187187Akkadica 134 (2013), pp. 187-199.

Fenestrated Pot Stands in Ninevite 5 Pottery Tradition : New Data from Tell Arbid (north-east Syria)

A. Smogorzewska*

Abstract : Tell Arbid, a site in northeastern Syria, yielded numerous fenestrated pot stands in its Ninevite 5 pottery assemblage. Two types can be distinguished among them : triangle-fenestrated pot stands, oc-curring in the early incised and excised pottery phase of the Ninevite 5 period, and arrow-fenestrated pot stands, diagnostic for the late Ninevite 5 period, as they appear along late excised pottery and the earli-est examples of Metallic Ware (EJII in the Syrian Jazirah). Unlike the triangle-fenestrated pot stands, the arrow-fenestrated variety is geographically limited to the Upper Khabur area. Moreover, they have been found on just a few sites in the area. Tell Arbid, which might have been one of their production centers, has turned out the most numerous and diversifi ed group of such pot stands (ca. 40 diagnostic fragments from Area D). Arrow-fenestrated pot stands seem to be a local invention related to late Ninevite 5 pottery tradition, as indicated by their chronological horizon, geographic spread as well as their technological char-acteristics. They might have evolved from the earlier triangle-fenestrated pot stands.

Keywords : Ninevite 5, fenestrated pot stands, Tell Arbid, pottery

INTRODUCTION

At Tell Arbid, a site in northeastern Syria, in the Upper Khabur basin, extensive re-mains of a Ninevite 5 period settlement have been uncovered (Fig. 1). Among the fi nds from the recent excavation seasons, there are numerous examples of fenestrated pot stands, that have so far been rather scarce in Ninevite 5 pottery assemblages. Among known sites with attested Ninevite 5 period settlements in northern Mesopotamia, Tell Arbid has yielded the most numerous and varied collection of fenestrated pot stands. The idea of decorating pot stands with cut-out “windows” is universal, as attested by their independent occurrence with-in different pottery tradition throughout the Near East and beyond. However, arrow-shaped fenestrations, that are characteristic of the Tell Arbid pot stands, are a new diagnostic motif in the Ninevite 5 repertoire.

The site consists of a main tell, a so-called lower city and a few smaller mounds (Fig. 2). The whole site covers ca. 50 hectares, 12 of which make up the main tell. The mound, which was settled during a few millennia, conceals remnants of occupation from the Ninevite 5, Early Dynastic III, Akkadian, Post-Akkadian (EJII-EJV in the Syrian Jazirah periodization), as well as Khabur ware and Mittani periods. After the Mittani period, there came a settlement gap that ended in the Neobabylonian period. The latest traces of occupation

* Institute of Archaeology, University of Warsaw, Krakowskie Przedmieście 26/28, 02-927 Warsaw, asmog@wp.pl. Archaeological excavations at Tell Arbid have been conducted since 1996 by a Syrian-Polish Mission, led by

P. Bieliński on behalf of the Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology of the University of Warsaw. Annual reports on the work can be found in the PAM (Polish Archaeology in the Mediterranean) Journal (PAM VIII-XIX) which are also available online at www.tellarbid.uw.edu.pl.

Akkadica 134 (2013)

188

have been dated to the Hellenistic period. Peak occupation fell to the third millennium BC, when Tell Arbid grew to be a medium-sized settlement that functioned within a dense net of centers across the Upper Khabur basin. The settlement of Tell Arbid reached its greatest extent during the Ninevite 5 period. Both the incised and excised and the late excised phase of the Ninevite 5 pottery is represented at the site. Residential districts of diverse character, dating to this period, have been discovered in nearly all of the excavated areas. Apart from residential and household buildings, public or representative structures dated to the Ninevite 5 period have also been unearthed.

FENESTRATED POT STANDS – TYPES, TECHNOLOGY AND CHRONOLOGY

Two types of Ninevite 5 fenestrated pot stands have been attested at Tell Arbid – triangle-fenestrated and arrow-fenestrated pot stands. In the case of the latter, the “window” consists of a triangle with an additional cut-out at the base, resembling a triangle with a trun-cated angle or the stem of a leaf. In some of the arrow-fenestrated pot stands, at the base of the triangle, instead of a clean-cut “stem” of the arrow, there are one or two small triangles that are just excised in the wall, to about half of its thickness.

Just several examples of pot stands have been registered at Tell Arbid in layers from the Ninevite 5 phase with incised and excised pottery. The triangle-fenestrated variety pre-vails at the site in this period (Fig. 3). The triangles, usually in two horizontal rows, are pointing a corner towards their opposite numbers in the other row. Also at other sites with incised and excised Ninevite 5 pottery and from earlier phases of this tradition, fenestrated pot stands are a rare fi nd (such as a triangle-fenestrated pot stands from Tell Brak and Telul

Fig. 1. The Khabur basin

A. Smogorzewska, Fenestrated Pot Stands in Ninevite 5 Pottery Tradition

189

eth-Thalathat).1 Fenestrated pot stands from Tell Jigan and Tell Mohammed Arab are addi-tionally adorned with incised decoration. 2

In the late Ninevite 5 period, pot stands are a more popular category of vessels, com-pared with the earlier phase, both at Tell Arbid and generally in the Ninevite 5 pottery tradi-

1 OATES et al. 2001, fi g. 462 : 1599 ; FUKAI et al. 1974, pl. LII : 9.2 II 2003, fi g. 3 : 15 ; BOLT, GREEN 2003, fi g. 21.

Fig. 2. Tell Arbid – a topographic map with excavated areas

Akkadica 134 (2013)

190

tion throughout the Khabur basin. A greater differentiation of types within the category can also be observed. At Tell Arbid, apart from the arrow-fenestrated pot stands, a few types of non-fenestrated pot stands were also produced – besides the most frequent, plain variety, there were also painted (Jazirah Bichrome Ware, EJII/EJIII) and burnished ones (Jazirah Burnished Ware, EJII, EJIIIa). Among the late Ninevite 5 pottery assemblage from Tell Arbid, solely the arrow fenestrated type has been encountered, with no examples of the triangle-fenestrated type. Arrows are a new decorative motif in late Ninevite 5 pottery ; its appearance coincides in time with a decline in the number of decorated vessels and a simplifi cation of the extant decorative motives. Arrow-fenestrated pot stands have only sporadically been found at other sites, all of which concentrate in the Upper Khabur region. Late Ninevite 5 layers at Tell Brak and Tell Hamidiye yielded a few specimens. 3

Most of the arrow-fenestrated pot stands from Tell Arbid come from Area D in the north-western part of the site, where more than 500 m sq of a late Ninevite 5 period residen-tial quarter have been uncovered. Arrow-fenestrated pot stands are a popular category there, with over 40 diagnostic sherds identifi ed, which accounts for approx. a half of all the late Ninevite 5 pot stands from this area.

The arrow-shaped “windows” are set in various patterns (fi gs. 4, 5, 6 and 7). In larger pot stands, they usually appear in vertical rows of two or three arrows each. In the case of

3 MATTHEWS 2003, fi g. 5.72 : 7 ; EICHLER et al. 1990, pl. 106.

Fig. 3. Triangle-fenestrated pot stands. Tell Arbid, incised and excised phase of Ninevite 5 period

A. Smogorzewska, Fenestrated Pot Stands in Ninevite 5 Pottery Tradition

191

Fig. 4. Arrow-fenestrated pot stands. Tell Arbid, late Ninevite 5 period

Akkadica 134 (2013)

192

Fig. 5. Arrow-fenestrated pot stands. Tell Arbid, late Ninevite 5 period

A. Smogorzewska, Fenestrated Pot Stands in Ninevite 5 Pottery Tradition

193

Fig. 6. Arrow-fenestarted pot stand. Tell Arbid, late Ninevite 5 period

Fig. 7. Arrow-fenestarted pot stands. Tell Arbid, late Ninevite 5 period

Akkadica 134 (2013)

194

smaller pot stands, there is usually just one horizontal row, but the tips of the arrows point alternately up and down.

As far as form and technology are concerned, the arrow-fenestrated pot stands belong to the same category as plain late Ninevite 5 pot stands ; the only difference is the cut-out pattern. They share the same cylindrical shape with everted rims. Fenestrated pot stands can usually be qualifi ed as common ware, with some chaff temper ; several examples fall into the fi ne ware category, with no coarser inclusions visible in the sections. The pot stands are wet-smoothed and, in many instances, their inner surfaces bear traces of scraping which points to the modeling and thinning of their walls with a shell, fl aked stone or pottery scrap-ers. Scraping is a secondary forming method that is often used in handmade vessels. The pot stands’ colors are typical of Mesopotamian pottery made of calcareous clay and fi red in oxidizing atmosphere – they are buff, pale brown and pale greenish. The surfaces of some of the pot stands reveal traces of a lime popping effect.

A chronological distinction between the two types of the fenestrated pot stands can be observed at Tell Arbid. The triangle-fenestrated pot stands are known from the incised and excised phase of Ninevite 5 pottery, whereas the arrow-fenestrated pot stands are limited to the late Ninevite 5 period (the late excised pottery phase).4 At Tell Arbid, arrow-fenestrated pot stands occur in contexts with late excised Ninevite 5 pottery, the earliest Metallic Ware and the Jazirah Burnished Ware (EJ II period in the Syrian Jazirah). Although in the subse-quent periods pot stands with fenestrations do appear, the characteristic motif of the arrow-head is no longer used for their decoration. Therefore, the arrow-fenestrated pot stands can be regarded as a hallmark of the late Ninevite 5 period, along with the late excised Ninevite 5 pottery. Such a chronological horizon is confi rmed by the fi nds of arrow-fenestrated pot stands from Tell Brak that have also been found alongside late Ninevite 5 pottery and the earliest Metallic Ware.5

BURNISHED ARROW-FENESTRATED POT STANDS AND CROSS-POTTERY CONNECTIONS

Arrow-fenestrated pot stands appear at Tell Arbid within two pottery traditions differ-ing from each other in technological aspects (surface treatment, fabric and fi ring conditions). Apart from pot stands matching the north Mesopotamian tradition, connected with Ninevite 5 pottery, there are a few specimens with distinct, dark grey, burnished surfaces and white inlays (Jazirah Burnished Ware).6 Burnishing is not typical for pottery from the Ninevite 5 period, neither was it a popular surface treatment in other pottery traditions of northern

4 Triangle-fenestrated pot stands from the late Ninevite 5 period have been found at Girnavaz, a site in the vicin-ity of Nusaybin in south-eastern Turkey, in the Mardin province. The pot stands are exhibited in the Mardin museum.

5 Tell Brak has yielded some “survivals” of arrow-fenestrated pot stands. A similar motif was used for the deco-ration of an EDIII pot stand (OATES et al. 2001, fi g. 462 : 1595). An arrow-fenestrated pot stand is also known from the Mittani period (OATES et al. 1997, fi g. 217 : 691).

6 Burnishing is a special type of surface treatment applied to leather-hard clay. A smooth and hard tool, such as a pebble, a bone or a horn can be used for burnishing. It results in a compaction of clay particles, which yields a lustrous surface that bears facets of the burnishing process.

A. Smogorzewska, Fenestrated Pot Stands in Ninevite 5 Pottery Tradition

195

Mesopotamia, which usually favoured wet-smoothed surfaces. Also the grey color does not typically occur in Mesopotamian pottery. In the late Ninevite 5 period, apart from the Jazirah Burnished Ware (encompassing such vessel forms as pot stands, bowls and jars) another pot-tery category distinguished by its grey (but also orange/brown) color is the Metallic Ware, which begins to appear in the EJII period.

One of the best preserved dark grey burnished arrow-fenestrated pot stands from Tell Arbid is decorated with arrow-shaped fenestrations set one over another in vertical bands (Fig. 4 : 3). They are separated with a “herringbone” motif, which consists of regularly spaced incised slanting lines, forming vertical bands divided by two or three vertical lines. The incisions are fi lled with a white paste. The rim of the pot stand is also decorated with white-inlaid incisions. A fragment of another fenestrated burnished pot stand has a black, shiny surface (Fig. 4 : 4). At the base of a triangular “window” two smaller triangles are excised in the wall. The fabric of the burnished pot stands is dense with fi ne mineral particles and some fi ne straw. Burnished arrow-fenestrated pot stands have a dark grey surfaces and a thin, dark grey layer visible in the section just under the surfaces, whereas the bulk of the section is brown. Laboratory analyses proved that this is not an intended result of applying some kind of coating to the vessel but rather an effect caused by the fi ring conditions (reduction by the end of fi ring process).7 This may have been achieved by smudging – during fi ring in an open fi re, the fl ames are stifl ed by covering the fi re with a thick layer of e.g. manure or sawdust ; this cuts off the oxygen supply and carbon is deposited at the vessels’ surface. Blackening resulting from smudging often appears on burnished surfaces, as can be observed in various pottery traditions throughout the Near East and beyond.

The occurrence of arrow-fenestrated pot stands in two technological variants is an ex-ample of cross-pottery connections resulting from interregional contacts. The arrow-shaped cut-outs and the “herringbone” motif belong to a local tradition, whereas the burnishing and white inlays stem from pottery traditions of Anatolia and Transcaucasia (Early Transcaucasian Ware).8 The burnished pot stands from Tell Arbid, again as proven by laboratory studies on the vessel’ provenance, have been made of local marly clay, and their presence at Tell Arbid can be regarded (just as is the case with Jazirah Burnished Ware) as a result of cross-cul-tural connections between the Upper Euphrates and Tigris and the Khabur basin in the late Ninevite 5 period.

PROVENANCE AND FUNCTION

The spatial distribution of arrow-fenestrated pot stands in the Jazirah region and lack of parallels outside northern Mesopotamia, along with their technological characteristics, al-low for the conclusion that the arrowhead motif is a local invention related to the Ninevite 5 pottery tradition. Considering the popularity and diversity of the arrow-fenestrated pot stands

7 Laboratory analyses of pottery from Tell Arbid were performed by M. Daszkiewicz (ARCHEA). The fi nal re-sults are to be published.

8 For the characteristics and affi liations of Jazirah Burnished Ware see SMOGORZEWSKA 2012.

Akkadica 134 (2013)

196

discovered at Tell Arbid, the site might be regarded as one of the centers of production of this distinct type of vessels. Arrow-fenestrated pot stands are chronologically restricted to the late Ninevite 5 period and, apart from a small number of survivals, “windows” in the shape of arrowheads are not a diagnostic motif in other ceramic traditions of the ancient Near East.

Direct predecessors of the arrow-fenestrated pot stands can be sought in the triangle-fenestrated pot stands from the incised and excised phase of the Ninevite 5 pottery. That variety has a wider spatial and chronological distribution, compared to the arrow-fenestrated one. Cut-out triangles, as well as rectangles and circles are simple geometrical motifs used independently within various pottery traditions for decorating not only pot stands but also the stems of “fruitstands” or pedestals of vessels or braziers. Within the Ninevite 5 pottery tradi-tion, this kind of decoration fi rst appears on high-stemmed bowls, which are also painted.9

High-stemmed bowls with fenestrated stems have been attested from quite a large area and from different pottery traditions (e.g. grey burnished triangle-fenestrated high-stemmed bowls from the EBI period in Palestine). 10 In a south Mesopotamian pottery tradition, at the time of development of the Ninevite 5 ceramic in the north (EDI, EDII and beginning of EDIII), both fenestrated pot stands and fruitstands were in use (some of the pot stands being decorated with cut-out triangles, e.g. those from Abu Salabikh and the Diyala region).11 Also in the Late Uruk (Late Chalcolithic) period, immediately preceding the Ninevite 5 period, fenestrated high-stemmed bowls were manufactured ; they may be the predecessors of the Ninevite 5 fenestrated fruitstands. Triangle-fenestrated fruitstands are known, among others, from Arslantepe VIA and Tepecik in the Malatya-Elazığ region (eastern Anatolia), as well as from Hassek Hüyük, where they were found in Late Chalcolithic layers within a context of Uruk-related pottery. 12

Pot stands, which came to be commonly used within the Mesopotamian pottery tradi-tion beginning with the third millennium BC, served as vessel supports, especially for vessels that could not stand on their own because of the shapes of their bases (e.g. pointed ones, typi-cal for Ninevite 5 pottery forms). They also facilitated access to the vessel’s contents, being a kind of a raised “table” upon which the vessel could be set.

The arrow-fenestrated pot stands from Tell Arbid vary in size (with diameters from 9 to 28 cm), but in most cases their rim diameters range around 15 cm. The larger ones were probably used for propping up jars or pots with rounded bases. The small ones, with diameters lesser than 10 cm, match the “standard size” of cups with pointed bases, a typical drinking vessel of the Ninevite 5 period, and of small jars with rounded bases, i.a. spouted

9 Fenestrated high-stemmed bowls, both painted and plain are known from i.a. Tell Rijim (BIELIŃSKI 2003, fi g. 6 : 1, 3, fi g. 8).

10 AMIRAN 1969, fi g. 10 : 6-8. A high-stemmed bowl from Qara Quzaq in the Syrian Upper Euphrates (EBI) is also decorated with cut-out triangles (VALDÉS PEREIRO 2008, fi g. 5).

11 DELOUGAZ 1952, pl. 45c, 172 ; MOON 1987, no 275. Triangle-fenestrated pot stands were also found in EDI graves at Ahmad al-Hattu (SÜRENHAGEN 2011, fi g. 17 : 6).

12 ESIN 1979, fi g. 57 : 6 ; ESIN 1982, fi g. 72 : 32, 33 ; FRANGIPANE, PALMIERI 1983, fi g. 28 : 8, fi g. 29 : 3, fi g. 34 : 7 ; HELWING 2000, fi g. 5.

A. Smogorzewska, Fenestrated Pot Stands in Ninevite 5 Pottery Tradition

197

jars. The cups with pointed bases could not be put aside without drinking the whole contents – unless a pot stand was used (Fig. 8).13

Pot stands were mainly used while consuming or preparing food. In the late Ninevite 5 dwelling quarter in Tell Arbid’s Area D, two arrow-fenestrated pot stands (with rim diameters of 26 cm and 28 cm) were found in situ in a room equipped with a small oven and heating pit (Fig. 5 : 3, 4 ; Fig. 9). Finding pot stands near to fi re installations suggests that cooking pots removed from the fi re may have been set directly upon them. Pot stands may have also been handy while drinking beer. In EDIII “banquet scenes”, known from depictions on Mesopotamian glyptic, participants of the banquets drink beer through straws from a com-mon vessel, which – in some cases – is resting upon a pot stand.14 Barley beer was probably available also to Tell Arbid’s inhabitants ; preliminary archaeobotanical analyses have indi-cated that hulled barley was the most popular cereal at the site. Tell Arbid also yielded seal impressions with banquet scenes. Apart from the utilitarian function of the pot stands used

13 A Ninevite 5 bowl with pointed base set upon a fenestrated pot stand was found in a grave at Tell Mohammed Arab (BOLT, GREEN 2003, fi g. 21 : 04).

14 Such a banquet scene is known from a Ninevite 5 period seal impression discovered at Tell Leilan (PARAYRE 2003, pl.7).

Fig. 8. Arrow-fenestrated pot stand supporting a cup with pointed base. Tell Arbid, late Ninevite 5 period

Akkadica 134 (2013)

198

for supporting vessels while drinking or consuming, a large concentration of arrow-fenestrat-ed pot stands in Area D at Tell Arbid may be connected to its residents’ esthetic tastes and their partiality to the arrow-fenestrated pot stands as elements of display.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

AMIRAN, R., 1969 : Ancient Pottery of the Holy Land : from its Beginnings in the Neolithic Period to the End of the Iron Age, Jerusalem.

BIELIŃSKI, P., 2003 : « Ninevite 5 Burials at Tell Rijim » in ROVA, E., WEISS, H. (Eds.), The Origins of North Mesopotamian Civilization : Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society (= Subartu 9), Turnhout, 493-511.

BOLT, D., GREEN, A., 2003 : « The Burial of the Dead » in ROVA, E., WEISS, H. (Eds.), The Origins of North Mesopotamian Civilization : Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society (= Subartu 9), Turnhout, 519-562.

DELOUGAZ, P., 1952 : Pottery from the Diyala Region (= OIP 63), Chicago.EICHLER et al. 1990 = EICHLER, S., WÄFLER, M., WARBURTON, D., 1990 : Tall al-Hamidiya 2. Göttingen

Symposium. Recent Excavations in the Upper Khabur Region (= Orbis Biblicus et Orientalis Series Archaeologica 6), Göttingen.

ESIN, U., 1979 : « Tepecik Excavations, 1973 » in Keban Project 1973 Activities (= Keban Project Publications, Series 1, no 6), Ankara, 97-112.

ESIN, U., 1982 : « Tepecik Excavations, 1974-75 » in Keban Project 1974-75 Activities (= Keban Project Publications, Series 1, no. 6), Ankara, 71-118.

FRANGIPANE, M., PALMIERI, A., 1983 : « Perspectives on Protourbanization in Eastern Anatolia : Arslantepe (Malatya). An Interim Report on 1975-1983 Campaigns », Origini 12/2, 287-668.

Fig. 9. Arrow-fenestrated pot stands found in situ in the dwelling quarter (Area D). Tell Arbid, late Ninevite 5 period

A. Smogorzewska, Fenestrated Pot Stands in Ninevite 5 Pottery Tradition

199

FUKAI et al. = FUKAI, S., HORIUCHI, K., MATSUTANI, T., 1974 : Telul eth Thalathat. The Excavation of Tell V. The fourth season (1965) (= Iraq-Iran Archaeological Expedition, Report 15, vol. 3), Tokyo.

HELWING, B., 2000 : « Regional Variation in the Composition of Late Chalcolithic Pottery Assemblages » in MARRO, C., HAUPTMANN, H. (Eds.), Chronologie des pays du Caucase et de l’Euphrate aux IVe-IIIe millénaires (= Varia Anatolica 11), Paris, Istanbul, 145-164.

II, H., 2003 : « Tell Jigan and the Relationship between the Ninevite 5 and Scarlet Ware » in ROVA, E., WEISS, H. (Eds.), The Origins of North Mesopotamian Civilization : Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society (= Subartu 9), Turnhout, 43-71.

MATTHEWS, R. (Ed.), 2003 : Excavations at Tell Brak, vol. 4 : Exploring an Upper Mesopotamian Regional Centre, 1994-1996 Cambridge.

MOON, J., 1987 : Catalogue of Early Dynastic Pottery, Abu Salabikh Excavations, Vol. 3, London.OATES et al. 1997 = OATES, D., OATES, J., MCDONALDS, H., 1997 : Excavations at Tell Brak, vol. 1 :

The Mitanni and Old Babylonian periods, Cambridge, London.OATES et al. 2001 = OATES, D., OATES, J., MCDONALDS, H., 2001 : Excavations at Tell Brak, vol. 2 :

Nagar in the Third Millennium BC, Cambridge, London.PARAYRE, D., 2003 : « The Ninevite 5 Sequence of Glyptic at Tell Leilan » in ROVA, E., WEISS, H.

(Eds.), The Origins of North Mesopotamian Civilization : Ninevite 5 Chronology, Economy, Society (= Subartu 9), Turnhout, 271-310.

SMOGORZEWSKA, A., 2012 : « Jazirah Burnished Ware from Tell Arbid and its Northern Affi liations », Anatolica 38, 129-147.

SÜRENHAGEN, D., 2011 : « Urban Centers and Rural Sites in the Diyala Region During Early Dynastic I and II. Some Thoughts on Material Culture, Stratigraphy, and Relative Chronology » in MIGLUS, P. A., MUHL, S. (Hrsg.), Between the Cultures. The Central Tigris Region from the Third to the First Millennium BC. Conference at Heidelberg January 22nd-24th, 2009 (= Heidelberger Studien zum Alten Orient 14), Heidelberg, 5-28.

VALDÉS PEREIRO, C., 2008 : « Qara Quzaq and Tell Hamis (Syrian Euphrates Valley) : Updating and comparing Bronze Age ceramic and archaeological data » in CÓRDOBA, J.M. MOLIST, M., CARMEN PÉREZ, M., RUBIO, I., MARTINEZ, S. (Eds.), Proceedings of the 5th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East (Madrid, 3-8 April 2006), Madrid, 323-342.