Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-mkpzs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-31T23:39:58.311Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Re-Consideration of the Excavations on Tell Ingharra (East Kish), 1923–33

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

V. R. S. Moorey
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is now over thirty years since the Oxford (Weld)—Field Museum Expedition to Mesopotamia closed its excavations, after ten seasons' work (1923–33), at Tells Ingharra and 'Uhaimir: the site of ancient Kish. Throughout these excavations Professor S. Langdon acted as director of the expedition, rarely appearing in the field, but maintaining a constant interest in the progress of excavation and publishing all epigraphic material and a number of interim reports on the archaeological results. From 1923–6 E. Mackay was director in the field, from 1926–33 L. Ch. Watelin. Mackay's transfer to India and subsequent preoccupation with work there, Watelin's premature death, in January 1934, and Langdon's primary concern with epigraphy have meant that the archaeological discoveries of this expedition were very unevenly published. This is particularly true of the work on Tell Ingharra, the primary area of excavation, where a very important archaeological sequence was revealed between 1925 and 1932. Watelin's reports on this work were published in Excavations at Kish III, 1930; the temple, and Excavations at Kish, IV, 1934: the ‘Z’ area and the ‘Y’ soundings. As he made clear, even these reports were only intended as an interim record of work still proceeding.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 28 , Issue 1 , Spring 1966 , pp. 18 - 51
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1966

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 He did, of course, provide publications of his work in area ‘A’ and at Jamdat Nasr but never of his work in West Kish as was originally planned— XK I, p. 65 n. I.

2 XK IV, p. 59. A very important attempt at synthesis, based on the published reoorts. appeared in Eliot's, H. W.Excavations in Mesopotamia and Western Iran, sites of 4000–500 B.C., Harvard, 1950Google Scholar. A comparatively rare typed-lithographed portfolio. As far as possible I have intentionally avoided repeating descriptions of finds which will be found already in the published reports referred to above.

3 I have included mound ‘A’ very briefly, but otherwise confined myself to the area shown in XK III, pl. I as “Tal Ingharra”.

4 The most important are in Art and Archaeology. October 1927,pp. 103 ff.; November 1928, pp. 155 ff.; J.R.A.S., 1950, pp. 601 ff.Google Scholar; 1951, pp. 593 ff.; I.L.N., 08 31st 1929, pp. 374 ff.Google Scholar; February 8th 1930, p. 206. See also Field, H., Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Anthropology leaflet, No. 28, pp. 1 ffGoogle Scholar

5 English translations, and odd originals, in the Kish archives, Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. I refer to them throughout this paper by date.

6 The other finds went either to the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, or to Baghdad. Numbers in the footnotes, unless otherwise stated, refer to the Ashmolean.

7 Adams, R. M., The Land behind Baghdad, Chicago, 1965Google Scholar.

8 Frontispiece to AM I.2, pp. 79 ff.; for a later stage see XK IV, pl. III—a model of the excavations. Figure 1 is based on sketch plans among Watelin's letters and on this model. Throughout the excavations there was a certain amount of duplication in the use of area letters: the ‘Y’ sounding and area ‘Z’ must be distinguished from tells ‘Y’ and ‘Z’ in West Kish.

9 See temple plan in XK III, pl. II and fig. 1 here.

10 de Genouillac, I, pl. 44, pp. 24 ffGoogle Scholar.—he reports only beads and “un cylindre de terre”; the inscription of Sargon II he found here refers only to Babylon: R.A. 10 (1913), pp. 83 ffGoogle Scholar.

11 XK III, pl. II—de Genouillac's dimensions for the wing—30 × 32 metres—are not in agreement with Watelin's scale here.

12 XK III, p. I.

13 XK III, p. 8—it seems clear that they were re-used here and not in their original setting.

14 XK III, pp. 11–13, cf. de Genouillac, I, p. 25, pls. 44, XIV, XV, XVIGoogle Scholar.

15 XK III, p. 8, pl. VI cf. Buren, Van, Clay Figurines … 1930, No. 980Google Scholar; Woolley, C. L., J.R.A.S., 1926, pp. 689 ffGoogle Scholar. and UE VIII, 1965, pp. 93 ffGoogle Scholar.

16 XK III, pl. X purports to be this jewellery; this plate is identical with XK I, pl. XXIV, “Strings of beads from Neo-Babylonian graves” ascribed to mound ‘W’. This is correct: they are UG 1369, 1151, 1343 from the 1923–4 season. The temple hoard is illustrated in Art and Archaeology, 1927, p. 108, fig. 12Google Scholar.

17 XK III, p. 10.

18 Brinkman, J., J.C.S. 16 (1962), p. 91Google Scholar; de Genouillac, I, pp. 9 ffGoogle Scholar.

19 Professor I. J. Gelb tells me that the earliest reference he has to the name is in the Ur III period.

20 XK I, pp. 23, 27.

21 XK I, p. 25, see for documentation, Schott, A., ZA 42 (1934), pp. 207 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Dhorme, , Les Religions … Mana, 1949, p. 92Google Scholar; -Dangin, Th., R.A. 33 (1936), p. 109Google Scholar; Ebeling, , R.L.A. II, p. 304Google Scholar.

22 XK III, pp. 18 ff.; Ashmolean, 1929.136; see also Brinkman, J., in Studies Presented to A. Leo Oppenheim, 1964, p. 16Google Scholar.

23 I can only trace references to odd sondages in this mound; the earliest in 1924.

24 Schott, A., Z.A. 42 (1934), p. 208 noteGoogle Scholar.

25 Langdon, S., Der Alte Orient, 26 (1927), pp. 66–7Google Scholar.

26 In XK III, p. 13, it is ascribed to Nebuchadnezzar II, though its absence from his building inscriptions is noted.

27 Langdon, S., Die Neubabylonischen Königsinschriften, 1912, 184, line 74Google Scholar; XK I, pp. 65 ff.

28 Frankfort, H., The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, 1956, p. 107Google Scholar.

29 Reuther, O., M.D.O.G. 45 (1911), p. 32Google Scholar.

30 Langdon, S., Die Neubabylonischen Königsinscbriften, pp. 184–5, lines 76 ff.Google Scholar; also Legrain, L., M.J. 1923, pp. 270 ffGoogle Scholar.

31 XK I, p. 21.

32 XK IV, p. 52, pl. XXXVI.1.

33 XK IV, p. 54, pl. II.

34 XK IV, p. 52 n. 2—XK I, pl. XXIX.2.

35 de Genouillac, I, p. 27, colour plateGoogle Scholar.

36 Reuther, O., Die Innenstadt von Babylon, p. 28Google Scholar.

37 Woolley, C. L., UE IX, p. 90Google Scholar.

38 Oates, D. and Oates, J., Iraq XX (1958), p. 135Google Scholar.

39 Debevoise, N. C., Parthian Pottery from Seleucia, 1934, passimCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

40 The most recent tablet published is dated to the reign of Alexander—XK III, p. 20.

41 XK I, pl. XXIII, lower left.

42 Mallowan, M. E. L., Iraq XIX (1957), pl. VI.2Google Scholar; Oates, D. and Oates, J., Iraq XX (1958), p. 134Google Scholar.

43 XK IV, pl. XXXVI.2, 3, 4.

44 See Strommenger, E., Baghdader Mitteilungen, 3 (1964), pp. 157 ffGoogle Scholar. for burial types at Babylon.

45 XK IV, p. 52.

46 XK IV, pl. II.

47 Delougaz, pp. 114 ff.; Woolley, C. L., UE VIII, pp. 97 ff.Google Scholar; IX, pp. 88 ff.; Starr, , Nuzi I, pp. 387 ff.Google Scholar; A. Haller, Assur: Gräbe und Grüfte, pls. I–II; Lenzen, H. J., UVB 17 (1961), pls. 18 ff.Google Scholar, UVB 18 (1962), pls. 21 ff.Google Scholar, UVB 19 (1963), pls. 24 ff.Google Scholar, UVB 20 (1964), pls. 23 ff.Google Scholar; Parrot, A., Mari—he Palais: Documents et Monuments, pp. 114 ff.Google Scholar; Baqir, T., Iraq supplement, 1945, pl. XXIIIGoogle Scholar.

48 XK I, pl. XXXII.1, 3 with pl. XXXV.3.

49 de Genouillac, II, p. 10Google Scholar; pl. 50.135, pl. 52.48.

50 Type ‘P’ cf. Delougaz, pl. 171 C.228.340 a, b; UVB 18 (1962), pl. 24 a, b, c, d, eGoogle Scholar; Ur—Ashmolean, 1931.435—6; Type ‘Y-Ya’—Nuzi, II, pl. 62 R; Delougaz, pl. 170, C.III.210; Type ‘R’ Delougaz, pl. 171 C.225.310b, p. 123; Nuzi II, pl. 66c, 74a.

51 The identification of certain Neo-Babylonian pottery types from Kish is an outstanding problem, for on the pottery scale (XK IV, pl. II) they are inextricably mixed up with Parthian and Old Babylonian forms. In some plates, e.g. XK I, pl. XXVIII.3 there are vessels which are probably Neo-Babylonian, from mound ‘W’, shown with possible Kassite (rear, second from left) and Achaemenian or Seleucid forms (front).

52 XK IV, p. 52.

53 XK IV, pl. II.

54 AM I, pl. XLVIII ff.

55 Delougaz, p. 144 for references to cemetery ‘A’.

56 XK IV, p. 52.

57 Delougaz, p. 105.

58 XK IV, p. 50.

59 Mackay, E., AM I, p. 82Google Scholar.

60 XK III was written after the 1928–9 season and published early in 1950; these ziggurats are only cursorily mentioned in XK IV, pp. 45, 55, 56. Letters to Langdon, 3rd January 1931, 16th February 1931, 3rd March 1931.

61 Probably the remains of matting or reeds, cf. WVDOG 15 (1928), p. 51Google Scholar; UVB 1 (1930), p. 21Google Scholar.

62 Letter to Langdon, 17th February 1932.

63 Letter to Langdon, 25th Feb. 1931.

64 This is of course an important revision of views expressed in XK III, pp. 6, 14. It does not eliminate the possibility that an earlier temple, of which odd traces survived, as in room 13, had been completely dismantled by the Neo-Babylonian builders.

65 Letter, 12th February 1931.

66 Letter, 3rd March 1931, cf. XK IV, p. 9, pl. XI. 1.

67 Langdon, S., Art and Archaeology, 1928, pp. 161–2Google Scholar.

68 Parrot, A., Ziggurats …, Paris, 1949, pp. 52 ffGoogle Scholar. for a list with dimensions.

69 XK I. p. 54.

70 XKIV, pp. 45, 55, 56 Brick sizes: 19 × 11 × 17; 17 × 11 × 7·5 cms.

71 XK IV, p. 6.

72 Delougaz, P., O.I.C. 7 (1933), pp. 20 ffGoogle Scholar.

73 Lloyd, S., Mounds of the Near East, Edinburgh, 1963, P. 37Google Scholar.

74 Langdon, S., Art and Archaeology, 1927, p. 104, fig. 4Google Scholar.

75 Frankfort, H., Cylinder Seals, p. 76Google Scholar; Stratified Cylinder Seals … O.I.P. vol. LXXII (1955), pp. 39–40Google Scholar; Buren, Van, R.A. 46 (1952), pp. 65 ffGoogle Scholar.

76 Amiet, p. 180 n. 125 with references.

77 Dombart, Th.: Z.A. n.F.4 (1929), pp. 39 ffGoogle Scholar.

78 Amiet denies their existence in this period, Amiet, p. 182.

79 Amiet, p. 182, p. 126.

80 Busink, Th. A., Bib.Or. 7 (1950) p. 70Google Scholar.

81 XKIV, p. 47, fig. 6.

82 Frankfort, H., O.I.P. XLIII (1940), figs. 6, 7Google Scholar.

83 XK IV, p. vi.

84 XK IV, p. 48.

85 Art and Archaeology, 1928, pp. 165–6Google Scholar.

86 Letter, 7th May 1928.

87 Langdon, S., R.A. 24 (1927), pp. 89 ffGoogle Scholar. These numbers are not Museum numbers.

88 Langdon, S., Art and Archaeology, 1927Google Scholar, figs. 13, 14—with objects of much, later date: fig. 13 right, is almost certainly Neo-Babylonian; fig. 14, centre, Old Babylonian; Art and Archaeology, 1928, fig. 7 = XK IV, pl. XXVIII.2.

89 Art and Archaeology, 1928, fig. 8; R. Opificius, Das Altbabylonische Terrakottarelief, No. 482.

90 Langdon, S., J.R.A.S. 1930, pp. 601 ffGoogle Scholar; Gelb, , Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar, 2nd ed., pp. 3–4Google Scholar.

91 XK IV, p. vi n. 1.

92 XK IV, pp. vi, 45.

93 XK IV, p. 44.

94 See p. 26 here.

95 Woolley, C. L., UE V, pp. 23, 84, 112, 128 ff.Google Scholar, 136, 138, 142–3.

96 Woolley, C. L., UE V, p. 130Google Scholar.

97 XK IV, p. 45.

98 XK IV, pp. 49 ff.

99 XK IV, pl. XXXIV. 3.

100 See note 57.

101 XK IV, pl. XL—Amiet No. 1074; XK IV, pl. XXXV, p. 50, Burial 344—Ashmolean 1932.321 (K.752): Buchanan, No. 295; see also Buchanan No. 293 for seal published by Basmadschi.

102 XK IV, pl. XXXV, p. 50.

103 Langdon, S., Art and Archaeology, 1928, p. 163Google Scholar; XK IV, pp. 61–2, pl. XLIII–IV; O.E.C.T. VII, pl. IV.

104 XK III, pl. XI, p. 20—Ashmolean 1929.160.

105 XK IV, p. 45, pl. XXVIII.1.

106 Hansen, , J.N.E.S. 22 (1963), p. 156 n. 48Google Scholar.

107 XK IV, pl. XXXI.7 cf. UE II, pl. 1822b, p. 377Google Scholar: U.11795 from PG-1134 fill—? ED III; pl. 182a, p. 377 U.10746 from PG-871: Late Akkadian to Ur III.

108 XK IV, p. 5o; Baghdad IM 5765.

109 Frankfort, H.: O.I.P. LX (1943), pp. 32–3, pl. 50Google Scholar, cf. U.11678—Sollberger, , Iraq 22 (1960), pp. 73–4, No. 71CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

110 Amiet, p. 139.

111 Dussaud, , Religions … Mana, p. 337Google Scholar.

112 Amiet, No. 1488.

113 Cf. lamps with relief animals of this type and statuettes Parrot, A., Syria 31 (1954), pp. 3 ffGoogle Scholar.

114 XK IV, pp. 40 ff.; J.R.A.S., 1930, p. 601Google Scholar.

115 J.R.A.S. 1930, p. 603Google Scholar; Field, H., Man, 03 1956, 75Google Scholar.

116 Letter 7th March 1928.

117 Times, Jan. 4th; March 16th, 18th, 19th, 30th; July 17th 1929; Daily Telegraph, March 18th, 21st, June 5th, December 13th 1929.

118 Iraq 26 (1964), pp. 62 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

119 See note 19.

120 XK IV, p. 48.

121 Field, H., Antiquity, 7 (1933), p. 84CrossRefGoogle Scholar, pl. II cf. Delougaz, P., Iraq, 22 (1960), pp. 90 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.—probably ED II.

122 Langdon, , J.R.A.S., 1931, pp. 592 ff.Google Scholar; the stone pommel referred to here is probably Ashmolean 1937.651 (K.905) with a dedication to Zamama or 1937.650 (K.765) dedicated to Enki; another Indus seal was found in East Kish—J.R.A.S. 1925, p. 697Google Scholar. Watelin also mentions—letter dated 31st Dec. 1929—a fragment of a schist plaque and a lapis Sumerian head.

123 Buchanan: Nos. 128, 176, 221, 242.

124 Ashmolean 1930.338–352; 358; 398–403; 1931. 122, 128–9, 148–150, 184; 1932.153–6, 173–188, 288. It is probable that fragments of Sargonid ‘kudurru also came from this area: 1931.153–54, 156.

125 XK III, p. 17 ff.

126 XK IV, p. 48, pl. III.

127 XK IV, pl. XXVII.2—Yw; pl. XXXII—Ywn.

128 XK IV, pl. XXIX.2, 3, 4.

129 Seals from Yw: Buchanan Nos.: 112, 129, 151, 172, 215, 249, 397, 455, 510; from Ywn—Buchanan Nos. 115, 124, 132, 208, 212, 322, 367.

130 Letter—24th Feb. 1930.

131 Letter 21st Jan. 1930 cf. XK IV, p. 15, pl. XVI. 5, 6—printed upside down.

132 Letter 26th Jan. 1930; XK IV, pl. XXX, p. 46.

133 XK IV, p. 7, fig. 2.

134 XK IV, pl. XI.1, p. 9.

135 XK IV, p. 5.

136 See Delougaz, P., O.I.P. LIII, pp. 137 ff.Google Scholar, pl. II; Madhlum, T. A., Sumer, 16 (1960) (Arabic)Google Scholar, plan IIa right; also on Tell Wilayeh: Rashid, S. A., Sumer, 19 (1963), pp. 82 ffGoogle Scholar.

137 Woolley, C. L., UE IV, pl. 75Google Scholar.

138 Ibid., pl. I.

139 Mallowan, M. E. L., Iraq, 26 (1964), pp. 71 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

140 UE IV, pl. 75.

141 In level ‘G’, to which it was virtually confined, the solid-footed goblet, was common. In pit ‘Z’, to the south-east of ‘F’, the level which Woolley designated ‘SIS 8’ was really distinguished by this vessel which was rare above and below this stratum. At Nippur, though these vessels were still found in level IX, they were most common in level X— J.N.E.S. 22 (1963), p. 156 n. 54Google Scholar. At Uruk the same type of vessel appears with Proto-literate material (U.V.B. 4 (1932), pl. 20, B.C.Google Scholar).

142 Some of these were illustrated by Harden, D., Iraq, 1 (1934), pl. VIaGoogle Scholar; see Appendix II and plates.

143 XK IV, pl. VII–VIII; cf. Nagel, , Djamdat Nasr-Kulturen … Berlin, 1964, pp. 10 ffGoogle Scholar. for distribution lists. There is scanty evidence for Jamdat Nasr wares at ‘Uhaimir—XK I, pp. 67, 68, figs. 1–3. See also a plaque from de Genouillac's excavations—Fouilles II, pl. II.1 now Brussels—Cinquantenaire 0.711.

144 Stronach, D., Iraq, 23 (1961), pp. 95 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

145 XK IV, p. 17, pl. I.

146 Delougaz, p. 54.

147 Appendix II.

148 Delougaz, pl. 63.

149 XK IV, pp. 14 ff., pl. XVI.5, 6; J.R.A.S. 1930, pl. IX.4 cf. Delougaz, pl. 45a, c.

150 XK IV, pl. I.14.

151 AM I, pl. LII.25–26.

152 Delougaz, PP. 100 ff., pl. 104d, f.

153 Delougaz, Pl. 70 g–i, pp. 60, 81; (1929.301, 302).

154 XK IV, pl. I.7—Ashmolean 1930.159 (KM.428).

155 XK IV, p. 14—Type Aa.

156 P. Delougaz, Pre-Sargonid Temples of the Diyala Region, fig. 125.

157 See Appendix II.

158 Delougaz, pp. 56–7.

159 Ibid. p. 145.

160 Ashmolean 1930.200, 201, 202 cf. Delougaz, p. 137, n. 56.

161 See Appendix II.

162 Nagel, , Djamdat Nasr-Kulturen … Berlin, 1965, pp. 14 ff.Google Scholar, for distribution lists.

163 Breton, Le, Iraq 19 (1957), p. 108CrossRefGoogle Scholarcf. XK IV, pl. XV.2 (1929.270); XK IV, pl. XV.4 (1929.266); XK IV, pl. VII.2 (1930.134); XK IV, pl. XXXVIII (11) (1929.290); Buchanan, pp. 16 ff., Nos. 74, 75, 76, 77.

164 Buchanan, Nos. 8r, 82, 86, 93, 94 and 95; also others of less certain context.

165 Amiet, P., Sumer, 11 (1955), pp. 50 ff.Google Scholar; Amiet, pp. 50–51.

166 See Le Breton's comments in C.R.A.I. II, 1951 p. 30Google Scholar.

167 Ashmolean, 1929.237; J.R.A.S. 1930, pl. X.2.

168 XK IV, p. 35.

169 Porada, and Buchanan, , CANES, I, p. 8Google Scholar.

170 XK IV, pl. XXIV (1930.111)—seal. Impressions: XK IV, pl. XXXIX (2), p. 60 (1930.395); pl. XXXVIII (2) (1930.377) Buchanan, Nos. 165, 191, 255; see also his comments on p. xxii. See also Buchanan Nos. 172, 176, 208, 249 with less certain contexts.

171 XK IV, pl. XII.2 (1931.165), 3 (1929.386), 4 (1929.388), 5 (1931.166).

172 XK IV, pl. XXX.

173 XK IV, pl. XIV, p. 10.

174 Speiser, E. A., Excavations at Tepe Gawra, I, pp. 74 ffGoogle Scholar.

175 Frankfort, , O.I.P. LX, p. 13, pl. 58–60Google Scholar; Breton, Le, Iraq, 19 (1957), pl. XXVI.17CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Khafajah, , BMQ, 8, 1933–1934, pp. 40 ff.Google Scholar, cf. Delougaz, pp. 69 ff.

176 XK IV, pl. XIII.4, p. II cf. O.I.P. LX, pl. 66 E, No 323; pl. 67c, No. 326.

177 Baghdad, IM 4325—AfO, 13 (1939–1941), pp. 40–41, fig. 3Google Scholar. Not Proto-literate as here and Amiet, pl. 48 bis E cf. Hansen, , J.N.E.S. 22 (1963), p. 148 n. 19Google Scholar.

178 UE IV, pl. 39: U.6831; A. Parrot, Tello, pl. 22b.

179 Hansen, , J.N.E.S. 22 (1963), pp. 145 ffGoogle Scholar.

180 Frankfort, , O.I.P. XLIV, 1939, pp. 43 ffGoogle Scholar.

181 Ashmolean 1929.229.

182 L'Anthropologie, 39, 1929, pp. 65 ff.Google Scholar; also Fuller, A. H., The Stone Implements from Kish, American Documentation Institute, No. 4469, 1955, pp. 96 ffGoogle Scholar. (Not available to me).

183 XK IV, pp. 34–5; 1930.752—Burrows, E., UET, IIGoogle Scholar.

184 XK IV, pp. 35–6, 59–60; XK IV, pl. XXVI.

185 Frankfort, H., O.I.P. LXXII, p. 28, n. 59Google Scholar.

186 In the matter of metric levels it is important to point out a discrepancy between the diagrammatic section as published in J.R.A.S., 1930, pl. VII (slightly modified in the I.L.N. 8th 02 1930, p. 207Google Scholar) and the pottery chart in XK IV, pl. II. In the latter, which is correct, the base of the ‘Flood Stratum’ is at — 3 metres, below the plain level, not — 1 metre as marked on the diagrammatic section.

187 XK IV, pp. 17 ff.; pp. 65 ff. for T. K. Penniman's fuller comments on some graves.

188 This may in fact be the explanation of the wood found in one place—XK IV, pl. XI cf. Woolley, C. L., UE II, pp. 137 ff., pl. 14aGoogle Scholar.

189 As at Khafajah, , O.I.C. 20 (1936), p. 19Google Scholar; and Fara, —Heinrich, , Fara, pp. 17 ffGoogle Scholar.

190 XK IV, pl. XI.2, p. 12.

191 Delougaz, , O.I.P. LIII, pp. 137 ff.Google Scholar; Frankfort, H., O.I.C. 20 (1936), pp. 17–19Google Scholar.

192 Schmidt, E., Museum Journal, 22 (1931), p. 207Google Scholar.

193 XK, IV, pp. 20 ff., figs. 4, 4b, 5, 5b.

194 Harden, D., Iraq I (1934), pp. 30 ffCrossRefGoogle Scholar.

195 Delougaz, p. 142.

196 Ibid., p. 142.

197 Ibid., pp. 141–2.

198 Delougaz, , O.I.P. LVIII, fig. 15Google Scholar.

199 Hansen, D. P., Archaeology, 15 (1962), pp. 75 ff.Google Scholar; J.N.E.S. 22 (1965), p. 153 n. 42Google Scholar.

200 UE IV, pp. 56 ffGoogle Scholar.

201 CAH (2)—Rowton, M. B., Chronology—Ancient Western Asia, pp. 50 ffGoogle Scholar. He gives c. 2800–2370 B.C. for ED II and III. c. 3500–2800 for Uruk V to ED I.

202 Radiocarbon, 5 (1963), p. 85Google Scholar; 7, (1965), pp. 188 ff.

203 Radiocarbon, 7 (1965), p. 190Google Scholar.

204 Radiocarbon, 7 (1965), pp. 220 ff.Google Scholar; Smith, H., Antiquity, 38 (1964), pp. 32 ff.CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Braidwood, R. J., Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Berlin, 1965, p, 64Google Scholar.

205 Only two cylinder seals in the Ashmolean collection are reported from graves in the ‘Y’ sounding: 1931.72 (Grave 630 at water level); 1931.108 (grave 685 at water level)—Buchanan, Nos. 82, 93; both are in a derivative Jamdat Nasr style.

206 XK IV, pl. XXI.1, 3.

207 XK IV, pl. XXI.2.

208 Delougaz, pl. 70 a, d.

209 Frankfort, H., O.I.C. 20 (1936), fig. 37, p. 46Google Scholar.

210 XK IV, fig. 4b.

211 See Appendix I.

212 XK IV, fig. 4.

213 UE II, p. 43 ff. ref. tomb PG-337.

214 XK IV, pp. 30 ff.; pl. XXIII–IV.

215 Watelin's annual report to Langdon for season 1928–9; part of the group was illustrated in I.L.N. 31st 08 1929, p. 374Google Scholar, top left; XK IV, pl. XVIII.1—4; also probably XK IV, pl. XX, 2, 3. The I.L.N, caption is in error in stating that the clay chariot model also came from this grave—see XK IV, p. 32, pl. XIV.

216 Letter dated 7th May 1928.

217 Calmeyer, P., Vorderasiatische Archäologie, Berlin 1965, pp. 68 ffGoogle Scholar.

218 Frankfort, H., O.I.P. XLIV No. 188, pl. 108Google Scholar.

219 Frankfort, H., O.I.P. LXXII, End plateGoogle Scholar.

220 Woolley, C. L., UE II, p. 34Google Scholar.

221 The ‘Flood Stratum’ extended from c. 2·5–3 metres below the plain level.

222 UE II, pp. 33 ffGoogle Scholar.

223 Frankfort, H., J.R.A.S. 1957, pp. 330 ffGoogle Scholar.

224 It is certain none are as early as ED I—Frankfort, H., Cylinder Seals, pp. 40–43Google Scholar; see also Mallowan, M. E. L., Iraq, 22 (1960), p. 13CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

225 D.P.M. XXIX, pp. 122 ff. (No. 280), fig. 89Google Scholar; Breton, Le, Iraq, 19 (1957), p. 114CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

226 Parrot, A., Syria, 19 (1938), pp. 4 ff, pl. II.4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

227 Childe, G.: Nem Light on the Ancient East (4th Ed.), p. 149Google Scholar.

228 Parrot, A., Mari—he Temple d'Ishtar, p. 11Google Scholar.

229 Delougaz, p. 141.

230 Parrot, A., Syria, 19 (1938), p. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar—for date of these axes see Hillen, , Bib. Or., 10 (1953), pp. 211 ffGoogle Scholar.

231 Delougaz, P., O.I.P. LIII, 1940, p. 138Google Scholar.

232 Kramer, S. N., The Sumerians, pp. 130–131Google Scholar.

233 CAH (2)—Rowton, M. B.: Chronology …, p. 55 n. 1, p. 57 n. 4Google Scholar.

234 Jacobsen, T., The Sumerian King List, pp. 167–9Google Scholar.

235 Area A is between 70 and 100 metres south of Ingharra; see XK I, p. 36.

236 AM I, pp. 110–111Google Scholar.

237 Langdon, S., J.R.A.S. 1930, p. 605Google Scholar.

238 Ibid., pl. X.1 left.

239 AM I, pl. XXIII.

240 AM I, pp. 81–2.

241 For a different interpretation of the stratigraphy, see Mallowan, M. E. L., Iraq, 26 (1964), pp. 69, 79CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

242 I have assembled the scanty evidence for dating palace ‘A’, as excavated, in Iraq, 26 (1964), p. 91Google Scholar.

243 Adams, , The Land Behind Baghdad, p. 45Google Scholar.

244 Tell Bandar was a Parthian fortress and the Sassanian settlement lay to the east of Ingharra—Langdon, S., Iraq, 1 (1934), pp. 113 ff., fig. 2CrossRefGoogle Scholar.