Architecture and Linear Measurement during the Ubaid Period in Mesopotamia 9780860549444, 9781407350226

Table of contents :
Copyright Page
Contents
Abstract
Dedication
Acknowledgements
Prelude
INTRODUCTION: The Mesopotamian Scene
1. ARCHITECTURE OF THE LATE PROTO-HISTORIC PERIOD - UBAID CULTURE
2. CATALOGUE OF UBAID SITES
3. BUILDING MATERIALS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY
4. BRIEF ANALYSIS OF TRADITIONAL STRUCTURAL & CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES DURING THE UBAID PERIOD
5. CLASSIFICATION OF UBAID BUILDINGS AND INTER-RELATIONSHIP OF UBAID BUILDINGS TO EACH OTHER
CONCLUSION
APPENDIX: One
APPENDIX: Two
APPENDIX: Three
APPENDIX: Four
APPENDIX: Five
APPENDIX: Six
APPENDIX: Chronological Table of Mesopotamia
ABBREVIATIONS USED IN BIBLIOGRAPHY
BIBLIOGRAPHY
LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Citation preview

Architecture and Linear Measurement during the Ubaid Period in Mesopotamia S.A.A. Kubba

BAR International Series 707 1998

Published in 2019 by BAR Publishing, Oxford BAR International Series 707 Architecture and Linear Measurement during the Ubaid Period in Mesopotamia © S. A. A. Kubba and the Publisher 1998 The author’s moral rights under the 1988 UK Copyright, Designs and Patents Act are hereby expressly asserted. All rights reserved. No part of this work may be copied, reproduced, stored, sold, distributed, scanned, saved in any form of digital format or transmitted in any form digitally, without the written permission of the Publisher. ISBN 9780860549444 paperback ISBN 9781407350226 e-book DOI https://doi.org/10.30861/9780860549444 A catalogue record for this book is available from the British Library This book is available at www.barpublishing.com BAR Publishing is the trading name of British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd. British Archaeological Reports was first incorporated in 1974 to publish the BAR Series, International and British. In 1992 Hadrian Books Ltd became part of the BAR group. This volume was originally published by John and Erica Hedges in conjunction with British Archaeological Reports (Oxford) Ltd / Hadrian Books Ltd, the Series principal publisher, in 1998. This present volume is published by BAR Publishing, 2019.

BAR

PUBLISHING BAR titles are available from:

E MAIL P HONE F AX

BAR Publishing 122 Banbury Rd, Oxford, OX2 7BP, UK [email protected] +44 (0)1865 310431 +44 (0)1865 316916 www.barpublishing.com

CONTENTS Page TABLE OF CONTENTS ABSTRACT

iii

Dedication

iv

Acknowledgements

PRELUDE

vi

INTRODUCTION: The Mesopotamian Scene 1.0

2.0

V

viii

ARCHITECTURE OF THE LATE PROTO-HISTORIC PERIOD- UBAID CULTURE.

1

1.1 1.2 1.3 1.4

1 2 3 5

Ubaid Period Settlements in Mesopotamia Origins ofUbaid Architecture: An Overview Late Ubaid Architecture 'Peripheral Ubaid'

CATALOGUE OF UBAID SITES. General 01. Tell Abada (Hamrin No.7) 02. Tell Abu Dhahir (S.D.S.P.) 03. Tell Abu Husaini (Hamrin No.35) 04. Tell Arpachiyah 05. Tell 'Ayash (Hamrin No.l7) 06. Tell Brak (Syria) 07. Choga M ami 08. Degirmentepe (Turkey) 09. Eridu 10. Tepe Gawra 11. Hammam et-Turkman (Syria) 12. Tell Hassan (Hamrin No.67) 13. Khanijdal East 14. Kheit Qasim Ill (Hamrin No.65) 15. Telul Al Khubari (Hamrin No.15) 16. Tell Madhhur (Hamrin No.64) 17. Tell Mefesh (Syria) 18. Tell Mismar 19. Tell El Oueili 20. Tell Qalinj Agha 21. Ras AI 'Amiya 22. Tell Rashid (Hamrin No.3) 23. Tell Al-Sa'adiya (Hamrin No. ) 24. Tell Sheikh Homsy 25. Tell Shelgiya 26. Tell Songor A,B, C. (Hamrin No.42) 27. Telul eth Thalathat II 28. Tell Al-Ubaid 29. Tell Uqair 30. Ur 31. Uruk 32. Yarim Tepe III

8 8 11 11 12 13 13 14 14 16 20 28 29 29 30 31 31 34 34 34 36 36 37 38 38 38 39 39 40 40 41 42 43

3.0

BUILDING MATERIALS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY. 3.1. Mud & Mud Brick

45 45

3.2. 3.3. 3.4.

48 49 50 50 51 51 51

Baked Brick Plaster (mud, gypsum, lime) Timbers 3.5. Reeds, rushes, date palm 3.6. Stone 3.7. Bitumen (including mastics) 3.8. Decoration

4.0

BRIEF ANALYSIS OF STRUCTURAL & CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES DURING THE UBAID PERIOD. 53 4.1. Architectural and Structural Elements. 54 A. Wall Construction 54 B. Floor Construction C. Roof Construction D. Dome & Vault Construction E. Columns, Posts, & Buttresses F. Arch Construction G. Window & Door Openings H. Stairways & Ramps. 4.2. Building and Woodworking Tools

5.0

55 56 56 57 58 58 59

60

CLASSIFICATION OF UBAID BUILDINGS AND INTER-RELATIONSHIP OF UBAID BUILDINGS TO EACH OTHER. 61 5.1 Classification ofUbaid Buildings: Background 61 5.2 Classification ofUbaid Buildings: General Methods

5.3 Classification ofUbaid Buildings: Based on Function 1. Use of Ethnographic Parallels 2. Descriptive Analysis of Elements 3. Circulation Pattern Analysis 4. Symbolism as a Determinant of Function 5. Examination of Material Finds 6. Analysis of Plan Layout Principles 5.4 Classification According to Plan Morphology 1. Tripartite Plan Cruciform Plan 2. 'Additive' Plan 3. 4. Circular Plan 5. 'Grid' Plan 6. Courtyard Plan 7. Simple Unit 8. Mise. Type Plan

63 64 64 65 65 66 69 69

76 76 76 76 77 77 77 77 77

CONCLUSION

78

APPENDIX :

80 80

One Two Three Four Five Six Chronological Table of Mesopotamia

82 84 85 86

87 88

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN BIBLIOGRAPHY

90

BIBLIOGRAPHY

91

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

104 ii

ABSTRACT

ARCHITECTURE AND LINEAR MEASUREMENT DURING THE UBAID PERIOD IN MESOPOTAMIA.

This monograph constitutes a comprehensive survey of Ubaid architecture in general and Late Ubaid architecture in particular. The work is divided into five chapters: Chapter One consists of a general overview of Ubaid architecture, especially in Mesopotamia. Its links with earlier epochs like Tell es-Sawwan are examined and analogies highlighted. The natural transformation from Late Ubaid architecture into the Uruk Period architecture is also explored and discussed. Chapter Two consists mainly of a detailed catalogue of Ubaid sites (particularly those with substantial architectural remains), describing their building levels and individual buildings. Site entries are arranged in alphabetical order and are often accompanied by a number of original line illustrations (plans, reconstructions, etc). To my knowledge this would be the first time that an attempt has ever been made to offer such a comprehensive compilation of Ubaid sites in a single volume. Such a comprehensive compilation makes an invaluable contribution to Near East scholarship. Chapter Three deals mainly with the various building materials (and their characteristic properties) that were prevalent during the Ubaid Period. Chapter Four concentrates on architectural and structural elements, such as the wall, floor, roof, etc., as well as on general methods of construction during the Ubaid Period. The above elements are accompanied by numerous construction details and original reconstructions. Chapter Five attempts to classify and synthesize Ubaid buildings, on the basis of their plan morphology. Previous classification schemes advanced by other scholars are also discussed and assessed. Utilizing the evidence presented in earlier chapters, interpretations of functions for various Ubaid buildings are proposed. These are based on the location, size and shape of rooms, the distribution of finds, orientation, etc. Also by a careful and judicious analysis of a number of Ubaid structures, it is shown for the first time, that the architects and builders of this period were familiar with a number of geometric principles like the 3:4:5 and 5:12:13 triangles and which they used in laying out their buildings. Also that a standard unit of measurement of 72cm (called an 'Ubaid cubit~ was used in the design and construction of many of their more important buildings. This is the earliest unit of measurement ever attested to.

iii

DEDICATION:

I dedicate this work to my wife lbtesam, my two sons, Ammar and Omer, and my two daughters, Yasamine and Dalia - with all my love and affection.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First and foremost, I wish to express my special thanks to Dr. Michael Roaf for reading this manuscript and for kindly providing me with unpublished material from Tell Madhhur. His constructive criticisms, suggestions, and depth of understanding of the Ubaid Period have been of tremendous value in facilitating my research. Also in London, I must not forget to record my gratitude to the late Mrs. Ute Pyne for following up different matters for me in the U.K. in my absence and her continuous support and assistance. In Baghdad, I wish to thank Miss Catherine Breniquet of the French archaeological mission in Baghdad for providing me with infonnation on Tell es-Sawwan and Oueili, and for inviting me to Tell es-Sawwan. To Mr. Roger Matthews and Dr. Graham Philip of the British archaeological expedition in Baghdad, for allowing me use of the expedition's excellent library. To Mr. Tony Wilkinson and Warwick Ball for putting at my disposal unpublished material from Khanijdal East and Tell Hawa respectively, and to Mr. Wilkinson for reading the draft copy of Chapter 5 and making several useful suggestions. To Mr. Mohammed Ali Mustafa ('Uncle Mohammed Ali', as he is known in the Directorate of Antiquities), who was always there to answer my never ending queries, particularly regarding building dimensions in sites like Eridu. His unparalleled knowledge of the intimacies of Mesopotamian archaeology was invaluable. To my loving wife lbtisam for working endless nights with me on preparing the scores of illustrations that were required for this monograph. Also to architect Luay Al-Ani for helping me with some of the Madhhur drawings. In Amman, I wish to thank the director of ACOR, Dr. Bert DeVries, and the directors of the British Institute for Archaeology

& History, and the Jordanian Department of Antiquities for use of their excellent facilities and libraries. In Abu Dhabi, I wish to record my special appreciation to my secretary Ms. Dina Bonus for helping me scan the many illustrations on to disk and CD-R as well some of the typing and pagination. Also, in Abu Dhabi, my thanks to my assistants, Mr. Dennis Autencio and Mr. Richard Lim, who assisted me in collating the illustrations in a fmal thrust prior to publication. In Paris, I wish to express my sincere thanks to Mr. Jean Danial Forest and his wife Chantel for their many comments and suggestions, particularly concerning Chapter 5. Mr. Forest's great knowledge of the Ubaid Culture was of great value during our lively discussions on the 'Ubaid Cubit'. I also wish to thank Mr. Forest for putting at my disposal unpublished architectural drawings from Kheit Qasim Ill and Tell el-Oueili. Finally, I wish to record my gratitude to all those who came to my rescue during the fmal stretch of this work, friends, colleagues and associates. While no words can express my appreciation to all of the above for their assistance and advice, in the fmal analysis, I alone must bear responsibility for whatever mistakes, omissions or errors that may have found their way into the text.

V

PRELUDE

This monograph has three main objectives: 1. To collect and collate the available evidence concerning Ubaid architecture in general, and Late Ubaid architecture in particular. The data for this will come from information recovered from field 2. To undertake a surveys, documentary sources, personal communication and evidence of the buildings themselves. comprehensive analysis of Ubaid buildings, and try to determine whether a unit of measurement and/or geometric principles were used in their construction, prior to the invention of writing. New reconstructions will be made based on this analytical approach. 3. To try to fmd a suitable method for classifying Late Ubaid buildings into specific categories, based on their ground plan and functional characteristics. This is discussed in the fmal chapter. In pursuing the above, my research has brought to the fore, the many problems and deficiencies we have been plagued with in researching ancient Mesopotamian cultures and it has exposed the existing hiatus in available evidence. What solid evidence we managed to accumulate from ancient Ubaid sites in Iraq, is often defective or incomplete, largely because of the very limited scope of excavations actually conducted in relation to the overall size of the settlement. For example, at the neolithic site of Telul el-Rihan, only 3% of the site was excavated (Tusa, 1982:29). Of the 'pure' Ubaid site of Tell al Sa'adiya less than 8% of the site was excavated. The same can be said for the Tell Husaini excavations (Tusa, 1981 :262). Many other sites attesting to Ubaid cultures like Tell Mismar (Schmidt, 1978), Tell Shelgiya (Iraq 49, 1987:247), Grai Resh (Lloyd, 1940), Tell Mefesh (Mallowan, 1946) and Tell Uqair (Lloyd & Safar, 1943) were only very briefly investigated. Thus although in the vast majority of ancient sites only small portions of the settlements have been revealed, some sites like Tell Abada (Jasim, 1985) and Tepe Gawra (Tobler, 1950) were extensively excavated. Another problem in Mesopotamian archaeology is that, because of the methods used by the early 'archaeologists,' the 'evidence' of early excavations needs to be treated with caution. The early excavation techniques greatly affect the quality of information that can be deduced from them and explains why it is often impossible to form an accurate and coherent Moreover, critical measurements for building elements and interior spaces, essential for interpretation of such fmds. accurate analysis, are often omitted. In addition to the primitive techniques employed by most 19th century excavators in Mesopotamia, the majority of these early archaeologists lacked any scientific archaeological training. Moreover, they often held offices, which were embarrassingly remote from archaeology. Thus, Layard was 'loosely' attached to the British Embassy at Constantinople, Rawlinson an officer and British Consular, Botta and de Sarzec were French consular officials, J.E. Taylor was British Vice-consul, W.K. Loftus, who drew the frrst useful plans of Uruk and Susa and which served as the bases for later excavators, was an English geologist. Moreover, these pioneering excavators were in a sense being paid or fmanced to retrieve Museum specimens, so that the fact that a 'tell' had an enormous amount of historical information (e.g. stratigraphy, building layouts and building methods, etc.) seemed almost irrelevant. Often early excavators like Rassam's of Ashurbanipal's palace at Kuyunjik (c.l853) catastrophically left absolutely no records of his 'excavations'. Historical documents were often destroyed by the lack of technical insight, and many objects were said to have 'crumbled' upon being exposed to the air. Clay tablets were originally thought to be worthless and therefore never collected. Often they appeared like lumps of clay before cleaning and were thrown away with the heaps of earth that was excavated (Pallis, 1956:309). And excavators usually record only those things which appear to them to be important at the time. The excavation techniques at the time did not allow for the reconstruction of ground plans of buildings until R.J. Koldewey, an architect and expert on classical architecture, employed new methods in his excavations at Babylon (1899-191 7). Here for the frrst time, buildings were precisely recorded, thus enabling the excavator to obtain reliable ground plans, and even to recognize later additions and rebuildings. Most early excavators like Rassam, totally neglected the stratigraphy and surveying as we understand it, was inadequate or non-existent. It was not until after World War I that we see a general improvement of methods and techniques in Mesopotamian excavations. Julius Jordan perfected this excavation technique on the mud-brick architecture ofUruk (1912-13 and 1928 onwards), and later by his assistants E. Heinrich and H.J. Lenzen. Even walls which were only a few centimetres high could be distinguished and separated from surrounding debris.

vi

Because labour was very cheap and overall costs low during the last century, and because most excavators at the time were only interested in 'artefacts' for display, the use of a large workforce was both expedient and necessary to carry out the required mission. George Smith for example, in 1874, had a workforce of 600 men when excavating at Kunyunjik which must have had a 'bulldozer' effect. Early excavators faced many difficulties in recording their fmds; e.g. they often had very little comparative material to assist in synthesizing of the archaeological evidence such as dating or interpreting material. An example of this is Woolley's attempt to date the Al-Ubaid Cemetery. He was forced to establish the relative dates of the al-Ubaid cemetery graves entirely on internal evidence, which was fraught with difficulties (Martin, 1982: 145). Many other early archaeologists also failed, through no fault of their own, due to lack of comparative information from other sites to supplement their own meager evidence. The increasing wealth of fmds from recent excavations such as Tell Madhhur, Kheit Qasim Ill, and Tell Abada, in the Hamrin Basin is providing a surge of interest in interdisciplinary research involving a variety of disciplines like, anthropology, ethnoarchaeology, ethnohistory, ancient architecture, archaeometallurgy, glyptic art and bioarchaeology to name but a few. But even taking into account the Hamrin Basin excavations, our picture of Mesopotamian archaeology during the Ubaid period is still a poorly represented and fragmented one. Nevertheless, we are now in a much better position to undertake analytical research (as opposed to comparative research) in the architectural sphere, allowing us a deeper understanding of Ubaid architecture, thereby permitting us to make more positive reconstructions of these ancient buildings. My research, which is the basis of this monograph, clearly shows that a unit of measurement which I have called the Ubaid Cubit (for want of a better term), as well as a number of geometric principles, were in use during the Middle to Late Ubaid Period, well before the introduction of writing. These principles provided the foundations for the great Sumerian civilization that was to follow.

vii

INTRODUCTION:

The Mesopotamian Scene

From the beginning, man has consistently tried to enclose space and create a better shelter for himself and his sacred objects. Undoubtedly however, he did not construct shelters in the very early dawn of history, but rather sought protection from the elements where and when he could fmd it; often it was in caves, under the outcroppings of rocks or branches from a tree - and with these was able to partially enclose a space, perhaps only a depression in a cliff. Thus, man's flrst attempts were probably very basic, but his continuous and ardent search for improved building methods and designs produced a variety of solutions - some obviously more appropriate for his survival than others. Over time, - tens of thousands of years, he gradually began to assert his presence on his surroundings. He modified his shelters, enlarging or narrowing openings to caves, making the caves deeper or even digging new ones, blocking fissures in the walls, and raising the level of the floors with dirt. This was to be followed by the use of slender saplings as flexible frameworks for shelters and covering them with reed, leaves, plaited twigs or hides (Kubba, 1987: 64). Finally he embarked on the utilisation of more permanent materials - mud, stone and timber, depending on what was available in his locale. The rectangular house was the end product of this long and continuous development (Giedion, 1981: 178).

settlements usually took the form of clusters of round or oval pit-dwellings constructed of mud on stone foundations and arranged in isolation at set intervals, along a common high way. Prior to this, the inhabitants of this area seem to have lived in temporary camp sites or caves of which archaeologists have found no architectural remains or any other structures. The Zagros range was inhabited at least from the Paleolithic to Neolithic times (Singh, 1974:111), and a non-geometric Zarzain appeared at Zarzi no later than 13,000 B.C. The excavation of Zarzian, proto(Wahida, 1981 :30). neolithic and neolithic sites such as Zarzi, Pa/egawra, Zawi Chemi, Shanidar, Karim Shahir, Tell Maghza/ia, Jarmo and others, have given us great insight into the transition process from food-collecting to food-producing era (Wahida, 1981 ; Braidwood & Howe, 1960; Solecki, 1963, 1957, 1958; Howe, 1983; Munchaev, et al., 1984; Braidwood, et al., 1983). Yet efforts to directly monitor post-Pleistocene environments in southwestern Iran have generally proved unsuccessful, leaving the precise relationship between e~vironment, agriculture, herding and population growth still to be worked out (Wright, 1985:129). The profound influence of geological environment on the evolution of building technique continues to be in evidence throughout the early history of the Near East. It is responsible for the sharp distinctions between the archaeological remains of cultures which in other respects developed on broadly similar lines, and by 8000 B.C., significant differences were already evident between the Epipaleolithic cultures of the Zagros and the Levant. ~owever, it is possible that environmental factors initially hmdered the development of large villages and permanent settlements in the Zagros - contrary to the situation in the Levant. Yet it was this very fact which encouraged the interregional movement of the Zagros hunter/gatherer that later helped Mesopotamia to take the lead in forging the foundations for civilization (Redman, 1978:87).

Demographics and other external pressures may have been crucial factors in forcing man to eventually descend from t~e ?i~l~ds where his existing food supply was gradually d11Dm1shmg. And although he initially lived in caves such as Zarzi and Shanidar in the Zagros, this type of existence seemed quite adequate and suited his life style. By lighting a frre in the entrance he managed to both, keep warm, and His was a keep potentially dangerous animals at bay. simple life, the basis of all human existence. With slow deliberation - perhaps lasting several thousands of years, he was prompted to leave the caves and the long overdue business of making progress began. At c. 12,000 B. C. he began the cultivation of food-plants (Pullar, 1977:15) followed by _the domestication of such animals as sheep, goats and p1gs. The early prehistoric farmer found in Mesopotamia all the essential ingredients for a richer and better life than can be found in the surrounding areas (Hawkes & Woolley, 1963:419).

Thus, it is apparent throughout this work that various elements of the physical environment had a 'many-faceted influence' upon the habitation of a region (Wagstaff, 1973: 197). Likewise, the physical environment of the area had a profound influence upon the evolution of architecture and planning of ancient settlements (Kirkbride, 1982:11). It is abundantly clear that topography, geology, soil conditions, climate, and irrigation & water supply have all had a determining impact upon the growth and distribution of settlements. Clay or mud was the main material of all Mesopotamian buildings and was to be found everywhere. In the South the tall reeds of the marshes were also used for constructing shelters, huts, and other buildings. Stone and timber on the other hand, were not so readily available, particularly in Mud was therefore the usual southern Mesopotamia. building material (particularly for larger and more permanent structures), readily available, cheap, versatile and easy to work with, but fragile and ephemeral. It was used largely unchanged - either as it was, or with the

The Zeribar pollen diagram indicates that cultivation started in the Zagros region at about 12,000 B.C. (Pullar, 1977:21), and as far back as 10,750 B.C. we fmd, evidence of early agriculture at the permanent settlement of Zawi Chemi (often incorrectly referred to as Zawi Chemi Shanidar) in northern Iraq (Reed, 1977:3; Kubba, 1987:66). And from about 10,000 BC onwards, we witness perhaps for the frrst building activity in various parts time, a lively scuttle of of the Near East. About this time we also fmd evidence of settlements in Mesopotamia at such sites as Pa/egawra, Shanidar cave, Nemrik 9, Karim Shahir, and M'/efaat in the Kurdish mountains (Braidwood & Howe, 1960; Solecki, 1957, 1968, 1971, 1979; Kozlowski & Szymczak, 1987; Howe, 1983, Braidwood & Howe, 1969). These early viii

addition of chopped straw, sand, or other additives, which gave it better cohesion. This tempered mud was either used directly to construct walls (tauj), or was formed into mud bricks that were dried in the sun.

preoccupation with the treatment of individual structures rather than with their overall organization within the public open space, may be explained by the physical environment of the country, and the strong traditions of its people. The scorching dry heat of the summer, and the blinding sand storms of the desert, have all made the streets and open spaces, harsh, unfriendly, and exposed and led Mesopotamians to be more involved with the cooler and more comforting interiors of their homes and edifices. It is only around important monuments that any evidence of conscious town planning was to be found.

During the Chalcolithic period we fmd evidence for the emergence of monumental architecture in Mesopotamia, based on the use ofmold-formed sun-dried mud-bricks. From the Ubaid Period onwards, Mesopotamian architecture possessed great sophistication and genius, which mainly took the form of 'civic' buildings and temples. The symmetrical design of these 'civic' buildings and temples with their elaborate, carefully constructed detailing, indicate that the Ubaid architects (some of whom may have been 'priests~ were capable architectural planners. Many of the temples of this period, as well of later periods, clearly attest to the strong aesthetic sense of Ubaid 'architects'. Furthermore, as we will show, the proportions of many of the Ubaid temples when analysed, will be observed to have been designed in precise geometric proportions.

The term town planning, implies the existence of a strong coordinating organization, possessing the authority and resources to carry out large scale undertakings for the common good. This would imply that town planning in ancient Mesopotamia dates back to before the dawn of the Sumerian civilisation and the emergence of the numerous powerful city-states. Early examples of such planning can be witnessed at Umm Dabaghiyah and Tell es-Sawwan. An important characteristic of Mesopotamian planning from the Samarran culture onwards, is the general orientation of important buildings with their corners to the cardinal points. However, the first known complex of 'monumental town planning' dates back to the middle of the fourth millennium B. C. where in Level XIII at Tepe Gawra (Fig.2-68), we fmd three large temples organized around an open space in the form of a courtyard, with smaller structures on the fourth side, forming a kind of acropolis raised above the rest of the city (Tobler, 1950:30).

Examination of available building plans show that from about the 6th millennium onwards, there had been a great concern for balance and symmetry in the layout of individual buildings, yet an evident disregard for their alignment and the inter-relations between them. This apparent concern for symmetry, axiality and balance within an individual building, but a lack of an overall concept for the composition of the urban complex, was to remain typical of Mesopotamian planning through much of its history. However, there are occasional early examples which suggest some form of town planning.

The layout of the urban complex centred around the public buildings and monuments on the one hand, and along major traffic arteries on the other. The latter generally converged onto those monuments significant to the whole community. Another principle generally adhered to in the planning of ancient Mesopotamian cities was their orientation. For almost without exception, they all face the north-west whence came the most pleasant breezes. It is therefore not surprising that whenever possible, the north west corner of the site was preserved for the Royal Palace, the citadel and the more significant buildings.

The majority of Mesopotamian cities appear to have evolved from humble and obscure origins into large organic forms. "The basic pattern of settlement was of enclaves of communities spread out across the irrigable parts of the Mesopotamian Plain. Each enclave was dominated by one or more large centers. Smaller sites were located at short distances from the major centers and often in linear patterns, following the major stream course that the city controlled" (Redman, 1978:292).

It is also probable that some of the earliest palaces and temples as well as large houses, incorporated some form of wind shafts to cool the interior of the building as well as for natural ventilation. Similar wind shafts or wind towers which are called 'badgir' in Iraq and Iran and 'Malqaf in Egypt are found in traditional buildings all over the Middle East including, Oman, Bahrain, Dubai, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Turkey as well as Iran, Iran and Egypt (Kubba, 1987).

Planning in the sense of the formal organisation of structures and articulation of open spaces is somewhat difficult, but not unknown. But such evidence of town planning is frequently difficult to detect, because normally only a minute portion of a given site was excavated, and excavations were concentrated on monumental structures. The ancient Mesopotamians were conservative both in their planning approach and in the architectural treatment of their buildings. Thus even when a single temple or monument was to be erected on a platform or raised terrace, as in the case of the Eridu Temples (from Level XI to VI), their relationship to the irregular supporting structure appears haphazard and arbitrary, lacking consideration for axiality and formal approach. This was also evident in their secular buildings. Once the overall shape was decided, through expediency and available space, narrow rectangular rooms arranged around large courtyards or central halls, was the primary theme within an irregular layout. This

Further evidence of planning in Mesopotamian cities can be found in the overall distribution of major land use elements, the zoning of residential and other areas, and the adoption of a hierarchy of streets and thoroughfares for the subdivision of the urban fabric into small neighbourhood units. Nevertheless, one of the most striking observations with regards to ancient Mesopotamian cities and planning, lies in the evident absence of any form of public organization for coordinating individual building enterprises. Instead, we ix

fmd that public works are carried out usually on an epic scale by the community as a whole submitting to the In command of its leaders, the king and the priests. addition, there seems to be no official agency in early Mesopotamian society responsible for the control of planning to regulate such things as the width, the course or the accessibility of public thoroughfares, restrict urban expansion, or to prevent encroachment unto public roads.

However, the topic of this research is not town planning, but like the ancient Mesopotamian, is primarily concerned with individual buildings, their types, the materials they were made of, their mode of construction, and the principles involved in their design.

X

1.

ARCHITECTURE OF THE LATE PROTO-HISTORIC PERIOD UBAID CULTURE.

1.0

General: The Ubaid Culture (4500-3500 BC).

The Ubaid culture received its name from a small site near Ur, Tell Al Ubaid, and is characterized by particular styles However, its architecture is better of painted pottery. known from a number of larger sites such as Eridu, Tepe Gawra and the Hamrin sites like Tell Abada and Tell But our knowledge of the Ubaid culture Madhhur. remains inadequate and suffers from severe defec~. To this effect, Mellaart described the Ubaid period as the most neglected period in the archaeological investigation of Iraq (Mellaart, 1979:28). The earliest phases of the Ubaid culture (Ubaid 1 and 2) were initially known as Eridu and Hajji Mohammed cultures respectively. This was based on the distinctive ceramic styles associated with these two sites (Lloyd and Safar, 1948; Ziegler, 1953). However, Joan Oates showed that both Eridu and Hajji Mohammed were merely earlier phases of a single developing tradition of unbroken continuity (Oates, 1960), which gradually evolved and matured into 'traditional Ubaid' (Ubaid 3 and 4). Although the Ubaid 2 culture was widely distributed in Mesopotamia, being largely concentrated in the Uruk region (Adams, 1981 :58), it wasn't until the Ubaid 3 and 4 periods, that we see for the frrst time in Mesopotamian prehistory, the cultural unification of both northern and southern Iraq (Lloyd, 1985:80). In Northern Iraq, the Halaf culture flourished at the same time as the early Ubaid culture in the south, though in sites like Tepe Gawra and in the Hamrin Basin, Halaf cultural traditions seem to have coexisted alongside those of the Ubaid culture during the Ubaid 3 period (Watkins & Campbell, 1987:450), but was later replaced by the Late Ubaid culture. It is also probable that during the Ubaid period there existed at least two linguistically differentiated people (Halafian and Ubaidian). Oates has suggested that, "we are not dealing, in the al 'Ubaid period, with a homogeneous population. We must think, rather, of a culture which became homogeneous by the combination and assimilation of diverse earlier elements." (J.Oates, 1960:48). During this period there was a significant increase in the Buildings size of settlements in Mesopotamia. particularly temples - became larger and were the best built. Before long, they dominated the architectural landscape (although it is not always possible to determine a structure's function), so that for the first time in ancient Mesopotamia, we can speak of monumental architecture as a dominant feature of sizable cities. During this period

emerges what Frankfort termed the 'Form' of Mesopotamian civilization, its elusive identity (Frankfort, 1954:16). In both northern and southern Mesopotamia during the Ubaid Period considerable aptitude was displayed in the design and development of religious architecture. The men of this culture appear to have been more proficient and creative as architects than as craftsmen producing pottery, seals, figurines, and other omamented objects (Goff, 1963:44). This can clearly be seen at Eridu and Tepe Gawra Level XIII. It also seems that the same religious architectural traditions were maintained by these agriculturalists in the same region from the Ubaid period to early historical times, i.e. for over a thousand years. Most Sumerian cities therefore, progressively grew not around a ruler's palace, but rather evolved around a shrine. The Ubaid culture prepared the ground for the development of Sumerian civilization, and in this respect, the early stages of the Uruk period that followed can (at least on the basis of its architecture) be considered a continuing development of the Ubaid and not separate. Roux makes the point when he says, "there is little doubt that the people responsible for the urbanization of southern Mesopotamian were closely related to, or had been absorbed by, the Ubaidians, for there is no clear-cut break between the Ubaid culture and the Uruk culture, and no signs of armed invasion and destruction." (Roux, 1985:76). Indeed, the more we investigate, the more we realise how deeply rooted in the past the Sumerian civilization was. Before attempting to classify Ubaid architecture, it may be prudent to begin with a brief discussion of the types of settlements that existed during the Ubaid Period.

1.1

Period Ubaid Mesopotamia

Settlements

in

Few towns or cities in which great cultures flourished started with a preconceived plan. They appear to have developed naturally by a process of accretion - the growth was irregular in form, sensitive to changes in the people's They probably began as free towns needs and habits. which men settled by voluntary choice. The limited scale of excavations conducted on Ubaid sites (except of Tepe Gawra and Tell Abada), has left us with insufficient data for confident conclusions to be reached. However, three types of settlements can be postulated: Temporary settlements: One should not assume 1. that the Ubaid period represented primarily a sedentary way of life. The presence of cemeteries with no architectural remains, may infer the existence of nomadic or seminomadic groups in the region. Indeed, one of the problems in interpreting the nature of settlements in Mesopotamia, is how to determine whether they were occupied all the year

round or during certain parts of the year. Even though no architectural remains of such settlements have been found we must still assume that there were nomadic groups living in seasonal camp sites and that there must have been many seasonal villages.

for assessing technological achievement and development, as well as a social and religious organization. The temples at Eridu and Level XIII at Gawra, demonstrate the great technological skill and achievements the Ubaid builders were capable of.

2. Small open village or hamlet. These consist of small farmsteads and agglomerations and are usually located peripherally to the larger urban centres. Typical examples are: Tell 'Ayash, Tell Hassan, Tell AI Ubaid, and Tell Rashid.

There seems to be evidence at some sites like Tell Abada and Degirmentepe, of industrial areas such as the potters' quarter, which is separated from the main residential area. This tends to infer a degree of craft specialisation (Jasim, 1985:174) Moreover, the presence of so many fmds relating to pottery making activity inside the houses as well as in courtyards, suggests that the inhabitants were probably producing them in quantities far greater than the local demand would have required, and that they have been made for barter or trade.

In a dispersed settlement pattern, often found in areas with abundant water sources, small settlements emerged which lacked large public or administrative buildings like building A at Abada. Such sites may have been incorporated into an expanding main settlement or in times of danger.

1.2 3. Large villages with or without defense walls. In such villages, free-standing houses were usually preferred to agglutinated structures of closely knitted settlements. An exception to this is Degirmentepe in Turkey and Tepe Gawra Level XII. Such sites were usually associated with administrative centres manifested by special architectural features such as large administrative buildings, specialized workshops and/or central buildings such as communal granary storage, or temple facilities.

Origins of Ubaid Architecture: An Overview.

There is considerable controversy about the origin of the Ubaid Culture and Ubaid Architecture. Oates has stated that, "There can be little doubt that what archaeologists designate as 'Ubaid has its origins in southern Mesopotamia" (Oates, 1987:475), and there now seems to be a general consensus that the Sumerians were already in southern Mesopotamia during the Ubaid period (Burney, 1977:53; Mellaart, 1967:44; Oates, 1960:46; Mallowan, 1967:20; Roux, 1985:74). The evidence of the recent excavations at 'Oueili have also confirmed this (Calvet, 1987:485).

The expansion of house units within the perimeter or fortification wall must have posed serious problems for members of the village and town communities because of the limited free building space available. As I will show, certain norms or 'building regulations' may have controlled the size and plan of individual house units during the Ubaid period. The emergence of well planned settlements with houses aligned along narrow alleys, courtyards or even streets would indicate compliance with such norms.

In architecture, certain parallels and affmities between the Samarran architecture (of which Tell Es-Sawwan is a good example) and Ubaid architecture suggest that the former may have been the precursor or forerunner of the latter (Forest, 1983a, Forest, in press; Kubba, 1987, Mellaart, 1981 ; J.Oates, 1987; Perkins, 1972). For this reason, it is necessary to discuss this culture and throw light on its chief characteristics.

Most settlements during the Ubaid Period do not appear to have been walled (a possible exception is Tell Songor), although as only a small percentage of the site is normally excavated, one cannot be certain of this. The layout of settlements and their architectural features suggest the continuation of earlier periods, and the presence of densely grouped dwellings in Ubaid period hamlets and villages like Degirmentepe and Tepe Gawra, may indicate that the inhabitants of these settlements valued clan or tribal ties even when conforming with a sedentary way of life (Yakar, 1985:269).

The earliest Samarran sites appear to have clustered along the Tigris, between Baiji and Sawwan, although evidence of Samarran type pottery has been found throughout a large area on the fringes of the Mesopotamian alluvium, extending from the Zagros piedmont north-east of Baghdad to the middle Euphrates of Syria, and northwards as far as Mosul on the Tigris. Samarran communities varied in size and character, but like the Ubaid settlements, were generally substantial villages or small towns. Mellaart however, considers Tell es-Sawwan and Eridu to be cities (1981:278).

New forms and concepts introduced into Ubaid village and town architecture in fact attest to changes in the economic and demographic organization which may reflect changes in the social stratification of sedentary communities with traditional tribal organizations. Large 'public' edifices, reflecting Mesopotamian town planning, suddenly appeared in Mesopotamia, e.g. in the Hamrin (Tell Abada) and in settlements along the Euphrates.

Samarran and Ubaid architecture both display an unusual boldness and clarity of design as is evidenced at Tell EsSawwan (Samarran), Eridu, Tepe Gawra XIII, Kheit Qasim Ill and Tell Madhhur (Ubaid). The argument for Samarran ancestry is enhanced by the close parallels of form and shape as well as building techniques between the Samarran and Ubaid architecture (Figs.1-1 b, 1-2), as well as the similarity in use and positioning of buttresses in the two styles (Figs. 1-2, 1-412-99).

In chapter five, it will be shown why the architectural remains of a culture are important sources of information at the disposal of the archaeologist, providing a valuable index 2

At Tell Es-Sawwan for example, we see a well developed settlement, whose inhabitants display technological and organizational skills uncharacteristic of their time. These skills were undoubtedly important in the rise of civilization. The building types suggest the beginnings of a stratified society (Fig.1-3) and may possibly be directly ancestral to elements of early Sumerian civilization. The Tell esSawwan building of Level 11 (Fig.l-1a) shows many similarities with the Gawra building of Level XIV (Fig.267), possibly indicating they both served similar functions.

clearly related to the earlier Ubaid style as is the architectural features of both phases, representing details and refmements of a single theme.

The recent excavations by the French expedition in Southern Iraq at Tell el-Oueili have brought to light evidence of an Ubaid settlement - designated 'Ubaid 0' that seems to precede the earliest levels of Eridu, going back to the early part of the sixth millennium. The similarities between the architecture of the 'Ubaid 0' (Fig.2123) and Ubaid 1 Levels at Oueili and the Samarra cultures such as Tell es-Sawwan (Fig.1-1b), is particularly enlightening. In both cases, we fmd complex, multiroomed buildings. The structure with three parallel long rooms at Oueili (Ubaid 1) corresponds to units found at Tell es-Sawwan (Forest, 1985:65).

Most of the larger Ubaid buildings were designed as tripartite structures and consisted of centrally located large halls, surrounded by smaller rectangular or square rooms which were functionally interrelated. Sometimes the larger rooms were provided with clay benches along one or more of their walls such as in room 3 of the Tell Madhhur Level2 house. Slit windows (Madhhur), mud brick buttresses and carved niches in thick walls are among the characteristic features of Ubaid period architecture. Often single or double room rectangular structures built of mud-brick, wattle and daub, or tauf without stone foundations are located near or adjoin larger buildings, such as the armex or out building uncovered in the 'Hut Soundings' of Eridu (Safar, 1950:27). This highlights the difference in function or difference in social stature.

1.3

Late Ubaid Architecture:

Ubaid buildings were usually built of mud-brick, either hand shaped or moulded, although as already stated, tauf construction was still employed at some of the attested Ubaid sites.

Buttresses at wall junctions and at corners were used on the outside of the larger buildings, as shown from a reconstruction of a typical house at Tell es-Sawwan (Fig. 16), and which can also be seen in the Ubaid period at Tell Ayyash (Fig.1-2, 2-32). The buttresses were probably used to support the roof/ceiling beams as well as for aesthetic effect. Their use became widespread during the fifth and fourth millennia, and was extensively used in religious buildings.

Temples and other important buildings of Mesopotamia were often built of long, rectangular mud-bricks, sometimes bearing deep thumb impressions and set in clay mortar (Mellaart, 1981:171; Burney,1977:53). This simple material would soon be used for buildings of considerable architectural pretensions, as exemplified by the Level XIII temples at Tepe Gawra, where the recessed ornament of the wall faces - shallow buttresses and niches that caught the light and broke the monotony of the plastered brickwork may be seen (Fig. 5-1 1).

Tell es-Sawwan represents one of the earlier sites in Mesopotamia to use sun-dried bricks in construction, which contrasts with other settlements of the Hassuna culture that were contemporary but were still using pressed mud in building their houses. Youkana in a two week investigation at Tell Es-Sawwan, uncovered traces of a building level below Level 1 in mound 'B' in which tauf construction was also used (Youkana, 1986:iv). Tauf construction continued to be used in a number of Ubaid sites like Tell Songor B & C (Fujii, et al., 1981), Tell Hassan (Fiorina, 1981 ), Khanijdal East (Wilkinson & Tucker, 1988), and Abu Husaini, Phase 1 (Tusa, 1981 ).

This facade treatment occurs also in the earliest mud brick Eridu temples and the 'Ubaid' temples at Uruk; it must have given the building an exaggerated impression of height. It also established a precedent which was to determine the appearance of Mesopotamian public buildings for three thousand ,years. The Eridu temples were distinguished by another feature, which later became characteristic of Mesopotamian religious architecture. They were raised on artificial platforms of solid mud-brick approached by a ramp or stairway, thus originating the design which culminated in the great ziggurats of later times.

From the above, it does not seem unreasonable to designate the Samarran architecture as well as the first two periods of Ubaid architecture, as 'Pre-Ubaid' or 'Proto-Ubaid', since during these periods there were many local and regional variants such as Tell Es-Sawwan, Choga Mami, Eridu XVII - XV, and Oueili - and therefore architecturally speaking, not strictly a developed Ubaid, but rather an 'incipient' Ubaid.

Moreover, these structures signify a co-ordinated endeavour on a larger scale than one would expect from a simple village culture. The temples also display features and characteristics which continue into historical times - such as the simple oblong shape of the sanctuary, with its altar and offering table, the platforms on which the temples stood and the buttresses used to strengthen the walls which later developed into a system of piers and recesses, rhythmically articulating the walls. Thus we see at Eridu a continuity of architectural development.

On the other hand, the early Uruk period is a direct and homogeneous development (architecturally at least) with an unbroken continuity from the Ubaid. Some scholars have therefore suggested that the earliest part of the Uruk period should be called terminal Ubaid, since there is no fundamental differences in the cultural sequence and is 3

The Ubaid period ceilings/roofs consisted of oak or poplar ceiling beams covered with reeds or rushes, which were in turn covered with packed clay, supported by mud-brick (or taut) walls (Figs.2-15,2-16,4-4). The walls were plastered with either mud or gypsum, and sometimes white washed as in Tell Madhhur, Eridu VI and the 'Ubaid' temple at Uruk. Rectangular clay platforms, circular and sunk frreplaces and horseshoe-shaped hearths were among the important features of the living quarters. In some settlements the builders had to build mud-brick terraces supported by thick walls in order to expand the habitation area. At Songor B, the Level 11 sections resulting from the construction of these terrace walls were used as foundations for the Level Ill buildings.

there was an arch. To construct a real arch it was only necessary to lay bricks over a reed centering. The same thing could be done for a vault; but soon the builders discovered that for the vault no centering was required; a barrel vault could be made by leaning bricks against the end wall, and then more bricks until a complete ring was formed sharply sloped so that its key-brick rested against the end wall, and so on, each new ring leaning against and supported by the last; again, a technique that was to be used throughout Babylonian history and found its most extravagant fulfillment in the great court of the Sassanian palace at Ctesiphon, where the mud brick vault, built without centering, measures no less than 25.80 meters in span (Gardiner, 1975:30).

The thickness of walls which were sometimes built in the form of double walls adjacent to each other, could suggest that such large structures were two-storeyed. Sometimes these walls contained a 'cavity' between them (as is used in modem brick construction), which may have been used to prevent rainwater penetration and dampness on the internal walls. Alternatively the cavity may have been used for ventilation or as a 'badgir' which is common in traditional Iraqi architecture.

Where the reed hut was a small affair, no longer than it was wide, it needed only four uprights, one at each corner. The tops of all four could then be bent in together to the centre, lashed together and covered with matting and mud plaster. The result was in effect a dome. Here again the early builder was quick to profit by experience. Similar reed buildings are constructed by the Marsh Arabs today. Reed huts are also represented in cylinder seals and reliefs of the Uruk and later periods (Fig.3-2).

Houses varied considerably in size, and were usually aligned along a network of alleys and streets connecting the residential quarters with the administrative and religious complexes situated on higher ground (e.g. Tepe Gawra, Tell Abada). Main entrances usually faced a south-westerly direction, possibly to escape the detrimental northern winter wind, and to face the cool western summer wind, which is common practice in traditional Iraqi architecture.

Since southern and central Mesopotamia's climate in summer is unbearably hot, most village communal life during the day was probably spent indoors or in the shade. Open spaces adjoining dwellings and work areas contained large ovens and hearths to keep the inhabitants warm during winter night, in addition to those existing inside the house units. Unfortified or 'open' settlements usually allowed houses to expand by the addition of side rooms. This implies that land was not at a premium, which in turn suggests that most structures of the late Ubaid period were single-storeyed.

The majority of secular buildings found in Ubaid settlements were not built according to predetermined orientations. Space formed by the juxtaposition of buildings or empty plots adjoining the habitation areas were probably freely used for numerous activities unless enclosed by a wall such as we fmd at Tell Abada, Building A (Fig.26) and Tell Rashid (Fig.2-130) which delineated the bulding's 'territorality'. In most Ubaid settlements, communal restrictions in the allocation of space for new dwellings to replace dilapidated ones which could no longer be maintained appear to have been lax.

The excavations at Gawra, Eridu and the Hamrin region, all testify to the Ubaid builders' surprising grasp of architectural principles and construction techniques. Moreover, the monumental buildings of this period appear to show an unexpected proficiency in 'modular planning', and an awareness of geometric proportions - possibly the golden section, the 'Pythagoraean' triangle (an unfortunate misnomer, since it appears to have been used in Mesopotamia nearly 4000 years before Pythagoras was born), and geometric and arithmetic progressions. This is discussed in detail in chapter 5, since the implications of this phenomena are far reaching, the inference being that some form of writing, not merely the numeric notation which Oates and Jasim (1986:351) have suggested was in use in the Late Ubaid period, may have been in existence some 1000 years earlier than hitherto supposed. Although this is still conjectural, the circumstantial evidence already existing, tends to suggest that Mesopotamian history will be pushed back many centuries, particularly once the fourth and fifth millennium become better documented.

Most early mud-brick houses were small, consisting of one or two rooms (Fig.2-87). The number and dimensions of these rooms would appear to have been related to family size and specialized activity carried out within the dwelling. Additional rooms or annexes were built when needed, to function as workshops or storage facilities etc. In the south, Ubaid builders took advantage of the very tall and stout reeds that covered the Mesopotamian marshlands and which they learned to waterproof with bitumen. Most of the houses were probably structures made of reed matting supported by wooden poles or reed bundles and sometimes plastered with clay. The reed house was normally a long tunnel, i.e., it was a vaulted room. If one of these were accidentally burnt, some of the thick mud plaster of the roof, hardened by the heat, might well be left standing, and

Below is an outline of the more important architectural features of Ubaid architecture as found at some of the main Ubaid sites:

4

At Eridu, successive phases of a prehistoric temple (Figs.J7), have been recovered which show the development from a primitive to an advanced phase of architectural design. In many respects the earliest temples differed from other buildings excavated in southern Iraq.

"The geographical situation of the Hamrin region in the central part of the country is reflected in its materials which show similarity to either both south and north Iraq or to one or another of them. So the relationship between the Hamrin and other parts of Iraq is now attested. Also the relationship between the Ubaid sites in the Hamrin is clearly established." (Jasim, 1985:217).

The prototype 'temple' layout of level XVI (Fig.2-40) consisted of a single, rather small rectangular room, which later developed into a long, rectangular 'cella' flanked by smaller chambers at each side. At the other end, stood a mud brick altar or offering table. "The institution of sacrifices is suggested by round tables, apparently for offerings, and traces of burning. Comparable evidence was obtained at Warka, where clay-plastered troughs were filled with offerings, in a succession lasting a thousand years from the Ubaid period till the end of the Jemdet Nasr period." (Bumey, 1977:53). These two features, the cult-niche and the mud-brick offering table became characteristic of Mesopotamian temples thereafter (Frankfort, 1954:18; Lloyd, 1985:43).

What is perhaps unusual, is that in the Hamrin region, there is no conclusive evidence of religious worship, although a number of buildings suggest that they may have functioned wholly or partly as temples (Tell Songor B, Kheit Qasim Ill, Tell Abada, Level 11- Building A, etc.), unlike at Eridu and Tepe Gawra where the presence of temples is clearly evident. At Tell Madhhur, a well preserved cruciform house in Level 11 with a stepped facade, allowed a more complete analysis (chapter 5) and the preparation of a 'working drawing' set. The tri-cruciform building of K.heit Qasim Ill and two of the Tell Abada buildings of Level 11 are also discussed and analysed in chapter 5.

At Tepe Gawra, twenty distinct levels were revealed, of which levels XIX - XII inclusively, belong to the Ubaid culture. Here, we fmd, compact agglomerations of buildings arranged around a large, roughly rectangular square, from which narrow streets radiate. The fortresslike buildings around the periphery are part of the defense system (Lampl, 1967: 114-119).

The apparent ability of Ubaid builders and architects to utilize mathematical formula, and the indications as we shall see, for the existence of a standard unit of measurement, prior to the advent of history, is bewildering and of great significance. Yet the precipitous decline attested to in the 'Terminal Ubaid' still cannot be satisfactorily explained.

In Level XIII, we fmd a conscious and systematic attempt at planning, using model bricks and geometric principles to design their buildings. The apparent absence however, of any large secular buildings such as found at Tell Abada, suggests the lack of any significant administrative organization or powerful ruling class, except for the Temple Organization, whose wealth was partly obtained from offerings by faithful pilgrims (Algaze, 1986: 128-130; Majidzadeh, 1982:65).

1.4

'Peripheral Ubaid'

The Late Ubaid Culture is generally recognized by its typical pottery assemblage, glyptic art and architecture. The Ubaid pottery tradition spread from Mesopotamia to western Iran, Khuzistan, (where it eventually gave rise to the 'Susa' style) and the Arabian Gulf. It also spread to the Mediterranean coast and Cilicia in the west and MalatyaElazig region in eastern Anatolia in the north. It is found in the valley of the Orontes in Syria. Thus, the wide geographic spread of its pottery and culture is in itself sufficient justification to warrant a thorough investigation and analysis.

At Uruk, several soundings penetrated Late Ubaid levels in the area of the Steingebaude (Schmidt, 1972; Brehmer, 1972), yielding the same combination of Ubaid and Uruk types as did the 1931-32 sounding of the Eanna temple precinct. A brief sounding by Schmidt produced two very interesting 'Ubaid' temples (Schmidt, 1974), closely reminiscent in plan of the later Uruk temples on the nearby Anu terrace. The double-stepped facades of 'Temple//' are elaborately recessed and carefully plastered, and both stand on a mud-brick platform of uncertain dimensions. As in the case ofthe Eridu VI Temple, the 'White Room' building of Gawra XII and the White Temple, the 'Ubaid' Temple 11 building shows signs of having been carefully whitewashed (Schmidt, 1974).

Trade contacts between eastern Anatolia and Mesopotamia were quite intensive, at least from the Ubaid period onwards, during which some farming communities in the Malatya plain were involved in organized trade. Although we do not know all the commodities that were exchanged, we do know that village economies were largely supplemented by interregional trading (Yakar, 1985:270). This is convincingly attested to by the thousands of bullae recovered in the Late Ubaid settlement of Degirrnentepe (Esin, 1981).

An enormous amount of knowledge has been added by the excavations carried out in the Hamrin Basin, where a total of sixteen Ubaid period sites have been investigated. Most of the sites are small in size - less than a hectare in area, except of Tell Abu Husaini and Tell Abada (Oates, 1983 :252). Moreover, it appears that the occupation of most of the sites was for a short duration.

1.41

Iranian Ubaid

"The relationship between Mesopotamia and Iran during the Ubaid period is now well attested by the new evidence from the Hamrin region", which involves contemporaneity 5

pottery like the Mesopotamian 'Ubaid has been found, and not that the sites are in any other way comparable." (Oates, 1978:39).

between the Ubaid 3 and Mehmeh phases (Jasim, 1985:217). Ubaid related wares were found in the Kermanshah and Mahidasht valleys in the central western Zagros at many sites including Dalma, Tepe Giyan, Seh Gabi, Taherabad (Levine, et al., 1977:45). 116 Ubaid sites were identified in the Mahidasht survey of 1975 (lbid.:49). Nevertheless, we still suffer from the meagreness of the architectural evidence available.

Thus in Qatar, the 'Ubaid sites' of Al-Da'asa and Ras Abaruk have almost nothing in common with the Mesopotamian Ubaid culture other than the similarity of their painted pottery, which looks like having been imported from southern Mesopotamia. These in fact appear to have been temporary settlements and no architectural remains have been recovered (lbid.:43). Sites like AI Markh in Bahrain appear to be of a late Ubaid Horizon (Roaf, 1974:501).

Several C-14 datings on later Ubaid assemblages in Southwestern Iran, e.g. on the Susa A phase of the Susiana plain and the Ubaid Bayat phase of the Deh Luran plain suggest that the Ubaid period ended c.4000 rather than somewhat later as had been thought (Wright, et al., 1975:130).

1.43

"At the beginning of the Late Chalcolithic period the northern version of the Ubaid Culture seems to have expanded from the Tigris basin westwards, spreading not only to areas west of the Euphrates, but across the Amanus to Cilicia, through the Antitaurus mountains to the plain of Elbistan and over the eastern Taurus range to areas in Elazig, Malatya and Van. However, unlike in the provinces of Hatay, Gaziantep, Urfa, Diyarbakir and Mardin, the Ubaid Culture did not become dominant in the Maras and Elbistan plains. In other words, it did not overpower the local Late Chalcolithic traditions which were rather related to those of central and eastern Anatolia." (Yakar, 1985:326).

In the intensive survey by Neely, only two sites with 'Terminal Ubaid' Assemblages were encountered on the Deh Luran Plain, that of Sargarab and Chakali (lbid.:134). The site of Sargarab however, with its stone foundations which were revealed by erosion, clearly show that its architecture bears little resemblance to that of the Mesopotamian Ubaid in terms of its plan morphology, and clearly strengthens the argument for an indigenous development of Ubaid in southern Mesopotamia (Oates, 1983:251 ). It also seems 'difficult' therefore to assign to the assemblage the term 'Ubaid', based on its ceramic assemblage alone, and any similarity of ceramics that exists, may be due more to 'fashion' of that particular period, affected by trade, level of technology at the time, etc. than to any cultural affmity. This must all be considered when we discuss 'Ubaid culture', particularly since during the Ubaid period, we witness "the largest geographical distribution of any single material assemblage" (Oates, 1987:473).

In eastern and south-eastern Anatolia, in the Euphrates basin, we fmd the emergence of town settlements (like Degirmentepe) based on Mesopotamian models from the beginning of the Ubaid and increasing towards the Late Uruk period.

In these trade postsl'mercantile towns' architectural remains reflect the existence of public buildings. Some of these 'communal structures' appear to have housed the merchants and craftsmen of the communities who were probably responsible for organizing the commercial and industrial activity in their towns. What is lacking so far as relevant evidence is not only urban architecture, but also other indications of 'institutionalized' or 'centrally controlled' labour division, human activity and social stratification (Yakar, 1985:38).

In the Susiana plain, 'Ubaid settlement' reached its greatest density in the Susiana D period and less in the Susa A (Ibid.: 137), and on the Iranian side of the Gulf, the Ubaid site of Halilih, on the Bushehr peninsula, has produced pottery of indubitable Ubaid 2 attribution (Oates, 1982:255).

1.42

The Ubaid in Syria and Anatolia

Gulf Ubaid

During the last two decades Ubaid type painted sherds have been discovered on more than 45 sites in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia (Masry, 1974), Qatar (de Cardi, 1978), and Bahrain (Roaf, 1976). This evidence clearly suggests early contact between Mesopotamia and the Arabian Gulf area. However, the Ubaid ceramic, most of which is of an Ubaid 3/4 type, appears to be intrusive, and except for AI Markh in Bahrain, there is no evidence of post Ubaid occupation. It therefore appears that the Gulf had little to offer the Uruk traders (and vice-versa) and so, the energies of Uruk period colonies were directed mainly to the North, towards Anatolia, the main source of copper at the time.

"Large settlements with monumental architecture, reminiscent of that found in major Mesopotamian centres of the Proto-literate period, are found not only in the Tigris basin, across the Turkish border, and in the Tabqa Dam reservoir area in northern Syria, but in the provinces of Urfa, Adiyaman, Gaziantep and Hatay as well. These, mostly mercantile towns, must have developed rapidly, taking advantage of their geographical position near the mineral and other natural resources, and most likely controlling the trade routes used by caravans between Mesopotamia and Anatolia." (Yakar, 1985:327). Recent archaeological excavations and related activities in the Near East are helping fill the many gaps in our knowledge of Chalcolithic cultures in the region during the

As Dr. Oates rightly stated, "it must be emphasized that when we refer to an 'Ubaid site' we imply only that painted 6

a kind of fmal Halafian or early Northern Ubaid." (Ibid.:255).

6th and 5th millenium. We see "the interaction of SyroMesopotamian traditions with central Anatolian and Transcaucasian cultural traits, can now be observed in the material culture of eastern Anatolia." (Yakar: 1985 :2).

3. Tell Helu is located on the right bank of an eastern branch of the Balikh. "Most of the painted sherds were of Ubaid type, though one or two may be Transitional." (lbid.:255).

"Soon after 4000 B.C., North Syria came under the influence of the Ubaid culture of Mesopotamia" (Mellaart, 1966:39). Mesopotamian influences were felt very strongly, "probably because the area furnished the timber necessary for the construction of the much enlarged temples and palaces of Southern Mesopotamia" (lbid.:39).

4. Tell Zaidan lies about 6.5 km east of Raqqa, on the left bank of the Balikh. The site appears to contain sherds of different styles, from Halafian, Samarran, Transitional and Ubaid.

"Distribution of these sites suggests very strongly that they represent part of a lengthy chain of towns following the Euphrates trade route to the north and onto the Anatolian plateau where sites such as Arslantepe near Malatya" attests to this distribution (Weiss, 1985:81-82). Also near Malatya is the recently excavated Ubaid site ofDeginnentepe. Ubaid architecture points to a direct involvement of farming communities advancing in the general direction of north, north-west to settle in the well-watered basins of the Tigris Habur, Balikh and the Euphrates. While Deginnentepe in Malatya could now be considered a type-site of the Ubaid culture in south-eastern Anatolia, Tepe Gawra remains the most important and well stratified site in northern Mesopotamia representing the Late Ubaid period. Despite the fact that the Level XIII acropolis temples at Tepe Gawra reflects a sudden increase in the amount of monumental architecture, mainly temples, this culture in the north, unlike its counterpart in the south, cannot be considered a town culture. Architectural remains from Degirmentepe and from Amuq Phase E, suggest that Ubaid settlements in Anatolia were relatively small. The solid mudbrick complexes were composed of inter-connected small rooms, including storerooms littered with bullae found in some of them (Degirmentepe in Malatya). The Balikh Valley is of particular interest, because of its position approximately half-way between Mesopotamia and the Levant. A survey in the lower Balikh valley in 1978 (Cope1and, 1982:251) suggests that the Ubaid Period in the Balikh is not as abundant as might have been expected, but a number of Ubaid sites based on surface fmds are revealed. These include: 1. Tell Subhi Abiad, a group of four large, but low mounds located approximately one kilometre south of Hammam Turkman village. Here, substantial pottery, mainly Ubaid and Late Halaf or Ubaid 'Transitional' type, one of which can be matched to a pot from Mefesh (lbid.:252).

2. Tell Chahine, which is located about 32km north of jisr Chnine on the right bank of the Balikh. Its pottery is very similar to that of Tell Mefesh (Ibid.:254). "Most of the painted, handmade sherds have Ubaid-like form and colouring, but the designs are more Halafian; this is a characteristic of what Davidson calls the Transitional phase, 7

2.

CATALOGUE OF UBAID SITES

2.0

General:

Halaf to Ubaid styles, or where we observe a gradual evolution from Ubaid to Uruk, etc.

The task of compiling a catalogue of architectural remains of the Ubaid culture proved more complex than initially Immediately the question arose of what anticipated. constitutes an 'Ubaid site', and what to include or exclude.

Thirdly, it had to be decided on how to D;tdex the si~es, whether to catalogue them chronologically, either accordmg to the date in which they were first excavated, or according to phase of occupation or alphabetically. After _much thought, it was decided to catalogue them alphabetical~y. The main reason for this, being that it would be much eas1er to use when seeking out a site than if it was indexed With the former method, there are chronologically. difficulties with sites like Tell Arpachiyah and Tell Brak, which have been excavated more than once with a large interval. Moreover, we now have many sites excavated at the same time, as during the Hamrin excavations. It was therefore decided that there was little to be gained from using a method based on chr~nolo~ of excava~ions. or publication, though this would g1ve an 1dea of the h1stoncal development of the subject.

One of the problems is that there are many sites scattered throughout Mesopotamia, southeaste~ Anatolia, ~e Gulf and Western Iran which attest to Uba1d type ceramics, but which have little else that can be classified as 'Ubaid'. Other sites are deemed to contain Ubaid deposits, on the evidence of their surface sherds or from small sondages, but have produced little evidence for architecture. Such sites include: Tell Subhi Abiad, Tell Chahine, Tell Helu and Zaidan in the Balikh Valley of northern Syria (Copeland, 1979:251 -275) where eight Ubaid period sites were identified within a radius of 30km of Tell Hammam etTurkman (van Loon, 1982:31), and Coba Huyuk IV. Amuk E Gedikli IV and Ti/men IV in southeastern and eastern Anatolia (Yakar, 1985). In the Arabian Gulf we have AI Markh in Bahrain (Roaf, 1974:501), Ras Abaruk and AIQatar (de Cardi, 1978), Abu Khamis, Da'asa in Dawsariyya, and Ayn Qannas in the Eastern Province of Saudi Arabia (Masry, 1974). Also in Saudi Arabia, is the 'Ubaid site' of Abqaiq near al-Khobar (Murad, 1980:237).

1.

In Iran, 116 sites were identified with Ubaid related wares in the Mahidasht valley alone (Levine, et al., 1977:39-50). Oates was able to identify about 50 Ubaid sites in a small area of roughly 350 sq.km in the vicinity of Tell Afar in north-western Iraq (Oates, 1980:307).

TELL ABADA (Hamrin No.7)

Excavator:

S. A. Jasim

References:

1. S. A. Jasim, 1985, The Ubaid Period in Iraq, B.A.R. series. 2. S. A. Jasim, 1984, Excavations at Tell Abada: A Preliminary Report, Iraq 45:165-186. 3. S. A. Jasim, 1981, Excavation at Tell Abada, Iraq, Paleorient 7:101-104.

Illustrations:

Contour Plan Level 11 (Fig.2-l), Site Plans Level I (Fig.2-2), Level 11 (Fig.23), Building Plans of Level 1: Buildings A (Fig.2-4), Buildings C & D (Fig.2-5); Level 11: Buildings A (Figs.2-6,2-7a,27b), Building B (Figs.2-8,2-9), Buildings C & D (Fig.2-10), Building E (Fig.2-11}, Building F (Fig.2-12) + Modified Reconstruction (Fig. 2-13), Building G (Fig.2-14), Building H (Fig. 2-15), Building I (Fig.2-16), Building J (Fig.217) ; Level Ill: Buildings A & B (Fig.218), Building C (Fig.2-19) ; Brick Courses (Fig.2-20); Water Pipes (Fig.2-21); Sectional Perspective (Fig.2-22); Painted Motifs (Fig.2-23-Fig.2-29).

The Site:

Tell Abada lies to the east of the Diyala river and 12 km southeast of AI Sa'adiya town in the Hamrin Basin.

These sites are outside the scope of this study. However, other sites are more difficult, either because of doubts of the chronology or the nature of the architecture, like Tell Mismar (Schmidt, 1978), Ras ai'Amiya (Stronach, 1961), Tell Brak (Oates, 1987), Ur (Woolley, 1956), Jebel Aruda (Oriel, 1979), Grai Resh (Lloyd, 19~0), . and Tell Hai~alun (Roaf, 1982). In the end, the main cntena for catal~gumg a site was whether it contained significant architectural Exceptions to this rule are remains of the Ubaid period. Tell AI Ubaid, which gave its name to the culture, and sites like Tell Brak, which are known to contain an Ubaid settlement and where excavations have not been completed. An appendix may be added with brief n~tes for ~ai~, Samarran and early Uruk sites that are not mcluded m th1s catalogue, but which the author believes are relevant to this study. Another question that had to be answered, was what to include in such a site catalogue, other than the name of the excavators, size and location of the mound, etc. In the end, this was done on a subjective basis, particularly where it was felt that certain information was relevant for later discussion, eg. where there is a smooth transition from

Dec.1977

It is perhaps, the largest of the Hamrin Ubaid sites excavated, consisting of a large oval shaped mound, measuring 8

about 190m x 150m, and which rises 3.50m above the surrounding plain. The base of the site however, was found to be 2.50m below the present ground level.

thick layers of gypsum plaster. As for Building C, it was plastered with clay on the inside only. The excavator suggested that the site must have been abandoned for a time, because of the 50-70cm fill found between Level Ill and Level 11. The excavator dates this level to c.4900 B.C. (uncalibrated), because of the close affmities to the Chogi Mami Transitional phase (Jasim, 1983:184).

During the excavations, three distinct architectural levels as well as a number of secondary levels within levels one and two were identified. These levels all date to the Ubaid Period, giving a vertical deposit of about 6m. The building levels were numbered I, 11 and Ill from top to bottom. Also, Tell Abada is exceptional in that about 80% of the total site was excavated.

Level 11 "This level was completely excavated over the whole site. Perhaps the most important discoveries are the very interesting building plans and the tremendous variety of pottery and artifacts." (Jasim, 1985:18).

Level Ill Level Ill represents the earliest occupation period of the site and is founded directly upon virgin soil. Remains of three buildings were excavated, two of which were rather large, multi-roomed structures in a surprisingly good state of preservation (Jasim, 1985:17). The date of Level Ill is uncertain as it contained a variety of ceramics, including Samarran, Ubaid I (Eridu), and Ubaid 2 (Haiji Mohammed), but it should be dated by the latest ceramics which were Ubaid 2/3 .

"Ten well preserved independent building units have been excavated together with the streets and squares separating them. Traces of walls which could have been parts of other substantially demolished buildings were found immediately to the north, west, and south of the well-preserved buildings. These buildings are of different sizes but most of them are of the same general architectural plan." (Jasim, 1985:18).

Consists of a large rectangular Building A (Fig.l-18): central hall measuring 8 x 2.4m, and flanked by a complex of small rooms on either side, thus forming what can be termed, a 'complex tripartite' plan (see Chapter 5 for defmitions and classifications). Four buttresses were revealed on the NE/NW wall, at the corners and at the junction of the central hall walls with the exterior wall. A buttress was also found on the north-eastern wall. The excavators could not fmd any obvious access to the building, but suggest that the main entrance may have been in its north-eastern wall. However, it seems more plausible that the entrance was via either the central hall or room 9 on the north-western side of the building, using Buildings A, B, and H in Level 11 as parallels.

Building A (Fig.l-6): This is a large, well constructed building with 30 buttresses on its exterior walls. It is centrally located on the mound and measures approximately 20 x 12.5m. The roof appears to have been constructed of wooden beams covered with reed matting and then plastered with a thick layer of mud, as attested to by the "reed impressions and massive charred beams which had apparently fallen from the roof. A great many of such traces were found on the floor of the long room (1 ), evidently indicating that this part of the building was roofed." (Jasim, 1985:19). Jasim considers this building to be the most important of the Abada structures because "of its symmetrical plan, its regularly spaced buttresses around its exterior wall, its central location and its size being the largest in all excavated Ubaid sites (20 x 12.5m)." (Jasim, 1988: 1). It is believed by Forest that this building served as a dwelling for the head of the village mainly because: 1. The 'tokens' were found in it and 2. because most of the children graves were buried under its floors (Forest, personal communication).

Building B (Fig.l-18): This consisted of a rather large building with some 19 small rooms or compartments of varying sizes, several of which do not appear to get any natural lighting being 'internal' rooms, compactly 'packed together' to create a single building. Building B was situated adjacent to building A on the former's northwestern wall which also had four buttresses. The floors and walls of both these buildings were heavily coated with a thick layer of gypsum plaster, and the excavator suggested they were both associated with the manufacture of pottery.

Building B (Fig.l-8): This thoughtfully designed building lies to the east of building A. and is similar in size and layout to the Kheit Qasim Ill building and may have served a similar function.

Building C (Fig.l-19): The excavators were unable to recover a complete plan for this structure, because much of it seems to have been destroyed.

Building C (Fig.l-10) : This building which lies to the south of building B, consists of a central hall flanked by a complex of rooms on either side. The 'double thickness' of the walls of the central court which measured 7.4 x 2.4m, indicates that its roof may have been raised above the surrounding rooms or consisted of a double storey.

All the Level Ill buildings were built of "long slabs of sundried mud, measuring 50 x 25-27 x 7-8cm and laid in alternate courses (as heads and stretchers) along the axis of the wall." (Jasim, 1985:18). All the floors were of beaten clay, whereas the walls, of Buildings A and B mentioned previously, were plastered internally and externally with

Building D (Fig.l-10) : This small 'cruciform' building lies south of building B and north-west of building C. Large lumps of mud with reed impressions were found in various 9

wall. The other three rows consist of a series of rooms 59 of varying sizes. Rooms 93, 95-102 may have been used for storage and their walls were standing to their original height of 70-80cm. This is shown by the fact that the plaster from one side of the walls continued around to the other side. The function of this building is difficult to discern although "The presence of a very long courtyard containing a bitumen-lined basin, and a floor full of black ash, refuse, debris and traces of dung, would suggest that this courtyard was used as a sheepfold and the basin inside was for keeping drinking water for domestic animals. The connecting room (103) could have been for keeping fodder on which to feed the sheep, or possibly to accommodate the shepherd or guards. The large wide courtyard (1 OOA) might have been used to house cattle or other animals. In the second row, there are four other rooms (89-92); these rooms might have served as storage rooms, possibly for some perishable materials, although no remains of such materials were found." (Jasim, 1988:2). The excavator suggests that this building may have provided a produce store for the whole community (Ibid.).

locations within the central cruciform hall, thereby suggesting that this space was also roofed. Building E {Fig.2-JJ) : This building which lies to the southwest of building A, consists basically of a 'tricruciform' plan: for the partition between room 60 and room 62 did not originally exist but was a later addition (Jasim, 1985). The floors of room 55 are paved with large mudbricks which slope upwards towards the outer wall and which the excavator believes may have contained a staircase or ramp. Lumps of mud with reed impressions were found in room 53 and 62, thereby attesting to these rooms being roofed, whereas no such evidence was found in the central court, allowing the possibility of it being open. Building F (Fig.2-13): The building is situated to the west of building A, and like building E, it appears to have been originally designed as a 'tri-cruciform' building. The excavator seems to substantiate this by pointing out that "The long central court (45), measuring about 10m in length, was originally of cruciform shape and what appears in the latest plan as room 47 was in fact its western wing. The eastern unit of the building originally consisted of a cruciform room (35) to which a double wall had been added creating rooms 38, 37 and 40. The western unit of the building presumably comprised a cruciform room (48) flanked by a number of rooms on either side. This court and the associated rooms corresponded to court 35 and other rooms on the opposite side." (Jasim, 1985:22). A 'boundary wall' exists on the building's northern elevation which may have been built at a later date.

The excavator also points out that the construction method used in this building differs from the others in that the mudbrick "was laid longitudinally along the axis of the wall, the width of the brick representing the width of the wall. In the other buildings mud bricks have been laid alternatively across and along the axis of the wall." (Jasim, 1988:3). This suggested to the excavator that the building must have fulfilled a different function. There are also three buttresses on the south-west wall of the building which do not appear to have served a structural function.

Building G (Fig.2-14) : The structure seems to be 'wedged in' between building F to the south, building H to the West and a wall to the east. It is difficult to comprehend the original plan layout as it is obviously part of a larger building which must have been destroyed at some point to make way for building H and the boundary wall. The fact that three ovens for bread making were found in room 81 is interesting. Also interesting is the fmding of large numbers of sherds in room 75 and 76 which the excavator believes may have housed the staircase. In Kheit Qassim III, the 'staircase' also contained considerable debris.

Building J {Fig.2-17): This structure is located "at the uppermost north-western corner of the mound, and is the second in size after building A." (Jasim, 1985:26). From the excavations, it appears that this unit may have been originally plarmed to a 'tri-cruciform' plan, but one must not rule out the possibility of it having in fact been designed as two separate entities with the central portion (rooms 141 , 146,147) carrying a second storey and dividing the structure into two equal parts. Some of the outside walls have buttresses which do not appear to be structural.

Building H (Fig.2-15): This building is located north of structures F and I. Its plan seems to lack the clarity found in other Abada buildings like building A and building B. It seems to consist of a cruciform central hall or court, with rooms flanked on one side of it. The walls were plastered with clay on the interior and exterior of the building.

Level I The Level I settlement, of which only the foundations of the buildings have survived, is the uppermost level on the Tell and represents the architectural continuation of Level 11 just The occupants of Level I appear to have beneath it. adopted the plans of their predecessors in constructing their houses with only minor modifications. Of the ten original buildings of Level 11, only seven have survived, i.e. three have disappeared (buildings B, G, and 1). Moreover, the methods of construction and materials also have not changed. We do fmd however, for the first time in Level I, the remains of a 50cm wide water-charmel system which may have been used to bring water for drinking and other domestic purposes. In this level we also have evidence for a new technique for storing grain (e.g. in Building E).

Building 1 {Fig.2-16): This building which lies to the southeast of building J and to the southwest of building is arousing considerable interest because its plan is fundamentally different from the others at Tell Abada. Instead of the usual 'tripartite' or 'tri-cruciform' plan usually encountered, we fmd five rows of rooms and courtyards. The first row represented by what appears to be an open courtyard (100 A) measures over 16m x over 3.50m (No.101 A). The second row is represented by a space measuring 14.70m x 2.30m wide (which may have been roofed) with a small bitumen lined basin on its southern 10

To the south-west of Building J, a new structure with no discernibly coherent plan, as only what appears to be the front of the building seems to have survived. It is also possible that this building was never completed as the area in front of it contained no traces of construction. This building did not exist in Level 11.

2.

TELL ABU DHAHIR

also appears that the settlement was expanded in the Uruk Period.

3.

Excavator:

Italian Archaeological Expedition, (under direction of A. Invernizzi with S. Tusa as Field Director. 1978- 1979.

References:

1. Tusa, S., 1985, in The Land Between Two Rivers, 20 years of Italian Archaeology in the Middle East. 2. Tusa, S., 1981, Excavation at Tell Abu Husaini - Preliminary report. Sumer 40 (1 ,2):262-276. 3. Tusa, S., 1980, Paleorient Vol.6:225227. 4. Invernizzi, A., 1980, Mesopotamia Vol.l5:19-49.

(Saddam Dam

Salvage Project) Excavator:

British Archaeological Expedition under direction of Warwick Ball. Oct. 1985 - April 1986.

References:

1. Iraq Vol.49, 1987- pp. 2. Sumer, 1987: British Excavations in the Abu Dhahir Area, 1985/86 Interim Report- Ball, W., in Researches on the Antiquities of Saddam Dam Basin Salvage and Other Researches.

Illustrations:

Illustrations: The Site:

TELL ABU HUSAINI (Hamrin No.35)

The Site: Tell Abu Dhahir is located on the right bank of the Tigris River in Zummar sub-province, about 90 km north-west ofMosul.

Tell Abu Husaini is located south of Tell Yelkhi.

The Tell consists of a large oval mound, about 6m high and measuring approximately 300 x 200m, although the settled area was only about 110 x 130m or about 1.5 hectares (Tusa, 1981 :262).

The site consists of a high mound some 20m above the surrounding plain, with a lower mound stretching several hundred metres along the river (Ball, 1987:78).

"The cultural horizon revealed at Husaini can easily be seen as being a part of the picture of late - Ubaid culture, as it is known in North Mesopotamia and at other sites in the Hamrin basin." (lnvernizzi, 1980:43). It was probably one of the major villages at this time on the plain judging by its size, and peculiarities of its houses which paid attention to service needs- exhibiting a high degree of technical ability. It exhibited some cultural features of the following Uruk period (Tusa, 1980:227).

Remains were found of the Hassuna, Ubaid, Uruk, Ninevite V, Akkadian and later periods, but the Ubaid settlement was by far the largest period represented. The excavations show that "There are at least five subphases, all consisting of mud structures divided into very small cubicles" which produced a deposit of about 3.5m, suggesting a long The occupation (Ball, 1987:79; Iraq, 1987:234). excavations also brought to light a minor industrial area which included amongst other things, pottery manufacture, a very fme range of obsidian and extensive flint knapping.

The settlement appears to have been occupied for a relatively short but continuous period without any major upheavals between the building and successive rebuilding of its houses, as attested to by the lack of any apparent evolution of its material culture. It can therefore be considered to be a single cultural stage. The excavation sample upon which the excavator's conclusions were based consisted of approximately 1/ 15th of the entire settlemen~ (Tusa, 1981 :262).

Other areas of the site were investigated earlier in three seasons (1977, 1978, 1979) by an expedition from Mosul University (see Adil N. Abboud, 1981, The Excavations of the University of Mosul at Tell Abu Dhahir (l), Sumer 37:81-100 - in Arabic and Abdul Malik Yunis - The Excavations of the University of Mosul at Tell Abu Dhahir (11), Sumer 37:101-111- in Arabic).

Due to its elevation, the village enjoyed very good drainage from its inception, and the houses of the Ubaid settlement lay on the slopes of the mound. These houses have small rectangular or square rooms, with their corners pointed to the cardinal points. They belong to two consecutive levels. Many child burials were also associated with the Ubaid houses (Iraq, 1979: 165).

No Halaf occupation was evident in the step-trench by the British Archaeological Expedition with a distinct stratigraphical break and period abandonment between the Ubaid and Hassuna periods being suggested (Iraq, 1987:234), although the earlier excavations conducted by the Mosul University expedition has found evidence of a Halaf occupation (Yunis, 1981:105 - Arabic section). It

The first period of occupation on the site consists of three main building phases, all belonging to the Late Ubaid period. 11

period should in fact be considered as part of the Ubaid culture, as indeed it is.

Phase 1 The architecture of the frrst settlement appears to have been very humble, with small, simple, quadrangular structures, consisting of basically of one room and constructed of tauf (packed clay). "The buildings may have been constructed in this makeshift way because the site was only inhabited in certain periods, probably on a seasonal basis. The first stage may indicate a gradual process of settlement that became more substantial during the second stage." (Tusa, 1985:37). The architectural remains of the first phase were severely damaged by later building activity connected with the growth of the Ubaid period occupation. Widespread leveling was carried out during the first phase. A greenish beaten clay floor was built over the entire settled area, and all new buildings were subsequently constructed on this floor (Tusa, 1980:225). These new structures were widely scattered and far apart and drainage to them was ensured by the use of water ducts of 'symmetrical tube sections' {Tusa, 1985:37). Perhaps, "The most interesting features of this phase are the two small round buildings (diameter 4m) made oftauf." (Tusa, 1980:225; 1981:264).

After abandonment of the Ubaid settlement, the site was used for funerary purposes during the Isin-Larsa, NeoAssyrian, Partho-Sasanian and Islamic periods. Tusa suggests that the Hamrin region became gradually less important than other Mesopotamian regions during the late Ubaid Period {Tusa, 1985:40). Moreover, he suggests that at Tell Abu Husaini, "we are witnessing the end of a cultural process, and great socio-economic change are taking place in Mesopotamian society." {Tusa, 1980:227).

4.

TELL ARPACHIYAH (Tepe Rashwa)

Excavator:

1. M.E.L.Mallowan & J.Cruikshank Rose. 1933 2. I. Hijara. 1976

References:

1. Mallowan, M.E.L. & Rose, J.C., Iraq Il, 193 5 - Excavations at Tall Arpachiyah, 1933, pp.l-178. 2. J. Curtis, 1982, in Fifty Years of Mesopotamian Discovery, pp.30- 36.

Illustrations:

Plan Level IV (Fig.2-30).

The Site:

Tell Arpachiyah lies less than 0.5km from the modem village of Arpachiyah, and about 6km to the north-east ofNineveh.

According to the excavators, the material can typologically be compared to the late Ubaid assemblages known from Nuzi X-A and Gawra XIII in Northern Mesopotamia, and Tell Ayash and Tell Madhhur in the Hamrin Basin (Tusa, 1980:225). Phase 2 The second building phase is more substantial and the architectural remains of this phase can be found over the entire site. Large portions of buildings were identified, Of particular some of which have a very regular layout. interest was a building with a central area composed of two corridors flanking a rectangular room, thus producing a Ushaped lay-out. Further rooms were symmetrically placed on either side of the U-shaped area. The rooms were sometimes sub-divided by 'standard sized' rectangular mudbrick partitions. Some of the rooms had no doors, and their very small interiors may have been used for storage {Tusa, 1980:225). The excavators also feel that room 14 was used for industrial purposes because of the many axes, and maceheads found.

It consists of a small, low mound having a maximum diameter of about 67m at its base, and the maximum diameter of the total area over which excavations were conducted were approximately 125m. The mound rises about 5.50m above the surround plain.

One building unearthed on the upper part of the settlement was noteworthy for its large dimensions. A number of large rooms were juxtapositioned, with no apparent planning, around a central courtyard. Two other buildings were composed of randomly placed rooms, none of which arranged according to a coherent plan (Tusa, 1980:225).

Mallowan used a workforce of 180 men for a period of six weeks to excavate the mound. From the mound's centre, Mallowan distinguished 10 superimposed building levels (TI1-10), of which the top four contained poorly built mud-brick houses belonged to the Ubaid period; one of these houses may have had a tripartite plan. The Arpachiyah excavations show that there was a strong cultural influence radiating from southern Iraq at this time. (Curtis, 1982:30).

Phase 3 The third phase was more fragmentary because due to its closeness to the surface, it was severely damaged by natural weathering and recent mechanized ploughing, destroying most of the architectural remains of the fmal Ubaid period settlement {Tusa, 1985:37).

The excavators believe that the village had no more than 200 houses in all during most periods of its settlement, and "as the excavated house remains show, the AI Ubaid period can only have covered the latest and shortest portion of the total length of time during which Arpachiyah was inhabited." (Mallowan, et al., 1935:8).

Amongst the fmds, was a small spherical overhanging rim cup with a small spout on its shoulder and belonging to the Late Ubaid, but clearly showing signs of the following Uruk phase (Tusa, 1985:37-38). This gradual evolution in style and craftsmanship with no sudden change, adds considerable weight to the argument that the early Uruk

Levels TI 1-4 (from top to bottom) which contained the Ubaid Period, covered a depth of about 2.5m from the 12

surface of the mound. The houses were very poorly built, either of mud-brick or lumps of stiff clay or tauf (packed mud). Walls were never more than one brick thick, and the floors were of beaten clay; roofs were constructed of reeds and matting. The walls of this period stood no more than a few centimetres high and were often totally destroyed, making it impossible to extract a coherent ground plan. The excavators suggest that, "These miserable dwellings could hardly have been in existence for any great length of time, and we may reasonably guess that IT 1-4 can easily be fitted into the span of one hundred years, and may not have endured for more than half that time." (Mallowan, et al., 1935:11 ).

occupation of about I500 years (AI Jadir, I979:568). This seems extremely long (particularly for a small village), since even if a mud-brick building had an 'optimistic' life span of about 40 years (and many would not), then 10 x 40 would give us 400 years - perhaps 500 years at the most for the total settlement. Moreover, the possibility of gaps in the sequence must not be ruled out. The excavator also inform us that the Ubaid settlement expanded considerably during this period, but does not mention if virgin soil was reached. At the centre of the mound, a considerable area of housing in different levels was exposed, revealing separate domestic units with courtyards and a street (Iraq, 1979:169). The courtyard of Level Ill is particularly interesting in that it is enclosed by walls featuring regularly placed buttresses, reminding us of the acropolis courtyard in Level XIII of Tepe Gawra (Fig.2-31). Level IV (Fig.2-32) on the other hand, is reminiscent of the houses of Tell es-Sawwan (Level Ilia).

At about 3m below the surface of the mound (Level ITS), the houses change in character and generally become better built and more spaciously planned suggesting to the excavators that it was the work of Tall Halaf builders (Mallowan, et al., 1935:13). In IT 1-2 a few roughly shaped piano-convex bricks were found; one measured I6 x 16 x 7cm thick, and the second measured roughly 25 x 16 x 6cm thick. There was also a thick green mortar at least 2cm thick. The piano-convex brick was used side by side with pise' . From the same levels burnt-brick sizes were recovered from a kiln measuring: 30 x 15 x Bern; 30 x 22 x I Ocm; 28 x IS x I Ocm (Mallowan, I935:I6). In IT4-5, the excavators came across the following tauf sizes which were all irregular: 43 x 4I x IOcm; 37.5 x 2I x 8cm; 39 x 20.5 x 9cm; 46 x 42 x IIcm.

5.

In square E4/D, foundations were uncovered which were made of mud-brick (liben) measuring 30 x 7-8cm, with walls of mud-brick measuring 20 x 6cm. Unfortunately, we are not told whether the second dimension of the bricks represents the thickness or the width. As the excavator was probably looking at the excavated wall in elevation, the dimensions given would represent a brick's length and height, in which case, no dimensions are give for its width. A dark liben was used for constructing the walls of Level 11 (which consisted of dwellings), measuring 42 x I2cm. Clay was used to plaster the walls. In square E4/A, a wall was traced with mud-bricks measuring 50 x 24 x 7cm, "the same measurements used in most parts of the structures of this tell." (AI Jadir, 1979:567).

TELL 'AYASH (Hamrin No.17)

Excavator:

Baghdad University, Department of Archaeology, under direction of W.M. AI-Jadir. Summer I977.

References:

AI Jadir, W., (I,2):556-568.

Illustrations:

Plan of various levels and Level Ill (Fig.2-31), Plan of Architectural Remains of Level IV (Fig.32).

The Site:

1979,

The pottery patterns suggest close affmity with the southern Ubaid sites, and "In the 1Oth level which is the last one we reached this season we found traces of Haji Mohammed Culture as indicated by its pottery" (AI Jadir, I979:566).

Sumer 35

6.

Tell 'Ayash is about 7 km northwest of AI-Sadiyah town and close to the eastern bank fthe Diyala River. The site consists of a small oval shaped mound, extending from the south-east to north-east for about 85m and from north-east to south-west for about 60m. It stands about 2.25m above the surround plain.

Recent agricultural activity on the site modified the mound's general topography. The excavations at Tell 'Ayash revealed four identifiable levels (Levels 11-V), representing the "remains of more than ten settlement floors", and which the excavator claims corresponds to an uninterrupted 13

TELL BRAK (Syria)

Excavator :

I. M.E.L. Mallowan, I937-1938. 2. D. Oates & J. Oates, University of London, Institute of Archaeology, 1976- present.

References:

I. D. Oates, 1987, Excavations at Tell Brak 1985-86, Iraq 49: I75190. 2. D. Oates, 1982, Tell Brak, in 50 years of Mesopotamian Discovery 3. D. Oates, 1982, Excavations at Tell Brak 1978-81, Iraq 44:187-204. 4. D. Oates, 1977, Excavations at Tell Brak I976, Iraq 39:233-244.

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

3. J. Oates, 1969, Choga Mami 196768: a preliminary report, Iraq31: 115152.

Illustrations: The Site :

Is located in the southern portion of the K.habur triangle, 1 km west of the Jagjag River, and about 40 km north of Hasseke. It covers an area of over 40 hectares and rises some 43m.

Illustrations:

Plans of three buildings from Level 3 (Fig.2-33); Reconstruction of Building H8 (Fig.2-34)

The Site :

Choga Mami lies in the Mandali region. Choga Mami is a low mound, rising some 6m above the surrounding plain at its highest point. It measures roughly 350 x 1OOm.

Tell Brak was strategically located since the Khabur constitutes a primary communications route between Euphrates and the Khabur plains. It is "the largest ancient site in the Khabur basin of north-eastern Syria and one of the most important early urban centres in northern Mesopotamia." (D.Oates, 1982:62). It must have been an important mercantile centre during the Ubaid period linking the ancient copper mines of eastern Anatolia and Mesopotamian 'colonies' like Degirmentepe, with the centres of Ubaid culture in southern Iraq, via Assur and the Tigris Valley. Yet, it probably reached its zenith and ca.43 hectare size during the late Uruk period through the coalescence of smaller sites clustered around it.

Excavations show that the CM Transitional levels which contain Ubaid-like material had poorly preserved building remains and were heavily eroded. However, from the north-east corner of the mound, a massive mud-brick guardtower "which had once protected access to the village at this point" was revealed which was probably Samarran, although it may have dated to Early Ubaid. "Here a cobbled path approached the settlement, turning at right angles around the tower and entering by way of a series of mudbrick and polished limestone steps leading to an occupation level now lost. This substantial structure was responsible for the preservation here of several levels post-dating the classic Samarran levels excavated elsewhere" (J.Oates, 1982:24).

Up to 1984, "No levels earlier than the Late Uruk period have so far been excavated." (D.Oates, 1982:62), although brick work of an Al-Ubaid building was encountered during the excavation of an Early Dynastic well. Ubaid sherds and tortoise vases were also found.

In a sounding in 1985 in Area CH, the excavators encountered a quantity of Late Ubaid painted ware, some 10m above the plain (ea. 14m below the surface of the tell). The excavations also demonstrate a fairly substantial Early Uruk phase with no apparent sudden change from the Ubaid to the Early Uruk cultures. This lends weight to the argument that the Early Uruk is in fact an 'evolved' Ubaid. The excavators suggest the possible existence of an 'eye temple' below the Uruk levels as a number of sherds exhibit 'eye' motifs on them (D. Oates, 1987: 176).

8.

DEGIRMENTEPE (Turkey)

Excavator:

Prehistory department of Istanbul University and the D.G. Of Antiquities & Museums, under direction of Ufuk Esin 1978

References:

1. U. Esin & S. Hannankaya, 1987, Degirmentepe (Malatya) Kurtarma Kazisi, 1986. Kazi Sonuclari Toplantisi Vol.IX. 2. U. Esin & S. Harmankaya, 1986, '1985 Degirmentepe (Malatya- Imamli Koyu) Kurtarma Kazisi'. Kazi Sonuclari Toplantisi Vol.VIII:95-137. 3. U. Esin & S. Hannankaya, 1985, '1984 Degirmentepe (Malatya) Kurtama Kazisi'. Kazi Sonuclari Toplantisi Vol.VII:53-85. 4. U. Esin, 1984, Degirmentepe (Malatya Kurtarma Kazisi 1983 Yili Raporu, Kazi Sonuclari Toplantisi Vol.VI:11-29. 5. 1987, Anatolian Studies Vol.37. 6. 1985, Anatolian Studies Vol.35.

Illustrations:

Site Plan, Level II (Fig.2-35), Level II Buildings (Fig.2-36,2-37,2-38).

Comparing Tell Brak with Tepe Gawra, Oates sees simultaneous existence of two "different ritual traditions of construction." (D.Oates, 1987:381).

7.

CHOGA MAMI

Excavator:

J.

References:

1. J. Oates, 1983, Ubaid Mesopotamia reconsidered, in The Hilly Flanks, S.A.O.C. No.36. 2. J. Oates, 1982, Choga Mami, in 50 years of Mesopotamian Archaeology, pp.24-29.

Oates, British Archaeology in Iraq, Feb.1968.

School of Dec. 1967-

14

The Site:

The Deginnentepe mound lies within the area of the Karakaya Dam Lake. It lies roughly 24 km to the north-east of Malatya and 80 km south of the Euphrates in lmamli village in the Old Malatya district (Esin & Harmankaya, 1986:99).

millennium BC). The Chalcolithic Ubaid period which was traced from the 6th level onwards was the most important culture at Deginnentepe, and thus the excavators placed heavy emphasis on it so that this period was extensively excavated. In 1986, the 1985 step-trench on the north of the mound was

enlarged towards the south (squares 13-151), establishing the relationship between the mound and the 59 slope of the hill and rechecking the stratigraphy. During this season the excavations were carried out in a 1000 sq.m. area on the mound. The 6th and 7th level mud-brick structures of the Chalcolithic Ubaid culture became evident once the removal of the 5th level layer was completed.

Deginnentepe is a medium-sized low mound. The rescue excavations at Deginnentepe have been going on since 1978 within the framework of the Lower Euphrates project. The mound's deposit of ca.8m thick, has yielded material from several periods of which the Chalcolithic Ubaid periods are the most recognizable (A.S., 1985:188; Yakar, 1985:298).

During the 1985 season, the north edge of the Chalcolithic settlement was established in the step-trench to the north, and in 1986, the 9th-11th levels on the south slope of the mound were unearthed. "The foundations of a rectangular structure constructed of narrow rows of stones were unearthed (square 19H) on the south slope of the mound from Level 9. Likewise it was established from this steptrench (square 19H) that the settlement was surrounded by a thick, zig-zag, mud-brick fortification wall with bastions and recesses, partially with a pebble stone fill just to the north of the stone foundations ofLevel9. A continuation of the same surrounding wall was brought to light on the west In this area the slope of the mound (square 17 C). surrounding wall was laid immediately on top of virgin soil." (A.S., 1987:184).

In 1984 excavations were carried out in an area of about 600 sq.m. on the southern part of the mound, to unearth the mud structures of the Ubaid period. The third level represented by the Ubaid, was encountered directly after the removal of the Urartian Iron Age remains. 30 mud-brick buildings of different sizes were cleared out, attesting to a densely built by site. It appears the settlement was an active centre of agriculture, industry and trade. The buildings were generally square shaped and set 'side by side' and were arranged around an inner courtyard or along both sides of a street. Altogether they appear to have formed 3 building complexes in the north and east and resembled the south-western building complex dug earlier. Based on studies carried out on the north of the middle wing of the south-west complex, the excavators suggested that these buildings may have functioned as workshops. A mud-brick covered passage, 2m long, was discovered which connected the northern part of the building to the eastern part. This passage and the furnaces in the workshops were the most important finds of the season. Copper slag found lying near a furnace suggested that copper was melted in these workshops (AS, 1985:188). As we know, copper is abundant in many parts of Anatolia, although only a limited number of these deposits are considered worthy of large scale exploitation (Moorey, 1985:11).

There were rectangular post-holes in the surrounding walls (belonging to the superstructure), which led the excavators to believe that there could have been wooden structures on them. Almost all the mud-brick structures to the south and northeast of the mound which were excavated in 1985 and 1986 belonged to Level 7. The structures of this level were well preserved and had several repair and renovation phases. Some of the house walls which rose to a height of 2m, bore traces of red-on-white wall paintings. The doors, windows and niches of Levels 4-9 were preserved. The settlement comprised a number of densely compacted building complexes that grew up in an orderly fashion next to the surrounding wall mentioned above. These mud-brick building complexes consisted of a large hall or court in the centre (with ovens) and flanked by smaller rooms at the sides forming an almost symmetrical square. The excavators believe that the larger structures and the large buildings in the middle were usually temples (squares 17 DE, l5-16G, 17-18 F-H and 17-18 1-K). In the wings at the sides, there were workshops, staircases and rooms.

Because of the large quantity of clay sealings, stamp seals made of stone and a large number of bullae (with mat impressions on the reverse side) found at Deginnentepe, the excavators concluded that the site was an important trading centre on the banks of the Euphrates during the Chalcolithic period. Also, this collection of fmds are to date, the largest in size except for those of Tepe Gawra, suggesting to the excavators that the social structure of the site had reached a 'proto-urban ' level of civilization with a complex economic system.

Square-shaped Tepe Gawra type mud-brick altars were found in the middle of the 'temples '. These were sometimes filled with a yellow and occasionally redcoloured substance. The walls of these 'temples' were plastered white and were decorated with radiating sun and tree motifs in red and orange outlines. These motifs were enclosed in rectangles with black painted borders. Unfortunately, these wall murals had been repainted four or five times and thus came down in a very poor condition.

In 1985 a step-trench was opened on the north slope of the mound, in which eleven cultural levels were identified above ground level. Levels 6 - 11 (from the top downwards) belonged to the Chalcolithic Age (5th millennium/beginning of the 4th 15

showing superimposed Remains {Fig.2-60).

The close resemblance of the Deginnentepe 'temples' to those ofTepe Gawra (see Figs. 288b,289) is striking.

The Site

The 'temple' structures produced a large quantity of clay vessel lids and decorated seal-stamps. These 'temple' structures suggest to the excavators that Deginnentepe was an important cultural and trading centre during the Ubaid cultural period in the 5th millennium BC (AS, 1987:185). It seems plausible however, that these 'temple' structures, may have served an administrative function rather than a religious one.

9.

ERIDU (Abu Shahrain)

Excavator:

Iraqi Directorate General of Antiquities under direction ofF. Safar. 1946- 1949.

References:

1. F. Safar, et al., 1981, Eridu, S.O.A.H., Baghdad. 2. S. Kubba, 1987, Mesopotamian Architecture and Town Planning from the Mesolithic to the Protohistoric. BAR series. 3. F. Safar, 1950, Eridu: A Preliminary Report on the Third Season's Excavations, 1948-49, Sum er 6(1). 4. Lloyd & Safar, 1948, Eridu: preliminary communication on the second season's excavations: 19471948. Sumer 4:115-127; in Arabic:276-285. 5. Lloyd & Safar, 1947, Eridu: preliminary communication on the first season's excavations: JanuaryMarch 1947. Sumer 3:84-111 ; in Arabic:219-235.

Illustrations:

Temple

Eridu lies about 24 km SSW of Ur in an irregular NW/SE depression. AI Nasiriyah is the nearest town, which is 40 km to the north-east. The site consists of seven mounds, with Mound No.1 representing the earliest settlement and Ubaid periods. "The acropolis which is almost round 580 x 540m stretching slightly from NW to SE, and rising at the top of its ziggurat 25m above the plain, while its surface which rises only about llm is oblong 220 x 180m with a projection at its northeastern side, roughly square in shape 40 x 50m." (Safar, 1981 :3 1).

As a prehistoric site Eridu was an unusually large city. Even today the ancient surface debris extends over a diameter of about 500 metres in every direction. During the Ubaid period this ancient 'market-town' may have occupied an area of up to 10 hectares with a population of at least 4000 people (Bumey, 1977:55). It is also probable that at an early stage in its prehistory it was secured by a town wall, although this remains to be dug 'in extenso'." (Mallowan, 1976:332). During the Early Ubaid period, the Eridu settlement extends beyond the limits of the central mound, at least to the southwest (Wright, 1981:323).

Architecture - Temples: The excavations at Eridu revealed a series of eighteen temples, the earliest resting on virgin soil, with their corners oriented to the cardinal points. The temples at Eridu can conveniently be classified into three main groups:

Location Map (Fig.2-39) ; Plans of Levels 17, 16,15 (Fig.2-40) ; Plans, 'Hut Soundings', (Fig. 2-41); Plan, 'Hut Soundings' L.10 (Fig.2-42) ; 'Hut Sounding' Brick Details (Fig.2-43); Level 11 Temple Plan (Fig.2-44) ; Level 11 Temple Reconstruction (Fig.2-45) ; Level 10 Temple Plan {Fig.2-46); Level 9 Temple Plan (Fig.2-47); Level 9 Temple Reconstruction (Fig.2-48); Level 9 Temple Reconstruction by Forest (Fig.49 ); Level 8 Temple Plan (Fig.250); Level 8 Temple Reconstruction (Fig.2-51); Level 8 Temple Reconstruction (Fig.2-52); Level 7 Temple Plan (Fig. 2-53a,2-53b); Level 7 Temple Reconstruction (Fig.2-54); Level 6 Temple Plan and Surrounds (Fig.2-55); Temple 6 Plan (Fig.2-56); Temple 6 Reconstructions (Figs.l57,2-58,2-59) ; Schematic Diagrams

1. The earliest of these is the 'archaic' group and includes temples XVIII to XV inclusive. Following Temple XV there is a gap for temples XIV-XII because of the fragmentary evidence of remains.

2. The second group represents a more sophisticated design approach, and a new direction in temple design is attested to in this phase which consists of temples XI-VI inclusive. This generation of temples differed fundamentally from their predecessors in size and layout, containing all the essential elements of later Sumerian temples (Redman, 1978:250). It is possible to divide this sequence of development into two sub-phases: a. consisting of temples XI-IX and b. temples VIII-VI. Although both sub-phases are closely related in terms of development, there seems to be a significant 'leap forward' from the planning and design aspects between Temple IX and Temple VIII. This will be discussed shortly.

16

3. The third and last generation comprises Eridu temples I to V, and which belong to the 'Uruk' period and is therefore outside the scope of this study.

shelves. A small compartment in its west corner is the only other feature worthy of note.

Temples XVDI & XVII: There is little that can be said concerning the level XVIII temple except that it consisted of fragmentary remains built on a sand dune, and which may be covering still earlier layers. Temple XVII again consists of poorly preserved architectural remains of a square-shaped enclosure with internal projections which may have been buttresses.

Following the frrst group, there is a gap for temples XIV to XII with no trace of actual buildings within the excavators' sounding. The second homogeneous group begins with Temple XI, and ushers in a new and exciting phase in temple design. The temples of this sequence contained all the essential elements of later Sumerian temples, the characteristics of which will be discussed in greater detail in chapter 5.

Temple XVI: This was the earliest complete temple found (temples XVIII and XVII were represented by traces of walls only), and consisted of a small one-roomed rectangular structure, measuring 3.10 x 2.10, with a cultniche measuring 1.10 x LOOm deep. Inside the niche stood a 24cm high mud-brick platform or altar facing the entrance, which was slightly off centre, and which may have been used to support the statue or symbol of the god (Safar, et al., 1981 :88). In the centre of the main chamber stood a similar pedestal representing an offering-table which bore traces of frre, and was surrounded by ashes.

Temple XI: This is the earliest temple of sub-phase (a) and we see here a fundamental departure from earlier design concepts (Fig.2-44). This is the earliest known instance of using a platform to intentionally raise a temple. A formal ramp, 1.20m wide and supported on the outside by a parapet 35cm thick, connected the two levels. The platform which was later considerably extended was only one metre high, and the ramp required a distance of 4.50m, giving a gradient of 12.5 degrees; this is a very gentle slope for a worshipper to ascend. Adjoining the ramp was a narrow water-channel for draining the rainwater.

The walls of the temple showed signs of having been plastered on the inside, and were built of a distinctive kind of long prismatic mud-brick (average dimensions: 54-32 x 20 x 6-7cm) with thumb impressions on the upper side (a similar kind of brick construction is found at Tepe Sialk in central Iran). The thickness of the walls corresponded to the width of the bricks. The entrance to the Temple was emphasised by internal projections or buttresses in its doorway which was inexplicably placed off centre.

What is interesting, is that the platform 'extension' was not of solid brickwork, but rather "consisted of building a skeleton of narrow, unplastered sleeper-walls, and filling the space between them with rubble. At the time of the extension, the old ramp had been eliminated, and very scanty traces remained to show that a stairway of brick had been built to take its place." (Safar, et al., 1981 :94). This is an ingenious method of construction for such an early period; not only is it more economical than building with solid mud-brick, but it is also more efficient in absorbing and channeling the rainwater from the platform, thereby allowing it to dry more rapidly.

Temple XV was larger and consisted of a rectangular building measuring 7.30 x 8.40m, with traces of internal buttresses or screens (Fig.2-40). Other than the fact that it was built upon what may have been considered consecrated, hallowed ground (i.e. it was built over the previous temple), there is insufficient evidence to confidently designate this structure a temple. The excavators seem to concur, and their identification of this building as a temple, also "depended largely on the fact that it had obviously been built to replace Temple XVI." (Safar, et al., 1981 :88). Huot on the other hand, interprets the fragmentary remains of this level as "merely the misinterpreted vestiges of a 'pigeonhole' granary of 'Ouei/i type." (Huot, 1987:8).

Unfortunately, the excavators did not uncover the whole plan of Temple XI, but there are sufficient details to reconstruct it with some confidence, partly by comparison with later levels. It had rather thin walls, one brick thick and consisting of rectangular mud-bricks averaging 52 x 27 x 7cm. The walls were reinforced with buttresses at fairly regular intervals which also provided a pleasing rhythmic articulation. Basically, the Temple appears to have been designed as a tripartite building. It comprised of a long central nave, which judging by its width (4.50m) and flimsy walls, was not roofed unless vertical timber supports were used to prop up the ceiling. It is possible, though unlikely, to have incorporated two rows of supports, lining them up with the buttresses on the ends. It seems more plausible however, that at this stage of the temple's development, the central chamber which was at least 12.60m long (but more likely 12.96m- i.e. 18 Ubaid cubits), served as a court rather than a sanctuary, which helps explain why temples XI and X, contained no altars or offering tables, and instead they are found in one of the projecting rooms. The central hall or court was probably flanked by rooms on both sides, and a long narrow corridor-like passage on its west face. The thin

The mud-bricks used in its construction were hand-made and had average dimensions of 40 x 14 x 8cm. "They were indented on the upper surface with a row of about 5 holes, made with the knuckles of the right hand, perhaps to serve as a 'key' for the mortar." (Safar, et al., 1981 :89). These thumb-marks are a unique feature ofEridu at this period. The north-east and south-west wall appear to have been constructed as 'cavity walls' consisting of two leaves, each one brick thick but inadequately bonded together. The north-west and south-east walls however, consisted of a single one brick thick wall and needed thin buttresses to give it rigidity. These buttresses might also have supported

17

walls reinforced with buttresses remind us of Temple XIII atGawra. "There is no entrance to the building from the southeast side, and no entrance would, in fact, be practicable since the face of the platfonn runs along the base of the facade. The position of the ramp, on the contrary suggests an approach from the south-west side. This applies equally to Temple X, where the southern corner of the building coincides with face of the platfonn." (Safar, et al., 1981 :112). Temple X: The temple plan of this level, appears to resemble that of its predecessor (Fig.2-46) . The walls were poorly preserved to a height of about 45cm, and made of mud-bricks measuring 47 x 27 x 6.5cm. A mud-brick podium with rebated corners was found in the southwest recess, which implies that this recess was roofed, in contrast to the large central court which does not appear to have been roofed. The entrance to the temple seems to be either from the north-west facade or the north-east face. Temple IX: The third and last of this sub-phase sequence was the easiest to follow (Fig.2-47). There is a strong possibility that the central hall was now roofed, at least The partially, and used as a sanctuary at this point. reasons for this being: I . The central chamber is narrower (measuring 4.10 x lOm); 2. It contained fragments of an altar - although we fmd an offering table in one of the projecting rooms as well (Safar et al., 1981 :100); and 3. There appears to be an antechamber in the central hall's east face, which would have little meaning if the central hall was a court (unless the antechamber was roofed), whereas temples XI and X do not appear to have this antechamber. Moreover, one can now enter the central hall from at least two 'front' entrances and possibly a third. It appears that Temple IX represents a transition in the temple's development from Temple X with its unroofed central chamber, to Temple VIII with its roofed cella and modified fonn.

one of which contained a 'tortoise' type spouted vessel, while the other may have housed a statue of the god. One of the niches also had a blocked door. The central chamber which can now be called a cella, could be reached through two vestibules (rooms 4 and 3) from the south-west. This differs from earlier plans: "A new feature is the existence at the south corner of two small rooms at right angles to the main axis of the temple, the first accessible from both the interior and the platfonn, the second opening only on to the platfonn." (Perkins, 1972:88). By analogy with Temple VII, the cella appears to have been enclosed by two rows of smaller rooms on its long sides. "On the central cross-axis of the building, there was another main entrance from the terrace outside, through a small rectangular ante-room with a very wide door on the sanctuary side, and this also seemed likely to have been In the repeated on the opposite side of the building. southern corner of the sanctuary., between the 'proscenium' pier and the jamb of the central entrance, a low bench or platfonn was built against the wall, having a projection of 50cm and a height of 1Ocm." (Safar, et al., 1981:101 ). Although the published plan records "platfonn face not located", the text records that the face of the platfonn was located on the south-east side of the temple about one metre beyond the projecting wing, and was shown to be about 90cm high (Safar, et al., 1981 :103). Temple VII: This is perhaps the best preserved of the whole temple sequence and measured about 18.5m x 13m. The plans published in Sumer (1950) differ slightly from those published recently in Eridu (Fig.2-53a, 2-53b) It shows no radical change from Temple VIII, although the false doors behind the altar are now gone. The walls are the same thickness (c.70cm), being made of28-27 x 23-21 x 6cm soft mud-bricks and the overall character of the two buildings has remained the same (Safar, et al., 1981: 103). The platfonn was now 1.5m high, and a flight of steps from the base of the platfonn to the threshold of the door gave direct access to the cella via a wide but shallow vestibule (room 27). The staircase leading to this vestibule was made of mud-brick, laid flat and plastered. It consisted of seven treads and eight risers, the lower three treads projecting beyond the platfonn's surface and supported by parapets on each side. The risers averaged about 18.75cm (1 .5m divided 8), and if the treads averaged 30cm, then the This is gradient would have been about 36 degrees. equivalent to a nonnal domestic stair.

Temple VIII: "At temple VIII we are confronted with a fonnidable mud-brick building, larger than any that had been founded before, 21 x 12m, approximately, in dimensions. The plan is now well and boldly articulated and the projecting rooms have been embraced within the whole and absorbed in the general plan, which is clearly tripartite in fonn." (Mallowan, 1976:337). The walls ofthe temple were much thicker (Fig.2-52), averaging about 70cm (Safar, et al., 1981 ). The use of a standard building module and planning grid in the layout of this temple (as of Temples XI, IX, VII & VI) is likely (Fig.5-39,5-40). This is discussed further in chapter 5.

The excavators were unable to trace the north-eastern and north-western faces of the platform, because of the limits of the sounding. It is possible therefore, that the platform could have extended sufficiently on these sides to accommodate additional buildings. "The supplementary entrances to the temple from both these directions would support this hypothesis." (Safar, et al., 1981 :104). Also, the question arises, of where the settlement worshipped while one temple was being demolished and another being built - on the same building plot? It seems that there may

In the centre of the south-west wall a podium or altar with a At the other end of the narrow step leading up to it. sanctuary, was a mud-brick offering-table with its upper surface showing signs of burning. The long passageway behind the altar which featured prominently in temples XIIX was now gone and in its place was a square shaped chamber (room 2), a curious crucifonn projection, and two other projections from rooms 10 and 2 (Fig.2-52) , all set forward about 30cm, and thus together fonning two niches 18

have been more than one temple at any particular time; this reminds us of the Gawra acropolis.

A close analysis of the Temple VI plan revealed that like its predecessor, a grid system seems to have been used. An alternative reconstruction (Fig.2-58) is illustrated based both on Temple VII and the use of a grid system. The reconstruction vividly shows that the Level VI Temple closely resembles its predecessor, the Level VII Temple (see chapter 5 for a more comprehensive explanation of the planning). However, in the reconstruction it was decided to shift the main entrance to the left (i.e. from room 12) as room 13 appears to be too small for such a large temple, particularly if it was the only entrance. Moreover, the position of the bench is now located adjoining the proposed entrance and is similarly located to that of Temple VIII.

Moreover, it is more likely that room 27 was a subsidiary entrance and that the main entrance was from the north-east via the more prestigious 'proscenium' (room 32). The door leading to room 27 is awkwardly placed with the steps stopping directly in front of it, whereas the two openings on the north-eastern side have a 'monumental' feeling to them. Also, the worshipper by entering from the short side, can make his offering and then approach the altar, after which he can exit either via room 27 or 35. Entering from the long side of the cella, on the other hand, would have created a more complicated and confused circulation pattern. Furthermore, it is likely that the platform extended considerably on the north-eastern side; this would have provided a suitable area for various activities. It should also be noted that many of the early Tepe Gawra temples (excluding the acropolis temples), as well as the later Uruk ones, are entered from the short side.

The cella is now quite long, measuring 14.40 x 3.70m, with 'proscenium openings' at either end. In the north-eastern wall are a pair of niches which may have served as ventilator shafts. Similar niches are found in the tripartite 'temples' of Tepe Gawra, Level XII and elsewhere. The podium and offering table are discussed in chapter 5.

Two phases of occupation can be discerned by the presence of two clay pavements, between which are 40cm of debris.

The cella was again flanked on both its long sides by smaller auxiliary chambers, all of which were painted with white lime-wash over the mud plaster. "Only the double chamber (No.28, 19) had a rather special character. By analogy with Protoliterate and other later temples, one would half expect to fmd here a ramp or stairway, leading up to the flat roof. But of this there was absolutely no sign." (Safar, et al., 1981:11 0). The presence of a small mud-brick pedestal, adjoining the door between the 'stairs' and the cella could not be explained.

Two slightly modified reconstructions of room 37 are offered, since this room was largely destroyed (Figs. 2-54, 5-33), which is more in keeping with the overall design, as well as being more congenial to the proposed method of design (Fig.5-34). A detailed expose of how this building may have been designed and conceived (including the possible use of a 72cm or 75cm Ubaid cubit) is given in chapter 5. Temple VI: "The building stood on a raised platform, beyond the limits of which, it was possible to distinguish no less than five concentric rectangles of masonry, representing successive extensions of its platform; the three first being constructed in liben of various sizes and the remaining two of limestone laid in gypsum mortar." (Safar, 1947:102). Temple VI is the last of a homogeneous sequence of temples, resembling to a great extent its predecessor, except for its longer cella (Fig.2-56) . The Temple VI architectural remains were in a poor state of preservation and the extent of this denudation is indicated on the plan (Fig.2-57).

Only the north-eastern facade (i.e. the short end), and the return-face of the projecting section at the eastern corner were traceable, and the excavators say that sufficient remains of the north-western outer wall to indicate that no entrance to the cella existed from this side (Ibid., 1981: 11 0). However, since Temple VII, its predecessor, shows five separate entrances or means of access to the cella, and because of the close similarity of Temples VII & VI, it seems unusual that the latter did not have at least three or four openings. These would have had to be either from the north-west or from the south-west or both. Moreover, the platform was considerably extended at its south-eastern and south-western sides, thereby forming an emplacement for the new temple.

According to the excavators, "Walls to the north of this line actually remained standing, their height varying from a few centimetres in its immediate vicinity, to more than two metres at the northern corner of the building. Only at the southwest end of Room 18, a hiatus is caused by the ancient treasure-seekers' shaft, which has already been noticed in the deeper levels. South of the line, the walls marked in full black could be inferred from the alignment of their foundations which still existed. The altar, which probably required no foundations, is suggested by a dotted line, and the doors to Room 9 & 10 are equally hypothetical being restored to match those in Temple VII." (Safar, et al., 1981: 105). The above clearly illustrates how little of the reconstructed plan is based on actually evidence and how much is hypothetical. It also brings home the need to be able to base a reconstruction on a deeper understanding of ancient design principles and methods.

Mud-brick sizes in walls above pavement level were 23 x 22 x 6, 23 x 17 x 6, and 23 x 20 x 6. In the foundations they were, 43 x 19 x 7, 42 x 18, 6, and 25 x 21 x 6 (Safar, 1947:230) "With temple VI the remarkable series of Al-'Ubaid religious buildings at Eridu comes to an end: associated with them there was a rich succession of painted pottery which, after the architecture, is our most copious source of documentation for the period." (Mallowan, 1976:339). Architecture- Domestic: A 7 x 7m trench (by 12.5m deep) to confirm earlier stratified results was sunk on the acropolis, about 80m to the south-east of the ziggurat, and 19

the main expedition to Eridu took place), the former attested to traces of murals of red paint on their walls (Mallowan, 1976:330-331). Taylor also found walls ornamented with alternate stripes of red, black and white paint, and on one, and noticed "..the figure of a man holding a bird on his wrist, with a smaller figure near him in red paint" (Taylor, 1855:404-415). Although these houses probably belong to the early Uruk period, it is nevertheless possible that they may be attributable to the Late Ubaid.

which was named 'The Hut Sounding' because the most important remains were plastered reed walls belonging to huts (Safar, 1950:28). Fourteen stratified levels were discerned, some of which had more than one floor. These levels could be divided into two basic groups, separated by a hiatus (Level IX) (Safar, et al., 1981 :249). The first group which corresponds to Temples VII 1. and VI, and consisted of the six upper Levels (Levels I-VI), " parts of six houses, built of sun-dried bricks, were discovered. Each of these houses had been built according to almost identical plans. In each there was a passage, about 75cm wide, running south-west to north-east, flanked by two rooms on each side." (Safar, 1950:29).

10.

TEPE GAWRA

Excavator:

Not much straw appears to have been used in making the mud bricks and the walls whose width usually mirrored the length of the brick, were usually built by laying the bricks in alternating courses of headers and stretchers (Mallowan, 1976:333). The bricks varied in size but were basically of three sizes: 44 x 22 x 8cm, 49 x 26 x 8cm and 42 x 25 x lOcm. In a typical house from Level V, the walls were plastered on both sides with fme greenish or reddish coloured clay, about 3cm thick (Safar, 1950:29). The level of the floor (which was of beaten clay) was 20cm higher than the bottom of the walls; on it were found numerous objects such as Ubaid potsherds, sickles, nails, baked clay net weights and great quantities of mollusc shells.

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8.

Oct. 1927 E.A. Speiser Jan. 1931 E.A. Speiser E.A. Speiser, C. Bache, C. Gordon. Oct. 1931 - March 1932 C. Bache 1933 C. Bache 1934-1935 C. Bache 1935-1936 1936-1937 E.A. Speiser C. Bache 1937-1938

References: S. Kubba, 1987, Mesopotamian 1. Architecture and Town Planning from the Mesolithic to the end of the Protohistoric Period, B.A.R. series. A.J. Tobler, 1950, Excavations at 2. Tepe Gawra, Vol.II, University of Pennsylvania Press. 1949, The Perkins, A.L. 3. comparative Archeology of Early Mesopotamia. S.A.O.C. No.25. E.A. Speiser, 1935, Excavations 4. at Tepe Gawra, Vol.l, University of Pennsylvania Press. E.A. Speiser, 1937, BASOR, 5. No.66:2-19.

The lower group (Levels XIV-X) was 2. contemporary with Temples XI-IX (Safar, et al., 1981:249). The earliest houses were basically of two types, those made of reed huts and those of mud-brick. Architectural remains were found in all levels of the sounding except for levels VII, IX, XIII and XIV. All the other ten levels with architectural remains were constructed of sun dried mudbricks (Fig.2-41) and clay mortar except for levels XII-X. In these three levels, remains of huts were uncovered of which Level X was the best preserved (Fig.2-42), with reed walls plastered on both sides with a thick layer of red clay, giving a total thickness of 15cm. Although the reeds in the walls had completely decayed, their position and outline was easy to trace from the impressions left by the stems and leaves on the inner surfaces ofthe plaster (Safar, 1950:30).

Illustrations:

In Level X, a large portion of a hut was uncovered, its floor (whose walls were found standing to height of 70cm), consisting of a mixture of sand and clay. It was divided into a number of rooms, two of which had low-lying oblong platforms or tables which may have been used for cooking. "The huts in the lower level appear to have been closely associated with mud-brick walls and one of them at least had served as the annex to a brick-built house. The same combination of reed-hut and mud-brick house is found on reaches of the Euphrates in southern Iraq today." (Mallowan, 1976:333). Some mud-brick houses were excavated by Taylor in 1854, and then by H.R. Hall after the First World War (i.e. before 20

Plans of Levels XIX (Fig.2-61), XVIII (Fig.2-62), XVII (Fig.2-63), XVI (Fig.2-64), XV-A (Fig.2-65), XV (Fig.2-66) , XIV (Fig.2-67), XIII (Fig.2-68), XI-A (Fig.2-69), XII (Fig.2-70); Plan of Building Level XIX (Fig.2-72); Plan Temples Level XIX & XVIII (Fig.2-73); Plans of Mise. Buildings (Figs.2-74); Plan Building Level XV-A (Fig.2-75), Plan Building Level XV (Fig.2-76); Plan Acropolis- Reconstruction (Fig.2-77); Isometric Plan Acropolis (Fig.2-78); Reconstruction Acropolis (Figs.2-79, 2-80) ; Plan Northern Temple (Fig.28 1); Reconstructed Plan Central 2-83) ; (Figs.2-82, Temple Reconstructed Plan Eastern Temple (Fig.2-84); Plan White Room Level XII (Fig.2-85) ; Plan Tripartite 'Duplex' Buildings Level XII (Fig.286) ; Plan Level XII Structures (Fig.2-

Tbe Site:

8 7) ; Plan Level XII Buildings (Fig.288); Plans Levels XV & XII Buildings (Fig.2-89); General Brick Bonding Details (Fig.2-90) ; Bonding Details Northern & Central Temples (Fig.29J); General Brick Bonding Details (Figs.2-92,2-93); Brick Bonding Details of 'White Room' (Fig.2-94); Illustration Painted Ubaid Ware & Incense Burners (Fig.2-95).

STRATUM XIX - Fig.2-61: From the earliest Ubaid level (XIX) upwards, we can trace the first of a long series of structures which were previously thought to be temples but now many scholars are increasingly interpreting them to be dwellings (excluding the acropolis temples of level XIII).

The mound rose to a ht of 22m and had a diameter of 120m at its base.

The Level XIX 'temple' (Fig.2-73) is a large structure although poorly preserved (perhaps because of the superposition of the XVIII 'temple' above it). However, a plausibly coherent plan can still be recovered. It was constructed of flimsy mud-brick walls with a central chamber or sanctum (rm 11) measuring 8.15 x 3m -much larger (and later) than the earliest small Eridu shrine. Its exterior walls were not recovered, although it can be seen that rooms flanked the central hall on both sides. A rectangular mud-brick podium was found on the cella's floor which presumably establishes the religious character of the building. The entrance to the 'temple' seems to have been from the east via a small antechamber (room 14), where a threshold of stones were discovered in its doorway. The 'temple' building shows signs of alteration from its original state and many key walls are missing.

Level XIX appears to have been densely populated. According to the excavator, the northern sector consisted of only secular buildings while the southern section was occupied by a temple (Tobler, 1950:45).

Tepe Gawra lies approximately 22km north of Nineveh in the hill country between the Tigris and Upper Zab, and 24km north-east of Mosul. According to Tobler, twenty distinct strata were excavated without reaching virgin soil. The Uruk period commences in Stratum XI-A, "where there is a pronounced change in material culture as compared to that of Stratum XII and still lower levels.", and the Ubaid period is represented by "no less than ten building levels" from Stratum XII downwards to Stratum XIX inclusive. Stratum XX belongs to the Halaf period (Tobler, 1950:4-6). The excavations and fmds at Tepe Gawra indicate an indigenous Late Chalcolithic culture which appears to be oriented in the direction of the Taurus highlands as evidenced by the glyptic and ceramic assemblages, and the distinctive rectangular mud-brick tombs of Late Chalcolithic Gawra (Levels XI-VIII) are very similar to contemporary levels at Korucutepe in the Altinova plain (Algaze, 1986: 125).

In the northern part of Level XIX a large well planned secular structure which may have been a large house, maximum dimensions measuring 17 x 11.5m (Fig.2-71). This house contained a large enclosed courtyard (rooms 36,51) in front and a number of rooms at the rear and on the east side which the excavator claims formed part of the house because their walls "are bonded into the main wall east of Area 40, and by their floor elevations which are identical with those of the rooms to the east." (lbid.:45). We also fmd in this level the use of piers or buttresses for structural purposes.

"In successive levels at Tepe Gawra, large carefully constructed tripartite buildings exist alongside small dwellings which show few signs of coherent planning. The variation in size and construction and conceptual design, may reflect distinctions in status and wealth. The larger, better planned structures may have housed the extended families of those who controlled the greater part of the community's wealth. From the plans of the different levels, it appears that only a small percentage of the Gawra population enjoyed a 'reasonable' standard of living." (Kubba, 1987:119). The Gawra houses in general seldom had a consistent plan of any sort and almost appeared to be mere conglomerations of rooms. This may have been due to the skill of the excavators.

STRATUM XVIII - Fig.2-62: The main structure of this level is a 'temple' which is almost directly superimposed on the 'temple' of Level XIX. A large number of rooms and ovens occupied the northern part of the site. These did not appear to have any coherent plan and also lacked any distinguishing features. The thick walls facing east may have been for protection against the summer sun. The Level XVIII temple shares the same basic plan as that in stratum XIX, although somewhat better organized. The building plan was not totally uncovered and the excavator suggests that some rebuilding may have taken place in its forepart (rooms 14,19,20). The plan layout is similar to the Kheit Qasim III building (see Fig.2-99) in the positioning of the buttresses and the three 'rows' of rooms (ForestFoucault, 1980).

Tepe Gawra will probably remain a type site and a primary source of reference for northern Ubaid architecture for some time, and its importance in helping us unravel and understand Mesopotamian Proto-history, cannot be over estimated, particularly prior to the Hamrin excavations. However, its proximity to the mountains, placing it in close contact with the often threatening hill tribes, must have played a significant role in the closely knit, defensive planning of Gawra and its society.

Like its predecessor, "the religious character of the edifice is established by a rectangular podium located slightly to the rear of the central chamber, or sanctum. This was 1.50m long, 95cm. wide, and 6cm. high, and was made of pise' ." (Tobler, 1950:44). 21

large secular structure (Fig.2-75) and various storage bins and kilns, and the eastern peak where the majority of dwellings were located and where a large kiln was also discovered.

The building consisted of a tripartite plan with the extant portion measuring 10.50 x 7m, and the long central chamber (room 16) was flanked on either side by smaller auxiliary rooms. The excavators were unable to identify any door openings in the walls, although the building's entrance was most likely in its short southern side. This may indicate that the preserved portions are foundations rather than walls (Perkins, 1972:65).

The building on the northern peak which may have been a private house, was the largest to be uncovered in this level and measured 8m x 7.50m. This building appears to have been used in both Strata XVI and XV-A and possibly also This according to the excavators represents a in XV. comparatively short, though unbroken period of time. Its long narrow rooms may have been (lbid.:41). determined by the owners ability to roof the space. Moreover, it is difficult to see how light entered rooms 61 and 62 unless there was some form of clerestory or either 61 or 62 were not roofed.

The walls of the 'temple' and not its corners were orientated to the cardinal points of the compass as is customary in later It also contained three structural piers or temples. buttresses (rooms 18 and 20) which appear to be randomly placed but which will later be carried to a high degree of refinement in Level XIII. The construction of the building is also still rather crude having walls of rammed earth, many of which do not meet at exact right angles.

In the south-eastern area a large portion of a secular building which measured about 7m in length by 6m in width was uncovered (rooms 1,2,4,6,7). Although the structure's western and southwestern walls could not be traced, the existing remains give a fairly coherent plan. The layout featured a central court and two small square rooms projecting from the corners of its long northern wall. An alcove or recess seems to have separated these two rooms. The building seems to have undergone considerable alterations to its original plan, particularly its eastern part. One of the interesting features of this Level XVI building was the discovery of decoration on its northern wall. This took the form of "a white plaster on which was painted a design consisting of rows of connected lozenges, the rows alternating in color between red and black. Each lozenge within the rows measured about 7cm in length and four in height, the combination of the red and black lozenges against the white background being particularly effective." (Tobler, 1950:40). This is the earliest example of wall decoration found at Gawra and the forerunner of the coloured plaster found in the acropolis temples of Level XIII.

This design tradition of the Level XIX and XVIII 'temples' as represented by long axes, central chamber flanked by smaller rooms on both sides, and accessed through the short sides, "unaccountably lay dormant at Gawra after Stratum XVIII for a period represented by eight levels, but was resurgent in Stratum XI-A and became the characteristic architectural feature of the cultural period begun in that level. Whether additional Temples of the same type lie in earlier unexplored levels of Gawra is unknown, but it is certain that the Stratum XIX Temple represents the oldest religious structure of its kind yet discovered at Gawra or elsewhere." (Tobler, 1950:47). What is surprising, is the affmity these 'temples' share with the Levels I and II structures of Tell es-Sawwan, and indicates that some form of social intercourse or trade was taking place between the two regions. STRATUM XVII - Fig.2-63: It should be noted that while only about 25 metres square were excavated in strata XIX and XVIII, nearly double that area was investigated in this level (lbid.:42).

To the north of this building is another structure consisting of rooms 14- 17 and room 22 (Fig.2-64) but which appears to be missing a room from its south-western corner. An underground kiln was attached to its north-eastern corner, and rooms 23 & 24 may therefore have been used as storage facilities.

No temples were uncovered in this level, although two partially preserved circular structures, ("northern and southern tholos" - nos 36 and 21) with 30cm thick mudbrick walls and a probable inside diameter of 4 .25m and Tobler suggested that 4.50m respectively, were found. these circular structures served a religious function because of their location; the southern tholos as well as the temples of Levels XVIII and XIX, are all almost directly Moreover, superimposed above the tholos of Level XX. the two tholoi were the only structures of this level to contain burials {Tobler, 1950:43).

It should be noted that the juxtaposition of rooms (4-7), (14,16,17,22), and (57,58,60,61) is similar, in that we have a recess or antechamber flanked on both sides by two smaller rooms. It may be that these areas all served the same function. This would add strength to the argument that they were dwellings, since a "number of the same type of buildings in the same area would presume a private quarter rather than a complex of public buildings." (Chavalas, 1988:25).

STRATUM XVI - Fig.2-64: According to Tobler, the three Strata XV, XV-A and XVI, "form a compact, sharply demarcated stratigraphic division" and "display internal relationships which effectively knit them into a single stratigraphic unit." (Tobler, 1950:37).

STRATUM XV-A - Fig.2-65: The excavated portion of this level lacks architectural interest and consisted mainly of poor dwellings and storage stalls. The only interesting feature appears to be a stone-floored fireplace in the central room of one of the houses.

The earliest of these settlements, Level XVI is represented by two peaks; the north-western peak being occupied by a 22

still later levels, other than the fact that its corners were aligned to the cardinal points of the compass." (Tobler, 1950:36). This designation is perplexing and difficult to accept wholeheartedly and as Mallowan states, "the great central hall, some 12m in length, and over 3.5m wide, suggests an ecclesiastical rather than a lay building - the matter is open to debate. However, the preservation of the ancient stone foundations by the builders in the succeeding level suggests that these old stones were regarded with some piety, as in an earlier period at Arpachiyah where the ancient foundations of religious buildings were similarly respected." (Mallowan, 1976:381). It is also possible that the foundations signify that this building was designed as a two storey structure.

STRATUM XV- Fig.2-66: "The two peaks of occupation continue, and now there seems to be a separation of function, with the northern peak as an industrial quarter containing kilns or ovens and storage stalls. The eastern peak seems to be a residential area" (Perkins, 1972:67). Jawad however argues that in the absence of formal temples, two of the level XV buildings (as well as one in level XVI) were public buildings, even though they lacked features characteristic of ecclesiastical structures (Jawad, 1965:35). On the eastern peak, we fmd two tripartite or 'cruciform' structures with well planned layouts. The larger of the two consists of rooms 15-20,26,27 and 30-34 and probably the area 29 and perhaps 35 which originally would have been enclosed by walls of this building (Fig.2-76). The central court, which measured 9.60m long and 3m wide, extended the length of the building and was flanked on both its sides by smaller rooms. This structure, which the excavators describe as a private house, was entered from its eastern corner where a stone sill was found leading into an antechamber (room 15). The planning and layout is reminiscent of the Madhhur house ofLevel 11.

One of the larger rooms (1 0) which was located in the northern corner of the building had an oven built of mudbricks and may have served as a kitchen. Room 5 "contained a deep pit" which may in fact have been stairs or ramp leading to a lower level, although the excavator suggests that it may have been a storeroom of some kind (Tobler, 1950:36). Rooms 5 & 6 and 16 & 17 certainly suggest the possibility of being staircases, and the wall foundations separating rooms 16 and 17 contained the remnants of a few courses of mud-bricks (Fig.2-67). A stone-lined and partially stone-covered drain ran around the northern corner of the structure.

The other dwelling in this stratum which is much smaller, consists of rooms 3-9, and measured roughly 8m in length by 6.60m wide. It consisted of a simple plan which revolved around a central hall flanked by smaller rooms on each side (Fig.2-89). The building appears to have been entered from room 7 which served as an antechamber. It is interesting to note that a similar layout resurfaces in Level XI which suggests that social tradition changed little during this time.

The ground plan of the Gawra XIV building, displays similarities with some of the Tell es-Sawwan, Level 11 structures (Fig.J-4). If we invert the plan, we discover that the section of the building consisting of rooms 10-17 and half of room 9, resembles portion A of a Level 11 building from Tell es-Sawwan (Fig.l-1), and rooms 1-8 plus half of room 9, resembles portion B of the Tell es-Sawwan building. Moreover, if one thinks of the building as consisting of two portions revolving around a central courtyard or hall, then each portion resembles the houses of Tell es-Sawwan Level 3a (Fig.J-5), and may have functioned as such. The significance of this needs careful study and further investigation. Tobler acknowledged the possibility of external influences when he wrote, "the dearth of Stratum XIV architectural remains is, therefore, counterbalanced by the introduction of a new construction method which may have been the result of external influence." (Tobler, 1950:36).

The north-western peak of this level was probably devoted to industry and was mainly occupied by ovens or kilns and "groups oflong and very narrow enclosures which could not have been suitable for human habitation." and which were not found in later levels (Tobler, 1950:39). It seems plausible that these long narrow structures may have served as 'beds' since the inhabitants would have probably preferred to sleep outdoors and preferably off the ground to avoid scorpions, insects, etc. The void which could also have been used for storage, would have been easily spanned by twigs and branches and overlaid with matting for comfort. Alternatively, they may have been the bases of grain storage facilities such as found in Uruk and Early Dynastic times - or perhaps just foundations.

STRATUM XIII - Fig.2-68: The Gawra Level XIII 'acropolis' formed by three magnificently planned mudbrick temples located on the north-east edge of the mound, represents the pinnacle of Mesopotamian achievement prior to the advent of writing. For here, "one can recognize more vividly than almost anywhere else the leap forward of this early architecture to a monumental form, and gain an understanding of the handling of interior space." (Giedion, 1981 :193).

STRATUM XIV - Fig.2-67: The only architectural remains attributed by the excavators to this level consist of a single course of stone rubble foundations of a large building of roughly rectangular layout and which measured approximately 16m long and 12.40 - 15.20m wide. This marks an innovation for it is the first time that stones rather than mud-bricks or pise' were used architecturally in Gawra.

The three temples were built approximately at right angles to each other in a U-formation, covering an area of some thirty metres by approximately fifty metres, thereby framing an open space rather than an enclosed courtyard. The resultant court measured roughly eighteen metres long by

According to the excavators, "there can be little doubt that it was secular in character, for its plan reveals no similarities to the Temples of XIII, or to the Temples of XI-A, XI and 23

As is the case of temples of levels VIII, IX and X, the architectural decoration of the acropolis temples takes the form of recessed niches which for the first time, are found on both the exterior, and the interior wall surfaces. The only wall in the Northern Temple where these doublerecessed niches are absent, is the north-western wall at the rear - a possible reason being that this room served as a staircase, with the air space or cavity supporting a straight flight of steps leading to the roof of the Temple, so that any pilaster projections would have only reduced the space available for the stairs. Furthermore, Tobler suggested that these pilasters were purely ornamental (Tobler, 1950:31). This is not correct, since it is obvious that the internal pilasters served a structural function for besides strengthening the walls, they reduced the required span for roofmg the interior spaces. As for the niches, Muller rightly pointed out, "They serve a double purpose; aesthetically they are a relief from the monotony of plain mud-brick (libn) walls by giving opportunity for the play of light and shade from the sun, and structurally by reducing the necessary thickness of a 'libn' wall and enabling a narrow window to yield more light and air. That there were windows cut in the niches is not wholly conjectural. They have been found in similar niches in Strata VIII-B and VIII-C." (Muller, 1934:15).

fifteen metres wide, with the fourth side apparently closed off by a number of insignificant screening walls, which may not have been contemporary. It seems that this court was carefully leveled and smoothed, first with fme gravel and then with stamped clay. It is interesting to note that no secular structures were uncovered in the excavated area of this level, suggesting to the excavators that they must have been located either in the uninvestigated southern and western sectors, or possibly at the base of the mound (Tobler, 1950:30). Furthermore, all the acropolis temples had their corners oriented towards the cardinal points, a feature often evident in later sanctuaries. The appearance of such an elaborate temple complex of this size obviously implies a powerful and well organized establishment - particularly a well developed religious cult, or group of cults, directly or indirectly controlling the community (Kubba, 1987:121 ; Perkins, 1972:67; Speiser, 1937:8). The Northern Temple was the smallest of the three and was the only one that was almost completely preserved. It was made of a reddish mud-brick which apart from plaster of the same material, lacked any other applied decoration. According to Giedion, "it is the northern temple in which the inception of monumental architecture is most unmistakably displayed. The delicacy and sensitivity of its surface modeling were unsurpassed by any later Mesopotamian building." (Giedion, 1981 : 197).

"Within the edifice, every corner of Rooms C and D adjoining the cella contained piers with quarter-pilasters, while, in addition, two deep piers also with quarter-pilasters projected from the cella's rear wall towards the freestanding interior walls. Between these two a doublerecessed pier made of double pilasters occupied the very center of the wall, lying directly opposite a similar double element at the other end of the hall. Identical doublerecessed, double piers occurred on both the interior middle walls, four of them on each side, but the end of the Temple opposite the cella was otherwise architecturally unadorned. In Room A, which served as the antechamber of the sanctuary, the corners of the front wall were decorated only with double pilasters." (Tobler, 1950:31 ). This is a significant advance from the clumsy buttresses of earlier levels.

"The edifice had a greatest length of 12.25m and a greatest width of 8.65m, the remaining parallel walls being slightly shorter so that the structure was not strictly rectangular." In fact, the building was probably (Tobler, 1950:30). originally designed to an arithmetic progression (1 :2:3), and this will be discussed further in chapter 5. Perkins considered the North Temple plan which consists of 'cult alcoves' or shrines lying parallel to the sanctum and separated from it by only screen walls, as a development of the Level XIX-XVIII temple tripartite plan with its cella flanked by smaller rooms on both its sides (Perkins, 1972:67). Mallowan on the other hand found it "reminiscent of a temple of 'Ubaid period 3 at Eridu (Eridu XI-IX)." (Mallowan, 1976:382). But whatever the case may be, and although it was fairly small in size and cannot be compared to some of the Uruk temples for example, it was nevertheless, significant in the development and evolution of early Mesopotamian architecture.

The Northern Temple was entered through a doorway in room A, although it is possible that the Temple had a double opening. The worshipper would therefore enter room A which formed an antechamber, and was then forced to make first a left turn and then a right to enter the sanctuary. He must then turn right again to face the centre of worship. This may have been intentional to protect the sanctity of the most sacred area. The walls were organized so as to create an interlocking space that could not be absorbed at one glance.

The North Temple contained two deep niches in the centre of both its long sides (i.e., in the front and rear of the building). The front niche gives the building its main decorative detail and focal point. "The deep niches do not, however, extend to the interior walls, but leave narrow air spaces separating the interior walls of the building from the rear walls of the niches." (Tobler, 1950:31). These air spaces may have been used for ventilation or insulation. They may also have been used initially as a form of scaffolding during the temple's construction.

"This indirect mode of access is a noteworthy feature in the architectural history of Gawra. For it makes for a design that is radically different from the temple plans of Levels VIII-X (as well as XI and XI-A), where the entrance was framed by a liwan and led directly to the cult chamber and cella. Even without the corroborative evidence of pottery we should thus know that we are confronted in this stratum

24

with a wholly different culture and not merely with a lower and older occupation." (Speiser, 1937:4-5).

possible that when the building was initially designed, it was conceived within a rectangle consisting of two squares each having approximately 16m sides. It may also have been designed to arithmetic proportions (e.g. if its length was 32m and its overall width 16m, then its height would have been 8m). This is discussed further in chapter 5. The Eastern Shrine also seems to have differed substantially from both the Northern and Central Temples in terms of layout and concept.

A well was found between rooms C & D which the excavator attributes to Level XIII (although not connected with the Temple in any way), but which perhaps should be attributed to Level XIV where it would have served the building with the stone foundations. Of the Central Temple, only the front portion has survived, the rear portion having collapsed down the slope of the mound at some point in time either during or after the occupation of level XIII. However, enough has remained of the original structure to allow a tentative reconstruction of its plan. The plan consisted of a long rectangular sanctum whose cella extended virtually to the corner of the Eastern Shrine (Fig.2-77,2-82). The size of the sanctuary is determined by taking the centre line (which is the centre of the niche) and inverting it towards the Eastern Shrine. We can observe the same symmetry in the Northern Temple.

Although the building's exterior appears to have been embellished with similar double pilasters and doublerecessed niches as in the other acropolis temples, nevertheless, the building lacked the central niches which dominated the fronts of the Northern and Central Temples. Four doorways, asymmetrically positioned, offer access from the main court, although additional doorways probably existed before the Central Temple was built. Of the surviving rooms none were decorated except for room 7 which was ornamented with double piers separating doublerecessed niches. The bright red plaster which decorated the walls of this room suggests that it may have been the antechamber to the cella. According to the excavators, Room 5 was a later addition and thus rooms 4 & 6 were originally one space. The floor of room 5 consisted of reeds laid upon wooden cross-poles measuring from 6 to 7.5cm in diameter. Room 2 may have served as a storage area and contained a number of artifacts, including an interesting incense burner and painted beaker.

"Like the cult chamber of the Northern Temple, that of the present sanctuary was decorated on the interior with double piers marking off double-recessed niches at regular intervals, while the corners were decorated with quarterpilasters of which only the western one was preserved. No similar decorations were present on the exterior surface of the sanctum's walls; at least none was extant on the outside of the preserved western corner." (Tobler, 1950:32). There appear to have been four possible entrances to the cella from the auxiliary rooms in the front. The front facade which measures 14.50m in length is dominated by an elaborate central niche, similar to that of the Northern Temple except that the central pier here, consisted of a single pilaster instead of the double one found in the Northern Temple niche. This central niche was embellished by two double-recessed niches which flanked the central pier, as well as by quarter-pilasters in both its corners. The main entrance appears to have been via a double doorway leading into an antechamber (room 12). The remaining four niches in the front facade were broken into at a level 50cm above the floor, and may therefore have served as windows or for making offerings to the temple. The walls and floors of the cella as well as rooms 9 and 12 were decorated with a reddish-purple paint. It is not possible to ascertain whether this decoration was carried up to the upper parts of the walls or the ceiling.

The reconstruction of the Eastern Shrine is based on the likelihood that it was a symmetrical building as was the Northern Temple. All the temples of Level XIII were built entirely of sundried mud-brick of excellent quality, with clay mortar mixed with ashes. The wall thickness was a brick and a half throughout, with the same bonding technique being incorporated in all three temples, although the brick sizes differed with each one. The Northern Temple bricks measured 36 x 18 x 9cm with half bricks being 36 x 9 x 9cm; the Central Temple bricks measured, 48 x 24 x 10cm and the Eastern Shrine, 56 x 28 x 14cm. It seems that only two brick sizes were in use, full bricks, and lengthwise half brick. Other sizes where required (as in the pilasters) were made by breaking the brick to the desired size, a common practice to this day. "The stability of the clustered pilasters in the corners was not very great and made the bonding study difficult at those points. It appears that the builders occasionally inserted an L-shaped brick, and also ran the small bricks vertically through two courses every so often." (Tobler, 1950:34).

The Central Temple appears to have been 'squeezed" between the Northern Temple and the Eastern Shrine and abuts on to both of them. It seems that its facade was painted white.

It is interesting to note that the bricks of the Northern Temple were designed to geometric proportions (e.g. I :2:4 or 9:18:36), so that the first dimension (brick thickness) is to the second dimension (brick width) as the second is to third (brick length). This means that if (a) equals a brick's depth, and (b) its width and its length is (c), then we have: a/b = b/c and b = ac, and c-b/b-a = c/b. (ie. 9:18=18:36). This is discussed further in Chapter 5.

The Eastern Shrine with its white-plastered facade, was the largest of the three acropolis temples and the least well preserved (Fig.2-84). The existing front facade has a width of 20.5m and the extant remains may represent less than say, 25% of the original structure, which may have measured some 31.5m long x 14.25m deep (plus 1.70m projection of the centre portion into the main court). It is 25

2.

In terms of size, it seems plausible that as the Temple increased in stature and wealth, its requirements correspondingly increased. Furthermore, the size and length of the Eastern Temple is more compatible with the larger temples of the Late Ubaid and Uruk periods of southern Iraq, thereby suggesting a later date, although its overall form is reminiscent of Building A at Abada.

3.

The Eastern Shrine was the only building to contain any artifacts, suggesting that it may have been the last to have been occupied, and it's collapse may have been sudden and unexpected, due to subsidence or heavy rains.

4.

The well of the Northern Temple appears to have served the Level XIV structure (which may also have been a temple) and was then abandoned and filled when the Northern Temple was erected.

5.

We know that the Northern Temple must have been built prior to the Central Temple for otherwise, it would not make sense to carefully decorate the Northern Temple's eastern corner if it is not going to be seen because of its abutment to the Central Temple.

6.

Furthermore, the Central Temple must have been last to be built because of its 'squeezed' position, thereby accounting for its irregular form.

7.

Moreover, the bricks of the Central Temple are almost the same size as those of Level XII (48 x 24 x 1Ocm as opposed to 48 x 25 x 6-8cn).

8.

According to Perkins, "where the buildings are contiguous both the Northern Temple and the Eastern Shrine have piers on the exterior walls while the Central Temple does not; it seems obvious, then, that there was a time when these walls were visible, that is , before the Central In the Temple was built." (Perkins, 1972:69). author's reconstruction, this does not apply, since the pier on the external wall of the Eastern Temple is not on an external wall.

We also fmd that the dimensions of the Eastern Shrine bricks form a geometrical progression or series, and are in geometrical proportion to each other (i.e., 1, 2, 4). This indicates that the Ubaid architects were aware of geometrical proportions. The bricks were not absolutely uniform in size, but this could hardly be expected considering the methods of manufacture at the time. Brick size appears to have been partially determined by the bonding and construction technique used, i.e. the thickness of a wall determined the brick width so that a 60cm wall would require a brick width of 40cm and a half brick of 20cm (assuming a one and a half brick wall). It must also have been determined by the height of a wall and the weight of the brick itself. Also found in the Eastern Shrine, were a total of ninety-nine well baked terra cotta model bricks. These consisted of (66) full bricks, (13) square halfbricks, (12) long half bricks and (8) quarter bricks. The full bricks measured 43 x 23 x 7mm, the square half bricks 22 x 23 x 7mm, the long half bricks 43 x 12 x 7mm and the quarter bricks, 22 x 12 x 7mm. "Apparently these model bricks were used to determine the most satisfactory methods of bonding and building the complicated recessed piers and pilasters found in the Stratum XIII structures. All four building units represented by the model bricks were employed in both the Northern and Central Temples, but they have no connection with the bricks used in the Eastern Shrine in which they were found, and in whose walls the largest bricks were used. If the model bricks are presumed to be in scale to the bricks actually used in construction they would seem to represent the units of the Central Temple, being close to one-tenth of their actual size." (Tobler, 1950:35). The relative ages of the three religious edifices is not easily discerned with any certainty although we know that they were not all constructed simultaneously. However, the available evidence suggests that the Northern Temple was built first, followed by the Eastern Shrine and lastly the Central Temple. It should be noted that Tobler and Perkins believe that the Eastern Shrine was built first, followed by the Northern Temple and the Central Temple, respectively (Tobler, 1950:35; Perkins, 1972:69). Speiser on the other hand considers the Northern Temple to have been built last (Speiser, 1937:9). However, this is unlikely because:1.

STRATUM XII-A - Fig.2-69: This level yielded little of significance as much of it was obliterated by the building activity of the XII stratum. It is interesting to note that this level was not connected to Level XIII, nor does the temple precinct appear to have been considered sacred any longer.

The Eastern Shrine lies almost directly over the Level XIV structure with stone foundations. If that building served a religious function, then it is possible that the Northern Temple building was erected while the Level XIV structure was still standing. Upon completion of the Northern Temple, the Level XIV structure may have been demolished and the Eastern Shrine built over it, keeping the original stone foundations intact.

STRATUM XII - Fig. 2-70: About half the area of the mound of Level XII was excavated, of which the main settlement seems to have occupied the northern and eastern sector, although it is possible that the inhabitants occupied the entire mound during this period, having developed into a large densely populated village. A building at the north edge (rooms 54-56) may have served as a watchtower guarding the path up the northwest slope,

26

which if true would suggest a connection between level XII and the succeeding strata. Also, from the evidence in the northern section of the mound (e.g. rooms 42, 18, 43 and 49 all appear to have been destroyed by fire) it seems that, "unlike the immediately succeeding occupations which were peacefully superseded, the present level seems to have come to a sudden and evidently violent end." (Tobler, 1950:25).

Another major structure of this level is an unusual grid-like building consisting of rooms 84-92 (Fig.2-88a) and reminiscent of several similar buildings uncovered at Choga Mami Level Ill (Oates:1969), Tell Songor A (Fujii, 1981), Tell Abada, Building I, L 11 (Jasim, 1985: Fig.22); The building was constructed of mud-brick (like the other buildings of this level) and measured roughly 7m x 9.5m. "The south-western end of this building seems to have been destroyed in ground-clearing operations by the builders of the Stratum XI-A Round House, while some of the inner dividing walls, particularly in the western and north-western parts, were demolished by interments made from the same level. However, the main entrance to the building seems to have been at the northeast, where it opened into Area 35." (Tobler, 1950:28).

There seems to have numerous alterations and renovations during this occupation. Initially, a major thoroughfare seems to have existed where areas 101, 99,95,93,35 are, and which extended to an open space (area 82) and then connected to a curved street at areas 78, 59 and 53. All the major buildings of this level seem to have opened on to this street. For some reason, it was later blocked in. Another wider street occurs to the west, being formed of areas 66, 64 and 63.

No other building with a comparable plan has been uncovered at Gawra, and so it is difficult to determine with any certainty its function. However, the plan comprised of three rows of square and rectangular compartments which are not large enough for normal habitation. It is likely that the building's function complemented that of the White Room building and its smaller replica.

The most interesting building of this level is that containing the 'White Room', so called because of its white plaster. The original measurements for this tripartite building were The probably about 12.30m by ll.75m (Fig.l-85.). excavators attribute a totally secular function to this building, although Mallowan disagrees and suggests that this building may have served as a temple because 1. Its corners were orientated to the cardinal points of the compass. 2. The presence of two niches, which are characteristic of a temple (although niches are also found in Uruk houses such as Grai Resh). 3. The numerous graves found under the floors. 4. Mallowan also cites the tripartite arrangement and 5. The existence of a large courtyard in Roaf on the other hand, front (Mallowan, 1976:383). believes that there are no convincing reasons to suggest that any of the Gawra buildings, except for the Level XIII structures are temples and that they are probably all private houses (Roaf, 1984:82). Both these views are scrutinized in greater detail in chapter 5.The large central hall, or 'White Room' was coated with white plaster, and extended the full length of the building, projecting both from the front and rear past the line of the side rooms (Fig.2-85). It was entered from the courtyard by a double doorway. The White Room was flanked by smaller rooms on either side. One of these large rooms (room 37), the south-east part of which appears to have been added at a later date, was also entered directly from the courtyard. Against the rear wall was a 35cm high mud-brick bench and above it were two niches, roughly 60cm wide and 25cm deep. One of the side rooms (room 43) contained an oven. The walls were built of sun dried bricks measuring 47-48 x 25-26 x 6-8cm, dimensions of which are close to bricks of the Central Temple of level XIII.

It is also possible that Gawra at this stage was one of several 'mercantile' towns that started to emerge during the Late Ubaid and early Uruk periods, trading with both Anatolia and Syria on the one hand and Iran on the other. Evidence of this trade and influence is found at Degirmentepe in Turkey, where a Gawra type settlement was recently uncovered and several tripartite 'White Room' type buildings were unearthed which the excavator believes were temples surrounded by workshops but which may have been administrative centres or dwellings (Esin & Harmankaya, 1986). If this is the case, then the large structures of this level may have served either as temples or in an administrative capacity and the 'Grid building' which is centrally located on the mound and surrounded by streets on all sides, may have been used for storing the community's goods. Two other tripartite buildings consisting of rooms 12, 16, and 20-23 and rooms 6-11 and 121 , are located to the east of the White Room building (Fig.2-88). Likewise, a small tripartite building was unearthed east of the 'grid building' comprising of rooms 96-98 and room 100 (Fig.2-89). The latter had a unusually thick western wall which faced on to a narrow street. The function of this wall is uncertain. Another tripartite building consisted of rooms 28,29,103,107,108 which may have been part of a 'duplex' (Fig.2-86) .

A smaller replica of the White Room building lay less than 1Om to the southeast and consisted of rooms (25-27,30,31) and must have served a similar function (Fig.2-86). It differs from the White Room building in that it was entered through the side doorways from rooms 31 and 105, and not via two doorways in the front bay as was the case in the White Room.

Similar tripartite buildings have been found at many Ubaid sites such as Tell 2, Telul el-Thalathat (Egami, 1959, Fig.47) which the excavator identified as a Temple, and at Tell Madhhur Level 11 where the excavators identified the building as a house (Roaf, 1984: Fig.23). This is but one of many controversial issues regarding Ubaid architecture, and which is discussed in detail in Chapter 5.

27

Tepe Gawra must have been an extremely difficult site to excavate, especially considering that it was done over fifty years ago. It is not surprising that many of the plans such as that of Level XII are difficult to understand. Also, "in a number of cases the excavators seem to have assigned walls to the wrong phase, have not distinguished secondary construction, and sometimes appear not to have observed or recorded walls." (Roaf, 1984:82).

ofthe University of Amsterdam's 1982 Excavation. Akkadica 35:1-23. 6 M. van Loon, 1982. Hammam et-Turkman on the Balikh: Background and First Results of the University of Amsterdam's 1981 Excavation. Akkadica 27:30-45. Illustrations:

A minority of scholars like Porada (on the basis of seal impressions and unpublished sherds) have suggested that Gawra XII should be assigned to the Early Uruk period rather than Late Ubaid, despite the abundance of Ubaid pottery unearthed from this level (Porada, 1965:145). A Cl4 date of3837 plus/minus 72 B.C. is given for this Level (Lawn, 1973:371-72). This level is "related to the last strata of Phase IVD at Tell Hammam et-Turkman (Akkermans, 1988:130). Moreover, from the architectural remains, there can be no justification for assigning this phase to the Early Uruk Period.

The Site :

"The earliest level reached so far at Hammam et-Turkman dates to the beginning of the northern Ubaid Period (Period IV)." (van Loon, 1988.582). The excavator initially stated that fragmentary remains of mud-brick houses represent six building levels in an Ubaid deposit of about 3 .5m (van Loon, 1985). In a later publication however, the excavator states, "The sequence at Hammam et-Turkman, comprising many superimposed portions of unpretentious mud-brick houses, has a total depth of over 1Om, covering the second half of the fifth and fJTSt half of the fourth millennium." (van Loon, 1988:582), whereas Akkermans puts it at almost 15m (Akkermans, 1988:109). Some of these houses had unusual hearths. The first building level for example, contained a "chimney-like hollow at the junction of three walls; the third consisted of a raised hearth basin measuring 1.75 x 1.40m and built of mud brick and clay." (van Loon, 1983: I). The excavator, based on pottery samples, places these levels between ea. 4000 to 3500 B.C. (Ibid:2). Radiocarbon tests suggest dates between 4400 and 3600 B.C. (uncalibrated) for Phases IVA-D, which runs parallel to Gawra XIX-XII (van Loon, 1988:582; Akkermans, 1988:113).

Stratum XI-A: Whether this level should be assigned to the Late Ubaid period or Early Uruk period is still uncertain and a matter for debate and archaeologists are still v01cmg conflicting views on the matter (Tobler, 1950; Porada, 1965; Perkins, 1976). The occupation of this level is dominated by a massive circular mud-brick structure, commonly known as the 'Round House'. As this building is discussed and analysed in considerable detail in "Mesopotamian Architecture and Town Planning" (Kubba, 1987:120), there is no need for duplication.

11.

HAMMAM ET-TURKMAN (Syria)

Excavator :

References:

The mound which measures 500 x 450 x 45m lies some 80 km north of the modem town of Raqqa, on the east bank of the river Balikh, northern Syria.

University of Amsterdam's Archaeological Mission to Syria under the direction of M. van Loon. 19811982.

In squares AI-AJ 16, at the east foot of the mound, the excavator uncovered "a structure of, perhaps, greater importance than an ordinary house that had burned and was subsequently rebuilt." (van Loon, 1983:2). The 2m wide trench also exposed part of a 7m long room which contained a clay model of a building on or above the original floor. This room appears to have been destroyed by fire when its 'reed roof caved in. It was flanked by three smaller rooms that were originally connected by doorways, one of which contained a second building model. Over 2000 sherds were discovered in one of the side rooms which "suggest links with Gawra XIII-XII and Sakcegozu IV respectively and suggest a date around 3500 B.C. for this structure." (Ibid:2).

I. M. van Loon, 1988 (Oct.). New Evidence for North Syrian Chronology from Hammam et-Turkman, AJA vol.92, no.4:582-587. 2. P. Akkermans, 1988. An Updated Chronology for the Northern Ubaid and Late Chalcolithic Periods in Syria: New Evidence from Hammam et-Turkman, Iraq 50. 3. M. van Loon, 1985-1987. Hammam et-Turkman on the Balikh: A new Archaeological Project in Syria. Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, ed. E. Porada. 4. M. van Loon, 1985. Hammam et-Turkman on the Balikh: First results of the University of Amsterdam's 1984 Excavation. Akkadica 44:21-40. 5. M. van Loon, 1983. Hammam et-Turkman on the Balikh: First results

New floors were subsequently laid to this building, some 50cm above the original floor level, and some of the doorways were blocked and the long room now had a shallow niche and was whitewashed. A thick-walled early Uruk building was also uncovered which had a whitewashed main room and triple-recessed white plastered niches 1.30m wide and constructed at intervals of 0.65m, and a parallel series of storerooms. 28

This room also appears to have been destroyed by flre as witnessed by the charred 25cm diameter roof beams.

Illustrations:

Sections of large pottery pipes which may have been for draining the rainwater from the roof were found, along with "stretches of mud brick roof paving up to 3m long." (van Loon, 1983:3).

The Site:

On the main mound, "in three levels the east trench revealed parts of two adjoining houses, each with its own outer walls along the property line." (van Loon, 1985:22).

Tell Hassan lies north-east ofYelkhi at the foot of the eastern hills. It also lies about 500m to the south of Abu Husaini.

"Architecture with a specialized, non domestic function and mass-produced pottery, perhaps serving a redistribution system, appear in Phase VA as the fust signs of imminent change towards urban life." (Van Loon, 1988:582). The excavator also states that the discovery of clay building models and a seal indicate the official character of the building of Phase VA, and suggest the existence of relations with north Mesopotamia at the time. DATES BC

HAMMAM

3600

12

GAWRA XII

Two main periods, Halaf and Ubaid, make up most of the Tell Hassan deposit, although there was also evidence of an Uruk and Sasanian settlement as well. The Halaf period settlement consists of levels 1-4 and the Ubaid period settlement of levels Sa - 5b. The only architectural remains found were of a minor nature in Level 5b (Ubaid 3) and consisted of flve tauf walls preserved to a height of about 25cm and had I Ocm deep foundations (Fiorina, 1981 :285). The excavators believe that the central part of the tell, where three kilns were found, was used for handicraft activities (lbid:285).

THALATHAT

Vlib

11 IVD

10 9

XII-A XII

8 IVC

XIII

XIII

7 4100 __________~----~~-------------6 IVB

The dwelling area was believed to have been developed on the eastern side, outside the mound as suggested by the scattered sherds on the east side of the Tell.

XV

5 XVI XIV 4200 ----------:;-------:-;::-;:::---------------

4400

4 IVA 3

XVII

2

XIX

Sherds and vases, etc. of both late Halaf and Ubaid 3 periods were found 'side by side' in two of the levels. "The discovery of these items of the same age as more strictly Halaf products leads us to imagine that a process of acculturation may have taken place between the Halaf and Ubaid worlds." (Fiorina, et al., 1985:31).

XVIII

Table 1. Relative Chronology, Hammam IV (from M. van Loon, 1988:586, Table 1.). Eight Ubaid period sites were identified within a radius of 30km around Tell Harnmam et-Turkman (van Loon, 1982:31).

12.

13.

KHANIJDAL EAST

Excavator:

(T.J. Wilkinson & D. Tucker. 1988 British Archaeological Expedition to Iraq.

References:

T.J. Wilkinson, 1988. Khanijdal East: A summary Report (Unpublished).

Illustration:

Plan of Architectural Remains (Fig.l96)

The Site:

Small low mound, roughly one ha. and approximately 130m in diameter. The mound rises 1.5m above the surrounding plain.

TELL HASSAN (Hamrin No.67)

Excavator:

References:

Consists of a rather small, low rounded mound, measuring about 70 x 70m, but whose exact boundaries were difficult to determine due to a modem farm in the immediate vicinity. At present it stands 1.50 - 2m above the surrounding plain.

Italian Archaeological Expedition under the (direction of A. Invemizzi with P. Fiorina as Field Director. October 1978 - March 1980. 1. Fiorina, P. and Bulgarelli, G.M., 1985, Tell Hassan, in The Land Between Two Rivers - 20 years of Italian Archaeology in the Middle East. 2. Fiorina, P., 1981, Excavation at Tell Hassan, Preliminary Report, Sumer 40 (1 ,2):277-289. 3. Invemizzi, A., 1980, Mesopotamia Vol. 15.

The site is located about 7-8km south of Tell AI Hawa in north-western Iraq. Occupation of the site seems to have been restricted to "a single phase of late Ubaid times 29

corresponding approximately to that ofTepe Gawra Stratum XIII." (Wilkinson & Tucker, 1988: Unpublished report).

References:

1. J.D. Forest, 1983, Aux Origines de l'architecture Obeidienne 1es plans de type Samarra, Akkadica 34. 2. Ch. Forest, 1983, Kheit Qasim Ill: The Obeid Settlement, Sumer 40 (1,2):119-121. 3. F.C. Forest, 1982, Un batiment du Ve millenaire dons la vallee de Hamrin, en lrak. Archeologia 162:5962 4. Iraq, Vol.43, 1981, p.l82. 5. Ch. Forest-Foucault, 'Rapport sur les fouilles de Kheit Qasim Ill Hamrin', 6. Paleorient, Vol.6, 1980.

Illustrations:

Site Plan & Plan Building II (Fig.297) ; Plan Building II (Fig.l-98); Plan Building I (Fig.2-99); Reconstruction Building 11 (Fig.2-JOO); Reconstruction Building 11 (Fig. l 101) ; Reconstruction Building II (F ig.2-102) ; Roof Plan Possibilities Building· 11 (Fig.2-103); Roof/Floor Beam Layout (Fig.2-104).

The Site:

Tell lies to the north of the Hamrin basin, about 18km north of AI Sa'adiyah town. Site consists of a very low mound with no defmite dimensions.

"A total area of the main cut measuring 23m E-W x 8m N-S was excavated by means of 12 trenches." (Ibid.). "Within the mound interior evidence of an early occupation phase was revealed in the form of anE-W revetment wall (44) of mud brick and tauf together with a horizontal platform or mass of collapsed mud brick (46) extending to the south of wall (44)." (Ibid.). A round shaped structure was uncovered (context 33) which had an approximate diameter of 4.5m and whose walls were constructed of orange tauf. It had a clay floor which was cut by a small pit (61) and a hearth (58) and this in turn sealed a second pit (66). "The floor and its associated wall or roof tumble contained abundant flint sickle blades together with bitumen and a quantity of flint debitage. From this it seems that at least one of the functions of the hut was for the manufacture and or repair of sickle blades." (Ibid.). The discovery of the round building is very significant because like Yarim Tepe Ill, Abu Husaini and Tepe Gawra XVII, a 'tho/os' which appears to be of Halafian inspiration are found in a Late Ubaid period context (assuming that the Gawra Round House was more of a citadel than Halafian inspired). A small rectangular structure (35), constructed of hard, brittle red brick-like material was uncovered to the west of and adjacent to the round structure. The excavators state that it may have been used initially as an oven or kiln and later possibly a storage bin (Ibid.). Another small rectangular structure made of tauf (34) abutted the round house on the east, which probably belongs to the same stratigraphic phase.

The excavators were able to discern three levels, all of which belong to the Ubaid Period. The first level was close to the surface and totally destroyed by ploughing leaving only infant burials which were deep enough to be preserved (Forest, 1983:119).

"To the west of the round house and adjacent bin, an indistinct alignment of reddish tauf (26 and 32) and mud brick (68 and 69) extended across the fills of pit 67 and continued within trench H to the west. Although it is possible that this alignment originally formed a continuous wall cut by a later gully ( 19) this cannot be confirmed at this stage." (Ibid.).

The second level revealed some impressive architectural remains. A complete building was uncovered which measured 10.50 x 14m, and had a central T-shaped hall with two smaller halls of similar shapes arranged perpendicularly on each side of the main hall. This type of building which I call 'multi-cruciform' is similar to 'multi-cruciform ' structures from Tell Abada, such as buildings B and E of Level II (see Chapter 5 for discussion and defmition of multi-cruciform buildings).

Infant burials were recorded as contents 41 , 42 and 65, and a mud-brick wall (39) represents the final phase within trench D and lies stratigraphically above wall (44). According to the excavators, Khanijdal east is ceramically contemporary with Tepe Gawra Stratum XIII and Tulul alThalathat Tell II Ubaid levels, and "corresponds in date to a period when sites such as Tell al-Hawa were attaining urban proportions and becoming major centres within the plain." (Ibid.).

14.

The walls of this 'multi-cruciform' building were built of mud bricks measuring 55 x 27 x 6cm (which appears to be normal for the period). Thus, the walls which were constructed of a single row of stretchers was about 30cm wide with the plaster. The building is also thought to have had foundations (Forest, Ch., 1981 : 118), although the excavator does not mention any details. Door openings also appear to have been difficult to locate because the long occupation of the building necessitated the raising of the thresholds to the preserved height of the walls, this being some 50 - 60cm. However, "The main entrance to the building was the most obvious, for it was fitted with a big stone door-socket, replaced every time adjoining floors got

KHEIT QASIM Ill (Hamrin No.65)

Excavator:

Chantal Forest-Foucault, French Archaeological (Mission. 1980.

30

too high. I98I: I20).

We collected three of them." (Forest, Ch.,

References:

The floors were often paved with the same long mud bricks as used in the wall construction. This suggests that all the rooms were roofed (lbid:I20). The halls could be easily roofed, having a maximum span of 2.80m and therefore needed no intermediary support. The post hole in the centre of room I5 therefore, probably did not support the roof.

Illustrations: The Site:

On the outside, facing the main entrance, a coarse pavement of mud brick was found which may correspond to the shape of an overhang or passageway, as two post holes were found which could have supported a roof.

An Ubaid settlement was attested to at a depth of about in a 10 x 1Om trench dug in the southern part of the tell. In this trench, five layers were identified, the fifth representing the Ubaid period. The excavators did not reach virgin soil and were unable to go any deeper because of the water table. Parts of mud brick walls were found, the bricks measuring about 60 x 30 x I2cm. The pottery suggests an Ubaid 3 horizon for the site, making it contemporary with Tell Abada and Tell Rashid.

16.

An opening in the north-west wall was the only one that was well preserved. The other walls were only just discernable and some rather conjectural, particularly the partition of the West part, for it appears that the building was destroyed by a huge pit during the Ubaid Period. The excavator believes that this structure is not a dwelling but some form of communal building type (Forest, personal communication).

TELL MADHHUR (Hamrin No.64)

Excavator:

British Archaeological Expedition Directed by: 1. J.N. Postgate Nov. 1977 - Jan. I978, April I978 - May I978. 2. T.C. Young (1st S.) Feb.l978March I978. 3. R. Killick (2nd S.) Oct. I978Nov. I978. 4. M. Roaf (2nd Season) Nov. I978- Dec. 1978. 5. M. Roaf (3rd Season) March I979- May 1979. 6. M. Roaf (4th Season) Oct. I979 - Jan. I980.

References:

I. M Roaf, I988, Ubaid Social Organization and Social Activities as seen from Tell Madhhur. Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Ancient N.E. Studies (Conference on 'The Ubaid Period Reconsidered), Unpublished. 2. M. Roaf, ed., 1984, Tell Madhhur, A summary Report on the Excavations. Sumer43( I ,2): I 08-I67. 3. M. Roaf, I983, Excavations at Tell Madhhur - The Results of the Third Season. Sumer 40( I ,2): I44-I48.

The architectural evidence suggests close affmities with sites that yielded similar architecture and which are associated with the same type of Ubaid pottery such as Tell Abada. The site belongs to the Ubaid 3 horizon. As in numerous other sites attesting to Ubaid culture, the excavators found in the same levels, some Halaf sherds mixed with the Ubaid 3 ones. The occurrence of what appears to be Dalma ware (although this is disputed by some Iranian archaeologists), suggests some form of relations (trade or otherwise) with sites of the Iranian plateau, some of which are very distant, eg. Hasanlu, Godin Tepe and in the region of Kermanshah (Forest, Ch., I983:I21). The site was probably inhabited for short periods during the Late Ubaid Period as well.

TELUL AL-KHUBARI (Hamrin No.l5)

Excavator:

The Khubari tells consist of a group of neighbouring tells scattered in an area about 7km southwest of AI Sadiyah town and some 1Okm east of the Diyala river. Tell Khubari I is roughly circular in shape having a diameter of about 60m and rises approximately 2.50m above the surrounding terrain.

The 'tri-cruciform' building aroused considerable interest and prompted the excavators to undertake further soundings on the site. Two trenches were opened, the first uncovering no architectural remains, only evidence that a stream had at one time flowed through the site. The second E/W trench however, revealed a second building which appeared to belong to the same period as the first one. Although, incomplete, it appears to have consisted of a roughly 'tripartite' plan, measuring IO x IOm (Forest, Ch., I983:I20), although its eastern wing is divided longitudinally, and may have been flanked with a slightly protruding room. Moreover, it had external buttresses, one every three bricks in the north-west wall, and one every two bricks in the north-east and south-west walls.

15.

1. F. M. Dawood, I983, Tell Khubari Excavations, Sumer 40 (1,2):73-74. 2. F. M. Dawoud, I979, An Account of Excavation Operations at Al-Khubari Tells, Sumer 35:598.

F.M. Dawood Aprill978 3I

occupation level of Tell Madhhur (Level I). Although the excavators are undecided as to whether the earliest inhabitants of the site built on a natural mound, they feel "certain that the 'Ubaid settlement extended well beyond the present limits of the mound." (Killick & Roaf, 1979:542).

4. M. Roaf, 1982, The Hamrin Sites in 50 years of Mesopotamian Discovery, pp.40-47. 5. R.G. Killick & M.D. Roaf, 1979, Excavations at Tell Madhhur, Sumer 35:534-42. Illustrations:

The Site:

In Level 11 the excavators uncovered what may be the best preserved prehistoric building to have been discovered thus far in Mesopotamia. In this rather small almost square mud-brick building (roughly 14m x 14m), 45 cm thick walls rising to a height of about 2m were found. This structure, which stood at the heart of the mound, represents the most important fmd of Tell Madhhur excavations.

Plan Ubaid Level 2 House (Fig.2105); Plan of Ubaid Level 3 structures (Fig.2-106) ; Plan Ubaid Level 4 structure (Fig.2-107); Sections (as found) Ubaid Level 2 house (Fig.2108); Reconstruction of Entry Level 2 (Figs.2-10,2-JIO) ; house Reconstruction Level 2 house (Fig.2lll) ; Reconstruction Level 2 house (Fig.2-112), Proposed Beam Layout Level 2 house (Fig.2-113); Roof Analysis (Fig.2~ 114) ; Roof Construction Details Level 2 house (Fig.2-115), Wall/Roof Section (Fig.2116); Section One Level 11 House (Fig.2-11 7); Section Two Level 11 House (Fig.2-118) ; Room Daylighting Analysis Level 2 house (Fig.2-119); Brick Bonding Details (Fig.2-120) ; Door & Window Schedule (Fig.2121).

This building was essentially a freestanding structure, (although there were some poorly preserved 'courtyard walls' built against the outside of the house) with a heavily plastered mud-brick revetment built against the base of the walls (similar feature to Tell Abada, Level I building A, and Kheit Qasim Ill building). The structure which the excavators suggest was a house, had a cruciform central hall or court, with rows of rooms flanking it on its north and south walls. The walls were built of moulded rectangular mud-bricks of two sizes (53 x 28-30 x 8-lOcm and 53 x 14.5-15 x 8IOcm). There was also evidence of 45cm long bricks. Thus, if the walls were only 45cm thick, the bricks would have had to been laid longitudinally so that a typical wall would be a brick and half thick (Roaf, 1984: 122). A proposed bonding detail of the brick courses is suggested (Fig.2-120). A similar type of mud-brick was utilized at Tell Abada and Tell Rashid (Jasim, 1985:158).

Tell Madhhur is situated in the northeastern part of the area to be flooded in the Hamrin Basin. It consists of a small oval shaped mound, roughly lOOm (east/west) x 80m (north/south) and rising about 2.5m above the surrounding fields, but the earliest layers extend a further 4m below the present level of the alluvium which the excavators suggest means that at least 4m of silt has been deposited since the site was first occupied (Roaf, 1982:41). The bulk of the mound appears to have been formed during the Late Ubaid period.

The overall plan layout seems to have been initially based on a square 18 cubits x 18 cubits (one cubit= 72cm), which represents the length of the central hall. A detailed analysis of this is presented in chapter 5. Another interesting phenomenon is that a lattice of diagonals shows that the door openings are intimately related to each other (Fig.515). In attempting to determine its function, a number of aspects of the Madhhur building will be discussed before analysing its plan. Roaf, who describes the building as a house, cites four questions (which equally apply to most Ubaid buildings) requiring investigation prior to examining the plan (Roaf, 1988:2). These are:"l. Was the central room roofed. 2. What was the function of the two narrow parallel rooms 4 & 5. 3. Did the building have a second storey, and 4. What was the shape of the roof of the building?" (Roaf, 1988:2). To these one perhaps could add number 5. Was the Building a house?

"The 'Ubaid occupation at Tell Madhhur was that of a village settlement and was subject to constant repairs and alterations: as soon as a building was abandoned, the stubs of the walls would be incorporated into a new structure, or the site would be leveled and used for some other purpose. There was continual decay and periodic regeneration and any attempt to divide the occupation into levels in the absence of any evidence of abandonment is bound to be artificial." (Roaf, 1984: 118). But taking the many problems the above imply, the convenience, if not necessity, of dividing the architecture into phases is duly recognized by the excavators and thus, they have retained this traditional convention in their reports (Roaf, 1984:11 0).

1. Question of central hall roofmg: According to Roaf, "There is now general agreement that the central halls of Ubaid tripartite buildings were roofed. Earlier scholars expressed some doubts but the evidence of fallen roof beams at Tell Madhhur as well as other considerations (such as the combination of courtyards and tripartite house at Habuba Kebira and Jebel Aruda) have removed any doubts felt about this question." (Roaf, 1988:2). However, while

No architectural remains were encountered in the three small soundings carried out to investigate the earliest 32

the presence of roof beams and the analogies with Habuba Kebira and Jebel Aruda provide strong evidence for the roofmg of the central halls, nevertheless, it does not necessarily mean that all tripartite buildings were roofed. The reasons being:

The only entrance to the house was at the north-west corner through a small 'lobby' (room 9) which in turn led to the central hall. The central hall (room 7) ran the length of the house and measured llm x 4m. The excavators estimated that the height of the central hall was about 3.5m, and the discovery of charred beams and fragments of clay with reed and timber beam impressions on the floor, would strongly indicated that the space was roofed (similar circumstantial evidence for roofmg of main room found at Ubaid site of Hammam et-Turkman). The hall appears to have been decorated with a red band of paint on a white background which was found on two fragments offallen plaster towards the east end ofthe room (Roaf, 1984:122).

A. The presence of charred beams could easily have come from the flanking rooms, since if the central room walls collapsed into the central chamber, then that would explain their presence. Moreover, a recent tour of collapsed and demolished buildings in an 'old' area of Baghdad, shows that most of the building debris ends up in the courtyard, possibly since it is the largest space, so that if the inhabitants while searching for valuables, may have removed the beams from their original place to facilitate their search. It should also be remembered that traditional Iraqi houses have overhangs, and the charred beams may have been part of these overhangs into the central area.

A 'ground level window' or door in the east wall of room 10 and a window in the south wall of room 3 (where a mudbrick shelf exists below it) as well as other low windows, may in fact have been used for access, e.g. 'door openings' for children. This possibility will be discussed later. It should be noted that a similar low doorway was found at Yarim Tepe Ill (Bader, et al., 1981). Rooms 3, 7, and 11 show signs of extensive burning and may have caused the inhabitants to abandon the property leaving much of their domestic equipment behind. The parallel 'rooms' 4 & 5 may have housed a staircase or ramp. This will also be discussed in Chapter 5.

B. The other point to note, is that the Madhhur central hall is extremely wide, in fact wider than most other Ubaid tripartite or cruciform buildings (see chapter 5). If it was spanned by palm, then the weight of the mud would have made it sag considerably in the centre, thereby exerting a powerful lateral pressure on the side walls, encouraging them to collapse. C. The central area is totally enclosed, and the only possible light would come from the end walls or a raised roof. Since it is assumed that the central area is the main activity space (as evidenced by the hearth, etc.), it would require adequate lighting.

A number of construction details have been prepared. The objective behind this, is that due to the building's exceptional state of preservation, one can prepare a set of drawings i.t)corporating all known factual information and filling the gaps with conjectural reconstructions, based on ethnographic information and our knowledge of the Late Ubaid architecture. This should afford us a greater insight into the building as a whole and into Ubaid architecture generally. Furthermore, calculations are provided (in Appendix) suggesting the number of bricks needed, the time required to make the bricks, and he time needed to build the Madhhur house.

From the above, the possibility of an unroofed central area cannot be ruled out and the top of the end buttresses in the central hall may have provided support for walkways from one side of the roof to the other. However, the most likely probability must remain that the central area was roofed with a flat roof, and light entered from raised windows in the east and west walls.

The 'cruciform' plan of the Level 11 Tell Madhhur building is reminiscent of other Ubaid buildings at Tepe Gawra XV, Abada 11 D, etc. (Fig.5-82).

2. Question of Staircase/Ramp units: "There is also general agreement that the two parallel narrow rooms found in many Ubaid houses provided a means of access to an upper storey or the roof." (Roaf, 1988:2). The lack of evidence is problematic, and suggests that timber may have been used, and which would have been removed when the house was abandoned. A low pedestal in room 4 may have been a 'ladder stop' (similar to a door stop) to prevent a wooden ramp or ladder from slipping. Similar pedestals were found in Kheit Qasim Ill and Eridu VI.

In Level Ill (trenches 6D and 6E), parts of a large building was uncovered, much of whose interior was destroyed by a deep pit from level 3/4. This building like its predecessor in Level 11, had a solid curving revetment made of pise' . Excavations show that it had a 'battered' outer face and some of its internal walls were just recognizable, but it was still not possible to reconstruct a complete internal layout.

3. Question of Upper Storey: The excavator rightly argues against the existence of an upper storey as suggested by Margueron (Roaf, 1988; Margueron, 1987).

Another small structure which also had a solid pise' revetment on the south and west, and which consist of only two rooms, was found in trench 6F of Level lll.

4. The main argument for a raised roofis the need for light, but the excavator convincingly demonstrates that the disadvantages of a raised roof outweigh the advantages and that calculations of debris and fill in the Madhhur house do not suggest the presence of a clerestory (Roaf, 1988).

Level 4 and 3/4 did not reveal any complete buildings in the trenches that were excavated (6D, 6E, and 6F), but parts of two buildings were found, separated by a narrow alley (Roaf, 1984: 118). Two thin, parallel rooms side by side, inside the Level 4 building of trench 6D, were of particular interest. They are usually interpreted as staircases or 33

ramps, and similar arrangements are found in many Mesopotamian buildings. This appears to have been confmned as in the southern of these rooms a sloping floor was found which "sloped up from west to east and consisted of a paving of bricks (46 x 23cm) resting on a layer of reeds." (Roaf, 1984:119).

(lbid.: l27). The reeds proved to be of a common type (phragmites communis). Also amongst the carbonized fragments were traces of wood belonging to the willow species (Salix sp.) was detected. The evidence suggests that poplars, willows, and reeds were growing freely in the Balikh valley during Chalcolithic times.

Level 4 was not the latest Ubaid occupation attested to at the site and there was evidence of a later Ubaid occupation (from trench 70) although the architectural remains had largely eroded away.

The pottery excavated in the house, while unmistakably of the Ubaid Period, never-the-less, betrays some of the Halaf Culture characteristics, suggesting that the Ubaid period inhabitants of Mefesh were, in their ceramic industry at least, considerably influenced by their predecessors. This may have been the result of the fusion of the two cultures which is witnessed at other sites like Tepe Gawra.

17.

TELL MEFESH (Syria)

Excavator:

M.E.L. Mallowan

1938

References:

M.E.L. Mallowan, 1946, Excavations in the Balih Valley, Iraq VIII:lll-159.

18.

Illustrations: The Site :

Lies 40 km south of Tell Abyad and 10 km west of the river Balikh (a tributary of the Euphrates), near the Tell Abyad!Raqqa Rd. Measures about 230 x 150m and stands roughly 15m above the surrounding plain.

TELL MISMAR

Excavator :

J. Schmidt

References :

J. Schmidt, 1978, Tell Mismar: ein prahistorischer Fundort im Sudiraq. Baghdader Mitteilungen 9: 10-17.

Illustrations:

Plan ofUbaid Building (Fig.2-122).

The Site :

Lies about 18km north of Warka.

"A brief investigation by Gennan archeologists of a small site near Warka, designated Tell Mismar because of its numerous clay cones, revealed an extraordinary building with rooms of very large dimensions and some cone mosaic ornament still in situ (Schmidt 1978). The exact date ofthe building is uncertain, but it is possibly to be attributed to a very late or Tenninal Ubaid horizon." (Schmidt, 1978).

Tell Mefesh appears to have been first inhabited during the Halaf period, the area of occupation being about 8.5 acres. The middle levels of the mound, between levels 5m-14m contour contained mud-brick rooms of the Al-Ubaid period which were destroyed by fire, after which the settlement appears to have been abandoned.

Room A measured 7 x 10.5m and room B measured 5 x 11 m. The walls were about 1.40m and 1.80m thick.

The excavators could only devote 5 days to sounding the mound. These short excavations "revealed a range of four small rooms with a square ground plan and internal measurements of about 2.5 x 2.5m." (Mallowan, 1938:126). They were flanked by an oblong storeroom or court running the full length of the four rooms and which was slightly wider than the rooms which it adjoined. The building appears to have been orientated northeast-southwest. The main structure was built of mud bricks measuring about 51 x 29 x lOcm. Larger bricks (63 x 31.5 x 9.5cm) were used for the construction of a number of circular grain bins located in the courtyard (Mallowan, 1938:126). It seems that Ubaid builders generally used larger bricks than their Halaf predecessors. This is attested to at a number of sites where the two cultures were found, like Tell Mefesh and Tell Hassuna.

19.

"One of the rooms contained considerable traces of the fallen roof which had consisted of wooden poplar beams, oval in section, which measured 10 x 7cm, and as they spanned the full width of the room, they must originally have been more than 2.5m long. There were also traces of the reeds which had overlaid the wooden roof beams." 34

TELL EL OUEILI

Excavator:

French Archaeological expedition under direction of J-L. Huot. 1976 present. J-L. Huot, Y Calvet, J-D. Forest, L. Bachelot, J-P Braun, J. Seigne, D. Amaud, J. Chevalier, M. Lebeau, J. Rougetet.

References:

1. J-L. Huot, 1988, Ubaidian villages of lower Mesopotamia Pennanence and Evolution from Ubaid 0 to Ubaid 4 as seen from Tell el'Oueili. Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Ancient N.E. Studies (Conference on 'The Ubaid Period Reconsidered), Unpublished. 2. J.D. Forest, 1985-1986, Tell El 'Oueili, Preliminary Report on the 4th Season (1983), Stratigraphy and Architecture. Sumer 44:55-65.

this construction is a large room in the corner of the house, doubtless completed by a second." (Huot, 1988:7).

3. Y. Calvet, 1985-86, The New Deep Sounding X36 at Tell El 'Oueili, Sumer 44:67-78. 4. Forest, J.D., 1983, The Obeid 4 Architecture at Tell El Oueili, Sumer . 39(1,2):20-23. 5. Y. Calvet, 1983, The Sounding Y27 at Tell El 'Oueili, Sumer 39(1,2):24-36. 6. J.L. Huot, 1983, Tell El 'OueiliThe works of 1978 and 1981. Sumer 39(1,2):18-19. 7. J.L. Huot et.al, 1983, Laesa et 'Oueili, travaux de 1976-1981, Editions ERC, Paris. Illustrations:

Plan Ubaid 0 Level (Fig.2-123) ; Plan Ubaid 3 Level structure (Fig.2-124); Plan Ubaid Period 2a & 2b structures (Fig.2-125); Plan Ubaid Level Structures (Fig.2-126); Reconstruction ofUbaid Building (Fig.J2-127) .

The Site

Tell El 'Oueili is located 3.5 km to the SE ofLarsa in southern Iraq.

Also dating from the Ubaid 0 period were a series of 'pigeon-holes ', consisting of small orthogonal walls, crisscrossing each other, thereby forming small spaces of unequal area. The 'pigeon-holes' appear to have been covered by a floor of plaited reeds which the excavators recognize as the lower portions of raised granaries (to protect the harvest from rising moisture). "The house and granaries are built of moulded bricks placed as parpens and stretcher blocks, 50 or 60 cm long and about 15cm wide. The upper face is convex, while the sides are flat. The upper faces are often furrowed, sometimes with a chevron pattern. Wall facings were sometimes daubed. The floors of the living quarters are of pise', sometimes paved with bricks. These traits continue in the strata dating from the Ubaid 1. Moreover, we will point out in passing that the very fragmentary remains of level XV at Eridu are without doubt merely the misinterpreted vestiges of a "pigeon-hole" granary of 'Oueili type. As for the long, thin bricks with the imprints of fmgers on them, they are well know from tell es-Sawwan, tell Songor and Choga Mami, as well as in Susiana." (Huot, 1988:8). The architectural remains of 1976 and 1978 consisted of a confusing maze of mud brick walls, the bricks measuring ea. 50cm x 25cm x 7cm. During these excavations, it was initially decided to divide the Ubaid 4 deposit into five levels or phases, of which consequential or substantial architectural remains were encountered only in Level 5. The excavators later decided to reorganize the Ubaid 4 'levels' into three main phases. The old 'Level 5' (new designation, phase 3) partly consisted of buttressed recessed walls, on three sides of a rectangular room measuring 9.50 x 2.80m and a small outer annex (Forest, 1983:20). A fourth wall with four openings was found, closing this room to the south-west, but because it lacked any recesses, it was considered by the excavators to constitute the internal partition wall of a building which extended further to the south. This also led the excavators from the start to believe they were excavating the remains of a tripartite plan of which only one wing was unearthed. A terrace wall was unearthed, crossing the east-west slope to help protect the 'tripartite' building. "The terrace was made of brownish mud-bricks, about 45cm x 20cm x 8-9cm in size. The bricks are badly tempered and of bad quality." (Forest, 1985-86:60).

The site of Tell El Oueili covers an area of about 4 hectares, although Adams (based on distribution of surface sherds) estimated it to be closer to 10 hectares (Huot, 1983: 19). The tell rises almost 5m above the surrounding plain. The prevailing north-westerly winds carried away a major portion of the hill, thereby leaving little of the original Ubaid 4 settlement remains. Also, the site slopes steeply to the east and even more to the south (Huot, 1988:7).

The settlement at Tell Oueili appears to have been founded before the earliest level of Eridu (Level XIX). A new phase, earlier than Ubaid 1, was discovered which the excavators called "Ubaid 0". It should be emphasised that virgin soil has not yet been reached because of the water table, and so still earlier levels are thought to exist. The architectural remains of the Ubaid 0 and Ubaid 1 differ significantly from those of Ubaid 4, even though we do not possess complete building layouts for detailed comparison. To date, about 320 sq.m. of Ubaid 0 has been exposed. Revealed "in the western part are three elongated parallel spaces of more or less comparable width, and about 6.30m long. In the centre, an almost square space is subdivided into three by a wall, and an alignment of mud blocks intended for supporting the forming pillars. The main room of this group measures nearly 4m by 5m, and fills the north-western part of this block. A rectangular annex ( 1.40 x 4.20m) is attached to it on the eastern side. These two rooms open to the south onto a long corridor, orientated from west to east and more than 6m long. To the east of

The Ubaid 4 settlement at Tell el Oueili therefore seems to have consisted of dwelling houses, annexes and granaries, with new buildings making use of the earlier remains. The houses also appear to have been separated from each other by open spaces and not agglutinative as in Tepe Gawra (Forest, 1983:21). This 'tripartite' building of Phase 3 is lying directly (in the deep sounding) on a sand layer which is sealing an Ubaid 3 level terrace. Unfortunately, the stratigraphy and architecture are very complex and the excavator's 1983 preliminary report is not always easy to follow. 35

Initially Calvet, appears to have thought that the site had been deserted between the end of Ubaid I and the beginning of the Ubaid 4 period (Calvet:1983:32), but in the 4th season preliminary report (1983), the excavator discusses the remains of Ubaid 3 and Ubaid 2 periods and architectural remains (Forest, 1985-86:59).

roofed), with a row of rooms on either side. The entrance to this building is via the southern side of the central hall. In the upper right-hand corner is a long, narrow room which may have been a staircase or mud ramp leading to the roof. The excavators designated room 29 as a kitchen or utility store as suggested by the fmds (Hijara, 1973: 17). The second building is in planning terms, somewhat similar to the first, and measures roughly 9m x 7 .5m. The structure is entered via a door located in the west side of the central hall. Although no trace of this wall was found, nevertheless, the excavators were able to determine the existence and position of the door by the discovery of a door socket in situ. The excavators suggest that the absence of the wall may indicate that it was made of wood (Hijara, 1973: 17). These two buildings are reminiscent of buildings from various levels at Tepe Gawra and Level 11 of Tell Abada (Kubba, 1987:Figs. 224-226).

According to the excavators, a picture is emerging of 'Ubaid 0' society as a clear prototype of Ubaid 1 societyparticularly in its architecture which seems to be related to Samarran buildings and which foreshadows classic Ubaid architecture. Cl4 dates for Tell Oueili (Ubaid Period) are 1 plus/minus 120 B.C., 5050 plus/minus 120 B.C., 4680 plus/minus 150 B.C., and 4530 plus/minus 150 years. These dates give a time span between 5060 and 4530 B.C., and are older than traditionally admitted (Thommeret, 1983 :67).

20.

During the 4th season, the excavators felt encouraged and decided on picking a new location for a 5 x 5m trial sounding trench to determine or confirm the layer/level sequence of the site, as the previous excavations still remained somewhat ambiguous on this point and therefore needed clarification.

TELL QALINJ AGHA

Excavator:

1.

2.

B. Abu Al-Soof. 1968. I. Hijara. 1970.

References:

1 B. Abu Al-Soof & S. EsSiwwani, 1977, Sumer 33 :69-75. 2. I. Hijara, 1973, Excavations at Tell Qalinj Agha (Erbil), Fourth Season 1970, Sumer 29:13-34, Arabic Section. 3. B. Abu Al-Soof, 1969, Excavations at Tell Qalinj Agha (Erbil) Summer, 1968. Sumer 25(1,2):3-42. 4. F. El Wailly, 1966, Sumer 22:d,e. 5. B. Abu Al-Soof, 1966, Sumer 22:77-82.

Illustrations:

Buildings A & B (Fig.2-128) ; Plan Western & Eastern Temples, Level Ill (Fig.2-129).

The Site:

Tell Qalinj Agha is situated within a modem residential area about one km to the south ofErbil Fortress.

Letters rather than numbers were used here to indicate levels, Level A lies below Level 4, and consisted of Late Ubaid ware and 'early Uruk' ware. Likewise Levels B & C also consisted of Late Ubaid ware (Hijara, 1973:27). Levels D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, L, all contained Ubaid ware of one type or another, although Halaf ware was also found in parts of the mound. It is obvious from the soundings and excavations that the Ubaid settlement was the largest and represented by 4.5m of deposit. Furthermore, the Ubaid settlement was represented by about 10 levels ofhabitation- most of which was in the north, west, and middle of Qalinj Agha. The earlier Ubaid occupation did not however, appear to have extended to the south or south-west of the mound where we witness the end of the Ubaid and beginning of the Uruk Period (Ibid, 1973 :28).

21.

It is a large mound, roughly circular in shape and covering about 3 .3 hectares of land. It rises 7m above the surrounding plain. According to Dr.El-Wailly, Levels VI and VII represent a transitional phase from the Ubaid to the Uruk Period (ElWailly, 1966:e). Levels VIII to XI belonged to the Ubaid Period, and level XII contained Halafpottery.

RAS AL 'AMIYA

Excavator :

D. Stronach, D. French, J. Orchard, E (Strommenger. May 1960.)

References:

1. Stronach, D., 1982, Ras al 'Amiya, in 50 years of Mesopotamian Discovery .pp.37-39. 2. Stronach, D., 1961, The excavations of Ras al 'Amiya, Iraq 23:95-137.

Illustrations: The Site:

During the 4th season, the excavators unearthed the remains of two house plans. The frrst house consisted of a central hall (which according to the excavators was probably 36

Ras al 'Amiya is located 80km south of Baghdad.

The highest point of the deposit lies 1.20m below the present surface of the alluvium. The village which appears to have had short existence, covered a total area of about 2 .5 hectares.

1.50 x 1.50m sounding shows that these architectural remains consisted of a few foundations of mud-brick (liben) walls with clay plaster and resting on virgin soil. Ubaid 2/3 sherds were found in this level. Level Ill appears to be the best preserved level of the four. It is "represented by structures in the form of small houses two of which are in the southern side of the tell and part of another house in the northern side. The last house consists of a rectangular hall (4 x 2.50m) with a doorway on the eastern side of its southern wall and a larger doorway on the western side of its northern wall which seems to have been closed later with a partition of leben. To the west of this hall is an oblong room (2 x 2m) entered through a large doorway in its southern wall. It seems that it leads to what might have been a large yard or a rectangular hall. Part of a wall connected to it from the southern side can be seen. As for the other parts nothing has remained of them." (Jasim, 1983b:4 7).

No complete house plans were recovered, but it seems that tauf walls were more common in building construction than mud-brick walls. The excavators found only one instance where "relatively crude 'mud-slab' bricks" were used (Stronach, 1982:38). And "Although no complete house plans were recovered, it is clear that small square rooms and very often more nearly oval compartments - were ranged round open courtyards." (Stronach, 1982:38). The pottery from Ras al 'Amiya showed confirmation of cultural links between the Ubaid 2 and Ubaid 3 Periods.

22.

TELL RASIDD (Hamrin No.3)

Excavator:

S. A. Jasim

References:

I. S.A. Jasim, 1985, The Ubaid Period in Iraq, B.A.R. series, pp.l43151. 2. S.A . Jasim, 1983, Notes on the Excavation at Tell Rashid, Iraq. Paleorient 9:99-103. 3. S.A. Jasim, 1983, Tell Rashid Excavations, Initial Report. Sumer 40(1,2):47-48.

One of the two structures on the southern side of the tell had a tripartite plan and buttressed facade and is reminiscent of the Tell Abada buildings. It was entered from the northwestern corner, leading to a hall 4 x 1.5m (room no.1) which in turn leads to the main hall which measured 5 x 1.8m (no.2). The latter room gives access to two other small rooms to the south (nos. 3 & 4). The building overlooks a common area enclosed by a curved wall with two exits, one on each of its sides (Jasim, 1985:144).

Feb. 1978

Illustrations:

Plan ofLevel 3 structures (Fig.2-130) ; Geometric Designs on Halaf Sherds (Fig.2-l 31).

The Site:

Tell Rashid lies about 12km to the south of Tell Abada, close to the eastern flank of Jebel Hamrin, along the Zagros Foothills.

The second building which is larger, lies to the south of the previous building and was probably built against its eastern wall. It was also entered from the common yard enclosed by the curved wall. The entrance was placed centrally to the building and led to a large central court which was flanked by smaller rooms on both sides. The plan, although obviously tripartite, is incomplete because parts of its southern walls extend into the unexcavated are of the tell. "The walls in this level were preserved up to a height of about I m and were built of mud-brick measuring 52 x 28 x 8cm and plastered with a layer of levigated clay." (Jasim, 1985:144). No gypsum plastered walls were found. In the initial report, the excavator gives different dimensions for the mud bricks (56 x 25 x 7cm), which are apparently the same sizes as those of Tell Abada (Jasim, 1983:47). No explanation is given for this discrepancy. Also in this level, a number of polychrome sherds of late Halaf style were found.

The tell consists of a small oval shaped mound measuring approximately 54m x 30m and rising some 2.5m above the surrounding plain. "This small rural settlement of the early 5th millennium B. C., located in the upper Diyala foothills of Iraq, is of the period transitional between Ubaid 2 & Ubaid 3 in southern Iraq." (Jasim, 1983a:99).

In Level 11, the architectural remains were confmed to the southern side of the tell only, since none were found on its northern half. A group of four rectangular rooms was unearthed, which probably constituted part of a large house whose remains are still under the unexcavated part of the Tell on its western side. The walls were all built of mud brick coated with clay plaster, similar to the previous level.

The excavations took the form of a large trench measuring 20 x 15m, and covering the middle section of the mound. Four successive levels were unearthed, revealing a deposit of about 5m deep and reaching virgin soil. The four levels were numbered I- IV beginning from the top of the Tell.

The top level of the mound revealed very few architectural remains (consisting mainly of a curved mud brick wall) as it was badly damaged due to its close proximity to the surface of the tell.

The building remains of the earliest level (Level IV) appeared in the trench some 5m below the tell's surface, and seems to have been constructed directly on virgin soil. The 37

both of which are contemporary with the Mesopotamian Ubaid culture.

The excavators date the ceramic assemblage to the Ubaid 2/3 Period, and suggest close parallels with Tell Abada 11 and I, indicating cultural contact between them (Jasim, 1985:151).

23.

24.

TELL AL SA'ADIYA

Excavator:

References:

University of Warsaw under direction of (S.K. Kozlowski and assisted by P. Bielinski. Autumn 1979. S.K. Kozlowski and P. Bielinski, 1. 1981, Tell El-Saadiya- A preliminary Report on the First Season of Sumer 1979. Excavations, 40(1 ,2):103-106. Iraq Vol.43, 1981 , Excavations 2. in Iraq 1979-80, p.l87.

TELL SHEIKH HOMSY (Saddam Dam Salvage Project) Soviet Archaeological Bader, N.O. 1985.

References:

Bader, N.O., 1987, The Brief Preliminary Report about the Works of Soviet Archaeological Expedition in Iraq, 1985. S.O.A.H., Baghdad.

Illustrations: The Site:

Illustrations: The Site:

Expedition,

Excavator:

Tell AI Sa'adiya lies about 0.5km upstream from the modern town of Sa'adiyah, on the Diyala's left bank. The Tell consists of a low, oval shaped hill with the longer axis orientated (Koslowski, north-south roughly 1981:104). It measures roughly 85 x 75m and stands about 3m above the surround terrain. Tell AI Sa'adiya is considered a 'pure' Ubaid site, consisting mostly of Late Ubaid assemblage.

Tell Sheikh Homsy lies near Sheikh Homsy village, some 6krn west of Zummar town, on the right bank of the Tigris River. The Tell rises 17m above the surrounding plain, having a deposit of about 12m deep. The area of the tell is just over one hectare, although the cultural debris spreads over an area of about 1.5 hectare.

The Ubaid settlement debris starts from level 13m, with the test pits showing the Ubaid on virgin soil. The depth of the Sheikh Homsy Ubaid period occupation is over 8m. The architecture is represented by a rather great rectangular structure built of mud bricks (Bader, 1987:133), of which no plan is presented by the excavators. A large clay kiln, 2.5m high for burning pottery was also found. In one of the test pits, Halaf ceramics were found together with Ubaid ones.

Initially, three trenches were dug in the central and southern part of the tell, and shallow sounding in the northern part. In no case was virgin soil encountered. The total area excavated was about 300 square metres.

25.

During the following excavations, six building levels were distinguished, the two earliest resting on virgin soil, belonging to the Ubaid 3 Period. The following four levels belonged to the Ubaid 4 Period. In the southern sector of the mound, a section of a compact settlement was unearthed. This revealed parts of four domestic house remains, with walls standing no more than 40cm high. They were constructed of single or double rows of rectangular mud bricks measuring 54 x 25 x 7cm, and larger bricks measuring ea. 62 x 30 x 8cm - the latter being used less frequently (Koslowski, et a!, 1981 :104). In the walls built of a single row, the bricks were usually set perpendicularly.

TELL SHELGIYA Salvage Project, No.l)

(Saddam Dam

Excavator:

Joint team by Warwick Ball (British Archaeological Expedition and Trevor University) (Edinburgh Watkins March 1986

References:

Iraq 49, 1987:247

Illustrations: The Site:

Steep high mound, just south of Syrian border.

Series of trenches dug in main mound revealed well stratified continuous sequence from Early Uruk, through Ninevite V.

Many stone door sockets and one baked clay socket with a hole in each side, were found. Infant burials were also found under the floors.

In a nearby field, several hundred metres further to the south-east, several trenches exposed a sequence from Late Ubaid to Early Uruk. Future excavations in this area could clarify some of the ambiguities concerning the link between

The pottery material showed similarities with Iranian pottery of the Mehmeh culture as well as to Susian pottery 38

Ubaid and Early Uruk, and whether they in fact, belong to the same culture.

thick. The floor of this buildings was plastered with gypsum mixed with pebbles. To the north of this building is a lane I m wide and 6.5m long, also laid with pebbles.

26.

The building on the western part of the tell (B2) "is a building symmetrically constructed with a cross-shaped room as its core under the method that a lot of small partitioned-rooms of around I m (B-5,5') were first built as its basis, in which red earth was filled for leveling and that the underlying old walls were utilized by filling them with red earth for leveling." (Fujii, et al., 1981: 183). It should be noted that the use of red earth rather than occupational debris and broken-down walls is a feature characteristic of later Mesopotamian religious buildings (Curtis, 1982:36).

TELL SONGOR (A, B, C)

Excavator: References:

Illustrations:

The Site :

H. Fujii

June 1978

I. K. Matsumoto, 1983, Tell Songor (a, Band C), Sumer 40(1,2):37-38. 2. H. Fujii & Hiroyuki Ii, eds., 1981, Preliminary Report of Excavations at Gubba and Songor, Al-Rafidan, Journal of Western Studies, Vol.ll., Chapters Ill and IV.

The walls are also made of tauf, 80cm thick and the floors The were plastered with a gypsum and pebble mix. excavators feel that "their scale and structure suggests public institution like temple." (Matsumoto, 1983:37). This is corroborated by the symmetry and obvious formality in its design.

Plan of Songor A, lower levels (Fig.2132), Plan of Ubaid Building, Songor C (Fig.2-133), Reconstructed Plan of Ubaid Building, Songor C (Fig.2-134), Plan of Songor B Levels I & 11 (Fig.2-135), Reconstruction Songor B Building (Fig.2136); Reconstruction Songor B Building (Fig.2-137); Plan Reconstruction of Songor B Building (Fig.2-138); Painted Geometric Motifs, Songor A (Fig.2-139).

Level Ill consisted basically of 'structures' which were probably used for the foundations of the Level 11 buildings. Mainly Halaf potsherds were found in this level. Songor C: This tell consists of a single layer, having a deposit of 1.6m from top to virgin soil. Within the layer, two levels were identified, both of which belong to the Ubaid period but were in poor condition. In Level I a building was uncovered which is basically square in plan, part of which was eroded by either the Diyala or Narin river. The excavators attribute 18 small square rooms to it It was although no coherent plan can be discernable. constructed oftaufwalls, some 70cm thick.

Tell Songor consists of three mounds, A, B, and C, which are located near the junction of the Diyala and Narin rivers, which run to the north of Jebel Hamrin. Songor A is an oval-shaped mound measuring roughly 190 x 140m and rises some 3m above the surrounding plain. Songor B is also an oval-shaped mound and is located about I OOm from Songor A. It measures approximately 60 x 50m and rises about 2m.

No architectural remains were detected in Level 11.

Songor C is the smallest of the three and measures approximately 40 x 30m and rises about lm. It is situated about lOOm to the north-east of Songor B.

Excavator:

I. Tokyo University Iraq-Iran Archaeological Expedition, N. Egami. 1956-57. K. Horiuchi, T . S. Fukai, 2. Matsutani. Feb.-May 1964. K. Horiuchi, T. 3. S. Fukai, Matsutani. 1965.

References:

I. Egami, N., 1959, Telul ethThalathat - The excavation of Tell 11, Vol.l. 2. Egami, N ., 1970, Telul ethThalathat - The excavation of Tell 11, Vol.ll. (3rd Season). 3. Egami, N ., 1973, Telul ethThalathat - The excavation of Tell 11, Vol.III. (4th Season).

Illustrations:

Plan Building Level XIV (Fig.2-140) ; Plan Building 11 (Fig.2-141).

27.

Songor A: Eight Samarran buildings at the northern and southern ends of the tell were uncovered constructed of long mud bricks measuring ea. 72 x 16 x 8cm. Also among the mud-brick remains is what the excavators believe is a defensive wall. Otherwise, except for an Ubaid kiln, there were no Ubaid architectural remains but Ubaid 2/3 pottery, combining both northern and southern elements were found in a group of five graves unearthed in the southern area (Fujii, et al., 1981 : 167-68). Songor 8: Four levels were excavated and the Ubaid levels are largely represented in Level 11, mixed with Halafian materials. This level is composed of two buildings located at the eastern and western parts of the tell. The building on the eastern side of the tell measured ea. 23 x I Om and constructed of tauf walls, some 70cm or more 39

TELUL ETH THALATHAT 11

The Site:

Telul eth-Thalathat consists of four larger mounds and three small ones, giving a total of seven. Mound 11, which is the smallest of the larger mounds, was excavated since 1956.

'courtyard' flanked by 5 rooms on its west side and 3 rooms on its east side. On the south side of this central courtyard or hall, there was a square shaped mud altar framed with brick and covered with soil. Thick layers of greenish gray ash suggested sacrificial burning to the excavators (Egami, 1959:7). According to the excavators, this building judging by the few pottery sherds, may belong to the Uruk period and may have served as a Temple. Tell V appears to show evidence of Late Ubaid and Ninevite 5 occupation.

The peak of mound 11 of Telul ethThalathat lies about 7m above the present ground level. It is basically oval in shape, measuring about 1OOm x 60m.

28. Ubaid pottery was attested to in a number of 'strata'. In squares M .IV-VIII, the Ubaid pottery appeared to belong to three periods - each differing rather significantly from the other (Egami, 1959:3). A large perforated jar was found in room C-R.3 of level IX which is entered from the Courtyard (plate LXIII, Egami, 1959). The implications of this are discussed in Chapter 5. The Ubaid Period walls seem to have been 'one brick thick' (measuring 42 x 23 x 8cm on average), while the Uruk walls appeared to have been more substantial, being one and a half bricks thick. The bricks were made of mud mixed with straw, and the walls were always coated with mud plaster which differed in colour from the mud-brick used (Egami, 1959:4).

TELL AL UBAID

Excavator:

1. 2.

References:

l. C.L. Woolley revised by P.R.S. Moorey, 1982, Ur of the Chaldees, Herbert Press. 2. H.R. Hall & C.L. Woolley, 1927, UR excavations, Al-'Ubaid, Vol.1 . Oxford University Press.

H.R. Hall C.L. Woolley

April1919 Nov. 1922

Illustrations: The Site:

In Trench M, three house levels were encountered (these were designated A, B, C). A mud-brick retaining wall surrounded these dwellings at their eastern side. The retaining wall was rebuilt twice, on top of each other. The lower (and therefore older) wall was of the same construction as the dwelling houses, whereas the upper wall was built differently. The upper retaining wall consisted of three parallel rows of brick with buttresses at half metre intervals.

Lies about 6.5km west of Ur (Al Muqayyar?), along the bank of an ancient canal, some 16km north of Abu Shahrain (Eridu). Tell Al Ubaid is a small mound rising approx. 1Om and measuring roughly 45m long.

This site which is known by the locals as Tell Al-Ubaid, was discovered by H.R. Hall in April, 1919, while working at Ur. He was the "first to discover and record a prehistoric pottery, hand-turned and decorated with simple designs painted in a dark pigment on a comparatively light ground" to which they gave the name Ubaid ware (Mallowan, 1970:327). The term 'Ubaid' was also used to scribe the period and culture with which it appeared to be closely associated.

The architectural remains of Layer C were often 1 - 1.50m high and generally in better condition than those of Layer A + B. This made it possible to recognize the plan form of the rooms, which showed that they surrounded a courtyard (Egami, 1959:4). Blocks of bitumen were also found in this layer which may have been used for waterproofing.

There are few settlement remains, little architecture, and no reliable stratification. The excavators suggest that the Ubaid buildings were of reed matting supported at intervals by wooden posts (Hall & Woolley, 1927:150), and "bits of reed matting plastered with clay mixed with dung or, less often, with a mixture of earth and bitumen" were found near the tell's surface (Woolley & Moorey, 1982:20).

The excavation of Level VII revealed many dwelling houses which faced south-east. A limestone door socket was found in square Q-R.5 of Level VII (Stratum XIV-XIII) which measured 10 x 19cm and had a 9cm diameter hole which was 8cm deep. There were also traces of straw covering the floor (Egami, 1959:6). Stratum XIV belongs to an early phase of the Ubaid Period. In Level F3 of Stratum XIV, lumps of clay were found with impression marks of 'bunches of reeds' suggesting to the excavators that the reeds were used for roofmg. Some of the walls of 'construction F4' in Stratum XIV had buttresses (Egami, 1959: 13).

29.

In square Q, R.IX, X an unusually large well-built building was unearthed. The outside walls were about 45cm thick and stood over 1.5m high. It consisted of an internal 40

TELL UQAIR

Excavator:

Directorate of Antiquities under direction of S. Lloyd, and F.Safar. March 1940.

References:

l. S. Lloyd & F. Safar, 1943, Tell Uqair, JNES 11:135-155.

2. R. McC Adams, 1972b, Settlement and Irrigation Patterns in Ancient Akkad, in City and Area of Kish, M. Gibson ed. Illustrations:

Plan Ubaid Period Architectural Remains (Fig.2-142); Reconstruction (Fig.2-143).

The Site

Tell Uqair is the most prominent of a group of rather small mounds in the vicinity of the much larger Tell lbrahim. The latter is located some 80 km south of Baghdad. Tell Uqair, like Tell AI Ubaid, consists of two low mounds of differing sizes. One mound (Mound B) had a maximum rise of 6m while the other had a maximum rise of IOm (Mound A) on its west side.

30.

UR

Excavator:

C.L. Woolley

References:

1. C. L. Woolley, revised by P.R.S. Moorey, 1982, Ur of the Chaldees, Herbert Press, London. 2. H.R. Hall & C.L. Woolley, 1927, Ur Excavations 1: Al-Ubaid, Oxford. 3. C. L. Woolley, 1930, Excavations at Ur, 1929-30, Antiquaries Journal X, No.4.:329-41.

1923- 1934.

Illustrations: The Site :

Evidence of Ubaid occupation comes from two buildings (probably dwellings) from Trench IV on the outer slope of the northern mound (i.e. near the edge of Mound A) and only 2m above the surrounding plain. A sounding between them yielded approximately seven levels of Ubaid material (which may represent a period of several hundred years) , going down to virgin soil. The deep sounding also yielded a thick layer of reed matting or rushes on virgin soil (Lloyd & Safar, 1943: 149-150).

Ur is situated roughly half-way between the capital Baghdad and the head ofthe Arabian Gulf, and about 16 km west of the present course of the Euphrates River.

Evidence of Ubaid occupation came from three pit soundings in the edge of the mound, which Woolley dug down to virgin soil, the largest and most notable being the 'Flood pit ' (Woolley, 1930, AJ X:329-41). The remains of the Ubaid period consist of several superimposed building layers beneath the "Flood" deposit, also graves within the sand of the 'Flood' layer. At the bottom of the 'Flood Pit' "are clay and silt layers containing decayed vegetable matter which Woolley interpreted as the original marshland of the Mesopotamian alluvium. Above these, beginning apparently as soon as the earth was sufficiently dry to bear habitation, is the earliest settlement, represented by traces of buildings and numerous objects, principally Ubaid painted pottery. This settlement stratum represents Woolley's al Ubaid I. Above it comes deep silt, deposited by the 'Flood', in which were found two sets of graves at two distinct levels; the lower level is Ur-Ubaid 11 and the upper one Ur-Ubaid Ill.

One of the unearthed 'impoverished' mud-brick houses (house A) in Mound A, had walls of a single brick thick and a mud floor with traces of reed matting. The second building at the site is rather unusual as well as being much larger. It contained long narrow rooms which the excavators suggest may have been the result of the difficulty in procuring suitable wood for roofmg in the marshes of southern Iraq (lbid.:l49), but may also have been to allow it to support a barrel vault and a second storey. Some of its walls are almost a metre thick, and were built of large rectangular mud bricks, with no apparent tempering. These rectangular bricks are roughly piled in succession, rather than laid in horizontal courses (Lloyd & Safar, 1943:149). The excavator believes that room F may have housed a ramp or staircase, although no traces of either were found.

The Ubaid I Level at Ur, the archaeological material from below the 'Flood-level', "is possibly as late as level IX in the sequence at Eridu and certainly no earlier than level XII there, whilst 'Ubaid 11 at Ur is equivalent to the latest phase of the 'Ubaid period at Eridu." (Woolley & Moorey, 1982:31).

The excavations suggest that after the Ubaid Period ended, the only parts of the site to be occupied, were the Temple and the southern half of the site. A long trench in Mound B on the northwest side produced no structural remains.

Ur-Ubaid I yielded fragments of clay daub (some of which had a rounded outer surface) from reed buildings with the imprint of reed stems still visible. Also found were flat and rectangular crude mud bricks set in mud mortar (Woolley, 1930, AJ X:335). The excavator thought that the occupation of the site was continuous throughout the three levels.

Tell Uqair is best known for the Uruk period Temple, and as a "most striking example of a site that must be described as a fairly large and complex town." (Adams, 1972:184). It certainly seems to be a very promising one which has had only a preliminary excavation into its Ubaid levels. It could therefore provide a unique opportunity for economical, large scale exposure aiming at the recovery of a complete town plan for this period.

"The hut would be built as such huts are built to-day: a framework would be put up of fascines of reeds tied together, and over this would be fastened mats, either of woven reed leaves, as is ordinary now, or of parallel reedstems, the type of mat common in North Syria. Here we 41

and one gets the impression that only the lowest layers of the temple's walls remain. Both temples consisted basically of three parts, a dominant rectangular sanctuary (5.70 x 15.80m) extending over the entire length of the building, flanked on both sides by a row of smaller rooms (Schmidt, 1974:175).

have parallel reed-stems probably tied on to horizontal cross-pieces. The coating of clay did not obliterate the structural features of the building; to judge from the fragments found it emphasized it rather than otherwise, and the vertical fascines were reproduced as attached halfcolumns, the horizontal bands as plain moulding. The flatness of the mud wall was therefore relieved by a system of ornament which corresponded exactly to the lines of its structure. If that is so, we can argue from it to a real architectural sense in the builders of the pre-Flood era." (Woolley, 1930, AJ X:336).

31.

According to the excavator, large parts of Temple I were removed during the rebuilding of Temple 11, and the new temple erected on the remaining foundations of the first Temple. Thus, all the parts that fell within the area of the brick construction were totally destroyed. In the north-west part of the site however, a segment of the temple was preserved up to a height of 50cm (Ibid.: 176).

URUK (Warka)

Excavator:

J. Schmidt

References:

1. J. Schmidt, 1974, Zwei Tempel Der Obed-Zeit in Uruk, Baghdader Mitteilungen 7:173-187, Berlin. 2. J. Schmidt, 1972, Steingebaude. In Vorlaufige Bericht uber die von dem Deutschen Archaologischen Institut und der Deutschen Orient-Gesellschaft aus mitteln der Deutschen Forschungsgemeinschaft unternommenen Ausgrabungen in Uruk-Warka 1968-1969, Vol. 26/27:18-29. Berlin:Gebr. Mann.

Temple II is identical to its predecessor but for some altered features in its execution. Temple II was also erected at a higher level than the previous brick construction (Ibid.: 176). The facades of Temple 11 had elaborate double-stepped recesses, 1.30m wide and 17cm deep. The buttresses were carefully plastered and like the White Temple, showed evidence of whitewash. Also, the niches did not start from floor level, but from a raised mud-brick platform of 40cm (Ibid.: 178).

1973

In Chapter 5 it is proposed to show that their design indicates the use of a standard unit of measurement, equal to 72cm and which, for want of a better term, will be called 'The Ubaid Cubit'.

Plan of Temple I: Schmidt (Fig.2144), Plan of Temple II: Schmidt (Fig.2-145); Superimposed Plan by II Forest (Fig.2-146); Temple Reconstruction (Fig.2-147); Superimposed Plan Temples 1/II (Fig.2-148).

Forest has made the intriguing suggestion that Temples I & 11, are in fact the same building, and that the plan of Temple I represents the foundations of Temple 11 (Forest, 1987a:394, Fig.2). This is quite possible, since the much later White Temple is known to have stood on a full socle, and a socle-like structure also adjoins the White Temple's predecessors, the D-E Temples at Uruk at their south-east and south-west walls (Perkins, 1972: 116), it is therefore possible that Temple I represents such a socle.

The stratified material of Ubaid Period comes from a pit about 14.50 x 10.50m at the top of the mound and dug to a depth of 19.60m below the southwestern part of the court of the Limestone Temple of Eanna level V. (UVB III, 1932:18-31; UVB IV, 1932:6-8; 31-36).

However, a careful analysis of the two plans as reconstructed by Forest and Schmidt suggests that this is unlikely for the following reasons:

Illustrations:

The Site :

1. Two different podiums were found, varying both in size and outline (Figs.2-144,2-145).

Mud bricks occurred at Uruk at least as early as Eanna level XVII (and possibly in XVIII). The bricks found in levels XVIII-VII are flat and rectangular, measuring from 27 x 14 x 7cm to 24 x 12 x 7cm, the length almost always approximately twice the width. "The bricks are quite well bonded, a course of headers being covered by one of stretchers, but there is not universal covering of all vertical joints in one course by the bricks of the next one." (Perkins, 1972:89).

2. The buttresses of the two temples, as reconstructed by Schmidt or Forest do not line up. Forest in his reconstruction (Fig.2-146), manipulates the dimensions of the Temple 11 buttresses to fit the lower plan. Thus the width of the buttresses in the Forest Temple 11 reconstruction, vary from about 3m - 3.5m. It is interesting to note, that in the excavated portions of 'Temple 1', there was evidence for one buttress only. Where one expects a buttress near the proposed stair of 'Temple!, there is non, so that the proposed buttress by Forest in 'Temple 11' does not coincide with a corresponding one in 'Temple 1' (see circled area of reconstruction by Forest, Fig.2-146). This would tend to suggest that either they were two different buildings or the reconstructions are incorrect, or both.

Two 'Ubaid temples', reminiscent in plan of the later Uruk temples on the nearby Anu terrace, were briefly investigated by Schmidt (Schmidt, 1974). Their overall dimensions according to the excavator were 14.5 x 18.5m which gives them a ratio of about 5:4 (like the White Temple). No traces of doors could be found in Temple I, 42

some 20m, of which Ubaid deposit measures about 3.5m.

3. The foundations of Temple I may have deliberately been left to signify that it is sacred ground, as may have been the case in Gawra XIV and in later Mesopotamian temples.

Three of the tells are quite large and together represent three of the most important early agricultural cultures in northern Mesopotamia, they are: Hassuna, Halaf and Ubaid. Of these, Yarim Tepe Ill provided evidence of Ubaid occupation.

4. A sequence of temples (predecessors of the White Temple) that were similar in plan to the 'Ubaid Temples I & If' all share almost identical layout and dimensions.

It appears that the mound consists of three major periods (Munchaev et al., 1984:32). The investigation concentrated on the south-eastern part of the mound, of which 600 sq.m. of main ground were uncovered. The Ubaid culture is represented by 3-4m of deposit. This revealed architectural remains of multi-roomed rectangular structures, probably dwellings and service structures of the Ubaid Period. Also, "It's worth noting that the area under survey lies on a very steep slope of the mound: the southern drop from 0 (i.e. from the highest point of the mound reaches nearly 4m along the distance of 30m." (Bader, 1981:63).

On the other hand, a positive argument for Forest's suggestion can be sustained on the basis of an alternative reconstruction by the author (Fig.2-147) showing that when superimposed, the two buildings fit exactly on top of each other, and that 'Temple I' may indeed be the foundations of 'Temple II' (Fig.2-148). Moreover, in the author's reconstruction, the buttress spacing has remained constant, in line with the excavated portions. However, the author's reconstruction shows that 'Temple 11' has a pronounced projection near the proposed entrance, which is an architectural feature used during the Uruk Period (see White Temple, Fig.A-12). This suggests that the 'Ubaid Temples' may in fact be an Uruk temple. The buildings are discussed in detail in Chapter 5.

32.

Through three succeeding building levels, the plan form remained unchanged (Munchaev, et al., 1984:32), and neither the building technique nor the structural form showed any variation throughout the Ubaid occupation. This is also the case in a number of other multi-layered settlements in Northern Mesopotamia. Moreover, as is the case at Tell Arpachiyah, Tepe Gawra and several other sites, no significant disruption exists at Yarim Tepe Ill between Halaf and Ubaid Period occupation levels, and there is a transitional layer between the two, containing both Halaf and Ubaid wares. Tell Arpachiyah also resembles Yarim Tepe Ill in that a small Ubaid settlement lies on top of a larger Halaf mound.

Y ARIM TEPE Ill

Excavator:

Soviet Archaeological Expedition of the Academy of Sciences ofthe USSR, R.M. Munchaev, N.Y. Merpert and N.O. Bader. 1977

References:

1. Munchaev, R.M. et al., 1984, Archaeological Studies in the Sinjar Valley, 1980. Sumer43(1,2). 2. Merpert, N. & Munchaev, R., 1984, Soviet Expedition's Research at Yarim Tepe Ill Settlement in Northwestern Iraq, 1978-79. Sumer 43(1 ,2):54-68. 3. Bader, N .O. et al., 1981, Soviet Expedition's Surveys in the Sinjar Valley, Sumer37(1,2). 4. Iraq Vol.41, 1979.

Illustrations:

The Site:

It seems that the settlement in the Ubaid Period was densely built, and was subjected to frequent reconstructions (Bader, et al., 1981 :56). Some of the structures appeared to be quite massive and the plan layout remained unchanged over a long period but for minor reconstructions. Others were completely rebuilt from time to time. All the buildings were constructed of mud-brick nearly standard in size, averaging 60 x 25 x 8cm. The wall of room 60 (building Level 3) shows that the bricks were laid in 'piles' as in Tell Uqair (Bader, et al., 1981:71, Fig.3).

Plan Levels III-IV (Fig.2-149); Plan Levels 1-11 (Fig.2-l 50) ; Plan Yarim Tepe Ill Houses (Fig.2-151).

In some instances where large buildings were encountered, "The transition to a new building level was marked only by a raising of their floor level, a partial rearrangement of the interior and heightening of the walls." (Bader, et al. 1981:56). The excavations have unearthed eight large house units in a good state of preservation , with some walls standing 1.502m high, and which belonged to different levels, representing over 90 rooms. Some of the rooms appear to be normal living rooms, while others appear to have been used for storage and other special purposes of an economic kind.

Yarim Tepe Ill is the largest of a number of tells consisting of six mounds, forming a compact group less than one km wide and locally known by the name Yarim Tepe (Turkish 'Half-mound~. The group is located approximately I Okm south-west of Tell Afar. The mound has a diameter of over 200m and stands about 12m above the wadi. The total depth of deposit is

It is interesting that no tripartite buildings were encountered in any of the levels, and the majority of 'house' plans 43

consisted of a number of adjoining rows of simple rooms, most of which were very narrow (the majority under 1.5m wide), probably to make roofmg easier. Outside the buildings, in the 'courtyards', are kilns and a single round structure (No.52) in Level III-IV, 3m in diameter and 26cm thick walls. It is therefore, too large to be a kiln, and is reminiscent of Khanijdal East, where a similar round structure was found in a Late Ubaid context. Since the floor was covered with by ash and charcoal accumulations, it is unlikely to have been used for storage. The earliest Ubaid structures lie directly over the fmal Halafian level remains. Room No.62 which was long and narrow and measured 1.30 x 0.40m yielded a large quantity of grain, suggesting a storage facility (Bader, et al. 1981:57). Doorways from Level II in rooms 18, 6, I & 2, were rather small, being 60-80cm wide and 70-90cm high (reminiscent of Bouqras and Tell Madhhur: room 10111 ), forcing one to bend down to enter. The pottery vessels resemble those of Tepe Gawra Levels XVIII-XVI, which is why the excavators suggest an early Northern Ubaid horizon for the site.

44

3. 3.0

BUILDING MATERIALS AND THEIR AVAILABILITY It was soon realized that it was better to work the mud or clay into lumps of suitable sizes and allow them to partially dry and shrink in the sun prior to pressing them into position on the wall. One of the main advantages of using pressed mud is that it makes it possible to erect houses which provide satisfactory conditions of habitability in areas lacking in more permanent materials as timber, stone, pebbles, etc. Moreover, it utilizes only such materials as may be found locally.

General

There are many factors which influence a building style, and the building material is one of these: for example, it is difficult to give the same feeling of robustness and monumentality that stone or mud-brick allows with substitute materials like reeds or timber. It is often the interaction of the demands and the characteristics of the building material itself, which helps create an architectural style.

The advantages of using pressed mud (taut) increases in proportion to the quality of the material found on the site and their ability to satisfy the conditions of composition and granulometry which are required to provide adequate resistance to the weather. The other advantages of pressed mud are derived from its technical qualities namely: good thermal insulation, fire resistance, satisfactory capillarity and impermeability.

In this chapter, I will consider the building materials used in the buildings of the Ubaid period in general and the Late Ubaid period in particular. The building materials that were available to the prehistoric inhabitants of Mesopotamia may be classified into four main categories:

1. 2. 3. 4.

Its chief disadvantage is the large amount of labour it needs as well as the limitations imposed by certain architectural conditions deriving from the relatively low resistance of the material. This helps explain why so much of the earliest buildings were confmed to simple one-storey structures. It should be noted that in prehistoric times, tauf house construction was most likely built with the help of the whole community or at least family and relatives, rather than a sole individual. Also, because soil is heavy, its source should be close at hand, preferably directly on a building site. This may account for the many 'intrusive pits' that are found by archaeologists in their excavations, which may be nothing more than 'soak pits'.

Pressed mud (tauf, pise'), unfired mudbrick and baked brick. Reeds, rushes, etc. Timber Stone.

3.1

Pressed Mud (Tauf), Mud-brick and Baked Brick

3.10

Introduction:

Mud is vulnerable to erosion and was fragile and ephemeral; mud buildings last as long as their protective covering (usually plaster), and then only if the foundation of its walls was not being sapped by rain water. Although often used for foundations, plain mud bricks are not suitable for footings because they cannot withstand water penetration. The use of emulsified bitumen or asphalt as a stabilizer was not used in antiquity. A slight crack in the terraced roof would lead to the disintegration of the wall which would return to its original state, i.e. mud.

With few exceptions, clay was the basic material of all Mesopotamian buildings because from the very beginning the ancients had very little to build with but mud. However, the earliest attempt to build with mud and clay must have been very disappointing due to the slow drying process and subsequent shrinkage and cracking that was experienced. Often the mud was used practically unchanged: either as it was, or with an addition of chopped straw or other vegetable matter (gravel is sometimes added) to give it better cohesion and also it was thought to improve drainage and ventilation through the bricks and help in the evaporation of moisture from the interior. Moreover, the straw promotes uniformity of drying and tends to distribute cracking more evenly and thus reduce the risk of distortion ofthe fmished work. In contrast to popular opinion, results from a number of tests carried out in the United States (Neubaur, 1950) by various research workers suggest that the use of certain admixtures such as manure for example, in fact

There is still no general consensus on the life of ordinary mud buildings, but they should last a decade or so years, sometimes less. Buildings receiving regular care and maintenance, such as temples or palaces, could hope for a longer life span of say, over forty years (Oates, 1972:301). Braidwood suggests 15 years as a generous average allowance for the life of a tauf structure (Braidwood, et al., 1960:40) but Watson (1979) cites 50 years for the life expectancy of a mud structure given good maintenance.

considerably reduce the tensile strength of the bricks: apparently, it is the organic matter in the manure that is harmful. Likewise, the tests suggest that the advantage of adding straw to the mix is inconclusive. While some experienced builders still favour it, others deny its worth.

In monumental buildings, the life span usually depended on prestige as well as maintenance and type of clay used, because it was largely a social matter. And even so, an amazing number of temples had to be completely rebuilt: eighteen successive states of rebuilding, without counting 45

partial restoration, were found in one temple at Eridu (Safar, et al., 1981)

pressed earth is determined by the laws of gravity and the quality of the work (foundation, building technique). The thickness of the wall should preferably be one-eighth to one-tenth of the wall height. This is discussed further in chapter four. Relatively thin walls are usually undesirable both for structural reasons and because of their poorer insulating properties (Neubaur, 1950).

As the result of general use or willful destruction, a building would deteriorate and the foundations of the walls became buried under the collapsed upper parts; where erosion did not remove it, the soil from disintegrated bricks protected the foundations. In rebuilding, the surface was simply smoothed over; in fact, it would have been too much work to clear the rubble, and the resulting elevation had the advantage of insulating the building from the underlying water table which was still very close. When the surface was leveled, new foundations were dug which did not always go down to the level of the previous foundations when there was a thick layer of rubble. Raising the building improved drainage and helped make the building more imposing. Evidence of raising the building is found at Tell Madhhur (Level 11 house).

Wails were usually limited to one storey in height because a second storey created many complications and required a much greater strength for the whole structure. When a twostorey building is erected, the first storey walls must be about 50% thicker than the upper ones. The height of a wall could be increased by adding a buttress on the outside and although this was sometimes resorted to, such a structure may not dry properly and evenly throughout. The use of bricks which were manufactured to standardized units and dried before-hand increased rapidly. This allowed the walls to dry out evenly and become lighter and thereby built higher since mud-brick walls did not taper towards the top like pressed mud (tau/) walls. They also became more stable as points and lines of stress could be treated with special attention.

In other cases, where a new plan was adopted, this sometimes cut across the old foundations; but when the plan was unchanged, the walls were simply used again such as at Tell Abada. In short, where the foundation works were not too deep, the earlier soil became, as it were, fossilized; there are cases, however, in which terracing works undertaken since ancient times have removed the first layers and the archaeologist fmds to his disappointment that he cannot study the evolution of the building. However, it is generally possible to follow the successive stages.

3.11

Mud

As a building material, clay has many inherent advantages. It is a high heat-capacity material, thus absorbing solar radiation during the day and re-radiating during the evening. This mitigates the effect of the outside temperatures, thereby providing a much more comfortable interior microclimate. But mud also has a number of serious disadvantages. These include: 1. It is easily eroded by water and wind. 2 . It has a low tensile strength which sometimes hinders roof construction. 3. It is easily infested with rodents and insects which can effect its structural qualities. 4. It doesn't adhere to wood well which makes good detailing difficult, particularly around doors and windows. 5. It absorbs water very readily, which puts further pressure on beams and lintels when it rains, possibly causing them to sag (Agrawal, 1982:138). 6. It allows rising damp and salt crystallization splitting off the surface.

As Braidwood points out, the tracing of a tauf wall in an archaeological context is usually a difficult operation requiring considerable skill, particularly trying to differentiate the various tauf courses (Braidwood, et al.,1960:40). The wall stub is rarely preserved to a height of more than two or three courses. Research is needed to fmd out if there is some correlation between the height of remaining walls as found by excavators, and the height of the original structure. This seems possible if a site is abandoned or sacked, etc., and excessive debris may e.g. indicate a second storey. The wall is surrounded, as one fmds it, by the mud disintegration product of the upper portions of the same structure (as well as earth debris from the roof construction), which collapsed upon the evacuation of its inhabitants. The tauf-disintegration product is of the same general color and texture as the protruding wall stub itself. But the disintegration product does not have the vertical cleavage planes which were the original faces of the wall itself, nor does it show its horizontal bedding lines in proper position. The horizontal bedding lines appear at the top of each 'course ' and may be caused by some kind of capillary rise of fmer mud particles to the surface of each 'course ' as it dried. The bedding lines show up as horizontal lines of finer and lighter (or sometimes darker) bands of mud, about half an inch thick (Braidwood, et al., 1960:40).

The ideal soil for mud wall construction should contain four basic elements: clay, silt, fine sand, and coarse sand or aggregate (McHenry, 1984:48). The aggregate tends to give the mud its strength, whereas the fme sand acts as a filler to lock the grains of aggregate (coarse sand), and the silt and clay act as a binder and adhesive for the other ingredients. If the mud mixture has too much coarse sand, it may be strong when dry, but will be less resistant to erosion when it rains. Soil structures with a high clay content would be much more resistant to water and erosion, but are also weaker. An ideal clay content seems to be about 15 - 18% (lbid, 1984:98).

The Mesopotamian mud brick wall which developed from the terre-pise' wall construction (murus terreus) was, technologically speaking, unable to evolve beyond the inherited dimensional limitations of the material, i.e. the relationship between depth and height which for a wall of

In general, there are four principle ways of building with earth, they are: 1. Without shuttering or formwork, as in 'taut' or 'cob' construction.

46

With shuttering or formwork, as in pise de

mixture into the annular space, about 30 cm or so in width, between two concentric rings of basketwork (Davey, 1961).

3. With mud bricks either a. with earth blocks of varying types and moulded by hand as in 'adobe' construction or b. formed in a mould and dried in the sun before use (Davey, 1961:19).

3. Building with mud-bricks: The third type of wall construction, is either a. to shape the material by hand into loaf-shaped pieces of convenient sizes which after a period of air drying are laid in mud mortar in horizontal courses or b. formed with timber moulds.

2. terre.

4. Wattle and daub, used in the Ubaid in reed structures (e.g. Eridu Hut Soundings).

The mud often contained impurities such as pebbles, broken pieces of bone and other extraneous matter because the earth was not cleaned (Watson, 1979). The mixture is the same as that used for cob construction. The type (a) method of construction is practiced in many parts of the world and often known as 'adobe', the Spanish name for mud. Sometimes the French word pise· is used in archaeological literature, which is inexact because it implies the pressing of rather fluid mud between built forms. This method is of great antiquity, being used prior to 6000 B.C.

1. Building without Formwork: Possibly the most primitive method of building an earth wall was to use turves laid with the grass facing downwards. It was acceptable for walls of structures of a primitive or temporary character, or for the revetting of minor earthworks. Another method that was used was to compact a mixture of mud and chopped straw, reed or grass in layers while still damp, without the use of formwork or timber shuttering.

Mud-brick is considered one of the oldest building materials known to man (Hussain, 1984:258) and throughout Mesopotamian history, they tended to vary in size and shape. At Catal Huyuk, a neolithic town in Anatolia, all buildings were built of sun-dried bricks since "the use of pise· or tauf was apparently unknown."(Mellaart, 1967:55). Bouqras, another neolithic village c.6400-5900 BC also built with mud bricks - both for the walls and for the foundations (Akkermans, et al., 1983:338). They were also used extensively during the Ubaid such as at Tepe Gawra (where in level 13, model bricks - approximately one tenth the size of the originals, were found (Tobler, 1950).

For thousands of years this method has been used throughout the world. Tauf walls are still used in Iraq, although now confmed mainly to garden or courtyard walls. The clay and straw are mixed with just sufficient water to give a suitable consistency for easy compaction so that the lowest 'course' may be moulded with the builder's hands, with a vertical face on either side, to a height of about 7 - I 0 cm without slumping. Having laid the first 'course' the builder simply waits a day or so for complete sun-drying before he adds the second 'course' after which he must wait again and so on. The mud mix contains straw or grass to prevent cracking, just as does that used for preparing sunIn times past this mixing dried mud bricks (liben). operation was often carried out near a pond and a horse or other animal sometimes used to tread the clay and straw together, although men usually did this. In the best work, and in order to protect the lower part of the wall from rising damp and disintegration by rain splashing, a base of pebbles or stones is laid.

At Tell Uqair (Lloyd & Safar, 1943), a curious method of building with mud brick was used. In Mound A, an Ubaid period building was unearthed which had large mud brick walls nearly one metre thick. The bricks were roughly piled in succession rather than in horizontal courses as is usually the case. At Yarim Tepe Ill, a wall in room No.60 shows a similar piling of bricks measuring 60 x 25 x 8cm, but whether the wall was one brick thick or more is not mentioned by the excavators (Bader et al., 1981 :71, PI. VIII, Fig.3). Such a technique would have been unwise with thin walls since the absence of an overlapping bond would have rendered the wall structurally weak and flimsy. However, the possible advantage of such a technique with thick walls is that by piling the bricks into individual 'compartments', you automatically get a form of expansion joint between the 'compartments' which allows them to expand and contract.

It is often thought that heavy torrential rains will severely erode and damage the surface of an unprotected mud wall. The clay content inherent in the brick will resist wetting, except at the surface. Natural erosion rates for vertical surfaces have recently been determined to be about 2.5 cm. in 20 years (McHenry, 1984:119). At Dalma Tepe, located in western Azerbaijan, and one of the earliest sedentary settlements in the region, had walls of packed mud. Some of the walls also had plaster coatings (Hamlin, 1975:111-125). Packed mud was also identified at Tell Es-Sawwan, in the lowest layers (Youkana,l986), Tell Hassan, Levels 5b (Fiorina, 1981 :285), Khanijdal East (Wilkinson, 1988) and at Tell Songor (B and C) (Fujii, 1981).

The use of mud brick was not confmed to the building structure, but was also used for floor paving as at Umm Dabaghiyah as well as in the construction of canals, and for roof terraces, where bitumen was added to improve its weathering qualities (AI-Tamimi, 1982:278). During the fourth millennium B.C., mud-bricks were usually rectangular in shape and about 48 cm long by 20 cm wide and 5 cm thick and were formed in wooden moulds.

2. Building with Formwork: The second method of mud construction is also very old but not used in Mesopotamia. It was to compact the mixture into wooden formwork or basketwork. In some ancient round dwellings for example, the walls were made by compacting the

Basically, the larger the brick, the stronger the bond, i.e. the wall (Hussain, 1984:259). However, larger bricks are 47

prone to damage during transport and are awkward to use. But the main problem the ancients encountered in brick manufacture was the soil's salinity (Ibid, 1984:259).

although the rainy season is relatively short in Iraq, the climatological atlas for Iraq reports that of 40 cases of torrential rain over the last two decades, in half of these cases, 10% of the total annual rainfall fell in less than 1.5 hours. This attack is two pronged, the first is the immediate effect, being the moment of striking the structure and the second is the subsequent effect being the damage caused by the drying out process and the presence of stagnant water (Bruno, et al., 1969).

4. Wattle and daub: The wattle is constructed of loosely interwoven saplings and the daub is usually mud or mud-and-dung. Wattle and daub can still be seen in traditional construction in southern Iraq. Doors for storerooms are sometimes made this way (Fig.31 ).

In both cases, chemical and physical forces are at work. Both the immediate and subsequent effects cause serious damage. When the rain directly hits the structure the impact causes a washing away of the surface material, the breakup of previously-formed crusts and the formation of preferential run-off grooves. The base of the wall is particularly vulnerable to erosion when exposed to water splashing up from the ground, particularly as we mentioned, when the rain is accompanied by strong winds, which is usually the case.

Mud-brick manufacture: A wide variety of soils can be used for making mud-bricks. The process consists of several distinct steps: 1. Finding a mud source near the site. As mentioned earlier, many of the pits archaeologists encounter in their excavations are probably the result of the brick-making process. 2. A soak pit is prepared, which may be the excavation itself.

Moreover, the rain dissolves the soluble salts inside the structure and they move outwards towards the exterior. This lessens the salt concentration and encourages further migration. Following a heavy downpour of rain, further local forces come into play. By now the mud structure is heavily impregnated with water. Its rapid evaporation will result in 'crazing', surface flaking and the formation of cracks caused by shrinkage.

3. The mud is mixed in the pit by hand or more often using the feet. At the end of the day, the pit can be 'flooded' with water (with a low salt content) to allow the mud to be soaked overnight. This facilitates the mixing process the following day. The quality of mud-brick depends on its density so that a wet mixture will probably make better bricks than a dry one. 4. The ground on which the moulds are placed should be level so that the bricks can be made to a uniform thickness. Sand is sometimes used to do this. The Tepe Gawra main court of Level XIII (the temple acropolis) which attests to the use of sand under the mud-brick paving, may have been used initially for making bricks.

If the rainwater is not removed from the base of the wall, the base of the wall will be attacked by water rising due to capillary action and will in turn have a dissolving effect on the clay substances. This will culminate in parts of the wall collapsing under its own weight because the underlying section no longer has the strength to carry it. This can also happen to the upper parts of a wall where the drying out process mentioned above creates deep transverse cracks in the structure and allows the water to seep in and weaken it, thereby contributing to its collapse.

5. After a mould is filled with mud, the top is scraped level with a clean straight stick, etc. Moulds are usually made of wood, and often have handles for lifting. 6. The bricks should be left flat on the ground surface after the moulds are removed, until they are dry enough to handle; this is usually 2 - 3 days in summer, depending on the thickness and size of the bricks. In winter it may take as long as 3 - 4 weeks to dry. Bricks not adequately cured will be very fragile and prone to breakage. When the bricks are sufficiently dry to handle, they should be tipped and placed on edge, thereby exposing the other side.

Research is needed to fmd out the permeability of mud brick and tauf walls, as well as their ability to resist frost. Unbent bricks and tauf are particularly vulnerable to damage by frost action, especially the parts below ground level. This is because when the absorbed water in the walls freezes, it expands, thereby causing the wall to disintegrate after a number of severe winters.

3.2 7. If the bricks are to be stacked, they must be stacked on edge. Mud bricks have low tensile strength and are very heavy; they may break if stacked on the flat side. Bricks should be left preferably all summer to dry properly before being used.

Burnt Brick

When the ancient Mesopotamian builders discovered that mud bricks only required baking in a kiln to make them suitable for more exact and permanent functions, we find fired bricks being used on all sorts of special occasions, e.g. for drains, paving or more often, as a facing on important buildings to give them greater solidity and protection from the weather. This form of facing was used more frequently in the late period and was responsible for the partial preservation to this day of the gate of Ishtar at Babylon where it was covered with a layer of glaze. It was rarely manufactured because of the scarcity of fuel in the region;

Excavation & preservation of mud structures: While the action of rain and water on mud-brick structures is perhaps the most predominant factor in their destruction, rain erosion is more pronounced on the side of the building that is exposed to prevailing wind and storm patterns. And

48

this is a pity, for Mesopotamia could have had an even greater wealth of imposing buildings than Egypt and Greece (Margueron, 1950).

sites like Tell Abada (Building B) where it was used to cover floors and walls (Jasim, I985:18) and at Tell Songor B where gypsum mixed with pebbles was used to plaster the floors. Gypsum plaster was used at Tell Maghzaliya (c.7000 BC.) and Tell Sotto for floors and walls (Munchaev, et al., 1984:50;Merpert, et al., 1977:97) and at Hassuna for lining grain bins (Lloyd & Safar, 1945:268), as well as at Umm Dabaghiya and other sites further south like Tell Hassan for floors and walls (Kirkbride, 1972:3-15; Fiorina, 198I :279). At Yarim Tepe I it was used to surface open passages between houses (Merpert & Munchaev, 1973:96), which unless mixed with a coarse material would have been very slippery. It was later overtaken by bitumen in popularity.

Burnt Brick does not appear to have been widely used during the Ubaid Period, although burnt bricks were used in drains and for door sockets at Tell Madhhur (Roaf, 1984b). The existing evidence to date suggests that they were used extensively from the 3rd millennium onwards. Burnt Brick can be manufactured satisfactorily from a number of different types of clay, from almost pure plastic clays to alluvial clays.

3.3

Plaster 3. Lime plaster has also been used since neolithic times. Recent research concerning the pyrotechnics for lime production, show that it was well developed even before the invention of ceramics, and firing temperatures as high as 750 C may have been achieved in kilns of the preceramic neolithic period (Thuesen and Gwozdz, 1982:99).

Plastering was an essential part of early building construction, especially in Mesopotamia. This is because without one or two coats of plaster, a mud structure would deteriorate very rapidly when it rained. The plaster moreover made the structure more homogeneous and gave it added rigidity.

Fragments of wall and floor plaster, from Hama, Syria, dated to c.6000 B.C., were analysed to test to see whether lime or gypsum was used in the neolithic period. The plaster samples defmitely show that lime was utilized during the neolithic (lbid, I982: I 0 I). At Madhhur, the Level 11 house attests to the use of "a thin layer of white gypsum of lime plaster" covering a thicker layer of mud plaster (Roaf, I984: 122). It was also widely used in the Levant during the neolithic (Wright,I985:37I). Certain limes were used for their water-resistant qualities.

Three types of plaster were common in ancient Mesopotamia, they are: 1. Mud, 2. Gypsum and 3. Lime

1. Mud plaster has been found throughout Mesopotamia from the earliest times. It is a traditional treatment for mud brick walls and is usually applied in two coats, both for exterior and interior surfaces. The initial coat is best reinforced with straw or some similar material, which allows the use of a greater clay content (20-25%) in the plaster mix. It will also make it easier to add thicker coats for leveling the surface and for future maintenance (McHenry, I984: 123). The second coat (fmish coat) consists of as fme a material as attainable (with a relatively high clay content) and applied as thinly as possible. Any shrinkage 'hair cracks' that may appear can easily be rectified by dabbing a little water on the surface and working over it by hand or with a damp cloth.

In a I972 ethnological study in Anatolia, Weinstein showed that replastering was an important part of a dwelling's maintenance (1973:274). Furthermore, she showed that, "Two sorts of re-plastering take place: that of floors and some walls in brown mud, and that of walls in white plaster. In the former case, earth dug from near the house is mixed with wheat straw and water, to form a paste, and is then applied to the surface and smoothed over with a wet cloth. The white rock powder used to make the lime plaster is collected from outside the village, and is more carefully handled than the ordinary mud. It is mixed with sieved wheat straw and water, producing a much fmer paste, and is then applied to the walls in the same way as the brown mudplaster. Sometimes in archaeological excavations it may be assumed, perhaps wrongly, that a thick level of floor mudplaster is due to a long occupation. In the households examined at Asvan re-plastering took place, on average, once every 2-3 weeks. This means that although some of the plaster is lost through regular sweeping, a build-up of plaster takes place." (Weinstein, 1973:274-275). The replastering at Asvan seems unnecessarily often and may not be typical of other villages.

Mud plaster was used in many neolithic and Chalcolithic sites and was the normal way of treating walls and floors in the Ubaid period. Fragments of mud plaster have also been found with impressions of reeds or reed bundles from southern sites like Eridu (Safar, 1950), Tell AI Ubaid (Hall & Woolley, I927:57) and Ur (Woolley, 1955:10).

2. Gypsum (juss) plaster was probably first used in the Middle East where there are extensive outcrops of rock gypsum (as in northern Iraq and Syria), often as a surface sub-deposit such as at Umm Dabaghiya where the gypsum was only 30 cm below the soil (Kirkbride, 1972:3-15). To produce gypsum plaster the rock was broken into convenient lumps and then burnt with wood or charcoal. Gypsum requires a much lower firing temperature than lime and was therefore easier and cheaper to produce. Once calcined, the fme white powder can be mixed with water to form a hard plaster which was used for walls, floors and various domestic installations and generally where greater water-proofmg than mud plaster could afford. It was used extensively during the Ubaid Period at 49

3.4

Timber & Reed, Rushes, etc.

3.41

Timber

chairs etc., as depicted on many Sumerian seals. It can also be used to manufacture other objects like bird-cages, screens (Fig.4-9) and the like. Sometimes, palm trunks were used for roof timber but this was unsatisfactory because the trunk's fibrous structure has poor load-bearing qualities. In the absence of an alternative however, a split palm log will provide an adequate rafter, and palm charcoal has been found, at Ur and Nuzi (Woolley & Mallowan, 1976:21; Starr, 1939:494). It may also have been used at Tell Madhhur in the Level 11 house (Roaf, 1984:122).

Wood is one of the most versatile building materials known to ancient man. Structurally, its principal use was in roofmg in the form of beams or poles. It was also used as lintels over window and door openings. Likewise, it was often used to provide tensile reinforcement in mud brick walls, as well as for the construction of complete structures, making doors, furniture, decoration, utensils, etc. And in Mesopotamia, an elaborate wood working technology existed from early neolithic times.

Around the base of the palm's trunk, is a coarse brown fibre which is often woven into rough rope, basket handles, mesh nets, etc. In antiquity, it was probably also used to make tow-ropes as well as for tying the reeds together.

Good timber was scarce in Mesopotamia (like Egypt) and had to be imported from Lebanon, Syria and elsewhere. Evidence of this is given by Strabo who writes: "On account of the scarcity of timber their buildings are fmished with beams and pillars of palm wood. They wind ropes of twisted reed around the pillars; and then they plaster them and paint them with colours, though they coat the doors with asphalt" (Strabo XVI, C.763. Loeb ed. Vol.7, p.292, 1930.). Other palmwood pillars were overlaid with mosaic in red-veined stone and mother-of-pearl set in mastic (Singer, et al, 1954:256). It appears however, that Oak was abundant in the area at the time of Jarmo (Braidwood, 1983:541 ). Chappelow also wrote that the principal trees in use in ancient times were poplar, palm, tamarisk, terebinth, as well as imports of cypress and the cedar of Lebanon. Teak was also found at Ur - a possible sign of trade with India and the Persian Gulf (Chappelow, 1925).

3.52

Unlike the cultivated palm, reed (qasab in Arabic) which can grow as high as 4.50 m, was a natural product of the marshes and was prolific in southern Mesopotamia (Postgate, 1980:102). It was used widely in building construction, especially in constructing dwellings for the ordinary folk. The method employed is that a number of reeds after being stripped of their leaves, are tied together in bundles, and these facines are planted firmly in the ground in two rows, at equal distances, facing each other, and in each row lighter fascines are lashed horizontally to the uprights so as to make a rigid framework; obviously this means that the rows must be straight and that the building will consequently be rectangular. The tops of the uprights are then bent inwards and each is tied to the head of its opposite number, forming a series of arches. Next, reed matting is attached to the inside of the framework, made fast to uprights and cross-bars, and the result is a tunnel open at either end. One end is then blocked with fascines and matting; at the other end, two specially tall and thick bundles of reeds make door-jambs which, for the sake of ornament, may be carried up like pylons above the roof line, and the space on either side and above the lintel is filled with matting (Thesiger, 1976). The modem Marsh Arab house (mudhif) is a dignified and impressive building, and the prehistoric one was like it. It was also used for the construction of partitions and fences - as suggested by impressions of reed stems found standing vertically, and which may have been plastered on both sides.

The main tree species found in Mesopotamia and used for building purposes are poplar and date palm. For further discussion regarding these and other species and characteristics, see Kubba, 1987:172-179. At Bouqras, a neolithic site in Syria, "The predominance of Populus and Tamarix charcoal indicates that at least part of the valley floor was covered by poplar forest with tamarisk shrub as undergrowth." (Van Zeist & Van Rooijen, 1985:144). Tamarix trees were also used to protect settlements against drifting sand storms.

3.5

Date-Palm, Reed and Rushes

3.51

Date-Palm

Reed and Rushes

The palm tree is indigenous to Iraq and is a cultivated tree which thrived in antiquity and is mentioned in many preSargonic texts from Lagash. The tree is usually less than 20m high, and consists mainly of a trunk and a crown of fronds (Postgate, 1980:100). Every part of the palm tree was utilised. The wood was often used for building (particularly in the south) as beams for houses, and palm fronds added strength to the mud roofs. "The tree's bark was used for fuel, and the leaves for mats and basketry. The palm tree played an important part in the religious life of the Near East." (Abu AI-Soof, unpublished manuscript).

For better protection the Sumerian builder covered the outside of his reed dwelling with a thick coat of mud plaster; fragments of such plaster were found in the preflood levels at Ur. In mud brick buildings, a layer of reeds was sometimes placed between the old walls which formed the foundation and the new walls of the superstructure, which with the use of bitumen, would have acted as a damp-proof membrane. Alternatively, it was used between courses of a mud wall, to improve the grip, as at Ur (Woolley & Mallowan, 1976:21) and Tell Asmar (Delougaz, Hill and Lloyd, 1967: 151).

The palm's timber is very soft with loose stringy fibres. The frond is used for making inexpensive furniture such as beds, 50

It seems that the earliest settlements in southern Iraq, favoured reed architecture and many examples are depicted on ancient cylinder seals (Fig.3-2). Traces of reed huts were encountered by Woolley in the bottom of the Flood Pit at Ur. Similar traces were also found at other sites excavated to virgin soil, including but not limited to, Eridu, Tell Ubaid, Lagash, Telloh, Uruk, and Fara (Abu Al-Soof, unpublished manuscript).

cracking and crumbling from oxidation and polymerization from the effect of sunlight (Holmes, 1951 :70). It is found in abundance near Hit, but there are many other seepages. It appears to have been produced partly in the form of rock asphalt from the mountains (Singer, 1954:250256). The bitumen produced from the seepages was free of mineral matter, and in later times the addition of suitable fillers, allowed it to be used as a mastic in building construction. To extract the bitumen from the many seepages, one had to merely guide the floating masses to shore to dry in the sun, and then broken into smaller pieces for transportation to their fmal destiny, or to a 'warehouse'.

Light doors of vertical reed panelling were found at Tell esSawwan (Al-A'dami, 1968:59) and in two of the chapels in the Larsa period AH house quarter at Ur (Woolley & Mallowan, 1976:22).

In the north, grain bins in early Hassuna levels were

Reed and reed matting were used as flooring material since Shanidar Cave in Layer BI which dates to the 9th millennium BC to the present. Reed matting impressions were found numerous sites including, Tell Hassuna (Lloyd & Safar, 1945 - Fig.3-3a), level 11 floor at Choga Mami which was of a weave that is still made (Oates, 1969:116), and Tell Abada (Jasim, 1985:88-89 - see Fig.3-3b). At Abada, mat containers may have been used to store grain (Jasim, 1985:29).

sometimes lined with bitumen (LLoyd & Safar, 1945:262) and for lining pits at Matarrah (Braidwood, et al., 1952:7). However, the greatest use for bituminous mixtures was in Sumerian times. The prehistoric temple mound in Uruk which was 12 metres high and erected to form the foundation for a temple of Anu, had been built of lumps of kneaded clay interspersed by courses of dried brick and bitumen in order to strengthen the clay mound and prevent it from drying out. Bitumen was also used in the buildings of Eridu and Ur, during the Third Dynasty of Ur where many beautiful examples of corbel-vaulted chambers, etc. were bonded with bitumen mortar. Moreover, houses dating from about 3500 B.C. excavated near AI Ubaid consisted of a simple frame of arched bundles of reeds to which rush matting coated with bitumen had been fixed to form the walls. This is one of the earliest known uses of bitumen in building so far discovered.

Bulrush (berdi in Arabic) grows up to 3m tall and its stem is not as stiff as the reed. It is used mostly for matting. Other types of rushes are also found in Iraq which are smaller in size and are also used for mat making.

3.6

Stone

In Southern Mesopotamia, good building stone was not readily available for normal construction purposes. Outcrop of limestone near Samawa was used in the construction of the Limestone Temple at Uruk. It was also used for foundations at Eridu (Safar, et al., 1981 :36). Otherwise its use was usually confined to door sockets and grinding stones. In the north, it was available in small quantities and was mostly used for foundations as in the Ubaid sites of Tepe Gawra Level XIV (Tobler, 1950) and Degirmentepe (Esin, 1985), as well as at the Halafian sites of Kharabeh Shattani (Watkins & Campbell, n.d.) and Arpachiya- where cobbled streets were also discovered (Mallowan & Rose, 1935) and for paving. At Songor B, stone was used in flooring mixed with gypsum (Fujii, et al., 1981 :183).

3.8

The main form of decoration during the Ubaid Period, appears to have been painting, although towards the end of the Ubaid period (' Ubaid 5'?) we fmd the appearance of mosaic cones being employed for decorating walls. Whether their appearance should be attributed to the Late Ubaid or Uruk periods is still uncertain. 3.81 Painted Decoration: Paint was used from the earliest times for decoration, and in some of the neolithic village houses of Umm Dabaghiyah, traces of paint were found on the floors as well as fragments of wall frescoes of onager scenes. In the 'murals', red ochre appears to have been the most favoured colour followed by black and yellow, all painted on a white background (Kirkbride, 1975:7).

At the neolithic site of Tell Maghzaliya, a massive defensive wall, 1.5m high, enclosing the settlement was built of large limestone boulders, some weighing a few hundred kilograms (Munchaev, et al., 1984:47). Stone socles were also found at Maghzaliya, as were stone pavements.

3.7

Decoration

Bitumen

During the Ubaid period, we fmd the use of paint and murals attested to in several buildings. For example, in the Gawra Level XVI house the excavators found examples of painted wall decoration, where rows of red and black lozenges were painted on a background of white plaster (Tobler, 1950:40). Likewise, in Level XIII, the Eastern Shrine and the Central Temple were painted in red and reddish purple respectively (Ibid.:33).

Bitumen was used for waterproofmg, as an adhesive or cement and some of the flint implements from Kheit Qasim Ill showed traces ofbitumen (Forest, Ch., 1983:12 1) as well as on floors, walls, roofs etc. At Tell Madhhur a complete bitumen handle from a wooden tool was found along with fragments ofthree others (Watson, 1984:163). However, excessive exposure or weathering, results in embrittlement, 51

At Tell Madhhur, two fragments of plaster from the central hall shows that it was decorated with a red band of paint on a white background (Roaf, 1984: 122). At Eridu, some mud-brick houses investigated by Taylor in 1984, which are either early Uruk or 'Terminal' Ubaid, bore traces of murals of red paint on their walls, and another decorated with alternate stripes of red, black and white (Mallowan, 1976:330). The smaller chambers of the Eridu VI Temple were painted with white lime-wash over the mud plaster (Safar, et al., 1981 :110).

decoration can be seen at Uruk Level IV, in which the courtyard was enclosed by a wall with half columns, and columned hall. The columns in this hall, the fa9ade of the platfonn, and the walls and half columns of the courtyard were all decorated with cone mosaic. The panels on the fa9ade of the platform were framed by pilasters in relief, and filled with mosaic of delicate designs, zigzags, triangles, and lozenges, combining to produce an intricate scheme of decoration. These mosaics served to protect the mud plaster of the walls as well as providing a decorative fmish. The cones used for mosaic varied in size according to the size of the building. For example, the upper part of the walls of the massive stepped platform of the ziggurat tower at Uruk were decorated in panels with mosaic of large clay cones like hollow vases and sunk in mud plaster. Cones up to 12 inches long made of gypsum plaster, with the ends encased in thin sheet copper cemented on with bitumen, were also excavated in Eridu, while at Tell Al Ubaid, Woolley found cones of baked clay with heads of white, black and pink stone and other materials arranged to imitate flowers about 5 inches in diameter.

At the Uruk Period temple at Uqair, we fmd coloured frescoes inside the Painted Temple, showing continuation of painting tradition and on which Lloyd says, "we must count the introduction of representational painting one of the achievements of the age." (Lloyd, 1943). The temple walls of Degirmentepe were plastered white and decorated with radiating sun and tree motifs in red and orange outline. These were enclosed by rectangles with black borders (Esin, 1986). Some of the Degirmentepe houses also had traces of red on white paintings. Many of the pigments used by Mesopotamian artists were derived from minerals (Al-Kaissi, 1984: 168).

3.82

They were used to decorate the walls of the small temple of Ninkhursag ofthe 151 Dynasty at Ur (c. 3000 B.C). In time silhouetted figures and geometric shapes of burnt clay were inset in panels and friezes against a background of cone mosaic, but the fmal step was to extend the technique of the figures to the background also, and instead of using the cones embedded in the plaster, a mosaic of flat pieces of stone was secured by copper wire and bitumen to a wood backing. This technique was revealed also at the temple of Ninkhursag at Al ' Ubaid, where the plain-wood columns, 2.25 m in height and 30 cm in diameter at the main door of the encrusted all, with square and triangular tesserae of light red sandstone, black bituminous stone, and mother of pearl. Each tessera had a loop of copper wire at the temple and friezes decorated with figures of cattle and birds, cut in limestone or shell and set against a mosaic background of black stone (Davey, 1961).

Mosaic Decoration

Mosaic consist of small pieces of coloured materials, closely set together in some of cement or bitumen to create a smooth and patterned surface. Their use was first discovered in southern Iraq, from the end of the Ubaid period (Ubaid 5'? ) onwards at the sites like Tell Mismar, a small site near Warka (Schmidst, 1978:10). The clay cones were of varying sizes, but usually ten to fifteen centimeters long and two or three centimeters in diameter and were pressed into the mud walls, when the mud was still not dry, so that their flat pressed into the walls, however, the cones were usually dipped in red ochre, white paint or bitumen and allowed to dry. They are usually associated with the Uruk period. (Postgate, 1983 : 87 - 88), particularly on monumental buildings such as temples. They were then arranged on the wall in beautiful patterns.

Baked clay cones have been found on a number of Mesopotamian sites, especially in the south, and Adams & Nissen in their survey of the Uruk area, found them on 18 sites, ranging from the Ubaid period to the Early Dynasty I period.

They appear for the first time at Tell Mismar and Uruk in the Eanna Level VI. An excellent example of this type of

52

4. BRIEF ANALYSIS OF TRADITIONAL STRUCTURAL & CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES DURING THE UBAID PERIOD. 4.0

General

thus by the use of geometry before the development of the earliest script; metrological systems for lengths ~d probably even for capacities, used seemingly in connectiOn with arithmetical calculations, were employed before the rise ofSumerian civilization." (Hoyrup, 1987:44).

What is most striking about the Ubaid culture, is the sheer magnitude of its influence, particularly on its neighbours either through direct contact such as through trade, or through diffusion. In some areas like Degirmentepe in eastern Anatolia (Esin, 1986), we fmd the Ubaid culture being readily accepted, including its architecture and method of building. In other areas, like in the Arabian Gulf (Masry, 1974; de Cardi, 1978; Roaf, 1976), we fmd considerable resistance to certain aspects of Ubaid culture, particularly its architecture and construction techniques. This may be due to the materials available locally as well as to building traditions.

While the evidence is not defmitive, it seems logical to assume, that the Mesopotamians used one or more systems of linear measurement well over 6000 years ago as a prerequisite for the construction of the many mo~umen~ buildings the new epoch demanded, and that IS easlly recognizable as ancestral to our own imperial system. As in Egypt such a system was most likely based upon parts of the b~dy (Fig.4-l). In fact, the word ammatu which is found in many Mesopotamian texts means according to the Chicago Assyrian Dictionary, 'forearm, cubit' (Roaf, 1978:77).

Before one can discuss design and construction in ancient times, it may be useful first to outline ancient measurement standards and techniques, for in order to build elaborate structures such as temples, ziggurats and palaces (as well as to conduct foreign trade, etc.), the ancients required a system of measurement, a "more permanent stan~ard reference." (Skirmer, 1954:775). Terra cotta model bncks such as those found at Tepe Gawra in the Eastern Shrine "furnish an important insight into the surprisingly advanced construction procedures employed by the builders of the Stratum XIII acropolis." (Tobler, 1950:34). However, these model bricks would have been no substitute for a uniform system of measurement, rather, they were probably used for visualising the recessed facades of the temples as well as for resolving the complicated bonding details in the pilasters and buttresses used in their construction. Dil~e states the point quite clearly when he says, "The countr1es of the Tigris and Euphrates had much foreign trade with other areas, exchanging items such as spices, jewels and silks from the East for minerals or timber from the West. This international trade was dependent on recognised units of weight, volume, area and length." (1987:10).

Evidence for the use of a linear measuring unit of 72cm was found by the excavators at Tepe Yahya (Beale & Carter, 1983:87), and who suggest that a similar unit was used in the Hofhaus H and Werkstatt W at Habuba Kabira and possibly Temples VII and VI at Eridu (Beale & Carter, 1983:88). In fact, it will be shown in the next chapter that the use of the 72cm Ubaid cubit is attested to at Eridu from Temple XI onwards, as well as at numerous other sites including Uruk, Tepe Gawra, Tell Abada, Tell Madhhur, and Kheit Qasim Ill. However, its use is very difficult to prove because unlike the platforms of D~ius and X~?'es Palaces which had incised guidelines markmg the pos1t1ons of walls, columns, and doors (Roaf, 1978:67), Mesopotamian Temples and Palaces, let alone houses, had no such clues to the system of measurement used at the time. But just as a system of linear measurement was invented out of a need to assist in the design and construction of large edifices, temples, etc., so too, it can be said, that writing was invented out of a dire need to control local commerce and the economy. A reliable controlling device was needed since human memory could not cope with the increasing 'invoicing' and commercial figures confronting local merchants (Nissen, 1986). It should be emphasized however, that the ancients possibly possessed a memory ability far superior to that of the average person today, mainly because they relied on their memory to a far greater degree than people do today. Moreover, the ancients may have had specialist 'accountants', whose job it was to memorize certain transactions, just as in many parts of the Islamic world today, we fmd children being trained to memorize the whole Koran. It is moreover a well known fact, that blind people for example, develop their other abilities and senses (such as sound, touch, smell) to compensate for their blindness. While the use of 'tokens' as at Abada and elsewhere, may have been one method to 'keep track of the economy ', it is also possible - in view of the substantial evidence of the varied complex geometric principles utilized particularly during the Ubaid period onwards (but even as early as Tell

Jens Hoyrup on the Sumerian origin of mathematics (and therefore measurement), says, "As so many other elements of our modern culture, mathematics came into being for the first time in Sumer, in Southern Mesopotamia. This happened in connection with the development of writ~g, around 3000 BC. By claiming that mathematics came mto being in Sumer and in exactly this epoch I do not want to deny that Sumerian mathematics has its roots back in the Stone Age societies of the Near and Middle East, nor that these and other Stone Age societies were in possession of elements of mathematical thought. Many Stone Age peasant peoples have applied geometrical principles in construction techniques and for decorative purposes, and even geometrical play can be found. In the Near and Middle East a system for arithmetical accounting related to the principles of the abacus (and to later Sumerian notation) was known as early as 8000 BC. Outlines of pre-Sumerian temple buildings were laid out in advance by strings and 53

es-Sawwan), that some form of writing was in use- perhaps in pictorial form, in surveying (Figs.4-2, 4-3) as well as in the design and construction of temples and palaces. It is conceivable that it may have been initially applied to organic materials that were perishable such as skins or wood. Although not very likely, it could even have taken the form of writing tablets made of lead (as in Neo-Hittite Syria), or copper which was readily available from the neolithic period onwards. Such writing would often be difficult to detect by archaeologists as it would have oxidized over time or even recycled when no longer needed. Pictograms could have easily been 'etched' on the tablet with a sharp instrument.

techniques of far greater sophistication than generally accredited (Fig.1-3). Old Babylonian texts were found at Tell Haddad which although are much later in time are nevertheless relevant to our understanding of early measurement. They may have belonged to a library, and are quite illuminating (Al-Rawi & The tablets show that the Old Roaf, 1984:178). Babylonians used a sexagesimal system. Several of the mathematical problems cited are related directly and indirectly to building materials and quantities. They also show that: 1 Suppam 1 Gar 1 Gar

Dilke says that the Sumerian system of linear measurement was commonly used throughout the Near East with slight variations, and consisted of a 'cubit' of 49.5 cm. (Dilke, 1987:25), measured from the elbow to the tip of the middle finger; the span from the tip of the little fmger to the thumb of an outstretched hand; the 'palm' usually measured across the knuckles; the finger width; and the foot. Moreover, the smaller units - spans, palms, fmger widths and feet, were usually related as subdivisions of the cubit (Fig.4-1). The Egyptian cubit subdivisions differed from the Mesopotamian cubit and was rarely used outside Egypt (Skinner, 1954:775).

1 Cubit

5Gar Approx. 6m. 2 Reed 12 Cubit (Kus) 12 x 30 Fingers =Approx. 6m. 30 Fingers (Ubanum) = 49.5cm. (lbid:J79).

Today, we have two major systems of measurement: the Imperial system based on feet and inches (as used in the United States) and the Metric system which was developed much later, using metres and centimetres (widely used in Europe) and which completely displaced the cubit system (Skinner, 1954:778). Unlike Egypt and Greece, Mesopotamia was considered a civilization founded on clay, building chiefly with only perishable materials such as clay and reed (although domestic architecture in Egypt was also of mud-brick as The were some of the temples in the Delta region). Mesopotamian artisan, therefore, had to be more resourceful than his Egyptian and Greek counterparts.

A basalt statue of Gudea, king of Lagash, dating from ca.2170 BC. has a scale-bar inscribed on it, and in the king's lap, is a plan of a building incised on stone. This, with other evidence, shows that the Sumerian cubit was usually divided into 30 digits or fmgers, each fmger being 1.65 cm. Postgate suggested a length of 48cm for the Mesopotamian cubit and also gives references to other estimates (Postgate, 1976:70-71 cited by Roaf, 1978:77). The foot which may not have been used extensively as a unit of measurement, Other Sumerian was equal to twelve fmger widths. measures of area are: I Square Gar = 1 Sar, Approx. 36 sq.m. 100 (expressed as 1,40) Sar = 1 Iku 1800 (expressed as 30,0) lku = 1 Bur

4.1

Architectural & Structural Elements:

A.

Wall Construction

In ancient Mesopotamian building, there were basically four types of wall, these were: The Barrier Wall: This was a defensive wall 1. usually to defend a city or temple enclosure. This type of wall was usually massive, but did not support any load other than its own weight. Early pre-Ubaid examples are found at Tell Maghzaliya (Bader, et al., 1981 :61 ), Tell esSawwan (Abu Al-Soof, 1971) and Songor A (Fugii, et al., 1981:167). At Maghzaliya, the wall was more than 1.5 m. high and the large limestone boulders sometimes weighed several hundred kilos. The Ubaid town of Degirmentepe in eastern Anatolia, was surrounded by a zig-zag mud-brick fortification wall with bastions and recesses (Esin & Harmankaya, 1986).

"The sar was used mainly for measuring the area of houses, the iku and the bur for field areas; and there were other less common measures of area." (Dilke, 1987:25). The standard unit of linear measurement proposed for Tepe Yahya from the Uruk period (Beale & Carter, 1983:87) while logical and appealing, has yet to be proven conclusively. In fact, it may be that brick size should be considered the important unit in the Yahya buildings (Fig.A-14) . To construct some of the larger buildings erected during the Ubaid period for example, the architects would have had to be reasonably proficient in the use of mathematics and geometry and must have utilized a system of linear This is particularly evident at sites like measurement. - VI (Fig.5-39, 5-33, 5-29), Kheit VIII Eridu, Temples Qasim Ill (Fig.5-65), and Tepe Gawra - levels XIII (Figs.517, 5-18, 5-19). In fact, as early as Tell es-Sawwan, one senses an awareness of geometric form and surveying

The terrace or retaining wall: Its function was to 2. neutralise the lateral thrust of the material set or piled behind it. Terrace or retaining walls were probably used at least from the neolithic period in Iraq (as in Palestine and South Syria) for the conservation of water and for agriculture, in the building of canals and for damming. During the Ubaid Period, some temples were built on 54

raised platforms enclosed by retaining walls such as Temple XI at Eridu (Safar, et al., 1981:94). In squares X28 & 29 of Oueili, a terrace wall of brownish mud-brick was also uncovered (Forest, 1985-86:60). It was used to protect the tripartite building ofLevel5 (J.D. Forest, 1983:20).

3. The Load-Bearing Wall: This is the most common wall found in dwellings, palaces and temples. It's main function as its name implies, was structural, i.e. to hold up the roof or second storey where one existed (Figs.2-116, 44). Moreover, load-bearing walls are more effective when built on firm foundations, particularly for large structures such as Tell Abada, to avoid the likelihood of walls cracking through subsidence (Jasim, 1985).

qualities, i.e. for stabilizing internal temperatures or for prestige purposes. The walls were generally plastered, partially for visual reasons and partially for extra rigidity. The plaster was either mud, as at Eridu and Tell Abada, Building H (Safar, 1950; Jasirn, 1985), or gypsum plaster as at Tell Abada, Buildings A & B of Level III and Tell Madhhur (Jasirn, 1985; Roaf, 1984). In Tell Maghzaliya, a stone socle, some 50 cm high was used to retard the rise of moisture in the wall through capillary action. At Tell Madhhur, houses of Levels 2 and 3 had heavily plastered revetments built against the base of the walls to help resist erosion through water penetration At the Halaf settlement of Kharabeh (Roaf, 1984). Shattani, "The largest building apparently had stone supports added at the foot of the outer face of the tauf wall, and along part of the inner face also" (Watkins, 1987:225). This indicates that some form of 'sandwich' construction was used. It is possible that the cavity between the two skins of stone walling which was about 25cm, consisted of a tauf or 'basket weave' type core with a sapling frame and plastered on both sides with mud - the stones being mainly to strengthen the structure (Fig.3-J). Such methods may have also been employed during the Ubaid Period, although evidence for this exists.

4. Non Load-Bearing Wall: This type of wall usually consists of thin partitions, garden walls and low walls used for storage. In Mesopotamia, unlike Palestine and Egypt, walls were almost always constructed of mud - either in the form of tauf, or mud-brick (baked brick was later used for temples, etc.). Where tauf was used, such as at Jarmo, Hassuna, Songor and Tell Abu Husaini (Braidwood, et. al., 1983; Lloyd and Safar, 1945; Fujii, et al., 1981 ; Tusa, 1985), its thickness was usually between 40 - 50 cm (for a one storey structure). At Songor C the walls were 70cm thick (Fujii, et al., 1981 : 187), thereby suggesting the possibility of the building originally having two storeys. For long walls whether pise· or mud-brick, some form of buttressing is required, preferably at regular intervals such as that found at Tell 'Ayyash, and in the Level XIII mud-brick temples at Otherwise, Tepe Gawra (Al-Jadir, 1979; Tobler, 1950). Also the wall would gradually crumble and collapse. because earth walls have a low tensile strength, a bond or collar beam at certain locations were often used to provide a This would also horizontal reinforcement in the wall. reduce cracking due to settlement.

B.

Floor Construction

The earliest floors were of compacted mud, often covered with reed matting such as attested at the neolithic settlements of Jarmo, Maghzaliya and Hassuna (Braidwood, et al., 1960:41-42, 1983: 156; Adivasio, 1983:425-26, 1977:223-230; Munchaev, et al., 1984:52; Lloyd & Safar, 1945:271-272). However, clay floors were not restricted to neolithic settlements; on the contrary, clay was · used throughout Mesopotamia's history as evidenced e.g. during the Ubaid period at Tell Abada in building A, level 11 (Jasirn, 1985:19) and in the "pigeon-holes" at Oueili, Ubaid Level '0' where the pise· floors had plaited reeds placed on them (Huot, 1987:7). At Uqair, a floor surface consisted of a thick layer of reed matting or rushes on virgin soil (Lloyd, 1943: 149). Sometimes the reeds were laid below the mud floor to avoid humidity by acting as a damp proof membrane (Abu Al-Soof, Unpublished manuscript:3).

As a rule of thumb, it is thought that a bearing wall's thickness (where tauf or mud brick is used) should be at least one tenth of its intended height (McHeruy, 1984: 105). Thus generally speaking, a 40cm thick mud wall, can be safely built up to a height of 4m. Thus, at Tell Madhhur (Roaf, 1984:122), the 45cm load-bearing walls effectively rules out the existence of a second storey, although this does not exclude the possibility of a raised central hall. It must be remembered that when tauf construction is used, the wall usually tapers towards the top. Thus as we see at Jarmo, e.g. the wall may be 40cm thick near the foundations, but it would probably be closer to 25-30cm near the top (Fig.4-4).

Gypsum plaster was also used for flooring at other neolithic sites like Tell Maghzaliya (Bader, et al., 1981 :60-61), Bouqras (Akkermans, et al., 1983 :340) and in the dwellings ofUmm Dabaghiyah (Kirkbride, 1975:6), as well as in later periods such as at Tell Hassan and Tell Songor B (Halaf period) -the latter having pebbles mixed in with the gypsum plaster (Fiorina, 1981 :279; Fujii, 1987:59). Gypsum plaster was also used at Tell Abada, level III, buildings A & B (Jasirn, 1985:18,155).

If a wall's width appears to be far greater than is normally required, it may indicative that the structure was designed to carry more than one storey. An example of this can be seen at Tell Uqair, where the building uncovered in Sounding IV had walls nearly one metre thick (Lloyd, 1943: 149). If the Uqair building did have an additional storey, then the second storey walls would have been much thinner, thereby allowing the rooms to be larger. However, sometimes a more substantial structure is built for better thermal

Usually the floor level would be raised above the outside ground level, so that any rain would not drain into the house. An excellent example of this is found at the prehistoric temples of Eridu (Safar, et al., 1981 :85). At Tell Madhhur, which had a heavily plastered mud-brick 55

revetment built against the base of the outside walls, the external ground level rose faster than the internal ones so that the house floors were lower than the outside ground level (Roaf, 1984: 122). Some of the more affluent paved their houses with mud-brick. The palaces and temples were usually paved with mud-brick, burnt brick or stone.

Typical examples of the type of construction probably employed during the Ubaid are seen in Figs.2-IJ5, 2-IJ6, 4-4; these reconstructions are based on existing evidence (from mud impressions, charred beams, etc) and partly on conjecture, based on the level of technology at the time. "As regards the heights of suspended ceilings or flat roofs, experimental studies undertaken in India have shown that raising the ceiling height above 2. 70m had no significant thermal advantage, irrespective of ventilation conditions and seasonal variations." (Mukerji, 1982:46), and so there so there are no grounds for us to assume that Ubaid buildings had very high ceilings.

The earliest bituminous floors are simply layers of mastic laid on a rammed loam foundation, such as were discovered at Maghzaliya, Tell Asmar, Khafaje and Ur, and over which matting was placed. (Munchaev, et al., 1984; Frankfort, 1933; Woolley, 1956).

C.

Roof Construction

In contemporary traditional villages in the Zagros area such as Aliabad/Shahabad, "Roofs consist either of unbaked brick vaults (beneath a second-story room, and in stables and many storerooms) or of flat packed mud and twigs over beams of trees grown specifically for roofmg." (Kramer, 1982:93). It would be interesting to know iftrees were also grown in ancient times specifically for construction purposes.

There is very little direct evidence to indicate the form or material used in roof construction, except in exceptionally fortunate circumstances such as Tell Madhhur in the Hamrin region and at Tell Abada, Building A, Level 11, where charred timber roof beams were found (Roaf: personal communication; Jasim, 1985:19). However, there is considerable indirect evidence - from has-reliefs, seal engravings, traces of wood and reed matting, etc. In many of the ancient sites, mud or plaster fragments were frequently recovered with wood and reed impressions, which help to indicate the diameter of the beams used.

Early man may have been forced to experiment, - to seek solutions to many of the problems that faced him. It was through experimentation that he was able to confirm the validity of his solutions so that over a period of time, he was able to master the flat roof, the gabled roof, the dome and the vault early on, in his attempt to control his environment.

Thus at the neolithic site of Hassuna, "The position of a beam which had spanned the room in the center was marked by a semicircular projection in each long wall." (Lloyd & Safar, 1945:273). Also at Tepe Gawra, "In one room we have found absolute proof that roofmg in those times was the same as today. We discovered the reed-matting, the rushes and the timbers just as they had fallen at the time of the collapse of the walls." (Bache, 1936:10). At Tell Maghzaliya, "The roofs were made of reed and also gypsum plastered." (Bader, et al., 1981:61). At Maghzaliya, mats were also used for covering the roofs of houses (Munchaev,1984:52). Similar evidence is attested at other pre-Ubaid sites like Shemshara, Matarrah, Yarim Tepe, Umm Dabaghiya, Choga Mami and Tell es-Sawwan (Abu Al-Soof, unpublished manuscript:2).

D.

Dome and Vault Construction

Dome and vault construction was practiced as early as the fifth millennium B.C. if not earlier. At Yarim Tepe 11, the excavators found a painted vessel fragment depicting circular houses with domed roofs (Merpert & Munchaev, 1971:30). At Zawi Chemi, Fuad Safar apparently found a circular structure with evidence of a domed roof (Abdullah, 1983:54). If so, this would be by far the earliest dome ever found. Buildings were excavated at Arpachiyah which consisted of circular rooms made of pise or clay, 3.5 m. or more in diameter belonging to the Halaf period. What appear to be the springing of the vaulted roof remained, but they were sufficient to suggest that they once had been roofed by a dome (Mallowan & Rose, 1935).

An example of simple, low pitched roof construction can be seen in Fig.4-4, which is probably typical of construction techniques in Mesopotamia during the 6th and 5th millennia. At neolithic Bouqras, the roofs were flat, being constructed of adjoining logs of poplar, c.5-10cm in diameter, twigs and mud cover and weighed at least 500 kg/m sq. which in turn limited the span to between 2.503.50 m (Akkermans, et al., 1983:342-344). Most Ubaid buildings probably had flat or low pitched roofs. It should be noted that with a flat roof a structure can in theory, expand in any direction, but buildings with a gabled or barrel roof can only be expanded in length (because of rain drainage, complication of roof construction, etc). Thus it is sometimes possible from the layout of a building or preferably, group of buildings, to determine the shape of the roof. Timbers may have been fastened together by interlocking the notched ends and tying them together.

At Kharabeh Shattani Watkins uncovered a Halafian settlement with a circular structure. "The circular building was defmed by means of two discontinuous arcs of stones apparently set on edge against the outer side of a tauf wall." at an angle of 62 and "It is safe to infer that the circular building had a dome which sprang at an angle from the floor level.(Watkins, n.d. 12;31 ). One method of forming a small domed roof can be seen at Khafaje. It covered a pit and was constructed about 2000 B. C. The first course of bricks was raised up on pieces of rubble at diametrically opposite sides of the pit. As each successive course of bricks was added from each side, the dome took shape and was completed when the courses reached the crown (Fig.4-5). Fig.4-6 shows how a vault is constructed using mud-brick. 56

Judging my the profusion of domes and vaults in traditional Iranian and Iraqi architecture, it may be that archaeologists have underestimated their use in ancient Mesopotamia, particularly since we know that at many periods of its history, good timber was scarce and the know-how to build domes is indigenous to the region and was known from neolithic times. A typical example where the dome may have been used is at Umm Dabaghiya, where the uniformity of the 'cells' indicate that the 'storage blocks' may have been domed, particularly since no mud fragments with wood impressions seem to have been found in these structures. Likewise, at Choga Mami, the square shaped grid-like structures suggest the use of domes {Figs.2-34), although buttresses may also mark the position of main ceiling beams, both by strengthening the wall and by shortening the span.

would distribute the load, particularly if this was done via a horizontal 'wooden tie beam' just below the roof. However, when the Mesopotamian architect was determined to incorporate columns into his design, he made them massive as was done in the Eanna sanctuary at Uruk. Also, one or more timber members would have been used at ceiling level to distribute the load of the structure. Furthermore, because of the scarcity of timber, the ancient Mesopotamians sometimes used the inferior palm wood for columns and pillars. They would wind ropes of twisted reed round the pillars. They would then plaster them and paint them with different colours, though when the palm was used for door construction, it was usually coated with asphalt. Sometimes, the columns were sheathed in copper. Typical examples of this can be found at Tell Ubaid, Uruk and Kish, where the polychrome incrustation is applied not only for protection, but also for decorative effect. We also have the huge mud-brick columns of Uruk (Warka) whose mosaic sheathing may well have been suggested by the triangular frond-bases of the palm trunk. Likewise we have brick columns at Kish of the Early Dynastic period as well as at Ur of the Third Dynasty and an attached column of Warad-Sin (ea. 1800 BC), which is specially moulded to reproduce the frond-bases. Similar columns were found at Tell Al Rimah (Oates, 1966).

The use of vaults in ancient times also appears to have been miscomprehended. "Evidence of vaulted brick structures has been found as early as 8000 B.C. in the Middle East, where small masonry units were used to create structural roofmg systems." (McHenry, 1984:147). Vault forms are attested at Yarim Tepe I in one of the settlement's earliest levels, Phase 2b (Bashilov, 1980:50). In the Royal Cemetery at Ur, one of the royal tombchambers was roofed with a dome (found intact) built of stone rubble set in mud mortar over a timber centering; it was a true dome with pendentives rounding off the angles of the square chamber. A small brick dome covered a magazine in the courtyard of Ur Narnmu's ziggurat, and in several later buildings, e.g. the shrine of Dublal-makh and the temple of Nin-gal of Kuri-galzu's time, the fourteenth century B.C., the ground plan shows unmistakably that the dome had been employed.

It is very likely that the column was simultaneously invented by different people of the ancient world independently of each other. This is because the concept of supporting one member by another is a simple and fundamental one. In fact, in theory, the load-bearing wall may be construed as connecting columns side by side and of standard width - just as a line is made up of an infmite number of points.

Moreover, it should be noted, that the presence of structural buttresses, often suggests the possible use of vaults in a building - particularly in temple structures, as they reinforce a walls ability to resist lateral thrusts. This is also true where we have thick walls enclosing long narrow rooms.

E.

Wooden posts were the main source of auxiliary support in ancient Mesopotamia, propping up roofmg members and porches (Fig.4-JO). However, except for the existence of post holes, which are often difficult to detect, there is little archaeological evidence of their use. This is largely because the timber members were constantly reused and discarded buildings were cannibalized for their timber parts. Also being organic, wood is not a durable material and decays very rapidly, being attacked both by fungi, termites and insects, depending on its type and susceptibility.

Columns, Posts, Buttresses, etc.

Until recently, it had been confidently assumed that the column was unknown in early Mesopotamian architecture. The assumption was an unreasonable one, for in a land where the palm-tree grows, man could hardly fail to adopt it for building purposes; it was based on the negative evidence that no columns had been found. But if the columns were of wood, their disappearance was inevitable. But having said that, columns in Mesopotamia are the exception rather than the rule, particularly prior to the Proto-Literate period, although remains of mud-brick pillars were found at Oueili 'Ubaid 0' which the excavators date to the first half of the 6th millennium BC (Huot, 1988:10). This is largely because Mesopotamia was a 'clay civilization', i.e., its architecture almost totally constructed from earth, and a mud column unless substantial, cannot take downward pointed loads because it would crumble under the weight. A mud brick wall on the other hand

Buttresses: There has been much speculation as to the origin of the buttress. Some authorities consider it derived from a form of reed-construction used in domestic buildings of the same period at Eridu, and surviving today among the Marsh Arabs of the neighbouring Hamar Lake. If so, this would mean the existence of settlements in southern Iraq, as yet undiscovered, which predate Tell es-Sawwan, which already exhibits a mature form of facade treatment consisting of similar buttresses and recesses. Buttresses were a very important feature of Mesopotamian architecture during the Ubaid and Uruk periods. From early neolithic times, we fmd ancient builders using buttresses in the construction of their buildings. Jarmo, 57

the vertical force of gravity by a strong force exercised laterally. The problem with this type of construction, is that the arch transmits its load at the supports not vertically downwards like the beam, but thrusts out its supports laterally. This creates an inherently unstable situation because of the constant threat to over topple the supports. Furthermore, when the arch is being constructed, it needs a continuous support from below until it is complete; otherwise, the whole system will collapse. Upon completion, this support may be removed.

Tell Sotto, Hassuna, Yarim Tepe 11, Choga Mami as well as Tell es-Sawwan all attest to early examples of their use. At sites where pressed clay (tau/) was used such as at Hassuna, the use of buttressing was more necessary because tauf is much less stable than mud brick. Also because tauf construction is unbonded - i.e. it is essentially a form of 'monolithic' construction, it is more liable to 'crack' through subsidence, expansion, etc. with a correspondingly lower load bearing capacity. Some of the buttressed walls found at Choga Mami however, "did not form part of any particular structure. Those walls constituted boundaries of large lots reminiscent of the present arabic 'bayt' in terms of a domestic complex." (Oates, 1973: 169). Internal buttresses were also used to strengthen many of the tholoi during the Halaf period, such as at Hassuna, Tepe Gawra and Yarim Tepe 11 (Lloyd & Safar, 1945; Tobler, 1950; Merpert, et al., 1977:85). Their structural utilization also raises the possibly of the presence of vaults in a building - designed to withstand the outward thrust of the vault.

It is most likely that the arch originated in Mesopotamia, and at Umm Dabaghiyah, an arched doorway was uncovered which was constructed as early as 6000 B.C. It divided a room into two spaces by spanning the whole width of the room (Kirkbride, 1975:7). This may be the earliest arch in existence. Semicircular brick arches found at Ur were formed of kiln-burned voussoir bricks excellently made and fitted. G.

Although we have little direct evidence of window openings, we can infer from the many seal drawings and bas reliefs that have been recovered. By being placed high up in the wall, more rapid cooling of the ceiling is achieved by the air's movement and the removal of the hot air layer below the ceiling. Small windows roofed with mud-brick were found at Tell Madhhur (Roaf, 1984b) and may have been a common feature of Ubaid buildings. High windows are also useful for natural ventilation through the indooroutdoor temperature differential when there is no wind (Givoni & Shalon, 1963:v). Window openings would logically therefore, have been small and high up on the wall. They were as a rule, rectangular or arched, although sometimes they appear to have been round or triangular. Examples of rectangular windows are not difficult to come across, and can be found at such sites as Tell Madhhur, Level 2, dating to the Ubaid period, c.4500 B.C. (Roaf, 1984:124), and at Tell Asmar where there is an Early Dynastic period structure - the 'arched house' (Frankfort, 1934:11 ). The latter is particularly interesting in that it is excellently preserved and clearly shows how two large mud bricks were carried on five 'stout sticks' which formed the lintel.

But from the Ubaid period onwards, buttresses fmd their greatest expression. They were no longer used only in a structural context; instead, they are now exploited to articulate the facades of temples, palaces and civic buildings, using the sun to form deep shadows, creating strong vertical lines and pleasing rhythms, what would otherwise have been a monotonous blank wall. It is not often recognized that rhythm was an important factor in Mesopotamian design aesthetics. There were precise relationships of the parts to each other and to the whole, as is illustrated in chapter 5. Typical examples are the Eridu temples of Levels XVI-VI, in which they are used initially on the inside and later largely on the exterior. At Tell Abada, 'building A' of Level 11, had 29 buttresses and other Abada buildings also contained buttresses but in smaller numbers. We also fmd them at Tell Ayash and Kheit Qasim Ill as well as in the Acropolis temples of Level XIII at Tepe Gawra, where they find their boldest and most sophisticated expression. F.

Window & Door Openings

Arch Construction

Timber beams were the main source for lintels over doors and for supporting a roofs structure in ancient times. But because of the scarcity of wood in Mesopotamia, builders had to seek ways to reduce their reliance on it, and since mud had little strength in tension, it could not be used as a beam or lintel. Through trial and error, ancient builders found that by resting two inclined slabs of mud brick against each other, they did away with the lintel. Moreover, they soon discovered that larger spans could be bridged - as long as the walls could take the outwards thrust. One method of constructing an arch is illustrated in Fig.4-7 which is still used in traditional construction.

An incense burner (Fig.2-95) with triangular 'windows' found at Tepe Gawra, indicates that the temples of level XIII may have incorporated such windows (Speiser, 1937:7). Incense burners with triangular perforations were also found at Eridu (Safar, et al., 1981). Triangular windows were formed by inclining two mud bricks diagonally against each other to form a equilateral triangle. In this way, no wood is required for use as a lintel. At Hassuna, Level VI, the triangular motif was also evident in a 'standard paintedand-incised jar' (Lloyd & Safar, 1945:Piate XIII, No.2). This tends to suggest that triangle-shaped windows may have been more common than generally acknowledged. Evidence of round windows was found at Umm Dabaghiya (Kirkbride, 1975:7).

Also, a space can be bridged over by a succession of short units held in place side by side by lateral pressures. The units of the bridge are kept from falling to the ground under 58

We have no direct evidence of the use of window grills during the Ubaid Period, but they appear to have been common in later times and a typical grill can be seen in the 'arched house' (Fig.4-9). Anchorage of windows or grills was not as critical as a door because there was little vibration. During the summer months, windows may have been covered on the outside by a thick mat of woven local bush or packed into a timber frame (called 'Agoof), which was constantly drenched with water. This was a customary feature oftraditional houses in Iraq and Iran until recently. It created a form of natural air conditioning, by evaporative cooling, "since the process of evaporation absorbs heat, a breeze evaporating the water can cool a room by as much as 15 degrees F" (Bourgeois, 1983:68).

The hanging or setting of door leaves was well understood in ancient times. Door leaves were made with strong lateral posts, projecting from top and bottom and incorporating pivots, placed in such a way so as to constitute a vertical rotation. The lower part pivoted in a hollowed socket set in the floor or sill, and the upper part through a ring fixed in the wall or jamb. The ancients must have used many different methods to 'hang' the door leaf - an example of which is shown in Fig.4-8. In smaller buildings doors constituted of a single leaf, although in monumental buildings and gates a double leaf was not unusual. We cannot be certain if locks were used, although one can presume that some form of locking mechanism was in use. The recessed niche in the Bouqras doors may have been used for some form of locking purposes.

Door openings is a rather vague term, and in this discussion will include gates, door frames, sockets and any other components or door furniture.

H.

Stairways and Ramps.

In ancient times, there were three chief ways to move vertically from level to level (e.g. for access to an upper storey or roof). These were by: 1. Stairs, 2. Ramp, and 3. Ladder.

In domestic architecture, door openings were often quite small. At the neolithic sites of Umm Dabaghiyah and Bouqras (Akkermans, et al., 1983:342) for example, one had to crawl into a room. At Yarim Tepe Ill during the Ubaid Period, doors were 60-80cm wide and 70-90cm high (Bader, 81 :57). This obviously served a defensive purpose, i.e. it was easier to keep intruders out. Sometimes, entrance to a room was through a small opening in the wall rather than via a 'proper' door. This too, was probably a defensive precaution. At Tell Sotto, a door opening was 55 cm wide (Merpert et al., 1977:96), and at Tell Madhhur in the Level 11 house (Roaf, 1987a:426), a number of similar openings were uncovered (raised about 1m from the floor and measuring approximately 40cm wide x 50cm high) which the excavators consider to be windows, but which may in fact have been designed mainly for children, and raised to prevent stray animals from entering the house. A similar opening but at floor level was found between rooms 10 and 11 in the same building.

1. Stairs: Basically there are three types of stairs: A) Straight or single flight stairs, B) 'Dog-legged' stair and C) Spiral - this type is not known to have been used in Ubaid times.

A) The straight stair was probably used externally more than internally. As an exterior stair, it was used at Tell es-Sawwan, built against one of the exterior walls. This is largely because it was unsuitable for most interior spaces do to confmement of interior space, although some of the long narrow rooms in the Tell es-Sawwan houses may have housed a straight flight of stairs. At Eridu, we find a straight flight of stairs used to connect the ground level with the raised platform leading to the temples. An example is found in Temple VII where an axial staircase led up to the main entrance in the side of the building and which may be an early prototype of the monumental ziggurat staircases of historic eras (Safar, et al., 1981:113).

Generally speaking, door openings were either rectangular or arched. Rectangular door openings such as at Tell Madhhur were spanned by wooden beams in the form of wooden logs to carry the heavy load over the opening, since mud and mud brick had no strength in tension, and therefore could not act as a beam. However, the early Mesopotamian builders invented the arched lintel to overcome this and to avoid having to use wood which was not as readily available as in the neighbouring areas. As early as Jarmo, we fmd evidence of door sockets, i.e. 6750 B.C. (Braidwood, 1960:43), and door sockets are found at most sites during the Ubaid Period, such as Songor C, Tell Madhhur, Telul eth Thalathat and Kheit Qasim Ill (Fujii, et al.,l981 :188; Roaf, 1987b:7; Egami, 1970:72; C. Forest, 1981: 120). Openings without doors, may have been covered with skin to keep the cold winds out.

At Tepe Gawra, the Northern Temple of Level XIII has what appears to have been a straight flight of steps located behind the sanctuary. In this case the flight would commence near the entrance of room B, and continued over the 'air shaft' to the roof. The 'air shaft' would have supported timber treads and at the same time, allowed a person to enter the temple from the rear (assuming there was a rear entrance from Room B) without interfering with the stairs. We also fmd many buildings at Tepe Gawra having narrow chambers adjoining the main building suggesting that these may have been used as steps (or timber storage, or both). Typical examples are the building in Level XVI (between room 65 and 63) and room 7 in Level XIX.

In southern Mesopotamia, door leaves were probably often made of reeds, tied together with string lacing within a wooden frame (Woolley & Mallowan, 1976:143). At Tell es-Sawwan (Level Ill), remains of a pair of doors were found which were made of reed and coated with bitumen (Abu Al-Soof, unpublished manuscript:3). 59

It should be mentioned that the stairs may have been the amongst the first elements to be constructed in a building, as it would minimize the need for scaffolding. The builder's assistants could use the stairs (or ramp) for delivering the bricks and mortar to the mason.

At Eridu, the southeast face of the platform of Temple XI contained "a formally constructed ramp, leading up to it from the lower level. Supported on the outside by a parapet-wall 35cm thick, it rose from ground-level to the height of the platform (100cm) in a distance of 4.50m. Its width was 1.20m." (Safar, 1981:94). This was later replaced by a mud-brick stairway (Ibid.).

B) Dog-legged staircases are the most common type found in Ubaid buildings because they are more economical in area and more comfortable to use. This type of stair rises in one direction and approximately half way up the stairs, a half landing is built which returns and continues to rise. What archaeologists consider to be 'dog-legged' staircase enclosures comprising of two parallel narrow rooms, are found in many ancient buildings, particularly with the advent of monumental architecture, but defmite proof of their use as a staircase is often wanting (Roaf, 1988:2).

In Tell Abada, Building E, Level 11 (room 55), a ramp or foundation for a staircase was found in situ (Jasim, 1985:175). At Tell Madhhur, inside the level 4 building were "two thin parallel rooms side by side". "The obvious interpretation for these rooms is that they were staircases or ramps leading to the roof and confirmation of this was found in the southern of these rooms in trench 60, in which the sloping floor was still preserved. This floor sloped up from west to east and consisted of a paving of bricks (46 x 23cm) resting on a layer of reeds." (Roaf, 1984:119).

This type can be seen at many sites like Kheit Qasim Ill, where according to the excavator, "The SE sector (rooms 6 & 9) seemed to be distinct from both the main and the south units, for it was entered from the south only, through a socketed doorway. There must have been, in the western part of rooms 5 and 6, two successive flights of steps with an intermediate landing, leading to the roof. We could have two indications of it: First, the presence, nearly in the middle of room 6, of a low mud-brick wall which could be the beginning of this staircase. Second, the room is the only one in which we found a great deal of sherds, big stones, animal bones and flints, up to a rather high level. This could correspond either to a voluntary filling or to a progressive accumulation in some hardly accessible place." (C. Forest, 1983:120).

3. Ladders: We have no proof of the use of ladders during the Ubaid period, although we fmd them depicted much later in Assyrian has-reliefs. However, since they are constructed of wood and easily constructed, it is logical to assume that they were in common use, particularly in the absence of formal stairs (Fig.4-ll).

4.2

Building and Woodworking Tools

Building construction is a specialized trade, yet in traditional Iraqi construction, there is no significant difference between the, builder, mason or bricklayer (Arabic: banna or mu'mar). They usually start as apprentices and work their way up. At Zaghe, an Iranian neolithic village of the sixth millennium BC, we have the possibility of a 'specialized house builder' having built four of the sixteen units in the village (Shahmirzadi, 1979:183). Again, at the neolithic settlement of Tell Es-Sawwan, a large number of the Level III houses may have also been constructed under the supervision of a single master builder, who may have co-ordinated all the construction works.

Similar staircase enclosures are found in Abada building A, room 29 and probably in Abada 11 building B (Jasim, 1985), as well as at Tell Madhhur, where the two narrow parallel rooms 4 & 5 in the Ubaid Level 11 house are thought to have contained a staircase although no evidence was found (Roaf, 1984:124). At Eridu, there is evidence for stairs in Temples XI (connecting ground with platform), and stair enclosures are assumed for Temples VII & VI, although no trace of the stairs themselves was found (Safar, et al., 1981).

What is interesting, is that traditional builders to this day, rarely work to prepared drawings, although in ancient times, temples, palaces and other important buildings may have been 'sketched out' either on the ground or on a clay tablet such as the one found in the Diyala region (Akkadian), which depicted two multi-roomed houses (Delougaz, et a1.,1967:Plate 65). The usual method was that the building is laid out on the site by 'drawing' the walls with powdered lime or gypsum (juss). The builder or his assistant after filling his hands withjuss, places them before him and lets some of the juss drop to the floor as he walks backwards in a predetermined direction. A trench is then dug for the foundations with a simple pick, etc.

At Tepe Gawra, most of the Ubaid levels attest to the presence of internal stairs. Examples are found in the Level XVIII 'Temple', the cruciform building of Level XV (rooms 32/33), The building with stone foundations in Level XIV (two staircases), the Northern Temple of Level XIII (room B), and a number of the Level XII structures (Tobler, 1950). Similar enclosures are found at Qalinj Agha, Building B (Hijara: 1973), and at Uruk in Temple I (Schmidt, 1974).

2. Ramps: Ramps were often used in ancient times, but usually it is difficult to discern their presence in archaeological excavations. Temporary ramps must have been used often in building construction, particularly to build the upper parts of a building. They were easy to construct and only needed to compact the earth to the grade required.

The ancient builder needed few tools other than a hatchet or adze and his hands. For his plumbline (to check that a wall is vertical), he could use a small pierced stone for a weight and tie a string to it. A smooth wood trowel is used to smooth the pise' or plaster. 60

5.

CLASSIFICATION OF UBAID BUILDINGS AND INTERRELATIONSIDP OF UBAID BUILDINGS TO EACH OTHER.

5.0

General

rigid rules on how it will develop. Identical cultures will develop differently according to the environment and other influences within and without, which creates what we tenn 'regional variations'. Moreover, sometimes, an incidental development or invention in one region, can have a fundamentaVdetrimental effect on the culture's future course.

A

more descriptive tenninology for cultural periods is required, especially the Chalcolithic sequences of the Near East, and particularly in Mesopotamia. At present scholars lack a unified approach when discussing culture. For example the tenn Chalcolithic as a cultural phase needs clarifying being defmed differently in Mesopotamia and Levant regions. In Mesopotamia, painted pottery is the criterion, whereas in the Levant, it is the use of metal (Copeland & Hours, 1987:403)

In the same vein, it is possible- indeed likely, that sites with very differing technology levels to be contemporary, so that many Jarmo or Hassuna-like neolithic settlements may have been contemporary with Ubaid and Uruk settlements. Thus, a 'high' or 'low' Cl4 date should not immediately be discarded and assumed to be wrong. We fmd this disparity even in modem societies.

The obstacles need sunnounting for such a task are unenviable and this is not made easier by the varied cultural and linguistic backgrounds of archaeologists nor the many specializations infused into modem archaeological excavations. Yet, the current 'lull' in Mesopotamian excavations may afford an ideal opportunity for just such an attempt.

5.1

Classification Background

of

Ubaid

Buildings:

Scholars have often attempted to classify Mesopotamian architecture into nice, clean compartments with clear demarcation lines to delineate cultural phases.

It should be mentioned that sherds on their own, are unsuitable to defme a culture. For one thing, they can be very misleading, being subject to fashions, influences, and 'renaissances', etc. which could and is sometimes misinterpreted. A typical example of this danger which is inherent in dating sherds mainly according to its stylistic features is aptly illustrated by Oates's identification of a sherd from Serik, which she initially identified as Hassuna (Oates, l968:pl.V:7), but which she later recognised to be attributable to the 'Ubaid incised tradition'. Nor does the fact that various sites have similar ceramic assemblages, necessarily imply they share a similar culture. A more useful reflection of 'culture' is attested by collecting a variety of items, such as art, lithic assemblage, 'toys', religious items, etc. Architecture should also serve as a 'type-fossil' in culture detennination, just as the above.

The method advocated by Aurenche et al., 1981, using chronological periods probably holds out the most promise for development into a coherent indexing system. According to this scheme, periods 8 and 9 designate Ubaid 3/4. An Ubaid 3 horizon may be expressed or shown as Ubaid P8/3. Thus the first word designates the culture, the second letter/number indicates the period and the last number states the cultural phase. However, Aurenche's division of architectural plan layouts into 'simple' and 'complex' is too simplistic and vague to be of value. For example, he defmes a 'simple' architectural plan as one which may be mono - or multicellular, having rooms that cannot be entered except from the outside: to go from one room to another, one must exist from the first to outside the building before one can enter the second room (Fig. 5-J). The external area in front of the rooms which is used for communication from one room to another is referred to as a courtyard. (Aurenche, l98lb:72).

Also similar cultural types may exist in different regions at different time scales. Thus there is no reason why an Ubaid culture in South Mesopotamia, e.g. at Oueili must be contemporary with an Ubaid culture in Anatolia - e.g. Degirmentepe. In fact, it is probable that by time the Ubaid culture reaches e.g. Degirmentepe from southern Mesopotamia (whether by conquest or diffusion), centuries would have elapsed.

However, even in his illustration of a 'simple' plan, one can communicate between the 2nd and 3rd rooms on the left of the building without having to leave the building. Therefore theoretically, his example appears to be a 'complex' plan (using his own defmition).

Thus the 'core' of a culture is most likely where we would get the earliest and latest settlement dating. This may therefore help us in future to detennine where a particular culture began. Moreover, it is likely that as we move further away from this 'core', the culture becomes diluted and the absolute dates (e.g. Cl4 radiocarbon) begin and end at later times. This is probably because a culture is sometimes intrusive and does not last. Cultural influence wanes with time as settlements become located further from the core. Culture is not static and therefore, there are no

Aurenche's defmition of a 'complex', multicellular plan, is one where "the rooms communicate with one another directly by means of an internal network of passages. Using these passages, one gains access to the various parts of the building without having to leave it" (Fig.5-2). Usually in this type, one particular room dominates several others (Aurenche, 1981 a: 198-199). 61

and undoubtedly the first temples must have been influenced (as indeed were later temples in the historical period) by secular residences." (Roaf, 1984:88). A small building measuring 8.15 x 3.00m. in level XIX (Fig.2-61) from Tepe Gawra, is classified by Jawad as "the earliest Ubaid temple at Gawra", which became larger in level XVIII, measuring 10.50 x 7.00 m., reaching a 'climax' in the acropolis of level XIII.

Moreover, a tholos with a covered annex or antechamber, should by Aurenche's defmition be termed a simple 'complex' plan because of the internal 'communication' between the tholos and the annex. Furthermore, Aurenche asserts that the Samarra and Ubaid layouts were "the first in However, we fmd history to have a complex plan". 'complex' house plans in much earlier epochs such as Jarmo (Braidwood & Howe, 1960) and Tell Maghzalia (Merpert, et al., 1981 :29-31 ; Munchaev, et al., 1984:45-53).

Jawad suggests that even though the level XIII temples cannot be traced back to earlier ones, this does not mean the emergence of a "new trend in the temple development at Gawra." He cites the temple of level XIX which is basically duplicated from level XVIII, whereas the temples of the acropolis of level XIII are of a radically different This viewpoint cannot be accepted upon close plan. scrutiny of the facts, and it is evident that strong southern influences have come to bear on the design and construction There are also a number of of the level XIII temples. architectural elements which appear to have originated in level XIII or have been 'borrowed' from the South, but were A not embodied in the temples of succeeding levels. or symmetrical always almost is building religious asymmetrical in design and usually articulated with some form of buttressing.

Aurenche attributes "the spectacular increase in structure size" to become "a truly monumental architectural unit" to a technological innovation, the use of moulded mud-brick (Aurenche, 1981 b, 74), which we see from Tell Es-Sawwan onwards. Aurenche also suggests that the Tell Es-Sawwan buildings (Level IliA) contained upper stories, this being based on the presence of external staircases and buttresses. Although it is difficult to disprove the premise that some of the Tell Es-Sawwan buildings contained an upper storey, the presence of external stairways need not necessarily imply such, but may rather suggest a need for access to the roof for various utilitarian needs - sleeping, working activities or material storage. One of the chief characteristics of Ubaid architecture is its general homogeneity, particularly its later phases throughout Mesopotamia. "Thus, whatever these types of plans are called (tripartite, cruciform, T-shaped, etc..) the essential fact is they all belong to the same 'family' of architecture. The various phases of the Obeid cultures cannot yet be relatively situated, however, due to the imprecision of the nomenclature which is still occasionally used to designate them." (Aurenche, 198lb:79).

A number of scholars, such as Andrae, have suggested that the position of the entrances corresponded to differences in the type of cult worshipped. Proponents of this argument believe that it is possible to detect different forms of worship, esoteric or exoteric, by observing whether the altar was directly visible to the worshipper immediately upon entering the temple, or was not immediately visible to him, i.e., concealed from the direct line of vision through the use of a bent axis approach.

It is interesting to note Jawad's classification of Ubaid buildings (Jawad: 1965). He suggests five categories, these are:

Shrines, if they have a "coherent plan and 2. architectural formality, and which, because of their location in relation to contemporary temples, may have functioned as residences for the priests, or, in the absence of formal temples, served some religious purpose. They may vary in size and shape from temple-like structures to a one room structure." (Jawad, 1965).

Religious 'edifices' or temples if they possess a 1. tripartite plan - "that is, a formally arranged structure composed of a long central chamber, along with a podium, flanked on both sides by a row of small auxiliary rooms, and entered through an antechamber (the porch or Arabic Oates liwan) located on the short sides of the walls. appears to share this interpretation but emphasising quality of workmanship, he recognizes monumental buildings to mean, "the regular tripartite plan with more or less symmetrically disposed lateral chambers, which is also carefully designed and executed characterized by elevations making use of recesses and rebated niches." It is now known that many (Oates, D., 1987:379). tripartite buildings like the building in Level 2 at Tell Madhhur (Fig.2- 105) , were in fact secular. Furthermore, according to Roaf, "there is no difficulty in distinguishing between Ubaid houses and temples even though they shared the feature of having tripartite plans. The Ubaid temples have much more elaborate detailing involving complicated decorated buttresses and recesses and more open and symmetrical plans. It is not surprising that both houses and temples should share similar plans for throughout Mesopotamian history the temple was the house of the god

The question of religion in Chalcolithic times is difficult at best. It is assumed here that most of the Ubaid communities practiced some form of religion or other. The problem is to identify the nature and place of this activity by recognizing But the distinction the material evidence left behind. between 'religious' and 'secular' would probably have meant less to the ancient Mesopotamian than it does to us now (Oates, D., 1987:379).

3.

Public secular buildings, if they appear to be comparatively large, strategically located, possess a coherent plan and are orientated similarly to existing contemporary temples. "They differ, however, from the latter in lacking podia, in the location of their entrance, in the irregularity of one or more of their portions, and in containing (although perhaps few in nwnber) an abundant variety of utilitarian objects." (Jawad, 1965).

62

From the start of Ubaid, we see the emergence of monumental buildings as never before. It seems that the Ubaidian architect thrived on the construction of public buildings. "Six such buildings were encountered at Tepe Gawra: one in level XVI, two in level XV, one in level XIV, and two in level XII. All were found in levels where the formal temples were non-existent. Of course this does not prove, a priori, that a religious nature is to be granted for the public buildings, since the latter lacked features characteristic of the religious edifices. One is, however, apt to speculate that these residences, although of secular character, might have served, among other purposes, as a center for religious rites, in the absence of formal temples. At least if they were private, they must have belonged to persons of high social position." (Jawad, 1965:35). At Abada, level 11, we fmd no fewer than eight large structures. Of these, the excavator designated Building A as a public building, although it seems plausible that it may have served a religious function.

Damerji defmes a tripartite building as consisting of "a long middle room, each long side of which is adjacent to a row of rooms." (Damerji, 1987:13). He further suggests that the tripartite may be the oldest type of Mesopotamian religious architecture. However, this does not take into account the earliest Eridu temples or the possibility that the Arpachiya tholoi served a religious function. 5. Mesopotamian disjunctive: "The disjunctive is a building of which parts or grouped rooms belong to a general plan long known to us by the above-mentioned building types, whereas this or that part of it holds an unique independence, notwithstanding whether it lies in the middle of a courtyard or it is surrounded by a corridor. Whole buildings of this kind have common characteristics but no common planning schema." (Ibid: 16).

5.2

Classification of Ubaid Buildings General Methods

In this section, an attempt will be made to summarize the main techniques and approaches currently used to classify Ubaid buildings, followed by a detailed analysis in the next section.

4. Private buildings, if they are comparatively large and well located, "claiming special interest, but (with the exception of very few) lacking a coherent plan and architectural features." (Jawad, 1965).

Basically, there are two main methods of architecturally classifying ancient buildings. One is based on a structure's utilitarian function and the activities carried out within it (e.g. domestic, religious, industrial, etc.), and the second, on its plan morphology - i.e., its internal divisions and subdivisions as well as the location of its components.

5. Ordinary buildings where they are irregularly planned, "jumbled together, and characterized by flimsy construction, and undistinguished architecture." (Jawad, 1965).

In Damerji's attempt at building classification, he puts forward a confusing array of terms and defmitions of building types, forms of rooms, and rooms defmed by their door location (Damerji, 1987). He classifies building types into five categories: 1. 'Agglutinate', which appears to have been first coined by Schmidt (Schmidt, 1963:5). This type "is composed of different forms, representations, or arrangements of rooms." (Ibid: 10). He then adds, "Behind the form and plan of the rooms of the agglutinate, lies no 'philosophy of room'." (Ibid: 10). 2. 'Conjunctive' buildings "consist of some groups of rooms, of which the form and the construction are of organic growth." (lbid:8) which Damerji recognizes to be "an advanced phase of the agglutinate's history", have one or more courtyards (Ibid:10). 3. Injunctive buildings "consist of an enclosure wall (fence) with interior full of rooms. Here the primary feature is the outer wall. The rooms are built against the inner side of the wall, so that free space remains in the middle. This space is the courtyard." (Ibid:11 ). 4. Tripartite buildings are defmed differently by various scholars: Heinrich describes it as a building plan in which a long rectangular middle room stands out quite distinctly (Heinrich, n.d. :21 ). Hrouda relates it to the Greek megaron because of the close resemblance of the long middle room to a megaron (Hrouda, 1971 :67 note 2). Ann Perkins on the other hand, relates the middle room in relation to the side rooms, and bases the term on the tripartite form of the plan (Perkins, 1972:67).

A. The first method of classification, which is based on identifying a structure's function is fraught with numerous unforeseen difficulties. This type of synthesis may necessitate several simultaneous analytical approaches to try and achieve a satisfying result. These include: 1. Using ethnographic parallels to suggest the activities that take place within a building or space and comparing these buildings and spaces with others whose functions have already been determined, either from material fmds, observation, or by some other means. It should be noted that any conclusions arrived at from such a determination, would still be speculative and cannot in any way be considered defmitive.

2. Studying a room's location, size, etc. Certain spaces because oftheir location, size, shape, height of walls, etc., may give an indication to a space's function, such as a storage facility, stairway, entrance foyer, or antechamber, etc. 3. Studying the circulation patterns within a building, means of access, etc. For example, in ancient Mesopotamian architecture, a complicated circulation pattern would more likely be indicative of a secular building than a Temple, as the former usually implies many activities whereas a Temple may contain one major activity, that of worshipping, but may include additional ritual or other auxiliary activities.

63

4. Seeking out certain architectural features that may have symbolic connotations such as the presence of niches or buttresses. Also studying the orientation of a building to ascertain if any symbolic significance can be attached to this.

1. Use of Ethnographic Parallels: A number of key buildings are used to illustrate this method and from which conclusions can be drawn. a. Madhhur Level 11: Applying ethnographic parallels to rooms 4 & 5 reveal that they were utilized as stairs or ramps leading to an upper level (Fig.2-105, 2-117, 2-118). Confirmation of this was found in the Level 4 building in which one of the narrow rooms contained a ramp sloping from west to east (Roaf, 1984: 119). But, if as generally agreed, the Madhhur building is a house, then it would be possible to assign a domestic function to other cruciform buildings with similar layouts with more certainty, such as the two cruciform buildings at Gawra Level XV (Fig.2-66), as well as the cruciform buildings at Qalinj Agha and Abada II-0. This of course assumes that no other features or material fmds contradict this.

5. Studying the material fmds to determine how this reflects on the possible utilization of a building or space. A profusion of 'household' items may imply that the building is a private house, whereas a large quantity of metal or pottery with adjacent kilns may indicate an industrial area. It should be noted that a change of use during the life of a building is also possible. 6. Attempting to determine whether any formal design principles were used in a building plan's layout. By a detailed synthesis of Late Ubaid architecture, it will be shown that Late Ubaid temples were usually designed to specific geometric principles, which is not often the case with domestic structures. Also Ubaid temples were usually symmetrically or asymmetrically plarmed and carefully detailed and executed. This method of analysis has rarely been used in determining a Mesopotamian building's function until now. Unfortunately, Mesopotamian architecture is still usually defmed and studied comparatively rather than by analysis of its components and inter-relationships. This can only retard a proper understanding of how a building is designed and implemented.

However, this does not imply that the Madhhur house can be used for valid comparison with multi-cruciform buildings such as the Kheit Qasim Ill, Abada 11-A, Abada II-B, Abada 11-E or the Abada II-F buildings, unless it can be shown that the latter buildings served a similar function. b. Eridu VI: Because of its poor state of preservation, some of the Eridu VI Temple's reconstruction was hypothetical and was based largely on comparisons with its predecessor, Eridu VII which it closely resembles. In the two narrow parallel chambers (room 28), one expects to fmd a staircase or ramp, by analogy with later temples such as the Painted Temple at Uqair (Level VIIA), where "a well-preserved staircase leading to the roof" was found in a similar chamber (Safar, et al., 1981:114).

In this respect, the existence of a standard unit of measurement or module may also help determine whether a building is a house or temple. B. The second method used in classifying Mesopotamian buildings is based on its plan morphology. Here, one should from the outset decide whether the classification is to be based on a 'conceptual approach' or a 'form approach'.

The inherent difficulties sometimes encountered in using ethnographic parallels, can be seen at the slightly later tripartite building at Grai Resh in Level 11 (area 'AB') dated to the Uruk period (Fig.5-4), where a pair of niches are found in the end wall of the central hall (Lloyd, 1940:15). This building which is designated a private house by the excavator (Lloyd, 1940: 15), exhibits a feature characteristic of religious buildings such as Eridu VI.

An example of the conceptual approach is Damarji's classification of the Brak Temple (Fig.5-3a) and the Tepe Gawra Round House (Fig.5-3b) as Tripartite buildings (Damarji, 1987:15). The design concept in these buildings being the dominant feature, consisting of a large central space/room, flanked by a group of rooms on each side of the central core (each group of rooms is conceived as a single unit). Otherwise there would be no justification for classifying the above buildings as tripartite.

c. Tepe Gawra Level XIV: For the first time at Gawra we fmd a building with stone rather than mud-brick foundations. Tobler describes it as secular (Tobler, 1950:36), but the use of stone boulders for the foundations and their preservation, even though stone must have been a valuable commodity at Gawra, clearly mitigates against such a designation. Mallowan makes the point that "the preservation of the ancient stone foundations by the builders in the succeeding level suggests that these old stones were regarded with some piety, as in an earlier period at Arpachiyah where the ancient foundations of religious buildings were similarly respected." (Mallowan, 1976:381). Furthermore, this tradition of respecting the foundations of discarded shrines is well attested more than two thousand years later in Sumer where cuneiform texts describe the ritual for the pouring of libations over the old foundations before laying the new ones (Mallowan, 1950:4).

In the form approach, the Brak temple would be classified as a 'cruciform' building and the Round House perhaps as 'complex round', defensive, or some other classification. The classification here, is based on the actual form of the building.

5.3

Classification of Ubaid Buildings: Based on Function

To facilitate the classification of Ubaid buildings, several diverse but simultaneous approaches are used. 64

Another significant point is its close resemblance to the Tell es-Sawwan buildings of Level 11 (Fig.l-4). Moreover each wing which flanks the central hall also resembles the Tell es-Sawwan houses of Level Ilia (Fig.l-5). The similarity is so strong, that one wonders if it were possible that some of the Tell es-Sawwan inhabitants could have migrated northwards towards Tepe Gawra, especially since evidence of Tell es-Sawwan is attested to from Level XIX onwards.

As for rooms 4 & 5, "There is also a general agreement that the two parallel narrow rooms found in many Ubaid houses provided a means of access to an upper storey or the roof." (Ibid.:2) and evidence of this was found in a similar unit in Level 4. The low wall in room 4 may have been a sort of 'stopper' for a ladder type stair or ramp made of wood. A similar low wall was found at Kheit Qasim Ill in the tricruciform building (Forest, personal communication).

Another point worth noting, is the fact that the 'Eastern Shrine' of Level XIII was built directly on top of the Level XIV building without removing the foundations. This suggests that this area of the mound may have been considered sacred. In view of the above one cannot rule out the possibility of the building having been a temple. Descriptive Analysis of Elements (e.g. location, size):

b. Kheit Qasim Ill (Tri-cruciform Building): The position of the two parallel spaces in the entrance imply heavy traffic, probably to an upper floor or roof. The shape of the walls easily lend themselves to enclosing a flight of stairs or ramp (Fig.l-98). By analogy with later periods, one must reach the same conclusion that the two rooms enclose a staircase.

2.

Rooms 12 and 3 are very interesting and appear to serve the same function. The openings are small (unlike rooms, 15 & 17) and are built against an outside wall (unlike rooms 4 & 7), so that it is possible they incorporated small windows or ventilation openings. Their size and location supports the possibility that they may have served as bathrooms.

Descriptive Analysis of Elements (e.g. location, size, etc.).

a. Madhhur Level 11: Perhaps the most intriguing rooms in the Madhhur building (Fig.l-105) are 13, 14 and 16, 17. Rooms of similar size, shape and location, can be found in many Ubaid cruciform and tri-cruciform buildings including Buildings A & B, Level II at Tell Abada, and two buildings at Tepe Gawra Level XV (Fig.l-66). The excavator suggests that the similarity of the two pairs "may have been caused by the desire for a stepped facade and the shape of the cruciform room: Room 13 perhaps could not have been wider because of the proximity of the building to the north, but this does not obviously apply to Room 17 where space does seem to have been available." (Roaf, 1988:4). This is indeed possible, and one of the interesting aspects of the Madhhur house is that it is the only Ubaid building to my knowledge where a specific formula for the stepped facade is apparent, in that the wall always steps in or out the amount of one wall thickness.

The size and location of the cruciform halls strongly implies they were the main activity areas, being used for work and leisure, so that when it was cold, the activity would take place around the fire (assuming it was secular in nature).

3. Circulation Pattern Analysis: An attempt to reconstruct circulation patterns for Ubaid buildings could be quite revealing. By analogy with temples and houses of later periods, it is possible to assume that the circulation within a multi-roomed Ubaid private house is in most instances, more complex than that of an Ubaid temple. Using this approach, a reconstruction of circulation patterns is suggested for a number of buildings, both religious and secular for comparison.

However, a closer look suggests that the rooms may have been designed to serve a particular function. It is obvious that they are too small for general habitation, yet they have narrow windows. Had they been used for storage as say room 2, no windows would have been required. Moreover, the privacy requirement appears evident by the existence of corridors 13 and 17 as well as the location of openings to 14 and 16 (e.g. they could have been located directly off the wing of the cruciform).

a. Kheit Qasim Ill (Tri-cruciform Building): The excavator has suggested a simple circulation pattern (Forest, 1983a:39 Fig.6), where a person enters the building from room 5 and can then either turn right and enter the main hall, turn left and enter room 9 or go up the stairs to the roof (or possibly a second storey). However, it is more likely that the stairs started from room 5 to give a much more 'airy' feeling and avoid a low ceiling upon entering the building (Fig. 5-5). The prominent position of the stairs (if they are in fact stairs), indicates that the upper level was frequently used (sleeping or working) and tends to suggest a secular use for the building.

One plausible explanation for this is that they were used for bathing and/or toilets. This view seems to be corroborated by the presence of hearths in rooms 13 and 17, which could have been used for heating water, or burning waste. The presence of narrow windows would help ventilation. That room 17 is wider than room 13 may indicate that it was used for changing clothes and that 16 was for bathing and 14 was used as a toilet. In a similar tripartite building in Telul ethThalathat, a large perforated jar, 62.2cm high was found in room C-R.3 (the equivalent of rooms 14 & 16), and which may have been used as a toilet (Egami, 1959, plate LXIII). Furthermore, no other rooms could serve this function as satisfactory.

Upon entering the central hall, the person can enter room 2 and 4 or continue and enter the cruciform hall on the right or that on the left and from there to rooms 3, 7 and 12. The complexity of circulation pattern would certainly suggest a secular function unless a different god was worshipped in each hall.

b: Madhhur Level 11: The building's circulation pattern suggests a secular function (Fig.5-6). Entrance is from the north-west through a small lobby (room 9) which 65

leads directly into a large hall. This hall is surprisingly wide compared with other tripartite buildings of this period (about 4m for Madhhur as opposed to 2.80m for Kheit Qasim Ill, 2.75m for Abada Building A of Level 11, 2.70m for Songor C and 3m for Gawra XV). Another interesting feature concerning most tripartite buildings, is that the walls of the central halls have few openings near the middle (at Madhhur the openings are at both ends). This may be a structural decision, but it also allows a better use of the central hall, minimizing cross circulation and drafts.

e. Songor B (Level 11): The large cruciform building of Level 11 which measured approximately 11.25 by 15m takes a form that appears to be unique in Mesopotamian architecture (Fig.5-9). The architectural remains consist of a cruciform hall surrounded on three sides by a ring of square rooms but the building may have originally extended further to the south as suggested by its foundations (Fig. 2-136). Its exterior facade is symmetrical, stepping out in a uniform fashion towards the front and sides, and the building is thought by its excavators to be a temple (Matsumoto, 1983:3 7).

From the central hall, one could enter room 3 and from there rooms 4 & 5 which is thought to be a stair or ramp enclosure leading to the upper level (probably the roof). A door socket discovered in the doorway linking room 7 with room 3, suggests that the latter was of some significance and access was limited to certain persons. Towards the eastern end of room 7 and on either side are two small lobbies or 'transepts' leading to rooms 11 , 13, 14, and 6, 17, 16. The circulation pattern of Madhhur clearly suggests a secular function.

The 'Temple' is entered through a square shaped antechamber (room 1), from which he has the option of either entering directly into the cruciform hall or enter the two rooms flanking the antechamber (rooms 2 & 3), both of which have two unusually deep recesses in their sides. If the worshipper or guest enters the cross-shaped hall, he has the option of either turning left into another square shaped chamber (room 6), or left into room 5 (also square shaped), the latter appearing to have served as a corridor linking an L-shaped space (room 7) with the main chamber. If the building had a religious character, then this room (7) may have been used solely by the clergy for entry to the main hall. It should be mentioned that this type of side entry has parallels with the side entrances found in the Eridu temples XI-VI, which may corroborate the view that the building was a temple.

c: Eridu VII: Although, the circulation pattern for the Level VII temple (Fig.5-7) is essentially a simple one, in that they all lead to the cella. One cannot be sure which of the three entrances is the main one (a fourth entrance to the cella via room 23 was probably reserved for the priests). It is possible that all three were used. The simultaneously and were of equal importance. difficulty in trying to determine the circulation, is that we do not know the extent of the raised terrace on the northeast and north-west sides. Rooms 35 and 32 which form antechambers to the cella, are more spacious than room 27 which is accessed by a flight of seven steps, and may therefore be assumed to be more important. It may have been used mainly to exit from the temple.

f. Tell Abada, Building A (Level 11): The Abada building appears to be divided into two distinct parts, separated by a central hall (Fig.2-7b, 5-10). Moreover, the two staircases (one in each section) suggests a deliberate form of segregation. Also the large number of internal rooms with no direct daylight (rooms 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 28, 29, and 30), may imply that either the central hall (room I) or rooms 17 and 23 were open to the sky.

If the main entry was from the short side (i.e. room 32), which is most likely, it would resemble the Ubaid Temple entrance at Uruk (Fig.2-147). In any case, no importance seems to be attached to the entrance location, as we fmd it moved from temple to temple. Thus in Temples XVI & XV, it appears to be from the longer side; in the XI & X Temples on the other hand, no entrance was found from the 'front', while in Level IX, at least two 'front' entrances existed. Likewise in Level VIII, and possibly from the north-east side and rear as well. In Level VII, we fmd three entrances from the 'front', as well as entrances from the side and 'rear', while in the Level VI Temple, no side or 'rear' access were discovered, although a rear entrance is probable.

The building is entered via room 32. From here, several options are present: a. one may go directly to the roof or upper storey via rooms 30, 31 (staircase) and rooms 1, 22 (staircase), or b. one can enter the connecting rooms 8, 7, and 6, which in turn give access to room I and room 23, or c. A person can go straight to the central hall (room I) or d. go to room 23 via rooms 30 and 29 or e. go to room 17 via rooms 22, 21 , and 16 (Figs. 2-7b, 5-1 0). The unusually complicated circulation pattern indicates that this building may have served a secular function other than a dwelling. 4.

d: Tepe Gawra, North Temple (Level XIII): The Northern Temple plan, with its intricate facades, is reminiscent of the Eridu XI-IX layouts. Its only entrance is near the end of its long side through an antechamber (room A), which differs from earlier Gawra temples (Fig. 5-8), thus preventing a direct view of the sanctuary. The worshipper is forced to turn left and then right to enter the cella. Room B may have been a stairs or ramp leading to the roof. Rooms C & D are elaborately decorated which suggests they served an important function.

Symbolism as a Determinant of Function: A. Presence of Altar, Offering Table, Podium, etc.:

Most scholars concur that the presence of altars or offering tables, is a strong indication of a religious function. Moreover, Seidenberg who studied altar constructions in the Indian Sulvasutras, discovered that, in these fairly ancient texts "the 'Theorem of Pythagoras' was used to construct a square equal in area to a given rectangle, and that this construction is just that of Euclid. From this and other 66

facts he concluded that Babylonian algebra and geometry and Greek 'geometrical algebra' and Hindu geometry are all derived from a common origin, in which altar construction and the 'Theorem of Pythagoras' played a central role." (Fauvel & Gray, 1987:11). (chapter 5, p.24). In van der Waerden's comments on neolithic mathematical science, he says, "I have compared the ancient Chinese collection 'Nine Chapters of the Arithmetical Art' with Babylonian collections of mathematical problems and found so many similarities that the conclusion of a common preBabylonian source seemed unavoidable. In this source, the 'Theorem of Pythagoras' must have played a central role as well." (Fauvel & Gray, 1987:11).

Associated with them were the remains of a storage-chest or bin (Forest, 1983c:85). The excavator clearly attributes a domestic function to them (lbid), although in the Eridu VI Temple, we fmd a similar mud-brick podium and bin, "its upper surface was burnt dark red, and covered by a considerable deposit of ashes. Behind the podium, and slightly off-centre, a deep, oval-shaped basin stood upon the lower pavement, roughly constructed of clay and plastered inside." (Safar, et. al., 1981 :107). We also fmd a rectangular platform 15cm high in the Eridu XI Temple (lbid.:94). B. The presence of niches as a religious symbol: a. Tepe Gawra Level XII: Two buildings of this level, the 'White Room' building and another structure, were thought by Mallowan to be temples mainly on the strength of a pair of niches in their rear walls, which he suggests "for this reason alone we may readily identify it as another temple." (Mallowan, 1976:383). The niches of the 'White Room' measured approximately 60cm wide and 25cm deep and were located in its north-eastern wall. However, similar niches were found in an Uruk 'private house' {Fig. 5-4) at Grai Resh (Lloyd, 1940: 15).

The presence of altars was found in many Ubaid buildings which are designated by archaeologists to be temples. These include: a. U ruk: Here Schmidt uncovered altars in Temples I and II (Schmidt, 1974:180). Although no measurements are given, the published drawings indicate they were built to a ratio of2:3. b. Eridu: It is very frustrating that the fmal report on Eridu lacks much vital information, particularly relating to the architectural aspects. In this case, the measurements of altars are often incomplete - whether this is because the information is not there is not known. In Temple XI for example, a height of 15cm is given for the altar, but no width or length dimensions are given. In Temple IX, a height of 40cm is recorded for the fragmentary remains of an altar. In Temple VIII, however, we are given all three dimensions, but they appear to be wrong. According to the fmal report, both altar and offering table had a length of 30cm, a width of 20cm and a height of 20cm, which differs markedly from the published drawings.

b. Eridu VI: The Level VI Temple at Eridu also possessed two niches in its short sides and which may also have been duplicated on the opposite side {Fig.l-57) . It is not known whether the niches were ornamental or whether they were a form of ventilation or served some other ritual purpose.

C. Presence of Buttresses: In Mesopotamia, buttresses have been used both for structural reasons (mainly in secular buildings) and for ornamental effect (largely in Temples) and in a substantial way, since Tell esSawwan or earlier. Although they are characteristic of temples in southern Iraq, as well as in the Level XIII temples at Gawra in northern Iraq, elaborate buttresses or pilasters are not often found in secular structures. Their presence in a structure, may therefore, raise the possibility of the attribution of a religious function to a building. The key note to their presence should be their use mainly for decorative purposes, and their careful design and construction. Examples of their use, are:

Temple VII had an altar 85cm high and an offering table 60cm high with no other dimensions. Temple VI had a podium measuring l.60m x .90m x .65m (1.62 x .90 x .63 = 2.25uc x l.25uc x .875uc. See part 6 of this chapter for an explanation of the 'Ubaid Cubit' or uc). c. Tepe Gawra: In Level XIX, a poorly preserved building was designated a temple largely because of a rectangular podium made of mud-brick, measuring 95cm long by 55cm wide (no height given) was found on the floor of its central hall or 'sanctum' (Tobler, 1950:46).

a. Eridu: Temples XVI & XV (internal), XI, X, IX, VIII, VII and VI (externally): Temples XVI & XV (Fig.l -40) : The temples of Levels XVI & XV contained thin, but rather deep internal piers which while serving a structural function, also appear to have been used for shelves, perhaps to carry statues, etc. No external buttresses were found.

In Level XVIII a building was uncovered which the excavator on the same premise designated to be a temple. "The religious character of the edifice is established by a rectangular podium located slightly to the rear of the central chamber, or sanctum." (Tobler, 1950:44). It was made of mud-brick and measured l.SOm long by 95cm wide and 6cm high.

Temples XI - VI: The first buttresses were fairly simple piers, regularly spaced, and appear to have served mainly a decorative function. They were also used in recesses. However, in Temple VIII we fmd a complicated decorative pier structure forming two niches in the southwest face of the temple {Fig.2-50). In Temples VII and VI, we also witness greater confidence in their construction and

d. Kheit Qasim Ill (Tri-cruciform Building): We are informed by the excavator that three low mud-brick platforms, rectangular in shape and on which there were fireplaces, were found in each of the T-shaped halls. 67

design. They are also more substantial than those of earlier temples and are still used only for decorative effect.

The buttresses in the f. Kbeit Qasim Ill: tripartite building of Kheit Qasim Ill, were both functional and decorative (Fig.2-98). They broke the monotony of the long plain walls (ca.IOm) of the building. Their simplicity indicates a secular function rather than a religious one.

b. Tepe Gawra Levels XIX-XVII: In this levels, we fmd simple piers or buttresses utilised more in a secular context than a religious one as no external buttresses have been found in the Level XIX Temple, and only a few in the Level XVIII Temple (Fig.2- 73), whereas the 'private house' of Level XIX (Fig.2-61) and most of the rooms 1535 of this level, exhibit them, either externally or internally. Likewise, the secular structures of Levels XVIII and XVII also attest to their use, sometimes structurally and at other times, decoratively (Figs.2-62,2-63). The main advantage here is that the projecting piers allow the roof to protrude and thereby shelter the mud-brick walls from the rain falling off the roofs.

g. Tell Oueili: In Phase 3 of Level I, the architectural remains of part of what appears to be a simple 'corridor' type tripartite building with buttresses and recesses on three of its sides, were revealed (Fig.2-124) . The rectangular chamber was attributed by the excavator to be part of a house, and measured 9.50 x 2.80m (J.D.Forest, 1983:21). In size and layout, it appears to resemble the Kheit Qasim Ill tripartite building. h. Tell Ayyash: Regularly spaced buttresses and recesses characterize the Ayyash levels Ill and IV (Fig.231, 2-32). They appear to be well articulated and are found on 'internal' and 'external' corners where the walls meet at right angles as well. The form and buttresses remind us of the Tell es-Sawwan houses of Level Ilia (Fig.l-5) . The architectural remains as presented by the excavator are rather confusing and possibly some of the walls are assigned to the wrong phase, particularly in Level IV.

The acropolis Temples reveal Level XIII: some of the most elegant and thoughtfully designed and constructed buttresses, pilasters and niches of the Ubaid Period yet discovered (Fig. 5-1 1). The model bricks found in the Eastern Shrine merely emphasise the extent to which these early architects went in designing these temples. The external buttresses in these temples appear to have been solely decorative and were clearly designed to impress. If we compare them to say, the lower levels ofTepe Gawra, or those of Tell Abada, we immediately notice the tremendous difference between the two - one to impress and create an atmosphere of awe, and the other to serve a structural purpose or drain the rainwater off the roofs by forming overhangs (and also sometimes create a simple rhythm, thus breaking the monotony of long walls).

The pleasing court formed in Level Ill by the juxtaposition of walls is reminiscent of Level XIII at Tepe Gawra, although the excavator designates these buildings as 'houses'. While it is possible that these buttressed buildings served a religious function, the formality of their design certainly suggests that they may have been administrative buildings of some sort. The buttresses and niches at Ayyash lack the fmeness and elaboration of the Gawra XIII temples, except possibly for a delicate recess in a small chamber of Level Ill, whose function cannot be explained. It is similar to the niches in chambers C & D of the North Temple, and the niche of room 7 in the Eastern Temple, which is somewhat puzzling.

Several of the Tell Abada c. Tell Abada: buildings attest to the use of buttresses, the most evident being Building A of Level 11, where 29 buttresses are recorded. They are used decoratively to give added interest to the elevations of the building. Although the excavator attributes a secular function to this building, one cannot rule out the possibility of part of it having served a religious function as well.

D. Orientation: Most temples appear to have had their corners or sides to the cardinal points (Figs.5-12c). "Vitruvius describes very clearly the way in which the line North-South was placed into a circle of orientation by marking the direction of a minimum shadow-length of a vertical pole erected at the centre of the circle (true noon and true south); the tracing of a perpendicular direction, in fact of any right-angle, was obtained by using a continuous rope divided by knots into 3 + 4 + 5 = 12 equal parts." A similar method may have been (Ghyka, 1946:142). employed by the Ubaid architects to orientate their temples.

Other buildings exhibiting buttresses or piers, include Building I of Level Il, which the excavator believes was used as a communal sheep fold and store; Building A of Level Ill which has five and Building J of Level 11 which shows about I 0 buttresses, some of which are curiously placed. d. Tell Rashid: In Level Ill, a tripartite building contained five buttresses on its front facade whereas the other sides remained bare (Fig.2-1 30). This implies that it was used as a decorative feature, particularly since none were used on the building's long walls.

However, many secular buildings also have their walls or corners orientated towards the cardinal points (Fig.512a, 12b and 12d) and therefore, orientation on its own, is insufficient proof of a religious function . It should also be noted, that a south-east/north-west orientation is ideal for a hot arid climate, and this may have been an important factor in the orientation of the temples and secular buildings.

The two temple buildings which e. Uruk: were briefly investigated, suggest the use of buttresses on all sides (Figs. 2-144, 2-145). They appear to be regularly spaced and in the Temple 2 building, thoughtfully designed and executed. It is this emphasis on precision and accuracy that characterizes religious architecture. 68

5. Examination of Material Finds: Often what an excavator fmds or does not fmd inside a building, may help to determine a building's function .

"its upper surface burnt dark red, and covered by a considerable deposit of ashes." (Safar, et al., 1981 :107). Large quantities of fish-bones mixed with ashes was found on the floor all around it, "while a deep deposit of such bones, mixed with those of small animals, extended over almost the whole of the northeastern end of the sanctuary." (Ibid.). The above ritual clearly suggests a religious function to the building, which is confrrmed by other characteristics. Forest on the other hand, has suggested that it was used for banquets and meetings of the village folk (Forest, 1983a), but the location of door openings, platforms etc., clearly mitigates against this theory.

a. Tell Abada Level U , Buildings A & I; Level Ill, Buildings A & B: Building A of Level II is unusual for the large number of infant burial urns (some fifty seven of them) found below its floors (a practice which is common in Ubaid sites). Perhaps more important, is the discovery of clay tokens of different sizes and shapes, placed in batches inside pottery vessels (Jasim & Oates, 1986). The excavator believes that they may have been precursors of written notation, possibly to keep a record of the dead infants buried below the floors and may "imply a ritual function for the clay tokens found in it." (Jasim, 1988:2). Forest on the other hand, suggests that these tokens were used in marriage transactions (Forest, personal communication).

6.

Analysis of Plan Layout Principles: I will attempt here a detailed analysis of a number of Late Ubaid Buildings to determine their function and method of design, by studying their plan structure. This analysis will largely take the form of establishing the presence or absence of geometric relationship between the various parts of the plan layout, the use of geometry, mathematics, unit of measure, and various grid systems. An obvious danger to avoid in such an analysis, is the unconscious attempt to impose a grid system or mentality that is more relevant to our own times than to the 5th millennium B.C.

In Building I, the presence of "a floor full of black ash, refuse, debris and traces of dung, would suggest that this courtyard was used as a sheepfold" (Jasim, 1988:2). Buildings A & B of Level Ill (which is the earliest level at Tell Abada), are characterized by the presence of: 1. Large storage jars, 2. Large quantities of red ochre and grindstones "still bearing its traces.", 3. A number of pianoconvex discs of gypsum, 4. Small basin coated with very thick coat of gypsum, and 5. Two large pottery kilns close by containing large quantities of sherds and debris. "The presence of these features in these two buildings coupled with the absence of domestic items which usually are to be found in dwellings houses, would suggest that both of these buildings have probably been associated with the manufacture ofpottery." (Jasim, 1988:3).

Nevertheless, this analysis indicates that proportional relationships, which many architects today harness for two dimensions of a facade or the three dimensions of an interior space, were first employed by the architects of the Ubaid Period. Because of the subject's importance, and because so little has so far been written about it, some background information as well as defmitions of important terms are included prior to discussing and analysing the various buildings. As early as the mid fifth century B.C. we are informed by Herodotus that the Greeks learned the art of geometry, not from the Egyptians, but from the Babylonians (Herodotus, cited by Fauvel & Grey, 1987:21).

b. Madhhur Level 11: The discovery of a doublemouthed pot in room 13 (Roaf, 1984:125, Fig 19.7), is significant, in that this could be the equivalent of the oriental 'brique' found in turkish bathrooms, even though the brique has a narrower spout.

Moreover, in ecclesiastical architecture, particularly during the Renaissance (which relied so heavily on Greek proportions), the demand that the parts should correspond to the whole as well as to each other, was generally adhered to, above all, for the relations of nave, aisles and chapels, and here the Renaissance built on earlier traditions. Palladio, like his predecessors, Alberti, Serlio and others, set general rules for the proportions of the height of rooms to their width and length. Familiarity with some of these rules will assist us in understanding those used during the Ubaid era. In fact, in scrutinizing some of the Ubaid Temples, it will become apparent how little design principles have changed through the ages.

Another significant fmd is the massive quantity - over 4000 - of 'sling bullets' which were mostly located in the corners of the rooms (Roaf, 1988:27). Their location may suggest that each corner represented a specific territorial space, each 'belonging' to a particular person. The fact that they were not scattered more widely indicates that they may not have fallen from the roof, but were deliberately placed in the corners. Perhaps this particular 'household' was responsible for manufacturing these unbaked clay 'bullets' for the community. We also know that, "Inside the house there was evidence for the manufacture of thread in the form of baked clay spindle whorls which were concentrated in Room 11." (Roaf, 1988:32). This all clearly indicates a secular use of the building.

While we are severely handicapped by not knowing the height of rooms in Mesopotamian buildings (unlike the situation in Egypt, Greece or Rome), we may fmd ourselves in a position to be able to make credible assumptions once it can be established that certain general rules (e.g. canons of proportion), were adhered to in the design of these buildings. We do know that in ancient Egypt, during the early dynasties, a standard measure in architecture was in

c. Eridu VI: In the central sanctuary or cella, an offering table, heavily coated with plaster was found, with 69

was used to lay out a building on the ground, by dividing it into twelve units and knotting it at intervals of 3/12, 4112, and 5112 (Fig.5-14). It is based on the theorem bearing the name of Pythagoras, but which was already known by the Babylonians many centuries earlier (a Babylonian tablet in the Yale Babylonian collection contains this theorem). Basically, it states that in a right-angled triangle the sum of the squares on the shorter sides (catheti) equals the square on the hypotenuse.

use, known as the royal cubit, which was equal to about 52.3-52.5cm (Badawy, 1965:2). As will be seen, rhythm was one of the governing factors in Late Ubaid buildings and architects of the Late Ubaid carefully calculated the effect of buttresses (particularly in temple construction, as in Tepe Gawra XIII and the Ubaid Temples at Uruk), as well as the dimensions of rooms and buildings. An analysis of numerous Late Ubaid buildings clearly establishes that the square was one of the most important elements in Ubaid architectural design. It will be seen that the square was frequently used as a module for proportional grids in temple layouts such as at Tepe Gawra Level XIII and Eridu VII and VI Temples. Likewise in Egypt, although it seems, significantly later, the square was a major element and played an essential role, also being used as a 'module' in architectural designs (Badawy, 1965:21).

The 3, 4, 5 triangle is the only right-angled triangle that has Moreover, it its sides in an arithmetic progression. approximates the golden ratio between its 5-unit side and the 3-unit base (5:3=1.666 ..).

Bearing in mind how influences in the cultural realm swayed back and forth between Mesopotamia and Egypt, not only during the early dynasties but even in Predynastic times, it seems plausible that such mathematical knowledge would have been difficult to isolate for many centuries, even though such knowledge was probably sacred and guarded by the priests, in the same way that it was guarded by a special 'brotherhood' in ancient Greece (Ghyka, 1946:115).

Isosceles Triangles:

The simplest right-angled triangles in which all three sides are integer numbers, are: a) 3,4,5 b) 5,12,13 (also widely used during the Ubaid Period). c) 8,15,17 d)7,24,25 e) 20,21,29 and f) 12,35,37.

1. The 8:5 Isosceles Triangle: The most widely used isosceles triangle in constructional diagrams for designing buildings (e.g. Ubaid Temple at Uruk) appears to be the 8:5 isosceles triangle (its height is to its base as 5 to 8). One of its properties, is that it is the only triangle that closely approximates the golden section when used in harmonic design, because of its relationship to the 'Fibonacci Series' (Ghyka, 1946: 13), so that if a room is 5m wide by 8m long (5:8), and its height 3m, it will form part of a 'Fibonacci Series' which is 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 13, 21 , 34, 55, 89, ..... Likewise, if the room or building is 8m x 13m and The 5m high, we still get a progression of 5:8:13. unsophisticated character of the Fibonacci Series suggests that it was discovered prior to the invention of writing (Badawy, 1965:24). This isosceles triangle can also be inscribed within a heptagon. The angles at the base of the 8:5 triangle is 20' 25" and the vertex angle is 7719' 10".

It will also be shown that triangles played a significant role in building design (particularly in religious buildings), and where they occur, it is either alone (usually consisting of more than one creating a scissor-like framework on the plan layout), or as a complement to the square (see e.g., the Kheit Qasim Ill plan, Fig. 5-1 3).

An initial analysis indicates that only certain types of triangles like the 3:4:5, 5:12:13 (both of which appear to have been used during the Ubaid Period for laying out a building), 1:2, 1:4, and 8:5 isosceles triangles were used. In the light of this new information and knowledge, one now needs to determine whether the presence and constant recurrence of these triangles and grid systems in ancient Mesopotamian religious architecture, is a conscious and intentional effort, or merely the result of fortuitous circumstance.

"Variations of the 8:5 triangle are sometimes used when the triangle is set to the longitudinal axis transversely in pairs (twinned reciprocal triangles), giving the ratio of 5:4, or 5:2 when only half the twinned triangle is acting harmonically." (Badawy, 1965:25). In the Ubaid Temple at Uruk, we have an example of a 5:4 ratio.

2. The 1:2 Isosceles Triangle: This is a widely used triangle where the height has the same measurement as the base (Fig.A-7).

As mentioned earlier, prior to a detailed discussion of geometric and harmonic design principles used in ancient Mesopotamia, a defmition of some of the more important architectural and mathematical terms and concepts which are to be used in this discussion is both relevant and necessary. They are included below, and will be followed by a thorough analysis of specific buildings.

3. The 1:4 Isosceles Triangle: Here the height is to the base as 2 to 1 (Fig.A-6) . 4. The 'Golden Triangle' is an isosceles and a vertex of 36 triangle with a base angle of 72 (Fig.A-8). The relationship between the longer (isosceles) side and the shorter, AB/BC is equal to the 'Golden Section' (1.618).

Definitions: Right-Angled Triangles: The best known of these triangles is the 'ropestretcher's triangle' which is the 3,4,5 triangle (Fig.A-2), and which appears to have been widely used by the Ubaid architects for laying out their buildings. A rope

The Square: The square appears to be the basis of many temple designs during the Late Ubaid and Uruk Periods. It 70

is often used in 'grid' constructional diagrams in Ubaid temple design, and is the main element of rectangular 'modulations'.

comprise of gradually larger triangles of the same type. The types prepared, include the 3:4:5 right triangle (its angles are 37), the 5:12:13 right triangle (its angles are 22 3/4 and 67 1/4), the 4:5 right triangle - 5:8 isosceles triangle (base angle being almost 52), the 1:4 right triangle - 1:2 isosceles triangle (base angle of76), 1:1 right triangle- 2 :1 isosceles triangle (base angle 45), 1:2 right triangle - I : 1 isosceles triangle (its base angle being about 63), and the 'golden triangle' of 36172.

The Rectangle: The rectangle is the most widely used shape for rooms and for determining a building's outline There are many types of during the Ubaid period. rectangle: the Golden Rectangle has sides in the golden ratio. However, during the Ubaid Period, rectangles with ratios of I :2 (Eastern Temple at Gawra XIII), 2 :3 (Eridu XI), 3:4 (Northern and Central Temples at Gawra), 4:5 (Ubaid Temple at Uruk) and 5:8 (Eridu VIII) were the most popular.

Building Examples: a. Tepe Gawra: A study of the Level XIII acropolis clearly shows that the design of the temples was based on specific ratios of small integral numbers. For example, the ratios 1:2, 3:4, and 3:4 appear to represent the plan ratios of the Eastern Temple (Fig.5-17), the Northern Temple (Fig.5-18), and the Central Temple (Fig.5-19) . Moreover, the Central Temple facade is related to both the Northern and Eastern Temple facades (exposed portions) in an approximate ratio of3:4:5 (Fig.5-20).

Arithmetic Proportion: Here, the second term exceeds the ftrst by the same amount as the third exceeds the second, e.g. b-a = c-b as in 2:3:4 or 3:5:7 (Palladio's ftrst example). Geometric Proportion: In a geometric proportion, the ftrst term is to the second as the second to the third, e.g. a:b = b:c, as in 4:6:9 (Palladio's second example). Harmonic Proportion: Three terms or elements are in 'harmonic' proportion when the distance of the two extremes from the mean is the same fraction of their own quantity, e.g. b-a/a = c-b/c . If we use 3:4:6 as a numerical example, then the mean 4 exceeds 3 by 1/3 of 3 (i.e. 1) and is exceeded by 6 by 1/3 of 6 (i.e. 2); thus, 4-3/3 = 6-4/6. A set of numbers: a , b, c is said to be in harmonic progression if the set of inverses is in arithmetic progression (i.e. 1/a, 1/b, lie are in arithmetic progression, e.g. 1/2, 1/3, 1/4).

We see from the author's tentative reconstruction, that the overall dimensions for the Eastern Temple are 15.84m x 31.68m or 22 uc x 44 uc; for the Northern Temple, 8.64m x 11.52m or 12 uc x 16 uc, and for the Central Temple, 12.96m x 17.28m or 18 uc x 24 uc. Eastern Temple: The reconstruction of the Eastern Temple is based on the premise that like the Northern Temple, it was symmetrical in form . Although much of the Temple is denuded, sufficient architectural remains have been recovered to allow a credible reconstruction, particularly of the Temple's outline. The reconstruction shows how the 3:4:5 triangle could have been used to lay out the building (Fig.5-21), although the 5:12:13 triangle would have been more satisfactory (Fig.5-22). The reconstruction also shows that room 2 consisted of three squares (Fig.5-23) and the central portion which included the cella, probably consisted of ftve and a half modules (from outside of end walls).

Method of Analysis: The buildings that were studied, were on the whole, analysed in an empirical manner based on trial and error. A number of different sized grids were drawn on tracing paper, including a 50cm grid, a 60cm grid, a 72cm grid, a 75cm grid and a 75cm x 1.50m rectangular grid. These were initially overlaid on various plans which appear to lend themselves to this type of analysis (such as the Eridu temples), to see if that building or parts of, fttted neatly into a particular grid system, and whether any form of relationship existed between the various rooms, overall building dimensions and the grid. It soon became apparent that the 72cm grid was the only grid that seemed to have a perceptible relationship with the plans of the majority of Ubaid Temples and 'important' secular buildings. The other grids were therefore discarded and the analysis pursued only with the 72cm grid which I subsequently called the 'Ubaid Cubit'.

Northern Temple: If we analyse the plan of this temple, we fmd that the building is designed to a simple 3:4 ratio (Fig.5-24a). This indicates that there were harmonic relationships of the parts to each other and to the whole. This suggests that if the Temple was 16 uc long and 12 uc wide, then its height would be 8 uc (5.76m), giving an arithmetic proportion of2:3:4. It is interesting to note that the bricks of the Northern Temple were 36cm long which equals half an 'Ubaid Cubit'. Moreover, their dimensions have already been shown in Chapter two to be in geometric proportion (9:18:36 or 1:2:4).

Furthermore, when a lattice grid was drawn at certain angles, it was found in the only two buildings analysed, that the door openings and internaVextemal corners, are related to each other by this grid. This was the case at Tell Madhhur where a 45 degree angle was used (Fig.5-!5) and in the Eridu VI temple, where a 23 3/4 degree angle (same as 5:12:13 triangle) was used (Fig.5-16) .

It can also be seen that the utility of the 3,4,5 triangle was put to use in laying out the North Temple (Fig.5-24b). In this case, the knotted rope would have been divided into 12 equal lengths of3 uc each (2.16m). The Central Temple is interesting in that the niche recess (BC), measures half AB and CD. Likewise, AL and DE measure half of KJ and FG respectively. If the

A number of different types of triangles were drawn, each separately on a sheet of tracing paper. Each sheet would 71

averaged 27cm in length, then we would need 2 2/3 bricks per Ubaid cubit (excluding mortar), and if the width was 21.6cm, it would take 3 1/3 brick widths to each Ubaid The brick thickness cubit (also excluding mortar). represents l /12th of a cubit. Assuming mortar of 1.8cm was used, then a wall thickness would consist of 2.5 bricks, which equals approximately one cubit or 72cm.

reconstruction is basically correct, then the sides AB, KJ and JG are in harmonic proportion (8:12:24 or 2:3:6). Two 2:3 right angles facing each other, meet BC in the centre (Fig.5-25). Also, because the overall form of the temple as reconstructed is in a ratio of 3:4, the temple can be laid out using the ropestretcher's triangle (Fig.S-26). The 5:12:13 triangle can also be used to lay out the building (Figs.S-27, 5-28).

No accurate drawing of the Temple VI could be found at a scale of 1/ 100 (an illustration in Aurenche's 'La Maison Orientale, p.232, Pl.204 which is supposedly at 1/100 scale, is over 15% too large). For this reason, the Temple had to be completely redrawn based on the measurements of the cella and using the same proportions for the other rooms. Using the 'Ubaid cubit' as the basic design unit, everything seemed to fall exactly into place. However, a number of problems did arise, due to the lack of information in the excavator's report and to the reconstruction by the excavators (Lloyd & Safar, 1947).

The long tradition of b. Eridu: temple building in Eridu is clearly evident, and it will be shown that the 72cm cubit was used from Temple XI onwards. Temple VI: The only building dimensions given in the fmal report for Temple VI (Fig.2-56) are those for the cella (14.40m x 3.70m), and a mud-brick podium measuring 160cm x 90cm x 65cm high (Safar, et al., 1981 :107). These dimensions will be converted to 'Ubaid cubits' (with metric equivalents in brackets), to facilitate a reconstruction of the plan layout (Fig.5-29). Thinking and analyzing in Ubaid cubits (i.e. 72cm units) is much easier and more informative than attempting to analyze the plan in metric (once the concept of the Ubaid cubit is accepted), mainly because by focusing on the design in Ubaid cubits, one is usually working in simple integers and simple fractions like one-third of a cubit, two-thirds of a cubit, etc.

In the excavator's drawing, the smaller chambers flanking the sanctuary, were drawn to a depth of two cubits (internally), i.e. 144cm. The Eridu VI Temple can be laid out using a number of 'constructional' triangles for setting right angles on the field by using a rope of 30 units of length (if 'Ubaid cubits' are used that would mean a rope 30 x 72cm = 21.60m), knotted at intervals of 5, 12, and 13 units (similar to the 3:4:5 method). One method of laying out Temple VI is as follows:

It is fascinating that the cella's length, which is given as 14.40m comes to exactly 20 cubits (i.e. 14.40 divided by 0.72m = 20 uc). The width of the cella is given at 3.70m, which if reduced by 1Ocm or 2. 7%, gives us exactly 5 uc (Ubaid Cubits). Considering how difficult it is to get an accurate measurement from a mud-brick structure, this is quite remarkable, and it is difficult to interpret as a mere The cella is almost exactly four times coincidence. (1 :3.8919) as long as it is wide, or in other words, it consists of four squares or 'modules' of five cubits (3.6m) each (Fig.5-31). If the grid is taken from the centre lines ofthe cella along the length of the temple, we fmd that the length of the temple consists of6 1/2 modules (Fig.5-30).

If we draw two 5:12:13 right angled triangles from I. the north-eastern face of the Temple, so that the 90 degree angles lie on the central axes, and their catheti (short sides), the base = 5 units of 72cm (i.e. 5 uc) and the vertical = 12 units of 72cm (12 uc), then the hypotenuse will be 13 units (13 uc) and will bisect the Temple in the middle (Fig.532a). This is repeated on the opposite side to lay out the 2. other half of the Temple. Another method using the 5:12:13 triangle to lay out a building can be seen in Fig.5-32b.

Judging from the excavator's illustration of the heavily plastered mud-brick podium, it seems that the dimensions given (160 x 90 x 65cm) do not reflect the original dimensions of the podium because of the heavy coat of plaster (for which no dimension is given), and the 'weathering' of the podium. Nevertheless, if the 'heavily coated plaster' was 8cm thick on the short sides, and 9cm thick on its long sides, the original measurements would have been 2 uc x 1 uc (144cm x 72cm).

It is interesting to note that the 5:12:13 triangle appears to have been used to locate the door jambs for the openings (Fig.5-16) , as was the case in the Madhhur house (in the latter, a 45 degree angle was used). In the Temple VI plan, the hypotenuse where it intersects the vertical of the triangle, seems to locate one end of the door opening. If it can be shown that this is a deliberate design decision, it will allow us to determine the likely position of doors and openings where they have been denuded in excavations.

As mentioned earlier, no other measurements are given for the main building; In Temple VIII, we are told that the walls averaged 70cm, i.e. approx. 1uc. (Safar, et al., 1981: 100) although no brick sizes are given, while in Temple VII, no building measurements are given, but we are told that the walls are of the same thickness and the bricks measured 28 x 23 x 6cm to 27 x 21 x 6cm (Ibid.: 103 ). For the purpose of our reconstruction, we have assumed that the wall thickness and brick sizes of Temple VI have remained about the same. If we assume the bricks

The Eridu Temple VI can be divided into three rows, the cella being 5 cubits and the flanking rooms 4.5 cubits each. The 5:12:13 triangle can also be used utilizing a large module, e.g. using one and a half cubit, i.e. 72 + 36 = 108cm. Thus, since the width of the temple is 15uc, then a 5:12:13 triangle with its base measuring 5 units of l.Suc (i.e. 7.5uc) and its vertical member (which is located on the centre line) measuring 12 x 1.5 = 18uc, then its hypotenuse will measure 13 x 1.5 = 19.5uc. Since the Temple is 33uc 72

long, the hypotenuse will meet the vertical catheti in the centre of the Temple (not the centre of the cella).

face of the north-east wall of the temple, i.e. to a ratio of 1:3 (Fig.5-48). The width of the 'proscenium' was determined by analogy with those of Temples VII and VI. The flanking large side chamber and staircase are each 4uc wide from the centre line of the internal wall to the outside of the exterior wall.

Temple VII: This is the best preserved of the Eridu temples and only its north-west corner chamber was unrecoverable. Two possibilities are shown for its reconstruction (Fig.5-33).

The lattice grid (Fig.5-48) shows the relationship of the various areas and points to each other, and how well conceived the plan was. If the reconstruction and analysis are correct, then the temple can be laid out using the 3:4:5 (Fig.5-49, 5-50) and 5:12:13 triangles (Fig.5-51). We also see how the 'golden triangle' delineates the north and eastern corners of the temple (Fig.5-52).

Because of its exceptional preservation in comparison to the other Eridu levels, it was decided to put greater emphasis on the analysis of this temple to try and determine the existence of an Ubaid Cubit. During this exercise, it was found that a diagonal lattice of lines dissect the corners of the two end It is also possible to chambers and staircase (Fig.5-34). reconstruct the denuded chamber so that it would be dissected by the diagonal as well.

Temple XI: This is the oldest of this temple sequence and is somewhat problematic in that the excavations indicate a chamber off the long 'corridor' on the south-west face. A similar feature was found in Temple VIII where a small chamber (room 2) lies off the antechamber (room 3). In Temple XI, however, the small chamber appears to have functioned as an entrance or antechamber (for the priests?) It also appears that the main to the cella (Fig.5-53). entrance to the temple is either from the north-west (long facade) or from the north-east, since there were no openings in the south-east side. This is not the case with temples IX, VIII and VII which have more than one entrance from this side.

The cella was found to consist of two squares, measuring 7uc each (c. 5.04m), and the relationship of the cella's width to its length to the length of the temple (internally through the cella), is 1:2:3 (7:14:21). Furthermore, if a line is drawn along the centre of the cella walls, connecting both ends of the temple, the resultant rectangle would consist of three squares of 8 cubits (5.76m) each (Fig.5-35). The temple can be laid out using the 5:12:13 triangle {Fig.536) or the 3:4:5 triangle (Fig.5-37). A 1:2 triangle with its apex on the centre point locates the two south-eastern and south-western corners (Fig.5-38) .

From the reconstructed plan (Fig.5-54), we see that a diagonal lattice locates the corner of the protruding chamber as well as the 'corridor', staircase, and the large south-east chamber. It also divides the Temple (excluding the antechamber to the 'corridor') into three equal square modules (Fig.5-54). The excavators state that the cella measured 4.50 x at least 12.60m. In fact the author's reconstruction shows that the length of the cella was probably 12.96m or 18uc. The width appeared to be 6.25uc (4.50m) at the wide section (from the 'corridor' wall to the beginning of the proposed staircase) and only 6uc (4.32m) in the north-east section. Thus, if the narrow cella width of 6uc is taken, we can divide the cella into three equal squares (Fig.5-55).

Temple VIII: Trying to make allowance for laying out and construction errors and design decisions is sometimes difficult. Thus for example, the chamber containing the altar is 2.5 cubits wide at the north-west end and only 2 cubits at the south-east - a difference of 1/2 cubit (36cm). One has to decide here, if either one is correct or if not, what the intended measurements were. In the author's reconstruction {Fig.5-39), a width of2.5 cubits (1.80m) was determined to be the most satisfactory. The cella is designed to a ratio of 2:1 (Fig.5-40). The temple is also an excellent example of how a diagonal lattice can pinpoint the location of the corner chambers (Fig.5-41). The lattice is drawn from the centre points on the sanctuary walls.

The design of Temple XI also lends itself to geometric analysis as can be seen from Fig.5-56 (3:4:5 triangle) and Fig.5-57 (1 :2 right triangle).

In our triangular analysis, we find that if two 3:4:5 triangles were drawn from the end walls, their base angle would bisect the temple at point Y (Fig.5-42). The 3:4:5 triangle can therefore be used for laying out the temple. The 5: 12: 13 triangle can also be used in laying out the temple (Fig.5-43). Other geometric relationships appear to exist in the design of this temple such as the 'Golden Triangle', the 1:1 right angle triangle and 8:5 I 4:5 isoceles and right angle triangles respectively (Figs.5-44 to 5-46).

c. Songor B: The 'Temple' of Songor B is unique in its conceptual layout, but its less than careful implementation blurs the clarity and strength of its original concept (Fig.2-136). Moreover, the excavator does not appear to have been able to recover the whole building as attested to by the existing foundations.

Temple IX: The overall measurements as shown in the author's reconstruction are 21 uc (Ubaid Cubits) x 14uc (15.12 x 10.08m), i.e. a ratio of3:2 (Fig.5-47). The internal measurements of the cella are c.lOm x 4.10m and it measures 6uc x 14uc (4.32 x 10.08m) to the centre line of the cella walls and 6 x 18uc (4.32 x 12.96m) from the centre line of the south-west wall of the sanctuary to the outside

The architectural remains measure roughly 15m x 13m (c. 2luc x 18uc), and consist basically of a cruciform core measuring 6.5m x 6.5m (about 9uc x 9uc), and surrounded on three sides by five square chambers measuring 2.90m x 2.90m (c.4uc x 4uc). The north and west chambers have deep and narrow alcoves on two of their sides, thus creating the stepped facade. 73

working drawings, and if one measures rooms or buildings whether in Europe or the Middle East, one may be surprised at the anomalies that are found to exist.

Because of the poor workmanship, a schematic plan was prepared for analysis. In preparing this plan, the tauf walls were drawn to a thickness of one cubit (72cm), instead of 80cm as stated by the excavator. The reason for this: a. Tauf walls taper towards the top and a measurement taken from a low stub, does not reflect the true width of the wall. b. The excavator's measurement includes plaster. c. The published plans show that the wall thickness was not uniform, and in places scaled 70cm or less.

It was decided to analyse only one of the two Ubaid buildings at Uruk (Temple 11). This is because the two plans published by the excavator are very similar and also because a reconstruction by the author (Fig.2-148) corroborates the view put forward by Forest, that Temple I may consist of the foundations of Temple 11.

In analysing the Uruk 11 Temple (Fig.S-60), it must be emphasised that only the north corner of the temple was excavated; the rest of the building is based on the author's reconstruction. Even so, several startling discoveries were made. These include:

An analysis of the plan, shows that the 30 and 60 degree triangles bisect most of the building's important points (Fig.5-58). This may be coincidental and dictated by the relationships of the squares to each other, rather than any deliberate design decision by the architect. It should be noted that the 30/60 triangles do not appear to have been used in other Ubaid Buildings. We also fmd that a lattice of diagonals locate most of the internal and external corners within the building (Fig.5-59).

The width of the temple measures approximately I. I4.5m x ISm (Schmidt, I974:I75). If we convert these measurements to Ubaid Cubits, we fmd that if the Temple's measured I4.4m (IOcm less than Schmidt's width estimate), it would equal exactly 20uc. From the author's reconstruction, we see that the Temple's length of ISm, comes to exactly 25uc (measurement taken of end walls AB and CD). At Tepe Yahya (Fig.A-14) which belongs to a slightly later period (Uruk), the use of a cubit, measuring 72cm was also found to be used (Beale & Carter, I9S3 :S4).

An attempt to analyse the Ubaid d. Uruk: Temples at Uruk presents both opportunities and problems. The opportunities lie in the hope of unravelling and understanding the level of mathematics and geometry that existed during the Ubaid Period. It is possible that during the Ubaid, this knowledge was not common, but the monopoly of a selected few, such as the temple priests, who may have jealously guarded it and kept its teachings within the temple. We know for example that during the time of Pythagoras (ea. 5S0-500 B.C.), a special 'Brotherhood' existed and an oath was taken by members of this fraternity, binding themselves not to betray their mathematical secrets (Ghyka, I946:II5).

The external length of the temple taken through the cella (from the centre), is approximately 1S.50m (Schmidt, 1974:175), which if divided by 72cm gives us 25.69 cubits. However, if the temples measured 1S.4Sm from the centre, then we fmd that its length equals to 25cubits and two thirds of a cubit (i.e. one extra brick, 48cm long). If one looks at the design, it immediately becomes apparent that two recesses or projections of 24cm each, gives us the required extra length.

If this is the case, then what better place to seek the truth than in one of the largest and oldest centres of Mesopotamian worship, namely Uruk? Since, some of the earliest documents were discovered here, Uruk might offer the best opportunity to study the most advanced architectural and religious concepts of the time, and to provide conclusive answers one way or the other, regarding whether a 'module' or cubit was used in measurements, and whether grids, triangles, etc. were used in the planning and laying out of the temples.

Furthermore, if we study the buttresses, niches and openings, we fmd that such a module fits in neatly into the overall design. Any discrepancies that exist are probably due to either xerographic processes or building implementation. From the above, it seems apparent that a standard unit or module of 72cm was probably used in the design of this temple. However, the possibility of coincidence must exist, particularly since the area of the building which was actually revealed in excavation is small.

The basic difficulties that arise are: 1. So little of the Ubaid Temples were excavated (Fig.2-144, 2-145), and while one can offer a credible guess at the complete reconstruction on the basis of analogy with later temples, the result is nevertheless, inconclusive, to say the least. This is clearly demonstrated by the fact that three different reconstructions are illustrated (one each by the excavator, J.D. Forest, and the author). 2. Without the existence of texts, the proof that one seeks must be lacking. Even though the evidence may be very substantial that triangles and modules were used, this cannot be corroborated by texts, and so the possibility of coincidence must always exist. 3. In ancient buildings, one must always take into account, what was designed, and what was built. That what was initially designed does not always represent the fmal product, needs little comment, for even today few buildings are constructed accurately to

Again if we look at Fig.5-61, we notice that the temple could have been laid out using, the 3,4,5 triangle, sometimes known as the ropestretcher's triangle, and the 5:12:13 triangle (Fig.5-62, 5-63). The use of the 3,4,5 triangle is so dominant, that a. most of the temple dimensions seem to have been What is so startling, is that the determined by its use. whole structure breaks down so precisely into 3,4,5 triangles (Fig.S-61), and one can easily understand how the temple could have been laid out to get accurate ninety degree angles and corners. 74

would become almost exactly 7:2 or three squares and a half. Indeed, one would not expect the builders to build with such exactitude.

b. The 5,12,13 triangle may also have been used, and again, if we look at Fig.5-62 and Fig.5-63, we see that the temple consists of four of these triangles, each pair fonning a 'scissor' through the centre ofthe building.

When a building is built with such thought and diligence, and all other things being equal, one is inclined to attribute a religious function to it; in any case a religious function cannot be ruled out. However, a grid system does not appear to have been used, although the excavator infonns us that it can be inscribed within an oval (Forest, 1983c:85). The irregular fonn of the building, makes it difficult to detennine from its plan, whether a standard module was used, although the dimensions of the central hall and the rhythmic manner in which the external walls go in and out certainly suggest that one was used (Fig.5-65) .

The Uruk Temple reconstruction shows that it was designed to a ratio of 5:4, and that an 8:5 isoceles triangle can be inscribed within it (where the height is to the base as 5 to 8). It is the only triangle that approximates the golden section when used in harmonic design (Fig.5-64). e. Kheit Qasim: A careful analysis of the tricrucifonn building at Kheit Qasim (Fig.2-97) from an unpublished plan kindly provided by the excavator, shows that the plans of rooms 4, 8, 9, 12, 14, 15 were in the ratio of 3:4. The advantage of this ratio is obvious, in that it allows the builder to achieve accurate ninety degree angles using the 3:4:5 triangle. This may be one of the reasons that the Kheit Qasim Ill building appears to have been laid out so accurately (Fig.5-66). Rooms 13 & 2 were approximately in the ratio of 2:3; rooms 3 & 7 in a ratio of 2:1 (i.e. two squares); room 17 in the ratio of 5:3; room 10 in the ratio of 7:3, room 16 in the ratio of 6.5:3 and the central hall in the ratio of7:2.

f. Madbbur Level ll: The Madhhur house was largely chosen, a. because of its exceptional state of preservation, and b. because its cruciform plan layout is typical of the Ubaid period.

At first, the Madhhur house layout proved quite perplexing, because although one sensed the existence of a design concept and method, this was difficult to pin-point and articulate. Moreover, if a standard unit of measurement was in use at the time in religious buildings, it might also be apparent in secular architecture as well. This proved to be the case, when it suddenly became clear that the Madhhur house design was based initially on a square, c. 13 x 13m or 18uc x 18uc (ie.12.96 x 12.96m). This dimension also represents the total length of the central hall or court (measured externally), which runs the whole length of the building between the two rows of rooms (Fig.5-67).

None of the 'smaller' rooms appear to have been built to complicated ratios, although it is difficult to detennine precise ratios because accurate dimensions are lacking for all the rooms. But even if the building was measured with great care, the vicissitudes of time would have taken its toll on the thickness of the low stub walls. Moreover, it is apparent that this building was designed by a creative builder or 'architect', but whether it was designed and built by the same person or to the exact measurements originally intended, is a different matter.

From the basic fonn, we see that: 1. Rooms 14 & 16 projected one wall thickness (2/3 Ubaid cubit including plaster). 2. Rooms 6 & 3 projected one wall thickness. 3. Rooms 9 & 2 projected one wall thickness. 4. Room 10 projected one wall thickness and room 13 which should have mirrored room 17 was taken in one wall thickness.

The segments and openings of the flanking halls are also well related to each other, one of the halls (room 10) was in the ratio of 7:3 or two squares and one third of a square, while the other (room 16) was in the ratio of roughly 6.5:3. The 'stair enclosure' on the other hand. is built to a ratio of 1:2 (i.e. two squares).

Another interesting phenomenon, is that most of the doors appear to be related to each other (Fig.5-15), so that we fmd a lattice of lines (drawn diagonally at 45 degrees) connecting many of the openings of the building.

The central hall measures according to the excavators 1Om x 2.80m (Forest, 1983a:4). Here again we come up with the problem of how accurate the measurements are. For example the depth of the building is given as 10.50m (Forest, 1983c:85) which is unlikely ifthe internal length of the central hall is 1Om, unless of course, the front and rear walls are only 25cm thick each. Furthennore, brick sizes are given as 55 x 27 x 6cm in one instance (Forest, 1983c:85), and 50 x 27 x 6cm in another (Forest, 1983a:10). These discrepancies hinder our ability to assess the capability of the Kheit Qasim builders in terms of accuracy and proficiency.

No rigorous fonnula seems to have been adopted in its planning except perhaps the protrusion or recess of rooms by one wall thickness (or 2/3 Ubaid cubit), whenever they meet a wall at a 90 degree angle. The Madhhur house was conceived as three parallel units - a central hall with a row of flanking rooms on either side of it. For some reason, the row on the left of the central hall (room 7), had a width of 6uc or 4.32m (measured externally, from wall to wall), whereas the central hall and the row of rooms on the right, measured 6uc, to the centre of the central hall wall. Whether this was deliberate, an execution error, or just a lack of concern for accuracy is not known.

If we examine the central hall layout, we notice that it is built to a ratio of approximately 7:2 or three squares and a half. However, if the hall measured say, 2.85 x 10m (i.e. only 5cm wider), or 2.80 x 9.80 (i.e. 20cm shorter, which then makes the 10.50m depth meaningful), then the ratio

It can be seen from Fig.5-68 that like many Ubaid buildings, the Madhhur house can also be laid out using the 3,4,5 triangle or the 5, 12,13 triangle (Fig.5-69), even if the 75

also from this side that the entrance to the building is usually located.

building's outline was determined by the adjacent houses. Moreover, since the building was basically conceived as a square, we fmd that the I :2 triangle can also be inscribed in it (Fig.5-70). It should also be noted, that the revised 'corrected plan, matches the excavators' drawing very closely for each room.

Examples of the 'Lateral' plan, can be seen in the temples of Eridu XI-VI and Tepe Gawra North Temple (Fig.5-78). Examples of the 'Vertical' type can be seen in Fig.5-79. Most 'Lateral' tripartite buildings appear to be temples, while the 'Vertical' tripartite is found in both secular and religious structures.

g. Abada Level 11: Two of the Level II buildings are investigated, these are Building A and Building B - both of which appear to be secular in character.

Tripartite buildings can further be subdivided into: Building A: The building appears to have been originally conceived as a tri-cruciform layout, like several others of Tell Abada. Massive charred beams and reed impressions were attested to in the large central hall (room 1), implying that it was roofed. However, there seems to be a significant discrepancy between the excavator's stated measurements for the length of the central hall which were 10.2m x 3.0m (running the whole depth of the building) and that of the building as a whole which were 20m x 12.5m (Jasim, 1985:19). If the hall was 10.2m long (as the excavator states) and the wall plus buttresses say, 60cm each, the overall depth would be 11.40m, still l.lOm short of the 12.5m given by the excavator (Ibid.). However, if the hall measured 11.20m, then the overall depth would be 12.40m, which is just about right.

A. Simple Tripartite Buildings (Fig.5-80) and B. Complex Tripartite Buildings (Fig.5-81). In the Simple tripartite plan, the central room is flanked by only one row of rooms on either side. The Complex tripartite plan is similar to the Simple tripartite, except that it is flanked by more than one row or group of rooms on each side. Therefore, the rooms flanking the central hall, would consist of two or more rooms 'deep' on either side. 2. Cruciform Plan: There is considerable evidence to the popularity of this type of building, which is similar to the Tripartite type in that it has a dominant central chamber flanked by rooms on either side. However, because of its defmitive cruciform form, it was decided to place it in a separate category. Examples can be seen at Tell Madhhur, Qalinj Agha, Tepe Gawra XV, Tell Abada and Kheit Qasim Ill.

The building can be easily broken down into several 3:4:5 and 5:12:13 triangles which may have been used when laying out the building (Figs.5-72, 5-73, 5-74).

The Simple Cruciform type consists of a long central hall, with 'transepts' at one end forming a 'cross' or the letter 'T. The central hall is flanked by smaller rooms on either side. Some of the central halls may not have been roofed (Fig.582).

Building B: This tri-cruciform Building was easier to 'straighten out' then Building A, partially because it was less complex. The building can also be laid out using the 3 :4:5 and 5: 12: 13 triangles. It is interesting to note that the central hall measures 4uc x 14uc (2.88 x 10.08m) which is the same as the central hall of the Kheit Qasim Ill building.

5.4

With a Multi-Cruciform Plan, we have a building with a cruciform-shaped central hall flanked by one or more smaller cruciform-shaped rooms on either side (Fig.5-83). Except for Kheit Qasim Ill, Tell Abada is the only site known to have contained this building type, having at least four such buildings in Level 11. The tri-cruciform buildings of Tell Abada are: Building B, E and F of Level 11. Building A of Level Il, which is essentially a bi-cruciform plan, may have also been conceived initially as a tricruciform building.

Classification According to Plan Morphology

In classifying buildings according to plan shape, the 'Form Approach' will be used (as opposed to the conceptual). Some buildings are inherently difficult to classify either because they are 'border line' cases, or because they contain design elements allowing them to fit into more than one classification (e.g. a tripartite building layout where the central hall is not roofed).

It is perplexing why Tell Abada and Kheit Qasim should be the only sites to have this type of layout. Also, one wonders whether these structures could have functioned as 'duplexes' with the central hall being an open communal area serving both sides or 'units' of the building. This 'duplex concept' of a central hall with two similar complexes on either side (which may have facilitated segregation of the sexes), may also be seen in the tripartite building ofTepe Gawra Level XIV, and in the much earlier building of Tell es-Sawwan Level Il.

1. Tripartite Plan: Although there are several ways to classify Tripartite plans, two seem more descriptive and defmitive than the others. These are: I . 'Lateral' or 'Longitudinal' tripartite structures, and 2. 'Vertical' tripartite buildings. A tripartite building consists of three basic units, in which a central hall or chamber is the dominant unit, mainly on account of being larger than the rooms on either side. Thus, in the 'Lateral' or 'Longitudinaf plan type, the building as well as the central room are conceived 'horizontally', and the entrance is usually from the long side. In the 'Vertical' plan, the central hall is designed so that its long side is perpendicular to the main street or lane. It is

3. 'Additive' Plan (Fig.5-84) : This type of plan as the name suggests is formed by the addition of rooms to one another with no apparent design philosophy involved. Often it lacks cohesion or formality and the layout is usually 76

irregular, its shape being detennined either by practical needs for additional space or the alteration of an existing space. It is frequently the end result of adding or subtracting units from an existing building. This type is found in all cultural periods, and is more characteristic of secular architecture.

The building consists of three rows of small chambers, the middle row seems to have functioned as a corridor off which the flanking rooms opened. The walls between rooms 89/88 and 87/88 were what appear to be niches. They look like infill panels. Room 85 also has a pair of niches. The function of the structure is not obvious, although it may have been used for storage. It also reminds us of the level 3 structure at Choga Mami.

Typical examples can be seen at Tell Abada, Buildings G Level 11 and Building B Level Ill. Although parts of Building G had been destroyed, nevertheless, one can see the addition of walls in room 83 and 84, with no coherent shape. As far as Building B of Level Ill is concerned, it appears to be related to Building A which adjoins it (Jasim, 1985:17) and related to the manufacture of pottery. As most of the rooms appear to be quite small, it may have been used for storage.

Oueili: The 'pigeon hole' compartments at Oueili, were probably foundations to raise the building above ground level and to prevent the rise of dampness inside the building (Forest, personal communication). Huot on the other hand, voiced a different opinion regardiJig the function of these compartments. He says, "On these 'pigeon holes' a floor of plaited reeds was placed, whose imprint is still to be seen in places. These can be recognized as the lower sections of raised granaries to protect the harvest from moisture." (Huot, 1988:7). A similar structure was attested to at Songor B, which were foundations for the 'Temple' (Fujii, 1981).

Another example are some of the secular complexes at Yarim Tepe Ill (Fig.5-84), such as complex No.5, which started with only two rooms - Nos. 56 & 60. This was followed by three further rooms, Nos.57, 63, & 64 and fmally rooms 54, 54 and 62 (Bader, et al., 1981 :57). It should be noted that this 'type' may also occur through modification of a more complex type or through the excavators not being able to unravel the stratigraphic complexities of a site.

6. Courtyard Plan: It is often difficult to detennine whether a building with a large central hall (particularly when its width is 3m- 5m) was roofed or whether it was an open court. The courtyard plan becomes particularly popular from the Sumerian times onwards. It is possible that the main central hall in the tri-crucifonn and crucifonn buildings was sometimes open and used as a court.

4. Circular Plan: We fmd several instances of circular buildings being found in an Ubaid context, such as at: 1. Tepe Gawra Level XVII, where a 'northern and southern' tholos were uncovered which had diameters of about 4.25 and 4.50m respectively. In this case the excavator assigns a religious function to them because of their location (Tobler, 1950:42). 2. The excavators of Khanijdal East in northern Iraq, which is a Late Ubaid site, also uncovered a round structure, having a diameter of about 4.5m and made of tauf (Wilkinson, 1988:2). 3. At Yarim Tepe III, a round structure, 3m in diameter, with 26cm thick walls, was also found in an Ubaid context. Its floor was covered with ash and charcoal accumulations and "was situated on the main level of the second horizon." (Bader, et al., 1981 :58). No particular function has been designated to it.

At Tepe Gawra, Level XIX, we have a large secular building which has what appears to be a courtyard plan (Fig.2-71 ). Also, it is not certain whether the 'White Room' building of Level XII is roofed or not because of its wide span Gust over 5m). Likewise, the Eridu Level XI - IX Temples probably consisted of an open courtyard flanked by rooms on two sides, since the sanctuary's wide span, coupled with its flimsy wall construction, both suggest that the cella was not roofed. During the Uruk period, we fmd evidence of courtyard plarming in Jebel Aruda and Habuba Kabira.

7. Simple unit: A simple unit structure is one which consists of one or two adjoining rooms (usually small), used mainly as a dwelling or for storage. Typical examples can be found at Tepe Gawra (Fig.l-87), and Yarim Tepe III (Fig.l-150). Since ancient man seems to have preferred the outdoors, it is likely that the house was used more for working than for sleeping. This suggests that most of the early houses may have been of the simple type.

It is possible that these circular buildings were Halafian inspired, although they may have been built solely on a functional basis - for storage, ritual, etc. Even today, we find circular mud structures in many parts of the world.

5. 'Grid' Plan (Fig.2-88a) : As the name implies, this category consists of rows of rooms in a grid like fashion. Prior to the Ubaid, such structures were found at Yarim Tepe, Umm Dabaghiya, and Choga Mami.

8.

Mise. type: This category consists of structures which do not readily fit into any of the above. Examples include parallel sleeper wall structures, Tell Songor B, Tell Uqair, Tell Mismar, and Tepe Gawra: Levels XV- nns 48-52; Level XV-A - nns 3-10.

Tepe Gawra, Level XII: The Gawra XII Building consists of rooms 84-92 and is typical of this category (Tobler: 1950:28). It is the only such building uncovered at Tepe Gawra. The main entrance seems to be from either room 84 or 90A.

77

CONCLUSION

the different kinds of raw materials imported or otherwise. This encouraged the creation of 'mercantile' colonies in Anatolia, Syria, Western Iran and the Arabian Gulf during these periods.

Until the Hamrin excavations, very little had been found in the way of buildings of the Ubaid Period, apart from the architecture of Tepe Gawra and Eridu. Even when architectural remains are uncovered, no more than the foundations are usually preserved; one cannot expect to recover upstanding architectural features, unless the excavator is very fortunate such as at Tell Madhhur in the Harnrin Basin, where some of the walls were standing over 2rn high (Roaf, 1982:41). But when such architectural features are seen to be in use in periods not very much later, and are obviously derived from constructions which we know to have been employed by the al Ubaid people, it is fairly logical to credit them with the invention.

In the previous chapters, I have attempted to analyse the abundant evidence available for the use of a 72crn 'Ubaid Cubit '. As we have seen, many large spaces (e.g. central halls, cellas, etc.) as well as the overall building dimensions of buildings- particularly temples (such as Eridu IX-VI and Uruk Temple Il) can be rationalised as precise multiples of this 72crn cubit. Moreover, for the first time, we have indications of the existence of a specific method of design, or a 'design code' during the Ubaid Period. It is also interesting to note that the Ubaid cubit of 72crn closely resembles in value the much later Caliph Orner cubit of 72.8crn (Kubba, A.S.J., 1990).

As witnessed in the preceding chapters, the Ubaid builders showed remarkable vitality and inventiveness. They rapidly turned the materials provided by nature to such account that before the advent of the Uruk Period, they or their predecessors had evolved all the basic forms of architecture: the column, the arch, the vault and the dome. Moreover, they used these basic forms with magnificent effect in the construction of their temples and secular edifices.

The basic code as suggested by Ubaid buildings, indicates that buildings were designed and laid out from the outside in, from the faces of external walls to the centre lines of interior walls. This is particularly shown to be true in temple design as witnessed by the Eridu temples. This partly explains why there appears to be inconsistencies in the interior dimensions and proportions of some of the rooms, while at the same time the structure as a whole gives the impression of great uniformity and symmetry. By understanding this system, we are in a better position to attempt reconstructions of these buildings.

The Ubaid people taught these newly acquired skills in employing the structural elements to their successors, who made full use of them throughout history and spread the knowledge of their use far afield; we see them in their later and more sophisticated forms, but their origins must be sought in the mud and reeds of the Mesopotamian alluvium. Ubaid culture attested to the first great epoch of monumental architecture in Mesopotamia. It can also be said that from the Ubaid period onwards, southern Mesopotamia took the lead culturally for many centuries (Goff, 1963:58).

The advantage of such a system where used, is its simplicity, allowing a monumental building to be laid out with a minimal number of measurements. The architect had only to layout the base lines for the walls. He could then proceed with a simple set of instructions to the builder, on how many brick courses to lay on either side of each base line, and to the carpenter, on how long to cut the beams required for roofmg. In fact, it was possible with such a system, for those who laid the bricks and cut the beams to do so without necessarily knowing or taking any part in the overall design of the building. This hint at crafts specialisation is evidenced as early as Tell es-Sawwan, where we fmd indication of a true mason, as attested to by the uniformity of the design of the houses. During the Ubaid period, we again fmd this hint at division of responsibilities and labour in the design and construction of large buildings and is perhaps, one of the most intriguing implications of the design code.

The Ubaid culture has been found at many sites throughout north and south Mesopotamia, as well as western Iran, Syria, Anatolia and the Arabian Gulf (see Map- Fig.A-13). These include: Eridu (Safar, et al.,l981), Tepe Gawra (Tobler, 1950), Tell Abada (Jasim, 1985), Kheit Qasim Ill (Forest-Foucault,l980), Tell Songor B (Fu.iji, 1981), Tell Madhhur (Roaf, 1982), Tell Abu Husaini (Invernizzi, 1981), Tell Oueili (Huot, 1978; Forest, l983), Tell Rashid (Jasim, 1985), Tell Mismar (Schrnidt, 1978), Yarirn Tepe Ill (Bader et al., 1981), Qalinj Agha near Erbil (Hijara, 1973) and Tell Ayash (Al-Jadir, 1979) to name but a few.

The widespread appearance in this period of an exact measuring system marks a profoundly important turning point in the history of architecture. The creation and use of a design code indicates a whole new thought process in which a building was conceived in totality, rather than as segments fitted together. For the first time, a building can be said, in a very real sense of the word, to be 'designed', and we can speak of 'architecture' rather than ' buildings '.

The archaic 'Ubaid' temples of Uruk were very similar in plan to those of the Ubaid period at Eridu. The elaborately buttressed walls, the long 'cella' surrounded by small rooms, the doors on the long side, all testify to the persistence of architectural traditions as well probably as of belief and cult.

From our analysis of Ubaid religious and secular buildings, we have also suggested that these ancient architects and builders were familiar with geometric principles and often used them in the laying out and construction of their

The magnificence of the architecture of the Ubaid and Uruk periods tends to dwarf the other forms of art, but such complex organization was unable to exist without access to 78

important buildings. I have illustrated the use of the 3:4:5 and 5:12:13 triangles for laying out buildings, with several examples of both ecclesiastical and secular types. It is also intriguing that mathematics appears to have preceded the advent of writing, and may have even been a catalyst in its arrival.

Moreover, the cubit designation (Arabic, dhira ') used by historians presents us with a number of peculiar problems in our attempts to reconstruct ancient buildings. For while we can deduce the relative relationships between the structural elements, we often cannot ascertain the dimensions in terms of our present-day measuring system, ie. in meters or feet. For example, we know that much later, in pre-Islamic times a 75cm and 49.5 cm cubit were used and in the Islamic era, many other types of cubits were also used including, the black cubit (53cm), Caliph Omer cubit (72.8 cm), the Abbasid cubit (48.25cm), 'architect 's' cubit (65.6cm), the cloth cubit (63cm) and the Roman cubit of 44.4cm and foot of 37cm (Kubba, A.S.J., 1990). One example should suffice to clarify the difficulties encountered in quantifying ancient measurements given by historians in today's context: The Mecca historian, Azraqi puts the plan dimensions of the Ka'ba at 32 cubits x 22 x 31 x 20 cubits, whereas Yaqut, another well known historian, puts it at 24 cubits and a span x 23 cubits and a span; yet still another historian, 'Abd Rabbih puts its length at 25 cubits and its width at 20 and 21 cubits respectively (Kubba, 1990). It is evident from this that the cubit quoted by these historians do not share the same value.

Because Mesopotamia was a 'clay' civilization, it was more imperative to have some precise method of measurement, e.g. to mass produce the mud bricks for the various houses and temples, structural elements, etc. This was also. important in decoration (especially temple decoration and ornamentation). It is not surprising therefore that Mesopotamia was the forerunner in the invention and utilisation of such systems. The other point worth considering is that there were likely to have been other similar systems or 'units of measurements ' being used simultaneously and whose value varied depending on the prevailing political and/or economic forces at the time as well as the locality, building tradition, utility, etc. Thus for example, the Persians are known to have utilised a c.52.2 cubit in their construction (Roaf, 1978:68). Forest in his analysis ofUbaid structures, puts the case for the possibility of an alternative module of 1.75m being used (Forest, 1991). While this may be true for certain structures, and basically reaffirms what is said above, it does not corroborate the general results reached from the buildings analysed by the author. Forest further puts forward the suggestion that the chosen measure may be linked to the sun/moon cycle (Forest, 1991) which is an intriguing hypothesis and certainly requires further investigation. Studies by these and other scholars also suggest that similar systems were in use during the Uruk period (Beale & Carter, 1983; Frank, 1975).

It is hoped that this research will stimulate further investigation to see, amongst other things, if these systems developed out of the Ubaid system or whether they evolved independently. Moreover, this research clearly identifies an urgent need for more accurate and detailed measurements and information from excavations, so that a more comprehensive and meaningful synthesis can be attempted to corroborate (or otherwise) the fmdings of such research.

79

APPENDIX ONE SIZES

BRICK SITE

BUILDING !Level

TellAbada

Level Ill A,B,C Level 11 A,B,C, D,E,F,G,H,I,J

LENGm (cm)

WIDTH (cm) 25-27 27

50 50-60

THICK (cm)

REMARKS

7-8 7

Level I A,B,C, D,E,F,H,J Abu Dhahir Abu Husaini

Arpachiyah

Taufwalls Mud- Brick

Phases 1 2-3 TT 1-2

Burnt Brick From Kiln

Tell Ayyash

16 25 30 30 28 43 37.5 39 46 30 20 42 50

16 16 15 22 15 41 21 20.5 42 ? ? ? 24

7 6 each 8) 10) 10) 10 8 9 11 7-8 6 12 7

Tell Brack ChogaMami Degirmentepe Eridu

TepeGawra

One Brick

Mud- Brick Level 18-17 16 15 11 10 7

50 54-32 40 52 47 28 27 23 23 Foundation 43 42 25 23 from Tombs 6 49 44 from Houses 42 40 Levels IX X 41-42 50 46 50 IX 47-52 Also 54 Round House XI-A 50-56 80

25 20 14 27 25 23 21 13 17 13 18 21 20 22 22 25 20 20-21 25 21 23 23-26

6 6-7 8 7 6.5 6 6 6 6 7) 6) 6) 6) 8 8 10 10 11 11 10 11-13

Uruk Period

26-28

10

Uruk Period

Uruk Period Uruk Period

' White Rm.' XII North Temple XIII Central Temple Eastern Shrine

Level XX Hammam et-Turkman Tell Hassan Khanijdal East Kheith Qasim Ill Tri-crucifonn Bid. Telul AI-Khubari Tell Madhur

Tell Mefesh Tell Mismar Tell el-Oueili

Ubaid 4 Ubaid 3 Tell Qalinj Agha Ras al- ' Amiya Tell Rashid Tell al Sa' adiya

47-50 47-48 36

24-26 25-26 18

10-8 6-8 9

36 48 4.3 2.2 4.3 2.2 13

9 24 2.3 2.3 1.2 1.2 9

9 10 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7 5

Ubaid 1 : 2:4

1:2 : 4 Model Bricks Model Bricks Model Bricks Model Bricks

Tauf walls 40 30

30 12

5-6 5-6

55 60 53 53 45 46 51 63

27 30 28-30 14.5-15 45 23 29 31.5

6 12 8-10 8-10 8-10

50-60 50 50 48 45

15 25 25 24 20

7? 9 8 8-9

56 52 54 62

25 28 24 28

7 8 7 8

72

116

8

42 55 76 70-71 64 54 56

23 30 10 29-30 30 22 25

8 ? 6 6 4.5-6 6 11

30 19 27 24 60

16 15 14 12 25

6.5 7.5 7 7 8

Paving 10 9.5

Sheikh Homsy Tell Shelgiya Tell Songor Songor A SongorB SongorC Thalatat 11

Tell Uqair Ur Uruk Yarim Tepe Ill

Samarran 80 thick Tauf walls 72 thick Tauf walls

81

APPENDIX TWO TELL MADHUR -BRICK CALCULATIONS

Total mud-bricks needed = roughly 7060 of each type.

Before building , one must naturally manufacture the bricks and prepare all the materials needed in the dwelling' s construction.

4. Mortar for one brick length of wall, one course high : a. 0.53 X 0.45 X 0.02 = 0.00477 cu.m., amount of mortar between horizontal brick courses. b. 0.09 X 0.53 X 0.02 = 0.000954 cu.m., vertical mortar between whole brick and half brick of same brick course. c. 0.09 X 0.045 X 0.02 = 0.00081 cu.m., vertical mortar between whole bricks of same brick course. Total mortar required = a + b + c = 0.006534 cu.m 0.006534 cu.m. for 45cm mud-brick wall53cm long (one brick length). 58.33 (brick lengths per m. of wall) X 0.006534 = 0.3811282 cu.m. of mortar required for a brick wall measuring 1m X 3.5m X 045cm.

The main ingredients for making mud bricks as discussed in chapter 3, are earth and sand, mixed by hand or feet, to a ratio of about 1 : 1/3 by volume, to which straw is added (about 20 kg per cubic metre). The mix is left to soak and ferment for a couple of days, after which, the labourers carry it in baskets to be moulded. While this is being done, the mould area is strewn with sand and straw so that the bricks do not stick to the earth. Quality Calculations for Materials: The required quantities for earth and/or brick can be calculated either on an area basis or on a volumetric basis. The Madhur house which is one of the best preserved mud-brick structures in ancient Mesopotamia is used to illustrate this. Brick sizes:

Wall Thickness: Mortar Joints: Wall Height: Wall Length: Area Basis:

Whole Bricks: 53 X 28-30 X 8lOcm. Half Bricks: 53 X 14.5 -15 X 8lOcm. about45cm average 2cm 3.5m (assumed height of walls). 114m (see Fig. A-10).

Since total wall length of Madhur house is approximately 114m then total mortar required = 114 X 0.3833275 = 4370 cu.m. of mortar. Water needed for mortar = approx. 150 litres (about 33 gallons) per cu.m. Therefore, 43.70 X 150 = 6555 litres of water needed for mortar (approx. 1442 gals.).

1. Brick face including mortar joint X (9 + 2) = 0.06 sq.m. (where 9cm represents average brick thickness).

= (53 + 2)

Volume of mud-bricks (including mortar) 114 X 3.5 X .45 = 179.55 cu.m. = approximately 180 cu.m.

2. Bricks required = 3.5 sq.m. divided by 0.06 sq.m = approx. 58.33 whole bricks, contained in each metre length of wall having a height of 3 .5m. The same amount of half bricks will be required. Therefore, total number of bricks per lm of wall is approximately 116.6 bricks.

Time needed to manufacture Madhur Bricks and Build House: In Gouma Egypt, Fathy found that a four - man 'team' (two brick makers for moulding and two labourers - one for mixing and the other for transporting the mortar) can manufacture 3,000 small mud-bricks per day measuring 23 X suggest that this is excessively high unless some mechanization was incorporated. For the Madhur house which has very large brick), personal observation suggests that a more likely figure of 200-300 bricks per day can be manufactured by a gang of two brick makers and two labourers using a one-brick form and simple tools.

3. Mud-bricks needed : 58.33 X 114 = 6650 bricks of each type needed to

build Madhur house, not talking into account door and window openings. If openings are about 14 sq.m., then 14 X 16.66 = approx. 233 bricks taken up by openings. 6650 - 233 = 6417 bricks needed. Add 10% for breakage, waste, etc.

If the Madhur house requires c. 7000 whole bricks and the same amount of half bricks (based on previous calculations), then: 7000 whole bricks can be manufactured in say 7000 divided by 300 = 23 1/3 82

days, giving a total of 58 1/3 days or about two months for making all the bricks needed to build the Madhur house.

Total time = 20 1/4 + 53 2/3 = approx. 74 days or 2 Yz months to build upper Madhur house walls using one team. If two or more teams are used, the required time would be correspondingly reduced.

The moulds used to manufacture the Gouma bricks measured 24 X 12 X 8cm. Therefore, the moulds for manufacturing the Madhur bricks would have measured about 55 X 30 X 10 (because clay shrinks considerably).

Plaster: The Madhur house had a layer of mud plaster, which is a traditional treatment for mud-brick walls, covered by thin layer of white gypsum lime plaster (Roaf, 1984 : 122). The mud plaster would probably have been re-inforced with some straw to resist cracking, and permitting the application of thicker coats. Straw also allows the use of a greater percentage of clay (20 25%) in the mud plaster mix.

After drying for about a week in the sun, the bricks would be put on edge in rows, then perhaps a week later, they would be taken away from the bricks making area to thoroughly dry (preferably all summer) before using . When they are dry, they are they are moved to within the building grounds. From this it is apparent that considerable forethought and planning is required before deciding to build.

By analogy with current practice in Iraq, a tow person team (plaster + helper), could give the undercoat (mud plaster) for the whole house interior within 7 - 10 days. After allowing a few days to dry, a thin coat of lime plaster can be added, which would take another week. A week is also needed to plaster the exterior of the house, giving a total of about three week for plastering the whole house.

Time needed to build Madhur house: Let us assume a three-man gang consisting of a mason (banna') assistant mason (musa'id), and a mudmixer/helper (' amil) is used. Normally, (based on personal experience) such a team can lay on average, 300 bricks a day (depending on size and weight), to shoulder height - about 1.5m, and about 150 bricks a day from 1.5m - 4m height.

Foundation Loading: Foundations do not appear to have been used in Madhur house, which is all the more reason should have been thoroughly dried before use. If the wall was 3.5m high and 45cm thick, then a load of about 2800 kg per lineal metre is exerted on the floor, or 28 kg per lineal cm. These calculations are based on a weight of about 1750 kg/cu.m. Actual weights may vary plus or minus 15% (source of weight assumptions given are from a transliterated table by McHenry, 1984 : 138, Table 9.1).

Thus, 1.5 divided by 3.5m = 43% of brick laying can be laid at rate of300 bricks per day. Thus, 114m divided by 0.55m (brick length+ mortar) = 207 bricks per course, i.e. the mason can lay 1 Yz courses per day of the lower section of the wall. As a rule of thumb, not more than three courses of a double-brick wall such as at Tell Madhur should be laid a day to allow the mortar to set. This means that not more than two teams should be used to build the lower part of the structure.

Each whole brick has a volume of about 0.013833 cu.m. and a weight of about 24.2 kg. (0.013833 X 1750) which must have been difficult to handle. Because of the brick's weight, two persons may have been needed to handle each brick. An optimum maximum weight for mud-bricks lies between about 13.5-18 kg (McHenry, 1984 : 66), which is less than the weight of the Madhur brick.

The total wall consisted of 3.5 divided by 0.11 brick thickness + mortar) = approximately 32 courses. 100 43 = 57% of total can be laid at 150 per day (I.a) upper portion of wall). 7060 X 2 = 14120 total bricks required (both sizes)

Roofing: According to Fathy, after building a 3 X 4m room in one and half days, it took two Nubian Masons "exactly one and half days, it took two Nubian Masons " exactly one and half days to roof one room." (Fathy, 1974 : 9). This would suggest that the Madhur house could be roofed in about 24 days (200 divided by 12 =c. 16; 16 X 1 112 = 24).

14120 X 43% = 6072 bricks laid at rate of300 per day= i.e. 20 Y. days (lower portion of wall). 14120 - 6072 = 8048 bricks to be built at rate of 150 per day. Therefore 8048 divided by 150 = 53 113 days needed to build upper portion.

83

APPENDIX THREE Comparison of Central Halls in Tripartite Buildings (including crucifonn, tri-crucifonn, etc.) and their wall thickness (to ascertain possibility of second storey). Buildings are arranged according to the size (i.e. area) of

the central hall. An (*) indicates that measurements are taken off published plans, and therefore likely to be less accurate than stated dimensions.

BUILDING

LENGTH (metre)

WIDTH (metre)

AREA (sq. m.)

WALL THICK

BUTTRESS

Eridu XI Eridu VI Gawra XII (WR) Eridu VII Madhur Eridu VIII Eridu IX Gawra XIII-NT GawraXIV GawraXIP * Abada I I 11, A Abada 11, B K.heith Qasim 3 GawraXV Degirmentepe2 Abada 11, F Oueili GawraXIX Abada 11, E Abada 11, C GawraXVIII Abadal, C* Abada Ill, A* Abadal, D*

12.96? 14.40 11.15 10.08 11.85 9.40 10 10.08 11.55 9 11.15 10.10 10.08 9.60 7.30 9.60 9.35 8.15 7.50 7.40 7.25 7.20 7.20 7.33

4.5 3.70 5 5.04 4 4.70 4.10 3.60 3.25 3.60 2.85 2.85 2.80 2.90 3.70 2.75 2.70 2.70 2.75 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.40 2.65

58.3 58.3 55.75 50.8 47.4 44.2 41 38.9 37.5 32.4 31.8 28.8 28.2 27.8 27 26.4 25.2 22 20.63 17.76. 17.4 17.28 17.28 14

0.30* 0.72* 0.50* 0.72* 0.45 0.70* 0.30* 0.30 0.72* 0.60* 0.45* 0.40 0.30 0.40* 0.60 0.45 0.30* 0.35* 0.40*

Yes Yes No Yes No Yes Yes

1. 2.

See ' Duplex' illustration, Figure 2-86. See illustration A of Figure 2-36.

84

0.40 0.40-0.50 0.40 0.80 Dbl Walls

No No Yes No No Yes

APPENDIX FOUR indicates that dimensions in unreliable (e.g slants or plan is not clear).

Tabulation of room dimensions (in 'Ubaid Cubits') of selected Ubaid buildings and their equivalent room ratios. Metric dimensions are inserted in brackets. An (*) 1.

Rm.No. Length 11 13 14 IS 16 17 19 21 28

s.

ERIDU VI

20 .00 (14.4) 2.66 (1.92) 5.33 (3.75) 3.00 (2.16) 3.33 (2.4) 5.00 (3.6) 5.00 (3.6) 3 .75 (2.7) 5.00 (3.6)

Width 5.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2 .5 1.5 3.0 1.5

Ratio

(3.6) (1.44) (1.44) (1.44) (1.44) (1.8) (1.08) (2.16) (1.08)

Rm. No.

I :4

104

lOS 106 107 108 109 110 111 112

113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126/ 127*

Note: Dimensions scaled off published drawings, in consultations with Mr. Mohammed Ali Mustafa.

2.

ERIDU VII

Rm.No. Length 22 23 24 27 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 38 39

3.50 (2.52) 5.25 (3.78) 2.25 (1.62) 6.50 (4.68) 3 .00 (2.16) 3.00 (2.16) 3 .00 (5.04) 4.66 (3.35) 2 .50 (1.8) 5.00 (3.6) 3.00 (2.16) 7.00 (5.04) 14.00 (10.08)

Ratio

Width 1.75 (1.26) 1.50 (1.08) 2.25 (1.62) 1.00 (0.72) 1.00 (0.72) 3.00 (2.16) 2.00 (1.44) 3.33 (2.4) 2.00 (1 .44) 2.00 (1.44) 2.66 (1.9) 2.75 (2.0) 7.00 (5.04)

Remarks

2:I 7 :2 approx. I:I 13 : 2 3:I I:I 7 : 2 approx. 7 : 3 approx. 5:4 5:2 9:8 28 : 11 approx. 2:I

6.

1 2 3 4

s

6

ERIDU VIII - (Fig. 2-50)

Rm.No. Length

Width

Ratio

Remarks

I*

13 (9.36)

6.5

(4.70)

2 : I approx.

2 3 4*

s•

2.33 (1.67) 3.66 (2.64) 2.33 (1.67) 3 (2.16)

2.33 (1.67) 2.75 (1.98) (1.44) 2 (1.26) 2

I:I 4 : 3 approx. 7 : 4 approx. 3 : 2 approx.

6 7 8

2.75 (1 .98) 5.0 (3.6) 3.0 (3.6)

2.75 (1.98) 2.75 (1.98) (1.44) 2

4

2* 3* 4*

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17

I:I 20 : 11 3:2

5.66 2 .00 2.00 2.00

(4.1) (1.44) (1.44) (1.44)

14.0 (10.08) 2 .5 (1.80) 2.5 (1.80) 2.33 (1.68) 3.0 (2.16) 2.5 (1.75) 1.5 (1.10) 7.5 (5.40) 2.0 (1.44) 4.0 (2.88) 4.0 (2.88) 2.0 (1.44) 2.0 (1.44) 2.0 (1.45) 7.5 (5.40) 2.5 (1.80) 2.66 (1.95) 2.5 (1.80) 2.0 (1.44) 3.5 (2.55) 2.5 (1.85) 5.5 (3.95)

Ratio

Wid th 4.0 (2.88) 2.5 (1.80) 1.5 (1.10) 1.0 (0.72) 1.5 (1.08) 2.0 (1.45) 1.5 (1.08) 2 .5 (1.8) 2 .0 (1 .44) 1.5 (1 .08) 2.0 (1.44) 2.0 (1.44) 1.0 (0.72) 2.0 (1.44) 1.5 (1.08) 2.5 (1.80) *2.0 (1.45) 1.66 (1.20) 2 .0 (1.44) 1.5 (1.08) 1.75 (1.28) 1.5 (1.05) 3.75 (2.70)

Remar ks

7:2 I:I 5 :3 7 :3 2:I 5 :4 I:I 3:I I :I 8 :3 2:I 2:I I :I 3 :4 3:I 5:I 5:8 5 :4 4 :3 2:I 5 :3 3 : 2 approx.

Length

Ratio

Width

Remarks

7:2 14.0 (10.08) 4.00 (2.80) 2:3 2.25 (1.62) 3.3 (2.40) 8:5 1.25 (0.90) 2 (1.45) 3 : 4 approx. 2.25 (1.60) 1.66 (1.20) 5:1 5.66 (4.10) 1.15 (0.82) 1.15 (0.82) 5 :1 5.66 (4.10) (rooms 5 + 6 +dividing wall give ratio of 2 : 1) 2.25 2 .25 2 .66 7.10 1.66 2.33 3.16 3.00 2.66 *6.80 2.66

(1.60) (1.62) (1.90) (5.10) (1.20) (1.68) (2.28) (2.19) (1.92) (4.9) (1.9)

1.15 1.66 2.00 3.00 1.66 1.66 2.00 2.25 2.00 3.00 1.60

(0.80) (1.20) (1.45) (2.16) (1.20) (1.21) (1.48) (1.60) (1.50) (2.18) (1.17)

2 :1 3 :4 3: 4 7 :3 1:1 3 :4 2 : 3 approx. 3:4 3:4 7 :3 5:3

Note: Dimensions scaled off plan (1:50) kindly provided by Mr. J.D. Forest.

(2 : I) approx.

ERIDU IX 13.9 (10) 14 (10.08) 4.5 (3.3) 2 (1.44)

Length

KHEITII QASIM Ill- TRICRUCIFORM BUILDING

Rm. No.

Note : Dimensions scaled off published plans in consultation with Mr. Mohammed Ali Mustafa.

3.

TELLABADA - BUILDING B

Remarks

4 :3 8 : 3 approx. 3 :2 5 : 3 approx. 2 :I 2 :I 5 :4 10 : 3

where wall

5 : 2 approx. 7:I 9 :4 I:I

85

7.

TELL MADHUR L.2 HOUSE

Rm. No. Lengtb

2 3 4

5 6 7 7a 7b

9 10

11 13 14 16 17

Note:

3.33 5.90 5.00 5.00 6.00 16.50 3.30 3.30 4.90 5.10 4.50 4.33 2.25 2.33 4.25

(2.4) (4.25) (3.60) (3.60) (4.30) (11.85) (2.35) (2.38) (3.50) (3.70) (3.25) (3.12) (1.60) (1.70) (3.05)

Widtb 0.84 4.00 1.00 1.00 2.50

5.50 2.00 2.00 2.00 3.25 3.30 4.25 1.25 2.10 2.33

(0.60) (2.84) (0.75) (0.70) (1.80 (4.00) (1.40) (1.45) (1.45) (2.35) (2.40) (3.05) (0.90) (1.50) (1.70)

Ratio

Remarks

4: I 2 : 3approx.

5:I 5:I 5 : 2approx.

3: I 5:3 5:3 3:2 3 :2 I : !approx. 7 :2 I :I I : !approx. 5 :3

Dimensions scaled off plan (I : 100) kindly provided by Dr. Roaffor Madhur house.

APPENDIX FIVE Central Hall measurements and ratios of Ubaid Buildings. perpendicular, unclear or unreliable scaled drawings, or the dimensions are based on unverified reconstructions.

Note: All dimensions are in 'Ubaid Cubits ' with metric equivalents in brackets. An (*) indicates the dimension is unreliable - due either to walls that are not parallel or BUILDING

Abada IIII, A Abadall, B Abadall, F* Abada Ill, A* Abadai, E Abadai, D* Abadai C* Degirmentepe' Degirmentepe2 • Degirmentepe3 Degirmentepe• Eridu XI Eridu IX Eridu VIII* Eridu VII Eridu VI GawraXIX* GawraXVIII GawraXV GawraXIV GawraXIII: C. Temple* N. Temple E. Temple* Gawra XII : White Temple Rm . .266 Rm .987 Kheith Qasim 3 Building I Building 11 Madhur Oueili

AREA

WIDTH u.c. (m)

(sq.m.)

4.00 4.00 3.75 3.33 3.75 3.66 3.33 5.00 4.00 4.50 3.00 6.25 5.66 6.50 7.00 5.00 3.75 3.33 4.00 4.50

(31.8) (28.8) (26.4) (17.28) (25.8) (14) (17.28) (27) (18.85) (1728) (16.2) (58.3) (41) (442) (50.8) (58.3) (22) (17 .4) (27.8) (37.5)

4: I 3.5: I 3.5 : I 3:I 3. 5 :I 2 :I 3 :I 2 :I 9 :4 5:3 3. 5: I 3 :I 25 :I 2 :I 2: I 4: I 3: I 3: I 3.33 : I 3. 5 : I

(61.4) (38.9)

*3. 5 : I 3: I

?

5.75 (4.15) 5.oo (3.6W 8.00 (5 .75)

15.5 (11.15) 12.5 (9.00) 8.0 (5.75)

7.00 (5) 5.00 (3.60) 5.00 (3.60)

(55.75) (32.4) (20.7)

9:4 25 :I 8 :I

4.15 4.00 5.50 3.75

(25.9) (28.2) (47.4) (25.2)

3 : 3.5 : 3 : 3.5 :

LENGTH u.c. (m) 15.5 (11.15) 14.0 (10.10) 13.25 (9.60) 10.0 (7.20) *13.25 (9.55) 7.33 (5.30) 10.0 (7.20) 10.0 (7.30) 9.0 (6.50) 7.5 (5.40) 10.5 (7.55) *18.0 (12.96) 14.0 (10.00) 13.0 (9.40) 14.0 (10.08) 20.0 (14.40) 11.33 (8.15) 10.0 (7.25) 13.33 (9.60) 16.0 (11.15) 20.5 (14.80) 15.0 (10.80)

*12.0 (8.64) 14.0 (10.08) 16.5 (11.85) 13.0 (9.35)

(2.85) (2.85) (2.75) (2.40) (2.70) (2.65) (2.40) (3 .70) (2.90) (3.20) (2.15) (4.5) (4.1) (4.70) (5.04) (3.70) (2.70) (2.40) (2.90) (3.5)

(3) (2.80) (4) (2.70)

RATIO

I I I I

I. See Plan A, ofFigure 2-36. 2. See Plan B, of Figure 2-36. 3. See Top illustration of Figure 2-37. 2-37. 5. Measurement taken between buttresses. 6. See Duplex illustration, Figure 2-86. 8. See Figure 2- 124.

86

4. See bottom illustration of Figure 7. See illustration B or Figure 2-89.

APPENDIX SIX Overall Floor Areas (in sq.m.) ofUbaid Buildings

(See Notes A- C).

BUILDING

TYPE

Abada Ill, A Abada lVI, A Abada 11, B Abada 11, E Abada 11, F Abada 11, I Abada 11, J Abada I, C Abada I, D Degirmentepe Deginnentepe Degirmentepe Degirmentepe Degirmentepe Eridu XV Eridu XI Eridu IX Eridu VIII Eridu VII Eridu VI Gawra XIX 'Temple' Gawra XIX Gawra XVIII Gawra XV-A Gawra XV Gawra XV nns. 3-9 Gawra XIV Gawra XIII : N Temple C Temple E Temple Gawra XII: 'White Room' 'Grid Building' ms. 12, 16, 20-23 Kheith Qasim B.l Kheith Qasim B. 11 MadhurL. 11 Qalinj Agha, B Tell Rashid Thalathat L. XIV Thalathat Uruk Temple 11

CTP MCP MCP MCP MCP Mise. MCP CTP CP STP STP STP STP STP Mise. LTP LTP LTP LTP LTP STP Mise. CTP Mise. CP CP CTP

75 220 170 110 *170 *256 *215 125 56 92 95 58 75 134 48 *140 *135 *225 225 *265 *78 *150 *85 50 115 52 215

Fig. 2-19 see note 1 see note 2 Fig. 2- 11 see note 3 see note 4 Fig. 2- 17 Fig. 2-5 Fig. 2-5 Fig. 2 -36A Fig. 2 -36B Fig. 2 -37A Fig. 2 -37B Fig. 2-38 Fig. 2-40 Fig. 2-45 Fig. 2-49 Fig. 2-52 Fig. 2-53 Fig. 2-58 see note 5 see note 6 Fig. 2-73 Fig. 2-75 Fig. 2-76 Fig. 2-89A Fig. 2-67

LTP LTP LTP

100 *202 *450

Fig. 2-81 Fig. 2-82 Fig. 2-84

CTP Grid STP CTP MCP CP CP STP CTP CTP LTP

180 88 77 85 120 180 50 32 76 72 *268

see note 7 Fig. 2 -88A Fig. 2- 88B Fig. 2-99 Fig. 2-97 Fig. 2-105 Fig. 2 -128B see note 8 Fig. 2-140 Fig. 2- 141 see note 9

AREA(SQ.M)

Note: A. All dimensions are in metric. B. An (*) indicates that figure is unreliable - due either to unreliable scaled drawings, or because dimensions used are based on unverified or conjectural reconstructions. C. Abbreviations: ' STP' = Simple Tripartite Plan; 'CTP' = Complex Tripartite; 'CP' = Crucifonn Plan; ' MCP' = MultiCrucifonn Plan; 'Mise.'= Miscellaneous Plan.

.87

REMARKS

1. Fig. 2- 7a : Jasim gives area as 240 sq.m. (Jasim, 1985 : 202). 2. Fig. 2-8: Jasim gives area as 2 10 (Ibid.) 3. Fig. 2- 13: Based on author's reconstruction. 4. Fig. 2-16: Includes nns. IOOA & 101. 5. Fig. 2- 73: Area includes nns. no. 1,2,3, 11 ,12,14. 6. Fig. 2-71 Area includes nos. 51, 16, 40. 7. Fig. 2-85: Area does not include room nos. 82, 36 and 18. 8. Fig. 2-130: Area includes rms.l-4. 9. Fig. 2-147: Area based on author's reconstruction .

CHRONOLOGICAL TABLE OF MESOPOTAMIA NORTHERN

B.C 120000

MIDDLE PALAEOLITHIC

Barda- Balka, Hazar-

35000

UPPER PALAEOLITHIC

Shanidar C. Palegawra.

20000

ZARZIAN

Zarzi

10000

ME SOLITHIC

Shanidar B, Zawi Chemi, Karim Shahir, Nemrick 9, M' lefaat.

Village Settlement. NEOLITHIC 7000

Village Settlements, Domesticated Village Settlements, Animals and Grain Cultivation. Maghzaliya, Jarmo Tell Sotto, Umm Dabaghiya, Yarim Tepe, Tell es-Sawwan, Chogamami.

6000

5500

SOUTHERN AND CENTRAL

NORTHERN

Tell Oueili

Hassuna

TELL HALAF CULTURE (EARLY PROTOHISTORIC) Tell HalafNineveh Yarim Tepe I, 11, Ill Tepe Gawra, Arpachiyah.

5000

AL' UBAID CULTURE (LATE PROTOHISTORIC) Cultural relations with Elam 4500

AI 'Ubaid, Eridu, Uruk, Oueili, Ur, Uqair

3500

URUK PERIOD (PROTOLITERATE)

Tepe Gawra, Madhur, Tell Abada, Tell Brak, Kheit Qasim Ill Yarim Tepe Ill Harnman et-Turkman, Songor E.

Strong cultural influence of Mesopotamia on coastal cities of Phoencia & Eastern Anatolia. 3000

JAMADAT NASR PERIOD (LATE PROTOLITERATE) Semitic population Influenced by Sumer.

Influence on Egypt 2600

Early Dynasty period. Sumer divided into several city states, with Ur the most prominent. Columned hall ofKish. First Dynasty ofUr (A-anni-pad-da and others). Terra-cotta reliefs in Temple of AI 'Ubaid. Royal cemetery at Ur.

2400

Semitic influence on Sumerian culture increases. Akkadian Dynasty (Sargon I); Naram-Sin (2334-2297 B.C). Influence on Persia

2200

Sargonid Dynasty of Akkad overthrown by Guti invasion. Lagash: Gudea (2120). Ur-Nammu ofUr becomes king of Sumer and Akkad. Use of burnt bricks. Ziggurrat at Ur.

88

Expansion of Assyria to the North

2000

Elamite Invasion Ur destroyed; dynasties oflsin and Larsa (Eiamite influence). Babylon becomes supreme in Mesopotamia.

1800

Hammurabi ofBabylon (1793 -1750 B.C.). Hammurabi defeats King Rim- Sin ofLarsa (1754 B.C.).

First Babylonian dynasty Hurri invasion in the north.

Influence on North Syria 1600

Babylon destroyed by King Mursilis of the Hittites (1595 B. C. ).

Kassite invasion from the north.

1500

Babylon occupied by the Kassites.

Kingdom ofMitanni

1400

Babylon under Kassite rule (Kuri-galzu 11); Temple ofNin-gal

'Nuzi' ware among the Mitanni Dushratta (1390-1352) King ofMitanni. Suppiliumas overthrows Kingdom ofMitanni (c. 1350 B. C. ), but is shortly afterwards conquered by Assuru-ballit. Kingdom of Assyria independent under Assuru-ballit (1366- 1330 B.C).

1300

Babylon conquered by Tukulti- Enurta I (c. 1230 B.C).

Turkulti-Enurta I (1250-1210 B. C) King of Assyria.

1200

Elamite incursions. Fall ofKassite dynasty.

Tiglath-pileser I extends his rule far to the north.

1000

Aramaean incursions Babylon independent of Assyria

Assyrian Old Kingdom brought to an end by Aramaeam invasion. Resurgence of Assyria Assumasirpal 11 (884-859 B.C.) Shalmaseser lii (859-827 B.C.) Royal Palace at Balawat.

800

Babylon conquered by Tiglath- pileser lii (729 B.C.)

700

Babylon razed to the ground by Sennacherib (689 B.C.)

Tiglath-pileser lli (746-727 B.C.) Sargon 11 (722-705 B.C.) Sennacherib (705-681 B.C.) Essahaddon (681-668) Assurbanipal (668-626 B.C. ) Cyazares besieges Nineveh (614 B.C.) Scythian incursions. Assyria conquered by Chaldaeans and Medes (612 B.C.) and Partitioned.

600

Nobonidus (555-539); alliance with Lydia and Egypt against Persia. Baby! on conquered by Cyrus 11 (539); Mesopotamia becomes a province of Persian Empire.

400

332- 330 B.C. CONQUEST BY ALEXANDER THE GREAT 321 B.C. SELEUCID EMPIRE

200

Conquest of BabyIon by the Parthians (Arsacid dynasty)

Conquest by the Parthians.

A.D.

SOUTHERN AND CENTRAL

NORmERN

100

Mesopotamia becomes a Roman province under Trajan (116), but under Hadrian (122) is again abandoned.

200

Sassanian palace at Ctesiphone.

89

ABBREVIATIONS USED IN BffiLIOGRAPHY AA AASOR AJ AJA AS BAR BASOR BM CAH CNRS GATE GTZ

IES ILN JANES JAOS JAS JFA JNES JOS JRAI JRAS KST OIP PEQ PPS SA SAOC SOAH TPR WA

=

American Anthropologist. Annual of the American Schools of Oriental Research, New Haven. Antiquaries Journal, London. American Journal of Archaeology, Cambridge, Mass. Anatolian Studies, London. British Archaeological Reports, Oxford Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research. Bibliotheca Mesopotamica. Cambridge Ancient History. Centre National De La Recherche Scientifique. German Appropriate Technology Exchange. German Agency for Technical Cooperation. Israel Exploration Journal. Illustrated London News. The Journal of the Ancient Near Eastern Society of Columbia University Journal of the American Oriental Society, New Haven. Journal of Archaeological Science. Journal of Field Archaeology. Journal of Near Eastern Studies, Chicago. Journal of Oman Studies, Muscat. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, London. Kazi Sonuclari Toplantisi, Ankara. Oriental Institute Publications. Palestine Exploration Quarterly. Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society. Sovetskaja Arkheologija Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Studies in Ancient Oriental Civilization. State Organization of Antiquities and Heritage, Baghdad. Town Planning Review. World Archaeology.

90

BffiLIOGRAPHY Abramovitz, A. 1979 People and Spaces. The Viking Press, New York.

Akkermans, P.A., Boerma, J.A., Clason, A.T., Hill, S.G., Lohof, E., Meik1ejohn, C., Mie're, M. Le, Molgat, G.M.F., Roodenberg, J.J., Waterbolk-van 1983 Bouqras Revisited: Preliminary Report on a Project in Eastern Syria PPS 49:335-372.

Abdulac:,S. 1982 Traditional Housing Design in the Arab Countries. In Designing in Islamic: Cultures 2, Urban Housing, The Aga Khan Program for Islamic Architecture. Cambridge, Mass.

Algase, G. Habuba on the Tigris: Archaic Nineveh Reconsidered. JNES, 1986 Vol.45, No.2.

Abdullah, A.M. 1983 The Origins and Evolution of the village in Iraq, 60,000 4000 BC. (In Arabic), Sumer 39 (1,2):49-61.

Allan, W. 1972

Abu Al.Soof, B. 1966 Short Sounding at Tell Qalinj Agha (Erbil), Sumer 22:77-82. 1968 Tell es-Sawwan Excavation (Fourth Season), Sumer 24 (1,2): 3-16. 1969 Excavations at Tell Qalinj Agha (Erbil). Summer 1968, Sumer 25(1,2):3-42. nd. Use of Wood, Reed and Other Plants in Ancient Iraqi Architecture. Unpublished Manuscript. 1971 Tell es-Sawwan: Fifth Season's Excavations, Winter 19671968, Sumer 27:3-7.

Ecology, Techniques and Settlement Patterns in Man, Settlement and Urbanism. eds., Ucko, P.J., Tringham, R. and Dimbleby, G.W. Duckworth, England. 210-226.

Andrae, W. 1938 Das Wiedererstandene Assur, Leipzig, J.C. Hinrich Verlag. 1967 Die Jungeren Isc:htar-Tempel in Assur, Otto Zeller, Osnabruck. Die Arc:haisc:hen lsc:htar - Tempel in Assur, Ono Zeller, 1970 Osnabruck. Aurenc:he, 0. 1977 Dic:tionnaire illustre multilingue de l'arc:hitec:ture du Proche-Orient ancient. Collection de la Maison de !'Orient mediterraneen ancien no.3, serie archeologigique, 2, Institut francais de Beyrouth (Liban), Lyon, Maison de !'Orient. 198la La Maison Orientate. L'arc:hitec:ture du Proc:he Orient ancien des orgines au milieu de quatrieme millenaire. Paris:Geuthner. 198lb Mesopotamian Architecture from the 7th to the 4th Millenia (Translated by P.Anderson-Gerfand), Sumer42(1,2):71-80.

Abu AI-Soof, B. & Es-Siwwani, S. 1967 Tell Qalinj Agha (Erbil) Sumer 33:69-75 Ac:land,J.H. 1961 Architectural Vaulting, Scientific: American No.205: 144152. Al-A'dami, K.A. 1968 Excavations at Tell es-Sawwan (Second Season). Sumer 24(1,2):53-94.

Aurenc:he, 0. & Desfarges, P. 1983 Travaux d'ethnoarcheologie en Syrie et en Jordanie. Rapports preliminaires, Syria, Voi.LX : 147-185.

Adams, R.Mc:C. 1957 Settlements in ancient Akkad. Archaeology, Vo1.10:270-73. The origin of cities. Scientific: American 203(3):153-172. 1960 1965 Land Behind Baghdad: A History of Settlement on the Diyala Plains. University ofChicago Press, Chicago. 1972 Patterns of urbanization in early southern Mesopotamia in Man, settlement, and urbanism, eds., Ucko, P.J., Tringham, R. and Dimbleby, G.W. Duckworth, London. 1972b Settlement and Irrigation Patterns in Ancient Akkad, in The City and Area of Kish, ed. M.Gibson, Field Research Projects, Florida, pp.l82-208. The Mesopotamian social landscape: A view from the 1974 frontier in Reconstructing complex societies, ed. C.Moore. Bulletin of the American Schools of Oriental Research, No.20. Baltimore. 1981 Heartland of Cities. Surveys of Ancient Settlement and Land Use on the Central Floodplain of the Euphrates. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. 1982 Natural and Social Science Paradigms in Near Eastern Prehistory in The Hilly Flanks, eds., Young, T.C.Jr., et al., 369-374

Aurenc:he, 0.; Evin, J .; Hours, F. eds. 1987 Chronologies in the Near East (C.N.R.S. International Symposium, Lyon, France - 24-28 November, 1986. Two vols., B.A.R. International Series 379(ii), Oxford. Bac:h,C. Report on the Joint Excavation of Tepe Gawra in Assyria, 1936 BASOR, 61 :10. Badawy, A. 1958 Architectural provision against heat in the Orient. JNES 17: 122-129. 1965 Ancient Egyptian Arc:hitec:tural Design - A Study of the Harmonic: System. University of California Press, Berkeley & Los Angeles. Architecture in Ancient Egypt and Near East, Cambridge, 1966 Massachussets, and London, M.l.T. Bader,N.O. 1987 The Brief Preliminary Report about the Works of Soviet Archaeological Expedition in Iraq at Tell Sheikh Hums, in Researches on the Antiquities of Saddam Dam Basin and other Researches, S.O.A.H., Baghdad.

Adams, R. and Nissan, H.J. The Uruk Countryside. The Natural Setting of Urban 1972 Soc:ietie. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Admirality Iraq and the Persian Gulf. Naval Intelligence Division 1944 (1944), B.R.524 (Restricted), Geographical Handbook Series.

Bader, N.O.M., Merperet, N.Y. and Munc:haev, R.M. 1981 Soviet Expedition's Surveys in the Sinjar Valley. Sumer 37(1 ,2).

Agarwai, A. 1982 Research: Mud as a Traditional Building Material. In The Changing Rural Habitat, Vol.l, The Aga Khan Award for Architecture. Proceedings of Seminar 6.

Bakhteyev, F.K.H. & Yanushevic:h, Z.V. 1980 Discoveries of cultivated plants in the early farming settlements of Yarym-Tepe I & Yarym Tepe ll in northern Iraq. J .A.S. 7:167-1 78.

Akkermans, P. An Updated Chronology for the Northern Ubaid and Late 1988 Chalcolithic Periods in Syria: New Evidence from Hammam et-Turkman, IRAQ 50.

BaiJ,W. 1987

British Excavations in the Abu Dhahir Area 1985/86 - Interim Report. Sumer:81

Baqir, T. 1959 Tell Harmal, Baghdad.

91

Brain,C.K. The Hunters or the Hunted? An Introduction to African 1981 Cave Tapbonomy. University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.

Basbilov, V .A., Bolsbakov, O.G., Kouza, A.V. The Earliest Strata ofYarim Tepe I, Sumer, 36(1,2):43-63. 1980 Beale, T.W. & Carter, S.M. On the Track of the Yahya Large Kus: Evidence for 1983 Architectural Planning in the Period IV C complex at Tepe Yahya. Paleorient 9,1:81-89.

Breasted, J .H. Ancient Times, 2nd ed., Ginn & Co., London & Boston. 1935 British Museum Sumerian Art, British Museum, London. 1969

Beazley, E. Some Vernacular Buildings of the Iranian Plateau - Wind1977 Catchers (Badgir). IRAN, Vol.l5:100-10l.

Bromebead, C.N. Mining and Quarrying, In A History of Technology, 1954 Singer, C. et al., eds., Oxford University Press, New York & London:563.

Beek, M.A. Atlas of Mesopotamia, A survey of the history and 1962 civilisation of Mesopotamia from the Stone Age to the fall ofBabylon, translated by D.R. Welsh, edited by H.H.Rowley, London, Nelson.

Bruno, A.G., Chiari, G., Trossarelli, C., Bultinck, G. Contributions to the Study of the Preservation of Mud-Brick 1969 Structures. Mesopotamia III-IV, 1968-1969, Torino.

Ben nett, C. Spaces for People - Human Factors in Design. Prentice1977 Hall, N.J.

Bruyer·e, C. & lnwood, R. In Harmony with Nature. Sterling Publishing, New York. 1979

Besenval, R. Technologie De La Voute - Dans L'Orient Ancien. Editions 1984 Recherche sur les Civilisations, Synthese no .I 5. CNRS, Paris. Birren, F. 1963 1978 1978

Buller,H. 1983

Color for Interiors - Historical and Modern. Whitney Library of Design, New York. Color Psychology and Color Therapy. The Citadel Press, Secaucus, N.J. Co1or & Human Response, Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Methodological Problems in the Microwear Analysis ofTools Selected from the Natufian Sites ofEI-Wad and Ain Mallaha. In d'utilisation sur les outils ne' oletbiques du Proche Orient, Travaux de la Maison de !'Orient no.S, GIS Maison de !'Orient, Paris.

Buringb,P. Living Conditions in the Lower Mesopotamian Plain in 1957 Ancient Times. Sumer 13:30-57. Burney, C.A. Eastern Anatolia in the Chalcolithic and Early Bronze Age, 1958 A.S. 8:157-210. Excavations at Yanik Tepe, North West Iran, IRAQ 1961 Vo1.23:138-153. Ditto- IRAQ Vol.24:134-153. 1962 The Excavations at Yanik Tepe, Azerbaijan, 1962-3rd 1964 Preliminary Report. IRAQ Vo1.26. Tepe Yahya: its implications for Near Eastern archaeology, 1975 Antiquity XLIX, No.l95:191-196. From Village to Empire: An introduction to Near Eastern 1977 archaeology, Phaidon Press, Oxford. Aspects of the excavations in the Altinova, Elazig, A.S. 1980 30:157-167.

Blackwell, W. Geometry in Architecture. John Wiley & Sons, New York. 1984 Borissavlievitcb, M. The Golden Number. Alec Tiranti, London. 1958 Bourgeois, J . Spectacular Vernacular - A New Appreciation of 1983 Traditional Desert Architecture. Gibbs M. Smith, Peregrine Smith Books, Salt Lake City. Braidwood, L.S. & Braidwood, R.J. Prelude to the Appearance of Village-Farming Communities 1986 In Ancient Anatolia: Aspects of in Southwestern Asia Change and Cultural Development (Essays in boner of Machteld J. Mellink). J.V.Vorys, E.Porada, B.S.Ridgway and T.Skch, eds., University ofWisconson Press.

Butzer, K.W. Physical conditions in Eastern Europe, Western Asia and 1976 Egypt before the period of Agriculture and urban settlements. In Cambridge Ancient History, eds. Edwards, I.E.S., et al., Cambridge. The Late Prehistoric Environmental History of the Near East. 1978 In The Environmental History of the Near and Middle East Since the Last Ice Age. ed. E.C. Brice, London. Archaeology as human ecology. Cambridge University 1982 Press.

Braidwood, L., Braidwood, R., Howe, B., Reed, C.A., Watson, P .J. Prehistoric Archaeology Along the Zagros Flanks, 1983 University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications Vol.IOS, Chicago. Braidwood, R.J. From Cave to Village in Prehistoric Iraq. B.A.S.O.R. 124, 121951 18. Sumer, The Iraq-Jarmo Project, Season 1954-1955. 1954 10(2):120-138. Jericho and its Setting in Near Eastern History. Antiquity 1957 31 :73-82. Scientific American Revolution, The Agricultural 1960 No.203(3): 130-148. 1985 The First Great Change. Studi Di Paletnologia In Onore Di Salvatore M. Puglisi. Universita di Roma "La Sapienza". pp.l41-148.

Calvet, Y. The Sounding Y27 at Tell El 'Oueili, Sumer 39(1 ,2):24-36. 1983 1985-86 The New Deep Sounding X36 at Tell El'Oueili, Sumer 44: 67-78. Cam bel, H. & Braidwood, R.J. An early farming village in Turkey. Scientific American 1970 No.222(3) :50-56. Carter, T.H. & Pagliero,R. Notes on Mud-Brick Preservation, Sumer 33(1 ,2):65-76. 1966

Braidwood, R.J. and Howe, B. Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan, S.A.O.C. No.3l. 1960 University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Cartwright, K. St. G. & Findlay, W.P.K. Decay ofTimbcr and its Preservation, 2nd ed., MSO, London. 1958

Braidwood, R.J., Braidwood, L., Smith, J.G. & Cbarles,L. Matarrah: A Southern Variant of the Hassuna Assemblage, 1952 Excavated in 1948.JNES, 11: 1-75.

92

Caste!, G. 1984

Davidson, T.E. 1977 Regional variation within the Halaf ceramic tradition. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Edinburgh, Edinburgh.

Une Habitation Rural Egyptienne et ses Transformations. In Nomades et Sedentaires Perspectives Ethnoarcheologique, O.Aurenche, ed.

Davidson, T.E. & Watkins, T. 1981 Two Seasons of Excavation at Tell Aqab in the Jezirah, N.E. Syria. IRAQ 43(1):1-14.

Cauvin, M.-C. 1983 Traces d'utilisation sur les outils ne'olithiques du Proche Orient, Travaux de la Maison de !'Orient no.5, GIS-Maison de L'Orient, Paris.

Deasy,C.M. 1974 Design for Human Affairs. John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Chavalas, M.W. 1988 The House of Puzurum: A stratigraphic, Distributional, and Social Analysis of Domestic Units from Tell Asharafferga, Syria, from the Middle of the Second Millennium B.C. Ph.D. Thesis, UCLA, California. Child, G. 1950 Clark, L. 1975

Delougaz, P. 1933 Piano-Convex Bricks and the Methods of their Employment. Studies in Oriental Civilization, No.7, Chicago. 1938 A Short Investigation of the Temple at Al-Ubaid, IRAQ, Vol.V. Delougaz, P., Hill, H.D., & Lloyd, S. 1967 Private Houses and Graves in the Diyala Region. Chicago.

The Urban Revolution. T.P.R. Vol.l8.

The Ancient Art of Color Therapy, Pocket Books, New York.

Dethier, J. 1983 Down to Earth, Facts On File, New York.

Clutton-Brock, J. 1980 The Early History of Domesticated Animals in Western Asia. Sumer, 36(1,2):37-40. de Contenson, H. 1983 Early Agriculture in Western Asia, In S.A.O.C. No.36. Chicago.

Digard, J.-P. 1981 Techniques des nomades baxtyari d'Iran, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.

The Hilly Flanks,

Dilke, O.A.W. 1987 Mathematics Publications.

Copeland, L. 1979 Observations on the Prehistory of the Balikh Valley, Syria, during the 7th to the 4th millennium B.C. Paleorient 5:251275. 1982 Prehistorical tells in the lower Balikh Valley (Syrie), Report on the Survey of 1978. Les AMales Archeologiques Arabes Syriennes Vol.XXXII, Directorate of Antiquities and Museums, Syria.

Doczi, G. 1981

Measurements.

British

Museum

The Power of Limits. Mass.

Shambhala Publications, Boston,

Dorreii,P. 1978 Uniqueness of Jericho. In Archaeology in the Levant. eds. R. Moorey & P. Parr, Aris & Phillips, Warminster.

Copeland, P.W. 1955 "Beehive" village ofNorth Syria, Antiquity, 29: 21-24.

Driel, G. van. 1977 The Uruk Settlement on Jebel Aruda, A Preliminary Report. In Le Moyen Euphrate Zone du Contacts et d'Echanges, J.C.L. Margueron, ed., Acts du Colloque de Strasbourg. Universite des Sciences Humaines de Strasbourg, Travaux du Centre de Rescherche sur le Proche-Orient et la Grece Antiques 5:75-93.

Costa,P.M. 1985 The Palm-frond house of the Batinah, J .O.S Vol.8 (2): 117120. Costa, P.M. & Kite, S. 1985 The Architecture of Salalah and the Dhofar Littoral, J.O.S., Vol.7: 131-153.

Driel, G.V. & Driei-Murray, C.van. 1979 Jebel Aruda 1977-1978, Akkadica 12:2-28 1983 Jebel Aruda, The 1982 Season of Excavation, Interim Report. Akkadica 33:1-26.

Crawford, H.E.W. 1977 The Architecture of Iraq in the Third Millenium B.C., Copenhagen Studies in Assyriology, Mesopotamia 5, Akademisk Forlag Copenhagen.

Eaton-Francis, M. 1972 Mesopotamian building materials and techniques of the early dynastic period. Marsyas, 16.

Croney,J. 1971 Anthropometries for Designers. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Egami,N. 1959 Telul eth-Thalathat- The excavation ofTellll, 1956-1957, Vol.l, Yamakawa Publishing Co., Tokyo. Telul eth-Thalathat- The excavation of Tell II, 1964 (Jrd 1970 Season), Vol.II, Yamakawa Publishing Co., Tokyo. 1974 Telul eth-Thalathat -The excavation of Tell 11, 1965 (4th Season), Vol.III, Yamakawa Publishing Co., Tokyo.

The British

Damerji, M.S.B. The Development of the Architecture of Doors and Gates 1987 in Ancient Mesopotamia. Translated by T. Takase and Y. Okada, The Institute for Cultural Studies of Ancient Iraq, Kokushikan University, Tokyo. Davey,N. 1961

&

Dittemore, M. 1983 The Soundings at M'lefaat. In Prehistoric Archeology along the Zagros Flanks. eds. Braidwood, L.S. et al., The University of Chicago Oriental Institute Publications Vol.l05, Chicago. 671-692.

Copeland, L. & Hours F. 1987 The Halafians, their predecessors and their contemporaries in Northern Syria and the Levant, Relative and Absolute Chronologies, in Chronologies in the Near East, 0 . Aurenche, et al. eds., B.A.R. International Series 379(ii).

Curtis, J . ed., 1982 Fifty Years of Mesopotamian Discovery. School of Archaeology in Iraq.

O.LP.,

Ehrenkrantz, E.D. 1956 The Modular Number Pattern, Alec Tiranti, London. Ellis, R.S. 1968

A History of Building Materials. Phoenix House, London.

93

Foundation Deposits in Ancient Mesopotamia. University Press, New Haven & London.

Yale

Esin, U. 1984

Flannery, K. V. & Wright, H.T. The ecology of early food production in Mesopotamia. 1965 Science 147: 1247-56. Fauna! Remains from the 'Hut Sounding' at Eridu. Sumer 22: 1966 61-63.

Deginnentepe (Malatya) Kurtanna Kazisi 1983 Yili Raporu, K.S.T. Vol.VI:Il-29.

Esin, U. & Harmankaya, S. 1984 Deginnentepe (Malatya) Kunanna Kazisi, K.S.T. 1985 Vol.II:53:85. 1985 Deginnentepe (Malatya - lmamli Koyu) Kurtanna 1986 Kazisi, K.S.T.Voi.VIII:95-137. Deginnentepe (Malatya) Kunanna Kazisi. K.S.T. Voi.IX. 1987

Forbes, R.J. Studies in Ancient Technology, Vol.l. E.J. Brill, Leiden. 1964 Studies in Ancient Technology, Vol.ll. E.J. Brill, Leiden. 1965 Forest-Foucault, C.H. Rapport Sur Les Fouilles de Kheit Qasim Ill - Hamrin. 1980 Paleorient 6: 221-224.

Evans,M. Housing, Climate and Comfort. The Architectural Press, 1980 London. Farmer, R.H. Handbook of Hardwoods, 2nd ed., HMSO, London. 1972 Fathy,H. 1973 1986

Forest, J.D. Aux Origines de !'architecture Obedienne: Les Plans de Type 1983a Samarra. Akkadica 34 (Sept/Oct). Sumer, The Obeid 4 Architecture at Tell El'Oueili. 1983b 39(1 ,2):20-30. Kheit Qasim Ill- An Obeid Settlement, Sumer 40(1 ,2):85 1983c 1985-86 Tell El 'Oueili, Preliminary report on the 4th Season (1983), Stratigraphy and Architecture. Sumer 44:55-65.

Architecture for the Poor, University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London. Natural Energy and Vernacular Architecture, University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London.

Fauvel, J & Gray, J . The History of Mathematics, Macmillan Education Ltd. in 1987 association with The Open University, London.

1987a

1987b

Fedele, F.G. Review of Report on Zawi Chemi, by R.L.Solecki. 1982 Mesopotamia XVII.

1991 Felipe, N. & Sommtr, R. Invasions of Personal Space. In People and Buildings, ed. 1972 Gutman, R. Basic Books, New York & London. Field, B. 1969

Foster, B. 1977

Commercial Activity in Sargonic Mesopotamia. IRAQ, 39.

Frankfort, H. Tell Asmar, Kbafaje and Kborsabad. Second Preliminary 1933 Report of the Iraq Expedition, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Oriental Institute Communications, No.16, Chicago, The University of Chicago Press. Iraq Excavations of the Oriental Institute 1932133: Third 1934 Preliminary Report of the Iraq Expedition. University of Chicago Press, Chicago. Town Planning in Ancient Mesopotamia. T.P.R.21. 1950 The Art and Architecture of the Ancient Orient, The 1954 Pelican History of Art, Penguin Books. The Birth of Civilization in the Near East. Doubleday, 1956 Garden City, New York. The Last Predynastic Period in Babylonia Cambridge 1971 Ancient History. Revised & re-arranged by L.Davies. eds. Edwards, I.E.S. et. al.

Botanical Remains from Choga Mami, Sumer, 25(1,2): 13839.

Finkbeiner, U. & Rollig, W. eds. Gamdat Nasr - Period or Regional Style? Dr.Ludwig 1986 Reichert Verlag. Wiesbaden. Finet,A. 1979

La Grande Architecture Obeidienne Sa Fonne e't Sa In Pre' histoire de La Mesopotamie, La Fonction, Me' sopotarnie pre'historique et ('exploration re' centge du djebel Hamrin. CNRS, Paris. Khirbet Derak and Kutan, in Researches on the Antiquities of Saddam Dam Basin Salvage and other Researches, pp.82-84, S.A.O.H., Baghdad. Le systeme de measures de longueur obeidien, sa mise en oeuvre, sa signification. Paleorient 1712:161 - 172

Bilan provtsotre des fouilles beiges du Tell Kanas, in Archaeological reports from the Tabqa Dam Project Euphrates Valley, Syria. A.A.S.O.R. 44:79-95

Fiorina,P. 1981 Excavation at Tell Hassan, Preliminary Report, Sumer 40(1,2):277-289. Fiorina, P. & Bulgarelli, G.M. Tell Hassan, in The Land Between Two Rivers- 20 years 1985 of Italian Archaeology in the Middle East, ed. E. Quarantelli, 11 Quadrante Ediziari, Torino.

Frescura, F. Rural Shelter in 1981 Johannesburg.

Fitch,J.M. The Aesthetics of Function. In People and Buildings, ed. 1972 Gutman, R. Basic Books, New York & London.

Southern

Africa.

Ravan Press,

Fujii, H. ed., Preliminary Report of Excavations at Gubba and Songor. Al1981 Rafidain: Journal of Western Asiatic Studies 11. Tokyo, Japan.

Fitch, J.M. and Branch, D.P. Primitive Architecture and Climate, Scientific American, 1960 Vo1.203, No.6: 134-144.

Fujii, H. et al., Working Report of Japanese Archaeological Excavations in 1987 Saddam Dam Salvage Project. First Season. Sumer:33-61 . Working Report of Japanese Archaeological Excavations in 1987 Saddam Dam Salvage Project. Second Season. Sumer:6267.

Flannery, K.V. The Village as a Settlement Type in Mesoamerica and Near 1972 East. In Man, Settlement and Urbanism. eds. P.J. Ucko, G.W. Dimbleby and R. Tringham, London. Origins & Ecological Effects of Early Domestication in Iran 1974 & the Near East (Reprint from The Domestication & Exploitation of Plants & Animals, eds. Ucko & Dimbleby). In The Rise & Fall of Civilizations, eds. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. et al., Cummings Publish Co., Menlo Pk., California. Academic Press, The Early Mesoamerican Village. 1976 London.

Fukai, S. & Matsuthani, T. Excavations at Telul eth-Thalathat 1976. Sumer 33(1): 1977 Gallery, J.A. Sumer- Art in an Urban Context, B.M. Vol.4- The Legacy 1976 of Surner, Undena Publications.

94

Gallion,A. & Eisner,S. The Urban Pattern: City Planning & Design. Princeton, 1963 N.J.

Grandjean, E. Ergonomics of the Home. Taylor & Francis, London. 1973 Guest, E. ed. Flora of Iraq. Ministry of Agriculture, Baghdad, Republic of 1966 Iraq.

Gardiner, S. 1975 Evolution of the House, Constable, London. Garfinkel,Y. Bumt Lime Products and Social Implications in the Pre­ 1987 Pottery Neolithic B Villages of the Near East. Paleorient 13/1:69-74.

Gullini, G. Structure & Space in Archaic Mesopotamian Architecture. 1970 Mesopotamia 5-6 (1970-1971), English Summary. Gutman,R. ed. 1972 People and Buildings. Basic Books, London & New York.

Gasparini, G. & Margolies, L. 1980 Inca Arcbitecture (translated by P.J. Lyon), Indiana University Press, Bloomington & London.

Hains,R. 1956

Gensheimer,T.R. The Role of Shell in Mesopotamia: Evidence for trade 1984 exchange with Ornan and the Indus Valley. Paleorient, Vol.10/1: 65-72.

Hall,E.T. The Silent Language. Doubleday & Co., New York. 1959 The Hidden Dimension. Doubleday & Co., New York. 1969 Silent Assumptions in Social Communication. In People 1972 and Buildings,ed. Gutman, R. Basic Books, London & New York. Meeting Man's Basic Spatial Needs in Artificial 1974 Environments. In Designing for Human Behavior, eds. Lang, J. et al., Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Strondsburg, Penn.

German, A. ed. 1983 Islamic Architecture and Urbanism,King Faisal University, Damman. Gerritsen,F. 1983 A Color Theory Based on Laws of Perception. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York.

Ballet, S.I. & Samizay,R. Traditional Architecture of Afghanistan, Garland STPM 1980 Press, New York.

Ghyka,M. 1946 The Geometry of Art & Life. Sheed & Ward, New York. Gibson,Me G. The City and Arca of Kish. Field Research Projects, Florida 1972 Excavations at Nippur: Eleventh Season. Oriental Institute 1975 Communications, No.22, Chicago. ed. Uch Tepe I - Tell Razak, Tell Ahmed al-Mughir, Tell 1981 Ajamat Hamrin Report No. l O, Chicago & Copenhagen. The Round Building at Razuk: Fonn & Function. In 1987 Pre'histoire de la Mesopotamie. La Me'sopotarnie pre'historique et l'exploration re'cente du djebel Hamrin. CNRS, Paris.

Hall, G.S.,Me Bride,S. & Riddel,A. 1973 Architectural Study. Anatolian Studies 23:244-269. Hall,H.R. &W oolley,C.L. Ur Excavations 1: AI-Ubaid,Vol.l , Oxford University Press, 1927 Oxford. Halse,A.O. 1978 The Use of Color in lnteriors, McGraw-Hill, New York. Hamlin,C. Dalma Tepe. IRAN (Joumal of Persian Studies)Vol.13: 1111975 125.

Giedion,S. 1981 The Beginnings of Architecture,Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey.

Hartwigsen, G.L. 1980 Design Concepts,Allyn & Bacon, Massachusetts.

Gilbert, A.S. Modem Nomads and Prehistoric Pastoralists: The Limits of 1975 Analogy. JANES Vol.7:53-71.

Hawkes,J. &Woolley, Sir L. Prehistory and the Beginnings of Civilization. Vol.l , Allen 1963 & Unwin, London.

Givoni,B. & Shalon,R. Preliminary Study of the lnfluence ofWindow Orientation 1963 on lndoor Climate in Beer Sheva, Research Paper No.12, Building Research Station, Technion, Flsrael Institute of Technology, Haifa. Goff,B.L. Symbols of Prehistoric Mesopotamia. 1963 Press, New Haven.

Nippur. The Illustrated London News, Aug.18, 1956.

Heinrich,E. Zeitschrift fur Assyriologie und Vorderasiatische n.d. Archaologie, Leipzig/Berlin 15. Die Palaste lm Alten Mesopotamien, Verlag Walter De 1984 Gruyter & Co. Berlin.

Yale University

Helbaek,H. Textiles from Catal Huyuk, Arcbaeology 16(1): 39-46. 1963 1972 Samarran Irrigation Agriculture at Choga Mami in Iraq. IRAQ, 34(1): 35-48.

Goff,C.L. Luristan before the Iron Age. IRAN 9 : 131-152. 1971 Golany,G.ed 1980 Housing in Arid Lands: Design and Planning. Architectural Press, London. 1982 Desert Planning, Architectural Press, London.

Henrickson, E.F. An Updated Chronology ofthe Early and Middle Chalcolithic 1985 ofthe Central Zagros Highlands, Western lran. IRAN 23:63105. Ceramic Styles and Cultural Interaction in the Early and 1983 Middle Chalcolithic of the Central Zagros, lran. Ph.D. Thesis, University ofToronto.

Goodall,H. & Friedman, R. 1980 Log Structures. The American Association for State & Local History. Tennessee.

Henrickson, E.F. & Vitali, V. The Dalma Tradition: Prehistoric Inter-Regional Cultural 1987 Integration in Highland Western Iran, Paleorient Vol.13/2:37-45.

Gould,R.A. 1980 Living Archaeology, Cambridge University Press, New York.

95

Henry,D.O. Adaptive Evolution within the Epipaleolithic of the Near East 1983 In Advances in World Archaeology, eds. Wendorf, F. & Close, A.E., Academic Press, London. Herrmann, G. Lapis Lazuli: The Early Phases of its Trade. IRAQ 30:20-57. 1968 Hesselgren, S. Man's Perception of Man-Made Environment. Dowden, 1975 Hutchinson & Ross. Higham,C. The Earliest Farmers and the First Cities. Lemer 1977 Publications. Hijara, I.H. Excavations at Tell Qalinj Agha (Erbil) Fourth Season 1970, 1973 Sumer 29:13-34. The Halaf Period in Northern Mesopotamia. Ph.D. Thesis, 1980 Vols.! ,2. University of London.

Invernizzi, A. Excavations in the Yelkhi Area (Hamrin Project, Iraq). 1980 Mesopotamia XV, Torino, Italy. 19-49. Excavations in the Yelkhi Area. Sumer, XL(1,2). 1981 Ittelson, W .H., Rivlin, L.G. & Proshansky, H.M. The use ofBehavioral Maps in Environmental Psychology. In 1970 Environmental Psychology: Man & His Physical Setting, eds. Proshansky, H.M., Ittelson, W.H. & Rivlin, L.G., Holt, Rinehart & Winston, New York. 658-668. AI-Jadir, W. Tell 'Ayash, Sumer 35 (1,2):566-68. 1979 Jacobsen, Th. & Adams, R.T. Salt and Silt in Ancient Mesopotamian Agriculture. Science, 1960 Vol.l28: 1252-58. Jasim, S.A. Excavation at Tell Abada, Iraq, Palorient:IOI-104. 1981 Notes on the Excavation at Tell Rashid, Iraq, Paleorient 1983 9/1:99-103. Excavations at Tell Abada: A Preliminary Report, IRAQ 1984 45:165-186. The Ubaid Period in Iraq, (1,2), BAR International Series 1985 267(i), Oxford.

Hijara, I.H. and Others. Arpachiya 1976, IRAQ XLII(2). 1980 Hodges, H.W.M. Technology in the Ancient World, Alfred A. Knopf, New 1970 York. Domestic Building Materials and Ancient Settlements. In 1972 Man, Settlements and Urbanism. eds. P.J. Ucko, et al., London. Hole, F. 1974

1979

1983 1984

Jasim, S.A. & Oates, J. Early tokens and tablets in Mesopotamia: new information 1986 from Tell Abada and Tell Brak. In World Archaeology, Vol.l7 No.3, Early writing systems: 348-362. Jawad,J.A. The Advant of the era of Townships in northern 1965 Mesopotamia. E.J. Brill, Leiden.

Investigating the Origins of Mesopotamian Civilization (Reprint from Science, Vol.l53 :605-611). In The Rise & Fall of Civilization, eds. Larnbcrg-Karlovsky, C.C. et al., Cummings Publishing Co., Menlo Pk., California. Rediscovering the Past in the Present: Ethnoarchacology in Luristan, Iran. In Ethnoarchaeology, ed. Krarner, C., 192218. Symbols of Religion and Social Organization at Susa. In The Hilly Flanks, S.A.O.C. No.36, Chicago. A reassessment of the Neolithic Revolution, Paleorient, Voi.I0/2 :49-59.

Jett, S.C. & Spencer, V.E. Navajo Architecture, University of Arizona Press. 1981 Johnson, G.A. Spatial Organization of early Uruk Settlement Systems. In 1980 Colloques intemationaux du CNRS No.580 - L'Archeologie De L'lraq. Paris. Johnson,H. The International Book of Wood, London. 1976

Holmes, B.M. Weathering in the Tropics. Commonwealth Scientific & 1951 Industrial Research Organization, Division of Building Research.

Judge, W.J. An Interpretive Framework for Understanding Site Locations. 1971 In The Distribution of Prehistoric Population Agrcgates. Anthropological Report No.1, ed. G.J. Gumerman : 38-44.

Holod, R. & Rastorfer, D. eds. Architecture & Community - Building in the Islamic 1983 World Today, The Aga Khan Award for Architecture, Aperture (Distributed in UK by Phaidon Press, Oxford).

A1-1Uissi, B. Mural Paintings and Pigments in Iraq. Sumer 43(1,2): 1681984 174.

Hoyrup,J. 1987 Jens Hoyrup on the Sumerian origin of mathematics, in The History of Mathematics. Macmillan Education Ltd. in association with The Open University, eds. J. Fauvel & J. Gray, London.

!Uiayan,H. The Architectural Information Through 1988 Department of Antiquities, Amman.

Hrouda,B. Handbuch der Archaologie, Vorderasien I, Munchen, p.67 1971 note 2.

Symmetry,

Keeley, L.H. Neolithic Novelties: The view from ethnography and 1983 microwear analysis. In Traces d' utilisation sur les outils ne' olethiques du Proche Orient, Travaux de la Maison de I'Orient no.5, GIS - Maison de !'Orient, Paris:25 1-258.

Huntley, H.E. The Divine Proportion. Dover Publications, New York. 1970

Kenyon, K. Excavations at Jericho. P.E.Q. July-Dec. 1956 The Neolithic of Western Asia: 1945 to 1975. A Retrospect 1977 Studies In Ancient Europe and the Mediterranean. presented in honour of Hugh Hencken. ed. Markotic, V. Aris & Phillips, Warminster.

Huot,J-L 1983a Tell EI-Oueili- The works of 1978 and 1981. Sumer 39(1 ,2). 1983b Larsa et 'Oueili, travaux de 1976-1981 , Editions ERC, Paris. 1988 Ubaid Villages of Lower Mesopotamia, Permanence and Evolution from Ubaid 0 to Ubaid 4 as seen from Tell el 'Oueili. Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Ancient N.E. Studies Conference on the Ubaid Period Reconsidered.

Kervran, M., Grandmaison, C., Soubcyran, M. & de Pemille, A.V. Suhari Houses, JOS, Vo1.6 (2): 307-316. 1983

Hussein, S.K. Methods of Making Bricks and Their Kind (in Arabic), 1984 Sumer 43(1 ,2)258-265.

96

Al-Khalesi, Y.M. 1977 The Bit Kispim in Mesopotamian Architecture: Studies of Fonn and Function. Mesopotamia 2:53-81.

Kubba,S. 1979 1987

Khalifa, Shaikha H. & Rice, M. 1986 Bahrain through the ages- The Archaeology, ed. Shaikha H. A. AI Khalifa & M. Rice, KPI Ltd, London. 1990 Khammash, A. 1986 Notes on Village Architecture in Jordan. University Art Museum, University of Southwestern Louisiana, Lafayene.

1990 1991 1992

Khan,J.A. 1985 Thermal Comfort and Housing in Madras. MSc. Arch. Thesis, University of London (Bartlett).

1998

Killick, R. & Roar, M. 1979 Excavations at Tell Madhhur, Sumer 35(1,2):536-542

Assyrian Furniture, Ur, magazine devoted to Arab culture (May-June-July), Iraqi Cultural Centre, London. Mesopotamian Architecture and Town Planning from the Mesolithic to the end of the Proto-historic Period (c.I0,000-3,500 BC). BAR International Series 367(i), Oxford. The Rebuilding of the Ka'ba in 608 AD, Arabian Studies Journal, London. The case for an 'Ubaid Cubit' in architecture during the Ubaid Period. Paleorient, Paris. The Origin of the Islamic City. ARAM, Cambridge. Colour: Theory & Application (in Arabic). Adib Press, Baghdad. Mesopotamian Furniture (from the Mesolithic to the NeoAssyrian period- 10,000 BC- 600 BC). In Press.

Kukreja, C.P. 1978 Tropical Architecture, Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Co., New Delhi.

Kingsnorth, A. 1975 A survey of Domestic Architecture in Neolithic Cyprus. M.A. Thesis, Institute of Archaeology, University of London.

Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. 1974 Trade Mechanisms in Indus-Mesopotamian Interrelations. In The Rise and Fall of Civilizations, Cumrnings Publishing Co., Menlo Pk., California.

Kirkbride, D. 1972 Umm Dabaghiyah 1971: A Preliminary Report. IRAQ 34(1): 3-15. 1973 Umm Dabaghiyah 1972: A Second Preliminary Report. IRAQ 35: 1·8. 1974 Umm Dabaghiyah: A Trading Outpost? IRAQ 36,(1,2):8592. 1975 Umm Dabaghiyah 1974: A Fourth Preliminary Report. IRAQ 37, part I:3-!0. Umrn Dabaghiyah, In Fifty Years of Mesopotamian 1982 Discovery, ed., J. Curtis, British School of Archaeology in Iraq, London.

Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. & Beale, T.W. 1986 Excavations at Tepe Yahya, Iran 1967-1975. The Early Periods. Peabody Museum of Archaeology and Ethnology, Harvard University. Lamberg-Karlovsky, C.C. & Sabloff,J.A. eds. 1974 The Rise and Fall of Civilizations, Cummings Publishing Co., Menlo Pk., California. Lampi,P. 1967

Koenigsberger, O.H., lngersoll, T.G., Mayhew, A., Szokolay, S.V. 1980 Manual of tropical housing and building, Part 1- Climatic Design. Longman, London and New York.

Cities and Planning in the ancient Near East, Boston.

Lavers, G.M. 1983 The Strength Properties of Timber (3rd ed. revised by G.L. Moore). Building Research Establishment Report- HMSO.

Kohi,P.L. The Autonomous Cultures of Eastern Iran and Their 1973 Relations with Early Dynastic Sumer.

Lawergren, Bo and Gurney, O.R. 1987 Sound Holes and Geometrical Figures, IRAQ Voi.XLIX:3752. Lawn, B. 1973 University of Pennsylvania radiocarbon dates XV, Radiocarbon 15:367-81.

Koldewey, R. 1914 The Excavations at Babylon. Macmillan , London. Kozlowski, S.K. 1981 Preliminary Results of the Paleolithic Survey at the Haditha Region "AI-Qadissiya Dam Project", Sumer 42 (I ,2): 12-14.

Leacroft, H & R. 1974 The Buildings of Ancient Mesopotamia, Brockhampton Press, Leicester.

Kozlowski, S.K. & Bielinski, P. 1981 Tell El Saadiya, A Preliminary Report on the First Season of Excavation, 1979, Sumer 40(1,2):103-106.

Le Blanc, S. 1971 An addition to Naroll's Suggested Floor Area and Settlement Population Relationship. In American Antiquity 36:210-12.

Kozlowski, S.K. & Szymczak, K. 1987 Preneolithic Site Nemrik 9 (Saddam's Dam Salvage Project). Sumer: Special Issue (Researches on the Antiquities of Saddam Dam Basin Salvage and other Researches):8-12.

Lee,D.H.K. .1953 Physiological Objectives in Hot Weather Housing. United States of America Housing & Home Finance Agency, Washington, D.C.

Kramer, C. 1979 Ethnoarcbaeology: Implications of ethnography for archaeology, ed., New York, Columbia University Press. 1979 An Archaeological View of a Contemporary Kurdish Village: Domestic Architecture, Household Size and Wealth. In Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of Ethnography for Archaeology, Kramer, C. ed., Columbia University Press, New York, 139-163. 1980 Estimating Prehistoric Populations: An Ethnoarchaeological Approach. Colloques internationaux du CNRS no.580 L'Archeologie de L'Iraq. Paris. 1982 Village Ethnoarchaeology: Rural Iran in Archaeological Perspective, Studies in Archaeology, Academic Press, London. 1983 Spatial Organization in Contemporary Southwest Asian Villages and Archeological Sampling, In The Hilly Flanks, S.A.O.C. No.36, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, Chicago. 347-368.

Lee, G.M. & Falcon, N.R. 1952 The geographical history of the Mesopotamian plain. Geographical Journal, Vol.ll8. Leemans, W .F. 1977 The Importance of trade. IRAQ 39,(1):1-10. Leonard, J.N. 1973 The First Farmers, Time-Life Books, New York. Leroi-Gourhan, A. 1964 Les religious de la Preshistoire. Paris 1969 Pollen grains of Gramineae and Cerealia from Shanidar & Zawi Chemi. In The domestication and exploitation of plants and animals. eds. Ucko, P.J., & Dimbleby, G.W., Duckworth, London. 143-48.

97

Levine, L.D. & McDonald, M.M.A. 1977 The Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods in Mahidash. IRAN 15: 39-50.

1965 1976

Lloyd, S. & Safar, F. 1943 Tell Uqair: Excavations by the Iraq Government Directorate of Antiquities in 1940 and 1941, J.N.E.S.2, 131 ff 1945 Tell Hassuna: Excavations by the Iraq Government Directorate General of Antiquities in 1943 and 1944. JNES IV: 255-289. Eridu: A Preliminary Communication on the first season's 1947 excavations: January-March 1947. Sumer 3:84-111 ; in Arabic:219-235. Eridu: A Preliminary Communication on the second season's 1948 Excavation 1947-48. Sumer,4(2): 115-27. Lloyd, S. 1940 1945 1954 1985

Mallowan, M.E.L. & Rose, J.C. 1935 Excavations at Arpachiyah, 1933. IRAQ, 2(1): 1-78. Margueron, J. 1965 Mesopotamia - Archaeologia Mundi (Translated by H.S.B. Harrison), Frederick Muller, London. 1980 Remarques Sur L'Organisation De L'Espace Architectural En Mesopotamie. In L'archeologie de L'Iraq. Colloques Intemationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique No.580, CNRS, Paris. 1982 Recherches Sur Les Palais Mesopotamiens De L'Age Du Bronze, Vols.l-3, Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, Paris. 1983 Notes d'archeologie et d'architecture orientales, Syria, Voi.LX : 1-24. Librairie Orientaliste Paul Geuthner, Paris. 1985 Notes d'archeologie et d'architecture orientales, Syria, Voi.LXII : 1-20. 1987 Notes Comple' mentaires Sur La Question De L'E' tage. In Pre' histoire De La Mesopotamie,La Me' sopotamie pre"historique et !'exploration re' cente du djebel Harnrin. CNRS, Paris. 1987 Quelques Remarques Concemant L'Architecture Monumentale A'L'Epoque D'Obeid. In Pre' histoire De La Mesopotamie, La Me' sopotamie pre' historique et !'exploration re' cente du djebel Hamrin. CNRS, Paris.

Iraq Government Soundings at Sinjar, IRAQ 7:13-21. Ruined cities of Iraq. Oxford. Building in Stone. In A History of Technology, Singer, C., Holmyard, E.G., Hall, A.R eds., 457-489. The Archaeology of Mesopotamia from the Old Stone Age to the Persian Conquest, Thames and Hudson, London.

Loon, M. van 1968 The Oriental Institute excavations at Mureybit, Syria: preliminary report on the 1965 campaign, pt.l: architecture and general finds. JNES, 27: 265-82. 1982 Hammam et-Turkman on the Balikh: Background and First Results of the University of Amsterdam's 1981 Excavation. Akkadica 27:30-45. 1983 Hammam et-Turkman on the Balikh: First results of the University of Amsterdam's 1982 Excavation. Akkadica 35:123. 1985 Hammam et-Turkman on the Balikh: First results of the University of Amsterdam's 1984 Excavation. Akkadica 44:21-40. 1985-87 Hammam et-Turkman on the Balikh: A new Archaeological Project in Syria Chronologies in Old World Archaeology, ed. E. Porada. 1988 New Evidence for North Syrian Chronology from Hammam et-Turkman, AJA vol.92, no.4:582-587.

Martin, P.H. 1982 The Early Dnyastic Cemetery at AI-Ubaid, A Re-Evaluation, IRAQ 44(2):145-186. Masry,A.H. 1974 Prehistory in Northeastern Arabia: The Problems of lnterregional Interaction. Coconut Grove: Field Research Projects. Matsumoto, K. 1983 Tell Songor (A, B, and C), Sumer 40(1,2):37-38. 1987 The Samarra Period at Tell Songor A, In Pre'histoire De La Mesopotamie, La Me"sopotamie pre ' historique et !'exploration re'cente du djebel Harnrin. CNRS, Paris.

Ludwig, W. 1977 Mass, Sine und Technik des Bauens in Habuba Kabira-Sud, in Le Moyen Euphrate Zone de Contacts et D'Echanges, J.C.L. Margueron, ed., Acts du Colloque de Strasbourg, pp.63-74.

McAdam,E. 1981 Town Planning and Domestic Architecture in Ancient Mesopotamia from Earliest Times until the Middle of the 2nd Millennium B.C., D.Phil. Thesis, Oxford.

Mac Fadyen, W.A. 1966 The Geology of Iraq. In The Flora of Iraq, Vol.l , ed. E. Guest, Ministry of Agriculture, Iraq. Mackay,E. 1931 Report on Excavations at Jemdet Nasr, Iraq. Museum ofNatural History, Chicago.

Early Mesopotamia and Iran, Thames and Hudson, London. The development of cities from Al-Ubaid to the end of Uruk 5. Cambridge Ancient History, Vol.l and 2, part 1. eds. Edwards, I.E.S. et. al.

Me Henry, P.G. Jr. 1980 Building Materials and Technology in Arid Lands. In Housing in Arid Lands. ed. Golany, G., Architectural Press, London. 1984 Adobe and Rammed Earth Buildings. Wiley-lnterscience, John Wiley & Sons, New York.

Field

AI-Madfai, K.H.F. 1985 Spatial Change in Conceptual Philosophy, Ph.D. Thesis, University of Wales, Welsh School of Architecture, Cardiff.

Mclntosh, R. 1974 Archaeology and mud wall decay in a west African village. W.A. 6:154-171.

Madhloom, T.A. 1969 Nineveh, 1968-1969 Campaign. Sumer 25.

McLaren, K. 1983 The Colour Science of Dyes and Pigments. Adam Hilger, Bristol.

Majidzadeh, Y. 1982 Lapis Lazuli and the Great Khorasan Rd. Paleorient, Vol.8/ 1:59-69.

Mellaart,J. 1964 A Neolithic City in Turkey. In Hunters, Farmers, and Civilisations, Scientific American 1979:123-132. The Chalcolithic and early bronze ages in the Near East 1966 and Anatolia. Khayats, Beirut. 1976 The Earliest Settlements in Western Asia from the Ninth to the end of the Fifth Millennium B.C. In Cambridge Ancient History. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, I (chapter VII). 1978a The late Chalcolithic period in Anatolia: an interim assessment. Studia Praehistoria, 1-2:84-87. 1978b The archaeology of ancient Turkey. The Bodley Head, Bodley Head Archaeologies, London.

Makkay,J. 1983 The Origins of the "Temple-Economy" as seen in the Light of Prehistoric Evidence. IRAQ XLV(1):1-6. Mallowan, M.E.L. 1936 The Excavations at Tall Chagar Bazar and an Archaeological survey of the Habur Region 1934-5. IRAQ,3: 1-86. 1947 Excavation at Brak and Choga Bazar. IRAQ IX : 1-80. 1956 Twenty Five Years of Mesopotamian Discovery. The British School of Archaeology in Iraq, London.

98

1979 1981 1984

Early Communities in the Near East ea 9000-3400 B.C., in The Origins of Civilization, ed. R. Moorey, Clrendon Press, Oxford. The Neolithic of the Near East. Thames and Hudson, London. Anatolian Kilims; new insights and problems, A.S. 34:87-95.

Muller, V. 1940 Types of Mesopotamian Houses, Studies in Oriental Archaeology Ill. J.A.O.S. 60:151-180. Munchaev, R. & Merpert, N. 1971 The Archaeological Research in the Sinjar Valley (1971). Sumer 27. 1973 Excavations at Yarim Tepe 1972, Fourth Preliminary Report. Sumer 29:3-16.

Merpert, N. & Munchaev, R. 1969 Excavations at Yarim Tepe. Sumer, 25(1,2): 125-32. 1971 Excavations at Yarim Tepe 1970, Second Preliminary Report. Sumer 27: 9-22. 1973 Early Agricultural Settlements in the Sinjar Plain, Northern Iraq. IRAQ 35(2):93-113. 1984 Soviet Expedition's Research at Yarim Tepe Ill Settlement in Northwestern Iraq, 1978-79. Sumer, 43(1,2):54-68.

Muncbaev, R.M., Merpert, N.Ya & Bader, N.O. 1984 Archeological Studies in the Sinjar Valley, 1980. Sumer, 43 (1,2):32-53. Murad,A.S. 1980 Prehistory in the Arabian Peninsula, Paleorient Vol.6, pp.237-240.

Merpert, N., Munchaev, R. & Bader, N.O. 1976 The Investigations of Soviet Expedition in Iraq, 1973. Sumer, 32(1,2). 1977 The Investigations of Soviet Expedition in Iraq, 1974. Sumer, 33(1). 1979 Report of the Works of Soviet Archeological Expedition in Iraq, 1975. Sumer, 35 . 1981 Investigation of the Soviet Expedition in northern Iraq, 1976. Sumer, 37(1,2). Mohammed Ali, A. 1983 The Hindiya Palace (Qasir AI-Hindaya, in Arabic). Sumer 39(1,2):280-287.

Naroll, R.S. 1962 Floor area and settlement population, American Antiquity, 27: 587-589. Naumann,R. 1971 Architektur Kleinasiens. Verlagernst Wasmuth Tubingen. Nemet-Nejat, K.R. 1975 A Late Babylonian Field Plan. JANES Vol.7:95-101. Nissen, H.J. 1983 Political Organization and Settled Zone: A Case Study from the Ancient Near East, In The Hilly Flanks, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, S.A.O.C. No.36, Chicago. 335-346. 1986 The archaic texts from Uruk. World Archaeology, Vol.l7, No.3- Early writing systems:317-334.

Moore, A.M.T. 1975 The excavation of Tell Abu Hureyra in Syria: a preliminary report. P .P.S. 41 : 50-77. 1978 The Neolithic of the Levant. Ph.D Thesis, University of Oxford, Ann Arbor, Michigan University Microfilms. 1982 A Four-Stage Sequence for the Levantine Neolithic, ca.85003750 B.C., BASOR, 246:1-34. 1983 The First Farmers of the Levant. In The Hilly Flanks, eds. T.C. Young et al., S.A.O.C. No.36, Chicago.

Neubaur, L.W. 1950 Rammed Earth Techniques in the United States, United Nations Bulletin No.4.

Moorey, P.R.S. 1964 The Piano Convex Building at Kish and Early Mesopotamian Palaces. IRAQ 26: 83-98. 1976 The late Prehistoric Administrative Building at Jamdet-Nasr, IRAQ 38: 95-106. 1985 Materials and Manufacture in Ancient Mesopotamia: The evidence of Archaeology and Art. BAR International Series 237, Oxford.

Nutzel, W. 1975 The Formation of the Arabian Gulf from 14,000 B.C. Sumer 31. Oates,D. 1973

Moorey, R. & Parr, P. 1978 Archaeology in the Levant, Aris & Phillips, Warminster.

1982 1987

Moortgat, A. 1969 The Art of Ancient Mesopotamia, Phaidon. London & New York. Mortensen, P. On the Chronology of the Early Village Farming 1962 Communities in Northern Iraq. Sumer, 18(1,2): 73-80. 1970 Tell Shimshara: The Hassuna Period. Kobenhavn: Kommissionaer Munksgaard. 1983 Patterns of Interaction Between Seasonal Settlements and Early Villages in Mesopotamia, In The Hilly Flanks, The Oriental Institute of the University of Chicago, S.A.O.C. No.36, Chicago. 207-230.

Early vaulting in Mesopotamia, In Archaeological Theory and Practice, ed. Strong, D.E., London & New York, Seminar Press. Tell AI Rimah. In Fifty Years of Mesopotamian Discovery. ed. J. Curtis. 86-98. Different Traditions in Mesopotamian Temple Architecture in the Fourth Millennium B.C. In Pre'histoire De La Mesopotamie, La Me'sopotamie pre' historique et !'exploration re'cente du djebel Hamrin. CNRS, Paris.

Oates, D. & Oates, J. 1976 The Rise of Civilization. Phaidon, Elsevier. Oates, J. 1960 1968 1969 1972

Moss,H.E. 1983 A Microwear Analysis of Burins and Points from Tell Abu Hureyra, Syria. In Traces d' utilisation sur les outils ne' olethiques du Proche Orient, Travaux de la Maison de !'Orient no.5, GIS- Maison de I'Orient, Paris: 143-155.

1973

1976 1978

Mould, A.E. & Shaaban, A.C. 1970 Analysis of Climatic Data, Building Research Centre, The Scientific Research Organisation, Iraq.

1980

Mukerji, K., Whipple, J.H. & Escobar, R.C. 1982 Roof Construction for Housing in Developing Countries. GATE-GTZ.

99

Ur and Eridu, The Prehistory. IRAQ 22:32-50. Prehistoric Investigations near Mandali, Iraq. IRAQ 30:1-20. Choga Mami, 1967-68: A Preliminary Report. IRAQ 31: 115-152. Prehistoric Settlement Patterns in Mesopotamia. In Man, Settlement & Urbanism, Ucko, P., Tringham, R. & Dimbleby, G., eds., Duckworth, England, 299-309 The background and development of early farming communities in Mesopotamia and the Zagros. P.P.S. 39: 147-181. Prehistory in Northeastern Arabia. Antiquity 4:20-31 . Ubaid Mesopotamia and its Relation to Gulf Countries. Qatar Archaeological Report Excavation 1973. Oxford, 39-52. Land Use and Population in Prehistoric Mesopotamia. In L'Archeologie de !'Iraq du debut de l'epoque neolithique a 333 avant notre ere. Perspectives et Limites de L'lnterpretation Anthropologique des Documents. ed. Barrelet, M.T., Editions du CNRS, Colloque no.580, Paris, 303-314.

1982

1983

1986a 1986b

1987

Choga Mami, In Fifty years of Mesopotamian Discovery. Curtis, J. ed., The British School of Archaeology in Iraq: 22-29. Ubaid Mesopotamia Reconsidered. In The Hilly Flanks, Young, C., Smith, P. and Mortensen, P., eds., S.A.O.C. No. 36. 251-281. Babylon, Thames and Hudson, London. The Gulf Prehistory, in Bahrain through the ages • The Archaeology, ed. H.A. AI Khalifa & M. Rice, KPI Ltd., London. Le Choga Mami Transitional et L'Obeid I, Synthe'se de la se' ance. In Pre'histoire de la Mesopotamie, La Me'sopotamie pre'historique et l'exploration re'cente du djebel Hamrin. CNRS, Paris.

0' Connor,J.F. 1973 The Adobe Book, Ancient City Press, New Mexico. Osborne,R. 1980 Lights and Pigments • Colour Principles for Artists, Harper & Row. Palladio,A. 1965 The Four Books of Architecture (with a new Introduction by A.K. Placzek), Dover Publications, New York.

Rapoport, A. & Watson, N. 1972 Cultural Variability in Physical Standards. In People and Buildings, ed. R. Gutrnan, Basic Books, New York & London. AI-Rawi, F.N.H. & Roaf, M. 1984 Ten Old Babylonian Mathematical Problems from Tell Haddad, Himrin. Sumer43(1,2):175-218. Reade,J.E. 1973 Tell Taya (1972-73): Summary Report. IRAQ 35(2):155· 187. Redman, C.L. 1973 Early Village Technology: A view through the microscope. Paleorient I (2):249-61. 1978 The Rise of Civilization, San Francisco: Freeman. 1982 Archaeological Survey and the Study of Mesopotamian Urban Systems. J.F.A. Vol.9:375·382. 1983 Regularity and Change in the Architecture of an Early Village, In The Hilly Flanks, edited by Young, T.C.Jr. et al., S.A.O.C. No.36, The Oriental Institute, Chicago. 189-206. Renfrew, C. ed. 1973 The explanation of culture change: models in prehistory. Duckworth, London.

Pallis, S.A. The Antiquity of Iraq . A handbook of Assyriology, Ejnar 1956 Munksgaard, Copenhagen. Papenek, V. 1973 Design for the Real World, Human Ecology and Social Change. Bantam Books, New York. Pedoe,D. 1976

Geometry and the Liberal Arts. Hannondsworth, Middlesex.

Petherbridge, G.T. 1984 The House and Society. In Architecture of the Islamic World. G.Michell, ed., Thames & Hudson, London. Phleps,H. 1982 The Craft of Log Building (translated by R. Mac Gregor), Lee Valley Tools, Ottawa

McGraw-Hill, New York &

Postgate, J.N. 1973 Excavations in Iraq 1972-73, IRAQ 35(2). 1979 The Historical Geography of the Harnrin Basin. Sumer 35(1,2):591-594. 1980 Palm-Trees, Reeds and Rushes in Iraq, Ancient and Modem. In Colleques internationaux du CNRS No.580 • L'Archeologie De L'Iraq. Paris. 1982 Abu Salabikh. Fifty Years of Mesopotamian Discovery. ed. J. Curtis. 48-61. 1983 Abu Salabikh Excavations, Vols.l,2. British School of Archaeology in Iraq.

Reuther, 0 . 1910 Das Wohnhaus in Baghdad und Anderen Stadten, Berlin. 1968 Die Innenstadt Von Babylon (Merkes). Otto Zeller, Osnabruck. Richardson, B.A. 1976 Wood in Construction, Lancaster, England. Roaf,M. 1976 Excavations at AI-Markh, Bahrain. Proceedings of Seminar for Arabian Studies 6:144-160. Persepolitan Metrology, IRAN 16:67-78. 1978 Ubaid Houses and Temples. Sumer 40(1,2):89-92. 1981 The Hamrin Sites. In Fifty Years of Mesopotamian 1982 Discovery. Curtis, J. ed., The British School of Archaeology in Iraq. London. 40-47. Excavations at Tell Madhbur • The Results of the Third 1983 Season, Sumer 40(1,2):144-148. Ubaid Houses and Temples, Sumer, 43 (1,2):80·90. 1984a Tell Madhhur: A Summary Report on the Excavations, 1984b edited by Roaf, M., Sumer, 43 (1,2):108-167. The Ubaid Architecture of Tell Madbhur. In Pre'histoire de 1987 la Mesopotamie. La Me' sopotamie pre'historique et )'exploration re'cente du djebel Hamrin. CNRS, Paris. Ubaid Social Organization and Social Activities as seen 1988 from Tell Madhhur. Carsten Niebuhr Institute of Ancient N.E. Studies (Conference on 'The Ubaid Period Reconsidered), Unpublished. Roaf, S. 1982

Wind-catchers. In Living with the Desert. by E. Beazley & M. Harverson. Aris & Phillips, Warminster.

Rothman, M.S. 1983 Two Ethnoarchaeological Studies and the Questions They Raise (Review Article). BASOR 252:73-77.

Pottinger, H. 1816 Travels in Baloochistan & Sind, London. Pullar, J. 1977

Space, Time & Policy, in The Evolution of Social Systems, M.J. Rowlands & J. Friedman, eds., Duckworth, London. pp.89-112.

Penguin Books,

Perkins, A.L. The Comparative Archaeology of Early Mesopotamia, 1972 S.A.O.C. No.25. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.

Piggott, S. ed., 1961 The Dawn of Civilization. London.

1974

Roux, G. 1985

Ancient Iraq. London.

Early Cultivation in the Zagros. IRAN, Vol.l S.

Ragette,F. 1980 Architecture in Lebanon, Caravan Books, New York.

Safar, F. 1947 1950

Rainer, R. 1977 Traditional Building in Iran. Akademische Druck-u. Verlagsanstalt, Graz.

Safar, F., Mustafa, M.A. & Lloyd, S. 1981 Eridu, S.O.A.H ., Baghdad.

100

Eridu. Sumer Ill (1): 95-111 . Eridu: A preliminary Report on the 3rd Season's Excavations, 1948-49, Sumer 6(1):27-38.

Saggs, H.W.G. 1969 The Greatness that was Babylon. Sidgwick & Jackson, London.

Solec:ki, R.L. 1981 An early village site at Zawi Chemi Shanidar, B.M. Vol.l3, Malibu, Calif.: Undena.

Saini,B.S. Building in Hot Dry Climates. John Wiley & Sons, New 1980 York. Sanders,J. 1979 Complexities and Contradictions in Mesopotamian Architecture of the First MilleMium B.C. Sumer 35.

Solec:ki, R.S. 1957 Shanidar Cave. In Old World Archaeology: Foundations of Civilization (readings from Scientific American), Freeman: San Francisco. I958 The 1956-57 Season at Shanidar, Iraq. Sumer, 14(1,2): 104108.

Sarcina, A. 1978 A Statistical Assessment of House Patterns at Moenjo Daro. Mesopotamia 12-14, (1978-1979).

Sommer,R. 1969 Personal Space, The Behaviorai Basis of Design. PrenticeHall, New Jersey. 1983 Social Design, Creating Buildings with People in Mind. Prentice-Hall, New Jersey.

Sc:alise, J .W. td. 1975 Earth Integrated Architecture. The Architecture Foundation College of Architecture, Arizona State University, Tempe, Arizona.

Speiser, E.A. 1935 Excavations at Tepe Gawra, Vol.! . University of Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia. 1936 First Repon on the Current Assyrian Campaign. BASOR 64. 1937 Three Repons on the joint Assyrian Expedition, BASOR 66:2-18.

Sc:hmandt-Besserat, D. 1976 Sumer- Art in an Urban Context, B.M. Vo.4- The Legacy of Sumer, Undena Publications. Sc:hmidt,J. 1963 Die agglutinierende Bauweise im Zweistromland und in Syrien, Berlin. 1974 Zwei Tempel der Obed-Zeit in Uruk, Baghdader Mitteilungen 7:173-187, Berlin. 1978 Tell Mismar, ein Prahistorischer fundon in Sudiraq, Baghdader Mitteilungen 9:10-17, Berlin.

Starr, R.F.S. 1939 Nuzi: report on the excavations at Yorghan Tepa near Kirkuk, Iraq 1927-1931, 2 vols., Harvard University Press, Cambridge.

Sc:ott, R.I. 1985 Environmental Design Requirements Particular to Building Construction in the Gulf States. MSc Thesis, London University (Bartlett).

Stead,P. 1980

Semenov, S.A. 1970 Prehistoric: Technology, Bath: Adams & Dan.

Stone, E. 1981

Serlio, S. 1970

Steadman, J.P. 1983 Architectural Morphology. Pion, London.

The Book of Architecture. Benjamin Blom, New York.

Stronac:h, D. 1961 'The Excavations ofRas ai'Amiya', IRAQ 23:95-137. 1982 Ras al 'Amiya, in Fifty Years of Mesopotamian Discovery, ed. J. Cunis, pp.37-39.

Sheikh, A. 1985 Climatic: Factors Affecting the Design of Human Settlements in Sadat City, Egypt. MSc. Thesis, London University (Bartlett).

Sumner, W.M. 1979 Estimating population by analogy: An example. In Ethnoarchaeology: Implications of ethnography for archaeology, edited by Kramer, C. New York, Columbia University Press, 164-174.

Repon on Radiocarbon Dating of the Sample from Tel esSawwan (Iraq). Sumer 37 (1,2):151.

Singer, C., Holmyard, E.J., Hall, A.R. 1954 A History of Technology, Oxford University Press, New York & London. Singh,P. 1974

Texts, architecture and ethnographic analogy: Patterns of residence in Old Babylonian Nippur. IRAQ 43 : 19-33.

Strommenger, E. 1962 Mesopotamia, Hirmer Verlag, Munchen. 1980 Habuba Kabira, Eines Stadt vor 5000 Jahren, Mainz am Rhein.

Shahmirzadi, S.M. 1979 A Specialized Housebuilder in an Iranian Village of the Vlth MilleMium B.C. Paleorient, Vol.5:183-192.

Silar,J. 1981

Lessons in traditional and vernacular architecture in arid zones. In Housing in Arid Lands, ed. G. Golany, Architectural Press, London.

Talib, K. 1984

Shelter in Saudi Arabia, Academy Editions, London.

Neolithic: Cultures of Western Asia. Seminar Press, New York.

AI-Tamimi, A. 1982 Brick, Its manufacture and dimensions in ancient Iraq. Sumer, 38 (1,2):276-283. (In Arabic).

Skinner, F.G. 1954 Measures and Weights, In A History of Technology. ed. Singer, C. et al., Oxford University Press, London.

Taylor, J .E. 1855 Notes on Abu Shahrein and Tel ai-Lahm. Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society. Voi.XV:404-415. London.

Smith, P.E.L 1968 Ganj Dareh Tepe, IRAN 6: 158-160. 1978 An interim repon on Ganj Dareh Tepe, Iran. A.J.A. 82:538540.

Thesiger, W. 1976 The Marsh Arabs, London. Thommeret, J. 1983 14C Dates from Tell El 'Oueili. Sumer, 39(1,2):67.

Smith, P.E.L & Young, T.C. Jr., 1983 The Force of Numbers: Population Pressure in the Central Western Zagros 12,000-4500 B.C. In The Hilly Flanks, S.A.O.C. No.36, The Oriental Institute, Chicago.

Tbuesen, I. & Gwozdz, R. 1982 Lime Plaster in Neolithic Hama, Syria. A Preliminary Report, Paleorient, Vol.8/2 : 99-102.

101

Tobler, A.J. Excavations at Tepe Gawra, Vol.ll. 1950 Pennsylvania Press, Philadelphia.

University of

Tomabechi, Y. Wall-Paintings and Related Color Schemes of the Old 1980 Babylonian Mari Architects. Sumer 36(1,2):139-150. Tosi,M. 1974

Some data for the study of prehistoric cultural areas on the Persian Gulf. Proceedings of Seminar for Arabian Studies, Vol.4: 145-171.

Townsend, C.C. & Guest, E. Flora of Iraq, Vol.4, ed. E. Guest, Ministry of Agriculture, 1980 Baghdad. TRADA 1980

Tusa, S. 1980 1981 1982 1985

Watkins, T. & Campbell, S. The Chronology of the Halaf Culture, in Chronologies in 1987 the Near East, 0 . Aurenche, et al., eds. BAR International Series 379(ii). Watson,P.J. Archaeological Ethnography in Western Iran, Viking Fund 1979 Publications in Anthropology, No. 57, University of Arizona Press, Tuscon. The Idea of Ethnoarchaeology: Notes and Comments, In 1979b Ethnoarchaeology, ed. Kramer, C., 277-287. The Theory and Practice of Ethnoarchaeology with Special 1980 Reference to the Near East. Paleorient, Vo1.6. Recensions (review of 0 . Aurenche's book, La Maison 1982 Orientale). Paleorient Vol.8/2: 111-12. Watson, Philip J. The Small Finds from Tell Madhhur, Sumer 43(1,2):159-163. 1984

Timbers of the World. Vol.l,2. Lancaster, England.

Construction Press,

Notes on the Tell Abu Husaini Excavations, Paleorient, Vol.6:225-227. Excavations at Tell Abu Husaini, Preliminary Repon, Sumer 40(1 ,2):262-276. Telul el-Rihan, Sumer, 38 (1,2):29. Tell Hassan, in The Land Between Two Rivers, 20 years of Italian Archaeology in the Middle East.

Weinstein, M. Household Structures & Activities. A.S. 23:271-276. 1973 Weiss,H. 1983

1985

1986 Ucko, P .J. & Dimbleby, G.W. eds. The Domestication & Exploitation of Plants & Animals, 1969 Gerald Duckworth & Co. Vandiver, P.B. Sequential Slab Construction; a Conservative Southwest 1987 Asiatic Ceramic Tradition, ea 7000-3000 B.C., Paleorient Vol.l3f2:9-35 .

Excavations at Tell Leilan and the Origins of North Mesopotamian Cities in the Third Millennium B.C. Paleorient, vol.9/2. From Elba to Damascus - Art & Archaeology of Ancient Syria, Smithsonian Institution Traveling Exhibition Service, Washington, D.C. The origins of Cities in Dry-Farming Syria and Mesopotamia in the Third Millennium B.C.(editor), Four Quarters Publishing Co., Connecticut.

Weiss, H. & Young, T.C. Jr., The Merchants ofSusa. IRAN Voi.XIII: 1975 Whalley, B.W. and Properties of Materials 1976 Explanation, Oxford University Press.

Geomorphological

Van Zeist, W. & Waterbolk-Van Rooijen, W. The Paleobotany of Tell Bougras, Eastern Syria. Paleorient, 1985 Bo1.11/2: 131-147.

Wilkinson, T.J. Khanijdal East: A summary Report (Unpublished). 1988

Voigt,M.M. Recensions et Congr'es, Paleorient, Vo1.12/1 :103-ll3. 1986

Wiseman, D.J. A Babylonian Architect? Anatolian Studies 22:141-147. 1972

Von Buren, E.D. The fauna of ancient Mesopotamia. Orientalia vol.l8. 1949

Wittkower, R. Architectural Principles. Alec Tiranti, London. 1952

Wagstaff, M. Physical Geography and Settlements. AS. 23:197-215. 1973

Woolley, Sir L. The Excavations at Ur, 1922-23. The Antiquaries Journal 1923

Wahida,G. The Excavations of the Third Season at Tell es-Sawwan, 1967 1966. Sumer, 23(1,2): 167-78. The Re-excavation ofZarzi, 1971, P.P.S. 47: 19-40. 1981

1926 1930 1934

el-Wailly, F. Sumer 22:d,e. 1966

1956

el-Wailly, F. & Abu Al-Soof, B. The Excavations at Tell es-Sawwan: First Preliminary Report 1965 (1964). Sumer21: 17-32.

1963

1963 Warren, J. & Fethi, I. Traditional Houses in Baghdad, Coach Publishing House, 1982 Horsham, England. Waterbolk, H.T. Working with radiocarbon dates. P.P.S. 37 (2): 15-33. 1971 Watkins, T. Kharabeh Shattani: An Halaf Culture Exposure in Northern 1987 lraq. ln Pre' histoire De La Me' sopotamie.CNRS, Paris.

1982

Ill. The Excavations at Ur, 1925-26. The Antiquaries Journal Vl,4:365-401. Excavations at Ur, 1929-1930, The Antiquaries Journal X, No.4:329-41. The Excavations at Ur, 1933-34. The Antiquaries Journal XIV: 355-378. Ur Excavations IV: The Early Periods. London & Philadelphia. The Urbanization of Society. In Prehistory and the Beginnings of Civilization. Vol.l , Part 2. eds. J.Hawkes & L. Woolley, George Alien & Unwin, London. Prehistory and the Beginnings of Civilization. Vol.l , Part 2. (co-author with J. Hawkes). George Alien & Unwin, London. Ur of the Chaldes. Revised by P.R.S. Moorey, Herbert Press, London.

Woolley, Sir L. & Mallowan, Sir M. Ur Excavations, The Old Babylonian Period, Voi.VII, 1976 British Museum Publications, London. Wrigbt, G.E. The Tell: Basic Unit for Reconstructing Complex Societies of 1974 the Near East In Reconstructing Complex Societies, edited by Moore, B.C., 123-143.

102

Wright, G.R.H. 1985 Ancient Building in South Syria and Palestine, Vols.1,2, E.J.Brill, Leiden.

Yasin,W. 1970 Excavation at Tell es-Sawwan, 1969. Report on the sixth season's excavations. Sumer 26 (1,2): 3-12.

Wright, H.E. Jr. 1960 Climate and Prehistoric Man in the Eastern Mediterranean. In Prehistoric Investigations in Iraqi Kurdistan, eds. Braidwood, R. & Howe, B., 71-97.

Youkana, D.G. 1986 The Architecture of the Sixth Millennium BC in Tell esSawwan, MA Thesis, College of Arts, University of Baghdad.

Wright, H.T. 1980 Problems of Absolute Chronology in Protohistoric Mesopotamia. Paleorient Vol.6. 1981 The Southern Margins of Summer (Appendix). In Heartland of Cities. ed. R.McC. Adams, University of Chicago Press, Chicago & London. Wright, H.T. & Johnson, G.A. 1985 Regional Perspectives on Southwest Development, Paleorient, Vol.ll/2: 25-30.

Iranian

Young, T.C., Jr. & Levine, L.D. 1974 Excavations of the Godin project: Second progress report. Royal Ontario Museum, Art and Archaeology, Occasional Paper 26, Toronto.

State

Wright, H.T.; Neely, J.A.; Johnson, G.A.; Speth, J. 1975 Early Fourth Millennium Developments in Southwestern Iran. IRAN 13:129-148. Wulfi',H.E. 1966 The traditional crafts of Persia, Cambridge, Mass.: M.I.T. Press. Yakar, J. 1985

Young, T.C., Jr. 1969 Excavations at Godin Tepe: First progress report. Royal Ontario Museum, Art and Archaeology, Occasional Paper 17, Toronto.

Zagerell,A. 1975 Archaeological Survey in the N.W. Baxtiari mountains, in Proceedings of 2nd Annual Symposium Archaeological Research: IRAN ed. Bagherzadeh, F., 145-148. 1978 The Role of Highland Pastoralism in the Development of Iranian Civilization, Ph.D. Thesis, Berlin University. Ziegler,C. Die Keramik von der Qala Haggi Mohammad. 1953 Ausgrabungen der Deutchen Forschungsgemeinshaft in Uruk-Warka. Band 5. Berlin, Gebr. Mann.

The Later Prehistory of Anatolia, Two vols., BAR International Series 268(ii), Oxford.

103

LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Note:

Unless otherwise indicated, all plans of architectural remains are drawn to a scale of 1:100.

Chapter One 1-00la 1-00lb 1-002 1-003 1-004 l-OOS 1-006 1-007

Tell es-Sawwan- Level 11 Building Tell es-Sawwan!Tell Oueili - Comparison Tell es Sawwan!Tell Ayyash- Comparison Tell es-Sawwan - Two Buildings, L.Illa Tell es-Sawwan- Level 11 Buildings Tell es-Sawwan - Level Ilia Buildings Tell es-Sawwan -Reconstruction of House, L.IIIa Eridu- Development of Temples

Chapter Two 2-001 2-002 2-003 2-004 2-00S 2-006 2-007a 2-007b 2-008 2-009 2-010 2-011 2-012 2-013 2-014 2-0IS 2-016 2-017 2-018 2-019 2-020 2-021 2-022 2-023 2-024 2-02S 2-026 2-027 2-028 2-029 2-030 2-031 2-032 2-033 2-034 2-03S 2-036 2-037 2-038 2-039 2-040 2-041 2-042 2-043 2-044 2-04S 2-046 2-047

2-048 2-049 2-0SO

Contour Plan - Level 11 (Jasim) Site Plan - Level I (after Jasim) Site Plan - Level II (after Jasim) Plan Building A - Level I Plan Buildings C & D - Level I Plan Building A - Level 11 Plan Building A - Level II Ditto (walls 'straightened') Plan Building B - Level II Ditto (walls 'straigntened') Plan Buildings C & D - Level II Plan Building E - Level II Plan Building F - Level 11 Building F, Modified Reconstruction Plan Building G - Level II Plan Building H - Level II Plan Building I - Level II Plan Building J- Level II Plan Buildings A & B- Level Ill Plan Building C - Level Ill Brick Course Detail Water Pipes Detail Sectional Perspective, Building B Painted Motifs Painted Motifs Painted Motifs Painted Motifs Painted Motifs Painted Motifs Painted Motifs Tell Arpachiyah: Plan Level IV Tell Ayyash: Site Plan + Level Ill Plan Architectural Remains, Level IV. ChogaMami: Building Plans - Level Ill Reconstruction of Building H8 Degirmentepe: Site Plan- Level II (after Esin) Plan, Level 11 Buildings Plan, Level 11 Buildings Plan, Level II Building Eridu: Location Map Plan, Levels 17, 16, IS Plan, 'Hut Soundings' Plan, 'Hut Soundings' Level X Brick Details, 'Hut Soundings' Plan, Temple XI (Lloyd & Safar) Reconstruction, Temple XI Plan, Temple X (Lloyd & Safar) Plan, Temple IX (Lloyd & Safar) Reconstruction A, Temple IX Reconstruction B, Temple IX Plan, Temple VIII (Lloyd & Safar)

Tell Abada:

2-0SI 2-052 2-0S3a 2-0S3b 2-054 2-0SS 2-056 2-057 2-058 2-059 2-060 2-061 2-062 2-063 2-064 2-06S 2-066 2-067 2-068 2-069 2-070 2-071 2-072 2-073 2-074 2-07S 2-076 2-077 2-078 2-079 2-080 2-081 2-082 2-083 2-084 2-08S 2-086 2-087 2-088 2-089

2-090 2-091 2-092 2-093 2-094 2-09S 2-096 2-097 2-098 2-099 2-100 2-101 2-102

104

Reconstruction of Temple VIII by Forest Reconstruction, Temple VIII Plan, Temple VII (after Lloyd & Safar, 1947) Plan, Temple VII (Safar, et al, 1981) Reconstruction, Temple VII Temple VI, Site Plan Plan, Temple VI (Lioyd & Safar) Reconstruction, Temple VI Reconstruction, Temple VI Reconstruction Temple VI by Forest Schematic Diagram, Eridu Temples Tepe Gawra: Plan, Level XIX (after Tobler) Plan, Level XVIII (after Tobler) Plan, Level XVII (after Tobler) Plan, Level XVI (after Tobler) Plan, Level XV-A (afterTobler) Plan, Level XV (after Tobler) Plan, Level XIV (after Tobler) Plan, Level XIII (after Tobler) Plan, Level XII-A (after Tobler) Plan, Level XII (after Tobler) Plan, Building from Level XIX Plan, Building from Level XIX Plan, Temples Levels XIX & XVIII Plans, Mise. Buildings Plan, Building Level XV-A Plan, Building Level XV Plan, Level XIII Acropolis (Reconstruction) Isometric Plan, Acropolis, L. XIII Reconstruction, Acropolis Reconstruction, Acropolis (by Piggot) Plan, Northern Temple Reconstruction, Central Temple Reconstruction, Central Temple (by Forest) Reconstruction, Eastern Temple Plan, 'White Room' -Level XII Plan, 'Duplex' Buildings- Level XII Plan, Level XII Structures Plan, Level XII Buildings Plans, Levels XV & XII Buildings General Brick Bonding Details (after Tobler) Brick Bonding Details, Northern & Central Temples (after Tobler) General Brick Bonding Details (after Tobler) General Brick Bonding Details (after Tobler) Brick Details of 'White Room' (after Tobler) Painted Ubaid Ware & Incense Burners Kbanijdal East : Plan, Architectural Remains (after Wilkinson & Tucker) Kbeit Qasim Ill: Site Plan & Plan, Building 11 (after Forest) Plan, Building 11 Plan, Building I Reconstruction, Building 11 (by Margueron) Sectional Perspective Reconstruction of Building 11 (by Margueron) Reconstruction, Building 11 (by Forest)

2-103 2-104 2-105a 2-105b 2-106 2-107 2-108a 2-108b 2-108c 2-109 2-110 2-111 2-112 2-113 2-114 2-115 2-116 2-117 2-118 2-119a 2-119b 2-120 2-121 2-122 2-123 2-124 2-125 2-126 2-127 2-128 2-129 2-130 2-131 2-132 2-133 2-134 2-135 2-136 2-137 2-138 2-139 2-140 2-141 2-142 2-143 2-144 2-145 2-146 2-147

2-148 2-149 2-150 2-151

Roof Plan Possibilities, Building 11 Roof/Floor Beam Layout Tell Madhhur: Plan, Level 2 House (after Roaf) Level 2 House with Section lines Plan, Level 3 structures (Roaf) Plan, Level 4 Structures (Roaf) Excavated Sections AA- BB, Level 2 House (after Roaf) Excavated Sections CC - DD, L.2 Excavated Sections EE - FF, L.2 Reconstruction, Lobby Detail 'A' Level 2 House Reconstruction, Lobby Detail 'B', Level 2 House Reconstruction (S.Roaf), L.2 House Reconstruction L.2 House (by Margueron) Proposed Beam Layout, L.2 House Roof Layout Possibilities, L.2 House Roof Construction Details, L.2 House Wall/Roof Section, L.2 House Section One, Level 2 House Section Two, Level 2 House Reconstructed Elevations, L.2 House Reconstructed Elevations, L.2 House Brick Bonding Details, L.2 House Door & Window Schedule, L.2 House Plan, Ubaid Building (Schmidt) Tell Mismar: Tell cl Oueili: Plan, Ubaid 0 Level Remains (after Forest) Plan,Ubaid Level3 Structure Plan, Ubaid Level Period 2a & 2b Structures Plan, Ubaid Level Structures Reconstruction, Ubaid Building (by Forest) Tell Qalinj Agha : Plan, Buildings A & B Plan, Western & Eastern Temples, from Level3 Tell Rashid: Plan, Level3 Structures (Jasim) Geometric Designs on Halaf Sherds Tell Songor A,B,C: Plan Songor A, Lower Levels (after Fujii) Plan, Ubaid Building- Songor C Reconstruction, Songor C Building Plan, Songor B, Levels 1 & 2 Plan, Reconstruction ofSongor B Building Reconstruction, Songor B Building Plan, Reconstruction of Songor B Building Painted Geometric Motifs, Songor A Telul eth-Thalathat: Plan, Building Level XIV Plan, Building 11 (after Egami) Plan, Ubaid Level Remains (Lioyd) Tell Uqair: Reconstruction of Temple (by Forest) Uruk: Plan, Temple I (after Schmidt) Plan, Temple 11 (after Schmidt) Superimposed Plan (by Forest) Reconstruction, Temple II Superimposed Plan Temples IIII Yarim Tepe Ill: Plan, Building Levels III-IV (after Merpert & Munchaev) Plan, Building Levels 1-11 Plan, Yarim Tepe Ill Houses

4-003 4-004a 4-004b 4-005 4-006 4-007 4-008 4-009 4-010 4-011

Chapter Five 5-001 5-002 S-003 S-004 S-005 5-006 S-008 S-009 S-010 S-011 S-012a S-012b 5-012c S-012d S-013 S-014 S-015 S-016 S-017 S-018 S-019 5-020 S-021 5-022 S-023 S-024 S-025 S-026 S-027 S-028 S-029 S-030 S-031 S-032a S-032b S-033 S-034 S-035 S-036 S-037 S-038 S-039

S-040 S-041 S-042 S-043 S-044 S-045 S-046 5-047

S-048 S-049 S-050

Chapter Three

S-051 3-001 3-002 3-003

Wattle & Daub Detail Seal Impressions depicting Huts Mat Impressions- Hassuna/Tell Abada

S-052 5-053

S-054 5-055

S-056

Chapter Four 4-001 4-002

Ancient Surveying Methods Load Bearing Wall - Tauf Load Bearing Wall- Mud-brick Dome Construction Technique Vault Construction Technique Arch Construction Door Detail Window Grill Wooden Post Detail Ladder Detail

5-057 S-058 S-059

Measurements- Based on the Human Body Ancient Surveying Methods

5-060

105

Aurenche's 'simple' Architectural Plan Type Aurenche's 'complex' Architectural Plan Type Brak Temple & Tepe Gawra 'Round House' Grai Resh, Level 11 Tripartite Building Kbeit Qasim Ill - Circulation Pattern Tell Eridu VII Temple- Circulation Pattern Tepe Gawra, Level XIII North Temple -Circulation Pattern Songor B, Level 11 -Circulation Pattern Tell Abada, Level II, Building A- Circulation Pattern Tepe Gawra, Acropolis Temples- Buttresses Orientation - Multi-cruciform Buildings Orientation - Cruciform Buildings Orientation- Temples Mise. Tripartite Buildings Kheit Qasim Ill - Analysis Ropestretcher's Triangle (3:4:5) Tell Madhhur- Plan Analysis: Door Openings Eridu VI Temple- Plan Analysis: Door Openings Tepe Gawra- Plan, Eastern Temple (in U.C.) Tepe Gawra- Plan, Northern Temple (in U.C.) Tepe Gawra- Plan, Central Temple (in U.C.) Tepe Gawra - Acropolis: Analysis Tepe Gawra- Eastern Temple: 3:4:5 Analysis Tepe Gawra- Eastern Temple: 5:12:13 Analysis Tepe Gawra- Eastern Temple: Grid Analysis Tepe Gawra- Northern Temple: 3 :4:5 Analysis Tepe Gawra - Central Temple: Triangle Analysis Tepe Gawra- Central Temple: 3:4:5 Analysis Tepe Gawra- Central Temple: 5:12:13 Analysis Tepe Gawra- Central Temple: 5:12:13 Analysis Eridu VI - Plan (in U.C.) Eridu VI - Grid Analysis Eridu VI - Grid Analysis Eridu VI - Triangle Analysis Eridu VI -Triangle Analysis Eridu VII -Plan (in U.C) Eridu VII - Grid Analysis Eridu VII - Grid Analysis Eridu VII -Triangle Analysis Eridu VII -Triangle Analysis Eridu VII -Triangle Analysis Eridu VIII- Plan (in U.C.) Eridu VIII - Grid Analysis Eridu VIII - Grid Analysis Eridu VDI - Triangle Analysis Eridu VIII- 5:12:13 Analysis Eridu VIII - 'Golden Triangle' Analysis Eridu VIII- Analysis, 1:1 Right Triangle Eridu VIII- Analysis, 5:8/4:5 Triangle Eridu IX - Plan (in U.C.) Eridu IX - Grid Analysis Eridu IX - 3:4:5 Analysis Eridu IX - 3:4:5 Analysis Eridu IX- 5:12:13 Analysis Eridu IX -Analysis, 'Golden Triangle' Eridu XI - Plan (in U.C.) Eridu XI - Grid Analysis Eridu XI - Grid Analysis Eridu XI - 3:4:5 Analysis Eridu XI- Analysis, 1:2 Right Triangle Tell Songor B- Analysis, 30•t60• Angles Tell Songor B- Analysis Uruk- Plan (in U.C.)

5-061 5-062 5-063 S-064 5-065 S-066 5-067 5-068 5-069 5-070 5-071 5-072 5-073 5-074 5-075 5-076 5-077 5-078a 5-078b 5-079 5-080 5-081 5-082

Uruk - 3:4:5 Analysis Uruk- 5:12:13 Analysis Uruk- 5:12:13 Analysis Uruk - Triangle Analysis Kheit Qasim Ill- Plan (in U.C.) Kheit Qasim Ill - Triangle Analysis Tell Madhhur- Plan (in U.C.) Tell Madhhur- 3:4:5 Analysis Tell Madhhur- 5:12:13 Analysis Tell Madhhur- Triangle Analysis Tell Abada L.II, Building A- Plan (in U.C.) Tell Abada L.II, Building A - 3:4:5 Analysis Tell Abada L.II, Building A- 3:4:5 Analysis Tell Abada L.II, Building A- 5:12:13 Analysis Tell Abada L.II, Building B- Plan (in U.C.) Tell Abada L.II, Building B- 3:4:5 Analysis Tell Abada L.U, Building B- 5:12:13 Analysis Tripartite Buildings- Longitudinal Plan Tripartite Buildings- Longitudinal Plan Tripartite Buildings- Vertical Plan Tripartite Buildings- Simple Plan Type Tripartite Buildings - Complex Plan Type Cruciform Plan -Simple Plan Type

5-083 5-084 5-085

Cruciform Plan -Complex Plan Type Yarim Tepe Ill- Additive Plan Type Mise. Plan Type

Appendix A-001 A-002 A-003 A-004 A-OOS A-006 A-007 A-008 A-009 A-010 A-Oil A-012 A-013 A-014

106

Angle Analysis Angle Analysis: 3:4:5 Triangle Angle Analysis: 1:1 (45• Angle) Angle Analysis: 5:8 Isosceles Triangle; 4:5 Right Angle Angle Analysis: 5:12:13 Triangle Angle Analysis: 1:4 Triangle Angle Analysis: 1:2 Triangle Angle Analysis: 'Golden Triangle' (36• nze) Grid Analysis: Types Used Tell Madhhur- Brick Calculations Plan, Limestone Temple Plan, White Temple Map ofUbaid Sites TepeYahya

1 I

2 I

3 I

4 r

Tell Es-Sawwan- Plan of Building in Level 11 suggesting 'Duplex Plan' or segregation of Male and Female.

Fig.l-OOla Tell es-Sawwan- Level 11 Building 107

--- --·--r---- --- --.----------. I ---

---- - ---- ---- -- -··-1 ----------- -----.,·.

·--------~I

I

l.- - _ _ _ __

I

[

I

---- ---- ---- -

..__ _ _ _ _ __JII

I I

~----- .. - - ---- ---- --.II ~ I 1_1 I

I

I

__,

I

t__________

r-- --- --- --- --- ---- ---

I

I

________

I ~

I(

I[ _,

0 0 I I

r-1 !,._.

I

I

I

I

. --- --- -_ j '

·-

----~

---------~----

I

I

:

I

I I I I

I I I I I

I

I I

SAW WAN

Batim ent 4

___ _.ll_ ------____ _j

5m

~----------------

(after FOREST)

'OUE ILI

Fig .l-0 01 b Tell es-Sawwan I Tell Oue ili- Comparison 108

E ~

Ln

.--•

~

I

0

•

0

Ln

z

:z:

Cl

0

•

Q

z:

--• .._ -

--• • •

... --,. --

z:

~

I

c•

_. I

•

z:

109

0

0

I

Fig.l-003

1

I

2

I

3

4

I

d IV ings in Level Il l an ild Bu o w T of s an in :l9 70 ), Pl ui ld in g B af te r Yas B 8; 96 i:l am 'd A I(B ui ld in g A af te r A

Building o w T n a w w a -S s e Tell

s, L .I II a

I

5 m. J

J~l -'..., ---_______ --- ---= 11

1

1t 11

:r------- ----- lt JL -- ----- --IL - ---:--------.j --------"· ~-=:~---== -- -~-~----- ...--

-=====

B

A

---

••·r-•• 'I

~

••

•l~:

1

11 1 1

C.:.:J

r•

11 1 n ____ ..... I• ___ J~.,L_

r-------- -----

t'l

G 11

L!..___ ___

----.

I

I I

I

I

,_ ______

~

)--------0

::

n

1

••

tl

,

~

.. : __,r~ c----·-lr- ·-.r L!

I

I

I

L

: •• L JL_..: ______ ,l_,______•r----..::

1•

11

CL.r·r ·------..:-·

Fig .l-0 04

n c:'1

I

~

I

-·==--=------; ,.-· 8

- -... ..-:.!... 11

I

I

I

--·' - -- ------li --------

11

I

I

I

]

L-- ---- ---- -

••

0 I

10m

I

Tell es-S aww an- Levels 1-11 Buildings Ill

.... .... N

1

L

t •• ' • • •

Fig.l-005

! ..

I-

c

I

I I. ,

~

LEVEL Ilia

Tell es-Sawwan - Level Ilia Buildings

LEVEL Ill

HOUSE

Fig.l-006

Tell es-SawwanReconstruction of House L.IIIa 113

TEMPLE FIFTEEN. TUAPLE NINE .

..

IC4Ll

H

e.

..

TEN . .. ee+ -4 .... ,.,,. es e TEMPLE ELEVEN. TEMPLE

L

TEMPLE

SIXTEEN.

TEMPLE SEVENTEEN.

••

.

Fig.l-007

Eridu - Development of Temples

114

j

20 I

H

H

Dotted areas represent excavated parts where no structures were found (after Jasim:1985).

Fig.2-001

Tell Abada: Contour Plan- Level 11 (Jasim) 115

.... ~

0 Q

TOitl NS IILNS

!JGIIAN.UY

Fig.2-002

Tell Abada : Site PlanLevel I (after Jasim) 116

J6

L6

k6

...•

Gt

Gll

Hll

Ill

012)45

Jll

10

"t::=::::L.--. TIU AIADA llvltl

Fig.2-003

"

OfOUNS Q&llNS

Tell Abada: Site Plan Level 11 (after Jasim)

117

"'

~

..... 00

Fig.2-004

Tell Abada: Plan Building A - Level I

9 1_2_~_4_5_6_7 m.

e

L .n

119

Fig.2-006

Tell Aba da: Pla n Building A - Level 11

120

E

c.c Ln

~ ~

..... ~

t

..,z

~

('¥') •


=

·-"'C ~

298

~~~~+-+-~~~ ~

r") ~~+-+-~~~~~~rr~+-;-~~

~

--~~~~~~~-;~r-~+-;-~~

~

I

•

~

••

~~~+-+-~4-~~~~~~-+~-+++-+~~~ ~

Fig.5-033

Eridu VII- Plan (in U.C)

303

V

·v

I"

V

~ r'\. ~.,

j

L

V

h

V,(

V

~

r

L-.

J ! 1/

Fig.5-034

r\. /

I

"

Erid u VII- Grid Analysis 304

_,

1

"'

~ ~

J

~

r'k

r~

11

l/ ~

V

V " /

V

'

" V

""

V~

~

I'K /_

V

r ""'.,. "'1[X T~" ~ Cl J

~

/

~V

V

V~

!Ill h

r ~.1

tJ

I

I I

~ l 1/ 4~

~

/ I

L ~·

~' u

V

I

I I

l -4

't

11-"T

!

Fig.5-035

'

L

I

LJ

"j/

r

I

I/

~7

~

r\1

"

~

""

r

r~

~h

~

~

- 1/1 ""' I/ ,.I

I'~ .,L

~

- "'-

'' V

/

~, /

-7 V J

rt- ...r 'L- ~ ~ ~ ~ ..r

"'""

V

""' V

V

/ """ ~ / I"' vr r

~

1'-

"'

"""r L..

""'

N

""' ~1'\

·v /

~ /V J /

V

_,... V

""'VI"'

V

,_....

'\

,.. "

V

Eridu VII- Grid Analysis 305

"""

~

/

/

V

/

,-1

~V ""' y -

r

~ lllro.

V

·I/

/

[1 ~

1-

~~ ~ ~(

I

l.. u

L_

~

u/

11

r er

r [/"'' "

r'\

V

lh

~

I r\..

1

'

'

~~

~

r- V

1

/

""

1'\

/

[!.:..:

~~~

"'

/ 1

lr1 .

/

~/ j/, ~ V lrt

~

1

V

J

~/

,_

L-

M

L

'"" ~

"""

Fig.5-036

Erid u VII - Tria ngle Analysis 306

Fig.S-037

Erid u VII - Triangle Analysis 307

Fig.S-038

Eridu VII - Triangle Analysis 308

E

Fig.S-039

Eridu VIII- Plan (in U.C.) 309

Fig.5-040

Eridu VIII - Grid Analysis 310

Fig.5-041

Eridu VIII- Grid Analysis 311

Fig.S-042

Eridu Vlll - Triangle Analysis 312

Fig.5-043

Eridu VIII- 5:12:13 Analysis 313

Fig.S-044

Eridu VIII - 'Gold en Trian gle' Analysis 314

Fig.S-045

Eridu Vlll- Analysis, 1:1 Right Triangle 315

Fig.S-046

Eridu VIII - Analysis, 5:8/4:5 Triangle 316

IF"''

-! --- -- : 1-

11-- ~

t r-

-- h L. _'J t 1---

·-+

t-

~- ~

~

-

,. _. - r-

~-

r

I

...,

t-

---

1--

L ~-

-

!--

r-.a.

~~-

~- f - -

-- rt L

~- ~-

-

r--

i j_ I

J.

I

-

~

I

~r:

r~

lt

~

:~ lr

.•"'!t'L I

• •

il

~

1

~

~

~

' --- ·~ ~

4

Fig.S-047

8

12

116

Eridu IX- Plan (in U.C.) 317

2U uc

uc

Fig.5-048

Erid u IX - Grid Analysis 318

Fig.5-049

Eridu IX- 3:4:5 Analysis

319

Fig. 5-050

Eridu IX- 3:4:5 Analysis

320

Fig.S-051

Eridu IX- 5:12:13 Analysis

321

Fig.5-052

Eridu IX - Analysis, 'Golden Triangle'

322

323

r;l.l

•• r;l.l

Ln

.--

~

= = < ...."C,..

~ I

c:::,)

.--

~

>