1Even before the publication of this special issue of Paléorient, the success of dedicating a thematic volume to the Prehistory of Iraqi Kurdistan was underscored by the number and quality of the articles received by the editorial committee.

2Indeed, since 2011, nearly all of the expeditions working inthis region have increased their efforts in prehistoric research,or have at least developed research axes on periods from thePaleolithic to the beginning of the Bronze Age. Nevertheless,there was nothing predictable in such a fast and widespreadrising interest in phases whose remains are generally notimposing or monumental at all, in an area located in the heartof Assyria where several sites can be studied for their heritageimportance. To a very large extent, the merit of having implementedthis process lies with the Directors and officials of thelocal branches of the Directorate of Antiquities. They havemade it possible to increase the number of prehistoric recordedsites by encouraging large-scale surveys; they have increasinglybecome implicated in the work of various archaeologicalmissions and, above all, they have created a large cooperativeresearch framework. In a few years, seminars, roundtablesand exchanges of data between teams from different countrieshave increased both during field campaigns and duringmonths of laboratory study.

3An indirect consequence of this dynamic is the relativelyhomogeneous nature of this thematic volume. Indeed, despitevery dissimilar fieldworks, ranging from the study of rock sheltersin the foothills of the Zagros to the neolithisation and therise of urbanisation, all contributions end up adopting a perspectivethat declines cultural evolution not only in the longterm but also in space. We can see here the results of frequentexchanges that animate the practice of prehistoric archaeologyin the region. Whether or not the different fieldworks were theresult of a targeted choice after several years of surveys, scientificquestions are now implementing a perspective of microregionalpeculiarities, in a context not merely NorthMesopotamian, but rather specific to the north-eastern sectorof Greater Mesopotamia. Consequently, for the beginnings ofagriculture, for the chalcolithic ceramic traditions, and for theearly appearance and disappearance of contacts with Southern Uruk, it is now becoming crucial to better understand the diffusionphenomena, their rhythms and internal discontinuitiesin Iraqi Kurdistan. This area, which until recently remainedundocumented, is henceforth becoming a frame of referencefor testing particular models.

4In fact, there is now a consensus, spanning several prehistoricperiods, on the material cultural differences between theGovernorates of Dohuk and Sulaymānīyah in the ZagrosPiedmont on the one hand, and the Erbil area on the other.However, contrary to what might have been imagined, mountainousareas did not constitute an isolated cultural peripherywith relatively weak links to the Mesopotamian plain. On thecontrary, the hilly and highlands districts often express privilegedcontacts with the South. The problem of relations withthe Iranian world is similar since field research has largelyshown that the Zagros cultural porosity in no way allows it tobe considered a border, even in the rare cases where it acted asan interface between different entities. On the contrary, thenotion of border is now often being mentioned for increasinglyevident distinctions emerging between the Tigris and Euphratesbasins. Compared to a still young research based on theknowledge acquired in Syria, observation of the specificitiescharacterising the Prehistory of Iraqi Kurdistan has quicklybecome a conspicuous element. From an initial assessment,which was often drawn up with a bit of surprise, we havequickly moved, as in this thematic volume, to an inventory ofregional differences clearly identified as being the definingattributes of the context in which archaeological actors aredeveloping their research in Iraqi Kurdistan.

5Finally, the most striking result of this volume is that weshould no longer speak of Prehistory of Upper Mesopotamia,according to the traditional antinomy with respect to theSouth, but rather of Prehistory of Northeastern Mesopotamia.The common horizon shared by the research in this thematicissue is, therefore, to explain these specificities in an increasinglydecompartmentalised Mesopotamian world.