Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-8ctnn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T00:15:21.504Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

A Typological Examination of Sumerian Pottery fromJamdat Nasr and Kish

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 April 2016

D. B. Harden
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It may be laid down as a general rule in regard to the dating of pottery that shape, technique, and fabric must all be taken into account, but the first is much the most important. Fabric or ware is dependent on local materials and consequently remains constant over long periods, and helps therefore very little for dating purposes. Nor is technique or surface-finish always a sure chronological guide, for it is controlled usually by the potters' whim, or by tribal custom, and not by the purchasing public, and is therefore liable to irregular or sudden changes. Shape, on the other hand, though dependent in part on the potters' skill and on the function of the pot, is far more dependent on the public taste, and is consequently more likely to evolve gradually and regularly. Nor do its changes take long in their evolution. It often needs but a few centuries, even in a conservative country like Mesopotamia, for pot-shapes to develop so markedly that the connexion between the first and last of a series would be unrecognizable without the guidance of the intermediate variants. Conversely, if in an extensive array of pottery a close connexion can be shown to exist between specimens from the earliest and latest levels, it is as likely as not that no long period of time need be postulated for the development from one to the other.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 1 , Issue 1 , April 1934 , pp. 30 - 44
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1934

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

page 30 note 1 To take a modern analogy, the sudden changes in technique may be compared to changes of fashion dictated by dress-designers, while the gradual evolution of shapes may be compared to the slow and natural development in dress-fashions before the Parisian era and the introduction of central control.

page 30 note 2 The term Sumerian is used for convenience to designate all the levels at Kish from the ‘A’ period down to virgin soil. Its use must not be taken to imply that the pottery described is all pre-Sargonic. The absolute dating of these early levels is too big a problem for discussion here.

page 30 note 3 For a stratigraphical chart see Langdon, S., Excavations at Kish, 1928-9 (J.R.A.S., 1930, 601–10)Google Scholar.

page 31 note 1 Mackay speaks of the outer wall being breached and the corridor blocked up as if the palace were destroyed by siege, see Mackay, E., Report on the Excavation of the ‘A’ Cemetery at Kish, Mesopotamia and A Sumerian Palace and the ‘A’ Cemetery at Kish, Mesopotamia, Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropology Memoirs, vol. I, Nos. I and 2 (Chicago, 1925-9) [hereafter referred to as Mackay, Cemetery ‘A’], p. 85 Google Scholar.

page 35 note 1 Mackay, E., Report on Excavations at Jemdet Nasr, Iraq, Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropology Memoirs, vol. I, No. 3 (Chicago, 1931) [hereafter referred to as Mackay, Jemdet Nasr], pp. 240–1 and pl. LXXVI. 10Google Scholar.

page 36 note 1 Mackay, , Cemetery ‘A’, pl. XLV. 9 Google Scholar and another.

page 36 note 2 Ibid., pl. XLVIII. 4, 15, 22, and another.

page 36 note 3 For an example from a grave see Mackay, , Cemetery ‘A’, pl. XLVIII. 15 Google Scholar.

page 37 note 1 Mackay, Jemdet Nasr, pls. LXV and LXVI.

page 37 note 2 Mackay, Cemetery ‘A’, pls. XVI and LIV.

page 37 note 3 Ibid., pls. XIII and LI, XIV and LII, and XV and LIII respectively.

page 38 note 1 Mackay, Cemetery ‘A’, types L and M, pls. XVI and LIII-LIV.

page 43 note 1 Hall, H. R. and Woolley, C. L., Ur Excavations, vol. I, Al ‘Ubaid, Oxford, 1927, 149 ffGoogle Scholar.

page 43 note 2 Compare, e.g., ‘Ubaid LXXXVIII with Mackay, , Jemdet Nasr, pl. LXIII. 15 Google Scholar; ‘Ubaid LXXX with Fig. 1. 6; and ‘Ubaid LIII with Fig. 4. 12, e.

page 43 note 3 Woolley, op. cit., 176.

page 43 note 4 Woolley, op. cit., pls. LV-LX. The letters after the type-numbers from Al ‘Ubaid signify in which of the three periods (early, middle, or late) the type occurs.