AI.-tUFIDAN Vol XVIII IW 105 A REASSESSMENT OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF KHABUR WARE: AN APPROACH FROM AN ASPECT OF ITS MAIN PHASE Hiromichi OGUCHI* Introduction Archaeologists, excavating sites and analyzing artifacts found there, have attempted to give an accurate picture of what happened in terms of material culture. Since pottery is one of the most common classes ill,: n;icls, it was, and is still, an object for such archaeologists' attempts. A ceramic category, which archaeologists distinguish and define by similarities in style, forms part of a material culture representing the sum of social activities. The uniformity of material culture style in an area is presumed to reflect the close social relationships between groups of people living in villages, towns and cities of the area. In this sense, material culture style is an index of social relations by which a social unit is formed; such a unit is comprised of socially-interrelated people sharing similar symbolic representation and similar mii- i inl expression. A ceramic category, regarded as homogeneous in style, is also considered as reflecting a social unit comprising groups of people closely related in space. Pottery style is most concerned with decorative treatment such as painting, applique and incising. Khabur ware is a ceramic category recognized by stylistic similarities in painted decoration. Essential for such archaeologists' attempts is the examination of the spatial and temporal distributions of certain artifact and feature types, which affords a basic framework for delineating the spread and process of material culture and interpreting them in time and space. Since pottery style changes easily »r... n'iy rapidly, pottery itself is not only an index for defining a social unit but also one of the sensitive time markers for relative chronology. Hence an analysis of the spatial and temporal distributions of a certain ceramic category has an important role in archaeological interpretation. However, we are always faced with interpretative problems in attempts to clarify causal factors in the distribution of a certain pottery style-and in stylistic changes of pottery, What we can now at least assert are the facts that ceramic distributions certainly reflect interpersonal contact involving exchanges '." - leas, which may possibly have given a stimulus to people's modifying and changing style, and that i:lunges, through time, of ceramic distributions reflect changes in interpersonal contact. Needless to say, contact between groups within a society sharing the same pottery style must have been very close. The more frequent contact between different societies was, the stronger the probabi I ity that pottery style diffused beyond a society would be. The distribution of Khabur ware presents enigmatic and interesting problems, dividing into its main distribution zone and several secondary distribution areas diverging from the main zone. Because we can know historical facts, if fragmentarily. from «' ■ 'imentary sources of the period in which Khabur ware was in use, we have been so far given, and are still given, an opportunity to explain how and why the painted pottery was distributed through space, and furthermore, through time. Carol Hamlin's synthetic study of Khabur ware has guided us in speculating about several possibilities for interpretation on the distribution of Khabur ware [Hamlin 1971: pp.304-310: idem 1974: p. 132; Kramer 1977: pp. 104-108). Now that archaeological and historical data are increasing through recent excavations, problems which emerge in this connection require r ••onsideration". On this happy occasion, in the Festschrift for Professor Hideo Fujii. the present ' ide deals with the problem of interpreting the distribution of Khabur ware outside the main distribution * The lasiiiute for Cultural Studies of Anoem Iritq. Kokushikan University. K44 Hirohukuma, MuchiuY Tokyo. W Japan I > rtw prevent tvrttrr envisages discussing problems .vik-enkxl wiih Khabur ware in Mrunue jrtitles. 212 Hirtmichi OGUCHI A REASSESSMENT OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF KHABUR WARE 21J II« main distribution tew List of sites yielding Khabur ware —The main phase of Khabur ware— No. Khabur Ware Sites & References [North Iraq] 1. ASsur(modemQaiat Shergat) Halter 195*: Taf. I:«uaa-av,az2; Hrouda 1 937: pp.22-27, Taf. 9:1 -6.9-11, Taf. 10:1; Ditlmartn 1990: p. 154, Abb. 4; Krouda 1991: p.106, Abb. 10: Dittmann 1992: p.309. See also Matthews & Wilkinson 1989: p.253 and 1991; p.m. 2. TeHAqrah el-Amin&Mallowan 1950: p.62, PI.IX:7. 3. Nineveh (ancient Nkuiwa/Nimia. the main citadel moan) » modem Tell Kuyunjik) Tnumpaoq* Hutchinson 1931: PI.XXXIV:7,8,12; Mallow an 1937: p 103: S iron ach 1992: p.306. 4. Tell Bills (anctant Sibaniba) Speiser 1933: Pl.LDC F1.LXXII. 3. Tepe Gawra Speiier 1931: Pl.LXXI: 157, Pl.LXXVI: 14. 6. Telul eth-Thalathat Cniyonobu 1974 (Tell V); p.47, PI.UI:2,3; Fukai ft Mawitani 1977 (Tell I): pp.60- 61. Fig. 6:1. 7. TellTa>a(?ancMotSanüanimffiairuaUirn) Reade 1968: DpJ57~259, PI LXXXVn:29: idem 1982a: p.74. 8. Tell al-Rimah (probably ancient Karana) » D. Oates 1965: p.7l; (dem 1976: p.niii. See alto Reade 1968; p.2S8 and Oates A Oates 1994: p.171. 9. TellKhoahi Uoyd 1938: p.141 (Group. X and XII. tee p. 134): Keptraki 1990: p.277. iJoyft MrilMf M^JJ Tell Abu Maria (? ancient Apqum), Hajji Yunus, Tell Mannar/Haddha. Tell Hudhail. and Tell Heyal. Uoyd 1938: p.!34fT. (Group XII). WmTp iwfnM tmtr Hathal. Tell Kalf. «e. Hamlin l97l:n.32-33onpp.l9S-196. «Ti»to*fcnr*muMOPwirf-irwt»a«M> Wadl Khatkbun. Karhot Sufi*, Kbirbet Hatara. Tell Jumbur, Tell Baqaq I. Tell Grai QasiRl Tell Jigan/Jikan (no. 10). Nemrik 9. Tell Der Hall, Tell Fisna. Tell Rijim, Tell Jessary, Tell Museifneh. Tell Seial. Tell Thuwaij/Dhuwiij. Khirbet Karhaaan. Tell Abu Dhahii. Khirbet Shireena/Wadi Suwaldiyi I. Tell Durdara, and Tell Olr Matbakh. Klllick * Roaf 1983; Klllfck <£ Black 1985: Ball H Black 1987; Yusif 1987a for Jumbur and 1987b for Baqaq I: Fujil M of. 1987 for Jigan. Der Hall and Fisna; 11A Kawamau 1984-85 for Jigan'. Fujii 1987a for Jigan and 1987b for Jeuary; Falea etat. 1987 fix Jigan; Bieliniki 1987 for Rijim: Hiuain 1987 for Museifneh; Ball 1987 for Abu Dhahir, Khirbet Karbann, Khirbet Shireena and Cir Matbakh; Spanoj 1988 for Dutdara: Fujii era/. 1989-90 tor Thuwaij and Jessary: Numoto 1988 for Ftsna and 1990 for Jeuary: Tuaa 1993 for Jigan; Oesuato 1993 for Jigan: Numoto 1996 for Thuway trench C. 10. Tell Hamad Agha at-Saghir (no. 11). Tell al-Hawa (no. 12 — ? ancient Tille. Suruzi. Hadnum, Kilkii or lapnirm). Tell Hamide, and Tell Hamide West. Spawn 1988.1990a and 1990b for Hamad Agha as-Saghir: Ball et at. I9S9 tor Huwu; Ball* Wilkinson 1989-40 for Hawa: Ball 1990 for Hawa: Zimansky 1990 for Hamide; Matthews & Wilkinson I9S9 for Kamide West: Wilkinson 1990: p:57 for Hamide. Wilkin**"*'' '«'*** In K"n* hop>ft«w Tell Kuran, Mowasha. al-Botha. Tell Wardan, Kharaba Tibn, Tell al-Samir, Tell Talab. Tell Man'a, Abu Kula. Tell Uwaynal, etc. Wilkinson 1989: Table I on p. 12; idem 1990: p.57. [ L li. i.|;'-( Khabur basin of n on beast Syria] 13. Tell Leilan (ancient Subal-Enlii and 7 Sehna) Weiss 1983: p.50 and p.56; idem 1985a: p.7, and jar, pot and bowl examples in the illustration on p.ll; idem 1985b: pp.276-281: Weiss era/. 1990: p.529ff., and Fig. 15:2, 5-7 and Fig, 27:1,2. 14. Tell Mohammed Diyab l:iiivre 1992: p.56. pp.58-61 and p.68, and e.g. Fig. 7:4-5, Fig. 8:1-7.10-15, Fig. 9: 1-10and Fig. 11:1. 15 ; iJ Hamidi/al-Hamidiya Mallowan 1947: p.45. concerning M. Dunand's 1926 sounding!. See Eichler el at. 1985: e.g. Taf. 96:4004:1-4, Taf. 97:4006:3.4007:3.4. Taf. 99:4010:5. Taf. 101 and Taf. 102:4024. See also Eichler et at. 1990: e.g. Taf. 42:4006:4 and Taf. 43:4019:11, and cf. WHfler 1990: pp.223-225 for a later phase. 16. Tell Barri (ancient Kahat) Meijer 1986: p 31 (his site no.289. F.9a). Pecorella 1990: p.53 and p.55, and cf. p.58 and see some sherds in P1.4:4 for a later phase. 17. Tell Brak (? ancient Nagar/Nawar or Tai'du) Mallowan 1947: p.78; D. Oates 1982a: p.195; idem 1982b: p.7f>. idem 1985: p. 164; D. Okies & J. Oatea 1994; p 171 andp.173. See also Matthews el at 1994: p. 188. and fig. 13, presumably for a later phase, and Matthews 1995: Fig. 21, presumably for a later phase 18. Chagar Bazar (7 ancient Ainakkum) Mallowan 1936. and Idem 1937 and 1947 for earlier phases of level 1. See also Curtis 1982: pp.83-84. lell'Arbit Mallowan 1937: p. 117. Fig. 21:13. 20. Tell Mozan (? ancient Urktf) Buccellati A Kelly-Buccellati 1988: Fig. 22 and Fig. 26:M1 79-82 and 111.23; KeUy-Buccellati 1988: p.45; idem 1990: p. 126; Buccellati & Kelly-Buccellati 1991: p.713. 21. Tell-Ailun Moortgat 1959: p. 19. p,24, p.30. Abb. 9 said to have been brought from this site (see pp.17-19), and Abb. 16-18. See also Warbunon 1985: p.23. 22. Tell Fakhariyah Kantor 1958. p.2Iff and. Tell Muhammad Kabir iijih. Tell Humaydi »/ «H Krkjivil |Utt|i. * The KhMfcur*«« .n*. ,.,.u,iv u^pinsl hi fh.- [Hviw. jn K' I. v »V« m whkS ilwre *r k„-l.«»«(n*tl m ihf main pHvM of Khnbtir wjre iKluhuf Wn« PVnuJ :. w » « hk'h llK rfV.rt. 214 Hinimichi OCUCHI A REASSESSMENT OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF KHABUR WARE 215 Stcomkuy datribuHó* arm Ho. Sites (31) (Tell Bdeiri/Bderi) Pfilzncr 1995: p.38. Taf.52:a, Tlf.66:e, and Tlf. 66:i (?). HJL Ten sherds of Khibur ware are said to have been recovered from some of the levels dated by Pfälzncr lo ihe 14th century B.C.. which may however be oui-of-context sherds lef. Palmer 1995: p.38]. This seems to suggest a possibility that in unexeavated areas, there may be small area of occupation contemporary with a later Khabur ware phase, although there is no reason to deny another possibility that there may have been perhaps be occupation contemporary with the main phase of Khabur ware. 32. Tell Bi'a (ancient Tutlul) Strommenger 1991: p. 15. Abb. 5: Binwag 1993: p.44. Abb. 9:1,2. MJt A small number of Khabur ware sherds occur, as noted in die text of this article. 33. Tell Hammarn et-Tgrkman C ancient Zllpa/Zalpafj) Curvers 1988: pp.40.T-Jt04. Pt. 142:214.21 J. MJL The extremely limited occurrence of Khabur ware was confirmed in period VII (MB). 34. Tell Sahlan I" ancient Sohlala) Mallunan 1946: p. 138. A visit to Ihe site in 1988 by the present writer. tLH It seems probable that as at Tell Hammam et-Turkman. (here occurs little Khabur ware ul (his site. 35. Tell Mardikh (ancient Ebla) Matthlae 1977: p. 148: Mazzoni 1988: p.64; Mazzoni, personal communication in 1988. A visit to (he site in 1988. where, by courtesy of Professor Paolo Matlhiae and Dr. Stetania Mazzoni. Ihe present writer had a look ai (he Ebla Khabur ware jar that is decorated with cross-hatched triangles and horizontal bands of paint, and has a typical Khabur ware shape. NJL A small quantity of Khabur ware occurs, certainly in Mardikh UIB (MB II) [cf. Mazzoni 1988: p.64 with n.22. suggesting the presence of Khabur ware at the end of Mardikh HI A (MB I), as in Mardikh IHB|. [Turkey] 36. Alalah {modern Tell Atchana) Heinz 1992: Taf. 22:37 and Taf. 23:45,46,48 (four possible examples of Khibur ware, from level VIII). MB. Marlies Heinz attempts to distinguish Khabur ware from Syro-Cilician painted pottery, and suggests the occurrence of Khabur ware in levels X-VHI11992: e.g. p.62|. The Alalah X-VIII Khabur ware illustrated by Heinz is composed largely of samll body sherds with painted horizontal bands. The attribution of Heinz's "Khabur ware" sherds to the category of genuine Khabur ware is seriously questioned, with the exception of the four examples of level VIII, cited above. 37. ?Suhttntepe Pug 1970: n.8 on p.63 (according to John Evans). Cf. Lloyd * Gokce I9S3: p.27. N.B. The occurrence of Khabur ware is possible. 38, 7 Asagt Yarinwa LkrydftBrlce 1931: p. 110 (surface sherds). C/Á™M«n5íiuíi>J 11(1952). pp.Ll-13, Nj.B. The occurrence of Khabur ware is possible, but evidence is unfortunately insufficient. TK tUlUri nillMT Wilr »l|lni A site around Nizip In the Oaziantep Museum, an example of certain Khabur ware, a jar decorated with horizontal bands, cross-hatched triangles and dots interposed between the triangles, was exhibited when the present writer visited the museum in 1987. The Khabur ware jar is said to have been brought from somewhere around Nizip. MJL This may support the occurrence of Khabur ware not only in the Nizip area but also in the lslaMye-Gaziaruep legion. 39. ?TilmenH(lyOk Alkim 1969: pp.286-287. NJL It is merely said that levels Ilia and 1Mb, regarded as falling between ire 20* and the first quarter of the 18th century B.C., yielded both Syro-Cilician painted ware and Khabur ware. 40. ? Oedikli HUyOk (KarahUyUk) Alkim A Alkim 1966: p.35. Figs. 9-11 fband-painled sherds). NJL It i> said that in level II. some ten sherds of Khabur ware were found. Four band-painted body sherds, from level II. are shown on the photographs of the report. But one of them is decorated in lustrous paint, and is therefore differentiated from Khabur ware [ Alkim ft Alkim 1966: Fig. 121. The others, regarded by the excavators as Khabur ware, are decorated in matt reddish-brown paint. However, whether they are of Khabur ware is a matter for argument. Nevertheless, the occurrence of Khabur ware at a site around Nizip gives support to the possible presence of Khabur ware at Gedikli. 41. ?SakceOozll(CobaHuyUk) Taylor ei al. 1950: pp. 109-110. and see pp.56-57. See also Seion-Williams 1954: p. 133. NJL The Sakce Gozll evidence for Khabur ware is inconclusive, but the Nizip evidence noted above may suggest its possible occurrence. , *Ttaf Aiwa* (Kinbu) Out, rtiijetl and ihe Xjf^*yi DM Phqrei 42. Lidar HflyUk Hauptmann 1988: p. 110. Fig. 6: Hauplmann, personal communication in 1987. When visiting Lidar in 1987. Ihe present writer could have a look at Khabur ware from the site by courtesy of Professor Dr. Harald Hauptmann. NJL The ceramic material of level 8 (MB II). including some examples of Khabur ware, is said to have parallels in Hammam el-Turkman VII. Kama H and Mardit-h-Ehla 1MB. Jift Mnnafckj OQUCHI A REASSESSMENT Or Till DISTRIBUTION OK KHABUR WARE 217 43. imikusagi Sevin 4 KBroglu 1985 Res. 12 on p 178: Sevin IW pp.309- 311, Ret.22 on p.330; Sevm IV88: pp.112-113. Pig. 13. Sevin. personal communicatu>n m 1987. N.B. Levels 12-13 (MB II) produced some eighteen complete jars and pots with horizontal bands of mall paint and many sherds with matl-puinted. banded decoration ISevin. personal communication in I9R7|. CTiaracteristit of the painted pottery of levels 12-13 is the exclusive use <>i simple horizontal bands of matt red/reddish brown paint on the rim-to-shoulder. The band-painted pottery of levels 12-13 are reported as Khabur ware ISevin 1987: pp 309-310: idem 1988 pp.112-113| In fact, some of the band-painted complete jars and pots from levels 12-13 arc similar in shape to some globular examples of Khabur ware fromChagar Bazar (compare Sevin 1987 Res.22:c.e with Mallowan 1936: Fig. 16:2.3). In my opinion, based on my having a look at the Imikusagi band-painted pottery stored in the University of Istanbul through the courtesy of Professor l)i Veli Sevin. it iippcars to be composed ol the local imitations of Khabur ware and their variants Accordingly, many band-painted sherds from levels 12-13 are probably of the "Khabur ware" and its variants In sum. 1itiiku; i 11 is marked as a site yielding Khabur ware and its variants to some extent in quantity. 44. Ktlltepe (ancient Kanili) T. OzgOc 1953: pi 15. Abb 17/25 and Abb.18/26; Emrc 1963: p.95, PI.XXVM; T. OzgOc 1986; pp.92-93. PM34:3. See also Hrouda 1989: Fig. 2. MJL Three examples of Khabur ware, small in size and decorated only with painted horizontal bands, are known from graves of Kumm lb. The important fact is that none of the Khabur ware examples of this site occurs in contexts other than graves (Emrc. personal communication in I987|, [Northwest Iran] Tb« Mjfa SoMm *ia*y 45. Dinkha Tepe Hamlin 1971: esp. see Pis. XII-XIII. idem 1974: esp. see Figs. XII XIII. See also A. Stein 1940: PI. XXI: I. PI. XXII. PI. XXIX: 12. 13. and PI. XXX:J. N.B. Among the sites of secondary distribution of Khabur ware. Dinkha Tepe is one site yielding Khabur ware to some extent in quantity. With regard to the frequency of Khabur ware occurrence at Dinkha in period IV phases a-d, Carol Hamlin rcpons that "in a sample of the total sherdagc at Dinkha. Habur ware comprised I I'v" 11974: n.6 on p.l26|. This percentage may represent the frequency of Khabur ware occurrence at other sites in the Ushnu-Solduz valley. 46. Hasanlu Dyson 1965: Fig. I (Pl.XXXIland Fig 13 (Pt.XUV); idem 1973 p.703. See also A. Stein 1940: PI.XXXI:I2. 47. Pisdeli Tepe Hamlin 1971 p |% Am*I StfM't --ukii.it v.......■> a v ■ I. .i Xlcn. | otnr) 48 Tepe Condavelah 49. KuleraTepe 50. Mohammad Shah Tepe 51. Gird-i-Khusrau Kroll 1994: p 164 and the map on p. 165. '(Mill I ll.IS.lll 'Ali A. Stein 1940: Pl.XXIII 2b and possibly 28 MJL Stephan Knill states iliat a Khabur ware sherd illustrated in Aurel Stein's book as that fmm Gird-i-ltasan 'Ali (1940: PI XXII :<>l is MMN stored in the British Museum as a find at Kulera Tepe |Kroll 1994: n.30onp.l64|. Kroll thus excludes Gird-i-Husan 'Ali from the sues at uhich Khabur ware occurs. * Ihr "!.•> .■i«iii'..i .it. J hriT. «Ihm Kluliu - .. - . .. ci IhhikI in.-,. i Mm .".«i> -in. .1.....n, .« (.....m . m dune m »iu !■ it. n. i. 1. ....... . >• • ■ *rfS p.. main :■<:■ - t-1. ,r. K ■..l.,-> WW ISti.«l .'i.« Jl »hi,h atfaMIHIIH 1 .......""" phiw ■ Iv mini r j References to the illustrations of Fig. flm>ww> reimultued p,,..... I 24 6(fromRimah).I Oales 1970: P1.IX: 1-3. For nos. 3. 21 4 29|lr<.m ligan AreaC). Fujii 1987a. Fig 5:6. 8. ■ „. 7lfromTayal. Reade 1968: PI.LXXXVIL26. For no. 8 (from Chagar Bazan. Mallowan 1936: Fig. 16:2. For Ml o.s. minim Thuwaij). Fujiirrof. 1989-90: Fig. 7:12. 14. For nos. II. 12. 23. 32. 35 4 39 (from Chagar Bazar i. Mallowan 1937: Fig. 21:1, 12. Fig. 22:5 & Fig. 24:6.13.14. For nos. 13.38 4 59 (from Fisnai. Numixo 1988: Fig 25:225. 234 4 Fig. 31:319. For 14 A 15 (from Bílin). Hrouda 1957: Taf.l4:l I (= Speiser 1933 Pl LXXI1). For nos. 22. 26 4 27 (from Leilanl. Weiss 1985a: the illustration on p. 13. For nos. 244 25 (from KUltepe). Hrouda 1957 Taf.l3:3.4 (= T OzgUc 1953: Abb. 25 4 26). For no. 28 (from Dinkha). A. Stein 1940: PI.XXIX:I2. For no 31 ifnim Chagar BazarI and nos. 44. 46.55 4 57 (from Brak). Mallowan 1947: P1.LXVII:I9. Pt.LXXVII:!. 2.5 4 Pl LXXXII:I5 Fnr nos. 344 3»(from Brak). Mf 1995: fi|. 21:5.8. For no. 37 (from Der Hall). Fujii eial. 1987: Fig. 17:6 For nos. 41. 45.47 4 58 (from Billai. S(K "3 PI.LX:3. PI.LXL3 4 Pl.LXIl:5,7. For nos. 48,49, 53 4 54 (from Alsurl. Hrouda 1957: Taf.7 6,Taf.8:8. 10. 15 lor nu. 56(fnim Brakl, Hrouda 1957: Taf.l6:8 (= Mallowan 1947: P1.XL:2|. Others Nos. 4.S. 10.16-18.20.40.42,43 4 51 (unpublished) are from Jigan Are*C. and nos 30.33.50 4 52iunpublishcdl. from Dcr Hall. Bibliography Several reports on excavations in the Saddam (Eski Mosul) Dam Salvage Project area in Iraq have appeared in Researehe\ on the Anliaiulies of Saddam Dam Basin Salvage and Other Researches (1987). published by the Slate Organization of Antiquities and Heritage. Baghdad, in which included are Ball 1987: pp.78-81. Bielinski 1987: pp.13-19. Falesriaf. 1987: pp.99-128. Fujtirmf. 1987: pp.33-61. Fujii 1987a: pp.62-67 and 1987b: pp.68-72. Husain 1987: pp 156-161 (in Arabic), and Yusif 1987a: pp. 10-25 (in Arabic) and 1987b: pp.26-39 (in Arabic). Pieces of information on excavations in the same project area arc obtainable from a series of reports entitled "Excavations in Iraq" in the journal Iraq, Killick 4 Roaf 1983 (vol. 45). Killick 1983 (vol 47). Ball 4 Black 1987 (vol 49). and Matthews 4 Wilkinson 1989 and 1991 (vols. 31 and S3) are referred Abu al Soof. B. 1970 "Mounds in the Rania Plain and Excavations at Basmusian (1956)", Sumer 26. pp 65-104. Agha. A.A. 1987-88 "al-Ussiych" (in Arabic). Sumr45. pp.110-141. • -nnuns. P. I -*> 'Operation 3 on the Lower Town', in Weiss el al 1990. pp.S42-547. Akkermans. P, and Weiss. H. 1987-88 Tell Uilan 1987 Operation 3: A Preliminary Report on the Lower Town Palace'. Vu Annates Arihevliigtque\ Arahes Syriennes 37-38. pp.91-109. Mim: I I H !9i,9 -The An "in. Region in Turkey: New Light on the Historical Geography and Archaeology". Ariharnlng\ 21 pp280-289. Alkim. U.B and Alkim. H. 1966 "Excavations at Gedikli (Karahuyuk). First Preliminary Report". BeHeien 30. pp 27-57. el-Annn. M. and Mallowan. M I-. I. 1950 "Soundings in the Makhmur Plain". Sumer 6. pp.55-90 \nlii\r\ /bnn/r* tit ManTransinptitm Trtuttirtttm (ARMT). Parts I Ciirrcspondance de Samti-Addu el de ses tils (par G. Dossinl. 1950. VII. Tests cconoiniques ct adminisiratifs (par J B Rollero). 1957. Astour M C 1978 The Rabbeuns: A Tnbal Society on the Euphrates from Yrdjdun Inn to Juliii» t'.ievii Sir.' MrviiKHumum Saxtrt 2ppl-l2 21* Hiromichi OGUCHI A REASSESSMENT OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF KHABUR WARE 219 Ayoub. 5. 1982 Die Keramik in Mesoptamien und in den Nachbargebitttn. Von der Ur HI-Zeit bis tum Enal der kassitlschcn Permit (MUnchener Vorderasiatische Studien, Band II). Mäander Kunstverlag. Munich. Balkan. K. 1955 Obsevatma on the Chronological Problems of the Kirwn Kami (Türk Tariti Kurumu Yayinlanndan VII), TUrk Tarih Kurumu Basimevi, Ankara. Ball. W. 1990 The Tell al-Hawa Project: The Second and Third Seasons of Excavations at Tell al-Hawa. 1987-88". Mediterranean Archaeology 3. pp.75-92. Ball, W.. Tucker. D. and Wilkinson, T.J. 1989 "The Tell al-Hawa Project: Archaeological Investigations in the North Jazira 1986-87", /retail, pp. t-66. Ball. W. and Wilkinson. TJ. 1989-90 "British Werte in the North Jazira Project 19*6-87. Preliminary Report", Sinter 46, pp.7-12. Beitzel, B.I. 1984 "lime-Dagan's Military Actions in the Jezirah: A Geographical Study", Iraq 46, pp.29-42. 1992 "The Old Assyrian Caravan Road in the Man Royal Archives", in CD. Young (ed.), Mari in Retrospect: Fifty Years of Hart and Marl Studies (Eiseobnuns, Winona Lake, Indiana), pp.35-57. Bounni, A. 1990 The tChabw and Haseke Dam Projects and the Protection of Threatened Antiquities in the Region (A Preliminary Report)", in Eichler et al. 1990, pp. 19-29. Buccellati. G. and Kelly-BucceUaü, M. 1988 Mosul 7, 7V Soundings of the First Two Seasons (Bibliolheca Mesopotamica, Vol.20). Undena Publications, Malibu. 1991 'Mozan', In H. Weiss, "Archaeology in Syria", American Journal Archaeology 95. pp.712-714. Buchanan. B. 1969 "The End of the Assyrian Colonies in Anatolia: The Evidence of the Seals". Journal of the American Oriental Soctely 89, pp.7S8-762. Buia, 0. 1993 Historical Implications Derived from a Descriptive Study of the Eanmtied Structure] and Ceramics of a Second Millennium B.C. Near Eastern Site, Ancient Teraa (Ph.D. Dissertation. University of California). University Microfilms tabemational, Ann Aibot, Michigan. Charpin, D. 1987 "Subat-Enlil et It pays d'Aptun". Marl. Annates de Recherche! Interdisciplinaires 5, pp. 129-140. Chiyonobu. Y. 1974 '9) Pottery Vessels of Other Types Mentioned Above' (in Chapter IV.U, in S. Fukai. K. Horiuchi & T. Manutani. Tehltlh Thalalhal. Vol.111. The Excavation of Tell V. The Fourth Season II96S). (The Yamakawa Publishing CoXtd., Tokyo), p.47. Curtis. J. 1982 "Chagar Bazar", in Curtis (ed.) 1982, pp.79-83. Curtis. J. (ed.) 1982 Fifty Years of Mtsopotamian Discovery. The Work of the British School of Archaeology in Into. 1932-1982, The British School of Archaeology in Iraq, London. Curvers. H.H. 1988 'Chapter 10: The Period VII Pottery", in M.N. van Loon (ed.). Hammam ct-Turkman I. Report m lite University of Amsterdam 's I9SI-B4 Emntuions in Syria. Vol II (PuMkjuliiwis of the Netherlands Historical and Archaeological Institute in Istanbul LXI11. Leiden), pp .W-155. Dalley. S. 1976a Chapter I: Chronology und History of the Tablets front Room* II uf the Palace". in Dalley ei 1976. pp. I-30. 1976b "Chapter II: The lltani Archive", in Dalley ei al. 1976, pp.31-161. 1976c "Chapter 111: The Tablets from Rooms II and XVII of the Temple", in Dalley et a/. 1976, pp.163-193. 1984 Mari and Karana, Two Old Babylonian Cities. Longman, London. 1 Icy. S.. Walker, C.B.F. and Hawkins. J.D. : y/ft The Old Babylonian Tablets from TellalRimah (with an IMroducoon by D. Oates). The British School of Archaeology in Iraq. London. Dittmann. R. 1990 "Ausgrabungender Freien Universität Berlin in Assur und Kar-Tukultl-Ninurla in den Jahren 1986-89". Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 122. pp.157-171. 1992 'AiiurandKar-Tukltr-Ninurta'.in K. Nashef. "Archaeology in Iraq". American Journal of Archaeology 96. pp.307-312. Dyson, RH.. Jr. 1965 "Problems of Protohistoric Iran as Seen from Hasanlu", Journal of Near Eastern Studies 24, pp. 193-217. 1973 "Chapter XVI. The Archaeological Evidence of the Second Millennium B.C. on the Persian Plateau", in The Cambridge Ancient History (3rd edition), Vol.11 Part I (Cambridge University Press), pp.686-715. Eichler, S., Haas, V.. StewUcr, D., Wifler, M. and Warburton, D. 1985 Tall al-thmfdlya I. Vorbericht 1994 (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis. Series Archaeologica 4), Universitiltsverlag Freiburg Schweiz. Eichler, S.. Wifler, M. and Warburton, D. 1990 Tall al-Hmrdrya 2. Vorbericht 1965-1987 (with Symposion: Recent Excavations in the Upper Khabur Region. Berne, December 9-11,1986). (Oribis Biblicus et Orientalis, Scries Archaeologica 6), UnlversitAsverlag Freiburg Schweiz. Eidem, J. ' 983 "News from the Eastern Front: The Evidence from Tell Shemshara", Iraq 47, pp.83-107. 1987-88 'Tell Leilan Tablets 1987 — A Preliminary Report", Let Annates Archeotogiaucs Ambes Syriennes 37-38. pp. 110-127. 1991 "The Tell Leilan Archives 1987", Revue dassyrlologut et d'archiologU orientalt 85, pp.l09-13J. Einwag, B. 1993 "Die Keramik aus dem Cruflbereich des jungen Palastes in Tall Bi 's", Mitteilungen der Deutschen Oriem-Gescllschaft 125. pp.33-50. Emre. K. 1963 "The Pottery of the Assyrian Colony Period According to the Building Levels of the Kanii Kamm". Anatolia VII. pp.87-99. ErkaneLH. 1988 "Oimavaz". MitteilungenderDeutschenOriem-Geiellschaft 120, pp.139-151. Falvre. X. 1992 La ceramique de Mohammed Diyab. 1990-1991'. in J.-M. Dumndf/o/., 'Tell Mohammed Diyab. Campagnes 1990« \V)V\ Mimoires de N.A.B.U. 2. pp.55-89. Fukai, S. and Matsutani. T. 1977 "Excavations at Telul eth-Thalaihal 1976". Smner 33. pp.48-64. Fujii. H., Yoshikawa. M.. Oguchi. H„ Oguchi. K. and Numoto, H. 1989-90 "Preliminary Report on the Encavations at Tell Thuwajj, Tel! Jessary (the Second Season), and Qusr 'Banat'". Sumer 46. pp.38-59. Gadd.C.J. 1940 Tablets from Chagar Baear and Tall Brak. 1937-38". Iraq 7. pp.22-66. Gersienhliih. P. 1983 Vie Unwt al the Begitmiu^ <>l the MuMIr Bronze Age (Arnericain Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Series. No.5V Americun ScrnmU of Oriental Research. 22» Hiromichi OGUCHI A REASSESSMENT OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF KHABUR WARE 321 Gesuaio, M.K. I993 "Pn-lslainic Pottery from Tell Jikan", in O. Wilhelm & C. Zaccagnini. Tell Karrana 3. Tell Mian. Tell Khirbet Sallh (Baghdader Forschungen, Band 15, Mainz), pp.269-280. Goetze. A, 1953 "An Old Babylonian Itinerary", Journal of Cuneiform Studies 7, pp.51 -72. I97S 'Chapter XVII. The Struggle for the Domination of Syria (1400-1300 B.C.)". in The Cambridge Ancient History (3rd edition), Vol.II Pan 2A (Cambridge University Press), pp.l-20. Grayson, A.K. 1987 Assyrian Ruten of the Third and Second Millennia BC (to II15 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Assyrian Periods Vol.1), University of Tronto Frew. Holler. A. 1954 Die Gräber und Grüfte, von Atiur (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 65), Verlag Gebr. Mann. Berlin. Hamlin, C. 1971 The tjabur Wart Ceramic Assemblage of Northern Mesopotamia; An Analysis of Its Distribution (Ph.D Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania), University Mkrofllnu Internationa]. Ann Arbor, Michigan. 1974 'The Early Second Millennium Ceramic Assemblage of Dinkha Tepe", Iran 12, pp.125-146. Hauptmann, H. 1988 'Lider', in MJ. Meltink, "Archaeology in Anatolia", American Journal of Archaeology 92, pp.110-111. Hawkins, i.D. 1976 "Chapter V: The Tablets from the Temple Stairway", in Dalley et al. l976,pp.l9S-246. Heinz. M. 1992 Tell Atchana/Alatakh. Die Schichten VII-XVII (Alter Orient und Altes Testament, Band 41), Verlag Butzon & Backer KevelaerMeukirebener Verlag. Netddrchen-Vluyn, Hrouda,B. 1957 Die bemalte Keramik des zweiten Jahrtausends In Nordmesopotamien und Nordsyrien (Istanbuler Forschagen. Band 19), Verlag Oebr.Mann. Berlin. 1961 'Teil Fecberrje. Die Keramik", Zeitschrift fUr Assyrioiogie 20. pp.20l-239. 1971 Vorderasien I. Mesopotamien. babylonien, Iran undAnawUen. CH. Beck'sche Verlagsbuchhandlung. Munich. 1989 "Die WbOr-Ware in neuerer Sicht", in K. Em» etat, (eds.), Anatolia and the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honor ofTahsi* Özflic {Anion), pp.205-214. 1991 "Vorläufiger Beriebt Uber die neuen Ausfratxingen in Aasur. Frühjahr 1990", Mitteilungen der Orient-Gesellschaft 123. pp.95-109. Ii. H. and Kawamata, M. I984-S5 The Excavations at Tell Jigan by tbe Japanese Archaeological Expedition: A Preliminary Report on the First Season of Work" (in Japanese), al-Rafulan 5-6. pp.151-214. Kantor. HJ. 1958 "III. The Pottery", in C.W. McEwan et al.. Soundings at Tell Fakhariyah (OIP LXXIX. Chicago), pp.21 ^41. Kelly-BiKcellatj. M. 1988 "6. Artifacts from the Excavations", in Buccellali & Kelly-Bucccllati 1988. pp.65-81. 1990 Three SeajcfliofEicavation at Tell Me^an'. in Eichler«n/ 1990, pp.119- 132. Kelly-Buccellati. M. and Shelby. W.R. 1977 Terqa Preliminary Report No.4: A Typology of Ceramic Vessels of the Third and Second Millennia from the First Two Seasons", Syro-Mesopotamiau Studies I, pp. 171 -226. Kepin&ki. C. 1990 'Host', in K. Nasbef. "Archaeology in Iraq". American Journal of Archaeology 94. pp.275-277. Kohlmeyor. K. IPH5 "Mari (Tell Hariri)", in H. Weiss (ed.). Ehla lo Damascus, Art mil Archaeology ofAmiem .Win iSnuiliMMiian Institution. Washington), pp, IM4-I97. Kramer, C. (= Hamlin, C.) 1977 "Pots and Peoples", in LD. Levine 4 T.C. Young, Jr. (eds), Mountains and Lot/lands; Essays in the Archaeology of Greater Mesopotamia (Bibliotheca Mesorjotamica, Vol.7, Malibu), pp.91-112. ,994" "Habur-Ware im Osten oder: Der TAVO auf Irrewegen im Iranischen Hochland", in P. Calmeyer et al. (eds.). Beiträge zur Altorientalischen Archöhgie und Altertumskunde. Festschrift für Barthel Hrouda am 65.Geburtstag (Harrassowitz Verlag, Wiesbaden), pp. 156-166. ^"il "Zur historischen Geographie am Unteren Habur". Archiv für Oritntfbrschung 25, pp.249-255. Lac«'-;*. J- "Akkadian Annakum: 'Tin' or 'Lead" 7". Acta Orientatia 24, pp.83-94. Larsen, M,T. 1976 The Old Assyrian City-State and Us Colonies (Mesopotamia, Vol.4), Akademisk Forlag, Copenhagen. Lewy.H. 19J8 "Subat-SamaJ and Tuttul", Orientalia 27 (Nova series), pp.1-18. I.lnvd. S. I v.;n "Some Ancient Sites in the Sinjar District", Iraq 5. pp.123-142. Lloyd, S. and Brice. W. 1951 "Harran",ABOtoWaniniif(« I,pp.77—111-Uoyd, S and Gdkce. N. 1933 "Sultantepe. Anglo-Turkish Joint Excavations, l952",Anai»(jB(iSftKirei3.pp.27-Jl. 1 uckenbilL D.D. , m Ancient Records of Assyria and Babylonia. Vol. I, Histories * Mysteries of Man Ltd., London. Lyonoet, B. 1991 'Upper Habur', in H. Weiss, "Archaeology in Syria", American Journal of Archaeology 95, pp.697-698. 1992 "Reconnaissance dans le haut Habur etude de la ceramique", Memoires de N.A.B.U. 2. pp. 103-132. Maltowan, MEL. 1936 The Excavations at Tall Chagar Bazar, and an Archaeological Survey of the Habur Region. 1934-5 , Iraq 3. pp. 1-86. 1937 "The Excavations at Tall Chagar Bazar and an Archaeological Survey of the Habur Region. Second Campaign. I936",'raj4,pp.9l-I77. 1946 "Excavations in the Ballt) Valley. 1938". Iraq 8. pp.111-159. 1947 "Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar", Iraq 9. pp.1 -259. Matthews, RJ. 1995 "Excavations at Teli Brak, 1955". Iraq 57. pp.87-111. Matthews. RJ., Matthews, W. and McDonald, H. 1994 "Excavations at Tell Brak, 1994". Iraq 56. pp. 177-194. MatUiiae, P. 1977 Ebla. An Empire Rediscovered, translated from Ebla: an Impero rilrovalo by C. Holme, Hodder and Stoughton. London. Mazzoni. S. 1988 " 'Probleme! el questions ouvertes' nell'archeolocia Orientale". Vicino Oriente 7. p.S9ff. Meijer. D.J.W. 1986 A Survey m Northeastern Syria (PuWicmions of Ihr Netherlands Historical and Archaeoiofical Institute in Istanbul LVIII). Leiden Moortgat. A. 1959 Archtllngm-h Forichtmgen tier Mm Frellw vim Oppenheim-Stiftung im nilrdllcheii Mesopotamien IVf6 222 Hiromicrli OOUCMI A HUASSESSMF.NT Of THF. DISTRIBUTION OF KHABUR WARE 223 Numoto. H. 1988 1990 19% Oates, D. 1965 1967 1968« 1968b 1970 1972 1976 19821 1982b 1982c 1985 Ostes. D. 1976 1991 1994 Oates, I. 1970 1990 Orlin. L.L. 1970 OjsgUc.N. 1968 Olgttc.T. 1953 1986 (Wissenschaftlich« Abhandlungen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft für Forschung des Landes Nordrtiein-Westfalen, Band 7), Westdeutscher Verlag, Köln & Opladen, "Excavations at Tell Fisna" (in Japanese), ai-Räfldan 9, pp. 1-71. "Findings from Tell Jessary". ai-Räfldan 11, pp.201-244. "Excavations at Tell Thuwaij Trench C", at-Raftdan 17, pp.77-110. "The Excavations at Tell al Rimah, 1964", Iraq 27, pp.62-80. "The Excavations at Tell al Rimah, 1966", Iraq 29, pp.70-96. The Excavations at Tell al Rimah, 1967", Iraq 30, pp. 115- 138. Studies in the Ancient History of Northern Iraq, The Oxford University Press, London. "The Excavations at Tell al Rimah. 1968", Iraq 32. pp. 1-26. The Excavations at Tell al Rimah, 1971", Iraq 34, pp.77-86. "Introduction", in Dalley et al. 1976, pp.ix-xvi. "Excavationsat Tel! Bralc 1978-8 r,/m« 44, pp. 187-204. Tell Buk", in Curtis (cd.) 1982, pp.62-71. 'Tell al Rimah", in Curtis (ed.) 1982, pp.86-98. "Excavations at Tell Brak, 1983-84", Iraq 47, pp. 159-173. and Oates. J. "Early Irrigation Agriculture in Mesopotamia", in O. de O. SievekJng er at. (eds.). Problems la Economic ami Social Archaeology (Gerald Duckworth A Co.Ltd. The Old Piano Factory, London), pp. 109—135. "A Note on the Date of the Fragmentary Tablet TB 11021", Iraq S3, p. 158. Tell Brak: A Stratignphic Summery", Iraq 56, pp. 167-176. The date of the Phase 2 building—the evidence of the pottery', in D, Oates 1970. pp. 16-20. Tell Brak in the Fourth and Third Millennia: Finn Uruk to Ur HI", in Eichler ei of. 1990, pp. 133-147. Assyrian Colonies in Cappadocia, MouUxi. the Hague. "New Light on the Dating of the Levels of the Kamm of Kanish and of AccmbOyuk near Aksiray". American Journal of Archaeology 72, pp.318-320. "Vorlaufiger Bericht Uber die Grabungen von 1930 in Kultepe Ausgeführt Im Auftrage des Türk Tarih Kunimu". Btlltiin 17. pp. 109- II 8. KUiepe-Kanis II. New Researches at the Trading Center of the Andern Near East, Turk Tarih Kunimu Basimevi, Ankara. Parayre. D. 1990 'Seals and Seal impressions from Tell Leilan 1985'. in Weiss et al. 1990. pp.556-568. Pardee, D. 1984 "Literary Sources for the History of Palestine and Syria. The Man Archives", Biblical Archaeologist 47. pp.88-99. Parrot, A. 1938 "Mari et Ctiagar Baiar". Syria 19, pp.308-310. 1959 Le Palais (Mission Archeologique de Mari. Vol.II. Institut Franciis d'Archeologic de Beyrouth. Bibliotheque arcMlogique et historique. Tome LXX). Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, Paris. Ftcorella, P.E. 1990 The Italian Excavations at Tell Bam (Kahat), 1980-1985". in Eichler el al. 1990. pp.47-66. PfUlzner. P. 1995 Mittatiisi-tie untl Mitietossyiische Keramik: eine chrrninlogixcJte, funktionale und pntdnkihnsiiktmnmtst'he Analyse (Berichte der Ausgrabiiry Tall Se(j ftmad/Dflr-Katlinirnu. Band 3). Dietrich Reimer Verlag. Berlin. : Postdate. J-N- 1973 'Appendix I: Tell Taya Tablets. 1972-73'. in JE, Reade. Tell Taya (1972-731: Summary Report", Iraq 35. pp.173-175. 1992 Fttrty Mesopotamia. Society and Economy at the Dawn of History, Routledge. London & New York. Praj. ► 1970 The 1959 Deep Soundings at Harran in Turkey". Levant 2, pp.63-94. t Re.de,JE. 1968 TellTaya(1967):SununaryReport",/ra?30.pp.234-264. 1982a Tell Taya". in Curtis (ed.) 1982, pp.72-78. |Og2b "Nimrud", in Curtis Boehmer. 1972. Nr.545.547. «i| Buehmer. 1972. Nr.5tt-S53. Nr.546: BK Schicht lb (?). 554: weoif Uhei Fei», «rmullich BK 1,553: Schult der Schicht BK I. 7| Schicht I «etil um650 v.Chr.ein. vgl. i. B. R M. Boehmer-H. O Clük-rhuct Briljgc I-, New. IW3, Hfp 'Mille H.-Mnir 7 Jh v. Chr Alierphrygisetie Perinde. BK II h/»,-Miue Itcrcehemlidi «agfehtwea RUBI 7*. Jh. v. Clv.JungenihygiMlie Periode. BK I Wa." Sl Boehmer. 1972, Nr. 5.«. 91 Etwndj Nr. 530. 5J0A. ivb HfcomkM QOOCHI zone in ihe period denned as the main phase of ihe sequence of Khabur ware, aiming at giving possible explanations for the occurrences of Khabur ware in those secondary distribution areas which are elucidated below. Periodization The phasing of the Khabur ware sequence can be made on the basis of evidence from Area C of Tell Jigan. and supplementary evidence from Areas A and B of the same site, and from Tell Der Hall, Tell Fisna, Tell Jessary and Tell Thuwaij. These arc sites excavated by the Japanese Archaeological Expedition, directed by Professor Fujii, in ihe area of the Saddam (Eski Mosul) Dam Salvage Project in Iraq. The area of the project, lying in the northeast provincial region of tl,c main distribution zone of Khabur ware, is significant, since it may have been situated in Ihe northern vicinity of, or included as a north part of. Nurrugum, a district mentioned in the Mari texts and in other texts from Nineveh and Tell Shemshara1'. Four Khabur ware phases are established, which are described by the present writer as Khabur Ware Periods 1-4 (Fig. I)". Relevant to the subject of the present article is Khabur Ware Period 2, which is marked as the main phase in which Khabur ware reached the acme of fashion. This second phase can be now dated on epigraphic evidence almost certainly from beginning to end (see below). The establishment of the earliest phase, Khabur Ware Period I, is based on evidence from Tell Jigan, which is further corroborated by important evidence from Tell al-Rimah and Tell Taya in the Tell 'Afar region of IraqlJ.Oates 1970: p. 17, for area AS phase 3 at Rimah; Reade 1968: p.2S7and 1982a: p.74, for level IV at Taya]. The point is that the earliest phase, marked by distinctive types of Khabur ware, can be dated with certainty before SamSi-Adad I of Assyria, whose reign is. at present, most concerned with the beginning of Khabur Ware Period 2. After the second phase, new types and styles of pottery appear, parallelling the continuous occurrence of Khabur ware itself. The relevant phases are Khabur Ware Periods 3-4. The perception of new types and styles of pottery during the periods 3-4 is concerned with the problem in dispute of categorizing a later variety of Khabur ware", which connotes Ihe problem of the definition of Nuzi ware", further involving the problem of how to define Khabur ware [for this particular argument, see D.L. Stein 1984: p.6ff.. esp. p.23: cf. Hrouda 1989: pp.206-209]. However, there seems another problem in that discussions regarding a later variety of Khabur ware tend to focus only on those which are considered drinking vessels, i.e. which are described as cups, goblets and beakers. In practice, the presence of jars, pots and bowls, contemporary with the drinking vessels in question, should be taken into consideration: examination from this viewpoint seems to enable the elucidation of the sequence of Khabur ware proper beyond all dispute. The setting of the periods 3-4, under the heading of the term "Khabur ware", is grounded on this view; therefore. Khabur Ware Period 3-4 are set up as the phases marked primarily by the continuous occurrence of jars, pots or bowls which can be regarded as Khabur ware, and secondly by the presence of some jars, pots or bowls showing typological continuity from the preceding period, 2. In addilion. it is worthy of note that on Ihe basis of results of recent excavations at Tell Brak. Joan Oates points out that dark-painted goblets with distinctive bird motifs'" ore accepted as characteristic of "late" Khabur ware [personal communication in 1995]. Her 2) For Numigum, ice Thompson A Hamilton 1932: pp.lOSIOS. 0 OMM IW*b p II and p.39. and Eidcm 191(5: p.99 and p 101 3) The explication of Ihe phasing is given in a separate article. 4) The "late" Khabur ware of Mallowan 11947|. Ihe "jiingrre" Khabur ware of Hrouda |I957|. the 'transitional Khabur-Milannian" ware of Kantoi | 1958| the 'late Khabur/carly Nuzi" type pottery of D Oates 119721 and the newly defined "soungcr" Khabur ware of D.L. Stem | I9K4J huve been so far known as concepts of a later vancls ol Khabur ware. These out cpt, either dilier in all respects or overlap in some respect, 51 Basicalti.. Nu/i waie is Ihe pisttcry distinguished hs the presence ol while-puinled decoration superimposed on slart-puinled hands In addition, it should be noted that in the corpus of Nu/i ware. composed ol sannus is pes thcic .sv.urs a coarser ware, and conversels that .i Tine wtire sveurs among the Khabur ware scssels appearing in an earliet stage ft) The distinct!'c bird nasiifs |r y Malkiwun 1947: PI LXXVIII 5.S9| jre thsise which srusild be dittcreiiii.ucd Horn the earlier bird motifs that occur on Khabui ware from stratum 4 at Tell Billa I see Speisei 19.11 It I Axil | , REASSESSMENT OF THE DISTRIBUTION Of K.UH1 RWARI PJJ 1400 bc Sclcl llltnos I j K 43 «> <> x 4•» »*< 44 I'IK Hiromichl OCiUCHI A RKASSESSMHNTOf THE DISTRIBUTION OF KHABUR WARI. II" view, based on slratigraphic evidence from area I II I at Brak, carries weight with us, suggesting that in area H.H. excavated in the past by M.E.L. Mallowan, "late" Khabur ware occurred not only in level 3 but also in level 2''. The Brak area H.H. level 3 is well known as the level in which Mallowan confirmed that Khabur ware overlapped with white-on-dark painted Nuzi ware (Mallowan 1947: pp.77-78). In fact, increasing pieces of evidence from sites recently excavated, such as Tell Leilan. Tell Mohammed Diyab and Tell Brak (inter alia. Malthews's most recent excavations) in the upper Khabur basin, and Tell Hamad Agha as-Saghir in north Iraq, suggest that the following painted vessels should be treated as being included in the category of Khabur ware: (1) straight/concave-sided beaker type painted vessels, which have occasionally distinctive bird motifs of dark paint (Fig. 1:26. 27. 34,44-46): (2) jars, pots or bowls decorated with distinctive bird motifs in dark paint (Fig. I 331. (3) band-painted, eversible-necked/rimmed shoulder cups, referred to by Banhel Hrouda as one of the types of "jüngere" Khabur ware", which are however sometimes decorated with cross-hatched triangles (Fig. 1:22, 24, 28, 37-39, 48, 49). Furthermore, other types of Hrouda's "jüngere" Khabur ware, represented by "band-painted, tall-necked shoulder cups" IHrouda 1957: Taf. 8:1-9. 13-18, 20, from AiSur] (see Fig. 1:51, 53, 54) and "band-painted open-form goblets""' [e.g. Mallowan 1947: PI. LXXVII:2, from area H.H. level 2 at Brak; Pfälzner l995:Taf. 173:d, from the Mitanni palace of Brak) (see Fig. 1:52, 55), must be, as claimed by Diana L. Stein, disassociated from the category of Khabur ware. The "band-painted open-form goblets", appearing late in, or possibly towards the end of, Khabur Ware Period 3, continue lo occur in post-Khabur ware phases, i.e., after Khabur Ware Period 4 in which Khabur ware jars, pots and bowls, though small in quantity, still occur alongside of white-on-dark painted Nuzi ware (see Fig. I :S8,59, for Nuzi ware). Likewise, the "band-painted, tall-necked shoulder cups", also appearing late in Khabur Ware Period 3. seem to occur after the disappearance of Khabur ware"". The dates of Khabur ware The upper dale of Khabur ware. i.e.. the date for the beginning of Khabur Ware Period I. is inconclusive because of the lack of epigraphic evidence. However, an indication is given by the fact that David Oates's recent excavations at Tell Brak in areas FS and SS confirmed the occurrence of 20th century B.C. pottery including southern early Isin-Latsa types [Oates & Oates 1994: p. 171]. The Brak evidence suggests the certain existence of an occupation phase in north Mesopotamia in the earliest part of the 2nd millennium B.C.. which probably corresponds in date to level V, a "barren" layer, at Tell Taya. A picture of north Mesopotamia in the period immediately before the appearance of Khabur ware is thus becoming clearer than before'". In consideration of the evidence from Brak, a dale of ca. 1900 B.C. for the beginning of Khabur Ware Period I is suggested. The lower date of Khabur ware has been so far problematical, with the problem of a later variety of Khabur ware unsolved. Although Khabur ware and white-on-dark painted Nuzi ware occur overlapping in time, whai matter, is Ihe fad thai Ihe date for the beginning of Nuzi ware, based >' jivcan iiidKMam lelAinin * Mjlk« an l"So,s„-PI l\ s,| Now. MJI.«an\excuvalii«iv ■n area II H at Tell n,..k rive a a.* clearer «utoft**l when ,he retrrrb of 0 Oit»\ eacavMlons >n area HII ..1 the • une >ile ire taken loecihct .m,.i,,ii.,,l,rai»m|w Mall,.»an I'M?: Pl.l.XVII: 15. horn level I mam II H.|. Ill (V ttr,..fi„l MWI pwori fnt "Hahur hiwin rphase.l. excavations also shed a new light on these chronological problems on Khabur ware and Nuzi warel!l. It is area HII that provides important information. Excavated in this area were the Mitanni palace in which there were two main phases of occupation, the Mitanni lemple/shrine, and a series of Mitanni 1-, .cs (area HH levels 7-2) adjacent to the palace and temple [Oates & Oates 1991: p. 158; idem 1994: p.l72|. The sequence of Mitanni houses (area HH levels 6-2) runs parallel to the palace phases, 1-2. J. Oates says thai the final occupation phase. 2. of the Mitanni palace, yielding Nuzi ware, lacks "late" Khabur ware'", which was found in earlier Mitanni house levels of area HH in large quantity, thus pointing out thai this is a very important piece of datable evidence for the end of Khabur ware [personal communication in 199S|. At present, her statement gives the most significant indication for the lower il in.' of Khabur ware: a tablet mentioning ArtaSSumara and bearing the impression of Saustatar's seal'", which came from the phase 2 destruction debris of room 3 of the Mitanni palace, provides a terminus ante quern for the phase 1 occupation of the Mitanni palace [Oates & Oates 1991: p.158]. In history. Artassumara is known to have succeeded his father Suttama II as king of Milanni but to have been soon murdered. Il was TuSratta who succeeded his brother ArtaSSumara as king of Mitanni. TuSratta's letters, including one letter written in Hunrain, are well known to be extant in the Egyptian state archives from Tell el-Amama; his diplomatic correspondence was most concerned with the marriage of Amenophis Piiii I ii;i .itta's daughter, Tatu-fjepa. The Egyptian pharaoh Amenophis HI also married Suttama II's daughter. Kelu- hepa. in his tenth year. Thus ArtaSSumara's brief reign falls in the first quarter of the 14th century B.C."' Hence D. Oates and J. Oates suggest a date in the 15th century B.C. for the lower chronological limit of phase I of the Mitanni palace [1991: p. 158]. In sum. the absence of Khabur ware in the Mitanni palace phase 2 occupation can be accepted as a terminus ante quern for Khabur ware, and we have now been able to have clear evidence, from the core area of Khabur ware distribution, tint the Khabur ware fashion terminates before the reign of ArtaSSumara of Mitanni. Accordingly, a Jute of ca. 1400 B.C., at the latest, can be suggested for the end of Khabur ware. Chronological evidence for Ihe main phase of Khabur ware Textural evidence for dating Khabur Ware Period 2 has been so far provided at several sites, including ones outside the main distribution zone of Khabur ware. The evidence, given in the form of cuneiform tablets, is supplemented by inscribed seal impressions datable, which arc found on tablets, envelopes of ablets or clay sealings. The following are the sites at which Khabur ware is directly or indirectly associated with datable cuneiform tablets or inscribed seal impressions: (I) ChagarBazar This site is located on the wadi Dam. a branch of ihe KMttH Kli.m/ir flowing inlo Ihe n-tuti laghjagh which is the only perennial tributary of Ihe Khabur river. In 19.36 tablets were found on the floor and in the rubbish of the large building of area B.D., and in the ashy debris of Ihe hadly-preserved building of area A B. IMallouan 1937: pi 13. pi 15 and p.l54|. and M.E.L. Mallowan reported that all the tablets occurred consislcnlly at Ihe bottom of Khabur ware level I. giving a terminus post quern of va. 2OQ0 B.C. for the level [I937:p.94|. In I937.in area T.D. some nine room* of a building belonging to the early phascoflevel I were cxcavaied. one of which, room 106. contained numbers of lahleis including ones bearing the name lasmatj-Adad ison of Samji-Adud 1) IMallowan 1947: pp.81-82: Gadd 1940: pp.22-231. Some tablets bore Ihe impressions of seals with inscriptions describing each one of iheir owners as "servant of SamliAdad" ICadd 1940: see p.20. and e.g. A.939 on p.50|. All the tabids found were thus regarded as having been written in Ihe lime of Samsi-Adad I. king of Assyria (ca. I8I3-I7RI B.C. on the middle chronology I [Gadd 1940: p.22). On the ground of Ihe texts mentioning Ihe name of (he younger son of the Assynan king. Mullowan reclined his previous view and. using Smith's middle chronology, dated ihe beginning of level I. i.e.. the first til A lime range tor Nuzi ware al Tell Brak u ill he cluvKlalcd h> D Dole, and J dale. 131 See also 1 Oates 1991): p 146 141 As for Ihe mm of Ihe famous Miumua kmc there are Ihe lullowing vunanls SanUjlui WaUar. SautMar. Sautsalar. SauttaRar. and Sauttjiur 131 Seetioci/c 1175 PP-3-» 200 HiTOflMchiOGUCHI A REASSESSMENT OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF KHABUR WARE 2Ui appearance of Khabur wan al thil site, al ca. 1800 B.C. [MaUowan 1947: p.83'. Although Khabur ware from the tablet building of area T.D. is not Illustrated in the report, the association in the building of Khabur ware vessels and the tablets is naturally presumed The significant fact Is, however, that many of the tablets, found in ash on the beaten mud floor of room 106, "wens resting on potsherds which had evidently once served as trays", some of which "were sherds of coarse Khabur wan painted with red snipes" [Mallowan 1947: p.82). This shows the direct association of the Khabur wart sherds with the tablets. Of interest are tablets dated by limit (year-eponyms). The majority of (he Chagar Bazar tablets bear a timu name, i.e.. Adad-bani [Gadd 1940: p.23J. The timu is attested at Man and Atiear HOyOk. which is considered as falling in the reign of Samli-Adad I [Veenhof 1985: p.204andp.216] This is aJsoa matter of significance, because of one of the key points for dating the tablets from KUItepe Karum lb, which it noted below, (2) Mart (modern Tell Hariri) This famous site is located about 11 kilometres northwest of Abu Kernel in Syria. A certain Khabur ware jar was discovered in room 162 of thenwth-easteniquadnmof the Man royal palace [Parrot 1959: pp. 133-134, and Fig. 92:c or Pl.XXXVI: 1584], which produced more than 20.000 cuneiform tablets, written in Old Babylonian mainly in the times of Ithdun-Lim, laamah/Adad and Zimri-Lim. Unfortunately this room is not directly associated with any of die tablets discovered. Further, it has been confirmed that the palace was constricted in several stages with many additions and functional changes, thus having a long history from the third to the early second millennium B.C. [Pardee 1984: p.89; Kohlmeyer 1985: p. 195]. Accordingly, one may assume that the room in which the Khabur ware jar was found belongs to an earlier pan of the palace, and therefore would have perhaps been used by lasmah-Adad in the time of Samli-Adad I [Hrouda 1971: pp. 167-168). However, the strati graphic provenance of the Khabur ware jar is obscure, and ceramics recovered from the palace is likely to represent the final materia] at the lime when Mart was destroyed by Hammurabi of Babylon. Thus it is now most appropriate thai the Khabur ware jar of Man is regarded as dating from the time of Zimri-Lim, king of Man. The Marl texts provide not only information for early second millennium history but also comparative data for the study of Assyrian limu lists. (3) Ktstept (UKJent Karui) Kuhece-Ksnii, located about 19 kilometres north of Kayseri in Turkey, conaisu of the main dry-mound and the tower terrace area where ■ karum esiited in the Old Assyrian period. la ihc Middle Bronze Age palace on the city-mound, the dagger of Anitta was discovered: in a Middle Bronze Age building on the same mound, tablets Including the Amun-hirtri letter were found [Orlln 1970: pp.214-215], The dagger and the letter were considered corptemporary with level lb of the terrace area [Oriin 1970: p.lOO,p.2l3andp.238]. On the terrace area, four main occupation levels were confirmed, which were designated Karum I-1V from top to bottom. Karum level 1 consisted of three phases (la. lb and lc). Among these levels, Karum 0 and Karum lb produced thousands of tablets written in Old Assyrian and concerned chiefly with Assyrian trading activities. Karum lc, intervening between 11 and lb, was a level of no occupation, during the period of which the karum area had been temporarily uninhabited (Oriin 1970: p.200 and pp.210-2111. Relevant to die matter of Khabur ware Is the Karum lb settlement, the tablets from which are however much smaller than those of Karum II in quantity. From Kernel Balkan's study of limu names occurring in the Ktlltepe texts, mis level, lb, was dated to the time of Samii-Adad I (Balkan l9S5:pp.43-44]. The points of Balkan's study regarding the lb texts are that there is a similarity in style between the lb texts and the Alisar texts in which, as at Chagar Bazar and Man, the occurrence of the limu Adad-bani is well attested, and that in a tablet assigned to lb occurs the name Awilia, which is mentioned as a limu in another Kuuepe tablet, and which it thus identifiable with the limu Awelia (Aweliya) or Awilia (Awlliya) attested at Ctuqjar Bazar and Man respectively (Balkan 1955: pp 42-44. and sec p.47 and n.8 on p.65). Balkan regarded Adad-bani and Awilia as limu officials of Samit-Adad I for the reason that they appeared in the texts, dated to the time of the Assyrian king, of Chagar Bazar and Mart. At Ktlltepe. a few small vessels of Khabur ware came from graves regarded as belonging to Karum lb. thus dated to the reign of Samli-Adad I [T. OzgUc 1953: p. 115. and Abb.17/25 and Abb, 18/26; Emre 1963: p.95 and Pl.XXV:!; T. OzgUc 1986: pp.29-93 and PI. 134:3). The evidence from seals, however, shows that Karum lb may have lasted much longer than the reign of Samii-Adad 1. covering the reign of Hammurabi of Babylon (or. 1792-1750 B.C. on the middle chronology) [Buchanan 1969: p.759: cf. N. OzgUc 1968: p.3l«|. (4) Ted m-Rimah (probably ancient Kararui) This she. yielding numbers of Ok! Babylonian tablets, deserves our attention as a site providing well-slralified materials including a good Khabur ware assemblage. The pottery sequence confirmed at the site will certainly provide an important clue to the study of Khabur ware when the details are reported. Unfortunately, most of the ceramic materials including the Khabur ware assemblage have mil yet published. Bui the published reports give us the details of stratigraphy, noting important points of materials recovered. The site, situated (3 kilometres south of Tell 'Afar in north Iraq, consists of a central mound and the area surrounded by city wall remains. One of the main excavation areas is Area A. on the central mound, which is also called the temple site: mother is Area C, also called the palace site, between the central mound and the city wall remains. The palace of ana C divided into three main structural pluses (1-3). of which the latest phase. 3, was further divided into twosubphasesof occupation, 3a and 3b [D. Oases 1972: p.78 and p.B5; idem 1976: p.xi]. The building of phase I confirmed was that marked by "a three-room suite with mud-brick walls on massive stone foundations trenched into virgin soil" [O. Oates 1976: p.xi; Ida* 1982c: pp.88-89). Additions made to the phase I building was marked as phase 2, in which there was no substantial changes (D. Oates 1976: p.xi; idem 1982c: p.89]. The phase 3 building, which had replaced die phase I building with additions of phase 2, was the palace taking its final form by rebuilding |D. Oates 1972: p.8S|. A number of tablets were found on or below the floors of phase 3b |D. Oatesl976: p.xi). Many of these tablets derived ■' •:n two archives found in room II and room VI [D. Oates 1968a: p. 136). The tablets of room II were part of the archive of In itu-rapi placed in phase 3a in historical contexts; the tablets, large in number, of room VI were the famous archive of iltani", which were evidendy associated with phase 3b [D. Oates 1976: p.xiii|. From the Rimah iexts themselves and in the connection of the Marl texts, Hatnu-iapi is known at a contemporary of Zimri-Lim of Man and, supposing (he identification of Rimah with Karana is correct, is recognized as ruler of the city [Dalley 1976a: p.l and pp.4-6; idem 1984: pp.37-38], Utani is known, from the Inscription reconstructed from impressions of her seal, to have been the wife of Aqba-hammu, who, being connected with Karana In die Mari texts, is tnfoahk »ruler of the city, ará seals and some texts from room VI, is known to have been subject to Hammurabi or Babylon (Dalley 1976b: pp.31-32 and i ■ '5: idem 1984: pp.39-44). In addition to the occurrence of the place-name Kanil, ii is worth noting, that the Umu Sabnim irequently occurs in the economic texts of the Diard archive: the limu name, though with no patronymic, is most likely Identical with the limu Zaprum ((.<. Saprum), son of Ptizur-Sin, attested in the Karum lb texts of KUItepe. in postulating that Karum lb continued to the latter part of Hammurabi's reign [Dalley 1976b: p.31J. This suggests a chronological link with KUItepe Karum lb [D. Oates 1968a: p.137; Dalley 1976b: pJ2]. Inscribed seal impressions, found on or below the floors of phase 3b, revealed the nesnes of five rulers, incluthng the two rulers mentioned above, which were derived either from their own seals or from thew of their servants. Among die rulers, Samli-Adad I and Samu-Addu are relevant to the matter of dating the beginning «f the palace. Samu-Addu was the rather of Iltani, which is a fact derived from lltani'a seal, noted above; according to the laritexu.hewaekingof Kaninawrienlasmss^^ 1976a:p.4;idem 1976b:p.33andp.35). From the Mari texts, Sasnv-Adad Is considered a vassal king under Samli-Adad I [Dalley 1984; p.36 with n. 13; D. Oatea 1982c: p.89|. The earliest chronological evidence was further obtained in the form of inscribed seal impressions on clay envelope fragments, which came from in debris on s lower level which might have been either the construction level or the floor of the phase 3a building [D- Oatea 1972: pp.85-86]. They were the impressions of two seals with inscriptions describing each one of their owners as "servant of Samii-Adad" (D. Oates 1972: p.85: idem 1976: p.xi]. D. Oates considers that these impressions "might thus be associated either with the destruction of the phase I building or the first occupation of the palace that replaced if. suggesting (hat "they can be regarded only as proof that the site was built on during Samii-Adad't reign" 4D. Oates 1972; p.86]. Al any rate, these pieces of evidence, together with the evidence for Aqba-hammu's connection with Hammurabi of Babylon, wen regarded at suggesting that the time range of the palace sequence extends from Sarnsi-Adad's reign to the latter part of HsjntnuraU's reign [D. Oases 1972: p.86; idem 1982c: p.89]. Important it D. Oates's brief mention, which Indicates that the pottery of the palace period is Khabur ware |D. Oates 1976: p.siiil The Khabur ware of the palace is thus dated from the time of SamH-Adnd I. Another important point is that in a later building overlying the palace abandoned, the so-called "late Kbabutrcariy Nuzi" type pottery occurs, consisting of vessels painted in a style intermediate between Khabur ware and the painted wares of rnid-aecood millennium northern Mesopotamia [D. Oates 1972: p.85: idem 1976: p.xiii). This suggests that the Khabur ware occurrence that is assigned to the main Khabur ware phase defined in the presem article is confined to die palace sequence in area C. On the other hand, phase III of area A, in which a monumental temple complex marked by two stages of construction was retrieved, also yielded Khabur ware [D. Oates 1965: p.71; idem 1970: p. 11]. According to D. Oates. "late Khabur painted ware" was includedtn large quantities of pottery and bones lying on two later floors of room XXI of the temple 11967: p.83]; this suggests (hat the occupation of the temple extends in time after (he main Khabur ware phase defined in the present article. Tablets were found in moms II and XVII of the temple, and on the south side of the head of (he stairway leading up to a terrace fronting die main, east gate of the temple [D. Oates 1968a: pp. 119-122: idem 1970: p. 111. Bui these tablets provide no more datable evidence than they are of Old Babylonian date [Dalley 1976c: p. 1651 However, D. Oates suggests, on the ground of historical probability, that "the original phase of construction of the temple should he ascribed 10 the period of Samii-Adad's domination" [1976: p.xv; see also 1982c: pp,9l-92[. He further argues ihut this is supported by the mention of a "governor tiopiiam)" in the tablets from the stairway area, In postulating their contemporaneity with the tablets from the earliest occupation of room II of the temple (1976: p.xv). The tablets of the stnirwas area came from in the debris associated with a flimsy building earlier than the stairway and from in the foundation trench of a massive wall, regarded as the retaining wull of the 202 Hiromkhi OGUCHI A REASSESSMENT OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF KHABUR WARE 203 temple terrace, by which die debris of the eiriicr building liadbem^ This suggested mat they had been stored in the flimsy building, considered to have stood for a time outside the east facade of the temple [D. Ones 1976; p.xv]. The stratigraphic connection between the stairway area and the building of the temple itself, however, was unclear because of erosion destroying the srea between them [D. Dates 1970; p.l 1). Only the occurrence of the personal name Allafarum both in the room II texts and in a list from the stairway area suggested a possible chronological link between the two groups of tablets [D. Oates 1976: p.xv, Dalley 1976c: p.!63|. It is interesting to note that the texts from the stairway area provide limu names, one of which is the limu Abiyaya, which, though with no patronymic, is most probably identified with the limu Ahiyaya in the Chagar Bazar testi and the limu Ahiyaya, son of Takiki, in the Mart texts [Hawkins 1976: p.200 with n. 14 and p.20l 1. The limu AhUya, son of Takiki, is also attested in toe Karum lb texts of Kdltepe [ Veenhof 1983: p. I9SJ. Khabur ware also occurs in levels underlying the phase III temple, which was substantially confirmed through soundings carried out In an ana on the south side of the central mound (area AS). This is concerned with the earliest phase of Khabur ware, t<„ Khabur Ware Period 1. (S) Tell Taj* In trie citadel r«xttrf of this tit*. lymgMo^ north Iraq, levels [Vand III yielded Khabur ware [Reaoe 1968: p.237; idem 1982a: p.74). The upper level, UL produced two tablets bearing seal-impressions Inscribed with "Hasidanum. son of Atuatuim, servant of Šatnii-Adad" (Postgate 1973: p. 173]. Hasidsoum Is known from the Man texts as governor of Karana (Postgate 1973: p. 173]. and is regarded as a provincial official woo supervised Karens and took the responsibility of watching vassal Icings and reporting to (asmaq-Adad at Marl during the reign of Samli-Adad I (Dalley 1984: n.13 on p.48]. Thus this site is historically tied in with Tell al-Rimah, which is most likely identified with lne city of Karana. The dating of level III by the tablets raises the possibility thai the lower level, IV, is dated before the reign of Samli-Adad L from a stratigraphic point of view. As at Tell al-Rimah, this is also supported by ceramic evidence from level IV hserf. and as chut relevant to Khabur Ware Period I. (O Tei Uinta (ancient Subat-Enlil) The site, lying on the left bank of the worn' Jamil in the upper Khabur basin of Syria, consists of the main mound called the acroporia and the lower town area enclosed with city wall remains. The scrcaiolis-twrtheast excavations revealed three building levels (Mil) producing Khabur ware, of which the second level (B) was marked by monumental temple architecture which was a rebuilding of the original temple of the lowest level (Úl) Confirmed [Weiss 1985a: pp.7-13]. Building level I, immediately under the surface of this excavation area, was represented by the remains of a mud-brick platform, and hearths |Weiss 1985a: p.l; Idem 1985b: p.2tl |. The facade decoration of the bulking level IU temple is said to be directly comparable with that of the Tell al-Rimah temple. The phase producing Khabur ware at 'g-—"1 as "Leilan period r. In the first three seasons of excavation, tablets and clay sealing frag menu with seal impressions were recovered from several rooms of the building level II temple. The tablets were for the most part economic documents, some of which were dated with llml (Weiss 1985b: p.281). The limu Adad-bani. with a patronymic, occurs on a tablet found on a floor of a room of the level II temple, which waa previously regarded as identical with, but is now differentiated from, the one blown from Mart, Chagar Bazar and AUssr HUyUk (Whiting 1990a: p.572 with n.108; iota 1990b: p. 188]. This AdsxMMi is described as son of Pussaya, but the Adad-bani known from Marl, as son of Puzur-ili [Whiting 1990a: p.572; UUm 1990b: p. 188). The tablet dated by the limu, however, bore die Impressions of the seals of two different servánu of Samli-Adad (Whhlng 1990a: p.572 with n.109; Wmi 1990b: p. 188]. The significant facl is that Khabur ware was found on noon of the level II temple (Veenhof 1985: p.201. based on U Weiss and B.R. Foster's information]. On the other hand, among lne day sealings from the budding level II temple, there was one sealing bearing the impression of a seal with the inscription of "Suri-Adad, son of Zidriya. servant of Samii-Adad" [Welts 1983: p.60: idem 1985a: p. 14; idem 1985b: p.28! I. Other inscribed seal hnpressions. recovered from there, revealed the names of two rulers. Turum-natki and Heya-abum. which were derived from the seals of their servanta; their names are known from part of the Man texts, those letters which document the history of Subat-Enlil after the death of Samli-Adad I [Weiss 1983: p.63 and see Fig. 7; idem 1985b: pp.283-284 ,nd jec Fig. 3], The fact that after Samli-Adad came Turum-natki and Haya-abum is also confirmed from the archaeological context of the finds, Le.. the spatial and temporal distribution of the inscribed seal impressions in the level II temple (Weiss 1983: p.60; Idem 1985b: p.283]. From these pieces of evidence. Harvey Weiss concludes that ihe building level II temple was "in use during the reign of Shamshi-Adad. and/or possibly shortly thereafter [Weiss 1983: p.58 and p.63; idem 1985b: p.281 and p.283]. In addition to these, the excavations also confirmed one important tablet from the building level 111 temple |Weiss 1983: the table on p.60; idem 1985b: the table on p.2811. On (he tablet, the limu Sin-muballit occurs I Whiting 1990a: p.571 with n.97-IOO|. This limu is attested in the ftrmm lb texts of Killtepe and al Man (Veenhof 1485: p.204|. The tablet was round in the brick collapse of the level III temple, below the floor of the level II temple; (he potiery from the destruction debris included Khabur ware [Veenhof 1985: p.20l, based on Weiss and Foster's information!. On the other hand, building level I did not provide any epigraphk evidence. On surfaces related to the level 1 mud-brick platform were sherds of Khabur ware and associated pottery, similar to the Khabur ware assemblages of building levels II and ttl [Weiss 1985a: p.7; idem 1985b: ■■mil. What should be noted here are some examples of painted potiery said to be from building level II or HI of the acropolis-northeast area, which are illustrated in a report published in 1985 (Weiss 1985a: p. 13). The illustration of the 1985 report includes one example, with a small ring base, of the "band-painted, eversibk-raxked/rimmed shoulder cup" type, i.e., one type of Hrouda's "Juugere" Khabur ware (Fig. I .-22), and two examples, with distinctive bird motifs, of the "siraightyconcave-tided beaker" type (Fig. 1:26,27) [Weiss 1983s: the Ulustrationonp.13]. This rorroboratcs the earlier occurrence of the type that Hrouda described as one of his "jungere" Khabur ware, as does evidence from Kdltepe and possibly Dinahs Tepe, sites outside ihe main distribution zone of Khabur ware [qf. T. OzfOc 1953: Abb.) 7 or 25 and A. Stein 1940: Pl.XXIX: 12| (see Fig 1:24, > Examples of this type occurring In the main phase of Khabur ware have exclusively small ring bases, while examples of ..in' type occurring in later Khabur ware phases have predominantly button and small footed pedestal I footed burton) bases. Problematical are the two "straight/concave-slded beaker" type vessels decorated with stylized dark-painted birds, because they are considered diagnostic for later Khabur ware phases. In this repect, their stratigraphic attribution to building level If or III is now questioned; we are awaiting a published report on their exact stratigraphic provenance. Now that these vessels, as well as die shoulder cup type, are considered at belonging to the category of Khabur ware, their provenance carries weight m eliKkistirig the sequence of Khabur ware from a chronological point of view. If the beaker type vessels with bird motifs can V no doubt attributed to II or III, a different picture will emerge regarding the chronology for the sequence of Khabur ware. Furthermore, In the 1985 season of excavation, the substantial corpus of cuneiform texts was revealed in the acropolis-northeast area- These tablets were those dumped in/on a deposit of ash and trash on the floors of the rooms of the so-called "sq-Ttf mf*"*, whirl* T «»<■ "p"" *» "H r""ifriy * ""W1 portion of the building level II temple (Welas 1990: pp.540-542]. Weiss reports that the ceramic assemblage from building level "X" is part of the Khabur ware assemblage of the building levels II and HI templet [Weiss 1990: p.542]. The texts were administrative documents, which were dated by limt from the reign of Samii-Adad I [Weiss 1990: p.54l]. Among the lima attested, there was the limn Pussaya; the tablets dated with nut lirnu bore the impressions of seals with inscriptions describing ii-ir respective owners as "servant of Sandi-Adaa", "servant of linte-Dagart" tuvl "servant of Usmah-Aaarf' |Whiting 1990a: »> 569 and see Table 2 on p.576). The occurrence of the Urn* Sin-muballit. was confirmed on one tablet, which might be identical with the one from the building level III temple, noted above [Whiting 1990a: p.572; idem 1990b: p.l85|. One sealing, recovered from the secondary garbage deposit, bore me impression of the seal of "Suri-Adad. servant of Samii-Adad" (Parayre 1990: no.5 on p.559; see also Whiting 1990a: Table 2 on p.576]. Of interest is a sealing of a servant of Daduia, found in the same garbage deposit: this Dadusa is regarded as identical with the king of Einunna, who died five yean before the death of Samli-Adad I [Whiting 1990a: pJ71; tee Parayre 1990: no.7 on p.559J. Besides the excavations of the ecropolis-twrtheast area, the excavations in the lower town area (operation 3) produced a Urge group of Old Babylonian texts. The 1985 excavations of operation 3 confirmed three building levels (1-3) associated with the Khabur ware ceramic assemblage of Leilan period I [Akkernuns 1990: pp.543-547). The level 2 and level 3 buildings were considered as representing two phases of the palace of this the during Leilan period I [ Akkcrmans 1990: p.547: Akkernuns 4 Weiss 1987-88: p.91ff.]. The 1987 excavations of openttion 3 further confirmed pan of a building standing on the level 3 building but somewhat earlier than ii, which, also belonging to period I. was labelled as building level 4 [ Akkermans & Weiss 1987-88: pp.91-92]. The fill on the floors of two rooms of the level 4 building produced sealings of servants of Samii-Adad and Ilme-Dagan [Aklterrnans & Weiss 1987-88: p.92]. Building level 3 yielded a few tablets and many sealings. as well as the Khabur ware assemblage of period I [AUaerrrtans 1990: pp.M5-546; Akkermans A Weiss 1987-88: p.93|. Building level 2. which had been rebuilt almost in the same plan as that of the level 3 building, also yielded many tabled and sealings 1 Akkermans 1990: pp.546-547; Akkernuns * Weiss 1987-88: pp 94-95). Building level I was marked by a small mud-brick wall and several pits underlying below the modern surface of this area; one of the pits contained a small Khabur ware jar decorated with bird motifs [Akkermans 1990; p.547]. Inscribed seal impressions on tablets and sealings from building levels 3 and 2 in Ihe lower town area revealed the following names of rulers: Samli-Adad, Hitndiya. Muiiya. Till-abnu. and lakun-aiar. From the Man texts. Hlmdiya it known as having succeeded Aiamrum, king of Andariq, shortly before ihe time when Hammurabi of Babylon smote Mart in battle in his 32nd regnal year (en. 1761 B.C.)[Eidem 1987-88: p.l 111. Judging from the texts from the lower town area of Leilan, the last rulers who controlled this city after Himdiya were Muiiya, Till-abnu and lakun-asar in their successicnat order posited lEidem 1991: pp.114-115|. The texture! evidence and the archaeological contexts i>r the finds, at least, suggest that the rooms labelled as level 4 were in use during the lime of Sam8i-Adad I. and that in the level 2 palace, a rebuilding of the level 3 palace, lakun-alar was finally resided If/ Akkermans & Weiss 1987-K8: p.96|. Important in connection with the texts from the lower town area is a proposal put forward by Dominique Crurpin 119871. Of Ihe proposal, based on unpublished texts from Man and information front Tell Leilan. the points are thai ihe original name of this site was Sehna, a city-name aliened in late third millennium lahleis from Tell Bruk. before SainSi-Adad occupied ihe city 104 Hiromichi OOUCHI A REASSESSMENT OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF KHABUR WARE 315 and renamed it u Subat-Enlil. and that the name Sehna, also referred to in Zimri-Lim's tents from Man. gradually came into use again after the death of Samli-Adad [Whiting 1990a: pp.574-S75: Eidem 1987-88: p 110: Eidem (991: p.l t0]. Mast important ii a chronological link with southern Mesopotamia, shown in the proposal. The seal of lakun-alar, king of Apum. was found on tablets from roan 2 of the building level 2 palace in the lower town area I Whiting 1990a: p. 374, and see Table 2 on p.1751 The KQItepe texts suggest thai Apum was a town through which an Old Assyrian trade route passed [Ooelze 1953a: p.67; Whiting 1990a: p.574]. In the proposal, however, the fact that Apum was the name of the area around Sehna (= Subat-Enlil) is shown, which it supported by the Babylonian king Samuauiluna's 23rd date-formula recording (be destruction cf "&rjna (Sehna) the capita] of die land of Apum", and by a variant version of the date-formuLa which mentions a certain name most likely Identified with the lakun-alar, king of Apum, attested at Tell Leilan [Whiting 1990a: p.575: Eidem 1987-88: pp.110-1II: Eidem 1991: p.112]. The clirrxntogical link with southern Mescipotamia was thus clarified; and the 22nd regnal year of Samsuiluna (ee. 1728 B.C.) was considered a terminal date for archaeological and epigraphic materials associated with lakun-aiar. In stun, the date-formula of Samauiluna provides a probable ttntunus ante qutm for the building level 2 palace of Use lower town area of Tell Leilan. Accordingly, the lower limit of the time range of Khabur ware at Tell Leilan itself, which extends from the reign of Santii-Adsd (to the end of (he building level I of the lower town area, is probably dated shortly after ca. 1728 B.C., the date of the detraction of the palace of lakun-alar who it now attested as king of the land of Apum the capital of which was Sehna (• Subat-EnUT). However, the presence, in the aoopolis-northeast area, of "sinughVcanciw-stded beaker" type vessels with distinctive bird motifs, whose snrau graphic attribution is questioned, suggests thai there may be irchaeokigtciJ features assigned to th* beginning of Khabur Ware Period 3. If the representation of the bird motifs occurring on a small Khabur ware jar, from a pit immediately below the modem surface of operation 3, is distinctive, and is differentiated from that of bird motifs occurring on earlier Khabw ware vessels, for example, from Tell Billa stratum 4 [Spelter 1933: LXXUJ, the pit itself can be assigned to Khabur Ware Period 3. The recent confirmation of burials with ceramics said to be close in time to "Nuzl ware ssKmbiages'". which are now labelled "Leilan period 0", defined aa pott-Leilan period I [Weiss 1994: p. 126), dgecrvee rwisiuWatsoa la this oonuxtctsou. (7) Teraa (modern Tell 'Ashara) This site, on the Evptntes river. Is located about 60 kilometres north of Man Before the discovery of the Man archives, tablets from this site were well known to Assyriologisti as the Khana texts, dated to the second quarter of the second millennium B.C. During the first two seasons of excavation, the occurrence of Khabur ware at this site was not confirmed [KeUy-Buccellali St Shelby 1977: p.l 1). But later excavations, carried out in area P, con finned (he occurrence of Khabur ware in the fdrm of potsherd* [Bins 1993]. The sherds of Khabur ware found in this area were, however, few in number. The area F excavations, providing epigraphic evidence, luve so fiir confirmed nine phases. In phaaes 4-7, Khabnr ware sherdi were found. Ttanumtw of uV Khabur ware sherds recovered totalled 15 or 16; one from a phase 6 fill, two from a (ftsaw 3 flew, cast from a phase 6 W 1993: Tables 2 l-24onpp.l77-l801. Dame la Buia, who studied the pottery from this area, considers that phase 4 corresponds to a possible Old Babylonian occupation at Teraa urunedtettly after r^mmtsrabi's having destroyed Man [1993: p.30|. Further. Buia assigns phase 5 to the "late Man period™, the period in which Kibri-Dagan was present at Terqa as a governor under Zimri-Lim of Marl, and phase 6. to the "early Marl periocT. the so-called Assyrian "interregnum" at Man 11993: pp.31-32 and pp.38-39). It is said that among the cpigrnphlr finds from area F. there are two tablets assigned to phase 5 [Buia 1993: p.8|. Of importance is the fact that a tablet bearing a tnonth-name associated with Samii-Adad's reign was found in a room of a structure of phase 6, to which tablets from the so-called "scribal installation'* were also assigned [Buia: p.8 and pp.39-43]. Furthermore, Bula assigns phase 7 to the time of labdun-Lim of Mari, in that there was found a tablet bearing his name, which may be assigned to phase 7 if tentatively (1993: pp.8-9 and p.471. Accordingly, phase 6, yielding one Khabur ware sherd, probably falls in the reign of SamJi-Adad I. What matters is phase 7, tentatively assigned to the time of Iahdun-Lim. This tentative assignment suggests that phase 7, yielding eleven or twelve Khabur wan sherds [see Buia 1993: Fig. I95:b-c. e]. can be dated before Sarosi-AWs defeating labdun-Lim. In other wonts, it it suggested that phase 7 may be assigned either to the early period of Samii-Adad's reign, at the latest, or»the period shortly before the accession of Semfl-Adad, at the earliest. The latter is on the assumptions that the accession of lahdun-Um at Marl precedes that of Samli-Adad at AUur. and that tahdvn-Lim's earlier carter is concerned with Terqa [see Veenhof 1985: p.207 with n.56, for Iahdun-Lim). Oiven that the Khabur ware sherds of phases 4-6 are not stray Finds coming from phase 7. a time-span for the occurrence of Khabur ware at this site itself thus extends from some time during the time of labdun-Lim to a date immediately after the reign of Zimri-Lim at Mari. (81 TeBBI'a (ancient Tuttul) The site lies near Raqoa. a modern city of Syria, and is located also near the mouth of the Bulikh river. Through the 1987-1990excavations, sherds of Khdbut ware, though lev in number, were discovered JStronsmenger 1991: Abb.); Einwag 1993: Abb.9:l,2|. The Khabur ware sherds were those recovered from a burial place containing a number of superimposed human skeletons (Strommenger 1991: pp.13-15). The dead bodies, amounting to about eighty, had been for the most part thrown in and over part of the remains of an underground structure In a room of a building called the "late r.ljce" [Strommenger 1991: pp. 12-15 and see Abb 4; Einwag I993:p.33j. BerthokJ Einwag suggests that parts of broken :. .jhur ware vessels were likewise thrown in [1993: p.44]. Eva Strommenger considers that the burial suggests that there was a huttle [1991: p. 15). The underground structure was considered a tomb, constructed in the course of the use of the "late palace", which had been however robbed by the time when the dead bodies had been thrown in [Strommenger 1991: pp.12-13: Einwag 1993: p.33|. In an ashy layer overlying the burial place, tablets dated by lima to the reign of Samli-Adad 1 and seal impressions were found [Strommenger 1991: p.15; Einwag 1993: p.40]. A level, in which the "late palace" had been reused and which was mcciaifd with the burial pi ace, also produced similar tablets and a ousntity of unpaimed policry [Stnxnrnengei 1991: p.33]. The 1992 excavations confirmed tablets dating to the time of Samli-Adad I from this level [Einwag 1993: n.i on i'). cf. Strommenger 1994: p.l44|. These suggest a possibility that the occurrence of Khabur ware at this site may be dated to the reign of Samli-Adad I. The date* of the matin phase of Khabur ware The beginning of the main phase of Khabur ware (Khabur Ware Period 2) is dated to the reign of Samji-Adad I on the epigraphic evidence from Chagar Bazar, Tell al-Rimah, Tell Taya and Tell Leilan. The association, at Killtepe, of graves containing a few examples of Khabur ware with die Karum lb level idding the texts assigned to the reign of Samli-Adad I conforms to this. Tell Bi'a, though yielding only a small quantity of Khabur ware, also provides the datable evidence, which suggests that the occurrence of Khabur ware at the site fails in Samii-Adad's reign. At Terqa, yielding a small number of Khabur ware sherds, the introduction of Khabur ware to the site may possibly fall in the time of Iahdun-Lim of Mari; there is thus a possibility that IChabur ware was intmiuced to Terqa towards the end of Khabur Ware Period 1: but it is likely that the introduction tails between the accession, at AJSur, 1 SamSi-Adad I, a usurper on the throne, and the time when Iahdun-Urn was defeated by Samii-Adad 1. At any rate, the introduction of Khabur ware to Terqa before Samii-Adad's defeating labdun-Lim which resulted in his conquest of Mali seems to suggest that Khabur ware came to some extent into vogue in the upper Khabur basin before Samii-Adad's establishing a new capital called Subat-Enlil and his controlling the upper Khabur region entirely. In terms of political history, we are inclined to assign the beginning of Khabur Ware Period 2 to the date of the establishment of his resident capital Subat-pnlil at Tell Leilan, from which onwards Khabur ware obviously reached its florescence. However, ..ic date when SamSi-Adad established Subat-Eniil remains uncertain. Accordingly, a date of ca. 1813 B.C., the first regnal year of Wtii-Adad I at AJSur, is tentatively suggested for the beginning of Khabur Ware Period 2. This also enables us to see Khabur Ware Period 1 from the point of view of pte-Samsl-Adadl. The epigraphic evidence from the Riiriah area C palace indicates that Khabur ware continued in use at the site certainly until the time of Aqba-hammu who was subject to Hammurabi of Babylon; and the -tratigraphic evidence from the same area suggests that a new type or style of pottery appeared some time after the abandonment of the palace, probably after the reign of fjammurabi. The Leilan operation 3 epigraphic evidence connected with the 23rd date-formula of Samsuiluna of Babylon, together with the stratigraphic evidence, indicates that Khabur ware lasted at the site shortly after a date of ca. 1728 B.C., the 22nd year of Samsuiluna, i.e., until the end of "Leilan period I". Some pieces of ceramic evidence from the acropolis-northeast area and the lower town area of operation i at Leilan tempt us to assume that a change in style of pottery occurs towards the end of "Leilan period I". A possible dale is thus suggested for the end of Khabur Ware Period 2, which is ca. 1700 B.C. The distribution of Khabur ware in its main phase In the main distribution zone of Khabur ware, consisting of areas within the upper Khabur basin of Syria and nonhem Iraq, the painted pottery style predominates and associated pottery similar in most respetts 206 Hiromicfcj OOUCHI occurs. Sites which we can call "Khabur ware" sites lie in the main distribution zone; On the other hand, sites producing Khabur ware and belonging to the secondary distribution areas may be described as "peripheral*' sites (Fig. 2). In most of the secondary distribution areas, the occurrences of Khabur ware are few and the majority of ceramics are in many respects different from those ceramics which occur in the main distribution zone. In some secondary distribution areas, Khabur ware occurs to some extent in quantity, but the ceramic assemblage of each area essentially differs from that of the main distribution zone. (1) The main distribution zone This zone, in which Khabur ware occurs abundantly, consists of areas west and east of the Tigris river. The west areas are (a) the upper Khabur basin excluding its southwest part along the Khabur river, and (b) the iwrtheastern Jazira covering i) the area extending from the northern hills of Tell 'Afar northwards and rKjrtheastwards to the Tigris, li) the plain south of Jebel Sinjar and Tell 'Afar, and iii) the corridor linking the 'Afar plain with the river valley north of ASSur. The east areas are (c)the area east of the Tigris upstream of Nineveh, and (d) the southwest pari of the Makhmur plain bordered to the north by the Greater Zab river, the east by Jebel Qara Choq, and the south by the Lesser Zab river. The west boundary of the distribution zone lies certainly at the site of Tell Fakhariyah on the outskirts of Ras al-'Ain; hut the distribution does not reach to the upper Khabur river except at Tell Fakhariyah, because no Khabur ware occurs along the upper Khabur dowtutream of the site [J. Oates, personal communication in 1995; see Lyonnet 1991: pp.697-698]. It seems that in the northwestern area and the northern vicinities of Hasseke, no Khabur ware also occurs {see Seeden & Wilson 1988: pp. 174-187 for Tells Zaghan, Hwesh and Nustell; Bounni 1990; pp.23-27 for toe Hasseke Oam Project area including Nustell, and cf. p.28 (?); Lyonnet 1992: p. 107 for Tell Bezari, and cf. Fig. 10 (?)). The iMrthern botindary of the zone is defined by the arching line formed by sites along the Syrian-Turkish border and sites of the Eski Mosul Dam Salvage Project area. In the east, the main distribution is not beyond Jebel Bashiqa lying west of Jebel Maqlub; Tell Billa is situated at the foot of Jebel Bashiqa. South of the area around Nineveh, Khabur ware seems not to occur for example at Nimrud located about 35 Idlometres southeast of Nineveh, there are only the ruins of a Middle Assyran town founded on the remains of an early third millennium village, besides Late Assyrian buildings [D. Oates 1968b: p.42; see also D. Oates 1982c: p.86 and Reade 1982b: p.99). In an area extending beyond the Tigris south westwards from Nimrud, Khabur ware also seems not to occur, this area can be represented by the rjrehistoric site of Hassuna, and is bounded by hills, ranging north of Tell 'Afar, which also form a boundary of the Khabur ware distribution. The southeast boundary of the zone lies at AiSur and Tell Aqrah, a site in the southwest part of the Makhmur plain. On the east bank of the Tigris northeast of Tell Aqrah and 15 kilometres north of ASSur lies Tell Haikal, which may be identified with ancient Ekallatum, an important town in early second millennium history, and which is also said to yield evidence of Late Assyrian occupation [D. Oates 1968b: p.38 with n.S; see also Beitzel 1984: p.32 with n. 12], From a historical point of view and from its location, it is possible that this site produces Khabur ware, if it is Ekallatum. Excepting ASSur, the eastern half of the southern boundary corresponds approximately to the theoretical outer limit for dry-farming, as illustrated by D. Oates and J. Oates [1976: p. 111, suggesting the 300 mm average rainfall isohyet, and see Fig. 1; cf. Weiss 1986: p.80], This southern boundary seems to be not beyond the southern vicinities of Tell Heyal (Lloyd's site no.74 [1938]). located some 20 kirometres west of Balad Sinjar. On the other hand, the western half of the southern boundary lies roughly along the wadi Radd. confluent near Tell Brak with the wadi Jaghjagh flowing into the Ktabur river as its only perennial tributary, though actually the marshy land along the wadi Radd must be excluded. This boundary is immediately below the 300 mm isohyet. illustrated by Weiss [1986: Fig. 6]. (2) The secondary distribution areas The sites which yielded little Khabur ware or which yielded Khabur ware to some extent in quantity are distributed peripherally outside the main distribution zone. 208 Hiromichi OCUCHI (a) Nuzi, located 13 kilometres southwest of Kirkuk (ancient Arrapha). (b) Tell Basmusian, located 5 kilometres south of Tell Shemshara (ancient SuSarra), in the Rania plain. (c) The Ushnu-Soiduz valley (Dinkha Tepe, Hasanlu, etc.) of northwest Iran. (d) Mart and Terqa on the west bank of the middle Euphrates river, to which 'Usiyeh may perhaps be added. (e) Perhaps Tell Fadghami and Tell Ta'ban in the lower Khabur valley, to which Tell Bdeiri/ Bdiri, where several Khabur ware sherds were found, is not added at the moment on the presumption that in an unexcavated area, there may be a phase which the painted sherds belong to but which cctresponds in date to a later Khabur ware phase represented in the main distribution zone of Khabur ware. (f) Tell Bi'a near the mouth of the Balikh river. (g) i) The middle Balikh valley (Hammam et-Turkman and Tell Sahtan) and possibly ii) the upper Balikh valley (Sultantepe and Asa|i Yarimaca). (h) Tell Mardikh-Ebla in inland northwest Syria, which is located about 50 kilometres southwest of Aleppo (ancient Halab, the capital of the kingdom of lamhad). (i) Alalah in the Amuq plain, which is located about 60 kilometres west of Aleppo. (J) The tslahiye-Gaziantep-Nizip region (a site around Nizip, and possibly Tilmen HUyUk, Gedikli HuyultandSakceOOzU). (k) Lidar Hdyllk and Irnikusagi on the east bank of the upper Euphrates river. (I) Kultepe-Kanii. located about 19 kilometres north of Kayseri, in central Anatolia. Interprelatione of the peripfaeral distribution of Khabur ware The isolated occurrences of Khabur ware at the "peripheral" sites certainly show that in some level, , there was contact between the main distribution zone and the secondary distribution areas. There is also no doubt that there was much closer and more frequent contact between ethnolinguistic peoples living within the main distribution zone of Khabur ware; an interpretative approach to this problem is another matter of argument, although the present article does not deal with this topic. Now is the time to give possible explanations for the occurrences of Khabur ware in the secondary distribution areas of Khabur ware. It was Hamlin who hypothesized that the Ushnu-Solduz valley area, in particular Dinkha Tepe, had played a role in the Old Assyrian tin trade network, on the basis of the occurrence of Khabur ware, as well as that of typologically-recognized cermaic parallels to north Mesopotamian types, at Dinkha in period IV [Hamlin 1971: pp.306-307; idem 1974: p. 132; Kramer 1977: p. 1051. The presence of Khabur ware at KUItepe-KaniS supports to some extent her hypothesis, although its occurrence is very limited. In the case of KUltepe, it is possible that Assyrians, concerned in the trade, sometimes carried with them small Khabur ware vessels with symbolic meanings when moving from A55ur to Kanii. Thus at KUltepe. Khabur ware occurs only as grave goods symbolizing possessions which the deceased had in life. We can of course suppose that Assyrians, resident in trading outposts, manufactured Khabur ware not only as pottery with symbolic meanings but also for practical use as household commodities. A reason for the occurrences of Khabur ware in the Ushnu-Soiduz valley, the Rania plain, the upper Balikh valley, the lslahiye-Gaziamep-Nizip region, and the area along the upper Euphrates river can be given on the basis of such a supposition. The Khabur ware-related sites in these areas are in fact along tin trade routes inferable1". However, a certain question is raised regarding the Rania plain, in which no Khabur ware occurs at Tell Shemshara-SuSarra, despite its certain occurrence at Tell Basmusian. As attested in the Shemshara texts. SuSarra was the easternmost outpost of SamSi-Adad's kingdom, at which was a tin depot through A REASSESSMENT OF THE DISTRIBUTION OF KHABUR WARE 209 which the metal was supplied to Assyria [Larsen 1976: p.88)11'. Do the absence of Khabur ware at Shemshara and its presence at Basmusian reflect functional differences between both the sites, under the control of SamJi-Adad ? There remains an explanatory problem. ' assumption that a southern Zalpa/Zalpah, the seat of a karum'", lay in the middle Balikh valley enable us10 S've * reason for the occurrences of Khabur ware at the sites of the area in terms of the Old Assyrian trade. The occurrences of Khabur ware at tmiku$agi and Lidar Hoytik also lead us to assume that there was a trade route running along the upper Euphrates and reaching to KaniS via Malatya. Further, the fact that Imikusagi is sitauted near Ergani, a source of copper, tempts us to suggest that the site may have had a role as an outpost through which copper was brought to Assyria, possibly via Lidar Httyilk1". Needless to say. copper is an essential substance to make bronze. ,:i the other hand, the occurrence of Khabur ware at Alalab in level VIII may be connected with SamSi-Adad's political and/or economic interest in the western region: as shown in a text appearing on stone tablets from ASSur™', SamSi-Adad claimed that he had erected his stele in the land of Laban (Lebanon) on the Mediterranean coast. Historically, it is known that the kingdom of lamhad, a supporter of Zimri-Lim, son of the Mari king Iahdun-Lim. rivalled SamSi-Adad's kingdom forming an alliance with the kingdom of Qatna (Qatanum) under the rule of the king Iffb'-Adad. Alalab was under the err - ill of lamhad, as inferred from the later Alalab level VII texts. In addition, Ebla would have been under the political influence of lamhad at that time. Despite Samii-Adad's interest in the west, the existence of lamhad thus made his political expansion into the west difficult. SamSi-Adad, however, may have achieved success to some extent, perhaps in the form of alliance and probably in the form of avoiding Halab itself and its vicinities: Khabur ware occurs not only at Alalab in level VIII but also at Ebla in Mardikh 1UB, assigned to MB II, which shows that there was certain contact between the two sites and the main distribution zone of Khabur ware. At that time, the Rabbeans, known as one of the • ..si Semitic nomadic or semi-nomadic tribal groups, who were called brothers of the Benjarninites/ laminates forming a nomadic or semi-nomadic tribal confederacy, controlled an urban-tribal state covering the land of Rabbum on the northern fringe of the Syrian desert, i.e., on the right bank of the middle Euphrates, and were allied with SamSi-Adad's kingdom [Astour 1978: pp. 1-3]. This also makes such a presumption possible. But it is not feasible, when the appearances of Khabur ware at Alalab and Ebla are dated to the reign of Iahdun-Lim or that of Zimri-Lim at Mari-1'. The precise dating of the introduction ■ f Khabur ware to both the sites remains a problem. It is a fact that SamSi-Adad's direct territorial control never extended beyond the Balikh valley. If Khabur ware appeared at Alalab and Ebla in the contemporaneous period with the reign of SamJi-Adad. it may be concluded that the occurrences of Khabur ware at both the sites reflect an aspect of SamSi-Adad's economic activities in the west, based on political measures such as alliances. A letter from SamJi-Adad to Iasmah-Adad in the Mari texts (ARMT 1:7). referring to various kinds of wood brought from Qatanum and deposited at Subrum, and further mentioning SamSi-Adad's order to send them to towns in his realm, i.e., Ekallatum, Ninuwa and Subat-Enlil. shows an aspect of SamSi-Adad's apparent economic interest in the west and his real economic activities. SmGih« I9M: p.Mff. F«rthe most recent »ork. ace Beilwl ]«02:p.3.W. W) See >Uo Lactate 1959: p.SS, IS] See Lanen I97& pp,K7-2J8. 19) C/Lanen 1976: p.9l. »11 SeeOcajl0«l9«7:p.50orLuckenWIII9S9:p.l7, : 11 The problem ii thai both Iahdun-Lim and Zimri-Lim are also historically concerned with the wen. It Is known, from the roundatim inscription of the Samas temple at Mart, that laMun-Lim made an expedition to the Amanus mountatiu and to the Mediterranean coast. It il alio known thai shortly after the death of Sumsi'Adad. Zimri-Lim. maintaining friendly relations with lamtud. gained political supremacy over an area emending certainly to the Balikh * alio accordingly, given that their economic and/or polilicat activities could function in either case as un intermediary between the main distribution /one of Khabur ware and rhe sites in question, there is no reason to deny a possibility thai Khabur ware may have been introduced loholhthe «itc\ during either luWun-LLrn's reign tx Zimh-Um's reign at Mari. 210 Hlrornichi OGUCHI A REASSESSMENT Of THE DISTRIBUTION OF KHABUR WARE 211 The presence of Khabur ware at Tell Bi'a-Tutiul is also interesting. Perhaps near to or not far from Tuttul existed Šubat-ŠamaS121, an administrative/military outpost of Šamíi-Adad's kingdom. This suggests that the area near the mouth of the Balikh river was strategically important to Šamli-Adad. His well-known campaign in the land of Zalmaqum. the upper Balikh area around Harran (Harninum), was that undertaken for securing against a rebellion a foothold to expand his power into the west. In a sense, his political extension of power into the Balikh valley may be connected with the intention, which he must have probably had, of securing trade routes, on the one hand, to Kania and, on the other hand, to the Levant, Karkamiä (Carchemish), ruled by Aplahanda, probably entered into an alliance with Šamii-Adad's kingdom. A letter from Šamsi-Adad to Ishi-Adad of Qatanum in the Man texts (ARMT 1:24) tells us that Šamgi-Adad organized a coalition against Sumu-cpuh of Iarrdjad, in which the ruler of Karkamii participated, together with the rulers of HaíSum, Uräum and the Rabbeans. Thus the occurrences of Khabur ware in the Balikh valley can be accounted for in both political and economic aspects of Šamii-Adad' s kingdom11'. The occurrence of Khabur ware at Mari may be connected with the fact that pottery vessels, referred to as tarpätu (jars), were used as containers for transporting liquids such as wine, oil and honey (e.g. ARMT VII: 2S7)M>, The only Khabur ware jar found at Marí may have been a container of a commodity brought from the main distribution zone of Khabur ware in the time of Zimri-Lim, However, there arises a certain problem. Why was no Khabur ware introduced to Mari in the time of Šamíi-Adad ?: hit son bumah-Adad was present at Mari as viceroy. This remains to be elucidated. The political connection of Mari with the main distribution zone of Khabur ware in the times of äamSi-Adad and Zimri-Lim, which naturally strengthened economic lies, may account for the orxurrence of Khabur ware at Teroa, located on a route from the upper Khabur or the Tell' Afar region to Mart. If Khabur ware occurs at Tell Fadghami and Tell Ta'ban in the lower Khabur valley, an explanation from the same aspect is possible. Šarnii-Adad's military activities are well known from the Mari and Sbemshara texts, and from descriptions of two extant stelae. One of the targets of his conquest was the land of Arrapha including Nuzi. Arrapha is one of the lands for the control of which Samii-Adad may nave struggled with Dadusa, tingofBIriuiuia.fwaahm However, in Wtíi-Adad'8 campaign into the land of Qabra, between the Greater and Lesser Zab rivers, ESnunna under the rale of DaduSa cooperated with Šamsi-Adad, as did Šamii-Adad with Einunna on occasions. In fact Einunna made a conspicuous figure at that time. The occwence of Khabur ware at Nuzi may be connected with his campaign into Arrapha or his direct territorial control over the land"1. The conquest of Arrapha and that of Qabra must also have ensured the supply of tin to Assyria through a route from Susarra. In this article, factors which may have caused the occurrences of Khabur ware outside its main distribution zone have been contemplated, as Hamlin did from aspects of the Old Assyrian tin trade as well as Šarnii-Adad's political activities (Hamlin 1971; Kramer 1977]. However, it should not be overlooked that mere was constant contact between southern Mesopotamia and rrorthern Mesopotamia throughout the period of main phase of Khabur ware, as attested by the occurrences, in the north, of southern or southern-related types of pottery and as known from north Mesopotamian history itself261. 22) SceLewy IMS: pp.I-J CJT Aslor 1978: «.26on p.9. 2)) Howtver.ZlBsrMJrn'tcomiRlknwiuiilie Balikh valley cam aim account for its occurrence {see note 21 above). 24) SeeHainlial97l:p.294andCenaenM>rhl983:p.l.1amlp.6.V 25) In addition. Indie products from Gasur (later called Null) i" also mentioned in some of the KSItepe Kanm II leut [Veennof 1972: p.l90|. It is further known thai St Gusur/Nuzi. a handful of so-called "Cappndociflri laNets" were found. These suggest that there was commercial contact between Gasui/Nuzi and AMur. probably reflecting an aspect of the Old Assyrian trade. At OasurfNuzi. the association of Khabur waie widi rhe Xapeedociun tablets" is not clear slraligiaphically. However, the connection between Astur and Gasur/Nuzi. before Samli-Adad I. is a matter of consideralion. 26) A( several sites in the main Khabur ware distribution ease and in areas of secondary distribution of Khabur ware, we van fad ceramic evidence suggesting the occurrence* of such cooloct Ihfuughoul the period of the main phase of Khabur ware. Isin-Larsa and Old Khabur ware obviously continued in use abundantly after the death of SamSi-Adad I in the main distribution zone. When we postulate that the Old Assyrian tin trade continued after SamSi-Adad's death, the above interpretations for the occurrences of Khabur ware at die sites along trade routes to KaniS may re(!. evaluation from a chronological point of view1". After the period of the main phase of Khimu i ware, the Khabur ware fashion also continued within the main distribution zone. Also at a site like Dinkha Tepe, Khabur ware continued to occur, while at a site like Alalah, it reappeared. This raises interpretative problems which further need to be resolved. Acknowledgements Firsi of all. I would like to thank Professor Hideo Fujii for giving me an opportunity to research into aav logical problems from aspects of the second millennium B.C. in northern Mesopotamia. I would also particularly like to thank Mr. Charles Bumey for encouraging me in my studies and giving me every help. I am grateful to Professor Dr. Barthel Hrouda for his advice on Khabur ware. I am greatly indebted to Or. Joan Oates for her kind advice on Khabur ware itself and related problems as well as for her frank criticism of my researches and views. My thanks are due to Professor Ken Matsurnoto and Kazumi Oguchi, who provided me with drawings ol' ' 'Wished pottery from Der Hall. Any mistakes in citation regarding personal communications, reports and articles are my responsibility. Babylonian types or Their related types occ^r alongside of Khabur wire, or there are case* where southern shapes are reflected on some iharK* of Khabtv war* ireetfM»iesuu oft otiose For example, in the early phase of level I at Chagar Bazar, there occur laia-Larsa-related types, which an those found in the tablet mom 106 of ana T.D. [Mallowan 1947: Pl.LXXXIfclJ.lo: cf. Ayoab 1982: type 27:3,4). Even at Dinkha Tape, lying outside the main Khabur ware distribution zone, atypical I .m-Lsrsa lypc occuit. together wkh Khabur ware, only in the phase b context (Hamlin 1971: Pt.l:5aor«fcm 1974: Fig. 1:5a: cf. Ayoub l«S2: type 26|. Also at Chagar Bazar, m Old Babyktnuuwrtat^ Khabur ware in grave 142 assigned to the late phase of level I [Malkman 1937: Fla.U:ll;c/. Ayoub 19B2: type IB:I|. Curiously enough, at KUIiepe-Keati. a bsnd-paimed. shouldered Khafw ware vessel whaAkMwOtdBebylcaJaiMtls^ 1986: lt.i34:3or Hrouda 1989: the right ia Fig.2: cf. Ayoub I9g2: type IB:3|; rbis is an example of R hybrid between southern and northern ceramic traditions: and the fact that suck an example was detected at an Anasohs* she tying far from the main Khabur ware distribution zone is a miner of importance. Further, the tegument, put forward by D.L, Stein, that the shapes of Hrouda's "jungert" Khabur waie •irt southern Mesopotamian In origin 11984: p.9ff.) snakes sense: the "band-painted. everaiHe-necludnimmed shouMer cup" type, one of the types of Hrouda's "Juniere" Khabur ware, which, occurring in the main phase of Khabur ware, is denned here as Khabur ware, may reflect a southern ceramic influence oa the north, and may thus be also a hybrid. In the same aspect, "uraitht/concave-sided beaker type painted vesse»",ii4ciMttoUiat>rWaRPerk^ D.L. Stein I9S4: p.9IT.|. Furthermore, in tJusuaiiterticfl.it Is iraM after the Ur 1(1 period IPoalaaae 1992: n.«3 on p,307 and n.JJOon pJ30], and that the use of the Old Assyrian dialect of Akkadian is ■nested almost exclusively at Kttitepe-Keius and some other sites in Anatolia, remote from ASsur. It is alio noted that Samb'Adad Is career is concerned with Bebylooat, as known ffcm a biographical note in the Assyrian kina-l"> |r «* D. Oalet 1968b: p,J8 or Lanen 1976: p.55). It is well known from the Kllltepeteats that during the period known as "Kdliepe-Kanil Kanun ir'. corresponding here to Khubur Wore Period I. Babylonian ("Akkadian") testiles wen imported from the south to AStur. from which they were re-exported into KaniS, together with tin (omasum) brought from the east, probably from Afghanistan I for a source of tin. see Slech & Pigmt 1986: p.44 and Fig. 11. Some tests from Tell eC-Der (a suburb of ancient Sippar) also suggest Ihe pretence of a »ntult trading outpost of Assyrian merchants at Sippur |Walker I9SD: pp. 13-171, Such Assyrian trading activities continued m the period known as "KUItepe- Kuni* Kaemn lb", which corresponds approximately lolhe first half c/lOiabur Ware Period 2. relevant lolhe present unkrle. It goes without *aymg shut in the tatter pun of Khabur Ware tVriud 2. there was many-sided contact between the north and the vwlh. 271 tn this respect, iheduling. at KUhepc in rtnruw lb. of the grave* containing Khubur ware ul^itxvnnics noibLematic:il.