THE LOCAL ORIGIN OF THE KHABUR WARE FROM UPPER MESOPOTAMIA

TOKYO

第XXXV巻　　2014

初期王朝Ⅲ期におけるギッシャ（ウム・アル・アカリブ）とウンマ（ジョハ）とラガシュ（英文）アルマモリ・ハイデル・オライビ　上部メソポタミアで出土しているハブール土器の起源について（英文）ドゥライド・ポリス　エマルにおける王宮と市当局：両権威間の関係をめぐる通時的分析（英文）山田雅道

XXXV

VOLUMEXXX

V

2014

VOLUME XXXV　　2014

GIŠŠA (UMM AL-AQARIB), UMMA (JOKHA), AND LAGAŠIN THE EARLY DYNASTIC III PERIOD by Almamori HAIDER ORAIBI

THE LOCAL ORIGIN OF THE KHABUR WARE FROM UPPER MESOPOTAMIA by Duraid S. POLIS

THE ROYAL AND URBAN AUTHORITIES IN EMAR:A DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS OF THEIR RELATIONS by Masamichi YAMADA

© 2014 The Institute for Cultural Studies of Ancient IraqKokushikan University, Tokyo

ISSN 0285 – 4406

Published by the Institute for Cultural Studies of Ancient IraqKokushikan University, 1-1-1 Hirohakama, Machida, Tokyo, 195 – 8550 Japan

Printed in Japanby Letterpress Co., Ltd. Hiroshima

第 XXXV 巻　 2014

　　目　次　　 CONTENTS　　

GIŠŠA (UMM AL-AQARIB), UMMA (JOKHA), AND LAGAŠIN THE EARLY DYNASTIC III PERIOD Almamori HAIDER ORAIBI……… 1

THE LOCAL ORIGIN OF THE KHABUR WARE FROM UPPER MESOPOTAMIA Duraid S. POLIS……… ３９

THE ROYAL AND URBAN AUTHORITIES IN EMAR:A DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS OF THEIR RELATIONS Masamichi YAMADA……… ７３

The origin of khabur ware is still one of the debatable questions which is under consideration of scientific research. Many opinions emerged dealing with this subject in detail,1) one of them indicates the local origin from Upper Mesopotamia.2) It focused on the geographical area of the Upper Mesopotamia describing it as a local producer in which the pottery of earlier periods can be traced in this region, especially in terms of form and decoration. Chorles Burney is the first researcher to introduce this opinion without giving any important evidence about it [Oguchi 2001: p. 78]. From her part, the researcher (Daina L. Stein) supported this view through what is put forward in one of her articles, which confirmed that “the primary attribute that distinguishes Khabur ware is coloring and the intermingling of incised and relief design. Chronologically, these examples fall within the period of Khabur ware and, stylistically the may be considered transitional between the earlier incised and relief wares and Khabur ware” [Stein 1984: p. 22], which can be discerned in Tell Chagar Bazar, Tell Billa, Tell Brak and Tell Rimah. So the Khabur ware is considered as a ware characterized with the local development in Upper Mesopotamia, its origins can be traced to the ages of the oldest pottery, especially Akkadian pottery and Third Dynasty of Ur eras and the ware of Isin-Larsa as well. Stein stated that this claim was not sudden or radical, but was based on the existence of a continuation of the tradition of ware from earlier periods3) [Stein 1984: p. 26]. These types of ware are all of origin which goes back to industries in Southern Mesopotamia found in many archaeological sites in Upper Mesopotamia as well, which is one of the important archaeological sites of the Khabur ware (1900–1400 B.C. or shortly thereafter). Knowing that the cultural heritage of the civilization of Mesopotamia is characterized by the existence of forms drawn and painted ware very common since Hassuna period (sixth millennium B.C.), represented by the typical Hassuna standard painted pottery [Lloyd, Safar and Braidwood 1945: p. 279ff], down to the Ninevite v painted pottery. The latter is considered as the most prominent type of pottery in Upper Mesopotamia at the beginning of the third millennium B.C., so we will have a number of comparisons between Ninevite v pottery (3000–2500 B.C.) and Khabur ware, because some vessels are with painted decoration, which is

AL-RĀFIDĀN Vol. XXXV 2014　　39

　　 * Archaeology College, Mosul University, Iraq 1) Since the discovery of the khabur ware in the first decades of the last century, scholars did their best to study the origin of this

kind of pottery. Three opinions appeared dealing with this subject besides another fourth one which is the main topic of our research. These opinions are: eastern origin, western origin and northern origin. Each one of these three opinions contains many different suggestions about its first appearance presented by many researchers and scholars who depended upon the Similarities and differences between the khabur ware and the potteries of this region. It is worth mentioning that the researcher (Heromich Oguchi) collected these opinions in an article published in Al-Rafidan journal [Oguchi 2001].

2) We think that the term (North Mesopotamia) is highly limited and does not contain the geographical region in question. It refers to the geographical region of the north of Iraq nowadays. We have noticed that the Geographical spread of Khabur ware in extends to a wide area namely the north of Iraq and the Khabur at the extreme northwest of Syria. These two regions are the main distribution zone of the Khabur ware. The Khabur region is geographically and historically a natural extension of Mesopotamia and so do not be separated from the geography of ancient Mesopotamia. We can metaphorically say that “the Khabur is the daughter and Mesopotamia is the mother”, and the tangled ties between mother and daughter, and the link between them deep-rooted. For this reason, we will change the term (North Mesopotamia) to be (Upper Mesopotamia) to include all this region. It is important to say that this term is firstly used by the author of the article in: [Polis 2011].

3) In this explanation, I depended on what was published by Stein and I gave new examples from some archaeological sites not mentioned by Stein especially the article of the latter preceeded the publication of the results of the excavation in many archaeological sites namely in Mosul Dam Project, North Jazerah salvage project, Khabur river region and south of Turkey. It can be said that Stein tackled the subject laconically in spite of its importance.

THE LOCAL ORIGIN OF THE KHABUR WARE FROM UPPER MESOPOTAMIA

Duraid S. POLIS*

40　Duraid S. POLIS

Fig. 1

considered as the latest painted model in the third millennium B.C. in Upper Mesopotamia, and then the incised and relief types became common until the beginning of the second millennium B.C., the date of the emergence of Khabur ware, the latter is the new return of painted pottery after a break of a long time lasted for several centuries, especially since we have said that many of the ideas of decorative elements implemented at Ninevite v pottery re-implemented at the Khabur ware. As well as the similarity of the geographical extension of areas in the Upper Mesopotamia (see Fig. 1). Many archaeological sites in this region contained layers settlement for both models proving the existence of continuity in the tradition of pottery concerning the general form of vessels and decorative elements, it is not only from the pottery of late third millennium B.C., but from the early pottery of the third millennium B.C. in Upper Mesopotamia, a Ninevah v pottery, to confirm the originality of Khabur ware from this region and this is what we aspire to reach in the following pages of our research.

Comparison between the Khabur Ware with Ninevite v potteryNinevite v Pottery appeared in four types or forms: the simple type, the incised or excised type and the painted type. What concerns us basically in this study is the painted Ninevite v pottery then the incised or excised, which we will talk about in some detail to demonstrate the most decorative elements and compare them with those of Khabur ware, beginning with the general shape of vessels and then deepening more decorative aspect.

A - The general shapeThe Ninevite v jars is common and this kind represents large spherical and oval shape, which we find similar ones in the Khabur ware jars (compare Pl. I: [1–2] with [14–15]; compare Pl. I: [3] with [16]). The same thing is said of bowls of different sizes, whether with carinated-sides (compare Pl. I: [4] with [17]), or those with curved body (compare Pl. I: [5] with [18]). There are also some similarities between the beakers of Khabur ware and the beakers of Ninevite v pottery with thick basis, which is found along the largest in Ninevite v pottery (compare Pl. I: [6] with [19]).

B - DecorationWith regard to the decorative inscriptions of Ninevite v pottery, we can distinguish some similarities between this and the Khabur ware. The former like the second, monochromatic [Al-Jumaily 2006: p. 19; Polis 2011: p. 105], common in the Ninevite v painted pottery a geometric, animal and plant decoration on an end either, while the decoration of animal and plant are of less application in Khabur ware at the expense of implementation vogue of geometric decoration [Polis 2011: pp. 105–109], which may appear in both models as horizontal bands revolves around the vessels. The Ninevite v pottery is reflected in a lot of vessels with Khabur ware, while the potter has decoration on the top of the vessels in both models, while the lower part of the vessels may not be painted or it is a simple decoration, the latter concerns Ninevite v pottery [Al-Jumaily 2006: p. 19].As we mentioned that the decoration of scenes of animal are common in Ninevite v pottery,

they contain numbers of deer and goats with curved horns and long necks that looks like giraffes, and waterfowls which feature a long necks as well (see Pl. I: 20–23). In the Khabur ware, the potters have returned to the application of same animal shapes, but depending on the different idea of implementation. It is common in the animal decoration of Khabur ware the flocks birds which show a long necks often depicting curved head and sometimes with a long tail and wide eyes. Such a thing is not found in the Ninevite v pottery (compare Pl. I: [7–10] with [20–21]), also involved both models Ninevite v pottery and Khabur ware, the existence of goats with curved horns, but the goats in Khabur ware have shorter necks (compare Pl. I: [11–12] with [22–23]).The way in which it is done is to fill in the blanks located behind the long necks of animals

41THE LOCAL ORIGIN OF THE KHABUR WARE FROM UPPER MESOPOTAMIA


drawn and processed with seconds paintings taking the shape of feathers, ovals and butterflies [Abboud 1977: p. 20], while there is no such thing in Khabur ware (compare Pl. I: [9] with [22]). Another feature we observe in Ninevite v pottery is a lack of paintings of human forms, which are very few in Khabur ware (see Pl. I: 11 and 13).With regard to color, the Ninevite v potters relied on the gloomy black to greenish black, brown-

black and dark red [Abboud 1977: p. 20], while in Khabur ware Don’t exceed brown, red and black ones to different degrees [Polis 2011: p. 109].The last decorative kind has to be talked about in more detail, namely geometric decoration, which

it can express the similarities between the two models of pottery. The geometric drawings that share them is zigzags lines, solid triangles and other with hatch or cross-hatch within those triangles, triangles opposite the head, either vertically or horizontally, similar forms of fan-like, checker board, rhombic and colored circles. We should bear in mind that the horizontal bands are often the most important feature in decorative of Khabur ware (compare Pl. II: [1–11] with [12–22]).The painted Ninevite v pottery preceeded the incised type, though the latter type made the

evolution of type I. The shapes of their common features reinforce this assumption which is confirmed by archaeological excavations that took place in several locations belonging to Ninevite v, and its predecessor, we find the resemblance to the application of some decorative elements between Khabur ware and the other one (compare Pl. III: [1–9] with [10–19]). We may find resonance of these decorations in the incised type in the pottery model which appeared later duration, namely pottery of the late third millennium B.C. by which Khabur ware must has been influenced to a large extent.4) Particularly since many of the archaeological sites belonging to the Khabur ware contained in their inner parts layers of the era of Ninevite v and the last centuries of the third millennium B.C. such as Tell Brak and Tell Kuyunjik in the city of Nineveh and other archaeological sites. It can be shown that the Khabur ware is made by potters of Upper Mesopotamia who inherited creativity and craftsmanship from fathers and grandfathers depending on inherited civilized ancient age thousands years ago, with the particularities with respect to this industry for each geographical region in Mesopotamia and in every period.

Comparison between Khabur ware with the late third millennium B.C., Isin-Larsa and old Babylonian pottery

A - The general shape5)

The long jars are the first forms of jars that prevailed in the late third millennium B.C., they are characterized by its upper part which is leaning inward, and the example that we are dealing with came to us from Tell Taya (level VII) belonging to the Akkadian period, There is a great similarity with Khabur ware jars such as the jars of Tell Rimah, particularly with regard to the short neck and outturned rim. The first was with a convex base, while showing the base in the second as ring-base (compare Pl. IV: [1] with [22]). But the spherical and oval shapes are the most common, from the first type there are examples of both models that are largely similar among them (compare Pl. IV: [2] with [23]). The second type is the oval shape: the excavations have revealed large numbers of them, especially in Tell Brak, dating back to the Akkadian period onwards, mostly with necks shorter than that found in Khabur ware (compare Pl. IV: [3] with [24]).We notice the similarity and uniformity also in the form of beakers between the pottery of the

late third millennium B.C. and the species pottery that ensued and between Khabur ware, the first

4) Speiser has already noticed this during his excavations in Tell Bella (1930), there is a continuity and similarity with respect to the decorative aspects in the seventh level (Ninevite v Pottery) and the fourth level (Khabur ware) [Speiser 1933: p. 256].

5) Stein tackled this subject very laconically, for more details see: (Stein 1984).

of these Beakers is arched-sides (hemispherical), and the examples that we’ve got from Tell Brak due mostly to the Akkadian period (2334–2193 B.C.) up to the late stage of it and beyond.6) It is characterized by having flat-base or disc-base, and these types of bases have a little application in the beakers than the ring-base (compare Pl. IV: [4] with [25]; compare Pl. IV: [5] with [26]; compare Pl. IV: [6] with [27]; compare Pl. IV: [7] with [28]). Or it may be of oval shape, which may show some kind of elongation, which belong to the Isin – Larsa pottery and continue during the Old Babylonian period and the kassite period which have curved neck often outward, similar to what is found in the beakers of Khabur ware of this form (compare Pl. IV: [8–11] with [29–34]), or this may appear similar to oval shape with some distension, close to spherical shape, and our examples go back to the late Akkadian period and the beginning of the third Dynasty of Ur, and others from the pottery of Isin – Larsa and the old Babylonian period (compare Pl. IV: [12–15] with [35–38]).Also, there are beakers with spherical shape, usually curved necks and outturned rims, which

go back to the pottery of Isin – Larsa and a late stage of it, perhaps contemporary or near the date of Khabur ware7) (compare Pl. IV: [16] with [39]).

Other form of Khabur ware beakers are of long and straight body or concave inward, which can be compared with the samples from southern Mesopotamia from the Isin – Larsa period (compare Pl. IV: [17–18] with [40–41]). This kind of beakers is of small application in Khabur ware compared with other shapes, but this form carried on another type of vessels of Khabur ware, and of what is known as grain measures8) which are of course much larger sizes than the sizes of beakers (compare Pl. IV: [19–20] with [40–41]). Finally, we mention the beakers with wide arched-sides, dating back to the Pottery of Isin – Larsa which have corresponding form in Khabur ware (compare Pl. IV: [21] with [42]).

B - DecorationWith regard to the second part of the subject of this study, namely the decorative side, it is also known that Khabur ware is a kind which can be classified as one of the painted pottery, but we should bear in mind that there are early models which have a mixture of colors, that is a distinctive feature of Khabur ware, with incised and relief decorations which is the main characteristic of pottery of the late third millennium B.C., or vessels may appear with incised decoration in the context of layers of Khabur ware along with this kind pottery. At the beginning we will review what was published as evidence and proof on the subject and then we will try to strengthen this subject with additional evidence and proof and give more details about the subject.This decorative intermingling in the vessels represents the same idea, but depending on the

different idea of implementation, for example, at the site Chagar Bazar Mallowan discovered during his excavations in the thirties of the last century a collection of jars in the first level9) (see Pl. V: 1–3), it represents the Horizontal bands colored reddish-brown or black, and above or between them a simple horizontal ribbing, a pattern of prominent lines on the surface [Mallowan 1937: p. 102]. The image itself is found in Tell Rimah, Tell Taya and Tell Brak, because this pottery diversity is


6) See the information that published in: [Oates 2001: p. 458, Fig. 421 and p. 460, Fig. 422]. 7) See the information that published in: (Delougaz 1947: P1, 151: B175..720). 8) This kind is like the Beakers but they are larger than them. Max Mallowan was the first who named them as Grain measures

because he thought that they were used to measure the grains, especially wheat and barley which was very common in the first half of the second millennium (B.C.) until recently they were used as grain measures in the markets of the east and the western part of north Africa [Mallowan 1946: p. 148]. It is probable that they were not used only for measuring grains but all foodstuff [Polis 2011: p. 109, Note 2].

9) The date of these jars (see Pl. IV: 2 and Pl. V: 1–2) goes back to the date of the beginning of the first level in Tell Chagar Bazar 1800 B.C. or 1850 B.C. because their locations are represented by the graves 2–3, discovered under the foundations of the early first level buildings, this will go with the early phase of Khabur ware (1900–1813 B.C.) [Mallowan 1936: p. 55; Oguchi 1998: p. 119, Note 3].


most common types of early Khabur ware which is easy to identify: its date goes back to the nineteenth century B.C., it has used deep incised with or inside the colorful decoration (see Pl. V: 4–5) [Postgate et. al.1997: p. 53]. Another models from Tell Brak are similar to pottery of Tell Chagar Bazar which contained ribbing, represent similar to prominent bands on shoulder with painted-bands (black or reddish brown or dark brown) found in the tenth layer of the area (HH) (see Pl. V: 6–11), as the ribbing here are more numerous compared with the previous archaeological sites [Polis 2011: pp. 28–29].But the evidence which helps to bind such potteries with what preceded it is to find models

including Isin – Larsa type dated to the twentieth century B.C. in the areas of (FS) and (SS) of Tell Brak [Oates and Oates 1994: p. 171; Oates et. al.1997: p. 62]. Thus, continuity is in the traditions of pottery with no break.10)

Other evidence is linked to the level sequentially from Tell Jigan, it is actually part of a project of Mosul dam.11) In the second season of archaeological work of the Japanese Mission (1984–1985) several archaeological levels were discovered in the trench (G-4). What concerns us is The first level (1a-b), the second level (2a-b) and the third level (3a-b) all of which go back to the era of Khabur ware. The third level is the oldest in terms of history and contained a sherds of the early Khabur ware, found at the bottom level (3b), a level found in it a sherds of late third millennium B.C. pottery, and this level is the fourth level (4a) in terms of the sequence of levels of the site, it seems that a number of the stone foundations of buildings constructed with clay in the level (4a) have remained in use in the following level (3b). It is worth mentioning that the third level contained in a number of its parts , as well as early Khabur ware specified as the the first Khabur ware phase (1900–1813 B.C.)12)

10) This evidence is refuted the theory which confirms that there is a chronological hiatus represented by the absence of the pottery evidence in the 20th century B.C. in Upper Mesopotamia which is known as (Habur Hiatus I). Proposed by Harvey Weiss, caused as believed Weiss is a change climate suddenlly, result of a volcanic eruption, caused the migration of settlements in Upper Mesopotamia, causing the problem of the theory in the chronology of the pottery in Upper Mesopotamia [Weiss, et. al.1993: p. 999], which, for example, is fifth level sterile of Tell Taya [Reade 1968: pp. 256–257].

11) This dam has been differently named since its construction it was named as (Eski Mosul Dam), and then (Saddam Dam) after the changes in 2003 it was renamed as (Mosul Dam).

12) This is from the modern studies presented by Hiromichi Oguchi about the divide the Khabur ware to 4 phases. Through his study he tried to get rid of the confusion which accompanies the previous theories. Hiromich Oguchi preferred dividing the history of the Khabur ware into four phases (1–4). His division depends on the layer sequence in some sites besides comparing the different forms of the Khabur ware especially concerning the decoration. The first phase begins with the appearance of the first types of pottery in 1900 B.C., Which proved according to the evidence provided by the archaeological excavations in the number of sites in Upper Mesopotamia, this vessels characterized by the presence of the type of mixture with pottery of previous stage, assembled between the decoration of pottery of the late third millennium B.C., is incised and relief form with painting which appear as a horizontal bands or lines on the surface of the vessels especially the large jars and vessels, or there are a overlap of the two types in same level. The pottery vessels of this phase is considered as an important evidence of the originality of the Khabur ware and its belonging to Upper Mesopotamia as one of the products of the inhabitants of this region. The first stage ended with the king Šamši-Adad I (1813–1781 B.C.). In this period this mixture between the incised and the relief with painting came to an end, It was replaced by the painted decoration exclusively [Oguchi 1997: p. 196] which became a highly distinctive characteristics of the second phase. In this period, the Khabur ware reached an advanced stage in terms of industry, decoration and geographical spread. In fact, the archaeologists consider the pottery of this phase as the idealistic Khabur ware it was characterized by the horizontal bands and simple geometric forms, but The animal shapes are relatively less, It is, for example, is vessels that we’ve got from levels (3–4) of the site (A) and the levels (6–7) of the site (C) from Tell Rimah and the levels (8–10) from the site (HH) from Tell Brak. The proof of the end of the first phase and the beginning of the second phase is determined by the cuneiform tablets dated in the reign of King Šamši-Adad I, According to the seals which discovered in the same level context for the pottery of the second phase in a number of archaeological sites like Tell Chagar Bazar,Tell Rimah, Tell Yaya, Tell Leilan, Kulltepe Karum Ib and others. As for the end of this phase it is known from the excavations in Tell Leilan situated in the upper basin of Khabur River in Syria where the pottery of this phase continued until 1750 B.C., This is of course the beginning of the third phase based on the changes that have been observed in the form of birds that differ from the second phase, it has appear as a continuous frieze with circular head, dotted eyes, prominent back and descending tail with some geometric forms [Oguchi 2006: p. 45]. This phase continued until 1750 B.C., It is the period of the last settlement after the destruction of the city Šubat-Enlil (Tell Leilan) by the Babylonian king Samsu-Iluna (1749–1712 B.C.) in 1728 B.C. [Oguchi 2006: p. 45ff], This is related to textual evidence from Tell Rimah [Oguchi 1997: p. 205]. As for the end of this phase and the beginning of the fourth phase it has been determined in 1550 B.C. due to the intermingling

on a mixed sherds from this pottery and pottery of the late third millennium B.C. in the square north eastern of this trench [Oguchi 2003: pp. 86–87]. Such a mixture in Tell Jigan impels us to suppose that the pottery reserves its tradition of the late third millennium B.C. pottery and has continued in use until the date of the appearance of Khabur ware for the first time or at the beginning of the era in which the Khabur ware was in use. This assumption is supported by a sherds found in the third level, decorated with wavy or straight horizontal combing of incised or ribbed decoration, as well as painted horizontal bands as the early type of Khabur ware. This refers to the impact of late third millennium B.C. pottery in the Khabur ware and evidence of the continuity of this former pottery traditions (see Pl. V:12) [Oguchi 2003: p. 92]. Such a mixture is found also in other locations like Tell Hamad Agha as-Saghir which is one of the sites excavated within The North Jazerah salvage project, in level XI of the trench II [Oguchi 2003: p. 93], and is considered as an important evidence to prove the presence of Khabur ware since the early era in the geographical region of the north-west of Iraq.If we move in our conversation to other archaeological sites, we can consider Tell Billa and

Tell Taya as the most important, and that they provided evidence of pottery of the fourth layer, both of which indicate that the incised designs in their pottery which was less common and quality, represented by the combed bands and double rope around some of [Speiser 1933: p. 257] (see Pl. V: 13–14), which marks the decline of the use of this style in pottery at the expense of painted decorations.That the evidence provided by the archaeological excavations in Tell Chagar Bazar (level I)

[Mallowan 1937: p. 102], Tell Jigan (level III) [Oguchi 2003: p. 86–87], Tell Billa (level IV) [Speiser 1933: p. 255; Pl. 57: 7 and 58: 9], Rimah (area AS) [Oates 1970: p. 11ff and Pl. 9] and Tell Hamad Agha as-Saghir (level XI of the trench II) [Spanos 1990: p. 105ff] refer to the incised and relief decorations were used as the emergence of early Khabur ware with painted horizontal bands. The incised and relief decorations are made on pottery of the late third millennium B.C. and appeared in the layers of the early Khabur ware, mainly on incised and relief bands in the ribbing form or something like rope, which revolves around the vessel in a horizontal or wavy way, and perhaps the potters of Khabur ware imitated in the early period the incised and relief shapes but in painted bands. May be this is the reason behind the limited painted decoration which decorates the early Khabur ware on the painted bands without seeing any application for any geometric forms which began to be adopted in the second phase of it (1813–1750 B.C.). In general, the horizontal bands were carried out on the Khabur ware of in the same way that carried out the Horizontal incised bands, and this incised forms is mostly applicable in the form by a comb which consists of three pronged or more [Oates 2001: p. 165] (compare Pl. VI: [1–2] with [12–14]).These are the most prominent decorations of Khabur ware which can trace many of them in

the incised and relief bands forms carried out on the Akkadian pottery until the end of the third millennium B.C., is patterns of geometric decoration, the first of which is the triangles of different forms, appear in both models as a row revolves around the vessel, may containing smaller triangles which has shown a number of these triangles undulating slightly, which gives the triangles a form resembling the shape of the leaves of plants or may contain the slashes lines (compare Pl. VI: [3–4] with [15–16]), or triangles opposite the head (compare Pl. VI: [5] with [17]).In other models, these triangles have small circles on the pottery of late third millennium B.C.

in an incised form or the use of paints, especially black color. The models in question came from several archaeological sites of Upper Mesopotamia, such as Tell Brak, Tell Taya and Tell Kuyunjik. These circles or dots painted on pottery of late third millennium B.C. are presented in circular patches


layer of the Khabur ware with Nuzi ware in several sites, besides the similarities and the differences between the two types. Finally, this phase ended with the disappearance of Khabur ware ca 1400 B.C. or later on [Oguchi 2000: p. 122].


of irregular shape on the neck of the vessels. They often appear as stated in black color, while the circular shapes in Khabur ware are more regular in shape. In many cases, we find in both models along with triangles (compare Pl. VI: [6] with [18]), or may override or mediated the horizontal and wavy incised bands in the late third millennium B.C. pottery and painted horizontal bands in Khabur ware (compare Pl. VI: [7] with [19]), and arranged all of these decorative elements in a row or more revolves around the vessels horizontally.From the other decorative shapes that we see embellishing both types of pottery are the diagonal

and interlocking lines with each other (compare Pl. VI: [8] with [20]), and the zigzag lines (compare Pl. VI: [9] with [21]). Unlike the Akkadian and the third Dynasty of Ur pottery with incised decoration, a number of these decorative forms in Isin–Larsa type implemented by used the paints (compare Pl. VI: [8–10] and [22–24]).As we know that the painting of birds in spite of its scarcity in comparison with the geometric

shapes in Khabur ware but they common in animal scenes, which can be compared with examples found in the context of the layers of the late era of the third millennium B.C. in several sites such as Tell Brak, Tell Taya and other. These paintings were drawn impartially and simply, and perhaps by using a incised method in their incarnation which imposed simplicity on the potter, it is exactly the opposite of what we have seen in using the method of drawing in paints (compare Pl. I: 7–9 with Pl. VI: 25). What we can see is that the forms of snakes and scorpions are most commonly used with respect to the animal scene of Akkadian until the end of the third millennium B.C. pottery, and implemented in manner of a relief decoration, they constitute these forms on the unit, and then affixed to the vessels body before fired in the kiln [Reade 1968: Pl. 86: 24].Before the end of our conversation in this subject, there is a decorative element appeared on

one of the Khabur ware jars in the first level of Tell Chagar Bazar, represented by a row of triangles decorated inside what looks like cross-hatch. In the middle of these triangles there is a shape for a shrub or plant, this scene also found in decoration of early Dynastic period in the south Mesopotamia, specifically in early dynastic III pottery.

ConclusionIn this research, we dealt with the opinion which says that the local origin of Khabur ware from Upper Mesopotamia. Many opinions have emerged dealing with this subject in detail including the opinion which is the core of our search. In fact, the present study emphasizes the geographical area of the Upper Mesopotamia. We have used this term to be a substitute for the previous term (Northern Mesopotamia) because we believe that the previous expression does not include the geographical area in question while the term (Upper Mesopotamia) is a broader and more comprehensive. It has been possible to prove this opinion by comparing the Khabur ware with models preceded it in the Upper Mesopotamia, a Ninevite v pottery and pottery of the late third millennium B.C. which contained the Akkadian and third Dynasty of Ur pottery and finally the Isin-larsa pottery. This is reflected in the large similarity in the form of vessels of these models and Khabur ware, as well as identical the idea of decoration carried out at the aforementioned pottery types and Khabur ware. In some kinds like the Ninevite v incised pottery and pottery of the late third millennium B.C. carried out the decoration using the incised and ribbing method, while applied in the Khabur ware using paints and so in the same way it carried out the painted decoration Ninevite v painted pottery treated as a painted pottery style stained the latter in the third millennium B.C., which the archaeological excavations proved at several archaeological sites in upper Mesopotamia. Throughout what has been pointed out it is possible to prove that Khabur ware is made in Upper Mesopotamia.

AcknowledgementMy thanks and gratitude go to Mr. Hiromich Oguchi for his continuous help and support as well

as his encouragement for the publication of my first research in Al-Rafidan.

Bibliography

Abboud, S.1977 “Nienveh v pottery”, Sumer, vol. 33, No. 1, pp. 18–24 (In Arabic).

Al-Jumaily Q. S.2006 Ninevite V Period: Archaeological Study, Ph. D. Dissertation, University of Baghdad, Iraq (In Arabic).

Ayoub, S.1984 Die Keramik in Mesopotamien und in den Nachbargebieten: Von der Ur III-Zeit bis Ende der Kassitischen

Periode, Berlin.

Baccelli, G., et. al.2008 “Middle Bronze Khabur Ware from Tell Barri/ Kahat”, International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient

Near East 5, Vol. 1, Madrid, pp. 187–205.

Ball, W., et. al.1989 “The Tell Al-Hawa Project Archaeological Investigations in the North Jazera 1986–87”, Iraq, Vol. 51, pp. 1–66.

Delougaz, P.1947 Pottery from the Diyala region, Chicago.

Fujii, H.1987a “Working Report on First Season of Japanese Archaeological Excavation in Saddam Salvage project”, In:

Researches on the Antiquities of Saddam Dam Basin Salvage and Other Researches, Baghdad, pp. 33–61.1987b “Working report on second season of Japanese Archaeological excavation in Saddam Dam Salvage Project (Tell

Jigan)”, Researches on the Antiquities of Saddam Dam basin salvage and other Researches, Baghdad, pp. 62–67.

Lloyd, S., Safar, F. and Braidwood, R. J.1945 “Tell Hassuna: Excavations by the Iraq Government Directorate General of Antiquities in 1943 and 1944”,

Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Vol. 4, No. 4, pp. 255–289.

Mallowan, M. E. L1936 “The Excavations at Tall Chagar Bazar and an Archaeological Survey of the H

˘ abur region 1934–5”, Iraq, Vol.

3, No. 1, pp. 1–59+61–85.1937 “The Excavations at Tall Chagar Bazar and an Archaeological Survey of the H

˘ abur region. Second Campaign

1936”, Iraq, Vol. 4, No. 2, pp. 91–177.1946 “Excavations in the Bali h

˘ valley 1938”, Iraq, Vol. 8, pp. 111–159.

1947 “Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar”, Iraq, Vol. 9, pp. 1–87+89–259+i–iv.

Margueron, J.1970 “Deux Nouveaux Vases de Ninive v”, Syria, T. 47, pp. 25–35.

Matthews, R. J.1995 “Excavations at Tell Brak 1995”, Iraq, Vol. 57, pp. 87–111.

McMahon, A.1998 “The Kuyunjik Gully sounding-Nineveh: 1989 & 1990 Seasons”, Al-Rafidan, Vol. 19, pp. 1–32.

McMahon, A., et. al.2001 “New Excavations at Chagar Bazar 1999–2000”, Iraq, Vol. 63, pp. 201–222.

Nashef, K., et. al.1987 “Irak (II) ”, Archiv für Orientforschung, 34. Bd., pp. 98–236.

Numoto, H.1989 “Changes of the Ninevite 5 Carinated Bowl”, Al-Rafidan, Vol. 10, pp. 13–26.1993 “Incised and Excised Designs of the Ninevite 5 pottery”, Al-Rafidan, Vol. 14, pp. 69–108.1994 “Examinations of the Presence of the Ninevite 5 Intermediate Period”, Al-Rafidan, Vol. 15, pp. 51–71.



Oates, D.1970 “The Excavations at Tell Al-Rimah, 1968”, Iraq, Vol. 32, No. 1, pp. 1–26.

Oates, D. and Qates, J.1994 “The Brak: A stratigraphic summary, 1976–1993”, Iraq, Vol. 56, pp. 167–176.

Oates, D., et. al.1997 Excavations at Tell Brak, Vol. 1: The Mitanni and old Babylonian periods, London.

Oates, J.2001 “The third Millennium pottery”, In: Excavations at Tell Brak, Vol. 2: Nager in the third Millennium B.C., London.

Oguchi, H.1997 “A Reassessment of the distribution of Khabur ware: An approach from an aspect of its main phase”, Al-Rafidan,

Vol. 18, pp. 195–224.1998 “Notes on Khabur ware from sites outside its main distribution zone”, Al-Rafidan, Vol. 19, pp. 119–133.2000 “The Late Khabur ware problem once again”, Al-Rafidan, Vol. 21, pp. 103–126.2001 “The Origins of Khabur ware: A Tentative note”, Al-Rafidan, Vol. 22, pp. 71–87.2003 “20th Century B.C. north Mesopotamia: An Archaeological Dilemma”, Al-Rafidan, Vol. 24, pp. 83–100.2006 “The Date of the Beginning of Khabur ware periods 3: Evidence from the palace of Qarni-Lim at Tell Leilan”,

Al-Rafidan, Vol. 27, pp. 45–85.

Perkins, A. L.1949 The Comparative Archeology of Early Mesopotamia, Chicago.

Pfälzner, P. and Pfälzner, H. D.2001 “Ausgrabungen der Deutsch en Orient – Gesellschaft in der Zentralen Oberstadt von Tall Mozan / Urkeš: Bericht

Überdie in Kooperation mit dem IIMAS Durchgeführte Kampagne 2000”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, Nr. 133, pp. 97–139.

Polis, D. S.2011 Khabur Ware Discovered in the Sites of Upper Mesopotamia, M.A. Thesis, University of Mosul, Iraq (In Arabic).

Postgate, C., et. al.1997 The Excavation at Tell Al-Rimah: The Pottery, London.

Reade, J. E.1968 “Tell Taya 1967: Summary report”, Iraq, Vol. 30, No. 2, pp. 234–264.

Roaf, M. and Killick, R.1987 “A Mysterious Affair of Styles: The Ninevite 5 Pottery of Northern Mesopotamia”, Iraq, Vol. 49, pp. 199–230.

Spanos, S. Z.1988 “Ausgrabungen in Tall Durdara (Eski – Mosul Projekt) und Tall H

˙ amad Aġa a s

˙ - s˙ aġir (Ğazira Projekt) Nord

Iraq 1986”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, Nr. 120, pp. 59–92.1990 “Ausgrabungen in Tall H

˙ amad Aġa a s

˙ - s˙ aġir 1988”, Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft, Nr. 122,

pp. 89–123.

Speiser, E. A.1933 “The pottery of Tell Billa”, Museum Journal, Vol. 23, pp. 249–283.

Stein, D. L.1984 “Khabur ware and Nuzi ware: Their Origin, Relationship, and Significance”, Assur, Vol. 4, pp. 1–65.

Weiss, H., et. al.1993 The Genesis and collapse of third Millennium North Mesopotamia Civilization”, Science, No. 261, pp. 995–1004.

Yusif, K. T.1987 “Excavations at Tell Jambur”, In: Researches on the Antiquities of Saddam Dam Basin Salvage and Other

Researches, Baghdad, pp. 10–25. (In Arabic).


Plate I


Plate II


Plate III


Plate IV


Plate V


Plate VI


The References of the Plates

Plate IThe ReferenceThe SiteNo.

Mallowan 1936: Pl. 17: 11.Tell Chagar Bazar 1Pfälzner and Pfälzner 2001: Abb. 6: 1302.Tell Mozan 2Mallowan 1937: Fig. 21: 3.Tell Chagar Bazar 3Baccelli 2008: p. 200, Pl. 3: 1.Tell Barri 4Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 209, Pl. 79: 882.Tell Rimah 5Mallowan 1936: Fig. 17: 2.Tell Chagar Bazar 6Oates et. al. 1997: p. 201, Fig. 200: 457.Tell Brak 7Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 207, Pl. 78: 863.Tell Rimah 8Oates et. al. 1997: p. 201, Fig. 200: 455.Tell Brak 9Speiser 1933: Pl. 63.Tell Billa10Oates et. al. 1997: Fig. 200: 456.Tell Brak11Matthews 1995: p. 111, Fig. 21: 10.Tell Brak12Oates et. al. 1997: p. 183, Fig. 191: 276.Tell Brak13Margueron 1970: p. 26, Fig. 1a.Tell Khabur14Margueron 1970: p. 30, Fig. 3a.Tell Khabur15Nashef et. al. 1987: p. 194, Fig. 114.Tell Kutan16Numoto 1989: p. 17, Fig. 2: 13.Nineveh17Numoto 1989: p. 23, Fig. 7: 5.Tell Mohammed Arab18Fujii 1987a: p. 48, Fig. 10: 53.Tell Fisna19Arab Roaf and Killick, 1987: p. 209, Fig. 3.Tell Mohammed20Arab Roaf and Killick 1987: p. 209, Fig. 3.Tell Mohammed21Yusif 1987: p.23, Pl. 27:e.Tell Jambur22Numoto 1994: p. 55, Fig. 1: 68.Tell Karrana 323

Plate IThe ReferenceThe SiteNo.

Mallowan 1936: Pl. 17: 11.Tell Chagar Bazar 1Pfälzner and Pfälzner 2001: Abb. 6: 1302.Tell Mozan 2Mallowan 1937: Fig. 21: 3.Tell Chagar Bazar 3Baccelli 2008: p. 200, Pl. 3: 1.Tell Barri 4Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 209, Pl. 79: 882.Tell Rimah 5Mallowan 1936: Fig. 17: 2.Tell Chagar Bazar 6Oates et. al. 1997: p. 201, Fig. 200: 457.Tell Brak 7Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 207, Pl. 78: 863.Tell Rimah 8Oates et. al. 1997: p. 201, Fig. 200: 455.Tell Brak 9Speiser 1933: Pl. 63.Tell Billa10Oates et. al. 1997: Fig. 200: 456.Tell Brak11Matthews 1995: p. 111, Fig. 21: 10.Tell Brak12Oates et. al. 1997: p. 183, Fig. 191: 276.Tell Brak13Margueron 1970: p. 26, Fig. 1a.Tell Khabur14Margueron 1970: p. 30, Fig. 3a.Tell Khabur15Nashef et. al. 1987: p. 194, Fig. 114.Tell Kutan16Numoto 1989: p. 17, Fig. 2: 13.Nineveh17Numoto 1989: p. 23, Fig. 7: 5.Tell Mohammed Arab18Fujii 1987a: p. 48, Fig. 10: 53.Tell Fisna19Roaf and Killick 1987: p. 209, Fig. 3.Tell Mohammed Arab20Roaf and Killick 1987: p. 209, Fig. 3.Tell Mohammed Arab21Yusif 1987: p. 23, Pl. 27:e.Tell Jambur22Numoto 1994: p. 55, Fig. 1: 68.Tell Karrana 323

Plate IIThe ReferenceNo.

Perkins 1949: Fig. 19: 6. 1Perkins 1949: Fig. 19: 14. 2Perkins 1949: Fig. 19: 15. 3Perkins 1949: Fig. 19: 19. 4Perkins 1949: Fig. 19: 20. 5Perkins 1949: Fig. 19: 30. 6Perkins 1949: Fig. 19: 37. 7Perkins 1949: Fig. 19: 40. 8Perkins 1949: Fig. 19: 47. 9Perkins 1949: Fig. 19: 11.10Perkins 1949: Fig. 19: 41.11Polis 2011: pl. 29: 15.12Polis 2011: pl. 29: 14.13Polis 2011: pl. 29: 12.14Polis 2011: pl. 29: 9.15Polis 2011: pl. 29: 6.16Polis 2011: pl. 29: 16.17Polis 2011: pl. 29: 18.18Polis 2011: pl. 29: 11.19Polis 2011: pl. 29: 2.20


Polis 2011: pl. 29: 13.21Polis 2011: pl. 29: 19.22

Plate IIIThe ReferenceNo.

Numoto 1993: Fig. 1: 3. 1Numoto 1993: Fig. 1: 24. 2Numoto 1993: Fig. 3: 103. 3Numoto 1993: Fig. 4: 183. 4Numoto 1993: Fig. 1: 29. 5Numoto 1993: Fig. 4: 188. 6Numoto 1993: Fig. 5: 201. 7Numoto 1993: Fig. 2: 57. 8Numoto 1993: Fig. 1: 49. 9Polis 2011: pl. 29: 1.10Polis 2011: pl. 29: 2.11Polis 2011: pl. 29: 3.12Polis 2011: pl. 29: 5.13Polis 2011: pl. 29: 11.14Polis 2011: pl. 29: 13.15Polis 2011: pl. 29: 15.16Polis 2011: pl. 29: 14.17Polis 2011: pl. 29: 18.18

Plate IVThe ReferenceThe SiteNo.

Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 231, Pl. 90: 1042.Tell Rimah 1Mallowan 1936: Fig. 16: 1.Tell Chagar Bazar 2Reade 1968: pl. 87: 27.Tell Taya 3Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 199, Pl. 74: 799.Tell Rimah 4Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 199, Pl. 74: 795.Tell Rimah 5Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 199, Pl. 74: 789.Tell Rimah 6Speiser 1933: Pl. 60: 1.Tell Billa 7Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 199, Pl. 74: 786.Tell Rimah 8Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 199, Pl. 74: 783.Tell Rimah 9Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 199, Pl. 74: 784.Tell Rimah10Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 201, Pl. 75: 816.Tell Rimah11Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 201, Pl. 75: 804.Tell Rimah12Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 199, Pl. 74: 778.Tell Rimah13Speiser 1933: Pl. 60: 2.Tell Billa14Baccelli et. al. 2008: p. 201, Pl. 4: 15.Tell Barri15Mallowan 1937: Fig. 24: 11.Tell Chagar Bazar16Baccelli et. al. 2008: p. 201, Pl. 4: 2.Tell Barri17Baccelli et. al. 2008: p. 201, Pl. 4: 1.Tell Barri18Baccelli et. al. 2008: p. 202, Pl. 5: 11.Tell Barri19Ball et. al. 1989: p. 66, Fig. 29: 3.Tell Hawa20Mallowan 1936: Fig. 17: 1.Tell Chagar Bazar21Reade 1968: pl. 85: 22.Tell Taya22Oates 2001: p. 475, Fig. 429: 867.Tell Brak23Oates 2001: p. 507, Fig. 445: 1287.Tell Brak24Oates 2001: p. 461, Fig. 461: 717.Tell Brak25


Oates 2001: p. 459, Fig. 421: 684.Tell Brak26Oates 2001: p. 459, Fig. 421: 709.Tell Brak27Oates 2001: Fig. 421: 705.Tell Brak28Stein 1984: Pl. 1: 25.Ur29Ayoub 1984: p. 84, Typ. 1: 1.Isin30Stein 1984: Pl. 1: 26.Ur31Ayoub 1984: p. 84, Typ. 1: 2.Isin32Ayoub 1984: p. 84, Typ. 1: 7.Isin33Ayoub 1984: p. 86, Typ. 1A: 3.Isin34 Delougaz 1947: Pl. 151: B. 176.220a.Tell Asmar35Ayoub 1984: p. 129, Typ. 91: 7.Warka36Stein 1984: Pl. 3: 24.Nippur37Stein 1984: Pl. 3: 25.Nippur38Delougaz 1947: Pl. 151: B. 175.720.Isin39 Delougaz 1947: Pl. 153: B. 236.300.Tell Asmar40Delougaz 1947: Pl. 153: B. 237.100.Tell Asmar41Delougaz 1947: Pl. 148: B. 052.200c.Tell Asmar42

Plate VThe ReferenceThe SiteNo.

Mallowan 1936: Fig. 16: 2.Tell Chagar Bazar 1Mallowan 1936: Fig. 16: 3.Tell Chagar Bazar 2Mallowan 1937: Fig. 22: 14.Tell Chagar Bazar 3Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 167, Pl. 58: 520.Tell Rimah 4Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 171, Pl. 60: 559.Tell Rimah 5Oates et. al. 1997: p. 183, Fig. 191: 247.Tell Brak 6Oates et. al. 1997: p. 187, Fig. 193: 294.Tell Brak 7Oates et. al. 1997: p. 187, Fig. 193: 297.Tell Brak 8Oates et. al. 1997: p. 187, Fig. 193: 299.Tell Brak 9Oates et. al. 1997: p. 187, Fig. 193: 301.Tell Brak10Oates et. al. 1997: p. 187, Fig. 193: 302.Tell Brak11Fujii 1987b: P. 65, Fig. 5: 9.Tell Jigan12Speiser 1933: Pl. 57: 7.Tell Billa13Speiser 1933: Pl. 58: 9.Tell Billa14

Plate VIThe ReferenceThe SiteNo.

Mallowan 1937: Fig. 24: 15.Tell Chagar Bazar 1McMahon et. al. 2001: p. 220, Fig. 18: a.Tell Chagar Bazar 2Mallowan 1937: Fig. 21: 3.Tell Chagar Bazar 3Mallowan 1937: Fig. 23: 5.Tell Chagar Bazar 4Oates et. al. 1997: p. 183, Fig. 191: 275.Tell Brak 5Mallowan 1937: Fig. 23: 7.Tell Chagar Bazar 6Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 231, Pl. 90: 1046.Tell Rimah 7Mallowan 1937: Fig. 21: 5.Tell Chagar Bazar 8Postgate et. al. 1997: p. 209, Pl. 79: 896.Tell Rimah 9Mallowan 1937: Fig. 23: 10.Tell Chagar Bazar10Mallowan 1937: Fig. 21: 8.Tell Chagar Bazar11Oates 2001: p. 425, Fig. 404: 320.Tell Brak12Oates 2001: p. 425, Fig. 404: 321.Tell Brak13Oates 2001: p. 429, Fig. 406: 341.Tell Brak14


Oates 2001: p. 423, Fig. 403: 300.Tell Brak15Oates 2001: p. 423, Fig. 403: 301.Tell Brak16Reade 1968: pl. 84: 4.Tell Taya17Oates 2001: p. 423, Fig. 403: 297.Tell Brak18Oates, J., Op. Cit, p. 425, Fig. 404: 309.Tell Brak19McMahon 1998: p. 145, Fig. 8: 19.Tell Kuyunjik20Oates 2001: p. 427, Fig. 405: 328.Tell Brak21Ayoub 1984: p. 112, Typ. 63: 13.Isin22Ayoub 1984: p. 112, Typ. 63: 11.Tell ed-Der23Ayoub 1984: p. 112, Typ. 63: 8.Isin24Reade 1968: pl. 86: 23.Tell Taya25Delougaz 1947: Pl. 193: D.526.371.Tell Khafajah26

PostscriptThis volume is composed of three articles covering interesting topics in the West Asian history. We staff members of the Institute for Cultural Studies of Ancient Iraq are grateful to Drs. Almamori Haider Oraibi, Duraid S. Polis and Masamichi Yamada, who excellently contributed to this volume, XXXV, of our institutional journal Al-R a fid a n. The political situations in Iraq and Syria are difficult still now, but we always hope that the days when we can undertake research in these countries in ordinary conditions will come soon.

(Katsuhiko Ohnuma)

ラーフィダーン　第 XXXV 巻　２０１４

２０１４年（平成２６年）３月３１日発行

　国士舘大学イラク古代文化研究所東京都町田市広袴１−１−１

　レタープレス株式会社広島市安佐北区上深川町８０９−５

編集発行

印刷製本

第XXXV巻　　2014

初期王朝Ⅲ期におけるギッシャ（ウム・アル・アカリブ）とウンマ（ジョハ）とラガシュ（英文）アルマモリ・ハイデル・オライビ　上部メソポタミアで出土しているハブール土器の起源について（英文）ドゥライド・ポリス　エマルにおける王宮と市当局：両権威間の関係をめぐる通時的分析（英文）山田雅道

XXXV

VOLUMEXXX

V

2014

VOLUME XXXV　　2014

GIŠŠA (UMM AL-AQARIB), UMMA (JOKHA), AND LAGAŠIN THE EARLY DYNASTIC III PERIOD by Almamori HAIDER ORAIBI

THE LOCAL ORIGIN OF THE KHABUR WARE FROM UPPER MESOPOTAMIA by Duraid S. POLIS

THE ROYAL AND URBAN AUTHORITIES IN EMAR:A DIACHRONIC ANALYSIS OF THEIR RELATIONS by Masamichi YAMADA

TOKYO

THE LOCAL ORIGIN OF THE KHABUR WARE FROM UPPER MESOPOTAMIA

Documents

Transcript of THE LOCAL ORIGIN OF THE KHABUR WARE FROM UPPER MESOPOTAMIA