the Ubaid to Samarra, Samarra to Hassuna, and

Hassuna to Jarmo relationships were uncertain, and he suggested

that all four "cultures" may have been distinct, overlapping

traditions (Dyson 1968:308). .

 ' 183
Reviewing the previous interpretations of the Hassuna-

Samarra assemblage, reveals several major problem areas, but

the basic questions concern the significance of Samarran

ceramics. Two general explanations have been offerred to define

the. meaning of Samarran ceramics: (1) Samarran ceramics developed

within the Hassuna ceramic tradition, (2) Samarran ceramics

developed in a. separate assemblage, which overlapped in time

and space- the Hassuna assemblage. Other problems concern the

origin of the Hassuna-Samarra assemblage and its relationship

with the Halaf assemblage. To examine these problems it is

necessary to outline the relative stratigraphy, distribution of

sites, typology, and radiocarbon dating of the Hassuna-Samarra

assemblage ( Thomas 196?5 see Tables XV, XVI, and Appendix F )„

The- Hassuna-Samarra Assemblage

At present there is no accurate or complete list of the

total number of Hassuna-Samarra sites in Northern Mesopotamia,

Figures 10 and 11 attempt to illustrate the distribution of

Hassuna-Samarra and Halaf sites, but the basic distribution

pattern is revealed,- Most of the Hassuna-Samarra sites are

located in the Tigris Valley, specifically in the area of Mosul

and the Gebel Sinjar, With just a few exceptions most of the

sites are located within the area of. rainfall farming; Baghouz,

TJmm edth-Dhiab, Samarra, and Tell es-Sawwan excepted. The

distribution of Halaf ceramics centers more to the west and

 184

X +°* |"x.

oo

Figure 10. Hassuna-Samarra Sites .

o=Hassuna-Samarra ceramics
+=Hassuna ceramics
*=Samarra ceramics
x=Derivative Samarra ceramics
 185'

++

++
+ -M
+++
&

Figure 11. Halaf Sites.

+=Halaf ceramics
 186 '■

Halaf ceramics did not penetrate very far into Central Iraq;

Samarra$ Tell e s - S a w a n , and Choga Mami,

I have listed eighty sites of the Hassuna, Hassuna-

Samarra, and Halaf Periods for all of Northern Mesopotamia,

The Iraq Department of Antiquities has over seven thousand sites

of all periods on file as reported between 1938-1965 (Al-Soof

1968)* An examination of these files would give a. rough approxi­

mation closer to the actual total number of sites. Of the eighty

sites which I have listed (see Appendix A,B,C), sixty are located

in Iraq and of these seventeen have materials of the Hassuna-

Samarra assemblage» Of the seventeen Hassuna-Samarra sites, seven

have been excavated and these provide the best basis for inter­

pretation* The surface surveys of other sites vary in qualify and

their meaning is often lost because of inadequate descriptions in

which the site is called Hassunan and without excavations the

sequence is not clear, The sampling techniques of past surveys

were inadequate,' as a recent Tell Afar survey has shown* Of

fifty-six sites, twenty-three had Hassuna or Samarra ceramics,

eleven of which were definitely Saraarran* The evidence of the

distribution of sites indicates that the Hassuna-Samarra

assemblage is restricted to the Tigris drainage area,. where

settlement was fairly dense in the Sinjar and Mosul areas. With

the exception of Baghouz,derivative Samarran ceramics are found

 TABLE XV

The Relative Chronology of Northern Mesopotamia,!.

TEARS . PERIOD HASSUNA NINEVEH MATARRAH SHEMSHARA . TELL ES-SAWWAN

B.C.

UBAID XII

_____ XI _______
’ X

IX
HALAF 2C
' VIII
VII
5,000 _____ .VI--_____

V Upper 9 I
2B:
HASSTJNA- Phase 10
SAMARRA
IV 1X II
2A “
5,500------ — -------III— -— — I--— ---------- — — ..... -.....H I ­
TT------------------------- Lower---------14
; IV
xC Phase 15 ...
Ib . v
HASSUNA 16

6 , 000- H
00
S3
 188

TABLE XVI

The Relative Chronology of Northern Mesopotamia,II„

YEARS PERIOD ARPACHIYAH - GAWRA CHAGAR BAZAR THALATHAT

B.Co
TT-1 XVI
XII
USAID
GAP XIII
TT-5 XIX
4 ,500— -------- -~- XIV
TT-6 XX 6
XV
TT-7 ?
XVI
HALAF TT-8 Area A 10
N.E. Base
TT-9

5 ,000-

HASSURA-
SAMARRA

5,5 0 O''- ——
 189
stratigraphically with Halaf Wares, west of the Tigris and are

probably best equated with the Early Halaf Period®

The stratigraphie sequence in. northern Mesopotamia, is

based oa ten excavated sites,. Tell Hassuna, Nineveh, Tell Arpachiyah,

.Al-»Khan,Matarrah, Tell es-Saiwan,TellShemshSra,Baghoi!z,Tell Halaf,

and Chagar Bazar® The combined evidence from, these sites complete

with excavation faults and inadequate descriptions produces a

tentative sequence of Hassuna, Hassuna-Samarra, and Halaf Periods

all overlapping each other® This sequence is represented clearly at

only two of the sites, Tell Hassuna and Nineveh® Tell Arpachiyah

has materials of predominantly Halaf times but some late Hassuna-

'Samarra material in the form of Samarra War® is present. Tell

Shemsh&ra is an Hassuna-Samarra site over an earlier aceramie

occupation. Tell e s - S a w a n is an Hassuna-Samarra site with traces of

the late Hassuna-Samarra Period when Samarra War© was predominant.

Matarrah has an Hassuna and an Hassuna-Samarra occupation which is

different from the Tell Hassuna assemblage due to regional

variations® Tell al-Kban is an Hassuna-Samarra site of early date

before the major Hassuna-Sanarra developments, Baghouz is an unusual—

appearing site in its assemblage because of the lack of Hassuna Ware,

but this may be explained in part if Baghouz was a late Hassuna-Samarra

site, when Samarra Ware was predominant, and if Baghouz. was somewhat

isolated. However there are difficulties with this explanation and

the alternative explanation is that Baghouz is part of a Samarran

 190

assemblage. Examining the stratigraphio evidence I feel that

Baghouz would be contemporary with the late Hassuna-Samarra

and' Early Halaf Periods, perhaps equivalent to Tell es-Sawwan ■

Level I, which is conveniently ill preserved* Tell Halaf has

an occupation in which Samarran and Halaf ceramics overlap and

is therefore placed in the Early Halaf Period or Late Hassuna-

Samarra Period time range. Chagar Bazar also falls into the same

category as Tell Halaf with an overlap of Samarra and. Halaf Wares

indicated.

Observations about the stratigra.phie sequence based on

the excavated sites may be helpful in placing Samarran ceramics

in their proper position. It is noted that in no site does Samarra

Ware occur stratigr&phically below or earlier than Hassuna Ware®

With the only exception of Baghouz, which does not have a clear

stratigraphy and may be a one period site, all sites with Samarra

Ware have earlier levels with either Hassuna or Hassnna-Samarra

W^res mixed„There fore although in the distribution of sites from '

surface survey, Hassuna and Samarra ceramics overlap, when the

sites are excavated Hassuna ceramics are with one exception

always found either earlier C;f contemporary with the Samarran

ceramics® On stratigraphic grounds it seems most likely that

the Samarra ceramics are part of an Hassuna-Samarra assemblage but

more excavations are necessary®

Typologically Hassuna and Samarra ceramics have similarities

and differences but on stratigraphic ,technological and in certain

 191
shapes they are associated, the major difference being in painted

designs® The major reason for deriving Samarran ceramics from

the Hassuna tradition is the stratigraphic association of the

ceramics® The radiocarbon dating evidence of the Hassuna-Samarrra

Period is summarized in Appendix F® Only ten dates are available

and two have to be eliminated on the grounds of obvious

contamination; one each from Shemshara and Hassuna® The remaining

eight dates place the. assemblage in the middle to late sixth

millennium B eC.

Based on the evidence presented the Hassuna.-Samarra assemblage

overlapped with the Hafetf and Hassuna assemblages and perhaps

with Jarmo® The Samarran Ware in the assemblage is seen as

developing out of the Hassuna ceramic tradition and by late Hassuna-

Samarra times approaches its own assemblage in Central Iraq and at

Baghouz® The question of a source for Samarran Ware outside

Northern Mesopotamia deserves some attention® Possible source areas

in the surrounding regions include, Syro-Cilicia,Anatolian Plateau,

Armenia, Northwest Iran, Central Zagros, Central Plateau of Iran,

Southwest Iran, ,and Southern Mesopotamia® Syro-Cilicia and the

Anatolian Plateau can be eliminated because nothing in their

assemblages, resembles Samarran Ware, although Samarran Ware in

an Halaf context does appear to have been imported to Syro-Cilicia.

Armenia is poorly investigated in the early periods and while it

is not impossible it seems very unlikely that.Samarran-War© came

 192

from Armeniao Northwest Iran has nothing that resembles Samarran

Ware and the Central Zagros area has no materials related to

the Hassuna-Samarra assemblage or S.amatrran Ware.

The closest parallels with Samarran Ware can be made with

.the- designs on-ceramics.from basal Sialk in the Central Plateau

* . :
area of Iran. On the basis of relative stratigraphy Sialk I -is

roughly dated to the Hassuna-Samaria Period and overlaps the

Halaf (Dyson 1 968 :310; see Fig. .12). However, nothing is known "

from the Central Plateau earlier than Sialk I. There is a parallel

gap in the sequence of the Central Zagros; the intervening area

through which Samarran Ware would supposedly moved to reach Northern

Mesopotamia. It also might be suggested that Samarran Ware from

the Central Plateau moved southward and reached Northern Mesopotamia

via Southwestern Iran,

In Southwestern Iran, the ceramics of the Sabz Phase or

Susiana a have analogies with Samarran ware but stronger ties

with Eridu and Hajjl Muhammad Wares, Le Breton (1957*86) described

the Susiana a parallels as. vague with Samarran Ware, MeCown

considered Samarran Ware as closest related to the "culture" of

Bakun II in Pars, and he suggested not that Samarran Ware was

derived from Pars but that both ^cultures"^SaHsarran and Bakun II

came from a common civilisation and entered Northern Mesopotamia

and Pars respectively at about the same time» At present Bakun is

correlated with the Ubaid k Phase over one thousand years later than
 MESOPOTAMIA S.W. CENTRAL I N.W
B.C SIALK ANAU MERSIN
NORTH SOUTH IRAN ZAGROS IRAN SHAMRA

1 4400|j UBAID |UBAID 3 L, , . 1 Giy^S II 2 IIIC •

45001*° 6 6 » D 6 6 e eo6 Mehmeh IVA
I 46001 ' XVII
| 4700! XVITI
HALAF UBAID 2 Khazine 5 ?
4800j! |Naaazga
Godin
49001
VII ^ 1 I
| 5000
j 5100| HASSUNA UBAID 1 Sabz Anau lb
I Yanik
! g S J SAMABSA XXVI
Anau la XXVII
54o o |
I Hajji
I 560o( HASSUNA Firuz 1
I 5?ooi
58001 Djextun
Mohammaq-
Jaffarl Quran

6100 |
§ Jarmo
All
I Sara o
i 62001 Kosh 1 Guran
6300S Aceramic
64001 'Jarmo
6500}
66001
6?od Gan j
6800! Daroh
69001
7000I
7ioc|
I .7200I

Figure 12. Near Eastern Chrdnoloogy,.

193
Samarran Ware first appeared in Northern Mesopotamia. In

regard to Southern Mesopotamia, analogies with Samarran Ware '

are evident but they are also common, with Halaf Ware of the

following period. The sequence, in Southern Mesopotamia is. not

well known but Eridu and Hajji Muhammad Wares are also quite

distinct from Samarran Ware although a common origin for

these wares and.Samarran Ware, is not impossible there is not

evidence to support it. Of all the possible source areas thec

Gentral Plateau of Iran and Southern Mesopotamia seem the most

likely because of the absence of information about their pre-

Hassuna-Samarra Period, developments. A origin of Samarran Ware

within the Hassuna ceramic tradition remains the best argument

so far.

The evidence of changes in environment as possibly

reflected in the changes in the distribution of sites is another

problem area. Hassuna=”Samarra sites are situated mostly .within

the rainfall farming zone but some sites as previously mentioned

are located in the desert plateau region, but in those cases they

are always located, near a major river or drainage system where

water was available. Flood plain farming is suggested for Tell es-

Sawwan and Baghouz. Some irrigation experiments are also suggest©

for Tell es~Sawwan. A slightly increased rainfall during the

Hassuna-Samarra Period would help explain the existence of these

sites. Halaf sites are not located as far south as those of the
 195 '
Hassuna-Samafcra Period and some might suggest that this reflects

the .shrinking of the moist steppe region. However, it seems

equally likely that the Halaf villages were part of a group which

centered farther north than the Hassuna-Samarra and that cultural

rather than environmental factors are involved , ■

<

The distribution of Ubaid materials was much more widespread

than either Hassuna-Samarra or Halaf. « Ubaid materials are found

throughout the entire range of the previous assemblages and

expanded farther into neighbouring regions. Quantitatively more

Ubaid sites are found in Northern Mesopotamia, for example of 56

sites surveyed in the Tell Afar region (J,Oates 1968 ), 51 sites

had Ubaid materials while 55 had Halaf, and 23 Hassuna or Samarra»

In addition to this increasing density of polulation over a larger

area there were trends of increasing complexity of cultural

development as the farming communities grew in size. Towns and

temple centers were present in Mesopotamia by the Ubaid Period«, The

Hassuna-Samarra assemblage can be seen as a phase in the development

of urbanism in Mesopotamia,.although it was an early stage,

The level of cultural development represented by the Hassuna-

Samarra assemblage is an important question. During the Hassuna-

Samarra Period we have evidence of a nuiaber of fairly scattered

farming communities. Estimates of the size of these villages vary

and with the possible exception of Tell .es-Sawwan no really

extensive area's of these villages has been excavated. In most cases

settlements of later periods cover the Hassuna-Samarra remains and

 complicate estimates of the size of the Hassuna~Sam&rra

communities« Examining the evidence, most of the villages

seem to have been in the 1~2 hectare size range with populations

of perhaps 100-300 people depending on how the population is

( calculated(Hole 1966). Braidwood and Reed estimated the population

of Jarmo, an earlier village about 1.3 hectares in area, as about

150 .people based-on the existence of 23 houses at any one time

and six people per household (Braidwood and Reed;1937:26). Mallowan

estimated that Tell tiassuna during TJbaid times had an estimated

twenty to thirty families or at most roughly 120-180 people. Tell

es-Sav/wan has an area of 2'h hectares for all three mounds at the

site and the Hassuna-Samarra occupation probably covered a

smaller area. Despite the sophisticated appearance of the Tell-es™

Sawwan assemblage it does not seem likely that it was a village

of more than 300 persons a.t the most. Although it must be noted

that until the final Sawwan report appears no firm estimates of

the size of the community or population can be mad®.

It seems likely that the settlement patterns suggested

by Hole and Flannery (1967:182) for the Sabz Phase occupation of

the Deh Luran area may equally apply to Northern Mesopotamia,

Villages of both rainfall farming and irrigation types are possible

if we accept the evidence of irrigation at Tell es-Sawwan. Pastoral

camps in eaves are possible and the occupation at Tell Shemshara

although it seems to be a -farming- area may not been that of a

typical farming community since no remains of architecture

beyond pits has been found. Craft specialist centers are quite

possible for the' Hassuna-Samarra Period, certainly there were

specialists with the larger villages in the ground stone industry

and ceramics and perhaps copper but convincing evidence of

actual craft centers has not been reported. The beginnings of

a ceremonial complex and temple centers are also quite likely

for the Hassuna~Samarra Period. The architectural continuity

evidenced at Tell es-Sawv/an and the association of stone bowls

and 'statuettes and burials all point to the ceremonial aspects of

the Hassuna-Samarra Period. The structures from the Hassuna-Samarra

levels at Tel 1 es-Sawwan called "temples 11 may well be ceremonial

structures but further details have not been published to expand

this interpretation. The evidence of quantities of ding pellets

from Hassuna-Samarra sites and the "defensive" ditch at Tell es-

Sawwan may be taken as evidence of increasing community organization

and interaction with other communities in raiding or perhaps

limited warfare. The extensive distribution of Hassuna-Samarra sites

indicates"a large area of generally similar culture probably

connected by trade networks and village associations and

relationships based on common interests, marriage, trade, or

common ethnic background . In these areas we enter the realm of

speculation and inference , given, the limited exposures and the

difficulties of reconstructing societies from artifacts. But we may

infer an increasing complexity during Hassuna-Samarra timess

By the Halaf Period we have evidence of the impact of

a Mesopotamian assemblage in Syro-Cilieia at Has Shamra, Hersin,

and in the Amuq« The trends during the Hassuna-Samarra Period

were toward a larger network of relations or larger scale

societies aided by the growth of population, although many

villages evidently remained about the same si 2®, certain

communities e x p a n d e d t e m p l e s were enlarged from earlier ceremonial

structures of which we have little evidence, and. political ,

organization emerged- from an economic,social and religious

background sometime during the Halaf-Ubaid times« The- gaps

and vagueness of this development clearly point out the 'need to

expand our efforts in studying the Hassuna-Samarra and Hala£

time ranges.

The Hassuna-Samarra interpretation presented here is

tentative and may not withstand the weight of future excavations

and surveys; however, at present the existence, of an Hassuna-

Samarra Period during which an Hassuna-Samarra assemblage was

present in the Tigris Valley seems most likely rather than two

assemblages, Hassuna and Samarra, The origin of the Hassuna-Samarra

assemblage is not clear but a development from the earlier Hassuna

assemblage and perhaps other as yet unknown assemblages is the best

possible explanation at present.

 ' 199

Problems of Future Research

Many problems are encountered in studying the Ha'ssuna-

Samarra Period ranging from those specific to the time range to

problems of archaeological methods. One of the basic problems is

that the sequence is primarily based on ceramic typology which,

places emphasis on painted wares and until recently little

attention to plain wares.The correct identification of painted

wares is a problem and a more specific classification system is

needed to distinguish Hassuna, Samarra , Halaf, and Ubaid ceramics„

Consequently there is some confusion as to whether or not

ceramics called Hassuna War © or Samarran Ware are accurately

described.

The complete reports on excavated sites and site surveys

often do not appear until.decades after the original work which

makes exact comparisons very difficult. The final reports on

Tell Arpachiyah; Nineveh., Chagar Bazar, Tell Hassuna, Eridu, Jarmo,

TiIkitepe.,BanahiIk and -Mallowan's surveys of the Khabur and the

Balikh, Surveys of the Iraq Department of Antiquities, British!

School of Archaeology in Iraq, and the Iraq-Jarmo Project have not

yet been published. A coordinated effort is needed between Syria,

Turkey, Iraq and Iran to acquire a balanced picture of the

distribution of sites. Sampling problems in surface surveys are

a problem and in the past surveys were not' truly representative

and a false impression of the number of sites of a given" period

 200

in an area was obtained, There- are several areas of Northern

Mesopotamia which need survey and excavation projects including

the Middle Euphrates Valley, the al-Jazirah region, especially

near Hatra, the Tigris Valley between Makhmur and Samarra the

Lower and Upper Khabur Valleys in Syria the Diyarbakir region

and the region south of Lake Van, • •

The archaeology of the Hassuna and Hassuna-Saraarra Periods

in Northern Mesopotamia is poorly understood despite the number

of sites reported. Few sites are excavated and the floor areas

exposed have been in general, limited which makes reconstruction

of the sequence difficult.. Excavations in the past were not

conducted by soil units and excavation by floors was the best

possible. In several cases set metric levels were used with no

attention paid to floors or soil units. Excavations of the type

and based on the research design employed in the Deh Luran area

of Iran (Hole and Flannery 196?; Hole 1968 ) are needed in

Northern Mesopotamia.

The ethnohistorieal approach is also a. promising line of

research (Kleindienst and. Watson 1956; Watson 1966 ) and should be

expanded in its application to Northern Mesopotamia. The

archaeology of the sixth and fifth millennia B.C. in Northern

Mesopotamia will remain vague until excavations are designed as

part of projects to study the entire culture and its setting. For

the present problems of the ceramic sequence dominate research

concerns.
 APPENDIX.A

THE DISTRIBUTION OF HASSUNA AND SAMARRAN POTTERY

The total number of sites listed for each ware is

believed to represent only a small fraction of the actual total

number of sites. The main concentration of both Hassuna and

Samarran; ceramics was in Iraq ; Hassuna Ware, 32 sites in North

Iraq, 4 sites in Central Iraq, Samarran Waref 19 sites in North.

Iraq, 6 sites in Central Iraq. In regard to the overlapping of

sites, 13 sites in North Iraq had both Hassuna and Samarra

Wares, and 3 sites in Central Iraq had both Hassuna and Samarran

Wares. •

201
 Partial List of Sites with Reported Occurrences

of Archaic or Standard Hassuna Pottery.

Northern Mesopotamia.

SITE LOCATION ' FINDSPOT

1.Tell Hassuna North Iraq la-VIII

2.Nineveh North Iraq I, 2A, 2B
3 oTell Arpachiyah North Iraq Outside Tell
Pre-TT-10
4 sTell Bayar North Iraq Surface
i:5»Khirbet el-Baiar North'Iraq Surface
6«Tell Ashiq . North Iraq Surface
7 eYarim Tepe North Iraq Surface
S.Ibrah Kahir North Iraq Surface
9»Ali Ku-Tuzinghi North Iraq Surface
10,Tell es-Salami North Iraq Surface .
lleKhirbet B a ’wiza North Iraq Surface
12.Tell al-Hawa North Iraq Surface
13.Tell al-Khan North Iraq Tank Trap .
14.Ibrahim Bayis North Iraq Surface
15«Khirbet Wast ’Arab North Iraq Surface
l6»Kirdi Mamerta North Iraq Surface
1?.Gird Ali Agha North Iraq 3 Soundings
Archaic Hassuna
iS.Tell Sargarden North Iraq Surface
19.Tell Ibrahim Aga North Iraq Surface
20.Tell Shemshara North'Iraq 13™ 9
21.Qamarian North Iraq Surface
22„Bazumusian North Iraq Surface
23 .Tell ed-Daim North Iraq Excavations
2 4 .Kidri Baskin North Iraq Surface
25.Mesejra . North Iraq Surface
 203
SITE LOCATION FINDSPOT.'-

2 6 .Nakkar North Iraq Surface

2 ? .Eebedha. North Iraq Surface
28 .Tell Kujjuk Jarmo North Iraq Surface
29.Yorgan Tepe (Nuzi) North Iraq Lower Pit L-4
30.Kurdish Saghir North Iraq Trenches
31«Matarrah North Iraq Lower and Upper
Phases
32 .Umm edh-~Dhiab North Iraq Surface
33.Tell es Sawwan Central Iraq V-I
34.Choga Mami Central Iraq Surface
35»Serik, Central Iraq Surface
36 ,Tell Imnethir Central Iraq Surface
37«0hagar Bazar Northeast Syria 15-13
38.Tell Halaf Northeast Syria Painted Pottery
Layer y

Other Regions

39<>Eridu South Iraq XIX, XVI I,-XV

40«. Has Shamra Northwest Syria ■VA .
4l*Tell al-Judaidah Amuq,Turkey Phases A-B;
42»Yunrak Tepe (Mersin) Cilicia,Turkey XXXIII-XX?
43«Gozlu Kule (Tarsus) Cilicia,Turkey Neolithic Layers?
44.Coba Huyuk (Sakce Gozu) Southeast,Turkey Period I
45.Hinsor Southeast,Turkey Surface
46»Isakoy Southeast,Turkey Surface
 Partial List of Sites with Reported Occurrences

of Samarran Pottery,

Northern Mesopotamia,

• SITE LOCATION FINDSPOT

I,Samarra Central Iraq Graves

2 eTell es-Sawwan Central Iraq I1I-I
3»Ch oga Mami Central Iraq Surface
4,Serik Central Iraq Surface
5.Tell Abyadh Central Iraq Surface
6,Telul ed-Hadid Central Iraq Surface
7«Matarrah North Iraq Upper Phase
8«Qal'at Ka North Iraq Surface
'9,Ibrahim Bayis North Iraq Surface
10,Tell Shemsha'ra North Iraq 13-9
II,Tell Hassuna North Iraq III-VIII
12„Khirbet Ba'wiza North Iraq Surface
13.Nineveh North Iraq I,2A,2B
14.Tell Arpachiyah North Iraq Outside Tell
Field Square
GA IV.4
15 .Tepe Chenchi North Iraq Surface
16«Tell al-Khan North Iraq Tank T r a p .
ly.Kirdi Rubiya North Iraq Surface
1 8 ,Tell Ashiq North Iraq Surface
19,Tell al-Hawa North Iraq Surface
20, Yarim Tep e North Iraq Surface
21,Ibrah Kahir North Iraq Surface
22,Dem Tepe North Iraq Surface
23«Ali Ku-Tuzinghi North Iraq Surface
2.4, Tell Khazir North Iraq Surface
25 oUmm edh-Dhiab North Iraq Surface
 . 205
SITE LOCATION FINDSPOT

2 6 .Baghouz East-Central Syria Surface and

Sounding
2?«. Chagar Bazar Northeast Syria 15-13 '
28,Tell Brak Northeast Syria Base of Main
Sounding
29.Tell Halaf Northeast Syria Painted Pottery
Layer
3 0 eTell Aswad North Syria Surface
31 .Tell Mefesh North Syria Surface
32«Sheikh Ahmed North Syria Surface
33«Jededieh Jabbul II North Syria Surface

Ot her Regions «

3 4»C oba Huyuk (Sakce Gozu) Southeast,Turkey Period II

(2 sherds?)
35«Tell al-Judaidah Amuq,Turkey First Mixed' Range
(2 sherds?)
 APPENDIX B

THE DISTRIBUTION OF HALAF POTTERY

This list of sites with reported Halaf Ceramics is a

rough approximation of the actual distribution of Halaf Ware,

Of the 7^ sites reported, 55 were reported from Iraq,- 15 from

Syria, and 2k from Turkey which reflects the probable actual

distribution and the higher level of investigation in Iraq,

Caution should be exercised in utilising these distributions,

especially when ’’Surface" is listed as the findspot, because of

the differing survey methods and definitions of Halaf Ware

employed by the various archaeologists involved.

206
 Partial List of Sites with Reported Occurrences

of Halaf Pottery.

Northern Mesopotamia«

SITE LOCATION FINBSPOT

1 0Tell Arpachiyah North Iraq TT-10-6

2«,Nineveh North Iraq 2C
3 eTepe Gawra North Iraq XX,Area A,
N.E. Base
AoTelul Gurmria -North Iraq ,Surface
5» Telul Khrkhruk North Iraq Surface
6.Tell Hassuna North Iraq VI-XII
7 0Tell Wa'ai North Iraq Surface
8 oTell Ashiq North Iraq Surface
9.Yarirn Tepe North Iraq Surface
10.Ibrah Kahir North Iraq Surface
11.Tell as-Seman North Iraq Surface
12.Sharug North Iraq Surface
13. G.uir Ba lik North Iraq Surface
l4.Tell Ahmad Agha :
Kabir North Iraq Surface
15 «Tell es-Salami North Iraq Surface
iS.Eharaieh el 'Urs North Iraq Surface
17.Tell Qalinj Agha .North Iraq X I - X H and
Pre-XII ?
l8.Kh.irbet Wast 1Arab North Iraq Surface
19.Kidri 'Abdul 'Aziz North Iraq Surface
20.Kirdi Rubiya North Iraq Surface
21.Gird Banahilk North Iraq Surface anc
Trenches
2 2.Makhmur North Iraq Surface
23»Ibrahim Bayis North Iraq Surface
24.Tell Meraud North Iraq Surface
 208

- SITE LOCATION FINDSPOT

25 .Tell el-Mukhfiya North Iraq Surface

26.Matarrah North Iraq VI, TT-1, I
27.Yorgan Tepe (Nuzi) North Iraq Lower Pit L-4
28.Kurdish Sag'hir North Iraq Trenches
29»Qal'at Ka North Iraq Surface . .
30 .Kirdi Q a l 'at North Iraq Surface
31-Samarra Central Iraq Graves
32.Tell es-Savwan Central Iraq Surface and
ditch
33eTelul ed-Hadid Central Iraq Surface
3^« Choga Mami Central. Iraq Surface
35 •>Serik Central Iraq Surface
36 .Tell Brak Northeast Syria Basal levels
!3 7 .Chagar Bazar Northeast Syria 15-6
38.Tell Halaf Northeast Syria Painted Pottery
Layer
39 .Tell Ailun Northeast Syria Unkn own,Basal?
^0.Tell Aswad North Syria Surface and top
of -mound levels
4-1. Tell Mefesh North Syria Lower 5 meters
of mound .
42.Til Barsip North Syria VII
43«Yunnus-Carchemish North Syria Kilns and
unstratified
44$Shirba North Syria Surface
45.Sabaine North Syria Surface
46.Jededieh Jabbul North Syria Surface
47.A^agi Yarimca Southeast Turkey Surface
48.Tell Turin Southern Turkey 3-4
49.Yassi Huyuk Southeast Turkey Surface
50.Boz Huyuk Southeast Turkey Surface
51.Adiyaman Huyuk Southeast Turkey Surface
 SITE LOCATION FINDSPOT

52 .Diyarbakir Southeast Turkey Surface

53.Tilkitepe Eastern Turkey III

Other Regions.

34.Tell Rifa’at North Syria V ,Lower

55«Coba Huyuk .(Sakee Gozu) Southeast Turkey Period II-III'
56 .Kuyuluk Southeast Turkey Surface
57-Arslan Tepe Southeast Turkey Surface
58.Hinsor Southeast Turkey Surface
59-Karahuyuk Southeast Turkey Surface
60.Yurmtk Tepe (Mersin) Cilicia,Turkey XXIV?
XX-XVI
Sl.Go'zlu Kule (Tarsus) Cilicia,Turkey 3O-50.5 m.
62. Tar tali Huyugu" Cilicia,Turkey Surface
63 .Molla Ahmet Cilicia,Turkey Surface
64.Velican Tepe Cilicia,Turkey Surface
65.Yasil Huyuk Cilicia,Turkey Surface
66.Tell Kurdu Amuq.,Turkey Trenches I,IV
67.Tell al-Judaidah Amuq,Turkey First Mixed
Range
68.Tell esh-Sheikh Amuq,Turkey XI
69 •Has Shamra Northwest Syria IV A ,B ,C
70.Hama Western Syria L
71.Tabbat al-Hammam Western Syria Unknown
(2 doubtful
sherds)
72.Can Hasan South,Central 2B
Turkey (one sherd)
73.Kizilviran Huyuk South,Central Surface
Turkey
74.Seydih.an Huyuk South,Central Surface
Turkey
 APPENDIX C

. REPORTED OCCURRENCES OF HASSUNA,SAMARRA,AND HALAF WARES

The following list of sites probably represents a fraction

of the total number of Hassuna-Samarra and Halaf Sites in the Near

Eastc Of the 103 sites listed, 46 had Hassuna Wares, 35 had

Samarra'Ware, and ?4 had HaLaf Ware. The overlapping distribution

of these wares was as follows : 21 sites, Hassuna-Samarra, 13

sites,Hassuna-Samarra-Halaf, 7 sites,Samarra-Haiaf, and 8 sites,

Hassuna-Halaf, The exclusive distribution of these wares was as

follows: 16 sites, Hassuna, 3 sites, Samarra, and 44 sites,

Halaf, In most cases identification of wares was made by field

survey and the full range of ceramics at the site is not known.

210
 Partial List of Sites with Reported Occurrences

of" Hassuna Samarra, and Halaf Wares in Northern

Mesopotamia and Neighboring Regions.

SITE HASSUNA SAMARRA HALAF

I.Tell Hassuna X ■X X
R.Tell Wa'ai X
5eN±neveh X X X
4.Tell Arpachiyah X X X
5®Tepe Gawra ? X
6«Tepe Chenchi X
7,Tell Bayar . X
8,Tell .al-Khan X X
9«Khirbet Ba'v/iza X X
lO.Khirbet el~Baiar X X
II.Telul Gurmria X
12»Telul Khrkhruk X
13.Tell Ashiq X X X
14,Yarim Tepe X X X
15.1brah Kahir X X X
l6.Tell Ahmad: Agha Kabir X
17«All Ku-Tuzinghi X X
l8.Tell es-Salami X X
19«Kharaieb el ’IJrs X
20.Bern Tepe X
21.Tell Khazir X
22.Tell al-Hawa X X
2 3 .Ehirbet Wast ’Arab X X
24.Kidri ’Abdul ’Aziz X
25-Kidri Mamerta
26.ICidri Rubiya X
 212

SITE ‘ HASSUNA SAMARRA . HALAF

2 ? -Guir Balik X
28.Sharug X
29.Tell as~Seman X
30.Tell Qaling Agha ' X
31 .Makhmur X
32.Tell Ibrahim Bayis X X X
33.Tell Kujjuk Jarmo X
34.Tell Meraud . X
35.Tell el-Mukhfiya X
. 36iMatarrah . X X X
3 7 .Yorgan Tepe (Nuzi) X X
i38.Kurdigh Saghir X X
39„Qal$at Ka X X
40«Kirdi Qal'at X
41,Tell Shemshara X X
42.Gird Banahilk X
43.. Gird Ali Agha X
44.Tell Sargarden X
45.Tell•Ibrahim Aga X
46.Qamarian X
4?«Bazumusian X
48.Tell ed-Daim X
49«Kidri Baskin X
50.Mesejra X
51.Nakkar X
52 .Rebedha X
53.Tell ed-Hadid X X
54.Tell Abyadh X
55 .Samarra X X
$ 6 .Tell es-Sawwan X . X X
 213

SITE HASSUNA SAMARRA HALAF

57.Choga Mami X X X
58 .Serik X X X
59-Tell Imnethir X
60„Urrim edh-Dhiab X X
61 .Baghouz ' X
62.Tell Brak ' ? X
63»Chagar Bazar X X X
64.Tell Ailun X
65 .Tell Halaf X X X
66 .Tell Aswad X X
67 .Tell Mefesh X X
68 .Til Barsip X
69 *Yunnus-Carchamish X
70.Asagi Yarimca X
71.Tell Turin X
72.Tell Rifa'at X
73«Shirba X
74,Sheikh Ahmed X
75°Uededieh Jabbul II X X
76 .Sabaine X
77« Yassi Huyuic ' ■ X
78 .B0Z Huyuk X
79.Adiyaman Hffyuk ' X
80.Diyabakir • X
81.Tilkitepe X
82.Hinsor X X
83 .Isakoy X
84«Kuyuluk • X
85 .Karah.uyuk X
86 .Arslan Tepe X
 SITE HASSUNA SAMARRA HALAF

8 7 .Coba ifuyuk (Sakce Gozu) X X X

88.Tell Kurdu X
8 9 .Tell al-Judaidah X X 'X
90.Tell esh-Sheikh • X
91.Ras Shamra X X
92.Hama X
93»Tabbat al-Hammam ■ ?
94. Yumuk. Tepe (Mersin) X X
I ' /
95.Goz,la R u l e . (Tarsus) X X
9 6 .Tartali Huyugu X
97.Molla Ahmet X
9 8 .Velican Tepe X
99»Yasil Huyuk X
100.Can Hasan X
101 .Kizilviran Hu6yuk X
102. Seydihan Huyiifc X
1 0 3 .Eridu X
 APPENDIX D

MATARSAH CERAMICS, SHERD COUNTS

The ceramic yield of Matarrah, collected for further

study was selective in favor of Samarran W a r e „ The small sample

size involved should be noted in any attempt to use these

figures for comparison purposes9

215
 Matarrah Pottery, Operation IX, Sherd Count (Braidwood et al. 1952:9),

OPERATION COARSE FINE SIMPLE WARE SAMARRAN HALAF UBAID TOTAL NUMBER
AND SIMPLE Undecorated Incised OF SHERDS
LEVEL WARE

IX Surface-
■ 13 19 43 16 11 102
1 !S»

IX 1 30 21 50 63 16 180

IX 1st Floor 27 15 44 23 109

IX 2nd Floor- '■19 14 32 44 109

IX 5

IX 4 NO DATA,

IX 5

TOTALS 89 69 169 146 0 27 500

216
 Mat ar rah Pottery, Operation VI, Sherd Count .(Braidwood et al, 1952': 9) •

OPERATION ' COARSE FINE SIMPLE WARE SAMARRAN HALAF NBAID TOTAL.NUMBER
' AND SIMPLE Undecorated Incised OF SHERDS
LEVEL WARE .

VI Surface-- i4 16 27 1 .1. ?2
1 m» ■ . .

VI 1: NO DATA

VI 2 20 .6 4 - - . .1 51

VI 5 17 5 1 - - - - 21

VI 3rd Floor 25 1 4 1 - 2 33

VI 4 16 2 - - ' - 18

VI 4-5 16 - - - -• • 16

VI 5 78 5 8 ~ - > 91 •

TOTALS : 185 ' 31 . ' 33 28 1 4 282 .

217 .
 Matarrah Pottery,Operation TT-1, Sherd Count (Braidwood at al. 1952:9)

OPERATION . COARSE FINE SIMPLE WARE SAMARRAN HALAF NBAID TOTAL NUMBER
AND SIMPLE Undecorated Incised OF SHERDS
LEVEL. WARE . .

TT-1, I, 1. 5 10 13 6 2 1 35

TT-1, 1 , 2 -NO DATA

TT-1, 1, 3 14 18 14 6 - - 52'

TT-1, II, 1 6 13 . 22 12 - - 53

TT-1, II, 2 3 6 7 1 - - . 17'

TT-1, II, 3 5 -1 6 1 ' - - 13

TT-1, III, 1 19 . 4 2 . - - - 25

TT-1, III, 2 13 - 1 — . ' - 14

TOTALS 63 52 65 26 2 1 209

218
 APPENDIX E

AMUQ POTTERY PHASES A-E

WARE . PHASE A PHASE B PHASE C PHASE D phase :

COARSE
SIMPLE ' 8-13% 6-11%
RED SLIPPED 2-7%
INCISED OR
IMPRESSED . 3-8%
WASHED IMPRESSED 5-10% 8- 13%
BUFF SIMPLE 6-11%
SIMPLE 6-11%
COOKING POT 12-1?% 0-4%
NEW COOKING POT 1—6%
CORRUGATED 0-2%
DARK FACED
BURNISHED 79-84% 52- 57% 35-40% 8-13% 5-9%
UNBURNISHED 3-7% 19-24%
WIPED BURNISH 34-39% 0-3%
RED WASH 6-11% 0-3%
BRITTLE PAINTED 5-10%
LUSTROUS RED FILM 0-5%
LOCAL PAINTED 31-36% 5-10% 0-3%
HALAF PAINTED 4—9% 2-7% 0-2%
TRANSITIONAL
MONOCHROME 0-4%
0- 1%
FINE LINE 0-2%
BICHROME 0-2%
UBAID-LIKE
MONOCHROME- 0-5% 72-77%
PAINTED
BICHROME 0-5% 1-5%
MISCELLANEOUS 0—4%

TOTAL NUMBER
OF SHERDS 460 1,340 563 528 2,269
IN SAMPLE

219-
 APPENDIX F

RADIOCARBON DATES

The following lists of radiocarbon dates includes most

of the dates reported, relevant to the Hassuna-Samarra Period«

The dates are arranged in approximate stratigraphic order, with

the exception of Jarmo's dates„ The sites are tentatively

correlated according to the interpretation of Near Eastern

Chronology used in this study*

22-0
 221

Jarmo Radiocarbon Dates« .

Dates in Years B.C. Half Life 5570-30.

Laboratory Numbers in Parenthesis,

■' PRE-POTTERY JARMO

3316-450
(c-?44)
4620-165
(F-45)
4656-330
(C-742)
4700-170
(F-44)
4745^360 .

(C-743)
4757-320
(C-113 )
5800-250
(W-608 )
6000-200
(W-652 )
6575-175
(H-551/491)
6880-200
(W-65D
- 7090-250
(W-60?)
9250-200
(W-665 )
9290-300
(W.657) ,
 Radiocarbon Dates, Northern Mesopotamia,

Dates in Years B.C. Half Life 5570-30.

Laboratory Numbers in Parenthesis*

BOUQRAS HASSUNA MATARRAH 8HEM8HARA

" ES-SAWAN

Level V '
5090-200
(¥-660 )

Level III
5349-86
Level 9
(P-856 )
5350-150
Operation (K-960) Level III
VI-4 4858-82
Level 10
5620-250 (P-857 )
8080-160
(W-623)
(K-98D
Level 11
5870^150
(K-972)
Level I
Level 13 5506-73
5990-150 (P-855)
Level la (K-95I)
1080-200
Level III
5990-60 (W-609 )
(GrN-4820)
Level II
6010-55
(GrN-4819)
Level I,top
6290-100
(GrN-4852)
Level I ,
bottom
6190-60
(GrN~48l8)
 Radiocarbon Dates, Northern Mesopotamia and.Sy.ro--Cilicia.

Dates in Years B.C. Half Life 5570^30„

Laboratory Numbers in.Parenthesis,

HALAF ' ARPACHIYAH GAWRA HAS SHAMRA HERSIN

XVII/XVIII
345O- 8OO
average Early Tibaid
(c-817) . Level IIIC
4184-173
(P-389 )

Tholos TT-8
5077-83
Early (p-584)
Halaf? Well
5620^35 6114-78
(GrN-2660 ) (P-585 )

Level VA
5324-84
(P-457)

Level VB Basal
5736-112 6OOO-25O
(P-458) (W-617)

Level VC
6414-101
(P-460)
6192-100
(P-459)
 224

Radiocarbon Dates, Western Iran

Dates in Years B.C. Half Life 5570-30

Laboratory Numbers in Parenthesis.

H&JJX FIRUZ TEPE SERAB: TEPE GURAN ALL KOSH TEPE SABZ
Mehmeh
Phase
4520-160
(1-1493)
436oil6o
(I-1500)
Khazineh
Phase
5510-160
(I-I5OI)
4975-200
(UCLA-750B)
5250il000
(SI-206)
Sabz
Operation V
.Phase
Stratum 4
4790-190
4945-83
(1-1497)
(P-502)
7iooiioo
Stratum D-15 (UCLA-7 50C)
5319-86 Mohammad
, ,(P-455) A.D,
Jaffar
49oi4oo
Phase
5870^190 (SI-255)
(I*” )
5270-160
(1-1495)
Level 1
5694-89 6970-100
(P-46?) (SI-160)
Level HI
Level 4 58loll50 6940-200
5655-96 (K-879) (SI-160R)
(P-465)
Level 5 Level II?
6006-98 6460-200
(P-466) (K-IOO6 )
 225

Radiocarbon Dates« Anatolia,

Dates in Years B.C. Half Life .5570^50<,

Laboratory Numbers in Parenthesis.

CAN HASAN CATAL HUYUK HAClLAP

Level 2A
5050-79
(P-789)
Level 2B'
4504-78 . 4720^76 4805-80' 4880-78 Level I
(P-795) (P-792) (P-791) (P-790) 4976^95
4882-78 4950-150 5085-89 52401150 (P-515A)
(P-795) (BM-151) (P-794) (BM-155) Level II
5219-154
(P-516A)
Level VI
5599-85
(P-515A)
5590-180
Level II (b m ~48)
5571-77
(P-796)
Level IV
6087-96
(P-775)
Level V
5690-91
(P-776)
Level VIA.
5622-91 5555-95
(p-772 ) (p-769 )
Level VIA/B
5629-86
(P-827)
Level VIE
5574-90 5679-90
(P-78I) (P-797)
5754-91 5962-94
(P-777) (P-770)
Level VII
5588-89
(P-778)
Level IX
6240-99
(P-779)
Level X
6142-98
(P-782 )
 APPENDIX G

CONVERSIONS

Meters Feet Feet Meters

1 3.281 1 0*305
2 6*56 2 0*61
3 9.84 3 0*91
4 13.12 4 1*22
5 16*40 5 1.52
6 19.68 6 1*83
7 22*97 7 2*13
8 26.25 8 2*44
9 29.53 9 2*74
10 32.81 10 3.05
100 328,1 100 30*5
1000 3281 1000 3048

Kilometers Miles Miles Kilometers

1 0*621 1 1.609
• 2 1,24 2 3.22
3 1.86 3 4.83
4 2*49 4 6* 44
5 3.H 5 8,05
6 3.73 6 9.66
7 4*35 7 11.27
8 4*97 8 12*88
9 5.59 9 14.48
10 6,21 10 16.09
100 62.1 100 160.9
1000 621 1000 1609

226
 LIST OF REFERENCES

ADAMS, ROBERT .MeC.-

1962 Agriculture and Urban Life in Early Southwestern Iran,

Science, Vol. 136, No. 3511* PP® 109-122. Washington.
1965 Land Behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement on the •
Diyala Plains. University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
1966 The Evolution of Urban Society; Early Mesopotamia
and Prehispanic Mexico. Aldine Publishing Company,
. Chica'go.

AL-ALUSI, SALIM

1959 Basmusian. Sumer, Vol. XV, pp. 5Q-51- Baghdad.

AL-AMIN, M, and M.E.L.’MALLOW AN

1950 Soundings in the Makhmur Plain, Sumer, Vol. VI, pp.

55™90. Baghdad.

ALBRIGHT, W.F.
1926 Proto-Mesopotamian Painted Ware from the Balikh
Valley. Man, Vol. 26, pp. 41-42, London.
1951 Review of "The Comparative Archeology of Early
Mesopotamia," by Ann L.Perkins. American Journal of
Archaeology, Vol. 55* No* 2, pp. 209-210. New York.

AL-SOOF, BEHNAM ABU

1966 Short Sounding at Tell Qalinj Agha (Erbil). Sumer,

Vol. XXII, pp. 77-82. Baghdad.
1968 Distribution of Uruk, Jamdat Nasr and Ninevite V
Pottery as Revealed by Field Work in Iraq, Iraq, Vol.
. XXX, Part 1, pp. 74-86. London.

AL-TEKRITX, ABDUL QADIS ■ .

1 960 Tell ed Daim. Sumer, Vol. XVI, pp. 93"H O ® Baghdad,

227
 228

BAKKAR, H. and J. MACKEY

1968 British Museum.Natural Radiocarbon Measurements V.

Radiocarbon, Vol» X,- No* 1. pp.. .1-7* New Haven.

BARNETT,, R.D.

1958 Early Shipping in the Near East. Antiquity. Vol.

XXXII, No, 128, pp. 220-230. Cambridge'.

BRAIDWOOD, LINDA

1961 The General Appearance of Obsidian in Southwestern

Asia and the Microlithic Side Blow-Flake in Obsidian.
In Bericht Uber Den V. Internationalen Kongress Fur
Vor-und Fruhgeschichte, Hambur g T ^ 9 3 3 T ™ V o T T ^ ^ ppT
142-147 ."Berlin, “ 3 ■ .

BRAIDWOOD, ROBERT J.

1954 The Iraq-Jarmo Project of the Oriental Institute of

the University of Chicago. Season 1954-1955• Burner,
Vol. X,. pp. 120- 138 . Baghdad,
1956 The Earliest village Materials of Syro-Cilicia.
.Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society for 1955, Vol.
XXI., pp. 72.-7t T London, '
1958 Near Eastern Prehistory. Scieppe, Vol. 127, No, 3312,
pp. I4l9-l430. Washington, .
1967 Prehistoric M e n . Scott, .Foresman and Company, Glenview,

BRAIDWOOD, ROBERT J . and LINDA S. BRAIDWOOD

1953 The Earliest Village Communities of Southwestern Asia.

Journal of World History, Vol. I, No, 2, pp. 278-310.
Paris. .
i 960 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I: The Earlier
Assemblages : Phases A-J. Oriental Institute
Publications, Vol. LXI. University of Chicago Press,
Chicago.

BRAIDWOOD, R.J., L.BRAIDWOOD, J.G. SMITH, and C. LESLIE

1952 Matarrah: A Southern Variant of the Hassunan

Assemblage, excavated in 1948, Journal of Hear
Eastern Studies, Vol. XI, No. 1, pp. 1-70, Chicago.
 229

BRAIDWO.OD R.J., L. BSAIDUOOD, E« TULANE, and A .L. PERKINS

1944 New Chaleolifchic Material' of Sainarran Type and its

Implications: A Report on Chalcolithic Material of the.
Samarran Type Found at Baghouz on the Euphrates, and a
Reconsideration of the Samarran Material in General
(Especially the' Painted Pottery) in the Light of this
New Material, Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol.
Ill, No. 1, pp. 47-72. Chicago.

BRA IW O O D , R.J. and BRUCE HOWE

1 960 Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan. Studies

in Ancient Oriental Civilization, No, 31. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago. .

BRAIDWOOD, R.J., BRUCE HOWE, and CHARLES A. REED

1961 The Iranian Prehistoric Project« Science, Vol. 153«

No. 3468, pp. 2008-2Q10. Washington.

BRAIBWOOD, R.J. and CHARLES A. REED

1957 The Achievement and Early.Consequences of Food-

Production: A Consideration of the Archaeological
and Natural-Historical Evidence, Cold Spring Harbor
Symposia on Quantitative Biology, Vol. XXII, pp. 39-31•

BRAIDWOOD, R.J. and G.R. WILLEY (eds. )

1962 Courses Toward Urban Life: Archeological Considerations

of Some Cultural Alternates. Viking Fund Publications
in.Anthropology, No. 32. Aldine Publishing Company,
Chicago.

BROWN, G.E.

1967 Prehistoric Pottery from the Arititaurus. Anatolian

Studies, Vol. XVII, pp. 123-164. London.

BUCKLEY, J.D., M.A. TRAUTMAN, and E.H. WILLIS

1968 .Isotopes Radiocarbon Measurements VI. Radiocarbon,

Vol. X, No. 2, pp. 246-294. New Haven.

BURNEY, CHARLES A.

1958 Eastern Anatolia in .the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze

Age. Anatolian Studies., Vol. VIII, pp. 3-57-209.. London.
 230

1961 Excavations at Yanik Tepe., Northwest Iran „ Iraq,

Vol. XXIII, p p 6 138-153. London.
1964 The Excavations at Yanik Tepe, Azerbaijan, 1962;
Third Preliminary Report. Iraq, Vol. XXVI, pp. 54-61.
London.

.CAM, J.R. and COLIN RENFREW

1964 The Characterization of Obsidian and its Application

to the Mediterranean Region. Proceedings of the
Prehistoric Society for 1964, Vol. XXX, pp. 111-133.
London..

CHANG, KWANG-CHIH

1965 Relative Chronologies of China to the End of the

Chou. In Chronologies in Old World Archaeology,
edited by R.W. Ehrich, pp. 503-526. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.

CHXLDE., V. GORDON

1969 New Light on the Most Ancient East. Norton, New York.

CONTENAU, GEORGE and ROMAN GHIRSHMAN

1935 Fouilles du Tepe^Giyan,pr%s de Nehavand, 1931 et

1932. Librarie Orientalist©, Paul-Geuthner, Paris.

CONTENSON, HENRI DE

1963 New Correlations between. Ras Shamra and AX-Amuq.

Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research,
No. 172, pp. 35-40. Jerusalem.
1966 Notes on the Chronology of Near Eastern Neolithic.
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research,
No. 184, pp. 2=6. Jerusalem.

COON, CARLETON S."

1950 Three Skulls from Tell Hassuna. Sumer, Vol. VI, pp.
95-96» Baghdad.

DABBAGH, TAKEY " -

1965 Hassuna Pottery. Sumer, Vol. X X I , pp. 93-111 « Baghdad.

1966 Halaf Pottery. Sumer, Vol. XXII^ pp. 23-43. Baghdad.
 231

DO n MEZ, AHMET and W.C. BRICE

1949 The Distribution of Some Varieties of Early Pottery

in .South-East Turkey. Iraq, Vol. XI, Part 1, ppe 44-
58 . London. •

DU MBSNIL DU BUISSON, COUNT

1948 Baghoug. L'Ancienne Oorsote:Le Tell Archaique et La

de L ’Age du Bronze. E.J. Brill, Leiden

DYSON, ROBERT H. JR.

I 96I Review of "Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I," by

R.J. Braidwood and L.S. Braidwood. AmericanAnthropolo­
gist, Vol. 63 , No. 3, pp. 630-641.
1965 Problems in the Relative Chronology of Iran, 6000-2000
B.C. In Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, edited
by R.W. Ehr'i ch, pp. 215-236. Uni versify of Chicago
Press, Chicago. •
1968 Annotations and Corrections of the Relative Chronology
of Iran, 1968 . American Journal of Archaeology,Vol.
72, No. 4, pp. 308-313. New York.
1969 A Decade in Iran. Expedition, Vol. 11, No. 2, pp. 39-47.
Philadelphia.

EGAMI, NAMIO, T. SONO, and K. HORIUCHI'

1966 Brief Report of the Third Season’s Excavations at Tell

II of Telul eth Thalathat and Some Observations,
Sumer, Vol. XXII, pp. 1-16. Baghdad.

EHRICH, ROBERT W. (ed,)

1954 Relative Chronologies in Old World Archaeology.

University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
1965 Chronologies in Old World Archaeology. University of
Chicago Press, Chicago.

EL-WAILLY, FAISAL

1964 Forward, Sumer, Vol. XX, pp. 1-7» Baghdad.

I 966 Forward. Sumer, Vol. XXII, pp. a-j. Baghdad
 232

EL-WAILLY, FAISAL and BEENAM ABU AL-SOOF ,

1965 The Excavations at Tell es-Sawwan: First Preliminary

Report (1964). Sumer, ¥ol® XXIt pp» 17™32« Baghdad,

F1NKELSTEIN, J.J.

1962 "Mesopotamia," Journal of Near Eastern Studies. Vol.

XXI, No, 2, pp, 73™92. Chicago,

FLANNERY, KENT V.

1965 The Ecology of Early Food Production in Mesopotamia,

Science , Vol*. 147, No, 3663 , pp , 1247-1256,Washington,

FLANNERY, KENT V. and IT.T. WRIGHT

1966 Faunal Remains from the "Hut Sounding" at Eridu, Iraq,

Sumer, Vol. XXII, pp. 61-64, Baghdad.

FRENCH, D.H.

1962 Excavations at Can Hasan:First Preliminary Report,

1961. Anatolian Studies, Vol. XII, pp. 27-40. London.
1963 Excavations at Can Hasan: Second Preliminary Report,
1962..Anatolian Studies, Vol. XIII, pp. 29-42. London,
1965 Prehistoric Sites in the Goksu Valley. Anatolian Studies,
Vol. XV, pp. 177-201. London.
1966 Excavations at Can Hasan ,1965 sFifth Preliminary Report.
■ Anatolian Studies, Vol. XVI, pp. 113-123, London.
1967 Excavations at Can Hasan, 1966 : Sixth Preliminary
Report. Anatolian Studies, Vol, XVII, pp. 165-1?8.
London.

FUGMANN, E. ' '

1958 Hama. Fouilles et Recherches 1931-1938. L*Architecture

des Periodes pre-Hell^nistiques. Na.tionalmuseets
Skrifter Storre Beretninger, Vol. IV. Copenhagen,

GARSTANG, JOHN

1953 Prehistoric Mersin: Yumuk Tepe in Southern Turkey. .

Oxford University Press, London.
 233
GHIRSHMAN, ROMAN ■ -

1958 Fouilles de Sialic pr§s de Kashan, 1933,1934,1937. Vol.

I. Librair© Orientalist®, Paul Geuthner, Paris,

GOLDMAN, HETTY

1956 Excavations at G&zlit Kule, Tarsus. Vol, II, From the

Neolithic through the Bronze Age. Princeton Univer­
sity Press, Princeton.

GUEST, EVAN

1966 Flora of Iraq. Vol. I. Introduction to the Flora; An

Account of the Geology, Soils, Climate, and Ecology o f ■ .
Iraq. Ministry of Agriculture of the Republic of Iraq.
Baghdad»

HARLAN, JACK R. and DANIEL ZOHARY

1966 'The Distribution of Wild Wheats and Barley, Science,

Vol. 153i pp. 1074-1080. Washington.

HARRIS, STUART A .

1961 On the Land Snails of Iraq and their Potential Use in

determining Past Climatic Conditions. Sumer, Vol. XVII, .
pp. 107=113. Baghdad.

HATT, ROBERT T.

1959 The Mammals of Iraq. Miscellaneous Publications, No,

106. Museum of Zoology, University of Michigan, Ann
Arbor.

BAWKES, JACQUETTA

1965 History of Mankind: Cultural and Scientific Develop­

ment . Vol. I, Part 1. Prehistory. Mentor, New York.

HELBAEK, HANS

1964 Early Hassunan Vegetable at es-Sawwan-near Samarra.

Sumer, Vol. XX, pp. 45=48. Baghdad.

HERRMANN, GEORGINA

1968 Lapis Lazuli: The" Early Phases of its Trade. Iraq, Vol.
• XXX, Part 1, pp. 21=57. London,
 . . 234
HEHZFELD, ERNST

1930 Die Vorgeschiehtlichen Topfereien von Samarra»

1
1■M
imrw
rn— >
im-r—rrt.u
.Trm
rr1imTVni -'i; i',—fTrm r i- [-r^VttriMirnirnr* in—r rr-iirT
n^..i, n .... un ww,i mriT
K-j r i

Eorschungen zur Islamischen Kunst II. Die Ausgrabungen

von Samarra, Vol. ¥. Berlin.

HOLE, FRANK

1966 Investigating the Origins of Mesopo-tamian Civilization.

Science, Vol. 153 1 No. 3756, pp. 605-611. Washington.
1968 Evidence1 of Social Organization from Western Iran,
- 8000-4000 B.C. In New Perspectives in Archeology, ,
edited by S.R.Binford and. L.R.Binford, pp.. 245-265,
Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.

HOLE, FRANK and KENT V.FLANNERY

1967 The Prehistory of Southwestern Irani A Preliminary

Report. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society for 1967 , .
Vol. XXXIII, pp. 147-206. London.

KLEINDIENST, MAXINE R.

i 960 Note on a Surface Survey at Baghouz (Syria), Anthropology

Tomorrow, Vol. VI, No. 4, pp. 65-72. Chicago.

KLEINDIENST, MAXINE R . .and PATTY JO WATSON

• J ' •

1956 "Action Archaeology:" The Archaeological Inventory of

w Living Community. Anthropology Tomorrow, Vol. V,
No. 1, pp. 75-78. Chicago.

LAESSjte., JURGEN

1963 People of Ancient Assyria: Their Inscriptions and

Correspondence. Routledge and Kegan Paul, London.

LE BRETON, LOUIS

1957 The Early Periods at Susa, Mesopotamian Relations.

Iraq, Vol. XIX, Part 2, pp. 79-124. London.

LEES, G.M. and N.L. FALCON

1952 The Geographical History of the Mesopotamian Plains.

The Geographical Journal, Vol. CXVIII, -pp. 24-39«
London.
LIBBY, W„F„ "

1954 Chicago Radiocarbon Dates V, Science, Vol, 120,

pp. 733-7^2« Washington,

LLOYD, SETON

1938 Some Ancient Sites in the Sinjar District, Iraq,

Vol, V, pp* 123-142, London,
1954 Mound Surveys, Antiquity, Vole XXVIII, pp, 214-220,
Cambridge,
1963 Mounds of the Near East, Edinburgh University Press,
Edinburgh,

LLOYD, SETON and WILLIAM BRICE

1931 Harran, Anatolian Studies, Vol, I, pp, 77™111»Lendon,

LLOYD, SETON, and FUAD SAFAR

1945 Tell Hassuna: Excavations by the Iraq Government

Directorate General of A.ntiquities in 1943 and 1944,
Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol, IV, No, 4,
pp® 255-2S9, Chicago,
1947 Eridu: APreliminary Communication on the First
Season's Excavations, ,January~March 194?« Sumer,
Vol® III, pp, 84-111, Baghdad,
1948 Eridu: A" Preliminary Communication on the Second
Season's Excavations 1947-48, Sumer, Vol, IV, ppe 115=
127« Baghdad,

MALLOWAN , M.E.L*. '

1936 The Excavations at Tell Chagar Bazar and an Archaeo­

logical Survey of the JJabur Region, 1934-35, Iraq,
Vol, III, Part 1, pp, 1-86, London
1927a The Syrian City of Til-Barsib. Antiquity, Vol. XI,
No, 43, pp. 328-339. Cambridge,
1946 Excavations.in the Bali^ Valley, 1938, Iraq, Vol,
VIII, pp. 111-159. London.
1947 Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar, Iraq, Vol, IX,
Part 2, pp, 1=259. London..
1965 The Mechanics of Ancient Trade in Western Asia;
Reflections on the -location of Magan and Melu^a.
Iran, Vol, III, pp. 1-7. London,
 1966 Tell Chuera in Mordost-Syrien, Iraq , Vol. XXVIII,
Part 1, pp. 89-95» London.
1967 The Development of Cities: Ftom Al-Ubaid to the end of
Uruk 5* Cambridge Ancient History, revised edition of
Vols. I and II, Fascicle No. 98 . Cambridge University
Press, Cambridge.

• MALLOWAN, M.E.L. and J. CRUIKSHANK ROSE

1955 Excavations at Tall Appachiyah, 1955« Iraq, Vol. Ill

Part 1, pp. 1-178. London.

kASS.ON V.M.

/ 1961 The First Farmers in Turkmenia. Antiquity, Vol. XXXV,

No. 159? pp. 205-215. Cambridge.

MAXWELL-HYSLOP, R.„ , J. DU PLAT TAYLOR, M.V. SETON WILLIAMS, and

J. D ‘A.WAECHTER

19^2 An Archaeological Survey of the Plain of Jabbul,1959.

The Palestine Exploration Quarterly (1942 and 1945),
pp. ^-4-0.~London.

Me C O M , DONALD E„

1942 The Comparative Stratigraphy of Early Iran. Studies

in Ancient Oriental Civilization, No. 25. University
of Chicago Press, Chicago.

MELLAART , JAMES

1958 Excavations at Hacilar: First Preliminary Report.

Anatolian Studies, Vol. VIII, pp. 127-156. London.
1961 Excavations at Hacilar: Fourth Preliminary Report,1960.
Anatolian Studies, Vol. XI, pp. 59-75» London.
i 1965 Early Cultures of the South Anatolian Plateau,II:The
Late Chalcolithie and Early Bronze Ages in the Konya
Plain. Anatolian Studies, Vel. XIII, pp. 149-256.
London.
1965a Earliest Civilizations of the Near E ast. McGraw-Hill,
New York.
1965b Catal Huyuk West. Anatolian Studies, Vol. XV, pp. 155-
156 . London.
 237
1966 The Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages in the Near
East and Anatolia. Khayats, Beirut.
196? The Earliest Settlements in Western Asia: From the
Ninth to the end of the Fifth Millennium B.C.
Cambridge Ancient History, revised edition of Vols.
I and II, Fascicle No. 39, Cambridge University Press,
Cambridge,

MELLINK, MACHTELD J.

1964 Archaeology in Asia Minor, American Journal of

Archaeology, Vol. 68, No. 2., pp. 149-166. New York.
1965 Anatolian Chronology. In Chronologies in Old World
Archaeology, edited by R.W. Ehrich, pp. 101-131.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.
1966 Archaeology in Asia Minor. American Journal of
Archaeology, Vol. 70, No, 2, pp. 139-139® New York.
1968 Archaeology in Asia Minor. American Journal of
Archaeology, Vol. 72, No. 2; pp» .125-1T8.""New"York.

MOO.RTGAT, A.

1965 Tell Chulra in Nord-Ost Syrien,Vorlauflger Bericht

Uber Die Kampaffne 1963. Wissenschaftllche Abhandlungen
,.. nr --i»c»><q«fcfcqsq ^«aa»

der Abeitegemeinsehaft fur Forschung des Landes

Nordrhein-Westfalen1 Band 31® Westdeutscher Verlag,
Koln and Opladen,

MOSTENSEN, PEDER

1962 On the Chronology of Early Village Farming Communities

in Iraq. Sumer, Vol. XVIII, pp. 73-80. Baghdad.
1964 Additional Remarks on the Chronology of Early Village
Farming Communities in the Zagros Area. Sumer, Vol.
XX, pp. 28-36. Baghdad.

MUSIL, ALOIS

1927 The Middle Euphrates;A Topographical Itinerary.

American Geographical Society, Now York.

OATES, DAVID

.1968 Studies In the Ancient History of Northern Iraq. •

British Academy., .Oxford University Press, London.
 238

OATES, J O A N .

I960 Ur and Eridu, the Prehistory. Iraq, Vol. XXII,

pp. 32-50. London*
1966a The Baked Clay Figurines from Tell es-Sawwan. Iraq,
Vol. XXVIII, Part 2, pp. 146-153. London,
1966b First Preliminary Report on a Survey in the Region
of Mandali and Badra. Sumer, Vol. XXII, pp. 51-60.
Baghdad.
1968 Prehistoric Investigations near Mandali,Iraq. Iraq,
Vgl. XXX, Part 1, pp. 1-20. London..

OPPENHEIM, BARON MAX VON

(1936) Tell Halaf; A New Culture in Oldest Mesopotamia.'

Putnam, New York.
1943 Tell Halaf, Vol. I. Die Prahistorische Funds. Walter
de Gruyter and Company, Berlin.

.PERKINS, A M LOUISE

1949 The Comparative Archeology of Early Mesopotamia.

Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, No. 25®
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

PERROT, JEAN

1962 Pglestine-Syria-Cilicia. In Courses Toward Urban Life,

edited by R.J.Braidwood and G.R.Willey, pp. l47-l6¥«
• Aldine Publishing Company, Chicago.

PIGGOTT, STUART

1968 The Beginnings of Wheeled Transport. Scientific.

American, Vol. 219, No. 1, pp. 82-90. New York.
1969 The Earliest XVheeled Vehicles and the Caucasian
Evidence» Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society for
1968, Vol. XXXIV, pp. 26^311?. London.

PORADA, EDITH

I 965 The Relative Chronology of Mesopotamia,Part I. In

Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, edited by
R.W. Ehrich. pp. 133-200. University of Chicago Press',
Chicago.
 239

PORADA, EDITH, DONALD P, HANSEN, and J.R.F. VON BECKEPATH

1968 Chronologies in Old World Archaeology: Summary of

Contributions . American Journal of Archaeology^ Vol.
72, No. 4, pp. 3 OI-305 . New York.

READE, J.E„

1968 Tell Taya (196?);Summary Report. Iraq, Vol. XXX,

Part 2, pp. 234-264. London.

REED, CHARLES A.

1959 Animal Domestication in the Prehistoric Near East.

Science, Vol. 130, No. 3389, pp. 1629-1639* Washington.

REILLY, E.B.
< .

1940 Test Excavations at Tilkitepe (1937). Turk Tarih

' ' Arkeologya ve Etnografya Derglsi, Vol. IV, pp. 143-163.
Ankara.

RENFREW, COLIN, J.E. DIXON, and J.R. CANN

196? Obsidian.and Early Cultural Contact in the Near East.

Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society for 1966, Vol.
XXXIX, pp. 30-72. London.
1969 Further Analysis of Near Eastern Obsidians. Proceedings
of the Prehistoric Society for 1968, Vol. XXXIV, pp.
319-333. London. ;

HIIS, P.J.

1961 Excavations in Phoenicia, Archaeology, Vql. 14, pp.

214-216. New York.

ROUX, GEORGES

1964 Ancient Iraq. George Allen and.Unwin, Lpndon.

ROWTON, M.B. '

1967 The Woodlands of Ancient Western Asia. Journal of

Near Eastern Studies, Vol.. XXVI , No. 4, pp. 261-277«
Chicago.
 240

RUBIN, M. and C.ALEXANDER

1 960 U.S. Geological Survey Radiocarbon Dates W

American Journal of Science, Radiocarbon Supplement,
Vole 2V pp. 129-185. New Haven.

SAFAR, FUAD

1950a Eridu:A Preliminary Report on the Third Season's

Excavations 1948-49. Sumer, Vol. VI, pp. 27-38.
Baghdad.
1950b Pottery from Caves of Baradost, Sumer, Vol. VI, pp. Il8~
123« Baghdad.

SAGGS, H.W.F.

1962 The Greatness That Was Babylon: A Sketch of the

Ancient Civilization of the Tigris°°Euphrates Valley.
Hawthorn Books, New York. .

SCHAEFFER, C.F.A.

1962 Ugaritica IV: Decouvertes des XVIII^et XIXgCampagnes

1954-1955, Fondements Prehistoriques D'Ugarit et
Niveaux Bondages. Mission de Ras Shamra Tome XV. Paul
Geuthner, Paris.

SETON-WILLI AMS,- M.V.

1948 Neolithic Burnished Wares in the Near East. Iraq,

Vol. X, pp. 34-50. London.
1954 Cilician Survey. Anatolian Studies, Vol. IV, pp. 121-
I74 . London.
1961 Preliminary Report on the Excavations at Tell Rifa’at.
Iraq, Vol. XXIII, Part 1, pp. 68- 87 . London.
1 967 The Excavations at Tell Rifa'at, 1964:Second Prelim­
inary Report. Iraq, Vol. XXIX, Part 1, pp. 16-33«
London.

SMITH, P.E.L, . ■ .

1968 Ganj Dareh Tepe. Iran, Vol. VI, pp. I 58-I 6 O. London.
 SPEISER , E.A,

1935 Excavations at Tepe Gawra, Vol. I, Levels I-VIII,

Publications of the American Schools of Prehistoric
Research. University of Pennsylvania Press,
Philadelphia, ,

STRONACH, DAVID

I 96I Excavations at Has a l *Amiya. Iraq, ,Vol, XXIII,

Part 2, pp, 95-13?« London,

STUCKERRATH, ROBERT JR.

1963 University of Pennsylvania Radiocarbon Dates VI,

Radiocarbon, Vol.,V, pp. 82-103. New Haven,
1967 University of Pennsylvania Radiocarbon Dates X,
Radiocarbon, Vol. IX, pp. 333-3A5* New Haven,

STUCKERRATH, ROBERT JR. and E.K. RALPH

1 965 University of Pennsylvania Radiocarbon Dates VIII.

Radiocarbon, Vol. VII, pp. 187-199« New Haven,

STUIVER, MINZE and HANS E . SUESS

1966 On the Relationship between Radiocarbon Dates and

True Sample Ages. Radiocarbon, Vol. VIII, pp. 53^—
540, New Haven.

.TAUBER,. J L

1968 Copenhagen Radiocarbon Dates IX, Radiocarbon, Vol.

X, No. 2, pp. 295-32?. New Havfen.

TAYLOR, J. DU PLAT, M.V. SETON-WILLIAMS, and J. WAECHTER

1950 The Excavations at Sakce Gozii, Iraq, Vol. XII,

Part 2, pp. 53-138. London,

THOMAS, HOMER L.

1967 Near Eastern, Mediterranean and European Chronology.

Studies in Mediterranean Archaeology, Vol. XVII,
No. 2, Lund,
THOMPSON, S. CAMPBELL and M.E.L. MALLOWAN'

3.933 The British Museum Excavations at Nineveh 1931-32»

University of Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and
Anthropology, Vol. XX, pp* 71-l86» Liverpool.

THUREAU-DANGIN, F.' and M. DUNAND

I.936 Til-Bar sib. Paul Geuthner, Paris.

TOBLER, ARTHUR J.

1950 Excavations at Tepe Gawra. Vol. II. Levels IX-XX.

University Museum, University of Pennsylvania.
. Press, Philadelphia.

VANDEN BERGHE, L.

195.9 Archeologie de L 'IrSn Ancien. E.J. Brill, Leiden.

VAN LIERE, W.J. and HENRI DE CONTENSON

1963 A Note on Five Early Neolithic Sites in Inland Syria.

Les Annales Apcheologlques de Syria, Vol. XIII, pp.
173- 210. '.

VAN LOON, MAURITS

1966 First Results of the .1965 Excavations at Tell Mureybat

Near Meskene. Annales Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes
Revue D 1Archeologi® e~t D'Histoiro, Vol. XVI,' pp. 211-
217 .. ‘ : ‘ ■
1968 The Oriental Institute Excavations at Mureybit,Syria:
Preliminary Report on the 1965 Campaign. Journal of

Chicago.

VAN LOON, MAURITS and R.H. DORNEMANN

1969 New Sites in the Euphrates Valley. Archaeology, Vol.

22, Np. 1, pp. 65- 70 . -New York.

VAN ZEIST, W. and H.E. WRIGHT JR. . .

1963 Preliminary Pollen Studies at Lake Zeribar, Zagros

Mountains, Southwestern Iran. Science, Vol. 140,
No. 3562, pp. 65- 67 . Washington.
 242

VOGEL,. J . C 6 and H . T . WATEEBOCK

1964 Groningen Radrocarbon Dates V. Radiocarbon, Vol, VI,

pp. 249-269. New Haven.
1967 Groningen Radiocarbon Dates VII. Radiocarbon, Vol.
IX, pp. 107-155» New Haven.

WATSON, PATTY JO

1965 The Chronology of North Syria and North Mesopotamia

from 10,000 B.C. to 2000 B.C. In Chronologies in Old
' World Archaeology, edited by R.W. Ehrich, pp. 61-100,
University of Chicago Press, Chicago. ■
1966 Clues to Iranian Prehistory in Modern Village Life,
Expedition, Vol. 8, No, 3, pp. 9-19. Philadelphia.

WEINBERG, SAUL S.

1961 Halafian and Ubaidian Influence in Neolithic Greece.

In Bericht Uber Den V. Internationalen K pngress Fur
' Voy-u^d Fruhgeschichte, Hamburg, 1953T^Vol, 24, p. 858 ,
Berlin. '
1965 The Relative Chronology of the Aegean in the Stone and
Early Bronze Ages. In Chronologies in Old World
Archaeology, edited by RiW. Ehrich, pp. 285-320.
University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

WERTIME, THEODORE A,

1964 Man's First Encounters with Metallurgy. Science, Vol.

146, No. 3649, pp. 1257-1267. Washington,

WOOLLEY, CHARLES LEONARD

11934 The Prehistoric Pottery of Carchemish, Iraq, Vol. I,

Part 2, pp. 146-162. London.
1952 A Forgotten Kingdom.Penguin, Baltimore.
1955 Ur Excavations, Vol. IV. The Early Periods.Publi­
cations of the Joint Expedition of the British Museum
and the Museum of the University of Pennsylvania to
Mesopotamia, London. .

WRIGHT, H.E. JR.

1955 Geologic Aspects of the Archaeology of Iraq, Sumer,

Vol. XI, pp. 83-91. Baghdad.
 244

YOUNG, T. CUTLER JR.

1962 Taking the History of the Hasanlu Area Back Another

Five Thousand Years. Illustrated London News, Vol.
241, pp. 707-709. London.
1966 Survey in Western Iran, 1961. Journal of Near Eastern.
Studies, Vol. XXV, No. 4, pp. 228-239• Chicago-.'
. 1967 Godin Tepe. Iran, Void V, pp. 139-140. London.

YOUNG, T. CUTLER JR. and PHILIP'E.L. SMITH

. 1966 Research in the Prehistory of Western Iran. Science,

Vol. 153, No. 373^1 PP» 386-391. Washington.

ZIEGLER, CHARLOTTE

1953 Die Keramik von der Q a l ' a d e s Hagffi Mohammed.

Ausgrabungerv der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft
in Uruk-Warka Band 9. Berlin,