Defining the Style of the Period: Jemdet Nasr 1926-28Author(s): R. J. MatthewsSource: Iraq, Vol. 54 (1992), pp. 1-34Published by: British Institute for the Study of IraqStable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4200350Accessed: 16/11/2009 11:51

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use, available athttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp. JSTOR's Terms and Conditions of Use provides, in part, that unlessyou have obtained prior permission, you may not download an entire issue of a journal or multiple copies of articles, and youmay use content in the JSTOR archive only for your personal, non-commercial use.

Please contact the publisher regarding any further use of this work. Publisher contact information may be obtained athttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=bisi.

Each copy of any part of a JSTOR transmission must contain the same copyright notice that appears on the screen or printedpage of such transmission.

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range ofcontent in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new formsof scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

British Institute for the Study of Iraq is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access toIraq.

http://www.jstor.org

DEFINING THE STYLE OF THE PERIOD:

JEMDET NASR 1926-28

By R. J. MATTHEWS

Introduction

The mounds of Jemdet Nasr, 100 km south of Baghdad, were subjected to two seasons of

excavations in 1926-28. These campaigns yielded a tremendous assemblage of artefacts

which have never received the full publication to which they are undoubtedly entitled. In

order to rectify this shortcoming a programme of publishing all known items from the 1920s

seasons is now well underway, with museum work completed on the Jemdet Nasr collections

in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, and the Field Museum, Chicago. It is intended to

publish the 1920s material as Volume 1 of the series Jemdet Nasr Excavations, which will

continue with volumes concerning our own recent work at the site. Pending completion of

study of Jemdet Nasr items in the Iraq Museum, Baghdad, it has been decided to present this

preliminary survey as an indication of the wealth of material retrieved during those two

seasons in 1926 and 1928, and in order to address questions that have arisen in the

subsequent decades. The main issues of debate have been whether or not it is justifiable to

speak of a Jemdet Nasr period, distinct from the Late Uruk and Early Dynastic periods, and

a concern to specify items of material culture, particularly pottery, which may assist in the

identification of such a period in both temporal and geographical terms. Recent and future

excavations at the site, and elsewhere, are likely to provide some of the pointers, but it is

perhaps too often the case that excavations of the early part of this century are dismissed as

below modern standards and therefore not worthy of detailed study. It is hoped that this

article can show the value of re-analysing old excavations from a contemporary viewpoint,

particularly by drawing upon comparative material from a range of other excavated sites in

order to place the Jemdet Nasr assemblage within a wider Mesopotamian context.

Jemdet Nasr prior to excavation

The low mounds of Jemdet Nasr were first visited by archaeologists on 26th March 1925. The party consisted of Ernest Mackay, Field Director at Kish of the Oxford University- Field Museum (Chicago) Expedition to Mesopotamia, his wife Dorothy and Father E.

Burrows. This visit, entertainingly recounted by Dorothy Mackay (D. Mackay 1927), was

stimulated by a trip to Jemdet Nasr the previous day by Ali Daoud, one of the local foremen

at the Kish excavations some 26 km to the south-west of Jemdet Nasr. He had been sent to

investigate the site following the arrival at the Kish base camp of Arab tribesmen bearing tablets and painted pots allegedly from a site called Jemdet Nasr. One of these locals may have been an antiquities dealer from Hilla (Mackay 1931, 225).

The painted pots and, in particular, the archaic inscribed tablets greatly stimulated the interest of Professor S. Langdon, Director of the Kish expedition. Although in his later

publication of the Jemdet Nasr tablets, Langdon mentioned the purchase of some tablets

from these tribesmen (Langdon 1928, iii), there is nevertheless considerable confusion over

the question of the origin of many tablets allegedly from Jemdet Nasr. Langdon described how twelve of the tablets bought from the tribesmen in March 1925 were then sold to the

Louvre, a sequence of events difficult to correlate with Thureau-Dangin's statement that the

Louvre acquired a small group of Jemdet Nasr-type tablets in March 1924 (Thureau-

Dangin 1927, 26). Nor is it at all clear how Langdon's and Thureau-Dangin's versions correlate with that of Scheil, who claimed that the Jemdet Nasr-type tablets in the Louvre, as well as those in the British Museum, originated from clandestine excavations at Jemdet Nasr prior to 1915 (Scheil 1929, 15). Another group of thirty-six tablets acquired by the Vorderasiatische Museum, Berlin, in 1903 was also interpreted as coming probably from

Jemdet Nasr (Falkenstein 1936, 4), although more recently Tell Uqair, 15 km to the north- west of Jemdet Nasr, has been postulated as a source for these tablets (Green 1986, 79). The

I R. J. MATTHEWS

tablets aside, a considerable collection of painted pots was acquired by the Ashmolean

Museum, Oxford in 1925, as listed by Moorey (1978, Fiche 3). These pots had presumably been obtained from locals by Langdon and Mackay in March 1925, towards the end of the

1924?25 season at Kish. In any case, the distinctive and important character of the tablets

and pots had convinced Langdon that excavation at Jemdet Nasr was an attractive prospect, and accordingly he planned his first campaign for the winter of 1925-26.

The 1926 and 1928 seasons

The first season of excavations lasted from early January to mid March 1926, and was

carried out under the personal direction of Langdon, who drove daily to the site from Kish.

The number of workmen employed varied from twelve to sixty and most of the work seems

to have been aimed at recovering archaic tablets and painted pots from within a large

building on Mound B, the central of three mounds. Our sources for the course of operations are meagre, at best. Langdon himself kept virtually no systematic records of his excavations.

Objects were taken in the car each evening to the Kish base camp, where they were

recorded, by Mackay, on object cards which are now in the Field Museum, Chicago, with

copies in the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford, and the Iraq Museum, Baghdad. These cards

give basic descriptions of objects, with generally no details of find spots, although from the

dates on the cards it is possible to reconstruct, in a general way, the sequences in which

objects and groups of objects were recovered. As for site plans, Langdon drew up a pencil

plan of the large building on Mound ? where most of the work was taking place, and a rough sketch of the position on the mound of his trenches, both of which plans were published

shortly after work was completed, in a brief article describing the work of that season

(Langdon 1927). For contemporary accounts of the 1926 season we are largely at the mercy of Henry Field,

who happened to be visiting Kish in order to inspect human skeletal remains, as excavations

at Jemdet Nasr commenced. In his lively autobiography, Field gives a vivid description of

the work at Jemdet Nasr and of Langdon's excitement as more painted pots and tablets were

found (Field 1953, 78-83). Other accounts had previously been published by Field shortly after his departure from Iraq (Field 1926; 1929; Field and Martin 1935), but perhaps the

most illuminating documents are letters, now in the Kish archive of the Field Museum,

Chicago, from Langdon to Henry Field and to a Mr. Davies of the Field Museum. One

letter to Field, dated 2nd May 1926, describes how Langdon, suffering from jaundice, had

spent five weeks in a Baghdad hospital after closing down the excavations. Langdon tells

how he was "so ill that I could not make much use of your excellent camera, having used

only one reel. ... It was hard work going to Jemdet Nasr every day all winter. But I dug the

place up and got away with magnificent pottery and other things". Copies of the

photographs referred to by Langdon, largely of objects, are now in the Field and Ashmolean

Museums. In an earlier letter, of 18th February 1926, Langdon had written to Mr. Davies

thanking him for extra money which would be used to increase the workforce at Jemdet Nasr. Interestingly, in this letter Langdon mentions the recovery in the previous week of

some 150 pictographic tablets, probably, in his opinion, a temple archive. In the same letter

Langdon reveals something of his gritty determination and perhaps also the cause of his later

poor health: "Day before yesterday I was caught out at Jemdet Nasr by a terrific rain storm

which turned the whole plain into a morass, and was compelled to walk back to camp 18 miles, part of the way in 4 inches of mud and water. Tomorrow I shall go out by horse

and see whether I can get the motor home. We must supply the men with water out there".

Finally, an intriguing angle on the 1926 season is provided by an unpublished report

prepared by Henry Field upon his return to Chicago and dated 29th January 1926. This

document, now in the Field Museum and entitled Report on Excavations at Kish, describes how

Langdon left the Kish camp at 7.15 each morning, taking one and a half hours to cover the

18 miles to Jemdet Nasr where twelve workmen were living in palm branch huts. The report relates how Langdon was excavating a series of small rooms "which are regularly surveyed and planned by Mr. Mackay", the sole indication, perhaps not totally reliable, that Mackay

defining the style of the period: jemdet nasr 1926-28 3

ever visited Jemdet Nasr during the course of Langdon's excavations there. If true, however, this snippet suggests that the pencil plan of the large building now in the Ashmolean

Museum was composed by Mackay rather than Langdon, which would help to explain why

Langdon made mistakes of scale and orientation when he came to use the plan in his

published report (Langdon 1927, Fig. 12). Field also describes how Langdon returned to

camp every day at sundown with the day's objects packed with straw in wooden cases, ready for cleaning and cataloguing after tea. A rare personal glimpse of Langdon at work is

provided by Field's comparison of Langdon's dig with the excavations of Woolley at Ur, where Field had paid a visit. According to Field, Langdon "takes his coat off and goes down

into the dust himself to excavate the objects rather than stand above and superintend a

native's work, as is the more frequent occurrence at Ur". Field concludes by commenting

upon the formality of the Ur excavations where he detected "none of that friendly but

respectful feeling as the Professor inspires among his staff". Lastly, Field urges that his

comments about Ur must not reach Philadelphia. The second season at Jemdet Nasr lasted from 13th to 22nd March 1928, and was carried

out under the direction of L. Ch. Watelin, who in late 1926 had replaced Mackay as Field

Director at Kish. Finance for the 1928 season was provided by Henry Patten of Chicago via

Henry Field, who was present throughout the season and again provided a colourful

account in his autobiography (Field 1953, 175-9). In honour of Henry Patten all object numbers from this season were prefixed P(atten)JN. Completing the team was Eric

Schroeder and up to 200 workmen. Documentation of the 1928 season is even less

satisfactory, if possible, than that of the 1926 season. Watelin appears to have made no

measured plans of his work nor to have kept any systematic excavation records. Again only

object cards, letters and a few photographs survive. The letters were written by Watelin to

Langdon, who at that time was in Oxford, and are now in the Field Museum with copies in

the Ashmolean Museum. From the letters (excerpts in Moorey 1978, 149-50) it seems that

Watelin was having difficulty matching his own trenches with those excavated by Langdon two years earlier. One letter, dated 14th March 1928, includes a sketch plan of excavated

walls with the letter ? at several points, presumably indicating the find spots of tablets.

Letters from Henry Field to Mr. Davies at the Field Museum also survive, in one of which

Field states that the season will come to a close before the start of Ramadhan in late March

that year. In fact, the season was brought to a halt by an invasion of locusts, leaving Field to

speculate that "the dark mound still keeps many of its secrets" (Field 1953, 179). Several

photographs, now in the Field Museum, show excavation scenes at the site, such as a series of

kilns (published in Watelin 1934, PI. 27:1), and large spouted vessels in a room (published in

Moorey, 1976, PI. 15:a). As to the publication of objects from the two Jemdet Nasr seasons, those from the first

season were dealt with in Mackay's volume (Mackay 1931), although his illustrations tend

to oversimplify and the text is perforce now well out of date. The 1926 tablets were rather

poorly published by Langdon (1928). Objects from the second season received piecemeal

attention, the tablets being cavalierly published by Langdon who states that his article

concerns tablets "excavated at Kish in the spring of 1927", when it in fact concerns tablets

excavated at Jemdet Nasr in the spring of 1928 (Langdon 1931). Other brief articles covered

painted pottery (Field and Martin 1935), grain (Field 1932a) and human remains (Field

1932b). The 1926 and 1928 seasons at Jemdet Nasr yielded a unique collection of artefacts whose

significance was recognised from the start. It is the prime purpose of this article to present and consider those artefacts in the light of archaeological developments in the decades since

1928, and we shall do so under the headings of architecture, tablets, pottery, seals and seal

impressions and miscellaneous objects.

Architecture (Fig. 1) The large building on Mound ? whence most of the artefacts were excavated is shown in

Fig. 1, based on the pencil drawing executed by Mackay or Langdon and now in the

R. J. MATTHEWS

Fig. 1 Mound ? large building. Scale as indicated.

DEFINING THE STYLE OF THE PERIOD: JEMDET NASR 1926-28 5

Ashmolean Museum, Oxford. There exists another version of this plan, also in pencil, in the

Ashmolean Museum, in which the rooms are slightly contracted in length and which was

used by Langdon in his published report on the 1926 season (Langdon 1927, Fig. 12). As

mentioned above, Langdon misunderstood both the scale and the orientation of this plan,

publishing it as 1:80 when in fact it was at 1:800. His north pointing arrow points west, if the

pencil plan is correct. Apart from these errors, however, Langdon did provide a useful

description of the layout and state of preservation of this building. Two other scraps of

pencil plans of suites of rooms also exist in the Ashmolean Museum, one of which appears to

fit onto a corner of the large building (Moorey 1976, Fig. 3). There is little to add to the

treatments of this building by Moorey (1976) and Margueron (1982), except to say that

recent investigation on Mound ? has established its probable location on the north-eastern

side of the mound, in an area ringed by what are clearly 60-year-old spoil heaps, and that

excavation has commenced on previously untouched areas of the building (Matthews 1989;

1990). Our best clue as to the nature of the function of this large building, set on a rather

small mound, remains the artefacts recovered therefrom. Symbols on Fig. 1 show the

distribution of various artefact categories, as noted by Langdon on the original plans. It is

not possible, however, to identify the provenance of any specific objects. In Langdon and Watelin's other trenches on Mound ? architectural remains were

uncovered, but no plans survive, if they ever existed. In any case, the major focus of work in

both seasons was the large building on Mound B, within which was found the distinctive

assemblage of artefacts which was immediately interpreted as representing a new?"Jemdet

Nasr"?period in Mesopotamian cultural history, and to the consideration of which we can

now turn.

Tablets

Some 240 tablets are thought to have come from Jemdet Nasr, mainly in the 1926 season,

although this figure includes tablets in the British Museum, the Louvre and the Oriental

Institute, Chicago not certainly from Jemdet Nasr. The number of tablets known definitely to have been excavated at the site is more of the order of 215. With this figure in mind, we

appreciate the full significance of Langdon's statement in his letter of 18th February 1926 to

Mr. Davies at the Field Museum, where he recounts the discovery of about 150 pictographic tablets "last week". It is thus clear that the bulk of the tablet corpus was found within a very short time, possibly even in one associated group, which strongly supports Langdon's

opinion that he had come across an archive, whether or not of a temple. Other groups of

tablets were, however, found in various rooms of the large building as indicated on Fig. 1. It

is not possible to determine which tablets, nor how many, were found in which rooms.

The tablets were published by Langdon soon after the completion of work at the site

(Langdon 1928; 1931), but it had long been realised that a fuller and more accurate edition

was required. The recent publication in Berlin of all known and suspected Jemdet Nasr

tablets has vastly increased our real and potential ability to understand these archaic texts

(Englund and Gr?goire 1991), and future work will certainly realise some of those

expectations. For now we can say that the Jemdet Nasr texts are essentially economic

documents, dealing with a range of goods and services?grain, foodstuffs, textiles, animals, land allotments and labour forces?such as we would expect from the day to day running of

a large administrative institution with control over a labour force and over the exploitation of the local countryside. The language of the texts is not certainly identified but is likely, at the least, to have some relationship to the Sumerian language attested on the Early

Dynastic I texts from Ur. In palaeographic terms, the Jemdet Nasr tablets equate with

archaic tablets from Uruk Eanna III, a more developed stage than the earliest proto- cuneiform texts of Uruk Eanna IV (Nissen 1986).

Pottery (Figs. 2-8) From the time of the first excavations at Jemdet Nasr the site has been famous for the

distinctive painted pottery found by Langdon and Watelin, but what is perhaps not so well

6 R. J. MATTHEWS

appreciated is that a significant collection of undecorated pottery was excavated at the same time. The bulk of the 1920s pottery was allotted to the Field Museum, Chicago, probably to

compensate for the division of all textual material between Oxford and Baghdad. On the

whole, only complete, or nearly complete, pots were retained, with the exception of decorated sherds. The aim in this article is to present a representative sample of the 1920s

Jemdet Nasr pottery corpus, with a preliminary discussion of comparative material from other Mesopotamian sites, in the hope that we can thereby gain a clearer understanding of what constitutes a Mesopotamian Jemdet Nasr assemblage. By this means, it is hoped to establish that we are justified in identifying a distinct Jemdet Nasr period in the cultural

history of Mesopotamia, a period which does not rely for its identity exclusively on

polychrome painted pottery. We shall also aim to demonstrate that the pottery from Jemdet Nasr indicates that activity at the site was not restricted to the Jemdet Nasr period. The

pottery is presented in the following seven figures, arranged by vessel form. These forms are now discussed in turn, before a more general overview of the Mesopotamian context of the

Jemdet Nasr pottery corpus.

Open forms (Fig. 2) At least twenty-five complete bevelled-rim bowls were recovered from Jemdet Nasr and

they vary greatly in shape and capacity, as indicated by Fig. 2: 1-2. These bowls are likely to reflect a Late Uruk presence at the site, as supported by other evidence below, and by our own recovery at the site of considerable quantities of bevelled-rim bowl sherds in association with other Late Uruk indicators (Matthews 1990, 36). Another Late Uruk type is the delicate thin-walled cup, Fig. 2: 3, securely dated to Late Uruk levels at Uruk (von Haller

1932, PL 20: A), Nippur (Hansen 1965, Fig. 5) and Susa (Le Brun 1971, Fig. 47:1-3). Several examples of larger wheel-made conical bowls occur, Fig. 2: 4-6, including large and small ones with cut or bevelled rims, these being first identified by Hansen (1965, Fig. 35) as

occurring at Nippur Inanna Sounding Levels XIV and XIII, along with Level XII understood to belong to the Jemdet Nasr period (Wilson 1986). Some evidence, however, points to a Late Uruk date for the first appearance of these cut-rim bowls, as at Uruk, where

they appear in Eanna Archaic IV (von Haller 1932, PI. 20: A), and possibly at Habuba Kabira (S?renhagen 1978, Fig. 21:44) and Arslantepe (Frangipane and Palmieri 1983, Fig. 20:7).

A distinctive bowl form is depicted in Fig. 2: 7-8, with everted rim and slightly footed base. This form, of which at least five examples were excavated from Jemdet Nasr, is to be

distinguished from a rounded bowl with similar rim but rounded base, also known from

Jemdet Nasr (Matthews 1989, Fig. 3: 8). Clear parallels for the footed bowl are few and far between. One example comes from Inanna Sounding Level XV, the last Late Uruk level, at

Nippur (Al-Soof 1985, Fig. 9: 17), and the only other parallels appear to be an Early Dynastic III instance, with slightly higher neck, from Khafajah (Delougaz 1952, PI. 151:B. 184.220b), and an identical example dated to the Akkadian period from Uruk

(Van Ess 1988, Fig. A: 1). The dating of these everted rim, footed base bowls must remain

open for the present. Carinated bowls, Fig. 2: 9-11, occur in small numbers. Parallels for these bowls span Late

Uruk, as at Habuba Kabira (S?renhagen 1978, Fig. 20: 14-16) and Rubeidheh (McAdam and Mynors 1988, Fig. 28: 16), to Early Dynastic I, as at Razuk in the Hamrin (Theusen 1981, PI. 63:12-15). The only convincing parallel for the bowl with painted stripes, Fig. 2: 11, of which three examples occur in the Jemdet Nasr corpus, is a bowl rim sherd from the Late Uruk Mound C at Ahmed al-Hattu in the Hamrin, also painted with two dark stripes (S?renhagen 1979, Fig. 10). Painted carinated bowls are of course a significant feature of early Ninevite V pottery assemblages, such as at Karrana 3 (Fales et. al. 1987), where the decoration is more complex and the vessels have a ring base. Some influence from this direction may have filtered down through the Hamrin and towards the northern fringes of Sumer where Jemdet Nasr is located. The shallow bowl with incised rim, Fig. 2: 12, again has mainly Late Uruk parallels, as at Habuba Kabira (S?renhagen 1978, Fig. 22: 1-3), Abu

DEFINING THE STYLE OF THE PERIOD: JEMDET NASR 1926?28

w

SF ^P

0 9

Fig. 2 Pottery: open forms. Scale 1 : 4.

? R. J. MATTHEWS

Salabikh (Pollock 1987, Fig. 6: g) and Susa (Le Brun 1971, Fig. 46: 5), with an occurrence in Inanna Sounding Level XIV at Nippur (Wilson 1986, Fig. 5: 8).

Lids, painted and plain, are represented, Fig. 2: 13-14). The parallels suggest an

exclusively Jemdet Nasr date for this form, which occurs in Inanna Sounding XIV-XII at

Nippur (Hansen 1965, Fig. 32; Wilson 1986, Fig. 7: 7 and 9), at Uruk in levels equivalent to Eanna Archaic III (Pongratz-Leisten 1988, Nos. 273 and 339), in Protoliterate c-d levels at

Khafajah (Delougaz 1952, Pl. 169:C.041.500), and in association with polychrome pottery at Uqair (Lloyd and Safar 1943, PI. 26:4). An unpainted example occurs at Habuba Kabira

(S?renhagen 1978, Fig. 3: 33). Five examples of ladles, Fig. 2: 15-16, were found, four having a single pair of holes in the

vessel wall, one having two pairs. All have a hole through the vessel base. The holes are understood to facilitate the fixing of a long handle to the vessel which would then function as a ladle. This vessel type occurs in Late Uruk contexts, as at Susa (Le Brun 1971, Fig. 45: 3), and Habuba Kabira (Strommenger 1980, Fig. 38), but perhaps also spans Jemdet Nasr and

Early Dynastic I, as at Abu Salabikh (Moon 1987, Nos. 116-17), Tell Asmar (Delougaz 1952, Pl. 63:47) and Uruk (von Haller 1932, Pl. 20:B). Finally, the small oval tray, Fig. 2: 17, has few exact parallels, although larger trays occur in Jemdet Nasr levels at

Nippur (Wilson 1986, Fig. 5: 11).

Ledge-rim jars (Fig. 3) These forms are largely associated with painted decoration and are well represented at

Jemdet Nasr. The distinctive shape of Fig. 3: 1 is exactly matched by examples from Fara

(Martin 1988, 175: 14) and Ur (Woolley 1955, PI. 59JN81), both datable to Jemdet Nasr to

Early Dynastic I. The more common tall jars, tapering to a narrow base, occur in some numbers and are often painted. The more slender version, Fig. 3: 2?4, is almost always painted, frequently in plum red all over or from the shoulder upwards. Parallels occur at a

range of Mesopotamian sites, including Fara (Martin 1988, 173: 3), Eanna Archaic III levels at Uruk (Pongratz-Leisten 1988, No. 338), Inanna Sounding Levels XIV-XIII at Nippur (Wilson 1986, Fig. 7: 14 and 16) and Protoliterate c-d levels at Tell Asmar (Delougaz 1952, Pl. 182:0536.540). The squatter version, Fig. 3: 5-6, is not always painted and has fewer

parallels, such as a painted example from Inanna Sounding XII at Nippur (Al-Soof 1985,

Fig. 9: 10), a parallel which hints that the squatter version may evolve out of the slender version. Interestingly, neither of these tall jar types appears to be present in the large corpus of pots from Tell Uqair. Delougaz (1952, 126) felt that these tall jars were typical of Protoliterate c, rather than d, an indication that the Uqair corpus may belong principally to Protoliterate d in Diyala terms.

Rounded jars with ledge-rims, Fig. 3: 7-10, occur in substantial numbers at Jemdet Nasr and they are without exception painted. Large and small types are matched at many Mesopotamian sites, principally southern, such as Ur (Woolley 1955, Pl. 26:a and d), Uqair (Lloyd and Safar 1943, PI. 22:5-7), Inanna Sounding XIV-XII at Nippur (Wilson 1986, Fig. 10: 2-4), Protoliterate c-d levels at the Diyala sites (Delougaz 1952, PL 155:B.513.170, Pl. 189:0745.270) and Uruk (Lenzen 1963, PL 33:a and d). Several examples of the smaller

type, with flat base and painted decoration, are known from Hafit cairns in Abu Dhabi and Oman (Potts 1986). The large vessel with ring base and applied blobs on the shoulder,

Fig. 3:10, has the same range of parallels but also including a very similar vessel from Level

VII at Tell Gubba in the Hamrin (Fujii 1981, Fig. 11:5).

Lugged vessels, miscellaneous bottles and jars (Fig. 4) Vessels with four pierced nose-lugs, Fig. 4: 1-6, are very strongly represented in the Jemdet

Nasr corpus. Red-painted examples, as Fig. 4: 1, are known at Fara (Martin 1988, 173: 6) and Uruk (Lenzen 1963, PL 3 7 : j ). Vessels with painted designs, generally in monochrome, also occur, Fig. 4: 2-3 and 5, and are well matched by vessels from Inanna Sounding XIV-XIII at Nippur (Wilson 1986, Fig. 9:4), Uqair (Lloyd and Safar 1943, PL 23-4 and 27) and Protoliterate c levels at Khafajah (Delougaz 1952, Pl. 186:C.603.253a). Several

defining the style of the period: jemdet nasr 1926-28

Fig. 3 Pottery: ledge-rim jars. Scale 1 : 4.

10 R. J. MATTHEWS

=L

Fig. 4 Pottery: lugged jars and assorted jars. Scale 1 : 4.

DEFINING THE STYLE OF THE PERIOD: JEMDET NASR 1926-28 1 1

examples of undecorated four-lugged vessels also occur, Fig. 4: 4. The rounded base version,

Fig. 4: 6, is much less common and has earlier parallels, such as an example, also with

punctates, from Inanna Sounding XIX at Nippur (Hansen 1965, Fig. Ila). A distinctive round-based bottle with a single pierced lug, Fig. 4: 7-8 is represented by at least four

complete examples in the Jemdet Nasr assemblage. Parallels for this type are very rare, the closest being an example from Early Dynastic I levels at Khafajah with a single lug split into two parallel halves (Delougaz 1952, PL 50:f). Stylistically these single-lug bottles may form a transitional type between four-lugged vessels and later, Early Dynastic I, vessels with single

upright handles, and may well be exclusively of Jemdet Nasr date. Bottles without lugs, Fig. 4: 9, occur in small numbers and are matched elsewhere by Early Dynastic I examples, as at Ur (Woolley 1955, PL 25) and the Diyala sites (Delougaz 1952, PL 164:B.664.540a-b).

A small bottle with double carination, Fig. 4: 10-11, has many parallels, all of Early Dynastic III to Akkadian date, as at Nippur (Hansen 1965, Fig. 42a), Ur (Woolley 1955,

P1.68:RC255), Tell Asmar (Delougaz 1952, PL 111: a-b), Adab (Banks 1905-6, No. 32), Susa (Steve and Gasche 1971, Pl. 70:18) and Kish (Mackay 1925, PL 16:28-30). Con-

temporary with these bottles is the hole-based jar shown in Fig. 4: 12, the sole example in the

Jemdet Nasr corpus, for which precise parallels come from Kish (Mackay 1929, PL 54:5) and Tell Asmar (Delougaz 1952, Pl. 160:B.555.540b), again all of Early Dynastic III to Akkadian date. It is likely that these three vessels, Fig. 4: 10-12, were excavated from a late

grave in the surface of one of the mounds at Jemdet Nasr. No parallels have been located for the three unusual vessels shown in Fig. 4: 13-15, and it is hoped that their publication here will be of some use. Fig. 4: 15 is particularly distinctive in that it is decorated with bands of

green glaze.

Spouted vessels (Figs. 5-6)

Spouted vessels are present in a great range of shapes and sizes in the Jemdet Nasr corpus, of which only a sample is depicted in Figs. 5-6. Vessels with droop spouts, Fig. 5: 1, are rare. At Uruk they occur in Eanna Archaic VII to IV, exclusively of Late Uruk date (von Haller

1932, Pl.D). The tall, narrow vessel, Fig. 5: 4, also has its closest parallels in Late Uruk

contexts, as at Habuba Kabira (S?renhagen 1978, Fig. 17: 102). At Jemdet Nasr there are

large numbers of open, short-necked spouted jars, Fig. 5: 2-3 and 5-7. The decorated form,

Fig. 5: 3, has a shape with parallels in the Late Uruk Level XV of the Inanna Sounding at

Nippur (Hansen 1965, Fig. 27). Approximate parallels for Fig. 5: 2 and 5-7 occur in

Protoliterate c-d graves at Khafajah (Delougaz 1952, PL 182:C.534.222 and C.535.242), at Tello (de Genouillac 1934, PL 7:4430) and at Uruk (S?renhagen 1987, 56: 1). These forms

appear to be Jemdet Nasr in date. The spout with pushed in lower side, Fig. 5: 5, is a

particularly distinguishing feature. The vessel with waisted neck, Fig. 5: 8, has parallels in a

Protoliterate c grave at Khafajah (Delougaz 1952, PL 188:0665.222), at Tello (de Genouillac 1934, PL 7:4981) and in the Late Uruk Level XV of the Inanna Sounding at

Nippur (Hansen 1965, Fig. 28).

Many spouted vessels have painted or incised decoration, Fig. 6: 1-5 and 8. The painted vessel, Fig. 6: 1, has a unique neck and rim, and is adorned with geometric designs and two

five-pointed stars, a motif not uncommon on Jemdet Nasr pottery (Matthews 1989,

Fig. 3: 21-5) and other artefacts. Spouted jars with bands of paint occur in tall and squat versions, Fig. 6: 2-3 and are matched by examples from Protoliterate c levels at Khafajah (Delougaz 1952, PL 196:D.65.542), at Abu Salabikh (Postgate and Moon 1982, Fig. 5: 4) and from levels equivalent to Eanna Archaic III at Uruk (Pongratz-Leisten 1988, No. 275). This form, with stripes, thus appears to be of Jemdet Nasr date. One squat spouted jar,

Fig. 6: 4, has a brief inscription on its upper body, with only the sign sal identifiable. This

squat, globular form of spouted jar, Fig. 6: 3-5, has parallels at Uqair (Lloyd and Safar

1943, PL 22: 14), Ur (Woolley 1955, PL 64JN149-51) and Eanna Archaic III levels at Uruk

(Pongratz-Leisten 1988, No. 286), and is probably of Jemdet Nasr date. A group of extremely large spouted jars, Fig. 6: 6-7, was excavated at Jemdet Nasr

(photograph in Moorey 1976, Pl. 15:a). Parallels come from Fara (handled vessel with two

12 R. J. MATTHEWS

F

Fig. 5 Pottery: spouted jars. Scale 1 : 4.

defining the style of the period: jemdet nasr 1926-28 13

Fig. 6 Pottery: spouted jars. Scale 1 : 4, except nos 6-7, scale 1 : 8.

14 R. J. MATTHEWS

spouts; Martin 1988, 173: 2) and Tell Asmar (Delougaz 1952, PL 194:D.535.542), and span Jemdet Nasr to Early Dynastic I in date. The two carinated spouted jars, Fig. 6: 8-9, have

good Early Dynastic I parallels, as at Tell Agrab (Delougaz 1952, PL 180:C.526.262a) and Ur (Woolley 1955, PL 62JN124-5). A similar form to Fig. 6: 9, without the ring base, was found at Dhahran-Damman in eastern Saudi Arabia (Potts 1986, PL l:c-d). The spouted jar, Fig. 6: 8, has an interesting mixture of attributes, with a ledge rim, tall neck, sharp carination with row of indentations and flat base. Some of these attributes?indentations on a sharp carination?are of Early Dynastic I date, as at the Diyala sites (Delougaz 1952, PL 37:a-c), while others?the ledge rim and flat base?are of Jemdet Nasr date, so that this

pot has a uniquely transitional look to it.

Handled pots and solid stands (Fig. 7, Plate la)

Strap-handled cups, large and small, Fig. 7: 1-2, are found in some numbers. There are

many parallels, including Levels XX-XIII of the Inanna Sounding at Nippur (Hansen 1965,

Fig. 6), Eanna Archaic Levels IX-VI at Uruk (von Haller 1932, PL 18:c) and Late Uruk levels at Susa (Le Brun 1971). I know of no exact parallels for the handled vessel, Fig. 7: 3, but the carinated body suggests an Early Dynastic I date. Several examples occur of a tall

vessel with a single handle pressed close to the upper body and rim, Fig. 7: 4-5. The parallels are exclusively of Jemdet Nasr date, as at Uqair (Lloyd and Safar 1943, PL 22: 4), Levels

XIV-XIII of the Inanna Sounding at Nippur (Wilson 1986, Fig. 7: 5), a Jemdet Nasr pit at Abu Salabikh (Pollock 1990, Fig. 5: c) and archaic levels at Uruk (S?renhagen 1987, 58: 31). The two vessels with baggy shape and bucket handle, Fig. 7: 6-7, have few parallels, but from Protoliterate d levels at Khafajah (Delougaz 1952, PL 24:b) comes an identical form to Fig. 7: 7, with small spout, rounded base and bucket handle.

Many solid stands, Fig. 7: 8-11 and Plate la, were found at Jemdet Nasr. Appropriately enough, it was one of these solid stands that was the first complete pot to be delivered by locals from Jemdet Nasr to the Kish base camp (D. Mackay 1927, 82). The stands come in a

variety of shapes, but all are solid and all have string-pulled bases. Some have paint, Fig. 7:8, or bitumen, Fig. 7: 10, on their upper surfaces. Although conventionally called

stands, their actual function is unknown. Parallels are restricted to probable Jemdet Nasr

contexts, as at Uqair (Lloyd and Safar 1943, PL 16), Levels XIV-XII of the Inanna

Sounding at Nippur (Wilson 1986, Fig. 7: 10), and Ur (Woolley 1955, PL 64JN160).

Miniatures, fine ware and oddities (Fig. 8) A wide range of miniature pots is featured in the Jemdet Nasr corpus, Fig. 8: 1-9. On the

whole, they are true miniatures in that large-scale versions of these pots do exist. Miniature

four-lugged vessels, as in Fig. 8: 2-4, are also known at Habuba Kabira (S?renhagen 1978,

Fig. 18: 122-6) and Uruk (S?renhagen 1987, 81: 43), and are likely to be Late Uruk in date. The pots illustrated in Fig. 8: 10-15 are all made of a most distinctive fabric, consisting of

a very fine paste with few, if any, visible inclusions, and generally of a pale greenish hue, a

fabric completely unlike any other employed in the making of pots from this corpus. The

vessels made in this fabric are small and well made, with finely shaped vessel walls. Some of the forms, such as the four-lugged vessels, are perhaps miniatures. Very similar fine green vessels, with four lugs, occur in Level XV of the Nippur Inanna Sounding (Hansen 1965,

Fig. 25; Wilson 1986, Fig. 4: 5) and at Tello (de Genouillac 1934, PL 24:2), while vessels

similar to Fig. 8: 13-15 occur at Uqair (Lloyd and Safar 1943, PL 22:12-13). In recent

excavations at Jemdet Nasr, other small vessel forms, made of the same fine fabric, have been

found in association with very early Early Dynastic I architecture (Matthews 1989, Fig. 8). The fabric itself then, if not the forms, appears to span the end of Late Uruk through to the

start of Early Dynastic I.

Finally, Fig. 8: 16-18 shows three unusual pots, the first of which is perhaps a miniature of a large storage vessel. Fig. 8: 17 is an extremely strange hybrid and Fig. 8: 18 is likely to be a

copy in pottery of a stone vessel form.

DEFINING THE STYLE OF THE PERIOD: JEMDET NASR 1926~28 15

rw?? fftfftf

^^

Fig. 7 Pottery: handled jars and stands. Scale 1 : 4.

16 R. J. MATTHEWS

f rg> <?) f

KP 10 ^"-"^

16 \D

Fig. 8 Pottery: miniatures, fine ware vessels and oddities. Scale 1:2.

defining the style of the period: JEMDET nasr 1926-28 17

Pottery: general comments

In sum, the 1920s Jemdet Nasr pottery corpus shows most affinities with other southern

Mesopotamian assemblages?Uruk, Ur, Nippur, Fara, Uqair?with evidence of contacts to

the north and north-east at Khafajah and the Hamrin sites. Outside this area it is not

possible to identify pottery traits characteristic of the Jemdet Nasr period. At Susa, for

example, the pottery published as being "Jemdet Nasr" from Acropole 16 (Le Brun 1971; Steve and Gasche 1971, Figs. 26-8, Pis. 83-5) has no parallels at all with what we have

defined above as pottery typifying the Jemdet Nasr period in southern Mesopotamia and

clearly needs to be defined within another regional context, such as the proto-Elamite. The

pottery from Jemdet Nasr indicates that the Jemdet Nasr period holds good for southern

Mesopotamia and some neighbouring regions, but is not a term that can be assumed to

apply in other areas, even where previously strong contacts with southern Mesopotamia are

attested in the Late Uruk period. Each region, each site, has to be judged on its own

evidence.

Finally, for ease of reference, we include a list of ceramic forms tabulated against

chronological periods as established by the comparative material discussed above. This list

is of course provisional and certain to be revised as future excavation, at Jemdet Nasr and

elsewhere, yields new stratified materials, but for now it may provide a useful yardstick.

Period Late Uruk

Late Uruk? Jemdet Nasr

Late Uruk? Early Dynastic I

Jemdet Nasr

Form Fig. Bevelled-rim bowl 2: 1, 2 Thin-walled cup 2: 3 Incised-rim bowl 2: 12 Round-based lugged jar 4: 6 Droop-spouted jar 5: 1 Tall spouted jar 5: 4 Strap-handled cup 7: 1, 2 Miniature lugged vessel 8: 2-4 Miniature strap-handled cup 8:6

Red painted lugged vessel 4: 1 Plain lugged vessel 4: 4 Waisted-neck spouted jar 5:8 Fine ware lugged vessel 8: 10-12

Carinated bowl 2: 9-11 Ladle 2: 15, 16

Gut rim conical bowl 2: 5-6 Lid 2: 13, 14 Oval tray 2:17 Tall ledge-rim jar 3: 2-6 Round ledge-rim jar 3:7-10 Design-painted lugged vessel 4: 2, 3, 5 Single-lugged vessel 4: 7, 8 Open spouted vessel 5: 2, 3, 5-7

Period Jemdet Nasr

Jemdet Nasr? Early Dynastic I

Early Dynastic I

Late Uruk/ Jemdet Nasr or Early Dynastic Ill/Akkadian

Early Dynastic 111-Akkadian

Uncertain

Form Fig. Painted spouted vessel 6: 1-5 Rim-handled vessel 7: 4, 5 Bucket-handled vessel 7: 6, 7 Solid stands 7:8-11

Conical bowl 2: 4 Sloping rim tall jar 3: 1 Large spouted jar 6: 6, 7 Carinated ledge-rim spouted jar 6: 8 Fine ware small jar 8: 13-15

Small bottle 4: 9 Carinated spouted jar 6: 9 Carinated bucket- handled vessel 7:3

Everted-rim jar 2: 7, 8

Double carinated bottle 4: Hole-based jar 4:

No-neck bottle 4: Ridge-neck bottle 4: Everted-rim jar 4: Miniatures Small jars

11

13 14 15 1, 5, 7-9 16-18

Seals and seal impressions (Figs. 9-10) At least four stamp seals were found, Fig. 9: 1, all being of the basic drilled hole type,

pierced for suspension. Similar stamp seals are found at a range of Late Uruk to Early

Dynastic I sites, such as Fara (Martin 1988, 224) and Tello (de Genouilac 1934, PL 38).

Impressions made by these stamp seals are extremely rare, or unknown.

At least twenty cylinder seals were recovered, a sample of which is depicted in Fig. 9: 2-7

and Fig. 10: 1-2. At the time of excavation this type of cylinder seal, with scenes composed of drilled circles and cut lines, was little known, so that Jemdet Nasr was taken as the type site. Subsequently, they were found over a great range of the ancient Near East and were

R. J. MATTHEWS

i o ! o^ ^jj 11

SO ? ?u?

? ? o o o

2)Ck*>? ?

o o oo Q|

T^ ?O iffl /2ff?fcr_ fetsr II

? X21

X?

II

Fig. 9 Stamp seal and cylinder seals. Scale 1:1.

DEFINING THE STYLE OF THE PERIOD: JEMDET NASR 1926-28 19

mistakenly understood to reflect the widespread expansion of the Jemdet Nasr culture out of

southern Mesopotamia. More recently, recovery of these drilled seals in purely Late Uruk

contexts, as at Habuba Kabira (Strommenger 1980, Fig. 43), has shown that the drilled style was already well established before the Jemdet Nasr period, an interpretation supported by evidence from Godin Tepe, where drilled style seals were found in the Late Uruk period Level V Oval Enclosure (Young 1986, 217), and from Nippur, where these seals come from

Levels XVI-XV, the last Late Uruk levels, of the Inanna Sounding (Wilson 1986, 60).

Clearly, if these seals reflect any expansion at all, it is one of the Late Uruk period, not the

Jemdet Nasr.

A limited range of scenes is depicted on the drilled style seals, including pig-tailed figures with outstretched arms seated on ladders or rugs, Fig. 9: 2-4, animals and fish, Fig. 9: 5-7, and simple designs, Fig. 10: 1-2. This range of motifs is repeated wherever this type of seal is

found, and may indicate an intimate connection, whose precise nature is unclear, between

seal iconography and economic or social activity. One especially puzzling attribute is that

virtually no ancient seal impressions made by the drilled style seals survive, a fact which

suggests they may have been principally employed as amulets or badges of office in

themselves.

Only one clay sealing, in two fragments, was found in the 1920s seasons. A rare provenance note on the object card describes the clay pieces as coming from below a plano-convex brick

wall. A composite reconstruction, based on several rollings on the two fragments, is shown in

Fig. 10: 3. This impression was first published by Buchanan (1966, No. 72), who mistakenly rendered the scene as composed of animals t?te-b?che. The scene has affinities with the

Piedmont style, as at Gubba (Ii 1988), and also with proto-Elamite seal scenes, as at Malyan

(Sumner 1976), suggesting a different alignment of contacts from the drilled style seals

discussed above.

The most significant glyptic evidence from Jemdet Nasr comes in the form of seal

impressions on the proto-cuneiform tablets. These impressions form the subject-matter of a

volume in the series devoted to full publication of the Jemdet Nasr texts (Matthews 1992), and so will not be examined at length here. There are sixty-four different impressions attested on the tablets, and a few are depicted in Fig. 10: 4-8. In stark contrast to the drilled

style cylinder seals, the scenes are naturalistic, with detailed depictions of humans, Fig. 10: 4,

animals, Fig. 10: 5-6, and hybrid creatures, Fig. 10: 7. Some of the closest parallels for these

scenes are to be found on another collection of seal impressions, these on door and container

sealings rather than tablets, recently excavated at Jemdet Nasr and associated with early

Early Dynastic I pottery (Matthews 1990, Fig. 10). One seal impression, Fig. 10: 8, occurs

on thirteen of the Jemdet Nasr tablets, and is of considerable significance in that it consists of

a sequence of symbols representing the names of ancient Mesopotamian cities, including Ur,

Larsa, Nippur, Uruk, Kesh, Zabala and Urum. These seal impressions indicate the

participation of Jemdet Nasr alongside several major Mesopotamian cities in some sort of

federative activity of a now obscure nature.

Miscellaneous objects A wide range of objects other than tablets, ceramics or glyptic was recovered in the course

of the 1920s seasons at Jemdet Nasr. Even after consideration of relevant comparanda from

other excavated Mesopotamian sites, many of these items remain insecurely dated but their

publication here may be of some future assistance.

Metalwork (Fig. 11: 1-3)

Very little in the way of metal items was recovered. The copper blade, Fig. 11:1, has good

parallels from Habuba Kabira (Strommenger 1980, Fig. 29) and Farukhabad (Wright

1981, Fig. 75: c), while the barbed fish hook, Fig. 11:2, is matched by examples from

Habuba Kabira (Strommenger 1980, Fig. 40), Fara (Martin 1988, 222:320) and Ur

(Woolley 1955, Pl. 30). Analysis of these pieces has shown them to consist of arsenical copper

20 R. J. MATTHEWS

&

? ?

r^ ?#

??

y/A? ?

^? V?Uvj

????^?

,G

^>t)^3 i

?>

^

t

?^ <7

?_G

?4

Fig. 10 Cylinder seals and seal impressions. Scale 1:1.

DEFINING THE STYLE OF THE PERIOD: JEMDET NASR 1926?28 21

<?

?

kD

Fig. 11 Metalwork and stone items. Scale 1:2.

22 R. J. MATTHEWS

(Moorey and Schweizer 1972). I am not aware of parallels for the copper goose with

suspension ring, Fig. 11: 3.

Stone vessels (Fig. 12: 1-6) The type of stone vessel depicted in Fig. 12: 1-2, with rectangles in relief set into the neck

and ledge rim-handles, seems to be peculiar to Jemdet Nasr, the only other example known to me coming from recent excavation at the site (Matthews 1989, Fig. 4: 3). The bowl with incised decoration on the rim, Fig. 12: 3, has an exact parallel, but made of pottery, at Uruk

(Lenzen 1963, PL 32: e). Other open bowl forms, Fig. 12: 4-5, are matched at a wide range of Mesopotamian sites of Late Uruk to Early Dynastic date. The distinctive ledge-rim jar, Fig. 12:6, has parallels at sites such as Fara (Martin 1988, 203: 123), Ur (Woolley 1955, PL 67JN52) and Tello (de Genouillac 1934, PL 5:1b) and is probably of Early Dynastic I date.

Stone implements (Fig. 11: 4-7) Stone items were not found in great quantities. Objects made of stone include perforated

weights, hammer stones and a curious wheel with nicked edge, Fig. 11:4. The implement depicted in Fig. 11: 5-7 is represented by at least a dozen examples from Jemdet Nasr and is of unknown function. Its main attributes are a flat highly polished base, all other surfaces

rounded, and grooves running at right angles across the curved surfaces. The geographical distribution of this stone object type agrees well with the maximum extent of Late Uruk

culture, as attested by pottery forms, taking in Arlsantepe to the north (Frangipane and Palmieri 1983, Fig. 64: 1), Habuba Kabira to the west (Strommenger 1980, Fig. 47), Susa and Sialk to the east (Le Brun 1971, Fig. 55: 2; Ghirshman 1938, PL 28:1), and Uruk itself

(Lenzen 1963, PL 34:i).

Baked clay objects (Figs. 12; 7-8, 13: 1-7, Plate l?)

Large quantities of baked clay bricks were encountered, some thirty of which are now in the Field Museum, Chicago. They are all of the same dimensions, 23 x 9 x 6-5 cm, as in

Fig. 12: 7, which exactly matches those given by Langdon for bricks in his large building (Langdon 1927, 72). They are all pierced, or almost so, by three holes at an oblique angle, and bear impressions on their flattest sides of split reed matting. Clearly, these bricks were

mould-made, then sun-dried on a layer of matting before being baked in a kiln. Other architectural fittings include gutter or drain fragments.

An unusual baked clay object is shown in Fig. 12: 8, consisting of two flat faces, at right angles, each face bearing sixteen circular designs within a grid. At the back, the two faces are connected by a stout handle. There are bitumen traces along the edges. Parallels for this

object come from Uruk and Uqair. An example was also excavated at Tell Brak (Mallowan 1947, PL 30: 12). The four Uruk examples, all from archaic levels, bear twenty circles upon each face and have some sort of handle or fastening on the reverse (Jordan 1931, PL 19). The one example from Tell Uqair, bearing eight or twelve circles on each face, is interpreted by the excavators as a "terra-cotta corner-piece with a modelled handle behind to tie it into the

masonry" believed to form part of a wall-cone mosaic (Lloyd and Safar 1943, 155, PL 28:2). It seems much likelier, however, that these objects are large stamps for impressing circles, in

grids, upon soft plastered walls, the right angled faces allowing easy access into wall corners, thus achieving at a stroke the effect of a wall-cone mosaic without the time-consuming use of wall-cones. Wall-cones themselves were found in small numbers at Jemdet Nasr.

Large quantities of spindle whorls were found, many of them decorated with incised and

impressed designs, Fig. 13: 1-4. One, Fig. 13: 1, has an incised five-pointed star, a motif also found on the pottery, Fig. 6: 1, and as a proto-cuneiform sign on many of the tablets. There is a possibility that this sign represents the ancient name of Jemdet Nasr (Matthews 1992). Clay tools include spatulas, Fig. 13: 5, known also at Ur (Woolley 1955, PL 16), and sickles,

including a miniature. Many examples occur of long, perforated clay beads with spiral groove, Fig. 13: 6-7 and Plate lb, apparently imitating shell-core beads. These beads occur

DEFINING THE STYLE OF THE PERIOD! JEMDET NASR 1926-28 23

Fig. 12 Stone vessels and baked clay items. Scale 1 : 4.

24 R. J. MATTHEWS

exclusively at southern Mesopotamian sites, such as Fara (Martin 1988, 217:231), Abu Salabikh (Postgate 1983, Fig. 317), Nippur (Wilson 1986, 62) and Tello (de Genouillac

1934, PL 34:3c), and appear to be restricted to the Jemdet Nasr period.

Bone objects (Fig. 13:8-11)

Very few bone items were recovered, although it is known that some six graves were encountered (Field 1932b). Distinctive bone beads or toggles, Fig. 13: 8-9, are matched by examples from Fara (Martin 1988, 219: 286). Other items include large pins with decorative

heads, Fig. 13: 10-11. Shell beads were also found.

Figurines and tokens, clay and stone (Figs. 13: 12-19, 14: 1-15, Plate Ic-d) Crude animal figurines in clay, Fig. 13: 12-15, were found in some numbers, as at virtually

every other Mesopotamian site, but what is more striking is the high quality of several stone

figurines, Fig. 13: 16-19 and Plate Ic. Again the best parallels are southern, as at Ur

(Woolley 1955, Pl. 27-8) and Tello whence comes a good parallel for the small stone bird, Fig. 13: 18 (de Genouillac 1934, Pl. 36:4b). A similar bird also occurs at Fara (Martin 1988, 209: 192).

A wide range of tokens or counters was recovered, Fig. 14: 1-15 and Plate Id, largely made of dark grey stone often with clearly visible striations from working and polishing. The few parallels come from Tello (de Genouillac 1934, PL 37:1), Fara (Martin 1988, 208: 179-83) and Uruk (Schmandt-Besserat 1988). If these pieces are indeed administrative tokens rather than gamesmen then they are of the simple type, as opposed to the complex tokens more common at Uruk. Only two instances of possible complex tokens were found at

Jemdet Nasr. One, Fig. 14: 14, has a distinctive beaked shape with incised and impressed details, a form exactly matched by a token at Uruk understood to represent a spouted vessel

(Schmandt-Besserat 1988, Type XIII: 2, No. 724), although a bird's head seems likelier. A similar form, lacking the incised line, occurs at Susa (Schmandt-Besserat 1986, P1.4). Another possible complex token, Fig. 14: 15, may be simply a scribe's doodle on a spare piece of clay, but it does bear similarities to complex tokens with incised symbols from Uruk

(Schmandt-Besserat 1988, Type VII: 22). The precise functioning of these tokens within an administrative system remains obscure.

Conclusion

The identification of a Jemdet Nasr period in the cultural history of Mesopotamia rests

largely on the pottery corpus recovered from the site in 1926-28, within which we have intended to isolate certain forms and attributes which appear exclusively tied to a period which we can call Jemdet Nasr. A few non-ceramic artefacts, such as spiral groove clay beads, seem to have a similar chronological restriction. Future refinement of these

chronological indicators is bound to occur as excavation continues, but for now some

pointers have been made. It is further clear that the Jemdet Nasr period is restricted, in so far as it possesses an identifiable material culture assemblage, to southern Mesopotamia as far north as the Diyala and Hamrin regions, at most, and that the term is not applicable to

contemporary assemblages outside this area, such as at Susa. The geographical spread of

Jemdet Nasr culture is thus greatly reduced from Late Uruk times, a fact certain to reflect the political and economic realities which underpin all aspects of material culture.

Acknowledgements

Publishing the 1920s Jemdet Nasr material relies fundamentally upon the assistance of staff working in the museums wherein all the above artefacts now reside. I have received

extremely courteous and beneficial help in every museum in which I have studied objects from Jemdet Nasr, and I extend my warmest gratitude to all the staff who have aided me and granted permission to study and publish items from their collections. In particular, I

thank, at the Ashmolean Museum, Oxford: Dr. P. R. S. Moorey, Keeper of Antiquities; at the Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago: Dr. B. Bronson, Curator, C. Gross,

DEFINING THE STYLE OF THE PERIOD: JEMDET NASR 1926-28 25

Fig. 13 Baked clay and bone items, clay and stone figurines. Scale 1 : 2.

26 R. J. MATTHEWS

Fig. 14 Tokens, stone and clay. Scale 1:1.

DEFINING THE STYLE OF THE PERIOD: JEMDET NASR 1926-28 27

Collections Manager, W. Grewe-Mullins, Assistant Collections Manager, J. Klein, Archi-

vist, Dr. D. Reese and C. Sease; at the Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago: Prof.

McG. Gibson, Dr. K. L. Wilson, Curator, and R. D. Tindel, Registrar; at the Pitt Rivers

Museum of the University of Oxford (for reference to which, my thanks to St. J. Simpson): L. Mowat, Research Assistant. Thanks also to Jane Killick for kindly sharing with me her

considerable knowledge of Mesopotamian pottery. Finally, my gratitude goes to the British

School of Archaeology in Iraq for financial support.

Postscript Since this article was written, excavations in Spring 1992 at Tell Brak in north-eastern

Syria have for the first time recovered several pottery types with southern parallels from

contexts immediately above Late Uruk levels. These pottery types include polychrome

painted sherds in association with cut-rim and thickened-rim conical bowls, ladles and ledge- rim jars. Certain sites in northern Mesopotamia may thus have had some southern contact, as manifest in the ceramics, in what we have defined as the Jemdet Nasr period. I am grateful to Professor D. and Dr. J. Oates for permitting me to refer to this material.

Bibliography Al-Soof, ?. ?., 1985. Uruk pottery. Origin and distribution. Baghdad, Republic of Iraq, Ministry of Culture and

Information. Banks, E. J., 1905-6. Terra-cotta vases from Bismya. American Journal of Semitic Languages and Literatures 22,

139-43. Buchanan, B., 1966. Catalogue of ancient Near Eastern seals in the Ashmolean Museum. Volume 1. Cylinder seals. Oxford,

Clarendon Press.

Delougaz, P., 1952. Pottery from the Diyala region. (The University of Chicago, Oriental Institute Publications 63). Chicago, The University of Chicago Press.

Englund, R. K. and Gr?goire, J.-P., 1991. The proto-cuneiform texts from Jemdet Nasr. 1: copies, transliterations and

glossary. (Materialien zu den fr?hen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients 1). Berlin, Gebr. Mann.

Fales, F. M., Tusa, S., Wilhelm, G. and Zaccagnini, C, 1987. German-Italian expedition to Iraq. Preliminary report on the first campaign of excavations within the Saddam Dam reservoir archaeological rescue

project (1984). In Researches on the antiquities of Saddam Dam salvage and other researches. Baghdad. Republic of Iraq, Ministry of Culture and Information, 99-128.

Falkenstein, ?., 1936. Archaische Texte aus Uruk. (Ausgrabungen der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft in Uruk- Warka 2). Berlin, Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft.

Field, ?., 1926. New discoveries at Kish. The Illustrated London News 169: 4559, 395.

Field, ?., 1929. The Field Museum-Oxford University Expedition to Kish, Mesopotamia 1923-1929. (Field Museum of Natural History, Chicago, Anthropology Leaflet 28). Chicago, Field Museum.

Field, H., 1932a. Ancient wheat and barley from Kish, Mesopotamia. American Anthropologist 34, 303-9.

Field, H., 1932b. Human remains from Jemdet Nasr, Mesopotamia. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1932, 967-70.

Field, H., 1953. The track of man. New York, Doubleday. Field, H. and Martin, R. ?., 1935. Painted pottery from Jemdet Nasr, Iraq. American Journal of Archaeology 39,

310-20.

Frangipane, M. and Palmieri, ?., 1983. A protourban centre of the Late Uruk period. In Frangipane, M. and

Palmieri, ?., (eds.) Perspectives on protourbanization in eastern Anatolia: Arslamepe (Malatya). An interim report on 1975?83 campaigns. Origini 12, 287-668.

Fujii, H., (ed.) 1981. Preliminary report on excavations at Gubba and Songor. Hamrin report 6. al-Rafidan 2, 1-242.

Genouillac, H. de, 1934. Fouilles de Telloh I. Epoques presargoniques. Paris, Paul Geuthner.

Ghirshman, R., 1938. Fouilles de Sialk I. (Mus?e du Louvre S?rie Arch?ologique 4). Paris, Paul Geuthner.

Green, M. W., 1986. Urum and Uqair. Acta Sumerologica 8, 77-83.

Haller, A. v., 1932. Die Keramik der archaischen Schichten von Uruk. In N?ldeke, ?., Heinrich, E., Lenzen, H. and Haller, A. v., Vierter vorl?ufiger Bericht ?ber die von der Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft in Uruk unternommenen Ausgrabungen. (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Jahrgang 1932, 6). Berlin, Akademie der Wissenschaften, 31-47.

Hansen, D. P., 1965. The relative chronology of Mesopotamia. Part II. The pottery sequence at Nippur from the Middle Uruk to the end of the Old Babylonian period (3400-1600 b.c.). In Ehrich, R. W., (ed.) Chronologies in Old World archaeology. Chicago, University Press, 201-13.

li, H., 1988. Seals and seal impressions from Tell Gubba. al-Rafidan 9, 97-134.

Jordan, J., 1931. ^weiter vorl?ufiger Bericht ?ber die von der Notgemeinschaft der Deutschen Wissenschaft in Uruk unternommenen Ausgrabungen. (Abhandlungen der Preussischen Akademie der Wissenschaften Jahrgang 1930, 4). Berlin, Akademie der Wissenschaften.

28 R. J. MATTHEWS

Langdon, S., 1927. Ausgrabungen in Babylonien seit 1918. Der Alte Orient 26, 3-75.

Langdon, S., 1928. The Herbert Weld collection in the Ashmolean Museum. Pictographic inscriptions from Jemdet Nasr.

(Oxford Editions of Cuneiform Texts 7). Oxford, University Press.

Langdon, S., 1931. New texts from Jemdet Nasr. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society 1931, 837-44. Le Brun, ?., 1971. Recherches stratigraphiques ? l'Acropole de Suse (1969-1971). Cahiers de la D?l?gation

Arch?ologique Fran?aise en Iran 1, 163-216. Lenzen, H., 1963. XIX. vorl?ufiger Bericht ?ber die von dem Deutschen Arch?ologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-

Gesellschaft aus Mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka.

(Abhandlungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft 8). Berlin, Gebr. Mann.

Lloyd, S. and Safar, F., 1943. Tell Uqair: excavations by the Iraq Government Directorate of Antiquities in 1940 and 1941. Journal of Near Eastern Studies 2, 131-58.

MacAdam, E. and Mynors, H. S., 1988. Tell Rubeidheh: pottery from the Uruk Mound. In Killick, R. G., (ed.) Tell Rubeidheh. An Uruk village in the Jebel Hamrin. (Iraq Archaeological Reports 2). Warminster, Aris and Phillips, 39-76.

Mackay, D., 1927. Painted potsherds. The English Review 45, 81-9.

Mackay, E., 1925. Report on the excavation of the "A" cemetery at Kish, Mesopotamia. Part I. (Field Museum of Natural

History, Anthropology Memoirs I, 1). Chicago, Field Museum.

Mackay, E., 1929. A Sumerian palace and the "A" cemetery at Kish, Mesopotamia. Part II. (Field Museum of Natural

History, Anthropology Memoirs I, 2). Chicago, Field Museum.

Mackay, E., 1931. Report on excavations at Jemdet Nasr, Iraq. (Field Museum of Natural History, Anthropology Memoirs I, 3). Chicago, Field Museum.

Mallowan, M. E. L., 1947. Excavations at Brak and Chagar Bazar. Iraq 9, 1-259.

Margueron, J., 1982. Recherches sur les palais m?sopotamiens de Vage du bronze. Paris, Paul Geuthner.

Martin, H. P., 1988. Fara: a reconstruction of the ancient Mesopotamian city of Shuruppak. Birmingham, Chris Martin and Associates.

Matthews, R. J., 1989. Excavations at Jemdet Nasr, 1988. Iraq 51, 225-48.

Matthews, R. J., 1990. Excavations at Jemdet Nasr, 1989. Iraq 52, 25-39. Matthews, R. J., 1992. Cities, seals and writing: archaic seal impressions from Jemdet Nasr and Ur. (Materialien zu den

fr?hen Schriftzeugnissen des Vorderen Orients 2). Berlin, Gebr. Mann.

Moon, J., 1987. Catalogue of Early Dynastie pottery. (Abu Salabikh Excavations 3). London, British School of

Archaeology in Iraq. Moorey, P. R. S., 1976. The late prehistoric administrative building at Jamdat Nasr. Iraq 38, 95-106.

Moorey, P. R. S., 1978. Kish excavations 1923-1933. Oxford, Clarendon Press.

Moorey, P. R. S. and Schweizer, F., 1972. Copper and copper alloys in ancient Iraq, Syria and Palestine: some new analyses. Archaeometry 14, 177-98.

Nissen, H. J., 1986. The development of writing and of glyptic art. In Finkbeiner, U. and R?llig. W., (eds.) Gamdat Nasr: period or regional style? (Beihefte zum T?binger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe ? 62). Wiesbaden, Ludwig Reichert, 316-31.

Pollock, S., 1987. Abu Salabikh, the Uruk Mound 1985-86. Iraq 49, 121-41. Pollock, S., 1990. Political economy as viewed from the garbage dump: Jemdet Nasr occupation at the Uruk

Mound, Abu Salabikh. Pal?orient 16, 57-75.

Pongratz-Leisten, B., 1988. Keramik der fr?hdynastischen Zeit aus den Grabungen in Uruk-Warka. Baghdader Mitteilungen 19, 177-319.

Postgate, J. N., 1983. The West Mound surface clearance. (Abu Salabikh Excavations 1). London, British School of

Archaeology in Iraq. Postgate, J. N. and Moon, J., 1982. Excavations at Abu Salabikh, 1981. Iraq 44, 103-36.

Potts, D. T., 1986. Eastern Arabia and the Oman peninsula during the late fourth and early third millennium b.c. In Finkbeiner, U. and Rolling, W., (eds.) Gamdat Nasr: period or regional style? (Beihefte zum T?binger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe ? 62). Wiesbaden, Ludwig Reichert, 121-71.

Scheil, V., 1929. Documents et arguments. Revue d}Assyriologie et d'Arch?ologie Orientale 26, 1-19.

Schmandt-Besserat, D., 1986. Tokens at Susa. Oriens Antiquus 25, 93-125. Schmandt-Besserat, D., 1988. Tokens at Uruk. Baghdader Mitteilungen 19, 1-175.

Steve, M.-J. and Gasche, H., 1971. L'Acropole de Suse. (M?moires de la D?l?gation Arch?ologique en Iran 46). Leiden, E. J. Brill.

Strommenger, E., 1980. Habuba Kabira eine Stadt vor 5000 Jahren. Mainz am Rhein, Phillip von Zabern.

Sumner, W., 1976. Excavations at Tall-i Malyan (Anshan). Iran 14, 103-15.

S?renhagen, D., 1978. Keramikproduktion in Habuba Kabira S?d. (Acta Praehistorica et Archaeologica 5/6, 1974/5). Berlin, Bruno Hessling.

S?renhagen, D., 1979. Ahmad al Hattu 1978. Mitteilungen der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft zu Berlin 111, 35-50.

S?renhagen, D., 1987. Archaische Keramik aus Uruk-Warka. Zweiter Teil: Keramik der Schicht V aus dem

"S?gegraben"; "Keramik der Schichten VII bis II" in Eanna; die registrierte Keramik aus den

Sondagen O XI-XII und K-L XII-XIII; Keramik von der Anu-Zikkurrat in ? XVII. Baghdader Mitteilungen 18, 1-92.

Theusen, I., 1981. Early Dynastie pottery from Tell Razuk. In Gibson, McG., (ed.) Uch Tepe I. Tell Razuk, Tell Ahmed al-Mughir, Tell Ajamat. (Hamrin Report 10). Copenhagen, Akademisk Forlag, 99-143.

DEFINING THE STYLE OF THE PERIOD: JEMDET NASR 1926~28 29

Thureau-Dangin, F., 1927. Tablettes ? signes picturaux. Revue d'Assyriologie et d'Arch?ologie Orientale 24, 23-9. Van Ess, M., 1988. Keramik von der Akkad- bis zum Ende der altbabylonischen Zeit aus den Planquadraten ?

XV und XVI und aus dem Sink?sid-Palast in Uruk-Warka. Baghdader Mitteilungen 19, 321-442.

Watelin, L. Ch., 1934. Excavations at Kish IV 1925-1930. Paris, Paul Geuthner.

Wilson, K. L., 1986. Nippur: the definition of a Mesopotamian Gamdat Nasr assemblage. In Finkbeiner, U. and

Rolling, W., (eds.) Gamdat Nasr: period or regional style? (Beihefte zum T?binger Atlas des Vorderen

Orients, Reihe ? 62). Wiesbaden, Ludwig Reichert, 57-89.

Woolley, C. L., 1955. The early periods. (Ur Excavations 4). London, British Museum.

Wright, H. T., (ed.) 1981. An early town on the Deh Luran plain. Excavations at Tepe Farukhabad. (University of

Michigan, Museum of Anthropology, Memoirs 13). Ann Arbor, University of Michigan. Young, T. C, 1986. Godin Tepe period VI/V and central western Iran at the end of the fourth millennium. In

Finkbeiner, U. and R?llig, W., (eds.) Gamdat Nasr: period or regional style? (Beihefte zum T?binger Atlas des Vorderen Orients, Reihe ? 62). Wiesbaden, Ludwig Reichert, 212-28.

Catalogue of drawn pottery and objects Abbreviations for all objects: AM = Ashmolean Museum; FM = Field Museum; OI = Oriental Institute. All

measurements in centimetres. Key for painted vessels as listed in catalogue entries. GN numbers are from 1926

season, PJN numbers from 1928 season.

Fig. 2 1. Bowl. FM 158448. PJN 152. Complete, reconstructed from several sherds. Highly overfired. Fabric 5Y 5/4

olive, medium density coarse vegetal and mixed sand inclusions. 2. Bowl. FM 158367. Complete except for hole through base. Very overfired. Fabric 5Y 7/4 pale yellow, high

density coarse vegetal inclusions. 3. Bowl. FM 158422. GN3061. Complete. Fabric 7-5YR 7/4 pink, high density mixed and micaceous sand

inclusions. 4. Bowl. FM 158381. PJN 153. Complete. Fabric 10YR 6/4 light yellowish brown, high density coarse vegetal

and low density mixed sand inclusions. String pulled base. 5. Bowl. FM 158352. Complete. Fabric 10YR 7/4 very pale brown, low density medium vegetal, high density

mixed sand inclusions. String pulled base. 6. Bowl. AM 1926.470. Complete except for small part of body missing, reconstructed from three sherds.

Fabric 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow, medium density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. String pulled base. 7. Bowl. FM 158425. PJN90. Complete. Fabric 10YR 8/4 very pale brown, low density mixed and micaceous

sand inclusions. String pulled base. 8. Bowl. FM 158395. GN3054. Complete except for small part of body missing, reconstructed from two sherds.

Fabric 5YR 7/4 pink, medium density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. String pulled base. 9. Bowl. FM 158489. GN2506. Incomplete, reconstructed. Rim c. 55% extant. Fabric 5YR 5/4 reddish brown,

medium density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. String pulled base. 10. Bowl. AM 1926.469. GN2964. Complete except for chip off rim, reconstructed from three sherds. Fabric

5YR 5/6 yellowish red, medium density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. String pulled base. 11. Bowl. AM 1926.497. GN2497. Incomplete. Rim c. 45% extant. Fabric 2-5Y 7/4 pale yellow, medium density

mixed sand inclusions. Paint 10YR 4/2 dark grayish brown. 12. Bowl. FM 158439. GN2487. Complete except for chipped rim. Fabric 10YR 7/3 very pale brown, high

density mixed sand and large grit inclusions. Incised nicks on rim. 13. Lid. FM 158473. Incomplete. Rim c. 75% extant. Fabric 2-5YR 6/4 light reddish brown, high density mixed

sand inclusions. Paint 10R 4/4 weak red. 14. Lid. AM 1926.467. GN2966. Complete except for small part of body missing, reconstructed from several

sherds. Fabric 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow, high density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. 15. Ladle. AM 1926.473. GN3058. Complete, reconstructed. Fabric 2-5Y 8/4 pale yellow, high density brown

sand inclusions. Two holes in wall, one hole through base. 16. Ladle. FM 158410. Complete. Fabric 2-5Y 7/4 pale yellow, high density mixed sand inclusions. Four holes in

wall, one hole through base. 17. Tray. FM 158430. GN3352. Complete. Fabric 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown, medium density mixed and

micaceous sand inclusions. Sides pinched up by hand.

Fig. 3 1. Jar. AM1925.398. Incomplete, parts of body missing, reconstructed from several sherds. Fabric 2-5Y 6/4

light yellowish brown, medium density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. Exterior fire-blackened. 2. Jar. FM 159456. PJN 104. Complete but surface badly abraded. Fabric 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow, medium

density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. Paint 10R 3/6 dark red. 3. Jar. FM 158305. Incomplete, reconstructed from several sherds. Fabric 7-5YR 6/6 reddish yellow, medium

density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. Paint 10R 4/6 red. Base underside painted. 4. Jar. FM 158328. GN2556. Complete. Fabric 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow, medium density mixed and micaceous

sand inclusions. Paint: solid = 10R 3/3 dusky red; stipple = 10R 4/6 red. Much of surface abraded.

30 R. J. MATTHEWS

5. Jar. AM 1925.372. Complete. Fabric 7-5YR 6/4 light brown, high density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. Paint 10R 3/6 dark red. Burnishing marks on exterior.

6. Jar. FM 158416. PJN122. Complete, reconstructed. Fabric 10YR 7/3 very pale brown, high density mixed sand inclusions.

7. Jar. FM 158356. GN3472. Complete except for chips off rim. Fabric 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow, medium

density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. Paint: solid = 10R 3/3 dusky red; stipple = 10R 3/6 dark red.

Symmetrical design on light buff background repeated around pot. 8. Jar. FM 158302. GN2474. Complete but surfaces badly abraded. Fabric 7-5YR 6/4 light brown, medium

density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. Paint 10R 3/4 dusky red. All paint details extremely unclear as

pot has been badly fire-blackened. Pot has square base, narrow groove on shoulder. 9. Jar. AM 1925.371. Complete, reconstructed. Fabric 10YR 7/4 very pale brown, high density black and

micaceous sand inclusions. Paint: solid = 10R 3/1 dark reddish gray; stipple = 10R 3/4 dusky red; plain = 10YR 8/3 very pale brown. Traces of burnishing on all exterior.

10. Jar. FM 158355. PJN121. Complete but much of surface abraded. Fabric 7-5YR 7/4 pink, high density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. Paint: solid = ? 2-5/0 black; stipple = 10R 3/6 dark red. Symmetrical design repeated around pot. Base underside painted 10R 3/6 dark red. Four applied lugs, connected by narrow groove on shoulder.

Fig. 4 1. Jar. FM 158493. Complete, reconstructed. Fabric 5YR 7/4 pink, medium density mixed and micaceous sand

inclusions. Paint 10R 4/6 red. Four pierced lugs, connected by groove on shoulder. 2. Jar. AM 1925.387. Complete. Fabric 2-5Y 7/2 light gray, medium density black sand inclusions. Paint:

solid = 10R 3/1 dark reddish gray; plain = 2-5Y 7/4 pale yellow. Four pierced lugs, connected by shallow

groove on shoulder. 3. Jar. FM 158303. Complete. Fabric 10YR 7/3 very pale brown, low density mixed sand inclusions. Paint 10R

4/6 red. Symmetrical design repeated around pot. Lower surfaces heavily fire-blackened. Four pierced lugs, connected by shallow groove on shoulder.

4. Jar. AM 1926.369. Complete. Fabric 7-5YR 6/6 reddish yellow, high density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. Surface 2-5Y 8/4 pale yellow. Four pierced lugs on shoulder.

5. Jar. AM 1925.424. Complete. Fabric 2-5Y 8/4 pale yellow, high density black/brown and micaceous sand inclusions. Paint: stipple = 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown; plain = 2-5Y 8/4 pale yellow. Paint faint all over. Four pierced lugs, connected by shallow groove on shoulder.

6. Jar. FM 158333 (on loan to OI A26295). GN3365. Complete. Fabric 10YR 7/3 very pale brown, high density mixed sand inclusions. Four pierced lugs, connected by groove with punctates on shoulder.

7. Jar. FM 158339 (on loan to OI A26296). PJN125. Complete. Fabric 10YR 7/4 very pale brown, medium

density mixed sand inclusions. One pierced lug. Surface fire-blackened. 8. Jar. FM 158330. GN3126. Complete. Fabric 7-5YR 6/4 light brown, medium density mixed and micaceous

sand inclusions. One pierced lug. 9. Jar. FM 158403. Complete, reconstructed. Fabric 7-5YR 6/4 light brown, medium density mixed sand

inclusions. 10. Jar. FM 158338. Incomplete, reconstructed. Rim c. 40% extant. Fabric 10YR 6/3 pale brown, low density

mixed sand inclusions. 11. Jar. FM 158444. Complete. Fabric 7-5YR 6/6 reddish yellow, medium density mixed and micaceous sand

inclusions. 12. Jar. FM 158475. Complete, reconstructed. Fabric 2-5Y 7/4 pale yellow, high density mixed sand inclusions.

Single hole in base. 13. Jar. AM 1926.362. Complete. Fabric 5Y 8/3, pale yellow, medium density mixed sand inclusions. Incised

decoration. 14. Jar. FM 156376. Complete, reconstructed. Fabric 7-5YR 6/2 pinkish gray, medium density mixed and

micaceous sand inclusions. Exterior fire-blackened. 15. Jar. FM 158421. PJN88. Complete. Fabric 7-5YR 6/4 light brown, high density mixed and micaceous sand

inclusions. Stipple = bands of green glaze, 2-5Y 5/6 light olive brown. Incised lines with indentations on shoulder.

Fig. 5 1. Jar. FM 158377. Incomplete, parts of neck and rim missing. Rim c. 20% extant. Fabric 7-5YR 6/4 light

brown, medium density mixed sand inclusions. Lower exterior crudely shaved. Single incised line on shoulder.

2. Jar. FM 158376. PJN93. Complete, except for pick hole in body. Fabric 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow, medium

density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. 3. Jar. AM 1927.2109. GN2494. Complete, reconstructed. Fabric 5Y 7/3 pale yellow, medium density black

sand inclusions. Paint 10R 3/1 dark reddish gray. 4. Jar. FM 158454. PJN135. Complete. Fabric 7-5YR 6/4 light brown, medium density mixed and micaceous

sand inclusions.

DEFINING THE STYLE OF THE PERIOD: JEMDET NASR 1926-28 31

5. Jar. AM 1926.462. Incomplete, reconstructed. Rim 100% extant, parts of body missing. Fabric 5Y 6/6 olive

yellow, medium density mixed sand inclusions. 6. Jar. FM 158417. PJN 142. Complete, reconstructed. Fabric 10YR 7/4 very pale brown, medium density

mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. 7. Jar. FM 158388. Complete. Fabric 7-5YR 7/4 pink, high density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. 8. Jar. FM 158343. GN3040. Complete except for pick hole in body. Fabric 7-5YR 7/4 pink, medium density

mixed and micaceous sand inclusions.

Fig. 6 1. Jar. AM 1926.496. GN3118. Complete. Fabric 10YR 6/6 brownish yellow, high density black/brown and

micaceous sand inclusions. Paint: solid = 10R 3/2 dusky red; plain = 2-5Y 7/4 pale yellow. Symmetrical design repeated on both sides. Exterior fire-blackened.

2. Jar. FM 158323. Complete. Fabric 10YR 7/3 very pale brown, medium density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. Paint 5YR 3/3 dark reddish brown.

3. Jar. FM 158332. Complete. Fabric 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown, medium density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. Paint 10R 3/6 dark red.

4. Jar. FM 158434. GN2523. Complete, reconstructed. Fabric 2-5Y 7/4 pale yellow, low density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. Incised inscription on shoulder.

5. Jar. FM 158374. PJN 143. Complete except for broken spout tip. Fabric 2?5Y 6/4 light yellowish brown, high density black sand inclusions. Two incised lines on shoulder.

6. Jar. FM 158414. Complete, lower body reconstructed. Fabric 10YR 7/4 very pale brown, medium density mixed sand inclusions. Upper body, spout, neck, rim and inner neck have very faint traces of paint, 10R 4/4 weak red.

7. Jar. FM 158413. Complete, reconstructed. Fabric 2-5Y 7/4 pale yellow, medium density mixed sand inclusions. Very faint traces of paint, 10R 3/2 dusky red, on rim of spout only.

8. Jar. FM 158331. GN3348. Complete. Fabric 2-5Y 8/4 pale yellow, very high density mixed sand inclusions.

Impressed nicks on shoulder carination. 9. Jar. FM 158336. GN2968. Complete except for c. 50% of rim missing. Fabric 7-5YR 7/4 pink, medium

density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions.

Fig. 7 1. Jar. FM 158480. GN3441. Complete, reconstructed. Fabric 2-5Y 7/4 pale yellow, medium density mixed

sand inclusions. Series of irregularly spaced incised lines on shoulder and upper body. 2. Jar. FM 158324. GN2483. Complete. Fabric 7-5YR 6/4 light brown, high density mixed and micaceous sand

inclusions. Three incised lines on shoulder. Exterior fire-blackened. 3. Jar. FM 158496. Incomplete, reconstructed, part of body missing. Fabric 5Y 7/6 yellow, low density mixed

sand inclusions. 4. Jar. FM 158420. GN3044. Complete, reconstructed, except for small part of body missing. Fabric 5YR 6/4

light reddish brown, medium density mixed sand inclusions. 5. Jar. FM 158495. Incomplete, reconstructed, parts of body missing. Fabric 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown, low

density mixed sand inclusions. 6. Jar. FM 158357. GN2519. Complete. Fabric 2-5Y 7/4 pale yellow, high density mixed sand inclusions. Four

incised lines on upper body. 7. Jar. AM 1925.399. Complete. Fabric 5Y 7/4 pale yellow, high density mixed sand inclusions. 8. Stand. FM 158441. Complete. Fabric 5Y 7/3 pale yellow, medium density mixed sand inclusions. Upper

surface painted 10R 3/6 dark red. Nicks on upper exterior. String pulled base. 9. Stand. AM 1926.366. GN2985. Complete. Fabric 2-5Y 6/4 light yellowish brown, medium density black

sand inclusions. String pulled base. 10. Stand. FM 228988. GN2983. Complete. Fabric 5Y 7/3 pale yellow, medium density mixed sand inclusions.

Stipple = upper surface and part of sides coated in bitumen. String pulled base. 11. Stand. FM 228989. Complete. Fabric 5Y 7/3 pale yellow, high density vegetal and medium density mixed

sand inclusions. Impressed ovals on upper exterior and finger marks along base exterior. String pulled base.

Fis-8 1. Jar. FM 158457. PJN110. Complete. Fabric 10YR 7/3 very pale brown, low density mixed sand inclusions.

Paint 10R 5/8 red. Hand made. 2. Jar. AM 1926.503. Complete, reconstructed. Fabric 5YR 7/4 pink, low density mixed sand inclusions. Paint

10R 5/6 red. Burnishing marks on lower body. Four pierced lugs connected by line of nicks along shoulder. 3. Jar. FM 158472. Complete, reconstructed. Fabric 5YR 6/4 light reddish brown, low density mixed sand

inclusions. Paint 10R 4/8 red. Base underside painted. Four pierced lugs connected by line of nicks on shoulder.

4. Jar. FM 158471. Incomplete, reconstructed. Rim c. 50% extant. Fabric 7-5YR 6/4 light brown, very low

density mixed sand inclusions. Paint 10R 5/6 red. Base underside painted. Originally four pierced lugs connected by line of nicks on shoulder.

32 R. J. MATTHEWS

5. Jar. AM 1926.475. GN2991. Complete except for missing spout. Fabric 10YR 8/3 very pale brown, high density black/brown and micaceous sand inclusions. Bitumen plug in spout hole. Hand made.

6. Jar. AM 1926.413. Complete. Fabric 5Y 6/2 light olive gray, medium density black sand inclusions. Incised decoration on upper body. Hand made.

7. Jar. AM 1926.476. Incomplete, most of rim missing. Fabric 5Y 8/3 pale yellow, low density brown sand inclusions. Faint traces of incised decoration on upper body. Hand made.

8. Jar. AM 1967.957. Complete. Fabric 10YR 8/4 very pale brown, low density black and micaceous sand inclusions. Body shaved from shoulder down. Hand made.

9. Jar. AM 1926.409. GN3393d. Complete. Fabric 2-5Y 7/4 pale yellow, high density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. Hand made.

10. Jar. FM 158379. PJN170. Complete. Fabric 5Y 7/3 pale yellow, no visible inclusions. Four pierced lugs. Lower body shaved.

11. Jar. FM 158469. Complete except for surface chips. Fabric 2-5Y 7/2 light gray, no visible inclusions. Four pierced lugs.

12. Jar. AM 1926.370. Incomplete, all of rim missing. Fabric 2-5Y 7/2 light gray, no visible inclusions. Four pierced lugs.

13. Jar. AM 1925.397. Complete. Fabric 5Y 7/3 pale yellow, no visible inclusions. Badly blackened and cracked by fire.

14. Jar. AM 1925.395. Complete. Fabric 5Y 6/4 pale olive, no visible inclusions. Heavily overfired. 15. Jar. AM 1925.394. Complete except for chip off rim. Fabric 5Y 7/2 light gray, extremely low density black

sand inclusions. Very faint traces of paint over body, 10R 4/8 red. 16. Jar. FM 158380. PJN101. Complete. Fabric 5Y 7/3 pale yellow, high density mixed sand inclusions. Incised

line and nicks on shoulder. 17. Jar. FM 158372. GN3095. Complete except for c. 40% of rim missing. Fabric 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow,

medium density mixed and micaceous sand inclusions. Impressed lines on neck, incised lines and nicks on shoulder.

18. Jar. AM 1925.396. Complete. Fabric 2-5Y 7/4 pale yellow, high density mixed sand inclusions. Two applied handles. Extremely fire-blackened all over.

Fig. 9 1. Stamp seal. AM 1926.482. GN2582. Brown/white banded fine stone. Pierced. Drilled design, each hole

c. 0-05 deep. 2. Cylinder seal. AM 1928.452. Dark green/black stone. Pierced. Faint design in lines up to 0-1 deep. 3. Cylinder seal. AM 1926.483. GN2579. Dark gray/brown mottled fine stone. Pierced. Drilled holes up to

0-15 deep, incised lines up to 0-3 deep. 4. Cylinder seal. FM 158522. Dark brown/red stone. Pierced. Donated to Field Museum by Henry Field,

October 1928. Provenance unknown, but possibly Jemdet Nasr. 5. Cylinder seal. AM 1928.450. Pale beige/white stone. Not pierced through whole length. Drilled holes up to

0-15 deep. 6. Cylinder seal. AM 1926.485. GN3357. Pink/red fine stone. Pierced. Incised lines up to 0-15 deep. 7. Cylinder seal. AM 1926.486. GN3342. Fine black stone. Pierced. Incised lines up to 0-15 deep.

Fig. 10 1. Cylinder seal. AM 1928.454. Dark gray/green stone. Pierced. Incised lines up to 0?5 deep. 2. Cylinder seal. FM 156607. GN2583. Dark gray/brown stone or baked clay. Pierced suspension lug. 3. Seal impression. AM 1926.678. GN2993. Two large clay fragments, each composed of several joining pieces.

Reverse faces all broken. Total of seven rollings of cylinder seal. Object register states these pieces were found under a plano-convex brick wall.

4. Seal impression. Matthews 1992.13. Impression occurs on tablet AM 1926.748. 5. Seal impression. Matthews 1992.27. Impression occurs on tablet IM 132900. 6. Seal impression. Matthews 1992.30. Impression occurs on tablets AM 1926.567, IM 55583-4. 7. Seal impression. Matthews 1992.42. Impression occurs on tablet IM 55587. 8. Seal impression. Matthews 1992.64. Impression occurs on tablets AM 1926.591, 594, 608, 675, 712, 735, 740,

IM 55619, 132902, 132909, 132913, 132930, 132933.

Fig. 11 1. Copper blade. AM 1926.449. GN3136. Weight 285-0 gm. Complete except for surface pitting. 2. Copper fish hook. AM 1926.455. GN2481. Weight 10-23 gm. Complete but corroded in places. 3. Copper goose. FM 158265. PJN30. Complete. Suspension loop on back. 4. Wheel. AM 1926.407. GN3382. Weight 137-5 gm. Complete. Pale yellow, fine grained limestone. Surfaces

well polished. Six notches on rim. 5. Stone. AM 1926.506. Weight 751-0 gm. Dark gray/black hard stone. Base highly polished. Heavily fire-

blackened and cracked.

DEFINING THE STYLE OF THE PERIOD: JEMDET NASR 1926-28 33

6. Stone. FM 158201. Pale gray/beige limestone. Base highly polished. Lower surface chipped perhaps from use as a hammer stone.

7. Stone. AM 1925.273. Weight 590? gm. Dark gray/black stone. Base highly polished, as are grooves at all four shoulders and occasionally along length.

Fig. 12 1. Stone vessel. FM 230698. GN3410. Incomplete. Rim c. 30% extant. Dark pink/gray stone. Rectangles in

relief on neck. One handle surviving, probably two originally. Burnt. 2. Stone vessel. AM 1926.43. Incomplete. Rim c. 50% extant. Gray/green stone. Rectangles in relief on neck.

One handle surviving, probably two originally. Fire-blackened. 3. Stone vessel. FM 158418. PJN167. Complete except for chip off rim. Gray/dark pink stone. Incised lines on

rim. 4. Stone vessel. AM 1926.511. GN2443. Complete, reconstructed from two sherds. Pale yellow alabaster. 5. Stone vessel. FM 158478. GN3470. Incomplete. Rim c. 30% extant. Very pale brown limestone. 6. Stone vessel. AM 1926.509. GN2959. Incomplete. Rim c. 30% extant. Very pale brown limestone. Heavily

fire-blackened. 7. Brick. FM 231722. Complete. Baked clay. Fabric 10YR 7/4 very pale brown, very high density very coarse

vegetal inclusions. Sides very smooth from mould. Smoothing striations on upper surface. Three holes

pierced almost through. Impressions of split reed matting on underside. 8. Stamp. FM 231723. Complete, reconstructed. Pale yellow/brown baked clay. High density vegetal

inclusions. Stipple = bitumen traces on edges. Sixteen circular designs on each of two faces. Each design consists of a central hole, c. 0-2 deep, with an outer ring depressed to c. 0-1 deep. Circular designs are gridded by fine incised lines.

Fig. 13 1. Spindle whorl. AM 1926.418. GN3085. Chips off edge. Weight 13-67 gm. Baked clay. Fabric 5Y 8/3 pale

yellow, no visible inclusions. Incised five-pointed star. 2. Spindle whorl. AM 1926.419. GN3366. Complete. Weight 28-59 gm. Baked clay. Fabric 2-5Y 7/2 light gray,

medium density mixed sand inclusions. Impressed dots, c. 0-1 deep. 3. Spindle whorl. FM 228953. Complete. Weight 23-5 gm. Baked clay. Fabric 10YR 7/3 very pale brown, very

high density mixed sand inclusions. Impressed circles, c. 0-1 deep. 4. Spindle whorl. FM 158213. GN3079. Complete. Weight 24-0 gm. Baked clay. Fabric 2-5Y 7/2 light gray,

medium density mixed sand inclusions. Incised lines up to 0-1 deep. 5. Spatula. AM 1926.415. GN3014. Complete. Baked clay. Fabric 5YR 7/4 pink, low density mixed sand

inclusions. 6. Bead. FM 228937. GN2599. Complete. Baked clay. Fabric 10YR 7/3 very pale brown, very low density sand

inclusions. Pierced through. Shave marks along length. Spiral groove with vegetal striations, revealing manufacture of groove by wrapping fibrous matter around clay before baking.

7. Bead. AM 1928.476a. Complete. Baked clay. Fabric 5YR 7/6 reddish yellow, very low density sand inclusions. Pierced through. Shave marks along length. Spiral groove with vegetal striations.

8. Bead. AM 1926.458. GN3091. Mid-brown bone, hollow. Incised decoration all round. Broken at one tip. 9. Bead. FM 158280. GN3120. Bone, hollow. Incised decoration all round. Both ends broken.

10. Pin. FM 228932. Complete except for chipped top. Bone. Polished. 11. Pin. AM 1926.444. GN3093. Incomplete. Bone. Polished. 12. Figurine. FM 229733. PJN82. Incomplete. Baked clay. Fabric 2-5Y 7/2 light gray, low density mixed sand

inclusions. Horns and body broken. 13. Figurine. FM 231719. PJN63. Complete. Baked clay. Fabric 10YR 7/2 light gray, medium density mixed

sand inclusions. 14. Figurine. FM 228978. PJN60. Incomplete. Baked clay. Fabric 2-5Y 7/2 light gray, medium density mixed

sand inclusions. One ear, tail and legs broken. 15. Figurine. AM 1926.414. GN3116. Incomplete. Baked clay. Fabric 5YR 6/6 reddish yellow, low density

mixed sand inclusions. One ear, tail and legs broken. 16. Figurine. FM 158264. PJN22. Complete. Mid-gray/off-white stone. Pierced through. Well carved. 17. Figurine. FM 158256. PJN31. Complete. Gray/black stone or baked clay. 18. Figurine. AM 1926.520. Complete. Dark green stone. Pierced through. Well carved. Underside polished. 19. Figurine. AM 1926.428. GN3343. Incomplete. Mid-gray stone. Pierced through. Eyes recessed. Broken at

waist.

Fig. 14 1. Token. FM 158227. Complete. Weight 32-0 gm. Dark gray stone. 2. Token. AM 1926.519. GN3337. Complete. Weight 19-59 gm. Mid-gray stone. 3. Token. FM 158212. GN3336. Complete. Weight 17-75 gm. Dark gray stone. 4. Token. FM 228273. Complete. Weight 10-5 gm. Speckled pink/gray and black stone. 5. Token. FM 158206. GN3339. Complete. Weight 15-0 gm. Pink/gray stone.

34 R. J. MATTHEWS

6. Token. FM 158270. Complete. Weight 3-0 gm. Dark gray stone. 7. Token. FM 228990. Complete. Weight 4-5 gm. Dark gray/black stone. 8. Token. AM 1926.441d. GN3450. Complete. Weight 3-72 gm. Dark gray stone. 9. Token. AM 1926.515. Complete. Weight 4-94 gm. Dark gray stone. Traces of red pigment on base.

10. Token. AM 1926.441f. GN3450. Complete. Weight 3-56 gm. Dark gray stone. 11. Token. FM 158240. Complete. Weight 1-5 gm. Dark gray/black stone. 12. Token. FM 158238. Complete. Weight 2-0 gm. Mottled pink gray/black stone. 13. Token. FM 158228. Complete. Weight 2-5 gm. Dark gray/black stone. 14. Token. FM 158274. Complete. Weight 2-5 gm. Baked clay. Fabric 7-5YR 6/4 light brown, no visible

inclusions. Incised line round top. Hole originally pierced through, now blocked. 15. Token. FM 228991. PJN26. Complete. Burnt clay. Fabric dark gray/black. Incised symbols on obverse,

fingerprints on sides.

PLATE I

?

e

ed

3

'S ?3

?

C ?

(?

e ??

C

? co

4-*

1

c ?c 3 bO

en

G 2 C/3