The work at Tell Abada was a part of the intensive rescue operation conducted by the Iraqi State Antiquities Organization in the Hamrin basin where about seventy archaeological sites are to be flooded by a dam now under construction.

The work at Abada started in the middle of December 1977 and lasted until the end of July 1978 without any interruption. The excavations were conducted by the writer assisted by Mr. Ali Hashim Khairi and Mr. Jurjis Muhammad Fadhil (Archaeologists); Mr. Salih Al-Tu‘ma was the foreman. They all worked with exceptional industry despite the severe climatic conditions, especially in winter and summer, and many thanks are due to them all. I would like also to express my warmest thanks and gratitude to Dr. Muayad Sa‘id, head of the State Antiquities Organization, for his greatest interest in the work and his constant encouragement and invaluable advice. My thanks are due also to Dr. Joan Oates for her sincere help and advice. The photographs were taken by Mr. Yasin Al-Mashhadani.

Tell Abada lies to the east of the Diyala River, 12 km southeast of Al Sadiyah. It is situated in a large agricultural plain along the Zagros foothills. In the vicinity are a number of small villages whose Arab inhabitants rely on cultivation and herding for their subsistence. The most important crops grown are wheat and barley. In general the climate of the area is very cold and stormy in winter and hot with dust storms in summer. Although winter rainfall is marginal for agriculture (235 mm per annum, recorded at Jalaula 1956–1958), the rain can be very heavy so that in winter the wadis flow as rushing torrents.

In view of the fact that so many of the texts from Mesopotamia are concerned with offerings for the various feasts of the Mesopotamian temples it is surprising that we know so little about the actual mechanisms of offering and distribution of the sacrificial remains. For the earlier periods of Mesopotamian history we have virtually no information about offering procedures. We do not know whether the Sumerian priests destroyed the offering animals totally in the manner of a holocaust, whether they were consumed by the priests during the temple feasts or whether only certain pieces were offered to the gods during the sacrificial meal with the remainder being distributed among the temple personnel as a form of income—which we know to have been the practice in the later periods.

For the Old Babylonian period we are almost as ill-informed. We know, however, that certain cuts of meat were received from the temple by nadītu priestesses as “betrothal gifts” and we have lists of recipients of meat cuts, but in neither case do we know if offering animals were the source of the meat.

The earliest texts expressly concerned with the distribution of offering remains date to the Middle Assyrian and early Neo-Babylonian periods. These take the form of royal rescripts or temple ordinances regulating which temple officials are to receive what remains. The most complete and explicit of these is a temple ordinance for the Eanna in Uruk, composed originally during or shortly after the reign of Nabu-apla-iddin, which we possess in the form of a later copy.

The “temple-state theory” of Mesopotamian economy was first propounded by A. Deimel. Unfortunately, he unjustifiably considered his reconstruction to be normative for the whole area and the entire history of Mesopotamia. Subsequent research by Gelb and Diakonoff has shown that temple holdings and economy were but one form of economic life during the third millennium. It would appear that in the course of the third millennium a large part of the “Gross National Product” was in fact produced by the holdings of private owners, the community lands owned by clans, extended families or, to use Diakonoff's term, obschinas. Little attention has, however, been paid to the fact that only a minor share of these products could have been accumulated, re-invested or utilized through long-distance trade by private entrepreneurs. Temple economy most probably participated in the accumulation, redistribution and mobilization of goods to a much larger degree than its own production.

The problem of why, how and when economic goods, and later still, land itself came into the ownership of the temple, an originally non-economic organization, is still open to debate. According to Gelb, land was owned by the tribe, the clan or the community during the early—not defined more precisely—periods of Mesopotamian history, in the time of the primitive communities. He went on to propose that land came under temple ownership when with the fully established centralized state organization and more advanced agricultural economy, the village land controlled by tribes and clans gave way to public land controlled by the crown, temple and nobility. Diakonoff suggested that temple estates gradually absorbed public or community holdings during the Uruk IV–III period at the latest, but perhaps at an even earlier date. Both opinions give a terminus ante quem rather than a chronologically exact date.

During 1981 and 1982 an immense amount of archaeological research has been undertaken in Iraq and reports on some fifty sites are included below. Most of this research has been done by the Iraqi State Organization for Antiquities and Heritage either on its own or in co-operation with foreign expeditions on the Salvage Projects. The Hamrin Dam Salvage Project has continued on two sites of exceptional importance, Tell Haddad and Tell Suleimeh. The Haditha Dam Salvage Project has continued at full strength and the Eski Mosul Dam Salvage Project has now started. By the end of 1982 nine sites had been investigated and by June 1983 that number has more than doubled. At the same time sites elsewhere in Iraq have not been neglected, both those threatened by development and those investigated for research and tourism.

In the compilation of these reports we are very grateful to Dr. Mu‘ayyad Sa'id, the President of the State Organization, for permission to publish them in Iraq. We would also like to thank Dr. Behnam Abu as-Soof, Dr. Muhammad Baqir al-Husseini, Dr. Abd-as-Sittar al-‘Azzawi, and Sd. Abd-ul-Qadir Hassan, the Directors-General for the Northern, Western, Southern and Eastern Regions, for the considerable assistance they have given us. As usual our greatest debt is to the excavators of the various sites for freely telling us about their discoveries. We must also apologize to them for any mistakes we have made in summarizing the results from the excavations.

Die gegenwärtigen Vorstellungen zur Chronologie der Ǧamdat Naṣr- und der beginnenden Frühdynastischen Zeit im südlichen Babylonien werden immer noch weitgehend von den Ausgrabungen im Diyālā-Gebiet bestimmt. Das liegt einerseits an dem Fehlen eines vergleichbaren Arbeitsprojektes in Babylonien, andererseits an der noch nicht erfolgten Auswertung vorhandener und publizierter Ausgrabungen in dieser Region.

Eine dieser lange Zeit brachgelegenen Auswertungsmöglichkeiten bietet der sog. Ǧamdat Naṣr-Friedhof in Ur. In den frühen dreißiger Jahren von Sir Leonard Woolley ausgegraben, stellen die Funde aus diesen Gräbern immer noch den einzigen größeren, zusammenhängenden Fundkomplex dieser Periode aus Süd-babylonien dar. Im folgenden sollen nun die Ergebnisse einer neuerlichen chronologischen Auswertung und die daraus resultierenden Vorstellungen zur sozialen Unterschieden in diesem frühen mesopotamischen Gräberfeld dargestellt werden.

Der schon in den dreißiger Jahren fertiggestellte endgültige Bericht über die Ausgrabungsergebnisse des sog. Ǧamdat Naṣr-Friedhofs wurde von L. Woolley im Rahmen des vierten Bandes der Ur-Publikationsreihe veröffentlicht. Der Autor legte dort das Material, nach einer frühen statistischen Methode in klassischer Dreiteilung geordnet, vor. Diese Methode stützte sich auf die Kombination der Gefäßbeigaben und die Stratigraphie der Gräber. Da der Hauptteil des Friedhofs in zwei getrennten Ausgrabungsschnitten, X und W, vorgefunden wurde; und diese, neben vielen Ähnlichkeiten auch Unterschiede eigentümlicher Art aufwiesen, hielt L. Woolley den größten Teil der Funde aus W für spärer, als die aus X. Nach dem Vorkommen dreifarbig-bemalter Ǧamdat Naṣr-Ware datierte er den gesamten Fundkomplex in eben diese Zeit.

This paper contributes in small part to the re-examination of the assumed relationship between Sumer and the surrounding areas. It is concerned with metals, metal-working and metal goods, and more particularly with the weapons which begin to appear in some profusion during the third millennium both in Sumer and in other areas round about. The thesis proposed here is in two parts. On the one hand, it will be argued that between Sumer in the ED III period and north-west Mesopotamia there are striking parallels in the use of materials, the techniques of manufacture and the objects produced, parallels which suggest that the developments were simultaneous in both areas. On the other hand, it will be suggested that the northern products were not derivative or simply produced in tandem with those of Sumer, but that they show evidence of originality and equal participation in the process of innovation and development.

In view of the need for brevity this paper concentrates on a segment of the evidence, the weapons from the group of sites around Carchemish (Tell Kara Hassan, Serrin, Amarna and Hammam) whence Woolley obtained grave-groups by purchase in the early years of this century (Woolley, 1914; for more detailed information on the similar recovery of first millennium grave-groups from Deve Hüyük see Moorey, 1980: 1–4), from Carchemish itself (Woolley and Barnett, 1952: 218–26), and the metal objects from the hypogeum at Til Barsib (Thureau-Dangin and Dunand, 1936), the metal grave-goods from Woolley's excavations in the Royal Cemetery at Ur (Woolley, 1932) and the finds from the “A” cemetery at Kish (Mackay, 1925; Hrouda and Karstens, 1967; Moorey, 1978).

In the third millennium B.C. Shuruppak (modern Fara) was a major city located on the Euphrates in central Sumer. Today the mound of the ancient city extends for over a kilometre north to south. Including the high mound and the lower rise of one to two metres surrounding it, Shuruppak covers about 120 hectares. Only about 35 hectares rise about the 3 m contour, however, and nowhere does the mound rise much above 9 m.

There have been two major excavations at Shuruppak, by the D.O.G. in 1902—they crisscrossed the mound with trenches but recorded lamentably little stratigraphy—and by the University of Pennsylvania in 1931—when Erich Schmidt conducted limited excavations at four points on the mound. It is clear from these excavations that Shuruppak was inhabited from about 3000 to 2000 B.C.

In 1973 I visited the site and conducted a three-day surface survey with the help of my husband Christopher Martin, the British School of Archaeology in Iraq (then under the direction of Diana Kirkbride), and the Iraqi Directorate of Antiquities, with the aim of enlarging our knowledge of the settlement patterns at Shuruppak.

This paper looks at a group of fire installations in a preliminary attempt to analyse an economic sub-system which played some part in the life of a third millennium town in Southern Mesopotamia. It is hoped that this analysis may identify some problems which will be relevant when considering the direction of future research strategy at that site.

The fire installations in question all come from the area of Abu Salabikh known as 5I; this area lies in the dip of the saddle between two higher areas, Area A to the North, and Area E to the South. Area A is occupied by houses of ED III date and Area E by a public building of similar date. 5I is entirely different in character, the walls of the buildings are thinner, the plans less regular and we appear to be in an area of private housing with a number of narrow lanes. The pottery from the area is of ED I date and there is some evidence from the plans for rebuilding which suggests that here at least the period was of some duration. This is reinforced by the presence of a grave (Grave 193) which contains some typically ED I pottery but which was dug from a level completely eroded away.

To date we know four major Sumerian narrative poems dealing with the rivalry between Uruk and Aratta. They are written in standard literary Sumerian, and were composed very probably near the beginning of the second millennium. Together they may be said to constitute the “Matter of Aratta”. The use of this term, however, already indicates a first problem area. Is the mention of Aratta, and the theme of its defeat by Uruk in a struggle for supremacy, a sufficient reason to regard the poems as a group, or are there other and more formal features allowing us to define them as belonging to a specific type of narrative poetry?

A survey of the contents shows that there are indeed more points of concurrence than the mere struggle between cities. In every poem, a challenge is laid down by one of the rulers. This challenge, which may be military or diplomatic, is taken up by the other party so that, whatever the outcome, the ambitions of the challenger are held up for a while in the middle part of the poem. A major role is played by a messenger type who is instrumental in gradually bringing about the solution. These mediations may be merely repetitive, but can also be incremental, or a combination of both. Furthermore, parts of his mediating function may be taken over by others: champions may be used to effectuate the messages. Finally, in every tale the struggle ends with Uruk's victory, gained by non-military means, and exemplified by Inanna's behaviour: she ultimately grants victory to Uruk. These basic characteristics may be seen as a framework to all poems, and schematically represented as:

Initial situation: virtually equal protagonists; challenge and response: deadlock.

Poetry is built upon two seemingly contradictory literary foundations; one of density or compactness, as the German word Dichtung well signifies, and the other of repetition. A poet repeats a word, phrase or motif to condense ideas into a small space.

My purpose in this paper is to suggest that there was in the Ancient Near East a literary convention of telling the story of the origin of mankind in a doublet. The first part of the story relates the creation of mankind in more general and abstract terms, whereas the second part of the story narrates it in more specific and concrete terms. The technique of bringing the two independent parts together into a unified narrative is quite similar to the way in which a bicolon in poetry is composed, namely, by the juxtaposition of two similar materials according to the principle of parallelism of the members. The difference is in the quantity of literary material. For this purpose, I would like to present three examples. A synoptic outline of the Sumerian, Akkadian and Hebrew stories is as follows:

The Sumerian story, Enki and Ninmah, describes the creation of man in two parts. These two parts of the story are parallel, being analogous to the two lines of a bicolon. If we label the members of this parallelism in respect to the key motifs of creation as,

A = Gods

B = Creation

C = Mankind

D = Decreeing of fate

E = Prescription of work to mankind,

Les documents dont il va être question ici appartiennent à un lot de textes administratifs provenant des salles Y et Z du Palais de Mari. Ils ont fait l'objet d'une thèse de doctorat à l'Université Libre de Bruxelles et seront publiés dans un prochain volume de la série des Archives Royales de Mari.

La localisation des salles Y et Z reste problématique. Ces désignations furent données provisoirement lors du dégagement, préalablement à la numérotation des salles. Actuellement, la seule hypothèse que je puisse avancer consiste à les identifer avec la cour 51 et la salle 171, toutes deux situées au nord du Palais, à l'ouest de la zone d'entrée.

Ces textes sont de nature administrative et touchent à des domaines très divers, Ils sont comparables en tous points aux archives éditées dans les volumes VII et IX des ARM.

On peut s'étonner que l'agriculture soit si peu représentée dans la documentation de Mari, par ailleurs si riche. Peu de textes nous renseignent sur les aspects pratiques de l'agriculture, et cela s'explique, en fait, par le caractère interne des archives administratives.

Ce qui importe aux scribes et aux responsables du Palais, c'est avant tout la bonne tenue des comptes de magasins, les entrées, les sorties et les transferts d'un service à l'autre. Dans le domaine agricole, seules les entrées de grain au Palais sont relativement fréquentes.

Par contre, si l'on aborde l'étude du personnel agricole proprement dit, le nombre de textes se réduit considérablement. Les quelques documents dont on peut croire qu'ils ont été écrits “sur le terrain” sont rédigés d'une main malhabile, ce qui laisse entendre qu'on envoyait sur place des scribes de rang et de qualité inférieurs.

L'architecture des sanctuaires mésopotamiens nous est avant tout connue grâce aux fouilles. Les documents écrits peuvent cependant apporter une contribution essentielle à cette étude, notamment en permettant d'identifier la nature des lieux exhumés par les archéologues. Un des exemples les plus fameux en ce domaine est la tablette séleucide publiée voici vingt ans par J. J. van Dijk, qui donne les dimensions (largeur, longueur et surface) du papāhum du “Bīt rēš” et de l'Irigal à Uruk.

Les trois tablettes qui forment la base de cette communication ont été découvertes dans la salle 115 du palais de Mari. Leur cas est toutefois différent de celui d'Uruk qui vient d'être évoqué; en effet, chacune d'elles décrit un sanctuaire qui n'a pas encore été découvert. Il s'agit d'abord d'un temple situé dans la ville de Kahat, vraisemblablement consacré au dieu Tešub; cette tablette a été identifiée par J.-M. Durand lors de l'inventaire des tablettes de Mari encore inédites, et je lui ai dévolu un article il y a plus de deux ans dont la publication a été malheureusement retardée. Depuis lors, deux autres tablettes du même genre ont pu être identifiées et étudiées. L'une d'elles fournit la description du temple de Bēlet-Apim dans la ville de Šubat-Enlil; le troisième temple ne peut malheureusement être identifié ni localisé en raison du mauvais état de la tablette.

Une telle contribution épigraphique à la connaissance de l'architecture religieuse mésopotamienne m'a semblé former un tribut approprié à la célébration de la British School of Archaeology in Iraq, en particulier à cause de la révélation qu'a constitué la fouille du temple de Tell al Rimah à la fin des années soixante.

The dominant feature of the walled town, now identified as Karana, is the temple ziggurat mound which rises prominently at the centre. In this paper we are concerned only with the phases of the principal temple in the second millennium. Suffice it to note that a small Neo-Assyrian temple dated to Adad-nirari III was placed later in the north-west angle formed by the earlier temple and ziggurat.

The great temple of Karana was entirely symmetrical in plan, and attached to a rectangular ziggurat on the east axis. The approach to the ante-chamber and cella was via a courtyard with surrounding rooms. Construction of temple and ziggurat was executed in mud-brick with an elaborate architectural decoration of multi-formed columns and pilasters across the façade of the ante-chamber and surrounding the courtyard. The principal phases of building activity are the Old Assyrian c. 1800 B.C., the Nuzi period after 1600 B.C., and the Middle Assyrian after 1400 B.C.

The additional decoration of major importance which concerns us in this essay consists of four carved stone members associated directly with the functioning of the ante-chamber door. One further piece to be considered with this group is a carved stone orthostat of a winged demon, which we date on stylistic grounds to the Old Assyrian period. It is discernible immediately to the trained eye that the five pieces fall into two groups: the earlier or Old Assyrian consists of Humbaba I, the Lady between Palms, and the Winged Demon; the later group, presumably executed by sculptors of the Nuzi period, consists of Humbaba II and the Bull-man between Palms. Additional evidence comes from the various find spots. It should be emphasized that although two of the stone blocks were excavated in situ, not one of the five reliefs occurred in original context.

This paper is concerned with a distinctive type of axe-head, examples of which have been found at Chagar Bazar and Nimrud (Pl. VII and Figs. 1–2). Both have four horizontal ribs encircling the socket and a rectangular-shaped projection at the base of the blade. The Chagar Bazar specimen comes from a level I grave, to which Sir Max Mallowan assigned outside limits of c. 1750–1600 B.C. He concluded, however, that the axe-head was unlikely to be much later than 1700 B.C. (Mallowan 1947, Pls. XLI: 1, LV: 15, pp. 187–8, 218). The same date was assumed for the Nimrud axe, which, although not from the same mould as suggested by Sir Max, is certainly very similar and is probably a product of the same workshop. Indeed, they are so close there can be very little difference in date between them. Subsequent writers on axe-heads have generally followed Sir Max's dating (Maxwell-Hyslop 1949, 107; Deshayes 1960, I, 188; Erkanal 1977, 16). Sir Max found confirmation for the early date of these axes in “an almost identical axe” found in level Ib at Kültepe (Mallowan 1956, 20–21; 1966, I, 346–7, n. 36), and thus belonging to the first half of the eighteenth century B.C. The Kültepe axe (Fig. 3:1; Özgüç, T. 1955, 69–70, Figs. 40a, 42) does in fact belong to a small group of Anatolian axe-heads that have been conveniently collected together by Erkanal (1977, Pl. 5, nos. 57, 59–61).