AI.-KAMIMN Vol, XXII 2(101 71 THE ORIGINS OF KHABUR WARE: A TENTATIVE NOTE Hironiiehi OGUCHI* In the appendix of her synthetic study of Khabur ware, Carol Hamlin, referring to the problem of the origins of Khabur ware, has enumerated ceramic groups which may have affected, or may have given a stimulus to, the appearance of Khabur ware [Hamlin 1971: pp.311-3131. It goes without saying that for a long time before Hamlin's brief discussion, there had been several arguments for explaining the origin of Khabur ware. Nevertheless, it is a fact that such a problem still remains enigmatic, which should be solved in future studies. Pieces of evidence for the earliest appearance of Khabur ware now appear to be clear, in particular which come from three sites in north Iraq, i.e.. Tell al-Rimah, Tell Taya and Tell Jigan [Oguchi 1997: p. 196; idem 1998: p. 119 with n.3](see Fig,7). Such a phase as is represented by Rimah area AS phase 3 (now described as site A level 4), Taya level IV and Jigan area C trench G-4 levels 3a-b is presumably dated between ca. 1900 B.C. and ca. 1814 B.C., which the present writer has called Khabur Ware Period 1. We may be thus inclined to believe that this indicates the place in which Khabur ware originated. The problem lies, however, in that 20th century B.C. pottery" succeeding late third millennium incised ceramic tradition" was replaced by the painted pottery termed Khabur ware. In other words, what is the point of this problem is the reason for the recurrence in north Mesopotamia of painted decoration on pottery, i.e., an apparent abrupt change in ceramic style in 19th century B.C. north Mesopotamia". In this opportunity of writing, the present writer attempts to explore every possibility in terms of what influenced the appearance of the painted pottery designated as Khabur ware. Divergent views Up to the present, there have been three divergent opinions on the origin of Khabur ware: an eastern origin, a western origin, and indigenousness to north Mesopotamia. Now added to these is the possibility of a northern origin. Eastern origin The eastern origin was substantially proposed by M.E.L. Mallowan 11937: pp. 103-104 and p. 145], although before such a proposal, E.A. Speiser pronounced a northeast origin on what was later called Khabur ware in terms of ethnic movements1' 11933: p.2731. Mallowan sought an area proposed for the source of its origin into western Iran, choosing Tcpe Giyan as a specific site, where there was a continu- * The Institute for Cultural Studies of Ancient Iraq. Knkushikan University. I-I-I Hirohukaira. Machida, Tokyo, 195-8550. Japan 1) The occurrence in fhe w>rtb of 2IMh century B.C. pottery including southern early Isin-Uirsu types is suid in have been now attested at Tell Bral|()alct & Oatcs IW: p. 171; Gates. Outcs& McDonald lW:p.62|. This is indeed important evidence fur filling oui a gap between lute third millennium pottery and Khabur waie in north Mesopotamia. However, because Brak. lying ara vrossing of mates linking the upper Khabur basin with theSinjar-'Afar plain, Assur and the farther south, is a speeirtc site certainly providing evidence ot southern connections, ihere arises a question as lo whether the same ceramic occurrence us at Brak can he confirmed at other sites in north Mesopotamia. If not, we must be confronted with the serious problem of how to identify the presence of occupation In 20th century B.C. north Mesopotamia |f/ Weiss et ul. 199.1: p.999ff. for "Hahur hiatus I" phase 31. At any rate, we wait for the second final report on the excavations at Brak. including the details of this 20th century B.C. pottery, to be published. 2) In brief, this is the pottery represented by the types known from levels IX-V! ul Teli Taya or front the pie-Akkadin. Akkndin and posi-Akkadian levels ot Tell Brak. 3) Here, it is additionally noted that in the past, this was connected with the migration of Humans (see Multowan 1947: pp.24-25). But such a theory has now been regarded as invalid. 4} Spciver specified no site for the origin of Khabur ware; instead, he speculated that the inhabitants of Billa stratum 4, yielding Khabur ware, might be the forerunners of Anatolians, who came in from the northeast, i.e., "Htutf. who raided Babylon later on 11993: p.273 with n.30J. The ethnic term "tfarir. mentioned by Spesier. obviously indicates the English term "Hiitiie" that is generally used to in i it M as W >3 i M- p Ji r — s * x? V s 18 4» k """* • 1 ■** i * „ * ■ J ■+* AJ +- ■ i s » se ___ — $r s 3 1 » S V E — 4Č AJ Al 1 ■b- E v * «4 a _> ■=s -b <* « — s * ttf K * a 3 s j. :.\ ä; * j **j s s iba f* -fr- S 3E e ti a * a S * s e s k s e . a -> íl * b IB M U * V- v 3 aj AJ g e i * > « •s * -9 IB * +• Ü . a v h * P = W -J i- -> ^> * m m u m *? a 3á •« e a *■ * * ží * « ■ ? a « ju: í «5 Ä A) V- >J V p S AJ * 5 .\ a * *• •\ a v- a «■ i k e * g J ä * e - t- =■ ■t; . e i s i d +1 X. -= s aj rj «- «u -> a í,' a a v m m ? ; 3] aj tí -P T jí v. s- _j 2 2 S * * -ir-af . 1 S á V « =■ t! 3ŕ í- 4 » * aa _ U E S 3 E =i S * 12 5 Ai a c e h- « « 3; a t* •« « ■s a « c í- H V 3 s m k 0 -J a c- m B a S a ■ j S sc rt e * j. « £ B Š 55 s W IV s ■* it l i * t*; if vi J +1 it o" 1 ■Ŕ V ■r- íi * w v c— V AJ * K* +" Kŕ f- -í s§ e * H-1 +• AJ * 9 *j -J AJ tu m a * r-J • _) TJ Š P e +• *M V- * * CM • r ■S - s S -c AJ v s *ť at • i _! *e AJ .\ w- S lt> -Ŕ •P _j *< í Al m - j * V 1 * »s -Ŕ * A| » -t ■* ■H *^ ily « ■H tta a Si m Ě ** ■t Ä< — m a ■m e #í — je Jn ■ft ■K _) s Bs a ■ŕ 1 4M t« ** H AJ & tí G m a •K +" ■ * E W e _) v * tí" W ■« « *• * P i ? AJ M g LTJ e a i a ä e * «• í1 O * , a « -H • 1 m s ■H AJ -U * V ++ Al G K s a * e a m w * K a GJ a 85 sa *u ss *ir w s m cg * ŕsŕ í* 11- s S * * -9 aj g C -t- >i :í - a >s S * « +• e ~ ť ní e ň g e a t e ľ b je a a 3 c y- s =E i< *j 5 W *< S * * * * " — 3 AJ AJ a , a J « -u <*1 ä í- aj d. « s Ž i 1 I u j 5 ■5 S é.i n f 3 íl í J 72 Hinimichi OfJUCHt ous tradition of painted pottery. He, pointing out in Oiyan II the occurrence of ceramics closely related to Khabur ware, concluded from the given dale of the Oiyan stratum II painted pottery (ca. I8O0-I40O B.C.) that it was contemporary with Chagar Bazar Khabur ware. Thus he regarded Giyan III painted pottery („,. 2500-1800 B.C.), originating in Giyan IV, as its ancestor (see Fig. I). This view Z si *Giy«n D" style (Godin post- ■ :2) "Gly.ii ■" >Iyle(Codln 1:2) Fig. 1 "Giyan" painted pottery from Godin Tcpc (scale 1:5). 1. Henrickson ISISft: Fig.J7: 2. Henrickson I9H6: Fig. 17:1 .1. Henrickson 1986: Fig.l7:i 4. Henrickson 1986: Fig. 17:3 5. Henrickson 1986: Fig. 17:1 6. Henrickson 1986: fig. 17:6 7. Henrickson 1986: Fig. 17:4 8. Henrickson 19B6: Fig. 17.2 9. Henrickson 1986: Fig. 17:7 10. Henrickson 19X6; 11. Henrickson 1986: 12. Henrickson 1986: 13. Henrickson 1986: 14. Henrickson 1986: 15. Henrickson 1986: 16. Henrickson 1986; 17. Henrickson 1986; 18. Henrickson 1986: Fig. I 7:12. Fiji. 15:3. Fiji. 16:13. Fis.l6:!2. Re.16:10 Fi(.l4:IO. Fig.l4:l6. Flg.l4:J7. Fig. 16:1. TtZ^£%L* " " ^ ' "-""^"'P™ l-KW IGurncy 1973: pp.230-231: Hallo THli ORIGINS OF KIIADUK WARli 7,1 scquently espoused by Marian Welkcr 11948: p. 191 j and Barlhcl Hroudu" i 1957: p.41 j, although the chronology of Giyan itself was very problematical'". A decade later. T. Cuyler Young, Jr. carried out excavations at Godin Tepe, with the result that they provided the evidence that should make it possible to give a much clearer picture of ihe Giyan ceramic sequence. In his study on the chronology of the late third and second millennia B.C. in central western Iran, based on the results of the Godin excavations. Young suggested that the Giyan II ceramic material found in the upper levels of Godin 111" might show "a foreign element" in postulating that there would be the certain relationship between Giyan II and Khabur wares 11969: p.290|. In this connection, Robert H. Dyson. Jr. also pointed out that there were obvious affinities between the Giyan II pottery, found at Tepe Giyan and Godin Tepe, and the Dinkha painted ware that was generally recognized as the counterpart of Khabur ware found commonly in north Mesopotamia [ 1973: p.708 and cf. p.7111. However, there arose an argument against the eastern origin of Khabur ware: Carol Hamlin argued that the Giyan II and Godin III painted wares were different from the Dinkha Khabur ware both in shape and in decorative motifs [ 1971: p. 142 and pp.344—145]. If her claim is correct, the possibility of the eastern origin must be excluded from consideration. Another counterargument was made by Diana L. Stein: she refutes it in that Khabur ware predates part of the Giyan II painted ceramic assemblage and in that the Giyan II assemblage, representing an intrusive element, differs from that of Giyan I V-Itl [1984: p.26|. Thus the claim of the derivation of Khabur ware from "Giyan" pottery was theoretically dented. Western origin The western origin of Khabur ware was, on the other hand, suggested by Ann Perkins [1954: p.50| and Edith Porada [1965: p.!72|. The pottery specified there as the ancestry of Khabur ware is Syro-Cilician painted pottery", first clearly defined by M.V. Seton-Williams'" [1953: p.57ff.] though previously discussed by Marian Welker 11948: p.205ff.j. This painted pottery is normally monochrome"", and is mainly characterized by jugs and carinated bowls either with or without pedestals; its main distribution spreads out over Cilicia and north Syria1". Il was usually said to somehow resemble Khabur ware; this is one of the arguments for supporting the theory that Khabur ware must be derived from Syro-Cilician pottery (see Fig.2). The resemblance may be also shown by the fact that both the wares .1) Hroudu has recently rclraclcd his opinion on Ihe Giyun origin ol'Khahur ware I I'JH'r. p.]l2|. ft) Whtil mailers al Tepe Giyun is Ihc foci lhal lne chronology is hustil on ceramic materials (roin graves | Hamlin 1471: p.2l|. Kir the prohlein ut" Ihv Giyun chronology, see Dyson 1973: p.fty2IT. 7) The chronology itr*Godin III hus receilily elucidated hy hohen ť". Henrickson llionich hi, siudy of Ihc development of Ihc Goilin III ccruinic tradition I l<)K6|. He suggests lhal (iiyan 111 can he clouted wild (iodiu l!l;?lK I: Stein |o|U|."Olician I punned) ware lllamlin 19711, and "Ami«|-Ciliciun (painted! ware" ITuhh 1981: McClellaii I98'l. I bins i992|. If. Scliin-Williiuns 19.13: p.57. The term "Syro-Cilician painted pottery" is adopted, lor example, hy (icrslenhliih | i9S3|. ')! Selon-Willimtis hcrscir suggests thai holh Cilician and Khabur wares have llie same eask-rn origin, in accordance with Mullowaii's suggestion on the origin of Khahur ware 11953: p.isl |. 10) Ttinb points nut that although only one colour ul jkiinl is normally applied. Iherc arc ■ visional eases or hichroiiK decoration 11981: n.4()3: ti. 1983: p,12|, while fjerxleiihlith indieak-s lhal such cases are ouK ot colour sarialinn resulting uneven firing 11983: p.69|. In uddilion. Selon-Williams writes lhal Ihe paint applied to (he smaller ie,sels is lustrous, while Ihc paint applied to (he larger vessels is occasionally malt 119.1.1; p..lN|. According to ulso Seton-Williams. although die vessels are usually hand-mudc, iherc are also wheel-made examples 119.13: p.SH |: Hrouda, however, writes lhal Ihe sharply l< inned prolile wiih a clear rim-edge oť the pottery suggests Ihul il was manullicturcd on a potter's wheel, though the earliest examples seem liand-made 11957. p 11 \. I Ij The main silcs that produced Syro'Cilician pollcry ure us follows:— Tell Atchanu-Aialah (levels X VII/XVI - VIIE/VII) and Tell Judeiduh (periods VIM-VII3 Atnuq phases K-L) in Ihe Amuq plain. Tarsus (MB levels), Knsanli 1MB levels). Mersin (levels XI-IX land several other sites in Ihc Ciliciun plain. KUItcpe-Kanii (Kttwin levels IV und III in cenlrul Analolia. Tilmen HdyUk (levels II lu and I lib) in the isuriwye plain ut'Turkey, several sites alimg the Qnueit] river of north Syria. Tell Mardikli-KblailrH:"Ttmibi>t'the PniKess'', dutiny mnurt lo Ihe MB IIA perindl in iltlaud nunhwest Syria. Hamafpenod Hi. Mishrilc-Qalna i Toinh i I .im! Tell Nebi Mend-rjudesh (a MB IIA level) along the Onmles river nf inland Syria, and Kas Shumra-Ugarit la single example) in Ihe Syrian coast ITuhh 1981: p.40.1 and pp.40.!-*Xi: idrm I9S3: pp..l(l-12|. 74 Hiromicbi (XiUlHI TMEOWCINSOFKHAHUKWAW: 7.5 himh Fig. 2 Syro-Cilieian painted poUery {stale t:5). 1. Seton-Williams 1953: Pig.3:7. Alalah. 2. Seton-Williams 1953: Fig.3:9, Ugarii. 3. Seiun-Williums 1953: Fif.2:l3. Tarsus. 4. Scion-Williams 1953: f-'ig.3:5. Mcrsin. 5. TuM> I9H3:Kíľ,I:I. Tell Judeidiih. 6. Scion-Williams 1953: FigAH. Tursus. 7. Scion-Williams 1953: f-'ig.4:l I, Tarsus. 8. Scum-Williams 1953: rig.4:5. Mcrsin. '). Scum-Williams 1953: l'iu,2:l. Menin. III. .Scion-Williams 19.53: ľig.4:H). Mcrsin.. were initially apt to be confused1-'. Anolher argument for this theory is based on the fact that Syro-Cilician pottery predates Khabur warc,,,. This could he demonstrated on the basis of the evidence that at Alalah, Syro-Cilician painted pottery occurred between levels XVII and VIII. but fell out of use in level VII1'", which was normally considered contemporary with the introduction ol Khabur ware'" |D.L. I2| Hamlin illmtiwesIheconfusion hy givingexamples, one of wnich ison Croup X reported by Scion Lloyd ibrnugh » survey in ihe Sinjar area of Iraq; she piiinls out thai Ihis pollcry gmup, consisting of curinuted bowls wilh painted decoration, which was regarded by Lloyd M comparable lo pottery found at Judeidah level VII and al Mersin. should be merged wilh his Group XII under [be heading of Khabur Ware 11971: p.20: c/, Lloyd 193*: p.lJ4|. 11 was Welker thai first distinguished between Syro-Cilician pottery and Khabur wire, in claiming "■ general resemblance" between the two wures (I94B: p.2t)5|. I3J Wetter, who supported the eastern origin of Khabur ware, thought th« Khabur ware had influenced SyniCilician pottery 1194«. p.2t«|. 14) Woofley 1955: p.34l, on which be writes that the so-called "early local painted pottery" (his types 23. 70 and 119). which is identified with Syro-Cilician painted pottery, occurs in level XVI and continues up lo level Vltl. but it falls out of use in level VII und then revives in a way in levels Vl-V. However, the pottery lypc-lisl presented hy Woolley jp his report shows itmt one of his types of Syro-Cil ician Stein 1984: p.26; t/ Hamlin 1971: pp.l8l-l82|. It was also supported by the fact that al Killtepe, Syro-Cilician painted pottery was found in Kurum IV and II, while Khabur ware, discovered in Ktirum lb, was not found in the underlying levels. IV-ll 1D.L. Slein 1984: p.26|. Against such a view as Khabur ware being derived from Syro-Cilician painted pottery, however, an argument was raised by D.L. Stein. She regarded the differences in shape and in design composition between the two painted wares as important rather than the lew parallels between their individual elements of design [1984: p.26]"". Grounding her argument on this matter and also emphasizing the discrepancy between their distributions, Slein refuted the view on the western origin. With regard lo the western origin of Khabur ware, there is another candidate for ils ancestry, which is so-called "MBIIA Palestinian painted ware", distributed over Palestine and the Levantine coast (see Fig.3). It was first believed that this pottery could be traced back to the Khabur region, and thus that it was derived from Khabur ware. The proponent of this idea is Ruth Amiran, who, elucidating similarities and differences between these two wares, postulated that there was some relations between them [1969: pp. 113-115]. Further, in a discussion from a chronological point of view, she thought that the floruit of the MBIIA ware in Palestine might accord with the dale of Khabur ware, the early 18th century B.C.'1', determined through epigraphic evidence [1969: p.1181"". However, such an idea was later rectified by Patty Gerstenblith 119831 who supported Amiran's view regarding the relations between the two wares. Directing attention to band-painted store jars of MBIIA Palestinian ware1'", which, in her opinion, fall within the range of Khabur ware but should be treated as belonging to the group of Syro-Cilician pottery, Gerstenblith pointed out that such store jars had been introduced into north Mesopotamia, where they were to be termed Khabur ware [ 1983: pp.59-60 and pp.63-64). Of interest are her argumente for such a hypothesis. She argues that "the store jars in the Levant were in use only during the beginning of the MB I period" which means Amiran's MB UA5h, while such band-painted jars did not appear in north Mesopotamia by the time of the last phase of MB I if we relied on epigraphic evidence11', pottery (type 23>occurs in level XVII as well I1955: p.333|. This is variously sited. Hrouda|I957; pp.27-28| ami Hainlii) 11971: p. 1*11 fallow Woolley's description, although Hrouda considers level XVII painli-d pottery as die carliesl type of Syro-Cilician pottery ul Alalah. On the other hand. Tubh mentions its occurrence in levels XVII-VMI JIUHI: p,4l)3|; Slein follows Turin's munlinn II9K4: p.2f»l. However, the most recent study hy Hcin/on the chronology and ceramic* of Alalah XVII VI I. including Ihc re-examination of a number or unpublished malcriuls, seems lo prove 1« some cslenl the presence of Syro-Cilician pottery in XVt-VIl (1992: pp.54 - 59, esp. p.54|. 15) However, it is noted here that Alalah level VII is now generally dated oi- 172(1- lrV5IV20 B.C. by ils archive and n historical cvcnl mentioned in the Bogtt/Jdty teg's |Collon 1975: p. I4.s|. and Ihal Ihc inlrisliichoh of Khabur ware in north Mesopotamia now should he doled no later than the early 19th century I) C. ]Ogucbi IW7:p.l"K;,/ i,/cn Jim* I'ig.oon pp.1 IH- 119|. t-unther. we musl lake il into consideration that Hein/'s study 119921 prtives that Khiihor ware occurs in Malah level VIII |scc Oguehi 199K; p.I2h|. Such a demonstration as was done in Ihc past is. therefore, now invalid. IftJ Tubh also slates that "Habur ware bears no resemblance uhutever" to Si.ro. CWici.cn ware | I9S3: p.55|. 17j C/. note 15 in Ihis article, fin- the upper date of Khabur ware, or Ogtkhi IW7. p. I v)X mid p.205, Moreover, il slrould be remembered hen; that in Ihc past, the approximate dale for Ihc beginning of Khabur ware uas ,el in Ihc reign of SamSi-Adad I Uti. 1813-17« I B.C. on the middle chronology) on Ihe ground of epigraphic evidence from Chaear liaAir. and dins that a dale of ca. HUM B.C. given by Matlowan for Ihc intrcttuclion or Khabur ware in calamity continued in be used luUtakenly a> Ihc upper dale of Khubur ware in related studies, (sir which sec and c/. Mallowan 1947: pfi.M2-K3. IK) Amiran assigned ihe Middle Bronze IIA peritHl loc«. 2tKKI/l95^-17MI II.C, lien.', ii should be nolcd that there are divergent opinions regarding the terrmnokigical system of the Middle Bron/e Age |see Dever I1!}.!: Rg.l on p,3H;Crt!rs1cnbliih 1983: Table 1 on p.3|. 19) rjerslcnblilh provisionally terms them "'Habur' ware store jars" or Ihe U'sanl II9K3: c.c. p.6H 20) Clerslenblith's terminology of the Middle Bnm/e Age is used in accordance with a proposal by Orcn 1197.3: p.371 and F>ever|l973; n.5b onp.60| suggesting that there is no break between Albright's FiB IV and MB I. whereas a major break occurs between bis MB I und MB IIA. Ttlus, GerstenbLith's MB 1. implying Ihe certain beginning of MB. is used as an approximate equivalent of Albright's MB IIA IJ.r. Albright's MB la part of Gerstenblith's EB IV) IGerstenWilh I9K1): p.7J: itfcut I9}t.l: pp.2-3|: but their views on absolute chromjlogy are dilferent. Albright, the main proponent nr the low chronology, dales his MB IIA lo vu. I KM)-17110 H.C.; and Gcrslenblilh, preferring Ihe middle chronology, dales her MB 1 lo ca. 20IKVI95O-1750 B.C. 21) On the basis of ceramic chronology. Gerstenblith subdivided her MB I mlo ihrce phases such as MB IA-IC, and dates! Ihe early phase. MB I A. to co. 2000/1950-1890 B.C.. Ihe middle phase. MB IB. In iu. IKSK1- IKI'UIKOU B.C., and Ihc last phase. MB IC, to err. ISKV 18(10-1750 B.C. 11980. p.74: 19X3: p. I(ln|. In proceeding with her discussion. Cicrslcnblilh was aware Ihat if so, mere anise aconsider- 76 Hrromjchi OGUCHI Fig. 3 MBI1A Palestinian painted ware (scale 1:5), t. Amiran 1969: PI.3V.7, Ras cl-Ain. 2. Amiran 1969: Pt.35tl I. Megiddo. 3. Amiran 1969: PJ.3S:I2. Megiddo. and further that there might be a causal mechanism for their introduction into north Mesopotamia, which was the export of liquids such as wine and olive oil. transported by using such vessels, from the Levant into north Mesopotamia, as documented in the Mart texts [Gerstenblith 1983: pp.63-64). As opposed to both the views of Amiran and Gerstenblith, however, there is an opinion given by Jonathan N. Tubb who considers that MBIIA Palestinian painted ware, also termed "Levantine painted pottery", is stylistically different from Syro-Cilician ware [ 1983: p.53]. His opinion is that "the apparent similarity between MBIIA Palestinian painted ware and painted Habur ware must be purely fortuitous", and that "the resemblance is only superficial and arises solely as a function of the extreme simplicity of many of the designs of each group"; thus he suggests that the Palestinian/Levantine painted pottery tradition is unrelated to that of the Khabur region 11983: p.55|. In this way, Amiran's theory that MBIIA Palestinian ware is a descendant of Khabur ware has been denied. Had Tubb known Gerstenblith's theory that Khabur ware was descended from Levantine painted store jars, he would have also denied it. After Tubb, Amihai Mazar also states that "the relation between the painted pottery of the Habur region and that of Syria and Palestine is not entirely clear" (1990: p.183 and also see n.l7on p.228|. Contenders along the middle Euphrates and in inland Syria In addition to the ceramic groups noted above regarding the western origin of Khabur ware, there is also another candidate, which is the third millennium band-paimed pottery that Hartmut KUhne treated as a painted variant of "metallic ware (= stone ware)"",(see Fig.4). Although whether this kind of band- ahle chronological gap between the occurence of the painted store jars in the Levant • Muzzoni 1994; Fij>.4:4. 7- Muzzoni 1994: Frg.J:t. Mawonj 1994: Frj.JM. 9. Muyzom 1994: Fig.S:2. Indigently to north Mesopotamia Another opinion regarding the origin of Khabur ware is the claim that Khabur ware is an indig- 32) See Kelly-Bueceltali & Shelby 1977: Fig.24:TPR 4 60 and Fi*.25:TPR 4 65, 33; See now 22 in ihe present article. The Prähistorische Sutürxsammtmx of Munich acre* j number of third millennium hamJ-niiiineu- ponery vcuelfi, ell of which are said to be from sites along ihe middle Euphrates. This also give* u him abtun iis distihuiion. 34) Prag 1970: p.70 with n.68. 33) See Moon 1987: no.363 on p.76 «rat no.166 on p.77, Till-: ORIGINS OP KMARUH WARli 79 enous north Mesopotamian product, i.e., the north Mesopotamian origin. in explaining Khabur ware from KUltepe Kanim lb in his book, Charles Burney regards it as indigenous to north Mesopotamia, though adducing no particular reasons 11977: p.I.Y7|. Further, prior to Burney, there is a suggestion, made by Hamlin, that there is evidence for an indigenous painted pottery tradition in northern Mesopotamia [Hamlin 1971: p.3131. Hamlin, taking up so-called "'early' or 'eggshell' Khabur ware"1** and ASSur IStar temple D painted pottery from among painted pottery groups which predate Khabur ware and which "may have contributed lo its typological make-up", discussed them but concluded that there was no conclusive evidence for Ihe relations between the two ceramic groups and Khabur ware (1971: pp.311-3I3|. Instead, however, she pointed out that in northern Mesopotamia, there were "unpainted pottery shapes which predate similar shapes associated with Habur ware", suggesting the presence of an indigenous tradition relating to Khabur ware [1971: p.313). Next, it was D.L, Stein who elucidated the indigenousness of Khabur ware to north Mesopotamia [ 1984|. Paying attention to the presence of the pottery that might be considered transitional between earlier incised or relief ware and Khabur ware. Stein asserted that "Khabur ware was an indigenous north Mesopotamian development", and that "this development.....was neither as sudden, nor as radical as originally clai med" [1984: p.26). The possible transitional pottery17', pointed out by Stein, was that illustrated with examples of the decorative style combining painting with incised and relief designs, known from Chagar Bazar (level I), Tell Billa (stratum 4), Tell Taya (level 4) and Tell al-Rimah (area AS phase 3) [1984: p.22). Northern origin The painted pottery that occurs in the Malatya-Ealzig region (now also described as the Keban and Karakaya Dam Project areas) in the third millennium B.C. is a topic for our further discussing the origins of Khabur ware™1. This pottery is said to be of "a local style of painted pottery evolved in the Upper Euphrates region around Malatya and Ealzig", which "is found together with the burnished wares" that one may term "Early Trans-Caucasian" pottery originating in the Kurd and Araxes valleys of Trans-Caucasia [Sagona 1984: p.68]. At any rate, the painted pottery is thus called "Malutya-Eal/.tg painted pottery" or "pointed Malatya-Ealzig ware" [Sagona 1984: p.68; idem 1994: e.g. pp,45-46|. Of important in another aspect is the fact that the Malatya-Ealzig region is marked as lying at the western extremity of the "Early Trans-Caucasian cultural zone" of which the term has been proposed by Charles Burney [Burney & Lang 1971: pp.44-45 with a map], Burney's term "Early Trans-Caucasian culture", showing a widespread material culture which extends from Trans-Caucasia southwards to Lake Urmia and southwestwards to eastern Anatolia during the third millennium B.C.™', is generally accepted by western archaeologists, as pointed out by Antonio G. Sagona*". We are thus inclined to describe the painted pottery in question as "Early Trans-Caucasian painted pottery", although its occurrence is confined to the Malatya-Ealzig region, a sub-province of the "Early Trans-Caucasian culture", where the sudden appearance of painted pottery is a matter in dispute'"',__ Mi) ."I 3X) 391 40) 41) Sec noli: 24 in (his article. For Ihe view of Ihe transitional pwlery. sec also 1. Chitcs (970: p, 17. This was one of the topics given by Mr. Charles Burney. supervisor for my Pti.l), studies, when I was at Manchester. Since Ihcn [ have lefllhis topic untouched: but on this occusion of writing. I have decided In lukc il inln consideration as an interesting problem. I would liVe roost sincerely to (hank Mr. Burney. ulsodistinguished as the proponent uf ihe "liurls Tuiis-Cuuciisiun culture", fur having given me this particular topic. Burney A Lang 1971: p.43: Burney 1977: p.128. Bumey also suggests lhul this cultural sphere, exhibiting uniformity in the first period, shows diversity in the rind period with the result thai srrudler cultural sub-provinces appear II977; p.128). One of Ihe sub-provinces if the Malatya-Ealaj area, in which a loud slyle of painted pottery evolved [Bumey 1977: p.l30|. As for Ihe "Rarly Trans-Caucasian culture", moreover, a principal problem lies in tbe fact that the il shows directions of expansion beyond (be main cultural zone {see Bumey & Lang 1971: the map on p.4J(, which is however a disputed point beyond (he scope of the subject of Ibc present article. Sagona l9S4:p,JJ. Marrol997:p.2Uirf. SO Hiromichj OCUCHI Burney suggests that the date of this painted pottery falls within the EB III horizon (ca. 2200-2000 B.C.) of the Malatya-Eatztg region [I9S8: pp.205- 208 with a chronological table). Further, taking a broad view of this matter in question, he regards its appearance as a change in the southwestern part of the "Early Trans-Caucasian cultural zone" in the "Early Trans-Caucasian III period"*" [Burney & Lang 1971: p.64; Bumcy 1977: p. 130). According to Burney, this kind of pottery, painted most commonly in brownish black though sometimes actually in black, consists largely of globular jars and inverted-rim bowls in shape, with such fundamental decorative design as groups of chevrons between broad bands [Burney 1958: p.205 and Pigs.244-285 on p.203]. The recent study by Catherine Marro of this painted pottery, however, suggests that the first appearance of this kind of painted pottery falls in EB LI"1, and that the painted pottery separating into some groups in EB II trends towards uniformity in EB IK, which is the time when the "Malatya-Ealzt| style" of pottery was completed*" [Marro 1997: pp.201 -202J4" (see Fig.6). According to Marro. this painted pottery in EB II varies in style from place to place, such as styles found in the Alttnova (the rich plain lying southeast of Ealzig), in the As,van valley (the Murat basin) and in the Malatya urea, respectively [Marro 1997: p.202]. EB D EB ■ f f f Fig. 6 EB II 1. Marro 2. Marro EB III 3. Marro 4. Marro J. Marro 6. Marro 'Early Trans-Caacasian" / "Maliuya-Eal^ painIed ^ (scu|e , ;J) lW.Pl34:}S3vSorP\.sS:DU .2. Tepecik IW:H.23:morH.SS:Dllvi. Pulur. l»7:P1.7:Pllv3orPt.58:EW. Terwik 1*)7: PI.»:P| | vSorPI.59:EIS. Teomk l997:P].i7:PSIvlorP!JS:EI1. Tepcvik IW: PI.11*13 vl OTH.SM5IS (- Huuptmunn 1976: PI.J,.7). Nr^ntepc. 42> Burney tin proponed dM terms "Early Trmj<:.l«.«i,„ t nr- t .-:-1-'----- For instance, a style of the EB II painted pottery is represented by examples from tlic Asvun valley*". According to Sagona's report, the pottery in the Asvan valley is painted most often in mall reddish brown, and is characterized by such a basic geometric painted design as a raw of running triangles filled with oblique lines, between horizontal bands, i.e., a row of hatched triangles placed between horizontal bands [Sagona 1994: p. 10). There are also cases where u row of hutched triangles is replaced by a row of solid triangles or where a wavy line is added to horizontal bunds |Sagona 1994: pp. 10-111. Needless to say, a row of hatched triangles is a decorative element of Khabur ware. On the other hand, the best example, concerned with the present subject, of the EB 111 painted pottery is a painted pot from Norsuntepe in the Alttnova plain [Sagona 1984: Fig.l 14:3 and Marro 1997: Pl.l l:PI3 vl or P1.59:E15, after Hauptmann 1976: P1.53:7|. This painted example is decorated with it row of cross-hatched triangles, between which a dot is interposed. Such a combination of geometric motifs is in fact reminiscent of a decorative style characteristic of Khabur ware. Perhaps more interesting here is the fact that the origin of this "Early Trans-Caucasian'V'Malalya-Ealzig" painted pottery comes into question, as does the origin of Khabur ware. Marro suggests a possibility of the influence of the culture of the Karababa area, a dam project area further downstream of this upper Euphrates region, where a distinctive style of painted pottery, termed "Karababa painted ware" by L.C. Thissen. occurs, according toGuillermo Algaze. during the middle-late part of the Early Bronze Age4" 11997: p.202|, In this respect, Algaze states that there may be somewhat tenuous parallels between the "Karababa painted ware" of the Ataturk (Karababa) Dam Project area and the Early Bronze II—III painted wares of the Malatya-Kurakaya and Keban-Altinova areas, and that such similarities as may be seen in specific individual elements may suggest some generic connection or interaction or communication [1990: p.345|. Discussion The foregoing indicates that in the third millennium B.C., some ceramic groups showing some similarities in painted decoration between them and Khabur wane occurred along the middle and upper Euphrates and its surrounding, and/or beyond the Euphrates valley. They are, as noted above, those which have been described as the mid- and possibly late (?) third millennium band-painted pottery distributed along the middle Euphrates, the EB IV band-painted pottery occurring at Ebla in Mardikh IIB1, and the "Early Trans-Caucasian painted pottery", dated to EB (I-lll, of the Malatya-Bilzig region*'. On the other hand, in western Iran there was a painted ceramic tradition starting before 2000 B.C. and continuing thereafter. The pottery itself bearing such a tradition can be described as "Giyan painted pottery" in general but conventional terms, which occurs at sites like Tepe Giyan and Godin Tepe. In the past, this was the most likely candidate for the origin of Khabur ware. However, what matters is the chronology itself of the Giyan painted pottery sequence, which is in fact obscure. For this problem, the recent study by Robert C. Henrickson of the Godin III ceramic sequence in chronological perspective1'" now carries weight with us. According to Henrickson, Godin 111:2 (= Giyan 111] is dated ca, 19(H)-1600 B.C., and Godin post-lII:2 (= Giyan II), ca. 1600-1400 B.C. IHcnrickson 1986: esp. p.l9|. Further important are. as pointed out in the past, the facts that there are some similarities in decorative style between the post-III:2 (Giyan 11) painted pottery of Godin Tepe and the Khabur ware of north Mesopotamia, and that the 111:2 (= Giyan III) painted pottery of Godin Tepe rather differs in style from that of north Mesopotamia. If we believe Henrickson's chronology, these facts actually tempt us to 46) SmSbjoiu im:Fjp.lla-l28»npp.lSV-l7|. 47) See Algtu-e 1990: pp.322-J2.% anil MX P1s.HI -H9. 4Xi TV Muuitvu-Ealwg region is near Erguni*Muclen, a:sowrceeif copper. This may cnublc us to discuss the rclMions between the MaiiHya* Eul/ig region and north Mesopotamia in connection with *"ct>pper route" trending towards Mcsopotuimu. !f the lowerdulcof "Mtilalyii-Eulzig puinled pottery" cm be extended into the 20th century B.C.. we cjn set up an interesting hypothesis in muting it connection with Khabur ware, 49) See ulso note 7 in this article. «2 HlnHiiichilXJLXHI 3 7001 3 1 * 1 s J900-I, i s 1 \ THS ORI0INS OP KHABUR WARE 83 suggest thut the influence of the Khabur ware fashion in north Mesopotamia may have been exerted to some extent on such sites as Tepe Giyan and Godin Tepe, where stylistic elements of Khabur ware thus merged into the so-called "Giyan II painted pottery" style. If so, however, the causal mechanism of such an influence is much elusive. In contrast with Giyan pottery, Syro-Cilicion painted pottery obviously predates Khabur ware, but overlaps in the 19th century B.C. with Khabur ware. This suggests a possibility that the influence of Syro-Cilician painted pottery may have been exerted on north Mesopotamia at a stage of the development of Khabur ware. As for "MB!I A Palestinian painted pottery", it should be discussed in connection with Syro-Cilician painted pottery. Much more attractive is the view that Khabur ware is an indigenous north Mesopotamiiin product deriving from north Mesopotamia^ ceramic tradition. However, the problems are that the floruit of such incised decorations as cross-hatched or hatched triangles occurring on north Mesopotamia pottery before the appearance of Khabur ware is in the Akkadian period of the north, and that except at Tel) Brak, the substantial corpus of 20lh century B.C. pottery has not yet been known at other sites in north Fig. 8 The earliest examples of Khabur ware (scale 1:S). 1. TellJigan(AreaCG-4Level 3a). Pinkish huff ware (7.SYR 7/4), vegetable* and grit-tempered. Painting and grooving. 2. TdUigon (AreaCG-4 Level 3h). Reddish pink ware (7.SYR 7/4), vegetable-tempered. This is well slipped in pale greenish cream an the exterior. Painting and grooving. 3 Tell Jigiui (Area C C-4 Level 3a). BvflG.M H/4, 5Y 8/3)/light greenish buff (7.SY 8/2) ware, vegetable- and grit-tempered. Painting andgnxiv. >£• 4. Tell JigjD (Area CG-4 Level 3a). Light greenish buff ware (7,5 Y 8/2), vegctuble-and grit-tempereU. Painting 5. Tell Jigan (AreaCC-4 Level 3b). Pinkish buff ware (7.SYR 7/4), vegetable-and grit-tempered. Painting. 6. Tell Jigun (Area C G-4 Level 3a). Buff ware (2.SY 8/4, SY 8/3l with a pinkish buff core (7.5YR 7/4). vegetable- and gril-ieninereil. Painting. Grooving on the rim. 7. Tell Jigun (Area CG-4 Level 3a). Pinkish bufr ware (7.5YR 7/4) with a reddish pink core (SYR 7/4.8/3,8/41. vegetable- and grit-tcmpcred. Painting, Grooving on the rim. ttUtHr^UKt^'" »4 Hiromichi 001X.1II Mesopotamia. In this sense, the theory of setting transitional pottery between Khabur ware and late third millennium north Mesopolamran pottery/20th century B.C. north Mesopotamia!! pottery has not yet been persuasive. What is now considered is a possibility that potters, when producing Khabur ware, imitated in paint the decoration of earlier incised ware which they found on the surfaces of sites51". In north Mesopotamia, incised pottery had a long history of use. Even after the end of incised Ninevite S pottery which replaced painted Ninevite S pottery, incised pottery continued in use throughout the late third millennium B.C. in undergoing a major, though gradual, shift from incising to combing, a special form of incisions. In fact, this continuity was maintained there despite stimuli given from the middle and upper Euphrates regions where painted pottery was in vogue, although there must have been contact or communication, even in some degree, between such Euphrates regions and north Mesopotamia. When the 19th century B.C. came, however, the application of irregular bands, or much broader bands, of paint was done on pottery (see Fig.8). Such distinctive painted pottery is the earliest Khabur ware which can be now well appreciated on archaeological evidence'". Further, it may be possible that we draw the assumption that in the course of the development of Khabur ware, major geometric motifs, such as cross-hatched or hatched triangles of paint, were adopted through the act of imitating earlier but incised decorations found on surface sherds etc. and/or through an influence exercised from the area in which Syro-Cilician painted pottery was prevalent. At any rate, however, it is a fact that we are still in a position to seek the basic reason why paint was applied at the first stage of development of the pottery marked thereafter as Khabur ware, i.e., to explain an inducement to a change from the tradition of incised pottery into the adoption of painting. Acknowledgements My thanks go to Dr. Ryoichi Kontani, who gave me information on a new reference to "Malatya-Eutztg painted pottery". Bibliography Algaze. 0. 1990 "10. Period IV: The Middle-Late Pan of the Early Bronze Age", in C. Algu« (cd.). Town and Country in South-easlem Anatolia. Vot.11: The Strailgraphic Sniueuce ai Kiirbun Hdyiik. 2 vols. Text & Plalcs (OIP 110, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago), pp.311 -367. Antirnn. R. 1969 Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land. From In /(rtrnm»i;i in the Neolithic Period to the Unit oj the Iron Aj;e. Mussuda Press Ltd., Jerusalem. Burncy, C 1958 "Eastern Anatolia in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronn: Age". Aitntolinn Studies 8. pp. 151-209, 1977 From Village to Empire. An tntrmtuciion to Near Eastern Archaeology, Phuidoit IVess Ltd.. Oxford. Burney.C, and Lang. D.M. 1971 The People* of the Hilts. Ancient Ararat and Caucasus. Wcklcnlcld and Nicolstin. London. Collon. D 1975 The Seat Impressions from Tell Alchana/Alalakh (Alter Orient and Alios Taslament. Band 27), Verlag But/.on & Bcreker, Kevekaer / Neukirchener Verlag. Neukirehen-Vluyn. Dover. W.O. 1973 "The EB IV-MB I Horizon in Transjordan and Southern Palestine". Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental 501 For such a view, see J, Oates 1970: p, IS and idem !987;p.l96 51} In this respect, more important is the fact that among the earliest examples of Khabur ware, there is an example decorated with comb-' incised horizontal and wavy bands in addition U> horizontal band(s) of paint Such a combination nf decoration rs also characteristic of the earliest Khabur ware, which can be now attested ai Tell Jigan in area C. TMI ,>HI(',INS<>IKIlAmiK*AKU »5 Researching pp.37-63. Domemann. H.H. 1977 "Tell Hadidi: A Millennium of Bron/c Age City Oceupulion", in D.N. l-'recdiiuti led). Aivliactdogical Htptira from the Tahqa Hum Project — Euphrates Valley. Syria < Annual orihe American Schools of Oriental Research 44, Cambridge, Massachusetts), pp. 113-151. Dyson, R.H., Jr. 1973 "Chapter XVI. The Archaeological Evidence of the Second Millennium B.C. on die Persian Plateau", in The Cambridge Anient History (3rd edition). VoLII Pan I (Cambridge University Press). pp.bXtv7l5 Gates. M.-H.C. 1981 "Alalakh Levels VI and V: A Chronologien! Reassessment", Syio-Mesopoiunmm Studies 4/2, pp.1-40 (» pp.11-50). GerstcnbUlh, P. 1980 "A Reassessment of the Beginning of the Middle Bronze Age In Syria-Palestine". Halletin o/'the American St-hools of Oriental Research 237, pp. 65 -84. 1983 The Levant at the Heginmnv of the Middle Brome Age (American Schools of Oriental Research Dissertation Scries, No.5). American Schools of Oriental Research. Oumey, O.R. 1973 "Chapter XI. Anatolia c. 1750- 1600B.C". in The Cambridge Ancient ř/rs-íon-(3rd edition), Vnl.ll Pan I (Cambridge University Press), pp.228-255. Hallo, WW. and Simpson. W.K. 1971 The Ancient Near East. A History. Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, Inc.. San Diego. Hamlin, C. 1971 The Habur Ware Ceramic Assemblage of'Northern Mesopotamia: An Aiutlysis of Its Distribution (Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Pennsylvania), University Microfilms International. Ann Arbor. Michigan. Hauptmann. H. 1976 "Die Grabungen auí dem Noryin-Tepe. 1972", in Ariwi Project ml Activities (Middle East Technical University. Series I No.5, Ankara), pp.71 -90. Hei», M. 1992 Tell Atchami /Alalakh. Die Schichten VII-XVII (Aher Orient und Alles Testament. Band 41). Verlag liutzon & Bercker, Kevelaer / Ncukirchcncr Verlag, Neukirehen-Vluyn. Hcnrickson. R.C. 1986 "A Regional Perspective on Gtvdin III Cultural Development in Central Western Iran". Iran 24. pp.1 -55. Hrouda. B. 1957 Die bemalte Keramik des zweiten Jahrtausends in Nvrdmesmtoiuinirn tnut Noidsyrien (Istanbuler l'orschngen. Bund 19), Verlag Gcnr.Mann. Berlin. 1989 "Die HabQr- Ware in neuerer Sicht", in K. Emre et at. (eds.). Atuttnliit und the Ancient Near East. Studies in Honor ofTahsin Özgüc (Ankaral. pp.205 - 214. Kelly-Buccellali. M. & Shelby. W.R. 1977 "Tcrua Preliminary Report No 4: A Typology ofCeramic Vessels of the Third and Second Millennia from the First Two Seasons". Syro-Mesojiotamian Studies 1/6, pp. 1-56 (= pp.171 -236). Kühne. H. 1976 Die Keramik vom Tell Chuira und ihre Beziehungen zu Eumteit aus Syrien-Palästina, der Türkei und dent Iraq (Vorderasiatische Porechungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung. Hand I), Cicbr Mann Verlag, Berlin Lloyd. S. 1938 "Some Ancient Sites in the Sinjar District", Iraq 5. pp, 123-142. Mallowan. M.E.L. 1937 "The Excavations at Tall Chugar Bazar and an Archaeological Survey of ihe Habur Region. Second Campaign. 1936"./rao 4. pp.91-177. 86 HinmiKhi 0C1UCHI 1946 "Excavations in [he Balih Valley. 1938", Iraq 8, pp.111-13». 1947 "Excavations m Brak und Chagur Bazar". Iraq 9, pp. I -159. Mum), C, 1997 La vulture du Haut-Euphrale au Brmtze Arnim. Essai d'interpretation a partir de la ceramique prime de Urban (THruui'e) (.Varia AnMolic« VIII), Institut Pruncais J'Etudes Atuiolicnnes d'Istanbul. Paris. Motlhiae, P. 1977 Ehla. An Empire Rediscovered, translated front Ebla: m imperii rimmno by C. Hohne. Hadder and Stoughlon, London. Mazur. A. 1990 Archaeology of the Landof the Bible, IU.0U0-5W B.C.E. (The Anchor Bible Reference Library). Doubicday, New York. Muzzoni, S. 1985 "Elements of the Ceramic Culture of Early Syrian Ebla in Comparison with Syro-Palesiinian EB IV", Bulletin of tlie American Schools of Oriental Research 257, pp. I -18. 1994 "Drinking Vessels in Syria: Ebia and the Early Bronze Age", in L. Milano (ed.), Drinking in Ancient Societies. History and Culture of Drinks In the Ancient Near East. Papers of a Symposium held in Rome. May 17-19, 1990 (History of the Ancient Near East/Studies VI, Padova). pp.245 - 276. McClellan, T.L. 1989 "The Chronology and Ceramic Assemblages of Alalukh". in A. Leonard, Jr. & B.B. Williams leds. i. Eimw in Ancient Cmtiiation Presented to Helene J. Kantor (Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization, No.47, Chicago), pp.181-212. Moon, J. 1987 Catalogue of Early Dynastic Pottery (Abu Salubikh Excavations, Vol.3), British School of Archaeology in Iraq, London. Oates. D. & Oates, J. 1994 "Tell Brak: A Stratigraphic Summery", Iraq 56. pp. 167-176. Oates, D , Oates,). and McDonald, H. 1997 Excavations at Tell Brak Vol.1: The Mitanni and Old Babylonian Perituls. British School of Archaeology in Iraq (London) & McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, University of Cambridge (Cambridge). Oales, I. 1971) "The dute of the Phase 2 building—the evidence of the pottery", in D. Oales, "The Excavations at Tell al Riinah. l968",/ra»32.pp.l6-20. 1987 "A Note on 'Ubuid and Mitanni Pottery from Tell Brak". Iraq 49. pp.193-198. Oguchi, H. 1997 "A Reassessment orthe Distribution of Khuhur Ware: An Approach from an Aspect of Its Main Phase". ul-RAfuiiin 18. pp. 159-224. 1998 "Notes on Khuhur Ware from Sites outside lis Main Distribution Zone", ai «rt/Wün 19. pp. 119-13.1. 2(KX) The Late' Khahur Ware Problem Once Again". al-Rafuttm 2). pp 10.1-126. Oren. ED 1973 "The Early Bronze IV Period in Northern Palestine and Its Culture and Chronological Setting". Bulletin of lite American Schools of Oriental Research 210, pp.20- 37. Parrot. A. 1956 It Temple d'lshtar (Mission Archeologiquc de Mari. Tome I. Institut Francais d'ArchMogie de Beyrouth. Bibliothtque archrilogique el hislorique. Tome LXV). Lihrairie Orienlaliste Paur Ueuthner. Paris. Perkins, A.L. 1954 "The Relative Chronology of Mesopotamia", in R.W. Enrich (ed.). Relative Chronologies in the Old Wnritl Archaeology (Trie University of Chicago Press), pp.42-45. Porada. E. 196J "The Relative Chronology of Mesopotamia. Parti. Seals and Trade (6000-1600 B.C.)". in R.W. Ehrich (cd.). Tlili 41KI11INS (»■" WIAlllltt WAKi; 117 Chrotuilogies in the Old World Archaeology'(The University of Chicago Press I. pp. 133-21X1. Pray.K. 1970 "The 1959 Deep Soundings at Harrnn in Turkey". Ij-mnt 2, pp.63 -94. Sagona, A.G. 1984 TJie Caucasian Region in the Early Unitize Age, Parts i-iii (BAR International Series 214(i-iu')). Oxford. 1994 J7ii' Ajwut Sites A. Kehan Rescue Excavations, Eastern Anatolia. Ihe Early Bronx Age (British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara Monograph No. 18). The British Institute of Archaeology at Ankara. London. Seton-Williams. M.V. 1953 "A Painted Pottery of Second Millennium from Southern Turkey and Northern Syria". Iraq 15. pp.57-68, Speiser. E.A. 1933 'The Pottery of Tell Billa". J7ir Museum Journal 23. pp.249-308. Stein. Diana L. 984 "Khabur Ware and Nuzi Ware: Their Origin. Relationship, and Significance"./Uvur 471, pp. I-65. Thurcau-Dangin. F. und Dunand, M. 1936 Til Barsih (BiWiothique urchéologique et Hislorique, Tome XXIII). Lihrairie Orienlaliste Paul Geuthner, Paris. TubbJ.N. 1981 "Report on the Middle Bronze Age Painted Pottery", in J. Mntlhersted.). Ttie River Qoneiq, Northern Syria, and Its Catchment. Studies Arising from the Tell Rifu'at Survey 1977-79. Part ii (BAR International Series 98(ii). Oxford), pp.403-412. 1983 "The MBU A Period in Palestine: Us Relationship with Syriu and Its Origin". Ij-vunt 15, pp.49-62. vun Loon, M.N. 1977 "1974 and 1975 Preliminary Results of the Excavations at Selenkahlye near Meskcnc, Syria", in D.N. Frcedman (ed.), Archaeological Reports from the Tahqa Dam Project—Euphrates Volley. Syria (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 44, Cumbrtdgc, Massachusetts), pp.97-112. Weiss. H., Coutty, M.-A., Wetterslrom, W., Guichurd, L„ Senior. L. Meadow. R„ and Ctirnow, A. 1993 "The Genesis und Collapse of Third Millennium North Mesopolamiun Civilization", iouni ť 261. pp.995- KKJ4. Welker, M. 1948 "The Pointed Pottery of the Near East in the Second Millennium B.C and Its Chronological Backgnaind". Trans-actions of the American Philosophical Society New Scries-Vol.38 Pan 2. pp I Si-245. Woolley. C.L. 1914 "Hiltite Burial Customs", Uverjiotil Annul.* ttfArctnieologyaud Anthropology. 0. pp.87-9H. 1955 Alalaklt. An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atetuuui in the Hutttr. /9.I7-/W9 (Reports of the Research Committee of the Society of Antiquaries of London. Nti.XVIII). ()«l'ord ľni verily Press. Oxford. Young, T.C.. Jr. 1969 "Survey in Western Iran. 1961", Journal of Near Eastern Similes 25. pn.22R- -39.