Masaryk University Faculty of Arts

Department of Archaeology and Museology

BACHELOR’S DIPLOMA THESIS

Brno 2015 Hana Koubková

Department of Archaeology and Museology

Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East Hana Koubková

Fine Ware Ninevite 5 Pottery from Khabur Basin Project Bachelor´s Diploma Thesis

Supervisor: Mgr. Inna Mateiciucová, Ph.D. Instructor: Zuzanna Wygnańska, Ph.D.

Brno 2015

DECLARATION

I declare that I have worked on this thesis independently, and that I used only the primary and secondary sources written on bibliography list below. I agree with storing this thesis in the library of the Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East at Masaryk University in Brno and making it accessible for study purpose.

Brno 9th July 2015 ...... Signature

ABSTRACT / ANNOTATION Title: Fine Ware Ninevite 5 Pottery from Khabur Basin Project Author: Hana Koubková Department / Institute: Department of Archaeology and Museology/Prehistoric Archaeology of the Near East Supervisor: Mgr. Inna Mateiciucová, Ph.D.

Abstract: This paper is concerned with fine ware Ninevite 5 pottery from Upper and Middle Khabur Basin in northeast Syria, where Yale University conducted surface survey at the end of the last century, called Khabur Basin Project. Study of this material is important for discovery of new Ninevite 5 sites in the area of interest. There were designated fifteen Ninevite 5 sherds (Group 1) and eight of them occurred at the new early third millennium sites. Other six sites are concerned with undecorated pottery assemblages (Group 2), therefore, the designation as Ninevite 5 pottery is not for sure. This thesis is just a preliminary effort to determine fine ware ceramic material from Early Bronze Age, especially Ninevite 5 period and the first step in a better understanding of the settlement in the Upper and Middle Khabur Region in northeast Syria.

Key words: Ninevite 5, fine ware, Khabur Basin Project, northeast Syria, Upper and Middle Khabur, early third millennium sites

ABSTRAKT / ANOTACE Název: Jemná keramika typu Ninive 5 z Projektu Khabur Basin Autor: Hana Koubková Ústav / Oddělení: Ústav archeologie a muzeologie/Oddělení Pravěké archeologie Předního Východu Vedoucí práce: Mgr. Inna Mateiciucová, Ph.D.

Anotace: Tato práce se zabývá jemnou keramikou z horního a středního povodí řeky Khabur v severovýchodní Sýrii, kde na konci 20. století probíhal archeologický výzkum a povrchový sběr prováděný americkou Yalovou univerzitou, zvaný Projekt v povodí řeky Khabur. Studium keramického materiálu je důležité z hlediska objevení nových lokalit s Ninive 5 osídlením v zájmové oblasti. Pouze patnáct jedinců bylo určených jako typ Ninive 5 (je to tzv. skupina 1), z toho jen osm jedinců pochází z nových dosud neznámých lokalit časného třetího tisíciletí př. n. l. Z dalších šesti nových lokalit byl vyzvednut nezdobený keramický materiál (tzv. skupina 2), z tohoto důvodu je těžké s přesností určit, zda se skutečně jedná o materiál typu Ninive 5. Tato práce je pouze předběžnou snahou určit část keramického materiálu z jemné keramiky pocházející z časné doby bronzové, zejména z období keramiky typu Ninive 5. Také je to první krok k lepšímu porozumění časně bronzového osídlení v oblasti horního a střední Khaburu v severovýchodní Sýrii.

Klíčová slova: keramika typu Ninive 5, jemná keramika, projekt v povodí řeky Khabur, severovýchodní Sýrie, horní a střední Khabur, lokality z časného třetího tisíciletí BC

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT

First, I would like to express my gratitude to my supervisor Mgr. Inna Mateiciucová, Ph.D. and Dr. Phil. Maximilian Wilding. Because they gave me a chance to study ceramic material at Yale University in November and December 2014. Without their trust and friendly attitude, this thesis would never exist. Second, I would like to thank Prof. Frank Hole and his assistance Yukiko Tonoike for their enthusiasm, friendship and of course, for the access to ceramic material from Khabur Basin Project, which was recovered in the 1980s and 1990s in northeast Syria. Third, I have to express my enormous gratitude to Zuzanna Wygnańska, PhD. for helping me with designation of ceramic material and her enthusiasm for my work and ideas. For the language correction, I would like to thank Mgr. Lucie Kropáčková and for the graphical adjustment I want to thank my sister Michaela. Finally, I would like to express my thanks to all my friends and my family, because without their love, confidence and support I would never be able to write this thesis.

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION ...... 10 2 METHODOLOGY ...... 11 3 CRITICISM OF THE SOURCES AND THE CERAMIC MATERIAL ...... 13 4 SPECIFICATION OF AN AREA OF INTEREST ...... 14 4.1 GEOGRAPHICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF AN AREA UNDER STUDY ...... 15 4.2 KHABUR RIVER ...... 16 4.3 GEOMORPHOLOGY ...... 18 4.4 ENVIRONMENT ...... 20 4.5 CLIMATE ...... 21 5 SETTLEMENT PATTERNS ...... 22 6 HISTORY OF NINEVITE 5 POTTERY HORIZON RESEARCH ...... 24 6. 1 MIDDLE KHABUR REGION ...... 24 6. 2 UPPER KHABUR REGION ...... 25 7 NINEVITE 5 POTTERY IN GENERAL...... 27 7.1 ORIGIN OF THE NINEVITE 5 ...... 27 7.2 DISTRIBUTION OF NINEVITE 5 POTTERY ...... 28 7.3 PHASES OF NINEVITE 5 ...... 28 7.3.1 EJZ 0 ...... 29 7.3.2 EJZ 1 ...... 30 7.3.3 EJZ 2 ...... 31 7.3.4 EJZ 3 ...... 32 7.3.4.1 EJZ 3a ...... 32 7.3.4.2 EJZ 3b ...... 32 8 KHABUR BASIN PROJECT ...... 34 9 NINEVITE 5 SITES SURVEYED BY KHABUR BASIN PROJECT ...... 36 9.1 MIDDLE KHABUR REGION ...... 37 9.1.1 ATIJ ...... 37 9.1.2 BDERI ...... 38 9.1.3 GUDEDA ...... 39 9.1.4 HARBA ...... 40 9.1.5 JOYS SPRING ...... 40 9.1.6 KERMA ...... 41 9.1.7 KH ED DEEB ...... 41 9.1.8 KNEIDIJ ...... 42

9.1.9 MASHNAQA ...... 42 9.1.10 MELEBIYA ...... 43 9.1.11 METYAHA ...... 43 9.1.12 MULLA MATAR ...... 44 9.1.13 RAD SHAQRAH ...... 44 9.1.14 RAQA ´I ...... 45 9.1.15 TELL ALARBÍDÍ ...... 46 9.1.16 TELL AL-MAGHR ...... 46 9.1.17 TELL BURQA ...... 47 9.1.18 TELL MABTUH EAST ...... 47 9.1.19 TELL TUENAN...... 48 9.1.20 TUNEINIR ...... 48 9.1.21 UMM QSAIR ...... 49 9.1.22 ZIYADEH ...... 49 9.2 UPPER KHABUR REGION ...... 50 9.2.1 TELL BRAK ...... 51 9.2.2 CHAGAR BAZAR ...... 53 9.2.3 HAMMAM GHARB WEST ...... 54 9.2.4 KASHKASHOK III ...... 54 9.2.5 KHAZNE ...... 55 9.2.6 QARA TEPE ...... 55 9.2.7 TELL BISARI ...... 56 9.2.8 SITE WITHOUT NAME ...... 57 10 DESCRIPTION OF THE CERAMIC MATERIAL ...... 58 10.1 PRESERVATION STATE ...... 58 10.2 TYPE OF A VESSELS ...... 58 10.3 TYPE OF THE RIMS ...... 59 10.4 TYPE OF BASES ...... 60 10.5 DECORATION ...... 61 10.6 PASTA (TEMPER) ...... 62 10.7 WARE ...... 62 10.8 MODES OF MANUFACTURE ...... 63 10.9 FIRING ...... 63 10.10 PERIODIZATION OF THE EXAMINED CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGES ...... 64 11 CONCLUSION ...... 65 12 REFERENCES ...... 68

13 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ...... 75 14 LIST OF FIGURES ...... 76 15 LIST OF TABLES ...... 77 16 CATALOGUE OF ANALYZED SHERDS ...... 79

1 INTRODUCTION Present bachelor thesis processed the fine ware Ninevite 5 ceramic material from Khabur Basin Project, which concentrated on the northeastern Syrian sites. Khabur Basin Project was conducted by Yale University from 1986 to 1997 in the Upper and Middle Khabur Basin (more precisely in the surrounding of Jebel Abd al-Aziz and in the western steppe situated on the right bank of the Middle Khabur Basin). Following pages present evidence of the settlement in Khabur Basin in Ninevite 5 period, which is the starting point of the second urbanization phenomenon in Northern Mesopotamia (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003, 8). Ninevite 5 culture spread across the Upper Mesopotamia region about five thousand years ago and lasted over five hundred years. The material culture from this period is one of the most diagnostic all around Mesopotamia. Many sites with Ninevite 5 occupation are known from Upper Khabur Region (Tell Brak, Chagar Bazar, Khazne and Kashkashok III) and Middle Khabur Region (e.g. Atij, Raqa’i, Kneidij, Gudeda, Mulla Matar, Bderi, Mashnaqa, Melebiya and Rad Shagrah). However, KBP revealed many sites in the surrounding of Jebel Abd al-Aziz and in the western steppe, which can be as much important as above-mentioned sites. Presented thesis is divided into two parts: first part focuses on general information about area of interest and about Ninevite 5 ceramic. Second part of the thesis deals with information about Khabur Basin Project and its research at the sites around Middle Khabur Region (including surrounding of Jebel Abd al-Aziz and western steppe) and in Upper Khabur (especially in Central Khabur Region), moreover, it focuses on processed ceramic material itself. It is worthy to mention that the ceramic material from Khabur Basin Project has been poorly published so far. Therefore, the thesis is the first step in the recovery of the new early third millennium sites (Ninevite 5 period). In addition, it should inform about work made by Khabur Basin Project and prepare catalogue of sherds from Ninevite 5 period for the forthcoming publication.

2 METHODOLOGY The initial step toward this thesis was the study visit at Yale University in November and December 2014. The aim of this visit was to processes ceramic material retrieved by Khabur Basin Project from surface survey in northeastern Syria. Fine ware Ninevite 5 pottery was chosen for the purpose of the thesis, however, after processing the ceramic material it turned out that we dealt just with a limited amount of diagnostic Ninevite 5 sherds. Other fine ware pottery sherds, which were processed for this thesis, are more undiagnostic and, therefore, we should be aware of this fact when considering further the results of their dating. For one month author was processing the ceramic material and this thesis should present first results. First, fine ware sherds were separated from the amount of sherds belonging to different types of pottery from other periods. Altogether 322 fine ware sherds were processed at the Yale University, however, only 35 sherds were assessed as Ninevite 5 or probably Ninevite 5 ceramic assemblages. A pasta of wares was determined according to size of inclusions not bigger than 1 mm, temper (straw, grit and no visible) and according to thickness of walls (from 3 to 5 mm). All this determinations were made according to Schwartz analysis at Tell Leilan, where full stratighraphical sequences of Ninevite 5 period were excavated (Schwartz 1985, 52; Schwartz 1988, 31). Morphological types of the Ninevite 5 in the catalogue were made according to distinction proposed by Schwartz at Tell Leilan Operation 1 as well. It means that types of vessels were divided into four categories, which are defined in Schwartz PhD from 1988 (Schwarz 1988, 35): Cup: an open form or a closed slightly inverted form with a rim diameter less than 15 cm Bowl: an open form with a rim diameter 15 cm or more Pot: a closed form without a neck Jar: a closed form with a neck 35 sherds were chosen for the analysis which were divided into two groups: Group 1 deals with decorated Ninevite 5 sherds, which were quite easy to distinguish because of their unique type of decoration. These sherds were, subsequently described to consecutive Early Jezirah periodization system according to comparison of documentation (photos and drawings) with literature (see more below). The rest of the assemblages belong to Group 2, containing undecorated sherds made from fine ware. Group 2 was very difficult to determine. For a few months, author was analyzing literature, concerning Ninevite 5 pottery from sites across the area of distribution of Ninevite 5 pottery, which has been published so far. The most important source of knowledge comprised publication about excavations at Tell Leilan (Schwartz 1988) and Tell Brak (Oates 2001 and Matthews 2003). These sites were chosen for their well-stratified sequences and great amount of data for comparison. Another important publications come from excavations at Tell Hamoukar (Grossmann 2013) and Tell Barri (Valentini 2008

and an unpublished publication), which deals with quantity of Ninevite 5 sherds. For the identification of earlier part of Ninevite 5 assemblages, publication from sites in northern Iraq – Tell Karrana 3 (Rova 2003), Tell Thuwaij (Numoto 2003), and Tell Fisna (Numoto 2003) were chosen. To complete whole region with appearance of Ninevite 5 pottery the comparison was made according to two publications about settlements at Tell Raqa’i in Middle Khabur Region (Curvers and Schwartz 1990; Schwartz and Curvers 1992). Ceramic assemblages were compared according to shape of the section, rim diameter, and surface treatment – pasta, color and inclusions (if mentioned). Subsequently the author matched up each sherd with EJZ periodization system (proposed by Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean - ARCANE) according to the early third millennium phases at the individual sites proposed by excavators (see periodization table below).

Karrana Brak Leilan Barri Hamoukar Raqa´i Thuwaij Fisna 3 I EJZ 0 phase phase F 4 H (c. 3000-2900 BC) H IIIa EJ 0 E C 3 Transitional phase G 2 D EJZ 1 7 C B (c 2900-2700 BC) phase EJ I 6 A B 1 10 Painted/incised IIIb-c 5 9 A 8 Ninevite 5 phase 4 7 6 EJZ 2 J 5 4 (c. 2700 - 2600 BC) phase EJ II 3M-1 3 3 Late excised IIId 2 Ninevite 5 EJZ 3a phase 2 1 (c. 2600-2500 BC) K EJ IIIa Post-Ninevite 5 phase 3M-2 EJZ 3b IIa (c. 2500-2350 BC) phase EJ IIIb Metallic ware L Ceramic standardization Tab. 1. EJZ periodization system in the comparison from periods proposed by excavators of sites (after Matthews 2003, 5 and Rova 2003, 6)

3 CRITICISM OF THE SOURCES AND THE CERAMIC MATERIAL Critique of the source of the knowledge

The ceramic material has not been well published so far and, only one dissertation, “Landscape and Social Change in Late Prehistoric Mesopotamia”, based on 1994-1995 survey, was published by Nicholas Kouchoukos in 1998. However, many preliminary reports were published, such as: Frank Hole´s article about joint American-Danish archaeological sampling of sites in the Khabur basin (Hole 1991b); Yoshihiro Nishiaki´s article about prehistoric survey in the Khabur Basin, season 1990-1991 (Nishiaki 1992). Frank Hole together with Nicholas Kouchoukos published preliminary report on an archaeological survey in the Western Khabur Basin in 1994 (Hole and Kouchoukos 1995). The most completely published sites so far are Tell Mashnaqa, Tell Ziyadeh and Umm Qsair (Hole and Kouchoukos 1992; Hole 1998; Hole 1999 and Hole and Johnson 1986-1987). Melinda Zeder published faunal remains analysis (Zeder 1998a; 1998b and 1999) and Joy McCorriston presented publication on plant remains (McCorriston 1992; 1997; 1998). The Ninevite 5 in particular was investigated in one article written by Frank Hole based on settlement and agriculture analysis (Hole 1991a). Therefore, this thesis is yet another attempt to study and present materials dated to the Ninevite 5 period originating from Khabur Basin Project.

Critique of the ceramic material

All Khabur Basin Project ceramic material comes from surface survey, in the area around Khabur Basin in the Upper and Middle Khabur Region (including the surrounding of Jebel Abd al-Aziz and western steppe). Unfortunately, it was difficult to distinguish Ninevite 5 pottery from the surface survey and KBP material proved it as well. There were only 14 decorated Ninevite 5 sherds retrieved. Fine ware ceramic material is quite well preserved; however, it is very fragmentary. Therefore, it was very difficult to distinguishe and compare the material with other ceramic assemblages from Ninevite 5 sites over the area of distribution. There is still plenty of work that should be done concerning processing all fine ware material from the KBP and gaining new information about the settlement in Khabur Basin in the Early Bronze Age.

4 SPECIFICATION OF AN AREA OF INTEREST Author´s area of interest lies in the Upper and Middle Khabur Basin, more specifically in areas:  north of the modern town of Hasseke, with ancient sites such as: Tell Brak, Chagar Bazar, Kashkashok III and surrounding of Kashkashok  south of Hasseke: Tell Atij, Tell Bderi, Tell Raqa´i, Tell Gudeda, Tell Ziyadeh, Umm Qsair, Tell Mashnaqa, Tell Melebiya, Rad Shaqrah, Tell Tuneinir and Tell Kneidij  west of Hasseke (Jebel Abd al-Aziz region) All of the sites mentioned above are located within an area covered by survey project conducted by Yale University as a part of the Khabur Basin Project.

Fig. 1. Marked area of interest (made by Google Earth)

4.1 GEOGRAPHICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF AN AREA UNDER STUDY Khabur Region is part of Upper Mesopotamia, situated in the Upper Mesopotamia in Jezirah region in northeast Syria. The region is located in the semi-arid steppe, which is spread between two rivers, Tigris and Euphrates (Hole 2007, 197). The valley is high from 150 m to 300 m above sea level. The region is bordered in north by Turkey and in the south and east by Iraq. Region bears the name according to river in northeast Syria: Khabur River. Due to river, we can propose division into three regions: Upper Khabur Basin, Middle and Lower Khabur Basin. Upper Khabur Region is situated in the area north of Hasseke and spread approximately from Tell Halaf to Tell Hamoukar, this area is also called Khabur Triangle Region. Middle Khabur Region is located in the area south of Hasseke between Jebel Abd el-Aziz (792 m above sea level) – situated to the west of Hasseke; and Sinjar Mountain Range (1463 m above sea level) – situated to the east of Hasseke and spreads into Iraq as well (Lebeau 2011, 3). Lower Khabur Region is situated approximately from the Khabur Dam to the south in the confluence of the Khabur River and the Euphrates. However, this region is not relevant for the purpose of the thesis.

The big part of the Khabur Basin in Syria is mostly a flat, open area, which slopes down to the Euphrates River (Hole 1996c, 5; Hole in press, 1). From the climate point of view, the region can be divided into two parts: north of Khabur Region belongs to rain-fed agricultural part of the land while south of the Khabur Region (from the modern town of Hasseke downstream) it is arid steppe, where the agriculture without irrigation system is very improbable (Pfälzner 1990, 63).

4.2 KHABUR RIVER The Khabur River Basin is located in northeastern Syria. Its valley stretches 400 km. It is the largest tributary of the Euphrates River. Khabur River joints up into Euphrates 150 km downstream from its source, in the area close to Syrian town of Busayrah. The river stems from Turkey but its main source of water is Ras al-Ayn River. Waters of Khabur River are distributed by many wadis in its upper course over an area taking a shape of triangle, therefore, the region of Upper Khabur is often called the Khabur Triangle. Most of the small stems are dry in the summer, but in the late autumn, they carry huge bulk of water into the wadis (Zeder 1998a, 570). The most important wadis in the region are Wadi Radd, Wadi Khanzir, Wadi Jarrah, Jaghjagh River, Wadi Aweij. These wadis must have provided favorable environment for people living in the area of upper and middle Khabur in the prehistoric times, especially for the cultures that were depending on dry-farming agriculture (Nishiaki 2000, 77).

Fig. 2. Upper and Middle Khabur Basin (Tell Brak “on-line“)

16 In the 1960s The Khabur River Project started whose aim was to build series of dams and canals on the Khabur River. One of the dams was built south of Hasseke and that is a point for several rescue archaeological excavations that were conducted in the Middle Khabur Basin. Sites as Raqa’i, Umm Qsair, Ziyadeh, Melebiya, Bderi and Mashnaqa are nowadays due to dam under the water surface.

Fig. 3. Map showing the flooded sites after finishing the dam south of Hasseke (after Hole 1999, 37)

4.3 GEOMORPHOLOGY Jezirah region , situated in northeastern Syria between two rivers – the Euphrates and the Tigris (therefore Jezirah – Arabic word for “island”), in which Khabur Basin is situated, is characterized by an alluvial plain and only a low basaltic ridge breaks this plain off (Lebeau 2011, 3). The most common type of soil in the Upper Khabur is brown or reddish-brown Calci-Xerosol type of soil, which is very fertile, therefore, the Upper Khabur Region can be considered to be fertile land (Wilkinson and Tucker 1995, 5; Bonacossi 2000, 349). In the southern part of Syrian Jazirah, there is more gypsum and limestone in the soil (Gypcis Xerosols) due to this, soil is less fertile and sufficient for cultivation. (Bonacossi 2000, 354).

Fig. 4. Major soil groups in the Khabur drainage (after McCorriston 1997, 317)

Many of the Early Bronze Age sites were situated in the sedimentary basins where water concentrated and arable soils occurred (Hole and Kouchoukos 1996c, 11). It was observed that the Ninevite 5 sites were surrounded by areas with favorable Mediterranean brown soil, bordered by gypsiferous soils, which enabled only poor agriculture activities (Hole 1991b, 23). Additionally, working on geomorphological study of the site of Tell Atij in the Middle Khabur Basin, it may be presumed that water level of the Khabur River was approximately four meters higher in the third millennium than it is today (Hole and Kouchoukos 1995, 8).

4.4 ENVIRONMENT Khabur Region is semi-arid steppe considering vegetation. Northern part of the region deals with rain-fed agriculture, while towards the south where the annual precipitation decreases to 250 mm agriculture it is much more depended on irrigation. This arid region is influenced by precipitation, therefore humans, animals as well as vegetation are dependent on annual rainfall (Hole in press, 3; 5). Middle Khabur Basin belongs to area, which is classified as marginal zone; this means that annual average precipitation is about 200-250 mm (Hole 2007, 196). In this area, people used special irrigation strategy. People utilized water from the Khabur River for the cultivation of fields on both banks of the river. Settlements were therefore limited within 1-2 km span from the river valley (Curvers and Schwartz 1990, 6). The arid conditions are also probable reason of only seasonal use of the area by sheep herders until 1950 (Hole 1996b, 2). The last area under consideration, the western part of Khabur Region, situated around Jebel Abd al-Aziz was surveyed by KBP in June-July in 1994 (Hole and Kouchoukos 1995, 1) it is characterized by marginal agricultural availability. In the third millennium BC, there were significant changes in the environment that effected the growth, the size and the number of settlements in the Jebel Abd al-Aziz area (Hole and Kouchoukos 1995, 8).

Increase in the settlement density, even in the arid southern steppe (the region, in which agriculture is possible only with irrigation system now), in the first half of the third millennium, indicated an increased amount of rainfall (Hole in press, 8). It was observed, however, that most of the sites in the Middle Khabur Basin were abandoned in this period. According to Frank Hole´s survey results, it might have been caused by increasing aridity at about 2500 BC (Hole 1997, 39-66; Routledge 1998, 253).

4.5 CLIMATE Today, climate in Northern Mesopotamia is considered to be Mediterranean (Hole in press, 2). It means that winters are mild but wet and summers are dry and hot. Annual temperature is about 20 °C with an annual range of 35-40 °C. Freezing is usual in January and in July, it is normal to have 40 °C. Between October and April, there are most raining days and sometimes we can expect snow falling. The Khabur Basin is thus very seasonal region with fresh vegetation only in spring months (Hole in press, 3).

Concerning current annual precipitation, we can distinguish two zones of rainfall (after Deckers and Riehl 2008, 174):  north with 400 to 700 mm rainfall enabling  more agricultural activities without irrigation system  south with 250 mm rainfall where steppe areas prevail and irrigation is necessary

A reconstruction of a climate in the fourth and third millennium BC indicates an arid period ca. 4200 BC. After that followed hiatus in settlement approximately from 4000-3000 BC. Subsequent period (from 2600 – 2000 BC) is characterized by increasing of precipitation and therefore the the cities were growing and population density reached the maximum. Unfortunately, from 2200 to 1900 BC occurred another very arid period – large cities centers collapsed and Nomads started to lived in Khabur Basin (Hole 2007, 197)

In the earlier part of the third millennium BC climatic conditions were appropriate enough for expansion in agriculture which brought about increase in population (see a description of climatic conditions in the third millennium above (Hole 2007, 197). The areas to the south of Jebel Abd al-Aziz – the western steppe – started to be numbered by this period (Hole and Kouchoukos 1995, 7). As it was mentioned above, due to low precipitation, crops cultivation is at least risky without irrigation system in this area. Interestingly, however, there are no patterns of irrigation in the Khabur River Basin in the third millennium (Hole 1999, 14).

5 SETTLEMENT PATTERNS  Khabur River Basin

In the early third millennium, there emerged first small settlements along the river basin. More than dozen small sites were found around the Khabur River from early through the mid-third millennium in the area about 50 km along the river (Zeder 1999, 12). During that time, in the Ninevite 5 period settlements surface did not exceed more than 20 ha. It seems that the settlements were self-sufficient (Wilkinson 2000, 238). It is probable that first settlers of Khabur River Basin in the third millennium were agriculturalists and herders of livestock as well as farmers, practising also hunting. They continued the practices that were developed in the late fourth millennium. They stored their grain in special grill-plan facilities, which occurred for the first time in Neolithic (Hole 1999, 21). Circular-plan walled settlements (so-called “Kranzhügel” sites) appeared in e.g. Tell Chuera (Wilkinson 2000, 239-240). In the mid-third millennium BC we observe growth in the size of sites over the Jezirah (for example Tell Leilan expanded thanks to Lower Town in the area about 90 ha) (Wilkinson 2000, 238). The early Bronze Age rapid increasing small sites along the Khabur River were substituted by smaller amount of nucleated settlements in the mid-third millennium BC (Wilkinson 2000, 240). People started to use much more land and new settlements occurred everywhere in the second half of the third millennium. Many towns were enclosed by wall and complemented by temples and large granaries (Hole 2007, 198). . Upper Khabur

In northern part of the Khabur River Basin, there were better conditions for agriculture. Therefore, several large cities occurred there. Main sites in Upper Khabur (Tell Brak, Tell Leilan, Tell el-Hawa and Tell Hamoukar) expanded at the end of the Ninevite 5 period (ca. 2500 BC) into large centers (some of them about 100 ha). These large urban centers were surrounded by smaller satellite villages and towns (Grossman 2013, 33). The peak of urbanism lasted only 300 years and it was ended by occurrence of intensive aridity, which occurred all around the world about 2200 BC1 at the end of the third millennium BC. According to some scholars, after this adversity, almost all of the sites were abandoned. New research shows, however, that the large centers as Tell Brak and Tell Mozan were still occupied in the Akkadian period as well as a few small settlements as Tell Arbid, Tell Hamoukar, Tell Barri and Chagar Bazar (Kolinski 2007, 10). Never ever was this area settled

1 See more in Weiss (2000a, 75-98) and Weiss (2000b, 207-219)

22 again in such a huge concentration like in earlier part of Early Bronze Age (Hole and Kouchoukos 1995, 8; Hole 2007, 198; Kolinski 2007, 7).

. Middle Khabur Region

Settlements, which occurred in the early third millennium in the Middle Khabur Region – usually contain large-scale storage facilities: as may be exemplified by finds from Atij, Raqa´I, Kerma, Ziyadeh (Routledge 1998, 244). Many sites on the Middle Khabur seems to be sedentary settlement, additionally there are also some with only seasonal settlement, judging from the breaks in occupation for example at Tell Bderi (Hole 1991b, 23).

 Western steppe

Western part of the Khabur valley was less densely settled than the central region at the earliest part of the third millennium (Kolinski 2007, 3). However, around 2600 BC there was a shift in settlements into semi-arid steppe or around the inflow of the Khabur River (Hole 2007, 197). Sites, which are smaller than 1 ha had probably about 100 or fewer inhabitants (Hole 1991b, 25). Many permanent settlements occurred on both sides of the Jebel Abd al-Aziz range (Hole and Kouchoukos 1995, 7). In this region there were found 51 sites with the third millennium occupation levels. The size is from small hamlets to large 30 ha sites. Few of them should be with early third millennium settlement (Ninevite 5 levels). Many sherds are designated as Melebiya 2 and 3, which covers range of time from 2700 to 2400 BC – this date is marked with growing in urbanization and state formation in northern Mesopotamia (Hole 1996b, 5).

6 HISTORY OF NINEVITE 5 POTTERY HORIZON RESEARCH Max Mallowan and Ephraim Speiser were those who excavated and identified Ninevite 5 levels for the first time in history. Max Mallowan conducted research in Nineveh. In 1931, he mentioned a term “Ninevite 5” to designate specific type of painted and incised pottery. Meantime, Speiser excavated at Tell Billa. He recovered the same type of pottery in the association with grain silos. Additionally, he also conducted his research in Tepe Gawra, where he recovered Ninevite 5 pottery from levels VIIIa-VI (Grossman 2014, 83). Subsequently, Ninevite 5 sherds were recovered from many northern Mesopotamian sites, e.g.: Chagar Bazar, Tell Chuera and Mari. To sum up, the excavations in the 1930s may be perceived as the most extensive and focused on the Ninevite 5 period until the 1960s (Grossman 2014, 83). In the 1960s, excavation at Tell V of Telul eth-Thalathat began and the site revealed remains of painted and incised Ninevite 5 pottery. In 1964, Max Mallowan summarized the distribution of the Ninevite 5 pottery; he also mentioned that painted Ninevite 5 is earlier than incised pottery. In 1968, Abu al-Soof published his work about Ninevite 5 ceramics in northern Iraq and added new information about distribution over northern Mesopotamia (Grossman 2014, 84). From the 1980s, there were many researches performed in the Khabur Triangle, Middle Khabur Region and in northern Iraq. The targeting on excavating the Ninevite 5 culture was again enormous (Grossman 2014, 85). Many archeological excavations as well as survey were conducted. The following part is dedicated to archaeological excavations in an area of interest and the directors of these researches.

6. 1 MIDDLE KHABUR REGION 1975-1977 H. Kühne and W. Röllig conducted archaeological surveys in the Middle Khabur Region and six years later in 1983 J. Y. Monchambert conducted second survey in this area – his survey showed a big concentration of the third millennium sites along the river, after that (1984) followed other archaeological excavations and surveys in the region – especially rescue excavation (Fortin 1998, 22) . It was due to request of DGAM to save the human heritage from the Middle Khabur Valley, because of the construction of dam 28 km south of Hasseke (Fortin and Schwartz 2003, 221).

Mashnaqa: J. Y. Monchambert, I. Thuesen, F. Hole, D. Beyer (Monchambert 1984; Fortin 1998, 22; Hole 1999) Mulla Matar D. Sürenhagen, P. Pfälzner (Sürenhagen 1990; Fortin 1998, 22) Rad Shaqrah: P. Bielinski (Fortin 1998, 22) Tell Atij: M. Fortin (Fortin 1989; 1998) Tell Bderi: H. Kühne, P. Pfälzner (Pfälzner 1990; Fortin 1998, 22; Grossman 2013, 37) Tell Gudeda: M. Fortin (Fortin and Routledge 1994; Fortin 1998) Tell Kerma: M. Saghié (Fortin 1998, 22) Tell Kneidij: L. Martin (Fortin 1998, 22) Tell Melebiya: M. Lebeau (Lebeau 2000) Tell al-Raqa´i: G. M. Schwartz, H. H.Curvers (Schwartz and Curvers 1992) Tell Tuneinir: M. and N. Fuller (Fuller 1998) Tell Ziyadeh: G. Buccellati, F. Hole (Hole 1998) Umm Qsair: F. Hole (Hole and Johnson 1986-1987)

6. 2 UPPER KHABUR REGION In last few decades many archaeological researches through Upper Khabur region in northeast Syria were carried out. Namely at Tell Brak, Chagar Bazar (excavated temple and graves), Tell Chuera, Tell Hamoukar, Tell Mozan (included late excised Ninevite 5 and Metallic Ware, Tell Barri (evidence of a Ninevite 5 temple), Tell Arbid (recovered domestic architecture with many ovens and a temple, Kashkashok III (recovered Ninevite 5 temple within a circular enclosure wall (Grossman 2013, 36), Tell Khazne (excavation revealed large circular building, interpreted as a temple) and Tell Leilan (Grossman 2013, 23). In the Upper Khabur Region, several archaeological surveys were also conducted. Between 1989 and 1991, B. Lyonnet and C. N. R. S. team conducted Khabur Prospection Project (Nishiaki 1992, 97; Nishiaki 2000, 77.) First, Lyonnet team made geological prospection then they started with survey of western part in the Upper Khabur from modern town Hasseke to Ras el-Ain and to Qamishli (Weiss 1991, 697). One of the most important sites in the northern Mesopotamia is Tell Leilan. There were made several regional surveys called The Tell Leilan Projects in 1984, 1987, 1993, 1995 and 1997. The main goal of these projects was to found out relationship between environments and settlements during the last 10 000 years. The research concerned area from Turkish border to the Wadi Radd (in the proximity of Tell Brak on the Jaghjagh River) (Risvet and Weiss 2000, 94). G. Stein and P. Wattenmaker – conducted one of the Tell Leilan Regional Survey, this survey focused mainly on transition period between Ninevite 5 and post-Ninevite 5 (Leilan III to Leilan II) (Grossman 2013, 32).

Another important research is Tell Brak Survey. J. Eidem and D. Warburton were part one of this survey (Grossman 2013, 33). Second regional survey at Tell Brak was conducted by J. Oates and Wright (Grossman 2013, 33).

Abu Hgaira: A. Suleiman (Quenet 2011, 26) Kashkashok III: Al-Maqdassi; A. Suleiman (Hole 1994; 293; Quenet 2011, 26) Tell Arbid: M.E. L. Mallowan, B. Lyonnet, P. Bielinski (Bieliǹski 2010; Quenet 2011, 27) Tell Barri: P. E.Pecorella, M. Salvini, R. Pierobon-Benoit (Pecorella ; Pierobon-Benoit 2005) Tell Beydar: M. Lebeau, A. Suleiman, H. Hammade, A. M. Baghdo (Lebeau 2006; Quenet 2011, 24) Tell Brak : A. Poidebard, D. and J. Oates, R. Matthews, G. Emberling, H. McDonald, A. McMahon; H. Wright, J. Ur, P. Karsgaard, J. Eidem, D. Warburton) (Oates 2001; Matthews 2003; Quenet 2011, 30; Grossman 2013, 33) Tell Hamoukar: M. Gibson, J. Ur, K. Grossman, C. Reichel, T. Paulette, S. Al-Kuntar (Ur 2010; Grossman 2013) Tell Chagar Bazar: M.E. L. Mallowan, Ö. Tunca, A. McMahon, A. M. Baghdo (Mallowan 1936; McMahon 2009; Quenet 2011, 28) Tell Chuera: A. Moortgat, U. Moortgat-Correns, W. Orthmann, J. W. Meyer, P. Pfälzner (Quenet 2011, 22) Tell Khazne: R. M.Munchaev, N. Y. Merpert, S.N. Amirov) (Munchaev, Merpert and Amirov 2004) Tell Leilan: H. Weiss, G. M.Schwartz, P. Wetterstrom, G.Stein, L. Risvet) (Schwartz 1988, Risvet and Weiss 2000; Grossman 2013, 32). Tell Mohammed Diyab: J. M. Durand, C. Nicolle (Quenet 2011, 36) Tell Mozan: M. E. L. Mallowan, G. Buccellati, M. Kelly-Buccellati, P. Pfälzner (Buccellati and Kelly-Buccellati 2002; Quenet 2011, 28) Other sites with Ninevite 5 sequences at Upper Khabur region:, Abu Hafar and Djassa el- Gharbi (Grossman 2013, 36).

7 NINEVITE 5 POTTERY IN GENERAL For the understanding of Ninevite 5 pottery from area explored by Khabur Basin Project in this thesis, I have to mention some general information about Ninevite 5 ceramics. The decorated Ninevite 5 pottery is one of the most easily distinguishable ceramics, from northern Mesopotamia. It has great chronological value since a sequence of particular decoration patterns and shapes occurrence was established basing on excavations in Khabur Basin. Additionally, several reliable C 14 data were collected to date a time span for the assemblage. The usage of this pottery is associated with an intensive social, political and economic changes in northern Mesopotamia (from Uruk period to second urbanization) (Grossman 2014, 83). The Ninevite 5 decorated sherds are the best diagnostic for the determination of these assemblages, because of its ware and decorating motifs (Grossman 2014, 83). The decoration can be painted, incised, excised and it also occurs as a specific combination of the latter two – incised-excised. However, decorated pottery assemblages from Khabur Basin Project are limited in number and it is apparent that they were only rare surface finds. There are only fourteen decorated Ninevite 5 (see catalogue No. 1 to No. 10 and No. 12 to No. 15) pottery sherds in the collection of Yale University, which were possible to process. Nevertheless, there are many undecorated sherds, which can be supposed to be from Ninevite 5 period.

7.1 ORIGIN OF THE NINEVITE 5 Basing on carbon-14 data, the Ninevite 5 period is dated about to ca. 3100-2500 BC (Grossman 2013, 33; Rova 2013, 110). The earliest Ninevite 5 ceramics – with painted decoration, appeared in the Upper Tigris area. This indigenous painted Ninevite 5 evolved from the southern Uruk-style pottery assemblages into local late fourth millennium painted tradition. It subsequently spread in the Upper Khabur Region (Rova 2013, 107; Ur 2004, 52-53). The so-called „Terminal Uruk“ phase refers to the starting point of Ninevite 5 pottery in the Upper Tigris basin. This early phase is not well attested in the assemblages in northeastern Syria (Rova 2003, 107-108). From radiocarbon data the so-called “terminal Uruk” phase is dated not later than 3000 BC (data from Tell Karrana 3). The succeeding period – “Transitional” and “Intermediate” are set shortly before or after 3000 BC. The earliest Ninevite 5 painted ware phase in northeastern Syria is associated with level IIIa at Tell Leilan (also at Tell Brak a pottery style, which is parallel with transitional Late Uruk/the early Ninevite 5 period material from Tigris as well as with Jemdet Nasr period material in the Southern Mesopotamia occurred (Rova 2003, 1).

7.2 DISTRIBUTION OF NINEVITE 5 POTTERY The concentration of Ninevite 5 in Upper Khabur is mainly in the area between the Iraqi and Turkish borders and between the Wadi Radd and main part of the Khabur River, south of Hasseke, as well as in the Middle Khabur Region (Dam area). In western part, in Wadi Khanzir and Awij, the distribution is limited (Rova 2013, 110). From the amount of Ninevite 5 sherds per site we can distinguish a core zone, in which the Ninevite 5 ceramic was produced and used, and a peripheral zone, into which the Ninevite 5 pottery was imported (Grossman 2014, 86). Data from the surveys showed that the core zone of the Ninevite 5 region is situated in the area between the Wadi Jaghjagh in the West, the middle part of the Khabur in the south and east bank of the Tigris in the east (Grossman 2014, 87). The main sites with Ninevite 5 sequences are in Upper Khabur Region: Chagar Bazar, Tell Brak, Tell Leilan, Tell Mozan, Tell Barri, Kashkashok III, Tell Khazne, and Mohammad Diyab. In Middle Khabur Region, the most important sites are Tell Atij, Tell Bderi, Gudeda, Kerma, Kneidij, Mashnaqa, Mulla Matar, Rad Shagrah and Tell Raqa´i.

The painted Ninevite 5 has been found at many sites from Tigris region to the Wadi Jaghjagh. The incised Ninevite 5 has bigger distribution range, this pottery spread even in the Middle Khabur Basin. Finally, the excised Ninevite 5 was distributed similarly to the incised Ninevite 5, although there were also some discoveries in Wadi Awaidj, accurately in Tell Beydar (Lebeau 2011, 6). It is interesting to note, that no Ninevite 5 pottery has been found in the western part of the Upper Khabur so far (Lebeau 2011, 6).

7.3 PHASES OF NINEVITE 5 Max Mallowan proposed the first chronological system for Khabur Region after his pioneering excavation in the 1930s. His excavation conducted in Chagar Bazar and Tell Brak gave us chronological parallels with southern Mesopotamia. Mallowan proposed the southern Mesopotamian term “Early Dynastic” for designation of the pre-Naramsin sequence at Tell Brak. Nowadays, this system (“Early Dynastic”) is replaced by “Early Jazirah” chronological system (Lebeau 2011).

Early Jezirah system The periodization system was proposed by Peter Pfälzner and developed by Marc Lebeau and then reassumed by Peter Pfälzner again (Lebeau 2011, 11) and should encompasses periods from the early third millennium BC into the phase were collapsed the urban system in the Jezirah region in the first half of the second millennium BC (Lebeau 2011, 11). It is based on stratighraphic and ceramic evidence from several important sites located in Syria, such as: Tell Brak, Tell Leilan, Tell Mozan, Tell Beydar, Tell Bderi and Tell Chuera (Lebeau 2011, 11). The system was intended to standardize the periodization of the sites from Northern Mesopotamia.

7.3.1 EJZ 0 EJZ 0 is equivalent to pre-Ninevite 5 (Terminal Uruk, Transitional Ninevite 5 painted pottery in Tigris region, and Intermediate Ninevite 5 periods) Early Jezirah 0 started after the Uruk period. This phase is well attested at Tell Barri, Tell Brak, Chagar Bazar, Kashkashok III and Kneidij (Quenet 2011, 38; Lebeau 2011, 14) but well stratified material has been found so far just at Tell Brak (Rova 2011, 52).

Ceramic forms: beveled rim bowls, large bowls with crosshatched decoration, jars with punctuated decoration, small spouted jars, ring based carinated bowls, truncated conical bowls or beakers, conical beakers, carinated bowls (No. 16; No. 17; No. 31 in the catalogue) ring based carinated jars with incised decoration, (nose-lug) jars with ribs and incised decoration, small spouted jars (Rova 2013, 52, 66-67). Ware: Vessels have usually grit temper inclusions (white grit, sand/quartz sometimes mica) is presented. Beveled rim bowls are the exception because of their big amount of straw inclusion; cooking vessels are often straw-grit tempered (Rova 2013, 52).

From the herby examined material, four sherds should be dated to EJZ 0 period according to vessel shape - carinated bowl (see No. 16; No. 17; No. 28; No. 31 in the catalogue). Unfortunately, this type of vessel was widely used also in later phases; therefore, we cannot date the sites precisely into this period.

7.3.2 EJZ 1 EJZ 1 is equivalent to painted, early incised ware (Grossman 2013, 90) and early excised ware (grooving motif) pottery styles (Rova 2013, 52). It is also contemporary with Early Dynastic I. Material from this phase has been found in Middle Khabur Region (Atij, Melebiya). According to ARCANE report it has been found at several sites in Upper Khabur Region as well (Tell Barri, Tell Brak, Chagar Bazar, Kashkashok III, Tell Khazne, Kneidij, Tell Leilan, Raqa´i, Tell Beydar) (Rova 2011, 52). Archaeologically, this phase is characterized by grill-plan structures and the resettlement of towns and villages, especially in the Middle Khabur Basin (Quenet 2011, 38).

Ceramic forms: Carinated bowls, large bowls with pedestal base with rounded profile, small decorated wide- necked jars with biconical profile with pedestal base, large carinated bowl with pedestal base with corrugated decoration, carination beakers with pointed bases (No. 3 and No. 17 in the catalogue), hemispherical or ovoid beakers with pointed bases and in-turned rims, large carinated bowls with pedestal bases, large bowls with pedestal bases and with rounded profiles, small wide-necked jars with biconical profile and with pedestal bases, small wide-necked carinated jars with pointed bases and suspension lugs, small wide-necked ovoid jars with pointed bases, hole-mouth cooking pots with crescent-shaped lugs – made of coarse ware, wide- necked jars or pots with out-turned squared rims (Rova 2003, 52, 68-69). In this period, specific type of painted and incised pottery occurred mostly with pointed or pedestal bases and sharp or rounded carination (Rova 2003, 3). Ware: Fine ware is almost without inclusion or just a small portion of straw or grit temper, plain ware can be slightly straw-grit tempered. Coarse ware is much more straw tempered than in the preceding period. Color of surface: Khabur Region usually deals with grey-black, greenish or yellowish buff assemblages color (Rova 2013, 52). Painted decoration is usually characterized by geometric motifs (ladders, crosshatch section, triangles motif), naturalistic animal motifs and usage of festoons on the lower part of body of vessels (Akkermans and Schwartz 2003, 213).

7.3.3 EJZ 2 Early EJZ 2 is characterized by incised and excised ware (Grossman 2013, 90). For the late EJZ late excised ware was typical (Grossman 2013, 90). It is contemporary with the Early Dynastic II and Early Dynastic IIIa in southern Mesopotamia (Rova 2003, 5). This period is attested at almost all sites in the Khabur Basin. Many new sites appeared and small sites expanded (Quenet 2011, 38). This period is crucial for process of the second urbanization in Jezirah Region. Many sites evolved into large cities with Acropolis and lower town and were enclosed by either circular walls characteristic for the Euphrates region (so-called kranzhügel – e.g. Tell Chuera or Tell Beydar to the West) or irregularly to the East (Quenet 2011, 39). The excised Ninevite 5 pottery style occurred in this period, together with incised, also called incised/excised decoration). It was replaced by Late excised style later in northeastern Syria. It was in this phase when so-called Metallic ware occurred for the first time (Rova 2013, 57). Metallic ware can be recognized according to its high temperature firing and almost entire lack of inclusions; it is also apparently harder and denser than other wares (Pruss 2000, 195). The repertoire of shapes usually encompasses bowls, globular bottles and jars with pedestal bases (Lebeau 2011, 6). It was distributed from Balikh through Upper Euphrates to Middle Euphrates (Grossman 2013, 91). This type of pottery probably disappeared in EJZ 3b (Lebeau 2011, 6) (but at Tell Brak it was found in EJZ 4 as well (Oates 2001). Another material, which can be associated with latest incised/excised Ninevite 5 and earliest Metallic ware, is Jezirah Bichrome ware in the western part of Khabur Basin (Rova 2003, 3). Ceramic forms: hemispherical or ovoid beakers with pointed bases and vertical rims, bowls with flat/flattened bases and outside-round-folded rims, small carinated bowls/beakers with flat bases, shallow bowls with pointed bases and in-turned rims, hole-mouth cooking pots with crescent-shaped lugs, wide-necked jars or pots with outturned squared rims, flat lids with handles, “metallic ware” beakers with corrugated exterior, hemispherical ovoid/beakers with high ring bases, squat wide-mouthed jars with out-turned horizontal rims, small-wide mouthed jars with pointed bases, small squat ovoid-shaped pots with rounded-bases and out- turned almost horizontal rims, small wide-mouthed jars with pointed bases, cooking pot with horizontal lugs (Rova 2013, 57, 69-71) Ware: vessels are usually made of medium to fine ware and are often grit tempered (often with limestone (Ca)) Color: between buff, yellowish and reddish. Grey is not present anymore (Rova 2013, 57).

7.3.4 EJZ 3 This phase is associated with heyday of towns in all regions. Pottery is more standardized, functional and less decorated. There appeared new types of vessels. Phase 3 is divided into two sub-phases: EJZ 3a and EJZ 3b. Most types continued from EJZ 3a to EJZ 3b (Rova 2011, 52).

Ware: usually grit-tempered, straw tempered is often represented in medium and coarse ware (Rova 2013, 57) Color: yellowish to beige or buff (“Standard/Common ware”), but metallic ware and cooking pots are the exceptions (Rova 2013, 57) Metallic is usually represented by orange to grey color (Lebeau 2011, 6).

7.3.4.1 EJZ 3a EJZ 3a is equivalent to post-Ninevite 5 (Grossman 2014, 91; Rova 2013, 109). In this phase, process of urbanization was finished and many administrative, official and ceremonial buildings appeared (Quenet 2011, 39). In this period, Excised Ninevite 5 pottery still occurs in local assemblages (Kolinski 2007, 13). This phase is known much better from Syrian Jezirah than from northern Iraq (Rova 2003, 5). Ceramic forms: hemispherical bowls with rounded bases, low hemispherical bowls with high ring bases, pedestal bowls with spiral-corrugated pedestal, wide-mouthed spouted pots (Rova 2013, 57, 71-73).

7.3.4.2 EJZ 3b During this phase local palaces appeared and the most important local center was Nagar (Tell Brak). This period is characterized by a disappearance of Late Ninevite 5 pottery and the appearance of new pottery, for example: Black Metallic Ware, Combed wash Ware, Grey “Stone ware” (Kolinski 2007, 17) Ceramic forms: bell-shaped bowls with rounded bases, string-cut base beakers, truncated conical bowls with flat bases, small globular pots with rounded bases and single or double barrel-shaped suspension lugs, ovoid wide-mouthed spouted pots, wide-necked ovoid jars with rounded bases, small long-necked jars with rounded bases, globular or ovoid flask/bottles, ovoid pointed or round-based flasks/bottles, medium-sized or large jars with rounded or flat bases and out-turned outside-folded concave rims, “decantation” jars with high pedestal bases and spout in the lower part of the body, conical lids with knob handles, bell-shaped lids with outside-folded horizontal rims.

The Jezirah Periodization system continues into phase EJZ 4 and EJZ 5 (e.g. at Tell Mozan, Tell Barri and Chagar Bazar (Lebeau 2011, 14). However, these phases are not relevant for this thesis. Ninevite 5 assemblages no longer occurred in these periods. At this time, the regional urban system collapsed and the Akkadians kings from southern Mesopotamia captured Northern Mesopotamia; many small sites were abandoned. The ceramic assemblages characteristic for these periods are designated as Akkadian and Post-akkadian pottery tradition (Rova 2011, 57, 64; Quenet 2011, 39).

8 KHABUR BASIN PROJECT Khabur Basin Project was conducted by Yale University from 1986 to 1997. The Project was managed under the leadership Prof. Frank Hole. The excavation and survey area covered large parts of the Khabur Basin. The area of survey stretched between the rain-fed agriculture zone and semi-arid steppe and occupied around 2000 km2 of land (Hole and Kouchoukos 1995, 1). The first aim of the project was to study settlement distribution as well as to gain and study botanical and faunal remains in order to get information on local adaptation. The second important aim was to investigate the steppe and try to collect all information about sedentary occupation in all periods (Frank Hole - personal information, 17.11.2014). The third aim was to discover nomadic camps and try to establish history of nomadic tribes presence in this region (Hole 1991b, 17). The equally important goal of the KBP was to study prehistoric settlements and focus on their spatial distribution regarding to adaptation to the natural environment and the changes in the political, social and economic sphere, both regionally and, on a large scale, within Northern Mesopotamia (Hole 2001, 67). Firstly, the Khabur Basin Project focused on archaeological research of settlements that contain occupation levels from the third millennium BC as well as from later historical period (Hole 1994, 289). Secondly, almost twenty surveys were aimed at exploration of third and second millennium sites (Hole 1994, 293). The survey was mostly conducted in the surrounding of Jebel Abd al-Aziz (Hole 1996c, 5).

The most important fieldwork of the Khabur Basin Project (Hole in press) 1984 – sampling of the sites due to selection for the archaeological excavation 1986 – excavation at Umm Qsair 1988 – survey in area south and east of Jebel Abd al-Aziz 1989 – implemented survey 1990 – archaeobotanical material sampling survey 1991 – archaeobotanical material sampling survey 1994 – intensive survey around the Jebel Abd al-Aziz in the western Khabur Region 1995 – intensive survey around the Jebel Abd al-Aziz, both survey 1994 and 1995 covered area around 2000 km2 and continued mapping of third and second third millennium sites and sampled new sites (Hole 1996a, 5) 1996 – excavation at Tell Ziyadeh 1997 – excavation at Tell Ziyadeh

The earliest archaeological surveys revealed many large mounds in areas located far from the Khabur river basin. These sites were, however, connected with basin of the Khabur River by a many pathways. In 1994, one of the aims of Khabur Basin Project was to study these pathways (Hole and Kouchoukos 1995, 2). In 1990 KBP members joined the Danish team, which excavated a site at Tell Mashnaqa. In this time American team sampled sites in area north of Hasseke in Upper Khabur region (Hole 1991, 41). In the 1990s, most of the excavations and surveys were concentrated around Jebel Abd al-Aziz. During the process of sampling, thousands of pottery sherds and lithic artifacts, more than 70 000 animal bones and 200 plant remains were recovered from the separated archaeological contexts (Hole 1994, 292). West Jezirah survey recovered about 14 small village sites; their surface was less than 1 ha in all cases. Additionally, it was established were 36 sites with the early third millennium levels in this area (Ur 2004; 55, 58). The Khabur Basin Project survey in 1994 and 1995 focused mainly on the sites, which lay around Jebel Abd al-Aziz. Previously, this region in semi-arid steppe was regarded to be too dry for subsistence agriculture and it was implied that the area was settled by nomadic tribes, which grazed sheep (Hole 1996a, 5).

9 NINEVITE 5 SITES SURVEYED BY KHABUR BASIN PROJECT Almost 100 new sites were identified for the first time by Khabur Basin Project. Many of them contained just a small-scale settlement, which indicated the legacy of nomadic people. Nomads have been settling many of these sites located far from the agriculture area also in present. The modern day nomads have been using an area along Khabur River in winter, when they have a water access and place to store their crops supplies. They have usually lived near ancient tells or directly at the tells. When spring season starts, they have moved away to the steppe into the wadis. This modern day picture, most probably corresponds well with prehistoric time (Hole 1991b, 19). During the Ninevite 5 period the population in the area increased, however, in the Middle Khabur region still only small settlements prevailed. (Hole 1991b, 19). Khabur Basin Project excavated a few known Ninevite 5 sites, e.g. Atij, Bderi, Judeideh, Kerma, Melebiya and Raqa´i. (Hole 1991b, 20). The investments into agricultural activities as well as presence of large storage facilities were observed at these sites. The storage facilities are bigger than population of these sites needed. Probably this phenomenon reflects specialized economic involvement of this region which supported large urban centers outside the Middle Khabur Region, in the Upper Khabur triangle at the sites like Tell Brak, Tell Mozan, Tell Barri, Tell Leilan or/ and Mari on the Euphrates. (Hole 1991b, 21).

9.1 MIDDLE KHABUR REGION

Fig. 5. Sites surveyed by KBP in Middle Khabur region2 (made by Google Earth)

9.1.1 ATIJ Site number: no record found Catalogue number: no record in catalogue Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 1 – EJZ 2 Coordinates: 36°25'50.11"N, 40°51'51.88"E Surface conditions: no record found

The site is located in the Middle Khabur Basin, on the west bank of the Khabur River in the proximity of Raqa´i to the north and Tuneinir to the south. Tell Atij was excavated between 1986 and 1993 by Canadian team under the director M. Fortin. The site comprises two mounds, the first is 150 m long and 40 m wide, and deals with 8 m thick occupation remains, the second one is 200 m long, 40 m wide and 2 m high. The river canal divided these two tells into the 30 m wide range. According to analysis and sampling, it is probable that the river created two separated islands from the site (Fortin 1998, 17).

2 Sites Kh Ed Deeb and Tell al-Maghr have unknown coordinates – their location is not on the map

The EJZ occupation is divided into fourteen architectural levels. Archaeologists recovered massive brick structures, which were interpreted as storage facilities. It had at least six small semi-vaulted plastered silos; there were small rectangular rooms – probably for storage, and larger rooms with three storage jars (Quenet 2011, 33). It should be considered as earlier multicellular building in plan (Hole 1991b; 23; Hole 1999, 11; Fortin 1998, 18). There were found many cylinder seals, numerical tablets and counters, which clarify following suggestion that the site was, according to Michael Fortin, “commercial station” (Hole 1991b, 25; Fortin 1989). It seems that Tell Atij was a redistributional center of grain - due to administrative artifacts and storage facilities (Hole 1991b, 25). It is interesting that storage facilities were surrounded by 4 m thick wall, probably used as defensive fortification (Fortin 1998, 20). At the second tell, there were found ten tombs from Ninevite 5 period. The tombs incorporated fine ware vases, jewelry and metal objects (Weiss 1991, 700). According to the pottery finds, it is clear that site deals with Ninevite 5 occupation. The late incised Ninevite 5 sherds were recovered, cooking ware pots and metallic ware as well (Fortin and Schwartz 2003, 223). The founding of the site is therefore set in the earlier part of the third millennium BC – precisely, the occupation range is from 3000-2600 BC, after that the site was abandoned (McCorriston 1998, 47).

9.1.2 BDERI Site number: K 127 Catalogue number: no record in catalogue Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 1 – EJZ 3b Coordinates: 36°23'15.19"N, 40°48'49.27"E Surface conditions: no record found

The site is located on the left bank of the Khabur River. It lies a few kilometers downstream from Umm Qsair, approximately 15 km south of Hasseke. Bderi was excavated by P. Pfälzner as a part of the Tell Sheikh Hamad excavation project between 1985 and 1990 (Quenet 2011, 37). Halafian pottery were retrieved from the surface and the oldest occupation levels are dated to Uruk period. The EBA settlement covers period from 2800 to 2350 BC, and then continue into Akkadian period, after that we can observe hiatus in MBA and finally in the Late Bronze Age in the middle of the second millennium BC the site was reoccupied. The last settlement falls into the 12th Century BC (Pfälzner 1990, 66).

Together with Tell Melebiya, the site belongs to the largest EBA settlement to the south of Hasseke, its dimension should be almost 5 or 6 ha (Pfälzner 1990, 67). Site controlled entrance to the third millennium rural villages in the Middle Khabur Basin (Fortin 1998, 21). Because of its location between to agricultural areas (semi-arid southern steppe and rain-fat zone on the north), people used the agricultural land in its surrounding (Pfälzner 1990, 78). Therefore, it is quite surprise, that there have not been found any storage facilities yet (Hole 1991b, 25). The architectural remains consist of dwelling quarters and huge protective wall with gateway surrounded by monumental towers at the both sides (Pfälzner 1990, 66; Fortin 1998, 21). The most interesting finds comes from the dwelling houses from the EBA period (Pfälzner 1990, 74). KBP surveyed the site fields on east and northeast sides of the mound in 1991. The main goal was to collect samples for analysis. However, archaeologists recovered some fourth millennium (late BRBs) sherds as well, they were collected with help of boy from village who had worked with the Germans.

9.1.3 GUDEDA Site number: no record found Catalogue number: no record in catalogue Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a Coordinates: 36°25'55.37"N, 40°51'24.85"E Surface condition: no record found

The site lies on the western bank of the Khabur River, in the proximity of Atij. Gudeda is a small oval site (65 x 110m), which stretches around an area of about 1 ha. The height of the mound is 8 m (Weiss 1991, 702; Routledge 1998, 243), Prof. Martin Fortin excavated the site from 1987-1988 and 1992-1993 (Routledge 1998, 243). At the site eight building phases were distinguished. Ninevite 5 period is one of them. The site was established in Late EJZ 2 on virgin soil (Quenet 2011, 32). The upper levels are simultaneous with post-Ninevite 5 at Raqa´i and Atij (Routledge 1998, 244), due to recovery of metallic ware (Weiss 1991, 702). At the site small agricultural activities were attested. The excavators found some basins and ovens – probably for preparation of food gained from the neighbouring site, Tell Atij (Fortin 1998, 21). However, it is interesting, that there have not been found any large-scale

39 storage facilities or multi-room or double-room structures like at Melebiya, Abu Hufur or Raqa´i (Routledge 1998, 244).

9.1.4 HARBA Site number: K 178 Catalogue number: 3; 22 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: third millennium BC/Iron Age EJZ periodization: EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a Coordinates: 36.1137N, 40.3837E Surface condition: no record found Harba was surveyed as a part of Khabur Steppe Survey in 1994. Site is situated to south of Jebel Abd al-Aziz. Mound is 0,6 ha large, the top has irregular shape about 25 m in diameter. The height is about 5 m. Site was surrounded by wheat at the time of survey. In addition, on the south side there was a small wadi. At the place, the local Bedu tribe with sheep lived. They stored wheat there. KBP team recovered stone wall foundation on the southwestern side, red ceramic bricks and 2 one-room structures (Hole unpublished KBP notes). From the site, the excavators retrieved one decorated Ninevite 5 sherd (No. 3) and one sherd (No. 22) dated to EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a, therefore, the site should be dated into the late Ninevite 5 period.

9.1.5 JOYS SPRING Site number: K 1 – K2 Catalogue number: 4; 5; 23; 24 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: Neolithic EJZ periodization: EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a/b Coordinates: 36.4103N, 41.0311E Surface condition: nothing to dig – seems to be all on the surface Joys Spring was surveyed as a part of Khabur Steppe Survey in 1988. The site is located on the northwestern side of the Jebel Sinjar, to the north of road to El Hol, 34 km east of Hassake. Length of the site is 20 m (Hole unpublished KBP notes). On the surface of the site, mainly Neolithic sherds were found. However, two decorated Ninevite 5 sherds were recovered, dated into EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a and two undecorated sherds, which can be according to comparison with other sites dated from EJZ 2 to very end of Ninevite 5 period – into post-Ninevite 5.

9.1.6 KERMA Site number: K 74 – 82 Catalogue number: no record in catalogue Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 1- EJZ 2 Coordinates: 36°26'53.13"N, 40°50'14.08" E Surface condition: no record found The site located 4 km upstream from Tell Atij. The storage facilities at this site burned down in the time of their usage (Hole 1991b, 25). We know this fact because of the recovery of much charred grain in one room. Thanks to storage facilities and the analysis of burned cereals, it is possible to date this site to EJZ 1 or 2 (2910-2470 BC) (Hole 1999, 11; Hole 2001, 77). As well as many sites in Middle Khabur Valley, even Kerma was surrounded by defensive wall to protect the grain surpluses (Fortin 1998, 21). KBP members surveyed the site in 1988 and collected pieces in the surrounding of the site just by field walk. To the west of Tell Kerma, they found series of ground hills on the top of which mud bricks were recovered. From the surface, numbers of coarse grit temper buff sherds were retrieved (Hole unpublished KBP notes).

9.1.7 KH ED DEEB Site number: K 216 Catalogue number: 6; 26 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: third millennium EJZ periodization: EJZ 1- EJZ 2 Coordinates: unknown Surface condition: cut by wadi on the west side, that had dammed up to create lake that undercuts good section with brick to the base and ash layers leaving steep face. The site was surveys as a part of Steppe Survey in 1994. Site should be located in the western Khabur Region. . The site was surrounded by barley fields and had just sparse settlement. Many tamarisk trees were growing in the wadi. On the site, many third millennium blades were retrieved, unfortunately, the site is nowadays under the modern village (Hole unpublished KBP notes). In the thesis, there are published one decorated Ninevite 5 sherd and one undecorated sherd. Both of these sherds are dated into same period. That is the why the Ninevite 5 occupation is probable.

9.1.8 KNEIDIJ Site number: no record found Catalogue number: no record in catalogue Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 1 – EJZ 2 - EJZ 3a/b Coordinates: 36°21'6.25"N, 40°47'29.63"E Surface condition: no record found The site is located in the middle Khabur Region on the right bank of the Khabur River, 4 km from Tell Bderi. The site was excavated by Vorderasiatiche Museum der Staatlichem Museum zu Berlin from 1993 to 1998 (Quenet 2011, 34). Kneidij consists of two mounds – south and northeast. Occupied area is about 3 ha and it seems to be settled from EJZ (0?)-1 to EJZ 3b. Then the area was resettled in Iron Age (Quenet 2011, 34). The site was surrounded by city-wall during the EJZ 1 period (Quenet 2011, 34). We can find storage facilities in the form of grill building – therefore, we can date the site into EJZ 1- 2 (Hole 1999, 11).

9.1.9 MASHNAQA Site number: K 116 Catalogue number: 28; 29 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: Halaf – Bronze Age EJZ periodization: EJZ 0 –EJZ 3a Coordinates: 36°17'24.18"N, 40°47'34.17"E Surface conditions: no record found Mashnaqa lies on the left bank of the Khabur River, downstream from Tell Kneidij, 40 km south of Hasseke. Length of the mound is 125 m, width is about 75 m, and the height is about 15 m. The site was excavated in 1984 by KBP team. At the site, the third millennium occupation levels have been identified (Hole 1991b, 25). During the third millennium, the site expanded to the north and to the east (Hole and Kouchoukos 1992, 6). Excavators recovered grill-plan storage facilities at the site. Its dimensions are 5 x 9-10 m (Hole 1999, 11). In 1990 and 1991, KBP team carried out sampling of botanical and faunal remains here (Hole and Kouchoukos 1992, 1). This thesis deals with two undecorated sherds, which are dated into Ninevite 5 period. However, the dating designation is based only on comparison with literature, but the Ninevite 5

42 occupation is well attested at Mashnaqa by architectural features, therefore, it is possible to date sherds No. 28 and No. 29 into Ninevite 5 period.

9.1.10 MELEBIYA Site number: no record found Catalogue number: no record in catalogue Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 1 – EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a/b Coordinates: 36°24'18.93"N, 40°48'41.99"E Surface condition: no record found The site is located in the western part of a Middle Khabur River, approximately 4 km downstream from Ziyadeh. M. Lebeau excavated site from 1984 to 1988 (Quenet 2011, 33). Lower levels of occupation on virgin soil are dated into EJZ 1. Moreover, the site was probably occupied until the end of EJZ 3b (Quenet 2011, 34). Despite the fact that it is a large site (7 ha), neither defensive wall or storage or agricultural products were found there. Nevertheless, it is clear that the site deals with the early third millennium occupation (Fortin 1998, 21).

9.1.11 METYAHA Site number: K 183 Catalogue number: 30 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: Late EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a – EJZ 3b Coordinates: 36°11'25.08"N, 40°27'28.44"E Surface condition: no record found The site was surveyed as a part of KBP Steppe Survey in 1994 – 1995. The base flank of the site is purely natural with some building on a top. Upper mound is about 4 m high. There were recovered just a few sherds on the lower slope (Hole unpublished KBP notes). Bachelor thesis notes only one sherd from this site. It is dated into late Ninevite 5 period, however, this estimation is based only on comparison with literature, and therefore, it is not one hundred percent certain.

9.1.12 MULLA MATAR Site number: no record found Catalogue number: 7; 8 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 1 – EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a Coordinates: 36°27'1.24"N, 40°49'58.70"E Surface conditions: no record found It lies nearby Kerma on the right bank of the Khabur River, about 8 km southwest of Hasseke. The dimension of the site is 90 x 60 m and height is about 9 m. The main goal of the 1989 archaeological research was to recogniz continuity or discontinuity in settlement during the 3200 BC and the beginning of the EBA (Weiss 1991, 714). At Mulla Matar, there were found pottery sherds from Halaf period as well as Ubaid and Uruk period, between 3200 and 2800 there must have been break in the occupation, because we miss the first phase of the Ninevite 5 pottery (painted EJZ 0 pottery assemblages). Nevertheless, Ninevite 5 occurred in the form of (later) incised Ninevite 5 pottery. The occupation had to continue because of the findings of so-called Stone ware (2500-2300 BC) pottery. Besideds above mentioned findings, there were also found Roman and Islamic occupational levels (Weiss 1991, 715), Khabur Basin Project retrieved two sherds from Ninevite 5 period. Sherd No. 7 is dated into earlier phase of Ninevite 5 while sherd No. 8 should be, according to comparison with other sites, dated into later part of Ninevite 5. There is no doubt to consider Mulla Matar to be Ninevite 5 site.

9.1.13 RAD SHAQRAH Site number: no record found Catalogue number: no record in catalogue Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a/b – EJZ 4 Coordinates: 36°28'4.14"N, 40°49'56.99"E Surface condition: no record found This site, which is located in the western part of the Khabur Basin, lies 2 km upstream from Mulla Matar. Rad Shaqrah was excavated by Warsaw University from 1991 to 1995 (Quenet 2011, 31).

Excavations revealed five areas. The site was probably founded during EJZ 2 (overlaying ruins from Halafian site) – EJZ 4 was the latest EJZ occupation level (Quenet 2011, 32). Polish expedition found defensive wall, which should protect silos for storing grain. As well as other rural sites from middle Khabur Basin, Rad Shaqrah belongs among the important storage sites at the beginning of the third millennium (Fortin 1998, 21).

9.1.14 RAQA Í Site number: no record found Catalogue number: no record in catalogue Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 1 – EJZ 3a Coordinates: 36°26'24.78"N, 40°51'8.15"E Surface condition: no record found Tell Raqaí is located on the eastern bank of the Khabur River, approximately 12 km south of Hassake (Schwartz and Curvers 1992, 418). The excavation was conducted by John Hopkins University and University of Amsterdam under the direction of Hans Curvers and Glenn Schwartz from 1986 to 1993 (Fortin and Schwartz 2003, 221; Quenet 2011, 32). The site covers 0.5 ha and it is 7 m high (Schwartz and Curvers 1992, 398) and 100x50 m in base (Curvers and Schwartz 1990, 6). It is supposed to be the smallest third millennium site in the middle Khabur Region (Hole 1991b, 25). Despite this fact, it played an important role in understanding development of social complexity (Schwartz and Curvers 1992, 397). The site was founded in the early third millennium BC (Schwartz and Curvers 1992, 418). As well as other middle Khabur sites, at Tell Raqaí irrigation agriculture prevailed because the rainfall average is 200-250 mm per year (Schwartz and Curvers 1992, 398). The site deals with Ninevite 5 occupation in level 3 (incised/excised ware, metallic ware or imitation of metallic ware and handmade cooking ware with crescent lugs) (Schwartz and Curvers 1992, 405-406). In the level 4 incised ware, local imitation of painted Ninevite 5 and handmade cooking ware with crescent lugs (Schwartz and Curvers 1992, 411) was found. In addition, in level 5 one painted Ninevite 5 sherd and handmade cooking ware with crescent lugs were recovered (Schwartz and Curvers 1992, 416). Another interesting finds are seal impressions from Raqaí 3 level (Fortin and Schwartz 2003, 222). In level 3 and 4, there were recovered Rounded Building remains, which designate the site as a crucial storage facility of the early to the late Ninevite 5 period (Schwartz and Curvers 1992, 406). In level 5-7, it was recognized as a grill-like structure, which means that the site was used as a storage facility since its foundation (Schwartz and Curvers 1992, 416). This interpretation was proposed because

45 of the designation of silos (complex of semi-subterranean rooms without the doors) (Hole 1991b, 25; Schwartz and Curvers 1992, 404-406).

9.1.15 TELL ALARBÍDÍ Site number: K 150 Catalogue number: 11 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 1- EJZ 3a Coordinates: 36°28'37.19"N, 40° 8'30.74"E Surface condition: no record found Tell Alarbídí is set 2 km west of Mabtuh East, north of little village. It is about 4-5 m high and it is 75 m in diameter. To the east, there is a small wadi. KBP team surveyed the site in 1994 (Hole unpublished KBP notes). Land was entirely cultivated at the time of KBP survey. On the surface there were 14 graves attached on the northern west slope and just a few sherds. One of them is no. 11. It has pointed base, which is the most characteristic type of the base of the Ninevite 5.

9.1.16 TELL AL-MAGHR Site number: K 155 Catalogue number: 32 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 1 – EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a Coordinates: unknown Surface condition: no record found Unfortunately, from KBP documentation no record about this site comes. Only catalogue of sherds deals with one sherd from Tell al-Maghr. Most probably, this sherd falls into Ninevite 5 period dating. It has a very thin section and also according to literature, it should be set into Ninevite 5 period occupation.

9.1.17 TELL BURQA Site number: K 174 Catalogue number: 34 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: third millennium BC EJZ periodization: EJZ 1 Coordinates: 36°11'28.32"N, 40° 3'38.88"E Surface condition: Hill may be mostly natural gypsum The site is located in the western steppe far from Jebel Abd al-Aziz and even from Middle Khabur. Deep wadi flows on its east side. Flat huge mound is covered with mud and vegetation. There were many graves on the top of the mound, but many of them seemed to have been robbed. Bases of the graves cut the third millennium deposits (Hole unpublished KBP notes). Catalogue of sherds interprets one undecorated sherd, which can be supposed to be from Ninevite 5 period. This form (S-shaped form of a bowl) is more typical in earlier part of Ninevite 5 period.

9.1.18 TELL MABTUH EAST Site number: K 128 Catalogue number: 27 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 1 – EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a Coordinates: 36°28'37.19"N, 40° 8'30.74"E Surface condition: no record found The site is located to the north of Jebel Abd al-Aziz. It was surveyed as a part of Khabur Steppe Survey in 1988. It is kranzhügel type of site (Hole unpublished KBP notes). Catalogue of sherds deals with one undecorated sherd from Tell Mabtuh East. Unfortunately, the Ninevite 5 dating is based only on literature comparison with other sites. Therefore, Ninevite 5 determination is only preliminary.

9.1.19 TELL TUENAN Site number: K 118 Catalogue number: 14 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a Coordinates: unknown Surface condition: no record found The site was surveyed by KBP in 1988 as a part of Khabur Survey. Unfortunately, there no record was found in KBP notes. The members of KBP, however, recovered one decorated Ninevite 5 sherd, which can be dated into late Ninevite 5 period, due to decoration typical for this phase Ninevite 5.

9.1.20 TUNEINIR Site number: K 86 Catalogue number: no record in catalogue Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 2 – EJZ 3b Coordinates: 36°25'12.89"N, 40°51'57.28"E Surface condition: no record found A small site situated on the eastern bank of the Khabur River. It is 40 ha large mound. St. Louis Community College conducted ten seasons of excavations. They discovered continual occupation from 2700 BC to 1401 AD. This continuous occupation is unique in the Khabur River valley, because many sites were abandoned in about 2000 BC (Fuller and Fuller 1998, 69-70). The establishment of the site was simultaneous with first settlements at Atij, Raqa´i and Judeda. In the oldest levels, there were recovered Ninevite 5 incised pottery, metallic ware and other artifacts like tokens, figurines and bone tools. There was just a small amount of the third millennium assemblages, so the function of the site is not clear (Fortin 1998, 21). KBP members surveyed cca 30-400 m east of Tuneinir (Hole unpublished KBP notes).

9.1.21 UMM QSAIR Site number: K 138 Catalogue number: no record in catalogue Period of occupation proposed by KBP: Halaf – late fouth millennium BC – third millennium BC – 2nd millennium BC EJZ periodization: ? Coordinates: 36°24'33.15"N, 40°50'10.54"E Surface conditions: no record found Umm Qsair is located in the western part of the Middle Khabur Basin. Tell Ziyadeh is situated a few kilometres from the river. Members of Khabur Basin Project excavated site in 1986. Umm Qsair composed of two mounds. To the east, there is one 100 m long and 60 m wide with height about 4 m. On the west side, the second mound is 60 m long, 40 m wide and about 5 m high (Hole unpublished KBP notes). The site, which was occupied during the Halaf and the late fourth millennium (5800- 5300 cal BC) – probably the earlier known occupation levels in the middle Khabur Valley (McCorriston 1998, 46). The third millennium occupation level (level 3) was destroyed during the second millennium and then by the Islamic population (Hole and Johnson 1986-1987, 473; Hole 1994, 289). Nevertheless, few pottery assemblages belonging to later part of the third millennium were found (Hole 1991b, 25).

9.1.22 ZIYADEH Site number: K 115 Catalogue number: 15 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: Halaf, Ubaid, Bronze Age EJZ periodization: EJZ 1 – EJZ 2 Coordinates: 36°24'39.85"N, 40°50'39.09"E Surface condition: Modern graves on the top Tell Ziyadeh is located on the right side of the Khabur River - 12, 5 km southeast of Hasseke. The mound is 90x120 m long and 8 m high (Hole 1998, 1). G. Buccellati explored the site in 1988 under the IIMAS protection and from 1995 to 1997 it was excavated by F. Hole from the Yale University (Hole 1998, 2). The site was occupied during the fifth millennium (Ubaid and post-Ubaid) periods and the occupation continued until the early third millennium. On the north side of the tell prof. Buccellati and later prof. Hole revealed Ninevite 5 occupation (Hole 1998, 1-2).

The latest occupation levels belong to the early third millennium settlement. According to ceramics (EJZ 1-2) and dates, Ziyadeh was one of the first early third millennium sites in the Middle Khabur Region. The settlement was simultaneous with the settlements at Raqa´i, Atij, Gudeda and Kneidij (Hole 2001, 76-77). There were recovered two major Ninevite 5 buildings. One of the buildings has a grill plan structure, dated to 2800-2600 BC (Hole 1998, 5-6). The site was abandoned probably in 2600 BC (Hole 1999, 3). Another evidence of Ninevite 5 is connected to pottery. Archaeologists recovered one decorated Ninevite 5 sherd, which has a typical decoration from this cultural horizon.

9.2 UPPER KHABUR REGION

Fig. 6. Sites surveyed by KBP in Upper Khabur Region3 (made by Google Earth)

3 Sites Qara Tepe and Tell Bisari have uknown coordinates – their location is not on the map

9.2.1 TELL BRAK Site number: no record found Catalogue number: 13; 33 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 0 - EJZ 1 – EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a/b Coordinates: 36°40'18.45"N, 41° 4'5.61"E Surface conditions: no record found Tell Brak is a multiperiod site located in the Upper Khabur Plain in the northeastern Syria. It is situated almost at the right bank of the Jaghjagh River, which is one of the main tributary to the Khabur River near Tell Brak. The main mound is 40 ha in size and over 40 m high and 800 x 600 m in dimension (Oates 2001, xxvii). The site was firstly documented by aerial research made by Poidebard in the 1920s, and then in the years 1937-1938 the site was excavated by Max Mallowan with his wife Agatha Christie. In modern days, the site was excavated by David and Joan Oates from 1976, then in the yeasr 1994-1996 Roger Matthews took over as a field director (Schwartz 2004, 344). In the recent years many projects focusing on surrounding of Tell Brak were conducted – Tell Brak Survey was conducted by Jesper Eidem and David Warburton (Grossman 2013, 33). The site deals with occupation levels from Ubaid to Roman period as well as Islamic occupation. Actually, there should be also PPNB, Halaf and Samarra occupations but these levels were left unexcavated (Oates 2001, xxx). The Ninevite 5 occupation of the site was attested by Oates in areas TW, ST, SS (early Ninevite 5), ER, CH, ST, HS, FS (late Ninevite 5), CH 6, 7; FS 6, SS 6, 7; ER 5; ST 5; AL, DH (post-Ninevite 5 – pre-Akkadian) (Oates 2001, xxx). Afterwards, by Matthews in areas HS4:1; HS2 (Early Ninevite 5), HF 1; HS4:1-2; HL (Late Ninevite 5) and HS3 (Post-Ninevite 5 – Pre-Akkadian) (Matthews 2003, 5).

Tab. 2. Overview of Tell Brak phases proposed by excavators (after Matthews 2003, 5).

Matthews’s excavations are important for the recovering EJZ 0 pottery sequence from HF trenches because Ninevite 5 phase about 3000 BC is not well attested in the region. The clear sequences of Ninevite 5 period (EJZ 1) were recovered from trench HS 2 and EJZ 2 period was recovered from HS 4 trenches (Schwartz 2004, 345). KBP surveyed the site or more precisely sampled the site, unfortunately, there has not been found any record so far. From the sampling, one decorated Ninevite 5 sherd came, but it is quite damaged due to erosion. Next sherd retrieved from Tell Brak by BP is a sherd No. 33, which can be considered to be from Ninevite 5 period, due to comparison with other sites, but without special analysis, it is just probable extrapolation.

9.2.2 CHAGAR BAZAR Site number: no record found Catalogue number: 1; 2; 18; 19; 20 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 0 -EJZ 1 – EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a/b Coordinates: 36°53'6.77"N, 40°53'55.47"E Surface conditions: no record found The site lies on the right bank of the Khanzir River. It covers almost 12 ha and consists of higher and smaller mounds on the south, which is 5 ha large and 21 m high, and a wider lower mound on the north, which is about 7 ha large and 15m high (McMahon 2009, 16). Site was firstly investigated by Max Mallowan in 1934 to 1937 in his large survey around the Upper Khabur in Syria. After that, in the 1999, started new archaeological research. This excavations were conducted by the British School of Archaeology in Iraq (A. McMahon), the University of Liége (Ö. Tunca) and the Syrian Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums (A. M. Baghdo). This research focused on initial occupation, abandonment and re-occupation in the second millennium BC; the second aim was to explain settlement changes, which occurred at the site as well as understand a role of Chagar Bazar played in contacts with Mesopotamia (McMahon, Tunca and Bagdo 2001, 201). Chagar Bazar is an old prehistoric site – there were found Halaf pottery, after that there was a hiatus in occupation lasting from the late fifth to fourth millennium BC, subsequently, the site was reoccupied, the second hiatus it seems to be from very late third millennium to the early second millennium BC (McMahon 2009, 17). The site is crucial for the initial recovery of Ninevite 5 pottery. Mallowan proposed a name to this ceramics and culture. Moreover, he was the first, who published Ninevite 5 painted, incised, excised and even post-Ninevite 5 (dating to EJZ 3) pottery. The site was also sampled by KBP. Unfortunately, no record was accessible for the author, beside two decorated Ninevite 5 sherds from the Yale University collection (No. 1 and No. 2 in the catalogue). Other catalogue sherds (No. 18, No. 19 and No. 20) can be dated into Ninevite 5 by comparison with material from other sites. Therefore, more study is still suggested for accurate dating.

9.2.3 HAMMAM GHARB WEST Site number: K 162 Catalogue number: 21 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 1 – EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a Coordinates: unknown Surface condition: no record found The site is located in the western part of Khabur Region and was sampled by KBP members in 1994. According to KBP notes, there were no visible sites near Hammam Gharb West or wadi. The mound is 8-9 m high (Hole unpublished KBP notes). There is no more record found in the documentation of KBP. Catalogue of sherds deals with one sherd from this site, unfortunately, it is an undecorated sherd; therefore, it is very difficult to distinguish the dating precisely. It was made just according to comparison with literature coming from other sites. Despite this fact, sherd was determined as Ninevite 5 type but this statement is only probable.

9.2.4 KASHKASHOK III Site number: K 126 Catalogue number: 25 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: Late EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a Coordinates: 36°38'12.71"N, 40°38'29.17"E Surface condition: no record found Near the hamlet called Kashkashok, on the right bank of one tributary of the Khabur River to the north of Hasseke, four sites with different occupational levels were indentified. Kashkashok III deals with occupation through Ubaid to EJZ. The site was excavated under the direction of Dr. Antoine Suleiman from 1986 to 1990 (Hole 1991, 2; Quenet 2011, 26). Period EJZ 0 is attested only out-of-context. Following EJZ 1 to 3 deals with architectural level as well. Archaeologists recovered massive “Rounded Building” grain storage and so-called “Headless Warriors” – chamber tomb (Quenet 2011, 27). KBP sampled the site in the 1980s or 1990s. Unfortunately, there has not been found any record in documentation. Catalogue of sherds deals with one undecorated sherd from Kashkashok III. From previous research, we know that the site was occupied in Ninevite 5 period, but sherd

No. 25 is dated into late Ninevite 5 period just according to comparison with literature, therefore, we can just estimate the fact that it is from Ninevite 5 period. Near Tell Kashkashok three sites with EBA occupational levels lie: Abu Hajeira (excavated by East German team), Abu Hufur and Gasa el-Gharbi (excavated by Polish team (Pfälzner 1990, 64).

9.2.5 KHAZNE Site number: K 129 Catalogue number: no record in catalogue Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 2 Coordinates: 36°39'40.51"N, 40°53'43.70"E Surface conditions: no record found The site is located in the Wadi Khanzir (it is close to Tell Brak) in the Upper Khabur Region. Khazne is 2.5 ha large and consists of two mounds (Khazne I and II). Russians have been excavated the site since 1988. At the site, six occupational levels were distinguished – from earlier Uruk to the late EJZ 2 with hiatus between the second half of the fourth millennium to EJZ 1 (Quenet 2011, 37) At the site, large circular-plan building was found, as well as at Raqa´i (Ur 2004, 56). The building has circular shape and the excavators interpreted this structure as a temple (Grossman 2013, 36). KBP did not surveyed the site, in the documentation there is just a note - “this is Russian site” (Hole unpublished KBP notes).

9.2.6 QARA TEPE Site number: K 133 Catalogue number: 9; 10; 31 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: no record found EJZ periodization: EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a Coordinates: unknown Surface condition: no record found The site is located in the Upper Khabur region, on the first road to north of Chagar Bazar, on the east there is a small wadi. Khabur Basin Project surveyed the site in 1991. It has 50 m in diameter and it is conical in shape, the height is 6 m. On the south side modern graves were recovered (Hole unpublished KBP notes).

From the surface they recovered two decorated Ninevite 5 sherds and one undecorated sherd, which can be dated into any phase of Ninevite 5 period – from EJZ 0 to EJZ 3a. It is probable, that the rim fragment belongs to carinated bowl, which is definitely one of the most typical forms of the Ninevite 5 pottery at all.

9.2.7 TELL BISARI Site number: K 114 Catalogue number: 12; 16; 17 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: Halaf, Ubaid, Uruk, Ninevite 5, Khabur ware, Nuzi, Roman? EJZ periodization: EJZ 0 - EJZ 1 – EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a Coordinates: unknown Surface condition: northern side deals with deep erosion The site is located on the south side of the Jaghjagh River. Is was surveyed by KBP in 1990. To the site, a sheep camp was attached at the time of survey. On the top of Tell Bisari, graves from modern times were recovered. According to KBP notes it is an excellent site to dig (Hole unpublished KBP notes). The site deals with one decorated Ninevite 5 sherd dated into most flourishing time of Ninevite 5 period. Therefore, we should suppose the presence of Ninevite 5 occupation levels. Sherds No. 16 and No. 17 are undecorated; therefore, it is very difficult to determine the dating for sure. Nevertheless, the Ninevite 5 period is probable, according to comparison with other Ninevite 5 sites. These sherds belong to the most typical form occurring during all Ninevite 5 periods.

9.2.8 SITE WITHOUT NAME Site number: K 241 Catalogue number: 35 Period of occupation proposed by KBP: third millennium BC EJZ periodization: EJZ 1 – EJZ 2 or (EJZ 4c ?) Coordinates: unknown Surface conditions: degraded, main soil was gypsum near surface KBP teams investigated site in 1994 as a part of Steppe Survey west of Hassake. Unfortunately, we do not know the real position of the site. The site was less than 500 square meters large and with uncertain width (probably 150 m in maximum) and central mound was 4 m high. However, team members recovered large traces of the third millennium gypsum walls (Hole 1996a, 6; Hole unpublished KBP notes). According to finding of sherd No. 35 (see catalogue p. 96) and record in unofficial documentation of Khabur Basin Project members, the site can be dated to the third millennium - probably into Ninevite 5 period or later (Hole unpublished notes from KBP).

10 DESCRIPTION OF THE CERAMIC MATERIAL On the previous pages the general information about the Ninevite 5 pottery from the morphological, geographical and chronological point of view were mentioned. The following pages contain information on the processed ceramic itself: classification shapes material components and mode of manufacture.

10.1 PRESERVATION STATE Due to the fact that the sherds came from surface survey they were often very fragmented. The smallest examined pieces measure only 1,7 x 2,6 cm and the biggest one 9,5 x 6,4 cm. Most of the investigated sherd fragments belong to rims (25 pieces), the second in frequency of occurrence were body sherds (8 pieces) and the smallest amount of examined pottery comprises bases (only 2 pieces).

Bases Bodies Rims

23%

71%

Fig. 7. Proportion of the preservation state

10.2 TYPE OF A VESSELS A shape type of a vessel was designated according to types proposed by Glenn Schwartz in his PhD thesis (see more in Methodology chapter). Most of the examined fragments belong to bowls (22 pieces); cups were attested in five cases and jars only in two cases of body sherds, specified according to characteristic decoration for a jar with a lug. The rest of the sherds (6 pieces) are undiagnostic body sherd fragments. Therefore, it is impossible to determine the shape of the vessel.

Bowl Cup Jar Unspecified

17%

14% 63%

Fig. 8. Proportion of the type of the vessels

10.3 TYPE OF THE RIMS Most characteristic Ninevite 5 rim types:  open simple rim (No. 24, 34 in the catalogue)  open pinched rim  open beaded rim (No. 4; 7 in the catalogue) or vertical beaded rim (No. 1; No. 3; No.8; No. 19; No. 33 in the catalogue)  closed slightly inverted simple (No. 21 in the catalogue)  closed slightly inverted beaded (No. 16; No. 17; No. 18; No. 20; No. 25; No. 26; No. 28; No. 29; No. 30; No. 31 in the catalogue)  closed cocked rim Other rims presented in the catalogue are not characteristic in the Ninevite 5 period:  flat rim (No. 22 in the catalogue);  rolled rim (No. 23 in the catalogue);  out-turned rim (No. 27 in the catalogue);  recess-beaded rim (No. 32 in the catalogue)  rounded rim (No. 35 in the catalogue)

The most of the examined rims were identified as beaded type (see Fig. 9.). This result is, however, partly an outcome of the fact that designation of the beaded rims as belonging Ninevite 5 assemblage was more evident than in case of the simple rims that tend to occur throughout the third millennium. It was often impossible to assign very small simple rim fragments from KBP collection to any defined pottery assemblage.

The others rims types were attested for five fragments:  flat rim type (2 pieces)  recess-beaded rim type  out-turned rim type  rounded rim type

Simple Beaded Others

8% 20%

72%

Fig. 9. Proportion of the rim types

For the complete information about the rims, it is important to mention the orientation of the rims. Four sherds were determined as being open rim fragments, seven pieces have vertical rim orientation and the rest of the assemblage was identified as closed rim orientation.

10.4 TYPE OF BASES Only two bases were identified in the processed ceramic material. Both were designated as typical Ninevite 5 type of the bases: pointed base (No. 10 in the catalogue) and flat base, which is not so common but it occurred with the typical incised decoration on it, so the designation as Ninevite 5 sherds is correct (No. 11 in the catalogue).

Other types of bases in the Ninevite 5 period (Schwartz 1988, 33; Grossman 2014, 90):  pedestal  multi-ribbed pedestal  rounded  ring

10.5 DECORATION Only 14 pieces of the processed sherds have decoration and they represent 40 % of the study material. All of these sherds belong to Group 1 – definite Ninevite 5 assemblage. Decoration is represented by grooving, incision, excision and combination of both – incised/excised decoration. All these types of decoration occurred from EJZ 1 to EJZ 2 period and (continued also into EJZ 3a). No painted decoration was attested at the examined ceramic assemblages.

Decorated sherds Undecorated sherds

40%

60%

Fig. 10. Proportion of the decorated and undecorated sherds

Incision was designed as:  panels (No. 8 in the catalogue)  slashed motifs (No. 5, No. 7, No. 9, No. 10 and No. 14 in the catalogue)  notches or zigzags of dots (No. 12 and No. 13 in the catalogue)  horizontal lines around body (No. 2, No. 4 and No. 13 in the catalogue)  horizontal bands of triangles (No. 15 in the catalogue)  combination with horizontal ribbing (No. 1 in the catalogue)  multiple-line chevrons (No. 6 in the catalogue)  grooved motifs (No. 3 in the catalogue)  dotted triangles (No. 12 in the catalogue)

10.6 PASTA (TEMPER) Temper is one of the most distinctive elements in the clay. It is commonly divided into vegetal or mineral. Vegetal temper (in the thesis identified and labelled as ‘straw’) was represented by chaff inclusions in clay. Mineral tempered pottery (in the thesis labelled as term ‘grit’) contained inclusions of minerals, mostly limestone (Ca), sand, basalt or mica (Schwartz 1988, 31; Rova 2011, 52). According to amount of the inclusions in the clay, a ware type was defined. The occurrence of particular inclusion was studied on a sherd section achieved by breaking sherd fragment with pincers.

The Group 1 contains two sherds with a straw, in four cases there are straw-grit temper inclusions visible (usually limestone and basalt inclusions) and in seven cases grit inclusions such as basalt (3 sherds) and limestone (5 sherds) or limestone together with basalt (2 sherds) were noted. In two cases, there was no visible temper, which is a distinctive feature of very fine pasta. The Group 2 contains one case of straw tempered pasta; four cases of straw-grit temper. In eleven cases, grit inclusions such as basalt (4 sherds) and limestone (10 sherds) were attested. In one case, a shell inclusion was present, which is not so common in the fine ware material. In three cases no visible temper was noted

10.7 WARE Three major categories of ware are commonly designated for the early third millennium BC pottery (Schwartz 1988, 31): Fine ware: grit inclusions are less than 0.5 mm in diameter and straw inclusions are less than 0.5 mm long Medium ware: grit inclusions are from 0.5 to 1 mm in diameter and straw inclusions are approximately 1 mm long Coarse ware: grit inclusions are bigger than 1 mm in diameter and straw inclusions are longer than 1 mm.

All sherds discussed in the thesis are made from fine ware, mostly grit tempered pasta (26 sherds). In some cases (6 sherds) (catalogue No. 8; No. 10; No. 14; No. 21; No. 32; No. 34 in the catalogue) there was no visible temper, which mean that the ware is very fine.

10.8 MODES OF MANUFACTURE The Ninevite 5 pottery assemblage is wheel made manufacture. This mode of manufacture is well evidenced on surface – there are visible parallel horizontal lines on and the thickness of the wall is quite regular (Schwartz 1988, 31).

Handmade pottery type is less common, usually attested for coarse ware pottery types, cooking pots, especially. Some vessels could be treated in both ways, it means that they were partly handmade and were finished on wheel (Schwartz 1988, 31).

All processed ceramic fragments (35) have very well visible traces of wheel manufacturing; the most evident examples are No. 16; No. 18; No. 22; No. 28; No. 32 in the catalogue.

10.9 FIRING As well as inclusions, the firing techniques were documented according to observations of breakage of the small fragments of a sherd section. Almost all examples represent complete oxidation (21 sherds – all in catalogue without those mentioned below), which means that the sections of the sherds were light in color. Incompletely oxidized core has been attested in two cases (No. 1; No. 24 in the catalogue), which means that surface is oxidized and core has light-grey color of unfinished oxidation. In two cases end reduction appeared, which means that the core has light color but dark surface (No. 10 and No. 4 in the catalogue).

10.10 PERIODIZATION OF THE EXAMINED CERAMIC ASSEMBLAGES According to data gained from fine ware sherds (illustrated in attached catalogue) processed at Yale University and subsequently compared with literature from other Ninevite 5 sites we can propose following EJZ occupation phases:

15 Quantity of sites

0 EJZ 0 EJZ 1 EJZ 2 EJZ 3a EJZ 3b

Fig. 11. Sites surveyd by KBP with their EJZ-dated occupation phases

The most often represented pottery material is dated to EJZ 2 phase which is concomitant with the fact of most intensive Ninevite 5 horizon spread in the region (Fig. 11). Examined assemblages from sites Harba, Bisari, Ziyadeh, Kh Ed Deeb, Tell Burqa and K 241 can be dating into earlier part of the Ninevite 5 period: EJZ 1 – EJZ 2. Collected sherds from sites such as Joys Spring, Qara Tepe, Tell Tuenan, Metyaha, Kashkashok III and Harba the later Ninevite 5 occupation: EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a. The sherds collected at Tell Brak, Chagar Bazar, Mulla Matar and Tell Alarbídí represent phases from– EJZ 1 to EJZ 3a. Additionally, Tell Brak, Chagar Bazar, Qara Tepe, Tell Bisari and Mashnaqa can be dated even into EJZ 0.

11 CONCLUSION The main goal of this bachelor thesis was to process fine ware ceramic material from Ninevite 5 period (Group 1) and the material, which could be possibly determined as belonging to the Ninevite 5 pottery assemblage (designated as Group 2). From the 322 sherds that were studied at Yale University, only 35 were chosen as a subject of the study. From this number, 15 sherds were accurately dated to the Ninevite 5 period mainly according to decoration and typical pointed base shape (in the case of sherd No. 11). Of all sites attested for the first time by KBP in Upper and Middle Khabur basin (including western steppe and surrounding of Jebel Abd al-Aziz), eight sites appeared to contain sherds dated to the Ninevite 5. The Ninevite 5 settlements were thus attested for (see Fig. 12):  the Upper Khabur basin: Qara Tepe, Tell Bisari  Middle Khabur basin: Joys Spring, Ziyadeh, Tell Tuenan, Harba Kh Ed Deeb and Tell Alarbídí The remaining sites with identified Ninevite 5 pottery have been already known for almost fifty years. These are: Chagar Bazar and Tell Brak in Upper Khabur basin and Mulla Matar in Middle Khabur basin

Fig. 12. Sites belongig to Group 14 (made by Google Earth)

4 Sites Qara Tepe and Tell Bisari are located in the Upper Khabur region however they have unknown coordinated, as well as Kh Ed Deeb located in the Middle Khabur Region, therefore their location is not on the map

The rest of the examined sherds were assigned to Group 2 which is represented by types fitting both Ninevite 5 and later (EJZ 3a-b) pottery assemblages. Due to lack of characteristic decoration, their assignment to a definite pottery assemblage was made according to the rims shapes and pasta. From the investigated sherds in Group 2 we can propose possibly five new Ninevite 5 sites (see Fig. 13.):  Hammam Gharb West and Mabtuh East in the surrounding of Jebel Abd al-Aziz  Tell Burqa and Metyaha in the western steppe  Tell al-Maghr and K 241 with unknown coordinates but possibly somewhere in the area of interest. Sites as Harba, Qara Tepe, Tell Bisari, Joys Spring and Kh Ed Deeb are known from Group 1 and on these sites were attested decorated Ninevite 5 – so the occupation in Ninevite 5 period is without doubts. A Ninevite 5 settlement at Tell Brak, Chagar Bazar, Kashkashok III and Mashnaqa is known for the previous excavation conducted there before.

Fig. 13. Sites belonging to Group 25 (made by Google Earth)

5 Sites Qara Tepe and Tell Bisari are located in the Upper Khabur region, however they have unknown coordinated, as well as Kh Ed Deeb located in the Middle Khabur Region and Tell al-Maghr and K 241 as well, therefore their location is not on the map

For summing up, it is important to mention again the preliminary character of the results of the thesis. Processed ceramic material is just a limited amount of the sherds, which are still waiting for further processing and classification. However, it is clear that the Khabur Basin Project retrieved Ninevite 5 assemblages from the surface survey in northeastern Syria and revealed new settlements in this area. The future may bring more knowledge about other new Ninevite 5 sites in the area of interest and then our understanding of this period will be finally concluded.

12 REFERENCES AKKERMANS P. M. M. G. et SCHWARTZ G. M. (2003) The Archaeology of Syria, from Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (ca 16,000-300, BC), Cambridge, 211.

BIELINSKI, P. (2010) Tell Arbid: Preliminary Report on the Result of the Twelfth Season of Syrian-Polish Excavations. Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean 19, 537-554.

BONACOSSI, M. D. (2000) The Syrian Jezireh in the Late Assyrian Period: A View from the Countryside. Ancient Near Eastern Studies Supplement 7, 349-396.

BUCCELLATI, G. and KELLY-BUCCELLATI M. (2002) Tar´am-Agade, Daughter of Naram- Sin, at Urkesh. In: Al-Gailani Werr, L, Curtis, J., Martin, H. McMahon, A., Oates, J. and Reade, J. (eds.) Of Pots and Plans. Papers on the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria presented to David Oates in Honour of his 75th Birthday, London: Nabu Publications, 11-31.

CURVERS, H. H. and SCHWARTZ G. M. (1990) Excavation at Tell al-Raqa´i: A Small Rural Site of Early Urban Northern Mesopotamia. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 94, No. 1. Archeological Institute of America 1990, 3-23.

DECKERS, K. and RIEHL, S. (2008) Resource Exploitation of the Upper Khabur Basin (NE Syria) During the third Millennium BC. Paléorient, vol. 34. 2. CNRS Éditions, 173-189.

FORTIN, M. (1989) Tell Atij and the Socio-economic development of the Ninevite 5 period on the Habur plains. Paper delivered at the symposium “The Origins of North Mesopotamian Civilization: Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society”. Yale University, 1988.

FORTIN, M. (1998) New Horizons in Ancient Syria: The View from Atij. Near Eastern Archaeology, Vol. 61, No. 1. The American Schools of Oriental Research. 1998, 15-24.

FORTIN, M. and ROUTLEDGE, B. and ROUTLEDGE C. (1994) Canadian Excavation at Tell Gudeda (Syria), Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 27, 221-248.

FORTIN, M. and SCHWARTZ, M. G. (2003) The Middle Khabur in the Third Millennium B.C. In: Rova, E. and Weiss, H (eds.) The Origins of North Mesopotamian Civilization: Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society, Subartu IX. Brepols, 221-248.

FULLER, M. and FULLER, N. (1998) Archaeological Discoveries at Tell Tuneinir, Syria. Journal of Assyrian Academic Studies 12/2, 69-82.

GROSSMAN, K. (2014) Ninevite 5 Ceramics. In: Lebeau, M. (ed.) Arcane Interregional I. Ceramics. Brepols. Turnhout, 83-94.

GROSSMAN, K. (2013) Early Bronze Age Hamoukar: A Settlement Biography. Unpublished PhD. University of Chicago, Department of Near Eastern Languages and Civilizations.

HOLE, F. and JOHNSON, A. G. (1986-1987) Umm Qsair on the Khabur: preliminary report on the 1986 excavation. Les Annales Archeoogigues Arabes Syrienne 36-37, 172-220.

HOLE, F. (1991a) Middle Khabur Settlement and Agriculture in the Ninevite 5 Period. Lecture delivered to the Society´s Symposium entitled “Lost Civilizations of the Desert: Recent Archaeological Research in Third Millennium North Syria”. Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies. Toronto 1991, 17-27.

HOLE, F. (1991b) Preliminary Report on the Joint American-Danish Archaeological Sampling of Sites in the Khabur Basin. Annales Archeologiques Arabes Syrienne, 1-25.

HOLE, F. and KOUCHOUKOS, N. (1992) Stratigraphic Soundings at Tell Mashnaqa on the Khabur River 1991. Annales Archéologique Arabes Syrienne, 1-28.

HOLE, F. (1994) The Khabur Basin Project. In Kühne, H. (ed.) Archäologishe Forschungen in Syria 5. Archiv für Orientforschung, Band XL/XLI, 1993/1994, 289-298.

HOLE, F. and KOUCHOUKOS N. (1995) Preliminary Report on an Archaeological Survey in the Western Khabur Basin. Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes, 1-15.

HOLE, F. (1996a) Preliminary Report on an Archaeological Survey in the Western Khabur Basin, 1995. Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syrienne, 4-7.

HOLE, F. (1996b) Intermittent Settlement in the Jebel Abd al-Aziz Region. Paper prepare for International Colloquium: The Syrian Djezireh: Cultural Heritage and Interrelations. Deir ez-Zor, 1-10.

HOLE, F. (1996c) A Syrian Bridge Between the Levant and the Zagros? In: Kozlowski, S. K. and Gebel H.G.K. (eds.) Studies in Early Near Eastern Production, Subsistence, and Environment 3. Ex Oriente. Berlin, 5-14.

HOLE, F. (1997) Evidence for Mid-Holocene Environmental Change in the Western Khabur Drainage, Northeast Syria. In: Dalfest, H. N., Kukla, G. and Weiss, H. (eds). Third Millennium BC Climate Change and Old World Collapse, (eds.) Berlin: Springer, 39-66.

HOLE, F. (1998) Tell Ziyadeh on the Middle Khabur, Syria. 1st International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. Universita degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”. Rome May 18th-2third, 1998, 1-10.

HOLE, F. (1999) Early Jezireh Storage Structures at Tell Ziyadeh, Syria. Journal of Field Archaeology, 1-43.

HOLE, F. (2001) A Radiocarbon Chronology for the Middle Khabur, Syria. Iraq. Vol. 63, 67-98.

HOLE, F. (2007) Agricultural sustainability in the semi-arid Near East. Climate of the Past 3, 195-203.

HOLE, F. (in press) Taphonomy. Chapter two: Environmental History of the Khabur Basin, 1-40.

HOLE, F. (unpublished) Khabur Basin Project notes. Properties of the Yale University. New Haven, USA.

FRANK HOLE´S oral information (November and December 2014) at Yale University.

KILICK, R., ROAF, M. (2003) The Relative Chronology of Ninevite 5 Sites in the Tigris Region and Beyond. In: Rova, E. and Weiss, H. (eds.) The Origins of North Mesopotamian Civilization: Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society. Subartu IX. Brepols, 73-82.

KOLINSKI, R. (2007) The Upper Khabur Region in the Second Part of the Third Millennium BC. Altoriental Forsch, 34.

LEBEAU, M. (2000) Stratified Archaeological Evidence and Compared Periodizations in the Syrian Jezirah During the Third Millennium B.C. In: Marro, C. and Hauptmann, H. (eds.) Chronologies des Pays de Caucase et de l´Euphrate aux IV-III Millénaires, Actes du Colloque d´Istanbul, 16-19 décembre 1998 (Varia Anatolica 11). Paris: De Boccard, 167-191.

LEBEAU, M. (2006) Les Temples de Tell Beydar et leur environment immediate á l´époque Early Jezirah IIIb. In: Butterlin, P., Lebeau, M., Monchambert, J.Y., Montero Fenollós, J. L, Muller, B. (eds.) Les Espaces syro-mésopotamiens. Dimensions de l´experience humaine au Proche-Orient ancient. Volume d´hommages offerts á Jean Margueron. Subartu XXVII. Turnhout:Brepols, 101-140.

LEBEAU, M. (2011) Associated regional chronologies for the ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean, Vol. 1. Turnhout: Brepols, 1-17.

MALLOWAN, M. E. L. (1936) The Excavations at Tell Chagar Bazar and an Archaeological Survey of the Habur Region, 1934-1935. Iraq 3, 1-86.

MATTHEWS, R. (2003) Excavations at Tell Brak, vol. 4: Exploring an Upper Mesopotamian Regional Centre, 1994-1996. McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research. Cambridge and British School of Archaeology in Iraq. London.

McCORRISTON, J. (1992) The Halaf Environment and Human Activities in the Khabur Drainage, Syria. Journal of Field Archaeology, Vol. 19. No. 3. Boston University, 315 - 317.

McCORRISTON, J. (1998) Landscape and Human-environment Interaction in the Middle Habur Drainage from the Neolithic Period to the Bronze Age. In: Fortin, M. and Aurenche, O. (eds.) Espace naturel, espace habité en Syrie du Nord (10e-2e millénaires av. J.-C.), Lyons:Maison de l´Orient (= Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 33), 43-53.

McMahon, A. (2009) Once There Was a Place: Settlement Archaeology at Chagar Bazar, 1999- 2002. British Institute for the Study of Iraq. London.

McMahon A., TUNCA, Ö and BAGDO, A. M. (2001) New Excavation at Chagar Bazar, 1999- 2000. Iraq. Vol. 63, 201-222.

MONCHAMBERT, J. Y. (1984) Le future lac du Moyen Khabour: Rapport sur la prospection archéologique menée en 1983, Syria 61, 181-218.

MUNCHAEV, R. M., and MERPERT, N. Y. and AMIROV, S. (2004) Tell Hazna I: A Religious and Administrative Center in North-East Syria in IV-III mil. BC. Paleograph Press. Moscow.

NISHIAKI, Y. (1992) Preliminary Results of the Prehistoric Survey in the Khabur Basin, Syria: 1990-1991 Seasons. Paléorient, vol. 18/1.

NISHIAKI, Y. (2000) Palaeolithic and Neolithic Stone Industries from the Khabur Basin, Northeast Syria, In: Lyonett, B. (ed.) Prospection Archéologique Haut-Khabur Occidental (Syrie du N.E.), vol. 1. Institut Francais d´Archéologie du Proche-Orient, Beyrouth, 77.

NUMOTO, H. (2003) Ninevite 5 Pottery from Tell Fisna and Thuwaij and its Relative Chrnology in Mosul Region. In: Rova, E. and Weiss, H. (eds.) The Origins of North Mesopotamian Civilization: Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society, Subartu IX. Brepols, 83- 152.

OATES, D., OATES, J. and McDONALD, H. (2001) Nagar in the third millennium BC: Jezirah. 4030 Cambridge: McDonald Inst. for Archaeolog. Research.

PECORELLA, P. and BENOIT, R. P. (2005) Tell Barri/Kahat: La campagna del 2002 – Relazione preliminare. Missione Archaelogica Italiana a Tell Barri (Siria). Firenze university press.

PFÄLZNER, P. (1990) Tell Bderi – the Development of a Bronze Age Town. In: Kermer, S. (ed.) The Near East in Antiquity. German contributions to the archaeology of Jordan, Palestine, Syria, Lebanon and Egypt, Amman, 63-79.

QUENET, P. (2011) “Stratigraphy”. In: Lebeau, M. (ed.) In: Associated regional chronologies for the ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (ARCANE).Vol. 1: Jezirah. Turnhout: Brepols, 19-47.

RISVET, L. and WEISS, H. (2000) Imperial Responses to Environmental Dynamics at Late Third Millennium Tell Leilan. Orient-Express 4. Paris, 94-99.

ROUTLEDGE, B. (1998) Making Nature Human: Small-Scale Production and Specialization at Tell Gudeda in the Middle Khabour Valley. In: Fortin, M. and Aurenche, O. (eds.) Espace naturel, Espace habité en Syrie du Nord 10e-2emillénaires av. J-C. Maison de l'Orient méditerranéen lien. Lyon, 243-256.

ROVA, E. (2003) Ninevite 5 Relative Chronology, Periodization and Distribution: An Introduction. In: Rova, E. and Weiss, H. (eds.) The Origins of North Mesopotamian Civilization: Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society, Subartu IX. Brepols, 1-10.

ROVA, E. (2011) “Ceramics”. In: Lebeau, M. (ed.) Associated regional chronologies for the ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (ARCANE).Vol. 1: Jezirah. Turnhout: Brepols, 49-127.

ROVE, E. (2013) The Ninevite 5 Period in Northeast Syria I. La Syrie de l´époque néolithique á l´âge du fer. In: Orthmann, W., Matthiae, P., Al-Maqdissi, M. (eds.) Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie. Harrassowith Verlag. Wiesbaden,107- 119.

SCHWARZ (1985) The Ninevite 5 Period and Current Research. Paléorient, vol. 11/1, 53-70.

SCHWARTZ, M. G. (1988) A Ceramic Chronology from Tell Leilan (Yale Tell Leilan Research 1). New Haven CT: Yale University Press.

SCHWARTZ, M. G. (2004) Reviewed Work: Excavations at Tell Brak, vol. 4: Exploring an Upper Mesopotamian Regional Centre, 1994-1996 by Roger Matthews. Journal of the Amerian Oriental Society. Vol. 124, No. 2, 344-346.

SCHWARTZ, M. G., CURVERS, H. H. (1992) Tell al-Raqa´i 1989 and 1990: Further Investigations at a Small Rural Site of Early Urban Northern Mesopotamia. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 96, No 3. Archaeological Institute of America, 397-419.

SÜRENHAGEN, D. (1990) Ausgrabungen in Tall Mulla Matar 1989, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft 122, 125-152.

UR, J. (2004) Urbanism and Society in the Third Millennium Upper Khabur Basin. Vol. 1. Dissertation thesis, Chicago, Illinois, 51-53,304.

UR, J. (2010) Urbanism and Cultural Landscapes in Northeastern Syria:Tell Hamoukar Survey, 1999-2001. Oriental Institute Publications, Vol. 137. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago.

VALENTINI, S. (2008) Ninivite 5 Pottery from Tell Barri in Jezirah. In H. Kühne, R. M. Czichon, and F. J. Kreppner (eds.), Proceedings of the fouth International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (29 March-3 April 2004, Freie Universität Berlin), Volume 2: Social and Cultural Transformation: The Archaeology of Transitional Periods and Dark Ages. Excavations Reports, Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag 2008, 259-272.

WEISS, H. (1991) Archaeology in Syria. American Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 95, No. 4, 663-740.

WEISS, H. (2000a) Causality and Chance: Late Third Milennium BC Collapse in Southwest Asia. In: O. Rouault- M. Wäfler (eds.), La Djéziré et l´Euphrate syriens de la protohistoire á la fin du Ile Millénaire av. J.-C. Tendances dans l´interprétation historique des données nouvelles, Subartu VII, Turnhout: Brepols, 207-219.

WEISS, H. (2000b) Beyond Younger Dryas: Collapse as Adaptation to Abrupt Climate Change in Ancient West Asia and the Eastern Mediterranean. In: G. Bawden, R. M. Reycraft (eds.), Environmental Disaster and the Archaeology of Human Response, Maxwell Museum of Anthropology, Anthropological Papers No. 7, Albuquerque: Academic Press, 75-98.

WEISS, H. (2003) Ninevite 5 Periods and Process. In: Rova, E. and Weiss, H. (eds.) The Origins of North Mesopotamian Civilization: Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society, Subartu IX. Brepols, 593-624.

WILKINSON, T. J. (2000) Regional Approaches to Mesopotamian Archaeology: The Contribution of Archaeological Surveys. Journals of Archaeological Research, Vol. 8, No. 3, 219-267.

WILKINSON, T. J. and TUCKER, D. J. (1995) Settlement Development in the North Jariza. Iraq. Warminster: Aris & Phillips, Ltd.

ZEDER, M. (1998a) Regional Patterns of Animal Exploitation in the Khabur Basin, 7000-1500 BC. In: Anreiter, P., Bartosiewicz, L., Jerem, E. an Meid, W. (eds.), Man and the Animal World: Studies in Archaeozoology, Archaeology, Anthropology and Palaeolinguistics in Memoriam Sándor Bökönyi. Archaeolingua Alapítvány. Budapest, 569-580.

ZEDER, M (1998b) Environment, Economy, and Subsistence on the Threshold of Urban Emergence in Northern Mesopotamia. In: Fortin, M. and Aurenche, O. (eds.) Espace Naturel, Espace Habité en Syrie Nord (10e-2e millénaire av. J.-C.), Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 33 and Travaux de la Maison de l´Oriente 28. Québec: The Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies; Lyon: La Maison de l´Orient Méditerranéen. pp. 55-67.

ZEDER, M. (1999) The Role of Pastoralism in Developing Specialized Urban Economies in the Ancient Near East. Paper presented in the Symposium: Archaeology of Urban Sites: Beyond Central Places and Ceremony. Society for American Archaeology. Chicago, 1-22.

ON-LINE SOURCE: Tell Brak (on-line) 2015 [Retrieved 2015-05-13] From: www.tellbrak.mcdonald.cam.ac.uk

13 LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS ARCANE – Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean BRBs- beveled-rim bowls DGMAS - Syrian Directorate General of Antiquities and Museums CNRS – Centre national de la recherche scientifique EBA – Early Bronze Age EJZ – Early Jezirah KBP – Khabur Basin Project MBA – Middle Bronze Age PPNB – Pre-pottery Neolithic B

75 14 LIST OF FIGURES Fig. 1. Marked area of interest (made by Google Earth) Fig. 2. Upper and Middle Khabur Basin (Tell Brak “on-line“) Fig. 3. Map showing the flooded sites after finishing the dam south of Hasseke (after Hole 1999, 37) Fig. 4. Major soil groups in the Khabur drainage (after McCorriston 1997, 317) Fig. 5. Sites surveyed by KBP in Middle Khabur region (made by Google Earth) Fig. 6. Sites surveyed by KBP in Upper Khabur Region (made by Google Earth) Fig. 7. Proportion of the preservation state Fig. 8. Proportion of the type of a vessels Fig. 9. Proportion of the rim types Fig. 10. Proportion of the decorated and undecorated sherds Fig. 11. Sites surveyd by KBP and their EJZ occupation phases Fig. 12. Sites belonging to Group 1(made by Google Earth) Fig. 13. Sites belonging to Group 2 (made by Google Earth)

15 LIST OF TABLES Tab. 1. EJZ periodization system in the comparison of periods proposed by excavators of the sites (after Matthews 2003, 5 and Rova 2003, 6) Tab. 2. Overview of Tell Brak phases proposed by excavators (after Matthews 2003, 5)

APPENDIX 1

16 CATALOGUE OF ANALYZED SHERDS GROUP 1: SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 1. Cup fragment with vertical and beaded rim Chagar Pasta: Bazar Fine ware CBNH15 Grit temper (basalt) Surface: Light yellowish brown (2.5Y6/4) Decoration: Horizontal ribbing motif EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 1 DATING: COMPARISON Chagar Bazar: level 5 (Mallowan 1936 - fig. 10/7) Difference: undecorated – plain ware Tell Leilan: phase IIIb (Schwartz 1988 - fig. 42/10, 12) Differences: closed slightly inverted rim, no visible temper Tell Brak: phase J (Matthews 2003 - 5.57/16) Differences: closed, carinated beaker, mineral and vegetal temper, surface color 5Y7/4 Tell Fisna: Grit 11-3, floor B (Numoto 2003 - p. 95; fig. 5/7) Differences: closed carinated bowl, sand inclusions greenish color surface SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 2. Body fragment Chagar Pasta: Bazar Fine ware CBNH14 Grit temper (Ca) Surface: Very pale brown (10YR7/3) Decoration: Lined horizontal zigzag motif EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 2 - EJZ 3a DATING: COMPARISON Tell Brak: phase ? (Oates 2001 - fig. 471/1783) Kashkashok 3: EJ II (Rova 2011 - fig. 5/ 1) - hemispherical beaker with pointed base and vertical rim, Difference: mineral temper (sand/quartz, limestone, mica) Tell Arbid: EJ II (Rova 2011 - Pl. 5/12) - large carinated bowl with flat base Tell Hamoukar: phase 3M-2 (Grossman 2013 - fig. I.51/4.2) – unrestricted vessel with carinated body and beaded rim)

SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 3. Carinated bowl fragment with vertical and beaded rim Harba Pasta: K178NH3 Fine ware Straw-grit temper (Ca) Surface: Light grey (2.5Y7/1) Decoration: Grooved motif EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 1 DATING: COMPARISON Tell Leilan: phase IIIc (Schwarz 1988 - fig. 31/13) Differences: no visible temper, light yellow buff surface (39/5-7) Differences: more closed shape, no visible temper Tell Brak: phase J (Oates 2001 - fig. 470/1751) Difference: pale brown surface color (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.63/5; 5.66/22) Differences: rounded lower body, only grit temper, 5Y7/2 surface color SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 4. Bowl fragment with open beaded rim Joys Pasta: Spring Fine ware K2NH17 Grit temper (basalt) Surface: Pale yellow (2.5Y7/3) Decoration: Excised ware – lined horizontal zigzag motif EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a DATING: COMPARISON Tell Brak: phase ? (Oates 2001 - fig. 470/1755) Differences: straight sided vessel, green surface color, decoration with panels Tell Brak: phase J-K (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.65/22) Differences: panels decoration, different surface color 5Y7/2 (fig. 5.65/24) Differences: restricted round body, surface color 5Y7/3 Tell Barri: phase EJ II (Valentini unpublished - fig. 1/16) Difference: without decoration

SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 5. Body fragment Joys Spring Pasta: K1NH20 Fine ware Straw temper Surface: Pale yellow (2.5Y8/3) Decoration: Grooved-slashed excised motif EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 2 DATING: COMPARISON Raqa´i: phase Raqa´i 3 (Curvers and Schwartz 1990 - fig. 21/8) Differences: no visible inclusions, excised motif orientation Tell Brak: phase ? (Oates 2001 - fig. 471/1784) Differences: orange-brown surface color, orientation of decoration Kashkashok3: phase EJ II (Rova 2011 - Pl. 5/1) - hemispherical beaker with pointed base and vertical rim Differences: mineral temper (sand/ quartz, limestone, mica), excised motif orientation Tell Arbid: phase EJ II (Rova 2011 - Pl. 5/12) - large carinated bowl with flat base Difference: excised motif orientation SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 6. Bowl fragment Kh Ed Deeb Pasta: K216NH3 Fine ware Grit temper (Ca, basalt) Surface: Light grey (2.5Y7/2) Decoration: multiple-line chevron motif EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 1 - EJZ 2 DATING: COMPARISON Tell Leilan: phase IIIc (Schwartz 1988 - fig. 40/3-6) Differences: sherd thickness, orientation, no visible temper, light yellow buff Tell Brak: phase M? (leveling fills) (Oates 2001 - fig. 469/1735) Differences: sherd thickness, orientation, reddish-brown surface color Tell Brak: phase J (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.62/17) Differences: sherd thickness, orientation, vegetal and mineral tempered, surface color 5Y7/2 (fig. 5.62/21) Differences: sherd thickness, orientation of decoration, vegetal and mineral tempered, surface color 5Y8/3 (fig. 5.63/10) Differences: vegetal and mineral tempered, surface color 5Y7/3)

SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 7. Bowl fragment with open beaded rim Mulla Pasta: Matar Fine ware MMNH4 Grit temper (Ca) Surface: Pale yellow (5Y7/3) Decoration: Grooved-slashed incised-excised motif EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 2 - EJZ 3a DATING: COMPARISON

Tell Brak: phase J-K (Matthews 2001 - fig. 5.72/13) Differences: pale green brown color surface, without incision, cocked rim (fig. 5.65/30) Difference: closed simple rim Tell Hamoukar: phase 3M-1-3M-2 (Grossman 2013 - fig. I.49/FR2.3) Difference: squat round body (fig. I.51/FR4.2) Difference: carinated body SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 8. Cup/beaker fragment with vertical and beaded rim Mulla Pasta: Matar Fine ware MMNH5 No visible temper Surface: Pale yellow (2.5Y8/2) Decoration: Incise-excised motifs – panels EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 1 - EJZ 2

DATING: COMPARISON Raqa´i: phase Raqa´i 3 (Curvers and Schwartz 1990 - fig. 21/1) Difference: closed slightly inverted beaded rim Tell Leilan: phase IIIc (Schwartz 1988 - fig. 31/11,14) Difference: closed slightly inverted simple Tell Brak: phase J (Oates 2001 - fig. 470/1755) Difference: pale green surface color (fig. 470/1557) Differences: closed slightly inverted simple, pale grey surface color (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.65/2) Differences: grit temper, surface color 5Y8/3

SITE SHERD 9. Qara Tepe K133N H11

DESCRIPTION EJZ DATING: DATING COMPARISON Fragment of a jar with lug EJZ 1 – EJZ 2 Tell Leilan: phase IIIc Pasta: (Schwartz 1988 - fig. 39/1) Differences: no visible temper, Fine ware light yellow buff surface color Straw-grit temper (basalt) Tell Brak: phase J (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.66/11) (Rova Surface: 2011 - Pl. 3/5) Grey (10YR5/1) Tell Karrana 3: transitional phase Decoration: (Rova 2003 - fig. 7/8) Differences: black burnished Incised slashed motif exterior, brown core SITE SHERD 10. Qara Tepe K133NH12

DESCRIPTION EJZ DATING DATING: COMPARISON Flat base fragment of bowl EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a Tell Brak: phase J-K Pasta: (Oates 2001 - fig. 470/1759) Differences: thinner, pale Fine ware cream fabric No visible temper (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.72/18) Differences: mineral Surface: tempered, undecorated Very pale brown (10YR7/4) Tell Brak: phase ? Decoration: (Rova 2011 - Pl. 5/7) Differences: medium to fine ware, Slashed incised decoration mineral temper

SITE SHERD 11. Tell Alarbídí K150NH1

DESCRIPTION DATING: COMPARISON Fragment of pointed base (hemispherical Tell Leilan: phase IIIc-IIIb (Schwartz 1988 - fig. 39/3) Differences: no cup/beaker with pointed vertical rim?) visible temper, light yellow buff surface color Pasta: (fig. 42/2) Differences: no visible temper, light greenish yellow buff Fine ware Tell Brak: phase K (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.67/22) Difference: pale green Grit temper (Ca) grey surface color Surface: Tell Thuwaij: level 8 (EJ I) (Numoto 2003- p. 127; fig. 22/40) Differences: Very pale brown (10YR7/3) sand temper, greenish grey surface color EJZ Tell Barri: phase EJ II (Valentini 2008 - fig.5/15) DATING Kashkashok 3: phase EJ II (Rova 2011 - Pl.5/2) EJZ 1 -EJZ 2 - EJZ 3a Tell Arbid: phase EJ II (Rova 2011 - Pl. 5/ 4)

SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 12. Isolated jar lug fragment (from wide-necked jar?) Tell Bisari Pasta: K114NH8 Fine Ware Grit temper (basalt) Surface: Light olive grey (5Y6/2) Decoration: Notched band and dotted wavy line motif EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 1-EJZ 2 DATING: COMPARISON Tell Leilan: phase IIIc (Schwartz 1988 - fig. 39/1 ) Differences: no visible temper, light yellow buff surface color, without dotted and notched motif Tell Brak: phase J (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.66/11) Differences: mineral and vegetal temper, 10YR3/2 surface color, decoration without notched and dotted motif Chagar Bazar: level 5 (Mallowan 1936 - fig. 19/3)  (Rova 2011 - Pl.3/4) Differences: grey surface color, no visible temper, burnished surface, decoration without notched and dotted motif SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 13. Body fragment Tell Brak Pasta: BRAKNH8 Fine ware Straw-grit temper (Ca, basalt) Surface: Pale yellow (2.5Y8/3) Decoration: Lined-horizontal zigzag motif EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 1 – EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a DATING: COMPARISON Raqa´i: phase Raqa´i 3 (Curvers and Schwartz 1990 - fig. 21/2) Differences: just grit temper, light green surface color Tell Leilan: phase IIIc (Schwartz 1988 - fig. 31/12) Difference: no visible temper Girnavaz: (Kilick and Roaf 2003 - p. 81/fig. 1) Tell Brak: phase K (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.67/12) Differences: just mineral temper, green surface color, thicker wall Tell Barri: EJ II (Valentini 2008 - fig. 5/2) Tell Arbid: phase EJ II (Rova 2011 - Pl. 5/12) - large carinated bowl with flat base

SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 14. Body fragment Tell Tuenan Pasta: K181NH2 Fine ware No visible temper Surface: Pale yellow (5Y7/3) Decoration: Grooved-slashed motif EARLY JEZIRAH DATING EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a DATING: COMPARISON

Raqa´i: phase Raqa´i 3 (Curvers and Schwartz 1990 - fig. 21/2) Differences: light green surface color, grit temper Tell Brak: Phase? (Oates 2001 - fig. 471/1783, 1784) Tell Brak: phase K (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.67/12) Differences: mineral tempered, green surface color Tell Barri: Late excised (Valentini 2008 - fig. 5/1 -2) Difference: grooving orientation Kashkashok 3 phase EJ II (Rova 2011 - Pl. 5/1) – hemispherical beaker with pointed base and vertical rim Difference: mineral temper (sand/quartz, limestone, mica) Tell Arbid: phase EJ II (Rova 2011 - Pl. 5/12) - large carinated bowl with flat base SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 15. Body fragment Tell Ziyadeh Pasta: ZN3009NH1 Fine ware Straw-grit temper (Ca) Surface: Light brownish grey surface (2.5Y6/2) Decoration: Incised/excised motifs - notched band and dotted line with multiple-line chevron EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 1 -EJZ 2 DATING: COMPARISON Tell Leilan: phase IIIa (Schwartz 1988 - fig. 48/1) (Rova 2011 - Pl.2/10;11) Differences: no visible

temper, light yellow buff (fig. 47/3) Differences: no visible temper, light yellowish green surface color Tell Ziyadeh: phase EJ I-II (Hole 2001 - fig. 11/29 – drawing already published here) Tell Brak: phase? (Oates 2001 - fig. 470/1749) Tell Brak: phase J (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.61/4) Differences: mineral tempered, 5Y7/1 surface color, decoration without dotted lines) Chagar Bazar: level 5 (Rova 2011 - Pl. 2/9 – light greenish surface color, decoration with triangle incision)

GROUP 2: SITE SHERD EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

16. EJZ 0 - EJZ 1 – EJZ 2- EJZ 3a Bisari K114NH3 DATING: COMPARISON

Tell Leilan: phase IIIc (Schwartz 1988 - fig. 38/5) Differences: no visible temper, light yellow buff surface color Tell Brak: phase H (Oates 2001 - fig. 468/1728) Difference: grey fabric

Tell Brak: phase K (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.62/13) Difference: green grey surface color 5.62/7) Differences: buff surface color, incised decoration Chagar Bazar: level 5(Rova 2011 - Pl. 2/2) Differences: creamy fabric, purplish paint Tell Hamoukar: phase 3M-1/2 (Grossman 2013 - fig. DESCRIPTION I.50/FR3.5) Differences: thicker wall in lower part, more Carinated? bowl fragment with closed slightly inverted vertical beaded rim Pasta: Fine ware; Grit temper (Ca) Surface: Very pale brown (10YR7/4); Slip

SITE SHERD 17. Bisari K114NH5

DESCRIPTION EJZ DATING: DATING COMPARISON Carinated bowl fragment EJZ0 Tell Leilan: phase IIIb (Schwartz 1988 - fig. 42/2) with closed slightly EJZ 1 Differences: no visible temper, light yellow buff surface color inverted beaded rim EJZ 3 a Tell Brak: phase H (Oates 2001 - fig. 468/1728) Differences: sharper Pasta: carination, grey fabric surface color Fine ware Tell Brak: phase K (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.73/5) Differences: no visible Straw-grit temper (Ca) temper, pale buff green surface color, burnt Surface: Tell Fisna: Grit III-3 (Numoto 2003 - p. 95, fig. 5/8) Differences: cream, Very pale brown slightly coarse sand temper (10YR7/3) Tell Brak: phase H (Rova 2011 - Pl. 1/5) Differences: sharp carination, medium to fine ware, very slight ribbing on upper sides

SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 18. Bowl fragment with slightly closed beaded rim Chagar Bazar and rounded body CBNH3 Pasta: Fine ware Grit temper (Ca) Surface: Pale yellow (2.5Y7/4) Self-slip EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

Late EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a DATING: COMPARISON Chagar Bazar: level 1-5 (Mallowan 1936 – fig. 10/7) Difference: thinner walls, not so rounded Tell Raqa´i: phase Raqa´i 3 (Schwartz and Curvers 1990 - fig. 20/17) Tell Thuwaij: level 3 (Numoto 2003 - p. 123, fig. 20/2) Differences: greenish grey surface color, sand temper Tell Hamoukar: phase 3M-1-2 (Grossman 2013 - fig. I.48/FR1.2) Difference: pale yellow to grey surface color Tell Barri: phase EJ II (Valentini unpublished - fig. 2/6) SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 19. Bowl fragment with vertical and beaded rim Chagar Bazar Pasta: CBNH5 Fine ware Grit temper (basalt) Surface: Pale yellow (2.5Y7/4) Self-slip EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a

DATING: COMPARISON

Tell Brak: phase ? (Oates 2001 - fig. 471/1768) Difference: slightly green surface color Tell Brak: phase K (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.62/10) Differences: vegetal and mineral temper surface color 5Y6/1 Tell Barri: phase EJII/IIIa (Valentini unpublished - fig. 11/18) – chai cup

SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 20. Rounded-side bowl? fragment with closed Chagar slightly inverted beaded rim Bazar Pasta: CBNH6 Fine ware Straw-grit temper (Ca, basalt) Surface: Pale yellow (2.5Y8/4) Self-slip EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ1/EJZ 3a DATING: COMPARISON Tell Brak: phase K (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.63/15) Differences: no visible temper, green buff surface color Tell Thuwaij: level 8 (Numoto 2003 - p. 127, fig. 22/40) Difference: greenish grey surface color Tell Barri: phase EJ IIIa (Rova (2011 - Pl. 7/7) – hemispherical bowl with rounded base Difference: non calcareous metallic ware

SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 21. Bowl fragment with closed slightly inverted Hamam simple rim Ghrab West Pasta: K162NH1 Fine ware No visible temper Surface: Pale yellow – very pale brown (10YR7/3; 2.5Y8/3) Slip EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 1 – EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a DATING: COMPARISON Tell Leilan: phase IIIc (Schwartz 1988 - fig. 33/7) Kashkashok: phase II (Rova 2011 - Pl. 5/2) – hemispherical beaker with pointed base and vertical rim Difference: mineral temper Tell Hamoukar: phase 3M-2 (Grossman – 2013 - fig. 1.15/S27.9a) Difference: pale yellow surface color Tell Barri: EJ II/II a (Valentini unpublished) - fig. 3/3; 10/25)

SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 22. Bowl fragment with closed slightly Harba inverted flat rim K178NH1 Pasta: Fine ware Grit temper (Ca, basalt) Surface: Pale yellow (2.5Y8/3) Self-slip EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ2- EJZ 3a DATING: COMPARISON Tell Brak: phase K (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.59/21) Differences: beaded rim, mineral and vegetal temper, bluish grey surface color Tell Hamoukar: phase 3M- 2 (Grossman 2013 - fig. 1.14/S26.4b) Differences: low carination, beaded rim Tell Barri: phase EJ II/IIa (Valentini unpublished - fig. 11/16) – chai cup SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 23. Bowl fragment with closed slightly Joys Spring inverted rolled rim and rounded wall K2NH8 Pasta: Fine ware Straw – no visible temper Surface: Pale yellow (2.5Y8/2) EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a-b DATING: COMPARISON Tell Hamoukar: phase 3M-1/2 (Grossman 2013 - fig. I.48/FR1.4)

SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 24. Cup fragment with open simple rim Joys Spring Pasta: K2NH10 Fine ware Grit temper (basalt) Surface: Pale yellow (2.5Y8/3) Slip EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 3a - EJZ 3b DATING: COMPARISON Tell Brak: phase L (Oates 2001 - fig. 454/1450) Difference: buff surface

color Tell Beydar: phase EJ IIIa (Rova 2011 - Pl. 7/10) – bell-shaped bowl with rounded base Difference: medium to fine ware Tell Barri: phase EJ IIIb (Valentini unpublished - fig. 27/22) – just shape SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 25. Bowl fragment with closed slightly inverted beaded rim Kashkashok III and rounded wall K126NH2 Pasta: Fine ware Straw-grit temper (Ca) Surface: Pale yellow (2.5Y7/3) EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

Late EJZ 2 - EJZ 3a DATING: COMPARISON Tell Thuwaij: level 6 (Numoto 2003 - p. 123/fig. 20/6) Differences: reddish pink surface color , sand temper Tell Hamoukar: phase 3M-1- 2 (Grossman 2013 - fig. I.34/MR1.2) Difference: medium ware Tell Barri: phase EJII/IIIa (Valentini unpublished - fig. 9/16)

SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 26. Bowl fragment with closed slightly inverted beaded rim Kh Ed Deeb and rounded wall K216NH1 Pasta: Fine ware Straw-grit temper (Ca) Surface: pale yellow (2.5Y7/3) self-slip EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 1 - EJZ 2 DATING: COMPARISON Tell Raqa´i: phase Raqa´i 3 (Schwartz and Curvers 1990 - fig. 20/13) Difference: just grit temper Tell Brak: phase J (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.57/5) Differences: just mineral temper, greenish surface color Tell Barri: phase EJ II (Valentini unpublished - fig. 4/17) Difference: common ware SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 27. Bowl fragment with closed slightly out-turned rim and Mabtuh East rounded wall K128NH2 Paste: Fine ware Grit temper (basalt, Ca) Surface: Pale yellow (2.5Y8/2) EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 1 - EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a DATING: COMPARISON

Tell Raqaí: phase Raqaí 3 (Schwartz, Curvers 1990 - fig. 20/9) Difference: light yellowish/pink surface color Tell Raqaí: phase Raqaí 3 (Schwartz, Curvers 1992 - fig. 25/4) Difference: vegetal temper Tell Hamoukar: phase 3M-1 (Grossman 2013 - fig. I.34/MR1.4) Differences: medium ware, burnished grey surface Tell Leilan: phase II/IIIa (Rova 2011 - Pl. 5/19) – hemispherical beaker with high ring base Differences: less shallow, green buff surface color, no visible temper Tell Barri: phase EJ II/III A (Valentini unpublished - fig.11/16) – chai cup

SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 28. Bowl fragment with closed slightly inverted beaded rim Mashnaqa and rounded wall K116NH2 Pasta: Fine ware Grit temper (Ca) Surface: Pale yellow (5Y8/2) EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 0/EJZ 1/ EJZ 3 DATING: COMPARISON Tell Thuwaij: level 8 (Numoto 2003 - p. 127, fig. 22/40) Difference: greenish grey surface color Tell Karrana 3: transitional phase (Rova 2003 - p. 21, fig.6/3) Tell Hamoukar: phase 3M-2/3 (Grossman 2013 - fig. 1.14/S26.3c) Difference: pale brown surface color SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 29. Bowl fragment with slightly closed inverted beaded rim Mashnaqa and rounded wall K116NH4 Pasta: Fine ware Grit temper (Ca) Surface: Very pale brown (10YR7/4) Slip EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 2-EJZ 3a

DATING: COMPARISON

Tell Raqa´i: phase Raqa´i 3 (Schwartz and Curvers 1990 - fig. 20/2) Differences: metallic ware, orange exterior, dark brown/black interior, no visible temper (fig. 20/16) Difference: light yellow surface color Tell Hamoukar: phase 3M-2 (Grossman 2013 - fig. 1.14/S26.4) Difference: pale yellow surface color Tell Barri: phase EJ II/IIIa (Valentini unpublished - fig. 9/16)

SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 30. Bowl fragment with closed slightly inverted beaded rim Metyaha and rounded wall K183NH4 Pasta: Fine ware Grit temper (Ca) Surface: Very pale brown (10YR7/4) EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

Late EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a - b DATING: COMPARISON Tell Raqa´i: phase Raqa´i 3 (Schwartz and Curvers 1990 - fig. 20/16) Difference: light yellow surface color Tell Barri: phase EJ II (Valentini 2008 - fig. 5/12) (Valentini unpublished - fig. 2/10) Tell Hamoukar: phase 3M-1/2 (Grossman 2013 - fig. I.48/FR1.4) Difference: rolled rim Tell Atij: phase EJ IIIb (Rova 2011 – Pl. 8/3) – small beaker with solid pedestal base Differences: thicker walls, pale beige surface color SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 31. Carinated ? bowl with closed slightly inverted beaded Qara Tepe rim K133NH5 Pasta: Fine ware Grit temper (basalt) Surface: Pale yellow (2.5Y7/4) EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 0 - EJZ 1 - EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a

DATING: COMPARISON Tell Leilan: phase IIIc (Schwartz 1988 - fig. 33/4, 6) Difference: no visible temper (fig. 37/6, 7) Difference: no visible temper Tell Brak: phase H (Oates 2001 - fig. 468/1728) Difference: grey surface color Tell Brak: phase K (Matthews 2003 - fig. 5.62/13) Difference: green grey surface color Chagar Bazar: level 5 (Rova 2011 - Pl. 2/2) Difference: purplish paint Tell Hamoukar: phase 3M-1/2 (Grossman 2013 – fig. I.50/FR3.5) Differences: thicker wall in lower part, more vertical

SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 32. Cup fragment with vertical and Tell al- recess-beaded rim Maghr Pasta: K155NH1 Fine ware No visible temper Surface: Pale yellow – Very pale brown (5Y7/3) – (10YR7/4) EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 1 – EJZ 2 – EJZ 3a DATING: COMPARISON Tell Brak: phase M (Oates 2001 - fig. 422/716) Tell Barri: phase Late EJ II; EJ II/IIIa (Valentini 2008 - fig. 5/14) Difference: thicker (Valentini unpublished - fig. 11/8) Difference: more thicker Tell Thuwaij: level 8 (Numoto 2003 - p. 127, fig. 22/45) Differences: carinated bowl, greenish surface color, sand temper Tell Arbid: phase EJ II (Rova 2011 - Pl. 5/4) Difference: mineral temper (limestone) SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 33. Bowl fragment with vertical and Tell Brak beaded rim BRAKNH5 Pasta: Fine ware Shell temper Surface: Very pale brown (10YR7/4) Self-slip EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 1- EJZ 2 DATING: COMPARISON Tell Leilan: phase IIIb (Schwartz 1988 - fig. 42/4) Differences: closed slightly inverted beaded rim, no visible temper, light grayish yellow buff surface color Tell Barri: phase Late EJ II (Valentini 2008 - fig. 5/3) Difference: incised-excised decoration

SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 34. Fragment of S-shaped? bowl with open simple rim Tell Burqa Pasta: K174NH1 Fine ware No visible temper Surface: Pale yellow (2.5Y7/3) Slip EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 1 DATING: COMPARISON Chagar Bazar: level 5 (Rova 2011 - Pl. 2/12) – S-shaped („cyma-recta“ bowl) Difference: greenish surface color Kashkashok III: phase EJ I (Rova 2011 - Pl. 2/15) – S-shaped („cyma-recta“ bowl) Difference: mineral temper

SITE SHERD DESCRIPTION 35. Bowl fragment with closed slightly rounded rim Unknown Pasta: K241NH2 Fine ware Straw-grit temper (Ca) Surface: Pale yellow – light yellowish brown (2.5Y8/3) – (10YR6/4) Slip EARLY JEZIRAH DATING

EJZ 1- EJZ 2 DATING: COMPARISON Tell Thuwaij: level 8 (Numoto 2003 - p. 127, fig. 22/42) Differences: greenish grey surface color, sand temper (fig. 22/45) Difference: greenish surface color Tell Arbid: phase EJ II (Rova 2011 - Pl. 5/4) – hemispherical beaker with pointed base and vertical rim Difference: simple rim