Navigation – Plan du site

AccueilNuméros48-1The End of the Ubaid Period in th...

Résumés

Résumé. Les fouilles menées par le Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project (UTARP) à Kenan Tepe ont révélé quatre phases d’occupation de la période d’Obeid. L’objectif de cette étude est de positionner la phase finale de l’occupation du site, Kenan Tepe Obeid phase 4 (KTU phase 4), dans un contexte régional plus large et de placer son assemblage céramique au sein de la transition Obeid/post-Obeid (Chalcolithique récent 1) de Grande Mésopotamie où les fouilles et les études récentes ont mis en évidence les variations locales de cette transition. Notre étude compare les matériaux de la phase 4 de KTU à ceux d’autres sites de la région du Haut-Tigre afin de donner un aperçu des caractères régionaux de la vallée du Tigre au sud-est de la Turquie durant cette période. Nous présentons en outre les résultats issus de l’analyse de l’utlisation/altération durant l’occupation de KTU phase 4 afin de décrire la fonction des céramiques et les pratiques quotidiennes des habitants de Kenan Tepe. Cette analyse pourrait aider à identifier les variations régionales concernant l’utilisation de la céramique, qui peuvent mettre en évidence les différences dans l’organisation sociale et économique des communautés durant la transition de l’Obeid au post-Obeid.

Haut de page

Texte intégral

First, I would like to thank J. S. Baldi and K. Abu Jayyab for organizing the session that spawned this volume and for their invitation to participate. The research at Kenan Tepe by the Upper Tigris Archaeological Reconnaissance Project (UTARP) was supported by funding from the Curtiss T. and Mary G. Brennan Foundation, The National Endowment for the Humanities, the National Geographic Society, the American Philosophical Society, the University of Utah and the University of Southern California. Additionally, this paper would not have been possible without the collective efforts of the UTARP team, but in particular I am forever grateful for the guidance and support of the late B. Parker. I would also like to thank R. Bernbeck and S. Pollock for their invaluable expertise through my dissertation research, some of which is discussed here. Finally, I am appreciative of the thorough comments I received from the anonymous reviewers, who helped clarify and strengthen this work.

1In preparing our contributions to the 12th ICAANE session Delineating the End of a World: Chronological Indicators and Material cultural Changes at the end of the Ubaid Period in Greater Mesopotamia that spawned this thematic issue we were asked by J. S. Baldi and K. Abu Jayyab to reassess our understanding of the archaeological foundations that have broadly informed our understanding of the end of the “Ubaid” and the beginning of the “Late Chalcolithic” periods of Greater Mesopotamia between 4500-4000 BCE. Most importantly, the organizers asked us to critically reflect on the utility of our chronological terminology and to reevaluate the archaeological materials that they are based on given the surge of recent scholarly interest in the “Post-Ubaid” primarily driven by an influx of new data from northern Mesopotamia that has highlighted the local idiosyncrasies apparent in various regions during this transition (Marro 2012; Baldi 2015; Peyronel and Vacca 2016; Fisher 2017; Abu Jayyab 2019). Our chronological markers such as “Ubaid” and “Late Chalcolithic” have a multitude of meanings as material assemblages, chronological periods, and cultural traditions. Too often the categorizations of our cultural historical approach to chronology and material assemblages can lead to the reification of these categories (Pollock and Bernbeck 2010). It is important to remember that the material record was created by people with specific and complex subjectivities that can be diluted and even erased by our adherence to traditional chronological and typological constructs. This is particularly important in the prehistoric periods where we sum up millennia-long processes with a period derived from an often distant type-site.

2As S. Pollock (2010: 107) has argued the term Ubaid “is a helpful designation as long as we use it as a starting point from which to ask questions about differences as well as similarities within and between those communities”. That understanding of the interpretative power and potential dangers of our chronological categories highlights the crucial nature of the discussion fostered in this issue. I aim to highlight the similarities between the final Ubaid occupation level at Kenan Tepe, Kenan Tepe Ubaid phase 4 (KTU phase 4), and those in the Upper Tigris valley of southeastern Turkey. I emphasize the areas where they disconnect from broader regional trends seen at the end of the 5th millennium BCE in Greater Mesopotamia. In reflecting on the use of my own terminology, I have consciously chosen, here and elsewhere (Kennedy 2012, 2019), to refer to this assemblage as Terminal Ubaid rather than Late Chalcolithic 1 (4400-4200 BCE) because of the strong continuities between the KTU phase 4 materials and the earlier Ubaid levels at Kenan Tepe. Additionally, as I hope to demonstrate, the broad changes that characterize the transition to the Late Chalcolithic began before 4500 BCE, and the archaeological materials from Kenan Tepe and its contemporaries in the Upper Tigris valley only reflect the nascent stages of that transition.

Kenan Tepe

3Kenan Tepe (shown in fig. 1 with other sites mentioned in this text) is a multi-period mound located on the north bank of the Tigris River, approximately 15 km east of the modern town of Bismil in Diyarbakir Province (Parker et al. 2006). Archaeological research at Kenan Tepe by members of the Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project (UTARP) began in 2000 and concluded in 2008. This included six seasons of excavation (2000, 2001, 2002, 2004, 2005, and 2007) and three study seasons (2003, 2006, 2008) as well as multiple ongoing lines of analysis of the material remains uncovered at the site (Parker et al. 2003, 2006, 2008, 2009; Parker and Dodd 2005). Ubaid architecture at the site consisted of one tripartite structure, Ubaid structure 4, and associated storage facilities, Ubaid structure 2, that were constructed in an agglutinated plan. Ubaid structures 1, 3 and 5 represented cellular plan storage facilities similar to those of Ubaid structure 2.

Fig. 1 – Map depicting sites mentioned in text (basemap ESRI National Geographic Style Base; rivers after Bätscher 2020).

Fig. 1 – Map depicting sites mentioned in text (basemap ESRI National Geographic Style Base; rivers after Bätscher 2020).

4The stratigraphic sequence in combination with the ceramic analysis suggests that the Ubaid period occupation at Kenan Tepe consists of four phases designated as Kenan Tepe Ubaid (KTU) 1 through 4 (table 1). The earliest phase of Ubaid occupation, KTU phase 1, was reached only in the lowest levels of trenches D5 and D8 and is associated with the small Ubaid structure 5 and several outdoor work areas, pit features, and an oven/kiln structure (Parker and Kennedy 2010: 2). KTU phase 2 represents the first construction of the storage facility, Ubaid structure 1, while the domestic complex Ubaid structure 4 and the second construction of the storage facilities known as Ubaid structure 2 represents the subsequent KTU phase 3. Additionally, this phase contains work areas to the north and south of the complex (Parker and Kennedy 2010). In a previous study, KTU phase 4 was limited to a few ephemeral walls and exterior surfaces in trenches D6 and D4 (Parker and Kennedy 2010: 4). However, an analysis of the ceramics from trench E2 shows clear similarities with the ceramics from KTU phase 4 from trenches D4 and D6 (for a detailed analysis of the stratigraphy see Parker and Dodd 2005; Parker et al. 2008; Parker et al. 2009; Kennedy 2019). This nearly doubles the excavation exposure of KTU phase 4 and places Ubaid structure 3 and its associated work surfaces from Trench E2 in KTU phase 4. Characteristic forms and decorative motifs from the KTU phase 4 assemblage are shown in figs. 2-4.

Table 1 – Chronological phases of Ubaid occupation at Kenan Tepe with associated 2-sigma calibrated radiocarbon dates (after Parker and Dodd 2005: 90, table 1; Parker et al. 2008: 106, table 1; Parker and Kennedy 2010: 3, table 1).

Phase Architecture Location 2-Sigma Calibrated Ranges Size of Exposure Periodization
KTU phase 4 Ubaid structure 3 Trenches D4, D6, D10 and E2 4720-4520 ~109 m² Terminal Ubaid (LC1)
KTU phase 3 Ubaid structure 4 Ubaid structure 2 Trenches D4, D5, D6, D8, and D10 4800-4615 4800-4620 4710-4490 4700-4450 ~245 m² Late Northern Ubaid
KTU phase 2 Ubaid structure 1 Trenches D4, D5, D6, D8 and D10 None ~245 m² Late Northern Ubaid
KTU phase 1 Ubaid structure 5 Trenches D5 and D8 None ~120 m² Late Northern Ubaid

5We acquired five radiocarbon dates from the Ubaid levels at Kenan Tepe. Three dates from Ubaid structure 4 complex in phase 3 from D5 and one from D8 firmly place the phase KTU phase 3 occupation between 4800-4500 BCE (Parker and Kennedy 2010: 13). A single radiocarbon date from Ubaid structure 3 in KTU phase 4 provides a 2-sigma calibrated range from 4720-4520 BCE (Parker et al. 2008: 106). The dates from phase 4 do not deviate significantly from those of phase 3 which suggests two possibilities. The first possibility is that the community quickly rebuilt following the destruction of Ubaid structure 4, which the stratigraphy in trenches D4 and D6 supports. The other possibility is that Ubaid structure 3 in Trench E2 is contemporaneous with the domestic compound of Ubaid structure 4.

6The Ubaid ceramic assemblage at Kenan Tepe (figs. 2-4) was characterized by several broad changes evidenced throughout northern Mesopotamia during the mid to late 5th millennium BCE. Although we have not conducted isotopic or petrographic studies, the inhabitants of Kenan Tepe produced over 90% of the Ubaid ceramics from iron-rich clays characteristic of the Upper Tigris valley in southeastern Turkey (Parker et al. 2009). The most important ceramic marker that identified the transition to KTU phase 4 was an increase in expediently produced scraped, medium fabric shallow open bowls (fig. 4f), which rise from 1.9% in phase 3 to 6.99% of the KTU phase 4 assemblage, including up to 20% in some contexts (Kennedy 2019). These are the local variant of the scraped Coba bowl and like at Tell al ‘Abr (Hammade and Yamazaki 2006) and Değirmentepe (Gürdil 2005) they are constructed of well-levigated clays with larger grit and fine to medium chaff tempers.

7The KTU phase 4 hemispherical (fig. 2a-2b) and incurved rim bowls (fig. 3a) also more frequently possess flat bases and incurved rim bowls with flat rims. These changes in bowl morphology are similar to patterns observed in the later phases of the Ubaid cemetery at Tell Kashkashok by Koizumi (1993). While painted decorations do decline in KTU phase 4 to 16.49% of all sherds and 30.9% of rim sherds, this does not match similar declines in painting characterized in some Post-Ubaid assemblages (Akkermans 1988; Schwartz 1988; Artz 2001; Hammade and Yamazaki 2006; Baldi 2012; Peyronel and Vacca 2015; Fisher 2017; Pfälzner et al. 2017). Painted rim sherds accounted for 6% and 2.4% of the assemblage at Hammam et-Turkman in phases IVC and IVD (Akkermans 1988), 10% in Tell Leilan VIB (Schwartz 1988) and 7.3% in Tell Mashnaqa V (Thuesen 2000) in the Post-Ubaid levels in northern Syria. However, researchers have observed high percentages of painted pottery in other contemporaneous assemblages including sites in the Upper Tigris (discussed below) and at Surezha on the Erbil Plain in Iraqi Kurdistan (Stein 2018; Stein and Fisher 2020).

Fig. 2 – Selected Ubaid sherds from Kenan Tepe (B. J. Parker).

Fig. 2 – Selected Ubaid sherds from Kenan Tepe (B. J. Parker).

Fig. 3 – Selected Ubaid sherds from Kenan Tepe (B. J. Parker).

Fig. 3 – Selected Ubaid sherds from Kenan Tepe (B. J. Parker).

Fig. 4 – Selected Ubaid sherds from Kenan Tepe (B. J. Parker).

Fig. 4 – Selected Ubaid sherds from Kenan Tepe (B. J. Parker).

8There are several lines of evidence that point to an emphasis on the expediency of ceramic production. Decorative motifs are simplified in the KTU phase 4 assemblage, largely consisting of simple horizontal bands (Parker and Kennedy 2010). Additionally, other surface treatments become less frequent with a higher proportion of vessels only receiving a smoothing of coil joins prior to firing. KTU phase 4 potters are also spending less time levigating clays and processing tempers as there is an increase in the proportion of sherds of medium fabrics from KTU phase 1 to KTU phase 4 (Parker and Kennedy 2010; Kennedy 2019). It is possible that as the social context changed to de-emphasize painted ceramics, the functional categories that these ceramics fulfilled were slowly taken over by undecorated vessels made of medium fabrics that were both less labor-intensive to make and less costly to fire.

9We also conducted a ceramic use-alteration analysis on the Ubaid assemblage at Kenan Tepe using J. Arthur (2002, 2003) and J. Skibo’s (1992, 2013) ethnoarchaeological work on ceramic use-alteration as a guide to identify discrete categories of attritional events. The ceramics of the Ubaid-related occupation at Kenan Tepe provides an ideal data set for this type of analysis given the low firing temperatures of coarse and medium fabric vessels. This creates vessels with soft and porous vessel walls that are susceptible to abrasion and use-alteration activity. Despite the changes in vessel construction and morphology there appear to be little changes through time in the use of ceramics during the Ubaid occupation at Kenan Tepe.

10The patterns of sooting on cooking vessels suggest that the inhabitants of Kenan Tepe supported cooking pots by using andirons or stones over wood or dung fires. Abrasive use-–alteration patterns provided evidence for extensive cleaning, likely with sand, on the exterior and interior surfaces, as well as the use of utensils to stir the contents of the pot (Kennedy 2019). The shape of these vessels and the interior use patterns of carbonization and frequent stirring of its contents suggest that they were primarily used for heating or slow-cooking well-saturated foods such as soups, stews, or porridge (Bottero 2004: 52-53; Parker and Kennedy 2010; Kennedy 2019).

11Painted vessels at Kenan Tepe are generally small, open, and incurved rim bowls associated with individual food consumption and small to medium restricted necked jars normally assumed to be short-term or domestic storage vessels (Parker and Kennedy 2010). Over two-thirds of painted sherds displayed some form of use-alteration, which lends credence to the suggestion that painted ceramics served as the primary daily use vessels, both in terms of individual food consumption and small-scale storage for the Ubaid household (Kennedy 2019). Interestingly, most of the use-alteration marks were recorded on the exterior surface of painted wares in the form of scratches, gouges, and abrasions (Kennedy 2019). These traces are concentrated on the upper and lower body of paint-on-slip vessels and are most likely the result of repetitive vessel handling and cleaning after use. Additionally, exterior pitting and gouging are restricted to the bases of paint-on-slip vessels suggesting that they were moved frequently, another indication of their importance for Ubaid domestic activities rather than as prestige items (Kennedy 2019).

12This analysis also identified the production of beer as a key domestic activity in large ledge rim cylindrical jars. These jars show abrasive traces of the use of wooden or ceramic lids or stoppers and dense patches of interior pitting similar to ethnographic examples of brewing traces identified by J. Arthur among the Gamo of modern Ethiopia (Arthur 2002, 2003; Kennedy 2019). Finally, scraped Coba bowls displayed almost no use-alteration traces with less than 10% depicting even minor abrasive traces. This suggests that they were frequently discarded or infrequently used. When identified, patterns of use on Coba bowls seem to indicate that they were stacked with visible traces appearing primarily on the rim and upper body of the interior of the vessel (Kennedy 2019). The use-alteration analysis of the ceramic assemblage from Ubaid Kenan Tepe supports Parker’s (2012) interpretation of Kenan Tepe as a small agrarian community whose productive activities were centered on domestic production.

13Studies on the Kenan Tepe chipped stone assemblage by E. Healey have also shown little formal or functional variation across the phases of occupation at the site (Parker et al. 2008, 2009). However, analysis of the provenience of the obsidian recovered at the site does show a significant change in the acquisition of obsidian. S. Campbell and E. Healey (2016) have shown that the KTU phase 4 assemblage was primarily sourcing its obsidian from Source 3D, whose origin is yet unknown, but previous levels at the site were relying on obsidian sourced from Nemrut Dağ or the Bingöl region. This suggests that the changes occurring in ceramic production at the site were accompanied by a broader reordering of the regional relationships at the site.

Kenan Tepe in Regional Context

14Kenan Tepe was just one of at least six sites occupied during the mid to late 5th millennium BCE identified in the Tigris-Euphrates Archaeological Reconnaissance Project Bismil to Batman survey (Algaze et al. 1991, 1994). Salat Tepe is a 26 m high mound covering 2 ha about 25 km east of Bismil. Excavations led by T. Ökse have uncovered multiple phases of Chalcolithic occupation ranging from the Halaf/Ubaid transition in phase 1A to the early Late Chalcolithic in phase 1C (Ökse and Gormuş 2013; Ökse 2017). Architecture included tripartite structures in phases 1A and 1C and grill-plan storage facilities in phases 1A, 1B and 1C. The architectural remains are similar in layout to those at Kenan Tepe. Ökse and Gormuş (2013) label phase 1B as the Late Ubaid and encompasses the Ubaid/Post Ubaid tradition. In addition to the mudbrick storage structures, excavations revealed a kiln and multiple plaster-lined storage pits. The phase 1B ceramics contain strong parallels with the Kenan Tepe assemblage. Painted pottery accounts for 33% of the analyzed materials but non-diagnostic sherds were not collected. Painted decorations are nearly identical to those at Kenan Tepe and the excavators note the presence of scraped Coba bowls and combed sherds (Ökse and Gormuş 2013).

15Yenice Yanı 1 is a small, low mound of 1.2 ha on the eastern bank of the Seyhan Cay, a small tributary of the Tigris, located 10 km southeast of the modern city of Bismil. At Yenice Yanı 1, a single season of excavation in 2001 led by R. Bernbeck and S. Costello uncovered five phases of occupation dating from the Ubaid to the late Iron Age. Yenice Yanı phase 5 (YY phase 5) represents the Ubaid occupation and consisted of several fill levels, identifiable surfaces, and an ephemeral mudbrick wall. A single radiocarbon date from YY phase 5 provided a two sigma calibrated date of 4500-4340 BCE for the occupation (Bernbeck et al. 2004; Bernbeck and Costello 2011). The fabric composition, forms, and decorative motifs from phase 5 are nearly indistinguishable from the KTU phase 4 materials at Kenan Tepe (Kennedy 2008). Painted sherds comprised 13.5% of the assemblage and Coba bowls were frequently recovered.

16Further downstream in the Upper Tigris valley, at the site of Havuz Mevkii, excavations revealed an occupation ranging from the end of the Halaf period until the Post-Ubaid period (Ökse et al. 2015). The site is small, low mound located 20 km east of the modern city of Dargeçit, Painted pottery comprises 27% of the diagnostic sherds in the levels assigned to the Late Chalcolithic at the site (Ökse et al. 2015: 106). This matches closely with the remains from KTU phase 4 and at Salat Tepe phase 1B. Likewise, the excavators reported numerous Coba bowl sherds and the presence of “Sprig Ware” decorative motifs characteristic of Late Chalcolithic 1 assemblages in northern Iraq and northern Syria (Ball 1997, Ökse et al. 2015).

17Late Ubaid and Post-Ubaid ceramic materials have been recovered at several other sites in the Upper Tigris region of southeastern Turkey. Excavations have revealed scraped Coba bowls associated with Ubaid painted designs at Aşaği Salat, a 1.5 ha. low mound 20 km east of modern Bismil (Şenyurt and Akçay 2020). At Türbe Höyük, a low 1 ha mound located 27 km southwest of Siirt near the confluence of the Batman and Tigris rivers, excavations also identified an Ubaid to Post-Ubaid occupation with painted Ubaid pottery and scraped Coba bowls (Ozan et al. 2012). Additionally, survey work has identified similar assemblages at Giricano Tepe (Schauchner 2002) and Müslümantepe (Ay 2000).

18The Terminal and Post-Ubaid ceramic corpus recovered at sites throughout the Ilısu Dam salvage area show general similarities, especially in vessel form and surface treatment, to the ceramics recovered throughout Greater Mesopotamia during this period. However, there are idiosyncrasies that emphasize some aspects of local agency. The most important is the prevalence of local painted motifs in the form of positive and negative concentric circles identified at Kenan Tepe, Salat Tepe, and Yenice Yanı 1 (Parker and Kennedy 2010). Additionally, the scraped Coba bowls at Yenice Yanı 1 and Kenan Tepe are constructed of medium fabrics with fine chaff and grit temper rather than coarse fabrics as in the Khabur region.

19As mentioned above, the majority of the sherds from Yenice Yanı 1 and Kenan Tepe were made from locally sourced iron-rich clays and have a characteristic reddish fabric (Kennedy 2008; Parker et al. 2009; Parker and Kennedy 2010). However, several distinctive classes of ceramic material point to broader inter-regional connections within the KTU phase 4 assemblage. These include ninety-one sherds (1.24%) of small bowls, cups, and jars with a lustrous burnished red (fig. 5b) or black to dark gray (fig. 5a) exterior constructed of well-levigated clays with gray fabric. Excavators recovered similar black burnished pottery at Yümüktepe Level XVI (Caneva et al. 2012) and this treatment is characteristic of the Chalcolithic traditions of central Anatolia and the Caucasus mountains (Sagona and Sagona 2004; Abu Jayyab 2019). Red burnished wares are more commonly associated with the northern Levantine and Khabur assemblages (Baldi 2012; Abu Jayyab 2019). However, red slipped wares in the KTU phase 4 assemblage could also be associated with the Dalma tradition assemblages from the Iranian Zagros (Hamlin 1975; Henrickson 1983; Tonoike 2012).

Fig. 5 – Selected Sherds from Kenan Tepe (after Parker and Cobb 2012).

Fig. 5 – Selected Sherds from Kenan Tepe (after Parker and Cobb 2012).

20We found small numbers of incised (n = 31, 0.42%) and impressed (n = 42, 0.57%) wares in the KTU phase 4 assemblage. The incised (fig. 5c) and combed or corrugated wares (fig. 5e) are similar to those found in Late Ubaid and Late Chalcolithic 1 assemblages throughout Greater Mesopotamia (Tobler 1950; Trufelli 1997; Rova 1999-2000; Baldi 2012; Stein 2018). Corrugated wares were recovered from Late Ubaid contexts at Tepe Gawra XIII (Tobler 1950), Levels IX-VII at Tell Feres al-Sharqi (Baldi 2012) and Tell Ziyadeh Level XIV (Arzt 2001). Several of the impressed sherds (fig. 5d, 5f) were comprised of nonlocal fabrics and have parallels in the Dalma impressed tradition (Hamlin 1975; Henrickson 1983; Tonoike 2012; Abedi et al. 2015). Additionally, no clear examples of the characteristic Late Chalcolithic 1 “Sprig Ware” were identified in the Kenan Tepe KTU phase 4 assemblage. However, several examples were recovered in contemporaneous levels at Türbe Höyük (Ozan 2009: 423, fig. 5). At Havuz Mevkii, Sprig wares accounted for 4.82% of the painted decorations (Ökse et al. 2015: 104, table 3.37).

Discussion and Conclusion

21The materials presented above highlight several key trends apparent at the end of the Ubaid period in the communities of the Upper Tigris River valley. First, we see the incorporation of expediently produced scraped bowls by around 4700 BCE during the KTU phase 3 (Late Northern Ubaid) occupation at Kenan Tepe, which then becomes more frequent in the Terminal Ubaid phases represented by KTU phase 4, Salat Tepe phase 1B, and Yenice Yanı 1 YY phase 5. This points to the early adoption of this characteristic Late Chalcolithic 1 ceramic form in the Upper Tigris region. Additionally, the slower decline in painted decorative motifs points to these communities maintaining connections to the Ubaid symbolic system. The high percentages of painted pottery in the Upper Tigris communities are similar to Late Northern Ubaid levels at Tell Leilan phase VIA (Schwartz 1988) and Tell Mashnaqa Levels I-III (Thuesen 2000) in the Khabur basin of northern Syria. Baldi (2016) has effectively argued that the Upper Tigris was included with the Khabur basin in a ceramic province in the Late Ubaid and Post-Ubaid periods (cf. Abu Jayyab and Gibbon this volume).

22Despite the continuity in painted decoration, there are several key changes that point to an emphasis on speeding up ceramic production. These include a simplification of the decorative motifs, using more medium fabrics which require less levigation, and less frequent use of burnishing, slips, and other surface treatments (Parker and Kennedy 2010). Nissen (2001) has argued that the introduction of the tournette aided in the expedient decoration of painted vessels and resulted in the simplification of the geometric patterns on late Ubaid pottery. These changes in pottery manufacture and decoration, however, do little to change patterns of ceramic use at Kenan Tepe based on the use-alteration analysis. The use-alteration highlights the domestic nature of the ceramic assemblage in the daily processing and consumption of foodstuffs, including beer, and in the domestic storage of materials.

23What is observed in the KTU phase 4 assemblage is a broadening of regional connections for the inhabitants of Ubaid Kenan Tepe. Without petrographic or elemental analysis, the identification of nonlocal materials remains speculative, but potential imports point to increasing connections with highland communities in the Caucasus, Taurus, and Zagros mountains. Additionally, changes in the provenience of obsidian at Kenan Tepe away from the Bingöl and Nemrut sources to the unknown 3D group during KTU phase 4 suggest that this period witnessed a change in community connections. The location of Kenan Tepe and the other Upper Tigris communities on key routes of trade with access to the copper deposits at Ergani and obsidian sources in the Van and Bingöl regions could have facilitated the movement of these resources for communities up and downriver in the Tigris valley as well as into the upper Khabur through mountain passes. The fact that the strongest ceramic parallels for the Upper Tigris Ubaid ceramics include Tell Ziyadeh, Tell Leilan, Tell Kashkashok, Tell Hammam et-Turkman Period IV and other sites in northern Syria support these connections (Baldi 2016; Kennedy 2019; Abu Jayyab and Gibbon this volume). One explanation for the expansion of these connection has been proposed by K. Abu Jayyab (2019), who argued that transhumant pastoralists wintering in the Jazira and summering in the Anatolian highlands facilitated the movement of resources, people, and ideas.

24Archaeologists have long identified the utility of studying ceramic exchange for determining connections between communities in Greater Mesopotamia (Ball 1997; Rothman and Blackman 2003; Abu Jayyab 2019; Lewis et al. 2020). More recently, several scholars have focused on identifying communities of practice among the prehistoric settlements of Greater Mesopotamia through a chaîne opératoire approach to ceramic production (Baldi 2015, 2018; Russo this volume). Scholars have paid less attention to the ways that similar communities of practice are created through the use of ceramics (however, for an exploration of ceramic use-alteration during the Uruk and Late Chalcolithic 4/5 periods in Mesopotamia see d’Anna 2015, d’Anna and Jauss 2015, Jauss 2015, 2018). I suggest that future studies of ceramic use- alteration on other Late Ubaid and Post-Ubaid assemblages throughout Greater Mesopotamia could provide further methods to identify broader changes in social and political organization and the connections or distinctions between communities.

25The materials presented above suggest that the KTU phase 4 community maintained strong ties to Nissen’s (2001) “Ubaid Interaction Sphere”. However, the ceramic idiosyncrasies point to significant variation in adoption and adaption of the Ubaid material repertoire (Parker 2010). Additionally, the inhabitants of KTU phase 4 were expanding their contacts to include connections with communities in the Anatolian Highlands, Transcaucasian Highlands, and the Iranian Zagros mountains. The strong local connections between the ceramic assemblages at Kenan Tepe, Yenice Yanı 1 and Salat Tepe highlights regional continuity and cohesion and could point to a specific community of practice in ceramic production that referenced broader regional connections in ceramic form and decoration through a specific local lens within the Upper Tigris Valley.

26Given the high percentages of Ubaid style painted ceramics, the manufacturing changes to expedite production, and the increase in prevalence of the scraped Coba bowl I argue that the KTU phase 4 assemblage represents the first stages of a transition away from the Ubaid material tradition that is best described as Terminal Ubaid. While having little effect for the daily experiences of the inhabitants at Kenan Tepe these changes also included a reshaping of community networks, which appears to be focused more on interactions with highland communities to the north and west of the Tigris Basin. However, the long-term effects of these changes are unknown as Kenan Tepe was abandoned after KTU phase 4 until the lower town was reoccupied during the Late Chalcolithic 3 period (3850-3600 BCE). It is speculative to suggest that the changes in regional connections and the de-emphasis of the Ubaid system played a role in the abandonment of Kenan Tepe, especially since the nearby communities at Yenice Yanı 1 and Salat Tepe maintained continuity through this transition. More research is needed to better characterize the later stages of collapse of the Ubaid system and the emergence of Post-Ubaid lifeways in the communities of the Upper Tigris Valley. However, the evidence from Kenan Tepe depicts a community beginning a recalibration of its networks of interactions that characterized local decisions made by communities throughout Greater Mesopotamia at the end of the 5th millennium BCE.

Haut de page

Bibliographie

Abedi A., Omrani B. and Karimifar A. 2015 – Fifth and Fourth Millennium BC in North-Western Iran: Dalma and Pisdeli Revisited. Documenta Praehistorica 42: 321-338.

Abu Jayyab K. 2019 – Nomads in Late Chalcolithic Northern Mesopotamia: Mobility and Social Change in the 5th and 4th Millennium BC, unpublished PhD Thesis. Toronto: University of Toronto.

Akkermans P. M. M. G. 1988 – The Period IV Pottery. In: Loon M. van (ed.), Hammam et-Turkman I: Report on the University of Amsterdam’s 1981-84 Excavations in Syria: 181-285. Istanbul: Nederlands Historisch-Archaeologisch Instituut te Istanbul.

Algaze G., Breuninger R. and Knustad J. 1994 – The Tigris-Euphrates Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: Final Report on the Birecik and Carchemish Dam Survey Areas. Anatolica 20: 1-96.

Algaze G., Breuninger R., Lightfoot C. and Rosenberg M. 1991 – The Tigris-Euphrates Archaeological Reconnaissance Project: A Preliminary Report of the 1989-1990 Seasons. Anatolica 17: 175-240.

Arthur J. W. 2002 – Pottery Use-Alteration as an Indicator of Socioeconomic Status: An Ethnoarchaeological Study of the Gamo of Ethiopia. Journal of Archaeological Method and Theory 9: 331-355, [online] https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1021309616231

Arthur J. W. 2003 – Brewing Beer: Status, Wealth and Ceramic Use Alteration among the Gamo of South-Western Ethiopia. World Archaeology 34: 516-528, [online] https://doi.org/10.1080/0043824021000026486

Arzt J. 2001 – Excavations at Tell Ziyadeh, Syria: The Northern Ubaid Reconsidered, unpublished PhD Thesis. New Haven: Yale University.

Ay E. 2002 – Excavations at Müslümantepe (Şahintepe). In: Tuna N. and Velibeyoğlu J. (eds.), Salvage Project of the the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs: Activites in 2000: 491-516. Ankara: Middle East Technical University.

Baldi J. S. 2012 – Tell Feres al-Sharqi in the LC 1-2 Period. Serial Production and Regionalisation of Ceramic Traditions: A Perspective from a Small Rural Site. Varia Anatolica 27: 129-162.

Baldi J. S. 2015 – Aux portes de la Cité: systèmes céramiques et organisation sociale en Mésopotamie du Nord aux 5ème et 4ème millénaires, unpublished Doctoral Thesis. Paris: Université Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne.

Baldi J. S. 2016 – Regionalized Patterns and Paths to “Complexity”: Reflections about Ceramic Provinces and Organizational Modalities in the 6th-4th millennia Northern Mesopotamia. Studia Chaburensta 6: 117-138.

Baldi J. S. 2018 – Between Specialized Productions and Hierarchical Social Organizations: New Data from Upper Mesopotamia and the Northern Levant. In: Horejs B., Schwall C., Müller V., Luciani M., Ritter M., Giudetti M., Salisbury R. B., Höflmayer F. and Bürge T. (eds.), Proceedings of the 10th International Congress of the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East, 25-29 April 2016, Vienna: 247-260. Wiesbaden: Harrassowitz Verlag.

Ball W. 1997 – Tell Shelgiyya: An Early Uruk Sprig Ware Manufacturing and Exporting Centre on the Tigris. Al-Rafidan 18: 93-101.

Bätscher F. 2020 – Rivers of Mesopotamia (1.0). Zenodo [online] https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.3787265

Bernbeck R. and Costello S. 2011 – Yenice Yanı: Soundings at a Late Chalcolithic and Iron Age Hamlet. In: Tuna N.and Doonan O. (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs: Activities in 2002: 653-686. Ankara: Middle East Technical University.

Bernbeck R., Costello S. and Ünal N. 2004 – Excavations at Yenice Yanı 2002. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 25: 117-126.

Bottero J. 2004 – The Oldest Cuisine in the World: Cooking in Mesopotamia. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

Campbell S. and Healey E. 2016 – Multiple sources; The pXRF analysis of obsidian from Kenan Tepe, S.E. Turkey. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 10: 377-389, [online] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2016.10.014

Caneva I., Palumbi G. and Pasquino A. 2012 – The Ubaid Impact on the Periphery: Mersin-Yümüktepe during the Fifth Millennium BC. Varia Anatolica 27: 353-389.

D’Anna M. B. 2015 – A Material Perspective on Food Politics in a Non-Urban Center. The Case of Arslantepe Period VI A (LC5). Origini 37: 56-66.

D’Anna M. B. and Jauß C. 2015 – Cooking in the Fourth Millennium BCE: Investigating the Social via the Material. In: Kerner S., Chou C. and Warmind M. (eds.), Commensality: From Everyday Food to Feast: 65-85. London: Bloomsbury Academic.

Fisher M. T. 2017 – The Late Chalcolithic 1 Period in Northern Mesopotamia: Tell Zeidan, Syria, In Regional Context, unpublished PhD Thesis. Chicago: University of Chicago.

Gürdil B. 2005 – Architecture and Social Complexity in the Late Ubaid Period: A Study of the Built Environment of Değirmentepe in East Anatolia, unpublished PhD Thesis. Los Angeles: University of California.

Hammade H. and Yamazaki Y. 2006 – Tell al-’Abr (Syria): Ubaid and Uruk Periods. Louvain: Peeters (Association pour la promotion de l’histoire et de l’archéologie orientales, mémoires 4).

Hamlin C. 1975 – Dalma Tepe. Iran 13: 111-127.

Henrickson E. 1983 – Ceramic Styles and Cultural Interaction in the Early and Middle Chalcolithic of the Central Zagros, Iran, unpublished PhD Thesis. Toronto: University of Toronto.

Jauß C. 2015 – Pottery Vessels and Food Practice. Some Reflections on Vessels and Texts. Origini 37: 28-34.

Jauß C. 2018 – Cooking Techniques and the Role of Cooks in Early Urban Society. Vessel Analysis, Experiment, Archaeological Context and Texts. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 11: 180-197.

Kennedy J. R. 2008 – Terminal Ubaid Ceramics at Yenice Yanı: Implications for Terminal Ubaid Organization of Labor and Commensality, unpublished MA Thesis. Binghamton: Binghamton University, SUNY.

Kennedy J. R. 2012 – Commensality and Labor in Terminal Ubaid Northern Mesopotamia. eTopoi: Journal for Ancient Studies, special vol. 2: 125-156.

Kennedy J. R. 2019 – Commensality and Labor at Kenan Tepe: A Use-Alteration Analysis of Terminal Ubaid Ceramics, unpublished PhD Thesis. Binghamton: Binghamton University, SUNY.

Koizumi T. 1993 – Ubaid Pottery from Kashkashok II – Typology and Chronology. Al-Rafidan 14: 19-67.

Lewis M. P., Quinn P. S. and Carter R. 2020 – Uruk Expansion or Integrated Development? A Petrographic and Geochemical Perspective from Gurga Chiya, Iraqi Kurdistan. Journal of Archaeological Science: Reports 33: 102516, [online] https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jasrep.2020.102516

Marro C. (ed.) 2012 – After the Ubaid: Interpreting Change from the Caucasus to Mesopotamia at the Dawn of Urban Civilization: 353-389. Paris: De Boccard (Varia Anatolica 27).

Nissen H. J. 2001 – Cultural and Political Networks in the Ancient Near East during the Fourth and Third Millennia B.C. In: Rothman M. S. (ed.), Uruk Mesopotamia & Its Neighbors: Cross-Cultural Interactions in the Era of State Formation: 149-180. Santa Fe-Oxford: School of American Research Press-James Currey.

Ozan A. 2009 – Siirt-Botan Vadisinde Ubaid Dönemi. In: Sağlamtimur H., Abay E., Derin Z., Erdem A., Batmaz A., Dedeoğlu F., Edralkuran M., Baştürk M. and Konakçı E. (eds.), Studies in Honour of Altan Çilingiroğlu: A Life Dedicated to Urartu on the Shores of the Upper Sea: 407-425. Istanbul: Arkeolji ve Sanat Yayınları.

Ozan A., Sağlamtimur H. and Alper K. 2017 – Türbe Höyük Coba Çanakları. Kazı Sonuçları Toplantısı 33: 51-64.

Ökse A. T. 2017 – Salat Tepe: Overview of the Stratigraphic Sequence and the Early EBA Levels Excavated in the Last Two Seasons. In: Steadman S. R. and McMahon G. (eds.), The Archaeology of Anatolia, vol. II: 40-65. Cambridge: Cambridge Scholars Publishing.

Ökse A. T. and Gormuş A. 2013 – Mesopotamian Chalcolithic Cultures in the Upper Tigris Region: A Case Study of Salat Tepe and its Environment. In: Morozova Y. and Oniz H. (eds.), SOMA 2010: Proceedings of the 14th Symposium on Mediterranean Archaeology. Oxford: Archaeopress (BAR International Series 2555).

Ökse A. T., Erdogan N., Gormuş A. and Atay E. 2015 – Salvage Project of the Construction Area of the Ilısu Dam II: The Chalcolithic Period. Mardin: Mardin Müze Müdürlüğü

Parker B. J. 2010 – Networks of Interregional Interaction During Mesopotamia’s Ubaid Period. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63: 339-360.

Parker B. J. 2012 – Domestic Production and Subsistence in an Ubaid Household in Upper Mesopotamia. In: Parker B. J. and Foster C. P. (eds.), New Perspectives in Household Archaeology: 289-318. Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns.

Parker B. J. and Cobb P. (eds.) 2012 – Kenan Tepe. Open Context, [online] https://doi.org/10.6078/M7H41PBJ

Parker B. J., and Dodd L. S. 2005 – The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project: A Preliminary Report from the 2002 Field Season. Anatolica 31: 69-110, [online] https://doi.org/10.2143/ANA.31.0.2011752

Parker B. J., and Kennedy J. R. 2010 – A Quantitative Attribute Analysis of the Ubaid-Period Ceramic Corpus from Kenan Tepe. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research 358: 1-26, [online] https://doi.org/10.1086/BASOR25741804

Parker B. J., Creekmore A., Dodd L. S., Meegan C., Moseman E., Paine R, Abraham M. and Cobb P. 2003 – The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project (UTARP): A Preliminary Report from the 2001 Field Season. Anatolica 29: 103-174, [online] https://doi.org/10.2143/ANA.29.0.2015514

Parker B. J., Dodd L. S., Creekmore A., Healey E. and Painter C. 2006 – The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project (UTARP): A Preliminary Report from the 2003 and 2004 Field Seasons at Kenan Tepe. Anatolica 32: 71-151, [online] https://doi.org/10.2143/ANA.32.0.2012554

Parker B. J., Foster C. P., Henecke J., Hopwood M., Hopwood D. E., Creekmore A., Demiregi A. and Eppihimer M. 2008 – Preliminary Report from the 2005-2006 Field Season at Kenan Tepe. Anatolica 34: 103-176, [online] https://doi.org/10.2143/ANA.34.0.2031566

Parker B. J., Foster C. P., Nicoll K., Kennedy J. R., Graham P., Smith A., Hopwood D. E., Hopwood M., Butler K., Healey E., Uzel M. B. and Jensen R. 2009 – The Upper Tigris Archaeological Research Project (UTARP): A Preliminary Report from the 2007 and 2008 Field Seasons at Kenan Tepe. Anatolica 35: 85-152, [online] https://doi.org/10.2143/ANA.35.0.2038073

Peyronel L. and Vacca A. 2015 – Northern Ubaid and Late Chalcolithic 1-3 Periods in the Erbil Plain. New Insights from Recent Researches at Helawa, Iraqi Kurdistan. Origini 37: 89-128

Pfälzner P., Qasim H. A., Sconzo P. and Puljiz I. 2017 – Report on the First Season of German-Kurdish Excavations at Muqable in 2015. Zeitschrift für Orient-Archäologie 10: 44-96.

Pollock S. 2010 – Practices of Daily Life in the Fifth-Millennium B.C. Iran and Mesopotamia. Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization 63: 93-112.

Pollock S. and Bernbeck R. 2010 – An Archaeology of Categorization and Categories in Archaeology. Paléorient 36: 37-47, [online] https://doi.org/10.3406/paleo.2010.5310

Rothman M. S. and Blackman M. J. 2003 – Late Fifth and Early Fourth Millennium Exchange Systems in Northern Mesopotamia: Chemical Characterization of Sprig and Impressed Wares. Al-Rafidan 24: 1-24.

Rova E. 1999-2000 – A Tentative Synchronization of the Local Late Chalcolithic Ceramic Horizons of Northern Syro-Mesopotamia. Mesopotamia 35,35: 175-199.

Sagona A. and Sagona C. 2004 – Archaeology at the North-East Anatolian Frontier, vol. I: An Historical Geography and a Field Survey of the Bayburt Province. Louvain: Peeters.

Schauchner A. 2002 – Vorläufiger Bericht über die Ausgrabungen in Giricano (Diyarbakir/Turkei) 2000. In: Tuna N. and Velibeyoğlu J. (eds.), Salvage Project of the Archaeological Heritage of the Ilısu and Carchemish Dam Reservoirs: Activites in 2000: 549-612. Ankara: Middle East Technical University.

Schwartz G. M. 1988 – A Ceramic Chronology from Tell Leilan: Operation 1. New Haven: Yale University Press.

Skibo J. M. 1992 – Pottery Function: A Use-Alteration Perspective. New York: Plenum Press.

Skibo J. M. 2013 – Understanding Pottery Function. New York: Springer.

Stein G. J. 2018 – Excavations at Surezha: Erbil Plain, Kurdistan Region, Iraq. In: The Oriental Institute Annual Report 2017-2018: 29-43. Chicago: The University of Chicago.

Stein G. J. and Fisher M. T. 2020 – Surezha Excavations 2019: Erbil Plain, Kurdistan Region, Iraq. In: The Oriental Institute Annual Report 2019-2020: 129-147. Chicago: The University of Chicago.

Şenyurt S. Y. and Akçay A. 2020 – A General Assessment on Aşaği Salat Excavations and Upper Tigris Region Settlement History. In: Gür B. and Dalkiliç S. (eds.), A Life Dedicated to Anatolian Prehistory: Festschrift for Jak Yakar: 413-438. Ankara: Bilgin.

Thuesen I. 2000 – Ubaid Expansion in the Khabur. New Evidence from Tell Mashnaqa. In: Rouault O. and Wäfler M. (eds.), La Djéziré et l’Euphrate syriens de la Protohistoire à la fin du IIe millénaire av. J.-C. : Tendances dans l’interprétation historique des données nouvelles: 71-79. Turnhout: Brepols.

Tobler A. J. 1950 – Excavations at Tepe Gawra, Joint Expedition of the Baghdad School and the University Museum to Mesopotamia, vol. II: Levels IX-XX. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.

Tonoike Y. 2012 – Petrographic Analysis of the 6th Millennium B.C. Dalma Ceramics from the Northwestern and Central Zagros. Iranian Journal of Archaeological Studies 12: 65-82, [online] https://dx.doi.org/10.22111/ijas.2014.1526

Trufelli F. 1997 – Ceramic Correlations and Cultural Relations in IVth Millennium Eastern Anatolia and Syro-Mesopotamia. Studi Micenei de Egeo-Anatolici 39: 5-33.

Haut de page

Table des illustrations

Titre Fig. 1 – Map depicting sites mentioned in text (basemap ESRI National Geographic Style Base; rivers after Bätscher 2020).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1652/img-1.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 204k
Titre Fig. 2 – Selected Ubaid sherds from Kenan Tepe (B. J. Parker).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1652/img-2.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 57k
Titre Fig. 3 – Selected Ubaid sherds from Kenan Tepe (B. J. Parker).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1652/img-3.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 85k
Titre Fig. 4 – Selected Ubaid sherds from Kenan Tepe (B. J. Parker).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1652/img-4.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 50k
Titre Fig. 5 – Selected Sherds from Kenan Tepe (after Parker and Cobb 2012).
URL http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/docannexe/image/1652/img-5.jpg
Fichier image/jpeg, 69k
Haut de page

Pour citer cet article

Référence papier

Jason R. Kennedy, « The End of the Ubaid Period in the Upper Tigris River Valley »Paléorient, 48-1 | -1, 99-110.

Référence électronique

Jason R. Kennedy, « The End of the Ubaid Period in the Upper Tigris River Valley »Paléorient [En ligne], 48-1 | 2022, mis en ligne le 01 août 2022, consulté le 11 février 2025. URL : http://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/1652 ; DOI : https://doi.org/10.4000/paleorient.1652

Haut de page

Auteur

Jason R. Kennedy

Department of Anthropology, Lyon College, Batesville – USA

Haut de page

Droits d’auteur

CC-BY-4.0

Le texte seul est utilisable sous licence CC BY 4.0. Les autres éléments (illustrations, fichiers annexes importés) sont « Tous droits réservés », sauf mention contraire.

Haut de page
Rechercher dans OpenEdition Search

Vous allez être redirigé vers OpenEdition Search