AL-RĀFIDĀN Vol. XXXVII 2016 153

THE ORIGIN OF WARE: BETW EEN THE RE-EVALUATION OF DIFFERENT OPIN IONS AND SUBMITTING A NEW VIEW POINT

D u raid S . P O L IS *

“ N u z i Ware, on account of its high technical quality and the absence of obvious precursors for its distinctive w hite-painted decoration, w as likewise regarded as intrusive in north la ter in th e mi-second mille n n iu m B .C . S imilarities betw een N uzi Ware and the younger Ware have been mentioned, but the many parallels between the painted designs of Nuzi Ware and various forms of decoration in Egypt, the Levant, and the A egean encouraged some scholars to propose a w estern origin for it.” [Stein 1984: p. 4].

In our quest to re-examine the origins of some ceramic ty p es fro m Mesopotamia in the second mille n n iu m B .C., w hich is under consideration of archaeological research. We started our project w ith an article about the origin of K habur w are published in Al-Rāfidān [Polis 2014], and in this article we have decided to re-study the origin of Nuzi ware through the re-evaluation of all the evidence submitted through the archaeological excavations and the view s so far put forward by archaeologists to get to a certain result illustrated in the following pages; and, on the other hand, we have strengthened our view w ith new evidence. N uzi w are has been associated in most academic studies and scientific rese a rc h e s w ith H u rria n - Mitannian presence1), and the archaeological excavations have show n at Nuzi (modern Yorgan Tepe) a n d T e ll B ra k th a t th is c e ra mic type occurred together w ith the tablets of Mitannian king Šauštatar [Speiser 1933–34: p. 48; Matthew s 1997: p. 49]. N uzi w are has been associated w ith late K habur w are due to the presence of overlapping layers, in addition to contemporaneousness and simila rity betw een them. T h is matter causes differences betw een the researchers w ho attempt to a s s ig n a n u mber of vessels to one of these two types. These vessels divide into two types: the first is a group of straight/concave-side beaker type painted vessels, also called “grain measures”, w hich Mallo w a n counted them as late specimens of Khabur ware [Mallowan 1947: p. 78] (see Pl. I), while the second in c lu d e s th ree types of H rouda’s “jüngere” K habur w are, w hich are: the band-painted “eversible- necked/rimmed shoulder cup” type (see Pl. II: 13–18), the band-painted “tall-necked shoulder cup” type (see Pl. II: 7–12) and the band-painted “open-form goblet” type (in particular with a small fo o te d pedestal base) (see Pl. II: 1–6) [Oguchi 2000: p. 106, Fig. 2; Hrouda 1957: p. 24]. H ow ever, confusion occurred in H rouda’s classification of K habur w are, especially the “younger” K habur w are contemporary with Nuzi ware. H e depended in his classification on technique evolution of the Khabur

* A rchaeology College, Mosu l U n iv e rsity , Ira q . E -mail: d u ra id sp u [email protected] 1) The term “N uzi (Nuzu) w are” w as proposed by Max Mallo w a n [Mallowan 1946: p. 132], but before then it w as called “H urrian w are” by Ephraim Speiser [Speiser 1933: pp. 274–275]. To avoid a racial nomenclature, Mallowan used the term “Subartu pottery” to in d ic a te w h ite -p a in te d w a re [Mallowan 1939: p. 887ff.]. H ow ever, this racial nomenclature has a geographic designation contained in texts since the A kkadian period, w hich refers to a geographical area confined between the Zagros and the Lebanese mountains and which is a region where this type of ceramic spread. N evertheless, the history of use of this term is n o t c o mmensurate w ith the history of use of N uzi w are in the mid-second mille n n iu m B .C. [Stein 1984: p. 4]. There are also two terms simila r to the racial nomen c la tu re o f S p e ise r, th e first o f w h ic h is th e te rm “Mitannian w are” proposed by O ’Callaghan [O’Callaghan 1948: p. 72] and the second of which is the term “H u rrian -Mitannian ware” used by Al-N ajjar in the form o f merging two nomenclatures (Hurrian and Mitannian) into one [Al-N ajjar 2012]. It is w orth men tio n in g th a t th e a sso c ia tio n o f N u z i w a re w ith th e se ra c ia l nomenclatures may be confronted w ith utter rejection, because of the fact that the appearance of N uzi w are came after a lo n g time a fte r th e sta b ility th e H u rria n s -Mitannians in Mesopotamia [Stein 1984: p. 30]. 154 D u raid S . P O L IS w are that came fro m graves at A ššur, w ithout reference to the level sequence, so that his proposal w as much speculative. T his matter has encouraged Helene Kantor to find a transitional phase between th e m, the “transitional Khabur-Mitannian phase”, show ing through it that Nuzi ware developed from K habur ware due to the simila rity b e tw e e n th e m, especially in respect of their decorations and th e ir quality. Precisely speaking, bird and animal motifs are applied in dark paint on Khabur ware, while they are painted in w hite/light-on-dark on N uzi w are, w hich are often draw n by curved lines w ith stra ig h t g e o metric p attern s d eriv ed fro m K habur w are. These show the close relationship between the two types according to the opinion of Kantor [Kantor 1958: p. 23]. In her study, Kantor depended on the results of the excavations at Tell Fakhariyah (Floor 6 of Sounding IX), Tell Billa (level 3), Tell Jidle (levels 2 and 3) and Alalah (levels 5 and 6). What is regarded by Kantor as the transitional style is a group of vessels w ith dark-painted decoration w hich overlap w ith N uzi w are at the sites referred to above. H ow ever, Kantor’s concept about the transitional phase and Hrouda’s concept about the younger Khabur ware remain subjects of controversy and discussion2). T h is matte r le d D ia n a S te in to attribute the vessels w ith dark-painted decoration to N uzi w are, in particular those contempo rary w ith N uzi w are instead of K habur w are [Stein 1984: pp. 18–19]. A ccording to Stein, N uzi w are is defined firstly as w hite-on-dark painted w are and secondly as such uniform fo rms as open-form g o b le ts w ith small footed pedestal bases and shoulder cups (see Pl. II), not only because of simila r fo rms but also because of the arranging of decoration similar to a large extent. The point added to these is that the shoulder cups do not have antecedents in northern Mesopotamia. She also identified the younger K habur w are more accurately as smaller and possibly more refined vessels having antecedents in respect of both form and decoration in a group of the older K habur w are vessels, such as the vessels that w ere discovered in phase C of level 1 at Tell C hagar B azar [Stein 1984: p. 12 and p. 23]. The opinion of Stein has now been refused by David and Joan Oates absolutely, because it raises further confusion. They prefer retaining the conventional concept of N uzi w are, w hich is defined as w hite-on-dark painted vessels only w ithout involving the forms of vessels referred to above. Irrespective of vessels forms, band-painted vessels are thus classified as K habur w are on the basis of evidence from the excavations at Tell Brak and Tell Rimah, which proved that these vessels belong to the category of Khabur ware, which appeared in layers that precede the occurrence of Nuzi ware3) [P o stg a te e t a l. 1997; O ates e t al. 1997]. O n the other hand, some researchers submitted another view point: “N uzi w are, on account of its high technical quality and the absence of obvious precursors for its distinctive w hite painted decoration, w as likew ise regarded as intrusive in north Mesopotamia la te r in th e mid-second mille n n iu m B .C . S imilarities between Nuzi ware and the younger Khabur ware have been mentioned, but the man y p a ra lle ls between the painted designs of N uzi w are and various forms of decoration in Egypt, the Levant, and the A egean encouraged some scholars to propose a w estern origin for it” [Stein 1984: pp. 4–5]. This thing is not conclusive evidence for attributing the origin of Nuzi ware to these areas, and the matter is not exceed the existence of a kind of simple influence of some ceramic styles on N uzi w are, such as A egean pottery [Starr 1938: p. 397; C ecchini 1965: pp. 46–47], P a le stin ia n b ic h ro me w are [Mallowan 1947: p. 246] and Egyptian frescoes of the 12th D ynasty4) [Mallowan 1939: p. 894, n. 2]. In respect of the geographical distribution of Nuzi ware and cultural connection, they do not reach to a grade for attributing the origin of N uzi w are to these areas; but

2) Sebastiano Soldi re-examines the question of transitional phase again in research recently published [Soldi 2008]. 3) Moreover they suggested the new division of phases of Khabur ware: “O ld Babylonian Khabur ware”, “Late Old Babylonian Khabur w are” and “ K habur w are” [O ates e t a l. 1997]. 4) We can never forget the mural paintings of the second mille n n iu m B .C. w hich w ere discovered in the palace of king Zimri-L im a t Mari and which had affected Nuzi ware, as mentioned by Mallo w a n ; in th e Mari mural paintings, there are interlocking spirals painted in w h ite c o lo r [Mallowan 1947: p. 241]. For more in fo rmation on these mural paintings, see Parrot: 1958. THE ORIGIN OF NUZI WARE 155 the origin of N uzi w are reverts to the upper Mesopotamia and can be considered w ith confidence as part of the last phase of K habur w are because of the great simila ritie s b e tw e e n th e m. With regard to the influence of previous ceramic sty le s o f Mesopotamia o n N u z i w a re a s is th e c a se w ith K h a b u r w are, w e w ill try in the following pages to provide evidence to reinforce this view point.

T he comparative study:

A- T h e History: T he archaeological excavations confirmed in many sites that the appearance of N uzi w are w as in th e middle of the sixteenth century B.C. At Tell Brak, Nuzi ware clearly occurred in level 6 of area H H , which is dated to this period [Oates e t a l. 1997: p. 68]. A t Tell Chagar Bazar, phase E yielded one sherd of w hite-painted N uzi w are, w hich is dated by Mallowan to ca. 1550 B .C. [Mallo w a n 1947: pp. 83–84]. This date is the beginning of the fourth and last phase of K habur w are (Khabur w are period 4) according to the view point of O guchi regarding the sequence of K habur w are5). A s for its end, it has been identified by the destruction of the second layer of Nuzi, which also refers to the end of the Mitannian kingdom in the fourteenth century B .C.6) [Stein 1984: p. 25], T herefore N uzi w are w as contemporaneous w ith K habur w are, i.e., H rouda’s younger K habur w are prevalent during the last two centuries of the sequence of K habur w are, K habur w are period 4 according to O guchi [Polis 2011: p. 150].

B - The geographical distribution and the stratigraphic sequence: The distribution of N uzi w are extends from th e Z a p v a lle y e a st o f th e T ig ris riv e r to th e A muq plain and the Orontes valley in the west [S tein 1 9 8 4 : p . 2 4 ], w h ich is almost th e sa me geographical area in w hich K habur w are spreads7). N u zi w are also o ccu rs in a d ifferen t area su ch as ‘A q ar Q u f (ancient Dur-K urigalzu), the Kassite fortress-site west of [Oguchi 2014: p. 223]. The Sinjar- Tell ‘Afar plain, the Jazira region (extending inside of the Iraqi border and of the Syrian border) and the upper K habur basin can be considered the main distribution zone (see Fig. 1). Stein has said that the distribution area of white-painted Nuzi ware overlaps with the distribution area of dark- painted vessels attributed by Stein to N uzi w are [Stein 1984: p. 24], w hich are indeed vessels of K habur w are contemporary w ith N uzi w are. We can also confirm the geographical distribution and the stratigraphic sequence for these two ceramic types via a table that show s a stratigraphic sequence at every site in which the two types appear (see Table 1). In the table, w hether they have been found in the same layer or in successive layers can be confirmed. In this regard w e got an important piece of evidence from Tell B arri, located about 10 km north of Tell B rak. Through the excavations at this site, the archaeologists of the Italian Mission of the U n iversity of Florence have noted the absence of any interruption in the occupation in area

5) It is w o rth mentioning here that w ith regard to the sequence of K habur w are, O guchi subdivides it into four phases, i.e., K habur Ware P erio d s 1 – 4 . We have adopted his subdivision in our article. For more in fo rmation, see O guchi 1997, 2000 and 2006. 6) In a recent study presented by O guchi, w hich dealt w ith the distribution of N uzi w are and its implication, he discusses the date of appearance and disappearance of N uzi w are depending on the results of excavations in three impo rta n t site s w h e re th is c e ra mic style occurs. T he sites are A lalah, N uzi and Tell B rak: at A lalah the use of N uzi w are is dated betw een the end of the 15th century B .C. and the beginning of the 13th century B.C., at N uzi the occurrence of N uzi w are may fall between the beginning of the 15th and the mid-14th century B .C., w hile at Tell B rak the use of N uzi w are spans the duration of ca. 1550 B .C. to ca. 1270–1250 B .C. [Oguchi 2014: pp. 217–221]. From th is it fo llo w s th a t w ith re g a rd to th e su b je c t o f o u r a rtic le , w e su g g e st th e p o ssib ility o f attributing the origin of N uzi w are to upper Mesopotamia. Further, w e take into consideration the opinion of O guchi above, and w e are to assign the end of Khabur ware period 4 to 1270–1250 B.C., and are to suggest the duration of ca. 1550 B.C. to ca. 1270–1250 B .C. for K habur w are period 4 instead of that of ca. 1550 B.C. to ca. 1400 B.C. 7) For the distribution of K habur w are, see O guchi 1997: pp. 212–216 and Polis 2011: pp. 33–88. 156 D u raid S . P O L IS

srbto fKhbrwaeadNuiware. uzi w are and N habur w D istribution of K F ig . 1 THE ORIGIN OF NUZI WARE 157

T a b le 1 List of sites yeilding K habur w are and N uzi w are. N o. The Site T he levels T he R eference - Ira q 1. A shur K h . Ware : T o mbs, lev el III. N ashef 1992: pp. 308–311; Matthew s and Wilkinson 1991: p. 173; Matthew s and Wilkinson 1989: p. 253; D ittmann 1990: p. 157. N . Ware : T o mbs. A l-N ajjar 2012: p. 67. 2. N uzi K h . Ware: L evels IV (city w all and related Starr 1937: Pl. 70: B and Pl. 75: N ; Starr 1939: pp. 202–203, p. building) and V (northwestern ridge). 324 and pp. 389–391. N . Ware: L ev els II– III (n o rth w estern Starr 1937: Pl.78: P–X and Pl.79. Starr 1939: p. 202ff. rid g e). 3. T e ll B a smusia n K h . Ware: L evel IV. A bu al-Soof 1970: p. 68 and Pl. 33: 2–3, 9, 11, 13–14. (Dokan D am) N . Ware: L ev el III. A bu al-Soof 1970: p. 68. 4. T e ll B illa K h . Ware: L ev els III-IV . Speiser 1933: pp. 270–273 and 276. N . Ware: L ev el III. Speiser 1933: p. 273ff. 5. T e ll R imah K h . Ware : S ite A : L e v e ls IV – II. S ite C : Postgate 1997. L ev els V II– V . N . Ware : S ite A : L e v e l II. S ite C : L e v e l V . Postgate 1997. S ite D : L e v e l IV . 6. Tell A bu D hahir K h . Ware: L ev els III– IV ( i A bboud 1981: pp. 85–86; Yunis 1981: pp. 101ff. Simpson 2007: (Mosu l D a m) E xcavations). Trenches I1, K1–3 and M pp. 71–78. (B ritish E x c a v a tio n s). Surface sherds (British Excavations). B all 1987: p. 79. 7. T e ll Jig a n (Mosu l K h . Ware: A rea A : L ev els II– IV . Fujii 1987: pp. 62ff. Dam) A re a B : p it 1 .

A rea C : Trench G -3: L evel IV. Trench G - Ii 1987: pp. 40–42; Ii and K aw amata 1984–85: pp. 178–207. 1 : L ev els I– III. T ren ch G -4 : L ev els I– III. Ii 1987: pp. 34ff. N . Ware : A re a B : p it 1 . Ii an d K aw amata 1984–85: Fig. 28:12. A rea C : Trench G -1: L evel I. Ii 1987: pp. 34ff. 8. Tell Shabu K h . Ware: L ev els II– IV . H usain 1987: pp. 110–114. (Mosu l D a m) N . Ware: L evel I. H usain 1987: pp. 110–114. 9. T e ll Je llu q e h K h . Ware: L ev els II– III. Thennun 1987: p. 117ff. (Mosu l D a m) N . Ware: L ev el II. Thennun 1987: pp. 118–122. 10. T e ll S h a lig ia K h . Ware: Trench A . B all and Pagan 2003: p. 155. (Mosu l D a m) N . Ware: Surface Finds. B all and Pagan 2003: p. 155. 11. K h irb a t K a r K h . Ware: L evel V. Polis 2011: p. 85. H asan (Mosu l N . Ware: Surface sherds. A l-N ajjar 2012: p. 78. Dam) 12. K arhol A l-Sufla K h . Ware: L ev els II– III. B ashir 1987: p. 64ff. (Mosu l D a m) N . Ware: L ev els II– III an d th ree G rav es. B ashir 1987: p. 64ff. 13. T e ll Ja mbu r K h . Ware: L ev els III– IV . Yusif 1987a: p. 10ff. (Mosu l D a m) N . Ware: L ev els II– IV . Yusif 1987a: p. 10ff. 14. Tell B aqaq 1 K h . Ware: L ev els IV – V I. Yusif 1987b: p. 26ff. (Mosu l D a m) N . Ware: L ev el III. Yusif 1987b: p. 26ff. 15. T e ll H a mida (The K h . Ware: operation 1. Zimansky 1995: pp. 79–83. N orth Jazirah N . Ware: operation 1. Zimansky 1995: pp. 79–83. Salvage Project). 16. T e ll F ie sa l A l- K h . Ware: Trench 1: L evels I–II. Trench A l-Taw eel 2007: pp. 123–125. Mish’an 1 (The 2 : L ev els I– II. N orth Jazirah N . Ware: Trench 1: L evels I–II. Trench 2: A l-Taw eel 2007: pp. 123–125. Salvage Project). L ev els I– II. 17. T e ll D e r H a ll K h . Ware: L ev els III– IV . Matsu moto and Yagi 1987: p. 54ff. N . Ware: L ev el II. Matsu moto and Yagi 1987: p. 54ff. 158 D u raid S . P O L IS

18. T e ll F isn a K h . Ware: L evel IV. Numoto 1988: Fig. 25: 224–234, Fig. 26: 239–242, 252 and 258 and Fig. 27: 262–273. N . Ware: L ev el III. Numoto 1988: Fig. 31: 317–319. 19. T ell Jessary K h . Ware: T ren ch A : lev els I– IV (S o me Numoto 1990: p. 205ff. sherds of K habur w ares are mixed in the lev els I– III). T ren ch D : lev el I. N . Ware: T ren ch A : L ev els I– III. Numoto 1990: p. 205ff. - S y r ia 20. Tell C hagar B azar K h . Ware: L evel I. Mallowan 1936: pp. 9–11; Mallowan 1947: pp. 83–84. N . Ware: L evel I. Mallowan 1936: pp. 9–13; Mallowan 1937: pp. 102–104. 21. T e ll B ra k K h . Ware: A rea H H : L ev els III– X . O ates 1985: pp. 166–168. A rea T W. O ates 1982: p. 195ff. A rea A L . O ates and O ates 1994: p. 171. Area HN. Matth e w s e t a l. 1994: p. 188; Matthew s 1995: pp. 98–99. N . Ware: A rea H H : L ev els II– V I. O ates 1985: p. 168; O ates 1987: p. 180. 22. Tell A tchana K h . Ware: L ev els V – V I an d V III. Woolley 1955; G ates 1981. (A la la k h ) N . Ware: L ev els II– IV . Woolley 1955. 23. T e ll Jid le K h . Ware: L ev els III– IV . Mallowan 1946: pp. 129–134. N . Ware: L ev el II– III. Mallowan 1946: pp. 129–136. 24. T e ll H a mmam e t- K h . Ware: p erio d V II: S trata 1 – 2 (S q u ares O guchi 1998: p. 125. T u rk man J–K 23 of the w estern part of the mound). S tra tu m: 5 (Trench O 16–18 of north slope of the mound). N . Ware: L ev els II– III. Mallowan 1946: pp. 136–138. 25. T e ll Mozan K h . Ware: L evel V. B u c c e lla ti a n d K e lly -B u c c e llla ti 1 9 9 7 : p . 7 9 ; B u c c e lla ti a n d K elly-Buccelllati: 2000: p. 146ff; Pfälzner and Pfälzner 2001: p. 105ff. N . Ware: U rkish palace, A reas B H and A l-N ajjar 2012: p. 84. A S. 26. T e ll A rb it K h . Ware: Sectors M, S A an d S R . G rav es K ołiński 2007: p. 73ff. 13,14,16. N . Ware: S ectors A an d S A . T w o G rav es K ołiński 2007: p. 94. in S e c to r S A . 27. Tell Fakhariyah K h . Ware: Sounding IX: Floors 5, 6, K antor 1958: p. 21ff. B elow Floor 6 and Trench between c o lu mn base and statuettes, . N . Ware: Sounding I: Floor 19. Sounding K antor 1958: p. 21ff. IA: Floors 2 and 3. Sounding IX: Floors 1 and 3. 28. T e ll S a h la n K h . Ware : S to n e w a ll. Mallowan 1946: p. 138. N . Ware: L ev el III. Mallowan 1946: p. 139. 29. T e ll B a rri K h . Ware: Levels XXX–XXXII. Pecorella 1998b: p. 183ff. N . Ware: A rea G . A l-N ajjar 2012: p. 92. 30. T e ll A l-H a midiya K h . Ware: Polis 2011: p. 73. N . Ware : Wäfler 1998: p. 201; A l-N ajjar 2012: p. 93. 31. T e ll Mohammed K h . Ware: A rea 1: L evel V. A rea 6G S: N icolle and D urand 1998: p. 229, N icolle 2008: p. 159f. D iy a b L ev el II. A rea 8 : L ev el V III (G rav es). N . Ware: A rea B 6 (G rav es). N icolle 2008: p. 163. 32. T e ll B d e ri K h . Ware: T he Southern A rea: L evels Pfälzner 1986–1987: p. 276ff. IV – V II. N . Ware: T he Southern A rea: L evels IV –V . Pfälzner 1986–1987: p. 276ff. 33. Tell Taban K h . Ware: T ren ch 4 : lev els V III– IX Numoto 2007: p. 8. (Season of Summer 2005). N . Ware: Trench 1 and 2: levels X –X III O hnuma e t a l. 1999: pp. 11–12; 2000: p. 7. (Season of 1997 and 1998). THE ORIGIN OF NUZI WARE 159

G between the O ld Babylonian and the Mitannian period, w here the buildings seem to main ta in th e same function and the same building technique [Pecorella 1998a: p. 83]. The excavations have confirmed the existence of cultural continuity, not only in terms o f c e ra mic types but also in different cultural aspects. O n the contrary, N uzi w are does not appear in several regions, w hich are the areas that w ere subord in a te to th e Mitanni kingdom, like Cilicia (ancient Kizzuw atna) and an area south of the Mura t river, i.e., the land of Išuw a [Oguchi 2014: p. 224], w here N uzi w are bears no relation w ith the Mitannian kingdom 8).

C - T h e fo rm and decoration: T he archaeological excavations at many sites have show n that there is continuity in ceramic fo rms and decorative patterns, not only in the case of K habur w are but also in the case of U r III w are and Isin-Larsa w are [Stein 1984: p. 26]. A t Tell B rak, for example, D avid and Joan O ates noted the survival of the same ceramic features, indicating that there is no gap between the layers of Khabur w are and N uzi w are in terms o f mate ria l c u ltu re [O a te s e t a l. 1997: p. 67]. The previous traditional fo rms of “grain measures” (compare P l. III: 1 w ith P l. I: 2 ) an d “o p en -fo rm goblets” (c o mpa re P l. III: 2–3 w ith 4–8 and Pl. II: 1–2) continued in use [Oguchi 2014: p. 216]. Speiser indicates the same th in g a t T e ll B illa , w h e re th e re is c o n tin u ity o f tra d itio n a l fo rms sin c e th e first se ttle men t a t the site down to the 3rd level [Speiser 1933: p. 15]. This is confirmed by Stein too, especially between the levels 4 and 3 [Stein 1984: p. 16]; and this is not limited to vessel forms but to decorations. Whatever the great similarity between K habur w are and N uzi w are, the distinction between these two types can be made through the presence or absence of white-on-dark painted decoration [Oguchi 2014: p. 216]. T he most distinguishing feature of N uzi w are is w hite-on-dark painted decoration. We can now say that the coloring in w hite is not the distinctive feature of this period, and can be traced back to earlier periods. The excavations at Nuzi provided us many pieces of evidence in this regard. There w ere found grey-burnished incised and w hite-filled bow ls w hich occur in the same period at N uzi; and they appear to be of southern Mesopotamian origin [Stein 1984: p. 13]. Woolley points out that w hite-on-dark paint produces the same effect as the incised and w hite-filled technique on a dark burnished surface [Woolley 1955: p. 349]; and the two forms of decoration are further represented by the common use of certain design: stippled triangles, zigzags between horizontal bands, and diamond patterns [Stein 1984: p. 13]. The incised and w hite-filled technique is used a lot on L arsa w are, especially from the D iyala region and southern Mesopotamia [Stein 1984: p. 10 and p. 13]. A nother piece of evidence relevant to this came fro m T e ll A tc h a n a (A la la h ). A t th is site , b la c k - impre sse d w a re is p re v a le n t in le v e l V ; it is c o n c e iv a b le th a t it w a s in tro d u c e d fro m southern Mesopotamia and the Diyala region where the same technique of design was prevalent during the Larsa period. In level IV, black-impressed w are disappears, and N uzi w are appears for the first time a t th is site , w h ic h may perhaps indicate that the w hite-painted technique of N uzi w are w as influenced by black-impressed technique [Stein 1984: p. 21]. Stein explains the link between these two techniques of decoration by the fact that the white-painted style originated in northern Mesopotamia , w here it was no doubt influenced by the Babylonian black-impressed w are contempo ra ry w ith it [S te in 1984: p. 21]. In this context, a new area added to the main distribution zone of N uzi w are is of the N orth

8) Oguchi explains the absence of N uzi w are in these regions as follow s: “K izzuw atna w as a place over w hich Šauštatar gained political supremacy; but, not long after the reign of Šauštatar, it w as liberated from the domination of Mitanni, instead approaching the H ittite k in g d o m. In fact Mitannian control over this area w as ephemeral. A s for the land of Išuw a, Mitannian control may have perhaps been not so strong as control over other Mitannian-dominated regions. It seems that these account for the absence of N uzi w are in the two regions.” [Oguchi 2014: p. 224]. 160 D u raid S . P O L IS

Jazira Salvage Project. In the 1980’s the excavations at sites in this project area provided evidence supporting for the view that “the w hite painted style originated in northern Mesopotamia”; and the most impo rta n t site is T e ll H a mida, excavated by Paul Z imansky, w ho supports Stein’s conclusion that “N uzi w are evolved locally in northern Iraq and ”, and reports that “in some cases th is w as a w hite horizontal band flanked by thicker black bands” [Zimansky 1995: p. 83]. There w ere many instances w here w hite spots w ere applied on dark red bands. There w ere also a few “U nion Jack” patterns of thin white diagonal lines on a black background. H ow ever, the really ornate vessels of Nuzi ware decorated with floral patterns, rolling spirals, etc. was not found in operation I [Zimansky 1995: p. 82]. H e also adds to his w ords: “The w hite paint, the vessel forms, the bird decorations, can all be seen in operation 1, but not the fully developed style, w hich is found elsew here on the site ” [Z imansky 1995: p. 82]. We can now consider w hat is meant by his w ords, w hich may be regarded as an important piece of evidence for the first appearance of Nuzi ware in upper Mesopotamia and its association w ith K habur w are. T he archaeological excavations at sites of upper Mesopotamia including the Khabur basin have show n that many decorative elemen ts e merging significantly in dark paint are re-imple men te d in w h ite paint. For example, one of the geometric patterns found painted on Nuzi ware is a row of triangles w ith hatches (compare Pl. III: 3 w ith Pl. IV : 7). T here are cases w here each triangle forming a ro w is fille d b y smalle r tria n g le s (c o mpare P l. IV : 1 w ith 8 ), or is a so lid trian g le (co mpa re P l. IV : 2 w ith 9 ), or is composed of two triangles arranged in the opposite direction, forming a rhombus (co mpa re P l. IV : 3 w ith 1 0 ), a ll o f w h ic h a re similar to those seen on Khabur ware. The resemblance in decoration is also seen in some o f lin e s in te rse c tin g w ith e a c h o th e r (c o mpare P l. IV : 4 w ith 11 ), in the form of the character “X ” (compare P l. IV : 5 w ith 12 ), or in zigzag lines (compa re P l. IV : 6 w ith 9). T here is a common e le ment of decoration used significantly on N uzi w are. There is decoration little used on K habur w are, such as a big circle surrounded by small c irc le s, w h ic h may represent the sun [Polis 2011: p. 153] (compare P l. IV : 6 w ith 1 3 ). Moving to another topic, w e discuss natural scenes represented by animals, e sp e c ia lly b ird s. B ird designs often appear on N uzi w are. The bird has spots on the body. Such bird designs are not found on K habur w are, on w hich birds are solid in dark paint [Polis 2011: p. 153] (compare Pl. V: 1 with 2). The decorative technique of using spots is seen on Halaf pottery and Ubaid pottery; and it is also seen on the mura l p a in tin g s 9) of one of the temple s a t T e ll U q a ir ( 8 0 k m south of Baghdad) (co mpare Pl. V: 3–15 w ith 1 and 16–19). We also find that the potters of Nuzi ware had greater willingness to make the draw ings of animals w ith quadruped legs as compared with those of Khabur ware. O n Khabur ware we find the draw ings of goats and deer, while on Nuzi ware we find bulls with spotted bodies, arranged in a queue [Polis 2011: pp. 153–154] (compare P l. V : 20 w ith 2 1 ). We w ould like to point out in this paragraph an impo rta n t matte r. T h e p o in t is th a t w h a t c a n b e sa id w ith e mphasis is the occurrence of floral elemen ts o n N u z i w a re a t A la la h . P o stg a te a ttrib u te s th e m to A egean influence, and points out that in the northern part of distribution zone of N uzi w are including Tell B rak, Tell al-Rimah a n d T e ll B illa , N uzi w are has geometric p a tte rn s b e sid e s flo ra l p a tte rn s [P o stg a te e t a l. 1997: p. 55]. It should be n o te d th a t th e flo ra l e le ments w hich are adopted frequently on N uzi w are are “chamomile flo w e rs” just used as a herb, w hich grow in the spring season w idely in upper Mesopotamia . We find such e le ments significantly on H alaf pottery and U baid pottery (compare P l. V I: 1 – 2 w ith P l. IV : 2 an d P l. V I: 5– 6 ). T his kind of flow er can be seen as a decorative elemen t in A ssy ria n ornaments, as demonstrated by the A ssyrian sculpture from the N eo-A ssyrian period that represents a bracelet decorated w ith a chamomile flo w er (co mpa re P l. V I: 3 – 4 w ith P l. IV : 2 a n d P l. V I: 5 – 6 ). C h a momile

9) It is w o rth mentioning that these mural paintings are applied on a w hite ground [Safar 1945: p. 29]. THE ORIGIN OF NUZI WARE 161 comes into bloom in impo rta n t p la c e s in th e c ity o f Mosul10), and has been used since ancient times as herbal medicine for treatment for seasonal disease such as a cough. It is w o rth sa y in g th a t many beakers of K habur w are decorated w ith dark-painted designs continued in use alongside of white-painted Nuzi ware [Stein 1984: p. 18] (see Pl. VI: 7). Sometimes on the same vessel, dark painting on a light background and w hite painting on a dark background are combined. This is exemplifie d b y a sa mple fro m T e ll a l-R imah, w hich is painted both in red- brown on a light background and in w hite on a dark background (see Pl. V I: 8) [Soldi 2008: p. 247]. This may be an indication that the new w hite-on-dark painted technique of N uzi w are w as d eriv ed fro m the dark-on-light painted technique of K habur w are. We consider that no cultural in te rru p tio n e x ists fro m the early second to the mid-second mille n n iu m B .C ., and that N uzi w are appears as a consequence of the gradual development of K habur w are. We may thus conclude that the w hite paint of N uzi w are w as produced through a local tradition in upper Mesopotamia. It is impo rta n t to mention here that N uzi w are does not occur at any site. The possession of N uzi w are may have symbo liz e d th e sta tu s o f th e o w n e r. In th is se n se , it must have been a luxury commodity used at court and by the affluent possibly including w ealthy traders. This product w as for the “elites” who worked in official residences and for their familie s w h o liv e d in p riv a te d w e llin g s. S o it is u n c o mmon in household commod itie s. It is sa id th a t th e F re n c h su rv e y in th e Q a mishli region in Syria has confirmed the presence of only three Nuzi ware sherds among a large quantity of surface sherds collected [Postgate e t a l. 1997: p. 54]. The British survey in an area around Tell al-H aw a (1986–1990) has confirmed only one sherd of N uzi w are [Ball e t a l. 1989: p. 18]. Through the excavations at Tell Bderi, located on the Khabur river and 15 km south of the city of Hasseke, only ten N uzi w are sherds have been recovered [Postgate e t a l. 1997: p. 54]. In conclusion, though stated repeatedly, the strong impression is given to us that w hite-painted N uzi w are is part of the ceramic group that is assigned to the last phase of K habur w are (Khabur w are period 4) alongside of dark-on-light painted vessels.

C o n c lu sio n s:

Within our quest to re-examine the origins of ceramic types of the second mille n n iu m B .C ., w e d e c id e d to research the origin of N uzi w are. As a re su lt, w e c a n su g g e st th e p o ssib ility th a t N u z i w a re originated in upper Mesopotamia fro m a new view point. There is no doubt that white-on-dark painted N uzi w are is a constituent of the ceramic assemblage of K habur w are period 4, a K habur w are phase proposed by O guchi. O n the basis of several pieces of evidence, w e have review ed in the above pages the most impo rta n t simila ritie s b e tw een K habur w are and N uzi w are not only in terms o f fo rm and decoration but also in terms of their dates. Thus the geographical distribution of N uzi w are and the stratigraphic sequence of N uzi w are at each site selected for effective discussion have been review ed. It is w orth men tio n in g th a t o u r a tte mpt to ascribe the origin of N uzi w are to upper Mesopotamia has been made not only by comparison w ith K habur w are but also by comparison w ith pottery preceding Khabur ware, like Halaf pottery, Ubaid pottery and Isin-Larsa ware. We have re-evaluated the view s put forward by the prominent scholars, M.E.L Mallowan, Helene Kantor, Diana Stein, and D avid and Joan O ates, further examining evidence from such impo rta n t site s a s T e ll a l- Rimah, N uzi, Tell B rak, Tell C hagar B azar and Tell B illa, w hich has been supplemented by informatio n fro m site s in th e Mosu l D a m Salvage Project and the N orth Jazira Salvage Project area.

A cknow ledgemen ts My gratitude goes to Professor H iromichi O guchi for his help in providing me some sources of

10) The city w as N ineveh, one of the four capitals of A ssyria, and is now the second important city of Iraq. 162 D u raid S . P O L IS information, and for his continuous support and encouragemen t fo r p u b lish in g th is a rtic le in A l- Rāfidān. B e in g in a d iffic u lt situ a tio n a s a re fu g e e fro m th e Mosul city occupied by ISIS, I could not have brought this article to completion w ithout his encouragemen t. F in a lly , it is a p le a su re to d e d ic a te th is a rtic le to a ll th e Ira q i p e o p le d isp la c e d b y u n fo rtu n a te events and to all w ho make every effort for liberation.

B ib lio g r a p h y

A bboud , A .N. 1981 “The Excavations of the U niversity of Mosu l a t T e ll A b u D h a ir (I)” (in A ra b ic ), Sum er Vol. 37, pp. 81–100. A bu al-Soof, B. 1970 “Mounds in the Rania Plain and Excavations at Tell Basmusian 1956”, Sum er Vol. 26, pp. 65–104. Al-Najjar, H.J. 2012 The H urrian-Mittani Pottery: Its Em ergence, D evelopment and Speard (in A rab ic), M.A . T h e sis, U n iv e rsity of Baghdad, Iraq. A l-Taw eel, M. 2007 “E xcavations in Iraq: T he Jazirah Salvage Project, Second R eport”, Ira q Vol. 69, pp. 117–144. B a ll, W. 1987 “B ritish Excavations in the A bu D hahir A rea 1985/86: Interim R eport”. In: Researches on the Antiquities of Saddam D am Basin Salvage and O ther Researches, Baghdad, pp. 78–81. B a ll, W. and Pagan, M. 2003 “T e ll S h e lg iy y a ” . In : Ancient Settlem ent in the Zam m ar Region, Vol. 1, London, pp. 151–169. B a ll, W., e t a l. 1989 “The Tell A l-H aw a Project A rchaeological Investigations in the N orth Jazera 1986 – 87”, Ira q Vol. 51, pp. 1–66. B a s h ir, H . 1987 “Excavations at Karhol Al-Sufla” (in Arabic). In: Researches on the Antiquities of Saddam Dam Basin Salvage and O ther Researches, Baghdad, pp. 64–70. B u c c e lla ti, G . a n d K e lly -B u c c e lla ti, M. 1997 “The Seventh Season of Excavations at Tell Mozan 1992”, C hronique Archéologique en Syrie Vol. 1, pp. 79–84. 2000 “The Royal Palace of Urukesh (Report on the 12th Season at Tell Mozan / Urkish: Excavations in Area AA June- O ctober 1999)”, Mitteilungen der D eutschen O rient-G esellschaft, N r. 132, pp. 133–183. C ecchini, S.M. 1965 La Ceram ica di Nuzi (S tu d i S e mitic i 1 5 ), R o ma. D ittmann, R. 1990 “A usgrabungen der Freien U niversität B erlin in A ssur und K ār-Tukulti-N inurta in den Jahren 1986–89”, Mitteilungen der D eutschen O rient-G esellschaft, N r. 122, pp. 157–171. E l-A min , M. and Mallo w a n , M.E.L. 1950 “Sounding in the Makhmur P la in ” , Sum er V o l. 6 , N o . 1 , pp . 55 – 9 0 . F u jii, H . 1987 “Working Report on Second Season of Japanese A rchaeological Excavation in Saddam Dam Salvage Project (T e ll Jig a n )” . In : Researches on the Antiquities of Saddam Dam Basin Salvage and Other Researches, Baghdad, pp. 62–67. G ates, M.-H . 1981 “A lalakh Levels V I and V: A Chronological Reassessmen t” , S yro -Mesopotamian Studies 4/2, pp. 1–40. H rouda, B. 1957 D ie bem alte Keram ik des zweiten Jahrtausends in Nordm esopotamien und Nordsyrien (Istanbuler Forschngen, THE ORIGIN OF NUZI WARE 163

B d. 19), Berlin. H usain, M.G h. 1987 “Excavations at Tell Shabu” (in Arabic). In: Researches on the Antiquities of Saddam Dam Basin Salvage and O ther R esearches, Baghdad, pp. 110–114. Ii, H . 1987 “Working Report on First Season of Japanese Archaeological Excavation in Saddam Salvage Project, Tell Jigan”. In : Researches on the Antiquities of Saddam D am Basin Salvage and O ther Researches, Baghdad, pp. 34–42.

Ii, H . an d K aw amata , M. 1984–1985 “The Excavations at Tell Jigan by the Japanese A rchaeological Expedition: A Preliminary Report on the First Season of Work” (in Japanese), Al-Rāfidān Vol. 5–6, pp. 151–214. Jasim, S .A . 1985 The U baid Period in Iraq. Part 2: Recent Excavations in the H am rin Region (B ritish A rc h a e o lo g ic a l R e p o rts [B .A .R ]), O x fo rd . K a n to r, H .J . 1958 “The Pottery”. In: C. W. McE w an e t a l., Sounding at Tell Fakhariyah (OIP 79), Chicago, pp. 21–41. K o łiń sk i, R . 2007 “S ir Max Mallowan’s Excavations at Tell A rbid in 1936”, Ira q Vol. 69, pp. 73–115. L lo y d , S ., e t a l. 1943 “Tell U qair: Excavations by the Iraq G overnment D irectorate of A ntiquities in 1940 and 1941”, Journal of N ear Eastern Studies Vol. 2, N o. 2, pp. 31–158. Mallo w a n , M.E.L. 1936 “T he E xcavations at Tall Chagar B azar and an A rchaeological Survey of the H abur R egion 1934–5”, Ira q ˘ V o l. 3 , N o . 1 , p p . 1 – 8 5 . 1937 “T he E xcavations at Tall C hagar B azar and an A rchaeological Survey of the H abur region. Second Campaign ˘ 1936”, Ira q Vol. 4, N o. 2, pp. 91–177. 1939 “White -P a in te d S u b a rtu P o tte ry ” , Méla n g e s sy rie n s o ffe rts à Mons. René Dussaud, T o me 3, Paris, pp. 887–894. 1946 “E x c a v a tio n s in th e B a li h valley 1938”, Ira q Vol. 8, pp. 111–159. ˘ 1947 “E xcavations at B rak and C hagar B azar”, Ira q Vol. 9, pp. 1–259. 1954 “T he E xcavations at N imrud (Kal h u) 1953”, Ira q Vol. 16, N o. 1, pp. 59–114. ˘ Mallo w a n , M.E .L . a n d R o s e , J .C . 1935 “Excavations at Tall A rpachiyah 1933”, Ira q V o l. 2 , N o . 1 , pp . 1 – 1 7 8 . Matsu moto, K . an d Y ag i, K . 1987 “T e ll D e r H a ll” . In : Researches on the Antiquities of Saddam D am Basin Salvage and O ther Researches, B aghdad, pp. 54–61. Matth e w s, D . 1995 “Excavations at Tell Brak 1995”, Ira q Vol. 57, pp. 87–111. 1997 “T he C hapter 3. Seals and Sealings: T he Mita n n i S e a ls fro m Tell B rak”. In: D . O ates e t a l., Excavations at T e ll B ra k , Vol.1: The Mitanni and O ld Babylonian Periods, London, pp. 47–60. Matthew s, R. and Wilkinson, T. 1989 “Excavations in Iraq 1987–88”, Ira q Vol. 51, pp. 249–265. 1991 “Excavations in Iraq 1989–1990”, Ira q Vol. 53, pp. 169–186.

Matth e w s , R .J ., e t a l. 1994 “Excavations at Tell Brak 1994”, Ira q Vol. 56, pp. 177–194. N ashef, K h. 1992 “A rchaeology in Iraq”, Am erican Journal of Archaeology Vol. 96, pp. 301–323. N ic o lle , C . 2008 “R apport préliminaire de la campagne 2007 de la missio n d e T e ll Mohammed Diyab”, C hronique Archéologique en Syrie Vol. 3, pp. 159–173. 164 D u raid S . P O L IS

N icolle, C. and D urand, J.M. 1998 “T e ll Mohammed D iyab 1997”, C hronique Archéologique en Syrie Vol. 2, pp. 227–230. Numoto , H . 1988 “E xcavations at Tell Fisna”, Al-Rāfidān V o l. 9 , pp . 1 – 7 2 . 1990 “Findings from Tell Jessary”, Al-Rāfidān Vol. 11, pp. 201–244. 2007 “E xcavations at Tell Taban-H assake-Syria (5): Preliminary Report of the 2005 Summer Season of Work ” , A l- Rāfidān Vol. 28, pp. 1–62.

O ates, D. 1982 “Excavations at Tell Brak 1978–81”, Ira q Vol. 44, N o. 2, pp. 187–204. 1985 “Excavations at Tell Brak 1983–84”, Ira q Vol. 47, pp. 159–173. 1987 “Excavations at The Brak 1985–86”, Ira q Vol. 49, pp. 175–191. O ates, D . and Q ates, J. 1994 “T h e B ra k : A S tra tig ra p h ic S u mmary 1976 – 1993”, Ira q Vol. 56, pp. 167–176. O a te s , D ., e t a l. 1997 Excavations at Tell Brak, V o l. 1 : T h e Mitanni and O ld Babylonian Periods, London. O ’C allaghan, R .T. 1948 Aram Naharaim: A Contribution to the History of Upper Mesopotamia in the Second Mille n n iu m B .C . (A nalecta O rie n ta lia 2 6 ), R o me. O guchi, H . 1997 “A R eassessment of the D istribution of K habur Ware: A nA pproach from an A spect ofIts Main Phase”, A l- Rāfidān Vol. 18, pp. 195–224. 1998 “N otes on K habur Ware fro m S ite s o u tsid e Its Main D istribution Zone”, Al-Rāfidān Vol. 19, pp. 119–133. 2000 “T he L ate K habur Ware P ro b lem O nce A gain”, Al-Rāfidān Vol. 21, pp. 103–126. 2006 “The Date of the Beginning of Khabur Ware Periods 3: Evidence from the Palace of Q arni-L im a t T e ll L e ila n ” , Al-Rāfidān Vol. 27, pp. 45–85. 2014 “T h e D istrib u tio n o f N u z i Ware and Its Implic a tio n ” . In : A . Ö z fira t (e d .), Scripta. Essays in H onour of Veli Sevin. A L ife Imm ersed in Archaeology, İstanbul, pp. 215–231.

O hnuma, K ., e t a l. 1999 “Excavation at Tell Taban, Hassake, Syria: Report of the 1997 Season of Work ” , Al-Rāfidān Vol. 20, pp. 1–47. 2000 “Excavation at Tell Taban, H assake, Syria (2): Report of the 1998 Season of Work ” , Al-Rāfidān Vol. 21, pp. 1–50. P arro t, A . 1958 Mission Archéologique de Mari, Vol. 2: le palais, Pt. 2: peintures m urals, P a ris . Pecorella, P.E. 1998a “L’area G di Tell B arri/Kahat: 1983–1993”. In: T e ll B a rri/K ahat 2. Relazione sulle cam pagne 1980–1993 a Tell Barri/Kahat, nel bacino del H abur (Siria), R o ma, pp. 65–134. 1998b “Tell B arri-K ahat 1997”, C hronique Archéologique en Syrie Vol. 2, pp. 183–191. Pfälzner, P. 1986–1987 “A Short A ccount of the Excavation in Tell B deri 1985”, Les Annals Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes V o l. 36–37, pp. 276–291. Pfälzner, P. and Pfälzner, H .D . 2001 “A usgrabungen der Deutsch en O rie n t – G e se llsc h a ft in d e r Z e n tra le n O b e rsta d t v o n T a ll Mozan / U rkeš: Bericht Ü berdie in Kooperation mit d e m IIMAS Durchgeführte Kampagne 2000”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient- G e se llsc h a ft, N r. 133, pp. 97–127. P o lis , D .S . 2011 K habur W are D iscovered in the Sites of U pper Mesopotamia (in A rab ic), M.A . Thesis, U niversity of Mos u l, Iraq . 2014 “The Local O rigin of the K habur Ware fro m U pper Mesopotamia”, Al-Rāfid ā n Vol. 35, pp. 39–71. THE ORIGIN OF NUZI WARE 165

P o rte r, B .N . 1993 “Sacred Trees, D ate Palms, and the Royal Persona of A shurnasirpal II”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies V o l. 52, N o. 2, pp. 129–139. P o s tg a te , C ., e t a l. 1997 The Excavation at Tell Al-Rimah: The Pottery, London. Safar, F. 1945 “Tell ’Uqair: Report on Excavation by the D irectorate G eneral in 1940–1941” (in A rabic), Sum er V o l. 1 , N o . 1, pp. 21–35. Simpson, J. 2007 A n c ie n t S e ttle m e n t in th e Z a m m ar Region, Vol. 2: Excavations at Tell Abu D hahir, London. S o ld i, S . 2008 “R ecent C onsiderations about the O rigin of N uzi Ware in the Light of Its A rchaeological C ontexts”. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Congress of the Archaeology of the (ICAAN E 4), V o l. 2, Berlin, pp. 245–258. S p e is e r, E .A . 1933 “T h e P o tte ry o f T e ll B illa ” , Museum Journal Vol. 23, pp. 249–283. 1933–1934 “The Continuance of Painted Pottery in Northern Mesopotamia”, Archiv für Orientforschung Bd. 9, pp. 48–50. S ta rr, R .F .S . 1937 N uzi: Report on the Excavations at Yorgan Tepa near K irkuk, Iraq, C onducted by H arvard U niversity in C onjunction w ith the Am erican Schools of O riental Research and the U niversity Museum of Philadelphia (1927–1931), Vol. 2 (P lates an d P lan s), C ambridge. 1939 N uzi: Report on the Excavations at Yorgan Tepa near K irkuk, Iraq, C onducted by H arvard U niversity in C onjunction w ith the Am erican Schools of O riental Research and the U niversity Museum of Philadelphia (1927–1931), Vol. 1 (T ex t), C ambridge. S te in , D .L . 1984 “K habur Ware and N uzi Ware: Their O rigin, Relationship, and Significance”, A ssur V o l. 4 , pp . 1 – 6 5 . Thennun, D .Y. 1987 “Excavations at Tell Jelluqeh or Jalluqeh” (in Arabic). In: Researches on the Antiquities of Saddam Dam Basin Salvage and other researches, Baghdad, pp. 117–124. T ucker, D . 2003 “K hirbet K arhasan”. In: Ancient Settlem ent in the Zam m ar Region, Vol. 1, London, pp. 97–120. Wäfle r, M. 1998 “T e ll A l-H a midiya 1997”, C hronique Archéologique en Syrie Vol. 2, pp. 199–202. ˙ Weiss, H . 1985 “R ediscovering: Tell Leilan on the H abur Plain of Syria”, Biblical Archaeologist V o l. 4 8 , N o. 1, pp. 5–34. Woo lle y , C .L . 1955 Alalakh. An Account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the H atay, 1937–1949 (R eports of the R esearch Committee of the Society of A ntiquaries of London, N o. X V III), O xford. Yunis, A .-M. 1981 “The Excavations of the University of Mosu l at T ell A b u D h air (II)” (in A rab ic), Sum er Vol. 37, pp. 101–111. Y u s if, K .T . 1987a “E x c a v a tio n s a t T e ll Ja mbu r” (in A rab ic). In : R esearches on the Antiquities of Saddam D am Basin Salvage and O ther Researches, Baghdad, pp. 10–25. 1987b “Excavations at Tulul al-Baqaq: Baqaq 1” (in Arabic). In: Researches on the Antiquities of Saddam Dam Basin Salvage and O ther Researches, Baghdad, pp. 26–39. Zimansky, P. 1995 “The O rigin of N uzi Ware: a Contribution from T e ll H a mida”. In: Studies on the Civilization and Culture of N uzi and the H urrians, V o l. 5 : G eneral Studies and Excavations at Nuzi 9 /3 , Winona Lake, Ind, pp. 75–83. 166 D u raid S . P O L IS

T he R eferences of the P lates

P la te I N o. The Site T he R eference 1 T e ll B ra k Mallowan 1947: Pl. 67: 19. 2 T e ll B illa Speiser 1933: Pl. 62: 7.

P la te II N o. The Site T he R eference 1 T e ll B ra k Mallo w a n 1 9 4 7 : P l. 7 7 : 2 . 2 T e ll B ra k O ates e t a l. 1997: p.189, Fig.194: 332. 3 N uzi S ta rr 1 9 3 7 : P l. 7 7 : Q . 4 A ššur O guchi 2000: p. 106, Fig. 2: 17. 5 A ššur O guchi 2000: p. 106, Fig. 2: 18. 6 A ššur O guchi 2000: p. 106, Fig. 2: 19. 7 A ššur O guchi 2000: p. 106, Fig. 2: 7. 8 A ššur O guchi 2000: p. 106, Fig. 2: 8. 9 T e ll B ra k Mallowan 1947: Pl. 67: 15. 10 T e ll A q ra h E l-A min and Mallo w a n 1 9 5 0 : P l. 9 : 8 . 11 A ššur O guchi 2000: p. 106, Fig. 2: 11. 12 T e ll H a mmam e t-T u rk man O guchi 2000: p. 106, Fig. 2: 12. 13 A ššur O guchi 2000: p. 106, Fig. 2: 1. 14 T e ll B illa Speiser 1933: Pl. 60: 6. 15 A ššur O guchi 2000: p. 106, Fig. 2: 3. 16 A ššur O guchi 2000: p. 106, Fig. 2: 4. 17 T e ll L e ila n Weiss 1985: p. 13. 18 K ü lte p e O guchi 2000: p. 106, Fig. 2: 6.

P late III N o. The Site T he R eference 1 T e ll B ra k O ates e t a l. 1997: p.195, Fig.197: 410. 2 T e ll B ra k O ates e t a l. 1997: p.193, Fig.196: 390. 3 T e ll R imah P o stg a te e t a l. 1997: p. 189, Pl. 69: 687. 4 Ur S te in 1 9 8 4 : P l. 1 : 2 5 . 5 T e ll R imah P o stg a te e t a l. 1997: p. 203, Pl. 76: 821. 6 T e ll R imah P o stg a te e t a l. 1997: p. 199, Pl. 74: 801. 7 T e ll R imah P o stg a te e t a l. 1997: p. 199, Pl. 74: 793. 8 T e ll B illa Speiser 1933: Pl. 60: 1.

P la te IV N o. The Site T he R eference 1 T e ll R imah P o stg a te e t a l. 1997: p. 189, Pl. 69: 688. 2 T e ll R imah P o stg a te e t a l. 1997: p. 193, Pl. 71: 718. 3 T e ll R imah P o stg a te e t a l. 1997: p. 189, Pl. 69: 685. 4 T e ll R imah P o stg a te e t a l. 1997: p. 191, Pl. 70: 699. THE ORIGIN OF NUZI WARE 167

5 T e ll B ra k O ates e t a l. 1997: p. 193, Fig. 196: 391. 6 T e ll B ra k O ates e t a l. 1997: p. 197, Fig. 198: 444. 7 Tell C hagar B azar Mallowan 1937: Fig. 23: 5. 8 Tell C hagar B azar Mallowan 1936: Fig. 17: 11. 9 T e ll R imah P o stg a te e t a l. 1997: p. 207, Pl. 78: 875. 10 T e ll B ra k O ates e t a l. 1997: p. 183, Fig. 191: 275. 11 Tell C hagar B azar Mallowan 1937: Fig. 21: 5. 12 Tell C hagar B azar Mallowan 1937: Fig. 23: 10. 13 T e ll L e ila n Weiss 1985: p. 13.

P la te V N o. The Site T he R eference 1 T e ll B illa Speiser 1933: Pl. 61: 5. 2 T e ll B ra k O ates e t a l. 1997: p. 201, Fig. 200: 457. 3 T e ll B ra k Mallowan 1947: Pl. 80: 11. 4 Tell C hagar B azar Mallowan 1936: Fig. 25: 4. 5 Tell C hagar B azar Mallowan 1936: Fig. 26: 3. 6 Tell C hagar B azar Mallowan 1936: Fig. 26: 9. 7 Tell C hagar B azar Mallowan 1936: Fig. 27: 1. 8 Tell C hagar B azar Mallowan 1936: Fig. 27: 14. 9 Tell A bada (H amrin Region) Jasim 1985: Fig. 115: a. 10 Tell A bada (H amrin Region) Jasim 1985: Fig. 115: e. 11 Tell A bada (H amrin Region) Jasim 1985: Fig. 198: c. 12 Tell A bada (H amrin Region) Jasim 1985: Fig. 203: a. 13 T e ll R a sh id (H a mrin Region) Jasim 1985: Fig. 233: c. 14 T e ll U q a ir Lloyd 1943: Pl. 10. 15 T e ll U q a ir Lloyd 1943: Pl. 11. 16 T e ll B illa Speiser 1933: Pl. 61: 4. 17 T e ll B ra k Mallowan 1947: Pl. 76: 17. 18 T e ll B ra k Mallowan 1947: Pl. 76: 21. 19 T e ll B ra k Mallowan 1947: Pl. 76: 22. 20 T e ll B ra k O ates e t a l. 1997: p. 193, Fig. 196: 402. 21 T e ll B ra k O ates e t a l. 1997: p. 201, Fig. 200: 456.

P la te V I N o. The Site T he R eference 1 Tell A rpachiyah Mallowan and Rose 1935: Pl. 15. 2 Tell A rpachiyah Mallowan and Rose 1935: Fig. 37: 5. 3 Nimrud Porter 1993: p. 136, Fig. 4. 4 Nimrud Mallowan 1954: Pl. 15: 2. 5 T e ll B ra k O ates e t a l. 1997: p.195, Fig.197: 421. 6 T e ll B ra k O ates e t a l. 1997: p.197, Fig.198: 433. 7 T e ll B ra k Mallowan 1947: Pl. 77: 3. 8 T e ll R imah P o stg a te e t a l. 1997: p. 233, Pl. 91: 1055. 168P l.D u raidI S . P O L IS THE ORIGIN OF NUZI WAP l.RE I I 169 170P l.D u raidIII S . P O L IS THE ORIGIN OF NUZI PWA l. IRE V a 171 172P l.D u raidI V S b . P O L IS THE ORIGIN OF NUZI PWA l.RE V a 173 174P l.D u raidV b S . P O L IS THE ORIGIN OF NUZI PWA l. REV c 175 176P l.D u raidV d S . P O L IS THE ORIGIN OF NUZI PWA l. VRE I a 177 178P l.D u raidV I S b . P O L IS THE ORIGIN OF NUZI PWA l. VRE I c 179