Late Chalcolithic Northern Mesopotamia in Context: Papers from the Workshop Held at the 11th ICAANE, Munich, April 5th 2018 (Subartu, 48) 9782503596044, 2503596045

Citation preview

Late Chalcolithic Northern Mesopotamia in Context

SUBARTU XLVIII Subartu — a peer-reviewed series — is edited by the European Centre for Upper Mesopotamian Studies. General Editor Marc Lebeau Editorial Board M. Conceição Lopes Lucio Milano Adelheid Otto Walther Sallaberger Véronique Van der Stede With the support of the following institutions Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia Université Libre de Bruxelles Universidade de Coimbra Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München Subartu is a part of The ARWA Collection

Cover image: Logardan, western Qara Dagh area: aerial view of the sites from the south (© F.Ar.M.Qa.D.).

VOLUME 48 Previously published volumes in this series are listed at the back of the book.

Late Chalcolithic Northern Mesopotamia in Context Papers from a Workshop held at the 11th ICAANE in Munich, April 5th 2018

Edited by

Johnny Samuele Baldi, Marco Iamoni, Luca Peyronel & Paola Sconzo

British Library Cataloguing in Publication Data A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library.

Keywords: Northern Mesopotamia, Southern Mesopotamia, Late Chalcolithic, Uruk, Proto-Urbanism, Early Urbanization, Social Mobility.

© 2022, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise, without the prior permission of the publisher. D/2022/0095/139 ISBN: 978-2-503-59604-4 e-ISBN: 978-2-503-59605-1 DOI: 10.1484/​M.SUBART-EB.5.124935 ISSN: 1780-3233 Printed in the EU on acid-free paper

Contents

List of Illustrations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vii Preface and Acknowledgements. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xiii Abbreviations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv JOHNNY SAMUELE BALDI, MARCO IAMONI, LUCA PEYRONEL & PAOLA SCONZO



Introduction — The Late Chalcolithic of Northern Mesopotamia in Context: Building on a Long and Eventful Debate. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xix

I. Eco­logy, Economy, and Settlement Patterns TIM BOAZ BRUUN SKULDBØL & CARLO COLANTONI

1. Unravelling Early Urbanism and Cultural Encounters in Late Chalcolithic North-Eastern Iraq. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3

MARCO IAMONI & PAOLA SCONZO

2. Beyond Subsistence? Settlement Strategies of the Late Chalcolithic Period in the Selevani Plain (Upper Iraqi Tigris). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

MARIA BIANCA D’ANNA, OLIVIER NIEUWENHUYSE & SIMONE MÜHL

3. Un air de famille: Preliminary Observations on the Ubaid and Late Chalcolithic Horizon of the Shahrizor Plain (Iraqi Kurdistan). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51

II. Techniques, Production Systems, and Social Organization MICHAEL P. LEWIS

4. The ‘Uruk Conundrum’ in the Shahrizor, Iraqi-Kurdistan: Petro­graphic Developments, Ceramic Variation, and Cultural Connections at Gird-i Shamlu and Gurga Chiya.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65

AGNESE VACCA & LUCA PEYRONEL

5. Towards a Definition of the Late Chalcolithic Period in the Erbil Plain: The Contribution of the Helawa Pottery Sequence. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85

KHALED ABU JAYYAB

6. North-Eastern Mesopotamian Ceramic Sub-Assemblages and Their Potential for Identifying Communication Networks: The Formation of Red/​Grey Ware Assemblages during Late Chalcolithic 1 and 2. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

vi

contents

III. Complexities in Contact JOHNNY SAMUELE BALDI

7. Bits of Uruk Before and Outside the Uruk Colonial Sphere: The Qara Dagh Area and Some Early Thoughts on a Reassessment of the Uruk Expansion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123

FRANCESCA BALOSSI RESTELLI

8. What Complexity? Late Chalcolithic Developments at the Site of Arslantepe in the Upper Euphrates Region. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 151

İNAN AYDOĞAN, METIN BATIHAN & HALUK SAĞLAMTIMUR

9. On the Edge of Mesopotamia: The Presence of Uruk and Uruk-related Material Culture in the Upper Tigris Region.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 165

FRANCESCA MANCLOSSI

10. The Late Chalcolithic Canaanean Blade System in Northern Mesopotamia: What were the Connections with the Uruk Phenomenon?.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 179

JOHNNY SAMUELE BALDI, MARCO IAMONI, LUCA PEYRONEL & PAOLA SCONZO



Conclusions — Late Chalcolithic Northern Mesopotamia: Setting the Agenda in the Debate on the Rise of Urbanization in the Ancient Near East. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 197

General Biblio­graphy.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 205

List of Illustrations Map 1.

Map of Mesopotamia with major LC sites mentioned in the text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xv

Map 2.

The Duhok region with major LC sites mentioned in the text.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi

Map 3.

The Erbil-Sulaymaniyah region with major LC sites mentioned in the text.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . xvi

1. Unravelling Early Urbanism and Cultural Encounters in Late Chalcolithic North-Eastern Iraq — Tim Boaz Bruun Skuldbøl & Carlo Colantoni Figure 1.1.

The Rania Plain within the Zagros foothills of north-eastern Iraq.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

Figure 1.2.

The Rania Plain from the site of Bab. Lake Dokan from the site of Girdi Gulak.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

Figure 1.3.

Landsat satellite image from 1999 showing the location of important LC sites on the Rania Plain... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Figure 1.4.

DAEI’s multi-scalar approach.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12

Figure 1.5.

Rapid societal and functional changes visible at Bab. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 1.6.

Rapid societal and functional changes visible at Kur. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

Figure 1.7.

Settlement sprawl and dumping at Kur.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 1.8.

Evidence of settlement sprawl and industrialization from Girdi Gulak. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

Figure 1.9.

Rania Plain, Iraq. Settlement patterns, clusters, and sprawls.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

Figure 1.10. The Zagros foothills of northern Iraq with possible routes of communication.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Figure 1.11. Evidence of cultural interaction. LC 1–2 and LC 2–3 ceramics and finds from Babukur and Girdi Gulak supporting cultural contact and interconnection with other regions of northern Mesopotamia, including western Iran. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Figure 1.12. Evidence of cultural interaction. Distribution of sites with LC and southern-related material culture documented on the Rania Plain.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Figure 1.13. Evidence of interaction with southern Mesopotamia in the mid‒late LC  from DAEI’s excavation and survey work on the Rania Plain.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

2. Beyond Subsistence? Settlement Strategies of the Late Chalcolithic Period in the Selevani Plain (Upper Iraqi Tigris) — Marco Iamoni & Paola Sconzo Figure 2.1.

Map of the Selevani Plain and beyond, with LC sites mentioned in the text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24

Figure 2.2.

Summer 2018: (a) alluvial plain and first terrace system; (b) drought at the Tigris; (c) drone photo of the site of Chamarash (site 766), with archaeo­logical structures exposed by water erosion.. . . . . 25

Figure 2.3.

LC 1–2 settlement in the Selevani Plain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

viii

List of Illustrations

Figure 2.4.

Muqable cluster: site bio­graphy of the LC 1–2 period.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

Figure 2.5.

Sites B269; B193 and B199 on the Tigris terrace; site B11 (Muqable I); site 114 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

Figure 2.6.

Wadi Faidah.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

Figure 2.7.

The LC 3–5 occupation in the Selevani Plain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34

Figure 2.8.

Large sites in the LC 3–5. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35

Figure 2.9.

LC 1–2 pottery diagnostic types in the Selevani Plain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

Figure 2.10. LC 1–2 pottery diagnostic types in the Selevani Plain. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Figure 2.11. LC 3–4 (5) pottery types in the Selevani Plain .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Figure 2.12. LC 3–5 pottery types in the Selevani Plain.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Figure 2.13. LC 1–2 and LC 3–5 sites arranged in order of increasing size.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48

3. Un air de famille: Preliminary Observations on the Ubaid and Late Chalcolithic Horizon of the Shahrizor Plain (Iraqi Kurdistan) — Maria Bianca D’Anna, Olivier Nieuwenhuyse & Simone Mühl Figure 3.1.

Map of the main Chalcolithic sites mentioned in the text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52

Figure 3.2.

Gird-i Shamlu: LC structures excavated in Sector 4.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55

Figure 3.3.

Fragment of a double-rim jar with painted and incised decorations from site SSP-71. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57

Figure 3.4.

Early LC horizon ceramics.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58

Figure 3.5.

Fragment of an open-shaped container with internal incisions from SSP-68. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 59

Figure 3.6.

Late LC horizon ceramics. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60

4. The ‘Uruk Conundrum’ in the Shahrizor, Iraqi-Kurdistan: Petro­graphic Developments, Ceramic Variation, and Cultural Connections at Gird-i Shamlu and Gurga Chiya — Michael P. Lewis Figure 4.1.

Map showing the key archaeo­logical sites with Uruk (-related) material culture and archaeo­logical remains mentioned in the text.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66

Figure 4.2.

Geo­logical map of the Shahrizor-Pirmagroon Basin, Iraqi-Kurdistan, showing the locations of Gird-i Shamlu and Gurga Chiya.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67

Figure 4.3.

Selection of LC 2–3 ceramic forms from Gird-i Shamlu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 70

Figure 4.4.

Selection of characteristic LC ceramic forms from Gurga Chiya phases GC-1A–1D.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71

Figure 4.5.

Petro­graphic Groups assigned to the 31 sherds from Gird-i Shamlu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76

Figure 4.6.

Graph depicting the Petro­graphic Groups assigned to the 91 sherds from Gurga Chiya.. . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Figure 4.7.

Stacked column chart showing the Petro­graphic Groupings assigned to different phases of the LC 4 at Gurga Chiya.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77

Figure 4.8.

Representative photomicro­graphs of Petro­graphic Groups from Gird-i Shamlu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 78

List of Illustrations

ix

5. Towards a Definition of the Late Chalcolithic Period in the Erbil Plain: The Contribution of the Helawa Pottery Sequence — Agnese Vacca & Luca Peyronel Figure 5.1.

Map of the Erbil Plain and the Upper Tigris area showing archaeo­logical sites referred to in the text.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 86

Figure 5.2.

View of the southern slope of Helawa with Step Trench B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 87

Figure 5.3.

Step Trench B. Plan and schematic east section. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89

Figure 5.4.

Histogram showing the total amount of sampled diagnostics for each phase excavated in Step Trench B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 90

Figure 5.5.

Bar chart showing the different percentages of wares for each phase excavated in Step Trench B.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 91

Figure 5.6.

Diagnostic and long-lasting types from Phases 3–5.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 93

Figure 5.7.

Diagnostic and long-lasting types from Phases 2–4 (LC 2–3) and Phases 2–5.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 95

Figure 5.8.

Diagnostic types from Operation D (early LC 3).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 97

6. North-Eastern Mesopotamian Ceramic Sub-Assemblages and Their Potential for Identifying Communication Networks: The Formation of Red/​Grey Ware Assemblages during Late Chalcolithic 1 and 2 — Khaled Abu Jayyab Figure 6.1.

Map of north-eastern Mesopotamia with sites mentioned in the text. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 106

Figure 6.2.

An example of Red/​Grey Ware sherd.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 109

Figure 6.3.

Examples of red/​grey hole-mouth pots. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Figure 6.4.

Examples of red/​grey bowls.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

Figure 6.5.

Examples of red/​grey rim shapes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

Figure 6.6.

Examples of Red/​Grey Ware metamorphic rock-based fabrics from Hamoukar, Tell Brak, and Tepe Gawra. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112

Figure 6.7.

Map of metamorphic rock outcrops.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 113

Figure 6.8.

Example of sooting on the sides of a HMP from Tepe Gawra.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

Figure 6.9.

Map of north-eastern Mesopotamia with distribution of Red/​Grey Bichrome Wares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115

Figure 6.10. Map of north-eastern Mesopotamia showing migration routes, seasonal pasture, obsidian sources, metamorphic rock outcrops, and the archaeo­logical distribution of obsidian and Red/​Grey Wares. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

x

L ist of Illustrations

7. Bits of Uruk Before and Outside the Uruk Colonial Sphere: The Qara Dagh Area and Some Early Thoughts on a Reassessment of the Uruk Expansion — Johnny Samuele Baldi Figure 7.1.

Map of the Uruk expansion between Early and Middle Uruk (northern LC 2, LC 3 and LC 4).. . . . . . 124

Figure 7.2.

Girdi Qala: geo­graphical situation of the site.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 126

Figure 7.3.

Summary outline of Early, Middle Uruk, and LC 2, 3, and 4 contexts at Logardan and Girdi Qala.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 128

Figure 7.4.

Indigenous north-Mesopotamian late LC 2 shapes (beginning of the fourth millennium bce) from Girdi Qala Trench C Levels 10–8.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 129

Figure 7.5.

Logardan: geo­graphical situation of the site. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 130

Figure 7.6.

South-Mesopotamian Early Uruk (beginning of the fourth millennium bce) shapes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133

Figure 7.7.

Indigenous north-Mesopotamian early LC 3.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 134

Figure 7.8.

Early and Middle Uruk architectural clay cones.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137

Figure 7.9.

South-Mesopotamian Middle Uruk.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 138

Figure 7.10. Chrono-cultural evolution of ceramic fabrics and some technical traits of fourth-millennium bce pottery at Girdi Qala and Logardan.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 141

8. What Complexity? Late Chalcolithic Developments at the Site of Arslantepe in the Upper Euphrates Region — Francesca Balossi Restelli Figure 8.1.

The Mound of Arslantepe, with indication of the areas in which period VII (LC 3–4) levels of occupation have been brought to light; Late Chalcolithic 1–4 occupation in the plain around Arslantepe.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 152

Figure 8.2.

Arslantepe period VII residences.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 154

Figure 8.3.

Images of architectonic details of the elite residences in the SW side of the mound.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 156

Figure 8.4.

Temple D and the open area with cult and ritual features.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 158

Figure 8.5.

Large ritual pit(s) full of sherds and ashes.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 159

Figure 8.6.

Period VII pottery.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 160

Figure 8.7.

Mass produced beakers and bowls made from the chaff-tempered and coarse light-coloured ware.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 163

List of Illustrations

xi

9. On the Edge of Mesopotamia: The Presence of Uruk and Uruk-related Material Culture in the Upper Tigris Region — İnan Aydoğan, Metin Batıhan & Haluk Sağlamtimur Figure 9.1.

Map of key sites mentioned in the text.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 166

Figure 9.2.

Map of Upper Tigris Region Late Chalcolithic 5 settlements.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 168

Figure 9.3.

Late Uruk monumental building; cretulae fragments with seal impressions; cylindrical seal and its impressions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 170

Figure 9.4.

Late Chalcolithic 5 Layers of Başur Höyük.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 171

Figure 9.5.

Some of LC 5 materials of the Başur Höyük.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 172

Figure 9.6.

Late Chalcolithic 5 Layers Pottery Assemblages of Başur Höyük.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 175

10. The Late Chalcolithic Canaanean Blade System in Northern Mesopotamia: What were the Connections with the Uruk Phenomenon? — Francesca Manclossi Figure 10.1. Map of the sites mentioned in the text.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 180 Figure 10.2. The lever-pressure system. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 182 Figure 10.3. Canaanean blades from Northern Mesopotamia.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 184 Figure 10.4. The lithic assemblage from Gird-i-Shamlu. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 191 Figure 10.5. Histogram showing the width frequencies of blades/​bladelets detached by pressure which allows recognition of different pressure modes (standing position versus lever-system).. . . . . . . . . . 192

Tables Table 2.1. Catalogue of pottery in Figures 2.9–2.10. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40 Table 2.2. Catalogue of pottery in Figures 2.11–2.12.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Table 3.1. List of Ubaid and LC sites in the Shahrizor Plain.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Table 4.1. Chrono­logical sequence showing the occupational phases of Gird-i Shamlu and Gurga Chiya alongside key selected sites with Uruk (-related) strata mentioned in the text.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67 Table 4.2. Sampled ceramics from Gird-i Shamlu analysed in this study, noting petro­graphic groupings as well as macroscopic observations as observed in the field.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69 Table 4.3. Sampled ceramics from Gurga Chiya analysed in this study noting petro­graphic groupings as well as macroscopic observations as observed in the field.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72–74 Table 5.1. Periodization of Tell Helawa.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 88 Table 7.1. Chrono­logical sequence of the Uruk presence at Girdi Qala and Logardan. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 131 Table 8.1. Proportions of handmade pottery (household production) and specialized workshop manufacture, amongst in situ pottery in various period VII structures at Arslantepe.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 162

Preface and Acknowledgements This volume presents a collection of ten papers that address a group of unresolved questions concerning Late Chalcolithic northern Mesopotamia. It stems from a workshop organized by the editors on the occasion of the 11th ICAANE in Munich in 2018. The workshop, entitled The Late Chalcolithic of Upper Mesopotamia and the Interaction with Southern Uruk Communities: New Data and Interpretations for a Better Understanding of the Early Urban World, aimed at discussing the mosaic of contacts/​interactions that took place between the midfifth and the fourth millennium bce over large swathes of Mesopotamia. The meeting’s main purpose was to evaluate the role of material and social mobility in the emergence of the first Mesopotamian complex societies and cities.

The raison d’être of the workshop — further developed in this subsequent volume — was the importance of multiple new stimuli arising from the critical evaluation of wide-ranging data gathered in recent years. This has been due to a renewed and now continuous flow of ongoing projects, mainly clustered in northern Mesopotamia (from Arslantepe in the west to the Kurdistan Region of Iraq in the east, passing through the highland regions of south-eastern Anatolia), as well as the renewed possibilities of conducting archaeo­logical research in the south (Mesopotamia). At the same time, however, the ideas that all the participants contributed are rooted in a long-lasting debate and, precisely for this reason, are also of pressing topicality.

Some of the papers presented during the workshop were not included in the volume, while others were integrated at a later stage. In the meantime, most have been considerably developed due to the ongoing debate; they touch upon a variety of topics covering most of the fifth and all the fourth millennium bce Mesopotamia, and mostly contain unpublished data and the results of original research.

Although these contributions roughly follow their order of delivery at the ICAANE workshop and the volume itself is structured in accordance with the three thematic sections in which it was originally organized (cf. Introduction), it should not be understood tout court as the proceedings of that meeting or as a simple thematic publication that broadly discusses new paths in the research on Mesopotamian proto-history. This is because (as readers will notice) each of the papers actually touches on far more than one theme at a time, and often further combines different methodo­logical and theoretical frameworks. Further, both during the workshop and then in the following months, the debate has continued with some questions/​issues taking precedence over others. Here are just some: how are we to account for (and interpret) the chrono-cultural discrepancies that are now beginning to be recognized with respect to traditional chrono­logies in the varied landscape of interactions of late prehistoric Mesopotamia? How can different regional paths of urban and protourban development be understood from an increasingly pluralistic and complex perspective without unhistorical simplification, and without viewing disparate phenomena through the lens of overly standardized models? What theoretical and historical tools are best suited to examining long-distance contacts and mobility without flattening the variegated array of local interactions on to excessively general socio­logical frameworks? The general debate on the rise of urban complex societies in Mesopotamia is being fuelled by the astonishing patchwork of interconnected cultural-material identities emerging from ongoing fieldwork in transTigridian north-eastern Mesopotamia, as well as by the renewed interest in long-neglected issues concerning the southern Uruk expansion. With this volume we want to acknowledge that, in various areas and especially in Iraqi Kurdistan, these

xiv

Preface and Acknowledgements

debates have moved beyond the stage of mere collation and comparison of excavation data from different sites and areas: they are now inaugurating common research axes for the years to come and will completely redraw our picture of late prehistoric Mesopotamia.

The manu­script was completed in December 2020. Since it took some time to collect, review, and harmonize all the contributions, we wish to thank the authors for their endless patience: we believe however that the final outcome will repay them for this long wait. We would like to express our gratitude to the organizers of the 11th ICAANE in Munich in 2018 for having hosted our workshop, and to all our reviewers who graciously devoted their time to this volume. Finally, thanks are due to the editors of the Subartu Series and to Brepols publishers for having first accepted our manu­script and then ensured its final publication. Johnny Samuele Baldi, Marco Iamoni, Luca Peyronel & Paola Sconzo,

Lyon, Udine, Milan, Tübingen, 30 December 2020

Abbreviations asl above sea level

approx. approximately c. circa

cat. catalogue

cf.  confer, compare

ed./​eds editor(s)

e.g. exempli gratia, for example

et al. et alii; and others etc. et cetera

fig(s). figure(s)

ha hectare(s)

i.e. id est, that is

inv. inventory

km kilometres l. length

m metres

max. maximum min. minimum

n(n). note(s)

neg. negative

no(s). number(s) p(p). page(s)

pers. comm. personal communication pl(s). plate(s)

sp. sequence page

suppl. supplement

tab(s). table(s)

vol(s). volume(s)

Map 1. Map of Mesopotamia with major LC sites mentioned in the text (maps by editors).

Map 2. The Duhok region with major LC sites mentioned in the text.

Map 3. The Erbil-Sulaymaniyah region with major LC sites mentioned in the text.

Introduction — The Late Chalcolithic of Northern Mesopotamia in Context: Building on a Long and Eventful Debate Johnny Samuele Baldi, Marco Iamoni, Luca Peyronel & Paola Sconzo

Although arising from the latest research, and examining the most critical issues that have come to light, this volume builds on a long tradition of studies, conferences, and discussions that have literally constructed our current knowledge of the chrono­logies and features of Late Chalcolithic Mesopotamia (c. 4500–3300/​ 3200 bce). Actually, a period of twelve centuries is a very large timespan: it covers several dozen generations which, if we were counting backwards from today, would reach as far back as the very beginning of the Carolingian Empire in Europe, or a Western Asia dominated by the first rulers of the Abbasid empire. But, even at the scale of such remote periods as the one considered in this volume, a period spanning more than a full millennium is clearly highly significant. Nonetheless, this lapse of time is a relatively recent discovery. In the university manuals on the history and archaeo­logy of the Near East used some decades ago by our generation of students, the phase currently known as the ‘Late Chalcolithic’ was sometimes barely sketched out, perceived as a problematic and at the same time interesting absence, but most of the time it simply did not exist. The end of the Ubaid period was estimated at 3700–3500 bce at which time the Uruk phase was assumed to begin (Margueron 1991, 53; Liverani 1997, 92). Over the years the dating of the beginning of the Uruk period has not been queried so much. But once the beginning of the Ubaid 3 in northern Mesopotamia was established at around 5300 bce (Henrickson & Thuesen 1989; Carter & Philip 2010b), between its end and the first evidence of Uruk influences in the north a whole phase emerged — that currently occupied by the late Ubaid (corresponding

approximately to the Ubaid 4 in southern Mesopotamia) and the Late Chalcolithic 1–3.

Chrono­logy is a matter of both timing and tangible facts and the intervals should correspond to historical developments. 1998 was a crucial year for the discovery of the Late Chalcolithic world. Three international congresses dedicated to long-distance contacts — held in Santa Fe (Rothman 2001c), Istanbul (Marro & Hauptmann 2000), and Manchester (Postgate 2002) — marked a decisive step for expanding Mesopotamian archaeo­logy into the spaces and chrono­logies of the so-called ‘Greater Mesopotamia’. They had in fact the essential function of (re)organizing the regional framework of northern Mesopotamia in a more coherent, and ultimately, independent fashion, especially with regard to south Mesopotamian periodization (and its internal fragility; see Nissen 2002). The situation was that an emerging, growing body of data pointed towards the existence of a wide-ranging, well-developed northern network that played a substantial role in the dynamics transforming the societies during the fifth and the fourth millennium bce. Johnny Samuele Baldi ([email protected]) CNRS, UMR 5133 Arché­ orient, Lyon. Marco Iamoni ([email protected]) Department of Humanities and Cultural Heritage (DIUM), University of Udine, Italy. Luca Peyronel ([email protected]) Department of Literary Studies, Philo­logy and Linguistics, University of Milan, Italy.

Paola Sconzo ([email protected]) SFB 1070 Ressource Cultures and Institut für die Kulturen des Alten Orients (IANES), Tübingen, Germany.

Late Chalcolithic Northern Mesopotamia in Context: Papers from a Workshop held at the 11th ICAANE in Munich, April 5th 2018, ed. by Johnny Samuele Baldi, Marco Iamoni, Luca Peyronel & Paola Sconzo, subartu 48 (Turnhout, 2022), pp. xix–xxii 10.1484/M.SUBART-EB.5.126361

BREPOLS

PUBLISHERS

xx

Johnny Samuele Baldi, Marco Iamoni, Luca Peyronel & Paola Sconzo

The volume edited by Catherine Marro and Harald Hauptmann in 2000 contained comparative chrono­ logies of Syria, Anatolia, and Caucasus, and identified three major phases LCH 1–3, thus marking the integration of these regions into the areas involved in the cultural dynamics of northern Mesopotamia. Several contributions to the proceedings of the conference held in Manchester (Postgate 2002) in the same year point in this direction. Chrono­logy was becoming both the means and the end of an approach that made it possible to go beyond restricted perspectives linked to local developments: regional evolution and specificities were considered in the framework of widespread and differentiated cultural zones. The Santa Fe seminar (Rothman 2001c) was indeed most effective and influential for its reconsideration of this very subject: the clearly shared aim of the participants was to definitively abandon the idea of the development of social complexity in the north as a result of southern Uruk urbanization and its expansion (Algaze 1993). One of the major achievements of the seminar was again the confirmation of the necessity of a supra-regional perspective in order to single out and understand the dynamics that shaped north Mesopotamian societies and in particular the interconnections upon which the transformations that occurred during the fifth to the fourth millennium bce were based. Compared to previous attempts to synchronize the relative chrono­logies of northern and southern Mesopotamia (Gut 1995), the framework proposed by the Santa Fe seminar has important advantages: it is based on a more detailed periodization, takes into account a large portion of the fifth millennium bce, and focuses much more on northern Mesopotamia in its entirety (i.e. generally speaking the Upper Tigris and Euphrates regions). More generally, the Istanbul and Santa Fe chrono­logies shared a stance reflected by the termino­ logies they adopted, which permitted the elimination of the already mentioned south Mesopotamian influence as well as approaches based on local perspectives (e.g. the Gawra Phase, Gut 1995). This approach, while useful for archaeo­logical correlations, nonetheless risked fragmenting a phase before researchers had even reached a consensus on how it might be characterized and which major traits should be used to do so. The term ‘Uruk’ began (once again) to be used only to refer to cultural assemblages related to southern Mesopotamian communities and their offshoots into Syria, Anatolia, Iran, and northern Mesopotamia. Nonetheless, these changes did not result in a reduction in the importance attached to the Tepe Gawra sequence. Rather, the material culture traditions of this

paradigmatic site were framed within a new picture of northern Mesopotamia, for the first time perceived as a dynamic, non-homogeneous, and composite cultural sphere (Frangipane 2009; Butterlin 2009a; 2009b). Indeed, the notion of ‘Gawra culture’ has progressively appeared to be not only culturally misleading, but also chrono­logically ineffective (see D’Anna et al., this volume). Since the publication of Tobler’s (1950) excavations and, above all, since Rothman’s (2002b) seminal re-analysis of fieldwork data, the sequence of Tepe Gawra has been the subject of several interpretations and debates (Butterlin 2009b). The unsatisfactory character of the notion of ‘Gawra culture’ is evident also in the title of the proceedings of the workshop held in Fosseuse in 2009, which deliberately speaks instead of a ‘Post-Ubaid Horizon’ (Marro 2012a). Critical reappraisals of this kind have then continued until very recently (Peyronel & Vacca 2015; 2020b; Baldi 2016a; Iamoni 2014; McMahon & Crawford 2015). Now ongoing research in Iraqi Kurdistan, not far from this landmark site, is confirming what was already beginning to emerge from the study of more distant areas of northern Mesopotamia (Stein 2002a; 2002b; Balossi Restelli & Helwing 2012). Gawra assemblages do not in themselves define any clear ‘phase’ — not even a pre-contact phase with respect to southern Uruk — because of the multiplicity of regional material culture nuances that constitute the internal articulation of the Late Chalcolithic sphere. In this sense, the success of the Santa Fe chrono­logical chart up to the present is essentially due to the synthetic perspective it adopts, which takes into account this variety of local elements without approaching them in isolation. Even so, the picture is still far from being complete, as the following debates about the nature and evolution of the network of cultural interconnections in fifth‒fourth millennium Greater Mesopotamia demonstrate. In this sense, it is noteworthy that the title of the recent volume edited by Marco Iamoni (2016), following a workshop held at the 9th ICAANE in Basel, refers to the plural ‘trajectories of complexity’ identifiable in northern Mesopotamia during late prehistory. This same perspective of multifaceted complexity was also at the centre of some influential reflections based on the fourth-millennium bce remains brought to light at some crucial sites. The volume Preludes to Urbanism (McMahon & Crawford 2015), for example, presented the results of decades of work by the British expedition at Tell Brak. Thanks to a focus on this major site and its supra-regional relations, the picture offered allows us to appreciate fully both the cultural specificities of the

Introduction — The Late Chalcolithic of Northern Mesopotamia in Context Syrian Jazira and the evolution of an increasingly vast and interconnected Late Chalcolithic horizon. Likewise, the conferences and research conducted by the Italian expedition to Arslantepe have for years underlined the necessity of studying local features in order to develop trans-regional interaction models (Frangipane 2010b, c; see also the thematic issue of the journal Origini, which in 2012 celebrated fifty years of fieldwork research in Malatya, Frangipane 2012). A  key moment for these debates was the symposium held in Malatya in 2018, which used the evidence from Arslantepe as a crucial opportunity to reconstruct a broad but detailed panorama covering Anatolia, Mesopotamia, and the Levant (e.g. D’Anna 2019; Balossi Restelli 2019). These same reflections were followed up in the very recent publication of Arslantepe Phase VII (Balossi Restelli 2019; see also Balossi Restelli, this volume, on Phases VIII– VII), which occupies an important place among the sequences showing the extent of long-distance relationships without direct contacts with south-Mesopotamian Uruk communities. In recent years this perspective has also been adopted by studies dedicated to the heterogeneous relations between south-Mesopotamian Uruk groups and northern Mesopotamian or Iranian Late Chalcolithic societies, as demonstrated by the articles gathered in a recent issue of the Journal of Archaeo­logical Science Reports (Emberling & Minc 2016; Wright 2016). The plurality of interactions between Uruk and ‘indigenous’ material culture and peoples was also addressed at the seminar held in Bo­logna devoted to a cross-cultural comparison between ancient Mesopotamian and pre-Hispanic Mesoamerican urbanization processes (Domenici & Marchetti 2018; esp. Benati 2018) and in the thematic issue of Origini 52 (Frangipane & Manzanilla 2018), both inspired by McCormick Adams’ seminar research. Our volume too would like to follow this same tendency: it starts from the results achieved during these previous and fundamental debates and aims to expand the discussion on the basis of the new data that have been acquired in several key areas of northern Mesopotamia. In particular, paying attention to locally specific mechanisms of interaction has now become a systematic methodo­logical approach, focusing both on local sequences and the analysis of long-distance connections. Contacts between Uruk and Late Chalcolithic communities are no longer observed through the dichotomous lens of an encounter between two worlds, the North and the South (Stein 1999a). These relationships are instead investigated with a focus on more profound details that goes far beyond the ‘traditional’

xxi

threefold typo­logy of interactions, which envisaged only a distinction between ‘local’ non-Uruk villages, purely Uruk settlements, and Uruk enclaves within local centres (Butterlin 2003).

What we believe emerges, is that the ranges of interaction are far more diversified (both in their geo­ graphical extension and in their modes of expression) than previously expected. This understanding has triggered or generated a multiplicity of systems that are no longer tenable within the simple north-south dichotomy. The latter is still probably the most evident stimulus (and this explains why it is probably most easily perceived in archaeo­logical contexts), but at the same time it has been a major ‘umbrella concept’ within which a number of different developments have taken place. Some of these have been recognized and are at the base of the Santa Fe chrono­logy, which makes the result of this conference (LC 1–5) a milestone in the reconstruction of the archaeo­logical dynamics. Many others have started to emerge only now through continuous efforts in the exploration of new data (such as those of the contributors to this volume), thus paving the way for new directions in the archaeo­logical investigation of complex societies in northern Mesopotamia.

About This Volume

This book attempts to address the multiplicity of these issues on the basis of a three-part structure. This is, of course, an arbitrary subdivision that seeks to organize the contributions following a homogeneous thematic order, juxtaposing articles that address relatively similar topics from different points of view and in different regions. However, there is nothing rigid about this structure and the sections of the volume are by no means separate compartments. On the contrary, some contributions quite frequently ‘discuss’ and resonate with papers placed in other sections of the book. On the one hand, since this is a volume rooted in recent and wide-ranging debates, our intention was not to subdivide the contributions according to a strict classification. On the other hand, the local and trans-regional approach to Late Chalcolithic issues is not limited to detailed observations, but emphasizes the importance of connections between the various fields of study. Therefore, Section I (Eco­logy, Economy, and Settlement patterns) contains articles focusing on surveys, territorialisation, and settlement processes. At the same time, it also addresses issues related to the local specificities within pottery assemblages, subsistence strategies,

xxii

Johnny Samuele Baldi, Marco Iamoni, Luca Peyronel & Paola Sconzo

political economy, social transformations, and identity indicators. Similarly, the second section (Techniques, Production Systems, and Social Organization) mainly features articles addressing social evolution through the typo­logical and techno­logical study of the ceramic assemblages. But by using pottery — and in particular forms, petro­graphic analyses, surface treatments, and decorations as information sources — these contributions inevitably end up dealing with mobility phenomena, divergent identities, and material culture specificities associated with different geo­graphical areas, economic strategies, and modes of interaction between distinct groups. Likewise, the third section (Complexities in Contact) groups together papers dedicated to the reconstruction of long-distance relations on the basis of the study of particularly informative finds, sites, and strati­graphic sequences. But here too it is clear that this subject implies certain approaches to mobility, pottery repertoires and techniques, and territorial peculiarities, as well as markers of identity. In other words, the difference between the three sections of the book lies not so much in the issues addressed, but in the perspectives and methodo­logies adopted to analyse specific data. Our intention was by no means to deal with three distinct and generic topics, but rather to provide the volume with a very light, schematic framework, inherent in the approaches used by the contributors. At the same time, it was also important for us to let the articles convey the essence of the lively and stimulating debate that animated the 2018 workshop and has driven this field of research in recent years. Consequently, the main issues of debate can be followed throughout the book, with detailed examinations of certain subjects provided by articles adopting differing perspectives on disparate sets of data.

In a way, this also reflects our wish that these debates may continue, between us, with each of the contributors to the volume, and also extended to all those involved in ongoing research, and we have attempted to summarize them in the conclusion, in accordance with our own perspective. At a time when, for health reasons, it would not be possible for all of us to meet in one room as in Munich, and to take the floor with lively exchanges of views substantiated by diverse evidence, the hope underlying the volume is that we can start discussing again in person, and conducting fieldwork, as soon as possible.

I

Eco­logy, Economy, and Settlement Patterns

1. Unravelling Early Urbanism and Cultural Encounters in Late Chalcolithic North-Eastern Iraq Tim Boaz Bruun Skuldbøl & Carlo Colantoni

A bstract –

Recent archaeo­logical research in northern Iraq has led to a renewed interest in two important Late Chalcolithic period (fifth–fourth millennium bce) developments: the emergence of urban communities across Mesopotamia in the first half of the Late Chalcolithic (LC) period, and the expansion of southern Mesopotamian Uruk cultural influence upon surrounding societies in the second half of the LC period. This contribution considers how and why these two phases of development are interconnected. Supporting this is a discussion of the challenges faced in explaining the dynamics of urbanism and cultural interaction in LC  period Mesopotamia. It draws on insights from previous and recent research in Mesopotamia with an emphasis on the Zagros foothills, and the results of the DAEI’s six seasons of work on the Rania Plain, northern Iraq. This project is investigating early urbanism and the dynamics of cultural encounters in the Zagros foothills. As loci for settlement concentration, political authority, and regional economic systems, the plains of the Zagros foothills appear to have acted as hubs of interaction and urban development. DAEI’s research suggests that urban formation in Mesopotamia during the LC  period was dramatic and consisted of rapid societal transformations. This urban process was complex and there were diverse regional expressions of urban form, with settlements shaped by localized social and economic forces. Many of the forms do not fit easily into traditional models of urban trajectories. Nevertheless, the urban process was comparable in nature and developed simultaneously. DAEI proposes that the explanation for the coincidence in urban formation visible across Mesopotamia is connected to the extensive cross-regional interaction network that was at play during the LC  period. This interaction network is fundamental in the discourse concerning the manner in which urbanism unfolded in Mesopotamia during the LC  period. It not only facilitated the exchange of goods and knowledge, but also stimulated regional integration and comparative developments.

Introduction1

Recent archaeo­logical research in northern Iraq has led to a renewed interest in two important Late Chalcolithic (LC) period (4500–3100 bce) developments: the emergence of urban communities across Mesopotamia in the first half of the LC period, and the expansion of southern Mesopotamian Uruk cultural influence into surrounding societies in the second half of the LC period. This paper considers how these two phases of development are interconnected. It draws on insights from previous and recent research in Mesopotamia, with an emphasis on the Zagros foothills and the Danish Archaeo­logical Expedition to Iraq’s (DAEI)2 work on the Rania Plain in north-eastern Iraq. The plains of the Zagros foothills were loci for settlement concentration, political authority, and regional economic systems, and appear to have acted as hubs of interaction, perhaps stimulating early urban development. There is material evidence of cultural contact with surrounding societies — southern Mesopotamia, north-eastern Syria, western Iran, and south-eastern Anatolia — during the LC period. DAEI’s research sugTim Boaz Bruun Skuldbøl ([email protected]; daei.archaeo­ logical­[email protected]) Affiliate Associate Professor, CrossCultural and Regional Studies, University of Copenhagen, Denmark. Carlo Colantoni ([email protected] and daei.archaeo­ [email protected]) Independent Researcher. United Kingdom.

This paper is based upon a presentation made at the 11th ICAANE (2018) conference for the workshop The Late Chalcolithic of Upper Mesopotamia and the Interaction with Southern Uruk Communities: New Data and Interpretations for a Better Understanding of the Early Urban World organized by the editors of this volume. 1 

DAEI is a collaborative project between the University of Copenhagen and the National Museum of Denmark, and is investigating the nature of early urbanism and the dynamics of cultural encounters in the Zagros Mountains; see: www.urbarch.tors.ku.dk (for project reports, publications, and participants) and www.facebook. com/​babwkur 2 

Late Chalcolithic Northern Mesopotamia in Context: Papers from a Workshop held at the 11th ICAANE in Munich, April 5th 2018, ed. by Johnny Samuele Baldi, Marco Iamoni, Luca Peyronel & Paola Sconzo, subartu 48 (Turnhout, 2022), pp. 3–22 10.1484/M.SUBART-EB.5.126362

BREPOLS

PUBLISHERS

4

Tim Boaz Bruun Skuldbøl & Carlo Colantoni

gests that urban formation in Mesopotamia during the LC period was dramatic and consisted of rapid societal transformations. This urbanization process was complex and there were diverse regional expressions of urban form with settlements shaped by localized social and economic forces.

In the case of the Rania Plain, the forms do not fit easily into traditional models of urban trajectories. Nevertheless, the urban process was comparable in nature and developed simultaneously with that seen in other regions of Mesopotamia. We propose that the coincidence in urban formation visible across Mesopotamia is likely to be connected to the extensive cross-regional interaction network that was at play during the LC period. This interaction network is potentially a fundamental driver in the discourse concerning the manner in which urbanism unfolded in Mesopotamia during this period: it facilitated not only the exchange of goods and knowledge, but also stimulated regional integration and comparative developments.3 Using DAEI’s research as a point of reference, we will address the extent of this interaction and the impact it may have had on the communities of the Rania Plain.

The first part of this paper will briefly address the challenges faced when assessing early urbanism and cultural contact in northern Mesopotamia. This will be followed by a short characterization of important recent evidence of early urbanism and cultural expansion in this region. Finally, we will present trends related to the development of early urbanism and the impact of cultural encounters identified by DAEI on the Rania Plain.

Challenges in Explaining Urbanism and Cultural Interaction ‘complex social systems can neither exist nor evolve in isolation’ (Algaze 2008, 143)

Understanding the nature of urbanism and its diversity across regions and periods is arguably one of archaeo­logy’s primary challenges (Kintigh et al. 2014). Evaluating how urbanization affects and transforms societies, for example in their organization and use of space, is pivotal in much research (cf. among abundant recent works: Cowgill 2004; Marcus & Sabloff 2008; Smith 2014; Smith 2016; Yoffee 2005; 2014; 2015). Issues on urbanism and cultural contact explored in this paper have been discussed by the authors in recent papers: see Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2016a; 2018a; 2018b; 2020.

3 

The LC  period is vital to an understanding of urban formation in early Mesopotamia. It is generally accepted that urbanizing/​proto-urban and urban entities in Mesopotamia developed across diverse geo­graphical and environmental regions — southern and northern Iraq, western Iran, north-eastern Syria, and south-eastern Turkey — during the LC  period (Emberling 2015; Frangipane 2018a; McMahon 2020; McMahon & Crawford 2015; Petrie 2013; Ur 2010b; Stein 2012; Wilkinson et al. 2014). Recent work on the plains east of the River Tigris and in the Zagros foothills of Iraq has documented early urbanism and highly complex societies in these peripheral regions of Mesopotamia, although these developments were diverse and took varied paths (see e.g., Peyronel et al. 2019; Renette et al. 2021; Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2016a; 2018a; Stein 2018b; Vallet et  al. 2019; in addition, see Frangipane 2002; 2012b; Helwing 2000; Lupton 1996). Occurring simultaneously with this early urbanism was extensive cross-regional interaction with the exchange of material culture, techno­logy, and knowledge. The Uruk Expansion is a cultural intrusion that is considered to have played an important part in the profound changes witnessed during this period and to have influenced our interpretation of cultural contact in early Mesopotamian history (see Algaze 1993; 2001a; 2008; Rothman 2001c; 2013; Petrie 2013; Stein 1999a; 2014; and see below). The significance of this cultural intrusion, the temporal specificities, and diversity of its impact on surrounding societies is complex. However, this phenomenon forms just one of the incidents that affected urban developments in northern Mesopotamia, as we have substantial evidence of cultural interaction and integration that are contemporary or predate the Uruk Expansion (see e.g. Baldi 2016a; Helwing 2000; Stein 2012; 2014). Recent research in northern Iraq and the Zagros foothills has provided new insights into the cultural dynamics of the period. These comparative data provide a valuable means of understanding the varied trajectories and expressions of indigenous urban development outside of the traditional regions of intensive focus west of the River Tigris and in southern Iraq. Results provide compelling evidence for the localized nature of these trajectories and the extent of cultural interactions for the period (see e.g. Sconzo 2019; Vallet et al. 2017; 2019; Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2020; see also papers in Iamoni 2016c).

Considering the new evidence, we face at least four major challenges when attempting to explain the dynamics of urbanism and cultural interaction in the LC period.

1. Unravelling Early Urbanism and Cultural Encounters in Late Chalcolithic Iraq Temporal The sheer temporal length — the LC period encapsulates around 1500 years — of urban development and crossregional interaction, combined with chrono­logical imprecision and discrepancies makes the reconstruction of a precise trajectory for plotting urban formation at both a local and a regional level problematic. Finetuned temporal and localized approaches are required to tackle the intricacy of urban developments and the complexity of interactions. For example, recent C-14 dates from the site of Surezha on the Erbil Plain suggests the beginning of the LC period could be extended to c. 5100/​5000 bce (Stein 2018b; Benati 2018, tab. 1 and 2; see also Wright & Rupley 2001). These new dates from north-eastern Iraq further complicate our understanding of archaeo­logical deposits from the LC period and hamper cross-regional comparisons of urban development and cross-regional interaction. One of DAEI’s goals is greater precision of chrono­ logy. Extensive sampling has been undertaken to precisely plot changes visible in the archaeo­logical record. Once processed in the laboratory these will allow the events to be disassembled and compared across sites on the Rania Plain. Comparative ceramic studies are essential in determining the chrono­logical sequence of events, but pottery is a broad-brush dating tool. The temporal precision afforded by a wide set of corroborative sample dating of contexts will allow the tailored dating of local and exogenous ceramic types. This then provides a better understanding of the overlap of seemingly contemporary events at neighbouring sites on the plain as well as comparisons across the wider region.

Methodo­logy Survey and excavation data cannot always be easily reconciled. Survey methodo­logy can often result in biases in settlement types and a lack of granularity in settlement pattern studies due to problems in establishing the full range of site sizes and in identifying the full extent and nature of occupation for a period. By challenging established methods and models that may standardize results, idiosyncratic forms and localized expressions of societal behaviour can be identified.

For these reasons DAEI has a case-study based design that combines intensive survey with the focused investigation of related sites to construct fine-grained comparable site-bio­graphies. The novelty of DAEI’s multiscalar approach (see below) lies in the combination

5

and application of multiple archaeo­logical techniques and methods. What is becoming clear, and is discussed below, is that urbanism for this period on the Rania Plain entailed interrelated settlements with apparently varying functions spread across the landscape. These settlement complexes are markedly different to typical settlement pattern studies that focus on sites as isolated points in a network.

Geo­graphy Location matters. The geo­graphical regions of Meso­ potamia are complex and diverse in nature. Geo­graphy and environment are important in understanding variability in settlement patterns, the urban form, and why and how interaction evolved (see Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2020). Local environmental conditions play an important role in shaping settlement patterns and settlement location — such as being located in a node between transit or exchange — and can stimulate change. In the case of the Rania Plain, the favourable geo­graphical and environmental conditions facilitated an abundant and dense settlement pattern to flourish in the LC period in a location that may have acted as a node for axes of regional exchange. Generally, settlements remained small and there are no major, physically dominant sites (based on settlement size) on the plain compared with those seen on the large plains of Iraq and Syria (see e.g. Ur 2011; Wilkinson & Tucker 1995).

Conceptual There are conceptual challenges that complicate the understanding of the LC  urban nature and crossregional comparison, with disagreements in defining and comparing urban phenomena, patterns, and attributes. How do we, for example, define urbanism in the LC period? Is there a size threshold for a settlement to become urban or is it a set of characteristics related to economic, political, or social organization? And if so, how do we judge the tipping point at which non-urban or rural become urban? What does an urban entity encompass: the settlement alone, its surroundings, or even wider interdependent settlements? Briefly, LC urbanism in the case of the Rania Plain appears to be a network of smaller sites of varying functions and roles, constituting a complex urban entity. Urbanism on the plain is likely not defined by hierarchical settlement patterns based on settlement size, but by dynamic organizational characteristics and expres-

6 sions. These expressions have parallels in urban centres in other regions of northern Mesopotamia.

A conceptual consensus is therefore crucial for a debate of urbanism and the nature of urbanization — the process by which societies transform from nonurban to urban — in Mesopotamia. Urban formation is more than just the passing of a nodal point or threshold. Urbanism is not static; it has a dynamic nature and we are always examining it as it develops along its local trajectory. This makes comparisons between regions challenging. As urban entities continuously transform, defining a shared urban structure, organization, and appearance becomes complex. We believe that this dynamic nature is central to the understanding of urbanism and explains the varied trajectories and dissimilarities in urban form found across Mesopotamia (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2016a; Skuldbøl 2010). By finding commonalities in urban traits between settlements, for instance in the ways they change, more generalized evaluations between regions can be made. Local variation must not be understated, and we should accept diversity as a premise for defining and comparing urbanism: there is no one size fits all models or sets of characteristics for urbanism that can be used for plotting regional diversity in the early urbanism of Mesopotamia. The following section will briefly discuss recent evidence of early urbanism and important cultural influxes into northern Mesopotamia.

Early Urbanism in Mesopotamia

The LC  is a notable inflection point in the history of Mesopotamia. During this period, society underwent a series of fundamental transformations with rapid growth in economic, political, and social complexity, culminating in the rise of the earliest urban societies (see e.g. McMahon 2020; McMahon & Crawford 2015; Algaze 2008; 2018). Evidence points to an urban formation process that consisted of a number of significant developments such as population nucleation and spatial agglomeration and expansion, redefinitions of modes of production and consumption, and the creation and reorganization of societal institutions (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2016a, 2018a, 2018b; see e.g. Frangipane 2016a; 2018a; D’Anna & Guarino 2010 for discussions of societal transformations during the LC  period at Arslantepe). Although the impetus for this urban generation is to be found among the societies at the end of the preceding Ubaid period, current evidence sug-

Tim Boaz Bruun Skuldbøl & Carlo Colantoni gest that urban development was fast developing and widespread in northern Mesopotamia from the beginning of the LC period (see Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2016a for an overview). Contemporary with this, it is evident that early urbanizing societies across northern Mesopotamia were involved in exchange: metal, obsidian, and other crafted or natural material commodities (Helwing 2017; Al-Quntar et al. 2011; Khalidi et al. 2009; McMahon & Oates 2007; Lupton 1996, 33ff.).

New Evidence from North-Eastern Iraq A decade of work in the Kurdish region of Iraq has resulted in important new insights into societal complexity and regionalization in the LC period based on data emerging from the many excavation and survey projects.

Results from ongoing survey projects in the eastern River Tigris plains and Zagros foothills document a change in settlement patterns with a distinct increase in the number of sites dating to the LC period when compared to the preceding Middle Chalcolithic (Halaf/​ Ubaid) period (Shahrizor Plain, see Altaweel et al. 2012; Mühl & Nieuwenhuyse 2016; Upper Iraqi Tigris region, see Pfälzner & Sconzo 2015; Sconzo 2019; the Duhok region, see Morandi Bonacossi & Iamoni 2015; Conati Barbaro et al. 2019; the Greater Zab region, see Koliński 2014; 2017; 2019; 2020; Upper Tanjero Valley, see Kepinski 2014; Rania and Peshdar plains, see Baldi 2018; Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2016a; 2016b). It is expected that this pattern is also representative of the region west of Erbil (for nuances, see Ur et al. 2013). These new results confirm previous surveys and data collected by the Iraqi Directorate General of Antiquities, which also recorded significant numbers of LC settlements across northern Iraq (Al-Soof 1968; 1970; 1985).

A number of survey and excavation projects have recorded settlement clustering during the LC period, with two or more sites forming larger entities (e.g., see Morandi Bonacossi & Iamoni 2015; Pfälzner et al. 2017; Sconzo 2019; Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2016a; 2016b). However, no major centres (above 20 ha) dating to the LC  period have yet been identified east of the River Tigris, and no distinct settlement hierarchy has yet been documented from north-eastern Iraq (see Altaweel et al. 2012; Morandi Bonacossi & Iamoni 2015; Conati Barbaro et al. 2019; Giraud et al. 2019; Koliński 2014; 2019; 2020; Pfälzner & Sconzo 2015; Sconzo 2019; Ur et al. 2013). This contrasts with other regions of northern Mesopotamia (e.g. northern Syria and western Iraq) in which large

1. Unravelling Early Urbanism and Cultural Encounters in Late Chalcolithic Iraq settlements and hierarchical settlement patterns developed during the LC period (e.g. Al-Quntar et al. 2011; Wilkinson & Tucker 1995; Emberling et al. 1999; Lupton 1996; Ur et al. 2011). The evidence supports the impression of a differentiated settlement development across northern Mesopotamia in the LC period.

Important and complementary data from excavation are emerging from a number of sites: Muqable I and III (Upper Tigris, see Pfälzner et al. 2017; Sconzo 2019), Gir-e Gomel (Navkur Plain, see Morandi Bonacossi et al. 2018), Helawa (Erbil Plain, see Peyronel & Vacca 2015; Peyronel et al. 2016; 2019), Tell Nader (Erbil Plain, see Kopanias et  al. 2013), Surezha (Erbil Plain, see Stein 2018a; 2018b; Stein & Alizadeh 2014); Bash Tapa (Erbil Plain, see Angevin & Mas 2015; Mas 2015); Kani Shaie (Bazyan Valley, see Tomé et al. 2016; Renette et al. 2021); Tell Begum (Shahrizor Plain, see Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2016a; 2016b), Girdi Qala and Logardan (Chamchamal Plain, see Vallet et al. 2017; 2019), and the Rania Plain (see below).

This evidence from excavation and survey projects points to the existence of sophisticated societies on the plains of the Zagros foothills. Societal organization was comparable to urban entities in other parts of northern Mesopotamia despite different settlement patterns and settlement size, suggesting that the path to urbanism varied considerably (see Frangipane 2012a for an interesting discussion). Therefore, regionalized developments need to be considered when addressing crossregional interaction and its impact on urban development.

Early LC Cultural Expansions

Cultural expansions are important when examining the development of early complex Mesopotamian societies. Central to understanding the LC societies of northern Mesopotamia are the Ubaid and Uruk cultural expansions, both of which originated in southern Mesopotamia. However, there is a likely third cultural expansion that is thought to have originated to the north in eastern Anatolia and which is generally identified by a vegetal-tempered pottery tradition (see below and Marro 2010).

The sixth–fifth millennium bce Ubaid cultural expansion was a gradual spread of ideas and the development of a sphere of interaction that linked different cultures. The impact of this expansion on indigenous cultures resulted in hybrid social identities despite

7

material cultural similarities (Stein 2014; see also Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2020).

The arrival of a vegetal-tempered pottery tradition in the early‒mid fifth millennium bce gradually transformed the Ubaid ceramic tradition to one characterized by low fired and unpainted vegetal-tempered pottery. Although large parts of northern Mesopotamia, southern Anatolia, the southern Caucasus, and north-western Iran from the early LC onwards shared this vegetal-tempered pottery tradition, there are distinct differences between the various geo­graphical regions (see e.g. Baldi 2012b; 2016a; Baldi & Abu Jayyab 2012; Helwing 2012; 2013; Rova 1999–2000). Regrettably, little research has focused on the impact of this important cultural expansion. The advent of this new pottery tradition seems to correlate with the formation of early urban centres and urban clusters across northern Mesopotamia (see Marro 2010 for a discussion of this cultural intrusion).

New Evidence from North-Eastern Iraq Recent research in north-eastern Iraq has resulted in new evidence for cultural interaction in the early‒mid LC (LC 1–3). Work on the plain surrounding Erbil has recorded substantial evidence of cultural and economic interaction with Anatolia and north-western Iran in the early LC (Stein 2018b). Further to the east, cultural interaction with western Iran in the early LC (LC 1–2) is visible on the Rania Plain and on the plains to the south (Altaweel et al. 2012; Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2018a). However, limited ceramic evidence from the northernmost Zagros foothills suggests a low level of cultural interaction with western Iran (see Gavagnin et al. 2016; Pfälzner et al. 2017). When considered as a whole, this evidence points to the existence of a cross-regional interaction network at play; one with long-distance cultural and economic ties with western Iraq, north-eastern Syria, the eastern Taurus region, and western Iran (for western Iran, see Renette & Mohammadi Ghasrian 2020).

During the early‒mid LC  (LC  2–3) evidence suggests the development of a strong cultural relationship between north-eastern Syria, south-eastern Turkey, and northern Iraq, with communities sharing material culture. Contemporaneously, there was an increase in the number and size of settlements across the northern regions.

8

Tim Boaz Bruun Skuldbøl & Carlo Colantoni

The Uruk Expansion in Northern Mesopotamia

haps a good example of a site showing cultural resistance (see Frangipane 2001). It seems evident with the current material at hand that the formulation of a conclusive explanatory model for the Uruk Expansion is challenging. Yet, new trends can be tentatively identified and placed in the renewed debate of the impact of this event (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2020).

The Uruk cultural expansion is one of the most debated cultural encounters in Mesopotamian research. It remains a prominent question despite limited and inconsistent comparative data and decades of archaeo­ logical research in northern Mesopotamia which has identified other cultural influxes of possibly greater impact than the Uruk Expansion (see above). Current evidence suggests that the initial spread of Uruk material culture from southern Mesopotamia into the north took place during a phase of consolidation, a possible zenith of northern urban development. The influx resulted in a new phase of transformations in societal organization (administration, spatial organization, and settlement patterns). It is evident that the significance of this cultural expansion, the diversity of its impact, and temporal length are complex (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2018b).

New Evidence from North-Eastern Iraq

In the mid‒late LC  (LC  3–4) regional variability in ceramic traditions increased in northern Mesopotamia when the general direction of cultural influence shifted from north to south. This phenomenon has been ascribed to the Uruk Expansion (see e.g. Algaze 1993; 2001a; 2008; Stein 1999a; 2014).

Proposed drivers for the Uruk Expansion into northern Mesopotamia are diverse. Explanations generally focus on interregional interaction (resulting from resource exploitation), population migrations from the south, or cultural diffusion and emulation. The most dominant explanation for this expansion is that of the establishment of an interregional exchange network for the procurement of natural resources from neighbouring resource-rich regions. This was considered necessary to support rapidly developing urban societies in southern Mesopotamia (see Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2020 for a discussion; see also Algaze 2008; 2013; Stein 1999a; 2012).

Current evidence from northern Mesopotamia suggests that cultural encounters with Uruk Mesopotamia were heterogeneous and varied considerably from region to region, ranging from colonial intrusion with conquest of local urban centres and founding of trading enclaves, to simple emulation or cultural resistance (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2020; Algaze 1993; 2008; 2013; cf. Stein 1999a). Hybrid or emulated (as well as mixed) cultural material has been found at a number of sites (e.g. Helwing 1999). The site of Arslantepe, which produced few examples of Uruk material culture, is per-

Substantial evidence of cultural contact with Uruk Mesopotamia on the plains of the Zagros foothills (east of the River Tigris) is predominantly found in the Upper Diyala (Sirwan) River Valley (see Casana & Glatz 2017); on the Shahrizor Plain (Gurga Chiya, see Lewis et al. 2020; Wengrow et al. 2016), in the Bazian Valley (Kani Shaie, Tomé et al. 2016; Renette et al. 2021), on the Chamchamal Plain (Girdi Qala and Logardan, Vallet et al. 2017), on the Rania and Peshdar Plains (see below), and on the Erbil Plain (Surezha, Stein 2018a; 2018b). Further to the north, evidence for cultural contact with Uruk Mesopotamia is found in the Tigris Valley (Sconzo 2019).4 Significant in the discussion regarding cultural interaction is the recovery of evidence of southern cultural expansion dating as early as the late LC 2 (Early Uruk) from Gird-i Logardan in the vicinity of the modern city of Chamchamal, located east of Kirkuk (Vallet et al. 2017; 2019). This new evidence extends the period of Uruk cultural influence up to almost a thousand years.

The majority of sites with Uruk-influenced material culture date, however, to the LC 3–4 (Middle Uruk period) and smaller numbers to the LC  5. It should be noted that the mountainous regions north of the Greater Zab river display an almost complete absence of southern Mesopotamian influenced pottery, apart from finds of Bevelled-Rim Bowls (BRBs), until the very end of the LC period (see Morandi Bonacossi & Iamoni 2015; Gavagnin et al. 2016; Koliński 2019; 2020; Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2020; see however Sconzo 2019 for evidence of Uruk-influenced pottery from the Upper Tigris region). A further example of regionalization comes from the Upper Tanjero Valley, which also showed limited evidence of contact with Uruk Mesopotamia despite numerous earlier LC settlements (Kepinski 2014). 4  Earlier work has also reported evidence for cultural contact with Uruk Mesopotamia in north-eastern Iraq: the Hamrin basin (see Killick 1988), the middle/​upper Tigris region (Gut 1995; Mühl 2013), and see also Al-Soof 1968; 1985.

1. Unravelling Early Urbanism and Cultural Encounters in Late Chalcolithic Iraq

9

Figure 1.1. The Rania Plain within the Zagros foothills of north-eastern Iraq. The foothills are roughly bound by the Turkish border to the north, the Iranian border following the peaks of the Zagros Mountains to the east, the River Diyala to the south, and the open river plains of the River Tigris to the west (illustration based on Levine 1973: figs 1 and 2; illustration compiled by DAEI).

It is also interesting to observe that evidence of the cultural exchange with Uruk Mesopotamia is limited in the western and north-western regions of Iran. Surveys in the westernmost regions of the Iranian Zagros across the border from northern Iraq (e.g. Shahrizor and Rania/​Peshdar Plains) have only recorded BRBs

(see Dadaneh et al. 2019a; 2019b; Binandeh et al. 2012). New research in the Lesser Zab river region of western Iran is starting to produce evidence that this region was culturally integrated with northern Iraq and was also likely in cultural contact with Uruk Mesopotamia, displaying a wider range of Uruk-linked ceramic types

Figure 1.2. The Rania Plain from the site of Bab (upper). Lake Dokan from the site of Girdi Gulak (lower) (photos: Henrik Brahe 2017).

1. Unravelling Early Urbanism and Cultural Encounters in Late Chalcolithic Iraq

11

Figure 1.3. Landsat satellite image from 1999 showing the location of important LC sites on the Rania Plain. In the centre of the plain is Lake Dokan, an artificial lake created in the late 1950s (illustration compiled by DAEI).

(Abedi et  al. 2019; see also Renette & Mohammadi Ghasrian 2020).5

Although the BRB is viewed as the hallmark of the Uruk period of Mesopotamia, its significance as a marker for cultural interaction is questioned. It has been convincingly argued that the BRB is a bread mould (Goulder 2010) and such bowls may simply represent the spread of a new techno­logy without an accompanying assemblage of southern cultural material (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2016a). The intrusion of cultural artefacts may have complex repercussions as their impact may vary. As such, single artefact types (such as the BRB) are not necessarily a clear indicator of how interaction unfolded across the wider region.

In sum, the current evidence indicates that north-eastern Iraq’s cultural encounter with Uruk Mesopotamia was long, varied, and perhaps repetitive or cyclical. Evidence also suggests that Uruk cultural penetration into some parts of the northern regions of the Zagros foothills and mountains of Iran and Iraq was minimal. This may have been due to factors such as the In 2019 DAEI began surveys in the western Iranian provinces of Kurdistan and West Azerbaijan. The objective was to start investigating LC period settlement patterns with a focus on the nature and impact of the Uruk Expansion into the Zagros Mountains, starting in the region around the modern towns of Baneh and Sardasht. DAEI identified numerous LC  settlements in the mountainous region of Sardasht. Some of these sites produced substantial evidence of Uruk related pottery, implying close contacts between the Rania and Peshdar Plains and the Sardasht region. These two regions are located c. 50 km apart. 5 

physical barrier of the mountains themselves or that this cultural intrusion was resisted (Dadaneh et al. 2019a; 2019b). A robust explanation is still to be reached. As we shall see, this situation contrasts with that of the Rania Plain, which shows strong evidence of cultural interaction with Uruk Mesopotamia.

DAEI’s Work in the Zagros Foothills of Iraq and Visible Trends

As a result of eight seasons of fieldwork (2012–2019) on the Rania Plain DAEI has identified a regionally distinct urban form that underwent rapid social transformations. Accompanying these changes is material evidence of a series of varied cultural interactions that had a fundamental impact on developments on the plain.

The plain measures approx. 20 × 30 km and is enclosed by mountains and ridges. The Lesser Zab river, springs, and wadi systems help to make this a fertile environment, very well-suited to extensive settlement (Figs 1.1 and 1.2). Visibility across the landscape is remarkable

12

Tim Boaz Bruun Skuldbøl & Carlo Colantoni

Figure 1.4. DAEI’s multi-scalar approach. The approach includes: surface scraping, targeted soundings (white arrows), geo­logical coring, excavation, high-resolution survey, a high-definition sample strategy, and UAV and satellite imagery analysis (compiled by DAEI, photos: Henrik Brahe 2016).

and the plain could only be entered via passes in its four corners. Due to this geo­graphy, external communications were physically channelled, and the plain could be controlled with relative ease (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2018a). At the end of the 1950s a hydroelectric dam was built. Its reservoir, Lake Dokan, now covers the southern third of the plain.

DAEI is approaching urbanism from various avenues of investigation in order to construct a diverse high-resolution dataset. A decision was made from the outset to explore the anatomy and temporal development of urbanism employing a detailed and contextual approach. Although DAEI focuses on the organization and spatial patterning of complex communities on the Rania Plain, insights feed into a wider interpretative

framework. The research design takes a multi-faceted view of the issue of early urbanism. It synthesizes the identification of settlement patterns on the plain with the dissection through excavations, coring, and soundings of selected sites, namely, the twin sites of Babukur (Bab and Kur) and Girdi Gulak. DAEI also intends to investigate a fourth site (Basmusian), but high lake waters since 2015 have limited access to the LC levels (Fig. 1.3). The outcome has been a spatially discrete, but comprehensive analysis of a number of interrelated sites resulting in a series of local settlement bio­graphies (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2018a).

Using a multi-scalar approach DAEI examines urban settlements, their surrounding specialized landscapes, and the traces of practices resulting from socio-­

1. Unravelling Early Urbanism and Cultural Encounters in Late Chalcolithic Iraq

13

Figure 1.5. Rapid societal and functional changes visible at Bab (compiled by DAEI).

Figure 1.6. Rapid societal and functional changes visible at Kur (compiled by DAEI).

economic organization (Fig.  1.4). The exploitation of the surrounding landscape is of particular interest. Evidence such as industrialized activities, mass garbage dumping, and urban sprawl provide insights into how early societies exploited the landscape. Practices hint at the complex organization of communities on the Rania Plain during the LC  period. The aim is to unravel the distinct spatial organization of early urbanism on the plain and to establish a fine-tuned chrono­l ogy in which to place cultural encounters.

Important Visible Trends Identified on the Rania Plain

DAEI has identified four important interrelated trends on the Rania Plain for the LC  period. These provide insights into early urban development and cultural interaction in north-eastern Iraq.

Rapid Societal Transformations Key to understanding the urbanization process are the socio-economic transformations that societies underwent along their path to urbanism. During the LC period settlements changed radically over time. Excavation work on the twin mounds of Babukur has revealed a

14

Tim Boaz Bruun Skuldbøl & Carlo Colantoni

Figure 1.7. Settlement sprawl and dumping at Kur (compiled by DAEI).

Figure 1.8. Evidence of settlement sprawl and industrialization from Girdi Gulak (compiled by DAEI).

complex sequence of socioeconomic changes dating to the LC 2–5 periods (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2016c). Similar radical transformations are also seen at Girdi Gulak, indicating that these trends can be traced back to the very beginning of the LC  period. DAEI’s results suggest closely bound relationships between sites on the plain, with corresponding phases of transformation in status and function (Figs 1.5 and 1.6).

Current evidence shows that the settlements and landscape around Babukur underwent radical transformations in the LC  period, with shifts in the roles and socio-economic status of the sites — from once prosperous settlements with large monumental buildings — to that of pottery production (Bab) and locations for large-scale systematic trash dumping (Bab and Kur) (see Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2018b and 2020 for a description of the LC building complexes and remains of trash activities recovered at Babukur).

The sites were denuded of permanent habitation and the population presumably shifted elsewhere on the plain. Moreover, this was a period of settlement growth on the plain, with preliminary results from surveys pointing towards the LC as a period of high settlement numbers and density (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2018a).

1. Unravelling Early Urbanism and Cultural Encounters in Late Chalcolithic Iraq Diverse Regional Expressions of Urban Form with Settlements Shaped by Localized Social and Economic Forces Urbanism on the Rania Plain and in most of the Zagros foothills differs from that seen to the west; there are similar urban transformations but not the same extent of settlement nucleation.

DAEI’s multi-scalar approach has identified complex urban processes with diverse, but distinctive localized expressions of urban form. There is evidence at Babukur and Girdi Gulak of settlement sprawl and industrialization of the landscape.

At Bab and Kur, following the last phase of substantial occupation, there were periods of mass production of pottery, and systematic trash pitting and dumping, dating to the LC  3–5 periods (see Figs  1.5 and 1.6). The dumps and pits produced mainly southern Mesopotamian LC  pottery types of which many were mass-produced vessel types such as the BRB (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2018b). Adding a further layer of complexity to the picture is evidence of off-site activity. Surrounding the two mounds is settlement sprawl consisting of multiple small, low mounds tightly gathered around the sites (Fig. 1.7). These consist of off-site refuse dumps with residue similar to that found on the sites, and possible quarry pits dating to the mid‒late LC period complementing the evidence for mass refuse disposal on the two main mounds. This phenomenon of sprawl, production activities, and trash dumping seems to have been commonplace on the plain (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2018b).

DAEI’s investigations at the site of Girdi Gulak from 2016 to 2019 identified similar specialized activities on the main mound (4–5 ha. in size) and on the low rises surrounding the mound. These activities included clay quarry pits and garbage deposits dating to the very early LC period as well as later LC activities (Fig. 1.8). Investigations also showed evidence of transformation and reorganization of the settlement as seen at Babukur (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2018a). Evidence supports the notion that the transformation of the landscape on the plain was one of overt exploitation due to probable industrialization and economic specialization (craft production, processing, etc.). These transformational processes and specializations resulted in complex urban landscapes also visible at larger urbanizing centres. Investigations at the sites of Tell Brak and Tell Hamoukar in north-eastern Syria show that urban growth at this time transformed

15

the surroundings from farmland to an ‘urban edge zone’ (Emberling et al. 1999; Al-Quntar et al. 2011; McMahon & Crawford 2015; Benati 2018; Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2018b). This peri-urbanization with industrialization of the landscape (industrial and pollutant production, quarry pitting, burial grounds, and landfills) seems to be a common urban phenomenon and one shared by urbanizing settlements, albeit on various scales.

Urban Forms do not fit easily into Traditional Models of Urban Trajectories DAEI’s survey results suggest a dense settlement pattern during most phases of the LC period and one characterized by the grouping of smaller sites along natural water courses. A certain level of site interdependence is implied by close proximity of the sites. In many cases neighbouring LC  sites are found within a distance of 0.5–1 km. There is no clear demarcation of a size-based hierarchical settlement pattern. The pattern of dense — yet of limited size range — settlement is supported by the Iraqi survey from the late 1950s, which identified a high number of settlements on the plain dating to the LC period, but did not record any large centres, i.e. above 20  ha (see Al-Soof 1970; 1985; Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2016a; Baldi 2018; Giraud et al. 2019) (Fig. 1.9). DAEI survey and site-based investigations have shown that settlement on the plain transformed over time. In the early LC period we have standalone settlements — presumably integrated into a network of inhabited sites — and early evidence of sprawl and industrialization of the landscape (i.e. Girdi Gulak). However, by the mid‒late LC period settlement is characterized by a conglomeration of sprawl or closely related clusters of sites, many of which probably became limited in function having been used as locations for production and refuse dumping (i.e. Bab and Kur). Further evidence of extensive mid‒late LC trash dumping and ceramic firing installations are to be found at the site of Araban located on the eastern side of the Rania Plain (Eidem 2015 and 2020). Similar patterns of large-scale pottery production dating to the early‒mid LC have recently been identified at Girdi Qala in the Chamchamal region (Vallet et al. 2017), whilst mid‒late LC garbage disposal is evident at Gurga Chiya on the Shahrizor Plain (Lewis et al. 2020; Wengrow et al. 2016).

This network of sites and clusters contrasts with the characteristic trait of much larger dominant centres nestled in the size-based hierarchy of smaller settlements, typically seen in southern Iraq and on the plains

16

Tim Boaz Bruun Skuldbøl & Carlo Colantoni

Figure 1.9. Rania Plain, Iraq. Settlement patterns, clusters, and sprawls. No site that could be considered a disproportionately dominant centre, as in the traditional size hierarchy model, has so far been identified with confidence (compiled by DAEI based on an image from Corona 1967).

of north-eastern Syria (e.g. Tell Brak, see McMahon 2020). It is now becoming increasingly apparent that identifying and sampling sprawl activities, and what they represent, is essential to understanding the nature of early urbanism in north-eastern Iraq. Assuming that trashing events seen at LC sites on the Rania Plain and elsewhere are the residue of production, then the patterning of this trashing implies large-scale activities that may well derive from shifts in socio-economic practices and is closely linked to early urbanism (see e.g. Benati 2018).

Evidence for Cultural Interaction The Rania Plain’s location in the Zagros foothills is key to understanding urban development in a seemingly remote region. The foothills are a diverse environment transected by mountain passes, natural gaps, and river valleys — such as the Rivers Diyala, Little Zab, and Greater Zab — making the region relatively accessible and less isolated than one might expect. Routes of communication are likely to have played a significant role in how interaction unfolded in the past (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2020). It is reasonable to assume that communication via valleys and passes dictated east-west move-

ment and was instrumental in linking the foothills with the larger plains of Mesopotamia and the highlands in Iran. On the Iraqi side of the Zagros Mountains, the Peshdar, Rania, Sharizor, and Sulaymaniyah plains, for instance, may have acted as a middle-ground for largescale cultural interaction and encounters. Not only did directions of communication criss-cross these valleys and plains, they may have attracted interaction due to their population concentrations, favourable environmental conditions, and the political entities residing there. A  number of valleys and plains, especially where routes of communications intersected, may at times have acted as nodes or hubs of reciprocal action (Fig. 1.10) (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2020). It appears that urbanism on the Rania Plain did not rise in isolation. In the early LC period the plain shows evidence of material cultural contacts with Iran, the plains of the Tigris, and further west (Fig. 1.11), whilst in the later LC abundant southern Uruk-related cultural material dominates. As noted above, this contrasts with the regions north and immediately to the south of the Rania Plain where very few sites with southern material culture have been identified. Although requiring further investigation this evidence supports the argument that the Rania and Peshdar Plains may have held a special

1. Unravelling Early Urbanism and Cultural Encounters in Late Chalcolithic Iraq

17

Figure 1.10. The Zagros foothills of northern Iraq with possible routes of communication. The Rania Plain may have acted as a hub of interaction (dashed line circle) during the LC period (compiled by DAEI, based on Levine 1973: figs 1 and 2).

role as middle-grounds or hubs of cultural interaction during the LC period as mentioned above. Although we are still lacking the evidence, it is likely that the special role of the plains is related to the exchange of certain raw materials, such as metal, across the Zagros.

An indicator of significant evidence of interaction is the large quantity of southern Mesopotamian influenced ceramics dating to the LC  4–5. DAEI’s survey,

in conjunction with previous Iraqi surveys, recorded sixteen sites or clustered entities (e.g. Kur has six or more associated small satellite mounds) with southernrelated material (Figs 1.12 and 1.13). Other survey projects on the Rania and neighbouring Peshdar Plain have recorded numerous other LC  mounds with southern influenced material (Baldi 2018; D’Agostino et al. 2016; Eidem 2015; Hasegawa et al. 2016; Giraud et al. 2019).

18

Tim Boaz Bruun Skuldbøl & Carlo Colantoni

Figure 1.11. Evidence of cultural interaction. LC 1–2 and LC 2–3 ceramics and finds from Babukur and Girdi Gulak supporting cultural contact and interconnection with other regions of northern Mesopotamia, including western Iran. Upper: Girdi Gulak. Middle: LC 1–2 pottery from Girdi Gulak consisting of types known from northern Iraq and north-western Iran, including variants of Dalma/​Pisdeli Wares. Lower: LC 2–3 pottery and stamp seals and sealings from Babukur of styles known from various regions of northern Mesopotamia (photos: Henrik Brahe 2013–2017, compiled by DAEI).

1. Unravelling Early Urbanism and Cultural Encounters in Late Chalcolithic Iraq

19

Figure 1.12. Evidence of cultural interaction. Distribution of sites with LC and southern-related material culture documented on the Rania Plain. Sites to the south of Girdi Gulak were recorded prior to this part of the plain’s flooding from the end of the 1950s (based on the work of Al-Soof and DAEI).

Reasons for this southern cultural intrusion have centred around proposed drivers (interregional interaction, migration of populations, and cultural diffusion and emulation, see above) thought to govern similar patterning seen elsewhere in northern Mesopotamia. In the case of the Rania Plain, current evidence favours that of the emulation of southern material culture (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2018b; 2020). This assumption seems to be supported by a recent archaeometric study by Leah Minc and Geoff Emberling of potsherds from various locations in Mesopotamia and Iran which shows that southern pot types found in northern Mesopotamia were mostly locally produced (Emberling & Minc 2016; Minc & Emberling 2016). This result is also confirmed by studies from the Erbil Plain (Stein 2018a) and Sharizor Plain (Lewis et al. 2020).

Conclusion

DAEI has a number of observations resulting from its studies of the LC period on the Rania Plain in northeastern Iraq.

Firstly, urbanism is not uniform in its expression. We propose that cross-regional comparisons of urbanism should focus on societal organizational similarities (i.e. spatial, social, economic, and political transformations). On the Rania Plain there are localized urban expressions. For example, there is no explicit size-based settlement hierarchy. DAEI leans towards an interpretation of early urbanism that considers the diversity of urban development and its dynamic nature, one that is not defined by hierarchical settlement patterns based on settlement size, but by dynamic urban expressions and localized site bio­graphies. The Rania Plain appears to have had a settlement pattern based on economic or socio-political functions rather than size. Taken as a whole, settlement across the

20

Figure 1.13. Evidence of interaction with southern Mesopotamia in the mid‒late LC from DAEI’s excavation and survey work on the Rania Plain, e.g. southerninfluenced cylinder seal (Site #2), BRBs, and folded-neck jars (Sites #45, 40, 31, 33, 26, 4), pottery drawings and photographs from the sites of Bab and Kur (photos: Henrik Brahe 2013–2016, compiled by DAEI).

Tim Boaz Bruun Skuldbøl & Carlo Colantoni

1. Unravelling Early Urbanism and Cultural Encounters in Late Chalcolithic Iraq plain forms a conglomerated entity — comparable in size to larger urban centres but lacking a clearly dominant nucleus. This identification of LC settlement clusters forming dispersed but connected settlements may offer a solution to the lack of dominant, nucleated centres in the Zagros foothills. Drawing on this, it is becoming clear that settlement patterns are probably not the most effective means of understanding the transformations on the Rania Plain and a Mesopotamia-wide, onesize-fits-all-model should not be relied upon to understand early urbanism in the region.

There are transformations in the functions of sites and a shift in the processes of urbanization with the exploitation of the landscape visible on the plain. We see the landscape being transformed into the locale for production and discard. This may well have been an essential element of the phenomenon of early urbanism itself and it is potentially a significant indicator of the radical shifts that societies were undergoing during this period. Secondly, there are unique environmental factors at play. The environmental setting may have acted as an important factor in the particular settlement characteristics and settlement distribution patterns visible on the plain. Evidence suggests that close spatial proximity (many LC entities within the DAEI survey area are located a short distance from one another — often less than 500 m apart) encouraged functional relationships between extended groups of settlements. This distribution pattern may even be an example of a variation of low-density urban sprawl, echoing the distribution of suburban sprawl of Mesoamerican cities (see Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2016a for a discussion).

Nevertheless, although the distribution of settlements on the Rania Plain was partly due to the geo­ graphical and eco­logical context in which the urban systems and their interaction developed, socio-political and economic factors remain almost certain to have been the primary drivers of the urban trajectory we see. The sprawl and industrialization visible across the plain — a landscape of exploitation — match events in wider Mesopotamia, albeit with a distinct local character possibly resulting from the unique geo­graphical conditions. The term that we coin here, of ‘landscape of exploitation’, relates to the growing evidence for communities on the plain expanding away from restricting their production activities solely to the confines of their settlements, and the move to increasingly exploit surrounding landscape and abandoned settlements as a sprawl of locales of production and disposal. It appears

21

that multiple instances of this phenomenon are visible across not only the Rania Plain (e.g. Bab, Kur, Girdi Gulak, Araban), but also in other regions of northern Mesopotamia (e.g. Gurga Chiya, Girdi Qala, Tell Brak, Tell Hamoukar). Thirdly, the impact of cultural encounters should be considered when addressing the transformations that occurred across Greater Mesopotamia during the LC. The Rania Plain region was subject to culture contact during the LC period which influenced local communities. Contact and change were continuous processes which were likely to have been instrumental in the development of the region’s early urban character. The evidence of simultaneous development of urban societies across regions may have been the result of widespread, comparable urban processes propagated by extensive interaction networks. This interaction may have been a major driver for change, and is likely to have stimulated the distinctive urban process that started on the Rania Plain at the beginning of the LC period or earlier. It is plausible that certain plains and valleys of the Zagros foothills acted as hubs of interaction mediating between highlands and lowlands. And rather than being marginal, the plains were dynamic spaces where interaction encouraged a distinct form of localized urbanization. As discussed above, the plain is markedly different to other regions of north-eastern Iraq: it displays considerable evidence of cultural interaction with Uruk Mesopotamia. In contrast, parts of north-eastern Iraq and north-western Iran in the LC period have limited evidence of southern Mesopotamian cultural intrusion. This role as a hub may explain why we see evidence of Uruk culture in this remote area and its uneven spread across the wider region. The southern ceramic forms and administrative practices (as well as cultural material predating this instance of contact) across the plain point towards it being a zone that was integrated into wider networks. The recent discovery of sites with Uruk material culture in the Sardasht region of western Iran (see Abedi et al. 2019) supports the interpretation of the Rania Plain as a hub of interaction possibly related to exchange of raw materials and goods. We can identify societal transformations happening in conjunction with evidence of connectedness based on broad material culture trends. Following the Ubaid period we see a change in interaction from the weakening of previously strong ties with southern Mesopotamia and new ties with the Zagros, Anatolia, north-western Iraq, and Syria (see e.g. Marro 2010; Renette & Mohammadi Ghasrian 2020; Sconzo 2019;

22 Stein 2012). From the mid‒LC strong ties with southern Mesopotamia are visible again, although the extent of ties with other regions is yet to be fully understood. As we build a better picture of how society and settlement looked in the earlier LC period, especially when compared to the later LC period across north-eastern Iraq, it will be possible to construct a firmer baseline from which to plot changes, such as the extent of southern material cultural permeation into local societies and whether this was similar or dissimilar to what is seen on the Rania Plain.

Finally, in order to understand and delineate transformative processes, as well as the scale and pace of urbanization, it is necessary to recognize the issue of culture contact, and in particular how cultural encounters stimulate or trigger transformations in societies by affecting underlying socio-economic processes. In north-eastern Iraq these archaeo­logically identifiable processes seem to coincide with changes in crossregional cultural contact.

As we have discussed, the LC  period was one of diverse societal complexity and variability in crossregional interaction. Cultural exchange in northern Mesopotamia during this period was one of multiple encounters with other regions and is likely to have acted as a driver influencing the indigenous trajectory of early urbanism in the north. Contact with northern Syria, Anatolia, western Iran, and southern Mesopotamia impacted upon the societal organization of communities not only of the Rania Plain, but more widely across the region. This resulted in complex transformations in the nature of early urbanism, an urbanism with a distinctly local character.

The most obvious manifestation of these interactions is evidence of material culture from outside the region. The repercussions of interaction on societal practices are harder to identify, but may be inferred by the changes to settlements, their organization, and distribution. This relationship between early urbanism and cultural encounters is hard to quantify. More broadly, contact with the south did not instigate urbanism in the north but it may have influenced the indigenous versions seen in the north. Instead of an asymmetrical relationship, there was likely a dialectical exchange mediated by hubs of interaction that allowed the fusing of new ideas into cultural changes as seen in shifting urban trends. When examining regional urbanism we should be mindful of considering alternative approaches. Insights drawn from DAEI’s research on the Rania Plain sug-

Tim Boaz Bruun Skuldbøl & Carlo Colantoni gest that a method based on the close examination of sites, their bio­graphies, their interconnectivity, and their exploitation of the environment is more suitable to the scale and nature of urbanism seen in the region. This challenges the application of established models of urbanism and their over reliance on settlement pattern analysis. We advocate caution and the need to balance approaches – an avenue that will result in a potentially richer, more context-driven picture of early urbanism.

Acknowledgements

We would like to thank Johnny Samuele Baldi, Marco Iamoni, Luca Peyronel, and Paola Sconzo for coordinating the workshop at 2018 ICAANE 11 in Munich (Germany) and for editing this volume, as well as this paper’s peer-reviewers for their comments.

We are extremely grateful to Kaify Ali (Director of the Directorate General of Antiquities and Heritage, KRG, Iraq) and his staff for their kind support of the DAEI project; Barzan Baiz Ismael (Director of the Raparin Antiquities Directorate and the Raparin Civilization Museum) and his staff; and our local employees and guards from the towns of Rania, Chwarqurna and Boskin.

2. Beyond Subsistence? Settlement Strategies of the Late Chalcolithic Period in the Selevani Plain (Upper Iraqi Tigris) A bstract – The aim of this paper is to provide an integrated overview of the settlement and social dynamics present in the upper sector of the Iraqi Tigris River Valley and its immediate hinterland during the Late Chalcolithic period. This has been achieved by processing and interpreting the results of two extensive regional survey projects, namely the Eastern Ḫabur Archaeo­logical Survey (EHAS) and the Land of Nineveh Archaeo­l ogical Project (LoNAP), recently undertaken along the eastern bank of the river. These results mark a significant advance in the study of settlement patterns and cultural history compared to what was previously known of this region, which was mostly terra incognita prior to the current opening of Iraqi Kurdistan to a new era of archaeo­logical field exploration. Introduction

The region of northern Iraq which is the focus of this paper lies along the east bank of the Tigris and belongs to the province of Duhok, the largest northern city of the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.1 This land, namely the Selevani Plain (in Kurdish, ‘Daṣt-e Selevani’) is a long strip of countryside, orientated north-west to southeast and bordered by the Tigris to the west and by the first chain of the Zagros Mountains to the north-east (see below) (Fig. 2.1). Marco Iamoni ([email protected]) Department of Humanities and Cultural Heritage (DIUM), University of Udine, Italy.

Paola Sconzo ([email protected]) SFB 1070 Resource Cultures and Institut für die Kulturen des Alten Orients (IANES), Tübingen, Germany. 1  This contribution is the result of a joint analysis carried out by the authors during the 2017 and 2018 survey seasons and in this sense must be considered as co-authored throughout. The final portions of the various sections were however reviewed as follows: parts 1 and 2 – both authors; part 3 – P. Sconzo; part 4 (the LC 1-2) – M. Iamoni; part 5 (the LC 3-5)– P. Sconzo; parts 6 and 7 – both authors.

Marco Iamoni & Paola Sconzo This region has been covered in recent years by two large regional survey projects, the Eastern Ḫabur Archaeo­logical Survey (henceforth EHAS) and the Land of Nineveh Archaeo­logical Project (LoNAP, see below). The west bank of the Tigris, that belongs instead to the Iraqi province of Ninawa, was investigated by survey and excavations in the 1980s in the framework of the ‘Saddam Dam Salvage Project’,2 and is outlined here only for purposes of comparison.

Geo­graphical Background

The Selevani Plain is the uppermost plain of the Zagros piedmont. It is bounded on its eastern side by the first Zagros range, namely the Ǧebel Biḫair (Şax-e Bixȇr in Kurdish), which rises rather abruptly from the plain from an average altitude of 550  m up to heights of 1100–1300 m above sea level (asl). The plain, up to 25 km wide in its central part, narrows down to a width of only 5 km at its north-western end, where the mountains, running roughly in an east-west direction, almost reach the Tigris Valley at the town of Feš Ḫabur. At the southern edge is another line of low mountains that rise along an east-west axis, the westernmost being the hills of Dekan (Chiya-i Dekan, in Kurdish). The latter, however, do not constitute a physical border; their low elevation and distance from the ancient course of the Tigris (21 km, now 15 km from the Mosul Dam), mean that there is direct continuation with the southern greater plain of ancient Nineveh. The plain around the village of Zammar was first surveyed in 1980 by a team of the State Organization of Antiquity and Heritage in order to assess which sites would have been submerged by the new dam project (Sconzo & Simi 2020) and again a few years later as part of the Zammar Region project carried out by the British Archaeo­ logical Expedition to Iraq (Wilkinson & Tucker 1995; Ball 2003). 2 

Late Chalcolithic Northern Mesopotamia in Context: Papers from a Workshop held at the 11th ICAANE in Munich, April 5th 2018, ed. by Johnny Samuele Baldi, Marco Iamoni, Luca Peyronel & Paola Sconzo, subartu 48 (Turnhout, 2022), pp. 23–49 10.1484/M.SUBART-EB.5.126363

BREPOLS

PUBLISHERS

24

Marco Iamoni & Paola Sconzo

Figure 2.1. Map of the Selevani Plain and beyond, with LC sites mentioned in the text (map by F. Simi).

2. Beyond Subsistence?

25

Figure 2.2. Summer 2018: (a) alluvial plain and first terrace system; (b) drought at the Tigris; (c) drone photo of the site of Chamarash (site 766), with archaeo­logical structures exposed by water erosion (photos by the authors).

The overall area has an undulating to rolling relief due to the many intermittent streams that originate on the mountainsides and run generally north-east to southwest, eventually reaching the Tigris. The riverside features more accentuated rolling hillsides, often quite steep with bedrock emerging in places, and overlooking narrow valleys or even gullies, which become deeper in proximity to the course of the River Tigris. These result from the erosion caused by several seasonal watercourses. The inner sector of the plain is more regular, with an undulating landscape that offers, today as in the past, a suitable environment for the emergence of large settlements. Fertile brown soils characterize the plain overall and purely rain-fed agriculture is possible, as the rainfall ranges from 400 to 500 mm/​year (Wirth 1962, fig. 7; Buringh 1960, 218–22). The water-rich plain has offered through time enough space for pastureland and farming and — starting with the end of the Chalcolithic/​beginning of the Early Bronze Age — began to be exploited for largescale rain-fed agriculture, and consequently eventually

allowed the establishment and consolidation of a staple economy that facilitated a stable human presence. This holds particularly true in the centre of the plain, where already at the beginning of the third millennium, the site of Bassetki emerged as the main regional hub. This soon became a large urban centre, encompassing both a substantial upper tell and a lower town of about 50 ha and sustaining a wide agrarian hinterland. The site, known in ancient sources as the city of Maridanan/​ Mardama(n), then maintained a leading role in the plain at least until the end of the second millennium, when it acted as a provincial Middle Assyrian centre (Pfälzner & Qasim 2017; 2018; Pfälzner & Faist 2020). The Tigris constitutes the western limit of the plain. Today it enters into Iraq crossing the Turkish border near Cizre at the confluence with one of its major tributaries, the Eastern Ḫabur river. The latter flows in an east-west direction across the Zagros Mountains and the Zaxo-Cizre-Silopi plain, until it reaches the confluence at Feš Ḫabur, the village marking the present border between Syria, Turkey, and Iraq.

26 The river once continued its course from this junction southwards, often strongly meandering. On both sides there were narrow floodplains, bordered by rolling hills, dotted with occasional rock outcrops (Fig. 2.2:a). These sloped down gently towards the river, especially in its northern sector, whereas further south the Tigris’s erosive activity has down cut the riverbed by a few metres with respect to the surrounding area. At most places the valley was only between 1 and 3 km wide, delimited on both sides by low terraces. Here a considerable movement through time of the river channel must be acknowledged, also easily recognizable in historical images where old meander belts, abandoned channels and scroll bars are clearly visible and show the development of Tigris palaeochannels.

In modern times (as in the past), the water flowing nearby was used to irrigate the valley floor, facilitating small-scale seasonal agriculture and human settlement. In addition, while the river valley in general was exploited for east-west communications, the Tigris itself represented a major north-south route between the Mosul region — the land of Nineveh and ancient Assyria in historical terms — and the wooded highlands of south-eastern Anatolia.3

Over 30 years ago, however, the geo­graphy of the riverine sector of the Selevani Plain under consideration lost its original appearance, because after the construction of the Mosul Dam (also known as the Saddam Dam) it disappeared under the waters of the homonymous reservoir. Today this measures about 60 km northwest to south-east, reaching at some points a width of about 11 km. Since its construction, the seasonal and occasional fluctuations of the water level recorded have generated continuous variations in the lake water table. These were in some cases significant, with tens of metres of the plain occasionally appearing. For example, the 2017–2018 winter drought caused a marked drop in the lake water level, leading to the exposure of large strips of previously unexplored land, thus allowing the recording of a large number of new sites that were usually submerged (Sconzo 2019; Sconzo et al., in press): a rough estimation suggests the exceptional exposure of at least 200 m in some cases of the plain in proximity to the River Tigris (Fig. 2.2a).

The Selevani hydro­graphic basin is completed by two watercourses located in the lower part of the plain: the

Marco Iamoni & Paola Sconzo River Duhok and River Bandawai, both generated by the karst springs that characterize the southern slopes of the Zagros (Iamoni 2018). By guaranteeing an ongoing water supply throughout the entire year, through time these two rivers have catalysed human settlement. This, however, especially in modern times, has been often accompanied by intensive agricultural exploitation of large areas and urban sprawl, that strongly mask the archaeo­ logical evidence, often already difficult to perceive in the case of prehistoric and protohistoric settlements. A similar phenomenon of obliteration should be expected for those areas of the Tigris alluvium particularly affected by the movement of the river channel, where smaller settlements — especially mono-phase rural communities, consisting of a few households or farmsteads — may have been totally eradicated.

With the exception of the above-mentioned situations, the ancient settlement landscape of the Selevani Plain remains substantially well preserved in much of the plain. With the appropriate methods, this allows for a reliable recognition of the ancient sites and an analysis of the ancient settlement patterns that have characterized the region. Needless to say, the absence of sites does not necessarily imply the absence of settlement, and the patterns here presented are based on what has survived rather than on what existed.

Regional Archaeo­logical Research

Archaeo­l ogically speaking, the Selevani Plain was mostly unexplored until very recently. As regards the Late Chalcolithic period, the scanty evidence collected prior to the new era of archaeo­logical research in Iraqi Kurdistan that began in 2011 (Kopanias & MacGinnis 2016) has been greatly increased by the large amount of fresh data acquired from the two extensive survey projects conducted along the left bank of the River Tigris in the upper Iraqi Kurdistan region.

The more northerly of these, EHAS, is a project carried out by Tübingen University over an area of almost 4400  km 2, centred on the upper Duhok region and encompassing both the upper stretch of the River Tigris and a significant sector of the Eastern Ḫabur Valley at the southern edge of the high Zagros Mountains.4 The EHAS is one of the initiatives promoted by a DFG-funded Collaborative Research Centre at the University of Tübingen, entitled ‘Resource Cultures’ (CRC 1070), which aims to investigate the forms and cultural modes of resources in various historical and ethno­ graphic contexts from diverse perspectives. In particular, the sur4 

This important connection led northwards either around the western end of Ǧebel Biḫair, near to the modern town of Derabun, or via an inland route through the Zaxo Gorge, the only natural gap in this long southernmost range of the Zagros, to reach the Zaxo/​Cizre Plain. 3 

2. Beyond Subsistence? LoNAP, coordinated by Udine University, covers an area of about 3000 km2 and investigates the sector of the Tigris Valley immediately to the south, as well as the plains that extend eastward in the area of Ba’dreh and Navkur and the mountainous zone bordered by the southern stretches of the Zagros Mountains.5

Both projects have thus the remarkable asset of covering variegated landscapes composed of different ecozones (narrow or wider river valleys, wide hilly or flat plains, and mountainous zones): these, as we will see, may have influenced the regional human settlement and the interactions between local communities in various ways, as well as external cultures (Sconzo 2019; Morandi Bonacossi and Iamoni 2015).

These two geo­graphically adjacent projects also form part of a larger research network, the ‘Assyrian Landscapes Research Group’, which was established with the intention of following a common set of research methods that would facilitate the comparison and integration of the data retrieved by each project.6 This research strategy started with the adoption

vey falls within a wider multidisciplinary research project which attempts to examine the roles played by cultural versus natural resources in the expansion of the oldest Mesopotamian territorial states towards the almost inaccessible districts of their northernmost periphery. The project, directed by P. Pfälzner (and by author P. Sconzo, as field director), has been conducted since 2013 under the auspices of the General Directorate of Antiquities in Erbil, with the invaluable support of its Duhok Province section in the person of Dr Hasan A. Qasim. On the survey see Pfälzner & Sconzo 2015; 2016a; 2016b, and in particular Sconzo 2019 for a general assessment of the LC occupation of the EHAS region. LoNAP is a systematic regional investigation that, thanks to funding and grants provided by the University of Udine, the Friuli Venezia Giulia Regional Authority, and the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation, was started in 2012 by a team from the University of Udine under the direction of D. Morandi Bonacossi. LoNAP aims, via an interdisciplinary approach based on diverse investigation techniques (survey, excavation) combined with analysis of local resources, to reconstruct human presence in the region from the earliest period (e.g. the Palaeolithic) until the modern era. Author M. Iamoni, as a member — and vice director — of the mission until 2017, takes this occasion to thank D. Morandi Bonacossi for the opportunity to study the Neolithic and Chalcolithic data collected by LoNAP. He also wishes to extend his gratitude to Dr Ali Kaify and Dr Hasan A. Qasim (respectively General Director of Antiquities of Kurdistan and Director of Antiquities of Duhok), for their invaluable support throughout these years. 5 

The Assyrian Landscapes Research Group is an informal cooperation initiative founded by D. Morandi Bonacossi, J. Ur, and R. Koliński in 2012, joined by P. Pfälzner in 2013. Its aim is to undertake field research employing similar methodo­logies and to provide a platform for rapid exchange of results and ideas between cooperating projects. 6 

27 of similar survey techniques and a shared classification system of pottery types (the ‘Working Typo­logy’). The latter stems from the work developed by Tucker and Wilkinson as part of the Iraqi North Jazira Project; it was lately expanded by Ur (2010a) during his survey of Tell Hamoukar and lastly adapted for the new surveys in the Kurdistan Region of Iraq.

This set of intents and strategies has been further enhanced by the use of a similar survey approach that proceeded through four basic stages: a desk-based preliminary home work that included the collection and analysis of written sources, maps and satellite images, travellers’ accounts, and archives; the ground verification of potential sites through visits (site-based investigation); concurrent archaeo­logical field activities guided by pedestrian transects (off-site investigation) and interviews; and, finally, data integration and analysis. These procedures were, in turn, mostly based on standard techniques established and/​or already employed in British landscape archaeo­logy by teams working in the Iraqi North Jazira (see e.g. Ball et al. 1989; Wilkinson & Tucker 1995), though, of course, adapted to fit capabilities, research interests, scientific goals, and questions.

This has facilitated the comparison of data and consequently the authors’ intense discussions in the field, and allowed cross-checking analysis of the ceramic finds. A minor discrepancy between the two datasets lies in the identification of sites located directly along the edge of the artificial lake created by the Mosul Dam. The survey conducted during the 2018 season by the EHAS team, exploiting the exceptionally low levels of the artificial lake, permitted in fact the identification of a larger number of LC sites. However, we believe that this has enriched the final picture, without significantly altering the general reconnaissance of the ancient landscape. The final result has been the achievement of a first coherent overview of the data so far collected in both survey areas.

Both surveys have now been completed (LoNAP in 2018 and EHAS in 2019) and have brought to light altogether about 1600 sites, among which 234 (n = 56 + 178) date to the periods considered here, i.e. the Late Chalcolithic (c. 4500–3100 bce), thus providing fresh, updated information about the protohistoric human settlement of the region. As specified, not all the results are dealt with in detail, but only those concerning the geo­graphical area of the Selevani Plain previously described.

28

Marco Iamoni & Paola Sconzo

Figure 2.3. LC 1–2 settlement in the Selevani Plain (map by F. Simi).

The Body of Data

The sites surveyed by these two projects provide a substantial body of Late Chalcolithic data, sufficient for a first assessment of the main traits characterizing the human settlement along this sector of the River Tigris during the late fifth‒fourth millennium bce. The following analysis focuses on settlement location and distribution (i.e. areas of concentration and modes of occupation) in relationship with the local positive/​ negative aspects, e.g. permanent or seasonal water sources, ground morpho­logy, and local resources, that characterize the region under investigation. Settlement dimension is further discussed, as a key to understanding the emergence, even in an embryonic state, of specific settlement systems. This method is applied to both the LC macro-periods (LC 1–2 and LC 3–5).7

This division of such a long phase of northern Mesopotamian prehistory into two main macro-periods is in conformity with a system applied in most previous northern Mesopotamian survey work (Wilkinson & Tucker 1995, Ball 2003; Ur 2010b; Algaze et al. 2012), as well as by all modern survey projects undertaken in neighbouring regions. 7 

The LC 1–2 (c. 4500–3800 bce) With reference to the LC  1–2, the Selevani Plain was already relatively densely occupied, with a total of 55 sites (n = 30 EHAS + 25 LoNAP).8 Among them 38 (n = 19 + 19) appear to be new foundations, thus pointing to the occurrence of a prosperous period during the late fifth – early fourth millennium bce, resulting in demo­graphic pressure and consequently a significant increase in new settlements (Fig. 2.3). Although a systematic survey of the Tigris Plain could not be carried out, its banks seem to have been only marginally affected by human settlement at the beginning of the LC  period. This suggests that this stretch of river may have been less attractive to human settlement, and that its potential role as a network hub by the end of the fifth – early fourth millennium bce was not yet fully developed.

In total, as for the LC 1–2, within the limits of the EHAS area, 35 sites were identified, while 133 were registered in the LoNAP area.

8 

2. Beyond Subsistence?

29

Figure 2.4. Muqable cluster: site bio­graphy of the LC 1–2 period (map by A. Ahmadpour).

Most of the recorded sites, in fact, are not set directly on the riverbank. EHAS recognized only two sites (A6 and A13), both located in the upper stretch of the river, i.e. the part never submerged by the Mosul Dam lake. Given the limited area occupied by these sites (never exceeding 0.5 ha), and the paucity of sherds here collected, they are likely to be interpreted as newly established, short-lived, small rural villages. No sites of this kind have been surveyed by LoNAP in the lower sector of the plain. This probably was a consequence of the geomorpho­logy of the Tigris, that in this sector has deeply eroded the plain and consequently flows at a considerably lower elevation, thus hampering the formation of settlements directly on its banks. More prominent — both in terms of size and archaeo­ logical visibility — is the occupation on the escarpments overlooking the alluvium, often rising over 20 m above the flood zone. At least five terrace sites of this kind

were recorded by EHAS (from north to south: B190, B223, B199-Girē Baqal, B269-Jubaniyah, and B193-Girē Laud), and a comparable number by LoNAP (sites 396, 766, 776, and 1085). Some of these (B199, B269, B193) had reached an overall extension of about 4 ha in this phase, and are thus among the largest in the whole Selevani Plain. This pattern is comparable to that outlined on the opposite bank of the river, in the Zammar region, where again only four early LC sites were recorded.9 The northernmost, Shelgiyya, outside the Mosul Dam basin, is set on the escarpment; while the southern ones, Tell Abu Dahir and the Shaikh Humsi cemetery, were to become large tells in the middle of the plain. Bardya 4 is in the interior, on a wadi (Ball 2003, 11, table 2). In a summary table of the settlement pattern of the region, W. Ball (2003, tab. 2) records a fifth site, Mohammad Agha, which is however then left out in the discussion on the ‘Earlier Uruk Period’ that follows (Ball 2003, 11, 176).

9 

30

Marco Iamoni & Paola Sconzo

Figure 2.5. a-c) Sites B269; B193 and B199 on the Tigris terrace; d) site B11 (Muqable I); e) site 114 (photos by the authors).

As suggested elsewhere (Sconzo 2019), it is feasible that at the beginning of the LC period the implantation and subsequent growth of settlements of unprecedented (though still limited) size on the fluvial terraces reflects a deliberate choice of avoiding the lower valley floor, prone to seasonal flooding but still available for cultivation in the dry season, and may be connected to an increased dependence by the communities on farming activities.10 We are aware that the picture sketched here may be partially biased by the fact that — since most of the alluvial plain lies within the boundaries of the survey areas currently underwater — our reconnaissance work directly on the valley floor was limited to the un-submerged upper tract of the river. The accurate remote sensing work conducted on the remaining part, however, did not produce evidence of large ‘potential sites’. In any case it remains 10 

The choice of obtaining a safe place to live while guaranteeing flexible expansion in the case of urban sprawl, is further reflected in the hinterland (i.e. in the core of the Selevani Plain), where the major concentration of sites occurs. Here settlements, aligned along numerous small streams (wadis), rather than being set directly on the edges of the watercourses, tend to develop several dozen metres away (Iamoni 2018, 15–17).

In this sector of the plain in particular, both projects independently recorded the phenomenon of site arrangement along wadis or rivers specifically fed by perennial springs, allowing for more stable occupation especially during the dry season (Iamoni 2018; Sconzo possible that the occupation of the alluvium was actually more extensive than what can be now discerned.

2. Beyond Subsistence?

31

Figure 2.6. Wadi Faidah (map by M. Iamoni).

2019). The striking majority of these settlements are new foundations, thus suggesting the increasingly tight connection between watercourses and agropastoral subsistence strategies that were the basis of the development of Late Chalcolithic societies (see below for a more detailed discussion). This distribution may exhibit either a ‘clustered’ or ‘linear’ form (or a combination of the two). A noteworthy example of clustering was recognized by the EHAS along the Wadi Seru Kani/​Muqable/​Kelek.11 This wadi, nearly dry today in the summer season, was historically fed by several productive springs, and until recently irrigated fertile gardens and fields, also supplying water to villages further downstream. Over three dozen sites (with a shifting occupation through time) have been detected along its course. Its main hub, defined as the ‘Muqable cluster’, was located in an As often the case in the Selevani Plain and elsewhere in northern Iraq, the very same wadi may change its name in the main villages that it runs through.

oasis-like area more or less midway between the banks of the Tigris and the Zagros piedmont. This is made up of seven sites altogether, lying within a radius of 700 m and covering a total area of over 7 ha (Figs 2.4, 2.5:d).12 In the LC 1–2 period in particular, three of them were inhabited, with the core settlement established around Muqable I and VII (respectively sites B11 and B37), two hill-top sites separated by a saddle (or better a single saddled settlement), featuring a few metres of human occupation deposit on top, and sharing a similar general topo­graphy. The southern side of Muqable III (site B13), 100 m away, also seems to have been occupied at this time. Altogether the extension of the early LC occupation at Muqable reached c. 5 ha (Fig. 2.4). The Muqable cluster itself, moreover, may be seen to form part of a larger-scale linear arrangement, that in the Late Chalcolithic includes one relatively large site (B28, 3.4 ha) 2.5 km to the north, a second smaller

11 

On the Muqable cluster, see  Pfälzner & Sconzo 2015; 2016a; 2016b; Pfälzner et al. 2017; Puljiz & Qasim 2018; Sconzo 2019.

12 

32 cluster (site B55-B56) 6 km further downstream to the south-west — and finally, at an equal distance away on the river terrace, again 6 km, the hill-top site Girē Laud (B193), previously mentioned as one of the major LC centres in the plain (Fig. 2.5:b). This peculiar distribution feature has been referred to as the ‘Muqable trajectory’ (Sconzo 2019). Similar alignments, absent or at least not recognized in this period in the northern sector of the plain, were observed immediately to the south-east of the plain, along two other main streams that cut across the two survey regions, Wadi Kirkur/​Gawsha and Wadi Zahir, as well as in the area of the River Duhok. Next to these wadis an even closer site spacing (1 or 2 km) is found,13 which may testify to some form of (intentionally?) organized, though local, exploitation of the arable land.14

Lastly, although to a lesser extent, this pattern is also replicated in the southernmost sector of the plain, along Wadi Faidah, connecting the Tigris Valley with the Sharia valley, south of Jebel Zawa. This may principally depend on the wider availability of water: the deep gully caused by water erosion (Fig. 2.6) suggests that Wadi Faidah might have been a more substantial watercourse in earlier times (although, as its name indicates, it is now only a seasonal stream), thus naturally attracting a larger number of settlements. This may have been the case especially in the fourth millennium bce, during which the climatic conditions seem to have been wetter than today (Stevens et al. 2001; 2006, 499; Wilkinson & Hritz 2013, 11–12). During the early LC a string of two + two sites (121 and 962 are located along the watercourse, while 1085 and 776 are in its immediate proximity)15 occur in the lowermost stretch of the wadi, close to the Tigris. Despite their small size, these Wadi Kirkur/​Gawsha, immediately to the east of Wadi Seru Kani/​Muqable/​Kelek, in the early LC  hosted a chain of 3 sites placed at a rather regular distance of 1 km apart (941, 940 and 114) and another one almost at the junction with the Tigris (B193). The same applies to Wadi Zahir, with sites 1050, 1046, B199 and perhaps 1052–1053. By the River Duhok the site density is slightly lower due to the destruction and obliteration caused by intensive cultivation and the above-mentioned urban sprawl.

13 

Intensive methods of cultivation, such as irrigation, were apparently still not employed by LC communities and this may have led to use of large areas of land to support small settlements (Wilkinson & Tucker 1995, 46). Manuring may instead have been already applied, as a recent isotope analysis carried out on a substantial body of data seems to suggest (Styring et al. 2017). 14 

Two of these were already settled in the Northern Ubaid period (121 and 776), whereas the remaining two are apparently new foundations. 15 

Marco Iamoni & Paola Sconzo have yielded a notable quantity of early LC finds, associated in one instance (at site 1085) with obsidian and flint artefacts, such as Canaanean blades.

The site alignment along Wadi Faidah ends at the Tigris with Tell Musharifa, a single-phase settlement where salvage excavations were conducted in the 1980s (Oguchi in Fujii 1987, 49–54). Musharifa, which is presented as a new foundation of the LC 2 period (more or less contemporary with Gawra XI–X), features domestic quarters with well-preserved tripartite houses and kilns for pottery production, and might be seen as an exemplification of a typical early LC small rural settlement of the region. Excavation results therefore corroborate the picture obtained from the survey, underlining the emerging importance of this watercourse in the region. The latter may have been enhanced by its direct connection with peripheral areas (in this case the Sharya Valley) that offered resources not available directly in the Selevani Plain. As we shall see, this strategic role became increasingly important for the development of LC societies in the Upper Iraqi Tigris, especially during the mid‒late fourth millennium bce.

With reference to site dimensions and the eventual emergence of functional differentiation between settlements (characteristics that one might be tempted to consider as an embryonic form of site ‘hierarchy’), the Selevani Plain provides significant hints. As mentioned above, EHAS and LoNAP have recorded a considerable number of sites, the striking majority of which are of modest size (up to 2 ha); this picture is perfectly in line with the evidence gathered by other surveys conducted in neighbouring regions, such as the North Jazira Project (Wilkinson & Tucker 1995, 44; Wilkinson 2003, 108). A few sites, however, exceed the standard 2 ha size: five out of the thirty found by EHAS and four out of the twenty-five found by LoNAP. Hence there is a regular proportion of one larger site in every six, a consistency that suggests a patterned diversification in settlement size and/​or function, and which may support the hypothesis of an emerging ‘hierarchical’ model. Interestingly, most of these sites are located in the south-central part of the plain, on the main wadis mentioned before. This may well be explained as a consequence of the local environment: in this position the plain is characterized by a larger area suitable for the agropastoral economy typical of the LC societies. This in turn may have facilitated the emergence of settlements with larger inhabited areas regularly distributed in the region.

2. Beyond Subsistence? The case of the ‘Muqable trajectory’ — featuring a chain of four sites, each of about 4 ha, set at a regular distance of 6 km, one on the river terrace and three further inland — has already been discussed.

A similar phenomenon was also observed further east along Wadi Zahir, where again two sites, 1050 and B199 (Fig. 2.5:c), belong to a different settlement class. Their solitary positions, one on the river terrace, the other in the middle of the plain, with four/​five minor settlements regularly spaced in between (c. 1 km apart), somehow mirrors the pattern sketched above. In this instance too it would be tempting to postulate the occurrence of an embryonic differentiation, with the two larger centres acting as main hubs on an axis represented by the wadi itself. Along Wadi Kirkuk, not too far away from Muqable, lies a third chain of large sites set 1 km apart, of which site 114 (Fig. 2.5:e), with a settled area of 5 ha, has a prominent position (a role that it also keeps during the following period).

Moving to the bank of the Tigris, the site of Jubaniyah (B269) counts as a major riverside site (Fig.  2.5:a). Founded in the Northern Ubaid period, it was apparently continuously occupied until the beginning of the third millennium bce. The 2018 survey alone yielded over 1500 potsherds dating to the Early LC period as well as an outstanding quantity of lithic tools and debitage. Among the latter, obsidian dominates the inventory. In summer 2019, a three-week salvage excavation showed that most of the obsidian débitage and finished objects come from occupation levels dating to the LC 2, thus hinting at the role that this distinctive terrace site may have played as a specialized manufacturing and/​or trading centre in the region.16

Lastly, the 4 ha site B147 is worth mentioning. This mono-phase LC flat site is totally detached from all the previous ones, lying at the confluence of two wadis to the north of Bassetki, in the inner part of the Selevani Plain. As for Jubaniyah, this site too furnished a considerable number of lithic tools and débitage, in this case predominantly flint. This — taken together with its position at the foot of the mountain — might explain its size and suggests a role as a specialized extraction and/​ or production centre within the region. B147 grew further in size in the later part of the LC.

33 The LC 3–5 (c. 3800–3000 bce) The subsequent period, spanning about 700 years, is treated here under the neutral umbrella term of LC 3–5.17 In partial contrast to previous suggestions that were based upon preliminary survey results (Pfälzner & Sconzo 2015; 2016a; Gavagnin et  al. 2016; Morandi Bonacossi & Iamoni 2015), the eastern Tigris region in general, and specifically the Selevani Plain, seem to provide incipient hints of advancement in the trend towards settlement diversification and redefinition of modes of production.

The overall settlement system in the Selevani Plain appears to mirror the old pattern (n = 34 + 23), with eventually a slight drop in site numbers in the lower part of the plain (Fig. 2.7).18 Fundamentally, however, a kind of internal displacement has occurred, as about one-third of the LC  1–2 settlements are temporarily or definitively abandoned (n = 12 + 10), while various entirely new foundations have taken place (n = 8 + 5). The latter either take the form of hamlets/​small villages (up to 1 ha), located in high/​privileged positions and clustered along strategic communication routes or mountain passes, or larger centres on the banks of the Tigris. When dealing exclusively with survey finds, the LC 3–5 is a quite difficult period to subdivide, since the reason for the presence at a given site of a local, traditionally chaff-tempered pottery production, rather than the Uruk-related mineral-tempered one, may be either temporal (the local assemblage preceding the Uruk contact/​ influence) or functional (sites excluded from the Uruk exchange network and sites included in it). It thus follows that a clear-cut distinction between a pre-contact (i.e. LC 3) and a contact (LC 4–5) phase is hard to make. As is known from current literature, moreover, the local pottery repertoire of the LC 3–4 (5) — i.e. that which develops from the LC 1–2 tradition — is generally characterized by a striking longevity, with the consequence that, at those sites where southern Mesopotamian imports or imitations are absent, it can be difficult to achieve finer-tuned distinctions merely on the basis of the endogenous material. Even the assumption of a dichotomy between ‘local’ and ‘foreign’ is, moreover, no longer accepted and has been recently revised in the light of new excavation sequences and pottery studies (Helwing 1999; Vallet et al. 2017). The authors of the present work are not yet in a position to offer a significant contribution to this delicate issue; a more detailed study of the LC 4–5 ceramic assemblages collected by the EHAS and LoNAP teams is currently ongoing. This will provide new data that will help to shed light on the ceramic production of the second half of the fourth millennium bce. 17 

Along Wadi Sharshur, for example, one site (940) is abandoned. The same occurs along Wadi Zahir, where the largest site (1050) continues to be settled while minor ones cease to exist. In general, a reduction from 12 sites in the area to 7 is observed, an abandonment rate of almost 50%. 18 

Salvage excavations were conducted within the EHAS project in cooperation with the K.A.O organization in the person of Dr Hasan A. Qasim (and under the field direction of P. Sconzo); see Sconzo & Qasim 2021. 16 

34

Marco Iamoni & Paola Sconzo

Figure 2.7. The LC 3–5 occupation in the Selevani Plain (map by F. Simi).

Continuity of occupation, noticed in the remaining 34 sites (n = 14 + 20), instead concerned mainly the inner part of the plain, flatter and more suitable for farming and crop cultivation. Here a rather long-lasting phase of settlement took place, which further entailed a reshaping of the overall topo­graphy of the plain and came to feature a greater number of artificial mounds (tells), clearly visible from afar. Spatial planning within the plain became more organized, with the enhancement of some of the aforementioned LC 1–2 trajectories, the decline of others, and the exploitation of previously unexplored areas. The central sector of the plain is a good example of the first case. Here Wadi Seru Kani/​Muqable/​Kelek with the leading sites of Muqable and B193-Girē Laud and Wadi Zahir continued to act as settlement catalysers, with an even more deep-rooted penetration towards the slopes of the Ǧebel Biḫair, thus suggesting the intent to gain better access to the mountain piedmont and further uphill. As we will try to justify later, the latter testi-

fies to a higher level of interaction and synergy between sites (Iamoni 2020), and a reinforcement of the local network, in which the exploitation of locally available resources, either located on the piedmont or further into the uplands, may have played a leading role.

In the southern part of Wadi Faidah two new foundations occurred (sites 227 and 225, Gir-e Pan, Fig. 2.8:a). The regular spacing of about 2.5–3  km between sites (this includes also the newly founded sites 227 and 225) suggests a form of intentional systematic presence that went beyond the mere convenience of easy and immediate access to the abundant water flowing in the wadi bed. A possible explanation for this pattern comes from the neighbouring area of the Sharia Valley, where Wadi Faidah has its origin. Preliminary data from ongoing investigations carried out by LoNAP indicate the presence here of a number of intensively exploited flint mines located along the southern slope of the Jebel Zawa (Conati Barbaro et  al. 2019; Conati Barbaro & Moscone 2020; Moscone et al. 2020). The connection of Wadi Faidah with

2. Beyond Subsistence?

35

Figure 2.8. Large sites in the LC 3–5 (photos by the authors).

the Sharia Valley may thus explain its increased importance for human settlement during the mid‒late fourth millennium bce. If future data from the Sharia Valley confirm the evidence to hand (in particular the beginning of the exploitation of the flint veins), Wadi Faidah may thus help to explain the impact of local resources on local and regional human settlement, that may have been favoured by the opportunities offered by the region.

More data in support of this hypothesis may come from the salvage excavation conducted at Tell Karrana 3 (Rova 1993; Wilhelm & Zaccagnini 1993b), a hill-top site set at the end of the same wadi near its junction with the Tigris. Intensely settled at the end of the fourth millennium bce,19 Karrana 3 is a southern Mesopotamianinfluenced, 0.5  ha village with very little domestic architecture but a significant number of storage facilities (Parallel Wall Structures I–III, see Wilhelm & Zaccagnini 1993b; Zaccagnini 1993b), probably devoted to the processing and conservation of cereals and meat (Zaccagnini 1993a). What is important for the present discussion is, however, the occurrence at the site of a prominent lithic industry characterized by flint tools including Canaanean blades (Brautlecht 1993). Despite the lack of a petro­graphic characterization of the blades that would allow their origin to be reliably established (perhaps from the flint mines in the Sharia Valley), it remains tempting to envisage a relationship between the foundation of this site at the end of the fourth millennium bce and the creation of an access route leading from the valley to the local raw material sources, i.e. the flint veins that outcrop along the southern slopes of the Jebel Zawa. Evidence of previous settlement phases dates to the Halaf period (Wilhelm & Zaccagnini 1993a, 21), while no Ubaid or early LC pottery was collected during the excavation. 19 

The establishment of southern Mesopotamianorientated centres, such as Karrana 3, along a likely route connecting the River Tigris with the local inner Sharia Valley, underlines the growing impact that the appropriation and use of raw materials had on the local settlement pattern and on possible interaction with foreign communities. The area around the River Duhok appears to have continued to be poorly settled, but this may be biased by the significant modifications that this area underwent in recent times because of urban expansion and intensive cultivation. Sites 7 and 35 were also inhabited during this period, but two new sites (nos 2 Malta and 108) were settled for the first time. Since both are large tells, it may be inferred that their feeble LC evidence is notably obscured by later settlement levels.

New, fully established settlement areas include Wadi Amlik, a very old, deeply cut stream located in the uppermost sector of the plain. Here the EHAS recorded a string of three sites (B299; B251 and B310) quite similar in nature, and set at a regular distance. Wadi Amlik directly links a deep bend of the Tigris to the mountain pass at Zaxo. The latter, today, as in the past, represents the shorter access route leading from the Selevani Plain through the Ǧebel Biḫair to reach the River Ḫabur.

Halfway along this wadi there is a tiny hill-top site (B151), a new foundation strategically placed to control both the mountain pass and access to the Tigris alluvial plain. Given an increase in settlements also along the Ḫabur (Sconzo 2019), we may further speculate that Wadi Amlik functioned as a penetration route, in this instance connecting the eastern bank of the Tigris to the Ḫabur across the only existing north-south mountain pass, the ‘Zaxo connection’.

36 Coming at last to the Tigris plain itself, a last contribution was made by the body of data produced by the EHAS survey during the 2018 season, when — as a result of an unprecedented drought — an area previously submerged by the Mosul Dam lake was exposed and available for investigation (Sconzo 2019; Sconzo et al., in press). This is the lower sector of the Tigris east bank, a stretch of land extending south-north for about 50 km, 20 km south of the Turkish border.20 Along this bank of the river no sites were abandoned (continuity is recorded on sites A6, B193, B199, B223, B269, B290, B299, 766, 776, 1085, 121, 962, 1076, 992). All the outstanding sites of the early LC (B193, B199, B269) maintained their original size or even grew slightly. Occupation on the river was moreover augmented by a series of new foundations, especially in the central portion of the plain, at the junction of the two survey areas. Here six new sites were recorded (sites A25, A27, A30, B261, B259, B308), either located in the middle of the alluvium or facing it from the first level of high terraces, at a more or less regular distance (in some instances c. 5 km, as the crow flies). The material culture retrieved at these sites is mainly southern Mesopotamian-orientated, featuring traits similar to those found on the excavations of Muqable III (Pfälzner et al. 2017) and at other excavated sites in the Mosul Dam district, such as Karrana 3; this suggests that they were occupied until the very last stage of the Late Uruk period, and even until the transition to the Nineveh 5 horizon.

The Zammar region, on the opposite bank, witnessed a similar phenomenon, with a doubling in the number of sites from 4 to 11 (Ball 2003, tab. 2, 11–12, 21–33), distributed between the river (Abu Dhahir, Shelgiyya, Shaikh Humsi Cemetery, Siyana Ulya, Gir Matbakh) and the first escarpment towards the interior (Hamad Agha as-Saghir, Bardiya 4, 7, 8, 9; Bardiya 1–2/​ cemetery). Excavations at four of them — Abu Dhahir, Shelgiyya, Shaikh Humsi Cemetery, and Siyana Ulya — have revealed as well a Late Chalcolithic 4–5/​southern Mesopotamian-orientated phase. In particular, discovery at Siyana Ulya of a granary track, a type of agricultural installation well known elsewhere in the region,21 makes it one of a series of small agriculture-based settlements distributed at regular distances along the escarpment overlooking the alluvium (Ball 2003, 11–12), which possibly served a large urban centre not necesFollowing torrential downpours during the winter of 2018, the entire area is again completely submerged.

20 

For example, at Karrana 3, Tell Rijim (Bielinski 1987, 31), and Basila (McDonald & Simpson 1999, 196). 21 

Marco Iamoni & Paola Sconzo sarily located within the survey area. Fieldwork at Abu Dhahir, definitely the largest centre on the west bank of the Tigris, provided instead hints of functional differentiation reaching beyond the simple agriculture activities conducted at other sites (Simpson 2007). This fits the pattern outlined for the other bank as well.

With regard to site dimensions and (possibly related) settlement differentiation, we have again a lack of homogeneity among the sites that populate the plain. In general, sites range again from 0.2 to 4 ha, with a size of 1–2 ha becoming now overwhelmingly the norm. In the EHAS area an exception is represented by the previously mentioned site B147, which during the LC 3–5 doubled its settled area and reached an exceptional extension of 7 ha. Since it has yielded a remarkable quantity of flint flakes and blades, B147 may well have continued to function as a specialized craft centre within the region. In this case, as in the Jebel Zawa, it is likely that during the fourth millennium bce the centre underwent a nucleation process, attracting people from the small villages around as a result of growth in the craft activities that took place on the site, and became embedded in a supra-regional network of trade and exchange.

In the central southern area, sites tend to decrease in size, with only site 114 that roughly maintained its area (from 5 to 4.5 ha). In the new trajectory along Wadi Faidah, survey data suggest the absence of major centres. Nevertheless, we are tempted to assign the role of major centre to one of the two new foundations, site n. 225, modern Gir-e Pan (Fig. 2.8:a). The latter lies on the bend of the wadi towards the River Tigris, and so provides a strategic connection between the Tigris Valley and the Jebel Zawa. Gir-e Pan in historical times became one of the largest centres in the entire area surveyed by LoNAP, with an area covered by the main mound of about 25 ha22 — in the LC 3–5 it reached 3 ha in size, if not indeed twice this.23 Its importance during the It was probably Middle and Neo-Assyrian Talmusa (Morandi Bonacossi & Iamoni 2015, 25, fn. 21) and is characterized by substantial levels dating to the third, second, and first millennium bce with discreet traces of an Islamic settlement on the top of the mound. 22 

Due to the considerable quantity of remains from later periods, it is however reasonable to expect that the prehistoric and protohistoric levels are largely concealed, and therefore hardly recognizable during survey activities. The visibility of prehistoric sites is a well-known problem that characterizes many sites surveyed in the LoNAP and EHAS regions (Morandi Bonacossi & Iamoni 2015, 22; Gavagnin et al. 2016). For example, Gir-e Gomel and Asingeran are both characterized by extensive prehistoric occupation that has been detected only because of marked erosion, caused by the 23 

2. Beyond Subsistence? third, and especially the second and first millennium bce, during which it was likely a provincial capital of the Assyrian empire, might be used as further, albeit indirect, evidence of the site’s importance as a regional hub. Gir-e Pan may thus be the missing piece of a mosaic of sites whose distribution was heavily influenced by locally present raw materials such as flint, and whose control, acquisition, and management was of fundamental importance to the craft activities/​profile of the LC settlements and, in general, to their economic prosperity during the latter part of the period.

Overview of the Pottery Repertoires

The material evidence at hand, which — in terms of survey output — consists mainly of potsherds, clearly indicates the occurrence of a widespread, homogeneous, cultural horizon spanning the entire plain throughout the whole LC period.

Generally speaking, the pottery corpus retrieved during the fieldwork largely matches the range of forms considered to distinguish the period as a result of past and very recent survey projects conducted in the central-eastern part of northern Mesopotamia. The ceramic ‘Working Typo­logy’ (hereafter WT) is useful as a standard, widely shared reference tool (for its main applications, see Wilkinson & Tucker 1995; Ur 2010a).

Given the fact that both projects/​a uthors have already described in a preliminary but quite detailed report the main traits and key types of the respective survey assemblages (Pfälzner & Sconzo 2015; Gavagnin et al. 2016; Pfälzner et al. 2017; Sconzo 2019; Iamoni 2020), what follows below is a short summary, mainly intended to underline the strong internal similarities — as well as possible discrepancies — identified within the plain. As already suggested in previous contributions (Pfälzner & Sconzo 2015; Gavagnin et al. 2016; Sconzo 2019), the main trend of the early LC24 ceramic horizon in the upper Zagros piedmont is characterized by an increase in chaff-faced wares, mostly consisting of truncated-conical bowls, often referred to in the literature as ‘Wide Flower Pots’ (Fig. 2.9:1-2), and by associRiver Gomel in the first case, and because of modern work in the second (Morandi Bonacossi et al. 2018; Iamoni 2020).

This horizon is equivalent to the LC 1–2 periods of the updated chrono­logy (see Rothman 2001c; Wright & Rupley 2001). This period is extremely long, spanning at least 700 years. Unfortunately, in the absence in a survey environment of stratified material, a sharp chrono­logical differentiation between an incipient LC 1 (c. 4500–4200 bce) and a mature LC 2 (c. 4200–3800 bce) horizon was hardly achievable. 24 

37 ated cost-reducing firing methods. Another characteristic is the gradual decrease in painted decoration, which continues as an overall slip/​coating (black- or red-coloured), applied on the inner and outer surface of particular vessel forms (Figs 2.9:4–5; 2.10:27) or as simple bands and blobs (Figs 2.9:6–9, 11–12; 2.10:19, 24–26). These patterns characterize mainly the later LC 2 horizon and are widespread over a significant portion of upper Mesopotamia (Lupton 1996, fig. 2.1:H–J).

Recovered in great numbers throughout the plain are fine, mainly mineral-tempered, hemispherical bowls with tapering or pinched rim, traceable back to a preceding ‘Ubaid’ tradition (Fig. 2.9:3–4), as well as the aforementioned, coarser, chaff-faced Wide Flower Pots (Fig. 2.9:1–2). The latter turn out to be generally coil-made and do not show any particular standardization with regard to shape or size. Also very common are the bowls with inwardly bevelled rim (Fig. 2.9:6–9), followed by those with beaded rim, often characterized by a thick red or black coating/​slip, applied on the inner and/​or outer surface (Fig. 2.9:5). Among closed vessels, frequently attested types are: flaring-neck jars, either plain or painted (Fig. 2.10:18–20); early internally hollowed rim jars, again finely tempered and mostly painted (Fig. 2.10:25–27); deep straight-sided urns (Fig. 2.9:16–17); neckless flaring rim jars (Fig. 2.10:21–24), and double-rimmed jars, both buff and coated (Fig. 2.10:28), with short (earlier) or long (later) outer rim. Cooking vessels occur in the form of beaded hole-mouth pots (Fig. 2.10:29–32), characterized by a brittle, mediumor coarse-textured fabric, tempered with shell, coarse limestone grits, and even larger quartz crystals. This particular ware is widely discussed by Abu Jayyab (this volume), who defines it as ‘Red/​Grey Ware’, given the red-to-dark brown patterned polished surface. This corpus finds relevant parallels at sites distributed over a wide region that stretches from the Tigridian area — e.g. Muqable I, Phases 3–4 (Pfälzner et al. 2017, pls  1–3); Tepe Gawra, Phases XIIA-IX (Tobler 1950, figs CXXXIII–CXLVIII); Qalinj Agha, levels I–VI and layer A (Hijara 1973; Al-Soof 1969; Musharifa (Oguchi in Fujii 1987, fig. 14); Helawa IV (Vacca & Peyronel, this volume; Peyronel et al. 2019; Peyronel & Vacca 2020b); Nineveh (Gut 1995, pls 53–56); and Surezha (Stein & Fisher 2019) – to the Syro-Iraq Jazira, e.g. Khirbet al-Fakhar (Abu Jayyab 2012, figs 1–14); Grai Resh, Area A level IV-IIB (Kepinski et al. 2011, pls 4–15), Tell Brak (Matthews 2003c) and Hammam et-Turkman VA (Akkermans 1988b).25

For detailed accounts of the LC 1–2 pottery repertoire of the Trans-­ Tigridian region, see Vacca & Peyronel and Abu Jayyab in this volume. 25 

38

Marco Iamoni & Paola Sconzo

Figure 2.9. LC 1–2 pottery diagnostic types in the Selevani Plain (plate by the authors).

2. Beyond Subsistence?

Figure 2.10. LC 1–2 pottery diagnostic types in the Selevani Plain (plate by the authors).

39

40

Marco Iamoni & Paola Sconzo

Table 2.1. Catalogue of pottery in Figures 2.9–2.10. Cat no.

Site

Sherd no.

Fig. 2.9:1

EHAS_B269

i083

Fig. 2.9:2

LoNAP_941

16.6.34

Fig. 2.9:3

EHAS_B011

q100_146

Fig. 2.9:4

LoNAP_941

16.6.23

calcite

HM

Fig. 2.9:5

EHAS_B193

q011_19

HM

Fig. 2.9:6

EHAS_B003

q066_177

sand and calcite

Fig. 2.9:7

LoNAP_1050 17.1.1

HM

Fig. 2.9:8

EHAS_B011

mineral and chaff

Fig. 2.9:9

LoNAP_1050 17.1.33

Fig. 2.9:10

EHAS_B011

q001_17

Fig. 2.9:11

LoNAP_941

16.6.15

Fig. 2.9:12

EHAS_B193

q011_70

Fig. 2.9:13

EHAS_B269

q019_14

Fig. 2.9:14

EHAS_B193

q009_134

Fig. 2.9:15

EHAS_B269

q007_372

Fig. 2.9:16

EHAS_B003

q079_175

Fig. 2.9:17

EHAS_B011

q100_248

Fig. 2.10:18 EHAS_B011

q100_260

Fig. 2.10:19 EHAS_B011

q100_240

Fig. 2.10:20 EHAS_B003

q068_28

Fig. 2.10:21 EHAS_B269

q019_38

Fig. 2.10:22 LoNAP_941

16.6.81

Fig. 2.10:23 EHAS_B011

q100_245

Fig. 2.10:24 EHAS_B193

q011_81

Fig. 2.10:25 EHAS_B193

q020_67

q100_252

Fabric

Man.

chaff and calcite

HM

mineral and chaff

chaff and sand

HM HM

sand and HM dark mineral

chaff and sand

chaff and mineral

sand and calcite

calcite and mineral

sand and calcite

sand and calcite

chaff and sand

sand and calcite

chaff and sand

HM HM HM HM HM HM HM HM HM

sand and calcite

HM

sand and calcite

HM

sand and HM dark mineral

sand and calcite

sand and mica

calcite and chaff

chaff and calcite

sand and calcite

sand and calcite

HM HM HM HM HM HM

surface condition + treatment

Firing

Ware

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

hetero­ geneous

Common Ware

self slip (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

homo­ geneous

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

homo­ geneous

coated out, buff in; smoothed (in-out)

homo­ geneous

coated (in-out); smoothed reduced (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

self slip (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

self slip (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

self slip (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

slip (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

homo­ geneous

reduced

homo­ geneous

reduced

homo­ geneous

homo­ geneous

homo­ geneous

homo­ geneous

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

hetero­ geneous

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

overfired

buff in, slip out; smoothed overfired (in-out)

buff in, coat out; smoothed (in-out)

homo­ geneous

self slip (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

hetero­ geneous

coated(in-out); smoothed homo­ (in-out) geneous

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

homo­ geneous

self slip (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

homo­ geneous

buff in, slip out; smoothed homo­ (in-out) geneous

thick slip out; self slip in; smoothed (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

homo­ geneous

homo­ geneous

homo­ geneous

Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Painted Ware

Painted Ware

Painted Ware

Painted Ware

Painted Ware

Painted Ware

Painted Ware

Painted Ware

Painted Ware

Painted Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Painted Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Painted Ware

Painted Ware

colour (in)

colour (out)

2.5YR 6/​8 2.5YR 6/​8 5Y 7/​4

5Y 7/​4

10R 6/​6

10R 6/​3

7.5YR 4/​1 7.5YR 4/​1 10R 3/​1

5YR 7/​4

10R 6/​6

10R 6/​6

10YR 7/​4 10YR 7/​4 10YR 8/​3 10YR 8/​3 7.5YR 8/​3 7.5YR 8/​3 10YR 7/​2 2.5YR 4/​6 10YR 8/​3 10YR 8/​3 5Y 6/​1

5Y 6/​1

10YR 8/​3 10YR 8/​3 2.5Y 7/​2

2.5Y 7/​2

5YR 7/​6

10YR 8/​3

10R 6/​3

10R 6/​3

10YR 8/​3 10YR 8/​3 10YR 8/​3 10YR 8/​3 7.5YR 8/​2 7.5YR 8/​2 10YR 8/​3 10YR 8/​3 5YR 7/​6

10YR 8/​3

7.5YR 6/​1 7.5YR 6/​1 10YR 8/​3 7.5YR 5/​2 7.5YR 5/​2 7.5YR 5/​2 10YR 7/​2 10YR 7/​2

2. Beyond Subsistence?

Cat no.

Site

Sherd no.

Fig. 2.10:26 LoNAP_941

16.6.49

Fig. 2.10:27 EHAS_B011

q100_56

Fig. 2.10:28 EHAS_B269

q021_46

Fig. 2.10:29 EHAS_B011

q100_238

Fig. 2.10:30 EHAS_B003

q069_48

Fig. 2.10:31 EHAS_B003

q066_171

Fig. 2.10:32 LoNAP_941

16.6.40

41

Fabric

Man.

mineral and calcite

HM

quartz and calcite

chaff and lime

chaff and calcite

chaff and sand

chaff and calcite

calcite and chaff

HM HM HM HM HM HM

surface condition + treatment

Firing

Ware

self slip (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

homo­ geneous

Painted Ware

self slip (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

homo­ geneous

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

homo­ geneous

coated (in-out); smoothed hetero­ (in-out) geneous

buff in, slip out; smoothed homo­ (in-out) geneous

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

self slip (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

Apart from those last mentioned, and of course the Wide Flower Pots, most vessels making up the LC 1–2 assemblage of the Selevani Plain do not seem to be exclusively produced with one consistent fabric type. As a general trend, moreover, a gradual decrease in the use of fine mineral tempering has been noticed in the southernmost sector of the plain (i.e. the LoNAP district), as well as from the Tigris towards the hinterland.26 A discontinuous distribution also characterizes some of the decorative patterns considered to be a hallmark of the early LC, such as those occurring in the so-called ‘Sprig’ and ‘Black-on-Red’ Wares (sprigs, bowties, crosshatched diamonds or triangles, check patterns, and chevrons). These patterns (Fig. 9:10, 13-15) — often associated with mineral-tempered, well-fired, dark-orange fabrics — are quite widespread in the central riverine sector of the plain (i.e. the EHAS area), but apparently gradually diminish towards the interior and the south. They are rarely attested in the LoNAP survey. The concentration along the riverine side of the plain should hardly come as a surprise, considering that the 5 ha site of Tell Shelgiyya, lying on the opposite bank of the Tigris and virtually belonging to the same region, was feasibly one of the main production centres of these specialized painted wares (Ball 1997; Ball 2003; Rothman & Blackman 2003). The ‘local/​indigenous’ repertoire characterizing the later stage of the LC in the Selevani Plain appears likewise to be quite homogeneous. It features the almost

26  This paper stems from a long-lasting collaboration between the two projects that culminated in 2017 in a joint study season in Duhok, during which the two authors examined and compared the respective pottery finds.

homo­ geneous

reduced

Common Ware

colour (in)

colour (out)

7.5YR 8/​3 7.5YR 8/​3 10R 4/​1

2.5YR 4/​6

Painted Ware

7.5YR 8/​2 7.5YR 8/​2

Common Ware

10R 6/​6

Red/​Grey 10R 6/​3 Ware

10R 6/​3 10R 6/​6

Red/​Grey 10YR 8/​3 10YR 8/​3 Ware

Red/​Grey   Ware

7.5YR 4/​1

complete disappearance of fine mineral-tempered fabrics, replaced by much coarser, low-temperature fired, plant-tempered ones, together with the accentuation of those aspects of pottery techno­logy considered to be a characteristic feature of increasingly low-cost and/​or large-scale pottery production (Al-Quntar & Abu Jayyab 2014, 99–106). In particular, we refer to: uniformity of vessel type, simplification of forms and manufacture, and use of new strategies of fuel consumption. This phenomenon is finally accompanied by the disappearance of painted decoration, thus suggesting less attention to aesthetic attributes.

The form spectrum attested in the plain — seemingly in the wake of the previous tradition — remains rather limited and, indeed, little in evidence: some forms considered to be key types of the period all over upper Mesopotamia — such as Hammerhead Bowls (Fig. 2.11:4–5) and Carinated Casseroles (Fig. 2.11: 10) — appear in fact to be very rare in this sector of the Zagros foothills.27 Following a pattern already noticed, these ceramic types occur exclusively along the Tigris itself, but are absent in the hinterland. A quite distinctive production of this late horizon, widely attested throughout the plain, is chaff-tempered Grey Ware; this is in fact a local version of the widespread northern Mesopotamian ‘Chaff-faced oikumene’,

27  In the frame of the EHAS project these basic key types cluster mainly in the northern sector of the survey region (Zone C), along the Hezil Su and Ḫabur rivers (Sconzo 2019, fig. 10: 6–11), whereas in the LoNAP area their scarce distribution seems to be concentrated in the western sector of the survey area (Gavagnin et al. 2016, 130). A similar absence has been noticed further south in the plain of the Erbil and Shahrizor regions (see D’Anna et al., and Vacca & Peyronel, this volume).

42

Marco Iamoni & Paola Sconzo

Figure 2.11. LC 3–4 (5) pottery types in the Selevani Plain (plate by the authors).

2. Beyond Subsistence?

Figure 2.12. LC 3–5 pottery types in the Selevani Plain (plate by the authors).

43

44

Marco Iamoni & Paola Sconzo

Table 2.2. Catalogue of pottery in Figures 2.11–2.12. Cat no.

Site

Fig. 2.11:1

Sherd no.

surface condition + treatment Firing

Ware

self slip (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

Common Ware

colour (in)

colour (out)

5YR 7/​4

5YR 7/​4

Fabric

Man.

EHAS_B147 q002_21

sand and calcite

HM

Fig. 2.11:2

LoNAP_941 17.3.1

mineral and chaff HM

Fig. 2.11:3

EHAS_C096 q003_45

sand and chaff

HM

Fig. 2.11:4

EHAS_C096 q003_21

chaff and sand

HM

Fig. 2.11:5

LoNAP_941 17.3.6

chaff and mineral HM

self slip (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

reduced

Common Ware

Fig. 2.11:6

EHAS_A025 q013_12

chaff and calcite

HM

Fig. 2.11:7

chaff and calcite

HM

hetero­ geneous

Grey Ware 5YR 4/​1

EHAS_B147 q005_4

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

Fig. 2.11:8

EHAS_A025 q013_19

chaff and calcite

HM

Fig. 2.11:9

LoNAP_941 16.6.81

mineral and calcite

HM

self slip (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

self slip (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

self slip (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

Fig. 2.11:10 EHAS_A025 q019_8

quartz and chaff

HM

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

Fig. 2.11:11 EHAS_B013 q113_117

sand and chaff

HM

Fig. 2.12:12 EHAS_B151 q002_2

chaff and calcite

Fig. 2.12:13 EHAS_A030 q006_5

chaff and mica

Mould buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

Fig. 2.12:14 EHAS_B151 q002_7

sand and calcite

WM

Fig. 2.12:15 EHAS_B269 q010_77

sand and calcite

WM

Fig. 2.12:16 EHAS_A027 q005_39

sand and calcite

WM

Fig. 2.12:17 EHAS_B269 q020_117

sand and mica

WM

Fig. 2.12:18 EHAS_B269 q005_71

sand and calcite

HM

Fig. 2.12:19 EHAS_B269 q007_442

chaff and sand

HM

Fig. 2.12:20 EHAS_B269 q007_443

chaff and sand

HM

Fig. 2.12:21 EHAS_A030 q001_40

chaff and sand

Fig. 2.12:22 EHAS_B269 q007_494

calcite and mica

Mould buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

WM

Fig. 2.12:23 EHAS_B269 q005_93+94 sand and calcite

WM

Fig. 2.12:24 EHAS_B269 q019_101

sand and calcite

WM

Fig. 2.12:25 EHAS_C064 q001_66

sand and calcite

HM

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

Mould buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out) buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

buff in, slip out; smoothed (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

buff (in-out); smoothed (in-out)

homo­ geneous

reduced

hetero­ geneous

hetero­ geneous

hetero­ geneous

hetero­ geneous

homo­ geneous

hetero­ geneous

homo­ geneous

hetero­ geneous

hetero­ geneous

homo­ geneous

hetero­ geneous

homo­ geneous

homo­ geneous

hetero­ geneous

homo­ geneous

homo­ geneous

hetero­ geneous

Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

7.5YR 3/​2 7.5YR 3/​2 5YR 7/​4

2.5YR 6/​8

10YR 8/​1 10YR 8/​2 5YR 4/​1

Grey Ware 10YR 8/​3 10YR 8/​3 Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

Common Ware

homo­ geneous

Common Ware

homo­ geneous

Common Ware

overfired Common Ware

homo­ geneous

10YR 6/​1 10YR 8/​2

Common Ware

5YR 7/​6

5YR 7/​6

7.5YR 8/​3 7.5YR 8/​3 5YR 7/​2

2.5YR 6/​0

5YR 4/​1

5YR 7/​2

10YR 7/​2 10YR 7/​2 5YR 7/​6

5YR 7/​6

5YR 7/​4

5YR 7/​4

5YR 7/​4

5YR 7/​4

10YR 8/​3 5YR 7/​6 5YR 4/​1

5YR 4/​1

5YR 7/​6

5YR 7/​6

7.5YR 8/​2 7.5YR 8/​2 7.5YR 8/​2 7.5YR 8/​2 10R 6/​6

2.5YR 6/​8

7.5YR 8/​2 7.5YR 5/​2 5YR 7/​6

10YR 8/​3

7.5YR 8/​2 10YR 7/​2 10R 6/​6

10R 6/​6

2. Beyond Subsistence? which ranges from central Iraq to southern Caucasus (Schwartz 2001, 238–41; Stein 2012; Marro 2010; 2012b, 29–31). Most common Grey Ware types are bowls with outer swollen rim (Fig. 2.11:6) and, to a lesser extent, jars with internally hollow rim.

Other types widely attested are rounded (Fig. 2.11:6) and flat rim bowls (Fig. 2.11:3); short-necked jars with internal hollow and swollen or thickened/​triangular rim (Fig.  2.11:7); jars with flaring neck and swollenpointed rim (Fig. 2.11:8–9).

The LC  3–4(5) local ceramic production of the Selevani Plain finds close parallels in other Upper Mesopotamian sites, such as Hatara 5b (Negro 1998, figs 12, 141); Nineveh to the south (Gut 1995, figs 57–61); Tell Brak (Felli 2003); Hammam et-Turkman (Akkermans 1988b); and Hacinebi to the north-west (Pearce 2000). New excavation projects at LC sites in the region, such as Jubaniyah, or farther away — such as Asingeran (Iamoni & Qasim 2019) and Helawa (Peyronel et al. 2019; Peyronel & Vacca 2020a; 2020b; Vacca & Peyronel, this volume)28 — may offer further evidence in support of this hypothesis.

A final comment concerns the Uruk-influenced side of the LC  3–5 survey assemblage, which is also very scarce, perhaps less so in terms of quantity, but with reduced variability.29 Apart from the chaff-tempered Bevelled-Rim Bowls (which are quite rare within the survey region as a whole, Fig. 2.12:12–13)30 and a few more large, grit-tempered, hand-made vessels, most pottery features medium-to-fine wheel-made fabrics tempered with sand, calcite, and mica-like inclusions. The form spectrum includes bowls with oblique/​triangular rims (Fig.  2.12:15–16), conical bowls with string-cut base, nose-lug jars with incised or applied decoration These two sites at present seem to show a ceramic tradition restricted only to the LC 1–3. 28 

Due to the very limited evidence available from the upper sector of the LoNAP survey, this last section is mainly based on the material collected by the EHAS project, as well as from the related excavation at the site of Muqable III (Pfälzner et al. 2017). At this site, certain ceramic traits characterizing the latest phase of the fourth millennium — the so-called Terminal Uruk/​Uruk D (Gut 1995, 103–05, 123–30, 266)/​Transitional — were found in 2015 at the base of a 20 m long step-trench dug through the southern flank of the tell. This phase would be equivalent to the ETG 1 period of the Tigris region (Arrivabeni 2019), as well as contemporaneous with the post-LC 5 development in other regions (Rothman 2001b): in other words, it may be at least partially contemporary with what was traditionally defined as the ‘Jemdet Nasr’ period in southern and central Mesopotamia. 29 

30 

Bevelled-Rim Bowls are limited to 4 EHAS and 2 LoNAP sites.

45 (Fig. 2.12:22), jars with undercut rim (Fig. 2.12:17–18), and spouts (Fig. 2.12:25). A rather provincial, later phase of the assemblage — recently re-defined thanks to the sequence excavated at Muqable III (Pfälzner et al. 2017) — combines at least some of these lingering southern Mesopotamian traits with a local background, featuring carinated shapes, low pedestal bases, and decorative plastic patterns, such as excised horizontal wavy lines, or horizontal and vertical ribbing on the jar shoulder (Fig. 2.12:23–24, see also Sconzo 2019, fig. 11). This kind of assemblage is not at all new, since it closely resembles finds discovered on the opposite bank of the Tigris in the Zammar region (Ball 2003, 11–12) and in the lower sector of Lake Mosul, at sites such Tell Karrana 3, Strata 4–3a (Rova 1993; 2003), Mohammed ‘Arab, Period MA 1 (Roaf 1998), and Tell Jessary, ash pit of Level 5 (Numoto 1990). It testifies to the existence of a regional facies running from the preliminary Zagros mountain chain down to the northern Nineveh hinterland at the time (or indeed after the collapse) of the Uruk network system.

Discussion and Conclusion

The evidence sketched above shows an overall development which basically mirrors, though at a slower pace, the processes of increasing complexity observed elsewhere in Upper Mesopotamia in the mid‒late fifth and fourth millennium bce (Stein 2012). As might be expected, the upper Zagros piedmont provides a pattern of internal variability that is strongly conditioned by the local environment, which through time acted as both trigger and constraint with regard to settlement distribution and further territorial organization.

In general terms, throughout the Late Chalcolithic period both surveys found evidence of settlement dynamics strongly dominated by the importance and exploitation of water sources. This is reflected by the planned locations of most of the newly founded sites along rivers and wadis, especially those fed by perennial springs that guaranteed a water supply throughout the year. This situation is similar to that observed further west in the Syro-Iraqi Jazira, another region located outside the so-called Zone of Uncertainty (the area where fluctuations in annual rainfall may lead to dry seasons that cause crop failure), and thus lies within the rainfed agriculture area (Wilkinson & Hritz 2013, 10–14).

46 The choice of proximity to watercourses in this specific phase must be interpreted as the final outcome of the full adoption and implementation in the Selevani Plain of the agropastoral subsistence strategies — i.e. an economy based on a strong integration of and interaction between farming and herding activities (Rowton 1973; 1974; Porter 2012, 13–15; Paulette 2013, 134–35) — that had already taken root in the Neolithic period, finally transforming mobile human communities into stable groups (Widell et al. 2013, 84; Weber 2016, 195–97).

This new, pronounced agrarian orientation of the Selevani communities is (further) demonstrated by the alignment patterns in the form of constant spacing between sites (as though to share intermediate pieces of land), and finds confirmation at the beginning of the LC in the appearance of newly founded settlements along the escarpments in close proximity to the Tigris, in an ideal position to exploit the available narrow stretches of alluvium for agricultural purposes. On the other hand, the fact that sites remain quite small, between 0.2 and 5  ha, and that no prominent forms of nucleation seem to take place within the plain, suggests that the accumulation of cultivated cereals or other food products (that remained the basis of the growth of large centres) had not yet become a key feature of the LC communities on the River Tigris and its tributaries. Here environmental constraints may well have hampered the expansion of a sustenance economy based on cultivation of the available plain (Frangipane 2012a, 34–35). If we look for a northern Mesopotamian site that might exemplify this pattern and provide a solid example of this economic model, Hacinebi Tepe (though quite distant from the Tigris Valley) seems the best candidate. During the so-called ‘pre-contact phase’ (phase B1) this site was dedicated to a farming economy based on the cultivation of rain-fed cereals and herding of sheepgoats and, to a lesser extent, pigs, for local consumption (Stein 1999a, 130–32).

Besides their agropastoral way of life, the interaction between LC communities and the local environment seems also to have developed along other, more sophisticated lines that eventually led to the establishment of new forms of social, economic, and/​or functional interaction. These, still in the bud in the early LC, became more pronounced towards its end. A hint in this direction is provided by the establishment starting in the early LC of a series of sites (n = 6: EHAS B9, B147, B134; LoNAP 108, 172, 229) in peripheral sectors of the plain, i.e. directly on or in immediate

Marco Iamoni & Paola Sconzo proximity to the mountainsides, in a more arid, barren environment. Although the exact nature of these foundations cannot be demonstrated without proper excavation, their specific locations and the discovery at some of them (e.g. B147) of large quantities of lithic artefacts and débitage, might make them possible ‘terminals’ of preferential penetration routes whose aim was the identification, exploration, and eventual intensive exploitation of other types of local resources offered by the territory (see also Aydoğan et al. this volume for the identification of further routes in the Anatolian sector of the River Tigris). The degree of local interaction and social cohesion evidenced by the proximity of sites (Iamoni 2020) may have been a key element that facilitated or even triggered such processes. Similarly, a specialized function can be proposed for some of the large sites set at the opposite end of these penetration routes, i.e. along the Tigris terraces. One such seems to be B269, Jubaniyah, an escarpment site that, having yielded a huge quantity of unworked and worked obsidian artefacts, clearly shows that the Selevani Plain from the Early Chalcolithic onwards became embedded in a wider-ranging exchange network embracing all of Upper Mesopotamia. The case of Jubaniyah in particular seems to replicate, though on a limited scale, what has been seen in larger urban centres such as Tell Brak and Khirbet al-Fakhar (Ur 2010a, 97–98; Al-Quntar et al. 2011), the rapid growth of which has been directly connected with the enhancement of craft specializations related to the production of artefacts in precious (cornaline) and semi-precious (obsidian and flint) stones (Al-Quntar 2016). Thus, the LC 1–2 communities in the Selevani Plain might have stood at the base of a hierarchy whose apex was represented by large sites such as Brak and Khirbet al-Fakhar, and which testify to the existence of a strong local network aimed at providing and managing raw materials that involved the Upper Tigris and possibly a significant sector of Upper Mesopotamia as well. The enhancement of settlement on the banks of the Tigris through a series of new foundations, most of which feature southern Mesopotamian influences, suggests that in the second part of the LC, this very same network, probably affected by increasing long distance contacts, ended up somehow embedded in a supraregional system.

This suggestion is further supported by the related (and deliberate) selection in the LC 3–5 of specific wadis over others as penetration routes (e.g. Wadi Seru Kani/​ Muqable/​Kelek and Wadi Faidah), by the consequent

2. Beyond Subsistence? voiding of some areas (Wadi Zahir), and by the newly undertaken exploration of others (Wadi Amlik).31 What is seen in Wadi Faidah, which connects the Tigris basin with the Sharia Valley and the Jebel Zawa, where flint mines have been recently discovered, might point exactly in this direction. It also shows that the exploitation of local resources was probably crucial for the prosperity of the existing sites, to the extent that it drove the location of new settlements such as Gir-e Pan, thus generating forms of ‘regional’ nucleation (concentration of sites in specific areas).

This new exploitation of the Tigris axis in conjunction with a relevant southern Mesopotamian influence permeating many cultural aspects of the riverine communities, is further demonstrated by the results of past and recent research both on the opposite bank of the river in the Zammar area and further downstream down to Mosul. Nineveh (Algaze 1986) is of course considered to be the largest and central settlement in the area, but a number of other minor sites were also dotted along the banks near the river, including Mohammed ‘Arab (Roaf 1984; Roaf & Killick 1987), Khirbet Hatara (Fiorina 1997; Negro 1998) in the Lower Mosul Dam area, and Tell Abu Dahir, Gir Matbakh, and Siyana Ulia (Ball 2003, 11–12; Campbell 2003) in the Zammar region. The presence of a considerable number of sites indicates the occurrence of multiple modes of interaction by means of which the southern Mesopotamian communities were tied into an already established and developed circuit of contacts and exchanges.

The escalation of the agropastoral way of life of the Selevani communities, and their embedding first within a local and then in a possible supra-regional exchange network that we have found sometimes, stimulated within the plain a process of functional differentiation between sites, which fits well with the context of increasing complexity observed elsewhere in Upper Mesopotamia. As sketched above, among numerous small villages of 1–2 ha, a few centres stand out, growing to cover up to 5  ha, and thus moving away from their original status of small-scale, self-sufficient communities, to become hubs or ‘major’ nodes in the local contact network. The distance between such sites is regular (c. 6 km), and throughout the region the relation between site size and interspacing remains directly proportionate. That this process of differentiation origiFor the identification of a similar phenomenon further north, on the Anatolian side of the river valley, see also Aydoğa et al., this volume. 31 

47 nated in the early LC is in agreement with a trend that has been observed, though on a completely different scale, in the neighbouring region of the Syro-Iraqi Jazira (Lawrence & Wilkinson 2015; Wilkinson et al. 2013, 38), where sites such as Tell Brak, Khirbet al-Fakhar and Tell al-Hawa (Ball et al. 1989; Ball 1990; Wilkinson & Tucker 1995; Oates et al. 2007; Ur et al. 2011; Al-Quntar et al. 2011; Al-Quntar 2016) grew to occupy areas of tens of hectares.

Of course, an increase in the inhabited area of 2–3 hectares might appear of little importance from a ‘SyroIraqi Jazira’ perspective, but — in our opinion — it is potentially significant in the Selevani Plain.

A glance beyond the boundaries of our research area shows that other northern Mesopotamian sites also demonstrate in similar fashion that limited dimensions do not necessarily hamper the attainment of a ‘higher rank’ in the regional settlement. One of these is Arslantepe, in the Upper Euphrates Valley in modern Turkey. Arslantepe in the fourth millennium was a centre characterized by a significant level of internal complexity — as suggested by the presence of public buildings, a centralized administration, accumulation of staple commodities managed through a redistributive system, and craft specialization (Frangipane 2010b; 2010c; also Balossi Restelli, this volume). However, it never reached dimensions comparable to those attested elsewhere in Upper Mesopotamia; on the contrary, it seems only to have occupied the main mound, with an area of 3 hectares (Frangipane 2012a, 20–21), or the immediate neighbouring lower zone.32 Although Arslantepe has never been considered a fully urban site by its excavators (Frangipane 2012a, 33–34), it undoubtedly played a pivotal role in the regional settlement of the Malatya Plain, thus being comparable from a ‘socio-economic complexity’ perspective to larger sites located further south.

A second example is Tepe Gawra, a small site of about 2 ha located near Jebel Bashiqa, not far away from our region. Here too a long settlement sequence (Speiser 1935; Tobler 1950) with considerable attestations dating to the LC  1–3, corresponding to phases XII–VIII (Rothman 2002b; Butterlin 2009a), has been identified. Also at Tepe Gawra we have evidence of a very complex settlement characterized by public architecture, bureaucracy and centralized administration, and, above It seems that during the mid‒late fourth millennium bce (LC 3–4) the settlement may have exceeded the limit of the main mound; a survey of the area conducted during the 2003–2005 season suggests the existence of a lower town whose dimensions have not been clearly specified (Di Nocera 2008).

32 

48

Marco Iamoni & Paola Sconzo

Figure 2.13. LC 1–2 (above) and LC 3–5 (below) sites arranged in order of increasing size. Note the concen­tra­ tion of sites between 0–2 and 2–4 hectares, with only a few settlements larger than 4 hectares. In the LC 3–5 this trend becomes more evident, with only two sites exceeding 4 ha in size. (­graph by the authors).

all, an increasingly hierarchical society with a local elite that would have controlled the economic activity of the settlement. This has been interpreted as evidence of a developed chiefdom which never reached the status of a full urban centre (Rothman 2002b, 148; Butterlin 2009b; Frangipane 2009). Arslantepe and Tepe Gawra, despite their limited sizes, must have exerted a certain socio-political control over a significant sector of the surrounding territory (Frangipane 2009, on this issue see also D’Anna et al., this volume).

Leaving aside the sensitive issue of the emergence of urbanization (see also the studies published recently in Frangipane and Manzanilla 2018), in particular in

the Upper River Tigris region, and for which an ampler dataset is necessary in order to draw reliable conclusions, it however seems reasonable to propose for the Selevani Plain the existence of an alternative model of site differentiation reflecting perhaps an embryonic form of local hierarchy.

As a preliminary hypothesis, we propose a two tier settlement rank that might have been the result of regional (or even local) dynamics and had an impact on features other than settlement dimension: in the Selevani Plain (and perhaps a significant sector of the Eastern Upper Tigris?) settlement size might have been less significant than in other regions such as the SyroIraqi Jazira, i.e. the socio-economic complexity might

2. Beyond Subsistence? have occurred via a different trajectory that did not rely on or necessitate the emergence of mega-urban centres to take place successfully (Iamoni 2016b; 2020).

This evidence, combined with the settlement distribution discussed previously, allows us to sketch a picture in which the Selevani Plain and the Upper Eastern Tigris appear as privileged areas whose investigation may reveal crucial evidence for the recognition of new trajectories in the socio-economic development of Late Chalcolithic societies. Lastly, we would stress here again that these results have been achieved only thanks to the integration of datasets from two projects within a single study, and the strict cooperation of the teams. Both authors have significantly benefitted from this joint work which has widened their interpretations of the evidence, and has provided, ultimately, a deeper understanding of the survey data at hand. We wish and hope that this approach may be followed also in similar future studies dedicated to the reconstruction of the ancient regional settlement of northern Mesopotamia.

Our study suggests that the Late Chalcolithic was a mosaic, comprising several settlement models that interacted in multiple ways while contributing to the development and affirmation of the phenomenon of socio-economic complexity in Upper Mesopotamia.

49

3. Un air de famille: Preliminary Observations on the Ubaid and Late Chalcolithic Horizon of the Shahrizor Plain (Iraqi Kurdistan) Maria Bianca D’Anna, Olivier Nieuwenhuyse & Simone Mühl

A bstract –

In this paper we present some pre­ liminary observations concerning the ceramic horizon of the Late Chalcolithic period in the Shahrizor Plain, also referring to the previous Ubaid phase. We will discuss surface collections from 16 sites as well as finds from recently excavated contexts at Gird-i Shamlu and Begum. Using this new data, we shall highlight local trends and interregional connections, reflecting on chrono­logical and general issues concerning the Late Chalcolithic period in Mesopotamia from the point of view of an inter-mountainous valley in the eastern Zagros piedmont.

Introduction Iraqi Kurdistan: A Turbulent Research History During the middle part of the twentieth century, Iraqi and western scholars were remarkably active in the Kurdish parts of northern Iraq. The region was deemed a suitable geo­graphic testing ground for validating theories on the origins of the Neolithic way of life (Braidwood & Howe 1960; Braidwood et al. 1983). Intensifying rural development, too, stimulated research, with surveys and rescue excavations in areas threated by dams (Directorate General of Antiquities Baghdad 1970; 1976; Mortensen 1970). Also the Shahrizor Plain was included in survey projects of the Iraqi State Board of Antiquities (SBAH) in the 1940s and then in a salvage survey and Maria Bianca D’Anna ([email protected]) Freie Universität, Berlin. Olivier Nieuwenhuyse† Freie Universität, Berlin

Simone Mühl ([email protected]) Institut für Vorderasiatische Archäo­logie, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität, München.

† Olivier could not see this paper in print. His unique voice is sadly missed.

excavation programme at the time of the construction of the Darband-i Khan Dam (also known as Darbandikhan, Darbandixan, Darbendixan) between 1956 and 1961.

However, most of the research remained unpublished (Altaweel et al. 2012, 18). Therefore, the archaeo­ logical image of later prehistoric societies in the region remained patchy. Excavated by an Iraqi-Danish team, the Hassuna-Samarra levels at Shemshara situated in the Ranya Plain, which lies 100 km north-west of the Shahrizor Plain, was an isolated oddity (Mortensen 1970; Nieuwenhuyse & Robert 2020). Virtually no Halafperiod sites were known (Hijara 1997), and only very few Uruk-period sites, and in the best case scenario, these small-scale excavations were only marginally published. Excavations at Qalinj Agha (Erbil) brought to light tripartite buildings and Ubaid to LC 1–3 pottery (Al-Soof 1969; 1971); at Gerdi Resh – 18 km southeast of Sulaymaniyah in the Shahrizor Plain – Ismail Hijara (1976a; 1976b) excavated a LC  3 architectural level (see also Gut 1995; Mühl 2013, 110, 229–30). Other Uruk-related contexts came from Tell Ahmad al-Hattu (Sürenhagen 1979, 35–50), Tell Hassan (Nannucci 2012), and Tell Rubeidheh (Killick 1988) in the Hamrin basin. Excluding the Hamrin, where the Ubaid settlements of Tell Abada (Jasim 1985), Tell Madhhur (Roaf 1989), and Kheit Qasim (Forest-Foucault 1980) have contributed significantly to our knowledge of the Ubaid horizon in north-eastern Mesopotamia, relatively recent syntheses on the Ubaid and Late Chalcolithic periods simply left the region blank (Carter & Philip 2010a, ix; Rothman 2001c, fig. 1.1), or made the attempt to fit the region into chrono­logical, culture-historical, and interpretative frameworks adopted for neighbouring, better known regions (e.g., Algaze 2004). Close to Iraqi Kurdistan, Tepe Gawra is a major exception to this general picture and served as an important model (Rothman 2002b; Tobler 1950) and relative chrono­logical reference for northern Mesopotamia.

Late Chalcolithic Northern Mesopotamia in Context: Papers from a Workshop held at the 11th ICAANE in Munich, April 5th 2018, ed. by Johnny Samuele Baldi, Marco Iamoni, Luca Peyronel & Paola Sconzo, subartu 48 (Turnhout, 2022), pp. 51–62 10.1484/M.SUBART-EB.5.126364

BREPOLS

PUBLISHERS

52

Maria Bianca D’Anna, Olivier Nieuwenhuyse & Simone Mühl

Figure 3.1. Map of the main Chalcolithic sites mentioned in the text. (The position of Tell Abada has been corrected and verified on satellite imagery as its position is misplaced on the official maps of the Hamrin Dam excavations. The site co-ordinates are 34.106168°E, 45.165533°N (figure by Simone Mühl, Shahrizor Survey Project).

During the LC 2 and early LC 3 periods, the site apparently became a ceremonial, administrative, and political centre serving a population larger than itself (Frangipane 2012a, 20; Rothman 2002b). Following these excavations, the terms ‘Gawra Period’ and ‘Gawra Culture’ have widely been used to define the timespan between the Ubaid period and the Early Bronze Age in northern Mesopotamia (Speiser 1940, 438; see also Perkins 1949, 162–97; Nissen 1986, 30 and fig. 2; Porada et al. 1992, 92; Gut 1995; Forest 1996). This label involved a more or less implicit value judgement: ‘in the north there are no exact equivalents for the Warka and Protoliterate Periods, and prehistoric conditions persisted for some considerable time (Gawra Period)’ (Frankfort 1954, 285). Since and after the Iran-Iraq war, while fieldwork was conducted in southern Iraq, along the Upper Tigris and in the Jazira, the instability under Saddam Hussein pushed archaeo­l ogists out of Iraqi Kurdistan and

impeded archaeo­logical research in the region for decades. Security improved slowly in Iraqi Kurdistan from 2006 onwards following the fall of the regime after the last Gulf War, which led, together with the war in Syria and increasing political instability in southern Iraq and south-eastern Turkey, to a large number of field projects in Iraqi Kurdistan (Kopanias et al. 2015; Kopanias & MacGinnis 2016; Ur 2017); this has resulted in over 50 ongoing projects (Kopanias et al. 2015). The later Neolithic, Ubaid and Chalcolithic periods soon emerged as major research foci. Systematic surveys are charting the region with explicit consideration of these phases1 and numerous sites under excavation In the Sulaymaniyah province: beside the Shahrizor Survey Project (Altaweel et al. 2012; Mühl & Nieuwenhuyse 2016; Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2016a; 2016b; Odaka et al. 2019), the Qara Dagh Regional Archaeo­l ogical Project (Catanzariti & Baccarin 2015); the NINO Rania Plain Survey (Eidem & Skuldbøl 2015) and the Danish 1 

3. Un air de famille comprise seventh to fourth millennium bce levels.2 Existing chrono­l ogical terms with their associated material culture key types have well served as a preliminary framework for gaining a first impression of the great amount of new collected data. However, the late prehistory of Iraqi Kurdistan appears to be internally diversified and might be related only partially and discontinuously through time within its subregions, and to northern and central Mesopotamia. This holds for the later Neolithic (Odaka et al. 2019), but also for the Late Chalcolithic.

Early and Late Chalcolithic Mesopotamia: The General Setting During the fifth and fourth millennia bce in Meso­ potamia and neighbouring regions, several innovations suggest the emergence of social inequality and political complexity. These include the increasing size of settlements with internal differences among households, along with the presence of large communal buildings, the emergence of administrative practices, and specialized production of goods. In the last years, new data and theoretical frameworks have enriched our understanding of this long-lasting, critical period of transformations. The so-called Ubaid interaction sphere (c. 5300–4700 bce: see Stein 2018b, 31; Vignola et al. 2019) seems to have been a multifaceted phenomenon rather than a unitary cultural complex (Carter & Philip 2010b). Landscape studies and excavations show that the beginning of the LC period (LC 1–2 and Archaeo­logical Expedition to Iraq (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2016a; 2020); the French archaeo­logical mission in the Governorate of Sulaymaniyah (Giraud 2015; Giraud et al. 2019); the north-western Sulaymaniyah Survey (van Ess & Luciani 2015). In the other Iraqi Kurdistan province: the Land of Nineveh Archaeo­logical Project (Gavagnin et al. 2016; Iamoni 2016a; Morandi Bonacossi 2015; Morandi Bonacossi & Iamoni 2015;); the Upper Tanjaro Archaeo­ logical Survey (Kepinski & Tenu 2015); the Upper Greater Zab Archaeo­logical Reconnaissance Project (Koliński 2016); the Eastern Ḫabur Archaeo­logical Survey (Pfälzner 2015; Pfälzner & Sconzo 2016a; 2016b; Sconzo 2019); the Erbil Plain Archaeo­logical Survey (Ur 2015; 2017; Ur et al. 2013).

Girdi Qala and Logardan (Vallet et al. 2017; 2019); Gurga Chiya and Tepe Marani (Wengrow & Carter 2015a; 2015b; Wengrow et al. 2016); Helawa (Peyronel & Vacca 2020a; 2020b; Peyronel et al. 2016; 2019); Kani Shaie (Tomé et al. 2015; Renette et al. 2021); Tell Nader (Kopanias 2015); Qalat Said Ahmadan (Tsuneki 2015; Tsuneki et al. 2016); Ban Qala in the Qara Dagh Valley; and Surezha (Stein & Alizadeh 2015; Stein & Fisher 2019). One of the authors of the present paper opened soundings at Tell Begum (Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2015; 2016a; Nieuwenhuyse 2018). 2 

53 LC 3: c. 4700–3700 bce) is much more complex than a simple transition towards first urbanization (Marro 2012a). A supra-regional overview of the distribution of LC 1–2 ceramic types shows a profound regionalization, but the late fifth millennium bce communities also shared some techno­logical novelties and a higher degree of craft specialization (Frangipane 2012b; D’Anna 1999). The presence of ‘Uruk’ style material culture (c.  3700–3200  bce) is now conceptualized as having significant variability in the ways southern Mesopotamian groups interacted and integrated with already complex — and in some cases urbanized — LC societies of Upper Mesopotamia (McMahon & Stone 2013; Frangipane 2002). The cases of Arslantepe and Tepe Gawra testify to other forms of social complexity emerging at different moments of the LC  period in non-urban contexts, in which possibly mobile pastoral communities were integrated. To see the ‘dawn of civilization’ as a widespread, unitary phenomenon may be misleading. As recently pointed out by James Scott (2017), in addition to the archaeo­logically betterknown urbanized groups, there were likely many ‘nonstate peoples’ living beyond the borders of the soughtafter archaic states.

Acknowledging the complexity of the LC  interregional relationships means that we cannot simply interpolate any Mesopotamian framework — such as looking for the traces of the Uruk expansion, for instance — into a new, still poorly-known region such as the hilly flanks and valleys along the western Central Zagros. This region is extremely varied in topo­graphical, environmental, and cultural terms. Even focusing only on better-known regions of Upper Mesopotamia, data do not support a single model that might account for a uniform picture (Nissen 2001). If the site of Uruk/​Warka is unique, this can be equally said for Tell Brak or Hacınebi. Within these peculiarities, the nature, timing, and impact of the relationships between communities and people from all over Mesopotamia and beyond, as seen mainly from the adoption of Uruk style pottery in the north, result in an almost complete assimilation of this ceramic production in the LC 5 period. If we exclude the Anatolian regions north of the Taurus range, the LC  5 ceramics are Uruk style everywhere; or at least this is the impression from published materials. However, this does not seem to be the case in some regions east of the Tigris, as we shall see in this volume and as we will discuss in the present contribution.

54

Maria Bianca D’Anna, Olivier Nieuwenhuyse & Simone Mühl

The Shahrizor Plain and the Shahrizor Survey Project

Located at the headwater region of the River Diyala on the border of Iraq with Iran, the Shahrizor Plain is a large, inter-mountainous valley, opening along the western flanks of the Zagros Mountains. With high average seasonal precipitation, this fertile plain lies well within the limits of rain-fed agriculture. The main hydro­logical feature is the Tanjero watercourse, which forms the Tanjero River Valley south and south-east of the provincial capital city Sulaymaniyah. In the Shahrizor Plain it combines with several perennial streams and joins the River Sirwan to the south of the Shahrizor Plain to then become the River Diyala, which is the major tributary of the River Tigris in Central Iraq. Since the 1960s the River Tanjero and its tributaries have fed the artificial lake of Darband-i Khan, which has submerged large sectors of the central and southern parts of the plain. Every spring the reservoir gets filled and enlarges its surface in a northerly direction, endangering numerous archaeo­logical sites with its periodic floods. The valley is ideal for agriculture, but during the last century half of the plain was given over to animal husbandry until government programmes initiated land reclamations. The vegetation during the first half of the Holocene was different from today, characterized by the presence of grassland, and also woodland and riparian forests, while the climate was already Mediterranean as nowadays, but probably more humid (Marsh et al. 2018; Altaweel et al. 2012, 7).

The Shahrizor Plain has been an important route of movement for people, goods, and ideas (Ahmed 2012; Mühl 2013), as it is well connected to the Kirkuk or Jubbur Plain in the west, and Upper Mesopotamia further north, as well as to central Mesopotamia through the Baziyan, Paikuli, and a range of smaller passes. The valley also lies on a crossroads connecting the Mesopotamian lowlands with the valleys in the Iranian highlands, through its connection to Penjween and high-passes east of Khurmal in the Hawraman Range. Started in 2009, the Shahrizor Survey Project aims at a diachronic assessment of settlement patterns and changes in land use in the Shahrizor Plain, by combining archaeo­logical pedestrian survey and excavations, remote sensing, palaeoenvironmental research, and geomagnetic investigations (Altaweel et al. 2012; Mühl 2013; Odaka et al. 2019; Mühl & Nieuwenhuyse 2016). The presence of several multi-period sites indicates a strong settlement continuity overall, but the density of sites during the first half of the Holocene appears to

Table 3.1. List of Ubaid and LC sites in the Shahrizor Plain. Site no. Site name

Site no. Site name

SSP-1

Tepe Kal

SSP-33

Gird-i Shamlu

SSP-2

Yasin Tepe

SSP-34

Gird-i Dareka

SSP-3

Marif Tepe

SSP-40

---

SSP-7

Gerdi Resh

SSP-54

---

SSP-8

Kazhaw

SSP-56

Tell Begum

SSP-11

Gurga Chiya

SSP-68

Uch Tepe 3

SSP-12

Bin Gird-i Muwan

SSP-69

---

SSP-13

Gird-i Saraw

SSP-71

Gird-i Pasha

SSP-14

---

SSP-73

SSP-15

Gird-i Shatwan

Gird-i Hajji Hama Raza

SSP-16

Hajji Abdallah

SSP-72

---

SSP-19

---

SSP-75

---

have been in general lower (cf. Mühl & Nieuwenhuyse in Altaweel et al. 2012, 20–24); Late Neolithic sites are rare while they increase during the Ubaid/​Early Chalcolithic and LC periods (Mühl & Nieuwenhuyse 2016). A rough distinction is apparent between short-lived, singleperiod sites, which mostly measured less than 1  ha, and sites that continued to be settled from the Late Neolithic into the Late Chalcolithic, which could reach 3 and occasionally 5 ha (Mühl & Nieuwenhuyse 2016). This evidence, as well as the conspicuous absence of off-site field scatters (cf. Wilkinson 2003, 117–18), can partly be attributed, at least in some parts of the plain, to the accumulation of alluvial deposits that covered the Pleistocene gravel beds. It has been suggested that Holocene infilling slowed down about 2000 years ago (Altaweel et al. 2012, 7 and 19), even though the existence of Neolithic sites which are not covered by alluvial deposits cannot be ignored; this is the case, for example, of two mounds of the site cluster named Shaikh Marif, viz. SSP-37 and -43 (Odaka et al. 2019) and SSP-32 Tepe Marani (Wengrow & Carter 2015b; Wengrow et al. 2016). It might be assumed that at least some of the smaller prehistoric settlements are completely invisible today, either buried below the present-day field surface or under large, multi-period mounds.

As for the prehistoric periods, the survey found 43 sites with Neolithic, Ubaid, and/​or Late Chalcolithic materials. At 23 sites, LC ceramics have been identified (Fig. 3.1). The main aims of this paper are to present a first assessment of the Shahrizor LC ceramics and discuss the interregional connections of some of these ceramic productions. Our work is based on the analysis

3. Un air de famille

55

Figure 3.2. Gird-i Shamlu: LC structures excavated in Sector 4 (photo archive Shamlu Archaeo­ logical Mission).

of LC surface collections from 16 sites. We can also rely on data from archaeo­logical excavations of Ubaid and LC sites that took place in different areas of the plain in the last years and complement the survey project. Two short rescue excavations exposed Ubaid levels at Tell Tanjero and Tell Greza (Saber et al. 2014). The first site is a 120 m by 90 m large site located some 10 km south of Sulaymaniyah and 3 km away from the River Tanjero, contrary to what its toponym suggests. Four superimposing architectural levels testify to the use of different building materials — stone, mud bricks, and pisé. Burials were also present. The three uppermost levels yielded Ubaid pottery and objects that provide good comparisons with the Ubaid Hamrin sites, while in the lower part of the excavated strati­graphy, polychrome painted pottery is reported (Saber et al. 2014, 142–58). The short and very quick salvage excavation at Greza, located west-north-west of Said Sadeq, revealed the remains of a building and finds datable to the end of the Ubaid period (Saber et al. 2014, 158–66). In the 1960s, an Iraqi team directed by Mohammed Ali Mustafa briefly excavated at Tell Begum. With a

size of about 5 ha and 20 metres high, Begum is one of the largest later prehistoric sites known so far on the Shahrizor Plain (Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2016a). The Iraqi team found an unknown type of polychrome painted Halaf pottery (Hijara 1997; Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2016a, figs 23–25), which shows connections both to the northern Mesopotamian Halaf-Ubaid Transitional (HUT) horizon as well as to the so-called ‘J Ware’ from the adjacent Mahidasht (Kermanshah) Plain in the Iranian Central Zagros region (Nieuwenhuyse 2018). Intensive surface collections, geomagnetic prospections (Scheiblecker et al. 2018), and partial re-excavation of the older Iraqi trenches (Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2016a) showed that Tell Begum, which comprises a tall Upper Mound and an extended Lower Mound, was surrounded by several smaller satellite areas (sites SSP-57, -58, -59, and -60) which date to various periods (Scheiblecker et al. 2018, fig. 2). This site cluster was occupied during the Halaf, HUT, Ubaid, and LC  periods as well as in the second millennium bce and Medieval times. A recent assessment of Tell Begum surface-collected ceramic materials attests to the presence of a few diagnostic sherds of

56

Maria Bianca D’Anna, Olivier Nieuwenhuyse & Simone Mühl

Neolithic Coarse Plant-tempered Ware and possibly one husking tray fragment, suggesting that the site might already have been inhabited during the seventh millennium bce. On the Lower Mound, Uruk-style pottery occurs in the form of fragments of Bevelled-Rim Bowls and sherds with cross-hatched decoration. These come together with other Late Chalcolithic types, a fragment of a slightly scraped bowl, and Ubaid painted pottery. In addition to Halaf, HUT, and Ubaid pottery, the conical Upper Mound yielded LC ceramics that find precise comparisons with those found in the excavated material from Sector 4 at Gird-i Shamlu (see below). In the southern part of the Shahrizor Plain, close to the major site of Bakr Awa, a team from UCL London and UCL Qatar directed by David Wengrow and Robert Carter investigated the sites of Tepe Marani and Gurga Chiya. Excavations at these sites exposed Neolithic, Ubaid, and LC strata, as well as Late Bronze Age levels (Wengrow et al. 2016; Lewis, this volume). At Gurga Chiya, one Uruk level has been exposed (Wengrow et al. 2016).

Closer to Begum, more specifically 1.5  km southwest of it and situated on the same Wadi Shamlu, Gird-i Shamlu is currently being excavated by a team from Munich University directed by Simone Mühl. During the 2016 field season, Alexander Sollee exposed one or possibly two LC architectural levels at the foot of the southwestern slope of the mound. The main level (stratum 4/​ 4) is composed of a series of rooms which were part of a building eroded on the south-west and covered by thick younger deposits of the tell in the north and north-east (Fig. 3.2).

The building was destroyed by a fire and collapsed, preserving the last state of use. In one of the rooms (4/​2), the distribution of finds through the fill and the nature and strati­graphy of the deposits, indicate that sprouted grains were dried and kept together with small pots and stone tools on the roof that served as grain storage. Three 14C determinations obtained from charred cereal caryopses point to a date between the early thirty-ninth and the mid-thirty-seventh century bce  cal., which would indicate a date for this level earlier than that of the Uruk level at Gurga Chiya (3640–3370 cal. bce: see Wengrow et al. 2016, tab. 1). Room 4/​4 is elongated in shape, and a long wall divided it into two narrow compartments that could easily host a staircase, as is well known in the Ubaid and LC architecture. Two floors (4/​ 6 and 4/​7) might strati­graphically represent an older phase of this level.

The Ubaid Ceramic Horizon in the Shahrizor Plain Starting our assessment with the Ubaid period will allow some local trends and patterns of continuity into the LC to be highlighted, as far as the ceramic production of the Shahrizor Plain is concerned. Typical Northern Ubaid shapes, decorations, and wares are attested in the plain. The latter are mainly mineral tempered, and wellwhen not over-fired. However, in Ubaid sherds some fine organic, possibly vegetal matter is also present, sometimes abundantly. Vegetal-tempered fabrics are at times reported in other northern Ubaid sites; for example a change from mineral temper to vegetal temper has been observed at Tell Hammam et-Turkman during subphase IV C (Akkermans 1988a, 212), at Kenan Tepe again in a later phase of the Ubaid period occupation (Parker & Kennedy 2010), as well as at Tell Kashkashok II in both the Early Northern Ubaid and Terminal Ubaid phases (Koizumi 1993). This data could question the use of vegetal temper as a techno­logical marker of the end of the Ubaid and early LC period; in fact, plant-tempered fabrics may be more common in Ubaid pottery than usually thought. We have to also report pastes with rather abundant vegetal temper, which seems coarser and more abundant than that reported for the Northern Ubaid sites.

Unsurprisingly, good comparisons for the Ubaid ceramics can be found in the Hamrin sites, in particular at Keith Qasim III and Madhhur (Jasim 1985; Roaf 1989), and in further away regions in the case of simpler motifs (Altaweel et al. 2012, fig.  10.6). As at Tell Abada II–III in the Hamrin (Jasim 1985, fig. 212b and f), a few examples of surface-manipulated containers of the Dalma traditions have been found in the Shahrizor Plain, for example at site SSP-68 (Mühl & Nieuwenhuyse 2016 , fig. 15.7) and possibly at Begum; one fragment is also reported at Gurga Chiya (Wengrow et al. 2016, 265). Dalma Ware vessels have been found at Surezha (Stein 2018b; Stein & Fisher 2019) and Tell Helawa (Peyronel et al. 2019; Vacca & Peyronel, this volume) in the Erbil Plain in LC  1 levels. If we exclude two small painted body sherds from site SSP-73 that might possibly belong to Dalma Painted Ware containers, the Dalma Painted Ware — attested at Gawra XVI — is apparently not present in the Shahrizor Plain. SSP-73 also yielded Halaf, HUT, Late Ubaid, and Late Chalcolithic period materials (Mühl & Nieuwenhuyse 2016, 44). Indeed, the surfacemanipulated variety seems to have been more widespread than the Dalma Painted variety (Henrickson 1989). Both Dalma Painted and Surface-Manipulated Wares are found not only in Iranian Azerbaijan, where

3. Un air de famille

57 at Tell Madhhur (Roaf 1989, figs 5–6) and Gawra level XIII and XII (Speiser 1935, pl. XXVIe; Tobler 1950, cat. 277–78). Baldi (2012a) argues that this container type continued into the initial LC period, reporting examples from Tell Feres al-Sharqi 9–7 (LC 1), Tell Zeydan 17, and Hammam et-Turkman VA-B in northern Syria. Data from the Erbil plain also show a similar trend (Stein and Fisher 2019, fig. 12): at LC 1 levels at Tell Helawa, Ubaidderived types are attested, such as deep bowls either painted (e.g., with checkboards or wavy lines) or plain, produced with both mineral- and vegetal-tempered fabrics (Peyronel et al. 2019; Vacca & Peyronel, this volume).

Figure 3.3. Fragment of a double-rim jar with painted and incised decorations from site SSP-71, rim Ø: 37 cm (photo archive Shahrizor Survey Project).

the eponymous site is located, but also in the Iranian central Zagros at Seh Gabi and Godin IX, to mention two well-known places (Henrickson & Vitali 1987; Tonoike 2009). Dalma-like pottery has also been excavated in Luristan (Goff 1971). It is found also in the Mahidasht valley, where the so-called ‘J Ware’ is attested for earlier periods. A recent survey found Dalma Ubaid Painted and Black-on-Buff Wares at some sites in the Iranian central Zagros region; interestingly all of them also yielded J Ware (Balmaki et al. 2013). This points to the continuity of ceramic traditions and perhaps of settlement between the Late Neolithic and the Chalcolithic periods. It also suggests cultural similarity with the Shahrizor Plain, where both polychrome J Ware and Dalmatype pottery occur at SSP-73, Tepe Marani (Balmaki & Nicknami 2012; Mühl & Nieuwenhuyse 2016; Wengrow et al. 2016), and possibly at Begum (SSP-56). Another feature shared between the sites in the Shahrizor Plain and Tell Madhhur is the presence of Ubaid incised pottery that was found at the excavations in Gurga Chiya, and a painted and incised body sherd in the surface collections of SSP-71 (with both lines and herringbone patterns).

Deep bowls typical of the Ubaid period, either painted or plain, have been found at Gurga Chiya in the excavated late Ubaid-early LC  levels (Wengrow et al. 2016, fig. 12.26, and plain larger pieces are reported in the text) and also at sites SSP-71, -72 and possibly -68. They are medium to coarse containers tempered with chaff and limestone, greenish or buff in colour. The decoration, when present, consists of a painted chessboard pattern in which fully coloured and empty rectangles alternate with others filled with lines with different orientations and patterns; such examples are attested

Sites SSP-71 and -72 also yielded some fragments of so-called double-rim jars, often painted, featuring the same coarse fabrics as the above-mentioned deep bowls. In the Jazira, double-rim containers have been considered a good marker for the LC 2 period (Baldi & Abu Jayyab 2012, 168). However, at Gawra they are found along the entire later Ubaid to LC sequence (namely XIAB, XI, below XI, and IX), and painted exemplars also originate from Tepe Gijlar C (levels XIV–XVI), in the Iranian Azerbaijan, west of the Urmia Lake, in what should be an early phase of the local LC horizon (Belgiorno et al. 1984). Three pieces originate from period VIII level at Arslantepe (Balossi Restelli 2012b, 243, fig. 9e). Painted double-rim jars are not uncommon in Ubaid 3–4 assemblages from central and southern Mesopotamia either, for example at Eridu levels 13, 11, and 9 (Safar et al. 1981, figs 84, 87, and 89), and Tell Abada III–II (Jasim 1985, figs 112:b and 174–75). One fragment of a double-rim jar from site SSP-71 carries both painted and impressed decoration; the paste is coarsely chaff tempered, and the rim diameter is rather large (Fig. 3.3, and Mühl & Nieuwenhuyse 2016, fig. 16:20).

The Late Chalcolithic Ceramic Horizon in the Shahrizor Plain At this stage of research, without excavated, stratified sequences at our disposal, and lacking a sound absolute dating framework for the region, we can only distinguish provisionally between an ‘early’ and a ‘late’ LC ceramic horizon. The first one is recognizable at several sites that yielded characteristic early LC (LC 1–2) vessel types, including fine carinated beakers (very rare, though: Fig. 3.4:a, but comparable to Grai Resh II B, where they were produced in Buff and Chaff-Faced Wares; see Kepinski et al. 2011, pl. 9:1–6.); simple bowls (Fig. 3.4:bd); flange-rim jars (Fig. 3.4:h-i, with LC 2 period parallels from Tell Feres al-Sharqi and Tell Hamoukar; see Baldi & Abu Jayyab 2012, fig. 4); and Late Ubaid period

58

Maria Bianca D’Anna, Olivier Nieuwenhuyse & Simone Mühl

Figure 3.4. Early LC horizon ceramics (scale 1 cm): a. SSP-13 (medium veg., oxidized; 10YR 8/​4); b. SSP-71 (mineral; 7.5YR 4/​2); c. SSP-40 (organic; 10YR 7/​2); d. SSP-39 (prev. veg., limestone, oxidized); e. SSP-56 Upper Mound (Ø unknown; 5YR 7/​4); f. SSP-71 (int. rim possibly painted, mix tempered, grey core; 7.5YR 7/​4); g. SSP-71 (medium veg.; 7.5YR 4/​2); h. SSP-13 (Ø unknown; coarse prev. veg., cross section black; ext.: 10YR 5/​3); i. SSP-68 (10YR 7/​3, paint; 10YR 4/​2); j. SSP-13 (medium, chaff and limestone; wet smoothed; 7.5YR 8/​4); k. SSP-71 (medium prev. chaff, limestone, cross section grey; 5YR 7/​4); l. SSP-16 (coarse prev. veg., smoothed; 5YR 6/​4); m. SSP-72 (coarse chaff; 5YR 6/​6); n. SSP-3 (coarse chaff, black core; 7.5YR 7/​4) (drawings Shahrizor Survey Project).

Hammam IVC (Akkermans 1988a, pl. 85.203, 86.212–13); jars with short thickened collar (Fig. 3.4:j; see LC 1 levels of Tell Feres al-Sharqi: Baldi & Abu Jayyab 2012, fig. 1). Even though we are aware that the Uruk deep-sounding materials cannot provide a reliable chrono­logical counterpart, jars with everted collar and more or less angular rim (Fig. 3.4:k-n) find good parallels in the Tiefschnitt at Uruk/​Warka, in particular from level XII (Sürenhagen 1986, 47.296). In the Shahrizor Plain, this type is associated with coarse, chaff-tempered fabrics, which would interestingly mirror the data from Chamchamal, where Early‒Middle Uruk style ceramics were made in local, coarse, plant-tempered fabrics, and with local manufacturing techniques (Vallet et al. 2017; Baldi, this volume). Internally Bevelled-Rim Bowls characterize the later LC horizon, but in this earlier horizon we can tentatively include two pieces with painted lip (Fig. 3.4:e-f) and one with an almost internally-beaded lip. Internally Bevelled-Rim Bowls with painted lip are very rare in the Shahrizor Plain and never present traces of painted drops on the internal side. This type of container has a very wide distribution which includes Tepe Gawra XA (Tobler 1950, cat. 375 and 383), Nineveh (Gut 1995, cat. 800–03), Norşuntepe (Gülçur 1988, fig. 4:C), Tepe Gijlar C (Biscione 1984), and Geoy Tepe phase M (Burton Brown

1951, 17–33), but possibly does not go beyond northeastern Upper Mesopotamia, the Altınova Plain, and Iranian Azerbaijan.

We draw special attention to the presence of a tiny body fragment of what is possibly an internally incised bowl (Fig. 3.5), a type of container found in the LC 1–2 horizon of eastern Upper Mesopotamia. Significantly, the surface collections include very few fragments with a scraped exterior surface. Apparently, in the Shahrizor Plain there are no ‘real’ Coba Bowls or Wide Flower Pots, nor can we so far identify anything closely comparable to the northern Mesopotamian ‘Coba Bowls phenomenon’ (Baldi 2012b). Notwithstanding morpho­logical and at times techno­l ogical variability, Coba Bowls represent a widely-shared type of container among the Late Ubaid‒early LC communities from Mersin to Norşuntepe in south-eastern Anatolia to Tepe Gawra in Northern Iraq. Therefore, the Shahrizor Plain’s material shows some similarities with characteristic LC 1–2 types of the so-called Gawra-Jazira horizon in Upper Mesopotamia, even yielding a possible single fragment of so-called Sprig Ware (Mühl & Nieuwenhuyse 2016, fig. 14). These are only very few elements, which in fact give nothing more than the impression of a general early LC air de famille.

3. Un air de famille

Figure 3.5. Fragment of an open-shaped container with internal incisions from SSP-68 (abundant chaff medium to coarse; sporadic angular grits; possible junction of two coils; ext. wash or wet smoothed; incised with a round-shaped tool). Scale 1 cm (figure by Shahrizor Survey Project).

Our understanding of the ‘later LC’ horizon (LC 3–5) is somewhat less nebulous than that of the earlier one. Apart from the unstratified surface collections from the Shahrizor Survey project, stratified material is available from archaeo­logical contexts at Gurga Chiya and Gird-i Shamlu Sector 4 (see also Lewis, this volume). These can be arranged in a chrono­logical sequence because radiocarbon absolute dates have become available for these sites.

In terms of vessel shape typo­logy, the later LC horizon is not characterized by an overwhelming presence of the two classic fossil guides for the LC  3 in Upper Mesopotamia, the so-called Casseroles and Hammerhead Bowls. In the Shahrizor survey, only very few pieces resemble the northern Mesopotamian Hammerhead Bowls (SSP-16 and SSP-40: Fig.  3.6:e). This trend has been observed also at other LC 3–4 sites in the Iraqi Kurdistan and, similarly, typical Casseroles and Hammerhead Bowls are lacking in the surface collections of the Erbil plain and the MAFGs, LoNAP and EHAS surveys (Gavagnin et al. 2016; Sconzo 2019, 151, fig. 10:6–11; Giraud et al. 2019; Peyronel et al. 2019). One might have been used as cooking pot (SSP-3: Fig. 3.6:f). In the surface collection of Gird-I Shamlu there is one piece of Casserole.

Rather common are Beaded-Rim Bowls in both chaff-tempered and Grey Ware (Fig. 3.6:g-h; see Helawa LC 2–3 and 3: Peyronel & Vacca 2020a; 2020b; Peyronel et al. 2019, fig. 8:12; Gut 1995, cat. 248–51). Internally Bevelled-Rim Bowls (Fig. 3.6:i) are rather common in Sector 4 at Shamlu, but apparently missing from the excavation at Gurga Chiya. The same can be said for In-turned-Rim Bowls (Fig. 3.6:c-d) made in a variety of fabrics, present also on the upper mound of Begum; these bowls present a shape particularly suitable for

59 containing liquid or semi-liquid matter, and are often slightly burnished, which might have enhanced their impermeability (Fig. 3.6:c-d). Flaring-Rim Jars are rather common and were manufactured in different fabrics (Fig. 3.6:j-m). At Shamlu, traces of cooking as soot or internal carbonization are rather uncommon, but typically occur on brown and grey collared jars with round lip, at times thickened, with (also) angular quartz inclusions (Fig. 3.6:n). Fragments of Hole-Mouth Jars are few, but might fit in an earlier phase of this LC 3–5 horizon, as they occur at Shamlu (Fig. 3.6:o) but apparently not at Gurga Chiya. A number of jars with short collar and chaff, or chaff and lime-tempered fabrics fit well in this late LC horizon; some present a rim shape that compares with Middle Uruk style types (Fig. 3.6:p-q; see Hacinebi phase B2: Stein 1999b, fig. 5:E-F). In any case fabrics are dramatically chaffy and coarse, which might confirm the same phenomenon that Baldi has noticed at the Chamchamal sites. Other Uruk style ceramics in the Shahrizor Plain consist of some incised decorations and nose lugs (Fig. 3.6:r). So far, however, we have come across very few examples of these, some of them made of vegetal-tempered fabrics. Uruk-style straight spouts have been found at Shamlu and Gurga Chiya as well as at sites SSP-13, -16, and -71. From the surface collection of the latter site there is a fragment of a strap handle and one body sherd with combed decoration, which could both have belonged to Uruk strap handle jars, and a base of a tray. Most of these Uruk style elements seem to point to a Middle Uruk period date (LC  4). Besides the shapes mentioned so far, there are: one jarlet with spout; carinated beakers; one medium size and one large jar with neck and flaring rim. Some jars with short neck present a row of impressions on the shoulder. Many of these types of containers have also been found in the excavation of a Middle Uruk period deposit at Gurga Chiya (Wengrow et al. 2016), which, however, is slightly younger in date, and features materials that look typo­logically more ‘Uruk’. Finally, Bevelled-Rim Bowls (BRBs: Fig. 3.6:a-b) present a rather classical profile. In the Shahrizor Plain, typical Uruk BRBs occur at Shamlu, Gurga Chiya, Begum, and SSP-3, -13, -69, and -71. Other BRBs are characterized by a very open upper part of the profile and a vertical lip (Fig. 3.6:b). These have been recovered at Shamlu, Gurga Chiya, Begum, Bakr-Awa, and SSP-1, -13, -15, and -71. Possibly, these shapes might result from different ways in which the bowls were put to dry, either standing on their bases or upside-down, respectively. The difference may also have a chrono­logical significance.

60

Maria Bianca D’Anna, Olivier Nieuwenhuyse & Simone Mühl

Figure 3.6. Late LC horizon ceramics (scale 1 cm): a. Shamlu sector 4; b. SSP-13; c. Shamlu sector 4 (pink, chaff, oxidized but not uniformly fired, wheel-coiled, slipped); d. SSP-13 (10YR 8/​4 and 7.5 YR6/​6); e. SSP-16 (Ø unknown; medium chaff, black core; 10YR 8/​3); f. SSP-3 (possibly used as cooking pot; 5YR 6/​6); g. Shamlu sector 4 (grey, mixed-tempered with quartz, burnished, black core); h. Shamlu sector 4 (pinkish buff, coarse chaff, grey core); i. SSP-3 (coarse prev. chaff, dark grey section; ext. 7.5YR 7/​4); j. Shamlu sector 4 (pinkish buff, prev. chaff, wheel-coiled, whitish slip, grey core); k. SSP-13 (chaff, black core; 2.5YR 6/​8); l. SSP-69 (coarse prev. chaff, black core; 5YR 6/​6); m. SSP-71 (prev. veg.; 5YR 6/​6); n. Shamlu sector 4 (coarse mix-temp. with quartz, burnished); o. Shamlu sector 4 (grey, coarse mix-temp. with quartz, burnished); p. SSP-13 (coarse chaff and limestone, wet-smoothed, very dark grey core; 5YR 7/​4); q. SSP-11 survey (medium min.; 10YR 8/​3); r. SSP-3 (figure by Shahrizor Survey Project).

Ongoing archaeometric work at Shamlu is shedding light in the ceramic techno­logy of LC ceramic production (see Lewis, this volume). Our macroscopic observations of the materials from strati­graphically secure contexts of Sector 4 at Shamlu show that the ceramic of this level is not extremely varied in terms of fabrics and surface treatments. There is a range of chaff-tempered fabrics, a Burnished Grey Ware associated with quartz-tempered fabric, and a quartz-tempered Brown Burnished Ware in which quartz is usually not abundant. Both latter fabrics include organic inclusions, too.

Fine light-coloured fabrics were used to produce small consumption vessels. Ceramic containers are often wheel coiled.

Open Questions and Ongoing Discussion

Our brief review of recent and ongoing work merely scratched the surface of research potential. At this stage of research, the Late Chalcolithic ceramic horizon in the Shahrizor Plain remains far from perfectly understood, and we cannot move beyond descriptive

3. Un air de famille typo­logies towards an interpretative consideration of how ceramic traditions reflected, and in turn contributed to, socio-economic structures and processes, as broader exposures in excavations with more chrono­ logical depths and functional variety for the periods of investigation are needed. In any case, the Shahrizor LC ceramic horizon is characterized by a complex mixture of local peculiarities and elements shared with neighbouring regions in the production and consumption of ceramic containers. This ‘local-yet-familiar’ pattern might not have originated in the LC  period but had its roots in the preceding Late Neolithic and Ubaid stages (Nieuwenhuyse 2018; Odaka et al. 2019). In the Shahrizor Plain, ceramic entanglements throughout later prehistory were both recognizably familiar and distinctively different. Across Mesopotamia, Eastern Anatolia, and to some extent even the southern Caucasus (during the Middle Chalcolithic to Late Chalcolithic ‘Leyla Tepe’ horizons), certain localized peculiarities notwithstanding, researchers have identified a number of clear trends in the production and consumption of ceramics in the LC period (see for instance Stein 2012). Amongst others these include: the progressive disappearance of painted and decorated wares; the increasing use of chaff as a temper (possibly starting as early as the Late Ubaid); a change to fast surface finishing treatments, in particular the adoption of scraping to regularize profiles and finish the external sides of pots (especially, but not exclusively, applied to the lower parts of bowl types); the beginning of serial production manufacture of bowls; and distinct shifts in the composition of a morpho­logical repertoire composition with an increasing number of shallow bowls and basins, a decrease in the number of deep bowls and beakers, and an increasing production of larger jars/​closed shape containers.

This air de famille can be breathed with different intensity in the Shahrizor Plain, too. As in Upper Mesopotamia close shaped vessels become more varied and numerous in the LC period than in the previous phases, including also large size containers. Some elements of diversity in this very general picture point to regional phenomena, which might have included the maintenance of specific ceramic styles or techno­logical traditions. More specifically, the use of chaff-tempered pastes is well attested in the Shahrizor Plain sites and seems to have been a well-established techno­logical tradition: at Tell Begum some of the polychrome-painted HUT pottery contains plant temper; relatively coarse plant-tempered Ubaid painted sherds occur as well; and

61 agricultural sub-products have also been used in Uruk style jars.

What is apparently missing is the increased production of bowls, a trait that characterizes Upper Mesopotamia in the LC 1 to LC 3 periods; Coba Bowls are found in such low numbers that the region might have marked the very periphery of the distribution of these types, and Hammerhead Bowls occur even less. Coarse bowls of different shapes of the final Ubaid and the LC 1–2 periods (Baldi 2012b) are mainly interpreted as evidence of collective commensal events patronized by emerging elites in Upper Mesopotamia (Frangipane 2012b; for a critical review of this theory see Kennedy 2012) and also beyond at sites like Yumuk Tepe (phase XV) for example (Caneva et al. 2012, fig.  15; see also Palumbi 2019, 59 for examples from phase XVI). The mass production of bowls in more centralized economic and political milieux of the final LC period (LC 5) is generally interpreted as evidence of the allocation of rations (in the form of meals) in exchange for labour. This should be the case for the Uruk BRBs (Johnson 1973; Nissen 1970; Pollock 2003), and for the Arslantepe period VI A conical bowls (D’Anna 2012; Frangipane & Palmieri 1988–1989). The BRBs are also interpreted as bread moulds (Chazan & Lehner 1990; Goulder 2010; Porter 2012; Potts 2009): in this case, the production of bread would anyway be at a large scale and therefore incorporated into similar redistributive economic systems as those postulated for the redistribution of more liquid forms of food, such as beer (Bernbeck 2009, 54), as the proto-Sumerian sign GU7 would suggest. The low frequency of these well-known Meso­ potamian mass-produced bowl types might indicate the absence not only of public commensal practices as we know them from northern Mesopotamia (see for example Oates 2005, 18–21), Arslantepe VII (D’Anna & Guarino 2010), and possibly Gawra and Norşuntepe in Altınova, but also of less hierarchical forms of socioeconomic organization. Nevertheless, at this early stage of research, and considering new evidence from Qani Shaie (Renette et al. 2021), we can also assume that contexts representing public commensal practices simply have not yet been excavated in the exposed trenches. As evidenced from the survey, small sites, typically less than 5 ha in size, dot the LC 1–3 landscape in the Shahrizor Plain (Altaweel et al. 2012). Tell Begum with its 5 ha appears to have been one of the larger settlements. This local ‘centre’ has a spatially complex site structure comprising an upper and a lower mound, possibly surrounded by smaller satellite sites (Scheiblecker

62

Maria Bianca D’Anna, Olivier Nieuwenhuyse & Simone Mühl

et al. 2018). This data suggests a non-urbanized landscape in the LC period, with main centres structurally comparable in size to those documented at Arslantepe and Gawra.

As for the southern Mesopotamian Uruk style vessel shapes, it seems that apart from the low quantities of BRBs, only a few Uruk-style jar types are present in the Shahrizor Plain. Chrono­logically these seem to date mainly from the Middle Uruk phase. Interestingly, these Uruk types were often produced in local fabrics, presumably according to local techno­logical shaping methods. Thus, the Shahrizor Plain may offer an intriguing alternative case study for exploring the phenomenon of hybridization between local ceramic techno­logies and foreign ceramic traditions in the later fourth millennium bce (Helwing 1999; 2000). Understanding the nature of this interplay will provide important insights into the interactions between local Late Chalcolithic communities and southern Mesopotamian Uruk groups (Vallet et al. 2017; 2019). The absence of a more intensive Uruk interaction by the LC  5 period can be compared to similar phenomena occurring in other northern trans-Tigridian regions and in eastern Anatolia (Sağlamtimur & Kalkan 2015). Apparently, the Shahrizor valley lay just outside the regional scope of Uruk interactions. Separating the Chamchamal Valley from the Shahrizor Plain, the Qara Dagh mountain range perhaps shielded the westernmost region from substantial contacts with the Uruk world, in particular during the LC 5 period. In the most debated, though rather encompassing work on the spread of Uruk material culture beyond southern Mesopotamia, Algaze extended his analysis by applying the chosen interpretative framework of the unbalanced centre-periphery world system model also to Iraqi Kurdistan. He put into the picture also the Shahrizor Plain, where Uruk pottery (actually only BRBs) was known at Bakr Awa. Algaze (2004) considered the site to be the location of an important Uruk enclave, controlling communications towards Iran. Al-Soof (1964) registered in fact the presence of BRBs and a few other Uruk types in a sounding of the 1960s. According to Peter Miglus, it is highly possible that these ceramics were collected at other site(s) in the vicinity of Bakr Awa, as indeed they are labelled as being from the Shahrizor and not from Bakr Awa in the inventories of the Iraqi Museum at Baghdad (Miglus 2016, 231). The Iraqi-German team currently working at the site reached third millennium bce levels, and BRBs have been found in the deepest layers of a sound-

ing in the lower city, but they were consistently associated with Scarlet Ware (Miglus et al. 2013, 65). Two 14C dates from these layers confirm a date corresponding to the Early Dynastic I (Miglus 2016, 231). This evidence indicates an earliest occupation of Bakr Awa after the Late Uruk period, and suggests that the production and use of BRBs continued in the Shahrizor Plain into the early third millennium bce. This has been recently confirmed by evidence from Sector 3 of Shamlu, where a burnt level yielded BRBs associated with Scarlet Ware (see Mühl in press). The occurrence of BRBs in post-LC 5 contexts in Greater Mesopotamia was recently explored and debated in the framework of the ARCANE project (‘ARCANE Project’). Elena Rova (2014, 2) reports evidence of BRBs from ED I sites in southern and Central Mesopotamia and in the so-called ARCANE’s Tigridian region, with both Terminal Uruk and Transitional Ninevite 5 assemblages. Barbara Helwing (2014, 36–37) sees a persistence of BRB production in western Iran after the end of the LC, i.e. ‘Early Western Iran’ I period.

There are several pottery-related issues that this brief review leaves open. Some are very specific and concern the nature of local ceramic production in the Shahrizor Plain, such as the use of vegetal temper from the Late Ubaid throughout the LC period. We deliberately ignored the functional category of cooking pots, the analysis of which would have been highly informative on issues of commensality, gender, and identity (Stein 2001; D’Anna & Jauss 2015; Balossi Restelli et al. 2018), simply because cooking wares are very difficult to recognize in surface collections. At a medium geo­ graphic scale, we also wonder whether the people living in the fertile plain were ‘using’ the nearby mountains and how. At a larger scale: how do we understand the production of similar ceramics on very broad territories, which, however, do not share a common tradition or similar change in the social and economic structures. We are able to grasp interregional relationships, but we do not yet understand the kinds of relationships. How, where, why were the people of the Shahrizor Plain meeting other communities? What we see — we believe — is that our understanding of the fifth and fourth millennium bce Mesopotamia is challenged by the data from this part of the trans-Tigridian regions. However, if we keep adopting the Uruk standpoint, we can at most say that these areas were not affected by the Uruk expansion.

II

Techniques, Production Systems, and Social Organization

4. The ‘Uruk Conundrum’ in the Shahrizor, Iraqi-Kurdistan: Petro­graphic Developments, Ceramic Variation, and Cultural Connections at Gird-i Shamlu and Gurga Chiya Michael P. Lewis

A bstract –

The Uruk Phenomenon of the mid‒ late fourth millennium bce, an expansion of southern Mesopotamian cultural influence across parts of northern Mesopotamia, is documented in archaeo­logical excavations at numerous northern Mesopotamian archaeo­l ogical sites. The way this phenomenon took place and how it affected the local communities of the Shahrizor are however, unclear. Adopting a comparative approach, a selection of pre-Uruk ceramics from Gird-i Shamlu and Gurga Chiya are compared to an LC 4 Uruk (-related) ceramic repertoire from Gurga Chiya. Through this approach, it is apparent that the appearance of Uruk (-related) ceramics at Gurga Chiya during the LC 4 coincides with subtle, yet distinctive and culturally important changes to the manufacture and raw material sourcing of the ceramics from the site.

Introduction

The Late Chalcolithic (henceforth LC, c. 4500–3100 bce) features newly emerging socio-political and economic complexity observable via the centralization and (re)distribution of goods, household, and settlement hierarchies as well as craft specialization (e.g. Marro 2010; McMahon & Crawford 2015; Iamoni 2016). Extensive survey and salvage excavation in northern Mesopotamia during the 1960s–80s triggered by widespread damming of the Euphrates, alongside renewed excavations in western Iran, highlighted an extensive web of shared cultural practices and material culture spread across much of Mesopotamia: architecture, glyptic art, and pottery. It further allowed the production of a wide-reaching Michael P. Lewis ([email protected]) PhD Candidate. McDonald Institute of Archaeo­logy. University of Cambridge. UK.

synthesis such as Guillermo Algaze’s ‘Uruk Expansion’ (1989b; 1993), a World Systems adaptation arguing that societies of the southern Mesopotamian alluvium established a wide network to integrate their resourcepoor homeland with that of the resource-rich northern Mesopotamian ‘periphery’ during the second half of the fourth millennium bce (LC  3–5). Originally northern Mesopotamia was argued to be an area with lower levels of economic and socio-political organization than the Uruk ‘core’ of the southern alluvium (Algaze 1989b, 571; 1993, ix). However, this stance has since been modified to present a more balanced (Algaze 2004, 147) or mutually beneficial relationship (Frangipane 2001; Stein 1999a) between north and south Mesopotamia, owing to significant results of excavations at these northern sites. Monumental architecture (Emberling 2002; Frangipane 2016a), bureaucracy (Pittman 2001) and specialized/​industrial goods production (Al-Quntar & Abu Jayyab 2014) are clear expressions of societal complexity and are noted at sites of northern Mesopotamia prior to the Uruk Phenomenon.

Counter theories to explain reasons for the extensive spread of southern Uruk (-related) material culture include the establishment of colonies to exploit agricultural lands (Nissen 2001; Schwartz 2001), elite emulation (Stein 2001), pastoral nomadism (Abdi 2003; Porter 2012), refugee movement (Pollock 2001), or that the Uruk Phenomenon was an ideo­logical expansion (Sundsdal 2011).

Despite numerous excavations of Uruk (-related) archaeo­logical sites, this phenomenon is known principally from the Middle Euphrates (Frangipane 2018a; McMahon 2015a). Early excavations in Iraqi Kurdistan (Al-Soof 1964; 1970; 1985) revealed elusive evidence for

Late Chalcolithic Northern Mesopotamia in Context: Papers from a Workshop held at the 11th ICAANE in Munich, April 5th 2018, ed. by Johnny Samuele Baldi, Marco Iamoni, Luca Peyronel & Paola Sconzo, subartu 48 (Turnhout, 2022), pp. 65–84 10.1484/M.SUBART-EB.5.126365

BREPOLS

PUBLISHERS

66

Michael P. Lewis

Figure 4.1. Map showing the key archaeo­logical sites with Uruk (-related) material culture and archaeo­logical remains mentioned in the text. © M. Lewis.

southern Mesopotamian material culture (Fig. 4.1), with salvage excavations in the Hamrin at Tell Rubeidheh (Killick 1988), Tell Hassan (Nannucci 2012) and Kheit Qassim (Sürenhagen 1979) further contributing to the discourse. Whilst Uruk (-related) material from the ongoing survey of Iraqi-Kurdistan is uncommon (Altaweel et al. 2012; Gavagnin et al. 2016, 130–32; Casana & Glatz 2017), there are several ongoing excavations highlighting Uruk (-related) occupation which significantly demonstrate the regional variability of the Uruk Phenomenon. Excavations feature small-scale agricultural communities (Wengrow et al. 2016; Carter et al. 2020), extensive trash disposal (Skuldbøl & Colantoni 2016a), small regional hubs (Tomé et al. 2016), and more complex settlements with monumental architecture (Vallet et al. 2017; 2019), all featuring Uruk (-related) material culture (Fig. 4.1). The application of archaeo­logical science to material culture, related to this phenomenon, is at an early stage. What few petro­graphic/​geochemical investigations there are broadly show a lack of movement

of ceramics or their contents during the LC, and the continued manufacturing techniques and exploitation of raw material sources before and during the Uruk Phenomenon (Eiland 2003; Gopnik et al. 2016; Minc 2016; Lewis et al. 2020). Occasional studies do, however, suggest trade/​exchange of specific ceramic form types (Gopnik et al. 2016, 846), or more complex relationships representative of trade/​exchange of pottery and its contents (Stephen & Peltenburg 2002). Extensive INAA analysis of ceramics also confirmed these petro­graphic findings (Minc 2016) yet archaeometric analysis of other goods including bitumen (Schwartz & Hollander 2016), obsidian (Blackman et al. 1998), copper (Yener et al. 1991), and sealings (Blackman 1999), verified that exotic goods were traded/​exchanged during the LC. The variation of the archaeometric results resembles the survey and excavation, overall painting a picture of a regionally variable phenomenon featuring different levels of interaction across the Uruk sphere. It therefore seems logical that approaches to understanding its transmission should reflect this regionalism and

4. The ‘Uruk Conundrum’ in the Shahrizor, Iraqi-Kurdistan

67

Table 4.1. Chrono­logical sequence showing the occupational phases of Gird-i Shamlu and Gurga Chiya alongside key selected sites with Uruk (-related) strata mentioned in the text.

Figure 4.2. Geo­logical map of the Shahrizor-Pirmagroon Basin, Iraqi-Kurdistan, showing the locations of Gird-i Shamlu and Gurga Chiya. (After S. S. Ali 2007).

68 should begin by understanding this phenomenon at the local level. Because of this, and following the critique of Algaze’s top-down approach (Stein 1999a; Frangipane 2001; Rothman 2001c), the results presented here are obtained using a different methodo­logy, one which takes ceramic petro­graphy combined with the chaîne opératoire to understand these assemblages as regionalized adaptations of interactions between the communities of the Shahrizor and the Uruk spheres.

Gird-i Shamlu and Gurga Chiya

Gird-i Shamlu and Gurga Chiya are located in the south-eastern corner of the Shahrizor Plain (Fig. 4.2), an intermontane, alluvial plain surrounded by TriassicHolocene limestone rock formations and occasional chert successions (Ali 2007, 79). The centre of the Shahrizor features thick deposits of Holocene alluvial clay covering Pleistocene limestone gravel terraces, formed from the rock fragments eroded out of the surrounding mountains (Ali 2007, 78).

Excavations at Gird-i Shamlu are distributed across the main mound and lower town. Strata dated to the LC have been exposed in sector 4 on the south-west side of the main mound which revealed several rooms of at least two tripartite structures, both destroyed by fire. A large quantity of charred botanical remains from the floor of one of these structures provided three radiocarbon dates. One, 3785–3655 cal. bce, broadly falls within the LC 3 by the Santa Fe scheme (Rothman 2001c), with the burnt debris above this floor providing slightly earlier dating of 3910–3875 cal. bce and 3800–3700 cal. bce or LC 2–3. Overall a final LC 2–LC 3 date is indicated for these tripartite structures, with the associated pottery assemblage confirming this dating.

Gurga Chiya is a small, one-hectare, multi-period mound located c.  7  km south-east of Gird-i Shamlu. LC  strata at Gurga Chiya have been exposed on the south-western slope of the tell in trench E-F-G, and are separated into four distinct sub-phases (Carter et al. 2020): Phase GC-1A features pyrotechnical installations including a ceramic kiln and truncated ovens or tannurs, and characterizes the uppermost LC 4 strata. Below this is GC-1B, an extensive scatter of LC 4 pottery characterized by numerous southern Mesopotamian Uruk pottery forms alongside faunal remains. No other aspects of Uruk material culture were uncovered in the excavations. One radiocarbon date of 3640–3370 bce cal. 2 sigma confirms the macroscopic observations and confirms the LC 4 date overall (Wengrow et al. 2016,

Michael P. Lewis 262). Below this, a stone wall and scattered stone features are also dated to the LC 4 via relative dating of the ceramic forms (GC-1C). Finally, below GC-1C is a levelling phase, GC-1D; this was initially attributed to the LC 4, but seems to feature earlier, LC 2–3 forms in date owing to the similarity of its pottery forms with those of contemporary phases Vd-VIa at Kani Shaie (Renette et al. 2021). Below GC-1D, extensive Late Ubaid remains have been exposed including at least two tripartite structures, separated by a cobbled alleyway (Wengrow et al. 2016; Carter et al. 2020).

The Pottery Assemblages: Macroscopic Observations Gird-i Shamlu A total of 31 sherds from Gird-i Shamlu are featured within this analysis (Table 4.2). The total sherd count from the LC  strata was 1547, with a diagnostic sherd count of 179. The sample size is therefore 17.3% of the total diagnostic sherd count. All sampled sherds were from primary archaeo­logical deposits associated with the tripartite structures.

The LC 2–3 ceramic assemblage from Gird-i Shamlu is dominated by ceramics with frequent medium-coarse vegetal temper. The most common sampled macroscopic ware group is the Red-(Slipped) fabric, often with a darkened mid-grey core featuring frequent mediumfine vegetal temper, and rounded white mineral inclusions, which represents 45.2% of the sample. This fabric is used for a wide variety of both open and closed forms, amongst the most common form from Gird-i Shamlu being incurved-rim bowls (Fig. 4.3:5), simple-rimmed bowls (Fig. 4.3:1), and simple, everted-rim jars. The Grey(Burnished) Ware group (19.4% of the sample) features a dark-grey core throughout, indicative of reducing firing conditions. Angular, white crystalline mineral inclusions dominate this ware group, often alongside common vegetal temper and rounded white mineral inclusions. Globular jars with everted rims (Fig. 4.3:14-15), are the most common closed form of this fabric, with club-headed bowls also relatively common (Fig. 4.3:67). Bevelled-Rim Bowls (BRBs) amount to 16.1% of the sampled sherds, and feature abundant coarse vegetal temper with darkened, grey cores (Fig. 4.3:8-10). The Cream-(Slipped) Ware group also amounts to 16.1% of the sampled sherd count. This fabric features fine vegetal temper with occasional rounded white mineral inclusions. Finer fabric vessels are associated with this fabric, including an almost complete spouted jar (Fig. 4.3:22),

4. The ‘Uruk Conundrum’ in the Shahrizor, Iraqi-Kurdistan

69

Table 4.2. Sampled ceramics from Gird-i Shamlu analysed in this study, noting petro­graphic groupings as well as macroscopic observations as observed in the field. Samples ordered via sherd number.

Sherd No.

Context (Lot No.)

Trench

Petro Group

Macroscopic Ware Group

Form

1640091.1

40025

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

Banded rim jar

164032.1

40003

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

BRB

BRB

164036.1

40038

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

Incurved rim bowl

164036.2

40038

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Grey-(Burnished)

Club-headed bowl

164036.3

40038

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

BRB

BRB

164036.5

40038

4

3. Micritic Limestone and Chert

Red-(Slipped)

Everted rim jar

164036.8

40038

4

6. Calcite and Micritic Limestone

Unique

Holemouth

164036.12

40038

4

4. Calcite-Tempered

Grey-(Burnished)

Everted rim jar

164094.3

40026

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

Simple rimmed bowl

164094.4

40026

4

4. Calcite-Tempered

Grey-(Burnished)

Club-headed bowl

164094.5

40026

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

Closed neck jar

164094.7

40026

4

3. Micritic Limestone and Chert

Red-(Slipped)

Banded rim jar

164094.13

40026

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

Incurved rim bowl

164094.14

40026

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Cream-(Slipped)

Upright form w beaded rim

1640236.2

40053

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Cream-(Slipped)

Incurved rim bowl

1640241.1

40053

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

Incurved rim bowl

1640241.2

40053

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Cream-(Slipped)

Neckless, flat topped rim jar

1640241.3–4

40053

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

BRB

BRB

1640246.2

40054

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Grey-(Burnished)

Everted rim jar

1640246.3

40054

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

Beaker rim

1640247.1

40053

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Cream-(Slipped)

Sharply carinated beaker

1640265.1

40054

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

BRB

BRB (base)

1640265.2

40054

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Cream-(Slipped)

Incurved rim bowl

1640270.1

40054

4

4. Calcite-Tempered

Grey-(Burnished)

Everted rim jar

1640282.2

40026

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Grey-(Burnished)

Everted rim jar

1640282.4

40026

4

3. Micritic Limestone and Chert

Red-(Slipped)

Incurved rim bowl w square profile

1640282.9

40026

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

Casserole

1640282.10

40026

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

Banded rim jar

1640282.1

40026

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

Banded rim jar

1640282.1

40026

4

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Medium Green

Incurved rim bowl

1640284.2

40068

4

6. Calcite and Micritic Limestone

Red-(Slipped)

Incurved rim bowl

carinated beaker (Fig. 4.3:11), and incurved-rim bowls. Finally, the Medium Green fabric is represented by one sherd (3.2%), an incurved-rim bowl. The dominant forming technique is coiling with subsequent wet-smoothed on a tournette or rotary device. BRBs are all mould made, arguably within an existing BRB. BRBs are one of most recognizable pot-

tery forms often directly assigned with the Uruk Phenomenon in northern Mesopotamia, yet they are found regularly, though in modest quantities, in these early LC  2–3 assemblages in northern Mesopotamia. Often BRBs are found before any other evidence of Uruk-related material culture (Butterlin 2003; Porter 2012, 90) though not necessarily contemporaneously.

70

Michael P. Lewis

Figure 4.3. Selection of LC 2–3 ceramic forms from Gird-i Shamlu: 4.3:1: Narrow-rim bowl. 4.3:2–3: Bowls with an inwardlybevelled rim. 4.3.4: Incurved, square-profile rim. 4.3:5: Incurved-rim bowl. 4.3:6–7. Grey Ware, Beaded-Rim Bowl. 4.3:8–10: BRB. 4.3.11: Carinated beaker. 4.3:12: Hole-Mouth Jar. 4.3:13: Angle-neck jar. 4.3:14–15: Everted-rim jar. 4.3:16–17: Triangular profile, banded-rim jars. 4.3:18–19: Everted, hollowed-rim jars. 4.3:20: Narrow-neck jar with flaring rim. 4.3:21: Carinated, closed-mouth jar. 4.3.22: Cream-Slipped jar with cannon spout (© Shamlu Archaeo­logical Mission and M. Lewis).

The exact reasons for their appearance within these early strata remain unknown and require further investigation. Contemporary examples of LC 2–3 BRBs are noted in the immediate vicinity at Kani Shaie (Renette et al. 2021), Gerdi Resh (Hijara 1976b, 73–74), Girdi Qala and Logardan (Vallet et al. 2019), and Gurga Chiya GC-1D. Further afield, contemporary BRBs are also highlighted from Lower Ninevite 3 levels at Nineveh (Gut 2002, 20). The spouted jar (Fig. 4.3:22) is another example which features parallels from LC 2‒3 levels at Gerdi Resh (Hijara 1976b). Finally, a single example of an incurved-rim bowl with thick red slip may also be incorporated alongside these. Assigning these forms as ‘southern’ or ‘Uruk’ may be a pre-emptive simplification of what clearly represents a more complex network of interaction between the emerging states of southern Mesopotamia and their northern neighbours. These vessels, however, are symptomatic of a meeting of distinct ceramic ‘spheres’

(cf. Baldi 2016a) and the sharing of ceramic traditions between the communities of the Shahrizor and central and southern Mesopotamia. The closest comparative assemblages for the repertoire from Gird-i Shamlu are primarily from the Shahrizor and immediately adjacent regions, while noting the assemblage from neighbouring Gerdi Resh (Hijara 1976b) which displays an almost identical ceramic corpus. Further comparatives are noted at Gurga Chiya phase GC-1D and Kani Shaie phase VIa-Vd (Renette et al. 2021).

Gurga Chiya A total of 92 sherds from Gurga Chiya are featured within this paper (Table 4.3) with a total LC sherd count of 9729, and a diagnostic sherd count of 2115. The sample size was therefore considerably lower than that at Gird-i Shamlu, representing 4.5% of the total diagnos-

4. The ‘Uruk Conundrum’ in the Shahrizor, Iraqi-Kurdistan

Figure 4.4. Selection of characteristic LC ceramic forms from Gurga Chiya phases GC-1A–1D (© Shahrizor Prehistory Project and M. Lewis).

71

72

Michael P. Lewis

Table 4.3. Sampled ceramics from Gurga Chiya analysed in this study noting petro­graphic groupings as well as macroscopic observations as observed in the field. Samples ordered via sherd number. Sherd No.

Context

Trench Petro Group

Macroscopic Ware Group

GC Phase Form

Sherd No.

Context

Trench

164

304

F

2. Chert

Grey-(Burnished)

GC-1B

Everted-Rim Jar

714

1528

G

165

304

F

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1B

Banded-Rim Jar

715

1528

G

166

304

F

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Grey-(Burnished)

GC-1B

Banded-Rim Jar

719

1528

G

167

304

F

1. Micritic Limestone

Fine Brown

GC-1B

Spouted Jar

722

1528

G

168

304

F

1. Micritic Limestone

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1B

Deep bowl

739

1530

G

169

304

F

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1B

Carinated bowl

740

1530

G

171

304

F

5. Vegetal -Tempered

Fine Brown

GC-1B

Pointed-Rim Jar

745

1530

G

172

304

F

1. Micritic Limestone

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1B

Bowl w. Internal Lip

747

1530

G

936

304

F

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Fine Brown

GC-1B

Triangular-Rim Jar

748

1530

G

937

304

F

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1B

Jar w. Tapered Upright Rim

754

1530

G

939

304

F

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Grey-(Burnished)

GC-1B

Banded-Rim Jar

755

1530

G

940

304

F

1. Micritic Limestone

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1B

Conical cup

759

1530

G

941

304

F

3. Micritic Limestone and Chert

Fine Brown

GC-1B

Triangular-Rim Jar

805

1532

G

942

304

F

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Buff Incised

GC-1B

Angle-Neck Jar w. combing (Residual LC1 sherd)

806

1532

G

943

304

F

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1B

Banded-Rim Jar

807

1532

G

944

304

F

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Grey-(Burnished)

GC-1B

Inverted-Rim Bowl

809

1532

G

945

304

F

4. Calcite-Tempered

Grey-(Burnished)

GC-1B

Pointed-Rim Jar

813

1532

G

946

304

F

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1B

Inverted-Rim Bowl

816

1532

G

1074

304

F

1. Micritic Limestone

Cream-(Slipped)

GC-1B

Spouted Jar

820

1529

G

1081

304

F

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1B

Bowl w. Internal Lip

824

1529

G

1082

304

F

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1B

Everted-Rim Jar

825

1529

G

1084

304

F

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1B

Upright-rim Jar

839

1529

G

1085

304

F

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Grey-(Burnished)

GC-1B

Banded-Rim Jar

874

1529

G

1094

304

F

4. Calcite-Tempered

Grey-(Burnished)

GC-1B

Everted-Rim Jar

1604

1556

H

1097

304

F

4. Calcite-Tempered

Grey-(Burnished)

GC-1B

Everted-Rim Jar

1621

1556

H

1100

304

F

2. Chert

Grey-(Burnished)

GC-1B

Everted-Rim Jar

1671

1556

H

1101

304

F

2. Chert

Grey-(Burnished)

GC-1B

Everted-Rim Jar

1683

1556

H

1106

304

F

3. Micritic Limestone and Chert

Grey-(Burnished)

GC-1B

Everted-Rim Jar

1781

1563

H

1110

304

F

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Cream-(Slipped)

GC-1B

Conical Cup

1787

1563

H

1112

304

F

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1B

Inverted-Rim Bowl

1871

1563

H

1115

304

F

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1B

Inverted-Rim Bowl

1873

1563

H

1118

304

F

5. Vegetal-Tempered

BRB

GC-1B

BRB

1875

1563

H

4. The ‘Uruk Conundrum’ in the Shahrizor, Iraqi-Kurdistan

Petro Group

Macroscopic Ware Group

GC Phase

Form

1. Micritic Limestone

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1A

Undercut Rim Jar

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1A

Inverted Rim Bowl

5. Vegetal- Tempered

BRB

GC-1A

BRB

1. Micritic Limestone

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1A

Undercut Rim Jar

4. Calcite-Tempered

Coarse Red/​Brown GC-1A

Angle-Neck Jar

5. Vegetal- Tempered

BRB

GC-1A

BRB

5. Vegetal- Tempered

BRB

GC-1A

BRB

1. Micritic Limestone

BRB

GC-1A

BRB

1. Micritic Limestone

Coarse Red/​Brown GC-1A

Angle-Neck Jar

1. Micritic Limestone

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1A

Upright rim jar

5. Vegetal- Tempered

BRB

GC-1A

BRB

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1A

Upright rim jar

1. Micritic Limestone

Red Veg Tempered GC-1A

Undercut Rim Jar

3. Micritic Limestone and Chert

Red Veg Tempered GC-1A

Undercut Rim Jar

4. Calcite-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1A

Everted rim jar

5. Vegetal- Tempered

BRB

GC-1A

BRB

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Medium Green

GC-1A

Flat-Topped Bowl

5. Vegetal- Tempered

BRB

GC-1A

BRB

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1D

Everted Rim Jar

1. Micritic Limestone

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1D

Inverted Rim Bowl

5. Vegetal- Tempered

BRB

GC-1D

BRB

5. Vegetal-Tempered

BRB

GC-1D

BRB

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Fine Brown

GC-1D

Inverted Rim Bowl

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Grey/​Brown(Burnished)

GC-1C

Banded Rim Jar

5. Vegetal-Tempered

BRB

GC-1C

BRB

1. Micritic Limestone

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1C

Inverted Rim Bowl

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1C

Bowl w. Internal Lip

4. Calcite-Tempered

Grey-(Burnished)

GC-1A

Everted rim jar

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1A

Rope Impressed sherd (body)

5. Vegetal- Tempered

BRB

GC-1A

BRB

1. Micritic Limestone

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1A

Inverted Rim Bowl

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1A

Bowl w. Internal Lip continued overleaf

73

tic sherd count. Macroscopic fabrics of the LC ceramic assemblage from Gurga Chiya is much like Gird-i Shamlu, dominated by ceramics with frequent mediumcoarse vegetal temper. The Red-(Slipped) fabric is again the most common fabric in the Gurga Chiya assemblage at 39.6% of the total sample. This fabric often features a darkened mid-grey core alongside frequent mediumfine vegetal temper and rounded white mineral inclusions. This fabric is used for a wide variety of both open and closed forms, including banded-rim jars, invertedrim bowls, conical cups, and nose-lugged jars.

BRBs are the next most common macroscopic ware and feature abundant coarse vegetal temper, and darkgrey cores. They amount to 22% of sampled sherds. Grey-(Burnished) Ware sherds (17.6% of the sample) feature angular white crystalline mineral inclusions, frequent vegetal temper, and rounded white mineral inclusions. A darkened grey core is also common, indicative of reducing firing conditions. This ware group is formed exclusively of closed jars, almost all of which are simple, globular jars with everted rims. Both the Fine Brown Ware and Cream-(Slipped) Ware (5.5% and 4.4% respectively of sampled sherds) are uncommon, and both are almost exclusively confined to phase GC-1B (each with one exception). These are both fine fabrics used for fine, thin-walled vessels, including spouted and/​or triangular-rim jars, which broadly appear macroscopically to belong to the Uruk (-related) ceramic repertoire of this phase. Both fabrics have very fine vegetal inclusions and small white mineral inclusions. Finally, the remainder of sampled ceramics (10.9%) come from other rare and/​or residual sherds including Medium Brown and Medium Green fabrics, and Grey-Brown Burnished vessels. Most of these vessels are likely to be earlier residual sherds of the Late Ubaid/​LC 1, given that the majority are found within phases GC-1A-B. Coiling followed by wet-smoothing on a tournette or rotary device is the dominant observed forming technique. As with Gird-i Shamlu, the BRBs are mould-made at Gurga Chiya, also using an existing BRB.

Construction of a detailed pottery typo­logy/​chrono­ logy for Gurga Chiya is still ongoing, however GC-1D (Fig. 4.4:d), the earlier phase at Gurga Chiya, features an assemblage which uses similar forms to Gird-i Shamlu, yet also compares closely to contemporary levels at Kani Shaie (Renette et al. 2021). GC-1C (Fig. 4.4:c) is a small phase, yet displays an LC 4 ceramic repertoire similar to that of the extensive pottery deposit of GC-1B. Despite previous assertions that the entire LC  assemblage from Gurga Chiya represented a suite of Uruk ceramics

74

Michael P. Lewis

Table 4.3. (cont.) Sampled ceramics from Gurga Chiya analysed in this study noting petro­graphic groupings as well as macroscopic observations as observed in the field. Samples ordered via sherd number. Sherd No.

Context

Trench Petro Group

Macroscopic Ware Group

GC Phase Form

Sherd No.

Context

Trench

1122

304

F

5. Vegetal-Tempered

BRB

GC-1B

BRB

1883

1563

H

1123

304

F

5. Vegetal- Tempered

BRB

GC-1B

BRB

1886

1564

H

1127

304

F

5. Vegetal- Tempered

BRB

GC-1B

BRB

1903

1564

H

1128

304

F

5. Vegetal- Tempered

BRB

GC-1B

BRB

1960

1564

H

1169

304

F

1. Micritic Limestone

Cream-(Slipped)

GC-1B

Inverted-Rim Bowl

1964

1564

H

578

1527

G

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Medium-Brown

GC-1D

Conical Cup

1976

1564

H

582

1527

G

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1D

Nose Lug

1984

1564

H

589

1527

G

1. Micritic Limestone

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1D

Bowl w. Internal Lip

1985

1564

H

605

1527

G

1. Micritic Limestone

BRB

GC-1D

BRB

2000

1564

H

619

1527

G

1. Micritic Limestone

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1D

Upright-Rim Jar

2012

1564

H

631

1527

G

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Coarse Red/​Brown GC-1D

Simple-Rim Bowl

2049

1564

H

637

1527

G

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1D

Inverted-Rim Bowl

2356

1527

G

697

1528

G

4. Calcite-Tempered

Grey/​Brown(Burnished)

GC-1A

Angle-Neck Jar

2357

1527

G

699

1528

G

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1A

Tray

(Wengrow et al. 2016, 261–63), it is now likely that this is not so straightforward; it is clear that the Uruk Phase at Gurga Chiya was shorter than initially understood and part of a more complex dynamic. A similar dynamic is noted at Kani Shaie, with initial reports indicative of an Uruk occupation (Tomé et al. 2016) that is now demonstrably more complex (Renette et al. 2021). The assemblage from GC-1B (Fig. 4.4:b) is characterized by a very southern Mesopotamian, LC 4 Uruk (-related) pottery repertoire (Wengrow et al. 2016, fig.  7–8; Lewis et al. 2020) featuring inverted-rim bowls, BRBs (Fig. 4.4:b.1), everted-rim jars, squat jars with triangular-profiled rims and cannon spouts (Fig.  4.4:b.5), nose-lugged jars (Fig.  4.4:b.2), conical cups, and carinated bowls (Fig. 4.4:b.3) (Wengrow et al. 2016). LC 4 dating of GC-1B was ascertained through comparative ceramic forms from Tell Hassan (Nannucci 2012) and Tell Rubeidheh (McAdam & Mynors 1988) in the Hamrin basin. The relative dating was confirmed through radiocarbon dating as 3640–3370  bce cal.2 sigma (Wengrow et  al. 2016). GC-1A (Fig. 4.4:a) features a very similar assemblage to that of GC-1B, alongside jars with rim swellings (Fig. 4.4:a.2) and rope cordons (Fig. 4.4:b.4).

The presence throughout the LC strata of ceramic forms common within Uruk assemblages, including BRBs, incurving-rim bowls, everted grey-burnished jars, coupled with the finding of small quantities throughout the strata of definitively more Uruk (-related) fragments including nose lugs, string-cut cups, etc. gave the impression of a much more substantial Uruk occupation than seems to be the case. This was heightened by the extensive pottery deposit characterized by phase GC-1B, which does feature large quantities of southern Uruk pottery forms (Lewis et al. 2020; Wengrow et al. 2016, fig. 8).

Thin-Section Petro­graphy

Sherds were classified in the field based upon macroscopic observations such as the nature/​quantity of inclusions and ceramic form. Sampling of sherds was based upon these observations, with an essential requirement to sample key, characteristic ceramic forms in a variety of macroscopic fabrics. Almost all samples were taken from rim-sherds, though a few rare samples were from bases or other characteristic vessels, such as BRBs or nose-lugged body sherds. Care was taken to not sample

4. The ‘Uruk Conundrum’ in the Shahrizor, Iraqi-Kurdistan

Petro Group

Macroscopic Ware Group

GC Phase

Form

1. Micritic Limestone

Cream-(Slipped)

GC-1A

Upright rim jar

5. Vegetal- Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1D

Simple Rim Bowl

4. Calcite-Tempered

Grey-(Burnished)

GC-1D

Everted rim jar

3. Micritic Limestone and Chert

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1D

Bowl w. Internal Lip

1. Micritic Limestone

BRB

GC-1D

BRB

3. Micritic Limestone and Chert

BRB

GC-1D

BRB

1. Micritic Limestone

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1D

Nose Lug

5. Vegetal-Tempered

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1D

Banded Rim Jar

1. Micritic Limestone

Grey-(Burnished)

GC-1D

Inverted Rim Bowl

4. Calcite-Tempered

Grey-(Burnished)

GC-1D

Everted rim jar

1. Micritic Limestone

Red-(Slipped)

GC-1D

Banded Rim Jar

3. Micritic Limestone and Chert

BRB

GC-1D

BRB

4. Calcite-Tempered

Grey-(Burnished)

GC-1D

Everted rim jar

earlier, residual sherds, though it is indeed possible that a minority of earlier, Ubaid sherds were sampled owing to the longevity of some of the ceramic forms of the LC. In total, 31 sherds were sampled from Gird-i Shamlu, and 92 from Gurga Chiya.

Vertical thin sections were removed from the sherds, and thin sections were begun in the field in a modified procedure based on Goren (2014) and Quinn (2013, 21–33), with final stages of grinding and polishing to 30μm undertaken in the Institute of Archaeo­ logy, University College London. Prepared sections were examined using an Optical Petro­graphic Microscope under plane-polarized light (PPL) and crossed polars (XP). Thin-section petro­graphy has been used on all sherds within this study for classification of the clay(s) and temper, identification of paste preparation, determination of production locale, and to initiate reconstruction of the chaîne opératoire.

Petro­graphic Results Gird-i Shamlu Analysed ceramics from Gird-i Shamlu can be divided into four related petro-groups in thin section (Fig.

75

4.8:a–d), all of which feature a calcareous clay matrix, and common micritic limestone inclusions. The matrix of the analysed petro-groups often features darkened grey cores, indicative of incomplete firing.

Petro­graphic Group 3: Micritic Limestone and Chert (MLC h) Fabric. The ML-Ch petro-group is a relatively uncommon petro-group at Gird-i Shamlu at 10% of the current sample (n = 3). The fabric is characterized by a dominance of chert as well as very common micritic limestone. Other mineral inclusions include iron-rich mudstone, muscovite, quartz, and amphibole. The MLC h group at Gird-i Shamlu and Gurga Chiya match very closely, though the mineral inclusions of samples from Gird-i Shamlu are generally larger. Darkened cores or dark fabrics for the group indicate firing in a reducing atmosphere. Clay matrix is optically inactive.

Petro­graphic Group 4: Calcite Tempered (CT) Fabric The CT petro-group is assigned to 10% of samples from Gird-i Shamlu (n = 3). The CT Fabric is the only petrogroup with the clear and deliberate addition of mineral temper. Angular calcite is a principal identifier of this petro-fabric and is notably larger than the naturally occurring rounded calcite also found within the fabric. Vegetal inclusions are also visible, through both the empty voids, and some voids with the vegetal matter still preserved. An optically inactive, highly calcareous matrix is present. The colour of the matrix varies between samples, though a red-brown matrix with a darkened brown-black core is the norm.

Petro­graphic Group 5: Vegetal Tempered with Micritic Limestone (VTML) Fabric This petro-group dominates the date-set from Gird-i Shamlu at 74% (n = 23) of the analysed sherds within this paper. It is characterized by vegetal matter in the matrix, visible as either carbonized vegetal remains, or the empty elongated voids; other mineral inclusions of this group include micritic limestone, iron-rich mudstone, chert, quartz, muscovite, and clinopyroxene. This fabric matches well with the VT fabric at Gurga Chiya, though the samples from Gird-i Shamlu are a darker colour possibly due to different firing, or utilization of different (though similar) clay sources. There is a higher concentration of Micritic Limestone within these samples, and they are very similar to the MLC h Fabric here at Gird-i Shamlu. The main difference with this group is the dominance of vegetal matter. Firing conditions vary

76

Michael P. Lewis

Figure 4.5. Petro­graphic Groups assigned to the 31 sherds from Gird-i Shamlu (© M. Lewis).

within the group, with some samples showing darkened cores and some showing complete oxidization throughout the thin section.

Petro­graphic Group 6: Calcite and Micritic Limestone (CML) Fabric A minor petro-group identified at Gird-i Shamlu with only 2 identified samples (6% of the sampled sherds). Both samples contain darkened cores and are similar to the other groups at Gird-i Shamlu, though with rounded, naturally occurring calcite within their matrices.

Gurga Chiya The 91 sampled sherds from Gurga Chiya can be divided into five petro-groups (Fig. 4.8: e–i) which correspond to those previously assigned to phase GC-1B (Lewis et al. 2020) and were replicated within the current study. As with the thin sections from Gird-i Shamlu, the VT fabric was again the dominant fabric group (54%, n = 49) of Phase GC1A, 1B, 1C, and 1D. The remaining petro-groups all feature very similar mineral inclusions, though in varying quantities, which allows for separation into the remaining petro-groups. Only the CT Fabric features the clear and deliberate addition of mineral temper to the fabric, and is represented by 11% of the total assemblage (n = 10).

Petro­graphic Fabric 1: Micritic Limestone (ML) Fabric This petro-group is relatively common at Gurga Chiya throughout all the phases, with a combined average of 25% of the total sampled sherds (n = 23) across all phases. It is characterized by the presence of equant, sub rounded to rounded micritic limestone inclusions within a highly calcareous clay matrix. Petro­graphic

studies of LC  4 pottery from Tell Rubeidheh noted a similar petro-group, with difficulty in ascertaining if this represented naturally sandy clays, or the deliberate addition of mineral temper (Mynors 1988, 54). Other mineral inclusions include bioclasts of fossilized marine invertebrates, biotite, chert, radiolarian chert, muscovite, and olivine. A mid orange-brown to grey-brown fabric throughout the samples indicates that firing was in an oxidizing atmosphere, though there are some samples which do show a darkened core, indicative of incomplete firing. Clay matrix is optically inactive.

Petro­graphic Fabric 2: Chert (C) Fabric A minor petro-group with only three samples noted, and only within phase GC-1B, this fabric features naturally occurring micritic limestone alongside frequent chert. Additional mineral inclusions include calcite and quartz, with uncommon-rare mudstone, radiolarian chert, muscovite, biotite, polycrystalline quartz, and clinopyroxene. A mid-grey brown to dark-grey brown coloured, calcareous matrix characterizes this fabric group, with a largely heterogeneous coloured matrix throughout, though some core-margin differentiation is observed, suggesting firing in an oxidizing environment. Very slight optical activity/​ optically inactive clay matrix suggests a moderate firing temperature for the group.

Petro­graphic Fabric 3: Micritic Limestone and Chert (MLC h) Fabric A relatively small petro­graphic group containing 7% of the total analysed sherds from Gurga Chiya, this group features a large amount of micritic limestone, alongside iron-rich mudstone and chert. Other minerals within the fabric group include calcite, biotite, quartz, radio-

4. The ‘Uruk Conundrum’ in the Shahrizor, Iraqi-Kurdistan

Figure 4.6. Graph depicting the Petro­graphic Groups assigned to the 91 sherds from Gurga Chiya (© M. Lewis).

77

larian chert, and muscovite. The MLC fabric largely consists of a highly calcareous, optically inactive clay matrix, coloured mid to dark brown.

Petro­graphic Group 4: Calcite Tempered (CT) Fabric The CT fabric (11% of sampled sherds from Gurga Chiya, n  = 10) is the sole example of a petro-group with the clear, deliberate addition of mineral temper. The bimodal grain size of the calcite and its angularity strongly supports its deliberate addition by the potters as mineral temper. This is further highlighted by the correlation between this fabric group and the closed jars interpreted as cooking pots. A  reducing firing atmosphere is argued for most of the samples, though two samples show firing in an oxidizing atmosphere.

Petro­graphic Group 5: Vegetal Tempered (VT) Fabric

Figure 4.7. Stacked column chart showing the Petro­ graphic Groupings assigned to different phases of the LC 4 at Gurga Chiya. GC1A is the most recent (latest) LC 4 Phase, with GC1D the oldest (© M. Lewis).

The VT fabric is the dominant petro-group of all phases at Gurga Chiya, at 54% of the total dataset (n = 49). This fabric group contains relatively few mineral inclusions and is instead characterized by the presence of vegetal temper, indicated by the elongated voids seen in thin section of many samples of the petro-group. Micritic limestone is noted with other much smaller mineral inclusions, including quartz, calcite, olivine, muscovite, and biotite in very low quantities, resulting in a very fine paste. As with all other petro-groups from Gurga Chiya, the matrix is highly calcareous, and only minor optical activity is noted. 11 samples (44%) show a very clear core-margin colour differentiation, with notably darker black-brown cores and pale-yellow brown mar-

78

Michael P. Lewis

Figure 4.8. Representative photomicro­graphs of Petro­graphic Groups from Gird-i Shamlu (Figure 4.8:a-d) and Gurga Chiya (Figure 4.8:e-i): a. Micritic Limestone and Chert (MLC h) Fabric; 164036.5. b. Calcite Tempered (CT) Fabric; 164036.12. c. Vegetal Tempered with Micritic Limestone (VTML) Fabric; 164036.1. d. Calcite and Micritic Limestone (CML) Fabric; 164036.8. e. Micritic Limestone (ML) Fabric; 1530.748. f. Chert Fabric; 304.1100. g. Micritic Limestone and Chert (MLC h) Fabric; 1564.1960. h. Calcite-Tempered (CT) Fabric; 1564.1903. i. 1.4. Vegetal-Tempered (VT) Fabric; 1529.874. All images taken with crossed polars (XP). Image width of all photomicro­graphs = 5.0 mm (© M. Lewis).

gins. The rest of the samples of the VT fabric are the same colour (pale yellow-brown) throughout, though some have a very slightly darker core.

Petro­graphic Comparisons

There are several correlations when we compare petrogroups alongside macroscopic classification of the analysed sherds. At Gird-i Shamlu, the BRBs and Cream(Slipped) Ware all correspond with the VTML petrogroup. The Red-(Slipped) Ware also corresponds almost exclusively with this petro-group, though with a small number of exceptions. Finally, all the CT Fabric thin sections correspond with the Grey-(Burnished) Ware, which is also formed from the VTML petro-group. These correlations are interesting and will be discussed fur-

ther below, however the dominance of the VTML Fabric (75% of the entire sample) must be considered alongside these correlations. Excluding BRBs, the petro-fabrics do not correspond well with specific pottery forms, nor do ceramic forms show any correlation with petro­graphic groupings.

Correlations may also be observed at Gurga Chiya. BRBs here again correlate very well with the VT Fabric, though with a small number of exceptions which fall under the ML Fabric. However, analysing this data by different phases, a clear pattern emerges: BRBs from GC-1D, the earliest LC  phase at Gurga Chiya, feature BRBs in three different petro-groups with two samples of each (ML, MLC h, and VT petro-groups). However, GC-1B, which features the Uruk (-related) pottery deposit, as well as GC-1A immediately following this,

4. The ‘Uruk Conundrum’ in the Shahrizor, Iraqi-Kurdistan features BRBs manufactured entirely and exclusively from the VT petro-group.

Both the Fine Brown and Cream-(Slipped) Ware are confined almost exclusively to the Uruk (-related) pottery deposit of GC-1B: the Cream-(Slipped) Ware corresponds almost exclusively to the ML Fabric, whilst the Fine Brown Fabric corresponds with the VT Fabric; the Red-(Slipped) Ware is split almost evenly between the ML and VT Fabric; Grey-(Burnished) Ware sherds show a distinct lack of correlation with any specific petrogroup, though many of these were sampled from GC-1B. However, when analysing the Grey-(Burnished) Ware sherds by phase at Gurga Chiya, another pattern is apparent: The everted-rim jars from the earliest phase (GC-1D) at Gurga Chiya all correlate exclusively with the CT Fabric. Within GC-1B however, this pattern is reversed, and the everted-rim jars are manufactured from four distinct petro-groups; the C, MLC h, CT, and VT fabrics.

Petro­graphic Conclusions

The analysed ceramics from Gird-i Shamlu can be divided into four petro-groups whilst samples from Gurga Chiya can be separated into five. Petro-groups from both sites are characterized by a calcareous clay matrix, featuring common micritic limestone inclusions as well as calcite and chert. All the mineral inclusions within the samples of this dataset are found within the geo­logical formations surrounding the Shahrizor (Fig. 4.2). As such, previous arguments that local clay sources were exploited in the manufacture of the vessels have been reinforced, with the geo­logical sampling carried out further lending support to this (Lewis et al. 2020). Secondary deposited clay sources were exploited by the potters of Gird-i Shamlu and Gurga Chiya owing to the dominant mineral inclusions within the archaeo­ logical thin sections of micritic limestone and chert, which are noted amongst the principal rock types surrounding the Shahrizor (Ali 2007, 73). Owing to the location of both Gird-i Shamlu and Gurga Chiya on, and indeed surrounded by, the same geo­logical formations of the Shahrizor (Fig. 4.2), it is not surprising that there exists a remarkable degree of similarity when comparing petro­graphic thin sections from both sites, both in mineral inclusions and in clay matrix. The similarity of the petro-groups at Gurga Chiya observed previously extends to all phases of the sampled LC strata. There is no evidence of any imported or traded ceramics identi-

79

fied at Gird-i Shamlu or Gurga Chiya, which is consistent with the results of extensive INAA analysis of contemporary LC pottery from across Mesopotamia (Minc & Emberling 2016) whereby local manufacture of pottery was shown to be the norm. Analysing the change in petro-groups across the phases at Gurga Chiya, a pattern demonstrating consistency emerges. Despite the very few samples from phase GC-1C, even this phase presents similar petro­graphic correlations with the other phases at Gurga Chiya. Within all phases, and at Girdi-i Shamlu, the VTML/​VT group dominates the sample. At Gurga Chiya this petrogroup makes up 54% of the total assemblage whereas at Gird-i Shamlu, it represents 74% of the assemblage.

Nevertheless, there are several subtle differences between the samples from the two sites: One such intrasite difference is the clay matrix. The fabric of the analysed sherds from Gird-i Shamlu is a noticeably different colour to those from Gurga Chiya, with a dark red-brown common at Gird-i Shamlu and a much lighter pale yellow-brown matrix the norm for samples at Gurga Chiya. It is possible that this represents geo­logical variation in the Shahrizor alluvium, or, more likely it could represent different firing practices. The ML petro-group is not found at Gird-i Shamlu, so it is representative of a site-specific clay source exploited by the potting community at Gurga Chiya, where it is found in relatively consistent quantities throughout the phases.

Phase GC-1B was seen initially as a benchmark for the data collected from Gurga Chiya. Yet, the variation seen in the quantities and percentages of many of the petro-groups may be explained by the context itself. Whereas other phases featured multiple contexts sampled for this study, Phase 1B was sampled as a single context featuring a dense deposit of pottery vessels, and thus, variations between contexts could cause the variations in petro-groups for this phase. It would also explain why the CG petro-group is only observed within this phase, not in any other phases, and is site-specific to Gurga Chiya, and representative of the exploitation of a specific clay source only briefly available.

Ceramic Production and the Chaîne Opératoire

The term chaîne opératoire was defined by Leroi-Gourhan (1964) as a series of technical gestures which describe the process of transforming raw materials into a finished product (Creswell 1976, 13). These chaînes constitute culturally specific building blocks with a close rela-

80 tionship between techno­logical behaviour, social practices and identity (Lemonnier 1993; Roux 2016; Stark 1998a). The motor-skills needed to carry out this transformation are developed by the apprentice throughout the apprenticeship, learning through mimicking the actions of the master (Wendrich 2012). By the end of the apprenticeship, through innumerable repetitions, the motor-skills to manufacture the finished products are assimilated as embodied knowledge by the apprentice (Gosselain 1998; Roux 2016). This inherited technical knowledge can be traced through genealogical traditions (Gosselain 1998; Roux 2016; Stark 2003, 212) and is less vulnerable to change, and thus more suggestive of socio-cultural identity. Transmission of the chaînes opératoire(s) and continued pottery manufacture implies the transmission of memories, cultural values, and ideo­ logies of a specific community: a community of practice (Lave & Wenger 1991; Wenger 1998). Conversely, any sudden modifications to the status quo of the chaîne opératoire are the material expression of changing factors which affect the social groups involved in the operational sequence.

Raw Material Selection All petro-groups from Gird-i Shamlu and Gurga Chiya feature the same secondary deposited calcareous clay, though the multiple petro-groups are indicative of different recipe traditions and slight variations, and show that multiple similar clay sources were exploited from the immediate vicinity of both sites. Proximity to available clay sources is a crucial characteristic of the chaîne opératoire. Dean Arnold (1985, 35) highlights an ‘exploitable territory’: a restricted range which would have been utilized by the potters, with 37% utilizing clay sources within 1 km of the production locale (Arnold 2006, 5). Such a restricted radius has previously been confirmed for phase GC-1B Gurga Chiya, with potters utilizing secondary deposited, calcareous clay deposits from the Shahrizor alluvium, located close to the site (Lewis et al. 2020). Given the similarity of sherds from other Gurga Chiya phases within this study, this finding can be extrapolated to these also, and it is likely that a similar scenario was replicated at Gird-i Shamlu.

Based on ethno­graphic accounts, clay extraction and processing are often shown as highly variable both regionally, between sites, and even between families within each settlement (Gosselain 2011, 216). Iris Köhler (2017, 194) highlights the potters of Sangopari, Côte d’Ivoire, who exploit four different clay sources depend-

Michael P. Lewis ing on its availability, the effort involved in its extraction, and the time of year. All clay sources are however located within the immediate vicinity of their village. Similar variability of clay sources is highlighted by Ingrid Herbich & Michael Dietler (1991, 116) whereby certain clay sources show considerable longevity of exploitation, whilst others are newly exploited. Explanations for this variation may include control of sources by specific individuals or lineages of potters, the exhaustion or limited availability of specific sources (Herbich & Dietler 1991, 114–15), or shifting socio-political boundaries or kin-based competition amongst potters (Köhler 2017, 194). Vegetal temper dominates the assemblage of both sites, and in all phases. Tempering ingredients tend to exceed several hundred kilometres (Gosselain 2011, 216), and in this case the commonality of the vegetal temper clearly situates Gurga Chiya and Gird-i Shamlu within the remit of the Chaff Faced Ware (CFW) Horizon, demonstrative of the general coalescing of ceramic regions of northern Mesopotamia (see Marro 2012a and chapters therein; Baldi 2016a). Yet whilst the combination of specific ingredients and temper choice may extend over a wide region, as highlighted by the inclusion of the Gird-i Shamlu and Gurga Chiya ceramics within the CFW horizon, these variants primarily appear within smaller, more regionalized realms such as individual villages or even between different families (Gosselain 2011, 216). The CML fabric found exclusively at Gird-i Shamlu typifies one such example of this highly localized tradition.

The continuation of the VT as the dominant temper choice during phase GC-1B shows that, despite their different manufacturing traditions for specific vessels, the potters were still a part of the broader CFW tradition, and maintained this practice within phase GC-1B.

Raw Material Preparation Levigation or sieving is inferred owing to the absence of large (>3.0 mm) mineral inclusions from many thin sections, however this was not a thorough process as numerous thin sections do contain relatively large mineral clasts (2.0–3.0 mm). Vegetal matter added to the clay mixture is a common feature of the petro-groups within the study. The thin sections often show elongated voids, evidence of burnt-out vegetal matter, and in some cases the carbonized remains of the vegetal matter. The clear addition of deliberate mineral temper is noted only with the CT petro-group used exclusively for cooking pots, and is typical of deliberate tempering owing to

4. The ‘Uruk Conundrum’ in the Shahrizor, Iraqi-Kurdistan the highly angular calcite inclusions, compared to other aplastic inclusions which are rounded‒sub-rounded. The calcite would have been obtained directly from calcite veins in the mountains and from geo­logical formations surrounding the Shahrizor, around 7 km from either Gird-i Shamlu or Gurga Chiya.

The use of calcite within these Grey Ware cooking pots was a deliberate act, yet featured numerous technical problems inherent in the combined use of calcite temper alongside calcareous clays. Though calcite temper can be difficult, or even prove disastrous, at high temperature firings (Maniatis & Tite 1981; Hoard et al. 1995), inclusion of calcite temper both increased workability of the clay paste and presented ‘similar thermal expansivity to the clay, which aids crack propagation arrest’ (Kilikoglou et al. 1998). Low temperature firings (