Foundation, the University of Southern California, the National Science ... Swartz Dodd (University of Southern California), Eleanor Moseman (Bryn Mawr ...
The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project (UTARP): Research at Kenan Tepe during 2003 (draft) By Lynn Dodd*, Bradley J. Parker**, with contributions from Andrew Creekmore, and Elizabeth Healey
Introduction Kenan Tepe is a multi-period mound located on the Tigris River in the area due to be flooded by the Ilisu Dam, in Diyarbakir province, southeastern Turkey (figure 1).1 The site lies on the north bank of the river about 15 kilometers west of the Tigris-Batman confluence. In preparation for a monograph length publication that will appear in the series Subartu, members of the Upper Tigris Regional Archaeological Project (UTARP) conducted an intensive study season during the summer of 2003.2 The season lasted approximately four weeks. As a result of this research, we are now able to define the nature of the Ubaid (ca. 5000-4000), Chalcolithic (ca. 4000-3000), Early Bronze Age (ca. 3000-2500), Middle Bronze Age (ca. 2000-1600), and Early Iron Age (ca. 1200-900) occupation at the site. Additionally, research was directed toward defining the original use of a Middle Bronze furnace or kiln-like structure found in 2002. This article includes a summary of research activities conducted at Kenan Tepe between 2000 and 2002, with particular attention to research carried out during the 2003 study season. The Ubaid Period Archaeological research at Kenan Tepe over the past four seasons identified discontinuous occupation episodes during five broad time periods. The earliest remains unearthed at Kenan Tepe thus far belong to the Ubaid culture of the mid-fifth millennium BC. Ubaid remains have been unearthed in three areas of the site: areas A, D, and E on the high mound (figure 2, red arrows). Soundings excavated in Kenan Tepe’s lower town revealed the presence of Ubaid ceramics in trench F6, which is located approximately 70 meters east of our Ubaid trenches in Area D (figure 2, yellow arrow). If these ceramics betray the existence of Ubaid occupation in this part of the lower town then our estimate * Lynn Swartz Dodd: Visiting Assistant Professor and Curator, School of Religion, THH 328, MC 0355, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0355. ** Bradley J. Parker Assistant Professor, Department of History, 211 Carlson Hall, 380 S. 1400 E., University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT 84112. 1 We would like to thank the Ministry of Culture and Tourism’s General Directorate for Cultural Heritage and Museums; and Necdet ‹nal, the Director of the Diyarbak›r Museum; and Numan Tuna of TAÇDAM. Special thanks are due our government representative from Ankara, Melek Çanga. We would also like to extend our gratitude to UTARP’s financial supporters, including the National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Geographic Society, the University of Utah, the Curtiss T. and Mary G. Brennan Foundation, the University of Southern California, the National Science Foundation, and IBM. 2 The 2003 study season research team included Andrew Creekmore (Northwestern University), Lynn Swartz Dodd (University of Southern California), Eleanor Moseman (Bryn Mawr College), Bradley Parker (University of Utah), Elizabeth Healey (University of Manchester (UK), Kathryn Smith, Sibel Torpil (Bilkent University), and Bari_ Üzel (Ege University). Our driver was Ihsan Sevim.
of the size of the site during this period will significantly increase. The possible existence of Ubaid occupation in Area F will be tested during the 2004 field season. Previous excavation on the east side of the mound (in trench D5) uncovered the well-preserved remains of an Ubaid 4 period domestic structure (figure 3).3 The excavated portion of this house includes mud brick walls demarcating two rooms, an outside work surface that abuts the walls, and a large oven or kiln. Although the inside of this building was relatively clean, the outside surface produced numerous artifacts and other domestic debris in situ. These included organic remains, such as a layer of compacted plant pseudomorphs that may be remains of barley chaff (figure 4); the remains of a grass mat (figure 5); as well as a large quantity of painted fine and unpainted coarse Ubaid pottery (figure 6). During the 2003 study season Lynn Dodd and Bradley Parker analyzed the ceramics from all primary and secondary contexts associated with the Ubaid structure in trench D5 and recorded all of the Ubaid contexts unearthed in other trenches. This research revealed that the Ubaid ceramics are composed of four fabric types that we call rough, course, medium and fine wares. The rough ware has black core with large chaff and some calcareous grit temper. The course ware has fine grit and medium to large chaff temper. The fabric is usually brown. Medium ware has fine grit and medium to large chaff temper and is chaff impressed. Thicker sherds may have a black core. Ubaid fine ware has fine calcareous grit and medium chaff temper. Fabric is low to medium fired. The rough, course and medium wares are not decorated. Two types of decoration have been recorded on the Ubaid fine ware: the first is slipped and then painted, the second has no slip. The decorative motifs in this corpus are usually painted in a purple or dark red/blackish or brown paint, and are characteristic of a late northern Ubaid or Ubaid 4 decoration scheme with large, easily applied motifs (figure 7). Obsidian and chert chipped stone artifactual remains have been recovered in abundance in and around this Ubaid structure (figure 8). Elizabeth Healey of the University of Manchester undertook a preliminary study of this material during the 2003 study season. Flint was obtained from local sources, perhaps from local Tigris river gravels. No definitely glossed blades have been found in Ubaid levels so far, although a scraper, a piercer, a denticulate blade, a possible blank, and pieces with informal retouch have been identified. Healey’s research indicates that the local Ubaid tool makers predominantly used green obsidian, which may be from Bingol or Nemrut Dag. In Ubaid contexts, obsidian accounts for almost 30% of the chipped stone assemblage, whereas it comprises only 11% of the later assemblages studied thus far. The Ubaid chipped stone tool makers used every scrap of obsidian available to them. Those who crafted the obsidian tools apparently were inclined not to waste any material, and they worked most pieces down to small nubs. Further, Healey believes that the general character of the lithic assemblage indicates that non-specialists were producing the tools. In addition to the poorer-quality obsidian and flint remains, a well crafted fragment of a ground obsidian bowl was also found in the Ubaid occupation levels at Kenan Tepe. 3
Parker and Dodd 2003: 475. The authors would like to acknowledge with appreciation the helpful comments offered by Glenn Schwartz, Mitchell Rothman, and Stuart Campbell about the Ubaid and early Chalcolithic occupation and ceramic assemblages at Kenan Tepe.
2
In order to obtain a precise date on the Ubaid period occupation of the structure in trench D5, we submitted three carbon samples for analysis. These samples were all taken from the features outside the structure itself, but they are stratigraphically associated with it. One sample was taken from a small hearth abutting the house, and two samples were taken from the neighboring surface. These dates aligned closely with one another and fall between 4700 and 4620 B.C. This places the occupation and the ceramic assemblage within the Ubaid 4 period in southern Mesopotamian chronological terms (Rothman 2001: table 1).
Late Chalcolithic Over the past three seasons remains of a local Late Chalcolithic period settlement have been excavated in two areas on Kenan Tepe’s high mound (in the step trench and in trench C5), in two trenches in Area F (trenches F4 and F1); and in two soundings in areas G and H (soundings G4 and H1)(figure 9, red arrows). This confirms a significant expansion of the settlement between the Ubaid, when settlement was probably restricted to the high mound, and the Late Chalcolithic period, when settlement expanded onto the lower terrace. The location of Kenan Tepe’s Late Chalcolithic remains reveal that the site may have grown to between three and five hectares in this period. Carbon-14 analysis shows that the expansion of settlement into the eastern-most portion of the lower town occurred in the middle of the Late Chalcolithic sequence around 3600 B.C. or in Rothman’s terms the LC 3-4 (Rothman 2003:26). Contexts in the lower town produced a variety of Late Chalcolithic ceramic forms (figure 10). Analysis undertaken by Dodd and Parker during the 2003 study season confirmed our previous hypothesis that Kenan Tepe’s Late Chalcolithic ceramic corpus essentially is devoid of southern "Uruk" style types. Research on the Late Chalcolithic ceramic assemblage is ongoing and will appear in forthcoming publications. Future research will focus on tracing variation in social, economic, and political integration across the Ubaid and Chalcolithic periods. A goal of this research is to understand whether social complexity in this area developed as a result of local forces or with the impetus of external factors, such interaction with the Uruk interregional network. Carbon-14 tests revealed that Late Chalcolithic 5 period contexts underlie both a rectilinear mud brick Early Bronze Age structure in trench F7 (figure 11), and associated cobble surfaces in other Area F trenches. This is important not only because it suggests that there is a multi-phase Late Chalcolithic sequence in the lower town, but also because these remains lie close to the modern ground surface. Also, in the 3 meter by 45 meter step trench on the steep northern slopes of the main mound, team members unearthed two large fortification or retaining walls during the 2002 field season (figure 12). The first of these walls was discovered in the upper third of the step trench, in unit A2, and the second was discovered in the middle of the step trench, in unit A8. A small section of an identically-constructed wall was also discovered nearly 100 meters to the west of the step trench in Area C5 (figure 13). We understand this wall in C5 to be a continuation of the
3
wall discovered in trench A8. Although our Area C5 sounding did not reach that wall’s foundation, both walls in the step trench (in A2 and A8) were excavated beyond their foundations, so that the general construction characteristics of these walls can be summarized. This research revealed stone foundations that are greater than 1.5 meters in diameter. All three wall portions unearthed thus far share common characteristics. First, they are built of at least four different types of mud brick, each having a slightly different color (figure 14). A second interesting feature common to all three wall sections is the incorporation of thin, horizontal layers of river reeds in the construction (figure 15). These layers were found to have been inserted in the wall during its construction, between every ten or twelve courses. Our assumption is that reed layers were used as damp courses which helped stabilize the moisture content and drying of the mud brick wall, and which might add stability to the construction. The wall section so far excavated in trench C5 on the western side of the mound is identically constructed. The C5 section of the wall may have been used as a retaining wall because on its eastern, uphill side we discovered a deep deposit of fill that was almost exclusively made of greenish, fine clay granules, nearly devoid of cultural material. This may suggest that an attempt at leveling the inside surface abutting the wall was made by depositing large amounts of sterile clay, or that a source of special purpose clay was stored against the wall in a large cache for a use that has yet to be defined. Carbon samples (Parker and Dodd 2003a: 473) taken from both wall foundations in the step trench (units A2 and A8) suggest that these walls were constructed during the Late Chalcolithic 5 to Early Bronze 1 transition, around 3000 B.C. Thus, at the point when the Uruk interaction in the north was contracting, Kenan Tepe was expanding and being fortified with defensive or retaining walls. Carbon samples taken from the occupation layer directly above the A2 wall show it to have been later covered over by occupation dating to the second quarter of the third millennium B.C. During the 2003 field season Dodd and Parker analyzed most of ceramics from contexts on and around these walls. A summary of this research will be presented in our forthcoming publications.
The Early Bronze Age During the 2002 field season much of our effort was focused on the exploration of the Early Bronze Age remains in Kenan Tepe’s lower town (figure 16: cf. Parker, et al. 2003:113ff). In an attempt to trace Early Bronze Age architecture discovered during the 2000-2001 excavations, a series of small shallow trenches was cut to the west of our existing Area F trenches during 2002. The dating of this area is based on the analysis of the ceramics carried out during the 2003 study season in collaboration with Andrew Creekmore, who is preparing a detailed study of this material. The Early Bronze Age ceramics that dominate levels 2—4 in Area F are characterized by three generalized ware groups (see Parker, et al. 2003 for explanation of the levels in Area F).These groups are simplified here in three categories. The first group is a temperfree, pale-yellow, very thin, well fired, wheelmade fineware that comes in a wide variety
4
of shapes related to the Ninevite 5 ceramic tradition (see Figure 18 A-H). For this reason, these vessels are referred to by some as "pseudo-Ninevite 5." The second ceramic group is fine chaff and grit tempered (often very little or no visible temper), micaceous and calcareous, red to reddish yellow and light brown, relatively thin, well fired, wheelmade ware. The surface is generally wet smoothed and often well burnished vertically on both the interior and exterior. The vessels made of this fabric and with these surface treatments occur most frequently as short pedestaled bowls, with ring and flat base bowls and simple, straight or incurving rims (see Figure 18 I). These vessels may be related to brittle orange ware and Ninevite 5 shapes. The third category is coarse grit and chaff tempered, with a reddish-brown/yellow/brown fabric that is relatively thick, low to medium fired, and includes both hand and wheelmade vessels. Light burnishing is often found on the exterior and inside the rim, and frequently there is a section of the vessel that has been incised with fingernail or fingertip impressions from the shoulder to the base. This category includes jars, bowls and cooking pots with simple open or flaring rims and bag-shaped or flat bases; and occasionally triangular lugs appear at the rim (not illustrated). Taken together, the Early Bronze Age ceramics at Kenan Tepe support a rough dating attribution from 3100 BC to 2500 BC, including the Late Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age transition, and the first half of the Early Bronze Age. The greenish fineware vessels have parallels to Ninevite 5 period ceramics from Brak (Matthews 2003: figure 5.68:16 [pointed base, grooves above shoulder]; figure 5.57:17 [ring base]) and Leilan (Schwartz 1988: figure 48:6 [carinated bowl with grooves above shoulder]). The surface treatment, fabric, and footed bowl shapes are similar to orange brittle ware known from Tell Brak, the Qoueiq, and more numerously, from sites in western Syro-Anatolia, including Tilmen Höyük (cf. Bell 2001; Carter and Parker 1995: 102) but also parallel some Ninevite 5 shapes. The slightly out-flaring rim coarse jars, especially those with triangular lugs at the rim, are similar to Early Bronze Age pots all across Eastern Anatolia to northern Mesopotamia ( Figure 18 M). Vessels with incised wavy lines are found in the lower Euphrates region at Zeytinlibahçe Höyük (Frangipane & Bucak Figure 5:9; dated to LCEB transition); Karababa basin at Kurban VI (Algaze 1990: Pl. 21:I; dated to Late Chalcolithic); Amuq G (Braidwood-Braidwood 1960: Fig. 220:23-25; dated to the early part of Early Bronze Age); and the Upper Euphrates at Hassek Höyük and Buhan Höyük (Hoh 1984 Abb. 14:2; Karg 1984 Abb. 32:25; dated to the early part of Early Bronze Age). Incised zigzag or wavy lines (Figure 18 J-L) are also prominent in the Ninevite 5 assemblages of the Upper Khabur, although their execution is usually in sharp V's rather than wavy lines (Matthews 2003: figure5.56:17 [dated to 3000 BC]; Schwartz 1988: figure 32:1, 4, 5 and figure 43:4, 8, 12). The incurved-rim examples are found together with the greenish fine wares in EB tombs at Lower Salat Tepe in the Upper Tigris Region (Şenyurt 2002: figure 14: large bowl at the back), and also resemble unincised bowls from Mohammed Arab I (Roaf 1998: figure 4: 39-41). Thus the evidence from the vessels with zigzag incised lines also supports a date from 3100 BC to 2500 BC for the Early Bronze Age remains in Area F at Kenan Tepe.
5
All of the abovementioned ceramic categories link the material culture traditions of Kenan Tepe to those of Syria and northern Iraq, rather than to those of central and eastern Anatolia. This hypothesis is in sharp contrast to the preceding Late Chalcolithic period, when none of the classic southern Uruk type fossils are present at the site. Thus while the Late Chalcolithic material culture traditions at Kenan Tepe appear to have evolved locally, with predominantly Anatolian rather than Mesopotamian material culture influences being the more salient, the Early Bronze Age material culture appears to be directly linked to trends in northern Mesopotamia. The Middle Bronze Age The next period of occupation identified at Kenan Tepe is the Middle Bronze Age. Substantial structures dating to this period were located during the 2000 to 2002 excavation seasons (figure 19, Parker, et al. 2003; Parker and Dodd 2004) These structures, and the associated pottery assemblage, have been carbon dated to ca. 1800 B.C. (Parker, et al. 2003: 110). The same ceramic corpus has been uncovered on all sides on Kenan Tepe’s main mound, including the upper step trench, soundings in Area I, and in areas C and D. In Area D, the pottery was found not only in association with substantial architecture but also with a high-temperature processing installation. The architecture in both Areas C and D is rectilinear, and the structures are constructed on stone founded walls. Occasional traces of a mud brick superstructure of these walls have been found. In Area C the partly excavated structure has earthen floors, and may be domestic in nature (figure 20). In Area D, external passageways or small streets abut several partially-excavated structures with stone wall foundations (figure 21). In and around the walls of the structures, superimposed floors with significant accumulations of debris are characteristic, suggesting that these buildings were subject to considerable use over time. A number of these floors are partly or wholly cobbled. One particular area was paved with river pebbles that had been arranged on their long edges. The lower portion of a large kiln or furnace with five chambers was discovered in a partly intact condition during the 2002 excavation season (cf. Parker & Dodd 2003: figure 22). Dodd undertook the study of the excavated remains of this structure during the 2003 study season and a number of soil samples were exported for further analysis at the University of Southern California. Research undertaken in collaboration with Meg Abraham of Oxford University revealed that the preserved interior walls of this structure were covered with fuel ash slag that was created when the mud brick structure was heated to at least to 1200 degrees centigrade thus partially melting the interior of the walls of each chamber. We hypothesize that this structure represents the firing chamber of a large pyrotechnic facility whose superstructure was either destroyed or eroded away. The structure appears similar in design to another structure reported to have been found at Şaraga Höyük in the Carchemish Dam region, and which apparently also is dated to the Middle Bronze Age (Kemal Sertok pers. comm May, 2004). Micro-debris studies are currently underway to determine the specific use of this structure, however research in summer of 2003 produced little evidence to support an assumption that it was used for any type of metal
6
manufacture or ore reduction, and no ceramic wasters have been found near the installation. Excavations in the Middle Bronze Age buildings in Areas C and D, and around the furnace, yielded a range of ceramics belonging to the so-called Red-Brown Wash Ware corpus (figure 23) that was originally identified by Guillermo Algaze in the initial survey of the valley. A preliminary study of this corpus was undertaken during 2003 study season and the results of this study have recently been published in Parker and Dodd 2004. Common shapes include #1 the carinated bowl, #2 the ribbed-shoulder vessels, #3 whole-mouthed jars, #4 necked jars with out-flaring lips and #5 bag-shaped jars. Thus far flat, ledged and ring bases have been identified (figure 4). Red-brown wash is the most common surface treatment of this ceramic assemblage. At Kenan Tepe this surface treatment can occur on more than 50% of the sherds in some contexts. The wash is used either with or without a slip beneath it, and, depending on firing conditions; it can be either red or brown (figure 24). As discussed above, carbon-14 analysis shows that the red-brown wash assemblage dates to the early second millennium B.C. Our preliminary analysis suggests that, although there are certain close parallels with pottery forms, surface treatments, and fabric classes found in the Khabur Ware and Old Babylonian ceramic groups, there is no question that this red-brown wash assemblage is regionally distinct. Old Babylonian wine jars and ribbed large bowls–as are known from sites to the south of Kenan Tepe, such as Brak and Tell al-Rimah–are among the forms present at Kenan Tepe. However, other classic shapes from these southern sites, such as the grain measure and shouldered beaker, are missing at Kenan Tepe. Further, finewares are rare at Kenan Tepe, and there are relatively few of the painted examples well-known from the southern sites. The potters and/or consumers in Kenan Tepe were familiar with, and occasionally used, vessels that were common in the south and that were also present in other sites in the Il¹su dam area (such as at Giricano Tepe and Ziyaret Tepe) but the tradition was not adopted wholesale at Kenan Tepe. Thus, we may imagine that there was a restricted component of interaction between Kenan Tepe and the southern centers. Trade in raw materials and finished goods may have been a trigger for occasional interactions with sites like Kenan Tepe, which was located in the resource-rich northern periphery of the more powerful Syrian kingdoms of the Middle Bronze Age. Our research at Kenan Tepe indicates a range of possible products, ranging from mineral to animal to plant, that would have created an incentive for interaction between the Old Babylonian centers of Syria, Iraq, and even Iran, and this small town that lay between the Tigris River and Anatolian mountains. Excavation has identified high temperature operations that consumed the wood of this forested area, and study of the faunal and archaeobotanical remains at Kenan Tepe shows this landscape to have once been inhabited by eagle, lion, fox, and beaver. Livestock are represented in the faunal assemblage, and in figurine form; and small bronze and lead artifacts are scattered through the site (figure 25). Settlements like Kenan Tepe played a critical role in interregional interaction because they were located in areas where urban political control was diffuse, but essential resources fueling both the urban and regional political economy
7
could be accessed. In such a context, a range of relationships is possible between apparently small sites in what may be termed a frontier (from the perspective of the southern urban control) and those wealthy, spectacular, urban royal centers whose tablets indicate the vast range of resources pulled from the outlying regions.
The Early Iron Age Inter-regional interaction of a different nature is visible during Kenan Tepe’s last period of coherent occupation: the Early Iron Age. The material culture traditions of the site at this time are shared in common with sites in Anatolia and northwestern Iran, and essentially consist of the classic Early Iron Age painted pottery, and the corrugated wares (for illustrations see Parker, et al. 2003: figure 6). Neo-Assyrian texts make clear that resources in the area surrounding Kenan Tepe were essential to the expansion of the empire. An Assyrian provincial capital was established across the river from Kenan Tepe at Tushan, now Ziyaret Tepe (Parker 1998; Radner & Schachner 2001). In contrast to the Middle Bronze Age when Kenan Tepe had thrived, the economic and strategic interests of the Assyrians clashed with those of the residents of Kenan Tepe. Once the Assyrians arrived, Kenan Tepe became a ghost town. The Assyrians apparently created a frontier buffer zone or sparsely populated landscape, on the north side of the Tigris River; and Kenan Tepe was probably a casualty of this policy (cf. Parker 2001). Research conducted during the summer of 2003 has allowed us to make significant progress in characterizing the occupational phases of Kenan Tepe. We look forward to further excavation and study, which will provide the opportunity to clarify the many questions raised by the research undertaken thus far. References: Algaze, Guillermo (editor). 1990. Town and Country in Southeastern Anatolia: Volume II The Stratigraphic Sequence at Kurban Höyük. Chicago: Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago. Bell, Angela. 2001. Tilmen Höyük Kizilarinda Bulunmui Olan Portakal Renkli Chark Yapimi Mal Grubu (Brittle Orange Ware) Uzerine Bir Aratirma. Thesis. Istanbul University. Istanbul. Braidwood, Robert J. and Linda S. 1960. Excavations in the Plain of Antioch I: the Earlier Assemblages Phases A-J. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Carter, E., and A. Parker. 1995. "Pots, People, and the Archaeology of Death in Northern Syria and Southern Anatolia in the latter Half of the Third Millennium BC." In The Archaeology of Death in the Ancient Near East. S. Campbell and A. Green, eds. Oakville (CT): Oxbow Monograph 51. David Brown Book Co.
8
Frangipane, Marcella and Eyüp Bucak. 2001. "Excavations and Research at Zeytinlibahche Hoyuk" In Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs Activities in 1999. Edited by N. Tuna, J. Öztürk and J. Velibeyoglu. Ankara, Middle East Technical University: pp. 65-132. Hoh, Manfred. 1984. "Die Keramik von Hassek Höyük" Istanbuler Mitteilungen 34:6691. Karg, Norbert. 1984. "Burhan Höyük: Ein Weiterer Fundort Im Ataturk Stauseegebeit." Istanbuler Mitteilungen 34:134-150. Matthews, Roger. 2003. "A Chiefdom on the Northern Plains Early Third Millennium Investigations: the Ninevite 5 Period." In Excavations at Tell Brak Vol. 4: Exploring an Upper Mesopotamian regional centre, 1994-1996, Edited by Roger Matthews. London: British School of Archaeology in Iraq, and Cambridge: McDonald Institute for Archaeological Research, pp. 97-191. Parker, Bradley J. 1998. "Archaeological Evidence for the Location of Tushan: A Provincial Capital on the Northern Frontier of Assyria." in Intellectual Life in the Ancient Near East, edited by Jiri Prosecky. Prague: Charles University Press. Parker, Bradley J. 2001. The Mechanics of Empire: The Northern Frontier of Assyria as a Case Study in Imperial Dynamics. Helsinki: The Neo-Assyrian Text Corpus Project. Parker, Bradley J., Andrew Creekmore, Lynn Swartz Dodd, Cathryn Meegan, Eleanor Moseman, Richard Paine, Meg Abraham, and Peter Cobb. 2003. "The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project (UTARP): a Preliminary Report from the 2001 Field Season." Anatolica 29:103-174. Parker, Bradley, and Lynn Swartz Dodd. 2003a. "The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project (UTARP): A Preliminary Report from the 2002 Excavation at Kenan Tepe."Kazi Sonuchlari Toplantisi 25:471-482. Parker, B. and L.S. Dodd. 2004 (in press). "A New Second Millennium BC Pottery Assemblage from Kenan Tepe, Turkey in the Tigris River Valley." Anatolian Studies (53). Radner, Karen, and Andreas Schachner. 2001. "From Tushan to Amedi: Topographical Questions Concerning the Upper Tigris Region in the Assyrian Period." in Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilisu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs, Activities in 1999, edited by N. Tuna, J. Öztürk, and Velibeyolu. Ankara: TACHDAM. Rothman, Mitchell. 2003. "The Origin of the State in Greater Mesopotamia." Bulletin of the Canadian Society for Mesopotamian Studies 38:23-37.
9
Roaf, Michael. 1998. "A group of pottery from Mohammed Arab Period I." Subartu. Volume IV:131-149. Schwartz, Glenn M. 1988. A Ceramic Chronology from Tell Leilan Operation I. New Haven: Yale University Press. Şenyurt, S. Yücel. 2002. "2000 Excavations at Aai Salat." In Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Il¹su and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs. Activities in 2000. Edited by N. Tuna, J. Oztürk and J. Velibeyolu. Ankara, Middle East Technical University, Centre for Research and Assessment of the Historic Environment. Pp. 671697.
10
Figures:
11
Figure 2: Map of Kenan Tepe with areas of Ubaid finds marked.
12
Figure 3: View of Ubaid House.
Figure 4: Possible remains of barley chaff.
13
Figure 5: Possible remains of a grass mat.
14
Figure 6: Samples of Ubaid painted and unpainted pottery.
15
Figure 7: Painted Ubaid pottery.
16
Figure 8: Artifacts from D5 Ubaid structure
Table 1: Carbon dating from D5 Ubaid Context.
17
Figure 9: Area of Chalcolithic settlement. The red arrows mark Late Chalcolithic finds.
18
Figure 10: Late Chalcolithic pottery.
19
Figure 11: Bronze Age Structure found in Trench F7.
20
Figure 12: Walls found in Area A Step Trench.
21
Figure 13: Locations of Large fortification/retaining walls.
Figure 14: Multicolored mud bricks found in retaining/fortification walls.
22
Figure 15: Sample of a reed layer found in retaining/fortification walls.
23
Figure 16: View of Areas F, G and H from the top of the Main Mound.
Figure 17: Topo of Area F trenches and EAB features.
24
Figure 19: Area of Middle Bronze Age occupation. Arrows mark locations of substantial architecture.
25
Figure 20: Measured overview of early second millennium house in trench C2.
26
Figure 21: Building and street found in trench D4.
Figure 22: View of pyrotechnic facility in trench D6.
27
Figure 23: Shapes belonging to the Red-brown wash ware corpus.
Figure 24: Samples of Red-brown Wash Ceramics.
28
Figure 25: Small finds at Kenan tepe included fuanal figurines and small bronze/lead artifacts.
Figure 26: Classic Early iron Age painted pottery found at Kenan Tepe.
29
Figure 27: Corregated EIA pottery from Kenan Tepe.
30
Figure 28: EIA types found at Kenan Tepe.
31
