AL- SHARK 1
University of Tsukuba, Studies for West Asian Archaeology

EXCAVATIONS AT TELL UMM QSEIRIN MIDDLE KHABUR VALLEY, NORTH SYRIA
Report of the 1996 Season

Edited by
Akira TSUNEKI and Yutaka MIYAKE

1998
Department of Archaeology
Institute of History a nd Anthropology, University of Tsukuba

AL-SHARK 1
University of Tsukuba, Studies for West Asian Archaeology

EXCAVATIONS AT TELL UMM QSEIRIN MIDDLE KHABUR VALLEY, NORTH SYRIA
Report of the 1996 Season

Edited by
Akira TSUNEKI and Yutaka MIYAKE

1998

Department of Archaeology
Institute of History and Anthropology, University of Tsukuba

Copyright 1998 by
Department of Archaeology,
Institute of History and Anthropology,
University of Tsukuba
1-1-1 Tennodai, Tsukuba,
305-8571 JapanNo reproduction without Permission. All rights reserved.

Excavations at Tell Umm Qseir in Middle Khabur Valley, North
Syria: Report of the 1996 Season/ed. Akira Tsuneki and Yutaka
Miyake.
Department of Archaeology, Institute of History and Anthropology,
University of Tsukuba (Al-Shark: University of Tsukuba, Studies forWest Asian Archaeology; No. 1)
ISSN 1343-182X

CONTENTS
List of Figures
List of Tables
List of Plates
Acknowledgments
Introduction · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· · ·· · · · ·· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·Akira Tsuneki .. ·1

Chapter I. Environmental and Archaeological Setting of the Middle Khabur Region
1. Landforms and Geology ....... · ·· · ............ · ·· · .. ··· ................ ·· ·Sadayuki Akahane...
4
2. Vegetation ........................................................................... Toru Nakamura... 14
3. Archaeological Sites··· ... ·· .. ····· .. · .... ···· .... ·· .. ········ .. ··· .. · .. ········ .. ·Yutaka Miyake·· · 17
Chapter IL Site and Stratigraphy ................................................... Akira Tsuneki...

21

Chapter Ill. Phase 1 : Halaf Period
1. Structures · · · · · · · · .. · .. · ... · .. · · .. · · · · · · .. · · · ...... · .. · · · · · .... · ·· · · .. · · · · · .. · · · ... · · · · ·Akira Tsuneki· · · 29
2. Pottery .. ····· ·· .... ··· · ·· · ··· ......... · ·· · · · · · · ..... · ..... · · .. · .. · ··· ··· .. ····· · .. · .. · ·Yutaka Miyake··· 41
3. Chipped and Ground Stones Artifacts ....................................... osamu Maeda··· 86
4. Other Objects · · ·· · ... ··· ... · · · · · · · · · · · · · · .. · · .. · · · · · · · ...... · .. · · ·· .. · · .. · · .. · · · · · ·· ·Akira Tsuneki · · · 108
Chapter IV. Phases 2-4: Later Periods
1. Structures · · · · · · · · · .... · .. · · ..... · · · · · · .. · · · · · · · .. · · · · · .. · .... · · .. · .. · .. · · ... · · .. · · · · · .. Akira Tsuneki · · · 123
2. Pottery .................................................................................... Toru Tomita ... 141
3. Other Objects·· ...... · .. · .. · ..... ········· .. · .. · .. · .. ····· .. · .. · ...... ··· .... ········· .. Osamu Maeda ... 161
Chapter V. Discussion
1. Tholoi : Their Socio-Economic Aspects ..... · .................... · · · .. ·· · ·· Akira Tsuneki ... 164
2. New Light on the Middle Halaf Period: Halaf Chronology Revised· · .. · .. · · · · · · · · .. · ·· ....... · ·· .. · · · · · · · · .. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · · ·· · .. · · ... ·· · · ·· · ·· · .. · .. ·Y utaka Miyake·· · 177
3. Halaf Chipped Stone Industry of Tell Umm Qseir ..................... Osamu Maeda· .. 189
4. Late Chalcolithic Chronology in Syria and Northern Mesopotamia....................................................................................... Toru Tomita· .. 197
Concluding Remarks ........................................................................ Akira Tsuneki ... 202
Bibliography
Appendixes
1. Human Skeletal Remains .................. Hajime Ishida and Hirofumi Matsumura· .. 211
2. Animal Bones ............................................................... Toyohiro Nishimoto· .. 213
3. AMS 14 C Results ................................. Hiroyuki Kitagawa and ].van der Plicht· .. 214
4. Domestic Life in Tnenir Vil1age········· ....................................... Etsuko Kurata· .. 215

Table 2b
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14

Halaf Painted Ware : number and proportion of each vessel shape. · · · ·· · · .... · ... · ........ 42
Flint artifacts from Tell Umm Qseir. ···· ······················ · ·· · ········· ....................... .... 87
Obsidian artifacts from Tell Umm Qseir. ............................................................ 88
Sun-dried clay balls..................... · ............................. · ·· · .............. · ................. ··· · 111
Clay scrapers ................................. ··· ..................... · ........ ··· · .............................. 112
Clay spindle whorls. ·· ............... · ··· ............................. · ··· ·· ········· · ........................ 115
Clay disks. . ...................... ··· · ................................. · ...... ·· · · · ........... ···· ..... ··· · ...... 117
Number of rim and base shards in Phase 3.......................................................... 152
Tholos list of Tell Arpachiyah ............................................................................ 165
Tholos list of Yarim Tepe IL ............................................................................. · 168
Tholos list of Tell Sabi Abyad ............................................................................ 171
Relative chronology in Late Chalcolithic period .................. ············· ..................... 201
Mesiodistal and buccolingual crown diameters of the human teeth from Tell Umm Qseir .
........................................................................................................................ 212

Table 15 List of identified species and quantities per period. .. · ... · · · · .. · · .. · · · ...... · · ....... ··· ..... · · · 213
Table 16 Minimum number of animals ... ······ ..... ·· ....... · ... ··· .. ·· .. · .. ···· .... ···· ... ···· .. · ..... ·· .. ··....... 213
Table 17 Results of AMS radiocarbon dating. .. ................................................................ 214

List of Plates
Plate 1
Plate 2
Plate 3
Plate 4
Plate 5
Plate 6
Plate 7
Plate 8
Plate 9Plate 10
Plate 11
Plate 12
Plate 13
Plate 14
Plate 15
Plate 16
Plate 17
Plate 18
Plate 19
Plate 20
Plate 21
Plate 22
Plate 23
Plate 24
Plate 25
Plate 26

Landforms and geology around Tell Umm Qseir. ................................................ 11
Landforms and geology around Tell Umm Qseir. .. ............................................. · 12
Landforms and geology around Tell Umm Qseir. ................................................ 13
Views of Tell Umm Qseir. .. · ..... · .................................................. · ......... ............ 27
Sections of the excavated squares. .. · · · · .. · ......... · ......... · · .. · .... · ............. · · ...... · .... ···.. 28
Structures of Phase la.· .... · .. · .... ······· .... ····· .. ·· .... ··· .. ··· .. ···· .. ······ ........ ·· ........ ··· .. ·.... 38
Structures of Phases lb and le. · ...... · .... · · ......... · .... · ·· · · .... · · · ........ · ........ · .... · ·· ·· .. · ... · · 39
Kilns and finds of Phase 1. ...... · ........ · · .. · .... · .. · · .... · .................. · .. · · .. · .. · ..... · .. · ...... ·.. 40
Halaf Ware... · · .. · .. · · .. · · · · · · ·· · .... · .... · .. · .. · · ...... · .. · · · ...... · .. · .... · .... · .. · · .. · .......... · ...... · .. · .. · 82
Halaf Ware, Coarse Ware and miscellaneous ware. ............................................. 83
Halaf Ware. · · · · ... · · ... ·· · · · · .... · ... · .. · · · .... · ·· · · · · ....... · · · · ... ·· · .. · · · · · · ·· · · · · · · ··· · ... · · · · · · · ·· ··· · · · .. · · 84
Halaf Ware, zoomorphic vessel fragments, Coarse Ware and miscellaneous ware.... 85
Halaf chipped stone artifacts............................................ ·· .... · ............................ 107
Halaf miscellaneous objects. .............................................................................. 121
Halaf miscellaneous objects. .............................................................................. 122
Structures of Phases 2 and 3a. .. ....................................... · ............................ · ···· 137
Structures of Phase 3b... · · ....... · · · · .. · · .................. · · ... ·· · · ... · · .. · .. · .... · ... · ... ·· · ·· · · · ....... ·.. 138
Structures of Phase 3c....... · .... · · .... · ..... · ...... · ............ · · .. · .. · · .. · · · · · · · .............. · ·· ·· .. · · .. · 139
Grave 6 (Phase 3d) and structures of Phase 4....................................................... 140
Late Chalcolithic and Middle Uruk pottery .......................................................... 158
Mitanni pottery ................................................................................................. 159
Mitanni pottery and miscellaneous objects.......................................................... 160
Modern Qubbeh village at Berne, northwestern Syria. · ......... · · .................. · · · ........ · 175
Life in Tnenir village........................................................................................ 217
Life in Tnenir village. .. ..... · ··· ............................................................................ 218
Life in Tnenir village........................................................................................ 219

Fig. 44 Obsidian artifacts. · · · ······· · ·· · · ·· · · · · · · ·· · · ....................... · ............. · .. · · · · .. · ... · ·· · · · ....... · · .... 103
Fig. 45 Ground stone artifacts .......... · .. · · ... · .... · · · · ....... · · ........ · · ............ · .. · ....... · .......... · · ....... · · 106
Fig. 46 Stone stamp seals... · ....... · ... · · .. ·· · ·· · .. · .... · ............. · ........... · · .. · ... · ·· · .... · ...... · .. · ..... .. .. ... 108
Fig. 47 Stone vessels, stone celt, bone spatula, and stone and shell beads............................... 109
Fig. 48 Sun-dried clay balls and clay lumps...................................................................... 110
Fig. 49 Clay scrapers.......................... · ........ · · ·· · ........................................ · .. ·· .................. 114
Fig. 50 Clay spindle whorls and clay disks. ·......... · .... ·· .... · .............................. ·· ·· ............... · 116
Fig. 51 Clay figurines and miniature vessel. ........................................................................ 119
Fig. 52 Structures of Phase 2. .. ...... · · .... · ...... · · ........ · · .......... · ..... · ·· · .. · · .... · · · · ....................... · · 125
Fig. 53 Section of Silo 1, Phase 2. ·· · · ..... · · · ...... · · · ........ · · ···· ··· · · · ..... · · ...... · .. ·· .. · .. · · · · ......... ....... 127
Fig. 54 Pit 12, Phase 2. .. ............ · ........................... ·· ........... · .............. · ...... ·· ................... · 127
Fig. 55 Structures of Phase 3a....... · · ...... · · .. ·.. · .. · · ........ · · .... · .......... · .... · · · · · · · · · ........ · ...... · .... ·.... 128
Fig. 56 Storage jar, Phase 3a ........................................................................................... 128
Fig. 57 Structures of Phase 3b......... · ...... · ......... · .. · ...... · .. · ............. · ....... · .. · · .... · .... · ·· ...... · · ..... 129
Fig. 58 "Drainpipe", Phase 3b ........................................................................................... 131
Fig. 59 Cooking pot found at southwestern corner of Room 4, Building 2. .. ............ ...... .. .. ... 132
Fig. 60 Structures of Phase 3c. · ..... · ...... · ........ · · · ................... · .......... · · .. · ........ · .......... · ......... · 133
Fig. 61 Grave 6, Phase 3d........... · ......... · .. · .... · · .. · .. · · ............... · · .... · · .... · ·· · · · · ......... · .......... · .... 135
Fig. 62 Structures of Phase 4. .. ......... · · · .. · ... · .. · · · · ····· .. · ........ · · · ......... · · .. · · .. · · .... · ...... .... .......... 136
Fig. 63 Late Chalcolithic pottery. . .............................................. · ........ · ........................... 143
Fig. 64 Late Chalcolithic pottery. .. .................................................................................. 145
Fig. 65 Middle Uruk pottery. . ......................................................................................... 147
Fig. 66 Mitanni pottery......................... · · ..... · .. · · .. · .......................... · .... · ........ · ...... .... .. ... .... 151
Fig. 67 Mitanni pottery.............................. · ................................. · · ...... · .......................... · 153
Fig. 68 Mitanni pottery ....................... · ......... · ................................ · ........... ··· ................... 155
Fig. 69 Miscellaneous objects from Phases 2, 3, 4................................................................ 162
Fig. 70 Ground stones from Phase 2, 3, 4........................ · .................. · .... · .......... .... ......... .... 163
Fig. 71 Distribution of sites producing Halaf Pottery ......................................................... · 165
Fig. 72 Various tholoi. ............................. · ..... · .................................. · ... · ........................... 166
Fig. 73 Dimensions and types of tholoi in each site. · .......... · ............. · ...... · ...... · ................ · .. · 169
Fig. 74 Halaf settlements................................................................................................. 173
Fig. 75 Transformation of vessel shapes through Halaf periods ....... · ....................... · · ....... ·.. 180
Fig. 76 Core reduction process of local flints ... · .. ·· ....... · .... · ·· .......... · · .... · .. · .. ·.. ....... ........ ..... .. 190
Fig. 77 Classification of flake-types .................................................................................. 191
Fig. 78 Proportion of each flake-type. .. .. · .................................... · ....... · ..... ....... .......... .... .. 191
Fig. 79 Production process of chipped stone artifacts in Tell Umm Qseir. . .......................... 192
Fig. 80 Proportion of blank (flake)-types in each tool-type ................................................. 193
Fig. 81 Position of working-edges in each tool-type. .. .................................. · .................... 194
Fig. 82 Dimensions of fine-grained flint blades ......... · .................... · ............ ·........ .... .... ... .. .. 195
Fig. 83 Dimensions of obsidian blades. · ................ ·· .................................. · .. · .... · ... ·.. ... ....... 196
Fig. 84 Transformation of vessel shapes and decorations throughout Late Chalcolithic period. 200
Fig. 85 Modern spindles for spinning and for twisting. .. .......... · ..... · ................... ··· ........ · .... 216

List of Tables
Table 1 Shapes and dimensions of Phase la pits. ..................... ..... ......... .... ..................... 30
Table 2a Number and proportion of each ware group in Phase 1. .................... ................... 42

List of Figures
Fig.l
Fig. 2

Location of Tell Umm Qseir. ................................................................................. 2
Typical topographic cross-sections showing the development of landforms in the arid region.
...........................................................................................................................

Fig. 3Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8Fig. 9Fig.lO
Fig.llFig.l2
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig.l5Fig.l6
Fig.l7
Fig.l8Fig.l9Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26
Fig. 27
Fig. 28
Fig. 29
Fig. 30
Fig. 31
Fig. 32
Fig. 33
Fig. 34
Fig. 35
Fig. 36
Fig. 37
Fig. 38
Fig. 39
Fig. 40
Fig. 41
Fig. 42
Fig. 43

5

Topographic section across Tell Umm Qseir in the north-south direction................... 5Classification of landform and distribution of tells along the Khabur River. ....... · .. ·.... 7
Columnar section of the undercut slope of the 700m east of Tell Umm Qseir. ............ 8
Topographic map of area surrounding Tell Umm Qseir. .......................................... 9Vegetation map around Tell Umm Qseir. ............................................................... 15
Location of sites in the Middle Khabur reservoir area .... ·· ........ · .. · ...... ·· ......... ···· ...... · 18
Topographic map of Tell Umm Qseir. .................................................................. 22West mound· of Tell Umm Qseir and the excavated squares. .................................... 23
South section of Squares H-3,4,5,6 (upper) and west section of Squares G,H,I,J-5 (lower).
........................................................................................................................... 24
Structures of Phase la.··· .. ···· .. ······ .. ·· ...... · .. · .. · ................ · .... ··· ...... · .. · .... · .. ··· ...... ··.... 31
Grave 7, Phase la ................................................................. · ... ....... ....... .............. 33
Pit 23, Phase la ... · ·· .. · · .. · · · .. · .. · ...... · .......... · .. · .. · · · .... · · ........ · .............. · · .. · · .. ·........ ·...... 33
Pit 18, Phase la ..................... · .... · · ............................ ·· ........... · · · · ..... ....... ..... ... ....... 34
Pit 20, Phase la.................................................................................................... 34
Pit 32, Phase la ... · .... · .. · · .... · .......... · .. · · · · · .. · · ...... · .. · · · · ...... · ...... · .... · · · · · · .... · .. ·.. · ........ · .. · 34
Pit 33, Phase la.................................................................................................... 34
Structures of Phases lb and le. · ................................... · ...... · · .. · ............... · · ........ ..... 35
Kiln 2, Phase lb ........ ·· .. · ....... · ........ · ... ···· ................... ··· .. ·· .... ·· .. ···· .... ·.................... 37
Typological chart of Halaf Painted Ware from Tell Umm Qseir. .............................. 43
Halaf Ware.......................................................................................................... 47
Halaf Ware ..... · · ..... · ...... · ........... · · · · · .. · .. · .... · · · .. · .. · .... · .. · ·· · · · · .. · · .. · ...... · · ...... · · · .. · .. · .. · · .. · 49
Halaf Ware.......................................................................................................... 51
Halaf Ware. · .. · .... · .. · · .. · .... · · .... ·.... · ........ · .... · ...... · · ........ · .... · ·· ........ · ................ · ........ · 55
Halaf Ware ............ · · · · .. · · ... · · .. · ..... · · · · · .. · · · ........ · .... · · .... · ... · .. · .. · · ... · · .. · · · · ... · ......... · · · ... · · 57
Halaf Ware. · .. ·· · · · · .. · · .... · .. · · · · · .. · · · · .. · · · ........ · .... · · · · .. · · · · .. · · .. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · .. · ............ · · · · · · · .. · · 59
Halaf Ware.......................................................................................................... 61
Halaf Ware. · .. · .. · .... · · · · .. · · · .. · · .. · · · .. · · · · .... · · · .. · · .... · · .... · · · · · · · .. · · · · .. · · · .. · · · · · · · · .. · · · .. · .... · · · · .. · · · 63
Halaf Ware. · .. · · · · · · .... · · ...... · · · .... · · .. · .. · ..... · ..... · .. · · · · .. · · .. · .... · · · .. · · · · · ·· · · .. · · · .. · · · ... · .. · · · · · · .. · · 65
Halaf Ware. · · ...... · .. · .... · · · · · · · · · · · .. · .. · · · .. · · · · · · .. · · .. · · .. · ... · .. · · · · · · · · · · · · · · .. · · .. · · · .. · · · · · .. · .. · .. · .... · · 67
Halaf Ware and zoomorphic vessel fragments with possible reconstruction................ 69
Halaf Ware and miscellaneous ware. .. · ...... · .... · ...... · .... · · .............. · .................... · .... · 73
Coarse Ware. · · .. · ......... · · · · .. · · · .. · · .. · .. · .. · · · · · .. · · · ·........ · · · · · · · · · · · · ·.. · .... · · · · · · .. · · · · · .. · ...... · · .. · · 77
Coarse Ware. .. · · · · · .. · · ·.. · · · · · .. · · · .. · .. · · · · · ·.. · · · ...... · · · · · .... · .. · · · · .. · .. · · · · · ·· · · · · · · · · · .. · · .. · · .... · · · · · · · 79
Flint artifacts.................... · · · · · .... · .................................... · .. · .. · ................... · .... ·· .... 91
Flint artifacts ...... · .. ·· · .. · · · · · · · · · · · .. · .. · · · · .. · · · · · .. · · .. · · · ...... · · · · · · · · · · · · · .. · .. · · .. · · · · .. · · · · .. · · · .. · · · .. · · · 93
Flint artifacts..... · · .... · · ·· · · .... · · · ... · · .. · · · .... · · · .. · · · .. · · · .. · .. · .. · .... · · · .. · · · · ·· · · · · · · · .............. · · · · · · · 95
Flint artifacts. · · · .. · · · .. · · .. · · · .. · · · · · .. · · · · .. · · .. · .... · · · · · .. · · · ...... · · .. · · · · · · · · · · · .. · ....... · · · · · .. · · · · .. · · .... · 97
Edge angle of retouched flakes ... · · .............. · ...... · .. · .............. · .......... · · · .............. ·...... 98
Flint and obsidian artifacts. · · ..... · .................. · .... · ................ · · .... · .................. · .. · .... 99
Dimensions of utilized flakes .......................................... · ....................................... 100
Flint artifacts. · ......... · .. · · · · · · ... · ......... · ... · · · · · .. · · .... · .... · · · · · · · .. · · · · · .. · ... · .... · · · · .. · · ............. · · 101

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
For the execution of archaeological work at Tell Umm Qseir, we are deeply grateful to thegovernment of Syrian Arab Republic, especially Her Excellency Najah al-Attar, Minister of Education and Culture, Prof. Dr. Sultan Muhesen, Director-General of Antiquities and Museums, Dr.
Adnan Bounni, Director of Archaeological Excavations and Studies. They have extended great
consideration and permission to our work. We also express our special thanks to Mr. Nassib Salibi,
Director-Assistant of Archaeological Excavations and Studies. He had always given us special
consideration, and we lament his sudden death and pray his soul may rest in peace. We also thankMr. Mohammad Qador and the staff of the Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums for theirconsistent help.
We deeply appreciate the extensive assistance received from the staff of Department of Antiquities in Hassake, especially Mr. Jean Simon Lazar, Director, and Mr. Ibrahim Nano. We would liketo mention our special thanks to Mr. Hsein Yousef and Mr. Jamal Haydar, who were dispatched toour excavations as representatives of the Directorate-General, for their hospitality and cooperationin the field. We are also grateful to Dr. Antoine Suleyman, Mr. Hamid Hammade and Mr. Ahmad
al-Yasin of the Aleppo National Museum for their cooperation with our studies.
We express our special thanks to Dr. Giro Orita, advisor of ICARDA, and Ms. Yayoi Yamazaki
for their valuable support.
Last but not least, we thank all of the villagers around Tell Umm Qseir. Without their warm
reception and contribution to the excavations as workers, and insight into their traditional lives, we
could not have accomplished our work.
The financial support for our work came from a grant under the International Scientific
Research Program (1996) of Japanese Ministry of Education; Grant No. 08041004.

Akira TSUNEKI
Director, University of Tsukuba
Archaeological Mission toTell Umm Qseir

INTRODUCTION

Akira TSUNEKI
Tell Umm Qseir is a small artificial mound located on the left bank of the Khabur River about
13km southeast of Hassake {Fig. 1). It is situated within the salvage area of the new dam project, anda small scale excavation has already been carried out by Yale University under the direction of Prof.
Frank Hole in 1986 {Hole and Johnson 1986-87). This excavation indicated that it had Halaf, Urukand third millennium cultural layers. As the general surveys in the salvage area {Monchambert
1984a, 1984b) reported no Neolithic sites before Halaf period, it is supposed that the stretch of the
Khabur River south of Hassake was settled after the Neolithic period. If that is the case, Tell Umm
Qseir is the first settlement in this area.
We are interested in the "settle-down" phenomenon in prehistory and we have been studying
neolithization and urbanization in the Rouj Basin of northwest Syria since 1990 (Iwasaki et al. 1995).
The Rouj Basin is situated on the fringe of Mediterranean vegetation with some forests and muchwater from rain and springs. Although we did not find any Pre-Pottery Neolithic A settlements inspite of our intensive surveys, there are some Pre-Pottery Neolithic Band a relatively large numberof Pottery Neolithic settlements in the basin. These Neolithic settlements are not only large innumber but also large in size. Some are well over ten hectares. There must have been a hierarchicalsettlement organization during the Late PPNB and the Pottery Neolithic periods in northwest Syria.
On the other hand, the number and size of settlements decreased rapidly in the following Halaf and
Ubaid periods of the Rouj Basin. There must have been a great social transformation between
Pottery N eo lithic and Halaf period in the basin.
We would like to have a chance to compare and test our results with those in other areas.
Following the kind advice and the permission of Directorate-General of Antiquities and Museums of
Syrian Government, we chose Tell Umm Qseir as our case study site. The principle reason why wechose Tell Umm Qseir is that this site seems to be the first tell-type settlement in the salvage area,
as mentioned above. It seemed that we had a chance to study "settle-down" phenomenon in thisregion.
We also would like to study the Halaf settlements and materials in the nuclear zone of Halaf
culture itself, to compare them with those in the western periphery such as the Rouj Basin. The
natural environment of the Middle Khabur is mostly steppe vegetation plains, and it is very different
from that of our familiar northwest Syria. This environment is also very attractive to us, because
the differences in the natural environment between the two areas influences the formation of humansettlements in both areas.
As the main purpose of our excavation was to trace the .first tell-type settlement along the
Khabur south of Hassake, our special concerns were on the lowest Halaf layers at Tell Umm Qseir.
But at the same time, we carefully went on with post-Halaf layer deposits, as the readers will see inthis report. We could get a lot of information about Late Chalcolithic, Middle Uruk and Mitanni
periods in these upper layers, some of which had been misunderstood during the Yale University's
excavations. We believe that this new information is useful when we discuss the regional history in
the Middle Khabur.
This report presents the results of our excavations at Tell Umm Qseir in the 1996 season. We
began to make a topographic map of the site from August 15, then the excavation was carried out

2

Akira TSUNEKI

Tell Tnenirj~Fig. 1 Location of Tell u mm Qseu.
.

INTRODUCTION

3

from August 20 to October 4, 1996. We continued to study the excavated materials until the end of
October. After coming back to Japan with some sample materials, we carried out some naturalscientific studies on human and animal bones, pottery clay, carbons and other objects. Ecologicalstudy around Tell Umm Qseir was done in the end of February and the beginning of March 1997,
when the Middle Khabur region was covered with rich vegetation. The results of these studies areincluded in this report as the main texts and appendixes.
Participating in the fieldwork of Tell Umm Qseir were: Akira Tsuneki, associate professor of
University of Tsukuba, Director; Yutaka Miyake, assistant of University of Tsukuba, Field Master;
Takuya Iwasaki, professor of Tokyo Kaseigakuin University, Advisor; Sadayuki Akahane, associate professor of Shinsyu University, Geologist; Toru Nakamura, assistant professor of University ofTsukuba, Ecologist; Etsuko Kurata, curator of Matsudo City Museum, Archaeologist; Toru
Tomita and Osamu Maeda, graduate students of University of Tsukuba. Makoto Takizawa,
associate professor of Shizuoka University, and Makoto Arimura, graduate student of University ofTsukuba, materially aided the completion of the drawings and photographs for this report.

CHAPTER IENVIRONMENTAL AND ARCHAEOLOGICAL SETTING OF
THE MIDDLE KHABUR REGION

1. LANDFORMS AND GEOLOGY
Sadayuki AKAHANE
Introduction
Tell Umm Qseir is located on the left bank of the Khabur River, a tributary of the Euphrates.
The Khabur River flows from the mountain region of southeastern Anatolia, approximately 300km
in length and joins the Euphrates River about 150km from Tell Umm Qseir. The altitude around Tell
Umm Qseir is 285m and the junction is 210m. Consequently, the Khabur River has a gradient of 0.
5/1000, meandering gently in this area. Precipitation in a year is 200-300mm and increases towards
the north. Large rivers do not develop because precipitation is especially low in the south. Flat hills
around the Khabur River develop large and small wadis. Characteristic landforms and geology canbe seen in such a dry area.
In this paper, I shall try to describe the topographical features and geology around Tell Umm
Qseir. Additionally, I shall also describe flood sedimentary layers attested at Tell Umm Qseir.

a. Topographical and Geological Setting(1) Outline of landforms
The mountain region of a humid climate is made flat gradually by river erosion. However, as
rivers do not develop in the arid region, the dry climate produces characteristic Iandforms. Physicalweathering, including operation of wind, thermal expansion, frost weathering and efflorescence isremarkable in the dry area. In spite of the low precipitation, operation of streams, depending on
concentric heavy rain, performs an important role in erosion and transportation.
Fig. 2 shows typical topographic cross sections of an arid region. Mountains of the arid region
have steep slopes. Two kinds of low angle slopes develop at the foot of these steep slopes. The
erosional low angle slope is called pediment, and the sedimentary low angle slope is called peripediment. A steep slope mountainous region retreats with the progress of erosion, although the gradientsof the slopes do not get gentle. Consequently, this mountain region becomes like an island floating
in an ocean. This landform is called inselberg (Fig. 2 : 2). Further erosion in this area flattens thisisland completely, known as a pediplain (Fig. 2: 3).
The pediplains surrounding the Khabur River are composed of flat hills, 200-300m above sea
level (Fig. 3). The Khabur River meanders in the low areas of these plains. The mountains of Jabal
Abd al-Aziz (highest point: 3018 feet) are located 30km west of this area. The mountains of Jabal
Sinjar (highest point: 4985 feet) are located 40km to the east.
Along the Khabur River, the low angle slopes and flood plains spread between the river and thepediplain. The flood plain around the junction of the Khabur and the Euphrates is 1.5-2.0km wide.
The flood plain of the Khabur River is approximately 500m wide. This flood plain is composed of

LANDFORMS AND GEOLOGY

5Free face
Steep slope
Pediment

2 Inselberg

3 Pediplain

Fig. 2 Typical topographic cross-sections showing the development of landforms
in the arid region.

N

8: 1

'~'j
300
250

Tell Umm Qseir

Khabur River

--

l

-

K=erl

400ml

4: 1

300j
200

1: 1

400mj
200
0
0

1
1000

2000111

Fig. 3 Topographic section across Tell Umm Qseir in the north-south direction.

s

6Sadayuki AKAHANE

natural levees and backswamps. The Khabur River meanders through this flood plain.
(2) Outline of geology
A huge sedimentary basin of the Cenozoic N eogene was formed between the Zagros mountain
range and Arabian peninsula. The Euphrates River and the Khabur River of northeast Syria islocated in the northwest end of this sedimentary basin. Sediments distributed along the Khabur Riveris the Neogene system and the Quaternary system. The Neogene system almost covers the entire
area of the Khabur River basin. According to the geological map of V. Ponikarov et al. (1964), theNeogene system of the Khabur River basin is divided into Tortonian sediments, Upper Miocene
sediments and Pliocene sediments. Younger sediments are distributed on the south side.
Tortonian sediments are distributed between Taban and Hassake. These lithofacies are composed of gypsum, limestone, marl, clay, sandstone and rock salt The Upper Miocene sediments are
distributed between north Suwar and Taban. These consist of clay, sandstone, marl, siltstone andgypsum. The Pliocene sediments are distributed downstream of the Khabur River. These arecomposed of continental conglomerates, sandstone, limestone, clay, marl, marine clay and tuff
breccia. These Neogene systems show a near-horizontal structure.
The Quaternary system is distributed along the Khabur River. These sediments consist of fluvial
deposits, low angle slope deposits and basalt lava. Fluvial deposits are those that were carried by
the Khabur River. These deposits are distribute? along the river and form the terrace and flood
plains. These deposits are composed of alluvial conglomerates and pebble beds. The gravel iscarried down from Turkey by the upper stream of the Khabur River. The peripediment is composedof sedimentary low-angle slope deposits, which are made up of fine grain produced from erosion.
The N eogene system is covered by basalt (volcanic rocks). The basalt along the Khabur River isdistributed along the south of Ash Shadadah, on the right bank of the Khabur River, from the Koukab
Volcano of the eastern Hassake to the northwest Hassake (PL 2 : 3).
b. Landforms and Geology around Tell U mm Qseir(1) Landforms around Tell Umrn Qseir
Tell Umm Qseir is located in the meander area in the middle Khabur River. A tributary of the
Khabur River has not developed in this area. On the east side of the river there is a large wadi ofapproximately 25km in length, but none on the west side. Landforms around Tell Umrn Qseir can beclassified into flood plains, low-angle slopes and flat hills (Fig. 4).
The flood plain along the Khabur River is 300-600m wide (Pl. 1 : 1, 2). The river channel
meanders through this flood plain. The Khabur River meanders sharply around Tell Umrn Qseir.
Flat flood plains have developed along both sides of this section. This flood plain can be classified
into low-rank and high-rank plains (Flood plain I and II). The low-rank flood plain has a relative
elevation of 2-3m, and is less than 286m above sea level. The high-rank flood plain has a relative
elevation of about 5m, and is more than 286m above sea level. The low-rank flood plain is distributed
narrowly along both banks of the river channeL The extent of the high-rank flood plain is larger.
Micromorphology of the natural levee can be seen within this flood plain. A low-angle slope ofless than 10/1000 has developed along the exterior of the flood plain. Although the flood plain
inclines to the downstream side, this low-angle slope inclines towards the river channeL The
sedimentary surface of the slope is formed by a stream from the flat hill. This topographical feature
is called peripediment.
The flat hill is the so-called pediplain.. The pediplain is composed of a low-angle eroded slopethat is called pediment. Generally these pediments have a gradient of 7/1000 to 10/1000. The
pediment of a steep slope has a gradient of less than 20/1000. The pediplain has few relief featuresand is entirely flat (PL 2 : 1, 2). Fig. 3 shows a topographic cross section of Tell Umm Qseir in the

LANDFORMS AND GEOLOGY

7

Legend\ fP I Tells[ZJ River;::.:·::~. · Flood Plain I?i.--::::..

t·!:~t:'-Flood Plain 11

bj Low Angle Slope

m

Hill

Fig. 4 Classification of landform and distribution of tells along the Khabur River.

north-south direction. The wadi is formed at the low place of the pediplain (PI. 3 : 6).
(2) Geology around Tell Umm Qseir
The sediments composed at the pediplain further north of Tell Umm Qseir are the Tortonian
sediments of the Neogene system. The Upper Miocene sediments are distributed to the south. These
sediments include marine deposits, exposed here and there along the Khabur River and the wadi (PI.
2: 4, 5). The Tortonian sediments consist of limestone, marl, siltstone, gypsum and limestone.
Weathering is advanced in the portion near the surface. These Neogene systems show a horizontal
structure.
The Quaternary system is distributed along the Khabur River. These deposits are divided into
the gravel beds of the Pleistocene series and the Holocene series, consisting of flood plain deposits
and the low-angle slope deposits. These deposits, except the low-angle slope deposits, were carriedby the Khabur River.
The Pleistocene series consists of two kinds of gravel beds. One is distributed on the hillsouthwest of Tell Umm Qseir, and the other is distributed widely underground of the Khabur River.
The former is a high-rank terrace deposit. This is probably the gravel bed of the middle Pleistocene,buried at the bottom of the valley of the Khabur River. The high-rank terrace deposits are exposed

8

Sadayuki AKAHANE

4m

3

-- -

Brown silt with gypsum----; -

Brown silt with gypsum

2---

Fig. 5 Columnar section of the undercut slope of the
700m east of Tell lfmm Qseir.

in the quarry located southwest of Tell Umm Qseir (PI. 2: 6). Lithofacies of the deposits are rounded
and sub-rounded gravel, consisting of pebble and cobble gravel. This kind of gravel is composed ofchert, limestone, marble and flint. This gravel bed strikes N 6o·E and dips zo·s. The bed is more than
20m thick.
Although the gravel bed buried at the bottom of valley is confirmed along the Khabur River andits water wells, exposure places are few. Lithofacies of this gravel bed show a sandy layer and pebble-cobble layer. This kind of gravel is made up of limestone, marble and chert.
The low-angle slope deposits are composed of reddish-brown silt and brown sand. These fine-grain deposits were carried by the stream from the eroded low-angle slopes and the wadi.
The flood plain deposits consist of sand and silt. The natural levees are composed mainly ofsand, and its surrounding area by sand and silt. The deposits of the natural levee are composed ofa well-sorted sand layer, including large quantities of hardened crystal of gypsum. A cross sectionof the flood plain deposits is exposed at the undercut slope of the Khabur River. Fig. 5 is a columnar
section of the undercut slope of the 700m east of Tell Umm Qseir. This outcrop shows a cross sectionof the high-rank flood plain (PI. 3: 1-3).
c. Landforms and Geology of Tell Umm Qseir(1) Landforms and geology
Tell Umm Qseir is located on the left bank of the Khabur River (PI. 1 : 3). Due to the increasein width of the Khabur River in this area, a channel bar has formed here (Fig. 6). The northern sideof west mound, facing the channel bar, has the undercut slope by the Khabur River. Erosion isadvanced here. Due to the sudden increase in river width, the river floor of the east side of thechannel bar is shallow. This section is used by the people to cross the river.
Tell Umm Qseir has a longitudinal axis in the WNW-ESE direction, and was built on the natural
levee that makes up the flood plain. This WNW -ESE direction agrees with the direction of thelongitudinal axis of the original natural levee, located on the northeast side of the high-rank flood
plain. The low-rank flood plain of less than 286m above sea level develops between tell and the river.

LANDFORMS AND GEOLOGY

9

290
/

I

,'

,'

...

--- . ---- ... __ ....... .. . .

-- or - .-- · ---- - ·--- ,..- , ,L . ... - • • •1tni11rngal,on

t

0
200m
..........1:::=:::::1()Fig. 6 Topographic map of a rea surrounding Tell U rnrn Qseir (after Hole and )ohnson 1986- 87).

Deposits of the high- rank flood plain are exposed along the waterway at the eastern end of the east
mound of Tell Umm Qseir (PI. 3: 5). We can confirm the boundary between the tell deposits and thenatural levee deposits here. Judging from this fact and the surrounding relief feature, the portion of
Tell Umm Qseir below 287.5m is natural levee deposit. Deposits above 287.5m are artificial. The
north side slope of the east mound is straight and steep. The bottom part of this straight line-like
slope is a landform that was eroded by the Khabur River, when the low-r ank flood plain was formed.
(2)

Records of the flood left in tellTwo-three layers of the flood sedimentary beds caused by the Khabur River are recognized in
the artificial deposits of T ell Umm Qseir. The most remarkable flood sedimentary bed is the highest
one which is 18- 28cm thick. This flood sedimentary bed covers the entire excavated squares, and theelevation of the top surface is 289.0 to 289.2m.
The lithological characteristics are as follows:
1) The deposit of sand gradually becomes fine-grained from north to south. Also, this bed changes
from fine- sand to very fine- sand as departing the river.
2) Although the bottom of the bed has irregular surface, its top surface is flat and shows a horizontal
structure.
3) The bed extends continuously, although its thickness differs in places.
4) Thickness of the bed is thin where the bottom swells, thick where the bottom is bent.
5) The sandy grain forming the bed is good sorting. This sandy gra in receives sieving by the stream.
6) Grading structure develops in the upper half of the bed. The silt of the uppermost part becomes
hard.

10

Sadayuki AKAHANE

7) The bed includes sandy grain, granule rounded gravel of 2-4mm in diameter, scoria of basalt andpottery pieces. This scoria is derived from the Koukab Volcano that is located in the upper
reaches.
8) The bed hardly contains carbonized seed and charcoal.
The above-mentioned characteristics show that this bed was formed by a stream of natural
flood. The flood sedimentary beds of the lower horizon consist of a sandy layer which is thinner thanthe highest bed, and is not a continuous. The periods of these flood sedimentary beds are determinedby the pottery pieces. The highest flood sedimentary bed contains pottery pieces of the Middle Urukperiod. The artificial layers above this bed contain Mitanni pottery and those below it contain
Middle Halaf pottery.
Consequently, the most remarkable flood sedimentary bed must have been deposited after the
Middle Uruk period (3700 to 3500 B.C.). The lower flood sedimentary layers belong to the Middle
Halaf period (5000 to 4700 B.C.). These flood sedimentary beds show that Tell Umm Qseir occasionally received large scale floods between the Middle Halaf and the Middle Uruk periods. We can
suppose that people in those days were badly effected by floods.

LANDFORMS AND GEOLOGY

1. View of the Khabur Valley from T ell Tnenir.
The Khabur River flows left from the right.
pediplain.

2. View of Tell Umm Qseir from Tell Ziyade.
T ell Umm Qsei r located within flood plai n.

4. View of the upstream s ide of the Khabur
River from T ell Umm Qseir.

The rear flat hill is

3. West mound of T ell Umm Qseir, stands at
an edge of the Khabur River.

5. View of the downstream side of the
Khabur River, from T ell Umm Qseir.
The mound beyond the river is Tell Ziyade.

PI. 1 Landforrns and g eology around Tell U rnm Qseir.

11

12

Sadayuki AKA!-IANE

1. Pediplain, south of Tell Umm Qseir.

2. Peripediment and pediplain.
The peripediment spreads east of Tell Ziyade.

3. Scoria core of the Koukab Volcano, locat-

4. Gypsum of the Neogene system, exposedon the left bank of the Khabur River.

ed east of Hassake.

5. Weathered siltstone of the Neogene sys·tern, exposed along the wadi.

6. Gravel bed of the Pleistocene series, forming the high rank terrace.

PI. 2 Landforms a nd geology around Tell Umm Qseir.

LANDFORMS AND GEOLOGY

1. Undercut slope of the Khabur River, on

the left bank 700m east of T ell Umm Qseir.

2. Upper part deposits of the natural levee.
Lethofacies of the most upper part of undercut
slope (PI. 3 : 1).

3. Lower part of deposit of the natural levee.
Lithofacies of the lower part of undercut slope(PI. 3 : 1). Deposits include large quantities ofgypsum.

5. Deposits of the natural levee, composed of
the base of the east mound of Tell Umm
Qseir.

4. Flood silt, covered on the low- rank flood
plain of the Khabur River in spring of 1996.

6. Wadi, south of Tell Tnenir.

PI. 3 Landforms and geology around Tell Umm Qseir.

13

2.

VEGETATION
Toru NAKAMURA

Introduction
An annual precipitation figure of 250mm is both a borderline between desert and steppe, and thelimit of wheat cultivation without irrigation. Annual precipitation around Tell Umm Qseir is about
230mm, meaning that the area is in a steppe-desert and that it is impossible to cultivate wheat underrainwater. The people, however, make their living not only by grazing sheep but also by cultivating
wheat, barley or cotton with irrigation from the Khabur River.
Fields of wheat and barley using water from the Khabur are dominant around the tell. The aimof this study is to make a vegetation map and to clarify the distribution of plant communities aroundTell Umm Qseir.
a. Study Area and Method
There is no natural vegetation around Tell Umm Qseir because of strong human impact such as
grazing or long-term cultivation. Landform is generally flat, but contains gentle hills and wadis.
There are some tells on both sides of the Khabur, such as Tell Tnenir or Tell Atij, and also modern
villages with 50 to 70 houses, scattering every 1 to 3km in this area.
A vegetation survey was carried out from late February to early March 1997. Because there
were some species of plants just coming to bud and only a few species were flowering, this was too
early for a vegetation survey. The method adopted was to walk around and observe plant communities in the study area. I painted the settled colors for each vegetation unit on a 1 : 25,000 map (Fig.
7).

b. Resu1ts
Actual vegetation in the area shows some seasonal phases especially in the spring. Actual
vegetation also depends upon the type and strength of human activities such as grazing, plowing,sowing or irrigation. Vegetation units and legends of actual vegetation recognized around the Tell
Umm Qseir at the time of the survey are as follows:
1. Salix-Phragmites communities
2. Grass-Eisa ran communities
3. Orchards
4. Barley fields
5. Wheat fields
6. Cotton field scars
7. No vegetation (artificially bare land, settlements and structures)

The following is a general explanation of these seven vegetation units:
1. Salix-Phragmites communities
Phragmites communities grow simply or with Salix spp. in the scrub layer at the edge of the
Khabur River. The plant communities' composition, structure and physiognomy are close to naturalvegetation. Vegetation in this area is strongly affected by various human activities and there is no
actual natural vegetation. It has a very simple species composition.

VEGETATION

4

4

4
4

Legende[2J Salix-Phragmites communities

0
0

4
4
4

0

2km

Grass-Eisaran communities
Orchards~

Barley fields

0Wheat fields

00

Cotton field scars
No vegetation

Fig. 7 Vegetation map around Tell Umm Qseir.

15

16

Toru NAKAMURA

2. Grass-Eisaran communities
It becomes more difficult to irrigate farther away from the Khabur, and there is no irrigated field
more than lkm away from the river. In such areas, plant community is dominated by one Graminae
species (unidentified) and accompanied by flowering Eisaran in the spring time. This Grass-Eisarancommunity had no other species during my survey. A lot of species, however, will appear in April.
This community is less damaged by human activities, such as cultivation in agricultural fields.
3. Orchards
There is a small orchard near Tell Umm Qseir. Some deciduous fruit trees such as pomegranate
and plum grow there. It is considerably difficult to grow such fruit trees without irrigation.
4. Barley fields
Barley for beer is cultivated in this area. Barley cultivation requires more water than Grass-Eisaran communities, but less than wheat cultivation. Therefore, barely fields are located further
from the river than wheat fields and nearer than Grass-Eisaran communities.
5. Wheat fields
Most of the agricultural fields in this area are wheat fields. Distribution of wheat fields is within
lkm of the Khabur at maximum, usually 0.5km. As wheat cultivation requires more than 250mm inannual precipitation as mentioned above, all of the wheat fields here are irrigated.
6. Cotton field scars
There are some small cotton field scars next to the river. Cotton is cultivated in late summer andfall, and nothing is planted after the harvest.
7.

No vegetation (artificially bare land, settlements and structures)
Settlements, roads and artificial bare lands caused by construction are described as "no vegetation" in the vegetation map.

3. ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES
Yutaka MIY AKE
In striking contrast to the well-investigated Khabur headwater region, the Middle Khabur valley
had remained archaeologically terra incognita until recently. The first systematic archaeologicalinvestigations were carried out in the early 1970's by Kiihne (Klihne 1974-77, Klihne und Monchambert
1978-79). The tell formations in the Middle Khabur basin are concentrated in the narrow river valley
which is now irrigated with pumps. On both sides beyond the river valley, there are vast semiarid
and sterile steppes, generally used only for grazing of animals. In this area no tell formation can bedetected. One probable reason for this distribution pattern is the low annual precipitation. In modern
climatic conditions the isohyet of 250mm, which is generally considered to be the minimum requirement for rain-fed farming, crosses just north of the reservoir area.
With the decision to construct a hydroelectric dam in the Middle Khabur valley, which will
create a 20km long artificial lake along the river, Monchambert conducted a collective survey in thisfuture reservoir area in 1983 (Monchambert 1984a, 1984b). According to the result of the survey, 60
sites were attested (Fig. 8) and the identified number of sites for each period are as follows : 3 sites
in Halaf period, 3 in Ubaid period, 5 in Uruk period, 22 in Early Bronze Age, 19 in Middle Bronze Age,
7 in Late Bronze Age, 29 in Iron Age, 30 in Hellenistic and Roman periods, 11 in Byzantine period and
15 in Islamic period. No Neolithic site was found during this survey. The sudden increase of sites
in the Early Bronze Age is quite remarkable. The largest settlement in the Middle Khabur valley isTell Bderi, measuring approximately 450m in diameter (Monchambert 1984b, p. 1). This is, however,not to be compared with the huge settlements in the Upper Khabur region such as Tell Brak, Tell
Leilan and Tell Mozan. This is probably part of the reason why this region was not attractive toarchaeologists. Other relatively large sized sites, being more than 280m in diameter, are Tell Ta'aban
1, Tell Matariya, Tell Tnenir and Tell Melebiya. The rest of the sites are generally small and low.
Rescue excavations in the Middle Khabur valley had already started in 1985. Upto 1996, as far
as we know, 15 sites were excavated in the framework of this project and some of the excavations
are still continuing. Evidence from these investigations provided new light to the socio-cultural
history of this region about which little was known.
Reliable evidence of the earliest sedentary occupation in the Middle Khabur valley goes back toHalaf period. Although intensive investigations have been carried out in recent years, no Neolithic
settlement has been attested so far. In contrast, in the Upper Khabur region, human occupations goback to Lower Paleolithic. In recent years a number of Pre-Pottery Neolithic and Pottery Neolithic
sites were discovered along the various tributaries or wadis of the Upper Khabur (Meijer 1986,
Nishiaki 1992, Hole 1994).
The earliest pottery assemblage in the Khabur basin was considered to be represented by so-called altmonochrome ware, first identified at Tell Halaf. Stratigraphical observation indicates that
there are at least three prehistoric phases at Tell Halaf: in the ·lowest layers altmonochrome ware
occurs prior to Halaf Painted Ware, while in the next phase this unpainted pottery is found alongside
Halaf Painted pottery (Schmidt 1943, pp. 35-36). The same order is confirmed at Tell Habesh(Davidson 1977, p. 88). Although the aspect of pottery assemblage in pre-Halaf stages still remains
unclear, it seems likely that the phase with altmonochrome ware immediately precedes Halaf period.
Recent excavations at Tell Kashkashok II, however, produced the pottery which shows close resemblance to pre-Hassuna period (Matsutani ed. 1991). Compared with the chronology in northern
Mesopotamia, this pottery assemblage seems to precede altmonochrome ware phase.

18

Yutaka MIYAKE• 'Atij•I• Tnenir

[;,

~

0

Fig. 8 Location of sites in the Middle Khabur reservoir area
(after Monchambert l984b).

ARCHAEOLOGICAL SITES

19

In the Middle Khabur valley none of these three Neolithic phases, i.e. Pre-Pottery Neolithic and
two Pottery Neolithic phases, are attested. However, there seems to be no convincing reason to deny
their existence, if one would take the Neolithic settlements like Tell es-Sin or Bouqras, located in the
Euphrates valley, into consideration.
The earliest settlement in the Middle Khabur valley is Tell Umm Qseir. This site was once
excavated in 1986 by an American mission. Halaf occupation of this site was reported to be of Middle-Late Halaf period. It was concluded that Tell Umm Qseir was occupied as a seasonal camp by
pastoralist for the purpose of hunting because of the high ratio of wild game such as gazelle andequids in fauna (Hole and Johnson 1986-87, pp.177-178). The result of our 1996 season excavations,however, modify this view of Tell Umm Qseir. Our interpretation is that Tell Umm Qseir was asedentary village inhabited all year round 1 and occupied during the Middle Halaf period for a
relatively short period of time. Halaf pottery was also collected from Tell Mashnaqa and Tell Ziyade
during the survey in 1983 (Monchambert 1984b) and Tell Bderi (Pfalzner 1986-87). During the
excavations at Tell Mulla Matar, Halaf Painted pottery was obtained in the Ubaid period context(Si.irenhagen 1990, p. 133).
Thus, the present picture of the Halaf period in the Middle Khabur valley is far from satisfactory. No settlement dating back to Early Halaf period is attested. If this is really the case, theinhabitants of Tell Umm Qseir might have come from somewhere outside the Middle Khabur basin.
The most probable area is the Khabur headwater region which was densely occupied during theHalaf period. Interestingly, the southern Balikh valley, which remained uninhabited during 6th
millennium B.C., is resettled in the Balikh IIIC or Middle Halaf period (Akkermans 1993, p. 205). Thisphenomena corresponds well with the present picture in the Middle Khabur valley. It needs further
investigations, however, to clarify whether this is due to climatic amelioration or the exploitation of
new agricultural technology or irrigation techniques (ibid., p. 206).
Considerably thick and hard ash deposit was detected at Tell Ziyade, overlying extraordinarily
well-preserved pottery kiln dated to the Halaf-Ubaid Transitional period. This kiln, found almost
intact even with corbelled dome, was apparently abandoned in mid-firing and filled with vessels in
initial position (Buccellati et al. 1991, p. 33, Fig. 5-6). Several possibilities were suggested for theorigin of the gray ash. The most probable cause indicated by the excavator is a natural disaster, theexplosion of a volcano, perhaps the Jabal Koukab (ibid., pp. 33, 43). Although this hypothesis itself
is highly stimulating, it is strange that a similar kind of ash layer was not attested in the post-Halaf
deposit at Tell Umm Qseir located just on the opposite side of the Khabur River. It seems likely thatthe origin of ash attested at Tell Ziyade should be within the site. Tell Ziyade has been re-excavatedby other Ameri~an mission in the last few years, and we hope that they will add new information
about this problem.
Tell Mashnaqa provides a long sequence from Ubaid period to Late Uruk period (Monchambert
1985, 1987, cf. Weiss 1991, 1994). Here the burials of the Ubaid period are also attested. The
excavations of Tell Mashnaqa are still continuing and it is expected that wide-scale information onthese periods will be obtained. In the step trench of Tell Mulla Matar, Ubaid and Late Chalcolithic
layers were uncovered (Si.irenhagen 1990). A series of pits with Late Chalcolithic and Uruk materials
were attested at Tell Umm Qseir. The Middle Khabur valley was occupied continuously from Ubaid
period to Uruk period, but the number of sites did not increase.
With the coming of the Early Bronze Age, the Middle Khabur valley enjoyed a flourishing era.
As indicated by the general survey, the number of the sites show a sudden increase. In the earlier
third millennium B.C., comparable to Ninevite V period, 9 sites were confirmed through excavations.
1

The possibility
Tell Umm Qseir as a camp site is already questioned on the basis of the common
occurrence of pig (Akkermans 1993, p. 259).

20

Yutaka MIY AKE

At Tell al-Raqa'i, a Rounded Building of 20m in diameter and a series of rectangular architecture
were uncovered in the surrounding area (Curvers and Schwartz 1990, Schwartz and Curvers 1992).
The Rounded Building includes subterranean small rooms thought to be used for storage purposes.
In the surrounding area subterranean mudbrick constructions, known as silos, were also found. A
numerical tablet and cylinder seal impression obtained from Tell al-Raqa'i are thought to be theevidence of administrative technology. At Tell Atij, non-domestic architecture interpreted as
granary and silos were attested together with administrative tools, such as calculi, numerical tabletsand cylinder seals (Fortin 1986-87, 1988, 1989, 1990a, 1990b). At Tell Kerma, a small mound on theleft bank of the Khabur, a fortified storage facility filled with a thick deposit of barley in situ wasattested (Saghieh 1991). Buildings interpreted as grain storage installations were uncovered at Tell
Ziyade (Buccellati et al. 1991). Other Ninevite V strata are encountered at Tell Bderi, Tell Melebiya,
Tell Tnenir, Tell Mashnaqa, Tell Mulla Matar and Tell Rad Shaqrah.
Schwartz and Curvers maintained that these Ninevite V sites with large scale storage facilities
are not self-sufficient farming communities (Schwartz and Curvers 1992, Schwartz 1994). Thesesettlements are thought to be specialized in processing and storage of grain intended for consumption
elsewhere. It is assumed that the complex polities elsewhere (large southern center such as Mari issuggested) conducted agricultural exploitation of the Middle Khabur region to integrate urban-based
networks. In contrast, F. Hole presents a completely different scenario (Hole 1991). According to his
calculation, storage facilities in Tell al-Raqa'i are not large enough for any kind of specialization.
It is maintained that these Ninevite V sites in the Middle Khabur valley were inhabited by nomadic
people in winter and storage installations were used for their own needs. In the later third millennium
B.C., occupation seemed to have continued in such sites as Tell Melebiya, Tell Bderi and Tell Gudeda.
However, in this period no evidence of large-scale grain storage or processing can be found any
more.
The material culture of the Middle and Late Bronze Ages in the Middle Khabur valley wasalmost unknown hitherto. Although during the general survey a number of sites which were
inhabited in Middle Bronze Age were identified, no clear evidence was obtained throughout the
rescue excavations. As for the Late Bronze Age, the only useful source for this period was literaryrecords. It was not even possible to differentiate pottery of Mitanni period from the Middle Assyrian
period. The excavations at Tell Bderi provide well-documented late Mitanni material (Pfalzner
1995). Compared with the Middle Assyrian pottery from Tell Seh Hamad in Lower Khabur basin, thepottery sequence in the Late Bronze Age is clearly defined at last. Now we know that Tell Umm
Qseir was inhabited in the late Mitanni period, and not in the Early Bronze Age as previously
suggested. New evidence from Tell Umm Qseir, considerably small-sized occupation compared toTell Bderi, indicates that in the Late Bronze Age small farming villages existed alongside the large-sized nuclear settlements. The recent excavations at Tell Bwed provide Middle Assyrian material
in the Middle Khabur basin (A. Suleyman per. comm.).
Tell Tnenir was densely inhabited throughout the Iron Age, Classical period, Byzantine period
and even Islamic period. The occupied area of Tell Tnenir stretches beyond the mound towards theeast. The size of the site is much larger in specific periods than could be estimated by measuring themound. The finding of the remains of a church and a mosque indicate that Tell Tnenir was one of
the central settlements in this region.

CHAPTER 11
SITE AND STRATIGRAPHY
Akira TSUNEKI
Tell Umm Qseir is a small tell, consisting of two mounds along the left bank of the Khabur River(Fig. 9, PI. 4). It is not clear whether there were two mounds from the outset, or it had been one moundand cut into two in the middle by modern canals. Anyhow, as the stone foundations made of gypsum
blocks, which seem to belong to the Islamic period, are arranged in the shape of a U solely on the east
mound, it must have consisted of two mounds at least at its later ages. Umm Qseir means "motherof small castle" in Arabic language, and it must have come to be called this because of its stone
foundations.
The tell itself is very small. The plan of the west mound is almost round, having about 45m indiameter. The height from the surrounding fields is 3.5m. The east mound shows a long oval plan,about 85m long and 55m wide. It has almost the same height as the west mound. The northern sideof the east mound showing a rather straight parallel line with the Khabur River indicates that themound was eroded repeatedly by floods. The affect of the floods on tell formation is discussed in
Chapter 1-1.
According to the excavations carried out by Yale University, the west mound contains Halaf,
Uruk and Early Bronze Age layers, while the east mound has "historic" building foundations withredeposition of soils from the west mound. We made a short surface survey on two mounds before
excavations. The west mound produces a lot of materials, including Halaf, Uruk and Mitanni
pottery. On the other hand, we can collect only a few prehistoric pottery and a great number ofIslamic grazed ware shards on the east mound. As we were interested in the prehistoric layers there,
the west mound was chosen for the excavations.
The preliminary report by Yale University was very helpful in choosing the excavating squares.
According to their report, Trench E, which was located at the southern part of the west mound, has
thick Halaf cultural layers. They reported that a tholos building was found in this area. Thus, wechose the southwestern part of the west mound for our excavations.
We made four 9m x 9m excavating squares in this part of the west mound, and each square was
subdivided into four 4.5m x 4.5m sub-squares. Following our grid system of the site, these sub-squares were marked as Squares G-3 to J-6 (Fig. 10).
First, we removed the debris of the previous excavations. The debris was piled besides the
trenches of the former excavations. Some materials were obtained from these debris, and we reportthem as surface collections. After cleaning the Yale University's Trench E, we began to excavate our
new excavation squares. Two squares (G,H-3,4 and I,J-5,6) were wholly, and one square (G,H-5,6)
was partly, dug down to the virgin soil. As the other square (1,}-3,4) was located on the marginal
corner of the west mound, only a quarter of this square (1-4) was excavated down to the uppermost
Halaf layer.
Our excavations revealed that the west mound consists of a lot of buildings, many kinds of pits,
ash debris, and naturally accumulated soil by floods. It is about three meters thick at the southeastern corner of the Square H -6. Although we identified many layers during the excavation, these layers
were summarized into four main phases according to the periods for the convenience of description(Fig. 11, PI. 5). Each structure will be described in Chapters Ill and IV. The fundamental stratigraphy

!>.:)!>.:))>

Khabur River;>;"..,:;·

.._,
c::

Ul

az

287.o--J'WI------

I0 I

0

Excavated Areas by American Mission in 1986
Modern Canals

Fig. 9 Topographic map of Tell Urnrn Qseir.

SITE AND STRA TIGRAPHY

23

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
A

8

c
D
E
F
G
H

H-5 H-6

J

K
L

0

10

20m

Fig.lO West mound of Tell Umm Qseir and the excavated squares.

of the west mound is summarized below.
Phase 1 (Halaf Period)
Phase 1 consists of the earliest layers of the west mound, belonging to the Halaf period. It is
about 1.5m thick on the virgin soil, that is, the natural levee of the Khabur. Within this phase we
identified at least three different occupational layers and naturally accumulated flood layers. As wewill see later, all the layers in this phase belong to the Middle Halaf period.
Lower layers, which we named Phase la, consist of a black ash layer, whitish sand layer, bluishash layer, brown layer with gypsum, and other ashy layers. A naturally accumulated thin flood layer
is also observed among the ashy layers. The earliest evidence for occupation at the west mound isa lot of pits dug down into the natural levee, especially found in Squares G,H-3,4. Some twenty such

....
N

>

.,"::;·
291.Q.m....:j
(/)

c:
z
(')

c

'

H-5

H- 6

H-4

H- 3
29J.:Om

Phase
21!!L0tn

o s.,ra.

H-5

1-5

J - 5

s<ul

- l l <icksondplri[?) Gra)'iSh browtn sillk:::::3 l:t)'t'f (Flood byer)lllllui•h'"" k-1 '•>" D
lay<t

A •h

Hllrd pa<:l>td
brown layer

11D

H.-rd p~.kt:dbrown layerrA(Anim:•l

L::::.JG- 50

Ourrowsv;,,;. Soil

Fig. il South section of Squares H -3, 4, 5, 6 (upper) and west section of Squares G, H, I, J -5 (lower).

5m

SITE AND STRA TIGRAPHY

25

pits were found, including burial pits, storage pits and pits for other purposes. As some of these pits
overlapped each other, all of them were not used at the same time. Anyhow, all of these pits were
found among the ashy layers below the foundations of concrete buildings of Phase lb.
Above these ashy layers we discovered some buildings made of pise, and this occupational layerand some hard-packed brown layers above the buildings were named Phase lb. A thin flood layer
was also partly observed. Two tholoi (Buildings 6 and 8), one small rectangular room with a straightthin wall (Building 7), three kilns (Kilns 2, 3, 4) and some walls belong to the same occupational layer
above the ashy layers. Here again, Building 8 overlapped Kiln 3, and it indicates that all of thestructures were not used at the same time.
The last Halaf structure was discovered on the grayish-brown soil layer just below the flood
layer of Phase 2. This is a row of small river pebbles, extending in a doughnut shape. It looks likea stone foundation for the tholos building, but we could not identify its complete ground plan. Besides
this foundation, other buildings or pits were not discovered. It is supposed that almost all of the last
Halaf occupational layer was destroyed by the flood and human activities of later periods. Though
we named it Phase le, no materials were found in this last sub-phase.
Phase 2 (Late Cbalcolitbic and Uruk Period)
Approximate 289m above sea level, there is a naturally accumulated flood layer which can be
identified in all of the excavated squares. The thickness of the flood layer is about 0.3m. It covers
some artificial pits which produced late Chalcolithic shards. The flood layer itself produced Middle
Uruk materials. The flood layer and the pits dug down to Phase 1 layers from the flood layer form
our Phase 2.
Dr. Akahane, our geologist, indicates the following characteristics for the layer (See also Chapter
I-1).
a) Rock face of the layer consists of the fine brown sand and grayish-brown silt, and it changes
gradually from sand to silt as the excavated area goes from north (river side) to south.
b) Grading structure can be observed among the layer in any place.
c) The soil of the layer is well levigated, and the particles make a well sorting layer.
d) The bottom of the layer shows rough surface, while the top of the layer shows horizontal surface.
e) The layer contains :1) 3-lOmm scoriae of porous basalt, which flowed from the upper stream ;2) about 3mm rounded gravel of chert, flint and limestone ;3) sand of rock fragments and gypsum particles ;4) pottery shards, which were obtained from the surface layer of Tell Umm Qseir in those days;5) very few charcoal.
All of these indicate that this layer was formed by flooding of the Khabur.
The flood layer covers some artificial pits. We found seven round pits (Silo 1 and Pits 10-15),
dug from the bottom of the layer. These round pits produced the shards of local style, some of whichto comparable to Early Uruk pottery in south Mesopotamia and Amuq F pottery in northern Levant.
Uruk-related pottery shards were also discovered in the flood layer. These pottery shards havegreat similarities with those found from Tell Sheikh Hassan, typical Middle Uruk site in the Middle
Euphrates, and they are clearly prior to the Late Uruk period. We did not find any structures
belonging to this period in our excavating squares.
We can conclude that there are at least two occupational sub-phases in our Phase 2. Phase 2a,
consisting of pits, belongs to Late Chalcolithic in the early fourth millennium B.C, and Phase 2b
belongs to the Middle Uruk period in the middle of the fourth millennium B.C. Hole and Johnson(1986-1987) reported that a series of pits and water layered soil in their trench A and E belong to Urukperiod. Our flood layer is probably the same as Hole's water layered soil.

26

Akira TSUNEKI

Phase 3 (Mitanni Period)
Above the flood layer, most parts of the excavated squares were full of Late Bronze Agestructures. We named Phase 3 for the layers with these concrete structures. We found at least threeoccupational layers in this phase, named Phase 3a, 3b, 3c respectively.
The structures belonging to the earliest Phase 3 (Phase 3a), were found solely in Squares I-5,6.
It is a mud brick wall about three meters long and part of the gypsum plastered floor (Building 4).
In the next Phase 3b, Building 3 with relatively large rooms and ~aved floors was discovered in mostof the excavated squares. In the last building layer (Phase 3c), Building 2 with some small rooms andpaved floors extended over all the squares.
The building walls in each sub-phase pointed fundamentally in the same direction and somewalls of the upper sub-phase were built on those of the lower sub-phase. They indicated that thesethree occupational sub-phases were accumulated continuously during the relatively short period. Allof these layers belong to the Mitanni period around 15th and 14th centuries B.C.
As the urn burial (Grave 6) in Square G-6 destroyed Building 2 of the Phase 3c, we can add one
more sub-phase (Phase 3d) as the last phase of occupation. As the cups associated with this grave
show some different characteristics from those found in Phase 3a-c, there are some possibilities that
this Phase 3d dates to the following Middle Assyria period.
In the preliminary report of the previous excavations, Hole and J ohnson described that "the Urukdeposits are very sharply truncated by Third millennium leveling" (ibid., p. 157), but our excavations
revealed that their "third millennium layers" are the building occupations of the Mitanni period in thelater second millennium B.C.
Phase 4 (Later Periods)
Phase 4 consists of layers after the Mitanni period, including Roma-Byzantine and Islam. The
structural evidence and diagnostic materials are very scarce, so they are treated together in Phase4.
Although a stone wall and some white plastered floors were discovered at the southeastern
corner of Square H-6 and the northeastern corner of Square G-4, no material was found in situ onthese floors. It is supposed that they date between the Iron Age and Islamic periods, especially
Byzantine period, based on the pottery shards in the debris above the floor levels.
Just below the surface of the mound, we found five Islamic burials in Squares G,H-5,6. All ofthese Islamic burials are shaft graves, some of which were dug down quite deeply into lower layers.
A human body in each grave was laid in an extended position, facing a southern direction without
any funeral gifts.

SITE AND STRA TIGRAPHY

1. From south.

2. From north-east.

3. From north.
PI. 4 Views of Tell U mm Qseir.

27

28

Akira TSUNEKI

1. West section of Squares I, J-5.

2. West section of Squares G, H-5.

3. South section of Squares H- 5, 6.

4. South section of Square H- 6.

to

-. ~

::w~

5. North section of Squares G-3, 4.

------

6. East section of Squares G. H-4.

PI. 5 Sections of the excavated squares.

CHAPTER Ill
PHASE 1 : HALAF PERIOD

1.

STRUCTURES
Akira TSUNEKI

As mentioned in Chapter II, the earliest layers of the west mound, Phase 1, consists of threedifferent occupational layers. Here we see the structural remains from the earliest layers.

Phase laThe earliest evidence of occupation at the west mound is a lot of pits dug down into the natural
levee. Twenty-one such pits were discovered, mostly in Squares G, H-3, 4 (Fig. 12, PI. 6: 1, 2). The
shapes and dimensions of these pits are summarized in Table 1. Depending on the morphological
viewpoints, these pits can be classified into four types.
The first type is a relatively deep oval pit. The pit is dug down straight down, then it is dug
laterally in one side near the bottom. The section has a shoe shape. One of the most typical examplesof this type is Grave 7 found in Square G-4 (Fig. 13, PI. 6 : 3). It is an oval plan, 1.23m X 0.8m large.
A human skeleton, laid in a contracted position, was found at the bottom of the pit. The skull pointed
to the east and the face towards north. The study of human bones indicated that he/she is eleven to
sixteen years old (see Appendix 1). One complete Halaf painted bowl (Fig. 26 : 15, PI. 9 : 4) was
placed near the skull as a funeral gift. A flint flake was also found near the skull. Pit 23 is also an
example of this type (Fig. 14), and its size and shape are almost same as those of Grave 7. Althoughhuman bones were not found, we discovered two pieces of pottery at the bottom of this pit. It is mostprobable that this kind of pit was used for burial purpose.
The second type is a circular pit with a flask shaped section. The diameter of the bottom is muchlarger than that of the mouth. In most cases the diameter of mouths measure around 1m. Pits 18,
20 and 21 are typical of this type. A lot of pebble stones, pottery and some animal bones were laidon the flask bottom of Pit 18 (Fig. 15). Eight large stones, including a door pivot, were found in Pit
20 (Fig. 16, PI. 6: 6). It seems that these stones were thrown into the pit later. Seven sun-dried clay
balls and fifteen sun-dried clay lumps were found in Pit 21 (PI. 6: 4, See Chapter III-4). Though theirfunctions are still unclear, it seems that these pits were originally used for storage.
The third type is also a circular pit, but has a cylindrical or U-shaped section. The interior walland bottom of the pit is often covered with gypsum plaster. Pits 32 and 33 are typical specimens (PI.
6: 5). A broken but almost completely restorable coarse jar (Fig. 34: 5) was found in Pit 32 (Fig. 17).
Three large stones, including a basalt quem, many river shells, some animal bones, some potsherds
and potsherd discs were found in Pit 33 (Fig. 18). It is very probable that they were used as storagepits. Pits 16, 17 and 19 are also classified as this type.
The last type is a large, shallow and irregular-shaped pit. Pits 25 and 31 are typical specimens.
They do not have any good floors, and they were dug crudely without plastering. Ash, many pottery
and some animal bones were often found in these pits. It is supposed that they were originally30

Akira TSUNEKI

Table 1 Shapes and dimensions of Phase la pits.

Str. No.

Ground Plan

SectionPit 16
Pit 17
Pit 18
Pit 19Pit 20
Pit 21
Pit 22
Pit 23
Pit 24
Pit 25
Pit 26
Pit 27
Pit 28
Pit 29Pit 30
Pit 31
Pit 32
Pit 33
Pit 34
Pit 35
Grave 7circularcircularcircularcircularcircularcircular
oval
oval
oval
irregularovalirregular
irregular
irregular
irregular
irregular
circularcircularovalirregularovalcylindricalcylindricalflask shapecylindricalflask shapeflask shapecylindricalshoe shapecylindricalcylindricalcylindricalcylindricalcylindricalshoe shape

Dia. of Mouth
min.
max.
l.lm+
1.2m
0.8m
0.92m
0.95m
l.lm
0.9m+
1.15m
0.8m+
0.9m
0.95m
0.5m
l.Om
0.9m
l.lm
1.5m
0.96m
1.2m
2.6m
l.lm
1.55m
1.85m
1.85m
1.9m
0.8m+
1.9m
0.55m+
1.36m
l.lm
1.65m
2.4m+
0.8m
0.65m
l.Om
0.9m
2.03m
0.63m+
1.15m+
0.6m+
1.23m
0.8m

Dia. of Bottommm.
max.
0.96m+
0.7m+
l.lm
1.25m
1.3m
0.9m
0.8m+
1.03m+
1.35m
1.05m
l.lm
0.4m
0.72m
0.97m
l.lm
0.6m
1.3m
0.8m
2.0m
0.82m
1.2m
1.4m
1.6m
0.8m
0.65m+
1.4m
0.48m+
LOOm
1.14m
1.2m
1.3m
0.72m
0.55m
0.9m
0.78m
0.55m+
1.38m+
1.05m+
0.5m+
0.62m
0.9m

Depth
0.4m
0.28m
0.6m
0.39m
0.46m
0.55m
?
0.42m
0.29m
0.36m
0.23m
0.21m
0.34m
0.26m
0.26m
0.46m
0.4m
0.36m
0.31m
0.43m
0.6m

depressions to quarry clay for buildings rather than intentional pits. Garbage seems to have been
thrown into these pits.
Besides a variety of pits, we did not find any building structures in Phase la. Anyhow, the thickash deposits within this sub-phase and some pits, such as storage pits, indicate the existence of
dwellings in the area out of the excavated squares.
Phase lb
We discovered solid structures in the second occupational layer of Phase 1 (Fig. 19). Two tholol(Buildings 6 and 8), one small rectangular room with a straight thin wall (Building 7), three kilns(Kilns 2, 3, 4), and some other fragments of walls belong to this Phase lb.
One of the tholoi, Building 6 (Pl. 7: 4), has a four-decker pise wall, though its northern andsouthern parts were cut by the Late Chalcolithic pits (Silo 1 and Pit 10). The southern parts of thetholos could not be identified. The tholos measures over 4m in diameter, and the wall thickness isabout 0.5m. A white gypsum plastered floor was partly preserved along the northeastern wall. The
fireplace was also cut by Pit 10, but it showed the dwelling character of this tholos. Some pottery
shards, clearly being Middle Halaf style, were found on the gypsum floor.
Another tholos, Building 8, was badly damaged by the flood, and only the bottom of pise wall
could be identified (Pl. 7 : 1, 2). The floor has not remained, and the western part of the tholos wasleveled by natural or human force. The interior diameter of this tholos measures c. 4.5m and arectangular antechamber was probably attached to its eastern side.
Building 7 is a small square room, made of pise wall, found in Square 1-5 (Pl. 7 : 3). Its size
measures only l.lm X 0.9m, and a lot of large limestones were found in the room. These stones were
probably thrown into the room with some Halaf pottery. We did not identify the clear floor inside
the room. The southern wall of the room extends westwards to the end of Square 1-5. This thin pisewall is probably a part of the building because a white gypsum plastered floor was partly observed
south of the wall. Some partly preserved pise walls were also found in Square H -5, but they were

5

I

6

G
Unexcavated

H

t--

0

Fig. 12 Structures of Phase la.

SmJSTRUCT URES

050cm'---lllli::::==:::::l-Z87.8mFig. 13 Grave 7, Phase la.

E

CO

r...:

CO

(\J

---- --

287.8m0

Fig. 14 Pit 23, Phase la.

I m

33

34

Akira TSUNEKI

\
I
I

I

I

I

\
\

''

-

I

''

,I
''

--/

Fig.16 P"t
1 20, Phase la.

-287.6m-

S=stone' p -pottery
shard ' B -boneFig. 17 Pit 32• Phase la.

//287,8m

Fig.15 p·t
1 18, Phase 1a.

gypsum plasterI''

Fig.18 p·t• 33, Phase la.

287.5m3,,"",,_. ...

--· ....... ',,

'

4

'

Pit from\
Upper LayerG

Pit from
Upper Layer

Build ing 8

HI.,, ..
I

Building 5

D
D

.~

*'"""
·~

Burnt Soil

Building 7
Pl astered floor~ Pisl05m

JFig. 19 Structures of Phases lb and l e.

STRUCTURES

37-289.0m

0Burnt soi l

Fig . 20 Kiln 2, Phase l b.

very poorly preserved (PI. 7 : 5).
Besides these habitational structures, three kilns were found in Phase lb. Kiln 2 in Square G- 4seems to be a double- chamber updraught pottery kiln (Fig. 20, PI. 8: 1, 2). Although the grate ispreserved, its firing chamber has disappeared. The grate is made of a hard clay plate, and it is l.2m
in diameter and 0.1- 0.15m thick. The entire grate is completely burnt. Vent- holes could be identified
when we cut down the clay plate. Five small vent- holes with one larger central hole can be observedon half of the grate. The diameters of small vent- holes are about O.lm, and the central hole is about
0.3m in diameter. It is supposed that the kiln originally had approximately ten small vent-holes andone central hole through its grate. A combustion chamber with blackened floor was dug into theground under the grate. As the clay plate of grate proba ldy fell down, the depth of the combustion
chamber is very shallow. A small hollow at its western edge is probably an opening for fuel. Though
we found very few pottery shards inside the kiln, it must have been used as a pottery kiln.
Kiln 3 in Square G- 3 had been cut by Building 8 and the pit of the later period. A part of the pisewall was discovered, and it seems that this kiln has a circular plan about 2m in diameter. It has aburnt floor like the grate, but we did not find a lower- chamber under that floor. The preservationof Kiln 4 in Square J - 5 is also very poor (PI. 8: 3). Only a part of the blackened floor was observed.
It is noticeable that the floor was plastered at least two times. It indicates that the people remade
the kiln at the same place. Some pottery shards were found on its last floor.
Phase l e
Below the flood layer of Phase 2, a grayish- brown soil layer was recognized in all of the squares.
We discovered the last Halaf structure at the top of this layer just below the flood layer in Squares
H-4 and 1- 4 (F ig. 19, PI. 7: 6). Therefore, this structure belongs to the final phase of Ha laf
occupations at T ell Umm Qseir.
There is a row of small river pebble stones, about 0.4m wide, extending in a doughnut shape over
6m in diameter (Building 5). T his structure looks like a stone foundation for the tholos building but
we did not find any upper structure. We also did not find the eastern ha lf of the doughnut in Squares
H-5 and 1-5, probably because this part had been destroyed in the later period.
In general, the building preservations of Halaf period at Tell Umm Qseir are extremely poor. As
we observed thin flood layers within Phase 1, of which components were similar to those of therelatively thick flood layer of the Uruk period, the floods of Khabur occurred frequently during theHalaf occupations, too. It is very probable that their settlements were often flooded, and thisphenomenon may explain the bad preservation of the buildings in Phases 1 and 2 at Tell Umm Qseir.

38

Akira TSUNEKI

1. Pits of Squares G. H-3, 4 from north.

2. Pits of Squares G, H-3, 4 from west.

3. Grave 7 from north.

4. Pit 21 from north.

5. Pits 32 and 33 from west.

6. Pit 20 from north.
P I. 6 Structures of Phase la.

39

STRUCTURES

1. Building 8 from east.

2. Building 8 from east.

3. Building 7 from west.

4. Building 6 from north.
't'

..,,.
...;._:........

5. Buildings of Square H- 5 from west.

6. Building 5 from west.

PI. 7 Structures of P hases lb and l e.

-~ •

•
~

..

. .

-;; ~ \.-...:,,h.
'\. ~......

40

Akira TSUNEKI

1. Kiln 2 from east.

2. Kiln 2 from north.

3. Ki ln 4 from east.

4. Pottery found in Square J- 5.

5. Pottery found in Square I- 6.

6. Bones, flints and potshards found in Square I-6.
P I. 8 Kilns and finds of P hase 1.

2.

POTTERY

Yutaka MIY AKE
Introduction
During the 1996 excavations at Tell Umm Qseir, more than 8200 pieces of pottery were recoveredfrom the Phase 1 strata, i.e. Halaf period. The pottery of this phase can be divided into four mainware groups: 1) Halaf Painted Ware, 2) Halaf Unpainted Ware, 3) Coarse Ware and 4) Plain
Burnished Ware (Table 2a). Fine Halaf pottery, including painted and unpainted wares, is the largest
ware group with approximately 87.5% of the ceramic assemblage. Coarse Ware follows with about
12%, and Plain Burnished Ware is least common, with only 20 pieces. In addition to these main waregroups, there are two other kinds of ware: Red Washed Ware with black painting and Chaff
Tempered Painted Ware. These shards are rather exceptional as there are only a few pieces in eachgroup.
All shards retrieved during the 1996 season's excavations at Tell Umm Qseir were counted
according to ware and sorted into two groups : diagnostic shards including rims, bases, handles anddecorated shards ; and non-diagnostic body fragments which were subsequently discarded. The
former was analyzed in further detail, being counted according to distinguishable vessel shape.
Consequently more than 1250 pieces were available. There are some specimens of Halaf pottery
which were found out of Halaf context. From these materials, highly conspicuous shards wereselected to record vessel shape and painted motifs, while they were not included in the statistics.
Sample shards from each ware group, 82 pieces in total, were tested for clay analysis by X -rayfluorescence analysis 1•
As already seen in Chapter III-1, the Halaf strata of Tell Umm Qseir were divided into three sub-phases, Phase la-Phase le, and all materials came from lower two sub-phases. As concerning
pottery, however, it seems that there is no significant difference between these sub-phases except forsome minor changes among the ratio of some vessel shapes. Therefore, the Halaf pottery assemblage
at Tell Umm Qseir is dealt here basically as a single period.
a. Halaf Painted WareHalaf Painted Ware comprises 39.4% of the pottery assemblage from Phase 1 on the basis of thenumber of shards (Table 2a). It must be noted, however, that small fragments which represent theunpainted part of Halaf Painted Ware were counted as Halaf Unpainted Ware. Therefore, it seems
quite likely that the actual ratio of the Halaf Painted Ware at Tell Umm Qseir is much higher than
the above figure.
FabricThe general traits of the fabric of Halaf Painted Ware from Tell Umm Qseir can be describedas follows. This ware is made of welHevigated and considerably fine textured clay. Pottery without
any inclusions are not exceptional. When it is tempered, a restricted amount of fine sand, mica orlime particles are included. In some cases small clumps of clay are also visible. No chaff tempered
ware is found among the Halaf Painted Ware.
Surfaces are shaped up by scraping and subsequently finished with wet-smoothing. Traces of
The XRF analysis was carried out by Prof. Akihiko Mochizuki, but the results are not included in thisvolume.
1

42

Yutaka MIYAKE

Table 2a

Number and proportion of each ware group in Phase 1.

Halaf Painted Ware Halaf Unpainted Ware Coarse Ware
Phase1b%Phase.'!_~···
total

%

1615
38.8
1626
39.9
3241
39.4

Table 2b

471
11.3
525
12.9
996
12.1

2060
49.5
1913
47.0
3973
48.3

Plain Burnished~

13
0.3
7
0.2
20
0.2

4159
4071
8230

Halaf Painted Ware : number and proportion of each vessel shape.

Shaoel Shaoell Shaoelll Shape IV Shape V Shape VI Shape VII Shape VIII Shape IX Shape X total
638
166
6
7
21
137
31
10
126
113
21
21.5
26.0
0.9
% 3.3
19.7
3.3
4.9
1.1
1.6
17.7
620
121
152
Phase 1 a
4
200
87
28
8
9
1
% 0.6
19.5
4.5
0.1
1.5
24.5
32.3
14.0
1.3
7
1258
258
318
326
200
31
59
15
19
J:!"!l!itf total 25
%
20.5
4.7
1.5
0.6
1.2
2.0
25.3
15.9
25.9
2.5
Phase 1 bm~surface treatment by scraping are discernible especially on the interior surfaces of closed form
vessels. Generally exterior surfaces are carefully wet-smoothed and are remarkably even. There arealso some exceptional pieces, however, which have undulating exterior surfaces. Thin cream or
whitish colored slip is commonly applied on the surfaces before painting. The wall thickness varies
from considerably thin pieces only 2-3mm thick to rather thick ones, exceeding lOmm. Generally
speaking, the wall thickness correlates to the size of the vessel. There are several examples, however,that show a distinct variety of wall thickness even among morphologically same vessels. Usually thin-walled pieces are carefully manufactured and contain hardly any inclusions.
Virtually all Halaf Painted Ware was well-fired in an oxidizing atmosphere under well-controlled conditions. In most cases vessels are completely oxidized without showing any different
coloring on the wall sections. Some exceptional shards have slight and thin dark coloring. The
colors of the fabrics range from orange buff to grayish buff; buff and orange buff colored pieces are
predominant. There are several fragments showing unusual character by over-firing : the shards
with porous surfaces, with greenish colored paste and with fusing paste. Together with the pottery
kiln found in the Halaf strata at Tell Umm Qseir, these shards show clear evidence of pottery
manufacturing within the site.
The other shard which needs to be noted is extraordinary fine ware. This ware was carefully
manufactured, without any inclusions, notably thin walled and extremely hard (Fig. 31: 8, PI. 11: 27).
Its fine quality is conspicuous even among the carefully manufactured Halaf Painted Ware. The
number of this kind of ware is quite limited. It is possible that this kind of pottery was brought tothe site from elsewhere.
Vessel Shapes
Ten main vessel forms are recognized among the Halaf Painted Ware (Fig. 21). Each vessel form
generally consists of several types of shapes, described in detail below. Some vessel shapes, especially Shape II bowls, could not be correctly differentiated by small rim fragments. In this case, theseshards remain to be classified in the main form levels, such as Shape II.
Whole open shapes (Shape I-V) exceed closed shapes (Shape VI-IX); the ratio is roughly 7: 3
(Table 2b). The most common vessel shapes are bowls with straight or slightly flaring sides (ShapePOTTERY

Shape I

""'

\

~

7
a

Shape 11

7

\

a

b

I
c

~

7

d

l

\

I

b

\ I
I

c

Shape Ill

\ 17
a

\

I

c

J

d

Shape IV

\ 7

\ I/

I

b

~

7

Shape VI

Shape V

'(If
a

~[J
b
a

~IJO
c

CIJ

d

b

Shape VII

Shape VIII

Shape IX
Shape X

(
a

b

43

c

Fig. 21 Typological chart of Halaf Painted Ware from Tell Umm Qseir.

I44

Yutaka MIYAKEII), making up 25.9% of the Halaf vessels. Sinuous sided bowls (Shape V) and hemispherical bowls(Shape Ill) are also common, with 20.5% and 15.9% respectively. Other open forms such as creambowls (Shape IV) and plates (Shape I) are less common. Among closed shapes, necked jars (Shape IX)
are predominant, accounting for 25.3% of all Halaf vessel shapes. Deep bowls with convex sides(Shape VI) make up the second largest group of closed form with 4.7%. Oval plan pedestal bowls(Shape VII) and hole-mouth jars (Shape VIII) are rare.
I. Plates
Shallow and widely open vessel forms are classified here as plates. The other significant
characteristic of this vessel is the occurrence of painted decoration on the interior surfaces, entire
interior sides and upper surfaces of the bases in some cases. Owing to its shallowness, decorated
interior surface is much more noticeable than exterior. Four distinct vessel types are recognized.
Plate shapes are uncommon at Tell Umm Qseir, making up only 2.0% of rim shards. These vessels
increase towards the later phase, from 0.6% in Phase la to 3.3% in Phase lb. This corresponds well
to a general tendency that interior surfaces play an important role for decoration within the Halaf
sequence. Shape le is the most common vessel form among plates. Shape la and Id are attested onlyin Phase lb, though their numbers are very smalL

Shape la : Plates with slightly incurving sides
This widely open and considerably shallow vessel is quite exceptional at Tell Umm Qseir. Only
two pieces were found and both of them are attributed to Phase lb (Fig. 22 : 1-2). The vessel walls
are slightly incurving. One vessel shows the trace of ring base (Fig. 22 : 2).
Principal decorated zone is the entire interior surface. Painted designs such as solid large circles(Fig. 22 : 1, PI. 11 : 5) and solid painting or wash (Fig. 22 : 2) were applied. The exterior surfaces aredecorated with simple horizontal band restricted to the rim (Fig. 22 : 2) or are left undecorated (Fig.
22: 1).
Shape Ib: Plates with straight sides
This type is also a widely open and rather shallow vesseL Significant differences with Shape Ia
are that Shape lb has straight side and wide, flat base (Fig. 22 : 3-4). These vessels are also lesscommon at Tell Umm Qseir, with only a few pieces from each sub-phases. The rim diametermeasures 22-23cm.
Interior surfaces are usually decorated with vertical broad bands pendent from the rims (Fig. 22:
3-4). The painted motifs on the exterior surfaces are generally simple, horizontal bands for example.
There is a specimen decorated with rim ticks (Fig. 22: 3), in spite of the simple rim. An almost
identical vessel to this type was found during the previous American excavations at Tell Umm Qseir(Hole and Johnson 1986-87, p. 214, Fig. p).
Shape le: Plates with wide bases and straight or slightly flaring sides
This type has flat and considerable wide bases. Vessels are rather shallow and widely open. The
rim angles are not so acute as Shape lb. Vessel walls are straight (Fig. 22 : 8-10, PI. 9 : 3, 6) orslightly flaring toward the rims (Fig. 22 : 7, 11). Most of these vessels are carefully manufactured andthin-walled. The rim diameter ranges from 17cm to 25cm. This type of vessel is morphologicallysimilar to Shape lib. The only significant difference is the painted decoration on the interior surfaces.
Although this is the most common vessel type among plates, the ratio among the entire Halaf
vessels remains low, only about 1.2%. This type increases toward the upper layer, from 0.5% inPhase la to 2% in Phase lb.
Decorated zones are both exterior and interior sides and in some cases on the upper surface ofPOTTERY45

the base as well. The interior surfaces are divided into several decorated units (Fig. 22: 7-8, PI. 9:3) or panels (Fig. 22: 9-10). Horizontal repetitive designs such as stylized bucranium (Fig. 22: 12)
and simple repetitive designs occuring on the entire surface (Fig. 22 : 13) are rather exceptional as
decoration on the interior surfaces. This type of vessel generally has neat painted decoration on theexterior surfaces. Horizontal repetitive designs such as rows of chevrons (Fig. 22 : 9), cable designs(Fig. 22: 10, 13), herring bones (Fig. 22: 7, 12, PI. 11: 7) and stylized bucranium (Fig. 22: 8, PI. 9: 6)
are common. Similar vessels are attested at Chagar Bazar level 12, i. e. Middle Halaf period(Mallowan 1936, Fig. 21: 1).
Shape Id : Plates with convex sides (saucers)
This type shows close resemblance to the vessels from Arpachiyah which Mallowan termed"saucer". These pottery, mainly found from the burnt house of TT6, are well-known for theirelaborated polychrome decoration applied especially on the interior surfaces (Mallowan and Rose
1935, Plate XVII). The saucers have considerably wide and flat bases with gently rounded sides. At
Tell Umm Qseir only two fragments, as far as being certainly attributed to this class, were attested(Fig. 22 : 14-15, PI. 11 : 19). Both belong to Phase lb and no sample was found in Phase la.
Decorated zones are entire interior surfaces and upper part of the exterior surfaces. No realpolychrome painted shards were attested at Tell Umm Qseir, although there is an example showing
polychrome effect in consequence of the shades from the same pigment (Fig. 22 : 15). The deeorationon the interior surfaces is rather simple comparing with the elaborately decorated vessels from
Arpachiyah.
Although the exact type of vessel shape cannot be determined, several base fragments whichhave painted decorations on the upper sides (Fig. 22 : 16-20) are probably attributed to one of thetypes in Shape I category. An example probably representing a rosette center-piece (Fig. 22 : 16),
reminds us of the motifs of the plates and saucers from Arpachiyah (Mallowan and Rose 1935, PI. XIII-XVII), although this shard is decorated with monochrome painting. The other fragment withbucranium (Fig. 22: 17) probably constitutes the cruciform design known from the bowls of Arpachiyah (Mallowan and Rose 1935, Fig. 56: 1-2).
Il. Bowls with straight or slightly flaring sides
All bowl shapes with straight or slightly flaring sides are classified in this category. Mainly
based on the differences of the rim diameter and the height of the vessels, at least four distinct types
are recognized. These vessels can be divided into further sub-types depending on the shape of theirsides: flaring, straight or convexing. In some cases, however, it is hard to differentiate whether they
are intentionally flared or not. Therefore, here we do not distinguish them further and deal with themas one type. Most of the exterior surfaces are decorated, while the decorations on the interior
surfaces are restricted to the rims. This type of bowls is the largest group among the Halaf vessel
shapes at Tell Umm Qseir with 25.9%. The high ratio in Phase la of 32.3% is outstanding, but thisshape shows a clear decline in Phase lb to 19.7%.
Shape Ila : Small sized shallow bowls with straight or slightly flaring sides
This class is rather small sized vessels with diameter measuring around 10-11 cm. These cups
are just the size to be handled with one hand. The bases are flat and rather wide for their size.
Strictly speaking, this type has three variations: slightly flaring sided bowls (Fig. 23 : 1-2, PI. 11 :10), straight sided bowls (Fig. 23 : 3-4, PI. 11 : 1) and slightly convexing sided bowls (Fig. 23 : 5-6, PI.
9 : 5). The heights of the vessels varies between 3.5cm and 5.5cm. These small bowls are not common
and are found exclusively in Phase la.

46

Yutaka MIY AKE

The entire exterior surfaces are generally decorated. Most of the designs on the exterior
surfaces are divided into eight panel zones. Interior sides of the rims are usually decorated with
undulating lines with horizontal bands on the rims. There is an exceptional piece decorated withvertical lines between horizontal bands on the interior surface (Fig. 23: 6).
Shape lib: Large sized shallow bowls with straight or slightly flaring sides
The shape of vessel itself is similar to Shape Ila. Concerning the heights of the vessels, there isno distinct divergence from Shape Ila. The significant difference is its rim diameter, ranging from15cm to 25cm (Fig. 23: 7-13). On the other hand, this type is morphologically similar to Shape le.
The main difference is the decoration on the interior surfaces. This type is common among bowls
with straight or slightly flaring sides.

Fig. 22
1. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mineral inclusions. Orange buff. Black paint on cream slip.
Phase 1b. Square I -6.
2. Halaf Painted Ware. Fine mineral inclusions. Red wash on orange buff. Probably associated with ringbase. Phase lb. Square H -4.
3. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square 1-6.
4. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Exterior trace of black paint on
cream slip. Interior reddish-brown paint. Phase lb. Square 1-6.
5. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square H-4. Pit
30.

6.
7.

Halaf Unpainted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Buff. Phase lb. Square G-6.
Halaf Painted Ware. Finely manufactured and fired hard. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Buff.
Black paint on cream slip. Phase lb. Squares H-3, G-4.
8. Halaf Painted Ware. Lime inclusions. Buff. Reddish-brown paint on whitish slip. Phase lb. Square
1-6.
9. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. Exterior dark brown paint, interior black paint on
cream slip. Phase lb. Square H-3.
10. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime and mica inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phaselb. Square H-4.
11. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Dark brown paint on buff. Phase la. SquareG-3. Pit 18.
12. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown paint partially on
buff. Phase lb. Square G-5. On the floor of the Building 6.
13. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. Black paint on cream slip. Phase lb. Square 1-6.
14. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Dark brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square
G-5.
15. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Exterior brown paint on buff. Interior darkbrown paint on cream· slip. Polychrome-like effect by using the same pigment. Phase lb. Square G-6.
16. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Black paint on buff. The underside surface detached.
Phase lb. Square H-3.
17. Halaf Painted Ware. Lime inclusions. Interior black paint on grayish-buff, exterior buff. Phase la.
Square H-5.
18. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Dark brown paint on grayish-buff. Phase la.
Square 1-5.
19. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square 1-5.
20. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Orange buff. Black paint on cream slip. Phase lb. Square
H-6.

POTTERY

47

?.

~

~~
• 7~ ~7 ~ ~71w
'ifJ 11~
9

10

~ .l

V l \B

e~~

d~

12

13

SZ:..
16

~~"

....--/3. ~

~~/
17

~

./7

~

~ LJI S ·-M ~l9Fig. 22 Halaf Ware.

~ 20('b < ~. r=Y··
0

IOcm

48

Yutaka MIYAKE

The exterior surfaces are usually decorated with horizontally repetitive motifs such as horizontally articulated stylized bucranium, solid lozenges (Fig. 23 : 8, PI. 11 : 11), herringbones (Fig. 23 : 11),lines with dots (Fig. 23 : 9), dotted circles (Fig. 23 : 13). The designs fill the entire exterior surfaces
with solid painting (Fig. 23: 12, Pl. 11 : 8). Cross hatching (Fig. 23 : 7) is also seen. Decorations on
the interior surfaces are restricted to the rims, and undulated lines pendent from rims are predominant. Cross-hatching (Fig. 23: 11) is quite rare for decoration on the interior side.

Fig. 23
1. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Lustrous reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase la. Square
1-5.
2. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Orange buff. Gray core. Lustrous reddish-brown paint on cream slip. Phase la. Square G-4.
3. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mineral inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on cream slip. Orange
buff. Phase la. Square I-6.
4. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Dark brown paint on buff. Phase la. Square G-3. Pit 17.
5. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Brown paint on buff. Phase la. Square G-4. Pit 19.
6. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mineral inclusions. Orange buff. Dark brown paint on creamslip. Porous surfaces. Phase la. Square J-5.
7. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically lime inclusions. Black paint on pale orange buff. Phase lb. Square
H-3.
8. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Black paint on buff. Phase la. Square J-6.
9. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Interior and the upper part ofexterior dark brown paint, lower part reddish-brown paint on cream slip. Phase la. Square H-6.
10. Hal:tf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Dark brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square G-4.
11. Halaf Painted Ware. Fine lime inclusions. Dark brown paint on cream buff. Phase lb. Square G-6.
12. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Black paint on buff. Phase la. Square H-4.
13. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Buff. Reddish-brown paint on cream slip.
Phase lb. Square H-4.
14. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Dark brown paint on cream slip.
Phase lb. Square 1-6.
15. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Upper part dark brown on buff, lower part
reddish-brown paint on orange buff. Phase la. Square G-3. Pit 23.
16. Halaf Painted Ware. Fine lime inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on orange buff. Phase lb. Square H-6.

17. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Dark brown paint on grayish-buff. Phase la.
Square H-6.
18. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Lustrous dark brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square H-4.

19. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Black paint on buff. Phase la. Square J-6.
20. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Buff. Reddish-brown paint on cream slip.

Phase la. Square J -6.
21. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square
H-4.
22. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. Exterior reddish-brown paint, interior dark brown
paint on cream slip. Phase lb. Square H -5.
23. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. Dark brown paint on cream slip. Phase la. SquareH-3. Pit 33.

POTTERY
I

I\!!/!!A7/\1IID: '14tJ.
I\11::1

\{J:J

4

5

~SI[ ll1

23

22

20

49

21

0

Fig. 23 Halaf Ware.

lOcm

50

Yutaka MIYAKE

Shape lie: Bowls with straight or slightly flaring sides
This type can be treated as a deeper variation of Shape lib. The rim diameter remains almost
the same, from 15cm to 21cm, but it becomes much deeper, varying between 6cm and 8cm in height.
The height of the vessel is approximately half of the rim diameter. This type can be subdivided into
two types: bowls with straight sides (Fig. 23: 16-18, PI. 11 : 16) and bowls with slightly flaring sides(Fig. 23: 14, 15, 19-23). A distinct feature seen among these vessels is the squared rim decorated with
rim ticks (Fig. 23: 16, 17, 23). From rim fragments it is difficult to differentiate Shape lie from Shapelid, but it seems quite likely that these two types together make up the largest group among Shape
II bowls.
Horizontally repetitive designs are common on the exterior surfaces. Undulating lines in combination with horizontal bands on the rim are predominant as decoration on the interior surfaces.
Simple horizontal bands (Fig. 23 : 16) and checkerboard designs (Fig. 23 : 22) are less common.
Shape lid: Deep Bowls with straight or slightly flaring sides
This type can be also dealt as a much deeper variation of Shape lib. While the rim diametershows no alteration, measuring from 14cm to 24cm, its height varies between 9cm and 12cm. The
height of the vessel exceeds half of the rim diameter. The lips are generally simple and tapering
toward the ends. A few vessels with squared rims were also found (Fig. 24: 4, PI. 11: 14). Just like
Shape lie, this type can be also subdivided into two types: bowls with straight sides (Fig. 24 : 6-8)
and bowls with slightly flaring sides (Fig. 24: 1-5, PI. 9 : 1, PI. 11 : 12-13). The latter is much more

Fig. 24l. Halaf Painted Ware. Orange buff. Dark brown paint on cream slip. Phase la. Square I-6.
2. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. Brown paint on thin cream slip. Phase lb. Squares
H -6, 1-5. Building 7.
3. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. Reddish-brown paint on cream slip. Phase lb.
Square G-4.
4. Halaf Painted Ware. Fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Exterior reddish-brown paint on cream slip.
Phase lb. Squares G-4, H -4, 6.
5. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime and mica inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phaselb. Square 1-5. Building 7.
6. Halaf Painted Ware. Pale grayish-core. No visible inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phasela. Square H-4. Pit 31.
7. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Dark brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square
H-3.
8. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Buff. Dark brown paint on whitish slip. Phase
1. Squares I -5, J-6.
9. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Black paint on buff. Phase lb. Square H-4.
10. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Interior reddish-brown paint on orange buff,
exterior black paint on buff. Phase lb. Square G-6.
11. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Black paint on buff. Phase lb. Square H-4.
12. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square G-6.
13. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square H-4.
14. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Lustrous reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square
H-6.
15. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square G-5.
16. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Orange buff. Dark brown paint on cream slip. Phase lb.
Square H-4.

POTTERY

6

5

a

51

~7

.
~]

.

I

12

10

15

13

Fig. 24 Halaf Ware.

0

!Ocm

52

Y utaka MIYAKE

common and generally well-manufactured.
Horizontally repetitive designs on the exterior surfaces are prevalent among flaring sided
variations. Vertically arranged bucranium (Fig. 24 : 3, PI. 11 : 15) is rare. The former, straight sided
variation, is usually decorated with simple vertical lines (Fig. 24 : 6-8).
III. Hemispherical bowls
All shallow bowls with convex or rounded sides are classified here. These bowls are relatively
common at Tell Umm Qseir, about 15.9% of all Halaf vessel shapes. Hemispherical bowls increaseslightly in the later sub-phase, from 14.0% in Phase la to 17.7% in Phase lb. Based mainly on the size,
there are three distinct types. The large sized bowls are predominant among hemispherical bowls.
Shape Ilia : Small-sized hemispherical bowls
The rim diameter of this type varies between lOcm and 14cm. The heights of the vessels arearound 5cm. Generally these small sized vessels are carefully manufactured and thin-walled (Fig. 24 :9-16, PL 11 : 17-18). Some reconstructable pieces show that they have relatively wide and flat bases(Fig. 24 : 15-16).
Horizontal repetitive designs are not common for this bowl type. Checkerboard designs in
combination with negative quatrefoils and dots are common (Fig. 24: 9-11, PL 11: 17-18). Simple
designs such as diamonds and refracted lines filling a large part of the exterior surfaces were also
found (Fig. 24 : 14-15, PI. 11 : 21). Interior rims are decorated with bands and undulating lines likeother bowl forms, simple horizontal band and slashes. A vessel with decoration on the interior side
is exceptional (Fig. 24 : 13).
Shape Illb: Medium-sized hemispherical bowls
These medium-sized bowls have rim diameters varying from 16cm to 19cm. The height of thevessels are around 9cm. The rim shapes are generally simple and tapering towards the end (Fig. 25 :3, 5). An exceptional piece has beveled rim decorated with rim ticks (Fig. 25 : 7). This type of bowls
is less common among hemispherical bowls.
Painted motifs are rather simple with vertical or horizontal lines and undulating lines. Slashes
are seen on the interior side of the rim (Fig. 25 : 3).
Shape Illc: Large-sized hemispherical bowls
This type is one of the largest sized bowls found at Tell Umm Qseir, with rim diameters ranging
from 22cm to 30cm (Fig. 25: 2, 4, 6, 8-12). Vessel walls are generally thick when compared to Shape
Ilia and Illb. The most conspicuous trait is their square rim shapes. These vessels are the most
predominant among hemispherical bowls.
This type is usually decorated with simple broad horizontal bands both on exterior and interiorrims (Fig. 25 : 9, 10, 12). Interior rims with undulating lines pendent from horizontal rim bands arealso common (Fig. 25: 2, 4, 6). The squared rims are usually decorated with ticks (Fig. 25: 4, 8-12)
or triangles (Fig. 25: 6). Although squared rim decorated with ticks is already known from Early
Halaf strata of Tell Sabi Abyad (Le Miere and Nieuwenhuyse 1996, Fig. 3.48: 11), it is rather
exceptional for Early Halaf period. Based on the materials from Arpachiyah and Tell Aqab,
Davidson pointed out that squared rims became popular in the later part of the Middle Halaf period(Davidson 1977, p. 40).
IV. Bowls with carinated bodies and flaring necks (cream bowls)
This type of shape with rather complicated profile is usually called cream bowls (Mallowan andRose 1935, p. 131). These vessels have gently rounded bases, considerably low bodies with sharp

POTTERY

53

carinations and flaring necks (Fig. 26: 1-11). The cream bowls from Tell Umm Qseir are generally
small in size, varying in diameter between 12cm and 14cm. Relatively large pieces exceeding 20cm
in diameter are rather exceptional (Fig. 26: 11). Generally these vessels are carefully manufactured
and thin-walled. At Tell Umm Qseir cream bowls remain uncommon, comprising 2.5% of Halaf
vessel shapes. These vessels show slight increase in the upper layer, from 1.6 % in Phase la to 3.3%
in Phase lb.
The exterior surfaces are generally decorated above the carinations. Horizontal repetitive
designs are common, and designs filling the entire surface with cross-hatching (Fig. 26: 4) ordiagonally arranged checkerboards (Fig. 26 : 2, PI. 11 : 2) and panel designs (Fig. 26 : 8) can also be
seen. Interior surfaces are decorated exclusively on the necks. Checkerboard designs (Fig. 26 : 1, 4,
8, 9, PI. 11 : 3) and "eggs and dots" (Fig. 26 : 3, 5-6, 10-11) are prominent motifs.
Cream bowl is a principal vessel shape of Early Halaf period: at Tell Sabi Abyad it is the mostcommon bowl shape (Le Miere and Nieuwenhuyse 1996, p. 179) and at Tell Aqab it is the second
largest group (Davidson 1977, Table 1). Generally cream bowls in Early Halaf period have rather
simple decoration, such as horizontal bands with undulating line and lines pendent from rims, on theinterior surfaces of the necks. The cream bowls found at Tell Umm Qseir have rather elaborate
decoration on the interior. Other cream bowls, probably dating to Middle Halaf period, known from
Arpachiyah (Mallowan and Rose 1935, Fig. 62: 4, Fig. 76: 3), Girikihaciyan (Watson and LeBlanc
1990, Fig. 4.9: 5) and Tilkitepe (Korfmann 1982, Abb. 4A : 7, 8), also have elaborate decoration on theinterior surfaces. It seems quite likely that such cream bowls are peculiar to the Middle Halaf period,
which one might refer to as "Middle Halaf type of cream bowl".
V. Bowls with squatted bodies and flaring rims (sinuous sided bowls, trichterrandbecher)This type also bears complicated profiles with squatted bodies and sharply everted rims. These
vessels are usually called trichterrandbecher (Schmidt 1943, p. 44) or sinuous sided bowls (Watson and
LeBlanc 1990, p. 42). These vessels show similar profiles to cream bowls, as pointed out by Davidson
who suggested that sinuous sided bowls are the successor to cream bowls (Davidson 1977, p. 128). The
most significant difference between these two types is that sinuous sided bowls have relatively highbodies and flat bases.
At Tell Umm Qseir, this vessel is one of the most common type among Halaf Painted Ware,making up 20.5% of totaL These vessels show a slight increase in the upper layers, from 19.5% inPhase la to 21.5% in Phase lb. Four distinct types are recognized, mainly based on size and shapeof the profile.
Shape Va: Small-sized sinuous sided bowls
This type has almost the same size of diameter, varying between 12cm and 14cm, as that of creambowl found at Tell Umm Qseir. The significant difference is that these vessels have no sharp
carination on the bodies and have not rounded but flat bases (Fig. 26 : 12-14). They are also carefully
manufactured and generally thin-walled like cream bowls. These small-sized variations are lesscommon among sinuous sided bowls.
Along with the decorated zones the motifs are also quite similar to that of cream bowls.
Checkerboard designs (Fig. 26 : 12) and "eggs and dots" (Fig. 26 : 14) are common.
Shape Vb : Sinuous sided bowls with sharp carinations
This type is distinguished from other sinuous sided bowls because of sharp carination on the
body. These vessels are usually large in size, around 25cm in diameter. The small sized vessel (Fig.
26 : 15, PI. 9 : 4), which was found at Grave 7 as a funeral gift, is exceptional. Vessels with squaredrims are common (Fig. 26 : 16, 18). It seems that there are at least two variations of this type of

54

Yutaka MIY AKE

sinuous sided bowls. The vessel with carination just below the junction of neck and body (Fig. 26 :15-16) resembles cream bowls. The only significant difference is the shape below the carination,
distinct flat bases instead of gently rounded bases. The other variation has carination in the middleof the bodies (Fig. 26: 17-18).
Decorated zones are the exterior surface and the interior side of the neck. On the exterior
surfaces simple horizontal bands (Fig. 26 : 16-17) and horizontally repetitive designs (Fig. 26 : 15, 18,
Pl. 9: 3) are common. On the interior sides a series of triangles filled with diagonal lines (Fig. 26:
15, Pl. 9: 3) or cross-hatching (Fig. 26 : 17) can be seen. Specimens with triangles show a polychrome
effect used by shading of the same color pigment (Fig. 26 : 16).
Shape Vc . Sinuous sided bowls with rounded bodies
This type has bodies with rounded profiles (Fig. 26: 19-20, Fig. 27 : 1-6, Pl. 11 : 23, 25). The otherfeatures show general similarities to the preceding type, Shape Vb. This type is the most common
group among sinuous sided bowls. These vessels are generally large sized, varying between 22cm and30cm in diameter. There is an extraordinary piece with quatrefoil shaped rim (Fig. 27 : 9). A similar
vessel is known from Tell Halaf (Schmidt 1943, Tafel LXIV : 3).
Decorated zones are the same as other sinuous sided bowls. On both the exterior and interior
surfaces simple horizontal bands and horizontally repetitive designs are common.
Shape Vd: Sinuous sided bowls with high necks
This type is rather exceptional at Tell Umm Qseir. Only a few pieces are attested. The broadest
part of the body is found just below the junction of the body and the neck (Fig. 27: 8). The rim angle
is acute and the neck is relatively high. Therefore, the vessel is not widely open, while the decorated
zones are like other sinuous sided bowls.
This type is quite common in the sites of western region, such as Shams ed-Din (Gustavson

Fig. 25l. Halaf Unpainted Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. Phase la. Square I-6.
2. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase la.
Square H-3.
3. Halaf Painted Ware. Fine lime inclusions. Interior reddish-brown paint, exterior black paint on buff.
Phase la. Square G-3. Pit 23.
4. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown paint on creamslip. Phase la. Square l-6.
5. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Black paint on buff. Phase la. Square I-6.
6. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase lb. SquareI-5. Building 7.
7. Halaf Painted Ware. Fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown paint on cream slip. Phasela. Square I -6.
8. Halaf Painted Ware. Fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown paint on cream slip. Phaselb. Square H-3.
9. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown paint on creamslip. Phase la. Square J -6.
10. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Black paint on buff. Phase lb. Square H -3.
11. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown paint on creamslip. Reused as a clay scraper. Phase lb. Square G 6.
12. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square I-5.
Building 7.

POTTERY,

50======~!Ocm

Fig. 25 Halaf Ware.

55

56

Yutaka MIYAKE-Gaube 1981, Fig. 340: 492-494), Yunus (Dirvana 1944) and <;avi Tarlast (von Wickede und Herbordt
1988, Abb. 8 : 1) located along the Euphrates valleys in northern Syria and southeastern Anatolia.
VI. Deep bowls with convex sides
These forms have gently rounded globular bodies. The broadest point of the vessel is found not
at the rims but in the middle of the bodies. These vessels can be dealt with as closed forms. These
deep bowls are the second largest group of closed forms (4.7%).
Shape VIa : Deep bowls with convex sides and simple rims
This type has gently rounded bodies and incurving rims (Fig. 28 : 1-5, PL 9 : 2, PL 11 : 4). The
rim shapes are simple and tapering towards the ends. The rim diameter varies between 13cm and17cm, and the heights of the vessels measures from 8cm to llcm. These vessels are much more

Fig. 26
Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime and mica inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on orange buff.
Phase lb. Square I-5.
2. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Black paint on buff. Phase la. Square J-6.
3. Building 6. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Exterior brown paint, interior dark brown painton buff. Phase lb. Square G-5.
4. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Dark gray core. Black paint on grayish-buff. Phase lb.
Square G-4.
5. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Interior dark brown paint, exterior partly
reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square H-4.
6. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Buff. Reddish-brown paint on cream slip.
Phase lb. Square H-4.
7. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square G-3.
8. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square H-5.
9. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown paint on creamslip. Phase lb. Square H -3.
10. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Buff. Dark brown paint on cream slip. Phaselb. Square H-4.
11. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square H-6.
12. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Black paint on buff. Phase lb. Square G-6.
13. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Exterior dark brown paint on cream slip, interior reddish-brown paint on orange buff. Phase la. Square G-4
14. Halaf Painted Ware. Finely manufactured and fired hard. No visible inclusions. Dark brown paint on
buff. Phase lb. Square G-4.
15. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Brown paint on buff. Funeral gift. Phase la. Square G-4. Grave 7.
16. Halaf Painted Ware. Fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Dark brown paint on cream slip. Interior
polychromy effect with the same pigment. Phase la. Square I-5.
17. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Black paint on buff. Phase la. Square J-6.
18. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Buff. Dark brown paint on cream slip. Phasela. Square G-6.
19. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Interior reddish-brown paint, exterior andupper part of interior dark brown paint on buff. Phase la. Square G-3.
20. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown paint on whitish
slip. Phase la. Square J -5.
1.

POTTERY

2

3.·.·.,·.:::::::w·:::::=:.::.~=·•••••••••••,IH~:;:tM~::;::::::z:.::::

t ¥5=

\~{/
·~

---······..
5

4

•• •

•

57

... ---

6·:::::::::..
······(/~--'·:.~·· :~:~.: :· ·:::-..... ...
--·

9

8

~7} ~

-- f)~

14

12

16

,,

-- .. - -- - ._. ...,.

._

18~-----1 ---l20

0Fig. 26 Halaf Ware.

IOcm

58

Yutaka MIY AKE

common than Shape Vlb, making up 3.6% of all Halaf vessel shapes. These deep bowls show a slightincrease in the upper layer, from 2.9% in Phase la to 4.2% in Phase lb.
The exterior surfaces play a significant roll for decoration. Horizontal repetitive designs arecommon, while designs filling the broad part with dots (Fig. 28 : 1) or diamonds (Fig. 28 : 3, PI. 11 :20) are also seen. A kind of marks found on the lower part of the body is worth noting (Fig. 28 : 5).
The interior surfaces are usually decorated with only simple horizontal band on the rims (Fig. 28 : 2-5). Undulating line on the rim is quite exceptional for this type (Fig. 28 : 1).
Shape Vlb: Bowls with rounded bodies and short outrolled rims
This type also has rounded body but with a characteristic rim shape, turning towards the outside(Fig. 28 : 6-10). The rim diameter is relatively wide, varying between 13cm and 2lcm. One reconstructable piece measures 9cm in height. These bowls are less common and show a decrease from 1.
5% in Phase la to 0.6% in Phase lb.
The decoration is rather simple. Simple broad horizontal bands are typical for these vessels (Fig.
28: 6-7, 9). One shard is decorated with short vertical lines on the interior side of the rim (Fig. 28:
10). Similar shapes with the same decorations are well known from Shams ed-Din (Gustavson-Gaube
1981, Fig. 285-289).

Fig. 27
Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime and mica inclusions. Orange buff. Black paint on creamslip. Phase lb. Square I-5.
2. Halaf Painted Ware. Fine lime and mica inclusions. Buff. Black paint on cream slip. Phase la.
Square I-5.
3. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Brown paint , partially reddish-brown paint on buff. Phasela. Square J -6.
4. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase la. Square H -4.
5. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. Reddish-brown paint on cream slip. Phase lb.
Square H-3.
6. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. Slight grayish-core. Reddish-brown paint on creamslip. Phase lb. Square G-6.
7. Halaf Unpainted Ware. No visible inclusions. Greenish-buff. Phase la. Square H-4.
8. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown paint on creamslip. Phase lb. Square G-5.
9. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Interior dark brown paint on buff, exterior
reddish-brown paint on cream slip. A sinuous sided bowls with fourfoil rims. Phase lb. Square 1-5.
Building 7.
10. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime and clay clump inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown
paint on cream slip. Phase la. Square J-6.
11. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Dark brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square
H-6.
12. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown paint on creamslip. Phase lb. Square I -5.
13. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions except for clay clumps. Black paint on buff. Probably
painting on exterior worn out. Phase la. Square I-6.
14. Halaf Painted Ware. Relatively granular paste. No visible inclusions. Dark brown paint on buff. Phaselb. Square 1-5.
15. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Black paint on buff. Phase la. Square H -4.
1.

POTTERY

59

2

4

6

-

~ . . . . ..

~ ~(!

~

.

)1,_ _ _ _..._ _ _ _ _ _ _ ,\

ll

\

12

~

.... .............. .
.. ,..

~.'ll 0~~Fig. 27 Halaf Ware.

60

Yutaka MIYAKE

VII. Pedestal bowls (champagne vase)
This type has quite a remarkable shape. It is not possible to reconstruct the whole vessel fromsmall fragments found at Tell Umm Qseir. This type of vessel is probably oval in plan and has a highpedestal base just like the vessels from Arpachiyah named "champagne vase" by Mallowan (Mallowan and Rose 1935, p. 135). Whole vessels of this shape are known from Arpachiyah, Chagar Bazar
and Tepe Gawra. The rims are flat or slightly undulating, lowering at the longitudinal ends andheightening at the ends of the minor axis (Mallowan and Rose 1935, Fig. 65 : 4), and bowl shaped
upper parts have rounded sides (Tobler 1950, PI. CXIV: 41), slightly flaring sides (Mallowan 1936,
Fig. 24 : 4) or inwarded sides with slightly flaring rims (Mallowan and Rose 1935, Fig. 65 : 4). The
pedestal base is flared towards the end.
The shards from Tell Umm Qseir, certainly at least one example (Fig. 28: 12), show close
resemblance to the Arpachiyah specimen. Although pedestal bowls are not common at Tell Umm
Qseir, comprising 1.2% of Halaf vessels, in both sub-phases these vessels are attested.
The longitudinal ends of the vessels are usually decorated with vertically arranged motifs with

Fig. 28
1. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Lustrous reddish-brown paint on buff. Phasela. Square H -3. Pit 23.
Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Buff. Dark brown paint on cream slip. Phasela. Square 1-6.
3. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Buff. Dark brown paint on cream slip. Phasela. Square I-6.
4. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown paint on cream slip. Phaselb. Square G-6.
5. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Orange buff. Dark brown paint on cream slip. Phase la.
Square J-5.
6. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase la. Square
H-3.
7. Halaf Painted Ware. Lime inclusions. Black paint on buff. Phase la. Square H-4. Pit 29.
8. Halaf Painted Ware. Lime inclusions. Black paint worn out, only its trace is detectable on exterior andinterior side of the neck. Buff. Phase lb. Square G-4.
9. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Black paint on grayish-buff. Phase la. SquareG-4. Pit 25.
10. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Dark brown paint on grayish-buff. Phase la.
Square G-4. Pit 18.
11. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Orange buff. Dark brown paint on whitish slip. Oval shapein horizontal section. The right side is frontal view. Phase la. Square J -5.
12. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Black paint on greenish-buff. Oval shape inhorizontal section. Phase la. Square H -4. Pit 29.
13. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Dark brown paint on buff. Oval shaped inhorizontal section. Phase lb. Square G-5.
14. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Black paint on grayish-buff. Phase lb. Square G-4.
15. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Orange buff. Dark reddish-brown paint on cream slip.
Phase lb. Square I-5.
16. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Orange buff. Black paint on cream slip. Phase lb. Square
H-6.
17. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Dark brown paint on greenish-buff. Phase la. Square I-6.
2.

POTTERY

61

3

7

9

10

12

14

17

7-R ~~ i----::1
\ ;

13

15
Fig. 28 Halaf Ware.

0

16

!Ocm

62

Yutaka MIYAKE

solid diamonds (Fig. 28 : 11) or solid triangles (Fig. 28 : 12). Other parts of the bowls are decorated
with undulating and simple lines (Fig. 28 : 11) and cross-hatching (Fig. 28 : 12) covering the entire
surface. Some fragments of pedestals can be associated with this type. Pedestals are usuallydecorated with simple motifs like continuation of solid triangles on the end (Fig. 28: 13) or solid
painting (Fig. 28 : 14-15). It is not clear whether a few shards decorated on the upper side of thepedestal or base of bowl (Fig. 28 : 16-17) are associated with these vessels.

VIII. Hole-mouth jars
This type of jars have elongated bodies and inwarding simple rims (Fig. 29 : 1-4). These holemouth jars are not common at Tell Umm Qseir, comprising 1.5% of the Halaf vessels. Since no whole
vessels were attested, the heights of these vessels remain unknown. The rim diameter, approximately
20cm, shows that these vessels are relatively large sized. A shard is associated with a ledge handle(Fig. 29 : 3).
The decorated zones are limited to the exterior surfaces, while the interior surfaces are decorated with simple horizontal bands on the rims. Even on the exterior surfaces the decorations are
generally simple : simple horizontal band (Fig. 29 : 2) or combination of bands (Fig. 29 : 4). Cross-hatching is rather exceptional for this shape (Fig. 29: 1).

Fig. 29
1. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Black paint on buff. Phase lb. Square H -4.
2. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase la. Square

1-5.
3. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown paint on creamslip. Phase 1b. Square I -5.
4. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Gray core. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phaselb. Square G-4.
5. Halaf Painted Ware. Fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown paint on cream slip. Porous
surfaces. Phase la. Square ] -5.
6. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Buff. Reddish-brown paint on cream slip.
Phase la. Square l-6.
7. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Grayish-buff. Dark brown paint on cream slip.
Phase la. Square ] -6.
8. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime and clay clump inclusions. Buff. Exterior black paint on
greenish-buff. Phase lb. Square H-4.
9. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Black paint on grayish-buff. Phase la. Square 1-6.
10. Halaf Unpainted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Buff. Phase la. Square G-4.
11. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime and mica inclusions. Black paint on buff. Phase lb. Square
G-4.
12. Halaf Painted Ware. Fine mica inclusions. Black paint on buff. Phase lb. Square H-4.
13. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime and mica inclusions. Black paint on grayish-buff. Phasela. Square H -4.
14. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. Dark brown paint on cream slip. Phase lb. Squares
I-5, 6.
15. Halaf Painted Ware. Fine lime and mica and other mineral inclusions. Buff. Reddish-brown paint on
cream slip. Phase lb. Square H-4.
16. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Orange brown. Black paint on cream slip.
Paint design almost worn out. Phase la. Square I -6.

63

POTTERY

2

4

5

~··
9

8

10
I!

~ -a

12

13

15

14

Fig. 29 Halaf Ware.

16

0

!Ocm

64

Yutaka MIY AKE

IX. Jars with necks
All jar shapes with distinct necks are classified here. Based on the shape of the neck, three
distinct types are recognized: jars with short necks, jars with vertical necks and jars with everted
necks. Jars with necks are the most common shape among the closed forms at Tell Umm Qseir,
making up 25.3% of Halaf vessels.
Shape IXa: Jars with short and vertical necks
This type of jar has relatively short and vertical necks. It seems there are two types according
to their sizes. Small sized jars are around lOcm in diameter (Fig. 29: 5-6). Large sized jars vary
between 14cm and 18cm in diameter (Fig. 29: 7-10). The heights of the necks are generally less than
4cm regardless of the size. The bodies seem to have globular shapes. These vessels are less common
among the necked jars. The number of the shards that can be clearly attributed to this type is higher
in Phase la than in Phase lb.
There are some examples with ledge in the interior of the necks (Fig. 29 : 9-10). In some cases
several small holes are pierced in the ledge (Fig. 29 : 10). These shards with ledges are hitherto
known only in Halaf-Ubaid transitional context, continuing into Ubaid period.
Decorations are applied either only to the necks or to cover the entire surface. The former isdecorated with simple horizontal band or solid painting on the necks (Fig. 29: 6, 8, 9). The latter has
horizontal lines with dots (Fig. 29 : 5) and checkerboard filled with cross-hatching (Fig. 29: 7, Pl. 11 :26). Interior surfaces are decorated with horizontal band (Fig. 29: 9), band with undulating lines (Fig.
29 : 7) and short vertical lines (Fig. 29 : 5).

Fig. 30
1. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Orange buff. Dark brown paint on greenish-buff slip.
Phase lb. Square 1-5. Building 7.
2. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Orange buff. Dark brown paint on cream slip.
Phase la. Square I-5.
3. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. Dark brown paint on cream slip. Phase lb. Square
H-6.
4. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Orange buff. Black paint on cream slip. Phase lb. Square
H-3.
5. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Phase la.
Square H-3. Pit 23.
6. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Black paint on cream slip. Phaselb. Square H -5.
7. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. Black paint on whitish slip. Partially paint worn out.
Phase lb. Square I -6.
8. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Orange buff. Dark brown paint on cream slip. Phase la.
Square I -5. Pit 36.
9. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown paint on creamslip. Phase lb. Square H -6.
10. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Orange buff. Interior reddish-brown paint, exterior darkbrown paint on cream slip. Phase lb. Square I-5. Building 7.
11. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Black paint on buff. Phase lb. Square I-6.
12. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Buff. Black paint on whitish slip. Phase la.
Square 1-5.

2

4

6

7

9
10

0
Fig. 30 Halaf ware.

66

Yutaka MIY AKE

Shape IXb: Jars with high necks
This type has relatively high and slightly everted necks. There are two variations according tosize. Small sized vessels are around 10cm in diameter and the necks with less than 5cm high (Fig. 29:
12-15, Fig. 30 : 1). The larger variations varies between 14cm and 17cm in diameter and necks upto
9cm (Fig. 30 : 2-4). The body is probably either globular or squatted shaped. These vessels make up
the largest group of the necked jars.
Generally necks show distinct decorated zones against the bodies. The junction of necks andshoulders are decorated with horizontal lines to split into two decorated zones. The exterior side of
the necks are usually decorated with broad horizontal bands on the rims (Fig. 29: 13, 15, Fig. 30 : 1-4) or solid painting (Fig. 29: 12). One sample is decorated with circles between bands (Fig. 29 : 14).
The interior sides are decorated simply with either horizontal bands or bands with undulating lines.
Shape IXc : Squatted jars with short everted necks
This type has short and sharp everted necks (Fig. 30 : 6-12, Fig. 31 : 1, PI. 10 : 1, 12 : 2). The rim
shapes of the everted necks are usually simple. It seems likely that most of these vessels had squatted
bodies. There are a few fragments with carinations in the middle of the bodies (Fig. 31: 6). There

Fig. 31
1. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown paint on creamslip. Phase la. Square J -5.
2. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Exterior black paint on buff. Phase lb. Square H -6.
3. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown paint on creamslip. Phase lb. Square 1-5. Building 7.
4. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Orange buff. Exterior reddish-brown paint on cream slip.
Phas~ la. Square J-5.
5. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Orange buff. Exterior reddish-brown paint on cream slip.
Phase lb. Square G-6.
6. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Dark brown paint on buff. Phase lb. SquareH-4. Pit 30.
7. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Orange buff. Exterior dark brown paint on cream slip.
Phase lb. Square H-6.
8. Halaf Painted Ware. Very fine ware. No visible inclusions. Slight gray core. Buff. Black paint on
cream slip. Phase la. Square J-5.
9. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. Exterior black paint on cream slip. Phase lb. Square
H-6.
10. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Black paint on buff. Oval plan in horizontal section. Phasela. Square I -5.
11. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Dark brown paint on buff. Porous surfaces. Phase lb.
Square G-3.
12. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Orange buff. Dark brown paint on cream slip. Phase lb.
Square 1-5.
13. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Buff. Exterior dark brown paint on cream slip.
Phase lb. Square G-3.
14. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Orange buff. Exterior dark brown paint on
cream slip. Phase la. Square 1-6.
15. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. Exterior lustrous reddish-brown paint on cream slip.
Phase la. Square 1-6.
16. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Black paint on gray. Phase la. Square I-5.

67

POTTERY

2

4

3

7

8

10

~w
11

14

Fig. 31 Halaf Ware.

0

10cm

68

Yutaka MIYAKE

is a large variation in size from rather small sized vessels with 9cm in diameter to considerably large
vessels with 24cm in diameter. The heights of the vessels are not remarkable, regardless of theirrelatively wide diameter, because of the squatted shape of the bodies. The proportion of thesevessels, on the basis of the numbers of shards which are certainly attributed to this type, is 3.8% of
Halaf vessels, the second largest group of the necked jars.
Interior surfaces of the everted necks are usually decorated with triangles (Fig. 30 : 8-9),
undulating lines (Fig. 30 : 12, Fig. 31 : 1), chevrons (Fig. 30 : 11) or stylized bucranium (Fig. 30 : 10).
The exterior surfaces are decorated with horizontally repetitive designs, checkerboard designs anddesigns filling the entire surfaces. Horizontally arranged bucranium with dots (Fig. 31 : 3) is peculiar.
There are other shapes of necked jars which are worth noting. Although the whole vessel shaperemains unknown, there are fragments of jars with carination on the shoulders (Fig. 31 : 8-9). One
specimen of extraordinary fine quality has an everted neck {Fig. 31 : 8, PL 11 : 27), being not as open
as Shape IXc. A neck fragment of a jar is oval shaped in horizontal section (Fig. 31: 10), probably
having a similar shape as Shape IXb.
X. Lids
It is rather difficult to correctly identify lids. The lids of Halaf pottery is morphologicallysimilar to the bowls with straight sides (cf. Shape No. II a-b). Thus, for the sake of convenience, theshallow bowl shaped fragments decorated on the underside of the bases, which would be the uppersurfaces of lids when they are put upside-down, are classified here as lids. Lids are already known
since Early Halaf period. The lid from Tell Sabi Abyad, however, is not decorated and rather small(Akkermans 1989, Fig. IV.35: 255). Typologically comparable pieces to Tell Umm Qseir samples areattested at level 12 of Chagar Bazar, Middle Halaf period (Mallowan 1936, Fig. 25: 1, 3).
There are two variations of lids from Tell Umm Qseir according to their size. The lids foundat Tell Umm Qseir are mainly small sized (Fig. 32: 1-4). These small sized lids have diameters
varying between lOcm and 13cm. It seems quite likely that the small sized lids are suited to thenecked jars, Shape IXa or IXb. Although not common, there are relatively large sized lids, withdiameters around 20cm. This size fits the rim diameter of the large sized short necked jars, ShapeFig. 32
1. Halaf Painted Ware. Fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Reddish-brown paint on cream slip. Phaselb. Square H-6.
2. Building 6. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Buff. Exterior brown paint on
cream slip. Phase 1b. Square G-5.
3. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Orange buff. Black paint on buff slip. Square 1-5. Phaselb.
4. Halaf Painted Ware. Fine lime inclusions. Dark brown paint on buff. Phase la. Square H-3. Pit 33.
5. Halaf Painted Ware. Orange buff. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on orange
buff. Phase lb. Square 1-5. Building 7.
6. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Orange buff. Dark brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square
1-5. Building 7.
7. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically lime inclusions. Dark brown paint on buff. Zoomorphic vessel.
Phase la. Square H -3.
8. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically lime inclusions. Dark brown paint on buff. Zoomorhic vessel. Phasela. Squares H-4, J-5.
9. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically lime inclusions. Dark brown paint on buff. Phase la. Square H-3.
10. A supposed reconstruction of zoomorphic vessel from no. 7 and no. 8 fragments.

69

POTTERY~I[ \ /]
2

3

I
5

6

4

8

10

0

Fig. 32 Halaf Ware and zoomorphic vessel fragments with possible reconstruction.

lOcm

70

Yutaka MIYAKE

IX a.
The painted design on the upper sides are motifs such as cruciform or center piece (Fig. 32: 1,
5, 6) and filling the entire surface (Fig. 32: 2-3). The exterior surfaces are usually decorated withsimple motifs. It should also be noted that the interior surfaces are generally not decorated even on
the rims. Shallow bowls with straight or slightly flaring sides, Shape Ila-IIb, are usually decorated
with undulating lines pendent from the rims.
XL Zoomorphic Vessels
One of the most impressive finds from Tell Umm Qseir is a zoomorphic vessel which expresses
perhaps a cattle or an other kind of ungulate animal (Fig. 32: 7-8). Unfortunately, only fragmentsof the body and the neck or leg are attested.
The body fragment (Fig. 32 : 7, PI. 12: 6) is preserved with belly, buttock, tail and the traces of
two legs. The buttock is painted with circles and dots on the left side and undulating lines on theright. The other fragment (Fig. 32 : 8, PI. 12 : 7) has a conical shape, tapering towards the end andhas a vertical ridge on the side. This piece is painted with double circles with dots. It is not certain
whether this fragment expresses a neck or leg. If this is the fragment of the same vessel of the otherbody piece, (actually the fabric and the painted decorations are similar), it should be the neck, because
the body fragment shows that the legs should not be hollow. The ridges on the frontal side of thenecks are common expression for the cattle. If these two pieces are not attributed to the same vessel,
the second fragment should be express a hollow leg. In this case, the vessel with this leg would berather large.
A well known piece of zoomorphic vessel was found at Yarimtepe II (Merpert and Munchaev
1993, Fig. 8 : 15). This vessel, supposed to resemble a pig, was found in a pit and intentionally broken.
It is thought that the zoomorphic vessel was used and broken during some kind of ritual (ibid., pp.
144-45). This is represented by four hollow legs, highly schematized head as a knob and also tail.
Compared with the Tell Umm Qseir example, the legs are rather short, around 6cm in bight, and theneck is not expressed. The other example is found at Arpachiyah TT6 (Mallowan and Rose 1935, PI.
V : a). This vessel is supposed to represent a hedgehog (ibid., p. 88). These vessels from both sites
have hollow bodies and cylindrical necks on the backs. The third piece from Tell Umm Qseir (Fig.
32 : 9, PI. 12 : 5), made of similar fabric and having a narrow diameter with probably oval shape inhorizontal section, is attributable to the necks attached on the back of zoomorphic vessel. Supposedreconstruction of this vessel is presented just for reference (Fig. 32 : 10).
XII. Miscellaneous vessel shapes
There are some rather exceptional vessel shapes with distinct character. A vessel with solid
painting on the exterior surface (Fig. 33: 12) is the sole example of a miniature vessel of Halaf
Painted Ware. The other unusual shape is a polygonal vessel (Fig. 33: 1). A base fragment isprobably attributed to the hexagonal shaped vessel, estimating from the 120· angle of a corner. Tworemaining exterior sides are painted but with different motifs.
XIII. Other elements
1. Handles

Several types of handles are attested among Halaf Painted Ware from Tell Umm Qseir. Ledge
handle is accompanied with hole mouth jars as already seen above (Fig. 29: 3). There is a remarkable example that has extraordinarily large and long board shaped ledge handle (Fig. 33 : 9).
Horizontally perforated knob handles are usually associated with short necked jars, Shape IXa, andattached on the shoulders. There are two different shapes: conical shaped (Fig. 29: 8) and verticallyelongated rectilinear shaped handle (Fig. 29 : 6, Fig. 33 : 7).

POTTERY

71

2. BasesAs already seen above, bases of Halaf Painted Ware are generally flat, except for the gently
rounded base of cream bowls, Shape IV. An interesting feature seen among the base fragments is theso-called potter's mark. Although the entire figure is not recognizable, two base fragments have apainted mark on the center of the underside of the base (Fig. 33: 2-3). Halaf pottery with potter's
mark is known from Tell Sabi Abyad (Akkermans 1989, Fig. IV : 24. 181) and Arpachiyah. The
squatted jar from Arpachiyah (Mallowan and Rose 1935, Fig. 71: 10) has a close resemblance to Tell
Umm Qseir with a potter's mark on the underside. Other examples have a potter's mark on theinterior surfaces.
Although the number is quite limited, ring bases were also found. Generally they have rectangular sections (Fig. 33 : 5-6), but there are also a few specimens with rounded sections (Fig. 33: 4). One
specimen is certainly associated with a plate of Shape la (Fig. 22 : 2). From other Halaf sites,
especially Arpachiyah, plates with straight sides (cf. Umm Qseir Shape le) and squatted jars withflaring necks (cf. Umm Qseir Shape IXc) are known to be accompanied by ring bases (Mallowan andRose 1935, Fig. 58: 3, Fig. 76: I, 4). Some ring base fragments from Tell Umm Qseir are probably
accompanied by squatted jars. Another conspicuous base form is the pedestal base. It seems quite
likely that most of them are accompanied with so-called champagne vase, Shape VII.
Decoration: a synthesis
Painting is the sole kind of decoration among the Halaf pottery from Tell Umm Qseir. Incisedor incised and painted decorations, which are known from other Halaf sites, are not attested at Tell
Umm Qseir.
The paint is always monochrome, ranging from reddish-brown, dark brown to black. It seems
quite likely that this difference of colors depends not on the kind of pigment but on the conditions offiring. There are some examples of even the same pot bearing different colors of painting on various
parts. The result of the X-ray Fluorescence Analysis confirms this view (Mochizuki, per. comm.).
All the pigment which expressed various colors are iron oxidized. There are several pieces whichshow polychrome effects (Fig. 22 : 15, Fig. 26 : 16), but actually it derives from the shading of thesame pigment.
The painted motifs are exclusively of geometric designs. No naturalistic designs such as animals
and plants are found at Tell Umm Qseir except for stylized bucranium. Besides simple horizontal
bands, horizontally repetitive designs such as various cable designs, eggs and dots, doted circles etc.
are predominant. Another characteristic motif is checkerboard design. Bucranium also occurs invarious patterns : horizontally arranged and stylized bucranium is more frequent than verticallyarranged ones.
There are two significant tendencies in the arrangement of painted decoration. Pottery decorated with only simple horizontal bands and consequently with much space undecorated is common,
especially among Shape Illc, Shape Vb-c and Shape Vlb. The other is the increasing importance of
the interior surfaces for decoration. The vessels decorated with entire interior surfaces, various
types of Shape I, are good examples. Cream bowls and sinuous sided bowls are also fully decorated
on their interior necks.
Some Remarks on the Halaf Painted Ware from Tell Umm Qseir
The most predominant vessel shape at Tell Umm Qseir are bowls with straight or slightly flaring
sides (Shape Il) with 25.9%. These vessels are highly prevalent in Early Halaf strata at Tell Aqab(ea. 70%) and Arpachiyah, while they show a sudden decline in the Middle Halaf strata, 11% at Tell
Aqab (Davidson and Watkins 1981, p. 7). The high ratio of these bowls in Phase la at Tell Umm
Qseir, 32.3%, is remarkable, although it is not comparable to Tell Aqab. Other common vessel shapes

72

Yutaka MIY AKE

in the Early Halaf period are cream bowls, the second most common shape at Tell Aqab, hemispherical bowls and jars with high necks (ibid., p. 7). All these three shapes are attested at Tell Umm Qseir,
but the proportion of cream bowls (Shape IV) is quite low, only 2.5%. On the other hand, it is known
that these four vessel shapes, which occurred in the Early Halaf strata, continue to the later stagesof Halaf period.
All other vessel shapes occurring at Tell Umm Qseir are not known in the Early Halaf period.
Sinuous sided bowls (Shape V), the second largest open form at Tell Umm Qseir with 20.5%, jars withshort and everted necks (Shape IXc), jars with short and vertical necks (Shape IXa), deep bowls withconvex sides (Shape VI), oval shaped pedestal bowls (Shape VII) and saucers (Shape Id) first appearedin the Middle Halaf strata at Tell Aqab and partially at Arpachiyah (Davidson 1977, Table 7). The
Fig. 33
1. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Reddish-brown paint on buff. The basefragment of hexagonal cup. Phase lb. Square 1-5.
2. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Exterior reddish-brown paint on buff. Potter's
mark on the underside. Phase lb. Square G-5.
3. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Buff. Exterior black paint on cream slip.
Potter's mark on the underside. Phase lb. Square G-5.
4. Halaf Unpainted Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. Phase lb. Square H-4.
5. Halaf Painted Ware. No visible inclusions. Exterior dark brown paint on buff. Phase la. Square H-4.
6. Halaf Unpainted Ware. No visible inclusions. Gray core. Grayish-buff. Phase la. Square H-6.
7. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Exterior dark brown paint on
cream slip. Phase lb. Square H -6.
8. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Exterior dark brown paint on
cream slip. Phase lb. Square I-5.
9. Halaf Unpainted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Buff. Phase la. Square J -5.
10.. Halaf Unpainted Ware. Sporadically fine mineral particle inclusions. Buff. Phase lb. Square H -6.
11. Halaf Unpainted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Buff. Phase la. Square 1-5.
12. Halaf Painted Ware. Sporadically fine lime inclusions. Dark brown paint on buff. Phase lb. Square
H-5.
13. Coarse Ware. Granular paste. Sand inclusions. Brown. Blackened underside. Phase lb. Square H-3.
14. Coarse Ware. Granular paste. Grit and lime inclusions. Buff. Phase la. Square H-3.
15. Halaf Unpainted Ware. No visible inclusions. Greenish-buff. Phase lb. Square 1-6.
16. Red Wash Ware. Well levigated clay. Fine lime inclusions. Orange buff. Interior thin cream slip.
Exterior black paint on lustrous red wash. Phase lb. Square G-5.
17. Red Wash Ware. Welllevigated clay. Fine lime and sand inclusions. Buff. Black paint on lustrous
reddish-brown wash. Phase lb. Square G-5.
18. Chaff Tempered Ware. Fine chaff tempered. Black core. Reddish-brown paint on buff. Mottled on
exterior. Phase lb. Square H-4.
19. Plain Burnished Ware. Well levigated clay. No visible inclusions. Grayish-brown. Well burnished.
Phase la. Square G-3. Pit 23.
20. Plain Burnished Ware. Well Ievigated clay. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Orange buff. Dark graysurface. Burnished. Phase lb. Square G-5.
21. Plain Burnished Ware. Welllevigated clay. Sporadically fine mica inclusions. Grayish-brown. Wellburnished. Phase lb. Square H -4.
22. Plain Burnished Ware. Sand inclusions. Dark gray. Well burnished. Phase lb. Square H-4.
23. Plain Burnished Ware. Fine textured clay. Sand and lime inclusions. Gray. Well burnished. Phasela. Square G-4.

POTTERY

'<::

10

73

I~

~2

11

c~,.-1

Ju~~ ~
16

15

19

If.

~%#22 -~
0Fig. 33 Halaf Ware and miscellaneous ware.

lOcm

74

Y utaka MIY AKE

most significant difference is the relatively small proportion of hemispherical bowls (Shape III) at
Tell Umm Qseir with 15.9% compared to the 54% at Tell Aqab (ibid., Table 1). In general, however,
Halaf Painted Ware from Tell Umm Qseir seems to fit well with the Middle Halaf pottery assemblage known from Arpachiyah and Tell Aqab. Additionally, peculiar vessel shapes and painted
motifs of Late Halaf period are totally absent at Tell Umm Qseir.
The deposit of Halaf Period in Umm Qseir is more than 1.4m thick. There are some minor
modifications between the pottery assemblages of the two phases. Significant are the decline ofbowls with straight or slightly flaring sides (Shape II) in Phase lb, from 32.3% to 19.7%, and theincrease of plates (Shape I) and hemispherical bowls (Shape III), from 0.6% to 3.3% and from 14.0%
to 17.7% respectively. Small sized bowls (Shape IIa) are confined to Phase la, while saucers (ShapeId) which are available only in small amounts are attested exclusively in Phase lb. It seems that thepottery assemblage in Phase lb shows close resemblance to the Middle Halaf strata at Tell Aqab,
especially its later part. Other vessel shapes, however, bear no explicit alteration between the twophases. Cream bowls (Shape IV), which are considered to be older features (Davidson 1977, p. 41), arecommon even in the later phase. It can be concluded that the difference of pottery assemblages ineach phase is not substantial. Therefore, Halaf occupation at Tell Umm Qseir covers a relatively
short time within Middle Halaf period.

b. Halaf Unpainted WareHalaf Unpainted Ware is the largest ware group with 48.4% of the ceramic samples at Tell L'mm
Qseir. A large portion of these shards, however, probably belong to the unpainted part of Halaf
Painted Ware or the fragments whose paintings have worn away or washed out. This view isreinforced by the fact that the ratio of the Halaf Unpainted Ware among rim fragments is considerably low.
However, it is certain that there are some true unpainted ware. Halaf Unpainted Ware is madeof the same kind of fabric as Halaf Painted Ware. Vessel shapes also show close resemblance topainted counterpart of that ware. Here, we deal with only peculiar elements of Halaf Unpainted
Ware in order to avoid redundancy.
Hand molded miniature vessels with spouts are peculiar to Halaf Unpainted Ware at Tell Umm
Qseir (Fig. 33: 10-11, Pl. 10: 5-6). Two whole vessels are attested, and both of them are approximately the same size. The same type of miniature vessels are found at Arpachiyah (Mallowan andRose 1935, Fig. 43 : 5) and Yarimtepe II (Merpert and Munchaev 1993, Fig. 8 : 1-3, 7-8). Painted
examples are known from Chagar Bazar (Mallowan 1936, Fig. 24 : 1).
c. Coarse Ware
Coarse Ware has completely different characteristics from Halaf Ware. The clay is not well
-prepared and the manufacturing of pottery is not so careful as Halaf Ware. Traces of secondary
firing or soot are clearly visible on some fragments, indicating that they were used as cooking pots.
Coarse Ware comprises 12% of pottery assemblage from Phase 1 of Tell Umm Qseir.

FabricClay used for Coarse Ware is not welHevigated and generally has granular texture. The vessel
walls are rather thick, usually exceeding lOmm, and dark coloring on the vessel walls is frequently
visible. Surfaces are usually treated with smoothing and are not even. In some cases traces of clay
ceilings are still visible especially on the interior surfaces.
There are three distinct kinds of fabric of Coarse Ware. The first ware group is of relatively
good quality. The paste is rather dense compared to those of other Coarse Ware groups, temperingwith much sand and grit. It is relatively well-fired, and fully oxidized pieces are not rare. The

POTTERY

75

surface colors varies between reddish brown and dark brown. The next ware group is porous andlight-weighted. This also includes sand and grit particles and it is wet-smoothed. The surface color
ranges from yellowish-brown to dark brown. Between the two ware groups, there is no significant
difference except for the fabrics. Vessel shapes are generally common between them. The third waregroup includes coarse chaff in addition to sand and grit. Obvious and considerably thick blackcoloring is the other conspicuous trait of this ware group. It seems quite likely that all heavily chaff
tempered fragments are attributable to husking trays.
Vessel ShapeThe variety of the vessel shapes of Coarse Ware is quite restricted, compared to that of Halaf
ware. Only five main types are recognized at Tell Umm Qseir.
I. Shallow bowls
Shallow bowls with straight or slightly rounded sides make up 9.0% of the Coarse Ware of Tell
Umm Qseir. This form includes several variations: trays with wide and flat bases (Fig. 34: 1) andshallow bowls with slightly rounded sides (Fig. 34 : 2). There is a fragment associated with a ledge
handle (Fig. 34 : 3).
II. Bowls with short everted necks
This is a rather exceptional vessel shape, and only one piece is attested at Tell Umm Qseir. The
vessel has a wide and flat base, rounded body and everted necks (Fig. 34 : 4). On the junction of neckand body a horizontal line is incised.
IlL Hole-mouth Jars
The most common vessel shape among Coarse Ware is hole-mouth jars, sharing 83.4% of all
Coarse Ware shapes. One whole vessel found in Pit 32 has a large and flat base, globular body andincurving rim (Fig. 34 : 5, PI. 10 : 3), with 14cm in rim diameter and 21cm in height. The rim diameterof hole-mouth jars varies between llcm and 18cm. A rather slender type was also found (Fig. 35: 3).
A pair of ledge handles are usually associated with this shape (Fig. 34 : 5-13). One fragment probably
has a basket handle (Fig. 35 : 6).
IV. Pots with necks
Rather deep pots with necks are grouped here, making up 5.4% of Coarse Ware vessel shapes.
Most of them are necked jar shapes (Fig. 35 : 8-10). The transition from the bodies to the necks israther graduaL One exceptional fragment shows a rather shallow shape (Fig. 35 : 7).
V. Husking trays
Four fragments of husking tray were attested. Only one shard can be used to reconstruct its
shape, a shallow tray with grooves on the upper surface of the base (Fig. 35: 11). The other threefragments are base fragments with grooves (Fig. 35 : 12) or pinching (Fig. 35 : 13-14) on the uppersides. All the fragments are heavily tempered with coarse chaff.
Husking tray is well-known in Pre-Hassuna, Hassuna and early Samarra periods. It is also
attested in the Halaf context; Early Halaf strata at Tell Sabi Abyad {Akkermans 1988b) and two
possible Halaf examples from (,;avi Tarlas1 and Kurban Hoytik (von Wickede und Herbordt 1988,
Algaze et al. 1990). As far as we know, the husking trays of Tell Umm Qseir are the latest example,
and reveal that husking trays survived as late as Middle Halaf period.

76

Yutaka MIYAKE

VI. Other Elements
As already seen above, handles are commonly associated with hole-mouth jars. The mostcommon type of handle is horizontally elongated ledge handle. Though not common, conical shaped
ledge handles were also found (Fig. 34: 12). Bases are generally flat and heavy.
The Coarse Ware of Halaf Period has been unfairly handled or, even worse, totally ignored. The
high standard of manufacturing techniques and elaborated decorations of Halaf Painted Warenaturally deserve much attention. Nevertheless, Coarse Ware is also a regular component of theHalaf pottery assemblage, no matter how inconspicuous and rather featureless it might be. It appears
quite likely that Coarse Ware, usually lumped together against Halaf Wares, is fairly diverse among
the regions. The common traits generally seen among Coarse Ware are 1) rather thick vessel walls,
2) dark coloring on the walls, and 3) predominance of hole-mouth jars.
Differences are seen in the surface treatments and the inclusions. At Tell Aqab, Coarse Ware iscalled Plain Burnished Ware, being tempered with chaff and grit and being burnished on the exterior
surface (Davidson 1977, pp. 156-57). At <;avi Tarlas1 and Kurban Hoylik in southeastern Anatolia,
chaff tempered and burnished Coarse Wares, waren 5-7 and ware 14 respectively, are attested, while
a ware group without chaff (ware 8) at <;avi Tarlas1 and a ware group tempered with chaff but
unburnished (ware 13) at Kurban Hoylik were found together (von Wickede und Herbordt 1988, p. 21,
Algaze et al. 1990, p. 224). Hijara classified Coarse Ware found at new excavations at Arpachiyah
as Grey Burnished Ware Pottery (Hijara et al. 1980, p. 143). This ware contains grit inclusions andburnished on both surfaces of bowl shapes and some of jars. Ten vessel shapes are identified and hole-mouth jars with or without handles are predominant. The Coarse Ware from Girikihaciyan,
classified as Unpainted Pottery, is grit tempered and smooth or slightly burnished (Watson and

Fig. 34
1. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Lime inclusions. Orange buff. Smoothed and porous surfaces.
Phase 1b. Square H -4.
2. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Sand and some grit tempered. Orange buff. Dark gray on base.
Smoothed and porous surfaces. Phase lb. Square H -4.
3. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Sand inclusions. Slight dark core. Smoothed. Phase lb. Square
H-4.
4. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Sand and lime inclusions. Slightly smoothed. Buff. Blackened.
Phase la. Square ] -6.
5. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Lime and mica inclusions. Orange buff. Smoothed and porous
surfaces. Phase la. Square H-3. Pit 32.
6. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Black core. Sand inclusions. Dull orange buff. Smoothed.
Phase lb. Square H -4.
7. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Fine lime inclusions. Buff. Smoothed and porous surfaces.
Phase la. Square I-5.
8. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Sand inclusions. Black core. Grayish-buff. Well smoothed.
Phase la. Square G-3. Pit 23.
9. Out of context. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Sand and grit inclusions. Dark gray. Smoothed.
10. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Sand and grit tempered. Dark gray. Phase la. Square 1-6.
11. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Sand and grit tempered. Black core. Smoothed. Phase lb.
Square H-6.
12. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Sand and grit tempered. Black core. Buff. Smoothed. Phaselb. Square H-3.
13. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Lime inclusions. Black core. Buff. Phase la. Square H-3.

77

POTTERY

7

10

9

8

13

12

0
Fig. 34 Coarse Ware.

lOcm

78

Yutaka MIYAKELeBlanc 1990, p. 68). In Banahilk, there are two types of ware for Coarse Ware. One is chaff
tempered and the other is only grit tempered. Neither ware is burnished, and both are finished withsmoothing (W atson 1983a, p. 564)
It seems likely that the diversity of Coarse Ware derives from the local pottery manufacturing
traditions. An explicit and long sequence in the Balikh Valley demonstrates this transition (Akkermans 1989, Le Miere and Nieuwenhuyse 1996). The Coarse Ware of Early Halaf period at Tell Sabi
Abyad, chaff tempered and light colored pottery, shows close resemblance to the local Late Neolithic
pottery and distinct continuity, whereas the Coarse Ware from subsequent Halaf period at Khirbet
esh-Shenef alters its trait, without chaff tempering. There is also a tendency for Coarse Ware to
decrease towards the end of Halaf period. At Tell Aqab, the proportion of Coarse Ware declines
from 37% in the Early Halaf strata to 14% in the Middle Halaf (Davidson and Watkins 1981, p. 7).
The same phenomena is recognized in the Balikh valley (Akkermans 1993, p. 137).

d. Plain Burnished Ware
Dark colored and carefully burnished pottery is classified here as Plain Burnished Ware.
Although the general characteristic of this ware reminds us of the Dark-faced Burnished Ware in theLevant, there is no clear evidence whether these shards were imported from that region or locallymanufactured in the Middle Khabur valley. Therefore, for the time being, it is appropriate to givethem a non-specific name.
At Tell Umm Qseir the proportion of Plain Burnished Ware among entire pottery assemblage
remains extremely low, only 20 pieces were found, less than 0.25%. This ware group shows nohomogeneous characteristic, including several different wares.

Fig. 35

1.
2.

Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Lime inclusions. Buff. Smoothed. Phase lb. Square l-6.
Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Sand and some grit tempered. Black core. Buff. Smoothed.
Phase la. Square I-6.
3. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Sand tempered. Black core. Buff. Smoothed. Phase la. Square
H-4.
4. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Sand and some grit tempered. Black core. Buff. Smoothed andporous surfaces. Phase la. Square I-5.
5. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Sand tempered. Black core. Grayish-buff. With soot on theupper part of exterior. Phase lb. Square G-3.
6. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Sand and some grit tempered. Black core. Brown. Smoothed.
Basket handle. Phase la. Square I-6.
7. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Sand tempered. Black core. Grayish-buff. Smoothed. Phaselb. Square H-3.
8. Coarse Ware. Granular textured clay. Sand tempered. Brown. Well smoothed. Phase la. Square G-3. Pit 23.
9. Coarse Ware. Fine textured clay. Sand inclusions. Brown. Smoothed. Phase lb. Square G-3.
10. Coarse Ware. Fine textured clay. Sand and grit tempered. Brown. Square H-3.
11. Coarse Ware. Husking tray. Heavily chaff tempered. Black core. Buff. Interior smoothed, exteriorrough. Phase la. Square G-4. Pit 18.
12. Coarse Ware. Husking tray. Heavily chaff tempered. Buff. Phase lb. Square H-6.
13. Coarse Ware. Husking tray. Heavily chaff tempered. Black core. Buff. Phase lb. Square H-5.
14. Coarse Ware. Husking tray. Heavily chaff tempered. Black core. Buff. Phase la. Square I-5.

POTTERY

r-

/

79

3

6
5
4

7

9

8

I

- E__)
/1
...

...

12

~

ll

13

14

0

Fig. 35 Coarse Ware.

10cm

80

Yutaka MIYAKE

Fabrics
Generally Plain Burnished Ware is made of carefully prepared fine textured clay and is well
fired. Three different ware groups are recognized among the Plain Burnished Ware. Group I is madeof well levigated clay and usually contains no inclusions. If the inclusions are added, very fine sandparticles are sporadically tempered. Surface colors are generally grayish brown, and both surfaces
are finely burnished. These shards are usually well-fired, but in some cases pale grayish cores arevisible on the vessel walls. The other ware, group 2, is also made of welllevigated and fine textured
clay. The colors of well burnished surfaces vary between black and dark brown. The mostconspicuous trait of this ware group is the completely oxidized and light colored fabrics, generally
reddish-brown, which is in striking contrast to the surfaces. Group 3 contains much grit inclusions.
Surfaces are finished with dull burnishing and dark gray colored.
Vessel Shapes
Generally the vessel shapes of Plain Burnished Ware are the same as those already known fromHalaf Painted Ware, but its variety is considerably limited. Only three form classes are recognizedat Tell Umm Qseir.
I. Bowls with straight or slightly flaring sides
Shallow bowl with straight side (Fig. 33 : I9) is morphologically identical to Shape lib of Halaf
Painted Ware. This piece is made up of group I and the vessel wall is thicker than the counterpartof Halaf Painted Ware. The other fragment of bowl shape is deeper than previous example (Fig. 33:
20). This bowl has a slightly concave side. This piece belongs to group 2.

IL Sinuous sided bowls (trichterrandbecher)Sinuous sided bowls, one of the typical vessel shape of Halaf Painted Ware, were also foundamong Plain Burnished Ware. Small sized vessel (Fig. 33: 22, PL IO : 4) has sharp carination on thebody, comparable to Shape Vb of Halaf Painted Ware. This vessel belongs to group I. The otherexample of this shape is rather large sized (Fig. 33 : 2I). Morphologically this is comparable to oneof the types of Shape Vc of Halaf Painted Ware.
IIL Hole-mouth jars
Globular jars without necks are also attested (Fig. 33: 23). These shards are thin-walled andsmall-sized, with the diameter around I2cm. This piece belongs to group 3.
Dark colored and burnished pottery, which is often called Dark-faced Burnished Ware, wasfound in north Syria and northern Mesopotamia since Pottery Neolithic Period. The results of theclay analysis reveals that some of this kinds of pottery were imported from the Levant {Le Miere etPicon I987, Bader et al. 1994), even in the Early Halaf materials at Tell Sabi Abyad (Le Miere I989).
Pottery which is comparable to the Plain Burnished Ware of Tell Umm Qseir was found in the Halaf
context at such sites as Tell Sabi Abyad, Shams ed-Din, (,;avi Tarlast and Kurban Hoytik (Akkermans 1989, Gustavson-Gaube I981, p. 77, von Wickede und Herbordt 1988, p. 21, Algaze et al. 1990, p.
224). This kind of ware is always few in number. The close resemblance to the vessel shapes of Halaf
Painted Ware prevent the Plain Burnished Ware from being regarded as imported from the Levant.
e. Miscellaneous Ware
I. Red Wash Ware with black painting
Although only two pieces are attested, Red Wash Ware draws much attention because of its
outstanding characteristics. Red colored wash is applied to both surfaces entirely, and black painting

POTTERY81

is seen on the rim (Fig. 33: 16-17, PI. 11 : 22). The XRF analysis shows that red colored pigment used
as wash is iron oxide and black pigment on the rim is manganese (Mochizuki, per. comm.). As forthe vessel shapes, only hemispherical bowls are known.
It has been considered that Red Wash Ware occurred from Late Halaf to Halaf-Ubaid Transitional context (Davidson 1977, p. 155, Leenders 1989, p. 89). However, it should be pointed out that
Red Wash Ware needs to be further reconsidered. The chronological position of Red Wash Ware, so
far it is defined (Leenders 1989), indicates that so-called Red Wash Ware includes several different
kinds of ware. As far as we know, Red Wash Ware with black painting is found exclusively in the
Khabur valley, and almost identical pieces were found in Tell Aqab and Tell Halaf (Davidson 1977,
Schmidt 1943). The Red Wash Ware from Tell Umm Qseir should be treated in this framework.
11. Chaff Tempered WareA painted shard, decorated with red colored horizontal band on the interior rim, is tempered withchaff (Fig. 33: 18). Except for one Coarse Ware variation, which is probably associated with husking
trays, this is the only ware at Tell Umm Qseir which includes chaff temper. Black mottling is visibleon the exterior surfaces, and black coloring is on the wall. These features indicate that this kind ofware was fired under completely different conditions from Halaf Painted Ware, probably not inpottery kiln but in simple ban-firing.

82

Yutaka MIYAI<E

4

2

5

3
PI. 9 Halaf Ware.

6

83

POTTERY2

4

3

PI. 10 Halaf Ware, Coarse Ware and miscellaneous ware.

84

Yuta ka MIYAKE

6

17

tp
20

PI. 11 Halaf Ware.

.'J.,.. ·' ·~-t'lJJ

POTTERY

6

5

9

10

PI. 12 Halaf Ware, zoomorphic vessle fragments, Coarse Ware a nd miscellaneous ware.

85

3. CHIPPED AND GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS
Osamu MAEDA

Chipped Stone Artifacts
1996 season excavations at Tell Umm Qseir produced a large number of flint and obsidianchipped stone artifacts. The total number amounted to 1207 pieces, consisting of 828 pieces of flint
and 379 pieces of obsidian. Although they were recovered from all phases of Tell Umm Qseir (Phases
1-4), most of them were found in Phase 1 (Halaf period). It is suspected that most of the materials
from the upper phases (Phases 2-4) are originally from Phase 1 because there is no difference intypological feature, production technique and raw material. Many Halaf pottery shards were also
discovered in the upper phases owing to later disturbance. For this reason, the chipped stone artifacts
from upper phases can not be classified exactly into each period. Therefore, here we deal only withthe materials which were found in Phase 1.

a. Method of Classification
Classification is carried out at each sub- phase (Phase la and Phase I b), but there is no significant
difference in the artifacts. The typelist of the flint artifacts is given in Table 3. Obsidian artifacts
are listed separately because they are notably different in their form and debitage technique. Thissuggests that the obsidian artifacts were produced in different context from flint artifacts (Table 4).
This typelist is divided into three main parts. The first category is tools with retouched or utilizedworking-edges, the second one is cores and the last is debitage which includes all the rest.
A large number of chips and small flakes were recovered from one find spot in Square I- 6, butthey are not included in the typelist. A short commentery will be found in later section regardingthese chips and flakes.
b. Raw Material
Raw material used for chipped stone artifacts at Tell Umm Qseir consists of mainly three kindsof stones : coarse-grained local flints, fine-grained flints and obsidian. Samples of tabular non-worked flints or quartzite flakes were also occasionally discovered. It seems that each kind of
material was exploited at different sources and brought into the site for different purposes. Thistendency does not change throughout both sub-phases.
(I) Coarse-grained flint
Coarse-grained flint is defined as material which is not homogeneous and less grained. It
occupies 59.3% of the collection. Its col or ranges from gray or light-gray to brown and, in rare cases,
white, black and pinkish pieces. Gradated or mottled pieces are also common. Coarse-grained flint
includes a large number of debitage such as cores, refreshment pieces and particularly flakes withcortex. It appears that the knapping of this kind of flint was carried out in the site. The artifacts
are generally small and, judging from the existence of flakes and the cores with cortex, the river
pebbles seem to be used as core-blank. The presence of non- worked rounded cobbles in thecollection supports this interpretation. Although such pebbles can be found only rarely in the present
Khabur River, the source of pebbles can be found a few kilometers south of the site (See Chapter I-1). Thus, these pebbles are supposed to be brought into the site in order to use as core-blanks. The
original dimensions of these core- blanks seem to be generally small, less than IOcm.

CHIPPED AND GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS

Table 3

Flint artifacts from Tell Umm Qseir.

Phase laPhase lb

Total

1. Choppers I Chopping tools

3

2

5

2. Arrowhead1

Flint tools

3. Borers

1
5

5

4. Burins

3

1

4

5. Backed pieces

4

5

9

a) retouched back33b) natural backI2

6. Stemmed blades

1

1

2

7. Sickle elements

2

7

9

a) blade-shaped elementsI7b) flake-shaped elementI

8. Retouched blades

2

3

5

9. Utilized blades

2

5

7

10. Large scrapers

6

5

11

a) steep edge

45b) sharp edge2

11. Retouched flakes

2122a) steep edge (small scrapers)

18

18: straight edge

117

: convex edge

42

: concave edge (notches)2

5: double edge

14b) sharp edge (small knives)

3

4

12. Utilized flakes

5060a) thick type3437b) thin type

16

23

43

110

1

1

5

1

6

100

118

218

15. Single-platform cores

8

16

24

16. Multi-platform cores

8

23

31

16

39

55

13. Composite tool
14. Tool fra~ments

Total of flint tools
Flint cores

Total of flint cores

87

88

Osamu MAEDA

Flint debitage
17. Core refreshment pieces

Phase laPhase lb

Total

3

1

4

a) core tablets

2b) other refreshment pieces

I1

18. Flakes

102

95

197

19. Blades

4

10

14

20. Fragments

12

4

16

21. Chips and chunks

11

16

27

132

126

258

248

283

531

Total of flint debitage
Total of flint artifacts*excludes the p1eces from ch1p concentration m 1-6

Table 4 Obsidian artifacts from Tell Umm Qseir.

Phase laPhase lb

Total

1. Arrowheads

2

2

4

2. Burin

1

3. Retouched blades I bladelets

36

33

69

4. Utilized blades I bladelets

19

27

46

5. Retouched flakes

5

3

8

63

65

128

2

2

1

1

Obsidian tools

Total of obsidian tools
Obsidian cores

1

Obsidian debitage
6. Refreshment piece
7. Blades I Bladelets

60

51

111

8. Flakes

23

21

44

9. Chips and chunks

12

6

18

95

79

174

158

146

304

Total of obsidian debitage
Total of obsidian artifacts*excludes the p1eces from ch1p concentration m I-6

CHIPPED AND GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS

89(2) Fine-grained flint
Only 4. 3% of the chipped stone artifacts were made of fine-grained flints which are defined ashomogeneous and sometimes glossy flints. They are usually dark brown, beige, gray or black incolor. The dimensions of these fine-grained flint artifacts seem to be slightly larger than coarsegrained flint artifacts. This kind of flint cannot be obtained around the site. Neither fine-grained
flint cores nor flakes were found and all the samples have a regular-shaped blade form. It seems thatthey were exploited in other regions and brought into the site .
(3) Obsidian
A large number of obsidian artifacts (36.4% of the total collection) are included in the chippedstone assemblage. Some pieces are slightly greenish-black and other pieces have a pale gray tone.
Blades or bladelets are the common form for these obsidian artifacts. Although there is a certain
number of flakes, they are generally small. Cores or refreshment pieces occur very occasionally.
These facts indicate that most of the obsidian artifacts were brought into the site in finished blade
form or already-prepared cores as well as fine-grained flints. These obsidian were probably
imported from eastern Anatolia.

c. Flint Artifacts
Flint Tools(1) Chopper/Chopping tools (5 pieces, 2. 3% of all flint tools, Fig. 36 : 4, 5)
The terms "chopper" and "chopping tool" here are defined as retouched pebbles which have a
sharp edge on one side, regardless of the dimension or form. The working-edge is produced byremoving a few flakes either bifacially or unifacially. All of the five pieces are especially small, eventhe largest piece is only 8cm and three other pieces are less than 4cm.
(2) Arrowhead (1 piece, 0 .4% of all flint tools, Fig. 37 : 1)
Only one arrowhead was found. This is made of glossy fine-grained, yellow-brown flint. A
blade produced from opposed-platform core is used as blank. It is leaf shaped and retouched byrelatively steep pressure flaking on both lateral sides of ventral surface to make a pointed tip and atang. However, since the retouch is limited at the periphery, the tip part remains relatively thick.
Faint pressure flaking was applied on the dorsal surface.
(3) Borers (5 pieces, 2. 3% of all flint tools, Fig. 37 : 2-4)
There are five pieces of borer in Phase 1 of Tell Umm Qseir. All but one are made on flakes ofcoarse-grained flints. Fig. 37 : 3 has a short pointed tip which was produced by double-notching at
the center of its distal end. One lateral edge is blunted by abrupt retouches. On the other hand, Fig.
37 : 4 has a relatively long pointed tip which was produced by regular series of abrupt or pressure
flaking retouches. There is also a possible rod-like borer whose tip has broken off (Fig. 37: 2). The
body is roughly formed by abrupt retouches. A similar specimen is known from the Neolithic-Halaftransitional phase of Tell Sabi Abyad (Copeland 1996). There is another specimen made on a fine
flint blade.
(4) Burins (4 pieces, 1.8% of all flint tools, Fig. 37: 5-7)
All the burins are made on thick or thin flakes of coarse-grained flints. Two of them are angle
burins. They have relatively wide burin facets on their lateral corner which was blown from asnapped or natural broken surface (Fig. 37 : 6). The burin facet of Fig. 37 : 6 is slightly inclined tothe dorsal surface of the blank. The other two pieces have narrow burin facets. Fig. 37: 7 has adistinctive feature. The burin facet on the lateral surface cuts the flake scars on the dorsal surface

90

Osamu MAEDA

which has been pressure-flaked before removing the burin spoll. This feature suggests that this is
a procedure to reduce the thickness of the blank. Otherwise, it can be considered that this burin wasconverted from another tool type which has pressure-flaking retouches on its dorsal surface.
(5) Backed pieces (9 pieces, 4 .1% of all flint tools, Fig. 37 : 8-9)
All backed pieces are made on flakes of coarse-grained flint. They are not so different indimensions (around 3-4cm) except two relatively small and thin pieces (2. 5cm at maximum). Theirforms are, however, various reflecting their blank form. In most cases retouches are carried out toform only their backs. They can be divided into two sub-types.
Retouched back. (Fig. 37: 8): six pieces fall into this sub-type. Their backs are formed by aseries of abrupt retouches on one side of the blank. Three of them have abruptly retouched working-edge on the opposed side of their backs. The angle of working-edges are relatively wide. The otherthree pieces do not have well-retouched working-edges, while utilized fine retouches were distinguished on the edge opposite to their backs. Their edge- angles are narrower.
Natural back (Fig. 37: 9): there are three pieces in this category. The previous flake scars or
natural cortical surface of their blanks are used as the backs. The opposite sides are used as working-edges whose angles are wider at retouched edges than unretouched edges.
(6) Stemmed blades (2 pieces, 0. 9% of all flint tools, Fig. 37 : 10)
There are two samples of this type. Both pieces are made on blade of fine-grained flint. One
is a complete specimen whose distal end is abruptly retouched to make a short stem or tang. Bothlateral edges are considerably damaged by utilization. They are whitish-brown in color.
(7) Sickle elements (9 pieces, 4.1% of all flint tools, Fig. 38 : 1-7)
Sickle elements are defined as pieces with the sickle sheen on their edges. All but one specimen
were made on blades of fine-grained flint.
Blade-shaped sickle elements: they are snapped or truncated by retouch at one or both ends.
Their plan forms are elongated and rectangular, varying 3.6cm-7. 7cm in length and 1.4cm-3.0cm inwidth. Five pieces have sickle sheen on one lateral edge and three pieces have it on both edges. In
both cases sickle sheen is present generally parallel with the working edge which was retouched ordamaged by utilization. Two pieces have a slightly oblique sickle sheen (Fig. 38: 2-3). Furthermore,
the trace of bitumen as the adhesive is left on both the dorsal and ventral surface of the two
specimens (Fig. 38 : 2, 4). Each piece seems to have been inserted into a haft and sometimes reversed.
Regarding the method of production, there is no evidence that these blades were produced from
opposed-platform core, judging from the directions of flake scars on the their dorsal surface.
Flake-shaped sickle elements : this specimen is made on flake with cortex on its lateral. The
plan form represents a crescent shape. One example is made of local flint. The sickle sheen isstraight along its working-edge and limited to the margin (Fig. 38 : 7).

Fig. 36
1. Large scraper (sharp edge), gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase la, Square G-6, 7.3 X 6.9 X 1.8cm.
2. Large scraper (steep edge), gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase la, Square J -5, 7.5 X 4.5 X2.4cm.
3. Large scraper (steep edge), brown, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square H-3, 5.9 X3.7 Xl.8cm.
4. Chopping tool, brown, coarse-grained flint pebble, Phase la, Square J-6, 4.2 X 3.4 X 1.7cm.
5. Chopping tool, brown, coarse-grained flint pebble, Phase la, Square H -3, 7.0 X 6.5cm.

CHIPPED AND GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS

91

3

4

D

0

Fig. 36 Flint artifacts.

4cm

92

Osamu MAEDA(8) Retouched blades (5 pieces, 2. 3% of all flint tools)
This category includes the blades which have a series of retouch on lateral edges (all specimens
have the retouches on only one side) without luster or sickle sheen. Since they are morphorogicallyvery similar to "sickle element" it is possible that some of them were produced to be used as sickle
blades. Although three of them are broken off at one or both ends, judging from their width they are
relatively smaller than lustered sickle elements. Two complete pieces are snapped at the ends toshorten their length. The directions of the flake scars on dorsal surface suggest that they were
produced from the cores with a single platform. All the retouched blades are made of fine-grained
flints and no specimen has cortex on its surface.
(9) Utilized blades (7 pieces, 3. 2% of all flint tools, Fig. 38 : 8)
These pieces are defined as blades with utilized damage on their lateral edge without retouch or
sickle sheen. All of them have micro flakings derived from utilization on their one lateral edge of
dorsal surface. One piece has the trace of bitumen (Fig. 38 : 8). Like retouched blades, their plan
form is very similar to sickle element suggesting that some of these pieces were used as sickle blades.
They are snapped or truncated at one or both ends and their length varies from 1. 8cm to 5. Ocm. Two
specimens are broken off at the distal end. Flake scars on dorsal surface are left in the same
direction. All of them are made of fine-grained flints.
(10) Large scrapers (9 pieces, 4.1% of all flint tools, Fig. 36 : 1-3)This category includes large cortex flakes which have steep or sharp retouched edges on one ormore sides. They are at least 6cm in length. They can be subdivided into two groups according to
the angle of their working-edges.
Steep edge: these pieces have steeper edges on lateral or distal side whose angles are not lessthan 65°. They were possibly used as large or massive scrapers. Three pieces have straight edges
and other four pieces have convex edges (Fig. 36 : 2-3).
Sharp edge: their edge angles are sharper, not exceeding 60°, mostly around 30-40°. Thissuggests that some of them were possibly used for sawing or chopping. One has a straight working-edge and the other has a convex one.
(11) Retouched flakes (43 pieces, 19.6% of all flint tools, Fig. 39: 1-13)
These pieces are defined as artifacts which have a series of retouch on one or more parts of theiredges. They are much smaller than "large scrapers" classified above. Their dimensions are less than
5cm, usually around 3cm in length. There are a few exceptionally small pieces with l-2cm in length.
They are all produced from coarse-grained flints. Tools classified in this category are common.

Fig. 37

1. Arrowhead, glossy yellow-brown, fine-grained flint, Phase la, Square H -4, 4.6 X 2.0 X 0.5cm.
2. Broken borer?, brown, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square I-5, (5.3) X 1.9 X 0.9cm.
3. Borer, beige, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square G-3, 3.0 X 1.6 X 0.7cm.
4. Borer, dark brown, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square 1-5, 3.7 X 1.2 X 0.7cm.
5. Burin, brown, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square G- 4, 2.9 x 2.0 X 0.3cm.
6. Angle burin, brown, coarse-grained flint, Phase la, Square G-4 ; inside of Pit 22, 2. 7 X 2. 7 X 1.2cm.
7. Burin, dark brown, coarse-grained blade, Phase la, Square I-5, 2.1 X 1.3 x 0.5cm.
8. Backed piece (retouched back), glossy gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase la, Square I-5, 4.7 X 2.4 X l.Ocm.
9. Backed piece (natural back), gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square G-4, 4.0 X 2.0 X 0.8cm.
10. Stemmed blade, whitish brown, fine-grained flint, Phase lb, Square G-5, 9.6 X 2.0 x 0.5cm.

CHIPPED AND GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS

I

.

I

I

3

4

5

6

8

~

10

0

9

Fig. 37 Flint artifacts.

4cm

93

94

Osamu MAEDA

Since they are too amorphous to subdivide into sub-groups based on the plan form, here they are
divided into two sub-types according to their edge angle alone (Fig. 40) .
Steep edge (small scrapers) : they have a steeper retouched edge whose angle is more than 65",
suggesting that they were used for scraping. However, because they are all made on flakes and arevery common in their method of retouch, they can not be classified according to their whole shapes.
They are here subdivided according to working-edges.
Straight edge: eighteen pieces are found (Fig. 39 : 1- 6). Four of them have slightly denticulatededges and other five pieces have utilized damage on other parts of their edges.
Convex edge: six pieces of this type have convex working edge (Fig. 39: 7-8). One specimen has
utilized edge in addition to retouched working-edge.
Concave edge (notchs) : seven pieces have concave working-edge such as the piece so-called"notch". Their edges are formed by a series of abrupt retouches (Fig. 39: 9-10, 12).
Double edge: other five pieces have the working-edges on two different parts.
Sharp- edge (small knives) : these examples have sharper (less than 65") retouched working-edge.
There are eight pieces. Their working-edges are straight or convex and they seem to have been used
for cutting or sawing (Fig. 39 : 11, 13).
(12) Utilized flakes (110 pieces, 50.2% of all flint tools Fig. 41 : 1-8)
There is quite a large number of this type in the collection of Tell Umm Qseir. This type of
flakes has utilized edge damage on one or more parts. They can be divided into two sub-types (Fig.
42).
Thick type (Fig. 41 : 5-8) : Their thickness exceeds 0. 8cm and more than 4cm at maximum
length. Their plan forms are amorphous and the edge angles vary from 20" to 90".
Thin type (Fig. 41 : 1-4) : They are less than 0. 8cm in thickness and 4cm at maximum length.
They are generally made on blade-like flakes. Since they are much thinner and smaller comparedwith the thick type, these tools seem to have been used in a different way, for example being hafted.
(13) Composite tools (1 piece, 0. 4% of all flint tools, Fig. 41 : 9)
There is only one specimen which has retouches on different parts of the edge. This specimen
is the combinations of burin and steep-edge (scraper). It is made on coarse-grained flint flake .
(14) Tool fragments (6 pieces, 2. 7% of all flint tools)
There are some broken pieces with retouches or utilized edge damage. Their original forms
remain unknown. All of them are made of coarse-grained flint.

Flint Cores (55 pieces, Fig. 43 : 1-5)
In total 55 pieces of cores are found in Phase 1. All samples are made of coarse-grained flints.

Fig. 38
1. Sickle element, whitish brown, fine-grained flint, Phase lb, Square G-4, 4.4 X 1.5 X 0.6cm.
2. Sickle element, whitish brown, fine-grained flint, Phase lb, Square G- 5, 5.0 X 1.4 X 0.4cm.
3. Sickle element, whitish brown, fine-grained flint, Phase lb, Square H - 5, 10.2 X 1.6 x 0.6cm.
4. Sickle element, whitish brown, fine-grained flint, Phase lb, Square H -6, 4.3 x 2.2 x 0.6cm.
5. Sickle element, whitish brown, fine-grained flint, Phase lb, Square 1-5, 6.5 X 2.3 X 0.7cm.
6. Sickle element (broken), whitish brown, fine-grained flint, Phase lb, Square I-5, 6.1 X 2.3 x 0.4cm.
7. Sickle element (flake shaped), bluish- gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase la, Square G- 4, 4.3 x 2.3 x 0.9cm.
8. Utilized blade (with bitumen), whitish brown, fine-grained flint, Phase lb, Square G-4, 3.5 X 2.1 X 0.5cm.

CHIPPED AND GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS

95

2

3

4

5

8

7

6
:RQge of aiclde sheen•:Range of bitumen

Fig. 38 Flint artifacts.

0

4cm

96

Osamu MAEDA

Although these cores consist of pieces of various sizes, they are generally small and the maximum
length is less than lOcm. According to the location of platform(s), they can be divided into two main
sub-types. In both sub-phases (Phases la and lb) the proportion of both sud-types remains similar(about 1 : 1).
(15) Single-platformed cores (Fig. 43 : 2-3, 5)This type of cores (42 .1% of all cores and 43.7% of flint cores) has a flat striking-platform which
was prepared usually by a single or a few blows, in some cases with coarse retouches. The samples
which were abandoned at primary reduction stage indicate that core-preparation seems to be limited
to platform-preparation. Judging from final flake scars, all of them are the cores for flakes whichwere knapped in the same direction. No regular-shaped (parallel-sided) blades were produced fromthese cores. They can be subdivided into several stages of core reduction. Although the pieces withcortex are most common, exhausted pieces are also present. The dimensions vary from 2. 6cm to9. 6cm. This type of cores was also found at other Halaf sites .
(16) Multi-platformed cores (Fig. 43: 1, 4)
These are the cores irregularly shaped by knapping from random positioning platforms (54.3%
of all cores and 56.4% of flint cores). The position of the platform changes according to core
reduction strategies, using a former flake scars as new platform. The shape of the final flake scars
suggests that they were used to produce irregular-shaped flakes. A mode of cortex which was left
on the surface reflects a difference in the reduction stage from less-used stage to intensively-used(exhausted). They are generally small, the maximum size does not exceed lOcm in length. Such multi-platformed cores usually occur in another Halaf sites together with single-platformed cores.

Flint Debitage(17) Core refreshment pieces (4 pieces, 1.6% of all flint debitage)
Core tablets : there are two pieces of core tablets. They are the flakes which derive from

Fig. 39

1.

Retouched flake (steep-straight edge), dark brown, coarse-grained flint, Phase la, Square G-4, 2.6 x
1.4X l.Ocm.
2. Retouched flake (steep-straight edge), pinkish-gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square G-4, 3.9 X
2.3x l.lcm.
3. Retouched flake (steep-straight edge), dark gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase la, Square H -4, 3.2 X2.0 X
0.8cm.
4. Retouched flake (steep-straight edge), gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square 1-5, 3.4 X2.9 Xl.lcm.
5. Retouched flake (steep-straight edge), brown, coarse-grained flint, Phase la, Square J -5, 1.6 X2.2 X
0.4cm.
6. Retouched flake (steep-straight edge), gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square H-4, 1.6 X1.6 X0.3cm.
7. Retouched flake (steep-convex edge), brown, coarse-grained flint, Phase la, Square G-4, 1.9 X2.5 X
0.8cm.
8. Retouched flake (steep-convex edge), gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square H -5, 3.4 x 3.2 Xl.Ocm.
9. Retouched flake (steep-concave edge), bluish gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square H -4, 2.8 x
2.0X0.9cm.
10. Retouched flake (steep-convex edge), black, coarse-grained flint, Phase la, Square I-6, 4.0 X2.4 X1.3cm.
11. Retouched flake (sharp edge), pinkish-gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square G-4, 2.8 X1.8 X0.4cm.
12. Retouched flake (steep-convex edge), beige, coarse-grained flint, Phase 1b, Square H-4, 1.7 x 2.5 X0.5cm.
13. Retouched flake (sharp edge), dark gray, coarse-grained fllint, Phase lb, Square H-4, 3.5X2.5 X0.7cm.

CHIPPED AND GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS

97

2

~5

6

4

7
8

-(]
11

~9
10

~-6-~
12

13
0

Fig. 39 Flint artifacts.

4cm

98

Osamu MAEDA

Retouched flakes
12 r··-···························-··- ···-·10~...-..... -..--....... __, ........................................-_..,.... _._.................................._._

!

!

'

: I
2

iI

J.-----1
I

0 I
45-50

50-55

55-60

60-65

11

65-70

7Q-75

75-80

80-85

85-90

90-95

Edge angle

Fig. 40 Edge angle of retouched flakes.

removing the damaged platform of single-platformed cores. In this case, only the edge of theplatform is partly removed in order to create new angle between platform and core front. They are
all made of coarse-grained flints and the lengths range from 3. 6cm to 5. 2cm. The scarsity of coretablets indicates that the refreshment of platform seems to have been carried out only occasionally.
Other refreshment pieces : this type of artifacts can be defined as the refreshment pieces otherthan platform-refreshment. The pieces of this type, for example, were removed from the knapping
faces of core in order to remove the step or hinge fracture. The size of this piece is 4. 2cm in lengthand it is made of coarse-grained flint. As well as platform-refreshment, it seems such refreshment
occurs only occasionally .
(18) Flakes (197 pieces, 76.3% of all flint debitage)
Non-worked flakes are the most common type in all of flint debitage and tools (63.3% of flint
debitage and 34.0% of all flint artifacts). The term "flake" is defined as the amorphous-shaped
removals without parallel sides or ridges. In addition, even the pieces having semi-parallel sides areincluded in this category if the maximum length is less than twice its width. According to the modeof cortex on dorsal surface, these flakes can be divided into three sub-types : (1) flakes with cortex
on almost all parts of dorsal surface (15. 6% of total flakes), (2) flakes with cortex on parts of its
dorsal surface (43 . 2%) and (3) flakes without cortex (41. 2%). In each sub-type most of them usually

Fig. 41

1.
2.

Utilized flake (thin type), brown, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square H -5, 2.5 X2.3 X0.3cm.
Utilized flake (thin type), gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase la, Square G-4; on the floor of grave 7, 3.1 X
2.8 X0.4cm.
3. Utilized flake (thin type), brown, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square I -6, 3.2 X1.9 X0.5cm.
4. Utilized flake (thin type), brown, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square G-4, 3.0 x 2.2 x 0.5cm.
5. Utilized flake (thick type), gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase la, Square G-4; inside of Pit 27, 4.8 X 2.8 X
Llcm.
6. Utilized flake (thick type), beige, coarse-grained flint, Phase la, Square H-6, 3.5 X4.0 X1.2cm.
7. Utilized flake (thick type), gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square 1-5, 3.4 X2.8 Xl.Ocm.
8. Utilized flake (thick type), brown, coarse-grained flint, Phase la, Square H-4, 5.2 X3.0 X1.3cm.
9. Cornposit tool, dark gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square H-5, 4.2 X 2.6cm.
10. Obsidian blade fragment, obsidian, Phase lb, Square G-5, (4.0) X3.9 X l.Ocm.

CHIPPED AND GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS

c:==:::7 2

3

4

6

7

8

10
9

0
Fig. 41 Flint and obsidian artifacts.

4cm

99

100

Osamu MAEDA

Utilized flakes
2
1.8
1.6
'E 1.4.£ 1.2
Ul
Ul
1
Q)
c:
.><: 0.8(.):c 0.6I0.4
0.2
0·=c:··-.-,--·-

I~- -=tr------- -1~-!

1-----------r-- - ---- - ----·----·-··-----~··---J---~~~:~_·_ --- •· ·--+-------· --- ••
•
•

•
•

•;- ••• .------t-;- ;----- -•-----;--·-·•• ••·-···-·+.:••••• : - ----• ---'- •---+- - ------___.1__ • • • • •• ••• •------- -- -- -1--•- - - ··• •L•·----- --- - - --Ii
- - ----- --- - -- -- - ~ •-j0•,- · - :;•;:;:---;•;•-· - - ··- ··-~ · ---- --;- -·

2

3

4

5

6

7

Length (cm)Fig. 42 Dimensions of utilized flakes.

have plain butts and relatively distinguished bulb on ventral surface suggesting that these flakes werestruck off with a hard stone hammer or something similar. Their dimensions and plan forms arevarious. All of them are made of local flints. (For the detailed classification of the flakes, see
Chapter V -3).
(19) Blades (14 pieces, 5.4% of all flint debitage)
The term "blade" refers to pieces whose length is equal to or more than twice of its width, having
parallel sides and ridges without any retouches on its edge. Fourteen pieces can be classified into thiscategory. However, it is possible that they were used as tools, for example sickle elements, because
most of them are deliberately snapped at one or both ends to shorten their length. They usually havedouble (sometimes single or triple) ridges and only two pieces have cortex on their dorsal surface. As
to the pieces leaving their butts, all of them have linear or punctiform butts and have relatively small
bulbs. They number less than one-tenth of flint flakes. All the blades from Tell Umm Qseir are madeof fine-grained flints.
(20) Fragments (16 pieces, 6. 2% of all flint debitage)
Fragments described here are small broken pieces which cannot be recognized as flakes or
blades. They are broken irregularly and the pieces with cortex are rare. All of them are coarse-grained flints.
(21) Chips and chunks (27 pieces, 10.5% of all flint debitage)
This category includes the unretouched pieces which cannot be classified into any of the above
categories, e.g. very tiny flakes (chips) and the artifacts which are prismatic or pyramidal shapes(chunks). These artifacts were possibly produced in the course of core reduction and tool production.

Fig. 43
1. Multi- platformed core, gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square 1-6; ash deposit, 2.8 x 2.4 x 1.5cm.
2. Single-platformed core, gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase lb, Square G-6 3.2 x 2.5 x 2.3cm.
3. Single-platformed core, dark brown, coarse-grained flint, Phase l a, Square G-3 ; inside of Pit 18, 4.2 x
3.5X3.lcm.
4. Multi-platformed core, gray, coarse-grained flint, Phase la, Square J-5, 3.5 x 3.0 x 3.lcm.
5. Single-platformed core, pinkish gray, Phase lb, Square G-6, 9.5 x 4.2 X 3.lcm.

CHIPPED AND GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS

w
.

-

101

-

.

2

3

4

5

Fig. 43 Flint artifacts.

0

4cm

102

Osamu MAEDA

All the samples are coarse-grained flints. Large number of chips were found together in Square I-6.

d. Obsidian Artifacts
Obsidian Tools(1) Arrowheads (2 pieces, 1. 6% of all obsidian tools Fig. 44 : 1, 2)
There are only two pieces of arrowheads made on blade. These are fragments of tang whichwere formed by a series of abrupt retouches on both lateral edges of dorsal surface. One has atriangular shaped section and the other has a trapezoid.
(2) Burins (2 pieces, 1.6% of all obsidian tools)
Only two samples are attested. One is made on blade and has burin facet on its lateral corner.
The other is made on relatively massive flake or blade fragment with a few burin facets on its cornerof lateral edge. Another series of retouches occur on the lateral edge opposed to burin facet.
(3) Retouched blades/bladelets (69 pieces, 53.9% of all obsidian tools, Fig. 44: 5, 7-10)
These collections are most common in obsidian tools. They have a series of retouches on thelateral edges. These retouches are carried out mainly on dorsal and sometimes on ventral or both
surfaces. 28 pieces have retouches on both lateral edges. Some pieces are retouched only on the upper
part of one lateral side (Fig. 44 : 9) and others have a series of pressure flaking retouches. Most ofthem represent elongated rectangular shape being snapped at one or both ends. Their dimensions
differ from 1. 1cm to 7 . 8cm in length and from 0. 6cm to 3 . 3cm in width. Only one specimen has
opposed directional flake scars on its dorsal surface. Fig. 44 : 13 is a unique example which waspossibly made on secondary crested blade. One of the dorsal faces is covered by flake scars whichwere struck from the central ridge. It is relatively thicker than other retouched blades and has anotch-like retouch on the other side.
(4) Utilized blades/bladelets (48 pieces, 37.5% of all obsidian tools, Fig. 44: 3-4, 6, 11, 13)These examples have utilized edge damage on one or both lateral edges. Their size and plan
form are very similar to those of retouched blades or bladelets. Their dimensions range from 1. Ocm
to 6.0cm in length and from 0.6cm to 2. 9cm in width. They are generally snapped at one or bothends. But the specimens which leave the platform and bulb of percussion or distal end of blank areconstantly present in this collection. They have one or two parallel ridges on the dorsal surface andFig. 44

1. Arrowhead fragment, obsidian, Phase la, Square I-5, (2.7) x (0.9) X (0.5)cm.
2. Arrowhead fragment, obsidian, Phase la, Square I-6, (2.4) X 0. 7 X 0.3cm.
3. Utilized blade, obsidian, Phase la, Square G-4 ; inside of Pit 18, 3.0 X 1.3 X 0.2cm.
4. Bladelet, obsidian, Phase la, Square H-4, 1.6 X0.8 X 0.2cm.
5. Retouched blade, obsidian, Phase la, Square H-6, 4.3 X 1.6 X0.4cm.
6. Utilized blade, obsidian, Phase lb, Square G-4, 3.1 x 1.9 X 0.3cm.
7. Retouched blade, obsidian, Phase lb, Square G-6, 4.8 x 1.6 X0.7cm.
8. Retouched blade, obsidian, Phase la, Square I-6, 3. 7 x 1.4 x 0.4cm.
9. Retouched blade, obsidian, Phase lb, Square G-6, 5.5 x 0.9 X 0.3cm.
10. Retouched blade, obsidian, Phase la, Square I-6, 5.0 x 1.7 x 0.5cm.
11. Utilized blade, obsidian, Phase la, Square G-4, 7.5 x 1.5 x 0.5cm.
12. Blade, obsidian, Phase la, Square I-5, 7.8 X 1.7 x 0.4cm.
13. Retouched blade (secondly crested ?), obsidian, Phase lb, Square H-6, 4.0 x 2.7 X 0.7cm.

CHIPPED AND GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS

C7_!

~~i- ~_,_ _ ~- ~

103

<::?'

ffi-(J~

4

2

c:::::> 3

6

5

7

8

9

lO

13

0

11

12

Fig. 44 Obsidian artifacts.

4cm

104

Osamu MAEDA

only two specimens have opposed directional flake scars.
(5) Retouched flakes (8 pieces, 6. 3% of all obsidian tools)
These are rare examples of flakes with retouches. They are produced by giving a series ofretouches on one side of amorphous flakes. In some cases pressure flaking was carried out.
Obsidian Cores
Only two obsidian cores are found. Both pieces are cores for bladelets. Judging from their final
flake scars, the bladelets knapped from them are not so fine-shaped. One piece has a flat platformproduced by a single blow.
Obsidian Debitage(6) Refreshment pieces (1 piece, 0. 6% of all obsidian debitage)
There is only one example of core tablet which was removed from blade core. It has a retouchedflat platform and regular-shaped blades are knapped from the original core. Their previous flakescars on the core front suggest that this piece is a secondary core tablet. This core tablet is re-used
as a core for bladelets.
(7) Blades/Bladelets (111 pieces, 63.1% of all obsidian debitage)
This type of collection is most common among obsidian artifacts. There is no trace of retouchor utilization. However, the pieces snapped at one or two ends were possibly produced to be used as
tools, such as retouched blades. Their dimensions and plan form are not different from above-mentioned retouched or utilized blades.
(8) Flakes (44 pieces, 25% of all obsidian debitage)
A number of flakes are present in obsidian debitage. These are generally small and thin, varing
in size from 1cm to 3cm, though some pieces exceed 4cm. Their form can be divided into two maintypes. One type is amorphous flake such as flint flake. The other type is blade-like flakes whoselateral edge and central ridge are parallel. Its length is much shorter than blade. The latter typeseems to derive from the preparation of working face of blade core or a miss of knapping.
(9) Chunks and chips (18 pieces, 10.2% of all obsidian debitage)
There are two pieces of chunks and sixteen pieces of chips. The collection from the chip
concentration in Square I -6 is not included here.
e. Chip Concentration in Square 1-6
In Square I-6 a large number of chipped stones were collected together in the range around 0.
5 X 0. 5m. They consist of small local flints or obsidian flakes and chips and the total number is morethan 200. Neither tools nor possible tool-blanks are included except for one semi-chipped core witha few flake scars. This debris seems to have been abandoned together after knapping.
f . Summary

These chipped stone artifacts consist of three kinds of raw material groups, coarse-grained local
flints, fine-grained flints and obsidian. Production techniques and tool types are considerably
different between these three groups. The tools made of local flints include various tool-types except
for blade tools. In general, these tools are roughly produced and regular-shaped tool-types are rare.
The retouched flakes and utilized flakes account for most parts of this kind of tools. All these tools
seem to have been produced within the site. On the other hand, fine-grained flints and obsidian are

CHIPPED AND GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS

105

used quite differently from local flints. Most of them are used only for blade tools such as sickle
elements or retouched blades. A large number of obsidian blades were possibly used as sickle
elements. As a whole, the chipped stone industry from Halaf period of Tell Umm Qseir is similar to
those of other Halaf sites, regarding their exploitation and use of raw materials. Meanwhile, thelocal flint tools at Tell Umm Qseir seem to have been produced more roughly.

Ground Stone Artifacts
Various types of ground stone artifacts were recovered from Phase 1 of Tell Umm Qseir. They
consist of at least three kinds of raw materials : limestone, quartzite and basalt. Each kind of
artifact has a different typological feature although the two former kinds occur only occasionally.
Handstone
These pieces are defined as small spherical or cubical tools. Only two pieces were found. One
is made of coarse quartzite which was probably collected around the site (Fig. 45 : 3). It has arelatively thin cubical shape with one flattened face, which is roughly polished. The other piece ismade of limestone. It also represents a cubical shape and has one flat surface which is also entirely
polished.
Pestles
These tools have a cylindrical or conical shape. Two samples were recovered and both pieces
are made on fine-grained basalt. Their slightly convex end show traces of pounding or grinding andthe lateral surface of one piece was polished especially at the corner (Fig. 45: 2).
Mortars
Three pieces of motar were found (Fig. 45 : 4-6). They are similar in their dimensions, and they
were possibly made by same method. Their interior surfaces were well polished. One of them hasa right angle corner suggesting that it was a square planed mortar (Fig. 45 : 6).
Grinding slabs
Grinding slabs are most common among all the ground stone artifacts. They are made of bothfine-grained and porous basalt. There are fifteen pieces of this type including a small fragment.
They can be divided into three sub-types based on their shapes.
Type 1 : they are oval or round shaped grinding slabs. They are generally smaller and thinnerthan other two sub-types. Only one piece is complete in the four samples. The complete piece isroughly polished on its surface and has one flattened surface as well as other fragments. These tools
were possibly used as grinders.
Type 2: this type is elongated oval shape grinding slab. They have slightly concave working-surfaces curving upward at both ends (Fig. 45 : 1). They can be classified as saddle querns.
Type 3 : although they are elongated oval shape slabs like type 2, they have flat working-surfaces. Some fragments are too small to distinguish whether they are type 2 or type 3. They are
the upper stones of saddle querns.

106

Osamu MAEDA

2

3

0

4
Fig. 45 Ground stone artifacts.

IOcm

CHIPPED AND GROUND STONE ARTIFACTS

1. Flint cores (front view).

2. Flint cores (back view).

3. Flint cores.

4. Sickle elements.

5. Obsidian artifacts.

'

•

I

I I I

6. Obsidian artifacts.
PI. 13 Halaf chipped stone artifacts.

I107

4. OTHER OBJECTS
Akira TSUNEKI
a. Stone Stamp Seals
Three stone stamp seals were found from the layers belonging to Phase 1 (PI. 14 : 1-3). All ofthem were discovered in the deposited layers without structura l context.
Phase l a produced two seals. Fig. 46 : 1 is a human- shaped seal from the sandy brown soil layer
just above the virgin soil in Square G-4. It was made of reddish-yellow limestone. It is 2.lcm long,l.l cm wide and 0.4cm thick. Although one leg is missing, we can determine the whole shape. One
surface has a relief of a human figure, and the liner and cross-hatched incisions were carved inanother surface for impression. A small hole for hanging was pierced horizontally through its small
head.
Fig. 46: 2 is a V-shaped greenish-black stone stamp. One tip of the V-shape is lacking, and its
broken end shows the trace of a pierced hole. The length of V-shape is 1.9cm and it is only 0.3cm inthickness. A group of five to six lines of incision by turns are visible on the surface for impression.
It was found from blue ash deposit of Phase la in Square H- 4.
A tear-shaped stamp (Fig. 46 : 3) was found from the hard packed brown layer belonging toPhase lb in Square G-4. Black-green gabro is the material of this seal. It is almost complete except
the bottom end, and it is 1.9cm long, 1.2cm wide and 0.7cm thick. A definite knob was carved out at
the top of one surface, and a small hole was pierced horizontally through the knob. Lines of various
length were incised irregularly on another surface for impression.
Stone stamp seals are one of the most remarkable small objects found from the Halaf sites. There
are various types of seals in the Halaf period. The most numerous and prominent type is a pendant
type seal, having a thin section and a pierced hole at one end. Compared with the traditional conicaland button type of seals, the pendant type seal could make relatively larger impressions with much
sma ller stone size.
All three stone stamp seals of Tell Umm Qseir must be classified into the pendant variety,although the shape of each seal is quite different. A tear-shaped seal is one of the most generalshapes among the Halaf pendant type seals, and we can point out many simi lar instances from a lotof Halaf sites, such as Tell Arpachiyah (Mallowan and Rose 1935), Yarim Tepe 11 (Merpert andMunchaev 1987), and Tell Hassan (Invernizzi 1980). A V-shaped seal has also similar instances fromT ell Arpachiyah (Mallowan and Rose 1935, PI. VII). A human- figure seal does not have similar exact
specimen, but human hands and feet were one of the general subjects for pendant- type seals in the
Halaf period. Thus, it is not a unique object as a Halaf stamp seal.

0

Fig. 46 Stone stamp seals.

Scm

OTHER OBJECTS109

The earliest stone stamp seals of Western Asia go back to Late PPNB period, and they continued
and developed in the following Pottery Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods (Tsuneki 1983, vonWickede 1990). From the morphological view point, the stone stamp seals were invented originallyfor sealing (Tsuneki 1983). We have evidence of clay and gypsum sealings with seal impressions from
Late PPNB and Pottery Neolithic sites, such as Tell Bouqras (Akkermans et al. 1983) and Tell Sabi
Abyad (Duistermaat 1996). These evidences indicate that prehistoric stamp seals were used in thesystem of expressing ownership, the preservation of materials and book-keeping for the administration of goods.
Halaf sites, such as Tell Arpachiyah (Mallowan and Rose 1935) and Khirbet Derak (Breniquet
1996), produced a lot of clay sealings including bullae and jar-stoppers. They indicate that the sealing
system also existed in Halaf societies. Unfortunately, we did not find any clay sealings from our
excavations, but stone stamp seals of Tell Umm Qseir must also have been used in the same context.
Our evidence shows that tiny Halaf sites, such as Tell Umm Qseir, had been included in the systemof sealings.
b. Stone Vessels
Four fragments of stone vessels were found from Phase 1. Fig. 47: 1 is a rim fragment of bowl
made of fine limestone, having whitish-cream surface with red stripes (PI. 14 : 4). The rim wasdecorated with double horizontal incised lines, and it is the sole stone vessel with decoration. It was
found below grayish-white layers of Square G-4, belonging to Phase lb.
Fig. 47: 2 is a limestone small plate (PI. 14 : 5). The surface calor shows also whitish-cream with
red stripes. Radial traces of burnishing is visible on the interior surface. Its exterior surface wasfinished by burnishing better than the interior surface. It was discovered in the ash deposit of Phasela in Square I-6.
Fig. 47: 3 is a bottom fragment of the gypsum vessel, found from brown ash layer of Phase lb
in Square H -5. The surface col or is a translucent whitish-cream.
Fig. 47 : 4 is also a bottom fragment, but it was made of grayish black stone. Mica particles wereconspicuous in the section. Both surfaces were lustrous by intense burnishing. It was found in Phase

lJ\
''

~

8

1111

DD7
5

0
Fig. 47 Stone vessels, stone celt, bone spatula, and stone and shell beads.

11>
I

ID

9

11
5cm

110

Akira TSUNEKI

la of Square I -5.

c. Stone Celt
Only one small stone celt was found in Phase la in Square I-5 (Fig. 47: 5, PI. 14: 6). The entire
surface is ground and polished. It was made of black-green stone. The working edge is blunted andbroken by use. It may have been a straight working edge. It is 3.9cm long and about 3cm wide at
the edge. A small hole is visible near the butt end of its one surface, but it is not bored through tothe other side. Although it has an axe-like asymmetric beveled edge, the traces of damaged lines lie
at right angles to the working edge on one surface. Thus, it may have been used as a chisel.
Generally speaking, the number of stone celts of Halaf sites is very small, compared with the sitesof proceeding periods which produce a large quantity of stone celts. We can point out that this is also
the case at Tell Umm Qseir.
d. Clay Balls
Thirty-four ovoid clay balls, almost pointed at both ends, were found in Phase 1 (Fig. 48: 1-8,

-0
4

-0

7

0

-0
0

2

3

-0

5

6

8

-o

9

-(]

0

10

Fig. 48 Sun-dried clay balls and clay lumps.

IOcm

OTHER OBJECTS111

Pl. 15: 1). They are of sun-dried clay. There are no intentionally baked specimens, although somewere baked by accident. No plaster or stone balls were discovered.
Details of the clay balls are given in Table 5. Twenty-three of thirty-four balls are almost
complete, and the average dimensions of the complete specimens are 4.4cm long and 3.0 cm wide. The
average weight is 33 grams.
We must notice the find spots of the clay balls, because about half of them were found in the pits
dug into the virgin soil belonging to Phase la. Pit 17 produced six balls, Pit 21 produced seven balls,
Pit 33 produced two, and Pit 18 and 20 produced one ball each. Three balls were found beneath
Building 8 (Tholos).
Pit 21 also produced fifteen sun-dried clay lumps (PI. 15 : 1) along with seven clay balls. Someclay lumps have a flat face (Fig. 48 : 9-10), and others have simpler figures like discs (Fig. 48 : 11-12).
There are some possibilities that they were used as clay sealings, but we do not observe any tracesof seal impressions or string impressions on these clay lumps.
Ovoid clay balls are usually reported as "sling missiles" a priori, but it is not so easy to determine
their function. Compared with plaster, stones and baked clay, the sun-dried clay is too weak as

Table 5 Sun-dried clay balls.
Square
G-3
G-3
G-3
G-3
G-3
G-3
G-3
G-3
G-3
G-3
G-3
G-3
G-3
G-4
G-4
G-4
G-4
G-4
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-4
H-4
H-4
G-4
G-4
G-4
G-4
G-4
G-4
H-5
J-5

Phase
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
2
2
2
2
4
4

Conditioncompletefragment
completecompletefragment
completecompletecompletefragment
fragment
completecompletecompletefragment
completecompletefragment
completecompletealmost complete
completecompletecompletecompletefragment
fragment
completefragment
completefragment
almost complete
completefragment
complete

Length
42mm
29+
44

49
40+
45
45
43
36+
38+
50
44

50
45+
47
44

40+
37
46
48
38
38
29
53
28+
40+
40
39+

55
38+
40
45
45+
39

Width
29mm
23
28
33
20
29
29
27
27
29
31
30
30
30
30
28
30
22
26
28
28
29
26
49
25
29
28
25
35
30
26
27
29
27

Weight
25g
12+
28
38
19+
39
35
30
25+
27+
41
34
39
31+
37
30
27+
22
27
31+
24
24
23
63
14+
19+
28
16+
48
30+
24+
27
31+
23

Remarks
Pit 17
Pit 17
Pit 17
Pit 17
Pit 17
Pit 17
Pit21
Pit 21
Pit21
Pit 21
Pit 21
Pit 21
Pit 21
Pit 18F!& 48:2

Fig. 48:3
F!& 48:4
Fig~ 48: 6

Fig. 48:5
Fj_g~ 48: 7

F\& 48:8

Pit 20
Pit33
Pit 33

Fig.48: I

112

Akira TSUNEKI

material for sling missiles. Pit 21 showed that they were found together with sun-dried clay lumps,
which were very different from sling missiles. This evidence gives us new material to reconsider thefunction of sun-dried clay balls.
e. Clay Scrapers
One of the most numerous and curious small objects are potsherds with working ed, ges, like theflint scrapers (Pl. 15: 7). These "clay scrapers" are made of various kinds of potsherds, i. e. thoseof painted, fine and coarse pottery, though painted pottery is the main material. All of these
potsherds are Halaf varieties.
Sixty-six clay scrapers were found from various phases, although most of them came from Phase
1 (Table 6). The clay scrapers can be divided into some types based on the shapes and the locationof edges. We use the same terminology of flint scrapers to express these types.
End-scraper has generally elongated rectangular shape and slightly round-ended working edge
Table 6Clay scrapers.

End scraper typeSquare
G-3
G-4
H-3
I-6
J-5
J-5
J-5
J-5
;.6
G-4
G-4
G-4
G-5
G-5
G-6
G-6
G-6
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-4
H-4
H-6
1-6
G-3
(j-j

Phase
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb

Conditioncompletefragment
fragment
fragment
completecompletefragment
fragment
fragment
completefragment
completefragment
fragment
fragment
fragment
fragment
completecompletefragment
completecompletefragment~agment

4I

ragment
tragment

Length
!03mm
65+
55+
85
132
95
60+
53+
65+
102
76+
105
40+
63+
70+
70+
38+
106
68
60+
145
95
56+
47+
73+

Width
87mm
72
85
58+
82
69
70
65+
57
78
98
75
73
80
65
95+
50+
68
48
47+
97
100
62
61+
70

lSIH

lS:>

Length
70mm
87
47+

Width
75mm
87
78

Thickness
llmm
8
9
8
10
12
10
10
7
8
9
8
7
12
9
9
7
9
10
8
10
8
10
8
8
8
I

Weight
131g
50+
46+
56+
139
99
43+
41+
27+
72
90+
119
21+
74+
J4+
66+
22+
71
44
27+
255

Thickness
12mm
10
11
7
10
8
8
10
9
10
7
1:>

Weight
86g
95
52+
39+
54+
34
100
33+
52+
85
57
40+

Material
Painted pottery
Painted pottery
Plain pottery
Painted pottery
Painted pottery
Plain pottery
Painted pottery
Plain pottery
Painted pottPlain pottery
Painted pottery
Painted pottery
Painted potterv
I Plain pottery
Painted pottery
Painted pottery
Painted pottery
PaintedJlOtlery
Painted pottery
Painted pottery
Coarse pottery
Plain pottery
Painted pottery
Plain pottery
Plain pottery
1Plam pottery

i=i
50+
lb+

Pit 17
Pit 18Remarks
Fig.49: I

Fig. 49:2

Fig. 49:3

Building6

Fig. 49:4

Round scraper typeSquare
G-3
G-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
J-6
G-5
H-5
H-5
J-5
H-3
1-6

Phase
la
la
la
la
la
la
lb
lb
lb

2
4
4

Conditioncompletecompletefragment
fragment
fragment
completecompletefragment
fragment
completecomplete
tragment

~
57
65
88
35+
70+
85
81
4.5+

92
85+
82+
90
76
(llS

Material
Plain pottery
Plain pottery
Plain pottery

Remarks
Pit 23
Pit 17~
1

Painted pottery
Painted pottery
Plain pottery
Plain pottery
Painted pottery
Plain pottery

Building6·Pit 13(

I

Fig. 49:7
Fig. 49:5

OTHER OBJECTS113

V -shaped scarper typeSquare
G-3
G-3
G-6
H-4
I-5

v-::5

Phase
la
la

lb
lb
l:::r

Conditioncompletecompletecompletecompletecompletefragment~

Conditioncompletecompletecompletecompletefragment
fragment
completecompletefragment
complete

Length
70mm
67
65
72

96
108
125
105
:>)+

Width
85mm
85
83
104
97
110

Thickness
12mm
13
12
13
13
~

Weight
82g
93
102
166
105
tU

Material
Plain pottel)'_Plain pott~ry
Paintd potte!)'_Paintdp()ttery
Plain pottery
Plain pottery

Weight67g
64

Material
Painted pottery
Painted_j)Ott~ry .
Plain pottery

Remarks
Pit 23
Pit 23Fig. 49:6

I_r-

Side scraper typeSquare
H-4
1-5
G-6
H-3
H-4
H-4
H-5
H-5
H-5
H-6

Phase
la
la

lb
Jb

lb
lb

lb
lb

lb
lb

Width~

55+

83mm
100
90
80
115

50+
65
55
46+

105
110
113

9

66
64+
67+
114
84
49+

5lS

lSU

IU

()I)

Length
88+mm

Width
65+mm
50+
45+
37+
63+
48+
40+
24+
52+
24+
60+
71+

Thickness
12mm

Weig_ht
56+g
23+
21+
31+
37+
31+
28+
11+
26+
9+
23+
71+

lOO

Omm
8
10
8
11
12
12
11

91

R"emarks
Pit 29Fig. 49:8

Plain__pott~ry

P1ai n pottery
Plain_l)Q_tt~!Y

Painted pottery
Painted_11_ott~
Coarse _pottery
wamtea pottery

Unidentifiable scrapers
Square
H-4
H-6
J-5
H-5
H-6
H-6
G-4
G-4
H-3
H-3
I-6
H-)

Phase
la
la
la
lb

lb
lb
2
2
2
2
3
4

Condition
fragment
fragment
fragment
fragment
fragment
fragment
fragment
fragment
fragment
fragment
fragment
fragment

51+
55+
73+
65+

55+
62+
60+
70+
48+
60+
62+

9
11
8
10
11
9
8
8
7
7
12

Material
Painted pottery

Remarks
Pit29

Plainpott~

Painted pottery
Plain pott~
Painted pottery
Painted_t:J<:)_t~

Plain pottery
Painted__Qotte!Y
Painted pottery
Painted_t:J<:)_Ite!YPainted pottery!Painted pottery

Building2(Fig. 49 : 1-4). This is the most common type among clay scrapers, and there are twenty-six
specimens including nine complete ones. Although the smallest one is 6.8cm long and 4.8cm wide at
the working edge, most end-scrapers range around 10-13cm in length and 7-lOcm in width.
The next common type is a round-scraper (Fig. 49 : 5, 7). Twelve specimens are identified,including six complete ones. The average size of the complete round-scrapers is smaller than thatof end-scrapers, around 8cm in diameter. The working edge was chipped out on the most periphery
except top end. This type of scrapers are made of only fine pottery shards.
V -shaped scraper is an intermediate type between end-scraper and round-scraper. The working
edge shows a V-shape (Fig. 49 : 6). Six specimens, including five complete ones, are identified, andtheir sizes are almost identical to those of end-scraper type.
The last type is a side-scraper (Fig. 49: 8). This type has a straight working edge, and the edge
is put on the rim of the shard in most cases. There are ten specimens including seven complete ones.
The size of the side-scraper type ranges from 5.5-7.2cm in length and 8-llcm in width at the workingedge.
In addition to the identifiable specimens, there are twelve broken clay scrapers. They are too
small to be classified.
As mentioned above, some clay scrapers have partly chipped edges and the others have almost
wholly chipped edges. The retouches on the working edges are not so abrupt, and the angles of the

114

Akira TSUNEKI

4

5

0

Fig. 49 Clay scrapers.

IOcm

OTHER OBJECTS

115

edges are generally smaller than those of flint scrapers. In many cases, these working edges are bluntwith prolong use. The periphery, except chipped parts, was sometimes burnished and roundedperhaps for convenience of handling. The material of clay scrapers, i. e. fragments of pottery, arehard enough to be used as tools for organic matter.
This evidence indicates that they were used as scraping tools by hands directly, though we are
not still sure about their real function. Anyhow, clay scrapers are reported from many Halaf sites,
and we must consider them in the whole context 9f Halaf culture, e.g. poor sort of chipped stones.
f. Clay Spindle Whorls
Ten clay spindle whorls were found in Phase 1 (PI. 15 : 2). Two other whorls with material
belonging to Halaf variety, found in upper phases, must originally belong to Halaf period (Table 7).
So, there are twelve spindle whorls in the Halaf context.
There are two kinds of materials ; baked clay and potsherd. Baked clay spindle whorls havethick and rough biconical section (Fig. 50 : 1-2). Four specimens were discovered, and there are no
conical whorls. All of them are undecorated. Complete specimens weigh over 20g.
Potsherd whorls have flat sections, and most of them are made of fragments of fine Halaf ware
except one specimen which is made of coarse Halaf ware. They are formed roughly by chipping first,
then the periphery is smoothed by grinding (Fig. 50 : 3, 5). Some specimens are shaped without
grinding (Fig. 50 : 4). Central holes are pierced from both sides. Though the diameters of most
potsherd whorls range around 4cm, there are some small varieties having less than 3cm in diameter.
As these small specimens weigh only a few grams, it is doubtful that they were used as spindle whorls.
Radial traces of strings are observed on the reverse side of one specimen (Fig. 50 : 5).

Table 7 Clay spindle whorls.
Square
G-4
G-4
H-3
H-4
H-4
G-4
G-4
G-4
G-4
H-6
H-4
J-6

g.

Phase
la
la
la
la
la
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
3
surface

Conditioncompletefragment
fragment
completefragment
completefragment
fragment
completefragment
fragment
complete

Diameter
26mm
40
34
45
33
33
33
42
26
42
29
34

Thickness
16mm
9
27
9
12
5
16
9
4
6
6
18

Weight
?g

-

14+
21

-

2

-

22

Material
Baked clay
Plain potsherd
Baked clay
Plain potsherd
Coarse potsherd
Plain potsherd
Baked clay
Plain potsherd
Painted potsherd
Painted potsherd
Painted potsherd
Baked clay

Remarks
Fig. 50: 2

Fig. 50:4
Fig. 50:3

Fig. 50:5

Fig. 50: I

Clay Disks (Potsherd Disks)
Potsherd disks are the most numerous clay objects in our excavations (PI. 15 : 4). Although they
were found from various layers, all of them belong to the Halaf period (Table 8).
There are 123 disks, six in coarse ware and the rest in fine ware, including plain and painted
ware. It is supposed that most disks were made from fragments of painted ware, but we cannot
identify all disks. This is because the surfaces of many specimens are badly weathered. The shapesof disks are circular in general, although some are rectangular or polygonal. Although most potsherd
disks were found without structural context, some were found together from the pits of Phase la (SeeTable 8).
There are two varieties of potsherd disks. The first type is a disk shaped by chipping without
grinding (Fig. 50 : 9-15), and another type is made by chipping and grinding (Fig. 50 : 16-19). The

116

Akira TSUNEKI

0
.

0

.

.

.

I

'

.1

.

QDI

c )( J

eo-o

4

8

·-8-0

7

c

c

c:

)
9

c

JIO

'=

711

~
~
c
I

" ] 13

c J

(

\

14

0
18

c

:1

c J

15

~

16

J

c J

12

17

~-U-820
19

0Fig. 50 Clay spindle whorls and clay disks.

10cm

OTHER OBJECTSTable 8

117

Clay disks.

Clay disks shaped by chipping without grinding
Square! Phase

~:
a
a
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la
la

G-4
G-4
G-4
G-4
G-4
G-4
G-4
G-4
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3
H-3

H--4
H-4
H-4

H--4
H-6

~
5

5

I-5

I

=if
-

1-5
1-5
1-6

la
la
la
la
la
la
la

F i H aa
a
la
I-6
1-6
la
I-6
la
I-6
la
1-6
la
1-6
la
J-4
la
la
J-5
J-5
la
J-5
la
J-5
la
J-6
la
J-6
la
J-6
la
J-6
la
J-6
la
lb
G-3
G-3
lb
G-3
lb
G-4
lb
G-4
lb
G-4
lb
{j-4

lb

Conditioncompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletefragment
completecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletefragment
completecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletefragment
fragment
fragment
completecompletecompleteletecompletefragment
completecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletealmost complete
fragment
fragment
completecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecomplete

Maximum diameter
63mm
50
68
59
54
75
63
55

62
67

Minimum diameter
57 mm
48
62
53
49
63
63
53
44
65
59
48+

55

55

49
45
48
45
39
44
54
70
76
69
54

45
40
48
40
38
44
54
42+
71
62
51
58
35
58
55
44
53
61
48
46
46
67
48
37+
40+
25+
49
52

44
68

59
36
59
57
49
60
62

55

so
so
68
so

43
43+
49
54
58
63
54
75
68
71
93
63
58
85
57
50

ss

55
37
40

48
56
60
64
40
51
52
45
64
6!!

Thickness
lOmm
8
14
14
11

9
9
10
8
10
10

';ff,

11
12
8
9
10
9
11
15
11
9

11
13
8
9
10

8
10
7
10
12

8

60

48
61
60+
63
88
57
57
70
52
48
45+
SO+
30

35
48
55
57
63
35
46
49
45
64
6U

WeightMaterial
Remarks
56g Painted pottery
Fig. 50: 10
Pit 1828
Painted pottery
Coarse pottery
69
Plain pottery
48
32
Painted pottery
Pitl9
Fig. 50: 12
62
Plain pottery
Pit 1847
Painted pottery Pit 18
38
Painted pottery
Pit 1822
Painted pottery
Pit 18
Plain pottery
40
Pit 20
Plain pottery
40
Pit 18
Coarse pottery
Painted pottery Pit 33
Fig. 50: 9
Painted pottery
27
23
Plain pottery
25
Painted pottery
24
Plain pottery
Plain pottery
17
24
Plain pottery
38
Plain pottery
52+ Plain pottery
58
Plain pottery
Painted pottery
59
Pit 33
44
Plain pottery
Pit33
71
Painted pottery
11
Plain pottery
34
Painted pottery
Pit 25
43
Plain pottery
Pit28
20
Painted pottery
Painted pottery
48
Fig. 50: 11
30
Painted pottery
35
Painted pottery
Painted pottery
37
25
Plain pottery
Plain pottery
79
34
Plain pottery
17+ Painted pottery
IS+ Plain pottery
12+ Plain pottery
46 :tmnted pottery
42
nted pottery
66
Painted pottery
35 Painted potli!ry
70
Painted pottery
42+ Painted poll~ry
67
Painted pottery
104 Painted pottery
41
Plain pottery
Plain pottery
40
Plain potter}
78
Painted pottery
29
24
30+
21
Plain pottery
17
Painted pottery
12
Plain pottery
Painted pottery
7~inted pottery
ainted pottery
47
Painted pouery
Painted pottery
14
Plain pottery
32
Fig. 50:20
26
Painted pottery I
30
Painted pottery I
Fig. 50: 13
70
Plain pottery
I
82 !Coarse pc•ttery !

I
1 .....

12
13
10
7
10
12
12
12
10
12
10
13
11
9
9
14
9
11
11
8
12
7
'10
8
11
11
7
Il
8
13
14
J()

=

~

~

118

Akira TSUNEKI

G-4 I

lb

~b

lb
b
lb

H-3 I

In

lb
=iRb
b
lb
H-4
H-4
lb

~
H-5
H-6
H-6
H-6
1-5

1-5
1-5
1-5

1-5
1-6
1-6
1-6
H-3
H-3
H-3
G-4
G-4
H-4

b
b
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
2
2
2
3
3

3
3
3
4

m
I

J-6

4

m

completecompletecompletecompletealmost complete
completecomplete

69

55
48

40

fra~ment

completecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletefragment
completecompletefragment
com_pletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecomplete

69
52
47
39
61
47
73
35+

63
50
75
65
45
51
62
49
51
49
30
69
53
48
63+
51
45
51
46
43
45
65
67
62
72
62
38
32
41
58
68
57

45
47
40
29
43+
51
45
49+
46
42
51
44
41
43
60
65
58
65
55
38
30
41
58
61
48

51i

jj

40
49

55

13
8
8
12
12
8

13
9
11
10
8
9

13
12
5
13
10
9
11
13
11
9
9
9
11
10
11
13
13
8
8
8

8
9
8
13
10

95
30
22
21
47
24
85
22+
25
35
41
28
39
16

3
49+
32
24

~tteryI pottery
Plain pottery
Painted pottery
Plainp<>_ttery.
Plain pottery
Plain pottery
Painted pottery
Painted pottery
Plain pottery
Painted pottery
Painted pottery
Plain pottery
Coarsepottery
Painted pottery
Plain pottery
Plain_ll()ttery
Plain pottery

28+ !Plain Ettery
41
ttery
23
ottery27
Plain _ll()ttery
25
~tery
ttery
16+
ery
24
Plain pottery
44
Plain pottery
64
Plain pottery
62
94
Painted pottery
Painted pottery
38
21
Painted pottery
9
Coarse potterv
Plain pottery
17
39
Plain pottery
Plain pottery
47
Coarse_p_ottery
44
44
IPaint(.':(j pottery

Fig. 50: 14

Building 7
Building?
Building?

Building)

Fig. 50: 15

Building)

Clay disks shaped by chipping and grinding

H-4
H-4
1-5
J-5
J-6

11-3

H-5
H-6
H-6

1-5
1-6
1-6
G-4
H-5

a
la
la
la
la
la
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb
lb

3
3

Conditioncompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletecompletefragment
completecomplete

Maximum diameter Minimum diameter
38mm
40mm
76
82
33
37
30
34
31
38
38
40
46
47
51
51
36
38
42
44
36
38
39
40
43
47
55+
92
40
41
59
59

Thickness
15mm
11
14
14
11

10
15
12
9
12
5

10
12
15
12
li

Material
Weight I
3lg rainted pottery109
ed pottery
19
pof.tery
18 IPainted pottery
15 IPainted potterv
21
pottery
26 :lf'ed
nted pottery
40
Plain pottery
13
Painted potlery
32
7
Painted pottery
Painted pottery
19
Plain pottery
25
121+ Painted pottery
Painted pottery
19
46
Plam pottery

Remarks
Fig. 50: 18
Pit 33Fig. 50: 19

Fig. 50: 17
Fig. 50: 16

Buildin)( 31Buildmg2

Clay disks with pierced hole
Sc:;uare Phase
la
H-4
1-5
la
lb
G-3
U-4

lb

Conditioncompletecompletecompletecomplete

Maximum diameter Minimum diameter
57 mm
58 mm
36
39
29
29
16
liS

Thickness
8mm
7
7
;,

Material
Weight I
33g !Painted pot!t:ry
13 !Painted pottery
7
IPainted pottery
1
1Pamteu pottery

Remarks
Fig. 50:6
Fig. 50:7
1-1g. :lU: lS

OTHER OBJECTS

119

former type is much more numerous than the latter type. Most of the latter type disks are small insize and thick in section. It seems that these two types must have been made for different purposes.
Four discs among the former type show attempted pierced holes (Fig. 50: 6-8, PL 15: 3), and they
seem to be unfinished spindle whorls. Anyhow, we cannot suppose that all potsherd disks areunfinished spindle whorls, because the number of potsherd disks is too numerous compared with thatof finished spindle whorls. Two disks have the trace of strings (PI. 16 : 5-6).
The functions of potsherd disks in Halaf period have been discussed respectively in each report.
Watson indicated that "they may have been potter's implements for working clay" (Watson 1983b)
and "It is possible that some of these are gaming pieces, others may represent early stages in the
manufacture of potsherd whorls and still others are perhaps implements for working clay" (Watsonand LeBlanc 1990). I agree with Watson's opinion, but there are still some possibilities that thesedisks were used in another context as identification of person or goods. This is because we do not
identify more than one disk from one pottery. If the purpose of the disks was so utilitarian, the Halaf
people must have made many potsherd disks from the same pottery.

h. Clay Figurines
Only four animal figurines were found in Phase 1 (Fig. 51 : 1-4). Fig. 51 : 1 is an almost complete
animal figurine found below ash layer of Phase la in Square I-6 (PI. 14: 7). It is a realistic modelof a standing animal, perhaps expressing a sheep. The head has a short, pointed nose and small held-up ears. The tail is broken but it does not seem to be long. It is made of welllevigated brown clay,
partly blackened by low firing. No painting decoration is observed on the surface. The length fromnose to tail is 4.3cm, and the height is 3.4cm.
Fig. 51 : 2 is a body of the same kind of animal, but short incisions are observed on its back (PI.
14 : 8). It is also made of levigated reddish-brown clay with a few mica inclusions. Although thehead and legs are broken, its original size is slightly larger than Fig. 51 : 1. This specimen was foundwith a lot of natural stones from Pit 17 of Phase la in Square G-3.

·.

3

..
-

...
~-.~.·.

~
.

.

2

: ;

·~.

<:.'·-

4

0

06

7

0

5
Fig. 51 Clay figurines and miniature vessel.

5cm

120

Akira TSUNEKI

Fig. 51 : 3 is a broken head of a similar animal, found above the hard packed brown layer ofPhase lb, Square G-4 (PI. 14 : 10). It is made of yellowish-brown clay with a few sand inclusions.
The surface is partly blackened by low firing. Traces of reddish-brown painted lines are visiblearound its neck.
Fig. 51 : 4 also looks like a broken animal head, made of welllevigated grayish-brown clay. The
surface is finished by wet-smoothing. It was found in Phase la of Square G-4.
Besides these animal figurines, two fragments of baked clay pillars were found in Phase 1 (Pl. 14 :9, 11). Fig. 51 : 5 was discovered in Pit 18 of Phase la, and Fig. 51 : 6 came from above the hard
packed layer of Phase 1b in Square G-4. Their fabric and firing are very similar to those of theanimal figurines, and they have wet-smoothed surfaces. As Both of them are broken specimens, it isdifficult to suggest their original shape.
Although other Halaf settlements produce a lot of characteristic human figurines, we did not find
any fragments of human figurines. We are not sure about the reason, whether it depends on thelimitation of excavated areas or the periodic matter. Anyhow, characteristic human figurines ofHalaf culture used to be found from Late Halaf context. As we mentioned in the pottery analysis,
almost all Halaf layers at Tell Umm Qseir (Phases la and lb) belong to Middle Halaf period. We
suppose that this is one of the reasons why human figurines are absent from our excavations.
i. Clay Miniature Vessel
One miniature vessel was found from Phase lb of Square G-6 (Fig. 51 : 7). Both surfaces of thisvessel is decorated by reddish-brown wash. It has brown color paste including sand and mica. If it
is a practical object, it was used as a cosmetic box.
j. Stone and Shell Beads

Three stone flat beads (Fig. 47: 7-9) and four shell beads (Fig. 47: 10-11) were found in Phase
1. Fig. 47: 7 shows a relatively thick flat bead made of translucent quartz. It has cut-surfaces, andholes are pierced from both sides. This specimen was found in Phase la of Square J-5. Fig. 47: 8- 9 are tiny beads. The material for the former is whitish soft stone and the latter is turquoise. The
former was found in Phase la of Square G-4, and the latter was found at the bottom level of Pit 14
of Phase 2. There are some possibilities that the latter tiny bead belongs to Phase 2.
All of the shell beads are made from the same kind of shell from the Khabur River. They were
found in Phase la of Squares G-3, 4. Two beads came from Pit 18 and one from Pit 17. The hole
was pierced at the body (Fig. 47 : 10) or the apex was truncated (Fig. 47 : 11). Although many similarkinds of shells were found in Pit 33, they are not pierced or truncated.
k. Bone Implements
Only two bone objects were found in Phase 1. One is a bone spatula (Fig. 47: 6) from Phase laof Square I -6, and another is an irregular shaped small bone with grounding surfaces from Phase lb
of Square H-4. The bone industry of Tell Umm Qseir is extremely poor.

OTHER OBJECTS

2

2

3

3

6

5

4

8

10

7
PI. 14 Halaf miscellaneous objects.

121

11

122

Akira TSUNEKI

2

3

4

7
PI. 15 Halaf miscellaneous objects.

5

6

7

CHAPTER IV
PHASES 2-4: LATER PERIODS

1.

STRUCTURES
Akira TSUNEKI

Phase 2As already mentioned in Chapter 11, a naturally accumulated flood layer can be identified
between Phase 1 and Phase 3 in all of the excavated squares. This flood layer covers seven artificial
pits which produced Late Chalcolithic pottery shards (Fig. 52).
Among them, one large pit (Silo 1), found in the northern end of Square G-5, is the most notablefeature (Fig. 53, PI. 16: 1-2). Almost half the structure was revealed by our excavations. Though it
is a circular pit measuring 2.8m in diameter and 0.9m in depth, its interior wall was carefully covered
with mud-bricks. Rectangular mud-bricks, each measuring 45x25cm and lOcm thick, were piled up
four decks vertically along the interior wall of the pit. The floor is made of a thin soft-packed whitegypsum layer. We found a lot of Late Chalcolithic shards and a stone quem from this structure, butthere is no material in situ. From a morphological viewpoint, it seems to have been used as a storagesilo.
Pit 10 found at the center of Squares G,H-5, 6 measures 3.1 X 2.7m at its mouth and l.lm in depth(PI. 16 : 3). Its dimensions are almost same as those of Silo 1. It was filled with ash and soil, and asoft-packed white gypsum floor was laid on the bottom. This pit destroyed Building 6 of lower Phaselb. Although we did not find any facilities inside the pit, many Late Chalcolithic shards wererecovered with ash from the pit.
The other five pits are smaller than the above-mentioned two pits. Pit 11 in Square G-4 and Pit
14 in Square J-5 are circular with U-shaped sections. The depths of these pits measure around 0.4-0.
5m. Pit 15 in Squares G,H-4 also has a circular plan, measuring about 2.5m in diameter. Pit 12 in
Square G-4 has an irregular plan. It is shallow, and we suggest that it was a depression for quarring
clay. Many potsherds were scattered in this pit (Fig. 54, PI. 16: 4). The preservation of Pit 13 in
Squares I,J -5 is very poor and we did not grasp the whole plan.
Although Phase 2 pits vary in size, most of them, except Pits 12 and 13, have a circular groundplan and U -shaped sections. They are relatively deep. As some of these pits have sophisticatedinteriors, it seems that storage was their most suitable purpose .. Anyhow, we did not find any solidbuildings of Phase 2 in the excavated squares. So, there are two explanations for Phase 2 of Tell
Umm Qseir. One is that there was a small village with storage pits. In this case, dwelling structures
will be found out of the excavated squares, or most of them were already inundated and flooded
away. The second explanation is that only storage pits existed at that time. The site of Tell Umm
Qseir was not used as a habitational settlement, but only for storage purposes for ferries along the
Khabur during Phase 2. We do not have enough evidence to answer this question.
As we mentioned repeatedly, Late Chalcolithic pits were covered with the flood layer, which
produced Middle Uruk materials. We did not find any structural evidence about Middle Uruk period

124

Akira TSUNEKI

from our excavated squares.
Phase 3
We found at least three occupational layers in Phase 3.
Phase 3a
The structures belonging to the earliest layer of Phase 3 were found only in Squares 1-5,6 (Fig.
55). It is a mud brick wall about 3m long, piled up three or four decks. Square mud bricks, about
30-40cm long and wide and 7-8cm thick, were used for the wall. It must be the western wall of arectangular room (Building 4), because a part of the gypsum plastered floor was uncovered east of
this wall (PL 16 : 5).
A large storage jar (Fig. 68: 2) was found in situ at the southwestern corner of the room (Fig.
56, PL 16 : 6). This jar was placed in a pit dug along the wall, then the rim was covered with two mudbricks. A broken perforated bowl (Fig.67 : 6) was discovered inside the jar.
Phase 3b
A series of rectangular rooms and corridors extended over all the excavated squares (Fig. 57). It
is not easy to divide them into independent building units, so we labelled them altogether as Building
3 in the second occupational layer, Phase 3b. The plan of buildings in Phase 3b is different from thatof Phase 3a and Phase 3c, although the direction of the walls are fundamentally the same.
We found two relatively large rooms or spaces in our excavated squares. Room 7 strides Squares
G,H-4 and Squares G,H-5. It is a rectangular room measuring about 8x4m (interior dimensions). An
antechamber or an entrance passage, measuring 2m wide, is attached to the western part of Room 7
and is heavily paved with small pebble stones (PI. 17: 1-2). A lot of shards and other materials were
found on this paved floor.
A strange structure was found just below the paved floor of the antechamber of Room 7 in SquareH-4. It is a short pipe-like structure, made from five connecting pottery stands (Fig. 58, PI. 17: 3-4).
Base of each stand was chipped for jointing, and small pebbles were used to fill the joints of eachstand. As a door-pivot is located near one end of the pipe, it seems to have been used as a drainpipe
for a water closet.
The next-door room on the east is Room 8 (PI. 17 : 5). It is also a relatively large rectangularroom, measuring about 8x5m. A break in the middle of the western wall, which divides Room 8 from
Room 7, was probably used as a doorway from Room 7. We identified only western and southernwalls. Room 8 is heavily paved with small pebble stones like an antechamber of Room 7. A door
-pivot stone was found at the floor level in the northwestern corner. A partly preserved tanor was
found along the outer surface of the southern wall of Room 8 in Square I -6 (PI. 17 : 6), and cooking
activities were probably done here.
Phase 3c
The last occupational layer of Phase 3 is also full of structures (Fig. 60, PI. 18 : 1). It seems thatthree rectangular buildings were constructed side by side and a passage ran from east to west
between these buildings in Phase 3c. We did not define the unit of each building because of the limited
extent of the excavated squares, and we labelled this layer's building structures collectively as
Building 2.
The southern building, over Squares H -5, 6 and I -5, 6 consists of three small square rooms named
Rooms 1 to 3. Room 2 measures about 3.0 x 2.4m (interior), and a white gypsum plastered floor waspartly preserved. As a stone door pivot was found at its northwestern corner, there was a doorwayfrom Room 1 at this corner. A broken tanor and some large shallow bowls were found at the

3

6

4

G

H

-

Bricks05m

JFig . 52 St ructures of Phase 2.

STRUCTURES

289.0m0

I m

Fig. 53 Section of Silo 1, P hase 2.

_,----- -----

P = Pottery

S = Stone

0

Fig. 54 Pit 12, P hase 2.

lm

127

128

Akira TSUNEK!

5

6

Bu ild ing 4

D

Plaslerei floor~ Bricks5m

0Fig. 55 Structures of Phase 3a.

I m

0

-

Fig. 56 Storage jar, Phase 3a.

289.0m

J

6

3

G

Buildi ng 3

Room 7H~ Stone pavement

Q Plastered floor/:I~ Bricks

1

1

....

-----

--

,__ _

' \

I

__.....__

Excavatedb y Yale Mission

05m--- --- ..........
I

I
I

Fig. 57 Structures of Phase 3b.

I
I

I

J
I
I

J

STRUCTURES

0

131

50 cm

E

288.5m -

1.()

<Xi

CO
C\1

Fig. 58 "Drainpipe", Phase 3b.

southeastern corner of Room 3 in Square I- 6. This part was probably used as a kitchen. Various
pottery shards were discovered on the floor of the northern part of the same room. In the middle ofthe northern wall of Room 3, a pottery stand was laid horizontally li ke the pipe-like structure foundin the antechamber of Room 7 of Phase 3b (PI. 18 : 6). However, no other stands were connected tothis stand.
Another small square room (Room 4) was found at the center of Squares G,H- 5, 6 (PI. 18 : 2). It
opens to the passage at its southeastern corner, and a broken cooking pot (Fig. 67 : 7) was scatteredat the southwestern corner of the floor (Fig. 59, PI. 18: 3). There are open spaces on both sides ofRoom 4. These spaces were paved by sma ll river stones, and they were probably used as workshops.
A kiln was found in the western open space (Kiln 1). It is a shallow pit of long oval plan, 2m long and
0.8m wide, and its inside was full of burnt bricks, soil and ash (PI. 18: 4). We did not find any
materials in situ, and only some shards were found in this kiln.
Another building was found in the northern part of Square G-6 (Room 5). It was divided into tworooms by a partition wall of one row of mud bricks. No good floors were recognized in these rooms,
and the southern part of the partition wall between rooms was cut by the pit with an urn burial of
the upper sub- phase.
The paved floor of the west of Room 4 continues to Squares G,H- 4. Here we found a row ofstones, in the same direction as other mud brick buildings in the same layer (PI. 18 : 5). A lot ofshards were scattered on the paved floor of these squares.
Buildings of Phase 3 are rectangular in their plan and have relatively thick walls made of mud
bricks. The mud bricks are square-shaped and their dimensions are about 30- 40x30 -40cm. The walls
were mostly made of two rows of these mud bricks. Based on the structures found in the excavatedsquares, it can be said that the floors were plastered with gypsum, while the passages and open spaces
among buildings were paved with pebble stones.

132

Akira TSUNEKI

Room 40

I m

Fig. 59 Cooking pot found at southwestern corner of Room 4, Building 2.

The building walls in each layer pointed fundamentally in the same direction and some walls of
upper layer were built on those of the lower layer. They indicate that these three occupational layers
accumulated continuously during a relatively short period. A lot of shards and some broken
restotable pottery were discovered in situ on the building floors and stone pavements, and all of them
indicate that the settlements of Phases 3a-c must date to the Mitanni period around 15th century B.
C. (see Chapter IV-2).
Phase 3d
As mentioned above, the partition wall of Room 5 in Phase 3c was cut by the urn burial named
Grave 6 (Fig. 61, PI. 19: 1-4). A large jar (Fig.68: 1), which was used as the urn, was buried
horizontally with slight leaning. It is supposed that the jar was laid on the bottom of the pit like ashaft, but we did not identify the upper part of the shaft. Bones of a small child (see Appendix 1) andseventeen beads (at least) made of various materials, such as faience, agate, cowrie shell and basalt
stone (see Chapter IV -3), were discovered from this urn burial. Just above this grave (about 0.3m up),
two complete goblets with pointed bases (Fig. 66 : 2-3) were discovered. It is very probable that thesegoblets were the funeral gifts for the urn burial and were put at the mouth of the shaft. The large jarof the urn burial and these goblets indicate that this burial belongs to the end or post Mitanni period,
around 13th century B.C.

Phase 4Phase 4 consists of Byzantine (probably) and Islamic layers. The structures of Phase 4 can berecognized in Squares G,H-3, 4, 5, 6 (Fig. 62). A hard-packed floor with a few large stones (Building1) was discovered in Square H-6. We did not find any facilities on this floor. The size of the floor isabout 3 x 2m. On the same level as this floor, another floor was found at the northeastern corner ofSquare G-4. The preservation of this floor is very poor, and its size is very limited. Although nomaterial was found in situ on these floors, some Byzantine shards could be collected in the same layer
as these floors. It seems that these floors are traces of Byzantine buildings, though we are still not
sure.

3

5

4

6
Room 5

'
#

•

.....
. ·..
.... .
..

•••• o.·,,·."
#

, . ,

:

0

Building 2...
., ..·.

Room 311] Sto ne pavement

D
fiJ

Plastered floo r'~---..................

_,- ....

BricksExcavatedby Yale Mission

0

5m

j
Fig. 60 Structures of P hase 3e.

,
I

,,
I

STRUCTURES

135

\
\
\
\

\\
\
\
\
I

I
I
I
I

I

:

I

I

I

50 cm

0

-

289. 5 m

A

Bones

•

Beads

Fig. 61 Grave 6, Phase 3d.

Between the surface and above-mentioned floors, we found six pits (Pits 1-6, PI. 19 : 6) and five
Islamic burials (Graves 1- 5, PI. 19 : 5) in Squares G,H -5, 6. The six pits vary greatly in their plans andsizes. All of the Islamic burials are shaft graves. The plan of these graves are almost long oval, about
2.5m long and 0.8m wide. Some of the graves were dug down quite deeply into lower layers. Grave5, which is at the southern end of Square F- 6, was found laterally at the northern end of Square G- 6. So, it is not drawn in Fig. 62. A human body in each grave was laid in an extended position. The
skulls point to the west and the faces look south. We did not find any funeral gifts relating to these
Islamic graves.

3

5

4

......
w

6

0>

)>

.,::;·""0

Grave 2

--l

U>

c

-0

z

trl

c

Grave I

G

e
e
0

5m

Fig. 62 Structures of P hase 4.

Building I~

D
D

Plastered floor
Hard packed floor

STRUCTURES

1. Silo 1 from north.

2. Silo 1 from southeast.

3. Pit 10 from south.

4. Pit 12 from east.

5. Plastered floor of Building 4.

6. Jar found at s.e. corner of Building 4.

PI. 16 Structures of Phases 2 and 3a.

137

138

Akira TSUNEKI

3. "Drainpipe" from west.

1. Walls and Stone- paved floor of Building 3 in

Squares G, H - 4 from north.

2. Stone - paved floor of Building 3 in Square H -4.

4. "Drainpipe" from north.

5. Building 3 from east.

6. Tanor in Square I- 6 from south.

P I. 17 Structures of P hase 3b.

STRUCTURES

l. Building 2 in Squares G, H- 5, 6 from north.

139

2. Room 4 of Building 2 from west.

3. Cooking pot found at s.w. corner of Room 4,
Building 2 from east.

4. Kiln 1 from west.

5. Building 2 in Squares G, H- 4 from north.

6. Pottery stand found in Square H -6 from south.

P I. 18 Structures of Phase 3c.

140

Akira TSUNEKI

1. Grave 6 from north.

3. Grave 6 from east.

2. Grave 6 from west.

4. Grave 6 from east.

5. Grave 4 from east.

6. Pit 6 from west.

PI. 19 Grave 6 (Phase 3d) and s tructures of Phase 4.

2.

POTTERY

Toru TOMITA

a. Pottery from Phase 2
The pottery found in Phase 2 at Tell Umm Qseir contains two distinct groups. A group, obtained
from Pits 10-15, Silo 1 and the flood layer, is attributable to the Late Chalcolithic period. The othergroup, mainly attested from the flood layer, is the Uruk pottery. According to the result of theprevious Yale University's excavations in 1986, it seems that the Uruk occupation at Tell Umm Qseir
is concentrated in the eastern and southeastern parts of the west mound (Hole and Johnson 1986-87).
During our new excavations in 1996, unfortunately, no concrete structure belonging to the Urukperiod was attested. Therefore, the division of two pottery groups is mainly based on the typologicaland technological aspects of the pottery with above-mentioned stratigraphical evidence.
(1) Late Chalcolithic Pottery
Chaff tempered ware is predominant among this group. There are three kinds of ware group :Fine Ware, Chaff Faced Ware and Coarse Chaff Tempered Ware. In addition to these ware groups,
Coarse Grit Tempered Ware was also found.
Fine WareFine Ware is made of well-levigated clay and sporadically includes fine chaff. As for the colorof fabric, greenish-yellow is predominant. There are also buff and reddish-brown colored pieces,although not common. Usually these shards are completely oxidized, well-fired and hard.
Two types of bowls are known among Fine Ware. Shallow hemispherical bowls have slightly
rounded sides and simple rims (Fig. 63 : 1-2). The lower part of the exterior surfaces are usuallyscraped and burnished. The interior surfaces are finished with smoothing. The other vessel shape,
carinated bowls, has carination on the middle of the body and simple or bead rims (Fig. 63: 3-6). The
exterior surfaces below the carinations are always scraped. There is a specimen which has ribbed
decoration above the carination (Fig. 63 : 6).
Chaff Faced Ware
Chaff Faced Ware is tempered with chaff. There is a tendency that the larger sized vessels
contain much more dense chaff temper. The color of the surfaces and paste varies between reddish-brown to cream, but buff is most common. Dark colorings are frequently visible on the vessel walls.
There are nine types of vessel shapes among Chaff Faced Ware: four bowls, two pots and threejars. Inner ledged rim bowls comprise more than half of the bowl shapes. These bowls, occasionallywith soft carination, are widely open and shallow (Fig. 63: 7-9, PI. 20: 6). The rim shapes show awide variety, from clear !edged rims to simple rims. The incision of cross-hatching on the lower
interior body is conspicuous for this type (Fig. 63 : 7-8), although it remains unclear whether it hasa specific function or is solely a form of decoration. Similar incisions are also known among thebowls of Ubaid period (Oates,]. 1982, Fig. 5 : 6 and Fig. 8). The exterior surfaces are usually scraped,
then wet-smoothed on both surfaces.
Bowls with inturned rims are less common. This type of bowls are shallow and has rounded sides(Fig. 63 : 10, PI. 20 : 3). The rims fold inward. Both surfaces, reddish-brown or dark brown colored,
are usually burnished.
Only a few pieces of another two types of bowls, hammer head rim bowls and bead rim bowls,

142Toru TOMIT A

were found. The former is characterized by the hammer shaped rim and thin vessel wall (Fig. 63 : 11).
Both surfaces are wet-smoothed and light colored. The latter is shallow and has slightly rounded sidewith bead rim (Fig. 63 : 12). Both surfaces are gray or dark colored, and the exterior surfaces areburnished. The lower exterior surfaces of both types are scraped.
Pot shapes are identified by small rim fragments. Although the whole shape is not reconstructable, in comparison with complete vessels from other sites, two types of pots are recognized. Double
rim pots are characterized by the conspicuous rim shape with ledges on the interior side of the rims
(Fig. 64 : 1). Several small holes are perforated on the ledge. The same specimen with ledge from
Tepe Gawra is interpreted as a sort of liquid channel (Tobler 1950 p. 158). The ledge on the Ubaid
jar is considered to be a lid supporter (Jasim 1985, p. 108). The latter interpretation seems to be much
more plausible. Both surfaces, greenish-yellow colored, are finished with wet--smoothing. The otherpots, U-shaped pots, have vertical sides and slightly outturned rims (Fig. 64: 2, Pl. 20: 5). The rims
with outward folding lips are also attested. The interior surface below the rim is scraped. As forthe surface color, reddish-brown is predominant.
Jars are less common among the Late Chalcolithic pottery assemblage from Tell Umm Qseir.
Faint corrugated rim jars are the most common shapes among jars. These jars have everted necks
and pronounced or simple rims (Fig. 64 : 5-6, PL 20: 4). A few rows of corrugations are visible on
the interior side of the neck. The interior side of the neck, especially on the top of the corrugation,is burnished. Surface color ranges from greenish-yellow to buff.
The second type of jars, inner-ledged jars, have inward folding lips (Fig. 64: 3, PI. 20: 7). Theinterior side of the rim is burnished. Greenish-yellow is common for surface color.
Jars with sloping shoulders are totally different from other jars in their surface treatment (Fig.
64; 4). The exterior surfaces are exclusively and intensely scraped.

Fig. 63
1. Fine Ware. Slight chaff inclusions. Reddish-orange. Lower exterior scraped and smoothed. Square
G-4.
2. Fine Ware. No visible inclusions. Light orange. Greenish-yellow surface. Lower exterior scraped andsmoothed. Square H -4.
3. Fine Ware. Slight chaff inclusions. Greenish-yellow .. Lower exterior scraped. A small bubble on
exterior caused by firing condition. Square G-6.
4. Fine Ware. Chaff inclusions. Brown. Greenish-yellow surface. Lower exterior scraped. Square H -4.
5. Fine Ware. Slight gypsum inclusions. Reddish-brown. Light orange surface. Lower exterior scraped
and smoothed. Square G-4. Pit 12.
6. Fine Ware. Slight chaff inclusions. Reddish-brown. Light orange surface. Lower exterior scraped.
Square H-4.
7. Chaff Faced Ware. Chaff and slight gypsum inclusions. Gray core. Light brown surface. Lower
exterior scraped. Square G-4.
8. Chaff Faced Ware. Fine mineral inclusions. Light orange. Lower exterior scraped. Cream slip on
exterior. Square G-4. Pit 12.
9. Chaff Faced Ware. Fine chaff and lime inclusions. Gray core. Light buff surface. Lower exterior
scraped. Cream slip on surface. Square G-5.
10. Chaff Faced Ware. Heavy chaff inclusions. Buff. Light gray surface. Exterior scraped and burnished.
Square J-5. Pit 13.
11. Chaff Faced Ware. Slight chaff inclusions. Orange. Light buff surface. Exterior rim wet smoothed.
Square I-6.
12. Chaff Faced Ware. Slight chaff inclusions. Black core. Buff surface. Lower exterior scraped. Bothsurfaces burnished. Square G-5. Silo 1.

POTTERY

7.

l

~
\(

I

~ ~

J3

l

7)8

?
I

F

4

6

~

\
~

1--------t

7 ~-=r 15

\\

\(

143

~\(
ll

1
0

Fig. 63 Late Chalcolithic pottery.

~0
~
lOcm

144

Toru TOMITA

Two body fragments, decorated with typical Sprig pattern, can probably be attributed to large
jars (Fig. 64: 7, Pl. 20: 8-9). The exterior surfaces are carefully burnished and black matt paint isapplied on reddish-brown surfaces.

Coarse Chaff Tempered Ware
This ware group heavily includes coarse chaff. Generally the fabric is rather coarse andoccasionally contains lime particles. As for the surface color, dark brown and dark gray are
predominant. Dark coloring on the vessel walls are frequently visible.
Only one vessel shape is known. Bowls with straight sides have simple rims and flat bases (Fig.
64 : 9-10). Vessel walls show distinct undulation. There are a range of variations from deep andnarrow to shallow and wide. The exterior surfaces remain rough without any surface treatment,
whereas the interior surfaces are carefully smoothed. This type of bowls closely resemble to so-called Coba bowls, in spite of the lack of scraping on the exterior surface. Concerning the
manufacturing technique of Coba bowls, molding is suggested (Akkermans 1988a, p. 304). There isno clear evidence, such as finger impressions on the interior surfaces like beveled rim bowls, tosupport this view.
Coarse Grit Tempered Ware
Coarse Grit Tempered Ware contains considerably large amounts of grit inclusions. The
exterior surfaces are dark brown or dark gray, whereas the interior surfaces and the fabric arecompletely blackened.
Only globular hole mouth pot is recognized among this ware group (Fig. 64 : 8). The rim shapes
show flattened bead or simple. The exterior surfaces are burnished, while the entire interior surfaces
are horizontally scraped. The exterior surfaces, ranging from reddish-brown to dark gray withmottle, are occasionally blackened by secondary firing. These features indicate that these vessels
might have been used as cooking pots.

Fig. 64
1. Chaff Faced Ware. Chaff inclusions. Buff. Greenish-yellow surface. Square G-5.
2. Chaff Faced Ware. Heavy chaff inclusions. Black core. Reddish-orange surface. Interior rim scraped
horizontally. Exterior wet-smoothed. Square G-4.
3. Chaff Faced Ware. Chaff and slight gypsum inclusions. Light brown. Greenish-yellow surface. Interior
body scraped. Interior rim burnished horizontally. Square G-4. Pit 12.
4. Chaff Faced Ware. Heavy chaff inclusions. Reddish-brown. Both surface scraped. Exterior body andinterior rim blackened by secondly firing. Square G-4. Pit 12.
5. Chaff Faced Ware. Chaff inclusions. Black core. Light buff surface. Interior rim burnished. SquareG-5. Silo 1.
6. Chaff Faced Ware. Heavy chaff inclusions. Gray core. Reddish-orange surface. Interior rim
burnished. Exterior wet·-smoothed. Square H -5.
7. Chaff Faced Ware. Chaff inclusions. Black core. Black paint on reddish-brown surface. Exterior
burnished. Interior scraped horizontally. Square G-4. Pit 11.
8. Coarse Chaff Tempered Ware. Heavy chaff inclusions. Dark gray core. Reddish-orange surface.
Interior scraped. Finger impressions on exterior. Square G-4.
9. Coarse Chaff Tempered Ware. Heavy chaff inclusions. Dark gray core. Dark brown surface. Interior
scraped Finger impressions on exterior. Square G-6.
10. Coarse Grit Tempered Ware. Heavy grit, chaff and gypsum inclusions. Gray core. Dark brownsurface. Interior scraped and burnished. Square G-4. Pit 12.

POTTERY

'

145

~)
r--------------------1
h-r

2

4

3

6

8
Fig. 64 Late Chalcolithic pottery.

0

lOcm

146

Toru TOMITA

U ruk Pottery
The fabric of the Uruk pottery found in Phase 2 at Tell Umm Qseir shows rather homogeneous
aspects except for one ware group confined to beveled rim bowls. They are made of well-levigatedclay and include fine chaff. Generally they are well-fired and no dark coloring is visible on the vessel
walls. As for the surface color, reddish-orange and buff are common.
More than half of the Uruk pottery in Phase 2 at Tell Umm Qseir is beveled rim bowls. Thesebowls are made from a different kind of fabric. They include rather coarse chaff, and the darkcoloring are clearly visible on the vessel walls. The surface colors are dark brown or buff. These
vessels have straight or slightly flaring sides and horizontally smoothed beveled rims (Fig. 65: 5, PI.
20: 10-11). Usually finger impressions are clearly visible on the lower interior surfaces and the uppersurfaces of bases, indicating that these vessels were formed by molding. The upper part of the bodies
are horizontally smoothed. The exterior surfaces remains rough. The rim diameter varies between
11 and 26 cm, and c. 14 cm is most common.
Thickened rim bowls are made of usual chaff tempered fabric. These vessels have straight sides
and slightly thickened rims. There are two variations; one with relatively thin rims and excisedlines below the rims (Fig. 65: 3) and the other with rather thick rims without lines (Fig. 65: 2).
Occasionally the surfaces are burnished.
Small sized conical shaped cups are found in small amounts (Fig. 65 : 1, 4). These vessels havestraight sides opening towards the outside and simple rims (Fig. 65 : 1). The traces of string cut isfrequently seen on the underside of the flat bases (Fig. 65 : 4). Both surfaces are undulating which
are derived from the potter's wheel. Occasionally the lower part of the exterior surfaces are scraped.
The vast majority of jar shapes are attributed to short necked jars. These vessels are characterized by the expanded shoulders and the everted necks (Fig. 65: 7-13). Although no complete vessel
is attested, it is assumed that these jars have globular bodies and flat or slightly rounded bases.
(2)

Fig. 65
1. Fine Ware. Slight chaff inclusions. Light brown. Square H -4.

Fine Ware. Chaff inclusions. Buff. Greenish-yellow surface. String-cut traits on exterior base.
Interior blackened by secondly firing. Square I-4.
3. Fine Ware. Grit and slight chaff inclusions. Light buff. Exterior burnished. Square I-4.
4. Fine Ware. Slight chaff inclusions. Buff. Light buff surface. Both surfaces smoothed. Square G-3.
5. Coarse Ware. Heavy chaff inclusions. Reddish-brown. Interior and top of the rim smoothed horizontally. Finger impressions on interior base. Square G-5.
6. Medium Ware. Fine sand inclusions. Buff. Light yellow surface. Square G-6.
7. Medium Ware. Grit inclusions. Buff. Greenish-yellow surface. Square I-6.
8. Medium Ware. Fine sand inclusions. Reddish-brown. Square G-6.
9. Medium Ware. Chaff inclusions. Buff. Light buff surface. Interior scraped horizontally. Cream slip
on exterior. Square G-6.
10. Medium Ware. Grit and slight chaff inclusions. Reddish-brown. Buff surface. Square G-6.
11. Medium Ware. Grit and chaff inclusions. Gray. Square G-6.
12. Medium Ware. Chaff inclusions. Gray core. Light yellow reserved slip on exterior. Interior scraped.
Square G-6.
13. Medium Ware. Grit inclusions. Buff. Exterior red-washed and burnished. Square G-6.
14. Medium Ware. Grit inclusions. Reddish-orange. Square G-5.
15. Medium Ware. Slight chaff inclusions. Buff. Light buff surface. Interior of lower rim scraped. Square
H-6.
16. Medium Ware. Chaff inclusions. Dark gray core. Orange surface. Interior of lower rim scraped.
Exterior of upper rim burnished. Square I -5.
2.

POTTERY

,r

l

~

7

;>

1
~

~

147

8

~ --~9~10~ ~ )) Q~l2 ~~13

u~~·

6=~~
15

0

Fig. 65 Middle U ruk pottery.

IOcm

148

Toru TOMITA

There are two fragments which are red slipped and burnished (Fig. 65 : 13, PI. 20 : 12). A few
specimens decorated with reserved slip were also attested (Fig. 65 : 12, PI. 20 : 13-14). This kind of
decoration indicates that the slips were wiped off and reserved in oblique radial lines from the neck.
Some other decorations which are typical for this period appear on these jars: nail impressions (Fig.
65: 9, 12, PI. 20 : 13}, finger impressions (Fig. 65 : 10:-11, PL 20 : 15-16), herring bone pattern incisions(Fig. 65 : 13, PI. 20 : 12) and combings (Fig. 65 : 7).
Eight fragments of spouted jars were recovered (Fig. 65 : 6). Although the entire vessel shaperemains unknown, because all the fragments are small, it is supposed to be similar to short neckedjars. A fragment of nose lugged jar was attested (Fig. 65: 14). It has no special surface treatment.
Besides the above mentioned vessel shapes, small quantities of ceramic rings were found (Fig. 65 :15-16). They are made of well-levigated fine textured clay and fairly well-fired. There are twovariations: relatively high and large sized pieces (Fig. 65: 16) and low and small sized pieces (Fig.
65: 15). The interior sides of lower rims are always scraped horizontally, whereas the upper rims areburnished.
Ceramic rings are well-known particularly during the Uruk period. Alden interpreted them as
potter's scrapers based on the micro wear analysis and the context which it was found together with"pottery slugs" (Alden 1988). It was concluded that the appearance of ceramic rings is closely linked
to the growth of mass pottery production in Uruk period. The replicative experiments carried out
by Ii suggest that these equipment can stand up to the usage of a potter's tool (Ii 1991, p. 47). Bothvariations were found from the Middle Uruk layers at Tell Sheikh Hassan (Boese 1995, p. 202 Abb.
14: f-g, p. 271 Abb. 14), while they are regarded as pot stands (ibid., p. 255}. At Tell Umm Qseir they
were not found in association with any architectural context. Therefore, the function of this artifact
remains uncertain. The existence and the manufacturing techniques of this type (its clinky harness,burnishing on the upper rim) indicate that it was not a vessel but used as a kind of tool, even if it was
not used for pottery manufacturing.
ComparisonsPottery found from Tepe Gawra and Tell Brak show good parallels to the Late Chalcolithic
pottery from Tell Umm Qseir. The Late Chalcolithic layers of Tepe Gawra, levels XII-IX, which
overlay Ubaid period strata are grouped into three phases: XII-XIIA, XIA and XI-IX. In the lowest
levels XII-XIIA the whole pottery assemblage is rather different from that of Tell Umm Qseir,
although some common elements such as U-shaped pots and Sprig pattern as painted decoration areattested (Tobler 1950, PI. CXXXVI: 273-275, PI. CXXXIII: 243-245). At Tell Umm Qseir, however,these common elements with Tepe Gawra XII-XIIA are found in highly restricted numbers. Coba
bowls (ibid., PI. CXXXIV : 260-261) and hole mouth pots (ibid., PI. CXXXVIII : 298) first appear inlevels XII-XIIA. Actually these shapes become dominant in subsequent levels at Tepe Gawra.
In the following levels XIA and XI-IX many new vessel shapes appear. Double rim pots, showing
close affinity with those of Tell Umm Qseir, first occur in level XIA. On the other hand, distinctive
fine carinated beakers (ibid., PI. CXLV: 385-391), carinated cups (ibid., PI. CXLV 392-398) andpainted motifs such as smeared pattern (ibid., PI. CXLIV: 375, 383) and hatched triangle pattern(ibid., PI. CXL VI: 408) which are conspicuous to levels XI-IX at Tepe Gawra, are completely absent
at Tell Umm Qseir. It can be concluded that Late Chalcolithic pottery from Tell Umm Qseir iscomparable to the pottery assemblage from level XIA at Tepe Gawra.
Recent excavations at Tell Brak revealed "Early Uruk" sequence in CH trench. The material
from the upper leveling fill (originally level 13-14, Oates, J. 1987) shows close resemblance to Late
Chalcolithic pottery from Tell Umm Qseir. The pottery assemblage from the upper leveling fill at
Tell Brak contains Coba bowls, hole mouth pots, double rim pots and inner-ledged rim bowls withincision of cross-hatching (ibid., Figs. 2-3). The earlier elements of painted motifs, such as Sprig(3)

POTTERY

149

pattern and checker board panel, fine carinated cups and carinated beakers decorated with different
techniques were found together at Tell Brak, though Tepe Gawra produced them from different
levels. These strata at Tell Brak were produced by large scale leveling activities, and no material
is found in situ (Oates and Oates 1994, p. 170). As already pointed out by excavators, it seems quite
likely that the two leveling fills at Tell Brak were heavily confused. Other contemporary sites insoutheastern Anatolia and northern Iraq which provide similar material will be analysed in Chapter
V-4.
Uruk pottery from Phase 2 at Tell Umm Qseir can be dated to the Middle Uruk period. A
remarkable fortified Uruk settlement was discovered at Tell Sheikh Hassan on the left bank of theEuphrates (Boese 1995). Tell Sheikh Hassan is regarded as a type site for the Middle Uruk period
in Syria. Pottery assemblage from this settlement is almost identical to the Uruk pottery found at
Tell Umm Qseir. Beveled rim bowls, conical shaped cups, nose lugged jars and short necked jars
which are occasionally associated with looping lugs or spouts (ibid., pp. 254-255) are found at Tell
Sheikh Hassan. The decorations are also quite similar to those of Tell Umm Qseir ; horizontal
combing is most common alongside with notch band incision, reserved slip and red slip.
At Tell al-Abr, located in the Thisreen dam reservoir area, three Uruk layers are recognizedabove the Ubaid layers (Hammade and Yamazaki 1993). The upper two layers are dated to the Late
Uruk period, whereas the lowest Uruk layer produced Middle Uruk material. It presents a fullrepertoire of the Middle Uruk pottery (ibid., p. 54). Among this pottery assemblage only inverted rim
bowls are not attested at Tell Umm Qseir.
At Tell Brak the Middle Uruk pottery is found in TW trench (Oates and Oates 1993). Below thelevel12, which is dat-ed to the Late Uruk period, a badly preserved floor was uncovered. On this floor,
named level13, conical shaped cups, beveled rim bowls and short necked jars with spouts, which werealso attested at Tell Umm Qseir, were discovered (ibid., Fig. 24, Fig. 51: 33-35).
According to the preliminary report of previous American excavations, the main bulk of thematerial obtained from period 2, which is roughly comparable to our Phase 2, was dated to the Middle-Late Uruk periods (Hole and Johnson 1986-87, p.184). Period 2 of the 1986's excavations consistedof fine laminated deposit, which probably corresponds to the flood layer of our excavations, and pits
from Trenches A and E.
The pottery of period 2 includes beveled rim bowls (ibid., Fig. 13: d, e), short necked jars (ibid.,
Fig. 13: o, p), shards with combing (Fig. 13: w) and shards with finger impressed band (Fig. 13 : v).
These vessel shapes and decorations were also discovered during the 1996 excavations. Therefore,
most of the pottery from period 2, which is identical to Phase 2 of the 1996 excavations, should be
dated to the Middle Uruk period. Meanwhile, Hole and Johnson had referred to "non-Uruk" pottery
found in a pit in Trench A (ibid., p. 175, 184). These vessels were considered to be pottery of local
tradition which were contemporary with Uruk period, since they were found together with Eye Idol.
However, recently Eye Idol is thought to be attributable to Late Chacolithic period preceeding to
Uruk period (Oates and Oates 1993, p. 176). Thus, it is assumed that this pit contained "non-Uruk"
pottery and Eye Idol can be dated not to Uruk period but to Late Chalcolithic period. One mightmention that the pottery assemblages obtained from both campagnes at Tell Umm Qseir correspondwell with each other. We will discuss in detail the chronological relationship between Late Chalcolithic and Middle Uruk periods in Chapter V-4.
b. Pottery from Phase 3
Three occupational layers are recognized in Phase 3 (Phases 3a-c). The last sub-phase, Phase
3d, is represented by a single feature, Grave 6. Most of the material was derived from the lower three
sub-phases, which were continuously occupied. Hence, the pottery assemblage from these layers aretreated together.

150

Toru TOMIT A

Description of Pottery from Phase 3
Based on the technical aspects the pottery from Phase 3 can be divided into three ware groups :Fine Ware, Medium Ware and Coarse Ware (Cooking Pot Ware). As shown in Table 9 Medium Wareis predominant. Eleven types of vessel shapes are recognized.
(1)

Fine WareFine Ware is usually made of well-levigated clay and occasionally contains small amount ofchaff and sand inclusions. The colors of the surfaces and paste vary from greenish-yellow to lightyellow.
Four vessel types can be recognized among the Fine Ware. Two types of cup, i.e. high cups andtall carinated cups are recognized. High cups include three complete or reconstructable specimens.
These vessels have slightly incurved sides (Fig. 66: 1, PI. 21: 1) or slightly flaring sides (Fig. 66: 2
PI. 21 : 2-3) with simple rims. The most conspicuous trait of this type is its base shape. These cups
usually have a low stemmed base (Fig. 66 : 1). Two whole vessels, probably associated with Grave6, have button shaped base (Fig. 66: 2-3). High cups, most of them are decorated with Nuzi style
paintings, are one of the most typical vessel shapes of the Mitanni period.
Two fragments painted with Nuzi style are found at Tell Umm Qseir, and they are probably
attributable to high cups. One specimen is decorated with "running scroll" motifs with white pigment
on black ground (Fig. 66: 5). This motif is well-known among Nuzi style decorations although it isusually much more complicated (Starr 1939, PI. 78: X, PI. 79: Z, Woolley 1955, PI. CIV -CVII). The
other one from Tell Umrn Qseir is decorated with a row of solid triangles and a horizontal band withwhite colored dots (Fig. 66: 6). Tall carinated cups are found in only small amounts. These vessels
have vertical sides and outturned rims (Fig. 66 : 4, PI. 21 : 4). They may have flat or ring bases.
Although the number is considerably restricted, small sized shallow bowls (small bowls) withrounded sides and simple rims were attested. They are generally thin walled. One specimen isdecorated with horizontal bands on the interior surface of the rim (Fig. 66: 7, PI. 21: 6).
A few fragments of small jars were found. These vessels have plain or bead rims and globularbodies. One specimen is decorated with broad horizontal bands on the neck and the body (Fig. 66 :8, PI. 21: 5). It is possible that these vessels from Tell Umm Qseir are comparable to the shouldered
Fig. 66
l. Fine Ware. No visible inclusions. Light buff. Lower exterior scraped horizontally. Square I -6.
2. Fine Ware. Slight chaff inclusions. Buff. Lower exterior scraped horizontally. Cream slip on exterior.
Square G-6. Above Grave 6.
3. Fine Ware. Slight chaff inclusions. Buff. Cream slip on exterior. Square G-6. Above Grave 6.
4. Fine Ware. Slight chaff inclusions. Lower exterior scraped. Cream slip on exterior. Square H -6.
5. Fine Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. White on Black Nuzi style paint. Square H-6. Building 2.
6. Fine Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. White ori Black Nuzi style paint. Square G-4.
7. Fine Ware. Slight sand inclusions. Reddish-brown. Dark red paint. Both surfaces wet-smoothed.
Square I-5.
8. Fine Ware. No visible inclusions. Buff. Reddish-brown paint on cream surface. Square H-5. Building
3.

9.

Medium Ware. Chaff inclusions. Light gray core. Light brown surface. Reddish-brown paint on rim.
Square J -6. Room 3, Building 2.
10. Medium Ware. Heavy chaff inclusions. Reddish-brown. Buff surface. Lower exterior scraped.
Exterior rim burnished. Square H -4. Building 2.
11. Medium Ware. Chaff and slight gypsum inclusions. Buff. Greenish-yellow surface. Square H-6.
Building 2.

POTTERY

151

lc:::::q1
7

8

)

(

"

.w 11

--=--0Fig. 66 Mitanni pottery.

10cm

152

Toru TOMIT A

Table 9Number of rim and base shards in Phase 3.
Rims

Fine WareCupsa) High cupsb) Tall carinated cups
Small bowls
Small jars
Miscellaneous
Medium Ware
Large bowlsa) Shallow bowls with rounded sideb) Carinated bowls
Deep bowls
Large jarsa) Jars with sloping shoulderb) Short necked jars
Pot stands
Strainers
Miniature vessels
Miscellaneous
Coarse Ware
Large jars
Miscellaneous

Total of rims

20
11

5
6
3

4
2
235

121
87
34
35

47
21
26
9

4
3

16
14
11
3
269

Bases
Ring bases
Flat bases
Round bases
Low stemmed bases
Button-shaped bases

Total of bases

58

43
8
8
2
119

Fig. 67
1. Medium Ware. Chaff and slight gypsum inclusions. Buff. Greenish-yellow surface. Square I -6.
Building 2.
2. Medium Ware. Chaff and slight gypsum inclusions. Reddish-brown. Greenish-yellow surface. SquareG-4. Building 2.
3. Medium Ware. Slight gypsum inclusions. Reddi~h-brown. Both surfaces smoothed. Square G-5.
Building 3.
4. Medium Ware. Slight gypsum inclusions. Reddish-brown. Light yellow surface. Square H -4. Building

5.
6.
7.
8.

2.
Medium Ware. Chaff inclusions. Black core. Reddish-brown surface. Finger impressions on upper rim.
Square G-4. Below the floor of Building 3.
Medium Ware. Heavy chaff and slight gypsum inclusions. Dark gray core. Reddish-brown surface.
Perforations from outside. Square 1-5. From the inside of storage jar (Fig. 68: 2).
Coarse Ware. Heavy grit and slight gypsum inclusions. Black core. Reddish-brown surface. Exterior
burnished horizontally. Square G-5. Room 4, Building 2.
Medium Ware. Heavy chaff inclusions. Light buff. Greenish-yellow surface. Both surfaces wet-smoothed. Square G-4. Building 2.

POTTERY

153

2

3

4

5

7

IOcm

0

8

0
Fig. 67 Mitanni pottery.

20cm

154

Toru TOMITA

cups which are found together with high cups and tall carinated cup in other contemporary sites (Smit
1988, PI. 147: 36, Pfalzner 1995, Taf. 36: a-d).
Medium Ware
This kind of ware usually includes chaff and, in some cases, particles of gypsum. The colors of
the surfaces and the paste range between buff and reddish-brown. Medium Ware is not well-fired
and incompletely oxidized, and distinct dark coloring is visible on the vessel walls.
Large bowls are the most common vessel shape in Phase 3 at Tell Umm Qseir. There are two
types: shallow bowls with rounded sides and carinated bowls.
There are two variants of shallow bowls with rounded sides. Large sized ones are characterized
by rounded rims. One speciment was found in situ at the southeastern corner of Room 3 of Building
2 (Fig. 66 : 9, Pl. 21 : 8). Occasionally the rims are painted with horizontal bands. The other one issmall sized and has flattened rim. Light yellow slip is applied on this variant.
Carinated bowls have everted or slightly inverted sides above the carination (Fig. 66 : 10). The
rim shapes are simple or slightly thickened. Occasionally a horizontal band decorated with a rope
pattern impression occurs on the carination.
Large deep bowls are rather deep and have vertical sides. The thickened rims with flat lips are
predominant (Fig. 66 : 11), while bead rims or slightly thickened rims were sporadically found (Fig.
67 : 1-2, PI. 21 : 5). Occasionally simple bands or bands with rope pattern impression were appliedon the body. At Yorgan Tepe this type of vessel is used for the infant burials (Starr 1939, p. 397).
Two types are recognized among large jars: jars with sloping shoulders and short necked jars.
Jars with sloping shoulders have distinct necks and ovoid bodies. The rims are thickened and the lips
are flat. Occasionally simple bands were applied on the shoulder. A specimen used as urn burial of
Grave 6 is decorated with circular stamp impressions on the lip (Fig. 68 : 1, Pl. 22 : 1). Stamp
impressions are commonly seen at Yorgan Tepe and Tell Atchana (Starr 1939, PI. 91: N-W, 92,
Woolley 1955, pp. 342-347). Unlike the decorations of urn jar at Tell Umm Qseir, these decorations
are applied to burnished dark ware with white inlay. These specimens seem to be earlier element
than those of Tell Umm Qseir.
Short necked jars have short outturned necks and globular bodies (Fig. 67: 8, Fig. 68 : 2, Pl. 22 :2). A complete specimen buried under the floor of Building 4 was probably used as a storage jar (Figs.
55-56, Fig. 68 : 2).
There are several examples of pot stands (Fig. 67 : 5). These vessels are formed by potter's
wheel. The upper rims are intentionally undulated by fingers, and the lower rims are horizontally
outturned. Although it is assumed that these vessels were originally used as pot stands, fivespecimens found connecting each other in a row under the pebble floor of Building 2 (Fig. 58) and asingle specimen found in the wall of Building 2 (Pl. 18 : 6) were reused as "drain pipes".
Vessels with many small holes perforated into the walls are classified here as strainers. A
reconstructable piece was found in a large storage jar associated with Building 4 (cf. Figs. 55-56).
This vessel has a deep profile and a horizontally outturned rim (Fig. 67 : 6, Pl. 21 : 10). Hemisphericalshaped strainers were also found. A large number of such kinds of strainers were found at Yorgan
Tepe, but they were interpreted as lids (Starr 1939, p. 406, PI. 95: G-J, M, P).
A few pieces of miniature vessels were found in Phase 3. Their shapes are similar to those of
Fig. 68
1. Medium Ware. Heavy chaff inclusions. Buff. Light yellow surface. Stamp decorations on rim. Square2.

G-6. Grave 6.
Medium Ware. Chaff inclusions. Orange. Light yellow surface. Square l-5. From the wall of Building
4.

POTTERY

155

20cm

Fig. 68 Mitanni pottery.

156

T oru TOMIT A

shallow bowls with rounded sides and carinated bowls (Fig. 67 : 3-4, PI. 22 : 4).
Coarse Ware
Coarse Ware, probably used as cooking pots, includes coarse particles of grits. Usually exterior
surfaces are carefully and horizontally burnished. As for the color of exterior surfaces, reddish-brown and dark brown are predominant, and the interior surfaces and the wall sections arecompletely black.
Among Coarse Ware only one vessel shape, large jar, was attested. These vessels have flaring
necks with thickened rims and large globular bodies (Fig. 67 : 7, PI. 22 : 3). Occasionally mottled orsoot probably derived from secondary firing can be seen on the rims and bodies. One specimen was
found in situ in the southwest corner of Room 4 of Building 2 (Fig. 60, Pl. 18 : 3).
(2) Comparison
The pottery assemblage from Phase 3 of Tell Umm Qseir is comparable to those of Late Bronze
Age in northern Syria and Iraq. Until recently the chronological framework of the Late Bronze Agein these regions was not well-established. Even the distinction between the Mitanni and Middle
Assyrian periods remained unclear. Based on new evidence from recent excavations in the Middle
Khabur valley, it is now possible to determine the chronological positions of each site.
The recent German excavations in the Khabur Basin, Tell Bderi and Tell Seb J;Iamad, reveal the
relatively long sequence in Late Bronze Age or the Mitanni and Middle Assyrian periods (Pntlzner
1995). The pottery assemblage from Phase 3 of Tell Umm Qseir shows close resemblance to thematerial of Mitanni period from Tell Bderi. Shallow bowls with rounded sides, which are rare in the
Middle Assyrian period at Tell Seb J;Iamad, are common both at Tell Umm Qseir and Tell Bderi(ibid., Taf. 1-4). Pot stands with undulated rims are confined to the Mitanni layers at Tell Bderi(ibid., Taf. 57: b-d). "Standard" light carinated bowls (ibid., type 1. 3) and jars with narrow bodies
and outrolled rims (ibid., type 6. 3) are commonly seen in the Middle Assyrian layers of Tell Seb
J;Iamad, whereas these vessels are completely absent at Tell Umm Qseir.
Period VIII at Tell Hammam et-Turkman, being comparable to Late Bronze Age, is divided into
two sub-phases (Smit 1988, p. 457). In Period VIIIA, the earlier sub-phase, shallow bowls withrounded sides are predominant (ibid., PI. 143-144), while this type is absent in Period VIIIB. Carinatedbowls found in Period VIIIA are similar to those of Tell Umm Qseir, based on their profiles andsurface treatments (ibid., PI. 145: 20-22). Moreover, in Period VIIIB, "standard" carinated bowls,
which are common at Tell Seh Hamad, are prevalent (ibid., PI. 155 : 9-13). It can be concluded that
Period VIllA of Tell Hammam et-Turkman is comparable to Phase 3 of Tell Umm Qseir.
At Yorgan Tepe an extensive urban center of the Hurrian, called Nuzi, was uncovered. Besides
the dwelling area, a series of superimposed temples and the palace were attested. The date of thissettlement was determined to be in the early half of 15th century B.C. based on the letter from King
Saustatar of Mitanni found in the later phase, Stratum II (Starr 1939, p. 122). The pottery from
Yorgan Tepe, however, was dealt with altogether without subdividing into phases. The mostcommon vessel shapes are two types of bowls: shallow bowls with rounded sides and shallow
carinated bowls. These vessels are almost identical to those of Tell Umm Qseir. Fine Ware foundat Yorgan Tepe, high cups, shouldered cups and tall carinated cups (here classified as straight sidecups) make up the second largest group. The vast majority of high cups are decorated with Nuzi style
paintings. Burnished gray ware, occasionally with impressed decorations, was also found at Yorgan
Tepe. Neither this type of ware nor this kind of decoration was attested at Tell Umm Qseir.
Level IV of Tell Atchana can be dated to the reign of King Saustatar based on the literal records.
The pottery assemblage from Tell Umm Qseir is roughly comparable to those of levels IV -11 of Tell
Atchana. Shallow bowls with rounded sides (Types 3b, 4b and 4c after Woolley 1955) are found fromV

0

POTTERY

157

level IV to level IL These vessels are decorated with horizontal bands on the rims or concentric
circles on the interior surfaces. Carinated bowls (Type 7), also known at Tell Umm Qseir, were foundin levels V-IV in restricted numbers. High cups (Type 118) and shouldered cups (Type 127, 128) wereattested mainly in level IV. Tall carinated cups (Type 94) were found in levels lV-II, and pot stands(Type 84b, 84c) were confined to level 11. Black impressed ware, being comparable to burnished grayware from Yorgan Tepe, was attested in level V. The occurrence of this ware, which can be
attributed to the earlier half of the Mitanni period, indicates that level V at Tell Atchana and theearlier part of Yorgan Tepe slightly precedes Phase 3 of Tell Umm Qseir.
Based on such comparisons, it can be concluded that Phase 3 at Tell Umm Qseir dates to the later
half of the Mitanni period. On the other hand, it is necessary to mention that Grave 6 belonged toPhase 3d. This urn burial destroyed the wall of Building 2 which attribute to the previous Phase 3c.
Therefore, it is certain that Grave 6 is later than Phase 3c. However it remains unclear how latePhase 3d is, since the material, large jar used for urn burial and two cups probably associated withit, are not enough to determine the exact date.

158

Toru TOMITA2

PI. 20 Late Chalcolithic and Middle Uruk potter y.

POTTERY

~l

2

159

3

{

4I
I

,. /

....
4

5

6

7

8

9

LO

PI. 21 Mitanni pottery.

160

Toru TOl\IIIT A

3

4

2

5

PI. 22 Mitanni pottery and miscellaneous objects.

6

3.

OTHER OBJECTS
Osamu MAEDA

All objects other than pottery and ring-scrapers are discussed in this section. The description
here is carried out according to the chronological order, from Phase 2 to Phase 4.
Phase 2In this phase, only some pieces of ground stone artifacts are notable here. There are three piecesof ground stone artifacts and all of them are broken off. Only one specimen was found in a certain
chronological context (Fig. 70 : 2, Pl. 22 : 6). It was recovered from the Late Chalcolithic pit (Silo 1).
The reddish pigment (it was determined to be hematite by XRF analysis) is adhered on the working-surface. This specimen seems to have been used as a palette in spite of its porous quality.
Phase 3
From Grave 6 in Square G-6, at least seventeen pieces of beads were recovered (Pl. 22 : 5). All
these beads were found together with an infant skeleton from the inside of the urn. They consist ofvarious types of beads made of various raw materials. It is difficult to identify all raw material
because some pieces are not well preserved. Three faience beads have a basically cylindrical shape(Fig. 69 : 1-2, 5), and another faience bead has elongated shape with double perforations (Fig. 69 : 4).
Their dimensions vary from 0.5cm to 2cm in length and from 0.6cm to 1.5cm in diameter. There areat least other seven tiny faience beads (Fig. 69: 3). The three pieces shown in Fig. 69: 7-9 are madeof shells. One is a cowrie, possibly used as bead (Fig. 69: 7) and other two pieces are perforated on
the spiral shell inhabiting in the Khabur River (Fig. 69 : 8-9). Other two pieces are made of stone.
One is made of coarse-grained black basalt (Fig. 69 : 6) and the other is made of clear reddish coloredagate with stripe pattern (Fig. 69: 10). The final one is a poorly preserved glass bead. It is black-gray in color.
In addition to these beads, there is only one pendant sample and it is made of oyster shell (Olea
sp. Fig. 69: 11). It is produced by perforating on upper part of the shell. As the surface extremely
effloresced, it might have been produced from an already-fossilized oyster shell. There is one
complete specimen of terracotta spindle whorl which is yellowish-brown in color and sand-tempered(Fig. 69 : 13). Finally, a coarse plaster vessel, possibly made from gypsum, was also found in thisphase (Fig. 69 : 12). It is not well made and is very fragile.
Some pieces of ground stone artifacts also occurred (Fig. 70: 1, 3, 5). Their typological featuresare similar to those from Halaf period. These artifacts were often recovered as part of a wall
foundation. One fragment of perforated ground stone with well polished flatten surface was also
found (Fig. 70 : 4).
Phase 4
A bracelet made of glass was found in this phase (Fig. 69: 14). Although it is an incomplete
specimen, its reconstructed dimension is approximately 7cm in diameter. It is partly red and partly
dark-green in color.

162

Osamu MAEDA

0-0
I

@

2

0 .

I

~

0-0

4

0am
I

5

@

..
I

9

8

7

10

11

;(~.·.·.·._
(.
(()\

~1

..··.·.

,'- '::::::5' )

I

~

J

13

0

Fig. 69 Miscellaneous objects from Phases 2, 3, 4.

3cm

OTHER OBJECTS

I

2

CJ
3

5

0

lOcm

Fig. 70 Ground stones from Phases 2, 3, 4.

163

CHAPTERVDISCUSSION

1.

THOLOI: THEIR SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS
Akira TSUNEKI

Introduction
Although originally "tholos" means dome in Greek architecture, it indicates a building with acircular ground plan of the Halaf period in West Asian prehistory since the excavation report of Tell
Arpachiyah (Mallowan and Rose 1935). As tholoi of Arpachiyah are very impressive buildings andthere are few similar circular ground plan buildings in other periods, we are always reminded of atholos building when we talk about Halaf structures.
Some scholars have tried to reveal the function of tholoi. Tholoi have been discussed as"shrines" (Mallowan and Rose 1935, p. 34), "residential dwellings" (Munchaev and Merpert 1971, p.
19), or "granaries" (Akkermans ed. 1989, p. 66). Although their assumptions have good reasons, these
discussions lack socio-economic aspects of tholoi. They do not give us any answer to the following
question : why did the Halaf people build and use tholoi?
Halaf period has been recognized as the chronological turning point from independent local
pottery distribution to the rather uniform pottery distribution across many local cultures, or as theintermediate period between agricultural villages and urban societies in West Asian prehistory.
Some scholars assert that Halaf culture had already attained a chiefdom level society (e. g. Watsonand LeBlanc 1990). I cannot support this kind of view, and it does not fit the socio-economic
meanings of tholoi themselves.
Here, I would first like to summarize the characteristics of tholoi to research their functions.
Then, I will discuss the socio-economic aspects of tholoi and Halaf societies, referring to ethno-archaeological information.
a. Classification of Tholoi and Their Functions
A great number of archaeological sites which have produced Halaf Pottery were discovered fromthe Zagros to the Levant in east and west and from the Elaz1g to Hamrin in north and south (Fig. 71).
Tholoi were reported from c. twenty excavated sites. Unfortunately, there are very few reports
which show us whole settlement structures. I shall first discuss the classification of tholoi and theirfunctions, based mostly on information from three important Halaf sites.
Tell Arpachiyah
Mallowan and Rose (1935) reported ten tholoi, belonging to Early-Late Halaf periods (Table 10).
The tholoi of Arpachiyah can be divided into two types based on their ground plan. The first tholos
has a simple circular ground plan. I name it Type C (circular-type) tholos. Six specimens werereported at Arpachiyah. The inner diameters of this type vary between 4m and 5.6m, and they aresmaller than the second type. Tholoi were made of Pise on the pebble stone foundations. The wall

THOLOI: THEIR SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

0

165

500KM

Fig. 71 Distribution of sites producing Halaf Pottery(after Copeland et Hours 1987 and other articles).

Table 10Structure No.

Layer

in Sq. FcV.l

PeriodType

aroundEorM

in Sq. FdV.2

aroundin Sq. FdiV.S

Tholos list of Tell Arpachiyah.
Circular Room

Rectangular Room

In. Dia.

Wall Thick.

c

4m

0.5m

-

M

A

4.25m

0.2m+

1.7Xl.7m+

around

M

c.4m

0.4m

M

in Sq. GaiV.4

aroundin TTIO east

TTIO

M

in TTIO west

TTIO

M

in TT9

TT9

M

c
c
c
c
c

Dimention

c. 4m

0.3m?

5.6m

0.7m

-

5.6m

0.7m

-

5.0m

l.Om

-

Wall Thick.

?

in TTB

TTB

M

A

6.2m

1.65m

7.2X3.0m

1.35m

in TT7 north

TT7

L

A

6.2m

1.65m

7.2X3.4m

1.20m

in TT7 south

TT7

L

A

6.2m

1.2m

6.2X2.8m

1.40m

Remarks

unique annex

thickness measures between 0.4-0.7m except for one specimen.
The second type has a circular plan with a rectangular antechamber (Type A tholos). Three
specimens were reported at Arpachiyah (Fig. 72 : 2). A doorway can be seen between two chambers.
All of the inner diameters of the circular rooms are about 6.2m, and the buildings are made of piseon pebble stone foundations. The walls are extremely thick, measuring 1.35m-2m, and the outer
diameters of circular rooms reach 9m-10m. A tholos with a cross-shaped corridor was reported from
Arpachiyah, but this kind of tholos is quite exceptional for Halaf tholoi.

166

Akira TSUNEKI

/

//

I I

11
11
I I
I I

I I
11
I I

::L::),,

tf
I
I
I
\

'

'

',

'' '''
'

I
I
l
I

'

lll

~

/

I

I

..~~

I

,

I

I

I

~·,-1
__ _ / 4......
.:~--

3

5m

0

5

8

'

0

)

,''

ffi
14

~-

15

~}

·~'J

16

·~Q~

~ 17

12

1, 3, 4, 6, 13-15: Yarim Tepe II (Munchaev and Merpert 1973, Merpert et al. 1976, Merpert and Munchaev
1987), 2, 7: Tell Arpachiyah (Mallowan and Rose 1935), 5, 11, 12 : Tell Sabi Abyad (Akkermans 1989 ed,),
8: Shams ed-Din (Al-Radi and Seeden 1980), 9, 16: Cavi Tarlas1 (Wickede und Herbordt 1988), 10, 17:
Girikihaciyan (Watson and LeBlanc 1990)

Fig. 72 Various tholoi.

THOLOI: THEIR SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS167

The upper structure of the circular room was reconstructed as a dome with c. 1.5m height, basedon the tholos found in Square FdV. 2 (Fig. 72: 7). This tholos stood partially underground and its
Pise wall rises up to 0.85m from the foundation. A tholos on the ground level must be reconstructedwith a more gentle dome. Mallowan and Rose did not provide enough information about inner
facilities and materials found in the tholoi.
They asserted that the simple tholos without antechamber (Type C) appeared first, then it
changed into the tholos with antechamber (Type A), based on the stratigraphy. They also asserted
that the tholoi were used as shrines, because 1) all the large tholoi stand in the center of thesettlement; 2) their walls are always of great thickness; 3) the stone foundations were always left
undisturbed in successive rebuilding ; 4) some burials with fine painted pottery and some female
figurines were found near the tholoi. Their arguments about tholoi are based on a few specimens andtheir conclusions are still uncertain.
Hijara summarized the transformation of the buildings at Arpachiyah based on his new excavations in 1976 (Hijara et al. 1980). According to his report, only rectangular buildings were discoveredin the Early Halaf period (Hijara's Phase 1). In the next Middle Halaf period, Type C tholos withoutstone foundation appeared (Hijara's Phase 2), then it came to have stone foundations (Hijara's Early
Phase 3). Type A tholos with thicker walls was observed in the Middle-Late Halaf period (Hijara's
Late Phase 3). In the last Late Halaf period (Hijara's Phase 4), the settlement consisted of rectangular buildings again. The purpose of Hijara's new excavations was to reconsider the chronologicalproblems at Arpachiyah, but the excavated areas were quite limited. No tholoi was excavatedcompletely, and his summary about the transformation of the buildings was based on very limited
scale of excavations.

Yarim Tepe 11
Yarim Tepe 11 is also located in the Mosul-Sinjar region like Tell Arpachiyah. All of the cultural
strata there, except very thin Hassuna layer on the virgin soil, belong to Halaf period. Nearly eighty
tholoi have been investigated from a c. 600m2 excavated area, and this number is the largest among
the excavated Halaf sites up to now (Merpert and Munchaev 1971a, 197lb, 1973, 1984, 1987, Merpert
et al. 1976, 1977, 1978, 1981, Bader et al. 1981, Munchaev and Merpert 1971, 1973, 1981).
Nine Halaf occupational layers were recognized in the excavations. Most of these layers, except
the uppermost two disturbed layers, produced well-preserved Halaf architecture. When we glanceat the excavated materials, especially pottery, Yarim Tepe II has a long cultural sequence from the
Early Halaf period through to the Late Halaf period. Based on the pottery figures of the preliminary
reports, I recognize the Halaf sequence of Yarim Tepe 11 as follows.
Layers IX and VIII ........ Early or Middle Halaf
Layers VII-V .............. Middle Halaf
Layers IV and Ill .......... Middle or Late Halaf
Excavators of Yarim Tepe II named 75 tholoi. Some tholoi were named with the same number,as they completely overlapped each other. So, about eighty tholoi have been recognized. Amongthem, I summarized the plans and dimensions of about fifty tholoi based on the figures and description in above-mentioned preliminary reports. Table 11 shows the results of my summary.
There are two tholos types, i.e. simple circular tholos (Type C tholos) and the tholos with
antechamber (Type A tholos), as we have already seen in Tell Arpachiyah. At Yarim Tepe II, neither
type has stone foundations.
Fig. 73a shows the relationship between inner diameters of the circular rooms and the wall
thickness. Considering the difference of inner diameters of the tholoi, while referring to the domestic
facilities like bread ovens or firing places, we can classify them into three fundamental categories asfollows.

168

Akira TSUNEKI

Table 11
Structure No.

Layer

Tholos 75
Tholos 73
Tholos 71
Tholos 67
Tholos 66
Tholos 61
Tholos 59
Tholos 65
Tholos 64
Tho1os 63
Tholos 62
Tholos 60
Tholos 58
Tholos 57
Tholos 56
Tholos 55
Tholos 54
Tholos 53B
Tholos 53A

IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
IX
VI
\11

Tholos 50

Period Type

c
c
c
c
c
c
c

Wl

EorM
EorM
EorM
EorM
EorM
EorM
EorM
EorM
EorM
EorM
EorM
EorM
EorM
EorM
EorM
EorM
EorM
EorM
EorM

VD

M

A

\'Ill

w
Wl
Wl
VI
VI
VI
\'ID
VI

A
A?
C?

c
c
c
c
A

c
A
A
A?

Tholos list of Yarim Tepe II.

Rectangular Room
Circular Room
Dimention
Wall Thick.
Wall Thick.
In. Dia.
0.3m
2.5m+
0.3m
3.3-3.5m
?
4.3m
0.4m
5.3m
?
4m
3.3m 0.3-0.35m
0.2m
medium size?
3.45m +?
?
1.85X 1.16m?
1.86m
5.0m+ 0.3-0.35m
?
1.85m
0.25m
1.45m
?
4.0-4.5m
0.12m
1.65-1.75m
medium size
0.35m
5.5m
0.25m
4m
?
4.1 x 2.15-2.4m?
3.3m
3.57 X 1.1-1.15m ?
0.4m
3.5m
?
?
4.0m

-

?

0.35m

3.95X3.25m?

0.36-0.6m
2.45X 1m ?
3.75m
VD
M
A
Tholos 48
0.28m
0.65m
5.95X
l.lm
4.5m
A
Tholos 44B
VD
M
?
I.6m
Tholos 49
VI
M
c
?
2.0m
M
c
Tholos 47
VI
?
1.4m
c
Tholos 46
M
VI
0.3m
4.0m
Tho;1s 45c
MVI
4.75X 1.45m?
3.8m
ATholos 44A
M
VI
0.6m
3.5-5.0 X 2.5m 0.3m
5.6-5.65m
ATholos 43
MVI
2.5 X 1.6m,3.1 x 1.9m?
0.35m
3.9-4.0m
A
M
Tholos 42
VI
0.3m
4.7m
M
c
Tholos 36
VI
0.6-0.7m
2.6m
cTholos 31
M
VI
0.35m
?
4.8m
V
M
A
Tholos 41
0.2m
1.6m
Tholos 37
V
M
c
0.15m
1.5m
Tholos 30
V
M
c
0.2m
2m+
V
C?
Tholos 29
M
0.15m
1.7m
Tholos 27
V
M
c
0.3m
3m+?
?
A?
Tholos 26
V
M
0.4m
3.7m
c
Tholos 25
V
M
0.2m
2.2m+
C?
Tholos 23VM
0.3m
l.lXl.lm?
6.15-6.40m
ATholos 22
V
M
0.2m
1.6m
Tholos 20
V
M
c
·o.2m
1.7m
Tholos 19
V
M
c
0.25m
3.7m
C?
Tholos 18
V
M
0.3m
0.6m
3.9X 1.6m
5.0-5.1m
A
Tholos 17
V
M
0.25m
2.7m
Tholos 16
V
M
c
0.25m
2.5m
Tholos 15
V
M
c
0.25m
2.75m
Tholos 9
MorL
C?
IV
0.6m
5m
Tholos 7
MorL
c
IV
0.25m
1.4 X 1.2m?
Tholos 6
MorL
A
IV
0.25m
4.15m
C?
Tholos 5
MorL
IV
1.55X l.lm?
3.8m
Ain Sq. 29
MorL
IV
0.25m
4.5m
in Sq. 23b
m MorL c
C. R.=Circular room, R. R=Rectangular room, d. w.=doorway, p. w.=partition wall.

-

Remarksoven in C. R.
oven in C. R.
platform. ritual pit
oven in C. R. ?
two ovens in C. R.

oven bet. CR&RR
oven in C. R.

un baked vessel
doorway
doorway
partition walls
oven in C. R.
oven in C. R., two d. w.
and p. w.in R. R.
oven and d. w.in C.R.
oven in R. R.

oven in C. R.
oven in R. R.
p. w. in R. R.

p. w. in C. R.
storage pit in C. R.

oven in C. R.

-

p. w. in RR, d. w. in CR-

d. w.in C. R.

-

oven in C. R.

two d. w. in C. R.

THOLOI : THEIR SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

wall
thickness

Yarim Tepe II

1
m

rfJ

0.5
0

169

•

~i~0 og 0 o

2

1

3

4

a

5

6

?m
inner diameterwall
thickness

Tell Arpachiyah

1.5

m

1
b

0.5

0

3

2

1

4

5

6

?m
inner diameterwall
thickness

Tell Sabi Abyad

1
m

c

0.5
0

1

3

2

4

5

6

7m
inner diameterwall
thickness

Shams ed-Din Tannira, Khirbet esh-Shenef, Yunus,
Girikihaciyan, Tell Turlu, Cavi Tarlas1.

1

d

m

0.5
0

0

8%o
1

0

0

0

2

3

4

5

6

?m
inner diameter0 detached circular roome detached circular room (with oven or fireplace)
0 circalar room with rectangular antechamber• circalar room with rectangular antechamber (with oven or fireplace)Fig. 73 Dimensions and types of tholoi in each site.

170

Akira TSUNEKI

The first category is a small tholos having an inner diameter less than 3m. Except tholos 64, allof the tholoi belonging to this category are Type C tholoi. The walls, made of pise, are relatively thin,measuring 0.2m. The interior of walls and floors are generally plastered. They are usually without
any facilities, but some have bread ovens (e. g. fig. 72 : 15).
The second category is a middle-sized tholos measuring 3 - 5m, especially 3.5 - 4.5m, in its innerdiameter. Walls are made of pise or mud bricks, and they are around 0.5m thick. Both types of tholoi,
i.e. Type C and Type A tholoi, can be seen in this category. A· considerable number of tholoi in thiscategory have domestic facilities such as ovens or hearths. Interior walls and floors are usuallyplastered.
Tholos 42 (Fig. 72: 6) is a typical tholos of this category with the antechamber. The innerdiameter of the circular room is 4.0m and the wall is 0.35m thick. An oven is visible along the wallof the circular room. The wall remained up to 0.75m high, and it might have had an inclining cupola-like upper structure. The interior of the wall is plastered. Domestic materials like flint and obsidian
tools, bone spatulas, fragments of stone mortar, clay sling balls, fine and coarse potsherds, and a lotof animal bones were found in the circular room. The rectangular antechamber is attached to thecircular room, and both rooms are connected by a doorway.
The last category is a large tholos of more than 5m in inner diameter. All the tholoi of thiscategory, except Tholos 67 (Fig. 72 : 1), are Type A tholoi (Fig. 72 : 3, 4). The walls measure morethan 0.4m thick. All the tholoi, again except Tholos 67, lack domestic facilities. Some tholoi of thiscategory show sophisticated preparation before construction. For instance, Tholos 67 was built on
clay platform. A small depression containing an intentionally broken painted vessel and three
microlithic obsidian tools were found beneath the floor, and other interesting objects such as a clay
figurine and a copper seal-pendant were also found under the floor near the depression. We cansuggest that some ritual ceremony had been carried out before the construction of such large tholoi.
Whe• we observe these three categories of tholoi in the stratigraphical order, there is only one
large tholos classified as the third category in each layer. On the other hand, many small and middle-sized tholoi can be observed in each layer. We can also point out that Type C tholoi are dominant
in the lower layers, and Type A tholoi increase in number in the upper layers. I will discuss thesethree categories of tholoi later.
Tell Sabi Abyad
Tell Sabi Abyad is located along the upper Balikh Valley, and it has been investigated since 1986
(Akkermans 1987a, 1987b, 1993, Akkermans ed. 1989, 1996). Thirteen tholoi have been reported, andthey came from Levels 4, 3 and 1 (Table 12). Level 4 corresponds to the last transitional phase to the
Early Halaf period, and Levels 3-1 correspond to the Early Halaf period.
Except for one tholos in Level 4, which has an antechamber, all the tholoi are of Type C. Mostof the inner diameters of their circular room measure about 3m, and there is no large tholos.
Akkermans has already discussed the function of these tholoi (Akkermans ed. 1989, pp59-66).
According to his reports, the tholoi of Tell Sabi Abyad are made of mud-bricks without specificfoundation. Most of them have entrances varying in width from 0.6m-0.9m. Some well-preserved
tholoi show a wall even slightly incurving at floor level, thus suggesting a domed upper structure.
The wall exterior of all tholoi is mud-plastered, and usually it is covered with white plaster ofgypsum or limestone. The wall interior and the floor are also mud-plastered, and usually the insidesof tholoi were burnt very hard. Based on these observations of the structures and some ethno-archaeological evidence, Akkermans concluded that the tholoi of Tell Sabi Abyad were used asstorage granaries.
Akkermans' discussion about tholoi is very impressive. He asserted that the plaster applied to
the walls of tholoi may have acted as a highly vermin-resistant coating. Firing seems to have been

THOLOI: THEIR SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

Table 12Structure No.

Layer

PeriodType

171

Tholos list of Tell Sabi Abyad.
Rectangular Room

Circular Room
In. Dia.

Remarks

Wall Thick. Dimention Wall Thick.

in Sq. Q-15

4

pre-E

A

3.25m

0.25-0.3m

3+ x2.0m

in Sq. Q-14

3 early

E

c. 2m

0.25m

-

Tholos 0

3 earlyE

3.lm

0.3-0.4m-

Tholos AC

3 early

E

l.Sm

0.3m

Tholos N

3 early

E

3.1m

0.3m

Tholos S

3 early

E

c. 3m

0.3m

Tholos P

3 early

E

c. 3m

0.3m

Tholos AE

3 early

E

3.1m

0.3m

Tholos K

3 early

E

2.7m

0.26m

Tholos N'

3 lateE

3.011\

0.24m

Tholos AH

3 late

E

c. 3m

0.25m

Tholos C

1

E

3.2m

0.3m

Tholos L

1

E

c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c
c

c. 3m

0.3m

-

0.4-0.45m

d.w. in R.R.

oven. posthole, d. w.

d.w.,p.w.
d.w.
3 post holes, stones,
·d.w.
d.w.

d. w.=doorway, p. w.=partition wall.

used for the protection of tholoi from bacteria or insect eggs, and the upper dome-like structure had
been useful as ventilation. His argument is informative, and I agree with his opinion. However, when
we classify the tholoi of Sabi Abyad into the above-mentioned categories, most of them can beclassified into small tholoi. So, we cannot pursue the whole purpose of tholoi based only on evidence
from Tell Sabi Abyad.
I summarized here the tholoi of three important Halaf sites. Yarim Tepe 11, in particular,
produced a lot of tholoi of various periods from Early Halaf to Late Halaf, and I pointed out thattholoi can be classified into three categories based on the inner diameters of circular rooms and thepresence (or lack) of facilities such as ovens and hearths. Figs. 73a-c shows some elements of tholoiof those three sites. Fig. 73d shows the same elements of tholoi from Shams ed-Din Tannira (Al-Radiand Seeden 1980), Khirbet esh-Shenef (Akkermans 1993), Yunus (Woolley 1934), Girkihaciyan (Watson and LeBlanc 1990), Tell Turlu (Breniquet 1991) and <;avi Tarlas1 (von Wickede und Herbordt
1988). Although large tholoi (the third category of tholoi) were not be discovered in these sites, we
can say that the other two categories of tholoi have almost the same tendency in their elements.
So, we can suppose that Halaf tholoi can be divided into three categories, and each category oftholos has a different function.
Small-sized Tholos: Type C tholoi, having less than 3m in inner diameter, are predominant.
They are usually plastered on their interior and exterior walls. Sometimes the interiors are burnt
hard. These small-sized tholoi are fundamentally used as storage rooms. Some of them havecooking facilities such as bread oven or hearth, and we can imagine that they were used independently as kitchens.
Middle-sized Tholos: Type A and Type C tholoi are recognized in this category. In both types,
diameters of the circular rooms measure about 3 - 5m. They usually have cooking or other kind ofdomestic facilities in the circular rooms. Middle-sized tholoi are the most numerous and popularamong tholos type buildings. All the elements, including their sizes, facilities and excavatedmaterials, indicate that they are residences.

172

Akira TSUNEKI

Large-sized Tholos : Almost all of them are Type A tholoi. Inner diameters of circular rooms
are more than 5m. They usually lack cooking facilities. The number of large-sized tholoi within thesite is quite limited. Some specimens show sophisticated preparation before construction, and we cansuggest that such tholoi are not merely residences but some kind of community structures.
We can conclude that tholoi in the Halaf period have various functions according to its dimensions and facilities. If we again look at Figs. 73a-c with this mind, we can understand very easily thatthe function of tholos which each scholar asserted reflected the tholoi which each scholar discoveredin each site.

b. Tholoi in the Settlements
Here, we will see the tholoi and other architecture in the settlements, referring to the Halaf
period sequence.
The earliest Halaf settlement up to date is the Level IIIc settlement at Tell Sabi Abyad. The
northern part of the settlement consists of three building complexes of small rectangular rooms, andthe southern part has five simple circular tholoi (Fig. 74: 1). It seems that the buildings of rectangular rooms were used for residential purposes, and the circular tholoi were used for storage.
Fig. 74 : 2 shows Layer IX settlement at Ya rim Tepe 11, which dates slightly later than Sabi
Abyad Layer IlL The main architecture is seven simple circular tholoi and a row of small rectangular rooms. The buildings contain all categories of tholoi, i. e. small, middle and large-sized tholoi.
It indicates that tholoi played various roles in the settlement, not only for storage but also forresidence, although small rectangular rooms still remain. The excavators recognized these small
rectangular rooms as storage facilities for grain (Merpert and Munchaev 1987, p. 21).
Fig. 74: 3-5 show the specimens of settlements belonging to Middle-Late Halaf periods. The
main architecture for these settlements are tholoi although a few small rectangular rooms are stillvisible among the tholoi. Middle-sized tholoi are conspicuous, and the people clearly inhabited thesetholos-type houses. Tholoi buildings are scattered without any planning.
We can summarize the transformation of tholoi through the periods as follows. When we dependon the evidence from Tell Sabi Abyad, it is supposed that the tholoi appeared as storage rooms
among the rectangular-planed buildings. These small storage tholoi increased in size in the Early-Middle Halaf periods, and they came to be used as residences instead of the rectangular houses. In
the Middle and Late Halaf periods, the settlements consisted mainly of tholos buildings for many
purposes.
Poorly preserved Halaf settlements at Tell Umm Qseir, which belongs to the Middle Halaf
period, also fits into this transformation. It consists of middle-sized tholoi, including Type C andType A tholoi. Type C tholos has a broken hearth as cooking facility. A small rectangular building,which might have been used for storage purposes, was also found with these tholos buildings. All
these elements are quite typical of a Middle Halaf settlement
For the prototype of tholoi, we must concern ourselves with the small circular-plan structures
among the Amuq A-B and Hassuna settlements. In the Northern Levant region, for instance, small
circular structures, measuring 1 - 1.5m in their inner diameters, were found with rectangular houses
in Layer 23 of Tell al-Judaidah (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, pp. 102-103). The soundings at Tellel Kerkh 2 in the Rouj Basin produced circular structures, of which floors and interior walls were
mud-plastered and burnt hard (Iwasaki et al. 1995, p. 144). The walls inclined from the ground level,
and we can imagine the dome-like upper structures. Although they are contemporary to Amuq A
period, they are very similar to tholoi of Tell Sabi Abyad.
Among the Hassuna settlements, we can also point out similar structures, although these
settlements consist of mainly rectangular houses. Tell Hassuna and Yarim Tepe I produced somesmall circular-plan structures measuring 1-3m in their inner diameters (Lloyd and Safar 1945,

THOLOI: THEIR SOCIO-ECONOMIC ASPECTS

o•a

173

Rt2

2
.. ............

~""/: " " ::("
~-

.,

3

c;:ovi.

Slu'K"-Cflt•-"

'

~

''

~

-

C3
11!!!!1

d

,.
,.
3

Totlou1983 -198~

N

Lj

Fig. 74 Halaf settlements.

5

1. Tell Sabi Abyad Level Inc(AI<kermans 1990)
2. Yarim T epe Il , Layer lX(Merpert and Munchaev
1987)
3. Yarim Tepe Il , Layer V(Munchaev and Merpert
1973)
4. Tell Yunus (Woolley 1934)
5. <;a vi Tarlas1 (von Wickede
und Herbordt 1988)

17 4

Akira TSUNEKI

Merpert and Munchaev 1987). These structures tend to be named "silo", but their ground plans are
not so different from those of small-sized tholoi in the Halaf period.
Thus, it is very probable that the origin of tholoi came from the small circular storage structuresin Amuq B and/ or Hassuna settlements. Therefore, the middle-sized tholoi with rectangularantechambers have already appeared even before Early Halaf period. We can point out these
specimens at Sabi Abyad Layer 4 (Akkermans and LeMiere 1992, pp. 6-7) and Yarim Tepe I layer 7(Merpert et al. 1976, p. 27). These specimens confuse the situation about the origin of tholoi, and the
problem remains unsolved.
When we review the sequence of the development of settlements and houses in West Asia, theHalaf settlements with tholoi are quite peculiar. Circular dwelling pits are predominant among thefirst year-round settlements of Natuf period. Therefore, the circular dwellings changed into rectangular houses during PPNA and PPNB periods. From the Late PPNB period, most settlements ofWest Asia consisted mainly of rectangular-planed houses. It is supposed that the population density
increased in these settlements. For a densely populated society and for defensive purposes, rectangular houses were much more advantageous than circular houses. This tendency continued to thefollowing Amuq A-B and Hassuna periods, then to Sammara and Ubaid periods. All of these
settlements, except Halaf settlements, consist mainly of rectangular structures.
So, we must recognize the peculiarity of Halaf settlements in the sequence of the development ofWest Asian settlements. As the tholos buildings cannot stand side by side or share the same wall,they are unsuited for densely populated settlements. As far as we can see from the reports on Halaf
settlements, there are no well-planned settlements and no defensive walls. Many scholars havealready pointed out that Halaf settlements are relatively small in size, compared with the Late PPNB
and Pottery Neolithic settlements (Watson 1983a, p. 239, McCorriston 1992, p. 315, Yakar 1993, p. 665).
Thus, the general Halaf settlements are characterized by their small-scale and their small spread-out
numbers without settlement planning and defensive facilities.
c. Socio-economic Background for Tholoi and Halaf Settlements
Based on the excavated specimens, Halaf tholoi buildings must have had dome-like upper
structures (Mallowan and Rose 1935, pp. 28-31, Merpert et al. 1976, p. 45, Akkermans 1989, p. 60).
They were reconstructed with various kinds of domes, i.e. complete hemispherical domes, cupoladomes and so on. In the case of small-sized tholoi, cylindrical upper structures were sometimes
chosen for the reconstruction (Seeden 1982, pp. 74-75, Fiorina and Bulgarelli 1985, p. 34).
In any case, the tholoi have more or less dome-like upper structures (Aurenche 1981, pp. 188-191).
So, many scholars concerned with modern beehive houses, which can be seen around the Aleppo
region, consider the Halaf tholoi (Mallowan and Rose 1935, p. 33, Aurenche 1981, p.p. 150-153, Seeden
1982, p. 72, Akkermans 1989, p.p. 61-63). These modern beehive houses are called Qubbeh in Arabic.
According to Copeland (1955, p. 21), these Qubbeh have been reported since the 17th century, and they
have a long history in this region.
I am also very interested in these Qubbeh, and I investigated them a few times. Though thesemodern Qubbeh have dome or truncated-dome upper structures, their ground plans are usuallysquares. The settlements of modern Qubbeh are densely populated, and there are some kinds ofvillage planning in the settlements. So, of course, we cannot compare modern Qubbeh villages
directly with prehistoric Halaf settlements. However, both Qubbeh and tholos have dome-like upper
structures, and we can suppose why Halaf people adopted domes for their buildings from thesemodern Qubbeh.
I asked the villagers why they build Qubbeh and I always got the following answers;
1. Qubbeh is easier and cheaper to build, because it dose not need any timber.
2. Qubbeh has a large space in the ceiling, so it has good ventilation for cooling.

TIIOLOI: THEIR SOCIO- ECONOMIC ASPECTS

1. General view of Berne village.

2. Abandoned Qubbeh.

3. Qubbeh for kitchen.

4. Oven in the Qubbeh.

5. Repairing scene of Qubbeh.

6. Repairing scene of Qubbeh.

P I. 23 Modern Qubbeh village at Be rne, northwestern Syria.

175

176

Akira TSUNEKI

3. People traditionally used to make Qubbeh.
Nowadays, the Qubbeh structures are disappearing very rapidly and changing into therectangular-planned flat-roofed buildings. I also asked the villagers why they did not want to build
Qubbeh any more. The most important problem is that Qubbeh lacks durability because of its
unstable high roof without timber. People always must repair the dome and the mud plastering ofQubbeh buildings (PI. 23). This provided me with a lot of hints to reconsider the tholos of Halaf
period.
Depending on my summary of tholos buildings, Halaf settlements and ethno-archaeologicalinformation, we can imagine the real meaning of Halaf settlements consisting of tholoi. Durability
was not the main factor for constructing the buildings in the Halaf societies. The Halaf people took
a different strategy from the mainstream of West Asian prehistory in which people tended to increase
durability and density of their settlements.
Halaf settlements were distributed mainly along the southern peripheries of dry-farming regions
in northern Mesopotamia and northeastern Syria. The Halaf people carried out dry-farming in these
peripheries, and they always suffered from a poor harvest. Their solution to poor harvests was not
to increase productivity in agriculture, but to disperse their settlements on a small scale. Keeping
mobility must have been very an important strategy for their survivaL Therefore, they preferred tomake non-durable tholoi rather than much more durable rectangular-planned houses. They exerted
themselves to make fine pottery as one of their important subsistence other than farming. They alsoneeded mobility to get the fuels for pottery and to exchange pottery. Of course, the Halaf mobility
was not a form of hunter-gatherers, but they did not plan to stay in the same place for dozens ofyears.
Here I discussed the tholoi and Halaf settlements from the socio-economic viewpoints. In myview, Halaf culture is one of peculiar adaptations to the periphery of dry-farming regions, and it
cannot be understood in the context of mainstream developments of farming societies of West Asia.
I concluded that the Halaf societies must have kept mobility for their survival, and the tholos
buildings must be understood as a symbol of mobility.

2.

NEW LIGHT ON MIDDLE HALAF PERIOD :HALAF CHRONOLOGY REVISED
Yutaka MIY AKE

Introduction: The General Aspects and Problems of Halaf Chronology
Conventionally Halaf period was divided into three sub-periods: Early, Middle and Late Halaf.
This tripartite framework of Halaf chronology, which was well presented in the pioneering work of
Perkins (Perkins 1949), was based mainly on the stratigraphy of Arpachiyah (Mallowan and Rose1935), and it had been considered that Arpachiyah covered the entire Halaf sequence. However, newevidence from Tell Aqab, which provided a long and well-stratified Halaf sequence even up to the
Ubaid period, revealed that Arpachiyah lacked the final phase of Halaf sequence, which was called
the Halaf-Ubaid Transitional phase at Tell Aqab (Davidson and Watkins 1981). This quadripartite
framework of Halaf chronology, already proposed in the comprehensive work by Davidson (Davidson 1977), basically followed the previous three-fold division with minor modifications and added one
extra period at the end.
The results of the new excavations at Arpachiyah, carried out by Hijara in 1976, created a stirin Halaf chronology. Five "pottery phases", which are newly recognized by Hijara 1 (Hijara et al.
1980), do not correspond to the former Arpachiyah sequence. A much more significant consequence
was to make it clear that all deposits accumulated in the outlying area of the mound was "stratigraphically" equivalent to Mallowan's pre-TT10 layers, which were recognized as Early Halaf period 2 •Examining the report of the 1933 season's excavations in detail, however, it is clear that the materials
found in TT10-7 layers of the mound itself were, strangely enough, ignored in the publication. Mostof the materials assigned to TT10-7 layers or Middle Halaf period were actually derived from certain
depths of the outlying area, which were compared to TT10-7 layers by Mallowan on the basis ofmaterials and architecture (cf. Gustavson-Gaube 1981, p. 82). Therefore, new stratigraphical evidence
indicated that the TT10-7 layers of the mound did not belong to Middle Halaf period, whereas thepottery assemblage itself might still represent the Middle Halaf period3 • The results of the re-excavations at Arpachiyah unfortunately caused confusion rather than providing new insight 4 •In the last decade the conventional framework of Halaf chronology faced serious suspicions.
This time the frame of three-fold or four-fold division itself became a point in dispute. It is
maintained that the Halaf period prior to the Halaf-Ubaid Transitional phase should be divided into
only two phases (Watkins and Campbell 1987, p. 430). According to Watkins and Campbell, thepeculiarity of the pottery assemblage from the burnt house of TT6 layer at Arpachiyah is usually
over-emphasized for the sake of a clear-cut division between Middle and Late Halaf periods, while
Hijara recognized four main pottery phases, and the last phase, the Phase Four, is divided into two sub-phases: Phase Four A and Four B (Hijara et al. 1980, p. 142).
2
When the stratigraphy between two excavations is correlated based on Hijara's results just as it is, Early
Halaf period would cover considerably long sequences, with Hijara's pottery phases from One to partially
Four A, as presented by Watson and LeBlanc (Watson and LeBlanc 1990, Table 4.6).
3
It became clear that the correlation of the layers between the mound and the outlying area suggested by
Mallowan was not correct (Mallowan and Rose 1935: p. 21). However the relative chronology of the pottery
assemblages are still valid to some extent, because the Early and Middle Halaf pottery assemblages werebased on the stratigraphy of the outlying area (Tsuneki 1986, pp. 49-50).
The dating based on the results of new excavations at Arpachiyah also caused the confusion about Halaf
chronology (e. g. Watson and LeBlanc 1990, Mellaart 1981).

178

Yutaka MIYAKE

the transition of pottery between these periods seems to be rather gradual. On the basis of theframework proposed by Davidson, many features appearing in Middle Halaf period, especially in its
later part, continue to Late Halaf period and it is suggested that Middle Halaf period might bedivided into two more sub-phases (Davidson 1977, p. 188). Watkins and Campbell pushed this view
forward and proposed the bipartite chronological frame. The appearance of bichrome painted
decorations and some new motifs, and the increase in number of convex sided bowls, other new bowl
shapes and plates are suggested to be indicators of the later phase of Halaf period (Watkins andCampbell 1987, pp. 430-431).
The other basic argument in recent years is whether the pottery sequences from Arpachiyah andTell Aqab are typical and whether it can be applied to other regions (Akkermans 1993, p. 123). In theregions other than northern Mesopotamia and the Upper Khabur basin, no site which provides theentire Halaf sequence is attested as yet. Although the regional variation within Halaf pottery isalready pointed out (Davidson 1977), it still remains indefinite how simultaneous or how discrepant
the aspects and transition of Halaf pottery assemblages between the regions were. For the Balikh
valley the three-fold division was proposed, neglecting the Halaf-Ubaid Transitional period in thisregion (Akkermans 1993, p. 123).

a. Reconsideration of the Conventional Framework of Halaf Chronology
As already seen above, one might mention that the framework of Halaf chronology needs further
analysis. Basically the scarcity of excavated and well-documented sites with long Halaf sequencesis the principal problem. In fact, besides Arpachiyah and Tell Aqab, sites such as Chagar Bazar, Tell
Halaf and Yarim Tepe II are also assumed to be continuously inhabited from Early Halaf to, at least,
Late Halaf periods. Unfortunately, the materials from Tell Halaf had to be dealt with as one lumpwithout available stratigraphical contexts (Schmidt 1943). The preliminary reports of Chagar Bazar
and Yarim Tepe II are not enough to reconstruct the whole aspect and transition of the pottery
assemblages within the sites (Mallowan 1936, Merpert and Munchaev 1993). What is even worse, thematerial from Tell Aqab only publishes several representative shards for each period (Davidson andWatkins 1981), and the results of new excavations at Arpachiyah, apart from how appropriate it is,causes suspicion on the preceding Mallowan's stratigraphy (Hijara et al. 1980).
New Evidence from Tell Umm Qseir
We believe that new evidence from 1996 season's excavations at Tell Umm Qseir provides goodmaterial to revise the chronological framework of Halaf period. As already mentioned in the sectionof the pottery description (Chapter III-2), the Halaf pottery of Tell Umm Qseir bears rather homogeneous aspects. It seems likely that the duration of the occupation was not long and there is almost
no doubt that Halaf strata at Tell Umm Qseir can be dated to Middle Halaf period. Therefore,
unfortunately, Tell Umm Qseir by itself can not demonstrate the transition of pottery assemblages
within the entire Halaf sequence, but, on the other hand, this is also the great advantage of Tell Umm
Qseir material. The Middle Halaf strata of Tell Umm Qseir lies directly on virgin soil and is coveredby the Late Chalcolithic strata. That is to say, the whole Halaf pottery assemblage from Tell Umm
Qseir can be safely dealt with as Middle Halaf, without considering any intrusions either fromprevious or from subsequent Halaf periods.
Under the existing circumstances, so long as no clear-cut division between Middle Halaf andLate Halaf periods is detective, the proposal of bipartite chronological frame for Halaf period may
seem to be much more attractive and appropriate. Actually many Halaf settlements are dated in anoncommittal manner like "Middle-Late Halaf periods" 5 • This does not necessarily mean, however,that the conventional framework is totally irrationaL The Halaf pottery from Tell Umm Qseir
reveals that conventional three-fold or four-fold division of Halaf chronology is, to some extent, still

NEW LIGHT ON MIDDLE HALAF PERIOD

179

useful, and it should be remembered that there is a fairly general agreement on the division between
Early Halaf and Middle Halaf periods 6 • Moreover, the frame of two-fold division provides nosolution to the chronological problems of Halaf period, as rightly pointed out by Akkermans (Akkermans 1993, p. 124). We believe that Halaf period still needs much more fine chronology, no matter
how difficult it may be to determine precisely, for a better understanding of this period 7 •The really problematic factors are the indefinite framework of conventional Halaf chronology,
especially the division between Middle Halaf and Late Halaf periods, and the wrong procedure todate the individual settlements. It is highly misleading to date the Halaf sites solely based on somespecific features, or "type fossils", to be assigned to some specific period so far, without taking thewhole structure of pottery assemblages into consideration. When in a Halaf site the vessel shapepeculiar to Middle Halaf, the decoration technique exclusively found in Late Halaf context and thespecific ware belonging to Halaf-Ubaid Transitional period are found together, this settlement would
be dated from Middle Halaf to Halaf-Ubaid Transitional period, even though the stratigraphicalsettings and whole pottery assemblage would show that the occupation did not last so long. We now
recognize that the conventional framework of Halaf chronology is not secure enough to be generally
accepted. It is necessary to reconsider the whole framework of Halaf chronology based on the new
evidence. Below we will deal with the conventional framework of Halaf chronology, the sequencesfrom Arpachiyah and Tell Aqab, and compare it with new evidence from Tell Umm Qseir.

Middle Halaf Pottery Assemblage
According to Davidson, TT10-TT8 layers of Arpachiyah are attributed to the Middle Halaf
period 8 (Davidson 1977, p. 37). The vessel shapes which already occurred in the Early Halaf strata:
bowls with straight sides (Form 1 after Davidson's typology, cf. Fig. 75), cream bowls (Form 2),
hemispherical bowls (Form 3) and necked jars (Form 4), continue to the Middle Halaf period. Thereis a tendency that bowls with straight sides (Form 1) become shallower than that of the preceding
period. This reminds us of the shallow variations of this form at Tell Umm Qseir (Shape II a-b). The
other bowl shape, cream bowl, is considered to be mainly confined to the earlier part of the Middle
Halaf period (ibid., P- 41). Some cream bowls from Arpachiyah show a close resemblance to thoseof Tell Umm Qseir with full decoration on the interior necks (Mallowan and Rose 1935, Fig. 62 : 4,
Fig. 76: 3). These are comparable to the "Middle Halaf type of cream bowl".
New vessel shapes occurred in the Middle Halaf strata at Arpachiyah are jars with short andeverted necks (Form 5), sinuous sided bowls (Form 6), saucers (Form 7), pedestal bowls (Form 8),
straight sided bowls with ring bases (Form 9) and jars with beveled rims (Form 14). Among themFor example, previous excavations at Teii Umm Qseir (Hole and Johnson 1986-87), <;;avi Tarlas1, Shams
ed-Din, Kharabeh Shattani. Even Davidson, who proposed the quadripartite framework for Halaf chronology, dated Teii Brak, Yunus and Tilkitepe as Middle-Late Halaf periods (Davidson 1977, p. 158, 215, 231).
6
Early Halaf pottery is characterized by the restricted variation of vessel shapes ; only four main vessel
shapes are recognized. The high ratio of bowls with straight sides are remarkable, and several painted
motifs are recognized to be peculiar to Early Halaf period (Davidson 1977).
7
The recent progress of the investigations indicates that Early H·alaf period contains a much longer
sequence and the pottery assemblage probably includes distinct diversity within this period. New evidenceof Early Halaf pottery from Teii Sabi Abyad, which reveals distinct features from that of Arpachiyah andTeii Aqab, is considered to precede the conventional Early Halaf period (Akkermans 1989). Without
stratigraphical evidence this remains a hypothesis for the time being. But there are several attempts toestablish much more definite chronology for Early Halaf period (Le Miere and Nieuwenhuyse 1996, p. 189-90, Gut 1995, pp. 216-218, Tab. 20).
8
It is necessary to point out that the main criterium of the division between Middle and Late Halaf
supposed by Davidson is the occurrence of white stiple decoration (Davidson 1977, p. 37).
5

180

Yuta ka MIYAT<E

Early Ha laf

Late Halaf

Middle Halaf

CL:7

-

Form 7

"\

~

I

C7
Form 16fi-

Form 1'I,_}
Form 3

CD-

Form 10~Form15

CD
(

I

w

J

Form 2Form 11

Form 19~ I .P

Form 6, 18

CD

m

w

Form 8~-Form 4

-·-

cJ)

.-

·~-

Form 13

m

~-

~

-

Form 5-Im

I 1 Form 12

Fig. 75 Transformation of vessel shapes through Halaf periods.

-Form 14--

NEW LIGHT ON MIDDLE HALAF PERIOD

181

saucers, jars with beveled rims and the vessels with squared rims decorated with rim ticks, occurredamong bowls with straight sides, hemispherical bowls (Form 3) and sinuous sided bowls, are thought
to be common particularly in the latter part of the Middle Halaf period. At Tell Umm Qseir all newshapes occurring at Middle Halaf strata of Arpachiyah are also attested except for straight sided
bowls with ring bases and jars with beveled rims. The former is a rather exceptional vessel shapeand usually not known in other Halaf sites. Squared rims decorated with rim ticks are also
commonly seen among bowls with straight or slightly flaring sides (Shape Ilc-d, cf. Fig. 21}, hemispherical bowls (Shape IIIb-c} and sinuous sided bowls (Shape Vb-c) at Tell Umm Qseir.
Painting is the only kind of decoration known in the Middle Halaf strata at Arpachiyah. It is
pointed out that one major change in the painted decoration in the Middle Halaf period of Arpachiyah is the tendency to cover less of vessel surface with paint (Davidson 1977, pp. 50-51}. Exterior
surfaces tend to be more sparsely decorated and interior surfaces, on the contrary, play a much more
important role for decoration. This tendency corresponds well to Tell Umm Qseir, the occurrence ofthe bowls decorated with simple horizontal bands (cf. Shape Ill, V} and the plates and bowls withfully decorated interior surfaces or necks (Shape I a-d, IV and V}. As for painted motifs, horizontally
repetitive cable designs and checkerboard designs are common at Arpachiyah (ibid., p. 51}. The mostsignificant difference in decoration between Arpachiyah and Tell Umm Qseir is the occurrence ofpolychrome decoration at Arpachiyah (Davidson 1977, p. 38), while at Tell Umm Qseir only polychrome like effect is detectable.
The Middle Halaf period of Tell Aqab is characterized by the sudden decline of straight sided
bowls (Form 1) which are predominant in the Early Halaf period, from 70% in Early Halaf to 11%
in Middle Halaf (Davidson 1977, Table 1), and a increase in variation of vessel shapes. At Tell Umm
Qseir, bowls with straight or slightly flaring sides (Shape Ila-d}, which are comparable to Form 1 ofTell Aqab, still comprise 25.9% with a tendency to slightly decrease. The ratio of these vessels at Tell
Umm Qseir is rather high compared to that of Middle Halaf strata at Tell Aqab. Cream bowls (Form2), which make up the second largest group in the Early Halaf strata, already disappeared in the
Middle Halaf strata at Tell Aqab. This presents striking contrast to Middle Halaf period at
Arpachiyah and Tell Umm Qseir, though cream bowls remain less common at these sites, for example
at Tell Umm Qseir with 2.5% (Shape IV). Simple hemispherical bowls (Form 3) now became
predominant at Tell Aqab with 54%, and squared rims are seen among these vessels. This ratio isextremely high compared to that of Tell Umm Qseir (Shape Ill a-c), 15.9% as the third largest groupeven among open forms. Sinuous sided bowls (Form 18), which are confined exclusively to the Middle
Halaf period at Tell Aqab 9 , and deep bowls with composite profiles (Form 11) make up the thirdlargest group. As for the closed shapes, jars with slightly flaring necks (Form 4}, which continue from
Early Halaf period, and jars with short everted necks (Form 5) are dominant. These shapes are also
common at Tell Umm Qseir.
It is pointed out that the Middle Halaf period of Tell Aqab can be subdivided into two sub-phases(Davidson 1977). In the earlier phase, jars with short everted necks (Form 5}, jars with short verticalnecks (Form 13) and sinuous sided bowls (Form 18) appeared (ibid., Table 7). The later phase ischaracterized by the occurrence of saucers (Form 7), pedestal bowls (Form 8), shallow bowls withflaring sides (Form 16), jars with beveled rims (Form 14) and disc based bowls with S profiles (Form17). At Tell Umm Qseir saucers (Shape Id) and pedestal bowls (Shape VII) are also known, but thethree latter shapes are lacking. These vessel shapes except for jars with beveled rims are not known
at Middle Halaf strata at Arpachiyah either.
As for the decoration, it is pointed out that there is a tendency for the Middle Halaf vessels
having less of their surface area painted as known from Arpachiyah. The polychrome painted and9Sinuous sided bowls are classified as Form 18 by Davidson. It is not easy to differentiate from Form 6.

182

Yutaka MIYAKE

the painted and incised decorations occur in the later phase of Middle Halaf period at Tell Aqab
(Davidson 1977, p. 131). These new decoration techniques are not known from Tell Umm Qseir.
Common Middle Halaf designs at Tell Aqab are 1) horizontal band(s), 2) row(s) of chevrons, 3) row(s)of cables, 4) checkerboard, especially in the later phase and 5) rim ticks. These designs are also
popular at Tell Umm Qseir.
Layer 12 of Tell Chagar Bazar is comparable to the Middle Halaf period of Arpachiyah (David·son 1977, p. 95). Shallow bowls with flaring sides, carinated bowls, sinuous sided bowls, pedestal
bowls (champagne vase) and deep bowls are known as open forms. Davidson has reported that creambowls are also found at Chagar Bazar (Davidson 1977, p. 96). One illustrated example of the sinuous
sided bowl is painted with polychrome design, which were used by white and dark brown paint. One
miniature spouted bowl is almost identical to the unpainted example from Tell Umm Qseir, but it ispainted. Bowl shape vessels with painted decoration on the underside of the bases seem likely to be
used as lids. Deep bowls with incurving rims are commonly seen. Jar shapes are of two variations:jars with necks and jars with beveled rims. Illustrated jar example with beveled rim, which was
found during the preliminary sounding in 1934, has a ring base. Distinct type of vessel shape is
spouted bowls with solid lug handle. These variations of vessel shapes are quite similar to Tell Umm
Qseir materials, except for the existence of jars with beveled rims.
As for painted design lozenge filled with cross hatch, cables, chevrons, rows of chevrons, crow
foot, eggs and dots, simple cross hatch, and stylized bucranium are illustrated. All of these motifs are
known at Tell Umm Qseir. The resemblance between the two sites is not limited to the vessel shape,
but the decorations are also quite similar.

Late Halaf Pottery Assemblage
Although pottery assemblages of Late Halaf period is out of scope of our discussion, it ismeaningful to deal with the pottery assemblage of the following stage, i.e. Late Halaf period, in orderto clarify the characteristics of Middle Halaf pottery. As already mentioned above, the distinction
between the Middle and the Late Halaf periods is less obvious than that between the Early and the
Middle Halaf periods. It seems that the transition from the Middle to the Late Halaf Period is gradualrather than an abrupt change. A general continuity of ceramic tradition is maintained.
TT7-6 layers of Arpachiyah were attributed to Late Halaf period by Davidson (Davidson 1977,
p. 53). Although cream bowls (Form 2) disappeared in Late Halaf period in Arpachiyah, sinuous sided
bowls (Form 6), saucers (Form 7) and jars with beveled rims (Form 14) are common in Late Halaf
period (ibid., pp. 56, 67). The vessel shapes which seem to be basically confined to the Late Halaf
period at Arpachiyah are widely open mouthed shallow and large sized bowls (Form 10), deep bowls
with composite profiles (Form 11), lids (Form 12), jars with short necks (Form 13) and bowls with
incurving rims (Form 15). At Tell Umm Qseir, however, lids (Shape X) and jars with short necks(Shape IXa) are already known in the Middle Halaf context.
Almost all vessel shapes found in the Middle Halaf period occured in the Late Halaf period ofTell Aqab. A few exceptions are sinuous sided bowls (Form 18) and pedestal bowls (Form 8), which
disappear in this period. Simple hemispherical bowls (Form 3) are still predominant. "Saucers" (Form7), bowls with flaring sides (Form 16) and disc based bowls with S profiles (Form 19), which areconsidered to be common in the later part of the Middle Halaf period, markedly increase. The othertype of sinuous sided bowls (Form 6) and bowls with incurving rims (Form 15) first appear in the Late
Halaf period.
Concerning the decoration, polychrome painting becomes much more popular (Davidson 1977, p.
148). The other thing to be noted is the existence of the Red Washed Ware at Tell Umm Qseir. It has
been considered that this type of ware appears in the Late Halaf and continues to Halaf-Ubaid
Transitional phase (Davidson 1977, p. 155).

NEW LIGHT ON MIDDLE HALAF PERIOD183

New criteria for Middle Halaf pottery assemblage
The Halaf pottery from Tell Umm Qseir shows a general resemblance to Middle Halaf pottery
from Arpachiyah. The significant differences between the two sites are the absence of jars withbeveled rims (Form 14) and the occurrence of jars with short and vertical necks (Shape IXa) and lids
(Shape X) at Tell Umm Qseir. New evidence from Tell Sabi Abyad shows that lid has a long
tradition since Early Halaf period (Akkermans 1989, Fig. IV. 35: 255). In layer 12 of Chagar Bazar,
which is dated to the Middle Halaf period, some vessels which are almost identical to the lids from
Tell Umm Qseir were also obtained (Mallowan 1936, Fig. 25: 1, 3). It is clear that lid is not a feature
specific to the Late Halaf period any more. As for jars with short and vertical necks this type ofvessel is also attested in the earlier part of the Middle Halaf period at Tell Aqab.
It can be assumed that the Middle Halaf pottery assemblage of Tell Aqab, especially the laterpart, has a much more progressed stage of inventory than Arpachiyah and Tell Umm Qseir. The
absence of cream bowls and the occurrence of new forms such as shallow bowls with flaring sides(Form 16), jars with beveled rims (Form 14) and disc based bowls with S profiles (Form 19), whichbecome dominant in the Late Halaf period, and the occurrence of new decoration technique likepainted and incised decoration, support this view. These new features are totally absent in the
Middle Halaf strata at Tell Umm Qseir and also Arpachiyah, except for jars with beveled rims.
When it is taken into consideration that most of these new features continuously occur in the Late
Halaf and even in the Halaf-Ubaid Transitional strata at Tell Aqab, these features should be
assigned not to Middle Halaf but Late Halaf period (Fig. 75). The other significant difference is theoccurrence of Red Washed Ware at Tell Umm Qseir. Although only a few pieces of Red Wash Wareare attested at Tell Umm Qseir, the black painting on red wash is a typical feature for Red Washed
Ware known from Tell Aqab (Davidson 1977). Although Red Wash Ware was thought to be confined
to Late Halaf and Halaf-Ubaid Transitional periods, new evidence from Tell Umm Qseir reveals that
this kind of ware occurred already in Middle Halaf period.
The other matter that needs to be reconsidered is the possibility of the sub-division of Middle
Halaf period. New evidence from Tell Umm Qseir reveals that Davidson's scheme is not so reliable.
According to Davidson, the pottery assemblages which include cream bowls are attributed to theearlier part of the Middle Halaf period. At Tell Umm Qseir, however, saucers (Shape Id), pedestal
bowls (Shape VII) and vessels with squared rims, which are considered to be of the later part of
Middle Halaf period, are found together with cream bowls. However, this does not mean that the
Middle Halaf period cannot be divided into sub-phases, because there is no evidence whether Tell
Umm Qseir covers the entire Middle Halaf period or not. Besides the occurrence of cream bowls, therelatively high ratio of bowls with straight or slightly flaring sides (Shape Ila-d), which are considerably predominant in the Early Halaf period, and absence of polychrome decoration are inclined toconsider that Tell Umm Qseir represents the earlier part of the Middle Halaf period. If this is thecase, the absence of jars with beveled rims at Tell Umm Qseir can be explain in this respect.
b. Regional Aspects in Middle Halaf Period
As already pointed out by Davidson, Halaf pottery traditions in the Upper Khabur valley and theEski Mosul region in North Mesopotamia show close resemblance and similar developments (Davidson 1977, p. 192). It became clear that the Middle Khabur valley is also included in this basic unity.
The pottery sequence of Arpachiyah and Tell Aqab represents the Halaf tradition in these regions
well, but it needs the modifications as pointed out above. Below we will deal with the Halaf pottery
assemblage, especially Middle Halaf pottery, from outside these regions in order to examine whether
this framework can still be applied.

184

Yutaka MIYAKE

Euphrates Valley
At Yunus, located north of Carchemish, Halaf pottery was found together with pottery kilns andTholos type architecture (Woolley 1934). The repertoire of these vessel shapes (Dirvana 1944) reveal
general resemblance to those of Tell Umm Qseir. Sinuous sided bowls are the most predominantvessel shape (Woolley 1934, p. 153), and one of the variations with high necks (Shape V d) isoutstanding. The vessels with squared rim are also seen among these shapes. Adding the pedestal
bowls presented by Woolley to these (ibid., Fig. 3: 15), most of the vessel shapes attested at Tell Umm
Qseir were also found at Yunus. The only significant difference is the absence of cream bowls at
Yunus 10 •It is maintained that the occupation at Yunus continued to Late Halaf period because of theoccurrence of lids (Shape X), while other features are attributed to Middle Halaf period (Davidson
1977, pp. 221-22). Based on our new criteria for the Middle Halaf period, lid is also one of theinventory of the vessel shapes. It can be concluded that the inhabitation of Yunus is confined to
Middle Halaf period.
The other relatively well-documented Halaf site located in the Euphrates valley is Shams ed-Din. Although, in fact, four distinct levels were recognized at Shams ed-Din during the excavationsin 1974, most of the finds including pottery, unfortunately, had to be dealt with as one lump without
stratigraphical context (Gustavson-Gaube 1981, p. 10).
It is not easy to directly correlate the rather complicated typology of Shams ed-Din to that ofTell Umm Qseir. S-curved bowls (bowl category 5 after Gustavson-Gaube's typology), which arepartially comparable to sinuous sided bowls (Shape V) at Tell Umm Qseir, are predominant amongbowl shapes (ibid., p. 44). Other common shapes are flared rim or sinuous sided bowls (bowl category4), hemispherical bowls (bowl category 2) and small bowls or cups (bowl category 7), which arepartially comparable to sinuous sided bowls (Shape V), hemispherical bowls (Shape Ill) and deepbowls witf. incurving rims (Shape VIa) from Tell Umm Qseir. Nevertheless, hemispherical bowls
from Shams ed-Din includes bowls with incurving rims (ibid., Fig. 275-284) which are comparable toForm 15 of Davidson's typology (Davidson 1977, p. 66). It seems that bowls with straight or slightly
flaring sides makes up no large group. Other significant differences are the absence of cream bowls
and the infrequent occurrence of squared rims at Shams ed-Din. The occurrence of bow-rim jars
(Gustavson-Gaube 1981, Fig. 416-418) are also peculiar to Shams ed-Din.
It was concluded that the pottery from Shams ed-Din is comparable to later Middle Halaf andLate Halaf periods of Tell Aqab (ibid., p. 90). However, some of the vessel shapes among Late Halaf
strata at Tell Aqab are apparently lacking at Shams ed-Din. It seems that at least a part of pottery
assemblage from Shams ed-Din represents the Middle Halaf period. A serious disadvantage ofShams ed-Din material is that the stratigraphical context is not available.
Tell Turlu is the only site which provides a relatively long Halaf sequence in the Euphrates
drainage area. Here seven architectural levels are attested during the excavations and, in contrast towhat was previously suggested, Halaf pottery was obtained from all seven layers 11 (Breniquet 1991).
It is determined that the pottery from layer I-V dates to Late Halaf period and layer VI-VII is Halaf-Ubaid Transitional period. Unfortunately pottery assemblage usually represented by small frag-

10

There is one vessel that is similar to cream bowls (Dirvana 1944). It seems to have no carination on theinterior side and painted decoration is not typical for the Middle Halaf type of cream bowls. On the other
hand Davidson reported that a rim shard of jar with beveled rim (Form 14) was present in the collection of
Istanbul Archaeological Museum (Davidson 1977, p. 220).
11
Only a brief report was available for the results of the excavations at Tell Turlu (Mellink 1964, p. 156).
The stratigraphy was described as follows : levels 1-2 no painted pottery ; levels 3-4 Halaf painted ware
occurred ; levels 5-6 Northern Ubaid Ware is replaced Halaf Painted Ware.

NEW LIGHT ON MIDDLE HALAF PERIOD

185

ments is not enough to reconstruct the whole picture of these periods. The significance of the Tell
Turlu material is to indicate the occurrence of Late Halaf and Halaf-Ubaid Transitional periods inthis region and the validity of the sequence based on Arpachiyah and Tell Aqab to further westernareas.
The Balikh valley
In recent years the Balikh valley has been intensively investigated by a Dutch mission. The
regional framework of prehistoric chronology is based on the results of the excavations at Tell
Damishliyya, Tell Sabi Abyad and Khirbet esh-Shenef, and the general survey along the valley(Akkermans 1993). We are concerned with the Balikh IIIB, IIIC and IIID periods which are comparable to Early, Middle and Late Halaf periods respectively. The discovery of the Early Halaf strata
at Tell Sabi Abyad, Balikh IIIB period, brought new light on the origin of Halaf culture.
The "type site" for Balikh IIIC or Middle Halaf period is Tell Damishliyya (Akkermans 1993).
Here Halaf pottery was attested from a series of pits dug into Neolithic levels (Akkermans 1988b, p.
30). It is pointed out that the vessel shapes such as large low necked pots and jars, and sinuous sided
bowls are comparable to those of the Middle Halaf phase of Tell Aqab (ibid., p. 32). The absence ofpolychrome painting, large plates and saucers and painted motifs consisting of rosettes, checkerboards and horizontally oriented bucranium, which occur exclusively in the Late Halaf contexts at
Arpachiyah and Tell Aqab, indicate that Tell Damishliyya is of the Middle Halaf period. As pointed
out by the excavator' himself, however, the pottery from Tell Damishliyya shows diversity among thevarious pits (ibid., p. 33). It seems likely that Halaf pottery from Tell Damishliyya also contains
earlier materials as indicated by the occurrence of cream bowls. Unfortunately many of the illustrated shards were collected from the surface. It seems quite likely that Tell Damishliyya material
contains Middle Halaf pottery, but, on the other hand, it is unfortunately not sufficient and rather
faint to represent the full scope of the Middle Halaf pottery assemblage in the Balikh valley.
According to the Balikh chronology, the next phase, Late Halaf or Balikh IIID period, isrepresented by Khirbet esh-Shenef (Akkermans 1993). Here sinuous sided bowls makes up half of thebowl shapes (ibid., p. 93), and hemispherical bowls, some of them having squared rims, and bowls withstraight sides are also common. Jars with short and vertical necks, jars with high necks and jars witheverted necks are the main components of closed shapes. This repertoire of vessel shapes shows
general resemblance to those of Tell Umm Qseir. The most significant difference is the occurrenceof bow-rim jars and the absence of cream bowls at Khirbet esh-Shenef.
Khirbet esh-Shenef is assigned to Late Halaf period because of the difference in pottery
assemblage which shows later aspects in comparison with Tell Damishliyya (Akkermans 1993, p. 135).
No vessel shapes that are peculiar to Late Halaf period of Tell Aqab and Arpachiyah were attested
at Khirbet esh-Shenef, except for bow-rim jars 12 , although it is attributed to Halaf-Ubaid Transitional period. It is maintained that the pottery sequence in the Balikh valley is not necessarily
coincident or simultaneous to the sequence of Arpachiyah and Tell Aqab (Akkermans 1993, p. 123).
This might be true, but then one must explain the reason why there is a general resemblance between
the Middle Halaf pottery of Tell Umm Qseir and Khirbet esh-Shenef. If Tell Turlu really represents
the Late Halaf and Halaf-Ubaid Transitional periods in the western region, the regional frameworkfor Halaf chronology in the Balikh valley needs reconsideration.
It is maintained that bow-rim jars occur earlier than in Halaf-Ubaid Transitional period based on theevidence from the Amuq Plain (Akkermans 1993, p. 135). Bow-rim jars from Shams ed-Din can be alsointerpreted in the same way. It seems likely that the occurrence of some vessel shapes such as bow-rim jars
and bowls with incurving rims in the Euphrates valley should be considered in the framework of therelationship with the Red Wash Ware in the Levant.
12

186

Yutaka MIY AKE

Southeastern Anatolia
The Halaf sites dealt with in this section are characterized by the relatively low ratio of Halaf
Painted pottery in the entire pottery assemblage. Yunus and Tell Turlu, which are geopoliticallylocated in Southeastern Anatolia, are treated elsewhere because of the high ratio of Halaf Painted
pottery like other sites in Syria.
~avi Tarlas1 was located in the Atattirk Dam reservoir area. Five layers are attested during the
excavations in 1983-84, and lower two layers were uncovered only in the small scale deep sounding(von Wickede und Herbordt 1988). In the upper three layers, layers 3-1, Halaf Painted Ware is lesscommon, around 31-32%, in contrast with chaff tempered Coarse Ware (ibid., p. 20). The repertoireof the vessel shapes shows general resemblance to that of Tell Umm Qseir. It seems that sinuous
sided bowls (Shape V) are predominant and one variation with high necks (Shape Vd) was commonly
attested here (ibid., Abb. 8 : 1, 3, 5). The inventory of jar shapes is quite similar to those of Tell Umm
Qseir; jars with short and vertical necks (Shape IXa), in some cases with knob handles, jars with highand vertical necks (Shape IXb) and jars with short and everted necks (Shape IXc). The significant
difference is the absence of cream bowls at ~avi Tarlas1.
It was concluded that ~avi Tarlas1 was inhabited from the end of Early Halaf to Late Halaf
periods (ibid., p. 24). The only evidence to suggest the Late Halaf occupation here is the polychrome
painted decoration with white pigment (ibid., p. 20). Vessel shapes which are assigned to Late Halaf
period is not attested at ~a vi Tarlas1 as far as we know. It seems quite likely that Halaf occupation
at ~avi Tarlas1 is confined to Middle Halaf period.
The other Halaf site located in the same reservoir area is Kurban HoyUk (Algaze et al. 1990). In
deep soundings in Area A, Halaf strata, 1.5m thick, were attested on the virgin soiL While thisdeposit was divided into 5 phases, the pottery assemblage bears homogeneous character (ibid., p. 227).
The ratio of Halaf painted pottery is less common, comprising 34%. Deep bowls with straight sides
are predc.,minant among the Halaf Painted pottery from Kurban HoyUk. Vessel shape assignable toLate Halaf period was not attested. It seems likely that the most probable date for Kurban HoyUk
is Middle Halaf period.
The repertoire of the vessel shapes in Girikihaciyan (Watson and LeBlanc 1990, Figure 4.1) shows
close resemblance to those of Tell Umm Qseir, while the ratio of Halaf Painted pottery remains about
15%. Straight sided bowls and concave sided bowls, which are comparable to bowls with straight orslightly flaring sides at Tell Umm Qseir (Shape Ila-d) make up the largest group, whereas round-sided bowls, comparable to hemispherical bowls at Tell Umm Qseir (Shape Ilia-c), are less common.
Among bowl shapes squared rims decorated with rim ticks were also found (ibid., Fig. 4.6: 2, 4.7: 3).
Although cream bowls (Shape IV) and sinuous sided bowls (Shape Va-d) are treated as the same
vessel shape as flaring rim bowls, it is certain that both shapes were attested. Some of the creambowls are certainly fully decorated on the interior necks, being comparable to Middle Halaf type ofcream bowls. Among jar shapes, squatted jars with everted rims (Shape IXc) and jars with high necks(Shape IXb) are known ; all rims are simple and no fragments with beveled rims were found. It isreported that ring bases and pedestal bases were attested, but the number is small (ibid., p. 42).
According to the excavators, Halaf pottery from Girikihaciyan is dated to Middle and Late
Halaf period 13 (ibid., p. 65). However, the Halaf pottery from Girikihaciyan fits in well with Tell
Umm Qseir and can be dated to Middle Halaf period.
Further northeast in Anatolia, a small sized site located on the eastern shore of the Lake Van,
Tilkitepe, contains relatively well documented materials for Halaf period. This site has drawn
attention in relation to obsidian trading (Mellaart 1975, p. 162). Although Tilkitepe was excavatedthree times since 1899 (Korfmann 1982, pp. 19-21), no detailed report was published. Owing to the re13

This is based on the new results from Hijara's excavations at Tall Arpachiyah.

NEW LIGHT ON MIDDLE HALAF PERIOD

187-analysis of the material from earlier excavations, the aspect of the Halaf pottery at Tilkitepe
became partially clear (Watson 1982, Korfmann 1982).
Phase Ill of Tilkitepe, the lowest layers, is attributed to Halaf period. The repertoire of thevessel shapes are as follows: Flare sided bowls, comparable to bowls with straight or slightly flaring
sides (Shape Ila-d) from Tell Umm Qseir; round sided bowls (Shape Ilia-c); flare-mouthed bowls(Shape IV) ; bowls with in-curved rims (Shape VIa) ; open mouthed jars with short necks and bulging
sides (Shape IXc) ; collared jars (Shape IXb) ; and Biihsen/jars with short necks (Shape IXa). The
cream bowls of Tilkitepe are fully decorated on the interior necks (Korfmann 1982, Abb. 4A-7, 8) andcomparable to the Middle Halaf type of cream bowls. This variation of vessel shapes shows close
resemblance to those of Tell Umm Qseir, although some vessel shapes which were attested at Umm
Qseir are lacking at Tilkitepe. It can be concluded that Tilkitepe is dated to Middle Halaf period.

c. Concluding Remarks
The conventional framework of Halaf chronology based on the sequence of Arpachiyah and Tell
Aqab is unclear, especially on the distinction between Middle and Late Halaf periods. The proposalof a bipartite frame for Halaf chronology was a practical solution under the circumstances. The new
evidence from Tell Umm Qseir, however, indicates that three-or four-fold division of Halaf period
is still useful to some extent. Pottery assemblage from Tell Umm Qseir shows distinct characteristics
not to be compared to Late Halaf period. Although according to the bipartite frame this pottery
assemblage is assignable to the earlier phase, there is a clear distinction with Early Halaf pottery andsome features suggested to be later elements are already seen here. Pottery assemblage from Tell
Umm Qseir can not be attributed to other than Middle Halaf period.
Based on the new evidence from Tell Umm Qseir it is possible to distinguish the Middle Halaf
pottery assemblage in a reliable way. Accordingly, it reveals that the Middle Halaf pottery
assemblage defined by the sequence of Arpachiyah and Tell Aqab needs modification. It seems quite
likely that many features regarded to occur in the later part of the Middle Halaf period at Tell Aqab
should be assigned to Late Halaf period and the division of the Middle Halaf period is not valid atleast in the manner suggested by Davidson.
With this new criteria based on the evidence from Tell Umm Qseir, we can summarize what had
happened in Middle Halaf period as follows. The most significant event is the spread of Halaf
settlements into a wider geographical area. The expansion of the Halaf sites into the semi-arid zones
seems to have happened during the Middle Halaf period as indicated by the occurrence of such sites
as Tell Umm Qseir, Shams ed-Din and the settlements in the Balikh valley (Akkermans 1993, p. 205).
Towards the north, into southeastern Anatolia, also during Middle Halaf period, Halaf settlements
seem to enlarge the distribution area. There is no clear evidence for Early Halaf occupation in thisregion. Most of the Halaf settlements established during the Middle Halaf period is known from
Girikihaciyan, Tilkitepe and Kurban Hoyiik. As long there is insufficient investigation in this region,it seems too early to conclude that no Early Halaf occupation had existed. There is convincing
evidence, however, to reinforce this view. In northern Syria and northern Mesopotamia, Halaf
pottery generally comprises more than 60% of the ceramic assemblage; especially at Arpachiyah,
Tell Aqab and Khirbet esh-Shenef where the figure is more than 90%. At Tell Umm Qseir it is 88%.
It is possible to refer to these regions as "Halaf nuclear area". The southern part of the southeastern
Anatolia, as known from Yunus and Tell Turlu, is also included in this criterion. In the other partof the southeastern Anatolia, however, the ratio of Halaf Painted pottery in the pottery assemblageis less than 30% : Girikihaciyan (15%), <;avi Tarlas1 (30%) and Kurban Hoyiik (30 %), although theother significant Halaf elements such as tholos type of architecture and stamp seals were found. It
is probably not a coincidence that only in the above mentioned nuclear area the evidence of the Early
Halaf occupations has been attested so far.

188

Yutaka MIY AKE

Distribution area of Halaf pottery itself is actually spread out in a much larger area than has
been treated above. In regions such as Northwestern Syria, Cilicia, Eastern Anatolia and even in theTrans-Caucasus Halaf Painted pottery was attested 14 • Generally Halaf Painted Ware comprise lessthan 10%, mostly less than 5%, in these regions. Pottery in the local tradition constitutes the largest
group and such elements as tholos type architecture were not found. At present the picture of Halaf
pottery in these region remains fragmentary and it is not possible to give a distinct date to thesematerials. It seems that at least there is no convincing evidence for the Late Halaf and Halaf-Ubaid
Transitional periods. Taking highly faint occurrence of the Late Halaf occupation in the southeastern Anatolia into consideration, it is not altogether impossible that the spread of Halaf pottery inthese regions happened during Middle Halaf period. For the time being, however, this kind of view
remains highly speculative. It is necessary to establish the fine chronology of Halaf period, especiallythe period following Tell Umm Qseir pottery assemblage, and to clarify the regional variations
among Halaf pottery assemblages.

In the Middle Mesopotamia Halaf Painted Ware was also obtained. The situation in this region is rather
different from other peripheral regions_ It seems likely that the expansion of Halaf elements there happenedin the last stage of Halaf period. The ratio of Halaf Painted pottery is rather high and tholos type ofarchitecture was found at Tell Hassan (Fiorina 1984, 1987).
14

3. HALAF CHIPPED STONE INDUSTRYOF TELL UMM QSEIROsamu MAEDA
I will discuss the reconstruction of core reduction process and tool making based on the chippedstone assemblage of Tell Umm Qseir. It is concerned especially with coarse-grained local flint
artifacts which were apparently produced in the site. The analysis of fine-grained flint and obsidian
artifacts is added in the later part of this section.
a. Reconstruction of Production Process
The character of local coarse-grained flint artifacts is as follows.
• These artifacts amount to 496 pieces in all. This number is considerably larger than that of fine-grained flint.
• Flakes are consisted of the most part. The plan form of these flakes is irregular and no regular-shaped blade is found.
• Two types of cores are included.
• A few refreshment pieces are present.
Judging from such features, it is certain that chipped stone manufacture of these local flint
artifacts was carried out within the site. A large number of debitage, especially cores and flakes
enable us to reconstruct their manufacture process. It seems that the production of local coarse-grained flint artifacts occupied a main part of chipped stone manufacturing at Tell Umm Qseir.
(1) Reconstruction of core reduction strategy
Cores
Cores made of local flints can be divided into two sub-types, i.e. single-platformed cores andmulti-platformed cores. Judging from the final flake scars left on the cores, each sub-type represents
a different mode of reduction strategy (Fig. 76).
Single-platformed cores have a flat platform produced by a single or a few blows and other core
preparation rarely occurs. Pebbles and, in some cases, large flakes are selected as core-blanks.
Knapping is carried out usually in the same direction. Therefore, position of platform does notchange, excluding the case where platform refreshment occurs. The flakes knapped from these cores
are relatively thin and have sharp edge angles, compared with the flakes from multi-platform cores.
According to the progress of knapping, reduction process can be divided into the following stages :1) First stage : only one flake scar, besides the platform, is left on the surface of core representing
the primary stage that the first flake was removed. 2) Second stage : some flakes were removed withthe progress of knapping, while cortex still remains on the surface of core. Such pieces are mostcommon. 3) Third stage : almost entire surface of core is covered with flake scars as knapping is
progressed. This is the final stage of core reduction strategy. All specimens attributed to the third
stage are generally smaller than others. Such features of single-platformed cores indicate that asimple core reduction process was applied. In rare cases, the damaged platform is removed to create
a new platform during this process. Core refreshment, by removing the step which was left on coresurface possibly due to the miss of knapping, also occurs. However, most of these cores seem to havebeen abandoned before being completely used.
On the other hand, multi-platformed cores have irregular shapes because the position of platform

190

Osamu MAEDA

Single-platformed coreC).

First stage

Second stage

Third stage.·.

pebble or large flake-Multi-platformed coreFig. 76 Core reduction process of local flints.

changes frequently in the course of core reduction. No specimen which shows core preparation was
attested. Multi-platformed cores also represent several stages of reduction process like stages 1-3of the single-platform cores, although final flake scars are left in various directions. Since theposition of the platform is selected according to the shape of blank, the direction of knapping is
random. Similar to single-platformed cores, most of them were abandoned before exhaustion.
Core preparation pieces, refreshment pieces
There are no core preparation pieces or refreshment pieces which sustain the core reduction
process, although we can theoritically expect their existence based on the observation of coresurfaces as mentioned above.
FlakesFlakes include both non-worked flakes (debitage flakes) and flakes used as tool blanks. As
shown in the typelist, these flakes are a major component of local flint artifacts. Most of them haveplain butts and relatively developed bulbs on the ventral surface. They were probably struck by ahard hammer. Many pieces have cortex on their dorsal surfaces. Their plan forms are so irregularthat we cannot classify by the plan forms. Thus, classification is carried out according to theprevious flake scars on their dorsal surface, mainly based on the mode of cortex and the direction of
flake scars.
Flakes can be divided into the following three types.
Type-1 : flakes with cortex covering all parts of their dorsal surface.
Type-2 : flakes with cortex partially covering their dorsal surface.
Type-3: flakes without cortex
It is apparent that each type reflects the progress of core reduction stage. Type-1 seems to havebeen knapped from the core in primary reduction stage or "First stage" mentioned above of bothtypes of cores. Similarly, Type-2 flakes probably come from "Second stage". On the other hand,
Type-3 can be produced from cores of both "Second" or "Third stage".
In addition, flakes can be subdivided into three categories depending on the aspects of flake scars
on their dorsal surface.
Type-s: flakes with two or more previous flake scars on their dorsal surface in a parallel direction.
The axis of knapping on the ventral surface is also parallel with them. This type flakes were possibly

HALAF CHIPPED STONE INDUSTRY OF TELL UMM QSEIR

191

knapped from single-platformed cores.
Type-m : flakes with one or more previous flake scars in various directions on their dorsal surface.
The axis of knapping on the ventral surface does not correspond to that of dorsal flake scars. This
type possibly derives from multi-platformed cores.
Type-b: flakes with one previous flake scar on their dorsal surface. The scar is parallel with axisof knapping on the ventral surface. These pieces occur occasionally and possibly come from both
single- or multi-platformed cores.
These sub-types reflect different processes in core reduction strategy. Type-s, type-m and type-b seem to correspond with single-platformed core reduction, multi-platformed core reduction andboth types of core reduction, respectively.
Based on these two classifications, all these flakes can be divided into six types (Fig. 77). The
proportion of each type is shown in Fig. 78. Each type represents the stage and process of reduction
strategy at the time when these flakes were knapped from the core. It can be said that the reduction
strategy reconstructed from the evidence of cores holds true for the result of the analysis of flakes.
From the analysis of cores, refreshment pieces and flakes, two processes of core reduction
strategy were reconstructed (Fig. 79). The production of all flint debitage and tool blanks in local
flint artifacts from Halaf period of Tell Umm Qseir can be explained by these two processes.
(2) Tool making
Here we will analyze the production of tools which were made on flake-form blanks. In analysis
1 the relation between each tool type and its blank type is examined, especially on the selection ofType 1

Type 2Type 3Types

Type m

i:'·

·1

•

~-

·; \
Typeb

-

Type m_Fig. 77 Classification of flake-types.

All flakes

type b-2
10%
type 117%

type s-2
13%

type s-3
14%

type m-3
23%

Fig. 78 Proportion of each flake-type.

~- rC!

~V

192

Osamu MAEDA

Tool- typei

borersI..

burinsbacked pieces
large scrapers
retouched flakesautilized flakes

composlt tool

{.
j

I

retouced bladesFine-grained flint

line blades~

utilized blades
sickle element

Obsidian

blados,bladelets

L---co_re__t---' Ibladolots,nakelotslarrowheads
stemed bladesFig. 79 Production process of chipped stone artifacts in Tell Umm Qseir.

blanks. In analysis 2 the relationship between each tool type and the position of their working-edge
wil be analized. Both analyses are carried out mainly by retouched flakes and utilized flakes because
they are representative and occupy 78.5% of all local flint tools.
Analysisl: Relation between tool-type and their blank-type(a) Retouched flake• Steep edge (small scraper) : the proportion of each flake-type which is used as blanks of steep edge
retouched flakes is shown in Fig. 80. It indicates that these tools consist of all types of flakes and the
proportions of each type are similar. Although type-m flakes amount for 44.4% of the total, type-s
flakes occupy some quantity as well (27.8%). Intentional selection of blank-type does not seem tooccur. Considering each sub-type of these tools (straight edge, convex edge, concave edge and doubleedge), each sub-type indicates a similar tendency that both type-s and type-m flakes are used as tool
blanks, while type-m is more common (Fig. 80). Thus, it can be said that this tendency is common
in all steep edge retouched flakes and the selection of blank rarely occurs.
• Sharp edge (small knife) : it is difficult to show a reliable proportion of blank-type distribution inthis type because of the small number of samples. These tool blanks consist of both type-s and type-m flakes as well as steep edge retouched flakes (Fig. 80). It seems that the selection of blank-type
also does not occur.
(b) Utilized flake• Thick type : similar to retouched flakes, all flake-types were used as blanks for these tools. Type-m flakes are most common (46.0 %, Fig. 80). Proportion of each type is similar to those of steep edge
retouched flakes. Each type of flake seems to have been used as tool blanks without intentional
selection.
• Thin type : the blank-type of these tools is apparently different from other tools in their proportion. Type-s flakes account for 66%, although all flake-types were used as blanks. Such an uneven
proportion means that there was some selection of blank-type. Type-s flakes seem to be mostappropriate as blanks for these tools.
The results can be summarized as follows.
1) There seems to be no intentional selection of blank-type in steep edge retouched flakes, sharpedge retouched flakes and thick type utilized flakes. These tools were made of various types of

HALAF CHIPPED STONE INDUSTRY OF TELL UMM QSEIRAll steep edge
Retouched flakes

193

Thick typeUtilized flakes

Sharp edge
Retouched flakes

type b-2

8.3%
type 119.4%

type m-2
42.9%

type m-3
19.4%

Straight
type b-2
5.6%
type s-2
16.7%
type 1
type s-3
33.3%
5.6%
type m-3
11.1%

type m-2
27.8%

Concavetype b-2
14%
type 114%
typem-329%

ConvexThin typeUtilized flakes
typem-3
33.3%

type b-2
5%
type m-3

8%

type m-2
16.7%

type m-2
13%

Double edge

type s-3
14%

s-3

type m-3
20.0%
type m-2

20.0%

Fig. 80 Proportion of blank (flake) - types in each tool- type.

blanks.
2) In thin type utilized flakes, intentional selection according to blank- type occasionally took place.
Type-s flakes are dominant. It is possible that type-s flakes were originally produced in order to be
used as blanks for these thin type utilized flakes.
3) However, these type- s flakes were also used as blank for other tool types. Meanwhile type-m
flakes are used as blanks of thin type utilized flakes, their proportion is small. These facts suggestthat the relationship between tool type and their blank is not very strict. One blank- type does notdirectly correspond to any tool type.

Analysis 2: Relation between each tool-type and the position of their working-edge
This analysis is mainly concerned with the relationship between tool - types and the position of
the working-edges. In other words, whether their working-edges are made on regular position ofblanks or not.
Fig. 81 shows the working-edge position in each tool-type when a specimen is laid with its dorsal
surface pointing upward and distal end pointing towards the reader. The numbers from 1 to 8 referto a part of the margin of blank which is divided evenly into eight parts (Fig. 81). The percentages
indicate the frequency with which each 1 to 8 part is used as the working-edge. As shown in Fig. 81
all tool-types utilize all parts as the working- edges and the percentages do not differ significantly.
In each tool-type, all parts of their marginal edge (except the butt, parts 1 and 8) were used equally
as working-edge, although sharp edge retouched flakes indicate relative uneven distribution in
proportion due to the small number (only 7 pieces in total).
This common tendency among all tool-types suggests that more proper parts were selected to use
as the working-edge, according to the work at hand. The working edge seems to have been selected194

Osamu MAEDA

All Steep edge
Retouched flakes

Shrpe edge
Retouched flakes
1401t,,·~:_.,
5

151

5

1

201

8

2

• 3
6

Thick typeUtilized flakes

1

1
251

201

5

Thin typeUtilized flakes

Steep edge
Retouched flakes(sub-types)

8

Yf:.

1

•

1-

4

1--convex

sraiahti•. -------concav_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __j

251T
2011

2

''*~'
5

Fig. 81 Position of working-edges in each tool-type.

without concern for plan form of each tool-type. Thus, it can be said that there is no relation between
tool-type and the position of working-edge.
(3) Other tools

The result of this analysis also appropriates for other local flint tool-types, for example, borers,
burins and backed pieces. As for these tools, it cannot be discussed in detail here because of the small
number of samples. However, within these samples all blank-types were used for each tool-type aswell as retouched flakes or utilized flakes. There is no significant difference from other tool-types.

(4) Results
Based on the reconstruction of core reduction strategy, it is apparent that the people of Tell
Umm Qseir used two different reduction strategies in order to make the local coarse-grained flint
artifacts. It seems that the single-platformed core reduction strategy, which produces type-s flakes,
were carried out to make thin type utilized flakes. However, judging from the analysis of tool
making (Analysis 1), they did not alternatively use either reduction strategy to make a particular tool
type. They used blanks from both reduction strategies to produce almost all tool types. There seems
to have been a rare plan of what type of tool was to be made during the core reduction. This factindicates that the entire form of blank is not particularly important so long as better working-edges
are obtained. In these artifacts, the major purpose of tool production is to produce proper working-edges. This assumption is supported by the analysis of the position of working-edges. Various
positions of the working-edge mean that the production of the working-edges had preference overthe entire form of the tools. The people did not seem to pay attention to the form of tools, making
it different from some Neolithic flint artifacts, for example, end- or side-scrapers which are made on
regular-shaped blades. The reason for this is not certain, but this idea can be recognized consistently
throughout all local flint artifacts from Halaf period of Tell Umm Qseir.

HALAF CHIPPED STONE INDUSTRY OF TELL UMM QSEIR

195

b. Fine- Grained Flint Artifacts
A small number of artifacts made of fine-grained flints were found in Halaf chipped stoneassemblage of Tell Umm Qseir. All of them are blades or tools made on blades and no core wasrecovered. This fact apparently indicates that these artifacts were brought into the site in finishedblade-form. Unlike local flint flakes, they have linear or punctiform butts and their bulbs are notdeveloped. They can be considered to have been knapped by pressure flaking technique. Regarding
tools, most of these blade-form blanks were used as retouched blades, utilized blades and sickle
elements. Since these three tool- types are similar in dimensions and plan forms (Fig. 82), it isappropriate to suppose that blades made from fine- grained flints were used for the same purpose.
Although it is uncertain whether these blades were produced and brought to the site by the people ofTell Umm Qseir or imported from other sites, there is a distinct difference between these fine - grained
flint tools and local coarse- grained flint tools in their production and use.

Flint blade
5

Ill With sheen
lll!IRetouched

4

D Not retouched•Utilized

Cii 3
..Cl

E

~ 2

0
~
~

'

N

0
~

I!)

(')

I!)

C\i

0
N

M

c:\i

d>

"1
I!)
M

I!)

"<i

.;.

u;>
~
~

I!)

.0

.n

<D

.n
.0

f'o..

.n
eO

Cl)

.n
r--:

LengthFig. 82 Dimensions of fine -grained flint blades.

c. Obsidian Artifacts
As obsidian artifacts, several pieces of debitage and two pieces of cores were recovered alongsidewith a large number of blades, including retouched or utilized blades. However, considering the large
number of blades, there are really only a few specimens which support evidence of blade- productionin the site. Although relatively large flakes and a core tablet were found, they are few in number.
Therefore, it can be thought that most of the obsidian blades were brought into the site from otherregions even if some production of obsidian artifacts was carried out within the site. Most of theblades were used only as retouched or utilized blades or bladelets. Other obsidian tool - types are
scarce as the blades of fine -grained flint. Obsidian blades are relatively smaller than flint blades(Fig. 83). On the other hand, there is some evidence of core reduction of the bladelets. Added to twocores, a number of small flakes were also found . Furthermore, a large number of chips and flakes
recovered from the chip-concentration area in Square I -6 suggests that some reduction strategy of
bladelet was carried out. However, judging from the final flake scars on the surface of the cores, thebladelets knapped from them seem to be less regular-shaped. They are different from the usual
regular-shaped bladelets found in other areas of this site. As a result, it can be summarized that mostobsidian blades and bladelets were brought into the site as finished blanks or tools.
d. Concluding Remarks
From the reconstructed production process of local coarse-grained flint artifacts, it is clear that

196

Osamu MAEDA

Obsidian blade
40
E:!Retouched
D Not retouched

30•Utilized

10

0
tq
.,...
.,...'

10'1

10LengthFig. 83 Dimensions of obsidian blades.

the entire tool forms are not important as long as effective working-edges are obtained. These
artifacts were possibly produced in the settlement. Meanwhile, the artifacts made of fine-grained
flints and obsidian were probably imported from elsewhere, or were produced and brought in by
specialists among the people of Tell Umm Qseir. In either case, such careful production of fine-grained flint or obsidian artifacts did not prevail among the daily activity of chipped stone
production in this site. It can be supposed that in spite of a consistent use of chipped stone tools suchas a number of retouched or utilized flakes or obsidian blades, the people of Tell Umm Qseir did not
produce these chipped stone artifacts of fine-grained flints and obsidian in their daily life.

4.

LATE CHALCOLITHIC CHRONOLOGY IN SYRIAAND NORTHERN MESOPOTAMIA
Toru TOMITA

After Ubaid 4 period, indigenous Late Chalcolithic culture appeared in Syria and Northern
Mesopotamia. Some scholors apply Uruk terminology of southern Mesopotamia directly to theseregions, and other scholors adopt indigeneous chronology. Thereafter, Ubaid-Uruk relative chronology of these regions has long been confused. For example, Eye Temple of Tell Brak, once dated toJemdet Nasr Period, now can go back originally about 500 years to Late chalcolithic period (Oates
and Oates 1993, p. 176).
I will discuss and pigeon hole chronological data of the Late Chalcolithic Period from various
sites, including Tell Umm Qseir, to establish a better understanding of the relative chronology in
Syria and Northern Mesopotamia.
Although various terms, such as "Late Chalcolithic", "Early Uruk", "Post-Ubaid", have beenused for the intermediate time between Ubaid period and Uruk period in the northern regions, noneof them are suitable to express this duration. Because this period is characterized by prosperity of
an indigeneous northern culture, both "Ubaid" and "Uruk" terms are unsuitable. Meanwhile, "Late
Chalcolithic" refers to a fairly wide time span. Due to the lacking of any other proper term, we haveto use "Late Chalcolithic" in a narrow sense to refer to the intermediate time parallel with Early
Uruk period in southern Mesopotamia.
Only Tell Brak produced the whole pottery sequence for this intermediate time, i.e. Late
Chalcolithic period. Therefore, the beginning of Late Chalcolithic period at CH trench of Tell Brak
was disturbed by levelling activity, and the report of this earlier sequence lacks sufficient illustration.
Thus, we can use materials from Tell Umm Qseir and other sites as supplemental data. I divide thisintermediate time into three sub-phases, i. e. Late Chalcolithic (LC) I, II and Ill for further discussion.

a. Late Chalcolithic I period
At Tell Brak, the earliest deposit of Late Chalcolithic period (Levels 15-20 : Oates, J. 1987) was
found directly on Late Ubaid layers in CH trench. The lower levelling fill produced a large amountof Coba bowls, some hole mouth pots, red burnished pottery, distinctive shaped jars, and a few black-on-red ware (Oates, J. 1987, p. 194). Unfortunately the latter three types of ware lack any illustration. The excavators reported at first that black-on-red ware, including Sprig ware, was found in
the upper levelling fill (Oates, ]. 1987, p. 194), but they corrected it to the lower levelling fill throughthe stratigraphical reexamination (Oates and Oates 1994). This reexamination can be supported withevidence from other sites.
Similar material came from Levels XII-XIIA at Tepe Gawra. These levels produced Coba bowls
and hole mouth pots, which are similar to the specimens from Tell Brak. U-shaped pots and bowls
with round flat base were also uncovered. Painted pottery are still plentiful in these levels.
Distinctive "Sprig pattern" and some varieties of panel motif were applied on the pottery from theselevels (Tobler 1950, Figs. 136-243, 275, 278).
Excavations at Tell Leilan produced the same types of pottery. Painted pottery of Post-Ubaidcharacter and Coba bowls appeared in Period VIb of Tell Leilan (Schwartz 1988, Fig. 62: 7-8, Fig.
65: 1-2, 4). Some hammer head rim bowls were also found in Period VIb. They show small-sized andthin-walled profiles (ibid., Fig. 65 : 6-7), like those from Tell Umm Qseir.
Excavations at Hammam et-Turkman, located in the Balikh valley, yielded a ceramic assem-

198

Toru TOMIT A

blage dating to LC I period. There is a contracted rim bowl with Sprig pattern painted decoration
and a shallow bowl with painted decoration on the inner surface (Akkermans 1988a, Pl. 97 : 4-5).
They show close affinity with those of Tepe Gawra XII- XIIA (Tobler 1950, Fig. 239, 243-245, 247).
Phase V A is characterized by the presence of Coba bowls and bead rim hole mouth pots (Akkermans
1988a, Pl. 99: 24-27, Pl. 101: 44-45).
Recent excavations at Tell Shelgiya, situated in the Saddam dam salvage area, revealed "Early
Uruk" deposits from the trenches H, ] and northern side of mound B (Ball 1997). Contracted rim
bowls, hole mouth pots, U -shaped pots with Sprig painted motif, dated to LC I period, were foundthere. Excavators interpreted that large amount of Sprig ware deposits indicate that the site wasprobably an export center of Sprig ware (ibid., p. 100).
Soundings at Grai Resh, located in the Sinjar district, revealed nine building levels on virgin soil
(Lloyd 1940, p. 13). The lower six strata produced Coba bowls and painted shards, which correspondto those from Tepe Gawra VIII- XIII (ibid., p. 19). Based on this evidence, Grai Resh IV-IX areprobably contemporary with Tepe Gawra XII- XIIA.
Excavations at Sakr,;e Gozli in southeastern Anatolia did not provide such good material forchronology of Late Chalcolithic period. However, its phase IV A-B produced similar specimens as LC
I pottery including Ubaid like painted ware, Coba bowls and hole mouth pots (Plat Taylor 1950, Fig.
16-17).
We can conclude that the ceramic assemblage of LC I period is characterized by Coba bowls,
Hole Mouth Pots, and pottery with painted decorations including Sprig pattern and panel pattern.
Contracted rim bowls and shallow bowls with painted decoration on inner surface also existed,although they were less common.

b. Late Chalcolithic 11 period
I fix Late Chalcolithic II period based mostly on the materials from the upper levelling fill in area
CH of Tell Brak. Coba bowls and hole mouth pots continue from the earlier fill. Bowls with cross-hatched incision (inner-ledged rim bowl), bowls with inturned rim, double rim pots, and finecarinated beakers are typical in this fill (Oates, ]. 1987, Fig. 3). Fine carinated cups decorated withstamps, incisions and appliques also newly appeared (Oates, ]. 1985, Fig. 3 : 6).
The same type of vessels came from levels XIA-IX at Tepe Gawra. However the pottery of Tepe
Gawra has a few different elements from those of Tell Brak. There are "new" painted designs likesmeared and hatched triangle pattern (Tobler 1950, Fig. 144: 375, 383, Fig. 146: 408). As the level
XIA lack these "new" painted ware as well as fine carinated cups and beakers, it dates to a slightly
earlier than levels XI-IX.
The Late Chalcolithic pottery from Tell Umm Qseir has similar characteristics to the pottery of
Tepe Gawra XIA. Tell Umm Qseir lacks the newly appearing painted ware, carinated cups andbeakers in Tepe Gawra XI-IX. U-shaped pots and Sprig decoration, which are predominant in LC I
period, still remain in the pottery assemblage of Tell Umm Qseir. Faint corrugated rim jars, inner-ledged jars and thin-walled hammer head rim bowls, found from Tell Umm Qseir, seem to bepredecessors of corrugated rim jars and coarse hammer head rim bowls respectively. The latterbowls are predominant in LC Ill period.
Phase IV c at Sakr,;e Gozli is characterized by a large amount of Coba bowls (Plat Taylor 1950,
Fig. 18: 5). Inner-ledged jars similar to those of Tell Umm Qseir and shards decorated by comb
punctuations and impressions were also found in this phase (ibid., Fig. 18 : 8-10, 13-14). Combpunctuation on the vessels of phase IV c shows a slight difference in motif arrangement from thoseof Tepe Gawra XI-IX (Tobler 1950, Pl. 80a).
The ceramic assemblage from Phase Vb at Hammam et-Turkman has some pottery types which
are common with those from Tell Umm Qseir. It includes bowls with inturned rim, hole mouth pots

LATE CHALCOLITHIC CHRONOLOGY IN SYRIA AND NORTHERN MESOPOTAMIA

199

and inner ledged jars (Akkermans 1988a, Pl. 104: 76-78, Pl. 107: 101, Pl. 108: 102-104, Pl. 110: 120-121). However, the existence of shards decorated with hatched triangle motif and the absence of
Coba bowls indicates that Phase Vb of Hammam et-Turkman belong to the last phase of LC 11 period(ibid., Pl. 109: 113, 117).
Amuq F pottery was classified based on the materials mainly from Tell al-Judaida and minorly
from Chatal Hoylik and Tell Dahab. Four types of ware, i.e. smooth faced ware, chaff faced ware,
double slipped ware, and cooking pot ware were recognized in Amuq F pottery assemblage. Smooth
faced ware of Amuq F (Braidwood and Braidwood 1960, pp. 229-230) has similar fabric and vessel
shape to Fine Ware of Tell Umm Qseir. Inner-ledged jars and faint corrugated rim jars are also
visible in both pottery assemblages (ibid., Fig 17 4: 13-14, Fig. 176: 10-16). However, Amuq F lacks
Coba bowls, same as Tell Hammam et-Turkman Vb. Therefore Amuq F probably belongs to the lastphase of LC 11 period. It is also noteworthy that some beveled rim bowls, including a complete
specimen, were found in Amuq F pottery assemblage (ibid., Fig. 17 4: 17). If they are not intrusive
material, they might be one of the earliest beveled rim bowls in the chronological context.

c. Late Chalcolithic Period Ill
The sequence of LC Ill period is revealed in levels 9-10 in CH area and in the well-stratified
levels 14-16 in TW area at Tell Brak. The pottery from both these areas are homogeneous. Thispottery assemblage includes carinated bowls, casseroles, hammer head rim bowls and corrugated rim
jars (Oates and Oates 1993, pp. 192-193). The latter two types were gradually developed from thesame types of LC 11 period. Hammer head rim bowls become coarser and larger, and corrugated rim
jars become sharper and more multiple corrugated (Fig. 84).
Periods V and IV of Tell Leilan belong to the LC Ill period. In Period V, Coba bowls, bowls withinturned rim and hole mouth pots, which are predominant in LC 11 period, are still present (Scwartz
1988, p. 73, Fig. 57: 10, Fig. 58: 5-6, Fig. 60: 7-8). Casseroles and hammer head rim bowls, corrugated rim jars are the main varieties. Meanwhile, fine carinated bowls and beveled rim bowls appear
in Period IV (ibid., Fig. 53 : 13, 15 and Fig. 52 : 1-2, 4). As no Uruk layers were recognized in thesounding, it is quite certain that beveled rim bowls appeared with other Late Chalcolithic pottery.
Discovery of beveled rim bowls in the same context, such as Leilan IV, were reported from several
sites (Amuq F, Grai Resh 11-111).
Two specimens of beveled rim bowls were also found in period V at Sak~e Gozli (Plat Taylor
1950, p. 103). Unfortunately, there are very few detailed pottery shapes other than beveled rim bowls
in period V. On the other hand, hammer head rim bowls, hole mouth pots and corrugated rim jars
occurred in the succeeding period VI (ibid., Fig. 21: 6-7, 9). Thus, it is very probable that period VI
of Sak~e Gozli dates to an earlier part of LC Ill period.
Period VI of Kurban Hoylik, in Karababa area shows the sequence from Late Chalcolithic to
Middle Uruk period. It was divided into VIB and VIA based on pottery types. Period VIB produced
the vast majority of chaff faced ware with hammer head rim bowls, casseroles and corrugated rim
jars (Algaze et al. 1990, Table 11). Meanwhile, plain simple ware gradually increased from VIB to
VIA. Therefore, Periods VIB and VIA at Kurban Hoylik correspond to transitional phase from Late
Chalcolithic to Middle Uruk period.
Coarser variants of Late Chalcolithic pottery, which were used for household activities, continue
into the succeeding Middle Uruk period. For instance, there are hammer head rim bowls andcasseroles of Late Chalcolithic tradition in the pottery assemblage of Kurban Hoylik VIA. Level 13
in TW area at Tell Brak produced casseroles and platters. However, these types of vessels
disappeared completely in the following Late Uruk period. Transition from indigeneous pottery
assemblage to so-called Uruk pottery assemblage occurred gradually in Syria and Northern
Mesopotamia. Fine pottery turned into South Mesopotamia style at first, then coarse pottery

200

Toru TOMITA

Late Chalcholithic period I

Coba bowl

Late Chalcholithic period II

Late Chalcholithic period IIl~~~
Inner !edged rim bowl-~~
Carinated beaker

Carin ated bowl
Cari nated cup

Hammer head rim bowl

Platter

Hole mouth pot
Cassero leU - sha pe pot

Do u ble ri m pot

F aint corrugated rim jar
Corrugated rim jar

Panel pattern-D

Sprig patternFig. 84 Transformation of vessel shapes and decorations throug hout Late Chalcolithic period.

LATE CHALCOLITHIC CHRONOLOGY IN SYRIA AND NORTHERN MESOPOTAMIA

Table 13

Relative chronology in Late Chalcolithic period.

Late Cha 1eo l ithlc I

Late Chalcolithlc II

Tepe Gawra

XUA------xu f-XIA- X I ' - - -Grei Resh

IX

Ir---------!1
lf---------11

Late Chalcollthic mN !

Tell Brak CH

Lower Levelling Fill

Tell Lellan---VIb---TW

Upper Levelling Fill---13---! Phase 2

lf--U-mm-Qs_e_lr-----!1-Phase 2 Late-

Early
et-Turkman

201---Va---

Amuq Plain---'VIB---

Kurban Hoyuk

Sakce Gozu---VI------VIA------N---

followed.
Based on the above discussions, I can suppose that the pottery assemblage of Late Chalcolithic
period changed at least two times (Fig. 84, Table 13). Several elements of pottery were continuous
throughout the period. Chaff tempered ware had formed the majority in the pottery assemblage
during the period. Corrugated rim jars and hammer head rim bowls showed successive development.
Besides pottery, some objects such as Eye Idols also emphasized the unity of the period. Thus, I canconclude that a homogeneous northern indigeneous culture existed throughout Northern
Mesopotamia, Syria and South-eastern Turkey in the Late Chalcolithic period.
The transition from Late Chalcolithic to Uruk in northern regions has been discussed as the
expansion of South Mesopotamian culture. For instance, Habuba Kabira and Jebel Aruda in the
Middle Euphrates are regarded as Uruk "colonies" settled by the immigrants of south Mesopotamia.
Algaze emphasized that the local chaff tempered ware was replaced by southern original grittempered ware in the transitional phase (Algaze 1986). However, this is not in the case in the Khabur
valley.
At Tell Umm Qseir, chaff tempered ware is the most common pottery in Late Chalcolithic period
and it continues up to Middle Uruk period. Typical Uruk pottery, such as nose lugged jars andconical cups, have chaff tempered fabric. In the upper Khabur valley, large-sized settlements like
Tell Brak have a continuous sequence from Late Chalcolithic period to Uruk period. The people had
gradually accepted Uruk culture in the Khabur valley which was one of the centers of Late Chalcolithic period.

ENDING REMARKS
Akira TSUNEKI
We reported the results of our natural environmental studies and excavations at Tell Umm Qseir
1996 in the first four chapters, and some of the problems were discussed in the last chapter. Basedon these descriptions and arguments, we summarize the characteristics of Tell Umm Qseir here.
As mentioned above, our special concerns were on the lowest Halaf layers. We encounteredsome tholoi buildings, a small rectangular room, a lot of various kinds of pits, and some kilns inPhase 1. Although these structures were not occupied simultaneously and they were poorly preserved
because of floods, it is quite certain that the small scale Middle Halaf settlement was managed at Tell
Umm Qseir, consisting mainly of tholoi as the residential buildings with a few small rectangularstructures and pits for storage purposes. This architectural composition is quite typical of Middle
Halaf settlements (Chapter V-1).
All Halaf pottery found at Tell Umm Qseir belongs to Middle Halaf varieties (Chapter V -2), and14
C results of charcoal samples obtained from Phase la conformed completely to the supposed Middle
Halaf date (Appendix 3). The appearance of double chambered pottery kiln indicates that the Halaf
pottery was produced within the settlement, although some fantastic painted pottery had been
imported from outside.
There are few chipped stone tools with fixed forms, and irregular shaped utilized flakes are themost numerous. We cannot observe any sophisticated technique for making these irregular shaped
stone tools of local flints. Obsidians had been used mainly to make small blades (Chapter V-3). These
charactetistics are also very typical of a Halaf chipped stone industry.
Our identifiable samples of animal bones and plant remains are too scarce to reconstruct thewhole subsistence economy of Tell Umm Qseir. Anyhow, these samples were collected from various
squares at random and they did not come from some specific deposits. As far as depending on the
results of analysis of animal bone samples (Appendix 2), the Halaf people of Tell Umm Qseir obtained
animal protein both from domesticated species such as sheep/goat and pigs, and wild species such asgazelles, equids and deer. We cannot observe a heavy dependence upon hunted animals, which wasasserted by Yale University's report (Hole and Johnson 1986-87, p. 178). The seeds of wheat, barleyand peas are included in the charred plant remains. Unfortunately we could not complete the analysis
by deadline and the results could not be included in this report. Anyhow, all aspects of our study
support the view that Tell Umm Qseir is a small ordinary year-round settlement in the Middle Halaf
period.
If we understand Tell Umm Qseir as a ordinary Middle Halaf settlement, we encounter the nextquestion, i. e. why did the people start to settle-down here around Middle Halaf period ? As we havealready mentioned (Introduction and Chapter I-3), the general surveys in the area indicate that the
middle Khabur valley south of Hassake was occupied since Halaf period. Our detailed pottery
analysis made it clear that the Middle Halaf period is the correctable. We can point out that theHalaf expansion from its nuclear region (from the upper Balikh through the upper Khabur to Sinjar)
occured mainly around Middle Halaf period based on a reliable pottery chronology (Chapter V-2).
So, the settle-down along the middle Khabur has to be understood as part of the Middle Halaf
expansion, reason for which is still uncertain.
It seems that the settle-down at Tell Umm Qseir itself was closely related to floods of the
Khabur. We observed at least three natural flood layers among the artificial deposits in all of the
excavated squares of the tell, and lower two flood layers were in the strata of Phase 1 (Chapters I

ENDING REMARKS

203-1 and Il). This indicates that the Halaf people of Tell Umm Qseir occasionally suffered fromflooding. After all, the tell itself stood on the natural levee made by the floods. So, the settle-down
here started when the floods began to abate and the surrounding fields were not inundated. We do
not have enough scientific data to discuss the prehistoric environmental transformation in this region,
but there are great possililities that the settle-down at Tell Umm Qseir had some relation with thistransformation.
As to the upper phases, we could propose new evidence to consider the regional history. The
fourth millennium B.C. chronology of northeastern Syria has been in a state of confusion partly
because south Mesopotamian chronology was directly applied to this indigenous region. Phase 2
pottery of Tell Umm Qseir provides some materials to reconsider and help put the chronology inorder. As mentioned in Chapter IV, Phase 2 could be divided into two sub-phases, i.e. Late
Chalcolithic period and Middle Uruk period. Late Chalcolithic pottery has indigenous characteristics
as Late Chalcolithic variety in northeastern Syria. On the other hand, Middle Uruk pottery found at
Tell Umm Qseir has a strong resemblance to those of southern Mesopotamia. This difference may
indicate an adaptation process to Uruk culture in the middle Khabur valley (Chapter V -2).
Architectural evidence of Phase 2 is quite poor, and we discovered a few pits of Late Chalcolithic
period, which were probably used for storage purposes. Middle Uruk structural evidence was notfound in the excavated squares. This poor preservation of architecture is partly due to the floodingof the river, because Phase 2 stratum is a typical naturally deposited flood layer (Chapters I-1 and
11). Anyhow, the people of fourth millennium B.C. left the only evidence of storage activities at Tell
Umm Qseir.
The following Mitanni layers (Phase 3) was directly on Phase 2 flood layer, and we did not findany structural or material evidence about third millennium B.C.. So, the existence of third millennium layers in the Yale University report must be amended.
The Mitanni settlement of Tell Umm Qseir is small in size but contains well-preserved solid
structures. These structures have common characteristics as Mitanni structures, such as stone-pavement passages and the walls made of square-planed mud-bricks. The pottery indicates that the
Mitanni settlement of Tell Umm Qseir dates to around 15-14 centuries B.C.
Rescue excavations at Tell Bderi, located on the same left bank of the Khabur and 4km
southwest of Tell Umm Qseir, revealed the existence of a large-scale Mitanni settlement (Pfalzner
1986-87). The pottery varieties from Tell Bderi are quite similar to those of Phase 3 at Tell Umm
Qseir (Dr. Pfalzner personal communication). It is very certain that both sites were managed
simultaneously. Considering the size of the sites, Tell Umm Qseir was probably one of the satellite
villages of Tell Bderi during Late Mitanni period.
We cannot discuss our Phase 1 architecture and materials because the evidence is too scarce. We
can only point out that there were fragmented remains of architecture, maybe belonging to the
Byzantine period, and there were also the Islamic burials.
Throughout all of the occupied periods at Tell Umm Qseir, i.e Middle Halaf, Late Chalcolithic-Middle Uruk, Late Mitanni, and Byzantine-Islam, the location of Tell Umm Qseir must have been
one of the important reasons why people chose it for their living activities. The site faces one of thechannel bars of the Khabur River, and the people have used it as a crossing point for long time. It
is quite certain that this strategic position, with plentiful water and fields, has been a very attractive
place. Although Tell Umm Qseir is a tiny artificial mound, it gives us a lot of information about
prehistoric and historic human lives.

204

Akira TSUNEKI

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Akkermans, P.A. et al.
1983 "Bouqras Revisited: Preliminary Report on a Project in Eastern Syria", Proceedings of thePrehistoric Society 49, pp. 335-372.
Akkermans, P. M. M. G.
1987a "A Late Neolithic and Early Halaf Village at Sabi Abyad, Northern Syria", Paleorient 13,
pp. 23-40.
1987b "Tell Sabi Abyad: Preliminary Report on the 1986 Excavations", Akkadica 52, pp. 10-28.
1988a "Period IV Pottery", In van Loon, M. (ed.), Hammam et-Turkman I. Report on the
University of Amsterdam's 1981-84 Excavations in Syria I. Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, Istanbul, pp. 181-285.
1988b "The Soundings at Tell Damishliyya", In van Loon, M. (ed.), Hammam et-Turkman I.
Report on the University of Amsterdam's 1981-84 Excavations in Syria I. Nederlands
Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, Istanbul, pp. 19-67.
1989 "The Prehistoric Pottery of Tell Sabi Abyad", In Akkermans, P. M. M. G. (ed.), 1989, pp. 77
-213.
1993
Villages in the Steppe: Later Neolithic Settlement and Subsistence in the Balikh Valley,
Northern Syria. International Monographs in Prehistory: Archaeological Series 5, Ann
Ab or.
Akkermans, P. M. M. G. (ed.)
1989 Excavations at Tell Sabi Abyad: Prehistoric Investigations in the Balikh Valley, Northern
Syria. Balikh Valley Archaeological Project Monograph 1, BAR International Series 468,
Oxford.
1996
Tell Sabi Abyad. The Late Neolithic Settlement: Report on the Excavations of the University of Amsterdam (1988) and the National Museum of Antiquities Leiden (1991-1993) in
Syria I. Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, Istanbul.
Akkermans, P. M. M. G. and M. Le Miere
1992 "The 1988 Excavations at Tell Sabi Abyad, a Later Neolithic Village in Northern Syria",
American journal of Archaeology 96/1, pp. 1-22.
Alden, J. R.
1988 "Ceramic Ring Scrapers: An Uruk Period Pottery Production Tool", Paleorient 14/1, pp.
143-150.
Algaze, G.
1986 "Kurban Hoylik and the Late Chalcolithic Period in the Northwest Mesopotamian Periphery: A Preliminary Assesment", In Finkbeiner, U. and W. Rollig (eds.), Gamdat Nasr.
Period or Regional Style? Tlibinger Atlas des V orderen Orients Beiheft B 62, Wiesbaden,
pp. 274-315.
Algaze, G., Evins, M., lngraham, M., Marfoe, L. and A. Y ener
1990
Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia. Volume 11, The Stratigraphic Sequence at
Kurban Hoyuk. University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications 110, Chicago.
Al- Radi, S. and H. Seed en
1980 "The AUB Rescue Excavations at Shams ed-Din Tannira", Berytus 28, pp. 88-126.
Aurenche, 0.
1981 La maison orientate: L'architecture du Proche-Orient ancien des origines au milieu duquatrieme millenaire. Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, Paris.

ENDING REMARKS

205

Bader, N., Bashilov, V., Le Miere, M. et M. Picon
1994 "Productions locales et importations de ceramique dans le Djebel Sinjar au VIe millenaire",
Paleorient 20/1, pp. 61-68.
Bader, N., Merpert, N. and R. Munchaev
1981 "Soviet Expedition's Surveys in the Sinjar Valley", Sumer 37, pp. 55-95.
Ball, W.
1997 "Tell Shelgiyya: An Early Uruk 'Sprig Ware' Manufacturing and Exporting Centre on the
Tigris", Al-Rafidan 18, pp.93-104.
Boese, J.
1995
Vorliiufige Berichte ilber die Grabungskampagnen 1984-1990 und 1992-1994. Saarbriicker Druckerei und Verlag, Saarbriicken.
Braidwood, R. J. and L. S. Braidwood
1960 Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I. University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications
61, Chicago.
Breniquet, C.
1991 "Un site Halafien en Turquie meridionale: Tell Turlu. Rapport sur la campagne de fouilles
de 1962", Akkadica 71, pp. 1-35.
1996 La disparition de la culture de Halaf: Les origines de la culture d'Obeid dans le Nord dela Mesopotamie. Editions Recherche sur les c·ivilisations, Paris.
Buccellati, G., Buia, D. and S. Reimer
1991 "Tell Ziyada: The First Three Seasons of Excavation (1988-1990)", Bulletin of theCanadian Society for MesoPotamian Studies 21, pp. 31-61.
Copeland, L.
1996 "The Flint and Obsidian Industries", In Akkermans, P. P. M. G. (ed.), 1996, pp. 285-338.
Copeland, L. et F. Hours
1987 "L'expansion halafinne, une interpretation de la repartition des sites" , In Huot, ]. L. (ed.),Prehistoire de la Mesopotamie. La Mesopotamie prehistorique et !'exploration recente du djebel
Hamrin. CNRS, Paris, pp. 209-220.
Copeland, P. W.
1955 "Beehive Villages of North Syria", Antiquity 29, pp. 21-24.
Curvers, H. H. and G. M. Schwartz
1990 "Excavations at Tell al-Raqa'i: A Small Rural Site of Early Urban Mesopotamia",
American journal of Archaeology 94/1, pp. 3-23.
Davidson, T. E.
1977 Regio~al Variation within the Halaf Ceramic Tradition. (Unpublished Ph.D. thesis). Edinburgh University, Edinburgh.
Davidson, T. E. and T. Watkins
1981 "Two Seasons of Excavation at Tell Aqab in the Jezirah, N. E. Syria", Iraq 43, pp. 1-18.
Dirvana, S.
1944 "Cerablus Civannda Yunus'ta Bulunan Tel Halaf Keramikleri", Belleten 8, pp. 403-420.
Duistermaat, K.
1996 "The Seals and Sealings", In Akkermans, P. P. M. G. (ed.), 1996, pp. 339-401.
Fiorina, P.
1984 "Excavations at Tell Hassan: Preliminary Report", Sumer XL, pp. 277-289.
1987 "Tell Hassan: Les couches halafiennes et obeidiennes et la relation entre les deux cultures", In Huot,]. L. (ed.), Prehistoire de la Mesopotamie. La Mesopotamie prehistorique et l'
exploration recente du d.iebel Hamrin. CNRS, Paris, pp. 243-255.

206

Akira TSUNEKI

Fiorina, P. and G. M. Bulgarelli
1985 "Tell Hassan", In Quarantelli, E. (ed.), The Land between Two Rivers: Twenty Years of
Italian Archaeology in the Middle East, The Treasures of Mesopotamia. Torino, pp. 28-36.
Fortin, M.
1986-87"Resultats de la premiere saison de fouilles de la mission canadienne a Tell 'Atij, sur lemoyen Khabour, printemps 1986", Annates Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes 36-37, pp. 144-163.
1988 "Rapport preliminaire sur la premiere campagne de fouilles (printemps 1986) a Tell 'Atij,
sur le moyen Khabour", Syria 65, pp. 139-171.
1989 "Trois campagnes de fouilles a Tell 'Atij: Un comptoir commercial du Illeme millenaire en
Syrie du Nord", Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 18, pp. 35-56.
1990a "Rapport preliminaire sur la second campagne de fouilles a Tell 'Atij et la premiere a Tell
Gudeda (automne 1987), sur le moyen Khabour", Syria 67, pp. 219-256.
1990b "Rapport preliminaire sur la 3eme campagne de fouilles a Tell 'Atij et la 2eme a Tell
Gudeda, sur le moyen Khabour (automne 1988)", Syria 67, pp. 535-567.
Gustavson-Gaube, C.
1981 "Shams ed-Din Tannira: The Halafian Pottery of Area A", Berytus 29, pp. 9-182.
Gut, R. V.
1995 Das Prahistorische Ninive : zur relativen Chronologie der friihen Perioden Nordmesopotamiens. Baghdader Forschungen Band 19, Mainz am Rhein.
Hammade, H. and Y. Yamazaki
1993 "Some Remarks on the Uruk Levels at Tell al-Abr on the Euphrates", Akkadica 84-85, pp.
53-62.
Hijara, I. et al.
1980 "Arpachiyah 1976", Iraq 42/2, pp. 131-154.
Hole, F.
1991 "Middle Khabur Settlement and Agriculture in the Ninevite 5 Period", Bulletin of theCanadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 21, pp. 17-29.
1994 "Khabur Basin PPN and Early PN Industries", In Gebel, H. G. and S. K. Kozlowski (eds.),
Neolithic Chipped Stone Industries of the Fertile Crescent. Proceedings of the First
Workshop on PPN Chipped Lithic Industries. Studies in Early Near Eastern Production,
Subsistence, and Environment 1, Berlin, pp. 331-347.
Hole, F. and G. A. Johnson
1986-87"Umm Qseir on the Khabur; Preliminary Report on the 1986 Excavation", Annates
Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes 36-37, pp. 172-220.
Ii, H.
1991 "Potter's Tool in Mesopotamia during the Fifth to Third Millenium B. C.", Al-Rafidan 12,
pp. 1-56. (In Japanese)
Invernizzi, A.
1980 "Excavations in the Yelkhi Area", Mesopotamia 15, pp. 19-49.
Iwasaki, T., Nishino, H. and A. Tsuneki
1995 "The Prehistory of the Rouj Basin, Northwest Syria: A Preliminary Report", Anatolica 21,
pp.143-187.
Jasim, S. A.
1985
Ubaid period in Iraq . BAR International Series 267, Oxford.
Korfmann, M.
1982 Tilkitepe: Die ersten Ansatze prahistorischer Forschung in der Ostlichen Tiirkei. Istanbuler
Mitteilungen-Beiheft 26, Ttibingen.

ENDING REMARKS

207

Ktihne, H.
1974-77"Zur historischen Geographie am unteren Habur", Archiv fur Orientjorschung 25, pp. 249-255.
Ktihne, H. und ]. Y. Monchambert
1978-79"Zur historischen Geographie am unteren Habur, Zweiter vorlaufiger Bericht tiber einearchaologische GeHindebegehung", A rchiv /fir Orientjorschung 26, pp. 181-195.
Le Miere, M.
1989 "Clay Analyses of the Prehistoric Pottery: First Results", In Akkermans, P. M. M. G. (ed.)
1989, pp. 233-235.
Le Miere, M. and 0. Nieuwenhuyse.
1996 "The Prehistoric Pottery", In Akkermans, P. M. M. G. (ed.) 1996, pp. 119-284.
Le Miere, M. et M. Picon
1987 "Productions locales et Circulation des Ceramiques au VI Millenaire, au Proche-Orient",
Paleorient 13/2, pp. 133-147.
Leenders, R.
1989 "The Red Wash Ware Ceramic Assemblage in Syria: A Review", In Haex, 0. M. C.,
Curvers, H. H. and P. M. M. G. Akkermans (eds.), To the Euphrates and Beyond. Archaeo ·logical Studies in Honour of Maurits N. van Loon. Rotterdam and Brookfield, pp. 89-101.
Lloyd, S.
1940 "Iraq Goverment Soundings at the Sinjar", Iraq 7, pp. 13-21.
Lloyd, S. and F. Safar.
1945 "Tell Hassuna : Excavations by the Iraq Government Directorate General of Antiquities in1943 and 1944", journal of Near Eastern Studies 4, pp. 255-289.
McCorriston, J.
1992 "The Halaf Environment and Human Activities in the Khabur Drainage, Syria" .Journal of
Field Archaeology 19/3, pp. 315-333.
Mallowan, M. E. L.
1936 "The Excavations at Tall Chagar Bazar, and an Archaeological Survey of the Habur
Region of North Syria, 1934-35", Iraq 3, pp. 1-86.
Mallowan, M. E. L. and J. C. Rose1935 "Excavations at Tall Arpachiyah, 1933", Iraq 2, pp. 1-178.
Matsutani, T. (ed.)
1991
Tell Kashkashok : The Excavations at Tell If. Bulletin of the Institute of Oriental Culture.
University of Tokyo Press, Tokyo.
Meijer, D. ]. W.
1986 A Survey in Northeastern Syria. Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut, IstanbuL
Mellaart, J.
1975 The Neolithic of the Near East. Thames and Hudson, London.
1981 "The Prehistoric Pottery from the Neolithic to the Beginning of E. B. IV (c. 7,000-2,500 B.
C.)", In Matthews, ]. (ed.), The River Qoueiq, Northern Syria and its Catchment. Studies
Arising from the Tell Rija'at Survey 1977-1979. BAR International Series 98, Oxford, pp.
131-319.
Mellink, M.
1964 "Archaeology in Asia Minor: Tell Turlu", American Journal of Archaeology 68/2, pp. 149-166.
Merpert, N. and R. Munchaev
1971a "Excavations at Yarim Tepe 1970, Second Preliminary Report", Sumer 27, pp. 9-22.
1971b "The Archaeological Research in the Sinjar Valley (1971)", Sumer 27, pp. 23-32.

208

Akira TSUNEKI"Early Agricultural Settlements in the Sinjar Plain, Northern Iraq", Iraq 35, pp. 93-113.
"Soviet Expedition's Research at Yarim Tepe III Settlement in Northwestern Iraq, 1978
-1979", Sumer 43, pp. 54-68.
1987 "The Earliest Levels at Yarim Tepe I and Yarim Tepe II in Northern Iraq", Iraq 49, pp. 1-36.
1993 "Yarim Tepe II: The Halaf Levels", In Yoffee, N. and].]. Clark (eds.), Early Stages in the
Evolution of Mesopotamian Civilization. Soviet Excavations in Northern Iraq. The University of Arizona Press, Tucson and London, pp. 129-162.
Merpert, N., Munchaev, R. and N. Bader1976 "The Investigations of Soviet Expedition in Iraq, 1973", Sumer 32, pp. 25-61.
1977 "The Investigations of Soviet Expedition in Iraq, 1974", Sumer 33, pp. 65-104.
1978 "Soviet Investigations in the Sinjar Plain, 1975", Sumer 34, pp. 27-71.
1981 "Investigations of the Soviet Expedition in Northern Iraq", Sumer 37, pp. 22-54.
Monchambert, ]. Y.
1984a "Le futur lac du Moyen Khabour: rapport sur la prospection archeologique menee en 1983",
Syria 61, pp. 181-218.
1984b "Prospection archeologique sur !'emplacement du futur lac du Moyen Khabour", Akkadica
39, pp.1-7.
1985 "Mashnaqa 1985: Rapport preliminaire sur la lre campagne de fouilles", Syria 62, pp. 219-250.
1987 "Mashnaqa 1986 : Rapport preliminaire sur la deuxieme campagne de fouilles", Syria 64, pp.
47-78.
Munchaev, R. and N. Merpert
1971 "The Archaeological Research in the Sinjar Valley (1971)", Sumer 27, pp. 23-32.
1973 "Excavations at Yarim Tepe 1972, Fourth Preliminary Report", Sumer 29, pp. 3-16.
1981 Earliest Agricultural Settlement of Northern Mesopotamia: The Investigations of Soviet
Expedition in Iraq. Nauka, Moscow. (in Russian)
Nishiaki, Y.
1992 "Preliminary Results of the Prehistoric Survey in the Khabur Basin, Syria: 1990-91 Seasons", Pateorient 18/1, pp. 97-102.
Oates, D. and ]. Oates
1993 "Excavations at Tell Brak, 1992-1993", Iraq 55, pp. 155-199.
1994 "Tell Brak: A Stratigraphic Summary, 1976-1993", Iraq 56, pp. 167-176.
Oates , J.
1982 "Ubaid Mesopotamia Reconsidered", In Young, T. C., "Smith P. E. L" and P. Mortensen(eds.), The Hilly Flanks, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 36, pp. 251-281.
1985 "Tell Brak: Uruk Pottery from the 1984 Season", Iraq 47, pp. 175-186.
1987 "A Note on 'Ubaid and Mitanni Pottery from Tell Brak", Iraq 49, pp. 193-198.
Perkins, A. L
1949 The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 25. The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago.
PHilzner, P.
1986-87"A Short Account of the Excavation in Tell Bderi 1985", Annates Archeologiques Arabes
Syriennes 36-37, pp. 276-291.
1995 Mittanische und mittelassyrische Keramik: eine Chronologische, Funktionale und
Produktionsokonomishe Analyse. Berichte der Ausgrabung Tall Seb l}amad, Dur-Katlimmu ; Band 3, Berlin.
1973
1984

ENDING REMARKS

209

Plat Taylor,]. du., Seton-Williams, M. V. and]. Waechter
1950 "The Excavations at Sakr,;e Gozli", Iraq 12, pp. 53-138.
Ponikarov, V. et al.
1964
Geological Map of Syria.
Saghieh, M.
1991 "The Lebanese University Recent Excavations at Tell Kerma: A Salvage Operation on the
Middle Khabur, N. E. Syria", In Mesopotamie et Elam. Actes de la XXXVIeme Rencontre
Assyriologique Internationale. Gand, 10-14 ]uillet 1989. Ghent, pp. 171-184.
Schmidt, H.
1943
Tell Halaf I. Die prahistorischen Funde. Berlin.
Schwartz, G. M.
1988 A Ceramic Chronology from Tell Leilan: Operation 1. Yale Tell Leilan Research 1, New
Heaven.
1994 "Rural Economic Specialization and Early Urbanization in the Khabur Valley, Syria", In
Schwartz, G. M. and S. E. Falconer (eds.), Archaeological Views from the Countryside:
Village Communities in Early Complex Societies. Smithsonian Institution Press, Washington
and London, pp. 19-36.
Schwartz, G. M. and H. H. Curvers
1992 "Tell al-Raqa'i 1989 and 1990: Further Investigations at a Small Rural Site of Early Urban
Northern Mesopotamia", American journal of Archaeology 96, pp. 397-419.
Seeden, H.
1982 "Ethnoarchaeological Reconstruction of Halafian Occupational Units at Shams ed-Din
Tannira", Berytus 30, pp. 55-95.
Smit, F.
1988 "The Period VIII Pottery", In van Loon (ed.), 1988, pp. 457-498.
Starr, R.
1939 Nuzi. RePort on ~he Excavations at Yorgan Tepa near Kirkuk, Iraq. Conducted by Harvard
University in Conjunction with the American Schools of Oriental Reserch and the University
Museum of Philadelphia, 1927 to 1931. Philadelphia.
Slirenhagen, D.
1990 "Ausgrabungen in Tall Mulla Matar 1989", Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft
zu Berlin 122, pp. 125-152.
Tobler, A.
1950 Excavations at Tepe Gawra Volume If. Philadelphia.
Tsuneki, A.
1983 "Some Notes on the Neolithic Stamp Seals in Western Asia", Bulletin of the Ancient Orient
Museum 5, pp.153-173. (In Japanese)
1986 "A Study of Halaf Pottery", History and Anthropology 14, pp. 45-112. (In Japanese)von Wickede, A.
1990 Priihistorische Stempelglyptik in Vorderasien. Profil Verlag, Mlinchen.
von Wickede, A. und S. Herbordt
1988 "<;avi Tarlas1: Bericht tiber die Ausgrabungskampagnen 1983-1984", Istanbuler Mitteilungen 38, pp. 5-35.
Watkins, T. and S. Campbell
1987 "The Chronology of the Halaf Culture", In Aurenche, 0., Evin, ]. and F. Hours (eds.),
Chronologies in the Near East: Relative and Absolute Chronologies 16.000-4.000 BP.
BAR International Series 379, Oxford., pp. 427-464.

210

Akira TSUNEKI

Watson, P. J.
1982 "The Halafian Pottery of Tilkitepe, seen in the Hittite Museum, Ankara (Citadel), 1955", In
Korfmann, M. 1982, pp. 203-212.
1983a "The Halafian Culture: A Review and Synthesis", In Young, T. C., Smith, P. E. L. and P.
Mortensen (ed~.). The Hilly Flanks, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 36, pp. 231-250.
1983b "The Soundings at Banahilk", In Braidwood, L. S., Braidwood, R., Howe, B., Reed, C. and
P. J. Watson kds.), Prehistoric Archaeology along the Zagros Flanks. University of Chicago
Oriental Institute Publications 105, Chicago, pp. 545-613.
Watson, P. J. and S. A. LeBlanc
1990 Girikihaciyan : A Halafian Site in Southeastern Turkey. Monograph 33, Institute of Archaeology, Univer~ity of California, Los Angels.
Weiss, H.
1991 "Archaeology in Syria", American journal of Archaeology 95, pp. 683-740.
1994 "Archaeology in Syria", American journal of Archaeology 98, pp. 101-158.
Woolley, C. L.
1934 "The Prehistoric Pottery of Carchemish", Iraq 1, pp. 146-162.
1955 Alalakh. An account of the Excavations at Tell Atchana in the Hatay, 1937-1949. Reportsof the Resaerch Commitee of the Society of Antiquaries of London no.18, London.
Yakar, J.
1993 "The Ethnicity of the Halaf Culture West of the Balikh River", In Mellink, M. J. et aL-(eds.),
AsPects of Art and Iconography: Anatolia and Its Neighbors, Ankara, pp. 663-666.

211

APPENDIXES1.

HUMAN SKELETAL REMAINS

Hajime ISH IDA and Hirohumi MA TSUMURA
Grave 6The major part of the skeleton is preserved fragmentarily. The skull contains many fragmentsof the cranial vault such as the temporal, parietals and occipital without facial bones. The postcranial bones consist of many long bones, ribs and vertebrae. The humerus, radius and ulna of theright side, and bilateral femora and tibiae are identifiable.
There are fourteen deciduous teeth (right and left di1, right di2, right and left de, dm1 and dm2of the maxilla, and right d2, left de and dm1, right and left dm2 of the mandible) and six permanent
teeth (left 12, right and left M1 of the maxilla, and right 12, right and left M1 of the mandible). The
teeth measurements are listed in Table 14.
Based on the stages of dental eruption and calcification, the infant is estimated to be between
nine months and one year old at death (Ubelaker, 1978). The sex is unknown.
Grave 7The skeleton is preserved in a poor condition. The skull consists of many small fragments of the
cranial bones. The postcranial bones include a few long bones, and fragments of the ribs andvertebrae. The tibia and .fibula of the right side are identifiable.
The teeth consist of left upper central incisor and lateral incisor, which have no shoveling shapein the lingual face. The teeth measurements are listed in Table 14.
The femoral upper epiphysis in not united. The root of the teeth is perfectly complete. Basedon these findings, the person is estimated to be from eleven to sixteen years old at death. The sex
is unknown.
BIBLIOGRAPHY

Ubelaker, D. H.
1978
Human skeltal remains : Excavation, analysis, interpretation. Chicago.

212

Hajime ISHIDA and Hirohumi MATSUMURA

Table 14 Mesiodistal and buccolingual crown diameters of thehuman teeth from Tell Umm Qseir.
Grave 6
Left
Mesiodistal diameters (mm)Buccolingal diameters (mm)

Ull
UI2
Udi1
Udi2
Udc
Udm1
Udm2
UM1
LI2
Ldi2
Ldc
Ldm1
Ldm2
LM1
Ull
UI2
Udi1
Udi2
Udc
Udm1
Udm2
UM1
LI2
Ldi2
Ldc
Ldm1
Ldm2
LM1

7.08
6.75
7.25
7.25
9.24
11.20

6.08
8.48
10.75
12.37

Right

Grave 7
Left
8.46
6.55

6.87
5.64
7.32
7.18
9.51
11.23
5.50
4.81

11.00

7.10
6.02
5.25
6.66
9.43
10.88
12.54

5.21
5.00
6.72
8.84
11.22
12.51
4.05

5.86
7.17
9.62
11.07

9.75
10.80

213

2.

ANIMAL BONES
Toyohiro NISHIMOTO

The amount of animal bone samples obtained by the excavations of Tell Umm Qseir in 1996 isrelatively small, and identifiable bones are even smaller in number. The results of my analysis issummarized in Tables 15 and 16.
The bones of gazelles are much smaller than those of sheep/goat, and all of them came from
Phase 1. Cervus contains two different species, i.e. fallow deer and red deer. Small equids areprobably asses, and large equids seem to be small horses. All suids fall within the size ofdomesticated pigs, and no wild boar is recognized. Other species consist of two small mammals,
perhaps fox or raccoon dog, one squirrel, one larger mammal and other unidentifiable species.
Table 15
Species

List of identified species and quantities per period.

GazellaCervus

Equus

Boss

Ovis/Capra

Period 4
Period 3
Period 2
Period lb
Period la

0
0
0
3
13

0
1
1
2
8

2
6
5
10
23

0
3
1
8
4

Total

16
7

12
6

46
21

16
7

Table 16

Minimum number of animals%

Species

Others

Total

1
29
2
25
35

Sus dom.
1 (modern?)
0
0
3
22

0
1
1
2
3

4
40
10
53
108

92
43

26
12

7
3

215

Sus dom.
1 (modern?)0013Others

Total

0
1
1
1
1

4
10
6
10
15

4
9

45

GazellaCervus

Equus

Boss

Ovis/Capra

Period 4
Period 3
Period 2
Period lb
Period la

0
0
0
1
2

0
1
1
1
2

2
3
2
3

0
2
1
1
1

1
3
1
3
3

Total

3
7

12
27

5

11

5

11

11

24

11

%

5

2

214

3. AMS 14 C RESULTS
Hiroyuki KIT AGA W A and ]. van der PLICHT
Two samples of charcoal were collected from Tell Umm Qseir, stratigraphically related to theMiddle Halaf period. These samples were collected from the layer named Phase la, at the bottomof the excavation site.
The charcoal samples were pretreated by boiling with diluted NaOH and diluted HCl according
to Mook and Streurman (1983). They were combusted to carbon dioxide which was then purified andreduced to graphite. The 14C concentration in the graphite was measured by Accelerator Mass
Spectrometry at the Groningen AMS facility (van der Phicht et al. 1995, Gottdang et al. 1995). The
dates are expressed as suggested by Stuiver and Polach (1977), i. e. in 14C years relative to AD 1950
BP, based on the Libby half-life of 5568-yr, and corrected for isotope fractionation. Quoted error(±lo-) includes the uncertainties of modern standards as well as the sample.
The table shows two radiocarbon dates and calibrated ages calculated using a smoothed function(smoothing parameterS= 1) through a decadal dendrochronologically obtained data set (Stuiver et al.
1993).
Table 17

Lab. No.
GrAGrA-6244
GrA-6255

Results of AMS radiocarbon dating

Samples

Calibrated 14C date*(cal
Square 1-6, Phase la (charcoal)
6820±55
Square G-4, Phase la (charcoal from Pit 19) 6925±55

5760-5590
5930-5670• The 14C dates were calibrated using the Groningen radiocarbon calibration program, Cal20 (van der Plicht, 1993) andare the extreme limit of the 95.4% confidence interval.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Gottdamg, A. et al.
1995"The HVEE 14 C system at Groningen", Radiocarbon 37, pp. 649-656.
Mook, W. G. and Streuman, H. ].
1983"Physical and chemical aspects of radiocarbon dating", In Mook, W. G. and H. T.
Waterbolk (eds.) Proceedings of the 1st International Symposium, 14 C and Archaeology, pp.
31-55.
van der Plicht, J.
1993"The Groningen radiocarbon calibration program", Radiocarbon 35, pp. 231-237.
van der Plicht, ]. et al.
1995"First Results from the Groningen AMS facility", Radiocarbon 37, pp. 657-661.
Stuiver, M. and Polach, H. ].
1977"Discussion: Reporting of 14 C data", Radiocarbon 19, pp. 355-363.
Stuiver, M.
1993"Calibration 1993", Radiocarbon 35, p. 224.

215

4.

DOMESTIC LIFE IN TNENIR VILLAGE
Etsuko KURA TA

Tnenir village lies about lOkm southeast of Hassake and 2km northeast of Tell Umm Qseir. We
used the houses in this village for accommodation during the excavations of Tell Umm Qseir. Tnenir
is a village where nomads had settled down. In the first half of 1950's the Syrian government carriedout a land reform program. The land was confiscated from large land owners and redivided. The
nomads acquired their land at this time and settled down. They then became village people, but it
is said that their life-style itself does not differ much from the one they used to have.
They build mud-brick houses without any fences, like the tents of their former lifestyle. In
general not only their houses but also their lifestyle are very open. Villagers often invited us to theirhouses and we were able to observe their domestic life. I would like to introduce some of theirdomestic activities, i.e. spinning-twisting thread and making bread, for information to get a hint ofbetter understanding of prehistoric activities.
a. Spinning and Twisting Thread
I just happened to visit a house when an old woman drew out the fibers of goat hair. She useda wooden spindle crossed by two short wood sticks. She held the goat's hair in her left hand, andsimultaneously spun the spindle in order to spin thread, then rolled a long string around the spindle(Pl.25 : 1). The thread made out of this process was given a twist. Then, two spun threads were hungon a metal hook of another type spindle for more twisting (Pl.25 : 2). The spindle was held on thelap and two twisted threads were twisted again to make a l-1.5m long thread.
Two types of spindles were used in Tnenir village, i.e. one for spinning thread and another witha metal hock for twisting thread (Fig. 85). Both kinds of spindles can be purchased in the market of
Hassake. We must notice their morphological difference when we encounter the archaeologicalmaterial.
The village people used this twisted thread spun out of goat hair to make their tents. Althoughmost women in the village used to spin thread and weave textile into necessary items of their lives,
these activities are going out of use now.
b. Making BreadI had an opportunity to see the baking of two kinds of bread in Tnenir. One of them is called
Hobz Tanor, a slightly thick bread of round shape, and it is baked in an oven. The other is Hobz Saj,a thin bread of round shape baked on a frying pan. Steps to make Hobz Tanor and Saj are as follows.
Hobz Tanor: put salt into 1.5kg of flour and knead with water, then leave for a while (P1.25: 6,7).
Take the kneaded dough and firewood for fuel to the village community oven. Put the firewood into
the oven and keep it warm with fire (Pl.25 : 8). Divide the dough into about 10 lumps (Pl.26: 1) andstretch each lump to around 20cm in diameter (P1.26: 2). Put the stretched dough on a round cushionand stick it to the inner surface of the hot oven (Pl.26 : 3). Put a lid on the oven to keep the heat (PI.
26 : 4). After a few minutes, take out the bread.
Hobz Saj: knead 2.0kg flour with salt (Pl.26 : 5), divide the dough into 20-25 lumps, and stretch eachlump to thin, large circles of about 30cm in diameter (Pl.26: 6). Put it on a hot frying pan to bakeboth sides (Pl.26: 7,8). Three large stones were used to prop up the frying pan. People use the faecesof sheep or goat as fuel for Hobz Saj.

216

Etsuko KURA TA

I
I I
I

I

I

0

10 cm

I

I

Fig. 85 Modern Spindles for spinning(left) and for twisting (right).

Tnenir was the base of our archaeological mission, and we could visit avillager's house only after our daily
works in the site. Therefore, there wasno chance for us to stay at the village fora whole day, long enough to observe theirlives carefully. During our short stay in
Tnenir, we were able to learn some of
their skills of living and ideas in relation
to their food, clothing and housing. As I
mentioned above, this report is just asummary of one of the aspects of village
life in Tnenir and it is not the results ofsystematic ethnographic studies. However, I believe that living information
about modern village life sometimes
helps us to understand the archaeologicalevidence.

DOMESTIC LIFE IN TNENIR VILLAGE

217

1. View of Tnenir village.

2. The director of our mission and people of thevillage.

3. View of the village.

4. Children going to getting a pail of water.

5. House inside.

6. House inside.

7. Repairing a roof in preparation for the rainyseason.

8. Repairing a roof in preparation for the rainyseason.

PI. 24 Life in Tnenir village.

218

Etsuko KURAT/\

1. Spinning thread (the ball on the left side istwisted thread).

2. A spindle for twisted thread.

3. A textile made by the old woman.

4. A textile made by the old woman.

5. Wool comb.

6. Making Hobz Tanor. Kneading flour

7. Leaving the dough.

8. Heating an oven.

PI. 25 Life in Tnenir village.

DOMESTIC LIFE IN TNENIR VlLLAGE

1. Shaping the dough into 10 rounded parts.

2. Stretching the bread dough into about 20cm

diameter.

3. Putting the dough on the inside of the oven.

4. Putting the lid on the oven.

5. Making Hobz Saj. Kneading flour.

6. Stretching the bread dough into about 30cm
diameter.

7. Baking on the frying pan.

8. Baking on the frying pan.
P I. 26 Life in Tnenir village.

219

ill!

4tf:

.J#