From Gulf to Delta in the Fourth Millennium Bce the Syrian Connection

7/25/2019 From Gulf to Delta in the Fourth Millennium Bce the Syrian Connection

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/from-gulf-to-delta-in-the-fourth-millennium-bce-the-syrian-connection 1/9

Israel Exploration Society is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to

Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies / יה ת ו ק י ת ע ו ץר ה תעי די םי רק חמ :ל רש י - ץר

http://www.jstor.org

— / FROM GULF TO DELTA IN THE FOURTH MILLENNIUM BCE: THE SYRIAN CONNECTIONמהמפרץ עד הדלתה לף הר יעי לפני הספירה הקשר הסוריAuthor(s): P. R. S. Moorey and ר' מוריSource:Eretz-Israel: Archaeological, Historical and Geographical Studies / יה ת ו ק י ת עו ץר ה תעי ד י םי ר ק ח מ :ל ר שי - ץרVol. RUTH AMIRAN VOLUME / (1990 / pp. 62*-69* ספר רות תשנ" (,Published by: Israel Exploration SocietyStable 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 contentin 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 [email protected].

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



FROMGULF TO DELTA

IN THE FOURTH MLLENNUMBCE

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.

The recent discovery of architectural fittings dis

tinctive of the Mesopotamian Uruk Culture at

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

has excitingly re-opened numerous questions bear

ing upon the cultural interaction of these two re

gions in the fourth millennium BCE, not least the

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

older one bringing the contact by sea round Arabia

and thence up to the Wadi Hammamat.

(a) The material evidence

Two aspects of material culture, pottery and seals,

had long made clear that there had been a signifi

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

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

Khuzistan). Pottery characteristic of the Uruk Cul

ture had been identified with some confidence in

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

settlement dated between Naqada lib (at the latest)

and Naqada lid 1, have now also produced rim and

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

distinctive decoration identified as the reserved

spiral decoration of the Amuq F horizon in west

ern Syria.3 Even more significantly, among the

alien sherds at Habuba Kabira-South, on the upper

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

a few motifs with local Nubian wares, whilst the

fabric and technique are Egyptian.6 In the same

level at Habuba Kabira-South was a ledge-handle

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

well-known Palestinian Late Chalcolithic repertory

of these vessels, rather than to their Egyptian deria

tives.8 Types Ν and W are associated in graves of

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

first material evidence for Egyptian imports into

Syria and Mesopotamia at this time.

Glyptics remain the best known and most recur

rently studied of the indicators of contact between

predynastic Egypt and late prehistoric Mesopota

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



FROM GULF TO DELTA IN THE FOURTH MLLENNIUM BCE 63*

7

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

(n. 4), Figs. 23-4.

c. Sherd of Egyptian predynastic black incised

0 5 10cms. ware from Habuba Kabira-South (after Siirenha

1 I I I I I I I 1—1—1 gen (n. 4), Figs. 23-4.

7

5 <0 cm

ן ן י ו י י ן י ו




from Habuba Kabira-South (after Siirenhagen

(n. 4), Figs. 23-4.


10 cms. 0 5 10cms. ware from Habuba Kabira-South (after Siirenha

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I gen (n. 4), Figs. 23-4.




from Habuba Kabira-South (after Surenhagen

(n. 4), Figs. 23-4.


ware from Habuba Kabira-South (after Sixrenha

gen (n. 4), Figs. 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).




64 PRS 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

the fourth millennium BCE.16 Recently Kay Prag17

has brought the earliest phases of contact between

Byblos and Egypt into sharper focus, pointing out

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

(see below).

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

Uruk III but now seen to be earlier, directly copied

on cylinders in Egypt, does not appear to have

stimulated borrowing there for the decoration of

other types of object. In Egypt the impact of the

elaborate style was brief, whereas its influence

lingered on into the third millennium BCE in Syria.

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

Egypt, but also throws light on the nature of this

contact. Whereas travelling pots, seals and sealings

need not have involved complementary passage of

men, this architectural phenomenon would appear

to indicate the presence in the Delta of men for

whom religious structures of Mesopotamian type

were essential. Such pegs have long been regarded

as typical of public buildings, specifically for cult

purposes, in the Uruk culture and its cognates in

Western Asia.

Von der Way19 lists three types of ceramic wall

peg, all manufactured in local clay at Buto, recog

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

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

coloured flat ends were used to form mosaic pat

terns on walls by pressing them point first into the

clay plaster spread on the face of mudbrick walls20

and the larger, and cruder Grubenkopfnagel, whose

hollowed out blunt ends also served a decorative

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

positions which suggest that they were for rein

forcement and protection against erosion. A strik

ingly comparable range of fittings to those at Buto

were also reported from excavations in 1964-8 on

the Acropolis at Susa.22 This repertory repeats itself

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

eilat Ghassul among them. They do not seem par

ticularly close to the early brick types at Uruk,

which tend to be larger (Riemchen: 16x6x6;

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

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

of the brickwork on settlements of Uruk type 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

establish more than scattered and largely incoher

ent typological parallels which, as she readily ad

mitted, left the matter entirely open. In this respect

nothing has really changed. If Western Asiatic in

fluences are to be detected in the Egyptian stone

vessel industry, for which stones were readily avail

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

niques rather than in imported stone vessels.

Recently Vertesalji27 has sought to establish a case

for Egyptian influence upon the production of

stone vessels in Mesopotamia after the eclipse of

the Uruk colonies in Syria; but the quest for Egyp

tian stone vessels in Western Asia in the fourth

millennium BCE is as elusive as that for Sumerian

stone vessels in predynastic Egypt. Here again, the

problem is complicated at present by the absence of

detailed knowledge of the stone vessel industries of

Syria at the appropriate time.

If, as the Buto finds suggest, there were popula

tion groups in the Egyptian Delta including men




FROM GULF TO DELTA IN THE FOURTH MILLENNIUM BCE 65*

BUTO (Egypt)

510cm

1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ■ 1

URUK (Iraq)

0 5 to cm

111111

u

SUSA (Iran)

O5 10 cm

11111111111

O O ra י2) O O S .S

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




66 PRS MOOREY

skilled in the crafts of Uruk, another of Elise

Baumgartel's ideas may be ripe for reconsidera

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

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.

Although her attempt to lower their dating and her

loose use of foreign parallels have now been wholly

superseded by Williams'30 recent discussion, the

idea of monumental stone sculpture might still

have been introduced from abroad. As Williams31

has convincingly shown, these figures were

created by the time of Narmer, but the recut in

scriptions indicate that they may have been older.

He has also demonstrated that in iconography and

technique the statues, unprecedented as their size

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

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

and shoulder fragments of a lifesize limestone sta

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

AMUQ PLAIN-—*־ HABUBAr^rJm y—י־ ^·NINEVEH

frUGARIT > ץ^

fmios ABUKEMAL'

KSH

■BUTO?7>72_/h\

·URUK

4-00 kms.

1111

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

AMUQ PLAIN—V HABUBA?1 A^UDA T ^־fNINEVEH

frUGARIT \̂

fmios ABUKEMAL'

/KSH

■BUT0?T>7̂ / / I

•URUK

4-00 kms.

■1יי





that the Coptos statues might be part of a tradition

ultimately inspired by Mesopotamian craftsmen34

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

tirely ruled out.

(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

bevelled-rim bowls — in western Syria at the very

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

Eastwards similar finds had been made earlier at

Brak and Kuyunjik (Nineveh), though they were

usually compared to the later Uruk III/Jamdat

Nasr phase in early reports. It is the combination of

Uruk pottery, glyptic, and wall-cone decoration in

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

years. Surface surveys already suggest that a

number of other sites within this broad band may

also have been genuine Uruk settlements .36 The

riverine distribution, on Tigris, Khabur, Balikh

and Euphrates, is marked; only on waterways was

bulk transport of the raw materials sought by the

Sumerians really viable. As there is at present a

marked absence of such settlements on the Eu

phrates northwards from Kish to Abu Kemal, Siir

enhagen37 has proposed that the Euphrates was not

the main connection between Babylonia and Syria

in this period:

Trade was organized along the Tigris an pos

sibly the Wadi Tharthar, crossed the Jebel Sinjar,

and followd the Khabur and Balikh to reach the

Euphrates near modern Deir ez-Zor and Raqqa.

From there, trade routes continued northwest

along the Euphrates, or even crossed the Syrian

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

ing from the Mosul area, ran along the modern

Syrian-Turkish border and reached the Euphrates

at Carchemish.

If, as the evidence of glyptics has sometimes been

taken to indicate, Egypt drew more upon Elamite

than upon heartland Sumerian iconography, this

northern network of trade routes might be con

ceived as penetrating southwards east of the Tigris,

so making direct contact with major settlements in

Khuzistan like Susa, which controlled access to the

resources of the Iranian hinterland, where the en

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

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

vessels best paralleled at Susa.39

West of the Euphrates in Syria the Uruk colonies

faced peoples of the Qoueiq and Amuq regions

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

of the Amuq sequence. The reserved slipware

found at Buto and in the Uruk colonies is a local

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

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

three millennia later, allowing direct contact be

twen Buto and the home of reserved slipware or did

the point of coastal contact occur further south? At

Ras Shamra (Ugarit), where pottery for this period

is not fully published, Amuq F ware is reported to

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

reciprocal indication of Egyptian contact. The

quest has to pass further south down the Syrian

coast, through Amathus and Tripoli, to Byblos

before the necessary information appears in the

existing material record.

Doubts have recently been expressed about di

rect contqact between Byblos and Egypt in predy

nastic times,42 but Kay Prag43 has recently

presented a good case for accepting the likelihood

of a sea-borne trade between Byblos and Egypt

from the middle of the fourth millennium and even

earlier in Badarian times. She has called attention

particularly to the goods of Egyptian manufacture

in graves of the fourth millennium BCE at Byblos

excavated by Dunand, ivory and stone cosmetic

containers connected with resin, bracelets, ivory

figurines, piriform maceheads .. . .44 She argues

that timber and resin were the commodities sought




68 PRS MOOREY

by Egyptian entrepreneurs from the Lebanon and

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

textual information is available. The role silver

played in trade, whether it was going from Byblos

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

but it was noticeably recurrent among grave goods

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

it was imported in considerable quantities from

Western Asia.

There is no hard evidence for sea-going at this

time on the Levant coast; but the technological

expertise to build seaworthy craft is already evident

in the Upper Palaeolithic in the eastern Mediter

ranean, as evidenced by the presence of Melian

obsidian on the Greek mainland.45 Increasing

knowledge of ships and seafaring between the ports

of Syria and the Egyptian Delta through the rapid

progress of underwater archaeology,46 combined

with pictorial and textual evidence from the third

millennium BCE onwards, does nothing to discour

age the view that earlier maritime enterprise to the

same general pattern was possible between Syria

and Egypt with landfalls, as and when necessary, on

the intervening coast, inhospitable as it often is.

The pattern of the enterprise of Uruk suggests

that Syro-Mesopotamian merchant venturers in

quest of valued raw materials penetrated the west

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

they brought. But what were they after, since al

most every other raw material necessary to them

was available in the highland zone of Western

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

be two millennia later; but the case cannot yet be

demonstrated. It has long been thought that Na

qada owed its importance, and its ancient name, to

the proximity of gold mines in the eastern desert

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

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

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

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

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

accessible from the Wadi Hammamat. Gold was

later to be available to southern Mesopotamia from

Anatolia and Iran; but whether it was so in the

fourth millennium is not yet certain.47

As the German excavations at Buto proceed,

more no doubt will be revealed of the Syrian

connection; but already the remarkable range of

the Uruk enterprise, from the frontiers of central

Asia through Susiana, to the edge of Africa through

the Egyptian Delta, is already well established. This

relatively brief phenomenon continues to offer a

unique opportunity for the study of interaction

between the emerging complex societies of Egypt

and Mesopotamia, in themselves strongly con

trasted,48 and the peripheral regions upon which

both drew for their vital raw materials and the

luxuries which conferred power and status upon

those with resources to accumulate and distribute

them.

Egypt

Syria

SumerDate

Susa

BCE

3

14

3000

5

16III

? Break

3500

17 II

8

19

2 0

21

22

Dynasty 0

Naqada III

Naqada II

Uruk

Colonies

Naqada I

Uruk III

Uruk IVa

Uruk VI-V

Uruk XIV

23 I4000

Syria Egypt

Dynasty 'O'

Naqada III

Uruk Naqada II

Colonies

Naqada I

Sumer

Uruk III

Uruk IVa

Uruk VI-V

Uruk XIV

Susa

3

14

5

16III

? Break

17 II

8

19

2 0

21

22

23 I

NOTES

Approximate Chronological Relationships

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

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

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

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

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





Braidwood, Excavations in the Plain ofAntioch I, The Earlier

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

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

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

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

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

mosaiken an der Pfeilerhalle der Schicht IVa in Uruk- Warka

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

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

fouilles (Memoires de la Delegation Archeologique en Iran

XLVI), Paris 1971, pp. 148ff., PI. 33.

23 E. Strommenger, Habuba Kabira: eine Stadt vor 5000

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

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

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

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

Priorities, Amsterdam 1988, p. 249.

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

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

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

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

Grabungsergebnisse der sogenannten archaischen Sied

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

(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

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

pp. 35 ff.

Ibid., p. 59.

32 E. Strommenger, 'Kunststeinfragmente aus dem Riem

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

pp. 19 if

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

Beda in ihrer Raumlichen und Zeitlichen Umwelt, Berlin

New York 1972.

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

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

during the Early and the Beginning of the Middle Bronze

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

42 Cf. M. Saghieh, Byblos in the Third Millennium, War

minster 1983, p. 104.

43 Prag, op. cit. (η. 17).

44 Ibid., p. 72.

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

tion of the Mediterranean islands,' Proceedings of the Prehis

toric Society 47 (1981), p. 45.

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

Museum Catalogue, Jerusalem 1985.

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

cient Mesopotamia: the evidence of Archaeology and Art:

metals and metalwork, glazed materials and glass (BAR

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

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

This content downloaded from 132 77 150 148 on Wed 06 Apr 2016 23:55:20 UTC

Date post:	01-Mar-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	sychevdmitry
View:	219 times
Download:	0 times

From Gulf to Delta in the Fourth Millennium Bce the Syrian Connection

Documents