Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:29:11.007Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ur and Eridu, The Prehistory

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 August 2014

Joan Oates
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Sir Leonard Woolley's excavations at Ur, and his meticulous publication of the results, made available to Mesopotamian archaeologists a vast body of information on a great many topics, and the subsequent investigations which his work inspired have in no way detracted from its importance. He pointed the way to the solution of many major problems, the existence of which had not hitherto been realized; and in particular, his account of the prehistoric periods in Southern Mesopotamia may justly be said to have inaugurated a new field of research. The importance of his original contribution, both in material and in ideas, to the study of this vital phase in the development of Mesopotamian civilization cannot be overrated. The evidence of the Flood made a spectacular appeal to popular imagination, but his discovery in the same pit of an occupation level with al ‘Ubaid pottery marked a great advance in knowledge. It is, however, no criticism of Woolley to say that, like all pioneers, he raised more questions than he could solve; and the body of new information which has emerged from the recent excavations conducted by the Iraq Directorate-General of Antiquities at the nearby site of Eridu makes it appropriate and useful on this occasion to review the evidence as a whole and attempt to answer some of these outstanding questions. It is a tribute to Sir Leonard Woolley that the excellence of his publication makes such a reappraisal possible.

Type
Research Article
Information
IRAQ , Volume 22 , Issue 1-2: Ur in Retrospect. In Memory of Sir C. Leonard Woolley , Spring-Autumn 1960 , pp. 32 - 50
Copyright
Copyright © The British Institute for the Study of Iraq 1960 

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 Lloyd, and Safar, , Sumer III 1947, IV 1948, and VI 1950Google Scholar. I am extremely indebted to the Directorate-General of Antiquities, Baghdad, and in particular to Sayid Fuad Safar, for their very kind permission to examine the Eridu sherds, now in the storerooms of the Iraq Museum, and to publish these comments and the photograph Pl. IV.

2 Sumer IV 1948, p. 124 Google Scholar.

3 This material is presented in greater detail in a study of the al ‘Ubaid period submitted at Cambridge as a Ph.D. dissertation in 1953. It is hoped soon to publish this work, which is more fully illustrated than was possible in this article.

4 The drawings on Pl. IV are intended simply to illustrate general types and are not meant as a definitive series of Eridu pottery forms. They are taken from Sumer IV, Lloyd and Safar, Pl. III, and are not to scale.

5 See also U.V.B. IX 1938, Pl. 36Google Scholar.

6 Type 13 first appears in level XIV.

7 Sumer IV 1948, Lloyd, and Safar, , Pl. VIIGoogle Scholar.

8 Ibid.; see also Tobler, Tepe Gawra II, ornament on beaker no. 204, level XIII.

9 Sumer IV 1948, p. 124 Google Scholar

10 Ibid.

11 Woolley, The Development of Sumerian Art, Pl. 2a; cf. also type aU. 54, U.E. IV.

12 Cf U.E. IV, aU. 7, Ur ‘Ubaid II-III. See p. 40.

13 U.E. IV: Pl. 17, especially (a) U.15377 (aU.46, cf. Pl. V type 15), (b) U.15502 (type 23), and (c) U.15592 (although this particular example has a ring base, aU.23, the decoration and the flared cup shape are very like Eridu type 17b). Also, Pl. 47:6, 8, aU.37 (type 14), and aU.36 (type 11a) cf. Sumer IV, Lloyd, and Safar, , Pl. IXGoogle Scholar. The Ur-‘Ubaid II unpainted jars also resemble those from the Eridu cemetery: U.E. IV Pl. 52 (aU.27–9, 31) cf. type 19 ( Sumer IV, Lloyd, and Safar, , Pl. III, type 13Google Scholar; see also Pl. IX). Also compare aU.4, 6, 8, and type 20; aU.10, 16, and type 13; aU.22 and type 18; A.J. X Pl. XLV:c (a better photograph of U.E. IV Pl. 19: U.15508) and other examples on U.E. IV Pl. 19 and type 22.

14 U.E. IV Pl. 17: U.15592 cf. Sumer IV Pl. IX. It would be interesting to know how accurate the drawing of Ur-‘Ubaid II type aU.43 is, as curved spouts are a late Uruk feature. The only example illustrated with a photograph (Pl. 19:U.15602) seems to have the more usual ‘Ubaid type of spout (see type 23).

15 A.J. X, p. 337 Google Scholar.

16 U.E. IV, pp. 20–21 Google Scholar.

17 U.E. IV: (a) Pl. 47:14, 16 and Pl. 48:1–5, 27–29, cf. Sumer IV Pl. VII; (b) Pl. 48, second row from bottom, cf. Eridu lenticular jar, Sumer IV Pl. VII; (c) Pl. 47:17 is identical with unpublished sherds from Eridu Temples IX-VIII.

18 ‘Eridu Ware’: U.E. IV Pl. 46:24, 33, 34, 39, cf. Pl. IV, 29, 27, 17, 42; Pl. 48:24–6, cf. Pl. V, 31, 34 (see also U.V.B. IX Pl. 38:e); Pl. 49:11, cf. Pl. IV, 30; Pl. 48:1 is a pattern also found in Eridu level XVI, and there are a number of sherds from Ur in the Institute of Archaeology, London, and in the British Museum identical with sherds from Eridu levels XVIII-XVI. Muhammad, Hajji: U.E. IV Pl. 46:30Google Scholar, cf. U.V.B. IX Pl. 38:b; 36, 41, 42, 48, cf. U.V.B. IX Pl. 40:g; 49 cf. U.V.B. IX Pl. 39:b; Pl. 48, second row from bottom; Pl. 49:12 cf. Pl, IV, 1; Pl. 50: 23, 24, and 28 cf. Pl. IV; 1, 3, 5, and 7.

19 U.E. IV p. 8 Google Scholar.

20 See also Perkins, A. L., S.A.O.C. 25, 1949, p. 78 Google Scholar.

21 Two exceptions are: one painted version of the footless cup, aU.19, and, in one of the lower III graves (PFG/N), a ‘soup-plate’ with the rim only painted black.

22 U.E. IV, p. 28 Google Scholar.

23 A number of sherds from level XIX resemble Tulane, , “New Chalcolithic Material of Samarran Type,” J.N.E.S. III, 1944, motif 94Google Scholar.

24 Pl. IV, 35 cf. Herzfeld, , Die Ausgrabungen von Samarra V (hereafter Sam.), 1930, Pl. XXXII and HGoogle Scholar. Schmidt, , Tell Halaf I, 1943 (hereafter TH I), Pl. XC:2, 7Google Scholar.

25 Pl. IV, 24, 32, 41 cf. Tulane, op. cit., motifs 287–290, and Sam. Fig. 71:80.

26 Pl. IV, 16 cf. Tulane op. cit., motif 27; ibid. Fig. 1:15 is like an unpublished sherd from Eridu level XVI; ibid. Fig. 279 resembles sherds from Eridu levels XIX and XVI; Pl. IV, 24 cf. Sam. Fig. 178:242. Other similarities are: Pl. IV, 20, 35, 42, cf. Sam. Fig. 182:246; an unpublished sherd from level XIX is like Sam. Fig. 132:157, one from level XVIII is like Tulane op. cit., motif 23, and one from XVI like Sam. Fig. 115:136.

27 Sam. Fig. 177:421.

28 Sam. pp. 80–90; Lloyd, and Safar, , J.N.E.S. IV, 1945 (Hassuna), Fig. 2, 3Google Scholar.

29 Sam. Fig. 55:57.

30 Sam. Fig. h, Schüsseln Unterlypus a2.

31 Lloyd, and Safar, , J.N.E.S. IV, 1945, Fig. 6Google Scholar.

32 Pl. IV, 6, 8, 9, 20, 27, 29, 31–5, 39, 42, cf. especially TH I and Mallowan, and Rose, , Arpachiyah, , Iraq II, 1935 Google Scholar. There are unpublished sherds from level XVIII at Eridu similar to TH I: Pl. XLVII, 18; LXX, 3; XCI, 5; and LII, 7. One from level XVII is like TH I, Pl. XVI.

33 Le Breton, , “Note sur la céramique peinte aux environs de Suse et à Suse, M.D.P. XXX, 1947, Fig. 9:8;Fig. 9:5, 6Google Scholar, cf. Ghirshman, , Fouilles de Sialk I, 1938, Pl. XXXVIIIGoogle Scholar.

34 Le Breton, , M.D.P. XXX, Fig. 9:5 cf. Pl. IV, 24, 32Google Scholar; Fig. 9:7 cf. Pl. IV, 4. Among the other similarities are: (a) ‘Eridu Ware,’ M.D.P. XXX, Fig. 9:1 cf. Pl. IV, 8 and an unpublished sherd from Eridu level XIX; Fig. 10:15 cf. Pl. IV, 20; and Fig. 10:5 resembles an unpublished sherd from XIX except that the triangle on the Eridu sherd is not painted in. (b) Muhammad, Hajji, M.D.P. XXX, Fig. 10:13, 16Google Scholar cf. U.E. I, Pl. XIX:1916 Google Scholar; Fig. 12:10 cf. U.V.B. IX, Pl. 40:a; and Fig. 9:6 is similar in treatment to Pl. IV, 5.

35 See U.V.B. IX Pl. 36.

36 Le Breton, , M.D.P. XXX, Fig. 25:8 cf. Pl. IV, 3, 5Google Scholar.

37 There is, for example, an unpublished sherd from Jowi similar to Pl. IV, 37, and M.D.P. XXX, Fig. 23:7, 8, resemble unpublished Eridu sherds, for example some from level XVI.

38 Compare, for example, the Anu Ziggurat at Warka and the Diyala temples.

39 Sumer IV p. 119 Google Scholar, cf. the Abu Temple at T. Asmar; Delougaz, and Lloyd, , “Pre-Sargonid Temples in the Diyala Region,” O.I.P. LVIII, 1942, p. 157 and Fig. 150Google Scholar.

40 In Temples VII and VIII both end and side entrances to the sanctuary, direct and indirect, exist, but in VI the end entrance is no longer in use. It is the latter entrance, however, that is most common in Uruk temples, although side entrances through lateral chambers seem to be the only means of access to the ‘Uqair Painted Temple. Sumer III Figs. 2, 3; Sumer IV Pl. VI; J.N E.S. II, 1943, Lloyd, and Safar, (‘Uqair), Pl. VGoogle Scholar.

41 Eridu Temples XVII, XVI; see Sumer IV Pl. VI. See also Mrs. Van Buren, , Iraq XIV, 1952, pp. 76–92, especially pp. 83–4Google Scholar.

42 Compare the broken libation vessels of Eridu with the ritually broken cups of the Abu Temple, T. Asmar; Delougaz and Lloyd, op. cit., p. 166.

43 Sumer III, p. 103 Google Scholar.

44 This habit of preserving the sacred remains of earlier temples is connected psychologically with another feature characteristic of temple building in Mesopotamia, the desire to build without deviation according to previously set precedents. A classic example is, of course, the building of a temple to Ningirsu at Lagash by Gudca. See Mrs.Buren, Van, Or. 21, 1952, p. 293 Google Scholar, for the building of temples in conformity with the “ordinances and ritual of Eridu.”

45 Lloyd, , “Uruk Pottery,” Sumer IV, 1948, p. 51 Google Scholar.

46 A useful summary of these arguments is to be found in Speiser, , “The Sumerian Problem Reviewed.” Hebrew Union College Annual XXIII, 1950–1951, pp. 559–355Google Scholar.

47 See Jacobsen, , “The Assumed Conflict between Sumerians and Semites in early Mesopotamian History,” J.A.O.S. 59, 1939, pp. 485–95Google Scholar; also Gelb, , “Old Akkadian Writing and Grammar,” M.A.D. II, 1952, pp. 5–7 Google Scholar. The numerical predominance of Sumerian personal names at this time seems to show conclusively that the language was not a recent introduction.

48 Berghe, Vanden, “Archaeologische Opzoekingen in de Marv Dasht Vlakte (Iran),” Jaarbericht Ex Oriente Eux 12, 1952 Google Scholar; see also Berghe, Vanden, Archéologie de l'Iran Ancien, 1959, pp. 41–2 and Pl. 49Google Scholar.

49 See Braidwood, , “Matarrah: A Southern Variant of the Hassunan Assemblage,” J.N.E.S. XI, 1952, p. 4 Google Scholar.

50 Lees, G. M. and Falcon, N. L., “The Geographical History of the Mesopotamian Plains,” Geographical Journal CXVIII, 1952 Google Scholar. This is not an entirely new theory. Similar though less complete evidence was presented by Sir Arnold Wilson as early as 1925. (“The Delta of the Shatt al ‘Arab and Proposals for Dredging the Bar,” Geographical Journal LXV, 1925 Google Scholar) In 1920 Campbell Thompson wrote, in reference to the occurrence of shells in his excavations at Eridu, “I think that the freshwater mussel shells which I found in great quantity in different strata, when taken into consideration with the very few finds of marine shells, will compel us to give up the idea that Eridu was in ancient times actually on the sea-shore.” ( Archaeologia LXX, p. 124.Google Scholar)

51 U.V.B. IV, 1932, p. 6 Google Scholar.

52 There is, for example, evidence that the great Hor al Hammar marsh between Ur and Basra only came into existence in about A.D. 600. Le Strange, , J.R.A.S. XXVII, 1895, p. 297 Google Scholar, and Lands of the Eastern Caliphate, 1930, p. 27 Google Scholar.

53 Nippur: a brief sounding in the 1952 season. A sounding has just been made at the Kish site by Mr. David Stronach for The British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

54 I am indebted to Sayid Fuad Safar for this information.

55 I am indebted to Sayid Mohammad Ali Mustafa for information concerning the tells in the marshes.