Atlas of the Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age

Subartu Editorial Board

Stefano ANASTASIO

Sultan Muhesen, Joaquin Cordoba, Marc Lebeau,

Atlas of the Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age

Lucio Milano, Walther Sallaberger, Philippe Talon With the support of the following institutions: Universita Ca' Foscari di Venezia, Universite Libre de Bruxelles, Universitad Aut6noma de Madrid, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universitat MGnchen

Subartu is edited by the European Centre for Upper Mesopotamian Studies

Manuscripts are to be submitted to: Marc Lebeau, ECUMS-Brussels, 41 Boulevard A. Reyers, Bte 6, B-1030 Brussels, Belgium

@

Order forms to be mailed to: Brepols Publishers, Begijnhof 67, B-2300 Turnhout, Belgium

BREPOLS JllJ

,

ll',U-p

""'C,l'llN

Table of contents

1.

FOREWORD

2.

THE "ASSYRIAN POTTERY OF THE IRON AGE": DEFINITION, CHRONOLOGY AND DISTRIBUTION

3

2.a

Definition of the study subject

3

2.b

Chronology: "Middle-", "Neo-" and "Post-Assyrian" periodization and pottery evidence

3

The distribution of the Assyrian pottery: diagnostic assemblages

6

Methodology for selecting the diagnostic assemblages

6

Region 1: Assyria proper

7

Region 2: Western Jazira

14

Region 3: Upper Tigris

20

Region 4: Central and southern Mesopotamia

21

Region 5: Cilicia qnd western Syria

23

Region 6: Palestine and Transjordan

24

Region 7: Western Iran

27

0

2.c

3.

Stefano ANASTASIO Atlas of the Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age (=Subartu XXIV}, Brepols, Turnhout, 2010 A4, sewn, 197 pages Contents: Archaeology, Pottery, Assyria, Iron Age Areas: Ancient Near East, Mesopotamia, Levant, Persia

THE ASSYRIAN POTTERY OF THE IRON AGE

29

3.a The main attributes of the pottery: shape and fabric

29

3.b

29

Shape Methodology for describing "groups" and "types"

29

3.c

Fabric

31

3.d

Other attributes: surface treatment, decoration, manufacture

33

3.e

Description of the types

34

4.

CONCLUSIONS

61

5.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

63

6.

PLATES

81

6.a Maps 1-5

82

6.b

Atlas of diagnostic types 6-35

88

6.c

Region 1: diagnostic assemblages 36-58

148

6.d

Colour plates 59-60

194

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording, or otherwise without the prior permission of the publisher. ISBN 978-2-503-53288-2 D/2010/0095/12 Printed in the E.U. on acid-free paper

v

1. Foreword

Assyrian pottery of the XI-VI centuries BC is a very special topic in Near Eastern archaeology for several reasons: it is widely diffused, relates to the expansion of the first real "empire" in Western Asia, and is wellcharacterized in terms of typology, manufacturing and decoration. Especially from the VIII century BC on, the Assyrian policy of settlement in conquered regions led to a wide-ranging occupation of all the available landscapes in many of the conquered provinces. As a result, there are numerous excavations with pottery dating to this period, the features of which are clearly related to those of types known to have been produced in the main settlements of the Assyrian homeland. However, the impact of such pottery seems to have differed from region to region: in some cases, Assyrian pottery types appear without mixing with local products, which sometimes completely disappear. In other cases, both Assyrian and local traditions seem to coexist, and to influence one another reciprocally. Finally, in certain regions only a very weak Assyrian influence seems to be recognizable in the local pottery production, mainly confined to particular luxury or specialty wares and shapes. A further noteworthy obstacle to analysis of this pottery is due to the fact that, unfortunately, we are mainly dealing with "preliminary" publications of the various assemblages, which provide only limited information and, sometimes, inadequate illustrations. Moreover, materials are represented using very different typologies, thus hindering comparison between different assemblages. Finally, only in a few cases are precise "types" identified and their exact chronology and diffusion defined. This project is based on my own previous preliminary research focusing on Iron Age pottery from Upper Mesopotamia, 1 through which a catalogue of assemblages from those regions was defined. On this basis, in 2007 the project to put together an Atlas devoted to this pottery was developed. During last two years, work has progressed in the following manner: first of all, a taxonomical classification of pottery from known Assyrian assemblages was carried out, adopting an analytical typology (described in chapter 3). The second step consisted of sorting the diagnostic repertory of vessels in a database, in order to better organize it by occurrences of selected types in different sites, and to single out the best examples to illustrate the proposed typology. Information about individual assemblages was also organized in a simple GIS, in order to provide distribution and diachronical maps to spot the diffusion of the pottery in Assyria and beyond. Then, the iconographic apparatus was realized, by means of tracing the published or original drawings of the selected diagnostic vessels with AutoCAD, in order to provide the volume with a homogeneous and vectorialized set of illustrations. This Atlas is the result of said efforts. The expected goal is not to answer all the open questions concerning the diffusion, chronology and variety of types of this production: the available data are not enough to allow us to understand all of the characteristic of this pottery, nor to solve many of the current problems. Rather, this Atlas is intended to offer scholars and researchers a sort of display case for data and illustrations, as well as to aid in disentangling the many sources of information existing today on the subject. My work profited from the assistance of several colleagues. In particular, I would like to thank Joan Oates, Warwick Ball, Anacleto D'Agostino, Michael Herles, Andrew Jamieson, Timothy Matney, Peter Miglus, Mirko Novak, St. John Simpson and Sebastiana Soldi, who provided me with drawings, photos and pre-prints of unpublished pottery, as well as offering me useful suggestions, comments and remarks. Special thanks are due to Marc Lebeau, who has supported this project since its very beginning and proposed the publication within the "Subartu" series, and to the whole staff of the Institut fiir Ur- und Friihgeschichte of the University of Heidelberg, where I spent most of the time devoted to the bibliographic research in the best atmosphere one could desire when carrying out archaeological research. Finally, I wish to note the continuous attention and critical review on the part of Prof. Dr. Harald Hauptmann, who has supported me in my research since I first met him as student, in long-ago 1995. For his tireless and fundamental help, this work is dedicated to him.

1

Anastasio 2007.

1

Subartu XXIV

In spite of all this assistance, the Atlas may still contain inaccuracies and lacunae, due to the continuous increase in publications and information on Iron Age excavations carried out in the Near East. However, the Atlas aims not to be an "exhaustive" work on the topic of the Assyrian pottery, but to be a useful reference-tool for students and scholars, in order to make future studies on this subject easier and more fruitful. Siena, 21.08.2009 Stefano Anastasio

2. The "Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age": Definition, Chronology and Distribution

2.a Definition of the study subject "Assyrian pottery of the Iron Age" in this context is intended to encompass pottery production characteristic of settlements within the area that can be considered the Assyrian "nucleus," that is, the triangle between the valleys of the Iraqi Tigris and the Lower Zab, and the areas immediately west and east thereof. The pottery from this area that has come to our knowledge thanks to excavated and (at least in part) published assemblages from sites like Nimrud!Kalhu, Sharqat!Ashur, Ninawa!Ninua, Tulul al-Aqar/Kar Tukulti Ninurta and Khirbat Khattuniyah, to cite just the major ones, presents a panorama which- although marked by undeniable particularities and uniquenesses specific to individual settlements - is that of a substantially homogeneous and standardized production, at least with regard to a few essential characteristics (described in details in chapter 3). 1 In general, it is a production characterized by a fairly limited repertory of basic "types," although rich in variations linked to the elaboration of details (rims, carinations), dimensional relationships among the various components of the vessel or combinations of elements pertaining to different types. In the vast majority of cases, the fabric is characterized by rather simple pastes, rich in straw and grit and with surfaces that are generally simply smoothed, and usually wheel-manufactured, at least in the case of small and medium-sized vessels. Decorative intentions or the realization of luxury items is concretized in the production of an extremely fine and well-characterized pottery, which is in fact traditionally given the label of "Palace ware", or in the use of glazing or, more rarely, painted decorations, with results that are often admirable (especially in the field of glazed pottery), but are on the whole quite rare in comparison with the entirety of the production. Moving forward from this very general definition, it is necessary first and foremost to define the chronological and geographical boundaries of this production, to differentiate it from those that we will decide to consider as different in that they are "earlier" or "later," and above all in that they are coeval but from outside the main production area, i.e. Assyria proper, with interactions and reciprocal influences that make definition of the pottery in question far from simple or obvious. As we know, the "labels" with which we define pottery (or any other expression of material culture) are useful, perhaps even indispensable tools for organizing data and communicating it through a shared language, but they require the most precise definition possible of what they will be applied to in every individual context, and above all a necessary mental "flexibility" that always allows us to recognize clear boundaries and avoid any sort of excessive schematicism.

2.b Chronology: "Middle-", "Neo-" and "Post-Assyrian" periodization and pottery evidence We must first consider the terminology connected to the chronology of this production. Assyrian history, like much of the history of ancient peoples, is subject to the traditional division into Early, Middle and Late periods, which in general history translates into the "Paleo-", Middle-" and "NeoAssyrian" periods. In our specific case, "Late-Assyrian" can be used as a synonym for or a further subdivision of the "Neo-Assyrian" period, while the apparent continuity, in terms of material culture, between the "Neo-/Late-Assyrian" period and the one that follows it suggested the addition of a "Post-Assyrian" period, to identify what would correspond to the general historical Medean and NeeBabylonian phase. This term could be misleading, because it concerns a period that corresponds to different situations from the politic point of view. In any case, this inadequacy in the terminology highlights the continuity with the earlier Assyrian period that seems to be the main feature of the

1

Cf Hausleiter 2008, 219, who notices that results from the analysis on the pottery from Sharqat suggests that " ... apart from these common standards, each of the capitals developed its own pottery tradition".

2

3

Subartu XXIV

Atlas of the Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age

material culture of this phase. 2 In fact, archaeological data for this period are quite scanty compared to the data for the Middle- and Neo-Assyrian periods, and the impossibility of drawing a precise picture for the status of the whole of Upper Mesopotamia until the Hellenistic period is also due to this scarcity, both in archaeological and written sources.

A good example of an excavation with possibly interesting data concerning this problem is Tall Baqaq on the Tigris, where an archive of IX-century BC cuneiform tablets was unearthed in the 1980s.9 Unfortunately, its pottery is as yet almost completely unknown. More recently, S. Lumsden published some preliminary information about the materials from Ninawa10 that could be especially interesting for understanding the passage between LEA/Middle- and IA/Neo-Assyrian phases, although there still are not enough published data to allow for a comprehensive analysis of this problem. Other materials dating back to the IX century BC could probably be identified by reviewing pottery from excavations carried out in various places in Nirnrud. 11 Finally, a special case is that of Qasrij Cliff,12 the dating of which is quite controversial and clearly demonstrates the uncertainty that still characterizes studies on early Neo-Assyrian pottery: J. Curtis excavated the site and proposed a dating around the VIII century BCY More recently, R. Bernbeck pointed out the absence of"typical" shapes ofthe VIII century BC and proposed a dating to the IX century BC. 14 Finally, R. Green reconsidered the question and pointed out that a dating to the VII century BC cannot be excluded eitherP Other published pottery dated by scholars to the IX century BC can be found at other sites, mainly in Syrian Jazira and the Middle-Euphrates,16 although it must be pointed out that none of those assemblages is enough to support a clear reconstruction of the IX-century BC typology, and/or the dating is controversial. Recently, two new assemblages that help to shed light on the period in question have been at least partially published: materials from a deep sounding at Sharqat published by Cl. BeugerP and the material from Area G of the excavation of Tall Barri, studied by A. D'Agostino. 18 More detailed information on these two sites can be found in chapter 2c, but at this point it is sufficient to underline that in both cases, although there are no certain elements for attribution of precise dating to individual strata, there is no doubt that the sequence at least in part evidences the more ancient, "Early Neo-Assyrian" phase as well, and that no caesuras or radical changes can be noted to have occurred in the pottery production. 19 So, if we concur with Roaf's basic observation, that of a graduality of change between the periods traditionally known as Middle- and Neo-Assyrian, characterized by an intermediary phase separating - roughtly - the first half of the XI century BC and the second half of the IX, we can here adopt the following general chronological division, to be used as a reference for the material we will deal with in the next chapter:

Personally, I maintain that while the use of the general term "Assyrian" is valid and practical, especially and specifically to efficaciously analyze the relationship with the local products of various regions, it is less useful today to utilize the terms of the history of events, and it is thus preferable to refer to Late Bronze Age and Iron Age production (hereafter referred to as LBA and lA). Unfortunately, a precise chronological sequence within the entire period is still impossible to establish: while the panorama of pottery from the central phase of the LBA/Middle-Assyrian period is fairly clear (thanks to repertories like those of Tall Abyad, Tall Bderi, Tall Barri and Tall Shaykh Hamad, and studies like those by P. Pfalzneil and K. Duistermaafl), and pottery production from the most important settlements of the Late-Assyrian period is equally well-known, 5 the same cannot be said for the crucial phases of the Early Iron Age, which are almost completely unrepresented in stratigraphic excavation repertories. An in-depth analysis conducted on a wide range of multiple sources of available information has been provided by M. Roaf in a brief but dense article, 6 in which the author strongly underlines the overall continuity that must be recognized between the so-called Middle- and Neo-Assyrian phases, evidenced primarily by the continuity in the Assyrian King List, and the fact that, especially for the period between the mid-XI and the mid-X centuries BC, at least on the basis of written sources, there seems to have been no significant building activity under Assyrian sovereigns, in a period of reduced military and political power. This gap seems to separate a "Middle-" phase from a "Neo-Assyrian" one which, aside from the chronological caesura, is not at all evident, and corresponds to a phase which M. Roaf defines as the Dark Age "for convenience"? With our attention focused solely on pottery production, and on the basis of studies and recent publication of new data, it seems opportune to introduce the concept of a "Transitional phase" to separate the two historical phases, to better highlight the absence of true caesuras and the presence, on the other hand, of a phenomenon of gradual change in pottery production, with types that disappear, but not necessarily ex abrupto (as possibly happened in the case of the standard carinated bowls typical of Middle-Assyrian production, here type BW_03, dealt with on chapter 3.e), as well as new types that seem to be the result of gradual development rather than rapid innovations. Unfortunately, we can say of Assyrian pottery in general what David and Joan Oates wrote specifically regarding that of Nimrud: "It [the pottery] is also the type of object most often used for purposes of dating. However, at Nimrud this situation is reversed, since it was our original intention to attempt to date Late Assyrian pottery more precisely by the associated cuneiform texts ... ". 8 Unfortunately, the information and data we have about the material culture do not cover the whole period in a homogeneous way, but concern mainly the final part of it. The period between the XI and X centuries BC is particularly obscure, and only a few more data can be abscribed to the IX and early VIII centuries BC. There are some sites in which excavations have brought to light layers dating back to those centuries, but unfortunately only a meager amount of their pottery has been studied and published to date.

lAO

Iron Age, "generic", used to describe all those assemblages (unfortunately, there are many) that can be roughly attributed to the period in question, but with no possibility of better definition in reference to one of the three following phases.

IA I

Iron Age I, i.e. the "Transitional phase" between the phases traditionally called "Middle-" and "Late-Assyrian", that is, between the XI and approximately the middle of the VIII centuries BC.

IA2

Iron Age 2, i.e. what is traditionally labelled "Late-Assyrian" period, between the mid-VIII century BC and the end of the empire in 612 BC.

IA 3

Iron Age 3, i.e. what is traditionally labelled the "Post-Assyrian" period.

This is obviously a purely practical division, dictated more by the contingent situation and the effective availability of repertories than by actual interpretations of archaeological data; it would be useless, for example, to try to further subdivide phase lA 1, for the simple reason that we do not have sufficient material to justify such a definition, at least from the point of view of the analysis of pottery assemblages.

9

On the use ofthis terminology see in particular Green 1999, footnote 18, who considered the term Post-Assyrian "not very appropriate" and would prefer a distinction between "Neo-Assyrian" before 612 BC and "Late-Assyrian" after, even if presently precluded by the widespread use of the form "Late-Assyrian" as synonymous with "Neo-Assyrian". See also Ball (ed.) 2003, 17 who observes that the term "Post-Assyrian" is in any case "the least unsatisfactory", and " ... although not ideal, does at least acknowledge the dominant force that Assyrian civilisation exerted over the north, and continued to exert after its political collapse". Furthermore, see Curtis, J. 2003 for an overall picture of archaeological traces from the post-612 BC period in the main Assyrian settlements. Finally, on continuity, see Simpson 1990, who underlines how the tradition of "Post-Assyrian" and Achaemenid Mesopotamia probably represented a gradual development from the Early Iron Age. A more marked change would not occur until Hellenism (p. 130). 3 Pflilzner 1995. 4 Duistermaat 2008. 5 In particular the assemblages from Nimrud, Sharqat, Khirbat Khattuniyah. Cf. Chapter 2.c for detailed entries and bibliography concerning these sites. 6 Roaf2001. 7 In the same article, Roaf summarizes the various scholarly positions with regard to the possible date of the beginning of the Neo-Assyrian period, which in fact vary among those who consider Tiglat-pileser I to be the first Neo-Assyrian king, and those who give this distinction to Tiglat-pilser III (p. 357). 8 Oates D.- Oates J. 2001, 250.

Green 1999, 97. Lumsden 1999. 11 An exhaustive synthesis in Hausleiter 1999a. 12 Curtis J. 1989; Green 1999, 106-107. 13 CurtisJ. 1989,17. 14 Bembeck 1994, 117. 15 Green 1999, 106. 16 For example, Tall Halaf (Hrouda 1962), Tall al-Fakhkhariyah (Kantor 1958) and Tall Hamidi (Eichler et alii 1985; !idem 1990), Ana (Northedge et alii 1988). See chapter 2.c for a detailed picture of these and other sites. 17 Beuger 2007. 18 D' Agostino 2008a; Idem 2008b. 19 In the case of the deep sounding at Sharqat, Cl. Beuger proposes a fairly precise dating of all of the strata comprised between IIb2-IIb1 and Ila, with IIb2-IIb1 to be considered as post Tiglat-pileser I/Ashurbelkala and earlier than the VIII century BC, attested in stratum Ila2 (Beuger 2007, 329), but this is in any case a hypothetical attribution, even if based on very good arguments. The Tall Barri material, on the other hand, has to date only been published in preliminary form, and I thank A. D' Agostino for giving me the opportunity to see the entire set of plates from the publication in preparation, in which the material is opportunely distinguished according to phases, with a typology that allows for efficacious recognition of the attestation and evolution of various types within the entire sequence.

4

5

2

10

Atlas of the Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age

Subartu XXIV

2.c The distribution of Assyrian pottery: diagnostic assemblages Methodology for selecting diagnostic assemblages Considering the vastness of the expansion of the Assyrian empire and the great number of excavations that have unearthed pottery materials attributable to the Iron Age over this entire area, it is clear that the number of assemblages to include in a study such as ours is potentially extremely high.

Following is an overview of the panorama of assemblages from the various regions, with a list of all of the excavations- diagnostic and otherwise- considered, which are shown on maps in plates 1-5. The regions distinguished to illustrate the overall repertory are:

1. Assyria proper (i.e. the region today located in the Iraqi provinces of Ninawa, Dahuk and, beyond the Lower Zab, Arbil, Kirkuk/at-Tamin and as-Sulaymaniyah).

The analysis was therefore carried out by selecting assemblages on the basis of certain parameters, so as to constitute a representative diagnostic repertory that serves to reconstruct an overall panorama of the typological variety of Assyrian production. Nonetheless, it is understood that the following list of sites is not in itself exhaustive with regard to evidence of the Assyrian presence in general in the various regions. 20

2. Western Jazira (in what is now Syria, in the provinces of al-Hassaka and ar-Raqqa, extending to the Euphrates).

First and foremost, for diagnostic purposes, the study considered only excavation material, exluding survey material. This initial selection was considered necessary for the purposes of studying a type of pottery like that in question, in which the evolution of the various types seems to take place mainly through gradual changes and chronologies of individual types are often still uncertain. Survey material was obviously considered for comparison, especially in cases of projects carried out in regions of particular importance for this study,2 1 but was not utilized to develop the typology described below.

4. Central-southern Mesopotamia (comprising what is now the Syrian province of Deir ez-Zor and the Iraqi provinces of al-Anbar, Salah ad-Din and Dyala, and extending to the south in the valley of the Middle- and Lower Euphrates and the Tigris).

Within this first excavation repertory, only those Iron Age pottery materials that were effectively accessible, at least in preliminary form, directly or in specialized scientific literature, were considered as diagnostic. This initial, obviously necessary selection unfortunately required an immediate exclusion of potentially important excavations with assemblages that would have proven fundamental for the study, but which are not practically utilizable or accessible. In a few cases, it was necessary to exclude from the repertory of diagnostic excavations some digs in which the finds, although at least in part published, were considered dubious with regard to chronology or interpretation, at least from the point of view of pottery classification (individual cases and the reasons for exclusion are indicated in the relative entries below, and existing bibliographic information is in any case provided). In the tables below, an indication of "Relevance" is associated with each site. An X is used to mark sites pertaining to the category of diagnostics on the basis of the parameters indicated above that effectively offer a pottery panorama which, to varying degrees, clearly attests to the presence of a significant number of shapes connected to true Assyrian production, albeit alongside peculiar productions, regionalisms, etc. Thus, we exclude sites which, although they may be of interest for the purposes of this research, show attestations of Assyrian pottery limited to sporadic and exceptional examples, or to recognition of mere stylistic influences in substantially different productions. Finally, when possible, the specific recognizable chronology of the excavation is indicated within the assemblages thus selected, so as to identify repertories that are at least potentially datable to clearly-defined phases, according to the terminology (lA 0 > lA 3) indicated in the paragraph above. In this regard it should be noted that the chronological indication is often to be considered guardedly and with flexibility. Aside from a very few cases in which homogenous assemblages can effectively be dated with certainty thanks to associations with epigraphic or clearly datable material, in most cases the indications suggested in publications are based on comparisons with other materials, which, however, are in turn often dated indicatively and not on the basis of specific documents. One good example regards the material from Ana, for most of which a dating to the IX-VIII century BC is suggested- which would make it particularly interesting given the dearth of assemblages datable to this phase - but in reality the dating is based on comparison with other repertories, such as, in this case, those from Tall Halaf and Nippur, which are of uncertain date. 22 Elsewhere, well-documented and even fundamental assemblages lack unanimous chronological attributions; an emblematic example is the above-mentioned Qasrij Cliff excavation.

20 With regard to the pottery production, it must be pointed out that sources different from the assemblage materials do not seem to provide useful help. For example, written sources provide little information between names used to indicate vessels and actual vessel types, as well as about the specific function of each type. In addition, many representations of vessels in reliefs and paintings give us a very selective picture of the shapes, and in general it is not possible to understand whether the represented vessels were made in pottery or in metal: see examples in the reliefs of Ashumasirpal II (Barnett 1960, pl. 29; Budge 1914, pl. XXX-XXXII and XXXV), Shalmanasar III (Budge 1914, pl. XXXVIII), and Ashurbanipal (Barnett- Lorenzini 1975, pl. 169; Hall1928, pl. LII/3). As for the representation in general of vessels in the Assyrian reliefs, see especially Curtis J.- Reade 1995, 133-134. 21 For example, the surveys of the North Jazira Survey Project in the Iraqi Jazira (Wilkinson- Tucker 1995), the T.A. V.O. Survey in the Lower Khabur region (Morandi Bonacossi 1999) and the UTARP surveys in the Upper Tigris (Parker- Creekmore 2002; Parker et alii 2003; Parker- Swartz 2005) just to quote some of the most relevant as far as the study of the Assyrian pottery. 22 Cf Kulemann-Ossen- Richter 2005, 165-166.

6

3.

Upper Tigris (in what is now South Eastern Turkey).

5. Cilicia and Western Syria (partially in what are today the Mersin, Adana and Ratay regions of Turkey, and continuing down into present-day western Syria and Lebanon). 6. Palestine and Transjordan (corresponding to territories currently located in Israel, the Palestinian National Authority and Jordan). 7.

Elam and Eastern regions (in what is now western Iran).

Region 1: Assyria proper In spite of the fact that this is the fundamental region, i.e. the "homeland" of this pottery production, and its main settlements have been the object of excavations since the very dawn of Near Eastern archaeology, there are in reality not many known assemblages. In general, here again the publications are still "preliminary" in most cases. The excavations at Nimrud, thanks largely to the results of various British expeditions, still play a pivotal role in establishing the basis of a Neo-Assyrian typology. 23 More recently, A. Hausleiter pointed out the potential interest of the materials from the Meuszynski excavations, 24 especially for the period concerning the VIII and VII centuries BC. A. Hausleiter25 also carried out a review of pottery stored in Berlin, already published by A. Haller 26 and concerning funerary contexts from Sharqat; the materials from a deep sounding from the same site have recently been published by Cl. Beuger, 27 with an assemblage interesting mainly for the possibility of dating part of it to the earlier phase of the Iron Age (see below, in the entry on Sharqat). In central Assyria we have assemblages from Ninawa28 and Talul al-Aqar, 29 analysis of which is still in progress. At the western edge of the Assyrian heartland, very interesting excavations were carried out in the Eski Mosul area: Khirbat Khattuniyah 30 and Qasrij Cliff3 1 are of special interest, thanks to detailed publication of their pottery assemblages. West of the Tigris, in the Iraqi Jazira, the excavation of Tall ar-Rimah must be noted, because it is one of the few cases of existing publications which provides readers with a rich assortment of illustrations of the excavated pottery. 32 South of the Greater Zab, an interesting assemblage is that from Qasr Shamamuk, the ancient Kilizu, although it comes mainly from a necropolis, with no possibility of linking it to precise stratigraphical contexts. 33 Other sites that can be considered diagnostic are Humaidat, Khirbat Hatara, Khirbat Kharhasan, Khursabad, Tall Abu Dhahir, Tall al-Hawa, Tall Shelgiyah and Tall

23

See especially Lines 1954 and Oates J. 1959. Hausleiter 1999a, 25-40. 25 Hausleiter 1999b. The comprehensive study is available only in his Dissertation, published in 1996, and an expanded edition of this work is expected (Hausleiter A., Neuassyrische Keramik- Chronologie und Formen in Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 26). The publication of these materials is very promising, especially considering the large number of complete profiles. 26 Haller 1954. 27 Beuger 2007. 28 Lumsden 1999. 29 Schmidt 1999. 3 °Curtis J.- Green 1997; Green 1999, 95. 31 Curtis J. 1989. 32 Postgate C. et alii 1997. 33 See Anastasio 2008 for preliminary information on this site. The complete edition of the finds from this excavation is in preparation, within the catalogue of the Mesopotamian Collection of the Archaeological Museum of Florence (Anastasio S., Conti G., Valentini S. editors). 24

7

Subartu XXIV

Atlas of the Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age

Taya, although the amount of published materials from these sites is not yet comparable with those of the above-mentioned sites. 34 A special note should be made concerning assemblages that can be dated to the lA 3, i.e. the so-called Post-Assyrian period. Apart from the Nimrud assemblage from Fort Shalmanasar (see the entry below), which seems to date to a moment immediately after the fall of the empire, and whose feature seem to be almost identical with those of the earlier lA 2 assemblages from the same site, probably the most fruitful excavations in Assyria concerning these problems are those carried out by The British Museum expeditions at Khirbat Khattuniyah-level 335 and Khirbat Qasrij, 36 in the Eski Mosul region. In both cases, the stratigraphy shows that we are dealing with settlements which, after the general destruction of the end of VII century BC, were again inhabited in the following period. Considering these data on the whole, it seems quite clear that no abrupt change took place between the very end of the lA 2 and the early lA 3 phases. It is possible to postulate that, after the end of the Assyrian empire, several sites were again settled by indigenous people, who simply reorganized the settlements and produced a material culture emulating previous techniques and styles. In the cases of Khirbat Khatuniyah and Khirbat Qasrij it is evident that there was a strong continuity, especially concerning the typology of shapes, even though new types, or at least variants, seem to appear on the lA 3 horizon (see examples in pl. 42, 18-21 which match no precise lA 2 shapes). Even the note about the increased use of mineral temper (grits) in the fabrics of level 3 at Khirbat Khattuniyah, compared to the fabrics of the previous level, is not enough to establish a strong differentiation between the productions of the two periods, 37 in part because no similar apects in the assemblages of other sites have yet been found, and thus it is not possible to consider this peculiarity of Khattuniyah as valid for the whole of Post-Assyrian production. 38 Site

Khirbat Hatarah

X

125

Chronology: lA 2 Researches: Centro Scavi di Torino per il Media Oriente e !'Asia (I) 1984-1986. Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: Livello 8. Bibliography: Fiorina 1997; Green 1996, 96; Negro 1997.

Khirbat Kharhasan

X

113

Chronology: lA 0 Researches: British School of Archaeology in Iraq (UK) 1986. Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: One trench, where ... "bulldozing exposed the remains of a cremation jar in situ, in a typical 'vegetable-tempered' Late Assyrian type" (Ball [ed.] 2003, 106). Bibliography: Ball (ed.) 2003, 103-106; Green 1999, 100.

Khirbat Khatuniyah

X

122

Chronology: lA 2, IA 3 Researches: The British Museum (UK) 1984-1985. Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: Levels 4-3. Levels 6 and 5 were excavated only in a small sounding. The main Assyrian level is level 4, in which a building with at least two rooms, destroyed in a fire, was excavated. J. Curtis suggests that the fire was possibly associated with the end of the Assyrian Empire, and that level 3, whose structure was on a different allignment and more modest than those of level4, is Post-Assyrian (Curtis J.- Green 1997, 11).

Relevant

Mapn°

al-Botha

-

150

Bibliography: Altaweel2007, 126.

al-Khan

-

131

Bibliography: Caldwell 1983.

Alganah

-

147

Bibliography: Altaweel2006, 169-171.

Researches: The British Museum (UK) 1983.

Bibliography: Curtis, J. et alii 1993; Oates D. 1974 (esp. pp. 176-177, citing pottery "virtually identical to material from the destruction levels at Nimrud"); Tucker 1994 (esp. p. 109, footnote 110, citing possible Post-Assyrian pottery from surface in the area of the city wall).

Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: Single-period site.

Balawat

Bardiya 8

-

-

Description

132

Bibliography: Curtis J.- Green 1997; Green 1999, 104-109. Khirbat Qasrij

X

121

Chronology: IA 3

Excavations were concentrated in the eastern side of the tell, where an industrial complex with a pottery kiln was brought to light. A dating to the Post-Assyrian period has been suggested by J. Curtis, because the site was a single period one, with pottery rich in grits as in the level 3 of Khattuniyah. Also the shape repertory shows some types (for instance, see pl. 42,18-21) that are unusual for a IA 2 production, and the indication of IA 3 is maintained in the catalogue of pl. 6-35.

Bibliography: Ball (ed.) 2003, 173.

139

Hajiluk 2

-

135

Bibliography: Killick- Roaf (eds.) 1983, 211.

Humaidat

X

134

Chronology: lA 0 (Hausleiter 1996, 156 suggests a date in the VII cent. BC, i.e. lA 2). Research: Iraqi excavations, early '80s (I am not aware of a precise date).

Bibliography: Curtis J. 1989; Green 1999, 104-109; Simpson 1990. Khirbat Shirinah

X

lll

Chronology: IA 0 Researches: British School of Archaeology in Iraq (UK) 1985-1986.

Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: Tombs. Bibliography: Hausleiter 1996, 144; Ibrahim- Amin Agha 1983.

Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: Levels 1-3. Bibliography: Ball (ed.) 2003, 45-47; Green 1999, 101.

Jarwanah

-

105

Bibliography: Jacobsen- Lloyd 1935.

Kawala Kanda!

-

107

Bibliography: Postgate J. 1989.

Khirbat Aqar Babira

-

123

Bibliography: Siirenhagen 1987, 177.

Khirbat al-Qasr

-

146

Bibliography: Altawee12006, 164-166.

Khirbat Aloki

-

144

Bibliography: Wilkinson- Tucker 1995, 66.

Khirbat Amr Shamali

-

151

Bibliography: Altaweel2006, 174-176.

Khursabad

X

126

Chronology: lA 2 Researches: Musee du Louvre (F), Oriental Institute, Chicago (USA), SOAH (IRQ), between 1843 and 1993. In particular, Chicago between 1928 and 1935. Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: Excavations ofthe Oriental Institute in the Royal Palace and adjacent area of the city. Bibliography: Loud et alii 1936; Loud- Altman 1938.

Nimrud

X

133

Chronology: IA 1, lA 2, IA 3 Researches: Apart from researches carried out in the XIX century (Layard, Rassam, Loftus, Smith), the site was excavated by teams from the following institutions: The British Museum (UK) 1949-1963 and 1989; SOAH (IRQ) several campaigns since 1956 (in particular, Iraqi excavations carried out between 1988 and 1989, discovered tombs in the Ashurnasirpal II palace); Polish Centre of Mediterranean Archaeology (PL) 1974-76; Centro Scavi di Torino peril Medio Oriente e !'Asia (I) 1987-1990.

34

See the entries for bibliographic references for these sites. As for al-Hawa, publication of the results of the excavations and of the pottery is in preparation. I wish to thank W. Ball for the opportunity to see the as yet unpublished material, as well as to use some items of that assemblage for the plates in this Atlas (see pl. 12, 08; 27, 12 and 35, 07). 35 Curtis J.- Green 1997. 36 Curtis J. 1992. 37 Curtis J.- Green 1997, 81. 38 Green 1999, 116.

8

Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: a) Excavations by The British Museum (1949-1963 and 1989):

9

Atlas of the Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age

Subartu XXIV

1) the so-called T.W. 53, i.e. a living area on the Main Mound (excavations BM 1953, levels 4-2=NeoAssyrian, Level 1 = Post-Assyrian). In level 3 an archive of cuneiform tablets dating to the mid-VII century BC was found. Level II was destroyed most likely on 612 BC. The pottery from this area was published in Lines 1954. 2) NW Palace, with very little information regarding pottery (Mallowan 1966, 176 and figs. 108. 115. 180, dating to VII century BC).

Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: Mashki Gate (MG22). According to S. Lumsden, second and first building levels can be ascribed to Late Assyrian period (lA 2), while materials later than 612 BC come from pits cut in MG22. It is also possible that pottery earlier than IA 2 came from the lowest level at MG22, but this assemblage has not yet been published (see Lumsden 1999, 3: "... the lowest levels at MG22, only tested in two confined areas, may contain late 8th-Century BC pottery. The pottery from the lower levels of the two well-hole sections studied on the Lower Town Mound [ ... ) seem to carry the sequence farther into the 8th and 9th Centuries BC, and perhaps even earlier").

3) Governor's Palace, also with few published notes on the pottery (Mallowan 1966, 50-51 and, more recently, in Curtis J.- Reade 1995, figs. 127. 139). 4) Fort Shalmanasar, with information published in Mallowan 1966, 437-438 and, mainly, in Oates J. 1959. This pottery assemblage can be considered post-612 BC, from the period of "squatter" settlement of the site immediately after the fall of the Assyrian Empire (p. 130). There are no significant differences between this pottery and that from T.W. 53. Two possible interpretations for this similarity have been suggested: "squatters" used vessels that had been produced earlier than the destruction of 612 BC, or they produced pottery similar to that of the previous period (Cf Oates D.- Oates J. 2001, 257). For this reason, examples illustrated in plates 6-35 of the Atlas are indicated as lA 2/3 in their captions. Excavations in this area were resumed by The British Museum at the end of the 1980s, especially in Room T20 (Curtis J. 1992). In the area of Fort Shalmanasar, Italian excavations were also carried out, discovering levels of Neo- and Post-Assyrian periods (Fiorina 2008; Fiorina et alii 2005). 5) Burnt Palace, a vessel from which is published in Curtis J. et alii 1995, fig. 144, dating to VIII century BC). 6) Temple of Ninurta, which should be of particular interest for its pottery, because it can be dated to IX century BC. Unfortunately, I am unaware of any published pottery from this excavation.

Bibliography: Lumsden 1999. Qasr Shamamuk

X

106

Chronology: lA 0 Researches: Missione Archeologica in Mesopotamia (I), 1933. Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: Necropolis in the lower town (in particular, burials 3, 20, 35, 37, 39-40, 43-44). Bibliography: Anastasio 2008; Furlani 1934.

Qasrij Cliff

X

120

Chronology: IA 0 Researches: The British Museum (UK) 1983. Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: A circular pit full of animal bones and sherds. Concerning these sherds, Curtis J. 1989, 17 points out the "remarkable extent to which vegetable temper had been included in the fabric; grit tempered wares were far less common, and relatively unusual". As for the dating of this assemblage, several possibilities have been suggested: IX century BC (Bernbeck 1994, 117), VIII century BC (Curtis J. 1989, 17), VII century BC (Green 1999, 106) (see above, in chapter 2.b). Bibliography: Curtis J. 1989; Green 1999, 106-107; Simpson 1990.

Seh Qubbah

-

110

Bibliography: Ball1987, 80; Idem 1989; Idem (ed.) 2003; Green 1999, 101. Notes: apart from surface sherds, a sounding (Area A) is cited, but with no stratigraphic remains (Ball [ed.] 2003, 69). A selection of sherds is published in Green 1997, fig. 7.

7) Nabu Temple (Mallowan 1966, 282). 8) A building dating to Adad-Nirari III (810-783 BC), a vessel from which is published in Mallowan 1954, pl. 163. b) Polish excavations (1974-1976): Areas North, West I and West 2 on the mound. Area West 2 was probably part of the Central Palace of Tiglat-Pilser III, while Areas North and West 1 belong to the Central Building of Ashurnasirpal II. The pottery from Room 5 of this last assemblage has been illustrated by Hausleiter 1999a, 27-40, who dates it to end of VIII and to the VII centuries BC (p. 40).

Shaikh Humsi cemetery

-

114

Bibliography: Bader 1989; Simpson 2007, 176.

Sharif Khan

-

127

Bibliography: Layard 1853, 598.

Sharqat

X

104

Chronology: lA 1, IA 2, lA 3 Researches: Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft (D) 19031914, FU Berlin (D) 1988-1990, University of Munich (D) 1989-90, DFG (D) 2000-2001; SOAH (IRQ), 1978-86 and 1998-2002. Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: a) DOG Excavations: known pottery comes mainly from tombs- thus chronology is uncertain- and with illustrations (Haller 1954) that are often inadequate, at least on the basis of the selection of vessels I examined. There are more than II 00 tombs here, 440 of which A. Haller attributes to the NeoAssyrian period (Hausleiter 1999a, 127). Thanks in particular to a study by P. Miglus (Miglus 1996), it was possible to better define the dating of numerous tombs, which were then studied (at least in part, about 200 of them) by A. Hausleiter (1996 and 1999b); Hausleiter attributes most of the tombs to the VII century BC, and only a few to the IX-VIII centuries BC (summary in Hausleiter 1996, tab. 2 on p. 78).

c) Iraqi excavations: In particular, the excavations carried out in the South-East zone of the North-West Palace of Ashurnasirpal II are to be mentioned, where a well (well 4) in Court 80 was particularly rich in skeleton bones and various materials, pottery included (Fakhri 2008; Hussein 1999-2000, 128; Reade 2008, 101-102). Bibliography: Curtis J. 1997; Curtis, J. et alii 1993; Curtis J.- Reade 1995; Fakhri 2008; Fiorina et alii 2005; Hausleiter 1999a; Idem 2008; Hussein 1999-2000; Idem 2001-2002; Idem 2008; Lines 1954; Mallowan 1966; Oates J. 1959; Rawson 1954; Reade 2008. Ninawa

X

b) FUB excavations: West of the temple of Nabu. Excavations involved in particular a building that probably served a reception function, with a sequence of strata datable to the period of transition between the LEA/Middleand IA/Neo-Assyrian.

Chronology: lA 2, lA 3

130

Researches: Musee du Louvre (F) 1842; The British Museum (UK) 1846; University of California, Berkley (USA), 1987 and 1989-1990.

10

11

Atlas of the Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age

Subartu XXIV

Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: "Late-Assyrian" remains have been found in three of the four excavation areas, i.e. in Site A, C, D. The levels with good stratigraphic sequences are level 1 in Area C and level 2 in Area D (the Late Assyrian settlement was noteworthy in Site B, but its private houses were not thoroughly investigated, because they seemed to be quite similar to those already excavated in Nimrud; cf. Postgate C. et alii 1997, 21 ). In Site C, Levell is considered "Late Assyrian", with "courtyard houses of considerable extent" (p. 37) along with some graves. Finally, a temple from the late IXIearly VIII century BC built on the North-Eastern corner of the ziggurat is of note (p. 37). A date no later than VIII century BC for Late Assyrian Rimah has been postulated because Rimah had been resettled at least as early as 800 BC, but both level 1, Area C, and level 2 Area D cannot have spanned a long period of time. "The differences between the Late Assyrian pottery from Rimah and that from Fort Shalmaneser at Nimrud, the latter dated unequivocally to the destruction in 612 BC, also support the abandonment of Rimah at some earlier time" (Postgate C. et alii 1997, 57). Anyway, there are no definitive proofs of a precise date of the whole assemblage, and examples illustrated in plates 6-58 ofthe Atlas are indicated asIA l/2 in the captions.

Beuger's 2007 study seems to show a clear continuity in the passage between the two phases (see in particular Tab. 13 on p. 329, in which Beuger provides a chrono-stratigraphical summary). Beuger suggests that the destruction of the IIal stratum can be placed in relationship with the general destruction of 612 BC, in which case level IIaO would be Post-Assyrian (IA 3). To sum up: IIb2 (a-b)="Early Neo-Assyrian" (postTiglat-pilser I) I IIa2=Neo-Assyrian (VIII-VII century BC) I Hal =End of the Neo-Assyrian (VII century BC) I IIa O=Post-Assyrian. c) Excavations by the University of Munich and DFG: The University of Munich excavations concentrated on the area South-West of the Old City, with dwellings from the final phase of the Neo-Assyrian period, disturbed by Parthian intrusions. Excavations were resumed in 2000 by a mission (DFG) led by P. Miglus, which opened up two further areas with Neo- and Post-Assyrian levels (Operations 1 and 2). c) Iraqi excavations: Various excavations were carried out by the Iraqi Dept. of Antiquities beween the 1970s and 1990s, but little was published. In particular, excavations led between 1999 and 2000 by H. al-Hayani on the hill opposite the ziggurat unearthed a complex of "LateAssyrian" private houses, with an archive of more than 200 cuneiform tablets.

Bibliography: Oates D. 1982; Oates 1. 1974; Postgate C. et alii 1997.

Finally, we should recall a small lot of pottery datable to the period prior to Shalmanasar III, from the area of a pottery kiln excavated beneath the southern city wall built by Shalmanasar III (cited by Hausleiter 1999a, 132; cf Andrae 1913, 141, Abb. 252, Taf. LX, 2).

Tall Baqaq 2

Bibliography: Andrae 1913; Idem 1923; Idem 1938; Beuger 2007; Dittmann 1990; Haller 1954; Hausleiter 1996; Idem 1999b; Hayani 2000; Hrouda 1991; Idem 1992; Miglus 1996; Idem 2000; Miglus et alii 2000; !idem 2002; Siirenhagen- Renger 1982; Wright 2000.

Tall Billa

Tall Uwaynat

-

141

Bibliography: Wilkinson 1990.

Tall Abu Dhahir

X

112

Chronology: IA 0

-

118

Bibliography: Green 1999, 97; Killick- Black (eds.) 1985, 28; Nashef (ed.) 1987, 231. Notes: The unpublished material should be of particular interest for the IA 01 phase, because it should be associated with IX-century BC epigraphical finds (Green 1999, 97).

-

129

Bibliography: Speiser 1933. Notes: the excavation stratigraphy by Speiser (1933, 267) cites a Stratum 2=Middle-Assyrian (1300-800 BC) and a Stratum 1 =Neo-Assyrian (800-700 BC). Materials from these levels are published in Speiser 1933. However, the material is published in very limited selections, with approximate drawings and, in a few cases, the associations of types with strata raise some doubts: see, for example, the selection of pottery from stratum 1 in Speiser 1933, pl. LXVI, with a small bowl, a carinated bowl and also a beaker that seems to recall MiddleAssyrian production more than the Neo-Assyrian. For this reason, the Tall Billa repertory has not been considered diagnostic for this study.

Researches: Mosul University 1977-1979 and British School of Archaeology in Iraq (UK) 1985-1986. Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: One trench at the edge of the mound. The Neo-Assyrian remains consist of "a series of stone pavements associated with a mud brick revetment wall at the edge of the mound" (Ball 1987, 79). Bibliography: Ball 1987; Green 1999, 100; Simpson 2007. Tall Abu Mariyah

-

138

Bibliography: Rassam 1897; Lloyd 1938, 135-136.

Tall al-Hawa

X

140

Chronology: IA 0 Researches: British School of Archaeology in Iraq (UK) 1986-1988. Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: Excavations at the Lower Town (Mound F) and on the Acropolis. The Iron Age Assyrian presence is concentrated on the high north end of the main mound, " ... where 66% of all Late Assyrian materials was found'' (Ball- Black 1989, 37). Bibliography: Balll990a; Idem 1990b; Ball- Black 1989.

Tall ar-Rajim Tall ar-Rimah

-

X

Bibliography: Bielinski 1986a; Idem 1986b; Idem 1987.

116

Chronology: IA 1, IA 2

136

Research: British School of Archaeology in Iraq (UK) 1964-1971.

12

Tall Duwayj

-

115

Bibliography: Killick- Black (eds.) 1985 (Iraqi excavations), Ball- Black (eds.) 1987 (Japan excavations).

Tall Grai Qasim

-

119

Bibliography: Nashef (ed.) 1987, 231.

Tall Jikan

-

117

Bibliography: Kawamata et alii 1987.

Tall Khan Jedal

-

142

Bibliography: Altaweel2007, 130-132.

Tall Kibar 1 and 2

-

143

Bibliography: Altaweel2007, 126-130.

Tall Mithlay

-

109

Bibliography: Wilkinson- Matthews (eds.) 1989.

Tall Mughiar

-

149

Bibliography: Altaweel2006, 157-160.

TallRawnak

-

124

Bibliography: Killick- Black (eds.) 1985; Salih 1987, 50.

Tall Samir 5

-

145

Bibliography: Altaweel2006, 179-180.

Tall Shalgiyah

X

108

Chronology: IA 0

13

Subartu XXIV

Researches: British Archaeological Expedition to Iraq and Edinburgh University Expedition (UK) 1986, and SOAH (IRQ) 1987-1988. Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: Trenches A, AA, D, F, J Bibliography: Ball (ed.) 2003, 156-159; Green 1999, 102. Tall Shiad Hajim

-

148

Tall Taya

X

137

Bibliography: Altaweel2006, 166-167. Chronology: lA 2 Researches: British School of Archaeology in Iraq (UK) 1967-1980. Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: Level II. Some vessels are published in Hausleiter 1996, who dates the assemblage to VIII-VII cent. BC (p. 148). Bibliography: Reade 1982; Hausleiter 1996, 148.

Tulul al-'Aqar

X

Chronology: lA 1, lA 2, lA 3

103

Research: Deutsche Orient-Gesellschaft (D) 1913-14; FU Berlin (D) 1986-1989. Diagnostic assemblage's provenance: Arealen A-F, NW of the North Palace. Schmidt 1999, in particular pp. 70-71, suggests that Bauphase 2 may be Early Neo-Assyrian and Bauphase 3 Late-Assyrian, destroyed at 612 BC. In this case, Bauphase 4 may be Post-Assyrian. See also Beuger 2007, 283 for a review of this proposal. Bibliography: Beuger 2007, 283-284; Dittmann 1990; Dittmann- Thiirwiichter 1988; Eickhoff 1980; Idem 1985; Schmidt 1999. Yamta

-

Bibliography: Wilkinson- Matthews (eds.) 1989.

128

Region 2: Western Jazira In the Syrian Jazira, Tall Barri and Tall Shaykh Hamad in particular are potentially of great interest, because of the extensive remains of the period for the whole sequence of lA 1- lA 3 phases. The pottery from Tall Barri has been published only in a very selected and preliminary form by A. D'Agostino, 39 but it is quite evident that this assemblage will be fundamental to understanding the development of Assyrian production through the lA 1 and lA 2 phases, thanks to the uninterrupted stratigraphy found in a large section of the excavations (see entry below). As for Tall Shaykh Hamad, the recent publication by J. Kreppner has provided us with an extraordinary set of information, covering a period spanning between the lA 1 and lA 3 phases. 40 The Fundbereich 4 of the Red House, i.e. the main bulk of the pottery assemblage, is dated by J. Kreppner, and by H. Kuhne as weli,41 to the lA 3 phase, based on the discovery of some cuneiform tablets in a room of the building. As noted by M. Novak,42 if in fact we consider the date of the tablets as a terminus post quem for the destruction of the building, it is nonetheless possible that the building, utilized in the general period corresponding to the Bauphase 4, was also in use during the preceding lA 2 period (see the entry). However, it is evident that on the whole, the Red House material pertains to the two phases, and the principal datum obtained is again confirmation of a strong continuity between lA 2 and lA 3 production. 43 Other assemblages from the Khabur region are certainly interesting, although their contribution to the definition of the pottery repertory is less significant at this time, due mainly to the lack of definitive publications. Of particular note are Tall Baydar,44 Tall Abu Hafur "East",45 Tall Arbid, 46 Tall Rad Shaqra47 and, farther to the south, Tall Ajaja. 48 The situation is similar for the western zone, towards the Balikh River: we have Tall Halaf, where new excavations began in 2006 and a first publication of the

Atlas of the Assyrian Pottery of the Iron Age pottery has recently been provided by U. Sieversten;49 the Balikh zone also offers some notes on the pottery from Sultantepe and Asag1yanmca published by S. Lloyd. 5° It is unfortunate that especially the Sultantepe material is known only through this very preliminary publication, with a set of illustrated vessels and sherds useful only for allowing us to comprehend how potentially interesting said repertory, drawn from contexts associated with epigraphic finds from the first half of the VII century BC, might be. Farther to the west, on the Euphrates, some excavations have brought important assemblages to light, the publications of which, although "preliminary", already allow a good evaluation and display several complete profiles, in particular the excavations of Tille Hoyuk, 51 Tall Ahmar, 52 Tall Jurn Kabir, 53 Tall Shaykh Hasan 54 and Tall Shuyuk Fawqani55 (see the list below for a complete repertory). Regrettably, publications concerning all of these excavations, apart Tall Shuyuk Fawqani, are still preliminary and, in some cases, information about the pottery is completely lacking. 56 In general, what we can note regarding the diffusion of Assyrian pottery in the region is a substantial assimilation of Assyrian types, with productions which, in a few cases, one would not hesitate to define as fully "Assyrian," albeit combined with elements of local tradition which, especially in repertories found further to the west towards the Euphrates, seems particularly strong (for example at Tall Shuyuk Fawqani, where two sectors, F and G, presented coeval but very different productions). The situation in the Upper Euphrates region also seems particular, with the most interesting example being that of Tille, where material from stratum VIII- from the "Neo-Assyrian" period- shows a caesura and a change in pottery production in comparison to that of the preceding phase, with a production clearly linked to Assyrian pottery but manifested in different ways depending on the typology of vessel. In relation to standard Assyrian production, stratum VIII shows an indisputable presence of Assyrian types of small and medium-sized open and closed vessels, while the repertory of large storage jars is substantially different, with Tille Hoytik forms not found in true Assyrian production known from sites of the eastern regionsY This difference cannot be coincidental, and evidently must be connected to the type of relationship and interaction between Assyria and the populations of the Upper Euphrates region, with a traffic of merchandise and goods which probably involved greater quantities of small and medium-sized vessels, or those used exclusively for transport, while for large jars not designed to be moved or in any case intended for limited circulation and/or of little "aesthetic" value, types already extant in loco were the model of reference. Tille Hoytik is also interesting because, like Tall Shaykh Hamad, it offers evidence of production from phase lA 3 (in level X) and, in this case as well, there seems to be an apparent continuity. Site

Relevant

Mapn°

Arsalan Tash

-

51

A§ag1yanmca

-

53

Devehiiyiik

-

5

Girnavaz

X

58

Description Bibliography: Thureau-Dangin et alii 1931. Bibliography: Lloyd 1952; Lloyd- Gok Q)

15

E

Q)

"'"'ro -"1