The Sante Fe (Late Chalcolithic periods 1 to 5, abbreviated LC 1, LC 2, ..., LC 5) and ARCANE (Early Jazirah periods 1 to 5, abbreviated EJZ 0, EJZ 2, …, EJZ 5) chronologies are the two current chronological systems for the fourth and third millennia B.C., respectively (Rothman 2001b; Lebeau 2011a). Both chronologies are based on
numerous radiocarbon dates, as well as comparison of diagnostic artefacts, especially (but not exclusively) ceramic types. Therefore, this thesis utilizes established
chronological systems.
2.1 Chronological Groups
The published survey data from the Tell Brak, Tell Leilan, Hamoukar, and North Jazira Surveys are insufficient to divide sites into precise divisions of LC 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and EJZ 0, 1, 2, 3a. Therefore, this thesis considers three blocks of time: the early fourth millennium B.C. (LC 1-3), the late fourth millennium B.C. (LC 3-5), and the early third millennium B.C. (EJZ 0-3a).
The LC 3 period appears in both groups, because there are few diagnostic ceramic types specific to LC 3 for surveys to utilize for identifying an LC 3 site. Instead, some types span LC 2 and LC 3, while others span LC 3 and LC 4 (see Ur 2010, 233, Fig.B.8).
2.2 The Tell Brak Surveys
The Eidem and Warburton (1996) survey presents only ‘Uruk’ period sites, which in this case refers to the Northern Uruk chronological system in place before the development of the Late Chalcolithic system, which was divided into Early, Middle, and Late, but favours identification of Middle and Late Northern Uruk period sites when easily recognisable southern wares appear. Now the Early Northern Uruk equates to periods LC 1 and LC 2, the Middle Northern Uruk is periods LC 3 and LC 4, and the Late Northern Uruk is LC 5 (Rothman 2001a, 7, table 1.1).
The Wright et al. (2006-7) survey post-dates the Sante Fe chronology, but the published preliminary results do not cover the entire fourth millennium B.C., only a map labelled ‘Mid 4th Millennium B.C.’ (Wright et al. 2007, fig. 3). This is defined as
38 Brak Phase G, which equates to LC 4-5 (Wright et al. 2007; Ur, Karsgaard, and Oates 2011).
Therefore, the available survey data for the Tell Brak area during the fourth
millennium B.C. covers mainly LC 3-5, though it is possible that some of the sites from the Eidem and Warburton survey may prove to be LC 2 in date, since some diagnostic ceramic types are now known to span both LC 2 and LC 3 (Ur 2010, 216–17, 232–49).
It is unlikely that any of their identified sites would date to LC 1, since this would have been distinguishable at the time of the survey as Terminal Ubaid.
Only Eidem and Warburton (1996) have published results for the early third
millennium B.C., labelled the Ninevite V period. This now equates to EJZ 0-3a (Rova 2011, 52–57) .
2.3 Tell Leilan
The 1995 Results of the Tell Leilan Regional Survey were re-evaluated according to the Sante Fe chronology for the fourth millennium B.C. (Brustolon and Rova 2007) and the Early Jazirah chronological system developed by ARCANE for the third millennium B.C. material (Arrivabeni 2010).
In practice, however, Brustolon and Rova (2007) had to divide the fourth millennium B.C. material into six groups due to some uncertainty with the LC 3 period. Group 1 is LC 1, Group 2 is LC 2, Group 3 is ‘early LC 3’, Group 4 is LC 3-4, Group 5 is LC 4, and Group 6 is LC 5 (Brustolon and Rova 2007, 8). In this thesis, the early fourth
millennium B.C. is Groups 1 to 3 (before the Uruk Expansion), while the late fourth millennium is Groups 4 to 6 when southern material culture appears (during the Uruk Expansion).
The early third millennium B.C. defined as EJZ 0-3a equates to the former Ninevite V period, but Arrivabeni notes that EJZ 1-2 can be difficult to distinguish and EJZ 3a to 3b can be difficult to separate (Arrivabeni 2010, 26–27). She writes that some types were not considered EJZ 3a indicators if there was a ‘total absence of EJZ 1-2 phase diagnostics’ or ‘a preponderance of later types’ (Arrivabeni 2010, 27). All sites identified as EJZ 0-3a by Arrivabeni (2010) were included as early third millennium B.C. sites in this thesis.
39 The re-periodized early fourth, late fourth, and early third millennium B.C. sites from the 1995 Tell Leilan Survey results are listed by time period in Appendix A.
2.4 The Tell Hamoukar Survey
Conducted after the Sante Fe chronology, the Tell Hamoukar Survey divided the fourth millennium into Period 4 (LC 1-2), Period 5a (local wares dated to LC 3-5), and Period 5b (southern wares dated to LC 4-5) (Ur 2010, 232–49). In this thesis, Period 4 is considered early fourth millennium B.C., while Periods 5a and 5b are late fourth millennium B.C.
Preliminary results of the ARCANE chronological division of the third millennium B.C.
into EJZ 0-5 already existed at the time of the survey, however, Ur (2010, 49) describes the difficulties of separating the ceramic assemblage into these phases.
Instead, the decision was made to continue to distinguish the first half of the third millennium using Ninevite 5 pottery sherds (Ur 2010, 249–50). Period 6, therefore, equates to the Ninevite 5 period (Ur 2010, 249–50), which in turn equates to EJZ 0-3a and the early third millennium B.C.
2.5 The North Jazira Survey
The North Jazira Survey took place before either the Sante Fe or ARCANE
chronologies were developed. The initial results were reassessed by Lupton (1996) based on excavation sequences into three categories: pre-contact period, contact period, and post-contact period. Nonetheless, the updated understanding of ceramic periodization that accompanied the development of the Sante Fe and ARCANE chronologies, warranted a second re-periodisation of sites. This was accomplished by revisiting the original ceramic forms where ceramics are described by their type number and frequency, and by using Jason Ur’s ceramic typology for the Tell
Hamoukar survey for reference. Sites with types that correspond to LC 1-3 (including types that date to LC 2-3 and LC 3) were included in the early fourth millennium B.C.
Sites with types corresponding to LC 3-5 (including LC 3 and LC 3-4) were included in the late fourth millennium B.C. The results of this re-periodization of sites are
presented in Appendix A.
40
Figure 2.1 The chronological relationship between the established Sante Fe and ARCANE chronologies, the excavation chronologies of Tell Brak, Tell Leilan, and the Tell Hamoukar Survey (Rothman, 2001a; Brustolon and Rova, 2007; Arrivabeni, 2010; Ur, 2010; Lebeau, 2011a).
41