“The Passage from the Early Bronze to the Middle Bronze Age in Jezirah: a Parallel between Tell Mozan and Tell Barri Ceramic Sequences”,
in P. Matthiae, F. Pinnock, L. Nigro, N. Marchetti (eds.), Proceedings of the 6th International Congress on the Archaeology of the Ancient Near East. May, 5th-10th 2008, “Sapienza” - Università; di Roma. Volume 1. Near Eastern archaeology in the Past, Present and Future. Heritage and Identity. Ethnoarchaeological and Interdisciplinary Perspectives. Visual Expression and Craft Production in the Definition of Social Relations and Status, Wiesbaden, pp. 863-881.
The transition between the Early and the Middle Bronze Age in Syria is the main topic of this contribution, focusing on the Jezirah area, offering a proposal for a (still lacking at that time) calibration of ceramic sequences based on Tell Mozan and Tell Barri excavations. The author defines ceramic diagnostic types as embedded in their original emplacement, trying to determine a functional analysis of the shapes.
The chronology of the examined pottery belongs to Tell Barri Phases P and O, while for Tell Mozan the focuse is moved to Phase 4, considering pottery from areas G, A7, A9, and A15.
A first methodological issue is pointed out, i.e. the definition and the determination of the concept of transition: “The topic of transition has been often approached from locally oriented, particularistic perspectives, therefore various interpretations of the period have been suggested, sometimes profoundly divergent. Among the reasons of the discrepant interpretations there is the lack of a reference terminology that has been recently proposed by scholars, together with a remark on the interpretative methodology and the effective interpretability of the available archaeological data” (p. 863).
Theories of collapse or regeneration processes are here faced, underlining the positive and negative evidences supporting both these approaches in interpreting a ‘transitional period’.
A first paragraph (pp. 864-867) described the geographical and climatic situation of the Jezirah, retracing the main historical events just before and later the ‘transitional period’.
The following paragraph (pp. 867-870) directly describes ceramics from the two aforementioned sites, defining the major and most attested typologies.
The last paragraph (pp. 870-872) moves to interpretation, presenting some preliminary suggestions, drawing the followings conclusions:
1) suggestions with regard to the ceramic sequences [“It seems that we have the possibility to delineate with a certain clearance an Upper Khabur ‘early’ post-Akkadian, namely identified with Brak N, 44 Chagar Bazar II area D, Mozan 3b-4a and Barri P. However, in Mozan 4b, Barri late P-O and partially in Chagar Bazar area D pits, 45 ceramic types are attested which are lacking in Brak N and in Chagar Bazar period II area D. Considering the most important comparisons, the impression is that these types could correspond to later specimens. Mozan 4, Barri P-O and probably Chagar Bazar pits are therefore comprehensive of a more recent phase compared to Brak N46 and Chagar Bazar II periods. They are later than Chuera and Karab Sayyar late 3rd millennium levels. They do not have significant Khabur Ware percentages and are followed, in the case of Barri and Mozan, by clearly Khabur ware levels” (pp. 870-871)];
2) suggestions with regard to the ‘Ceramic Province’ issue [“It seems that by the early post-Akkadian period the sites of Brak, Chagar Bazar, Mozan and Barri delineate a clear Upper Khabur ceramic province, with strong connections to the eastern sites, as far as the Tigris river. Interesting connections are visible also with the south. Differently, the likely ‘late’ post-Akkadian specimens seem to be attested in similar variants as far as the Syrian Euphrates valley and the northern inner Syria. The shift in regional connections between early and late post-Akkadian period clearly suggests a similar shift in cultural connections” (p. 871)];
3) suggestions with regard to the ‘Transition Issue’ [“What the ceramic sequences of both Barri and Mozan stress, are mostly slow changes which occurred, but within a basic continuity of potting traditions. The long-term potting tradition should reflect the stability of population and the relative absence of external pressure, but not a complete continuity. Both long standing, and abrupt elements of change can in fact be observed, each one likely to be connected with a different range of phenomena. The slow evolutionary elements have been identified for the most part in technological aspects and in common pottery production, not connected with fashion or taste aspects, but mostly influenced by practical necessities and economic habits. They give rise to a slow but decisive assemblage change and it is likely that they reflect some socio/economic transformations. On the other hand, the appearance of new fi ne wares restricted to a short time span, the appearance of morphologies which do not develop from previous shapes and are comparable with ceramics from different regions, seem to suggest a more rapid development, probably to be connected with an increase in mobility. Brak attests from the Akkadian to the post-Akkadian period a reduction in terms of settled area and a change of the inhabited area functionality. The same evolution is registered by the excavations in the palace zone at Mozan and a change in function is registered in the south-eastern higher mound. At Barri there is a change of settlement plan, while a gap is registered at Taya. Chagar Bazar, Brak, Mozan, Hamoukar all attest consistent likely ‘early’ post-Akkadian settlements, continuity in ceramic tradition, but change in settlement function or character in respect of the previous phase. Major changes occur subsequently. There is a limited Isin-Larsa context within the same area occupied during post-Akkadian period at Brak, but potentially, more consistent contemporary levels had to be located in a different part of the Tell. At Chagar Bazar there are no MB structure on top of late 3rd millennium levels, Khabur period levels being located on the northern mound. Hamoukar gives evidence of an urbanized city by the early post-Akkadian, and a subsequent abandonment. There is therefore a gap, or at least there is no continuity within the same area in Brak, Hamoukar and Chagar Bazar. Settlement continuity within the same area results from Mozan, Barri and maybe Taya, but it is a sparse settlement in Mozan (phase 4), and a cemetery at Barri (stratum 34d). Contemporary abandonment, settlement dislocation and decrease in settlement density clearly reflect a huge transformation within the region in respect of 3rd millennium settlement pattern stability. If an increase in the pastoral and mobile component of society can not be detected at the moment by excavation records, nevertheless a general decrease of urban life at least seems to be indisputable” (pp. 871-872)].
Back to top: Valentina Orsi 2010