2170-09_Anes46_10_Bieniada 02-09-2009 09:45 Pagina 160 doi: 10.2143/ANES.46.0.2040716 ANES 46 (2009) 160-211 Habur Ware: Where are the Stylistic and Functional Sources of the Painted Pottery of the Second Millennium BCE Habur River Basin? Michael E. BIENIADA University of Cardinal Stefan Wyszynski Institute of Archaeology Dewajtis 5, 01-815 Warsaw, POLAND E-mail: [email protected] Abstract The problem of origin, development and cultural affiliation of Habur Ware has been disputed for decades. Four main theories have been proposed to explain the phenomenon: theory of an eastern origin, theory of a Trans-Caucasian origin, an indigenous origin theory and a Syro-Cilician origin theory. In the following dis- cussion, the author puts a proposition that the origin and development of Habur Ware was a multidirectional phenomenon i.e. that Habur Ware was typologically rooted in third millennium pottery tradition of North Mesopotamia (which is a proof of the persistence of traditional ways of consumption), while its geometric decoration was strongly influenced by painted pottery of Syro-Cilicia (that was an effect of adoption of fashionable decorative motifs).* At the beginning of the Middle Bronze Age, a new characteristic painted pottery appeared in northern Mesopotamia. The distinctive painted ware was first recognised at the site of Chagar Bazar in north-west Syria, and named Habur Ware after the place of its discovery.1 Despite years of schol- * The article is the fruit of an Andrew W. Mellon scholarship held in 2003 at the Ameri- can School of Oriental Research, The Albright Institute, Jerusalem, where, as a newly wed, I was accompanied by my wife Magdalena, who was my great support and inspiration. 1 Mallowan 1936; 1937; 1947, p. 103. 2170-09_Anes46_10_Bieniada 02-09-2009 09:45 Pagina 161 HABUR WARE 161 arly debate, there are still many questions that have not been solved. Where did the painted ware originate? What was the socio-political and economic context of its development? Are we justified to affiliate the appearance of Habur Ware with any ethnic element, which operated in northern Mesopotamia at the turn of millennia? The goal of this discussion is to test a model, which explains where and in what manner did Habur Ware originate. The model has been based upon comparative studies, which aimed to trace similarities and differences between some characteristic pottery forms and painted decoration of Habur Ware compared with the decorative motifs and pottery repertoire of other wares that were in use in Syro-Mesopotamia at the same time or before Habur Ware appeared. The pottery group that belongs to Habur Ware is a typological continu- ation of the third millennium pottery tradition of northern Mesopotamia. In this aspect, this is an autochthonic element. Also the characteristic painted decoration — horizontal bands — has its roots in indigenous tra- dition. Geometric decoration, which appeared in classic Habur Ware has, in author’s view, its sources outside Habur River Basin, moreover outside Mesopotamia. Sites with pottery having similar painted decoration have been found north-west, north and north-east of Mesopotamia — in Cilicia, north of Taurus Mountains and in central-eastern part of Anatolia as far as Lake Van, Lake Urmia and the northern part of Zagros Mountains. Until now, there have been three allochthonous theories proposed (they are in many ways contradictory to each other). They point at sources of the for- eign decorations: a. The theory of a western origin, which affiliated Habur Ware with Syro-Cilician Painted Pottery, b. The theory of an eastern origin (developed by Sir Mallowan; con- necting Habur Ware with Western Iran and the Hurrians), and, c. A Trans-Caucasian origin theory linking Habur Ware with painted pottery of the Malatya-Elazıg region in Anatolia. What has skipped the attention of scholars who supported one of the three theories is the possibility that all three candidates of foreign pottery ‘prototypes’ of Habur Ware may have belonged to a common pottery hori- zon, perhaps to the so-called Early Trans-Caucasian Cultural Zone.2 This supposition could explain the fact that despite some differences in typology 2 Burney and Lang 1971, p. 64; Burney 1977, p. 130. Literature on this subject is vast. For the most recent appraisals see Kohl 2007, p. 86–102. 2170-09_Anes46_10_Bieniada 02-09-2009 09:45 Pagina 162 162 MICHAEL E. BIENIADA and decoration, the three pottery groups share a common ‘concept’ of dec- oration. It is impossible to prove the relationship between Habur Ware and only one of the three pottery groups, to prove one of the three theories and to discard the remaining two. Ultimately we cannot escape the likelihood that they are inter-related. Nor can we exclude the possibility that the appearance of the Trans-Cau- casian Cultural Zone, which we here affiliate with a certain painted pottery horizon, is a material trace of the migration of new peoples (presumably Indo-Europeans and/or Hurrians). Contacts between these people and the users of Habur Ware could have witnessed the adoption by the latter of new fashionable decorative motifs. Among the known pottery groups, which might have belonged to the Trans-Caucasian Pottery Horizon, the Syro- Cilician Painted Pottery of Tarsus and Mersin shows the highest level of similarity (in respect to decorative motifs) to Habur Ware. Thus this pot- tery group should be referred to as the most probable source of inspiration for the decorative motifs of Habur Ware. According to some, Habur Ware should not be assigned to any specific ethnic group (in the past it had been connected with Hurrian elements by Mallowan). Kramer’s study has been often cited as proving a lack of rela- tionship between Hurrians and painted Habur Ware.3 The problem has a methodological dimension as well. Indo-Europeans and Hurrians are just general labels for people who speak languages or dialects, which belong to the same language group. We have no concept of how this quality relates to ethnicity.4 Appearance and development of the ware should be rather viewed in context of the new socio-political and economic order that corre- sponds to the appearance of new political entities in Syria and northern Mesopotamia from the beginning of the second millennium BCE. Its development and diffusion were probably driven by the new system of trade exchange — the Karum system of the Old Assyrian Period.5 3 See, for instance, Kramer 1971; 1977. 4 For the latest discussion on this problem see Anthony 2007. 5 The majority of the Karum Kanesh texts relating to the Old Assyrian long-distance trade colonies comes from Level II of Kanesh dated to the period between reigns of Erishum I and Puzur Aszhur II — before the conquest of the Assyrian city of Ashur by the Amorite leader Shamshi-Addu I. After the hiatus of occupation at the Kanesh colony of Level Ic, which lasted for ca. 10–20 years after the destruction of Karum II, a new colony of Level Ib devel- oped during the reign of the Amorite king (Kuhrt 1995, pp. 81–91). Long distance trade was a system developed by merchants from Assyria where strong Hurrian influence was present in the beginning of the second millennium BCE. The system continued to flourish after the Amorite conqueror, Shamshi-Addu I, took the city of Ashur. For the purpose of this study, one should assume that many different ethnic elements contributed to the development of the new pottery in northern Mesopotamia, though it is impossible to match particular chang- 2170-09_Anes46_10_Bieniada 02-09-2009 09:45 Pagina 163 HABUR WARE 163 Theories on the Origin of Habur Ware Decades of studies and new archaeological discoveries have proved the limitations of the ‘totalitarian theories’ that postulated either migration (conquest) or internal development as a single causative factor. The advo- cates of the four mainstream theories pointed to some characteristic ceramic groups, which could affect the appearance and the character of Habur Ware.6 I will focus only on the most important arguments for and against each of them. Eastern Origin Theory The original theory, which was developed by the discoverer of Habur Ware, Mallowan, was based upon the observations of an uninterrupted tra- dition of making painted pottery in western Iran. Tepe Giyan on the Kerha River7 and Godin Tepe were proposed as the sites, where the prototypes of Habur Ware had occurred (Fig. 1). Further studies proved that the pottery of the earlier Giyan Stratum III (2500–1800 BCE) had no characteristic elements typical for Habur Ware, and that the pottery of the next stratum (Giyan II, 1800–1400 BC) showed little influence of a foreign element.8 It was also observed9 that there were close relations between pottery assemblages typical of the three sites of the area: Giyan II, Godin Tepe and the ceramics at Dinkha Tepe (some schol- ars, however, argued that ceramic assemblage from Giyan II and Godin III was different both in shape and decorative motifs from Dinkha painted pottery).10 Stein noticed that Habur Ware predated part of Giyan II painted pottery.11 On the basis of archaeological data, one may conclude that the pottery of the three sites represents, at most, regional ceramic development. The potential affiliation of Giyan II pottery to Habur Ware, as opposite to the very first opinions, can be understood as resulting from copying decorative motifs of Habur painted ware by potters of Dyala–Kerha region, or as just limited and peripheral development of Habur Ware.12 Chronological dis- ing characteristics with definite groups (see discussion in Frane 1996, pp. 9–14 and Kramer- Hamlin 1971). 6 For the review see, for example, Hamlin 1971, pp.