ARCANE IV (Incompleto)

ARCANE IV
Middle Euphrates
ARCANE
Associated
Regional Chronologies
for the Ancient Near East
and the Eastern Mediterranean
Middle Euphrates
Uwe Finkbeiner, Mirko Novák, Ferhan Sakal & Paola Sconzo (eds)
With contributions by M. Bouso, K. Deckers, P. Drechsler, C. Felli, U. Finkbeiner, H. Genz,
M. Lebeau, G. Marchesi, M. Novák, A. Pruß, F. Sakal,
P. Sconzo, F. F. Squadrone, & J. homalsky
H
F
he European Science Foundation (ESF) is an independent, non-governmental organisation, the members of
which are 79 national funding agencies, research-performing agencies, academies and learned societies from 30
countries.
he strength of ESF lies in its inluential membership and in its ability to bring together the diferent domains of
European science in order to meet the challenges of the future.
Since its establishment in 1974, ESF, which has its headquarters in Strasbourg with oices in Brussels and
Ostend, has assembled a host of organisations that span all disciplines of science, to create a common platform for
cross-border cooperation in Europe.
ESF is dedicated to promote collaboration in scientiic research, funding of research and science policy across
Europe. hrough its activities and instruments ESF has made major contributions to science in a global context.
he ESF covers the following scientiic domains:
• Humanities
• Life, Earth and Environmental Sciences
• Medical Sciences
• Physical and Engineering Sciences
• Social Sciences
• Marine Sciences
• Materials Science
• Nuclear Physics
• Polar Sciences
• Radio Astronomy
• Space Sciences
Uwe FINKBEINER, Mirko NOVÁK, Ferhan SAKAL & Paola SCONZO (eds)
Middle Euphrates.
(= ARCANE IV), Brepols, Turnhout, 2015
A4, sewn, xi + 493 pages
Contents: 3rd millennium, Early Bronze Age, Early Middle Euphrates, Archaeology, Stratigraphy, Architecture,
Ceramics, Glyptic and Art, Terracotta Figurines, Metal, Lithics, Bone Objects, Burials and Funerary Practices,
Radiocarbon, History and Philology.
Areas: Near East, Middle Euphrates
All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced,
stored in a retrieval system or transmitted in any form or
by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording,
or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher.
ISBN 978-2-503-53495-4
D/2015/0095/2
© 2015, Brepols Publishers n.v., Turnhout, Belgium
Printed in the EU on acid-free paper
Table of Contents
Foreword ix
By Uwe Finkbeiner, Mirko Novák, Ferhan Sakal & Paola Sconzo
List of Abbreviations xi
1. Introduction 1
By Uwe Finkbeiner & Mirko Novák, with contributions by Marc Lebeau
1.1. he ARCANE ESF Programme (Marc Lebeau) 1
1.2. Background and Aims (Mirko Novák) 3
1.3. Towards ARCANE Volume IV (Mirko Novák) 4
1.4. Geography (Uwe Finkbeiner) 5
1.5. Periodisation (Mirko Novák) 11
1.6. he Available Data (Uwe Finkbeiner) 13
2. Stratigraphy 17
By Uwe Finkbeiner
2.1. Introduction 17
2.2. Evaluating the Data 17
2.3. Individual Sequences 19
2.4. Comparative Stratigraphy 29
2.5. Conclusions 39
3. Urbanism and Architecture 41
By Mirko Novák
3.2. Prelude: he Middle Euphrates During the Late Chalcolithic 41
3.3. Urbanisation and City Planning 43
3.4. Fortiications 53
3.5. Temple Architecture 61
3.6. Palatial Architecture 67
3.7. Domestic Architecture 73
3.8. Conclusion 82
4. Ceramics 85
By Paola Sconzo
4.2. he Pottery Sequence 90
4.3. Catalogue of ARCANE EME Types 111
5. Glyptic and Art 203
By Candida Felli
5.2. Summary of Glyptic and Art History Phases 204
5.3. Conclusions 230
v
Table of Contents
6. Anthropomorphic Terracotta Figurines 267

By Ferhan Sakal
6.2. Typology and Dating 268
6.3. Conclusion 271
7. Animal Terracotta Figurines and Model Vehicles 279
By Alexander Pruß
7.2. Typology and Dating 279
7.3. Conclusion 285
8. Metal 297
By Filomena Fausta Squadrone
8.2. Previous Studies 297
8.3. Metal Pins and Toggle Pins 298
8.4. Metal Weapons 307
8.5. Chronological and Spatial Distribution of the EME Types
of Metal Pins and Weapons (Tables 1 and 2) 312
9. Lithics 341
By Judith homalsky
9.2. Data Analysis 342
9.3. Discussion: Socio-economic Patterns in the Lithic Production of the ME 348
9.4. Conclusion 349
10. Bone Objects 361
By Hermann Genz
10.2. Problems 361
10.3. Simple Tools: Awls, Spatula and Spindle Whorls 362
10.4. Pins 362
10.5. Beads and Pendants 362
10.6. Decorated Bone Tubes 363
10.7. Varia 364
11. Burials and Funerary Practices 371
By Mónica Bouso
11.2. Data Analysis 372
11.3. Location of Burials 372
11.4. Type of Deposition of the Human Remains 373
11.5. Types of Burial 373
11.6. Sequence of Funerary Structures 378
11.7. Burial Containers 391
11.8. Orientation 392
11.9. Human Remains 392
11.10. Grave-goods 393
vi
Table of Contents
12. Radiocarbon Chronology 401

By Katleen Deckers, Philipp Drechsler & Paola Sconzo
12.1. Material 401
12.2. Increasing Chronological Insights through Bayesian Modelling 401
12.3. Conclusion 421
13. History and Philology 423
By Gianni Marchesi
13.2. he Middle Euphrates Region in the Late 3rd Millennium (c. 2350-2000 BC) 423
13.3. Epigraphic Material from the Middle Euphrates Region by Periods and Sites 424
14. Conclusion 431
By Uwe Finkbeiner, Mirko Novák, Ferhan Sakal & Paolo Sconzo
14.1. Period EME 1 431
General Bibliography 439
Index of Sites 489
vii
Foreword
Uwe Finkbeiner, Mirko Novák, Ferhan Sakal & Paola Sconzo
Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean (ARCANE),
a project sponsored by the European Science Foundation (ESF), aims at establishing a periodisation of the
3rd millennium adapted to new excavation results. On the oicial opening of the project at Blaubeuren (Germany)
in 2006 the area under study, extending from the Aegean Sea to Iran, was subdivided into 12, later 10, regions.
Volume IV covers the Middle Euphrates region, which encloses the Jezirah of Volume I to the west and the south.
he project took some time to begin. First meetings with just a few people took place in Pisa in 2002 and in
Paris in 2003; subsequently, the ARCANE project was founded. Further stages of the project as a whole and of
the region treated here are mentioned in the Introduction, §1.2.1. Uwe Finkbeiner was chosen as teamleader and
asked Mirko Novák, Ferhan Sakal and Paola Sconzo to be his co-editors. According to the ESF rules, colleagues
from several European countries agreed to take care of the various groups of material. he team for the Middle
Euphrates region is presented in the Introduction, §1.2.2.
he editors’ irst thanks go to the excavators working in the Middle Euphrates region: as excellent colleagues,
they shared with us their mostly still unpublished materials (see the list of data providers below). Without this
support, the methodological concept of the investigation would not have come alive. We would also like to thank
the topic coordinators who have collaborated on this volume over several years. While Uwe Finkbeiner, Mirko
Novák, Ferhan Sakal, Paola Sconzo and Candida Felli have been members of the Middle Euphrates team from
the very beginning, Kathleen Deckers (since 2006), Monica Bouso (since 2007), Fausta Squadrone (since 2008),
Judith homalsky (since 2011), Alexander Pruß (since 2012), Hermann Genz (since 2012) and Gianni Marchesi
(since 2013) joined the group later, replacing former colleagues. he technical work was done by the graphic har-
monisers Gabriele Elsen-Novák (Bern), Sebastian von Peschke (Bern) and Elise Devidal (Paris), the map producer
Martin Sauvage (Paris) and the English editor Sarah Harrison (Norwich).
A special thank you is extended to the members of the Steering Committee, the Chairmen Pierre de
Miroschedji and Marc Lebeau, as well as to Marie Eve Sténuit, coordinator of the project: jointly, they looked
ater the administration and the distribution of the ESF funds. We should like to express our gratitude to the
collaborators of the ESF, who gave much support to our work: Monique van Donzel, Madelise Blumenroeder and
Marie Laure Schneider. We also want to thank Brepols Publishers, namely Chris VandenBorre and his collabora-
tors, for their kind help and support during the publication process.
From 2004 ARCANE found a home at the Eberhard Karls University in Tübingen, where the project had
rooms and where the website http://www.arcane.uni-tuebingen.de/ was and still is hosted, for which we extend
our grateful thanks. And we must also extend our thanks to the Heinrich-Fabri-Institut at Blaubeuren, an insti-
tution belonging to Tübingen University and the preferred site for many workshops in the frame of the project.
Particular and very warm thanks go to Brigitte Finkbeiner for her inestimable help in organising the work-
shops and for improving, and in some cases also translating, the English manuscripts.
Finally we would like to mention the excavators and data providers as well as the colleagues who added the
various entries of the ME key sites to the ARCANE Database (Site, Complex, Unit, Inventory, Pottery, Object,
Bibliography):
ID-Nr. Site label Data provided by Data entry by

ME006 Gre Virike T. A. Ökse A. Engin
ME007 Zeytinli Bahçe M. Frangipane, F. Ballossi P. Piccione, G. Francozzi
ME008 Tilbeshar Ch. Kepinski Ch. Kepinski
ME010 Shiyukh Tahtani G. Falsone, P. Sconzo P. Sconzo
ME012 Qara Quzaq C. Valdéz Pereiro C. Valdéz Pereiro
ME013 Bazi A. Otto, B. Einwag O. Mack
ME014 Kabir A. Porter I. Sweeny, F. Sakal
ME023 Halawa A R. Hempelmann R. Hempelmann
ix
Foreword
ME029 Selenkahiye D. J. W. Meijer D. J. W. Meijer

ME031 Emar U. Finkbeiner, F. Sakal F. Sakal
ME032 Bi’a E. Strommenger, A. Otto O. Mack
ME033 Hammam al-Turkman D. J. W. Meijer D. J. W. Meijer
ME035 Terqa O. Rouault J. Mas, O. Rouault
ME038 Şaraga K. Sertok K. Sertok
ME039 Birecik K. Sertok K. Sertok
ME043 Oylum B. Helwing A. Engin
Obersteinbach, Bern, Doha, Tübingen

U. Finkbeiner, M. Novák, F. Sakal, P. Sconzo
x
List of Abbreviations
ADB ARCANE Database

ARCANE Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern
Mediterranean
BRB Bevelled Rim Bowl
Ch. Chapter
CM Central Mesopotamia
EBA Early Bronze Age
ECM Early Central Mesopotamia
ED Early Dynastic
EJZ Early Jezirah (period)
EME Early Middle Euphrates
ESF European Science Foundation
ETG Early Tigridian
ID-Nr. Identity Number
JZFT Jezirah Figurine Type
LBA Late Bronze Age
LC Late Chalcolithic
MBA Middle Bronze Age
ME Middle Euphrates
MEFT Middle Euphrates Figurine Type
MEFT C Middle Euphrates Figurine Type, Chariots (Model Vehicles)
MEFT Z Middle Euphrates Figurine Type, zoomorphic
NL Northern Levant
PPNB Prepottery Neolithic B
PRT Numbering of pottery types by Elena Rova (ARCANE vol. I, Jezirah)
RBBW Red-Black Burnished Ware
SL Southern Levant
SM Southern Mesopotamia
TG Tigridian
WA Western Anatolia
xi
1. Introduction
Uwe Finkbeiner & Mirko Novák, with contributions by Marc Lebeau
1.1. he ARCANE ESF Programme (Marc Lebeau)

1.1.1 Presentation
he general presentation of the ARCANE ESF Programme, which is accessible on the ARCANE website
(http://www.arcane.uni-tuebingen.de/), describes the concept, procedures and methodology of the project.
Chronology underpins all archaeological and historical studies. he establishment of the proper sequence
of events is a prerequisite for writing history. he synchronisation of the chronologies, and therefore of the
histories, of the various areas of the Eastern Mediterranean and the Near East is an essential task without
which civilisations’ development, reciprocal inluences, emergence and divergence cannot be described and
understood.
Scholars had broadly outlined the chronological framework of these civilisations by the 1960s. Since then,
however, the proliferation of excavations and the widespread use of radiocarbon dates have revolutionised our
knowledge. here have been more discoveries in the last 40 years than in the preceding century. his accumula-
tion of new data has not signiicantly modiied the chronology of the 1st millennium, but that of the Bronze Age –
the 2nd and 3rd millennia – has been profoundly altered. New schemes of periodisation have been formulated, new
chronologies established and new synchronisms proposed based on a large variety of sometimes conlicting data
originating from the widened geographical scope of investigation.
As a result, disagreements between specialists are numerous and profound, controversies frequent and uncer-
tainties common. In particular, diferent scholars may sometimes use the same term to refer to a period to which
they ascribe diferent archaeological deinitions and time spans. In such extreme cases, scholarly communication
is jeopardised.
In order to try and resolve these problems a group of scholars representing several academic and research insti-
tutions met in 2002 at the University of Pisa for a two-day workshop. he outcome of this meeting was the crea-
tion of an international research project entitled “Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East”,
summarised by the acronym ARCANE.
he ultimate goal of the ARCANE project is to produce a reliable relative and absolute chronology for the
3rd millennium for the entire Near East based on the synchronisation of regional chronologies.
Within this long time span the project intends to review all aspects of material culture, together with
artistic manifestations, historical and epigraphic records and the various methods of dating (mainly radio-
carbon, but also thermo-luminescence, dendrochronology and so on). Geographically it encompasses the
entire Eastern Mediterranean and Near East, from Egypt to Iran and from Cyprus and Anatolia to the
Persian Gulf.
Within this large territory, the study approach is regional. he aim of the project is irst and foremost to estab-
lish regional archaeological sequences which will ultimately be synchronised in order to obtain a synthetic view of
the Eastern Mediterranean and Near Eastern chronology, hence the title of the project.
For working purposes, 12 regions have been isolated on the basis of a preliminary archaeological analy-
sis discussed during the workshops organised in Pisa and Paris. These regions are: Southern Levant (SL),
Northern Levant (NL), Cyprus (CY), Aegean (AG),1 Western & Central Anatolia (WA), Eastern Anatolia
(EA), Middle Euphrates (ME), Jezirah (JZ), Tigridian Region (TG), Central Mesopotamia (CM), Southern
Mesopotamia (SM) and Western Iran (WI). These regions constitute the operational framework of the
Regional Groups.
he analysis of some archaeological evidence, however, requires a wider, interregional approach. he project
therefore also has a trans-regional dimension. he critical examination of radiocarbon dates, art history, epi-
graphic and historical evidence necessitates consideration within a broader framework. hese aspects constitute,
therefore, the focus of additional research groups, called Transversal Groups.
1
Most unfortunately, colleagues dealing with the Aegean region resigned in 2006.
1
U. Finkbeiner & M. Novák, with contributions by M. Lebeau
1.1.2 Procedures
he development of the project was planned in three steps:
1: First, at a regional level, the establishment of regional periodisations;

2: hen, at a supra-regional level, the synchronisation of the diferent regional periodisations;
3: Finally, a global synchronisation of the entire study area.
1.1.2.1 First Phase: Regional Periodisation

Each Regional Group has produced a synthesis of its results in the form of a volume presenting a regional
periodisation, a table of synchronisation of the stratigraphic sequences of the major sites and a series of contribu-
tions illustrating the categories of objects that characterise the material culture for each period (type fossils).
1.1.2.2 Second Phase: Cross-regional Synchronisation

During this phase of the project the same methodology was applied in order to synchronise the diferent
regional periodisations. Interregional workshops were organised to compare the assemblages of artefacts. he role
of the three Transversal Groups was crucial at this stage of the project.
1.1.2.3 hird Phase: General Synthesis

he last phase of the project consisted of a general synthesis elaborated in the course of a inal conference
resulting in a inal volume with chronological tables, contributions about the periodisation and chronology
of the diferent regions, illustrations of the regional assemblages and distribution maps of widespread types of
artefacts.
1.1.3 Methodology
he project explicitly seeks to set new scientiic standards through the use of a common methodology applied
by all Regional Groups. In particular:
1: All Regional Groups follow the same working procedures aimed at reviewing the evidence as objectively as
possible in order to avoid the biases accumulated in the course of ive or six decades of scholarship. For example, in
order to avoid the terminological confusion mentioned above, in which periods with diferent archaeological dei-
nitions or chronological time spans may be given the same designation by diferent scholars, each Regional Group
uses, initially, as a provisional working terminology, “neutral” designations of period. To do this, the acronym of
the region is combined with an Arabic number indicating the phase (e.g., “ESL 1” for “Early Southern Levant
Period 1”, “EJZ 2” for “Early Jezirah Period 2”, etc.).
2: he participants try to develop, in the course of the project, a common terminology to deine periods and
types of material.
3: In selecting the data for chronological purposes, participants aim at quality rather than quantity: that is, they
consider only stratigraphically secure material and concentrate on complete assemblages discovered on sites where
the archaeological sequence is beyond dispute. In addition, a large amount of newly discovered and unpublished
material is used in order to guarantee that the project represents the most up-to-date treatment of the subject.
1.1.4 Inventories
he principal consideration underlying the Programme’s methodology is thus the quality of data provided. To
this end a basic concept has been developed which constitutes the core of the Database structure: “Inventories”.
here are three categories of inventories (deined by M. Lebeau, J.-P. halmann and E. Peltenburg), which are
described below.
1.1.4.1 ARCANE “Primary Inventories”/Stratigraphical Benchmarks

Benchmarks originally referred to surveyors’ marks made on a stationary object of previously determined
position and elevation and used as a reference point for, e.g., tidal observations and other surveys. Consequently,
for archaeologists, a chrono-stratigraphic or assemblage benchmark is a standard by which other archaeological
data can be measured or judged. Benchmark assemblages are thus groups of objects found in contexts of the high-
est depositional integrity that can generally, although not always, be linked to an absolute chronology: examples
include single burial deposits, suddenly destroyed loors/buildings/complexes and single event caches. ARCANE
“Primary Inventories” are expected to correspond to this deinition. hey are compulsorily linked to a UNIT, an
archaeological context to which this inventory – and possibly others – belong. he rigorous selection of chrono-
logically discrete material cultural evidence of unrivalled quality compensates for the inevitable loss of quantity.
Perforce, the result will be more selective than systematic.
2
Introduction
1.1.4.2 ARCANE “Composite Inventories”

In order to add complementary data to the artefactual assemblages represented in the “primary inventories”,
ARCANE “composite inventories” may be introduced by merging together (under one ARCANE Inventory Serial
Number) a restricted number of inventories from “excavation units” that are strictly correlated stratigraphically.
hey are not necessarily contiguous but they should belong to the same “complex”: for example, inventories from
contemporary loors in various rooms of the same building. “Composite inventories” are introduced merely to
increase representativeness. hey should not outnumber the “primary inventories” for one site. he grounds for cre-
ating a “composite inventory” should be strictly stratigraphical and topographical, and should be explicitly stated.
1.1.4.3 ARCANE “Artiicial Inventories”

ARCANE “artiicial inventories” respond to the wish to incorporate signiicant data retrieved from insuf-
iciently documented contexts and/or old standards of publication. hey should be used with utmost care, intro-
duced only when strictly necessary, and constitute only a small proportion of all data collected for ARCANE.
1.2. Background and Aims (Mirko Novák)

1.2.1 Background
here is hardly any aspect of Near Eastern Archaeology that has caused more controversial discussion among
scholars and more confusion among students at the beginning of their career than chronology. In addition to the
ongoing question of absolute chronology, the problems of relative, interregional chronologies and even the termi-
nologies in use are also sources of misunderstandings. Sometimes, diferent terminologies are used for one and the
same period (e.g. “Old Syrian” and “Middle Bronze Age”), sometimes the same terminology can describe diferent
periods (e.g. “Middle Bronze Age I” in Southern and Northern Levant) and sometimes, owing to misunderstood
conventions, periodisations are still in use that were established decades ago on the basis of quite a limited knowl-
edge of the material culture and are obviously no longer valid (e.g. “Early Dynastic I and II”). A reader of any sci-
entiic work on Near Eastern archaeology requires a chart or deinition as to which chronology and terminology
are used in the present publication. he reasons for that are multiple and not to be discussed here. And there is no
way that the situation can easily be solved.
However, the ESF-funded project “Associated Regional Chronologies of the Ancient Near East and the
Eastern Mediterranean in the 3rd Millennium BC (ARCANE)” is a irst step towards a redeinition of chronol-
ogy. Its idea is to establish regional chronologies based on all available kinds of data and purely reduced to material
from well-stratiied contexts. hese regional chronologies should then, at a later point, be interlinked with each
other and thus form an overall chronology.
Further information on the ARCANE system and methodology is provided in the irst published volume2
and on the project’s website (www.arcane.uni-tuebingen.de), so that it does not need any repetition here.
1.2.2 he Middle Euphrates

he region along the Middle Euphrates starting at the river’s emerging from the Taurus ranges and ending at
its transition into the Babylonian alluvium is part of the larger area called “Upper Mesopotamia”, which includes
also the ARCANE regions Jezirah (Arabic for “island”, describing actually the whole region between Middle
Euphrates and Middle Tigris) and Tigris. Owing to the huge extension of Upper Mesopotamia and its subdivision
into diferent zones of cultural appearance, the Steering Committee of the ARCANE project decided to distrib-
ute the responsibility among three regional groups.
he characteristic feature of the region under discussion here is the relatively narrow river plain, which is
deeply cut into the limestone plateau of Upper Mesopotamia. Most of it is situated in the “dry farming belt”,
a region where extensive rainfall agriculture is possible only under favourable circumstances. he fertile river
plain, where intensive agriculture is possible, is very limited and not able to provide subsistence to very large com-
munities. Hence it is no wonder that the Bronze Age settlements in this region were in general much smaller than
those in the neighbouring and more advanced regions and that periods of high urbanisation are always followed
by periods of vast deurbanisations.
But, besides agriculture, trade was a very important resource for the region in periods in which good condi-
tions prevailed: the Middle Euphrates was an interface between Babylonia (called “Southern Mesopotamia” and
partly also “Central Mesopotamia” in the ARCANE deinition) in the south-east, Assyria (the northern part
of “Central Mesopotamia” and “Tigris”) and the Habur region in the east, and the Northern Levant, including
the Mediterranean shore, in the west, and provided an important communication route from Central Anatolia
in the north and north-west to Babylonia in the south-east. Hence it was, in periods of developed interregional
2
Lebeau 2011.
3
commercial activities, an important communications node, and thus serves as an important interlink between
regional chronologies in Anatolia, Northern Levant and Central and Southern Mesopotamia.
1.2.3 Aims
It is not the intention of this volume to present a comprehensive history of the Middle Euphrates region, not
even a history of its urbanism, of its socio-economic developments or of the dynamics of its interchanges with
other regions. Instead, it is intended to lay a solid basis for such studies in the future by trying to establish a chro-
nology of its material culture, based on the stratigraphies of some representative sites.
he general presentation of the ARCANE ESF Programme, which is accessible on the ARCANE website
(http://www.arcane.uni-tuebingen.de/), describes the concept, aims, procedures and methodology of the project.
1.2.4 Chronological Terminology

As described below (§ 1.5.4), a regional chronology with a new, neutral terminology following the ARCANE
pattern is presented and used here: the “Early Middle Euphrates (EME)” chronology.
According to the ARCANE concept, all “EME” periods are basically deined by the development of material
culture in relation to the stratigraphy. In the present volume, architecture, burials, pottery, glyptic, metal and
bone objects and terracotta igurines are taken into consideration. Radiocarbon data and historical as well as (the
very few) epigraphic sources provide further information to establish both a relative and, as far as possible, an
absolute chronology.
1.3. Towards ARCANE Volume IV (Mirko Novák)

1.3.1 Former Attempts
he work of the ME regional group was irst stimulated by four international workshops, “From Early to
Middle Bronze Age: he Region at the Middle Euphrates”, organised in Blaubeuren in 2002, 2003 (sponsored
by the Gerda Henkel Stitung) and 2005 (sponsored by the Fritz hyssen Stitung) and in 2004 in Rothenberge,
organised by the Friedrich Wilhelm Universität Münster. he aim was to deine the transition from the Early
to the Middle Bronze Age in the ME. For the irst time, colleagues working on both sides of the Syrian-Turkish
border came together to establish a common chronology. It quickly turned out that the problems went far deeper
than mere issues of material-based chronology: the systems and terminologies used in both parts of one and the
same region difered signiicantly. From there, the idea was born to establish a common terminology in order to
make things more easily comparable.
Approximately at the same time, the Syrian Jezirah Field Workshop3 developed and promoted a new regional
periodisation based on the “Early Jezirah” label in the region neighbouring the Middle Euphrates to the east.
hose works, including the use of certain procedures, preigured later ARCANE developments.
1.3.2 Middle Euphrates Team

A few years ater the Blaubeuren and the Syrian Jezirah Field Workshops, the ARCANE Programme was
born. he ME regional group was composed of two Team Leaders (Uwe Finkbeiner and Mirko Novák), with
a later addition of two more (Ferhan Sakal and Paola Sconzo), and seven Topic Coordinators: Monica Bouso
(Barcelona): burials; Fausta Squadrone (Istanbul/Rome): metals; Candida Felli (Florence): art and glyptic;
Alexander Pruß (Munich/Berne): zoomorphic terracotta igurines; Hermann Genz (Beirut): bone artefacts;
Judith homalsky (Tübingen/Berlin): lithics; and Kathleen Deckers (Tübingen): radiocarbon. Uwe Finkbeiner
(Tübingen) was responsible for the stratigraphy, Paola Sconzo (Tübingen) for the ceramics, Mirko Novák
(Tübingen/Bern) for architecture and city planning and Ferhan Sakal (Tübingen/Doha) for the anthropomor-
phic igurines. he graphic harmonisation was done by Gabriele Elsen-Novák (Bern), Sebastian von Peschke
(Bern) and Elise Devidal (Paris), the mapping by Martin Sauvage (Paris), the English editing by Sarah Harrison
(Norwich). he database was created and administered by Stefano Anastasio (Florence), Francesco Saliola (Siena)
and Pino Fenú (Siena), and the website by Ferhan Sakal (Tübingen).
he group endeavoured from the outset to adhere as strictly as possible to the Programme guidelines.4
1.3.3 Regional and Transversal Workshops

hree regional three-day workshops were sponsored by the ESF, the irst in Blaubeuren (1 April 2007), the
second in Agrigento (12 May 2008) and the last one again in Blaubeuren (5-9 February 2009). he Team Leaders,
3
his was held at Beydar 8-14 May 1998. An account of this event is given in Lebeau 2000: 168-170.
4
See Lebeau 2012 and http://www.arcane.uni-tuebingen.de/sg.pdf and http://www.arcane.uni-tuebingen.de/grpp.pdf.
4
Introduction
Topic Coordinators, ARCANE technical staf, a number of invited colleagues active in the region and some Team
Leaders of the neighbouring regional groups all attended these meetings.
hese successive meetings were intended to strengthen ties between the Topic Coordinators and to develop a
material-based (relative) chronology, giving evidence to all kind of artefacts and remains. he results, a chrono-
logical chart and a new terminology, have been adopted by the authors of the present volume.
1.3.4 he ME Regional Publication

Using both published evidence and the ARCANE Database, each ME Topic Coordinator wrote a chapter for
this volume based on the list of topics proposed by the organisers. As recommended by the Steering Committee,
the volume strictly follows the editorial guidelines for the ARCANE regional phase, as detailed on the ARCANE
website5 and summarised as follows: each Regional Group will produce a synthesis of its results in the form of a
volume presenting a regional periodisation, a table of synchronisation of the stratigraphic sequences of the major
sites and a series of contributions illustrating the categories of objects that characterise the material culture for
each period (type fossils).
he irst drats of the various contributions were circulated among the regional group for comments and
reviews. he inal versions of the chapters take into account the improvements provided by the members of the
group and by Topic Coordinators of neighbouring regions.
1.4. Geography (Uwe Finkbeiner)

1.4.1 he Boundaries of the Middle Euphrates Region (ME)
he region under study here, called “Middle Euphrates”, is deined by the river valley from the point where it
leaves the Taurus down to Tell Ashara, ancient Terqa, 80km before the modern Syrian–Iraqi border (see Fig. 1).
he region also includes the valley of the Balikh, with the site of Hammam al-Turkman, and two sites west of
the Euphrates in Turkey: Tilbeshar on the river Sajur and Oylum near Kilis. he important site of Mari is part
of the region “Central Mesopotamia”, owing to its close relations with the Sumerian culture during the 3rd
millennium.
1.4.2 he Subregions and their Sites

Today, the Euphrates valley is mainly characterised by the dams and reservoirs, which allow four subregions
to be clearly distinguished. Ater the Euphrates has let the gorges of the Taurus shortly before the site of Hassek
the lood plain broadens and becomes the Atatürk Dam Basin (see Fig. 2). Further downstream, but still in
Turkey, there follow the dams near Birecik and Carchemish, which form the Carchemish and Birecik Dam Basin
(see Fig. 3). In Syria there follows the Tishrin Dam with, irst, the Upper Tishrin Dam Basin and, further down-
stream, below the gorge near Qal‘a Najm, the Lower Tishrin Dam Basin (see Fig. 4). he last reservoir is Lake
Assad, behind the dam near Tabqa, which dates back to the 1970s and gives its name to the subregion Tabqa Dam
Basin (see Fig. 5). he remaining sites in this chapter are subsumed in the subregion Balikh and Lower Middle
Euphrates valley and as “Sites west of the Euphrates valley” (Fig. 1).
1.4.2.1 Atatürk Dam Basin (see map, Fig. 2)

he salvage excavations conducted in the Atatürk Dam Basin are listed as keysites – Hassek (ME001), (Nevalı
Çori (ME002), Titriş (ME003), Kurban (ME004), Lidar (ME037) and Samsat (ME041) – but none yielded
inventories for the ARCANE database (ADB). herefore, they will be presented in § 2.4.1 as additional sites.
1.4.2.2 Carchemish and Birecik Dam Basin (see map, Fig. 3)

he Carchemish–Birecik Basin covers the area of the two dams from Horum down to Şaraga. he former river
plain is bordered on both sides by low hills on which the sites are located. In the east, downstream from Birecik,
are Zeytinli Bahçe ME007), Gre Virike (ME006) and Şavi (ME040); on the western bank Birecik (ME039) and
Şaraga (ME038). Upstream from Birecik, Horum (ME005) is located on the western bank of the river.
1.4.2.3 Upper and Lower Tishrin Dam Basin (see map, Fig. 4)
he area named “Upper Tishrin Dam Basin” follows the Euphrates valley from the Syrian–Turkish border
down to the narrows near Qal‘a Najm. Many sites accompany the river on either bank: on the western bank,
Jerablus Tahtani (ME016), Amarna (ME036) and Aushariye (ME017); on the eastern Shiyukh Fawqani
(ME009), Shiyukh Tahtani (ME010), Ahmar (ME011) and Qara Quzaq (ME012).
5
http://www.arcane.uni-tuebingen.de/grpp.pdf.
5
38° 39° 40° 41°

ARCANE ESF Programme
EME Sites and Subregions in the Middle Euphrates Region
© Martin Sauvage & ARCANE ESF Programme
WESTERN Karakaya Dam
& C E NT RAL
es
A N ATOL I A r at UPPER EUPH RATES (UE)
38° ph Batman Dam
Eu
(WA) Devegeçidi Dam
38°
Atatürk Dam Basin
(see detailed map) Ti
gri
s
TIG RIDIAN REG IO N (TG )

Carchemish & Birecik
Dam Basin Atatürk Dam
(see detailed map)
Birecik Dam
37°
Carchemish Dam
37°
Tilbeshar
(ME008)
Oylum (ME043) Upper and Lower ha
K
bu
West of the Tishrin Dam Basin r
M
Euphrates (see detailed map) Hammam al-Turkman (ME033) North Hasakah Dams
D
I
Tishrin Dam
N O RT
D J EZIRAH (J Z)
L
Balikh
Middle Khabur Dam

E
HER
36°
E TG
U Bi’a (ME032)
N L
36°
P
H
E VA
Tabqa Dam Abu Hamad (ME034)

R
A
Tabqa Dam Basin T
NT
(see detailed map)

E
bur
(N
S
L)
Kha
( C M A L M E S O P O TA MI A
Eu
Lower Middle Euphrates (
M
ph
and Balikh Valley ra

t
E
es
)
35° Limits of the ARCANE Regions
metres 35°
Limits of Subregions
(ME035) Terqa
Terqa IIIrd Millennium Site
2000 Dam and Reservoir
R
1500
)
International Boundary
NT
1000
CE
500
200 0 50 100 km
0
38° 39° 40° 41°
Fig. 1: he boundaries of the Middle Euphrates region.
he Lower Tishrin Dam Basin covers the Euphrates valley from the narrows at Qal‘at Najm downstream to
the Tishrin dam. All sites considered for the 3rd millennium are situated on the let bank of the river, where they
form a settlement complex with Banat (ME015) as the main site, Kabir (ME014) and Bazi (ME013).
1.4.2.4 Tabqa Dam Basin (see map, Fig. 5)

he dam built between 1968 and 1973 near Tabqa or “Al-hawra” created a huge lake with a length of c. 90km
called Lake Assad. he salvage excavations started in the 1960s. On the right bank of the Euphrates are Hadidi
(ME026), Habuba Kabira (ME027), Qannas (ME028), Selenkahiye (ME029) Wreide (ME030) and Emar
(ME031); on the let bank Sweyhat (ME018), Hajji Ibrahim (ME042), Shamseddin (ME019), ‘Abd (ME020),
Munbaqa (ME021), Tawi (ME022), Halawa A (ME023) and Halawa B (ME024).
6
Introduction
38°30’ 39°
Atatürk Dam Area (ME)
IIIrd Millennium Site Distribution
si
e re
nD
Lila
Kâh
Kâhta
ta
Adıyaman
Çayı
Hassek (ME001)
Z i y a re t
yu
Cam Ç
Su
u ayı
c
ur
Çay
b
al
Euphrates
K
ı
Ça
Hilvan
Nevalı Çori (ME002)
ka
l D
er
Lidar (ME037)
es
i
(ME041) Samsat
37° (Karababa Dam) 37°
30’ Atatürk Dam Titriş (ME003) 30’
(ME004) Kurban
İ n
0 5 10 20 km
ce
su
D
er
es
i
Hilvan Modern Town
Hassek IIIrd Millennium Site
Bozova Dam and Reservoir
38°30’ 39°
Fig. 2: Atatürk Dam Basin or Karababa Basin (excavated 3rd-millennium sites).
1.4.2.5 Lower Middle Euphrates and Balikh Valley (see map, Fig. 1)
his section of the Euphrates valley starts beyond the Tabqa dam and continues until the Syrian–Iraqi border.
he Balikh, a tributary from the north, lows into the Euphrates near Bi’a, next to the modern city of Raqqa. he
following sites belong to this subregion: Bi’a (ME032), Hammam al-Turkman (ME033), Abu Hamad (ME034)
and Terqa (ME035).
1.4.2.6 Sites west of the Euphrates Valley (see map, Fig. 1)

he Sajur is a tributary joining the Euphrates from the west. It has its source not far west from the city of
Gaziantep in Turkey and enters the Euphrates c. 18km south of Jerablus in Syria. In its course through mostly
hilly terrain it encounters a great number of tells and fertile plains, such as Tilbeshar (ME008). he site of Oylum
(ME043) is situated north of Aleppo next to the border in Turkey.
1.4.3 Cartography
he maps of the ME have been produced by the cartographer of the Programme, Martin Sauvage. Bartholomew’s
map of the Middle East was used as a template, with reference points provided by the excavators or derived from
oicial publications.6 he detailed maps used for the background are published maps from local surveys carried
out before the construction of the dams.
6
Middle East Bartholomew World Travel Map 1988, scale 1:4,000,000, John Bartholomew & Son, Edinburgh.
7
37°45’ 38°
37° Carchemish Dams Area (ME) 37°
15’ IIIrd Millennium Site Distribution 15’
(ME005) Horum
Birecik Dam
(ME039) Birecik
Birecik
Nizip
37° 37°
Zeytinli Bahçe (ME007)

Eu
ph
ra
Hancağız Dam tes
Ça n a k ç ı
Şavi (ME040)
Gre Virike (ME006)

(ME038) Şaraga
Carchemish Dam
0 5 10 km
Nizip Modern Town

Gre Virike IIIrd Millennium Site
Dam and Reservoir
Wadi
International Boundary
Jerablus
37°45’ 38°
Fig. 3: Carchemish and Birecik Dam Basin (excavated 3rd-millennium sites).
8
Introduction
38° 38°15’
metres ARCANE ESF Programme
(ME038) araga Gre Virike (ME006) Tishrin Dam Area (ME)
500 IIIrd Millennium Site Distribution
300 Carchemish Dam
Jerablus
Shiyukh Fawqani (ME009)

(ME016) Jerablus Tahtani
Shiyukh Tahtani (ME010)
36° (ME036) Amarna

36°
45’ 45’
Ahmar (ME011)
Saju
r Aushariye
(ME017)
Qara Quzaq (ME012)
Eu
ph
ra
tes
Manbij
36° 36°
30’ 30’
Kabir (ME014)
Banat (ME015)
Bazi (ME013)
Tishrin Dam
Manbij Modern Town

Bazi IIIrd Millennium Site
Dam
0 5 10 km International Boundary
38° 38°15’
Fig. 4: Tishrin Dam Basin (excavated 3rd-millennium sites).
9
38° 38°15’ 38°30’

Kabir (ME014) Tabqa Dam Area (ME)
Banat (ME015) IIIrd Millennium Site Distribution
Bazi (ME013)
Tishrin Dam
Sweyhat (ME018)
(ME026) Hadidi Hajji Ibrahim (ME042)
36° Shamseddin (ME019) 36°

15’ 15’
‘Abd (ME020)
Munbaqa (ME021)
Habuba Kabira Tawi (ME022)

(ME027) Djerniye (ME025)
(ME028) Qannas
Halawa B (ME024)
(ME029) Selenkahiye Halawa A (ME023)
325
(ME030) Wreide m
315 m
300 m
36° 36°
Eu
(ME031) Emar
ph
ra
te
s
Tabqa Dam
al-Thawra
(al-Tabqa)
35° al-Thawra Modern Town 35°

45’ 45’
‘Abd IIIrd Millennium Site
Dam and Reservoir 0 1 5 10 km
38° 38°15’ 38°30’
Fig. 5: Tabqa Dam Basin (excavated 3rd-millennium sites).
he aim was to produce a general map of the ME, to be published in A4 format, showing accurate locations
for the excavated 3rd-millennium sites (Chapter 2, Fig. 1). he site names have not been transliterated according to
a harmonised system, following the recommendation of the Steering Committee. hey relect common usage in
publications and the choice of the excavators (Ğudeda instead of Judaidah, for instance).
he general map, Fig. 1, is devoted to the limits of the subregions. he maps Figs 2-5 show the subregions 1-4
with the sites in more detail.
10
Introduction
1.5. Periodisation (Mirko Novák)

1.5.1 General Remarks
he EME sequence covers the inal century of the 4th and the entire 3rd millennium until the very begin-
ning of the 2nd millennium. his timespan was oten regarded as forming one period, since cultural development
is not interrupted by any obvious breaks. It has been labelled as “Early Bronze Age” (and the transition to the
“Middle Bronze Age”, which is included here as Period EME 6) in most of the publications and scientiic research
that appeared within the last four decades. Within this period urbanisation, which initially developed in SM,
spread once again, ater the irst emergence during the “Uruk expansion”, to the north. Later, vast parts of Upper
Mesopotamia, which is subdivided here into the regions of the ME, the JZ and the Upper TG, were conquered
and ruled by kings from Southern Mesopotamia.
In contrast to the neighbouring regions of the NL (e.g. Ebla, Ugarit), CM (e.g. Mari) and, in particular, the JZ
(e.g. Khuera, Brak, Leilan, Mozan etc.), the ME lacks long-term and large-scale excavations conducted over several
decades. One reason is certainly the nature of scientiic research there, which is almost entirely based on salvage
projects within dam resorts, terminating every research project by the looding of the plains. Another reason is
that the region was never characterised by huge cities of 100ha and more, as were its neighbours, and never reached
the same high degree of urbanism as, for example, the JZ. It may be no coincidence that no archive with cuneiform
tablets has been discovered so far, although it is very likely that such must have existed. From the earliest written
sources from Ebla, Mari and Southern Mesopotamia giving some information on the ME we learn that this region
was irst politically subdivided into the dominions of Ebla and Abarsal (Khuera?), later occupied by Mari, then
dominated by Ebla and inally invaded by the Akkadian kings. As far as we can see, not one political power of
any signiicance was ever based within the ME, although some important cities, such as Carchemish, Armanum,
Emar and Tuttul, did exist.
One problem for the establishment of a chronology lies in the lack of written sources giving internal politi-
cal information; the region’s political history was always written from an external view. Another problem is the
restricted time devoted to archaeological research and the involvement of most of the region’s scholars in other
projects outside the region. Hence, many excavations were never adequately published and only a few attempts have
been made to establish a material-based chronology. And, lastly, the modern borders, dividing this historical region
into areas belonging to the modern states of Turkey and Syria, inlicted chronological confusion as well: beside a few
cases in which Southern Mesopotamian chronologies have been adapted7 or a Syrian terminology, developed for art
history, was introduced,8 most scholars have used the Bronze Age chronology concept already in use in neighbour-
ing regions, labelling the 3rd millennium as “Early Bronze Age”. But since the scholars working in the Syrian part
of the ME in the late 1960s and throughout the 1970s and 1980s (irst Tabqa dam and later Tishrin dam) were
strongly inluenced by the spectacular results of the excavations in Ebla, they adopted the Northern Levantine sub-
division into Early Bronze Age I, II, III, IVA and IVB.9 heir colleagues working slightly earlier or at the same time
in Turkey (irst Keban, then Karababa, Karakaya and Atatürk, later Birecik and Carchemish dams) were embedded
in an Anatolian research tradition that followed a subdivision into Early Bronze Age I, II and III10 established by
the scholars working in Cilicia (Tarsus and Mersin)11 and adopted later for CA as well.12
1.5.2 Southern Mesopotamian Terminology

Unlike the scholars working in the JZ, the excavators of sites in the ME hardly ever used the chronology of
Southern Mesopotamia, which had always been a mixture of a material-based and a historical one. Terms such
as “Uruk” and “Jemdat Nasr”, named ater eponym sites, are combined with pseudo-historical designations
such as “Early Dynastic”, historical ones such as “Ur III”, and even linguistic ones such as “Neo-Sumerian”.
Moreover, several competing systems were introduced and used within the last eight decades. Table 1 sum-
marises only the most prominent ones.
An overview of the adoption of the chronological systems in Upper Mesopotamia is given by Alexander Pruß
in the irst ARCANE volume and need not be repeated here.13
7
See, e.g., Wäler (Munbaqa) and Strommenger (Habuba Kabira) in Heinrich et al. 1974.
8
First presented in Orthmann 1975 and adopted for ME sites in, e.g., Orthmann 1976: 44 (Munbaqa).
9
See the various contributions in Margueron 1977.
10
For an overview on the Anatolian terminology used in the Turkish part of the Middle Euphrates see Gerber 2005: 4-9 and
Becker 2007: 87-90.
11
Goldman 1956.
12
Orthmann 1963, based on the Alişar sequence (von der Osten 1937).
13
Pruß in Lebeau 2011: 10-12 with table 1.
11
Table 1: Diferent chronologies proposed for Southern Mesopotamia.
de Sarzec /
Frankfort2 Moortgat3 Orthmann4 Nissen5
de Genouillac1
Pré-Sargonique Early Dynastic I 1. Übergangszeit Älterfrühdynastisch Zeit der rivalisierenden
Stadtfürstentümer (“Period of
Early Dynastic II Mesilim-Zeit competing city states”)
Early Dynastic IIIa Fara-Zeit Jüngerfrühdynastisch
Early Dynastic IIIb
Ur I-Zeit
Protoimperial Period
Sargonique Akkad Zeit der ersten Territorialstaaten
(“Period of the irst territorial
Ur III Neusumerisch states”)
1
Genouillac 1934: 70.
2
Frankfort 1954.
3
Moortgat 1967 following earlier publications.
4
Orthmann 1975.
5
Nissen 1983.
1.5.3 Bronze Age Terminology

In almost all cultural sciences tripartite systems are preferred to describe and analyse chronological, historical
or cultural and art developments: in art history we oten ind designations such as “early”, “mature” and “late”
phases of styles, in history subdivisions such as “early”, “high” and “late”, describing, for example, the medieval
period. he pre-classical chronology is generally subdivided into “Stone”, “Bronze” and “Iron” Ages, the Bronze
Age itself into “Early”, “Middle” and “Late”. So it is no wonder that the Early Bronze Age (here EBA) was again
subdivided into the phases EBA I, II and III in most of the proposed systems both in Europe and the Near East.14
he deeper the knowledge of material culture, however, the clearer it became that tripartite systems do not at
all relect realities. Hence, the tripartite EBA system originally developed for the Southern Levant was enlarged by
the addition of phases EBA IV A and IV B (which actually turned out to be two separate phases rather than two
subphases, as the designation might indicate) for Ebla and the entire Northern Levant. In Anatolia, however, the
subdivision into three phases remained in use until the present (see citations above in § 1.5.1). In Ebla, the charac-
teristics of EBA I and II remained obscure and even EBA III was not clearly deined. his was done by the scholars
working in the Middle Euphrates irst (see Chapter 4, this volume), with many diiculties and unconvincingly in
any case.15 Nevertheless, the stratigraphy and the material of Ebla was decisive for the phases EBA IV A and IV B:
the material from Palace G gave signiicance to EBA IV A, its destruction marked the transition to EBA IV B.16
As a result of the discovery of the royal archive of Ebla the question arose as to how the Ebla kings relate to
Southern Mesopotamian history. Beside historical interests, chronological considerations depended largely on this
interpretation: in the end, the question was how the chronology of Northern Levant and Upper Mesopotamia has
to be synchronised with the chronology of Babylonia. For a long time there seemed to be a consensus that Naram-
Sîn was responsible for the destruction of Palace G. Hence, EBA IV A was considered to be contemporary with
the major part of the Akkad Period, making EBA IV B more or less equal to Ur III. However, more recent studies
have shown that Palace G had already been destroyed by its rival Mari at the very end of the Early Dynastic and
the beginning of the Akkad Period.17 Hence, EBA IVA runs parallel to the Early Dynastic III period in Babylonia
and EBA IVB to the Akkad Period. his synchronisation is strongly supported by the Middle Bronze Age char-
acteristics of the pottery of the Ur III Period, such as comb-incised decorations.18
Even more complicated was the deinition of the beginning of the Early Bronze Age: in Southern Levant and
in Central Anatolia the period of the “Uruk expansion” and its synchronic cultures in the last centuries of the 4th
millennium were frequently considered as EBA I. he reason for this is unclear; however, it can be suggested that
the appearance of tools made of copper and arsenic bronze were taken as evidence. However, since real tin bronze
appeared not before the 3rd millennium most authors tend now to attribute the late 4th millennium to the Late
Chalcolithic, irrespective of the highly developed urbanism and the emergence of a civilised “lifestyle” at least in
14
See, e.g., the overview in Gerber 2005: 4-6.
15
Schwartz & Weiss 1992: 236 avoid the EB terminology.
16
Matthiae 1980: 105-106.
17
See, most recently, Sallaberger in Lebeau 2011: 327-333 and Archi 2013.
18
Pruß 2007.
12
Introduction
Table 2: Synchronization of the Southern Mesopotamian and the Syrian Early Bronze Age chronologies.
Dates (app.)6 Mesopotamia Syria / Upper Mesopotamia

4000-2900 Early Sumerian (Uruk-Period) Late Chalcolithic 1-5
2900-2500 Jemdat Nasr, Early Dynastic I and II Early Bronze Age I-III
2500-2228 Early Dynastic III a and b Early Bronze Age IV A
2228-2036 Akkad and Guti Period 7
Early Bronze Age IV B
2035-1929 Neo Sumerian (Ur III) Middle Bronze Age I
6
Absolute dates following Mebert 2010: 115. he Middle Chronology would be about 70 years earlier.
7
Taking 60 years for the Guti period according to the lower dates proposed by Sallaberger in Lebeau 2011: 333.
Southern Mesopotamia.19 his new attribution was inally adopted also in Anatolia, 20 leaving the question open
regarding what precisely should now deine the phase EBA I.
In Southern Mesopotamia, the Bronze Age terminology was never seriously used because the historical and
linguistic sources made it much easier to work with the systems mentioned above.
1.5.4 Proposal of an “Early Middle Euphrates” Periodisation

A basic problem in the use of all these well-established chronologies is that they were developed on the basis
of much less knowledge of material culture and stratigraphies than is available nowadays. Moreover, the Southern
Mesopotamian chronology did not really it the situation in the Middle Euphrates, mostly owing to the lack of
distinctive material, while the Bronze Age chronology is disregarded owing to the fact that identical terminolo-
gies have diferent meanings in diferent regions. he systems developed for either Cilicia or Palestine could not
easily be adopted for Upper Mesopotamia. Hence it makes sense to propose a new chronology, based on both
material from well-stratiied contexts and historical considerations. Additionally, radiocarbon data should pro-
vide arguments for relative and absolute datings.
In accordance with the overall ARCANE system, the terminology for the regional chronology proposed here
is labelled “Early Middle Euphrates (EME)”, covering more or less the 3rd and the very early 2nd millennium. It is
deined with the idea that it may be developed in the future for the 2nd millennium (“Old Middle Euphrates”,
“Middle Middle Euphrates”) and the irst half of the 1st millennium (“New Middle Euphrates”), as has already
been done for the JZ. Of course, the authors are well aware of the weak points of this terminology: all previous
periods, such as the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic, are automatically excluded from this system (since there is
nothing earlier than “early”), although nobody could deny their impact on the culture of the 3rd millennium.
However, it would have been even less reasonable to create a system of terminology diferent from that of the other
regional groups of ARCANE.
1.6. he Available Data (Uwe Finkbeiner)

1.6.1 he Sites
Within the boundaries described at §1.4.1, 43 3rd-millennium sites have been considered. Of these, 12 sites are
situated in the upper, Turkish, section of the Euphrates valley, 4 of which yielded inventories that were entered
into the ARCANE Database (ADB). A further 29 sites are situated in the Syrian section, 10 of which delivered
inventories for the ADB. A further 2 sites with inventories, Tilbeshar and Oylum, are both located in Turkey. In
the course of the evaluations the excavations at Şavi and Aushariye were eventually let out.
Compared with the total number of sites, the 16 sites with inventories appears a paltry number. It must, how-
ever, be borne in mind that we are mainly dealing with rescue excavations, many of which are not yet published, so
that the ARCANE project had to rely on the goodwill of the excavators in sharing the material that went into the
inventories. And even in cases of inds and indings that are available in a inal publication the help of the excava-
tor is oten needed to gather them into inventories that answer the criteria of the ARCANE project. Again, the
will of the excavators to cooperate was decisive.
In addition to the 16 sites with, overall, 68 inventories, Table 3 lists 25 excavations that do not appear in the
ADB. However, Chapters 3-12 in this volume have also considered inds from those excavations so that the com-
plete range of 3rd-millennium small inds would be covered. herefore, all those sites have been presented (in the
19
Rothman 2001.
20
See, e.g., Helwing 2002.
13
Table 3: Complete list of sites by subregions.
Chapter ID Number Name of site

Sites not considered --- ME040 Şavi
--- ME017 Aushariye
2.3.1 Birecik-Carchemish 2.3.1.1 ME006 Gre Virike
Dam Basin
2.3.1.2 ME038 Şaraga
2.3.1.3 ME039 Birecik
2.3.1.4 ME007 Zeytinli Bahçe
2.3.2 Upper Tishrin Dam 2.3.2.1 ME010 Shiyukh Tahtani
Basin
2.3.2.2. ME012 Qara Quzaq
Chapter 2.3 2.3.3 Lower Tishrin Dam 2.3.3.1 ME013 Bazi
Basin
Individual 2.3.3.2 ME014 Kabir
sequences
2.3.4 Tabqa Dam Basin 2.3.4.1 ME023 Halawa A
(Sites with
inventories) 2.3.4.2 ME029 Selenkahiye
2.3.4.3 ME031 Emar
2.3.5 Lower Middle 2.3.5.1 ME032 Bi’a
Euphrates and Balikh
Valley 2.3.5.2 ME035 Terqa
2.3.5.3 ME033 Hammam al-Turkman
2.3.6 West of the 2.3.6.1 ME008 Tilbeshar
Euphrates
2.3.6.2 ME043 Oylum Höyük
2.4.1.01 ME001 Hassek
2.4.1.02 ME002 Nevalı Çori
Atatürk Dam Basin 24.1.03 ME003 Titriş

(Karababa Basin) 2.4.1.04 ME004 Kurban
Chapter 2.4 2.4.1.05 ME037 Lidar
Comparative 2.4.1.06 ME041 Samsat
Stratigraphy Birecik-Carchemish 2.4.1.07 ME005 Horum
2.4.1.08 ME009 Shiyukh Fawqani
2.4.1.09 ME016 Jerablus Tahtani
Tishrin Dam Basin 2.4.1.10 ME011 Ahmar
2.4.1.11 ME036 Amarna
2.4.1.12 ME015 Banat
2.4.1.13 ME042 Hajji Ibrahim
2.4.1.14 ME018 Sweyhat
2.4.1.15 ME019 Shamseddin
2.4.1.16 ME020 ‘Abd
2.4.1.17 ME021 Munbaqa
Tabqa Dam Basin 2.4.1.18 ME022 Tawi
2.4.1.19 ME024 Halawa B
2.4.1
2.4.1.20 ME026 Hadidi
Sites without
inventories 2.4.1.21 ME027 Habuba Kabira
2.4.1.22 ME028 Qannas
2.4.1.23 ME030 Wreide
2.3.5 Lower Middle 2.4.1.24 ME025 Djerniye
Euphrates
2.4.1.25 ME034 Abu Hamad
14
Introduction
Table 4: List of sites documented in the ADB, 3rd millennium periods of occupation (light grey stands for
probable or assumed occupation).
Id.-Nr. Site label LC 5 EME 1 EME 2 EME 3 EME 4 EME 5 EME 6

ME006 Gre Virike
ME007 Zeytinli Bahçe
ME008 Tilbeshar
ME010 Shiyukh Tahtani ?
ME012 Qara Quzaq
ME013 Bazi
ME014 Kabir
ME023 Halawa A
ME029 Selenkahiye
ME031 Emar
ME032 Bi’a, mound E
ME033 Hammam al-Turkman
ME035 Terqa
ME038 Şaraga
ME039 Birecik
ME043 Oylum (graves)
following chapter, § 2.4.1 “Additional Sites”), along with their most important indings, in an attempt to assign
them their place in the new periodisation.
he sizes of the sites adopted in the ADB difer widely. In total, 4 sites (Tilbeshar, Emar, Bi’a and Terqa)
belong to the category of towns of over 20ha that have a supraregional importance; 3 sites (Halawa A, Selenkahiye
and Oylum) are regional centres extending over 10-20ha; and the remaining 9 sites have an extent, in the 3rd
millennium, from 1ha to 6ha. he areas that have actually been excavated do not necessarily correspond to the
size of the site. Only 4 excavation areas extend over more than 2000m 2 , while 7 extend over less than 500m 2
(see Table 5).
1.6.2 Periods of Occupation

he table of sites with inventories shows a rather varying distribution of evidence from the periods within
the 3rd millennium. In the surroundings of Carchemish several places are already attested for the irst half
of the 3rd millennium, from EME 1 on; in the middle portion of the investigated region some places were
founded only in EME 4, while places below the Tabqa dam and in the Balikh valley belong to an earlier period
(EME 2-3). For Emar, period EME 4 is archaeologically attested by just a few inds, but the Ebla texts place
it clearly in EME 4.
he picture suggested by Table 4 must be modiied by the excavations treated in Chapter 2, § 2.4.1 as, espe-
cially in the Tabqa Dam Basin, there are several earlier sites that go back to the beginning of the 3rd millennium,
including Hajji Ibrahim, Sweyhat, ‘Abd, Hadidi and Halawa B.
1.6.3 he ME Database
With 68 inventories comprising 677 ceramic vessels and 170 other objects from safe contexts, the ADB ren-
ders a representative overview for the Middle Euphrates region.
15
Table 5: : List of sites documented in the ADB, nr. of items per table, size (3rd millennium estimated).
ID-Nr. Site label Country Admin. district Modern name Complex Unit Inventory Pottery Objects Size ha 3rd mill. Size ha Excav. Area m2
ME006 Gre Virike Turkey Şanlıurfa Gre Virike 2 4 4 49 15 9 ha 1,8 ha 1750 m 2
ME007 Zeytinli Bahçe Turkey Şanlıurfa Zeytinli Bahce 3 10 12 68 1 1,9 ha - 205 m 2
ME008 Tilbeshar Turkey Gaziantep Tilbeshar 5 7 7 168 3 56 ha 56 ha 1200 m 2
ME010 Shiyukh Tahtani Syria Aleppo Shiyukh Tahtani 3 8 8 64 23 6 ha 2 ha 1000 m 2
ME012 Qara Quzaq Syria Aleppo Qara Quzaq 1 5 6 77 37 7,7 ha 1,1 ha 140 m 2
ME013 Bazi Syria Aleppo Bazi 1 3 3 16 3 10 ha 2,5 ha 2200 m 2
ME014 Kabir Syria Aleppo Kabir 1 1 1 21 0 2,3 ha 2,3 ha 341m 2
ME023 Halawa A Syria Raqqa Halawa 2 3 3 54 0 15 ha 15 ha 3700 m 2
16
ME029 Selenkahiye Syria Aleppo Selenkahiye 2 2 2 5 0 12 ha 10 ha 1 ha
ME031 Emar Syria Aleppo Meskene 1 2 1 12 7 40 ha -? - 500 m 2
ME032 Bi’a Syria Raqqa Bi’a 3 21 9 92 63 36 ha 36 ha 6245 m 2
ME033 Hammam al-Turkman Syria Raqqa Hammam al-T. 2 1 2 2 3 25 ha 4 ha 60 m 2
ME035 Terqa Syria Deir ez-Zor Al Ashara 3 3 3 20 6 13 ha 25 ha 4000 m 2
ME038 Şaraga Turkey Gaziantep Keleklioğlu köyü 0 0 2 8 0 - - 50 m 2
ME039 Birecik Turkey Gaziantep Birecik 0 0 2 3 0 6 ha 6 ha -

ME043 Oylum Turkey Kilis Oylum 1 3 3 18 9 17 ha 10 ha 400 m 2

Middle Euphrates - - - 30 73 68 677 170
3. Urbanism and Architecture
Mirko Novák
3.1. Introduction*
It is fair to say that architecture is one of the backbones of chronology. Not only is it closely connected to the
stratigraphic sequences of individual sites but it also provides a context for ceramics, which are the most ubiqui-
tous material group in archaeological excavations. Ancient buildings have been uncovered at every excavated site
and they can be grouped into various formal or functional types. The architecture of the Ancient Near East has
been investigated in innumerable studies in every possible way; since architecture reflects many different aspects
of life, including lifestyles, fashions, traditions and socio-economic conditions, many different approaches have
been employed to investigate it.
This paper does not attempt to deliver a comprehensive study or to summarise the history of research, meth-
ods and theories employed when dealing with architecture in general or even just in the ME during the 3rd mil-
lennium. In accordance with the task of the present volume the focus here lies entirely on chronological issues,
although the author is well aware of the various aspects of architecture that will not be addressed here.
Following the theoretical and methodological framework of ARCANE, this study should involve only archi-
tectural units that have been entered into the project database. However, such a selection would generate an
incomplete and non-representative impression of the architecture in this region during the 3rd millennium and
it would also lead to invalid conclusions, since some very important and completely excavated buildings did not
meet the criteria for inclusion in the database. Hence, the research for this contribution has relied on all relevant
material that has been published, but an attempt is made to emphasise those units that are part of the database.
Owing to the great amount of architectural remains that have been discovered in the region it is impossible to
present all of the available evidence here. Instead, reference is made to selected examples that best illustrate specific
architectural developments. This chronology-orientated architectural review is closely connected to the strati-
graphic considerations presented by U. Finkbeiner in this volume.
The two introductory sections (3.1. Introduction and 3.2. Prelude: The Late Chalcolithic at the Middle
Euphrates) are followed by sections that analyse the relevant buildings in five functional categories (3.3
Urbanisation and City Planning; 3.4. Fortifications; 3.5. Temple Architecture; 3.6. Palace Architecture; 3.7.
Domestic Architecture). A final summary will conclude the overview. The material is presented in chronological
order, following the EME periodisation.
3.2. Prelude: The Middle Euphrates During the Late Chalcolithic

The chronology of the Late Chalcolithic period (“LC”) in the ME is fairly well established:1 the periods
LC 3-4 (“Middle Uruk”) are represented by Sheikh Hassan Levels 15/13-5 in the Tabqa, Hacınebi period B in
the Birecik and Hassek Level 5C in the Karababa region. Sheikh Hassan Level 4 and Habuba Kabira South (early)
cover the initial phase of LC 5 (“Late Uruk”), whereas the later phases are represented by Habuba Kabira South
(late), by Qannas and Jebel Aruda in the Tabqa region, and by Hassek Level 5B–A in the Karababa region. 2
Speaking in cultural terms, the southern part of the ME was dominated by “genuine” Uruk settlements
(Fig. 1). Their material culture not only indicates a strong affiliation with SM but actually supports the widely
accepted idea that they were “colonies” of a southern Mesopotamian population. In contrast, the culture of north-
ern settlements (i.e. those located upstream of the Tishrin dam) can most aptly be described as “Uruk related”.
This emphasises their nature as settlements that were inhabited by a local population with their own material cul-
tures. The artefacts that have been recovered from these sites suggest that they interacted closely with people from
SM, probably in the form of trade relations. The reason for the complete lack of “Uruk related” sites in the south-
ern part of the ME still remains unclear. A possible explanation may be that there had been no sedentary popula-
tions in this area at the beginning of the “Uruk” incursion, which may have made it necessary for the merchants
from SM to establish “colonies” along the trade routes in order to strengthen security and facilitate commercial
*
I am indebted to Alexander Sollee (Bern) for commenting on and improving the English manuscript.
1
Butterlin 2003: 217, fig. 32.
2
Bachmann 1998: 59.
41
M. Novák
Fig. 1: Habuba Kabira South, Late Chalcolithic ‘Uruk colony’ (Heinrich 1982: Abb. 128).
42
Urbanism and Architecture
Fig. 2: Hassek (level 5), Late Chalcolithic settlement (Gerber 2005).
activities in the north. Thus, the local “Uruk related” settlements received considerable cultural impulses from the
south, but the local character of their culture remained visible as well.
Of course, this situation had an impact on the layout and structure of the settlements: on the one hand, the
“Uruk related” sites in the north, such as Hassek (level 5), seem to have usually been quite small, irregularly shaped
and enclosed by a fairly simple wall that was adapted to the natural landscape (Fig. 2). On the other hand, the
southern “colonies”, such as Sheikh Hassan and Habuba Kabira South, appear to have been planned and have
geometric, almost rectangular layouts (see Fig. 1). Their fortifications consisted of two parallel city walls, the inner
and thicker one with protruding buttresses at regular distances. The streets were aligned in a regular fashion and
seem to have been arranged in a planned system. Both temples and dwellings can be understood as variations of
the general scheme of the tripartite house with a central hall, thereby resembling the patterns known from SM.
Additionally, although less commonly, there were also single-room units. By contrast, only one tripartite building
was excavated in Hassek, which leads us to believe that the single-room compound was the dominant form for
houses there.
The collapse of the “Uruk system” had a dramatic effect on the situation of the local population: all the
“colonies” were abandoned, whereas at least some of the “local” settlements remained inhabited well into the
3rd millennium.
3.3. Urbanisation and City Planning

Urbanisation and city or town planning are the subjects of an intense and so far inconclusive debate. It is not
possible to discuss all the relevant definitions and theories that have been brought forward to this point, or even to
give a comprehensive overview thereof.3 For the present study it is sufficient to simply define the terms used in this
paper. However, it has to be stressed that every definition we make is connected to further problems that cannot
be addressed in full here.
3
See the latest contribution to this topic, including a comprehensive bibliography of relevant studies, in Harmanşah 2013.
43
M. Novák
Generally speaking, a settlement is a place where there is clear evidence of constructed shelters that are perma-
nently or temporarily inhabited by humans. Villages are defined as permanently used, modestly-sized (less than 1ha)
settlements without public buildings or any clear evidence of a hierarchy of buildings. If the settlement is of consid-
erable size (1-5ha), contains some public buildings, such as temples, and offers hints that its inhabitants have relied
not only on agriculture for subsistence but also on specialised work (e.g. production of crafts or trade), it is termed
a town. A city is a large settlement (more than 5ha) that shows clear evidence of a distinctive social hierarchy among
its inhabitants, is occupied with administrative, representative and cultic buildings, fulfils a “central function” for
its hinterland and has a population that in great parts subsists on a wide range of non-agricultural activities.
The term urbanisation is closely connected with “urban” settlements such as cities or towns. Hence, the exist-
ence of towns and cities is a substantial precondition for the phenomenon of “urbanisation”. By contrast, whenever
one deals with the issue of how sedentary lifestyle emerged in villages, it is more appropriate to refer to sedentism.
3.3.1 Period EME 1

Even though the development of urban settlements was interrupted by the abandonment of the LC and Uruk
“colonies”, sedentary life did not stop dead. Uruk “colonies” such as Habuba Kabira South were unmistakably
“urban” settlements, regardless of which definition of the term “city” is preferred:4 its site measured approximately
18ha in size and was enclosed by a strong and elaborately designed fortification wall. It contained public buildings
that presumably fulfilled sacral and administrative functions (Qannas). It also seems to have been densely inhab-
ited by a population whose economic base did not depend only on agriculture. In contrast, the contemporary
“Uruk-related” settlements along the Middle Euphrates that were more local in character, such as Hassek, were
not quite as large and do not appear to have been urban communities, although they did actually fulfil at least
some criteria of a town. Some of them produced evidence for fortifications, “public” buildings (with administra-
tive or representative functions) and the production of non-agricultural goods (trade, handicraft) by parts of their
population.
After the “Uruk collapse” a small number of “local” LC settlements, such as Hassek, Kurban, Samsat and
Zeitinli Bahçe,5 were actually not abandoned. The sparse archaeological remains suggest that at least some of them
were still fortified (Hassek), but lacked representative or administrative buildings (Fig. 3). Imported or traded
goods from foreign regions are no longer attested, which hints at the reduction or even termination of long-distance
exchange. In the end, we may have to view these settlements as fortified villages rather than towns or cities.
In the Tishrin and Tabqa Dam Basins a few sites, such as Shiyukh Fawqani(?), Shiyukh Tahtani, Hajji Ibrahim
and Habuba Kabira, were founded.6 All of these settlements were very modest in size (less than 1ha) and their
structure proved to be quite simple, including only single-room houses and no public buildings, which is reminis-
cent of contemporary sites in the northern part of the ME. Hence they may be defined as villages or hamlets. No
distinctive hierarchy of sites can be detected.
Therefore, it is justified to describe the period following the collapse of the “Uruk network” as witnessing the
near-complete de-urbanisation of the ME, although some fortified settlements continued to exist.
3.3.2 Periods EME 2 and EME 3

In EME 2 the number of settlements and their structural complexity increased considerably. The sites still did
not exceed a moderate size7 – only few of them were larger than 1ha – and their inner structure remained simple,
but nonetheless this period saw the beginning of a dynamic development which also led to the (re-)construction
of “public” buildings. Therefore, it is justified to categorise these sites as “towns”. Newly-founded settlements of
this period include Nevalı Çori, Kurban, Gre Virike, Qara Quzaq, Sweyhat, ‘Abd, Halawa B and probably also
Bi’a/Tuttul and Hammam al-Turkman. Most of them were situated not within the river plain but on elevated
terraces and ridges, sometimes even small mountains, on the edge of the plain. Rather than being a protective
measure against floods, the choice of these elevated positions should probably be interpreted as an attempt to
further strengthen the fortifications against raids and attacks.8 However, one of the major disadvantages of such
locations is the limited space available for urban development and expansion. This was not a significant problem
until EME 4 and afterwards, however. The chosen positions and elaborate fortifications of the sites indicate that
the political situation at this time was unstable and that conflict was common. However, since the number of
4
For various definitions see Novák 1999: 39-48.
5
Frangipane 2007.
6
Quenet 2007.
7
Cooper 2006: 54-58; Bunnens 2007: 45. Note the problem that in almost all cases it is possible to only estimate the
overall settlement size during the 3rd millennium. There is not enough information on how the extents of these sites changed
throughout this long span of time.
8
Cooper 2006: 53.
44
Fig. 3: Hassek (level 4–3), EME 1 settlement (Gerber 2005).
settlements was quite low, these might have been skirmishes between sedentary people and not substantial wars
between individual towns.
In EME 2 as well as in EME 3 all the settlements seem to have been of similar extent. This indicates that the
settlement systems were organised in flat hierarchies, thereby creating the impression that the ME was devoid of
complex political entities during this period.9
None of the excavated settlements show any traces of organised town planning. Conceptual hierarchies, which
are well known from later periods, cannot be detected in the street systems, which seem to have developed in
an irregular manner. Therefore we may have to understand these streets as “negative spaces”, as J. Schmidt had
defined it:10 they are the products of the need to maintain communication and circulation within the town despite
the successive encroachment of buildings upon plazas that were not closed off completely.
The small town Halawa B may serve as an example for an urban layout of this period (Fig. 4): in addition to
being situated upon a narrow ridge above the river plain and protected by steep wadis on three sides, it was also
enclosed by an irregularly formed town wall (see below). The intramural space of 1.4ha was occupied by nearly
identical large single-room units that seem to only occasionally have been aligned in an organised way. It is
difficult to detect any traces of “town planning”, which suggests that in the case of Halawa B this concept may
9
Cooper 2006: 58f.
10
Schmidt 1964.
45
M. Novák
Fig. 4: Halawa B (level 3), EME 2 settlement (Orthmann 1989: Beilage 12).
only be applicable in very general terms. For local period I (levels 4 and 3), which is the oldest at the site and dates
back to the very beginning of EME 2, no public buildings can be identified securely, although it must be noted
that the decorated inner walls of some units and the fact that some of them were transformed into temples later
on has caused some scholars to believe that some buildings might have been more than just dwelling houses.11
The standardised layout of the houses and the lack of public buildings tentatively suggest that in local period
I Halawa B was inhabited by an egalitarian society. Their subsistence seems to have been based on agriculture.
However, at least one building has produced evidence for the existence of metal industries and the development
of slight social stratification: “House VI”, which consists of rooms 314, 315 and 317, as well as courtyard 316, was
the result of an amalgamation of single-room units to a multi-room complex.12 Some of the walls were decorated
with wall paintings and the discovery of metal moulds and weapons may suggest the occupation and specialisa-
tion of the house owner. The settlement underwent a significant change during EME 2: the redesigning of the
inner structure of the town in local period II (level 2) also included the construction of the first public building
- a temple situated on top of an artificial terrace (see below, § 3.5) - at its centre. The gradual transformation of a
rural village into a proto-urban settlement had begun.
Since the architectural units at other excavated sites, such as Habuba Kabira (levels 2-3), ‘Abd (Fig. 5) and
Sweyhat, show very similar layouts and features, this indicates that Halawa B can be regarded as a site that illus-
trates various aspects common to the layout of EME 2 settlements in the ME.
11
See Cooper 2006: 90, Fig. 5.1. Owing to their later transformation into sacral buildings in level 2 she identifies units 309, 312
and 313 of Period I as temples too. However, judging by the inventory found inside these rooms as well as by their architectural
design, it appears more likely that they were simple houses (Pfälzner 2001: 356, Houses B III, IV and V).
12
Orthmann 1989: 90f.; Pfälzner 2001: 356; Cooper 2006: 90f.
46
Fig. 5: ‘Abd, EME 2–3 settlement (Finkbeiner 1995).
At the beginning of EME 3 there were only slight changes to the overall situation: a few new sites were founded,
such as Banat (phase IV) and Terqa (level IV.2), and large extramural cemeteries were established (Shamseddin,
Sweyhat, Tawi, Halawa). On the other hand, some sites in the northern part of the region, such as Hassek and
Nevalı Çori, were abandoned. This stands in contradiction to the sometimes-stated assumption that the overall
population of this area increased at this time. Rather, it seems as if there was a shift of settlement density from the
northern to the southern part of the region. The cemeteries bear testimony to growing wealth and the develop-
ment of social hierarchies, which is also supported by factors such as the emergence of public buildings (namely
temples, but also the construction of the “Royal Hypogeum” at Bi’a/Tuttul) and the diversification of house sizes
within the settlements. Once again, Halawa B may serve as an example: in general, the layout in local period II
(level 1) was the same as it had been in the preceding level. The temple was rebuilt and maintained its typological
features, although its orientation and layout were slightly altered. Simultaneously, the houses became more com-
plex, but still belonged to the single-room unit type.13
All these indications hint at a slow increase in the complexity of societies and the beginning of a gradual process
of urbanisation. From EME 1 until the end of EME 3 settlements developed from a rural to a proto-urban stage.
This seems to have been a continuous process that was not interrupted by emphatic breaks or rapid changes, and
thus we can refer to it as an evolution. However, the situation changed dramatically at the beginning of EME 4.
13
Pfälzner 2001: 357f.
47
M. Novák
Fig. 6: Sweyhat, EME 4–6 settlement (Zettler 1998: Fig. 1.4).

The beginning of EME 4 marks the most significant change in the history of urbanisation and city planning
in the ME during the 3rd millennium. The number and individual size of settlements increased dramatically,
thus reflecting a considerable growth of overall population in the region. Aside from newly founded sites such as
Halawa A and Selenkahiya in the Tabqa basin, as well as the Banat complex14 in the Tishrin basin, pre-existing
settlements such as Sweyhat expanded considerably (Fig. 6). The largest settlements reached extents of 20-30ha
(Halawa A, Hadidi, Banat, Sweyhat, etc.). Moreover, the inner structures of the individual settlements reflected
recently developed social hierarchies, included public buildings and showed signs of organised city planning.
These sites represent the first real urban settlements in this region since the abandonment of the Uruk “colonies”.
However, settlement size seems to have depended on geographic factors. Those located within the flood plain
experienced a significant expansion of occupied space. Sweyhat (local phase F), the lower town of which seems to
have been founded during this period, is an excellent example of this process, expanding to a size of approximately
30ha at this time.15 This seems to have happened also at Tilbeşar16 and Hadidi, while the Banat complex grew rapidly
after its foundation and soon included Jebel Bazi and Kabir as well. In contrast, settlements that were situated on nar-
14
Porter 1995; Porter & McClellan 1998.
15
Holland 2006.
16
Kepinski 2010: 306. See also Kepinski et al. 2006 and 2007.
48
Fig. 7: Halawa B, EME 2–3, and Halawa A, EME 4–5 settlements, alignment of city wall and outline of the sites
(Orthmann 1989).
row natural ridges and unable to expand owing to spatial constraints were abandoned and replaced by sites nearby.
Halawa is a prime example: the inhabitants left Halawa B for no obvious reason (such as a violent destruction), but
around the same time Halawa A was founded (Fig. 7). The latter was located just a few hundred metres further
south, but also on a natural terrace above the flood plain. It eventually reached a size of approximately 20ha.17
A comparison of EME 4 Sweyhat and Halawa A seems to indicate significant differences in internal organisa-
tion: while the former site was apparently centred on an elevated and fortified “citadel” that was surrounded by a
lower town, the latter was an almost entirely flat urban space that lacks any signs of inner segregation (Fig. 8). Hence,
just like Hadidi and Habuba Kabira,18 Sweyhat has been labelled a “citadel city” and it is believed that the occur-
rence of sites like these points at the “existence of a strongly hierarchical system of control and authority”.19 It may
be an accurate assessment, but it is remarkable that all “citadel cities” belong to the group of settlements which had
been expanded considerably at the beginning of EME 4. In the neighbouring region of the Jezirah a similar situa-
tion can be recognised at Khuera.20 This Kranzhügel-settlement consisted of an inner elevated area surrounded by
17
Meyer 1996: 136.
18
Cooper 2006: 74-76.
19
Cooper 2006: 77.
20
Meyer 2010 and 2011.
49
M. Novák
Fig. 8: Halawa A, EME 4–5 settlement, dwelling and religious quarters (Orthmann 1989: Abb. 15).
a lower town. Both elements were circular in shape and a rampart seems to have separated them by enclosing the
interior part, while a city wall protected the lower town. However, recent excavations have produced evidence that
the inner town was the earlier part of the settlement and had already been founded at the very beginning of the
3rd millennium. The rampart surrounding it had thus been the original town wall, and the urban space was enlarged
by adding the lower town during the middle EJZ. At that time the original fortifications were abandoned in favour
of the new defence system enclosing the lower town. Consequently, the inner and outer city walls represent differ-
ent stages of urban development of Khuera and never existed contemporaneously. We cannot be certain whether
or not the excavators’ observations regarding the development of Sweyhat, which suggest that the earlier (inner)
fortification wall continued to exist throughout the expansion of the settlement, are accurate, or if the site actually
underwent the same process as Khuera. The second scenario would imply that the inner wall was abandoned when
the lower town was founded.21 Regardless of which assumption is actually true, even if the inner enclosure had still
been in use there is no reason to believe that a planning decision was responsible for separating the city into an inner
and an outer part. Since the layout may simply reflect the urban history of Sweyhat, it might be more appropriate to
refer to the two areas as “old or upper town” and “new or lower town” rather than distinguishing the “citadel” from
the dwelling quarters. Despite the differing topographical pre-conditions of Sweyhat and Halawa, some structural
similarities can be observed between them as well, as both sites had resulted from an urban expansion.
21
See T. Holland’s remark in Holland 2006: 384. There he suggests that, following the destruction of the inner city, some rooms
were re-occupied while at the same time the urban area was enlarged by adding the outer town. He makes no reference to the
inner fortifications, however.
50
However, there is one true “citadel”:22 Jebel Bazi (level 9), which is part of the Banat complex (Fig. 9). 23 The
EME 3 settlement had been restricted to the area of Banat itself, which is located on the edge of the flood plain.
In EME 4 the town was enlarged and incorporated another site that is situated on the flood plain, Kabir, where a
religious quarter was discovered.24 South of the settlement a natural eminence called Jebel Bazi was added to the
urban space and heavily fortified. As it is very probable that public buildings were located in this segregated area
it fulfilled the role of a massive stronghold and recognisable symbol of defensive power within the city. However,
it remains unclear whether the Banat complex is a unique case or if it is merely a coincidence of discovery that it is
the only known site representing this particular type of city.
The urban development in EME 4 also involved coherent city planning. Titriş, with its outer and its lower
towns, is an excellent example (Fig. 10).25 Throughout the entire occupation of the quarter the street alignment
was regular and quite organised, 26 with a two-fold street system hierarchy revealed by geophysical prospection. 27
However, city planning in the ME never reached the degree of organisation and sophistication seen at the
Kranzhügel of the JZ, where central plazas, a very regular system of concentric and radial streets and a three-fold
hierarchy of urban circulation are detectable. 28
In EME 4 a distinctive site hierarchy began to develop, consisting of larger central sites with dependent smaller
villages and hamlets in their hinterland. 29 However, owing to the topography and morphology of the ME, the
hierarchy remained flat compared with the situation in the JZ, with its enormously large main centres of Khuera,
Mozan, Leilan and Brak, all of which were more than double the size of the largest cities in the ME. In the
northern part of the region the largest settlements, which were probably also the political centres, were Samsat30
and Titriş.31 It has repeatedly been suggested that Carchemish should have been one of the dominating cities of
the region, as it frequently appears in the Ebla texts,32 but unfortunately little is known about its size and impor-
tance within the settlement hierarchy during EME 4. Emar represents a very similar case, as it too is mentioned in
the Ebla archives. The Banat complex (c. 30ha), Sweyhat (15ha; in EME 5 40ha), Hadidi (56ha?33), Halawa (16ha),
Selenkahiye (14ha) and Bi’a/Tuttul (40ha) are considered to have been among the larger sites within the region.
The last of these sites especially is mentioned repeatedly in written documents of the 3rd millennium and is the
only one in which a palace was discovered (see below).
A rapid growth of settlements is attested in the JZ as well, but there the process seems to have started slightly
earlier, during EJZ 3 or even EJZ 2, as suggested by the evidence from Khuera, for example.34 The proto-urban
developments in EME 3 indicate that the process of urbanisation in the ME was not necessarily stimulated by the
same events as was urbanisation in the JZ. It is noteworthy, however, that features such as defensive architecture,
housing forms and a new type of temple presumably originated in the JZ (see below), which hints at this area
having a certain degree of influence on the ME.
There is ample evidence that many sites along the Middle Euphrates were destroyed at the end of
EME 4. 35 These layers, with traces of heavy burning, obviously resulted from a single phase of warfare and
political instability rather than from separate, individual events. Since a synchronisation of periods EME 4
and ED III in Babylonia seems very likely, the destruction layers in the ME sites might have been the results
of the armed conflicts between Mari and Ebla, during which Mari was first raided by Ebla before Ebla was
razed by Mari.
22
On the definition of a “citadel” see Novák 1999.
23
Otto 2006.
24
25
Algaze & Matney 2011: 1001.
26
Matney 2000: 26-27.
27
Matney 2000: 23.
28
Meyer 2011.
29
Meyer 1996: 151 and passim.
30
On the EBA remains that have been discovered at this huge site, which in later periods probably is to be identified as
Kummuh and Samosata, see Özgüç 2009.
31
Algaze & Matney 2011: 993-1011; Matney 2000.
32
Cooper 2006: 55f.
33
Owing to the fact that only preliminary results have been published so far, it is impossible to estimate the extent of the
settlement during the 3rd millennium. According to the excavators, the site had already reached its maximum size in this period.
See Cooper 2006: 52 FN gg.
34
Meyer 2010: 181 (Khuera I C early = EJZ 3) vs. Meyer 2011: 131 (Khuera I B = EJZ 2).
35
Finkbeiner infra.
51
M. Novák
Fig. 9: Banat complex with citadel in Bazi, EME 4–5 (Otto 2006: Fig. 5).
Fig. 10: Titriş, EME 4–5 settlement (Algaze & Matney 2011: 996, Fig. 46.1).
52
However, these events did not significantly alter the urban landscape. Most of the sites recovered and contin-
ued to exist without decreasing in size or changing their layout. From an urbanisation point of view, the following
period, EME 5, was simply a continuation of EME 4. Some sites, such as Sweyhat, reached the peak of their urban
development at this point. The end of EME 5 is once more marked by the violent destruction of many sites. It has
been suggested that Narām-Sîn’s raids may provide the historical background for these events.36 Whether this is
actually true remains unclear, but obviously this time the cities were not able to recover from the damage inflicted
upon them.
3.3.4 Period EME 6

EME 6, the terminal phase of the 3rd millennium, which continued into the early 2nd millennium, is character-
ised by a vast process of de-urbanisation in the ME. Following the destructions at the end of EME 5 most of the
cities remained abandoned. There are some exceptions to this, which include Samsat, the Banat complex, Sweyhat,
Hadidi, Bi’a/Tuttul, Hammam al-Turkman and Terqa. Some of them had shrunk considerably, however, and
the relevant layers may most aptly be described as squatter occupation. An uninterrupted continuation into the
2nd millennium as urban settlement can so far be attested only for Bi’a/Tuttul (Fig. 11), which was an especially
important settlement owing to its role as a cult centre of the god Dagan.
3.3.5 Summary
The initial and the terminal periods, EME 1 and EME 6, can both be considered to have been transitional
phases that were characterised by widespread de-urbanisation and had followed upon periods of high settlement
density. In EME 1 few sites survived the collapse of the “Uruk (trade) system” at the end of the LC. A small
number of new, modestly-sized settlements were founded, which can hardly have been more than simple villages.
During EME 2 and EME 3 more and more people became sedentary and consequently many new sites came into
being. Owing to their size, their internal complexity and the existence of public (namely sacral) buildings, many
of them can be labelled as towns. Regarding the issues of urbanism and town planning, it hardly appears sensible
to make a distinction between EME 2 and EME 3, as the differences are only minute. Neither a significant shift
in or growth of settlements nor a major change in internal organisation or layout can be detected, while in these
two periods only very superficial traits of town planning can be recognised. EME 4 and EME 5 may also be
regarded as one period, just as EME 2 and EME 3, and for the same reasons. The most significant transition dur-
ing the 3rd millennium is that from EME 3 to 4: it is characterised by a dramatic increase in settlement density,
size and complexity. Distinctive site hierarchies headed by real “cities” began to emerge and lower towns were
added, thus enlarging the settlements. If spatial constraints prevented this the sites were re-founded at a more
suitable location. However, the level of town planning remained moderate compared to the Kranzhügel-sites in
the JZ. In terms of urbanism, the only reason to make a distinction between EME 4 and EME 5 is the destruc-
tion layers that are attested at many sites. However, nearly all of them remained occupied and did not change
significantly. The situation following the next region-wide destruction phase at the end of EME 5 was very dif-
ferent. Only a few sites weathered these armed conflicts and remained occupied, and the size of the survivors was
greatly reduced. Even though the region was not completely abandoned, we may describe this period as one of
major de-urbanisation.
In sum, the 3rd millennium may be divided into four phases in respect to urbanisation and city planning: EME
1; EME 2–EME 3; EME 4–EME 5; and, finally, EME 6. However, only during EME 4–EME 5 is there evidence
for actual “urbanisation”.
3.4. Fortifications
Fortifications include all kinds of defensive architectural structures with a military purpose that are used
to protect settlements against hostile attacks.37 While relatively simple low walls are sufficient to protect a
site from wild beasts, defensive structures against human aggressors require more sophisticated architectural
designs in order to counteract state of the art siege techniques. From the LC on, every reasonably-sized settle-
ment in the Ancient Near East was fortified, possibly reflecting recurring/continuous political tensions and
military conflicts.
There are a number of components that can constitute a fortification system: ramparts are long earthen
mounds that form the perimeter of a city. If a rampart’s sloped outer face was artificially smoothed and cov-
ered with a mud, stone or pebble plaster, it is called a glacis. A solidly constructed, freestanding wall is labelled
a town or city wall; if this construction consists of multiple parts we may distinguish between core or added
walls. Openings in the fortifications used as passageways are termed town or city gates. These might just be sim-
ple passageways, but they can also be more sophisticated constructions including inner chambers with a series
36
Otto & Biga 2010.
37
On Bronze Age fortifications see Burke 2008 and Rey 2012.
53
M. Novák
Fig. 11: Tuttul/Bi’a, EME 4–6 settlement (Miglus & Strommenger 2002: Tf. 5).
of doors, and may also be protected by flanking towers. Rectangular reinforcements attached to the outer face
of a fortification wall are called towers or buttresses, depending on their size and height in relation to the wall.38
Towers and buttresses might be built at especially vulnerable spots, at strategic positions or simply at regular
intervals.
3.4.1 Period EME 1

As there was, at least at some places, a continuous development from the 4th to the 3rd millennium, it comes
as no surprise that some sites already show defensive architecture in EME 1. Unfortunately, the state of research
into fortification walls for this period, as in others, is generally poor. The possibility cannot be excluded that
at several sites more examples dating to the beginning of the 3rd millennium might still be buried deep below
later walls.
The poorly preserved and only cursorily investigated wall at Hassek, which presumably dates to the local
level 339 and thus to a later phase of EME 1, confirms the existence of fortification architecture in this period
(see Fig. 3). It consisted of a foundation trench that was filled with basalt stones and mud and, on top of it, a
mud-brick wall resting upon a stone footing. Additional features such as buttresses, gates and ditches were not
discovered. So far, in this region, there are no other examples dating to this period.
38
The crucial difference between a tower and a protruding buttress is its height: a tower is higher than the wall, while this does
not necessarily have to be the case with a buttress. There is a lack of reliable indications regarding the height of 3rd-millennium
buttresses/towers, as the structures are usually not preserved to a sufficient height.
39
Gerber 2005: 27.
54

In EME 2 both the number of sites and attested fortifications increase. The simplest kind of defensive archi-
tecture was excavated at Habuba Kabira (level 2-3): the outer walls of a series of houses built directly adjacent to
one another formed a solid straight line, thus creating the impression of a single strong wall.40
The foundations of Halawa B (level 3), Sweyhat (K–J, “inner town”), Munbaqa (level IV Ku-2) and ‘Abd
(level 5) at the beginning of EME 2 are directly related to the construction of the towns’ fortifications. The defensive
architecture remained quite simple, taking the form of either solid mud-brick walls or so-called “casemate walls”41
consisting of a series of square mud-brick chambers filled with settlement debris.42 Casemate walls are attested at
Halawa B (see Fig. 4),43 Munbaqa44 and Sweyhat (K–J), but it has to be noted that in the last case some parts of the
wall are solid mud-brick.45 A simple mud-brick wall without buttresses was excavated at ‘Abd (see Fig. 5).46 A steep
rampart made of mud, earth and stones and equipped with a glacis was subsequently added to the wall.
In relation to the space enclosed by them, the fortification walls dating to this period appear to have been
extremely wide. This suggests a perception that such defensive structures were essential, which in turn implies
that the political situation in the region may have been quite unstable at that time. Towers or buttresses are only
rarely attested. One was found at Halawa B (level 4-3, local period I). There, a roughly square tower was attached
to the northern face of the fortification wall. An empty triangular space remained between the eastern façade of
the tower and the wall. The only gateway known so far was excavated at ‘Abd. It was a simple passageway with two
slim flanking buttresses projecting on the inner side of the wall.47
Defensive architecture did not change in EME 3. As most of the sites and their fortifications that had already
existed in EME 2 lived on in EME 3, and only few new ones (such as the Banat complex) were founded, the defen-
sive architecture generally remained unchanged. The addition of a glacis at ‘Abd is exceptional in this respect. Just
as the assessments regarding urbanisation and city planning have shown, there seems to have been continuous
development instead of a significant break between periods EME 2 and EME 3.
The defensive architecture of EME 2 and EME 3 can clearly be distinguished from the much more sophisti-
cated and better-organised fortifications of the “Uruk colonies”, such as Sheikh Hassan or Habuba Kabira South,
and it thus seems likely that the relevant features of both periods are not related to each other. Predecessors, if any,
may rather be found in the “Uruk related” sites such as Hassek. However, it is far more likely that fortifications
were newly introduced in EME 2, perhaps because of a generally unstable political situation. The constructional
details and architectural styles of most known fortifications of this period are astonishingly similar. In the JZ the
development of fortifications started during EJZ 1, which is roughly contemporary with EME 2,48 but it is not
possible to determine whether the developments of one region influenced the other.

Period EME 4 marks a significant step in the development of defensive architecture. Owing to the dramatic
expansion of urban space, many settlements required new fortification walls. They became more complex, which
may hint at a perceived need for increased defence. A surge in tensions and armed conflicts between the growing
number of polities and, possibly, the introduction of more advanced siege techniques may have been at the core of
these architectural innovations.
Halawa A (level 3), which was an entirely new EME 4 foundation that replaced the nearby EME 2–EME 3
site of Halawa B, serves as an excellent example of the architecture of fortifications at this time (Fig. 12). The
enclosure of the settlement was irregular in form because it followed the natural topography of the landscape
(Fig. 13). It consisted of a solid mud-brick wall and a retaining wall with a narrow open space in between, a ditch
running in front of the retaining wall and an earthen rampart with a steep artificial glacis that connected the
ditch and the retaining wall.49 The walls were constructed of mud bricks resting upon stone footings. A small
number of towers or buttresses were attached to the wall at irregular intervals.50 Comparable fortifications were
40
Heusch 1980: 161; Cooper 2006: 71.
41
Cooper 2006: 79.
42
Lüth in Orthmann 1989: 88.
43
Lüth in Orthmann 1989: 87, Abb. 54.
44
Machule et al. 1986: 81-83; Cooper 2006: 79-80.
45
Holland 2006: 15 and 384; Danti & Zettler 2007: 177-179.
46
Finkbeiner 1995.
47
Finkbeiner 1995.
48
Pfälzner 2011: 138.
49
Meyer in Orthmann 1989: 17, Abb. 5.
50
Meyer in Orthmann 1989: 14, Abb. 4 and Beilage 1 and 2.
55
M. Novák
Fig. 12: Halawa A, section through EME 4–5 fortification (Cooper 2006: Fig. 4.7 after Orthmann 1989: Abb. 5).
Fig. 13: Halawa A, city wall and tower, EME 4–5 (Orthmann 1989: Abb. 4).
56
Fig. 14: Selenkahiye, city wall with city gate, EME 4–5 (Van Loon 2001: 3.88, Fig. 3.32).
explored at several other sites in the ME. The lower town wall at Sweyhat (local phase F, level 1-2) was built dur-
ing EME 4 and remained in use over the following local phase E (level 3-4), which covers essentially the same
timeframe as EME 5.51 Along long stretches this city wall consisted of a stone footing with a massive mud-brick
superstructure, but other segments of the wall were constructed differently.52 It enclosed an approximately rec-
tangular area that, in contrast to Halawa A, lacked any natural boundaries. The defensive wall of Selenkahiye53
was equipped with an additional retaining wall, an adjacent ditch and several towers (Fig. 14).54 The same system
of defences, including towers, a ditch and a glacis, was discovered at Titriş55 and possibly also at Hammam al-
Turkman,56 both of which date to EME 4 (local stratum VI,1 with city wall level 1) and EME 5 (city wall level 2).
It is quite likely that the fortification system of Bi’a/Tuttul was founded in EME 4 and is contemporary with
Palace B (Fig. 15).57 It also consisted of a main rampart and a retaining wall, but seems to have been abandoned
51
Holland 2006: 29.
52
Cooper 2006: 85-86.
53
Meijer in van Loon 2001: 3.62 and Cooper 2006: 108.
54
Meijer in van Loon 2001: 3.93, fig. 3.36 and description on pp. 3.86-89 and 3.103-105.
55
Algaze & Matney 2011: 1001.
56
Meijer 1988, 70-79.
57
Miglus & Strommenger 2002: 21; Pruß 2004: 149.
57
M. Novák
Fig. 15: Tuttul/Bi’a, city wall with city gate, EME 4–6 (Miglus & Strommenger 2002: Tf. 23).
and covered with domestic architecture as early as EME 5.58 Projecting towers, all with a square layout, are also
known from EME 4 Jerablus Tahtani and Habuba Kabira (level 5-6).59 At Jerablus Tahtani a rampart with a
connected glacis was discovered as well.60
Even though every example of defensive architecture mentioned here shows different specifics and variations,
a common pattern within the region does seem to emerge during EME 4 and continued to exist during EME 5:
solid mud-brick main walls, often built upon stone footings, were the main element. Retaining walls, ditches and
ramparts with glacis were common additions. The course of the walls was subject to the morphology of the land-
scape, often being forced to follow the pre-existing natural topography, but if no such obstacles stood in the way
the enclosed area could take a square or rectangular form. In order to protect the most sensitive segments of the
fortifications, towers or buttresses were attached on the outside. The town defences show striking similarities to
the probably slightly earlier examples known from sites in the JZ, such as Khuera.61
The weakest points of any fortification system are its gates. Hence, strong protection of these passageways was
of utmost importance. Several examples dating to EME 4 and EME 5 have been discovered so far. At Halawa A
the only gate was situated on the northern edge of town (Fig. 16). Its layout consisted of a single chamber and
the internal walls beyond it formed a saw-tooth-shaped passage. This style of construction also created a visual
effect that made the gate’s southern face appear wider than it actually was.62 However, in comparison with other
contemporary gates it offered only limited protection owing to the simplicity of its design. The city gate exposed
at Bi’a/Tuttul was far more advanced, as it included a chamber with two double-winged doors and two flanking
buttresses or towers projecting from its exterior face – a layout very similar to MBA gates. 63 The entrance through
the town wall at Selenkahiya was slightly smaller, but similar (see Fig. 14). It too was flanked by two towers, but
consisted only of a straight passageway and lacked a gate chamber.64
58
Miglus & Strommenger 2002; Pruß 2004: 147.
59
Cooper 2006: 80-82.
60
Cooper 2006: 83-84.
61
Pfälzner 2011.
62
Meyer in Orthmann 1989: 38, Abb. 17.
63
Miglus & Strommenger 2002: 13.
64
Meijer in van Loon 2001: 3.87-89, fig. 3.32.
58
Fig. 16: Halawa A, city gate, EME 4–5 (Orthmann 1989).
The most advanced example of an EME 4–EME 5 gate is probably the one excavated at Jebel Bazi, the citadel
of the Banat complex and possibly identifiable with ancient Armanum (Fig. 17).65 The natural mountain was
enclosed by three rings of walls on its slopes. The gate (Building 2) was situated on the edge of an artificial ditch at
the southern limits of the citadel. It consisted of a chamber the entrance to which was flanked by two monumental
buttresses, each of them adjacent to a triangular niche that could have served as an embrasure. 66 Two doorways led
through the chamber, one towards the outside and the other towards the inside of the settled area. An open plaza,
defined by surrounding walls, was located just inside the gate.67 In its earliest phase (level 9) this fortification was
destroyed by a fierce fire.68 However, it was repaired immediately afterwards and remained in use (level 8) until it
was destroyed again, this time forever. The inventories allow us to attribute level 9 to EME 4 and level 8 to EME 5.
Defensive architecture did not change between EME 4 and EME 5 and almost all fortifications constructed
in EME 4 stayed in use during EME 5. Neither their structure nor their formal layout was altered significantly.
Architecturally, a number of innovations made the fortifications of EME 4 and EME 5 far more advanced than
those of EME 2 and EME 3. Whether this was a regional development or was influenced by comparable architec-
ture that probably originated in the western part of the JZ cannot be assessed yet. However, at present, the latter
option seems more likely.
65
Otto 2006; Otto & Biga 2010; contradicting arguments collected by Archi 2011.
66
Otto & Biga 2010: 488-489.
67
Otto & Biga 2010: Fig. 2.
68
Otto 2006: 11.
59
M. Novák
Fig. 17: Bazi, citadel gate, EME 4–5 (Otto 2006: Fig. 6).
Destruction layers often mark a break between EME 4 and EME 5, but these events obviously did not cause
any interruption in occupation of the respective sites. The fortifications were reconstructed shortly after the events
and remained in use until the next period of intense warfare, which caused much destruction at almost all sites
from which most of the settlements did not recover.
3.4.4 Period EME 6

Only a small number of sites survived the violent events at the end of EME 5 and were resettled in EME 6, and
very little is known about the defensive architecture of this period. It seems as if Sweyhat continued to be forti-
fied, but there is no evidence of a particular feature of defensive architecture that is characteristic of this period.
3.4.5 Summary
Within the architectural development of fortifications in the ME the beginning of both EME 2 and EME
4 stand out as two prominent milestones. After the LC settlements (especially the highly advanced “Uruk colo-
nies”) were abandoned the fortifications of the remaining villages consisted of no more than simple enclosure
walls. Occasionally the perimeter was formed by simply adjoining the back walls of a number of houses built
directly next to each other. The beginning of EME 2 saw the rise of more complex fortifications, consisting of
either the so-called “casemate” or solid mud-brick walls that were equipped with towers or buttresses at their more
60
vulnerable spots. The fortifications followed the natural terrain and, very often, high ridges with steep slopes on
the terraces above the river plain were chosen as settlement locations. Defensive architecture remained mostly
unchanged in EME 3, but the beginning of EME 4 appears to have been a real chronological benchmark. New
elements appeared, such as ramparts with glacis, retaining walls, chamber-gates flanked by towers and so on. We
know that these features were evident slightly earlier in the JZ and, therefore, the possibility of these innovations
having originated there before being adopted at the sites further west must be considered. In contrast to those of
the Kranzhügel, the defensive systems in the ME rarely showed a regular geometric form; instead, their outlines
were determined by local topography. The EME 4–EME 5 transition, like that between EME 2 and EME 3, does
not seem to have produced any developments in this aspect of architecture. Therefore, in terms of the development
of fortifications, we may consider EME 2 and EME 3 as one period and EME 4 and EME 5 as another. There are
only very few examples of fortifications that can be dated to the period following the destructions at the end of
EME 5 and it is thus not known whether or not there were any further innovations.
3.5. Temple Architecture

A temple is a building that serves as a place for exclusively cultic, religious and spiritual activities. The definition
may be extended to include administrative offices, storage facilities or spaces for education and science.69 Since the
Ancient Near Eastern understanding of a temple is that it is a specific deity’s “house”, sacral and domestic archi-
tecture can be very similar from a typological point of view. As a consequence, it is not always clear whether an
excavated structure should be interpreted as a temple or a house. This is often the case in early prehistoric periods,
in which there is not only a lack of reliable typological indications but also no written evidence that could reveal
the name of the god to which the building was dedicated.
3.5.1 Period EME 1

There is no evidence for the existence of temples during this period. However, absence of evidence is not auto-
matically evidence of absence and some of the buildings explored so far might have served a religious purpose.
Nevertheless, no recognisable sacral architecture has been found in the ME dating to that time.
3.5.2 Period EME 2

The first clear evidence for sacral architecture in the region appears during EME 2. The earliest examples were
excavated at Halawa B (period II, levels 2 and 1) and Qara Quzaq (level V, phase 2), as well as possibly at Sweyhat
(phase G) and Shiyukh Fawqani (period II).
No structure of the initial phase of occupation at Halawa B (level I:3) can be certainly identified as a temple
(see Fig. 4). It has been suggested that three isolated buildings in the centre of the settlement may have had a reli-
gious purpose, as they lie beneath the later temple platform of level II:2.70 However, their layout and inventories
did not differ from those of the neighbouring domestic dwellings.71
As indicated, an open courtyard and a mud-brick platform 1m high with an isolated single-room building
(“Building II”) on top of it occupied the same area in the next level (II:2).72 This building was of impressive dimen-
sions, measuring 12m × 10m and covering large parts of the terrace (Fig. 18). Adorning niches and buttresses on its
western and eastern external façades indicate that it was a sacral building.73 From the courtyard, a staircase led up
to a wide, shallow porch that opened up towards the east, while its northern and southern sides were bordered by
two antae, small pilasters connected to the northern and southern walls of the building that projected beyond the
building’s eastern front. The inner room of the building was accessed through a doorway that was situated at the
centre of the eastern façade and axially aligned with the aforementioned staircase. Another door was situated on
the opposite side of the room, close to the south-west corner. This passage connected Building II to a neighbouring
small single room also situated on the platform. Approximately at the centre of the northern wall of Building II the
excavators discovered a white-plastered podium that may have been the place where a cult symbol or statue made of
organic material had stood.74 The only other installations were low, narrow benches along the inner walls. Inside
the small room adjoining the western side of Building II a deep niche was found inserted in the northern wall
opposite the only entrance. Building II, with the secondary sanctuary next to it and the platform they stood upon,
was part of an even larger complex within a temenos that also included a long narrow gateway in the south as well
69
On temples in Ancient Near East see the recently published proceedings of two conferences: Kamlah & Michelau 2012 and
Kaniuth et al. 2013.
70
Rooms 309, 312 and 313, see Cooper 2006: 143f. and 90, fig. 5.1.
71
In his study, P. Pfälzner designates these three rooms as Houses B III, IV and V (Pfälzner 2001: 356).
72
Orthmann 1989; Cooper 2006: 144-145.
73
For a general overview see Sievertsen 1998.
74
Lüth in Orthmann 1989: 92; Cooper 2006: 144.
61
M. Novák
Fig. 18: Halawa B (level I:3), EME 2 temple on top of a terrace (Orthmann 1989: Abb. 59).
as the courtyard east of the platform. Everyone who attended rituals performed inside the temple had to ascend
the platform, enter the cella and then make a right-angled, right-hand turn in order to approach the cult podium.
This system of access is referred to as the “bent-axis scheme” and is well attested at several Early Dynastic sites in
Babylonia (Nippur, the Diyala-region, Ashur, Hariri/Mari)75 and northern Mesopotamia (Mozan/Urkeš).76
Another EME 2 temple with a bent-axis layout was discovered at Qara Quzaq (level V: 1-2).77 As at Halawa B,
a temenos wall delineated the sacral area (Fig. 19). Several rooms with cultic or other functions were found within
this enclosure, which also included a tomb with the remains of a cremation. The central part of the sanctuary was
occupied by an artificial platform that functioned as a substructure for the temple, which consisted of the single-
room cella and an adjoining four-room unit. Both parts were accessed through two separate doorways. The cella
was almost square (8.2m × 8.4m). Unlike at Halawa B, its façade was not decorated with niches or buttresses,
but was left plain. It was entered through a door in the middle of the southern wall. Aside from the plastering
on the wall and the floor, only two installations were discovered inside the room: a centrally located hearth facing
the entrance and a podium adjoining the eastern wall. As at Building II of Halawa B, therefore, in order to face
the statue or symbol of the deity on the podium every visitor had to turn right after entering the cella. It was pos-
sible to identify the adjacent four-room unit with the residence of the priest in charge of the temple. It included a
trapezoid vestibule, a small distributive room, a kitchen and a living/sleeping chamber.
The temple complex of Building II at Halawa B was replaced by Building I in level II:1,78 correlated to EME 2,
although the new sanctuary remained in use during EME 3 as well (Fig. 20). The entire new religious precinct was
enclosed by a temenos wall, which, at least on its southern and northern sides, was embellished with internal but-
75
For a general overview see Heinrich 1982.
76
Pfälzner 2011.
77
Olávarri & Valdés Pereiro 2001; Cooper 2006: 147-150.
78
Orthmann 1989: Beilagen 14-16; Cooper 2006: 145-147.
62
Fig. 19: Qara Quzaq (level V: 1–2), EME 2 temple (Olávarri & Valdés Pereiro 2001: Fig. 7b).
Fig. 20: Halawa B (level II:2–1) EME 2–3 temple on top of a terrace (Orthmann 1989: Beilage 14).
tresses. The north-west of the complex was accessed through a gatehouse, which was connected to a wide segmented
corridor south of it. The latter led to a courtyard east of the renewed platform. This courtyard was surrounded by
a number of small rooms, one of which seems to have had a cultic function and is therefore called “Small Temple
1”. It is situated next to the staircase leading up to the platform, and in its terminal phase it was enlarged by the
addition of a second room and its elevation to a higher terrace.79 A freestanding ramp with a staircase led up to the
79
Lüth in Orthmann 1989: 98-101; Cooper 2006: 147.
63
M. Novák
platform from the eastern courtyard. The new terrace was very similar to the one that had preceded it, but its floor
level had been raised by filling and covering Building II, leading to a difference in elevation between courtyard and
temple that was larger than it had been in the preceding level. The sanctuary itself (Building I) was built imme-
diately on top of its predecessor but with some significant changes in layout. It was still designed as a single-room
unit with buttressed eastern and western walls, but its entrance was moved to its southern front. Instead of the
broad porch, this side was now flanked only by two almost square buttress-like antae. These were not extensions of
the sidewalls of the building, as in the later temple in antis, but were set at determined distances from the temple’s
south-west and south-east corners, close to the main entrance. Whether or not the internal layout of the cella had
also been arranged in the bent-axis scheme remains unclear, as no podium was discovered. However, it does seem
possible that the cult object was exhibited on the northern side of the room, directly opposite the entrance. If that
was the case, Building I at Halawa B may mark a shift in layout from the bent-axis scheme to a prototype of the
temple in antis. However, the concept of forcing the attending visitor to make a right-angled turn did not go out of
style, as it was merely moved from the inside to the outside of the sanctuary.
3.5.3 Period EME 3

Building I at Halawa B (level II:1) remained in use well into EME 3, during which period it was abandoned
at some point. Afterwards it was replaced by the large temple in antis at Halawa A. As mentioned above, Building
I marks a turning point in religious architecture, as the bent-axis layout was replaced by the temple in antis type
that is characterised by the two antae flanking the entrance and the presumed axial approach towards the location
of the cult statue.
The first true temple in antis in the ME was excavated at Qara Quzaq (building L.23 in level IV),80 which
seems to have been founded in EME 3. This would contradict the general observation that this type of temple
was not introduced until EME 4.81 However, if this earlier date should be correct it would mean that this build-
ing might be approximately contemporaneous to the earliest attested examples of this type at Khuera (Phase IC),
where it appeared as early as EJZ 3a and b.82
The “classic” temple in antis consisted of a single rectangular long-room cella with a single entrance on one
of the structure’s short sides and a podium or a cult niche on the other. The opposing arrangement of these two
main features allowed for an axial view of the cultic statue or symbol from the area in front of the building. 83 The
entrance and its façade were not located at the end of the two long walls of the temple, as the side walls continued
the entrance front in the form of two antae, which delineated an open porch just in front of the cella. Later vari-
ations of this type were sometimes equipped with a square or broad room, a subdivided cella or tower-like but-
tresses instead of the antae (the result of the latter is referred to as a migdal-temple). One or two columns often
supported the roof of the broad porch. The temple in antis remained the dominant type of sacral architecture in
the NL until the late Iron Age and even spread as far as the SL.84
The origin of the temple in antis and its relationship to the similar megaron, which emerged almost contempo-
raneously in the palatial and domestic architecture of WA and the northern Aegean, remain unsolved and eagerly
debated issues. In Syro-Mesopotamia the temple in antis first appeared in the western JZ and the ME, from where
it seems to have spread to the NL. With the single exception of the prominent temple of Dagan at Mari, 85 this type
of temple was never adopted in the eastern JZ or CM. This may indicate that its origin may lie somewhere to the
north of the western JZ, but there is no solid evidence to support this assumption. At the same time, it remains
possible that it was developed in the ME, as Building I at Halawa B might represent a link between the bent-axis
scheme and the temple in antis.
Temple L.23 at Qara Quzaq already possesses the characteristic features of the temple in antis. Its walls con-
sisted of stone footings carrying a mud-brick superstructure and delineated a porch and a cella, the latter meas-
uring 7m × 5m. Unlike the monumental Steinbau I at Khuera, it was of rather modest dimensions and was not
situated on top of a stone platform.
3.5.4 Period EME 4

The temple in antis was introduced on a larger scale during EME 4 and it quickly became the sole type of
temple not only in the ME but also in the eastern JZ (Khuera) and the inland area of the NL (Ebla). 86 In the ME
80
Valdés Pereiro 1999: 119; Cooper 2006: 158.
81
Castel 2010.
82
Pfälzner 2011: 184. Castel 2010 argues in favour of a later dating of this type.
83
On the development of the temple in antis see Castel 2010 and Mazzoni 2010.
84
See the contributions by Harrison, Novák and Kohlmeyer in Kamlah 2012.
85
Novák 2001.
86
Castel 2010; Mazzoni 2010.
64
Fig. 21: Halawa A (level 3), EME 4–5 temple-in-antis (Cooper 2006: Fig. 7.4 after Orthmann 1989: Beilage 10).
buildings of this kind have been discovered at Halawa A,87 Qara Quzaq (L.10 level III-2)88 and Kabir (Level 8),89
which by that time had become part of the Banat complex.
The sacral area of the newly founded Halawa A was located close to the city centre and was surrounded
by residential quarters (Fig. 21). It was enclosed by a temenos wall that was entered from the east through a
vestibule with a buttressed gateway. The monumental temple (20m × 13m) had walls 3m thick (mud bricks on
stone footings) and was situated inside a large courtyard. Its entrance porch faced east towards the vestibule.
The building possesses all the characteristics of a temple in antis, with an open porch flanked by two antae, a
broad main doorway and a single long-room cella measuring 11m × 7m. The installations were located opposite
the entrance: a mud-brick podium was discovered in front of the back wall and a hearth made of baked bricks
was situated close to the centre of the cella. A finely carved stele was among the few objects that are regarded
to have been part of the inventory of the room.90 In addition to the temple, the sacral area inside the temenos
contained a small shrine that consisted of two chambers and additional storage rooms. Although the layout of
the temple differed decisively from its predecessor at Halawa B there still are some structural similarities, such
87
Orthmann 1989; Cooper 2006: 151-155.
88
Valdés Pereiro 1999: 119; Cooper 2006: 158-159; Castel 2010: 163, Fig. 15.
89
90
See the contribution of Felli in this volume.
65
M. Novák
Fig. 22: Qara Quzaq (L.10 level III-2), EME 4–5 temple-in-antis (Del Olmo Lete & Montero
Fenollós 1998: Fig. 3).
as the monumentality of the complex, the enclosing temenos wall, and the presence of a small secondary shrine.
It therefore seems likely that, regardless of the fact that a new type of temple had been embraced, the religious
beliefs themselves did not change.
The temple in antis discovered at Kabir in the vicinity of Banat and Bazi was almost of equal size as the one at
Halawa A. Unfortunately, little is known about its urban setting. The contemporary temple L.10 at Qara Quzaq is
slightly smaller and more poorly preserved (Fig. 22). As at Halawa A, a hearth was situated inside the cella on the
main axis between the entrance and the presumed, but destroyed, podium in front of the back wall.
3.5.5 Period EME 5

The layouts of the temples at Halawa A, Kabir and Qara Quzaq were not altered during EME 5 and it seems
that they stayed in use without interruption. Textual sources mention a new and prominent sanctuary: the tem-
ple of Dagan at Bi’a/Tuttul. The Akkadian kings Sargon and Narām-Sîn, the latter of whom is the most likely
candidate responsible for the destruction events at the end of EME 5, report that they made dedicatory offerings
inside this important sanctuary. However, the temple has not been securely located yet. A huge temple in antis was
explored at Mound C of Bi’a,91
3.5.6 Period EME 6

Following the catastrophic destruction events that led to the end of EME 5 most settlements were aban-
doned and the lack of any archaeological evidence of sacral architecture in EME 6 thus comes as no surprise.
Nevertheless, prominent buildings such as the temple of Dagan at Bi’a/Tuttul might have continued to operate,
since the worship of the god himself was not interrupted and must have been kept alive.
91
Miglus & Strommenger 2002.
66
3.5.7 Summary
There seems to be a clear chronological development of sacral architecture in the ME: if temples already
existed in EME 1, their layout and inventories are not distinguishable from those of normal houses, which may
explain the lack of attested sacral buildings belonging to this period. This did not change until after the initial
phase of EME 2, when high platforms supporting isolated single-room temples emerged. The examples that are
known to us are all arranged in the popular bent-axis scheme, which denied worshippers a view of the cultic statue
from outside the cella. Shortly before the beginning of EME 3 this layout was abandoned in favour of an axial
approach, but the single-room temple on top of a platform remained the core of the religious complex. However, a
development towards the temple in antis can already be recognised. Even though there are precursors of this new
type of religious buildings at Halawa B and the earliest complete example dates back to EME 3, this kind of tem-
ple is truly characteristic of the sacral architecture of EME 4 and EME 5. It indicates an “internationalisation” of
architecture, as it seems to have spread from the western JZ to the NL, and for the next two millennia nearly every
sanctuary followed this plan. Temple architecture was also affected by the general decline during EME 6, but the
presence of numerous temples in antis at several MBA and LBA sites in the ME suggests that this tradition was
kept alive throughout the terminal phase of the 3rd millennium.
Although breaks in the development can be traced at the beginning of EME 2, EME 3 and EME 4, the indica-
tions for a constant evolution of sacral architecture are just as strong. It is therefore rather unlikely that this aspect
was profoundly influenced from outside the ME.
3.6. Palatial Architecture

A palace is generally defined as the residence of a ruler or his representative.92 It superseded ordinary dwellings
in size and decoration and primarily catered to secular functions, although it may have also included rooms for
religious or cultic activities. As it was both a governmental and an administrative centre, as well as the royal fam-
ily’s home, it acted both as a symbol of power and as a place of economic activity. Typologically, it is sometimes
difficult to distinguish palaces from elite residences.
In the following, the term “palatial architecture” refers to extraordinary and large-scale buildings that are not
of religious or purely domestic character.

So far, there is no clear evidence of any kind of palatial architecture in the ME during the EME 1 and EME 2.
The partially explored EME 2 building at ‘Abd, which is located close to the town gate, may be the only exception
(see Fig. 5). The primary evidence to suggest this is the exceptional width of its few excavated walls; however, too
little is known about its layout and function.
3.6.2 Period EME 3

For EME 3, Building 7 (local period IV) at Banat, which might have been connected to the impressive stone-
made Tomb 7, is the only structure that could potentially be referred to as a palace (Fig. 23).93 The available infor-
mation regarding its original size, layout and function is very limited, but it is safe to assume that it must have
been part of a large complex, mainly consisting of the well-built structure that comprised a number of large rooms.
These units were arranged around a courtyard and rested on several terraces. Two of the rooms were paved with
baked bricks that were set in bitumen mortar, which made the floors waterproof. Furthermore, several column
bases were discovered, which represent the first evidence for the use of wooden columns in the ME.
3.6.3 Period EME 4

The only palace from 3rd millennium levels in this region that meets the general definition is Palace B at
Bi’a/Tuttul (Fig. 24). It was founded in EME 4 and covered the monumental royal tomb that in turn dates
back to EME 3.94 Owing to the massive layers of later occupation underneath which the building is buried, only
parts of the layout were revealed. Its entrance, which was situated on its southern side, consisted of a monumental
portico with a staircase. The question of whether this was the main entrance to the entire palace or just to its
central residential area remains unanswered. The latter suggestion finds support in a comparison with the plan
of Palace F at Khuera, which is built similarly.95 At least one row of rooms separated the portico and the inner
courtyard. The latter served as the centre of circulation for the several units that were connected to it on each
92
Postgate 2003-5: 195-200; Novák 1999: 313-314
93
McClellan 1999; Cooper 2006: 128-130.
94
Strommenger & Kohlmeyer 2000: 15-41.
95
Pfälzner 2011.
67
M. Novák
Fig. 23: Banat ‘Buildings 6 & 7’ (period III and IV), EME 3 and EME 4 palatial buildings
(Cooper 2006: Fig. 6.1 after Porter 2002).
side. Several wooden columns were inserted into plastered holes in the floor along the courtyard’s walls, thereby
creating a peristyle-like layout. This feature was also found in Palace G at Ebla, which is roughly contemporary.96
In general, columns are extremely rare in Mesopotamian architecture,97 while they are well attested in the NL in
later times. Judging from its size and position, the room situated adjacent to the courtyard on its western side can
probably be identified as the main or “throne” hall. The entrance to the rectangular room was situated on one of
its long sides, close to a corner, forcing visitors to make a right-angled right-hand turn when entering. A hearth
was placed close to the entrance along the central axis of the room. A number of additional small chambers,
some of them presumably baths and/or toilets, were located on the opposite side of the hall. The entire layout and
functional structure of the monumental building is comparable to the almost contemporary Palaces F at Khuera
and G at Ebla. This suggests the existence of a specific advanced and complex palatial architecture across northern
Syria and Mesopotamia that was obviously also adapted in the ME.98
A number of burned wooden beams that had fallen from the ceiling construction on to the floor were discov-
ered inside the violently destroyed Palace B, which, also during EME 4, was replaced and covered by the so-called
96
Matthiae 2010.
97
One of the very few examples is Room 45 of Palace A at Kiš/Khursangkalamma. However, there, the columns were not
situated inside a courtyard, but inside a room, where they supported the ceiling. See Heinrich 1984: 19.
98
Matthiae 2010.
68
Fig. 24: Tuttul/Bi’a ‘Palace B’, EME 4 palace (Strommenger & Kohlmeyer 2000: Beilage 2).
“Pillar Building” (phase 1).99 The newly erected building’s later phases of occupation (2-4) date to EME 5
(Fig. 25).100 Only a very small portion of it has been explored, most of its layout remaining obscure. However,
its outline seems to have been rectangular, which makes it similar to its predecessor. A considerable stretch of its
eastern external wall was excavated and proved to have been buttressed on the outside. On the inside of this wall
the excavators found six rooms of unknown function.
Apart from Bi’a/Tuttul, there are only a few other examples of palatial architecture that date to EME 4 or
EME 5: building 6 at Banat (local period III), which replaced the older Building 7, seems to have been occupied
only during EME 4 (see Fig. 23).101 The building’s extremely wide walls (up to 3m) were built of very large lime-
stone ashlars, but, as so often, the extension and layout of the building are largely unknown. However, there is
no doubt that this building was of “public” character with administrative functions, while a row of three large
rooms, equipped with complex installations such as brick pavements, toilets and so on, seems to have served to
store various goods. A war-like event at the end of EME 4 led to the destruction of this structure and may also be
99
100
101
McClellan 1999; Cooper 2006: 128-30.
69
M. Novák
Fig. 25: Tuttul/Bi’a ‘Pillar Building’, EME 4–5 palace (Strommenger & Kohlmeyer 2000: Tf. 54).
responsible for the violent end of the citadel of the city, Bazi (level 9). However, unlike the acropolis, the palace
was not rebuilt afterwards.
3.6.4 Period EME 5

The “Pillar Building” (phases 2-4) at Bi’a/Tuttul remained in use during EME 5, and there is no evidence to
suggest that its layout was changed.
The so-called “(southern) mansion” at Selenkahiye (Late Selenkahiye) is another “palatial” building that can
be dated to EME 5 (Fig. 26).102 Aside from its size, the quality of construction as well as the wide walls and large
rooms suggest that this was no ordinary house. It consisted of eight square or rectangular rooms arranged in an
almost square pattern with the entrance probably located in the north-east corner. The central, albeit not largest,
room showed a unique feature: the doorway, which connected it to the neighbouring room to the east (probably
a courtyard), was extremely wide (c. 3.5m). A drum-shaped limestone column base in the middle of the threshold
seems to have served as the base of a wooden column that would have been necessary to support a lintel wide
enough to span the doorway.103 Furthermore, the excavators found evidence that allows the reconstruction of
102
Meijer in van Loon 2001: 3.35-42; Cooper 2006: 130-134.
103
Over the next one and a half millennia columned entrances such as this became a distinctive feature of Northern Levantine
architecture.
70
Fig. 26: Selenkahiye ‘(Southern) Mansion’, EME 5 residential building (Van Loon 2001: 3.36, Fig. 3.6).
a second floor at least for the western part of the building. Among the finds belonging to the inventories of the
individual rooms a considerable number of clay stoppers with seal impressions and fragments of statues were dis-
covered, thus underlining the outstanding position of the building and its inhabitants within the social hierarchy
of Selenkahiye. The “Mansion” was destroyed violently, which is emphasised by the remains of two of the victims
that were found in the debris.
Several partially explored architectural units at Sweyhat (local phase 4 or period E), all dating to EME 5,
might all have been part of one large, palace-like building (Fig. 27).104 The units were found in the area of
the “old town” or “citadel” and consist of the poly-cellular Area IV “warehouse”, the “kitchen building” east
of it, close to the fortifications, and the “reception building” on the summit of the mound. Not only have
these buildings turned out to be contemporary, but, even though they were excavated in trenches isolated
from one another and thus cannot be connected directly, they could quite possibly have belonged to one and
the same complex, in which case we may refer to them as parts of a large-scale palace.105 The “warehouse”
comprised a series of neatly arranged rooms that were used to store a wide range of goods, including luxurious
items such as metal jewellery. In contrast to this organised rectangular layout, the “kitchen building”, which
was named for the large number of cooking-related installations such as ovens and hearths found inside it,
consisted of several differently-sized rooms that seem to have merged together in an organic way. The walls of
104
Cooper 2006: 134-139 and 141.
105
On this interpretation see Cooper 2006: 138-139.
71
M. Novák
Fig. 27: Sweyhat ‘Burned Building’ (phase 4 / period E), EME 5 palatial building (Cooper 2006: Fig. 6.4).
the “reception building” were buttressed and finely plastered on the outside, while traces of wall paint were
discovered on the inside. Again, the entire complex bears marks of the fire that led to its destruction at the
end of EME 5.
3.6.5 Period EME 6

Palace A at Bi’a/Tuttul was founded during the Ur III period, the later half of EME 6 or beginning of the
2nd millennium after the “Pillar Building” had already been abandoned (Fig. 28).106 Its layout is reminiscent of the
roughly contemporary Šakkanaku Palace at Hariri/Mari, as both have strictly rectangular outlines and a recep-
tion hall at their centre.107
3.6.6 Summary
Owing to the restricted area available for excavation no palatial buildings have been discovered at those sites
which were most likely to have been political centres during the EME, such as Samsat, Carchemish and Emar.
However, the partially exposed palatial buildings at Bi’a/Tuttul and Banat (Armanum?) bear testimony to the
existence of this kind of architecture in the ME at that time. Additional palatial or at least representative build-
ings are attested at Sweyhat and Selenkahiye.
It is interesting that almost all of these building were constructed and used during EME 4 and EME 5.
However, some structures suggest that there were earlier forerunners: the EME 3 Building 7 at Banat is the
earliest attested palace and the large-scale and probably proto-palatial building at ‘Abd might even date back
to EME 2. Nevertheless, it comes as no surprise that EME 4 and EME 5, which in many ways appear to repre-
sent the climax of urban development in the ME, provide the most numerous and the best examples of palace
architecture. Except for the quite modestly-sized “Mansion” at Selenkahiye, none of these buildings have been
completely exposed. Concerning the typology of palaces in the ME during this era, all assessments have to be
based on Palace B at Bi’a/Tuttul, which shows striking similarities to both Palace F at Khuera and Palace G at
Ebla, but at the same time can clearly be separated from palaces in SM for typological reasons. Therefore, we
must consider the possibility that a northern Mesopotamian/Syrian type of palace was developed at the middle
of the 3rd millennium.
The only, although very late, palace of EME 6, Palace A, was also found at Bi’a/Tuttul and shares characteristic
typological features with the Šakkanaku Palace at Hariri/Mari.
106
Einwag 1998: 81-98, “Keramikkomplexe 3-7”. On Palace A see Miglus & Strommenger 2002. “OME” is the abbreviation
used for “Old Middle Euphrates”, which covers the first half of the 2nd millennium but is not yet defined on the base of material
culture.
107
Akkermans & Schwartz 2003: 286.
72
Fig. 28: Tuttul/Bi’a ‘Palace A’, EME 6 and OME palace.
3.7. Domestic Architecture

A wide range of structures, which all serve the primary purpose of providing shelter to an unspecified num-
ber of people, are referred to collectively as houses, regardless of the possible existence of rooms with a (however
secondary) cultic, administrative or representational function. Since the beginnings of sedentary life in the Pre-
Pottery Neolithic, houses had always been the most persistent and common architectural group and thus are
represented by an enormously large number of examples during all periods and in all regions of the Ancient Near
East. Therefore, domestic architecture provides a large amount of valuable information for the reconstruction
of peoples’ daily lives, consumption strategies and social structures and it plays an equally important role in our
understanding of formal layouts and concepts of spatial organisation. Countless methods can be used to interpret
and analyse houses.108 In most cases, formal and functional typologies form the basis of every interpretation and
further investigation. Moreover, houses can be grouped into various types in an extraordinarily large number of
ways. We will not attempt to develop a new typology here and for our purposes it is sufficient to simply adopt the
solid and established typology provided by Peter Pfälzner’s (2001) comprehensive study. Since the present paper
108
An overview of possible approaches and methods for the analysis of domestic architecture can be found in Pfälzner 2001:
9-56.
73
M. Novák
mainly deals with chronological issues, the focus is restricted to formal aspects that reflect significant develop-
ments. Further interesting and important aspects of domestic architecture will not be addressed here, and for
these non-chronological issues we refer to other more extensive studies.109
3.7.1 Period EME 1

Owing to the generally rather poor state of research there are only a few attestations for domestic architec-
ture from this period. Obviously the “single-room house” principle, a mono-cellular unit consisting of just one
multi-functional room, had already been predominant in northern ME settlements during the local LC, whereas
the houses in the “Uruk colonies” can be described as poly-cellular structures organised in bipartite or tripartite
layouts.110 At Hassek (level 5) one typical “Uruk” tripartite building existed next to houses of the local single-
room type.
With the collapse of the “Uruk colonies”, the southern Mesopotamian type of tripartite building dis-
appeared from the ME, whereas the local single-room houses survived. The early 3rd-millennium village at
Hassek (levels 4-1) comprised a number of rather irregularly arranged single-room units within the fortified
area (Fig. 29).111 So far, there is no evidence for any other type of domestic architecture during this period.
3.7.2 Period EME 2

The single-room house became the dominant type of domestic architecture in the ME throughout EME 2.
Halawa B has produced a great number of intensively investigated dwellings: local level 3, dating to the very
beginning of EME 2, contained six units that had been constructed in no recognisable order within the limits
of the village (see Fig. 4).112 At least four of them (Houses B II-V according to Pfälzner’s terminology113) were
mono-cellular houses consisting of only one rectangular or square room with a single entrance. In two of them
internal buttresses adorned the walls and supported the wooden beams of the ceiling.114 In other cases at Halawa
B and elsewhere central wooden posts served this function.115 The only two-room unit was House B I, abutting
the fortification wall on the north-west edge of the settlement. The second chamber could only be accessed by
passing through the first one, thereby forming a simple chain of rooms. House B VI comprised five independently
accessible rooms. Together they apparently formed a larger complex arranged around a central courtyard. There is
evidence for metalworking activities in this house, thus perhaps indicating that its inhabitants followed a particu-
lar specialisation.116 The inventories of most rooms indicate that they had been used as multi-functional spaces for
domestic activities, production and storage.
As at Halawa B, the houses of Habuba Kabira (level 3) date to the very early stages of EME 2 (Fig. 30). Here
it seems possible that two or more originally independent single-room buildings were united to create a complex
similar to House B VI of Halawa B.117
Other single house units are known from Sweyhat,118 Shiyukh Fawqani119 and ‘Abd.120 They all share particu-
lar features with the Halawa B examples, including internal buttresses that supported the ceilings. Building 3 at
Shiyukh Fawqani is another example of a rather simple poly-cellular complex created by connecting two single-
room units by means of adding a common vestibule.
An extraordinary structure is attested at Sweyhat: a so-called “pit-house”, a circular, mono-cellular, semi-
subterranean unit that was partly dug into the virgin soil.121 It may originally have been a “dome-house”, a type of
residential structures that is well attested in the JZ.122
109
Aside from Pfälzner 2001, see Cooper 2006: 89-125 with further reading.
110
Kohlmeyer 1996.
111
Gerber 2005: 22-23, fig. 4.
112
Orthmann 1989; Pfälzner 2001: 355-357; Cooper 2006: 89-91.
113
Pfälzner 2001: 355-356.
114
The use of wooden beams to support the ceilings of roofed rooms is well-attested in the ME and the JZ. See Pfälzner
2001: 126.
115
116
Lüth in Orthmann 1989: 91; Cooper 2006: 91.
117
Pfälzner 2001: 368-369; Cooper 2006: 95.
118
Danti & Zettler 1998: 219; Cooper 2006: 98.
119
Morandi Bonacossi 2005; Cooper 2006: 97.
120
Finkbeiner 1995; Cooper 2006: 99.
121
Cooper 2006: 98.
122
Pfälzner 2001: 374; Pfälzner 2011.
74
Fig. 29: Hassek (levels 5–2), Late Chalcolithic and EME 1 single-room houses (Gerber 2005).
75
M. Novák
Fig. 30: Habuba Kabira (level 3), EME 2 single-room houses forming a defence wall (Cooper 2006: Fig. 5.5).
3.7.3 Period EME 3

In EME 3 the single-room unit continued to be the dominant type of house. However, the number of poly-
cellular complexes that had grown out of single-room buildings increased during this period.
House B VII at Halawa B (levels 2 and 1) consisted of three rooms, one of which served as a vestibule and gave
access to the other two, otherwise unconnected, chambers (Fig. 31).123 Just next to it, the excavators discovered a
fourth room that was obviously used for storage, but was not directly connected to the rest of the house. Whether
this storage-unit was actually part of the house or whether it should be considered to have been an independent
structure remains unclear. However, although the architectural features of the individual rooms find close paral-
lels in other EME 2 and EME 3 single-room houses, the layout and the complexity already appear to be fairly
sophisticated, being reminiscent of the so-called “allotment houses” that can be seen as a hallmark of EME 4
(see below).124
In a manner similar to the development at Halawa B, two houses that each comprised at least three rooms were
built on top of the aforementioned simpler preceding structures at Habuba Kabira (level 5).125
123
Lüth in Orthmann 1989: 85ff.; Pfälzner 2001: 357-358.
124
125
Pfälzner 2001: 369; Cooper 2006: 99-101.
76
Fig. 31: Halawa B (level 2–1), EME 2 poly-cellular House VII (Pfälzner 2001: Tf. 85).
On the one hand, the examples from Halawa B and Habuba Kabira serve as a link between the house layouts
that were predominant during EME 2 and EME 4 respectively; while, on the other hand, they also mark the
beginning of the development of a more complex and standardised form of domestic architecture.
3.7.4 Period EME 4

The domestic architecture of EME 4 is characterised by the emergence of completely new types, among which
the so-called “allotment house” was the most common.126 Next to myriads of other attestations, the houses of
Halawa A (level 3) provide us with especially good evidence (Fig. 32). The new house type was introduced along
with the foundation of the new site, which replaced the abandoned settlement at Halawa B. The rectangular
houses comprised a number of rooms (usually five to seven) and provide evidence for standardised plots and lay-
outs. Identically-sized plots situated along streets suggest that they were allotted according to an organised and
well-planned system. House 3-1, which was situated close to the fortification wall, can be used to describe the pat-
tern of the internal spatial organisation of the town (Fig. 33):127 a courtyard, directly accessible from the outside,
made up the front part of the house. It was used for all kinds of domestic activities, including food production.
The central part of the house consisted of two rooms, both connected to the courtyard but not to each other. They
were the main multi-functional living areas, providing a roofed space for the reception of visitors, daily life activi-
ties, sleeping and food production on cold days. Three small storage rooms located towards the back completed
the complex. The plot sizes differed depending on whether the building was located in the north-west (largest),
central-south (medium) or north-east (smallest) part of town. Despite these differences in plot dimensions, all of
the houses followed the same layout and concept of spatial organisation. This indicates both a highly developed
level of city planning and a flat or “underdeveloped” hierarchy of urban society.
The contemporary houses at Selenkahiye, a site situated close to Halawa on the opposite side of the river, show
a large variety of internal arrangements (Fig. 34). The plots are equal in size to the large plots in the north-west
quarter of Halawa A, but layout and number of rooms are not standardised in any way. Some of the houses pre-
dated the foundation of the city wall and a number of them were filled in and overbuilt in the process of construct-
ing this defensive structure.128 The degree of urban planning seems to have been much weaker than at Halawa A
and the outlines of the houses were obviously much more irregular. However, just as had happened at Halawa,
single-room houses were replaced by poly-cellular buildings at Selenkahiye. Nearly every house comprised stor-
126
Pfälzner 2001: 378-379.
127
Meyer in Orthmann 1989: 42-43; Pfälzner 2001: 348-349; Cooper 2006: 102-104.
128
Van Loon 2001: 3.51; Cooper 2006: 108.
77
M. Novák
Fig. 32: Halawa A (level 3), EME 4 house plots near the city wall (Pfälzner 2001: Tf. 70).
Fig. 33: Halawa A (level 3), EME 4 ‘allotment house’ (Pfälzner 2001: Tf. 71).
78
Fig. 34: Selenkahiye, EME 4–5 dwelling quarter in the central town (Van Loon 2001: Fig. 3.18).
age and food-production facilities, thereby indicating that the organisation of these activities was decentralised
and that they were performed within individual households. Most rooms were quite small and multi-functional
(Fig. 35). Regarding formal criteria, no predominant type can be recognised. Therefore, it seems as though central
planning was restricted to the definition of plots for the construction of domestic dwellings, while the inhabitants
had the opportunity to arrange the space allotted to them according to their own requirements. As a result the
houses show a great variety of layouts, reflecting either a wide span of social structures or a population consisting
of inhabitants from different cultural backgrounds.129 This situation stands in stark contrast to that at Halawa A,
even though the two sites were in close proximity, and thus we may assume that the homogeneity of living cus-
toms that had been characteristic of the EME 2 and EME 3 settlements in the ME no longer existed, having been
replaced by a new way of life that was adjusted to local social conditions.
3.7.5 Period EME 5

The houses of Halawa A and Selenkahiye maintained their EME 4 layouts and appear to have remained con-
tinuously occupied throughout the following EME 5. However, other sites, such as Sweyhat and Titriş, provide
additional and slightly differing evidence for domestic architecture.
At Sweyhat geophysical prospection revealed well-planned domestic quarters arranged in blocks within the
framework of a regular street system.130 While the buildings of EME 4 all seem to have been of the “allotment-
house” type, their sizes and internal arrangements varied considerably in EME 5. For example, parts of an
extraordinarily large house were excavated in the western part of the lower town.131 It consisted of at least eight
rectangular rooms presumably centred on a courtyard, while several abutting units at its southern front may
have also been part of the complex. Aside from “ordinary” household activities such as food preparation, stor-
age and so on, the archaeological remains also hint at specialised textile and probably wine production inside
this building.
Several sophisticated courtyard houses, similar to Early Dynastic III residences in the Diyala region, were
excavated at Titriş (Fig. 36).132 Owing to the poor state of publication it is not certain whether they belong to
129
130
Cooper 2006: 114.
131
Zettler 1998: 39-43; Cooper 2006: 115-116.
132
Matney 2000: 28-30.
79
M. Novák
Fig. 35: Selenkahiye, EME 4–5 poly-cellular house in the central town (Pfälzner 2001: Tf. 89).
Fig. 36: Titriş, EME 5 Outer Town architecture and street system (Algaze & Matney 2011: 1002, Fig. 46.3).
EME 4 or EME 5, but their complexity and the strong ties to traditions known from SM may support the latter
option (Fig. 37).133
On the one hand Sweyhat and Titriş show a rapid de-standardisation of domestic architecture in both size and
variations of layouts, but on the other hand they have also produced evidence that suggests that the inhabitants
started to specialise in various craft activities. Moreover, influences from SM, manifested by the central courtyard,
133
The main feature of the “Babylonian courtyard house” is the centrally located square courtyard that connected the different
areas of the building, thus acting as the main distribution area within the internal circulation (Heinrich 1982).
80
Fig. 37: Titriş, EME 5 Lower Town architecture and street system (Algaze & Matney 2011: 1003, Fig. 46.4).
can be recognised as well. This might have not been a coincidence, as the introduction of this architectural type
could reflect the significant degree to which the first Akkadian raids had impacted the region both politically and
culturally.
3.7.6 Period EME 6

Owing to the scale of de-urbanisation during this period and the scarcity of available evidence that this pro-
cess caused our understanding of domestic architecture during this time is very poor. However, we can at least
observe that at the sites that remained occupied (such as Bi’a/Tuttul or Kabir) house types did not change in any
significant way.
3.7.7 Summary
In short, domestic architecture developed from simple, standardised mono-cellular structures to more com-
plex poly-cellular buildings. At the very beginning of the 3rd millennium, during EME 1, there seem to have been
only single-room houses the internal space of which was multi-functional. As suggested by the evidence from
Hassek, this kind of architecture had originated in the LC, during which period it had been the dwelling form
preferred by the local inhabitants, while contemporary bipartite and tripartite “Uruk” houses emphasised the
influence on the region from SM. After the “Uruk network” had collapsed southern Mesopotamian architectural
features vanished, whereas local traditions survived. This development causes us to assume that sedentary life in
the form of villages continued to exist, while urban life, with its characteristic higher standards in housing, was
completely abandoned. Instead of separating domestic activities by function (e.g. storage, food preparation, handi-
craft production, reception of visitors, social interaction and sleeping), one single room served as shelter and multi-
functional space to perform various tasks for an entire household. The available information does not permit us to
distinguish between different social classes within individual households or entire settlements.
The single-room house remained the predominant type of house during EME 2. It can be found in all villages
and small towns and thus indicates that the inhabitants demanded very little from their habitations. Moreover,
the ubiquitous occurrence of this building type also suggests a high degree of formal standardisation. Since this
architectural trend was not part of large-scale “town planning” concepts – the buildings were distributed across
the enclosed area in no specific pattern – social hierarchies were probably rather poorly developed. In a few cases
81
M. Novák
some neighbouring single-room houses were connected and united to form a multi-cellular, but still fairly simple,
unit. Nevertheless, it has to be noted that these domestic structures seem to have been also utilised for specialised
craft production.
EME 3 provides the first evidence for planned multi-cellular units arranged as a complex of separate rooms
connected to each other via a shared vestibule or courtyard. The coexistence of these more sophisticated dwell-
ings with the still predominant single-room houses suggests the gradual development of social heterogeneity
and hierarchy.
The first major break in the development of domestic architecture in the ME occurred at the beginning of
EME 4. The concept of the single-room house was entirely abandoned and replaced by that of the poly-cellular
unit, preferably of the “allotment house” type. The reason for this shift may have been the inhabitants’ rising
expectations, which required the structures to be more than simple shelters. The rooms were increasingly dif-
ferentiated by function, thus producing separate areas for food preparation, goods production, living and social
activities. Accordingly, societies reached a higher degree of hierarchical stratification. Although some sites showed
standardised plot sizes and house outlines (Halawa A), both of these aspects could vary significantly at other
settlements (Selenkahiye). Moreover, a considerable number of specialised workshops for the production of craft
goods can be attested for this period. Hence, there is much evidence to point to a far greater complexity in society
in general than had been the case before. Whether or not some types of dwellings, such as the “allotment house”,
were directly influenced by trends in domestic architecture in the neighbouring JZ cannot be assessed yet, but the
possibility that close interregional ties existed certainly has to be considered.
Development reached its peak in EME 5, during which southern Mesopotamian influences manifested them-
selves to a visible degree in domestic architecture, as it appears that the “Babylonian courtyard house” was intro-
duced to the ME at this time. Differences in size and layout of houses increased, which may indicate a growing
wealth gap within the hierarchic structure of urban societies. The first Akkadian raids into northern Mesopotamia
and Syria may have had a considerable impact on these regions and therefore may also have caused this new devel-
opment in domestic architecture.
A vast process of de-urbanisation and the abandonment of most settlements in the ME followed upon the
comprehensive destruction of many sites at the end of EME 5. Consequently, there are very few attestations of
EME 6 domestic architecture, which makes it difficult to decide whether the house types that had developed in
EME 5 continued to exist or whether they were replaced by other forms. It is only possible to observe that at the
cities that survived the decline, such as Bi’a/Tuttul, southern Mesopotamian influences seem to have continued
to dominate domestic architecture.
3.8. Conclusion
This focused look at the development of architecture in the ME throughout the 3rd millennium leads to the
following conclusions. It is fair to describe EME 1 as an intermediate or transitional phase that followed upon
the collapse of the LC “Uruk (trade) network”. While the southern Mesopotamian “colonies” were abandoned
and almost all the characteristic “Uruk” architectural features vanished, settlements inhabited by an indigenous
population survived. Hence, the area was de-urbanised, but sedentary life was not given up completely. After the
decline settlements were generally very small, probably resembling no more than hamlets or villages. Nevertheless,
they seem to have still been fortified, which may indicate ongoing struggles and conflicts. The defensive archi-
tecture of this time was very simple and in no way comparable to the far more sophisticated fortifications of the
“Uruk colonies”. The single-room house, which seems to have been very popular among the local population dur-
ing the LC, remained predominant. It is the simplest form of shelter, comprising only one multi-functional room.
All of the more complex house types, such as the bipartite and tripartite buildings, as well as distinct “public”
buildings such as temples, granaries, administration units and so on, which can all be closely linked to “Uruk”
influence, disappeared at the end of LC. Instead, the small EME 1 villages were characterised by the high uni-
formity of simple units and a lack of any kind of architectural differentiation. Storage, food preparation and
production of goods, as well as living activities, all took place within the single-room houses or in the open areas
between the individual units.
In EME 2 the number of settlements grew rapidly, and most of them were new foundations. Even though they
were still very modest in size, allowing us to describe them as villages or small towns, they were heavily fortified.
“Casemate walls”, which offered far better protection than the simple EME 1 mud-brick walls, were developed,
and this period also offers the first evidence since the abandonment of the “Uruk colonies” for towers and but-
tresses. Nevertheless, there are still no clearly distinguishable “public buildings”, such as palaces or temples, in
the initial phase of EME 2. This does not necessarily prove their non-existence, but leaves us with questions over
whether cultic activities were performed in specific buildings or if a sacral architecture with exclusive charac-
teristics had simply not been introduced yet. Such an architecture seems to have emerged during a later stage of
EME 2, when freestanding terraces with temples on top of them were erected inside enclosures that also included
82
rooms used for storage or other activities. The “bent-axis scheme” of the cella, which forced every visitor to make
a right-angled right-hand turn after entering in order to approach the cultic statue or symbol, was characteris-
tic of these early temples. Just as in southern Mesopotamian temple architecture, buttresses and niches adorned
the outer façades. There is no evidence to suggest that any kind of palace architecture had been developed yet.
Meanwhile, domestic architecture remained simple, as the single-room house continued to be the dominant type,
but some mono-cellular units were already united to create the first poly-cellular complexes.
EME 3 may be regarded as a continuation of EME 2 in many respects, as only a few new architectural ele-
ments were introduced. There was no significant change in number, individual size or layout of settlements and
there are also no signs of advanced urban planning. Defensive and domestic architecture persisted in an essentially
unaltered state as well. However, some development may be seen in the introduction of the first planned poly-
cellular units, the construction of which required a higher level of skill than the simple connection of a number of
single-room houses to form a single complex. Simultaneously, the rooms were increasingly associated with more
specialised functions, which suggests that houses were separated into various zones of production (such as metal-
lurgy) or household activities (such as cooking, sleeping and so on). Meanwhile, temple architecture took a great
leap: the “bent-axis scheme” of the cellae was replaced by an axial approach, thereby moving the point where the
visitor had to turn to the area outside the heart of the sanctuary. Some distinctive elements of the later temple in
antis appeared as well, indicating that the emergence of this type of sacral building in EME 4 does not represent a
total discarding of older traditions, but was rather the result of a continuous development.
The beginning of EME 4 probably marked the most decisive break in the development of architecture in
the ME, as every aspect of it received new elements. Settlements were significantly enlarged, which supports the
assumed great increase in population throughout the entire region. If there were no geo-morphological obsta-
cles, many sites were extended by adding a lower town. If the landscape did not allow this to happen the old set-
tlements were abandoned and replaced by new foundations on more suitable ground nearby. Thus most villages
and small towns grew and reached the state where we may refer to them as large towns or even cities. None of
them reached the size of the largest cities in the JZ or the metropolises of SM, though, but, nevertheless, they did
cover considerable areas of land and show signs of an advanced internal organisation. From this time onwards
intentional urban planning in the form of regular street systems and standardised plots for houses can easily
be detected. However, as the fortifications followed the natural morphology of the building ground instead of
geometric patterns, as the contemporary Kranzhügel did, the outlines of the cities remained rather irregular.
New elements such as ditches or retaining walls set in front of the main town wall, or ramparts connected to
a glacis, were introduced to defensive architecture during this period. Towers were not set at regular distances
from one another yet, but they were frequently placed at strategically crucial positions. Instead of the simple
designs of passageway characteristic of EME 2 and EME 3, EME 4 gateways provided far better protection
because they not only contained internal chambers but had entrances flanked by strong towers. The emergence
of the temple in antis type, which became not only the predominant but the exclusive type of sacral architec-
ture in the ME, the western part of the JZ and the inland of the NL, was a decisive step in the development
of temple architecture. The temple itself was situated inside a temenos that consisted of an enclosure wall, an
entrance gate and a number of additional rooms and chambers used for several purposes. With the introduction
of the temple in antis, the “bent-axis scheme”, which had been a hallmark of EME 2 religious architecture and
essentially denied visibility of the cultic statue from the area outside the sanctuary, was replaced by an axially
designed physical and visual approach. In the sphere of domestic architecture the single-room house went out of
style, thus allowing complex poly-cellular units to become the most common dwelling form; these offered the
possibility of using some rooms in very specific ways and of physically separating various areas of activity. Apart
from “ordinary” household activities such as living, sleeping and food preparation, more space was reserved for
the reception of visitors and inter-household activities as well as for specialised production of goods. In some
settlements the layouts of the houses seem to have been standardised, but this does not seem to apply everywhere
in the ME, as internal arrangements at other sites varied greatly. All these features indicate that social heteroge-
neity and complexity had already reached a respectable degree by this time. The emergence of the first, however
rarely attested, palatial buildings, the most advanced example of social and political hierarchies, accompanied
these developments.
Many sites fell victim to increasingly violent conflicts and wars and thus at all of them destruction layers mark
the end of EME 4. The following period, EME 5, saw almost no major changes in architecture, however. No
large sites were abandoned or founded, the overall settlement system remained the same and changes in size and/
or layout cannot be observed at any settlement. Only a few, such as Sweyhat and Hadidi, were actually enlarged.
Defensive and temple architecture did not undergo any detectable changes. Palace architecture is better attested
than in the preceding periods, but this does not mean that it was necessarily more common than it had been
before. The only significant innovation concerned domestic architecture, which adopted types from SM such
as the “Babylonian courtyard house” alongside local types. It seems quite likely that the political and military
involvement of the early Akkadian empire in the ME initiated this influence from SM. Destruction layers at many
sites mark the end of EME 5.
83
M. Novák
EME 6 is a transitional phase between the 3rd and the 2nd millennia. Many aspects of 3rd-millennium culture
vanished when most of the sites were abandoned. It is quite unlikely that the war-like events at the end of EME 5
were the only reason for the following process of de-urbanisation and the emphatic changes in material culture.
Therefore, we may have to understand these conflicts not as the cause but as the result of a major crisis of sed-
entary life as a whole, which started shortly after urbanisation had reached its peak during EME 4 and EME 5.
However, only a few settlements remained continuously inhabited during EME 6 and the time afterwards. The
little evidence that is available for this period suggests that some new elements emerged – for example, in the
sphere of palace architecture – while others persisted from before, such as the temple in antis or the general
layout of houses.
In brief, architectural developments during the 3rd millennium in the ME cannot all be pinpointed to one
point in time, as some seem to have had precursors while others may have been introduced from other regions. All
in all, however, we may speak of a continuous development. The beginnings after the collapse of the LC “Uruk
system” seem to have remained fairly simple, but the beginning of EME 4 seems to have instigated new trends
in various sectors of architecture that persisted until catastrophic war-like events initiated a process of massive
de-urbanisation.
84
4. Ceramics
Paola Sconzo
4.1. Introduction
In modern archaeological science the study of pottery has a fundamental role in establishing a relative time
sequence. Since the days of Petrie’s “sequence-dating”,1 when archaeology was in its infancy, potters’ clay artefacts –
both in principle and in practice – have been considered “type fossils”, producers of primary evidence for dating
an archaeological layer. Ceramic taxonomy as well as seriation of closed finds – side by side with stratigraphy –
have therefore been regarded as reliable chronological indicators and basic means for building diachronic and
synchronic systems.
Taking into account the period in question (the 3rd millennium BC) and the region under examination
(the middle course of the Euphrates river), in the almost complete absence of textual evidence the ceramic
component – whether represented by complete and incomplete vessels or just plain sherds – is instrumental even
today to the archaeologist in achieving and/or refining chronology.
Despite this premise, the way in which pottery can be used to reach such a goal continues to remain a quite
subjective matter, since methods vary from scholar to scholar. The lack of both a common methodological
approach in building up site phasings and periodisations and a common pottery nomenclature valid at an inter-
site level, side by side with a marked inter-regional differentiation and contextual specificity, in fact, have often
strongly affected the course of the research, thus making comparative pottery studies in this and other regions a
difficult task.2
As part of the ARCANE project, the present paper attempts to merge the knowledge so far acquired in the
field of ceramic studies of the ME with a series of published and unpublished materials from high-value stratified
contexts, here used as benchmarks for building up solid site synchronisations and for refining a regional chronol-
ogy. At the same time, this paper will endeavour to create a new regional nomenclature aimed at overcoming
further internal miscorrelations.
Keeping these issues in mind, I shall first sketch most of the main features and problems related to the EBA
pottery of the ME valley, aiming to provide both an overview of both old and new approaches and some of the
results of the joint work carried out by the ARCANE team, initially supported by the collaboration of and sug-
gestions from excavators and specialists working in the region.
4.1.1 Brief History of Research

The study of 3rd-millennium pottery is closely related to the history of field research in the ME valley. Since
this has already been partially treated in the introductory chapter, it will be only cursorily reviewed here.
An interest in ceramic artefacts and their possible chronological value first arose at the beginning of the
20th century, when the pioneer British Museum excavations at the site of Carchemish soon brought to light on
the Citadel Mound a number of cist graves and pithos burials containing a rich repertoire of bronzes and ceramic
vessels, thus revealing evidence of a culture and period previously unknown. This horizon, deemed to follow pre-
historic times and to precede the Hittite conquest of the city in the later 2nd millennium, was soon labelled as
“champagne-glass period” after the high-stemmed bowls that occurred in the burials in great quantities.3
At this early stage the picture of the Euphrates’ human settlement and its material counterpart (pottery at
first) was further enhanced by the finds salvaged by Sir Leonard Woolley and T. E. Lawrence from the railway
works and from cemeteries and graves plundered in the area around Jerablus and at sites further away.4 Such
funerary finds, either from regular or illicit excavations, featured again a series of recurring patterns and materials
that shed further light on the EBA cultures of the Euphrates. Their chronological and cultural bearing, however,
remained initially misunderstood, as the Carchemish excavators ended up distinguishing for the Carchemish
1
Petrie 1901.
2
For the ME, see, for example, comments by Porter 1999: 311-312; Campbell 2000; Wilkinson 2004: 187-188; McClellan,
unpublished conference paper presented in 2005 at the Blaubeuren workshop. For the neighbouring JZ region, see also Rova
2011: 50-51.
3
Woolley 1914; Woolley & Barnett 1952: 219. See also Falsone & Sconzo 2007: 76-77.
4
Woolley 1914; Sconzo in press a; in press b; and 2013b.
85
P. Sconzo
region a tripartite sequence wrongly attributed to the Hittite civilisation. In this sequence the earliest stage,
dubbed as “Early Hittite”, was characterised by the “champagne-glass culture” and misdated to a later period
(2200-1750 BC). The second stage, the so-called “Middle Hittite” (1750-1100 BC), was meant to refer to the
“Hittite Imperial Period”, but included – side by side with scanty evidence of this late phase – also much earlier
material, now datable to the mid-late 3rd millennium. As a result, the Middle Bronze was missing in this picture.5
However, since the first season at Carchemish Lawrence had been able to identify a true pottery
sequence in a deep stratified sounding dug at the top of the Great Staircase located at the foot of the Citadel.
Here he distinguished the lower levels, above virgin soil, which were associated with ring-burnished pottery of
the second half of the 3rd millennium, from the upper strata, containing comb-incised ware of the MBA.6 He was
the first to identify what is now defined as “Euphrates Banded Ware” (now datable to Periods EME 3-5, see infra).
I quote: “the pottery was much finer and some really splendid pieces turned up […] line burnished decoration is
very plentiful”.7
Other achievements were made during the French mandate with the excavation at Tell Ahmar, which brought
to light a monumental burial dating to the second half of the 3rd millennium, the so-called “Hypogeum”. This
contained a rich array of ceramics (over 1000 pieces) and other finds, which the excavators, probably influenced by
the Carchemish chronology, assigned to the 2nd millennium.8
After this intense period of discoveries and reflections there followed a period in which little interest was
shown in the archaeology of the region, which was considered somehow as a peripheral zone in respect to the pow-
erful kingdoms and empires of the ancient Near East. This period of neglect was accompanied by a halt in pottery
studies lasting for several decades.
As a result of this hiatus the ill-defined periodisation of the region survived until the 1970s, when a new era
of archaeological exploration began along the banks of the Middle Euphrates thanks to many salvage projects
brought on by the construction of various dams along the river, both in Turkey and in Syria. Many preliminary
reports and some final publications were devoted to sites of the 3rd and 2nd millennia, and the local ceramic cul-
tures were widely examined and classified. The flow of final reports and monographs has continued until recent
years: to mention just a few, important contributions on pottery now exist from Samsat,9 Hassek,10 Qara Quzaq,11
Wreide,12 Halawa A,13 Selenkahiye14 and, more recently, Abu Hamad,15 Sweyhat,16 Nevalı Çori,17 Munbaqa,18 and
‘Abd.19 These contributions have provided such a huge amount of pottery that it is hardly manageable by a single
analyst.
A shortcoming of most of these short-term salvage excavations, however, has been the frequent lack of large-
scale exposures. This has meant that in many cases many “primary inventories”, as conceived in the ARCANE
project, were very limited in quantity and type. It is often the case, in fact, even in the presence of a long, almost
continuous sequence, that it has not been possible to rely on closed inventories of complete vessels, apart from
those retrieved in graves; and these, in turn, do not necessarily bear a clear stratigraphic link with the occupation
sequence of the settlement.
5
Woolley 1914: 87.
6
Woolley & Barnett 1952: 232-233, pl. 67 a-d. For a comment on the sounding, see also Falsone & Sconzo 2007: 88-89,
fig. 5.8: no. 4.
7
At Carchemish the young Lawrence, among other duties, was responsible for the study of pottery: he had collected and
classified all the sherds from the BM excavations. Unfortunately, as Woolley reports, almost nothing of his Early Bronze
typology survived at the site after the First World War and the succeeding Turkish Independence War, except for some
unpublished notes and pencil sketch-drawings still kept in the archives of the British Museum (Sconzo 2008: 101).
8
Thureau-Dangin & Dunand 1936: 96-97.
9
Abay 1997.
10
Helwing 2002; Gerber 2005.
11
Valdés Pereiro 1994a; 2001.
12
Rova 1991.
13
Hempelmann 2005.
14
Schwartz 2001.
15
Falb 2005b.
16
Holland 2006.
17
Becker 2007.
18
Czichon & Werner 2008.
19
Sconzo 2013a.
86
Ceramics
4.1.2 Problems of Periodisation and Terminology

In terms of the chronological framework and terminology currently employed in the Middle Euphrates
region, there has been up to recent times a lack of common consensus in defining periods and terminology and
therefore in establishing a unilinear chronological framework for the 3rd millennium, usually as EBA. The work
conducted by the ARCANE team is intended as a step forward towards this goal, although it remains open to
further refinements.
In the past, excavators have developed internal relative dating for individual sites, attempting either to relate
them within the better-known sequence of Lower Mesopotamia or to fit them into pre-existing chronological
schemes used for other regions.20 In particular, as in the case of western Syria, the four-fold subdivision generally
applied to most of the Syrian ME sites (“EB I-EB IV”) has closely followed the EB periodisation of Palestinian
archaeology, although even there both sequence and terminology have been debated for a long time and do not
necessarily provide an ideal system. 21 Moreover, owing to the almost complete lack of internal written sources, the
history and chronology of this period are still obscure and ill-defined.22
Despite that, various attempts have been made to build up a regional periodisation based mainly on pottery
development through time. The merit awarded for first trying to establish a chronological sequence of the EB in
the ME goes to Rudolph Dornemann, who worked out an analysis of the pottery development through various
levels at the site of Hadidi, although still applying the Levantine EB I-IV scheme. 23 A different effort to provide
an alternative chronological scheme independent of the traditional four-fold partition was the work of Andrew
Jamieson, who – on the basis of the published data from many sites excavated before 1990 (mainly in the Tabqa
Dam basin) – divided the 3rd-millennium pottery of the Euphrates into four horizons.24 Among many interesting
remarks on pottery development, of particular importance is the observation – lately further stressed by other
authors – that a high degree of continuity characterises the ME pottery production, a fact which until now has
invalidated most attempts to create phases based on the simple presence or absence of peculiar types. 25 Jamieson’s
contribution is somewhat weakened by the fact that the partition that he proposes could not be based on a con-
tinuous sequence from one or two major sites in the region. Moreover, owing to the state of knowledge at that
time, the author unfortunately could not take into account the large amount of data retrieved in the last decade
from different mounds set to the north and south of Carchemish itself.
In a similar vein is the ceramic analysis by Christoph Gerber, although it is limited to the northern stretch
of the Middle Euphrates, the Atartük Dam basin. Gerber succeeded in replacing the traditional three-fold
scheme of the Anatolian EBA (namely EB I-III) with a new five-fold phasing based on the stratigraphic sequences
detected at four main sites excavated in this area: Kurban, Lidar, Samsat and Hassek. 26 A further achievement is
the recognition of a northern Middle Euphrates sub-region displaying distinctive traits throughout most of the
millennium.
Lastly, a particularly refined proposal is that by Anne Porter, 27 which was followed by the work of Lisa Cooper
in her book on Early Urbanism on the Syrian Euphrates.28 The proposal consists of a six-fold partition (namely
Periods 1-6), the last four phases of which are based on a first-hand stratified sequence from the important exca-
vations at Banat and neighbouring settlements located in the Lower Tishrin basin (Banat Phases IV-I). Porter’s
scheme has mainly allowed the refinement of the sequence of the middle and second half of the 3rd millennium
20
Jamieson 1993: 36-37; Campbell 2000.
21
Campbell 2000: 54. See also the general reassessment in the forthcoming ARCANE volume of Southern Levant. At the same
time for most of the sites located in the Turkish ME a three-fold subdivision has been applied (EB I-III), as proposed by Mellink
on the basis of the evidence from Tarsus (Mellink 1965, 126. See also Yakar 1985, 268).
22
Unfortunately, very little information can be detected from the textual evidence found in neighbouring regions (especially
the Ebla and the later Mari archives, see also Marchesi, this volume), whereas the archaeological records suggest a complex
picture in which the Euphrates River is shown as a place of continuous cultural ebb and flow.
23
Dornemann 1979; 1988; 1990.
24
Jamieson 1993. The four “horizons” are there defined as 1A, 1B; 2 A and 2B.
25
On this matter Jamieson (1993: 36) states: “The situation is compounded by the high degree of continuity within the
different regional ceramic traditions which has restricted the recognition of a well defined ceramic sequence based upon
distinctive typological features”. On the same subject matter, see also Porter 2007a: 3; Cooper 2006: 8.
26
Gerber 2000; 2005. Unfortunately, as stressed by the same scholar, none of these sites could provide an uninterrupted
sequence for the 3rd millennium.
27
Porter 1999; 2007a.
28
Cooper 2006: 6-26.
87
P. Sconzo
Jamieson 1993
Abay 1997
Gerber 2005
Algaze 1999
Wilkinson 2004
Porter 2007
Cooper 2006
ARCANE
Horizon Period Früh Sweyhat Period EME 1
Survey
1A I Bronze IV
1
Ia
early early Phase

a
EBA EBA 1-2
Früh Sweyhat EME 2
Horizon Period Bronze Survey Period
1B II Ib1 V 2
b
Ib2
Horizon Period Früh mid-late middle Period Phase EME 3

2A III Bronze EBA EBA 3 3
II Sweyhat
Survey
VI
Period Phase EME 4

4 4
Horizon Period Früh late Period Phase

2B IVA Bronze EBA 5 5 EME 5
IIIa Sweyhat
Survey
VII
IVB IIIb EB-MB Period Phase EME 6

6 6
Fig. 1: The new EME six-fold periodisation of the Middle

Euphrates and its correlation with a few selected
3rd-millennium chronologies.
and the transition to the MBA, while the earlier phases (Periods 1-2), unattested at those sites, are mainly derived
from second-hand evidence and remain less detailed. 29
This scheme was the starting point for the present treatment, in which the six-fold periodisation for the Middle
Euphrates has been maintained (Fig. 1).
4.1.3 Rating the Data: Chronological, Geographic and Contextual Distribution of the ARCANE
Documentation
In the ARCANE database (hereafter ADB) 677 entries related to complete and almost complete pots have
been registered and are grouped into 60 inventories.
Not all of the sub-regions of the Middle Euphrates as defined in the introduction are equally represented in
the available sample and, while the core of the area has provided a good many data, “peripheral” zones, such as the
Atatürk Dam basin, hereafter “Karababa” (Dam) basin, are completely absent. Almost half of the ADB material
29
Porter 1995a; 1995b; 1999; 2007a; 2007b; Cooper 1998; 1999; 2006. Generally speaking, however, due also to the
lack of complete sequences, a common consensus is far from being reached. For another proposed phasing, see Wilkinson
(2004: 83-92), who adopted for his survey in the Syrian Euphrates a simplified tripartite scheme, subdividing the 3rd millennium
into “early Early Bronze”, “middle Early Bronze” and “late Early Bronze” periods.
88
Ceramics
(306 items, 45%) comes from the Birecik/Carchemish and Tishrin Dam basins (from Gre Virike in the north to
Bazi in the south); this is followed by the findings from the Upper Sajur valley (Tilbeshar) and its vicinity (Oylum)
(186 vessels, 27%), and from the Balikh (Hammam al-Turkman, 2 vessels) and its confluence with the Euphrates
(Bi’a, 92 vessels, 14%). Rather under-represented remains the area of the Tabqa basin (only 54 items, 8%).
Such a disproportionate distribution, already highly problematic for an analysis at intra- and inter-site levels,
becomes worse from an inter-regional perspective, since possible links with the surrounding regions may fail to
show. Moreover, although the artefacts here considered derive from contexts ranging in date between the very
beginning (if not earlier) and the end of the 3rd millennium (EME 1-6), the central stages (EME 2-4) are strongly
dominant. Links with the initial and final periods are still lacking, therefore, and the picture delineated by Porter
over a decade ago still awaits further refinement.30
Lastly, a few remarks on the representative nature of the archaeological contexts are necessary. Although in the
ADB all kinds of contexts (funerary, ritual(?), domestic, industrial, defensive, etc.) are attested, the funerary con-
text is dominant, as graves and cemeteries are the contexts that produce by far the largest amount of complete in
situ material/closed finds, as requested by the project. As a result, luxury/specialised wares of fine quality tend to
be rather over-represented in comparison with common standard wares. The same applies to particular small-sized
ceramic types such as goblets and bowls and small jars, especially common in the grave contexts, in comparison
with large-sized jars and pithoi.
Owing to the discrepancies just outlined, the body of this material, although rather substantial in quantity,
may often seem insufficient, if not inadequate, because of its haphazard distribution in space and time. Although
not an ideal solution, it has therefore been necessary to incorporate in the following discussion further published
artefacts and inventories from contexts not accounted for or even from sites absent in the ADB, such as, for exam-
ple, Hassek, Samsat, Shiyukh Fawqani, Sweyhat, Banat and ‘Abd.31 In this instance attention was paid to selecting
finds retrieved within primary contexts or, when lacking, secondary ones. Only a small number of the selected
artefacts are not reliably dated. These were included mainly to better represent established types, to show the range
of variations within the same type or as support in a discussion about spatial distribution.
The present analysis has been conceived as an expanded and revised version of Porter’s thoughtful sequence.32
It encompasses, in fact, not only the Syrian and the Turkish ME but also the area immediately to the west (Upper
Qoweiq and Upper Sajur valleys) and to the east (Balikh valley), as well as the Terqa zone, which is usually not
considered as an integral part of the ME. As mentioned in the introduction, it also takes into consideration
the fresh results of the last decades of archaeological investigation in the region and the rich array of data col-
lected during a series of workshops organised by Tübingen University with a special focus on the later part of the
3rd millennium,33 as well as the unpublished material entered in the ADB.
The overall assessment, therefore, is the result not of a single person’s reflections but of long-term teamwork,
which has benefited from the contributions of many specialists. Problems and open questions remain, however,
and the chronological partition that is presented here should still be viewed as a work in progress, open to further
revisions and adjustments.
Just a selection of recognisable features/types is provided here, whose limits and characteristics of distribution
within the region are defined mainly on the basis of stratigraphically reliable selected ARCANE inventories.34
The present work consists of two sections: a) a general evaluation of the main trends in pottery development
throughout the 3rd millennium; and b) a descriptive classification/catalogue of key types. The ceramic material is
countless and the study has no pretensions towards providing a systematic typology, a matter which would need
a book by itself. Moreover, it should be stated that my views on the dating of levels and on typology are largely
based on my previous research work, mainly undertaken at sites such as Shiyukh Tahtani, ‘Abd and Banat. This,
30
Porter 1999; 2007a.
31
A complete list of the materials and publications used in the discussion is provided in a series of notes set at the beginning of
each phase description.
32
My deepest thanks goes to Anne Porter. Without her suggestions and continuous advice the original paper would not have
assumed the shape and substance it finally did.
33
Most ideas and issues which lie behind this work also benefited from a series of workshops and conferences preceding the
ARCANE workshop and focusing on the archaeology of the Syrian Bronze Age: they gave me the chance to meet many
talented and experienced archaeologists, to learn about thorny scientific questions and to acquire unpublished information on
sites’ chronology and stratigraphy. Three workshops focusing on the Early Bronze/Middle Bronze Age transition in the Middle
Euphrates were promoted by Uwe Finkbeiner and held in Blaubeuren, (2002-03 and 2005); and a fourth (2004), in Rotenberg
(University of Münster), was headed by R. Dittmann. Other gatherings were the 2004 workshop on the Carchemish region at
the 4th ICAANE congress in Berlin, organised by Prof. E. Peltenburg, and the 2006 conference on the “crisis years” held at the
Maison de l’Orient in Lyon and organised by C. Marro and C. Kuzucuoğlu.
34
The stratigraphic attribution is mainly based on the information given by the excavators in their publications or in the ADB.
89
P. Sconzo
of course, has led to a strong focus on those three sites, based on my deeper insight into and direct evaluation of
their contexts.
4.2. The Pottery Sequence

Generally speaking, the 3rd-millennium ceramic corpus of the Euphrates offers poor chronological resolution.
This major issue, arising from the present study, confirms what has been already stressed by some scholars: while
most forms and wares are long-lived, lasting with little change for long periods of time, one type often blending
gradually into a succeeding one, very few well-defined and chronologically restricted diagnostics assist the analyst
in making meaningful distinctions. As a result, the picture as a whole seems to be relatively blurry.
At no time does a completely “new” repertoire seem to appear, while only a few individual features can be said
to be exclusive of a given period or horizon. However, changes are often evident in the appearance or decline of
specialised wares and types, some of which occur only in specific kinds of context.35 The case of Euphrates Banded
Ware is one of the most cited, but it is not the only one. In consequence, it is sometimes more difficult to establish
chronological divisions at sites in which those specific contexts are absent.
A second point worth stressing is sub-regional pottery variability. As mentioned in the introduction, the mid-
course of the Euphrates (as conceived by the ARCANE project), including a long stretch of the river (over 600 km)
and its adjacent region, is neither marked by geographical continuity nor necessarily displays a cultural unity
through time.
Today it is accepted that during the 3rd millennium (and even earlier) smaller sub-regional entities can be
identified on the basis of particular individual traits in the material culture. It follows that, as already pointed
out by Stuart Campbell in a critical reassessment of the subject, “it is clear that there is not a single chronological
sequence which works for all sites”.36 In particular, a clear-cut cultural separation can be detected between the
northern and the southern sectors (or zones) of the Big Bend – that is, the Karababa-Carchemish axis on the
one hand and the Tabqa-Balikh on the other.37 Such a sub-regionalism – as will be pointed out later – seems
to be emphasised in the earlier stages of the 3rd millennium, here defined as Periods EME 1-2, when only a few
ceramic types seem to be evenly distributed throughout the whole region; in contrast, a rather pronounced cul-
tural unity transpires from the mid-late 3rd millennium, particularly in Periods EME 4-5 (see, for examples, “com-
mon types” at Pl. 34-37). Moreover, if the earlier periods seem to be better represented in the northern zone (up to
Carchemish and further north), the development of the later Periods EME 5 and 6 can be better observed in the
southern one (Banat, Tabqa, Bi’a).
4.2.1 EME 1 (Pl. 1, Tb. 1)
4.2.1.1 General Trend and Available Material

This incipient stage, roughly equivalent to Porter’s Period 1,38 can be described as a phase of strong regionali-
sation that immediately followed the disintegration of the old equilibrium at the fall of the Uruk world system.
Such a cultural fragmentation is readable even within the same region: along the Euphrates Big Bend it is particu-
larly evident between the upper stretch of the river (the Karababa-Carchemish axis) and the lower one (mainly
Tabqa) and has often been interpreted as reflecting a different settlement pattern and history.39
35
This means that vessels largely attested in tombs may have had a specialised or predominant funerary function and may be
very rare if not absent in other kinds of contexts (for example, in living quarters). Such a differentiation, primarily observed
at Banat and Jerablus Tahtani (Porter 1999: 290; Campbell 2000: 54-55; also Falb 2009), as well as in Wilkinson’s survey
(2004: 87), can also be noticed in the material from Shiyukh Tahtani and other sites. This trend of thought has already been
followed by many authors for the latter half of the 3rd millennium and may be connected with the widespread use of luxury/
specialised wares, but, in my opinion, it can at some sites not be applied to the earlier phases because identical vessels show a
domestic and funerary function, see below.
36
According to my personal experience, a similar feeling immediately transpired from the comparison of two sites that I had
been dealing with, Shiyukh Tahtani, located in the upper Tishrin basin, and ‘Abd, in the northern Tabqa area. Initially I found
it very difficult to correlate the two ceramic assemblages even when external factors suggested a possible synchronism, as they
share very few similarities.
37
Periods EME 1 and EME 6 can be considered transitional phases. The latter covers a controversial period which, during a
series of workshops preceding the ARCANE project, was defined as EB-MB transition. The intermediate stages EME Periods
2-5 cover time lapses that, according to the traditional Mesopotamian nomenclature, are defined as the Early Dynastic and
Akkadian periods. Artefacts (rare) that definitively belong to the Akkadian period occur mainly in Period EME 5. Those
questions of intra-regional fragmentation and cultural diversity between north and south are among the major issues to be faced
in the present work.
38
Porter 2007a: 9, Pl. I.
39
Lupton 1996: 73-98; Akkermans & Schwartz 2003: 231-232; Peltenburg 2007b: 15-17; etc.
90
Ceramics
As regards pottery, in particular, although a series of general traits can be determined, the definition of a
fixed and substantial repertoire of key types to be considered valid for the whole region is difficult to achieve.
The difficulty is intensified by the almost complete absence of primary inventories, the only exception being the
inventory from Zeytinli Bahçe from which most of the present examples are taken (Pl. 1: 1, 3-4, 6, 8, 10, 13-14).40
The chronological distribution of the main types examined here is represented in Table 1, while their spatial/sub-
regional differentiation is shown in Pl. 31.
4.2.1.2 Main Features

Some of the pottery of Period EME 1 shows a clear continuity from the Late Chalcolithic (LC)/Late Uruk tra-
dition that is manifest in the survival of earlier techniques and forms and in the formation of a hybrid assemblage
in which local and foreign, old and new features intersect or coexist.41
The repertoire is characterised by predominantly fine mineral-tempered pottery, the relatively well-finished
appearance of which was achieved by a partial shaping or finishing on a rotative device. Limited amounts of
chaff-tempered fabrics, rather widespread in the previous periods, still survive. Vessel surfaces are generally left
untreated or wet-smoothed, apart from the use of diagonal Reserved Slip decoration and, more rarely, a lustrous
red slip of Late Uruk descent, which, however, is so far attested only in secondary or tertiary (not specified) con-
texts at Samsat, Level e.42
As for morphology, residual local LC and/or Uruk-related features are: chaff-tempered, mould-made bevelled-
rim bowls (type 1, Pl. 1: 1-2) and shallow bowls with internally modelled rim (type 3, Pl. 1: 10-12); sand-tempered
wheel-made truncated-conical bowls (type 2, Pl. 1: 3); bowls with slightly inturned simple rim (type 6, Pl. 1: 13);
band rim bowls (type 5, Pl. 1: 7-9); bowls with triangular rim (type 7, Pl. 1: 6); and jars with fine combed lines
incised on the shoulder (type 4, Pl. 1: 16-17). Fragments of jars with cross-hatched decoration and drooping spouts
(not shown) are also often recorded, but never in primary contexts.
Less common but nevertheless distinctive shapes of this initial phase are carinated bowls with everted rim and
wavy incised decoration (type 8, Pl. 1: 14) and the quartz-tempered, hand-made closed pots (cooking pots) with a
slightly flaring rim and sharp interior bulge (type 9, Pl. 1: 18-19).
Lastly, fully new or elaborate local forms first appearing in this phase are the sinuous-sided bowls (type
11, Pl. 1: 15); the open bowls with direct tapering rim (type 10, Pl. 1: 4-5) and globular closed pots with everted
simple rim (type 12, Pl. 1: 20). The latter are particularly attested in the core of the ME, especially in the Tabqa
basin (Hadidi, ‘Abd, Hajji Ibrahim), where the type endures without significant change down to the mid-3rd
millennium.
In term of spatial distribution, if compared with the frequency of local LC and Late Uruk sites, Period EME 1
seems to be rather sparsely represented along the Middle Euphrates river valley (Pl. 31, see sites synchronisation),
although, in my opinion, the picture produced by the published material is still not detailed enough and some-
times suffers from “dissension over criteria and terminology”.43 As is often the case in dealing with “transitional”
phases, in the almost complete absence of primary contexts/inventories it is still a matter of debate whether the
persistence of old features within a transforming or new repertoire is to be considered as residual/extrusive/linger-
ing or as the product of an ongoing tradition.44 It remains to be established, therefore, whether the discrepancy in
the number of occupied sites assigned to this period is a reflection of reality and therefore complicates the ability
to refine the sequence or – on the contrary – it is the lack of definition in this incipient phase which obscures the
attribution of sites to that period.45
40
Cf. ADB ME007_U001. The picture of Phase 1 and the related pottery plate could not completed without the support of
the following references: (a) Karababa basin: final publications of the pottery of Hassek (Helwing 2002; Gerber 2005) and
Samsat (Abay 1997); (b) Carchemish sector: final publication of Shiyukh Fawqani (Morandi-Bonacossi 2005); preliminary
reports of the excavations at the Birecik cemetery (Sertok & Ergeç 1999a; 2000); Yarim (Kozbe & Rothman 2005) and
Ahmar ( Jamieson 1990); unpublished material from Shiyukh Tahtani; (c) Tabqa sector: preliminary report of the excavations
at Hadidi (Dornemann 1988); final publication of the 3rd-millennium pottery from ‘Abd (Sconzo 2013a); and unpublished
material from Hajji Ibrahim (Danti 2000).
41
A similar pattern has also been detected further east in the JZ (EJZ 0), although the newly introduced repertoire is different
(Rova 2011: 52).
42
Abay 1997: 173-175, 187. Both the Reserved Slip and the Red Slip wares are well attested also in the following Phase 2: their
direct filiation from the LC period is therefore highly probable.
43
Porter 2007a: 9.
44
Even more complicated is the identification of such transitional phases through field surveys.
45
It must be taken into account that until very recently such evidence has been under-represented because the presence of
residual LC features has often been considered extrusive and therefore, as such, has been neglected.
91
Table 1: EME 1-2 pottery types
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
EME 1
EME 2
92
P. Sconzo
EME 3
EME 4
EME 5
EME 6
Ceramics
Generally speaking, while a more detailed picture is provided in the northern part of the Big Bend, the situ-
ation remains still nebulous in the Tabqa Dam basin, for which a total abandonment in the post-Uruk phase has
been often claimed.46
To sum up, ceramically Period EME 1 is still rather poorly defined, since only a few key types can be deter-
mined. However, the assemblage seems to be much richer if we take into account all those types of Late Uruk
descent that occur in quantity at the beginning of Period EME 2, thus suggesting the existence of an uninter-
rupted tradition so far not fully revealed.
4.2.2 EME 2 (Pls. 2-7, Tb. 2)
4.2.2.1 General Trend

The EME 2 pottery as a whole shows a strong technological and morphological continuity from the previ-
ous phase, in spite of the disappearance of most residual LC and Uruk-related features previously mentioned
(bevelled-rim bowls, conical bowls, inverted rim bowls, jars with incised decoration, etc.).
The cultural fragmentation that had already taken place in Period EME 1 increases in Period EME 2, and
a clear-cut distinction between the repertoire of the Karababa-Carchemish zone and that of the Tabqa region
becomes evident. The correlation between these areas is further complicated by the lack of a clear occupation in
the intervening southern Tishrin basin (Banat cluster). As a result, there are very few vessel types and decorative
patterns clearly shared by the whole area under analysis (Pl. 31). Moreover, while in the north the LC 5-EME 1
influence is stronger and persists into Period EME 2, with continuous production and reproduction of the same
basic repertoire of forms and the use of some specialised wares (such as the Reserved Slip and the Red Slip), in the
south a fairly new repertoire is introduced that breaks with the LC tradition and stands at the beginning of a trend
which will last until the middle of the millennium.
As far as context is concerned, no clear differentiation between funerary and domestic assemblages can be
detected, although graves usually display a selected/limited repertoire of small and medium-sized pouring, serv-
ing and drinking vessels.
On chronological grounds the ceramic material suggests a subdivision between early (EME 2a) and late
(EME 2b) sub-phases, which is manifest on the basis of different features in the northern and the southern sectors.
4.2.2.2 Available Material

Although a large number of excavated and surveyed sites in the ME valley and beyond appear to have been set-
tled at this time, only a few of them, mainly belonging to the area around Carchemish, are represented in the ADB,
thus making an overall reassessment of the ceramic culture of the period rather problematic and open to further
refinements.47 The chronological distribution of the main types examined here is represented in Tables 1-2, while
their spatial/sub-regional differentiation is shown in Pl. 31.

As already mentioned, apart from the chaff-tempered ware, which almost disappears, in Period EME 2 the
main ceramic families of Period EME 1 are maintained and a series of new ephemeral features is now introduced.
The sand-tempered, undecorated component of the assemblage is the most common pottery of daily use: it
is mostly made on the fast wheel or in a combined technique and includes various fabrics, distinguishable by
paste, colour and surface treatment, alternating at an inter- and intra-site level. It has been generally defined in
46
However, it must be stressed that, out of the half a dozen excavated sites known to have been possibly occupied in the early
stages of the 3rd millennium only brief accounts have been published, leaving unanswered even the most basic questions related
to ceramic culture and chronology. Apart from the final report on Sweyhat (Holland 2006) – the only one recently published –
most other Tabqa sites (such as Habuba Kabira, Halawa B, Hadidi, Hajji Ibrahim, etc.) still await final publication: suffice it to
mention that a basic archaeological yardstick for this early period in the whole region is still the sequence from Hadidi, which is
based on a tiny sounding extending over only 30m2 at its base (Dornemann 1988).
47
The ADB inventories are subdivided as follows: Zeytinli Bahçe (7 in total: 2 for Phase 2a and 5 for Phase 2b), Şaraga (1),
Shiyukh Tahtani (3), Qara Quzaq (4). They are all concentrated in the area around Carchemish. The discussion on Phase 2
(and related illustrations) was enriched by the following references: (a) Karababa: final publications of Hassek (Helwing
2002; Gerber 2005); Samsat (Abay 1997) and Hayaz (Thissen 1985); (b) Carchemish sector: final publication of Carchemish
(Woolley & Barnett 1952) and Shiyukh Fawqani (Morandi-Bonacossi 2005); preliminary reports on the excavations at Horum
(Marro 2007b); Hacınebi graves (Pearce 2000); Birecik cemetery (Sertok & Ergeç 1999a; 2000); Jerablus Tahtani (Peltenburg
et al. 1995; 1996; 1997); Shiyukh Tahtani (Sconzo 2007b); Ahmar ( Jamieson 1990); unpublished material from Shiyukh
Tahtani; Jamis (Matilla Séiquer 1996); (c) Tabqa, final report of Sweyhat (Holland 2006) and Munbaqa (Czichon & Werner
2008); preliminary reports on the excavations at Hajji Ibrahim (Zettler 1997; Danti & Zettler 2007); Sweyhat (Danti & Zettler
1998a; 1998b); Hadidi (Dornemann 1988), Halawa B (Lüth 1981; 1989); final publication of the 3rd-millennium pottery from
‘Abd (Sconzo 2013a); (d) Balikh Valley: preliminary and final reports of Hammam al-Turkman (Curvers 1988; 1989).
93
P. Sconzo
the literature of the region as either “Simple Ware” or “Plain Simple Ware”, following a definition coined by
Braidwood for the contemporary pottery of the Amuq plain.48
Generally speaking, the Middle Euphrates Simple Ware class is fine- or medium-textured (although coarser
varieties are sometimes attested); mineral inclusions are small to medium in size and are derived from natural
sources such as limestone, calcite, mica and basalt. Sometimes coarse grits also occur, probably deliberately added
to reduce clay shrinkage during the drying and firing processes, so that the final products were more durable and
less likely to crack. Extraneous chaff or other organic matter is now extremely rare. Surfaces are left untreated or
are smoothed with the help of a cloth; in some cases a whitish slip is applied over all of the outer surface, especially
in the case of large jars and storage vessels.
Inter- and intra-site variability also characterises another well-attested class, Cooking-Pot Wares. In this
instance the fabric is generally relatively porous, gritty and rough, and friable and soft, being characterised by
sparse chaff impressions and by the addition of a large amount of calcite white flecks, quartz crystals and dark
or basalt grits; the fracture is irregular and sometimes laminated.49 Its colour can vary from buff/light brown to
dark grey and is generally lighter towards the surface. Firing is generally light and uneven, often leaving an un-
oxidised darker zone in the core. Cooking pots are either fully hand-made (especially the chaff-faced examples
of the Karababa basin) or produced using a mixed technique, as is often the case in the Tabqa area. The surface,
which is rarely wet-smoothed, is usually left plain and uneven, with visible inclusions, often jutting out and/or
provided with large squared voids; in some cases an overall hand polishing is further used. The repertoire of forms
is quite simple and limited to globular or ovoid-shaped closed pots with simple or thickened rim (types 12, 35, 37),
sometimes imitating Simple Ware prototypes (or vice versa).
The Reserved Slip Ware of Late Uruk descent is again quite common, especially along the Turkish Euphrates
and in the upper Tishrin basin.50 The ware itself, in this instance, is characterised mainly by a distinctive surface
treatment involving the application of a slip (or self-slip) coating over the body of a still-wet vessel that is then
partially wiped off with fingers (or tool) in a patterned fashion; the paste usually remains indistinguishable from
that of contemporary undecorated Simple Ware.51 A differentiation between an earlier and a later Period EME 2
is discernible both in the decorative patterns and in the associated form repertoire associated with them. While
at the beginning of Period EME 2 the decoration, which is limited to the upper part of the vessel surface, usually
consists of simple reserved oblique radial lines of different widths departing from about the neck and usually
applied to necked jars with thickened rim (type 38, Pl. 7: 3), later on (Period EME 2b) it is extended to other vessel
forms, such as bowls (types 22, 27, Pl. 3: 30; 5: 1-2), narrow-necked jars (type 28, Pl. 5: 3-4) and low-footed jars/
chalices (type 36, Pl. 6: 12-13); it includes more elaborate ladder-like and criss-cross motifs, often bordered by
bands of incised or impressed designs (Pl. 5: 2; 6: 1, 12).
As for diffusion, the Reserved Slip Ware is widely attested on the Turkish side of the ME, so that scholars have
often spoken of a “Reserved Slip region” forming an arc from coastal Syria to south-eastern Anatolia;52 the distri-
bution extends further south down to Qara Quzaq, but this ware is seldom attested in the Tabqa basin, where a
small amount of sherds remains so far unpublished.53
Beside the broad classes so far mentioned, there is a series of rarer specialised wares and/or pottery styles, either
continuing from the previous phase or completely new; however, they usually occur in more limited sub-regions or
time spans and often in specific contexts (graves, for example).
Along the mid-course of the river at least two different painted styles can be distinguished, strictly associated
with specific types and decoration patterns.
In the Turkish ME paint is seldom used, as it is attested only at Hassek and Kurban (just one sherd), Titriş,
Birecik and Carchemish.54 No painted sherds are reported in the area between Carchemish and Qara Quzaq.
Fabrics usually do not differ greatly from those of contemporary Simple Ware. The paint is usually red-brown to
48
Braidwood & Braidwood 1960: 264-274.
49
This kind of tempering was probably meant to reduce clay shrinkage and improve resistance in this category of vessels, which
was intended to be set on fires for cooking purposes.
50
The clear difference between “pseudo” Reserved Slip of the Late Uruk period and “true” Reserved Slip of the 3rd millennium,
noted by Braidwood & Braidwood (1960: 276) and Sürenhagen (1974/75: 64) in the Habuba Kabira material, finds only rare
agreement in other ME repertoires so far.
51
For an archaeometric study of the Reserved Slip Ware of the Carchemish and upper Sajur areas, see Dessene 2002.
52
On the Reserved Slip ceramic tradition and diffusion, see Mazzoni 1980; Trentin 1993; Finkbeiner 1994a.
53
It must be stressed that in the Tabqa region the application of a diagonal reserved slip decoration is not completely absent,
as implied before. A few fragments are reported from Habuba Kabira, Halawa B and ‘Abd: the almost complete absence
of preserved rims and the paucity of finds does, however, not allow to establish whether the production is local or foreign
(Wilhelm 1998; also Sconzo 2013a).
54
For a detailed discussion of the painted pottery from Hassek and the neighbouring areas, see Gerber 2005: 81-103.
94
Ceramics
purple, quite thin and sometimes applied on a creamy slip. The decorative patterns may include simple zigzags,
diagonal wavy lines or even a combination of diagonal lines, bands filled with criss-cross motifs, triangles (filled
or plain) and ladders, which closely recall similar motifs often appearing in the early Ninevite V tradition. In the
more complex motifs the painted area is usually framed by horizontal lines and subdivided into various sectors by
vertical bands filled with herringbone motifs. The repertoire of forms is limited to a few specialised vessel types
which recall eastern prototypes, such as small four-lugged jars (type 29, Pl. 5: 8) and high-stemmed shallow or
deep bowls (type 25, Pl. 4: 6-7). Wide-necked jars with thickened rim are also attested (type 30, Pl. 5: 9). The vessel
types which painting is applied suggest a date in the late Period EME 2.
Quite distinctive in terms of fabric, painted design and vessel support – thus making it a proper ware – are
the findings from the Tabqa basin; this ware is defined here as “Euphrates Monochrome Painted Ware”. Its fabric
is medium-textured, sandy and quite gritty, with a rich concentration of generally black or whitish small mineral
inclusions. The core, usually oxidised, homogeneous and well fired, ranges from pink to very pale brown. Many
cases of over-firing and a number of wasters are attested, however, characterised by a greenish surface, a dark grey
core and sometimes by tiny blisters in the paint. As regards manufacture, most vessels, even if no clear wheel marks
are visible, seem to have been thrown on the wheel. The monochrome painted decoration is generally applied above
a fine slip by means of a brush-like tool. The paint consists of a kind of ocherous pigment ranging from dark red
or purple to reddish brown: sometimes it is quite thick, sometimes rather pale and diluted, and may even turn to
greenish black or “dead black”, especially if over-fired. The geometric decoration usually consists of a continuous
linear frieze around the shoulder, sometimes extending down to the belly. Basic elements are zigzags, plain hori-
zontal bands, “fringed” bands, fences, irregular punctuations and clusters of hatched lines. These designs, of crude
workmanship, are often drawn in an irregular, careless manner and arranged according to standard schemes. One
of the most common involves the use of multiple zigzags, associated either with an upper fringed band or with a
lower dot-filling. More rarely a single zigzag line is framed by double concentric plain bands. Another frequent
pattern consists of a double or triple concentric band usually breaking the shoulder frieze into two sectors: these
may bear opposed fringes (or rows of short vertical strokes), or may be combined with a lower series of pendent
triangles. A hallmark of the monochrome painted style is the triple row of hatched stripes forming a lower frieze
around the belly. The stripes are often drawn carefully, suggesting the use of a kind of “multiple-brush” tool or, at
least, the intention to imitate the multiple-brush technique of western Syria.55 The most common form is a small
round-bottomed globular pot with flaring rim (type 31, Pl. 5: 10-12).56
The Euphrates Monochrome Painted Ware is mainly attested in the Tabqa district (between ‘Abd and Jebel
el-Hamam)57 and extends as far north as Qara Quzaq; it appears to be a local, short-lived phenomenon mainly
limited to the earlier part of Period EME 2a, and which seems to vanish in Period EME 2b.
Red Slip and Red-Black Burnished Wares are rare and mostly limited to the Turkish ME. The former, pos-
sibly locally produced, displays a peculiar though limited repertoire of forms. Owing to its south Mesopotamian/
Middle Uruk origin and filiation, it may be assumed that it existed in the previous Period EME 1, although so far
it has never been found in primary contexts. Red-slipped vessels are wheel-made in a fine-textured, sand-tempered
fabric in which chaff particles are sometimes also present. It is highly fired and hardly distinguishable from the
contemporaneous undecorated Simple Ware examples, apart from the application of a thick layer of red slip on
the outer surface or even on the inner side of the vessel (only bowls). While the slip on the outer surface is bur-
nished, on the inner side it is left matt. This ware seems to be used for a limited repertoire of forms (types 17, 24,
26, 29; Pl. 2: 18; 4: 3, 10; 5: 7), which sometimes overlaps with that of the contemporaneous local painted wares,
as shown, for example, in the case of the four-lugged jars.58
The Red-Black Burnished Ware is even rarer, since its diffusion remains limited, so far, to the Karababa basin,
where archaeometric analyses are in favour of a local production.59 It is hand-made in a soft-medium fabric usu-
ally tempered with whitish pebble grits and fired at a relatively low temperature. This ware is characterised by
a highly burnished red or black slip, and often a combination of the two colours, with a double-surface effect
produced by changing from an oxidising to a reducing atmosphere during firing. The interior is brown/reddish
and also burnished, but not slipped. In contrast to the practice in other regions, almost no traces of relief deco-
ration on the exterior surface are attested in the ME. The shape repertoire is limited to a few highly distinctive
55
The multiple-brush technique is typical of a peculiar ceramic class from north-west Syria, the so-called “Multiple Brush
Painted Ware”: it occurs in the Amuq region, Phases G and H (Braidwood 1939; Braidwood & Braidwood 1960: 281-287).
56
For a full analysis of this specific ware, see Sconzo 2013a: 90-92, 216-219.
57
Sakal 2012, fig. 15: 6.
58
Abay suggests that this peculiar ware could have served as a religious and social medium and been used in religious ceremonies.
From a chronological viewpoint, typical of Period EME 2a is the bi-conical high-stemmed bowl (type 24, pl. 4: 3), while the
low-stemmed hemispherical bowl (type 26, pl. 4: 10) is more attested in Period EME 2b.
59
Gerber 2005: 156; Weiner et al. 1992. Very few examples are reported from Hassek, Hayaz, Nevalı Çori and Kurban.
95
P. Sconzo
types (32-33, Pl. 5: 13-14), which – in turn – appear foreign to the local production. 60 The presence of Red-Black
Burnished Ware is sporadically reported at some sites of the ME down to the mid-3rd millennium (EME 3 at
least).61
Lastly, the later Period EME 2b marks the introduction of a very fine-textured dense greenish ware with no
visible inclusions, clean fractures and a highly smooth(ed) surface. The clay, fired at a high temperature, is quite
hard and clinky, almost vitrified. In the archaeological literature this fabric is sometimes considered as Simple
Ware, but should be differentiated from it.62 The form spectrum is limited to a few types, among which an open
bowl with sinuous profile and atrophic base is most common; this is known in the literature as a cyma-recta bowl
(type 20, Pl. 3: 15, 19-23). Its main area of diffusion is in the Karababa-Carchemish zone, where it was apparently
locally produced,63 while it seldom occurs in the Tabqa area, where very rare examples may even be considered as
imports. It provides a link with Period EJZ 1 (see type list below), central Anatolia, the Amuq and other regions.
As far as general morphology is concerned, owing to the cultural fragmentation above mentioned there are
very few types that clearly show a wide geographical diffusion (Pl. 31). These seem to be limited to the core of the
ME, while the border areas, such as the Upper Sajur or the stretch of the river south of Emar have so far not yielded
enough data.
In accordance with the previous comments, we concentrate here mainly on the Simple and Reserved Slip
Ware. Somehow ubiquitous, but at the same time hardly distinctive of any given period (already attested in the
previous phase and continuing in the following one) are the sinuous-sided bowls (type 11, Pl. 3: 4-10), attested
from Samsat down to Halawa; the carinated bowls with out-flared rim (type 19, Pl. 3: 11-14, 16-18); the closed
pots and cooking pots with simple rim (type 12, Pl. 6: 15-16); and the wide-necked jars and cooking pots with
everted thickened rim (type 35, Pl. 6: 4-9; 17-18).
Characteristic of the Karababa-Carchemish zone is a group of carinated bowls with slightly everted rim: some
of them (type 19, Pl. 3: 11-14) occur mainly in the early Period EME 2,64 while others (types 20-21, Pl. 3: 19-27)
seem to appear towards its end. Band rim bowls, already attested in the previous phase (see type 5), now show a
gradual development towards more curving profiles and elaborate sets of rims: in this instance, while type 13
(Pl. 2: 2-3) is mainly attested in Period EME 2a, type 16 (Pl. 2: 13-16) becomes more common at its end. The latter
occurs in both a flat-based and a footed version. Also attested in the late Period EME 2 is a closed bowl with tiny
beaded rim (type 23, Pl. 3: 31).
Moreover, more or less continuously attested are type 22 (Pl. 3: 28-30); type 14 (Pl. 2: 5-7), a large bowl with tri-
angular or ledge rim, marked by a row of cross-hatched incised motifs; and type 15, a simple shallow bowl with
thickened rim (Pl. 2: 8-12).
The repertoire of closed forms shows quite a low degree of variability and complexity, and mostly consists of a
series of small and large jars with vertical neck, slightly flaring thickened or club-shaped rim and expanded shoul-
der (type 38, Pl. 7: 1-4). Cooking pots, probably locally made and at a household level, show, in contrast, a large
spectrum of forms, from a fully hole-mouthed (type 37, Pl. 6: 14) to an everted rim version.
Another peculiar type of the northern stretch of the ME valley, extending from Hassek down to Qara Quzaq,
is the high-stemmed bowl. These occur mainly (but not exclusively) in burial contexts. On the Turkish side of the
valley common types, attested in both Simple and Red-Slip Wares, are those with sharply carinated profile (type
24, Pl. 4: 1-3) of clear colonial Late Uruk influence,65 characteristic of the early Period EME 2; and a low-stemmed
hemispherical one (type 26, Pl. 4: 8-10), which is, rather, sparsely attested only towards its end. Characteristic of
the Carchemish sector, moreover, is a stemmed bowl with an upright band rim (type 25, Pl. 4: 4-7). The bowl itself
may be related to the footless shape, with either flat or round base (see type 16), and the stem may be short or high,
plain, corrugated and/or fenestrated.
Low-footed jars/chalices (type 36, Pl. 6: 10-13) and four-lugged jars (type 29, Pl. 5: 5-8) are mainly limited to
funerary contexts and belong to the latter half of Period EME 2: while the former are in Simple or Reserved Slip
Ware the latter may be painted, red-slipped or even left untreated.
60
For one of the most recent attempts at analysing this peculiar ceramic production, see Palumbi 2008. For its diffusion in
north Syria and for “ethnic” implications, see de Miroschedji 2000; Philip 2000; Akkermans & Schwartz 2003: 229-230.
61
For a wide discussion on the origin and diffusion of Red-Black Burnished Ware, see Palumbi 2008.
62
While, for example, Algaze (et al. 1990: 282) defines it as “dense greenish plain simple ware” (his Ware 03) and considers it
as a variant of his first Group of “grit-tempered plain simple wares”, Valdés Pereiro calls it as “Cerámica Densa Verdosa” (Valdés
Pereiro 1994a: 35).
63
At Hayaz, in the Karababa basin, for example, numerous wasters were retrieved during excavations and hundreds of cyma-
recta bowls were found “discarded” in two refuse pits, thus suggesting the existence at that site of a local production centre
(Thissen 1985: 87-88). See also Jamieson 1993: 46, note 43.
64
The type is already attested at some sites in LC 5; see catalogue of types for further references.
65
See examples from Habuba Kabira South.
96
Ceramics
In the Tabqa zone the repertoire appears more monotonous and repetitive, as it is characterised by an almost
total lack of any kind of shallow bowls, dishes or elaborate rim bowls.66 Side by side with the ubiquitous sinuous-
sided bowls (type 11), the repertoire is characterised by deep open bowls that are flat- or round-based, with an
indistinct simple rim (type 18). These already appear in the previous Period EME 1 but now become overwhelm-
ing in the assemblage. In spite of small variations in the stance of the rim (direct, upright) and in lip profile, which
can be round (Pl. 3: 2), pointed (Pl. 3: 1, 3) or flattened, this ubiquitous type may be considered as mass-produced
and highly standardised in form and size.
Among closed shapes, apart from the already mentioned small spherical pot with painted
decoration (type 31, Pl. 5: 11-12), the repertoire of both jars and cooking pots includes mainly wide-mouthed
spherical jars with very short or atrophic neck and everted simple (type 12, Pl. 6: 15-16) or thickened rim (type 35,
Pl. 6: 4, 6-7).
Moreover, the Tabqa basin is the nuclear zone of diffusion of pot markings. Apart from a range of favourite
signs, potmarks also share similar modes of sign application and definite sets of sign size and location, as well as
sets of vessel types and wares, thus suggesting the existence of a common system of symbols. They were intended
to function and to be understood not only within a workshop or a potter’s quarter, but also outside its limits in
a village or town community and beyond, thus involving various neighbouring settlements, though to different
extents.
In comparison with the Carchemish and Karababa basins, in the upper Tabqa zone a major concentration of
potmark types and marked vessels emerges that has no parallels in the Near East. The greatest amount is attested at
‘Abd, where about 185 types have been distinguished, ranging from plain or complex geometric motifs to stylised
vegetal, zoomorphic and even human representations: the latter sometimes show striking similarities with the art
of the period.67
Last, a few words must be devoted to the area of the Balikh, where a quite simple, undecorated
assemblage vaguely recalls the one of the Tabqa dam. Since only one site is considered, from which no primary
inventories are known, there is not too much to comment upon other than the recurring presence of short-
necked jars with everted bevelled rim, which are an important link with pottery traditions of the western JZ
(type 41, Pl. 7: 9).68
4.2.3 EME 3 (Pls. 8-14, 32; Tbs. 3-4)

In many respects Period EME 3 shows a break with the earlier ceramic tradition of the Euphrates and marks
the beginning of a new repertoire of forms and wares that develops without interruption down to the end of the
millennium. Such a break is more evident in the north and less so in the south. Although some vessel types of
the previous phase still survive, a large spectrum of forms, fabrics, techniques and decorative patterns is newly
introduced. At most sites the ceramic assemblage is characterised by the appearance of specialised fine classes
which show a clear technological advancement in pottery making, thus marking a step forward in the process of
standardisation and mass production – features which will become main characteristics of the second half of the
3rd millennium along the banks of the Euphrates Big Bend. In this regard, a better picture of pottery production
is available thanks to the evidence from Lidar and Banat, where large potters’ quarters testify to the presence of
organised activity with various craftsmen working in nucleated workshop settings, generally including various
kilns and other facilities in use at the same time.69
4.2.3.2 Available Material

In Period EME 3 the process of re-urbanisation, which had started in Period EME 2, continues: new centres
are founded – for example, Titriş and Lidar in the Karababa basin and the cluster of sites around Banat in the
lower Tishrin – while others are enlarged, relocated and expanded. Although, again, a large number of excavated
and surveyed sites of the ME valley and beyond appear to have been already settled at this time, the evidence of
the ADB is limited to the area around Carchemish (from Gre Virike to Shiyukh Tahtani) and further down to the
66
The comprehensive evaluation of the assemblage could, however, be affected by the absolute lack of burials and cemeteries
south of Qara Quzaq belonging to this period.
67
Sconzo 2013a; see also Felli, this volume.
68
See catalogue of types for further references.
69
Hauptmann 1982a: 18; 1983a: 255; 1984: 227; 1985: 205; 1987: 205-206; Porter 1999; 2002b: 158-159. At both sites,
Lidar and Banat, workshops produced terracotta figurines and beads side by side with pottery.
97
Table 2: EME 2 pottery types
21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40
EME 1
? ?
EME 2
98
P. Sconzo
EME 3
EME 4
EME 5
EME 6
Ceramics
Balikh confluence (Bi’a), with a large lacuna in between (Pl. 32) that must therefore be filled using other sources
of data.70

Besides the class of Simple Ware, which from a technological viewpoint continues without great changes from
the previous phase, a series of new wares of the finest quality is introduced from this time onwards, usually char-
acterised by finer fabrics, higher kiln temperatures and excellent surface finish.
Among these the most common and widely attested is Euphrates Banded Ware (EBW).71 In the literature this
fine ware has been dubbed in many different ways: “egg-shell Khabur Ware”,72 Red-Banded Ware,73 (Orange or
Grey) Spiral-Burnished Ware,74 Ring-Burnished Ware,75 Euphrat-Ware76 and even Metallic Ware,77 thus creating
not a few misunderstandings.78 The ware itself is characterised by a very fine textured, highly fired and clinky fab-
ric that is orange to red in colour and tempered with tiny grits of calcite and mica; its eggshell walls and an all-over
pattern of burnished horizontal lines give the vessels a highly lustrous appearance, obtained on the potter’s wheel
and sometimes alternating with fine corrugations.79 In a few cases, a series of concentric ocherous red painted
bands are applied on the upper part of open (Pl. 10: 3) or closed shapes (Pl. 12: 12-13). During Period EME 3 a
specific and limited repertoire of open (types 43, Pl. 8: 2-3; 56-57, Pl. 10: 3, 7) and closed forms (types 58, Pl. 11:
3-6; 60-62, Pl. 12: 6-13) is thus produced, usually distinct from that of the Simple Ware counterparts and further
characterised by the wide use of ledge rims and the introduction of ring bases, sometimes atrophic or even non-
functional. Such a repertoire mostly continues to be in vogue in the following Period EME 4, when it is enriched
and diversified (see below, Period EME 4).
Another class, again clinky and highly fired, is defined here as “Euphrates Metallic Ware”. 80 It features a
slightly gritty and porous, medium- to fine-textured fabric, characterised by an intense red-brown colour and
by high concentration of tiny calcite particles, often visible on the surface. Vessels are fired to a high temperature
in an oxidising atmosphere, which strengthens the grey shades of both core and surface. Two frequent forms
are attested: a truncated-conical beaker (type 52, Pl. 9: 9-18) and a small biconical jar (type 60, Pl. 12: 1-4). The
Euphrates Metallic Ware, hardly distinguishable in old publications from the “true” eastern Grey or Metallic
Ware which often shares both the appearance and vessel repertoire/spectrum, seems to be locally produced and
is particularly diffused in the northern stretch of the ME river, from the Karababa down to the Upper Tishrin
area, where it occurs widely in various kinds of contexts and situations; on the other hand, it decreases towards the
south, where its use seems to be more strictly limited to a ritual/funerary milieu.
Lastly, another locally produced class is what has been defined as “Karababa Painted Ware”. This ware may
be placed at the end of the short-term revival of painted pottery styles which involved a large part of Greater
70
The ADB inventories are subdivided as follows: Tilbeshar (1); Zeytinli Bahçe (1); Gre Virike (1); Shiyukh Tahtani (2);
Bi’a (2); Terqa (2). The present account has also been completed thanks to the following contributions: (a) Karababa basin:
final publications of the pottery of Samsat (Abay 1997) and Hayaz (Thissen 1985); (b) Carchemish sector: final publication
of the pottery of Qara Quzaq (Valdés Pereiro 1994a; 2001); preliminary reports on the excavations at Tilbeshar (Kempinski
2007); Horum (Marro 2007b); Shiyukh Tahtani (Sconzo 2006; 2007a; 2007b), unpublished material from Shiyukh Tahtani;
(c) Banat sector: preliminary reports on the excavations at Banat (Porter 1995a; 1999; 2007a; Porter & McClellan 1998);
(d) Tabqa sector: preliminary and final reports of the excavations at Sweyhat (Zettler 1997; Holland 2001; 2006); Munbaqa
(Czichon & Werner 2008); Shamseddin (Meyer 1991) and Tawi (Kampschulte & Orthmann 1984); preliminary reports on the
excavations at Hajji Ibrahim (Danti & Zettler 1998a); Hadidi (Dornemann 1988; 1990); Halawa B (Lüth 1981) and Halawa
graves (Orthmann 1981); final report of the 3rd-millennium pottery from ‘Abd (Sconzo 2013a); (e) lower ME: final publication
of the Abu Hamad cemetery (Falb 2005b); (f ) Balikh valley: preliminary and final reports of Hammam al-Turkman (Thissen
1989; Curvers 1989); and Bi’a (Strommenger & Kohlmeyer 1998; 2000; Miglus & Strommenger 2002).
71
Porter 1995a: 19-20; Peltenburg et al. 1996: 19. See also Falb et al. 2014.
72
Prag 1970: 79.
73
Jamieson 1993: 49, 53.
74
Schwartz 2001: 5A.233-235.
75
Woolley 1914: 91; Engin 2007: 273-276.
76
Rova 1991: 74-77; Meyer 1991: 142-144; Falb 2001: 138-140; 2005b: 211-222; 2009, 147-208, 301-305, 315-317; 2009.
77
Kühne 1976: 67-68; Abay 1997: 35. For a detailed account and list of terminologies and definitions, see Falb 2009: 147-192.
78
The latter, instead, when attested (and this happens very rarely), seems to be an import from the east. For a detailed account
of the debate, see Rova 1991: 73-77; Pruß 2000; Falb 2009.
79
The Euphrates Banded Ware was probably locally produced in a few centres along the banks of the river, as evidence from
Banat (Area D, Kiln 3) now suggests (Porter 1999: 313; 2007a: 5). From a structural viewpoint, analyses made on a sample of
EBW sherds from the region have shown a quite strong chemical homogeneity (Falb 2009: 180-181).
80
Also dubbed as “Pseudo Metallische Ware” (Gerber 2000: 219). See also Sconzo 2006: 246; 2007a: 254; Engin 2007: 273.
The latter author refers to it as “Euphrates Ware related to Metallic Ware”.
99
P. Sconzo
Mesopotamia in the first half of the 3rd millennium, from the Jemdet Nasr and Early Dynastic Scarlet Ware of the
south to the “Ninevite V” of the north, to its Anatolian affiliates and to the “Multiple-Brush” of western Syria.81
Fully hand-made, its fabric does not differ from the contemporary local undecorated wares. The ware itself is
characterised by a red or dark brown paint applied on a light creamy thick slip. The painted decoration, placed over
the vessel shoulder, usually shows freestanding bands or geometric friezes. The latter consist generally of a series of
parallel lines set obliquely between the wide bands, thus forming triangles. The space between these parallel lines
is filled with dots and strokes, creating ladders. The most common forms are open pots with flaring rim (type 71,
Pl. 13: 9, 11) and low-stemmed closed pots and bowls (not shown).
Earlier examples are decorated with a single band covering the interior and exterior of the rim and a series of jars
with more complex designs. Its diffusion along the Middle Euphrates is limited to the Karababa basin (examples
shown here are from Samsat and Kurban),82 although close relations can be seen further north with the Keban area.
In this stage a clear differentiation between domestic and funerary assemblages emerges, the latter largely con-
taining large amounts of those fine, specialised wares (primarily Euphrates Banded Ware), which, in turn, rarely
occur in occupation contexts.
Such wares, moreover, show a strong “regional homogeneity” as they occur from Kurban and Titriş in the
north to Terqa (and even Mari) in the south with very few technological and morphological differences. On the
other hand, Simple and Cooking-Pot Wares continue to show some kind of sub-regional variability, although less
than before. In this instance, while on the one hand the Karababa-Carchemish axis is solid and seems to be linked
further west with inner Syria, the Lower Tishrin (Banat cluster) appears to be closely tied with the Tabqa and
Balikh areas and seems more orientated eastwards to the western JZ.
Vessel forms which are common all over the Big Bend are usually the most simple ones, such as open bowls
with simple or thickened rim (type 44, Pl. 8: 6-8), closed pots with flaring rim (type 63, Pl. 12: 14-16; type 66,
Pl. 12: 20); and cooking pots with triangular lugs protruding from the rim (type 75, Pl. 14: 12-13). In this phase
also noticeable is the revival of a hand-made production of open and closed vessels of regular or miniature size
(types 65, Pl. 12: 18-19; type 68, Pl. 13: 2-5), often appearing in grave contexts. Generally speaking, Period EME 3
also marks the introduction of ring bases (the use of which, however, continues to remain limited to a specific set
of forms) as well as of tripod bases: these occur side by side with the well-known flat and rounded ones (mainly
occurring on closed vessels) and with low or high pedestals.
As concerns intra-regional differentiation, in the Karababa and Carchemish sectors as well as along the upper
Sajur the Simple Ware repertoire is enriched by a series of high-stemmed pedestal bowls (type 55, Pl. 10: 1-2;
type 57, Pl. 10: 4-7) clearly continuing the tradition of the Carchemish “champagne cups” of the previous period
(though now showing minor technological and typological differences) and low-footed jars (type 58, Pl. 11: 1-6).83
Tripod vessels of either open (types 53-54, Pl. 9: 21-23) or closed form (type 59, Pl. 11: 7-8) can also be considered
hallmarks of Period EME 3. These may display either tubular feet thrown on the wheel or hand-made solid ones,
sometimes shaped as animal hooves. Cooking pots, if not with triangular lugs, are spherical with long slightly
flaring neck and direct simple rim, and usually polished on the exterior (not shown).
In the zone between Banat and Bi’a specialised wares occur in small quantities and the repertoire of Simple
Ware features a series of medium-sized and large curved-sided bowls with thickened, bevelled or even beaked
rim (types 45-48, Pl. 8: 9-18); straight-sided bowls and beakers with round base (type 49, Pl. 9: 4-8); two-handle
bottles with restricted neck (type 67, Pl. 13: 1); ovoid jars with restricted neck, round base and flaring rim (type
66, Pl. 12: 20); and tea-pots (type 64, Pl. 12: 17). Generally speaking, necks are higher and rims more complex,
sometimes featuring internal indentations (types 69, Pl. 13: 6-7; 72; 14: 1-3; 74; 14: 11).
In the lower ME (from Bi’a downstream) the repertoire also includes ovoid beakers with an in-bevelled rim
(type 50, Pl. 9: 19), carinated narrow-necked pithoi with flaring neck (type 73, Pl. 14: 4-5) and bi-chrome painted
stands (type 70, Pl. 13: 12) unknown in the rest of the region; they are probably to be interpreted as eastern imports.
As far as the use of pot marking is concerned, the picture along the Euphrates banks starts to change at this
time, and the marking system previously concentrated in the Tabqa region seems to extend over a wider area,
establishing close ties southwards down to Bi’a, which apparently begins to take on a prominent role in this phase.
Potmarks are reported again at neighbouring settlements (Sweyhat, Hajji Ibrahim, Munbaqa), but more dispersed
evidence now starts to appear thanks to the rich funerary assemblages from many extramural cemeteries of the
period, such as Shamseddin, Tawi, Abu Hamad and Bi’a itself. Modes of sign application as well as high visibility
apparently remain unchanged, but owing to the almost complete disappearance of the small hemispherical bowls
81
Thissen 1985: 92-94. For a detailed discussion of the topic, see Marro & Helwing 1995; Rova 2000.
82
Many fragments of Karababa Painted Ware are reported from the “potters district” of Lidar (Hauptmann 1984: 222-228;
Marro & Helwing 1995: 365).
83
The latter are often associated in burials with the Euphrates Metallic Ware truncated conical beakers (type 52, pl. 9: 9-18).
See also Sconzo 2007a.
100
41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
EME 1
EME 2
?
101
Ceramics
EME 3
EME 4
EME 5
EME 6
59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75
EME 1
EME 2
102
P. Sconzo
EME 3
EME 4
EME 5
EME 6
Ceramics
(type 18), pot marking becomes limited to jars and pithoi. Although the repertoire shows a partial continuity
with the previous phase, some of the larger and more elaborate signs, such as the zoomorphic and human repre-
sentations (Pl. 8: 18, 10: 5; 11: 7-8, 12: 16; 14: 1-3, 9), disappear. It remains difficult to establish whether the signs
maintained the same meaning and purpose for which they were previously conceived, and one gets the impression
that the markings of the mid-3rd millennium become a customary repetition, losing their original significance.
4.2.4 EME 4 (Pls. 15-21, 33; Tbs. 5-6)

Period EME 4 contains a crucial moment in the history of the 3rd millennium in northern Mesopotamia and
Syria: the high point of urban expansion and transformation. The increase in communications and exchange at
a regional and inter-regional level eventually led to the spread of a sort of cultural koine, which, besides the main
sub-regions so far treated, further extended to the upper Sajur to the west, the Balikh and its confluence to the east
(Hammam al-Turkman and Bi’a) and the lower Syrian Euphrates to the south (Pl. 33, types underlined by grey band).
Such a koine went beyond the pottery industry proper to include other common cultural aspects such as the planning
of new foundations, similar architectural techniques, burial practices and so on (see Novak, Felli, Bouso, this volume)
and has often been interpreted as a form of emulation of the style and technologies of neighbouring areas.84
4.2.4.2 Published and Unpublished Material

This is the best represented phase in the ADB. Apart from the Karababa basin, where it is completely lack-
ing, the archaeological evidence comes from quite a number of sites, from the Upper Sajur down to Bi’a and even
Terqa. The latter site, which is particularly isolated, is problematic as it is not fully published, however, and the
data available in the ADB are hardly comparable with any materials from the upper course of the river (Pl. 33).85
Period EME 4 inventories, despite their large number, remain somewhat disappointing, however, as most of
them include a small number of vessels belonging to a very few types which repeatedly occur without forming a
true, sufficiently reliable pottery assemblage.86

The process of homogenisation, which had already begun in Period EME 3, reached its peak in this and the fol-
lowing phases and was not only limited to the “luxury” or “specialised” wares widely distributed in the whole region
but also affected the simple undecorated wares. This means that many types occur throughout the ME valley and that
a real difference between north and south no longer exists at this time. Despite this general trend, however, slight vari-
ations in form and fabrics are still identifiable at a site or sub-regional level, thus suggesting the existence of a series of
local workshops spread all over the valley that acted relatively independently despite sharing a common background.87
84
Cooper 2006: 15.
85
When the present work was almost finalised I had the chance to consult the final draft of a very useful paper, as yet
unpublished, by Juliette Mas on the 3rd-millennium pottery from Terqa. I am very grateful to the author for kindly giving me
permission to have access to her manuscript and to include Terqa and the lower Middle Euphrates in the area of diffusion of
specific types and decoration patterns.
86
The ADB inventories are subdivided as follows: Tilbeshar (4), Oylum (3); Zeytinli Bahçe (3); Gre Virike (3); Shiyukh Tahtani
(2/3); Qara Quzaq (1); Bazi (1); Halawa A (3); Selenkahiye (1); Bi’a (2), Terqa (1). The present account is also based on the
following sources: (a) Karababa basin: final reports dealing with the pottery from Samsat (Abay 1997) and Kurban (Algaze et
al. 1990); (b) Upper Sajur: preliminary reports on the excavations at Tilbeshar (Kepinski 2007b); (c) Carchemish sector: final
reports of the Qara Quzaq excavations (Valdés Pereiro 1994a; 2001); contributions on the pottery from Amarna (Pons 2001)
and Shiyukh Tahtani (Sconzo 2007a; 2007b); unpublished material from Shiyukh Tahtani; (d) Banat sector: preliminary reports
on the excavations at Banat (Porter 2007a; Porter & McClellan 1998; McClellan 1998) and Kabir (Porter 1995b); (e) Tabqa
sector: final reports on the excavations at Sweyhat (Holland 2006); Munbaqa (Czichon & Werner 2008); Selenkahiye (Schwartz
2001); Shamseddin (Meyer 1991); Wreide (Orthmann & Rova 1991); Halawa A (Hempelmann 2005); and Tawi (Kampschulte
& Orthmann 1984); preliminary reports on the excavations at Hadidi (Dornemann 1988; 1990); final publication of the
3rd-millennium pottery from ‘Abd (Sconzo 2013a); (f ) lower ME: final publication of Abu Hamad cemetery (Falb 2005b);
(g) Balikh: final excavation reports on Hammam al-Turkman (Curvers 1989) and Bi’a (Strommenger & Kohlmeyer 1998; 2000).
87
The picture of the pottery production “system” in the ME remains so far unclear, as this activity is never mentioned in written
texts and very few archaeological data have so far been retrieved. The only three pottery workshops investigated to any extent in
the region are those from Habuba Kabira and Lidar (mostly unpublished and dating respectively to Periods EME 2 and 3) and
that from Banat Phases 4 and 3 (mainly in use around the mid-3rd millennium). They are usually large compounds characterised
by the presence of a multi-roomed workshop and installations set in the vicinity of various kilns, sometimes specialised in
the manufacture of particular forms or wares, as the evidence from Banat suggests (Porter & McClellan 1998: 23; Porter
1999: 313). Kilns singly and in groups, set in a segregated area, usually extramural and without a direct link with any particular
building, are further attested at some sites of the Tabqa district, such as Habuba (Level 10), Halawa A (Area Q Phase 3 Late)
and Sweyhat (Zettler’s Phase 5). They can be dated to Period EME 4 or later phases and have been interpreted as communal,
centralised installations used by various craftsmen at the same time (for a wider discussion, see Cooper 2006: 180-201).
103
P. Sconzo
In Period EME 4 the main ceramic classes of Period EME 3 are maintained, although a higher standard in
pottery production emerges and even the Simple Ware is improved and becomes finer, thinner in section and
highly fired, so that the difference with Euphrates Banded Ware is blurred. The new “Simple Ware”, as recently
defined,88 is now often produced in a finer paste, which could also be considered as a degenerate form of the finer
Euphrates Ware. Experimentation in manufacture and firing techniques is also noticeable and a frequent feature
of open forms, especially in relation to small pouring and drinking vessels, is the presence of a double surface
colour, the upper part of the vessel usually being lighter than the lower, thus implying that open vessels were piled
inside one another and stacked in the kiln, a procedure which was also followed in the production of finer wares.
The open shapes of the Plain Simple Ware repertoire include shallow bowls with either simple or thickened,
beaded and modelled rim (types 78-82, Pl. 15: 9-23); small deep bowls with lightly incurved walls and beaded
rim (type 86, Pl. 17: 2-4); miniature bowls (type 76, Pl. 15: 3-5); elongated (type 94, Pl. 17: 20), tall truncated-
conical (type 91, Pl. 17: 18-19), ovoid (type 87, Pl. 17: 5-8) and barrel-shaped beakers with simple or beaded rim
(types 88-89, Pl. 17: 9-12). Particularly common in both funerary and domestic contexts, not only along the
Euphrates but also toward the west, is the barrel-shaped corrugated variety with beaded rim (type 89, Pl. 17: 11-12).
This kind of vessel is known in the literature as the “Hama beaker”, from the homonymous site on the Orontes
river where it was first found in great quantity in the late 1930s and identified as a hallmark of a mass-produced,
standardised production originating from the “urbanised” societies of western Syria. 89 The barrel-shaped beaded-
rim beaker, although maintaining the overall shape, occurs along the Euphrates in a number of minor varieties
and seems to be in use from Period EME 4 onwards down to the end of the millennium. So far, it has not been
possible to detect a clear evolution of one or more attributes through time.
Another open shape of the Period EME 4 repertoire is a very large hand-made platter characterised by a very
crude chaff-tempered fabric (type 109, Pl. 15: 1-2): this kind of vessel must have had a special function and is part
of a short-term revival of chaff-tempered production of the Syrian ME.
In terms of closed shapes, quite common are the long-necked globular jars with round, modelled and verti-
cal grooved rims (types 102-104, Pl. 19: 11, 15, 17, 19), often produced in Euphrates Banded Ware as well (see
below); small spouted jars (type 106, Pl. 20: 5-6); trefoil-mouth jugs (type 105, Pl. 20: 3-4); two-handle bottles
with restricted neck (type 67, Pl. 21: 1), a type already attested in the previous phase; and a series of zoomor-
phic vessels (not shown) the use of which was mainly limited to the ritual/funerary sphere. Other types, first
appearing in Period EME 4, are large jars with round (type 111, Pl. 21: 7-8) or rilled rim (type 112, Pl. 21: 3-4)
and hole-mouth closed pots with inverted beaded rim, sometimes decorated with horizontal reserved-slip bands
(type 110, Pl. 21: 6). In the Balikh valley a kind of small long-necked jar (type 108, Pl. 20: 1-2) and an oval pithos
with corrugated shoulder (type 113, Pl. 21: 9-10) are quite distinctive. Cooking pots continue from the Period
EME 3 tradition and are provided either with triangular lugs (type 75, Pl. 21: 11) or with ovoid body and vertical
rim (type 114; Pl. 21: 12-13). Ring bases become common in both specialised and Plain Simple Ware examples;
tripod bases are now usually hollow.
A clear differentiation in vessel shape and function between funerary and domestic contexts can be further
observed. Such a differentiation is more pronounced in the south, however, where living contexts have returned
few examples of fine wares, and much less so in the north, in the Carchemish sector, where Euphrates Banded
Ware, for example, is strongly represented in all kinds of contexts.90
The latter now displays a larger repertoire of forms, sometimes independent, sometimes overlapping with the
Plain Simple Ware forms (or vice versa). Horizontal wheel-burnishing is often associated with vertical hand-made
lines which give the outer and/or inner surface a chessboard-like appearance (see, for example, Pl. 18: 11, 13;
19: 20), while the use of red-painted bands is extended to a wider spectrum of types (84, 96, 99, etc., Pl. 16: 4; 18:
5-6). Among open forms the repertoire includes shallow and deep bowls with everted (types 43 and 83, Pl. 16: 1-3)
or beaded rim (type 82, Pl. 16: 5-10), stemmed and tripod bowls (types 84-85, Pl. 16: 4, 11-13) and fully conical
“sugar-loaf ” beakers (type 90, Pl. 17: 13-17). The last of these, developing from the truncated-conical type of the
previous phase (type 52), is often associated in primary ritual/funerary contexts with a low-footed closed pot or
chalice (type 96, Pl. 18: 5-7), with which – as suggested by innumerable burial finds from Shiyukh Tahtani – it
forms a kind of drinking service.91 Moreover, the chalice belongs to a long-lived tradition the origin of which can
be traced back into Period EME 2. While in the previous phase such pots are characterised by an everted ledge rim
and by a simple hand- or wheel-made ring burnishing,92 the Period EME 4 variety features a shorter and thickened
rim and, as a rule, is decorated with red-painted concentric bands applied on neck and shoulder. The repertoire
of closed forms also includes medium- and large-size jars (type 112, Pl. 21: 3-4), small jars with cylindrical neck
88
Jamieson 1993: 48; Porter 1999: 311, 314-315. For a discussion on the use of the term, see also Porter 1999: n. 1.
89
Mazzoni 1985a; 1985b.
90
Sconzo 2007a; 2007b.
91
Sconzo 2007a: 250.
92
Sconzo 2007a: 250-252.
104
Ceramics
(types 102-104, Pl. 19: 9-10, 12, 18, 20), probably connected with short-term preservation and pouring of liquids,
and tripod jars (type 97, Pl. 18: 8).
Period EME 4 also shows the introduction of a further craft variety of Euphrates Banded Ware, namely the
grey/black version. This is, again, characterised by a very fine mineral-tempered fabric containing mica, lime and
sand; the fabric is dark grey to black in colour, while the surface is ring-burnished, as usual. Often defined in the
literature as “Grey Spiral-Burnished Ware”93 or “Black Euphrates Banded Ware”,94 such a variety is reminiscent of
and has often been confused with the “true” (=non-calcareous) “Metallic-Ware” of the Khabur region95 because
of the overall look and form repertoire. A distinction based merely on the published descriptions is thus often a
difficult task.96 Typical shapes occurring in the Black Euphrates Banded Ware are globular or squat jars (types 61,
95, 98, Pl. 18: 1-3, 9-13) and small elongated alabastra (types 99-100, Pl. 19: 1-7) usually defined as Syrian bottles,
which, owing to their extremely wide distribution, provide a means of synchronism for distant regions (see list of
types for further comments).97
Another characteristic of Period EME 4 (and the following Period EME 5) is the revival of the reserved-
slip technique, this time applied on horizontal patterns and showing a completely new repertoire of vessel types
(see here types 110, 112, Pl. 21: 6; 25: 1-3, 5). Its distribution along the Euphrates is so far intriguing, since it is
widely reported in the Karababa basin to the north and again in the Tabqa, while it is almost absent in the central
stretch of the Euphrates Big Bend between Birecik and Qara Quzaq. At most sites the “Horizontal Reserved Slip
Ware” is produced in the same fabrics as the Simple Ware, thus making a local production likely.
The production of this ware was intended to create a similar embellishing effect to other decorative techniques
popular at the time (ring-burnishing, corrugations, horizontal band painting, etc.), and was carried out by throw-
ing the vessel on the potter’s fast wheel, thus emphasising an intensification of mass production and standardisa-
tion in pottery industry.
Other fine, albeit rare, wares are attested along the Middle Euphrates banks in this period. First of all, the
“Karababa Painted Ware” continues to be in use in the north (Pl. 20: 8). Another fine class, attested in a limited
quantity and mostly in the Karababa region (Kurban, Lidar, Samsat, Titriş), much less in the Tabqa basin, is
the so-called “Combed Wash Ware”. This ware derives its name from its unusual exterior decoration, featuring
registers of horizontal straight or wavy bands alternating with vertical “waves” left in reserve over the vessel body
after an original slip coating had been wiped away with a comb instrument, thus following an intentional decora-
tive pattern.98 The fabrics are usually the same as those used for the plain undecorated wares. The most common
shapes are bowls with bead rim (not shown); bell-shaped goblets (type 93, Pl. 17: 21-22); globular pots with simple
or triangular rims (not shown); narrow-necked jars (type 102, Pl. 20: 7); and tall neckless pots with lightly everted
rim (type 110, Pl. 21: 5).
Lastly, some evidence of inter-regional connections and exchange is offered by a few further types. Possible
imports from inner Syria (Ebla district?) are a series of trefoil-mouth jugs with ovoid body and large flat base bear-
ing a peculiar painted decoration consisting of horizontal and vertical wavy lines (type 107, Pl. 20: 8-9): these
find close parallels in the Palace G assemblage at Ebla. A few storage pithoi with corrugated body and flaring rim
(type 113, Pl. 21: 9-10) may also be considered of Eblaite descent. In both instances form and decoration are quite
unusual in the ME, where their rare occurrence seems to be limited to a few southern sites (Selenkahiye, Bi’a and
even Terqa) and/or to specialised contexts (mostly ritual or palatial in nature), thus suggesting the existence of
a western route of communications. In contrast, a north–south riverine route, moving from central and western
Anatolia, is indicated by the appearance of depas amphikypella (type 92, Pl. 17: 23-24). These, which are usually
part of ritual or palatial primary inventories and are probably evidence of elite gift exchange, are fairly widespread
at various ME sites, such as Tilbeshar and Titriş in the north and Selenkahiye and Bi’a in the south.
In Period EME 4 potmarks usually decline markedly in number, type repertoire and quality, as they are now
mainly applied on large storage jars and luxury wares, rather than on small utilitarian vessels.99 The marking
habitus, previously mostly limited to the lower Tishrin and Tabqa districts, is now extended to a much wider area
extending throughout the Euphrates Big Bend from Kurban to Bi’a and the Balikh confluence. Marked vessels are
now reported from most excavated sites, both settlements and cemeteries, though in small quantities. Potmarks
become simpler, smaller and more lightly incised, while the repertoire is now reduced to mere linear and angular
93
Prag 1970: 78-81; Schwartz 2001: 5A.233-234.
94
Porter 2007a.
95
For a definition of this ware and for criteria distinguishing it from “Metallic Ware”, see also Rova 1991: 74; Falb 2000: 176;
Falb et al. 2014.
96
See Pruß 2000: 196.
97
For a chrono-spatial distribution of the Syrian bottles of the 3rd millennium, see Sconzo 2014.
98
For a detailed account, see Rova 1989 (here defined as “Smeared Wash Ware”); Abay 1997; Falb 2009: 238-260; Rova 2014.
99
For a full analysis of the topic, see Sconzo 2013a.
105
76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93
EME 1
EME 2
106
P. Sconzo
EME 3
?
EME 4
EME 5
EME 6
94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110
EME 1
EME 2
107
Ceramics
EME 3
?
EME 4
EME 5
EME 6
P. Sconzo
motifs. Incised signs occur on jars of Simple and Horizontal Reserved Slip Wares as well as on bottles and other
pots of Euphrates Banded Ware (see Pl. 18: 1, 9; 19: 2, 13; 21: 7). They are applied on the shoulder of large ves-
sels and on the narrow neck of bottles, but seldom on the lower body, close to the base. The case of the Euphrates
Banded Ware is particularly instructive: only a restricted set of marks occurs recurrently, further suggesting a
function as trademarks related either to workshop manufacture or to vessel contents. This production must have
been connected with the specialised ritual or funerary function of the ware.
4.2.5 EME 5 (Pls. 22-27, 34; Tb. 7)

In Period EME 5 the cultural koine established in the previous phase is reinforced. In this instance, how-
ever, apart from at a few sites, a clear difference in pottery making from the previous phase is hardly detectable:
most main wares and decorative patterns remain the same, as well as much of the basic type repertoire (Pl. 34).
However, differences are more readily readable in architecture, town planning, seals, terracotta figurines and so
on (see also Novak, Sakal, Felli, this volume).100

In the ADB Period EME 5 is only sporadically represented. The inventories, again rather disappointingly,
mostly include a small number of vessels belonging to very few types which occur repeatedly (Pl. 34). Moreover,
the lack of a solid (or published) pottery sequence and of any kind of quantification, especially as far as the Turkish
side of the river is concerned, makes the identification of a clear-cut borderline between this and the preceding
phase a difficult task.101 However, as shown below, some new types, diagnostic of this phase, are remarkable.

Above all, Period EME 5 shows a continuous development from the previous horizon. Most of the technologi-
cal and morphological features of Period EME 4 are still in use, although in the Lower Tishrin and Tabqa dam
basins a reduction in the so-called “specialised wares” (mainly the black and orange varieties of Euphrates Banded
Ware) has been noticed.102
The repertoire of Plain Simple Ware includes many old forms, such as plain or corrugated goblets (types
87-89, Pl. 22: 15-21) and shallow bowls with vertical or slightly inverted simple or beaded rim (types 78, 81-82,
Pl. 22: 12). Moreover, a large range of bowls with banded, modelled and grooved rims (types 115, 117-118, Pl. 22:
1-2, 7-11), although not completely new (as said, it is more a matter of quantity than quality), becomes rather com-
mon. A particular hallmark of Period EME 5 is the carinated bowl with a high vertical grooved rim (type 116,
Pl. 22: 3-6), which is widely diffused along the whole ME valley from the Kurban basin down to Terqa.103 Newly
attested is the truncated-conical sieve with simple or beaded rim (type 119, Pl. 22: 13-14), which is often identical
in profile with shapes well known in the bowl repertoire (cf. Pl. 22: 12).
A new and distinctive feature of Period EME 5 is a series of collared-rim vessels, either open or slightly closed
and in small (cup-like), medium-sized or even large (diameter >30cm) variations, which bear a simple or rilled
rim and a flat, ring or even pedestal base (types 120-122, Pl. 23: 1-11). The same vertical grooved rim occurs on
pot-stands (type 127, Pl. 24: 15-16) and on a range of large jars and pithoi, both wide-mouthed and narrow-necked
(type 129, Pl. 26: 1).
Another peculiar feature among closed forms is the appearance of a series of large wide-bellied jars with
restricted neck and slightly convex base (type 124, Pl. 24: 2, 5-8). Such jars, unknown in earlier assemblages, con-
tinue in the following Period EME 6 and will become popular in the 2nd millennium, albeit with slightly different
rim profiles (see type 144, Pl. 29: 9). Another innovation, standing at the beginning of a long-lasting tradition,
100
The pottery of Phases 5 and 6 is still at an initial stage of research. Given the lack of more recent contributions and of newly
published inventories, the picture sketched by A. Porter (2007a) and L. Cooper (2006) can hardly be improved.
101
The ADB inventories are subdivided as follows: Tilbeshar (1); Qara Quzaq (1); Bazi (1); Selenkahiye (1); Emar (1); Bi’a
(2), Hammam al-Turkman (1). The present account is also based on the following sources: (a) Karababa basin: final report on
Samsat (Abay 1997); (b) Carchemish sector: final excavation reports of Qara Quzaq (Valdés Pereiro 1994a; 2001); Amarna
(Pons 2001); unpublished material from Shiyukh Tahtani; (c) Banat sector: reports on the Kabir excavations and pottery
finds (Porter 1995b; 2007a; 2007b); (d) Tabqa sector: final publications of the pottery of Sweyhat (Holland 2006); Munbaqa
(Czichon & Werner 2008); Selenkahiye (Schwartz 2001); Wreide (Orthmann & Rova 1991); Halawa A (Hempelmann 2005);
final publication of the 3rd-millnnium pottery from ‘Abd (Sconzo 2013a); (e) Balikh: final report of Hammam al-Turkman
(Curvers 1998).
102
Porter 2007a: 7. It is uncertain whether such a reduction is real or only apparent, owing to the lack of specific contexts in
which this ware usually occurs.
103
Type 116 seems to originate at the end of the previous phase, in the Carchemish sector at least.
108
Ceramics
is represented by the hole-mouth pithoi with inverted hammer-head rim and applied relief bands with diagonal
impressed slashes (type 130, Pl. 26: 2-3).
Other types continue from the previous phase, such as the restricted neck bottles with loop handles (type
67, Pl. 24: 3-4) and the hole-mouth closed pots with inverted rim (type 110, Pl. 24: 11-12). In Period EME 5
the latter, however, are sometimes further characterised by a spout set diagonally on the shoulder and by an
applied plastic decoration featuring zoomorphic and vegetal figures: the almost complete specimens proposed
here feature two antithetic lions turning their heads in frontal view and flanking a central animal (type 133,
Pl. 27: 5-7). Generally speaking, this phase is characterised by a clear increase in the frequency of vessels of this
kind, decorated with vegetal, animal (birds, snakes and fishes) and even human representations. Isolated and/or
combined motifs are now either incised or even separately modelled and then applied on the vessel surface. This
phenomenon is mainly limited to a southern core region, from the lower Tishrin basin (Banat cluster) down to
the Balikh confluence (Bi’a), and even to Mari, further south, where it is thought to have been connected with
religious ceremonies.104
The Cooking-Pot Ware of Period EME 5 does not show any visible change from the previous tradition, as
the triangular-lug forms of Phases 3 and 4 still survive (Pl. 26: 4-5), but the repertoire is now extended to very
large hand-made plates with ledge handles (type 131, Pl. 26: 6), while a very peculiar kind of reversed “husk-
ing tray” consists of a very large plate/tray (or lid?) with bevelled rim and heavily pitted underside (type 132,
Pl. 27: 1-3).
In terms of the finer wares, Euphrates Banded Ware continues to be produced in more or less the same rep-
ertoire of open and closed forms. The end of Period EME 4, or possibly Period EME 5, sees the introduction of a
neckless jar with vertical rim marked by an exterior groove that was widely diffused in living and funerary con-
texts from the Carchemish to the Tabqa basin (type 125, Pl. 24: 9-10).
Horizontal Reserved Slip Ware, largely attested in the Tabqa area, is usually associated with a wide repertoire
of open (bead-rim bowls and beakers, not shown) and closed vessels (types 112, 128, Pl. 25: 1-3, 5).
Another fine ceramic class, attested in quite limited quantities mostly in the Karababa (Kurban, Lidar,
Samsat, Titriş) and Tabqa basins is the so-called “Smeared Wash Ware”. This has been wrongly conflated with the
Combed Wash Ware of the previous phase; in fact, it may be distinguished from the latter both by the shaping
technique (as the Euphrates pieces are hand-made) and by the overall surface treatment, involving the application
of a thin wash which was immediately wiped off in a haphazard manner with the help of a cloth or with fingers.105
The reserved treatment does not follow a specific pattern and consists of horizontal or vertical bands or horizontal
irregular “waves”. Fabrics are usually the same as those used for the plain undecorated wares. No material has
been so far found in situ along the Middle Euphrates and, owing to the extremely fragmentary state of the finds,
attributions to a specific type are difficult to make. The best example presented here is a peculiar jug with flat base,
decorated with wavy reserved bands in a remarkable style (type 123, Pl. 24: 1). As even the overall vessel shape
seems to be extraneous to the local ME tradition, the rare findings so far known have been rightly interpreted as
imports from the west.106
4.2.6 EME 6 (Pls. 28-30, 35; Tb. 8)

Last, Period EME 6 is a lingering pottery horizon in which some late 3rd-millennium forms and wares are
found alongside or even merging with new types which would become more common during the 2nd millennium.
It marks, therefore, the transition between the EBA and MBA. Generally speaking, along the Euphrates (and
elsewhere) such a phase – first identified by Porter and Cooper in the light of the finds from Kabir107 – remains so
far archaeologically elusive, not only because it is often marked by decline in settlement size and number (although
it has now been made clear that sedentary communities did exist and flourished even in the absence of large urban
centres and centralised authorities)108 but also because of its intrinsically transitional nature, which, in the absence
of good stratigraphic contexts, does not help an easy identification of occupation.109
104
Hempelmann 2001; 2005: 125-133.
105
For detailed comments, see Rova 1989; Falb 2009: 209-237.
106
Hempelmann 2005: 67.
107
Porter 1999; 2007a; Cooper 1998; 1999; 2006.
108
In this regard, see contributions in Kuzucuoğlu & Marro 2006.
109
Cooper 1998: 276-278; 1999: 322-323.
109
111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130
EME 1
EME 2
110
P. Sconzo
EME 3 ?
EME 4
EME 5
EME 6
Ceramics

In the ADB only three primary inventories can be attributed to this phase: one from Tilbeshar, one from
Bazi and one from Kabir. Owing to this flimsy evidence the identification of this horizon becomes a particularly
difficult operation.110

At a general level Period EME 6 sees the coexistence of prominent pottery types that continue on from the
previous phase with a series of new features that would widely characterise the MBA pottery assemblages of the
Euphrates region and beyond. These are: the widespread use of a sharp carination, now applied to most forms,
from open bowls to jars and pithoi (rather in contrast with the more sinuous and rounded shapes of the previous
material); the reduction in the use of ring bases in favour of flat or disc ones, often pierced in the centre like a
flower pot (only in large examples); the introduction of horizontal combed decoration on the shoulder of pots and
jars; and the development of applied relief bands or rope-like patterns. All the specialised wares that characterised
the previous two phases now seem to disappear almost completely, although it is difficult to establish whether this
phenomenon is not partially due to the total lack of those “specialised contexts”, public and funerary, especially
graves and cemeteries (see also Bouso, this volume) in which these wares used to occur in quantity.111
Owing to its transitional nature the pottery repertoire of Period EME 6 shows strong cultural connections
with both the preceding and succeeding periods, making it difficult to pinpoint vessel types that can be considered
diagnostic of this phase.
Among open shapes, the tendency towards more carinated profiles is noticeable in a new set of both shallow
(types 137, Pl. 28: 10-11) and deep (types 134-136, 138-139, Pl. 28: 1-9, 12-13) bowls. Larger closed pots with verti-
cal grooved rim continue the trend already established in the previous phase, although profiles become somewhat
squatter and generally flat-based (Pl. 29: 2-3). Large narrow-necked jars remain in vogue (type 127, Pl. 29: 8), but
are now flanked by new varieties in which rims are, rather, flanged and profiled (type 144, Pl. 29: 9), a feature
which will become a hallmark of the MBA assemblages.112
The repertoire of closed forms is completed by a series of short-necked pots, jars and pithoi with a squat or
even elongated body, often marked by a high carination and an upright rim with exterior grooves (types 141-143,
148-149; Pl. 29: 1, 4-7; 30: 2-4); small biconical jars (type 140, Pl. 28: 14-15) and jugs (type 145, Pl. 29: 10); pithoi
with triangular lugs (type 147, Pl. 30: 1); and decorated and fenestrated stands, as well as short plain examples with
concave sides (types 127, 146, Pl. 29: 11-12).
Finally, further forerunners of the MB tradition are the cooking pots: they are now thrown on the wheel,
made in a coarse grit-tempered fabric and provided with short restricted necks and thickened flaring rims (not
shown).113 These, as well as many other ceramic types and wares above described, further reflect the changes which
the Middle Euphrates culture underwent and which brought about the formation of the society of the MBA.
4.3. Catalogue of ARCANE EME Types

What follows is a list of morphological types (150 in total) identified either in the corpus of material included
in the ADB or published elsewhere. These types are defined according to the criteria (classification system
and nomenclature, etc.) explicitly set out by the ARCANE project. Thus fabric, surface treatment, decoration
and actual ware as a whole, even if of crucial relevance on chronological grounds, are not considered here as basic
components of a “type”, but are generally treated in relation to the morphological types with which they are
associated.
Each type is briefly described according to its basic features, after which a brief comment is added on the
ware(s) classes (fabric, technology, surface treatment, etc.) as well as on its dating (Periods EME 1-6).
110
The three ADB inventories are from Tilbeshar (1); Kabir (1); Bazi (1). The present account is also based on the following
sources: (a) Carchemish sector: final reports of the Qara Quzaq excavations (Valdés Pereiro 1994a; 2001), preliminary account
on the pottery from Amarna (Pons 2001); (b) Banat sector: reports on the Kabir excavations and pottery (Porter 1995b; 2007a;
2007b; Cooper 1998; 1999); (c) Tabqa sector: Sweyhat final report (Holland 2006); final publication of the 3rd-millennium
pottery from ‘Abd (Sconzo 2013a); (d) Balikh: pottery from Bi’a (Strommenger & Kohlmeyer 1998; Einwag 1998; 2008b).
111
A detailed study of the pottery corpora from Area F at Banat Phase III (EME 4) and Kabir, Level 6 (EME 6) would,
however, suggest a real decrease in the use of specialised wares also in non-funerary contexts (Cooper 1999: 324-325). Such a
decline has been interpreted either in conjunction with the absence of the urban elite which would have been demanding such
products to promote its status, or as a decline in craft specialisation and quality of workmanship.
112
See Cooper 1998: 274, fig. 2a-b.
113
See Cooper 1998: 276, fig. 2m-p.
111
131 132 133 134 135 136 137 138 139 140 141 142 143 144 145 146 147 148 149 150
EME 1
EME 2
112
P. Sconzo
EME 3
EME 4
EME 5
EME 6
Ceramics
As regards provenance and geographic distribution, under “Carchemish sector” – according to Peltenburg’s
assessment – are here gathered Birecik and Carchemish dam as well as the Upper Tishrin dam basins, regarded as
quite a homogeneous geographic and cultural unit.114
Lastly, owing to space restrictions, references to single sites or site sequences are avoided unless of paramount
importance in the discussion of a particular type. Similar references are provided, however, in the “proposed site
correlation” column at Pl. 31-35.
1) Bevelled-rim bowl (Pl. 1: 1-2). EME 1. Karababa/Carchemish/Tabqa

Mould-made coarse bowl (shape class E)115 of truncated conical or bell shape, with flaring upper walls, bev-
elled rim and flattened base. The very porous fabric is usually straw-tempered and sometimes mixed with a low
amount of mineral inclusions (sand, quartz and mica). The bevelled-rim bowl (hereafter BRB) is the most ubiq-
uitous “Uruk” diagnostic vessel in the whole Near East (although nowadays its real value as a chronological and
cultural indicator has been largely minimised):116 it appears at various sites in northern Mesopotamia and Syria
(Brak TW16, Hacinebi B1, Ninive “40-37”, etc.) in the late LC 3 (according to the Santa Fe periodisation)117 and
continues to be in use down to the beginning of the 3rd millennium.118 In Period EME 1 it is still attested in the
Karababa, Carchemish and Tabqa areas, although it is quantitatively more consistent in the northern stretch of
the river (Pl. 31).119 Cf. ARCANE JZPRT 1.120
2) Truncated-conical bowl with simple rim and flat base (Pl. 1: 3). EME 1. Karababa/Carchemish/Tabqa(?)
Wheel-made bowl (shape class E) of truncated conical shape, with thick flat base and direct simple rim with
roundish or slightly tapering lip. The fabric is usually fine-textured and slightly porous, with frequent mineral
(sand and quartz) and fewer vegetal inclusions; fully oxidised.
This type, also known as “flower pot” and of south Mesopotamian origins, is widespread in the north from
the LC 4 onwards, where it seems to remain continuously in use down to the beginning of the 3rd millennium.
In Period EME 1 it is still attested in both the Karababa and Carchemish sectors, and possibly also southwards
(Pl. 31).121
3) Shallow bowl with internally modelled rim (Pl. 1: 10-12). EME 1. Carchemish/Tabqa
Hand-made bowl (shape classes C, E) with curved sides, flat base and inverted bent rim. The fabric is chaff-
tempered, coarse-textured and porous, with a low amount of sand/quartz inclusions; the surface is left untreated.
This is a typical long-lived local LC form attested from the second quarter of the 4th millennium (LC 3-4)
onwards at many sites in north Mesopotamia. Its production seems to last both in the Carchemish and Tabqa
areas down to the beginning of the 3rd millennium (Pl. 31). There is no evidence from primary contexts in the
region, however.
4) Jar with everted bent rim and combed decoration (Pl. 1: 16-17). EME 1. Karababa/Carchemish/Tabqa
Wheel-made medium-sized neckless jar (shape class R) of almost spherical shape, with flat or round base and
everted, bent simple rim. The fabric is fine-textured and fully oxidised, with a medium amount of mineral (and
rarely vegetal) inclusions. A finely comb-incised decoration is applied on the shoulder.
Again a south Mesopotamian type in origin, it is widely attested in the north since the LC 4 (Middle Uruk
Period). In Period EME 1 it occurs in both the Karababa and the Carchemish sectors (Pl. 31). A single specimen
is also reported from Hadidi.122 Unfortunately most of the published specimens are incomplete and come from
secondary or tertiary contexts and therefore their nature – whether “extrusive” or not – cannot be properly deter-
mined, as suggested by many authors.
114
Peltenburg 2007b: 6-7.
115
Shape classes, as accorded here, follow the subdivision by means of parameters used in the ADB.
116
Helwing 2000: 152; 2002: 47. On the diffusion of the BRB, see recent contributions by Butterlin 2003: 343-345; Porter
2012: chap. 1.
117
Rothman 2001; Butterlin’s (2003: 340, fig. 60) TPM 4.
118
Contra, see Helwing 2009: note 2.
119
At a number of sites BRBs, whenever found in association with 3rd-millennium features, have been automatically considered
extrusive, as at Hassek, Levels 4-3; Kurban, Period V; Ahmar, Area A: Stratum A; Hajji Ibrahim, Phase A.
120
Rova 2011: 66, pl. 1: 1.
121
A single specimen has also been also retrieved in Area II, Level 5 at ‘Abd (Sconzo 2013a: pl. 85: 968).
122
Area RII: Stratum 1, Level I (Dornemann 1988).
113
P. Sconzo
5) Straight-sided bowl with band rim (Pl. 1: 7-9; 2: 1). EME 1-2a. Karababa/Carchemish/Tabqa(?)
Wheel-made straight-sided open bowl (shape classes C, E) with flat base. The direct rim is distinct and often
shows a concave outer profile. The medium-textured fabric is mineral-tempered and well-fired; the surface is usu-
ally untreated or wet-smoothed (Simple Ware).
The band rim bowl is, again, a type of south Mesopotamian origin that makes its first appearance along the
Euphrates in the LC 4 and increases in quantity through time. It reaches its widest diffusion and popularity at
the beginning of the 3rd millennium, especially in the Turkish ME and further south (down to Shiyukh Tahtani);
the only stratified example is reported from Hadidi.123 As far as morphology is concerned, the band rim bowl
slightly evolves to become, in Period EME 2, rather upright and bulged.124
6) Small bowl with slightly incurved simple rim (Pl. 1: 13). EME 1-2. Carchemish/Tabqa
Wheel-made small-sized bowl (shape class E) with a high rounded carination and almost straight lower sides
tapering towards a flat base. The simple rim can be upturned or slightly incurved, with round or tapering lip. The
fabric is fine-textured, sand-tempered and usually fully oxidised; the outer surface is wet-smoothed and rarely
(self) slipped. This quite simple type is mainly attested in the middle to lower stretch of the Middle Euphrates, in
both Periods EME 1 and 2 (Pl. 31). No evidence comes, so far, from primary contexts.
7) Hemispherical bowl with triangular rim and flat base (Pl. 1: 6; 2: 4). EME 1-2. Karababa/Carchemish
Wheel-made open bowl (shape classes C, E) of hemispherical shape, with flat base and direct, protruding rim
that may be either triangular in cross section (Pl. 1: 6; 2: 4) or slightly bevelled (not shown). The fabric is fine-
textured and mineral-tempered (mica, sand and quartz) and the surface is usually buff (Simple Ware).
Attested in the colonial Late Uruk repertoire of the Tabqa basin (for example, Habuba Kabira South),125 in
Periods EME 1 and 2 this type occurs in both the Karababa and the Carchemish sectors, but no longer in the
Tabqa area (Pl. 31).
8) Carinated bowl with everted rim and wavy incised decoration (Pl. 1: 14). EME 1. Karababa/Carchemish
Wheel-made quite deep medium-sized bowl (shape class E) with straight upper walls, low carination and
everted, slightly protruding rim. The fabric is medium-textured and mineral-tempered (Simple Ware). A series of
wavy lines are incised on the upper body.
This type, attested so far in the Karababa-Carchemish zone (Pl. 31), is, although fairly uncommon, important
for inter-regional comparisons, as it also occurs in the northern Levant (Amuq G) and in northern Mesopotamia.
9) Closed pot (cooking-pot) with short flaring rim and interior bulge (Pl. 1: 18-19). EME 1. Tabqa
Medium-sized closed pot (shape class M-N) of almost globular shape, with round or flattened base and short
flaring rim, bulged on the interior and marked by a sharp corner point. This pot is usually hand-made in a porous
quartz-tempered fabric that is not fully oxidised; the surface is left rough.
It is characteristic of the lower Euphrates Big Bend (Hajji Ibrahim: Phases A1-2; ‘Abd: Horizon 1, Pl. 31).126
Unfortunately it is attested neither in the ADB nor in other closed contexts of the region.
10) Bowl with direct slightly tapering rim (Pl. 1: 4-5). EME 1-2. Karababa/Carchemish/Tabqa
Large wheel-made bowl (shape classes C; E) with straight or slightly curving sides, round or flattened base
and direct, simple rim with an asymmetrically tapering lip. In a variety of this type the rim is marked by a light
indentation on either side (Pl. 1: 4). The fabric is fine- to medium-textured with frequent small mineral (usually
sand) inclusions; the surface is usually left untreated, wet-smoothed or, more rarely, (self-) slipped (Simple Ware).
This very simple type is first attested in Period EME 1 in both the Carchemish and Tabqa basins, where it
remains in use into the following Period EME 2 (Pl. 31).
11) Bowl with sinuous profile and tiny out-flared rim (Pl. 1: 15; 3: 4-10). EME 1-2. Karababa/Carchemish/
Tabqa/Balikh
Small wheel-made sinuous-sided bowl (shape class E) with round or flattened base and tiny out-flared rim with
tapering/thinned-out lip (average diameter 10-15cm). The overall profile can be more or less squat and the upper
123
Area RII: Stratum 1, Level IVA (Dornemann 1988: fig. 4: 35).
124
See EME 2a: type 13; EME 2b: type 16.
125
Sürenhagen 1974/75: pl. 20: 39.
126
Sconzo 2013a: pl. 85: 969-970.
114
Ceramics
walls range from almost vertical to slightly inverted to fully closed. The fabric is fine- to medium-textured and
sand-tempered (Simple Ware); vessels are usually hard and fully oxidised.
This type makes its first appearance in Period EME 1 in the Tabqa basin at Hadidi (Pl. 1: 15) and becomes very
common in the same area as well as further north in the Carchemish and Karababa basins and east in the Balikh
during the whole Period EME 2 (Pl. 3: 4-10, Pl. 31). In the Tabqa area an occasional additional feature is a pair of
vertically pierced lugs set just below the rim (not shown).
12) Globular closed pot with flaring simple rim (Pl. 1: 20; 6: 15-16). EME 1-2. Karababa/Carchemish/Tabqa
Wide-mouthed closed pot (shape classes M-N) of almost globular shape, round bottomed, with a very short
atrophic neck and flaring or even bent simple rim with rounded lip. It is a very simple and quite common type
and can be either wheel-made in a combined technique or fully hand-made, as is often the case with cooking pots.
While the fabrics of wheel-made, light-coloured examples are fine and sand-textured, cooking pot fabrics are
rather porous and tempered with large quartz grits and some straw (Pl. 6: 15-16).
This quite common type is of low chronological resolution; it is widespread from the Karababa down to the
Tabqa basins (as far south as Hadidi, at least) in both Periods EME 1 and 2 (Pl. 31).
13) Straight-sided bowl with distinct band rim and flat base (Pl. 2: 2-3). EME 2a. Karababa/Carchemish
Large wheel-made bowl (shape classes C, E) of almost truncated-conical shape with a flat base. The rim recalls
that of type 5, but is more distinct and pronounced. It occurs in Simple Ware, the fabric being, as usual, medium-
textured; the surface is usually untreated.
It is attested in the Karababa and Carchemish sectors as far south as Shiyukh Tahtani exclusively in early
Period EME 2, when it sometimes occurs alongside type 5 (Pl. 31).127
14) Bowl with incised ledge rim (Pl. 2: 5-7). EME 2a-(b). Karababa/Carchemish sectors
Large wheel-made bowl (shape classes C-E) with slightly curving sides, flat base and everted triangular (similar
to that of type 7) or ledge rim, decorated on the top with low incised chevrons or cross-hatchings. The fabric is
fine-textured and mineral-tempered (sand and quartz), and the surface is usually untreated (Simple Ware).
This type occurs mainly on the Turkish side of the ME valley, where it is first attested at the very beginning of
Period EME 2 (or even earlier);128 it probably continues down to its end (Pl. 31).
15) Bowl with upright beaded rim and flat base (Pl. 2: 8-12; 8: 4-5). EME 2-(3). Karababa/Carchemish
Wheel-made bowl (shape classes C, E) with curving sides, flattened base and upright, distinct beaded rim. The
latter, pointed on the top in the earlier examples, becomes rounder later on, when a round carination immediately
below the rim can be observed (Pl. 2: 11-12). The fabric is medium-textured and sand-tempered; the surface is usu-
ally untreated or wet-smoothed (Simple Ware).
This type – virtually absent from the Tabqa basin southwards (Pl. 31) – is quite widespread in the Karababa
and Carchemish sectors, where it first appears in the earlier part of Period EME 2; it becomes more common in
domestic and funerary contexts towards its end and even later.
16) Bowl with upturned band rim and flat base (Pl. 2: 13-16). EME 2b. Karababa/Carchemish
Large wheel-made bowl (shape classes C-E) with straight or slightly curved sides and flat or slightly concave
base. A footed version is further attested only in the area of Carchemish. The rim is upturned and profiled, “band/
ribbon-like”, and provided with a bulging carination and a round lip. The fabric is medium-textured and the sur-
face is usually wet-smoothed (Simple Ware).
Type 16, clearly developing from type 13, first appears in late Period EME 2 both in the Karababa and
Carchemish sectors, and is absent south of Qara Quzaq. It is also worth mentioning that its diffusion extends up
to the Malatya plain, where many similar examples are reported from Arslantepe VI B2.129
17) Bell-shaped bowl with flaring simple rim and flat base (Pl. 2: 17-18). EME 2b. Karababa
Large wheel-made bell-shaped bowl (shape class E) with a low (more or less pronounced) carination, a flat or lightly
convex narrow base and an indistinct flaring simple rim. This peculiar type occurs in Simple Ware, in a fine-textured
fabric and in a lustrous red-slip ware. It is attested exclusively in late Period EME 2 in the Karababa basin (Pl. 31).
127
For example in Zeytinli Bahçe, Trench B8: Level 3 (ME007-I003).
128
If we take into consideration the examples from Level e at Samsat.
129
Frangipane & Palmieri 1983: fig. 20: 6.
115
P. Sconzo
18) Small hemispherical bowl with direct simple rim (Pl. 3: 1-3; 9: 1-3). EME (1) 2-3. Carchemish/
Tabqa/Balikh
Small (diameter 10-12cm) wheel-made bowl (shape class E) of hemispherical shape, with round (or more rarely
flat) base and simple rim. The latter, direct or slightly incurved, can be either round (Pl. 3: 2), thinned-out (Pl. 3: 1)
or pointed. It occurs in Simple Ware, the fabric being fine- to medium-textured and light-coloured with frequent
small mineral inclusions; the surface is usually wet-smoothed.
It is a very common type during the first half of the 3rd millennium. Although it may already be attested in
Period EME 1 it is clearly a hallmark of the whole Period EME 2 in the Tabqa area, where these bowls, highly
standardised and mass-produced (it is almost the only type of bowl in this period) are further characterised by the
presence of a series of potmarks, usually incised either along the body or below the base (Pl. 3: 1-3). Its northern
extension reaches Ahmar (Pl. 31). The tradition continues into the following Period EME 3, when it is extended
southwards down to the Balikh confluence (Bi’a) and along the Balikh (Hammam al-Turkman) (Pl. 9: 1-3, Pl. 32).
19) Carinated straight-sided bowl with flaring rim (Pl. 3: 11-14, 16-18). EME (1)-2. Karababa/
Carchemish/Tabqa
Wheel-made carinated deep bowl (shape class E) with tiny flat or round base, vertical straight sides and flar-
ing simple rim with a roundish or slightly tapering lip. It occurs in Simple Ware, the fabric being usually fine- to
medium-textured and whitish in colour with sparse mineral inclusions.
This type, of possible colonial Late Uruk origin (similar examples are already attested in the pottery reper-
toires of Hassek, Level 5 and Habuba Kabira South),130 becomes quite common in Period EME 2 over a wide area
extending from Hassek down to the Halawa B. In the Karababa basin its diffusion is concentrated mainly early in
this phase, while further south it seems to continue down to its end (Pl. 31).
In the Tabqa basin a different variety is attested: this is always round-bottomed and characterised by a sharp
lower carination, downward-tapering sides and a thin, lightly flaring lip, somewhat recalling the true cyma-recta
bowls (Pl. 3: 16-18).
20) Bell-shaped bowl with flaring pointed lip and atrophic ring base (the called cyma-recta bowl) (Pl. 3: 15,
19-23). EME2b. Karababa/Carchemish/Tabqa/Lower ME
Small wheel-made bowl (shape class E) with a bell-shaped continuous profile, generally rather squat, with a low
round carination near the bottom and an atrophic ring base. The sinuous upper profile ends up in a slightly flaring
pointed lip. The fabric is very fine, greenish in colour, highly fired and clinky, with no or very sparse fine-mineral
inclusions.
Usually defined as a cyma-recta bowl, this type occurs exclusively in late Period EME 2, more often in the
upper/mid-course of the river and very rarely in the Tabqa basin and further south (Terqa), where a round-based,
Simple Ware version is more common (type 19).131 Type 20 is quite common both in living and funerary contexts
in a wide area encompassing the western JZ (cf. ARCANE JZPRT 18)132 and the Orontes valley to the west, as
well as central Anatolia.
21) Carinated bowl with direct thickened rim (Pl. 3: 24-27). EME 2b. Carchemish
Small wheel-made bowl (shape class E), with tiny flat or ring base and sharp or round carination in the middle.
The upper vessel wall is straight, either vertical or slightly tapering, the rim is usually direct, externally thickened
or beaded. In late examples it may also bear an inner indentation (Pl. 3: 27). The fabric is fine- to medium-textured
and whitish in colour, with sparse tiny mineral (sand) inclusions (Simple Ware).
This type is quite common in the area around Carchemish in the later part of Period EME 2, but is unknown
south of Qara Quzaq (Pl. 31).
22) Carinated closed bowl with slightly everted rim (Pl. 3: 28-30). EME (1)-2. Karababa/Carchemish
Small wheel-made closed bowl (shape class E) with a tiny flat base and a high, rounded carination, inturned
upper walls and a tiny, slightly everted lip. The fabric is fine- to medium-textured and whitish in colour, with
sparse mineral inclusions. The outer surface can be either wet-smoothed (Simple Ware) or partially decorated with
reserved-slip patterns (Reserved Slip Ware).
130
Sürenhagen 1974/75: pl. 22: 78; Helwing 2002: type BC1, 50-51, pl. 3: 41; 16: 166; 22: 238; 32: 322, etc.
131
Two cyma-recta cups are reported from the area of the “city wall” at Terqa (Buccellati 1979: fig. 20: 7).
132
Rova 2011: 67, pl. 2: 12-16.
116
Ceramics
This type, of possible LC 5 descent,133 becomes quite common in the Karababa and Carchemish sectors dur-
ing Period EME 2, but is, again, unknown south of Qara Quzaq. Later examples (EME 2b) from the Karababa
basin have a more pronounced inner bulge. The diffusion of type 22 also extends northwards in the Malatya plain
(Arslantepe VI B2).134
23) Closed bowl with tiny beaded rim (Pl. 3: 31). EME2b. Carchemish
Wheel-made closed bowl (shape class E) with flat or slightly concave base and inturned tiny beaded rim. The
fabric is fine- to medium-textured and whitish in colour with sparse mineral (sand) inclusions; the surface is either
left untreated (Simple Ware) or decorated with a diagonal reserved-slip pattern (Reserved Slip Ware).
Quite common in the area around Carchemish in late Period EME 2, it is unknown south of Qara
Quzaq (Pl. 31).
24) High-stemmed sharply carinated biconical bowl (Pl. 4: 1-3). EME (1)-2a. Karababa/Upper Carchemish
Composite pedestal vessel (or “fruit-stand”) consisting of a sharply carinated large bowl (shape class E) and a
tall cylindrical hollow stem, ending in a flaring, trumpet-like base with a thickened distinct lip. The upper side of
the bowl above the carination is straight and sharply inturned (c. 90°) and ends in a simple rim with a roundish
or, more often, a pointed lip. It occurs either in a fine-textured Simple Ware or in a finer – partial or full – red-slip
version.
This peculiar shape, which recalls a similar LC 5 type fairly widely attested in both local and colonial sites
(for example, Habuba Kabira South),135 is a hallmark of Period EME 2a (and possibly earlier)136 in the Karababa
basin, but it also extends southwards down to the Syro-Turkish border (Pl. 31). It occurs mainly in burial contexts.
25) High-stemmed sharply carinated bowl (Pl. 4: 4-7). EME 2(a)-b. Karababa/Carchemish
Composite pedestal vessel (or “fruit-stand”) formed by a highly carinated bowl (shape class E) with an upturned
slightly concave rim and a tall cylindrical stem ending in a flaring, trumpet-like base marked by a simple or dis-
tinctly modelled lip. As with the previous type, this vessel form is manufactured in two separate pieces that are
assembled at the leather-hard stage. It occurs usually in Simple Ware, the fabric being fine- to medium-textured
and well-fired. A rare red-painted class, mainly attested in burial contexts and limited to the Turkish side of the
Euphrates (Carchemish cist graves, Birecik cemetery, Titriş, etc.) is decorated with a single wavy or cross-hatched
band and other simple motifs running around the rim. One example from Hassek is also red-slipped.
It is attested mainly in late Period EME 2 in the area around Carchemish, from Birecik down to Qara Quzaq,
and is much rarer in the Karababa district (Pl. 31). In addition, type 25 has important inter-regional connec-
tions with inner eastern Anatolia, especially with the Malatya plain, where similar examples are reported from
Arslantepe VI B2.137
26) Stemmed hemispherical bowl (Pl. 4: 8-10). EME 2b. Karababa/Upper Carchemish
Composite pedestal vessel (or fruit-stand) consisting of a hemispherical bowl (shape class E) with direct or
slightly upturned simple rim and a medium or low stem ending in a flaring, trumpet-like base with thickened lip.
As with type 24, it may belong to Simple Ware or Red Slip Ware.
It is quite common in burial contexts in the Karababa basin or even further north in the Malatya plain
(Arslantepe VI B2),138 but is apparently absent south of the Syro-Turkish border; it can be considered a hallmark
of Period EME 2b (Pl. 31).
27) Stemmed carinated bowl with inturned walls and thickened distinct rim (Pl. 5: 1-2). EME 2b. Karababa/
Upper Carchemish
Composite pedestal vessel formed by a carinated bowl (shape class E) somewhat resembling that of type 21,
with inturned walls and a distinct rim that is either beaded or slightly raised and thickened. The stem is cylindri-
cal and sometimes marked by horizontal grooves, with a trumpet-like base. The fabric is fine- or medium-textured
and sand- and calcite-tempered. The type occurs in Simple or Reserved Slip Wares.
Attested mainly in burial contexts, it is a hallmark of the late Period EME 2 in the Turkish ME (Pl. 31).
133
A few specimens, for example, are attested in Late Uruk levels of Trench B8 at Zeytinli Bahçe (Frangipane 2007: 8.11:6, 9).
134
Frangipane & Palmieri 1983: fig. 20: 1-4.
135
Sürenhagen 1974/75: pl. 3: 35; 20: 19-20.
136
A few examples are attested already at Samsat, Level e.
137
Frangipane & Palmieri 1983: fig. 19: 1-4.
138
Frangipane & Palmieri 1983: fig. 19: 8.
117
P. Sconzo
28) Small narrow-necked jar with everted rim (Pl. 5: 3-4). EME 2b. Karababa/Carchemish
Small spherical jar (shape class R) with cylindrical neck, disc base and everted or ledged rim. The latter can be
either simple or thickened and distinct. The fabric is medium-textured and mineral-tempered and the surface is
usually left untreated (Simple Ware) or decorated on the shoulder with a radial reserved-slip pattern.
It is characteristic of the Karababa and Carchemish (plain and decorated) sectors, where it occurs in
both domestic and funerary contexts, especially in the latter part of Period EME 2; it is absent south of Qara
Quzaq (Pl. 31).
29) Small jar with four pierced lugs (Pl. 5: 5-8). EME 2b. Karababa/Upper Sajur/Upper Carchemish
Small closed pot (shape class N) of biconical shape, with short pedestal base, carinated shoulder and flaring
rim. The latter can be simple, with roundish or tapering lip, or distinct and slightly thickened. Type 29 is char-
acterised by four vertically pierced triangular lugs attached on the shoulder. It is wheel-made, in a fine-textured,
generally greyish or whitish fabric sometimes defined as “white ware” (weiße Ware).139 The outer surface, often
wet-smoothed, may be also decorated with diagonal and ladder-like painted motifs or coated with red slip.
It is widely attested in the Karababa and Upper Carchemish sectors as well in the upper Sajur Valley, at sites
such as Oylum, and occurs mainly in funerary contexts, often in association with open sinuous-sided bowls with
everted lip (cyma-recta bowls, type 20, Pl. 31).
It is quite important for inter-regional connections, as many examples were also retrieved in the Malatya
plain (Arslantepe VI B2).140 It recalls also examples from the JZ, where they mainly occur in Period EME 0 (cf.
ARCANE JZPRT 11),141 and was exported as far south as Palestine.142
30) Wide-necked jar with everted triangular rim (and painted decoration) (Pl. 5: 9). EME 2. Karababa
Medium-sized jar (shape class P) with globular body, cylindrical neck and everted, almost pendent, triangular
rim. The fabric is fine- to medium-textured with sparse mineral inclusions; the surface is either left untreated
(Simple Ware) or painted.
The painted version is quite rare and limited to the Karababa area in the late Period EME 2 (Pl. 31). In the ME
no evidence comes so far from primary contexts.
Type 30 finds further parallels towards the north at Arslantepe VI B2.143
31) Small globular pot with painted decoration (Pl. 5: 10-12). EME 2a-(b). Tishrin/Tabqa
Small hand-made wide-mouthed globular pot (shape class N) with round base, short concave neck and simple
flaring rim with round or slightly thinned lip. The fabric is medium-textured, mineral-tempered, gritty and highly
fired (in many cases even over-fired). A thick reddish-brown painted decoration is applied on the shoulder. It is a
typical EME 2a type of the Tabqa basin, its northern border being at Qara Quzaq, where it seems to persist into
Period EME 2b (Pl. 31). Vessel shapes and decoration patterns show affinities with the painted “multiple brush”
tradition of the Amuq and with painted wares of the JZ, Period EME 1-(2). Cf. ARCANE JZPRT 24.144
32) Squat hand-made two-handle bowl (RBBW) (Pl. 5: 13). EME 2. Karababa
Hand-made bowl (shape class E) with sinuous profile, rounded base and slightly flaring simple rim. Two verti-
cal handles are attached just below the rim. It is produced in Red-Black Burnished Ware.
Its diffusion is limited to a few sites of the Karababa basin (Pl. 31). No evidence comes so far from primary
contexts.
33) Tall-necked closed pot with direct simple rim (RBBW) (Pl. 5: 14). EME 2. Karababa
Hand-made tall-necked closed pot (shape class N) with round base, long concave tapering neck and simple
rim. It is made in Red-Black Burnished Ware. Its diffusion is confined to a few sites of the Karababa basin (Pl. 31).
Vessel shape and decoration show close affinities with the red-black tradition diffused in the Malatya plain at the
beginning of the 3rd millennium.145 No evidence is so far well stratified.
139
Gerber 2005: 41.
140
Frangipane & Palmieri 1983: fig. 18: 4-5. For a detailed account, see also Helwing 2001.
141
Rova 2011: 68, pl. 1: 14.
142
Yannai & Braun 2001.
143
Frangipane & Palmieri 1983: fig. 17.
144
Rova 2011: 68, pl. 3: 8-12.
145
See, for example, specimens from Arslantepe VI B1: Frangipane & Palmieri 1983: figs 10: 5-6; 12: 2.
118
Ceramics
34) Wide-necked jar with slightly everted thickened rim (Pl. 6: 1-3). EME 2b. Karababa/Carchemish
Squat globular jar (shape class P), sometimes with tapering lower body ending up in a flattened or round base,
a short concave neck and a slightly everted, distinct and thickened rim. The shoulder may be slightly carinated.
Made either entirely on the wheel or using a combined technique, it occurs either in Simple or in Reserved Slip
Wares. In the latter the reserved patterns, generally applied only to the upper body, consist of a row of radial lines
intersected by horizontal, concentric ones; the radial lines sometimes form a kind of ladder motif. In some cases,
moreover, a simple frieze of excised marks (dots, ticks, finger prints) runs around the base of the neck and frames
the reserved pattern (Pl. 6: 1).
Type 34 is characteristic of the Karababa and Carchemish sectors, where it occurs in both domestic and funer-
ary contexts, especially in the latter part of Period EME 2; it is absent south of Qara Quzaq (Pl. 31).
35) Large wide-necked jar with everted thickened rim and round base (Pl. 6: 4-9; 17-18). EME 2.
Carchemish/Tabqa
Globular jar (shape class P), partially or fully wheel-made, with round base, very short/atrophic concave neck
and everted rim. The latter, usually distinct, can be slightly thickened and rounded or concave inside. Usually
the rim is wheel-made, while the body is hand-made. It may occur in Simple Ware, in a fine- to medium-textured
fabric, or in a coarse (Pl. 6: 4-8) quartz-tempered Cooking-Pot Ware (Pl. 6: 17-18). Diagonal or even horizontal
reserved-slip decoration is applied on some examples from Qara Quzaq (Pl. 6: 9).
This very simple shape is widespread in the Tishrin and Tabqa basin throughout Period EME 2 and even
later (Pl. 31).
36) Low-footed jar, chalice (Pl. 6: 10-13). EME 2b. Carchemish

Wheel-made composite vessel made up of a squat jar (similar to type 35, shape class P) attached to a low conical
foot ending in a thickened lip. The neck is short and almost atrophic and the rim, usually distinct, is everted, either
thickened or ledge-shaped. As with the previous type, it is produced in a fine-textured fabric; the surface may be
left untreated, slightly smoothed or decorated by a diagonal reserved-slip.
It occurs exclusively in cemeteries and graves of the Carchemish sector down to Qara Quzaq, where it is often
associated with cyma-recta bowls (type 20), together with which it may be considered characteristic of late Period
EME 2 (Pl. 31).
37) Hole-mouth closed pot (Pl. 6: 14). EME 2. Karababa/Carchemish/Balikh

Hand-made coil-constructed closed pot (shape class N) with a globular body, round base, hole-mouth and
tiny off-set lip. It occurs in a quartz-tempered Cooking-Pot Ware. It is mainly attested in the Syrian side of the
Carchemish sector and on the Balikh, but a few specimens come also from the Karababa basin (Pl. 31).
38) Wide-necked jar with ovoid body and thickened distinct rim (Pl. 7: 1-4). EME 2a. Karababa/Upper
Carchemish
Medium- to large-sized wide-necked jar (shape class P) with vertical or slightly flaring neck and upright or
slightly everted thickened or club-shaped rim. The shoulder is usually distinct from the neck and expanded; bases
are flat or round. These jars are usually made using a combined technique (rim on the wheel, body made by coils)
in a fine- or medium-textured fabric with mineral (sand, quartz, mica, etc.) and a few chaff inclusions. The outer
surface may be left rough, slipped or even decorated with reserved-slip.
Type 38 is diffused mainly across the Turkish Euphrates (Pl. 31) and even further north up to the Malatya
plain, where many examples are reported from Arslantepe VI B2.146
39) Closed pot/pithos with thickened rim and round base (Pl. 7: 5-6). EME 2. Carchemish/Tabqa
Large closed pot/pithos (shape class N/S) with thick walls, round base, atrophic neck and slightly everted
thickened rim. It usually occurs in a fine-textured, light-coloured Simple Ware. A thick coat of whitish slip is
applied in many examples. There are often incised potmarks on the shoulder.
It is the most common type of large storage jar of the Tabqa region during Period EME 2.
40) Closed pot/pithos with protruding angular rim (Pl. 7: 7-8). EME 2. Carchemish/Tabqa/Balikh
Large neckless closed pot/pithos (shape class N/S) with thick walls, round base and slightly everted angular
rim (triangular in section). It usually occurs in a fine-textured, light coloured Simple Ware. As with the previous
146
Frangipane & Palmieri 1983: fig.14: 2.
119
P. Sconzo
type, with which it shares an area of distribution, it is usually coated by a thick whitish slip and often bears pot-
marks on the shoulder.
It is quite common in the Tabqa region, where it is attested during the whole Period EME 2 (Pl. 31).
41) Closed pot/pithos with out-turned, profiled rim (Pl. 7: 9). EME 2b-3. Tishrin/(Tabqa)/Balikh
Large closed pot/pithos (shape class N/S) with rounded base and out-turned profiled rim with squared or
bevelled lip. The fabric ranges from buff to whitish in colour, with mineral and occasional vegetal temper.
This is a type peculiar to the Balikh region, although it also occurs to a limited extent in the Tishrin (Qara
Quzaq) and in the Tabqa basins not only in Period EME 2 but also in the following Period EME 3 (Pl. 31-32).
It is quite relevant for the inter-regional connections with the JZ, where it is attested in Periods EJZ 1-2.
Cf. ARCANE JZPRT 25.147
42) Shallow bowl with ledge rim and flat base (Pl. 8: 1; 15: 8). EME 3-4. Karababa/Carchemish
Small wheel-made shallow bowl (shape class C) with high rounded carination, lower walls tapering towards
a flat base and everted ledge rim. It occurs in Simple Ware in a fine-textured and highly fired fabric; the outer
surface is usually wet-smoothed.
It is quite an uncommon type that is diffused mainly in the area around Carchemish, where it is attested in
both domestic and burial contexts during Period EME 3 and may also occur later (Pl. 32-33).
43) Shallow bowl with flaring rim and round base (Pl. 8: 2-3; 16: 1). EME 3-4. Carchemish/Lower Tishrin
Small wheel-made shallow thin-walled bowl (shape class C) with a low round carination and a round base. The
rim is flaring, simple or slightly thickened. Type 43 usually occurs in a highly fired, very fine-textured Euphrates
Banded Ware tempered with small calcite and mica particles and decorated with all-over ring-burnishing on both
the outer and inner sides.
It is mainly attested in burial contexts of the Carchemish and Banat areas, in both late Period EME 3 (Pl. 8:
2-3, Pl. 32) and Period EME 4 (Pl. 33), when it usually has a continuous, roundish profile (Pl. 16: 1). The area
of diffusion also extends further west, however, as a few examples have been found at Umm el-Marra in the
Jabbul plain.148
44) Shallow bowl with everted thickened rim and round base (Pl. 8: 6-8). EME 3. Middle Euphrates
Wheel-made shallow bowl (shape class C) with regular curving sides, almost hemispherical shape and round
base. The rim is everted and thickened. It is produced in Simple Ware, the fabric being medium- or fine-textured,
sand-tempered and highly fired; the outer surface is usually wet-smoothed.
It is quite a simple common type that is widely diffused during Period EME 3 in the Syrian ME and beyond,149
especially from the Banat area southwards, where it occurs in both domestic and burial contexts (Pl. 32).
45) Bowl with everted thickened rim and round base (Pl. 8: 9-13). EME 3. Middle Euphrates
Wheel-made medium-sized to large bowl (shape class E) with almost straight sides, a round base and an
everted, thickened and distinct rim with a rounded (Pl. 8: 10), triangular (Pl. 8: 11) or even beaked (Pl. 8: 12-13)
profile. It can be considered as a deep version of type 44, with which it shares fabric and surface treatment.
As with the previous type, it is attested in different kinds of contexts along the Syrian ME valley, especially
from Banat southwards, as well as on the Balikh (Hammam al-Turkman) during Period EME 3 (Pl. 32).
46) Large beaker with folded rim (Pl. 8: 14). EME 3-4. Lower Tishrin/Tabqa
Large wheel-made beaker/deep bowl (shape classes E, G) with incurving walls, false ring base and beaded/
folded rim. It occurs in Simple Ware, in a medium- to fine-textured, mineral-tempered fabric; the outer surface
is wet-smoothed.
It is first attested in Period EME 3, but continues in Period EME 4, mainly along the Syrian ME valley
(Pl. 32-33).
147
Rova 2011: 70, pl. 4: 2.
148
Cf. Tomb 5, Umm el-Marra Period VI (Schwartz et al. 2006: fig. 5: 4) and Tomb 3, Umm el-Marra Period VI (Schwartz et al.
2006: fig. 10: 6).
149
Again a couple of pieces retrieved in Tomb 5 (see previous note) at Umm el-Marra, in the Jabbul plain (Schwartz et al.
2006: fig. 5: 3, 5).
120
Ceramics
47) Bowl with bevelled rim and flat base (Pl. 8: 15-17). EME 3. Lower Tishrin/Tabqa/Balikh
Wheel-made bowl (shape classes C, E) with straight or slightly curving sides, flat base and direct slightly thick-
ened rim with inner or outer bevelled lip. It occurs in Simple Ware in medium- to fine-textured, sand-tempered
fabric.
It belongs to those types which suggest a strong connection between Lower Tishrin/Tabqa/Balikh during
Period EME 3 (Pl. 32).
48) Bowl with thickened rim on the interior and flat base (Pl. 8: 18). EME 3. Karababa(?)/Carchemish/Lower
Tishrin/Tabqa
Large wheel-made hemispherical bowl (shape class E) with flat base and direct rim, thickened on the interior.
It is made in Simple Ware, the fabric being usually medium- to fine-textured and sand-tempered; the outer surface
is wet-smoothed.
This type is not very common, being mainly attested during Period EME 3 in the Syrian ME valley, especially
from Banat southwards (Pl. 32). A few examples are also reported from non-primary contexts in the Karababa
basin (Kurban, Period IV).
49) Straight-sided bowl/beaker with simple rim and round base (Pl. 9: 4-8). EME 3-4. Lower Tishrin/Tabqa/
Lower ME/Balikh
Small wheel-made bowl/beaker (shape classes E, G) with vertical straight or slightly sinuous sides, round base
and direct simple rim. In some instances tiny vertical pierced lugs are attached to the rim (Pl. 9: 5). The fabric is
medium- to fine-textured and sand-tempered; the outer surface is usually wet-smoothed (Simple Ware).
It is a simple type common during Period EME 3 as well as in the following Period EME 4 along the Syrian
ME, especially from Banat southwards and in the Balikh, where it occurs in both domestic and burial contexts
(Pl. 32-33).
50) Ovoid beaker with in-bevelled rim and round base (Pl. 9: 19). EME (2)-3. Lower ME/Balikh
Wheel-made beaker (shape class G) with ovoid body, straight upper walls tapering upwards, round base and
direct, upright rim with in-bevelled lip. The fabric is medium- to fine-textured and sand-tempered; the outer sur-
face is usually wet-smoothed (Simple Ware).
It is a quite simple type common during Period EME 3 in the lower ME and in the Balikh area, where it
occurs in both domestic and burial contexts (Pl. 32). A possible early origin is so far not substantiated by in situ
findings.
51) Ovoid beaker with pointed bottom and pierced rim (Pl. 9: 20). EME 3-4. Carchemish/Lower Tishrin/
Lower ME
Wheel-made beaker (shape class G) with ovoid body, pointed base and inverted upper walls ending up in a
slightly upturned distinct rim. Four tiny suspension holes are pierced through the rim. The fabric is medium- to
fine-textured and sand-tempered; the outer surface is wet-smoothed (Simple Ware).
This not particularly common type is mainly attested in burial contexts of Period EME 3 along the Syrian ME
valley. In Period EME 4 its diffusion is extended to the lower ME (Pl. 32-33).
52) Truncated-conical beaker with slightly corrugated exterior (Pl. 9: 9-18). EME 3. Karababa/Carchemish/
Tabqa(?)/Balikh/Lower ME
Small wheel-made beaker (shape class G) of truncated conical shape with flat or slightly convex base, straight,
slightly corrugated walls and direct simple rim with round or tapering lip. It occurs in a shorter, large base as well
as in a taller, pointed base version. The former tends to be earlier in date. The ware in which it is produced is often
referred to as “Metallic Ware”, although usually it is not the “true” Metallic Ware of the JZ, but rather a local
imitation, here defined as “Euphrates Metallic Ware”. The latter is a dark grey, quite gritty, highly fired and rather
clinky ware tempered with visible calcite. Usually the exterior has a bichrome effect, with an intense reddish
bricky colour on the lower body and a grey zone around the rim.
The type is a hallmark of Period EME 3 in a wide area extending particularly northward (Karababa and
Carchemish) and seldom attested from the Tabqa basin southwards (Pl. 32). It is quite similar to ARCANE
JZPRT 38, which is typical of that region in Periods EJZ 2 and 3.150
53) Hemispherical tripod bowl with simple rim (Pl. 9: 21-22). EME 3. Syrian ME
150
In the JZ the squatter versions are chronologically earlier than the elongated ones. Rova 2011: 69-70, pl. 5: 14; 7: 3-4.
121
P. Sconzo
Large wheel-made thick-walled hemispherical bowl (shape class E) with round base and direct simple rim
with round, flattened or slightly in-cut lip. Three uneven wheel-thrown tubular feet with out-turned lower edges
are attached either to the base (Banat sector) or directly to the rim (Balikh area). It occurs in Simple Ware in a
medium- to fine-textured fabric; the outer surface is usually wet-smoothed.
This not particularly common type is attested mainly in funerary contexts of Period EME 3 along the Syrian
ME valley (Pl. 32).
54) Carinated tripod bowl with flaring thickened rim (Pl. 9: 23). EME 3. Upper Sajur/Carchemish
Large wheel-made bowl (shape class E) with sinuous – or even slightly carinated – upper body and flaring rim
ending up in a lightly thickened round lip. Three hand-made solid hoof-shaped feet are attached below the base.
It is made in Euphrates Banded Ware in a highly fired, very fine-textured fabric tempered with sand and calcite;
externally it is usually finished with a fine horizontal burnishing.
It is attested in burial contexts of the area around Carchemish in Period EME 3 (Pl. 32).
55) Stemmed hemispherical bowl with thickened rim (Pl. 10: 1-2). EME 3-(4). Carchemish/Lower Tishrin
Large hemispherical bowl (shape class E) with direct distinct thickened rim that lightly protrudes to the exte-
rior and/or interior. The bowl, closely recalling that of types 44-45 (depending on its depth), was thrown sepa-
rately from the stem and later assembled, with all joins carefully smoothed. The tubular stem, which appears in
short (<diameter), medium (=diameter) or long (>diameter) forms, is sometimes fenestrated or decorated with
lightly incised motifs, thus closely recalling earlier Period EME 2 prototypes. The base is expanded, trumpet-like,
and ends in a thickened modelled lip. It usually occurs in Simple Ware in a well-fired sand- and calcite-tempered
fabric. The bowl surface is usually wet-smoothed, while the stem may bear traces of vertical scraping.
This peculiar type is attested mainly during Period EME 3 in funerary/ritual contexts of the Carchemish and
Lower Tishrin areas, its southern limit being Banat (Pl. 32).
56) Carinated low-footed bowl with ledge rim (Pl. 10: 3). EME 3-4. Carchemish/Lower Tishrin/Tabqa/Lower ME
Large wheel-made bowl (shape class E) with corrugated straight sides tapering downwards, low sharp carina-
tion and everted ledge rim. A short hollow pedestal base ending in a modelled raised lip is attached to the bottom.
It occurs generally in highly fired, very fine-textured, sand- and calcite-tempered Euphrates Banded Ware, deco-
rated/finished with horizontal corrugations and sometimes painted bands.
This kind of vessel is typical of burial contexts in the ME from Gre Virike down to Bi’a, mainly in the late
Period EME 3 and in the following Period EME 4 (Pl. 32-33), but finds further attestations in the west, within
the Umm el-Marra graves.151
57) Carinated high stemmed bowl with ledge rim (Pl. 10: 4-7). EME 3. (Karababa)/Carchemish
Large wheel-made bowl with upturned out-folded rim marked below by a thick ribbed band emphasising
the carination. The stem is usually quite tall (=/>diameter) and cylindrical or slightly swelling, ending up in an
expanded base with thickened lip. This peculiar shape may be produced in both Simple and Euphrates Banded
Wares. In the “simple” undecorated version the rim is usually shorter and thicker.
Type 57 may be considered an evolution of the band-rim fruit-stand of Period EME 2 (see type 25); it occurs
in large quantities in Period EME 3 more or less in the same area of diffusion (i.e. Carchemish sector); its southern
limit is at Qara Quzaq (Pl. 32). It is also attested further west, up to Umm el-Marra.152
58) Low-footed jar with ledge rim (Pl. 11: 1-6). EME 3. Carchemish/(Tabqa/Balikh)
Wheel-made composite vessel or chalice made up of a squat jar (similar to type 36, shape class P) on a pedestal
base. The vessel body is often wide-bellied, with an expanded shoulder that strongly tapers towards the base, a
short cylindrical neck and a wide mouth with everted ledge rim, either simple or slightly thickened. The base is a
short conical foot, although, rarely, high-stemmed examples also occur (Pl. 11: 6). It is made in Simple Ware or in
a very fine-textured Euphrates Banded Ware.
This type is mainly attested in the area around Carchemish, where it continues a long-lived tradition going
back to Period EME 2 (see type 36).153 It occurs mainly in funerary contexts, where it is often associated with the
151
Cf. Tomb 3, Umm el-Marra Period V (Schwartz et al. 2006: fig. 10: 16).
152
Umm el-Marra Period VI, Tomb 5 (Schwartz et al. 2006: fig. 5: 1).
153
In this instance, as said, the neck is longer and clearly distinct from the shoulder and the rim is strongly ledged. A single
specimen is reported from a grave of Tawi on the Tabqa basin (Kampschulte & Orthmann 1984: grave T66, pl. 32:b1). A short-
necked version is attested at Bi’a (pl. 11: 5).
122
Ceramics
truncated conical goblets (type 52), together with which it may have performed as a kind of drinking set.154 Type
58 will further develop in the following Period EME 4 into type 96 (see below).
59) Tripod carinated jar with flaring rim (Pl. 11: 7-8). EME 3. Upper Sajur/Carchemish/Lower Tishrin
Medium-sized wide-mouthed jar (shape class P) with a globular body marked by a high carination, convex bot-
tom, concave neck and flaring rim that is distinct and slightly thickened. More rarely the neck is straight-sided and
tapering down, with a tiny protruding lip. Three short peg-like feet, either tubular or solid/plastic, are attached to
the base. This type usually occurs in a soft, medium-fired and fine-textured Plain Simple Ware. All the reported
examples display similar potmarks on the shoulder.
Its area of diffusion stretches from the Upper Sajur valley (Tilbeshar and Oylum) down to Banat and seems
to be limited to burial contexts of Period EME 3. Another example, again with a potmark on the shoulder, was
retrieved from a grave of Umm el-Marra, in the Jabbul plain.155
60) Small biconical jar/closed pot with out-turned, almost horizontal rim (Pl. 12: 1-8). EME 3.
Carchemish/(Balikh)
Small wheel-made squat jar/closed pot (shape classes P, N), biconvex, with a pronounced round carination,
round or pointed base and everted, almost horizontal/ledge rim. The latter can be either simple or slightly thick-
ened and distinct. The jar occurs in a fine and a medium/fine mineral-tempered Simple Ware (Pl. 12: 5); in a hard,
highly fired, dark grey “Euphrates Metallic Ware” (Pl. 12: 1-4); and even in Euphrates Banded Ware (Pl. 12: 7-8).
It is often attested in funerary contexts of the Carchemish sector, but its area of diffusion also reaches the Balikh
confluence at Bi’a (Pl. 32). Similar examples are known in Periods EJZ 2-3a. Cf. ARCANE JZPRT type 43.156
61) Small spherical closed pot with round bottom and flaring rim (Pl. 12: 9-10; 18: 3-4). EME 3-4. ME
Small wheel-made closed pot (shape class N) of spherical shape, very thin-walled with a round base and an
everted simple or slightly thickened rim. It occurs in different sizes, from small (almost miniature) to rather large,
generally in Euphrates Banded Ware; in Period EME 3 it is attested only in the red/orange version, but a black or
grey variety is introduced and becomes popular in Period EME 4 (Pl. 18: 3-4, Pl. 32-33).
The general vessel shape recalls similar true “Metallic Ware”, “Jezirah Grey Ware” and “Stone Ware” examples
attested in the western and central JZ in Periods EJZ 3a-b, 4. Cf. ARCANE JZPRT 59.157 A few similar examples
occur also towards the west, in the Jabbul plain.158
62) Medium-sized jar with globular body and everted, ledge rim (Pl. 12: 11-13). EME 3-4. Carchemish/Lower
Tishrin/Tabqa/Lower ME
Small to medium-sized wheel-made wide-necked jar (shape class P) with globular body, cylindrical neck and
often corrugated and everted ledge rim, either simple or slightly thickened on the exterior. A peculiar feature is a
tiny ring base which often becomes non-functional/unstable owing to a protruding boss. It occurs in Euphrates
Banded Ware that is usually further decorated by a series of 3-5 concentric red painted bands on the shoulder and
the neck. It is a hallmark of Periods EME 3 and 4 in the whole ME valley (Pl. 32-33). As in the case of the previous
type, further examples are reported in the graves at Umm el-Marra, in the Jabbul plain.159
63) Wide-necked closed pot with round convex bottom and flaring rim (Pl. 12: 14-16; 14: 6-10). EME 3-(4).
Syrian ME
Wide-necked round-bottomed closed pot (shape class N). The body may range from globular to slightly elon-
gated/ovoid or sack-like in shape, with a continuous shoulder-neck profile and flaring rim, either simple, with
roundish or tapering lip or slightly thickened. It is produced in various sizes, from miniature to large, but the over-
all shape remains the same. It occurs in Simple Ware, the fabric being usually medium-textured, sand-tempered
and light-coloured; the surface is left untreated or slipped.
It is a rather common though not particularly distinctive type that occurs in numerous morphological varia-
tions but mostly of the ovoid shape in the area of the Syrian side of the Big Bend (Pl. 32).
Similar types occur in other periods as well, so that its value as a chronological marker is rather limited.
154
Sconzo 2007b.
155
156
Rova 2011: 70, pl. 6: 5-6.
157
Rova 2011: 72, pl. 9: 2-7; 15: 5-7.
158
Cf. Tomb 5, Umm el-Marra Period VI (Schwartz et al. 2006: fig. 5: 2).
159
Cf. Tomb 3, Umm el-Marra Period V (Schwartz et al. 2006: fig. 11: 8-9).
123
P. Sconzo
64) Spouted pot/tea-pot (Pl. 12: 17). EME 3. Syrian ME

Wide-necked round-bottomed closed pot (shape class N) closely recalling type 63, but characterised by a
hand-made tubular spout attached diagonally on the shoulder. It is attested in a medium-textured, fine sand-
tempered Simple Ware; the surface is left untreated or slipped.
It is quite common, particularly in burial contexts from the Syrian Big Bend down to the confluence of the
Balikh (Bi’a) and even further south to the Abu Hamad cemetery (Pl. 32). It has affinities with ARCANE JZPRT
62 (EJZ 3).160
65) Miniature jar with round base (Pl. 12: 18-19). EME 3. Syrian ME
Miniature round-bottomed jar (shape class P) with globular body, short/atrophic narrow concave neck and
everted simple rim. The fabric is medium-textured and mineral-tempered; the surface is left untreated or slipped.
Type 65 is quite common, particularly in burial contexts in the area of the Syrian ME down to the Abu Hamad
cemetery (Pl. 32).
66) Ovoid jar with rounded base (Pl. 12: 20). EME 3-5. Carchemish(?)/Lower Tishrin/Tabqa/Lower ME
Wheel-made round-based jar (shape class P) with elongated body, fairly long concave neck undistinguished
from the shoulder and flaring simple rim. It occurs in Simple Ware, the fabric being usually medium-textured and
the surface untreated or slipped.
It is quite a common type in the area of the Syrian Big Bend, especially from Banat southwards, where it is first
attested in Period EME 3, continuing into Period EME 5 (Pl. 32-34).
67) Two-handled bottle with restricted neck, round base and everted rim (Pl. 13: 1; 21: 1; 24: 3-4). EME 3-5.
Tishrin/Tabqa/Balikh
Wheel-made bottle (shape class T) with round or ovoid body, round bottom, very narrow and short concave
neck and everted simple or slightly thickened rim. Two loop handles are attached on the shoulder and neck. Both
small and medium-sized specimens are attested. It occurs usually in Plain Simple Ware.
This type has a prevailingly southern distribution within the ME. It first occurs in Period EME 3 (Pl. 13: 1;
32) and becomes more common and widespread in the following Period EME 4, where it is mainly attested in the
Banat, Tabqa and Balikh areas (Pl. 21: 1; 33), although an example is further reported from the Ahmar Hypogeum,
in the upper Tishrin area. It continues to be in use also in the following Period EME 5 (Pl. 24: 3-4; 34).
It has affinities with a similar type attested in Period EJZ 4 (ARCANE JZPRT 100).161
68) Hand-made closed pot (Pl. 13: 2-5). EME 3. ME

Hand-made closed pot (shape class N) with globular or slightly elongated body and everted simple or thick-
ened rim. It occurs in both miniature (Pl. 13: 2) and medium-size (Pl. 13: 3-5) formats. The fabric is medium-
textured and mineral-tempered; the surface is left untreated or slipped.
It is evenly diffused along the whole ME (Pl. 32).
69) Globular closed pot with round bottom and flanged rim (Pl. 13: 6-7). EME 3-(4). Lower Tishrin/Tabqa/
Lower ME
Wheel-made, round-bottomed closed pot (shape class N) with globular body, very short concave neck and
everted rim with rounded outer profile and interiorly flanged/marked by a deep indentation. The fabric is medium-
textured and mineral-tempered; the surface is left untreated or slipped.
This type, which is quite common, is attested in the area of the Syrian Big Bend down to Abu Hamad cemetery
mainly in Period EME 3 or even a little later (Pl. 32).
70) Pot-stand with concave profile (Pl. 13: 8, 10, 12; 21: 2). EME 3-4. Lower Tishrin/Tabqa/Lower ME
Euphrates
Low pot-stand (shape class Z) with concave sides and out-turned, round or slightly modelled rim, in medium
or medium/fine mineral-tempered fabric. The body can be fenestrated (Pl. 13: 8), but usually is not. It is common
in the Tabqa basin and further south at the Balikh confluence (Pl. 32-33) and finds affinities with similar exam-
ples from west and central JZ during the whole Period EJZ 3. Cf. ARCANE EJZ type 74.162
160
Rova 2011: 72, pl. 9: 11-13.
161
Rova 2011: 77, pl. 16: 8-9.
162
Rova 2011: pl. 12: 7-8.
124
Ceramics
A unique piece of the stand type just discussed (Pl. 13: 12) bears an orange-red and black fugitive painted
decoration that closely recalls – and may belong to – the “Jezirah Bichrome Ware” usually found in burial con-
texts during a rather short phase from late Period EJZ 2 to early Period EJZ 3a in the central and western JZ.163
Cf. ARCANE JZPRT 45.164 Such a piece, coming from Bi’a, could be considered an import from that area.
71) Open pot with everted rim and “Karababa-style” painted decoration (Pl. 13: 9, 11; 20: 10; 23: 12).
EME 3-5 (6). Karababa
Hand-made open pot (shape class D) with rounded body, convex neck and a slightly everted, rounded distinct
rim. Fabric is mineral-tempered, gritty and slightly porous. A painted decoration is applied on the upper side of
the outer surface.
Its diffusion is limited to few sites of the Karababa basin (Pl. 32-34), where it seems to continue to be in use
down to the end of the millennium. The presence of sporadic fragments is reported from various other sites of the
region down to Bi’a. No evidence comes from primary contexts so far.
72) Wide-necked jar with flanged ledge rim (Pl. 14: 1-3). EME 3. Tabqa
Wheel-made jar (shape class P) with ovoid body, long cylindrical or slightly concave distinct neck and everted
ledge rim, rail-shaped on top. Owing to the complexity of the outer profile a number of small variations can be
noticed. It occurs in medium (diameter 15-16cm) and large (diameter 20-26cm) forms in a medium-textured,
sand-tempered fabric; the surface is either left untreated or slipped (Simple Ware).
It is mainly diffused in the Tabqa basin during Period EME 3 and even slightly later (Pl. 32).
73) Carinated narrow-necked pithos with flaring mouth (Pl. 14: 4-5). EME 3. Balikh confluence
Narrow-necked pithos (shape class S) with ovoid body, high rounded carination, round or flattened base and
flaring neck ending in an everted, slightly thickened rim. It occurs in Simple Ware, in a medium-textured fabric;
the surface is either left untreated or slipped.
It is characteristic of the lower Syrian ME during Period EME 3 (Pl. 32).
74) Ovoid closed pot with profiled rim (Pl. 14: 11). EME 3. Tabqa basin
Large closed pot (shape classes N) with ovoid body, round or flat base, short atrophic neck and everted rim,
distinct and thickened, marked by a groove on the upper side and sometimes also by an inner indentation. Apart
from a few small examples (rim diameter 11-16cm), it occurs on medium-sized jars and cooking pots (diameter
20-32cm) with straight or slightly rounded shoulder.
It finds its highest diffusion in the Tabqa district (Pl. 32).
75) Closed pot (cooking-pot) with round base and triangular lugs on the rim (Pl. 14: 12-13; 21: 11; 26: 4-5).
EME 3-5. ME
Hand-made round-bottomed closed pot (cooking-pot) (shape classes M-N) with globular/ovoid body and a
pair of triangular lugs attached to the rim. The latter can be inturned, rounded or thickened (hole-mouth variant)
or direct or everted, simple or thickened. The fabric is usually coarse or medium/coarse and quartz-tempered and
is generally oxidised with reduced core or fully reduced, with a hand-burnished surface that often bears fire traces.
This type is widespread all over the ME valley. It first occurs in Period EME 3, mainly in the Karababa and
Carchemish sector, and continues later (Periods EME 4-5), further extending towards the south as well (Pl. 32-34).
It has close affinities with Periods EJZ 3-4a ARCANE JZPRT 73.165
76) Miniature bowl with beaded rim (Pl. 15: 3-5). EME 4-5. Karababa/Upper Sajur/Carchemish
Miniature wheel-made bowl (shape class E) with curving sides and tiny upturned beaded rim. Minor vari-
ations can be noticed in the rendering of the base, which is usually flat but sometimes ranges from a slightly
concave profile to a kind of disc shape, marked by a protruding central apex. Two standard sizes can be distin-
guished: small (diameter 4.4cm, height 2.2cm) and large (diameter 5.6/5.8cm, height 2.3/2.4cm).166 The fabric is
163
On the “Jezirah Bichrome Ware”, see Rova 2000: 241, note 61; Lebeau 2003: 309-315. On painted stands, see Valentini 2003.
164
Rova 2011: 70, pl. 6: 12-14.
165
Rova 2011: 74, pl. 12: 4-6.
166
The possibility that these mini-bowls, which show a high degree of standardisation, were used as units of measure cannot be
ignored (Sconzo 2007a).
125
P. Sconzo
medium- to fine-textured and tempered with calcite and mica; the outer surface is wet-smoothed and sometimes
features a bichrome effect.
It is a very standardised form in terms of the consistency of its size. It is attested in the Turkish Euphrates and
in the Tishrin sector during both Periods EME 4 and 5 (Pl. 33-34). A function for these bowls within the funerary
sphere has been proposed.167
77) Shallow bowl with flattened base (Pl. 15: 6-7). EME 4. Upper Sajur/Carchemish/Balikh
Very shallow wheel-made bowl (shape class C) with almost straight walls, flat base and distinct rim. The latter
can be either drop-shaped or rounded. It is produced in Simple Ware.
It is not a very common type, being attested principally in Period EME 4, both in the Upper Sajur area and
along the lower Syrian ME (Pl. 33).
78) Shallow bowl with upturned simple rim (Pl. 15: 9-12; 22: 12). EME 4-6. ME
Small wheel-made bowl (shape classes C, E) with straight to slightly curving sides, ring or flat base and
upturned or incurved simple rim. It occurs usually in Plain Simple Ware, in a medium- to fine-textured fabric
tempered with sand, mica and calcite; inner and outer surfaces are usually wet-smoothed.
On chronological grounds this is not a particularly distinctive type, as it occurs from Period EME 4 to EME 6
in the whole ME (Pl. 33-35). Later specimens are often rather straight-sided and slightly carinated.
79) Hemispherical bowl with beaded rim (Pl. 15: 13-15). EME 4-(5). ME
Wheel-made hemispherical bowl (shape class E) with round or ring base and direct or slightly upturned dis-
tinct round-folded rim. It occurs usually in Plain Simple Ware, in a generally fine-textured fabric; inner and outer
surfaces are wet-smoothed.
It is distributed along the banks of the Syrian ME mainly during Period EME 4, but may also be later (Pl. 33).
80) Bowl with triangular rim and ring base (Pl. 15: 16-18). EME 4-5. Karababa/Carchemish/Lower Tishrin/
Tabqa
Wheel-made shallow or deep bowl (shape classes C-E) with straight or slightly curving sides, ring base and
direct or slightly upturned triangular rim. The latter can be upright or slightly inverted and is usually pointed
on the top. It occurs in a medium- or fine-textured sand-tempered fabric; inner and outer surfaces are usually
wet-smoothed.
It is a hallmark of both Periods EME 4 and 5 along the ME valley down to the Tabqa basin in both funerary
and domestic contexts, and may continue later (Pl. 33).
81) Bowl with beaded rim and ring base (Pl. 15: 19-21, 16: 5-10). EME 4-5. ME
Similar to previous types 78 and 80. Wheel-made shallow or deep bowl (shape classes C-E) with straight or
slightly curving sides, ring base and a beaded rim. The latter can be direct, upturned or inverted. Some minor vari-
ations are attested up to an almost banded, elongated variety (Pl. 16: 5); in another the rim is marked by a lower
groove (Pl. 16: 8-10). It may occur both in Plain Simple Ware and in a highly fired, very fine-textured Euphrates
Banded Ware.
It is not a distinctive type as it occurs in both Periods EME 4 and 5 (it may even start earlier) in both funerary
and domestic contexts along the ME valley (Pl. 33-34) and further to the west.168
82) Bowl with inverted modelled rim (Pl. 15: 22-23). EME 4-5. Carchemish/Lower Tishrin/Tabqa
Similar to the previous types. Wheel-made bowl (shape class E) with curving sides, ring base and upturned or
slightly inverted rim, marked by an exterior groove. It usually occurs in both Plain Simple and Euphrates Banded Ware.
It first appears in Period EME 4 and continues in the following Period EME 5 (Pl. 33-34) mainly in the core
of the ME.169
83) Shallow bowl with ledge rim (Pl. 16: 2-3). EME (3)-4. Carchemish/Tabqa
Wheel-made moderately shallow bowl (shape class C) with very thin walls, carination just below the rim, a
sometimes atrophic ring base and an everted, almost pendent, ledge rim, slightly beaked. It is usually produced in
167
Ökse 2006b: 17, fig. 25.
168
Cf., for example, Tomb 3, Umm el-Marra Period V (Schwartz et al. 2006: fig. 10: 4-5).
169
It corresponds to type 35 of the pottery type series identified in the Blaubeuren workshop: Finkbeiner 2006: chart 1, fig. 1.
126
Ceramics
Euphrates Banded Ware, in a highly fired, red-coloured, clinky fabric, and is decorated on the inside and outside
by an overall ring burnishing.
It is mainly attested in burial contexts of the Syrian ME, especially in the area around Carchemish, first in the
late Period EME 3 and more commonly in Period EME 4 (Pl. 33).
84) High-stemmed bowl with ledge rim (Pl. 16: 4). EME 4. Carchemish
Wheel-made high-stemmed carinated bowl with everted ledge rim, closely similar to type 83. The stem is usu-
ally quite tall and elongated, slightly swollen and tapered to a trumpet-like base with thickened/folded lip.
It occurs in Euphrates Banded Ware, either only burnished or burnished and painted, and can be interpreted
as a possible evolution of the fruit-stand of the previous phase (see type 57).
As the previous type, this is frequent in burial contexts in the area around Carchemish in late Period EME 3
and early Period EME 4 (Pl. 33).
85) Tripod hemispherical bowl with beaded rim (Pl. 16: 11-13). EME 4. Carchemish/Lower Tishrin/Tabqa
Wheel-made hemispherical thin-walled bowl (shape classes E) with inturned distinct rim. The latter can be
thickened, beaded (similar to type 82) or slightly modelled/profiled (Pl. 16: 13). Three tubular or solid feet with
expanded edges are attached to the round base. It occurs in a highly fired, clinky Euphrates Banded Ware with
overall ring burnishing.
It occurs in funerary contexts of the Syrian ME during Period EME 4 (Pl. 33). Its area of diffusion extends
further west, however, into the Jabbul plain.170
86) Bowl with round base and beaded rim (Pl. 17: 2-4). EME 4-(5). Lower Tishrin/Balikh
Small wheel-made fairly closed bowl (shape class E) with round or slightly pointed base, slightly incurved
upper walls and direct thickened/beaded rim. It is made in Plain Simple Ware, in a medium/fine sand- and
calcite-tempered fabric; the outer surface, which is wet-smoothed, is often marked by slight corrugations.
This type is quite common in the Syrian ME, especially from the Lower Tishrin southwards (Pl. 33), and finds
parallels in western/central JZ in Period EJZ 3a-(b). Cf. ARCANE JZPRT 49.171
87) Ovoid beaker with simple rim (Pl. 17: 5-7; 22: 15). EME 4-5(6). Syrian ME
Wheel-made ovoid beaker (shape class G) with slightly incurving walls, upright rim with round or thinned lip
and flat or ring base. It is made in a fine- or medium- to fine-textured Plain Simple Ware.
It is very common in domestic and ritual contexts of the Syrian ME, mainly in Period EME 4 but also later
(Pl. 33-34).
88) Ovoid beaker with upright tiny beaded rim (Pl. 17: 8-10; 22: 16-18). EME 4-5. Syrian ME
Wheel-made ovoid beaker (shape class G) with slightly curved walls and upturned tiny beaded rim. In Period
EME 4 specimens the base may be flat or – very rarely – round (mainly in the lower ME); in the succeeding
period bases are more often ring. This beaker is made in Plain Simple Ware, in a fine- or medium- to fine-textured
and mineral-tempered fabric.
It is very common in domestic and ritual contexts of the Syrian ME (Pl. 33).
89) Corrugated ovoid beaker with bead rim (Pl. 17: 11-12; 22: 19-21). EME 4-5. ME
Wheel-made ovoid beaker (shape class G) with softly inturned upper sides, usually slightly corrugated, and
direct or upturned beaded rim. The base is usually flat- or ring-shaped. Many varieties and variations exist in
general shape, rim stand, base, etc. It is made in highly fired Plain Simple Ware in a fine or medium/fine mineral-
tempered fabric. This shape is often dubbed as the “Hama Goblet”, from the site at which many examples were
first found.
It has a very wide distribution in Syria, from the Orontes and Qoueiq rivers to the Euphrates.172 One of the
main areas of distribution is the Big Bend of the Euphrates, where the goblet is never painted as in the west and
is frequently attested in domestic and ritual contexts in both Turkey and Syria, from Lidar down to the Tabqa
170
Cf., for example, Tomb 3, Umm el-Marra Period V (Schwartz et al. 2006: fig. 10: 8).
171
Rova 2011: pl. 7: 5-9.
172
Mazzoni 1985a; 1985b; Jamieson 1993: 52.
127
P. Sconzo
Dam area. It is first attested in Period EME 4, but continues to be in use in the following Period EME 5 (Pl. 33-34)
with a larger variety of rims (bevelled, thickened, etc.).173
90) Sugar-loaf beaker (Pl. 17: 13-17). EME 4. Carchemish/Tabqa and Lower ME(?)
Small wheel-made fully conical beaker (shape class G) with eggshell straight corrugated walls tapering to an
unfunctional pointed base often marked by a tiny cut at the bottom. The latter detail gives it the name of “sugar-
loaf ” beaker.174 The rim is direct and simple with round or tapering lip. It is clearly a further evolution of type
52. It is produced in a highly fired, clinky fabric with almost no visible inclusions in which the ring burnishing is
replaced by fine corrugations (Euphrates Banded Ware).
It is a hallmark of Period EME 4 in a wide area extending along the upper and middle course of the river
(Karababa and Carchemish), and is seldom attested from the Tabqa basin southwards and beyond (Pl. 33).
91) Truncated-conical beaker with flat base (Pl. 17: 18-19). EME 4-5. Tabqa/Balikh
Wheel-made very tall truncated-conical beaker (shape class G) with straight sides, flat or slightly concave base
and direct simple rim with a tapering lip. The fabric is fine- or medium- to fine-textured and mineral-tempered.
It is quite common in the Tabqa and Balikh sectors in both Periods EME 4 and 5 (Pl. 33-34) and finds affini-
ties in similar types of Period EJZ 4b-c. Cf. ARCANE JZPRT 84.175
92) Depas (Pl. 17: 23-24). EME 4-5. Karababa/Upper Sajur/Tabqa/Balikh

Two-handled beaker (shape class G). It has a flat or round base, an elongated, bell-shaped body, flaring rim
with tapering lip and two sturdy handles attached to the lower body just above the base. The overall shape slightly
varies from site to site. Along the Euphrates banks it is usually attested in a fine- or medium-textured, mineral-
tempered fabric; the outer surface is usually red-slipped and polished.
Type 92 is also known as depas amphikypellon (following Schliemann, who was keen on identifying his finds
with objects described in Homeric epics).176
In the ME – although widespread from the Karababa area down to the Balikh confluence in both Periods
EME 4 and 5 (Pl. 33-34) in both funerary and elite contexts (graves and palaces) – the type is very rare and should
be better considered as an import from central Anatolia.
93) Bell-shaped beaker with thickened rim and “Combed Wash” decoration (Pl. 17: 21-22). EME 4. Karababa/
(Tabqa)/Lower ME
Small wheel-made thin-walled beaker (shape class G) with slightly curved sides, tiny ring base and direct dis-
tinct slightly thickened rim. The fabric is medium- to fine-textured and mineral-tempered; the outer surface is
decorated with a layer of reddish-dark brown wash that is then partially removed by means of a multiple-toothed
tool, forming linear or wavy patterns, most often in a combination of both (“Combed Wash” technique).177
This type, although not common, is again diffused over a wide area extending from Kurban in the north to the
Abu Hamad cemetery in the south, mainly in Period EME 4 (Pl. 33).
94) Elongated beaker with vertical pierced lugs (Pl. 17: 20). EME 4. Upper Sajur/Carchemish/Tabqa
Wheel-made elongated ovoid or even biconical beaker (shape class G) with a ring base and a direct grooved
rim. Two vertical pierced lugs are attached directly to the rim. It occurs usually in a fine-textured and highly fired
Plain Simple Ware.
It is rather common in Period EME 4 domestic and ritual contexts in the core of the ME, from Tilbeshar
down to Selenkahiye.
95) Globular closed pot with pointed base and everted rim (Pl. 18: 1-2). EME 4. Carchemish/Lower Tishrin/
Tabqa/Lower ME
173
It corresponds to type 28 of the pottery type series identified in the Blaubeuren workshop: Finkbeiner 2006: chart 1,
figs 1, 5b.
174
Sconzo 2007: 254.
175
Rova 2011: 75, pl. 13: 6-9.
176
Çaliş Sazcı 2007: 146.
177
This is also known under the name of “Smeared Wash” – a kind of surface decoration of prevailingly west-Syrian distribution,
of which “Combed Wash” represents the eastern, probably slightly earlier variant. For a definition of “Combed Wash” and
“Smeared Wash” decorations, see Rova 1989: since the time of that contribution, the chronological range of both techniques
has been revised (Falb 2009, with further references; Rova 2014).
128
Ceramics
Wheel-made closed pot (shape class M) with a more or less squat globular body, pointed base, atrophic neck
and everted, slightly thickened rim.
It occurs usually in highly fired Euphrates Banded Ware and is attested in the Syrian ME, mainly in funerary
contexts of Period EME 4 (Pl. 33).
96) Low-footed closed pot/chalice with rounded rim (Pl. 18: 5-7). EME 4. Carchemish/Tabqa/(Balikh)
Wheel-made, composite vessel consisting of a closed pot (similar to types 36 and 58, shape classes P, M) with
a globular tapering body, cylindrical neck distinct from the shoulder, direct thickened, distinct rounded rim and
low pedestal base. It is usually made in Euphrates Banded Ware of the finest quality, in which the ring-burnishing
is often combined with concentric red bands (3-5 in number) painted on both shoulder and neck.
This type is mainly attested in the area around Carchemish, where it continues a long-lived tradition already
in place in Period EME 2 (see types 36 and 58), but is rare in the Tabqa and lower ME (Pl. 33). It occurs mainly in
funerary contexts, where it is often associated with sugar-loaf beakers (type 90), together with which it may have
performed as a kind of drinking set.178 A few more pieces are reported outside the ME valley, in the Jabbul plain.179
97) Globular tripod closed pot with everted rim (Pl. 18: 8). EME 4. Carchemish
Wheel-made closed pot (shape class N), very similar to type 95, characterised by the presence of three tubular
feet with thickened lip attached to the vessel base. It occurs in highly fired Euphrates Banded Ware with overall
outer burnishing.
It is attested during Period EME 4 along the Syrian ME, mainly in the Carchemish sector (Pl. 33).
98) Squat closed pot (Pl. 18: 9-13). EME 4-(5). Karababa/Carchemish/Tabqa/Balikh

Wheel-made squat closed pot (shape class N) sometimes slightly carinated, with short neck (straight or
slightly convex), interiorly and exteriorly thickened rim and disc or ring base. Both small (almost miniature) and
medium-sized versions are attested, usually produced in a fine, highly fired black Euphrates Banded Ware. In a few
instances two vertical pierced lugs are attached on the shoulder (Pl. 18: 11, 13).
It is attested mostly in funerary contexts of Period EME 4 (possibly also later) of the Syrian ME, although a
few examples are also reported from the Titriş graves in the Karababa basin (Pl. 33).
99) Small narrow-necked jar/alabastron with everted rim and ogival base (Pl. 19: 1-4). EME 4. ME
Small wheel-made jar (shape class R) with thin-walled ovoid body, ogival base, restricted neck and everted rim.
The latter can be ledged, slightly thickened or folded. It is produced in the “red/orange” or – more rarely –the “black”
version of the Euphrates Banded Ware, the fabric being very clinky and highly fired and the outer surface marked by
horizontal burnishing. In some instances a series of horizontal painted bands is applied on the upper body.
In the literature this (and the following type) is often referred to as a Syrian bottle, and it is often connected to
the funerary sphere, where it is related to the preservation of oils and perfumes.
This kind of flask is a trans-regional type as it occurs in the NL, southern Anatolia and in the JZ (especially
Period EJZ 3b, but also later: cf. ARCANE EJZ type 66).180 An example was found at Ur.181 The core distribution
of type 99 remains, however, the ME, from Karababa(?) and the Upper Sajur valley to the Tabqa basin (Pl. 33), so
that a north Syrian origin has generally been proposed.182
100) Small narrow- necked jar/alabastron with piriform body, molded rim and ogival base (Pl. 19: 5-7).
EME 4-5. ME
Small wheel-made narrow-necked jar (shape class R) with thin-walled piriform body of a low maximum
diameter rounding to a slightly pointed base. The neck is very narrow, flaring out to a wider rim, often exter-
nally grooved and internally stepped. Type 100 is produced mainly in the black version of the Euphrates Banded
Ware183 and corresponds to the classical Syrian bottle.
178
Sconzo 2007b.
179
180
Rova 2011: 73, pl. 15: 14-15.
181
Grave PG 1273. See Kühne 1976: p. 69, pl. 42.7.
182
Rova 1991: 140; Sconzo 2014, type 2.
183
The only examples of the piriform shape so far known in orange Euphrates Banded Ware come from Shiyukh Tahtani. They
are all quite small, show a standard size and were part of an in situ inventory (ME10_005) found on the floor of a living (?) space
of Period X (Sconzo 2007a).
129
P. Sconzo
Its area of diffusion in the ME overlaps more or less with that of the previous type, although type 100 clearly
remains in use also in the following Period EME 5 (Pl. 33-34).
Again a trans-regional type, it is attested from coastal Syria to CA and WA to the JZ (in particular in Period
EJZ 4, but also later: cf. ARCANE JZPRT. 96).184
101) Small narrow-necked jar with thickened rim marked by internal indentation (Pl. 19: 8). EME (3)-4.
Karababa(?)/Upper Sajur/Carchemish/Lower Tishrin/Tabqa/Balikh
This type continues the series of alabastra (shape class R), but differs from the previous ones because of the
larger, rather globular body, a narrow flat or lightly convex base and a wider funnel-shaped mouth/neck. It occurs
usually in the orange version of the Euphrates Banded Ware, sometimes with painted band on the shoulder.
As with the previous types, it is diffused along the ME down to Bi’a. Evidence for a possible earlier dating
(Period EME 3) should be also considered (Sweyhat T1, Banat T1, Bi’a Burial buildings).
102) Small jar with wide cylindrical neck and everted thickened rim (Pl. 19: 9-12; 20: 7). EME 4-5. ME
Wheel-made globular jar (shape class P) with ring base, cylindrical neck and everted thickened rim. It is quite
a simple type closely recalling type 62. It occurs in a highly fired Plain Simple Ware (Pl. 19: 11), in Euphrates
Banded Ware (Pl. 19: 9-10, 12) and in Combed Wash Ware (Pl. 20: 7).
It is diffused along the course of the ME mainly in Period EME 4 but possibly also later and is attested in both
funerary and living contexts. Major concentrations in the core of the region between the Carchemish and Tabqa
basins is to be stressed (Pl. 33-34). Further examples are reported outside the river valley towards the west, at least
up to the Jabbul plain.185
103) Small jar with cylindrical neck and everted modelled rim (Pl. 19: 13-16). EME 4-5. ME
Wheel-made globular jar (shape class P) with ring base, narrow neck flaring out to a flaring, thickened rim
marked by a central exterior groove and in some cases also stepped inside. Type 103 occurs in both a highly fired
Plain Simple Ware and in Euphrates Banded Ware.
Duration and area of diffusion overlap with those of type 102. A major concentration exists in the core of
the region between Carchemish and Tabqa basins, where the type occurs in both living and funerary contexts
(Pl. 33-34). As with the previous type, the area of diffusion extends outside the river valley, towards the west, as
testified by the findings from Umm el-Marra.186
104) Small jar with cylindrical neck and vertical grooved rim (Pl. 19: 17-20). EME 4-5. ME
Wheel-made globular jar (shape class P) with ring base, quite high cylindrical neck and upright rim stepped
inside and marked outside by a double or triple groove. It occurs in both a well-fired Plain Simple Ware and in
Euphrates Banded Ware.
As with the previous types, it is diffused in the ME mainly during Periods EME 4 and 5 in both funerary and
living contexts (Pl. 33-34).187
105) Trefoil-mouth jug with spherical body and moulded rim (Pl. 20: 3-4). EME 4-5. Upper Sajur/
Carchemish/Lower Tishrin/Tabqa/Lower ME
Wheel-made jug (shape class K) with globular body sometimes slightly carinated in the middle, ring base,
narrow tapering neck and wide trefoil mouth, grooved on the exterior, sometimes also stepped inside. The overall
shape recalls that of type 103. A vertical handle is on the shoulder and neck. It occurs in both a highly fired Plain
Simple Ware and in Euphrates Banded Ware.
It is characteristic of funerary contexts of both Periods EME 4 and 5 of the Upper Sajur and of the Syrian side
of the Euphrates valley down to Terqa (not reported so far along the Balikh or at Bi’a) (Pl. 33-34).
106) Small spouted jar with spherical body and everted modelled rim (Pl. 20: 5-6). EME 4. Karababa/Upper
Sajur/Carchemish/Lower Tishrin/Tabqa
184
Rova 2011: pl. 15: 18-19. For a wide discussion about the area of distribution of such finds, see Schachner & Schachner
1995; Sconzo 2014, type 3.
185
Cf. Tomb 3, Umm el-Marra Period V (Schwartz et al. 2006: fig. 10: 15, 19) and Tomb 4 – lower level (Schwartz et al. 2006:
fig. 16: 1-2).
186
Cf. Tomb 4 – upper level (Schwartz et al. 2006: fig. 21: 6-7).
187
figs 1, 5a.
130
Ceramics
Wheel-made jar (shape class P) with globular body, ring base and modelled rim. The overall shape recalls that
of type 103, except for the presence of a long diagonal spout attached to the shoulder. The spout, usually hand-
made, may be fully cylindrical or with expanded extremities. A handled version (shape class K) is also attested. It
occurs in both a highly fired Plain Simple Ware and in Euphrates Banded Ware.
It is attested mainly in the Syrian ME, although a few examples are also recorded from Titriş in the Karababa
basin (Pl. 33-34).
107) Tall trefoil-mouth jug with painted decoration (Pl. 20: 8-9). EME 4. Tabqa/Balikh
Wheel-made jug (shape class K) with elongated oval body, large flat base (with sharp corner points), narrow
distinct neck and flaring trefoil mouth with plain lip. A vertical handle is attached from the neck to the shoulder.
It occurs in a medium-fired, sand-tempered fabric. The painted decoration consists of concentric lines applied on
neck and body and more complex geometric designs (net pattern, vertical thick wavy lines) limited to the body.
Both form and decoration are uncommon in the ME, where they occur exclusively in the Tabqa and Balikh
(Bi’a) sector in Period EME 4 (Pl. 33). They are, instead, quite widespread in western Syria at sites such as Ebla
(Palace G)188 and Hama and in the Amuq as well, so that the few ME examples can be interpreted as imports from
that area.189
108) Small long-necked jar with round base (Pl. 20: 1-2). EME 4-(5). Balikh confluence/Lower ME
Small wheel-made jar (shape class P) with elongated oval body, roundish base and long narrow neck, slightly
flaring, ending up in a thickened rim. It occurs in fine-textured Simple Ware.
Type 108 is mainly diffused in the lower stretch of the river in Period EME 4 and may be even slightly later
(Pl. 33). It finds close parallels in west and central JZ, Periods EJZ 3b-4. Cf. ARCANE JZPRT 65.190
109) Hand-made platter (Pl. 15: 1-2). EME 4. Tabqa/Balikh/Lower ME

Large hand-made thick-walled (2cm) bowl/platter (shape class D) that is circular or slightly oval in shape,
with upright or slightly flaring straight walls, flat base with protruding edges and direct simple rim. It is made in
a coarse, low-fired, chaff-tempered ware.
Attested along the Syrian ME, mainly from the Tabqa basin southwards, it attests to a short-term revival of
hand-made chaff-tempered wares along the river (Pl. 33).
110) Closed pot with ovoid body, inverted beaded rim (Pl. 21: 5-6; 24: 11-12). EME 4-5. ME
Wheel-made hole-mouth pot (shape class N) with ovoid body, roundish or ring base and incurved beaded
rim. Although the general outline is quite standard, small variations can be observed: the rim can be more or less
inturned, thickened or even grooved (mainly in the Karababa basin), while the upper wall profile ranges from
almost vertical (“beaker-like” appearance) to a strongly inverted stance. In some cases a pair of horizontal ledge
handles or triangular lugs are applied just below the rim, while some other specimens are provided with a spout
applied diagonally on the shoulder.
It is strictly related to type 46, common in Period EME 3. As shown by its wide diffusion (from the Karababa
down to the Balikh confluence) and the simple form, type 110 was produced in different wares: Plain Simple Ware
(Pl. 24: 11-12), Horizontal Reserved Slip (in both the Karababa and Tabqa basins, Pl. 21: 6) and Painted/Combed
Washed Wares (Pl. 21: 5) more typical of the northern stretch of the valley. Although it has not yet been retrieved
in sealed contexts, it seems first to appear in Period EME 4, becoming common and widespread in Period EME 5
(Pl. 33-34).
111) Wide-mouthed pot with multiple-ribbed rim (Pl. 21: 7-8; 25: 7). EME 4-6. Karababa/Carchemish/
Tabqa/Balikh
Wheel-made jar (shape class P) with ovoid body, flat or ring-shaped base, very short, indistinct neck and
multiple-ribbed rim. It is usually produced in a medium-textured Plain Simple Ware, although in the Karababa
basin a few examples are provided with a Reserved Slip decoration. In some instances very simple incised or excised
notches are applied pre-firing on the upper side/top of the rim.
Type 111 occurs in the whole ME as well as in the Balikh. Since, as with the previous type, it has not been
found in a closed or primary context, it remains to be seen whether its diffusion is limited to Period EME 4 or
continues in later phases (Pl. 33-34).
188
Mazzoni 1985a: fig. 3: 1, 3.
189
See also Rova 1991: 143-144.
190
Rova 2011: 73, pl. 10: 1-3; 15: 11-13.
131
P. Sconzo
112) Wide necked jar/pithos with ovoid body and rolled rim (Pl. 21: 3-4; 25: 1-4). EME 4-5. Carchemish/
Lower Tishrin/Tabqa/Lower ME
Neckless, wide-necked jar or pithos (shape classes P, S) with ovoid body, flattened or ring-shaped base and
rolled rim. Although the overall vessel form remains more or less the same small variations can be observed in the
rendering of the rim, which can be upright, rolled or slightly elongated in cross section. It occurs in a “jar” size
(height <70cm) as well as in a large “pithos” size (height >70cm). This type is usually manufactured with a mixed
technique, the rim on the wheel, the body by coils. It occurs either in Simple or in Euphrates Banded Ware (earlier
examples). In the Tabqa basin, moreover, this vessel shape is very commonly associated with an overall horizontal
reserved-slip decoration and the use of a limited repertoire of potmarks applied in a pre-firing stage on the vessel
shoulder (Pl. 25: 1-4).
If the Euphrates Banded Ware examples are usually of reduced dimensions and provided with a ring base,
the Reserved Slip Ware specimens are large and pithos-like with a round or flattened base, sometimes with
central hole.
Type 112 is diffused in the core area of the ME, from the Carchemish to the Tabqa basin, although rare
examples also occur at Terqa. It first appears in Period EME 4 and becomes very common in Period EME 5, when
many examples are found in situ in primary contexts of the Tabqa basin (Emar, Sweyhat, etc., Pl. 33-34). Similar
examples occur also to the west, as demonstated by a series of sealed jars from Palace G at Ebla.191
113) Oval pithos with flaring rim (Pl. 21: 9-10). EME 4. Balikh confluence
Large pithos (shape class S) with ovoid body, round base and long, bent, slightly tapering rim ending up in a
round lip. The shoulder (and sometimes most of the overall body) is fully marked by fine horizontal corrugations
(Pl. 21: 9) or even covered by a chessboard ribbing (Pl. 21: 10).
Type 113 remains quite rare along the ME, being attested only in the southern stretch of the valley (Bi’a and
Terqa, Pl. 33). The presence of a large number of very similar specimens in inner Syria, in Palace G at Ebla at
first,192 may suggest that, instead of being locally produced, the Euphrates examples are imports from that area.
A somewhat similar vessel shape and decoration seems to be attested also to the east in a slightly later period
(EJZ 4c, cf. ARCANE JZPRT 108).193
114) Closed pot (cooking-pot) with rounded base and simple vertical rim (Pl. 21: 12-13). EME (3)-4.
Carchemish/Lower Tishrin/Tabqa/Lower ME
Hand-made round-bottomed closed pot/cooking-pot (shape class N) with globular or oval body and verti-
cal neck ending up in a direct, simple rounded rim. It occurs in a coarse quartz-tempered fabric that is generally
oxidised with a reduced core or fully reduced, with a hand-burnished mottled surface that often bears fire traces.
It is a very common and characteristic type of the Syrian ME, from Carchemish down to Tabqa; it seldom
occurs on the Turkish side and is lacking along the Balikh. It is typical of Period EME 4, although it may have
been in use even earlier, in a more everted rim version (Pl. 33). Sometimes it is also retrieved in funerary contexts,
where it is used as an urn to contain simple interments of foeti and infants (as, for example, at Shiyukh Tahtani).
115) Bowl with upturned band rim (Pl. 22: 1-2). EME (4)-5. ME
Small wheel-made bowl (shape classes C, E) with slightly curving sides, ring base and upturned rim that is con-
cave outside and ends up in a tapering lip. It occurs usually in Plain Simple Ware in a fine-textured fabric tempered
with sand, mica and calcite; the outer surface is usually wet-smoothed.
It is quite well diffused throughout the whole ME in Period EME 5, although an earlier origin cannot be
excluded (Pl. 34).
116) Bowl with vertical grooved rim (Pl. 22: 3-6). EME (4)-5. ME
Small wheel-made carinated bowl (shape classes C, E) with ring or flat base and upturned or slightly inverted
rim marked by a series of exterior grooves. But for the multiple grooved rim, the overall shape can vary from a
strongly carinated, straight-sided version (Pl. 22: 3) to a curved sided one (Pl. 22: 4-5). It occurs usually in a very
fine Plain Simple Ware, highly fired and fine-tempered, which occasionally can be even confused with Euphrates
Banded Ware owing to the high-quality, “clinky” nature of the fabric.
191
Mazzoni 1985a: fig. 5: 1-2.
192
Mazzoni 1985a: fig. 5: 9.
193
Rova 2011: 78, pl. 20: 5.
132
Ceramics
Type 116 is among the most widespread shapes of the ME, occuring from the Karababa basin down to the
Balikh confluence. It is mainly attested in Period EME 5, although an earlier origin in the Carchemish and upper
Sajur areas is highly possible (Pl. 34).194
117) Bowl with inverted, ribbon-like rim (Pl. 22: 10-11). EME (4)-5. Karababa/Upper Sajur/Carchemish/
Lower Tishrin/Tabqa
Small wheel-made bowl (shape classes C, E) with curving sides, ring base and inverted ribbon-like rim. It
occurs usually in Plain Simple Ware, the fabric being medium- to fine-textured and tempered with sand, mica and
calcite; the outer surface is usually wet-smoothed.
Type 117 is strictly related to type 82 for overall shape and size; it is widely diffused on the Syrian side of the
ME, mainly in Period EME 5, although, again, an earlier origin in late Period EME 4 cannot be excluded (Pl. 34).
118) Bowl with upright bevelled rim (Pl. 22: 7-9). EME 5. ME

Small wheel-made bowl (shape class E) with almost straight and quite thick sides, ring or flat base and upright
bevelled rim. A miniature version (Pl. 22: 7-8) is also attested. It occurs usually in Plain Simple Ware, and is dif-
fused along the Syrian side of the ME, mainly in Period EME 5 (Pl. 34).
119) Conical strainer (Pl. 22: 13-14). EME (4)-5. Tabqa/Balikh/Lower ME

Small wheel-made bowl (shape classes C, E) with straight or slightly curved walls, almost pointed base and
inverted rim that is triangular in cross section and bent at a right angle. The overall shape recalls that of type 78,
apart from the base, which is usually more pointed. The bowl is, however, characterised by the presence of a num-
ber of irregular pierced holes from below the rim down to the base, which allow identification as a “sieve/strainer”.
It occurs usually in a highly fired and fine-tempered Plain Simple Ware and is mainly attested in Period
EME 5. An earlier origin (Period EME 4 at least) in the Lower ME (Pl. 34) is possible, however.
120) Carinated open pot with collared rim (Pl. 23: 1-4). EME 5. ME
Wheel-made open pot (shape class H) with carinated curved sides, ring base and collared rim, usually marked
by an inner concavity. The rim can be slightly everted, upturned or even slightly inverted. It occurs in various sizes,
from miniature to large (rim diameter >20cm), usually in a very fine Plain Simple Ware.
Type 120 is among the most widespread vessels of the ME, occurring from the Karababa basin down to Terqa.
It is mainly attested in Period EME 5, although in the Carchemish and upper Sajur areas its production may have
started earlier (Pl. 34). In the following Period EME 6 it evolves into type 134.
121) Carinated open pot with vertical grooved rim (Pl. 23: 5-10; 29: 2-3). EME 5-6. ME
Wheel-made open pot (shape class H) with curved sides, ring or flat base and band rim marked by a series
of exterior grooves. The rim can be either slightly everted, upturned or even slightly inverted, or band-like,
concave on the inner side or slightly thickened. The pot can occur in various sizes, from miniature to large (rim
diameter >30-35cm). In the Tabqa basin a low-stemmed version (rarer) is also attested.
Type 121 occurs usually in a fine-textured Plain Simple Ware. As with the previous type, it is a diagnostic type
of Period EME 5 along the whole ME and even southward,195 but continues to be largely in use in the following
Period EME 6 (Pl. 34-35). The later examples are usually slightly carinated in the middle and provided with a very
thin band rim, with no interior concavity and a flat base (Pl. 29: 2-3).
122) Closed pot with slightly flaring modelled rim and flat base (Pl. 23: 11). EME 5. Lower Middle Euphrates
Wheel-made closed pot (shape class N) with ovoid body, flat base, atrophic neck and flaring thickened rim
marked by an exterior groove. It occurs usually in a very fine highly fired and fine-tempered Plain Simple Ware.
It is diffused during Period EME 5 mainly in the Syrian ME (Pl. 34).
123) Small jug with “Smeared Wash” decoration (Pl. 24: 1). EME 5. Tabqa
Hand-made jug (shape class P) with oval body, large flat base, cylindrical neck, everted thickened rim and a
vertical handle attached from the shoulder to the rim. A coat of brownish wash is applied on the body and then
smeared off thinly in wide horizontal straight and wavy bands.
194
figs 1, 4c.
195
It is diagnostic of the Shakkanakku period at Mari, too (Pons 1999: fig. 10: 3-5).
133
P. Sconzo
It is quite a rare type and important for inter-regional (western) relations; however, its real distribution on the
Euphrates remains difficult to determine so far, as at most sites only body sherds not directly ascribable to any
given type are attested. For the ME specimens a foreign provenance from west Syria is not to be excluded.
124) Restricted-neck jar with everted rim (Pl. 24: 2, 5-8; 29: 8). EME 5-6. Lower Tishrin/Tabqa/Balikh
Wheel-made jar (shape class R) with globular or ovoid body, round base, cylindrical or slightly concave neck
and everted simple or thickened rim. Small (Pl. 24: 2) and quite large (Pl. 24: 5-8) versions are attested. Some
examples have a light carination below the shoulder. It occurs in Plain Simple Ware with a wet-smoothed outer
surface. It finds its highest diffusion in the lower part of the ME, from the Banat area down to the Balikh conflu-
ence in Periods EME 5-6 (Pl. 34).196
125) Short-necked jar with ovoid body, upturned collared rim marked by exterior groove (Pl. 24: 9-10).
EME (4)-5. Karababa/Upper Sajur/Carchemish/Tabqa
Wheel-made almost neckless jar (shape class R) with ovoid body, rounded upper carination, narrow ring base
and upturned collared rim marked by an exterior groove. It occurs usually in a highly fired Euphrates Banded
Ware; the outer surface is generally marked by ring burnishing. Most examples bear a small pre-firing potmark
incised on the shoulder at the point of attachment with the rim usually in the form of double or triple vertical
strokes.
Type 125 is diffused in the core area of the ME, from the Carchemish to the Tabqa basin. It is widely attested
in living and burial contexts of Period EME 5, although an earlier origin cannot be rejected. Very few examples
have been found in primary contexts and none is included in the ADB.
126) Carinated jar with modelled rim (Pl. 24: 13). EME 5. Carchemish/Tabqa
Large wide-mouthed jar (shape class R) with high carination, flattened or round base (sometimes pierced in
the middle), very short indistinct neck and direct rim. The latter can be either thickened and modelled/profiled or
triangular in cross section. It occurs in Plain Simple Ware; the outer surface is usually wet-smoothed.
It finds its highest diffusion in Period EME 5 in the core of the ME, from Qara Quzaq down to Tabqa (Pl. 34).
127) Pot-stand with concave profile and vertical grooved lip (Pl. 24: 15-16; 29: 12). EME 5-6. ME
Pot-stand (shape class Z) with slightly concave sides and out-turned, moulded rim. It occurs in various sizes up
to 20-25cm in diameter. It is generally made in a medium-textured Plain Simple Ware.
It mainly differs from the earlier type 70 by its outer moulded rim and is widely diffused along the ME valley
from Period EME 5 onwards (Pl. 34-35).
128) Neckless jar/pithos with slightly inverted thickened rim (Pl. 25: 5-6). EME 5. Lower Tishrin/
Tabqa/Balikh
Wheel-made neckless jar/pithos (shape classes P, S) with ovoid body softly inflected on the lower half, convex
shoulder, round base (sometimes pierced in the middle) and upright thickened rolled rim, often making an inner
corner point. It is usually made using a combined technique, the rim on the wheel and the body by coiling, and
is attested in Plain Simple or Horizontal Reserved Slip Ware classes. It is a hallmark of Period EME 5 in the ME
core area, from Banat down to Bi’a (Pl. 34).
129) Neckless pithos with upright grooved rim and relief rope pattern (Pl. 26: 1). EME 5-6. Tabqa/Balikh
Neckless pithos (shape class S) with elongated ovoid body, rounded base (sometimes pierced at centre)
and upright rim marked by exterior multiple grooves. The shoulder is delimited by a relief band with diagonal
impressed slashes forming a rope pattern.
Type 129 is widespread in the lower ME, from the Tabqa basin down to Bi’a. It begins in Period EME 5 and
continues in use in the following Period EME 6 (Pl. 34-35).
130) Hole-mouth pithos with hammer-head rim and relief bands (Pl. 26: 2-3). EME 5-6. Tabqa/Balikh
Thick-walled hole-mouth pithos (shape class S) of spherical or oval shape, with rounded base and inverted
heavy hammer-head rim. The upper body is usually decorated with a series of relief rope-like bands with diagonal
impressed slashes.
196
figs 1, 4a.
134
Ceramics
Type 130 is widespread in the lower ME, from the Tabqa to Bi’a: it begins in Period EME 5 and continues in
use in the following Period EME 6 (Pl. 34-35). Similar relief bands or other impressed patterns are also common
in the whole JZ during the late 3rd millennium. Cf. ARCANE JZPRT 115 (only decoration).197
131) Large hand-made plate with ledge handles (Pl. 26: 6). EME 5. Tabqa
Large circular thin-walled hand-made plate (shape class D) with lightly convex base and direct folded rim,
below which is applied a pair of pendent ledge handles. It is made in a low-fired, gritty and chaff-tempered
Cooking-Pot Ware; the interior is usually hand-polished.
It is attested in the Syrian ME, mainly from the Tabqa basin downstream in Period EME 5 (Pl. 34).
132) Hand-made round plate/tray with pitted underside/bottom (Pl. 27: 1-3). EME 5. Carchemish/Tabqa/
Balikh/Lower ME
Large, circular hand-made plate/tray (shape class D), thick-walled (2cm), flattened base. The upturned rim is
flanged and ends in a thinned-out concave or flat-topped lip. In one instance four roundish projections or ledge-
handles are attached to the bottom, also suggesting a function as a lid. It is made in a low-fired, gritty chaff-
tempered Cooking-Pot Ware; the interior is usually burnished, while the outer bottom is heavily pitted in regular
impressed rows.
It is attested from the Carchemish sector southwards, where it attests to the short-term revival of hand-made
wares along the river (Pl. 34).
133) Closed pot with globular body, inverted beaded rim and applied zoomorphic decoration (Pl. 27: 5-7).
EME 5. Lower Tishrin/Tabqa
Wheel-made hole-mouth pot (shape class N) with spherical body, round base, inturned convex shoulder and
ledge or beaded rim. The overall shape is closely similar to that of type 110, except for a squatter appearance in
profile. The pot is characterised, moreover, by the presence of a diagonal spout attached on the shoulder flanked
by an applied zoomorphic representation in relief consisting of two antithetic wild beasts with face in full frontal
view and of a third central figure (bird, quadruped).
This type is a hallmark of Period EME 5 in an area that encompasses the lower Tishrin, Tabqa and the Balikh
confluence sectors (Pl. 34). Relief theriomorphic decoration (snakes and scorpions) on the rim, neck and upper
body of different types of vessels are also present in the whole JZ in the late Akkadian and post-Akkadian phases,
and may continue until the end of the 3rd millennium. Cf. ARCANE JZPRT (decoration) 111.198
134) Carinated beaker with everted rim (Pl. 28: 1-2). EME 6. ME

Wheel-made beaker/open pot (shape classes G, H) with rounded carination, curved sides, flat or disc base and
off-set thinned simple rim. It can be considered as a sort of evolution of type 120 now that the rim is thinned out,
the inner concavity has disappeared and the base has become flat. It occurs usually in miniature to medium-sized
(rim diameter >15cm) specimens, generally in a fine-tempered Plain Simple Ware. It is quite well diffused in the
whole ME and beyond in Period EME 6, but continues also in the MB (Pl. 35).
135) Carinated bowl with sinuous profile and everted offset rim (Pl. 28: 3-4). EME 6. ME
Wheel-made bowl (shape class E) with sinuous profile, round carination and everted offset rim. Bases can be
flat or even low-footed. Somewhat similar to type 134, it occurs usually in a fine Plain Simple Ware.
It is again quite well known in the whole ME valley from Period EME 6 onward (Pl. 35), as well as in west Syria.
136) Carinated bowl with upright thinned rim (Pl. 28: 5-9). EME 6. Carchemish/Lower Tishrin/
Tabqa/Balikh
Small wheel-made bowl (shape class E) with mid-body rounded carination and straight upper walls ending in
a direct simple rim with a slightly thinned lip. Bases are usually disc-shaped or flat, although low-footed examples
occur as well (Pl. 28: 9). It is produced in Plain Simple Ware in a fine-textured fabric tempered with sand, mica
and calcite; the outer surface is usually wet-smoothed.
It is reported so far in Period EME 6 mainly from the Syrian ME (Pl. 35).
137) Carinated bowl with triangular rim (Pl. 28: 10-11). EME 6. Karababa/Lower Tishrin/Tabqa
197
Rova 2011: 78.
198
Rova 2011: 78.
135
P. Sconzo
Wheel-made bowl (shape class E) with flat base, straight or slightly incurved sides, triangular rim and sharp
carination just below the rim. It occurs usually in Plain Simple Ware, the fabric being medium- to fine-textured
and tempered with sand, mica and calcite; the outer surface is usually wet-smoothed.
It is attested in Period EME 6 in the Karababa, Lower Tishrin and Tabqa basins (Pl. 35).
138) Carinated bowl with inturned walls, rolled rim (Pl. 28: 12). EME 6. Lower Tishrin/Tabqa
Wheel-made deep hemispherical bowl (shape class E) with curved sides, round or flattish base, rolled rim
and high carination immediately below the rim. As with the previous type, it is produced in Simple Ware and is
attested in Period EME 6 in the Lower Tishrin and Tabqa basins (Pl. 35).
139) Bowl with curved sides and thickened rim (Pl. 28: 13). EME 6. Upper Sajur/Carchemish/Lower ME
Wheel-made thick-walled large bowl (shape class E) with curved sides, flat base and distinct rim thickened on
both sides. It occurs usually in Plain Simple Ware, the fabric being medium- to fine-textured and tempered with
sand, mica and calcite; outer/inner surfaces are usually wet-smoothed.
It is so far certainly attested in the Upper Sajur and Carchemish region, but close parallels can be found in the
lower Syrian ME (Pl. 35), especially at Mari.199
140) Small biconical jar with simple rim (Pl. 28: 14-15). EME 6-. ME
Small wheel-made squat jar (shape class P) with almost biconical profile, carination in the middle, flat or
slightly convex base and flaring indistinct neck ending up in an simple rim. The latter can be rounded, squared or
slightly thickened. It occurs usually in Plain Simple Ware. It is diffused along the Syrian side of the ME, mainly in
Period EME 6 (Pl. 35), and continues in the following period.
141) Small carinated closed pot/bowl with offset rim (Pl. 29: 1). EME 6-. ME
Small wheel-made closed bowl (shape class M) of biconical profile with flat base and offset thinned rim. The
latter is usually marked by very fine concentric grooves.
It is mainly attested in Period EME 6 (Pl. 35), although it also continues later in the MBA.
142) Carinated closed pot with upright thickened rim marked by exterior groove (Pl. 29: 4-5). EME 6-. ME
Wheel-made closed pot (shape class N) with high carination, slightly convex base and upright thickened rim
marked by a deep exterior groove. It occurs in various sizes, from small to large (diameter >40cm). Larger exam-
ples (almost pithos-like) are sometimes provided with a spout set diagonally on the shoulder and an applied clay
rope emphasising the point of maximum expansion (Pl. 29: 5). One specimen bears an applied zoomorphic deco-
ration closely recalling that of type 133 of Period EME 5. The fabric is quite gritty, tempered with basalt and sand
and highly fired. The wet-smoothed outer surface is sometimes decorated with comb-incised lines.
Type 142 is attested in Period EME 6, although it may continue later (Pl. 35).
143) Spherical pot with upright thickened rim marked by exterior groove (Pl. 29: 6-7). EME 6. Lower Tishrin/
Tabqa/Balikh
Wheel-made spherical closed pot (shape class N) with round or flat base and upright or slightly everted grooved
rim. Like the previous type, it occurs in Plain Simple Ware, in a highly fired and fine-tempered fabric with basalt
and sand. The outer surface, usually wet-smoothed, eventually bears concentric comb-incised lines.
Type 143 is characteristic of Period EME 6 in the ME core region, from Banat to Bi’a (Pl. 35).
144) Restricted-neck globular jar with thickened modelled rim (Pl. 29: 9). EME 6-. ME
Wheel-made jar (shape class R) with globular or oval body, round base, cylindrical concave neck and thick-
ened rim marked by exterior groove. Usually quite large, it recalls type 12,4 from which it differs by the rendering
of the rim. It occurs in Plain Simple Ware, the outer surface being wet-smoothed.
Type 144 finds its highest diffusion in the Syrian ME in Period EME 6 and continues in the 2nd millennium
(Pl. 35).
145) Narrow-necked piriform jug with loop handle (Pl. 29: 10). EME 6. Upper Sajur/Carchemish
Wheel-made jug (shape class T) with piriform body, large flat base, tapering shoulder with continuous pro-
file, very narrow concave neck that is indistinct from the shoulder and pendent triangular rim. A loop handle is
199
See Pons 1999: fig. 4: 3-4.
136
Ceramics
attached on the shoulder. It occurs in a highly fired Simple Ware; the outer surface is wet-smoothed. Two series of
finely combed lines are incised on the shoulder. Type 145 is quite uncommon in the ME region but well attested
in Period EME 6 on the Turkish side of the river, in the Upper Sajur and in the area around Carchemish (Pl. 35).
146) Tall fenestrated pedestal stand with relief rope patterns (Pl. 29: 11). EME 6-. Syrian ME
Tall cylindrical stand (shape class Z) with flaring expanded open base, decorated with incised rope-like bands
in relief, separating plain registers pierced by triangular “window” fenestrations. It occurs in a large size up to
20-25cm in diameter. It is generally made in a medium-textured fabric.
Type 146 is attested in the Syrian ME, mainly from Banat southwards in Period EME 6, continuing in the
following periods (Pl. 35).
147) Carinated neckless pithos with everted lugged rim (Pl. 30: 1). EME 6-. Syrian ME
Large neckless pithos (shape class S) with squat(?) body, carinated shoulder and everted rim with triangular
lugs attached to it. It occurs usually in a medium-textured fabric, the outer surface being generally wet-smoothed.
The carination is emphasised by a relief rope-like band with diagonal impressed slashes.
It is attested in Period EME 6, mainly in the core of the ME, but doubtless continues to be in use later (Pl. 35).
148) Large ovoid neckless jar with upright rim (Pl. 30: 2-3). EME 6. ME
Large ovoid/globular neckless jar (shape classes P) with flattened base, sometimes pierced, and upright thick-
ened rim. The latter can be either squared in cross section or slightly modelled with a tiny ridge (recalling that of
type 143). It occurs in plain Simple Ware, the outer surface being usually wet-smoothed.
It is well attested in Period EME 6 in the lower ME, from Qara Quzaq to Terqa (Pl. 35).
149) Neckless ovoid pithos with upright grooved rim (Pl. 30: 4). EME 6-. ME
Neckless pithos (shape class S) with large ovoid body, round pierced base, incurved shoulder and upright
thickened rim marked by an exterior groove (cf. type 142). As with type 147, the shoulder is marked by a relief
rope-like band with diagonal impressed slashes. It occurs usually in a highly fired Simple Ware, the outer surface
being generally wet-smoothed.
As a whole, type 149 recalls type 129 of Period EME 5, from which it differs by the rendering of the rim. It is
diffused in the core area of the ME, from the Carchemish to the Tabqa basin, where it is attested in Period EME 6,
but probably continues in use later as well (Pl. 35).
150) Neckless barrel-shaped jar with upright thickened ridged rim (Pl. 30: 5). EME 6- . ME
Large barrel-shaped jar/pithos (shape classes P, S) with elongated oval body, pierced flat base, incurved shoul-
der and upright thickened rounded rim, marked below by a sharp ridge. It occurs in Plain Simple Ware, the outer
surface being usually wet-smoothed.
It first appears in Period EME 6 and becomes very common along the ME valley and beyond in the MB period
(Pl. 35).
137
Plate 1 – EME 1 – scale 1:4.
No. Site Inventory/ Site Phase Type Description Literature
Provenance periodisation (ARCANE) (ARCANE)
1 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I001 Period VIIA EME 1 type 1 Mold-made. Coarse-textured fabric with sand/quartz, chaff, and mica ME007-P003
Tr. B8: lev. 5 inclusions; medium hard, oxidised with reduced core. Frangipane & Bucak 2001, fig. 5:7
2 Shiyukh Tahtani Area CD: Phase 13C Period XIII EME 1-2a type 1 Mold-made. Coarse-textured fabric with sand/quartz, chaff, and mica Unpublished – Sconzo
South Building inclusions; medium hard, oxidised with reduced core.
3 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I001 Period VIIA EME 1 type 2 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica, sand/quartz and a little ME007-P001
Tr. B8: lev. 5 chaff inclusions; hard and fully oxidised. String-cut visible on the base.
4 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I001 Period VIIA EME 1 type 10 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica and sand inclusions; ME007-P002
Tr. B8: lev. 5 medium-hard and fully oxidised. Traces of scraping in the lower body.
5 Hadidi Area RII: lev. 3A Stratum 1 EME 1 type 10 – Dornemann 1988, fig. 4:18
6 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I001 Period VIIA EME 1 type 7 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica and sand inclusions; ME007-P005
Tr. B8: lev. 5 medium-hard and fully oxidised. Frangipane & Bucak 2001, figs. 5:1
7 Samsat Area Q/15 Level e EME 1 type 5 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with mica, sand inclusions; fully oxi- Abay 1997, fig. 17:a
dised and hard Self-slipped inner surface (local ware designation: 1.3).
8 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I001 Period VIIA EME 1 type 5 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with mica, sand/quartz inclusions; ME007-P006
Tr. B8: lev. 5 fully oxidised.
9 Shiyukh Tahtani Area CD: Phase 13C Period XIV (?) EME 1 type 5 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with mica, sand/quartz inclusions; Unpublished – Sconzo
138
South Building fully oxidised. Wet-smoothed surface.
P. Sconzo
10 Zeytinli Bahçe Tr. B8: lev. 7-6 Period VIIA EME 1 type 3 Hand-made. Medium to coarse-textured fabric, chaff-tempered, porous. Frangipane 2007, fig. 8.11:1
11 Shiyukh Tahtani Area CD: Phase 13C Period XIV EME 1 type 3 Hand-made. Medium to coarse-tempered fabric, chaff-tempered, Unpublished – Sconzo
South Building porous.
12 Hadidi Area RII: lev. 3A Stratum 1 EME 1 type 3 Wheel-made. Dornemann 1988, fig. 4:21
13 Zeytinli Bahçe Tr. B8: lev. 7-6 Period VIIA LC5-EME 1 type 6 Wheel-made. Frangipane & Bucak 2001, figs. 5:4
14 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I001 Period VIIA EME 1 type 8 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica, sand/quartz inclusions; ME007-P004
Tr. B8: lev. 5, room A29 hard and fully oxidised. Hand-made wavy incised decoration in the Frangipane & Bucak 2001, fig. 5:8
upper body.
15 Hadidi Area RII: lev. 4A Stratum 1 EME 1 type 11 – Dornemann 1988, fig. 4:37
16 Samsat Area Q/14-15 Level e EME 1 type 4 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric with calcite, sand inclusions. Abay 1997, fig. 21:c
Outer surface self slipped (local ware designation: 1.3). Comb-incised
decoration on the shoulder.
17 Shiyukh Tahtani Area CD: Phase 13C Period XIV (?) EME 1 type 4 Wheel-made. Fine fabric with mica, sand/quartz inclusions; fully Unpublished – Sconzo
South Building oxidised. Comb-incised decoration on the shoulder.
18 ‘Abd Area II: lev. 5 Horizon 1 EME 1 type 9 Wheel-made. Fine fabric with mica, sand/quartz inclusions; fully Sconzo 2013, pl. 85:969
oxidised.
19 Hajji Ibrahim - Phase A1 EME 1 type 9 Wheel-made. Fine fabric with mica, sand/quartz; fully oxidised. Danti 2000
20 Hadidi Area RII: lev. 4D Stratum 1 EME 1 type 12 Wheel-made. Dornemann 1988, fig. 5:36
Ceramics
1 2 3
5 6
4
7 8
9 10
11 12
13 14 15
16 17
18
20
19
139
Plate 2 – EME 2- scale 1:4.
1 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I002 Period VI EME 2a type 5 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica and sand inclusions; hard and ME007-P007
Tr. B8: lev. 4 fully oxidised.
2 Hassek Area S18 – Pit Bx37 Level ?-4 EME 2a type 13 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand inclusions, slightly porous. Gerber 2005, pl. 15: 239; 82: 239
Medium firing, oxidised (local ware designation: group B3).
3 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I003 Period VI EME 2a type 13 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica and sand inclusions; hard and ME007-P011
Tr. B8: lev. 3 fully oxidised. Frangipane 2007, fig. 8.11: 14
4 Qara Quzaq ME012-005 Period V-2 EME 2b type 7 Wheel-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric. Outer surface slipped (local ware ME012-P059
Outside Tomb Locus 12 designation: Cerámica Común).
5 Hassek Area T19 Level 3/4 EME 2a type 14 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric with fine sand inclusions, sparse chaff Gerber 2005, pl. 47: 667
particles Reserved-slip decoration on the outer surface and cross-hatched
incised notches along the ledge (local ware designation: group B2).
6 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I003 Period VI EME 2a type 14 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica and sand inclusions; medium- ME007-P013
Tr. B8: lev. 3 hard and fully oxidised. Cross-hatched decoration along the ledge. Frangipane & Bucak 2001, fig. 6:3
7 Samsat Area Q/14-15 Level c EME 2 type 14 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric with sand and chaff inclusions. Cross- Abay 1997, pl. 70:a
hatched decoration along the ledge (local ware designation: 1.2).
8 Hassek Area P21- Pit Bx214 - EME 2 type 15 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand inclusions, slightly porous. Gerber 2005, pl. 7: 154
140
P. Sconzo
9 Şaraga ME038-I002 - EME 2 type 15 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric. Medium firing, fully oxidised (local ME038-P006
Tomb M1 ware designation: “Simple Ware”).
10 Hassek Area R22- Pit Bx235 - EME 2 type 15 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand inclusions, slightly porous. Gerber 2005, pl. 8:173
11 Qara Quzaq ME012-004 Period V-2 EME 2b type 15 Wheel-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric. Fully oxidised. Outer surface ME012-P048
Tomb Locus 12 East self-lipped (local ware designation: Cerámica Común). Valdés Pereiro 1995, figs. 3:3; 8:b
12 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I004 Period VI EME 2b type 15 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, with mica, sand/quartz inclusions; ME007-P021
Tr. C6-7: lev. 9 hard and fully oxidised.
13 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I007 Period VI EME 2b type 16 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica, sand/quartz inclusions; hard ME007-P034
Tr. C6-7: lev. 6 and fully oxidised. Frangipane 2007, fig. 8.18:1
14 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I008 Period VI EME 2b type 16 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica, sand/quartz inclusions; hard ME007-P042
Tr. C6-7: lev. 4 and fully oxidised.
15 Hassek Area R18 – Pit Bx8 - EME 2b type 16 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand inclusions, slightly porous. Gerber 2005, pl. 15:240
16 Shiyukh Area D Period II EME 2b type 16 Wheel-made. Mineral-tempered fabric. Wet-smoothed and self-slipped outer Morandi Bonacossi 2005, pl. 20:f
Fawqani surface (local ware designation: 6).
17 Hassek Area P2021 - EME 2b type 17 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric with fine sand inclusions, sparse chaff Gerber 2005, pl. 29: 442
particles (local ware designation: group B2).
18 Hassek Area T18 – Pit Bx131 - EME 2b type 17 Wheel-made. Red-slip applied on the outer surface. Gerber 2005, pl. 29: 445
Ceramics
2 3
4 5
6 7
9
8 10
11 12
13 14
15 16
17 18
141
No. Site Inventory/Provenance Site Phase Type Description Literature
periodisation (ARCANE) (ARCANE)
1 ‘Abd - Horizon 2 EME 2 type 18 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Ware A.0 – Simple Ware family”). A complete potmark on the body. Sconzo 2013, pl. 117:1319
2 ‘Abd Area III: lev. 4 Horizon 2a EME 2 type 18 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite and basalt inclusions. Medium hard, medium firing. Outer surface Sconzo 2013, pl. 1:1
House A – Room 1 wet-smoothed (local ware designation: “Ware A.3 – Simple Ware family”). A complete potmark on the body.
3 ‘Abd Area III: lev. 4 Horizon 2a EME 2 type 18 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand and red grits. Medium hard, overfired. Outer surface wet-smoothed Sconzo 2013, pl. 1:18
House A – Room 1 (local ware designation: “Ware A.3 – Simple Ware family”). A complete potmark below the base.
4 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I001 Period XII EME 2b type 11 Wheel-made. Medium-fine-textured fabric, with calcite and basalt particles. Medium, irregular firing. Outer ME010-P001
Square B5, T. 85 surface wet-smoothed (local ware designation: “Simple Ware”).
5 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I007 Area CD: Phase Period XIII EME 2b type 11 Miniature. Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand and basalt inclusions. Fully oxidised. Outer surface ME010-P039
13B South Unit – Court wet-smoothed (local ware designation: “Simple Ware”). Falsone & Sconzo 2012, fig. 10:2
6 Hassek Area R20 – Pit Bx106 - EME 2 type 11 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand grog and sparse chaff particles, slightly porous. Medium firing, Gerber 2005, pl. 4:95
oxidised. Outer surface slipped (local ware designation: group C1). A potmark below the base.
7 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I002 Tr. B8: lev. 4 Period VI EME 2a type 11 Wheel-made. Very fine-textured, whitish fabric with no visible inclusions; hard and fully oxidised. ME007-P008
Frangipane & Bucak 2001, fig. 6:6
8 ‘Abd Area II Horizon 2 (?) EME 2 type 11 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Ware A.0 – Simple Ware family”). Sconzo 2013, pl. 118:1341
9 ‘Abd “West Section” Horizon 2 (?) EME 2 type 11 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, with sand and calcite inclusions. Medium hard, medium firing. Outer Sconzo 2013, pl. 118:1340
surface wet-smoothed (local ware designation: “Ware A.4 – Simple Ware family”). A tiny potmark on the shoulder.
10 Qara Quzaq ME012-003 Level V-2 EME 2 type 11 Wheel-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric. Fully oxidised. Outer surface wet-smoothed (local ware designation: ME012-042
Tomb Locus 12 East Cerámica Común). Valdés Pereiro 1995, figs. 1:5; 7:b
11 Hassek Area S20 – Pit Bx156 - EME 2 type 19 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand inclusions, slightly porous. Medium firing, oxidised. (local ware Gerber 2005, pl. 2:36
designation: group B3).
12 Samsat Area R/14 Level e EME 2a type 19 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand inclusions. Hard (local ware designation: 1.2). Abay 1997, pl. 4:h
13 Shiyukh Fawqani Area D Period II EME 2 type 19 Wheel-made. Mineral-tempered fabric. Wet-smoothed and self-slipped outer surface. (local ware designation: 6). Morandi Bonacossi 2005, pl. 11:f
14 Qara Quzaq ME012-005 Level V-2 EME 2 type 19 Wheel-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric. Outer surface self-slipped (local ware designation: Cerámica Común). ME012-062
Outside Tomb Locus 12
15 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I005 Period VI EME 2b type 20 Wheel-made. Very fine-textured, greenish fabric, no inclusions visible; hard and fully oxidised. ME007-P024
142
Tr. C6-7, Level 8
16 Qara Quzaq ME012-003 Level V-2 EME 2 type 19 Wheel-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric with mica and calcite inclusions. Outer surface wet-smoothed (local ME012-038
Tomb Locus 12 East ware designation: Cerámica Común). Valdés Pereiro 1995, fig. 1:1
17 ‘Abd Area III: lev. 4 Horizon 2a EME 2 type 19 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand and calcite. Medium hard, sandwich-like core. Outer surface slipped Sconzo 2013, pl. 2
House A – Room 1 (local ware designation: “Ware A.4 – Simple Ware family”).
18 Halawa B Area M - EME 2b ? type 19 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, tempered with sand. Hard. Outer surface slipped. Potmark below the base. Lüth 1981, pl. 56:18
Tr. C6-7, Level 6 Frangipane 2007, figs. 8.17: 2; 8.18:1
Tr. C6-7, Level 7
21 Qara Quzaq ME012-004 Level V-2 EME 2b type 20 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with calcite inclusions. Hard and fully oxidised. Outer surface wet-smoothed ME012-046
Tomb Locus 12 East (local ware designation: Cerámica Densa Verdosa). Valdés Pereiro 1995, figs. 3:1; 8:c
22 Hassek Area S18 – Grave 12A Level 0 EME 2b type 20 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, of olive-beige colour, without visible inclusions, hard and highly fired (local Gerber 2005, pl. 37:542
ware designation: group A2, Grünliche Ware).
23 Qara Quzaq ME012-005 Level V-2 EME 2b type 20 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with calcite inclusions. Hard and fully oxidised. Outer surface wet-smoothed ME012-061
Outside Tomb Locus 12 (local ware designation: Cerámica Densa Verdosa).
24 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I008 Tr. C6-7: lev. 4 Period VI EME 2b type 21 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, with mica, sand/quartz inclusions; hard and fully oxidised. ME007-045
25 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I004 Tr. C6-7: lev. 9 Period VI EME 2b type 21 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, with mica, sand/quartz inclusions; hard and fully oxidised. ME007-P018
Frangipane 2007, fig. 8.18:1
28 Shiyukh Tahtani Area B Period XII EME 2b type 22 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica, sand/quartz inclusions; fully oxidised. Wet-smoothed surface. Upublished – Sconzo
29 Hassek Area T18 – Pit Bx132 Level 0/2 EME 2b type 22 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand grog and sparse chaff particles, slightly porous. Medium firing, Gerber 2005, pl. 5:102
oxidised. Outer surface slipped (local ware designation: group C1).
30 Hassek Area T19 – Pit Bx166 Level 2 EME 2b type 22 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand inclusions, slightly porous. Medium firing, oxidised. Reserved-slip Gerber 2005, pl. 5:103
decoration on the outer surface. (local ware designation: group B3).
31 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I008 Period VI EME 2b type 23 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, with mica, sand/quartz inclusions; hard and fully oxidised. ME007-044
Tr. C6-7: lev. 4 Frangipane 2007, fig. 8.17: 1
Ceramics
1 2 3
4 5 6 7
8 9 10
11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23
24 25 26 27
28 29 30 31
143
1 Hassek Area R19 - EME 2a type 24 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand grog and sparse chaff particles, slightly porous Gerber 2005, pl. 10:187
(local ware designation: group C1). Medium firing, oxidised. Outer surface slipped.
2 Samsat Area R/14 Level e EME 1-2a type 24 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, sand inclusions. Red slip on the outer side (local ware Abay 1997, pl. 28:e
designation: 3.0).
3 Hassek Area S18 – Pit Bx38 Level 2-4 EME 2a type 24 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand and little chaff inclusions, slightly porous. Gerber 2005, pl. 10:186
Red-slip on the outer surface (local ware designation: group B4).
4 Shiyukh Tahtani Area CD: Phase 13B Period XIII EME 2b type 25 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand and little chaff inclusions, slightly porous. Falsone & Sconzo 2012, fig. 10:2
South Unit – Court Red-slip on the outer surface (local ware designation: group B4).
5 Qara Quzaq ME012-005 Level V-2 EME 2b type 25 Wheel-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric. Outer surface self-slipped (local ware ME012-P064
144
Outside Tomb Locus 12 designation: Cerámica Común).
P. Sconzo
6 Birecik Cemetery - EME 2 type 25 – Sertok & Ergeç1999a, fig. 7:i
7 Carchemish Acropolis Mound Champagne- EME 2 type 25 – Woolley & Barnett 1952, Pl. 57:b5
Cist Grave KCG7 glass Horizon Falsone & Sconzo 2007, fig. 5.6:9
8 Birecik Cemetery - EME 2b type 26 – Sertok & Ergeç1999a, fig. 8: i
9 Hassek Area T19 – Pit Bx76 Level 2 EME 2b type 26 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand and little chaff inclusions, slightly porous Gerber 2005, pl. 9:184
(local ware designation: group B4).
10 Hassek Area S18 – Pit Bx294 Level 1B EME 2b type 26 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand and little chaff inclusions, slightly porous. Gerber 2005, pl. 9:179
Red-slip/wash on the outer surface (local ware designation: group B4).
Ceramics
4
3
5 6 7
8 10
145
1 Birecik Cemetery - EME 2 type 27 – Sertok & Ergeç1999a,
fig. 7:h
2 Shiyukh Area D Period II EME 2 type 27 Wheel-made. Mineral-tempered fabric). Reserved-slip decoration in the outer surface and row Morandi Bonacossi
Fawqani of incised fishbone pattern below the rim (local ware designation: 7, “Reserved Slip Ware”). 2005, pl. 16:b
3 Birecik Cemetery - EME 2 type 28 – Sertok & Ergeç1999a,

fig. 7:f
4 Zeytinli ME007-I004 Period VI EME 2b type 28 Wheel/coil-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica and sand inclusions; hard and fully oxidised. ME007-P016
Bahçe Tr. C6-7: lev. 9 Diagonal reserved slip on the shoulder.
5 Shiyukh Area D Period II EME 2b type 29 Wheel-made. Mineral and sand tempered fabric. Wet-smoothed and self-slipped outer surface Morandi Bonacossi
Fawqani (local ware designation: 5). 2005, pl. 14:h
6 Hassek Area T19 – Grab 5A Level 0/2 EME 2b type 29 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand inclusions, slightly porous. Medium firing (local Gerber 2005, pl. 39,
ware designation: group B3). 93:571
7 Hassek Cemetery West Level 5 EME 2 type 29 – Gerber 2005,
146
pl. 99:1089
P. Sconzo
8 Birecik Cemetery - EME 2 type 29 – Sertok & Ergeç 1999a,

fig. 7:j
9 Hassek Area S17 – Pit Bx294 Level 1B EME 2b type 30 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand inclusions, slightly porous. Medium firing. Gerber 2005, pl. 56:767
Painted decoration on the outer surface (local ware designation: group B3).
10 Qara ME012-003 Level V-2 EME 2b type 31 (slow) wheel-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric with sand inclusions. Outer surface slipped. ME012-P035
Quzaq Tomb Locus 12 East Monochrome painted geometric design is applied on the upper part of the vessel (local ware
designation: Cerámica Pintada). Internal traces of bitumen (?). A potmark below the base.
11 ‘Abd Area III: lev. 4a Horizon 2a EME 2a type 31 (slow) wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with calcite inclusions. Medium hard, overfired. Outer Sconzo 2013, pl. 48:540
Street 1 surface slipped. Monochrome painted geometric design is applied on the upper part of the
vessel (local ware designation: “Ware C.3 – Euphrates Monochrome Painted Ware”).
12 ‘Abd Surface - EME 2 type 31 (slow) wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with calcite inclusions. Medium hard, overfired. Outer Sconzo 2013,
surface slipped. Monochrome painted geometric design is applied on the upper part of the pl. 131:1497
vessel (local ware designation: “Ware C.3 – Euphrates Monochrome Painted Ware”).
13 Hassek S18 - EME 2 type 32 Hand-made. Rough-textured fabric (local ware designation: group F2, Rot-Schwarz Polierte Gerber 2005, pl. 40: 604
Ware RBBW ). Outer surface red to dark in colour, well polished.
14 Hassek Area P20 – Pit Bx258 - EME 2 type 33 Hand-made. Rough-textured fabric. Outer surface red to dark in colour, well polished (local Gerber 2005, pl. 40: 603
ware designation: group F2, Rot-Schwarz Polierte Ware RBBW).
Ceramics
3 4
5 6 7 8
11
9 10 12
13 14
147
No. Site Provenance Site – Phase ARCANE ARCANE Description Literature
Phase type
1 Hassek Area T20 – Room 55 Level 4 EME 2a type 34 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand grog and sparse chaff particles, slightly porous (local Gerber 2005, pl. 50:698
ware designation: group C1). Medium firing, oxidised. Reserved-slip decoration on the outer sur-
face. Row of small excised strikes along the neck.
2 Ahmar Area A – Burial F42 - EME 2b type 34 Hand/wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with white grits inclusions. Thick pale creamy slip. Jamieson 1990, fig. 44
Reserved-slip decoration applied on the shoulder. Bottom hand-scraped.
3 Shiyukh Fawqani Area D Period II EME 2 type 34 Wheel-made. Mineral-tempered fabric. Reserved-slip decoration in the outer surface (local ware Morandi Bonacossi 2005. pl. 27:b
designation: 7, “Reserved Slip Ware”).
4 ‘Abd Area III: lev. 4 Horizon 2a EME 2a type 35 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand and mica inclusions. Medium hard, medium firing. Sconzo 2013, pl. 7:71
House A, Room 1 Outer surface wet-smoothed (local ware designation: “Ware A.2 – Simple Ware family”). A com-
plete potmark on the shoulder.
5 Shiyukh Fawqani Area D Period II EME 2 type 35 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, tempered with grit inclusions (local ware designation: 9, Morandi Bonacossi 2005, pl. 25:e
Cooking-Pot Ware II).
6 Halawa B Area M - EME 2b? type 35 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand and reddish inclusions. Hard. Outer surface slipped. Lüth 1981, pl. 57:11
7 ‘Abd Area III: lev. 4 Horizon 2a EME 2a type 35 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite and grit inclusions. Soft, medium firing. Outer Sconzo 2013, pl. 31:341
House F, Room 1 surface wet-smoothed (local ware designation: “Ware A.2 – Simple Ware family”).
8 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I004 Period VI EME 2b type 35 Wheel/coil-made. Medium-textured fabric, with mica, sand/quartz and chaff inclusions; medium- ME007-P017
Tr. C6-7, lev. 9 hard and oxidised with reduced core.
148
P. Sconzo
9 Qara Quzaq ME012-004 Level V-2 EME 2b type 35 Hand-made. Medium-textured fabric. Outer surface with reserved slip decoration (local ware ME012-P056
Tomb Locus 12 East designation:Cerámica con Engobe Reservado). Valdés Pereiro 1995, fig. 4:4
10 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I007 Period VI EME 2b type 36 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica, sand/quartz inclusions; hard and fully oxidised. ME007-P032
Tr. C6-7, Level 6 Frangipane 2007, fig. 8.18:5
11 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I007 Period VI EME 2b type 36 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica, sand/quartz inclusions; hard and fully oxidised. ME007-P033 Frangipane 2007,
Tr. C6-7, Level 6 fig. 8.17:12, 8.18:5
12 Birecik Cemetery - EME 2 type 36 – Sertok & Ergeç1999a, fig. 7:a
13 Qara Quzaq ME012-003 Level V-2 EME 2b type 36 Hand-made. Medium-textured fabric. Outer surface with reserved slip decoration (local ware ME012-P034
Tomb Locus 12 East designation: Cerámica con Engobe Reservado). Valdés Pereiro 1995, fig. 2:1, 7a
14 Ahmar Area A - EME 2b type 37 Hand-made, coil constructed. Coarse-textured fabric, brown, with white and gray grits, Jamieson 1990, fig. 40:3
chaff inclusions.
15 Hassek Area S17 – Pit Bx294 Lev. 1B EME 2b type 12 Hand-made. Rough-textured fabric, tempered with quartz, grits and chaff (local ware designation: Gerber 2005, pl. 41:606
group E2, Küchentopfware).
16 ‘Abd Area III: lev. 4 Horizon 2a EME 2a type 12 Composite manufacture (wheel- and hand-made). Rough-textured fabric, soft, tempered with Sconzo 2013, pl. 46:500
House H, Room 1 quartz, grits and chaff (local ware designation: Ware D.2 – Cooking-Pot Ware Family).
17 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I006 Period XIII EME 2a type 35 Composite manufacture (wheel- and hand-made). Medium-textured fabric, soft, tempered with ME010-P038
Area CD: Phase 13B quartz, grits and chaff. Chaff impression and traces on the outer side. Falsone & Sconzo 2012, fig. 10: 4
South Building, Annex
18 ‘Abd Area III: lev. 4 Horizon 2a EME 2a type 35 Composite manufacture (wheel- and hand-made). Medium-textured fabric, soft, tempered with Sconzo 2013, pl. 15:128
House A, Room 1 quartz, grits and chaff (local ware designation: Ware D.2 – Cooking-Pot Ware Family).
Ceramics
4 5
10 11 12 13
15 16
14 17 18
149
1 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I007 Period VI EME 2b type 38 Wheel/coil-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica and sand inclusions; hard and fully oxidised. ME007-P038
Tr. C6-7, lev. 6 Reserved slip decoration on the shoulder. Frangipane 2007, fig. 8.17:13; 8.18:5
2 ‘Abd Area III: lev. 4 Horizon 2a EME 2a type 38 Wheel/coil-made. Medium-textured fabric, with sand and red grits inclusions. Hard, overfired. Outer Sconzo 2013, pl. 31:345
House F, Room 1 surface slipped (local ware designation: “Ware A.4 – Simple Ware Family”).
3 Hassek Area S18 – Grave 7 - EME 2b type 38 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand grog and sparse chaff particles, slightly porous. Medium Gerber 2005, pl. 23, 93:313
firing, oxidised. Reserved-slip decoration on the outer surface (local ware designation: group C1).
4 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I004 Period VI EME 2b type 38 Wheel/coil-made. Medium-textured fabric, with mica and sand inclusions; medium-hard and fully ME007-P015
150
Tr. C6-7, lev. 9 oxidised.
P. Sconzo
5 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I007 Period VI EME 2b type 39 Wheel/coil-made. Medium- fine-textured fabric, with mica, sand and chaff inclusions; medium-hard ME007-P037
Tr. C6-7, lev. 6 and oxidised with reduced core. Frangipane 2007, fig. 8.18:5
6 ‘Abd Area III: lev. 4 Horizon 2a EME 2a type 39 Wheel/coil-made. Medium-textured fabric (local ware designation: “Ware A.0 – Simple Ware Sconzo 2013, pl. 9:90
House A, Room 1 Family”). A potmark on the shoulder.
7 ‘Abd Area II: lev. 2A Horizon 2b EME 2b type 40 Wheel/coil-made. Medium-textured fabric, with sand and black inclusions. Medium hard, low fired, Sconzo 2013, pl. 100:1124
with sandwich core. Outer surface slipped (local ware designation: “Ware A.2 – Simple Ware Family”).
8 Hammam Square AG 17 – Period VI EME 2 type 40 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, sand-tempered, rough surface. Curvers 1988, pl. 114:42
al-Turkman VI East: 5
9 Hammam Square AG 17 - Period VI EME 2 type 41 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, sand-tempered, smoothed surface. Curvers 1988, pl. 114:39
al-Turkman VI East: 3
Ceramics
1 3
5 7
6
151
1 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I002 Period XI EME 3 type 42 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica. Hard and fully oxidised. ME010-P012
Area B, T. 12 Outer surface wet-smoothed.
2 Banat Tomb 1 Period IV EME 3 type 43 Very fine-textured fabric, sand inclusions, medium-high firing. Outer surface bur- Porter 1995a, fig. 14:P84
nished (local ware designation: “Euphrates Banded Ware”).
3 Shiyukh Tahtani Area CD: Phase 11 T. 83 Period XI EME 3 type 43 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica. Hard and fully oxidised. Sconzo 2006, pl. 3:16
Outer surface ring-burnished (local ware designation: “Euphrates Banded Ware”).
4 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I002 Period XI EME 3 type 15 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite. Hard and fully oxidised. Outer ME010-P008
Area B, T. 12 surface wet-smoothed.
5 Gre Virike ME006-I001 Period IIA EME 3 type 15 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica and limestone inclusions. Highly fired ME006-P013
Trench J/K-9 and oxidised with reduced surface (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
Chamber tomb complex
6 Banat Tomb 1 Period IV EME 3 type 44 Medium-textured fabric, sand inclusions, medium firing. Wiped surface (local ware Porter 1995a, fig. 20:P70
designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
7 Banat Tomb 1 Period IV EME 3 type 44 Fine-textured fabric, sand inclusions, medium firing. Wiped surface (local ware Porter 1995a, fig. 18:P68
8 Abu Hamad - - EME 3 type 44 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand inclusions. Highly fired (local ware Falb 2005b, pl. 2:6
152
designation: Einfache Ware).
P. Sconzo
9 Hammam City-wall rooms and Period VI EME 3 type 45 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). Thissen 1989, fig. 2:11
al-Turkman first burnt level (below
Ham.West, levs. 1-4)
10 Banat Area D Period IV EME 3 type 45 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). Porter & McClellan 1998, fig. 9:23
11 Banat Area D – kiln 3 Period IV EME 3 type 45 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). Porter 2007a: pl. III:17
12 Sweyhat Lower Town South - EME 3 type 45 Local Ware designation: “Simple Ware”. Zettler 1997, app. 3.1:e
Tomb1
13 Abu Hamad Sammelfund Grave S3 - EME 3 type 45 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand and calcite inclusions. Highly fired Falb 2005b, pl. 9:2
(local ware designation: Einfache Ware).
14 Banat Area D – kiln 3 Period IV EME 3 type 46 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). Potmark near the base. Porter 2007a: pl. III:16
15 Banat Area D Period IV EME 3 type 47 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). Porter & McClellan 1998, fig. 9:5
16 Hammam City-wall rooms and Period VI EME 3 type 47 Wheel-made (local ware designation: Plain Simple Ware). Thissen 1989, fig. 2:13
al-Turkman first burnt level (below
Ham.West, levs. 1-4)
17 ‘Abd Horizon 3 EME 3 type 47 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, with basalt and sand inclusions. Hard and Sconzo 2013, pl. 75:841
overfired. Outer surface slipped (local ware designation: “Ware A.9 – Simple Ware
Family”).
18 Sweyhat Lower Town South - EME 3 type 48 Local Ware designation: “Simple Ware”. A potmark below the base. Zettler 1997, app. 3.1:b
Tomb1
Ceramics
1 2 3
4 5
6 8
9 11
10
12 13
14
15
18
16
17
153
1 Hammam City-wall rooms – first burnt level Period VI EME 3 type 18 Wheel-made (local ware designation: Plain Simple Ware). Thissen 1989, fig. 2: 2
al-Turkman (below VI West, levs. 1-4)
2 Bi’a ME032-006 Burial Building, - EME 3 type 18 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Ware 10”). Self-slip outer/inner surfaces. ME032-P057 Strommenger &
Grave 3 Rooms 1-3 Kohlmeyer 1998, pl. 66:6; 187
3 Abu Hamad Grave J8 - EME 3 type 18 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand inclusions. Highly fired (local ware designation: Falb 2005b, fig. 25:1
Einfache Ware).
4 Bi’a ME032-007 Burial Building, - EME 3 type 49 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Ware 2”). ME032-P071 Strommenger &
5 Bi’a ME032-006 Burial Building, - EME 3 type 49 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Ware 2”). ME032-P049 Strommenger &
6 Banat Tomb 1 Period IV EME 3 type 49 Fine-textured fabric, sand inclusions, medium firing. Wiped surface (local ware designation: Porter 1995a, fig. 18: P105
“Plain Simple Ware”).
7 Bi’a ME032-009 Burial Building, - EME 3 type 49 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Ware. 2”). ME032-P081 Strommenger &
8 Abu Hamad Grave A1 - EME 3 type 49 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand inclusions. Hard. Smoothed outer surface (local Falb 2005b, fig. 1:4
ware designation: Einfache Ware).
9 Gre Virike ME006-I001 Trench J/K-9 Period IIA EME 3 type 52 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica inclusions. Highly fired and oxidised with reduced ME006-P002
Chamber tomb complex core (local ware designation: “Metallic Ware”, regional ware name: “Euphrates Metallic Ware”).
10 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I012 C5-6, lev. 9 Period V EME 3 type 52 Wheel-made. Very fine-textured fabric, with no visible inclusions; hard and fully oxidised. ME007-P067
11 Abu Hamad Grave Z7 - EME 3 type 52 Wheel-made. Very fine-textured fabric, with no visible inclusions. Highly fired and very hard Falb 2005b, fig. 46:3
(local ware designation: Metallische Ware).
154
12 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I002 Period XI EME 3 type 52 Wheel-made. Medium-fine-textured fabric, with calcite inclusions. Hard, intentional reduction ME010-P010
Square B4, T. 12 and oxydation. Outer surface wet-smoothed (local ware designation: “Euphrates Metallic Ware”) Sconzo 2007a, fig. 17.5:5
13 Bi’a ME032-006 Burial Building, - EME 3 type 52 Wheel-made (local ware designation: Ware 16, Steinzeugware). ME032-P050 Strommenger &
Grave 3 Rooms 1-3 Kohlmeyer 1998, pl. 69:15; 159:7; 178
14 Hammam City-wall rooms – first burnt level Period VI EME 3 type 52 Wheel-made (local ware designation: Stone Ware). Thissen 1989, fig. 2: 4
al-Turkman (below VI West, levs. 1-4)
15 Gre Virike ME006-I001 Period IIA EME 3 type 52 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica and limestone inclusions. Highly fired and inten- ME006-P014
Trench J/K-9 tional reduction and oxidation. Outer surface coated with a dark slip (?), wheel burnished (local
Chamber tomb complex ware designation: “Ring-Burnished Ware”).
16 Samsat Area E/16 Level XIX EME 3 type 52 Wheel-made. Very fine-textured fabric, no visible inclusions. Highly fired. Self-slipped (local Abay 1996, fig. 143:a
ware designation: 6.0 – Metallische Ware).
17 Birecik ME039-I002 - EME 3 type 52 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric. Fully oxidised. Outer surface corrugated (local ware designa- ME039-P002
TM107 tion: “Plain Simple Ware”).
18 Shiyukh Tahtani Area CD: Phase 11 T. 83 Period XI EME 3 type 52 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite inclusions. Highly fired and oxidised with Sconzo 2006, pl. 3:17
reduced core (local ware designation: “Euphrates Metallic Ware”).
19 Abu Hamad Grave Z6 - EME 3 type 50 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand and calcite inclusions. Highly fired (local ware Falb 2005b, fig. 42:5
20 Shiyukh Tahtani Area B T.11 Period XI EME 3 type 51 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric. Highly fired and fully oxidised. Outer surface corrugated Sconzo – Unpublished
(local ware designation: “‘Simple Ware”).
21 Banat Tomb 1 Period IV EME 3 type 53 Medium-textured fabric, sand inclusions, medium firing (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Porter 1995a, fig. 12:P61
Ware”).
22 Bi’a Grave U:18 - EME 3 type 53 – Strommenger & Kohlmeyer 1998:
pl. 112:17
23 Gre Virike ME006-I001 Trench J/K-9 Period IIA EME 3 type 54 Wheel-made. Medium- fine-textured fabric, with mica, sand and limestone inclusions. Highly ME006-P009
Chamber tomb complex fired and fully oxidised. Outer surface and inner rim hand-burnished (local ware designation:
“Plain Simple Ware”).
Ceramics
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18
21
19 22
20
23
155
1 Banat Tomb 1 Period IV EME 3 type 55 Medium-textured fabric, sand and lime inclusions, medium firing. Two incised ears on Porter 1995a, fig. 11: P5
either side of the stem fenestration (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
2 Gre Virike ME006-I001 Period IIA EME 3 type 55 Wheel-made. Medium- fine-textured fabric, with mica, sand and limestone inclusions. ME006-P004
Trench J/K-9 Highly fired and fully oxidised. Outer surface hand-burnished and stem hand-scraped
Chamber tomb complex (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
3 Banat Tomb 1 Period IV EME 3 type 56 Fine-textured fabric, sand and lime inclusions, high firing. Outer surface corrugated and Porter 1995a, fig. 13:P217
decorated with five painted bands (local ware designation: “Euphrates Banded Ware”).
156
4 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I002 Period XI EME 3 type 57 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica particles. Medium hardness, ME010-P006
P. Sconzo
Area B, T. 12 fully oxidised. Outer surface wet-smoothed, hand-burnished stem. Sconzo 2007a, fig. 17.5:6
5 Gre Virike ME006-I001 Period IIA EME 3 type 57 Wheel-made. Medium- fine-textured fabric, with mica, sand and limestone inclusions. ME006-P008
Trench J/K-9 Highly fired and oxidised with reduced surface. Stem hand-scraped (local ware
Chamber tomb complex designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
6 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I004 Period XI EME 3 type 57 Hand-made. Medium-textured fabric, with calcite and basalt inclusions. Irregularly ME010-P021
Area CD, T. 103 oxidised. Outer surface wet-smoothed.
7 Gre Virike ME006-I001 Period IIA EME 3 type 57 Wheel-made. Medium- fine-textured fabric, with mica and limestone inclusions. Highly ME006-P005
Trench J/K-9 fired and fully oxidised. Outer surface wheel-burnished (local ware designation: “Ring
Chamber tomb complex -Burnished Ware”).
Ceramics
5 6 7
157
1 Gre Virike ME006-I001 Period IIA EME 3 type 58 Wheel-made. Medium- fine-textured fabric, with mica, sand and limestone ME006-P011
Trench J/K-9 inclusions. Highly fired and oxidised with reduced surface (local ware designation:
Chamber tomb complex “Plain Simple Ware”).
2 Gre Virike ME006-I001 Period IIA EME 3 type 58 Wheel-made. Medium- fine-textured fabric, with mica and limestone inclusions. ME006-P001
Trench J/K-9 Highly fired and fully oxidised (local ware designation: “Metallic Ware”). Engin 2003, pl. 141:3
Chamber tomb complex
3 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I002 Period XI EME 3 type 58 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica particles. Hard and fully ME010-P007
Area B, T. 12 oxidised. Outer surface fully hand-burnished. Sconzo 2007a, fig. 17.5:7
4 Gre Virike ME006-I001 Period IIA EME 3 type 58 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica and limestone inclusions. Highly ME006-P016
158
Trench J/K-9 fired and fully oxidised. Outer surface wheel-burnished (local ware designation:
P. Sconzo
Chamber tomb complex “Ring Burnished Ware”).

5 Bi’a ME032-009 - EME 3 type 58 Wheel-made (local ware designation: Ware 16, Steinzeugware). ME032-P084
Burial Building, Grave 6 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer
Rooms 1-3 1998, pl. 97:3; 159:1; 172
6 Gre Virike ME006-I001 Period IIA EME 3 type 58 Wheel-made. Medium- fine-textured fabric, with mica and limestone inclusions. ME006-P006
Trench J/K-9 Highly fired and fully oxidised. Stem hand-scraped (local ware designation:
Chamber tomb complex “Plain Simple Ware”).
7 Banat Tomb 1 Period IV EME 3 type 59 Fine-coarse fabric, sand and lime inclusions, low firing. Light burnish surface Porter 1995a, fig. 11: P11
(local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). A potmark on the shoulder.
8 Tilbeshar ME008-I001 IIIB EME 3 type 59 Wheel-made. Medium/coarse-textured fabric. A potmark on the shoulder. ME008-P004
Area D, northern lower Kepinski 2005, fig. 3:3
town – Room inventory Kepinski 2007b, fig. 10.3
Ceramics
1 3
159
1 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I002 Area B, T. 12 Period XI EME 3 type 60 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, with calcite inclusions. Hard and fully oxidised. ME010-P016
Outer surface wet-smoothed (local ware designation: “Simple Ware”).
2 Gre Virike ME006-I001 Trench J/K-9 Period IIA EME 3 type 60 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica, sand and limestone inclusions. Oxidised ME006-P021
Chamber tomb complex with reduced surface (local ware designation: “Metallic Ware”).
3 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I002 Period XI EME 3 type 60 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, with calcite inclusions. Hard and fully oxidised. ME010-P03
Square B4, T. 12 Outer surface ring-burnished (local ware designation: “Euphrates Banded Ware”).
4 Bi’a ME032-007 Burial Building, EME 3 type 60 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Ware 20”). ME032-P063 Strommenger &
5 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I002 Area B, T. 12 Period XI EME 3 type 60 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite and basalt inclusions. Hard and fully ME010-P009
oxidised. Outer surface wet-smoothed.
6 Gre Virike ME006-I001 Trench J/K-9 Period IIA EME 3 type 60 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica and limestone inclusions. Highly fired and ME006-P020
Chamber tomb complex intentional reduction and oxidation (local ware designation: “Ring Burnished Ware”).
7 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I002 Period XI EME 3 type 60 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite inclusions. Hard and fully oxidised. Outer ME010-P011
Square B4, T. 12 surface ring-burnished (local ware designation: “Euphrates Banded Ware”).
8 Gre Virike ME006-I001 Trench J/K-9 Period IIA EME 3 type 60 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica, sand and limestone inclusions. Highly fired ME006-P019
Chamber tomb complex and fully reduced (local ware designation: “Metallic Ware”).
9 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I012 C5-6 lev. 9 Period V EME 3 type 61 Wheel-made. Very fine-textured fabric, with no visible inclusions; hard and fully oxidised. ME007-P067
10 Shiyukh Tahtani Area CD: Phase 11 T. 83 Period XI EME 3 type 61 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica. Hard and fully oxidised. Outer Sconzo 2006, pl. 3:19
160
surface ring-burnished (local ware designation: “Euphrates Banded Ware”).
P. Sconzo
11 Banat Tomb 1 Period IV EME 3 type 62 Fine-textured fabric, sand and lime inclusions, high firing. Outer surface burnished (local Porter 1995a, fig. 15:P16
ware designation: “Euphrates Banded Ware”).
12 Banat Tomb 1 Period IV EME 3 type 62 Fine-textured fabric, sand inclusions, medium-high firing. Outer surface burnished and Porter 1995a, fig. 15:P31
painted (local ware designation: “Euphrates Banded Ware”).
13 Sweyhat Lower Town South - EME 3 type 62 Band burnished and painted. Zettler 1997, app. 3.1:n
Tomb1
14 Banat Tomb 1 Period IV EME 3 type 63 Fine-textured fabric, sand inclusions, medium firing. Wiped surface (local ware Porter 1995a, fig. 24:P36
15 Abu Hamad Grave J7 - EME 3 type 63 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand inclusions. Highly fired. (local ware Falb 2005b, fig. 23:6
16 Bi’a ME032-006 Burial Building, EME 3 type 63 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Ware 2”). Potmark on the shoulder. ME032-P056 Strommenger &
17 Banat Tomb 1 Period IV EME 3 type 64 Fine-textured fabric, sand inclusions, medium firing (local ware designation: “Plain Porter 1995a, fig. 22:P38
Simple Ware”).
18 Abu Hamad Grave A1 - EME 3 type 65 Hand-made. Fine-textured fabric, with inclusions. Highly fired (local ware designation: Falb 2005b, fig. 1:7
Einfache Ware).
19 Banat Tomb 1 Period IV EME 3 type 65 Medium-textured fabric, sand inclusions, medium firing (local ware designation: “Plain Porter 1995a, fig. 17:P229
Simple Ware”).
20 Banat Tomb 1 Period IV EME 3 type 66 Very fine-textured fabric, sand and lime inclusions, medium firing. Wiped surface (local Porter 1995a, fig. 21:P26
ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
Ceramics
1 2 3 4 5
6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13
14 15 16
18
17 19 20
161
1 Bi’a Grave U:44 - EME 3 type 67 Wheel-made. (local ware designation: “Ware 2”). Pre-firing potmark on Strommenger & Kohlmeyer
the shoulder. 1998, pl. 130:7
2 Abu Hamad Area D North - EME 3 type 68 Hand-made. Miniature. Medium-textured fabric, with sand and grit Falb 2005b, pl. 27:14
inclusions. Low fired. (local ware designation: Einfache Ware).
3 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I004 Period XI EME 3 type 68 Hand-made. Medium-textured fabric, with calcite and basalt inclusions. ME010-P019
Area CD: Phase 12 Irregularly oxidised. Outer surface wet-smoothed.
T. 103
4 Gre Virike ME006-I001 Period IIA EME 3 type 68 Wheel-made. Medium- fine-textured fabric, with mica, sand and limestone ME006-P017
Trench J/K-9 inclusions. Medium fired and oxidised with reduced core. Outer surface
Chamber tomb complex wet-smoothed (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
5 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I004 Period XI EME 3 type 68 Hand-made. Medium-textured fabric, with calcite and basalt inclusions. ME010-P023
Square D1, T. 103 Fully oxidised. Outer surface wet-smoothed.
6 Banat Tomb 1 Period IV EME 3 type 69 Fine-textured fabric, sand inclusions, medium firing (local ware designa- Porter 1995a, fig. 31:P9
tion: “Plain Simple Ware”).
162
P. Sconzo
7 Abu Hamad Grave A3 - EME 3 type 69 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand inclusions. Highly fired Falb 2005b, fig. 3:5
(local ware designation: Einfache Ware).
8 Bi’a ME032-009 - EME 3 type 70 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Ware 1”). ME032-P085
Rooms 1-3 1998, pl. 97:11; 151:7; 215
9 Samsat Area E/17 Level XX EME 3 type 71 Hand-made. Medium-textured fabric, with sand and calcite inclusions. Abay 1997, pl. 114:e
Hard. Outer surface self slipped and painted (local ware designation: 7.1,
Bemalte Karababa Ware).
Rooms 1-3 1998, pl. 68:7
11 Samsat Area F/15-16 Level XX EME 3 type 71 Hand-made. Medium-textured fabric, with sand and calcite inclusions. Abay 1997, pl. 114:d
Hard. Outer surface self slipped and painted (local ware designation: 7.1,
Bemalte Karababa Ware).
12 Bi’a ME032-009 - EME 3 type 70 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Ware 26”). Geometric painted ME032-P078
Burial Building, Grave 6 decoration. Strommenger & Kohlmeyer
Rooms 1-3 1998, pl. 97: 14; 215
Ceramics
9 10
12
11
163
1 ‘Abd Area I; lev. 3 Horizon 3 EME 3 type 72 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, with mica and sand inclusions. Sconzo 2013, pl. 108:1234
Glacis Medium firing. Outer surface slipped (local ware designation: “Ware A.2 –
Simple Ware family”). Potmark on the shoulder.
2 Sweyhat Op. 1, 20, 12 (floor of Zettler: Early EME 3 type 72 (local ware designation: Plain Simple Ware). No additional description. Danti – Zettler 2007,
the pit house) Phase 2 Potmark on the shoulder. pl. 11.5:18
3 Sweyhat Op. 1, 20, 12 (floor of Zettler: Early EME 3 type 72 (local ware designation: Plain Simple Ware). No additional description. Danti – Zettler 2007,
the pit house) Phase 2 Potmark on the shoulder. pl. 11.5:20
4 Bi’a ME032-009 - EME 3 type 73 Wheel-made (local ware designation: Ware mit kl. Steinen u. etwas Häcksel ME032-P086
Burial Building, Grave 6 gemagert). Wet-smoothed outside.
Rooms 1-3 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer
1998, pl. 96:2
Rooms 1-3 1998, pl. 78:12
6 Sweyhat Lower Town South - EME 3 type 63 Local Ware designation: “Simple Ware”. Zettler 1997, app. 3.1:i
Tomb1
164
7 Abu Hamad Grave J7 - EME 3 type 63 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand inclusions. Highly fired (local Falb 2005b, fig. 23:8
P. Sconzo
ware designation: Einfache Ware).

8 Banat Tomb 1 Period IV EME 3 type 63 Medium-textured fabric, sand inclusions, medium firing (local ware designa- Porter 1995a, fig. 33:P4
tion: “Plain Simple Ware”).
9 Bi’a ME032-006 - EME 3 type 63 Wheel-made. (local ware designation: “Ware 2”). Potmark on the shoulder. ME032-P039
Rooms 1-3 1998, pl. 70:4
Room 3 1998, pl. 60:6
11 Sweyhat Operation 5, Ph. 2 Holland: Period EME 3 type 74 Slightly coarse ware with black lime and gold- and silver-coloured mica, Holland 2006, pl. 244:4
G unevenly fired with purplish gray core and pinkish brown at surface. Creamy-
brown slip in and out.
12 Kurban Area A Period IV EME 3 type 75 Dark-gray clay grading to brown towards surfaces. Medium-sized grits and Algaze 1990, pl. 93:I
quartz flakes visible; exterior is mottled orange, brown and black; burnished
(local ware designation: Ware 09).
13 Bi’a ME032-006 - EME 3 type 75 Wheel-made. Outer surface slipped and vertically and horizontally hand- ME032-P046
Burial Building, Grave 3 burnished (local ware designation: “Ware 18”). Strommenger & Kohlmeyer
Rooms 1-3 1998, pl. 69:19; 209
Ceramics
1 2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
10
11 12 13
165
1 Abu Hamad Grave Z5 - EME 4 type 109 Hand-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand and chaff inclusions. Low-fired (local ware Falb 2005b, fig. 40:1
2 Selenkahiye Sq. W45, Ph. A1, 1 Early Sel. EME 4 type 109 Coarse lime and calcite inclusions (local ware designation: “Coarse Ware”). Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.30:a
3 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I005 Square D10, Phase 10 Period X EME 4 type 76 Miniature. Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica inclusions. Highly fired ME010-P025
Perfume room and fully oxidised (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). Sconzo 2007a, 17.11:1
4 Gre Virike ME006-I002 Trench J9 Shaft Grave Period IIB EME 4 type 76 Miniature. Wheel-made. Medium-fine-textured fabric, with sand, limestone and mica inclu- ME006-P036
sions. Highly fired and fully oxidised (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
5 Gre Virike ME006-I002 Trench J9 Shaft Grave Period IIB EME 4 type 76 Miniature. Wheel-made. Medium-fine-textured fabric, with sand, limestone and mica inclu- ME006-P035
sions. Highly fired and fully oxidised (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
6 Bi’a ME032-001 Palace B, Court 5, Rooms - EME 4 type 77 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Ware 22”). ME032-P009 Strommenger &
3-4, 6, 13-14 Kohlmeyer 2000, pl. 39:7
7 Tilbeshar ME008-I005 Area L, southern lower IIIC2 EME 4 type 77 Wheel-made.
town – Grave jar(s)
8 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I005 Square D10, Phase 10 Period X EME 4 type 42 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, with calcite inclusions. Highly fired and fully oxidised ME010-P037 Sconzo 2007a,
Perfume room (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). 17.11:11
9 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I008 Period X EME 4 type 78 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, with calcite inclusions. Highly fired and fully oxidised ME010-P068
Square D1, Phase 10 T. 87 (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
10 Tilbeshar ME008-I003 Area D, Northern lower IIIC2 EME 4 type 78 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric. ME008-P014
town- Grave pit
166
11 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I008 Period X EME 4 type 78 Wheel-made. Medium-fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica inclusions. Highly fired and ME010-P045
Square D1, Phase 10 T. 87 fully oxidised. Outer surface wet-smoothed. (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
12 Tilbeshar ME008-I003 IIIC2 EME 4 type 78 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric. A potmark on the lower side. ME008-P013
Area D, Northern lower town- Grave pit
13 Bi’a ME032-001 EME 4 type 79 Wheel-made. (local ware designation: “Ware 51”). ME032-P011 Strommenger &
Palace B, Court 5, Rooms 3-4, 6, 13-14 Kohlmeyer 2000, pl. 36:37
14 Bi’a ME032-001 Palace B, Court 5, EME 4 type 79 Wheel-made. (local ware designation: “Ware 1”). ME032-P004 Strommenger &
Rooms 13-14 Kohlmeyer 2000, pl. 39:5
15 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I008 Period X EME 4 type 79 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica inclusions. Highly fired and fully ME010-P042
Square D1, Phase 10 T. 87 oxidised. Outer surface wet-smoothed (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
16 Selenkahiye Tomb III Early Sel. EME 4 type 80 Local ware designation: “Simple Ware”. No additional description. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.4:g
17 Tilbeshar ME008-I005 Area L, southern lower IIIC2 EME 4 type 80 Wheel-made. ME008-P151
town- Grave jar(s)
18 Banat Area C Period III EME 4 type 80 Wheel-made. Medium-fine-textured fabric, with sand inclusions. Medium firing (local ware Porter & McClellan 1998, fig. 14:4
19 Gre Virike ME006-I002 Trench J9 Shaft Grave Period IIB EME 4 type 81 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with limestone and mica inclusions. Highly fired and ME006-P031
oxidised with reduced surface (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
20 Gre Virike ME006-I002 Trench J9 Shaft Grave Period IIB EME 4 type 81 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with limestone and mica inclusions. Highly fired and ME006-P029
oxidised with reduced surface (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
21 Halawa A Sq. Q, Lev. Q3A Phase Q3A EME 4 type 81 Wheel-made. Light-coloured, sand-tempered fabric. Outer surface slipped (local ware Hempelmann 2005, pl. 1:16
designation: 1121).
22 Wreide Tomb W 086 (Chamber B) - EME 4 type 82 Wheel-made. Fine-textured, with sand inclusions. Highly fired. Orthmann 1991b, pl. 27: W86B:03
Ceramics
3 4 5
7 8
6 10 11 12
13 14 15
17 18
16
19 20
22
21
167
1 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I008 Period X EME 4 type 43 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica inclusions. Highly ME010-P043
Area CD: Phase 10 fired and fully oxidised. Outer surface ring burnished (local ware designation:
T. 87 “Euphrates Banded Ware”).
2 Shiyukh Tahtani Area CD: Phase 11 Period X EME 4 type 83 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica inclusions. Highly Sconzo – unpublished
T. 75 fired and fully oxidised. Outer surface ring burnished (local ware designation:
“Euphrates Banded Ware”).
3 Gre Virike ME006-I004 Period IIB EME 4 type 83 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with limestone and mica inclusions. Highly ME006-P044
Trench K8 fired and fully oxidised. Ring burnishing on the outer surface (local ware designa-
Chamber D tion: “Ring burnished Ware”).
4 Zeytinly Bahçe ME007-I010 Period V EME 4 type 84 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric; hard and fully oxidised. Wheel burnishing on ME007-P061
C5-6: lev. 7 the outer surface and a series of four red painted bands on body and stem.
5 Gre Virike ME006-I004 Period IIB EME 4 type 81 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with limestone, sand and mica inclusions. ME006-P046
Trench K8 Highly fired and fully oxidised. Ring burnishing on the outer surface (local ware
Chamber D designation: “Ring burnished Ware”).
168
P. Sconzo
6 Gre Virike ME006-I004 Period IIB EME 4 type 81 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand, limestone and mica inclusions. ME006-P049
Trench K8 Highly fired and fully oxidised. Ring burnishing on the inner and outer surfaces
Chamber D (local ware designation: “Ring burnished Ware”).
7 Zeytinly Bahçe ME007-I010 Period V EME 4 type 81 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric; hard and fully oxidised. Wheel burnishing on ME007-P060
C5-6: lev. 7 the outer surface.
8 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I005 Period X EME 4 type 81 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica inclusions. Highly ME010-P035
Area CD: Phase 10 fired and fully oxidised. Wheel burnished outer surface (local ware designation:
Parfume room “Euphrates Banded Ware”).
9 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I010 Period V EME 4 type 81 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric; hard and fully oxidised. Wheel burnishing on ME007-P057
C5-6 lev. 7 the outer surface.
10 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I010 Period V EME 4 type 81 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric; hard and fully oxidised. Wheel burnishing on ME007-P056
C5-6: lev. 7 the outer surface.
11 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I009 Period V EME 4 type 85 Wheel-made. Medium-fine textured fabric, with mica, sand/quartz inclusions; ME007-P051
C5-6: lev. 8 medium-hard and fully oxidised.
12 Wreide - - EME 4 type 85 Tempered with fine lime (local ware designation: “Orange Spiral Burnish Ware”). Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.24:J
13 Banat Area C Period III EME 4 type 85 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Euphrates Banded Ware”). Porter 2007a, pl. V:26
Ceramics
1 2
3 4
10
11
12
13
169
1 Banat Area A Period III EME 4 type 18 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). Porter & McClellan 1998, fig. 17:2
4 Gre Virike ME006-I004 Trench K8 Period IIB EME 4 type 86 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand and mica inclusions. Highly fired and fully reduced. ME006-P048
Chamber D Corrugations on the outer surface (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
5 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I008 Period X EME 4 type 87 Wheel-made. Medium-fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica inclusions. Highly fired and fully ME010-P046
Square D1, Phase 10 T. 87 oxidised. Outer surface wet-smoothed (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). Sconzo 2007b, fig. 15:15
6 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I008 Period X EME 4 type 87 Wheel-made. Medium-fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica inclusions. Highly fired and fully ME010-P047
Square D1, Phase 10 T. 87 oxidised. Outer surface wet-smoothed (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). Sconzo 2007b, fig. 15:8
7 Qara Quzaq ME013-I001 Open area Level III-IV EME 4 type 87 Wheel-made. Medium-fine-textured fabric, with sand and mica inclusions. Highly fired and fully ME012-P004
oxidised. Outer surface wet-slipped (local ware designation: Cerámica Común). Veldés Pereiro 2001, fig. 14:2
8 Bazi ME013-I001 Fortification- Level 9 EME 4 type 88 Wheel-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric tempered with sand, limestone and chaff. (local ware P013-001
Southern entrance – Room 1 designation: “W 22”). Oxidised with reduced surface. Outer surface wheel-scraped.
9 Bi’a ME032-001 Palace B, EME 4 type 88 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Ware 3”). ME032-P003 Strommenger &
Court 5, Rooms 3-4, 6, 13-14 Kohlmeyer 2000, pl. 39:1
10 Selenkahiye Tomb IV - EME 4 type 88 Local ware designation: “Simple Ware”. No additional description. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.9:a
11 Selenkahiye Sq. Q26, Tomb VI, Burial 1 Early Sel. EME 4 type 89 Local ware designation: “Simple Ware”. No additional description. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.7:g
12 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I003 Period X EME 4 type 89 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite inclusions. Medium-hard and fully oxidised. Outer ME010-P018
Square D10, Phase 10, T. 35 surface wet-smoothed and corrugated (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
170
13 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I008 Period X EME 4 type 90 Wheel-made. Very fine-textured fabric, clinky, with calcite and mica inclusions. Highly fired and ME010-P056
Sqaure D1, Phase 10 T. 87 fully oxidised. Outer surface slightly corrugated (local ware designation: “Euphrates Banded Ware”). Sconzo 2007b, fig. 15:7
14 Gre Virike ME006-I004 Trench K8 Period IIB EME 4 type 90 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand and mica inclusions. Highly fired and fully oxidised. ME006-P047
Chamber D Corrugations on the outer surface (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
15 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I010 C5-6 lev. 7 Period V EME 4 type 90 Wheel-made. Fine textured fabric, with mica, sand inclusions; hard and fully oxidised. ME007-P052
16 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I011 C5-6 lev. 8 Period V EME 4 type 90 Wheel-made. Very fine textured fabric, no visible inclusions; hard and fully oxidised. ME007-P065
17 Sweyhat Lower Town South Tomb5 - EME 4 type 90 Corrugated and band-burnished. Zettler 1997, app. 3.3: ee
18 Selenkahiye ME029-I002 Early Sel. EME 4 type 91 Wheel-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric with limestone inclusions. Wash outside (local ware ME029-P004
Sq. Q26 – Tomb II, Burial designation: “Simple Ware”). Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.5:c
1 – Phase 2
19 Hammam Square I 23 Period VI west EME 4 type 91 Wheel-made. Medium-textured, sand- and lime-tempered fabric of greenish colour. Smoothed Curvers 1988, pl. 119:26
al-Turkman VI West: 5 surface.
20 Tilbeshar ME008-I004 IIIC1 EME 4 type 94 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric. Self-slip outside. ME008-P085
Area J, southern lower town-
Room in complex
21 Kurban Area C Period IV EME 4 type 93 Light greenish buff clay. small-sized grits. Reddish orange thick paint on the exterior (local ware Algaze 1990, pl. 79:L
designation: Ware 07: “Combed Wash Ware”).
22 Abu Hamad Grave J10c - EME 4 type 93 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand inclusions. Highly fired. A thick coat of brown paint Falb 2005b, fig. 29:1
applied on the outer surface, later removed following a combined pattern of straight horizontal lines
and vertical wavy ones (local ware designation: “Smeared Wash Ware”).
23 Bi’a ME032-001 - EME 4 type 92 Red slipped and hand burnished. ME032-P089 Strommenger &
Palace B, Raum 6 Kohlmeyer 2000, pl. 31:2; 44: 32
24 Selenkahiye Tomb T - EME 4 type 92 Orange smoothed; red-burnished. Van Loon & Meijer 2001,
fig. 4A.12B: 4
Ceramics
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16 17
20
18 19
21 22 23 24
171
1 Oylum ME043-I002 - EME 4-5 type 95 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with mica and sand inclusions. Highly fired, oxidised ME043-P012
Z10-Pithos Grave FS25 with reduced surface. Ring-burnished on the outer surface (local ware designation: “Ring Helwing, Özgen & Tekin
Burnished Ware”). A potmark close to the base. 1997, fig. 15:6
2 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I008 Period X EME 4 type 95 Wheel-made. Very fine-textured fabric, clinky, with calcite and mica inclusions. Highly ME010-P060
Square D1, Phase 10 fired and fully oxidised. Outer surface ring-burnished (local ware designation: “Black
T. 87 Euphrates Banded Ware”).
3 Shiyukh Tahtani Area CD: Phase 11 T. 2 Period X EME 4 type 61 Wheel-made. Very fine-textured fabric, clinky, with calcite and mica inclusions. Highly Falsone 1998, fig. 7:13
fired and fully oxidised. Outer surface ring-burnished (local ware designation: “Black
Euphrates Banded Ware”).
4 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I011 Period V EME 4 type 61 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric; hard and fully oxidised. Wheel burnishing on the ME007-P064
C5-6: lev. 8 outer surface.
5 Abu Hamad Grave J7 - EME 4 type 96 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand inclusions. Highly fired. Horizontal Falb 2005b, fig. 24:1
burnishing on the outer surface. Four painted bands applied on shoulder and neck (local
ware designation: Euphrat Ware).
6 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I008 Period X EME 4 type 96 Wheel-made. Very fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica inclusions. Highly fired and ME010-P053
Area CD: Phase 10 T. 87 fully oxidised. Outer surface ring burnished and decorated by four concentric painted
172
bands on neck and shoulder (local ware designation: “Euphrates Banded Ware”).
P. Sconzo
7 Bi’a ME032-001 - EME 4 type 96 Wheel-made. Horizontal painted bands (local ware designation: “Ware 16”). ME032-P008
Palace B, Room 6 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer
2000, pl. 20:5; 31:1; 44: 31
8 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I011 Period V EME 4 type 97 Wheel-made. Fine textured fabric; hard and fully oxidised. ME007-P062
C5-6: lev. 8
9 Gre Virike ME006-I002 Period IIB EME 4 type 98 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with limestone and mica inclusions. Highly fired and ME006-P027
Trench J9 fully oxidised. Outer surface wheel-burnished (local ware designation: “Ring Burnished
Shaft Grave Ware”).
10 Shiyukh Tahtani ME010-I005 Period X EME 4 type 98 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica inclusions. Highly fired and ME010-P034
Area CD: Phase 10 fully oxidised. Wheel burnished outer surface (local ware designation: “Euphrates Sconzo 2007a, 17.11:56
Perfume room Banded Ware”).
11 Bi’a 24/49 5 - EME 4 type 98 Wheel-made. Outer surface marked by horizontal and vertical, chessboard-like Strommenger & Kohlmeyer
burnishing (local ware designation: 60 – also defined as Schwarze Ware). 1998, pl. 39:19
12 Tilbeshar ME008-I004 IIIC1 EME 4 type 98 Wheel-made. Medium -textured fabric. Self-slip outside. ME008-P083
Area J, southern lower
town- Room in complex
13 Tilbeshar ME008-I002 IIIC2 EME 4 type 98 Wheel-made. Medium -textured fabric. Light slip and wheel burnishing on the ME008-P006
Area D, northern lower outer surface.
town- Grave: cist (stone)
Ceramics
1 2 3 4
9 11
10
12 13
173
1 Oylum ME043-I002 - EME 4-5 type 99 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, with sand inclusions. Highly fired, fully reduced. Ring- ME043-P009
Z10-Pithos Grave -FS25 burnished on the outer surface (local ware designation: “Ring Burnished Ware”). Helwing, Özgen & Tekin 1997, fig. 15:2
2 Gre Virike ME006-I003 Period IIB EME 4 type 99 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with limestone and mica inclusions. Highly fired and fully ME006-P043
Trench J9 – Jar Grave reduced. Ring burnishing on the outer surface (local ware designation: “Ring burnished Ware”).
A potmark on the shoulder.
3 Oylum ME043-I002 - EME 4-5 type 99 Wheel-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric, with limestone and sand inclusions. Highly fired, fully ME043-P007
Z10-Pithos Grave -FS25 oxidised. Ring-burnished on the outer surface (local ware designation: “Ring Burnished Ware”). Helwing, Özgen & Tekin 1997, fig. 14:5
4 Terqa ME035-I003 Phase III.1 EME 4 type 99 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric. Highly fired. Spiral burnishing on the outer surface (local ware ME035-P012
Tomb e25F177 (Unit 3) designation: “Metallic Ware”).
5 Oylum ME043-I002 - EME 4-5 type 100 Wheel-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric, with limestone and sand inclusions. Highly fired, fully ME043-P011
Z10-Pithos Grave oxidised. Ring-burnished on the outer surface (local ware designation: “Ring Burnished Ware”). Helwing, Özgen & Tekin 1997, fig. 15:5
– FS25
6 Gre Virike ME006-I002 Period IIB EME 4 type 100 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with limestone, sand and mica inclusions. Highly fired and fully ME006-P030
Trench J9 – Shaft Grave oxidised. Ring burnishing on the outer surface (local ware designation: “Ring burnished Ware”).
7 Shiyukh ME010-I005 Period X EME 4 type 100 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica inclusions. Highly fired and fully oxidised. ME010-P030
Tahtani Square D10, Phase 10 Wheel burnished outer surface (local ware designation: “Euphrates Banded Ware”). Sconzo 2007a, 17.11:52
Perfume room
8 Gre Virike ME006-I003 Period IIB EME 4 type 101 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with limestone, sand and mica inclusions. Highly fired and fully ME006-P041
174
9 Gre Virike ME006-I003 Period IIB EME 4 type 102 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand, limestone and mica inclusions. Highly fired and fully ME006-P042
10 Shiyukh ME010-I008 Period X EME 4 type 102 Wheel-made. Very fine-textured fabric, clinky, with calcite and mica inclusions. Highly fired and fully ME010-P059
Tahtani Area CD: Phase 10 T. 87 oxidised. Outer surface slightly corrugated (local ware designation: “Euphrates Banded Ware”). Sconzo 2007b, fig. 15:23
11 Selenkahiye Tomb III, Burial 2 Early Sel. EME 4 type 102 Fine lime-tempered, orange fabric. Local ware designation: “Orange Spiral Burnish Ware”. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.25:b
12 Zeytinli Bahçe ME007-I011 VI EME 4 type 102 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric; hard and fully oxidised. Wheel burnishing on the outer surface. ME007-P063
13 Gre Virike ME006-I002 Period IIB EME 4 type 103 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand, limestone and mica inclusions. Highly fired and fully ME006-P025
Trench J9 oxidised (local ware designation: “Metallic Ware”).
Shaft Grave
14 Gre Virike ME006-I002 Period IIB EME 4 type 103 Wheel-made. Medium-fine-textured fabric, with limestone and mica inclusions. Highly fired and ME006-P026
Trench J9 – Shaft Grave oxidised with reduced surface (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
15 Shiyukh ME010-I003 Period X EME 4 type 103 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica inclusions. Hard and fully oxidised. Outer ME010-P017
Tahtani Area CD: Phase 10 T. 35 surface wet-smoothed (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”).
16 Terqa ME035-I003 Phase III.1 EME 4 type 103 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with limestone inclusions. Highly fired. Spiral burnishing on the ME035-P015
Tomb e25F177 (Unit 3) outer surface (local ware designation: “Fine Ware”).
17 Selenkahiye Sq. V23, Ph. B2, Houses Late Sel. EME 4-5 type 104 Local ware designation: “Simple Ware”. No additional description. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.15:f
18 Shiyukh ME010-I005 Period X EME 4 type 104 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with calcite and mica inclusions. Highly fired and fully oxidised. ME010-P031
Tahtani Area CD: Phase 10 Wheel burnished outer surface (local ware designation: “Euphrates Banded Ware”). Sconzo 2007a, 17.11:60
Perfume room
19 Tilbeshar ME008-I00 IIIC1 EME 4 type 104 Wheel-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric, with calcite inclusions. ME008-P164
20 Oylum ME043-I002 - EME 4-5 type 104 Wheel-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric, with mica and sand inclusions. Highly fired, fully ME043-P012
Z10-Pithos Grave FS25 reduced. Criss-cross burnishing on the outer surface (local ware designation: “Ring Burnished Ware”). Helwing, Özgen & Tekin 1997, fig. 15:4
Ceramics
1
2 5
7
4
8
9 10 11 12
13 14 15
16
18
17 19 20
175
1 Bi’a Grave U: 348 - EME 4 type 108 Wheel-made. Strommenger & Kohlmeyer 1998,
pl. 141:16
2 Terqa ME035-I003 Phase III.1 EME 4 type 108 Coil-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric. Highly fired. Wet-smoothed on the outer ME035-P014
Tomb e25F177 (Unit 3) surface (local ware designation: “Standard Ware”).
3 Gre Virike ME006-I002 Period IIB EME 4 type 105 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with limestone and mica inclusions. Highly fired ME006-P038
Trench J9 and oxidised with reduced surface (local ware designation: “”Plain Simple Ware’).
Shaft Grave
176
4 Tilbeshar ME008-I005 IIIC2 EME 4 type 105 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric. ME008-P139
Area L, southern lower
P. Sconzo
town- Grave: jar(s)

5 Selenkahiye Tomb T - EME 4 type 106 Local ware designation: “Simple Ware”. Corrugation on the shoulder. Van Loon & Meijer 2001, fig. 4A.12B: 2
6 Selenkahiye Sq. W13, Tomb I Late Sel. EME 4-5 type 106 Local ware designation: “Simple Ware”. No additional description. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.15:c
7 Selenkahiye Tomb VII - EME 4 type 102 Fine lime inclusions (local ware designation: “Simple Ware”). Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.26:b
8 Halawa A Sq. M, Lev. L/M3, Level L/M Alt EME 4 type 107 Sand-tempered “Import Ware”. Painted decoration on the outer surface. Hempelmann 2005, pl. 42: 324
Room 3-35A
9 Selenkahiye Sq. W42, Ph. A2,2 Early Sel. EME 4 type 107 Miscellaneous Painted Ware 3. Fine lime inclusions. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.27:c
10 Samsat Area E/15-16 Level XIX EME 4 type 71 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, with sand and calcite inclusions. Hard. Outer Abay 1997, pl. 151:d
surface slipped and painted (local ware designation: 7.1, Bemalte Karababa Ware).
Ceramics
5 6
8 9
10
177
1 Banat Tomb 2 Period III EME 4 type 67 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware ”). Porter 2007a, pl. V:223
Palace B, Court 5, Strommenger & Kohlmeyer
Rooms 3-4, 6, 13-14 2000, pl. 38:3
3 Gre Virike ME006-I003 Period IIB EME 4 type 112 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand, limestone and mica inclusions. Highly fired ME006-P040
Trench J9 and fully oxidised. Ring burnishing on the outer surface (local ware designation: “Ring
Jar Grave burnished Ware”).
4 Terqa ME035-I003 Phase III.1 EME 4 type 112 Coil-made. Medium/coarse-textured fabric, with chaff inclusions. Spiral burnishing on the ME035-P020
Tomb e25F177 outer surface (local ware designation: “Standard Ware”). Bitumen traces (outside). Potmark
(Unit 3) on the shoulder.
5 Samsat Area E/15-16 Level XIX EME 4 type 110 Wheel-made. Fine-textured, with sand and calcite inclusions. Painted decoration on the Abay1997, pl. 149: a
outer surface (local ware designation: 8.1, Smeared Wash Ware).
6 ‘Abd Area I, lev. 2 Horizon 4 EME 4-5 type 110 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, with calcite and basalt inclusions. Medium firing. Sconzo 2013, pl. 111:1267
Post Build. A levels Outer surface with horizontal reserved-slip decoration (local ware designation: “Ware B2.
178
Horizontal reserved-Slip Ware”). Bitumen traces (outside). Potmark on the shoulder.
P. Sconzo
7 Bi’a Palace B, Hof 5 - EME 4 type 111 – Strommenger & Kohlmeyer

2000, pl. 41:9
8 Hammam Sq. J23, VI West: 5 Period VI west EME 4 type 111 Wheel-made. Medium-textured, sand-tempered fabric. Smoothed surface. Curvers 1988, pl. 121:1
al-Turkman
9 Bi’a ME032-001 - EME 4 type 113 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Ware 25”). Wheel-scraped (?) outside. ME032-P006
Palace B, Court 5 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer
2000, pl. 32; 40:5
10 Bi’a ME032-001 - EME 4 type 113 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Ware 18”). Wheel- and hand-scraped outside. ME032-P007
Palace B, Court 5 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer
2000, pl. 33; 40:1
11 Shiyukh ME010-I005 Period X EME 4 type 75 Wheel-made. Coarse-textured fabric, with quartz, basalt and shell inclusions. Irregular ME010-P036
Tahtani Square D10, Phase 10 firing. Outer surface hand burnished.
Perfume room
12 Shiyukh Area CD: Phase 11 Period X EME 4 type 114 Hand-made. Coarse-textured fabric, with quartz, basalt and shell inclusions. Irregular firing. Sconzo – unpublished
Tahtani T.84 Outer surface hand burnished. Secondary burning on the lower side.
13 Banat Tomb 1 Period IV EME 4 type 114 – Porter 1995a, fig. 33:P43
Ceramics
3
2
5 6
4
7 8
10
12 13
11
179
1 Selenkahiye Sq. W45, Ph. A1, 6 Late Sel. EME 5 type 115 Local ware designation: “Simple Ware”. No additional description. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.2:b
2 Samsat Area E-F/16 XVII EME 5 type 115 Wheel-made. Fine-textured, with sand and calcite inclusions (local ware designation: 1.3, Abay 1997, pl. 205: c
Einfache Ware).
3 Bi’a ME032-002 EME 5 type 116 Wheel-made. (local ware designation: “Ware 1”). ME032-P023
Pillar Building, Phase 3 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer
Rooms 2,4 2000, pl. 62:10
4 Selenkahiye Sq. W42, Ph. A2, 3a Late Sel. EME 5 type 116 Local ware designation: “Simple Ware”. No additional description. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.2:d
5 ‘Abd Area I, lev. 2 Horizon 4 EME 4-5 type 116 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric (local ware designation: ‘Ware A.0). Sconzo 2013, pl. 111:1261
Post Build. A levels
6 Tilbeshar ME008-I004 IIIC1 EME 5 type 116 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric. Outer side self-slipped. ME008-P040
Area J, southern lower
town- Room in complex
7 Samsat Area E/17 XVII EME 5 type 118 Wheel-made. Fine-textured, with sand and mica inclusions (local ware designation: 1.5, Abay 1997, pl. 224: c
Einfache Ware).
8 Emar ME031-I001 - EME 5 type 118 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with calcite inclusions (local ware designation: “Standard ME031-P012
TB5, Rooms I-II Ware”). Bitumen traces inside.
9 Selenkahiye Sq. X42, Ph. A2, 3ab Late Sel. EME 5 type 118 Local ware designation: “Simple Ware”. No additional description. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.3:n
10 Qara Quzaq ME012-I002 Level III.1 EME 5 type 117 Wheel-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric with sand and mica inclusions. Medium fired ME012-P015
Room inventory and fully oxidised. Outer surface wet-smoothed (local ware designation: Cerámica Común). Valdés Pereiro 2001, fig. 12.11
180
11 Samsat Area E/18 XVII EME 5 type 117 Wheel-made. Medium-textured, with sand and calcite inclusions (local ware designation: Abay 1997, pl. 204:h
P. Sconzo
1.3, Einfache Ware).

Rooms 2,4 2000, pl. 66:35
13 Selenkahiye Sq. X23 Late Sel. EME 5 type 119 Local ware designation: “Simple Ware”. No additional description. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.23:a
14 Sweyhat Tr. IVQ, Room 6, Phase 2A Holland: Period F EME 5 type 119 Wheel-made. Fairly fine pink fabric, evenly fired. Cream slip in and out. Holland 2006, fig. 77: 9
Rooms 1-2 2000, pl. 70:1
16 Emar ME031-I001 - EME 5 type 88 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with basalt inclusions. Outer surface slipped (local ware ME031-P008
TB5, Rooms I-II designation: “Standard Ware”).
17 Emar TB5, Rooms I-II - EME 5 type 88 Wheel-made. Sakal, in preparation
18 Bazi ME013-I002 Level 8 EME 5 type 88 Wheel-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric tempered with quartz, limestone and chaff ME013-P002
48/19 So 49/19 SW (local ware designation: “W 85”). Fully reduced. Outer surface wheel-scraped.
– Room
19 Sweyhat Area IIIB EME 5 type 89 Wheel-made. Fairly fine pink fabric, evenly fired. Cream slip in and out. Holland 1976b, fig. 9:19
Room 4 2000, pl. 60:3
21 Qara Quzaq ME012-I002 Level III.1 EME 5 type 89 Wheel-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric with sand and mica inclusions. Medium fired ME012-P015
Room inventory and fully oxidised. Outer surface wet-smoothed and corrugated (local ware designation: Valdés Pereiro 2001, fig. 12.1
Cerámica Común).
Ceramics
1
3
4
6
8 10
11
12 13 14
15 16 18
17
19 20
21
181
1 Selenkahiye Sq. R26, Tomb X - EME 5 type 120 Local ware designation: “Simple Ware”. No additional description. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.9:l
2 Hammam Sq. J23, Stratum VI Period VI EME 5 type 120 Wheel-made. Medium-textured, sand-tempered fabric, evenly fired. Curvers 1988, pl. 119: 34
al-Turkman West:6 Cream slip in and out.
3 Bi’a ME032-002 EME 4 type 120 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Ware 2”). ME032-P017
Rooms 2,4 2000, pl. 66:36
4 Emar TB5, Rooms I-II - EME 5 type 120 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Standard Ware”). Sakal, in preparation
5 Emar ME031-I001 EME 5 type 121 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric. Hard (local ware designation: ME031-P007
182
TB5 “Standard Ware”).
P. Sconzo
6 Selenkahiye Sq. W13, Burial 3 - EME 5 type 121 Local ware designation: “Simple Ware”. No additional description. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.10:b
8 Selenkahiye Sq. V44, Phase A1,7 Late Sel. EME 5 type 121 Local ware designation: “Simple Ware”. No additional description. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.14.a
9 Sweyhat Tr. IVM, Room 7, Holland: EME 5 type 121 Wheel-made. Fairly coarse pink fabric, evenly fired. Cream slip out. Holland 2006, fig. 68: 3
Phase 2A Period F
11 Bi’a Grave 24/49:3 - EME 5 type 122 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Ware 2”). A potmark on the Strommenger & Kohlmeyer
shoulder. 1998, pl. 37:6
12 Samsat Area E/15-16 XVII EME 5 type 71 Hand-made. Medium-textured, with sand and calcite inclusions Abay 1997, pl. 232:d
(local ware designation: 7.1, Bemalte Karababa Ware).
Ceramics
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
11
10
12
183
1 Selenkahiye Sq. W22, Ph. B2, Late Sel. EME 5 type 123 Local “Smeared Wash Ware”. Fine and medium lime inclusions. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.26:d
Houses
2 Bi’a Grave 24/49:3 - EME 5 type 122 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Ware 2”). A potmark on the shoulder. Strommenger & Kohlmeyer
1998, pl. 37:4
3 Sweyhat Tr. IVJ, Room 4, Holland: EME 5 type 67 Wheel-made. Fairly coarse brown fabric, evenly fired. Cream slip in and out. Holland 2006, fig. 274: 6
Phase 2B Period F
4 Selenkahiye Sq. X24, Ph. B2, Late Sel. EME 5 type 67 Local ware designation: “Simple Ware”. No additional description. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.18:c
Houses
5 Selenkahiye Sq. V23, Ph. B2, Late Sel. EME 5 type 124 Local ware designation: “Simple Ware”. No additional description. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.18:b
Houses
6 Bazi ME013-I002 Level 8 EME 5 type 124 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric tempered with limestone, mica, sand ME013-P019
48/19 SO 49/19 SW and chaff. Fully oxidised. Outer surface wheel-scraped, inside hand-scraped and
– Room burnished (local ware designation: “W 83”).
7 Bazi ME013-I002 Level 8 EME 5 type 124 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric tempered with calcite, mica, sand and ME013-P004
184
48/19 SO 49/19 SW chaff. Fully oxidised. Outer surface washed (local ware designation: “W 91”).
P. Sconzo
– Room
8 Emar ME031-I001 EME 5 type 124 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Standard Ware”). ME031-P004
TB5, Rooms I-II
9 Selenkahiye Sq. W13, Tomb I Late Sel. EME 5 type 125 Local ware designation: “Orange Spiral Burnish Ware”. No additional Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.25:f
description.
10 Wreide Tomb W 054 - EME 5 type 125 Wheel-made. Fine-textured, with sand inclusions. Highly fired. Horizontal Orthmann 1991b, pl. 23:
(Chamber C) burnishing on the outer surface (local ware designation: Euphrat Ware). Potmark W54C:71
on the shoulder.
11 Sweyhat Tr. IVM, Room 7, Holland: EME 5 type 110 Slightly coarse pink fabric, with many lime grits, evenly fired. Cream slip out. Holland 2006, pl. 247: 5
Phase 2A Period F
12 Selenkahiye Sq. W42, Phase A2,3c Late Sel. EME 5 type 110 Local ware designation: “Simple Ware”. No additional description. Pot-mark on Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.12:c
the shoulder.
13 Emar ME031-I001 EME 5 type 126 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric with sand and basalt inclusions (local ware ME031-P009
TB5, Rooms I-II designation: “Standard Ware”).
14 Emar ME031-I001 EME 5 type 127 (local ware designation: “Standard Ware”). ME031-P011
TB5, Rooms I-II
15 Selenkahiye Sq. U25 - EME 5 type 127 Local ware designation: “Simple Ware”. No additional description. Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.22:b
Ceramics
1 2 3 4
5 6 7
8 9 10
12
11
13
15
14
185
1 Emar ME031-I001 - EME 5 type 112 Wheel-made. Horizontal reserved-slip on the outer surface (local ware ME031-P003
TB5, Rooms I-II designation: “Horizontal Reserved Slip Ware”).
2 Sweyhat Tr. IVG, Room 3, Holland: EME 5 type 112 Fairly fine brown fabric, with lime and mica grits, unevenly fired with some Holland 2006, pl. 267:2
Phase 2A Period F gray core. Creamy slip in and out. Potmark on the shoulder.
3 Sweyhat Tr. IVE, Room 2, Holland: EME 5 type 112 Fairly coarse brownish fabric, unevenly fired pink in patches. Horizontal Holland 2006, pl. 269:1
Phase 2A Period F reserved-slip decoration on the outer surface. Potmark on the shoulder.
186
4 Qara Quzaq ME012-I002 Level III.1 EME5 type 128 Wheel-made. Medium/coarse -textured fabric with sand and calcite inclisions. ME012-P025
P. Sconzo
Room Inventory Medium fired and fully oxidised (local ware designation: Cerámica Común). Valedés Pereiro 2001, fig. 12:21
Potmark on the shoulder.
5 Bazi ME013-I002 Level 8 EME 5 type 128 Wheel-made. Coarse-textured fabric tempered with calcite, limestone, sand ME013-P003
48/19 SO 49/19 SW and chaff. Fully oxidised. Outer surface wheel-scraped with horizontal reserved
– Room slip decoration (local ware designation: “W 73”).
6 Sweyhat Tr. IVD, Room 2, Holland: EME 5 type 128 Fairly coarse drab fabric, unevenly fired with pink patches out. Creamy green Holland 2006, pl. 87:7
Phase 2B Period F slip out. Potmark on the shoulder.
7 Sweyhat Tr. IVO, Room 10A, Holland: EME 5 type 111 Medium-coarse buff fabric, evenly fired. Light creamy slip in and out. Potmark Holland 2006, pl. 272:2
Phase 2B Period F on top of the rim.
Ceramics
7
6
187
1 Bi’a ME032-002 - EME 5 type 129 Wheel-made. (local ware designation: “Ware 1”). Bitumen painted figurative ME032-P026
Pillar Building, Phase 3 “Plow” motif on the shoulder. Strommenger & Kohlmeyer 2000,
Rooms 2,4 pl. 51:5; 63:1
2 Sweyhat Tr. IVZ, Room 21, Holland: EME 5 type 130 Slightly coarse, light brown fabric, with lime and mica grits, evenly fired. Thick Holland 2006, pl. 273:1
Phase 2B Period F self-slip in and creamy buff slip out. Potmark on the shoulder. Applied rope-like
188
bands decorated with finger- and tool-impressed decoration on upper wall.
P. Sconzo
Pillar Building, Phase 3 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer 2000,
Rooms 2,4 pl. 51:6; 63:4
4 Sweyhat Tr. IVJ, Room 4, Holland: EME 5 type 75 Fairly coarse pink fabric, unevenly fired with black core. Burnished in and out. Holland 2006, pl. 276:1
Phase 2A Period F
5 Selenkahiye Sq. Q26, Ph. B1, 3a-b Late Sel. EME 5 type 75 Lime and calcite inclusions (local ware designation: “Coarse Ware”). Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.28:a
6 Emar ME031-I001 - EME 5 type 131 Hand-made. Medium/coarse brown fabric, with sand inclusions (local ware ME031-P002
TB5, Rooms I-II designation: Kochtopf Ware).
Ceramics
1 2
189
1 Selenkahiye Sq. W42, Ph. A2,3 Late Sel. EME 5 type 132 Coarse calcite inclusions (local ware designation: “Coarse Ware”). Schwartz 2001, pl. 5A.29:a-c
2 Emar Terrace Slope, Phase 5 EME 5 type 132 Hand-made. “Cooking-Pot Ware”. Low-fired, coarse-textured, tempered with Sakal, forthcoming
Sq 62/50 quartz and grits. Tool-made pitted and flattened surface on the bottom.
3 Halawa A Sq. L, Lev. L/M3, Level L/M Alt EME 4-5 type 132 Wheel-made. Light-coloured, grit-tempered fabric with grog inclusions Hempelmann 2005,
Room 3-26 (local ware designation: 2111). pl. 44:330
4 Emar ME031-I001 - EME 5 - Wheel-made. Slip on the outer/inner surfaces (local ware designation: ME031-P006
TB5, Rooms I-II “Standard Ware”). Impressed geometric decoration on the ledge and three
190
applied anthropomorphic heads in the center.
P. Sconzo
5 Halawa A Sq. L, Lev. L/M3, Level L/M Alt EME 4-5 type 133 Wheel-made. Light-coloured, sand-tempered fabric (local ware designation: Hempelmann 2005,
Room 3-26 1111). Zoomorphic incised and applied decoration on the shoulder. Black pl. 71:457
paint on the mouth and around the eyes of the lions.
6 Sweyhat Tr. IV, Rooms 1,7, 14, Holland: Period F EME 5 type 133 Very hard ware with fine lime and mica grits, unevenly fired with gray core. Holland 2006, fig. 64:4,
Phase 2A Self-slip in and out. Incised and applied decoration representing two mythical pl. 249:8
“lion-like” animals facing an eagle in the upper body. All animal heads are
applied, while the body decoration is tool-incised before firing.
7 Munbaqa “im Schutt” IV Ku-1 EME 5 type 133 Incised and applied decoration representing two “lion-like” animals, with Werner 2008, pl. 22-23,
appliqué head and incised body, facing a bird-like animal, again with applied 302:5094
head and incised body.
Ceramics
2 3
191
1 Kabir ME014-I001 Level 6 EME 6 type 134 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand inclusions (local ware ME014-P019
designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). Porter 1995b, fig. 18:3
Building 2, Room 2
2 Kabir Building 2, Room 6 Level 6 EME 6 type 134 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand inclusions (local ware Porter 1995b, fig. 20:1
3 Bazi ME013-I003 Level 7f EME 6 type 135 Wheel-made. Medium/fine-textured fabric tempered with sand, ME013-P067
Western Part Building 2 mica and chaff. Medium/soft hardness and fully oxidised. Outer/
inner surfaces wheel-scraped (local ware designation: “W 74”).
4 Bazi ME013-I003 Level 7f EME 6 type 135 Wheel-made. Medium/coarse-textured fabric tempered with sand, ME013-P065
Western Part Building 2 mica, calcite and chaff. (local ware designation: “W 20”). Outer/
inner surfaces wet-smoothed.
5 Sweyhat Tr. IIIA, Room 11, Phase 4 Holland: Period E EME 6 type 136 Buff orange fabric, with black- and gold-coloured mica grits. Holland 2006, pl. 206:4
Building 2, Room 2 designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). Porter 1995b, fig. 18:1
192
7 Kabir Building 4 Level 6 EME 6 type 136 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand inclusions (local ware Porter 1995b, fig. 20:2
P. Sconzo
8 Sweyhat Tr. IVC, Room 7, Phase 2B Holland: Period F EME 5-6 type 136 Slightly coarse greyish-buff fabric, with small lime and mica grits, Holland 2006, pl. 206:16
evenly fired. Potmark on inside (not visible in the drawing).
10 Sweyhat Tr. IIIE, Room 5, Phase 4 Holland: Period E EME 6 type 137 Brown fabric, with black,- gold and white mineral inclusions, evenly Holland 2006, pl. 218:3
fired. Buff slip in and out.
13 Tilbeshar ME008-I006 IVA1 EME 6 type 139 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric. Comb-incised decoration ME008-P159
Area D, Lower town N- Grave: pit on the shoulder. Kepinski 2007b, fig. 9
14 Kabir ME014-I001 Level 6 EME 6 type 140 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand and quartz inclusions ME014-P005
Building 2, Room 2 (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). Porter 1995b, fig. 15:4
Ceramics
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
10
11
12
14
13
15
193
1 Tilbeshar ME008-I006 IVA1 EME 6 type 141 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric. ME008-P157
Area D, Lower town N- Kepinski 2007b, fig. 6:8, 9
Grave: pit
4 Bazi ME013-I003 Level 7f EME 6 type 142 Wheel-made. Medium/coarse-textured fabric tempered with sand, mica, ME013-P040
Western part Building 2 calcite, limestone and chaff. Outer/inner surfaces wheel-scraped. Wavy
comb-incised pattern on the shoulder (local ware designation: “W 72”).
5 Kabir ME014-I001 Level 6 EME 6 type 142 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand inclusions. Highly fired ME014-P001
Building 2, Room 2 (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). Two applied, incised Porter 1995b, fig. 14
animal figures (probably lions) and applied rope molding.
194
6 Kabir ME014-I001 Level 6 EME 6 type 143 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand and limestone inclusions ME014-P011
P. Sconzo
Building 2, Room 2 (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). Large potmark on the Porter 1995b, fig. 17:2
upper body.
7 Kabir ME014-I001 Level 6 EME 6 type 143 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand and limestone inclusions ME014-P010
Building 2, Room 2 (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). Large potmark on the Porter 1995b, fig. 17:1
upper body.
10 Tilbeshar ME008-I006 IVA1 EME 6 type 145 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric. Comb-incised decoration on the ME008-P156
Area D, Lower town N- shoulder. Kepinski 2007b, fig. 6:7, 9
Grave: pit
11 Kabir ME014-I001 Level 6 EME 6 type 146 Wheel-made (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). Incised ME014-P002
Building 2, Room 2 geometric motif on the outer side. Porter 1995b, fig. 15:1
12 Kabir ME014-I001 Level 6 EME 6 type 127 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric, with vegetal and grog inclusions. ME014-P016
Building 2, Room 2 Porter 1995b, fig. 17:7
Ceramics
1 2 3 4
8 9
10
11 12
195
1 Bazi ME013-I003 Level 7f EME 6 type 147 Wheel-made. Coarse-textured fabric tempered with sand/quartz, mica, limestone ME013-P021
Western Part Building and calcite. Fully reduced. Outer/inner surfaces wet-smoothed (local ware designa-
2, Room tion: “W 86”). Applied band along the carination point.
2 Kabir ME014-I001 Level 6 EME 6 type 148 Wheel-made. Sand-quartz-tempered (local ware designation: “Plain Simple Ware”). ME014-P003
Building 2, Room 2 Incised potmark on the shoulder. Porter 1995b, fig. 15:2
196
P. Sconzo
3 Kabir ME014-I001 Level 6 EME 6 type 148 Wheel-made. Fine-textured fabric, with sand and quartz inclusions (local ware ME014-P009
4 Bazi ME013-I003 Level 7f EME 6 type 149 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric tempered with sand/quartz, mica, limestone ME013-P027
Western Part Building 2 and calcite. Outer surface hand-burnished and wheel-scraped. (local ware designa-
tion: “W 67”). Applied band along the carination point.
5 Bazi ME013-I003 Level 7f EME 6 type 150 Wheel-made. Medium-textured fabric tempered with sand, mica, calcite, limestone ME013-P027
Western Part Building 2 and chaff (local ware designation: “W 51”). Outer/inner surfaces wheel-scraped.
Ceramics
197
Plate 31: EME 1-2 sub-regional typology.
Upper Sajur/Qoweiq
Proposed site correlation Karababa Birecik - Carchemish Lower Tishrin Tabqa Balikh - Lower ME
Upper Tishrin (Banat cluster)
LC5
Hassek, Levels 4-3 (continues into EME 2a) 2 - Truncated-conical bowl 2 - Truncated-conical bowl 2 - Truncated conical-bowl (?)
Samsat, Level e 7 - Hem. bowl w. triangular rim 7 - Hem. bowl w. triangular rim
Kurban, ?? (Period VB) 8 - Carinated bowl w. wavy incised dec. 8 - Carinated bowl w. wavy incised dec.
Tilbes/Surtepe/ Yarim (?) 1 - BRB 1 - BRB 1 - BRB
Birecik, cemetery 4 - Jar w. combed decoration 4 - Jar w. combed decoration 4 - Jar with combed decoration
Zeytinli Bahçe, Trench B8: lev. 5 5 - Straight-sided bowl w. band rim 5 - Straight-sided bowl w. band rim 5 - Straight-sided bowl w. band rim
Jerablus Tahtani, Period IB 11 - Bowl w. sinuous profile 11 - Bowl w. sinuous profile 11 - Bowl w. sinuous profile
EME 1 Shiyukh Tahtani, Period XIV, CD: Ph. 14 12 - Glob. closed pot w. flar. simple rim 12 - Glob. closed pot w. flar. simple rim 12 - Glob. closed pot w. flar. simple rim
Shiyukh Fawqani, Area D: Period I 10 - Bowl w. direct tapering rim 10 - Bowl w. direct tapering rim 10 - Bowl w. direct tapering rim
Ahmar, Area A: Stratum D (?) 3 - Shallow bowl w. int. modelled rim 3 - Shallow bowl w. int. modelled rim
Hajj Ibrahim, Phase A2 6 - Small bowl w. incurved simple rim 6 - Small bowl w. incurved simple rim
Sweyhat, Holland Period K (?) 9 - Closed pot (CP) w. short. flaring rim,
‘Abd, Hor. 1, Area II:5 int. bulge
Hadidi, Stratum 1, Area RII: lev. 1-3 - Jar w. cross-hatched decoration - Jar w. cross-hatched decoration - Jar w. cross-hatched decoration
Halawa B, Period I:4 (?) - Drooping spouts - Drooping spouts
Hassek, Levels 4-3 5 - Straigh-sided bowl w. band rim 5 - Straigh-sided bowl w. band rim
Samsat, Level d 7 - Hem. bowl w. triangular rim 7 - Hem. bowl w. triangular rim
Kurban, Period VB 11 - Bowl w. sinuous profile 11 - Bowl w. sinuous profile 11 - Bowl w. sinuous profile 11 - Bowl w. sinuous profile
Tilbes/Yarim/Saraga 12 - Glob. closed pot w. flar. simple rim 12 - Glob. closed pot w. flar. simple rim 12 - Glob. closed pot w. flar. simple rim
Horum, Phase III 1-2 (continues into EME2b) 6 - Small bowl w. incurved simple rim 6 - Small bowl w. incurved simple rim
Birecik, cemetery (continues into EME2b) 32-33 - RBBW vessels 10 - Hem. bowl w. direct tapering rim
Zeytinli Bahçe, Tr. B8: levs. 4-1 24 - High-stemmed car. bi-conical bowl 24 - High-stemmed car. bi-conical bowl
Jerablus Tahtani, Period IIA (cont. in EME2b) 37 - Hole-mouth closed pot 37 - Hole-mouth closed pot 37 - Hole-mouth closed pot
198
Shiyukh Tahtani, Period XIII, 13 - Straight-sided bowl w. distinct band 13 - Straight-sided bowl w. distinct band
P. Sconzo
a 14 - Bowl w. incised ledge rim 14 - Bowl w. incised ledge rim

CD: Ph. 13C-B
15 - Bowl w. upright beaded rim 15 - Bowl w. upright beaded rim
Ahmar, Area A: Stratum C
22 - Car. closed bowl w. s. everted rim 22 - Car. closed bowl w. s. everted rim
Qara Quzaq, Phase V-3 38 - Wide-neck jar w. thickened dist. rim 38 - Wide-neck jar w. thickened dist. rim
Sweyhat, Holland: Per. K-J, Zettler: Ph. 1 19 - Car. bowl w. thin out-flared rim
19 - Car. bowl w. thin out-flared rim 19 - Car. bowl w. thin out-flared rim
Hajji Ibrahim, Phase B 35 - Large wide-neck. jar w. everted rim
35 - Large wide-neck. jar w. everted rim 35 - Large wide-neck. jar w. everted rim
‘Abd, Hor. 4a, Areas III:4, II: 4; I:5-4 31 - Small globular pot w. painted dec. 31 - Small globular pot w. painted dec.
Hadidi, Stratum 1, Area RII: level 4 39 - Closed pot/pithos w. thickened rim 39 - Closed pot/pithos w. thickened rim
Halawa B, Period I: (4?)-3 18 - Small hem. bowl with direct rim
EME 2 18 - Small hem. bowl with direct rim 18 - Small hem. bowl with direct rim
Hammam al-Turkmann, VI: East: 1-2 (A) 40 - Closed pot/pithos w. angular rim 40 - Closed pot/pithos w. angular rim 40 - Closed pot/pithos w. angular rim
Hassek, Levels 2-1 (0) 30 - Wide neck jar w. everted triang. rim
Samsat, Level c painted decoration
Kurban, Period VA 17 - Bell-shaped bowl flaring simple rim
Tilbes/Yarim/Saraga 16 - Bowl w. up-turned band rim 16 - Bowl w. up-turned band rim
Hacinebi, graves 25 - High-stemmed sharply carin. bowl 25 - High-stemmed sharply carin. bowl
Gre Virike, Period 1A (?) 26 - Stemmed hemispherical bowl 26 - Stemmed hemispherical bowl
b Zeytinli Bahçe, Tr. C6-7: 9-2 27 - Stemmed carin. bowl w. int. walls 27 - Stemmed carin. bowl w. int. walls
28 - Small narrow-neck. jar w. evert. rim 28 - Small narrow-neck. jar w. evert. rim
Shiyukh Tahtani, Period XII,
29 - Small jar with four pierced lugs 29 - Small jar with four pierced lugs
CD: Ph. 13A 34 - Wide neck jar w. ev. thickened rim
34 - Wide neck jar w. ev. thickened rim
Shiyukh Fawqani, Area D: Period II 21 - Car. bowl w. direct thick. rim
Ahmar, Area A: Strata B-A 23 - Closed bowl w. tiny bead rim
Qara Quzaq, Phase V2-1 36 - Low-footed jar /chalice
Tell Jamis, Level XI 20 - Bell-shaped bowl w. ‘cyma recta’ 20 - Bell-shaped bowl w. ‘cyma recta’ 20 - Bell-shaped bowl w. ‘cyma recta’ 20 - Bell-shaped bowl w. ‘cyma recta’
Sweyhat, Holland: Per. H, Zettler: Ph. 1 profile and everted pointed lip profile and everted pointed lip profile and everted pointed lip profile and everted pointed lip
Hajji Ibrahim, Phase C 41 - Closed pot/pithos w. bevelled rim 41 - Closed pot/pithos w. bevelled rim
‘Abd, Hor. 4b, Areas III:3-2, II: 3-2(?)
Hadidi, Stratum 2, Area RII: lev. 1
Halawa B, Period I: 2-1
Hammam al-Turkmann, VI: East 3 (B)
Plate 32: EME 3 sub-regional typology.
Upper Saour/Qoweiq
Proposed site correlation Karababa Lower Tishrin Tabqa Balikh - Lower ME
Birecik - Carchemish
(Banat cluster)
Upper Tishrin
15 - Bowl w. upright beaded rim 15 - Bowl w. upright beaded rim
41 - Pithos w. out-turned, beveled rim 41 - Pithos w. out-turned, beveled rim 41 - Pithos w. out-turned, beveled rim
Samsat, Levels c + XX 18 - Small hem. bowl w. direct rim 18 - Small hem. bowl w. direct rim 18 - Small hem. bowl w. direct rim 18 - Small hem. bowl w. direct rim
Lidar I (Phases 1-3) 71 - Open pot w. ‚Karababa’ painted d.
Titris, extra-mural cemetery 42 - Shallow bowl w. ledge rim 42 - Shallow bowl w. ledge rim
Kurban, Period IVC 54 - Car. tripod bowl w. flaring thick rim
57 - Car. high-stemmed bowl - ledge rim
Tilbeshar, Phase IIIB 58 - Low-footed jar w. ledge rim (58 - Low-footed jar w. ledge rim) (58 - Low-footed jar w. ledge rim)
60 - Small bi-conical w. out turned rim (60 - Small bi-conical w. out turned rim)
Horum, Phase III 3 43 - Shall. bowl w. flar. rim round base 43 - Shall. bowl w. flar. rim round base
Birecik cemetery (end phase) 51 - Ovoid beaker w. pointed bottom 51 - Ovoid beaker w. pointed bottom 51 - Ovoid beaker w. pointed bottom
Zeitinli Bahce, Tr. C5/6: 9-2 and pierced rim and pierced rim and pierced rim
Gre Virike, Period IIA 55 - Stemmed hem. bowl w. thick rim 55 - Stemmed hem. bowl w. thick rim
Jerablus, Period IIB (Fort + Glacis) 59 - Tripod car. jar w. flaring rim 59 - Tripod car .jar w. flaring rim
68 - Hand-made closed pot 68 - Hand-made closed pot 68 - Hand-made closed pot
Shiyukh Tahtani, Period XI, 48 - Bowl w. interiorely thickened rim 48 - Bowl w. interiorely thickened rim 48 - Bowl w. interiorely thickened rim 48 - Bowl w. interiorely thickened rim
199
EME 3 CD: Phase 12 44 - Shall. bowl w. everted thickened rim 44 - Shall. bowl w. everted thickened rim 44 - Shall. bowl w. everted thickened rim 44 - Shall. bowl w. everted thickened rim 44 - Shall. bowl w. everted thickened rim
Amarne, Graves
Ceramics
45 - Bowl with everted thickened rim 45 - Bowl with everted thickened rim 45 - Bowl with everted thickened rim 45 - Bowl with everted thickened rim 45 - Bowl with everted thickened rim
Qara Quzaq, Phase IV 52 - Truncated-conical beaker 52 - Truncated-conical beaker 52 - Truncated-conical beaker 52 - Truncated-conical beaker 52 - Truncated-conical beaker
61 - S. spherical clos. pot w. out turn. rim 61 - S. spherical clos. pot w. out-turn. rim 61 - S. spherical clos. pot w. out-turn. rim 61 - S. spherical clos. pot w. out-turn. rim 61 - S. spherical clos. pot w. out-turn. rim
Banat, Period IV 75 - CP w. triangular lugs 75 - CP w. triangular lugs 75 - CP w. triangular lugs 75 - CP w. triangular lugs 75 - CP w. triangular lugs
53 - Hemisph. tripod bowl w. simple rim 53 - Hemisph. tripod bowl w. simple rim 53 - Hemisph. tripod bowl w. simple rim 53 - Hemisph. tripod bowl w. simple rim
Sweyhat, Holland: Per. H; Zettler: Ph. 2 56 - Car. low-footed bowl w. ledge rim 56 - Car. low-footed bowl w. ledge rim 56 - Car. low-footed bowl w. ledge rim 56 - Low-footed bowl w. ledge rim
Hajji Ibrahim, Phase D 62 - Jar w. globular body and ledge rim 62 - Jar w. globular body and ledge rim 62 - Jar w. globular body and ledge rim 62 - Jar w. globular body and ledge rim
‘Abd, Hor. 3, Areas III:1; I:3 (glacis) 63 - Wide-neck closed pot w. flaring rim 63 - Wide-neck closed pot w. flaring rim 63 - Wide-neck closed pot w. flaring rim 63 - Wide-neck closed pot w. flaring rim
Munbaqa, Kuppe 2 + graves 64 - Spouted pot/tea-pot 64 - Spouted pot/tea-pot 64 - Spouted pot/tea-pot 64 - Spouted pot/tea-pot
Shamseddin and Tawi, cemeteries 65 - Miniature jar w. round base 65 - Miniature jar w. round base 65 - Miniature jar w. round base 65 - Miniature jar w. round base
Hadidi, Area RII: Stratum 2: lev. 2A (?) 66 - Ovoid jar w. round base 66 - Ovoid jar w. round base 66 - Ovoid jar w. round base
Halawa B, (v. final per. I:1?) + graves 67 - Two-handled bottle 67 - Two-handled bottle (?) 67 - Two-handled bottle
69 - Globular closed pot - round bottom 69 - Globular closed pot - round bottom 69 - Globular closed pot - round bottom
Bi’a, Mound E: Burial building and flanged rim and flangegd rim and flanged rim
Hammam al-Turkman, VI East: levs. 2-1 47 - Bowl with bevelled rim 47 - Bowl with bevelled rim 47 - Bowl with bevelled rim
49 - Straight-sided bowl w. simple rim 49 - Straight-sided bowl w. simple rim 49 - Straight-sided bowl w. simple rim
Abu Hamad, cemetery 70 - Pot-stand w. concave profile 70 - Pot-stand w. concave profile 70 - Pot-stand w. concave profile
Terqa, Phase IV.2-1(0) 46 - Large beaker w. beaded/folded rim 46 - Large beaker w. beaded/folded rim
50 - Ovoid beaker w. in-bevelled rim 50 - Ovoid beaker w. in-bevelled rim
72 - Wide-neck jar w. flanged rim
74 - Ovoid closed pot w. profiled rim
73 - Carinated narrow-necked pithos
Upper Sajur/Qoweiq
Birecik - Carchemish Lower Tishrin
Proposed site correlation Karababa Tabqa Balikh - Lower ME
71 - Open pot w.‚Karababa’ painted deco.
42 - Shallow bowl w. ledge rim 42 - Shallow bowl w. ledge rim
43 - Shall. bowl w. round base-evert. rim 43 - Shall. bowl w. round base-evert. rim
51 - Ovoid beaker w. pointed bottom 51 - Ovoid beaker w. pointed bottom 51 - Ovoid beaker w. pointed bottom
75 - Cooking-pot w. triangular lugs 75 - Cooking-pot w. triangular lugs 75 - Cooking-pot w. triangular lugs 75 - Cooking-pot w. triangular lugs 75 - CP w. triangular lugs
Lidar II (Phases 4-5) 61 - S. globular clos. pot w. out-turn. rim 61 - S. globular clos. pot w. out-turn. rim 61 - S. globular clos. pot w. out-turn. rim 61 - S. globular clos. pot w. out-turn. rim 61 - S. globular clos. pot w. out turn. rim
Samsat, Level XIX 56 - Low-footed bowl w. ledge rim 56 - Low-footed bowl w. ledge rim 56 - Low-footed bowl w. ledge rim 56 - Low-footed bowl w. ledge rim
Kurban, Period IVB-A 62 - Jar w. globular body and ledge rim 62 - Jar w. globular body and ledge rim 62 - Jar w. globular body and ledge rim 62 - Jar w. globular body and ledge rim
Titris 67 - Two-handled bottle (?) 67 - Two-handled bottle 67 - Two-handled bottle 67 - Two-handled bottle
66 - Ovoid jar w. round base 66 - Ovoid jar w. round base
46 - Large beaker w. inverted folded rim 46 - Large beaker w. inverted folded rim
Tilbeshar, Phase IIIC2 49 - Straight-sided bowl w. plain rim 49 - Straight-sided bowl w. plain rim 49 - Straight-sided bowl w. plain rim
70 - Low stand w. concave profile 70 - Low stand w. concave profile
Horum, Phase III 4
84 - High-stemmed bowl w. ledge rim
Zeitynli Bahce, Tr. C6-5 96 – Low-footed closed pot w. round rim
Gre Virike, Period IIA 97 - Tripod globular closed pot
83 - Shallow bowl w. ledge rim 83 - Shallow bowl w. ledge rim
Jerablus, Period IIB (burials inside 76 - Miniature bowl with beaded rim 76 - Miniature bowl with beaded rim
Fort) 80 - Bowl w. triangular rim 80 - Bowl w. triangular rim 80 - Bowl w. triangular rim 80 - Bowl w. triangular rim
Shiyukh Fawqani, Area D: Period III 106 - Small spouted jar 106 - Small spouted jar 106 - Small spouted jar 106 - Small spouted jar
Shiyukh Tahtani, Period X, 78 - Shallow bowl w. upturned simp. rim 78 - Shallow bowl w. upturned simp. rim 78 - Shallow bowl w. upturned simp. rim
78 - Shallow bowl w. upturned simp. rim 78 - Shallow bowl w. upturned simp. rim
79 - Hemispherical bowl w. beaded rim 79 - Hemispherical bowl w. beaded rim 79 - Hemispherical bowl w. beaded rim 79 - Hemispherical bowl w. beaded rim 79 - Hemispherical bowl w. beaded rim
CD: Phase 11 + graves 81 - Bowl w. beaded rim 81 - Bowl w. beaded rim
81 - Bowl w. beaded rim 81 - Bowl w. beaded rim 81 - Bowl w. beaded rim
Amarne, ‚Lawrence‘ graves
89 - Corrugated ovoid beaker w. bead rim 89 - Corrug. ovoid beaker w. bead rim 89 - Corrug. ovoid beaker w. bead rim 89 - Corrug. ovoid beaker w. bead rim 89 - Corrug. ovoid beaker w. bead rim
Ahmar, Hypogeum and cist graves
92 - Depas 92 - Depas 92 - .... 92 - Depas 92 - Depas
Qara Quzaq, Phase III:3-2 98 - Squat closed pot 98 - Squat closed pot 98 - Squat closed pot 98 - Squat closed pot
98 - Squat closed pot
99 - Alabastron w. everted rim 99 - Alabastron w. everted rim 99 - Alabastron w. everted rim 99 - Alabastron w. everted rim 99 - Alabastron w. everted rim
200
EME 4 Banat, Period III 100 - Alabastron piriform 100 - Alabastron piriform 100 - Alabastron piriform 100 - Alabastron piriform
100 - Alabastron piriform
P. Sconzo
Bazi, Level 9 101 - Small restricted neck jar 101 - Small restricted neck jar 101 - Small restricted neck jar 101 - Small restricted neck jar 101 - Small restricted neck jar
Kabir, Level 8 (Building 1) 102 - Small jar w. cyl. neck everted 102 - Small jar w. cyl. neck everted 102 - Small jar w. cyl. neck everted 102 - Small jar w. cyl. neck everted 102 - Small jar w. cyl. neck everted
thickened rim thickened rim thickened rim thickened rim thickened rim
Sweyhat, Holland: Per. G, Zettler: Ph. 3 103 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - everted 103 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - everted 103 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - everted103 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - everted 103 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - everted
Shamseddin, graves modeled rim modeled rim modeled rim modeled rim modeled rim
‘Abd, Hor. 4, Area I:2 (cont. in EME 5) 104 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - vertical 104 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - vertical 104 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - vertical
104 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - vertical 104 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - vertical
Hadidi, Area RII: Stratum 2: lev. 2B grooved rim grooved rim grooved rim grooved rim grooved rim
Stratum 3 - graves 110 - Closed pot w. inverted beaded rim 110 - Closed pot w. inverted beaded rim 110 - Closed pot w. inverted beaded rim
110 - Closed pot w. inverted beaded rim 110 - Closed pot w. inverted beaded rim
Selenkaiyeh, Early 111 - Wide-mouthed pot w. multiple 111 - Wide-mouthed pot w. multiple 111 - Wide-mouthed pot w. multiple 111 - Wide-mouthed pot w. multiple
Wreide, graves ribbed rim ribbed rim ribbed rim ribbed rim
Tawi, graves 90 - Sugar loaf beaker 90 - Sugar loaf beaker 90 - Sugar loaf beaker
Halawa A, Q 3C + LM Alt + 114 - Cooking-pot w. vertical rim 114 - Cooking-pot w. vertical rim 114 - Cooking-pot w. vertical rim 114 - Cooking-pot w. vertical rim
graves 105 - Trefoil-mouth jug 105 - Trefoil-mouth jug 105 - Trefoil-mouth jug 105 - Trefoil-mouth jug
82 - Bowl w. inverted, modeled rim 82 - Bowl w. inverted, modeled rim 82 - Bowl w. inverted, modeled rim
85 - Tripod hem. bowl w. beaded rim 85 - Tripod hem. bowl w. beaded rim 85 - Tripod hem. bowl w. beaded rim
Bi’a, Mound E: Palace B 94 - Elong. beaker w. vertical pierc. lugs 94 - Elong. beaker w. vertical pierc. lugs
94 - Elong. beaker w. vertical pierc. lugs
Ham. al-Turkmann, VI West:C 109 - Jar w. ovoid body, upright 109 - Jar w. ovoid body, upright
109 - Jar w. ovoid body, upright
modeled rim modeled rim modeled rim
Abu Hamad, cemetery 85 - Tripod bowl w. beaded rim 85 - Tripod bowl w. beaded rim
Terqa, Phase III.3-2 (1) 87 - Ovoid beaker w. simple rim 87 - Ovoid beaker w. simple rim 87 - Ovoid beaker w. simple rim 87 - Ovoid beaker w. simple rim
88 - Ovoid beaker w. tiny beaded rim 88 - Ovoid beaker w. tiny beaded rim 88 - Ovoid beaker w. tiny beaded rim 88 - Ovoid beaker w. tiny beaded rim
95 - Globular closed pot w. pointed base 95 - Globular closed pot w. pointed base 95 - Globular closed pot w. pointed base 95 - Globular closed pot w. pointed base
112 - Pithos w. ovoid body - rolled rim 112 - Pithos w. ovoid body - rolled rim 112 - Pithos w. ovoid body - rolled rim 112 - Pithos w. ovoid body - rolled rim
93 - Bell-shaped beaker (Combed Wash) 93 - Bell-shaped beaker (Combed Wash)
77 - Shallow bowl with flattened base 77 - Shallow bowl with flattened base
86 - Bowl w. round base and beaded rim 86 - Bowl w. round base and beaded rim
91 - Trunc. conical beaker w. flat base 91 - Trunc. conical beaker w. flat base
109 - Large hand-made platter 109- Large hand-made platter
107 - Tall trefoil mouthl jag w. painted d. 107 - Tall trefoil mouth jag w. painted d.
108 - Small long-neck jar w. round base
113 - Oval pithos w. plain flaring rim
Upper Sajur/Qoweiq
Proposed site correlation Karababa Birecik - Carchemish Lower Tishrin Tabqa Balikh - Lower ME
92 - Depas 92 - Depas
105 - Small trefoil jug
76 - Miniature bowl w. beaded rim 76 - Miniature bowl w. beaded rim
75 - CP w. triangular lugs 75 - CP w. triangular lugs 75 - CP w. triangular lugs 75 - CP w. triangular lugs 75 - CP w. triangular lugs
78 - Shallow bowl w. upturned simp. rim 78 - Shallow bowl w. upturned simp. rim 78 - Shallow bowl w. upturned simp. rim78 - Shallow bowl w. upturned simp. rim 78 - Shallow bowl w. upturned simp. rim
Lidar III (Phases 6-8) 81 - Bowl w. beaded rim
81 - Bowl w. beaded rim 81 - Bowl w. beaded rim 81 - Bowl w. beaded rim 81 - Bowl w. beaded rim
Samsat, Levels XVII + a/b 82 - Bowl w. inverted modelled rim
82 - Bowl w. inverted modelled rim 82 - Bowl w. inverted modelled rim 82 - Bowl w. inverted modelled rim 82 - Bowl w. inverted modelled rim
Kurban, Period III Early 89 - Corrugated ovoid beaker w. bead rim
89 - Corrug. ovoid beaker w. bead rim 89 - Corrug. ovoid beaker w. bead rim 89 - Corrug. ovoid beaker w. bead rim 89 - Corrugated ovoid beaker w. bead ri
Titris 100 - Alabastron piriform
100 - Alabastron piriform 100 - Alabastron piriform 100 - Alabastron piriform 100 - Alabastron piriform
102 - Small jar w. cyl. neck everted 102 - Small jar w. cyl. neck everted 102 - Small jar w. cyl. neck everted 102 - Small jar w. cyl. neck everted 102 - Small jar w. cyl. neck everted
Tilbeshar, Phase IIID thickened rim
thickened rim thickened rim thickened rim thickened rim
103 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - everted 103 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - everted 103 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - everted 103 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - everted 103 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - everted
Horum, Phase III 4B modelled rim
modelled rim modelled rim modelled rim modelled rim
Gre Virike, Period IIb 104 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - vertical
104 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - vertical 104 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - vertical 104 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - vertical104 - Small jar w. cyl. neck - vertical
grooved rim grooved rim grooved rim grooved rim grooved rim
Shiyukh Tahtani, Period X, 110 - Closed pot w. inverted beaded rim 110 - Closed pot w. inverted beaded rim 110 - Closed pot w. inverted beaded rim110 - Closed pot w. inverted beaded rim 110 - Closed pot w. inverted beaded rim
CD: Phase 10 (Late) 111 - Wide-mouthed pot w. multiple 111 - Wide-mouthed pot w. multiple 111 - Wide-mouthed pot w. multiple 111 - Wide-mouthed pot w. multiple
Amarna, Period VI ribbed rim ribbed rim ribbed rim ribbed rim
Qara Quzaq, Phase III:1 87 - Ovoid beaker w. simple rim 87 - Ovoid beaker w. simple rim 87 - Ovoid beaker w. simple rim 87 - Ovoid beaker w. simple rim
112 - Pithos w. ovoid body - rolled rim 112 - Pithos w. ovoid body - rolled rim 112 - Pithos w. ovoid body - rolled rim 112 - Pithos w. ovoid body - rolled rim
EME 5 Kabir, Level 7a-c 105 - Small trefoil jug w. spherical body105 - Small trefoil jug w. spherical body 105 - Small trefoil jug w. spherical body
and molded rim and molded rim and molded rim
201
Bazi, Level 8
66 - Ovoid jar w. round base 66 - Ovoid jar w. round base 66 - Ovoid jar w. round base
Ceramics
67 - Two-handled bottle 67 - Two-handled bottle

Sweyhat, Holland: Per. F-E, Zettler: Ph.4
91 - Trunc.- conical beaker w. flat base 91 - Trunc.- conical beaker w. flat base
‘Abd, Hor. 4, Area I:2
Munbaqa, Kuppe 1 117 - Bowl w. inverted, ribbon-like rim 117 - Bowl w. inverted, ribbon-like rim 117 - Bowl w. inverted, ribbon-like rim 117 - Bowl w. inverted, ribbon-like rim
Hadidi, Stratum 3 125 - Short-necked jar upturned collared 125 - Short-necked jar upturned collared 125 - Short-necked jar upturned collared 125 - Short-necked jar upturned collared
rim marked by exterior groove rim marked by exterior groove rim marked by exterior groove rim marked by exterior groove
Selenkahiye, Late and Reoccup. 115 - Bowl w. upright band rim
115 - Bowl w. upright band rim 115 - Bowl w. upright band rim 115 - Bowl w. upright band rim 115 - Bowl w. upright band rim
Halawa A, Area Q3A/LM 116 - Bowl w. vertical grooved rim
116 - Bowl w. vertical grooved rim 116 - Bowl w. vertical grooved rim 116 - Bowl w. vertical grooved rim 116 - Bowl w. vertical grooved rim
Emar, Area B5 118 - Bowl w. upright bevelled rim 118 - Bowl w. upright bevelled rim 118 - Bowl w. upright bevelled rim 118 - Bowl w. upright bevelled rim 118 - Bowl w. upright bevelled rim
120 - Car. open pot w. collared rim 120 - Car. open pot w. collared rim 120 - Car. open pot w. collared rim 120 - Car. open pot w. collared rim 120 - Car. open pot w. collared rim
Bi’a, Mound E: Pillar Build. 2-4 121 - Car. open pot w. vert. grooved rim 121 - Car. open pot w. vert. grooved rim 121 - Car. open pot w. vert. grooved rim 121 - Car. open pot w. vert. grooved rim 121 - Car. open pot w. vert. grooved rim
Ham. al-Turkman, VI W:D 127 - Pot-stand w. concave profile 127 - Pot-stand w. concave profile 127 - Pot-stand w. concave profile 127 - Pot-stand w. concave profile 127 - Pot-stand w. concave profile
vertical grooved lip vertical grooved lip vertical grooved lip vertical grooved lip vertical grooved lip
Terqa, Phase III.1 (?) 126 - Car. jar w. upright modelled rim 126 - Car. jar w. upright modelled rim
119 - Conical strainer (?) 119 - Conical strainer 119 - Conical strainer 119 - Conical strainer
132 - Large hand-made pitted plate/tray 132 - Hand-made round plate/tray 132 - Hand-made round plate/tray
w. pitted underside/bottom w. pitted underside/bottom
124 - Restricted-neck jar w. everted rim 124 - Restricted-neck jar w. everted rim 124 - Restricted-neck jar w. everted rim
128 - Pithos w. s. inverted thickened rim 128 - Pithos w. s. inverted thickened rim 128 - Pithos w. s. inverted thickened rim
133 - Closed pot w. globular body inv. 133 - Closed pot w. globular body inv.
beaded rim - zoomorphic deco. beaded rim - zoomorphic deco.
129 - Neckless pithos w. upright grooved 129 - Neckless pithos w. upright grooved
rim and relief rope pattern rim and relief rope pattern
130 - Hole-mouth pithos w. hammer- 130 - Hole-mouth pithos w. hammer-
head rim and relief bands head rim and relief bands
123 - Small jug ‘Smeared Wash’ painted
131 - Hand-made plate w. ledge handles
122 - Closed pot w. flaring modelled rim
Upper Sajur/Qoweiq
Karababa Birecik - Carchemish Lower Tishrin
Proposed site correlation Tabqa Balikh - Lower ME
111 - Wide-mouthed pot w. multiple

ribbed rim
88 - Ovoid beaker w. tiny beaded rim 88 - Ovoid beaker w. tiny beaded rim 88 - Ovoid beaker w. tiny beaded rim 88 - Ovoid beaker w. tiny beaded rim
121 - Car. open pot w. vert. grooved rim 121 - Car. open pot w. vert. grooved rim 121 - Car. open pot w. vert. grooved rim 121 - Car. open pot w. vert. grooved rim 121 - Car. open pot w. vert. grooved rim
Samsat, Level XVI 127 - Stand vertical grooved lip
127 - Stand vertical grooved lip 127 - Stand vertical grooved lip 127 - Stand vertical grooved lip 127 - Stand vertical grooved lip
Kurban, Period III Late 124 - Restricted neck jar w. everted rim
124 - Restricted neck jar w. everted rim 124 - Restricted neck jar w. everted rim
129 - Neckless pithos w. upright grooved 129 - Neckless pithos w. upright grooved
Tilbeshar, Phase IVA rim and relief rope pattern rim and relief rope pattern
130 - Hole-mouth pithos w. hammer- 130 - Hole-mouth pithos w. hammer-
Horum, Phase III 5 head rim and relief bands head rim and relief bands
Gre Virike, Period IIb 78 - Shallow bowl w. upturned simp. rim
Amarna, Period V-IV 139 - Bowl w. curved sides - thick. rim 139 - Bowl w. curved sides - thick. rim
145 - Piriform jug w. loop handle
Banat Complex, Period I 147 - Carinated neckless pithos w. 147 - Carinated neckless pithos w. 147 - Carinated neckless pithos w.
Kabir, Level 6 everted lugged rim everted lugged rim everted lugged rim
202
EME 6 Bazi, Level 7 134 - Car. beaker w. evert.rim 134 - Car. beaker w. evert.rim 134 - Car. beaker w. evert.rim 134 - Car. beaker w. evert.rim 134 - Car. beaker w. evert.rim
135 - Car. bowl sinuous prof.- evert. rim 135 - Car. bowl sinuous prof.- evert. rim 135 - Car. bowl sinuous prof.- evert. rim
P. Sconzo
135 - Car. bowl sinuous prof.- evert. rim 135 - Car. bowl sinuous prof.- evert. rim
Sweyhat, Holland: Per. E-D, 140 - Small bi-conical jar w. simple rim 140 - Small bi-conical jar w. simple rim 140 - Small bi-conical jar w. simple rim 140 - Small bi-conical jar w. simple rim 140 - Small bi-conical jar w. simple rim
Zettler: Ph. 5-6 141 - Small car. closed pot w. offset rim 141 - Small car. closed pot w. offset rim 141 - Small car. closed pot w. offset rim 141 - Small car. closed pot w. offset rim 141 - Small car. closed pot w. offset rim
Hadidi, Stratum 4 142 - Car. closed pot w. upright thick rim 142 - Car. closed pot w. upright thick rim 142 - Car. closed pot w. upright thick rim 142 - Car. closed pot w. upright thick rim 142 - Car. closed pot w. upright thick rim
Selenkahiye, Reoccupation (?) marked by exterior groove marked by exterior groove marked by exterior groove marked by exterior groove marked by exterior groove
144 - Restricted-neck globular jar w. 144 - Restricted-neck globular jar w. 144 - Restricted-neck globular jar w. 144 - Restricted-neck globular jar w. 144 - Restricted-neck globular jar w.
Bi’a, Mound E: Constr. Palast A thickened modelled rim thickened modelled rim thickened modelled rim thickened modelled rim thickened modelled rim
Hammam al-Turkman, VI W:D 146 - Tall fenestrated pedestal stand w. 146 - Tall fenestrated pedestal stand w. 146 - Tall fenestrated pedestal stand w. 146 - Tall fenestrated pedestal stand w. 146 - Tall fenestrated pedestal stand w.
relief rope patterns and fenestrations relief rope patterns and fenestrations relief rope patterns and fenestrations relief rope patterns and fenestrations relief rope patterns and fenestrations
Terqa, Phase III.0 148 - Large ovoid neckless jar w. 148 - Large ovoid neckless jar w. 148 - Large ovoid neckless jar w. 148 - Large ovoid neckless jar w. 148 - Large ovoid neck-less jar w.
upright rim upright rim upright rim upright rim upright rim
149 - Neckless ovoid pithos w. up-right 149 - Neckless ovoid pithos w. upright 149 - Neckless ovoid pithos w. upright 149 - Neckless ovoid pithos w. upright 149 - Neckless ovoid pithos w. upright
grooved rim grooved rim grooved rim grooved rim grooved rim
150 - Neckless barrel-shaped jar 150 - Neckless barrel-shaped jar 150 - Neckless barrel-shaped jar 150 - Neckless barrel-shaped jar 150 - Neckless barrel-shaped jar
w. upright thickened ridged rim w. upright thickened ridged rim w. upright thickened ridged rim w. upright thickened ridged rim w. upright thickened ridged rim
137 - Car. bowl w. triangular rim 137 - Car. bowl w. triangular rim 137 - Car. bowl w. triangular rim
136 - Carinated bowl w. upright 136 - Carinated bowl w. upright 136 - Carinated bowl w. upright 136 - Carinated bowl w. upright
thinned rim thinned rim thinned rim thinned rim
143 - Spherical pot w. upright thick rim 143 - Spherical pot w. upright thick rim 143 - Spherical pot w. upright thick rim
marked by exterior groove marked by exterior groove marked by exterior groove
138 - Car. bowl w. int. walls, rolled rim 138 - Car. bowl w. int. walls, rolled rim
12. Radiocarbon Chronology
Katleen Deckers, Philipp Drechsler & Paola Sconzo
In this study we undertake a review of the 3rd millennium radiocarbon dates from ME archaeological sites in
order to evaluate their suitability for dating the archaeological strata. This has been done by gathering all pub-
lished and some unpublished dates, examining the sampled contexts and correlating them with the stratigraphic
and material phases, and evaluating the sampled material. We first undertake a site-based Bayesian analysis which
allows the detection of outliers and reduces the span of the calibrated dates. Subsequently, we apply Bayesian
modelling on a regional scale in order to gain a chronology for cultural changes.
12.1. Material
In total, 119 radiocarbon dates have been evaluated, of which some were unpublished but were kindly pro-
vided by archaeologists (O. Rouault for Terqa, G. Falsone and P. Sconzo for Shiyukh Tahtani, U. Finkbeiner for
‘Abd, K. Sertok and F. Squadrone for Birecik, and B. Einwag and A. Otto for Bazi).
The majority of the dated samples from the ME (70) consists of charcoal (Table 1). Regrettably, in only 12
cases was the taxon identified and mentioned in the report. This lack of charcoal identification for dating is prob-
lematic for the “old wood” or “inbuilt age” effect, since it cannot be excluded that extremely long-lived trees were
sampled.1 Fortunately, the ME was at that time archaeobotanically dominated by Populus/Salix and Tamarix.
These trees are not as long-lived as, for example, deciduous Quercus, which regularly reaches up to 300 years in age.
In the northern ME is there a somewhat higher chance that deciduous Quercus may also have been sampled for
dating (c. 10%), since there it was naturally still present.2 During recent charcoal sampling for dating at Shiyukh
Tahtani K. Deckers sought out particularly twig samples, as they represent short-lived samples. However, not a
single publication containing dates from charcoal for this region indicated that the dates were derived from sam-
pling the youngest annual tree rings or twigs. Nevertheless, the archaeologists are aware that seed samples work
well for radiocarbon dating; and they have been dated in 12 contexts from 8 ME 3rd millennium sites.
Two radiocarbon dates were obtained from bone material (Table 1). One of these dates had a very wide range
of uncertainty (UBAR-221 from Qara Quzaq) that was due to the scarcity of the material analysed.3
Further dates were also retrieved from several other materials, including coprolites and charred fibres. Like
twigs, these also represent short-lived samples and provide sound archaeological dates. On the other hand, dates
derived from organic plaster and an unspecified organic material must be cautiously considered. Lastly, a radio-
carbon date drawn from Terqa ultimately was shown to include asphalt and therefore was too old to be included
in the final list of dates for analysis.4
Hardly any of the dates in the list (Table 1) derived from the inventories. Tilbeshar, Emar and Birecik are the
only sites with inventories that provide some radiocarbon dates.
12.2. Increasing Chronological Insights through Bayesian Modelling

We have passed through the “first revolution” and the “second revolution” in dating for the 3rd millennium ME. It
has been quite some time now that archaeologists have used radiocarbon dates (i.e., the “first revolution”) and applied
calibration (i.e., the “second revolution”). However, chronological problems have not been solved with these methods.
Among other things, the plateau in the calibration curve has proven to be particularly problematic. When radio-
carbon measurements are calibrated and fall within this plateau the effect is to spread out the resultant calibrated
probability.5
Still, the current failure of 3rd millennium chronology in this region has been largely one of mindset and
money. With the development of Bayesian modelling in dating a “third revolution” has taken place.6 The Bayesian
method is a probabilistic approach that identifies which parts of the dating probability are most likely for the
1
See, e.g., in Anderson 1991; Higham 1994.
2
Deckers & Pessin 2010: 216-226.
3
Mestres Torres 1994: 147-150.
4
Venkatesan et al. 1982: 517-519.
5
Van der Plicht 2004.
6
Bayliss 2009.
401
Table 1: List of available radiocarbon dates for Early Bronze Age sites in the ME. Calibration was undertaken with OxCal 4.1 with IntCal09.14c., with 95.4% ranges.
Number Site Material EME Context - period - phase Laboratory Uncalibrated Calibrated Bcal Reference Included Included in 2.2. Inventory
dated phasing number date date BC date (site in 2.1
based)
ME001 Hassek charcoal EME 2 EBI, Bx110, pit, late phase KI-2352.01 4440 ± 100 BP 3370-2892 3333-2890 Willkomm 1992: 136-137 & yes yes no
Behm-Blancke 1992: 13-18
charcoal N.K. EBI KI-2961 4470 ± 70 BP 3497-2886 n.a. Willkomm 1992: 136-137 & n.K. n.K. no
charcoal EME 2 EBI, cellar KI-2959 4450 ± 110 BP 3497-2886 3350-2883 Willkomm 1992: 136-137 & yes yes no
charcoal EME 2 Bx259, pit, late phase KI-2960 4390 ± 80 BP 3338-2891 3321-2884 Willkomm 1992: 136-137 & yes yes no
seed EME 2 EBI, Bx294, pit layer 1 Bln-2733 4030 ± 60 BP 2864-2350 2879-2469 Willkomm 1992: 136-137 & yes no, outlier (too young) no
ME002 Nevali Çori human bone EME 2 grave 44, EBIB OxA-8233 4290 ± 40 BP 3338-2891 n.a. Becker 2007: 114 n.a. yes no
ME003 Titriş n.k. n.k. beginning Early EBA TH96206 4560 ± 70 BP 3517-3027 3369-2926 Algaze et al. 2001: 76 yes no - no EME no
n.k. n.k. beginning Early EBA TH96208 4050 ± 130 BP 2906-2208 n.a. Algaze et al. 2001: 76 no, outlier no - no EME no
(too young)
n.k. n.k. upper range Early EBA TH96098 4300 ± 100 BP 3332-2623 3328-2786 Algaze et al. 2001: 76 yes no - no EME no
n.k. n.k. upper range Early EBA TH96076 4420 ± 90 BP 3351-2902 3314-2906 Algaze et al. 2001: 76 yes no - no EME no
402
n.k. n.k. early mid EBA TH96113 4110 ± 70 BP 2880-2491 2873-2493 Algaze et al. 2001: 76 yes no - no EME no
n.k. n.k. early mid EBA TH96058 4110 ± 80 BP 2883-2488 2876-2501 Algaze et al. 2001: 76 yes no - no EME no
n.k. n.k. latest layers mid EBA TH3806 3720 ± 60 BP 2294-1946 n.a. Algaze et al. 2001: 76 no, outlier no - no EME no
(too young)
n.k. n.k. late EBA TH6162 4260 ± 70 BP 3086-2626 n.a. Algaze et al. 2001: 76 no, outlier no - no EME no
(too old)
K. Deckers, P. Drechsler & P. Sconzo
n.k. n.k. late EBA TH15038 3860 ± 70 BP 2562-2136 2471-2206 Algaze et al. 2001: 76 yes no - no EME no
n.k. n.k. late EBA TH12161 3770 ± 60 BP 2457-2026 n.a. Algaze et al. 2001: 76 no, outlier no - no EME no
(too young)
ME005 Horum n.k. n.k. Level III-5 Horum B0067 N.K. N.K. 2270-2260, n.a. Marro 2007: 387 no - no info no - no info no
2220-2020
ME008 Tilbeshar n.k. EME 3 Area D1, NLT, US 373, IIIB, Beta 157626 N.K. 2880-2480 n.a. Unpublished no - no info no - no info yes:
floor mat. in situ, primary ME008_I001
INVENTORY
n.k. EME 4 IIIC1 Area J, SLT, US 1986, Beta 157632 N.K. 2400-2380, n.a. Unpublished no - no info no - no info yes:
floor mat. in situ, primary, 2360-2140 ME008_I004
INVENTORY
Table 1: (Continued)
based)
ME009 Shiyukh charcoal EME 2 C.7, 1010.3, EBA I, Area D PA 1988 4555 ± 40 BP 3489-3101 3362-3092 Bonacossi 2005: 124-129 yes yes no
Fawqani period II, fill overlying floor
1014 of phase C7, the earliest
level of C
charcoal EME 2 B.6, 831.2, EBA I, Area D PA 1990 4600 ± 40 BP 3518-3118 n.a. Bonacossi 2005: 124-129 no, outlier no, outlier no
period II, charcoal fleck from (too old)
a fill of the main street of
phase B6
charcoal EME 2 B.5, 898.5, EBA I, Area D PA 1656 4620 ± 100 BP 3637-3034 n.a. Bonacossi 2005: 124-129 yes no, outlier (too old) no
period II, fill overlying the
lime-plastered floor 903 of
room 1365 of Building 3
charcoal EME 2 B.2, 1107.3, EBA I, Area D PA 1653 4335 ± 100 BP 3346-2678 3286-2709 Bonacossi 2005: 124-129 yes yes no
period II, fill above floor 1108
of Building 6 of phase B2
barley EME 2 A.3, 455, EBA I, Area D period PA 1989 4170 ± 40 BP 2886-2630 2895-2674 Bonacossi 2005: 124-129 yes yes no
II, silo 455 of phase A3
charcoal EME 1 Area D, square 530/106, D.2, PA 1991 4545 ± 60 BP 3498-3028 3500-3141 Bonacossi 2005: 124-129 yes yes no
period I
403
ME010 Shiyukh indet. EME 2a CD 13 ,Area CD, N Building LTL3024A 4423 ± 45 BP 3331-2917 3122-2902 Unpublished, pers. comm. yes yes no
Tahtani conifer 13C0-B, fill above floor G. Falsone and P. Sconzo
2012
indet. hard- EME 2 CD 13, Area CD, N Building, LTL3018A (may 4193 ± 45 BP 2899-2631 2902-2664 Unpublished, pers. comm. yes yes no
Radiocarbon Chronology
wood, small 13C0-B, fill layer above floor have been acciden- G. Falsone and P. Sconzo
branch tally switched with 2012
LTL3020A)
Quercus EME 2 CD 13, Area CD, S Building, LTL3027A 4195 ± 55 BP 2905-2621 2906-2639 Unpublished, pers. comm. yes yes no
evergreen 13B (?), Open-air court, Fill G. Falsone and P. Sconzo
of oven 2012
Populus/ EME 2 CD 12A, Area CD, Southern LTL3020A (may 4346 ± 55 BP 3309-2878 n.a. Unpublished, pers. comm. outlier outlier in total analysis no
Salix Sector, Clay bank have been acciden- G. Falsone and P. Sconzo in total
tally switched with 2012 analysis
LTL3018A)
Populus/ EME 2 CD 12A, Area CD, Southern LTL3023A 4077 ± 45 BP 2864-2481 2875-2570 Unpublished, pers. comm. yes yes no
Salix Sector, Clay bank G. Falsone and P. Sconzo
2012
Populus/ EME 3 CD 11, Area CD, T. 104, LTL3025A 3976 ± 60 BP 2834-2291 2833-2303 Unpublished, pers. comm. yes yes no
Salix robbed in antiquity G. Falsone and P. Sconzo
2012
ME012 Qara Quzaq n.k. EME 4-5 QQ level III, Locus 1 / N. III1 UBAR-221 3970 ± 480 BP 3771-1321 n.a. Mestres Torres 1994 yes EME phasing not no
detailed enough
charcoal EME 3 QQ level IV, silo 40 UBAR-285 3760 ± 70 BP 2457-1978 n.a. Mestres Torres 1994 yes no, outlier (too young) no
based)
charcoal EME 4 QQ level III2(?), Tr 310NE/N. UBAR-286 4470 ± 120 BP 3516-2888 n.a. Mestres Torres 1994 no, outlier no, outlier no
III2
charcoal n.k. Tr. 410SE, no level indicated UBAR-293 4040 ± 60 BP 2867-2460 n.a. Mestres Torres 1994 n.a. n.a. no
charcoal EME 3 QQ level IV, Locus 8/S.99/N. UBAR-294 4060 ± 90 BP 2885-2349 n.a. Mestres Torres 1994 no, outlier no, outlier no
IV
charcoal EME 2 Locus 12, EBII-I tombs, debris UBAR-369 3670 ± 60 BP 2205-1890 n.a. Mestres Torres 2001 yes no, outlier (too young) no
covering the inhumations
ME013 Bazi n.k. EME 4 BZ 49/17:22, destruction KIA36964 3780 ± 30 BP 2296-2059 n.a. Unpublished, pers. comm. B. n.a. yes no
horizon 9, EB Einwag and A. Otto 2011
ME015 Banat n.k. EME 3 level 1A, Area D, building 8 Beta-73230 4080 ± 80 BP 2877-2471 n.a. Porter and McClellan yes yes no
room 11, EBIVA 1998: 23
n.k. EME 3 level 2A, Area D, kiln 2, firing Beta-73229 4160 ± 70 BP 2900-2504 n.a. Porter and McClellan yes no, outlier (too old) no
chamber, EBIII 1998: 23
n.k. EME 3 level 2B, Area D Beta-92090 4160 ± 80 BP 2907-2496 n.a. Porter and McClellan yes no, outlier (too old) no
1998: 23
n.k. EME 3 Tomb 1 - period IV, Area D Beta-73128 4140 ± 60 BP 2887-2506 n.a. Porter and McClellan n.a. no, outlier (too old) no
1998: 23
404
ME016 Jerablous charcoal EME 3 T.302, phase 2B, phase 1 of GU13569 4110 ± 40 BP 2872-2504 n.a. Peltenburg 2007: 255 yes no, outlier (too old) no
Tahtani use T.302
charcoal EME 3 T.302, phase 2B, phase 1 of GU13570 4085 ± 35 BP 2862-2493 n.a. Peltenburg 2007: 255 yes no, outlier (too old) no
use T.302
charcoal EME 3 T.302, phase 2B, phase 1 of GU13568 4050 ± 35 BP 2840-2473 n.a. Peltenburg 2007: 255 yes yes no
use T.302
charcoal n.k. T.302, phase 2B, entrance GU13572 4040 ± 35 BP 2836-2472 n.a. Peltenburg 2007: 255 no, no n.a. no
T.302 detailed
phasing
short lived EME 3 T.302, phase 2B, phase 1 of GU10345 3890 ± 40 BP 2474-2210 n.a. Peltenburg 2007: 255 yes no, outlier (too young) no
seeds use T.302
short lived N.K. T.302, phase 2B, phase 1-3 of AA14708A 3850 ± 70 BP 2547-2058 n.a. Peltenburg 2007: 255 no, no n.a. no
seeds use T.302 detailed
phasing
short lived N.K. T.302, phase 2B, phase 3 of GU10408 3835 ± 80 BP 2547-2037 n.a. Peltenburg 2007: 255 yes n.a. no
seeds use T.302
short lived EME 3 T.302, phase 2B, phase 1 of AA14988 3510 ± 60 BP 2015-1688 n.a. Peltenburg 2007: 255 no, outlier no, outlier no
seeds use T.302 (too young)
ME018 Sweyhat charcoal EME 5 phase 3: Trench IIIB, locus 2.6, GrN-10348 3880 ± 80 BP 2574-2136 n.a. Holland 2006: 16-18 n.a. no, outlier (too old) no
period F, EBIVA
charcoal EME 4-5 phase 2B: Trench IVF, locus GrN-10349 3675 ± 40 BP 2196-1943 n.a. Holland 2006: 16-18 n.a. EME phasing not no
1.12, period F, EB IVA detailed enough
charcoal EME 4-5 phase 2B: Trench IVP, locus GrN-10350 3810 ± 35 BP 2454-2138 n.a. Holland 2006: 16-18 n.a. EME phasing not no
1.5, period F, EBIVA detailed enough
based)
seed EME 5 phase 2A: Area IV, trench IV P-2324 3640 ± 70 BP 2205-1776 n.a. Holland 2006: 16-18 n.a. yes no
O, locus 1.4 from a storage jar
JR.J.II.1 under a charred beam,
EB IVA, period F
charcoal EME 5 Phase 2A: Area IV, trench IV P-2338 3730 ± 70 BP 2400-1931 n.a. Holland 2006: 16-18 n.a. yes no
(poplar) O, locus 1.4, from charred
beam above storage jar, EB
IVA, period F
n.k. EME2 Phase 1 from ash accumulation AA32662 4140 ± 65 BP 2890-2501 n.a. Danti & Zettler 2007:169 n.a. yes no
ME020 el-Abd n.k. EME 2 16/20, 076, level II:4c - level HD-19323 4203 ± 36 BP 2900-2670 n.a. Unpublished, U. Finkbeiner not possible yes no
eval. II:4 - Horizon 2 - fire col- pers. comm. 2012 to create
lapse - fill of room, EBII-III stratigra-
phic order
n.k. EME 2 17/25, 064, level I:5; level eval. HD-19068 4367 ± 38 BP 3091-2904 n.a. Unpublished, U. Finkbeiner not possible yes no
I:4 - Horizon 2, EB II-III pers. comm. 2012 to create
stratigra-
phic order
n.k. EME 2 20/16, 013, Level III:4a-c; level HD-19239 4207 ± 24 BP 2896-2696 n.a. Unpublished, U. Finkbeiner not possible yes no
eval. III:4 - Horizon 2 - fill of pers. comm. 2012 to create
405
room house H, EBII stratigra-
phic order
n.k. EME 2 20/17, 048, Level III:4; level HD-19284 4258 ± 39 BP 3009-2697 n.a. Unpublished, U. Finkbeiner not possible yes no
eval. III:4 - Horizon 2 - fire pers. comm. 2012 to create
collapse between floor of stratigra-

construction phase 2/3 and phic order
construction phase 4, EBII
n.k. EME 2 20/19, 075, Level III:4a-b, level HD-19150 4195 ± 37 BP 2895-2639 n.a. Unpublished, U. Finkbeiner n.a. yes no
eval. III:4 - Horizon 2, EBII pers. comm. 2012
n.k. EME 2 20/19, 078, Level III:4a-b; level HD-19133 4158 ± 36 BP 2880-2624 n.a. Unpublished, U. Finkbeiner n.a. yes no
eval. III:4, Horizon 2 - fire col- pers. comm. 2012
lapse under find 48, EBII/III
coprolite, EME 2 20/19, 091, Area III: level III: KIA 31786 4186 ± 35 BP 2880-2626 n.a. Unpublished, U. Finkbeiner n.a. yes no
Huminsäure 4c - level eval. III:4, Horizon pers. comm. 2012
2b - house A, room 1 adjacent
to eastern wall, EBII-III
ME029 Selenkahiye charcoal EME 5 burned roof?, squ. X 42, late GrN-7865 3715 ± 30 BP 2201-2028 2273-2039 Van Loon 2001: 603-606 yes yes no
period, EBIVB
charcoal EME 4 oven, squ. Y 27, early period, GrN-7866 4045 ± 30 BP 2834-2475 2616-2472 Van Loon 2001: 603-606 yes yes no
EBIVA
barley EME 5 squ. X 20, area 12, late period, GrN-7867 3810 ± 40 BP 2458-2137 2301-2057 Van Loon 2001: 603-606 yes yes no
EBIVB
based)
charcoal EME 4 beams from roof, squ. P 26, GrN-7868 3840 ± 30 BP 2459-2202 2466-2285 Van Loon 2001: 603-606 yes yes no
area 12, early period, EBIVA
charcoal EME 4 charcoal on floor, squ. Q 26, GrN-7869 3915 ± 30 BP 2475-2298 2486-2336 Van Loon 2001: 603-606 yes yes no
area 48, early period, EBIVA
charred EME 4 squ. Q 26, area 54, early period, GrN-7870 3999 ± 60 BP 2850-2307 2600-2348 Van Loon 2001: 603-606 yes yes no
fibres EBIVA
charcoal EME 5 charcoal from oven, squ. W13, GrN-7871 4005 ± 30 BP 2580-2467 n.a. Van Loon 2001: 603-606 no, outlier no, outlier no
area 10, late period, EBIVB (too old)
ME031 Emar charred EME 5 60/51-91, building level TB5: KIA 30829 3704 ± 29 BP 2199-1985 n.a. Grootes & Nadeau 2010: n.a. yes yes: from
grain from ash-pit in coutyard VII, 245-256; Finkbeiner 2010: same
EBIVB 266 context as
ME031_I001
charcoal EME 5 60/51-95, building level TB5: KIA 30830 3728 ± 28 BP 2203-2035 n.a. Grootes & Nadeau 2010: n.a. yes yes:
- Populus/ tannur, locus 83 in room II 245-256; Finkbeiner 2010: ME031_I001
Salix EBIVB 266
ME032 Biá charcoal EME 3-4 21/62 W, layer 11: west of the Bln-3882 4265 ± 50 BP 3021-2679 n.a. Strommenger & Kohlmeyer n.a. EME phasing not no
nord-south wall of 12, in a pit 2000: 41; Görsdorf detailed enough
1993:62-68
406
charcoal EME 4 26/48 SO, Palace B, floor in Bln-3883 3970 ± 50 BP 2620-2299 2566-2302 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer n.a. yes no
room 12 2000: 41; Görsdorf
1993:62-68
charcoal EME 4 25/47:79, NE corner of room Bln-4292 3935 ± 50 BP 2574-2287 2561-2287 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer n.a. yes no
- Pinus II, courtyard 5, center 2000: 41; Görsdorf
halepensis 1993:62-68
charcoal EME 4 25/47 NO:80, Palace B, in the Bln-4293 3890 ± 60 BP 2564-2155 2485-2209 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer n.a. yes no
- Pinus middle of room II, courtyard 2000: 41; Görsdorf

5, center 1993:62-68
charcoal EME 4 25/47 W, room II, room 6 Bln-4294 (compare 3860 ± 50 BP 2471-2153 2465-2211 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer n.a. yes no
Picea/Larix with Bln-4321) 2000: 41; Görsdorf
1993:62-68
charcoal EME 4 26/49 SW, from a beam (1) 30 Bln-4295 3795 ± 50 BP 2457-2044 2456-2152 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer n.a. yes no
cm above the floor level of the 2000: 41; Görsdorf
Palace B, room 12 1993:62-68
charcoal EME 4 26/49 SW, from a beam (4) Bln-4296 3765 ± 50 BP 2397-2028 2448-2134 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer n.a. yes no
30 cm above floor level of the 2000: 41; Görsdorf
Palace B, room 12 1993:62-68
charcoal EME 4 26/49 SW, from a beam (6) Bln-4297 3805 ± 50 BP 2459-2060 2458-2155 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer n.a. yes no
20 cm above floor level of the 2000: 41; Görsdorf
Palace B, room 12 1993:62-68
charcoal EME 4 25/48 W, Room 9 of the Palace Bln-4302 (compare 3775 ± 50 BP 2429-2033 2452-2139 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer n.a. yes no
B, collapsed beam; courtyard with Bln-4344) 2000: 41; Görsdorf
5, center 1993:62-68
based)
charcoal EME 4 25/47 W, room II, room 6 Bln-4321 (compare 3860 ± 40 BP 2465-2206 2464-2211 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer n.a. yes no
Picea/Larix with Bln-4294) 2000: 41; Görsdorf
1993:62-68
charcoal EME 4 26/49 SW, from a beam (4) 20 Bln-4343 3915 ± 40 BP 2561-2287 2491-2286 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer n.a. yes no
cm above the floor of the Palace 2000: 41; Görsdorf
B, room 12 1993:62-68
charcoal EME 4 25/48 W, Room 9 of the Palace Bln-4344 4060 ± 50 BP 2861-2472 2625-2317 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer n.a. yes no
B, collapsed beam; courtyard (compare with 2000: 41; Görsdorf
5, center Bln-4302) 1993:62-68
charcoal EME 4 25/48 W, Room 9 of the Bln-4409 3828 ± 40 BP 2459-2146 2458-2201 Strommenger & Kohlmeyer n.a. yes no
Palace B, collapse of beam, (compare with 2000: 41; Görsdorf
courtyard 5 Bln-4302 und 1993:62-68
Bln-4344)
ME033 Hammam charcoal EME 4-5 1a early: Phase VI west, charred GrN-11150 4170 ± 60 BP 2894-2581 n.a. van Loon 1988: 703-704 no, outlier EME phasing not no
al-Turkman beam, EBIVA, second burnt (too old) detailed enough
level
charcoal EME 4-5 1b early: Phase VI west, char- GrN-11154 3905 ± 35 BP 2479-2287 n.a. van Loon 1988: 703-704 yes EME phasing not no
coal in room, EBIVA, second detailed enough
burnt level
407
charcoal EME 4-5 city wall architecture GrN-14649 4125 ± 35 BP 2872-2579 2859-2505 Thissen 1989: 207 yes EME phasing not no
detailed enough
grain EME 4-5 first burnt level GrN-14650 3860 ± 30 BP 2463-2209 2471-2363 Thissen 1989: 207 yes EME phasing not no
detailed enough
charcoal EME 4-5 first burnt level GrN-14644 3930 ± 40 BP 2566-2294 2565-2363 Thissen 1989: 207 yes EME phasing not no
detailed enough
charcoal EME 4-5 first burnt level GrN-14646 3975 ± 30 BPzx 2872-2579 2859-2505 Thissen 1989: 207 yes EME phasing not no
detailed enough
charcoal EME 4-5 first burnt level GrN-14645 4050 ± 30 BP 2835-2476 2614-2473 Thissen 1989: 207 yes EME phasing not no
detailed enough
ME035 Terqa charcoal n.k. n.k. n.k. 4110 ± 70 BP 2880-2491 n.a. Venkatesan, M. et al. 1982 no stratigra- no EME phasing no
phic info
grain EME 4 TQ20 - tannur, close to house 1 Ly-13437 3895 ± 40 BP 2476-2210 2480-2283 Unpublished, pers. comm. yes yes no
- end of phase III.3- start III.2 O. Rouault 2012
ash EME 3 TQ25 - lot 25F177 and entité Ly-3367 (Poz) 4025 ± 40 BP 2835-2467 2627-2469 Unpublished, pers. comm. yes yes no
25F1120 - oven - IV.1 O. Rouault 2012
charcoal n.k. TQ27- lot 242, entité 1447, Ly-5828 (OxA) 4265 ± 30 BP 2923-2764 2919-2713 Unpublished, pers. comm. yes no EME phasing no
phase V.2 O. Rouault 2012
charcoal n.k. TQ27 - entité 1420 lot 269 or Ly-8625 (GrA) 4220 ± 25 BP 2901-2701 2901-2702 Unpublished, pers. comm. yes no EME phasing no
289? - phase V.1 O. Rouault 2012
charcoal EME 3 TQ28 - lot 170, entité 1531, Ly-14864 3980 ± 35 BP 2580-2350 2578-2463 Unpublished, pers. comm. yes yes no
phase IV.0, between phase III O. Rouault 2012
and IV, grave
based)
charcoal EME 3 TQ28 - lot 267, entité 1599, Ly-14865 4215 ± 40 BP 2907-2671 n.a. Unpublished, pers. comm. no, outlier no, outlier no
phase IV.2 during excavation O. Rouault 2012
charcoal n.k. TQ29 - Entité 1685, lot 36, Ly-8624 (GrA) 4170 ± 25 BP 2880-2640 2885-2679 Unpublished, pers. comm. yes no EME phasing no
phase V1/2 O. Rouault 2012
charcoal n.k. TQ29 - Entité 29F1683, oven, Ly-15809 4035 ± 35 BP 2834-2471 n.a. Unpublished, pers. comm. no, outlier no EME phasing no
phase V in the field O. Rouault 2012
ME037 Lidar charcoal n.k. Pr. 19, Li 84 D44c/d/64, Rm., Bln-5270 3872 ± 29 BP 2466-2212 n.a. Görsdorf et al. 2002: 65 n.a. EME phasing not no
from house collapse context, known
EBIIIb
ME039 Birecik charcoal EME 1-2 sealed garbage pit in KA4, EBI Beta-129189 4380 ± 80 BP 3338-2886 n.a. see database n.a. n.a. yes:
ME039_I001
charcoal EME 1-2 sealed garbage pit in KA4, EBI Beta-129190 4310 ± 70 BP 3317-2678 n.a. see database n.a. n.a. yes:
ME039_I001
ME042 Hajji charcoal Late A1, OP. 1 1802, SW95.0523 AA30460 4605 ± 55 BP 3622-3104 n.a. Danti & Zettler 2007, fig. no, outlier no - Chalcolithic no
Ibrahim Chalcolithic 11.3
charcoal Late A1, OP. 1 2003, SW95.0082 AA30477 4435 ± 60 BP 3339-2919 3303-2930 Danti & Zettler 2007, fig. yes no - Chalcolithic no
408
Chalcolithic 11.3
charcoal Late A1, OP. 1 1803, SW 95.0517 AA30478 4425 ± 55 BP 3335-2916 3308-2930 Danti & Zettler 2007, fig. yes no - Chalcolithic no
Chalcolithic 11.3
charcoal Late A1/A2, OP. 3 0207, SW AA30476 4420 ± 55 BP 3335-2912 n.a. Danti & Zettler 2007, fig. yes EME phasing not no
Chalcolithic- 95.0068 11.3 detailed enough
EME1
charcoal Late A1/A2, OP. 3 0207, SW AA30475 4380 ± 65 BP 3331-2890 n.a. Danti & Zettler 2007, fig. yes EME phasing not no
Chalcolithic- 95.0048 11.3 detailed enough
EME1
seed EME 1 A2, OP. 3 0205, SW 95.8000 AA30471 4435 ± 55 BP 3337-2921 3123-2917 Danti & Zettler 2007, fig. yes yes no
11.3
charcoal EME 2 B, OP. 3 0802, SW95.0059 AA30474 5660 ± 120 BP 4789-4266 n.a. Danti & Zettler 2007, fig. no, outlier no, outlier no
11.3
organic EME 2 B, OP. 3 0204, SW95.0598 AA30470 5120 ± 85 BP 4225-3705 n.a. Danti & Zettler 2007, fig. no, outlier no, outlier no
plaster 11.3
organic EME 2 B, OP. 2 0801, SW95.0090 AA30472 4405 ± 55 BP 3331-2906 3041-2898 Danti & Zettler 2007, fig. yes yes no
material 11.3
seed EME 2 B, OP. 2 0801, SW95.0024 AA30468 4330 ± 55 BP 3264-2874 3030-2890 Danti & Zettler 2007, fig. yes yes no
11.3
charcoal EME 2 B, OP. 2 0801, SW95.0091 AA30473 4280 ± 55 BP 3086-2679 3027-2879 Danti & Zettler 2007, fig. yes yes no
11.3
given archaeological information. It produces a reduced range for each sample. This reduced range estimate is not
absolute; it is interpretative and changes as further information becomes available.7 Thus, since the “third revo-
lution” it has been possible to construct robust chronologies for each settlement, making this technique widely
applied. There are many examples of the Bayesian modelling applied to settlement dating.8 However, up until now
no such approaches to 3rd millennium chronology in the ME have been published. Additionally, with Bayesian
modelling it is also possible to increase precision and understanding of regional chronologies.9 The model is only
as good as its assumptions, however, and therefore it is necessary to explain our assumptions with as much trans-
parency as possible.
In this article we will apply Bayesian modelling to data from archaeological sites in the ME. We have used
OxCal 4.1, which has a Bayesian modelling capacity that allows the incorporation of stratigraphic informa-
tion. Initially (§ 12.2.1) we will obtain – where possible – robust chronologies for single sites by adding
stratigraphic data to the dates and applying Bayesian modelling. At this stage we will be able to detect outli-
ers. Secondly (§ 12.2.2), we will attempt to model the 3rd millennium regional ME chronology by adding
further artefact typology information. Here, we assume that similar material culture more or less represents
the same period.
12.2.1 Sequencing by Site

Because of the likelihood of the occurrence of the “old wood effect”, bioturbation, aquaturbation, erosion of
mudbrick and other taphonomic processes, we expect some inconsistent dates. In order to search for such outli-
ers and potentially inaccurate dates, we first applied Bayesian modelling on a site-by-site basis. For this analysis
we used the OxCal’s phasing capability, which can attach stratigraphic information to the model.10 EME period
assignments are based on artefact typology (especially pottery)11 and stratigraphy.12
12.2.1.1 ME001 Hassek

There are five ‘Early Bronze Age’ radiocarbon dates published from this site.13 Four of them
(KI-2352.01, KI-2959, KI-2960 and Bln-2733) can be assigned to EME 2 based on the associated mate-
rial and stratigraphy.14 The exact context for KI-2961 could not be found in the publication, so that it
was impossible to assign it to an EME period. This implies that the latter date will not be included in the
regional analysis (§ 12.2.2).
Four of the dates were based on charcoal and only one on a seed (Bln-2733). It is notable that the seed (Fig. 1)
was somewhat younger than the charcoal, which raises the question of whether the charcoal was retrieved from
the inside of larger beams.15
12.2.1.2 ME002 Nevalı Çori

Currently only one radiocarbon date exists from this site. It is from a human bone retrieved from a grave16 and
corresponds with EME 2. Hence, at this stage no Bayesian modelling can be done for ME002, but the date will
be used within the EME periodisation analysis.
12.2.1.3 ME003 Titriş

In total, 14 radiocarbon dates are available from ME003.17 No details are published about their contexts, but
their periods are mentioned. The latter allows for Bayesian modelling on the dates via the application of the given
periodisation (Fig. 2). The first run of the model shows that three dates have poor agreement (with A less than 60%).
These dates (TH3806, TH6162 and TH12161) were therefore excluded from the second run. TH3806 and
TH12161 seem to be too young, while TH6162 is somewhat too old. During the second run TH96208 showed low
agreement, suggesting it is rather too young. For this reason it was excluded from the third run, the results of which
were consistent.
7
Bayliss 2009.
8
E.g. Waddington 2007; Kenney 2008; Murray et al. 2009; Thomas 2005; Van de Noort et al. 2007 as referred in Hamilton 2010.
9
E.g. Waddington 2007; Kenney 2008; Murray et al. 2009; Thomas 2005; Van de Noort et al. 2007 as referred in Hamilton 2010.
10
Bronk Ramsey 2009.
11
See also details in Sconzo, this volume.
12
See details in Finkbeiner, this volume.
13
Willkomm 1992.
14
see Behm-Blancke 1992: 13-18 and compare with material published in Gerber 2005 for these contexts.
15
However, in the final analysis of 2.2. Bln-2733 appears to be an outlier.
16
Becker 2007: 114.
17
Algaze et al. 2001: 76.
409
Fig. 1: Probability distributions for the occupation at Hassek. The dark distributions for the dates represent
their chronological likelihoods derived from the calibration of the radiocarbon dates. The lighter distributions
show the results after stratigraphic constraints are imposed on the dates using OxCal. The bars beneath the
distributions show the 95.4% ranges from the analysis.
Fig. 2: Probability distributions for the occupation at Titriş. The dark distributions for the dates represent
their chronological likelihoods derived from the calibration of the radiocarbon dates. The lighter distributions
distributions show 95.4% ranges from the analysis.
410
Fig. 3: Probability distribution for Shiyukh Fawqani. The dark distributions for the dates represent the
likelihoods derived from the calibration of the radiocarbon dates. The lighter distributions show the results after
stratigraphic constraints are imposed on the dates using OxCal. The bars beneath the distributions show the
95.4% ranges from the analysis.
12.2.1.4 ME009 Shiyukh Fawqani

Six radiocarbon dates have been published in Bonacossi18 that are of relevance for the ARCANE project. The
large majority of them were associated with EME 2 material, while only one had a context that could be attributed
to EME 1 (PA 1991).
The first run of the Bayesian model demonstrated that PA 1990 must be an outlier. Therefore, we omitted it
from the second run, which then showed a good agreement. All, except for one date (PA 1989) – which was on
barley – were on charcoal. It is especially notable that the date on barley from EME 2 is somewhat younger than
the three other dates on charcoal material (Fig. 3). However, stratigraphically speaking, this is also the uppermost
located sample.19
12.2.1.5 ME010 Shiyukh Tahtani

Although 27 radiocarbon dates from between 3500 and 1500 BC have recently been obtained for this site they
have not yet been published, making the majority of the dates not available for this study. Fortunately, G. Falsone
and P. Sconzo20 kindly provided six dates for consideration here. It should be noted that Bayesian modelling of
the 27 radiocarbon dates indicated that LTL3020A was an outlier. In the model based on the dates available here,
the sample is not conspicuous (Fig. 4). Nevertheless, because of the problems that arise when this date is consid-
ered with all the other dates from this site, it should be omitted from the analysis in § 12.2.2.
12.2.1.6 ME012 Qara Quzaq

Six radiocarbon dates are available from 3rd millennium contexts at ME012 but sadly they are problematic.
According to C. Valdes Pereiro (pers. comm.), important information was lost on the contexts of the dated sam-
ples. In most cases a level was mentioned with the published radiocarbon samples, but no context. Additionally,
the dating report mentions problems with the sample preparation from UBAR-286; more precisely, the material
dated could include humic acids that would provide too recent a date.21
The first run of the Bayesian site-based model indicated four outliers. We omitted UBAR-286, which showed
the lowest agreement. Afterwards, the second run of the analysis resulted in UBAR-294 having a low agreement
(less than 60%). As a consequence, we deleted this sample from the analysis as well. It is interesting to note that
18
Morandi Bonacossi 2005: 99 and 124.
19
Morandi Bonacossi 2005: 99 and 124.
20
pers. comm. 2012 and Falsone & Sconzo 2012: 174.
21
Mestres Torres 1994: 147-150.
411
Fig. 4: Probability distribution for occupation at Shiyukh Tahtani. The dark distributions for the dates
represent the likelihoods derived from the calibration of the radiocarbon dates. The lighter distributions
distributions show 95.4% ranges from the analysis.
the sample that showed deficiencies in the sample preparation was also identified as an outlier. However, it was not
too young, as would be expected, but was rather too old. This could be due to the fact that an inbuilt age was pre-
sent in the sample. Hence, of the six dates, only three could be accepted for further analysis. One of these had an
extremely wide range that was reduced by the modelling (Fig. 5). Further analyses in § 12.2.2 must show whether
any of the dates can be used to refine the chronology of the 3rd millennium. At this stage, we remain very sceptical.
12.2.1.7 ME013 Bazi

B. Einwag and A. Otto provided the database with an unpublished date for ME013 from the destruction of
horizon 9, which can be equated with EME 4. This date will be used in the analysis in § 12.2.2.
12.2.1.8 ME015 Banat

Four radiocarbon dates have been published by Porter and McClellan.22 Three of them have known strati-
graphical orders, with Beta-92090 deriving from the lowermost level, Beta-73230 representing the uppermost
level and Beta-73229 intermediate to these two. With this knowledge there is a slight improvement in the cali-
brated dates. The dates seem to be consistent with their known stratigraphical order. According to the ceramic
investigations these levels would belong to Banat Period IV, roughly corresponding to EME 3 (Fig. 6). The dates,
therefore, will be included in the analysis in § 12.2.2.
12.2.1.9 ME016 Jerablus Tahtani

There exist eight published radiocarbon dates for ME016.23 They all derive from Tomb 302, which was in use
over a very long time span. Peltenburg24 mentioned different use phases within the tomb for five of the samples
(see Table 1). For the site-based Bayesian model we used this temporal information. Upon the first run two dates
showed low agreement with the model. We decided to first exclude the outlier AA14988, which had also been
mentioned as an intrusion by Peltenburg25 (perhaps by aquaturbation). During the second run the model showed
a high agreement, indicating that phase 1 could be temporally different from phase 3 (Fig. 7).
Phase 1 can be correlated with EME 3. It is not clear whether phase 3 can be correlated with EME 4. For this
reason we decided to include only GU13569, 13570, 13568 and 10345 in the regional analysis in § 12.2.2.
22
Porter & McClellan 1998: 23.
23
Peltenburg 2007a: 255.
24
Peltenburg 2007a: 254-255.
25
Peltenburg 2007a: 254-255.
412
Fig. 5: Probability distribution for occupation at Qara Quzaq. The dark distributions for the dates represent
the likelihoods derived from the calibration of the radiocarbon dates. The lighter distributions show the results
after stratigraphic constraints are imposed on the dates using OxCal. The bars beneath the distributions show
Fig. 6: Probability distribution for dates from Banat. The dark distributions for the dates represent the
likelihoods derived from the calibration of the radiocarbon dates. The lighter distributions show the results
12.2.1.10 ME018 Sweyhat

Six radiocarbon dates have been published from ME018. One derives from an EME 2 context. Additionally,
two of the contexts from which the dated material derives contain EME 5 material (P-2324 and P-2338). The
radiocarbon-dated sample GrN-10348 was mentioned as having originated from the same level as these EME
5 dates. The other two radiocarbon samples could only be roughly assigned to EME 4–5. Because of this broad
EME designation they could not be used in the modelling in § 12.2.2. Moreover, it was impossible to make a site-
based sequence since the dates do not seem to have belonged to the same trenches.26
12.2.1.11 ME020 ‘Abd

There are seven well-stratified samples from ME020. All of them have been assigned to EME 2.27 The dates
derive from five different squares, so that only one square has a sequence of three dates available. The other
dates cannot be easily stratigraphically connected.
26
Holland 2006:18-19.
27
Finkbeiner pers. comm. 2012; Sconzo 2013a: 156-158.
413
Fig. 7: Probability distribution for dates from Jerablus Tahtani. The dark distributions for the dates represent
the likelihoods derived from the calibration of the radiocarbon dates. The lighter distributions show the results
12.2.1.12 ME029 Selenkahiye

We found seven published dates from ME029.28 They have been assigned to EME 4 and EME 5 (Table 1). A first
run of the model showed that for two dates there was only a low agreement. Therefore, we started again only omitting
GrN-7871, as this showed the lowest agreement. In the second run the model showed a high agreement (Fig. 8).
12.2.1.13 ME031 Emar

Two radiocarbon dates are available from ME031 and have been assigned to EME 5.29 They derive from an ash
pit in courtyard VII and a tannur in room II.30 They will both be used in the analysis in § 12.2.2.
12.2.1.14 ME032 Bi’a

In total, 13 radiocarbon dates have been published from ME032.31 Twelve of them derive from various Palace
B contexts and mainly represent the palace’s construction wood, probably from larger beams. Palace B and its asso-
ciated artefacts belong to EME 4. One radiocarbon sample, Bln-3882, cannot be precisely assigned to an EME
period and so it will not be included in the analysis in § 12.2.2.
According to the site-based Bayesian modelling construction of the Palace B took place between 2383 +149/-142
Bcal and 2322 +113/-145 Bcal (Fig. 9). Bln-4344 (Table 1), for example, seems to be somewhat old and may
have derived from the inside of a larger beam. However, the Bayesian modelling tends to push all the dates to a
narrower range and because of that some of the oldest and youngest ends of the calibrated dates are obliterated.
Because of the possibility that the insides of large beams was sampled the youngest calibrated dates (and not the
modelled Bcal dates) may better represent the construction date of the Palace B. Conversely, reparations may have
remained unidentified and therefore the older ends may represent the earliest construction dates.
12.2.1.15 ME033 Hammam al-Turkman

Seven radiocarbon dates were found from ME033.32 These contexts could only be roughly categorised as
EME 4–5, making them ineligible to be included in the regional EME period analysis in § 12.2.2. However, the
dates can be ordered by stratigraphy and therefore a site-based chronological model can be gained, with the city
28
van Loon 2001a: 603-606.
29
Grootes & Nadeau 2010: 245-256.
30
Finkbeiner 2010b: 266.
31
Strommenger & Kohlmeyer 2000: 41; Görsdorf 1993: 62-68.
32
van Loon 1988a: 703-704; Thissen 1989: 207.
414
Fig. 8: Probability distribution for the sequence from Selenkahiye. The dark distributions for the dates
represent the likelihoods derived from the calibration of the radiocarbon dates. The lighter distributions show the
results after stratigraphic constraints are imposed on the dates using OxCal. The bars beneath the distributions
show 95.4% ranges from the analysis.
Fig. 9: Probability distribution for the construction of the palace at Bi’a under the assumption that only
outsides of beams were sampled and all samples derive from the same construction phase. The dark distributions
for the dates represent the likelihoods derived from the calibration of the radiocarbon dates. The lighter
distributions show the results after stratigraphic constraints are imposed on the dates using OxCal. The bars
beneath the distributions show 95.4% ranges from the analysis.
415
wall architecture overlain by two burnt levels the first of which represents the earliest one. The first run of this
model showed that the date GrN-11150 is an outlier. We therefore removed it from the second run, which then
functioned well (Fig. 10).
12.2.1.16 ME035 Terqa

Ten dates were gathered from Terqa. Eight of them were unpublished but kindly made available for this study
by O. Rouault.33 Two were known from a previous publication.34 However, not all dates could be connected with
EME periods as the material is not published yet. As for Ly-14865, Ly-8625 (GrA) and Ly-3367 (Poz), they clearly
can be assigned to EME 3, with Ly-13437 assigned to EME 4. Only the dates with EME periodisation can be
included in the analysis for § 12.2.2. Furthermore, as we received stratigraphic information we can undertake
Bayesian modelling on the site phases.
The Bayesian model showed that two dates have a low agreement. Ly-14865 appears to be rather old compared
to the other dates, while Ly-15908 is too young. They were both eliminated from the analysis, which then, in the
second run, showed good agreement (Fig. 11).
12.2.1.17 ME039 Birecik

There exist two unpublished radiocarbon results from ME039.35 They could be only broadly attributed to
EME 1–2.
12.2.1.18 ME042 Hajji Ibrahim

Eleven radiocarbon dates have been found for ME042.36 The first run was problematic, so we excluded
AA30474 and AA30470 because they were obviously too old. In the second run it was noted that AA30460 also
needed to be excluded from the analysis because of its low agreement. Finally, with these three dates removed, a
model with a high agreement was achieved (Fig. 12).
Unfortunately, all samples from the Chalcolithic period and those that could be either Late Chalcolithic or
3rd millennium in date must be excluded from the analysis in § 12.2.2. In spite of this, it is interesting to note that
the Bayesian modelling pushed the dates from Chalcolithic to the somewhat younger end of their calibrated range.
12.2.1.19 Conclusion of the site-based modelling

During this first stage of the analysis 15 out of 76 samples (20%) were eliminated as outliers from the database
because they showed low agreement with the site’s Bayesian model, which combined stratigraphic and ceramic
evidence with dating evidence. There are several reasons for the high number of inconsistent dates, the most prob-
able of which is the presence of long-lived samples, which may be represented by non-systematic, excessively old
dates. Additionally, on tell sites it is also normal that older material regularly intrudes into younger layers by, for
example, the digging of pits or other activities. On the contrary, rarer, radically young dates may occur because of
bioturbation or aquaturbation (as has been suggested for Jerablus Tahtani, for example).
12.2.2 Gaining Insight into EME Periodisation

After having eliminated dates that were inconsistent on a site-by-site basis (see § 12.2.1) we began to model the
chronology of the EME periods. The assignment of site levels to EME periods is based on several arguments and,
more precisely, on stratigraphy connected with artefact typology. It is clear that here, again, there will be dates
inconsistent with the periodisation model. For this reason, it is of particular importance that we detect dates from
one site that are inconsistent with the other dates from this period, which could indicate a wrong period designation.
During the first run of the program the following outliers were detected: ME009 PA1656, ME012 UBAR-
369, ME015 Beta-73229, ME015 Beta-92090, ME015 Beta-73128, ME016 GU13569, ME016 GU13570, ME016
GU10345 and ME012 UBAR-285. They were deleted and a second run was undertaken. Again, two outliers
(ME009 PA1988 and ME001 Bln-2733) were detected and omitted before the third run was performed. Finally,
the results showed high agreement with A model=103.4 and Aoverall=106.1 (Fig. 13). As a result of the Bayesian mod-
elling, the EME periodisation can be set as in Table 2.
To reach this periodisation (with outliers from §§ 12.2.1 and 12.2.2 added), 19 out of 72 samples (26.5%)
in total needed to be eliminated because they were outliers (Table 1). Such dates may be outliers in the statisti-
cal sense of radiocarbon measurement or in the physical sense of being from residual or intrusive material. The
production of a radiocarbon measurement is a statistical process, and so the age has 95% probability of truly lying
33
Rouault 2012 pers comm.
34
Venkatesan et al. 1982: 517-519.
35
See database inventory ME039_I001.
36
Danti 2000: 159.
416
Fig. 10: Bayesian model for Hammam al-Turkman. The dark distributions for the dates represent the
likelihoods derived from the calibration of the radiocarbon dates. The lighter distributions show the results after
stratigraphic constraints are imposed on the dates using OxCal. The bars beneath the distributions show 95.4%
ranges from the analysis.
Fig. 11: Bayesian model for Terqa. The dark distributions for the dates represent the likelihoods
derived from the calibration of the radiocarbon dates. The lighter distributions show the results after
stratigraphic constraints are imposed on the dates using OxCal. The bars beneath the distributions
417
Fig. 12: Bayesian model for Hajji Ibrahim. The dark distributions for the dates represent the likelihoods
derived from the calibration of the radiocarbon dates. The lighter distributions show the results after
stratigraphic constraints are imposed on the dates using OxCal. The bars beneath the distributions
Table 2: Dates for the start and end of the phases according to the Bayesian model (95.4% ranges).
start Bcal end Bcal median start Bcal median end Bcal
EME 1 3550–3050 3248–3036 3273 3146

EME 2 3248–3036 2747–2492 3146 2631
EME 3 2747–2544 2565–2492 2631 2525
EME 4 2565–2492 2261–2136 2525 2196
EME 5 2261–2136 2193–1958 2796 2076
within the 2-sigma range; therefore, 5% of the results should be expected to lie outside of the 95% probability
range.37 The higher percentage of outliers for the ME chronology can be attributed to several causes.
Frequent use of wood charcoal to date the 3rd millennium contexts of the ME is a major problem, even though
the majority of the dated wood may have a maximum inbuilt age of only 70 years (Populus/Salix). Since the error
introduced thereby would be unsystematic, such cases may have regularly been detected during the site-based
analysis of § 12.2.1 or in the regional analysis in § 12.2.2. This may partially explain the high percentage of outli-
ers. We have to be careful with the result achieved in § 12.2.2, as it is mainly based on unidentified charcoal. For
example, it has been demonstrated in a Bayesian modelling study that investigated the earliest colonisation of
the island of Hawaii that dating a mixture of short-lived plant taxa and unidentified charcoal led to a calibrated
date of 50 to 100 years earlier than when only short-lived plant taxa were used.38 Hence, we need wood charcoal
identification to ensure a selection of short-lived plants/plant parts for radiocarbon dating. Relying on dating
unidentified wood charcoal is a waste of resources that retards progress in refining the settlement chronology.39
37
See also Hamilton 2010: 277.
38
Rieth et al. 2011.
39
see also Rieth et al. 2011.
418
Fig. 13: Bayesian model for the EME phases including all radiocarbon dates that showed high agreement
with the model. The bars beneath the distributions show 95.4% ranges from the analysis.
419
Table 3: Bayesian modelling results for the overlap between phases (95.4% range).
Start Bcal End Bcal Years
Transition EME 1-EME 2 3248 3036 212
Fig. 14: Age models for EME phases in the ME.
An additional problem is that the association of the sample and the context is often poorly understood. It is
frequently impossible to deduce how well the radiocarbon date relates to the archaeology. We could not find the
exact contextual information for all dates, so we often did not know how the date related to the archaeology. The
general lack of radiocarbon dates from ME inventories signals the lack of sealed contexts that have been dated.
Problematic contexts, such as pit fills or fills in general, have been regularly dated. These sometimes tend to
include older material from elsewhere. There were many cases where radiocarbon dates came from pit fills at ME
sites (minimally, seven dates), but not all of them were demonstrated to be outliers. An example of a pit fill outlier
date is ME001 Bln-2733, which appears to be too young. Additionally, fills also have been regularly dated from
ME sites (a minimum number of eight cases). Two outliers in these contexts have been identified: ME009 PA
1656 and ME009 PA 1990.
Furthermore, a notable amount of charcoal from oven contexts has also been dated (a minimum number of
seven cases). These contexts are primary and therefore relate well to the use of the level. However, the fuel may have
consisted of larger beams with inbuilt ages and, in the worst case (for dating), these beams may have been used
earlier for a long period of time in other structures. One radiocarbon date from such a context has been identified
as an outlier (ME029 GrN-7871). It was more than 200 years too old for its context, which could be due either to
inbuilt ages or to the sample’s earlier use.
Determining silo age by dating the associated grains would appear to be one of the most secure ways to gain an
uncontroversial age determination. In spite of this, one such dated context (ME012 UBAR-285) from the ME sites
showed low agreement. Interestingly, in the report it was mentioned that charcoal was dated from the silo, which
makes it questionable whether this charcoal piece had anything to do with the storage of grain at that time (rather,
it may represent the inclusion of older waste). ME012 UBAR-285, however, was too young. There appears to be no
clear explanation for this but it must be reiterated that the entire dating of ME012 seems quite problematic.
It has been demonstrated that in many cases no ideal sampling for dates occurred at the ME sites. Outliers
may also be due to a wrong temporal period designation through the use of material culture. We must also keep
in mind that our assumptions regarding ceramic and other artefact traditions may be wrong; that the start and
end of material culture did not take place simultaneously at different sites but, for example, that it started some-
where and then slowly dispersed to other sites. The use of some styles may have been discontinued at a number of
sites, while other sites may have used them for a longer period of time. Additionally, it has also been noted that
boundaries between ceramic phases in the ME are not very abrupt.40 Instead, certain ceramic types reveal more
of a change in use frequency over time than applies to the overall assemblage, as “the overall ceramic sequence
displays a series of gradual additions and deletions of types”.41 This may have caused an overlap of the different
periods in the final age model. Therefore, it is useful to consider transition phases that could indicate temporal
overlap between EME designations (Table 3).
40
See Sconzo, this volume.
41
Cooper 2006: 8 citing Porter 1999 and see also Sconzo, this volume.
420
It is easy to see that each EME period potentially has some overlap with the next period (Table 3). Sometimes
this overlap is rather small – for example, the EME 3–EME 4 transition is approximately 70 years. The largest
overlaps are from EME 1 to EME 2 and from EME 2 to EME 3, with transition phases reaching over 200 years.
For practical use of this periodisation and comparison with previous chronological frameworks, the median
for the boundaries can be used (Fig. 14).
As a notable amount of data manipulation occurred in order to get a consistent Bayesian model, it must be
reiterated that this is a working model and further as well as improved dates are needed to test and refine this
hypothetical time frame of EME periods.
12.3. Conclusion
Taken together, the Bayesian analysis makes it possible to establish a chronometric model for the ME. It ena-
bles us to identify outliers in an explicit model through a probabilistic manner. The chronological model that
results, however, is only as good as the data entered. One of the major problems in establishing an age model based
on radiocarbon dating for the ME is the present lack of dates on short-lived material from sealed deposits. Future
chronological work should focus on this.
421
13. History and Philology*
Gianni Marchesi
13.1. Introduction
This chapter summarises what little is known, on the basis of the few available textual sources, about the
political history of the ME in the 3rd millennium and provides an overview of the scant epigraphic material that
survives from the area in that period.
Needless to say, the historical outline we present should be considered extremely provisional owing to the
substantial shortage, if not complete lack, of relevant documentation from the region and period under review.
The Royal Archives of Ebla are the only source of information on the cities and polities of the ME in early histori-
cal times and even they document only a very short period. Moreover, the many difficulties and uncertainties that
still surround the interpretation of the Eblaite texts and the identification of the toponyms they contain frustrate
scholars’ efforts to fully tap the great potential of the rich and varied archives from Ebla.1
13.2. The Middle Euphrates Region in the Late 3rd Millennium (c. 2350-2000 BC)
In the period covered by the archives of Ebla (about fifty years at the end of Period EME 4), the ME appears
to have been fully urbanised. A constellation of small, independent kingdoms was thriving in the densely settled
valleys of the Euphrates and Balikh rivers.2 These polities, which were named after their capital cities, were tied
to one another by common economic interests (trade) and family bonds resulting from interdynastic marriages.
Unfortunately, among the ME capitals only Emar (Ì-mar ki) can be definitively identified with a specific
archaeological site,3 thanks to the discovery of a great number of Late Bronze Age tablets at Meskene Qadime.4
The texts from Ebla even provide us with the names of four rulers of Emar – Na’am-Damu (Na-am6 -DA.MU),
Išqi-Damu (Iš11-gi-DA.MU), Ib-Damu (Ib-DA.MU) and Ruzi-Malku (Ru12-zi-MA.LIK) – who were contempo-
rary with the last three kings of Ebla, Igrish-Khalab, Irkab-Damu and Ish’ar-Damu.5
To the south of Emar the cities of Tuttul (Bi’a) and Terqa (al-Ashara) belonged to Mari. 6 To the north,
Carchemish is generally considered to be part of the kingdom of Ebla,7 although this attribution rests solely on
the assumption that the hapax Gàr-gàr-mi-íski in the so-called “Treaty between Ebla and Abarsal” (ARET XIII 5)
is an aberrant writing of Gàr-ga-mi-ís/suki, the customary writing of Carchemish at Ebla. Further to the north,
presumably in the region of Gaziantep, was the important kingdom of Ursha’um (Ur-sá-umki).8
During the period of Ebla two regional powers – Ebla itself and Mari – contested hegemony over the area of
the Euphrates stretching from Carchemish to Emar; after a period of Mariote supremacy, during the time of the
Mari kings Iplus-Il (“Iblul-Il”), Izzi (“Nizi”) and Enna-Dagan, when the city of Mari levied an enormous tax in
*
I would like to thank Paul Collins, Jaleh Hearn Curator of Ancient Near East at the Ashmolean Museum, for allowing me
to publish the seal AN 1913.224. Federico Zaina took the photographs of the object; Massimo Bozzoli processed the images;
Glenn Magid checked and corrected my English. My gratitude goes to all of them.
1
For the Royal Archives of Ebla, see most recently Matthiae 2008.
2
Cf. Astour 1992: 26-50; Meyer 1996: 155-170; Bonechi 1998: 223-236; Milano & Rova 2000: 720-730; Archi 2011: 5-7.
3
Cf. the map in Bonechi 1993. For various attempts to identify ancient toponyms occurring in the Ebla texts with tells of the
ME, see, among others, Astour 1992: 27 (map); Meyer 1996 (Burman = Sweyhat?, Gashur = Halawa?, and Ra’ak = Hammam
al-Turkman?); Astour 1997: 43-49 (“Abarsal” = Ahmar and Khasuwan = Beddayeh); Otto 2006 (Armi/Armi’um = Banat-
Bazi); Archi 2008 (Khasuwan = Tilbeshar); Archi 2011 (Armi/Armi’um = Samsat). See also Bonechi 1993 and Archi et al.
1993, passim.
4
Cf. Cohen 2009: 7-12.
5
See Archi 1990a: 24-29, 32-37 (sub 20, 67, 95, 103, 111, 126, 140, 152, 160, 173, 174, and 200). Cf. Archi et al. 1993: 290.
6
See Archi 1990b.
7
See Pettinato 1976; Kupper 1992: 16; Archi et al. 1993: 238-239; Bonechi 1993: 150; Lacambre & Tunca 1999: 590-592.
On the other hand, Milano suggested that “Karkamiš […] might have been part of the reign of Burman, known to be a good
producer of wine, like Karkamiš also was – at least in later periods” (Milano & Rova 2000: 73).
8
See, most recently, Archi 2008. Cf. Barjamovic 2011: 195-203.
423
G. Marchesi
gold and silver on her rival, Ebla defeated Mari and reversed the balance of power.9 This rivalry, however, probably
weakened both the antagonists, paving the way for the eventual conquest of the ME by the kings of Akkad.
In one of his inscriptions Sargon, the founder of the Dynasty of Akkad, states that he “bowed down and
prayed the god Dagan in Tuttul” and that the god “gave him the Upper Land, (that is, the territories of) Mari,
Yarmuti,10 and Ebla, as far as the Cedar Forest (= Amanus) and the Silver Mountain (= Taurus)”.11 Sargon’s claim
is corroborated by the find of an inscription of Rimush at Tuttul (see below, § 13.3.2.1), which attests to the
Akkadian kings’ control of the town.
Sargon’s grandson, Naram-Sin, resumed campaigns in the region; he tells us that he “smote Armanum12 and
Ebla” and “crushed (?) the people that Dagan had granted him anew from the (western) bank of the Euphrates
as far as the city of Ulishim, so that they (submissively) perform service for his (Naram-Sin’s) god Il’aba”.13 It
appears that Naram-Sin needed to resubjugate the Syrian territories that had previously been conquered by his
grandfather Sargon. However, the Akkadian kings never attempted to integrate those lands into the Akkad state;
their primary goal was to control the trade along the Euphrates and the trade routes that led to Anatolia and the
Mediterranean coast. To this end they established permanent garrisons in key positions such as Mari and Tuttul.14
At the time of Sharkalisharri the Amorites, a semi-nomadic tribal people from the steppe to the west of the
Euphrates, began to present a threat to the circulation of goods in that area. Significantly, one of the year-names of
Sharkalisharri is named after a victory of the king of Akkad over Amorite tribes in their “stronghold”, the mount
Bashar (Jebel Bishri).15
The Akkadian presence in the ME came to an end during the reigns of the final successors of Sargon.
An inscribed axe attests to the existence of an independent local ruler at Tuttul in the Late Akkadian period
(see below, § 13.3.2.1). The kingdom of Tuttul remained intact into the Ur III period (EME 6). Administrative
texts from the time of Amar-Zu’ena mention another ruler of Tuttul, Yashshi-Li’im (Yà-Ši-Li-im),16 who bears an
Amorite name.17 Interestingly, Tuttul and Urshu (the Ursha’um of the Ebla texts) are the only ME polities that are
attested in Ur III sources.18 This fact might suggest that the region underwent a process of (partial) deurbanisa-
tion in connection with the emergence of the Amorites.19
13.3. Epigraphic Material from the Middle Euphrates Region by Periods and Sites
13.3.1 Pre-Sargonic (EME 4)
13.3.1.1 Hammam Seghir

a. AN 1913.224 (Pl. 1). Inscribed seal bought by L. Woolley and said to come from a grave in Hammam
Seghir.20 The inscription, 21 consisting simply of the name of the seal owner (of unknown linguistic affiliation) and
his title, reads Ma-ba-TAR UGULA, i.e., “MabaTAR, the overseer”.
9
See Archi & Biga 2003.
10
According to Archi (2011: 28), Yarmuti is the selfsame Armi of the Ebla texts, whose name “reached the officers of Sargon
in a corrupted form”. He also thinks the same is true of Naram-Sin’s Armanum (see below). Note, however, that toponyms
comparable to Yarmuti are well attested in the Levant (see Fronzaroli 1977: 147-148), while Armanum probably shares only a
superficial assonance with Armi (cf. n. 12 below).
11
See Frayne 1993: 27-29 Sargon 11.
12
Possibly to be identified with Banat-Bazi (see Otto 2006; Otto & Biga 2010). Note, however, that the widely assumed
identity of Armi/Armi’um of the Ebla texts with Armanum is philologically problematic. I see no grounds for the implicit
hypothesis that the name Armi/Armi’um changed to Armanum in the space of a mere century; it is much more likely that the
two names were distinct and that they have different underlying etymologies (for Armi/Armi’um, see Fronzaroli 1984-86: 141;
for Armanum, see Fronzaroli 1977: 148-149).
13
See Frayne 1993: 133 Narām-Sîn 26 ii 4-23. Cf. ibid., 136 Narām-Sîn 27. The conquest of Armanum is also commemorated
in a year-name of Naram-Sin (see Salgues 2011).
14
Cf. Steinkeller in press b.
15
See, most recently, Sommerfeld 2000: 435-436.
16
See Owen 1992: 152-153 no. 60, 155 no. 70.
17
Cf. Buccellati 1966: 153 and 245-246; Streck 2000: 223 (§ 2.123).
18
For foreign emissaries from Urshu in Ur III texts, see Owen 1992: 133-135; Sallaberger 2007: 437. Cf. Sharlach 2005.
19
An analogous process can be observed in a much more evident way in the JZ (see Sallaberger 2007; 2011: 331-332).
20
Woolley 1914: 90-91 and pl. XVIIa; Hogarth 1920: 25 and pl. I, 2; Amiet 1963: 69; Buchanan 1966: no. 152; Amiet 1980:
no. 925; Quenet 2005: 34-35 and fig. 1a; Rohn 2011: 123 (no. 472) with n. 1090. Also see Felli in this volume (p. 214 with
fn.147).
21
To be read on the stone.
424
History and Philology
13.3.2 Sargonic (EME 5)
13.3.2.1 Bi’a (= Tuttul)

a. KTT 2 (= Bi.28/49:119; Pl. 2). Vessel fragment bearing traces of an Akkadian period inscription.22
Although only two signs are preserved 23 we can confidently identify the text with the Booty-of-Elam inscription
of Rimush, which is known from many examples (all inscribed vessels) from several places (Nippur, Ur, Sippar,
Tutub, Nagar).24 Accordingly, we can restore the text as follows:
1. [a-na] To
2. [d Da-gan] Dagan 25
3. [Rí-mu-ús] Rimush
4. [LUGAL] king
5. [KIŠI] of Kish
6. [ì-nu] when
7. [ELAM ki] Elam
8. [ù] and
9. [Ba-ra-aḫ-šúm]ki Barakhshum (= Markhashi)
10. [SAĜ.ĜIŠ.RA-n]i he smote
11. [in NAM.RA.AK] from the booty
12. [ELAM ki] of Elam
13. [A.MU.RU] presented (this vessel)
b. KTT 1 (Pl. 3). Bronze “anchor” axe with a Late Akkadian inscription.26

1. Íl-e-li-im Il’e-Li’im
2. EN ruler 27
3. Tu-tu-li ki
of Tuttul
13.3.2.2 Hammam al-Turkman

a. HMM 82-O 9. Administrative tablet (receipt of grain). 28
1. 10 ŠE GU[R] 10 kurrum-measures of grain (ca. 3,000 l)
2. ŠE šu — grain of
3. KARA6 -im the silo/granary —
4. Ra-ù Ra’u
5. im-ḫur has received 29
b. HMM 01-Z 2. Late Akkadian seal belonging to one Ilshu-dan (DIĜIR-su-KALAG, “His God Is
Mighty”).30
22
Krebernik 2001: 37 and pl. 50, 2; Strommenger & Miglus 2010: 140 and pl. 161, 1.
23
Krebernik (2001: 37) read “[a-]na? / [ ]x”, but in the first case of the inscription the preserved sign is probably KI, while in the
following case the final part of NI can be recognised.
24
See Frayne 1993: 60-66 Rīmuš 11-16. The clause ì-nu… ki (ù… ki) SAĜ.ĜIŠ.RA-ni (= inu GN (u GN2) yinḥarūni) also occurs
in two additional Rimush inscriptions (ibid., 51 Rīmuš 5: 4-6; 55 Rīmuš 6: 136-140) and in an inscription of Manishtushu
(ibid., 75 Man-ištūšu 1: 4-8), but these are longer and more elaborate statue inscriptions, which, furthermore, are known only
from Old Babylonian copies. For the various types of vessels bearing the Booty-of-Elam inscription of Rimush, see Potts 1989:
126-127, tb. 1, figs 1-4 and 12. Several examples are also made of the same stone (banded calcite) as our vessel (cf. Potts 1989,
tb. 1; Oates et al. 2001: fig. 382).
25
The restoration of the DN dDa-gan is suggested by the fact that in every other example of the Booty-of-Elam inscription, the
offeree is the main deity of a given city (Ellil at Nippur, Nanna at Ur, Sin at Tutub). Tuttul is attested as Dagan’s Holy City from
the period of Ebla onwards (see, most recently, Feliu 2003: 24-26, 37, 41, 43-46, 118-126, 238-239).
26
Morrison 1984; Krebernik 2001: 37 and pl. 50, 1. Cf. Astour 2002: 110-111.
27
Cf. A. Westenholz in Sallaberger & Westenholz 1999: 47 with n. 151.
28
W. H. van Soldt in van Loon 1988: 669 and fig. 1a (on p. 673).
29
Van Soldt (loc. cit.) read line 4 as “sanga-ù” and translated it as “the priest”, but the first sign is more likely to be RA (also note
that in Old Akkadian writing “sanga-ù” represents šangû [plural], which is incompatible with the third person singular verb
yimḫur). For the PN Ra’u (= /ra‘u/), see Krebernik 1988: 6; Pagan 1998: 231. The same personal name (written exactly the
same way, Ra-ù) also occurs in a Sargonic text from Tell es-Suleimeh (Rasheed 1981: no. 1 iii 19).
30
Meijer 2006. Cf. Felli in this volume (p. 225 fn. 260).
425
G. Marchesi
13.3.2.3 Munbaqa
a. MBQ 26/35-62 (= 71 MBQ 59). Inscribed bronze vessel.31 The PN Puzur-Khattum (= /puzur-
ḫat. t. um/) and the GN Durum suggest that this object (which was found at Munbaqa) in fact originated in the
Hamrin region.32
1. PUZUR4-dPA Puzur-Khattum33
2. SAĜĜA BÀ[Dki] chief administrator of Durum —
3. Me-su-ni Meshuni
4. DUMU.MUNUS-zu his daughter34
13.3.2.4 Sweyhat
a. SW. 585. Inscribed weight dating to the Akkadian period (EME 5).35 The inscription simply reads:
1 MA.NA, “1 mina”. Holland interpreted this find as evidence for “exchanges of an economic nature […] dur-
ing the Akkadian period between Mesopotamian heartland towns and newly established towns on the Syrian
Euphrates”.36 However, the weight of the stone, a little more than 472g,37 suggests that the Sweyhat mina is not
the Mesopotamian mina of about 500g but, rather, the Syrian mina of about 470g.38
13.3.2.5 Titris (?)

a. An inscribed weight from the Karababa area is reported to have been found during illicit excavations at
Titris.39 According to Finkel, who saw and read the inscription,40 the object in question bears the weight nota-
tion 1 MA.NA, “1 mina”, and belonged to an Akkadian official in the service of Shu-Dur’ul,41 the last king of the
Dynasty of Akkad.42
31
Wäfler 1980; Boese 1983; Steinkeller 1984: 83-84; Gelb & Kienast 1990: 384 Varia 18; Braun-Holzinger 1991: 167 G 242;
Frayne 1993: 297-298 Puzur-Šullat 2001; Rouault & Masetti Rouault 1993: no. 206; Czichon & Werner 1998: no. 1008.
32
See Steinkeller 1984: 84. Cf. Owen 1995; Astour 2002: 117.
33
The usual reading of PUZUR4-dPA as Puzur-Shullat is an anachronism: Shullat was always written syllabically before the Old
Babylonian period (see Edzard & Lambert 1972-75); nor, to the best of my knowledge, is this divine name ever attested as a
component of personal names. For dPA as a logogram for the deified scepter, see Krebernik 2003-2005.
34
For this type of inscription, see Marchesi 2004: 180.
35
Holland 1975; 2006: 231, 516, fig. 163, 3, pl. 123b; Rouault & Masetti Rouault 1993: no. 287; Matthews 1997: 50 with
n. 111.
36
Holland 2006: 231.
37
Holland 1975: 75.
38
Cf. Zaccagnini 1999-2001.
39
Algaze 1990: 344-345.
40
We can only deplore the fact that this remarkable weight is still unpublished more than twenty years after its discovery.
41
I. Finkel apud Algaze, loc. cit.
42
For this rather obscure Late Akkadian king, see Pomponio 2011: 230; Sallaberger 2011: 330; and Steinkeller in press b.
426
3
Plate 1: Seal from Hammam Seghir (photos courtesy F. Zaina).
427
G. Marchesi
Plate 2: Vessel bearing a Rimush inscription, from Tuttul

(adapted from Krebernik 2001: pl. 50, 2 and Strommenger
& Miglus 2010: pl. 161, 1).
428
Plate 3: Inscribed axe head of a Late Sargonic ruler of Tuttul (after Krebernik 2001: pl. 50, 1).
429
14. Conclusion
Uwe Finkbeiner, Mirko Novák, Ferhan Sakal & Paola Sconzo
Employing the information related to all the relevant features surveyed in this book, we can now try to
reconstruct the characteristics of the individual periods.
14.1. Period EME 1

Period EME 1 marks a transitional phase from the late 4th to the early 3rd millennium following upon the
collapse of the Late Chalcolithic (LC) “Uruk system”. This incipient stage can be described as a period of strong
regionalisation which follows the disintegration of an old equilibrium at the fall of the Uruk world system in
Upper Mesopotamia. Its beginning should be set sometime towards the end of the 4th millennium and, at some
sites, may even partially overlap with the end of the Late Uruk occupation. While the Southern Mesopotamian
“colonies” were abandoned and most of the major “Uruk” cultural features vanished, a number of settlements
previously inhabited by an indigenous population survived. The region was de-urbanised, but sedentary life itself
was not given up completely, although the remaining settlements were generally very small, probably amounting
to no more than hamlets or villages.
Thanks to the mixed character of the pottery repertoire this phase can be recognised archaeologically,
although at most sites a clear-cut distinction in the stratigraphy or in other categories of material culture is hardly
noticeable.
The cultural fragmentation is evident not only at a regional level but even within the same area, especially
between the upper and the lower stretches of the ME valley; it has sometimes been interpreted as a reflection of
different settlement patterns and developments in cultural history. Unfortunately, the picture produced by the
published material remains blurred, as it is mainly limited to the northern part of ME, while the Tishrin and
Tabqa sectors have so far given very scanty evidence, both quantitatively and qualitatively. Apart from that of
Zeytinli Bahçe, primary inventories are lacking.
The transition can be observed at several sites along the river banks, from Hassek to Hadidi, and is particularly
evident at Zeytinli Bahçe and Shiyukh Fawqani, where an undisturbed sequence of levels was detected. Period
EME 1 is attested at other sites as well, such as Shiyukh Tahtani and Jerablus Tahtani, perhaps at Ahmar, and at
Hajji Ibrahim. Samsat, a regional centre in the LC, also continued to exist in Period EME 1. ‘Abd was probably
founded at this time, but, as earlier levels have not yet been exposed there, continuity cannot be ascertained. It
seems from the available data, therefore, that the settlement distribution in this period is not as sparse as previ-
ously thought.
At least some of the settlements were fortified, which may indicate ongoing struggles and conflicts. The defen-
sive architecture of this time was very simple, and in no way comparable to the far more sophisticated fortifications
of the “Uruk colonies”. The single-room house type, which had been popular during the LC, became predomi-
nant. More complex house types, such as the bi- and tripartite buildings, as well as distinct “public” buildings such
as temples, granaries and administration units, disappeared at the end of the LC. Only two relevant structures
explored in Hadidi (RII, stratum 1) and in Shiyukh Tahtani respectively might have been of an extraordinary
function. The EME 1 villages were generally characterised by highly uniform simple units and a lack of any signifi-
cant kind of architectural differentiation. According to the data available, it seems as if storage, food preparation
and production of goods, as well as living activities, all took place within the single-room houses or in the adjacent
open areas.
No burials can be attributed so far to this phase without doubt. However, it is possible that some graves of the
Birecik cemetery belong to this early period.
EME 1 marks the beginning of a trend of regionalisation that is visible in most aspects of material culture,
and particularly in the realm of pottery production. The latter is characterised by the survival of earlier technolo-
gies and forms and, sometimes, by the formation of hybrid assemblages in which local and foreign, old and new
features merge and interact.
As a whole, the EME 1 ceramic assemblage is predominantly characterised by fine mineral-tempered fabrics,
while chaff-tempering from the earlier tradition now becomes much rarer. Vessels are generally undecorated, apart
from the use of the diagonal Reserved Slip pattern of Uruk ascendance. Among residual LC/Uruk-related forms
are the ubiquitous bevelled-rim bowls, as well as shallow bowls with inverted rim, wheel-made conical and band
431
U. Finkbeiner, M. Novák, F. Sakal & P. Sconzo
rim bowls and spherical jars with bent rim and cross-hatched decoration or with fine combing on the shoulder.
The newly introduced types (such as bowls with triangular rim and quartz-tempered cooking pots with interior
bulge) are mostly limited to the ME.
In the absence of well-stratified artefacts other than pottery it is not possible to draw a clear picture of the
artistic production. The few good contexts come from the northern part of the region and contain items – such
as flint blades – which show a marked continuity from the previous phase. Other artefacts classes (bone, metal)
do not provide specific types that may characterise this phase and do not seem to occur all over the region (metal
objects, for example, are lacking south of Qara Quzaq). Terracotta objects, characteristic of the later part of the
3rd millennium, are not attested in this period.
14.2. Period EME 2

In Period EME 2 the number of settlements grows remarkably, mostly taking the form of new foundations,
such as Qara Quzaq, Munbaqa, Halawa B, Bi’a and Hammam al-Turkmann. Nevalı çori is a special case: it reoc-
cupies a place that was settled in Halaf times, but is abandoned again before the beginning of Period EME 3.
All other sites continue to exist despite destruction, such as, for example, Jerablus Tahtani, Habuba Kabira and
Halawa B. Only Hassek was definitely abandoned at the end of Period EME 2.
At the cemetery of Şaraga two graves are reported for this period, whereas a large cemetery of cists and pithos
burials is known at the Carchemish mound. The very large cemetery of Birecik is likely to have an earlier date
in EME 1.
Even though settlements were still very modest in size, mostly villages or small towns, they were heavily forti-
fied. “Casemate walls”, which offered far better protection than the simple mud-brick walls of the previous period,
were developed, and this period also offers the first evidence of towers and buttresses at city walls since the aban-
donment of the “Uruk colonies”. Nevertheless, there are still no clearly distinguishable “public buildings” such as
palaces or temples in the initial phase of EME 2 (keeping aside the possible but uncertain example of the already
mentioned “temple” in Hadidi, which was still in use). This does not necessarily prove their non-existence, but
leaves us with questions along the line of whether cultic activities were performed in specific buildings or whether
a particular sacral architecture with exclusive characteristics had simply not been introduced yet. A specific sacral
architecture seems to have emerged during a later stage of EME 2, when freestanding terraces with temples on top
were erected inside enclosures that also included rooms used for storage or other activities. The “bent-axis-scheme”
of the cella, which forced every visitor to make a 90° right-hand turn after entering in order to approach the cultic
statue or symbol, was characteristic of these early temples. Just as in Southern Mesopotamian temple architecture,
buttresses and niches adorned the outer façades. Meanwhile, domestic architecture remained simple: the single-
room house continued to be the dominant type, but some mono-cellular units were already connected to create
the first poly-cellular complexes.
The archaeological evidence for burial customs during this period is limited exclusively to the northern sectors,
where most cemeteries are located near their settlements (Hassek, Nevalı Çori, Şaraga and, perhaps, Birecik). The
main grave types are simple structures, stone cists, pits and pots housing the human remains. Moreover, the use of
wooden coffins set inside the pits is often reported at Birecik. Other data come from intramural contexts (Hassek,
Nevalı Çori, Zeytinli Bahçe, Shiyukh Tahtani, Ahmar, Qara Quzaq, Hammam al-Turkman), mainly in the form
of child inhumations in ceramic containers (pithoi and cooking pots) and, from a few sites, in the form of adult
inhumations in pits.
As far as pottery is concerned, EME 2 shows a certain degree of continuity from the previous phase, despite the
disappearance of most residual LC/Uruk features mentioned above. The only exception is the diagonal Reserved
Slip ware, which remains a hallmark. In this phase the trend toward regionalisation begun in the previous phase
reached its peak and led to the emergence of local pottery traditions. These are manifest not only at a regional scale
(e.g. ME versus JZ) but also at an infra-regional level. A clear-cut distinction between the Karababa/Carchemish/
Upper Sajur sectors on the one hand and the Tabqa and Balikh area on the other is now evident. Owing to the lack
of a clear occupation in the central part of the river valley, namely in the southern Tishrin basin, a comparative
stratigraphy and synchronisation of the various horizons between the two sectors cannot be clearly drawn. Two
sub-phases (2a–2b) can be detected through pottery analysis. Unfortunately a similar evolution is not so clear in
other find categories. Such a distinction may be due to the long duration of this phase, which – on the basis of
the available radiocarbon dates – seems to extend for about 400 years (despite an overlapping of about 200 years
between Phases 2 and 3). The main ceramic families of EME 1 (the Simple and the Reserved Slip wares) continue
to be in use, while chaff-tempered fabrics become rarer. An interesting if short-lived phenomenon is the appear-
ance of painted wares, attested separately (in different styles) in the Karababa, the Carchemish and the Tabqa
areas. These seem to belong to a wider interregional phenomenon of short-term revivals of painted pottery styles,
which extended from a large part of Greater Mesopotamia in the first half of the 3rd millennium (Early Dynastic
Scarlet Ware, “Ninevite V”) as far as western Syria (Multiple-Brush Ware). Another peculiar pottery tradition
432
Conclusion
is that of the Red-Black Burnished Ware, which, however, is witness to the strong regionalisation as it occurs
sporadically and exclusively along the Karababa basin. In EME 2 the diagnostics shared all over the Euphrates
Big Bend are very few, while sub-regional differences are more evident. In this regard the wide diffusion of pot
markings in the Tabqa area is quite interesting, suggesting the existence of a common system of symbols intended
to function and to be understood not only within a workshop or a potter’s quarter, but also outside its limits in
a village or town community and beyond, thus involving various neighbouring settlements, though to different
extents. Moreover, the later stage, 2b, marks the introduction of a dense greenish ware, usually associated with an
open bowl with sinuous profile, namely the cyma recta cup, which provides direct links with both the east (EJZ 1)
and the west (Amuq).
Interregional diversification observed in the realm of pottery finds no direct correspondence in contemporary
artistic production. In the realm of art, widespread from Halawa B all the way up to Carchemish and, more to the
west, to Tilbeshar are, for example, the Glazed Steatite-related seals. These, in turn, strengthen the connections of
the ME with the Ninevite V area, thus revealing an evident integration of the region within the commercial net-
work connecting south-western Iran to Cilicia at this time. A peculiar trait which the ME as a whole shares with
the Hamrin to the east and the Amuq, Ebla and Southern Levant to the west is the early attestation of the practice
of sealing pottery. The appearance in the north of a figurative style which may be seen as a natural development of
the Late Uruk figurative seals, though revived by a newer relation with Mesopotamia (especially Ur and Nippur),
is certainly worth noticing, especially if compared with the more cursory, linear styles or simple geometric designs
attested both in stone and in clay in the local repertoire.
Wall paintings associated with religious architecture are noteworthy, as are metal cylinder seals/amulets, some
topped with zoomorphic motifs, which find a close analogy in a recently discovered piece from Arslantepe VIb2.
While anthropomorphic and zoomorphic terracotta figurines are still lacking, metal objects occur again only
to the north of Qara Quzaq. The two bone needles of the Carchemish-type from Nevalı çori can be attributed to
Period EME 2; nail-headed pins from Qara Quzaq exist over a longer time span, until EME 5. Besides needles,
there is the rather large group of decorated bone tubes. They are attested for period EME 2 but also already for
Uruk times in Habuba Kabira South and continue until Period EME 5.
14.3. Period EME 3

Almost all settlements from Period EME 2 continue into EME 3. Added to them are important new
foundations, such as Titriş (although a few graves may already date to EME 2) and Banat, and perhaps also
Halawa A; and there are regional centres such as Tilbeshar, Bi’a, Terqa and Hammam al-Turkman and others
already founded in EME 2.
During Period EME 3 Halawa B was abandoned and Hajji Ibrahim was used only as a cemetery. The funerary
site of Gre Virike is still frequented, while the Birecik one goes almost out of use (only a single grave). Downriver
the growth of new cemeteries, such as Shamseddin, Tawi, Halawa A and Abu Hamad, is remarkable.
Only a few new architectural elements are introduced and there is no significant change in the number,
individual size or layout of settlements. Defensive and domestic architecture essentially persist in an unaltered
state. However, some development may be seen in the introduction of the first planned poly-cellular units, which
required a higher level of skill in construction than does the connecting of a number of single-room houses to a
complex. At the same time, rooms increasingly performed more specialised functions, thus suggesting that houses
were divided into various zones of production (e.g. metallurgy) or household activities (e.g. cooking, sleeping).
Meanwhile, temple architecture takes a great leap: the “bent-axis-scheme” of the cellae is replaced by an axial
approach, thereby moving the point where the visitor has to turn to the area outside of the heart of the sanctuary.
Some distinctive elements of the later temple-in-antis appear, indicating that the emergence of this type of sacral
buildings in EME 4 does not represent a total discarding of older traditions, but was rather the result of a continu-
ous development.
Concerning burial practices and grave types, EME 3 marks a major change, with a widespread use of new
types of funerary structures as well as their great variability and complexity. The latter is evidenced as well in the
diversity of types of deposition (double and collective inhumations, successive multiple inhumations, primary and
secondary interments, etc.). Many more data are now available with a considerably higher number of cemeteries,
some of them newly established in this period. While on the one hand old burial types, such as simple pit graves,
are still attested, on the other some new types emerge, such as the shaft and chamber graves. These continue more
or less without interruption into EME 4, hence showing no distinct difference. In EME 3 the built chamber tomb,
a distinct new type, seems to be widely diffused from north to south and recorded both in intra- and extramural
contexts. Some extraordinary examples appear, such as Tomb 7 at Banat, the monument at Gre Virike and the
mortuary complex of Bi’a. While the latter seems to come to an end within the same period, the last documented
use of Tomb 7 dates to Period EME 4. These structures were strongly affiliated with an outstanding funerary
complex unearthed on the Acropolis of Umm el-Marra.
433
A similar pattern emerges when we look at the pottery of this phase, which shows a sharp break with the
previous ceramic tradition, thus marking the beginning of a new pottery repertoire which will develop without
interruption down to the end of the 3rd millennium. Although a few vessel types still survive, a large variety of
new forms and wares appear at this time. There are a number of new pottery styles of the finest quality, such as
the “Euphrates Banded Ware”, Pseudo-Metallic Ware and the Karababa Painted Ware, the latter being exclusive
to the northern sector. At this stage a sharp differentiation between domestic and funerary assemblages starts
to emerge, since the latter largely contain luxury wares, which – in turn – rarely occur in occupation contexts.
In addition, while most of the fine wares show regional homogeneity, as they are diffused throughout the whole
Big Bend (from Samsat to Tell Bi’a or even Terqa), the Simple Ware continues to display a marked sub-regional
variability. Diagnostic shapes in the Karababa and Carchemish sectors are the tall-stemmed pedestal bowls, con-
tinuing the earlier tradition of the Carchemish “champagne cups”, and tripod vessels, either open or closed. Quite
common also are footed chalices and truncated conical beakers in Pseudo-Metallic Ware, often found associated
in burial contexts. Interesting links with the east (final EJZ 2) are still offered by small spherical round-bottomed
jars, while tea-pots and cooking pots with triangular lugs are already close to the EJZ 3a tradition. In the Tabqa
sector specialised wares occur in small quantities and only in burial contexts. Potmarks are still fairly common,
but the repertoire is impoverished owing to a strong decline in elaborate signs.
As for arts, there seems to be a higher degree of continuity from the previous phase, as attested by the ongoing
use of glyptic designs inspired by the International Style experience and by the persistent practice of wall paint-
ings, though apparently unrelated to obvious religious architecture. Anthropomorphic representations seem so
far limited to the latter realm, while figurative seals mainly include animals, showing affinities with similar reper-
toires in the Khabur area (EJZ 3a, especially Khuera). At the end of this period it is also possible to acknowledge
the first hint at a southern influence in the form of the banquet theme in seals (Gre Virike, possibly Bi’a).
For the first time zoomorphic terracotta figurines occur. Slightly later than in the JZ, where coarse exam-
ples already appear in EJZ 1, zoomorphic figurines and model vehicles are now found mainly in the repertoire
of southern ME sites. We can also assume that human figurines were introduced at the very end of this period,
judging by the occurrence of Type MEFT A 01a in Bi’a, which, however, still needs to be confirmed.
The appearance of violin-shaped stone idols in a very small area in the north part of the region is quite striking,
since similar idols are typical of CA and WA. In the ME they occur mostly in funerary contexts at Titriş, although
they have also been found further east in the TG, where they date to periods ETG 7 to ETG 9.
Metal finds, previously attested in the northern ME, start now to appear for the first time in the southern part
of the region. Very few pins from the previous period continue in Period EME 3, thus showing a clear difference
between EME 3 and EME 2. Types new in EME 3 include the “toggle pins with vessel-like head” and “perforated
pins with double/quadruple-spiral heads”. The introduction at Bi’a of a very significant type of metal weapon,
namely the shaft-hole axe, which will be widespread in succeeding periods, should also be stressed.
In Period EME 3 bone or shell objects are restricted to simple tools and decorated bone tubes, mostly found
in graves. For the first time they are decorated with the circle and dot motif, a feature which will continue in the
followings periods as well.
14.4. Period EME 4

Period EME 4, contemporary in its last decades with Palace G at Ebla, is broadly equivalent to the Early
Bronze Age IVA period in the traditional Syrian chronology and to the late Early Dynastic IIIb in Mesopotamia.
Hence, in this period the first historical information is available for the ME region.1
The earliest source is a letter from Enna-Dagan, king of Mari, to Irkab-Damu of Ebla (ARET 13.4), in which
a victory of his ancestor Iblul-Il over the kingdom of Abarsal is mentioned.2 As a result, Ebla was enabled to sign a
treaty with weakened Abarsal and gain control over the right bank of the Euphrates, whereas the northern part of
the left bank remained under the power of Abarsal and the southern part (including Tuttul) fell in Mari’s zone of
influence. Thereby we may assume that Abarsal had been the dominant power in the Middle Euphrates and lost
its influence here after its defeat. In the following decades it almost vanished as a political power. The struggle now
was between Ebla, Mari and Nagar (Brak) in the Khabur triangle. If the identification of Abarsal with Khuera,
as proposed by A. Archi, is correct, political and possibly also cultural influences of Khuera and the Balikh area
might have been at work on the ME in the late Period EME 3 or early Period EME 4.
A number of sites are mentioned in the Ebla texts which presumably must be located along the Middle
Euphrates.3 Only very few of them, such as Tuttul, E/Imar and Carchemish, can definitely be identified. Others,
1
Marchesi, this volume; Sallaberger 2011 and Archi 2013.
2
Archi 2013: 81.
3
Meyer 1996.
434
Conclusion
such as Armanum/Armi, are very much disputed,4 and the precise position of yet others, such as Burman and
Gasur, can be only estimated. However, the political picture is of a number of small entities centred around towns
or cities which were vassals to the major powers of that period.
Several settlements, including Banat with Bazi, Kabir, Selenkahiye and Qannas, are newly founded, thus mak-
ing EME 4 the most densely settled period. In addition there is Emar, whose existence in this period has not
yet been definitely demonstrated by archaeologists but which is proved by the Ebla texts.5 Destruction has been
shown for Palace B in Bi’a and also, towards the end of the period, for the “fortress” of Bazi and for Terqa. Most of
the cemeteries established in EME 3 (Gre Virike, Shamseddin and Tawi) continue to be used and are now along-
side new ones (Wreide and Djerniye). Zeytinli Bahçe, Jerablus Tahtani and Banat are three important sites which
are abandoned at the end of the period.
Such destruction events at the end of EME 4 may result from the military conflicts mentioned in texts from
Ebla and Babylonia, which took place at the dawn of Sargon’s empire. As can be reconstructed, meanwhile, Ebla
and its ally Nagar first celebrated a great victory over Mari during the reign of King Ibbi-zikir of Ebla, who was,
however, defeated by his opponent just three years later. This event most probably marks the end of Palace G in
Ebla. The destruction of Mari by Sargon of Agade took place about nine years later and terminated Mari Ville II.6
According to the available radiocarbon dates, the end of EME 4 might have taken place around 2261-2236 BC,
hence giving support to a low absolute chronology. Its start can be estimated on the same basis as around
2565-2492 BC, giving the whole period a duration of approximately 330 years. The Ebla archive and the sources
from Mari cover just the last half-century of this period.
In this crucial period many sites of the Euphrates Valley experienced significant urban expansion and trans-
formation, as is reflected by their increase in size, monumentality and complexity. An increase in communication
and exchange within the region brings about the spread of a sort of cultural koinè, which, besides the main ME
sub-regions, also includes the Balikh and its confluence as well as the upper Sajur and Qoueiq rivers.
This period marks the most decisive break in the development of architecture, as every aspect of it received new
elements. The settlements were significantly enlarged, a fact which supports the assumption of a strong increase
in population throughout the entire region. They were either simply extended by adding a lower town or replaced
by new and larger foundations nearby. Thus most villages and small towns grew and reached a size where we may
refer to them as large towns or even cities, and showed signs of an advanced internal organisation. From this time
on, intentional urban planning in the form of regular street systems and standardised plots for houses can easily
be detected. New elements such as ditches or retaining walls set in front of the main town wall, or ramparts con-
nected to a glacis, were introduced to defensive architecture during this period. Towers were not yet set at regular
intervals, but they were frequently placed at strategically crucial positions and gateways provided far better pro-
tection, comprising internal chambers and flanking towers. The emergence of the temple-in-antis type, which
became not only the predominant but the exclusive type of sacral architecture in the ME, the western part of the
JZ and the interior of the NL, was a decisive step in the development of temple architecture. The temple itself was
situated inside a temenos with an enclosure wall, an entrance gate and a number of additional rooms and cham-
bers. In domestic architecture, the single-room house went out of style and complex poly-cellular units became
the most common dwelling form; these offered the possibility of using some rooms in very specific ways and
physically separating various areas of activity. Apart from “ordinary” household activities such as living, sleeping
or food preparation, more space was reserved for the reception of visitors and inter-household activities as well as
for specialised production of goods. In some settlements the layouts of the houses seem to have been standardised,
but this does not seem to apply everywhere in the ME, as internal arrangements at the sites varied greatly. The
emergence of the first, however rarely attested, palatial buildings, the most advanced example of social and politi-
cal hierarchies, accompanied these developments.
Generally speaking, there are no significant changes in the funerary rites and grave types from EME 3 to
EME 4. Most of the extramural cemeteries remain in use, showing more or less the same features as before. Only a
few types, such as the tomb with stone-built corbelled chambers without lateral access, as recorded at Tawi, Banat
and Jerablus Tahtani, seem to date mainly to Period EME 4.
As far as pottery is concerned, despite a general homogeneity, slight variations at site level suggest the presence
of a series of workshops spread all over the region. Generally speaking, a high standard in pottery production is
evident and even Simple Ware becomes rather fine in texture and well fired. Most of the specialised wares of the
previous horizon continue, with the addition of a new variety, the grey or black EBW (Euphrates Banded Ware).
It is also worth noting the revival of the Reserved Slip technique, now characterised by horizontal patterns and by
a new repertoire of forms. At most sites this ware is produced in the same fabrics as is Simple Ware, thus making
4
Otto 2006a vs. Archi 2011.
5
Archi 1990a.
6
See the charts in Sallaberger 2011: 329 and in Archi 2013: 85.
435
a local production likely. EME 4 diagnostics are a series of bowls with rolled, beaded or thickened rim; plain
and corrugated goblets with simple and beaded rim, among which is the so-called Hama beaker; and sugar-loaf
beakers. The latter, developing from the truncated-conical version of the previous phase, are often associated in
graves with footed chalices, thus forming a kind of drinking service. Last, a locally produced, specialised vessel is
the so-called “Syrian Bottle”, a kind of narrow-necked bottle (or alabastron), which, owing to its extremely wide
distribution, provides a means of synchronism for distant regions.
In terms of artistic production, the period is characterised by the significant presence of Mesopotamian-
inspired seals, in the form not only of contest scenes (especially the master of animals) but also of other themes of
the southern repertoire (banqueting, boat and chariot scenes, above all), thus showing not only the inclusion of
the region within that cultural world but also the active role it played in the reception and revival of motifs and
styles, which are also adopted in the local practice of sealing pottery. It is the southern sector, from Bi’a down
to Terqa, represented for the first time in this period, which shows the greatest orientation towards the artis-
tic culture of the south, with special affinities with the key site of Mari. The local repertoire includes geometric
(hatched designs) and figurative patterns (simple animal scenes and more complex human+animal scenes, such as
the so-called “dagger” and tête-bêche scenes) belonging to a common repertoire, which is found in local variations
from the west (Ebla, Amuq region) to the east (Khabur area) of Syria at roughly the same time. A large degree
of internationalism is appreciable in other forms of artistic expressions in elite contexts, especially sculpture (an
ED-looking votive statue in a later context at Selenkahiye; stone applications, similar to those from Ebla Palace G,
at Bi’a, Palace B).
Another category which emerges dominantly in this phase is that of anthropomorphic figurines. Alongside
the type already attested at Bi’a probably at the very end of EME 3, a new pillar-shaped one, decorated with
application, is now introduced and widely diffused. Attested either in private houses or in public buildings, these
figurines have their major area of diffusion in the lower side of the Big Bend, from Hadidi to Bi’a. Continuing in
the following phase are figurines with flat upper body and well-defined shoulders, which have a wider diffusion
to the west, through Ebla, towards the Amuq and the Orontes Valley. Like the anthropomorphic figurines, the
majority of the zoomorphic figurines and the model vehicle types also become common in EME 4.
Another group of finds that occurs for the first time is that of the rough stone statuettes, which are found
mainly in funerary contexts between Selenkahiye and Hadidi.
Other than the figurines, metal objects seem to document a continuity with EME 3.
Decorated pendants and amulets carved out of shell or bone, often in animal shapes, seem to appear first in
this period.
14.5. Period EME 5

Period EME 5 is characterised by the appearance of Akkadian artistic influences (see below), which helps to
synchronise it with Babylonian chronology. Its duration as fixed by the radiocarbon dates was slightly more than
one century, from 2196 until 2076 BC. Since its end was obviously violent, as destruction layers in several sites
indicate, it might have been caused by military conflict, perhaps Naram-Sin’s campaigns against Armi and other
places in Upper Mesopotamia and the Northern Levant,7 although no proof for this assumption can currently be
brought forward.
Most of the settlements of Period EME 4 continued to be occupied in EME 5, some being re-occupied after
their destruction, which generally marked the end of EME 5. Following the Euphrates downstream, the number
of sites being destroyed or abandoned at the end of EME 5 is remarkable. Shiyukh Tahtani, Qara Quzaq, Bi’a
mound E, Emar and Habuba Kabira end with this period, while others, such as Sweyhat and Selenkahiye, were
destroyed but continued on a much smaller scale. All cemeteries end with Period EME 5.
No major changes in architecture can be assigned to this period. No large sites were abandoned or founded,
the overall settlement system remained the same, and changes in size and/or layout cannot be observed at any
settlement. Only a few, such as Sweyhat or Hadidi, may have been significantly enlarged. Palace architecture is
now better attested than in the preceding periods, but this does not mean that it was necessarily more common
than it had been before. The only evident innovation concerned domestic architecture, which, beside local types,
adopted types from Southern Mesopotamia such as the “Babylonian courtyard house”.
The burial customs show some significant changes: above-ground elite burials, which were present in EME 3
and 4, are no longer documented in EME 5. Most of the cemeteries were given up, reducing the amount of avail-
able data and perhaps implying that intramural burials such as those attested at Titriş became more common.
However, no elaborately built structures are attested.
7
Sallaberger 2011: 330, Map 1.
436
Conclusion
Not much information can be gleaned from pottery when we turn to EME 5, this period being the least
ceramically distinctive in the sequence. The pottery shows a continuous development from the previous horizon,
with the preservation of most of its technological and morphological features. Transformation occurs more in the
quantity than in the quality of forms and wares. In the Lower Tishrin and Tabqa dam districts a reduction of the
so-called “specialised wares” is worth noticing, as is the introduction of a series of collared-rim vessels of various
forms and sizes. These have no forerunners in earlier assemblages but will continue in EME 6 and then in the fol-
lowing period, albeit with different rim forms. EME 5 marks a substantial increase of relief decoration, consisting
of applied and incised human (Emar) or animal figures, sometimes closely associated with the religious sphere, as
in the case of the Halawa A shrine.
EME 5 is instead better defined in other categories of material culture, particularly artistic production. In the
glyptic, for example, the appearance of Akkadian seals must be stressed, although these represent only a small,
albeit significant, proportion of the whole sample. Akkadian contest scenes, along with more varied representa-
tions (presentation scenes, including the Zu-bird theme and battle of the gods), are encountered at some sites
(Bi’a, Selenkahiye, Munbaqa, Habuba Kabira, Hammam al-Turkman) and, wherever found in the form of seal
impressions (not on pottery), they are clearly the official tools used by the Akkadian administration. It must be
emphasised that no clearly stratified late Akkadian (i.e. late Naram-Sin) seal evidence has been found: whether
that may be considered a terminus post quem for the end of Akkadian control in the region or the end of EME 5
in general – for example, as a result of Naram-Sin’s campaigns – is a matter which needs further investigation.
Early Dynastic-oriented or traditional human and zoomorphic scenes are still in use, with specific developments,
while the range of geometric patterns appears much reduced. While rough stone statuettes appear in funerary
(Selenkahiye, Wreide) and apparently domestic (Halawa A, maybe Hadidi) contexts, a fragmentary statue from
Selenkahiye and at least one of the two stelae from Halawa A offer glimpses into major artistic productions
which are yet too little attested and therefore difficult to judge; however, the clear mixture of vernacular and
Mesopotamian features in both the style and the iconography of the latter monument is nonetheless indicative of
the existence of a living artistic milieu, kept up-to-date with contemporary achievements in the south.
As for anthropomorphic terracotta figurines, worth stressing is the introduction of a third type, characterised
by a naturalistically elaborate lower body and narrow waist. This type has strong parallels in the JZ, although there
they occur much earlier than in the ME, being present already at the end of EJZ 2. The occurrence of “equid” figu-
rines and wheeled animals within the zoomorphic terracotta figurines, as well as wheels with incised construction
details, needs to be mentioned; this marks the only notable change in the typological development of these finds.
Decorated bone tubes are severally attested, as are pendants or amulets carved out of shell, especially in the
safely datable samples from Emar, attributed by a radiocarbon date to Period EME 5. The latter are among the few
groups of finds allowing some chronological statement, but, owing to the present poor state of knowledge, this
must still be a speculative statement.
14.6. Period EME 6

Generally speaking, along the Euphrates (and elsewhere) this period remains so far archaeologically elusive,
not only because it is often marked by decline in settlement size and number (although it has now been made
clear that sedentary communities did exist and flourish even in the absence of large urban centres and centralised
authorities) but also because of its intrinsically transitional nature, which, in the absence of good stratigraphic
contexts, does not help an easy identification of occupation. Historically speaking, it is the time after Naram-
Sin (as no later material is attested in EME 5) and the early Ur III-Period, the latter being attributed to the
initial MBA.
As many sites had been destroyed or abandoned in Period EME 5 and as there were no new foundations the
density of occupation is much reduced: only nine out of 43 sites in the ME continue in Period EME 6 or even into
the MB.
Many architectonic features and types vanished when most of the sites were abandoned. Only a few settle-
ments remained continuously inhabited during this period and the time afterwards. The little evidence that is
available for this period suggests that some new elements emerged, such as in the sphere of palace architecture (the
Babylonian courtyard palace type, which is represented by Palace A in Tuttul), while others survived, such as the
temple-in-antis and the general layout of houses.
Despite the fact that we have at our disposal only a limited sample from which to make firm deductions, a
second change in burial customs can be traced to around the end of the 3rd millennium, between Periods EME 5
and 6. At this time individual inhumations in intramural contexts seem to prevail, while the lack of extramu-
ral graves may possibly be due to the relatively small overall exposure of this transitional phase. It is likely that
it represents a real pattern, however, since extramural burials are not represented at other Syro-Anatolian sites.
Regarding the typology of the graves, pits have been attested (with ceramic containers) and in only one case a shaft
with lateral cavity.
437
The EME 6 pottery forms a lingering pottery horizon in which some late 3rd-millennium shapes and
wares are found side by side with or even merge with new types which will become rather common during the
2nd millennium. The pottery repertoire shows strong cultural connections with both the previous EME 5 and the
following MB I phases, and it is actually difficult to pinpoint a vessel type distinctive of this phase. Luxury wares
disappear completely. Very large vessels become far more frequent. Open forms are more carinated, at the belly or
immediately below the rim. Large narrow-necked jars continue and rims are flanged, a feature which will become
a hallmark of the MBA.
Being poorly attested, this last period is hardly known from the point of view of artistic production;
consequently neither figurines nor other objects can be firmly ascribed to EME 6.
438
General Bibliography
Abay, E.
1997, Die Keramik der Frühen Bronzezeit in Anatolien mit “syrischen Affinitäten” (Altertumskunde des Vorderen
Orients 8). Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Akkermans, P. M. M.G.; and Schwartz, G.
2003, The Archaeology of Syria: From Complex Hunter-Gatherers to Early Urban Societies (c. 16,000-300 B.C.).
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Alberti, G.
2013, “A Bayesian 14C Chronology of Early and Middle Bronze Age in Sicily. Towards an Independent Absolute
Dating”, Journal of Archaeological Science 40/5: 2502-2514.
Alcalá-Galiano Linares, J.
2001, “La Industria Ósea de Tell Qara Qūzāq, Campañas de 1992-1994”, in Tell Qara Qūzāq – II. Campañas
IV-VI (1992-1994), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; Montero Fenollós, J.-L.; and Valdés Pereiro, C (Aula Orientalis
Supplementa 17), Barcelona: Editorial AUSA: 341-371.
Al-Gailani Werr, L.
1982, “Catalogue of the cylinder seals from Tell Suleimeh, Hamrin”, Sumer 38: 68-88.
Algaze, G.
1999, “Trends in the Archaeological Development of the Upper Euphrates Basin of Southern Anatolia during
the Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Ages”, in Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates. The Tishrin Dam
Area (Aula Orientalis Supplementa 15), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; and Montero Fenollós, J. L. Sabadell-Barcelona:
Editorial AUSA: 535-572.
Algaze, G.; and Matney, T.
2011, “Titriş Höyük: The Nature and Context of Third Millennium B.C.E. Urbanism in the Upper Euphrates
Basin”, in The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia, ed. Steadman, S. R.; and McMahon, G. Oxford: Oxford
University Press: 993-1011.
Algaze, G.; and Mısır, A.
1993, “Excavations at Titriş Höyük, A Small Mid-Late Third Millennium Urban Center in Southeastern Anatolia,
1992”, Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 15(1): 153-170.
Algaze, G.; and Mısır, A.
1994, “Titriş Höyük: An Early Bronze Age Urban Center in Southeastern Anatolia, 1993”, Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 16(1): 107-120.
Algaze, G.; Dinckan, G.; Hartenberger, B.; Matney, T.; Pournelle, J.; Rainville, L.; Rosen, S.; Rupley, E.;
Schlee, D.; and Vallet, R.
2001, “Research at Titris Höyük in Southeastern Turkey: The 1999 Season”, Anatolica 27: 23-106.
Algaze, G.; Evins, M. A.; Ingraham, L.; Marfoe, L.; and Yener, K. A. (eds)
1990, Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia. Vol. II: The Stratigraphic Sequence at Kurban Höyük (Oriental
Institute Publications 110). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Algaze, G.; Goldberg, P.; Honça, D.; Matney, T.; Mısır, A.; Miller, A.; Rosen, A.; Schlee, D.; and
Somers, L.
1995, “Titriş Höyük, A Small EBA Urban Center in Southeastern Anatolia: the 1994 Season”, Anatolica 21: 13-64.
Algaze, G.; Matney, T.; Kelly, J.; and Schlee, D.
1996, “Late EBA Urban Structure at Titriş Höyük, Southeastern Turkey: the 1995 Season”, Anatolica 22: 129-143.
Algaze, G.; Matney, T.; Rosen, S.; and Erdal, D.
2000, “Excavations at Titriş Höyük, Şanlıurfa Province: Preliminary Report for the 1998 Season”, Kazi Sonuçları
Toplantısı 21(1): 145-156.
Algaze, G.; Mısır, A.; and Wilkinson, T.
1992, “Şanlıurfa Museum/University of California E xcavations and Surveys at Titriş Höyük, 1991: A Preliminary
Report”, Anatolica 18: 33-60.
439
Amiet, P.
1963, “La glyptique syrienne archaique. Notes sur la diffusion de la civilisation mésopotamienne en Syrie du Nord”,
Syria 60: 57-83.
Amiet, P.
1972, Glyptique susienne, des origines à l’èpoque des Perses Achéménides. Cachets, sceaux-cylindres et empreintes
antiques découverts à Suse, de 1913 à 1967 (Mémoires de la Délégation archéologique française en Iran XLIII).
Paris: Geuthner.
Amiet, P.
1973, “Aperçu préliminaire sur la glyptique archaique d’Arslantepe”, Origini VII: 217-228.
Amiet, P.
1980, La glyptique mésopotamienne archaïque. Paris: CNRS (2nd edition).
Amiet, P.
1985, “La glyptique de Mari: état de la question”, Mari. Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 4. Paris: ERC:
475-485.
Amiet, P.
1993, “289. Frammento di stele”, in L’Eufrate e il tempo. Le civiltà del medio Eufrate e della Gezira siriana,
ed. Rouault, O; and Masetti-Rouault, M. G. Milano: Electa: 458.
Amiet, P.
1997, “Quelques observations à propos des sceaux-cylindres de Tell Suleimeh (Hamrin)”, Revue d’Assyriologie
et d’Archéologie Orientale 91.2: 97-108.
Anderson, A. J.
1991, “The Chronology of Colonisation in New Zealand”, Antiquity 65: 767-95.
Archi, A.
1990a, “Imâr au IIIe millénaire d’après les archives d’Ebla”, Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 6: 21-38.
Archi, A.
1990b, “Tuttul-sur-Baliḫ à l’âge d’Ebla”, in De la Babylonie à la Syrie en passant par Mari. Mélanges offerts à Monsieur
J.-R. Kupper à l’occasion de son 70e anniversaire, ed. Tunca, Ö. Liège: Université de Liège: 197-207.
Archi, A.
2008, “ḫaššum/ḫassuwan and Uršum/Uršaum from the Point of View of Ebla”, in Muhibbe Darga Armağanı,
ed. Tarhan, T.; Tibet, A.; and Konyar, E. Istanbul: Sadberk Hanım Müzesi Yayını: 87-102.
Archi, A.
2011, “In search of Armi”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 63: 5-34.
Archi, A.
2013, “History of Syria in the Third Millennium: the Written Sources”, in Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie I: La
Syrie de l’époque néolithique à l’âge du fer (Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 1.1), ed. Orthmann, W.;
Matthiae, P.; and al-Maqdissi, M. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 75-88.
Archi, A.; and Biga, M. G.
2003, “A Victory over Mari and the Fall of Ebla”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 55: 1-44.
Archi, A; Piacentini, P.; and Pomponio, F.
1993, I nomi di luogo dei testi di Ebla (ARET I-IV, VII-X e altri documenti editi ed inediti) (Archivi Reali di Ebla,
Studi 2). Roma: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria.
Arns, R.; Becker, A.; Kohlmeyer, K.; Ludwig, W.; Schneiders, E.; Selz, G.; and Strommenger, E.
1984, “Ausgrabungen in Tell Bi’a 1982 und 1983”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 116, 15-63.
Arrivabeni, M.
in press, “Ceramics”, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East. Tigridian Region (ARCANE V),
ed. Bielinski, P.; and Rova, E. Brepols: Turnhout.
Astour, M. C.
1992, “An Outline of the History of Ebla (part 1)”, in Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite Language
3, ed. Gordon, C. H.; and Rendsburg, G. A. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns: 3-82.
Astour, M. C.
1997, “ḫaššu and ḫasuwan. A Contribution to North Syrian History and Geography”, Ugarit Forschungen 29: 1-66.
440
Astour, M. C.
2002, “A Reconstruction of the History of Ebla (Part 2)”, in Eblaitica: Essays on the Ebla Archives and Eblaite
Language 4, ed. Gordon, C. H.; and Rendsburg, G. A. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns: 57-195.
Aydıngün, Ş.
2005, Tunç Çağının Gizemli Kadınları. Mysterious Women of the Bronze Age. Istanbul: Yapı Kredi Yayınları.
Bachelot, L.
2003, “Tell Kutan”, in The Origins of North Mesopotamian Civilization: Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society
(Subartu 9), ed. Rova, E.; and Weiss, H. Turnhout: Brepols: 153-192.
Bachelot, L.; and Fales, F. M.
2005, Tell Shiukh Fawqani: 1994-1998 (History of the Ancient Near East. Monographs 6).1/2. Padova:
S.A.R.G.O.N. Editrice.
Bachmann, F.
1998, “Ein ‘Habuba-Kabira-Süd-Horizont’ am Tell Sheikh Hassan?”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
130, 51-67.
Backofen, U.
1988, “Anthropological Study of the Skeleton material from Lidar”, Araştırma Sonuçları Toplantısı 5: 191-201.
Badre, L.
1980, Les figurines anthropomorphes en terre cuite à l’âge du Bronze en Syrie (Bibliothèque Archéologique
et Historique CIII). Paris: Geuthner.
Barjamovic, G.
2011, A Historical Geography of Anatolia in the Old Assyrian Colony Period (Carsten Niebuhr Institute Publications
38). Copenhagen: The Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Ancient Near Eastern Studies/Museum Tusculanum Press.
Barrelet, M. T.
1968, Figurines et reliefs en terre cuite de la Mésopotamie antique (Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique
LXXXV). Paris: Geuthner.
Bayliss, A.
2009, “Rolling out Revolution: Using Radiocarbon Dating in Archaeology”, Radiocarbon 51.1: 123-147.
Becker, C.
2008, “Die Tierknochenfunde aus Tell Seh Hamad/ Dur-Katlimmu: Eine zoogeographisch-haustierkundliche
Studie”, in Umwelt und Subsistenz der assyrischen Stadt Dur-Katlimmu (BATSH 8), ed. Kühne, H.: 61-131.
Becker, J.
2007, Nevalı Çori. Keramik und Kleinfunde der Halaf- und Frühbronzezeit (Archaeologica Euphratica. Ausgrabungen
und Forschungen im türkischen Euphratgebiet, Band 4). Mainz am Rhein: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Behm-Blancke, M.
1993, “Glyptische Traditionen Beiderseits des Ost-Taurus im Ausgehenden 4. und Frühen 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr.”,
in Between the Rivers and Over the Mountains. Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata,
ed. Frangipane, M.; Hauptmann, H.; Liverani, M.; Matthiae, P.; and Mellink, M. Roma: Università di Roma «La
Sapienza»: 247-259.
Behm-Blancke, M. R.
1992, “Einführung”, in Hassek Höyük. Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und lithische Industrie (Istanbuler
Forschungen 38), ed. Behm-Blancke, M. R. Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag: 1-139.
Behm-Blancke, M. R.; and Boese, J.
2001, “Zu spätchalkolithischen Erntegeräten in Nordsyrien und Südostanatolien”, in Lux Orientis. Archäologie
zwischen Asien und Europa. Festschrift für Harald Hauptmann zum 65. Geburtstag, ed. Boehmer, R. M.; and Maran,
J. Rahden: 27-37.
Behm-Blancke, M. R.; Becker, H.; Boesneck, J.; von den Driesch, A.; Hoh, M. R.; and Wiegand, G.
1981, “Hassek Höyük. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen der Jahre 1979-1980”, Istanbuler Mitteilungen
31: 5-93 pl. 1-28.
Behm-Blancke, M.; Hoh, M. R.; Karg, N.; Masch, L.; Parsche, F.; Weiner, K. L.; von Wickede, A.; and
Ziegelmayer, G.
1984, “Hassek Höyük. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in den Jahren 1981-1983”, Istanbuler
Mitteilungen 34: 31-149.
441
Behm-Blancke, M. R.; Collin, F.; Leotard, J. M.; Otte, M.; Pelegrin, J.; and Weiner, J.
1992, “Die lithische Industrie (Hornstein und Obsidian)”, in Hassek. Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und
lithische Industrie (Istanbuler Forschungen 38), ed. Behm-Blancke, M. R. Tübingen: Wasmuth: 165-260.
Beyer, D.
2007, “Les sceaux de Mari au IIIe millénaire: observations sur la documentation ancienne et les donnés nouvelles
des Villes I et II”, in Akh Purattim I, ed. Margueron, J.-C.; Rouault, O.; and Lombard, P. Lyon: Maison de l’Orient
et de la Méditerranée/Ministère des Affaires étrangères: 231-260.
Beyer, D. (ed.)
1982, Meskéné – Emar. Dix ans de travaux 1972-1982. Paris: Editions Recherche sur les Civilisations.
Beyer, D.; and Montero Fenollós, J.-L.
2001, “Un sello-estampa en Tell Qara Qūzāq”, in Tell Qara Qūzāq-II. Campañas I-III (1992-1994) (Aula Orientalis
Supplementa 17), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; Montero Fenollós, J.-L.; and Valdés Pereiro, C. Sabadell-Barcelona: AUSA: 381-384
Bianchi, A.; and Franke, K. A.
2011, “Metal”, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean. Jezirah
(ARCANE I), ed. M. Lebeau. Turnhout: Brepols: 201-238.
Blocher, F.; Kara, H.-C.; Machule, D.; and Werner, P.
2007, “Bericht über die Ausgrabung in Tall Munbāqa/Ekalte 2005-2007”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-
Gesellschaft 139: 83-130.
Blocher, F.; Kara, H.-C.; Machule, D.; and Werner, P.
2009, “Bericht über die Ausgrabung in Tall Munbāqa/Ekalte 2008”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
141: 85-95.
Blocher, F.; Machule, D.; and Werner, P.
2000, “Bericht über die Ausgrabung in Tall Munbāqa 1999”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 132:
123-131.
Blocher, F.; Machule, D.; and Werner, P.
2005, “Bericht über die Ausgrabung in Tall Munbāqa/Ekalte 2004”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
137: 99-107.
Boehmer, R. M.
1964, “Datierte Glyptik der Akkade-Zeit”, in Vorderasiatische Archäologie. Studien und Aufsätze. Anton Moortgat
zum fünfundsechzigsten Geburtstag gewidmet von Freunden, Kollegen und Schülern, ed. Bittel, K.; Heinrich, E.;
Hrouda, B.; and Nagel, W. Berlin: Gebr. Mann: 42-56.
Boehmer, R. M.
1965, Die Entwicklung der Glyptik während der Akkad-Zeit (Untersuchungen zur Assyriologie und vorderasiatische
Archäologie 4). Berlin: De Gruyter.
Boese, J.
1983, “Zum Kupferbecher mit Inschrift aus Mumbaqat”, Damaszener Mitteilungen 1: 9-16.
Boese, J.
1991, “Eine Gefässscherbe mit Siegelabrollung und Ritzzeichnung aus Šamseddin”, in Gräber des 3. Jts. v. Chr.
im syrischen Euphrattal. 3. Ausgrabungen in Šamseddin und Djernije, ed. Meyer, J.-W. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker
Druckerei und Verlag: 107-117.
Boese, J.
1995, Ausgrabungen in Tell Sheikh Hassan I. Vorläufige Berichte über die Grabungskampagnen 1984-1990 und
1992-1994 (Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 5). Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.
Boessneck, J.; and Kokabi, M.
1981, “Tierknochenfunde”, in Halawa 1977-1979: Vorläufiger Bericht über die 1. bis 3. Grabungskampagne, ed.
Orthmann, W. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt: 89-101.
Bollweg, J.
1999, Vorderasiatische Wagentypen im Spiegel der Terracottaplastik bis zur Altbabylonischen Zeit (Orbis Biblicus et
Orientalis 167). Fribourg/Göttingen: Universitätsverlag/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Bolt, D.; and Green, A.
2003, “The Burial of the Dead”, in The Origins of North Mesopotamian Civilization: Ninevite 5 Chronology,
Economy, Society (Subartu 9), ed. Rova, E.; and Weiss, H. Turnhout: Brepols: 519-562.
442
Bonechi, M.
1993, I nomi geografici dei testi di Ebla (Répertoire Géographique des Textes Cunéiformes 12/1). Wiesbaden:
Ludwig Reichert.
Bonechi, M.
1998, “Remarks on the III Millennium Geographical Names of the Syrian Upper Mesopotamia”, in About Subartu.
Studies Devoted to Upper Mesopotamia, ed. Lebeau, M. Turnhout: Brepols: 219-241.
Bösze, I.
2009, Analysis of the Early Bronze Age Graves in Tell Bi’a (Syria) (BAR International Series 1995). Oxford:
Archeopress.
Bounni, A.
1979, “Preliminary Report on the Archaeological Excavations at Tell al-‘Abd and ‘Anab al-Safinah (Euphrates)
1971-72”, in Archeological Reports from the Tabqa Dam Project- Euphrates Valley, Syria (The Annual of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 44), ed. Freedman, D. N. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research: 49-62.
Bouso, M.
2012, “Las prácticas funerarias en el Valle del Éufrates durante el tercer milenio y la primera mitad del segundo:
estudio intertextual a partir de las evidencias arqueológicas y epigráficas”. PhD thesis, University of Barcelona.
Bouso, M.
2014, “The social family unit in the light of Bronze Age burial customs in the Near East: An intertextual approach”,
in Lionel, Marti, ed. La famille dans le Proche-Orient ancien: réalités, simbolismes et images: 55e Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale, Paris 2009. Winona Lake, Indiana: Eisenbrauns: 69-86.
Braidwood, R. J.; and Braidwood, L. S.
1960, Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I. The Earlier Assemblages. Phases A-J (Oriental Institute Publications 60).
Chicago: Oriental Institute, University of Chicago Press.
Braidwood, R. J.
1939, “A note on a multiple-brush device used by the Near Eastern potters of the fourth millennium B.C.”, Man
39: 192-194.
Braun-Holzinger, E.
1993, “Die Ikonographie des Mondgottes in der Glyptik des III. Jahrtausends v. Chr.”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie
und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 83: 119-135.
Braun-Holzinger, E. A.
1991, Mesopotamische Weihgaben der frühdynastischen bis altbabylonischen Zeit (Heidelberger Studien zum Alten
Orient 3). Heidelberg: Heidelberger Orientverlag.
Bretschneider, J.; Cunningham, T.; and Jans, G.
2007, “Report on the 2000 Excavation in the South-Western Part of the Early Dynastic Temple A on the
Acropolis of Tell Beydar”, in Tell Beydar. The 2000-2002 Seasons of Excavations. The 2003-2004 Seasons of
Architectural Decorations. A Preliminary Report (Subartu 15), ed. Lebeau, M.; and Suleiman, A. Turnhout:
Brepols: 41-51.
Bronk Ramsey, C.
2009, “Bayesian Analysis of Radiocarbon Dates”, Radiocarbon 51.1: 337-360.
Bronk Ramsey, C.; Dee, M. W.; Rowland, J. M.; Higham, T. F. G.; Harris, S. A.; Brock, F.; Quiles, A.;
Wild, E. M.; Marcus, E. S.; and Shortland, A. J.
2010, “Radiocarbon-Based Chronology for Dynastic Egypt”, Science 328.5985: 1554-1557.
Brückner, H.; Eichmann, R.; Herling, L.; Kallweit, H.; Kerner, S.; Khalil, L.; and Miqadi, R.
2002, “Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age Sites near Aqaba, Jordan”, in Ausgrabungen und Surveys im Vorderen
Orient I, ed. Eichmann, R. Rahden/Westf.: Marie Leidorf: 217-339.
Buccellati, G.
1966, The Amorites of the Ur III Period. Naples: Istituto Orientale di Napoli.
Buccellati, G.
1979, Terqa. Preliminary Report 10, the Fourth Season. Introduction and the stratigraphic record (Bibliotheca
Mesopotamica 10). Malibu: Undena Publications.
Buccellati, G.; and Kelly-Buccellati, M.
1983, “Terqa: the First Eight Seasons”, Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 33/2, 47-67.
443

1978, “The Third Season: Introduction and the Stratigraphic Record. Terqa Preliminary Reports nº 6”, Syro-
Mesopotamian Studies 2/6: 115-164.
1995/96, “The Royal Storehouse of Urkesh: The Glyptic Evidence from the Southwestern Wing”, Archiv für
Orientforschung 42/43: 1-32.
1996, “Evidence for a Royal Palace at Tell Mozan/Urkesh”, Orient-Express 3: 72-76.
2002, “Tar’am-Agade, Daughter of Naram-Sin, at Urkesh”, in Of Pots and Plans. Papers on the Archaeology and
History of Mesopotamia and Syria presented to David Oates in Honour of his 75th Birthday, ed. Al-Gailani Werr, L.;
Curtis, J.; Martin, H; McMahon, A.; Oates, J.; and Reade, J. London: Nabu Publications: 11-31.
Buchanan, B.
1966, Catalogue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Museum. Vol. I: Cylinder Seals. Oxford:
Clarendon Press.
Buchanan, B.
1981, Early Near Eastern Seals in the Yale Babylonian Collection. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Bunnens, G.
1989, “Tell Ahmar on the Euphrates. A New Research Project of the University of Melbourne”, Akkadica
63: 1-11.
Bunnens, G.
1991, “Melbourne University Excavations at Tell Ahmar: 1988 Season”, in Mesopotamie et Elam. Actes de la
XXXVIème Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, Gand, 10-14 juillet 1989, ed. De Meyer, L.; and Gasche, H.
University of Ghent: 163-170.
Bunnens, G.
1993/94, “Tell Ahmar/Til Barsip 1988-1992”, in Archäologische Forschungen in Syrien, ed. Kühne, H., Archiv für
Orientforschung 40/41: 221-225.
Bunnens, G.
2001, “Tell Ahmar/Til Barsip, the eleventh and thirteenth seasons (1998-2000)”, Orient-Express 2001/3: 65-68.
Bunnens, G. (ed.)
1990, Tell Ahmar, 1988 Season, Abr-Nahrain (Supplement Series, Vol. 2). Leuven: Publications of the Melbourne
University Expedition to Tell Ahmar, Vol. 1.
Bunnens, G. (ed.)
1992, “Melbourne University Excavations at Tell Ahmar on the Euphrates. Short Report on the 1989-1992
Seasons”, Akkadica 79-80: 1-13.
Bunnens, G. (ed.)
2003, “Tell Ahmar/Til Barsib, The Fourteenth and Fifteenth seasons (2001/2002)”, Orient Express: 40-43.
Bunnens, G.
2007, “Site Hierarchy in the Tishrin Dam Area and the Third Millennium Geopolitics in Northern Syria”, in
Euphrates River Valley Settlement. The Carchemish sector in the Third Millennium BC (Levant Supplement Series
5), ed. Peltenburg, E. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 43-54.
Buren, E. D. van
1955, “How Representations of the Battle of the Gods Developed?”, Orientalia 24: 24-41.
Burke, A.
2008, Walled up to Heaven. The Evolution of Middle Bronze Age Fortification Strategies in the Levant (Studies in the
Archaeology and History of the Levant 4). Winona Lake: Eisenbrowns.
Butterlin, P.
2003, Les Temps Proto-Urbains de Mésopotamie. Contacts et acculturation à l’époque d’Uruk au Moyen-Orient. Paris:
CNRS.
Butterlin, P.
2008, “Les nouvelles recherches archéologiques françaises à Mari (2005-2006)”, Studia Orontica II: 61-82.
444
Çalış Sazcı, D.
2007, “Ein besonderer Gefäßtyp – der Depas Amphikypellon”, in Vita, Festschrift in honor of Belkıs Dinçol and Ali
Dinçol, ed. Alparslan, M.; Doğan-Arpaslan, M.; and Peker, H. Istanbul: Ege Yayınları: 147-162.
Campbell, S.
2000, “Questions of definition in the Early Bronze Age of the Tishreen Dam”, in Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de
l’Euphrate aux IV-IIIe Millénaires/From the Euphrates to the Caucasus: Chronologies for the 4th-3rd Millennium B.C (IFEA,
Varia Anatolica 11), ed. Marro, C.; and Hauptman, H. Paris: Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes d’Istanbul: 53-63.
Campell Thompson, R.; and Mallowan, M. E. L.
1933, “The British Museum Excavations at Niniveh, 1931-32”, Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology
20: 71-186.
Canci, A.
2005, “The human remains from Tell Shiukh Fawqani: Anthropological report”, in Tell Shiukh Fawqani 1994-1998
(History of the Ancient Near East, Monographs VI/2), ed. Bachelot, L.; and Fales, F. M. Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N.
Editrice: 1109-1118.
Caneva, I.
1993, “From Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age III at Arslantepe: a Lithic Perspective”, in Between the Rivers and over
the Mountains: Archaeologica Anatolica et Mesopotamica Alba Palmieri Dedicata, ed. Frangipane, M.; Hauptmann,
H.; Liverani, M.; Matthiae, P.; and Mellink, M. Rome: La Sapienza; Gruppe Editoriale Internationale: 319-339.
Capet, E.
2005, “Le Chantier E Les tombes de l’âge de Bronze Ancien IV (Période III)”, in Tell Shiukh Fawqani 1994-1998
(History of the Ancient Near East, Monographs VI/1), ed. Bachelot, L.; and Fales, F. M. Padova: Sargon: 253-299.
Carter, E.; and Parker, A.
1995, “Pots, People and The Archaeology of Death in Northern Syria and Southern Anatolia in the latter Half of
the Third Millennium BC”, in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East, ed. Campbell, S.; and Green, A.
Oxford: Oxbow Books: 96-116.
Castel, C.
2010, “The first Temple in antis”, in Kulturlandschaft Syrien, Zentrum und Peripherie. Festschrift für Jan-Waalke Meyer
(Alter Orient und Altes Testament 371), ed. Becker, J.; Hempelmann, R.; and Rehm, E. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag: 123-164.
Cauvin, J.
1977, “Les fouilles de Mureybet (1971-1974) et leur signification pour les origines de la sedentarisation au Proche-
Orient”, in Archeological Reports from the Tabqa Dam Project- Euphrates Valley, Syria (The Annual of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 44), ed. Freedman, D. N. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research: 19-48.
Charvát, P.; and Fuensanta, J. G.
2001, “Seals and Seal impressions from Tilbes Höyük, South-Eastern Turkey (1996-1999)”, Archiv Orientální 69:
559-570.
Chataigner, C.
1995, La Transcaucasie au Néolithique et au Chalcolithique (BAR International Series 624), Oxford: Archaeopress.
Cholidis, N.
1989, “Tiere und tierförmige Gefäße auf Rädern. Gedanken zum Spielzeug im Alten Orient”, Mitteilungen der
Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 121: 197-220.
Cohen, Y.
2009, The Scribes and Scholars of the City of Emar in the Late Bronze Age (Harvard Semitic Studies 59). Winona
Lake: Eisenbrauns.
Collon, D.
1982, Catalogue of the Western Asiatic Seals in the British Museum. Cylinder Seals II. Akkadian, Post Akkadian, Ur
III Periods. London: British Museum Press.
Collon, D.
1987, First Impressions. Cylinder Seals in the Ancient Near East. London: British Museum Press.
Cooper, E. N.
1998, “The EB-MB Transitional Period at Tell Kabir, Syria”, in Espace Naturel Espace Habité en Syrie du Nord
(10 e-2 e millénaires av. J.-C.) (Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 33, Travaux de la Maison
de l’Orient 28), ed. Fortin, M.; and Aurenche, O. Québec: Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies; Lyon:
Maison de l’Orient Méditerranéen: 271-280.
445
Cooper, E. N.
1999, “The EB-MB Transitional Period at Tell Kabir, Syria”, in Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates,
The Tishreen Dam Area (Aula Orientalis Supplementa 15), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; and Montero Fenollós, J. L.
Sabadell-Barcelona: Editorial AUSA: 321-332.
Cooper, L.
2006, Early Urbanism on the Syrian Euphrates. New York-London: Routledge.
Cooper, L.
2007, “Early Bronze Age Burial Types and Socio-Cultural Identity within the Northern Euphrates Valley”, in
Euphrates River Valley Settlement. The Carchemish sector in the Third Millennium BC (Levant Supplementary
Series 5), ed. Peltenburg, E. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 55-70.
Coqueugniot, É.; Jamieson, A. S.; Montero Fenollós, J. L.; and Anfruns, J.
1998, “Tombe du Bronze Ancien à Dja’de el Mughara (Moyen-Euphrate, Syrie)”, Cahiers de l’Euphrate 8:
85-114.
Curvers, H.
1988, “The Period VI pottery”, in Hammam et-Turkman I. Report on the University of Amsterdam’s 1981-84
Excavations in Syria, ed. van Loon, M. N. Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut te Istanbul. Leiden:
Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten: 351-395.
Curvers, H.
1989, “The beginning of the third millennium in Syria”, in To the Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeological Studies in
Honour of Mauritz N. van Loon, ed. Haex, O. M. C.; Curvers, H. H.; and Akkermans, P. M. M. G. Rotterdam/
Brookfield: A.A. Balkema: 173-194.
Czichon, R. M.
1998, “Figürliche Plastik”, in Tall Munbāqa – Ekalte – I. Die Bronzezeitlichen Kleinfunde (Wissenschaftliche
Veröffentlichung der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 97), ed. Czichon, R. M.; and Werner, P. Saarbrücken:
Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag: 22-91.
Czichon, R. M.
1998, “Perlen”, in Tall Munbaqa – Ekalte I. Die bronzezeitlichen Kleinfunde (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung
der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 97), ed. Czichon, R. M.; and Werner, P. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei
und Verlag: 145-175.
Czichon, R. M.; and Werner, P.
1998, “Einlegearbeiten”, in Tall Munbaqa – Ekalte I. Die bronzezeitlichen Kleinfunde (Wissenschaftliche
Czichon, R. M.; and Werner, P. (ed.)
1998, Tall Munbaqa – Ekalte – I; Die Bronzezeitlichen Kleinfunde (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der
Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 97). Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.
Czichon, R. M.; and Werner, P. (ed.)
2008, Ausgrabungen in Tall Munbāqa-Ekalte – IV. Die bronzezeitliche Keramik (Wissenschaftliche
Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 118). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Danti, M.
2000, “Early Bronze Age Settlement and Land Use in the Tell es-Sweyhat Region, Syria”. PhD dissertation,
Department of Anthropology, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.
Danti, M.
in prep., Tell Hajji Ibrahim, Syria: An Early Third Millennium BC Agropastoral Station. University Museum
Monograph (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum).
Danti, M. D.
2008, “A Mesopotamian Mystery: The City of Sweyhat”, Current World Archaeology 30 3/6 (with William B.
Hafford): 34-40.
Danti, M. D.; and Zettler, R. L.
1998a, “The Evolution of Tell es-Sweyhat (Syria) Settlement System in the third millennium B.C.”, in Espace Naturel,
espace habité en Syrie du Nord 10 e-2 e millénaires av. J-C (Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian
Studies 33, Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient 28), ed. Fortin, M.; and Aurenche, O. Québec/Lyon: Maison de
l’Orient Méditerranéen: 209-228.
446

1998b, “Regional Survey and Excavations”, in Subsistence and Settlements in a Marginal Environment: Tell
es-Sweyhat, 1989-1995 Preliminary Report (MASCA Papers in Science and Archaeology 14). Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications: 85-94.
2002, “Excavating an Enigma. The latest discoveries from Tell es-Sweyhat”, Expedition 44: 36-45.
Danti, M.; and Zettler, R.
2007, “The Early Bronze Age in the Upper Euphrates River Valley and Northwest Jezireh, Syria”, in Euphrates
River Valley Settlement: The Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium BC (Levant Supplementary Series 5),
ed. Peltenburg, E. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 164-184.
Danti, M.; Peregrine, P.; and Zettler, R.
1997, “Sweyhat”, in “Archaeology in Syria”, ed. Weiss, H., American Journal of Archaeology 101: 141-144.
de Miroschedji, P.
1997, “La glyptique palestinienne du Bronze ancient”, in De Chypre à la Bactriane, les sceaux du Proche-Orient
ancien, ed. Caubet, A. Paris: Musée du Louvre: 187-227.
Deckers, K.; and Pessin, H.
2010, “Vegetation Development in Relation to Human Occupation and Climatic Change in the Middle Euphrates
and Upper Jazirah (Syria/Turkey) During the Bronze Age”, Quaternary Research 74: 216-226.
Del Olmo Lete, G. (ed.)
1994, Tell Qara Quzaq-I. Campañas I-III (1989-1991) (Aula Orientalis-Supplementa 4). Sabadell-Barcelona:
Editorial AUSA.
Del Olmo Lete, G.; and Montéro Fenollós, J.-L.
1998, “Du temple à l’entrepôt: un exemple de trasformation de l’espace urbain a Tell Qara Qûzâq”, in Espace naturel,
espace habité en Syrie du Nord (10 e-2 e millénaires av. J.-C.), Actes du colloque tenu à l’Université Laval (Québec) du 5
au 7 mai 1997 (Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 33/Travaux de la Maison de l’Orient
Mediterranéen 28), ed. Fortin, M.; and Aurenche, O. Toronto: Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies:
295-304.
Del Olmo Lete, G.; Montero Fenollós, J. L.; and Valdés Pereiro, C. (ed.)
2001, Tell Qara Quzaq-II. Campañas IV-VI (1992-1994) (Aula Orientalis Supplementa 17). Sabadell-Barcelona:
Editorial AUSA.
Delougaz, P.
1952, Pottery from the Diyala Region (Oriental Institute Publications 63). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Deshayes, J.
1960, Les outils de Bronze de l’Indus au Danube (IVe au IIe millénaire). Paris: Geuthner.
Dessene, F.
2002, “La céramique à engobe réservé de Tilbeshar (Sud-Est Anatolien): étude archéometrique d’une production
d’inspiration urukéenne”, Anatolia Antiqua X: 1-10.
Dohmann-Pfälzner, H.; and Pfälzner, P.
2000, “Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft in der zentralen Oberstadt von Tall Mozan/Urkeš.
Bericht über die in Kooperation mit dem IIMAS durchgeführte Kampagne 1999”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen
Orient-Gesellschaft 132: 185-228.
Dolce, R.
2006, “Ebla and Akkad: Clues of an Early Meeting. Another Look at the Artistic Culture of Palace G”, in Ina kibrāt
erbetti. Studi di Archeologia orientale dedicati a Paolo Matthiae, ed. Baffi, F.; Dolce, R.; Mazzoni, S.; and Pinnock, F.
Roma: Università degli Studi di Roma «La Sapienza»: 173-206.
Dornemann, R. H.
1979, “Tell Hadidi: A millennium of Bronze Age city occupation”, in Archaeological Reports from the Tabqa Dam
Project-Euphrates Valley, Syria (Annual of the American School of Oriental Research 44), ed. Freedman, D. N.; and
Lundquist, J. M. Cambridge: American School of Oriental Research: 113-151.
Dornemann, R. H.
1988, “Tell Hadidi. One Bronze Age site among many in the Tabqa Dam Salvage Area”, Bulletin of the American
Schools of Oriental Research 270: 13-42.
447
Dornemann, R.
1978, “Tell Hadidi: A Bronze Age City on the Euphrates”, Archaeology 31: 20-26.
Dornemann, R.
1980, “Tell Hadidi: An Important Center of the Mitannian Period and Earlier”, in Le Moyen Euphrate. Zone
de contacts et d’échanges, Actes du Colloque du Strasbourg 10-12 Mars 1977, ed. Margueron, J. C. Strasbourg:
Publications du Centre de Recherche sur le Proche-Orient at la Grèce antiques: 217-234.
Dornemann, R.
1985, “Salvage Excavations at Tell Hadidi in the Euphrates River Valley”, Biblical Archaeologist 48: 49-59.
Dornemann, R.
1989, “Comments on Small Finds and Items of Artistic Significance from Tell Hadidi and Nearby Sites
in the Euphrates Valley, Syria”, in Essays in Ancient Civilization Presented to Helene J. Kantor (Studies in
Ancient Oriental Civilization 47), ed. Leonard Jr., A.; and Williams, B. B. Chicago: The University of Chicago
Press: 59-75.
Dornemann, R.
1990, “The Beginning of the Bronze Age in Syria in Light of Recent Excavations”, in Resurrecting the Past:
A Joint Tribute to Adnan Bounni, ed. Matthiae, P.; van Loon, M.; and Weiss, H. Leiden: Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul: 85-100.
Dornemann, R.
1993, “Tell Hadidi”, in L’Eufrate e il Tempo. Le civiltà del medio Eufrate e della Gezira siriana, ed. Rouault, O.; and
Masetti-Rouault, M. G. Milano: Electa: 183-184.
Dossin, G.
1961-62, “Le Site de la ville de Kahat”, Annales Archéologiques de Syrie 11/12: 197-206.
Dugay, L.
2005, “Early Bronze Age Burials From Tell Ahmar”, in Si un homme… : textes offerts en homagè à André Finet
(Subartu 16), ed. Talon, Ph. Turnhout: Brepols: 37-49.
Dunham, S.
1993, “A Wall-Painting from Tell al-Raqā’i, Northeast Syria”, Levant 25: 127-143.
Edzard, D. O.; and Lambert, W. G.
1972-75, “ḫaniš, Šullat und”, Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 4: 107-108.
Egeli, G.
1995, “The Metal Pins from Eastern and Southeastern Anatolia during the Third and the Beginning of the
Second Millennia B.C.”, in Readings in Prehistory. Studies presented to Halet Çambel. Istanbul: Graphis Yayınları:
175-216.
Egold, A.
1994, “Metall. Sonstige Metallobjekte”, in Ausgrabungen in Halawa 2. Die Kleinfunde von Tell Halawa A (Schriften
zur vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6), ed. Meyer, J.-W.; and Pruß, A. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und
Verlag: 244-254.
Eichler, S.; Frank, D. R.; Machule, D.; Mozer, G.; and Pape, W.
1984, “Ausgrabungen in Tall Munbāqa 1983”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 116: 65-93.
Eichmann, R.
1986, “Die Steingeräte aus dem ‘Riemchengebäude’ in Uruk-Warka”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 17: 97-130.
Eidem, J.
1997, “The inscriptions”, in The Early Glyptic of Tell Brak. Cylinder Seals of Third Millennium Syria (Orbis Biblicus
et Orientalis 15), ed. Matthews, D. Fribourg/Göttingen: University Press Fribourg Switzerland/Vandenhoeck &
Ruprecht: 39-46.
Eidem, J.; Finkel, I.; and Bonechi, M.
2001, “Third-millennium Inscriptions”, in Excavations at Tell Brak. Vol. 2: Nagar in the third millennium BC
(McDonald Institute Monographs 2), ed. Oates, D.; Oates, J.; and McDonald, H. Cambridge: McDonald Institute
for Archaeological Research: 99-120.
Einwag, B.
1998, Die Keramik aus dem Bereich des Palastes A in Tell Bi’a/Tuttul und das Problem der frühen Mittleren Bronzezeit
(Münchener Vorderasiatische Studien 19). München/Wien: Profil-Verlag.
448
Einwag, B.
2008a, “Fortified Citadels in the Early Bronze Age? New Evidence from Tell Bazi”, in Proceedings of the 5th
International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Madrid, 3-8 April 2006, vol. I, ed. Cordóba, J. M.;
Molist, M.; Pérez, Ma. C.; Rubio, I.; and Martínez, S. Madrid: Universidad Autónoma de Madrid: 741-753.
Einwag, B.
2008b, “Early Second Millennium Pottery of the Euphrates Region”, in From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology:
the Second Millenium BC in Syria-Palestine (contributo del centro linceo interdisciplinare “Beniamino Segre” vol. 117),
ed. Matthiae, P.; Nigro, L.; Peyronel, L.; and Pinnock, F. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei: 195-208.
Engin, A.
2007, “The Carchemish region as a ceramic province in the Early Bronze Age: analysis of the ceramics from the
Carchemish Dam focusing on the material from Gre Virike”, in Euphrates River Valley Settlement. The Carchemish Sector
in the Third Millennium B.C. (Levant Supplementary Series 5), ed. Peltenburg, E. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 267-285.
Erdal, Ö. D.
2012, “A Possible Massacre at Early Bronze Age Titriş Höyük, Anatolia”, International Journal of Osteoarchaeology
22/1: 1-21. Published online in 2010 by Wiley InterScience DOI: 19.102/oa.1177.
Ertem, H.
1974, “Han Ibrahim Şah Excavations, 1971”, in Keban Projesi 1971 Çalışmaları, Keban Projesi Yayınları I.4.
Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu: 65-82.
Falb, C.
2001, “Frühbronzezeitliche Keramik aus Emar”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 32: 121-144.
Falb, C.
2005a, “Die Kleinfunde”, in Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal 4: Der Friedhof von Abu
Hamed (Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8), ed. Falb, C.; Krasnik, K.; Meyer, J.-W.; and Vila, E.
Saarwellingen: Saarländische Druckerei und Verlag: 75-84.
Falb, C.
2005b, “Die Keramik”, in Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal 4: Der Friedhof von Abu Hamed
(Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8), ed. Falb, C.; Krasnik, K.; Meyer, J. W.; and Vila, E. Saarwellingen:
Saarländische Druckerei und Verlag: 171-334.
Falb, C.
2009, Untersuchungen an Keramikwaren des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr. aus Nordsyrien (Altertumskunde des
Vorderen Orients 12). Münster: Ugarit-Verlag.
Falb, C.
2010, “Grabungen im Bereich H West”, in Ausgrabungen in Tell Chuēra in Nordost-Syrien II. Vorbericht über die
Grabungskampagnen 1998 bis 2005 (Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung
II.2), ed. Meyer, J.-W. Wiesbaden: Harassowitz: 83-171.
Falb, C.; Krasnik, K.; Meyer, J.-W.; and Vila, E.
2005, Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal 4. Der Friedhof von Abu Hamed. Saarwellingen:
Saarländische Druckerei und Verlag.
Falb, C.; Porter, A.; and Pruß, A.
2014, “North-Mesopotamian Metallic Ware, Jezirah Stone Ware, North-Mesopotamian Grey Ware and Euphrates
Banded Wares”, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean.
Ceramics (ARCANE-Interregional I), ed. Lebeau, M. Turnhout: Brepols, 171-199.
Falsone, G.
1998, “Tell Shiyukh Tahtani on the Euphrates. The University of Palermo salvage excavations in North Syria
(1993-94)”, Akkadica 109-110: 22-64.
Falsone, G.
1999, “Tell Shiyukh Tahtani”, in Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates. The Tishrin Dam Area, Proceedings of
the International Symposium Held at Barcelona, January 28th-30th 1998 (Aula Orientalis-Supplementa 15), ed.
Del Olmo Lete, G.; and Montero Fenollós, J.-L. Sabadell-Barcelona: Editorial AUSA: 137-142.
Falsone, G.; and Sconzo, P.
2007, “The ‘champagne-cup’ period at Carchemish. A review of the early levels on the acropolis mound in the
light of recent research”, in Euphrates River Valley Settlement. The Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium B.C.
(Levant Supplementary Series 5), ed. Peltenburg, E. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 73-93.
449
Falsone, G.; and Sconzo, P.

2012, “Tell Shiyukh Tahtani, Syria. Report of the 2006-09 season”, in Proceedings of the 7th International Congress
on the Archaeology of the Ancien Near East. 12 April – 16 April 2010, ed. Matthews, R.; and Curtis, J. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz: 167-190.
Feliu, L.
2003, The God Dagan in Bronze Age Syria (Culture and History of the Ancient Near East 19). Leiden: Brill.
Felli, C.
2001, “Some Notes on the Akkadian Glyptic from Tell Brak”, in Excavations at Tell Brak. Vol. 2: Nagar in the third
millennium BC (McDonald Institute Monographs 2), ed. Oates, D; Oates, J.; and McDonald, H. Cambridge:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research: 142-151.
Fernández, M. M.
1994, “Industria Lítica de Tell Qara Qūzāq-I”, in Tell Tell Qara Qūzāq-I. Campaňas I-III (1989-1991) (Aula
orientalis Supplementa 4), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G. Sabadell-Barcelona: Editorial AUSA: 183-188.
Finet, A. et al.
1983, Lorsque la royauté descendit du Ciel. Les Fouilles Belges du Tell Qannas sur l’Euphrate en Syrie. Musée royal de
Mariémont, musée de Louvain-la-Neuve 24. sept. 1982-27. mars 1983. Catalogue d’exposition.
Finkbeiner, U.
1994a, “Der ‘Reserved-slip’: Stationen aus der Biographie einer Verzierungstechnik”, in Beschreiben und Deuten in
der Archäologie des Altes Orients. Festschrift für R. Mayer-Opificius (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 4), ed.
Dietrich, M.; and Loretz, O. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag: 79-84.
Finkbeiner, U.
1994b, “‘Abd”, in “Archaeology in Syria”, ed. Weiss, H., American Journal of Archaeology 98: 116-117.
Finkbeiner, U.
1995, “Tell el-‘Abd. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen 1992-1993”, Damaszener Mitteilungen 8: 51-83.
Finkbeiner, U.
1997, “‘Abd”, in “Archaeology in Syria”, ed. Weiss, H., American Journal of Archaeology 101: 97-100.
Finkbeiner, U.
2001, “Emar 1999 – Bericht über die 3. Kampagne der syrisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen”, Baghdader Mitteilungen
32: 45-110.
Finkbeiner, U.
2002, “Emar 2001 – Bericht über die 4. Kampagne der syrisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen”, Baghdader Mitteilungen
33: 109-146.
Finkbeiner, U.
2006, “Towards a better understanding of the ceramic tradition in the Middle Euphrates region”, in Sociétés
humaines et changement climatique á la fin du troisième millénaire: une crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute-Mésopotamie?
Actes du colloque de Lyon, 5-8 décembre 2005 (Varia Anatolica 19), ed. Marro, C.; and Kuzucuoglu, C. Paris: De
Boccard: 117-138.
Finkbeiner, U.
2007, “A room inventory of Early Bronze IV from Emar”, in From Relative Chronology to Absolute Chronology:
the Second Millenium BC in Syria-Palestine (contributo del centro linceo interdisciplinare “Beniamino Segre” vol.
117), ed. Matthiae, P.; Nigro, L.; Peyronel, L.; and Pinnock, F. Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei: 227-237.
Finkbeiner, U.
2010a, “Die Stratigraphie von Emar. Eine Übersicht”, in Kulturlandschaft Syrien – Zentrum und Peripherie.
Festschrift für Jan-Waalke Meyer (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 371). Münster: Ugarit Verlag: 197-205
Finkbeiner, U.
2010b, “The Samples: Find Context and Meaning for the Chronology of Emar”, in Emar after the Closure of the
Tabqa Dam I (Subartu 25), ed. Finkbeiner; U.; and Sakal, F. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers: 257-266.
Finkbeiner, U.; and Leisten, T.
1999-2000, “Emar & Balis 1996-1998. Preliminary report of the joint Syrian-German excavations with the
collaboration of Princeton University”, Berytus 44: 5-57.
Finkbeiner, U.; and Sakal, F.
2003, “Emar 2002-Bericht über die 5. Kampagne der syrisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 34: 9-117.
450
Finkbeiner, U.; and Sakal, F. (ed.)

2010, Emar after the Closure of the Tabqa Dam-The Syrian – German Excavations 1996-2002. Volume I: Late
Roman and Medieval Cemeteries and Environmental Studies (Subartu 25). Turnhout: Brepols Publishers.
Finkelstein, I.; and Piasetzky, E.
2010, “Radiocarbon Dating the Iron Age in the Levant: A Bayesian Model for Six Ceramic Phases and Ceramic
Transitions”, Antiquity 84: 374-385.
Flender, M.
1995, “Rollsiegelkeramik vom Tell ‘Abd”, Damaszener Mitteilungen 8: 67-72.
Flender, M.
2000, “Cylinder seal impressed vessels of the Early Bronze Age III in northern Palestine”, in Ceramics and Change in
the Early Bronze Age of the Southern Levant, ed. Philip, G.; and Baird, D. Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press: 295-313.
Frangipane, M.
2007, “Establishment of a Middle/Upper Euphrates Early Bronze I culture from the fragmentation of the Uruk
world. New data from Zeytinli Bahçe Höyük”, in Euphrates River Valley Settlement. The Carchemish Sector in the
Third Millennium B.C. (Levant Supplementary Series 5), ed. Peltenburg, E. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 122-141.
Frangipane, M.
2007/8, “The Arslantepe ‘Royal Tomb’: new funerary customs and political changes in the Upper Euphrates
valley at the beginning of the third millennium BC”, in Sepolti tra i vivi. Buried among the Living. Evidenza ed
interpretazione di contesti funerari in abitato. Atti del Convegno Internazionale. Roma, 26-29 Aprile 2006 (Scienze
dell’Antichità. Storia Archeologia Antropologia 14/1), ed. Bartoloni, G.; and Benedettini, G. M. Rome: Università
degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”: 169-194.
Frangipane, M.; and Bucak, E.
2001, “Excavations and researches at Zeytinli Bahçe Höyük, 1999”, in Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage
of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs: Activities in 1999, ed. Tuna, N.; Öztürk, J.; and Velibeyoğlu, J. Ankara:
Middle Eastern Technical University and METU Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment
(TAÇDAM): 84-131.
Frangipane, M.; and Palmieri, A.
1983, “A protourban centre of the Late Uruk period”, in Perspectives on Protourbanization in Eastern Anatolia:
Arslantepe (Malatya). An Interim Report on 1975-1983 Campaigns, ed. Frangipane, M.; and Palmieri, A., Origini
XII, 2a parte: Roma: 287-454.
Frangipane, M.; Alvaro, C.; Balossi Restelli F.; and Siracusano, G.
2002, “The 2000 campaign at Zeytinli Bahçe Höyük”, in Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu
and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs III, Activities in 2000, ed. Tuna, N.; Öztürk, J.; and Velibeyoğlu, J. Ankara: Middle
Eastern Technical University and METU Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment
(TAÇDAM): 41-99.
Frangipane, M.; Di Nocera, G. M.; Palmieri, A.; and Siracusano, G.
2004, “The 2001 Excavation Campaign at Zeytinli Bahçe Höyük (Birecik, Urfa)”, in Salvage Project of the
Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs IV, Activities in 2001, ed. Tuna, N.; Öztürk, J.;
and Velibeyoğlu, J. Ankara: Middle Eastern Technical University and METU Centre for Research and Assessment
of the Historic Environment (TAÇDAM): 20-56.
Frank, D. R.; Machule, D.; Wäfler, M.; and Wittwer, U.
1982, “Tall Munbāqa 1979”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 114: 7-70.
Frankfort, H.
1939, Cylinder seals, A Documentary Essay on the Art and Religion of the Ancient Near East. London: MacMillan.
Frankfort, H.
1955, Stratified Cylinder Seals from the Diyala Region (Oriental Institute Publications 72). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Frayne, D. R.
1993, Sargonic and Gutian Periods (2334-2113 BC) (The Royal Inscriptions of Mesopotamia, Early Periods 2).
Toronto: University of Toronto.
Fronzaroli, P.
1977, “West Semitic Toponymy in Northern Syria in the Third Millennium B.C.”, Journal of Semitic Studies 22:
145-166.
451
Fronzaroli, P.
1984-86, “Semitic Place Names of Syria in the Ebla Texts”, Orientalia Suecana 33-35: 139-148.
Fuensanta, J. G.; and Crivelli Montero, E.
2007, “Existió un “Período Uruk en el Norte de Mesopotamia”? (Investigación en la zona de Biredyik-Karkemish,
Éufrates turco)”, in Las Aguas Primigenias. El Próximo Oriente Antiguo come fuente de civilización. Actas del IV
Congreso Español de Oriente Antiguo Próximo (Zaragoza, 17 a 21 de Octubre 2006), vol. I. ed. Justel, J. J.; Solans, B. E.;
Vita, J. P.; Zamora, J. Á. Zaragoza: Instituto de Estudios Islámicos y de l’Oriente Próximo: 289-309.
Gelb, I. J.; and Kienast, B.
1990, Die altakkadischen Königsinschriften des dritten Jahrtausends v. Chr (Freiburger Altorientalische Studien 7).
Stuttgart: Franz Steiner Verlag.
Genouillac, H. de
1934, Fouilles de Telloh. Paris: Geuthner.
Genz, H.
1995, “Ritzverzierte Knochenhülsen vom Tell el-‘Abd”, Damaszener Mitteilungen 8: 81-82.
Genz, H.
2003, Ritzverzierte Knochenhülsen des dritten Jahrtausends im Ostmittelmeerraum. Ein Beitrag zu den frühen
Kulturverbindungen zwischen Levante und Ägäis (Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 31). Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Genz, H.
in prep. “Objects made of Bone and Related Materials”, in Tell el-‘Abd, Syrien. Die syrisch-deutschen Ausgrabungen
1992-1994. Final reports of the Syrian-German Excavations at Tell el-‘Abd, Vol. III Small Objects and Environmental
Studies (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients 16/3), ed. Finkbeiner, U. Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Genz, H.; Çakırlar, C.; Damick, A.; Jastrzębska, E; Riehl, S.; Deckers, K.; and Donkin, A.
2009, “Excavations at Tell Fadous-Kfarabida: Preliminary Report on the 2009 Season of Excavations”, Bulletin
d’Archéologie et d’Architecture Libanaises 13: 71-123.
Gerber, C.
2000, “Die Keramik der Frühen Bronzezeit im Karababa Becken”, in Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de
l’Euphrate aux IV-IIIe Millénaires/From the Euphrates to the Caucasus: Chronologies for the 4th-3rd Millennium
B.C. (IFEA, Varia Anatolica 11), ed. Marro, C.; and Hauptman, H. Paris: Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes
d’Istanbul: 213-229.
Gerber, J. C.
2005, Hassek Höyük III. Die frühbronzezeitliche Keramik (Istanbuler Forschungen Band 47). Tübingen: Ernst
Wasmuth Verlag.
Gernez, G.
2006/2007, “La question des mécanismes évolutifs des productions métalliques: l’exemple des armes au Proche-
Orient”, in Cahier des thèmes transversaux. Archéologies et Sciences de l’Antiquité (ArScAn) VIII. Thème III: Systèmes
de production et de circulation: A-F.
Gernez, G.
2008, “L’armement en métal au Proche et Moyen Orient. Des origines à 1750 av. J.-C.”. PhD dissertation, Université
de Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne.
Gibson, M.; and McMahon, A.
1997, “The Early Dynastic-Akkadian transition part II: the Author’s Response”, Iraq 59: 9-14.
Goldman, H.
1956, Excavations at Gözlü Kule, Tarsus. Vol. II: From the Neolithic through the Bronze Age. Princeton: Princeton
University Press.
González Garre, M.
2001, “Elementos ornamentales y figurativos de Tell Qara Qūzāq (1992-1994)”, in Tell Qara Qūzāq -II. Campañas
I-III (1992-1994) (Aula Orientalis Supplementa 17), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; Montero Fenollós, J.-L.; and Valdés
Pereiro, C. Sabadell-Barcelona: Editorial AUSA: 305-339.
Görsdorf, J.
1993, “Vorbericht zu den Radiokohlenstoffdatierungen aus Tall Bi’a”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft
125: 61-68.
452
Görsdorf, J.; Hauptmann, H.; and Kaschau, G.

2002, “14C-Datierungen zur Schichtabfolge des Lidar Höyük, Südost-Türkei”, Berliner Beiträge zur Archäometrie
19: 63-70.
Graff, S. R.
2012, “Culinary Preferences: Seal-Impressed Vessels from Western Syria as Specialized Cookware”, in The Menial
Art of Cooking. Archaeological Studies of Cooking and Food Preparation, ed. Graff, S. R.; and Rodríguez-Alegría, E.
Boulder: University Press of Colorado: 19-45.
Greenberg, R.
2001, “Early Bronze Age II-III Palestinian Cylinder Seal Impressions and the North Canaanite Metallic Ware Jar”,
in Studies in the Archaeology of Israel and the Neighboring Lands in Memory of Douglas L. Esse (Studies in Ancient
Oriental Civilization 59), ed. Wolff, S. R. Chicago: University of Chicago Press: 189-197.
Grootes, P. M.; and Nadeau, M.-J.
2010, “The Analyses”, in Emar after the Closure of the Tabqa Dam. The Syrian-German Excavations 1996-2002.
Volume I: Late Roman and Medieval Cemeteries and Environmental Studies (Subartu 25), ed. Finkbeiner, U.; and
Sakal, F. Turnhout: Brepols Publishers: 245-255.
Gualandi, G.
1997, “Les sceaux et les impressions de sceaux (TQ10-12): étude préliminaire”, Mari. Annales de Recherches
Interdisciplinaires 8: 149-157.
Hamilton, W. D.
2010, “The Use of Radiocarbon and Bayesian Modelling to (Re)write Later Iron Age Settlement Histories in East-
Central Britain”. PhD dissertation, University of Leicester.
Hammade, H.
1994, Cylinder Seals from the Collection of the Aleppo Museum, Syrian Arab Republic, vol. 2: Seals of Known
Provenance (British Archaeological Report 597). Oxford: Tempvs Reparatvm.
Hansen, D.
1971, “Some Early Dynastic I Sealings from Nippur”, in Studies Presented to George M.A. Hanfmann (Fogg
Museum-Harvard University Monographs in Art and Archaeology 2), ed. Gordon Mitten, D.; Griffiths Pedley, J.;
and Ayer Scott, J. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern: 47-54.
Harmanşah, Ö.
2013, Cities and the Shaping of Memory in the Ancient Near East. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hartenberger, B.
2001, “IVB. Lithic Analyses of the Suburb 1 Materials”, Anatolica 27: 41-44.
Hartenberger, B.
2003, “A Study of Craft Specialization and the Organization of Chipped Stone Production at Early Bronze Age
Titriş Höyük, Southeastern Turkey”. PhD dissertation, Boston University.
Hartenberger, B.; and Rosen, S. A.
2001, “Mid EBA Remains in Suburb 1: The Cannanean Blade Workshop”, Anatolica 27: 37-40.
Hartenberger, B.; Rosen, S. A.; and Matney, T.
2000, “The Early Bronze Age Blade Workshop at Titriş: Lithic Specialization in an Urban Context”, Near Eastern
Archaeology 63:1: 51-58.
Hatz, M. J.
2003, “Headdresses for composite statues”, in Art of the First Cities. The Third Millennium B.C. from the
Mediterranean to the Indus, ed. Aruz, J. New York: The Metropolitan Museum of Art: 169-172.
Hauptmann, H.
1981, “Lidar Höyük, 1980”, Anatolian Studies 31: 197-198.
Hauptmann, H.
1982a, “Lidar Höyük, 1981”, Anatolian Studies 32: 17-18.
Hauptmann, H.
1982b, “Lidar Excavations 1981”, American Journal of Archaeology 86: 562-3.
Hauptmann, H.
1983a, “Lidar Höyük, 1982”, Anatolian Studies 33: 254-256.
453
Hauptmann, H.
1983b, “Lidar Excavations 1982 in Archaeology in Asia Minor”, American Journal of Archaeology 87: 433.
Hauptmann, H.
Hauptmann, H.
Hauptmann, H.
1987, “Lidar Höyük und Nevali Çori, 1986”, Anatolian Studies 37: 203-207.
Hauptmann, H.
1993, “Vier Jahrtausende Siedlungsgeschichte am mittleren Euphrat. Deutsche Archaeologie im Ausland”,
Archäologie in Deutschland 1: 10-15.
Hauptmann, H.; and Pernicka, E.
2004, Die Metallindustrie Mesopotamiens von den Anfangen bis zum 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr (Orient-Archäologie 3).
Rahden: Verlag Marie Leidorf.
Haussperger, M.
1991, Die Einführungsszene. Entwicklung eines mesopotamischen Motivs von der altakkadischen bis zum Ende der
altbabylonischen Zeit (Münchener Vorderasiatische Studien XI). München: Profil.
Heinrich, E.
1982, Die Tempel und Heiligtümer im alten Mesopotamien. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Heinrich, E.
1984, Die Paläste im alten Mesopotamien. Berlin: de Gruyter.
Heinrich, E.; Ludwig, W.; Strommenger, E.; Opificius, R.; and Sürenhagen, D.
1970, “Zweiter vorläufiger Bericht über die von der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft mit Mitteln der Stiftung
Volkswagenwerk in Ḥabūba Kabira und in Mumbaqat unternommenen archäologischen Untersuchungen
(Herbstkampagne 1969) erstattet von Mitgliedern der Mission”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
102: 27-58.
Heinrich, E.; Schmid, H.; Kara, H.-Chr.; Strommenger, E.; Sürenhagen, D.; Hecker, G.; Seidl, U.;
Machule, D.; and Rentschler, D.
1971, “Dritter vorläufiger Bericht über die von der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft mit Mitteln der Stiftung
Volkswagenwerk in Ḥabūba Kabira und in Mumbaqat unternommenen archäologischen Untersuchungen
(Herbstkampagne 1970), erstattet von Mitgliedern der Mission”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
103: 5-58.
Heinrich, E.; Schular, E. v.; Schmid, H.; Ludwig, W.; Strommenger, E.; and Seidl, U.
1969, “Bericht über die von der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft mit Mitteln der Stiftung Volkswagenwerk im
Euphrattal bei Aleppo begonnenen archäologischen Untersuchungen, erstattet von Mitgliedern der Expedition”,
Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 101: 27-67.
Heinrich, E.; Strommenger, E.; Frank, D. R.; Ludwig, W.; Sürenhagen, D.; Töpperwein, E.; Schmid, H.;
Heusch, J.-C.; Kohlmeyer, K.; Machule, D.; Wäfler, M.; and Rhode, T.
1973, “Vierter vorläufiger Bericht über die von der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft mit Mitteln der Stiftung
Volkswagenwerk in Habuba Kabira (Herbstkampagnen 1971 und 1972 sowie Testgrabung Frühjahr 1973) und in
Mumbaqat (Herbstkampagne 1971) unternommenen archäologischen Untersuchungen, erstattet von Mitgliedern
der Mission”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 105: 6-67.
Heinrich, E.; Strommenger, E.; Frank, D. R.; Ludwig, W.; Sürenhagen, D.; Töpperwein, E.; Schmid, H.;
Heusch, J.-C.; Kohlmeyer, K.; Machule, D.; Wäfler, M.; and Rhode, T.
1974, “Vierter vorläufiger Bericht über die von der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft mit Mitteln der
Stiftung Volkswagenwerk in Habuba Kabira (Herbstkampagnen 1971 und 1972 sowie Testgrabung
Frühjahr 1973) und in Mumbaqat (Herbstkampagne 1971) unternommenen archäologischen
Untersuchungen (Fortsetzung), erstattet von Mitgliedern der Mission”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-
Gesellschaft 106: 5-52.
Heinz, M.
1994, “Die bearbeiteten Tierknochen”, in Ausgrabungen in Halawa 2. Die Kleinfunde von Tell Halawa A (Schriften
zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6), ed. Meyer, J.-W.; and Pruß, A. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und
Verlag: 255-279.
454
Helmer, D.; and Stordeur, D.

2000, “Les outils en os d’El Kown 2-Caracol: Matière sauvage ou domestique?”, in El Kowm 2. Une île dans le desert.
La fin du Néolithique précéramique dans la steppe syrienne, ed. Stordeur, D. Paris: Centre National de la Recherche
Scientifique: 265-280.
Helwing, B.
2000, “The composition of the late Chalcolithic pottery assemblage”, in Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de
l’Euphrate aux IV-IIIe Millénaires/From the Euphrates to the Caucasus: Chronologies for the 4th-3rd Millennium
d’Istanbul:145-164.
Helwing, B.
2001, “Vierösenpokale vom Mittleren Euphrat. Anmerkungen zum Kulturkontakt im frühen dritten Jahrtausend
v. Chr.”, in Lux Orientis. Archäologie Zwischen Asien und Europa. Festschrift für Harald Hauptmann zum 65.
Geburtstag (Internationale Archäologie Studia Honoraria 12), ed. Boehmer, R. M.; and Maran, J. Rahden/Westf.:
Verlag Marie Leidorf GmbH: 187-195.
Helwing, B.
2002, Hassek Höyük II. Die Spätchalkolithische Keramik (Istanbuler Forschungen 45). Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag.
Helwing, B.
2009, “Review article of R.M. Czichon – P. Werner, Tall Munbâqa – Ekalte IV. Die bronzezeitliche Keramik
(Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 118). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz”, Welt
des Orients 39.2: 265-269.
Helwing, B.; Özgen, E.; and Tekin, H.
1997, “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen auf dem Oylum Höyük”, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 47: 39-90.
Hempelmann, R.
2001, “Menschen- und tiergestaltige Darstellungen auf frühbronzezeitlichen Gefäßen von Halawa A”, in Beiträge
zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie Winfried Orthmann gewidmet, ed. Meyer, J.-W.; Novák, M.; and Pruß, A.
Frankfurt am Main: Johann Wolfgang Goethe-Universität: 150-169.
Hempelmann, R.
2005, Ausgrabungen in Halawa 3. Die Bronzezeitliche Keramik von Tell Halawa A (Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen
Archäologie 9). Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.
Henschel-Simon, E.
1938, “The Toggle-Pins in the Palestine Archaeological Museum”, The Quarterly of the Department of Antiquities
in Palestine 6: 169-209.
Herling, L.
1994, “Die lithischen Kleinfunde vom Lidar Höyük”. MA thesis, Heidelberg University.
Herling, L.
2007, “Die frühbronzezeitliche Lithik”, in Nevalı Čori. Keramik und Kleinfunde der Halaf- und Frühbronzezeit
(Archaeologica Euphratica 4), ed. Becker, J. Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern: 177-188.
Heusch, J. C.
1980, “Tell Habuba Kabira im 3. und 2. Jahrtausend: Die Entwicklung der Baustruktur”, in Le Moyen Euphrate.
Zone de contacts et d’échanges, Actes du Colloque du Strasbourg 10-12 Mars 1977, ed. Margueron, J. C. Strasbourg:
Publications du Centre de Recherche sur le Proche-Orient at la Grèce antiques:159-178.
Higham, T. F. G.
1994, “Radiocarbon Dating New Zealand Prehistory with Moa Eggshell: Some Preliminary Results”, Quaternary
Geochronology (Quaternary Science Reviews) 13: 163-69.
Hockmann, D.
2010, Gräber und Grüfte in Assur I von der zweiten Hälfte des 3. bis zur Mitte des 2. Jahrtausends v. Chr
(Wissenshaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 129). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Hogarth, D. G.
1920, Hittite Seals, with particular reference to the Ashmolean Collection. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Hoh, M. R.
1981, “Die Keramik von Hassek Höyük”, in “Hassek Höyük. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen der Jahre
1979-1980”, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 31: 31-82.
455
Hoh, M. R.
1984, “Die Keramik von Hassek Höyük”, in “Hassek Höyük. Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in den
Jahre 1981-1984”, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 34: 66-91.
Holland, T. A.
1976a, “An Inscribed Weight from Tell Sweyhat, Syria”, Iraq 37: 75-76.
Holland, T. A.
1976b, “Preliminary Report on Excavations at Tell es-Sweyhat, Syria, 1993-4”, Levant 8: 36-70.
Holland, T. A.
1977, “Preliminary Report on Excavations at Tell es-Sweyhat, Syria, 1975”, Levant 9: 36- 65.
Holland, T. A.
1980, “Incised pottery from Tell Sweyhat, Syria and Its Foreign Connections”, in Le Moyen Euphrate. Zone de
contact et d’échanges, Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 10-12 mars 1977, ed. Margueron, J.-C. Leiden: Brill: 127-157.
Holland, T. A.
1993/1994, “Tall as-Swehat”, in “Ausgrabungen in Syrien”, ed. Kühne, H., Archiv für Orientforschung 40/41: 275-285.
Holland, T. A.
2001, “Third Millennium Wall Paintings at Tell Es-Sweyhat, Syria”, in Beiträge zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie
Winfried Orthmann gewidmet, ed. Meyer, J.-W.; Novák; M.; and Pruß, A. Frankfurt am Main: Johann Wolfgang
Goethe-Universität: 170-179.
Holland, T. A.
2006, Excavations at Tell es-Sweyhat, Syria. Volume 2: Archaeology of the Bronze Age, Hellenistic and Roman
Remains at an Ancient Town on the Euphrates River (Oriental Institute Publications 125). Chicago: The University
of Chicago Press.
Holland, T. A.; Wilkinson, T. J.; and Zettler, R. L.
Holland, T. A.; and Zettler, R. L.
Honça, D.; and Algaze, G.
1998, “Preliminary Report on the Human Skeletal Remains at Tıtrıs Höyük: 1991-1996 Seasons”, Anatolica 24: 101-141.
Horwitz, L. K.; and Tchernov, E.
1990, “Cultural and Environmental Implications of Hippopotamus Bone Remains in Archaeological Contexts in
the Levant”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 280: 67-76.
Hrouda, B.; and Behm-Blancke, M.
1982, “Hassek Höyük”, American Journal of Archaeology 86: 563-564.
Ii, H.
1988, “Seals and Seal Impressions from Tell Gubba”, Al-Rafidan 9: 97-133.
Inizan, M.-L.; Roche, H.; and Tixier, J.
1995, Technologie de la pierre taillée (Préhistoire de la Pierre Taillée 4). Nanterre: Cercle de Recherches et d’Études
Préhistoriques.
Jamieson, A.
1990, “Area A – pottery”, in “Tell Ahmar 1988 Season”, in Abr-Nahrain Supplement Series 2, ed. Bunnens, G.
Leiden: Brill: 25-105.
Jamieson, A.
1993, “The Euphrates Valley and Early Bronze Age ceramic traditions”, Abr-Nahrain 31: 36-92.
Jans, G.; and Bretschneider, J.
1998, “Wagon Representations in the Early Dynastic Glyptic. They Came to Beydar with Wagon and Equid”, in
About Subartu. Studies devoted to Upper Mesopotamia. Vol. 2 Culture, Society, Image (Subartu 4.2), ed. Lebeau, M.
Turnhout: Brepols: 155-195.
Janßen, U.
2002, “Die frühbronzezeitlichen Gräberfelder von Halawa, Shamseddin, Djerniye, Tawi und Wreide am mittleren
Euphrat. Versuch einer Datierung und Deutung sozialer Strukturen anhand multivariater statistischer Verfahren
(Korrespondenzanalyse und Seriation)”, Ugarit Forschungen 34: 223-313.
456
Jean-Marie, M.
1999, Tombes et nécropoles de Mari. Mission Archéologique de Mari V (Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique
CLIII). Beyrouth: Institut Français d’Archéologie du Proche-Orient.
Kamlah, J.; and Michelau, H. (ed.)
2012, Temple Building and Temple Cult. Architecture and Cultic Paraphernalia of Temples in the Levant
(Abhandlungen des Deutschen Palästina-Vereins 41). Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.
Kampschulte, I.; and Orthmann, W.
1984, Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal 1: Ausgrabungen bei Tawi 1975 und 1978
(Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Bd. 38). Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
Kaniuth, K.; Löhnert, A.; Miller, J.; Otto, A.; Roaf, M.; and Sallaberger, W. (ed.)
2013, Tempel im Alten Orient. 7. Internationales Colloquium der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft. Wiesbaden:
Harrasowitz.
Karras, M.
1998a, “Wagenmodelle”, in Tall Munbāqa – Ekalte – I. Die bronzezeitlichen Kleinfunde (Wissenschaftliche
Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 97), ed. Czichon, R. M.; and Werner, P. Saarbrücken:
Karras, M.
1998b, “Wirtel”, in Tall Munbaqa – Ekalte I. Die bronzezeitlichen Kleinfunde (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung
Karstens, K.
1986, “Ausgewälte Kleinfunde aus der ‘Kuppe’”, in “Ausgrabungen in Tall Munbāqa”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen
Orient-Gesellschaft 118: 87-90.
Kaschau, G.
1999, Lidar Höyük. Die Keramik der Mittleren Bronzezeit (Archaeologica Euphratica. Ausgrabungen und
Forschungen im türkischen Euphratgebiet, Band 3). Mainz: Verlag Philipp von Zabern.
Kelly-Buccellati, M.
1979, “The Evidence of Artifactual Evidence: Early Third Millennium Pottery at Terqa”, in Terqa Preliminary Reports
n°11. The fourth Season: Introduction and the stratigraphic record (Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 10), ed. Buccellati, G.
Malibu: Undena Publications: 71-75.
Kelly-Buccellati, M.
1998, “The Workshops of Urkesh”, in Urkesh and the Hurrians. Studies in honor of Lloyd Cotsen (Urkesh/Mozan
Studies 3, Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 26), ed. Buccellati, G.; and Kelly-Buccellati, M. Malibu: Undena Publications:
35-50.
Kelly-Buccellati, M.; and Mount-Williams, L.
1977, “Terqa Preliminary Reports n. 3. Object Typology of the second season. The third and second Millennia”,
Syro Mesopotamian Studies 1/5: 1-21.
Kenney, J.
2008, “Recent Excavations at Parc Bryn Cegin Llandygai Near Bangor, North Wales”, Archaeologia Cambrensis
157: 9-142.
Kepinski, C.
2005, “Tilbeshar: A Bronze Age City in the Sajur Valley (Southeast Anatolia)”, Anatolica 31,
145-159.
Kepinski, C.
2007a, “Continuity and Break at the End of the Third Millennium B.C.: The Data from Tilbeshar, Sajur valley
(Southeastern Turkey)”, in Sociétés Humaines et changement climatique à la fin du troisième millénaire: une
crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute-Mésopotamie? Actes du Colloque de Lyon, 5-8 décembre 2005 (Varia Anatolica 19,
Institut Français d’études anatoliennes Georges Dumézil), ed. Kuzucuoğlu, C.; and Marro, C. Paris: De Boccard:
329-340.
Kepinski, C.
2007b, “Dynamics, diagnostic criteria and settlement patterns in the Carchemish area”, in Euphrates River Valley
Settlement. The Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium B.C. (Levant Supplementary Series 5), ed. Peltenburg,
E. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 152-163.
457
Kepinski, C.
2010, “Tilbeshar, a major city of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages, west to the Big Bend of the Euphrates (south-
eastern Turkey): Results from 2005 and 2006 seasons”, in Proceedings of the 6th International Congress of the
Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 5 May-10 May 2008: Excavations, Surveys and Restorations: Reports on Recent
Field Archaeology on the Near East (“Sapienza”, Università di Roma. Vol. 2), ed. Matthiae, P.; Pinnock, F.; Nigro, L.;
and Marchetti, N. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 302-315.
Kepinski, C.; Bulgan, F.; Gailhard, N.; Herveux, L.; and Perello, B.
2006, “Travaux menés à Tilbeshar en 2005 (Sud-Est Anatolie)”, Anatolia Antiqua XIV: 251-259.
Kepinski, C.; Önal, M.; Vallet, R.; Perello, B.; and Vella, M. A.
2007, “Rapport préliminaire sur la septième campagne de fouilles a Tilbeshar en 2006 (Sud-Est anatolien)”,
Anatolia Antiqua XV: 275-288.
Kepinski-Lecomte, C.; and Ergeç, R.
1997, “Tilbeshar 1996”, Anatolia Antiqua V: 337-341.
1998, “Tilbeshar 1997”, Anatolia Antiqua VI: 337-341.
1999, “Tilbeshar 1998”, Anatolia Antiqua VII: 245-251.
2000, “Occupations de la vallée du Sajour de la fin du Chalcolithique au Bronze Moyen”, Anatolia Antiqua VIII: 215-225.
Klein, H.
1992, Untersuchungen zur Typologie bronzezeitlicher Nadeln in Mesopotamien und Syrien (Schriften zur
Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 4). Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.
Klengel-Brandt, E.
1978, Die Terrakotten aus Assur im Vorderasiatischen Museum Berlin. Berlin: Deutscher Verlag der Wissenschaften.
Kohlmeyer, K.
1996, “Houses in Habuba Kabira South. Spatial organisation and planning of Late Uruk residential architecture”,
in Houses and Households in Ancient Mesopotamia: Papers Read at the 40 e Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale,
Leiden 1993 (Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandaise de Stamboul 78), ed. Veenhof, K.
Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten: 89-103.
Kozbe, G.; and Rothman, M. S.
2005, “Chronology and function at Yarim Höyük, Part II”, Anatolica 31: 111-144.
Krebernik, M.
1988, Die Personennamen der Ebla-Texte: Eine Zwischenbilanz (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 7). Berlin:
Dietrich Reimer.
Krebernik, M.
2001, Tall Bi’a/Tuttul, II. Die altorientalischen Schriftfunde (Wissenshaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen
Orient-Gesellschaft 96). Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.
Krebernik, M.
2003-05, “dPA, mul/múlPA”, in Reallexikon der Assyriologie und Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 10: 160.
Kühne, H.
1976, Die Keramik vom Tell Chuēra und ihre Beziehungen zu Funden aus Syrien-Palästina, der Türkei und dem Iraq
(Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 1). Berlin: Gebr Mann.
Kunter, M.
1981, “Anthropologische Befunde: Kampagnen 1977 und 1978”, in Halawa 1977-1979”, in Vorläufiger Bericht
über die 1. bis 3. Grabungskampagne, ed. Orthmann, W. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt: 67-83.
Kunter, M.
1984, “Anthropologische Untersuchung der Skelettreste”, in Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends im Syrischen Euphrattal
1. Ausgrabungen bei Tawi 1975 und 1978, ed. Kampschulte, I.; and Orthmann, W. (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur
Altertumskunde, Band 38). Bonn: Rudolf Habelt: 115-119.
Kunter, M.; and Wahl, J.
1981, “Anthropologische Befunde: Kampagne 1979”, in Halawa 1977-1979: Vorläufiger Bericht über die 1. bis 3.
Grabungskampagne, Orthmann, W. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt: 84-88.
458
Kupper, J. R.
1992, “Karkémish aux IIIe et IIe millénaires avant notre ère”, Akkadica 79-80: 16-23.
Lacambre, D.; and Tunca, Ö.
1999, “Histoire de la vallée de l’Euphrate entre le barrage de Tišrin et Karkemiš aux IIIe et IIe millénaires av. J.-C.”,
in Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates: The Tishrin Dam Area. Proceedings of the International Symposium
Held at Barcelona, January 28th-30th 1998 (Aula Orientalis Supplementa 15), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; and Montero
Fenollós, J.-L. Sabadell-Barcelona: Editorial AUSA: 587-603.
Laneri, N.
2004, I costumi funerari della Media Vallata dell’Eufrate durante el III millennio a.C. Naples: Università degli Studi
di Napoli “L’Orientale”.
Laneri, N.
2007, “Burial practices at Titriş Höyük, Turkey: an interpretation”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 66: 241-266.
Lazzari, A.
1986, “Per una classificazione tipologica degli spilloni dell’Anatolia nell’Età del Bronzo”, in Contributi e Materiali
di Archeologia Orientale 1. Rome: Dipartimento La Sapienza: 67-211.
Le Breton, L.
1957, “The Early Periods at Susa: Mesopotamian Relations”, Iraq 19.2: 79-124.
Lebeau, M.
2003, “Aperçu de la Jezirah Bichrome Ware découverte à Tell Beydar (Chantier C)”, in Tell Beydar. The 1995-1999
Seasons of Excavations: A Preliminary Report (Subartu 10), ed. Lebeau, M.; and Suleiman, A. Turnhout: Brepols:
309-315.
Leenders, R.
1988, “The Stone Finds”, in Hammam et-Turkman (II). Report on the University of Amsterdam’s 1981-84 Excavations
in Syria (Uitgaven van het Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 63), ed. van Loon, M. N.
Legrain, L.
1936, Archaic Seal Impressions. Ur Excavations III. London/Philadelphia: British Museum/The University
Museum.
Liebowitz, H.
1988, Terra-Cotta Figurines and Model Vehicles. The Oriental Institute Excavations at Selenkahiye, Syria (Bibliotheca
Mesopotamica 22). Malibu: Undena Publications.
Limet, H.; and Tunca, O.
1997, “Terqa, rapport préliminaire 1987-1989: Chantiers A et M, stratigraphie et constructions (1989)”, Mari.
Annales de Recherche Interdisciplinaires 8: 104-114.
Littauer, M. A.; and Crouwel, J. H.
1979, Wheeled Vehicles and Ridden Animals in the Ancient Near East (Handbuch der Orientalistik, VII/I, 2, B, 1).
Leiden: Brill.
Lohof, E.
1989, “A lesser known figurine from the Near Eastern Neolithic”, in To the Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeological
Studies in Honour of Maurits van Loon, ed. Haex, O. M. C.; Curvers, H. H.; and Akkermans, P. M. M. G. Rotterdam:
Balkema: 65-74.
Lüth, F.
1981, “Grabungen auf dem Tell B”, in Halawa 1977 bis 1979. Vorläufiger Bericht über die 1. bis 3. Grabungskampagne
(Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 31), ed. Orthmann, W. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt: 39-48.
Lüth, F.
1989, “Tell Halawa B”, in Halawa 1980 bis 1986, Vorläufiger Bericht über die 4-9 Grabungskampagne (Saarbrücker
Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 52), ed. Orthmann, W. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt: 85-109.
Machule, D.; and Wäfler, M.
1978, “Tall Munbāqa 1978”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 110: 73-76.
Machule, D.; Karstens, K.; Klapproth, H.-H.; Mozer, G.; Pape, W.; Werner, P.; Mayer, W.; Mayer-
Opificius, R.; and Mackensen, M.
1986, “Ausgrabungen in Tall Munbaqa 1984”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 118: 67-145.
459
Machule, D.; Benter, M.; Boessneck, J.; von den Driesch, A.; de Feyter, T. C.; Karstens, K.; Klapproth,
H.; Koelling, S.; Kunze, J.; Tezeren, Ö.; and Werner, P.
Machule, D.; Benter, M.; Czichon, R.; Karstens, K.; Klapproth, H.; Mayer, W.; Pape, W.; and Werner, P.
Machule, D.; Czichon, R.; and Werner, P.
Machule, D.; Benter, M.; Czichon, R.; Pape, W.; and Werner, P.
Machule, D.; Benter, M.; Czichon, R.; Gerlach, I.; Hamoto, A.; Klapproth, H.; Pape, W.; and Werner, P.
1991, “Ausgrabungen in Tall Munbāqa/Ekalte 1989”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 123: 71-93.
Machule, D.; Benter, M.; Czichon, R.; Gerlach, I.; and Werner, P.
Machule, D.; Benter, M.; Czichon, R.; Luciani, M.; Miftah, M.; Pape, W.; and Werner, P.
Machule, D.; Czichon, R.; and Werner, P.
1994, “Tall Munbāqa/Ekalte 1993”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 126: 51-64.
Machule, D.; Benter, M.; Czichon, R.; and Werner, P.
1996, “Tall Munbāqa/Ekalte 1993”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 128: 11-32.
Magen, U.
2001, “Der Wettergott als Eselsreiter? Gedanken zur Volksfrömmigkeit am mittleren Euphrat (Gebiet des Assad-
Stausees) am Ende des 3. und zu Beginn des 2. Jts. v.Chr.”, in Beiträge zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Winfried
Orthmann gewidmet, ed. Meyer, J.-W.; Novák, M.; and Pruß, A. Frankfurt: Archäologisches Institut: 246-259.
Mallowan, M.
1937, “The Excavations at Tall Chagar Bazar and an Archaeological Survey of the Habur Region. Second
Campaign”, Iraq 4.2: 91-177.
Mallowan, M.
1947, “Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar”, Iraq 9: 1-259.
Marchesi, G.
2004, “Who Was Buried in the Royal Tombs of Ur? The Epigraphic and Textual Data”, Orientalia 73: 153-197.
Marchetti, N.
1996, “The Ninevite 5 Glyptic of the Khabur Region and the Chronology of the Piedmont Style Motives”,
Baghdader Mitteilungen 27: 81-115.
Marchetti, N.
1998, “The Mature Early Syrian Glyptic from the Khabur Region”, in About Subartu. Studies devoted to Upper
Mesopotamia. Vol. 2 Culture, Society, Image (Subartu 4.2), ed. Lebeau, M. Turnhout: Brepols: 115-153.
Marchetti, N.
2006, La statuaria regale nella Mesopotamia protodinastica (Memorie IX-XXI-1). Roma: Accademia Nazionale dei
Lincei.
Margueron, J.-C. (ed.)
1977, Le Moyen Euphrate. Zone de contact et d’echanges. Actes du Colloque du Strasbourg 10-12 Mars 1977.
Strasbourg: Publications du Centre de Recherche sur le Proche-Orient at la Grèce antiques.
Margueron, J.-C.
1997, “Palais de Mari: Figurines et religion populaire”, Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 8: 731-753.
Margueron, J.-C.
2004, Mari, Métropole de l’Euphrate au IIIe et au début du IIe millénaire av. J.C. Paris: Éditions A et J. Picard.
Marro, C.
2007a, “The Carchemish region in the Early Bronze Age”, in Euphrates River Valley Settlement. The Carchemish
Sector in the Third Millennium B.C. (Levant Supplementary Series 5), ed. E. Peltenburg. Oxford: Oxbow Books:
222-237.
460
Marro, C.
2007b, “Continuity and Change in the Birecik Valley at the end of the Third Millennium BC: The Archaeological
Evidence from Horum Höyük”, in Sociétés Humaines et changement climatique à la fin du troisième millénaire: une
crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute-Mésopotamie ? Actes du Colloque de Lyon, 5-8 décembre 2005 (Varia Anatolica 19,
Institut Français d’études anatoliennes Georges Dumézil), ed. Kuzucuoğlu, C.; and Marro, C. Paris: De Boccard:
383-401.
Marro, C.; and Helwing, B.
1995, “Vers une chronologie des cultures du Haut-Euphrate au troisième millénaire/Untersuchungen zur bemalten
Keramik des 3.Jt. am oberen und mittleren Euphrat”, in Beiträge zur Kulturgeschichte Vorderasiens. Festschrift für
Rainer Boehmer, ed. Finkbeiner, U.; Dittmann, R.; and Hauptmann, H. Mainz: Verlag Philipp Von Zabern:
341-384.
Marro, C.; Tibet, A.; and Bulgan, F.
2000, “Fouilles de sauvetage de Horum Höyük (province de Gaziantep): quatrième rapport préliminaire”, Anatolia
Antiqua VIII: 257-278.
Marro, C.; Tibet, A.; Ergeç, R.
1997, “Fouilles de sauvetage de Horum Höyük (province de Gaziantep). Premier rapport préliminaire”, Anatolia
Antiqua V, 371-391.
1998, “Fouilles de sauvetage de Horum Höyük. Deuxième rapport préliminaire”, Anatolia Antiqua VI: 349-378.
1999, “Fouilles de Sauvetage de Horum Höyük (Province de Gaziantep): Troisième Rapport Préliminaire”, Anatolia
Antiqua VII: 285-307.
Martin, H. P.
1988, Fara. A reconstruction of the ancient Mesopotamian city of Shuruppak. Birmingham: Chris Martin & Assoc.
Martin, H. P.; and Matthews, R. J.
1993, “Seals and sealings”, in The 6G Ash-Tip and its contents: cultic and administrative discard from the temple? (Abu
Salabikh Excavations 4), ed. Green, A. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq: 23-81.
Martin, H. P.
1985, “The metalwork”, in Abu Salabikh Excavations. Volume 2. Graves 1 to 99, ed. Postgate, J. N. British School of
Archaeology in Iraq: 10-17.
Matilla Séiquer, G.
1996, “Tell Jamis: informe preliminary de la tres primeras campaña de excavaciones (1992-1994)”, Aula Orientalis
14: 199-247.
Matilla Séiquer, G.; and Gallardo Carrillo, J.
1997, “Tell Qara Qozak. Un exceptional descubrimiento”, Revista de Arqueología 187: 24-35.
Matney, T.
2000, “Urban Planning and the Archaeology of Society at Early Bronze Age Titriş Höyük”, in Across the Anatolian
Plateau. Readings in the Archaeology of Ancient Turkey (Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research 57),
ed. Hopkins, D. C. Boston: American Schools of Oriental Research: 19-34.
Matney, T.; Algaze, G.; and Pittman, H.
1997, “Excavations at Titriş Höyük in Southeastern Turkey: A Preliminary Report of the 1996 Season”, Anatolica
23: 61-84.
Matney, T.; Algaze, G.; and Rosen, S.
1999, “Early Bronze Age Urban Structure at Titriş Höyük, Southeastern Turkey: The 1998 Season”, Anatolica 25: 185-201.
Matney, T.; and Algaze, G.
1995, “Urban Development at Mid-Late Early Bronze Age Titriş Höyük in Southeastern Anatolia”, Bulletin of the
American Schools of Oriental Research 299/300: 33-52.
Matthews, D.
1996, “Seal impressions on sherds from Hama”, Egitto e Vicino Oriente XIX: 121-155.
Matthews, D.
1997a, The Early Glyptic of Tell Brak. Cylinder Seals of Third Millennium Syria (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 15).
Fribourg/Göttingen: University Press Fribourg Switzerland/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
461
Matthews, D.
1997b, “The Early Dynastic-Akkadian Transition Part I: When did the Akkadian Period begin?”, Iraq 59: 1-7.
Matthews, R. J.
1992, “Defining the style of the period: Jemdet Nasr 1926-1928”, Iraq 54: 1-34.
Matthews, R. J.
2003, “A Chiefdom on the Northern Plains. Early Third-millennium Investigations: the Ninevite period”, in
Excavations at Tell Brak. Vol. 4: Exploring a regional centre in Upper Mesopotamia, 1994-1996 (McDonald Institute
Monographs 4), ed. Matthews, R. J. Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research: 97-191.
Matthiae, P.
1980, “Some Fragments of Early Syrian Sculpture from Royal Palace G of Tell Mardikh-Ebla”, Journal of Near
Eastern Studies 39: 249-273.
Matthiae, P.
1998, Gli Archivi Reali di Ebla. La scoperta, i testi, il significato. Milano: Mondadori Education.
Matthiae, P.
2010, “Early Syrian Palatial Architecture. Some Thoughts about its Unity”, in Kulturlandschaft Syrien, Zentrum und
Peripherie. Festschrift für Jan-Waalke Meyer (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 371), ed. Becker, J.; Hempelmann,
R.; and Rehm, E. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag: 349-358.
Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R.
1946, “Daggers and Swords in Western Asia. A Study from Prehistoric Times to 600 B.C.”, Iraq 8: 1-65.
Maxwell-Hyslop, K. R.
1949, “Western Asiatic Shaft-Hole Axes”, Iraq 11: 90-130.
Mayer, W.
2001, Tall Munbāqa-Ekalte – II. Die Texte (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-
Gesellschaft 102). Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druck und Verlag.
Mazzoni, S.
1980, “Appunti sulla diffusione della ceramica ‘Reserved Slip’ in Mesopotamia e Siria”, Egitto e Vicino Oriente 3:
241-258.
Mazzoni, S.
1984, “Seal Impressions on Jars from Ebla in EB IV A-B”, Akkadica 37: 18-40.
Mazzoni, S.
1985a, “Elements of the ceramic culture of the Early Syrian Ebla in comparison with Syro-Palestinian EB IV”,
Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 257: 1-18.
Mazzoni, S.
1985b, “Frontières céramiques et le haut Euphrate au Bronze Ancien IV”, Mari. Annales de Recherches
Interdisciplinaires 4: 561-577.
Mazzoni, S.
1992, Le impronte su giara eblaite e siriane nel Bronzo Antico (Materiali e Studi Archeologici di Ebla I). Roma:
Università degli Studi di Roma «La Sapienza».
Mazzoni, S.
1993, “Cylinder Seal Impressions on Jars at Ebla: New Evidence”, in Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and
Its Neighbors. Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç, ed. Mellink, M. J.; Porada, E.; and Özgüç, T. Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu: 399-414.
Mazzoni, S.
1994, “Review article of W. Orthmann and E. Rova, Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal
2. Ausgrabungen in Wreide and J.-W. Meyer, Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal 3.
Ausgrabungen in Šamseddin und Djerniye”, Orientalische Literaturzeitung 89: 387-396.
Mazzoni, S.
1998, “The Syro-Anatolian Common Glyptic Styles: Some Remarks”, in XXXIVe Rencontre Assyriologique
Internationale, 6-10/VII/1987, Istanbul (Türk Tarih Kurumu Yayınları 26/3), ed. Erkanal, H.; Donbaz, V.; and
Uguroglu, A. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu: 513-522.
462
Mazzoni, S.
2006a, “Syria and the Emergence of Cultural Complexity”, in Ina kibrāt erbetti. Studi di Archeologia orientale
dedicati a Paolo Matthiae, ed. Baffi, F.; Dolce, R.; Mazzoni, S.; and Pinnock, F. Roma: Università degli Studi di
Roma «La Sapienza»: 321-347.
Mazzoni, S.
2006b, “Tell Suffane, an Early and Middle Bronze Age Site in the Idlib Plain”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 37: 381-392.
Mazzoni, S.
2010, “Syro-Hittite Temples and the traditional in antis Plan”, in Kulturlandschaft Syrien, Zentrum und Peripherie.
Festschrift für Jan-Waalke Meyer (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 371), ed. Becker, J.; Hempelmann, R.; and
Rehm, E. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag: 359-376.
McCarthy, A.
2000, “Glyptic Finds”, in Jerablus Tahtani, Syria, 1998-1999: Preliminary Report”, Levant 32: 66-67.
McCarthy, A.
2007, “Is there a Carchemish regional glyptic style? Reflections on sealing practices in the northern Euphrates region”,
in Euphrates River Valley settlement. The Carchemish sector in the third millennium BC (Levant Supplementary
McCarthy, A.
2011, “Glyptic”, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean:
Jezirah (ARCANE I), ed. Lebeau, M. Turnhout: Brepols: 287-300.
McClellan, T. L.
1999, “Urbanism on the Upper Syrian Euphrates”, in Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates. The Tishrin Dam Area,
Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Barcelona, January 28th-30th 1998 (Aula Orientalis Supplementa
15), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; and Montero Fenollós, J.-L. Sabadell-Barcelona: Editorial AUSA: 413-425.
McClellan, T. L.
1998, “Tell Banat North: The White Monument”, in About Subartu. Studies devoted to Upper Mesopotamia. Vol. 2
Culture, Society, Image (Subartu 4.2), ed. Lebeau, M. Turnhout: Brepols: 243-271.
McClellan, Th.; and Porter, A.
1999, “Survey of Excavations at Tell Banat Funerary Practices”, in Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates. The
Tishrin Dam Area, Proceedings of the international Symposium Held at Barcelona, January 28th-30th 1998 (Aula
Orientalis Supplementa 15), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; and Montero Fenollós, J.-L. Sabadell-Barcelona: Editorial
AUSA: 107-116.
McDonald, H.
2001, “Third-millennium Beads and Pendants”, in Excavations at Tell Brak. Vol. 2: Nagar in the third millennium
BC (McDonald Institute Monographs 2), ed. Oates, D.; Oates, J.; and McDonald, H. Cambridge: McDonald
Institute for Archaeological Research: 225-232.
McDonald, M. M. A.
1986 “The Chipped Stone sequence”, in The Chicago Euphrates Archeological Project 1980-1984: an interim Report,
Anatolica 13: 60-66.
Mebert, J.
2010, Die Venustafeln des Ammī-ṣaduqa und ihre Bedeutung für die astronomische Datierung der altbabylonischen
Zeit, (Archiv für Orientforschung Beiheft 31). Wien.
Meijer, D. J. W.
1988, “Architecture and Stratigraphy”, in Hammam et-Turkman I. Report on the University of Amsterdam’s 1981-84
Excavations in Syria (Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 63), ed. van Loon, M. N. Leiden:
Meijer, D. J. W.
2001, “Architecture and Stratigraphy”, in Selenkahiye. Final Report on the University of Chicago and University of
Amsterdam Excavations in the Tabqa Reservoir, Northern Syria, 1967-1975 (Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch
Instituut te Istanbul 91), ed. van Loon, M. N. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten: 3.25-3.125.
Meijer, D. J. W.
2006, “A Late Akkadian Cylinder seal from Tell Hammam al-Turkman”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 37: 335-341.
463
Mellink, M. J.
1965, “Anatolian Chronology”, in Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, ed. Ehrich, R. W. Chicago: University
of Chicago Press: 101-131.
Mellink, M. J.
1985, “Archaeology in Anatolia”, American Journal of Archaeology 89-4: 547-567.
Mellink, M. J.
1989, “Anatolia and the Foreign Relations of Tarsus in the Early Bronze Age”, in Anatolia and the Ancient Near
East. Studies in Honor of Tahsin Özgüç, ed. Emre, K.; Hrouda, B.; Mellink, M.; and Özgüç, N. Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu: 319-331.
Mestres-Terres, J.
1994, “Datación por Radiocarbon de Muestras de Tell Qara Quzáq”, in Tell Qara-Quzaq-I. Campanas I-III
(1989-1991) (Aula Orientalis Supplementa 4), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G. Sabadell-Barcelona: Editorial AUSA:
147-150.
Mestres-Terres, J.
2001, “Datación por radiocarbon de una muestra de Tell Qara Qūzāq”, in Tell Qara Quzaq II. Campanas IV-VI
(1992-1994) (Aula Orientalis Supplementa 17), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; Montero Fenollós, J.-L.; and Valdés
Meyer, J.-W.
1981, “Grabungen im Planquadrat Q”, in Halawa 1977 bis 1979, Vorläufiger Bericht über die 1. bis 3.
Grabungskampagne (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde 31), ed. Orthmann, W. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt:
10-35.
Meyer, J.-W.
1989, “Die Grabungen in Planquadrat Q”, in Halawa 1980-1986. Vorläufiger Bericht über die 4. bis 9. Grabungskampagne
(Saarbrücker Beiträge zur Altertumskunde Band 52), ed. Orthmann, W. Bonn: Rudolf Habelt: 19-56.
Meyer, J.-W.
1991, Gräber des 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal 3. Ausgrabungen in Šamseddin und Djerniye
(Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 3). Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.
Meyer, J.-W.
1994, “Sonstige Tonobjekte”, in Ausgrabungen in Halawa 2. Die Kleinfunde von Tell Halawa A (Schriften zur
vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6), ed. Meyer, J.-W.; and Pruß, A. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag:
193-204.
Meyer, J.-W.
1996, “Offene und geschlossene Siedlungen – Ein Beitrag zur Siedlungsgeschichte und historischen Topographie
in Nordsyrien während des 3. und 2. Jts. v. Chr.”, Altorientalische Forschungen 23/1, 132-170.
Meyer, J.-W.
1997, “Djebelet el-Beda: Eine Stätte der Ahnenverehrung?” Altorientalische Forschungen 24.2: 294-309.
Meyer, J.-W.
2010, Tell Chuera: Vorberichte zu den Grabungskampagnen 1998 bis 2005. Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max
Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 2,II. Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz.
Meyer, J.-W.
2011, “City Planning”, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean,
Jezirah (ARCANE I). ed. Lebeau, M. Turnhout: Brepols: 129-136.
Meyer, J.-W.; and Orthmann, W.
1983, “Halawa 1980-1982”, Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 33.1: 93-110.
Meyer, J.-W.; and Pruß, A. (ed.)
1994, Die Kleinfunde von Halawa A. Ausgrabungen in Halawa 2 (Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6).
Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druck und Verlag.
Miglus, P. A.
2005, “Die ankerlose Ankeraxt. Verbreitung und Datierung einer altorientalischen Bronzewaffe”, in Aux pays
d’Allat. Mélanges offert à Michał Gawlikowski, ed. Bielinski, P.; and Stepniowski, F. M. Varsovie: 161-187.
Miglus, P. A.; and Strommenger, E.
2002, Tall Bi’a/Tuttul-VIII. Stadtbefestigungen, Häuser und Tempel (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der
Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 103). Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.
464
Miglus, P. A.; and Strommenger, E.

2007, Tall Bi’a/Tuttul VII. Der Palast A (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
114). Wiesbaden: Harrasowitz Verlag.
Milano, L.; and Rova, E.
2000, “Ceramic Provinces and Political Borders in Upper Mesopotamia in the Late Early Dynastic Period”, in
Studi sul Vicino Oriente antico dedicati alla memoria di Luigi Cagni, ed. Graziani, S. Napoli: Istituto Universitario
Orientale: 709-749.
Miller, R.
1985, Flintknapping and Arrowhead Manufacture at Tell Hadidi, Syria (Contributions in Anthropology and
History 4). Milwaukee: Milwaukee Public Museum.
Miller, R.
1986, “Elephants, Ivory, and Charcoal: An Ecological Perspective”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 264: 29-43.
Miroschedji, P. de
2000, “La céramique de Khirber Kerak en Syro-Palstine: etat de la question”, in Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et
de l’Euphrate aux IV-IIIe Millénaires/From the Euphrates to the Caucasus: Chronologies for the 4th-3rd Millennium
Montero Fenollós, J. L.
1995, “Estudio provisional del ajuar metálico del conjunto funerario de los loci 12 E y 12 W.Tell Qara Quzaq
(Siria). Campaña 1992”, Aula Orientalis 13/1: 25-30.
1998, La Metalurgia en el Proximo Oriente Antiguo (III y II milenios a.C). Aula Orientalis Supplementa 16.
Sabadell-Barcelona: Editorial AUSA.
1999, “Metallurgy in the Valley of the Syrian Upper Euphrates during the Early and Middle Bronze Ages”, in
Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates. The Tishrin Dam Area, ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; and Montero Fenollós,
J.-L. Sabadell-Barcelona: Editorial AUSA: 443-469.
2001a, “Metalistería de la Edad del Bronce en Tell Qara Quzaq. Estudio tipológico y tecnológico”, in Tell Qara
Quzaq-II, Campañas IV-V (1992-1994) (Aula Orientalis Supplementa 17), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; Montero
Fenollós, J.-L.; and Valdés Pereiro, C. Sabadell-Barcelona: Editorial AUSA: 255-304.
2001b, “Des métaux pour l’Au-delà dans les nécropoles de la Syrie ancienne: le cas de Tell ‘Amarna”, Aula Orientalis
19/1: 23-46.
Montero Fenollós, J. L.; and Molina Martos, M.
1994, “La Metalurgía del cobre y del bronce (TQQ-I)”, in Tell Qara Quzaq-I. Campañas I-III (1989-1991) (Aula
Orientalis Supplementa 4), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G. Sabadell-Barcelona: Editorial AUSA: 189-194.
Moorey, P. R. S.
2002, “Third-Millennium ‘Cycladic’ Stone Figurines in Northern Mesopotamia?”, in Of Pots and Plans. Papers on
the Archaeology and History of Mesopotamia and Syria presented to David Oates in Honour of his 75th Birthday, ed.
Al-Gailani Werr, L.; Curtis, J.; Martin, H; McMahon, A.; Oates, J.; and Reade, J. London: Nabu Publications: 227-235.
Moortgat, A.
1940, Vorderasiatische Rollsiegel. Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Steinschneidekunst. Berlin: Gebr. Mann.
Moortgat, A.
1982, Die Kunst des Alten Mesopotamiens. Sumer und Akkad. Köln: DuMont.
Moortgat, A.; and Moortgat-Correns, U.
1976, Tell Chuēra in Nordost-Syrien. Vorläufiger Bericht über die siebente Grabungskampagne 1974 (Schriftenreihe
der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim Stiftung H. 9). Berlin: Gebr. Mann.
Moortgat-Correns, U.
1968, “Die ehemalige Rollsiegel-Sammlung Erwin Oppenländer”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 4: 233-289.
1970, “Rollsiegel und Stempel aus Kommagene”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 60: 143-156.
465
1988, Tell Chuēra in Nordost-Syrien. Vorläufiger Berichte über die neunte und zehnte Grabungskampagne 1982 und
1983 (Schriftenreihe der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim Stiftung H. 13/14). Berlin: Gebr. Mann.
Mora, C.
2002, “I sigilli e le impronte di sigillo nel contesto generale della glittica della regione di Terqa”, in Progetto «Terqa
e la sua regione (Siria)»: rapporto preliminare 2001, ed. Roualt, O.; and Mora, C., Athenaeum, Studi di Letteratura
e Storia dell’Antichità 90/2: 589-591.
Morandi Bonacossi, D.
2005, “The Late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age I sequences of Area D”, in Tell Shiukh Fawqani 1994-1998
(History of the Ancient Near East/Monographs – VI/1), ed. Bachelot, L.; and Fales, F. M. Padova: S.A.R.G.O.N.
Editrice: 21-248.
Morrison, M. A.
1984, “A New Anchor Axehead”, Oriens Antiquus 23: 45-48.
Mount-Williams, L.
1980, “Terqa Preliminary Reports, Nº 8: Object Typology of the Third season: The third and second millennia”,
Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 3/2: 1-63.
Müller-Karpe, A.
1994, Altanatolisches Metallhandwerk. Wachholtz Verlag, Neumünster.
Murray, H. K.; Murray, J. C.; and Fraser, S. M.
2009, A Tale of the Unknown Unknowns: A Mesolithic Pit Alignment and a Neolithic Timber Hall at Warren Field,
Crathes, Aberdeenshire. Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Nagel, W.; and Strommenger, E.
1968, “Reichsakkadische Glyptik und Plastik im Rahmen der mesopotamisch-elamischen Geschichte”, Berliner
Jahrbuch für Vor- und Frühgeschichte 8: 137-206.
Neufang, B.; and Pruß, A.
1994, “Wagenmodelle”, in Ausgrabungen in Halawa 2. Die Kleinfunde von Tell Halawa A (Schriften zur vorderasiatischen
Archäologie 6), ed. Meyer, J.-W.; and Pruß, A. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag: 156-180.
Nissen, H. J.
1983, Grundzüge einer Geschichte der Frühzeit des Vorderen Orients. Darmstadt: Wissenschaftliche Buchgesellschaft.
Novák, M.
1994, “Metall. Gewandnadeln”, in Ausgrabungen in Halawa 2. Die Kleinfunde von Tell Halawa A (Schriften zur
vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6), ed. Meyer, J.-W.; and Pruß, A. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag: 237-243.
Novák, M.
1999, Herrschaftsform und Stadtbaukunst. Programmatik im mesopotamischen Residenzstadtbau von Agade bis
Surra man ra’? (Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 7). Saarbrücken/Wiesbaden: Saarbrücker Druckerei
und Verlag/Harrasowitz.
Novák, M.
2001, “Hofhaus und Antentempel. Überlegungen zur Entwicklung des assyrischen Tempelbaus”, in Beiträge zur
Vorderasiatischen Archäologie, Winfried Orthmann gewidmet, ed. Meyer, J.-W.; Novák, M.; and Pruß, A. Frankfurt:
Johann Wolfgang von Goethe Universität: 368-387.
Oates, D.; Oates, J.; and MacDonald, H. (eds)
2001, Excavations at Tell Brak, 2. Nagar in the 3rd Millennium BC (McDonald Institute Monographs 2).
Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research.
Oates, J.
2001a, “Evidence of the sealings”, in Excavations at Tell Brak. Vol. 2: Nagar in the third millennium BC (McDonald
Institute Monographs 2), ed. Oates, D.; Oates, J.; and McDonald, H. Cambridge/London: McDonald Institute for
Archaeological Research/British School of Archaeology in Iraq: 121-140.
Oates, J.
2001b, “Equid Figurines and ‘Chariot’ Models”, in Excavations at Tell Brak, Vol. 2: Nagar in the third millennium
BC (McDonald Institute Monographs 2), ed. Oates, D.; Oates, J.; and McDonald, H. Cambridge/London:
McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research/British School of Archaeology in Iraq: 279-293.
466
Ökse, A. T.
1999, “Gre Virike: Research in 1998”, in Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish
Dam Resorvoirs Activities in 1998, ed. Tuna, N.; and Öztürk, J. Ankara: Middle Eastern Technical University and
METU Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment (TAÇDAM): 142-155.
Ökse, A. T.
2001, “Excavations at Gre Virike 1999”, in Ilisu ve Karkamiş Baraj Gőlleri Altinda Kalacak Arkeolojik
Kültür Varliklarini Kurtarma Projesi: 1999 Yili Çalişmari/Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the
Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs: Activities in 1999. Ankara: Middle Eastern Technical University and
METU Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment (TAÇDAM): 263-291 (turk.),
292-307 (engl.).
Ökse, A. T.
2002, “Excavations at Gre Virike 2000”, in Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish
Dam Resorvoirs Activities in 2000, ed. Tuna, N.; and Velibeyoğlu, J. Ankara: Middle Eastern Technical University
and METU Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment (TAÇDAM): 241-269 (turk.),
270-285 (engl.).
Ökse, A. T.
2004, “2001 Excavations at Gre Virike”, in Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish
Dam Resorvoirs Activities in 2001, ed. Tuna, N.; Greenhalgh, J.; and Velibeyoğlu, J. Ankara: Middle Eastern
Technical University and METU Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment (TAÇDAM):
179-210 (turk.), 211-226 (engl.).
Ökse, A. T.
2005a, “Gre Virike: 5000 Yıllık Bir Kutsal Alan”, Arkeoloji ve Sanat 119: 11-24.
Ökse, A. T.
2005b, “Early Bronze Age Chamber Tomb Complexes at Gre Virike (Period IIA) on the Middle Euphrates”,
Ökse, A. T.
2006a, “Gre Virike (Period I): Early Bronze Age Ritual Facilities on the Middle Euphrates”, Anatolica 32: 1-27.
Ökse, A. T.
2006b, “Early Bronze Age Graves at Gre Virike (Period IIB). An Extraordinary Cemetery on the Middle Euphrates
River”, Journal of Near Eastern Studies 65/1: 1-38.
Ökse, A. T.
2006c, “Gre Virike’de Bulunan Silindir Mühür ve Kaplar Üzerindeki Silindir Mühür Baskıları”, in Studies in Honor
of Hayat Erkanal: Cultural Reflections, ed. Erkanal Öktü, A.; Özgen, E.; Günel, S; Ökse, A. T.; Hüryılmaz, H.;
Tekin, H.; Çınardalı Karaaslan, N.; Uysal, B.; Karaduman, F. A.; Engin, A.; Spiess, R.; Aykurt, A.; Tuncel, R.;
Deniz, U.; and Rennie, A. Istanbul: Homer Kitabevi: 554-559.
Olávarri Goicoechea, E.; and Valdés Pereiro, C.
2001, “Excavaciones en Tell Qara Qūzāq. Campañas IV-VI (1992-1994)”, in Tell Qara Qūzāq-II. Campañas I-III
(1992-1994) (Aula Orientalis Supplementa 17), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; Montero Fenollós, J.-L.; and Valdés
Orthmann, W.
1963, Die Keramik der Frühen Bronzezeit aus Inneranatolien (Istanbuler Forschungen 24). Berlin: Gebr. Mann.
Orthmann, W.
1971, “Grab (II. Syrien und Palästina)”, in Reallexikon der Assyriologie 3: 593-605.
Orthmann, W. (ed.)
1975, Der Alte Orient (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte Band 14). Berlin: Propyläen Verlag.
Orthmann, W.
1976, “Mumbaqat 1974. Vorläufiger Bericht über die von der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft mit Mitteln der
Stiftung Volkswagenwerk unternommenen Ausgrabungen”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu
Berlin 108: 25-44.
Orthmann, W.
1978/1979, “Tall Halāwa”, in “Ausgrabungstätigkeit in Syrien”, ed. Kühne, H., Archiv für Orientforschung 26: 157-159.
467
Orthmann, W.
1980, “Burial Customs of the 3rd Millennium B.C. in the Euphrates Valley”, in Le Moyen-Euphrate, zone de contacts
et d’échanges. Actes du Colloque de Strasbourg, 10-12 mars 1977, ed. Margueron, J.-C. Strasbourg: Université des
Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg: 97-105.
Orthmann, W. (ed.)
1981, Halawa 1977 bis 1979. Vorläufiger Bericht über die 1. bis 3. Grabungskampagne (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur
Altertumskunde 31). Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
Orthmann, W.
1985a, Der Alte Orient (Propyläen Kunstgeschichte 18). Berlin: Propyläen.
Orthmann, W.
1985b, “Art of the Akkade Period in Northern Syria and Mari”, Mari. Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 4:
469-474.
Orthmann, W.
1986, “The Origin of Tell Chuera”, in The Origins of Cities in Dry-farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the Third
Millennium B.C., ed. Weiss, H. Guildford: Four Quarters Publishing: 61-70.
Orthmann, W. (ed.)
1989, Halawa 1980 bis 1986, Vorläufiger Bericht über die 4.-9. Grabungskampagne (Saarbrücker Beiträge zur
Altertumskunde 52). Bonn: Rudolf Habelt.
Orthmann, W.
1990, Tell Chuera. Ausgrabungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung in Nordost-Syrien. Damaskus-Tartous: Amani.
Orthmann, W.
1991a, “Die Steinfiguren”, in Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal 2. Ausgrabungen in Wreide
(Schriften zur vorderasiatischen Archäologie 2), ed. Orthmann, W.; and Rova, E. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker
Orthmann, W.
1991b, “Die untersuchten Gräber”, in Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal 2. Ausgrabungen in
Wreide (Schriften zur vorderasiatischen Archäologie 2), ed. Orthmann, W.; and Rova, E. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker
Orthmann, W.
1994, “Reliefbruchstücke”, in Ausgrabungen in Halawa 2. Die Kleinfunde von Tell Halawa A (Schriften zur
vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6), ed. Meyer, J.-W.; and Pruß, A. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag:
230-235.
Orthmann, W.
1995a, “Die Grabungen am Steinbau I”, in Ausgrabungen in Tell Chuera in Nordost-Syrien I. Vorbericht über die
Grabungskampagnen 1986 bis 1992 (Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 2),
ed. Orthmann, W. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag: 17-72.
Orthmann, W. (ed.)
1995b, Ausgrabungen in Tell Chuēra in Nordost-Syrien, I. Vorbericht über die Grabungskampagnen 1986 bis 1992
(Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 2). Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei
und Verlag.
Orthmann, W.; and Kühne, H.
1974, “Mumbaqat 1973. Vorläufiger Bericht über die von der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft mit Mitteln der Stiftung
Volkswagenwerk unternommenen Ausgrabungen”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 106: 53-97.
Orthmann, W.; and Pruß, A.
1995, “Der Palast F”, in Ausgrabungen in Tell Chuera in Nordost-Syrien I. Vorbericht über die Grabungskampagnen
1986 bis 1992 (Vorderasiatische Forschungen der Max Freiherr von Oppenheim-Stiftung 2), ed. Orthmann, W.
Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag: 121-172.
Orthmann W.; and Rova, E.
1991, Gräber des 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal 2. Ausgrabungen in Wreide (Schriften zur
Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 2). Saarbrücken, Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.
Orthmann, W.; Klein, H.; and Lüth, F.
1986, Tell Chuēra in Nordost-Syrien 1982-1983. Vorläufiger Bericht über die 9. und 10. Grabungskampagne. Berlin:
Gebr. Mann.
468
Orthmann, W.; Matthiae, P.; and al-Maqdissi, M. (ed.)

2013, Archéologie et Histoire de la Syrie I: La Syrie de l’époque néolithique à l’âge du fer (Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen
Archäologie 1.1). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Otte, M.; and Behm-Blancke, M. R.
1992, “Das lithische Inventar. Rekonstruktion technischer Verfahrensweisen”, in Hassek Höyük.
Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und lithische Industrie (Istanbuler Forschungen 38), ed. Behm-Blancke, M.
R. Tübingen: Wasmuth: 165-176.
Otto, A.
2004, Tall Bi’a – Tuttul IV. Siegel und Siegelabrollungen (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung der Deutschen
Otto, A.
2006a, “Archaeological Perspectives on the Localization of Naram Sin’s Armanum”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies
58: 1-26.
Otto, A.
2006b, “Das Oberhaupt des westsemitischen Pantheons ohne Abbild? Überlegungen zur Darstellung des Gottes
Dagan”, Zeitschrift für Assyrologie und vorderasiatische Archäologie 96/2: 242-268.
Otto, A.; and Biga, M. G.
2010, “Thoughts about the Identification of Tall Bazi with Armi of the Ebla Texts”, in Proceedings of the 6th
International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East 5 May-10 May 2008 (“Sapienza”, Università
di Roma. Vol. 1), ed. Matthiae, P.; Pinnock, F.; Nigro, L.; and Marchetti, N. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz:
481-494.
Owen, D.
1992, “Syrians in Sumerian Sources from the Ur III Period”, in New Horizons in the Study of Ancient Syria
(Bibliotheca Mesopotamica 25), ed. Chavalas, M. W.; and Hayes, J. L. Malibu: Undena: 108-182.
Owen, D.
1995, “Amorites and the Location of BÀDki”, in Immigration and Emigration within the Ancient Near East.
Festschrift E. Lipiński (Orientalia Lovaniensia Analecta 65), ed. Van Lerberghe, K.; and Schoors, A. Leuven:
Peeters: 213-219.
Özgen, E.
1989/1990, “Oylum Höyük. A Brief Account of Investigations Conducted in 1987 and 1989”, Anatolica 16: 21-29.
Özgen, E.
1993, “An Early Bronze Age Burial at Oylum Höyük Near Kilis”, in Aspects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and
Its Neighbors. Studies in Honor of Nimet Özgüç, ed. Mellink, M.; Porada, E.; and Özgüç, T. Ankara: Türk Tarih
Kurumu: 467-472.
Özgen, E.; and Helwing, B.
2001, “Ausgrabungen auf dem Oylum Höyük, 1997-2000: Zweiter vorläufiger Bericht”, Istanbuler Mitteilungen
51: 61-136.
Özgen, E.; and Helwing, B.
2003, “On the Shifting Border between Mesopotamia and the West: 7 Seasons of Joint Turkish-German Excavations
at Oylum Höyük”, Anatolica 29: 61-85.
Özgen, E.; Helwing, B.; and Tekin, H.
1997, “Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen auf dem Oylum Höyük”, Istanbuler Mitteilungen 47: 39-90.
Özgüç, N.
1987, “Samsat Mühürleri”, Belleten 51: 429-439.
Özgüç, N.
1988, “Samsat Kazıları 1987”, Belleten 52/202: 291-294.
Özgüç, N.
2009, Samsat. Sümeysat, Samosata, Kumaha, Hahha, Hahhum. Bir Başkent ve Kalenin Uzun Yasaminin 6000 Yilik
Döneminden Kesitler. Ankara: Türk Tarih Kurumu.
Pagan, J. M.
1998, A Morphological and Lexical Study of Personal Names in the Ebla Texts (Archivi Reali di Ebla, Studi 3).
Rome: Missione Archeologica Italiana in Siria.
469
Palmieri, A.
1967, “Insediamento del Bronzo Antico a Gelinciktepe (Malatya)”, Origini I: 117-193.
Palmieri, A.
1969, “Recenti dati sulla stratigrafia di Arslantepe”, Origini III: 7-66.
Palumbi, G.
2007/2008, “From collective burials to symbols of power. The translation of role and meanings of the stone-lined
cist burial tradition from southern Caucasus to the Euphrates valley”, in Sepolti tra i vivi. Buried among the Living.
Evidenza ed interpretazione di contesti funerari in abitato. Atti del Convegno Internazionale. Roma, 26-29 Aprile
2006 (Scienze dell’Antichità. Storia Archeologia Antropologia 14/1), ed. Bartoloni, G.; and Benedettini, G. M.
Rome: Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”: 141-167.
Palumbi, G.
2008, The Red and Black. Social and Cultural Interaction between the Upper Euphrates and Southern Caucasus
Communities in the Fourth and Third Millennium BC. Rome: La Sapienza.
Parayre, D.
2003, “The Ninevite 5 Sequence of Glyptic at Tell Leilan”, in The Origins of North Mesopotamian
Civilization: Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society (Subartu 9), ed. Rova, E.; and Weiss, H. Turnhout: Brepols:
271-310.
Parrot, A.
1954, “Les fouilles de Mari, neuvième campagne (automn 1953)”, Syria 31: 151-171.
Parrot, A.
1956, Le Temple d’Ishtar (Mission Archéologique de Mari I, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique LXV).
Paris: Geuthner.
Parrot, A.
1967, Les Temples d’Ishtarat et de Ninni-Zaza (Mission Archéologique de Mari III, Bibliothèque Archéologique et
Historique LXXXVI). Paris: Geuthner.
Parsche, F.; and Ziegelmayer, G.
1992, “Die menschlichen Skelette aus dem Siedlungshügel Hassek Höyük”, in Hassek Höyük. Naturwissenschaftliche
Untersuchungen und lithische Industrie (Istanbuler Forschungen 38), ed. Behm-Blancke, M. Tübingen: Ernst
Wasmuth Verlag: 75-85.
Pearce, J.
2000, “The Late Chalcolithic sequence at Hacinebi Tepe”, in Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate
aux IV-IIIe Millénaires/From the Euphrates to the Caucasus: Chronologies for the 4th-3rd Millennium B.C. (IFEA,
Varia Anatolica 11), ed. Marro, C.; and Hauptman, H. Paris: Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes d’Istanbul:
115-143.
Pelegrin, J.; and Otte, M.
1992, “Einige Bemerkungen zur Präparations- und Ausbeuttechnik der Kernsteine aus Raum 29”, in Hassek Höyük.
Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und lithische Industrie (Istanbuler Forschungen 38), ed. Behm-Blancke, M. R.
Tübingen: Wasmuth: 219-224.
Peltenburg, E.
1995, “Rescue Excavations at Jerablus-Tahtani, Syria, 1995”, Orient Express 1995/3: 70-72.
Peltenburg, E.
1996, “Rescue Excavations at Jerablus-Tahtani, Syria, 1996”, Orient Express 1996/3: 70-72.
Peltenburg, E.
1997, “From Jerablus to Susa. Notes on cylinder seal impressions with quadruple spirals”, in De Chypre à la
Bactriane, les sceaux du Proche-Orient ancien, ed. Caubet, A. Paris: Musée du Louvre: 133-150.
Peltenburg, E.
1999a, “Jerablus Tahtani 1992-96: a Summary”, in Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates. The Tishrin Dam
Area (Aula Orientalis- Supplementa 15), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; and Montero Fenollós, J. L. Sabadell-Barcelona:
Peltenburg, E.
1999b, “The Living and the Ancestors: Early Bronze Age Mortuary Practices at Jerablus Tahtani”, in Archaeology of
the Upper Syrian Euphrates. The Tishrin Dam Area (Aula Orientalis- Supplementa 15), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; and
Montero Fenollós, J. L. Sabadell-Barcelona: Editorial AUSA: 427-442.
470
Peltenburg, E.
2007/2008, “Enclosing the ancestors and the growth of socio-political complexity in Early Bronze Age Syria”,
in Sepolti tra i vivi. Buried among the Living. Evidenza ed interpretazione di contesti funerari in abitato. Atti del
Convegno Internazionale. Roma, 26-29 Aprile 2006 (Scienze dell’Antichità. Storia Archeologia Antropologia
14/1), ed. Bartoloni, G.; and Benedettini, G. M. Rome: Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”: 215-247.
Peltenburg, E.
2007a, “Diverse settlement pattern changes in the Middle Euphrates Valley in the Later Third Millennium B.C: The
Contribution of Jerablus Tahtani”, in Sociétés humaines et changement climatique à la fin du troisième millénaire: une
crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute-Mésopotamie ? Actes du Colloque de Lyon, 5-8 décembre 2005 (Varia Anatolica 19, Institut
Français d’études anatoliennes Georges Dumézil), ed. Kuzucuoğlu, C.; and Marro, C. Paris: De Boccard: 247-266.
Peltenburg, E.
2007b, “New perspectives on the Carchemish sector of the Middle Euphrates River valley in the 3rd millennium BC”,
in Euphrates River Valley Settlement. The Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium B.C. (Levant Supplementary
Peltenburg, E.; Campbell, S.; Croft, P.; Lunt, M.; Murray, A.; and Watt, M. E.
1995, “Jerablus-Tahtani, Syria, 1992-4: Preliminary Report”, Levant 27: 1-28.
Peltenburg, E.; Bolger, D.; Campbell, S.; Murray, M. A.; and Tipping, R.
1996, “Jerablus Tahtani, Syria, 1995: Preliminary Report”, Levant 28: 1-25.
Peltenburg, E.; Campbell, S.; Carter, S.; Stephen, F. M. K.; and Tipping, R.
1997, “Jerablus-Tahtani, Syria, 1996: Preliminary Report”, Levant 29: 1-18.
Peltenburg, E.; Eastaugh, E.; Hewson, M.;Jackson, A.; McCarthy, A.; and Rymer, T.
2000, “Jerablus-Tahtani, Syria, 1998-9: Preliminary Report”, Levant 32: 53-75.
Petrie, W. F.
1901, The Royal Tombs of the Earliest Dynasties. Part II (Egypt Exploration Fund, Mémoire 21). London: Egypt
Exploration Fund.
Pettinato, G.
1976, “Carchemiš – Kār-Kamiš. Le prime attestazioni del III millennio”, Oriens Antiquus 15: 11-15.
Petty, A.
2006, Bronze Age Anthropomorphic Figurines from Umm el-Marra, Syria: Chronology, Visual Analysis and Function
(BAR International Series 1575). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Peyronel, L.
2008, “Making images of humans and animals. The clay figurines from the Royal Palace G at Tell Mardikh-Ebla,
Syria (EB IVA, c. 2400-2300 BC)”, in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on the Archaeology of the
Ancient Near East, Madrid, April 3-8 2006, Volume II, ed. Cordoba, J. M.; Molist, M.; Perez, M. C.; Rubio, I.; and
Martinez, S. Madrid: UAM Ediciones: 787-805.
Pfälzner, P.
2011, “Architecture”, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean
I: Jezirah (ARCANE I), ed. Lebeau, M. Turnhout: Brepols: 137-200.
Pfälzner, P.; and Vila, E.
2009, “Ein Elefant im Königspalast von Qatna”, Alter Orient aktuell 9/10: 26-29.
Philip, G.
1989, Metal Weapons of the Early and Middle Bronze Ages in Syria-Palestine (British Archaeological Report
International Series 526). Oxford: British Archaeological Reports.
Philip, G.
2000, “Khirbet Kerak Ware in the Levant: the implications of radiocarbon chronology and spatial distribution”,
in Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IV-IIIe Millénaires/From the Euphrates to the Caucasus:
Chronologies for the 4th-3rd Millennium B.C. (IFEA, Varia Anatolica 11), ed. Marro, C.; and Hauptman, H. Paris:
Institut Français d’Études Anatoliennes d’Istanbul: 279-296.
Philip, G.
2007, “The metalwork of the Carchemish region and the development of grave repertoires during the third
millennium B.C.”, in Euphrates River Valley Settlement. The Carchemish sector in the Third Millennium BC (Levant
Supplementary Series 5), ed. Peltenburg, E. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 187-197.
471
Pic, M.
1997a, “Quelques objets (1988-1989)”, Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 8: 144-148.
Pic, M.
1997b, “Le matériel de Tell Ashara-Terqa au Musée du Louvre”, Mari, Annales de Recherches Interdisciplinaires 8:
159-178.
Pinnock, F.
1997, “Tipologia di un pugnale rituale del III millennio a.C.”, Contributi e Materiali di Archeologia Orientale VII: 463-493.
Pinnock, F.
2008, “The Stele from Halawa: A Reappraisal”, in Fundstellen. Gesammelte Schriften zur Archäologie und Geschichte
Altvorderasien ad honorem Hartmut Kühne, ed. Bonatz, D.; Czichon, R. M.; and Kreppner, F. J. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz.
Pittman, H.
1994, The Glazed Steatite Glyptic Style. The Structure and Function of an Image System in the administration of
Protoliterate Mesopotamia (Berliner Beiträge zum Vorderen Orient 16). Berlin: Dietrich Reimer Verlag.
Pittman, H.
2007, “The Glyptic Art from Arslantepe Period VI A: A Reconsideration of Intraregional Relations as seen
through style and iconography”, in Arslantepe Cretulae. An Early Centralised Administrative System Before Writing
(Arslantepe V), ed. Frangipane, M. Roma: Università di Roma «La Sapienza»: 284-338.
Poli, P.
2002, “Gli oggetti, la ceramica del cantiere F di Terqa e del cantiere E di Tell Masaikh”, in Progetto «Terqa e la sua
regione (Siria)»: rapporto preliminare 2001, ed. Roualt, O.; and Mora, C., Athenaeum, Studi di Letteratura e Storia
dell’Antichità 90/2: 564-599.
Poli, P.
2004, “I materiali provenienti dai cantieri F di Terqa e F di Tell Masaikh”, in Progetto «Terqa e la sua regione (Siria)»:
rapporto preliminare 2003, ed. Roualt, O.; and Mora, C. Athenaeum, Studi di Letteratura e Storia dell’Antichità
92/2: 529-566.
Poli, P.
2005, “I materiali provenienti da Terqa, cantiere F, e Tell Masaikh, cantieri D e E”, in Progetto «Terqa e la sua
regione (Siria)»: rapporto preliminare 2004, ed. Roualt, O.; and Mora, C., Athenaeum, Studi di Letteratura e Storia
Poli, P.
2007, “I materiali provenienti da Terqa (cantieri F e C), Tell Masaikh (cantieri D e E) e da Tell Mashtale (cantieri
C e E)”, in Progetto «Terqa e la sua regione (Siria)»: rapporto preliminare 2005, ed. Roualt, O.; and Mora, C.,
Athenaeum, Studi di Letteratura e Storia dell’Antichità 95/1: 425-455.
Pomponio, F.
2011, “Quello che accade (forse) dopo la morte di Šar-kali-šarrī”, in Akkade is King. A Collection of Papers by
Friends and Colleagues Presented to Aage Westenholz on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday 15th of May 2009
(Publications de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 118), ed. Barjamovic, G.; Dahl, J.
L.; Koch, U. S.; Sommerfeld, W.; and Goodnick Westenholz, J. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije
Oosten: 227-243.
Pons, N.
1999, “Les principales formes de la poterie mariote de l’epoque des Šakkanakku à la chute de la ville sous Zimri-Lim.
Rapports avec la Babylonie”, Akkadica 114/115: 1-58.
Pons, N.
2001, “La poterie de Tell Amarna (Syrie) au BA IV et au BM I”. Première approche et corrélation avec quelques sites
clés”, Akkadica 121: 23-75.
Porada, E.
1948, Corpus of Near Eastern Seals in North American Collections I: The Pierpont Morgan Library Collection
(The Bollingen Series XIV). Washington: Pantheon Books.
Porter, A.
1995a, “Tell Banat-Tomb 1”, Damaszener Mitteilungen 8: 1-50.
Porter, A.
1995b, “The Third Millennium Settlement Complex at Tell Banat: Tell Kabir”, Damaszener Mitteilungen 8:
125-163.
472
Porter, A.
1999, “The ceramic horizon of the Early Bronze in the Upper Euphrates”, in Archaeology of the Upper Syrian
Euphrates. The Tishrin Dam Area, Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Barcelona, January 28th-30th
1998 (Aula Orientalis-Supplementa 15), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; Montero Fenollós, J.-L. Sabadell – Barcelona:
Porter, A.M.
2000, “Mortality, Monuments and Mobility: Ancestor Traditions and the Transcendence of Space”. PhD thesis,
Chicago.
Porter, A.
2002a, “The Dynamics of Death: Ancestors, Pastoralism and the Origins of a Third-Millennium City in Syria”,
Porter, A.
2002b, “Communities in conflict. Death and the contest for social order in the Euphrates River Valley”, Near
Eastern Archaeology 65: 156-173.
Porter, A.
2007a, “The ceramic assemblage of the Third Millennium in the Euphrates region”, in La céramique de l’Age du Bronze
en Syrie, II, ed. Al-Maqdissi, M.; Matoian, V.; and Nicolle, C. Beirut: Institut français du Proche-Orient: 3-22.
Porter, A.
2007b, “You say potato, I say… Typology, chronology and the origins of the Amorites”, in Sociétés Humaines et
changement climatique à la fin du troisième millénaire: une crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute-Mésopotamie ? Actes du
Colloque de Lyon, 5-8 décembre 2005 (Varia Anatolica 19, Institut Français d’études anatoliennes Georges Dumézil),
ed. Kuzucuoğlu, C.; and Marro, C. Paris: De Boccard: 69-115.
Porter, A.
2007/2008, “Evocative Topography: Experience, Time and Politics in a Landscape of Death”, in Sepolti tra i vivi.
Buried among the Living. Evidenza ed interpretazione di contesti funerari in abitato. Atti del Convegno Internazionale.
Roma, 26-29 Aprile 2006 (Scienze dell’Antichità. Storia Archeologia Antropologia 14/1), ed. Bartoloni, G.; and
Benedettini, G. M. Rome: Università degli Studi di Roma “La Sapienza”: 195-214.
Porter, A.
2012, Mobile Pastoralism and the Formation of Near Eastern Civilizations: Weaving Together Society. New York-
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Porter, A.; and McClellan, T.
1998, “The Third Millennium Settlement Complex at Tell Banat: Results of the 1994 Excavations”, Damaszener
Postgate, J. N.
2003-2005, “Palast. A. Einleitung”, in Reallexikon der Assyriologie 10, 195-200.
Potts, T. F.
1989, “Foreign Stone Vessels of the Late Third Millennium B.C. from Southern Mesopotamia: Their Origins and
Mechanisms of Exchange”, Iraq 51: 123-164.
Prag, K.
1970, “The 1959 deep sounding at Harran in Turkey”, Levant 2: 63-94.
Pruß, A.
1994a, “Kleinfunde aus Stein”, in Ausgrabungen in Halawa 2. Die Kleinfunde von Tell Halawa A (Schriften zur
vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6), ed. Meyer J.-W.; and Pruß, A. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag:
205-229.
Pruß, A.
1994b, “II. Flintgeräte”, in Ausgrabungen in Halawa, 2. Die Kleinfunde von Tell Halawa A (Schriften zur
Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6), ed. Meyer, J.-W.; and Pruß, A. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag: 209.
Pruß, A.
1999, “Glöckchen, Rasseln, Pfeifen: Musikinstrumente aus Ton”, in Zwischen Nil und Hindukusch. Archäologie
im Orient (Hallesche Beiträge zur Orientwissenschaft 28), ed. Mode, M. Halle (Saale): Institut für Orientalische
Archäologie und Kunst: 56-87.
Pruß, A.
2000, “The Metallic Ware of Upper Mesopotamia: definition, chronology and distribution”, in Chronologies des
Pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IV-IIIe Millénaires/From the Euphrates to the Caucasus: Chronologies for the
473
4th-3rd Millennium B.C. (IFEA, Varia Anatolica 11), ed. Marro, C.; and Hauptman, H. Paris: Institut Français
d’Études Anatoliennes d’Istanbul: 193-203.
Pruß, A.
2004, “Review of Tell Bi’a/Tuttul – VIII. Stadtbefestigungen, Häuser und Tempel, ed. P. Miglus and E. Strommenger
(Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 103)”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und
Vorderasiatische Archäologie 94: 146-151.
Pruß, A.
2007, “Comb-incised Pottery in Syria and Mesopotarnia and its Relevance far Chronology”, in From Relative
Chronology to Absolute Chronology: The Second Millennium BC in Syria-Palestine (contributo del centro linceo
interdisciplinare “Beniamino Segre” vol. 117), ed. Matthiae, P.; Nigro, L.; Peyronel, L.; and Pinnock, F. Roma:
Accademia Nazionale dei Lincei: 473-497.
Pruß, A.
2010, Die Amuq-Terrakotten. Untersuchungen zu den Terrakotta-Figuren des 2. und 1. Jahrtausends v.Chr. aus den
Grabungen des Oriental Institute Chicago in der Amuq-Ebene (Subartu 26). Turnhout: Brepols.
Pruß, A.
2011, “Figurines and Model Vehicles”, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern
Mediterranean, Jezirah (ARCANE I), ed. Lebeau, M. Turnhout: Brepols: 239-254.
Pruß, A.; and Link, C.
1994, “Zoomorphe Terrakotten”, in Ausgrabungen in Halawa 2: Die Kleinfunde von Halawa A (Schriften zur
Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 6), ed. Meyer, J.-W.; and Pruß, A. Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag:
111-155.
Pruß, A.; and Novák, M.
2000, “Terrakotten und Beinidole in sepulkralen Kontexten”, Altorientalische Forschungen 27: 184-195.
Pruß, A.; and Sallaberger, W.
2003/2004, “Tierhaltung in Nabada/Tell Beydar und die Bilderwelt der Terrakotten als Spiegel von Wirtschaft
und Umwelt”, Archiv für Orientforschung 50: 293-307.
Quenet, P.
1997, “La séquence stratigraphique du IIIe millénaire (chantier G)”, in Tell Beydar, Three Seasons of
Excavations (1992-1994). A Preliminary Report (Subartu 3), ed. Lebeau, M.; and Suleiman, A. Turnhout: Brepols:
169-177.
Quenet, P.
2005, “The Diffusion of the Cuneiform Writing System in Northern Mesopotamia: the Earliest Archaeological
Evidence”, Iraq 67/2: 31-40.
Quenet, P.
2007a, “Was there a post-Uruk collapse in the Carchemish area?” in Euphrates River Valley Settlement. The
Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium B.C. (Levant Supplementary Series 5), ed. Peltenburg, E. Oxford:
Oxbow Books: 105-121.
Quenet, P.
2007b, “Un sceau-cylindre inédit de Tell Khuera (Syrie du Nord) et sa place au sein de la glyptique géométrique du
Bronze Ancien en Mésopotamie”, Revue Assyriologique et Archéologique 101: 3-35.
Quenet, P.
2008, Les echanges du Nord de la Mésopotamie avec ses voisins proche-orientaux au IIIe millénaire (ca 3100-2300
av. J.-C.) (Subartu 22). Turnhout: Brepols.
Quenet, P.
2011, “Stratigraphy”, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean,
Rasheed, F.
1981, The Ancient Inscriptions in Himrin Area (Himrin 4. Results of the Salvage Excavations at Himrin Reservoir).
Baghdad: Ministry of Culture and Information.
Ravn, O. E.
1960, A Catalogue of Oriental Cylinder Seals and Seal Impressions in the Danish National Museum (Nationalmuseets
Skrifter VIII). København: Nationalmuseet.
474
Reade, J.
2002, “Early monuments in Gulf stone at the British Museum, with observations on some Gudea statues and the
location of Agade”, Zeitschrift für Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische Archäologie 92: 258-295.
Reese, D. S.
1989, “On Cassid Lips and Helmet Shells”, Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 275: 33-39.
Rehm, E.
2003, Waffengräber im Alten Orient. Zum Problem der Wertung von Waffen in Gräbern des 3. und frühen 2.
Jahrtausends v. Chr. in Mesopotamien und Syrien (BAR International Series 1191). Oxford: Archeopress.
Rey, S.
2012, Poliorétique au Proche-Orient à l’Âge du Bronze (Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique 197). Paris:
Presses de l’IFPO.
Rieth, T. M.; Hunt, T. L.; Lipo, C.; and Wilmshurst, J. M.
2011, “The 13th century Polynesian colonization of Hawaií Island”, Journal of Archaeological Science 38: 2740-2749.
Rittig, D.
2010a, “Theriomorphe Figuren”, in Tall Bi’a/Tuttul V: Altorientalische Kleinfunde (Wissenschaftliche
Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 126) by Strommenger, E.; and Miglus, P. A. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz: 51-65.
Rittig, D.
2010b, “Musikinstrumente”, in Tall Bi’a/Tuttul V: Altorientalische Kleinfunde (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen
der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 126) by Strommenger, E.; and Miglus, P. A. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 85-88.
Rohn, K.
2011, Beschriftete mesopotamische Siegel der Frühdynastischen und der Akkad-Zeit (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis,
Series Archaeologica 32). Fribourg/Göttingen: Academic Press Fribourg/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Roobaert, A.; and Bunnens, G.
1999, “Excavations at Tell Ahmar- Til Barsip”, in Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates. The Tishrin Dam
Area, Proceedings of the international Symposium Held at Barcelona, January 28th-30th 1998 (Aula Orientalis
Supplementa 15), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; and Montero Fenollós, J.-L. Sabadell-Barcelona: Editorial AUSA:
163-178.
Roodenberg, J.; and Alpaslan Roodenberg, D. (ed.)
2008, Life and Death in a Prehistoric Settlement in Northwest Anatolia: The Ilıpınar Excavations, Vol. III. Leiden:
Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Rosen, S. A.
1997, Lithics after the Stone Age: A Handbook of Stone Tools from the Levant. Walnut Creek: Altamira Press.
Rossmeisl, I.; and Venema, P.
1988, “The Other Clay Finds”, in Hammam et-Turkman I. Report on the University of Amsterdam’s 1981-84
Excavations in Syria (Nederlands historisch-archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul, 63), ed. van Loon, M. N. Leiden:
Rothmann, M. S. (ed.)
2001, Uruk Mesopotamia and its Neighbors. Cross-Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation. Santa Fé:
School of American Research Press.
Rothman, M. S.
2001, “The local and the regional: an introduction”, in Uruk Mesopotamia and its Neighbors, Cross-cultural
Interactions in the Era of State Formation, ed. Rothman, M. S. Santa Fe: School of American Research Press:
3-26.
Rouault, O.
2002, “Rapporto preliminare sui lavori della missione nel sito di Ashara-Terqa nel 2001 (TQ22). Progetto «Terqa
e la sua regione (Siria)»: rapporto preliminare 2001”, Athenaeum, Studi di Letteratura e Storia dell’Antichità 90:
566-569.
Rouault, O.
2004, “Rapporto preliminare sui lavori della missione nel sito di Ashara-Terqa nel 2003 (TQ23). Progetto
«Terqa e la sua regione»: rapporto preliminare 2003”, Athenaeum, Studi di Letteratura e Storia dell’Antichità
92: 529-535.
475
Rouault, O.
2005, “Pratiques funéraires et identité culturelle: le cas de Terqa à la fin du Bronze ancien et au Bronze moyen”,
KTèMA: Civilisations de l’Orient, de la Grèce et de la Rome Antiques 30: 55-60.
Rouault, O.
2006, “Rapporto preliminare sui lavori della missione nel sito di Ashara-Terqa nel 2005 (TQ25). Progetto
«Terqa e la sua regione»: rapporto preliminare 2005”, Athenaeum, Studi di Letteratura e Storia dell’Antichità
94: 734-739.
Rouault, O.; and Masetti-Rouault, M. G.
1993, L’Eufrate e il tempo. Le civiltà del medio Eufrate e della Gezira siriana. Milano: Electa.
Rouault, O.; and Mora, C.
2004, “Progetto «Terqa e la sua regione»: Rapporto preliminare 2003”, Athenaeum, Studi di Letteratura e Storia
dell’Antichità 96: 841-857.
dell’Antichità 97/II: 657-668.
2011, “Progetto «Terqa e la sua regione» (Siria): Rapporto preliminare 2009”, Athenaeum, Studi di Letteratura e
Storia dell’Antichità 99/1: 221-238.
Rouault, O.; Masetti-Rouault, M.-G.; Cifola, B.; Doumenc, L.; and di Salvatore, C.
1997, “Terqa: Rapport préliminaire (1987-1989)”, Mari. Annales de Recherche Interdisciplinaires 8: 73-103.
Rova, E.
1989, “Die sogenannte “Smeared-Wash Ware”. Ein Beitrag zur syrischen Keramik des III. Jahrtausends V.Chr.”,
Rova, E.
1991, “Die Keramik aus dem Gräberfeld”, in Gräber des 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal 2.
Ausgrabungen in Wreide (Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 2). Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und
Verlag: 71-179.
Rova, E.
1994, Ricerche sui sigilli a cilindro vicino-orientali del periodo di Uruk/Jemdet Nasr (Orientis Antiqui Collectio 20).
Roma: Istituto per l’Oriente “C.A. Nallino”.
Rova, E.
1996, “Ceramic provinces along the Middle and Upper Euphrates: Late Chalcolithic-Early Bronze Age, a diachronic
view”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 27: 13-37.
Rova, E.
2000, “Early third millennium B.C. painted pottery tradition in the Jezireh”, in Chronologies des Pays du Caucase et
de l’Euphrate aux IV-IIIe Millénaires/From the Euphrates to the Caucasus: Chronologies for the 4th-3rd Millennium
Rova, E.
2003, “Ninevite 5 Relative Chronology, Periodization and Distribution: an Introduction”, in The Origins of North
Mesopotamian Civilization: Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society (Subartu 9), ed. Rova, E.; and Weiss, H.
Turnhout: Brepols: 1-10.
Rova, E.
2006, “Seal Impressions on Pottery in the Khabur region in the 3rd millennium B.C.: Some New Evidence from Tell
Beydar”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 37: 295-312.
Rova, E.
2008, “Seal Impressions from Tell Beydar (2002-2006)”, in Beydar Studies 1 (Subartu 21), ed. Lebeau, M.; and
Suleiman, A. Turnhout: Brepols: 63-194.
476
Rova, E.
2011, “Ceramic”, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean,
Rova, E.
2014, “Combed Wash and Smeared Wash Wares”, Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East.
Ceramics (ARCANE-Interregional I), ed. Lebeau, M. Turnhout: Brepols, 201-213.
Sakal, F.
2012, “Jebel el-Hamam: A new site between Selenkahiye and Emar”, in Correlates of Complexity: Essays in
Archaeology and Assyriology dedicated to Diederik J.W. Meijer in Honour of his 65th Birthday (Publications de
l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul, PIHANS 116), ed. Düring, B. S.; Wossink, A.; and
Akkermans, P. M. M. G. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten: 187-192.
Sakal, F.
2013, Die anthropomorphen Terrakotten der Region am syrischen Mittleren Euphrat im 3. Jahrtausend v. Chr
(Subartu 32). Turnhout: Brepols.
Sakal, F.
in prep., Emar after the closure of the Tabqa Dam. The Syrian-German Excavations 1996-2002, Volume III: Pottery,
Small Objects and Text Finds (Subartu Series). Turnhout: Brepols.
Salgues, E.
2011, “Naram-Sin’s Conquests of Subartu and Armanum”, in Akkade is King. A Collection of Papers by Friends
and Colleagues Presented to Aage Westenholz on the Occasion of His 70th Birthday 15th of May 2009 (Publications
de l’Institut historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul, PIHANS 118), ed. Barjamovic, G.; Dahl, J. L.;
Koch, U. S.; Sommerfeld, W.; and Goodnick Westenholz, J. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten:
253-272.
Sallaberger, W.
2007, “From Urban Culture to Nomadism: A History of Upper Mesopotamia in the Late Third
Millennium”, in Sociétés humaines et changement climatique à la fin du troisième millénaire: une crise a-t-elle
eu lieu en Haute-Mésopotamie?, Actes du Colloque International de Lyon, 5-8 décembre 2005 (Varia Anatolica
19, Institut Français d’études Anatoliennes-Georges Dumezil), ed. Kuzucuoğlu, C.; and Marro, C. Paris: De
Boccard: 417-456.
Sallaberger, W.
2011, “History and Philology”, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern
Sallaberger, W.; and Westenholz, A.
1999, Mesopotamien. Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit (Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis 160/3). Freiburg/ Göttingen:
Universitätsverlag Freiburg/Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.
Salles, J.-F.
1995, “Rituel Mortuaire et rituel Social à Ras Shamra/Ougarit”, in The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near
East, ed. Campbell, S.; and Green, A. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 171-184.
Schachner, A.; and Schachner, V.
1995, “Eine ‘syrische’ Flasche aus Fara”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 127: 83-96.
Schmidt, J.
1964, “Strassen in altorientalischen Wohngebieten: Eine Studie zur Geschichte des Städtebaues in Mesopotamien
und Syrien”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 3, 125-147.
Schmidt, K.
1996, Norşuntepe, Kleinfunde 1: Die lithische Industrie (Archaeologica Euphratica 1), Mainz am Rhein: Philipp
von Zabern.
Schmidt, K.
2002, Norşuntepe. Kleinfunde. II. Artefakte aus Felsgestein, Knochen und Geweih, Ton, Metall und Glas (Archaeologica
Euphratica. Ausgrabungen und Forschungen im türkischen Euphratgebiet, Band 2). Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von
Zabern.
Schmidt, K.
in prep., “Die lithischen Kleinfunde aus Habuba Kabira-Süd und Tell Habuba Kabira”, in Habuba Kabira, ed.
Strommenger, E.; and Sürenhagen, D.
477
Schwartz, G. M.
1987, “Review article I. Kampschulte and W. Orthmann, Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal
1. Ausgrabungen bei Tawi 1975 und 1978”, Bibliotheca Orientalis XLIV.1/2: 239-243.
Schwartz, G. M.
2001, “The pottery from Selenkahiye 1972, 1974 and 1975”, in Selenkahiye. Final Report on the University of
Chicago and University of Amsterdam Excavations in the Tabqa Reservoir, Northern Syria, 1967-1975 (Nederlands
Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul XCI), ed. van Loon, M. N. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het
Nabije Oosten: 5A.223-339.
Schwartz, G. M.; Curvers, H. H.; Dunham, S.; and Stuart, B.
2003, “A Third-Millennium B.C. Elite Tomb and Other New Evidence from Tell Umm el-Marra, Syria”, American
Journal of Archaeology 107/3: 325-361.
Schwartz, G. M.; Curvers, H. H.; Dunham, S.; Stuart, B; and Weber, J. A.
2006, “A Third-Millennium B.C. Elite Mortuary Complex at Tell Umm el-Marra, Syria: 2002 and 2004 Excavations”,
American Journal of Archaeology 110/4: 603-641.
Sconzo, P.
2000, Necropoli dell’Età del Bronzo nella regione di Carchemish (nord Siria): Le ceramiche della Collezione Lawrence
dell’Ashmolean Museum di Oxford. Tesi di Diploma, Roma.
Sconzo, P.
2006, “‘Sombrero Lids’ and Children’s Pots. An Early Bronze Age Shaft Grave from Tell Shiyukh Tahtani”,
Sconzo, P.
2007a, “Plain and luxury wares of the third millennium BC in the Carchemish region: two case-studies from
Tell Shiyukh Tahtani”, in Euphrates River Valley Settlement. The Carchemish Sector in the Third Millennium B.C.
(Levant Supplementary Series 5), ed. Peltenburg, E. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 250-266.
Sconzo, P.
2007b, “Collapse or Continuity? The case of the EB-MB transition at Tell Shiyukh Tahtani”, in Sociétés Humaines
et changement climatique à la fin du troisième millénaire: une crise a-t-elle eu lieu en Haute-Mésopotamie ? Actes
du Colloque de Lyon, 5-8 décembre 2005 (Varia Anatolica 19, Institut Français d’études anatoliennes Georges
Dumézil), ed. Kuzucuoğlu, C.; and Marro, C. Paris: De Boccard: 267-309.
Sconzo, P.
2008, “Leonard Woolley, Lawrence d’Arabie et les fouilles de Karkémish”, in Pionniers et Protagonistes de l’Archéologie
Syrienne 1860-1960. D’Ernest Renan à Selim Abdulhak, ed. el-Maqdissi, M. Damascus: 99-104.
Sconzo, P.
2013a, Pottery and Potmarks at an early urban settlement of the Middle Euphrates river valley, Syria. Final reports
of the Syrian-German Excavations at Tell el-‘Abd, Vol. II, ed. Finkbeiner, U. (Altertumskunde des Vorderen Orients
16/2). Münster: Ugarit Verlag.
Sconzo, P.
2013b, “Bronze Age pottery from the Carchemish region at the British Museum. The Woolley-Lawrence collection.
Report”, Palestine Exploration Quarterly 145/4: 334-338.
Sconzo, P.
2014, “Syrian Bottles”, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East. Ceramics (ARCANE-
Interregional I), ed. Lebeau, M. Turnhout: Brepols, 215-235.
Sconzo, P.
in press a, “The Bronze Age pottery from the Carchemish region. The Woolley-Lawrence collections at the British and
Ashmolean Museums”, in Proceedings of the Third International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East
(Paris, April 1-19, 2002), ed. Margueron, J.-C.; de Miroschedji, P.; and Thalmann, J.-P. Winona Lake, IN: Eisenbrauns.
Sconzo, P.
in press b, “An Early Bronze Age tomb group from Tell Alawiyeh in the British Museum”, in Jerablus Tahtani I. The
Mortuary Evidence, ed. Peltenburg, E. et al. (Levant Supplementary Series). Oxford: Oxbow Books.
Sertok, K.
2003, “Birecik Mezarlığı”. Tunç Bakışlar, Son Kalkolitik ve İlk Tunç Çağı”, Arkeoatlas 2: 53-55.
478
Sertok, K.
2007, “Fruit stands and the definition of a cultural area around Carchemish”, in Euphrates River Valley Settlement.
The Carchemish sector in the Third Millennium BC (Levant Supplementary Series 5), ed. Peltenburg, E. Oxford:
Oxbow Books: 238-249.
Sertok, K.; Kulakoğlu, F.; and Squadrone, F. F.
2011, “Şaraga Höyük 2002 Yılı Kazıları/Excavations at Şaraga Höyük 2002”, in Ilısu ve Karkamıs Baraj Gölleri
Altında Kalacak Arkeolojik ve Kültür Varlıklarını Kurtarma Projesi 2002 Yılı Çalışmaları/Salvage Project of the
Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in 2002, ed. Tuna, N.; and Doonan,
O. Ankara: Middle Eastern Technical University and METU Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic
Environment (TAÇDAM): 215-239.
Sertok, K.; and Ergeç, R.
1999a, “A new Early Bronze Age cemetery. Excavations near the Birecik Dam, Southeastern Turkey. Preliminary
report (1997-98)”, Anatolica 25: 87-107.
1999b, “The Birecik Dam EBA Cemetery on the Middle Euphrates, Turkey. Preliminary Report of the 1997 and
1998 Excavation seasons”, Orient Express 1999/3: 86-89.
1999c, “Şaraga Höyük”, in Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs
Activities in 1998, ed. Tuna, N.; and Öztürk, J. Ankara: Middle Eastern Technical University and METU Centre
for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment (TAÇDAM): 157-174.
2000, “The Discovery of an Early Bronze Age Cemetery in the Middle Euphrates Area, near Carchemish (Turkey)”,
in Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, Rome, May 18th-23rd
1998, ed. Matthiae, P.; Enea, A.; Peyronel, L.; and Pinnock, F. Roma: Università degli Studi di Roma «La
Sapienza»: 1515-1525.
Sertok, K.; and Kulakoğlu, F.
2000, “Results of the 1999 Season Excavations at Şaraga Höyük”, in Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage
of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in 1999, ed. Tuna, N.; and Öztürk, J. Ankara: Middle Eastern
Technical University and METU Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment (TAÇDAM):
453-486.
2001, “Results of the 1999 season excavations at Şaraga Höyük”, in Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of
the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs. Activities in 1999, ed. Tuna, N.; Öztürk, J.; and Velibeyoğlu, J. Ankara:
Middle Eastern Technical University and METU Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment
(TAÇDAM): 475-486, fig. 463-474.
2002a, “Şaraga Höyük 2000”, in Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam
Reservoirs Activities in 2000, ed. Tuna, N.; and Velibeyoğlu, J. Ankara: Middle Eastern Technical University and
METU Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment (TAÇDAM): 351-381.
2002b, “Şaraga Höyük 1999-2000 Kazıları sonuçları” (28 mayıs-01 Haziran 2001, Ankara), Kazı Sonuçları
Toplantısı 23/1: 107-122.
2004, “2002 Yılı Şaraga Höyük”. Kurtarma Kazıları 25. Uluslararası Kazı, Araştırma ve Arkeometri Sempozyumu
(26-31 Mayıs 2003, Ankara), Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 23: 139-152.
Sertok, K.; Kulakoğlu, F.; and Squadrone, F. F.
2004, “Şaraga Höyük 2001”, in Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish
Dam Reservoirs Activities in 2001, ed. Tuna, N.; Greenhalgh, J.; and J. Velibeyoğlu, J. Ankara: Middle
(TAÇDAM): 293-315.
Sharlach, T.
2005, “Diplomacy and Rituals of Politics at the Ur III Court”, Journal of Cuneiform Studies 57: 17-29.
479
Sievertsen, U.
1998, Untersuchungen zur Pfeiler-Nischen-Architektur in Mesopotamien und Syrien von ihren Anfängen im 6. Jt. bis
zum Ende der Frühdynastischen Zeit (BAR International Series 743). Oxford: Archaeopress.
Sommerfeld, W.
2000, “Narām-Sîn, die ‘Große Revolte’ und MAR.TUki”, in Assyriologica et Semitica. Festschrift für Joachim Oelsner
anläßlich seines 65. Geburtstages am 18. Februar 1997 (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 252), ed. Marzahn, J.; and
Neumann, H. Münster: Ugarit-Verlag: 419-436.
Spanos, P. Z.
1992, “Ausgrabungen in Tell Ḥamad Āġā Aş-Şaġīr 1990”, Baghdader Mitteilungen 23: 87-117.
Speiser, E. A.
1935, Excavations at Tepe Gawra I. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania.
Speleers, L.
1943, Catalogue des intailles et empreintes orientales des Musées Royaux d’Art et d’Histoire. Supplément. Bruxelles:
Vromant.
Spycket, A.
1981, La Statuaire du Proche-Orient Ancien (Handbuch der Orientalistik 7, Der Alte Vordere Orient 1). Leiden:
Brill Academic.
Squadrone, F. F.
1999, “The Birecik Dam EBA Cemetery (Turkey) 1997 and 1998 Excavation Seasons. Metal Object”, Orient
Express 1993/3: 92-95.
Squadrone, F. F.
2000a, “Metals for the dead. Metal Finds from the Birecik Dam Early Bronze Age Cemetery in the Middle
Euphrates Area, near Carchemish (Turkey)”, in Proceedings of the First International Congress on the Archaeology of
the Near East. Rome, May 18th-23rd 1998, ed. Matthiae, P.; Enea, A.; Peyronel, L.; and Pinnock, F. Roma: Università
degli Studi di Roma «La Sapienza»: 1541-1556.
Squadrone, F. F.
2000b, “La metallurgia nell’Anatolia sudorientale e nella Mesopotamia settentrionale nel IV e III millennio a. C.”.
PhD thesis, University of Rome “La Sapienza”.
Squadrone, F. F.
2007, “Regional culture and metal objects in the area of Carchemish during the Early Bronze Age”, in Euphrates
River Valley settlement. The Carchemish sector in the third millennium BC (Levant Supplementary Series 5), ed.
Peltenburg, E. Oxford: Oxbow Books: 198-213.
Starr, R. F. S.
1939, Nuzi. Report on the Excavation at the site of Yorgan Tepa near Kirkuk, Iraq, Conducted by Harvard University in
Conjunction with the American Schools of Oriental Research and The University Museum of Philadelphia 1927-1931.
Boston: Harvard University Press.
Stein, G.; Boden, K.; Edens, C.; Edens, J.; Keith, A.; McMahon, A.; and Özbal, H.
1997, “Excavations at Hacinebi, Turkey-1996: Preliminary report”, Anatolica 23: 111-171.
Steinkeller, P.
1985, “Old Akkadian Miscellanea”, Revue d’Assyriologie et d’Archéologie Orientale 78: 83-88.
Steinkeller, P.
1992, “Early Semitic Literature and Third Millennium Seals with Mythological Motifs”, in Literature
and Literary Language at Ebla, Quaderni di Semitistica 18, ed. Fronzaroli, P. Firenze: Università di Firenze:
244-275.
Steinkeller, P.
in press a, “The Gutian Period in Chronological Perspective”, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient
Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean, History & Philology (ARCANE III), ed. Sallaberger, W.; and Schrakamp,
I. Turnhout: Brepols.
Steinkeller, P.
in press b, “The Sargonic and Ur III Empires”, in The Oxford World History of Empire, ed. Fibiger Bang, P.; Bayly, C. A.;
and Scheidel, W. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
480
Streck, M. P.
2000, Das amurritische Onomastikon der altbabylonischen Zeit, 1. Die Amurriter. Die onomastische Forschung.
Orthographie und Phonologie. Nominalmorphologie (Alter Orient und Altes Testament 271/1). Münster:
Ugarit-Verlag.
Strommenger, E.
1954, Grabformen und Bestattungssitten im Zweistromland und in Syrien von der Vorgeschichte bis zur Mitte des 1.
Jahrtausends v.Chr. Dissertation Freie Universität Berlin.
Strommenger, E.
1973, “Kleinfunde”, in “Vierter vorläufiger Bericht über die von der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft mit Mitteln
der Stiftung Volkswagenwerk in Habuba Kabira (Herbstkampagnen 1971 und 1972 sowie Testgrabung Frühjahr
1973) und in Mumbaqat (Herbstkampagne 1971) unternommenen archäologischen Untersuchungen, erstattet
von Mitgliedern der Mission”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 105: 62-67.
Strommenger, E.
1976, “Fünfter vorläufiger Bericht über die von der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft mit Mitteln der Stiftung
Volkswagenwerk in Habuba Kabira unternommenen archäologischen Untersuchungen (Kampagnen 1973, 1974,
1975)”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 108: 5-22.
Strommenger, E.
1980, Habuba Kabira. Eine Stadt vor 5000 Jahren. Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft am Euphrat in
Habuba Kabira – Syrien (Sendschrift der Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft 12). Mainz am Rhein: Philipp von Zabern.
Strommenger, E.
1990, “Planwagen aus den mittleren Euphrattal”, in Resurrecting the Past. A Joint Tribute to Adnan Bounni, ed.
Matthiae, P.; van Loon, M. N.; and Weiss, H. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut te Instanbul:
297-301.
Strommenger, E.
1993, “Ausgrabungen in Tall Bi’a 1992”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 125: 9-31.
Strommenger, E.
2010a, “Anthropomorphe Figuren”, in Tall Bi’a/Tuttul V: Altorientalische Kleinfunde (Wissenschaftliche
Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 126), ed. Strommenger, E.; and Miglus, P. A. Wiesbaden:
Harrassowitz: 2-51.
Strommenger, E.
2010b, “Wagenmodelle”, in Tall Bi’a/Tuttul V: Altorientalische Kleinfunde (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen
der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 126), ed. Strommenger, E.; and Miglus, P. A. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 65-85.
Strommenger, E.; and Kohlmeyer, K.
1998, Tall Bi’a/Tuttul – I. Die altorientalischen Bestattungen (Wissenshaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen
Strommenger, E.; and Kohlmeyer, K.
2000, Tall Bi’a/Tuttul – III. Die Schichten des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im Zentralhügel E (Wissenshaftliche
Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 101). Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druckerei und Verlag.
Strommenger, E.; and Miglus, P. A.
2010, Tall Bi’a/Tuttul V: Altorientalische Kleinfunde (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-
Gesellschaft 126). Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz.
Stronach, D. B.
1957, “The Development and Diffusion of Metal Types in Early Bronze Age Anatolia”, Anatolian Studies 7: 89-126.
Sultan, A.
2010, “Bronze Age sites around the city of Raqqa”, Al-Rāfidān Special Issue Formation of Tribal Communities:
Integrated research on the Middle Euphrates, Syria: 147-153.
Sürenhagen, D.
1973, “Friedhöfe in Habuba Kabira Süd”, in Vierter vorläufiger Bericht über die von der Deutschen Orient-
Gesellschaft mit Mitteln der Stiftung Volkswagenwerk in Habuba Kabira (Hububa Kabira, Herbstkampagnen
1971 und 1972 sowie Testgrabung Früjahr 1973) und in Mumbaqat (Tall Munbaqa, Herbstkampagne 1971)
unternommenen archäologischen Untersuchungen, erstattet von Mitgliedern der Mission”, Mitteilungen der
Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 105: 33-38.
481
Sürenhagen, D.
1974/1975, “Untersuchungen zur Keramikproduktion innerhalb der Spät-Urukzeitlichen Siedlung Habuba
Kabira-Süd in Nord Syrien”, Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 5/6: 43-164.
Talon, Ph.; and Van Lerberghe, K. (ed.)
1997, En Syrie. Aux Origines de l’Écriture (Exhibition Catalogue Brussels). Turnhout: Brepols.
Teissier, B.
1987, “Glyptic Evidence for a Connection Between Iran, Syro-Palestine and Egypt in the Fourth and Third
Millennia”, Iran 25: 27-53.
Teissier, B.
1997, “The Glyptic (Season 1994)”, in Tell Beydar, Three Seasons of Excavations (1992-1994). A Preliminary Report
(Subartu 3), ed. Lebeau, M.; and Suleiman, A. Turnhout: Brepols: 155-168.
Thissen, L. C.
1985, “The late Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age pottery from Hayaz Höyük”, Anatolica 12: 75-130.
Thissen, L. C.
1989, “An Early Bronze III pottery region between the Middle Euphrates and Habur: New evidence from Tell
Hammam et-Turkman”, in To the Euphrates and Beyond: Archaeological Studies in Honour of Mauritz N. van Loon,
ed. Haex, O. M.C.; Curvers, H. H.; and Akkermans, P. M. M. G. Rotterdam/Brookfield: A.A. Balkema: 195-211.
Thomalsky, J.
2011, “Lithics”, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean, Jezirah
(ARCANE I), ed. Lebeau, M. Turnhout: Brepols: 255-265.
Thomalsky, J.
2012, “Lithische Industrien im Vorderasiatischen und Ägyptischen Raum. Untersuchungen zur Organisation
lithischer Produktion vom späten 6. bis zum ausgehenden 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr.”. PhD dissertation, Tübingen
University (online publication 2012, http://nbn-resolving.de/urn:nbn:de:bsz:21-opus-63978).
Thomalsky, J.
in press, “Lithics”, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern Mediterranean,
Tigridian Region (ARCANE V), ed. Rova, E.; and Bielinski, P. Turnhout: Brepols.
Thomas, N.
2005, Conderton Camp, Worcestershire: A Small Middle Iron Age Hillfort on Breddon Hill, York: Council For
British Archaeology.
Thuesen, I.
1988, Hama. Fouilles et recherches 1931-1938. I. The Pre- and Protohistoric Periods. Copenhague: Fondation
Carlsberg.
Thureau-Dangin, F.
1897, “Tablettes chaldéennes inédites”, Revue Assyriologique 4: 69-85.
Thureau-Dangin, F.; and Dhorme, P.
1924, “Cinq jours de fouilles à Ashara”, Syria 5: 265-293.
Thureau-Dangin, F.; and Dunand, M.
1936, Til-Barsib (Institut d’Archéologie de Beyrouth, Bibliothèque Archéologique et Historique, Tome XXIII).
Paris: Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner.
Tomczyk, J.; Jędrychwska-Dańska, K.; Płoszaj, T.; and Witas, H. W.
2010, “Anthropological Analysis of the Osteological Material from an Ancient Tomb (Early Bronze Age) from the
Middle Euphrates Valley, Terqa (Syria)”, International Journal of Osteoarcheology. DOI: 10.1002/oa.
Tonussi, M.
2007, Dall’Eufrate allo Scamandro. Contatti e scambi nel III millennio a.C (Ricerche 49). Padova: Il Poligrafo.
Toueir, Q.
1978, The Syrian archaeological expedition to Tell Al’Abd Zrejehey: clay figurines of the third millenium B.C.
(Monographic Journals of the Near East. Syro-Mesopotamian Studies 2.4). Malibu: Undena Publications.
Trentin, M. G.
1993, “The Early Reserved Slip Ware Horizon of the Upper Euphrates Basin and Western Syria”, in Between the Rivers
and over the Mountains, Alba Palmieri dedicata, ed. Frangipane, M.; Hauptmann, H.; Liverani, M.; Matthiae, P.; and
482
Mellink, M. Roma: Dipartimento di Scienze Storiche Archeologiche e Antropologiche dell’Antichita, Universita

di Roma “La Sapienza”: 177-199.
Tsuneki, A.; Hasegawa, A.; and Sultan, A.
2011, “Sondage and surface research at Tell Ghanem Al-Ali”, Al-Rafidan ( Journal of Western Asiatic Studies) 32:
181-89.
Tubb, J. N.
1982, “A Crescentic Axehead from Amarna (Syria) and an Examination of Similar Axeheads from the Near East”,
Iraq 44: 1-12.
Tunca, Ö.
1999, “Tell Amarna. Présentation sommaire de sept campagnes de fouilles (1991-1997)”, in Archaeology of the
Upper Syrian Euphrates. The Tishrin Dam Area, Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Barcelona,
January 28th-30th 1998 (Aula Orientalis-Supplementa 15), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; Montero Fenollós, J.-L. Sabadell-
Barcelona: Editorial AUSA: 129-136.
Valdés Pereiro, C.
1994a, “La cerámica de la edad del Bronce de Tell Qara Qūzāq. Campaña de 1991”, in Qara Qūzāq-I. Campañas
I-III (1989-1991) (Aula Orientalis Supplementa 4), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G. Sabadell-Barcelona: Editorial AUSA:
35-143.
Valdés Pereiro, C.
1994b, “Elementos ornamentales y figurativos de Tell Qara Qūzāq”, in Qara Qūzāq I, Campañas I-III (1989-1991)
(Aula Orientalis Supplementa 4), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G. Sabadell-Barcelona: Editorial AUSA: 199-207.
Valdés Pereiro, C.
1999, “Tell Qara Quzak: A Summary of the First Results”, in Archaeology of the Upper Syrian Euphrates. The Tishrin
Dam Area, Proceedings of the International Symposium Held at Barcelona, January 28th-30th 1998 (Aula Orientalis
Supplementa 15), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; and Montero Fenollós, J.-L. Sabadell-Barcelona: Editorial AUSA:
117-127.
Valdés Pereiro, C.
2000, “Excavations at Tell Qara Qûzâq, Northern Syria (Tishreen Dam Area)”, in Proceedings of the First
International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, ed. Matthiae, P.; Enea, A.; Peyronel, L.; and
Pinnock, F. Roma: Università degli Studi di Roma «La Sapienza»: 1691-1698.
Valdés Pereiro, C.
2001, “La cerámica de Tell Qara Qūzāq. Campañas 1992-94”, in Tell Qara Qūzāq II. Campañas IV-VI (1992-94)
(Aula Orientalis Supplementa 17), ed. Del Olmo Lete, G.; Montero Fenollós, J- L.; and Valdés Pereiro, C. Sabadell-
Barcelona: Editorial AUSA: 119-254.
Valdés-Pereiro, C.
1995, “Pequeños objetos del ajuar de las dos tumbas del Locus 12 de Tell Qara Quzaq, Siria, campaña de 1992”,
Aula Orientalis 13: 59-66.
Valentini, S.
2011, “Burials and funerary practices”, in Associated Regional Chronologies for the Ancient Near East and the Eastern
Van de Noort, R.; Chapman, H. P.; and Collis, J. R.
2007, Sutton Common: The excavation of an Iron Age “marsh fort”, York: Council for British Archaeology.
Van der Plicht, J.
2004, “Radiocarbon. The Calibration Curve and Skythian Chronology”, in Impact of the Environment on Human
Migration in Eurasia (Nato Science Series IV), ed. Scott, E. M.; Alekseev, A. Y.; and Zaitseva, G. Dordrecht:
Kluwer Academic Publishers: 45-61.
Van Driel, G.
1983, “Seals and Sealings from Jebel Aruda 1974-1979”, Akkadica 33: 34-62.
Van Loon, M. N.
1968, “First Results of the 1967 Excavations at Tell Selenkahiye”, Annales Archéologiques de Syrie 18: 21-32.
Van Loon, M. N.
1973, “First Results of the 1972 Excavations at Tell Selenkahiye”, Annales Archéologiques Arabes Syriennes 23:
145-149.
483
Van Loon, M. N.
1975, “First results of the 1972 Excavations at Tell Selenkahiye”, in Le Temple et le culte, compte rendu de la vingtième
Rencontre Assyriologique Internationale, organisée à Leiden du 3 au 7 juillet 1972 (Publications de l’Institut
historique-archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul, PIHANS 37), ed. Van Donzel, E.; Donceel-Volûte, P. H. E.;
Kampman, A. A.; and Mellink, M. J. Leidern: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten: 21-25.
Van Loon, M. N.
1979, “1974 and 1975 Preliminary Results of the Excavations at Selenkahiye near Meskene, Syria”, in Archeological
Reports from the Tabqa Dam Project- Euphrates Valley, Syria (The Annual of the American Schools of Oriental
Research 44), ed. Freedman, D. N. Cambridge, MA: American Schools of Oriental Research: 97-112.
Van Loon, M. N. (ed.)
1988a, Hammam et-Turkman I. Report on the University of Amsterdam’s 1981-84 Excavations in Syria I-II,
(Nederlands Historisch Archeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 63). Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije
Oosten.
Van Loon, M. N.
1988b, “The Seals and Seal Impressions”, in Hammam et-Turkman I. Report on the University of Amsterdam’s
1981-1984 excavations II (Nederlands Historisch-Archeologisch Instituut te Instanbul 63), ed. van Loon, M. N.
Van Loon, M. N. (ed.)
2001a, Selenkahiye. Final Report on the University of Chicago and University of Amsterdam Excavations in the
Tabqa Reservoir, Northern Syria, 1967-1975 (Publications de l’Institut historique et archéologique néerlandais de
Stamboul 91). Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten.
Van Loon, M. N.
2001b, “Baked Clay Figurines and Models”, in Selenkahiye. Final Report on the University of Chicago and University
of Amsterdam Excavations in the Tabqa Reservoir, Northern Syria, 1967-1975 (Publications de l’Institut historique
et archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 91), ed. van Loon, M. N. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije
Oosten: 6.341-410-7.411-421.
Van Loon, M. N.
2001c, “Metal Objects”, in Selenkahiye. Final Report on the University of Chicago and University of Amsterdam
Excavations in the Tabqa Reservoir, Northern Syria, 1967-1975 (Publications de l’Institut historique et
archéologique néerlandais de Stamboul 91), ed. van Loon, M. N. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije
Oosten: 8.423-446.
Van Loon, M. N.
2001d, “Bone, Ivory and Shell Objects”, in Selenkahiye. Final Report on the University of Chicago and University of
Amsterdam Excavations in the Tabqa Reservoir, Northern Syria, 1967-1975 (Publications de l’Institut historique
Oosten: 479-486.
Van Loon, M. N.
2001e, “Beads and pendants”, in Selenkahiye. Final Report on the University of Chicago and University of
Oosten: 11.487-494.
Van Loon, M. N.
2001f, “Seals and Seal Impressions”, in Selenkahiye. Final Report on the University of Chicago and University of
Oosten: 12.495-514.
Van Loon, M. N.; and Meijer, D. J. W.
2001, “Graves and their contents”, in Selenkahiye. Final Report on the University of Chicago and University
of Amsterdam Excavations in the Tabqa Reservoir, Northern Syria, 1967-1975 (Nederlands Historisch-
Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul 91), ed. van Loon, M. N. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije
Oosten: 4A.127-222.
Van Soldt, W. H.
2001, “Stone Objects”, in Selenkahiye. Final Report on the University of Chicago and University of Amsterdam
Excavations in the Tabqa Reservoir, Northern Syria, 1967-1975 (Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut
te Istanbul XCI), ed. van Loon, M. N. Leiden: Nederlands Instituut voor het Nabije Oosten: 9.447-477.
484
Venkatesan, M. I.; Linicikt, T. W.; Suess, H. E.; and Buccellati, G.

1982, “Asphalt in Carbon-14-dated Archaeological Samples from Terqa, Syria”, Nature 295.5849: 517-519.
Vila, E.
2005, “Réflexions sur les offrandes animales dans des tombes de la nécropole de Abu Hamed sur les piémonts du
Bischri (Syrie, IIIe millénaire av. J.-C., Bronze Ancien)”, in Gräber des 3. Jahrtausends v. Chr. im syrischen Euphrattal
4. Der Friedhof von Abu Hamed (Schriften zur Vorderasiatischen Archäologie 8), ed. Falb, C.; Krasnik, K.; Meyer,
J. W.; and Vila, E. Saarwellingen: Saarländische Druckerei & Verlag: 335-357.
Von der Osten, H. H.
1937, The Alishar Höyük. Seasons of 1930-32 vol. I (Oriental Institiute Publications 28). Chicago: University of
Chicago Press.
Waddington, C.
2007, Mesolithic Settlement in the North Sea Basin: A Case Study from Howick, North-east England. Oxford: Oxbow
Books and English Heritage.
Wäfler, M.
1980, “Der Becher MBQ 26/35-62 (= 71 MBQ 59)”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 112: 9-11.
Wäfler, M.
1982, “Zu den Siegelabrollungen auf Tontafelurkunde 79 MBQ 15 aus Tall Munbāqa”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen
Orient-Gesellschaft 114: 78.
Wakita, S.; Ishida, K.; and Wada, H.
2005, “A Burial in the Middle Euphrates, in Syria. Grave D-No. 21: An Early Bronze Age Grave in Area D in
Rumeilah”, Bulletin of the Ancient Orient Museum 25: 1-16.
Watkins, T.
1974, “Two unfinished spearheads in the Ashmolean Museum”, Levant 6: 188-192.
Watkins, T.
1983, “Cultural Parallelism: the Metalwork of Sumer and North Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C.”,
Iraq 45: 18-23.
Weiner, K. L.; Mash, L.; and Klenk, G.
1992, “Mineralogische Untersuchungen an späturukzeitlicher und frühbronzezeitlicher Keramik, in Hassek
Hüyük: Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und Lithische Industrie (Istanbuler Forschungen 38), ed. Behm-
Blancke, M. R. Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag: 87-100.
Werner, P.
1998a, “Knochengeräte”, in Tall Munbaqa – Ekalte I. Die bronzezeitlichen Kleinfunde (Wissenschaftliche
Werner, P.
1998b, “Nadeln”, in Tall Munbaqa – Ekalte I. Die bronzezeitlichen Kleinfunde (Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichung
Werner, P.
1998c, Tall Munbāqa – Bronzezeit in Syrien (Veröffentlichungen des Hamburger Museums für Achäologie und die
Geschichte Harburgs-Helms Museum Nr. 80). Neumünster: Wachholtz Verlag.
Werner, P.
2004, Tall Munbāqa-Ekalte – III. Die Glyptik. Mit Beiträgen von Rainer M. Czichon und Ruth Mayer-Opificius
(Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 108). Saarbrücken: Saarbrücker Druck
und Verlag.
Werner, P.
2008, “Die Keramik der frühen Bronzezeit”, in Tall Munbaqa-Ekalte IV. Die bronzezeitliche Keramik
(Wissenschaftliche Veröffentlichungen der Deutschen Orient Gesellschaft 118), ed. Czichon, M.; and Werner, P.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 5-95.
Westenholz, A.
1999, “The Old Akkadian Period: History and Culture”, in Mesopotamien – Akkade-Zeit und Ur III-Zeit (OBO
160/3), ed. Attinger, P.; and Wäfler, M. Freibourg/Göttingen: Vandenhoeck/Ruprecht: 17-117.
485
Weygand, I.
2007, “Les terres cuites de Mari: Directions de recherché”, Akh Purattim 1: 269-278.
Wilhelm, S.
1998, Die Reserved-Slip Keramik- Definition und Entwicklung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des Assad-
stauseegebietes im späten 3. Jahrtausend v. Ch. MA dissertation, Tübingen University.
Wilhelm, S.
2006, “Ancestral Bones. Early Bronze Age Human Skeletal Remains from Tell Banat, Syria”, Baghdader Mitteilungen
37: 359-380.
Wilkinson, T.
2004, On the Margin of the Euphrates. Settlement and land use at Tell Sweyhat and in the upper Lake Assad Area,
Syria. Excavations at Tell Sweyhat, Syria, Vol. I (Oriental Institute Publications 124). Chicago: Oriental Institute
Publications.
Wilkinson, T. J.
2007, “Archaeological regions in the neighbourhood of Carchemish”, in Euphrates River Valley Settlement. The
Carchemish sector in the Third Millennium BC (Levant Supplementary Series 5), ed. Peltenburg, E. Oxford: Oxbow
Books: 27-42.
Willkomm, H.
1992, “Radiokohlenstoffdatierungen”, in Hassek Höyük. Naturwissenschaftliche Untersuchungen und
lithische Industrie (Istsanbuler Forschungen 38) ed. Behm-Blancke, M. R. Tübingen: Ernst Wasmuth Verlag:
135-141.
Wissing, A.
2009, “Die Tonobjekte”, in Ausgrabungen 1998 – 2001 in der zentralen Oberstadt von Tall Mozan/Urkeš, Die
Kleinfunde (Studien zur Urbanisierung Nordmesopotamiens, Serie A, Vol 2), ed. Bianchi, A.; and Wissing, A.
Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz: 13-427.
Woolley, C. L.
1914, “Hittite Burial Customs”, Liverpool Annals of Archaeology and Anthropology 6: 87-98.
Woolley, C. L.
1921, Report on the Excavations at Jerablus on Behalf of the British Museum. Part II: The Town Defences. London:
British Museum.
Woolley, C. L.
1934, Ur Excavations, II. The Royal Cemetery. London: Oxford University Press.
Woolley, C. L.; and Barnett, R. D.
1952, Carchemish III. The excavations in the Inner Town and the Hittite Inscriptions. London: British Museum Press.
Yakar, J.
1985, The Later Prehistory of Anatolia (BAR International Series 268). Oxford: Archeopress.
Yakar, J.
2001, “Anatolian and Egyptian Imports from Late EB I at ‘Ein Assawir’, Israel”, Bulletin of the American Schools of
Oriental Research 321: 41-55.
Yalçıklı, D.; and Macit Tekinalp, V.
2004, “2001 Excavations at Mezraa Höyük”, in Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and
Carchemish Dam Reservoir Activities in 2001, ed. Tuna, N.; Greenhalg, J.; and Velibeyoğlu, J. Ankara: Middle
(TAÇDAM): 139-160.
Yener, A.
1990, “The Small Finds”, in Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia. Vol. II: The Stratigraphic Sequence at
Kurban Höyük (Oriental Institute Publications 110), ed. Algaze, G. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press:
397-419.
Zaccagnini, C.
1999-2001, “The Mina of Karkemiš and Other Minas”, State Archives of Assyria Bulletin 13: 39-56.
Zettler, R. L.
1977, “The Sargonic Royal Seal: A Consideration of Sealing in Mesopotamia”, in Seals and Sealings in the Ancient
Near East, ed. Gibson, M.; and Biggs, R. D. Malibu: Undena Publications: 33-39.
486
Zettler, R. L.
1997, “Surface collections and excavations in the Lower Town and Lower Town South”, in Subsistence and
Settlements in a Marginal Environment: Tell es-Sweyhat, 1989-1995 Preliminary Report (MASCA Papers in
Science and Archaeology 14). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications: 35-72.
Zettler, R. L.; and Armstrong, J. A.
1997, “Excavations on the High Mound (Inner Town)”, in Subsistence and Settlements in a Marginal Environment:
Tell es-Sweyhat, 1989-1995 Preliminary Report (MASCA Papers in Science and Archaeology 14). Philadelphia:
University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications: 11-34.
Zettler, R. L.; and Danti, M. D.
2007, “The Early Bronze Age in the Syrian north-west Jezireh: The Tell es-Sweyhat region”, in Euphrates River Valley
settlement. The Carchemish sector in the third millennium BC (Levant Supplementary Series 5), ed. Peltenburg E.
Oxford: Oxbow Books: 164-183.
Zettler, R. L.; Armstrong, J. A.; Bell, A.; Braithwaite, M.; Danti, M. D.; Miller, N. F.; Peregrine, P. N.;
and Weber, J. A.
1997, Subsistence and Settlement in a Marginal Environment: Tell es-Sweyhat, 1989-1995 Preliminary Report
(MASCA Papers in Science and Archaeology 14). Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Museum Publications.
Zettler, R. L.; Miller, N. F.; Weber, J. A.; Peregrine, P.; and Danti, M. D.
1996, “Tell es-Sweyhat, 1989-1995. A City in Northern Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C.”, Expedition
38: 14-26.
Ziegelmayer, G.; and Parsche, F.
1984, “Die Menschlichen Skelette von Hassek Höyük”, in “Hassek Höyük”, ed. Behm-Blancke, M., Istanbuler
487

ARCANE IV (Incompleto)

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARCANE IV (Incompleto)

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ARCANE IV

6. Anthropomorphic Terracotta Figurines 267

12. Radiocarbon Chronology 401

ID-Nr. Site label Data provided by Data entry by

ME029 Selenkahiye D. J. W. Meijer D. J. W. Meijer

Obersteinbach, Bern, Doha, Tübingen

ADB ARCANE Database

1.1. he ARCANE ESF Programme (Marc Lebeau)

1: First, at a regional level, the establishment of regional periodisations;

1.1.2.1 First Phase: Regional Periodisation

1.1.2.2 Second Phase: Cross-regional Synchronisation

1.1.2.3 hird Phase: General Synthesis

1.1.4.1 ARCANE “Primary Inventories”/Stratigraphical Benchmarks

1.1.4.2 ARCANE “Composite Inventories”

1.1.4.3 ARCANE “Artiicial Inventories”

1.2. Background and Aims (Mirko Novák)

1.2.2 he Middle Euphrates

1.2.4 Chronological Terminology

1.3. Towards ARCANE Volume IV (Mirko Novák)

1.3.2 Middle Euphrates Team

1.3.3 Regional and Transversal Workshops

1.3.4 he ME Regional Publication

1.4. Geography (Uwe Finkbeiner)

1.4.2 he Subregions and their Sites

1.4.2.1 Atatürk Dam Basin (see map, Fig. 2)

1.4.2.2 Carchemish and Birecik Dam Basin (see map, Fig. 3)

38° 39° 40° 41°

TIG RIDIAN REG IO N (TG )

Middle Khabur Dam

Tabqa Dam Abu Hamad (ME034)

(see detailed map)

and Balikh Valley ra

Fig. 1: he boundaries of the Middle Euphrates region.

1.4.2.4 Tabqa Dam Basin (see map, Fig. 5)

Fig. 2: Atatürk Dam Basin or Karababa Basin (excavated 3rd-millennium sites).

1.4.2.6 Sites west of the Euphrates Valley (see map, Fig. 1)

Zeytinli Bahçe (ME007)

Gre Virike (ME006)

Nizip Modern Town

Fig. 3: Carchemish and Birecik Dam Basin (excavated 3rd-millennium sites).

Shiyukh Fawqani (ME009)

36° (ME036) Amarna

Manbij Modern Town

Fig. 4: Tishrin Dam Basin (excavated 3rd-millennium sites).

38° 38°15’ 38°30’

36° Shamseddin (ME019) 36°

Habuba Kabira Tawi (ME022)

35° al-Thawra Modern Town 35°

38° 38°15’ 38°30’

Fig. 5: Tabqa Dam Basin (excavated 3rd-millennium sites).

1.5. Periodisation (Mirko Novák)

1.5.2 Southern Mesopotamian Terminology

Table 1: Diferent chronologies proposed for Southern Mesopotamia.

1.5.3 Bronze Age Terminology

Dates (app.)6 Mesopotamia Syria / Upper Mesopotamia

1.5.4 Proposal of an “Early Middle Euphrates” Periodisation

1.6. he Available Data (Uwe Finkbeiner)

Table 3: Complete list of sites by subregions.

Chapter ID Number Name of site

Atatürk Dam Basin 24.1.03 ME003 Titriş

Id.-Nr. Site label LC 5 EME 1 EME 2 EME 3 EME 4 EME 5 EME 6

1.6.2 Periods of Occupation

ME007 Zeytinli Bahçe Turkey Şanlıurfa Zeytinli Bahce 3 10 12 68 1 1,9 ha - 205 m 2

ME008 Tilbeshar Turkey Gaziantep Tilbeshar 5 7 7 168 3 56 ha 56 ha 1200 m 2