268
Made by Martin Sauvage
Adapted by Olivier Nieuwenhuyse
0 100 km50
N
Metres
3000
2000
1500
1000
500
200
100
0
MEDITERRANEAN
Z
AG
R
O
S
TAURU S
Archaeological site Modern city
Iraq
Syria
Turkey
Baghdad
Damascus
Aleppo
Mosul
Raqqa Kirkuk
14
10
2 3 4
5
6
13
15
18
19 20 21
22
23
24
25
26
17
27
33
28
2930
31
32
7
1
9
8
11
12
16
- Fig. 1: Map of northern Mesopotamia, showing the location of major Late Neolithic sites and the
location of the Tell Beydar survey area (shaded). 1: Tell Beydar. 2: Tell Halaf. 3: Tell Aqab.
4: Chagar Bazar. 5: Tell Brak. 6: Tell Boueid II.7: Umm Qseir. 8: Seker al-Aheimar. 9: Hammoukar.
10: Tell Sabi Abyad. 11: Khirbet es-Shenef. 12: Tell Mounbatah. 13: Tell Halula. 14: Shams ed-Din.
15: Tell Masaikh. 16: Tell Baghouz. 17: Tell el-Kerkh. 18: Khirbet Garsour. 19: NJP-72. 20: Yarim Tepe.
21: Nineveh. 22: Tell Arpachiyah. 23: Umm Dabaghiyah. 24: Tell Hassuna. 25: Tell Samarra.
26: Tell es-Sawwan. 27: Domuz Tepe. 28: Hakemi Use. 29: Kazane Höyük. 30: Fıstıklı Höyuk.
31: Mezraa Teleilat. 32: Akarcay. 33: Salat Cami Yanı.
269
Late Neolithic Settlement in the Area of Tell Beydar (NE Syria)
Olivier P. Nieuwenhuyse and Tony J. Wilkinson
1. Introduction
The past two decades or so have seen significant progress in our understanding of the early to mid Holocene
cultural landscape of Upper Mesopotamia. The rolling steppe between the two major river valleys of the
Tigris and the Euphrates, known in Arabic as the Jazira (or “island”), have been subjected to an increasing
number of regional surveys (Wilkinson 2000a). Indeed, it might appear that virtually the entire Jazira has
been intensely surveyed by now (Wilkinson 2000a: fig. 1). This new wave of work shows that during the
Late Neolithic, ca. 6900-5300 cal. BC, the region was far from empty. Nor does human use of the landscape
appear to have been static: the present evidence makes it clear that significant changes occurred during the
Late Neolithic in terms of site location, density, and organization. Ultimately this laid the foundation for
the development of complex societies in the fourth millennium BC; the nature of Late Neolithic settlement,
however, remains much debated. This paper aims to offer a contribution to this developing field by
investigating Late Neolithic patterns of settlement in the area of Tell Beydar, a major Early Bronze Age site
situated in the southern parts of the Upper Khabur headwaters, northeastern Syria.1
The new wave of work has also highlighted a range of problematic methodological and interpretative
issues. These include the still rather common practice of lumping: in many surveys the long Late Neolithic
period is still being considered as a single, undifferentiated block, thereby neglecting potential evidence of real
change within this period. In contrast, archaeological excavations now make it possible to subdivide this long
period more clearly than before. To some extent these chronological distinctions can also be applied to material
collected from unstratified contexts such as surveys. Indeed, a number of survey projects have recently
begun to do so (Akkermans 1993, Campbell 1992, Erdalkıran in press, Kozbe 2006, in prep, LeMière 2000,
Lupton 1996, based upon Wilkinson and Tucker 1995, Matsutani 1991, Nieuwenhuyse 2000, Oates 2005,
Rova, pers. comm. March 2007, Ur, pers. comm. March 2007, Weiss 1997). The insights and questions arising
from these studies form the background that led to this study. A related concern is the generally poor discussion
in many survey reports of the material evidence that ultimately forms the foundation on which any settlement
reconstruction rests. The empirical base is often not shown at all, or summarized to the extent that only
the most typical key fossils are made public, usually the ones that confirm the researcher’s interpretations. This
hinders the possibility of evaluating the conclusions presented, or to come to an alternative view.
In this report we shall be concerned with, specifically, a reconstruction of Late Neolithic settlement as
documented within a rather limited area: a twelve km radius around Tell Beydar (Fig. 1). After discussing
current insights and some interpretative problems regarding Late Neolithic patterns of settlement, and following
a brief presentation of the Tell Beydar survey and of the Khabur landscape, the Late Neolithic
ceramic evidence from the Tell Beydar survey is presented. On the basis of this material, the Late Neolithic
sites detected in the Tell Beydar survey are provisionally dated to specific stages in the Late Neolithic. We
then describe some of the patterns of human settlement that the data suggest. We conclude with placing
these observations within the wider framework of prehistoric settlement of Upper Mesopotamia.
2. Surveying the Late Neolithic in the Khabur headwaters
Before presenting the results from the Beydar area, it may be useful to briefly discuss how this study falls
within a larger framework of recent work on Late Neolithic settlement. Mallowan perhaps deserves credit
for being the first scholar to systematically look for evidence of Late Neolithic occupation in the Khabur
headwaters (Mallowan 1936).2
More concerted efforts to reconstruct Late Neolithic settlement began in
the 1970’s and subsequently (Davidson 1977, Davidson and McKerrel 1976, Eidem and Warburton 1996,
Eichler and Wäfler 1985, Hole 2000, Meijer 1986, D. Oates 1977). These led to the discovery of numerous
1
We wish to thank the two directors of the ECUMS/DGAM excavations at Tell Beydar, Marc Lebeau and Antoine
Suleiman, for their support in making this study possible. Phillip Karsgaard constructively commented upon our discussion
of the Halaf-Ubaid Transitional stage. The material discussed here was collected by Tony Wilkinson and Jason
Ur; Jason Ur discussed the latest insights regarding his Working Ceramic Typology, and kindly made available the site
distribution maps presented here.
2
The excavators of Tell Halaf, in contrast, were largely interested in the Iron Age monumental structures found at the
site. The discovery of magnificently painted ceramics in the lower strata was an entirely unexpected by-product of their
excavations (Von Oppenheim and Schmidt 1943).
Subartu XXI
270
Halaf sites (and the excavation of some of them), and led Davidson to suggest that during the Halaf period
population numbers in the Khabur headwaters reached similar levels as today (Davidson 1977: 87).
However, these teams generally did not sub divide the Halaf period, with the result that they tended to overestimate
population levels. In addition, they did not find strong evidence of occupation prior to the Halaf.3
A Japanese team set out to discover earlier sites, and in fact found them (Matsutani 1991: 4-5), but did not
report the survey evidence in any detail.
The long Khabur valley meandering southwards from Hassake has been surveyed intensively, too, as
part of archaeological salvage projects (Kühne 1977, 1978, Monchambert 1984). This yielded virtually no
Late Neolithic sites. The only ones known so far have both been excavated: the Halaf site at Tell Umm
Qseir (Hole and Johnson 1987, Tsuneki and Miyake, eds., 1998), and the Proto-Halaf site at Tell Boueid II
(Suleiman 1995, 2002, Suleiman and Nieuwenhuyse, eds., 2002). To the east of the Khabur basin, surveying
in the Agig area yielded a single Late Neolithic site at Burqoliya (Bernbeck 1993). Although these studies
clearly show that the southern parts were not entirely deserted in the Late Neolithic, they also suggest that
they were marginal in comparison with the Upper Khabur headwaters. This is further suggested by studies
that show that in Halaf times south of the Khabur both flora and fauna were still more diverse and richer
than farther to the north in the Upper Khabur headwaters, indicating less degraded conditions caused by
human presence (McCorriston 1992, 1998). Tell Beydar is located some thirty-five km north of Hassake,
close to the present-day limits for rain-fed agriculture. As we shall discuss below, this climatically “marginal”
location had repercussions for patterns of settlement during the Late Neolithic.
The prospection project led by Bertille Lyonnet in 1989-1991 aimed at building up a picture of broad
trends in settlement across much of the Khabur basin (Lyonnet 1990, 1992, 2000). The area covered,
roughly triangular in shape, was huge: from Ras el-Ain in the northwest to Qamishly in the northeast,
and to Hassake in the south (Fig. 2). The survey focused on the larger, relatively prominent mounds. It
was estimated that the area incorporated a total of about 300 archaeological mounds, of which sixty-three
were selected for sampling. This represented an estimated one-fifth of all mounds present in the Khabur
headwaters (Lyonnet 2000: 12). Importantly, selected sites were evenly distributed over the area, covering
territory both north and south of the approximate limit for dry farming agriculture. Selected sites were systematically
and intensively surface-sampled for ceramics (Lyonnet 2000: 13). In addition to the main body
of work, a more extensive exploration by Yoshihiro Nishiaki in 1990 and 1991 in the western part of the
Upper Khabur triangle led to the discovery of several additional sites (Nishiaki 1992, 2000). Subsequently,
various specialists looked after the material collected.4
The Late Neolithic period was well represented in this survey (Fig. 2). Over half of all selected sites
(forty out of sixty-three) yielded Halaf pottery (Nieuwenhuyse 2000). The majority of these could be
dated to the later part of the Halaf period (for a discussion of Late Neolithic chronology, see below). The
earlier, Pre-Halaf occupation – termed Proto-Hassuna – was much less represented, with only six sites
(LeMière 2000). These observations might suggest that there was a progressive increase in site densities
and, perhaps, population numbers from the earlier stages of the Pottery Neolithic into the Late Halaf period
(Nieuwenhuyse 2000: 180). Climatic and ecological factors were shown to have played a major role in
settlement location preferences. Most sites were found north of the present-day 220 mm rainfall isohyet,
well within the area where reliable agriculture is possible without irrigation. Further, two significant diachronic
trends were observed. First, a southward “expansion” of sedentary (or semi-sedentary) settlement
occurred during the later part of the Halaf period. Second, whereas during the Proto-Hassuna and Early
Halaf periods there was minimal formal differentiation between sites in terms of their size, a clear ranking
became apparent during the later stages of the Halaf period. Late Neolithic sites generally were small,
to very small, rarely surpassing one or two hectares in area. During the later Halaf, however, some grew
conspicuously. One site in particular, KS 70 or Tell Nisibis, rose to major importance, reaching perhaps
a surface of over fifteen ha during the later Halaf (Nieuwenhuyse 2000: 183-191). Similar or closely comparable
trends were observed elsewhere, in the Balikh valley (Akkermans 1993) and in the northeastern
Iraqi Jazira (Campbell 1992, Wilkinson and Tucker 1995). This led Nieuwenhuyse (2000: 194) to suggest
that the Late Halaf in the Khabur was a period of increased socio-economic differentiation and, perhaps,
increased social hierarchies.
Whereas Lyonnet’s project showed broad patterns of cultural change over a broad area, it was not
designed to tackle trends in smaller, rural settlements. Consequently, the study left a number of issues unresolved.
First, it was difficult to come to reliable estimates of Late Neolithic site densities (Nieuwenhuyse
3
Nor did they systematically discuss the ceramic evidence they collected. The major exception is the University of
Amsterdam survey by Diederik Meijer, the rapid publication of which did include a discussion of Halaf settlement as
well as of the finds on which the reconstruction was based (Meijer 1986).
4
Among the aims of the Lyonnet Khabur survey is to store the collected finds in such a manner that it remains accessible
for other specialists (Lyonnet 2000).
Beydar Studies 1
271
2000: 181). Estimates of Halaf settlement densities in Upper Mesopotamia vary enormously, from as high
as about seven square km per site to twenty square km per site or more (Akkermans 1993: 188, Campbell
1992: 110-111, Davidson 1977: 302, Hijara 1980: 244, J. Oates 1980). Evidently, prehistoric site densities
can be expected to vary significantly through time and space, as the result of a wide variety of factors.
Perhaps we should not place too much weight upon such coarse statistics. Nevertheless, it is clear that in
order to gain better insights in Late Neolithic social organization and long-term trends in settlement development
we should at least have a robust, if rough, understanding of site densities. Here the more intensive
survey techniques employed in the Tell Beydar survey provides a useful complement to the large area coverage
of the Lyonnet survey. Further, the emphasis of the Lyonnet survey on relatively large, nucleated tells
potentially led to the neglect of small mounds (Lyonnet 2000: 16). As Neolithic mounds tend to be small,
and are often barely visible unless from a close distance, they are easily missed in mound-oriented surveys.
In the Lyonnet survey itself, this was borne out by the quick discovery of several additional prehistoric sites
by Nishiaki, discovered by focussing on small mounds (Nishiaki 2000). It was considered worthwhile to
study the Late Neolithic evidence from a geographically limited, well-surveyed area within the territory
covered by the Lyonnet survey, to serve as a comparison and supplement.
A team from the Oriental Institute, University of Chicago, conducted the Tell Beydar survey during two
field seasons of approximately one month duration during the late summers of 1997 and 1998. The objective
of the survey was to provide a broad overview of settlement, landscape and environmental change
within twelve km radius of Tell Beydar. The emphasis was initially upon the smaller sites in the region, as
well as landscape features between those sites and any visible geoarchaeological sections, especially those
exposed in wadi sections and machine cuts. Although a minibus was employed for site visits and reconnaissance,
the team also spent a significant amount of time on foot, walking across fields, between sites and
along wadis. However no formal off-site samples or transects were conducted, except right at the end of
the 1998 field season. During the 1998 field season, the objectives were broadened to include the survey of
tells. This entailed the field team splitting up into two groups: the first, led by Tony Wilkinson, continuing
the landscape, geoarchaeology and small site survey, and a second, led by Jason Ur, sampling the main
framework of tells (Fig. 3).
metres
0
500
1000
1500
MartinSauvage
N
0 10 50 km.
J. Abd el-Aziz J. SinjarI
R
A Q
T
RU
K E
Y
Khabur
Radd
Djagh-Djagh
Dara
Djirjib
Zerkan
Aaoueij
Kaukab
Ras el-Ain
Hassake
Derbassiye
Qamishly
Amuda
outside of the Upper Khabur
Excavated or surveyed Halaf site
Survey
Survey site without Halaf pottery
Modern town
Survey site with Halaf pottery
Trench
39
38
127
Umm Qseir
Ziyada
B
Kashkashok
Chagar
Bazar
132
133
Aqab
Brak
Khazna
1
A
Tell Halaf
40 58
15
14
60
59
41
31
33
16
51
52 28
18
27
26
24
25
32
6
7
23
19
20
22
215
4
46
10
11
8
9
12
13
23
48
63
47
50
61
49
353617
37
29
30
53
55
45
57
56
4334
70
5442
44
130
Tell Boueid II
- Fig. 2: Map of the Upper Khabur headwaters showing the locations of Late Neolithic sites
detected in the Lyonnet survey and the area of the Tell Beydar survey (shaded).
Subartu XXI
272
- Fig. 3: Map of the Tell Beydar area showing the locations of Late Neolithic sites
detected in the Tell Beydar survey, including Tell Khazna).
Beydar Studies 1
273
As a result of this dual strategy, the team was able to provide a good sample of both smaller and larger
sites. This is particularly important for providing a record of earlier prehistoric sites, because as was demonstrated
during the first preliminary report (Wilkinson 2000b) a significant number of prehistoric occupations
occurred in the form of small sites. However, our sample provides what is little more than a sample of sites,
and later checking of Corona satellite images has indicated that some smaller sites were probably missed by
the field team, thus these images provide some degree of control on the overall efficiency of the survey. The
Tell Beydar survey therefore provides an interesting contrast with, and supplement to, the Lyonnet survey,
which put a stronger focus upon tells and sampled tells across a much larger area. A number of sites within
the Tell Beydar survey area were also part of the Lyonnet survey. This includes Tell Beydar itself (TBS 1,
KS 15) (see appendix).5
The excavated site of Tell Khazna fell just within the survey limit (Munchaev and
Merpert 1994); Tell Kashkashok II (Matsutani 1991) lies south of it.
3. The physical context
The physical geography of the Tell Beydar survey has already been described (Wilkinson 2000b and Ur
and Wilkinson this volume), and here it is only necessary to summarize that the western part of the area
was dominated by a low basalt plateau, covered by thin soils. Tells are virtually absent from this area, but
occasional smaller sites were found around the edges and occasionally on the plateau surface. In addition
one incidence of Halaf pottery has been reported by Louis Van Berghe, together with a wealth of rock
art and a scatter of Iron Age and later sites (Van Berg: Kisham web site,6
Van Berg and Picalause 2003).
The majority of the Neolithic sites were recorded along the valley of the Wadi Aweidj and its tributaries,
and it appears that these lowlands, as well as some of the low western interfluves, formed the predominant
locus of prehistoric settlement. In contrast, the basalt plateau may well have supplied a valuable pastural
reserve for mobile groups for all periods. However, because a number of Neolithic and Halaf sites were
found along the wadi courses and within the flood plain, both of which were prone to movement over time,
it is reasonable to assume that some early occupations have been buried by later sediments. The figures
given here must therefore be taken to represent a minimum.
4. Late Neolithic chronology
A brief discussion of Late Neolithic chronology may be useful, to serve as the backbone for the presentation
in this report. Late Neolithic chronologies in Upper Mesopotamia are notorious for their terminological
complexity and lack of secure dating. Although in recent years significant progress has been made
(Akkermans and Schwartz 2003: 12-13, 102, Cruells 2006b, Cruells et al. 2006), an extended discussion is
beyond the scope of this report. Recent fieldwork has led to a proliferation of chronological subdivisions and
new terminology for the later Neolithic. One major trend has been the emergence of regional chronologies,
that seek to compensate for the inadequacies of over-generalizing, pan-Mesopotamian schemes (Table 1).
In theory, the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia may now be subdivided into no less than eight successive
stages, each phase defined on the basis of stratified, carefully dated excavated contexts (Table 1).
In practice, of course, prehistoric material collected in surveys is much less chronologically sensitive.
In the absence of significant standardization in prehistoric pottery production, there are often few
clear ceramic types to begin with. Most Late Neolithic ceramic indices, moreover, appear to have had terribly
long life spans. Even with well-stratified excavated sequences, Late Neolithic chronological distinctions
remain notoriously difficult. Often they are based on gradual trends in ceramic statistics, leading to
“fuzzy” temporal boundaries that cannot be applied at all to unstratified material. Examples of problematic
chronological boundaries include the Middle Halaf to Late Halaf transition (Campbell 1992, Watkins and
Campbell 1987), the Halaf to Ubaid transition (Breniquet 1996), the transition from the earliest Halaf as
documented at Tell Sabi Abyad and other sites to the traditional Early Halaf of Tell Arpachiyah (Akkermans
1993, Cruells and Nieuwenhuyse 2005) and, most recently, from the earliest stages of the Late Neolithic
to the Proto-Hassuna (Nishiaki and LeMière 2005). It might be surmised that for the Halaf period at least
chronological sub divisions ought to be based on decorative style. Most of the surface sherds recovered in
a survey, however, are too fragmented to show the original design structure, and often so eroded that even
basic design elements such as design motifs cannot be read.
5
Sites within 12 km of Beydar surveyed by Lyonnet and team were as follows (TKS numbers refer to the Lyonnet Khabur
survey; BS numbers refer to the Tell Beydar survey):, Tell Jamilo (KS 14, TBS 59), Tell Beydar (KS 15, TBS 1), Tell
Khatoun (KS 16, visited, surveyed by J. Ur 1998), Tell Effendi (KS 17, TBS 55), Tell Hassek (KS 28, TBS 43), KS 51
(TBS 63) and KS 52 (Tell Khazna II, TBS 66, the small site west of TBS 65). Of these, four are Late Neolithic: Tell Beydar
itself (TBS 1, surveyed by Lyonnet as KS 15), TBS 63 (KS 51), Tell Khazna II (KS 52, TBS 66) and Tell Jamilo (TBS 59E,
surveyed by Lyonnet as KS 14). Tell Ain al-Abd (KS 13, dated “Halaf general” in the Lyonnet survey) was just outside the
12 km limit.
6
http://dev.ulb.ac.be/crea/AccueilFrancais.php?page=Kisham.
Subartu XXI
274
Here we shall follow Stuart Campbell’s (1992) pragmatic solution for some of these problems, to divide
the Halaf period into two broad periods only, termed Halaf I and Halaf II. Following the Halaf proper
we must postulate the enigmatic Halaf-Ubaid-Transitional (HUT) (Breniquet 1987, 1996, Nieuwenhuyse
2000: 189-191). A relatively short-lived “Transitional” period between the Proto-Hassuna and Early Halaf,
alternatively known as the “Proto-Halaf” stage (Cruells and Nieuwenhuyse 2005), is currently excavated
in the Khabur basin at Tell Chagar Bazar (Cruells 2006b, Tunca and Baghdo, eds., 2006 ), and shall therefore
be distinguished here as well. Following the recent excavations at Tell Seker al-Aheimar (Nishiaki and
LeMière 2005), the earliest stage of the Late Neolithic shall be termed Pre-Proto-Hassuna.
It is important to appreciate that these chronological stages, distinguished virtually entirely on the basis
of changes in the ceramics, are of very uneven lengths. This leads to what is termed the contemporaneity
problem (Pollock 1999: 63, Schacht 1984). Because of the developing chronological framework, no
attempt will be made here to compensate for these differences in the length of chronological periods (e.g.
Dewar 1991), but the reader should be aware that the number of sites per period should not be assumed to
be precisely equivalent to the number of sites per unit time period.
5. The material evidence
The two seasons of fieldwork yielded a total of 523 sherds attributed to the Late Neolithic period.7
These are
fairly unevenly distributed across sites in terms of sheer sherd frequencies (Table 2). Most Late Neolithic
sites are identified as such by less than a handful of sherds. Only eight sites – less than half of all sites –
yielded more than thirty sherds. This pattern – most Late Neolithic sites represented with a few sherds only
– is mirrored in the Lyonnet survey (Nieuwenhuyse 2000: 183) and in the University of Amsterdam survey
in the Balikh valley (Akkermans 1993).8
As these surveys differ widely in survey methodology, this pattern
7
This does not include material from TBS 63 and TBS 65. For dating these sites we use the data presented by the
Lyonnet survey (Nieuwenhuyse 2000) and by the excavations at TBS 65, Tell Khazna II (Merpert and Munchaev 1994).
8
The Late Neolithic ceramics collected in the Balikh survey have been investigated by Nieuwenhuyse in preparation
of publication.
West Syria Rouj 2a-b Rouj 2c Rouj 2d Rouj 3
Euphrates basin Halula II Halula III Halula IV Halula V Halula VI Halula VII Halula VIII
Balikh valley Balikh IIA Balikh IIC Balikh IIIA Balikh IIIB Balikh IIIC Balikh IIID Balikh IV
Tell Sabi Abyad Operation III Operation I l. 11-8 Operation I l. 7-4 Operation I L. 3-1 Operation II
Upper Khabur Proto-Hassuna Proto-Halaf Halaf Primitif Halaf Intermédiaire Halaf Évolué HUT
Tell Seker al-Aheimar Pre-Proto-Hassuna Proto-Hassuna
Tell Chagar Bazar CB-I CB-II CB-III CB-IV CB-V Tell
Aqab Early Halaf Middle Halaf Late Halaf HUT
Tell Kashkashok II Proto-Hassuna
Tell Halaf “Altmonochrome” “Buntkeramik”
Tell Boueid II
North Iraqi Jazira Hassuna I Hassuna II- III Halaf Ia Halaf Ib Halaf IIa Halaf IIb HUT
NJP 72
Khirbet Garsour
Tell Sotto Proto-Hassuna
Yarim Tepe I Hassuna/Samarra
Yarim Tepe II Early Halaf Middle Halaf Late Halaf
Yarim Tepe III Late Halaf
Tell Hassuna Ia Proto-Hassuna Hassuna/Samarra
Tell Arpachiyah Early Halaf Middle Halaf Late Halaf
Tell Beydar survey: Pre-Proto
Hassuna
Proto-Hassuna
Proto-Halaf
(Transitional)
Halaf I Halaf II HUT
Cal. BC 6900 6300 6100 5950 5850 5700 5550 5300
- Table 1: Chronological framework for the Late Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia (Euphrates basin
and Upper Khabur: after Tunca et al., eds., 2006; Balikh valley: after Akkermans 1993;
North Iraqi Jazira: after Campbell 1992). Shaded areas represent occupation of sites. Bottom line:
chronological terminology used in this report with approximate absolute dates.
Beydar Studies 1
275
SW SW SW SW EMW EMW EGBW DFBW MCW OFW SFW SFW HFW HFW HFW
Site plain slipped applique incised slipped GBW paint
paint-
inc.
paint plain paint
poly-
chr.
Total
1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
4a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
5 29 0 2 0 13 3 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50
7 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5 9 0 15
26 32 5 2 0 2 4 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51
34b 32 0 0 0 2 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40
37 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 3
38 8 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10
40d 12 3 0 1 2 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 19
41d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1
44 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 3 47 0 57
48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 0 4
50a 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
54c 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1
58 7 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 3 19 67 1 96
59e 4 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 25 56 0 89
61 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4 4 0 8
74 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 37 0 38
81 27 0 0 0 4 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35
Total 162 9 4 1 25 10 17 1 2 1 1 4 59 226 1
176 35 17 1 2 1 5 286 523
- Table 3.: Ceramic frequencies from Late Neolithic sites in the Tell Beydar survey
(including TBS 1, collected in the Lyonnet survey).
- Table 2: Late Neolithic sherd count frequencies in the Tell Beydar survey.
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5 10 15 2520 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100
Quantities of Late Neolithic sherds collected
Numberofsites
Subartu XXI
276
may represent a characteristic of the Late Neolithic period rather than depending on sampling strategies.
Late Neolithic sites are identified on the basis of artefact densities often below those characteristic of “field
scatters” in later periods (Wilkinson 1990: 96-94, Wilkinson and Tucker 1995: 20). Possibly these low densities
of Late Neolithic surface material arise from the frequent burial of prehistoric sites below extensive
later occupation, obscuring the earlier periods from view. Alternatively, when not covered, more extensive
soil formation processes may reduce the amounts of material visible at the surface, while low mounds such
as those typical for the Late Neolithic are less prone to develop deep erosion gullies where sherds come to
the surface. Two sites distinguish themselves with relatively large numbers of finds: TBS 58 (99 sherds)
and TBS 59E (Tell Jamillo, 89 sherds). The former was a bulldozed site whereas Late Neolithic occupation
at Tell Jamillo occurred on a low mound to the SE of the main tell (see appendix).
All sherds were classified into ceramic categories and counted (Table 3). Where appropriate, the following
ceramic categories are cross referred to a Working Ceramic Typology developed initially for the
North Jazira Project (Wilkinson and Tucker 1995) and adapted for use in the Hamoukar and Tell Brak
areas by Jason Ur (WCT). Eight Late Neolithic ceramic wares were identified in the Tell Beydar survey. In
roughly chronological order: 1) Standard Ware, 2) Early Mineral Ware, 3) Early Grey-Black Ware, 4) DarkFaced
Burnished Ware, 5) Orange Fine Ware, 6) Mineral Coarse Ware, 7) Standard Fine Ware, and 8) Halaf
Fine Ware.9
For present purposes, a ware constitutes a class of pottery whose members share a broadly
similar technology (Rice 1987: 287). The definition emphasises the chain of operations needed to produce
vessels of a particular type (Lemonnier 1992, Rye 1981, Van As 1984). Form and, in particular, decoration
may subdivide ceramic categories, but are in themselves insufficient to define distinct wares.
1. Standard ware (SW; n = 176, Fig. 5: nos 1-15, Fig. 6: nos 1-14, Fig. 7: nos. 1-12) WCT 124,
Coarse chaff-or-grit-tempered Ware, but including WCT type 2 (husking tray) and WCT type 1
(Hassuna painted ware)
Standard Ware is a broad, heterogeneous category comprising coarsely chaff-tempered or, less often, chaffand-mineral
tempered pottery. This category also includes a rather finely textured fabric containing small
particles of vegetal origin, possibly dung; this fabric is associated with thin-walled, decorated vessels
(LeMière and Nieuwenhuyse 1996: 130-133, LeMière 2001: 183-184, Nieuwenhuyse 2007). Dark cores
are frequent, resulting from firing at low temperatures and during short intervals. Smoothing and burnishing
are frequent surface finishing techniques, but many SW sherds have rough, poorly finished surfaces. Surface
colours are mostly very pale brown (10YR 7/3, 8/3), but vary from pink (7.5YR 7/4) to light grey (10YR
7/2) or light brown (7.5YR 6/4).
The term “Standard Ware” derives from the work at Tell Sabi Abyad (LeMière and Nieuwenhuyse 1996:
129, 147, 184-5), and refers to the circumstance that at many Late Neolithic sites it represents the majority
(“standard”) of the ceramic assemblage. It is also known as “Coarse Ware” or simply “the bulk” (LeMière
2001). SW occurs abundantly across Upper Mesopotamia. Production began quite early in the EPN/PPH, and
continued into the Early Halaf (Davidson 1977, LeMière 2001, LeMière and Nieuwenhuyse 1996, Nishiaki
and LeMière 2005). During its early stages the shapes were simple, and did not yet include carinated contours
or jars with clearly articulated necks (Akkermans et al. 2006). Simple convex-sided bowls and Sshaped
profiles, characteristic for the early stages, were frequent in the Tell Beydar survey (Figs 5: 2-15,
Figs. 6: 2-14). We came across a few husking trays (Figs 7: 1-3). In its early stages, furthermore, decoration
was rare or absent, but in the Proto-Hassuna stage various types of decoration were introduced (Matsutani
1991, Munchaev and Merpert 1994, Nishiaki and LeMière 2005). Attested in the Tell Beydar survey are
a few red-slipped (Munsell 10R 4/4 to 4/6), appliqué and incised Standard Ware sherds (Figs 7: 4-12).
2. Early Mineral Ware (EMW; n = 35, Fig. 4: nos. 1-13) Not distinguished as such in WCT, but possibly
equivalent to WCT type 119, Red Burnished Ware
What is provisionally termed Early Mineral Ware refers to a category of sherds characterised by a finely
textured mineral temper. Sherds placed in this group were generally fired in oxidizing circumstances,
resulting in surface colours in the range of light brown (Munsell 7.5YR 6/3-6/4) to pink (7.5YR 7/2-
7/2). In stark contrast to the coarse Standard Ware, EMW surfaces were carefully finished by smoothing
and/or burnishing. The majority were plain, but red-slipped EMW also occurs (Munsell 5YR 4/5 to
10R 3/6). Shapes attested in the survey are on the whole small, and include thin-walled10
convex-sided bowls
(Figs. 4: 1, 11-13), convex-sided bowls with perforated lugs (Fig. 4: 9), S-shaped bowls (Figs. 4: 2, 7-8),
and the occasional carinated bowl (Figs. 4: 4-6).
9
All the ceramic material from the Tell Beydar survey is kept at the Tell Beydar excavation house, where it is easily
accessible to those wishing to study it.
10
The wall thickness of EMW from the Tell Beydar survey falls between 5-10mm, most often in the range 5-6mm.
Beydar Studies 1
277
5 cm0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
- Fig. 4: Late Neolithic ceramics from the Tell Beydar survey. Early Mineral Ware (nos. 1-13),
Early Grey-Black Ware (nos. 14-23). Site 5: nos. 1, 3, 7-11, 20. Site 26: nos. 6, 12-13, 16, 19, 22.
Site 34b: nos. 2, 5, 14-15, 17, 21. Site 81: nos. 4, 18, 23. Scale 1:3.
Subartu XXI
278
Sherds attributed to this category tend to cluster at sites with no Halaf material but with a strong presence
of plain Standard Ware (Table 3). This supports an “early” date, that is to say: prior to the Halaf period. The
pottery may be tentatively compared with mineral-tempered ceramics excavated at Early Pottery Neolithic
sites, such as Tell Halula (Faura 1996, Faura and leMière 1999), Mezraa Teleilat (Özdoπan 1999, 2003),
Salat Cami Yanı (Miyake 2005, in press), Tell Sabi Abyad (Akkermans et al. 2006), and Tell Seker alAheimar
(Nishiaki and LeMière 2005). The term adopted here for this category is provisional, as different
terms are presently in use to designate the early mineral-tempered wares at these sites. Awaiting further
study, no claims are made whatsoever regarding a specific correlation with any of the ceramic categories
distinguished in excavated contexts. The best parallels should perhaps be expected with the ceramics excavated
at Tell Seker al-Aheimar, located closest to Tell Beydar (Nishiaki and LeMière 2005).11
EMW is
tentatively dated to the Pre-Proto-Hassuna period.
3. Early Grey-Black Ware (EGBW; n = 17, Fig. 4: nos. 14-23) Not distinguished as such in WCT, but may
correspond to example 7 within WCT type 1, Hassuna Painted Ware.
Sherds placed in this category resemble the EMW in terms of having a finely textured mineral temper. The
difference lies in the colour of the surface, which in this case is dark, ranging from grey (Munsell 7.5YR 6/1)
to dark-grey (7.5YR 4/1) or, occasionally, black. It remains to be further investigated what caused the dark
colour; it may have resulted from the use of particular raw materials, or from firing circumstances that were
purposely reducing. Since this category to some degree resembles the purposely-reduced category known
as Grey-Black Ware (LeMière 2000, 2001, LeMière and Nieuwenhuyse 1996), we have adopted this name
here. The sherds are thin-walled, and most often have burnished surfaces. Shapes attested in the Tell Beydar
survey include small convex-sided bowls (Figs. 4: 17-19), S-shaped bowls (Figs. 4: 22-23), carinated bowls
(Figs. 4: 14-16) and closed vessels with a carinated contour, of which only the body parts were attested.
Grey-Black Ware still occurs within Early Halaf ceramic assemblages (LeMière and Nieuwenhuyse 1996,
Nieuwenhuyse 1997), but dark-coloured mineral-tempered ceramics start much earlier, during the PreProto-Hassuna
(Nishiaki and LeMière 2005; 59). In the survey, EGBW occurs in strong association with
Standard Ware and EMW (Table 3). With EMW, it is tentatively dated to the Pre-Proto-Hassuna period.
4. Dark-Faced Burnished Ware (DFBW; n = 1) Not distinguished in WCT.
A single sherd was tentatively attributed to the non-local mineral-tempered category known as DarkFaced
Burnished Ware. Although the term was first coined in the Amuq (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960),
LeMière and colleagues have shown that comparable ceramics show a wide distribution across southeastern
Anatolia, northern Syria and northern Iraq, and that in these parts this pottery does not constitute local production
(Bader et al. 1994, LeMière 1989, 2000, 2001, LeMière and Picon 1987, 1999). To be sure, there
were several distinct types of DFBW (Balossi 2004, 2006, Nieuwenhuyse 2007); the specimen from the
Tell Beydar survey is attributed to the category known from Tell Sabi Abyad (LeMière and Nieuwenhuyse
1996, Nieuwenhuyse 2007) and Tell Boueid II (Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2002), among others. The pottery is
dated to the Proto-Hassuna and Proto-Halaf periods.
5. Mineral Coarse Ware (MCW; n = 2, Fig. 7: 13-14) Not distinguished in WCT, but perhaps part of WCT
type 124, Coarse Chaff- or Grit-tempered Ware.
Two sherds from TBS 59E were distinguished on the basis of a dense tempering with dark-grey mineral
inclusions. The nature of these non-plastics could not be established, but it differs from that of the DFBW.
The vessels had dark cores and smoothed and burnished surfaces. Both examples are closed hole mouth
shapes, one of which carries a lug (Fig. 7: 13 ). These sherds do not seem to resemble the early mineral-tempered
wares recently reported from Tell Seker al-Aheimar (Nishiaki and LeMière 2005: 61). Instead, better
parallels may be found in the so-called Mineral Coarse Ware from Tell Sabi Abyad and other Pre-Halaf to
Early Halaf sites (LeMière 2001: 181, LeMière and Nieuwenhuyse 1996: 128, 147, 187). In the Khabur
itself comparisons can perhaps be found at Tell Aqab (Davidson 1977: 156-157). The two sherds are dated,
broadly, to the Proto-Hassuna, Transitional, Halaf I or Halaf II stages.
6. Orange Fine Ware (OFW; n = 1, Fig. 8: 5) Not distinguished as such in WCT, but quite possibly included
within WCT type 1, Hassuna Painted Ware.
A single example was found of Orange Fine Ware, a ceramic category known by now from a range of
both excavated and surveyed sites in northern Syria and southeastern Turkey. OFW is characterized by
a relatively coarse, predominantly mineral temper showing lumps of white calcium carbonate and brown to
11
At Tell Seker al-Aheimar, Nishiaki and LeMière (2005: 59-62) distinguish two main categories of early mineraltempered
pottery: Early Dark Ware and Basalt Tempered Ware. Presently the relationships between these two groups
and the Tell Beydar survey EMW remain unclear.
Beydar Studies 1
279
5 cm0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
- Fig. 5: Late Neolithic ceramics from the Tell Beydar survey. Standard Ware.
Site 5: nos. 3, 6-7, 14. Site 26: nos. 9, 11. Site 34b: no. 1. Site 40d: nos. 2, 4, 8.
Site 44: nos. 13, 15. Site 58: nos. 5, 12. Site 59e: no. 10. Scale 1:4.
Subartu XXI
280
5 cm0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
- Fig. 6: Late Neolithic ceramics from the Tell Beydar survey. Standard Ware. Site 5: no. 9. Site 26: nos.
4, 6, 11-12. Site 34b: nos. 2-3, 5, 8. Site 40d: no. 13. Site 58: no. 1. Site 81: nos. 7, 10, 14. Scale 1:4.
Beydar Studies 1
281
5 cm0
1
2
3
4
5
6 7
8
9 10
11 12
13
14
- Fig. 7: Late Neolithic ceramics from the Tell Beydar survey. Standard Ware (nos. 1-12),
Mineral Coarse Ware (nos. 13-14). Site 5: nos. 6-7. Site 26: nos. 1, 4-5, 10-11.
Site 40d: nos. 8-9, 12. Site 44: no. 3. Site 59e: nos. 13-14. Site 81: no. 2. Scale 1:3.
Subartu XXI
282
- Fig. 8: Late Neolithic ceramics from the Tell Beydar survey. Standard Fine Ware (nos. 1-4),
Orange Fine Ware (no. 4), Halaf Fine Ware: Halaf I (nos. 6-27).
Site 44: nos. 3, 9, 13, 15-16, 20, 23, 25. Site 58: nos. 1-2, 4-7, 10, 12, 21, 24, 26-27.
Site 59e: nos. 8, 19, 22. Sit 61: no. 17. Site 74: nos. 11, 14, 18. Scale 1:3.
5 cm0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
Beydar Studies 1
283
dark-brown or grey mud rock, a pinkish surface colour (Munsell 5YR 7/4), and a reddish paint (10R 5/6).
The example from the survey, heavily fragmented, shows a simple decoration consisting of parallel lines
(Fig. 8: 5). This pottery dates to the Proto-Hassuna and, in particular, the Proto-Halaf (Transitional) stages
(Cruells 2006a, LeMière 2000: 132-134, LeMière and Nieuwenhuyse 1996: 168, Nieuwenhuyse 2000,
2007, Nieuwenhyse et al. 2001, 2002, Tekin 2003, 2004, in prep., Van As et al. 1998).
7. Standard Fine Ware (SFW; n = 5, Fig. 8: 1-4) including both WCT types 125 (Hassuna Incised or
Stabbed Ware) and 126 (Samarra Ware).
The term Standard Fine Ware is borrowed from the excavations at Tell Sabi Abyad, but possible alternatives
would include Samarra Fine Ware, Proto-Halaf Fine Ware, or Northern Samarra Fine Ware, as well
as Standard Hassuna Painted and Standard Hassuna Painted-and-impressed. This category, rather heterogeneous
as it may be stylistically, refers to ceramics characterised technologically by a finely-textured mineral
temper, a neutral to oxidising firing, a carefully smoothed surface and, if painted, a dark colour of the paints
(Cruells 2006a, LeMière and Nieuwenhuyse 1996, Nieuwenhuyse 2000, 2007, Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2001,
2002, Van As and Jacobs 1989, Van As et al. 1998). The sharp contrast between the dark paint, ranging from
brown (7.5YR 5/4) or dark brown (7.5YR 3/4) to very dark grey (7.5YR 3/1) against a light surface (often
10YR 8/2, very pale brown), is characteristic; this may have resulted from careful, purposeful control
over reduction-reoxidation cycles during the firing (Nieuwenhuyse et al. 2001, Noll 1991). One example
from the survey was stabbed-and-painted (Fig 8: 3); the others were painted. These sherds are dated to
the Transitional stage between the Proto-Hassuna and the Halaf I, also known as Proto-Halaf (Cruells and
Nieuwenhuyse 2005). With so few sherds collected we shall refrain from extended discussions regarding
the nature of Samarra-like ceramics in northern Syria (see Bernbeck 1994, in prep., Nieuwenhuyse 2007).
8. Halaf Fine Ware (HFW; n = 283, Fig. 8: 6-27, Fig. 9: 1-12) WCT type 3, Halaf Painted Ware.
Halaf Fine Ware probably hardly needs an introduction. After all, the Khabur is home to the site that
gave its name to both the pottery and the Late Neolithic culture in which it flourished (Von Oppenheim
and Schmidt 1943), and some major Halaf sites are located in the area. Nevertheless, within this category
there appears to be more variation in terms of ceramic technology than is presently recognised within the
archaeological literature. Generally, HFW is very finely textured, compact pottery, often with no nonplastic
inclusions macroscopically visible in the fabric. Occasionally white calcium carbonate particles may
be seen in the fabric as well as, occasionally, at the surface (“lime spalling”). The surfaces were usually very
well smoothed, rarely burnished. It has often been stated that HFW was fired in oxidizing circumstances.
Indeed, many HFW sherds collected from the survey were oxidized throughout, showing a reddish-pinkish
to yellow-red surface (Munsell 5YR 5/6) and a reddish to reddish-brown colour of the paint (2.5YR 7/4.
Much of the HFW, however, appears to be closer to the SFW from the preceding Transitional stage in
aspects of its firing technology. These have a dark-coloured paint against a light-coloured background (see
above, SFW). In the survey, TBS 44 yielded examples of the latter; TBS 58 and 59E produced examples
of the former. Future studies should investigate if these differences represent technological change through
time or if Halaf potters knew alternative ways of firing their products (obviously, the possibilities are not
mutually exclusive). Further, it is possible that a distinct group of HFW can be identified technologically
by a relatively compact, orange-pinkish fabric. Stylistically the few examples attested in the Khabur would
seem to date to the later stages of the Halaf period (Nieuwenhuyse 2000: 163), perhaps representing another
case of technological change during the Halaf period.
HFW is very tentatively sub divided into an earlier stage (Halaf I) and a later stage (Halaf II), on
the basis of vessel shape and painted decoration. Evidently, in addition to lack of stratigraphical control,
small sample sizes and high degrees of fragmentation make it impossible to apply typologies derived from
well-preserved excavated assemblages (e.g. Amirov and Deopak 1997, Davidson 1977). Attributed to the
Halaf I are small cream bowls (Figs. 8: 14-16) and some low, carinated bowls (Figs. 8: 11-13); large
bowls with bevelled rims (Fig. 9: 1) are instead attributed to the Halaf II (for comparative references, see
Nieuwenhuyse 2000). Many vessel shapes are typical for the Halaf period as a whole, but occasionally they
can be assigned to a more specific stage on the basis of their decoration. This includes, for instance, straightsided
bowls painted with crosshatched lozenges, which find exact parallels at Early Halaf Tell Sabi Abyad
(Fig. 8: 10). Typical Halaf I designs include various types of crosshatching, virtually always bounded to the
horizontal, structural lines (Figs. 8: 6-27). Characteristic for Halaf II are motifs such cables with dots or the
“sun flower” motif, which were often painted “free-floating” (Figs. 9: 3, 5, 8-11). Finally, a single example
occurred of a polychrome-painted HFW sherd showing a combination of mat brown (Munsell 5YR 4/4)
and dark grey (7.5YR 3/1) paints (Fig. 9: 12 ); the example is dated to the Halaf II period.
Subartu XXI
284
5 cm0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
- Fig. 9: Late Neolithic ceramics from the Tell Beydar survey. Halaf Fine Ware: Halaf II (nos. 1-11),
polychrome-painted Halaf Fine Ware (no. 12). Site 1: no. 1. Site 58: nos. 2, 4, 6-8, 12.
Site 59e: nos. 3, 9-11. Site 74: no. 5. Scale 1:3 except no. 12 scale 1:1.
Beydar Studies 1
285
6. Patterns of Late Neolithic settlement
Of the eighty-three sites recorded by the two seasons of survey some twenty (24%) were securely dated
to the Late Neolithic periods and are the subject of this report. To this we may add excavated Tell Khazna.
Within the Tell Beydar survey area this would amount to an overall Late Neolithic site density of about
twenty-two square km per site. Evidently, however, this figure is far too high for any of the sub periods
distinguished (see below). If the Late Neolithic is broken down into sub phases, site density estimates
drops to between about fifty-seven square km per site (Pre-Proto-Hassuna) and 113 square km per site
(Proto-Hassuna and proto-Halaf) (Table 5). As these sub periods differ significantly in length, however,
such statistics should be treated with caution. All we can probably say with certainty is that settlements
were few and dispersed.
Of these Late Neolithic sites, six were tell sites (TBS 1, 4, 40d, 41d, 50a, and 59e). The remaining
sites were small, low mounds usually measuring around one or two hectares in area and no more than one
or two metres in height. As has been recorded elsewhere in upper Mesopotamia, the average size of sites
was small, mean size being ca. 1.2 ha, and there was no evidence of any large Neolithic sites such as Tell
Mounbatah in the Balikh Valley (Akkermans 1993), Kazane in southeast Turkey (Bernbeck et al. 1999) or
Tell Nisibis in the Khabur (Nieuwenhuyse 2000). Although there is a rather extensive concentration of sites
in the region of Tell Rajab (TBS 4), there was nothing to suggest in the field that these formed one large site.
Rather, they seem to consist of a series of small, discrete sites. As such, they may be equivalent to clusters
of sites found in the Balikh Valley, such as the group of mounds at Tell Sabi Abyad I to IV (Akkermans
1993). The general dispersal of settlement supports the statement made in the interim report of the 1997
field season (Wilkinson 2000b), namely that prehistoric settlement was mainly present on the smaller sites,
rather than on the tall, multi-period tells. Of the total of six tell sites that supplied evidence of Late Neolithic
occupation, at four of them Neolithic settlement was not on the tell itself, but rather on outlying smaller
sites, lower towns, or other exposures. Only at one site, TBS 50a or Tell Ghazal Foqani, was prehistoric
pottery found on the tell.
This is not to say that Late Neolithic or Halaf settlement was not present on tells, rather when present it
is probably buried beneath a significant overburden of later occupation (especially that of the Early Bronze
Age) which has rendered the prehistoric material virtually invisible. Tell Beydar itself may be an illustrative
example of this. It is evident from this distribution that although the settlement pattern was a mixture between
nucleated tell-type settlements and smaller dispersed hamlets or villages, the latter predominated. Moreover,
simply the presence of Late Neolithic settlement at a tell does not necessary mean that the settlement was part
of a tell because it is possible that the Neolithic component represented a phase of settlement that preceded
the tell, or that it was part of an outlying settlement that eventually became subsumed within the tell.
Of the Late Neolithic sites recorded, eight were located directly on the Wadi Aweidj, while three were
along a tributary of the Aweidj that presumably once flowed past the Sekar mounds (TBS 39, 40 and 41).
Six were not associated with wadis, either present day or relict. Unfortunately the overall number of prehistoric
sites was insufficient to provide a clear pattern of settlement, nevertheless, two trends are evident. In
the northern part of the survey area, settlement formed an extensive spread both along wadis and channels,
but also away from them. This implies that access to water was not a problem, and it is likely that those sites
more remote from ancient wadis obtained their water supplies from small springs or seepages now dried up
and infilled by eroded soil and plough wash sediments. In contrast, to the south of Tell Beydar, prehistoric
sites were closer to WadiAweidj although unfortunately a gap between the northern and southern settlement
zones makes the transition between these zones difficult to interpret. In addition to the above tendencies,
the survey by Paul-Louis van Berg of the neighbouring basalt zone for rock art and associated sites has
recorded at least one occurrence of Halaf date (Van Berg: Kisham web site).12
When the sites are sub-divided according to chronological phase, it appears that all periods distinguished
can be attested in the Tell Beydar survey, with the conspicuous exception of the Halaf Ubaid Transition
(HUT: Table 5). This apparent disruption between the Halaf and the Ubaid almost certainly is artificial, and
must be attributed to the archaeological “invisibility” of the intermediate, transitional stage. Simply, we still
don’t know how to recognise it in a material sense, more to the point in the ceramics. None of the pottery
types suggested by Catherine Breniquet (1996) and Thomas Davidson (1977) as typical for this stage were
identified in the Tell Beydar survey, but limited sample sizes and poor control over regional ceramic variation
are likely to have contributed to its invisibility. A practical suggestion would be to argue that sites occupied
both in the Halaf II and in the Ubaid period are likely to have been inhabited in the intermediate stage as well;
in the Tell Beydar survey no site fitted these qualifications.13
This problem is not peculiar to the Tell Beydar
area (Karsgaard in press, Nieuwenhuyse 2000: 189); the HUT shall henceforward simply be ignored.
12
http://dev.ulb.ac.be/crea/AccueilFrancais.php?page=Kisham.
13
Two sites were occupied in the Ubaid period and also in an earlier stage of the Late Neolithic: TBS 50 and TBS 74.
Subartu XXI
286
- Table 4: Total site area and mean site area for the Late Neolithic in the Tell Beydar area.
- Table 5: Tentative date for Late Neolithic sites in the Tell Beydar area,
giving site numbers and approximate site densities for each period.
Pre-Proto-
Hassuna
Proto-
Hassuna
Proto-
Halaf
Halaf I Halaf II HUT
Halaf
general
Site
1 (Beydar)
4a
5
7
26
34b
37
38
40d
41d
44
48
50a
54c
58
59e
61
63
66 (Khazna II)
74
81
Site numbers 8 4 4 7 6 0 3
Site density 1/57 km2
1/113 km2
1/113 km2
1/65 km2
1/75 km2
- -
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
Mean site areaTotal site area
Halaf IIHalaf ITransitionalProtoEPN
areainha
Beydar Studies 1
287
- Fig. 10: Map showing the locations of Pre-Proto-Hassuna sites in the Tell Beydar survey.
Subartu XXI
288
- Fig. 11: Map showing the locations of Proto-Hassuna sites in the Tell Beydar survey.
Beydar Studies 1
289
- Fig. 12: Map showing the locations of Proto-Halaf sites in the Tell Beydar survey.
Subartu XXI
290
- Fig. 13: Map showing the locations of Halaf I sites in the Tell Beydar survey.
Beydar Studies 1
291
- Fig. 14: Map showing the locations of Halaf II sites in the Tell Beydar survey.
Subartu XXI
292
Perhaps surprising at first sight, a relatively large number of sites were dated to the Pre-Proto Hassuna
(n = 8, almost 10% of all Late Neolithic sites) (Fig. 10). This is probably because recent work at Tell Seker
al-Aheimar, Tell SabiAbyad and other early Late Neolithic sites has made this archaeological period visible
so that it can be identified in surface collections. Further, the ongoing excavations at these sites provide a
much stronger chronological framework than was available before. This suggests that the transition from
Pre-Proto-Hassuna to Proto-Hassuna, or from Early Pottery Neolithic to Pre-Halaf according to the Balikh
terminology, occurred later than was hitherto assumed. Current estimates would tentatively date this transition
at Tell Seker al-Aheimar at around 6400-6300 cal. BC (Nishiaki and LeMière 2005: 64-66); in the
Balikh valley it may date around 6300-6200 cal. BC (Akkermans et al. 2006). In other words: the earlier
stages of the Late Neolithic lasted much longer than previously thought, correspondingly, it should come
less as a surprise that more sites are found. A final factor that may have contributed to the detection of these
early sites is the deliberate focus of the Tell Beydar survey on small mounds.
The Proto-Hassuna and Proto-Halaf stages are each represented with four sites (Figs. 11, 12). The few
survey sites are identified by the presence of decorated SW, DFBW, OFW and SFW. The Proto-Hassuna site
of Tell Khazna II (TBS 66, near TBS 65) has been excavated by a Russian team (Munchaev and Merpert
1994, Munchaev et al. 1993, also surveyed by Lyonnet as KS 52, Nieuwenhuyse 2000). At first sight this
might suggest a reduction in settlement densities. Of the eight Pre-Proto-Halaf sites detected in the Tell
Beydar survey, five no longer appear to have been inhabited during the Proto-Hassuna (Table 5). Further,
none of the three Proto-Hassuna sites continued into the Proto-Halaf period, whereas all Proto-Halaf sites
had not been previously occupied during the Proto-Hassuna stage. This suggests that for some unknown
reason, there was a complete discontinuity of settlement between the Proto-Hassuna and the Proto-Halaf.
Taken together, this might suggest a more dynamic practice of settlement abandonment and resettling at new
locations compared with before. This would fit well with what has been suggested for the Khabur valley
during the later Pre-Halaf and Transitional stages (Balikh IIC-IIIA, Akkermans 1993, Nieuwenhuyse 2007).
However, it should be kept in mind that both these stages were much shorter than the Pre-Proto-Hassuna.
There is much better evidence for the Halaf I period (Fig. 13). Seven sites were dated to the Early
Halaf (Table 5). Good evidence for the earliest stages of the Halaf were some HFW small cream bowls
and carinated bowls painted with crosshatching in mat, dark paint, and straight-sided bowls painted with
crosshatched lozenges. If taken at first sight, this would indicate a gradual increase in settlement numbers
with the start of the Halaf period. This would fit with the evidence gained from other surveys in Syria
(Akkermans 1993, Nieuwenhuyse 2000), especially because the ceramic periods in question are shorter
than those of the earlier periods.
Significantly, on the other hand, the evidence for Halaf II is much less than was expected. In the Tell
Beydar area only six sites have been dated to the Halaf II period (Fig. 14). This includes the excavated site
of Khazna II (Munchaev and Merpert 1994, Munchaev et al. 1993). In contrast, across Upper Mesopotamia
Late Neolithic settlement appears to be characterised by a strong increase in site numbers during the
Middle-Late Halaf (Akkermans 1993, Campbell 1992). In the Upper Khabur, the evidence for Halaf II in
the Lyonnet survey was overwhelming in comparison with earlier stages (Nieuwenhuyse 2000). In the Tell
Beydar area, in contrast, there is a conspicuous lack of typical Halaf II indicators such as bowls with flat
rims painted with “rim ticks” (Davidson 1977: 133-149, Campbell 1992: 63), so-called Trichterrandbecher
(Von Oppenheim and Schmidt 1943: 44) or sherds painted with typical Middle-Late Halaf motifs. There
was only a single polychrome HFW sherd, and no so-called Red Ware (Campbell 1995: 72-73, Davidson
1977: 155-156, Leenders 1989, Gut 1995). Considering the systematic approach adopted and the relative
visibility of Halaf II ceramic indicators, it is most unlikely that these discrepancies resulted from neglect
or insufficient recognition of this particular subphase. Two explanations can be suggested to explain the
relative scarcity of Halaf II sites.
First, it might be suggested that in this particular area, simply, there were few Halaf II sites. This suggestion
may imply increased regional differentiation in land use during the Halaf II. Whereas certain parts of
the Jazira were characterised by increasing settlement densities, others were apparently less densely settled,
or were perhaps used in a different manner. The Halaf II phase in northern Syria appears to have been characterised
by a southward “expansion” of settlement, but from north to south Halaf II site densities appear to
have diminished progressively.Although in the Middle-Late Halaf new villages were founded even south of
Hassake within what was clearly a marginal region, the majority of all Halaf II sites detected in the Lyonnet
survey were located to the north of Tell Beydar (Nieuwenhuyse 2000: 188-189). The apparent increase in
site densities, then, may have been more of a “northern Jazira” phenomenon, whereas closer to the southern
limit for reliable farming site numbers perhaps remained more stable through the later Neolithic. Surveys
may now begin to explore such potentially different regional developments in the Late Neolithic.
On the other hand, the Tell Beydar area lies within the (present-day) limits for rainfed agriculture, and
apart from the basaltic plateau the area is in principle very suitable to settlement. Differences in survey
methodology are likely to explain at least part of the observed discrepancies, specifically the focus of the
Beydar Studies 1
293
Tell Beydar survey on small sites. It is quite clear that in general small sites were particularly common
during the Late Neolithic. This pattern contrasts to that of the Ubaid period, when not only were sites relatively
few in number (in the Tell Beydar survey: five significant occupations and four minor), but also more
likely to be associated with tells. This association with tells might account for the relative dearth of Ubaid
sites, because it is in such locations that early occupations are most likely to have been buried. It is possible
to suggest that during the Halaf II a gradual nucleation occurred, resulting in more permanent settlement
on larger sites. The presence of relatively little (Early) Halaf pottery at tell sites suggests that such occupations
might lie buried beneath later overburden, or that the formation of tells had not started at this period.
However, since it appears to be the case on a number of tells in the Khabur that Halaf II pottery is well
represented on these mounds, it is possible to suggest that tells as nucleated central sites had already started
to form in the later Halaf period. This is hardly surprising given that many prominent later tells such as
Kurban Hoyuk, Gritille, Tell Sabi Abyad, and Nineveh have founder settlements in the aceramic Neolithic
or Halaf periods. If so, the Halaf II may be over-represented in tell-oriented surveys, but under-represented
in small-site oriented surveys. Possibly, then, later Halaf settlement resembled that of the following Ubaid
period more than it resembled the earlier Halaf.
7. Discussion
Although over the past few years Late Neolithic settlement has gained increased prominence as a topic for
archaeological research, differences in scope and methodology often make it difficult to compare the results
from various surveys, even when these were done in adjacent areas. In particular, differences in chronological
terminology make such comparisons at present very tentative. In spite of this, it is possible to arrive
at a number of tentative generalizations concerning Late Neolithic patterns of settlement.
Overall, the majority of the earlier Neolithic sites clearly were short-lived and dispersed settlements.
The occurrence of Neolithic and Halaf occupation on small sites in the Tell Beydar area is comparable to
that noted at other surveys in Upper Mesopotamia. Thus in the North Jazira Survey, as well as the recent
survey of the Brak area, settlement of these periods is both widespread and frequently associated with
smaller village type sites. Whether these were actually small, sedentary villages is less clear, but if they
were, their populations were probably small (usually around hundred plus or minus). In the Beydar area,
we can perhaps see an example of “paired” or clustered settlements in the area of TBS 4, Tell Rajab, as
has been noted by Peter Akkermans in the Balikh Valley. Although by the Halaf period settlement densities
may have been relatively high, Davidson´s claim (1977: 87) that in Halaf times population densities in the
Khabur may have reached levels similar to today now seems severely overstretched.
In terms of site locations, the limited area captured by the Tell Beydar survey reflects a broader pattern
of Late Neolithic settlement location: most sites currently known are located to the north of the present-day
220 mm average annual rainfall boundary. Tell Beydar lies well within the area suitable for dry farming
agriculture, but it lies within the southern part of the area previously covered by Bertille Lyonnet. Late
Neolithic settlement can be shown to gradually diminish from north to south. Moreover, while most sites
appear to be located close to major wadis, in the northern part they were also found away from them, a distribution
that was particularly evident during the Pre-Proto-Hassuna (Fig. 10). These settlements may have
obtained their water supplies from springs or seepages now extinct. Farther to the south, permanent Late
Neolithic settlement becomes relatively scarce, and restricted to the main wadis and rivers. Tell Boueid II,
situated directly on the Khabur some 18km south of Hassake is presently the southern-most Late Neolithic
site known in the Khabur area.
The survey contributes to our insight into long-term trends in prehistoric settlement in Upper
Mesopotamia. In the Tell Beydar survey there has, as yet, been no evidence for pre-Pottery Neolithic occupation,
perhaps because this has been completely buried beneath later occupations or sealed below the alluvium.
It is now evident, however, that the area was settled during the Pre-Proto-Hassuna. It has sometimes
been argued that the introduction of pottery at around 6900-6800 was associated with a decline of sedentary
populations. Compared with the brilliance of monumental art attested at some aceramic sites, the Late
Neolithic (or Pottery Neolithic) has been portrayed as dull and static, even as a period of cultural decline
(e.g. Huot 1994). Given that until recently Pre-Halaf sites could hardly be identified in surveys, this negative
view is perhaps not surprising. Current excavations at Early Pottery Neolithic sites may now provide
a much stronger picture of cultural continuity after the introduction of ceramics. The production of white
ware and stone vessels, for instance, once thought to be typical for the PPNB, continued unabated into the
earliest stages of the Late Neolithic. In the lithic industries, too, elements of continuity can be pointed out
(Akkermans et al. 2006, Campbell and Baird 1990, Nishiaki and LeMière 2005).
Although we are still poorly informed on the archaeology of the earliest stages of the Late Neolithic,
we suggest that the final PPNB and Pre-Proto-Hassuna stages were characterised by relatively stable settlement
structures. For example, in the Balikh, many Early Pottery Neolithic mounds detected in the survey
Subartu XXI
294
(Balikh IIA period) seem to be remarkably long-lived. Many EPN sites were already occupied in the PrePottery
Neolithic B period (Akkermans 1993, pers. comm. March 2007). The Early Pottery Neolithic occupation
excavated at Tell Sabi Abyad continued for over half a millennium at the same location, resulting
in a significant mound build up (Akkermans et al. 2006). In the Khabur, Tell Seker al-Aheimar, too, was
inhabited over a remakably long time, from the later PPNB into the Proto-Hassuna period (Nishiaki and
LeMière 2005). Although we should be careful with site density estimates, considering the very unequal
lengths of the periods concerned, site densities during the early stages of the Pottery Neolithic in the Tell
Beydar area (Pre-Proto-Hassuna) may have been at least similar to those of subsequent stages in the Late
Neolithic. The apparent scarcity of sites dated to this stage from the northern Iraqi Jazira – just a few hours
to the east – remains to be explained (Campbell 1992: 114, Campbell and Baird 1990), but may perhaps be
attributed to the lack of visibility of this period until quite recently.
In the Beydar area, settlement appears to have become reduced during the Proto-Hassuna and ProtoHalaf
stages. A similar impression was gained from other surveys: settlement during the Pre-Halaf stages
was more limited and dispersed than during the subsequent Halaf (Campbell 1992, Erdalkıran in press,
LeMière 2000, Nieuwenhuyse 2000). In the Balikh valley, most Early Pottery Neolithic sites (Balikh IIA
stage ) seem to be abandoned during the later Pre-Halaf period (Balikh IIC). The Transitional and Early
Halaf stages (Balikh IIIA/IIIB) seem to be a “turn of the tide” characterized by gradually increasing site
numbers (Akkermans 1993, Nieuwenhuyse 2007).
Undoubtedly this impression should be attributed partly to the shorter time ranges of both the ProtoHassuna
and Proto-Halaf stages compared with the Pre-Proto-Hassuna. However, at excavated Pre-Halaf,
Proto-Hassuna and Proto-Halaf sites the evidence suggests that villages gained new roles from about 6200
cal. BC. onwards. Typical architecture from these stages in the Jazira include circular buildings, so-called
tholoi, and large multi-roomed, cellular buildings. The latter are often interpreted as collective storage
facilities serving a mobile, semi-sedentary population larger than was permanently present at the village
(Akkermans and Duistermaat 1997, Brentjes 1983, Verhoeven 1999). Villages may have become focal
points in a social landscape that was less focused on sedentary settlement than before (Akkermans and
Schwartz 2003).
This trend may have been part of a much larger series of social and economic changes. These may have
included a stronger exploitation of ovicaprids for their secondary products, as evidenced in culling patterns
(Cavallo 2000) the introduction of spindle whorls (Akkermans et al. 2006) and the development of
coarse pottery shapes that may have been instrumental in dairy products processing (Nieuwenhuyse 2007).
Ceramics seem to have gained new roles at this stage as well, as a major tool for stylistic expression. From
the Proto-Hassuna period onwards they were progressively more often decorated, in increasingly complex
designs (Campbell 1992, Nieuwenhuyse 2007).
During the Halaf period, a reorientation towards stable, long-lived settlements may have occurred.
Certainly, within the Beydar survey itself this trend is not at all clear, and the evidence might suggest continuity
from Halaf I through Halaf II. However, if the Beydar survey area is placed in a broader regional
picture, the Halaf II seems to be characterised by increasing numbers of settlements, of which some were
remarkably long-lived (Akkermans 1993, Campbell 1992, Erdalkıran in press, Nieuwenhuyse 2000). We
argue that the relative scarcity of Halaf II sites in the Tell Beydar survey resulted not from a lack of Halaf
II sites, but from a more frequent burying of such sites below later occupation from the Chalcolithic period
onwards. Halaf II settlement may have been focussed more strongly on tell sites in comparison with the
Halaf I. While most Halaf II sites continued to be small, dispersed and short-lived, a larger number now
grew to the range of 4-6 ha, while a few gained an unprecedented size. Not far from Tell Beydar, Brak may
have been an important site during the Halaf (D. Oates 1982). Tell Nisibin (Bertille Lyonnet’s site KS 70)
perhaps remains the largest Halaf site presently known in the Khabur, reaching a size of perhaps over 15ha
by the end of the Halaf period (Nieuwenhuyse 2000). During the Halaf II for the first time a clear differentiation
in settlement size becomes visible in the archaeological record.
What remains to be investigated, however, is the nature of the Halaf II “mega sites”. Most Proto-Hassuna,
Proto-Halaf and Halaf sites are likely to have appeared and disappeared within the duration of a ceramic
period. The majority of excavated Halaf II sites belong to the category of such small, short-lived sites:
Umm Qseir on the Khabur (Hole and Johnson 1987, Tsuneki and Miyake, eds, 1998), Khirbet es-Shenef
in the Balikh (Akkermans 1993, Akkermans and Wittmann 1993), Shams ed-Din Tannira on the Euphrates
(Gustavson-Gaube 1981). Fistikli Höyük and Tell Boueid II represent examples from earlier stages, Halaf I
and Proto-Halaf, respectively (Bernbeck and Pollock 2003, Suleiman and Nieuwenhuyse, eds., 2002). It is
possible to suggest that our reconstructions of later Halaf society have been skewed towards such smaller,
less permanent settlements. This contrasts with the much less frequent occupations on larger Halaf II tell
sites when the duration of occupation often occurs over several thousand years. Only recently have scholars
began to excavate some of them, at Tell Kazane (Bernbeck et al. 1999) and Domuz Tepe (Campbell et al.
1999). Were the large Halaf II sites completely settled with dense populations, Chatalhoyuk-style, or were
Beydar Studies 1
295
14
This impression is based upon an inspection of the Late Neolithic ceramics collected at Mounbatah during the
University of Amsterdam survey in the Balikh (Akkermans 1993).
they the amalgamated palimpsest of frequently shifting settlement? An inspection of Halaf surface material
collected at the 20ha site of Tell Mounbatah in the Khabur suggests that the latter may have been the
case. This Late Neolithic site does not appear to have been completely inhabited at any stage during its
long history, but instead it consisted of two or more individual clusters of occupation that “moved” over the
surface of the site through time.14
Site size does not equal settlement size (Akkermans in press).
One possible explanation of this characteristic pattern of settlement is that Halaf settlements (and Late
Neolithic settlements, in general) were demographically unstable. Catherine Breniquet and Jean-Daniel
Forest have stressed that the lack of social structures was sufficiently strong to keep Halaf communities
together in view of natural population growth. Tensions and conflicts would inevitably tear communities
apart, resulting in the founding of new settlements elsewhere (Breniquet 1987, 1996: 119, Forest 1996:
55). This does not explain why some Halaf settlements managed to grow to a large size during the Halaf II.
Social structures must have existed that kept people together over a longer time at certain locations. These
may have included increased social hierarchy (Watson and LeBlanc 1990) or ritual control within a “decentralized
stratified society” (Campbell 1992: 222), but the precise nature of later Halaf social organization
remains elusive.
Alternatively, demographic instability may also have had quite the opposite effect. After a number of
generations there may have occurred a gradual “drift” of members of the community towards the larger more
successful settlements on the wadis. A related phenomenon was noted in West Africa by Glenn Davis Stone
who observed that when Kofyar agriculturalists colonized part of the frontier zone, they paid little attention
to soil quality. However after a generation or so the sites on the poorer soils were progressively abandoned in
favour of areas of more favourable soils (Stone 1996: 185). In the case of the Beydar area, this would result
in the inhabitants following an adaptive strategy in which initial settlements were occupied for a number of
generations in a wide range of locations, and then gradually more successful settlements developed along
the wadis, or perhaps at tells. Admittedly, this hypothesis remains difficult to test at present, owing to the
lack of prehistoric pottery evident on the larger tells. Overall, there appears to have been first a general dispersal
of settlement across the terrain and away from the wadis, and then during the later Halaf there was a
concentration of settlement along the Wadi Aweidj and, to the north of Tell Beydar, on a north-south alignment
through sites 41D and 58. In other words, this distribution towards more “successful” locations was
not simply towards water sources, but also towards what later became a major north-south route through the
sites of Sekar Tahtani and Sekar Foqani. This implies that economic forces of inter-regional movement were
perhaps becoming more significant by the later Halaf period. These, together with processes of tell formation
imply that social complexity, settlement nucleation, and economic forces were coming together during the
later Halaf to contribute to a fundamental change in the location of settlements.
In terms of settlement organization, the final stages of the Halaf in the Tell Beydar area may have resembled
the succeeding Ubaid period more than the earlier Halaf. There is some evidence to suggest increased
social complexity during the Halaf II, which may have provided a basis for subsequent developments
during the Chalcolithic. As Campbell argues, Halaf II obsidian and ceramic exchange networks may have
been operating on a larger scale than before (Campbell 1992: 222). The use of polychrome painted Halaf
Fine Ware certainly was a new element in the Halaf II. Trevor Watkins and Stuart Campbell have argued
that the well-known polychrome painted HFW bowls for the first time represented a real symbol of power
and social hierarchy (Campbell 1992: 217-218, 1995, Watkins and Campbell 1986: 55-56). Access to this
pottery may have been only through a restricted number of central sites (Campbell 1992: 218). Often seen
as being “typical” for the Halaf period, it seems to have had in fact a rather limited distribution. In the Tell
Beydar survey, only one Halaf II site yielded a single polychrome HFW sherd. According to Campbell
(1992: 217), polychrome painted HFW may be associated with larger, more deeply stratified sites. In the
Tell Beydar survey, the polychrome sherd came from a small site (TBS 58). In the Lyonnet survey, Halaf
II sites with polychrome pottery were not, on the average, larger than sites without them (Nieuwenhuyse
2000: 189), but most of them were nucleated tell-type sites. This pattern of settlement suggests that the tell,
which forms such a distinct feature of the Middle Eastern landscape, had already started to form by the late
Halaf period, and that the associated level of social complexity associated with larger nucleated communities
might also have commenced at this time.
Subartu XXI
296
Bibliography
Akkermans, P.M.M.G. 1993: Villages in the Steppe – Later Neolithic Settlement and Subsistence
in the Balikh Valley. Northern Syria, Michigan, Ann Arbor (International
Monographs in Prehistory).
Akkermans, P.M.M.G. In press: Clustered mounds and segmented communities. Interpreting Neolithic
settlement, in: S. Campbell/D. Baird (eds.), Proceedings of the conference
The Fifth Millennium in the Near East, Liverpool 2001.
Akkermans, P.M.M.G./Duistermaat, K.1997: Of storage and nomads. The sealings of Late Neolithic Tell
Sabi Abyad, Syria, Paléorient 22/2, pp. 17-44.
Akkermans, P.M.M.G./Wittmann, B. 1993: Khirbet es-Shenef: eine späthalafzeitliche Siedlung im
Balikhtal, Nordsyrien,Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft 125,
pp. 143-166.
Akkermans, P.M.M.G./Schwartz, G. 2003: The Archaeology of Syria: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers
to Early Urban Societies (ca.16,000-300 BC). Cambridge, Cambridge
University Press.
Akkermans, P.M.M.G./Cappers, R./Cavallo, C./Nieuwenhuyse, O.P./Nilhamn, B./Otte, I. 2006:
Investigating the Early Pottery Neolithic of northern Syria: new evidence
from Tell Sabi Abyad, American Journal of Archaeology 110-1, pp. 123-156.
Amirov, S.N./Deopeak, D.V. 1997: Morphology of Halafian painted pottery from Yarim Tepe 2, Iraq
(using computerized shape analysis), Bagdader Mitteilungen 28, pp. 69-85.
Bader, N.O./Bashilov, V.A./LeMière, M./Picon, M. 1994: Productions locales et importations de
céramique dans le Djebel Sinjar au VIe
millénaire, Paléorient 20/1, pp. 61-68.
Balossi, F. 2004: New data for the definition of the DFBW horizon and its internal developments. The
earliest phases of the Amuq sequence revisited, Anatolica XXX, pp. 109-149.
Balossi, F. 2006: The Development of “Cultural Regions” in the Neolithic of the Near East. The DarkFaced
Burnished Ware Horizon. Oxford, Archaeopress, BAR International
Series 1482.
Bernbeck, R. 1993: Steppe als Kulturlandschaft. Das Agig-Gebiet Ostsyriens vom Neolithikum
bis zur Islamischen Zeit. Berlin, Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
Bernbeck, R. 1994: Die Auflosung der häuslichen Produktionsweise. Berlin, Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
Bernbeck, R. In prep.: Taming time and timing the tamed, Proceedings of the 5ICAANE (Madrid, 2006).
Bernbeck, R./Pollock, S. 2003: The biography of an Early Halaf village. Fistikli Höyük 1999-2000,
Istanbuler Mitteilungen 53, pp. 9-77.
Bernbeck, R./Pollock, S./Coursey, C. 1999: The Halaf settlement at Kazane Höyük. Preliminary report
on the 1996 and 1997 seasons, Anatolica XXV, pp. 109-147.
Braidwood, L.S./Braidwood, R.J. (eds.) 1960: Excavations in the Plain of Antioch, I. Chicago, University
of Chicago Press.
Breniquet, C. 1987: Nouvelle hypothèse sur la disparition de la culture de Halaf, in: J.L. Huot (ed.),
Préhistoire de la Mésopotamie, Paris, CNRS, pp. 231-241.
Breniquet, C. 1996: La disparition de la culture de Halaf; les origines de la culture d’Obeid dans le Nord
de la Mésopotamie. Paris, Editions Recherches sur les Civilizations.
Brentjes, B. 1983: Zur Deutung der Bauten von Umm Dabaghiyah (Nordirak), in: H. Klengel (ed.),
Gesellschaft und Kultur im alten Vorderasien, Berlin, Akademie-Verlag,
pp. 23-25.
Campbell, S. 1992: Culture, Chronology and Change in the Later Neolithic of North Mesopotamia.
Edinburgh, Ph.D. thesis University of Edinburgh.
Campbell, S. 1995: The Halaf Pottery, in: D. Baird/S. Campbell/T. Watkins (eds.), Excavations at Kharabeh
Shattani, vol. II, Edinburgh, University of Edinburg Occasional Paper no. 18,
pp. 55-90.
Campbell, S./Baird, D. 1990: Excavations at Ginning, the aceramic to early ceramic Neolithic sequence
in north Iraq, Paléorient 16/2, pp. 65-78.
Beydar Studies 1
297
Campbell, S./Carter, E./Healy, E./Anderson, S./Kennedy, A./Whitcher, S. 1999: Emerging complexity
on the Kahramanmaraß Plain, Turkey: the Domuztepe project, 1995-1997,
American Journal of Archaeology 103, pp. 395-418.
Cavallo, C. 2000: Animals in the Steppe. A zooarchaeological analysis of Later Neolithic Tell Sabi
Abyad, Syria. Oxford, BAR International Series 891.
Cruells, W. 2006a: La poterie, in: Ö. Tunca/A. M Baghdo (eds.), Chagar Bazar (Syrie) I. Les sondages
préhistoriques (1999-2001). Leuven, Peeters, pp. 25-80.
Cruells, W. 2006b: Chagar Bazar préhistorique. Esquisse de lá séquence d’évolution et de la périodisation,
in: Ö. Tunca - A. M Baghdo (eds.), Chagar Bazar (Syrie) I. Les sondages
préhistoriques (1999-2001). Leuven, Peeters, pp. 121-142.
Cruells, W./Molist, M./Tunca, Ö. 2006: Tell Amarna in the general framework of the Halaf period,
in: Ö. Tunca/M. Molist (eds.), Tell Amarna (Syrie) I. Le Période de Halaf.
Louvain, Peeters, pp. 261-283.
Cruells, W./Nieuwenhuyse, O.P. 2005: The Proto-Halaf period in Syria. New sites, new data, Paléorient
30/1, pp. 47-68.
Davidson, T.E. 1977: Regional Variation within the Halaf Culture. Edinburgh, Ph.D. thesis University
of Edinburgh.
Davidson, T.E./McKerrel, H. 1976: Pottery Analysis and Halaf Period Trade in the Khabur Headwaters
Region, Iraq 38, pp. 45-56.
Dewar, R. 1991: Incorporating variation in occupation span into settlement-pattern analysis, American
Antiquity 56, pp. 604-620.
Eichler, S./Wäfler, M. 1985: Der Survey im Fruehjahr 1984, in: S. Eichler/V. Haas/D. Steudler/
M. Wäfler/D. Warburton, Tall al-Hamidiya 1. Vorbericht 1984. Gottingen,
Vandenhoek & Ruprecht, pp. 45-50.
Eidem, J./Warburton, D. 1996: In the Land of Nagar: a Survey around Tell Brak, Iraq LVIII, pp. 51-64.
Erdalkıran, M. In press: The Halaf ceramics in Ωirnak area, Turkey, Madrid, Proceedings of the
5ICAANE (Madrid, 2006).
Faura, J.M. 1996: La cerámica Pre-Halaf, in: M. Molist (ed.), Tell Halula (Siria). Un yacimiento neolítico
del valle medio del Éufrates. Campañas de 1991 y 1992. Barcelona, Ministerio
de educacion y cultura, pp. 91-97.
Faura, J.M./LeMière, M. 1999: La céramique néolithicque du Haut Euphrate Syrien, in: G. del Olmo
Lete/J.L. Montero Fenolólos (eds.), Archaeology of the Upper Syrian
Euphrates. The Tishrin Dam Area. Barcelona, Editorial AUSA, pp. 281-298.
Forest, J.D. 1996: Mésopotamie. L’appirition de l’Etat VIIe
-VIIIe
millénaires. Paris, Méditerranée.
Gustavson-Gaube, C. 1981: Shams ed-Din Tannira: the Halafian Pottery of Area A, Berytus XXIX, pp. 9-182.
Gut, R.V. 1995: Das prähistorische Ninive. Zur relativen Chronologie der frühen Perioden Nordmesopotamiens.
Mainz, Phillip von Zabern.
Hijara, I.H. 1980: The Halaf Period in Northern Mesopotamia. London, Ph.D. thesis University of London.
Hole, F. 2000: The prehistory of the Khabur, in: O. Rouault/M. Wäfler (eds.), La Djéziré et l’Euphrate
syriens de la protohistoire à la fin du second millénaire av. J.-C.. Tendances
dans l’interprétation historique des données nouvelles. Turnhout, Brepols
(Subartu VII), pp. 17-28.
Hole, F./Johnson, G.A. 1987: Umm Qseir on the Khabur: Preliminary Report on the 1986 Excavation,
Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 36/37, pp. 172-220.
Huot, J.L. 1994: Les premiers villageois de Mésopotamie: du village a la ville. Paris, Armand Collin.
Karsgaard, P., In prep.: Reflecting Symmetries: Inter-Regional Relations and the Transformations of
Small Scale Societies in Mesopotamia. Edinburgh, Ph.D thesis University
of Edinburgh.
Kozbe, G. 2006: Ωırnak Ili Cizre-Silopi Ovasi 2004 Yili Yuzey Arastirmasi, Arastırma Sonuclari
Toplantisi 23/1, pp. 293-308.
Kozbe, G., In prep.: A preliminary report for the settlement pattern of the Cizre-Silopi plains during the
Halaf Period.
Subartu XXI
298
Kühne, H. 1977: Zur historischen Geographie am Unteren Habur. Vorläufiger Bericht über eine archäologische
Geländebegehung, Archiv für Orientforschung XXV, pp. 249-255.
Kühne, H. 1978: Zur historischen Geographie am Unteren Habur. Zweiter, vorläufiger Bericht über
eine archäologische Geländebegehung, Archiv für Orientforschung XXVI,
pp. 181-195.
Leenders, R. 1989: The Red Wash Ware Ceramic Assemblage in Syria: a Review, in: O. Chaex/H.H.
Curvers/P.M.M.G. Akkermans (eds.), To the Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeological
Studies in Honour of Maurits N. van Loon. Rotterdam, Balkema.
LeMière, M. 1989: Clay analyses of the prehistoric pottery, in: P.M.M.G. Akkermans (ed.), Excavations at
Tell Sabi Abyad. Prehistoric Investigations in the Balikh Valley, northern Syria.
Oxford, BAR International Series 468, pp. 233-235.
LeMière, M. 2000: L’occupation proto-Hassuna du Haut-Khabur occidental d’après la céramique, in:
B. Lyonnet (ed.), Prospection Archéologique Haut Khabur Occidental
(Syrie du N.E.). Vol. I. Beirut, IFAPO, pp. 127-149.
LeMière, M. 2001: The Neolithic pottery from Tell Kosak Shamali, in: Y. Nishiaki/T. Matsutani (eds.), Tell
Kosak Shamali Vol. I. The Archaeological Investigations on the Upper Euphrates,
Syria. Chalcolithic Architecture and the Earlier Prehistoric Remains. Tokyo,
The University Museum (monograph I), pp. 179-211.
LeMière, M./Nieuwenhuyse, O.P. 1996: The Prehistoric Pottery, in: P.M.M.G. Akkermans (ed.),
Tell Sabi Abyad. The Late Neolithic Settlement. Istanbul, Nederlands Historisch
Archeologisch Instituut, pp. 119-284.
LeMière, M./Picon, M. 1987: Productions locales et circulation des céramiques au VIème
millénaire au
Proche Orient, Paléorient 13/2, pp. 137-151.
LeMière, M./Picon, M. 1999: Les débuts de la céramique au Proche Orient, Paléorient 24/2, pp. 5-26.
LeMonnier, P. 1992: Elements for an Anthropology of Technology. Michigan, Ann Arbor.
Lupton, A. 1996: Stability and Change: Socio-political Development in North Mesopotamia and SouthEast
Anatolia, 4000-2700 BCE. Oxford, Archaeopress, BAR International
Series 627.
Lyonnet, B. 1990: Prospection archéologique du site de Tell Mohammed Diyab, in: J.M. Durand (ed.),
Cahiers de N.A.B.U. 1. Tell Mohammed Diyab, campagnes 1987 et 1988.
Paris, SEPOA, pp. 71-115.
Lyonnet, B. 1992: Reconnaissance dans le Haut-Khabur: étude de la céramique, in: J.M. Durand (ed.),
Mémoires de N.A.B.U. 2. Récherches en Haute Mésopotamie. Tell Mohammed
Diyab campagnes 1990 et 1991. Paris, SEPOA, pp. 103-132.
Lyonnet, B. 2000: Objectifs de la prospection, méthodologie et résultats généraux, in: B. Lyonnet (ed.),
Prospection Archéologique Haut Khabur Occidental (Syrie du N.E.). Vol. I.
Beirut, IFAPO, pp. 5-76.
Mallowan, M.E.L. 1936: The Excavations at Tell Chagar Bazar and an archaeological Survey of the
Khabur Region. 1934-5, Iraq 3, pp. 1-87.
Matsutani, T. (ed.) 1991: Tell Kashkashok. The Excavations at Tell no. II. Tokyo, University of Tokyo
Press.
McCorriston J. 1992: The Halaf environment and human activities in the Khabur drainage, Syria, Journal
of Field Archaeology 19, pp. 315-333.
McCorriston J. 1998: Landscape and human environment interaction in the Middle Habur drainage
from the Neolithic period to the Bronze Age, in: M. Fortin/O. Aurenche (eds.),
Natural Space, Inhabited Space in Northern Syria (10th
- 2nd
millennium B.C.
Toronto, Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies, pp. 43-54.
Meijer, D.J.W. 1986: A Survey in Northeast Syria. Istanbul, Nederlands Historisch Archeologisch Instituut.
Miyake, Y. 2005: Archaeological Survey at Salat Cami Yanı. A Pottery Neolithic Site in the Tigris Valley,
Southeast Turkey, Anatolica 31, pp. 1-18.
Miyake, Y. In press: Salat Cami Yanı: a Pottery Neolithic site in the Tigris Valley, in: M. Özdoπan/
N. Basgelen (eds.), Neolithic in Turkey (second edition). Istanbul, Arkeoloji
ve Sanat Yayinları.
Beydar Studies 1
299
Monchambert, J.Y. 1984: Le future lac du Moyen Khabur: rapport sur la prospection archéologique
menée en 1983, Syria LXI, pp. 181-216.
Munchaev, R.M./Merpert, N. 1994: Da Hasuna a Accad. Scavi della missione Russa nella regione
di Hassake. Syria di nord-est. 1988-1992, Mesopotamia XXIX, pp. 5-48.
Munchaev, R.M./Merpert, N., Bader N. /Amirov, S. 1993: Tell Hazna II, an early agricultural settlement
in north-eastern Syria, Rossiskaya Archeologia 4, pp. 25-42.
Nieuwenhuyse, O.P. 1997: Following the earliest Halaf: some later Halaf Pottery from Tell Sabi Abyad,
Syria, Anatolica XXIII, pp. 227-242.
Nieuwenhuyse, O.P. 2000: Halaf Settlement in the Khabur Headwaters, in: B. Lyonnet (ed.), Prospection
Archéologique Haut Khabur Occidental (Syrie du N.E.). Vol. I. Beirut,
IFAPO, pp. 151-260.
Nieuwenhuyse, O.P. 2007: Plain and Painted Pottery. The Rise of Late Neolithic Ceramic Styles
on the Syrian and Northern Mesopotamian Plains. Turnhout, Brepols (Papers
on Archaeology of the Leiden Museum of Antiquities III).
Nieuwenhuyse, O.P./Jacobs, L./Van As, A./Broekmans, T./Adriaens, M. 2001: Making Samarra Fine Ware
– technological observations on the ceramics from Tell Baghouz (Syria),
Paléorient 27/1, pp. 147-165.
Nieuwenhuyse, O.P., Jacobs, L./Van As, A. 2002: The ceramics, in: A. Suleiman/O.P. Nieuwenhuyse
(eds.), Tell Boueid II. A Late NeolithicVillage on the Middle Khabur (Syria).
Turnhout, Brepols (Subartu XI), pp. 35-124.
Nishiaki, Y. 1992: Preliminary results of the prehistoric survey in the Khabur basin, Northeast Syria:
1990-1991 seasons, Paléorient 18-1, pp. 97-102.
Nishiaki, Y. 2000: Palaeolithic and Neolithic stone industries from the Khabur basin, northeast Syria,
in: B. Lyonnet (ed.), Prospection Archéologique Haut Khabur Occidental
(Syrie du N.E.). Vol. I. Beirut, IFAPO, pp. 77-126.
Nishiaki, Y./LeMière, M. 2005: The oldest Pottery Neolithic of Upper Mesopotamia: new evidence from
Tell Seker al-Aheimar, the Khabur, northeast Syria, Paléorient 31/2, pp. 55-68.
Noll, W. 1991: Alte Keramike und ihre Pigmente. Studien zu Material und Technologie. Stuttgart,
Schweizerbart.
Oates, D. 1977: The Excavations at Tell Brak, 1976, Iraq 39, pp. 233-244.
Oates, D. 1982: Tell Brak, in: J. Curtis (ed.), Fifty Years of Mesopotamian Discovery. London, Brittish
School of Archaeology in Iraq, pp. 62-71.
Oates, J. 1980: Land use and population in Prehistoric Mesopotamia, in: L’archéologie de l’Iraq du début
de l’époque néolithique a 333 avant notre ère. Paris, Editions du CNRS,
pp. 303-314.
Oates, J. 2005: Archaeology in Mesopotamia: Digging Deeper at Tell Brak, Proceedings of the British
Academy 131, pp. 1-39.
Özdoπan, M. 1999: Mezraa Teleilat: preliminary reconnaissance of a Neolithic site in the Euphrates
basin, in: N. Tuna J./Öztütk (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological
Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs in 1998. Ankara,
Middle East Technical University, pp. 11-17.
Özdoπan, M. 2003: Mezraa Teleilat. Un site néolithique en bordure de l’Euphrate, Dossiers Archéologie
281, pp. 36-41.
Pollock, S. 1999: Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Rice, P.M. 1987: Pottery Analysis. A Sourcebook. Chicago, University of Chicago Press.
Rye, O.S. 1981: Pottery Technology. Principles and Reconstruction. Washington, Taraxacum.
Schacht, R.M. 1984: The contemporaneity problem, American Antiquity 49, pp. 678-695.
Suleiman, A. 1995: Tell Boueid, Syria LXXII, pp. 164-170.
Suleiman, A. 2002: The stratigraphy and architecture, in: A. Suleiman/O.P. Nieuwenhuyse (eds.), Tell
Boueid II. A Late Neolithic Village on the Middle Khabur (Syria). Turnhout,
Brepols (Subartu XI), pp. 5-12.
Subartu XXI
300
Suleiman, A./Nieuwenhuyse, O.P. (eds.) 2002: Tell Boueid II. A Late Neolithic Village along the Middle
Khabur (Syria). Turnhout, Brepols (Subartu XI).
Stone, G.D. 1996: Settlement Ecology. The Social and Spatial Organization of Kofyar Agriculture.
Tucson, University of Arizona Press.
Tekin, H. 2003: Hakemi Use 2001 kazısı, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 24, pp. 59-70.
Tekin, H. 2004: A Preliminary Report on the 2001 season at Hakemi Use, in: N. Tuna/J. Velibeyoπlu
(eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and
Carchemish Dam reservoirs, Activities in 2001. Ankara, Middle East
Technical University, pp. 450-462.
Tekin, H. In prep.: Late Neolithic ceramic traditions in Southeastern Anatolia: new insights from Hakemi
Use. Madrid, Proceedings of the 5ICAANE (Madrid, 2006).
Tsuneki, A./Miyake, Y. (eds.) 1998: Excavations at Tell Umm Qseir in Middle Khabur Valley,
North Syria. Tsukuba, University of Tsukuba.
Tunca, Ö./Baghdo, A.M. (eds.) 2006: Chagar Bazar (Syrie) I. Les sondages préhistoriques (1999-2001).
Leuven, Peeters.
Van As, A. 1984: Pottery Technology and the physioscientific analysis of ceramics, Newsletter
of the Department of Pottery Technology 2, Leiden, Leiden University Press,
pp. 10-13.
Van As, A./Jacobs, L. 1989: Technological aspects of the prehistoric pottery, in: P.M.M.G. Akkermans
(ed.), Excavations at Tell Sabi Abyad. Prehistoric Investigations in the Balikh
valley of northern Syria. Oxford, BAR International Series 468, pp. 215-232.
Van As, A./Jacobs, L./Nieuwenhuyse, O.P. 1998: The Transitional Fine Ware Pottery of Tell Sabi Abyad,
Syria. A Pilot Study, Newsletter of the Department of Pottery Technology 14/15,
Leiden, Leiden University Press, pp. 25-47.
Van Berg, P-L/Picalause, V. 2003: Structures archéologique et art rupestre à Kishâm (Hassake, Syrie):
campagne 1999, in: M. Lebeau/A. Suleiman (eds.), Tell Beydar, the 1995-
1999 Seasons of Excavations. A Preliminary Report. Turnhout, Brepols,
Subartu X, pp. 555-568.
Verhoeven, M. 1999: An Ethnographical Ethnography of a Late Neolithic Community. Space, Place and
Social Relations at Tell Sabi Abyad, Syria. Istanbul, Nederlands Historisch
Archeologisch Instituut.
Von Oppenheim, M.A.S./Schmidt, H. 1943: Tell Halaf I: die prähistorische Funde. Berlin, Walter de Gruyter.
Watkins, T./Campbell, S. 1986: Excavations at Kharabeh Shattani I. Edinburgh, Occasional Paper
University of Edinburgh.
Watkins, T./Campbell, S. 1987: The Chronology of the Halaf Culture, in: O. Aurenche (ed.), Chronologies
in the Near East. Oxford, Archaeopress, BAR International Series 379,
pp. 427-464.
Watson, P.J./leBlanc, S.A. 1990: Girikihacyan. A Halafian Site in Southeastern Turkey. Los Angeles,
University of California Press.
Weiss, H. 1997: Tell Leilan, in: H. Weiss (ed.), Archaeology in Syria, American Journal of Archaeology
101, pp. 97-148.
Wilkinson, T.J. 1990: Soil development and early land use in the Jazira region, Upper Mesopotamia,
World Archaeology 22/1, pp. 87-103.
Wilkinson, T.J. 2000a: Regional Approaches to Mesopotamian Archaeology, Journal of Archaeological
Research 8, pp. 219-67.
Wilkinson, T.J. 2000b: Archaeological survey of the Tell Beydar region Syria, 1997. A preliminary report,
in: K. van Lerberghe - G. Voet (eds.), Tell Beydar. Environmental and
Technical Studies. Turnhout, Brepols (Subartu VI), pp. 1-37.
Wilkinson, T.J./Tucker, D.J.1995: Settlement Development in the North Jazira, Iraq. A Study of
the Archaeological Landscape. London, British School of Archaeology in Iraq.
Beydar Studies 1
301
Appendix: Catalogue of Late Neolithic sites in the Tell Beydar survey
TBS 1: Tell Beydar (Lyonnet site KS 15)
Height: ? Length: ? Width: ? Area: ? Sherd density: ?
The Lyonnet survey yielded a single Halaf body sherd from the Bronze Age acropolis (area A), which certainly
does not reflect the extent of Halaf settlement. At Tell Beydar, either Halaf occupation may be buried
deep beneath the Early Bronze Age occupation, or the mudbricks employed to construct buildings at the
site were dug from a nearby Halaf site.
TBS 4: Tell Rajab
Height: 25 m Length: ? E-W Width: ? N-S Area: ? Sherd density: ?
Tell and lower site, ca. 3.5 km S of Tell Beydar. On W side of Wadi ‘Aweidj. High tell with steep N-facing
slopes; village on NW slopes. The size of the tell (4 ha) certainly not the extent of the Late Neolithic settlement.
New wadi cut to E exposed Halaf pottery on wadi bed as well as in kiln with heavily vitrified interior
in the E bank of wadi. EBA pottery dominates over entire mound surface. Lower site to N (not collected)
appears to be mainly Iron Age. None of the Halaf pottery actually came from the tell, but rather from the
alluvial sediments and kiln exposed in the present wadi bed. These deposits suggest that wadi flow was
somewhat higher during the Halaf than in the post-Halaf period.
TBS 5
Height: 1 m Length: 150 m N-S Width: 60 m E-W Area: 0.7 ha Sherd density: 71,4 s/ha
Small, low mound of pale brown ashy soil, on low terrace on E bank of Wadi Aweidj between Tells Rajab
and Jamilo. Collected twice in 1997. In addition to Late Neolithic material some later Sasanian/Islamic
sherds to S and E.
TBS 7
Height: negligible Length: 100 m Width: 100 m Area: 0.8 ha Sherd density: 18,8 s/ha
Single small low natural mound apparently of natural pedogenically altered alluvium (cf. TBS 61) and
covered by a veneer of prehistoric pottery. To W. of Wadi Aweidj. Cut by N-S drain. Pottery on site very
sparse, but includes significant number of small painted Halaf sherds.
TBS 26
Height: 2 m Length: 125 m E-W Width: 110 m N-S Area: 1.0 ha Sherd density: 51 s/ha
Moderately small, low mound, 1.5 km S of Tell Khatoun (TBS 32). On gently rolling NW-facing slopes.
Low rounded mounded with abundant pottery of early ceramic Neolithic date, but with a small number of
Hellenistic sherds.
TBS 34B
Height: 2.5 m Length: 200 m N-S Width: 100 m E-W Area: 1.6 ha Sherd density: 25 s/ha
Moderately extensive site ca. 1.4 km NE of Tell Khatoun, on undulating terrace on E bank of Wadi
Aweidj. Buried soil exposed in adjacent wadi cut shows 50-70 cm of post Parthian sedimentation of
brown blocky clay. Parthian occupation mainly appears to occupy the upper part of mound; Uruk with
BRBs and abundant early Neolithic coarse chaffy ware of indeterminate type outcrops to N and NW on
area B.
TBS 37A: Tell Ghazal
Height: ? Length: ? Width: ? Area: ? Sherd density: ?
In addition to Ubaid sherds, 3 Halaf and 5 Halaf/ Ubaid were collected (not further described).
TBS 38
Height: 1.5 m Length: 110 m Width: 110 m Area: 0.95 ha Sherd density: 10,5 s/ha
On E bank of Wadi Aweidj ca. 400-500 m N of Tell Ghazal. Small low mound on floodplain. Cut in wadi
shows coarse Chalcolithic pottery buried 1.5 m below brown blocky alluvium. Very low rounded mound
with sparse pottery, but occasional dense scatters of coarse chaffy Chalcolithic? pottery in NE quadrant.
Hellenistic-Sasanian, Mid-late Islamic, Uruk (3 BRBs) plus additional coarse chaffy wares of early ceramic
Neolithic or Chalcolithic date.
Subartu XXI
302
TBS 40D: Tell Sekar Wastani
Height: < 1 m Length: 100 m N-S Width: 80 m E-W Area: 0.63 ha Sherd density: 30,2 s/ha
Moderate size tell, more subdued and less eroded than TBS 39. To S. of TBS 39 and between 39 and 41.
Lower town (C, D and E) to N Includes modern cemetery. Adjacent to modern village. EBA wares, which
are common, include both plain simple ware jars and fine ware cups and bowls. No MBA noted. Main tell
collected as areas F, G, H, 1998 by J. Ur and PVD. Lower sites collected as A, B, to S and C, D, E to N.
Late Neolithic sherds were collected from area D, which formed part of the lower town to the north. There
is no record of prehistoric sherds from the tell itself.
TBS 41D: Tell Sekar Tahtani
Height: < 1m Length: 100 m N-S Width: 80 m E-W Area: 0.63 ha Sherd density: 1,6 s/ha
Large heavily-eroded tell, 23 m high, to S of TBS 40. Lower towns to N and S. At S end of site by village
recently dug pits have exposed ancient mud brick wall; a single painted Halaf Fine Ware associated with
this feature. In addition, one or two possible prehistoric sherds noted on the small low mound (D) to the
SE of the site and E of a small wadi. Overall, the Neolithic site appears to be located in the southern part of
the site and not on the tell itself. Main tell collected 1998 by J Ur and PVD as transects 1, 2, 3. Outer town
mounds collected as A, B, C, E, to S., D to E and F, G, to N.
TBS 44
Height: 1 m Length: 120 m Width: 120 m Area: 1.1 ha Sherd density: 51,8 s/ha
Small, low and rounded mound ca. 700 m S of village of Samada, and ca. 500 m N of Tell Hassek. Late
Neolithic Pottery (mainly Halaf) is common but occurs mainly in small fragments.
TBS 48
Height: 2 m Length: 80 m Width: 80 m Area: 0.5 ha Sherd density: 8 s/ha
Small site in NW sector of survey area, and below and west of basalt plateau, ca. 1 km SE of village of
Mishirfe. Low rounded mound with pottery from the Halaf, Late Chalcolithic, and Hellenistic periods.
TBS 50A: Tell Ghazal Foqani
Height: 17.5 m Length: 170 m Width: 170 m Area: 2.3 ha Sherd density: 0,9 s/ha
Small but high tell (A) immediately S of village of same name, with lower elongate mound (B) to NE
and partly obscured by village. Area A yielded some coarse Neolithic sherds, plain Late Ubaid, Late
Chalcolithic, EBA plus indeterminate sherds. B: Late Chalcolithic chaff-tempered wares, miscellaneous 2nd
or 1st
millennium sherds; good Hellenistic. In this case, the small amount of Late Neolithic pottery clearly
came from the tell.
TBS 54C
Height: 3 m Length: 170 m Width: 170 m Area: 2.3 ha Sherd density: 0,4 s/ha
Group of three small mounds in NW sector of area, ca. 4.5 km W of Sekar Fouqani. Within moderately
narrow valley N of basalt plateau. Area A, a moderately rounded mound, is Iron Age and Hellenistic with
stray Sasanian/Byzantine handles. Area B, partly bulldozed, is Hellenistic and Parthian. Area C, a prominent
mound to the N, has 1-2 Hellenistic sherds plus some simple indeterminate hand-made forms and
a single Late Neolithic sherd.
TBS 58
Height: 0.5 m Length: 220 m E-W Width: 200 m N-S Area: 1.75 ha Sherd density: 54,9 s/ha
Located ca. 1 km S of Tell Sekar Fouqani, to east of basalt plateau with weak trace of former wadi channel
nearby. This virtually flat site appeared from the scatter of large sherds and occasional stones, to cover some
4 ha. However, following a second visit and discussion with the land owner it appears that the site was
recently bulldozed and was therefore originally smaller but 1-2 m in height.
TBS 59E: Tell Jamilo (Lyonnet site KS 14)
Height: 3 m Length: 220 m N-S Width: 120 m E-W Area: 2.1 ha Sherd density: 42,4 s/ha
Moderately large tell to E of flood plain of Wadi Aweidj. Only briefly visited in 1997 because site had been
collected by Lyonnet, but then collected in more detail in 1998. A deep gully cuts the S part of the tell,
a shallower gully faces north towards Tell Beydar, and a lower mound extends to the south. Kiln slag is
present on SE slopes, which suggests that pottery manufacturing was concentrated in SE part of the site.
Abundant EBA pottery occurs over the entire site. Further details will be reported by B. Lyonnet. A good
assemblage of Halaf pottery came from mound E, located to the SE of the tell just beyond a broad crescentshaped
depression. The Lyonnet survey had not detected Late Neolithic occupation here.
Beydar Studies 1
303
TBS 61
Height: 1.5 m Length: 120 m Width: 120 m Area: 1.1 ha Sherd density: 7,3 s/ha
Small low mound on low loam terrace of Wadi ‘Aweidj; to W of channel. Today site is cut by small canal
which exposed a deep reddish soil with CaCO3 soft concretions. The date of the pottery is Halaf, (with
a few stray EBA sherds), and this therefore appears to be a shallow site that has been transformed by soil
forming process into a complete soil profile.
TBS 65/66: Tell Khazna
TBS 65, Tell Khazna II is the low mound in NW of area, within the village of Khazna, in valley to E of
basalt plateau. Eroded conical mound ca. 6 m high. No subdivisions. Strong Late Chalco presence at the
surface. Excavations have shown a Late Neolithic presence (Munchaev and Merpert 1994). Close to the
mound of TBS 66, Khirbet Khazna al-Gharbi.
TBS 74: Khirbet Ayid West
Height: 1.5 m Length: 70 m Width: 70 m? Area: 0.4 ha Sherd density: 95 s/ha
Collected in 1998. In NW part of area ca. 2 km W of Tell Farfara and 1 km W of village of Khirbet Ayid.
Small low mound, now heavily bulldozed as result of extension of cotton fields. Site now remains as low
upstanding ridge ca. 1.5 m high with bulldozed areas to W and E. Upstanding residual also cut by N-S drain.
Pottery, which is moderately common, collected from bulldozed surface to W. Good collection of Halaf
wares, some Late Chalcolithic.
TBS 81
Height: 2 m Length: 180 m E-W Width: 170 m N-S Area: 2.4 ha Sherd density: 14,6 s/ha
Small site ca. 300 m W of Wadi Aoueij between Tell Beydar and Tell Rajab, collected by J Ur and P.V. .
E of Hasseka road. SE of Beydar III. Slightly mounded site 170 x 180 m x 2.5 m high. Common basalt
stones on surface; frequent pottery of early Ceramic Neolithic date.
Aggregate site area: 20.26 ha
Mean site area: 1.2 ha
Mean Late Neolithic sherd density: 25,6 s/ha