(Review of) Steve Renette. Lagash I: The Ceramic Corpus from Al-Hiba, 1968-1990. A Chrono-Typology of the Pottery Tradition in Southern Mesopotamia during the 3rd and Early 2nd Millennium BCE

Melania Zingarello

► To cite this version:

Melania Zingarello. (Review of) Steve Renette. Lagash I: The Ceramic Corpus from Al-Hiba, 1968-1990. A Chrono-Typology of the Pottery Tradition in Southern Mesopotamia during the 3rd and Early 2nd Millennium BCE. Paléorient, 2022, 48 (1), pp.206-210. 10.4000/paleorient.1842. hal-04856402

HAL Id: hal-04856402

https://hal.science/hal-04856402v1

Submitted on 26 Dec 2024

HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access
archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci-
entific research documents, whether they are pub-
lished or not. The documents may come from
teaching and research institutions in France or
abroad, or from public or private research centers.

L'archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est
destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents
scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non,
émanant des établissements d'enseignement et de
recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires
publics ou privés.

<figure><img src="image_1.png" /></figure>

Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License
Steve Renette. *Lagash I: The Ceramic Corpus from Al-Hiba, 1968-1990. A Chrono-Typology of the Pottery Tradition in Southern Mesopotamia during the 3rd and Early 2nd Millennium BCE*

Melania Zingarello

<figure><img src="image_2.png" /></figure>

OpenEdition
Journals

**Electronic version**

URL: https://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/1842

DOI: 10.4000/paleorient.1842

ISSN: 1957-701X

**Publisher**

CNRS Éditions

**Printed version**

Number of pages: 206-210

ISSN: 0153-9345

Brought to you by INIST - Centre national de la recherche scientifique (CNRS)

<figure><img src="image_3.png" /></figure>

**Electronic reference**

Melania Zingarello, "Steve Renette. *Lagash I: The Ceramic Corpus from Al-Hiba, 1968-1990. A Chrono-Typology of the Pottery Tradition in Southern Mesopotamia during the 3rd and Early 2nd Millennium BCE*", *Paléorient* [Online], 48-1 | 2022, Online since 02 August 2022, connection on 10 August 2022. URL: http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/1842; DOI: https://doi.org/10.4000/paleorient.1842

This text was automatically generated on 4 August 2022.

All rights reserved
Steve Renette. *Lagash I: The Ceramic Corpus from Al-Hiba, 1968-1990. A Chrono-Typology of the Pottery Tradition in Southern Mesopotamia during the 3rd and Early 2nd Millennium BCE*

Melania Zingarello

REFERENCES

Steve Renette 2021. *Lagash I: The Ceramic Corpus from Al-Hiba, 1968-1990. A Chrono-Typology of the Pottery Tradition in Southern Mesopotamia during the 3rd and Early 2nd Millennium BCE.* Turnhout: Brepols (ARATTA 1). 450p.

1. From the first steps of Near Eastern archaeology until some years ago, monographs on 3rd and early 2nd millennium BCE pottery from South Mesopotamia could be counted on the fingers of one hand. Apart from the seminal work of P. Delougaz (1952) in the 1950s, focusing on the ceramics of the Diyala region and then adopted as the reference for all studies on Mesopotamian pottery, only a few publications have been specifically dedicated to the ceramic materials of this region. These mainly include preliminary excavation reports with a varying level of detail and rare final reports of archaeological operations at Iraqi sites involving the analysis and discussion of the associated pottery.

2. The last decade has seen a renewed interest in this field of study, marked by J. A. Armstrong and H. Gasche's comprehensive volume (2014) on 2nd millennium BCE materials, the first large-scale work on Mesopotamian pottery spanning a millennium. Two factors have driven this new south Mesopotamian "ceramic" momentum. The
resumption of archaeological activities in southern Iraq since 2012 has resulted in an injection of fresh data, opening the door to multi-disciplinary approaches and perspectives previously barely explored in this region. On the other hand, the reappraisal of the records of the archaeological expeditions carried out in the 20th century enabled the release of critical unpublished data.

3. The volume under consideration falls into the latter category of studies, being part of a broader publication project led by Holly Pittman (Penn Museum, University of Pennsylvania) on the American excavations at the ancient city of Lagash, the modern Tell al-Hiba in the Iraqi Governorate of Dhi Qar. Renette's book is the first of several planned volumes presenting the much-awaited results of six seasons of excavations conducted at the site between 1968 and 1990 under the direction of Donald P. Hansen. The subject of this first issue is a substantial corpus of ceramic materials coming from the main archaeological operations carried out at Tell al-Hiba, namely areas A, B, C and G. Their combined sequences cover the period from the beginning of the 3rd millennium BCE to about the first two centuries of the 2nd millennium BCE, with some gaps. If one considers that virtually no pottery from the site has been published since the beginning of the American expedition, the relevance of the author's work within Mesopotamian studies is easily understood.

4. Opened by a foreword from H. Pittman, the volume is organised into five chapters of unequal length, arranged according to a linear methodological structure: after the introduction (chapter I), the methodology employed is exposed (chapter II), followed by the presentation of the pottery typology (chapter III), the analysis of the ceramic evidence (chapter IV) and the conclusions (chapter V). An extensive collection of 214 plates with related tables complements this study.

5. The introductory chapter (p. 1-11) provides the reader with the aim of the volume, which is to present the pottery typology of the Lagash region as a step toward the creation of a "comprehensive ceramic shape typology for southern Mesopotamia" (p. 4) spanning the whole 3rd millennium BCE. A further goal is to offer a diachronic picture of the internal ceramic development of Tell al-Hiba throughout its occupation. The first pages briefly set out the reasons behind the little regard for pottery, especially on the part of the early expeditions working in Iraq, which is closely associated with the issue of the 3rd millennium BCE periodisation. Any research on material culture related to central and southern Mesopotamia is inevitably confronted with the chronological framework and the historical terminology resulting from the Oriental Institute of Chicago's activities in the Diyala Region since the 1930s. Until today, the scarcity of well-stratified and well-documented archaeological sequences has hindered significant progress in reassessing the Mesopotamian periodisation of the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE. Admittedly, this explains the author's choice to retain the traditional terminology in referring to the pottery dating and occupational phases of Tell al-Hiba.

6. During six seasons of excavations at Lagash, the American expedition focused on four main operations located in different places in the southern half of the oblong-shaped site. Area G yielded the earliest sequence of occupation, roughly covering the first part of the 3rd millennium BCE in two different trenches and a deep sounding. These have revealed an administrative quarter partly delimited by a curving wall. Two temple complexes were excavated in areas A and B, the *Ibgal* of the goddess Inanna and the *Bagara* of the god Ningirsu. Both produced levels dated to the Early Dynastic III period, but following Renette, area A's sequence offers the connection between the pottery
assemblages of the first and the second part of the 3rd millennium BCE. Material ascribed to the Early Dynastic IIIB and Akkadian periods is attested in area C's complex, devoted to administrative and craft production activities. The latest ceramic evidence of Tell al-Hiba comes from occupational levels in both areas B and C, dating to Ur III times up to the end of the Isin-Larsa period.

7

Since the different trenches and soundings are not stratigraphically connected, often even within the same area, the individual stratigraphic sequences have been paralleled based on the material culture. Consequently, a phasing for the site, which includes 12 phases (A to L, from the latest to the earliest) covering about 1250 years, has been adopted to illustrate the pottery development over time. If a similar phasing is a standard procedure to indicate a series of intra-site contemporary levels, what remains less clear is the association between the internal phases A-L and the chronological periods. The author states that "the temporal scale of the phases has been kept sufficiently large" and that the 12 phases "overlap with well-established historical-archaeological framework for southern Mesopotamia" (p. 10). The latter stands for the "Early Dynastic (I Early; I Late; IIIA; IIIB)" (hereafter ED), "Akkadian (Early; Late and Post)", "Ur III", and "Isin-Larsa (Early; Late)" periods. This list is completed by three "transitional" periods – ED I Early to Late, ED I to ED IIIA including ED II, and ED IIIB to Akkadian – recognized by Renette as discrete phases. One can agree about employing the traditional terminology and historical framework to the extent that it facilitates comparisons with other Mesopotamian sites, at least so long as an in-depth analysis of the overall material culture from the region is achieved. However, the overlapping of the site phasing with historical periods whose validity is still highly debated appears contrived, especially for the supposed "transitional" phases. The author is fully aware of the issues concerning the debate about the 3rd and 2nd millennia BCE periodisation in southern Mesopotamia, as is apparent throughout the volume. Yet, in the paragraph entitled "Site phasing" (p. 9-11), he devotes little time to clarifying the reasoning supporting the construction of table 1.2. Here, the stratigraphic sequences of the different trenches and soundings are compared and arranged according to the site's 12 (A-L) "occupation phases". These correspond, in turn, to the traditional chronological periods. Such an operation, lacking a clear explanation, may result in a blurred and doubtful picture: why choose 12 phases? Do they correspond to stratigraphic ruptures or variations in the settlement occupation as their designation as "occupation phases" seems to imply? Or are they based on changes in the material culture? And in both cases, why equate them with imposed chronological categories, including three alleged transitions?

8

Some answers to these questions can be inferred later in the volume, specifically in the chapter devoted to pottery analysis (chapter IV). Nevertheless, if the goal was to identify ceramic phases within the site's occupational sequence by documenting the evolution of the pottery over time, the association between the site's phases and chronological periods should have occurred in the last step of the process. The same may be said for the "transitional" periods (Early ED I to Late ED I, ED I-ED IIIA, ED IIIB-Akkad) considered a priori as separate phases (K, I, F, respectively) and finally acknowledged as unrecognisable archaeological stages based on ceramics. In other words, this means that a distinctive pottery assemblage is not noticeable in phases K, I, and F at Tell al-Hiba. More to the point, according to the author, at least one "transitional" phase exists between ED I and ED III based on stratigraphic levels, but no detailed information is offered on this issue. We see emerging an implicit use of the
term “transition” to indicate the difficulty in ascribing ceramic types to the preceding and following phase or the presence of “generic” pottery types. Yet, in response to the widespread use of “transition”, especially in pottery studies, recent research (Frangipane 2012, 2021; Iamoni 2014) has established the essential features for outlining as “transitional” a given temporal interval. In this sense, an explicit definition of this concept as used in the volume would have been desirable to fully comprehend the pace of the ceramic evolution at Tell al-Hiba.

9

Thorough explanations about the nature of the ceramic evidence are offered in both chapters I and II. In particular, chapter II (p. 13-22), focusing on methodology, provides detailed information about the pottery recording system elaborated by E. Ochsenschlager, who was in charge of the ceramic material during all six excavation seasons at Tell al-Hiba. Although well-conceived by 1970s standards, the recording system revealed a series of flaws, including using the “true pottery type” concept, which led to a partial ceramic record. Renette highlights the documentation’s shortcomings, rightly emphasising the subjectivity in recording pottery attributes and identifying formal types. Thus, the author faces the consequences these inconsistencies have had on the evaluation and publication of the pottery dataset, as the impossibility to integrate a ware analysis in the book: the fabric’s colour is the only information that could be provided in the tables associated to the ceramic plates. Most importantly, Renette acknowledges two major issues that affected establishing a reliable ceramic sequence for Tell al-Hiba: the lack of uninterrupted stratigraphic sequences and the fragmentary preservation of the ceramic material, preventing a fine-tuned morphological classification. As a result, the al-Hiba dataset is deemed to help provide well-dated pottery assemblages for restricted periods within the 3rd millennium BCE. Still, it is of limited use for an internal correlation between excavated contexts (p. 20).

10

The criteria underlying the pottery typology are introduced at the end of the second chapter, and their presentation briefly continues at the beginning of chapter III (p. 23-122). Vessels morphology is the key aspect on which the classification has been built, based on vessel and rim shape.

11

For this volume, it would be rather appropriate to talk about typologies (plural) of the ceramic material since the whole corpus is actually organised in different sets of categories. The “Main Typology” encompasses almost all of the vessels and sherds of Tell al-Hiba pottery evidence and is arranged according to the classic sorting of the open forms followed by the closed shapes. Both open and closed forms are organised in 16 macro-groups named from HA to HP, within which pottery types unfold: the first ones are classified into nine groups (HA to HI), whereas jars and bottles represent five categories of closed shapes (HJ to HN). Groups HO and HP complement the “Main Typology”, covering drain types and miniature vessels, respectively. Apart from the subjective choices that can be made in classifying a ceramic corpus, it may seem peculiar that pottery drains enter a ceramic typology. In such a case, the apparent lack, among the represented types, of the large pottery rings usually found stacked in vertical drain channels stands out. They are often mistaken for large vats with heavy thick rims and are rarely collected and documented. Nonetheless, the possibility that type HO-2 could be a funnel rather than a drain implement is an interesting suggestion of the author and would justify its presence in the typology. As regards the miniature pots, the author himself maintains that the type of small jar (or flask) HP-10a-b could
have served as a container, even if it has been included in the category of non-functional vessels.

12 "Additional typologies" have been envisaged for different groups of pottery materials: specimens without any apparent parallel appear under the label "miscellaneous" at the end of each associated category. Therefore, the "Main Typology" is followed by the classes of bases, Ribbed Ware, Unbaked Clay Ware and Painted Ware. Within the category of Ribbed Ware, various kinds of vessels are associated based on the ribbed aspect of their body. According to Renette, they clearly constitute a separate class of pots apparently confined to the period encompassing ED IIIB and Early Akkadian phases. The ribbed appearance actually consists of different types of morphological and shaping traits such as corrugations, ribs, ridges, etc., breaking the flatness of the vessels' surface. Generally speaking, these characteristics seem to become very common starting from the late ED IIIB period and persisting at least until Ur III times, if we also consider the carinated ridged-shoulder jars (McMahon 2014). The existence of a separate class of (improperly called) Ribbed Ware has been put forward by Delougaz (1952: 101) concerning bowls similar to those included in Renette's category HR. To regard this group of pots as a discrete category is a matter of typological choice. But it is not clear why only "non-existing types with the addition of ridges or ribbed decoration" (p. 21) should be attributed to the "Ribbed Ware" and not, for example, other ridged vessels such as the large vessels shown on pl. 103.

13 The last two typologies represent two categories of vessels poorly attested at the site: the first one consists of sun-dried (therefore not strictly pottery receptacles) low trays and deep vats. The second one is represented by painted pots and sherds illustrated by a few fragments of "Scarlet Ware" from ED I contexts (area G) and a coherent group of imports from the Central Zagros region found in area C. The latter collection has been published in a dedicated article by Renette himself (2015). Finally, the author mentions a typology of spouts, a presentation of the few detached spouts documented by a type sheet and a drawing placed in a specific plate at the end of the category of HM spouted jars. According to Renette, the 658 listed specimens of spouts in Tell al-Hiba's archive are of little significance in terms of percentage within the ceramic corpus as a whole. It is interesting, though, that 523 spouts only come from area G.

14 The description of all pottery types in chapter III occupies the bulk of the text: for each type, a brief discussion of the key features concerning the morphology, chronology and/or geographical attestation is provided, followed by the ceramic parallels. A column chart shows attestations of each type and its total amount of fragments per phase, with reference to the phasing established for the site at the beginning of the volume. In the charts, the choice to indicate the occurrence percentage "based on the total amount of typed sherds minus the mass-produced vessels" (p. 23) proved to be effective in expressing the weight of each type within the ceramic corpus, against the overrepresentation of conical bowls and beakers, particularly during the 3rd millennium BCE. Miscellaneous fragments are not described or discussed since they do not represent any specific types: the related information only appears in the tables associated with the plates. Some inconsistencies can be detected by comparing these with the number of sherds and attestation per phase for a number of types, as in the case of types HK-7 or HL-14. Still, these are probably the result of the partial availability of the drawings and the author's case-by-case decisions regarding intrusive or clearly misidentified sherds (see p. 24).
15

Chapter IV (p. 123-153) elaborates on the considerations made in the book's first part, especially in the typological chapter. The aim is to outline the development of the ceramic material at Tell al-Hiba according to eight main periods, each corresponding to one or more occupation phases at the site, as follows:

1. ED I (phases L-I);

2. the transition from ED I to ED IIIA (phase I);

3. ED IIIA (phases I-H);

4. ED IIIB to Early Akkadian (phases G-F);

5. Akkadian (phases F-D);

6. Ur III (phase C);

7. Early Isin-Larsa (phase B);

8. Late Isin-Larsa (phase A).

16

The pottery types from each of these periods are mentioned along with their relative frequency percentage, and the presence of chronological markers (if any) is highlighted and discussed. The types more distinctive of every period are then illustrated in specifically dedicated figures. Starting with ED I, the author clearly distinguishes, in the ceramic corpus of Tell al-Hiba, an early and late phase epitomised by the predominance of solid-footed goblets (HA-3) and conical beakers (HA-1), respectively. Their mutual occurrence in the two parts of ED I is inversely proportional. Several types of bowls and jars firstly appear in ED I, persisting with minor variations throughout most of the 3rd millennium BCE. About the controversial existence of an ED II as a distinct cultural phase, Renette takes a clear position against this hypothesis based on the ceramic evidence. In his interpretation, phase I would correspond to the transition from ED I to ED IIIA, also encompassing ED II: what can be observed in the pottery assemblage is the variation in the frequency of long-lasting types. At the same time, the author points out that the reference dataset is not entirely reliable due to the nature of the archaeological contexts and their limitation in space. Ceramic material accounting for ED IIIA seems to be sufficiently large to distinguish it from that of the following period: despite a strong continuity with ED I, the assemblage “might reflect changes in cultural practices” (p. 130), acknowledged, for instance, in the morphological evolution of cooking vessels and a tendency towards more regular vessels’ sizes. In ED IIIA, conical bowls, attested in reduced quantity in the previous period, largely supplanted previous popular types, becoming a ubiquitous shape until the 2nd millennium BCE.

17

The analysis of pottery from ED IIIB and Early Akkadian levels at Tell al-Hiba confirms the general impression from other Mesopotamian sites that the ceramic types of the two historical periods are not easy to distinguish. Consequently, one could wonder why the idea of an alleged ED IIIB/Early Akkadian transition – here corresponding to phase F – should be kept, given that the initial Akkadian age does not show any significant ceramic difference compared to the ED IIIB. The close similarity between the assemblages is exemplified by figs. 4.4. and 4.5, illustrating the main characteristic shapes of ED IIIB and “transitional and Early Akkadian” (italics mine) periods, respectively. Here, the number of shared types is significantly higher than the new ones, and they seem to belong to the same long Early Dynastic tradition if they are also compared to the ED IIIA types (see fig. 4.3). Renette rightly notes that a series of characteristic shapes typical of this tradition begin to disappear with the Late Akkadian period, although not abruptly as he seems to stress (p. 164-165).
18

Likewise, Late Akkadian and post-Akkadian pottery appear to be more strictly related to the Ur III assemblage, even if the author underlines the striking absence of Ur III diagnostic types from the ceramic corpus of Tell al-Hiba. Once again, a further transition is invoked for phases D and C (p. 138), in which new pottery types, typical of the Isin-Larsa period, begin to appear. A restricted number of typed sherds are available for the first centuries of the 2nd millennium BCE. Still, the comparison with Armstrong and Gasche's well-established typology (2014) has allowed ascribing the latest excavated levels of two different operations in area B to both the Early and Late Isin-Larsa periods.

19

The detailed analysis of the pottery development regrettably does not end with an explicit definition of the ceramic phases within the combined stratigraphic sequence of the site. The eight above-mentioned traditional chronological periods, including "transitions", seem to be retained as actual cultural stages, even though a different association between site phases and the historical-archaeological framework appears possible. It is hoped that such a task could be accomplished by future research.

20

The final chapter (p. 161-165) contains, in some ways, a summary of the strengths and the (few) limits of Renette's book. This first volume of the Al-Hiba Final Publication Project has been eagerly awaited for the paramount importance of Tell al-Hiba's ceramic corpus within Mesopotamian pottery studies. It offers a new basis for the ongoing fieldwork research in Iraq and paves the way toward a comprehensive reassessment of the pottery horizons of the whole region. The author and the team behind the Penn Museum project have provided an exemplary demonstration of how to deal with the challenges of legacy datasets and how to exploit their potential, even using a traditional ceramic approach.

21

Moreover, an original contribution of this book is the discussion of the pottery evolution of a major urban centre over more than a millennium.

22

On the other hand, a deepening of the issue of the supposed transitions in the 3rd millennium BCE as reflected in the ceramic material from Lagash would have taken the comprehension of these phenomena one step further. Also, it would have been helpful to have a clearer picture of the local specificities of Tell al-Hiba compared with other southern Mesopotamian sites. These are often mentioned in the chapter devoted to typology but are not thoroughly explored. Finally, minor errors in the bibliography are to be reported, such as the absence of the reference of Cole 2014 mentioned on page 4, a misplaced reference at the end of the listed works (Wilson et al.) and the repetition of a cited author's name (Benati).

23

Notwithstanding, this volume, inaugurating the Aratta series of Brepols, is one of the leading acquisitions in the scientific literature of the past years and will become part of the main references for Mesopotamian pottery studies.
## BIBLIOGRAPHY

Armstrong J. A. and Gasche H. 2014 – *Mesopotamian Pottery. A Guide to the Babylonian Tradition in the Second Millennium B.C.* Ghent-Chicago: University of Ghent-Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago (Mesopotamian History and Environment Series II, Memoirs VI).

Delougaz P. 1952 – *Pottery from the Diyala Region*. Chicago: University of Chicago Press (Oriental Institute Publications 63).

Frangipane M. 2012 – “Transitions” as an archaeological concept. Interpreting the final Ubaid-Late Chalcolithic transition in the northern periphery of Mesopotamia: 39-62. *Varia Anatolica* 27.

Frangipane M. 2021 – *Cultures “In Transitions”*. Interpreting Tome, Persistence, and Changes in the Archaeological Record. In Hess C. W. and Manuelli F. (eds.), *Bridging the Gap: Disciplines, Times, and Spaces in Dialogue*, vol. I: *Sessions 1, 2, and 5 from the Conference Broadening Horizons 6 Held at the Freie Universität Berlin, 24-28 June 2019*: 189-209. Oxford: Archaeopress.

Iamoni M. 2014 – Transition in ceramics, a critical account and suggested approach: case-study through comparison of the EBA-MBA and MBA-LBA horizons at Qatna. *Levant* 46,1: 4-26.

McMahon A. 2014 – *Carinated Ridged-Shoulder “Akkadian” Jars*. In Lebeau M. (ed.), *ARCANE Interregional: Ceramics*: 245-252. Turnhout: Brepols (ARCANE Interregional 1).

Renette S. 2015 – *Painted Pottery from Al-Hiba: Godin Tepe III Chronology and Interactions between Ancient Lagash and Elam*. *Iran* 53: 49-63.

## AUTHORS

### MELANIA ZINGARELLO

Department of Ancient World Studies, Sapienza, University of Rome, Rome, Italy – melania.zingarello@uniroma1.it