## 3 Results
### Mosul Dam  
Compared to the Haditha Dam, in the Mosul Dam region fewer sites were affected by the water-level reduction cycles. In fact, in the Mosul Dam area, 16 sites emerged during the chosen time span, while 23 do not show any sign of resurfacing (Figure 9). Due to the shape of the lake, the sites that emerged are more evenly distributed than in the Haditha Dam reservoir; they were found on both the eastern and western parts of the artificial lake (Figure 16 and Figure S3). A significant number of settlements resurfaced in similar years to the Haditha Dam, for example 2009, 2011 and 2015 (with 9, 16 and 12 sites, respectively), but, as before, it is possible to add the year 2018 as well, when 16 sites emerged from the ebbing waters (Figure 17a-d).  
Figure 15: Images of Glai’s at different stages: (**a**) 1967 (CORONA image, December 1967); (**b**) Planetscope Image (Nov 2018) ©TPMO (2020); (**c**) chart with emerged surface across time.  
One significant difference in respect to the Haditha reservoir is that archaeological sites at the edges of the Mosul Dam registered a negative pixel value more often than the sites in the former dam. The result is that some of them were probably above the water level more often than the time they were below it (Figure S3). Among these sites, there are Ger Matbak, Khirbet Hatara, and Tell Baaq 1 (26, 20, and 31 times, respectively).  
Figure 16: Spatial distribution of always submerged, emerged, and never affected archaeological sites in the Mosul Dam.  
Figure 17: Sample years and related emerged/submerged archaeological sites in the Mosul Dam. (**a**) 2009; (**b**) 2011; (**c**) 2015; (**d**) 2018.  
For Ger Matbak, the polygon analysis showed that it was rarely completely submerged, and that even years with moderate water levels (e.g., 1998 and 2002) saw 60% of the site emerge (Figures 18 and 19). Moreover, this latter analysis showed that the entirety of the site was out of the water for four consecutive years (2014-2018). The area of Kemune site, mentioned above (Section 1), was recorded to be above the water level four times during the 35 years of analysis. It is possible that the exceptional preservation state of the site might be due to the fewer number of times it was subject to erosion by the ebbing waters (see Section 4). A note on this site is necessary, however: no coordinates were available at the time of the analysis; therefore, its position was assessed from the published photographs, available satellite images, and from the dataset published in Sconzo; Simi, 2020 [60]. It is likely that the pixel values and the respective emersion times will differ with more precise coordinates. The same can be said about other archaeological sites and the general results for the region, which might change with a more accurate and extended dataset. Other examples of emerging sites come from some settlements such as K hirbet Kharasan (9 times) and Tell Dhuwaij (12 times). In contrast to Ger Matbak, K hirbet Kharasan was most affected by significant reductions in the water levels; its resurfaced extent was around 80% only on two occasions, in 2011 and 2018 (Figures 18 and 20).  
Figure 19: Images of Ger Matbakh at different stages: (**a**) 1967 (CORONA image, December 1967); (**b**) HR Image from Bing Maps (likely 2011); (**c**) Planetscope Image (November 2018) ©TPMO (2020); (**d**) chart with emerged surface across time.