/ FROM GULF TO DELTA IN THE FOURTH MILLENNIUM BCE: THE SYRIAN CONNECTION

Author(s): P. R. S. Moorey and '

Source:
Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies /
:-
Vol. RUTH AMIRAN VOLUME / (1990 / pp. 62*-69* ,) "
Published by: Israel Exploration Society
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/23622164
Accessed: 06-04-2016 23:55 UTC

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at http://www.jstor.org/page/
info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content
in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship.
For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Israel Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies / :-.

http://www.jstor.org

This content downloaded from 132.77.150.148 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 23:55:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

FROM GULF TO DELTA

IN THE FOURTH MILLENNIUM BCE

THE SYRIAN CONNECTION
P.R.S. Moorey

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, United Kingdom

The following reflections are part of a continuing conversa

tion begun over a quarter of a century ago when I first met

Ruth Amiran in the company of Elsie Baumgartel and Joan

Crowfoot Payne in Oxford. They are offered with affection

and respect not only to Ruth but also to David, whose

tolerance of archaeologists is as remarkable as his knowledge
of the Land of Israel.

isolated instances on predynastic sites in Middle

and Upper Egypt.2 Until such vessels were also
found in the last twenty years on sites along the
Middle and Upper Euphrates, and further west in

Syria, there was no indication of an intermediate

area of use between the Gulf and the Nile Valley.
Excavations below the water table at Buto, in a

The recent discovery of architectural fittings dis

tinctive of the Mesopotamian Uruk Culture at

settlement dated between Naqada lib (at the latest)

and Naqada lid 1, have now also produced rim and

has excitingly re-opened numerous questions bear

body sherds (111. 1) of a non-Egyptian ware with

distinctive decoration identified as the "reserved

ing upon the cultural interaction of these two re

spiral decoration" of the Amuq F horizon in west

gions in the fourth millennium BCE, not least the

ern Syria.3 Even more significantly, among the

alien sherds at Habuba Kabira-South, on the upper

Buto (Tell el-Fara'in) in the western Egyptian Delta

problem of how they came into contact. Some years

ago I argued1 that this connection had reached

Egypt through Syria, then directly by sea rather
than overland, perhaps initially through the enter
prise of men from the so-called Uruk Colonies in
Syria. The new evidence from Egypt gives rather
more substance to this hypothesis, which had for
merly been difficult to sustain vigorously (when
evidence from the Delta was lacking) against the

Euphrates in Syria, Siirenhagen4 has identified "a

rim fragment of an anthracite-coloured unbur
nished, handmade bowl or beaker with white in
crusted punctuation inside and outside" (111. 1: c)
as a sherd of Petrie's "black incised ware".5 This

fabric remains something of a puzzle and is rela

tively rare, even in its native context, where it is
found in graves both in Egypt and Nubia. It shares

older one bringing the contact by sea round Arabia

a few motifs with local Nubian wares, whilst the

and thence up to the Wadi Hammamat.

fabric and technique are Egyptian.6 In the same

level at Habuba Kabira-South was a ledge-handle

(a) The material evidence

sherd (111. 1 :b) which Siirenhagen7 attributed to the

Two aspects of material culture, pottery and seals,

well-known Palestinian Late Chalcolithic repertory

had long made clear that there had been a signifi

of these vessels, rather than to their Egyptian deria

cant transmission, either direct or along-the-line, of

tives.8 Types and W are associated in graves of

the "middle" or Naqada Ilc-d horizon.9 This is the

artefacts, commodities and information, from the

region at the head of the Gulf to Egypt at a time

contemporary with Naqada II in Egypt and the
mature Uruk Period in Mesopotamia (including

first material evidence for Egyptian imports into

Khuzistan). Pottery characteristic of the Uruk Cul

rently studied of the indicators of contact between

ture had been identified with some confidence in

predynastic Egypt and late prehistoric Mesopota

Syria and Mesopotamia at this time.

Glyptics remain the best known and most recur

This content downloaded from 132.77.150.148 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 23:55:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

FROM GULF TO DELTA IN THE FOURTH MILLENNIUM BCE 63*

7
5

<0

cms.

111. 1. a. Sherds of pottery from Buto of Syrian type (after

von der Way (n. 3), Fig. 3:1-4.

b. Ledge handle of Palestinian Chalcolithic type

from Habuba Kabira-South (after Surenhagen
Siirenhagen
(n. 4), Figs. 23-4.
23-4.
c. Sherd
Sherd of
of Egyptian
Egyptian predynastic
predynastic"black
"blackincised
incised
10 cms.0 05 510cms.
10cms.ware"
ware"from
from Habuba
Habuba
ware" Kabira-South
from
Kabira-South
Habuba Kabira-South
(after
(after
Siirenha
Sixrenha
(after
Siirenha
1 1
I I1I 1I 1I I1 I1111
1 1 1 I gen (n. 4),
gen (n.
Figs.
4), Figs.
23-4.
23-4.

mia.10 There is still no evidence for an indigenous

tradition of seal manufacture in predynastic Egypt.

In the fourth millennium cylinder seals arrived

there from Western Asia and were adapted to suit
local taste. Isolated stamp seals of Near Eastern
type reached the country at about the same time; at
least one, of Syrian type (111. 2), found its way into a

grave at Harageh in Naqada II." They do not

appear to have inspired local imitations.12 Beatrice
Teissier has carefully documented the manner in
which motifs originating on seals in western Iran in

the repertory of Susa II (levels 22 (?)-17), and to a

lesser extent in the subsequent Susa III or Proto

Elamite phase (levels 16-11), inspired the much

discussed and distinctively alien decoration on
certain Egyptian luxury objects, notably ivory
knife-handles and slate palettes, at the end of the
predynastic period.13

In seeking a route of transmission for these mo

tifs she14 argued that "the weight of the glyptic
evidence assembled here favours a northerly route
across land and only latterly by sea to Egypt from

the Lebanese coast". Her inquiry also penetrated

back into the previously less well considered Susa I

(levels 27-23?), when stamp seals from a common

tradition are evident from Western Iran through
northern Mesopotamia into Syria.15 As she points
out, this network extends as far as Byblos in the

111. 2. Syrian lentoid stamp seal from Harageh (after En

gelbach (n.ll), PI. VI :470 (3).

This content downloaded from 132.77.150.148 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 23:55:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

64*

P.R.S.

MOOREY

Lebanon, whilst at least one Byblos Eneolithique

type of seal impression has been published from
Ugarit (Ras Shamra), level IIIB, calling attention to
possible links between these two ports as early as

purpose at Uruk.21 There are also examples of

Tonflaschen, baked clay hollow cones, more or less

bottle-shaped and much more like vessels in ap

pearance, which were inserted in rows at Uruk in

the fourth millennium BCE.16 Recently Kay Prag17

positions which suggest that they were for rein

has brought the earliest phases of contact between

forcement and protection against erosion. A strik

Byblos and Egypt into sharper focus, pointing out

ingly comparable range of fittings to those at Buto

that it might well go back to Naqada I, if not earlier

were also reported from excavations in 1964-8 on

(see below).

the Acropolis at Susa.22 This repertory repeats itself

It has been demonstrated18 that all the alien

motifs found on Egyptian luxury artefacts are de

rived from the elaborate or modelled Uruk style of

seal cutting in Iran and Syro-Mesopotamia. Per

haps it was best known to predynastic Egyptians
from sealings securing commodity consignments
from Syria, though none has yet been published
from an Egyptian source. The "schematic" Uruk
style, once taken to be particularly distinctive of

to a greater or lesser extent in settlements of Uruk

type in Syria,23 though full details are not yet

published.
The mudbricks at Buto are described as being
30 cm long, 7 to 9 cm wide, with a convex back to a

height of 6 to 9 cm. "From the shape it is quite

evident that these objects were formed by bare
hand".24 The excavator has compared them to early

mould-made mudbricks at sites in Palestine, Tel

Uruk III but now seen to be earlier, directly copied

eilat Ghassul among them. They do not seem par

on cylinders in Egypt, does not appear to have

stimulated borrowing there for the decoration of

which tend to be larger (Riemchen: 16x6x6;

other types of object. In Egypt the impact of the

30x10x10; Patzen 50 (or more) 25-40 8

ticularly close to the early brick types at Uruk,

elaborate style was brief, whereas its influence

16 cm). However, full details are not yet available

lingered on into the third millennium BCE in Syria.

of the brickwork on settlements of Uruk type in

The recovery of terracotta wall pegs made of

local Nile clay, though of distinctive Uruk type, at

Buto in the western Delta, not only reopens the

question of Mesopotamian influence on the evolu
tion of monumental mudbrick architecture in

Syria with which to make close comparisons.25

Many years ago Elise Baumgartel26 sought to

include stone vessels in the pattern of interaction
between Egypt and Western Asia, but failed to

Egypt, but also throws light on the nature of this

establish more than scattered and largely incoher

ent typological parallels which, as she readily ad

contact. Whereas travelling pots, seals and sealings

mitted, left the matter entirely open. In this respect

need not have involved complementary passage of

men, this architectural phenomenon would appear
to indicate the presence in the Delta of men for

fluences are to be detected in the Egyptian stone

whom religious structures of Mesopotamian type

nothing has really changed. If Western Asiatic in

vessel industry, for which stones were readily avail

were essential. Such pegs have long been regarded

able, it is more likely to be in typology and tech

niques rather than in imported stone vessels.

as typical of public buildings, specifically for cult

Recently Vertesalji27 has sought to establish a case

purposes, in the Uruk culture and its cognates in

for Egyptian influence upon the production of

stone vessels in Mesopotamia after the eclipse of

Western Asia.

Von der Way19 lists three types of ceramic wall

the Uruk colonies in Syria; but the quest for Egyp

peg, all manufactured in local clay at Buto, recog

tian stone vessels in Western Asia in the fourth

nizably paralleled at Uruk itself (111. 3). Among

millennium BCE is as elusive as that for Sumerian

them are Tonstifte, clay pegs 6 to 7 cm long, whose

stone vessels in predynastic Egypt. Here again, the

coloured flat ends were used to form mosaic pat

problem is complicated at present by the absence of

terns on walls by pressing them point first into the

detailed knowledge of the stone vessel industries of

clay plaster spread on the face of mudbrick walls20

Syria at the appropriate time.

and the larger, and cruder Grubenkopfnagel, whose

hollowed out blunt ends also served a decorative

tion groups in the Egyptian Delta including men

If, as the Buto finds suggest, there were popula

This content downloaded from 132.77.150.148 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 23:55:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

FROM GULF TO DELTA IN THE FOURTH MILLENNIUM BCE 65*

BUTO (Egypt)
0

10

cms.

1 1 1 1 ' 1 1 1 1 1

O O ra 2) O O S .S
u

URUK (Iraq)

0 5 to
111111

cms.

0
0

SUSA (Iran)
O 5 10 cms.
11111111111

111. 3. Baked clay wall-cones from Buto, Uruk and Susa (after von der Way (n. 3), Fig. 3; Jordan (n. 20), Fig. 5; Steve
8c Gasche (n. 22), PI. 33

This content downloaded from 132.77.150.148 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 23:55:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

66*

P.R.S.

MOOREY

skilled in the crafts of Uruk, another of Elise

created by the time of Narmer, but the recut in

Baumgartel's ideas may be ripe for reconsidera

scriptions indicate that they may have been older."

tion, albeit in modified form. As she pointed out,28

He has also demonstrated that in iconography and

technique the statues, unprecedented as their size

the colossal limestone statues of Min, originally

about four metres high, found at Coptos by Petrie29
and now in Cairo and Oxford, remain without local
parallels on the same scale or local antecedents.

may be, are entirely in the local idiom of Naqada

III/Dynasty O. Monumental stone sculpture is not
much more evident in the fourth millennium BCE

Although her attempt to lower their dating and her

in Western Asia, but it is not entirely absent. Head

loose use of foreign parallels have now been wholly

and shoulder fragments of a lifesize limestone sta

superseded by Williams'30 recent discussion, the

idea of monumental stone sculpture might still

tue were found by Lenzen at Uruk.32 It may be

significant that one of the earliest well-defined
groups of large-scale sculpture, in Early Dynastic
II-III, is found in north Mesopotamia.33 The idea

have been introduced from abroad. As Williams31

has convincingly shown, these figures "were

AMUQ PLAINV
PLAIN-*HABUBA?1
HABUBAr^rJm
A^UDAy
T ^fNINEVEH
^NINEVEH

frUGARIT
frUGARIT
> \
^

fmios ABUKEMAL'

_ /
/ KISHl
KISHt
BUTO?7>72_
BUT0?T>7^ /
/ h
/ \
I
URUK
URUK

4-00 kms.

1'

1 1 11

111. 4. Map to show the location of the main sites mentioned in the text

This content downloaded from 132.77.150.148 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 23:55:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

FROM GULF TO DELTA IN THE FOURTH MILLENNIUM BCE 67*

that the Coptos statues might be part of a tradition

than upon heartland "Sumerian" iconography, this

ultimately inspired by Mesopotamian craftsmen34

northern network of trade routes might be con

begs many questions; but so long as these huge

sculptures remain so isolated in the archaic tradi
tion in Egypt, Syro-Mesopotamian inspiration for
monumental stone sculpture there may not be en

ceived as penetrating southwards east of the Tigris,

tirely ruled out.

terprise of Uruk" was equally involved. As the

material culture of Susa II is virtually indistin
guishable from that of Sumer in the mature Uruk
Period, it has been argued that Susiana, like the
north and northwest of Mesopotamia, had been
colonized from Sumer, perhaps as early as Uruk

(b) The way to Egypt: direction and motivation

It was the Braidwoods' excavations in the Amuq

valley half a century ago which first revealed pot

tery of true Uruk type red-slipped wares and

so making direct contact with major settlements in

Khuzistan like Susa, which controlled access to the

resources of the Iranian hinterland, where the "en

bevelled-rim bowls in western Syria at the very

VIII.38 At Habuba-Kabira-South there are stone

end of phase F and at the beginning of phase G.35

vessels best paralleled at Susa.39

Eastwards similar finds had been made earlier at

West of the Euphrates in Syria the Uruk colonies

Brak and Kuyunjik (Nineveh), though they were

usually compared to the later Uruk III/Jamdat

faced peoples of the Qoueiq and Amuq regions

using pottery classified on the F-G (early) boundary

Nasr phase in early reports. It is the combination of

of the Amuq sequence. The reserved slipware

Uruk pottery, glyptic, and wall-cone decoration in

found at Buto and in the Uruk "colonies" is a local

terracotta and stone that has been particularly

taken to define an 'Uruk' presence at excavated
sites extending across north Syro-Mesopotamia
from Nineveh through Brak to Habuba-Kabira
South/Jebel Aruda and Hassek Hoyuk in recent

BCE serving the Amuq plain, as A1 Mina was to do

years. Surface surveys already suggest that a

three millennia later, allowing direct contact be

number of other sites within this broad band may

twen Buto and the home of reserved slipware or did

also have been "genuine Uruk settlements".36 The

the point of coastal contact occur further south? At

riverine distribution, on Tigris, Khabur, Balikh

Ras Shamra (Ugarit), where pottery for this period

and Euphrates, is marked; only on waterways was

is not fully published, Amuq F ware is reported to

bulk transport of the raw materials sought by the

be absent,41 as indeed, for the moment, is any

Sumerians really viable. As there is at present a

reciprocal indication of Egyptian contact. The

marked absence of such settlements on the Eu

quest has to pass further south down the Syrian

coast, through Amathus and Tripoli, to Byblos
before the necessary information appears in the

phrates northwards from Kish to Abu Kemal, Siir

enhagen37 has proposed that the Euphrates was not

Syrian ware, not documented south of a line from

the mouth of the river Orontes eastwards to the

Euphrates, just south of Habuba-Kabira-South.40

Was there then a port in the fourth millennium

the main connection between Babylonia and Syria

in this period:

existing material record.

"Trade was organized along the Tigris an pos

sibly the Wadi Tharthar, crossed the Jebel Sinjar,

rect contqact between Byblos and Egypt in predy

and followd the Khabur and Balikh to reach the

presented a good case for accepting "the likelihood

Doubts have recently been expressed about di

nastic times,42 but Kay Prag43 has recently

Euphrates near modern Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa.

of a sea-borne trade between Byblos and Egypt

From there, trade routes continued northwest

from the middle of the fourth millennium and even

along the Euphrates, or even crossed the Syrian

earlier in Badarian times." She has called attention

desert, touching el-Kowm. A third route, also start

particularly to the goods of Egyptian manufacture

ing from the Mosul area, ran along the modern

Syrian-Turkish border and reached the Euphrates

in graves of the fourth millennium BCE at Byblos

at Carchemish."

containers connected with resin, bracelets, ivory

If, as the evidence of glyptics has sometimes been

taken to indicate, Egypt drew more upon "Elamite"

excavated by Dunand, "ivory and stone cosmetic

figurines, piriform maceheads .. .".44 She argues
that timber and resin were the commodities sought

This content downloaded from 132.77.150.148 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 23:55:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

68* P.R.S. MOOREY

by Egyptian entrepreneurs from the Lebanon and

accessible from the Wadi Hammamat. Gold was

Syria at an early date, as in historic times, when

later to be available to southern Mesopotamia from

textual information is available. The role silver

Anatolia and Iran; but whether it was so in the

played in trade, whether it was going from Byblos

fourth millennium is not yet certain.47

to Egypt, or vice versa, remains an open question;

As the German excavations at Buto proceed,

more no doubt will be revealed of the Syrian

but it was noticeably recurrent among grave goods

at this time both at Byblos and in Egypt, where later

connection; but already the remarkable range of

it was imported in considerable quantities from

the Uruk enterprise, from the frontiers of central

Western Asia.

Asia through Susiana, to the edge of Africa through

There is no hard evidence for sea-going at this

the Egyptian Delta, is already well established. This

time on the Levant coast; but the technological

relatively brief phenomenon continues to offer a

expertise to build seaworthy craft is already evident

unique opportunity for the study of interaction

in the Upper Palaeolithic in the eastern Mediter

ranean, as evidenced by the presence of Melian

between the emerging complex societies of Egypt

obsidian on the Greek mainland.45 Increasing

trasted,48 and the peripheral regions upon which

knowledge of ships and seafaring between the ports

both drew for their vital raw materials and the

and Mesopotamia, in themselves strongly con

of Syria and the Egyptian Delta through the rapid

luxuries which conferred power and status upon

progress of underwater archaeology,46 combined

with pictorial and textual evidence from the third

those with resources to accumulate and distribute

them.

millennium BCE onwards, does nothing to discour

age the view that earlier maritime enterprise to the

same general pattern was possible between Syria

Date

and Egypt with landfalls, as and when necessary, on

BCE

the intervening coast, inhospitable as it often is.

Susa

Sumer

Syria
Syria Egypt
Egypt

13
14

The pattern of the "enterprise of Uruk" suggests

3000

that Syro-Mesopotamian merchant venturers in

quest of valued raw materials penetrated the west

15
16III

? Break

ern Delta peacefully, perhaps encouraged by what

they heard in ports on the Syrian coast or at centres
of trade further inland and were welcomed for what

3500

they brought. But what were they after, since al

17 II

Uruk IVa

Uruk
Uruk Naqada
Naqada II
II
"Colonies"

18

most every other raw material necessary to them

19

was available in the highland zone of Western

20

Asia? Gold is the most obvious answer, as it was to

21

Uruk VI-V

22

be two millennia later; but the case cannot yet be

demonstrated. It has long been thought that Na

Uruk XIV

qada owed its importance, and its ancient name, to

the proximity of gold mines in the eastern desert

Dynasty '0'
'O'
Naqada III

Uruk III

4000

Naqada I

23 I

Approximate Chronological Relationships

NOTES

1 P.R.S. Moorey, 'On tracking cultural transfers in prehis

with that of other parts of the Near East...,' in R.W. Ehrich

tory: the case of Egypt and Lower Mesopotamia in the fourth

(ed.), Chronologies in Old World Archaeology (2nd ed.),

millennium B.C.,' in M. Rowlands et al. (eds.), Centre and

Chicago 1965, pp. Iff.; Moorey, op. cit. (. 1), p. 37.

5 T. von der Way, 'Tell el-Farain-Buto 2. Bericht,' MDAIK

Periphery in the Ancient World, Cambridge 1987, pp. 36 If.

1 H. Kantor, 'The chronology of Egypt and its correlation

43 (1987), p. 247, Figs. 2:6, 3:1-4; cf. R. Braidwood 8c L.

This content downloaded from 132.77.150.148 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 23:55:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms

FROM GULF TO DELTA IN THE FOURTH MILLENNIUM BCE 69*

Braidwood, Excavations in the Plain ofAntioch I, The Earlier

Technik des Bauens in Habuba-Kabira-Sud,' in J.C. Mar

Assemblages Phases A-J (OIP LXI), Chicago 1960, p. 232.

gueron (ed.), Le Moyen Euphrate, Strasbourg 1980, pp. 63 ff.

4 D. Surenhagen, 'The Dry Farming Belt: the Uruk Period

and subsequent Developments,' in H. Weiss (ed.), The Ori

gin of Cities in Dry-Farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the

26 E. Baumgartel, The Cultures of Prehistoric Egypt, Ox

ford, 2 vols. 1955/1960, vol. 1, pp. 102-119.
" P.P. Vertesalji, 'Das Ende der Uruk-Zeit im Lichte der

Third Millennium B.C., Guilford, Conn. 1986, p. 22, Fig. 24.

Grabungsergebnisse der sogenannten "archaischen" Sied

5 Class N: W.M.F. Petrie <fe J.E. Quibell, Naqada and

Ballas, London 1896, p. 38, PI. XXX.

lung bei Uruk-Warka,' Acta Prehistorica et Archeologica 20

6 Cf. J. Bourriau, Umm el-Ga'ab: Pottery from the Nile

Valley before the Arab Conquest, Cambridge 1981, pp. 23

24.

' Surenhagen, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 22, Fig. 23.

(1988), p. 23, n. 108.

21 E. Baumgartel, 'The three colossi from Koptos and their

Mesopotamian counterparts,' ASAE 48 (1948), pp. 533ff.

29 W.M.F. Petrie, Koptos, London 1896, Pis. III-IV.
30 B. Williams, 'Narmer and the Coptos Colossi,' Journal

Petrie Si Quibell, op. cit. (n. 5), PI. XXXI:Type W.

of the American Research Center in Egypt 25 (1988),

' Bourriau, op. cit. (n. 6), p. 132.

pp. 35 ff.

10 B. Teissier, 'Glyptic evidence for a connection between

Iran, Syro-Palestine and Egypt in the fourth and third millen

ma: Iran 25(1987), pp.27ff.

" R. Engelbach, Harageh, London 1923, PI. VI.

" Ibid., p. 59.

32 E. Strommenger, 'Kunststeinfragmente aus dem "Riem

chengebaude" in Warka,' Baghdader Mitteilungen 6 (1973),

pp. 19 if

13 Cf. Moorey, op. cit. (. 1), p. 43.

33 U. Moortgat-Correns, Die Bildwerke vom Djebelet el

Beda in ihrer Raumlichen und Zeitlichen Umwelt, Berlin

14 Teissier, op. cit. (n. 10), p. 46.

New York 1972.

12 Cf. Teissier, op. cit. (n. 10), p. 51, n. 5.

13 D.H. Caldwell, 'The Early Glyptic of Gawra, Giyan and

Susa and the development of long distance trade,' Orientalia

45 (1976), pp. 227if.; B. Buchanan Si P.R.S. Moorey, Cata

logue of Ancient Near Eastern Seals in the Ashmolean Mu
seum II. The Prehistoric Stamp Seals, Oxford 1984, pp. 5-6.

16 H. de Contenson, 'Sondage sur 1'acropole de Ras

Shamra,' Syria 47 (1970), pp. Iff., Fig. 10; Idem, 'Rapport
preliminaire ... acropole de Ras Shamra 1962-1968,' An
nates Archiologiques Arabes Syriennes 20 (1970), pp. 13ff.,

Fig. 15.

34 Baumgartel, op. cit. (n. 28).

35 Braidwood <fe Braidwood, op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 234, n. 10,
264-275.

36 Cf. Siirenhagen, op. cit. (n. 4), pp. 10-15.

32 Ibid., p. 15.

" Ibid., p. 9; cf. P. Amiet, L'dge des echanges inter-ira

niens 3500-1700 avant J.-C., Paris 1986, pp. 47ff.
39 Siirenhagen, op. cit. (n. 4), p. 20.
90 J. Mellaart, 'The prehistoric pottery from the Neolithic

to the beginning of E.B. IV,' in J. Matthers (ed.), The River

" K. Prag, 'Byblos and Egypt in the Fourth Millennium

B.C.,' Levant 18 (1986), pp. 59 ff.
13 Cf. Teissier, op. cit. (n. 10), p. 49.

" Von der Way, op. cit. (n. 3), pp. 248-250, Figs. 3-4.
20 M. Brandes, Untersuchungen zur Komposition der Stift

Qoueiq, Northern Syria and its Catchment: Studies arising

from the Tell Rifa'at Survey 1977-1979 (BAR International

Series 98), Oxford 1981, p. 157, Fig. 196: Map XXII.

41 J. Mellaart, 'Archaeological Evidence for Trade and

Trade Routes between Syria and Mesopotamia and Anatolia

mosaiken an der Pfeilerhalle der Schicht IVa in Uruk- Warka

during the Early and the Beginning of the Middle Bronze

(Baghdader Mitteilungen, Beiheft 1), Berlin 1968; J. Jordan,

Age,' Studi Eblaiti 5 (1982), p. 16.

42 Cf. M. Saghieh, Byblos in the Third Millennium, War
minster 1983, p. 104.

Zweiter vorldufiger Bericht ... in Uruk, Berlin 1931,

pp. 14ff., Fig. 5.

21 Jordan, loc. cit.; A. Noldeke et al., Vierter vorlaufiger

Bericht... in Uruk, Berlin 1932, PI. 9b.

22 M.-J. Stdve Sc H. Gasche, L'acropole de Suse: nouvelles

43 Prag, op. cit. (. 17).

44 Ibid., p. 72.

45 J. Cherry, 'Pattern and Process in the earliest colonisa

fouilles (Memoires de la Delegation Archeologique en Iran

XLVI), Paris 1971, pp. 148ff., PI. 33.
23 E. Strommenger, Habuba Kabira: eine Stadt vor 5000

tion of the Mediterranean islands,' Proceedings of the Prehis

Jahren, Mainz am Rhein 1980, pp. 43-44, Fig. 24.

Museum Catalogue, Jerusalem 1985.

24 T. von der Way, 'Investigations concerning the Early

Periods in the northern Delta of Egypt,' in E.C.M. Van den

toric Society 47 (1981), p. 45.

44 O. Misch-Brandl, From the Depths of the Sea, Israel

" Cf. P.R.S. Moorey, Materials and Manufacture in An

Brink (ed.), The Archaeology of the Nile Delta: Problems and

cient Mesopotamia: the evidence of Archaeology and Art:

metals and metalwork, glazed materials and glass (BAR

Priorities, Amsterdam 1988, p. 249.

International Series 237), Oxford 1985, pp. 73ff.

23 For Habuba-Kabira see W. Ludwig, 'Mass, Sitte und

44 Cf. Moorey, op. cit. (. 1), p. 36.

This content downloaded from 132.77.150.148 on Wed, 06 Apr 2016 23:55:20 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms